Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain)

Abstract

Relative preferences of 90 images of forest stands, photos and virtual reality images were investigated by the internet to develop a quantitative model for estimating scenic beauty preferences at the stand level. The relative priority values obtained from the questionnaire of a total of 259 judges were analyzed using regression methods for pairwise comparisons. Two models were developed based on two different groups of stands. Both models indicate that the priority of a forest stand increases with an augment in the number of bushes and trees, and also with the mean diameter of trees. On the other hand, the priority is low with large number of pines and small trees. Stands represented by photos receive better priority values than those represented by virtual reality images. When the background of the judges (gender, country or occupation) was included into the model as additional predictors, no significant improvements are achieved.

Keywords

analytic hierarchy process / landscape preferences / pairwise comparison / virtual reality

References

[1] Alho J.M., Kolehmainen O., Leskinen P.. Schmoldt D., Kangas J., Mendoza G., Pesonen M.. Regression methods for pairwise comparisons data. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environmental Decision Making. 2001, Dordrect: Kluver Academic Publishers, 235 251

[2] Arthur L.M.. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical test. Forest Science, 1977, 23(2): 151-159.

[3] Benson RE, Ullrich JR. 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: findings on public preferences. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-262, 14p.

[4] Bergen S.D., Ulbricht C.A., Friedley J.L., Ganter M.A.. The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1995, 15: 135-146.

[5] Brown TC, Daniel TC. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: concepts and application to ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-256. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 30 p.

[6] Brown T.C., Daniel T.C.. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 1986, 32(2): 471-487.

[7] Brown T.C., Daniel T.C.. Context effects in perceived environmental quality assessment: scene selection and landscape quality ratings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1987, 7: 233-250.

[8] Brush R.O.. The attractiveness of woodlands: perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts. Forest Science, 1979, 25(3): 495-506.

[9] Buhyoff G.J., Hull R.B., Lien J.N., Cordell H.K.. Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands. Forest Science, 1986, 32(3): 769-778.

[10] 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 Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO. 66 p.

[11] Daniel T.C., Brown T.C., King D.A., Richards M.T., Stewart W.P.. Perceived Scenic Beauty and Contingent Valuation of Forest Campground. Forest Science, 1989, 35(1): 76-90.

[12] González J.R., Kolehmainen O., Pukkala T.. Using expert knowledge to model forest stands vulnerability to fire. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2007, 55: 107-114.

[13] Hull R.B., Buhyoff G.J., Daniel T.C.. Measurement of scenic beauty temporal distribution method: the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science, 1984, 30(4): 1084-1096.

[14] Hull R.B., Buhyoff G.J.. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science, 1986, 32(2): 271-286.

[15] Kangas J., Laasonen L., Pukkala T.. A method for estimating forest landowner’s landscape preferences. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 1993, 8: 408-471.

[16] Palahí M., Pukkala T., Perez E., Trasobares A.. Herramientas de soporte a la decisión en la planificación y gestión forestal. Revista Montes, 2004, 78: 40-48.

[17] Pukkala T.. Pukkala T.. Introduction to multi-objective forest planning. Multi-objective forest planning. 2002, Netherlands.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1 19

[18] Pukkala T.. Pukkala T.. Measuring non-wood forest outputs in numerical forest planning. A review of Finnish research. Multi-objective forest planning. 2002, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 173 205

[19] Pukkala T., Kellomäki S., Mustonen E.. Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 1988, 3: 533-544.

[20] Ribe R.. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in Northern Hardwood forest. Landscape Journal, 1990, 9(2): 86-101.

[21] Rudis V.A., Gramm J.H., Ruddell E.J., Westphal J.M.. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands. Forest Science, 1988, 34(4): 846-863.

[22] Saaty T.L.. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977, 15: 234-281.

[23] Savolainen R., Kellomäki S.. Scenic beauty of forest landscape. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 1981, 170: 1-75.

[24] Schroeder H.W., Daniel T.C.. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science, 1981, 27(1): 71-80.

[25] Shafer EL, Richards TA. 1974. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-302. Northeastern Forest Exp. Stn., Upper Darby, PA. 26p.

[26] Shuttleworth S.. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 1980, 11(1): 61-76.

[27] Silvennoinen H., Alho J., Kolehmainen O., Pukkala T.. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, 56(1): 11-20.

[28] Silvennoinen H., Pukkala T., Tahvanainen L.. Effect of Cuttings on the Scenic Beauty of a Tree Stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2002, 17: 263-273.

[29] Vodak M.C., Roberts P.L., Wellman J.D., Buhyoff G.J.. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science, 1985, 31(2): 289-301.

[30] Zube E.H., Pitt D.G., Anderson T.W.. Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Institute for Man and His Environment. 1974, Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 191.

[31] Zube E.H., Pitt D.G., Anderson T.W.. Zube E.H., Brush R.O., Fabos J.G.. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. Landscape assessment: values, perceptions, and resources. 1975, Dowden: Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA, 151 167