Robert Ribe, nstltutefor a SLrstainable
Envronment 130 Hendrcks Ha Universty of Oregof Eugene,Oregon
97403
RegenerationHarvestsVersusClearcuts:PublicViewsof the
Acceptabilityand Aestheticsof NorthwestForestPlanHarvests
Abstract
"regenefttion
harlens" (hc) pr'c\cribc oilcr \omc polcnlial rcsolution lo
Thc Nonh$est Fbrest Plan. Nelv Foresny. rncl the
lolrg slandingndlcrse perceptionsofclerrcut logging. This study investigrredprospccrslbr this polcntial rcsolution prcliminary
ro morc robun llnding\ lionr a larger socialperceptionsslLrdyin pfogress. Ratings of rcceptabililr_and sccnic bcaul] lbrdepic
tions of rinber h,]llcsls silh aggrcgaredand dispersedpatternsof about l5 pefcent green-treeretention $ere acquifed liom a
dnerse \ample oladuhs ilr lvcs|crnOrcgon and \\hshington. Re\pondenlsrated acturlphotograph\ and snnulatedscenessho\ring fie two retentidl parrerllsrs wcll a! clcirculs and uncut foresls sho\rn in rhe sane scenes. Respondentsrrted the green-tree
"Ne\{
Forestry attfibutesand intentioDs.Colnpa sons01lhe average
retenrionsccncswirh.rnd wi(houi intornration about rheir
pcrccn!
green
ree retenlion hrNe\ts can be perceivedmuch the srme.rs clearculs. Public cduc.rtionis
rarings luggc\r 1har l5
nccdcd to impro!'c perceptions of rhe rcceprability of fetentionharvests. Aggregilledgrccn |rcc rctcnti on pa(cm ! $ i t| in h arlcsrs
]11a)hclp to producc more favorahlepercettidrs of scenicbeaut).
lntroduction
The managemcntof national forests in the Pa
cillc Northwestis beconing nore complexancl
political. The spottedou l controversy(Dietrich
1992)and its currentresolutionin theNofihwest
ForestPlan(USDA and USDI 199.1)
hasshifted
r tl a n n i n ga w r )
t h e t e L h n i i r le n r p h r . i ., r l - f , ' r ' e p
tiom traditionalsilviculturalgoalstorvardlarge
scalebiodivcrsitygoals. The complexdecisions
that arise froln theseoften conllicting goals rre
"ccosyslem
now mediatedthrough notionsof
'
Vogtet al. 1997)
management(Bcngston199.1.
"Ncw Forestry" (Gillis 1990, Kohm and
and
Franklin 1997).in responseto public demands
fbr molc rlultiple-value.sustainableresource
(Steelet al. 199,1.
managcmcnt
Joneset al. 1995,
Durbin 1996).The inteDsityofconflicts overii)rest
the
management
andofthe politicsthatgcnerated
Northwest Forest Plan indicate that the social
acccptabilitl'of its prescriptions
will likely play
akey rolc in its implementation(Stanke,y
i:Lnd
Clark
1992).
The socialacceptabiliLyof forestmanagement
is complcx(Brunson1993.Gobster1995). One
critical dimension involves hou, recent timbcr
han'estsarevisuallyperceivcd(Ribe 1989.Gobster
1994).VisualpcrccptioDs
of acceptability
olten
(Nassauer
reactioDs
tendto derivefronl acsthetic
1992). Thescpcrceptionsare generallyunder. l , x , Jt , ' h c . rp r i m i r r )c c u s eo l p u b l i cr e a c t i o nt ., '
102
forcst management(Ulrich 1986). Aestheticper
ceptions aft-ectacceptabilityperceptionsamong
moredisintcrcstcdobserverswho aretherebydisposed mainly to i,resthetic
responses(Santayana
1896,Zajonc 1980),suchasrecreationalvisitors
o r p r \ { e r . l h r u u r hl . r (l i n gr \ l r ' , n y| \ r r r ' l i \e l r r r prietaryor idcologicalinterestin nationalforests
(Ulrich 1983). Or, public perceptionsof man
agementmay be morecognitive,involvingconceptualundcrstandingsor associationswith what
is seen,suchasecologicalimpacts,the perceived
virtue of forestry practices,or other normative
ideas(Brunson1993,Gobster1996).Thcsccognitive perceptionsare basedupon what philoso
phers and psychologistsidentily as morc interested,as opposedto disinterested.
observation
which is lessconduciveofstrongly or purely aes
thetic respoDses(Santayana1896,lzard 1977).
Aestheticsis a recurringissuein tbrestpolicy (Dana
andFaidax 1980.WilkensonandAnderson1987).
Much political oppositionto nationalforestman
agementhas centeredon perceptionsof clearcut
logging(Hays1987,Hi l994). Photographs
of
clearcutshaveappeared
in countlesspopularmedia
and political advocacypublicationsaffecting national ti)rest policy. Some examplcsarc thc Oregoniannewspaper(1990), Devall (199,1)and
Native Forest Council (1987-98). Clearcutsare
offered asevidenceofexcessiveresourceexploi
tation or destructionof tunctioning ecosystems
(Wood 1971.Fritz 1989).
NofihwestScience.Vrl. 73. Spcciallssue,1999
O l t ) 9 . rb \ r h c N . f l h r e n
Sritr.lr.,\.n,.Lariod
,\ll ,ighB r.s.r.d
New Forestryoffers alternativesto clearcuts,
and the Northwest ForestPlan (NFP) prescribes
one suchaltemative.It prescribesthatliving trees
be retainedwithin l5 percentof the areawithin
cach harvestunit, at least 70 percentof this retention be lett in clumps. and that down wood be
retained according to lbrest types (USDA and
"regeneration
USDI 199.1,p. C-39-41). These
"biological
legacies"(live
harvests"seekto retain
alld dead vegetativestructures)to ald recovery
and stability ofbiodiversity and ecosystemfunc
tion following harvests(Peny and Amaranthus
1997).Thcy will likely be the mostvisuallyno
ticeablemanifestationof the NFP in thelandscape,
and a centerpiecetbr public perception of the
guided
acceptabilityof FoIestServicemanagemcnt
by that plan. The prospeclivenatule of those
perceptionsis the focus of the social perceptions
componentof thc Demonstntion of Ecosystem
ManagemcntOptiors (DEMO) study.DEMO is
a replicated.Iong-term experinent that investigates many ecological and social consequences
of severalamountsand patternsof grcen-treere
teDtionduring harvestsin westemWashingtonand
Oregon.
A Prospective
Study
The social perceptionscomponentofthe DEMO
studyis yet k) be completed.It will investigate
perceptionsof photographsof pre-harvcstforests
anclof lhe different magnitudesand distributions
e t e n t i r 'inn t h eD E M O e r p e r i r n e n o l ! : r e c n - t r er e
tal harvests.Photographsofclearcuts with vai
ous volumes of woody debris retentionfrom the
Long Tenn EcosystemProductivity(LTEP) study
andvariousthinningsfromtheYoungStandsStudy
(YSS) will alsobe includedin this upconing study.
Pcrceptionsof managementacceptabilityand
scenicbeaut)'will be exploredas intluencedby
intbrmationabouthow the harvgstsareconducted
and the long term managementintentions they
might achieve. Such intirrmed pcrceptionsmay
provc more reliable indicatorsof eventualpublic
opinionsof New Forestry(Davidsonetal.1985).
Some perceptions will be modeled against the
correspondingvcgetationstluctureofthe pre-and
post-harvest
forests(Halpernet al. 1999),ashas
beendoneforlbrest typesand managementpracticeselsewher€in the U. S. (Ribe 1989). A diverse san-rpleof respondcntsfrom Oregon and
Washingtonu'ill judge thc photographs.
ThisPrellm
naryStudy
As of this writing. the DEMO harvesttreatments
are not yet complete and are not photographed
fbr inclusion in the main DEMO social pcrccption study sketchedabove. This paper instead
reports a preliminary study using photo-sirnulations to explofe perceptionsof fbrest landscapes
that can intbrm the prospectivcmain DEMO so
cial perceptionsstudy. This preliminarystudy
focused on the minimum 15 percentgreen-tlee
retentionhar-vests
cunently prescribedby thc NFP
rather than the broaderrange of fetention levels
in the DEMO study ResultsfuomthelargerDEMo
study, including the social perceptionscomponent, may aft'ectcurrentNFP retentionstandards
( F r c n L l i ne t a l . l g q 7 r . I l i \ t i m e l ) l , ' i n r e : t i g . r t c
the currentNFP standardappliedto nationalforest han'ests,and this paper will fbcus on that.
Little researchhasconsideredthe perceptions
orregenerationharvests
of New Forestryharvests
prescribedby the NFP The negatjveaesthetics
of intensiveharyestsand clearcutsare well es
tablished(Ribe 1989).Studiesindicatethat less
intenseharvests,such as shelter$'oodcuts, thin
nings,seed-tree
retentioncuts,smallercuts,and
patchy harvest patterns,can reduce the magni
tude of advcrseaestheticreactions (Rutherfbrd
and Shafer [969, Kenner and McCool 1985,
Mccool et a[. 1986,Brunsonand Shelby1992,
Schroederet al. 1993,Palmeret al. 1995). Investigationsthat fbcus on the perceivedacceptability of various intensitiesof harvest indicate
that acceptability perceptionsare complex. nuancedand probablynroresubjectto the eft'ectsof
information and respondents attitudesthan are
more purely aestheticperceptions(Vining 1992.
Hansis1995.Brunsonand Reiter 1996). To the
e \ l e n ll h a tp e r c e p l i o n \ , J' l c c e f l r b i l i l )l r c I n o r e
cognitive. i.e. involve thinking as well as reactt i t h : r e r t h c t ipce r e e p t i o n .
i n g .t h e ) r n t i yc r ' n l l i c u
becauseecologically functional attributesof tbrests.suchas downedwood, deadtrees.an understory. and burns,are often not viewed as beauti
ful (Bensonand Ullrich 1981.TaylorandDaniel
1992.Gobster
l985,Ruddellet al. 1989,Nassaucr
1996). The studies of perception of Neu' Forestry harvestsby Brunson and Shelby (1992)
employedfield visits by a small sampleof respondents
consistingmostlyof universitystudents.
A largel more diversesampleis neededto better
perceptions
investigate
thatmight a1Iectthepolitics
Public Views of Harvests
103
of public land managemcntin the Pacific Nofihwest. This preliminarystudy(aswell as theprospectivemain DEMO social pcrceptionsstudy)
employed such an improved sample.
This study investigatedperceptionsof aggre
gated versusdispersedl5 percentgreen-treeretentionharvcsts.Simulateddepictionsof these
two forms ofregenerationharvestwere shownto
a sampleof respondentsalong with corrcsponding depictionsofclearcut and uncut lbrests. Re
spondentsrated thesesceneseither for scenic
beautyor acceptability.Halfofthe ratingsofthe
15 pcrcent retentionsceneswere madewith infomation about such harveststhat might affect
the ratings (henceforth."infornred ratings or
scenes"). The other half were made without intbrmation ("uninforrnedratingsor scenes").The
a r e r r g cr a t i n g :l i ' r t h a a n r o r ^ a d\ e r \ u s u n i n firrmed regenerationharvest sccnes were then
comparedto eachotherandto arerageuninformcd
ratingsforuncut andclearcutvgrsionsofthe same
scenes.
The questionsi 'estigated
werc: (1)Aresimple,
uninformed perccptionsof scenicbeautyand ac
ceptabilityofthe green treeretentionharvestpattemsdifferentfrom thoseofconventionalclearcuts?
r 2 t H u u t l o e ri n l b r m a t i oanb o u l h er e g c n e r r r i i ) n
harvestsaffect perceptionsof them? (3) Are dispersedretention harvestsperceivedas more acceptablethan aggregatedretentionharvests.and
do suchdiffercnceschangewhenratingsaremade
with infbrmation? (4) Are dispersedrctention
haNestsperceivedto bc more scenicallybeautiful thanaggregated
retentionharvests.anddo such
differenceschangewhen ratings are made with
intbrmation? (5) Might differencesin the scenic
conditionsof the harvestsand their landscape
context aflect answersto any ofthese questions?
Methods
S c e n e r yS a m p e
Two photographs
of hillsideswithin the Mount
Hood National Forest were uscd in the study,as
shownat the top ofFigures I and 2. Thesescenes
u,ere selectedbecausethey cnabled production
of high-qualitysimulationsshownin the middle
and bottom of Figures I and 2. Each occurred
near similar views \\'ith recenthaNestsofknown
green treeretentioncharacteristics.Photographs
of these nearby views, taken at nearly the same
104 Ribe
time of day and direction,were then usedas imagery to make simulationsthat representedthe
15 percentgrcen-tueeretentionpattemsas accurately aspossible. Using only one photographto
simulateboth dispersedand aggregatedretention
patternswould havebetterenabledcomparingthe
mtingsofthe two pattemswith no otherconfounding differences,such as other harvestsor roads.
However,the production of more valid simulatlons wasjudged more advantageous
for this pilot study. Using two photographsalso had the
advantageof preventingrespondentsfromdetecting
lhc samescenewith different harvests.This detection might have affected their responsesby
c a u \ i n gl h c m l o 8 u c \ . $ h i r l c o m p a r i s o nw: e r e
the subjectofthe rcsearch.This might then have
affected their responsesdiff-erentlythan if they
sinply encountered
the scenesin the field. See
ing diflerent sceneswith dift'erentharyestswould
be expectedandmorelikely to producejudgments
unaffectedby surveyprocedures.
The simulationofan aggregatedretentionharvest minimally meetin-sNFP green-treeretention
standardsis dcpicted as the centerimage in Figure l. It includes an aggrcgatedpatch of trees
stmddling an ephemeralstrcamchannel. [n the
sourceimagery lbr the simulation that patch includedabout 15 percentof tl-letimber volumethat
stoodwithin the timber-salealeaprior to harvest:
the rest of the area was clearcut. Dispersedretention of trecs was also simulatedin the rest of
the harvestedarea, consistentwith NFP guide,
Iines. These retention elementswithin the harvestunit werethensimulatedout of the imageto
producethe correspondingclearcutimagc at the
bottom of Figufe 1.
The image simulatinga dispersedretcntion
harvestis shown as the centerirnagein Figurc 2.
This simulation was derived fiom imagery from
a sinilar slope on which a dispersedretention
harvest had recently been completed.retaining
ten percent of the trees inside the haNest area.
ThesimulltioninrolreJr,lLlinghall rgaina. mlnl
retainedtreeswithin the harvestedarea. Then, to
producethe colTespondingclearcutimage at the
bottom of Figure 2. nearly all of theseretajned
treeswere simulatedout of the image. Thc t'ew
treeslelt resembledrecentclearcuttingpractices
in the Mount Hood National Forestwhere a few
trees are rctained to anchor guy-wires for logyardingequipment.
Figure 1. Aggregated retention scene set with uncut forest (top), simulated 15
percent green-tree relention harvest (middle), and conventional clearcut
(bottoml.
PublicViewsof Harvests 105
Figure 2. Dispersed retention scene set with uncut forest (top), simulated 15
percent green-tree retention harvest (middle), and conventional clearcut
(bottom).
106
The t\\,o setsof inragcsin Figure 1 versus 2
depict harvestsof dilferent size and stagcof regeneration,differentsceniccontcxls.andtheprescnce (Figure 2) or absence(Figure l) of other
han'ests. This dit'fcrenceallowed a prelirninary
explorationof potentialconfoundingeffectsupon
ratin-ss
of haNestsizeand stagcof
respondents'
regcn<lrtion.
u. u ell as,'[olherhar ert. in a 'ccnr.
It u'as useful to explole the magnitudcol these
eflects as they may influencc perceptionsof the
dir,ersesetof DEMO, YSS and LTEP harveststtr
b<phot,'iirJfhrLlfor thc tnrin ''. i.tl perecption'
study. (A more definitive analysisof these ef
lectssheuldoccurthroughan analysisofcovari
main study..)Thesesce
ancein this prospective,
nic-contcxtualdifferencesproduccdtwo scenic
conditionsasfollows: Onc sceniccondition.that
t.r furorahll rHe, t 'eenierrt
rrrighthe erpecte,-l
to the aggregatcdretentlon
ings. corresponded
(FigureI ). It ilcluded a smallerhan'ested
scenes
uer, early lbrestregenerationevidcnttherein,and
n t ' r r l h c Ih r r l c s l . i n \ i e $ . A \ r ' ( o n d\ c c n i cc o n dition. that might be expectcd1omore adversely
conespondedto the dispcrsed
alfectscetlicratin-ss.
retentionscencs(Figule2). Tt includcda larger
evidenttherein.
harvest,no tbrestregeneration
andtwo otherharvestsin vicw.
Preparat
on of SceneSurveys
The six studyimages(FiguresI and2) weremade
into color slidesto be ratedby respondents.They
were placedamong54 other slidesfiom the ClascadeMountainsin OregonandWashingtonaspafi
"cxperience" of tbrest scenesfof the
of a larger
to sin]plyseeandjuclge. Theseinrespondents
cluded a rvide variety of nationalforest scenesof
variousscalesthat depicteda diversityof landscapcsfrom wildernessk) heavil,vmanagedvistas.This approachsoughttoelicitratingsindicali\e
ofiudgmcntsthat night be nradcuponencounteringthe scenesduringtrips throughthe tbr-est.
that
asopposedto the more intentionill.judgments
might be madeif attentionwerefocusedon just
the subjectsceneswith thcir obviouscomparati\'e content. The I 5 pcrcentretentionslideswere
rated both with aDd$,ithout inti)rmatron.so secondcopieswereplacedrmtlIrgothersetsofslides
with corresponding
thatwereshownto respondents
one-sentelceinfornration statemeDts.Togcther,
'guided-tour
extheseformeda sh()ncr,l5 slide
'
pe ence of diversc national tbrest scencrytltat
"experience"durfollowed the tirst. uninlbrmed
ing the ratingsessions.
The study slides were placed into two slide
trays as illustratedin Figure 3. (Two tnys were
neededto include all the slides for this and another study.) Each tray was shown to dit'ferent
respondents,
rcughly halfofwhom ratedits slides
for scenicbeautyand half for acceptability(Figure 3). The 15percentretentionslideswcreplaced
into the trays so that each respoDdentrated one
retcntionpattemwithout infbrmationandthe other
patternwith infomation (Figwe 3), withouthaving
his/her rating affected by an awarenessof a re
peatedscenewith intirrmation the secondtirne.
The 15 percent rctention slides involved in this
designedallocationrvererandornlyplacedwithin
the requiredsectionsofthe two trays. The other
studyslideswererandomlyplacedwithin the slide
trays' uninfonnedsections(Figure3).
When the infomed slides were shown to the
respondents.
one andthe sameinformation state
ment accompaniedboth the aggregatedand dispersedretcntionsimulationslidestirr rating both
"This
acceptabilityand scenicbeauty. It wrs:
harvcst left 15 percentof the living trees stand
ing as luture habitat and a way of helping the
ecosystemreestablishitselfas a new forestgrows
back there." This statementwas constructedto
be simplebut indicativeofhow the harvestsnright
be perceiveddifferentlyfrom commonplaceclear
cuts. It sought to capture the essenceof New
Forestry and the harvestingprcscriptionsfound
in the NFP. pafiicularly regarding retention of
biologicallegacies.At the sametime, it sought
to be relatively objective to reducethe extent to
uhich it would produceits own aft'ectindependcnt of the appearanceof thc scenes(Brunson
"hanest,' 'ecosysandReiter1996).The words
'habitat" do have such affective tenlem" and
dencies(Kellert 1983).but were used anlway.
after deliberation.rs necessatyto expressthe
leededcontent.
Fespondent
Sample
Members of a variety of organizationsratcd the
slides as a special activity during their regular
mectilgs. They filled in a questionnaireandrated
slidesprivately,anonymouslyand independently
on individual rating tbrms, as describedbelow.
Groups wele recruited to ctrpturea diversity of
peoplewith activeinterestsin pleservatjonversus
Publir Vie\\\ of Har\ ests
ll)7
Aggregated Retention Slide Set
i------:----
lI r_--_-__J
f _ l l| l n
ll[--ll
r._______Jr.______J
|
Uncut
lloh
||
I
Clearcut
DispersedRetention Slide Set
llt--------Jl
t - r l tlif-rr.l
l - l l - l
Uncut
15% Clearcut
Forest Retention
Slide Tray
f*
one --1
Acceptability
Ratings
26r
Respondents
Scenic Beauty
Ratincs
320
Respondents
Slide Tray
f-
rwo --l
Acceptability
Rafincs
Scenic Beauty
Ratings
251
Respondents
288
Respondents
Figure -1. ltelationslip bctween the stud! scenl)!.whde slide setsthat $ ( . c r t ( L l . . , n Jr e . p , , rl e r
enl qualrne\.
1ott Ribe
. c l . t r J t I J l e J . l J i . t , , -d t r . l
commodity productionon public lands(Chandler
and Lee 199,1).They were also rccruited to include a variety of rural, suburban,anclurban tcspondentsthr-oughoutwestern Washingtonand
Oregon to representthc diversity of attitudestoward land managemcntlound acrosssuchplaces
(Tichenoret al. 1971.TrcmblayandDunlap1978.
Lyons 1983). To a lesscr exteDt.divelslty was
''u!ht in rncome..afc5.(ducalionrlirtlJinrnenl:\.
relalioDshipto the fbrestproductindustry.andrccreationalpreferences.Thc groupsincludednatuorganizationssuchaslogging
rul-resource-rclatcd
and property rights advocates.environmental
groups,civic clubs.socialclubs,protessional
organizations,outdoorrecreationgroups,highereducati(nr
classes,businessclubs,corporateofassociations.
fices,granges,and neighborhood
Each group of respr)ndentsviewed one of the
two slide trays and ratcd its slides for either acgroups
ceptabilityor scenicbeaut} Therespondent
needcdto be allocatedto theiudgmentof these
two qualities. At first. combinationsof a slide
tray and qualily to be judged (scenicbeautyor
acceptability)were assigncdto eachgroup at ranhadbeenadnindom until all four combinations
isteredto at least200 rcspondents.From thatpoint
on groupswere assignedintentionallyto make
the four sets of respondentswho rated each of
"similar" to each otherto rethe combinations
duce the probability that any one would have a
chaDceover-represcntationol respondentsu ith
a kcy bias. Groups werc judged to be similar if
eachcontaincdat lcastonefoufih rcsidentsof rural
areasandcities u'ith populationslcssthan20.000,
and if each containedroughly equal lumbers of
respondentstcnding to favor lbrest production
vcrsusforestprotection.For this latterpurlose,
to two quesa runningtally u,askcptofresponses
tions aboutthe northernspottcdowl controversy.
Thesewcrc questioDs
that askedhow nruchrespondentsagreedor-disa-qrccdwith statements.
The fust statementwasthatthe spottedowl should
be savcdevenat a high econorniccost.and the
sccondwas that the spottedowl should be saved
o n h i l i t r ' u rhr c L t , ' n$c i l h o u li n l t i n e i n p , ,pnr i vatepropefiyrights.This intcntioralassignnent
of groupswasto coDtinueuntil at lerst 1,(X)0respondentsu'ere samplecl. [t was necessaryto
exceedthatnumberto achievethe roughsimilarof slidetrays
it1,soughtamongthe cornbinations
and qualitiesjudged. A lotal of 1.120respondentslrom 57 groupswere surveyed:lll groups
(261 respondents)ratedthe slidesin tray one firr
acceptability.17 groups (320 respondents)rated
tray one tbr scenicbeauty,8 groups(25l respondents)rated the slidcs in tray two for acceptabil
ity. and 14 groups (2118respondents)rated ray
two for scenicbeauty (Figure 3).
SlideRating
Surveys
At the outset of the slide rating sessions,all re
spondentswere instructedto makefteir uninfomed
judgmentsbaseduponthe 'knowledgeand sensibilities they already had.' They were tdd to
view the slides as scenesthey might encounter
tnveling thrcugh nationalforestsin the Cascadc
"distant
Mountains"distantftom home" and
fiom
t h e i rl u v u r i t ep l . - r cteo r i r i t i n l h o : e m o u n t l i n s .
Tho'e u ho ruted:.li,lesli'r rc(cplilbilil) wercinstl'uctedto ratethe landscapein eachslide for the
"acceptabilityofits conditionasa publicly owned
andmanagednationalforest." They were instructed
that they could basethesejudgments on the appearanceofthe landscapeand/ortheir awareness
ofthe causesof its condition;thepurposesofthe
managementthat producedthe landscapeand/or
altemativesto that management;the ttasibility
of thoseoptionsand any unknownsandrisksinvolved that they knew of; or anything else they
wished(Brunson1993). They ratedeachnumbered slide on a scaleliom minus tive for vcry
unacccptable
to plus five for very acceptable,with
zero assignedto slides for which they felt either
neutralor undecided.
The respordentspaticipating in scenicbeauty
sessionswere simply instructedto rate the slides
"scenic
lbr
beauty.' Studicsindicatethat this is
the only descriptionneededto instruct ratingsof
scenicbeauty(Zubeet al. 1982.Hull et al. 1984).
rated scenicbeauty on the same
Respondents
numeric scaleas was usedfbr rating acccptability, exceptthat they were instructedthat thc scale
"very
rangedfrom "vely ugly" to
beautitul,"$'ith
zero assignedto slidcsthey found neitherbeauti
ful nor ugly or lbr which they were undecidcd.
ratedthe 60
Immediatelyafter the respondents
slideseitherlbr acceptabilityor scenicbeauty,
anotherratingsessionbeganfbr l5 more slides
rating the sameqlrality and using the samescale
rs befirre. ln this new session,each slide was
accompaniedby a sentcncecontaining infonna
tion aboutthe landscapeit depicted.This sentercewasbothspokenwhile theslidcwasdisplayed
and providedon the responsefolms in largepdnt
PublicViewsof HaNests 109
just abovethe rating scalefi)r the conesponding
slidenunber Respondents
wereinstructedto ll,ait
until after the infonnation sentcncchadbeenread
before making their ratings.
DataAnaysls
Data were analyzcdby examiningthe pattemsof
averiigeratings (Schroeder198:1)tirr one quality
at a time and within one scenesetat a time, i.e.
comparingthe scenesin Figure1 or thosein Figure 2. Ttests werc used to test fbr statistically
\ i s n i l l c r n Jl i f le r e n c ersr l p h a= . 0 I r b e t u e e n
prir\
of avelage ralings (nrble 1). This small alpha
valueuas usedto reducethe chanceofspuriously
idcntityinga statisticallysignificantrcsultgiven
the numerousconlparisonspertbrmed. Pairedt
lc\l\ \\alc use,lto compalea\erager:rling\generatedby the sameselsofrcspondents.Unpaired
I l(\l: u crc u\cLlIi, r,.rmprrear erlge ratingsgeneratedby different respondentsets.
The rggregrtetlr crru. Ji'ler'erl rerentionre
sultscame from diflercnt slide sets,each with its
o$'n scenic contcxt and referenceslides depicting uncutand clearcutforests(FiguresI and2).
This madecomparingthc averageratingstbr the
two differcnt retentionpatternsproblematic and
tentative. Ho$'ever,to facilitate a graphic com
parisontbr this prcliminarystudy,a standardization oflhesc averageratingswas made. This was
r linear rangetransformation
to a comnon nu
meric scalc. This transtbrmationset the averagc
rating fbr the clearcutslide lrt zcro and the averagerating tbr the uncut fi)restto 100. The trans
fonned averageratings for the grecn-treeretention hiuveststhenf'el]proporlionallybetween.This
enableda rough comparisonof the averagemtings fbr the two retention pattems versusthose
for clearcutand uncutfbrests.
Results
Avenge nting valucsandtheconespondingtranstbrmed valuesappearin Table I $,ith the t-tests
used Locompareaverageratings within ftc sets
of comparisons
depictcdgraphicallyin Figures.+
and 5. As might be expected.within the scene
setsfbr both the aggreeatedand dispersedreten
tion pattelns, thc clearcut scenesexhibited the
lo$'est averageratiDgsand thc uncut fbrest the
highesL. The averageratings for the grccn-tree
retention han est sccnesf'ell in betweenor were
statisticallvequivalentto the clcarcut.
I l0
Ribe
Therewas not a statisticallysignificantdifter
encebetweenthe averageacceptabilityratingsof
the uninformed clearcut versusthe uninformed
regeneration
harvestin eitherslideset(Tablel).
Tl're:JnchclJlruein comparing
thearcrage:,.enic
beautyratingstbr the clearcutandthe uninformed
dispersedretentionharyest(Table l). ln contrast.
the averagerating of scenicbeauty for the uninformed aggregatedretention han'est scenewas
significantly greaterthan that ofthe conespond
ing clearcutscene(Tablel, Figure,l).
The infbrmationstatementhad a significant
and substantialpositiveassociationwith a change
in averageaccaptabilityratings for both retention patterns(TableI, Figures4 and 5). However,theinfomation statement
wasevidendymuch
less intluentialupon averageratingsof scenic
beauty. Infi)rmation was not significantiy associatedwith a changein the averagescenicbcauty
rating of the aggregatedretentionslide (Tablc I ,
Figure 4). Although the averagescenic bcauty
rating ofthe disperscdretentionslide with inibrmltion was significantly greaterthan that wilhout inti)rmation(Tablel. Figure 5), this difier
ence was smaller than that observedfor the
acceptabilityratings (Figures4 and 5).
The translomrcdaverageacceptabilityratings
at the top ofFigure 6 suggestthat the aggregated
retentionhaNest wils perceivedas slightly more
acceptableon averagcthan the dispersedretention huvest, with or without information. The
comparisonof transfbrmedave|agesccnicbeauty
ratings at the bottom of Figure 6 is much more
suggestiveof a difference. There. the averagc
ratings 1br the aggregatcdretention pattem arc
higher than thosefor the dispersedretentionpaltcm. Thesedill-erences
aremuchgreaterthanthose
associatcd
with infbrmedversusuninfirrmedscenic
beautyratingswithin eitherslideset(Figurc6).
The differenccsin sceniccontentbetwccnthe
scenesetsin FigurcsI versus2 may be associu ith dil'ference\in lhe ii\erlge raling. prrL
.-rteLl
ducedtrom thosescencsets. The aggregatedrcl c n t ir n\ l i d e\ e l .w i l h s m al l c rh r r re . l ' i z e s .m o r e
saplingregeneration
evidentwithin its harvests.
and no other harvcstsin vieq producedavcrtge
ratings greater than zero 1i)r both judged qualities (Figure 4). In contrast.the dispersedhaNest
. l i d c \ e t . $ i l h i t L r g esri m u l r t c dh r r ! e . t \ i , / e .n o
sapling regenerationevident, and other haryests
in view, producedaverageratingsacrossa wider,
TABLE L Nlatrices01 r rcst\ lb all comparisonsof mean fatings $ithin erch combin.rlionol rclcnlion
pa(crn \een and quality judged. The top row oi cach matril indiciles mean ratrng values
lvith conespoDdin: translinmcd nca. rati.g \,'ahesrn parentheses.
Unlnfofined
Clearcut
Urllnformed
115%Retetrdofl 115%Retetrtion I UnharvesGd
Forest
lHarvest
Acceptability of Aggregated Retetrtion Scene Set
.08(0)
Mean Ratings
0.99( 6
Uninformed
Unharvested
Forest
t : 11 . 1 5
p < 0.001
df : 260
t = 8.68
p < 0.001
df = 250
Informed
15% Retention
Harvest
t = 6.85
p < 0.001
df = 260
p < 0.001
df = 250
Unlnformed
15% Retendon
Harvest
t = 0.78
p = 0.43
Scenic Beauty of Aggregated Retention Scene Set
0.80(0)
Mean Radrgs
1 . 6 8( 6 7 )
Uninformed
Unharvested
Fo!est
t = 11.17
p < 0.001
df = 319
r = 3.08
p = 0.002
df = 2a7
lnformed
15% Reteddon
Harvest
t= 7.73
p < 0.001
df - 319
r = 0,34
p = 0.73
dt - 287
Uninformed
1596Retention
Harvest
t = 5.04
p < 0.001
df = 287
Acceptability
Mean RatiDgs
of Dispersed Retentlotr Scene Set
- 1 . 7 9( 0 )
-1.6s(4)
Urdnformed
Unbarvested
Forest
t = 13.29
p < 0.001
df = 250
r : 1 7- 1 1
p < 0.001
dl = 260
tnformed
15% Retention
Harvest
t = 8.62
p < 0.001
df = 250
t = 5.83
p < 0.001
df = 250
Uninformed
15% ReteDtion
Harvest
r = 0.78
p = 0.43
df = 2s0
Scenic Beauty of Dispersed Rete[tion Scene Set
, 1 . 2 8( 3 )
Mean Ratings
1 . 3 8( 0 )
Uninformed
Unharvested
Forest
t: 15.06
p < 0.001
df = 2a7
Informed
I 596Retention
Harvest
p < 0.001
df = 2a7
Unlnformed
15% Retention
Harvest
t = 0.52
p = 0.60
dt : 287
t = 20.53
p < 0.001
di= 319
t = 3,39
p < 0.001
df = 247
2.r3 (64\
t = 3.41
p < 0.001
df = 260
2.71(r00)
r-72(7r)
2 . 1 1( 1 0 0 )
t : 3.09
p = 0.002
df = 319
0.00(s4)
1.s3(100)
t:6,26
p < 0.001
di = 250
-0.49 128)
r.77 (100)
t = 10.43
p < 0.001
df = 287
PublicVieu s of Harresrs I I I
Uninforned
Regeneration
Harvest l-I unlnrormeo
I Clearcut
Inforned
Regenelation
Harve6tl
ll
w
L
Average
Uninformed
UncutForest
I
V
V
2
Rating
AcceptabiLity
Uninformed
H"tut"t
I rnfor*"d
I p------.+;
^-
I Harvest
Uninforlrled
Clearcut
ll
I
V
i
I
1
Average
I
0
ll
W
uninrormea
Uncut Forest
l
l
V
I
I
3
2
Scenic
Beauty
Rating
Figurc ,1. Dist buli|)lr ol rhe .r!eragerutmgs fof riggregatedretenlion \ccnc sct.
Uninforned
Regeneration
Harvest
I
.'"""11
Uninformedl
Informed
Regen€ration
Uninformed
Uncut Folest
Harvest
I
I
t
VT
I
U
Average
Acceptability
Rating
Uninfora|ed
Harvest
I
i
I
-2
Uninformed
Uncut Forest
rnfofined
Regenerati.on
Harvestl
I
Uninfofinedl
clearcut
| |
t
t
V
-l
Average
II
:
O
Scenic
Beauty
Rating
Fi.sure5. Distfibution ofthe alerage ratjngs lin dispersedfetention sceneset.
112 Ribe
I
2
Acceptability:
A99regated
u"r"ro.r"ol
clearcut
I
;,t
t
V
Dispe!sed
sce!ic
Baauty:
Infoltned
Retention
Un.infonned I
n6ienironl I
t
clearcut
; lI
Dj'spersed
+
l
VI
I
Inforned
Dispersed
Figure 6. A comprfison oftfansfofmed alerage radngsofaggregatedversLrs
dispcrscdgrcun ree
f e t e n t r o nh v e \ t s c e n e s .
positive and negative.range. There. the simu
l a t c , -hl r r rc . t . . c n c : u l r r r l c dn l n - p , r : i t i r c . r , . r : r age ratingsfbr acceptabilityand scenicbeauty.
while only the uncut tbrest scenes'averageratingsrverepositivefbr both.judged
qualities(Figure 5).
Discussion
This pilot studyuseda feu scenescomparingdif
felent green treeretentionpaltemsin harvestsof
. l i f i ' e r e .r irzt e sr r r J . e li n d i F e r e \ a e n i (( ! ' n l e \ l \ .
It lackedthe nany replicationsin controlledvisual contexts and the variety of retention levels
p l u n n e llli ' r t h e n r . r i nD E M O * r ' i r r l p e r L e p t i u n .
study. TheselimitatioDspennitted only a simple
set of statistical,pairwisecomparisonssupplementedby gnphical analysis. Interpretationshould
thcrcforcbc considcrcdpreliminary. Nonetheless,managersand policy makerscan make use
tindingsasthebestcurrently
oftheseprelirninary
available infomration awaiting largcr, morc definitive studies.
When perceivedsimply. with no inlbrmltion
or knowledge about New Forestfy. 15 percenl
greeDtree retentionhaNestsare not likely to b9
perceivcdasany nroreacceptablethantraditional
clearcuts. Howevel. information aboul the nature and intentionsof New Forestryevidertly can
hale a positivcinfluenceuponperceptions
ofthe
acceptabilityoftheseNFP stylerctentionharvests.
The perceivedacceptabilityof regenerationhar
vestsis evidently the samebetweenthc tlnr pattems ofretention comparedin this study.whether
or notinlbrmationaboutNew Forestryis providcd.
Unintbrmed perceptionsof the sccnicbeauty
. l l 5 p e r c e ngt r e e n - l r erce l e n t i o lh a r \ c s t .( \ i dently may also be similar to thoseof cenven
tional clearcuts.as in the case of the disperscd
r e l e n t i ohna n c . lr n l h i . . l u d \ . \ n e \ ( e l l i , ' n , ' ( curred when the pattern of retentionwas aggre
gatedsoasto breakthe harvestunit up into smaller
openingsthat maintain morc tbrest canopy continuity in visla vicws. Suchharvestscan be per
ceived as more beautiful than clcarcuts. In this
Public Views of Harvests
I l3
rctentionharvestwasviewed
study,thc aggregated
in the c()ntcxtofno otherhaNests,while thc disperscdretentionharvest'svistaincludedtwo other.
oldcr clearcuts.Furtherresearchis ncededto see
how int'luential such scenic context fictors are
upon perceivedscenic beauty in relation to the
influence of adding retention harveststo landscilpcs.
Inti)rmationaboutNew Forestryappearsmuch
less associaledwith changesin perceptionsof
r e c n i i b e l u t l l h i l n$ i r . e \ i d c n li o l p e r c c p t i o n .
This is consistent
with theoretiof acceptability.
should
cal suggestions
of how suchperceptions
differ (Ittelson et 11.1976).and with differences
suggested
by otherstudies(Simpsonet al. 1976,
1986.
Russellet al. 1981,Tips and Savasdidara
Pukkalaet al. 1988,Dearden1989). An excep
tion was lbund fi)r the larger.dispersed-retention
harvestin this study.There,inforrnationevidently
increasedperceptionsof scenicbeautysomewhat.
perhapsbecluseof interactionbetweenthe content ofthat scencand the affectivewords includcd
in the inti)rmalion statement. More researchis
nceded. lnformation hasbeen tbund to enhance
perceptions
of scenicbcauty,but usuallywhenit
'natwal 'or"healthy"
are
indicatesthatlandscapes
and/oraleofa statusthatimpliesscenicor"natural" value(Carls1974,HodgsonandThayer1980,
Anclerson1981).But. sucheffectshavenotbeen
observcdlor infomation identilyingdifl'crentkinds
of "unnatural" tbrest managcmentlike han'ests.
reliableassoThis, and the lack of a substantial,
ciationbetweeninformatjonand scenicbeauty
perccptions
in thisstudyandothers(BrunsonaDd
Reitcr 1996),suggeststhat suchperccptionsn.ight
best bc enhancedby improving the appearance
of regenerationharvestsratherthan by education
or information.
No dilltrences in averagerltings were large
err,'uBlrto sugeestlhllt Lli.per.eJrctentionpat
terns may be perceivedas more or less acceptable tban aggregatcdpattems at the 15 percent
harvestretertion level. whcther ol not inlbrmation was provided.
Aggregatcdretentionwasevidentlyperccivcd,
beautifullhandis
on avcrage.
asmorescenicall)'
perscdretentionpatterns,irrespectivcof whether
either one or both perceptionsof the t$o retcntion patternsu'ere infonned. Thus. aggregated
retentionmay be the decisivcly preferablescenic
patlcmat the l5 percentretentionlcvelsstudied.
I l:l
Ribe
The reasonsmay bc the sameas thosediscussed
aboveregardingthe superiorityofthe aggregated
retentionpatterncomparedto clearcuts.
This pilot study did not separatethe effect of
retentionpattcm from that ofscenic contextconditions. Coincident variationbetweenthesetwo
factors suggcstssomecautionin interyretingthe
retentionpattemwasfound
results.The aggregated
to be more beautilul,and.the scenicconditions
of the aggregated
retentionslide set eliciteda
narro\4-er
rangeof onl,vpositiveratings of scenic
beauty(and acceptability).This suggeststwo
(1.)If the sceniccondipossibleinteryretations:
tions had beenidentical betu,eenthe two harvest
pattems, the difTerenccin perceptionof scenic
beauty betweenthe aggregatedand dispcrscd
patlemsmay har,ebeensmaller.as suggestedby
the botton of Figure 6. Horvever,it is Iikelythat
the diff'erenccwould still havebeennotablegiven
the strongcontrastin ratingsofscenic beautyand
acccptabilityfor the samecomparisonof scenic
conditions(top ol Figure6). (2) The lackofan
associationbetweeni ntirnnationancldillclences
in perceivedscenicbeautytbr the aggregatedretention scenemay be due,in part, to the lact thrt
m , ' \ l r c \ p . ' n J e n l(\h o s cl o r l l e l h r t r c c n cu r i n i
only the nanowet positivcprn ofthe ratingscale.
This would havecompressedthe two averagcratings.with andwithout infomation. for that scene.
This compression
did not occurfbr thc dispersed
ratedit
rctentionscenebecausethe respondents
usinga widerrangeof positiveand negativevalues. Hencc. a difltrence associatedwith infbrmation could morc readily emerge.The strength
of the associationbetweenlevelsof pcrccivcd
scenic beauty and information about Nerv Forcstry thereforeremainsuncertain.
Conclusions
The trade offs between negativepublic percept i o n : i r n dr i l r i . u l t u r u lb c n e f i t so f c l ( f , r ( u l si . a
long-standingdilemma in forest nanagement
(Hol.witz197:1).This studyshedsnew light on
\ \ h e l h e r\ i . r . rr i e r r , ' i t h . l 5 p e r e c r trtn i n i m u n t
retcntion standardnow prescdbedby the NolhwestForestPlanmight ofl'crsone resolution.The
resultsarenot very encouraging.It appearslikcly
that any pattern of 1-5percentretentionwill not
be seenby naiveviewers s any more acceptrble
than clearcuts. If the green-treesrctaincdin harvestsare dispersccl.then naive viewels rvill lind
then no nore scenicallybeautifulthancleucuts.
Some resolution lo rhe perception of timber
harvestsis olltred ifobservcrsareeducaGdabout
the naturcand intentionsof greentrec retention
lbrcstrv. This ma), be particularly true of peoplc
who have a vestedor idcological interest in fbr
estmanagernent
and who tend k)judge ha csts
on morcthantheir aestheticappearance.
The more
judgmcntsof recreationists
purelv aesthetic
and
thosejust passingthroughthe tifest, with lirtle
or no vestcdor ideological interestin forcst man
agcment.may be lcss intluencedby education.
sccnicbeautyperceptions
may insteadbe implovedif thc aggregated
clumpsof retainedtrees
are designedto minimize thc r isual magnitude
(Iverson 1985) of opcnings in the forest canopy.
Retentionat lcvelsgreaterthan l5 perccntmay
alsoimprove scenicbcautyperceptionsfbr either
or both aggregalcdand dispersedretention pattems, and nay do likervisetbr perceptionsof ac. u l l . r h i l i t ) .l - u t uer D E M O : r ' . r l l p e r c e pi ,r, n ' r e searchwill investigate
this furthcr.
This studysuggcsrs
thatinfonnarionaboutlorest
harvestscan intlueDceperceptions
of scenesincludingsuchhanests.This demonstrates
thatsonte
perceptions
of harvestscanassinilateboth what
is seenand the cognitivecontentthereof. This
su-sgests
thal when rnanagcrsseekto optimize the
socirJacceptabilitl oftbrest practicesthey should
pa\, attentionto more than appearance.Inslcad.
they should seekto integratethe appearanceand
contcntofthe laDdscrpes
the) manipulate.This
Lilerature Cited
A n d e r s o nL. . N L l 9 E l . L u n d u s e d e s i g n d i o n s. r f f e c ip c r
c e p t i o no l s c e n i cb e a u t ) i n f i r r e \ t l a n d s c a p e sF. o . .
Sci.27r392,t00.
I l c r i g s t o nD. . N . 1 9 9 . 1 C
. h . r n g i n gl o r c s rv a l u e sa n dc c o s r s l!'n nrmrgemenl. Soc. Nrr. ltesour. 7:515-51.1.
B c n s o n .R . E . . a r x l J . R . U l l d c h . 1 9 8 1 . V i s u a l i m p . r c t so f
l o r c s tm r n r s e m c n la c l i v i t i e st:i n d i n g so n p u b l j cp r c i
efenc!'s. USDA For. Sc,1..Res. P.rp. INT 262.
Urunson.\LW l99l
S o c i a l l ,a, 'c' .c c l r t . r b l ef o r e s t r l : $ h t
d o e sr t i m t l l l i r c c o \ ) s t e mm a n r { e n e n r l \ \ t s t . J .
, \ p p l . F 0 r .8 : l l 6 | 1 9 .
B r u n s o nN
. 4 .\ \ ' . . r n d D . K . l i c i l c r . 1 q 9 6 .E t l c c l so l e c o l o g i
(.1ir,.r,. .n.riur.r rr , ,hu, .e1,. rpJ.r.
o l l i m b e r h r r \ , e \ r . J . E D ! i r o n .N { a n a g c. .+ 6 : 3 1 - . 1 1 .
U r u . \ | ) n .N L \ \ . . a . d B . S h e l b r . I 9 9 2 . A s s e s i n gr e c r c a d N a l
a n ds c c n i cq u . r l i t ) : h o $ d o e s n e r l b r c s t r \ " f a r e l J .
F o f .9 0 1 7 ) : 3 7. 1 1.
Carls. E. G. 191,1 The efie.r\ ofpcople nd man induced
c|)lxiitionson prcicrence\tbr outdoor fecfearjon knd
\ c a p c s .J . L e i s . R c s 6 : l l 3 - 1 2 . 1 .
couldbe consistent
with ecosystem
managemenl
decisionrnaking where the "appropriateness"of
landscapes.
as proposedby Gobster(1996) or
Tlusty ( 1992).ratherthaniust their appearance.
is the main objective.Suchan integratedapproach
might produce more socially acceptableforest
landscapcs
thanthe lessperceptiblyscnsiblelandscapesthat arise liom traditional,reductionist
planning where each resource.including visual
quality.is separately
undentoodandcompctitivelv
sub optimized(Kimmins 1992.Hirr 199,+).
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the membersof the DEMO.
LTEP, andYSS researchteams1br their support
and advice. Particularthanksgo b Paul Gobster,
Mike Anaranthus. Jim Palmer,Sally Schauman,
SusanBolton, Charles Halpem and two anonymous reviewersfor theirvaluableassistance.This
rs a product of the Demonsffationof Ecosystenr
Managenent Options (DEMO) study.a joinr elfon of the USDA Forest Service Region 6 and
Pacific Northwest RcsearchStation. Research
pafiners include the Unive$ity of Washington,
Oregon StateUniversity, University of Oregon,
Gifford Pinchot and Umpqua National Forests.
and the WashingtonStateDeparment of Natural
Resources.Substantialsupporthasbecnprovided
by the USDA Forest Servicc, Norrh Central Re
se;Lrch
Station.
Chandler P M.. and R. c. Lee. 199.1.Ne.|l forcsrry and otd
conflicts in rhc Pacific \orlh$est. Unpubl. paper,5,h
\orth Amer. Sllnp. on Soc. and Resour. N{anage..
Cobrado Statc Univeniry. Fbn Collins.
Dana.S.T..rnd S. K. Fairlui(. 1980. I-brcstandRangcpolicy:
Irs Derelopment jn l.lleUnired Slalcs. Mccralr HiU.
Ne$ Yorl.
Da\.'id\on.A. R.. S. Yantis.M. Norwood and D. E. MNr|no.
1985 Amount of inlorlnation about rhe attitude ob
j e c t a n d a t t i t u d e - b e h a ! i ocro n s i n e . c ) . J P e r s .S o c .
P s , v c h . , 1191: 8 . 1I-I 9 8 .
I)carden P 19E9. Societal landscipe preferenccs: ir pvra
mid ofintluenccs. 1, P Deardcn.andB. Sadlcr(eds.).
I-andscqreEraluation: ApproachcsandAtplic.rtions.
\VestcrnGeogfaphicalSeries.\bl. 25. Victofiq B.C
P p .. l l - 6 3 .
De!a11.B. (ed.). 199.1.Clearcut: l he Tngedr of tndunrjal
Forestry. Sierra Club. Sau Ffancisco.
D i e t r i c h .W . 1 9 9 1 .T h e F i . a l F o r e s t :T h e B d r t e f b r t h e L a s l
G f e a t T r c e so f t h e P a c i i i cN o r t h w c s t . S i m o n a n d
Schuster.New York.
PublicViewsof Harvests 1 15
I)urbin. K. 1996. Itee Huggers: Victory, Defear. and Ren c r ! a l i n t h e N o r t h w e s tA n c i e n t F o r e s tC a m p a i g n .
Nlounlainccrs.Scaltl!'.
F r a n k l i r . J . 1 . . D . R . B c r g . D . A . T h o r n b u r g h .a n d J . C .
Trppeiner. 1997.Altern.rtive sil!icullural approachc!
io timbef hrrvesting: vafiable retention hrrvesl s",'s
l c m s . 1 x K . A . K o h n r .a r r dJ . F . l ' r a n k l i n( e d s . ) .C r e rting r Forestry ti)r the 2l' Centur]: The Scicnccof
1_-cos,\'stem
Management. Island Pres\, Washington.
D . C . P p .1 1 11 3 9 .
Fritz, E. C. 1989. Clearcutting: A Crime Again\l Naturc.
Eakin Press,Austin.
Cilljs.A.\'{. 1990. lhe new forestry:anecos}'stemappfoach
ro land managcment. BioScience:10:558-562.
Gobsrer.P H. 1q94. The acs|hcriccxpcricnccof suslainable
foresteco,iystems../r1$'.Co!ington, andL. F DeB,tno
( e d s . ) . S u s l a i n a b lc c o l o g i c asl y n e m s ; i m p l e m e n t i n g a n e c o l o g i c a la p p r o a c ht o l a n d m a n a g c m c n t .
USDA For. Sen.. Gen. Tech.Rep. RM-2,17. Pp- 2.16255.
1995. Aldo Lcopold s ccological esthetic : inte-__.
gfrting estheticandbiodiver\it,"valucs.J. For 93(2)16
10.
1996. Forestaesthetics, biodiveNity and the per'
ceived appropriatenessoI ccosysfcm managemen!
practices./,r Nl.W Brunson,L. E. Kruger C. B.Tr-ler.
and S. A. Schrocdcr (eds.). Defining \ocial accept.rbilir), in ecosystemnanagement: a workshop pro
ceedings. USDA For. Serv..Gen. Tech. Rep. PN$
369. Pp.11-97.
H a l p c m .C . B . . S . A . E \ a n s ,C . R . N e l s o n .D . M c K e r z i e ,D .
A . L i g u o r i .D . E . H i b b s .a n d M . G . H a l a j . 1 9 9 9 .R e sponseoffbrest vegetationto !arying lclcls and pa!
rcms of green tree retention: an ovenierv of a longt e r n e x p e r i m e n tN
. o i h u . S c i . 7 3( S p c c .l s s . ) r2 7 : 1 . 1 .
H a n s i s .R . 1 9 9 5 . T h e s o c i r l a c c e p t a b i l i ioy f c l e a r c u t t i n gi n
r h eP a c i i i cN o r l h w e s t .H u n r .O r g . 5 , 1 : 9 5 - 1 0 1 .
Hrt)-s.S. P 1987. Bcauty. Hcallh. and Pemranence: Environmentd Politics in lhe Unitcd Slalcs. 1955 1985.
Cambridge,Ne\\' York.
Hirt. P 199'1.A Conspiracyof Optnnisn: MaDagement()1'
thc Nalional FbrestsSince World Waf IL UniveNrty
of NebraskaPress.Lircoln.
H o d g s o n .R . w . . a n d R . L . T h a y e r 1 9 8 0 . I m p l i e d h u n r n
Lnfluencereduceslandscapcbcauly. I-andscapePlann.
1:t1t-119.
l l o r \ \ , i t z .E . C . J . ( e d . ) . 1 9 7 . 1 .C l e a r c u t t i n g :A U e w F r o m
ths Top. Acropolis. Washington,D.C.
. eaH u l l . R . B . . l ! . C . J . B u b ) o l l . a n d l C . D a n i e l . 1 9 8 . 1M
surementof scenic beaut!: lhc law of comparative
judgemeni and scenic beauty estimationprocedures.
F o r .S c i . 3 0 : 1 0 8 : 11 0 9 6 .
Ittelson.\\'. H.. K. A. Ffanck, and T. J. O'Hanlon. 1976. Thc
.alurc of cnvironm ental experience. 1" S. Wipner, S.
B. Cohen, and B. Kaplan (cds.). Elperlencing the
Envifonment. Plenum. New York. Pp. 187 206.
I v e r s o nW
. D . 1 9 8 5 .A n d t h a ts . r b o u ll h e s i z co l i t : v i s u a l
magnitudeasa measufement
of thephlsical landscape.
l , a n d s c a p Je. . 1 :l , l 2 2 .
Izrrd. C. E. 1977. Hunar Enolions. Plcnu . New York.
J o n c s J. . R . . R . M a n i n . a n d E . T . B a f t l e t t . 1 9 9 5 . E c o s y s t e n
mrnagcmcnt: lhc U. S. Foresl Service's responseto
s o c i a l c o n f l i c t .S o c .N a t . R e s o u r8. : l 6 l 1 6 1 i .
I 16
Ribe
Kellert. S. R. 1981. Affecti|e. cogniti\.'e,and evaluati|e perc e p t i o n so f a n i m a l s ./ n 1 .A l t m a n .a n dL F . w o h l w i l l
( e d s . ) . H u ' n a n B e h a v i o ra n d E n v i r o o m e n tV
. ol. 6.
P l e n u m .N e $ Y o f k . P p . 2 4 1 - 2 6 1 .
K e n n e r .8 . . a n d S . F M c c o o l . 1 9 8 5 . T h i n n i n ga n d \ c e n i c
in secondgfowih foresrs: aprelimrnary
attractiveness
asscssmcn!.Fbr.Cons. Exp. Sta. Res.Note 22. Uni
versitv of NIontana.Missoula.
K i m m i n s .J . P 1 9 9 2 . B a l a n c i n g A c t :E n v i r o n m e n t .Irsl s u e s
in Forestry. Univer\it,v''of British Colunlbi.r Press.
Vancouver.B.C.
K o h m , K . A . . a n d J . F F r a n k l i n( e d s . ) . 1 9 9 7 . C r e a t i n ga
F b r e s t r yl b r t h e l l ' C e n t u r y : T h e S c i e n c eo f E c o rystenrManagement.lsland Press.\\ashineton. D.C.
Lyons, Fl. 1983. I)emographiccorrelatesof landscapeprel
erence. Envirl'n. Bcha\. l5::ll7 5l l.
M c c o o l . S . F . . R . E . B e n s o n .a n d J . L . A s h o r 1 9 8 6 . H o w
the public perceivesthe !i\ual effects of timber hrrvesiing: an evaluarionof interesi group preterences.
E n v i r o n .M a n a g e .l 0 : 3 8 5 - 3 9 1 .
\assauer. J. I. 1992. The rppearanceofecological systems
a s a m a t t e ro f p o l i c ) . L a n d s c r p eE c o l . 6 : 2 3 9 - 2 5 0 .
)iative FbresrCouncil. 198798. ForestVoice(qua(erly news
lcllcr of iorcst proleclion advocac) group). Bugene.
Oregon.
Oregonian. 1990. Forestsin distress:nofihlvest fbrests,day
o f r e c k o n i n g( \ p e c i a ls u p p l e m e ntto t h e O c t o h e r1 5 .
1990 ne\rspaperissue). Ponland, Oregon.
Pal'ner. J. F., S. Shannon.M. A. Harrilchak. P H. Gobster.
and f. Kokx. 1995. Estheticsof clearcutting:akefnativesin theWhite Mounlain National Fofest. J.For.
93(5)r37,12.
PelT). D.,4...andM. P Amaranlhus. 1997. Disturbancc.rc
covery,rnd stability. 1, K.A. Kohn, andJ. F Frankhr
(eds.). Creating a Forestryfof the 2l'' Century: The
Science of Ecosystem Management. Island Press,
w a s h i n g t o nD
. . C . P p .3 l - 5 6 .
P u k k a l aT. . . S . K e l l o m a k i a
. n dE . M u s t o n e n .1 9 8 8 . P r e d i c tior of the amenity ol a tree srand. ScandinavianJ.
F o r .I t e s . . l : 5 3 1 - 5 . 1 . 1 .
i hatharem
R i b c , R . C . 1 9 8 9 . T h e a e s l h e l i cosf t b r e s r r y $
piric: prelerencereserrch laught usl Environ. Man
a g e .1 3 : 5 5 - 7 , 1 .
R u d d e l lE
. . J . ,J . H . G r a m a n n . V A .R u d i s .a n d J .M . W e s g h a l .
1 9 8 9 .T h e p s y c h o l o g i c ault i l i t y o f v i s u a l p e n e r a t i o n
in near-\'iewforest scenic beaut]' models. Environ.
Behav.2l:l9l-.t12.
Russell,J. A.. L. M. Ward.andG. Pratt.1981.Affectivequality
ailributcd !o environments: a facror analytic study.
E n v i r o n .B e h a v .1 3 : 2 5 92 8 8 .
Rutheford, $'., and E. L. Sh.rfer. 1969. Selection cuts increasednaturalbeaur.t*
in tr\'oAdirurdack foreststands.
J . F o r .6 7 ( l l ) : 1 1 5: 1 1 9 .
Sanlayana.C. 1896. The Senseof Beaut,v.Scribner's.New
Schrocder.H. w. 19E,1. Environmental perception rating
scales:acasetbr sinrplemethodsofanal],sis. Environ.
B c h a ! . 1 6 1 5 7 35 9 8 .
Schroeder.H. W. P H. Gobster.and R. Frid. 1993. Visual
q u a l i t y o f h u m a n - m r d ec l e a r i n g si n C e n t r a lM i c h i g a nc o n i t t r s . U S D A F o r .S e r v . ,R e \ . P a p .N C - 1 1 3 .
Sinpson. C. J..T. L. Rosenthal.T.C. D.rniel,andG. NL Whire.
1 9 7 6 .S o c i a l i n l l u e . c cv i r i a t i o n si n e v a l u a r i n g
nran
aged and unmanagedlorest areas. .1.Appl. Psych.
61:159-161.
S t . r n k e ]G
, . H . , a n d R . N . C l . r k . 1 9 9 2 . S o c i a l A s p e c t so f
Ne$ Perspective\in Fofesrry: A Problen Anal)\is.
Grey T ve|s Pfes\, Milfbrd.
S t e e l .t s .S . , P L i s t . a n dt s . S h i n d l e f . 1 9 9 , 1 C
. o n l l i c t i n gl a l ucs aboul federal lbrests: a cofirparisonof natjonal
a n dO r c g o np u b l i c s . S o c .N a t . R c s o u r1. | 3 l l 5 - 1 .
T a y l o r .J . C . . a n dT . C . D a n i e l . 1 9 E 5 .P e r c e ne d s c e n i ca n d
recreational qualitf of lbrest burn areas./n J. E. Lotan
( e d . ) . P r o c e e d i n g s - \ r - i r p o s i u ma n d l v o r k s h o po n
$ilderness fire. 19til. USDA For. Serv..Gen. Tech.
R c p .l N T 1 8 2 . P p . 3 9 8 , 1 0 6 .
Tichcnor. P. G. Donahuc. Cl. N. Olicn. and J. K. Bowcrs.
1 9 7 1 . F l n \ ' i r o n n c nal n dp u b l i c o p l n i o r . J . E n v i r o n .
Iid. l:lE:ll.
'fips,
\\'. E. J.. rnd T. Srlasdid r. 1986 The influence of
cn!ironmcnul backgrcLrndo1 \ubjcc|s on dcir land
scapeprelerence
elaluations. Landscapeurban Pl r.
l3:125-113.
Tlustl. $'. G. 19q2. Visu.rl und recre.rrionlalues oi wlile
pinc. 1, R.A. Stinc.rndM.J. BoughmaD(cds.).whrrc
pinc sympo\iurn procccdjngs. Univ. Minncsora Err.
S s r \ ' .P u b l .N R B U 6 0 . 1 . 1P. p . 8 , 19 7 .
'lremblat.
K . l i . . a n d R . D u n l a p . 1 9 1 8 . l t u r a l - u f b a nr e s i dence and concem with en!ir|)l1nlentalqu.rlil]. Ru
r a l S o c i o l ., 1 3 : , 1 7,,119 l .
Ulrich. R. S. 1981. Ac\rhcdc and alltcti!c irspolrsc 1|)nalLr
ralenvironment.,r LAltman, and.l. Fl $bhh\'il1 (eds.).
Hun1.lnBehavior and Environment.Vol. 6. PlenuIr1.
N c $ Y o r l . P p .8 5 1 2 5 .
4,t6. Hurrrr -e.|. r.e. ro \ige',,Inr :, d L rd
\crpe\. L.rndscapeUrban PlanD. l3:29-.1.1.
USDAandUSDL l994. Recordof deci\iur fi)f amendnrents
to Forest SeNice rnd Bureau of Land Nlan gement
planning docLrnentswithin the rangeol the northern
\po(cd o$1. USDA For Scrv.. Por(land.Orcgon.
V i n i n g .J . 1 9 9 2 . E n v i r o n m e n t a l e m o t i o nasn d d e c i s i o n s :I
comparisonol the responsesard expectationsof ibr
cst nlanagcr\, an cnlironmcntal group. and fic pub
lic. hn\'iron. Beha!. 2.1:33:1.
Vog!, K. A.. J. C. Gordorr.J. P \!hreo. and D. J. Vogt. 1997.
E c o s y s t e m r :B a l a n c i n gS c i e n c e$ i t h N { a n a g e m e n t .
Springer,-\''ewY(rk.
w i l k e n s o n ,C . f . a n d H . M . A D d e r s o n .1 9 8 7 .L a n d a D d R e
sourccPlanningin thc Nalional Forcsts, Island Prcss.
\\'ashingt0n,D.C.
\!bod. N. 1971. Cllearcul: A Siera Club Battle Book. Si
crra Club. San Francisco,
lajonc. R. B. 1980. Feelingand thinkingi prcfcrcnccsnccd
no intrences. Am. Psvchol.35:l5l 175.
Z u b e . E . H . , J . L . S e l l .a n d J . G . T a y l o r . 1 9 E 2 . L a n d s c a p e
perception: research,application and iheory. Landr c a p cP l a n n .9 r l 3 3 .
PubiicVews of Harvests | 17