Public Perceptions of the Attractiveness of Restored Nature

Restoration Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 773-780

  Van Marwijk, Ramona B M ^a   Elands, Birgit H M ^a   Kampen, Jarl K ^a   Terlouw, Sander ^b   Pitt, David G ^c   Opdam, Paul ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Staatsbosbeheer ^*  (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Ecological restoration; Public resistance; Visual perception

Indexed keywords

CONIFEROUS TREE; ESTHETICS; FORESTRY; HABITAT RESTORATION; NATIONAL PARK; NATURE CONSERVATION; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE;

NETHERLANDS;

CONIFEROPHYTA;

EID: 84869088215     PISSN: 10612971     EISSN: 1526100X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00813.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Appleton, J. 1996. The experience of landscape. Wiley, New York.
2. Arriaza, M., J. F. Cañas-Ortega, J. A. Cañas-Madueño, and P. Ruiz-Aviles. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:115-125.
3. Bondas, T., and E. O. C. Hall. 2007. Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qualitative Health Research 17:113-121.
4. Brunson, M., and D. K. Reiter. 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management 46:31-41.
5. Brunson, M., and B. Shelby. 1992. Assessing recreational and scenic quality: how does New Forestry rate? Journal of Forestry 90:37-41.
6. Buijs, A. E. 2009. Public natures: social representations of nature and local practices. Ph. D. dissertation. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
7. Buijs, A. E., B. J. M. Arts, B. H. M. Elands, and J. Lengkeek. 2011. Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum 42:329-341.
8. Clewell, A. F., and J. Aronson. 2006. Motivations for the restoration of ecosystems. Conservation Biology 20:420-428.
9. Gobster, P. H. 1995. Aldo Leopold's ecological esthetic: integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry 93:6-10.
10. Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: what aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22:959-972.
11. Herzog, T. R., and L. S. Kropscott. 2004. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior 36:659-677.
12. Hill, D., and T. C. Daniel. 2008. Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape preferences? Society and Natural Resources 21:34-49.
13. Hull, R. B., D. P. Robertson, and A. Kendra. 2001. Public understandings of nature: a case study of local knowledge about 'natural' forest conditions. Society & Natural Resources 14:325-340.
14. Hull, R. B., and W. P. Stewart. 1995. The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking. Environment and Behavior 27:404-426.
15. Jordan, N. R., C. Schively Slotterback, K. V. Cadieux, D. J. Mulla, D. G. Pitt, L. Schmidt Olabisi, and J. Kim. 2011. TMDL implementation in agricultural landscapes: a communicative and systemic approach. Environmental Management. 48:1-12.
16. Junker, B., and M. Buchecker. 2008. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning 85:141-154.
17. Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain world. Praeger Publishers, New York.
18. Kearney, A. 2001. Effects of an informational intervention on public reactions to clear-cutting. Society and Natural Resources 14:777-790.
19. Kearney, A. R., G. A. Bradley, C. H. Petrich, R. Kaplan, S. Kaplan, and D. Simpson-Colebank. 2008. Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 87:117-128.
20. Keulartz, J. 2009. European nature conservation and restoration policy-problems and perspectives. Restoration Ecology 17:446-450.
21. Ode, Å., G. Fry, M. S. Tveit, P. Messager, and D. Miller. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90:375-383.
22. Orions, G. H. 1980. Habitat selection: general theory and applications to human behavior. Pages 49-66 in J. Lockard editor. The evolution of human social behavior. Elsevier, Chicago, Illinois.
23. Parsons, R., and T. C. Daniel. 2002. Good looking: in defence of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape Urban Planning 60:43-56.
24. Pitt, D. G. 1989. The attractiveness and use of aquatic environments as outdoor recreation places. Pages 217-254 in I. Altman and E. H. Zube, editors. Public places and spaces. Plenum Press, New York.
25. Pitt, D. G., and E. H. Zube. 1979. The Q-Sort Method: use in landscape assessment research and landscape planning. Pages 227-235 in G. H. Elsner and R. Smardon, editors. Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, California.
26. Pröbstl, U., V. Wirth, B. Elands, and S. Bell. 2010. Management of recreation and nature based tourism in European forests. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany.
27. Purcell, A. T., and R. J. Lamb. 1998. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:57-66.
28. Ribe, R. G. 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment & Behavior 34:757-780.
29. Ribe, R. G. 2005. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban Planning 73:277-293.
30. Ryan, R. L. 2010. Local residents' preferences and attitudes toward creating defensible space against wildfire in the Northeast Pine Barrens. Landscape Journal 29:199-214.
31. Scott, M. J., and D. V. Canter. 1997. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17:263-281.
32. Sevenant, M., and M. Antrop. 2009. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 90:2889-2899.
33. Swart, J. A. A., H. J. van der Windt, and J. Keulartz. 2001. Valuation of nature in conservation and restoration. Restoration Ecology 9:230-238.
34. Van den Berg, A. E., and S. L. Koole. 2006. New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:362-372.
35. Van Marwijk, R. B. M. 2009. These routes are made for walking: understanding the transactions between nature, recreational behaviour and environmental meanings in Dwingelderveld National Park, The Netherlands. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
36. Van Marwijk, R. B. M., B. H. M. Elands, and J. Lengkeek. 2007. Experiencing nature: the recognition of the symbolic environment within research and management of visitor flows. Forest, Snow and Landscape research 81:59-76.
37. Vining, J., E. Tyler, and B.-S. Kweon. 2000. Public values, opinions, and emotions in restoration controversies. Pages 143-161 in P. H. Gobster and R. B. Hull, editors. Restoring nature: perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
38. Werner, C. M., and I. Altman. 2000. Humans and nature: insights from a transactional view. Pages 21-37 in I. S. Wapner, J. Demick, T. Yamamoto, and H. Miniami, editors. Theoretical persepectives in environment-behavior research. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
39. Williams, K. J. H., and J. Cary. 2002. Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior 34: 257-274.
40. Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.