Wildland Fire Behavior & Forest Structure

Environmental Consequences

Economics

Social Concerns

Social Science to Improve

Fuels Management: A 

Synthesis of Research on

Aesthetics and Fuels

Management

Social Science to Improve

Fuels Management: A 

Synthesis of Research on

Aesthetics and Fuels

Management
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status,

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 721-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
This document is part of the Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration Project, a pilot project

initiated by the USDA Forest Service to respond to the need for tools and information useful for planning site-specific fuels (vegetation) treatments projects. The information addresses fuel and forest conditions of the dry inland forests of the Western United States: those dominated by ponderosa pine,

Douglas-fir, dry grand fir/white fir, and dry lodgepole pine potential vegetation types. Information was

developed primarily for application at the stand level and is intended to be useful within this forest

type regardless of ownership. Portions of the information also will be directly applicable to the pinyon

pine/juniper potential vegetation types. Many of the concepts and tolls developed by the project may

be useful for planning fuels projects in other forest types. In particular, many of the social science findings would have direct applicability to fuel planning activities for forests throughout the United States.

As is the case in the use of all models and information developed for specific purposes, our tools

should be used with a full understanding of their limitations and applicability.

The science team although organized functionally, worked hard at integrating the approaches, analyses,

and tools. It is the collective effort of the team members that provides the depth and understanding of

the work. The science team leadership included Deputy Science Team Leader Sarah McCaffrey (USDA

FS, North Central Research Station); forest structure and fire behavior—Dave Peterson and Morris

Johnson (USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station); environmental consequences—Elaine

Kennedy-Sutherland and Anne Black (USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station); economic uses 

of materials—Jamie Barbour and Roger Fight (USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station); public

attitudes and beliefs—Pamela Jakes and Susan Barro (USDA FS, North Central Research Station); and

technology transfer—John Szymoniak (USDA FS, Pacific Southwest Research Station).

This project would not have been possible were it not for the vision and financial support of Janet

Anderson and Leslie Sekavec from the Washington Office Fire and Aviation Management staff.

Russell T. Graham

USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Science Team Leader

Preface

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | I
Welcome

This is one of several publications to be developed by the public attitudes and beliefs team of the Fuels

Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration Project. To gather information relevant to public attitudes

and beliefs about fuels planning, we posed six questions. These questions were developed around the

tasks and challenges faced by fuels treatments planners:

• What information and tools are available to help land managers and communities collaborate in

developing fuels treatments programs?

• What information and tools are available to help managers work with communities to communicate

the risk and uncertainty of fuels treatments projects?

• What information and tools are available to evaluate the social acceptability of fuels treatments?

• What information and tools are available to encourage more active involvement of private property

owners in the fuels management process?

• What information and tools are available to help us understand and evaluate the social impacts of wildfire?

Teams of scientists from universities and public agencies across the country were formed to address each question. Collectively we became known as the social science teams. Each team had approximately 8 weeks to produce a synthesis of science relevant to its questions and an annotated bibliography that supports the synthesis.

While the focus of the national project was on the dry inland forests of the Western United States, the

research synthesized by the social science teams was not limited geographically. We felt the research question being addressed was more important than the location of the research. In addition, we felt that

research addressing the human dimensions of a variety of management objectives is potentially applicable

to fuels management. For example, we assumed that information and tools developed in Minnesota to

bring together communities and agencies in addressing watershed management collaboratively, across

boundaries, are applicable to fuels management.

In this publication we present the findings of the synthesis on the aesthetic impacts of fuels treatments.

Manager fact sheets are available online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/tech_transfer/synthesis/social_science_team/fact_sheet_ss.htm

Further information on the larger project is available online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/tech_transfer/synthesis/synthesis_index

Social Science Leaders: Pamela Jakes Susan Barro

(651) 649-5163 (651) 649-5158

pjakes@fs.fed.us sbarro@fs.fed.us

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

II | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Robert L. Ryan

Department of Landscape Architecture 

and Regional Planning

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | III
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. 1 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 

Theories to Predict Landscape Beauty ................................................................................................ 7 

Landscape Aesthetic Theory.......................................................................................................... 7 

Psychophysical Approach: Scenic Beauty Estimation Method ...................................................... 8

Cognitive Approach ...................................................................................................................... 9

Aesthetics and Affective Response .............................................................................................. 11

Landscape Preference in Forested Ecosystems: Research Findings .................................................... 13

General Landscape Preferences.................................................................................................... 13

Visual Access ...................................................................................................................... 14

Forest Composition ............................................................................................................ 15

Topography.......................................................................................................................... 16

Landscape Change and Aesthetics .............................................................................................. 17

Natural Disturbance ............................................................................................................ 17

Human Intervention ............................................................................................................ 17

Timber Harvesting and Thinning ........................................................................................ 18

Downed Wood .................................................................................................................... 20

Tree Regeneration ................................................................................................................ 21

Prescribed Fire and Fuels Reduction.................................................................................... 22

Work with the Public .................................................................................................................. 24

The Importance of Context in Fuels Management .............................................................. 24

Expertise and Environmental Attitudes................................................................................ 25

The Role of Information ...................................................................................................... 27

Development of an Ecological Aesthetic .............................................................................. 29

Visual Resource Management Approaches .......................................................................................... 32

The USDA Forest Service’s Visual Management System (VMS).................................................... 32

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).................................................................................... 36

Strategies for Fuels Management and Visual Quality .......................................................................... 38

Planning .................................................................................................................................... 38

Develop a Multidisciplinary Team........................................................................................ 38

Determine Landscape Units ................................................................................................ 39

Increase Landscape Diversity/Regions.................................................................................. 39

Plan Location of Fuels Management .................................................................................... 40

Create Natural Boundaries for Management Areas .............................................................. 40

Site Roads and Fire Breaks Carefully.................................................................................... 40

Table of Contents

VI | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Use Visual Assessment Tools................................................................................................ 41

Incorporate Public Input...................................................................................................... 41

Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 42

Minimize Disturbance—Protect and Preserve Mature Trees ................................................ 42

Increase Visual Access Through Tree and Brush Thinning .................................................. 42

Plan for the Visual Impacts of Prescribed Burns .................................................................. 43

Reveal Ecological Practices Using “Cues to Care” ................................................................ 44

Facilitate Public Involvement in Implementation ................................................................ 45

Monitoring.................................................................................................................................. 45

Clean Up Debris and Slash .................................................................................................. 45

Enhance Revegetation of Disturbed Land ............................................................................ 46

Provide Information About Management ............................................................................ 46

Practice Adaptive Management ............................................................................................ 47

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 48

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................. 49

Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................. 50

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | V
VI | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Fuels management, like many other aspects of forest management on public land, can be highly controversial. The public’s concern that forest thinning projects will significantly impact the scenic beauty

of the forests in which it recreates and resides is often a root cause of this controversy. Given that the

public’s acceptance of forest management practices, including fuels reduction, is heavily based upon

the visual appearance of the forest (Ribe 2002), fuels managers can improve their chance of success by

incorporating aesthetic considerations into management decisions. In fact, a visually preferred landscape can be the natural outcome of fuels treatments if managers understand the important characteristics that shape the public’s landscape preferences. Fortunately for forest planners and managers, a

large body of research has explored the impact of forest management, particularly timber harvests, on

forest aesthetics. This report summarizes the existing body of research on aesthetics and forest management, and suggests strategies for managers and planners to use in applying this research information to

fuels management. The goal of this report is to

help managers reduce fuels hazards in a manner that respects, or even improves, the scenic

beauty of the forest. 

A review of the research on forest aesthetics

shows considerable consensus about what the public considers to be a scenic forest (e.g., Gobster

1994, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). These research findings also have been relatively consistent across a

wide range of forest types in North America and Europe where the majority of research has been 

conducted. Thus, while every forest is unique, some consistent themes in the research have been

found from the arid Southwest’s ponderosa pine forests to the South’s pine plantations and the

Midwest’s deciduous hardwood forests. Several important conclusions from the forest aesthetic

research apply to fuels management:

• Large mature trees are an important part of scenic beauty and should be retained in forest

thinning projects.

• Forests with more open structure that allows visual access through the understory are considered

more scenic than forests with extremely dense understory vegetation.

• The amount of tree thinning that can occur without significant impacts to scenic beauty varies by

forest type and topographic area. Large clearcuts are considered to have a negative affect on scenic

beauty in almost all forest types. However, researchers have found that partial clearing of up to 50

percent of trees in a dispersed pattern may be visually acceptable in moderately sensitive areas,

especially if large trees are preserved.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 1

Executive Summary

The goal of this report is to help managers reduce

fuels hazards in a manner that respects, or even

improves, the scenic beauty of the forest. 
2 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

• Downed wood from timber harvesting and tree thinning is considered ugly and has a negative

impact on scenic beauty. Removing dead wood or chipping onsite can greatly increase scenic ratings

for tree thinning projects.

• Low-intensity prescribed fire can actually improve scenic beauty, but may have short-term negative visual impacts, such as dead wood and scorched trunks.

Managing for aesthetics as part of fuels management falls under the umbrella of general forest planning

policy and guidelines. This report provides an overview of the USDA Forest Service’s Scenic

Management System, which helps planners and managers identify existing scenic landscapes and evaluate the sensitivity of these areas to management decisions. Another important management tool, the

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, can help managers determine the impact of fuels reduction projects

on recreation activities.

Although there is much agreement across many different groups of people about what is considered scenic, forest managers and other natural resource experts often differ markedly from the general public in

their perceptions of clearcutting, tree thinning,

and other management practices. Forest managers often consider the scenic impacts of such

management to be much less negative than

does the public, which may suggest why there

is such controversy over forest thinning and

other timber management projects. Thus, forest

planners and managers need to involve the public in planning fuels management projects. 

The final section of this report is comprised of strategies for managing fuels and visual quality. These

strategies are organized around the three stages of fuels management—planning, implementation, and

monitoring—and are summarized below:

1. Planning 

• Use a multidisciplinary team for fuels management including landscape architects to help 

evaluate the visual impacts of management proposals.

• Plan locations of fuels treatments to avoid impacts to sensitive areas, such as near existing homes

or along scenic roads and ridgelines.

...forest managers and other natural resource

experts often differ markedly from the general

public in their perceptions of clearcutting, tree

thinning, and other management practices.
A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 3

• Create natural boundaries for management areas.

• Use visual assessment tools to evaluate the visual sensitivity of existing landscapes and management proposals.

• Involve the public in the planning process.

2. Implementation 

• Protect and retain mature trees by removing only enough large trees to open the canopy when necessary.

• Use tree thinning to improve visual access through the understory by removing between 25

and 50 percent of the smaller diameter trees depending on location and forest type.

• Mitigate the visual impacts of prescribed fire in sensitive areas by pre-burn clearing around the

base of large trees and timing burns for fastest revegetation.

• Use “cues to care” to show that the forest is actively being managed, such as seeding fuels

breaks with wildflowers and thinning trees to frame views from trails.

• Involve volunteers in fuels management projects.

3. Monitoring 

• Cleanup woody debris and slash from tree thinning by removing woody debris from the site,

mulching, or burning brush piles.

• Enhance revegetation of disturbed areas, such as access roads and staging areas, through 

fertilizing and seeding.

• Provide information about fuels management through interpretive signs and brochures that show

the target landscape and timeframe for regeneration after treatment.

• Practice adaptive management because after fuels treatments the forest may require periodic 

thinning to retain views and manage fuels.
Catastrophic forest fires in the past decade have increased the public’s awareness of wildland fire danger and put pressure on public agencies to revise land management strategies. The fire suppression

practiced by the USDA Forest Service from its beginnings has given way to policies that acknowledge

fire as a natural process that must be managed and accommodated within larger forest planning goals

(Pyne 2003). However, the transition from overgrown forest landscapes, resulting in part from decades

of fire suppression, to landscapes that can tolerate regular prescribed or natural fire has required a

strong shift in forest management and will require extensive fuels modification of the Nation’s forests

(Pyne 2003). Many forest managers have begun planning and implementing fuels management plans

as part of the larger forest planning process. This has included efforts such as salvage logging after

major wildfires, prescribed burning, extensive thinning of overgrown forests, as well as traditional

methods such as creation of shaded fuel breaks. 

However important fuels management is for

restoring ecological health and improving public

safety, especially at the wildland-urban interface,

it is not without controversy (Mendez et al.

2003). Forest thinning projects, including salvage

logging, to lessen fuels loads have been criticized

and litigated by many environmental organizations as having detrimental environmental and

aesthetic impacts (Associated Press 2003, Robbins

2003). Therefore, forest managers engaged in

planning and implementing fuels management

programs need to learn why the public might be

opposed to fuels management efforts and to

develop strategies to address those concerns. This paper will cover one aspect of fuels management—

the visual impact—and describe strategies to plan and manage fuels treatments in a way that minimizes or even enhances the scenic beauty of the forest. 

Why should forest managers care about aesthetics? Forest managers are increasingly being charged to 

manage the forest for multiple benefits (Kimmins 2002). Although there is certainly a wide range of 

constituent groups, from environmental organizations to hunters and industry representatives, that weigh

in on forest planning and management decisions, studies suggest that the general public embraces a 

multiple-use perspective on forest management (Gan et al. 2000, Ribe 2002). The importance of managing

forests for timber, as well as other nontimber uses, has been recognized in many regions and forest types

4 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Introduction

Many of our fire-dependent 

forest landscapes are 

over-grown and present high fire

risk—they will require 

significant management action

before they can tolerate regular

prescribed or natural fire. 

Photo credit: T. Daniel
(Gan et al. 2000, Gobster 2001a). Nontimber uses include wildlife habitat, hiking, camping, hunting,

wildlife and bird watching, and aesthetics (USDA Forest Service 1986, Clark and Stankey 1979). For the

public who visit the forests, scenic beauty is an important aspect of its experience (Ribe 1994, USDA

Forest Service 1995). Therefore, incorporating aesthetics into forest management is becoming increasingly

important (Bacon and Dell 1985; Litton 1968, 1972; Ribe 1989; Tlusty and Bacon 1989). 

Despite the multiple-objective approach to forest management that is generally preferred by the public,

all forest uses are not necessarily equal. Aesthetics in particular is one use that may appear as an

ephemeral or ambiguous goal to many land managers. However, professional foresters are becoming

aware that landscape aesthetics has a critical influence on the public’s response and support for management decisions. As stated by Richard Lewis, president of the American Pulpwood Association in an

article by forester Geoffrey T. Jones (1995: 13):

Don’t ignore forestry esthetics. Money spent to improve the appearance of harvesting and forest 

management must be viewed as a necessary investment to ensure that we’ll be allowed to practice 

forestry in the twenty-first century.

Forestry professor Hamish Kimmins (2002), in his study of the evolution of forest management, proposed that forestry is now entering a period of “social forestry,” which uses ecologically based ecosystem management to promote multiple values including aesthetics, water, recreation, and conservation. 

The impact of the public on promoting these social values cannot be underestimated by forest planners,

especially those engaged in fuels management. Negative public opinion can affect legislation, which in

turn affects forest planning and management operations (Jones 1995, Schuh 1995). One study in British

Columbia found that the higher the aesthetic

value people placed on the forest, the more they

opposed particular types of timber management

such as clearcuts (Tindall 2001, 2003).

Furthermore, the public is motivated by 

aesthetics in its support for funding forest 

planning and management, including fighting

forest fires (Fanariotu and Skuras 2004).

Aesthetics also is important for forestry management because the public often judges the ecological

health of a forest by its appearance. Management that creates a messy, erosive, or unhealthy appearing

forest will be considered poor (Gobster 1995, Jones 1995.) In fact, one large-scale study in the Pacific

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 5

Forest thinning projects, including salvage 

logging, to lessen fuels loads have been criticized

and litigated by many environmental organizations

as having detrimental environmental and 

aesthetic impacts. 
Northwest found that the public equated forest scenes that were more visually pleasing with more acceptable forest management practices. As suggested by the study’s author, Robert Ribe (2002: 757), many people may consider that “scenic beauty is a proxy for acceptable management.”

Scenic beauty also has an economic value. Studies have shown that forests considered more scenic

have a higher economic value and that this value is related to large-scale panoramic views of the forest

(Fanariotu and Skuras 2004). Although economists strive to put a dollar amount on the aesthetic 

and other noncommodity values of natural resources, such as forests, anecdotal evidence related to 

property values, vacation destinations, and even advertising reveals that people are willing to pay top

dollar to enjoy, reside near, and visit scenic natural resources, including the Nation’s national forests.

The goal of this paper is to provide forest planners and managers with strategies for planning and implementing wildland fire and fuels management projects in a more visually sensitive manner based on social

science research. This paper is divided into five sections. The first section introduces the topic and describes

why aesthetics is an important consideration for

forest planners and managers. The second section

gives an overview of the theories for predicting

scenic beauty/landscape aesthetics and describes

methodological approaches for understanding

landscape preference. The third section highlights

empirical research findings from landscape aesthetics that have focused on forest landscapes

and management. The fourth section describes visual resource management approaches developed by

Federal agencies. The paper concludes with strategies for planning, implementing, and managing wildland

fire and fuels reduction projects that preserve and even improve the visual quality of the forest.

Forest planners and managers who are less interested in the theoretical issues may want to read the

final section first to learn some practical ideas for managing wildland fuels with aesthetics in mind. For

those who wish to gain a better theoretical background, the first four sections review the theories,

research, and forest policy that support these strategies.

Many of the theories and examples presented in this synthesis complement the discussion found in

“Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A Synthesis of Research on the Social Acceptability of

Fuels treatments” (Daniel et al., 2005). As discussed in that synthesis, scenic beauty often serves as a

proxy for social acceptability, which increases the importance of this concept to social assessments.

6 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Forest planners and managers who are less 

interested in the theoretical issues may want to

read the final section first to learn some practical

ideas for managing wildland fuels with 

aesthetics in mind.
Researchers have developed several theoretical models to predict visual preference (as reviewed by Ruddell

et al. 1989 and Zube et al. 1982), including aesthetic theory (Litton 1968, 1972), the psychological/cognitive

approach (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989), the psychophysical approach (Daniel and Boster 1976), and the

affective/emotional approach (Ulrich 1983). Although these models have different theoretical and disciplinary

backgrounds, at their root they have the common goal of answering the following questions:

• Which landscapes do people consider to be visually pleasing?

• Does landscape preference vary widely by individuals or are there certain landscapes or places that

the majority of people consider to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing?

• Are there landscape features, types, composition, and characteristics that are common to these 

preferred landscapes? Which features are the more important predictors of visual preference, and

which are less important?

• How can the results of visual assessment studies be used to inform landscape planning and management? 

Scenic beauty research had a tremendous growth in the mid-1960s with the advent of the environmental movement and accompanying legislation (Arthur and Boster 1976, Arthur et al. 1977, Daniel and

Vining 1983, Zube et al. 1982, 1987). This

section will review the different theories and

methods used to study landscape aesthetics. 

Landscape Aesthetic Theory

Litton (1968, 1972 c.f. Murtha and Greco

1975) used landscape aesthetic theory, which

comes from the fields of art criticism and 

landscape architecture, to suggest that the 

primary factors that affect landscape 

recognition are form, space, and time. The

importance of form recognition has been 

central in cognitive theory. Humans 

recognize objects and landscapes by mentally

remembering their outline. Litton suggested

that secondary factors that affect landscape

recognition are observer position, distance, and sequence. Line, pattern, contrast, balance, harmony,

and other aspects from aesthetic tradition have influenced much of the visual resource management and

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 7

Theories to Predict Landscape Beauty

Photo credit: D. Peterson

The visual resource management approaches used by

Federal agencies are influenced

by line, pattern, contrast, balance, and other aspects of landscape aesthetic theory. 
assessment approaches within Federal agencies (Smardon 1986; USDA Forest Service 1974, 1995; USDI

Bureau of Land Management 1980). This theory usually relies on experts trained in landscape architecture

or other design fields to evaluate the landscape for its scenic beauty (Daniel and Vining 1983, Zube et al.

1982). These expert-driven approaches will be described later in more depth.

Other researchers have taken a more empirical approach from the fields of psychology and sociology to

study landscape aesthetics. Researchers from cognitive psychology have studied how people perceive

landscapes as well as other objects. Visual recognition and affective response are almost immediate

with most visual stimuli (Zajonc 1980). People decide almost instantaneously whether they like a 

particular place and whether they consider it aesthetically pleasing. Thus, many approaches to 

studying landscape aesthetics have participants

rate slides or photographs as surrogates to

judge scenic landscapes (Daniel and Boster

1976, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Using photographs in lieu of actual site visits has been

proven to be an efficient and reliable approach

(Daniel and Boster 1976, Kaplan and Kaplan

1989, Kellomaki and Savolainen 1984). Furthermore, using photographs or other visual images allows

researchers to learn new information that is difficult to obtain using written survey questions alone

(Tahvanainen et al. 2001).

Psychophysical Approach: Scenic Beauty Estimation Method

Many research studies on forest aesthetics have used a psychophysical approach to predicting scenic

beauty that was pioneered by Daniel and Boster (1976). Called the Scenic Beauty Estimation Method,

this approach uses physical characteristics of a forest derived from vegetative sampling to predict scenic

beauty. Photographs are taken of forest stands and then are rated for scenic beauty by study participants.

The location of each photograph is carefully selected, and detailed forest data are taken from the area

shown within the scene, such as number of trees, total basal area, percentage of shrub and herb cover,

and amount of dead wood. In general, a regression analysis or other statistical technique is used to

determine which of these physical characteristics are more significant for predicting the scenic ratings

given to each scene. Originally, the Scenic Beauty Estimation Method was implemented on small sites

(e.g., 1 acre), but Brown and Daniel (1986) showed that it could be applied to the forest stand by 

sampling multiple sites within the same stand.

8 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

... using photographs or other visual images

allows researchers to learn new information that

is difficult to obtain using written survey 

questions alone.
One positive aspect of this approach is that it uses forest science data that are available to forest 

managers and produces results in terms that many forest managers can readily translate into management

decisions (Arthur 1977, Daniel and Schroeder 1979, Ruddell et al. 1989). Although the Scenic Beauty

Estimation Method focuses heavily on prediction, it does not reveal much information about why 

people may like certain forests or compositions more than others (Ruddell et al. 1989). Critics also have

suggested that this approach is too specific to a particular forest type, such as the ponderosa pine forests

of northern Arizona where much of this work has been done (Ribe 1990). However, more recent studies

have used the psychophysical approach in northern hardwood forests (Pings and Hollenhorst 1993,

Ribe 1990), boreal forests (Haider and Hunt 2002), and southern pine-oak forests (Ruddell et al. 1989).

Another criticism of the psychophysical method is that the majority of studies have looked at pictures

taken within the forest (Haider and Hunt 2002). Few of these studies have looked at views from road

corridors or trails where most people actually view the forest. Schroeder and Daniel’s (1980) study of

road corridors and a recent shoreline study by Haider and Hunt (2002) are notable exceptions. In addition, many of the studies have looked at the near-view and not at views or vistas, because of the difficulty, time, and expense in obtaining forest data on larger landscapes. Unfortunately, the impact of timber

harvesting and other disturbances occurs at this larger scale. 

Cognitive Approach

Environmental psychologists Rachel Kaplan and Stephen Kaplan (1989) make the point that landscape

preference is about meeting human needs. They argue that humans are visual creatures that rely on the

environment around them for information on which to base decisions for planning and taking action.

This cognitive approach “describes how people evaluate and organize visual information” (Ruddell et

al. 1989: 396). This information-processing

view of human cognition and perception has

led the Kaplans to create a theoretical framework to understand landscape preference. 

The Kaplans’ framework incorporates two

essential human needs: the desire to 

understand and make sense of the world

around us and the desire to explore and gain new knowledge (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan et al.

1998). Anyone who has been lost in the woods understands rather quickly the vital importance of

making sense of one’s surroundings and making the correct choices to find one’s way back to familiar 

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 9

Anyone who has been lost in the woods 

understands rather quickly the vital importance

of making sense of one’s surroundings and 

making the correct choices to find one’s way back

to familiar territory.
10 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

territory. Thus, understanding is about feeling secure as well as being

able to predict what may be ahead. Exploration has to do with the

human need to learn more about our surroundings. Thus, environments that can be explored both physically and cognitively are preferred. The fascination that people have with natural elements and surroundings certainly appears to be something that is hard-wired into

our psyche, and it is one aspect that people appreciate about natural

settings, including forests (Kaplan et al. 1998). And nature, including

forests, has been found to help people recover from stress and mental

fatigue (S. Kaplan 1995, Kaplan et al. 1998).

The Kaplans’ landscape preference matrix was derived from a myriad

of studies conducted in collaboration with many colleagues, as well

as other researchers who used a similar approach. Many of these

studies are described in “The Experience of Nature” (1989). The

studies rely on people’s ratings of photographs or slides of natural

and built environments. On the surface, the initial approach of having the public rate scenes is similar to Daniel and Boster’s (1976)

Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. However, there are important distinctions between these two approaches in how the researchers

attempt to predict what people will consider visually pleasing. While the psychophysical approach

relies on physical measurements of the actual setting, the Kaplans’ approach uses category-identifying

statistics to determine which type of settings are grouped together statistically, such as dense forests or

open meadows. The researchers then interpret the content and composition of these scenes. (See

Kaplan and Kaplan 1989 for a detailed description of their Category Identifying Methodology). 

By analyzing the types of natural scenes that people rate highly for visual preference, the Kaplans

developed four factors that describe preferred settings. Two factors relate to understanding coherence

and legibility—and two others relate to exploration—complexity and mystery. “A coherent setting is

orderly: it is organized into clear areas” (Kaplan et al. 1998: 14). It allows one to make sense of the 

setting by the way it is organized, by repeating elements, such as trees of the same type or a limited

amount of different patterns or textures. Legibility has to do with finding one’s way in the environment.

Landscapes that have landmarks, such as a distinctive tree, topography, or landform, help people orient

themselves, which can encourage them to explore the setting without fear of getting lost.

Photo credit: P. Jakes

People prefer more visually

complex scenes, with bodies 

of water and changes in 

elevation being important 

elements of many landscapes

considered beautiful. 
The Kaplans’ research also suggests that people prefer more visually complex scenes, as opposed to

more monotonous ones. One might think of a mono-culture of young pines in a plantation compared

to a mature diverse pine forest. However, complex natural settings may have a richness of textures and

plant material, but still may not be visually

coherent. Visually chaotic settings, such as

overgrown areas, are usually not preferred. The

final factor, mystery, is about settings that

encourage people to explore further. The classic

example of mystery is the winding trail or road

that gives one a glimpse of what may be ahead

but beckons one to see what is around the

bend. Mystery is related to the amount of visibility and trail layout especially in forested settings

(Hammitt and Cherem 1980; Herzog 1984, 1988). More open forests that allow views through them are

more preferred than those with dense vegetation at eye level. In the following section, we will describe

how these findings relate to forest settings.

Another well-known theory of landscape preference is geographer Jay Appleton’s Prospect-Refuge Theory

(1975). Appleton argued that people prefer landscapes that allow them to see into larger areas, such as a

meadow, but that also give them a refuge like the forest edge. Like Stephen Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan

(1982), Appleton argued that there is an evolutionary reason for humans’ preference for these settings.

However, Appleton did not conduct empirical research studies to support his hypothesis, although it has

been supported in the visual preference studies of Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and others (Herzog 1984,

1988; Ruddell and Hammitt 1987).

Aesthetics and Affective Response

Other researchers, such as geographer Roger Ulrich, have studied human affective response to visual

stimuli by showing people scenes of natural and built environments and measuring their physiological

responses, such as heart rate or brain waves. Ulrich (1983) proposed that visual stimuli change people’s

emotional response and lead to a particular behavior. These studies have found that scenes of nature

including forests and water can elicit pleasant feelings and help to lower stress (Ulrich 1983, 1986).

More developed scenes, such as urban environments or interiors, do not have the same positive effects

and can even increase stress (Ulrich 1983, 1986). This research, along with the work of others (Kaplan

and Kaplan 1989) points to the restorative benefits of natural settings, including forests.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 11

Landscapes that have landmarks, such as a 

distinctive tree, topography, or landform, help

people orient themselves, which can encourage

them to explore the setting without fear of 

getting lost.
People code their responses to an environment with an affective response (Kaplan and Kaplan 1982).

Some environments are perceived as positive and others as negative. Further, people can develop an

emotional attachment to places including forests and other natural areas (Ryan, 2000, 2005; Schroeder

2002). Forests are perceived as special places across a wide range of geographic settings from urban

forests to wilderness areas. The aesthetic beauty of forests is one aspect of why people consider the forest to be a special place. Schroeder (2002) found that for visitors to forests in the Great Lakes region,

“the experience of beauty went beyond pretty scenery to involve a deeper emotional response to the

aesthetic character of the setting” (p. l2). Forest planners and managers need to understand that the

public may have strong emotional connection to particular areas within a forest, which may be significantly altered by fuels management.

This section has shown that researchers have used a variety of approaches to study landscape 

preference and visual quality. Each of these theoretical frameworks has been backed by a large number

of empirical studies. The next section will synthesize the results of these studies as they apply to 

forest aesthetics. Because few studies have looked explicitly at the visual impacts of fuels reduction

treatments, this review will focus on the broader topic of forest aesthetics and timber management. 

In many instances, fuels reduction treatments such as thinning, salvage logging, and fuel breaks fall 

under the larger rubric of timber management. 

12 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
General Landscape Preferences

One landscape preference issue that researchers initially grappled with was generalizability. Does visual

preference for natural landscapes vary widely by individual background, cultural differences, or

upbringing? Many landscape preference studies have shown striking uniformity in the type and composition of landscapes people find visually appealing and those they do not (Daniel 2001, Gobster

1994, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan et al. 1998, S. Kaplan 1987, Ribe 1989). Moreover, these general findings have been relatively consistent across many different forest ecosystems in North America

and Europe where most of the research has been conducted. As summarized by landscape architect

Paul Gobster (1994), there are four common aspects of visually preferred settings: 

1. Large trees

2. Herbaceous, smooth groundcover

3. Open midstory canopy with high visual penetration

4. Vistas with distant views and high topographic relief

Many studies have shown that people prefer large mature trees (Brown and Daniel 1986; Cook 1972;

Haider 1994; Haider and Hunt 2002; Herzog 1984, 1988; Ribe 1990; Schroeder 1989; Schroeder and

Daniel 1981; Silvennoinen et al. 2001). Likewise, forests with many closely spaced small trees often

receive lower scenic ratings (Brown and Daniel

1986). For example, Schroeder and Daniel

(1981) found the number of large ponderosa

pine trees (greater than 16 inches diameter 

at breast height) had a significant positive

impact on scenic beauty ratings. Although the

definition of mature trees varies by forest type,

these research findings strongly suggest the

importance of retaining some larger trees in

fuel hazard reduction projects. 

Landscapes usually considered less visually

appealing are wide-open areas with uniform

or monotonous vegetation. Conversely,

extremely dense vegetation, especially at eye

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 13

Landscape Preference in Forested Ecosytems:

Research Findings

Dense vegetation lowers

scenic beauty. High density

forest stands, such as this 

ponderosa pine and oak 

woodland in the low elevations

of California’s Sierra Nevada

Mountains, are typically 

perceived to be low in visual

quality and yet are high in 

hazard fuel danger. Note that

the area in the foreground has

already been cleared as part of

hazard fuels mitigation near the

Crescent Cove picnic area in the

Stanislaus National Forest. 
level, also is not preferred (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan et al. 1998). In forestry terms, areas with

low visual quality would include wide-open areas caused by extensive clearcuts or windthrow and

forests with dense, even-aged tree stands as characterized by early stages of regeneration after timber

harvest (Anderson 1978, Brush 1979, Magill 1994). However, some types of timber harvesting that

involve selective cutting and thinning can actually improve visual quality. 

Visual Access

The amount of visual access, or how far one can see into a forest, also has been found to be a significant predictor of landscape preference (Gan et al. 2000, Herzog and Leverich 2003, Ruddell et al.

1989). The importance of a more open forest

composition has been found in studies that

have correlated scenic beauty with actual

physical characteristics of the forest by using

Daniel and Boster’s (1976) psychophysical

model (Brown and Daniel 1986, Patey and

Evans 1979, Ribe 1990, Ruddell et al. 1989, Schroeder and Green 1985), as well as studies using a

more cognitive or psychological approach (i.e., Herzog and Kropscott 2004, Herzog and Leverich

2003, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Ruddell and Hammitt 1987). In other words, there is a strong

inverse correlation between tree stand density and scenic beauty. As the density of smaller trees

increases, visibility and scenic beauty decrease (Brown and Daniel 1986, Buhyoff et al. 1986, Ribe

1990, Ruddell et al. 1989, Silvennoinen et al. 2001). However, the relationship between tree density

and scenic quality is not a simple mathematical equation but is influenced by the composition of 

the forest (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). For example, forest stands with a variety of tree sizes and ages

can often have a higher density of trees without lower scenic quality (Buhyoff et al. 1986, Hull et al.

1987). In fact, an increase in the number of larger trees is often associated with an increase in 

scenic beauty ratings (Silvennoinen et al. 2001). The key factor is the amount of visual access (R.

Kaplan 1985a). 

One study of pine and oak forests in east Texas found that the ability to see into a forest is a stronger

predictor of scenic beauty than other physical measures of the forests, such as number of downed trees

and number of small trees in the stands (Ruddell et al. 1989). Similar results were found in a more

recent study of loblolly pine regeneration in the Southeastern United States (Gan et al. 2000) where

the most preferred scenes were those of a mixed-aged stand with good visual penetration. Visual access

in forest settings also is an important part of legibility, and a good predictor of visual preference

(Herzog and Kropscott 2004, Herzog and Leverich 2003).

14 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Visual access in forest settings also is an 

important part of legibility, and a good predictor

of visual preference. 
Openings in an otherwise

enclosed forest are often perceived to be aesthetically pleasing (Brush 1976, 1979; Kaplan

et al. 1989). Likewise, many

people prefer the forest edge

adjacent to meadows and other

small openings, which has

ramifications for forest thinning and harvesting and for

fuels modifications along trail

corridors (Brush 1979, Ruddell

and Hammitt 1987). 

Being able to see longer distances increases users’ perceptions of safety, particularly in

urban forests (Nasar et al. 1988, Schroeder and Anderson 1984, Talbot and Kaplan 1984), while dense

vegetation, along with other signs of neglect such as litter and graffiti, often increases the public’s perceptions that an area may be unsafe (Schroeder and Anderson 1984; Yokohari et al., in press). 

The only situation where dense trees are more visually preferred is when forests are viewed from lakes

and other waterbodies. In two separate Canadian studies, denser forests along shorelines received

higher preference ratings than more open forests (Haider and Hunt 2002, Miller 1984). 

Forest Composition

Some research suggests that certain ecosystem types are visually preferred over others and that these

preferences are irrespective of the biodiversity or ecological health of the system (Haider 1994,

Kellomaki and Savolainen 1984, Sinton and Giner 1979). In a study of shoreline forests in northern

Ontario, Haider and Hunt (2002) found that red and white pine ecosystems and hardwood-dominated

ecosystems were preferred over other boreal species, including jack pine and black spruce. Other 

studies in northern hardwood forests have found that small stands of distinctive trees such as 

aspen or birch are visually preferred (Kearney 2001, Kellomaki and Savolainen 1984, Ribe 1990,

Silvennoinen et al. 2001). Other researchers have found that shrub-dominated wetlands and marshes

are perceived to be less visually pleasing than water-dominated ecosystems or even forests (Ellsworth

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 15

Small openings in the forest

with scattered trees are

visually preferred. This scenic

open meadow was the result of

a wildland fire in the Santa Fe

National Forest of New Mexico.

The same effect can be created

through fuels mitigation projects

that clear small forest stands

and brush.
1982; Hammitt and Cherem 1980; Ryan 2000, 2005). Drier, more scrubby appearing forests also are

often perceived to be of lower visual quality than more lush appearing forest (Williams and Cary

2002). Within a particular ecosystem type, there also can be variation based upon forest composition.

For example, studies have shown that people prefer mixed-aged forest stands more than even-aged

pine plantations (Gan et al. 2000). These insights can be useful for wildland managers who need to

understand the baseline visual preference for the particular ecosystem in which they are working. 

Forests that have larger numbers of herbaceous plants on the ground level are more preferred (Brown

and Daniel 1986, Ribe 1990, Schroeder and Daniel 1981). This is especially true if the ground vegetation is lower and smoother appearing (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan et al. 1998). In some

instances, fuels reduction such as in prescribed burning can increase the number of low herbaceous

plants that are part of these visually preferred settings (Patey and Evans 1979, Ribe 1990, Taylor and

Daniel 1984). 

In many instances, forests with larger trees, lower understory, and good visibility are old-growth forests

(Haider 1994, Ribe 1990), which suggests there may be some visual preference reasons, in addition to

ecological reasons, for the public’s demands to preserve old-growth areas. 

Topography

Many studies have shown that people find vistas with varied topography, such as mountains, to be 

scenic (Gobster 1994, Haider and Hunt 2002, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Zube 1976). In fact, the

expert-based visual resource management approaches, such as the Scenic Management System

(USDA Forest Service 1974, 1995) and the Visual Resource Management System (USDI Bureau of

Land Management 1980), give high scenic

ratings to areas based upon slope and 

topography. Topography also provides a 

challenge for visual resource management

because hillsides and steeper areas are more

visible from different vantage points. Thus,

forest management activities, such as thinning

and clearcuts that change the landscape significantly are more obvious than they would be in flatter

areas (Bradley 1996, Palmer et al. 1993). Heavy erosion caused by heavy logging on steep slopes

also is perceived negatively, which suggests an interaction between perceived ecological health and

aesthetics (Magill 1994). 

16 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Heavy erosion caused by heavy logging on steep

slopes also is perceived negatively, which 

suggests an interaction between perceived 

ecological health and aesthetics. 
Landscape Change and Aesthetics

Natural Disturbance

In general, natural forest disturbances that result in extensive areas of dead or dying trees (Haider and

Hunt 2002, Ribe 1990), such as the destruction of the forest by fire or flooding, are perceived negatively (Daniel 2001; Fanariotu and Skuras 2004; Gobster 1994, 1995). For example, unburned pine

forests receive higher ratings on scenic quality than burned areas (Scott 1998, Taylor and Daniel

1984). Insect-damaged forests received negative ratings, especially when survey participants were

informed beforehand of the cause of the deforestation and leafcolor change (Buhyoff et al. 1979, 1982; Hollenhorst et al.

1993). However, natural disturbance that is less severe, such as

less intense fires that burn the understory but do not kill mature

trees, often creates more preferred forests, especially over time

(Patey and Evans 1979, Taylor and Daniel 1984).

Human Intervention

Many early visual preference studies found that people generally

prefer more natural, unbuilt settings to developed areas such as

urban settings (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan et al. 1972,

Orland 1988, Zube 1976). In fact, one study showed that simply

labeling a scene as human influenced, such as “tree farm” versus

“forest growth,” lowers landscape preference ratings (Hodson and Thayer 1980). However, human development of the landscape is not always perceived negatively. Pastoral farming scenes receive some of the

highest preference ratings (Brush 1979, Ryan 1998, Schauman 1988). 

Human development in more natural forested settings has received mixed reactions. Smaller buildings and

other improvements, such as boardwalks, perceived to be compatible with the natural setting actually

increase visual preference in many natural areas (Hammitt 1981, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan et al.

1998). In fact, the presence of a few homes at the wildland-urban interface did not lower scenic ratings for

forested scenes in the Colorado Front Range (Vining et al. 1984). However, the same study showed that, as

perceptions of housing density within forested subdivisions increased, scenic ratings decreased. Similar

findings also have been found in more open grassland areas (Orland 1988). 

New roads that are part of logging operations or other construction activities are perceived negatively

especially in hilly topography where road cuts are more evident (Bradley 1986). However, scenic forest

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 17

Photo credit: V. Sturtevant

In general, disturbances such 

as wildland fire that result in

extensive areas of dead or 

dying trees are perceived as

having a negative impact on

visual beauty. 
roads designed to fit into the natural topography and landscape are often highly rated, depending

upon the visual quality of the adjacent landscape (Kaplan 1977).

Forest management has received mixed results in impacting the visual quality of the landscape. Early

studies suggested that managed forests where trees have been removed or thinned are preferred to

unmanaged, densely stocked forests (Brush 1979, Patey and Evans 1979). Furthermore, in both urban

and suburban settings, more managed or even park-like natural areas are preferred over those that

appear wild, overgrown, or unmanaged (Bixler and Floyd 1997, Talbot and Kaplan 1984). However, as

will be discussed in the following section, the visual impacts are strongly affected by the type and

extent of timber harvesting, tree regeneration, ecosystem type, and amount of prescribed fire.

Timber Harvesting and Thinning 

Researchers have focused their efforts on studying the effects of timber harvesting, particularly

clearcutting, on scenic values, rather than directly on fuels management. These studies are relevant for

fuels management because many fuels reduction activities include thinning forests, removing ladder

fuels, salvage logging after wildland fire, and harvesting trees to create fire breaks. Not surprisingly,

most studies have found that clearcuts lower scenic beauty, especially when contrasted with more 

natural areas (Brown and Daniel 1987,

Brunson and Shelby 1992, Brush 1976, 

Magill 1994, Pings and Hollenhorst 1993).

Furthermore, as the percentage of clearcut

increases, scenic ratings or visual quality

decreases (Brunson and Shelby 1992, McCool

et al. 1986, Palmer et al. 1993, Paquet and

Belanger 1997, Pings and Hollenhorst 1993,

Ribe 1999, Vodak et al. 1985). However, the visual impacts of clearcuts and other timber harvesting

vary by the size, shape, and location of the forestry activities.

One study that simulated different clearcutting alternatives in the White Mountain National Forest of

New Hampshire found that midsized clearcuts (10-14 acres) were preferred to either large clearcuts 

or many smaller, concentrated cut areas (Palmer et al. 1993). Furthermore, “recent clear-cuts in the

middle-ground have less scenic impact the farther away they are from the viewer” (Palmer et al. 1993:

86). In general, scattering clearcut areas across the larger landscape is preferred over concentrating

clearcuts (Bradley 1996, Brush 1979, Palmer et al. 1993, Schuh 1995). Again, location matters: the

more distant the clearcut the less negatively it is perceived (Bradley 1996, Miller 1984). Small clearcuts

18 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

These studies are relevant for fuels management

because many fuels reduction activities include

thinning forests, removing ladder fuels, salvage

logging after wildland fire, and harvesting trees

to create fire breaks.
A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 19

that had timber slash removed were perceived to

be more scenic than an unthinned stand in one

study in Finland (Tahvanainen et al. 2001). 

The results of these studies suggest that, in visually sensitive areas, minimal harvesting should be 

practiced. However, in moderately sensitive areas,

researchers have found that partial clearing of up

to 50 percent of trees, using silviculture practices

such as shelterwood cuts, crop trees, and thinning, may be visually acceptable (Paquet and

Belanger 1997, Pings and Hollenhorst 1993,

Vodak et al. 1985). One study in the Pacific

Northwest found that, when only minimal numbers of trees were retained for ecosystem management goals (e.g., 85 percent tree removal), the public

perceived this management technique as negative as clearcutting (Ribe 1999). Another study found

that, while old-growth forests were perceived as most scenic, patch-cuts that removed approximately

one-third of the trees were also judged to be acceptable (Brunson and Shelby 1992). However, even if

judged acceptable, even minimal clearcutting can lower visual quality (Paquet and Belanger 1997).

In contrast to clearcutting and other harvesting of large numbers of mature trees, tree thinning has a

much more positive impact on scenic beauty, especially when smaller trees are removed to lower stand

density (Hull and Buhyoff 1986, Tahvanainen et al. 2001). Researchers have grappled with the issue of

how much tree thinning or harvesting can occur before scenic beauty is compromised. Studies have

compared scenic beauty ratings to the residual basal area per acre after tree thinning. Target levels to

retain scenic beauty have varied by forest type. For example, in a study of southern pine stands, Hull

and others (1987) found that older tree stands were considered more scenic and could accommodate a

greater tree density up to a maximum of 180 square feet of basal area per acre. In eastern hardwood

forests, Vodak and others (1985) recommended thinning to 75 square feet of basal area per acre to

maintain scenic beauty. As might be expected, studies in the arid Southwest found much lower basal

areas to be considered scenic (Schroeder and Daniel 1981). 

Brush clearing also can improve scenic beauty ratings. Patey and Evans (1979) found that visually 

preferred sites in eastern Tennessee hardwood forests had only 10 percent of the herbaceous stems 

per acre as less preferred sites.

Photo credit: L. Kruger

This shaded fuel break near

Roslyn, Washington illustrates

how tree thinning can have a

positive impact on scenic 

beauty. Researchers have yet 

to determine how much thinning

can occur before scenic beauty

is compromised. 
20 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Rather than recommending specific volumes of wood to remove

from a particular forest type, the research findings suggest that

forest managers need to look at the existing forest type and stand

volume. In general, thinning of up to 25-30 percent of dispersed

basal area has been found to have moderate impacts on scenic

beauty ratings (Paquet and Belanger 1997; Pings and Hollenhorst

1993; Ribe, in press; Vodak et al. 1985). It may be possible to

thin up to 40-50 percent of a stand area, especially if larger trees

are retained (Buhyoff et al. 1986, Paquet and Belanger 1997,

Pings and Hollenhorst 1993, Ribe 1989, Vodak et al. 1985).

Unfortunately, fuel thinning projects may have to rely on the sale

of larger timber to fund thinning of smaller diameter trees, but

the removal of large trees can have a negative impact on a forest’s scenic beauty. The shape of the harvest

unit also affects visual preference: rectilinear or straight-edged harvest units are perceived more negatively than those with more natural edges (Bradley 1996, Schuh 1995). Harvest units that blend into

adjacent natural areas and mimic natural clearings or balds are perceived much more positively by the

public (Bradley 1996, Karjalainen and Komulainen 1999, Palmer et al. 1993).

Topography also has a major impact on visual quality of timber management. Timber harvests on steep

terrain, especially cutting below where people are viewing the forest, are particularly visible and perceived negatively. Tree harvests along ridgelines that create obvious breaks in the treeline are also perceived negatively (Bradley 1996, Karjalainen and Komulainen 1999, Schuh 1995).

Downed Wood

The public’s perceptions of timber harvesting are negatively affected by the residual woody debris such

as slash. Many studies using the psychophysical approach have shown that the amount of dead woody

material is often one of the most significant

predictors of negative scenic ratings for forest

scenes, regardless if the tree mortality is caused

by logging or natural forces (Arthur 1977,

Brown and Daniel 1986, Haider 1994, Haider

and Hunt 2002, Hull and Buhyoff 1986, Pings

and Hollenhorst 1993, Ribe 1990, Schroeder

and Daniel 1981, Vining et al. 1984, Vodak et al. 1985). In a study of timber cutting in upstate New

York, Echelberger (1979) found that the degree of orderliness of timber harvesting (i.e., amount of

Timber harvests on steep terrain, especially 

cutting below where people are viewing 

the forest, are particularly visible and 

perceived negatively.

Photo credit: V. Sturtevant

Residual woody debris is one of

the most significant predictors

of negative perception of scenic

beauty. The slash from this 

fuels treatment on the Colville

Reservation in Washington has

been piled for burning. 
residual material) appeared to influence visitors’ impressions of timber harvesting regardless of the type

of practice. However, the specific volume of downed wood associated with less scenic forests varies by

forest type and is not specifically reported in many studies. Studies do report that the greater the volume of large downed wood, the greater the impact on scenic beauty. Visible tree stumps from timber

harvesting are also disliked (Daniel and Boster 1976 c.f. Ribe 1989). Thus, foresters should consider

post-harvest cleanup as an essential part of the harvest in visually sensitive areas.

It is important to remember also that the scenic impacts of timber slash are only temporary and must

be weighed against other management objectives (Brush 1979, Vodak et al. 1985). As found in a study

of timber management in loblolly pine stands by Hull and Buhyoff (1986: 284), “the initial negative

scenic impacts of thinning caused by the accumulation of down wood can be offset by the later positive

scenic impacts caused by the decrease in stand density.” Thus, removing slash through chipping,

mulching, or piling and burning can be an effective way to reduce woody debris (Ribe 1989). This is

especially important in more arid regions where decomposition and growth of new vegetation occur

much more slowly to aid in hiding slash than in more humid regions. 

Tree Regeneration

Focus groups with local citizens have found that clearcuts are perceived negatively many years after logging (Schuh 1995). Furthermore, other studies have found that recent clearcuts are perceived more negatively than areas with new tree regrowth (Magill 1994, Palmer et al. 1993). In some instances, once a

cutover area has greened-up through new grass

and shrub revegetation, visual appreciation

increases, especially if this regrowth is perceived as a meadow or other natural condition

(Anderson 1978, Magill 1994). Again, the more

mature the new stand of regenerating forest, the

more the increase in visual preference (Magill

1994, Palmer et al. 1993, Paquet and Belanger 1997). Unfortunately, it can take quite a long time for a

forest to look mature which means the negative visual impacts may last quite awhile (Daniel 2001). In

fact, one study in eastern hardwood forests found that the time after clearcutting, even up to 25 years of

tree regeneration, had no significant impact on scenic ratings (Pings and Hollenhorst 1993).

Increasing the time between thinning rotations may improve scenic beauty by allowing more large

mature trees to develop (Hull and Buhyoff 1986, Hull et al. 1987). However, rapid tree regeneration of

many small trees and shrubs, especially after thinning, can also negatively impact scenic beauty. For

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 21

It is important to remember also that the 

scenic impacts of timber slash are only 

temporary and must be weighed against other

management objectives.
example, in eastern hardwood forests, tree thinning can result in rapid growth of new trees and shrubs

that block visual penetration, which is less preferred (Brush 1976). This suggests that management

may need to adapt to the actual speed and location of new growth and be modified for fuels reduction

and visual quality accordingly. 

The public often perceives forest management that is not scenic to also reflect poor management or

ecological health (Nassauer 1995, Ribe 2002). However, in some instances, clearcuts and severe burns

that open up large areas of early successional vegetation actually increase biodiversity of particular

species such as birds (Botkin 2001). 

Prescribed Fire and Fuels Reduction

Prescribed fire is one of the central management techniques in reducing fuel loads and restoring ecosystem

health (Pyne 2003, Turner et al. 1994). However, few studies have looked directly at the visual impact 

of fuels reduction and related ecosystem 

management tools. While prescribed burning

can mimic natural disturbance, like a wildland

fire it can leave a forest blackened and charred

and is perceived negatively by the public

(Gobster 1999, Scott 1998, Taylor and Daniel

1984). Even low-intensity prescribed fire to

22 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Managing prescribed fire and

visual quality. Low-intensity 

prescribed fire, such as this one

in Yosemite National Park, can

help restore native ecosystems,

but may lower scenic beauty

ratings until the burn area has

greened up (below). Also note

that scorched trunks, such as

those shown in the closeup 

photograph (right), will also

lower scenic ratings of the forest. 
A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 23

clear understory vegetation can leave scorched earth and charred trunks. The long-term remnants of

fire, such as scorched trunks, are perceived negatively long after the rest of the forest has greened up

(Brush 1979, Cotton and MacBride 1987; Scott 1998). This is especially true with more severe fires that

may kill more of the overstory trees (Taylor and Daniel 1984).

The target ecosystem of prescribed fire and fuels management may be one that is more preferred once

the visual signs of burning have been masked by new vegetation. For example, in a study of visual

preference for a range of northern hardwood ecosystem types, Ribe (1990) found that the oak savanna

maintained by prescribed fire received the highest scenic ratings. Patey and Evans (1979) also found

pine and hardwood forests in eastern Tennessee that were managed by prescribed fire to be preferred

over unmanaged forests. Taylor and Daniel (1984), in a study in the ponderosa pine ecosystem of

northern Arizona, found that low-severity fires actually increased scenic beauty ratings, especially a

year or two after the fires, but high-severity crown fires decreased them. These researchers attributed

this to the fact that prescribed fire cleared out some of the dense understory vegetation, opened up

views into the forest, and increased the herbaceous ground cover. Many similar fire-dependent ecosystems that create open forests or savannas are also highly visually preferred (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989,

Patey and Evans 1979, Scott 1998).

The short-term scenic benefits of prescribed fires also were found in an earlier study in ponderosa pine

that looked at the scenic impacts of burning slash after forest thinning (Anderson et al. 1982). The

study found that, initially, the forest treated with prescribed fire was perceived more negatively than

the area in which the dead wood and slash

were allowed to remain on the ground. The

clearing and prescribed fire removed 44 percent

of all woody material on the experimental site.

However, after one growing season, the burned

site was rated to be much more scenic than the

control plot with its remaining woody debris.

At the end of the 5-year period, the two sites

were rated virtually equal in appearance. This

study showed that prescribed burning of slash

can increase scenic beauty in the short term by removing woody debris, which is considered unsightly

by forest visitors, and by enhancing regeneration of the understory. However, prescribed fire must be

thorough enough to remove dead woody debris. A study in Montana found that partially burned

woody slash lowered scenic beauty ratings up to 15 years after timber harvesting because the larger

A study in Montana found that partially burned

woody slash lowered scenic beauty ratings up to

15 years after timber harvesting because the 

larger woody debris had not decomposed yet, while

areas where dead woody debris had been removed

after timber harvesting received more positive 

scenic ratings.
24 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

woody debris had not decomposed yet, while areas where dead woody debris had been removed after

timber harvesting received more positive scenic ratings (Benson and Ullrich 1981).

In one of the few studies that compared the fuels reduction, economic costs, and aesthetic perceptions

of fuels reduction treatments, Scotts (1998) found that the minimal impact treatment (i.e., light thinning from below with slash piled and burned) was the most aesthetically preferred in ponderosa pine

forests. Revenue production (i.e., moderate thinning of mature, commercial-grade trees) produced the

most income, reduced fire hazard, and received

moderately high aesthetic ratings. Forest

restoration treatment (i.e., light thinning and

wholesale prescribed burn) was the most effective for reducing fire hazard, but rated lower

aesthetically due to fire scars. Interestingly, the

untreated forest stands received only mid-level

aesthetic ratings, which further supports the notion that fuels management can increase scene beauty

ratings. The aesthetic consequence of not managing fuel loads was very apparent in this study; a control area burned by wildland fire and then salvage logged received the most negative aesthetic ratings.

This study also is important because it found that fuels reduction could generate income as well as

improve forest health. An earlier study by Brown (1987) also suggested that retaining some herbaceous

ground cover by restricting grazing may be a more cost effective way to promote scenic beauty than

not harvesting commercial-grade trees.

Tree harvesting and other fuels management operations may have other positive economic impacts.

One study of small residential properties in the Lake Tahoe basin of Nevada and California found that

tree thinning was associated with increased property values (Thompson et al. 1999). The reason for

this may be that tree thinning increases aesthetics and lowers fire risk.

Work with the Public

The Importance of Context in Fuels Management

The public’s response to any new natural or human-created disturbance to the forest will depend upon

the surrounding context (Brunson 1993, Kneeshaw et al. 2004, Wohlwill 1979, Wohlwill and Harris

1980). A clearcut within an industrial forest will be perceived much differently from a clearcut in an

old-growth forest. Murtha and Greco (1975) outlined five different forest types or systems that will

affect aesthetic values: 

The aesthetic consequence of not managing fuel

loads was very apparent in this study; a control

area burned by wildland fire and then salvage

logged received the most negative aesthetic ratings. 
1. fiber forestry—trees as a crop, often in geographically remote areas 

2. agricultural forestry—trees within an agricultural matrix of fields and crops, including windbreaks

and woodlots 

3. recreational forestry—trees as a landscape within which recreation takes place

4. urban/suburban forestry—trees as an amenity where aesthetic values are at a premium

5. general forestry—forests that may combine a range of the above four types 

Forest ownership is another important contextual issue. Small private landowners who hold the majority of forested land in some regions, such as the Eastern United States, are often more concerned about

aesthetics rather than economic gain (Jones 1995, Ryan et al. 2002). This also is true for landowners,

such as farmers who own woodlots and windbreaks the Midwestern United States (Erickson et al.

2002, Ryan et al. 2002).

Fuels management near where people live or recreate will heighten scrutiny for management activities

(Brunson 1993, Kneeshaw et al. 2004). Research has shown that people are especially fond of natural

areas, particularly those near their homes or those that are more familiar (Kaplan et al. 1998, Ryan

2002, R. Kaplan 1985b). In fact, residential satisfaction surveys have found that having nature near

one’s home is extremely important in where people choose to live (Kaplan et al. 2004, Kearney 2002,

Marans and Vogt 2001, Ryan 2002). This is especially true at the wildland-urban interface where some

of the most serious fuels management must occur and where managers face the strongest opposition to

management practices the public considers to lower the visual quality of the forest (Shelby et al. 2004).

Expertise and Environmental Attitudes

Researchers have found that environmental attitudes and expertise can affect landscape preference. In

particular, people with different levels of natural history knowledge, environmental expertise, or even

environmental attitudes generally agree about

which places are extremely scenic (Kaplan et

al. 1989, Kaplan and Herbert 1987, Ribe 2002,

Ryan 2000, Zube 1976). However, groups do

differ about landscapes that are less beautiful,

such as those that exhibit more human 

intervention like timber harvesting, or that

appear drier, scrubbier, or rougher (Orland 1988, Williams and Cary 2002). Expertise allows people to

distinguish nonnative vegetation such as pine plantations from other natural areas and subsequently

rate them lower for scenic value (Kaplan and Herbert 1987). In most instances, scenes such as

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 25

In particular, people with different levels of natural

history knowledge, environmental expertise, or

even environmental attitudes generally agree about

which places are extremely scenic.
clearcuts are rated low on scenic beauty by both

professional foresters as well as environmentalists, 

but professionals often rate such scenes higher

than any other group, including the general

public (Anderson 1978, Magill 1994, Ribe

2002). Furthermore, many professional foresters

or those who favor resource production find

clearcuts and other intensive timber practices to

be more acceptable than the general public or

environment advocates (McCool et al. 1986,

Ribe 2002). These same differences between

experts and nonexperts appeared in a study of

urban forests where the invasive understory

shrubs had recently been cleared to increase ecological health and appeared messier because of

the woody debris. Those with more natural history knowledge rated scenes of this type of ecosystem management higher than the general public

(Ryan 2000, 2005).

Thus, it is important that forest managers not rely on their own standards of what is aesthetically pleasing, because those standards may not reflect those of the public (Anderson 1978, Andersson 1994,

Arthur 1977, Haider 1994, Kaplan et al. 1998, Ribe 2002, Zube 1976). Those with strong environmental

protection attitudes may have a higher standard for acceptable forest beauty. However, “managers should

also not assume that they must always meet the high scenic beauty standards of acceptable management

advocated by resource protection constituencies. Other constituencies will accept somewhat lower levels

of beauty” (Ribe 2002: 776 c.f. Magill 1992).

Expertise also comes in the form of local 

knowledge (Kaplan et al. 1998). Local residents

who have engaged in ecological stewardship,

such as promoting native plant material, may

be more amenable to ecosystem management.

In a study in Australia, Williams and Cary (2002) found that landowners who engaged in biodiversity

protection activities gave higher ratings to all native landscapes, even those that were generally less 

preferred, such as Casuarina woodlands that appeared dry, twiggy, and fire-damaged. In many instances,

26 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Providing ecological information about ecosystem

management increased acceptability ratings by

office workers and decreased the ratings by 

college students. 

Photo credit: P. Jakes

Fuels management near where

people live will be more highly

scrutinized and calls for

increased care. 
A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 27

the public preferred landscapes such as open or grazed woodlands that were rated lower for ecological

quality by expert ecologists. For forest managers, it would be interesting to know how to create a more

informed appreciation for ecologically diverse, but visually less appealing ecosystems.

The Role of Information

Forest planners and managers have often relied on environmental education to inform and convince the

public about particular forest management decisions. “Managers are often more intent on changing public

opinion than management practices; both are required” (Magill 1992). Research has shown that information can have a positive impact on attitudes and visual preferences (Anderson 1981, Buhyoff et al. 1979,

Hodgson and Thayer 1980, Kearney 2001, Ribe 1999). However, the public’s visual preferences are often

very resistant to change (Daniel 2001), which suggests that conveying environmental information in a

readily understood and accepted manner is a complex task and is affected by the existing information

and values that people have (Brunson and Reiter 1996, Kaplan et al. 1998, Tindall 2001) 

Several researchers have looked specifically at how providing information about ecosystem management

affects landscape preference and aesthetic appreciation. Kearney (2001) found an increase in acceptance

and visual quality ratings for clearcuts in upper midwestern forests when the public was shown pictures

of the resulting ecosystem that benefited birch

and jack pine regeneration. Likewise, a study in

the Pacific Northwest by Ribe (1999) found

that providing information about the ecological

benefits of minimal green-tree retention cutting

increased the public’s acceptance for photosimulations of this silviculture practice. However,

in this study, information increased acceptance

for this practice, but not, scenic beauty ratings. In other words, acceptance for ecosystem management

may be influenced by ecological information, while visual preference is more resistant to change. 

An earlier study by Taylor and Daniel (1984) about the effects of prescribed fire on scenic beauty 

supports this notion that visual preference is difficult to change. This study in the ponderosa pine

forests of northern Arizona found that providing information about the benefits of prescribed fire did

not increase scenic beauty ratings or recreation acceptability ratings for burned forests. However, the

study did find that providing educational information increased the public’s acceptance of using 

prescribed fire to manage underbrush. Again, this study shows the visual impacts of fire may be too

strong to overcome with information.

When scenes were labeled as “wilderness area” or

“national park,” they received higher scenic 

ratings, and when the same scenes were labeled

as “leased grazing areas” or “commercial timber

stands,” they received lower ratings.
28 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Brunson and Reiter (1996), who conducted a similar study about preferences for different timber harvesting

practices in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest, found that providing information about the ecological benefits had unintended consequences on scenic beauty ratings within different subgroups. Providing

ecological information about ecosystem management increased acceptability ratings by office workers and

decreased the ratings by college students. These authors suggest that information about ecosystem management needs to be written carefully to avoid miscommunication. 

When viewing management practices, the general public may not always

reach the correct conclusions about the cause of the disturbance or the

management intention. For example, Magill (1994) found that areas of

natural disturbance were perceived to be the result of logging activity. In

other instances, regeneration after harvesting when perceived as a natural

meadow or young trees was perceived positively, but areas of clearcuts

were perceived negatively. Anderson (1978) also found that clearcuts

were perceived much more negatively than wildlife areas or abandoned

farm fields. Miller (1984) found that local residents could distinguish

clearcuts from natural balds in forested shoreline of British Columbia and

perceived them more negatively than did tourists who could not distinguish the natural clearings from clearcuts.

Likewise, a study in a Maryland State park found that clearcuts were recognized more readily by local residents and by those with more knowledge

about timber management (Becker 1983). However, unlike the study in

British Columbia, those who recognized the clearcuts were actually more

supportive of this type of timber management. The distinction appears to

be that clearcuts in the Maryland example were

very small, appeared irregular, retained some

trees, and had 5 years of tree regeneration to

hide the logging slash. Thus, the logging created

the smaller forest openings that are generally

appreciated (Brush 1976, 1979) more than

entire hillsides of cutover areas.

Buhyoff et al. (1979) found that giving people information about insect damage in southern pine forests

lowered their preference for scenes that showed this damage. However, when no information was 

When scenes were labeled as “wilderness area” or

“national park,” they received higher scenic 

ratings, and when the same scenes were labeled

as “leased grazing areas” or “commercial timber

stands,” they received lower ratings.

Photo credit: P. Jakes

Educational activities such as

this field trip can change 

attitudes about fuels 

management, but visual 

preferences are very difficult 

to change. 
provided, the insect-damage scenes were actually rated higher, possibly because viewers liked the orange

colors in the trees. Replication of this study in insect-damaged forests of the Colorado Front Range found

similar results: moderately damaged forests were perceived neutrally or slightly more positively by uninformed viewers, but giving viewers information about the insect damage lowered scenic beauty ratings

(Buhyoff et al. 1982). However, in areas with more spectacular mountain scenery and topography, insect

damage had less negative influence, presumably

because the dominant peaks and mountain

ridges provided scenic value regardless of negative changes to the forest cover. 

Another study that looked at the visual impacts

of gypsy moth infestation in eastern hardwood

forests found similar results of providing information to viewers (Hollenhorst et al. 1993). To the uninformed viewers, scenes with low levels of gypsy

moths and tree mortality actually were perceived as more scenic than those with no infestation. The

researchers attribute this to the fact that small levels of tree mortality increased small forest openings,

sunlight, and presence of flowering shrubs. 

Viewers also may be informed about the management context and objectives. Anderson (1981) found

that scenic beauty ratings for ponderosa pine forests were sensitive to land use labels. When scenes were

labeled as “wilderness area” or “national park,” they received higher scenic ratings, and when the same

scenes were labeled as “leased grazing areas” or “commercial timber stands,” they received lower ratings.

Development of an Ecological Aesthetic

Changes in forest management and biological sciences have led the USDA Forest Service and other

government agencies to embrace ecosystem management as the latest over-arching approach to 

organizing, planning, and implementing management decisions. An important goal of ecosystem

management is to integrate ecological principles, including the temporal aspects of nature, into 

management decisions. Fuels management, including reintroducing fire into the forest, can be an

important step in restoring an ecosystem’s natural processes. Unfortunately, ecologically healthy

ecosystems and the processes to sustain them are not always perceived as aesthetically pleasing or

even as good management by the general public (Gobster 1994, 1995, 1999; Nassauer 1995, 1997;

Ribe 1999, 2002; USDA Forest Service 1995, Williams and Cary 2002). Humans are visual creatures;

we judge an environment by what we see (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, S. Kaplan 1987). Furthermore,

people’s aesthetic perceptions of the scenic beauty of the environment seem to be resistant to influence

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 29

Unfortunately, ecologically healthy 

ecosystems and the processes to sustain them 

are not always perceived as aesthetically 

pleasing or even as good management by 

the general public.
by intervention such as environmental education (Daniel 2001). USDA Forest Service landscape

architect Paul Gobster (1994, 1995) argues that people’s judgments about what is a healthy or beautiful landscape are culturally derived and are often based on a static view of landscape management. In

fact, until the last 25 years or so, even ecologists tended to see the environment as “a steady state

community” instead of one “characterized by change rather than consistency” (Botkin 2001: 112). 

Gobster notes that managing forests to achieve aesthetic and ecological objectives can present some

inherent conflicts (1994, 1995, 1999, 2001b). For example, in many ecosystems, fire is important for

ecological health, but research shows that people do not like the visual impacts of fire. Likewise, dead

and dying wood is important for forest health because it restores coarse organic matter to the soil and

provides habitat, but large amounts of slash and dead trees lower visual quality (Gobster 1999). Many

people dislike large-scale landscape change or disruption to the natural environment, which results in

widespread areas of dead or downed trees,

regardless of whether the changes are caused

by humans, such as logging, or natural disturbance, such as wildfires. To try to reconcile

these inherent conflicts, Gobster draws inspiration from the work of the renowned ecologist Aldo Leopold. “Leopold and others have detailed important differences between a forest esthetic

based on scenic perspectives and one based on ecological perspective” (1995: 8). Gobster describes

Leopold’s ecological aesthetic as one informed by the knowledge of ecosystem health and processes.

Appreciation of landscape change is an important part of this new aesthetic that would perceive natural processes as essential to ecosystem health. The ecological aesthetic also would translate into an

appreciation for the more subtle beauty in landscapes such as prairies that may appear uniform or

monotonous to the untrained eye. The role of education and information is central to this informed

aesthetic (Nassauer 1997, Ribe 1999, Thayer 1989).

These issues are particularly relevant for fuels management efforts, which are often characterized by

conflicts between aesthetic and ecological objectives. Early studies of timber management (such as

Echelberger 1979) suggested that public opinions about timber harvesting are strongly influenced by

the degree of orderliness of harvesting activities, such as the disposal of woody debris and slash.

Landscape architect Joan Nassauer’s research (1995, 1997) in aesthetics, landscape ecology, and 

landscape design showed that such “messy” ecosystems do not always fit the public’s perceptions of

attractive or well cared for landscapes. From this perspective, although fuels management may be

designed to improve forest health, this goal is not visually conveyed to the public because treatments

30 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

...“cues to care” can be used to visually inform

people that native landscapes are being actively

restored and managed.
often, at least initially, create a messier appearing ecosystem. Thus, to encourage ecological health and

restore ecosystems within urban, suburban, and rural landscapes, planners and managers must frame

these “messy” ecosystems with cultural cues that connote human intention. This is especially true

when managed forests are adjacent to the wildland-urban interface or other high-use areas.

Nassauer (1995) suggested that these “cues to care” can be used to visually inform people that native

landscapes are being actively restored and managed. This “vivid care draws attention to the human

presence in healthy landscapes in order to sustain ecological health over time. Emphasizing a benign

human presence protects ecologically rich landscapes from less intelligent human control.” (Nassauer

1997: 77) Her research in the Midwest found that cues to care can include mowing the edges of 

grassland areas, planting flowering native plants, providing wildlife feeders, creating bold patterns in

the land, trimming shrubs and plants, and adding fences or other architectural details. The goal behind

Nassauer’s approach is to increase the public’s appreciation and aesthetic acceptance for native 

ecosystems. In her words, “perhaps the most powerfully omnipresent form of environmental education

is simply viewing the landscape” (Nassauer 1997: 78). Thus, creating an ecological aesthetic will

require moving the public’s aesthetic appreciation closer toward one that recognizes and understands

healthy ecosystem processes and appearance (see also Gobster 1994, 1995, and 1999). Management

that conveys a sense of human intention and care within a forested landscape is part of this process of

developing an informed aesthetic. 

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 31
Federal land management agencies, including the USDA Forest Service (1974, 1995), USDI Bureau of

Land Management (1980), and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil

Conservation Service 1978), have developed visual resource management systems to address the

preservation and management of scenic resources (Smardon 1986). Each of these systems was developed in the late 1960s and 1970s by landscape architects and others to categorize the scenic quality of

Federal land and to assess the visual impacts of new development including timber harvesting, mining,

road building, resort development, and establishment of utility line

corridors. The Forest Service’s Visual Management System (VMS)

and the Bureau of Land Management’s Visual Resource Management

(VRM) system have many similar components, and in fact, have

borrowed ideas from one another, such as the classification of the

landscape (Smardon 1986).

In contrast, the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Landscape

Resource Management (LRM) system is designed more for rural and

suburban landscapes and thus, takes a more landscape approach

than a visual one (Schauman and Adams 1979, Smardon 1986).

Another important difference is in the implementation of these visual resource management systems. The Natural Resources Conservation Service typically deals with private landowners in an advisory capacity, while the Forest Service and BLM manage publicly owned

land (Smardon 1986). Although each of these systems has much to offer managers who are concerned

about visual resource planning, for brevity’s sake the following section will focus on the Forest Service

system because it is designed specifically for forest management and is most applicable to fuels reduction strategies and wildland fire management.

The USDA Forest Service’s Visual Management System (VMS)

The Forest Service has embraced scenic management in a systematic manner for the past three

decades. Beginning in the 1970s, under pressure from the environmental movement and spurred by

environmental legislation (e.g., National Environmental Protection Act, 1969), the Forest Service

(1974: 2) introduced the Visual Management System (VMS) to classify and identify scenic resources

and to provide management guidelines and “quality objectives for alteration of visual resources.” 

In 1995, the VMS was revised to take into consideration ecosystem management and was renamed the

Scenic Management System (SMS) (USDA Forest Service 1995). For the most part, the landscape

32 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Visual Resource Management Approaches

Photo credit: N. Lull

Visual resource management

systems have been developed 

to assess the scenic impacts 

of different management

actions, including harvesting 

to reduce fuels. 
inventory process and classification system have remained the same, with minor modifications to the

landscape objectives terminology. The most important revision in the 1990s was to classify landscape

visual character along ecosystem type and to recommend more public involvement in determining scenic

ratings. This new framework also acknowledged that scenic management does not always improve

ecosystems, such as wildlife habitat, and ecosystem management does not always improve scenery. For

example, removing trees to open up views may have negative impacts on particular ecosystems. 

Under the VMS (and subsequent SMS, 1995), all national forest land was inventoried according to its landscape character type, which was related to the physical features of the landscape: “[a]n area of land that has

common distinguishing visual characteristics of landform, rock formations, water forms and vegetative patterns.” (USDA Forest Service 1974: 5). Examples of these larger landscape areas include the Columbia

Basin and the Northeastern Cascade Mountains in the Pacific Northwest. These areas are further broken

down according to smaller landscape sub-types,

such as steep mountain lands and valley floors.

The scenic qualities of these landscapes are

then ranked according to their attractiveness

and integrity. This system recognizes that 

“scenic attractiveness, in its purest definition,

exhibits the combined effects of the natural

and cultural forces in the landscape” (USDA Forest Service 1995: 1-14). However, “generally, 

natural-appearing landscapes are most valued” (p. 29). This method of rating scenic attractiveness is

based on an expert approach from landscape architecture and aesthetics that gives the highest rating to

landscapes that have “the most positive combinations of variety, vividness, mystery, intactness, coherence,

harmony, uniqueness, pattern and balance” (USDA Forest Service 1995: 1-15). Landscapes are ranked

Class A-Distinctive, Class B-Typical, and Class C-Indistinctive. In general, this classification system

gives higher rankings to more varied and steep topography, large water bodies and rivers, and more

varied or unique vegetation types. Critics suggest that the VRM overemphasizes rugged, classically 

scenic mountain landscapes and underrates the importance of flatter, more homogeneous landscapes

such as the forests of the Upper Midwest that are still highly valued by local residents for their scenic

beauty (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). 

An important next step in the visual assessment process is to determine the degree of scenic integrity, the

degree of alteration or modification of the landscape character. The scenic integrity levels range from very

high, where the landscape is unaltered as in a wilderness setting, to unacceptably low where the landscape

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 33

This new [visual management] framework also

acknowledged that scenic management does not

always improve ecosystems, such as wildlife 

habitat, and ecosystem management does not

always improve scenery.
34 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

character is heavily altered, as in a large strip-mine. For example, a distinctive mountain range may have

large areas of clearcuts at its base, which would lower its scenic integrity. The integrity levels provide a

good basis on which to judge future management activities, including fuels reduction. For example, an area

heavily altered through timber harvesting (low scenic integrity) may be appropriate for similar activities.

Determining the landscape visibility and sensitivity to alteration is the next stage in the scenic assessment process. In general, the greater the number of people likely to view a landscape and the longer

the duration, the more sensitive the landscape

is to modification. Of particular concern are

travelways such as primary highways, trails,

and waterways, as well as primary use areas

such as campgrounds, visitor centers, and

resort areas. Landscape visibility is affected by

“1) context of viewers, 2) duration of view, 3) degree of discernable detail, 4) seasonal variations, and

5) number of viewers” (USDA Forest Service 1995: 4-2). For example, hikers on a wilderness trail

expect a particular context unlike that expected by skiers on a chairlift. The proximity of the viewer to

the particular landscape affects the visibility and sensitivity. Thus, the classification system also gives

distance classes: immediate foreground (0 feet to 300 feet), foreground (300 feet to one-half mile),

middleground (one-half mile to 4 miles) and background (4 miles and greater). 

Another part of the process that is important in planning fuels treatments, is mapping areas that are

seen from different travelways, use areas, and other vantage points. This may be accomplished manually through the use of USGS topographic maps, aerial photography, and extensive fieldwork, or it may

be done by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other computer software (Orland 1994). 

Once the scenic inventory and assessment are complete, the SMS can be integrated with the forest

planning process that includes ecosystem management goals and objectives. This includes evaluating

the impact of alternative management activities on the desired landscape character of an area. In some

instances, managers may want to maintain the existing landscape character in areas that are highly 

scenic and that already function well from an ecosystem perspective. In other instances, managers may

want to move from an existing condition, such as an even-aged pine forest that has had a history of

fire suppression, to one that is being managed with prescribed fire and thinning to achieve diverse 

forest ages and structures. This also may help reduce fuel loading and help manage wildland fire. An

important part of this process is monitoring the landscape character and scenic quality as different

management activities are implemented (USDA Forest Service 1995). 

VMS and its more recent version, SMS, have 

several important implications for wildland fire

and fuels management.
VMS and its more recent version, SMS, have several important implications for wildland fire and fuels

management. First, scenic classification of existing forest land can help land managers determine the

sensitivity of the resources to modification and the relative ranking according to these existing systems.

In some cases, after major wildland fires, the degree of scenic integrity has been so lowered that the

original scenic classification of a particular area may need to be revised downward. Managers should

plan fuels management work within the framework of existing scenic classifications. These existing

inventories and assessments help identify which landscape units are considered more scenic and which

are more sensitive because of their proximity to travel corridors and use areas. As such, the visual

resource inventory can provide a great starting point and a wealth of information for planning wildland fire and fuels management work.

Where existing forest plans have not completed or updated their scenic inventory maps, land managers may consider developing an inventory and assessment process using the SMS for the areas of

their forest that will receive wildland fire management. 

Many of the visual resource management systems, such as the VMS and the VRM, rely on experts

such as landscape architects to assess and classify landscape scenery, often according to such criteria

as form, line, color, and texture. Classification

by landscape design features has been found

to significantly predict scenic beauty ratings

(Arthur 1977). However, research has found

that the public does not necessarily classify 

the landscape according to the agency’s land

classification categories based on land use and

land form (McCool et al. 1986; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; R. Kaplan 1977, 1985a). In other words,

the public may perceive an area to encompass several landscape units, or vice versa. Thus, forest

planners and managers need to survey the public’s preferences as a reality check for expert-derived

scenic categories. It is hoped the final classification will be based on a combination of the two

approaches that will improve the planning process and potentially improve public acceptance of 

management decisions. The developers of the updated SMS (USDA Forest Service 1995) have taken

this recommendation to heart: the system emphasizes the need to survey the public as part of the

visual resource assessment process and provides a good outline of research methods to approach 

this issue. 

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 35

... research has found that the public does not

necessarily classify the landscape according to 

the agencys land classification categories based

on land use and land form.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

In addition to preserving and managing visual resources, forest planners and managers must provide

recreational opportunities for forest visitors. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was 

developed to determine management objectives for particular recreation areas (Clark and Stankey

1979). The ROS “provides a framework which allows administrators to manage for, and users to enjoy,

a variety of recreation environments” (USDA Forest Service 1986: intro.). The ROS sorts all Forest

Service land into six classes based upon the physical setting (e.g., size, remoteness, evidence of

humans); social settings (e.g., number and

type of encounters with other users): and

managerial setting (e.g., facilities) (USDA

Forest Service 1995.). The six ROS classes are

(1) primitive; (2) semi-primitive, nonmotorized; (3) semi-primitive, motorized; (4) roaded, natural appearing; (5) rural; and (6) urban. The physical settings range from isolated wilderness

areas to those with trail or road access. 

The visual quality of the forest affects the recreation setting. For example, areas with more visual signs

of human impact, such as timber harvesting, roads, and structures, fall into more developed recreation

classes. The SMS and the ROS are in many ways complementary. For example, in a primitive area, scenic integrity objectives would be very high, while moderate objectives (i.e., visible modification of the

environment) would be considered unacceptable (USDA Forest Service 1995, table F-2; USDA Forest

Service 1986). Similarly, in a roaded natural area, moderate modifications such as campground development would be the norm. 

However, the relationship between the ROS and SMS is not always straightforward. Research has

found that the vast majority of forest recreationlists, regardless of activity, prefer scenic settings (Ribe

1994). Yet, in a statewide study of Minnesota forests, Freimund et al. (1996) found that, while more

scenic forest lands were used more by recreationlists, less attractive areas were also heavily used

because they were often closer to population centers.

Managing wildland fire and fuels requires that forest planners are aware of the different recreation

classes for a particular area. Primitive settings will require a much more hands off approach than other

settings. In some instances, fuels management can improve recreation opportunities. For example, 

forest thinning and prescribed fire can increase wildlife habitat by creating forest openings and grass

36 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Managing wildland fire and fuels requires that

forest planners are aware of the different 

recreation classes for a particular area.
A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 37

habitat for certain species that are hunted, such as deer, elk, and game birds. In the same way, the early

successional landscapes created by thinning and logging activities are important for wildlife viewing,

one of the fastest growing recreational activities in forests (Gobster 2001a). In addition, opening up

views along trails, especially in densely wooded even-aged timber stands can improve the scenery

along trails (Kaplan et al. 1998, Ruddell and Hammitt 1987). However, research also has shown that

depending upon severity, prescribed fire can have negative impacts on recreation, especially on 

camping and picnicking, being the most sensitive recreation activities (Taylor and Daniel 1984). This 

is especially true immediately after the fire, before the understory has regrown. 
38 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Strategies for Fuels Management and Visual Quality

This section presents strategies for planning and managing wildland fire and fuels reduction in a manner that is more responsive to visual quality. This section relies on the findings of empirical landscape

preference outlined above as well as timber management guidelines for aesthetics developed for forest

managers (e.g., Bacon and Dell 1985; Bradley 1996; Gobster 1994, 1995, 1999; Jones 1995; Tlusty and

Bacon 1989; and USDA Forest Service 1995). Involving the public in management that impacts the

visual quality of the landscape is essential since managers’ opinions about aesthetic beauty may differ

from those of the general public (Dearden 1981). Furthermore, the general public increasingly is less

likely to trust managers to make decisions on their own and want to be more involved in forest planning (Shindler et al. 1996). The importance of collaboration in fuels management is covered in detail 

in another social science synthesis by Sturtevant and others (2005).

The following fuels management strategies are presented in sequential order from planning, to implementation, and finally to monitoring of fuels management projects.

Planning

Integrating visual resource management with ecosystem management is the focus of the SMS (USDA

Forest Service 1995). Many researchers have called for incorporating aesthetics into ecological management by helping reveal and translate management practices in a manner that is understandable and

acceptable to the general public (Gobster 1994, 1995; Magill 1994; Nassauer 1995). According to

Cotton and McBride (1987: 35), “Aesthetic concerns should be addressed in selecting from among

ecologically acceptable alternatives.” 

Develop a Multidisciplinary Team

Many of the characteristics of a visually preferred landscape can be natural byproducts of fuels treatments,

but this requires a multidisciplinary team that can evaluate both the ecological (i.e., hydrology, soils,

vegetation) and social impacts (i.e., economic,

recreation, aesthetics). Design professionals

such as landscape architects should be engaged

in developing burn plans, as well as other

aspects of forest planning (Cotton and McBride

1987, Lucas 1997, USDA Forest Service 1995).

Fuels management should be combined with

other management goals including aesthetics, recreation access, water quality protection and improvement,

and wildlife habitat. For instance, “skid roads can be converted into a network of recreation trails, and

Fuels management should be combined with

other management goals including aesthetics,

recreation access, water quality protection and

improvement, and wildlife habitat.
landings can provide new wildlife habitat” (Jones 1995: 14). Removing understory vegetation can open

up and frame views from recreation trails and increase the scenic value of these areas. 

Determine Landscape Units

Several visual resource management approaches suggest dividing the landscape into similar units for

management purposes (Bradley 1996, Schuh 1995, USDA Forest Service 1995, USDI Bureau of Land

Management 1980). Fuels managers should consider landscape type, such as vegetation (e.g., ponderosa pine versus oak woodland), topography (steep slopes, canyons, and plains), and visibility from

travel routes, residential areas, and recreation areas. Studying the ecological history of a site, including

the history of fire in the landscape, is critical to ecosystem management (Pyne 2003). Using ecosystem

units can help to coordinate visual resource management and other ecosystem management approaches (USDA Forest Service 1995). Management zones also can be tied to particular goals (Kimmins

2002). For example, managing for wildlife and fuels reduction may require retaining larger trees, while

managing for commercial timber would allow for retaining fewer trees in less visually sensitive areas. 

Increase Landscape Diversity/ Regions

Management activities themselves will modify and create new landscape types. For example, prescribed

fire may support pine regeneration and suppress certain hardwood species. Recreation research suggests

that increasing the number of different 

landscape types will increase visual preference

and perceptions that a trail corridor is more

varied and provides more recreation 

opportunities (Axelsson-Lindgren and Sorte

1987). The pattern, location, and timing of

different management regimes can increase

variability, especially in forests dominated 

by an even-aged timber stand. In fact, the

natural forest mosaic that results from a 

low-intensity fire can be mimicked by 

creating natural appearing, smaller clearcuts

and thinned areas. Increasing the number 

of areas or regions within a larger landscape

can increase visual preference if the new

areas are coherently organized and few in

number (Kaplan et al. 1998).

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 39

Fuels management can create

a natural looking forest 

mosaic. The forest mosaic 

created by a wildfire can be

simulated by clearcutting smaller

openings in the forest that have

more natural boundaries. This

scene shows private industrial

forest land in the Sierra Nevada

Mountains that was salvage

logged and re-planted by the

owner after the Darby Fire. This

private land is interspersed with

USDA Forest Service land that is

part of the Stanislaus National

Forest, California.
40 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Plan Location of Fuels Management

Because visual impacts are affected by the distance of the viewer from the area, fuels managers should

consider if the proposed management will occur in the foreground (0 to one-half mile), middleground

(one-half to 4 miles), or background (4 miles and beyond) (Bradley 1996, USDA Forest Service 1995).

Visual impacts, such as clearcuts in the middleground in steep topography, are particularly apparent

because, depending upon vegetation, more of the impacted area is visible. 

Context is especially important in fuels management (Kneeshaw et al. 2004). As suggested by Bradley

(1996), managers should focus their attention on the most visually sensitive landscapes. This includes

areas that are visible from roads and trails, near homes and other developed areas, or adjacent to

undisturbed or wilderness settings. Fuels treatments can be tailored to have less visual impact near residential areas by using such treatments as light thinning and burning of piles of slash (Scott 1998).

More extensive thinning and burning may be best suited for public land more distant from developed

areas (Scott 1998). Furthermore, the overgrown nature of many fire-suppressed forests will require the

use of multiple tools for hazard reduction. In many high fuel areas, tree thinning may be the most

appropriate practice until enough trees have been removed to make prescribed fire safe and effective

(Bacon and Dell 1985, Pyne 2003). 

Create Natural Boundaries for Management Areas

Areas to receive fuels management should blend with those that are to remain undisturbed. Research 

suggests that rectilinear timber harvests

and other obviously human-created

boundaries are perceived negatively by

the public (Bradley 1996, Palmer et al.

1993, Schuh 1995, Tlusty and Bacon

1989), except where forests are adjacent

to historic agricultural areas such as

hedgerows and tree breaks (Brush

1976, 1979). Thus, prescribed fuels

management including prescribed fires

and thinning operations should blend 

naturally in more organic-shaped units.

Site Roads and Fire Breaks Carefully

For aesthetic purposes, fire breaks should

Shaded fuel breaks can be

high in scenic beauty. This

shaded fuel break near the

perimeter of the Stanislaus

National Forest provides a

buffer for the nearby recreation

and second-home community of

Hathaway Pines, California. By

retaining a large number of

mature trees and removing

most woody debris after 

thinning, this fuels mitigation

project has created an 

aesthetically pleasing forest

while lowering the fire danger

at the wildland-urban interface.
be avoided on midslope conditions. Although in steep terrain fire breaks are traditionally built on ridgetops,

if possible these might be avoided in areas where they are visible from higher overlooks or mountain areas.

Shaded fuel breaks are one way to retain larger trees, yet reduce fire hazard near wildland-urban interface

areas. Access roads for tree thinning also should be screened or located at the bottom of slopes.

Use Visual Assessment Tools

The visual assessment approaches described earlier in this paper, including the SMS (USDA Forest

Service 1995), can be used to model impacts of fuels management and devise alternative scenarios as

part of the planning process. Research suggests that, in hilly terrain, slope and aspect are important

influences on the amount of landscape and disturbed area that may be visible to the public

(Bergen et al. 1995, Bradley 1996). Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) can be used to map

the areas that will be seen from particular vantage points by generating digital terrain models

(Orland 1994). Because viewpoints may be

along travel corridors, like roads, trails, and

waterways, or from several recreational use areas, multiple viewpoints should be assessed (Bergen et al.

1995, Bradley 1996, Schroeder and Daniel 1980, USDA Forest Service 1995). An assessment that gives

more weight to areas with steeper slopes and particular aspects will give a more accurate measure of

visibility (Bergen et al. 1995).

Incorporate Public Input

The public can be involved early in the planning process to help identify those areas that it considers to be

most special and vulnerable to disturbance (Ryan 2000, Schroeder 2002). For example, a special fishing

and swimming area used frequently by local residents and visitors should be managed more sensitively.

It is also critical to involve the public in planning fuels reduction strategies in order to understand public

attitudes and visual preferences for the management area. By involving the public in the visual landscape

assessment (i.e., rating the scenic beauty of existing and proposed management decisions using simulations),

fuel managers can be better informed about visual sensitivity and likely impacts of management alternatives

(Dearden 1981, Kaplan et al. 1989). Public participation in the forest planning process, especially in small

groups, can help reduce the number of appeals and can help managers identify the concerns of local 

residents early in the forest planning process (Gericke and Sullivan 1994, Shelby et al. 2004). 

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 41

Public participation in the forest planning

process, especially in small groups, can help

reduce the number of appeals and can help 

managers identify the concerns of local residents

early in the forest planning process
42 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Implementation

Minimize Disturbance—Protect and Preserve Mature Trees

Research has shown that people are extremely fond of large trees (Dwyer et al. 1991, Kaplan et al.

1998), as well as old-growth forests (Brunson and Shelby 1992). In addition, forests are special places

to many people who frequently visit them (Ryan 2000, Schroeder 2002). Thus, fuels management

should strive to protect groves of large trees, both by retaining them during thinning and minimizing

fire scarring during prescribed burning (Brown and Daniel 1986, Cotton and McBride 1987, Hull et al

1987, Scott 1998). Care should be taken to retain attractive, straight-trunked, full-crowned trees when

thinning (Bradley 1996, Cook 1972). In addition, care should be taken to maintain vegetation diversity, including “trees with visually interesting bark characteristics” (Tlusty and Bacon 1989: 139).

Increase Visual Access Through Tree and Brush Thinning

One important aesthetic goal for fuels reduction is to increase visual access into densely forested areas

(Tlusty and Bacon 1989). More open forests can be created through tree thinning, uplimbing trees,

Fuels reduction projects can

open up views. A recent fuels

mitigation project near the

Crescent Cove picnic area of the

Stanislaus National Forest

frames views to the surrounding

mountains. The coarse woody

debris from the thinning 

operation, shown in the 

foreground, will temporarily

lower scenic quality until this

material decomposes or is 

hidden by early successional

grasses and forbs.
prescribed burning and even grazing (Brown and Daniel 1986; Brush 1976, 1979; Buhyoff et al. 1986;

Patey and Evans 1979). Thinning can open up the forest, which can improve visibility and legibility

along trails and other corridors. Research has shown that mechanical thinning of smaller diameter trees

to reduce stand density can also increase scenic beauty in many forest types (Buhyoff et al. 1986, Hull

and Buhyoff 1986, Scott 1998). 

The number of trees that can be removed and scenic beauty still be retained will vary by forest type 

and location. However, in general, research suggests that removing between 25 and 30 percent of

stand density will have minimal impact 

on scenic quality and, in some instances, up to

40-50 percent of smaller diameter trees can be

removed if larger trees are retained (Buhyoff et

al. 1986; Paquet and Belanger 1997; Pings and

Hollenhorst 1993; Ribe 1989, in press; Vodak 

et al. 1985). Prescribed fire also can help clear

understory vegetation to improve visual access

(Patey and Evans 1979). Creating small openings in the forest through fuels management can increase

visual quality (Brown and Daniel 1986; Brush 1976, 1979; Herzog and Kropscott 2004; Herzog and

Leverich 2003; Kaplan et al. 1998), and reduce fire risk (Scott 1998). 

Sometimes, landmarks such as unique rock formations can be made visible through fuels reduction management. Landmarks also are important in enhancing wayfinding, as well as visual quality (Herzog and

Kropscott 2004, Herzog and Leverich 2003, Kaplan et al. 1998). By retaining unique features during fuels

management, such as leaving unusual snags or clearing vegetation around specimen trees, managers also can

improve the trail experience by providing landmarks and unique interpretive areas (Hammitt and Cherem

1980). Opening up views in densely forested areas also can increase the sense of mystery along hiking trails

and encourage visitors to explore the forest (Hammitt and Cherem 1980; Herzog 1984, 1988). 

Plan for the Visual Impacts of Prescribed Burns

The visual impacts of prescribed fire can be mitigated for areas deemed to be visually sensitive.

Suggestions by Christensen and others (c.f. Cotton and McBride (1987: 35) for the giant

sequoia/mixed conifer forest are applicable to other forests near heavy recreation and tourist use areas:

1. Judicious preburn cutting of live trees to minimize bark char and crown scorch.

2. Removal of heavy fuels from base of all large trees in restoration area.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 43

Closed-response formats allow respondents to

more quickly address a wider array of

issues/questions and express themselves in ways

that are readily quantified and analyzed with

appropriate statistical procedures.
44 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

3. Use of single-burning front, rather than multiple-spot ignition, in simulated natural fires.

4. Manipulation of debris following burning if prescribed burning has exacerbated heavy dead fuel

conditions. Additional local burning is advised to achieve fuel reduction objectives.

Slash from thinning operations also can be burned after being piled, to avoid damage to existing trees

(Scott 1998). After prescribed fire has been used repeatedly as a management tool, it may be less 

necessary to manage the fuels to avoid bark char because the public may become more accustomed to this

type of management (Wilkinson, B., personal communication, Oct. 14, 2004).

Reveal Ecological Practices Using “Cues to Care”

Ecological practices can be revealed by using "cues to care." Buffer strips, or "beauty strips," are a 

traditional forestry method to screen intensive timber harvesting from nearby scenic roads and trails 

or along streams and other riparian resources. To be effective for aesthetic purposes, they must fully

screen the affected areas (Bradley 1996, Schuh 1995). Steep topography and ridgelines are other 

aesthetically sensitive areas where managers need to consider how thinning practices affect scenery

(Bradley 1996, Karjalainen and Komulainen 1999, Schuh 1995). Severe thinning along scenic ridgelines

should be avoided. Some researchers have argued that hiding management practices that may be 

perceived as unsightly is less than honest and does not help inform or educate the public about real

management practices or goals. Nassauer (1995) suggests using "cues to care" to help frame otherwise

messy-appearing environments with visible

signs of management or human intention.

For fuels management, such cues to care

will depend upon the type of intervention.

For example, fuel breaks could be seeded

with flowering herbaceous plant material to

increase their aesthetic value. Along recreation

trails and scenic roads, trees could be 

selectively thinned to frame views (Gobster

1994, McDonald and Litton 1998). The edges

of a prescribed burn could be delineated with

clear boundaries adjacent to roads and other

improvements. The removal of slash in areas

for thinning could be more intensive near

trails, viewpoints, and other use areas.

Furthermore, the edges of the forest could

Remove coarse woody

debris after thinning 

projects. Piling and burning

downed wood from forest 

thinning can help mitigate the

visual impacts of fuels hazard

reduction projects along more

heavily used parts of the forest.

These brush piles along a forest

road in New Mexico’s Santa Fe

National Forest will be burned

when there is enough snow

cover on the ground to minimize

fire danger. 
be thinned in an intentional-appearing

manner, for instance, by undulating the

border to follow natural contours. 

Facilitate Public Involvement in

Implementation

Involving the public in fuels management

and other ecosystem management practices is one strategy to improve acceptance and appreciation for this work

(Gobster 1994, 1995). Volunteer crews

can help remove overgrown understory

vegetation, or with proper training, can

assist with tree thinning or even prescribed fire. Research with volunteers

involved in other types of ecological

restoration has shown that this active type of engagement increases knowledge and appreciation for

local ecosystems and helps develop advocates for ecological restoration work (Ryan et al. 2001).

Monitoring

Clean Up Debris and Slash

The public responds negatively to downed wood, slash, and other debris from timber harvesting 

and thinning (Arthur 1977, Echelberger 1979, Ruddell et al. 1989). Thus, it is critical that fuels 

management consider timely removal of thinning debris as part of managing for aesthetics. This could

include hydraulic mulching of woody debris, piling and burning of slash, or other techniques. Cutting

tree stumps low to the ground can also minimize negative visual impacts (Daniel and Boster 1976).

The amount of downed wood to remove after thinning will vary by forest type and location. However,

in general, the coarser the material that remains on the forest floor, the more negative the visual

impact. Research has shown that removing only part of the debris, such as incomplete burning of 

slash piles, can negatively affect visual quality while the woody debris decomposes, which may be 

slow in arid regions (Benson and Ullrich 1981). New technology such as hydraulic axes can thin trees

and brush by shredding them into a fine mulch that is less visible and more easily hidden by new

grass and shrub growth. 

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 45

Fuels thinning and mulching

can be done simultaneously.

Fuels mitigation can create a

more visually preferred forest, 

if enough mature trees are

retained and coarse woody

debris is removed or mulched.

Seen in the middleground of 

this picture, a hydraulic axe

thins and mulches ponderosa

pine trees as part of a hazard 

reduction project at the

wildland-urban interface

between Los Alamos, New

Mexico, and the Santa Fe

National Forest. 
However, achieving aesthetic goals

of removing downed wood may

contradict other environmental goals

such as maintaining snags for bird

habitat (Gobster 1995). Thus, the

removal of dead wood must take

into account the environmental

costs and may be best practiced in

visually sensitive areas that are not

prime habitat.

Enhance Revegetation of

Disturbed Land

Fuels reduction treatments should

include techniques such as fertilizing and replanting to speed up

revegetation of disturbed areas,

especially those that are highly visible and subject to erosion (Bradley 1996, Magill 1994). Timing fuels

treatments to coincide with the beginning of the growing season is another strategy to minimize the

time the cleared or burned area will be bare.

Provide Information About Management

Communicating the rationale behind fuels management is critical to increase the public’s acceptance of

these management practices. Signs telling the public about the goals of the project and future landscape

conditions are essential for increasing public acceptance of management operations that disturb the

landscape, such as prescribed fire or tree thinning (Gobster 1995, Jones 1995, Kearney 2001, Schuh

1995). In other words, signs and brochures should show not only the immediate visual impact of fuels

management, but also the target landscape and associated ecological benefits (Kearney 2001). Research

has shown that interpretive signs provide a more positive experience for visitors along hiking trails

(Keyes and Hammitt 1984). Likewise, the Scenic Byway program could be expanded to include 

overlook areas with signage for interpreting ecosystem management (Gobster 1994, 1995). However,

managers must realize that signage will go only so far in convincing the public that a visually messy 

or otherwise nonpreferred landscape is acceptable. Forestry companies have begun to create 

demonstration projects to help the public understand the visual impacts and economic costs of 

aesthetically managing timber harvests (Schuh 1995). Managers intent on fuels management should

46 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Managers need to educate

the public about prescribed

fire. Informational signage is

necessary to communicate the

management goals behind

ecosystem restoration and fuels

hazard mitigation. This is 

especially true when the visual

quality of the forest has been

drastically changed by thinning

and prescribed fire, as was the

case here in an oak woodland

restoration project in Yosemite

National Park, California.
A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 47

consider using demonstration

projects to highlight new management approaches such as prescribed fire or selective thinning. 

Practice Adaptive Management

The dynamic nature of forested

landscapes suggests that managers

must adapt their management to

changing landscape conditions.

Adaptive management can help

managers emulate natural 

disturbance and has become

increasingly important for 

implementing large-scale forest

plans (Kimmins 2002, Shindler et

al. 1996). Because open viewsheds within forests appear to be one condition considered aesthetically

pleasing in many situations, managers may consider using adaptive management to open up the forest

(Ruddell et al. 1989). The regeneration of forests after wildfires, timber harvesting, or other disturbances

creates conditions in which views become obscured by stands of dense, even-aged trees (Brush 1976).

Managing viewsheds in the forest could include periodic thinning, scattered harvesting, and other

techniques to create more open areas in these forests. According to Ruddell and others (1989: 409),

“concrete silvicultural treatments that could enhance scenic beauty, [include] ...prescribed burning 

of understory, ‘uplimbing’ (pruning of lower limbs on trees), and selective cutting and grazing.”

Management goals of improving ecosystem health and reducing fuels loading also could be achieved

with these types of management techniques. 

Scenic overlooks provide

educational opportunities.

The Rim-of-the-World overlook

in the Stanislaus National

Forest of California showcases

views to several historic burn

areas and informs the public

about wildland fire, forest 

succession, and fuels mitigation

projects. Overlooks such as this

can help develop an ecological

aesthetic as described by

Gobster (1994).
Cotton and McBride (1987: 36) suggest that “scenic integrity is too serious a matter to be left to the

resource scientists. Rather, design consciousness, developed through multidisciplinary involvement and

utilizing ecologically acceptable alternatives within the scope of vibrant process management, could be

the key to retaining public support for prescribed burning.”

Like timber harvesting, implementing fuels reduction practices, including prescribed fire, tree thinning,

salvage logging, and fuel breaks, requires public review and process, either formally through the NEPA

process or informally through other forms of public involvement. To achieve fuels reduction goals and

increase forest health, managers will need to consider the range of hydrologic, biologic, and social

impacts, including aesthetics. As described in the literature, aesthetic impacts are often the catalyst 

for fierce public opposition. In other words, the public’s acceptance of forest management practices,

including fuels reduction, is based heavily on the visual appearance of the forest (Ribe 2002). Fuels

managers can increase their chances of success by (1) using existing research findings such as those 

outlined in this paper, (2) including social scientists and landscape architects in the planning team, 

and (3) involving the public at all stages of the fire hazard reduction planning process. The public is

passionate about the scenic beauty of its national forests. Thus, the future of the Nation’s forests requires

that managers plan for both ecological health and scenic beauty in the framework of fuels management.

48 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Conclusions
I would like to thank my research assistant Mark Wamsley for his tireless efforts in tracking down an

extensive number of literature sources both online and at the library. He also provided helpful editorial

comments on several drafts of this paper. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers who gave thoughtful comments to improve the paper.

I would like to acknhowledge the assistance of USDA Forest Service staff from the Santa Fe National

Forest, New Mexico; Stanislaus National Forest, California; and San Juan National Forest, Colorado,

who gave me tours of forest rehabilitation and fuels hazard mitigation projects in their respective

forests that allowed me to take the photographs found in this synthesis. Sarah McCaffrey, North

Central Research Station, Evanston, IL, also provided valuable guidance in the final preparation of 

the manuscript, ensuring that it is accessible to managers.

My thanks go to the Amherst College Department of Anthropology and Sociology for providing an 

academic home during my sabbatical from the University of Massachusetts. Finally, special thanks 

go to Amherst College Professor Jan Dizard for sponsoring my sabbatical at Amherst College and 

graciously sharing his office with me.

Photo Credits

Unless otherwise noted, all photographs were taken by the author. I would like to acknowledge the

assistance of U.S. Forest Service staff from the Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico; Stanislaus

National Forest, California; and San Juan National Forest, Colorado who gave me tours of forest 

rehabilitation and fuels hazard mitigation projects in their respective forests.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 49

Acknowledgments
Anderson, Eddie. 1978. 

Visual resource assessment: local perceptions of familiar natural environments. Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Ph.D dissertation. 213 p.

Anderson, Linda M.

1981. 

Land use designations affect perceptions of

scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest

Science. 27: 392-400.

Anderson, Linda M.;

Levi, Daniel J.; Daniel,

Terry C.; Dieterich, John

H. 1982. 

The esthetic effects of prescribed burning:

a case study. Res. Note RM-413. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 5 p.

Andersson, T. 1994. 

Ideals and conceptions of forest: an experimental study of conceptual deliberation.

Communication and Cognition. 27(4): 397-

428

Appleton, J. 1975. 

The experience of landscape. New York,

NY: Wiley. 293 p.

Arthur, Louise M. 1977. 

Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. Forest

Science. 23: 151-160.

Arthur, Louise M.;

Boster, Ron S. 1976. 

Measuring scenic beauty: a selected annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-25.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 34 p.

Arthur, Louise M.;

Daniel, Terry C.; Boster,

Ron S. 1977. 

Scenic assessment: an overview. Landscape

Planning. 4: 109-129.

Associated Press. 2003. 

Judge halts restoration from fire in Sequoia

National Forest.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7485771.htm.

December 13. (January 8, 2004).

Axelsson-Lindgren, C.;

Sorte, G. 1987. 

Public response to differences between

visually distinguishable forest stands in a

recreation area. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 14: 211-217.

Bacon, Warren R.; Dell,

John. 1985. 

National forest landscape management.

Agric. Handb. 608. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. Vol. 2, Chapter

6: fire: 89 p.

Becker, Robert H. 1983. 

Opinions about clear-cutting and recognition of clear-cuts by forest recreation visitors. Journal of Environmental

Management. 17: 171-177. 

Benson, Robert E.;

Ullrich, James R. 1981. 

Visual impacts of forest management activities: findings on public preferences. Res.

Pap. INT-262. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p.

Bergen, Scott D.;

Fridley, James L.;

Ganter, Mark A.;

Schiess, Peter. 1995. 

Predicting the visual effect of forest operations. Journal of Forestry. 93(2): 33-37.

Bixler, R.D.; Floyd, M.F.

1997. 

Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior. 29(4): 443-

467.

Botkin, D.B. 2001. 

An ecologist’s ideas about landscape beauty: beauty in art and scenery as influenced

by science and ideology. 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: 111-123.

Bradley, Gordon A.

1996. 

Forest aesthetics: harvest practices in visually sensitive areas. Olympia, WA:

Washington Forest Products Association.

n.p.

Brown, Thomas C.

1987. 

Production and cost of scenic beauty:

examples from a ponderosa pine forest.

Forest Science. 33(2): 394-410.

Brown, Thomas C.;

Daniel, Terry C. 1986. 

Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands.

Forest Science. 32: 471-487.

Brown, Thomas C.;

Daniel, Terry C. 1987.

Context effects in perceived environmental

quality assessment: scene selection and

landscape quality ratings. Journal of

Environmental Psychology. 7(3): 233-250.

Brunson, M.W. 1993. 

“Socially acceptable” forestry: what does it

imply for ecosystem management? Western

Journal of Applied Forestry. 8: 116-119.

50 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management

Literature Cited
Brunson, Mark W.;

Reiter, Douglas K. 1996. 

Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. Journal of Environmental

Management. 46: 31-41.

Brunson, Mark; Shelby,

Bo. 1992. 

Assessing recreational and scenic quality:

how does New Forestry rate? Journal of

Forestry. 90(7): 37-41.

Brush, Robert O. 1976. 

Spaces within the woods: managing forests

for visual enjoyment. Journal of Forestry.

74: 744-747.

Brush, Robert O. 1979. 

The attractiveness of woodlands: 

perceptions of forest landowners in

Massachusetts. Forest Science. 25: 495-

506.

Buhyoff, G.J.;

Leuschner, W.A.;

Wellman, J.D. 1979. 

Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle

damage. Journal of Environmental

Management. 8: 261-267. 

Buhyoff, Gregory J.;

Wellman, J. Douglas;

Daniel, Terry C. 1982. 

Predicting scenic quality of mountain pine

beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science. 28: 827-

838.

Buhyoff, Gregory J.;

Hull IV, R. Bruce; Lien,

John N.; Cordell, H.

Ken. 1986. 

Prediction of scenic quality for southern

pine stands. Forest Science. 32(3): 769-778.

Clark, R.N.; Stankey,

G.H. 1979. 

The recreation opportunity spectrum: a

framework for planning, management, and

research. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-98.

Portland, OR: U.S.Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest and Range Experiment Station.

32 p.

Cook, W.L. 1972. 

Evaluation of aesthetic quality of forest

trees. Journal of Leisure Research. 4(4):

293-302.

Cotton, Lin; McBride,

Joe 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.

Daniel, Terry C.; Boster,

Ron S. 1976. 

Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic

beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. RM167. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66 p.

Daniel, Terry C.;

Schroeder, Herbert.

1979. 

Scenic beauty estimation model: predicting

perceived beauty of forest landscapes. In:

Elsner, Gary H.; Smardon, Richard C., tech.

coord. Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques

for analysis and management of the visual

resource. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35.

Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station: 514-523.

Daniel, Terry C.; Vining,

Joanne. 1983. 

Methodological issues in the assessment

of landscape quality. In: Altman, Irwin;

Wohlwill, Joachim F., eds. Behavior and the

natural environment. New York, NY: Plenum

Press: 39-84.

Daniel, T.C.; Valdiserri,

M.; Daniel, C.R. 2005.

Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on the social

acceptability of fuels treatment. Gen. Tech.

Rep. NC-259. St. Paul, MN: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Research Station. 52 p.

Dearden, P. 1981. 

Public participation and scenic quality

analysis. Landscape Planning. 8: 3-19.

Dwyer, J.F.; Schroeder,

H.W.; Gobster, P.H.

1991. 

The significance of urban trees and forests:

toward a deeper understanding of values.

Journal of Arboriculture. 17(10): 276-284.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 51
Echelberger, H.E. 1979. 

The semantic differential in landscape

research. In: Elsner, Gary H.; Smardon,

Richard C., tech. coord. Proceedings of our

national landscape: a conference on applied

techniques for analysis and management of

the visual resource. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW35. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station: 524-531.

Ellsworth, J.C. 1982. 

Visual assessment of rivers and marshes: an

examination of the relationship of visual

units, perceptual variables, and preference.

Logan, UT: Utah State University. M.S. thesis.

Erickson, D.L.; Ryan,

R.L.; DeYoung, R. 2002.

Woodlots in the rural landscape: landowner

motivations and management attitudes in a

Michigan case study. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 58: 101-112.

Fanariotu, Ioanna;

Skuras, Dimitris. 2004. 

The contribution of scenic beauty indicators

in estimating environmental welfare measures: a case study. Social Indicators

Research. 65(2): 145-165.

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, Jianbang; Kolison,

Stephen H., Jr.; Miller,

James 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.

Gobster, Paul H. 1994. 

The aesthetic experience of sustainable

forest ecosystems. In: Covington, W.

Wallace; Debano, Leonard F., tech. coord.

Sustainable ecological systems: implementing an ecological approach to land management; 1993 July 12-15; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-247. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 246-255.

Gobster, Paul H. 1995. 

Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. Journal

of Forestry. 93(2): 6-10.

Gobster, Paul H. 1999. 

An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal. 18:

54-64.

Gobster, P.H. 2001a. 

Human dimensions of early successional

landscapes in the EasternUnited States.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29 (2): 474-482.

Gobster, P.H. 2001b. 

Foreword. 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: xxi-xxix.

Haider, Wolfgang. 1994. 

The aesthetics of white pine and red pine

forests. The Forestry Chronicle. 70(4): 402-

410.

Haider, Wolfgang; Hunt,

Len. 2002. 

Visual aesthetic quality of northern

Ontario’s forested shorelines. Environmental

Management. 29(3): 324-334.

Hammitt, W.E. 1981. 

The familiarity-preference component of

on-site recreational experiences. Leisure

Sciences. 4: 177-193.

Hammitt, W.E.; Cherem,

G.J. 1980. 

Photographic perceptions as an on-site toll

for designing forest trails. Southern Journal

of Applied Forestry. 4(2): 94-97.

Herzog, T.R. 1984. 

A cognitive analysis for field-and-forest

environments. Landscape Research. 9: 10-

16.

Herzog, T.R. 1988. 

A cognitive analysis for preference of fieldand-forest environments. In: Nasar, Jack,

ed. Environmental aesthetics: theory,

research, and applications. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press: 343-356.

Herzog, Thomas R.;

Leverich, Olivia L. 2003. 

Searching for legibility. Environment and

Behavior. 35(4): 459-477.

Herzog, Thomas R.;

Kropscott, Laura S.

2004. 

Legibility, mystery, and visual access as

predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways.

Environment and Behavior. 36(5): 659-677.

Hodgson, Ronald W.;

Thayer, Robert L. 1980. 

Implied human influence reduces landscape

beauty. Landscape Planning. 7: 171-179.

52 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Hollenhorst, Steven J.;

Brock, Samuel M.;

Freimund, Wayne A.;

Twery, Mark J. 1993. 

Predicting the effects of gypsy moth on

near-view aesthetic preferences and recreational appeal. Forest Science. 39(1): 28-40.

Hull, R. Bruce; Buhyoff,

Gregory J. 1986. 

The scenic beauty temporal distribution

method: an attempt to make scenic assessments compatible with forest planning

efforts. Forest Science. 32(2): 271-286.

Hull, R. Bruce; Buhyoff,

G.J.; Cordell, H. Ken.

1987. 

Psychophysical models: an example with

scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine

forests. Landscape Journal. 6(2): 113-122.

Jones, Geoffrey T. 1995. 

The careful timber harvest: a guide to logging

esthetics. Journal of Forestry. 93(2): 12-15.

Kaplan, R. 1977. 

Patterns of environmental preference.

Environment and Behavior. 9: 195-216.

Kaplan, Rachel. 1985a. 

The analysis of perception via preference: a

strategy for studying how the environment

is experienced. Landscape Planning. 12:

161-176.

Kaplan, R. 1985b. 

Nature at the doorstep: residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. Journal 

of Architectural and Planning Research. 2:

115-127.

Kaplan, S. 1987. 

Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preferences from an evolutionary

perspective. Environment and Behavior. 15:

311-332.

Kaplan, S. 1995. 

The restorative benefits of nature: toward

an integrative framework. Journal of

Environmental Psychology. 15: 169-182.

Kaplan, R.; Herbert, E.J.

1987. 

Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in

preference for natural settings. Landscape

and Urban Planning. 14: 281-293.

Kaplan, Rachel; Kaplan,

Stephen. 1989. 

The experience of nature: a psychological

perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press. 340 p.

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R.

1982. 

Cognition and environment: functioning in

an uncertain world. New York, NY: Praeger.

(Reprinted: 1989. Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich's,

287).

Kaplan, R.; Austin, M.E.;

Kaplan, S. 2004. 

Open space communities: resident perceptions, nature benefits, and problems with

terminology. Journal of the American

Planning Association. 70(3): 300-313.

Kaplan, Rachel; Kaplan,

Stephen; Ryan, Robert

L. 1998. 

With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC:

Island Press. 225 p.

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R.;

Wendt, J.S. 1972. 

Rated preference and complexity for natural

and urban visual material. Perception and

Psychophysics. 12: 354-356.

Karjalainen, E.;

Komulainen, M. 1999. 

The visual effect of felling on small and

medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern

Finland. Journal of Environmental

Management. 55: 167-181.

Kearney, Anne R. 2001. 

Effects of an informational intervention on

public reactions to clear-cutting. Society &

Natural Resources. 14(9): 777-790.

Kearney, A.R. 2002. 

Residential density and open space patterns: impacts on quality of life. In: Hecht,

P., ed. Community: evolution or revolution,

Proceedings of the 33d annual conference

of the Environmental Design Research

Association; 2002 May 22-26; Philadelphia,

PA. Edmund, OK: Environmental Design

Research Association: 120.

Kellomaki, Seppo;

Savolainen, Risto. 1984. 

The scenic value of the forest landscape as

assessed in the field and the laboratory.

Landscape Planning. 11(2): 97-107.

Kellomaki, S;

Savolainen, R. 1984. 

The scenic value of the forest landscape as

assessed in the field and the laboratory.

Landscape Planning. 11: 97-107.

Keyes, B.E.; Hammitt,

W.E. 1984. 

Visitor reaction to interpretive signs on destination-oriented forest trail. Journal of

Interpretation. 9(1): 11-17.

Kimmins, J.P. 2002. 

Future shock in forestry. Forestry Chronicle.

78(2): 263-271.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 53
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.

Litton, R.B. 1968. 

Forest landscape description and inventories: a basis for land planning and design.

Res. Note PSW-49. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 64 p.

Litton, R.B. 1972. 

Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In:

Krutilla, J.V., ed. Natural environments:

studies in theoretical and applied analysis.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press: 262-291.

Lucas, O.W.R. 1997.

Aesthetic considerations in British forestry.

Forestry. 70(4): 343-349.

Magill, A.W. 1992. 

Managed and natural landscapes: what do

people like? Res. Pap. PSW-RP-213.

Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 28 p.

Magill, Arthur W. 1994. 

What people see in managed and natural

landscapes. Journal of Forestry. 92(9): 12-16.

Marans, R.W.; Vogt, C.A.

2001. 

Understanding landscape change: a preliminary report on the dynamics of residential

choice. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social

Research, University of Michigan. n.p.

McCool, Stephen F.;

Benson, Robert E.;

Ashor, Joseph L. 1986. 

How the public perceives the visual effects

of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental

Management. 10(3): 385-391.

McDonald, P.M.; Litton,

R.B., Jr. 1998. 

Combining silviculture and landscape architecture to enhance the roadside view. Res.

Pap. PSW-RP-235. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 20 p.

Mendez, S.R.; Carroll,

M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; et al.

2003. 

Smoke on the hill: a comparative study of

wildfire and two communities. Western

Journal of Applied Forestry. 18(1): 60-70.

Miller, P.A. 1984. 

Visual preference and implications for

coastal management: a perceptual study of

the British Columbia shoreline. Ann Arbor,

MI: University of Michigan. Ph.D dissertation. 196 p.

Murtha, Peter A.; Greco,

Michael E. 1975. 

Appraisal of forest aesthetic values: an

annotated bibliography. Inf. Rep. FMR-X-79.

Ottawa, ON: Canadian Forestry Service,

Department of the Environment, Forest

Management Institute. 56 p.

Nasar, J.L.; Julian, D.;

Buchman, S.;

Humphreys, D.;

Mrohaly, M. 1988. 

The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: a look at prospect and

refuge. In: Nasar, Jack, ed. Environmental

aesthetics: theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press: 357-363. 

Nassauer, Joan Iverson.

1995. 

Messy ecosystems, orderly frames.

Landscape Journal. 14(2): 161-170. 

Nassauer, Joan Iverson.

1997. 

Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics

and ecology. In: Nassauer, J.I., ed. Placing

nature: culture and landscape ecology.

Washington, DC: Island Press: 65-83.

Orland, B. 1988. 

Aesthetic preference for rural landscapes:

some resident and visitor differences. In:

Nasar, Jack, ed. Environmental aesthetics:

theory, research, and applications. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press: 364-

378.

Orland, B. 1994. 

Visualization techniques for incorporation in

forest planning geographic information systems. Landscape and Urban Planning. 30(1-

2): 83-97.

54 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Palmer, James F.;

Shannon, Scott;

Harrilchak, Mary Anna;

Gobster, Paul H.; Kokx,

Thomas. 1993. 

Long-term visual effects of alternative

clearcutting intensities. 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: 84-88.

Paquet, Josee; Belanger,

Louis. 1997. 

Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal

balsam fir landscapes. Forest Science.

43(1): 46-55.

Patey, Roberta C.;

Evans, Richard M. 1979. 

Identification of scenically preferred forest

landscapes. In: Elsner, Gary H.; Smardon,

Richard C., tech. coord. Proceedings of our

national landscape: a conference on applied

techniques for analysis and management of

the visual resource. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW35. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station: 532-538.

Pings, Peggy; Hollenhorst,

Steve. 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. NE185. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern

Forest Experiment Station: 89-93.

Pyne, S.J. 2003. 

Smokechasing. Tucson, AZ: University of

Arizona Press. 260 p.

Ribe, Robert G. 1989. 

The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical research taught us? Environmental

Management. 13(1): 55-74.

Ribe, Robert G. 1990. 

A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landscape Journal. 9(2): 86-

101.

Ribe, Robert G. 1994. 

Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS.

Journal of Environmental Management. 42:

199-221.

Ribe, Robert. 1999. 

Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts:

public views of the acceptability and aesthetics of Northwest forest plan harvests.

Northwest Science. (73): 102-117.

Ribe, Robert 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.

Ribe, R.G. 

[in press]. Aesthetic perceptions of greentree retention harvests in vista views: the

interaction of cut level, retention pattern

and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban

Planning. 

Robbins, J. 2003. 

Restoring a forest goes slowly and advocates seethe. New York Times, March 4. p.

F3.

Ruddell, Edward J.;

Hammitt, William E.

1987. 

Prospect refuge theory: a psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments. Journal of Leisure Research.

19(4): 249-260.

Ruddell, E.J.; Gramann,

J.H.; Rudis, V.A.;

Westphal, J.M. 1989. 

The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior. 21(4): 393-

412.

Ryan, R.L. 1998. 

Local perceptions and values for a

Midwestern river corridor. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 42: 225-237.

Ryan, R.L. 2000. 

Attachment to urban natural areas: a people-centered approach to designing and

managing restoration projects. In: Gobster,

P.; Hull, B.V., eds. Restoring nature: perspectives from the social sciences and

humanities. Washington, DC: Island Press:

209-228.

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. 

Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas.

Environment and Behavior. 37: 3-42.

Ryan, R.L.; Kaplan, R.;

Grese, R.E. 2001. 

Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programmes.

Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management. 44(5): 629-648.

Ryan, R.L.; Erickson,

D.L.; DeYoung, R. 2002. 

Farmers' motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a

Midwestern agricultural watershed. Journal

of Environmental Planning and

Management. 46(1): 19-37.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 55
Schauman, S. 1988. 

Scenic value of countryside landscapes to

local residents: a Whatcom County,

Washington, case study. Landscape

Journal. 7: 40-46.

Schauman, S.; Adams,

C. 1979. 

Soil Conservation Service: landscape

resource management. In: Proceedings of

our national landscape: a conference on

applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 671-675.

Schroeder, H.W. 1989. 

Environment, behavior, and design research

on urban forests. In: Zube, E.H.; Moore,

G.T., eds. Advances in environment, behavior and design. New York, NY: Plenum

Press. 2: 87-117.

Schroeder, Herbert.

2002. 

Experiencing nature in special places: surveys in the North-central region. Journal of

Forestry. 100(5): 8-14.

Schroeder, H.W.;

Anderson L.M. 1984. 

Perception of personal safety in urban

recreation sites. Journal of Leisure

Research. 16: 178-194.

Schroeder, H.W.; Daniel,

T.C. 1980. 

Predicting the scenic quality of forest road

corridors. Environment and Behavior. 12(3):

349-366.

Schroeder, Herbert W.;

Daniel, Terry C. 1981. 

Progress in predicting the perceived scenic

beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science.

27(1): 71-80.

Schroeder, H.W.; Green,

T.L. 1985. 

Public preference for tree density in a

municipal forest program. Journal of

Arboriculture. 11: 272-277. 

Schuh, Donald. 1995. 

Managing esthetic values: Weyerhaeuser

Company’s approach. Journal of Forestry.

93(2): 20-25.

Scott, Joe H. 1998. 

Fuel reduction in residential and scenic

forests: a comparison of three treatments

in a western Montana ponderosa pine

stand. Res. Pap. RMRS-5. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19 p.

Shelby, Bo; Tokarczyk,

John A.; Johnson,

Rebecca L. 2004. 

Timber harvests and forest neighbors: the

urban fringe research project at Oregon

State University. Journal of Forestry. 102(2):

8-13.

Shindler, B.; Steel, B.;

List, P. 1996. 

Public judgments of adaptive management:

a response from forest communities.

Journal of Forestry. 94(6): 4-12.

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. 

Sinton, John W.; Giner,

Geraldine. 1979. 

Visual resources of the New Jersey Pine

Barrens: integrating visual resources in the

planning process. In: Elsner, Gary H.;

Smardon, Richard C., tech. coord.

Proceedings of our national landscape: a

conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 454-461. 

Smardon, Richard C.

1986. 

Historical evolution of visual resource management within three Federal agencies.

Journal of Environmental Management. 22:

301-317.

Smardon, Richard C.;

Palmer, James F.;

Felleman, John P., eds.

1986. 

Foundations for visual project Analysis.

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 374 p.

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.

Talbot, J.F.; Kaplan, R.

1984. 

Needs and fears: the response to trees and

nature in the inner city. Journal of

Arboriculture. 10(8): 222-228.

56 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Tahvanainen, L.;

Tyrvainen, L.; Ihalainen,

M.; et al. 2001. 

Forest management and public perceptions–visual versus verbal information.

Landscape and Urban Planning. 53: 53-70.

Taylor, Jonathan G.;

Daniel, Terry C. 1984. 

Prescribed fire: public education and perception. Journal of Forestry. 82: 361-365.

Thayer, R.L. 1989. 

The experience of sustainable landscapes.

Landscape Journal. 8: 101-110.

Thompson, Richard;

Hanna, Richard; Noel,

Jay; Piirto, Douglas.

1999. 

Valuation of tree aesthetics on small urbaninterface properties. Journal of

Arboriculture. 25(5): 225-234.

Tindall, D.B. 2001. 

Why do you think the hillside is ugly? A

sociological perspective on aesthetic values

and public attitudes about forests. 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: 57-70. Chapter 5.

Tindall, D.B. 2003. 

Social values and the contingent nature of

public opinion and attitudes about forests.

The Forestry Chronicle. 79(3) 692-705.

Tlusty, Wayne G.;

Bacon, Warren, R. 1989. 

Effects of timber management practices on

recreation and esthetics (visual resource).

In: The scientific basis for silvicultural and

management decisions in the National

Forest System. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-55.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service: 129-151.

Turner, R.L.; Reeves,

H.C.; Legg, M.H. 1994. 

Vegetational changes due to prescribed fire

in Mission Tejas State Park. Texas Journal

of Science. 46(1): 61-71.

Ulrich, R.S. 1983. 

Aesthetic and affective response to natural

environment. In: Altman, I.; Wohlwill, J.F.,

eds. Human behavior and the environment.

New York, NY: Plenum Press: 85-125.

Ulrich, R.S. 1986.

Human responses to vegetation and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning. 13:

29-44.

U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest

Service. 1974. 

National forest landscape management: the

visual management system. Agric. Handb.

462. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 2(1): 47 p.

U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest

Service. 1986. 

1986 ROS Book. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. n.p.

U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest

Service. 1995. 

Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for

scenery management. Agric. Handb. 701.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 1 vol. n.p.

U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service.

1978. 

Procedures to establish priorities in landscape architecture. Tech. Rel. 64.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. n.p.

U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. 1980. 

Visual resource management program.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 39 p.

Vining, Joanne; Daniel,

Terry C.; Schroeder,

Herbert W. 1984. 

Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes. Journal of Leisure

Research. 16(2): 124-135. 

Vodak, M.C.; Roberts,

P.L.; Wellman, J.D.;

Buhyoff, G.J. 1985. 

Scenic impacts of Eastern hardwood management. Forest Science. 31(2): 289-301.

Williams, Kathryn J.H.;

Cary, John. 2002. 

Landscape preferences, ecological quality,

and biodiversity protection. Environment

and Behavior. 34(2): 257-274.

A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management | 57
Wohlwill, J.F. 1979. 

What belongs where: research on fittingness of man-made structures in natural settings. In: Daniel, T.; Zube, E.; Driver, B., eds.

Assessing amenity resource values. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 48-58.

Wohlwill, J.F.; Harris, G.

1980. 

Response to congruity or contrast for manmade features in natural-recreation settings. Leisure Science. 3(4): 349-365.

Yokohari, Makohari;

Amemiya, Mamoru;

Amati, Marco. 

[in press]. The history and future directions

of greenways in Japanese new towns.

Landscape and Urban Planning.

Zajonc, R.B. 1980. 

Feeling and thinking: preferences need no

inferences. American Psychologist. 35: 151-

175.

Zube, E. 1976. 

Perception of landscape and land use. In:

Altman, I; Wohlwill, J.F., eds. Human

behavior and environment. New York, NY:

Plenum Press. 1: 87-122.

Zube, Ervin H.; Sell,

James L.; Taylor,

Jonathan G. 1982. 

Landscape perception: research, application

and theory. Landscape Planning. 9(1): 1-33.

Zube, E.H.; Simcox,

D.E.; Law, C.S. 1987. 

Perceptual landscape simulations: history

and prospect. Landscape Journal. 6(1): 62-

80.

58 | Social Science to Improve Fuels Management
Ryan, Robert 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.

A series of syntheses were commissioned by the USDA Forest Service to aid in fuels mitigation project

planning. This synthesis focuses on research addressing aesthetic considerations of fuels management.

A general finding is that fuels management activities can contribute to the visual quality of a landscape.

Topics covered in the synthesis include research findings on visual preferences in forested ecosystems,

strategies for maintaining or improving visual quality through fuels management, and the planning,

implementation, and monitoring of resource management to improve visual quality.

KEY WORDS: scenic beauty, visual quality, landscape aesthetics 

Cover photo credit: Sarah McCaffrey
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

North Central Research Station

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report NC-261

North Central Research Station

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us