Forestscapes – a forest landscape typology as an integrated planning process tool

Komulainen, Minna. 2010. Forestscapes – A Forest Landscape Typology as an Integrated Planning Process Tool. Aalto University. Dissertationes Forestales 98. 196 p. Available at http://www.metla.fi /dissertationes/df98.htm The purpose of the study was to fi nd forest landscape qualities, which are essential to landscape development and its critical success factors. Are there special landscape character types, with such unifying qualities, as to be considered similar types, and distinguishable from other types? What are the qualities, preferred management alternatives and visual problems caused by forestry? The study was based on eight case studies of nationally valuable landscape areas in different landscape regions in Finland. The case study areas were Ruissalo, Koli, Melalahti, Häntälä, Peränne, Naapurinvaara, Vuokatti and Tipasoja. The preference studies related to the planning processes showed the differences in perception of landscape types, namely in their sensitivity to change and visual appearances depending on the location of operations in the landscape. Thus the characteristics of the forest spatial structure were described and classifi ed into various forest landscape types. The assessment of case study areas distinguished eleven forest landscape types to consider in forest planning and landscape management practices. The highest parts of the landscape were often summit forests, followed by slope forests and edges. The edge often presented a high variation in forms of cultural landscape edges, pasturelands, road edges and swamps. It was a zone of extensive and versatile cultural and natural activity. The lowest level of the landscape included the types of valley with small woods and tree groups and shores, divided into cultural, natural shores and islands. In the comparison of location of types between the case study areas, some forest landscape types were found to exist in one particular location (stable types), while some types varied in their location (variable types). The stable types were summit forest, slope forest, edge, valley and shores, while the location of variable types of pasturelands and swamps seemed to largely depend on the regional landscape structure and land use. In order to fi nd management alternatives, the professional analysis of case study areas was combined with preference studies and the landscape management recommendations suggested for each forest landscape type. The applied landscape structure theory was useful in distinguishing structural and spatial differences in forest landscape. The results from the eight case study areas show that the differences in landscape types can be identifi ed and observed with an applied planning method and how forest management could be adjusted to comply with their special characteristics. The examined typology could be an instrument for developing sustainable management strategies and a framework for planning cultural forest landscapes, in order to identify their sensitivity, character, and sustainable actions for each landscape type.

[1]  John Lyle.  The utility of semi-formal models in ecological planning , 1991 .

[2]  Angioletta Voghera.  EUROPEAN LANDSCAPE CONVENTION. POLICY AND PLANNING INNOVATIONS , 2012 .

[3]  Timo Pukkala,et al.  Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand , 1988 .

[4]  Warren R. Bacon.  The visual management system of the Forest Service, USDA , 1979 .

[5]  Juha Pykälä.  Perinteinen karjatalous luonnon monimuotoisuuden ylläpitäjänä , 2001 .

[6]  Ian J.W. Firth.  Landscape management: The conservation of a capability brown landscape — Harewood, Yorkshire , 1980 .

[7]  Michael Jones.  Progress in Norwegian cultural landscape studies , 1988 .

[8]  Arthur S. Lieberman,et al.  Landscape Ecology , 1994, Springer New York.

[9]  James Corner.  A Discourse on Theory I: “Sounding the Depths”—Origins, Theory, and Representation , 1990, Landscape Journal.

[10]  J. W. Cooper.  Lowland landscape design guidelines: ANON (Forestry Commission), (HMSO, London), ISBN (paperback) 0 11 710303 9, price £9.95, 1992, 56 pp , 1994 .

[11]  W. H. Ittelson.  Environment and cognition , 1974 .

[12]  K. Olwig,et al.  The Aesthetics of Landscape , 1991 .

[13]  T. Carter,et al.  An overview of forest policies affecting land use in Europe , 2004 .

[14]  I. Mcharg.  Design With Nature , 1969 .

[15]  Eeva Karjalainen,et al.  Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland , 1998 .

[16]  O. Saastamoinen,et al.  Metsien moninaiskäyttötutkimuksen perusongelmat. , 1976 .

[17]  Andreas Faludi,et al.  A reader in planning theory , 1973 .

[18]  J. Kuusipalo.  An ecological study of upland forest site classification in southern Finland. , 1985 .

[19]  James Corner,et al.  A Discourse on Theory II: Three Tyrannies of Contemporary Theory and the Alternative of Hermeneutics , 1991, Landscape Journal.

[20]  A. Cajander,et al.  Theory of forest types , 1926 .

[21]  Paola E. Falini,et al.  Conservation planning for the countryside: A preliminary report of an experimental study of the Terni Basin (Italy) , 1980 .

[22]  A. Kangas,et al.  Integrating place-specific social values into forest planning : case of UPM-Kymmene forests in Hyrynsalmi, Finland , 2008 .

[23]  Henry Mintzberg.  The rise and fall of strategic planning , 1993 .

[24]  S. Kellomäki.  Forest stand preferences of recreationists. , 1975 .

[25]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Themes in Landscape Assessment Theory , 1984, Landscape Journal.

[26]  3 Ecosystems and Human Well-being , 2022 .

[27]  Ritva Ihalainen,et al.  Yksityismetsänomistuksen rakenne 1990. , 1992 .

[28]  M. Hytönen,et al.  Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries , 1995 .

[29]  Y. Tuan,et al.  Passing strange and wonderful , 1993 .

[30]  Geoffrey Alan Jellicoe,et al.  The landscape of man: Shaping the environment from prehistory to the present day , 1975 .

[31]  K. Rønningen.  Agricultural policies and landscape management. Some examples from Norway, Great Britain and Germany , 1993 .

[32]  J. Friedmann.  A Conceptual Model for the Analysis of Planning Behavior , 1967 .

[33]  E. Karjalainen,et al.  The visual effect of felling on small- and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland , 1999 .

[34]  E. Shafer,et al.  How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes , 1977 .

[35]  M. Antrop.  The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of Flanders Region , 1997 .

[36]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Effect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscape , 1996 .

[37]  Ann Arbor,et al.  Humanscape: Environments for People , 1977 .

[38]  Richard D. Margerum,et al.  Integrated Approaches to Environmental Planning and Management , 1997 .

[39]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning , 1995 .

[40]  N. Diaz,et al.  Forest landscape analysis and design : a process for developing and implementing land management objectives for landscape patterns , 1992 .

[41]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Role of landscape simulators in forestry: a Finnish perspective , 2005 .

[42]  Simon Bell,et al.  Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape , 1993 .

[43]  D. C. Wilkin.  Accounting for sustainability: challenges to landscape professionals in an increasingly unsustainable world , 1996 .

[44]  Timo Pukkala,et al.  Methods to incorporate the amenity of landscape into forest management planning. , 1988 .

[45]  L. Vettoretto,et al.  The European Spatial Development Perspective , 2008 .

[46]  Wendy Fjellstad,et al.  Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes , 2001 .

[47]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  A Framework for Theory Applicable to the Education of Landscape Architects (and Other Environmental Design Professionals) , 1990, Landscape Journal.

[48]  K. Henderson,et al.  Dimensions of Choice: A Qualitative Approach to Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Research , 1991 .