The Effects of Viewer Attributes on Preference for Forest Scenes: Contributions of Attitudes,Knowledge,Demographic Factors,and Stakeholder Group Membership
Restricted accessOtherFirst published online March, 2011
The Effects of Viewer Attributes on Preference for Forest Scenes: Contributions of Attitudes,Knowledge,Demographic Factors,and Stakeholder Group Membership
Although the primary focus on forest aesthetics research has been on identifying the relationships between landscape attributes and preference or scenic beauty, some studies have explored the relationships between viewer attributes and preference. Specifically, viewer responses to forested landscapes have been shown to vary by stakeholder group membership, demographic factors, knowledge, and attitudes. Most of these studies, however, have explored these viewer attributes in isolation. This study begins to look at the relative contributions of viewer attributes to forest preference across a range of forest scenes. The study specifically assessed the relationships between preference and: demographic factors, attitudes toward forest management, general forest management knowledge, and stakeholder group membership. Results show that attitudes toward forest management, and in particular whether or not one endorses a commodity/utilitarian perspective on forest management, had the strongest relationship with preference for forest scenes. The extent to which participants endorsed an ecosystem/amenities perspective on forest management, on the other hand, was not related to preference. Stakeholder group membership itself was not related to preference, after accounting for attitudes. Contrary to expectation, there was no significant relationship between knowledge about forest management and preference for forest scenes.
Anderson, E. ( 1978). Visual resource assessment: Local perceptions of familiar natural environments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
2.
Anderson, L.M. ( 1981). Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest Science, 27, 392-400.
3.
Bacon, W. ( 1995). Creating an attractive landscape through viewshed management . Journal of Forestry, 93, 26-28.
4.
Becker, R.H., Dottavio, F.D., & McDonald, B.L. (1988). The use of interpretation to gain visitor acceptance of vegetation management. In F. P. Noe & W. E. Hammitt (Eds.), Visual preferences of travelers along the Blue Ridge Parkway (pp. 94-104) [Scientific Monograph Series No. 18]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service.
5.
Blocker, T.J., & Eckberg, D.L. ( 1989). Environmental issues as women’s issues: General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly , 70, 586-593.
6.
Bonham, C.D. ( 1991). The state of range management on public lands . Rangelands, 13, 239-240.
7.
Bradley, G.A. ( 1996). Forest aesthetics: Harvest practices in visually sensitive areas. Olympia, WA: Washington Forest Protection Association.
8.
Bradley, G.A., & Kearney, A.R. ( 2007). Public and professional responses to the visual effects of timber harvesting: Different ways of seeing. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 22, 42-54.
9.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (1981 ). Forest landscape handbook. Victoria, BC : Ministry of Forests.
10.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (1994 ). A first look at visually effective green-up on British Columbia . A public perception study. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Forests.
11.
Brown, T.C., & Daniel, T.C. ( 1984). Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and applications to ponderosa pine (Res. Pap. RM-RP-256). Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
12.
Brown, T.C., & Daniel, T.C. ( 1986). Predicting the scenic beauty of timber stands . Forest Science, 32, 471-487.
13.
Brunson, M.W., & Reiter, D.K. ( 1996). Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management, 46, 31-41.
14.
Buhyoff, G.J., Leuscher, W.A., & Wellman, J.D. ( 1979). Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage . Journal of Environmental Management, 8, 261-267.
15.
Cotgrove, S. ( 1980). Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment, politics, and the future. New York: John Wiley .
16.
Cronbach, L.J. ( 1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests . Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
17.
Daniel, R.C., & Boster, R.S. ( 1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. RM-167). Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
18.
Daniel, R.C., & Vining, J. ( 1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (Vol. 6., pp. 39-84). New York: Plenum.
19.
Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., & Rycroft, R.W. ( 1989). Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum , 4, 47-70.
20.
Garson, G.D. ( 2007). GLM: MANOVA and MANCOVA. In Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from North Carolina State University, PA765 Web site: http://www.2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/manova.htm
21.
Gobster, P.H. ( 1994). The aesthetic experience of sustainable forest ecosystems . In W. Covington & L. F. DeBano (Eds.), Sustainable ecological systems: Implementing an ecological approach to land management (p. 363). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, RM-247.
22.
Gobster, P.H. ( 1995). Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: Integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry, 93, 6-10.
23.
Gobster, P.H., & Chenoweth, R.E. (1988). The dimensions of aesthetic preference: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 47-72.
24.
Hammitt, W.E. ( 1981). The familiarity-preference components of on-site recreational experiences. Leisure Sciences, 4, 177-193.
25.
Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C.L. ( 2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323-346.
Hull, R.B., & Stewart, W.P. ( 1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty assessments . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.
28.
Jeffrey, D., & Reynolds, G. ( 1999). Planners, architects, the public, and aesthetics factor analysis of preferences for infill developments. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16, 271-288.
29.
Kaplan, R. ( 1973). Predictors of environmental preference: Designers and "clients." In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research (pp. 265-274). Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
30.
Kaplan, R. ( 1977). Preference and everyday nature: Methods and application . In D. Stokols, (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior: Theory, research, and applications (p. 360). New York: Plenum.
31.
Kaplan, R. ( 1985a). The analysis of perceptions via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161-176.
32.
Kaplan, R. ( 1985b). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 115-127.
33.
Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E.J. ( 1987). Cultural and subcultural comparisons in preference for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293.
34.
Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E.J. ( 1988). Familiarity and preference: A cross-cultural analysis . In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (p. 529). New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. ( 1989a). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY andCambridge, MA: University Press.
36.
Kaplan R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R.L. ( 1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press .
37.
Kaplan, R., & Talbot, J.F. ( 1988). Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning , 15, 107-117.
38.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. ( 1989b.) The visual environment: Public participation in design and planning. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 59-86.
39.
Karjalainen, E. ( 1996). Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland . Landscape Research, 21, 159-173.
40.
Karjalainen, E., & Komulainen, M. (1999). The visual effect of felling on small-and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 55, 167-181.
41.
Kearney, A.R. ( 2001). Effects of an informational intervention on public reactions to clearcutting. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 777-790.
42.
Kennedy, J.J. ( 1985). Viewing wildlife managers as a unique professional culture . Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13, 571-579.
43.
Kroh, D.P., & Gimblett, R.H. (1992). Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landscape Research, 17,58-69.
44.
Litton, R.B. ( 1968). Forest landscape description and inventories: A basis for land planning and design. USDA Forest Service Research Note PSW-49.
45.
Litton, R.B. ( 1972). Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In J. V. Krutilla (Ed.), Natural environments: Studies in theoretical and applied analysis (pp. 262-291.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46.
MaGill, A.W. ( 1994). What people see in managed and natural landscapes . Journal of Forestry, 92, 12-16.
47.
McCool, S.F., Benson, R.E., & Ashor, J.L. ( 1986). How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: An evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management, 10, 385-391.
48.
McKechnie, G.E. ( 1977). The environmental response inventory in application . Environment and Behavior, 9, 255-276.
49.
Medina, A.Q. ( 1983). A visual assessment of children’s and environmental educators’ urban residential preference patterns. Doctoral dissertation , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor .
50.
Merriam, L.D., Wald, K.D., & Ramsey, C.E. ( 1972). Public and professional definitions of the state park: A Minnesota case. Journal of Leisure Research, 4, 259-274.
51.
Milbrath, L. ( 1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society . Albany, NY: State University of New York.
52.
Miller, P.A. ( 1984). Visual preference and implications for coastal management: A perceptual study of the British Columbia shoreline. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
53.
Mohai, P. ( 1992). Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources, 5, 1-19.
54.
Orland, B. ( 1988). Aesthetic preference for rural landscapes: Some resident and visitor differences. In J. Nasar (Eds.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, research, and application (pp. 364-378). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Palmer, J.F., & Hoffman, R.E. ( 2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning , 54, 149-161.
56.
Peterson, G.L. ( 1974). A comparison of the sentiments and perceptions of wilderness managers and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Journal of Leisure Research, 6, 194-206.
57.
Peyton, R.B., & Langenau, E.E. (1985). A comparison of attitudes held by BLM biologists and the general public towards animals. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13, 117-120.
58.
Ribe, R.G. ( 1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical reference research taught us? Environmental Management, 13, 55-74.
59.
Ribe, R.G. ( 1990). A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landscape Journal , 9, 86-101.
60.
Ribe, R.G. ( 2002). Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior, 34, 757-780.
61.
Ruddell, E.J., Gramann, J.H., Rudis, V.A., & Westphal, J.M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21, 393-412.
62.
Ryan, R.L. ( 2005). Social science to improve fuels management: A synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuels management (Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261). St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station.
63.
Schroeder, H. ( 1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests . Journal of Arboriculture, 8, 317-322.
64.
Schroeder, H.W., & Daniel, T.C. ( 1981). Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science, 27, 71-80.
65.
Sewell, W.D. ( 1971). Environmental perceptions and attitudes of engineers and public health officials. Environment and Behavior, 3, 23-59.
66.
Shuttleworth, S. ( 1980). The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management , 11, 61-76.
67.
Simpson, C.J., Rosenthal, T.L., Daniel, T.C., & White, G.M. ( 1976). Social-influence variations in evaluating managed and unmanaged forest areas. Journal of Applied Psychology , 61, 759-763.
68.
Spss (1999). SPSS Base 10.0 Applications Guide. Chicago: SPSS.
69.
Stamps, A.E. ( 1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis . Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155-175.
70.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. ( 1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern . Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.
71.
Taylor, J.G., & Daniel, T.C. ( 1984). Prescribed fire: Public education and perception . Journal of Forestry, 82, 361-365.
72.
Thayer, R.L. ( 1989). The experience of sustainable landscapes. Landscape Journal, 8, 101-110.
73.
Twight, B.W., & Catton, W.R. ( 1975). The politics of images: Forest managers vs. recreation publics. Natural Resources Journal, 15, 297-306.
74.
Twight, B.W., & Lyden, F.J. ( 1989). Measuring Forest Service bias. Journal of Forestry, 87, 35-41.
75.
Ulrich, R.S. ( 1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.
76.
USDA Forest Service. (1974). National forest landscape management Vol. II: The visual management system (Agriculture Handbook No. 462). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
77.
USDA Forest Service. (1995). Landscape aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management (Agriculture Handbook No. 701). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
78.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1980). Visual resource management program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
79.
Van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A.J., & Coeterier, J.F. (1998). Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach . Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 141-157.
80.
Vining, J. ( 1992). Environmental emotions and decisions: A comparison of the responses and expectations of forest managers, an environmental group, and the public. Environment and Behavior, 24, 3-34.
81.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. ( 1991). Are you thinking what I think you are? A study of actual and estimated goal priorities and decision preferences of resource managers, environmentalists, and the public. Society and Natural Resources , 4, 177-196.
82.
Virden, R.J., & Walker, G.J. ( 1999). Ethnic/racial and gender variations among meanings given to, and preferences for, the natural environment. Leisure Sciences, 21, 219-239.
