Landscape perception based on personal attributes in determining the scenic beauty of in-stand natural secondary forests


  • Yong Chen Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, 682 Guangshan 1st Road, Guangzhou Guangdong, 510520 China
  • Bing Sun Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, 682 Guangshan 1st Road, Guangzhou Guangdong, 510520 China
  • Shaobo Liao Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, 682 Guangshan 1st Road, Guangzhou Guangdong, 510520 China
  • Lei Chen Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, 682 Guangshan 1st Road, Guangzhou Guangdong, 510520 China
  • Shuixing Luo Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, 682 Guangshan 1st Road, Guangzhou Guangdong, 510520 China



forest aesthetics, forest structure, scenic beauty estimation, aesthetic assessment, personal factors


The aim of this paper was to validate factors affecting the in-stand landscape quality and how important each factor was in determining scenic beauty of natural secondary forests. The study was limited to 23 stand-level cases of natural secondary forests in Shen Zhen city in southern China. Typical samples of photographs and public estimations were applied to evaluate scenic beauty inside the natural secondary forests. The major factors were then selected by multiple linear-regression analysis and a model between scenic beauty estimation (SBE) values and in-stand landscape features was established. Rise in crown density, fall in plant litter, glow in color of trunk, fall in arbor richness, and rise in visible distance increased scenic beauty values of in-stand landscape. These five factors significantly explained the differences in scenic beauty, and together accounted for 45% of total variance in SBEs. Personal factors (e.g. gender, age and education) did not significantly affect the ratings of landscape photos, although variations of landscape quality were affected by some personal factors. Results of this study will assist policymakers, silviculturists and planners in landscape design and management of natural secondary forests in Shenzhen city. People can improve the scenic beauty values by pruning branches and clearing plant litter, which subsequently improve the forest health and contribute to forest recreation.


Arthur L.M., 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests.ForestScience. 23(2): 151-160.Beza B.B., 2010. The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the MT. Everest Trek. Landscape and Urban Planning. 97: 306-317. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.003Bradley G.A.,KearneyA.R., Wager J.A., 2004. Public reactions research. In: Curtis, R.O.,Marshall, D.D., D.S. DeBell. Silvicultural Options for Young Growth Douglas-fir Forests: The Capitol Forest Study-establishment and first results. General Technical Report PNW-598.USDAForestService,Portland,OR: 63-73.Brown T.C., Daniel T.C., 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands.ForestScience. 32(2): 471-487.Ca-as I., Ayuga E., Ayuga F., 2009. Acontribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy. 26: 1173-1181. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.007Chen X. F., Wang Y., 2001. An analytic study on forest beauty-mostly on form beauty of forest plants. Scientia Silvae Sinicae. 37(2): 122-130.Chen X. F., Jia L. M., 2003. Research on evaluation of in-forest landscape in westBeijingmountain area. Scientia Silvae Sinicae. 39(4): 59-66.Chen Y., Sun B., Liao S.B., Luo S.X., Liu D.W., Du P.Z., Li F.D., 2013. Classification of main phytocommunity and biodiversity in Shenzhen.ForestResearch. 26(5): 636-642.Council ofEurope, 2000. European Landscape Convention., T.C., Boster R.S., 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method.USDAForestservice research paper RM-167, 66 p. Rocky mountain forest and range experiment station,Fort Collins,Colo.Daniel T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning. 54: 267-281. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4De la Fuente De Val G., Atauri J.A., Lucio J.V. De., 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 77: 393-407.DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005. 05.003Deng S.Q., Yan J.F., Wang Y., Guan Q.W., 2010. Effects of thinning intensity on scenic beauty values of different types of stands. Journal of north east forestry university. 38(3): 4-7.Denker C., 2004. The impact of aesthetic imagination on our ethical approach towards nature. Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics. 1(2): 51-58.European Landscape Convention. S., Fürst C., Koschke L., Witt A., Makeschin F., 2013. Assessment of landscape aesthetics-Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators. 32: 222-231. DOI. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026Franklin J.P., Waddell P.,2003. Ahedonic regression of home prices inKing County,Washington, using activity-specific accessibility measures. In: US Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Annual Meeting,Washington,DC, January 12-16.Ganey J.L., Block W.M.,1994. Acomparison of two techniques for measuring canopy closure. West. J. Appl. For. 9: 21-23.García M. L., Hernández B. J., Ayuga F., 2006. Analysis of the materials and exterior texture of agro-industrial buildings: a photo-analytical approach to landscape integration. Landscape and Urban Planning. 74 (2): 110-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.007Green C.H., Tunstall S.M., 1992. The amenity and environmental value of river corridors inBritain. In: Boon, P.J., P. Calow, G. (Eds.) Petts, River Conservation and Management. Wiley, New-York, pp. 425-441.Gruehn D., Roth M., 2010. Landscape preference study of agricultural landscapes inGermany. Tájökológiai Lapok Special Issue. 2010: 67-78.Gu X.P., Gu L.P., Zhou Y.B., Yin Y., Yu L.F., Cao M.Y., 2008. Quality evaluation of in-forest landscapes in Qipanshan scenic Area inShenyangcity. Journal ofWest ChinaForestry Science. 37(4): 49-55.Huan G.Y. 2012. Studies on species composition and landscape aesthetics evaluation of urban forest inBeijing. D.Sc.thesis,Beijingforestry university,Beijing,China. 170p.HullIV R.B., Buhyoff G.J., 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts.ForestScience. 32(2): 271-286.Jia L.M., Li X.W., Hao X.F., Liu J.Z., 2007. Principle of tending techniques on recreationalforestofPinustabulaeformis in Beijing Mountainous area by SBE method. Scientia Silvae Sinicae. 43(9): 144-149.Kaplan R., Kaplan S., 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective.CambridgeUniversityPress,New York.Kearney A.R., Bradley G.A., Petrich C. H., Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Simpson-Colebank D., 2008. Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 87: 117-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.05.005Li J.Y., Yan H.W., Tang Q., Zhu Y., 2011. Relationship between in-forest scenic beauty and the p1ant community structure inShenyang. Journal ofNorthwestForestryUniversity. 26(2): 212-219.Lu Z.S., Yu G.B., Zhang Z.Q., 1985. The dynamics of the scenic forest of theZijinMountainand the management concerned. Journal of Nanjing Institute of Forestry. 3: 1-12.Lothian A., 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning. 44: 177-198. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5Marylise C., Hervé P., Gudrun B., 2013. Does human perception of wetland aesthetic and healthiness relate to ecological functioning? Journal of Environmental Management. 128: 1012-1022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island PressWashingtonDC.Niemelä J., Saarela S.R., Söderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Väre S., 2010. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19: 3225-3243. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8Pâtru-Stupariu,I., Stupariu, M.S., Huzui, A., 2010. Mathematical models used for visual assessment of the landscape in situ – case studySinaiaTown, Forum Geografic. 9:133-138.Raitz K., Dakhil M., 1988. Recreational choices and environmental preference. Annals of Tourism Research. 15: 357-370. DOI: 10.1016/0160-7383(88)90027-8Ribe R.G., 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The Influence of Environmental Attitudes on Landscape Perceptions. Environment and Behavior. 34 (6): 757-780. DOI: 10.1177/001391602237245Ribe R.G., 2009. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: The effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and down wood. Journal of Environmental Management. 91: 245-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009. 08.014Roth M., Gruehn D., 2012. Visual landscape assessment for large areas - using GIS, internet surveys and statistical methodologies in participatory landscape planning for the Federal State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany. Latvian Acad. Sci. A: Humanit. Soc. Sci., 2012: 129-142.Rudis V.A., Gramann J.H., Ruddell E. J., Westphal J. M., 1988.Forestinventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands.ForestScience. 34(4): 846-863.Silvennoinen H., Pukkala T., Tahvanainen L., 2002. Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of ForestResearch. 17: 263-273. DOI: 10.1080/028275 802753742936Tveit M., Ode Å., Fry G., 2006 . Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research. 31: 229-255. DOI: 10.1080/01426390600783269Tyrväinen L., Ojala A., Korpela K., Lanki T., Tsunetsugu Y., Kagawa T., 2014. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 38: 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kaźmierczak A., Niemelä J., James P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 81: 167-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2007.02.001Van Den Berg A.E., Hartig T., Staats H., 2007. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1): 79-96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00497.xVodak M., Roberts P., Wellman J.D., 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management.ForestScience. 31(2): 289-301.Wang J.L., Luo J.C., 2004. The synthetical assessment of quality of landscape Forest Community. Journal ofFujianCollegeof Forestry. 24(4): 379-384.Wascher D.M. (Ed.), 2000. The face ofEurope. Policy perspectives for European landscapes. ECNC Technical Report Series. European Centre for Nature Conservation,Tilburg.Williams K.J.H., Ford R.M., Bishop I.D., Loiterton D., Hickey J., 2007. Realism and selectivity in data-driven visualisations: a process for developing viewer-oriented landscape surrogates. Landscape and Urban Planning. 81: 213-224. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.008Yan J.F., Guan Q. W., Deng S.Q., Yu S.Q., Ma Y., 2009. Journal of Chinese Urban Forestry. 7(1): 12-14.Yang X.X., Kang X., Du Z., Bao Y.J., 2012. SBE method-based forest landscape aesthetic quality evaluation of Changbai Moutain. Journal of Northwest Agricultural and Forestry university (Nat. Sci. Ed.). 40(6): 86-90, 98.Zhang R. 2003. Studies on the tending of scenic and recreational forest in west mountain,Beijing. M.Sc. thesis,Beijingforestry university,Beijing,China, 108p.Zhang Z.D. 2007. Study on community ecology of Platycladus orientalis-Robinia pseudoacacia and the impacts on in-forest landscape inBeijingscenic-recreational forest. M.Sc. thesis, Fujian Agriculture and forestry university,Fujian,China, 52p.Zubelzu S., del Campo C. 2014. Assessment method for agricultural landscapes through the objective quantification of aesthetic attributes. International Journal of Environmental Research. 8(4): 1251-1260.






Research article