4/15/23
At the April 10th meeting of the Forestry and Parks Committee, after 30-minutes of public comment expressing alarm over the plans to log within the Ashwabay SMA, almost all the members of the committee expressed a belief that, once the logging was completed, the public would realize that their worry was misplaced—that active timber production around the trails at AWB would not negatively impact their recreation experience in the way they feared. Almost every committee member expressed their belief that the considerations in the current logging plan had adequately mitigated any risks to the experience of trail users.
This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the recreation science and the science of the public’s aesthetic forest preferences. As a professor in Outdoor Recreation, I believe it is a liability to Bayfield County to ignore social science when making forest management plans since the public’s acceptance of forest management practices is heavily based on aesthetics (Ribe, 2002), and study after study shows the public’s idea of what makes a beautiful forest is remarkably consistent (Ryan, 2005). Two-hundred and sixty people submitted comments, signed a petition, and spoke in favor of mature forests surrounding the trails at Ashwabay. Their aesthetic preferences are not a fluke—this is consistent with research showing that people prefer large trees and mature forests that do not show obvious signs of forest management (Brown and Daniel 1986; Cook 1972; Dywer, et al., 1991; Haider 1994; Haider and Hunt 2002; Herzog 1984; Herzog, et al., 2000; Hull, et al., 1987; Gan, et al., 2000; Gunderson & Frivold, 2008; Kearney & Bradley, 2011; Ribe 1989, 1990; Ryan, 2005; Schroeder and Daniel 1981; Silvennoinen et al. 2001, 2002; Stolz, 2016; Tyrväinen, et al., 2017).
In conversations with members of the forestry and parks committee, it has become clear to me that the committee has never been educated about the science of recreationists’ scenic preferences, despite the fact that the committee is responsible for setting management objectives for the most important recreation resource in the county. They are trusting forestry professionals to make decisions about the scenic qualities of this recreation area, but as the USFS argues, “scenic integrity [of public forests] is too serious a matter to be left to the resource scientists.” The USFS suggests developing a design consciousness through multidisciplinary involvement, including landscape architects, social scientists, and public involvement at every step of the process (Cotton & McBride, 1987: 36; Ryan, 2005).
Foresters—even ones who recreate on trails—cannot rely on their own perceptions and aesthetic preferences to anticipate how the public will experience the visible signs of logging, because their forestry expertise makes them perceive areas with obvious signs of logging as beautiful to a much greater extent than the general public (Anderson, 1978; Andersson, 1994; Arthur, 1977; Eriksson, 2012; Haider, 1994; Gunderson & Frivold, 2008; Kearney & Bradley, 2011; Kearney, et al., 2010; McCool, et al., 1986; Ribe, 2002; Tönnes, et al., 2004). The general public does not want to recreate in areas with obvious signs of logging (Eriksson, 2013).
There is no way around the fact that logging decreases people’s perceptions of scenic beauty (Brown & Daniel, 1986; Brunson & Shelby 1992; Brush, 1976; Magill, 1994; Pings & Hollenhorst, 1993). This is especially important for managers of the Ashwabay SMA to understand, since they are planning to conduct logging on the vast majority (nearly 100%) of county forest land within the SMA. This is problematic because public judgements of scenic beauty and “acceptability” for recreation do not recover for many years after logging activity, regardless of what forestry techniques are used (Shelby, et al, 2004). Even 25 years of regrowth after an area is clearcut (even-age harvest) has no significant impact on improving scenic ratings (Pings & Hollenhorst, 1993).
Nordic skiers, mountain bikers, and hikers are looking for more than just exercise when they choose where to recreate. Three of the main things human-powered recreationists are seeking in forest-based recreation are restoration, positive emotions, and the feeling of revitalization. These are all maximized in older forests, rather than in younger forests (Simkin, et al., 2020). This explains why study after study show that people who engage in human-powered sports like mountain biking and Nordic skiing strongly prefer a natural-looking aesthetic of a mature forest (Eriksson & Nordlund, 2013).
Bayfield Forestry’s plan for the Ashwabay SMA includes educational signage they think will help the public come to accept the timber harvests near the Ashwabay trails. However, studies show that the public’s visual preferences are very resistant to change (Daniel, 2001, cited in Ryan, 2005). Educational signage may increase acceptance for logging, but it will not increase scenic beauty ratings (Ribe, 1999), and perceptions of scenic beauty are directly related to satisfaction in recreation (Eriksson & Nordlund, 2013) and how restorative the recreation experience will be (Simkin, 2020). Educational signage simply cannot convince recreationists that they are having a restorative, emotionally positive experience in a forest with visual impacts of logging, regardless of the reasons provided for those logging practices.
If Bayfield County wants to manage the forest within the Ashwabay SMA in a way that will receive public support, they need to involve the public in every step of the process and take the public’s aesthetic preferences seriously (Dearden, 1981; Gericke & Sullivan, 1994; Ryan, 2005; Sturtevant, et al., 2005). The public affected by the outcome needs to believe that their views were considered before the decision was made. If people share their opinions and then feel as if the opinions don’t have a bearing on the final decision, they will experience a “frustration effect.” If the County wants it decisions to be supported, it needs to change the decision-making structure to address the frustration of the public (Hunt & Haider, 2011).
The public has a strong emotional connection to the forest surrounding the trails at Ashwabay. The USFS states that forest managers need to understand the public’s emotional connection to particularly special areas within forests (Ryan, 2005; Schroeder, 2002). Research shows the public will react much more strongly and negatively to visible impacts of logging in recreational areas than in other areas (Brunston, 1993; Kneeshaw, et al., 2004; Ryan, 2002; Ryan, 2005; Wohlwill, 1979; Wohlwill & Harris, 1980). People are especially fond of natural areas near their homes or where they’ve spent a lot of time exploring (Kaplan, 1985; Ryan, 2002). This explains why the public outcry about the planned logging within the Ashwabay SMA is so intense.
Even though the Forestry & Parks committee voted unanimously on April 10th to approve the 2023 timber sale within the Ashwabay SMA, it is not too late to mitigate the damage to the public trust. The bids have not yet been awarded—please listen to the hundreds of people who have asked you to delay the timber sale until the public can be involved in a more robust decision-making process about forest management plans for the Ashwabay SMA.
Thank you for accepting my input. I do appreciate the work county board members do on behalf of all of us, and I know that we all care about Ashwabay.
Elizabeth K. Andre, Ph.D.
Professor of Outdoor Education
Northland College
1411 Ellis Avenue
Ashland, Wisconsin 54806
715-682-1324
References:
Anderson, E. (1978). Visual resource assessment: local perceptions of familiar natural environments. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Ph.D dissertation. 213 p.
Andersson, T. (1994). Ideals and conceptions of forest: an experimental study of conceptual deliberation. Communication and Cognition. 27(4): 397- 428
Arthur, L.M. (1977). Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. Forest Science. 23: 151-160.
Brush, R.O. (1976). Spaces within the woods: managing forests for visual enjoyment. Journal of Forestry. 74: 744-747.
Brown, T.C., Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science. 32: 471-487. Applied Forestry. 24(3): 145-149.
Brunson, M., Shelby, B. (1992). Assessing recreational and scenic quality: how does New Forestry rate? Journal of Forestry. 90(7): 37-41.
Cook, W.L. (1972). Evaluation of aesthetic quality of forest trees. Journal of Leisure Research. 4(4): 293-302.
Cotton, L., & McBride, J. R. (1987). Visual impacts of prescribed burning on mixed conifer and giant sequoia forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-101. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 32-37.
Daniel, T.C. (2001). Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In: Sheppard, S.R.J.; Harshaw, H.W., eds. Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability, and aesthetics. New York, NY: CABI Publishing, in association with The International Union of Forestry Research Organizations: 15-29.
Dearden, P. (1981). Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Planning. 8: 3-19.
Dywer, J.F., Schroeder, H.W., & Gobstesr, P.H. (1991). The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture. 17(10): 276-284.
Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A.M., Olsson, O., Westin, K. (2012). Recreation in Different Forest Settings: A Scene Preference Study. Forests (3), 923 – 943.
Eriksson, L., & Nordlund, A. (2013). How is setting preference related to intention to engage in forest recreation activities?” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (12), 481 – 489.
Freimund, W.A., Anderson, D.H., & Pitt, D.G. (1996). Developing a recreation and aesthetic inventory framework for forest planning and management. Natural Areas Journal. 16(2): 108-117.
Gan, J., Kolison, S.H., Miller, J.H. (2000). Public preferences for nontimber benefits of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands regenerated by different site preparation methods. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(3): 145-149.
Gericke, J.L., & Sullivan, J. (1994). Public participation and appeals of forest service plans: an empirical examination. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 125-135.
Gunderson, V.S., & Frivold, L.H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Urban Forest Urban Green (7): 241 – 258.
Haider, W. (1994). The aesthetics of white pine and red pine forests. The Forestry Chronicle. 70(4): 402- 410.
Haider, W., Hunt, L. (2002). Visual aesthetic quality of northern Ontario’s forested shorelines. Environmental Management. 29(3): 324-334.
Herzog, T.R. (1984). A cognitive analysis for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research. 9: 10- 16.
Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C.L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environmental Behavior (32): 323 – 346.
Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., & Cordell, H. K. (1987). Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landscape Journal. 6(2): 113-122.
Hunt, L., & Haider, W. (2011). Fair and Effective Decision Making in Forest Management Planning. Society & Natural Resources, 14(10), 873 – 887.
Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2: 115-127.
Kearney, A.R., & Bradley, G.A. (2011). The effects of viewer attributes on preferences for forest scenes: contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behavior (43): 147 – 181.
Kearney, A.R., Tilt, J.R., & Bradley, G.A. (2010). The effects of forest regeneration on preferences for forest treatments among foresters, environmentalists, and the general public. Journal of Forestry (108): 215 – 229.
Kneeshaw, K., Vaske, J.J., Bright, A.D., & Absher, J.D. (2004). Acceptability norms toward fire management in three national forests. Environment and Behavior. 36(4): 592-613.
Magill, A.W. (1994). What people see in managed and natural landscapes. Journal of Forestry. 92(9): 12-16.
McCool, S.F., Benson, R. E., & Ashor, J. L. (1986). How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management. 10(3): 385-391.
Pings, P., & Hollenhorst, S. (1993). Managing eastern hardwood forests for visual quality. In: Vander Stoep, Gail A., ed. Proceedings of the 1993 Northeastern recreation research symposium; 1993 April 18-29; Saratoga Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE- 185. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 89-93.
Ribe, R.G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management (13): 55 – 74.
Ribe, R.G. (1990). A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hard- wood forests. Landscape Journal. 9(2): 86- 101.
Ribe, R.G. (1994). Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Journal of Environmental Management. 42: 199-221.
Ribe, R.G. (1999). Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts: public views of the acceptability and aesthetics of Northwest forest plan harvests. Northwest Science (73): 102-117.
Ribe, R.G. (2002). Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attributes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior. 34(6): 757-780.
Ryan, R.L. (2002). Preserving rural character in New England: local residents' perceptions of alternative residential development. Landscape and Urban Planning. 61: 19-35.
Ryan, R.L. (2005). Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuels management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 58 p.
Schroeder, H. (2002). Experiencing nature in special places: surveys in the North-central region. Journal of Forestry. 100(5): 8-14.
Shelby, B., Thompson, J.R., Brunson, M., Johnson, R. (2004). A decade of recreation ratings for six silviculture treatments in Western Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management. 1 – 8.
Silvennoinen, H., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O., Pukkala, T. (2001). Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning. 53: 11-20.
Silvennoinen, H., Pukkala, T., & Tahvanainen, L., 2002. Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Resarch (17): 263 – 273.
Simkin, J., Ojala, A., & Tyrväinen. (2020). Restorative effects of mature and young commercial forests, pristine old-growth forest and urban recreation forest: A field experiment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (48): 1 – 12.
Sturtevant, V., Moote, M.A., & Jakes, P. (2005). Social science to improve fuels management: synthesis of research on collaboration. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-257. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 84 p.
Tönnes, S., Karjalainen, E.; Löfström, I.; & Neuvonen, M. (2004). Scenic impacts of retention trees in clear-cutting areas. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research (19): 348 – 357.
Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Hallikainen, V., 2017. Effect of the Season and Forest Management on the Visual Quality of the Nature-based Tourism Environment: a Case From Finnish Lapland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research (32)4: 349 – 359.
Wohlwill, J.F., &Harris, G. (1980). Response to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural recreation settings. Leisure Science. 3(4): 349-365.