Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: Relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 113, Issue , 2012, Pages 456-466

  Nielsen, Anders Busse ^a   Heyman, Erik ^b   Richnau, Gustav ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Forest planning and management; Landscape aesthetics; Landscape preferences; On site landscape perception; Outdoor recreation; Visitor employed photography

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY;

CONTENT-BASED; FOREST PLANNING; FOREST PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE ESTHETIC; LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS; LANDSCAPE PREFERENCES; ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION; OUTDOOR RECREATION; SPATIAL CONFIGURATION; VISITOR-EMPLOYED PHOTOGRAPHY;

FORESTRY;

COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; ECOTOURISM; ESTHETICS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; OUTDOOR RECREATION; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPHY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RECREATIONAL FACILITY; TOURIST DESTINATION;

ARTICLE; FILTER; FOREST; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; PHOTOGRAPHY; VISITOR EMPLOYED PHOTOGRAPHY;

EID: 84869866297     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.014     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Axelsson-Lindgren C., Sorte G. Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreational area. Landscape and Urban Planning 1987, 14:211-217.
2. Bell S., Apostol D. Designing Sustainable Forest Landscapes 2008, Taylor and Francis, London.
3. Bell S., Blom D., Rautamäki M., Castel-Branco C., Simson A., Olsen I.A. Design of urban forests. Urban Forests and Trees 2005, 149-186. Springer. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
4. Bourassa S.C. The Aesthetics of Landscape 1991, Belhaven Press, London.
5. Bryman A. Social Research Methods 2008, Oxford University Press, New York. third ed.
6. Carlson A.A. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Planning 1977, 4:131-172.
7. Chenoweth R.E., Gobster P.H. The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape Journal 1990, 3:136-143.
8. Cherem G.J., Driver B.L. Visitor employed photography: a technique to measure common perceptions of natural environments. Journal of Leisure Research 1983, 15:65-83.
9. City of Gothenburg, 2009. Miljö rapport (Environmental Report 2008). R 2009: 11 (in Swedish).
10. Cullen G. The Concise Townscape 1971, Reed Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd.
11. Dorwart C.E., Moore R.L., Leung Y. Visitors' perceptions of a trail environment and effects on experiences: a model for nature-based recreation experiences. Leisure Sciences 2006, 32:33-54.
12. Edwards D., Jay M., Jensen F.S., Lucas B., Marzano M., Montagné C., Peace A., Weiss G. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 2012, 19:12-19.
13. Galindo M.P.G., Rodriquez J.A.C. Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain 2000, 4:13-27.
14. Gundersen V.S., Frivold L.H. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2008, 7:241-258.
15. Heyman E., Gunnarsson B., Stenseke M., et al. Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2011, 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.003.
16. Heyman E. Analysing recreational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor-employed photography method. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2012, 11:267-277.
17. Højring K., Noe E., Busck A.G., Erichsen E.H. Landbrugslandet - skabelse og iaggtagelse 2005, Syddansk Universitets forlag, Odense, (in Danish).
18. Hull R.B., Steward W.P. The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking. Environmental Behaviour 1995, 27:404-426.
19. Jensen F.S., Skovsgaard J.P. Precommercial thinning of penduculate oak: recreational preferences of the population of Denmark for different thinning practices in young stands. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2009, 24:28-36.
20. Jonsell M., Weslien J., Ehnström B. Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden. Biodiversity and Conservation 1998, 7:749-764.
21. Jonsson B.G., Kruys N., Ranius T. Ecology of species living on dead wood - lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fennica 2005, 39:289-309.
22. Jorgensen A., Gobster P.H. Shades of green: measuring the ecology of urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nature and Culture 2010, 5:338-363.
23. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: a Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Nassauer J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 1995, 14:161-170.
25. Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., Lundhede T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 80:63-71.
26. Niemelä J. Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conservation Biology 1997, 11:601-610.
27. Niklasson M., Nilsson S.G. Skogsdynamik och arters bevarande 2005, Studentlitteratur, Lund, (in Swedish).
28. Oku H., Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75:34-42.
29. Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us?. Journal of Environmental Management 1989, 13:55-74.
30. Ribe R.G. Scenic beauty perception along the ROS. Journal of Environmental Management 1994, 42:199-221.
31. Rydberg D., Falck J. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000, 47:1-18.
32. Sandström U.G., Angelstam P., Mikusinski G. Ecological diversity of birds in relation to to the structure of urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 77:39-53.
33. Sevenant M., Antrop M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:2889-2899.
34. Shelby B., Thompson J.R., Brunson M., Johnson R. A decade of recreational ratings for six silvicultural treatments in Western Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management 2005, 75:239-246.
35. Sheppard S.R.J. Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. IUFRO Research Series 6 2001, 149-172. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK. S.R.J. Sheppard, H. Harshaw (Eds.).
36. Trent R.B., Neumann E., Kvashny A. Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning 1987, 14:225-235.
37. Tveit M., Ode Å., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 2006, 31:229-255.
38. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Kolehmainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2003, 1:135-149.
39. Van Etteger R. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The engaged experience of everyday landscapes. Abstracts. ECLAS 2011 Sheffield 2011, vol. 227. Department of Landscape University of Sheffield. C. Dee, K. Gill, A. Jorgensen (Eds.).