Producing a sensitivity assessment method for visual forest landscapes

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 144, Issue , 2015, Pages 128-141

  Store, Ron ^a   Karjalainen, Eeva ^a   Haara, Arto ^a   Leskinen, Pekka ^b   Nivala, Vesa ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Expert knowledge modeling; Geographical information systems; Landscape planning; Landscape sensitivity; Spatial multi criteria evaluation

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MAPS; URBAN PLANNING;

CARTOGRAPHIC MODELS; EXPERT KNOWLEDGE; LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY; MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION; SENSITIVITY INDICES; SENSITIVITY VALUES;

FORESTRY;

EXPERT SYSTEM; FOREST COVER; GIS; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; VISUALIZATION;

FINLAND; KAINUU; KUUSAMO; POHJOIS-POHJANMAA;

EID: 84943599685     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.009     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alho J.M., Kangas J. Analyzing uncertainties in experts' opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science 1997, 43(4):521-528.
2. Alho J., Kangas J., Kolehmainen O. Uncertainty in expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans. Applied Statistics 1996, 45(1):1-14. 10.2307/2986218.
3. Axelsson Lindgren C., Sorte G.J. Visuellt urskiljbara vegetationskaraktärer som planunderlag: Exemplet Järavallsskogen 1984, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen för landskapsplanering, Stencil 84:3. Alnarp.
4. Bell S. Forest design planning. A guide to good practice. Forestry practice guide. Forestry Authority. Forestry Commission 1998, iv. 76 p. Available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fdp.pdf/$FILE/fdp.pdf.
5. Bell S., Apostol D. Designing sustainable forest landscapes 2008, Taylor and Francis, New York.
6. Carver S. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 1991, 5(3):321-339. 10.1080/02693799108927858.
7. Chamberlain B., Meitner M. A Route-based visibility analysis for landscape management. Landscape and Urban Planning 2013, 111:13-24. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.004.
8. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry Official Statistics of Finland. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 2012.
9. Fisher P. Extending the applicability of viewsheds in landscape planning. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 1996, 62(11):1297-1302.
10. Forest Landscape Design Guidelines 1994, 28. ISBN: 0-11-710325-X, The Forestry Authority. Forestry Commission. HMSO.
11. Gimblett H.R. Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 1990, 7(3):222-324.
12. Gustke L.K., Hodgson R.W. Rate of travel along an interpretive trail. The effect of an environmental discontinuity. Environment and Behavior 1980, 12(1):53-63. 10.1177/0013916580121004.
13. Hagerhall C.M. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21:83-92. 10.1006/jevp.2000.0186.
14. Hammitt W.E., Patterson M.E., Noe F.P. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning 1994, 29:171-183. 10.1016/0169-2046(94)90026-4.
15. Hänninen H., Kurttila M. Metsäluonnon monimuotoisuusneuvonnan vaikuttavuus ja kehittämistarpeet 2007, Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 57, 72 p. Available at: http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2007/mwp057.pdf.
16. Harvey A.M. Coupling between hillslopes and channels in upland fluvial systems: Implications for landscape sensitivity, illustrated from the Howgill Fells, northwest England. Catena 2001, 42:225-250. 10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00139-9.
17. Heft H., Nasar J.L. Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior 2000, 32(3):301-322. 10.1177/0013916500323001.
18. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1985, 5(3):225-241. 10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80024-4.
19. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992, 12(3):237-248. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80138-0.
20. Herzog T.R., Barnes G.J. Tranquillity and preference revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1999, 19(2):171-181. 10.1006/jevp.1998.0109.
21. Herzog T.R., Bosley P.J. Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992, 12(2):115-127. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80064-7.
22. Jankowski P. Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 1995, 9(3):251-273. 10.1080/02693799508902036.
23. Kangas J., Kangas A., Leskinen P., Pykäläinen J. MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: Applications and experiences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2001, 10(5):257-271. 10.1002/mcda.306.
24. Kangas J., Karsikko J., Laasonen L., Pukkala T. A method for estimating the suitability function of wildlife habitat for forest planning on the basis of expertise. Silva Fennica 1993, 27(4):259-268. 10.14214/sf.a15680.
25. Kangas J., Leskinen P. Modelling ecological expertise for forest planning calculations - Rationale, examples, and pitfalls. Journal of Environmental Management 2005, 76(2):125-133. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.011.
26. Kangas J., Store R., Leskinen P., Mehtätalo L. Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilising advanced decision-support tools. Forest Ecology and Management 2000, 132(2-3):157-171. 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00221-2.
27. Karjalainen E. Metsänhoitovaihtoehtojen arvostus ulkoilualueilla. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 2000, 776:123-136.
28. Karppinen H. Objectives of non-industrial private forest owners: Differences and future trends in southern and northern Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 1998, 4(2):147-173.
29. Karppinen H. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 1998, 32(1):43-59.
30. Kent R.L. Determining scenic quality along highways: A cognitive approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 1993, 27(1):29-45. 10.1016/0169-2046(93)90026-A.
31. Kim Y., Rana S., Wise S. Exploring multiple viewshed analysis using terrain features and optimisation techniques. Computers and Geosciences 2004, 30:1019-1032. 10.1016/j.cageo.2004.07.008.
32. Koch N.E., Jensen F.S. Skovens friluftsfunktion i Danmark. IV del. Befolkningens ønsker til skovens og det åbne lands udformning 1988, Saertryk af Det forstlige Forsøgsvaesen i Danmark.
33. Komulainen M. Forestscapes - A forest landscape typology as an integrated planning process tool. Dissertationes Forestales 2010, 98. 196 s. Available at: http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes/df98.htm.
34. Landscape Aesthetics A handbook for scenery management 1995, United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook Number 701.
35. Lee J. Analyses of visibility sites on topographic surfaces. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 1991, 5(4):413-429. 10.1080/02693799108927866.
36. Leskinen P., Kangas J. Analysing uncertainties of interval judgement data in multiple-criteria evaluation of forest plans. Silva Fennica 1998, 32(4):363-372.
37. Maisemanhoito Maisema-aluetyöryhmän mietintö I 1992, Ympäristöministeriö, Raportti 66.
38. McGarigal K., Marks B.J. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351 1995, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 122 p.
39. Nijkamp P., Rietveld P., Voogd H. Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. Contributions to economic analysis 1990, North-Holland.
40. Richardson E.A., Mitchell R., Hartig T., de Vries S., Astell-Burt T., Frumkin H. Green cities and health: A question of scale?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2012, 66(2):160-165. 10.1136/jech.2011.137240.
41. Saaty T.L. The analytic hierarchy process 1980, McGraw-Hill, New York.
42. Shafer E.L., Brush R.O. How to measure preferences of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning 1977, 4(3):237-256. 10.1016/0304-3924(77)90027-2.
43. Siddiqui M., Everett J., Vieux B. Landfill siting using geographic information systems: A demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering 1996, 122(6):515-523. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1996)122:6(515).
44. Store R. Sustainable locating of different forest uses. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:610-618. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.013.
45. Store R., Kangas J. Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 55(2):79-93. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00120-7.
46. Strumse E. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1994, 14(4):293-303. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80220-8.
47. van Dillen S.M.E., de Vries S., Groenewegen P., Spreeuwenberg P. Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents' health: Adding quality to quantity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2012, 66(6):e8. 10.1136/jech.2009.104695.
48. Visual Landscape Inventory: Procedures & Standards Manual 1997, BC Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch for the Culture Task Branch, Resources Inventory Committee. British Columbia Forest Service, Forest Recreation, 71 p. Available at: http://www.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/risc/pubs/culture/visual.
49. Visual Resource Management 2013, US Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management, Retrieved from: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/RMS.html.
50. Weiss A.D. Topographic position and landforms analysis. Conference poster. ESRI International User Conference 2001.