Producing a sensitivity assessment method for visual forest landscapes

Abstract A landscape sensitivity index provides information about the location of the most sensitive forest areas in terms of visual alteration. This information is needed to recognize those areas which require special attention in terms of management policy decisions and in directing landscape management activities and subsidies. The main goal of this study was to develop and test a GIS-based method to enable the production of a sensitivity index map on a regional scale. To accomplish this, sensitivity criteria, a model and calculating techniques were developed for the landscape province of the Kainuu and Kuusamo hill area in Finland. Sensitivity was described using three main criteria: (i) visibility, (ii) the amount of potential users (use pressure) and (iii) the attractiveness of the landscape – which are further defined by several sub-criteria. The calculation method was based on spatial multicriteria evaluation (SMCE), where cartographic modeling and expert knowledge modeling are utilized. The method was demonstrated and tested by a case study, where a visual landscape sensitivity map was produced for one municipality in the selected landscape province. The results were evaluated by forest and environment experts. The evaluation process showed that the sensitivity values estimated by the sensitivity model were quite similar to the values calculated from the expert map and field evaluations.

[1]  Thomas R. Herzog,et al.  Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments , 1992 .

[2]  R. W. Hodgson,et al.  Rate of Travel Along an Interpretive Trail , 1980 .

[3]  H. Frumkin,et al.  Green cities and health: a question of scale? , 2011, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

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

[5]  E. Strumse.  Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway , 1994 .

[6]  Annika Kangas,et al.  MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state‐owned lands in Finland: applications and experiences , 2001 .

[7]  Stephen J. Carver,et al.  Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems , 1991, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[8]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Uncertainty in Expert Predictions of the Ecological Consequences of Forest Plans , 1996 .

[9]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A method for estimating the suitability function of wildlife habitat for forest planning on the basis of expertise , 1993 .

[10]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS-based habitat suitability modelling , 2001 .

[11]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  Integrating Geographical Information Systems and Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Methods , 1995, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[12]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Analysing uncertainties of interval judgment data in multiple-criteria evaluation of forest plans , 1998 .

[13]  H. R. Gimblett,et al.  Environmental cognition: the prediction of preference in rural Indiana , 1990 .

[14]  H. Karppinen.  Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. , 1998 .

[15]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Analyzing uncertainties in experts' opinions of forest plan performance , 1997 .

[16]  Simon Bell,et al.  Designing sustainable forest landscapes , 2007 .

[17]  Michael J. Meitner,et al.  A route-based visibility analysis for landscape management , 2013 .

[18]  Ron Store,et al.  Sustainable locating of different forest uses , 2009 .

[19]  Jay Lee.  Analyses of visibility sites on topographic surfaces , 1991, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[20]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces , 1992 .

[21]  M. Komulainen,et al.  Forestscapes – a forest landscape typology as an integrated planning process tool , 2010 .

[22]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Modelling ecological expertise for forest planning calculations-rationale, examples, and pitfalls. , 2005, Journal of environmental management.

[23]  Jess W. Everett,et al.  Landfill Siting Using Geographic Information Systems: A Demonstration , 1996 .

[24]  Peter F. Fisher,et al.  Extending the applicability of viewsheds in landscape planning , 1996 .

[25]  Young-Hoon Kim,et al.  Exploring multiple viewshed analysis using terrain features and optimisation techniques , 2004, Comput. Geosci..

[26]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Evaluating Environmental Scenes Using Dynamic Versus Static Displays , 2000 .

[27]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  Tranquility and preference revisited , 1999 .

[28]  A. Harvey,et al.  Coupling between hillslopes and channels in upland fluvial systems: implications for landscape sensitivity, illustrated from the Howgill Fells, northwest England , 2001 .

[29]  Peter Spreeuwenberg,et al.  Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents' health: adding quality to quantity , 2011, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

[30]  Richard L. Kent.  Determining scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach , 1993 .

[31]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes , 1985 .

[32]  Caroline M. Hagerhall,et al.  CONSENSUS IN LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE JUDGEMENTS , 2001 .

[33]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[34]  M. E. Patterson,et al.  Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas , 1994 .

[35]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilising advanced decision-support tools , 2000 .

[36]  E. eng,et al.  Forest landscape design guidelines , 1994 .