Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area

Landscape and Urban Planning, 14 (1987) 2 1l-2 I? Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.. Amsterdam -Printed

211 in The Netherlands

PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VISUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FOREST STANDS IN A RECREATION AREA

CHRISTINA

AXELSSON-LINDGREN

and GUNNAR

SORTE

Department of Landscape Planning, The Swedish Llniversity ofAgricultural Sciences, P. 0. Box 58. 230 53 Alnarp (Sweden) (Accepted for publication

3 June 1986)

ABSTRACT

Axelsson-Lindgren, C. and Sorte, G., 1987. Public response to diffkrences between visua1i.vdistinguishable forest stands in a recreation urea Landscape Urban Plann., 14. 211-217.

Studies of user-response to visual aspects of ftirests have generally been &used on single stands or on differences in preference within a sample qfIf:fi,reststands, and little attention has been paid to the eiTects qf contrast and visual interaction betnleen ,fi,rest stands. Here we describe a pilot stud11on public response to the occurrence of many vis-ci-visfew visually difjtirent.forest stands along two trails. A visually distinguishable forest stand is deJned as an area qfvegetation visually di’ferent in characterfrom surrounding or adjacent vegetation. Two trails, each 2.5 km long, were laid out in a forest, one through eight visual,forest stands and the other through three. After having w>alkedeach trail,

16 subjects made assessments oftrail length, qf time spent traversing it, and qf the visual impression qf’the trail environment. They ulso assessed the suitability qf the trail for the practise qj‘ typical open-air, recreational activities. The respondents made significantly more errors in assessing time and distance when judging the trail through few visual forest stands. The trail through many visual f&-est stands HIasconsidered to be decidedly more vuried. The urge or willingness to engage in recreational activities was dependent on ulhether there were few or many visual stands. We have called the kind qf visual variation we are dealing with the Forest Visual Opportunity Spectrum (FVOS), and it is our view that alternatives for the-future planning and management of visual variation in a fbrest are de rlva ble .from documentation of the Forest Visual Opportunity Spectrum. At present we are attempting to establish criteria for the identification qf visual vegetation stands in accordance ti’ith lay response.

INTRODUCTION The importance of visual wriation as a landscape quality in recreational areas has been 0 169-2046/87/$03.50

0 1987 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

stressed by many planners and researchers (Kiemstedt, 1967; Sorte, 1971; Arthur et al.,

1977; Kaplan, S., 1979; McCarthy, 1979; Nohl, 1980; Kopka and Ross, 1984). Similarly, many researchers and planners regard visual variation in recreational forests as crucial to the recreation experience (Lind et al., 1974; Koch, 1977; Grden, 1979; Illyes and Keresztesi, 198 1; How. 1982; Hultman, 1983: Kellomaki and Savolainen, 1984). Studies of response to the visual impact of forests have often been focused on single stands, and research dealing with response to interaction between visual forest stands is rare. Hultman (1983) has studied public preferences for forest stands, and though his study did not include response to visual differences between forest stands, he suggests that this aspect is at least as important for response to forest environment as the visual quality of the individual stands themselves. Wandering and hiking are activities where differences between one area and another are readily experienced. Shechter et al. (198 1) point this out in connection with “... hiking, which involves movement from one landscape unit to another, and in which the expectation for such variability is an inherent component of the total recreational experience . . . . . . ...” Our study. which was carried out in Jaravallen forest in southern Sweden. is based on the view that the possibility of a visitor experiencing visual variation depends to a great extent on the environmental aspect we have called the Forest Visual Opportunity Spectrum (FVOS). Our basic hypothesis is that a forest area can be divided into visually distinguishable forest stands, a visual forest stand being defined as an area of vegetation visually different in character from the adjacent vegetation. The number of visual forest stands, their size, and the degrees of difference between them, are factors determining the pattern of Forest Visual Opportunity Spectra. Our aim has been to discover ways of applying the Visual Opportunity Spectrum of Jaravallen forest as a basis for the planning and management of recreational for-

ests ( Axelsson-Lindgren and Sorte, 1984). As stated above, our attempt is founded on the assumption that the forest recreational experience is dependent on the Forest Visual Opportunity Spectrum. This assumption is linked with the need of further research on “recreation opportunities” indicated by Brown and Stankey (198 1) in their description of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). They define a “recreation opportunity” as a chance for a person to engage in a specific recreational activity within a specific environmental setting in order to achieve a predictable recreational experience. Brown and Stankey suggest forestry to be one of the major determinants of the nature of the recreational opportunities available in forests, above all by creating changes in the pattern of vegetation, and we think that the Forest Visual Opportunity Spectrum would provide an important basis for the planning and management of recreational forests. Gutske and Hodgson (1980) point out that little research has been directed toward relationships between trail environment and aesthetic response in users. They have used the degree of difference between visual vegetation stands as a variable when studying preference reactions. Their results support the hypothesis that aesthetic pleasure along a trail is heightened as one visual vegetation stand gives way to another. Schroeder and Daniel (1980) have found that, though SBE (Scenic Beauty Estimation) measurements are useful for studies of scenic quality in forest road corridors with scenic variation, they are inapplicable in studies of uniform corridors. This suggests that the dependence of scenic quality on the degree of interaction between visual forest stands is an aspect which can scarcely be neglected. In the built environment. Thafvelin ( 1980) points out that the possibility of experiencing separate parts of the environment is just as interesting as feeling a harmonious and well-

213

functioning unity. The criticism he levels at contemporary environmental design is that architects often adhere to design principles, resulting in fewer possibilities for people to become aware of differences between individual elements in the built environment. This is a view supported by Sorte (1982), who found that groups of buildings of similar design are judged less preferable than are heterogenous groups of buildings. A more general aesthetic statement of parts in relation to unity was formulated by Hopkins (1865) “And if we did not feel the likeness we should not feel them so beautiful, or if we did not feel the difference we should not feel them so beautiful. The beauty we find is from the comparison we make of the things with themselves seeing their likeness and difference, is it not?”

THE PRESENT

STUDY

The pilot study was conducted during the summer of 1983 in the Jaravallen forest in southern Sweden, a mixed coniferous forest on sand, in which lOO-year-old pines predominate. Pinzls silvestris is the most commonly occurring pine, but there are also considerable areas with Pinus nigra, spruce (Picea abies) and birch (both Bet&a pubescens and B. verrucosa). Some low deciduous stands (height 3-15 m) are unusually rich in tree and shrub species. In this preliminary study, the visual forest stands were identified in the field by a landscape architect (C. Axelsson-Lindgren). From the field work was derived the hypothesis that the vegetation density, the mixtures of species and the structure of vegetation are important variables characterising the visual differences between forest stands. In Fig. I are exemplified the visual forest stands identified in Jaravallen. It also gives an indication of the kind of visual differences we found important in our study. In the near

future we intend to test how respondents delimit visual forest stands in the field. Two hiking trails, each 2.5 km long, were laid out in the forest, one trail passing through eight different visual forest stands; the other trail through only three. The experimental subjects, 16 students of Park and Garden Maintenance, formed two groups of the same size. Before starting, the groups were told that some judgements were to be made on questionnaires after they had completed each trail. The groups had no advance knowledge as to differences in the number of visual forest stands along the trails, nor did they know that the trails were of the same length and what time would be required to traverse them on foot. Assistants guided the groups along the trails, one group walking Trail A before Trail B, the other group walking them in reverse order. At the end of each trail, the assistants asked the respondents to fill in the questionnaire. The groups were unaware of each others activities at any given time. The questionnaire contained 17 questions, 15 of which were seven-step rating scales (see Table 1). The questions dealt with the variation, pleasantness and originality of the trail, and whether the trail was conducive to engaging in different recreational activities such as strolling alone, picnicking or jogging. The respondents also assessed the time spent on the trail in minutes and the length of the trail in metres. Differences in response between the trail with many visual forest stands and the trail with few visual forest stands were analysed by t-tests of significance of the difference between two means for correlated samples (Fergusson, 1982), with the exception of the time and length variables. As the time and length assessments are related to the real time and the real length of the trails, we used t-tests of significance of the difference between two means for independent samples for these variables, one

Fig. 1. Four examples of visual vegetation characteristics in the forest of Jaravallen, described in photographs and words by the surveyor. (a) The fair and leafy idyllic pasture forms a varied whole, where the pine edging modifies the airy impression. (b) An ageless pillared hall of pines in reddish brown and yellow colours speaks of stability and durability. (c) This enclosed environment consists of parts woven together by passages. Harsh sturdiness alternates with an almost tropical exuberance and deep-green sprucewood. (d) Disorder rules in this modern every-day surrounding, where the motley complexity is moderated only by the angular shape of the stands.

T.ABLE I An example of a seven-step rating scale in the questtonnaire I 1think that the vegetation along the trail throughout gave a: similar varied impression 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 impression

sample being the real time or length and the other the 16 respondent estimates of time or length. RESULTS The trail with many visual forest stands was judged to be more varied (P-C 0.00 1 ), and was

said to contain more stands of vegetation (P~O.001 ), than the trail through few visual forest stands. Thus there is little doubt that the respondents reacted to differences between the two types of trail (i.e. many or few visual forest stands). The interpretation of the rest of the results of our study consists of attempts to foresee the import of the marked agreement in response to the variation and the vegetation stand variables. The varied trail was looked upon as the more pleasant (PC 0.05), but whether this preference is valid for all sorts of visual variation between forest stands remains an open question, as too marked a visual variation between

215 TABLE II Assessment of trail length and walking time. Difference between real and estimated time and length for the trail through many visual forest types and the trail through few visual forest types. P= level of significance of the difference between two means for independent samples (Fergusson, 1982), where one sample is real time or length and the other sample is the 16 respondents’ estimates of time or length Trail with eight visual forest types

Trail with three visual forest types

Real time spent on trail

30 min

25 min

Mean error in time assessments

6.25 min

11.25 min

Differences between real and estimated time

Not significant

Significant, P-CO.01

Real length of trail

2500 m

2500 m

Mean error in length assessments

625 m

1188m

Differences between real and estimated length

Significant, P-CO.10

Significant, P-CO.01

forest stands might even evoke negative responses. To some extent, willingness to practise recreational activities appears to be dependent upon the pattern of the FVOS. The trail through many visual forest stands was considered conducive to the practise of a wider variety of open-air activities than the trail through few visual forest stands (PC 0. IO), while the trail through few visual forest stands was considered better suited to jogging (PC 0.10). Certain activities thus seem to require a particular pattern of FVOS. The respondents made more errors in time and length assessments of the trail through few visual forest stands than in those of the trail through many visual forest stands (Table II). The ability to orientate oneself in time and space thus seems to be dependent upon the degree of visual variation between forest stands. In many environments it is decidedly an advantage to be able to get one’s bearings, while in other environments, such as in a set-

ting with contemplative may be true.

qualities,

the opposite

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The Swedish custom of Everyman’s Right of Access to private land ensures unique opportunities for wandering and hiking in the countryside. Wandering in the countryside is also the most popular open-air recreational activity in Sweden, being practised by 85% of the adult population, according to a report from the National Environmental Protection Board (Statens Naturvardsverk, 1974). Thus, in this country at least, the Visual Opportunity Spectrum of natural surroundings is an especially important aspect of environmental quality to be taken into account in physical planning in general, and not only in well-defined recreational areas. The experiment described above was concerned with visitor reactions to the Visual Opportunity Spectrum of Jaravallen forest. It has also been the aim of the project to use the FVOS as a basis for continued management and development of the area for outdoor life and recreation. The FVOS of Jaravallen embraces a total of 28 visual forest stands, each with its own distinctive character in relation to its surroundings. The largest visual forest stand is about 40 ha (100 acres) and the smallest is about 1 ha (2.5 acres). As a basis for future planning and management of the Jaravallen FVOS, an assessment was made of the potential for change in each visual forest stand. Some stands are visually quite stable, while other stands will change in the future in a way that renders them “visually unstable”. Assessment of potential for visual change provides a basis for creating alternative future developments of the Jaravallen FVOS. CONCLUSIONS The study shows that variation in FVOS pattern of a forest is something people notice

216

and respond to; a finding that supports the hypothesis upon which our experiment was based. We sincerely hope that our experiment may inspire other researchers to study the perceptual effects of visual interaction between forest stands. As far as we know, environmental psychology studies of this kind are very rare within forest contexts. This preliminary study in Jaravallen forest has many limitations, however. The results thus far are confined to two groups of respondents with a certain amount of specialised knowledge of vegetation. The expert knowledge of a landscape architect provides a basis for the identification and demarcation of the various visual forest stands. It is upon this kind of knowledge that we must rely, as we do not yet know to which properties the general public attach importance when they perceive one visual forest stand to be distinctively different from another. However, both landscape and recreational researchers have discussed the possibilities and limits of expert judgement of landscape as compared with those of laymen (Arthur, 1977; Arthur et al., 1977: Kaplan, R., 1979, 1985; Shechter et al., 198 1; Bennet et al.. 1982). In addition to validity testing of the results described above, experimental studies are currently under way of the kind of differences and similarities respondents experience between forest stands ( Axelsson-Lindgren, 1985). REFERENCES Arthur, L.M., 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests, For. Sci., 23: 15 I-160. Arthur, L.M., Daniel, T.C. and Boster, R.S.. 1977. Scenic assessment: An overview. Landscape Plann., 4: 109-129. Axelsson-Lindgren, C., 1985. Rekreationsskogens omvlxling. Visuellt urskiljbara vegetationstyper i skogsmiljo (Visual Variation in Recreation Forests. Visually Distinguishable Vegetation Types in a Forest Environment). Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Institutionen for landskapsplanering. (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Landscape Planning). stencil 85:3. Alnarp, 18 pp. (in Swedish). Axelsson-Lindgren, C. and Sorte, G.J., 1984. Visuellt urskiljbara vegetationskaraktarer som planunderlag:

exemplet Jaravallskogen (Visually Distinguishable Vegetation Characteristics as a Basis for Planning: the Example Forest Jaravallen). Sverige Lantbruksuniversitet. lnstitutionen for landskapsplanering (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Landscape Planning). stencil 84:3, Alnarp, 102 pp. (in Swedish). Bennet, R.G., Elvestad, S., Helvik, K. and Totland. K., 1982. FritidsresurserFordeling og Kvalitet (Leisure Resources - Distribution and Quality). Forprosjektrapport (Preproject report), Geografisk Institutt. Universitet i Bergen (Institute of Geography. University of Bergen). 106 pp. (in Norwegian). Brown, P.J. and Stankey, G.H., 1981. A Technique for Recreation Planning and Management in Tomorrow’s Forest. XVII IUFRO World Congress, Proceedings Division 6, Japan, pp. 63-73. Fergusson, G.A., 1982. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. 5th edn. McGraw Hill, Tokyo. pp. 177- 18 1. &den. B.G., 1979. Evaluation and Recommendations concerning the Visual Resource Inventory and Evaluation Systems Used Within the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Proceedings of Our National Landscape, 23-25 April 1979, Incline Village, Nevada. pp. 296-304. Gutske. L.D. and Hodgson, R.W.. 1980. Rate of travel along an interpretive trail. The effect on environmental discontinuity. Environ. Behav., 12: 53-63. Hopkins, G.M., 1865. On the origin ofbeauty: a Platonic dialogue. In: H. House and G. Storey (Editors), G.M. Hopkins, London. How, D., 1982. The Recreational Value of Forests, Australian Parks and Recreation, February 1982, pp. 53-57. Hultman. S.-G., 1983. Allmanhetens bedomnmg av skogsmiljoers lamplighet for friluftshv. 2. En rikstsckande enkst. Public Judgement of Forest Environment as Recreation Areas. 2. A National Survey. Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet. .Avdelningen for landskapsvhrd, Rapport 28. Ultuna. 91 PP. Illyes, B. and Keresztesi, B., 198 I Economic Assessment of the Recreational Function of Forests in East European Countries. International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, XVII IUFRO World Congress, Japan, Proceedings Division 4, pp. 495-5 11. Kaplan, R., 1979. Visual Resources and the Public: An Empirical Approach. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Proceedings of Our National Landscape, 23-25 April 1979. Incline Village. Nevada. pp. 209-216. Kaplan, R., 1985. The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Plann., 12: 16 I- 176. Kaplan, S., 1979. Perception and Landscape. Conceptions and Misconceptions. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Proceedings of Our National Landscape, 23-25 April 1979, Incline Village. Nevada, pp. 241-248. Kellomlki. S. and Savolainen, R., 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and in the laboratory. Landscape Plann.. 11: 97- 107.

217 Kiemstedt, H., 1967. Zur Bewertung von Erholungsgebieten nach, Ihrer Ausstattung mit Natiirlichen Landschaftselementen. Das Gartenamt 5/67, pp. 2 13-2 17 (in German). Koch, N.E., 1977. Skovenes friluftsfunktion. Praeferensmaling. Metodeforslag (The Recreational Function of Forests. Preference measurements. Methodological Recommendations). Forstl. Forsdgsv. Danmark. Arbetsnotat m-5, 134~~. (inDanish). Kopka, S. and Ross, M., 1984. A study of the reliability of the Bureau of Land Management visual resource assessment scheme. Landscape Plann., 1 I: 16 I- 166. Lind, T., Oraug, J., Skjervold Rosenfeldt, I. and @tensen, E., 1974. Friluftsliv i Oslomarka. Analyses av intervjuundersijkelse om publikums bruk og krav til Oslomarka (Recreation in Oslomarka. Analyses of a Survey on Public Use of and Demands in Oslomarka). Norsk Institutt for by og regionforskning 8174, Oslo, 96 pp. (in Norwegian). McCarthy, M.M., 1979. Complexity and Valued Landscapes. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Proceedings of Our National Landscape, 23-25 April 1979, Incline Village, Nevada, pp. 235-240. Nohl, W., 1980. Visual Stimulation and Attention Reactions as a Component of an Aesthetic Theory for Open Spaces - Part I, Garten + Landschaft 3/80, pp. 194- 198; - Part II, Garten+Landschaft 4/80, pp. 290-293; - Part III, Garten + Landschaft 6180, pp. 482-488.

Schroeder, H.W. and Daniel, T.C., 1980. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environ. Behav. 12: 349-366. Shechter, M., Enis, R., Reiser, B. and Tzamir, Y., 198 1. Evaluation of landscape resources for recreation planning. Regional Stud., 15: 373-390. Sorte, G.J., 1971. Perception av landskap (Perception of Landscapes). Norges landbrukshijgskole (Agricultural College of Norway), Vollebekk, 89 pp. (in Norwegian). Sorte, G.J., 1982. Visuellt urskiljbara egenskaper hos fdremal i den byggda miljijn (Visually Distinguishable Qualities of Objects in the Built Environment). Statens rad fdr byggnadsforskning (Swedish Council of Building Research), rapport R5:1982, 141 pp. (in Swedish). Statens Naturvardsverk (The National Environmental Protection Board), 1974. Fritid - friluftsliv. En underdkning av vanor och Bnskemal hos den vuxna tatbefolkningen 1973 (Leisure - Open Air Recreation. A Survey of Habits and Demands ofAdults in the Urban Population 1973). SNV publ. 1974:20,167 pp. (in Swedish). Thafvelin, H., 1980. Arkitekturens tre dimensioner - och sedan? (The Three Dimensions of Architecture - and what next?). Magasin Tessin 4, pp. 12-29, Lund (in Swedish).