The Role of Visual Resources in Ecosystem Management

I recently read a really great article from the Landscape Journal about how visual simulations can be used to reveal potential impacts to the landscape.  Here is my summary, but if you are interested in reading the article, you can visit  http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2002/nc_2002_ribe_002.pdf

Authors:

Robert G. Ribe: Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon and Director  of the Institute for a Sustainable Environment.

Edward T. Armstrong: Landscape Architect with Foothill Associates in Roseville, California.

Paul Gobster: Research Social Scientist with the USDA Forest Service’s North Central Research Station in  Chicago, Illinois.

The article begins by discussing how legal and political events are directly impacted by landscape policies that produce a public landscapes less beautiful than their original condition; specifically in response to clear cuts in the Cascade Mountains and their effects on the spotted owl.  They reference work by Ulrich (1986) and Wohlwill (1976) to explain that, “Affected perceptions of landscapes can have strong emotional impacts” and that “These perceptions often form the basis of people’s environmental ideology” (pg. 42).  The authors argue that scenery can play an important role in influencing key events, and that negative perceptions associated with specific landscape policies can result in a call for the creation of new policies and landscapes. 

The article’s primary landscape conflict is centered on the northern spotted owl controversy in the old-growth forests of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington, Oregon, and northern California.  The authors explain that even though there was legal action in place to save the owl in old growth forests, the controversy was amplified when it began to conflict with the economies of timber harvesting dependent communities.  They reveal that “As the conflict raged, images of subject national forest landscapes were prominent in the war for public opinion.  Photos of clear cuts, often many at once, appeared in countless books, pamphlets, and articles” (pg. 43).  The result was a public demand for a major policy change to replace clearcuts with regeneration harvesting techniques. These new techniques emphasized “concerns about ecological health and natural disturbance patterns rather than the more-economically driven ideal of a repeated rotation of harvests over time around areas of national forest (Fedkiw 1998?)” (pg. 43).  The authors suggest that these new management choices are more biocentric, creating scenic landscapes that exhibit fewer adverse impacts.

The authors introduce issues in “forest aesthetics and the shifting policy landscape” by revealing that the public became aware of the “visual spoils created by ‘cut and run’ loggers” in the early 20^th century (pg. 44).  The public’s outcry for better management policies spurred the creation of the national forests and national parks.  However, they explain that “unlike the national parks, which typically emphasize scenic enjoyment, the legislation founding national forests… centered on a more homocentric, utilitarian, and conservative doctrine of sustained resource yield”, which has created conflicts between professional and public perceptions of what a national forest landscape should be (pg. 44).  An example of this conflict is the Monongahela national forest controversy of the late 1960s and 1970s when the public started a policy revolution based on negative reactions to extensive clearcutting in West Virginia.  The most important outcome of the Monongahela controversy was the creation of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in 1976. Since then, the Forest Service has introduced the “Visual Management System (VMS) to assign a visual quality objective (VQO) to every area of land, setting a level of scenic protection” (pg. 44). The authors explain that the VMS procedures establish visual landscape protection and mitigate impacts to meet VQO design standards for projects that affect scenery, like clear cutting and harvesting.  For the past 20 years, the NFMA has been responsible for limiting the size of clearcuts, distributing them further apart, and creating “more naturally-appearing clearcut designs in more scenic and visually sensitive places” (pg. 44).  The authors emphasize that “ecosystem management should change how scenic management plays out in the landscape, especially where scenic protection is at its weakest” (pg. 45).  This suggests that collaboration between new aesthetic policies and new public land management paradigms would present numerous opportunities to incorporate ecology with aesthetics.

The case study describes how Cascade Mountains controversy was directly impacted by public perception and dissatisfaction with past clearcutting activity.  Even though the public lands around the Cascade Mountains are not near popular areas or major highways, the impacts of the land’s intense harvesting is very visible from airplanes.  In an effort to improve the scenic quality, researched decided to produce simulated landscapes to help predict the evolution of the forest landscape.  Because there are too many variables (floods, climate change, fire, disease, timber harvesting, etc.) involved to accurately predict exactly how a landscape will look in the future, theses simulations could only project possible outcomes.  However, these simulations can serve “as stimuli, along with the original existing-condition photos, to elicit public perceptions and measure changes in potential beauty.  This approach allows researchers and the public to understand the visual impacts of potential changes before they are applied.   The model below explains the experimental design process.

The authors explain that the study “derived and analyzed scenic perceptions of one simulated, authentic pattern of landscape change to explore potential scenic impacts” (pg. 47).  This analysis helps researchers locate areas for potential harvesting and create cleared areas that mimic natural fire disturbance patterns.  Phase 1 of the experiment addresses the “visualizing and modeling policy- induced change” and “simulating future forest cover” (pg. 47).  Photographs were taken frequently to reveal the vista views within the study area and beyond.  For each photo a corresponding photo-simulation was produced to reveal the same seen 20 years into the future.  Fifteen scenes were selected to reveal a range in size and landscape appearance.  Each photo was listed by vista scale, distance zones (foreground/middleground/background), and the characteristics it was selected for.  Phase 2 evaluated the scenic qualities, surveying a total of 608 participants from 31 organizations in the Cascade region.  Each participant anonymously rated the scenic beauty of the pictures on a scale from -5 to +5 and privately filled out a questionnaire.   Phase 3 created “models to create changes in scenic beauty” (pg. 53).   The authors reveal that the focus of the photo analyses was to improve the “scenic beauty in pertinent vista views…where policy produced low beauty” (pg. 53).  The illustration below explains the steps in generating photo-simulations, the VMS analysis of the changes to the site’s content, and the parenthetical figures associated with the subsets of high contrast.

The table below is an example of the before and after versions of the photo scenes used in the study and the average scenic beauty ratings.

The results of the before and after photo study reveal that the most favorable improvements were toward harvest reductions in large to medium size vistas.  The authors  conclude by explain that even though new biocentric paradigms are in place to improve the scenic quality of landscapes, visual resource management is still necessary to assure this outcome.  They also argue that “Landscape architecture is still needed to mitigate the scenic impact of foreground harvests, even with green-tree retention” (pg. 59).  In time, this new ecosystem management may prove to be a valuable asset in reducing conflicts between the public and professionals, enable managers to preserve traditional scenic values, and allow landscape architects to improve scenically challenged locations in nature.

I really liked how this article addressed the specific challenges of maintain scenic beauty in areas that have a utilitarian agenda.  The authors discuss, in great detail, the benefits and limitations of using visual simulations to reveal possible landscape changes.  I feel that using visual simulations is extremely beneficial anytime you suggest removing a large amount of trees in a dense area, such as vista clearing.  This allows managers to understand all of the positive and negative impacts associated with clearing, and it allows the public to understand the process behind the decision.  I also like how he stresses the need for landscape architects in land management to ensure that the results of the project meet the public’s expectations and perceptions of scenic beauty.

Searching for the Value of a View

The USDA Forest Service paper entitled “Searching for the Value of a View” discusses the strong correlation between the view quality of a site and property values.  The authors Arthur W. Magill and Charles F. Schwarz clearly assessed “the trade-offs between market and nonmarket products” by arguing that even though “scenic quality is a resource that is not quantifiable in monetary terms”, it can still be used to “define relative dollar values for physical dimensions and objects in a view” (pg. i). This study examines the variables that describe the “extent or continuity of a view” not the “contents of the view”.

The authors used basic terms to describe the view content; “physical landscape features such as  mountains, valleys, and lakes; vegetation types such as conifer or hardwood forests and meadows; and various constructed features such as roads, power lines, and buildings that might influence view quality” (pg. 2).  The authors intended to describe “how the view was seen, not what was seen” (pg. 5).  The terminology they used aimed to identify variables that contributed to the value of the view, not those that detracted from it.  

Observer Position:

• Inferior (observer looks up toward the view) 
•  Normal (observer is level with the view)
• Superior (observer looks toward the view)

 The following view composition types were used by Litton (1968) to “provide a visual framework for landscape descriptions and analysis” (pg. 5):

•  Panoramic (wide, unobstructed views – largely a horizontal view variable and describes a viewing situation)
•  Feature (a dominant or distinctive object  such as a lake, meadow, mountain, ridge, or peak – describes unspecified objects)
• Enclosed (strongly defined, contained spaces; e.g. a meadow surrounded by trees – describes the conditions of the site; not of the view)
• Focal (landscape elements focus attention; e.g. trees to the right and the left focus attention straight ahead – largely a horizontal view variable and describes a viewing situation)
• Canopied (under a forest canopy – describes the conditions of the site; not of the view)

 

 View distance zones are:

• Foreground (1/4 to 1/2 mile) 
•  Middleground (1/2 to about 5 miles) 
•  Background (over 5 miles)

 

 The authors also used terms for natural view values.  Some views were obstructed by either constructed objects (roads, buildings, power lines, etc.) or natural objects (existing trees or trees that grow into the view):

• Interrupted view (trees or buildings destroy the continuity of a relatively wide view)
• Filtered view (a view seen through trees stems or foliage not dense enough to block the view)
• Narrow view (a view greatly limited in width by trees, rocks, or buildings, directly in line of sight down a corridor)
• Unobstructed view (a view with no potential for becoming blocked)

 

The results of the study “suggest that landscape components cannot be used as indicators of the value of views” because the value “cannot be predicted from the relation between asking or selling prices of view lots and the land, water, and vegetation elements that define the landscape character” (pg. 5).  The authors argue that value of the view can only be determined by removing the value of the site’s elements from the total price; this reduced price represents a site without a view.  Once this new “non-view” price is subtracted from the original price, a relatively accurate view value is revealed.  The authors believe this approach to reveal realistic results (pg. 5).

The study concludes by suggesting that the only way to determine the value of the view is by removing the market value from the site.  A pilot test of this approach revealed that “visual quality judgments by natural resource professionals, ranging from no view to best view, are not related to real estate prices.  Realtors typically assign lot prices increasing from no view to best view” (pg. 8).  However, the authors acknowledge that realtors are often influenced by their understanding of site conditions unrelated to the site’s scenic quality.  They explain that view quality evaluations by the public are influenced by view premiums set by realtors and general scenic knowledge to assign relatively accurate monetary values for landscape views.  The authors argue that “these values could be used to evaluate market and non-market trade-offs between alternative uses of wildland resources” (pg. 8).

I think that the authors’ approach to determining realistic view values was extremely easy to understand.  However the scenic views or vistas within the national parks are priceless; typically revealing the most beautiful preserved nature left in America.  Even though this topic does not address these vistas directly, the terminology, variables, and attributes used in this study will be extremely helpful in describing the view quality of scenic vistas.

Visitors' perception and preference of natural attributes

I recently read an study conducted by North Carolina State University that examined the importance of visitors' perception and preference of attributes natural settings, such as scenic views, trees, exposed roots, etc.  The whole study can be found at http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-14/41-dorwart-p-14.pdf but for those who want a quick overview, here is my summary:

Title: 

Visitor Employed Photography: Its Potential and Use in Evaluating Visitors’ Perceptions of Resource Impacts in Trail and Park Settings.

Authors:

Catherine E. Dorwart – Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, NC State University

Roger L. Moore – North Carolina State University

Yu-Fai Leung – North Carolina State University

A qualitative study conducted by North Carolina State University examined “visitors’ perceptions and to determine how their perceptions affected over all recreational experiences along a 2.9 segment of the Appalachian Trail in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park” (pg. 307).  The study consisted of three parts: “a trail impact assessment of the target trail, a visitor employed photography (VEP) exercise, and a brief post-trip interview”; however this specific portion of the paper focused on the VEP exercise (pg. 307). 

 The paper begins by explaining how park and trail managers are usually responsible for both protecting natural resources and providing the appropriate public enjoyment of those resources.  The authors address the responsibility of understanding the visitor perceptions and experiences through surveying, interviewing, and assessing written material.  Popular visual methods used in the study were photo elicitation, in which 35mm or computer modified photographs are used to evaluate “visitors’ preferences, acceptability of impacts, or standards of quality”; and VEP exercises, to assess “visitors’ perceptions of parks and other recreation places…and to explore the processes inherent in participants’ outdoor experiences (pg. 307).  The authors support the use of these methods by citing photo elicitation studies conducted by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), Manning et. al. (1996), Kim et al. (2003); and VEP work by Cherem and Driver (1983), Cherem and Traweek (1977), Loeffler (2004), and Taylor et. al (1995). The VEP portion of the “grounded theory study” conducted along “a high-use segment of the Appalachian Trail (AT) in Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM)” with the intention of focusing specifically on GRSM visitors and their recreational experience (pg. 307).  The site location was selected because it “exhibited…a natural trail with a variety of resource conditions, well-traveled, scenically beautiful, and allow[ed] for a variety of uses” (pg. 309).

The second part of the paper addresses the background of the study, noting that many previous studies of people’s “evaluations, conceptualizations, and relationships with the natural environment (in particular perception and preference in relation to experiences of nature, landscape, and the environment) have been guided by a landscape perception paradigm” (pg. 307).  The authors argue that this paradigm helps identify why certain things like scenic views, pathway design, and social and environmental conditions are perceived as either negative or positive to the overall experience ( pg. 307).  They support this idea by stating that Ndubisi (2002) clarified that the study of landscape perception “seeks to understand human values and aesthetic experience in order to take them into account in creating and maintaining landscapes that are socially responsible and ecologically sound” (pg. 308).  Essentially, the ideology of landscape perception is a belief that people prefer settings that meet their needs, function well, successfully interpreting their environment (Kaplan and Kaplan 1998).  According to work by Taylor et. al. (1995), it is also necessary in environmental perception research to accept perception as a dynamic interaction between humans and the environment that is intricately “linked to the whole psychology of the observer and immersed in the environment that is experienced” (pg. 308).

In the third section of the paper, the authors describe current methods of conducting the study.  They explain that even though a majority of the study was employed on-site as open-ended interviews and close-ended surveys, some of the data was collected off-site through mailed questionnaires, post-trip interviews, written evaluations, photo elicitations, and videos.  The authors reveal that on-site methods were the most advantageous because they “provided the most realistic exposure to the impacts being evaluated” (pg. 308).  They also noted that some respondents were distracted by scenic views or other attributes that prevented them from evaluating specific impacts.  The authors explain that using photos may keep the respondents more focused but it also changes their perception of impacts because they cannot consider other factors.  Even though site visits may be the most advantageous, photographic evaluations may be more economical and convenient.  The authors explain research by Kellomaki and Savolainen (1984) and Shuttleworth (1980) that used photographs extensively in landscape evaluation studies, confirmed photographs as an adequate substitute for on-site visits.  However, they go on to reveal work by Zube et. al. (1974) found that photographs cannot display non-visual impacts like sounds or feelings.    Emotions associated with being on-site cannot be assessed in photographic evaluations.

As an alternative to photographic evaluations, the authors turned to VEP, which takes the camera from the research and places it in the hands of the visitor to capture the “dynamic perceptual interaction as it happens, without redefining the visitors’ recreation experience” (pg. 309).  Researchers (Cherem and Driver 1976, 1983) have discovered that the visitors’ responses directly relate to on-site visits.  Research by Taylor et. al. (1995) also revealed that VEP has the potential of significantly reducing experience intrusion by other distractions.

In the VEP methods section of the paper the authors explain that their methods were adapted from previous VEP studies by Kim et. al. (2003), Lynn (2000), and Taylor et. al. (1995), to request that participants take photographs along the trail, document the locations of photos and experiences in a booklet, and participate in an interview upon completing their trip.  The goal of this method was to capture the images of objects or locations in the environment that had the strongest influence on the visitor’s experience (pg. 310).  The log booklet provided the researchers with the visitor’s intents regarding the elements that were photographed.  The authors discuss how “Once the data sets were compiled, the researchers began a process of constant comparative analysis, which involved open

and axial coding” (pg. 310).  They describe that the data was coded and counted for each photograph to determine which qualities of the trail (i.e. scenic vistas, trees, exposed roots, people, etc.) were photographed the most.  Once this data had been coded, it was then categorized by attribute.  The results revealed that both sets of photographs (attributes visitors liked and disliked) show similar perceptual themes —“nature-oriented details, scenic values, management influences, presence of

other people, and depreciative behavior” (pg. 311).

Scenic values ranked second most important perceptual theme in the study.  According to the results, it was evident that the main reason people went hiking on the Newfound Gap trail was to appreciate the scenic views.  Previous research data supports this statement, revealing how

“visitors prefer scenic vistas, restorative settings, and sites along the water’s edge.  These elements seem to affect the perception of visitors’ surroundings and of the trail environment or landscape.  Therefore, this was the second most photographed element. One middle-aged male hiker—who had once visited this trail many years ago—found joy in the “high altitude vistas” writing, “It’s one of the reasons I chose this hike [for the] inspiration (hey I’m a pastor—inspiration is my business).” An older gentleman agreed. It is the “vista with [the] clouds… beautiful expansive views [I am] in awe…unfortunately you can hear the vehicles on the road below” (pg. 312).

The authors continue by explaining the other perceptual themes in great detail.  They discuss how using the VEP approach gave the participants control of the situation and provided better results that previous methods.  The authors argue that, “While there is a large body of knowledge on biological and physical assessments of recreation impacts, very few studies have examined visitors’ perceptions of the trail environment and how resource conditions affect visitor experiences.  However, information on visitor perceptions is integral to carrying out both parts of the National Park Service’s mandate” (pg. 312) To improve natural resource management, it is essential that the National Park Service understand how visitors perceive nature so that they can identifying critical areas and designing better facilities to enhance the visitor’s experience.

This study reminded me of the importance of visitor surveys.  In the past, landscapes, facilities, and trails have been ignored because they do not address the needs of the Park’s visitors and management.   This study confirms that visitors want to experience places with both functionality and purpose.  Places that people can connect are generally the areas where people create the most memories and where they can interpret their surroundings.  However, when these iconic places begin to suffer from insufficient planning and funding, the visitor experience deteriorates.  The authors of this study (and previous studies) reveal that most people who visit the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, particularly trails along Newfound Gap, are particularly attracted to the nature oriented details and the scenic views.  The study concludes by arguing that consideration must be given to visitor’s perceptions and preferences so that natural resources are both adequately protected and enjoyed.