People’s preferences for Alpine forest landscapes: results of an internet-based survey

References

• Akbar KF, Hale WHG, Headley AD. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape Urban Plann. 63:139–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antrop M. 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape Urban Plann. 70:21–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoki Y, Petrova E. 2010. Bilateral project of JSPS and RFBR on comparison of natural landscape appreciation between Russia and Japan: first stage. J Environ Inf Sci. 38:105–110.
   Google Scholar
• Bell S, Tyrvainen L, Sievanen T, Probstl U, Murray S. 2007. Outdoor recreation and nature tourism: a european perspective. Living Rev Landscape Res. 1:2.
   Google Scholar
• Brush R, Chenoweth RE, Barman T. 2000. Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 47:39–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chulwon K, Sung Jin K, Hyang Jung L. 2004. Understanding cross-cultural differences in leisure and recreation attitude. Int J Tourism Sci. 4:39–60.
   Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Meitner MM. 2001. Representation validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J Environ Psychol. 21:61–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Vining J. 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF, eds. Behavior and the Natural Environment. USA: Springer; p. 39–84.
   Google Scholar
• Fyhri A, Jacobsen JKS, Tømmervik H. 2009. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape Urban Plann. 91:202–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geoghegan J, Wainger LA, Bockstael NE. 1997. Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an Ecol. Econ Analysis Using GIS Ecol Econ. 23:251–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibon A, Sheeren D, Monteil C, Ladet S, Balent G. 2010. Modelling and simulating change in reforesting mountain landscapes using a social-ecological framework. Landscape Ecol. 25:267–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobster PH. 2005. Recreation and leisure research from an active living perspective: taking a second look at urban trail use data. Leisure Sci. 27:367–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grilli G, Nikodinoska N, Paletto A, De Meo I. 2015. Stakeholders’ preferences and economic value of forest ecosystem services: an example in the italian alps. Baltic For. 21:298–307.
   Google Scholar
• Herzog TR. 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. J Environ Psychol. 5:225–241.
   Google Scholar
• Howley P. 2011. Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol Econ. 72:161–169.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglehart R. 1977. The silent revolution: changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ingold T. 2000. The perception of the environment. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jankovska I, Straupe I, Brumelis G, Donis J, Kupfere L. 2014. Urban forests of Riga, Latvia – pressures, naturalness, attitudes and management. Baltic Forestry. 20:342–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junge X, Schüpbach B, Walter T, Schmid B, Lindemann-Matthies P. 2015. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plan. 133:67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons E. 1983. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ Behav. 15:487–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasar JL, Li MH. 2004. Landscape mirror: the attractiveness of reflecting water. Landscape Urban Plann. 66:233–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natori Y, Chenoweth R. 2008. Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. J Environ Psychol. 28:250–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohl W. 2001. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception–preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape Urban Plann. 54:223–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notaro S, Paletto A. 2011. Links between mountain communities and environmental services in the italian alps. Sociol Ruralis. 51:137–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ode Å, Tveit MS, Fry G. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Res. 33:89–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oku H, Fukamachi K. 2006. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape Urban Plann. 75:34–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrova EG, Mironov YV, Aoki Y, Matsushima H, Ebine S, Furuya K, Petrova A, Takayama N, Ueda H. 2015. Comparing the visual perception and aesthetic evaluation of natural landscapes in Russia and Japan: cultural and environmental factors. Prog Earth Planetary Sci. 2:6.
   Google Scholar
• Pflüger Y, Rackham A, Larned S. 2010. The aesthetic value of river flows: an assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers. Landscape Urban Plann. 95:68–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reips UD. 2002. Standards for Internet-based experimenting. J Exp Psychol. 49:243–256.
   Google Scholar
• Roth M. 2006. Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—an empirical study from Germany. Landscape Urban Plann. 78:179–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty RW. 1987. The Analytic Hierarchy Process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model. 9:161–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sexton NR, Dietsch AM, Don Carlos AW, Miller HM, Koontz LM, Solomon AN. 2012. National wildlife refuge visitor survey results—2010/2011. In: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series. p. 685.
   Google Scholar
• Shuttleworth S. 1980. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. J Environ Manage. 11:61–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini K, Vaarala H, Pouta E. 2012. Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. Landscape Urban Plann. 104:124–134.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions – visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plann. 53:53–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P. 2009. Landscape services as a bridge between Landscape Ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol. 24:1037–1052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vos W, Meekes H. 1999. Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landscape Urban Plann. 46:3–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weible R, Wallace J. 1998. Cyber research: the impact of the internet on data collection. Marketing Res. 10:19–25.
   Google Scholar
• Yamamoto M, Shimomura A, Ono R, Kumagai Y. 1999. A study on the characteristics of park use at Shinjuku Gyoen according to age brackets and the factor of selection of space. J Jpn Inst Landsc Archit. 62:627–630.
   Google Scholar
• Yang B, Brown TC. 1992. A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environ Behav. 24:471–507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Wang R, Cai Y, Luo P. 2013. Effects of visual indicators on landscape preferences. J Urban Plan D-ASCE. 139:70–78.
   Google Scholar
• Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG. 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Res. 9:1–33.
   Google Scholar