Urban & Fischer Verlag

http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/ufug

Ecological and aesthetic values

in urban forest management
Liisa Tyrvinen1, Harri Silvennoinen2, and Osmo Kolehmainen3
1
University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Ecology, Helsinki, Finland
2
University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, Joensuu, Finland
3
University of Joensuu, Department of Statistics, Joensuu, Finland

Abstract: In the planning processes of urban forests there are frequent conflicting opin-
ions about the extent to which forests should be managed. On the one hand, manage-
ment is needed to deal with the intensive use of forests, as well as unfavourable growing
conditions, security factors and aesthetic variables. On the other hand, there is an in-
creasing demand for unmanaged areas which is based primarily on ecological arguments.
This paper presents research that was conducted in connection with the participatory
planning process of Helsinki City forests. The main aim of this research was to study
whether aesthetic and ecological values can be combined in the management of urban
forests. Furthermore, the stability of forest landscape preferences during the participatory
planning process was studied, along with the representativeness of planning groups com-
pared to larger user groups. The data was collected in planning group meetings and public
hearings in Helsinki during 19982000. Respondents evaluated a set of photographs de-
signed to cover the main conflict situations in urban forest management: Thinnings,
understorey management, the leaving of dead snags and decaying ground-wood.
These results show that the majority of residents in Helsinki prefer managed forests. The
preferences are, however, closely connected to the background characteristics of respon-
dents. Younger residents with a higher education and active urban forest users prefer
more ecologically-oriented management when compared to older residents with less edu-
cation, or less active users. The individuals had a rather clear and relatively stable opin-
ion of what constitutes suitable management in urban forests, but the views differed
considerably as a whole. This means that a participatory planning process will typically
lead to some type of compromise. Moreover, the planning groups in Helsinki reflected the
opinions of the larger user groups rather well. This indicates that the currently used par-
ticipatory planning approach sufficiently integrates public values into its planning pro-
cess.

Key words: aesthetics, ecology, landscape preferences, participatory planning, urban

forestry, visualisation

Introduction
In urban forest planning and design, the integration of
different user group aspects is often required. Many
studies show that Finnish people appreciate green
neighbourhoods and have relatively close emotional
bonds with nature (e.g.Tyrvinen 1999; Pouta & Siev-
Address for correspondence: L. Tyrvinen, University of
Helsinki, Department of Forest Ecology, Helsinki, Finland.
P.O. Box 27, FIN-00014 Helsinki University.
E-mail: liisa.tyrvainen@helsinki.fi

Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003): 135149 1618-8667/03/01/03-135 $ 15.00/0

136 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
nen 2001). Neighbourhood forests are evaluated
through their specific modes of use; a resident viewing
the forest through an apartment or house window reacts
to the management of their forest differently than, for
instance, a visitor passing by.
In this paper the term urban forest is defined as
woodland located in or near an urban area. The urban
forest consists mainly of natural or transformed forest
vegetation, and typically, the areas vary from half a
hectare to tens of hectares, for example, in a residential
area.
A relatively well-established method for integrating
the residents views regarding forest management is the
participatory planning approach (e.g. Public participa-
tion in forestry in Europe and North America 2000). It
offers local residents an opportunity to influence the
way that urban forests in their immediate surroundings
are managed. This method increases the planning costs,
however, and it is unclear how well the group involved
in planning represents all users (Wallenius 2001). The
planning process may attract certain types of people,
and some active members may tend to dominate the
planning situation. Although the dissatisfaction of the
more well-formulated interest groups is minimised, it
does not necessarily lead to an optimal satisfaction of
all needs, but rather to the formulation of some sort of
mediocre compromise. Furthermore, the number of
participants may tend to remain rather limited, and
therefore, a more general picture of the expectations
and preferences of residents is useful when defining
management goals.
During planning processes, conflicting opinions
about desired management or whether it is needed at
all are frequent. These conflicts are typically caused
by different attitudes and values that people have to-
wards urban forests and their management. On the one
hand, management is needed to deal with intensive use,
unfavourable growing conditions, security issues and
aesthetic reasons. The demand for management may
also have cultural roots, i.e. in the horticultural or forest
management traditions that have long influenced the
landscapes of urban areas. On the other hand, there is
an increasing demand for unmanaged areas based on
ecological arguments. In Helsinki residential areas, for
example, differences are found in acceptability of eco-
logical management options such as saving decayed
trees and leaving the bush layer unmanaged. Residents
also have differing views towards thinnings, but, above
all, the regeneration of forest stands is objected to.
Previous forest landscape preference studies, con-
ducted mainly in the 1980s, suggest that residents pre-
fer managed forests, but prefer them without visible
traces of human activity. Often, forests are thought to
be in a natural condition even when they are managed
(e.g. Savolainen & Kellomki 1981; Ribe 1989; Axels-
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
son Lindgren 1995). Furthermore, logging residues,
dead snags and decayed wood left in forests are not ap-
preciated. Although the importance of ecology in forest
management has increased during the past decade, it is
not clear to what extent peoples preferences have
changed, or how stable their views really are.
Aesthetic values are often shown to be linked to a
persons training, their previous experiences with
forests, age and sex (Brunson & Reiter 1996; Lindha-
gen 1996; Silvennoinen et al. 2002). Much of the exist-
ing psychological research regarding human landscape
preferences has been based on a rational model that
emphasizes logical and knowledge-based decision-
making processes (Payne et al. 1992; Daniel 2001a).
This approach suggests that preferences should be
strongly influenced by ecological knowledge. People
with a greater knowledge of ecosystems, for example,
should be more likely to prefer ecologically sustainable
landscapes (Gobster 1999; Daniel 2001a). In a similar
way, active participation in forest planning may in-
crease the participants ecological and/or silvicultural
knowledge, and thus may change their preferences to-
wards forest management options (Tyrvinen & Lf-
strm 1998).
Although verbal information about management has
been shown to have a statistically significant effect on
peoples acceptance of forest management actions (e.g.
Jensen 1998) also contrasting results exist. Vodak et al.
(1985) found no effect on respondents scenic ratings
when they were told which harvest treatments they
were evaluating. In a study of Brunson and Reiter
(1996) office workers who heard a 5 minute informa-
tional message about ecosystem management rated the
ecosystem management stands as more acceptable than
did the control group, while students who heard the
message judged the stands as less acceptable.
In fact, research has confirmed that landscape evalu-
ation has a close link to important emotion-related psy-
cho-physiological responses (Hartig et al. 1991; Ulrich
et al. 1991). Moreover, environmental preferences are
viewed as having a substantial genetic evolutionary
basis (Ulrich 1983; Kaplan & Kaplan 1989). These ap-
proaches suggest that environmental preferences may
depend more on affective reactions than on any knowl-
edge-based logical operations (see Daniel 2001a).
Some conflicts related to urban forest management
may also be caused by conceptual misunderstanding.
Urban residents are becoming less and less familiar
with the terminology used by the forestry professional
to describe the future management alternatives. While
other senses also influence the perception and experi-
ence of landscape, aesthetic perception occurs mainly
through the sense of sight. Tahvanainen et al. (2001)
studied the effect of different landscape and forest
management measures on scenic beauty and recre-
 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
ational value of a recreation area. Two evaluation
methods, visual and verbal, were used to compare the
visual perceptions with preconceptions regarding dif-
feret management options. The results show that pre-
conceptions concerning different silvicultural mea-
sures did not consistently correspond to their visual
perceptions. This suggests that people may have differ-
ent mental images about the proposed forest manage-
ment actions. The results support the use of a visual
presentation method as a tool for decreasing conceptu-
al misunderstandings in relation to the participatory
planning context.
Today, digital image editing (video imaging) and vir-
tual landscape simulators offer the most advanced visu-
alisation methods available (Zube et al. 1987; Watzek
& Ellsworth 1994; Karjalainen & Tyrvinen 2002).
Digital photo editing seems to be the best means of vi-
sualisation for studying forest landscape preferences
for near-views. The images produced through the use
of landscape simulators do not correspond to the real
world accurately for most purposes of preference re-
search, i.e. their technical quality is not accurate
enough nor are they able to illustrate the landscape de-
tails. The pros and cons of the available computer-gen-
erated visualisation methods for preference studies in
Finland are evaluated in further detail in a review arti-
cle by Karjalainen and Tyrvinen (2002).
The main aim of this research was to study to (i)
what extent aesthetic and ecological values are com-
petitive in the management of urban forests. Further-
more, (ii) the stability of forest landscape preferences
during the participatory planning process, and (iii) how
representative the planning groups were compared to
the larger user groups were studied. This research was
part of a larger multi-disciplinary research project
Ecology in Urban Planning (ECOPLAN) funded by
the Academy of Finland. The main aim of the project
was to develop better methods for incorporating eco-
logical knowledge into land use planning as well as in
the maintenance of urban forests. The project was con-
ducted in collaboration between the Universities of
Helsinki and Joensuu and the Finnish Forest Research
Institute (FFRI).
Material and methods
Study area
The study focused on small-scale urban forests in
Helsinki, Finland. These forests are managed by the
city authorities. The Helsinki region has a population
of 1.2 million. In the administrative area of the city,
urban woodlands cover approximately 3600 hectares.
The data was collected within the urban forest manage-
ment planning process that was conducted by The
137
Green Area Division of Helsinki, (19982000) (Fig. 3,
p. 140). In this context collaborative planning has been
used in Helsinki since 1995. As regards green space
planning the municipal region is divided into 50 sub-
units. In each subunit the urban forest planning group is
composed of local organisations and associations. Indi-
vidual residents also can sign up to be a member of
these planning teams. The planning group works to-
gether with experts, and is assigned to make a ten-year
management plan for the urban forests of the residen-
tial area in question. The methods for working include
field visits, teamwork, and meetings in which the prin-
ciples of the forest management are discussed. The
working group also has inventory data about the forest
area in question as background. The planning process
lasts approximately one year (Fig. 3, p. 140).
This study included five green space planning sub-
units, located in the northeastern part of the city: Pihla-
jamki-Pihlajisto, Kontula-Kurkimki, Tammisalo,
Puistola-Heikinlaakso and Vanha kaupunki-Kumpula-
Toukola. The first two areas were built predominantly
in 1960s and 1970s, and the main housing type consists
of blocks of flats. The two areas house approximately
17 000 inhabitants. The last three areas are dominated
by detached or terraced houses. These areas together
house approximately 16 500 inhabitants.
Photography and image processing
The pictures for evaluation were produced using a type
of digital image editing technique, which has been used
previously in preference studies (e.g. Johnson et al.
1994; Tyrvinen & Tahvanainen 1999; Tahvanainen et
al. 2001). The technique uses computer software to ma-
nipulate digitised video or photographic images. The
advantage of this method is the possibility of control-
ling the variation in visual stimuli, and to study the ef-
fect of particular changes (e.g. the existence or lack of
an understorey, or decaying wood).
The forest stands in the study areas were photo-
graphed in late July 1998, using a camera with a 50 mm
lens and colour negative films with a sensitivity of
100 ASA. The pictures were taken on a tripod, horizon-
tally, at the eye level of the observer. All photos were
taken from a recreational path or trail, which was
thought to be the most typical place for passers-by to
observe the scenery. Six different kinds of mature for-
est stands (age of 7080 years) were selected for the
study (Fig. 1). The images were chosen to represent the
typical forest stands found in local urban forests; ma-
ture pure pine (Pinus sylvestris), spruce (Picea abies)
and birch (Betula pendula) stands and mixed stands.
Additional photographic images were collected in
the field to create a photo-library for editing the origi-
nal photographs. This library included photos of dead
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
138 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management

Fig. 1. Forest images included in the study (Photos: Erkki Oksanen/FFRI, Marjut Ihalainen/University of Joensuu).

Fig. 2. Examples of forest management alternatives produced through image processing (Photos: Erkki Oksanen/FFRI, c
design by Liisa Tyrvinen, image editing by Marjut Ihalainen and Ilkka Taponen).

Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)

L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management 139

Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)

140 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
Fig. 3. Collection of study data within the participatory
planning process conducted by the Green Area Division of
Helsinki.
snags, decaying trees, understorey, bushes, ground
layer and mature trees of various tree species. As found
in similar studies, this editing work was time-consum-
ing. Although a certain subjectivity is always inherent
when one is using photographic manipulation, both the
authorities responsible for the management of Helsinki
urban forests and research experts were consulted to
create the most realistic images possible.
The photographs for evaluation were produced
through digital photo manipulation (Adobe Photoshop
4.0.1) to represent four distinctly different types of
management options: (1) no management, (2) manage-
ment of understorey and bush layer, (3) thinning and
(4) leaving decayed trees and dead snags (Fig. 2). Al-
ternatives 1 and 4 were thought to ameliorate the eco-
logical conditions for fauna and flora. Alternative 1 de-
scribed situation in a forest with an abundant under-
storey. This provides shelter and food for birds and
mammals and is often comprised of a large range of
woody species, which therefore, provides a suitable en-
vironment, for example, for numerous invertebrates.
Alternative 4 followed the reformed forest manage-
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
ment guidelines in Finland, in which increasing the
amount of dead trees and decaying wood in forests is
one of the most important goals of the ecological man-
agement. The lack of dead and decaying wood presents
the primary threat to 10 percent of all endangered
species in Finland (Rassi et al. 2001).
Evaluation of the images
The perception-based approach used in this study ad-
dresses, first and foremost, the visual aesthetic quality
of the landscape. The forest management alternatives
were assessed from colour slides using a pairwise com-
parison method. There were two kinds of evaluation
situations: planning meetings, and public hearings
which occur during the typical planning process. The
members of the planning group evaluated the forest
slides at the beginning and at the end of the planning
process (Fig. 3). The study included 24 different im-
ages that were presented pairwise on two screens with
a slide projector. The respondents were asked what
type of management they prefer to take place in their
neighbourhood forests. The type of use was not speci-
fied for the evaluators. The participants were asked to
try to imagine the scene in nature, and evaluate that
mental image rather than the slide. The slides were
shown for 1520 seconds, which has been found to be
sufficient time for evaluators to view the slides (e.g.
Tahvanainen et al. 1996). Before starting the evalua-
tions, slides of various types of scenery were presented
to the participants to give them an idea about the varia-
tion of possible landscapes, and to practice the compar-
ison technique.
The pairwise comparisons were made and analysed
according to the methods introduced by Alho et al.
(2001). Before composing the pairs, the pictures (n =
24) were randomised and numbered 1, 2,, n. The
pairs were formed so that Picture 1 would be compared
to Picture 2, and 2 to 3,, and n-1 to n. Then compar-
isons of Picture 1 to 3, 2 to 4,, n2 to n were added.
Thus, the total number of slide pairs (n1) + (n2) was
45. Finally, the overall order in which the pairs were
presented to evaluators was randomised.
These comparisons were made in order to assess
which of the two landscapes was preferred, and what
the degree of preference was. The evaluators recorded
their opinions on a sheet that contained both numeric
(from 1 to 9) and verbal scales. Correspondences be-
tween numeric and verbal expressions were: 1 = equal
preference of both landscapes, 3 = weak preference of
one landscape over another, 5 = notable preference of
one landscape over another, 7 = strong preference and
9 = absolute preference of one landscape over another.
There was also a possibility to assign intermediate val-
ues of 2, 4, 6 and 8 to the slides.
 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
Statistical analysis
In our regression model, preference of the landscapes
(the combination of landscape location, i, and treat-
ment, j) was explained with background characteristics
of the evaluators (k). The evaluators can be divided into
classes, for example according to the sex of the evalua-
tor. If it is assumed that an evaluator belongs to class h
= 1,, H-1, then the value of (i,j) for k is of the loglin-
ear form
v (i,j,k) = exp ( + ij + jh),
where v is the scenic preference and is an intercept
term. Term ij can be written in the form u + u1(i) + u2(j)
+ u12(ij), where u1(i) measures the effect of the landscape
location (i), u2(j) measures the effect of the treatment (j),
and u12(ij) is the location-treatment interaction. Term jh
shows how the background characteristic of (k) influ-
ence a participants evaluation, relative to the baseline.
The statistical analysis was aimed at revealing how
different management options were ranked, and how a
given respondents background characteristics influ-
enced his/her evaluation. First, the effects of the differ-
ent management options were studied using the model
of interactions (ij ), in which neither background char-
acteristics nor explanatory variables were considered.
To facilitate these interpretations of the results, the ef-
fects of different treatments (u2(j)) were converted into
exponential form (eu2(j)). These values were relative,
with the value one meaning that the effect of treatment
is on the average level. For example, if some manage-
ment option has a higher value than the original situa-
tion (treatment), it would indicate that this option may
be preferred by the respondent(s) relative to the origi-
nal situation.
At the second stage, the background characteristics
were included in the regression model. The F-test iden-
tified those background characteristics which signifi-
cantly increased the integrity of the fit of the regression
model (R2). The suitability of this method for the as-
sessment of scenic preferences is discussed in greater
detail in Tahvanainen et al. (2001).
Results
Respondents
Image assessments were collected from 291 respon-
dents, of which 83 were planning group members and
208 were participants in public hearings (Table 1).
There were somewhat more women (55 percent) than
men (45 percent). The mean age of participants was
rather high (53 years) and only 5 percent were younger
than 30 years of age. The majority of the respondents
(58 percent) were born in other places than the Helsinki
141
Fig. 4. Recreational use of neighbourhood forests in Helsinki
suburbs.
region. More than half of the evaluators, however, had
spent their childhood in an urban environment. Differ-
ent housing types were well-represented in the study.
The most typical resident lived within a block of flats
(39 percent), while 31 percent lived in detached houses
and 30 percent lived in terraced houses. The average
educational level among the respondents was fairly
high; more than one-third of the respondents held a
university degree. Every fifth family included forest
owners. Almost 10 percent of the respondents were
members of nature conservation associations.
A high percentage of respondents participated ac-
tively in outdoor recreation; 72 percent of them visited
local forests at least once a week (Fig. 4). The most
typical participant visited the neighbourhood forests
several times per week. Previous studies indicate that
approximately 70 percent of the Finnish population
participate in outdoor recreation during the week
(Pouta & Sievnen 2001). This measure also includes
visits to outdoor recreation areas other than to neigh-
bourhood forests, which suggests that participants
were more active recreationists than the national aver-
age. The most common activities engaged by partici-
pants were walking and jogging (62 percent). Nature
observation was also a popular activity among users of
urban forests.
Pairwise image assessment succeeded well, and
comparisons were consistently performed by the re-
spondents. The first step of the analysis was to compute
the internal consistency of the evaluations of each par-
ticipant. The higher the value (max. value 1) the more
consistent was the assessment. In this study, none of
the respondents were disqualified because of the weak
consistency. The distribution of R2 measures from re-
gressions carried out for each participant are presented
in Figure 5. In practise, internal consistency is depen-
dent on the respondents scaling style: a respondent
using a wide scale received a low consistency ratio
more easily than the others.
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
142 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
Fig. 5. Internal consistency of respondents. The larger the number (max. value 1) the more consistent the comparisons of
image pairs are.
Fig. 6. Evaluation of different forest stands.
Fig. 7. Effect of different management options on the value
of forest landscapes.
Landscape preferences
According to the results, the pine stands where most
preferred. Pure birch stands were almost as preferred as
pine stands. Pure spruce stands were the most disliked
among the single species stands. Mixed forest stands
with various tree species were less popular than mono-
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
cultures. Mixed stands of deciduous trees were espe-
cially disliked. In contrast, mixed pine and spruce
stands were appreciated (Fig. 6).
When evaluating management options, the most pre-
ferred management style was the alternative where the
understorey was managed with dead and decaying
trees absent from the forest stand. The thinning of the
stand decreased scenic value only a little.
The most disliked images of management alterna-
tives were the dense and closed forest vistas with abun-
dant undergrowth (Fig. 7). Moreover, numerous people
disliked dead snags and decomposing wood left by for-
est managers on the forest ground.
The original situation of the forest also influenced the
ways in which management affected the scenic value of
the forest vista. Management of the understorey signifi-
cantly increased the scenic value of pine stands. In con-
trast, this management method in mixed spruce-birch
stands and in pure birch stands influenced in scenic
value relatively little. Dead snags and decayed ground
wood was least preferred in pine stands, however, they
were mostly unnoticed in mixed stands of spruce-birch-
aspen and in spruce stands. Thinning of a stand de-
creased the scenic beauty most clearly in spruce stands,
at higher rate even than leaving the dead and decayed
trees. In other forests, thinning decreased scenic value
only to a smaller degree when compared to the best al-
ternative, (i.e. management of the understorey, Fig. 8).
The results of various management alternatives can
influence the residents ranking of tree stands. Growth
of the understorey caused by lack of management par-
ticularly changed the ranking of woodlands. If the un-
derstorey is managed and the major tree stand is
thinned, the pine stands were the most appreciated
(Fig. 8). The pine stand with abundant undergrowth,
however, is less preferable than a mixed deciduous
 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management 143

woodland where the understorey is managed. Pure

birch stands are the most preferred of all the unman-
aged stands. Pine stands with abundant undergrowth
are perceived to be as valuable as similarly growing
spruce stands or pine-spruce stands.
The goodness of fit of the model explaining prefer-
ences was 0.216. The relatively low degree of ex-
plained variance of the model is largely explained by
the fact that the preferences of evaluators are typically
different. This can be concluded from the fact that the
internal consistency of the evaluators was relatively
high (Fig. 5). If the preference models were calculated
for individuals, around 80 percent of the variance Fig. 8. Effects of different management options on value of
would be explained. different forest stands. No management, Management
of understorey and bush layer, Thinning, Leaving de-
cayed trees and dead.
Background characteristics of the evaluators
In the regression model, the value of the forest images Table 1. Background characteristics of the evaluators
were also explained by the following background vari-
ables, by one variable at a time: sex, age, place of birth, Number
childhood environment, educational level, forest own- of
ership, membership in a nature conservation organisa- judges
tion, frequency of recreational visits and whether a re-
spondent was an active nature observer (Table 1). Fur- Participant Planning group 83
thermore, the first and second evaluation conducted by Public hearing 208
the planning group members were compared to study Sex Female 156
the stability of the preferences (24 individuals). The Male 128
representativeness of the planning groups was also Age <38 years 28
studied by comparing the evaluations of planning group 3549 years 64
members to the evaluations of the larger user groups. 5059 years 82
Significance level of the regression model regarding >59 years 76
scenic beauty was increased by the following back-
Origin Born in capital 113
ground characteristics: sex (p = 0.000), age (p = 0.007), city area
current housing style (p = 0.000), educational level (p = Born elsewhere 153
0.000), outdoor visits in local forests (p = 0.002) and
nature observation activity (p = 0.000). These back- Childhood environment Urban area 139
Municipal centre 36
ground characteristics influenced the perceptions of
Rural area 90
forest vistas and their management alternatives. We also
studied the ways in which statistically differing respon- Current residential style Flat 106
dent groups assessed the influence of different manage- Terraced house 81
ment alternatives on scenic beauty. The effect of man- Private house 84
agement options in different woodlands was not possi- Education level Elementary school 43
ble to calculate, however. Therefore, the following dis- College education 123
cussion of results is based on mean values of prefer- Academic education 96
ences dealing with different management alternatives. Forest ownership Yes 61
Men tended to approve of dead trees and decaying No 206
ground-wood more readily than women, but other dif- Membership in a nature Yes 21
ferences based on gender remained relatively small protection association No 206
(Fig. 9). Age had an influence on the approval of dead
and decayed trees. The younger the respondent, the Frequency of visits to At least once a day 61
local forests Many times a week 81
more dead and decomposing wood was approved of.
Max. once a week 81
The age group of 35 to 49-years-of-age found the re- Max. once a month 43
moval of undergrowth to improve the scenery less than
other groups. This group accepted dense undergrowth Nature observer Yes 134
better than other age groups (Fig. 9) . No 47

Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)

144 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management

Fig. 9. Effects of various background characteristics of respodents (sex, age, education, housing type, active/passive nature
observer, recreational activity) on acceptance of different management options. 1 = No management, 2 = Management of
understory and bush layer, 3 = Thinning, 4 = Leaving decayed trees and dead snags.

Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)

 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
The individuals level of education also influenced
approval of dead wood. The higher the educational
level, the more dead snags and decomposing ground-
wood was approved of. Furthermore, academically-ed-
ucated respondents approved the removal of under-
growth less than other educational groups. In contrast,
the lower the education of an individual, the more that
thinning as a management practice was appreciated.
Residents living in a block of flats were less dis-
turbed by abundant undergrowth than were residents in
terraced or private houses. Block of flat dwellers con-
sidered that removing the undergrowth increased the
scenic beauty of the woodland less than other groups.
Terraced and private house residents instead appreciat-
ed, on the average, thinned stands where undergrowth
was managed (Fig. 9).
Active nature observers tended to appreciate closed
forest vistas more than did passive observers. They
also found the removal of undergrowth and thinning of
the stands to improve the woodland scenery less bad
than other residents. Active nature observers accepted
decayed ground-wood and dead snags less than other
residents, however. Active outdoor visitors also appre-
ciated dense woodland structure more than passive vis-
itors. Moreover, active visitors found thinned and
cleared woodlands slightly less appealing than other
residents. Visitors who spent time in woodlands at most
once a month were the least pleased about the dead and
decayed wood in the forests. The preferences of active
nature observers and active users of forests are relative-
ly similar. It is possible that the latter two groups are, to
a large extent, composed of the same individuals.
The landscape preferences of the audience partici-
pating in the public hearings seemed to be similar to
those of participants in the planning groups. Forest
preferences of participants in public hearings did not
differ significantly from the preferences of members of
a planning team. Furthermore, the landscape prefer-
ences of the planning group members did not change
during the planning process. No significant differences
were found between the evaluations conducted at the
beginning or end of the process.
Discussion
The assessment of paired slides was successfully com-
prehended by respondents. People were motivated to
evaluate the forest images, and they had a clear concep-
tion of their personal preferences as they related to
management. Forest images were compared consis-
tently, which was confirmed by the high internal con-
sistency measures of the respondents. One reason for
the success of the evaluations might have been the rela-
tively small number of image pairs in the study (45),
145
which enabled the participants to concentrate on the
evaluation process during the entire session.
Pure pine and birch stands were the most appreciated
by respondents according to this study. This result was
parallel to previous studies (Pukkala et al. 1988; Hal-
likainen 1998; Silvennoinen et al. 2001). In contrast,
mixed stands received a lower ranking than they did in
previous studies. Although the importance of ecologi-
cal forest management has increased at the policy and
planning level, the users of urban forests do not, in gen-
eral, prefer management alternatives that are aimed at
increasing the ecological diversity of an urban forest.
The most preferred silvicultural activity in urban
forests was the management of undergrowth. Also
moderate thinnings of the tree stands are well accepted.
In this study, leaving an abundant understorey or leav-
ing dead snags and ground wood in a forest were less
preferred than managed stands. According to previous
studies, people did not appreciate dead snags and de-
cayed trees left in the forest and preferred good visibil-
ity in the forest (Vodak et al. 1985; Brunson & Shelby
1992; Johnson et al. 1994; Tyrvinen et al. 2001). In a
study by Karjalainen (2000) the visitors of a recreation
area preferred the removal of dead trees based primari-
ly on security reasons. Individual preferences may be
more influenced by factors such as accessibility, visi-
bility and security of the forests. These characteristics
of forests are particularly important for users in urban
areas (van Konijnenburg & Derks van de Ven 1994,
Burgess 1995).
This study indicated that men, young people and
highly educated individuals accepted ecological man-
agement options, abundant undergrowth and decaying
wood in urban forests better than other groups. The re-
sults dealing with dead snags and decaying woods are
similar to other forest preference studies (e.g. Tyrvi-
nen et al. 2001). This supports the assumption that
knowledge increases the acceptance of ecological man-
agement. As opposed to expectations, forest ownership
did not influence the preferences of people. Forest
owners typically have an understanding about the mo-
tives for silvicultural management measures (Silven-
noinen et al. 2001). In this context, the mainstream
image of urban forests may be detached from goals set
for commercial forests. Urban forests are seen more as
a part of the residential environment, and as a principal
provider of amenity values. It may be that aesthetic val-
ues only rise to the surface when practical or economi-
cal interests are not the guiding motives for the assess-
ment (Haapala 2000).
Membership in a nature protection association did
not influence the landscape preferences demonstrated
in this study. This contrasts with previous research, in
which membership in a nature protection association
had the largest influence on preferences, in a study of
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
146 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
Helsinki recreational areas (Karjalainen 2000). These
areas were located 3040 kilometres away from the
city centre, and are not used by residents in a similar
way than the neighbourhood forests. It is possible,
however, that the management practices presented in
this study did not provide a large enough range of val-
ues of forests to identify differences in preferences.
One significant factor that influenced expectations
concerning urban woodlands was the type of housing
the participants dwelled in. People living in private and
terraced houses preferred a higher degree of forest
management than did people living in flats. It is possi-
ble that private and terraced house residents consider
local urban forests as a continuum of their managed
gardens and yards. Moreover, the amount of light in a
garden or in an apartment is an important feature for
apartments in Finland, and residents often wish to in-
crease the light in their apartment through management
of the adjacent forest. In fact, dense, mature coniferous
forests situated close to apartments may have a nega-
tive impact on property values (e.g. Tyrvinen 1997;
Tyrvinen 1999). In contrast, residents living in blocks
of flats may appreciate different woodland characteris-
tics more than other residents, such as the screening ef-
fect of vegetation, which is decreased by thinning and
management of undergrowth of the forests.
An important result of this study was the finding that
the landscape preferences of the planning group mem-
bers did not actually differ from the opinions of resi-
dents participating in public meetings. This means that
participatory planning groups in Helsinki distinctly
represent the views of residents and other stakeholders,
views which are reached through participation in large
public meetings. Furthermore, according to compar-
isons between the first evaluation and the second as-
sessment of group members, it seems their landscape
preferences are rather stable. A one-year period of in-
volvement in a communicative planning process did
not significantly change preferences.
The results indicate that people have rather clear
tastes regarding their concepts of scenic beauty. In-
stead, the real problem is to find a general consensus
regarding the ways in which different management ob-
jectives can be combined in local forests. The manage-
ment goals of individuals are to a certain extent com-
petitive, and these views did not grow closer to one an-
other during the participatory planning process. This
means that participatory planning often leads to a com-
promise in which individual expectations are not com-
pletely fulfilled.
In Helsinki, middle-aged and elderly people partici-
pate actively in public discussions and participatory
planning processes. Yet, younger age groups are often
few or absent. This is a phenomenon that has been ob-
served also in other urban forest planning processes
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
(Tikkanen 1996). Because age is one significant back-
ground characteristic of our respondents, the large
share of an elderly age group influences the assessment
results. Preference studies from North America have
shown that attitudes towards the environment differ be-
tween children, teens and adults (Kaplan & Kaplan
1989). Youth appreciate the wild, dense, and hidden
forests more than they do cultivated and open forest,
whereas, adults and children appear to value open-for-
est landscape more than dense forest. For children,
however, structurally diverse natural places have been
demonstrated as more inspiring and imaginative, even
when compared to a well-organised playground (Ka-
plan & Kaplan 1989; Grahn 1991).
One open question in the perception-based study ap-
proach used in this research relates to the different lev-
els of ecological quality or natural/ecological values
that can be objectively identified by the respondents.
What motivates this question is the fact that this re-
search method was intended to primarily address the
aesthetic quality of the landscapes, and was not devel-
oped to focus on the ecological features of different
landscapes. The aesthetic quality of the landscape de-
pends on both features of the landscape and the percep-
tual processes that those features evoke in a human
viewer (e.g., Daniel 2001b). In our study, we made the
assumption that ecological features such as dead snags,
decaying wood and understorey were clearly visible
and distinguishable from looking at the images.
One deficiency of this study was the scarcity of pho-
tographic images of management alternatives. The in-
fluence of undergrowth, for example, was studied with
only two optional images: unmanaged closed forest
vista and a managed forest vista. More image alterna-
tives might have indicated that some amount of under-
growth can increase the scenic beauty until it obscures
the forest vista thoroughly (Schroeder & Daniel 1981;
Hull et al. 1987). In addition, the stand structures were
too uniform in the images, and only mature stands were
represented. The approval of management alternatives
depends of the developmental stage of the forest
stands. The age of the stand influences peoples prefer-
ences more than tree species and the way of manage-
ment (Karjalainen 2000; Silvennoinen et al. 2002).
Conclusions
The results of this study suggest that ecological and
aesthetic management targets are to some extent
competitive within urban forest management. Al-
though visitors may appreciate the idea of the natural-
ness of an urban forest, the real signs of a natural state
such as deadwood are not preferred. Furthermore, the
management of understorey increases the accessibili-
 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
ty of and the visibility in the areas. Today, the discus-
sion related to urban forest policy and nature activists
often dominate planning. This suggests that more re-
search information is needed about urban forest pref-
erences in order to provide comprehensive informa-
tion for decision-making. Moreover, our results sug-
gest that we need more environmental education of
citizens, preferably at an early age, if we wish the
general public to accept the sound ecological forest
management principles. Any change in attitudes and
values towards urban forests requires a relatively
long time period.
According to our results, the majority of participat-
ing residents preferred managed forests. These resi-
dents most preferred the alternative where the forest
understorey was cleared. Thinning of the forest stand
was seen to decrease the scenic value a little. The most
disliked stands were unmanaged forest vistas, where
young coppice limited sight and accessibility. Resi-
dents also disliked dead or decayed trees left remaining
in a forest. Moreover, it seems that landscape prefer-
ences are rather stable. Although education and ecolog-
ical knowledge seem to influence forest stand prefer-
ences, participation in planning work did not influence
landscape preferences during the planning process.
The paired slide comparison method is relatively
easy to use in an actual planning context, and provides
useful information for charting the preferences of local
users. Typically elderly residents participate actively in
urban forest planning. Therefore, other communication
channels and tools need to be developed to activate
children and youth. In fact, use of the Internet has re-
cently been tested in various ways throughout the Green
Area Division of Helsinki (see Tyrvinen et al. 2002).
Active visitors and nature observes preferred natural
forest environments and accepted unmanaged forest
vistas. In contrast, those who visited forests rarely pre-
ferred managed forests. It might be reasonable to sug-
gest that the expectations and preferences of active
users should be given more weight in the participatory
planning processes, because these residents usually
have much experience with the local forests, as regards
their pleasantness and functionality. This would mean
that urban woodlands need to be managed in a relative-
ly light way.
Urban forest landscape preferences have probably
regional differences but may also differ at the city
level. Landscape preferences in a capital city do not
comprehensively represent preferences in other cities
or municipalities. Additional data has been therefore,
collected in Kuopio in central Finland, where respon-
dents have also been presented with a wider set of for-
est management alternatives, including regeneration
options. The research results will be published in a fol-
lowing paper.
147
Multiple values of residents regarding urban forests
are guaranteed when you have a diversity of forests.
Although light management is the most preferred man-
agement style, the unmanaged, natural areas should
also be included to guarantee the diversity of forest en-
vironments. The potential to develop diverse wood-
lands, however, depends on the size and visitor pres-
sures on urban forest areas. The more that urban wood-
lands become fragmented in a city structure, the more
management will be needed to keep those woodlands
viable as well as attractive. The smaller the size of an
urban woodland, the harder it is to reach the ecological
diversity.
Acknowledgements. This research was supported by the
Academy of Finland and undertaken as a part of a larger mul-
tidisciplinary research project Ecology in Urban Planning
(SA 48010). Professor Jari Niemel, from the University of
Helsinki led the research project, and we thank him, as well as
the whole ECOPLAN research team, for their support during
our research work. Part of the research work was hosted by
the Finnish Forest Research Institute at the Vantaa Research
Station. In particular, we are grateful to researcher Irja Lf-
strm for her valuable help during the planning and data-col-
lection phase. Photographer Erkki Oksanen and Ilkka Tapo-
nen took the photographic images for the study. Photoediting
was professionally conducted by Ilkka Taponen at the FFRI,
and by Marjut Ihalainen at the University of Joensuu. Support
of the Green Area Division of Helsinki enabled the collection
of the data in public meetings. In particular, we would like to
thank planners Tauno Immonen and Jaana Karvonen for their
valuable help during the research work. Numerous local resi-
dents, as well as the experts from the City of Helsinki, partici-
pated in our evaluations. We would like to express our
warmest thanks to all of those who contributed to the comple-
tion of this work.
References
Alho J, Kolehmainen O & Leskinen P (2001) Regression
methods for pairwise comparision data. In: The analytic
hierarchy process in natural resources and environmental
decision making. (Eds. Schmoldt D, Kangas J, Mendosa G
& Pesonen M). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Axelsson Lindgren C (1995) Forest aesthetics. In: Multiple-
use forestry in the Nordic Countries. (Ed. Hytnen M).
279289. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki.
Brunson MW & Shelby B (1992) Assessing recreational and
scenic quality: how does new forestry rate? Journal of
Forestry 90: 3741.
Brunson MW & Reiter DK (1996) Effects of Ecological Infor-
mation on Judgements about Scenic Impacts of Timber Har-
vest. Journal of Environmental Management 46: 3141.
Burgess J (1995) The ambiguity of woodland landscapes. In:
Community forestry in an urban context. (Eds. Coles RW).
Proceedings of the frontdoor forestry conference. Red-
ditch, 2122 April 1995. Faculty of the Built Environment.
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
148 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
Urban and Community Research Group. University of
Central England & The Forest Authority, Birmingham &
London.
Daniel TC (2001a) Aesthetic preferences and ecological sus-
tainability In: Forests and Landscapes: Linking ecology,
sustainability and aesthetics. (Eds. Sheppard S & Harshaw
H). IUFRO research series Vol 6: 1529. CABI Publishing,
Wallingford.
Daniel TC (2001b) Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape
quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and
Urban Planning 54(14):267281.
Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic in forest landscape
management. Landscape journal 18 (1): 5464.
Grahn P (1991) Om parkers betydelse. (The importance of
parks) [in Swedish] Stad & Land. Movium/Institut fr
landskapsplanering, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Alnarp.
Haapala A (2000) Luonnon kauneus ja rumuus (Beauty and
Ugliness of Nature) [in Finnish]. In: Arvot ja luonnon ar-
vottaminen (Eds. Haapala A & Oksanen M). 6881.
Yliopistopaino, Helsinki.
Hallikainen V (1998) The Finnish wilderness experience.
Finnish Forest Research Institute Research papers 711.
Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki.
Hartig T, Mang M & Evans GW (1991) Restorative effects of
natural environment experiences. Environment and Behav-
ior 23 (1): 326.
Hull B, Buyhoff G & Cordell H (1987) Psychophysical mod-
els: An example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside
pine forests. Landscape Journal 6 (2): 113122.
Jensen FS (1998) Forest recreation in Denmark from the
1970s to the 1990s. PhD dissertation. Danish Forest and
Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm.
Johnson RL, Brunson MW & Kimura T (1994) Using image-
capture technology to assess scenic value at the urban/for-
est interface: a case study. Journal of Environmental Man-
agement 40: 183195.
Kaplan R & Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature, a psy-
chological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Karjalainen E (2000) Metsnhoitovaihtoehtojen arvostus
ulkoilualueilla. (Preferences of forest management alterna-
tives in recreation areas) [in Finnish, with English summa-
ry]. In: Mets, harju ja jrvi: Nkkulmia suomalaiseen
maisematutkimukseen ja suunnitteluun. (Eds. Saarinen J
& Raivo O). Finnish Forest Research Institute Research pa-
pers 776, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki.
Karjalainen E & Tyrvinen L (2002) Visualization in land-
scape preference research: a review of Finnish forest visual-
ization systems. Landscape and Urban Planning 885: 116.
Konijnenburg P van & Derks van de Ven M (1994) Valuation
and use of urban forest in Finland: Recreative valuation
and use of the urban forest of Joensuu. Masters Thesis.
University of Joensuu & Wageningen Agricultural Univer-
sity, Joensuu & Wageningen
Lindhagen A (1996) Forest recreation in Sweden. Four case
studies using quantitative and qualitative methods. Disser-
tation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, De-
partment of Environmental forestry, Report 64. Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)
Payne J, Bettman J & Johnson E (1992) Behavioral decision
research: a constructive processing perspective. Annual
Review of Psychology 43: 87131.
Pouta E & Sievnen T (2001) Luonnon virkistyskytn kysyn-
ttutkimuksen tulokset Kuinka suomalaiset ulkoilevat?
(The results of recreation demand survey how do the
Finns participate in outdoor recreation) [in Finnish, with
English summary]. In: Luonnon virkistyskytt 2000. (Eds.
Sievnen T). Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Pa-
pers 802, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa.
Public participation in forestry in Europe and North America
(2000) Report of the FAO/ECE/ILO Joint Committee team
of Specialists on Participation in Forestry. ILO, Geneva.
Pukkala T, Kellomki S & Mustonen E (1988) Prediction of
the amenity of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research 3: 533544.
Rassi P, Alanen A, Kanerva T & Mannerkoski I (2001)
Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000 (The 2000 Red List of
Finnish Species) [in Finnish, with English summary]. Min-
istry of the Environment & Finnish Environment Institute.
Ribe RG (1989) The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical
preference research taught us? Environmental Manage-
ment 13: 5574.
Savolainen R & Kellomki S (1981) Scenic values of forest
landscape. Acta Forestalia Fennica 170.
Schroeder H & Daniel T (1981) Progress in predicting the
perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Sci-
ence 27 (1): 7180.
Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O & Pukkala T (2001)
Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest
stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning 56: 1120.
Silvennoinen H, Pukkala T & Tahvanainen L (2002). Effect of
Cuttings on the Scenic Beauty of a Tree Stand. Scandina-
vian Journal of Forest Research 17: 263273.
Tahvanainen L, Tyrvinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N &
Kolehmainen O (2001) Forest management and public per-
ceptions visual versus verbal information. Landscape and
Urban Planning 53: 5370.
Tahvanainen L, Tyrvinen L & Nousiainen I (1996) Effect of
afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscape. Scan-
dinavian Journal of Forest Research 11: 397405.
Tikkanen J (1996) Taajamametsien osallistava suunnittelu.
Kokemuksia MetsRaahe suunnitteluprojektista (Partici-
patory planning in urban forests. Experiences of MetsRaa-
he planning project) [in Finnish]. Finnish Forest Re-
search Institute Research papers 603. Finnish Forest Re-
search Institute, Vantaa.
Tyrvinen L (1999) Monetary valuation of urban forest
amenities in Finland. Academic dissertation. Finnish Forest
Research Institute, Research papers 739.
Tyrvinen L & Lfstrm I (1998) Ecological and aesthetic
values in management of urban forests. AISF-EFI interna-
tional conference on Forest management in designated
conservation & recreation areas 711 Oct 1998. Florence
Italy: 295302, University of Padua Press, Padua.
Tyrvinen L, Mkinen K, Schipperijn J, Cuizzi D & Salbitano F
(2002) Neighbourwoods; State of the art and good prac-
tices report. Information for decision-making in urban
forestry. Unpublished public document.
http://www.fsl.dk/euforic/neighbourwoods/
 L. Tyrvinen, H. Silvennoinen and O. Kolehmainen: Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management
Tyrvinen L, Nousiainen I, Silvennoinen H. & Tahvanainen L
(2001) Rural tourism in Finland: Tourists expectation of
landscape and environment. Scandinavian Journal of Hos-
pitality and Tourism Research. 1(2)
Tyrvinen L & Tahvanainen L (1999) Using computer graph-
ics for assessing the scenic value of large-scale rural land-
scape. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 14:
282288.
Ulrich RS (1983) Aesthetic and affective response to natural
environment. In: Behavior and Natural Environment. (Eds.
Altman I & Wohlwill J). 88125. Plenum Press, New York.
Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA &
Zelson M (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natu-
ral and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology 11: 201230.
149
Vodak MC, Roberts PL, Wellman JD & Buhyoff GJ (1985)
Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest
Science 31 (2): 289301.
Wallenius P (2001) Osallistava strateginen suunnittelu julk-
isten luonnonvarojen hoidossa [in Finnih]. Metsnhallituk-
sen metstalouden julkaisuja 41, Vantaa.
Watzek KA & Elsworth JC (1994) Perceived Scale Accuracy
of Computer Visual Simulations. Landscape Journal 13(1):
2136.
Zube EH, Simcox DE & Law CS (1987) Perceptual Land-
scape Simulations: History and Prospects. Landscape Jour-
nal 6(1): 6280.
Received: August 15, 2002
Accepted: January 29, 2003
Urban For. Urban Green. 1 (2003)