Effects of bioenergy extraction on visual preferences in boreal forests: a review of surveys from Finland, Sweden and Norway

References

• Aasetre J. 1993. Miljøpreferanser i Nordmarka. Resultater fra en åpen intervjuundersøkelse [Environmental preferences at Nordmarka. Results from an interview survey]. Lillehammer: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA-Oppdragsmelding 205) [Norwegian].
   Google Scholar
• Aasetre J. 1994. Friluftsliv i bynære skogområder – en undersøkelse blant turgåere i Skien og Oslo [Recreation in urban woodlands – a survey among visitors at Skien and Oslo]. Lillehammer: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA-Oppdragsmelding 325) [Norwegian].
   Google Scholar
• Andreassen K. 1982. Flersidig bruk av skog. En intervjuundersøkelse blant turfolk i Trondheim Bymark [Multiple-use of forest. A preference survey among visitors to Trondheim Bymark] [MSc thesis]. Ås: Agricultural University of Norway [Norwegian].
   Google Scholar
• Appleton J. 1975. The experience of landscape. London: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Axelsson Lindgren C. 1990. Perceived differences between forest stands – recreation and planning [dissertation]. Alnarp: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Axelsson Lindgren C, Sorte G. 1987. Public response to differences between visually distinguishable forest stands in a recreation area. Landsc Urban Plan. 14:211–217. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(87)90030-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boll T, von Haaren C. 2014. Landscape changes in recreation areas – survey with particular focus on the acceptance of increasing dendromass production. Nat schutz Landsch plan. 46:137–144.
   Google Scholar
• Brough P, Rørstad PK, Breland TA, Trømborg E. 2013. Exploring Norwegian forest owner's intentions to provide harvest residues for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy. 57:57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryn A, Debella-Gilo M. 2011. GIS-based prognosis of potential forest regeneration affecting tourism locations and cultural landscapes in South Norway. Scand J Hosp Tour. 11:166–189. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2011.576827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. 2000. European landscape convention. Strasbourg: European Treaty Series No. 176.
   Google Scholar
• Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA. 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan. 78:465–474. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards DM, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss G. 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. For Policy Econ. 19:12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006
   Google Scholar
• Eskelinen O. 1979. The natural environment welfare factors of forested outdoor recreation area Pyynikki. Silva Fenn. 13:146–151 [Finnish with English summary]. doi: 10.14214/sf.a14883
   Google Scholar
• Fry GLA, Sarlöv-Herlin I. 1997. The ecological and amenity functions of woodland edges in the agricultural landscape; a basis for design and management. Landsc Urban Plan. 37:45–55. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00369-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry GLA, Tveit MS, Ode Å, Velarde MD. 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Landsc Urban Plan. 9:933–947.
   Google Scholar
• Fyhri A, Jacobsen JKS, Tømmervik H. 2009. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landsc Urban Plan. 91:202–211. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Aasetre J, Andersen O. 2012. Folks preferanser for barskoglandskap i Norge [Peoples preferences for forest landscape in Norway]. Tidsskriftet Utmark. 1:12–77 [Norwegian with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Christensen H. 2008. Skogbruk og friluftsliv i bynære skoger – hvilke ønsker har dagens brukere av utmark [Forest and recreation in urban forests – preferences among the visitors]. Oslo: Norsk skogbruksforening [Norwegian with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Frivold LH. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Greening. 7:241–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Frivold LH. 2011. Naturally dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests: public preferences and the effect of information. Scand J For Res. 26:110–119. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2010.536567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Stange E, Björck M, Elsrud OE, Frivold LH. 2011. Opplevelsesverdier i skog – effekter av økologisk og økonomisk informasjon [Experiential preferences – effects of ecological and economic information]. Lillehammer: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA Rapport 739) [Norwegian with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Tangeland T, Kaltenborn BP. 2015. Planning for recreation along the opportunity spectrum: the case of Oslo, Norway. Urban For Urban Greening. 14:210–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L. 2004. Skogsbränsleuttagets påverkan på naturhänsynen – en analys av nuläget (Slutrapport P12779-1). Eskilstuna: Swedish Energy Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Haakenstad H. 1972. Forest management in an area of outdoor life. An investigation of public opinion about Oslomarka. Survey A and survey B (Meldinger fra Norges Landbrukshøgskole No 16). Ås: Agricultural University of Norway [Norwegian with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Haakenstad H. 1975. Silviculture in recreational areas. The forest and outdoor life in two model areas in Oslomarka. Ås: Agricultural University of Norway [Norwegian with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Hallikainen V. 1998. The Finnish wilderness experience. Rovaniemi: The Finnish Forest Research Institute (Research Papers No. 711).
   Google Scholar
• Hedwall P-O, Gong P, Ingerslev M, Bergh J. 2014. Fertilization in northern forests – biological, economic and environmental constraints and possibilities. Scand J For Res. 29:301–311. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.926096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellström E. 2001. Conflict cultures – qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fenn. (Monographs 2), 109 p.
   Google Scholar
• Helmisaari HS, Hanssen KH, Jacobson S, Kukkola M, Luiro J, Saarsalmi A, Tamminen P, Tveite B. 2011. Logging residue removal after thinning in Nordic boreal forests: long-term impact on tree growth. Forest Ecol Manage. 261:1919–1927. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.02.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoen HF, Winther G. 1993. Multiple use forestry and preservation of coniferous forests in Norway. Scand J For Res. 8:266–280. doi: 10.1080/02827589309382776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holgén P, Mattsson L, Li C-Z. 2000. Recreation values of boreal forest stand types and landscapes resulting from different silviculture systems: an economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 60:173–180. doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hultman SG. 1979. Friluftsskogen i folkets ögon [The recreation forest in people's minds]. Sveriges Skogsvårdsförbunds Tidskrift. 77:32–49 [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Hultman SG. 1981. The forester's work role – for good and for bad. Sveriges Skogsförbunds Tidskrift. 79:15–34 [Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Hultman SG. 1983. Public judgement of forest environments as recreation areas. 2. A national survey (Report No. 28). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Environmental Forestry [Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Jaatinen E. 1976. Visitors’ opinions concerning the forest recreation areas of Helsinki (Publication No. YB 7/76). Helsinki: Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto, yleiskaavaosaston julikaisu [Finnish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Järveläinen V-P. 1977. Opinions on Finnish private forestry. On the opinions of the private forest owners and the forestry experts concerning forestry and its promotion. Folia For. 334:1–47 [Finnish, with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson S, Lundström H, Nordlund S, Sikström U, Pettersson F. 2014. Is tree growth in boreal coniferous stands on mineral soils affected by the addition of wood ash? Scand J For Res. 29:675–685. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.959995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen FS. 1995. Forest recreation. In: Hytönen M, editor. Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute. p. 245–269.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen FS. 2000. The effects of information on Danish forest visitors’ acceptance of various management actions. Forestry. 73:165–172. doi: 10.1093/forestry/73.2.165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen FS, Skovsgaard JP. 2009. Precommercial thinning of pedunculate oak: recreational preferences of the population of Denmark for different thinning practices in young stands. Scand J For Res. 24:28–36. doi: 10.1080/02827580802592475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong J, Akselsson C, Berglund H, Egnell G, Gerhardt K, Lönnberg L, Olsson B, von Stedingk H. 2012. Consequences of an increased extraction of forest biofuel in Sweden: a synthesis from the biofuel research programme 2007–2011 (Report 2014:01). Eskilstuna: The Swedish Energy Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T. 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan. 59:1–11. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas J, Laasonen L, Pukkala T. 1993. A method for estimating forest landowner's landscape preferences. Scand J For Res. 8:408–417. doi: 10.1080/02827589309382787
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas J, Niemeläinen P. 1996. Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland. Scand J For Res. 11:269–280. doi: 10.1080/02827589609382936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RS, Kaplan S, Ryan RL. 1998. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L. 1978. Hyggen – behöver dom vara fula? [Clearcuts – do they have to be ugly?]. Sveriges Skogsvårdsförbunds Tidskrift. 76:385–433 [Swedish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L. 1990. Talltorpsmon i Åtvidaberg. 1. Förändringar i upplevelsen av skogen mellan 1978 och 1989 [Talltorpsmon i Åtvidaberg. 1. Changes in the perception of the forest between 1978 and 1989] (Report No. 46). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Environmental Forestry [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L. 2001. Ett kvartssekel med några luckblädningsförsök i Uppsalatrakten (1976–2001) [A quarter century with some group selection experiments in the Uppsala area, 1976–2001] (Report No. 90). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Environmental Forestry [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L. 2004. Svenskarna och skogen. Del 2. [The Swedes and the forest. Part 2]. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsens förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L, Eriksson L, Lindhagen A. 1993. Luckblädningsförsök i Uppsalatrakten 1976–1990. Föryngringsresultat och upplevelsevärden [Group selection experiments in the Uppsala are 1976–1990. Results of natural regeneration and nature experience] (Report No. 54). Uppsala: The Swedish University of Agricultural, Department of Environmental Forestry Sciences [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L, Hultman S-G, Johansson M-L, Svedin P. 1977. Konsekvenser för det rörliga friluftslivet av helträdsutnyttjande. Några attitydtester [Consequences of whole-tree harvesting for outdoor life: some attitude tests] (Report No. 7). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Environmental Forestry [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L, Lindhagen A. 1998. Ett försök med stamvis blädning på Ekenäs. Skogstillstånd, markvegetation samt attityder [An experiment with single-tree selection at Ekenäs. Forest condition, ground vegetation and attitudes] (Report No. 77). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Environmental Forestry [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L, Mård H. 1989. Några gruppers attityder till stubbrytning 1976 och 1988 [Some groups’ attitudes to stump pulling in 1976 and 1988] (Report No. 41). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Environmental Forestry [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Kardell L, Wallsten P. 1989. Några gruppers attityder till Pinus contorta [Some groups’ attitudes to Pinus contorta] (Report No. 40). Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Section of Environmental Forestry [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Karhu I, Kellomäki S. 1980. Effects of silvicultural practices on the forest landscape: a study of the opinions of the people of Puolanka, NE Finland. Silva Fenn. 14:409–428 [Finnish with English summary]. doi: 10.14214/sf.a15034
   Google Scholar
• Karjalainen E. 1996. Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland. Landsc Res. 21:159–173. doi: 10.1080/01426399608706483
   Google Scholar
• Karjalainen E. 2000. Metsänhoitovaihtoehtojen arvostus ulkoilualueilla [Preferences of forest management alternatives in recreational areas]. In: Saarinen J, Raivo PJ, editors. Metsä, harju ja järvi: Näkökulmia suomalaiseen maisematutkimukseen ja – suunnitteluun. Rovaniemi: The Finnish Forest Research Institute; p. 111 [Finnish].
   Google Scholar
• Karjalainen E. 2006. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation – four case studies in Finland [dissertation]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biosciences [Finnish].
   Google Scholar
• Karjalainen E, Komulainen M. 1998. Field afforestation preferences: a case study in northeastern Finland. Landsc Urban Plan. 43:79–90. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00076-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karjalainen E, Komulainen M. 1999. The visual effect of felling on small- and medium-scale landscapes in northeastern Finland. J Environ Manage. 55:167–181. doi: 10.1006/jema.1998.0238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellomäki S. 1975. Forest stand preferences of recreationists. Acta For Fenn. 146:1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Kellomäki S, Savolainen R. 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape assessed in field and laboratory. Landsc Plan. 11:97–107. doi: 10.1016/0304-3924(84)90033-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komulainen M. 1998. Kylämaisema eläväksi – asukaskeskeinen suunnittelu maaseudun kahittäjänä [Living landscape! – participatory planning as a tool for rural development] (Research Papers 682). Helsinki: The Finnish Forest Research Institute [Finnish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Korhonen M. 1983. Suhtautuminen metsäympäristöön ja metsänhoitoon [People's relationship to forest areas and silviculture] (Publication No. 12). Joensuu: University of Joensuu [Finnish].
   Google Scholar
• Lind T, Oraug J, Rosenfeld IS, Østensen E. 1974. Friluftsliv i Oslomarka. Analyse av en intervjuundersøkelse om publikums bruk og krav til Oslomarka [Recreation in Oslomarka. Analysis of an interview survey about people's use of and demands on Oslomarka] (Arbeidsrapport No. 8). Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research [Norwegian].
   Google Scholar
• Lindhagen A. 1996. An approach to clarifying public preferences about silvicultural systems: a case study concerning group selection and clear-cutting. Scand J For Res. 11:375–387. doi: 10.1080/02827589609382950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindhagen A, Hörnsten L. 2000. Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry. 73:143–153. doi: 10.1093/forestry/73.2.143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lothian A. 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of beholder? Landsc Urban Plan. 44:177–198. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovèn L. 1973. Landscape preferences of professional foresters. Silva Fenn. 7:8–23 [Finnish with English summary]. doi: 10.14214/sf.a14705
   Google Scholar
• Mattsson L, Li C-Z. 1994a. How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests? – an economic analysis. J Environ Manage. 41:79–88. doi: 10.1006/jema.1994.1035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson L, Li C-Z. 1994b. Sample nonresponse in a mail contingent valuation survey: an empirical test of the effect on the value inference. J Leis Res. 26:182–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattsson L, Li C-Z, Lundqvist L. 1995. Hur producerar man både virke och miljö? [How to produce both timber and a good environment?]. Skog & Forskning. 1:45–51 [Swedish].
   Google Scholar
• Ndubisi F. 2002. Ecological planning: a historical and comparative synthesis. Baltimore (MD): John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nousiainen I, Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L. 1998. Landscape in farm-scale land-use planning. Scand J For Res. 13:477–487. doi: 10.1080/02827589809383009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ode ÅK, Fry GLA. 2002. Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban For Urban Greening. 1:15–24. doi: 10.1078/1618-8667-00003
   Google Scholar
• Ode Sang Å, Tveit MS. 2013. Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy. 31:557–564. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson T. 2012. Tree stumps for bioenergy – harvesting techniques and environmental consequences. Scand J For Res. 27:705–708. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.726520
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pukkala T, Kellomäki S, Mustonen E. 1988. Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand J For Res. 3:533–544. doi: 10.1080/02827588809382538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydberg D. 1998. Urban forestry in Sweden: silvicultural aspects focusing on young forests [dissertation]. Umeå: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Saarsalmi A, Mälkönen E. 2001. Forest fertilization research in Finland: a literature review. Scand J For Res. 16:514–535. doi: 10.1080/02827580152699358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saastamoinen O. 1982. Economics of multiple-use forestry in the Saariselkä forest and fell area. Commun Inst For Fenn. 104:1–102.
   Google Scholar
• Savolainen R, Kellomäki S. 1981. Scenic value of forest landscape. Acta For Fenn. 170:1–80 [Finnish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Savolainen R, Kellomäki S. 1984. Scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and laboratory. Commun Inst For Fenn. 120:73–80.
   Google Scholar
• Sievänen T. 1993. Outdoor recreation household survey in the city of Hämeenlinna. Folia For. 824:1–62 [Finnish with English summary].
   Google Scholar
• Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T. 2001. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landsc Urban Plan. 56:11–20. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00163-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvennoinen H, Pukkala T, Tahvanainen L. 2002. Effects of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scand J For Res. 17:263–273. doi: 10.1080/028275802753742936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skärbäck E, Becht, P. 2005. Landscape perspective on energy forests. Biomass Bioenergy. 28:151–159. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strumse E. 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J Environ Psychol. 16:17–31. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strumse E. 2002a. Allmennhetens oppfatninger av opplevelsesverdier i kulturlandskapet [Public preferences for amenity values in the cultural landscape]. Tidsskriftet Utmark 1; p. 1–9 [Norwegian].
   Google Scholar
• Strumse E. 2002b. Oppfatninger av jordbruk og jordbrukslandskap hos lokalbefolkningene i Hedmark og Indre Sogn [Preferences for agricultural landscape among residents of Hedmark and Sogn] In: Austad I, Ådland E, editors. Kultur-turisme. Muligheter. Problemer. Utfordringer. Bergen: University of Bergen; p. 26–43 [Norwegian].
   Google Scholar
• Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O. 2001. Forest management and public preferences – visual versus verbal information. Landsc Urban Plan. 53:53–70. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00137-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Nousiainen I. 1996. Effect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscape. Scand J For Res. 11:397–405. doi: 10.1080/02827589609382952
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tönnes S, Karjalainen E, Löfström I, Neuvonen M. 2004. Scenic impacts of retention trees in clear-cutting areas. Scand J For Res. 19:348–357. doi: 10.1080/02827580310019284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tveit MS. 2007. A conceptual framework for assessing visual landscape character using indicators – the VisuLands framework [dissertation]. Ås: Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning.
   Google Scholar
• Tveit MS, Ode Å, Fry G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res. 31:229–255. doi: 10.1080/01426390600783269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen L, Nouisiainen I, Silvennoinen H, Tahvanainen L. 2001. Rural tourism in Finland: tourist expectation of landscape and environment. Scand J Hosp Tour. 1:133–149. doi: 10.1080/150222501317244047
   Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For Urban Greening. 1:135–149. doi: 10.1078/1618-8667-00014
   Google Scholar
• Valente C, Hillring G, Solberg B. 2011. Bioenergy from mountain forest: a life cycle assessment of the Norwegian woody biomass supply chain. Scand J For Res. 26:429–436. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2011.570783
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walmsley JD, Godbold DL. 2009. Stump harvesting for bioenergy – a review of environmental impacts. Forestry. 83:17–38. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpp028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar