Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and

Integration

Social Issues Fact Sheet: 14

Landscape Preference in Forested

Ecosystems

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Research Note

RMRS-RN-21-14-WWW

September 2006

Social Science Team Lead:

Pamela Jakes

USDA Forest Service

North Central Research Station

1992 Folwell Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

pjakes@fs.fed.us

Synthesizing

Scientific

Information

for Fire and Fuels

Project Managers

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

The Public’s Preference

Think you know what most people consider to be a scenic landscape? You might,

but research shows that forest managers’ opinions about aesthetic beauty often

differ from those of the general public.

Yet it is important to understand what types of landscape settings most people

prefer to be able to plan fuels treatment and other forest management activities

that will be acceptable to the general public.

There are four common elements of visually preferred forest settings:

• Large trees

• Herbaceous, smooth groundcover

• Open midstory canopy with views into the forest

• Vistas with distant views and significant topography

Managing to maintain or improve these four elements is compatible with managing fuels.

Large Trees

Many studies have shown that people prefer large mature trees in landscape scenes.

An increase in the number of larger trees is often associated with an increase in scenic

beauty ratings. Likewise, forests with many closely spaced small trees often receive

lower scenic ratings. Though the definition of mature trees varies by forest type,

research shows the importance of retaining some larger trees in fuels reduction.

Small openings in the forest scattered with trees are visually preferable.

Sometimes such openings result from wildfire. Fuels mitigation projects

can produce the same effect by clearing small forest stands and brush.
Herbaceous Groundcover

People prefer forests that have a wealth of low, smoothlooking herbaceous plants on the ground level. Some

approaches to fuels reduction such as prescribed burning can increase the number of low, herbaceous plants

and thereby increase the visual quality of a setting.

Open Midstory Canopy

How far people can see into a forest significantly affects their landscape preferences. One study found that

the ability to see into a forest, or the amount of “visual

access,” more strongly predicts scenic beauty than other

physical measures of forests, such as number of downed

trees and number of small trees in a stand. The concept

of visual access is certainly in line with decreasing density to reduce fuels.

Openings in an otherwise enclosed forest are often perceived to be aesthetically pleasing. Likewise, many

people prefer the forest edge adjacent to meadows and

other small openings, a finding that has ramifications

for forest thinning and harvesting, as well as fuels modifications along trail corridors. Fuel break systems can

mimic forest openings.

Generally, higher forest density decreases scenic beauty.

For example, as the density of smaller trees increases,

visibility and scenic beauty decrease.

There are exceptions to the “density rule,” however, with

regard to scenic beauty. Forest stands with a variety of

tree sizes and ages can often have a higher density of

trees without lowering scenic quality.

The key is the amount of visual access, which also increases people’s perceptions of safety. 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.

Vistas and Topography

Topography provides a challenge for visual resource

management, because hillsides and steeper areas are

more visible from multiple vantage points. So forest

management activities like thinning and clearcuts, which

change the landscape considerably, are more obvious

than they would be in flatter areas. Similarly, heavy erosion caused by extensive logging on steep slopes is perceived negatively.

Source

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. Available online

at http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/viewpub.asp?key=3514

[2006, August 25]. For a hard copy, contact Pamela Jakes

at pjakes@fs.fed.us.

Additional Aesthetics Fact Sheets

Landscape Preference in Forested Ecosystems is one of a series of four fact sheets on the topic of aesthetics and

fuels management. See also Strategies for Managing Fuels

and Visual Quality, Social Issues Fact Sheet 13 (RMRS

RN-21-13-WWW); Landscape Change and Aesthetics, Social Issues Fact Sheet 15 (RMRS RN-21-15-WWW);

and Prescribed Fire and Visual Quality, Social Issues Fact

Sheet 16 (RMRS RN-21-16-WWW).

Social Science Team Fact Sheets

Look for fact sheet topics from the Social Science Team including information on developing personal responsibility for fuels

reduction, communicating fire hazard, topics for community

fire plans, guidelines for community education, collaboration,

and the “golden rule” for communicating fire hazard to people.

Fuels Planning: Synthesis and Integration

This fact sheet is one in a series being produced as part of a

larger project supported by the USDA Forest Service to synthesize new knowledge and information relevant to fire and fuels

management. Fact sheets address topics related to stand structure, environmental impacts, economics, and human responses

to these factors. Information in the fact sheets is targeted for the

dry forests of the Inland West, but is often applicable across

broad regions of the country. For more information, please visit

our Web site at:

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

Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration is an interagency research/management partnership to support the TenYear Fire Plan, led by Russell T. Graham, RMRS, and Sarah M.

McCaffrey, NCRS.