Abstract
Multiple-use forest management has come to include an attention to scenic values, and methods are being developed to incorporate aesthetic considerations into decision making. A considerable body of scientific research has been conducted exploring public preferences for forest landscapes and intersubjective and contextual influences upon their perception. This research is surveyed. Findings regarding the perception of forest conditions, such as tree density and size, ground cover, species makeup and nonmanagement are considered. The scenic effects of forest treatments such as thinning, burning, and chemical application are outlined. Findings for harvest and regeneration practices such as clear-cutting, shelterwoods, selection cuts, and slash treatments are reported. Advances that consider the effects of time upon forest beauty and experiences are explored, along with a problem in multiple-use evaluation of scenic changes. Research on these topics and on observer intersubjective problems and general theory development is supported as a course of advancement in the field.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Literature cited
Anderson, L. M. 1981. Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes.Forest Science 27:392–400.
Anderson, L. M., D. J. Levi, T. C. Daniel, and J. H. Dieterich. 1982. The esthetic effects of prescribed burning: A case study. USDA Forest Service Research Note RM-413. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Arthur, L. M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests.Forest Science 23:151–159.
Ashcroft, B. C. 1982. Public attitudes to the exotic pine reforestation programme in south east Queensland. Queensland Department of Forestry, Technical Paper No. 29.
Axelsson-Lindgren, C., and G. Sorte. 1987. Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area.Landscape and Urban Planning 14:211–217.
Becker, R. H. 1983. Opinions about clear-cutting and recognition of clear-cuts by forest recreation visitors.Journal of Environmental Management 17:171–177.
Benson, R. E. 1974. Lodgepole pine logging residues: Management alternatives. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-160. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
Benson, R. E., and J. R. Ullrich. 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: Findings on public preferences. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-262. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
Benson, R. E., S. F. McCool, and J. A. Schlieter. 1985. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas— landscape architects' evaluation. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-348. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
Boster, R. S., and T. C. Daniel. 1972. Measuring public responses to vegetative management.In Proceedings: 16th annual Arizona watershed symposium. Arizona Water Commission, Phoenix, Arizona.
Brown, T. C. 1987. Production and cost of scenic beauty: Examples for a ponderosa pine forest.Forest Science 33:394–410.
Brown, T. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-256. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Brown, T. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands.Forest Science 32:471–487.
Brun-Chaize, M. C. 1976. Forest scenery: An analysis of public preferences. d'Orleans Center of Forestry Research, Document No. 76/14, Orleans, France.
Brush, R. O. 1973. Recent developments in landscape assessment research with implications for managing forest land for recreation. Pages 83–86in Outdoor recreation research: Applying the results. Papers from a workshop held by the USDA Forest Service at Marquette, Michigan. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-9. North Central Forest and Range Experiment Station, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Brush, R. O. 1976. Spaces within the woods: Managing forests for visual enjoyment.Journal of Forestry 74:744–747.
Brush, R. O. 1978. Forests can be managed for esthetics: A study of forest-land owners in Massachusetts. Pages 349–360in G. Hopkins, H. K. Cordell, H. Gerhold, and L. Wood (eds.), Proceedings of the national urban forestry conference. College of Environmental Science and Forestry Publication Number 80-003. State University of New York, Syracuse, New York.
Brush, R. O. 1979. The attractiveness of woodlands: Perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts.Forest Science 25:495–506.
Buyhoff, G. J., and W. A. Leuschner. 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands.Forest Science 24:424–432.
Buhyoff, G. J., and J. D. Wellman. 1979. Environmental preferences: A critical analysis of a critical analysis.Journal of Leisure Research 11:215–219.
Buhyoff, G. J., W. A. Leuschner, and J. D. Wellman. 1979. Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage.Journal of Environmental Management 8:261–267.
Buhyoff, G. J., W. A. Leuschner, and L. K. Arndt. 1980. Replication of a scenic preference function.Forest Science 26:227–230.
Buhyoff, G. J., L. K. Arndt, and D. B. Propst. 1981. Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct- and indirect-measurement methods.Landscape Planning 8:257–268.
Buhyoff, G. J., J. D. Wellman, and T. C. Daniel. 1982. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas.Forest Science 28:827–838.
Buhyoff, G. J., R. B. Hull IV, J. N. Lien, and H. K. Cordell. 1986. Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands.Forest Science 32:769–778.
Clay, G. 1965. The woodland scene: Time for another look.Landscape Architecture 56:28–29.
Cook, W. L., Jr. 1972. An evaluation of the aesthetic quality of forest trees.Journal of Leisure Research 4:293–302.
Crow, Dame S. 1979. The landscape of forests and woods. Forestry Commission, HMSO, London.
Daniel, T. C., and R. S. Boster. 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, Colorado.
Daniel, T. C., and H. Schroeder. 1979. Scenic beauty estimation model: Predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. Pages 514–523in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Dearden, P. 1983. Forest harvesting and landscape assessment techniques in British Columbia, Canada.Landscape Planning 10:239–254.
Duffield, J. W. 1970. Silviculture need not be ugly.Journal of Forestry 68:464–467.
Echelberger, H. E. 1979. The semantic differential in landscape research. Pages 524–531in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Gardner, P. D., H. J. Cortner, K. F. Widaman, and K. J. Stenberg. 1985. Forest-user attitudes toward alternative fire management policies.Environmental Management 9:303–310.
Gilg, A. W. 1975. The objectivity of Linton type methods of assessing scenery as a natural resource.Regional Studies 9:181–191.
Gustke, L. D., and R. W. Hodgson. 1980. Rate of travel along an interpretive trail: The effect of an environmental discontinuity.Environment and Behavior 12:53–63.
Haakenstadt, H. 1972. Forest management in an area of outdoor life: An investigation of public opinion about Oslomarka.Meld. Lantbrukshogskolans Annale 51:1–79.
Hamilton, L., T. Rader, and D. Smith. 1973. Aesthetics and owner attitudes toward suburban forest practices.Northern Logger 22:18–19, 38–39.
Hamilton, J. W., G. J. Buhyoff, and J. D. Wellman. 1979. The derivation of scenic utility functions and surfaces and their role in landscape management. Pages 271–278in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Herzog, T. R. 1984. A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments.Landscape Research 9:10–16.
Hull, R. B., IV. 1986. Sensitivity of scenic beauty assessments.Landscape and Urban Planning 13:319–321.
Hull, R. B., and G. J. Buhyoff. 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts.Forest Science 32:271–286.
Hull, R. B., IV, G. J. Buhyoff, and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Measurement of scenic beauty: The law of comparative judgement and scenic beauty estimation procedures.Forest Science 30:1084–1096.
Hull, R. B., G. J. Buhyoff, and H. K. Cordell. 1987. Psychophysical models: An example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests.Landscape Journal 6:113–122.
Jacob, H. 1973. The emotional recreation potential of different forest types.Natur und Landschaft 47:161–163.
Kardell, L. 1979. Hur skulle jag skota min rekreationsskog.Sveriges Skogsvardsforbunds Tidskrift 78:385–433.
Karhu, I., and S. Kellomaki. 1980. Effects of silvicultural practices on the forest landscape: A study of the opinions of the people of Puolanka, NE Finland.Silva Fennica 14:409–428.
Kellomaki, S. 1975. Forest stand preferences of recreationists. Forestalia Fennica. City of Helsinki Real Estate Department, Forestry and Agriculture Division Document 146.
Kellomaki, S., and R. Savolainen. 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory.Landscape Planning 11:97–108.
Kenner, B., and S. F. McCool. 1985. Thinning and scenic attractiveness in second growth forests: A preliminary assessment. Research Note 22. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Klukas, R. W., and D. P. Duncan. 1967. Vegetation preferences among Itaska Park visitors.Journal of Forestry 65:18–21.
Kreimer, A. 1977. Environmental preferences: A critical analysis of some research methodologies.Journal of Leisure Research 9:88–97.
Laughlin, N. A., and M. W. Garcia. 1986. Attitudes of landscape architects in the USDA Forest Service toward the visual management system.Landscape Journal 5:135–141.
Levine, R. L., and E. E. Langenau, Jr. 1979. Attitudes toward clearcutting and their relationships to the patterning and diversity of forest recreation activities.Forest Science 25:317–327.
Litton, R. B., Jr. 1968. Pages 271–278in Forest landscape description and inventories. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-49. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Madill, R. J. 1973. The impact of clearcutting on the perception of forest aesthetics. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
McCool, S. F., R. E. Benson, and J. L. Ashor. 1986. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: An evaluation of interest group preferences.Environmental Management 10:385–391.
McGee, C. E. 1970. Clearcutting and aesthetics in the southern Appalachians.Journal of Forestry 68:540–544.
Methven, I. R. 1974. Development of a numerical index to quantify the aesthetic impact of forest management practices. Information Report PS-X-51. Petawa Forest Experiment Station, Canada.
Michal, I. 1973. The recreational exploitability of the forest and its aesthetic value: Part 1.Leshictvi 19:767–780.
Michal, I. 1974. The recreational exploitability of the forest and its aesthetic value: Part 2.Leshictvi 20:383–405.
Oka, K., and Y. Ueno. 1982. Landscape management and selective cutting system in the Imasu District, Japan.Forest Recreation Research 6:1–14.
Patey, R. C., and R. M. Evans. 1979. Identification of scenically preferred forest landscapes. Pages 532–538in G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds.), Our national landscape: Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
Pitt, D. G. 1985. Perceptually based alternatives to the USDA Forest Service visual management system. Pages 58–60in B. Orland (ed.), Prospect, Retrospect, Continuity: Proceedings of the annual conference of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture. Urbana, Illinois.
Radar, T. D. 1971. A study of suburban forests: Suburban forest landowners and aesthetic values. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Ribe, R. G. 1988. Getting the scenic beauty estimation method to a ratio scale: A simple revision to assess positive and negative landscapes.In People's needs, planet management, paths to co-existence: Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association 19 (in press).
Rutherford, W., Jr., and E. L. Shafer, Jr. 1969. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands.Journal of Forestry 67:415–419.
Savolainen, R., and S. Kellomaki. 1981. Scenic value of forest landscape. Forestalia Fennica. City of Helsinki Real Estate Department, Forestry and Agriculture Division Document 170.
Schroeder, H. W., and T. C. Brown. 1983. Alternative functional forms for an inventory-based landscape perception model.Journal of Leisure Research 15:156–163.
Schroeder, H. W., and T. C. Daniel. 1980. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors.Environment and Behavior 12:349–366.
Schroeder, H. W., and T. C. Daniel. 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes.Forest Science 27:71–80.
Schweitzer, D. L., J. R. Ullrich, and R. E. Benson. 1976. Esthetic evaluation of timber harvesting in the northern rockies: A progress report. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-203. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
Shafer, E. L., Jr., J. F. Hamilton, and E. A. Schmidt. 1969. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model.Journal of Leisure Research 1:1–19.
Shelby, B., and R. Harris. 1985. Comparing methods for determining visitor evaluations of ecological impacts: Site visits, photographs and written descriptions.Journal of Leisure Research 17:57–67.
Simpson, C. J., T. L. Rosenthal, T. C. Daniel, and G. M. White. 1976. Social influence variations in evaluating managed and unmanaged forest areas.Journal of Applied Psychology 61:759–767.
Staffelbach, E. 1984. A new foundation for forest aesthetics.Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift 47:1179–1181.
Taylor, J. G., and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Prescribed fire: Public education and perception.Journal of Forestry 82:361–365.
Ulrich, R. S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29–44.
USDA Forest Service. 1972. Quantitative analysis of the visual resource. USDA Northern Region, Landscape Architecture Branch, Division of Recreation and Lands. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
USDA Forest Service. 1974. National forest landscape management: The visual management system, vol. 2, chap. 1. USDA Handbook No. 462. Washington, DC.
Vodak, M. C., P. L. Roberts, J. D. Wellman, and G. J. Buhyoff. 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management.Forest Science 31:289–302.
Wagar, J. A. 1974. Recreational and esthetic considerations. Pages H1-H15in O. P. Cramer (ed.), Environmental effects of forest residues management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-24. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.
Willhite, R. G., and W. R. Sise. 1974. Measurement of reaction to forest practices.Journal of Forestry 72:567–571.
Williamson, D. N., and J. A. Chalmers. 1982. Perceptions of forest scenic quality in northeast Victoria: A technical report of research phases I and II. Landscape management series. Forests Commission Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Wohlwill, J. F. 1968. Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity.Perception and Psychophysics 4:307–312.
Yarrow, C. 1966. A preliminary survey of the public's concepts of amenity in British forestry.Forestry 39:59–67.
Yeiser, J. L., and C. L. Shilling. 1978. Student responses to selected terms and scenes in natural resource management.Journal of Forestry 76:497–498.
Zube, E. H., J. L. Sell, and J. G. Taylor. 1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory.Landscape Planning 9:1–33.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ribe, R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us?. Environmental Management 13, 55–74 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867587
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867587