Effect of the season and forest management on the visual quality of the nature-based tourism environment: a case from Finnish Lapland

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 349-359

  Tyrväinen, Liisa ^a   Silvennoinen, Harri ^a   Hallikainen, Ville ^b  

^a Vantaa Research Unit   (Finland)

^b Rovaniemi Research Unit   (Finland)

Author keywords

Forest management; landscape preferences; landscape research; nature based tourism; outdoor recreation

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; REFORESTATION; SNOW; TIMBER;

FORESTRY OPERATIONS; LANDSCAPE PREFERENCES; LANDSCAPE RESEARCH; MANAGEMENT PRACTISES; MANAGEMENT REGIME; NATURE-BASED TOURISM; OUTDOOR RECREATION; SEASONAL DIFFERENCES;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84992206028     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: 16511891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2016.1241892     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Ahas R, Aasa A, Silm S, Roosaare J. 2005. Seasonal indicators and seasons of Estonian landscapes. Landscape Res. 30:173–191. doi:10.1080/01426390500044333
2. Ahtikoski A, Tuulentie S, Hallikainen V, Nivala V, Vatanen E, Tyrväinen L, Salminen H. 2011. Potential trade-offs between nature-based tourism and forestry, a case study in Northern Finland. Forests. 2:894–912. doi:10.3390/f2040894
3. Barroso FL, Pinto-Correia T, Ramos IL, Surová D, Menezes H. 2012. Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies:photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landscape Urban Plan. 104:329–342. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.005
4. Bell S, Simpson S, Tyrväinen L, Sievänen T, Pröbstl U, editors 2008. European forest recreation and tourism:A handbook. London:Taylor & Francis.
5. Brown G, Raymond C. 2007. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values:toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geog. 27:89–111. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
6. Brown JD. 2009. Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. Shiken:JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter. 13:20–25.
7. Cross-Country Traffic Law. 1995. Available from:https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1995/19951710
8. Dhami I, Deng J. 2010. Modeling the scenic beauty of the Highland Scenic Highway, West Virginia. In:Watts CE, Fisher CL, editors. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-66. p. 180–188. Available from:http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/35661
9. Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagne C, Peace A, Weiss G. 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests:towards a pan-European perspective. For Policy Econ. 19:12–19. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006
10. Filyushkina A, Strange N, Löf M, Ezebilo E, Boman M. 2016. Non-market forest ecosystem services and decision support in Nordic countries. Scand J For Res. 31:99–110. doi:10.1080/02827581.2015.1079643
11. Fredman P, Tyrväinen L. 2010. Introduction. In:Fredman P, Tyrväinen L, editors. Frontiers in nature-based tourism. Scand J Hosp Tourism. 10:177–189.
12. Fyhri A, Jacobsen J, Tømmervik H. 2009. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape Urban Plan. 91:202–211. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.002
13. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G. 2007. The shared landscape:what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol. 22:959–972. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
14. Gramann J, Rudis V. 1994. Effects of hardwood retention, season of year, and landform on the perceived scenic beauty of forest plots in the Ouachita Mountains. In:Baker JB, editor. Proceedings of the Symposium on Ecosystem Management Research in the Ouachita Mountains Pretreatment Conditions and Preliminary Findings; 1993 Oct 26–27; Hot Springs. New Orleans (LA). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. SO. 112:223–228. Available from:http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/493
15. Gundersen V, Clarke N, Dramstad W, Fjellstad W. 2015. Effect of bioenergy extraction on visual preferences in boreal forest:a review of surveys from Finland, Sweden and Norway. Scand J For Res. doi:10.1080/02827581.2015.1099725
16. Gundersen V, Frivold L. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures:a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Gree. 7:241–258. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
17. Gundersen V, Frivold L. 2011. Naturally dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests:public preferences and the effect of information. Scand J For Res. 26:110–119. doi:10.1080/02827581.2010.536567
18. Hallikainen V. 1998. The Finnish wilderness experience [doctoral dissertation]. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 711.
19. Karjalainen E. 2006. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation–four case studies in Finland [doctoral dissertation]. Dissertationes Forestales 31. Available from:http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes/df31.htm
20. Kearney A, Bradley G. 2011. The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes:contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environ Behav. 43:147–181. doi:10.1177/0013916509353523
21. Keskimölö A, Väisänen R. 2012. Lapin metsäohjelma 2012–2015. Metsäkeskus Lappi. 37p.
22. Li YH, Rudis VA, Herrick TA. 2004. A psychological model of scenic beauty by silvicultural treatment two growing seasons after harvest. In:Guldin JM, editor. Ouachita and Ozark Mountains symposium:ecosystem management research. Asheville, NC:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-74:130–140. Available from:http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/viewpub.php?index=6487
23. Lindhagen A, Hörsten L. 2000. Forest Recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden:changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry 73:143–153. doi:10.1093/forestry/73.2.143
24. van Mansvelt JD, Pedroli B. 2003. Landscape–a matter of identity and integrity:towards sound knowledge, awareness and involvement. In:Palang H, Fry G, editors. Kluwer landscape interfaces:cultural heritage in changing landscapes. Netherlands:Kluwer; p. 375–394.
25. MEK. 2009. Border interview survey:foreign visitors in Finland 2008. MEK A:164. Helsinki:Finnish Tourist Board.
26. Nature Conservation Law. 1996. Available from:https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/smur/1996/19961096
27. Ode S, Tveit M. 2013. Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy. 31:557–567. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.001
28. Regional Council of Lapland. 2011a. Tourism facts in Lapland:statistical review 2011. Available from:http://www.lapland.fi/en/lapinliitto/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=349619&name=DLFE-20031.pdf
29. Regional Council of Lapland. 2011b. Lapland’s tourism strategy 2011–2014. Publication A24/2011. Available from:http://www.lapinliitto.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=20782&name=DLFE-17398.pdf
30. Ribe R. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry:what has empirical preference research taught us? J Environ Manage. 13:55–74. doi:10.1007/BF01867587
31. Ribe R. 2009. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest:The effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and down wood. J Environ Manage. 91:245–260. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.014
32. Roadmap of tourism in Finland. 2015–2025. https://www.tem.fi/en/enterprises/tourism/roadmap_of_tourism_2015–2025
33. Schroeder H. 2002. Experiencing nature in special places:surveys in the North-Central region. J Forest. 100:8–14.
34. Sevenant M, Antrop M. 2009. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J Environ Manage. 90:2889–2899. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016
35. Sheppard S, Harshaw H, Mc Bride J. 2001. Priorities for reconciling sustainability and aesthetics in forest landscape management. In:Sheppard S, Harshaw H, editors. Forests and landscapes:linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. Oxon (UK):CABI Publisher in Association with IUFRO; p. 263–288.
36. Sievänen T, Neuvonen M. 2011. Luonnon virkistyskäytön kysyntä 2010 ja kysynnän muutos. In:Sievänen T, Neuvonen M, editors. Outdoor Recreation 2010. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 212:37–79. Finnish.
37. Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T. 2001. Prediction models of landscape preferences at forest stand level. Landscape Urban Plan. 56:11–20. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00163-3
38. 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. doi:10.1080/028275802753742936
39. Sonntag-Öström E, Nordin M, Dolling A, Lundell Y, Nilsson L, Järvholm S. 2015. Can rehabilitation in boreal forests help recovery from exhaustion disorder? The randomized clinical trial ForRest. Scand J For Res. 30:732–748. doi:10.1080/02827581.2015.1046482
40. Tönnes S, Karjalainen E, Löfström I, Neuvonen M. 2004. Scenic impacts of retention trees in clear-cutting areas. Scand J For Res. 19:348–357. doi:10.1080/02827580310019284
41. Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Res. 31:229–255. doi:10.1080/01426390600783269
42. Tyrväinen L, Buchecker M, Vuletic D, Degenhart B. 2008. Evaluating the economic and social benefits of forest recreation and nature tourism. In:Bell S, Simpson S, Tyrväinen L, Sievänen, T, Pröbstl U, editors. European forest recreation and tourism:a handbook. London:Taylor & Francis; p. 35–64.
43. Tyrväinen L, Mäntymaa E, Ovaskainen V. 2014. Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands:the case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 47:4–13. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.007
44. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For Urban Gree. 1:135–149. doi:10.1078/1618-8667-00014
45. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Nousiainen I, Tahvanainen L. 2001. Rural tourism in Finland:tourists’ expectations of landscape and environment. Scand J Hosp Tour. 1:133–149. doi:10.1080/150222501317244047