Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information

Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research paper

Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information V. Gundersen ∗ , Erik E. Stange, B.P. Kaltenborn, O.I. Vistad Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården, NO-2624 Lillehammer, Norway

h i g h l i g h t s • • • •

Preference scores for natural forests with visible dead wood varied widely. Forests without visible dead wood received significantly highest preference scores. Knowing about the ecological role increase people’s appreciation of dead woods. We identified short-term learning effects of ecological information.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 6 February 2016 Received in revised form 13 September 2016 Accepted 26 September 2016 Keywords: Aesthetics Perception Forest dynamic Old-growth Dead wood Biodiversity

a b s t r a c t This study investigated public preferences for natural boreal forests, including their perceptions of important structural elements for biodiversity like dead and downed wood. We designed an experimental internet survey using nine versions of a questionnaire—with each version featuring a unique combination of original photographs, additional text and digitally edited photographs. Survey participants (N = 2701) rated photographs of forest settings with dead wood digitally removed substantially higher than the corresponding original non-edited photographs. However, respondents’ familiarity with the ecological role dead wood provides for forest biodiversity and natural forest dynamics increased their perception of its appearance. Additional text containing information about dead wood’s ecological benefits, either alone or combined with information about its influence on economic benefits, had almost the same effect as pure ecological text. Additional text with information about either economic or socioeconomic aspects of forests including dead wood had no effect on the participants’ ratings. We also observed a learning effect of additional ecological text: text provided in a previous section of the questionnaire affected participants’ ratings of photographs shown later without text. We conclude that well formulated, trusted and targeted information about the ecological role of dead wood can positively influence public support for multi-goal forest policies. Our results may also imply that in cases where the capacity to inform the public about dead wood’s importance is limited, managers might consider removing dead wood from the most frequently visited areas in forests where recreation is the primary management goal. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Evolving land management objectives that promote forest biodiversity and landscapes’ ecological functions can lead to disagreements and conflicts with individuals who primarily visit forests for aesthetic appreciation and outdoor recreation. Perceptions of attractiveness often stem from a specific ecological

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Gundersen), [email protected] (E.E. Stange), [email protected] (B.P. Kaltenborn), [email protected] (O.I. Vistad). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.020 0169-2046/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

understanding of nature, a concept often referred to as ecological aesthetics (i.e. Gobster 1999; Nassauer, 1995). In contrast to a purely scenic aesthetic in which observers derive pleasure solely through their direct visual perceptions of a landscape, ecological aesthetics describe the pleasure observers derive indirectly through a greater understanding of a landscape’s dynamic function and ecological status. This perception-based approach treats forest features as stimuli that evoke psychological responses through relatively direct sensory processes and through intervening, cognitive constructs (Daniel, 2001a; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Lothian, 1999). While a greater understanding of forest ecology can improve perceptions of dead wood, limited familiarity with the forest ecology among forest users can inhibit meeting biodiversity conservation

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

and multiple-use forest management goals. The question we examine in this paper is whether well-targeted information can influence forest visitors’ aesthetic appreciation of dead wood. The central premise of ecological aesthetics theory is that people will consider an ecologically viable forest attractive. While a managed, semi-open, park-like forest may have conventional aesthetic appeal; people who are familiar with the ecological importance of dead wood and a natural field layer might find forests with these features more attractive. There are several other striking examples where scenic landscape preferences conflict with the results of natural forests’ ecological dynamics, e.g. fire and post-fire succession, large-scale insect attacks, wind hazards, ”messy” forest structures and patterns, and dead and dying trees (Eaton, 1997; Gobster, 1999). In general, it appears that people only to a limited degree accept or like either dramatic changes in forest ecosystems or an ecosystem that seems to decay (Daniel, 2001b). Forest aesthetic preferences have been studied extensively in the Nordic region since early 1970s, resulting in over 60 scientific papers (Gundersen & Frivold, 2008). Originally, the primary motivation of this research was to establish an empirical basis for resolving conflicts arising from silvicultural practices in forests managed predominantly for commercial harvest (Hellström, 2001). Forests are often the dominant land cover for the outer edges of cities and villages in the boreal forest zone (Gundersen et al., 2005; Gundersen, Frivold, Myking, & Øyen, 2006; Rydberg & Falck, 2000). Because visual quality is often included in guidelines for planning and management of these peri-urban forests and landscapes (Ode & Fry, 2002; Tveit, Ode, & Fry, 2006), there is a particular need for understanding how ecological and aesthetic values pertain to management of these forests (Gustavsson, Hermy, Konijnendijk, & Steide-Schwahn, 2005; Tyrväinen, Silvennoinen, & Kolehmainen, 2003). There is reasonable consensus regarding which attributes are most preferred: managed or “neat” forests with moderate tree species diversity and stand stratification, a green forest floor, and visual penetration with few obstacles that would hinder walking through the stand (e.g. Edwards et al., 2012; Ribe, 1989). Yet management objectives of modern forestry (i.e., harvesting bioenergy, protecting biodiversity and providing recreational areas) are more diverse than they were in the 1970s and 1980s when most of work on forest preferences in Nordic countries was carried out. This study aims to build upon the existing literature of preference research in this region and explore how forest visitors experience the visual impacts of current forest management. Numerous investigations have explored how people evaluate the aesthetics of forest structures that characterize the complex dynamics of more forms of silviculture (Fries et al., 1997Fries, Johansson, Pettersson, & Simonsson, 1997; Rydberg & Falck, 2000), and particularly the dead and decaying wood structures that are important for biodiversity (Brunson & Reiter, 1996; Nielsen, Olsen, & Lundhede, 2007; Ribe, 2009; Qiu, Lindberg, & Nielsen, 2013). Forests with downed or standing dead wood generally receive low preference scores (see review Gundersen & Frivold, 2008; Ribe, 1989). In both North-American and Nordic forests, slash and other debris from harvest operations and silvicultural measures (i.e., thinning) receive overwhelmingly negative preference values. Yet far fewer studies have explored public perceptions of dead wood produced in mature forests or by natural forest dynamics (cf. Benson & Ullrich, 1981; Brown & Daniel, 1986; Gundersen & Frivold, 2011; Haider, 1994; Jensen, 2000; Ribe, 1990, 2009; Rudis, Gramnn, Ruddell, & Westphal, 1988; Tyrväinen, Nouisiainen, Silvennoinen, & Tahvanainen, 2001; Tyrväinen et al., 2003; Vodiak, Roberts, Wellman, & Buhyoff, 1985). Public perception of natural dead wood may vary considerably according to the size and amount the debris, the level of decay, the stand’s age and whether additional information explained the debris’ value to biodiversity. Perhaps most notably, greater knowledge and understanding of the dead

13

wood’s importance for biodiversity among the general population seems to increase its aesthetic value (Gundersen & Frivold, 2008). We see evidence in the Nordic countries that public understanding of dead woods’ ecological value is increasing. Swedish attitudes towards dead wood improved considerably between 1977 and 1997 (Kardell, 1990; Lindhagen & Hörnsten 2000), and respondents in a recent Finnish study accepted downed wood as natural component of peri-urban forests (Hauru, Koskinen, Kotze, & Lehvävirta, 2014). Well targeted information about the ecology of the forests can increase people‘s preferences for forest managed for multiple uses and new harvesting goals (i.e. Brunson & Reiter, 1996; Kearney, 2001; Ribe, 2006). In a nation-wide postal survey in Denmark, photographs of natural forests with visible dead wood received significantly better scores when accompanied with the brief caption ‘Natural Forest’ than they did without a caption (Jensen, 2000). In a similar study from Southern Norway, survey participants rated photographs of forest scenes where conspicuous dead wood was digitally removed more favorably than the corresponding original photographs (Gundersen & Frivold, 2011). However, when a short text explaining the ecological role of dead wood accompanied the original photographs, preference scores increased. Yet investigating perceptions of dead wood is rarely the focal research question of such forest preference studies, and even fewer have investigated the effect of information. To fill this lack of knowledge, we designed a comparative experimental study using an applied approach employed by most of the research in this field. We therefore assume that scenic and ecological aesthetics express different forms of visual and sensory landscape experiences. Furthermore, we do not consider scenic- and pleasure-oriented experiences to exclude ecological appreciation (Jorgensen 2011). Scenic and ecological appreciation are rather complementary evaluations that can both be sensitive to newly acquired information. 1.1. Aims and hypotheses The purpose of our investigation was to assess whether different types of information influences people’s perception of forests containing naturally occurring dead and downed wood. Our study tested four hypotheses. We used digital photo manipulation to test the hypothesis (H1) that forest scenes with less dead wood will receive higher preference scores. Secondly, we included supplemental text about the ecological role of dead wood to test the hypothesis (H2) that this additional information would increase preference scores for both original and manipulated photos. Supplemental texts addressing other aspects of managing dead wood in forests can also influence perception of dead wood—such as the economic interests of private forest owners, the economic interests in local communities, or a combination of ecology and economics. We used such supplemental texts to test the hypothesis (H3) that perceptions of dead wood will be higher among observers who were informed of the ecological role of dead wood than among observers who were informed of the economic aspects of forest management. Finally, we tested the hypothesis (H4) that familiarity with economics and socioeconomics will increase preferences for forests with less dead wood, because forests managed primarily for economic profit generally contain extremely little dead and downed wood. 2. Materials and methods We conducted probability-based Web panel survey using nine versions of a Web-based questionnaire in cooperation with a professional polling company (NORSTAT). This study employed a design and survey methodology similar to Gundersen and Frivold

14

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

Table 1 Experimental design with 9 treatments’ combinations of original photographs (Part I), supplementary text information (Part II) and digital image editing of the original photographs (Part III) for the 9 different samples in the survey (n = 2701).

Part I Part II Part III

Original photograph Economics-oriented text Ecology-oriented text Ecology and economics-oriented text Socioeconomic-oriented text Image manipulation Number og respondents

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Yes No No No No No 300

Yes Yes No No No No 300

Yes Yes No No No Yes 300

Yes No Yes No No No 300

Yes No Yes No No Yes 300

Yes No No Yes No No 301

Yes No No Yes No Yes 302

Yes No No No Yes No 301

Yes No No No Yes Yes 297

(2011). However, this newer study used a comparative study design, with a new questionnaire, new photographs, new texts and a much larger sample size. The survey targeted residents 16 years of age or older and restricted participation to residents in southeastern and central Norway to maintain homogeneity in the participant’s local forests. Boreal forest vegetation covers large portions of this area with native Norway spruce (Picea abies) as the dominant tree species, occurring either alone or together with Scots pine (Pinus silvestris) and birch (Betula spp.). The majority of Norwegians (59%) also live within this geographical area (Statistics Norway, 2015). NORSTAT selected participants from its survey panel of about 90,000 volunteers who are representative of Norway’s general population and used regularly by the firm for various opinion polls. We sent user-unique invitations to private emails randomly selected from the panel, and randomly assigned participants to one of the nine survey versions that corresponded to our treatment groups (Table 1). The links to questionnaires remained open until each nine group reached 300 participants, in all 2701 respondents. We asked participants to evaluate 24 color photographs of forest scenes and rate the photographs along a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) from 1 to 7 (1 = “I do not like it at all” and 7 = “I like it very much”, with 4 = “neutral”). All photographs had foreground views at a stand level. We did not change the order of the photographs, because previous studies found photographs’ sequence had no effect on their evaluation (Gundersen & Frivold, 2011). In the questionnaire’s part I, we used eight photographs that were identical across all treatment groups to control for possible variation in participants’ responses among treatment groups. Part II included eight photographs that also were identical across all nine treatment groups. Participants either viewed the photographs alone (group 1), or with a supplemental text providing an explanation of the scene oriented towards economics of private forest landowners, ecology, a combination of ecology and economics together, or broader socioeconomic interests (Table 1). Part III included eight photographs that displayed either an actual forest setting or the same setting with elements of standing or downed dead wood digitally removed and replaced with elements from the same original photograph using Adobe Photoshop CS2 software. The photographs in part III did not include any supplemental text, which allowed us to test whether the text from part II had a learning or lasting effect on the participants’ perception of dead wood. Four treatment groups viewed and rated manipulated photographs, while five groups viewed and rated the non-manipulated photographs (Table 1). The questionnaire also asked respondents to provide socio-demographic information (gender, age, county of residence, and highest level of education), the types of activities they enjoy pursuing in forests and how often they participate in them. We selected photographs and the text in cooperation with a reference group of professional foresters, landscape architects, land use planners and biologists (in accordance to Palmer & Hoffman, 2001). All the photographs featured summer settings. The photographs in part I represented a broad selection of forest scenes from Norwegian forest landscapes, including common even-aged

production forests (3 photographs), uneven-aged stands (2 photographs), natural old forests (2 photographs) and forest including recreational facilities like signboards, marked trails and outdoor bench (1 photo). The photographs in both part II and part III represent different stages of natural forest succession dynamics including recently burned forest, post-fire succession, self-thinning stages and gap-disturbance in mature spruce forests. We provide a list of all photographs and accompanying supplemental texts in Appendix A. To avoid bias (coverage, panel and nonresponse bias) in representatives from internet-based surveys, we used a comparative study design and presented the same eight photographs in part I to all nine of the treatment groups. One group served as a control by rating photographs without any supplementary text in part II and original non-manipulated photographs in part III. There is so far no standardized method for calculating a response rate in this type of survey, but biases in relation to the target population are an important indicator of quality (DiSogra & Callegaro, 2009). Our survey’s participants were representative of the greater Norwegian population with respect to gender, age distribution and participation in 14 recreational activities. However, participants in our survey were on average more highly educated than the Norwegian public (Statistics Norway, 2014, 2015). Assuming that highly educated people in general possess more ecological knowledge, our findings still showed a high degree of consistency across the nine treatment groups. Therefore, the differences identified between treatments groups can be interpret as true differences. We used Pearson’s Chi-square to test for differences among treatment groups for the categorical variables describing demographic attributes. We used general linear models (t-tests, oneand two-way ANOVA) to test for variation in preference scores among treatment groups and Tukey’s HSD (Honestly Significant Differences) as post hoc tests to identify which differences between groups were significant. The data met distribution assumptions for the tests we employed. We defined significance at ␣ = 0.05, and used IBM SPSS (v. 22) for all analyses. 3. Results 3.1. Are the treatment groups comparable? The nine treatment groups did not vary by gender (X2 = 9.48, P = 0.30), age (F 8,2693 = 1.11, P = 0.35), educational level 8 (X2 32 = 25.53, P = 0.78) or frequency of forest visits (X2 48 = 35.75, P = 0.92). Preference scores assigned to photographs in part I (same photographs for all treatment groups) also did not vary among treatment groups, either in terms of participants’ mean scores for all eight photographs in part I (F8,2693 = 1.73; P = 0.08), or for any one photograph (all P > 0.05). 3.2. Effects of photo-manipulation All eight photographs in part III that featured various forms of dead wood received significantly lower preference scores than their corresponding photographs where the dead wood elements

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

15

Table 2 Results of two-way ANOVA testing effects of image manipulation, supplementary text provided in a previous section of the survey, and their interaction on preference scores respondents assigned photographs of forest scenes. Image manipulation

Text from part II

Manipulation * text

Photograph

F (df = 1)

P

F (df = 3)

P

F (df = 3)

P

Q R S T U V W X Part III mean

52.25 13.68 43.48 136.31 21.67 10.80 8.52 40.69 49.66

<0.0001 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0010 0.0036 <0.0001 <0.0001

10.79 8.98 13.19 16.36 23.35 14.12 25.13 31.96 24.96

<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

1.78 2.94 3.11 3.02 2.02 3.62 1.63 0.45 2.79

0.15 0.03* 0.03* 0.03* 0.11 0.02* 0.19 0.73 0.04*

had been digitally removed (Table 2). This supports hypothesis H1, namely that forest scenes without dead wood received higher preference scores. 3.3. Effects of additional text information Participants rated photographs of forest scenes most favorably when supplemental text describing forest ecology accompanied the photographs (Fig. 1). For all eight photographs in part II, supplemental text describing the ecology of the scene resulted in higher scores, followed by preference scores for photographs shown with text that addressed combination of ecology and economics aspects. Supplemental text addressing the economic concerns of either private forest owners (economics) or broader societal economic aspects (socioeconomics) resulted in significantly lower preference scores than for the photographs accompanied by ecological information. Economics and socioeconomics-oriented texts generally did not produce differing preference scores (with photograph O as the sole exception). In only two cases did these texts (economics and socioeconomics) result in significantly higher preference scores than for photographs shown without any text at all (Photographs I and K). However, one photograph (M) received significantly higher scores without text than with either economics or socioeconomics-oriented text. This result supports hypothesis H2: pictures supported by ecology text, either alone or in combination with text pertaining to economics, resulted in higher preference scores of the forest scene presented than pictures with plain economics and socioeconomics text. 3.4. Learning effects of additional text For four of the photographs (R, S, T, and V; Fig. 2), the text participants read when viewing photographs in part II influenced the preference scores they assigned to manipulated and original photographs without text in part III (significant interactions, Table 2). Within this subset of photographs from part III, participants who were provided text containing ecological information (either ecology or ecology and economics combined) often perceived photographs with dead wood as equally attractive to those where dead wood was removed. Tukey HSD post hoc tests confirmed that those who had read combined ecology and economics texts in the survey’s part II did not differ significantly in their scores for photographs R (P = 0.98), S (P = 0.18) and V (P = 0.73). Participants who read ecology texts also did not give differing preference scores for photographs R (P = 0.46) and V (P = 0.76). Supplemental ecology text in part II always gave highest preference score for evaluation of both original and manipulated photographs in part III (Fig. 2, Table 2). At same time ecology text in part II always gave significantly higher preference score than both economics and socioeconomics text for the evaluation of original (including dead wood) in part III (P ≤ 0.001). We identified only sig-

nificant differences between ecology text and combined ecology and economics text for the original photographs in part III, for photographs V and X. This supports the hypothesis H3 that additional information on the forest ecology has a positive lasting effect on the aesthetic perception of dead wood. Economics and socioeconomics text in part II always yielded lower preference scores in the evaluation of manipulated photographs in part III (P > 0.05). Hence, we can reject the hypothesis H4 that additional economic and socioeconomic text in advance increase the preference scores of manipulated photographs in part III where dead wood was digitally removed. 3.5. Demography and forest preferences Preference scores for all forest photographs increased significantly with increased frequency of participation in forests recreational activities, (F 6,2695 = 23.40; P < 0.0001). Individuals’ mean scores also increased with level of education (F 3,2692 = 5.39; P = 0.0011). The respondents with more than 4 years education at university level evaluated photographs in part II significantly higher than other groups (F3,2692 = 10.73; P < 0.0001). Respondents in age class 20–34 years evaluated the photographs with significantly higher scores than the other age classes (F3,2656 = 25.34; P < 0.0001). Differences between gender were only observed in part I (F1,2700 = 6.64; P < 0.010), and individuals’ overall mean preference scores for all photographs did not vary according to gender (F1,2700 = 0.04; P = 0.85). We found little evidence that demographic variables influence how supplemental texts might influence respondents’ preference scores. Mean preference scores for photographs in part II did not vary significantly by an interaction of text type and either age (F3,2695 = 1.22; P = 0.30), gender (F3,2692 = 1.42; P = 0.22), or frequency of forest visits (F18,2695 = 0.70; P = 0.86). The only exception was that the respondents with highest education (>4 years university) gave higher scores for socioeconomics text than respondents with lower education (F12,2676 = 1.77; P = 0.047). We also found no evidence that demographic variables explained variation in preferences between manipulated and original photographs. Mean preference scores for part III did not vary significantly by the interaction of image manipulation and either age (F1,2398 = 0.75; P = 0.39), gender (F1,2398 = 0.29; P = 0.59), educational level (F3,2388 = 0.99; P = 0.40) or frequency of visits (F6,2388 = 0.37; P = 0.90). 4. Discussion The respondents in our study expressed clearly which forest scenes they liked or disliked. Popular forest scenes typically have large trees and are semi-open, allowing visibility into the stand, with a green forest floor that is easy to walk on. Conversely, respondents tended to dislike young and dense forest stands and those

16

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

Fig. 1. Mean preference scores for eight photographs in part 2 (Photos I through P), accompanied by either by one of four categories of supplemental text or no supplemental text. Panels also show results of one-way ANOVA testing effects of text category, both for each picture individually and for all pictures as a group (bottom panel). Letters at the base of each bar reflect differences as assessed by Tukey HSD post-hoc tests. Bars that do not sharing letters were significantly different (at ␣ = 0.05).

that include untidy structures like windfall, fresh woody debris or signs of harvest operations. The preferences expressed in our study mirror archetypical ideals found in numerous drawings and paintings scenes of forests through history (Schama, 1996). According to both geographers and evolutionary psychologists, the most preferred landscape scene across cultures is a moderately cultivated forest clear of debris, containing a water course, cover and protection for the observer, easy access through a path or a field and a clear view of the distance ahead (Orians, 2014). Appleton (1975) articulated this concept in his somewhat disputed prospect-refuge

theory by describing the fundamental human desire to see without being seen. That people tend to prefer tidy to untidy forest scenes was even clearer in our comparisons of the original and manipulated photographs where we digitally removed untidy dead wood. All manipulated photographs received significantly higher preference scores than the corresponding non-manipulated originals. This suggests that people’s general preferences for forest with little or no dead wood will be out of step with the new forestry management strategies intended to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The lack

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

17

Fig. 2. Mean preference scores for eight photographs in part III (Photos Q through X). Each panel also shows P values for interactions effects of a two-way ANOVAs testing the effects of 1) digital manipulation that removed traces of dead wood from the images among groups defined by supplemental text, and 2) supplemental text that participants had read previously in part II of the survey. We conducted ANOVA both for each picture individually and for all pictures as a group (bottom panel), with asterisks indicating significant differences at ␣ = 0.05.

of appreciation of dead wood indicates that these preferences stem more from scenic aesthetics than ecological knowledge and factual (cognitive) understanding of the environment (Parsons & Daniel, 2002). Dead wood can have both negative and positive effects on perceptions of forest aesthetics. Dead wood increases the forest scene’s complexity by increasing the number of independent components observers perceive. While small amounts of dead wood might be acceptable, larger amounts make the forests too complex and uninterpretable for the observer (Edwards et al., 2012; Dramstad, Tveit,

Fjellstad, & Fry, 2006; Karjalainen, 2006). Forest complexity and settings containing dead wood also influence how observers perceive the area’s safety (Tyrväinen et al., 2003), and the perceived or actual physical access (Karjalainen, 2006). Perceived accessibility is one of the most important factor explaining people’s preferences for visual structures in managed forests (Edwards et al., 2012). Large quantities of standing dead or downed wood may give forest visitors an impression of neglect or carelessness that indicate a lack of stewardship that would contribute to a healthy and thriving production forest, or remind viewers of conditions that have histor-

18

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

ically lead to large scale insect outbreaks (Hellström, 2001). Older participants in our study likely recall the largescale bark beetle (Ips typographus) outbreaks that severely damaged forests in the Nordic countries in the late 1970s, and these respondents have strong perception of utility values in the forests (Gundersen & Frivold, 2008). Yet standing dead and downed wood can also be attributes that contribute to positive aesthetic perceptions. If dead wood elements are sparsely distributed, they can serve as landmarks and increase a person’s ability to understand or read the landscape around them (Karjalainen, 2006). Dead wood also affects forest coherence and readability (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and whether forest users perceive a reasonable coherence between over-mature, living trees and dead wood in various stages of decomposition (cf. Gundersen & Frivold, 2011). Dead wood, especially large decaying downed trunks covered in moss, indicates a pristine wilderness environment that can provide observers with an escape from stressful daily life (Hallikainen, 1998). Much in same way, dead wood can increase the sense of mystery (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and inspire feelings of an unpredictable environment (Hallikainen 1998). Text describing the ecological role of dead wood increased the appeal of the scene in all the contexts of the study. We also found support for the hypothesis that information about specific forest elements can have a lasting effect on the perceived attractiveness of these elements. Leaving dead and downed wood in a forest may align with intrinsic values and ethical obligations for maintaining forest biodiversity, provided the importance of dead wood for biodiversity is understood by the public and the aim of biodiversity conservation is specified (cf. Greenbaum, 2005; Tyrväinen et al., 2003). It is often difficult to directly perceive the diversity of both dead wood-dependent organisms and others associated species (Jonsson, Kruys, & Ranius, 2005), nor is this diversity universally recognized as a positive attribute (e.g. Eaton, 1997; Kellert, 1993). Greenbaum (2005, p. 393) argues that “nature, like art, is an acquired taste, and the acquisition of taste is a social process”. While our results indicate that a picture’s caption can change individual preferences, we do not suggest that public information in itself will be sufficient to change public opinion about dead wood. Yet it does underscore the importance of including this information about ecological traits and functions of dead wood into a widened public relations policy for forest biodiversity management. Humans cannot directly sense ecological integrity; in some cases, aesthetic and ecological values may be positively correlated, in other cases not (Eaton, 1997; Gobster, Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007). Many leading experts describe how appreciation of ecological aesthetics stems from a cognitive understanding of the environment (Carlson, 2001; Daniel, 2001b; Gobster, 1999; Jensen, 2000; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Most forest visitors seemed to be rather unfamiliar with forest dynamics and dead wood’s importance for biodiversity, since this kind of information had a considerable positive influence on the rating of photographs depicting dead wood in our study. We can conclude that the ecological importance of dead and downed wood in forests has not been sufficiently communicated to and/or understood by the public. Furthermore, it is likely that well formulated and targeted information about ecological traits and functions will have beneficial effects in terms of support for multi-goal forest policies. Our study also explored how information that addresses the economic impacts of either harvesting or preserving forests—both for private landowners and for local communities—might influ-

ence observers’ preferences for dead wood. An inherent challenge with our methodology was that most of the photographs showed mature forests, or scenes like post-fire successions that might generate positive attitudes about protecting the forest through logging restrictions. Managing a forest for profit inevitably involves altering stands in ways that many respondents might view as unattractive, such as generating clear cuts that leave behind both exposed stumps and logging residue. Yet supplemental texts that addressed economic benefits of forestry were composed by a reference group of forest professionals who had no interest in framing commercial forestry in a negative way. We can therefore contend that these texts provide a realistic and unbiased portrayal of forestry in Nordic boreal forests. Neither texts addressing income opportunities for landowners nor broader community benefits had any significant impact on the evaluation of the photographs, in contrast with the texts that included information on ecology—either alone or combined with economic issues. We can therefore conclude that supplemental text may not be capable of either increasing sympathy for tree harvesting or decreasing the attractiveness of dead wood, but can only improve public attitudes about dead wood. We should not forget the perspectives of forest users not included in our sample of the Norwegian population, such as children, teenagers, immigrants and foreign tourists. For example, children often find greater beauty in that which is wild rather than ordered, and a more complex forest with dead wood provides greater diversity and opportunities for manipulation, exploration and experimentation (i.e. Fjørtoft, 2004; Gundersen, Skår, O’Brien, Wold, & Follo, 2016). Inevitably, surveying people’s forest preferences involves abstractions of people’s experiences and expectations of forest environment. These abstractions make it possible to establish general visual guidelines for maintaining and increasing the recreational value of a forest, whether in the context of urban and peri-urban forest management, multiple-use forestry including conservation of biodiversity, or providing scenic landscapes for tourists. However, there is the risk that a management practice based solely on general rules for a particular use—like enhancing recreational values—can exclude consideration of the uniqueness and the identity of each forest, which in many cases are the most important elements for recreational users and tourism. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments. We want to thank the Research Council of Norway for financing this study. Thanks to all the respondents that spent time completing the questionnaire. Appendix A. Mean score, S.E. and number of respondents who provided preference scores for 24 images of different forest scenes, some including supplementary text. Photos A − H (part I) were presented for all nine treatment groups without any information text. Photos I − P (part II) were presented to the respondents together with supplementary text. Photos Q − V (Part III) were presented in two different versions: 5 treatment groups were presented the original photo and 4 groups were shown manipulated version of the same images where dead wood had been removed by use of digital image editing.

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

Photo ID

Photo

Shown to treatment groups

19

Mean

S.E.

n

A

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

5.35

0.08

2701

B

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

5.17

0.08

2701

C

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

5.96

0.06

2701

D

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

3.59

0.09

2701

E

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

4.25

0.09

2701

F

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

2.72

0.09

2701

G

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

4.42

0.08

2701

H

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

None

5.07

0.08

2701

I

1

None

2.59

0.10

300

4, 5

Ecology-oriented: A forest fire occurred here 15 years ago. Following the fire, the burned forest was protected. Forest fires are important in nature because they create diverse habitats for animals and plants. Some species can only live where it has burned. Economics-oriented: A forest fire occurred here 15 years ago. Following the fire, the burned forest was protected. The forest owner was compensated financially as part of the protection scheme, but cannot harvest timber here in the future. Ecology and economics-oriented: A forest fire occurred here 15 years ago. Following the fire, the burned forest was protected. Forest fires are important in nature because they create diverse habitats for animals and plants. Some species can only live where it has burned. The forest owner was compensated financially as part of the protection scheme, but cannot harvest timber here in the future. Socioeconomic-oriented: A forest fire occurred here 15 years ago. Following the fire, the burned forest was protected. The listing means timber cannot be felled here in the future, which could mean fewer raw materials sent to local sawmills and building activities in the region.

3.54

0.07

600

3.16

0.07

600

3.43

0.07

603

2.92

0.07

598

None

3.72

0.09

300

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

J

1

20

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24 4, 5

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

K

Ecology-oriented: Forest fires burned here more than a century ago, and the woods still characterized by these events. The trees that survived the fire are now very old, but we also still see many remains of burned trees killed in the fire. Various species of plants and animals have since recolonized and succeeded each other as time passed since the fire. Economics-oriented: Forest fires burned here more than a century ago, and the woods still characterized by these events. The trees that survived the fire are now very old, but we also still see many remains of burned trees killed in the fire. Allowing the forest stand to follow this natural recovery process has reduced income for the forest owner. Ecology and economics-oriented: Forest fires burned here more than a century ago, and the woods still characterized by these events. The trees that survived the fire are now very old, but we also still see many remains of burned trees killed in the fire. Various species of plants and animals have since recolonized and succeeded each other as time passed since the fire. Allowing the forest stand to follow this natural recovery process has reduced income for the forest owner. Socioeconomic-oriented: Forest fires burned here more than a century ago, and the woods still characterized by these events. The trees that survived the fire are now very old, but we also still see many remains of burned trees killed in the fire. Allowing the forest stand to follow this natural recovery process has reduced raw materials available for the wood industry; more timber here may have been produced here with more active post-fire intervention.

4.37

0.07

600

3.72

0.07

600

4.11

0.07

603

3.56

0.07

598

1

None

1.93

0.08

300

4, 5

Ecology-oriented: Just over forty years ago, this was an open recently burned area. Pine tends to germinate and grow on such surfaces: natural processes ensured that it is now a thick pine stand here. As the new forest grows, some trees outcompete others and the losing trees remain as dead wood on the ground. These dead and decaying stems are habitat for particular species of fungi and insects. Economics-oriented: Just over forty years ago, this was an open recently burned area. Pine tends to germinate and grow on such surfaces: natural processes ensured that it is now a thick pine stand here. As the new forest grows, some trees outcompete others and the losing trees remain as dead wood on the ground. Forest owners could have thinned the stand, by cutting out superfluous trees and processed their smaller stems. In this case, the trees left standing also would have grown faster and the timberland would have been more profitable. Ecology and economics-oriented: Just over forty years ago, this was an open recently burned area. Pine tends to germinate and grow on such surfaces: natural processes ensured that it is now a thick pine stand here. As the new forest grows, some trees outcompete others and the losing trees remain as dead wood on the ground. These dead and decaying stems are habitat for particular species of fungi and insects. Forest owners could have thinned the stand, by cutting out superfluous trees and processed their smaller stems. In which case the trees left standing also would have grown faster and the timberland would have been more profitable. Socioeconomic-oriented: Just over forty years ago, this was an open recently burned area. Pine tends to germinate and grow on such surfaces: natural processes ensured that it is now a thick pine stand here. As the new forest grows, some trees outcompete others and the losing trees remain as dead wood on the ground. Forest managers could have thinned the stand, by cutting out superfluous trees and processed their smaller stems for firewood or raw material for the paper industry. In which case the trees left standing also would have grown faster as a timber resource for the community.

3.05

0.06

600

2.31

0.06

600

2.75

0.06

603

2.39

0.06

598

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

L

1

None

3.88

0.10

300

4, 5

Ecology-oriented: There are few or no traces of logging in this forest, and the trees die of old age. Old trees and dead trunks are habitat for many rare and vulnerable species of insects, lichens and fungi. Economics-oriented: There are few or no traces of logging in this forest, and the trees die of old age. This means loss of income for the forest owner, who without restrictions could have cut and sold timber from here and planted new and denser stands. Ecology and economics-oriented: There are few or no traces of logging in this forest, and the trees die of old age. Old trees and dead trunks are habitat for many rare and vulnerable species of insects, lichens and fungi. It does however mean a loss of income for the forest owner, who without restrictions could have cut and sold timber from here and planted new and denser stands. Socioeconomic-oriented: There are few or no traces of logging in this forest, and the trees die of old age. The land contributes to maintaining local jobs nor increasing the future supply of timber, compared with harvesting the trees and planting a new and denser forest.

4.62

0.07

600

3.97

0.07

600

4.46

0.07

603

3.87

0.07

598

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

M

1

None

5.02

0.09

300

4, 5

Ecology-oriented: Old spruce forests where trees grow slowly due to their age. In some cases, the trees are on the verge of drying out and dying. Individual trees are able to grow in the light gaps where provide favorable germinating conditions are found along the decaying stems of downed trees. Economics-oriented: Old spruce forests where trees grow slowly due to their age. Timber harvest and planting of new trees could give the forest’s owner both short and long-term income from this property. Ecology and economics-oriented: Old spruce forests where trees grow slowly due to their age. In some cases, the trees are on the verge of drying out and dying. Individual trees are able to grow in the light gaps where provide favorable germinating conditions are found along the decaying stems of downed trees. Timber harvest and planting of new trees could give the forest’s owner both short and long-term income from this property. (Socioeconomics-oriented) Old spruce forests where trees grow slowly due to their age. Timber harvest and planting of new trees could give the forest industry important materials, and the new trees would be able to sequester CO2 .

5.16

0.06

600

4.61

0.06

600

5.01

0.06

603

4.46

0.06

598

1

None

2.69

0.09

300

4, 5

Ecology-oriented: This forest was recently hit by a storm. The wind-felled trees will be beneficial to the species of mosses, fungi and insects that live only in downed logs timber. Economics-oriented: Forests that have recently been exposed to a storm. If the forest owner is to receive the income from the wind-felled trees, he must remove the downed logs as soon as possible. This will also reduce risk of bark beetle attacks in the surrounding forest. Ecology and economics-oriented: This forest was recently hit by a storm. The wind-felled trees will be beneficial to the species of mosses, fungi and insects that live only in downed logs if they are allowed to remain. But they must be removed immediately if the forest owner is to receive any revenue from them. This will also reduce risk of bark beetle attacks in the surrounding forest. (Socioeconomics-oriented) Forests that have recently been exposed to a storm. The wind-felled trees must be removed immediately if the forest industry is to benefit from them. This will also reduce risk of bark beetle attacks in the surrounding forest.

3.44

0.06

600

2.67

0.06

600

3.05

0.06

603

2.62

0.06

598

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

N

21

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

22

O

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

1

None

5.22

0.08

300

4, 5

Ecology-oriented: The forest in this area is unusually old and now contains a particularly wide diversity of plants and animals. Economics-oriented: The forest in this area is unusually old. If its trees had been harvested 20 years ago, the forest’s owner could have sold the timber from here. Ecology and economics-oriented: The forest in this area is unusually old and now contains a particularly wide diversity of plants and animals. If its trees had been harvested 20 years ago, the forest’s owner could have sold the timber from here. (Socioeconomics-oriented) The forest in this area is unusually old. It contains large amounts of timber that could have been used by both the forest industry and local carpenters’ businesses if trees had been cut here 20 years ago.

5.60

0.06

600

5.01

0.06

600

5.35

0.06

603

4.72

0.06

598

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

P

1

None

3.92

0.10

300

4, 5

Ecology-oriented: Here there has been hardly any logging or other human intervention. The old trees and dead wood provide habitat for a distinctive and diverse assortment of life. Economics-oriented: Here there has been hardly any logging or other human intervention. Trees simply die, and the forest’s owner receives no revenue from this area. Ecology and economics-oriented: Here there has been hardly any logging or other human intervention. The old trees and dead wood provide habitat for a distinctive and diverse assortment of life. However, when trees die the forest’s owner receives no revenue from this area. (Socioeconomics-oriented) Here there has been hardly any logging or other human intervention. Trees simply die and neither the forest industry nor the local wood-based sector as a whole receive any benefit.

4.83

0.07

600

3.90

0.07

600

4.38

0.07

603

3.67

0.07

598

2, 3

6, 7

8, 9

Q

R

S

T

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

5.06

0.04

1502

3, 5, 7, 9

None

5.46

0.04

1199

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

4.84

0.04

1502

3, 5, 7, 9

None

5.07

0.04

1199

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

4.50

0.04

1502

3, 5, 7, 9

None

4.92

0.04

1199

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

3.94

0.04

1502

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

U

V

W

X

23

3, 5, 7, 9

None

4.69

0.04

1199

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

4.18

0.04

1502

3, 5, 7, 9

None

4.47

0.04

1199

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

4.34

0.04

1502

3, 5, 7, 9

None

4.54

0.04

1199

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

4.28

0.04

1502

3, 5, 7, 9

None

4.47

0.04

1199

1, 2, 4, 6, 8

None

2.79

0.04

1502

3, 5, 7, 9

None

3.16

0.04

1199

References Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York: Wiley. Benson, R. E., & Ullrich, J. R. (1981). Visual impacts of forest management activities: Findings on public preferences. (Research Paper INT-262). Ogden: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Brown, T. C., & Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 32(2), 471–487. Brunson, M. W., & Reiter, D. K. (1996). Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management, 46(1), 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0004 Carlson, A. (2001). Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: Seeing and knowing. In S. R. J. Sheppard, & H. W. Harshaw (Eds.), Forest and Landscapes. Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics (pp. 31–41). Vienna: The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO). Daniel, T. C. (2001a). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21 st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 267–281. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4 Daniel, T. C. (2001b). Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In S. R. J. Sheppard, & H. W. Harshaw (Eds.), Forest and Landscapes. Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics (pp. 15–29). Vienna: The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations (IUFRO). DiSogra, C., & Callegaro, M. (2009). Computing response rates for probability-based web panels. In JSM proceedings, statistical computing section (pp. 5309–5320). Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J., & Fry, G. L. A. (2006). Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape

structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 465–474. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006 Eaton, M. M. (1997). The beauty that requires health. In J. I. Nassauer (Ed.), Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology (pp. 85–106). Washington, D.C: Island Press. Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F. S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., et al. (2012). Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 19, 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2011.07.006 Fjørtoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development children. Youth and Environments, 14(2), 21–44. Fries, C., Johansson, O., Pettersson, B., & Simonsson, P. (1997). Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 94(1–3), 89–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0378-1127(97)00003-0 Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959–972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x Gobster, P. H. (1999). An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal, 18(1), 54–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.1.54 Greenbaum, A. (2005). Nature connoisseurship. Environmental Values, 14(3), 389–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327105774434477 Gundersen, V. S., & Frivold, L. H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban

24

V. Gundersen et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 158 (2017) 12–24

Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(4), 241–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug. 2008.05.001 Gundersen, V., & Frivold, L. H. (2011). Naturally dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests: Public preferences and the effect of information. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(2), 110–119. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02827581.2010.536567 Gundersen, V., Frivold, L. H., Löfström, I., Jørgensen, B. B., Falck, J., & Øyen, B.-H. (2005). Urban woodland management − the case of 13 major Nordic cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3, 189–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug. 2005.03.001 Gundersen, V., Frivold, L. H., Myking, T., & Øyen, B.-H. (2006). Management of urban recreational woodlands: The case of Norway. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(2), 73–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.06.003 Gundersen, V., Skår, M., O’Brien, L., Wold, L. C., & Follo, G. (2016). Children and nearby nature: A nationwide parental survey from Norway. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 17, 116–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.04.002 Gustavsson, R., Hermy, M., Konijnendijk, C. C., & Steide-Schwahn, A. (2005). Management of urban woodland and parks − searching for creative and sustainable concepts. In C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. B. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban forests and trees (pp. 369–397). Berlin: Springer. Haider, W. (1994). The aesthetics of white pine and red pine forests. The Forestry Chronicle, 70(4), 402–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc70402-4 Hallikainen, V. (1998). The finnish wilderness experience (Research papers No. 711). Rovaniemi: The Finnish Forest Research Institute. Hauru, K., Koskinen, S., Kotze, D. J., & Lehvävirta, S. (2014). The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests −Implications for forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 123, 114–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.014 Hellström, E. (2001). Conflict cultures −qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica. Monographs, 2, 1–109. Jensen, F. S. (2000). The effects of information on Danish forest visitors’ acceptance of various management actions. Forestry, 73(2), 165–172. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/forestry/73.2.165 Jonsson, B. G., Kruys, N., & Ranius, T. (2005). Ecology of species living on dead wood-lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fennica, 39(2), 289–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.390 Jorgensen, A. (2011). Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 353–355. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.023 Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kardell, L. (1990). Talltorpsmon in Åtvidaberg 1 changes in the perception of the forest between 1978 and 1989. (Report No. 46). Uppsala: Section of Environmental Forestry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. In Swedish. Karjalainen, E. (2006). The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation −four case studies in Finland (Dissertationes Forestales 31). Helsinki: Finnish Forest Research Institute. Kearney, A. R. (2001). Effects of an informational intervention on public reactions to clear-cutting. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 777–790. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/089419201753210594 Kellert, S. R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.740845.x Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 5. Lindhagen, A., & Hörnsten, L. (2000). Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: Changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry, 73(2), 143–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/73.2.143 Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of beholder? Landscape and Urban

Planning, 44(4), 177–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5 Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.14.2.161 Nielsen, A. B., Olsen, S. B., & Lundhede, T. (2007). An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1–2), 63–71. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003 Ode, Å. K., & Fry, G. L. A. (2002). Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1(1), 15–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/16188667-00003 Orians, G. H. (2014). Snakes, sunrises, and shakespare how evolution shapes our loves and fears. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), 149–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00133-5 Parsons, R., & Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking In defence of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(1), 43–56. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0169-2046(02)00051-8 Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A. B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive? On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 136–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2013.07.007 Ribe, R. G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management, 13(1), 55–74. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/BF01867587Ribe Ribe, R. G. (1990). A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in Northern hardwood forests. Landscape Journal, 9(2), 86–101. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3368/lj.9.2.86 Ribe, R. G. (2006). Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 268(2), 100–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp. 2006.05.004 Ribe, R. G. (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. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 245–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.014 Rudis, V. A., Gramnn, J. H., Ruddell, E. J., & Westphal, J. M. (1988). Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands. Forest Science, 34(4), 846–863. Rydberg, J., & Falck, J. (2000). Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47(1-2), 1–18. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00068-7 Schama, S. (1996). Landscape and memory. London: Fontana Press. Statistics Norway, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/kultur-og-fritid/ statistikker/fritid/hvert-3-aar/2014-12-18. Statistics Norway, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/ statistikker/folkendrkv/kvartal. Tveit, M., Ode, A., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229–255. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/01426390600783269 Tyrväinen, L., Nouisiainen, I., Silvennoinen, H., & Tahvanainen, L. (2001). Rural tourism in Finland: Tourist expectation of landscape and environment. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 133–149. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/150222501317244047 Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Kolehmainen, O. (2003). Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1(3), 135–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00014 Vodiak, M. C., Roberts, P. L., Wellman, J. D., & Buhyoff, G. J. (1985). Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science, 31(2), 289–301.