Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different stands

Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 209-219

  Deng, Songqiu ^a,b   Yan, Jiafeng ^c   Guan, Qingwei ^a   Katoh, Masato ^b  

^a NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SHINSHU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c Forestry Bureau of Huainan City   (China)

Author keywords

Estimation model; Impact factor; Landscape value; Scenic forest; Thinning intensity

Indexed keywords

ESTIMATION MODELS; IMPACT FACTOR; LANDSCAPE VALUES; SCENIC FOREST; THINNING INTENSITY;

PHOTOGRAPHY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY THEORY;

FORESTRY;

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; NATIONAL PARK; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SPECIES DIVERSITY; THINNING; TOURIST DESTINATION; UNDERSTORY; VALUATION;

FORESTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PHOTOGRAPHY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY;

CHINA;

EID: 84877624530     PISSN: 13416979     EISSN: 16107403     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10310-012-0342-5     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arnberger A (2006) Recreation use of urban forests: An inter-area comparison. Urban For Urban Green 4: 135-144.
2. Arthur LM (1977) Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. For Sci 23: 151-159.
3. Bergen SD, Ulbricht CA, Friedley JL, Ganter MA (1995) The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscape. J Environ Psychol 15: 135-146.
4. Blasco E, González-Olabarria JR, Rodriguéz-Veiga P, Pukkala T, Kolehmainen O, Palahí M (2009) Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain). J For Res 20: 73-78.
5. Brown TC, Daniel TC (1986) Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For Sci 32: 471-487.
6. Brush RO (1979) The attractiveness of woodlands: perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts. For Sci 25: 495-506.
7. Buhyoff GJ, Leuschner WA (1978) Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. For Sci 24: 424-432.
8. Buhyoff GJ, Leuschner WA, Arndt LK (1980) Replication of a scenic preference function. For Sci 26: 227-230.
9. Buhyoff GJ, Hull RB, Lien JN, Cordell HK (1986) Prediction of scenic beauty for southern pine stands. For Sci 32: 769-778.
10. Chokor BA, Mene SA (1992) An assessment of preference for landscapes in the developing world: case study of Warri, Nigeria, and environs. J Environ Manag 34: 237-256.
11. Crow DS (1979) The landscape of forests and woods. Forestry Commission, HMSO, London.
12. Daniel TC (2001) Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape Urban Plan 54: 267-278.
13. Daniel TC, Boster RS (1976) Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins.
14. Deng SQ, Yan JF, Guan QW (2010) Spatial structure of scenic forest of Liquidamabar formosana in Nanjing Purple Mountain. J Nanjing For Univ (Natl Sci Ed) 34(4): 117-122 (in Chinese with English summary).
15. Duffield JW (1970) Silviculture need not be ugly. J For 68: 464-467.
16. Echelberger HE (1979) The semantic differential in landscape research. In: Elsner GH, Smardon RC, editors. Our National Landscape: Proceedings of a Conference on Applied methodss for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35, Berkeley, pp 524-531.
17. Gundersen VS, Frivold LH (2008) Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Green 7: 241-258.
18. Hansen HS (2010) Modelling the future coastal zone urban development as implied by the IPCC SRES and assessing the impact from sea level rise. Landscape Urban Plan 98: 141-149.
19. Heikinheimo L, Jaatinen E, Kellomaki S, Loven L, Saatamoinen O (1977) Metsien virkistyskaytto Suomessa: esitutkimusraportti. Summary: forest recreation in Finland-pilot study. Folia For 321: 45.
20. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ (1986) The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. For Sci 32: 271-286.
21. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Daniel TC (1984) Measurement of scenic beauty: the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. For Sci 30: 1084-1096.
22. Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ, Cordell HK (1987) Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. J Landscape 6: 113-122.
23. Jim CY, Chen WY (2009) Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities 26: 187-194.
24. Karhu I, Kellomaki S (1980) Vaeston mielipiteet metsanhoidon vaikutuksesta maisemakuvaan Puolangan kunnassa. Silva Fenn 14: 409-428.
25. Litton RB (1974) Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J For 7: 392-397.
26. McCool SF, Benson RE, Ashor JL (1986) How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environ Manag 10: 385-391.
27. Pukkala T, Kellomaki S, Mustonen E (1988) Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand J For Res 3: 533-544.
28. Ribe RG (1989) The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environ Manag 13: 55-74.
29. Ribe RG (2005) Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape Urban Plan 73: 277-293.
30. Saastamoinen O (1982) Economics of multiple-use forestry in the Saariselkä forest and fell area. Commun Inst For Fenn 104: 1-102.
31. Schroeder HW, Brown TC (1983) Alternative functional forms for an inventory-based landscape perception model. J Leis Res 15: 156-163.
32. Schroeder HW, Daniel TC (1981) Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. For Sci 27: 71-80.
33. Shafer EL, Hamilton JF, Schmidt EA (1969) Natural landscaped preferences: a predictive model. J Leis Res 1: 1-19.
34. Sievanen T (1992) Aulangon ja Ahveniston ulkoilualueiden kaytto ja kavijat. Commun Inst For Fenn 415: 70.
35. Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T (2001) Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape Urban Plan 56: 11-20.
36. Silvennoinen H, Pukkala T, Tahvanainen L (2002) Effect of Cuttings on the Scenic Beauty of a Tree Stand. Scand J For Res 17: 263-273.
37. Staffelbach E (1984) A new foundation for forest aesthetics. Allg Forstz47: 1179-1181.
38. Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O (2001) Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan 53: 53-70.
39. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For Urban Green 1: 135-149.
40. Vodak MC, Roberts PL, Wellman JD, Buhyoff GJ (1985) Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. For Sci 31: 289-302.
41. Wei CL, Zhai MP, Yan HP, Ren YM (2004) Review of scenic forest tending technology. J Inner Mongolia Agri Univ 25(1): 114-120 (in Chinese with English summary).
42. Wohlwill JF (1982) The visual impact of development in coastal zone areas. J Coastal Zone Manag 9: 225-248.
43. Yarrow C (1966) A preliminary survey of the public's concepts of amenity in British forestry. Forestry 39: 59-67.
44. Yeiser JL, Shilling CL (1978) Student responses to selected terms and scenes in natural resource management. J For 76: 497-498.