R

Tpd

RAa

Ab

c

d

e

h

•••••

a

ARRA

KBDILVW

a

0h

Landscape and Urban Planning 124 (2014) 129–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

j our na l ho me pa g e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

esearch Paper

he influence of information provision on people’s landscapereferences: A case study on understorey vegetation ofeer-browsed woodlands

ené van der Wala,∗, David Millerb, Justin Irvineb, Stefano Fiorinib,1,rjun Amarc,2, Steven Yearleyd, Robin Gill e, Norman Dandye

Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability (ACES), School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St. Machar Drive,berdeen AB24 3UU, United KingdomThe James Hutton Institute (formerly the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute), Aberdeen AB15 8QH, United KingdomRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, United KingdomGenomics Forum, University of Edinburgh, St John’s Land, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, United KingdomForest Research, Centre for Human and Ecological Sciences, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 4LH, United Kingdom

i g h l i g h t s

People’s preferences regarding woodland understorey vegetation were generally unstable.Over 50% of participants adjusted preferences upon new information.Extreme preferences following information provision became increasingly rare.People’s preferences became more robust with their age and familiarity with woodlands.There was a widespread desire for a spatially diverse woodland management.

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 25 March 2013eceived in revised form 14 January 2014ccepted 17 January 2014

eywords:ird and plant diversityeer management

nformation provisioningandscape preference change

a b s t r a c t

We investigated whether people’s landscape preferences could be readily influenced by informationprovision within the context of woodland management. Specifically, we determined: (i) people’s pref-erence regarding understorey density on the basis of visual images; (ii) the occurrence of change inpreference due to information provision about biodiversity and deer management associated with dif-ferent understorey densities; and (iii) demographic or social factors potentially explaining variation in theoccurrence of such preference change. We found that of all participants (n = 126) more than half changedtheir expressed preference. This largely entailed a shift away from denser understorey to intermediatelevels, suggested a balancing between initial preference and the objectives linked with the informationprovided. Change in preference was unrelated to livelihood connection. However, preferences became

isual assessmentsoodland understorey vegetation

more robust with age and familiarity with woodlands. There was an unprompted widespread desire fordifferent understorey densities in different places, i.e. a ‘patchwork’ landscape, to maximise opportuni-ties for different species and societal uses. This represents a clear interest for a spatially diverse ratherthan uniform woodland management. We recommend that the susceptibility of landscape preferencesto information provision is explicitly recognised by landscape planners and researchers, notably wherevisualisation techniques are being used to inform decision making.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1224 272256.E-mail addresses: r.vanderwal@abdn.ac.uk (R. van der Wal), David.Miller@Hutton.ac.u

rjun.amar@uct.ac.za (A. Amar), Steve.Yearley@ed.ac.uk (S. Yearley), robin.gill@forestry.g1 Present address: Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environ2 Present address: Percy FitzPatrick Institute, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence, University

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.009

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

k (D. Miller), Justin.Irvine@Hutton.ac.uk (J. Irvine), sfiorini@indiana.edu (S. Fiorini),si.gov.uk (R. Gill), norman.dandy@forestry.gsi.gov.uk (N. Dandy).mental Change (ACT), Indiana University, Bloomington, United States.

of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa.

1 nd Urb

1

prtmLDasabmTTptteo(epvcaase&t(teovf&(amr

otienatbaif

ttte2uwuso

30 R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

. Introduction

A rapidly growing body of literature has developed on peo-le’s perceptions of landscapes, providing us with an increasinglyich understanding of the variation in landscape preferences, andhe factors underlying this such as people’s relationships with and

eanings attributed to landscape components (Buijs, Pedroli, &uginbuhl, 2006; Canas, Ayuga, & Ayuga, 2009; Gobster, Nassauer,aniel, & Fry, 2007; Vouligny, Domon, & Ruiz, 2009). Such vari-tion means that people may value different features within theame environment, which could present an obstacle to reachinggreement about the way that landscapes could develop and shoulde managed (Scott, 2003). People’s landscape preferences haveostly been studied using visual approaches (Jorgensen, 2011;

ahvanainen, Tyrväinen, Ihalainen, Vuorela, & Kolehmainen, 2001;veit, Ode, & Fry, 2006), notably through presenting imagery toarticipants in various forms. For such approaches to be of prac-ical use in landscape planning and management, it is importanto understand whether preferences expressed are readily influ-nced by contextualisation. We adhere to the everyday definitionf preference as “a greater liking for one alternative over another”Oxford English Dictionary) and focus on the potential of pref-rence change – a topic of widely discussed in economics andolitical science (Grüne-Yannoff & Hansson, 2009). Accordingly, weiew preferences as potentially subject to a framing effect throughommunication, changing people’s attitudes towards an object byltering the relative weights they give to competing considerationsbout the object (sensu Druckman, Fein, & Leeper, 2012). Althoughubstantial research has shown that some aspects of landscape arevaluated in similar ways across a wide range of cultures (Kaplan

Kaplan, 1989), recently attention has been given to the suscep-ibility of specific landscape preferences to information provisionPalmer, 1997; Tyrväinen, Silvennoinen, & Kolehmainen, 2003) andhus the context in which landscape images are presented in pref-rence studies (Sheppard, 2001). Early work revealed that labellingf photographs (i.e. ‘wilderness area’, grazing range) influencesisual attractiveness of landscapes, disclosing a general preferenceor wild over managed nature scenes (Anderson, 1981; Hodgson

Thayer, 1980). Yet, more recent information provision studiesHill & Daniel, 2007; Van Marwijk et al., 2012) conclude that visualttractiveness is not highly malleable and may be susceptible toessages only when their content invokes a strong emotional

esponse.The need to incorporate public preferences in the management

f rural landscapes is fuelled by changes in expectations regardingheir societal use. Across Europe, such landscapes have becomencreasingly multi-functional, for instance fulfilling recreational,nvironmental and human health roles as well as providing eco-omic services including food production. A prime example of such

change is represented by the woodlands of NW Europe, wherehe provision of traditional economic goods such as timber is nowalanced against alternative opportunities, notably for leisure usend biodiversity conservation (Mather, 2001). Consistent with thiss the change in woodland users, from merely land owners andoresters to recreationists and others.

Studies investigating public preferences of wooded landscapesypically focus on identifying specific physical components such asall trees, structural complexity of the understorey or the propor-ion of fallen wood and clear-cut (Daniel & Boster, 1976; Edwardst al., 2012; Kearney & Bradley, 2011; Purcell & Lamb, 1998; Ribe,006; Schroeder & Daniel, 1981). The same approach tends tonderpin public consultations and policies affecting landscape or

oodland management. However, there is evidence that individ-al preferences change in response to the context in which they areought, especially in relation to knowledge levels, and the variationf an individual’s experiential connection with the landscape (see

an Planning 124 (2014) 129–139

studies reported in Kearney & Bradley, 2011). In turn, this has impli-cations for the ways public preferences for landscapes ought to besought and the weight they should have in informing managementand planning decisions. Here, we investigate whether informationprovision on biodiversity and deer management, two aspects inte-gral to woodland management, affect people’s preferences aboutwoodland structure.

The appearance of woodland is influenced by a wide range offactors such as stem density, canopy species and age distributionof trees, all of which can be influenced by woodland manage-ment and may potentially impact biodiversity. We focus on aspecific component that has a strong visual effect on the charac-ter of woodland, namely density of the understorey vegetation;this aspect has been shown to be related to biodiversity com-ponents (Ferris & Humphrey, 1999; Vodka, Konvicka, & Cizek,2009), although primary data remain relatively scarce. Understoreydensity has received much attention within landscape preferencestudies, although with varied results. In several studies the pres-ence of understorey is positively linked to scenic beauty (e.g. Blascoet al., 2009; Kellomaki & Savolainen, 1984; Schroeder & Daniel,1981). When the understorey is very dense studies suggest reducedperceived scenic beauty (Karjalainen, 1996; Tahvanainen et al.,2001; Tyrväinen et al., 2003); however, dense understorey has alsobeen linked positively to ‘wildness’ and opportunities for seclusion(Dandy & Van der Wal, 2011). This suggests underlying differ-ences in respondents’ perspectives and interests, echoing earlierwork such as Patey & Evans (1979) who reported forests with lessground vegetation were generally preferred except by those withan interest in wildlife. Kaplan (1985) suggested that those pur-suing recreation in woodlands prefer open scenes as they affordaccess. The latter finding has been found in other studies (Dandy& Van der Wal, 2011; Gundersen & Frivold, 2008) and Edwardset al. (2012) suggest that the relationship between recreationalvalue and understorey density of European forests is bell-shaped,i.e. recreational value is greatest where understorey density is nei-ther very low nor very high. This would make understorey densitya highly suitable landscape dimension to investigate possible fram-ing effects through information provision.

Understorey structure, diversity and density are determined toa large extent by large herbivores such as wild deer (Allombert,Gaston, & Martin, 2005; Gill, 2006; Rooney, 2001; Tilghman, 1989;Tremblay, Huot, & Potvin, 2006). The density of deer in manyforests across the Northern Hemisphere has increased during thelast 50 years, thus suppressing vegetation development in a widerange of woodlands (Clutton-Brock, Coulson, & Milner, 2004; Côté,Rooney, Tremblay, Dussault, & Waller, 2004; Gill, 1990), and raisingcontroversy regarding management options. This includes debateover the perceived impact of deer on biodiversity and the evalua-tion thereof (Albon, Brewer, O’Brien, Nolan, & Cope, 2007; Hunt,2003), along with disagreement regarding the culling of deerto allow woodland and understorey regeneration (MacMillan &Leitch, 2008). Given the level of controversy, the provision of bio-diversity and notably deer management information may evokepreference change regarding the understorey density of wood-lands.

With this paper we aim to contribute to a better understandingof landscape preferences and their susceptibility to informa-tion provision in the context of woodland and its management.Specifically, we determined: (i) people’s preference regardingunderstorey density using visual images; (ii) the occurrence ofchange in preference and associated justifications in responseto information provision on biodiversity and deer management

associated with different understorey densities; and (iii) demo-graphic or social factors potentially explaining variation in theoccurrence of such preference change. We predicted preferencechange to depend on people’s familiarity with woodland, and for

nd Urban Planning 124 (2014) 129–139 131

np

dCdbptspi

2

2

oEwwMafatopfmcHm

Riwo((Atdavao(ta

2

spatsucppi

Fig. 1. Biodiversity information provided to participants. Panels (a) and (b) showthe recorded occurrences (dots) and overall relationships (lines) of blackcap(F1,27 = 11.02, p < 0.001) and wood warbler (F2,27 = 18.44, p < 0.0001) in relation toestimated density of the understorey vegetation across all 29 deciduous woodlandstudy sites in the Welsh Marches. Panels c and d show, for the same study sites,the total number of songbird species (F1,27 = 0.01, p > 0.9) and vascular plant speciesin the ground layer (F1,16 = 3.10, p = 0.10) in relation to the density of the under-storey vegetation. Bird data are RSPB point counts (on 10 locations per woodland)conducted in the last three weeks of May or first half of June between 1 h of dawnand 11 am. Birds that were seen or heard over a 5 min period were counted at tenlocations per woodland. The data presented in panels (a) and (b) are averages; thelowest values indicate species absence during the survey. To determine the numberof songbird species (c) per site the RSPB point counts in April and May/June roundswere combined. The total number of songbirds species (c) was calculated over boththe April and May/June RSPB point count rounds. For details about the bird surveysee Amar et al. (2006). Ordinary least-square regression (PROC GLM within SAS)was used to determine F values, degrees of freedom and the associated significancelevels of the regressions provided for black cap abundance, while non-linear regres-

R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

otably deer management information to generate considerablereference shifts because of its potentially controversial nature.

To achieve this, a case-study was developed around a group of 29eciduous woodland sites in Herefordshire, in the West of England.ollectively, these woods represented a gradient in understoreyensity from very sparse to dense, for which we gathered specificiodiversity and deer management information. A total of 138 peo-le were introduced to this woodland setting and asked to expressheir preference regarding understorey density on the basis of theame set of visual images before and after receiving information onlant and bird diversity and the role of deer and their management

n the structure of these Herefordshire woodlands.

. Materials and methods

.1. Ecological setting of the case study

The landscape preference study was centred around decidu-us woodlands of the ‘Welsh Marches’, the border area betweenngland and Wales, focusing on those in Herefordshire, UK. Theseoodlands are mostly remnants of old, and previously much larger,oods and hence of interest for cultural and biodiversity reasons.ost are privately owned, although some larger woods are owned

nd managed by the Forestry Commission, the UK government’sorestry department. Many of the woodlands in the Welsh Marchesre used for amenity purposes and have well-established and well-rodden paths and bridleways, whilst others have restricted accessr limited visitor numbers and hence fewer, and widely overgrown,aths. The area is inhabited by roe deer (Capriolus capriolus) andallow deer (Dama dama), often in considerable abundance. Deer

ay cause suppression of understorey vegetation, damage to adja-ent agricultural or horticultural crops, and road-traffic accidents.ence, deer management through culling is a commonly practisedanagement strategy designed to reduce such impacts.We made use of woodland bird survey data collected by the

oyal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in 2004/2005. Draw-ng from a larger data base, we selected 29 woodland sites which

ere part of the Welsh Marches and had canopies dominated byak (Quercus robur). For each woodland we extracted data on deerabundance indices), understorey (cover and openness), canopycover) and passerine breeding birds (abundance and diversity); seemar et al. (2006) and Hewson et al. (2007) for a detailed descrip-

ion of the methods used to collect these data. No data on deerensity were available, but three proxies (deer tracks, deer slotsnd number of browsed shoots) indicated that greater horizontalisibility (i.e. greater openness of the lower woodland strata due to

low understorey density) was associated with a greater presencef and/or browsing impact of deer across our 29 woodland sitesElectronic Appendix Fig. 1). From this information we concludedhat the observed gradient in understorey density across the studyrea’s woodlands was at least partly shaped by deer browsing.

.2. Bird and plant diversity

Data from the RSPB revealed that the prevalence of two birdpecies in particular was related to ‘horizontal visibility’, ourroxy for understorey density. The abundance of blackcaps (Sylviatricapilla) was positively related to understorey density, whilsthe opposite pattern was found for the wood warbler (Phylloscopusibilatrix), which reached highest abundance where there was littlenderstorey vegetation (Fig. 1a and b). Despite the presence of such

lear species-specific relationships, the total number of all recordedasserine birds was unrelated to understorey density (F1,27 = 0.01,

> 0.9), and no difference was detected in the number of passer-ne bird species (labelled ‘bird diversity’ hereafter) observed in

sion (PROC NLIN) was used for wood warbler to prevent non-normal distributionof the residuals. Horizontal lines in (b) and (c) indicate the average level of speciesdiversity.

woodlands across the stark gradient in understorey density(Fig. 1c). Thus, while wood warbler was most abundant in wood-land with little understorey and blackcap preferred cover to bedense, about 20 different species of breeding birds were recorded ineach of the woodlands regardless of the density of the understoreyvegetation.

To obtain comparable data on plant diversity, 17 out of the 29sites surveyed by the RSPB were visited in autumn 2007. The plantspecies present (growing to a height of 1.5 m) were assessed inplots of 3 m radius at the same plot locations as those used for birdcounts (using GPS to re-locate these plots). Although suggestive of atrend, the number of plant species making up the ground flora – onaverage 17 – was not significantly related to understorey density(Fig. 1d). From this we concluded that: (i) the extent of the shrublayer had little influence on diversity of either plants or birds; and(ii) different plants and birds ‘liked’ different levels of understoreyvegetation.

2.3. Types and structure of preference gathering events

To determine people’s preferences for differing densities ofunderstorey vegetation in broad-leaved woodland, two types ofevents were held. The first type of event was designed to obtainearly quantification of preferences and rich qualitative data to facil-itate interpretation; the second type of event was designed to scaleup the quantitative aspect of the study while also gathering some

further qualitative data, partly to cross check with those obtainedearlier on. Although each event type had a different purpose, thesame approach was followed to obtain preference data from par-ticipants.

1 nd Urban Planning 124 (2014) 129–139

paaaAisf

iOctiFsIt

2cgodhipteiu

tfpurapwwm

rotsewoo

2

tet(itpttf

Fig. 2. Score sheet used for preference expression with photographs taken in dif-

32 R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

A total of 138 people took part in this study, either as partici-ants of focus groups in Hereford (29 people across 7 groups) ors visitors to a virtual landscape theatre in Aberdeen (46 people)nd Edinburgh (63 people). Demographics of these respondentsnd overall characteristics of our sample are shown in Electronicppendix Table 1. Although the majority of respondents only vis-

ted woodlands for recreation (rather than their livelihood), theample was balanced in relation to gender, age group, and theirrequency of visit to woodlands.

For the first event, a series of seven focus groups were heldn the village of Fownhope (7 miles from Hereford, England) inctober/November 2007, for which we used local advertising onommunity boards and newspapers to recruit people, whilst alsoargeting potential interest groups (e.g. ramblers organisations,ndividual landowners and local offices of the RSPB, Council andorestry Commission) by email and following this up throughnowballing (i.e. recommendations from those already contacted).n total 29 people participated in these groups, ranging from threeo six people in each.

For the second event, two ‘open days’ were organised in March008, one in Aberdeen and one in central Edinburgh. Each wasomposed of sessions during which, just like in Fownhope, smallroups of participants (3–14) were presented with photographsf woodland with different densities of understorey. These ‘openays’ were advertised in local newspapers and by flyers distributedouse-to-house throughout parts of Aberdeen and on the street

n central Edinburgh respectively. During these days, the level ofarticipant engagement appeared high. Indeed, participants ratedhe Aberdeen/Edinburgh (hereafter labelled landscape theatre)vents (on a 5-point scale) as either very interesting (50%) or fairlynteresting (29%), with the remaining 21% leaving this questionnanswered.

The focus group and landscape theatre sessions were iden-ically structured and both lasted about 30 min. The procedureor preference elicitation was as follows: (i) we displayed threehotographs that represented different points in a continuum ofnderstorey density (see Fig. 2) and requested that participantsecord their initial landscape preferences; (ii) information on birdnd plant diversity and abundance, specifically obtained for thisurpose (described in the following section), was provided afterhich individual preferences were recorded again; (iii) informationas provided relating the different understorey densities to deeranagement regimes and a third round of preferences recorded.After each round, there were opportunities for participants to

ecord reasons for preference selection and/or change (or lackf), either in discussion (focus group), or on paper (landscapeheatre). This yielded substantial textual data in the form ofhort written statements and transcribed audio-recordings of thevents. Towards the end of each event, participants were askedhether the information provided was understandable, and to fill

ut a series of further questions through which information wasbtained on demographics (see Electronic Appendix Table 1).

.4. Provision of photographs and contextualising information

All participants were presented with a set of three photographsaken from within different woodlands in the Welsh Marches inarly October 2007, and their attention was drawn specificallyo the level of understorey vegetation. These colour photographsFig. 2) were selected to bring out explicitly the large differencesn the density of understorey vegetation across the woodlands inhis region and were projected onto a large screen so that the

articipants could feel partly immersed in it. Whilst the three pic-ures were displayed simultaneously, participants were informedhat woodlands may look different for many reasons, but that dif-erences in the density of understorey vegetation are particularly

ferent Welsh Marches woodlands, collectively illustrating the existing gradient inunderstorey density across a wide range of broad-leaved woodlands.

eye-catching. It was made clear that the three photographs wereindicative of woodlands with a respectively sparse, intermediateand dense understorey, but that even sparser and even denserunderstoreys also occur, as well as anything in between. Partic-ipants were then asked which level of understorey density theywould “like to see” and indicate that on a 7-point scale from 1(very sparse) to 7 (very dense). Photographs were presented along-side this scale at points 2, 4 and 6 (see Fig. 2). Participants wererequested not to base their preference on the exact displayed pho-tographs, but use them as indicative points in an understoreydensity gradient. Expressed preference often fell in between classeswith an associated indicative photo, suggesting that participantsindeed used the photos to construct a gradient rather than basingtheir choice on any of the images per se. Reasons for the choicesmade were either discussed and recorded (focus groups), or peoplewere given several minutes to write down key words and phrases(landscape theatre) that came to mind when deciding on under-storey preference.

Our empirical findings on the relationships between under-storey density and the diversity of birds and plants in the surveyed

woodlands of the Welsh Marches were used to communicate thefollowing ‘biodiversity message’: different plants and birds ‘like’different levels of understorey vegetation, but the extent of the

nd Urb

soaFotpntos(wd

attcsuiapstssd

2

Sffet

Slls(s(twopehtwc1qdaciIatfi

R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

hrub layer has little influence on the diversity, i.e. species number,f either plants or birds. This message was conveyed by showing,nd verbally explaining, a series of readily understandable images.or birds, this included Fig. 1a and b (simplified to regression linesnly) and Fig. 1c; these were supplemented with photographs ofhe respective bird species and understorey densities (Fig. 2). Forlants, Fig. 1d could not be shown because the gathering of theseew field data only narrowly preceded the first focus group. Instead,he central message was conveyed through showing photographsf plant species typical of our focal woodlands with sparse under-torey (ground ivy, dogs mercury, bluebell) and dense understoreybramble, ivy, honey suckle) respectively; regarding the latter, itas explained that these three shrubs actually contributed to theensity of the understorey in such woodlands.

The plant and understorey images, together with ones of roend fallow deer, were then used to convey a second set of informa-ion, this time on ‘deer impact and management’, communicatinghat: (i) deer promote grazing tolerant plants such as those typi-al of woodlands with sparse understorey vegetation but suppresshrubs and young trees which, if not browsed, can form a densenderstorey; (ii) deer impact on shrubs is such that the gradient

n understorey density (thereby showing Fig. 2) also represents gradient in deer-density/impact, with greatest deer impact andotentially also the higher densities of deer in woodlands withparse vegetation, and fewest deer where understorey is dense; (iii)here is no need to manage deer in order to create woodland with aparse understorey, as deer will do that themselves if numbers areufficiently high; (iv) to create woodland with a dense understorey,eer would need to be managed, either through fencing or culling.

.5. Data handling and statistics

All quantitative data were handled and statistically analysed inAS version 9.2. We used data of the 126 participants (28, 42 and 56rom the Fownhope, Aberdeen and Edinburgh events respectively)or which we had the full set of expressed preferences; prefer-nce data from an additional 12 people was incomplete and couldherefore not be used for quantitative analysis.

We used proportional odds models (PROC LOGISTICS withinAS) to analyse data of woodland preference and change in wood-and preference (our two dependent variables). This form of ordinalogistic regression was chosen over ordinary least-square regres-ions because of the ordinal nature of our two dependent variablesbased on count data in 7 classes that are ranked from veryparse to very dense understorey vegetation). Following Gameroff2005), assumptions for proportional odds models were checkedo ascertain validity. This included the running of score testshich indicated that some extreme classes contained too few

bservations to satisfy the assumption that ‘all logit surfaces arearallel’. This issue was resolved by assigning the 5 observations inxtreme classes to slightly less extreme classes. Data manipulationad no effect on the results other than fulfilling model assump-ions. Covariates were included in both models to investigatehether variation in the dependent variables could be statisti-

ally attributed to: (i) participant age (as continuous variable using0-year age bands ranging from 10–20 to 60–70 years old), (ii) fre-uency of woodland visit (as continuous variable using 7 classes:aily, twice a week, once a week, once every two weeks, once

month, less than once a month, almost never), and (iii) workonnection to woodland (as a 2-level categorical variable, mak-ng woodland visit most often for either work or other reasons).nteractions between age and frequency of woodland visit were

lso tested, but never found to be statistically significant; hence,he reported effects are additive and the �2 values provided arerom models with all three investigated main effects. We visuallynspected all relationships for potential differences due to ‘event

an Planning 124 (2014) 129–139 133

type’, and formally tested for a potential influence of ‘event type’ byfitting this as an additional factor in all statistical models. Finally, weran all significant relationships with landscape theatre data (largestsample size) only. All three steps confirmed that the data of bothevent types could be combined for analysis without influencing ourfindings.

Qualitative data from the focus-groups were analysed follow-ing the principles of an inductive ‘grounded’ approach (Corbin& Strauss, 2008), designed to generate categories and explana-tions inductively from repeated interaction between the data andresearcher. Group discussions were transcribed verbatim by pro-fessional transcribers. An author reviewed all transcripts in full,and conducted the formal analysis, which commenced in the formof memoing. Subsequently, an open coding strategy (Robson, 2002)was used to facilitate the identification of prominent categories orthemes within the data. Codes were used as labels to attach mean-ing to sections of textual data (“chunks of varying size – words,phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs”; Miles & Huberman,1994).

Qualitative data from the landscape theatre events weresubjected to a content analysis of the keyword data obtained sub-sequent to each round of understorey preference selection. Thisanalysis was conducted in two phases. First, all textual data werereviewed, and keywords identified and grouped into five overar-ching categories (aesthetic; nature and wildlife; access; diversity;seclusion), indicative of classes of reasons behind individual pref-erence selection (see Table 1). Second, a content word-count wasconducted of the five most common keywords in each categoryin relation to the differing levels of understorey vegetation. Theassumption here was that use of a certain keyword was indica-tive of choosing/preferring a specific understorey level because offactors relating to the wider category. For example, if a respondentnoted “light” or “see” in their reason for preference selection, then itwas assumed that this respondents’ preference selection was based(at least in part) on aesthetic factors. This analysis was used to gaininsight into changes in reasons underpinning individual preferenceselections (i.e. changes in categories).

3. Results

3.1. Initial preference for understorey density

A wide range of preferences was expressed regarding the den-sity of understorey vegetation in woodland, with a majority ofparticipants indicating a preference for intermediate to denseunderstorey (Fig. 3a). Keyword analysis (see Table 1) revealed thatreasons given for specific understorey vegetation preferences werespread across all five categories, with aesthetic reasons being themost common (Fig. 3d). Preferences were largely motivated bypositive connotations. For example, woodland with denser under-storey was commonly described as being lush, a “greenery” andviewed as natural, diverse, and adventurous. Some participantsassumed that woodland with denser understorey was good formany animals and plants (Table 1: ‘Nature and wildlife’). For exam-ple, focus group participants stated: “if it was denser with morebramble and all the different berry trees and shrubs and things, thenyou would expect a lot more wildlife there rather than something that isvery sparse and hasn’t got much”; and “maybe subconsciously I preferthe dense understorey because I think it supports most amounts of life”.One participant commented on the benefits of dense understoreykeeping people out of woodlands (Table 1: ‘Seclusion’). Likewise,

those expressing a preference for a sparser understorey com-mented positively on its associated aspects, such as “light shiningthrough the canopy” and the ease of walking through. Some people,however, brought up negative aspects of dense understorey, such

134 R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 124 (2014) 129–139

Table 1Keywords identified from the textual data obtained during the landscape theatre events and grouped into five overarching categories (aesthetic; nature and wildlife; access;diversity; privacy), indicative of justifications for individual preference selection.

Category Keywords Example quotations/Data

Aesthetics Aesthetic; airy; attractiveness; beautiful; colour; eye;green; image; light; look; lush; picturesque; scenery; see;shadow; view; visual

“Like the light coming through the trees. Nicer to see through”“lush and green”“It has much better scenery”“It’s very nice to see very dense woodland”

Nature and wildlife Animal(s); biodiversity; bird(s); butterflies; deer;environment; flora; habitat; life; nature (natural); plant;species; wildlife

“I thought this would help to maximise biodiversity”“nice place for animals”“I like somewhat dense understorey, more fresh nature”“Dense understorey provides more species diversity overall”“dense would indicate a healthy + diverse woodland supporting wildlife”

Access Access(ible); move; run; space; walk “I like to walk in woodland”“Walks – if too dense not able to”“easier to walk in and enjoy than the more dense woodland”“better for walks”“good for walking/seeing”

Diversity Biodiversity; different; diverse (diversity); mix; variety(variation)

“Variety of species; habitat diversity”“increased biodiversity, mix of light canopy + dark floor; increased mix ofvegetation variation”“I would have wanted a mosaic of all different density – increase of heterogeneity”“more diverse forest structure & species ages”

Seclusion Calm; cosy; enclosed; private (privacy); safe(ty); “it is cosy but not overwhelming”

T

apad

Fstt

tranquillity

he five most common keywords in each category appear in bold.

s it being threatening or difficult to access, as a reason for their

reference for a less dense understorey. Interestingly, there was

widespread desire for having different understorey densities inifferent places (Table 1: ‘Diversity’); this came out strongly in all

ig. 3. Distribution of expressed preferences for different densities of understorey vegetioning, (b and e) after information on the abundance and diversity of plants and birds inhis time on deer occurrence and their management in the context of woodland understohird round of preference expressions.

“calm environment”

seven focus group discussions and was also raised by 12 individuals

during the landscape theatre events. For example, participants fromthe latter events expressed views that: “. . .a patchwork of differentunderstorey types would be best”; and “I would have wanted a mosaic

ation (a–c) and associated justifications (d–f); (a and d) before information provi- relation to understorey density, and (c and f) after a second round of information,rey density. The dotted vertical line (a–c) indicates the dominant preference in the

nd Urb

osmgsil

cnwybHbpo

3

rpa7mde.ittsiw

dvobesuAab

misnsp“o

sdarbtwtw

R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

f all different densities”. Focus group participants stated: “What itays to me is you actually need all the different types of woodland. Theore you can have the different types of woodland, the more you are

oing to get a much nicer range of species”; and a forestry profes-ional noted: “What I try to do is create all three types of understoreyn the same wood so that you maximise the potential. . . for things toive”.

Part of the variation in people’s initial preferences expressedould statistically be attributed to participant age (�2 = 19.20,

= 120, p < 0.001), with younger people more likely to preferoodland with denser understorey vegetation. For example, a 10-

ear-old boy during the Edinburgh event noted: “I liked very denseecause you can have fun and it can be a good place to venture”.owever, there was no evidence for any difference in preferenceetween frequent and less-frequent woodland visitors (�2 = 0.17,

> 0.6), or between those visiting woodland for work or recreationnly (�2 = 0.68, p > 0.4).

.2. Response to plant and bird diversity information

Receiving information about the diversity of birds and plants inelation to understorey vegetation led 53 out of the 126 partici-ants to change their preference, largely (83%) towards favouring

less dense understorey (Fig. 3b). Changes tended to be modest:2% changed only by one step on the 7-point scale used. The infor-ation that the extent of the shrub layer had little influence on the

iversity of either plants or birds surprised many people with, forxample, focus group participants stating: “Absolutely, gobsmacking

. . it is a bit of a shock to be honest”; and “That’s remarkable, that’sncredible”. However, this information elicited little direct contes-ation. Keyword analysis suggests that the information providedo respondents caused a substantial refocusing away from a broaduite of reasons for preference, to a more narrow set (Fig. 3e), lead-ng to an incremental concentration of reasoning in the ‘nature and

ildlife’ category, away from most other categories.A reason for changing preference towards a lower understorey

ensity appeared to be that previously perceived benefits of biodi-ersity were partly removed from people’s decision-making, andther elements, such as ‘aesthetics’, were explicitly reported toe of greater importance. One of the participants in the landscapevents articulated a change in preference towards a lower under-torey density as: “. . .density doesn’t affect diversity! So, intermediatenderstorey is easier to walk through + enjoy than a denser wood”.nother participant noted: “I prefer a more dense woodland fromn aesthetic viewpoint so went for this higher rating having heardiodiversity would not be affected”.

Among those who did not change preference, there was frequentention of the non-directional nature of the information provided,

.e. that it did not promote a move towards dense or sparse under-torey. This is illustrated in the qualitative data with participantsoting, for example: “Why change?”; “Voted same because still getame diversity, irrespective of understorey density”; “as there is noositive or negative to biodiversity my vote remains the same”; andBirds/plants thrive in different environments, so did not change mypinion”.

However, some people moved to the centre (intermediate den-ity) because of an apparent belief that intermediate understoreyensity is in some sense better for biodiversity. This move does notppear to follow directly from the information provided but mayeflect a belief that components other than plants and birds couldenefit. One participant in the landscape theatre events expressed

he view that: “If you keep woodland in a ‘middle ground’ then iton’t have too much effect on animals/plant life”, suggesting that

he middle ground risked doing least harm. Whereas ‘naturalness’as a term regularly used to motivate initial preference, a notion

an Planning 124 (2014) 129–139 135

of ‘balance’ (e.g. “balance of species”) appeared frequently whenmotivating change in preference towards a more ‘central’ position.

3.3. Response to deer-related information

Receiving information about relationships between understoreyvegetation and deer led again to 53 people changing their pref-erence so that 50% of all participants now expressed a preferencefor woodland with intermediate understorey density (Fig. 3c). Key-word analysis revealed a further concentration of reasoning in the‘nature and wildlife’ category (Fig. 3f), and showed evidence thatthe information brought new considerations into play. For exam-ple, the keyword ‘deer’ was used 48 times after the provision ofdeer-related information, with no usage beforehand. Also, a distinctsub-theme emerged from the keyword analysis relating to findinga ‘balance’ between the interests of ‘nature and wildlife’ and othermanagement objectives.

A variety of justifications for an intermediate preference selec-tion were offered, but a prominent one was the desire to see moredeer (“Openness; like to see deer!”), or provide conditions amenableto deer, thus steering away from a preference for dense understoreyincompatible with higher deer densities. Or, as a landscape theatreevent participant put it: “I prefer to see the animals (deer) thriv-ing”. For some participants the preference for intermediate densityseemed to be accompanied by a desire for woodland to be naturalor subject to little human interference. During the landscape the-atre events, six people expressed a dislike for deer culling and twoopposed fencing; most people, however, appeared to accept bothtools as required for woodland management. The latter perspectivewas found in all focus group discussions.

The notion of culling deer did not seem to be consistently relatedto change in recorded preference for the level of understorey den-sity. The majority of respondents who recorded either support foror opposition to culling made no change to their preference. Forexample, the following respondents state support for, and opposi-tion to, culling respectively but recorded no change in preference:“Deer population can be managed by selective culling of older/weakeranimals”; “Didn’t change, because deer can be managed”; “no change.I don’t contribute to the culling of deer with my choice”; and “I don’twant deer to be killed. So middle is the best still”.

Interestingly, the sparse understorey was suggested by someparticipants to provide too little food for deer, which preventedthose from expressing a preference for an even lower under-storey density. Preference for intermediate understorey densityalso appeared to have been motivated by a desire for ‘balance’, be itexplicit: “Balance of deer & aesthetic interests”; or implicit: “Interme-diate: you can get a level amount of everything”; and “We want somedeer but not too many”. While this implies the provision of opportu-nities for as wide a range of species as possible, one of the forestersattending a focus group discussion stressed that his preference forintermediate understorey vegetation was based on the opportu-nity it provided for management in multiple directions stating: “inthe middle at least you can get either way!”. This point was echoedby another participant who stated: “It’s very true, isn’t it, that if youwere to buy the dense woodland, . . . you can make everything elsefrom that can’t you?”.

3.4. Evaluating overall change in preference followinginformation provision

Overall, the provision of information led to 70 out of 126 partic-ipants adjusting their initial preference, indicating that these were

generally susceptible to information provision. Statistical analysisconfirmed that voting patterns among the three rounds differedsignificantly (�2 = 35.2, df = 8, p < 0.0001). Two factors appeared torelate strongly to change in preference, namely: (i) participant age

136 R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape and Urb

Fig. 4. Change in preferences regarding woodland understorey density followinginformation provision. The percentage of participants that changed preference afterhaving received both biodiversity and deer related information is shown in relationto (a) age of participants and (b) frequency of visits to woodland. Open dots indicatethe percentage of participants for whom this change was substantial (i.e. 2 or morecig

(ufptwerpis(rt

it(ict

ewb(at

lasses out of a possible maximum of 6) and black dots capture all change. Dot sizes proportional to the number of observations it represents. Lines are provided touide the eye; see text for appropriate statistical analysis.

�2 = 21.06, n = 120, p < 0.0001); and (ii) the frequency of woodlandse (�2 = 7.09, p < 0.01). No significant effect for ‘type of event’ (i.e.ocus group or landscape theatre format) was detected (�2 = 2.31,

= 0.13). Regarding participant age, it was evident that the olderhe participant, the lower the likelihood that information provisionould lead to a change in expressed preference (Fig. 4). Prefer-

nce expressions of younger participants (10–40 years old) wereemarkably malleable, with about two-thirds (68%) changing theirreference in response to the biodiversity and deer management

nformation provided; half of these made a change of 2 or moreteps on the 7-point scale used (Fig. 4a). Among older participants40–80 years olds), about half (46%) changed their preference inesponse to the information provided and only 12% made a greaterhan one step change on the seven point scale.

As indicated, frequency of woodland use also appeared tonfluence preference change; preferences appeared to be firmerhe more frequently people indicated they visited woodlandFig. 4b). In total, 62% of those who reported they visited woodlandnfrequently changed preference following information provision,ompared with only 35% for those who said they visited woodlandwice or more per week.

A third factor which we predicted to be of relevance, the exist-nce of a livelihood connection, did not seem to play a role as thereas no detectable difference in the occurrence of preference change

etween those visiting woodlands for work or recreational purpose�2 < 0.01, p > 0.9). Although changes were slightly more markedmongst participants in Edinburgh than in Aberdeen or Fownhope,here was no evidence for any difference between people that

an Planning 124 (2014) 129–139

described themselves as rural or urban (�2 = 0.10, p > 0.7). Thus,our data suggest that people’s preferences become more robustwith age and familiarity with woodlands, but are no more or lesssusceptible to information provision for people with a professionalconnection or from rural areas.

4. Discussion

Our study supports Edwards et al. (2012) who suggest ageneral bell-shaped distribution of preferences in relation to under-storey density, although our results indicate an initial bell-shapeskewed slightly towards a preference of denser ground vegetation(see Fig. 3a). Importantly, however, the shape of this distribu-tion was strongly influenced by contextualisation (much tighterbell-shape; widely held preference for intermediate understoreydensity), thus providing strong evidence for the occurrence of aframing effect through communication (sensu Druckman et al.,2012). In total, more than half of our participants (70 out of 126)changed their preference regarding woodland understorey vegeta-tion in response to information that provided context for displayedimages. Our finding that expressed preferences are susceptible toinformation provision has bearing on the application of landscapevisualisation for three main reasons. First, it indicates a poten-tial gap between preferences expressed in relation to ‘idealised’landscapes free of contextual information and contextualised, oreven ‘real’, landscapes in which biophysical and social relationshipsexist, and which can require management. Such a gap has previ-ously been alluded to in some landscape literature (Daniel, 2001;Sevenant & Antrop, 2011). Second, if the provision of informationcan affect individual preferences, then information can manipulatestakeholder responses through the creation of persuasive settings(Beierle & Konisky, 2000; Sheppard, 2001). Third, malleable prefer-ences indicate potential for attitudinal change in that people maybe willing to accept different landscape configurations in responseto new knowledge (Kearney & Bradley, 2011; Van den Berg & Vlek,1998).

4.1. Why did participants change their preference?

First, limited interest in the subject matter could generate unmo-tivated, spurious data (Sheppard & Cizek, 2009). However, weperceived levels of engagement and concentration as high andobtained feedback was very positive so, we are confident to inter-pret our data as genuine.

Second, the provision of highly contentious or value-laden infor-mation that renders certain preferences unacceptable might inducechange in expressed preference. A priori, we expected the biodiver-sity information to be relatively subtle, and potentially perceivedby some as ‘non-information’ (i.e. diversity of birds and plants is notinfluenced by understorey density). This assumption proved to bepartly correct. By contrast, we predicted information on deer man-agement to cause greater change. However, for the majority alsothis information did not seem to evoke strong responses. Hence,we feel that it was not the ‘strength’ of the information that ledpeople to change their preference.

Third and closely related to the previous, the provision ofnon-contentious but nevertheless directional information may havecontributed to a general shift – in this case away from an expressedpreference for dense understorey. The biodiversity informationpartly undermined the commonly noted perception that a densevegetation state was ‘better for nature’ (including more deer). Other

aspects, such as aesthetics, could therefore be given more weightwhen deciding on preferences.

A fourth factor could have been the focus of information pro-vided. Our results show a gradual concentration of reasoning based

nd Urb

oasgcovImraem

rpTcdifeia

switeppatbrtt&ll

4

imccoeismttiprp–K

tcs

R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

n ‘nature and wildlife’, which was the focus of our contextu-lisation. We provided respondents with the information in theame order (biodiversity, then deer management) at each referenceathering event because we judged this to be most intuitive andoherent. We felt that providing information on the impact of deern understorey density prior to information regarding the ‘biodi-ersity value’ of that understorey may have confused respondents.f we had we provided information in the reverse order then this

ay well have affected the relative amount of change witnessed peround and a possibly more immediate concentration of motivationsround ‘nature and wildlife’. Had we provided information on, forxample, paths, access and recreation, then reasons for preferencesay have focused on such issues instead.Individual uncertainty due to limited familiarity with the envi-

onment or issues discussed could be a fifth factor and may bearticularly important in explaining large changes in preference.he provision of new information may have made it more diffi-ult for certain people to uphold extreme preferences (i.e. veryense or very sparse understorey density), thus gradually mov-

ng towards the centre of choice options available. Qualitative datarom the landscape theatre sessions support this interpretation (forxample, a participant in his 20s changed from very dense [7] tontermediate [4] stating: “I’ve changed my mind cos I didn’t thinkbout the animals”).

Our data indicate that people’s preferences regarding under-torey vegetation become more robust with age and familiarityith woodlands. Using woodland landscapes routinely, and hav-

ng done so for many years, is likely to have shaped preferenceshrough a process of appropriation and familiarisation (Voulignyt al., 2009). We explicitly asked the participants to express theirreference for understorey density using the three images dis-layed as an indicative tool rather than expressing preference forny of the images themselves. Hence, those familiar with woodland,hrough more frequent use and/or over a longer lifetime, may haveased their preferences on a richer set of mental images of envi-onments with which they are familiar and emotionally connectedo (Ingold, 2000), thereby adding elements that go well beyondhe visual (Rogge, Nevens, & Gulinck, 2007; Scott, Carter, Brown,

White, 2009). In other words, they may know better how theyike woodland to be, and the provision of new information is lessikely to influence their expressed preference.

.2. Bearings on the planning process

Our finding that expressed preferences of younger people andnfrequent visitors are more susceptible to change through infor-

ation provision has clear implications for the conduct of publiconsultation within landscape planning and management pro-esses. Concentration on public contributions from seasoned usersf an environment may make the running of landscape-assessmentxercises substantially less vulnerable to changing views. Whennvolving people with relatively pliable preferences regarding land-capes with which they have limited experience, considerableoral pressure is put on facilitators not to direct opinion. Instead,

he flexibility of relatively unfamiliar participants may be capi-alised on to identify the relative importance of factors that maynfluence people’s general landscape preferences. Here, planningrocesses ideally feature opportunities for participants to developelationships with the landscape. This may, in turn, draw in youngereople who – as numerous studies (including our own) have shown

tend to hold different landscape preferences (Herzog, Herbert,aplan, & Crooks, 2000; Van den Berg & Koole, 2006).

Interestingly, it was frequency of use and not livelihood connec-ion that was statistically related to the occurrence of preferencehange. This indicates that there is no a priori reason to believe thatelection of those with a professional relationship to woodland

an Planning 124 (2014) 129–139 137

will provide greater consistency within landscape-preferenceassessment exercises. Rather, our data suggest that it is those witha relatively strong relationship to woodland per se, professionalor private, who are likely to have relatively firm preferences.However, a study specifically designed to untangle livelihoodconnection and relationship to a specific environment (such aswoodland) may be required to further substantiate this finding.

That preference change was not related to a livelihood con-nection to woodland is an interesting result given the widerliterature’s assertion of a strong link between livelihoods and land-scape perceptions more generally. Other research has suggestedthat individuals engaged in producing goods and services from theland, for example farmers or foresters, have a strong functional viewof landscapes (e.g. Burton, 2004), whilst other users who are lessdirectly economically dependent on the land may perceive thoselandscapes in a more aesthetic or ethical, and less functional, way(Buijs et al., 2006; Keulartz, 2004). Our findings parallel those ofDandy and Van der Wal (2011) who revealed substantial sharedappreciation of woodland landscapes amongst professionals andlay people; this forms a good basis for collaborative management.

4.3. Naturalness, balance and the desire for diverse woodlandmanagement

In line with other landscape studies (Buijs et al., 2006; Fischer& Van der Wal, 2007; Vouligny et al., 2009), we found concepts ofnature and wildlife frequently used, thereby drawing on ‘natural-ness’ as a heuristic to motivate preference, which in our case wasfor relatively dense understorey vegetation (see also Ode, Fry, Tveit,Messager, & Miller, 2007). Following the provision of both biodiver-sity and deer-related information, the notion of ‘balance’ emerged.We can only speculate why this may be, but our information per-haps made it difficult for people to continue to view woodlandsin relation to their ‘naturalness’, but rather a place where multipleobjectives need to be met.

Likewise, several justifications for a change in preference(notably towards a more central position) demonstrated clearly thedifficulty some people had when having to chose a certain habitatstate, which benefits some but excludes other species, particularlyif the result of active management. In their study on the occurrenceand appreciation of two adjacent habitats in Scotland, moorlandand woodland, Fischer & Marshall (2010) also indicate that dis-cussions with participants were characterised by a desire to strikea balance between habitats types, uses and needs of others, leadingto the absence of extreme views. Among our participants, there wasan unprompted widespread desire for different understorey den-sities in different places, i.e. a ‘patchwork’ or ‘mosaic’ landscape,thereby maximising opportunities for different species and soci-etal uses; this represents a clear steer for a spatially diverse ratherthan uniform woodland management.

5. Conclusion

The elicitation of landscape preferences using visual imageryhas become a vital element of rural planning and management pro-cesses. This paper has investigated the impact of information provi-sion as part of this method: a key issue given concerns regarding thepotential manipulation of preferences. Our results show that morethan half of our respondents altered their preference in responseto information contextualising woodland landscapes in relation tobiodiversity and deer management. We found that more extreme

preferences reduced in frequency, and overall preferences shiftedtowards a ‘middle ground’ of intermediate levels of understoreyvegetation. Older respondents and those with a greater familiaritywith woodlands changed preferences the least. Forest planners and

1 nd Urb

mferv

A

i2

R

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E

F

F

F

G

G

G

G

G

38 R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

anagers therefore need to be aware of the susceptibility of pre-erences to contextualising information. We recommend that pref-rence change and the occurrence of framing effects be explicitlyecognised by landscape planners and researchers, notably whereisualisation techniques are being used to inform decision making.

ppendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,n the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.014.01.009.

eferences

lbon, S. D., Brewer, M. J., O’Brien, S., Nolan, A. J., & Cope, D. (2007). Quantifying thegrazing impacts associated with different herbivores on rangelands. Journal ofApplied Ecology, 44, 1176–1187.

llombert, S., Gaston, A., & Martin, J.-L. (2005). A natural experiment on the impact ofoverabundant deer on songbird populations. Biological Conservation, 126, 1–13.

mar, A., Hewson, C. M., Thewlis, R. M., Smith, K. W., Fuller, R. J., Lindsell, J. A., et al.(2006). What’s happening to our woodland birds? RSPB research report no. 19; BTOresearch report no. 169. Sandy: RSPB.

nderson, L. M. (1981). Land use designations affect perceptions of scenic beauty inforest landscapes. Forest Science, 27, 392–400.

eierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict, and trust in participatoryenvironmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 587–602.

lasco, E., Gonzalez-Olabarria, J. R., Rodriguez-Veiga, P., Pukkala, T., Kolhemainen,O., & Palahi, M. (2009). Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia(North-east Spain). Journal of Forestry Research, 20, 73–78.

uijs, A. E., Pedroli, B., & Luginbuhl, Y. (2006). From hiking through farmland tofarming in a leisure landscape: Changing social perceptions of the Europeanlandscape. Landscape Ecology, 21, 375–389.

urton, R. (2004). Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: Towards developing anunderstanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociolog-ica Ruralis, 44, 197–215.

anas, I., Ayuga, E., & Ayuga, F. (2009). A contribution to the assessment of scenicquality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land UsePolicy, 26, 1173–1181.

lutton-Brock, T., Coulson, T., & Milner, J. (2004). Red deer stocks in the Highlandsof Scotland. Nature, 429, 261–262.

orbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proceduresfor developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.

ôté, D., Rooney, T., Tremblay, J.-P., Dussault, C., & Waller, D. (2004). Ecologicalimpacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 35,113–147.

andy, N., & Van der Wal, R. (2011). Shared appreciation of woodland landscapes byland management professionals and lay people: An exploration through field-based interactive photo-elicitation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102, 43–53.

aniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment inthe 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267–281.

aniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beautymethod. USDA forest service research paper RM-167. Fort Collins, Colorado: RockyMountain Forest and Range Experiment Station., 66 pp.

ruckman, J. N., Fein, J., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinionstability. American Political Science Review, 106, 430–454.

dwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F. S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagne, C., et al. (2012).Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-Europeanperspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 19, 12–19.

erris, R., & Humphrey, J. (1999). A review of potential biodiversity indicators forapplication in British forests. Forestry, 72, 313–328.

ischer, A., & Marshall, K. (2010). Framing the landscape: Discourses of woodlandrestoration and moorland management in Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies, 26,185–193.

ischer, A., & Van der Wal, R. (2007). Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird –The construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biolog-ical Conservation, 135, 256–267.

ameroff, M. (2005). Using the proportional odds model for health-related out-comes: Why, when and how with various SAS procedures. In Proceedings of thethirtieth annual SAS® users group international conference Cary, NC, USA, (pp. 1–8).

ill, R. M. A. (1990). Monitoring the status of European and North American cervids.GEMS information series 8. Nairobi, Kenya: Global Environment Monitoring Sys-tem, United Nations Environment Programme., 277 pp.

ill, R. M. A. (2006). The influence of large herbivores on tree recruitment and forestdynamics. In K. Danell, R. Bergstrom, & T. Rooke (Eds.), The impact of large mam-malian herbivores on biodiversity: Ecosystem structure and function. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

obster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared land-scape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22,959–972.

rüne-Yannoff, T., & Hansson, S. O. (2009). Preference change; approaches from phi-losophy, economics and psychology. Heidelberg: Springer.

an Planning 124 (2014) 129–139

Gundersen, V. S., & Frivold, L. H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: Areview of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestryand Urban Greening, 7, 241–258.

Herzog, T. R., Herbert, E. J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C. L. (2000). Cultural and devel-opmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environmentand Behavior, 32, 323–346.

Hewson, C. M., Amar, A., Lindsell, J. A., Thewlis, R. M., Butler, S., Smith, K., et al. (2007).Recent changes in bird populations in British broadleaved woodland. Ibis, 149,14–28.

Hill, D., & Daniel, T. C. (2007). Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: Can informa-tion alter landscape preferences? Society & Natural Resources, 21, 34–49.

Hodgson, R. W., & Thayer, R. L. (1980). Implied human influence reduces landscapebeauty. Landscape Planning, 7, 171–179.

Hunt, J. (2003). Impacts of wild deer in Scotland – How fares the public interest? Reportfor WWF Scotland and RSPB Scotland.

Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment; essays on livelihood, dwelling andskill. London: Routledge.

Jorgensen, A. (2011). Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aestheticsresearch. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 353–355.

Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studyinghow the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161–176.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Karjalainen, E. (1996). Scenic preferences concerning clear-fell areas in Finland.Landscape Research, 21, 159–173.

Kearney, A. R., & Bradley, G. A. (2011). The effects of viewer attributes on preferencefor forest scenes: Contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors,and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behavior, 43, 147–181.

Kellomaki, S., & Savolainen, R. (1984). The scenic value of the forest landscapeassessed in field and laboratory. Landscape Planning, 11, 97–107.

Keulartz, J. (2004). Concepts of nature as communicative devices: The case of Dutchnature policy. Environmental Values, 13, 81–99.

MacMillan, D. C., & Leitch, K. (2008). Conservation with a gun: Understandinglandowner attitudes to deer hunting in the Scottish Highlands. Human Ecology,36, 473–484.

Mather, A. (2001). Forest of consumption: Postproductivism, postmaterialism, andthe postindustrial forest. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19,249–268.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-book (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2007). Indicators of perceivednaturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Man-agement, 90, 375–383.

Palmer, J. F. (1997). Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change.Landscape and Urban Planning, 37, 109–113.

Patey, R. C., & Evans, R. M. (1979). Identification of scenically preferred forestlandscapes. In G. H. Elsner, & R. C. Smardon (Eds.), Our national landscape:Proceedings of a conference on applied techniques for analysis and managementof the visual resource. USDA Forest Service general technical report PSW-35 (pp.532–538). Berkeley, California: Pacific southwest Forest and Ranger ExperimentStation.

Purcell, T., & Lamb, R. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach.Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 57–66.

Ribe, R. (2006). Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest:Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology, 26, 100–115.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Rogge, E., Nevens, F., & Gulinck, H. (2007). Perceptions of rural landscapes in Flan-

ders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82, 159–174.Rooney, T. P. (2001). Deer impacts on forest ecosystems: A North American perspec-

tive. Forestry, 74, 201–208.Schroeder, H., & Daniel, T. (1981). Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty

of forest landscapes. Forest Science, 27, 71–80.Scott, A. (2003). Assessing public perception of landscape: From practice to policy.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5, 123–144.Scott, A., Carter, C., Brown, K., & White, V. (2009). ‘Seeing is not everything’:

Exploring the landscape experiences of different publics. Landscape Research, 34,397–424.

Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2011). Landscape representation validity: A comparisonbetween on-site observations and photographs with different angles of view.Landscape Research, 36, 363–385.

Sheppard, S. (2001). Guidance for crystal ball gazers: Developing a code of ethics forlandscape visualization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 183–199.

Sheppard, S. R. J., & Cizek, P. (2009). The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholdsfrom spatial data to landscape visualisation. Journal of Environmental Manage-ment, 90, 2102–2117.

Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., & Kolehmainen, O. (2001).Forest management and public perceptions – Visual versus verbal information.Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, 53–70.

Tilghman, N. G. (1989). Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in north-western Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife Management, 53, 524–532.

Tremblay, J.-P., Huot, J., & Potvin, F. (2006). Divergent nonlinear responses of theboreal forest field layer along an experimental gradient of deer densities. Oecolo-gia, 150, 78–88.

Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visuallandscape character. Landscape Research, 31, 229–255.

nd Urb

T

V

V

R. van der Wal et al. / Landscape a

yrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Kolehmainen, O. (2003). Ecological and aes-thetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,1, 135–149.

an den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An

investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Land-scape and Urban Planning, 78, 362–372.

an den Berg, A. E., & Vlek, C. A. J. (1998). The influence of planned-change con-text on the evaluation of natural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43,1–10.

an Planning 124 (2014) 129–139 139

Van Marwijk, R. B. M., Elands, B. H. M., Kampen, J. K., Terlouw, S., Pitt, D. G., & Opdam,P. (2012). Public perceptions of the attractiveness of restored nature. RestorationEcology, 20, 773–780.

Vodka, S., Konvicka, M., & Cizek, L. (2009). Habitat preferences of oak-feeding

xylophagous beetles in a temperate woodland: Implications for forest historyand management. Journal of Insect Conservation, 5, 553–562.

Vouligny, E., Domon, G., & Ruiz, J. (2009). An assessment of ordinary landscapes by anexpert and by its residents: Landscape values in areas of intensive agriculturaluse. Land Use Policy, 26, 890–900.