Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level

Alho, 1996, Uncertainty in the expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans, Appl. Stat., 45, 1, 10.2307/2986218 Alho, J.M., Kolehmainen, O., Leskinen, P., 2001. Regression methods for pairwise comparisons data. In: Schmoldt, D., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G., Pesonen, M. (Eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environmental Decision Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Managing For. Ecosys. 3, 235–252. Axelsson-Lindgren, C., 1990. Upplevda skillnader mellan skogsbestånd — rekreations- och pleneringsaspekter. Stad. Land 87 (in Swedish, with English summary). Bostedt, 1995, The value of forests for tourism in Sweden, Ann. Tour. Res., 22, 671, 10.1016/0160-7383(95)00007-S Brown, 1987, Production and cost of scenic beauty: examples for a Ponderosa pine forest, For. Sci., 33, 394 Brown, 1986, Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands, For. Sci., 32, 471 Hallikainen, V., 1998. The Finnish Wilderness Experience. Research Notes 711. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Finland. Hull, 1986, The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an attempt to make scenic beauty assessment compatible with forest planning efforts, For. Sci., 32, 271 Hull, 1987, Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests, Landscape J., 6, 113, 10.3368/lj.6.2.113 Hultman, S.-G., 1983. Allmänhetens bedömning av skogsmiljöers lämplighet för friluftsliv. Sveriges Landbruksuniversitet, Avdelningen för Landskapsvård, Rapport 27 and 28 (in Swedish, with English summary). Jensen, 1993, Landscape managers’ and politicians’ perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population, For. Landscape Res., 1, 79 Kangas, 1993, A method for estimating forest landowner’s landscape preferences, Scand. J. For. Res., 8, 408, 10.1080/02827589309382787 Karjalainen, 1996, Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland, Landscape Res., 21, 159, 10.1080/01426399608706483 Karjalainen, 1999, The visual effect of felling on small- and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland, J. Environ. Manage., 55, 167, 10.1006/jema.1998.0238 Kellomäki, 1984, The scenic value of the forest landscape assessed in the field and in the laboratory, Landscape Plann., 11, 97, 10.1016/0304-3924(84)90033-9 Liao, 1999, Prediction of near-view scenic beauty in artificial stands of Hinoki, J. For. Res., 4, 93, 10.1007/BF02762232 Lindhagen, 1996, An approach to clarifying public preferences about silvicultural systems: a case study concerning group selection and clear-cutting, Scand. J. For. Res., 11, 375, 10.1080/02827589609382950 Mattsson, 1994, How do different forest management practices affect the non-timber value of forests? — An economic analysis, J. Environ. Manage., 41, 79, 10.1006/jema.1994.1035 Patey, R., Evans, M., 1979. Identification of Scenic Preferred Forest Landscapes. Our National Landscape. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pukkala, 1988, Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand, Scand. J. For. Res., 3, 533, 10.1080/02827588809382538 Pukkala, 1995, Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning, Landscape Urban Plann., 32, 185, 10.1016/0169-2046(94)00195-9 Ribe, 1990, A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in Northern Hardwood forests, Landscape J., 9, 86, 10.3368/lj.9.2.86 Rudis, 1988, Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands, For. Sci., 34, 846 Saaty, 1977, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, J. Math. Psychol., 15, 234, 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 Savolainen, R., Kellomäki, S., 1981. Scenic value of forest landscape. Acta For. Fenn. 170, 75 pp. (in Finnish, with English summary). Schroeder, 1981, Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes, For. Sci., 27, 71 Strumse, 1996, Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway, J. Environ. Psychol., 16, 17, 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002 Van den Berg, 1998, Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach, J. Environ. Psychol., 18, 141, 10.1006/jevp.1998.0080