United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest 

Research Station 

Research Paper 

PSW-203 

Assessing Public Concern 

for Landscape Quality: 

A Potential Model to 

Identify Visual Thresholds 

Arthur W. Magill 
Magill, Arthur W. 1990. Assessing public concern for landscape quality: a potential model to identify

visual thresholds. Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 48 p. 

Considerable public criticism and sometimes legal obstructions have been directed toward landscape 

management in relation to the extraction of natural resources. Many managers do not understand public 

concerns for visually attractive resources. Managers need to know when landscape alterations, like clearcuts, 

attract public attention and become visually objectionable. A study assessed the opinions of groups of people, 

representing various organizations, using color slides to simulate views of managed and natural landscapes. 

Of 63 management actions, 43 were not detected by more than half of the people. Only 31 percent of the 

management actions were reported by 50 percent or more of the respondents, and large, near actions were not 

reported any more frequently than small ones. A model was prepared to identify visual thresholds where 

people might first detect an action without knowing what they were seeing, and finally receive enough 

information for them to identify the action. Small numbers of respondents detected management actions and 

fewer identified them, but their responses demonstrated the existence of detection and identification thresholds 

as well as concern for the environment. 

Retrieval Terms: landscape management, public concern, resource management, sensitivity levels, visual 

impacts, visual thresholds 

The Author: 

ARTHUR W. MAGILL is principal resource analyst for the Station's Wildland Recreation and the Urban 

Culture Research Work Unit, located at the Forest Fire Laboratory in Riverside, California. 

Publisher: 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, California 94701 

November 1990 
Assessing Public Concern for 

Landscape Quality: A Potential 

Model to Identify Visual Thresholds 

Arthur W. Magill 

Contents 

In Brief .................................................................................................................................................ii

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1 

Crossing Visual Thresholds ...............................................................................................................1 

Developing a Threshold Meaning Model ...........................................................................................3

Methods ...............................................................................................................................................4 

Results .................................................................................................................................................7

Detection of Management ......................................................................................................7

Determining Visual Thresholds .............................................................................................7

Perception of Management Intensity and Quality ..................................................................8

Detection of Natural Areas .....................................................................................................8 

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................9 

Detection and Identification of Management ......................................................................... 9

Detection and Identification Thresholds ....................................................................... 9

Frequency of Detection and Identification ......................................................................10 

Dislike for Naturalness ......................................................................................................... 10 

Detection of Large Objects .................................................................................................. 12

Applying the Threshold Meaning Model .............................................................................. 13 

Identified Landscapes ...................................................................................................... 16 

Detected Landscapes ....................................................................................................... 18 

Not-Detected Landscapes ................................................................................................ 22

Perception of Management and Its Quality .......................................................................... 23

Opinions on Specific Cases ............................................................................................. 23

Opinions on Regeneration ............................................................................................... 25

Perceived Management in Natural Areas ......................................................................... 28

Implications for Research and Management.......................................................................... 28

Appendixes ........................................................................................................................................ 31

A: Study Locations and Subjects .......................................................................................... 31

B: Questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 33

C: Social Characteristics of Respondents ............................................................................. 37

D: Visual Threshold Meaning Model ................................................................................... 41

E: Respondents' Opinions of Management and Quality ................................................ 45

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. 47

References ......................................................................................................................................... 48 
In Brief ... 

Magill, Arthur W. 1990. Assessing public concern for 

landscape quality: a potential model to identify 

visual thresholds. Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; 48 p. 

Retrieval Terms: landscape management, public concern, resource 

management, sensitivity levels, visual impacts, visual thresholds 

Natural resource managers have long managed landscapes 

under the critical eye of the public, often with frustrating 

consequences. Long-established methods for extracting resourcees or developing facilities are frequently met with vocal objecttions if not legal obstructions, because managers fail to consider the visual consequences of their actions. In essence, managers need to know when and where landscape alterations such as 

clearcuts, road cuts and fills, mine tailings, or microwave 

stations may attract attention, become visually objectionable 

and arouse public concern. Knowledge of visual sensitivity in 

relation to viewing distance, size of object seen, and stage of 

revegetation is not presently available to resource managers. 

The concept of thresholds refers to the least amount of 

information needed to accomplish a perceptual task. A detection threshold is the point at which something is first detected 

by an observer, but not enough information is available for 

identification. As observation continues, a distance is reached 

where new information is sufficient to permit identification-

--an identification threshold. Detection or identification of 

specific objects may be achieved more rapidly and with less 

information as the interest, education, and experience of people 

increase. 

I hypothesized that detection and identification thresholds 

could be identified by showing people color slides of landscape 

scenes. Therefore, a study was done to identify thresholds by 

showing people pictures of objects frequently seen in natural and 

managed landscapes, such as waterfalls, roads, lakes, meadows, microwave stations, timber harvesting, mining, or revegetation on manipulated areas. The objectives were to determine 

the following: (1) distances at which subjects of a known size 

could be detected and identified, (2) when plant growth was 

sufficient to prevent detection and identification, (3) whether 

people liked or disliked what they saw, and (4) opinions of 

management intensity and quality. 

Color slide sets of various landscape components, structures, and management actions, from the western States, were 

obtained at different focal lengths to simulate seeing an object 

from different distances without changing its form or real size. 

Eight slide shows, of 30 slides each, were shown to 41 different 

groups. Viewers completed a questionnaire by describing the 

first two objects, in order of personal preference, that attracted 

their attention in each slide; their like or dislike of the scene; and 

whether the area viewed was managed and how well managed. 

A majority of respondents did not detect or identify most of 

the management subjects shown. Fifty percent or more did not 

detect the consequences of 43 of 63 management actions even 

when they were obvious. Only 2 management actions were 

identified and 7 detected by more than 50 percent of the respondents. Large objects were not reported any more frequently than small objects; however, small numbers of people were 

able to detect or identify objects regardless of their size or the 

viewing distance. Most managed areas were perceived as being 

managed, and most of the management was regarded as fair to 

well done. Perceptions of management were uniformly distributed from low to intensive. All managed sites were seen as 

unmanaged by some people, and all management was perceived as devastating by a few people. 

All of the natural areas were detected by 72 percent or more 

of the respondents, who had mentioned seeing a natural feature 

such as trees, mountains, or streams and had not mentioned any 

man-made objects or actions such as roads, mines, or cuttings. 

Furthermore, the respondents also liked the natural views they 

had detected. Nevertheless, a majority of the people, who 

responded to questions about management intensity and quailty, thought the natural areas were managed and that the quality 

of management was good. Some people were indifferent to 

views of unmanaged landscapes and others disliked them. 

However, the data provided no explanations about opinions in 

relation to natural scenes. 

Visual thresholds were identified by the method used in this 

study. However, identification was dependent upon a small population of people who were visually sensitive to natural and manmade elements in landscape views. Thus, the model might be used 

to develop a classification of public concern for scenic quality, 

for individuals who are less visually sensitive, provided a range of 

object sizes in relation to view distances can be devel-oped for 

specific management actions. And, despite most people not 

detecting or identifying management, managers are well advised 

not to assume respondents did not see any management. 

Furthermore, while most respondents thought management was 

fairly good, that may not equate to a manager's opinion of fairly 

good. The general public may use different criteria to evaluate 

landscapes and management than do trained land managers. 

ii USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Introduction 

N atural resource managers have long managed landscapes under the critical eye of the public. Traditional 

methods for extracting resources, developing facilities, or building access routes are increasingly met with vocal 

objections and legal obstructions. Reasons for criticism and 

opposition are many including these: inadequate knowledge by 

managers about the visual consequences of their actions; lack 

of alternatives to satisfy public demands and legal requirements; and inadequate knowledge of various publics and their 

perceptions, expectations, concerns, and even demands for 

managing resources within visual constraints. 

Past efforts to resolve the difficulties resulted in the development of the Visual Management System (VMS) by the For

est Service and Visual Resource Management (VRM) by the 

Bureau of Land Management (USDA, Forest Service 1974; 

USDI, Bureau of Land Management 1975). Both represent 

efforts to systematically identify and classify scenic quality to 

permit sound natural resource management within visual constraints specified as visual quality objectives (VMS) or visual 

resource management classes (VRM). A serious concern with 

both systems rests with the use of visual sensitivity levels, 

which are purported to be a measure or index of public "concern" for the scenic quality of landscapes. 

Forest Service landscape architects are the professionals responsible for applying the VMS. Although they had considerable 

confidence in the system, they were found to seriously doubt the 

ability of the sensitivity levels to accurately measure public 

concern (Laughlin and Garcia 1986). Visual sensitivity, for both 

systems, is determined by managers on the basis of how frequently the public uses primary and secondary travel routes, and on the 

assumption that they have a major or minor concern for esthetics. 

Actual concern of the public has not been measured; it is assumed 

on the basis of the public's presence and activities along primary 

and secondary travel routes coupled to a value judgment that they 

have a major or minor concern for esthetics. 

Natural resource managers need to increase their knowledge 

of the public's perceptual sensitivity to landscape esthetics 

and, most important, how management actions influence the 

sensitivity. In addition, they need to know when sensitivity is 

reduced as the consequences of management are muted by 

natural or man-induced vegetative succession or other rehabilitation processes. In essence, managers need to know when and 

where landscape alterations such as clearcuts, road cuts and 

fills, mine tailings, or microwave stations may attract attention, 

become visually objectionable, and arouse public concern. Moreover, they need to know when vegetative growth has progressed sufficiently or soils and rock surfaces have aged enough to 

hide otherwise objectionable landscape alterations, that is, 

they no longer attract attention and arouse concern. 

Information about the public's visual sensitivity with relation to viewing distance, size of object seen, and stage of 

revegetation is not presently available to resource managers. 

Most recognize the need. Having such information would allow managers to predict when planned actions would lead to 

public objections, allow them time to develop alternative actions or prepare acceptable explanations of their actions, and 

permit them to let the public know how long the consequences 

of actions may persist. 

This paper reports on an exploratory study that investigated 

the stated concerns people had about a series of selected landscapes. The study evaluated the perceptions groups had of 

different management actions portrayed in color slides. Management actions were illustrated in a manner that permitted 

them to be viewed from simulated distances without altering 

the angle of view. This procedure was designed to permit 

determination of the distance at which people might detect or 

recognize the management actions. 

Crossing Visual Thresholds 

The probability for detecting visual misfits (features not 

typical of the landscape) should increase as the heterogeneity 

of a landscape decreases and provided it is not flat. Detection in 

a forested landscape is unlikely when it is flat, except from the 

air or from other elevated positions. Obvious anomalies, such 

as roads, clearcuts, or powerline right-of-ways, in a densely 

forested landscape should be evident, because the forest provides "background" for the various clearings or "figures" with 

their distinctive "borders." 

A "figure-ground separation" is established when a "continuous background surface" exists against which an object, form, 

or "figure" can be seen (Dember 1960; Gibson 1950; Vernon 

1968). The most important feature in such a relationship has 

been attributed to the border (Dember 1960). Thus, as a landscape becomes more heterogeneous, the opportunity to detect 

visual misfits is likely to decrease because more objects with 

more borders will reduce the background effect. For example, 

irregularly shaped cuttings are less evident where irregular 

openings are already present in the landscape. At some point, 

the forest may no longer be recognized as background; it then 

becomes figure and the openings are background. The importance of borders may diminish, however, when scenes are 

considered in the context of real landscapes rather than laboraUSDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 1 
tory drawings or photographs. The reason is that object repetition, exposure time, and other visual clues tend to influence 

perceptions when people view real landscapes. 

Change in figure-ground separation may have been detected 

when objections are raised concerning the effect of management actions on the visual environment. However, discrimination of objects or figures in the landscape has led to conflicting 

reports. For example, R. Kaplan (1979) stated that as an area 

becomes "home" or more familiar to people, they tend to 

differentiate figures that previously blended with the background. Furthermore, Penning-Rowsell (1979) noted that lifelong residents of an area developed a familiarity that tended to 

breed contempt for the familiar scenes. 

Tuan (1974) countered that the same familiarity could lead 

to an affection for the area when it did not breed contempt. 

Obviously, clarification is needed for this aspect of perceptions 

of the environment. Residents of an area tended to block-out 

unpleasant aspects of the landscape or became oblivious to the 

beautiful (Tuan 1974). Additionally, Vernon (1968, p. 172) 

said that we see "many things and many aspects of the visual 

field without directing our attention upon them." She even 

suggested that without being educated about things, we may 

not or even can not see them! On the other hand, recognition 

may only be delayed because traces of previous conditions or 

situations may temporarily block recognition (Koffka 1963). 

For as Castaneda (1971) has expressed it: "Things don't change, 

you change your way of looking." 

Various thresholds exist at which only minimal information 

is needed to accomplish a perceptual task (Dember 1960). 

People may be aware of change but not actually know what 

changed, in what manner, or how much it changed. The concept of thresholds, as used in psychology, is the "minimal 

amount of information required for the accomplishment of a 

perceptual task" (Dember 1960). 

A detection threshold marks that point at which something 

is first detected by an observer, but without recognition-

-something is seen but not enough information is transmitted to 

allow it to be identified. A detection threshold involves some 

degree of change, no matter how small. In fact, people are 

likely to overlook things that are relatively uninteresting or 

unimportant to them, unless they actually see movement or 

change (Vernon 1968). 

Dember indicated that our perceptual system is not only 

responsive to change, but to its opposite-constancy or equality. Essentially, not only are we attracted by changes in the 

landscape, but also by monotony. Possibly sheer boredom 

causes visual attraction, or distraction, as we view an unchanging and seemingly endless landscape. 

As we continue to observe a landscape, we are likely to gain 

more information. Eventually, a point is reached where enough 

new information is gained to permit recognition or identification of the object that was originally detected but not recognized or identified. If a standard was provided to aid discrimination (an observer is told that a management action is present), 

then a recognition threshold is achieved-a point at which 

minimal information is available to permit recognition by comparison with the provided standard. When a standard is not 

provided (observer is not told that a management action is 

present), the observer must provide the comparative standard, 

and an identification threshold is defined. Clearly, an uninformed observer (for whom no standard is provided) would 

need to be nearer to a management action to identify it than 

would an informed observer. However, detection, recognition, 

or identification of specific objects or actions may be achieved 

more rapidly and with less information by persons with sufficient interest, education, and experience. 

Thresholds, as used in psychology, were applied under laboratory conditions where subjects identified messages of varying light intensity flashed on a movie screen (Dember 1960). 

The present study and others were done under less controlled 

conditions. Detection and recognition thresholds were used by 

trained observers (persons whose observational skills have 

been enhanced by specialized knowledge and experience) to 

determine how the visibility of transmission lines was influenced by tower type, corridor width, landscape setting, and 

viewing distance (Driscoll and others 1976). 

Stages of vegetative development may be identifiable at 

which observers can no longer determine what an object is or 

what caused a change (loss of identification threshold) and at 

which detection no longer occurs (loss of detection threshold). 

Jointly, these stages of plant succession when growth is sufficient to screen objects or mask changes were called recoverytime thresholds. At some recovery stage, people will not 

recognize or detect that which previously was evident. 

Interest in how people behave after achieving an identification 

threshold suggested the existence of a third visually stimulated 

threshold. As people gain more information about the identification threshold, they may eventually react, in some manner, to the 

new data. At that point, sufficient new visual information may be 

available, in conjunction with the individual's education and 

experience, to establish a reaction threshold or point at which 

the visual influence is sufficient to cause the viewer to respond to 

what was seen in some emotive manner. 

If the scene is disliked, the observer may take action, such as 

writing a congressman or joining a special interest group. This 

reaction threshold may be similar to the "threshold of disrupttion" or the point where some management action is sufficiently severe to make people stop visiting favorite sites or substitute a current preferred activity with some other activity (Clark 

1983). On the other hand, an observer who likes the scene may 

simply continue a present activity or even express support for a 

land management agency by writing a complimentary letter. 

However, the latter is unlikely, because satisfied people are 

more likely to be complacent and not react. 

I hypothesized that detection and identification thresholds 

might be identified by showing color slides of landscape scenes 

to untrained and uninformed observers. Scenes included natural landscape components such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, 

lakes, or trees, and man-made objects such as roads, dams, 

microwave stations, or timber cuts. Thus, detection thresholds 

may exist whenever an attention-getting object can just be 

detected but not identified. 

2 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
I further hypothesized that detection thresholds may be 

defined by some unique combination of object size and distance from the observer in conjunction with variations in color, 

texture, and intensity of edge effect. Additional combinations 

were expected to provide sufficient new information to permit 

determination of identification thresholds. 

Developing a Threshold 

Meaning Model 

Carl Jung's concept of the word meaning moved people 

from searching for causal relationships to searching for "connections" to explain phenomena (Franz 1964). Lynch (1960, p. 

6) applied this concept to landscapes as he observed that "the 

environment suggests distinctions and relations" while we select, organize, and endow it with meaning. Instead of asking, 

"Why did something happen?", Jung asked, "What did it happen for?" Dember (1960) used a similar approach, not so much 

in search of meaning, but to define the "detection task" as "a 

reaction to change" of message intensity by asking, "Did something happen on the screen?" 

Applying the concept of meaning, Lee (1976) suggested 

that people tend to search for meaning in landscapes just as 

they do in works of art. After the fashion of Jung (1964) and 

Dember (1960), he suggested that people judge landscapes by 

asking, unconsciously, the basic questions: "What is going on 

here?" "What made the forest look this way?" The concept of 

"legibility," as defined for cities, referred to the ease with 

which inhabitants recognized city parts and organized them into 

coherent patterns (Lynch 1960). Lee applied the concept to 

wildlands in claiming that people assign meaning in terms of 

landscape legibility or what they can decipher about a landMeaning 

(What is going on here?) 

Illegible Legible 

Dislike 

Like 

Chaotic 

Landscape 

Unacceptable 

Landscape 

Sensual Purposeful 

Landscape Landscape 

Figure 1-Landscape meaning model (after Lee 1976). 

scape by observing its features and, I would add, management 

impacts on those features (fig. 1). 

Examining the model, we see that if people dislike a scene 

and cannot answer the question, the landscape is considered 

illegible and termed "chaotic." But, if they know what's happening, then the landscape is legible and said to be "unacceptable." However, should the viewers like a scene, though not 

understand it (illegible), the landscape is considered "sensual," 

while understanding the landscape makes it "purposeful." 

In reviewing Lee's work, it appeared that detectable levels 

of change or "thresholds" might be found before the points 

indicated by illegible and legible in his model (fig. 1). If so, a 

more comprehensive model might be described. In the study 

reported here, I searched for visually detectable levels of change 

in a range of views of natural and managed landscapes which 

may represent the environmental concerns of people belonging 

to different interest groups. Their concerns may be related to the 

meanings people assign to landscape components and management actions. 

The expanded model is shown in figure 2 with all additions 

and revisions highlighted. Meaning has been replaced by threshold definition because that was the meaning sought. The question was changed to determine if critical elements (management actions or objects) were located or identified. Detection 

and identification thresholds define certain points at which 

critical elements in the landscape may be detected and then 

identified. Hence, a category "detected" for illegible landscapes and "identified" for legible landscapes. 

Critical elements are those objects in the landscape (natural 

or man-made) which, for whatever reason, attract an observer's 

attention. And, if they are identified, it is likely they evoked the 

essence of themselves in the memories of persons viewing 

them (Kaplan, S. 1975). For the purpose of this study, critical 

elements were any natural landscape component of an unmanaged (natural) landscape and objects or actions in a managed 

landscape such as timber harvesting, mining, roads, microwave 

towers, or buildings that were important to an observer. People's responses to critical management elements were tested in 

the study. 

The model shows the detection threshold before the detected 

landscapes, and the identification threshold between the detected 

and identified landscapes. In addition, a reaction threshold may 

exist at a higher level of identification. People may receive 

sufficient information, above the identification threshold, to stimulate strong positive or negative behavior, thus the category, 

reaction, was created. Observer reactions to landscapes may vary 

according to their approval or disapproval of specific landscapes. 

Landscapes that are liked have been called "commendable," and 

those that are disliked are "censurable." The study did not identify any reaction thresholds, because it would have been necessary 

to identify actual behavior after critical elements had been identified by respondents. The study was designed to evaluate public 

concern for visually detected environmental impacts, not human 

behavior in response to the impacts. 

People may be unconsciously attracted by critical elements 

that are below the detection threshold. That is, they may look at 

an element but not see it; their awareness of an element may be 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 3 
Threshold Definition 

(Critical elements detected or identified?) 

Detection Identification Reaction 

Threshold 

Detected 

Threshold 

Identified 

Threshold 

Reaction 

(critical (critical (reacted 

element element to critical 

seen, not identified) element)

identified) 

Not Detected 

(critical 

element 

not seen) 

Dislike 

Like 

Obscure Indistinct Unacceptable Censorable 

Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape 

(condemned 

action) 

Vague Sensual Purposeful Commendable 

Landscape Landscape Landscape Landscape 

(praised 

action) 

Figure 2-Visual threshold meaning model. 

too low to permit positive detection. Yet, the presence of such 

an object may stimulate an unaccountable like or dislike by 

some people. Unfortunately, it was not possible to measure 

such attractions by the methods used. On the other hand, some 

people may be attracted by and report elements that are stimulating and important to them, but not critical to the purpose of 

the study. With this in mind, the category not detected was 

created to classify landscapes for which people had detected 

other than the critical elements. Whenever critical elements 

were not detected, landscapes that were disliked were designated "obscure" and the liked landscapes were termed "vague." 

The study reported here was started in 1982 to determine if 

any of the thresholds could be identified by showing people 

pictures of natural and managed landscapes, such as waterfalls, 

roads, lakes, microwave stations, timber harvesting, meadows, 

mining, or revegetation on manipulated areas. Objectives of 

the study were to identify the following: 

(1) distances at which subjects of a known size could be 

detected (detection threshold) and identified (identification 

threshold); 

(2) length of time after which the subjects could no longer 

be identified and no longer detected, as plant growth screened 

or muted the original impacts; 

(3) whether people liked or disliked what they saw; 

(4) whether they thought the areas viewed were managed; 

and 

(5) opinions on the quality of management. 

Methods 

Color slide sets of various landscape components, structures, and management actions were obtained throughout the 

western States (App. A). A slide set represented a specific 

subject photographed from a fixed position using different 

focal lengths ranging from 28 millimeters up to 300 millimeters. Subjects, as they appeared to the unaided eye, were depicted by 50 millimeter slides. 

The seen-area or actual size of a natural landscape feature or 

consequence of management was constant for each set, and it was 

measured on a slide of 200 millimeter focal length. The apparent 

or visual size of the subjects changed as focal lengths increased or 

decreased from 50 millimeters (fig. 3). The reason for photographing the subjects at different focal lengths was to simulate 

their appearance at different distances while controlling configurations and seen-areas. Had the subjects been photographed from 

different locations to achieve the progression of distances, the 

same subject would have had a different configuration and a 

different area would be seen from each location. 

Photographs, slides, and prints, commonly have been used to 

conduct scenic quality research. The simulation is not the same as 

having a respondent view the actual scene; however, it is a 

practical, economic, and reliable surrogate for on-site viewing 

(Zube and others 1987). In addition, changing camera focal 

length to simulate the same view from different distances is not 

4 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Figure 3-Philadelphia Canyon gold mine as photographed from: (A) 4.8 miles (7.7 km), camera focal length 50 millimeters; (B) 3.4 miles (5.5 km), 

camera focal length 70 millimeters; (C) 2.4 miles (3.9 km), camera focal length 100 millimeters; (D) 1.6 miles (2.6 km), camera focal length 150 

millimeters. 

the same as photographing the scene by moving progressively 

nearer. Foreground information will change as the focal length is 

changed, but so too will the foreground change as one moves 

forward to repeat a photograph from a nearer location. Obtaining 

photographs by moving forward is relatively simple where the 

topography is level and vegetation is low, but locational difficultties are likely to arise even under such favorable conditions. On 

the other hand, extreme variations in relief, especially coupled 

with tall, dense forests, makes such photography nearly impossible. Thus, the simulated procedure was used while recognizing its 

limitation for the most accurate portrayal of landscapes. Later, I 

provide an example that evaluates scenes where the skyline is lost 

due to photographic magnification. 

I made no effort to adjust for weather or atmospheric conditions, thinking that conditions as actually experienced would 

more nearly approximate those experienced by visitors to the 

landscapes that were simulated. In retrospect, it may have been 

better to replicate the same scenes under various conditions to 

evaluate the differences. That would have necessitated limiting 

the number of sample sites, to permit repeat photography under 

different conditions. Seventy-three slide sets were randomly 

selected, and randomly selected substitutes replaced sets of 

inferior photographic quality. Depending on target distance, 

ranging from about half of a mile to nearly 16 miles, 1 to 6 

slides were selected from each set for a total of 240 slides. 

Slides were randomly distributed into 8 slide shows of 30 

slides each. Whenever possible, only one slide from a set was 

included in a show. However, when two were included, they 

were of such different focal lengths that respondents were 

unable to recognize the location. Respondents were completely 

unaware that the scenes they viewed were but one of a set, or 

that respondents saw a different picture of the same subject. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 5 
Slides were projected at a uniform size for each show by 

placing the projector 16 feet (4.9 m) from the 70-inch (179 cm) 

square screen to obtain an image of 43 by 63 inches (109 by 

160 cm). A cassette tape recorder controlled the projector to 

obtain uniform viewing periods. Because people in the front 

could see detail better than those in the back of the room, group 

size was limited to 50 people. Nevertheless, some people sitting 

towards the rear probably had difficulty seeing. Any resultant 

bias was not measured. 

Some thought the time allotted to view the slides was too little, 

while others thought it was too great. Pretesting had established 

60 seconds as acceptable for the first 21 slides, and 90 seconds for 

the last 9 slides, which required two additional responses. A 

group of resource professionals thought the view period was 

good, but members of a bicycle club became restless. Therefore, 

I adjusted the time to allow 40 seconds for the 21 slides and 50 

seconds for the last 9. On the average, the revised viewing 

periods proved satisfactory for most viewers. In fact, any complaints about short viewing time were ill-founded according to 

other studies (Kaplan, R. 1975; Herzog 1987), which found that 

preference judgments of natural environments were the same for 

very short viewing times (10-20 milliseconds) versus a much 

longer time (15 seconds), and increasing time provided only 

minor modifications to the preferences. 

A questionnaire was prepared (App. B) to obtain the following from respondents: 

•Their background 

•A brief description of the two objects (clearcuts, mountains, rivers, mines, etc.), in order of importance to them, that 

attracted their attention in the first 21 slides 

•An opinion of whether they liked or disliked the objects 

•For the last 9 slides, in addition to the previous information, their perceptions of management intensity and quality for 

the area that contained the objects. 

Telephone directories, conservation directories, and other 

sources were used to identify groups to serve as samples. A 

form letter was developed that requested participation in a 

questionnaire-slide show, to find out what people see when 

they visit or travel through mountain, forest, or desert landscapes. No additional description of the program was offered to 

avoid biasing responses. 

At the beginning of each show, respondents were told they 

would see 30 slides of mountain, forest, or desert landscapes 

and be asked to express their opinions of the views on a 

questionnaire. As a consequence, they were not provided a 

standard against which they might assess actions depicted in 

the slides. Any identification of the actions would result in 

identification thresholds. They were also informed that the 

slides would be repeated, at the end of the show, so they might 

learn where each was taken and the purpose of the research. 

It was soon evident that some responses would be useless 

without additional instructions. People tended to like clouds, 

sunsets or sunrises, silhouettes, and similar items over which 

land managers had no control and which are highlighted by the 

photographic media. Before the shows started, respondents 

were asked to ignore such things and comment only on land 

forms or objects on the land or water. Regardless, some responses ensued such as "nice place to" hunt, ski, fish, or go 

four-wheeling. Possibly, such statements represent the only 

means by which the particular respondents could relate to the 

environment they saw. 

As Schroeder (1988) demonstrated with regard to the 

thoughts, feelings, and memories held by visitors to an arboretum, the words respondents used to describe what attracted 

their attention in each slide were of more than casual interest. 

In this study, a few people mentioned "lakes," "trees w/lake," 

or "is that a lake" when they had seen in a slide either large 

oval-appearing clearcuts, brushfield clearings, or a distant view 

of a large valley. One respondent reported a "burnt out house" 

to describe logging slash, and another saw "boulders" which 

were actually piles of brush in a clearing. Parallel mine 

exploration roads that extended across a desert landscape were 

described by a couple of people as "looks like big football 

field" and as "walk ways through plants." The square ski area, 

on Mount Hood, was seen by some as a "snow meadow," and 

mine tailings on the side of a mountain as "patchy holes in 

mtn." Several respondents referred to managed areas as 

"natural setting," "untouched land," "natural land," or "nature 

impact only." Some of the statements told us that respondents had detected management, but were not cognizant of what 

they saw, e.g., the boulders, snow meadow, and football field. 

Other words simply demonstrated that people may misinterpret 

the landscape, may not be able to identify landscape components or management actions, or simply could not articulate 

what was seen. However, these statements were from a minority 

of respondents. 

The slide shows ranged from wide-angle views with vast 

landscapes having expansive sky and targets at considerable 

distance, to telephoto views with shortened distances to targets, 

limited horizontal scope, and little or no sky visible. Some 

people argued, justifiably, that if they had been in the field they 

would have seen more and had a different opinion of the 

scenes. The argument relates primarily to telephoto views, 

which may have seemed unrealistic to the respondents. One 

respondent felt that such views deprived him of essential foreground influences that would have influenced the context of 

the scene and his opinion. However, it is frequently possible to 

find views in the field which are just as restrictive as those 

presented. People tend to forget seeing such scenes, but I 

contend there are numerous "windows" or views of restricted 

scope, which result from the presence of trees, nearness to 

large rocks, or the presence of buildings, as well as the influence of inferior locations (views looking up). Views may be 

narrowed and shortened by trees such that one has the impresssion of looking through a porthole or down an alley. In such a 

case, no sky may be evident and only a forest or mountainside 

may be visible. Similarly, in deep canyons one sees canyon 

walls and some sky, provided one looks straight up. 

Some people were critical when no sky could be seen, but 

not having sky in a view is not necessarily detrimental: 

6 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990 
Location Distance Liked 

miles percent 

Apache Canyon

No sky 1.2 82 

No sky 2.1 64 

Sky 2.9 59 

Lone Tree mines 

No sky 1.6 38 

No sky 2.7 83 

Sky 3.8 81 

Pine Creek tailings 

No sky 0.5 69 

Sky 1.0 89 

Pickel Meadow buildings 

No sky 1.3 80 

Sky 2.4 82 

In the Lone Tree mine scene, it was erosion and bare areas that 

were disliked, not a lack of sky. Similarly, the perceptions of 

bare areas, erosion, and roads were disliked in the Pine Creek 

view, not the lack of sky. 

Respondents sometimes complained about too much light on 

the screen. Some light was necessary during the shows to permit 

people to respond on the questionnaires. The ideal situation was 

to have no external light sources and a dimmer to control room 

lighting. Most respondents had no difficulty seeing the slides or 

reading the questionnaires under such conditions. Regardless, 

there were times when external lighting made viewing difficult. 

The amount of bias introduced was unknown. 

Response rates for surveys concerned with outdoor recreation on wildlands have ranged from 70 to 90 percent, and even 

over 99 percent for personal interviews. Such rates far exceed 

responses associated with most commodity oriented questionnaire surveys. With this in mind, a high response was expected 

to the flurry of letters offering to present a show. Unfortunately, after mailing about 175 letters, only 43 groups expressed 

interest in seeing a show, and 41 actually saw one. Nevertheless, 788 usable questionnaires were obtained. 

Results 

Detection of Management 

A majority of respondents did not detect, let alone identify 

most of the management subjects shown in the slides. Fifty 

percent or more of the respondents did not detect the conesquences of 43 of 63 management actions even when they were 

obvious. Only 2 management actions were identified and 7 

were detected by more than 50 percent of the respondents. 

Ignoring the identification of visual thresholds, only 32 percent 

of the management actions were detected (detection plus identification) by more than 50 percent of the people. 

Large objects were not reported any more frequently than 

small objects, however small numbers of people were able to 

detect or identify objects regardless of their size or the viewing 

distance. In general, people who did not detect management 

actions reported seeing forests, trees, mountains, mountain 

peaks, hills, and other very broad descriptors of landscape 

scenes. This does not mean they did not see the management, 

only that it was not as interesting or important to them as at 

least two other objects in the scenes. Objects that are of marginal interest to people tend to be seen peripherally, because 

attention may be focused on things having greater interest or 

importance for them (Vernon 1968). Apparently, most respondents were more interested in and assigned more importance to 

natural landscape elements, to the exclusion of management 

actions as reportable events. 

People concentrate their attention and make quick, accurate 

perceptions when observation time is limited (Vernon 1968; 

Herzog 1987; Kaplan, S. 1987). Yet, some obvious management actions did not attract attention, while some minor actions 

were overlooked in the presence of powerful natural features. 

People expect to see certain things in specific situations (Vernon 1968); however, at those times, not everything within view 

necessarily will be seen. Even though their attention may have 

been focused, in response to the limited viewing time, their 

expectation to see natural components (trees, mountains, etc.) 

in a wildland situation may have been met. If matched expectations were stronger than the influence of concentrated attention, they may have prevented respondents from reporting 

management actions portrayed in the slides. 

Determining Visual Thresholds 

Visual thresholds were identified and located within the context of the threshold meaning model. However, identification 

was dependent upon the visual sensitivity of a few people to natural 

and man-made elements in landscape views. Only seven management actions were detected or identified by more than half of 

the respondents. A utility tower was identified at about half a mile 

by 59 percent and was disliked, which defined an unacceptable 

landscape. Three other unacceptable landscapes were detected. 

Some partial cuts were seen by 77 percent of the people at half a 

mile, regenerating clearcuts by 76 percent at just over 2 miles, 

and thinnings in a regenerating burn were detected by 56 percent 

at just under half a mile. Three landscapes were liked by those 

who detected them. Some clearcuts were detected by 60 percent 

of the respondents at 2.2 miles, a brush clearing by 58 percent at 

just under a mile, and a ski area was detected by 52 percent at 

slightly over 5 miles. 

Detection and identification thresholds were identified for 

other landscapes by not more than 48 percent of the respondents 

for any given management action. Landscapes with identified 

critical elements were legible (unacceptable or purposeful), landscapes with critical elements detected but not identified were 

illegible (indistinct or sensual), and landscapes with undetected 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 7 
critical elements were indiscernible (obscure or vague). The 63 

managed landscapes were distributed in the visual threshold 

meaning model in the pattern shown in figure 4. 

Essentially, the people who did not detect critical elements 

saw landscapes as a mosaic of components or actions. They 

reported seeing lakes, mountains, meadows, hills, rivers, valleys, forests, or deserts. They also said they saw various patterns, colors, or textures; arid, barren, vegetated, or enclosed or 

expansive areas; or smoggy or hazy atmospheric conditions. 

Some reported seeing human influences, however, they were 

not a critical element for the specific scene. 

Detection 

Threshold 

Identification 

Threshold 

Dislike 

Obscure Indistinct Unacceptable 

1 7 4 

20 23 8 

Like 

Vague Sensual Purposeful 

A 

Detection 

Threshold 

Identification 

Threshold 

Not Detected 

(critical element; 

not seen) 

Detected 

(critical element 

seen, not 

identified) 

Identified 

(critical element 

identified) 

Obscure Indistinct 

Dislike Dislike 

Unacceptable 

Dislike 

Like 

Vague 

Like 

Sensual 

Like 

Purposeful 

Detection 

Threshold 

Identification 

Threshold 

B 

Figure 4-Distribution in the visual threshold meaning model of the 

managed landscapes that were studied. 

Perception of Management Intensity

and Quality 

Most managed areas were perceived as being managed: 

from 55 to 94 percent of respondents perceived 31 of 32 

managed landscapes as managed. Or, 70 percent or more of 

them perceived management for 69 percent of the managed 

landscapes. Fifty percent or more of the responses provided the 

following perceptions of management intensity and quality: 

• Intensity was considered low to moderate for 62 percent of 

the areas while quality was fair to well done on 66 percent. 

• Intensity was fair to high and quality fair to well done on 

56 percent of the areas. 

• Intensity was fair to high and quality poor to devastating 

for only 9 percent of the landscapes. 

All managed sites were seen as unmanaged by some people, 

and all management was perceived as devastating by a few 

people. Overall, people did perceive the study areas as managed but were not negatively influenced by the management. 

Detection of Natural Areas 

All of the natural areas were "indirectly" detected by 72 

percent or more of the respondents, who had mentioned seeing 

natural features such as trees, mountains, or streams and had 

not mentioned any made objects or actions such as roads, 

mines, or cuttings. Furthermore, people liked the natural views 

they had detected. Thresholds were identified for three scenes: 

44 percent identified a waterfall, 24 percent identified an unmanaged forest, and 91 percent detected a dry river channel. 

Nevertheless, a majority of the people who responded to 

questions about management intensity and quality thought the 

natural areas were managed, and they thought the quality of 

management was good. Essentially, 50 to 76 percent of the 

respondents thought five of six natural areas were managed 

when seen from the nearest distance sampled. The waterfall 

scene was the only natural view to be regarded as "unmanaged" by more than 50 percent of the respondents. 

People search for meaning in landscapes, and their preferencees are couched in their knowledge and personal standards (Lee 

1976). A few people disliked some "unmanaged" or natural areas, 

and others were indifferent to them. Some components of 

natural landscapes may have projected images of management 

and consequential negative connotations for persons who detected natural objects but did not like them. Possibly, the landscapes 

simply did not meet their standards for scenic quality. Regardless, the study provided no specific explanations of why a few 

people liked or disliked some natural scenes. 

Several natural scenes contained landscape elements thought 

to resemble management actions. Few people failed to distinguish the areas as natural, but the results suggest that strongly 

defined landscape elements, such as the bright white, linear 

riverbed at Apache Canyon could be misinterpreted as a management action. On the other hand, poorly defined features, such 

as the outcrop in the Funeral Range and the lava flows at Craters 

of the Moon, are unlikely to be interpreted as manage8 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
------ 

------ 

ment. "Hard" or strongly defined edges may signify "manmade" areas whereas "fuzzy" or poorly defined edges may be 

misconstrued as natural (Palmer 1989). 

Discussion 

Identification of detection and recognition thresholds was 

possible, but generally only a few respondents were capable of 

discriminating the objects representative of management actions. 

Most people perceived landscapes as a mosaic of trees, shrubs, 

hills, mountains, and similar features. In the following pages, I 

describe the respondents and discuss the identification of thresholds, frequency of detection, opinions of naturalness, and perceptions of large objects. I also describe how the results may be 

applied to the visual threshold meaning model, perceptions of 

management intensity and quality, and perceptions of natural 

areas. Finally, implications for management are briefly discussed. 

Despite efforts to obtain a heterogeneous sample of people, 

70 percent of the respondents were professionals, technically 

trained persons, or retired persons, and 80 percent had attended 

1 or more years of college (App. C). Seventy-three percent had 

annual incomes of $25,000 or more and 29 percent, $50,000 or 

more. Two thirds were male, and most recreated on wildland 

areas 3 to 10 times per year. The majority had spent most of 

their lives as suburban residents of the Pacific Coast states, 

primarily California. 

I had planned to use the socioeconomic information about 

respondents to explain some of their perceptions. I particularly 

expected to use the information on membership in professional, conservation, and recreation-oriented organizations. However, the data did not support this use even though 49 percent of 

the respondents belonged to conservation groups (Sierra Club, 

Audubon Society, Wilderness Society, local environmentally 

oriented groups, etc.), 11 percent belonged to professional 

organizations (most environmentally oriented), 2 percent represented industrial groups, and the remainder were unaffiliated 

(App. C). In a very few cases, some anomalies in the responses 

were explained by such data. Nevertheless, the inability of 

social characteristics to explain a significant amount of the 

reaction to the simulated scenes was rather surprising, considering that others have used socioeconomic data to explain 

visitor reaction to the environment (Daniel and Boster 1976; Hampe 

1988; Palmer and others 1988; Thayer and Freeman 1987). 

Detection and Identification 

of Management 

Detection and Identification Thresholds 

Detection and identification thresholds were defined, for 

managed or natural landscapes, when differences of 10 percent 

or more existed for observations at sequential distances. Though 

thresholds were defined by the 10 percent criterion, thresholds 

were not deemed important unless at least 50 percent or more 

of the respondents reported the critical element as one of the 

two objects seen in a view simulation (Palmer 1989). In the 

event that an identification threshold was defined after locating 

a detection threshold, the more distant detection threshold was 

used to place the subject in the model. Thus, subjects were 

recorded only once. 

Detection thresholds also were recorded if significant differences were found, at sequential distances, by combining 

nonsignificant detection and identification values. This combination was possible because detection is a prerequisite of identification. However, identification thresholds were not defined 

by combinations, because detection does not necessarily lead 

to identification. Responses were not combined to assess opinions when identification thresholds were found, because such 

combinations would result in double counting of responses by 

those able to identify critical elements. When detection thresholds were defined by combining values, they have been identified as combined detection. 

For example, some parallel mining exploration roads in the 

desert were detected (but not identified) by 9 percent of the 

respondents at a distance of 1.8 miles, while 4 percent detected 

them at 2.2 miles. The roads were identified by 10 percent of 

the respondents at 1.8 miles, while only 1 percent identified 

them at 2.2 miles. Neither for detection nor recognition did the 

percentage of respondents differ between distances by at least 

10 percent. Therefore a threshold was not identified: 

Detected plus 

Roads Detected Identified Identified 

(miles [km] ) ______________________percent

__________________________ 

1.1 (1.8) 31 29 60 

1.6 (2.6) 25 12 37 

------

1.8 (2.9) 9 10 19 

2.2 (3.5) 4 1 5 

Dashed horizontal lines indicate thresholds. 

However, by adding the identification values to the detection 

values at 1.8 miles and at 2.2 miles, the difference of 14 percent 

defined a detection threshold between the two distances. The 

same example displays an uncombined detection threshold at 

1.6 miles, where 25 percent saw the roads, and an identification 

threshold for 29 percent of the respondents at 1.1 miles. 

On occasion, some foreground objects detracted from the 

intent of the photographs, and resulted in erroneous responses 

by the viewers. For example, when a natural forest in Idaho 

was viewed from a little more than 4 miles, a highway was 

visible. Respondents mentioned the road, and consequently a 

detection threshold was defined between 3 (4.8 km) and 4.3 

miles (6.9 km). The presence of the road resulted in fewer 

reports of natural elements, which led to a spurious conclusion. 

During the analysis, the slides were reexamined, and the problem was revealed. A corrected determination revealed that 

there was no threshold. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 9 
In another case, a clearcut was the subject of the photograph, but a second cut appeared in the foreground of a wideangle view. Since 78 percent detected the cut at 1.7 miles (2.7 

km) whereas 63 percent did at 1 mile (1.6 km), a "reverse" 

detection threshold seemed to have existed. Normally, the 

detection of critical elements and the identification of thresholds should increase with increasing nearness to subjects. In 

this situation, the opposite happened, including an increase in 

dislike from 16 to 23 percent. I concluded that the foreground 

clearcut was the cause of the spurious responses. Both cases 

show the need for determining what had been seen to avoid 

assigning a nonexistent threshold. 

Thresholds were not well defined by a majority of respondents 

for most of the management actions depicted in the slides. Only a 

few people who viewed a specific show detected or identified 

subjects, whereas the majority saw other things---even when 

subjects were obvious. This result did not correspond with the 

detection and identification thresholds reported by Dember (1960) 

under controlled laboratory conditions. His respondents had very 

definitive subjects to perceive or sounds to detect, whereas respondents in this study had a rich assortment of items to view. 

Consequently, they could be expected to detect or identify those 

things that were interesting or meaningful to them, as Vernon 

(1968) indicated. If the study subjects were not meaningful to 

them, they did not see them, and reported items of interest. For 

example, people might have seen young trees, but reported only 

trees. However, reporting "young trees" would have indicated 

regeneration had been detected. Since only "trees" was reported, 

then trees were meaningful and seen by the respondents who 

were not credited with detecting the subject. 

Detection of a natural area required slightly different criteria than did detection of a management action. For example, 

respondents who saw a clearcut might have reported a "clearing," "opening," or "field," or used a similar descriptor without 

specifying a clearcut. In such cases, a clearcut was only detected. If the respondent had reported "clearcut," "block cut," 

"clean cut," or similar descriptor, then the clearcut was identified. In the case of natural areas, detection properly might be 

termed indirect detection to indicate that respondents had seen 

natural landscape features such as trees, flowers, mountains, 

streams, and hills, and said nothing about any human actions or 

made objects. Therefore, I assumed the respondents were unaware of seeing a natural area, but were credited with detecting 

one for having reported only natural landscape components. 

Frequency of Detection and Identification 

In only 20 of 63 management actions (subjects) were detection thresholds (detection plus identification) determined by 

more than 50 percent of the respondents at the nearest viewing 

distances (table 1). Of those management actions, only a utility 

tower and a ski area had an identification threshold for more 

than 50 percent of the people, and 7 subjects had detection 

thresholds above 50 percent. A majority of respondents did not 

detect, let alone identify most of the management subjects 

shown in the slides. Of 63 management actions, 43 were not 

actually reported by 50 percent or more of the respondents as 

either of the two most important subjects they saw: 

Subjects Percent of 

Not Detected Respondents 

5 90 

16 80 

28 70 

39 60 

43 50 

In general, people who did not detect management actions 

reported seeing forests, trees, mountains, mountain peaks, hills, 

and other broadly described landscape scenes. 

At the other extreme, all of the natural areas were indirectly 

detected by 72 percent or more of the respondents. Two natural 

sites, Sardine Falls and Reynolds Creek, had identification 

thresholds at less than 1 mile for a small percentage of respondents (table 2). The dry riverbed in Apache Canyon had a 

detection threshold at 5 miles. At Sardine Falls, 14 percent 

identified the area as "natural" at 1 mile, whereas 44 percent 

identified it at half a mile (table 2). Only 2 percent of the 

respondents said the Reynolds Creek area was natural when 

viewed at 1 mile, whereas 24 percent of the respondents thought 

so at 0.6 of a mile. Detection, in that only natural features were 

reported, was 65 percent at 7.1 miles at Apache Canyon, but it 

increased to 90 percent when the area was seen from 5 miles or less. 

Dislike for Naturalness 

As might be expected, most respondents said they liked the 

natural views they detected. However, some respondents were 

either indifferent or disliked the views of natural conditions 

(table 3). For five of the nine natural scenes, without regard for 

distance, 10 to 11 percent of the respondents were indifferent 

and 10 to 17 percent actually disliked the view. 

One might ask, what caused the respondents to be indifferent or to dislike natural scenes? There is evidence that "people 

search for meaning in the landscapes by attempting to decipher 

the information content," and they "apply their own values, 

knowledge and standards when judging whether they like or 

accept the meaning" (Lee 1976, p. 22). 

Data from this study showed that some people, when viewing natural areas, saw roads and trails, timber cuttings and 

thinnings, mines and borrow pits, cleared areas, plantations, 

fuelbreaks, agriculture, powerlines and microwave towers, 

grazing, manipulations (in general), even buildings, and---

most amazing-airports where only natural features existed. 

Many of the elements were disliked by the respondents,

others elicited indifference, and some were even liked.

Regardless, natural landscape components apparently 

suggested such meanings to the respondents. The same 

components may have caused those who did not detect any 

management action to be poorly im-pressed with the 

appearance of landscapes. Such landscapes simply may not 

have met their standards for scenic quality. 

A more esoteric explanation might attribute the like, dislike, 

and indifference to individual assessments of scenic beauty. 

The words of Irish novelist, Margaret Wolfe Hungerford (1850-

1897), "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," were reflected by 

the varying opinions of respondents about the same object that 

10 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Table 1-Management actions that were detected by 50 percent or more of the respondents, ordered by

decreasing detection percent, and listed according to simulated view distance, size of subject, and threshold 

type and percent 

Detection 

plus 

Identification 

(percent) 

Distance

Area 

or 

Length Threshold 

acres 

miles (feet) percent 

76 2 .2 24 Detection 76 Martin Creek regeneration 

76 0.5 1 Identification 39 Lick Creek clearcut 

68 1.1 (97) Identification 46 La Posta satellite dish 

67 0.2 <1 Identification 4 3 Westside Cemetery 

62 0.6 (97) Identification 5 9 Mendenhall powerline tower 

60 2.2 10 Detection 60 Sisi Butte clearcuts 

60 1.1 (360) Identification 29 Death Valley Junction roads 

59 0.8 N.A. Detection 77 Deer Butte cuttings 

59 0.8 8 Detection 33 Prather Meadow cutting 

58 0.8 2 Detection 58 Siskiyou Lake brush clearing 

57 1.3 7 Detection 5 4 Everitt Hill brush clearing 

56 0.4 13 Detection 56 Sleeping Child thinning 

53 1.4 (1370) Detection 6 4 Frankish Peak road 

53 2.0 N.A. none Little Guard regeneration 

5 2 5 .2 3 Identification 53 Bald Mountain Ski Area 

52 0.9 (1130) Identification 4 8 Aliso Canyon powerlines 

5 0 0.5 4 Detection 46 Bad News Ca mp regener ation 

5 0 3.6 25 Identification 41 Silvertip regeneration 

5 0 1.6 4 Detection 45 Schultz Creek burn 

50 1.5 6 Detection 47 Horse Mountain brush clearing 

Subject 

Table 2-Thresholds were defined by some respondents for three natural areas 

Thresholds for Natural Areas 

Th reshold 

Sardine Falls 

miles(km) 

0.5(0.8) 1.0(1.6) 

Reynolds Creek 

miles(km) 

0.6(1.0) 1.0(1.6) 

Apache Canyon 

miles(km) 

5.0(8.0) 7.1(11.4) 

percent 

Not-Detected 5 9 7 9 4 19 

Detected 47 70 6 0 88 90 65 

Identified 44 14 24 2 1 10 

Table 3-Respondent indifference and disliking for several 

natural areas that were detected 

Site Indifferent Dislike Like 

average percent 

Apache Canyon Erosion 11 12 51 

Craters of Moon 11 14 24 

Cuya maca Rancho 10 17 27 

Funeral Range 10 13 59 

Stovepipe Wells 11 10 65 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 11 
attracted attention in a given landscape. For example, natural 

meadows perceived as "clearings," at Cuyamaca Rancho, were 

liked by 33 percent, disliked by 22 percent, and treated with 

indifference by 44 percent of those persons who reported seeing them. Furthermore, if managed landscapes are considered, 

regenerating cuttings at various locations were seen as meadows, lush vegetation, green areas, cuts, slashes, and gashes, and 

all were both liked and disliked! 

Several natural scenes were included in the study (and 

randomly located among slides of management actions), because they contained landscape elements thought to resemble 

management actions. We wanted to know if people would 

make such distinctions. The dry riverbed at Apache Canyon 

resembled a road, the lava flows at Craters of the Moon looked 

like mine tailings, and a very light outcrop, in contrast with the 

darker surrounding rocks of the Funeral Range, could have 

been mistaken for mining (fig. 5). Roads were mentioned by 

46 percent of the 11 percent who were not aware that the dry 

riverbed in Apache Canyon was natural. Of the 5 percent 

unaware that the Funeral Range was natural, 22 percent thought 

they detected mining, and mining was reported by only 5 

percent of the 11 percent that thought Craters of the Moon was 

not natural. Most people identified the areas as natural, but 

the results suggest that strongly defined landscape elements, 

such as the bright white, linear riverbed at Apache Canyon, 

could be misinterpreted by a few. On the other hand, less 

well-defined components, such as the outcrop and lava flows, 

were unlikely to be interpreted as management. 

Detection of Large Objects 

Large, near objects were reported no more frequently than 

were small objects. However, relatively small numbers of people were able to detect or identify objects regardless of their 

size or the viewing distance. As previously noted, the most 

important feature for accurate perception is the outline of an 

object, which creates a figure in relation to its background. 

Thus, the thin line of a road or powerline, especially at a 

distance, is less likely to be perceived than are better-defined 

Figure 5-Funeral Range from a simulated 2.4 miles (3.9 km). The light outcrop near the center may appear as an unnatural disturbance to some people. 

12 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
objects such as powerline towers, satellite dishes, clearcuts, 

buildings, or mine tailings. 

Some examples may prove useful. Fifty-three percent of the 

respondents identified the finger-like configuration of the 2.9 

acres (1.2 ha) of Bald Mountain Ski Area at 1.8 miles (2.9 km) 

(fig. 6), whereas 88 percent of the respondents failed to detect 

the 11.7 acres (4.7 ha.) of the ski area at Timberline seen from 

2.7 miles (4.3 km) (fig. 7, table 4). And while the more distant 

view had a square shape, its edges were blurred by snow, which 

made a less well-defined "figure-ground" boundary than the 

edges between the forest and the shrub/grass interior of the ski 

runs on Bald Mountain. 

In a second example, 22 percent of the viewers detected and 

another 46 percent identified a 97-foot (30 m) tall satellite dish 

beside La Posta Road, from about 1 mile, whereas only 1 

percent detected and nobody identified a 155-foot (47 m) tall 

microwave tower on the dry hills at Poleta Creek at the same 

viewing distance. Even though the satellite dish was shorter, its 

distinctive form was perched on a hilltop. Consequently, its 

figure was strongly etched against the sky whereas the microwave tower, which also had a distinctive though slimmer shape, 

blended with the gray-brown hills that provided the background for it. In both examples, the most well-defined outlines 

were more easily detected and identified. Also, in both cases, if 

the object was detected, it was usually identified. Such identification may be attributed to familiarity with the subjects. 

Applying the Threshold Meaning 

Model 

Because most respondents did not detect management actions shown in the photographs, identification of visual thresholds was dependent upon the responses of the few who were 

sensitive to natural and man-made landscape components. Despite the small population of visually sensitive people, visual 

thresholds were identified and located within the context of the 

visual threshold meaning model (see fig. 2, page 4). Table 5 

offers a sample of subjects in relation to the model. Appendix D 

contains all of the subjects arranged in the model format. 

Figure 6-The finger-like ski runs at Bald Mountain, from a simulated 1.8 miles (2.9 km), are very distinctive. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 13 
Figure 7-The square form of the ski area at Timberline, from a simulated 2.7 miles (4.3 km), tends to blend into the snowfield. 

Table 4-Detection of management actions according to size and distance from observers as ordered by decreasing 

subject size (acres or feet) 

Area 

or 

Length 

Mini mu m 

Distance 

Detection 

plus 

Identified 

Detection 

or 

Identified 

Not 

Detected Subject 

(acres)

) 

miles -------------------percent--------------------

91 2.3 06 None 88 Lake Como partial cuts 

3 5 1.0 41 Detection 3 6 52 Avenue of the Giants regeneration 

3 0 1.6 16 Detection 16 79 Philadelphia Canyon mine 

2 5 1.8 4 8 Identification 41 4 7 Silvertip regeneration 

12 2.7 0 8 None 8 8 Timberline Ski Area 

(feet) 

1370 0.9 6 4 dentification 39 33 Frankish Peak fire road 

1159 1.1 44 Detection 3 9 51 White Mountains trails 

1130 0.4 69 Identification 4 8 2 6 Aliso Canyon powerlines 

I

14 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Like or dislike is a reflection of the personal interest or 

concern people may hold for those components of a landscape 

that they detect or identify. People tend to detect or identify 

objects of personal interest and importance to them. They may 

overlook objects that are contemplated idly rather than attentively (Vernon 1968), nevertheless many things are seen even 

without focusing attention. Therefore, it is quite possible that 

many of the study subjects were seen, though only peripherally, and simply were not deemed sufficiently important to report. But for those subjects that were reported, the liking or 

disliking of them has been used as a measure of people's 

personal interest and concern for them. Considering table 5 

again, disliked subjects are above the center of the table and 

liked are below, and both are arranged by decreasing percentages from the center. 

While respondents' dislike or like of either or both of the 

first two landscape components or management actions that 

they reported did not necessarily mean dislike or like of the 

whole landscape, I assumed this to be true for purposes of this 

study. Thus, judgments reported were assumed to reflect overall perceptions and judgments of a particular landscape. If a 

significant number of responses (10 percent or more) favored 

one judgment or the other, the assumption was presumed to be 

supported. The purpose of the study was to determine when 

people detected critical elements in landscapes, and their concern 

(like or dislike) about them. Therefore, perceptions and judgments of such elements were used to classify the landscapes. 

Table 5--Selected data applied to the Visual Threshold Meaning Model 

NOT DETECTED: DETECTED: IDENTIFIED: 

(other than critical (critical element (critical element 

element seen seen, not identified) identified) 

OBSCURE (dislike) INDISTINCT (dislike) UNACCEPTABLE (dislike) 

Regeneration 

* 

60 percent nondetect 

1.7 mi (2.7 km) 

Moon Pass 

Thinning 

13 ft (4 m)

56-39 percent 

0.4-0.6 mi (0.6-0.9 km)

Sleeping Child 

Regenerating clearcuts 

23.6 acres (9.6 ha)

76-46 percent 

2.2-3.2 mi (3.5-5.1 km) 

Martin Creek 

Partial cuts

* 

77-67 percent (combined)

0.5-0.8 mi (0.8-1.3 km) 

Deer Butte 

Observatory 

0.8 acre (0.3 ha)

25-10 percent 

3.2-4.7 mi (5.1-7.6 km) 

Mount Wilson 

Fire road

1370 ft (418 m)

39-29 percent 

1.9-2.7 mi (3.0-4.3 km) 

Frankish Peak 

Utility tower 

97 ft (30 m)

59-18 percent 

0.6-1.1 mi (0.9-1.8 km)

Mendenhall Peak 

OBSCURE (dislike) INDISTINCT (dislike) UNACCEPTABLE (dislike) 

VAGUE (like) SENSUAL (like) PURPOSEFUL (like) 

Brush clearing Clearcuts Powerlines 

1.2 acres (0.5 ha) 10.1 acres (4.ha) 1130 ft (344 m) 

95 percent nondetect 60-32 percent 48-15 percent 

2.0 mi (3.2 km) 2.2-3.0 mi (3.5-4.8 km) 0.9-13 mi (1.4-2.1 km) 

Badger Mt./Lassen Sisi Butte Aliso Canyon 

Fuelbreak Brush clearing Satellite dish 

0.02 acre (.008 ha) 2.4 acres (1.0 ha) 97 ft (30 m) 

94 percent nondetect 58-09 percent 46-18 percent 

0.6 ml) 1.0 km) 0.8-1.6 mi (1.3-2.6 km) 1.1-2.2 mi (1.8-2.2 km) 

Pinnacles Siskiyou Lake La Posta Road 

Microwave tower Ski Area Headstones 

155 ft ( 471 m 2.9 acres (1.2 ha) 0.06 acre (0.02 ha) 

94 percent nondetect 52-31 percent (combined) 43-02 percent 

1.0 mi (16 km) 5.2-7.3 mi (8.4-11.7 km) 0.2-0.3 mi (0.3-0.5 km) 

Poleta Creek Bald Mountain Westside Cemetery 

VAGUE (like) SENSUAL (like) PURPOSEFUL (like) 

* signifies components for which a seen area determination was not calculated because the component 

filled most of the view. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 15 
An additional condition is necessary to clarify how the 

landscapes were rated with regard to concern for the view. 

Those views for which management was detected or identified 

were classified according to the majority opinion of those who 

saw the subject. Determinations of like or dislike also were 

made for those who had not detected the subjects, but they 

were not used to classify landscapes. There was an exception: 

the majority opinion of those not detecting was used to classify 

landscapes that were below the detection threshold. 

Each subject in table 5 shows, from top to bottom: what was 

seen, its size in acres or feet (except subjects filling the picture), the high and low percent at the threshold, the distances to 

the subject corresponding to the percentages, and the name of 

the location. The following discussions of landscapes that were 

identified, detected, and not detected are based on the information in table 5. 

Identified Landscapes

Subjects listed in the identified column were those that had 

been identified by some respondents, that is, they knew what 

they were looking at. Following are some examples of landscapes that were unacceptable (identified and disliked) and 

some that were purposeful (identified and liked). 

The latticed utility tower, rising 97 feet on Mendenhall 

Peak, was identified at 0.6 of a mile by 59 percent of the 

respondents, whereas only 18 percent identified it at 1.1 miles 

(table 6). This clearly defined an identification threshold between 1.1 and 0.6 miles. In addition, 38 percent did not like the 

tower, whereas only 13 percent liked it. Thus, the landscape 

was classified as unacceptable on the basis of the disliked 

utility tower when seen at the identification threshold. 

A fire road was visible for 1,370 feet along a relatively bare 

slope near Frankish Peak. At 2.7 miles (fig. 8A), 69 percent of 

the respondents did not report seeing it, but 29 percent identified it (table 6). At 1.9 miles (3 km), 39 percent identified it and 

22 percent of them liked what they saw. But with increasing 

nearness (fig. 8B), dislike grew from 13 percent to 23 percent, 

while only 18 percent liked it. As a consequence, an identification threshold was defined at 1.9 miles, and the landscape was 

classified as unacceptable. Whenever an object was equally 

liked and disliked or whenever dislike grew stronger with 

nearness to the subject the landscape was classified as either 

unacceptable (identified and disliked), indistinct (detected and 

disliked), or obscure (not detected and disliked). The negative 

classifications were chosen because such landscapes are more 

likely to be criticized and require remedial action. 

Table 6 -Percent of respondents who liked, disliked, or were indifferent to legible landscapes at specified distances 

Detected1 Identified1 Detection2 

Subject iles M L D I L D I N R T 

percent 

Mendenhall tower 0.6 2 1 0 13 38 6 3 59 62 

1.1 0 0 0 6 9 3 0 18 18 

2.2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Frankish Peak fire road 0.9 8 1 0 18 23 13 9 55 64 

1.4 0 2 1 12 24 7 7 47 53 

1.9 4 2 0 22 13 4 6 39 44 

2.7 0 1 0 13 9 6 1 29 30 

Mount Wilson Observatory 3.2 0 2 2 10 12 2 4 25 29 

4.7 1 0 0 7 2 1 1 10 11 

7.5 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 

Aliso Canyon powerlines 0.4 2 0 0 32 20 1 2 67 69 

0.9 2 1 1 17 26 4 4 48 52 

1.3 0 1 0 6 9 1 1 15 16 

1.8 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 

La Posta satellite dish 0.6 7 14 5 27 22 14 27 63 90 

1.1 9 5 6 16 16 8 22 46 68 

2.2 3 3 1 8 6 3 7 18 25 

3.7 1 1 0 1 4 0 2 5 7 

Westside Cemetery 0.2 11 7 5 26 2 6 24 43 67 

0.3 2 1 0 1 1 0 3 2 5 

1

L = liked. D = disliked. I = indifferent. 2

N = detected, not identified. R = identified. T = combined detection (N plus R) 

16 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
A

B 

Figure 8-Fire road near Frankish Peak (A) was not seen by 69 percent of the respondents when photographed from 2.7 

miles (4.3 km); and (B) was identified and disliked by increasing numbers of respondents from a simulated 1.4 miles (2.2 km) 

or less. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 17 
An unacceptable landscape was weakly defined by 12 percent of the 25 percent of respondents who identified the observatory on Mount Wilson from over 3 miles (4.8 km) away 

(table 6). At 4.7 miles (7.6 km), 83 percent of the respondents had 

not detected the observatory, but only 51 percent liked whatever they saw. Twenty nine percent did not like what they saw 

even though they were looking across the San Gabriel Wilderness Area. As previously indicated, dislike for natural scenes 

may be related to the meanings people assign to their perceptions. 

Thus, disliked objects may exist in any scene for a given viewer. 

Transmission lines that spanned 1,130 feet (344 m) at Aliso 

Canyon were either not detected or were identified outright. At 

1.3 miles (2.1 km), 77 percent did not detect the powerlines and 

only 15 percent identified them, but 48 percent identified them 

at 0.9 of a mile (1.4 km). Identification thresholds were found, 

for some people, with each change in distance, but the 33 percent 

difference between 1.3 and 0.9 miles indicated the primary identification threshold was at 0.9 of a mile (table 6). Even though the 

Aliso Canyon landscape was disliked by 26 percent of those who 

identified the powerlines at the threshold, it was classified as 

purposeful because 32 percent of them liked it at the nearest 

view distance where 67 percent identified the lines. 

A satellite dish, on a ridge near La Posta Road, was detected 

by 68 percent of the respondents at about 1 mile (1.6 km), and 

46 percent identified it to define an identification threshold (table 

6 and fig. 9A). And, just as with Aliso Canyon, weaker thresholds 

existed at shorter and greater distances between the viewers and 

the subject. At 1 mile, like and dislike were about even, but at 0.6 

of a mile (1.0 km) like of the landscape increased from 16 

percent to 27 percent while dislike increased to 22 percent (fig. 

9B). Since feelings towards the satellite dish became more 

positive, the landscape was classified as purposeful. 

An identification threshold was also defined by persons 

who knew they were seeing gravestones in the Westside Cemetery. At 0.2 of a mile (0.3 km), 43 percent of the viewers knew 

it was a cemetery, but only 2 percent had identified it at 0.3 of a 

mile (0.5 km) (table 6). The large change in identification as 

contrasted with the small change in viewing distance was 

surprising. Yet, things not remotely suggestive of gravestones 

were seen by 90 percent of the respondents at 0.3 of a mile. 

Since 26 percent of those identifying and 11 percent of those 

detecting the gravestones liked them, the landscape was regarded as purposeful. 

Detected Landscapes 

Subjects listed in the detected column were detected but not 

identified by some respondents. That is, they saw the subject 

portrayed by the slide (clearcut, microwave tower, mine, etc.), 

though they were unable to identify it. However, they provided 

an adequate description to let us know they had seen the subject 

without identifying it. Following are some examples of landscapes that were indistinct (detected and disliked) and some 

that were sensual (detected and liked). 

A combination of brush-filled clearcuts, partial cuts, and 

blocks of old-growth forest at Deer Butte (fig. 10), was detected by 77 percent of the respondents. However, only 12 percent 

actually knew what they were looking at from half a mile (0.8 

km), while 17 percent did not mention the treatments despite 

being only 0.3 of a mile (0.5 km) from the scene (table 7). 

Nevertheless, 30 percent detected the activity and liked what 

they saw, while 25 percent disliked it at half a mile. 

The situation changed, however, at 0.3 of a mile where 38 

percent disliked what they saw and 27 percent liked it. The reason 

for the change to disliking the scene may be related to how 

management was perceived. Almost all respondents (94 percent) 

thought the area was managed when viewed within half a mile, 

but 46 percent thought the management quality was poor and 15 

percent rated it as devastating (App. E, Timber harvesting). They 

may not have understood what had happened, because they 

reported a variety of disliked events such as cuttings, edges, 

thinnings, bare areas, bums, sparse forest, plantations, manipulations, forest size, cleared areas, and snags and dead trees. Regardless of detection categories, the site was visually unacceptable to 

them because 19 percent of all respondents who viewed the site 

from half a mile or less disliked the cuttings, as contrasted with 

only 2 percent who liked them. Thus, the Deer Butte landscape 

was found to be illegible and disliked within half a mile, consequently it was classified as indistinct. 

Interestingly, those who had not detected the management, 

simply recorded natural elements as most important to them, 

and a few that identified management liked it. In particular, 

snowbush (Ceanothus velutinus Dougl. ex Hook.) covered a 

clearcut, in the foreground of the scene. It was perceived as a 

"meadow" by 21 percent of all respondents, and 67 percent of 

those that detected the "meadows" liked them. 

Disliking the partial cuts at Deer Butte may be related to the 

view being "in" the forest. The salvage logged forest at Crestview was seen from 0.6 of a mile (1.0 km) from the top of a 

hill---from "outside" the forest. Seventy percent of the respondents did not detect it, and 64 percent liked the view. Even the 23 

percent who detected it, liked it. Furthermore, partial cuttings 

near Lake Como, with a seen-area of over 90 acres (36 ha), were 

undetected from 2.3 miles (3.7 km) by 88 percent and 69 percent 

liked the view. These percentages suggest that being close enough 

to see distinct edges, individual tree stems widely spaced with 

no understory plants, piled brush, or burned slash may contribute to disliking a view. Such things, seen at Deer Butte, were 

not evident in the scenes for Crestview or Lake Como. 

The plantations, established 20 years ago in the clearcuts at 

Martin Creek, had a seen-area of 24 acres (9.7 ha.). They were 

detected by 76 percent of the people at 2.2 miles, whereas 46 

percent detected them at 3.2 miles (table 7). Respondents 

reported seeing clearcuts or meadows, not new growth, young 

growth, regeneration, plantations, or other indicators of regeneration. Therefore, they saw the subject areas but not as a new 

forest. Only 2 percent recognized the plantations at 2.2 miles, 

which was not surprising because the young trees projected a 

relatively uniform field of green at that distance. Distance 

seemed to influence concern about what was detected. At 2.2 

miles, 43 percent liked the regenerating clearcuts, but 34 percent disliked them at 1 mile. Consequently, the landscape was 

classified as obscure. 

18 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
A

B 

Figure 9-A satellite dish, along La Posta Road (A) from a simulated distance of about 1 mile (1.6 km), was recognized by 

46 percent, and was liked or disliked about equally; and (B) from a simulated distance of 0.6 of a mile (1.0 km), was liked 

by 27 percent and disliked by 22 percent. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 19 
----------- ---------- ---------- ------------- -------------- ---------------

Figure 10-Ninety-four percent of the respondents thought the Deer Butte partial cuts were managed, but they 

may not have understood the management. 

Table 7-Percent of respondents who liked, disliked, or were indifferent to illegible landscapes at specified distances 

L 

Detected1 Identified1 Detection2 

Subject iles L D I L D I L D I 

-------------- ------ ---------------- percent 

Deer Butte partial cuts 0.3 38 3 7 7 2 67 16 

0.5 30 25 6 3 5 2 66 12 77 

0.8 24 20 8 4 4 0 59 8 67 

Martin Creek 1.0 22 34 3 0 0 0 65 0 65 

regeneration 2.2 43 22 8 1 1 0 76 2 78 

3.2 18 21 5 0 1 0 46 1 47 

Sleeping Child thinning 0.2 18 28 10 2 0 1 63 3 67 

0.4 15 34 7 1 2 0 56 3 59 

0.6 10 24 5 0 0 0 39 0 39 

Sisi Butte clearcuts 2.2 37 19 2 4 2 0 60 6 66 

3.0 21 6 2 12 4 2 32 18 49 

5.2 10 6 1 5 1 1 17 8 25 

7.4 13 8 3 12 8 1 27 21 48 

Siskiyou Lake 0.8 41 8 8 3 0 0 58 4 63 

brush clearing 1.6 4 2 1 0 0 0 9 0 9 

Bald Mountain Ski Area 1.8 16 10 1 34 11 7 29 53 82 

2.7 19 2 3 16 9 2 28 28 55 

3.6 16 4 4 27 12 5 24 45 68 

5.2 11 5 1 23 6 6 17 35 52 

7.3 6 0 0 21 1 3 6 25 31 

M

27 83 

1

L = liked. D = disliked. I = indifferent. 2

N = detected, not identified. R = identified. T = combined detection (N plus R). 

20 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Thinnings in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.), which Near Siskiyou Lake, a detection threshold was found for a 

had regenerated after the Sleeping Child Burn of 1961, created 2.4-acre (1.0 ha) brush clearing. It was defined by 58 percent of 

a landscape that viewers may have had difficulty interpreting the respondents at 0.8 of a mile, and the landscape was consid-

(fig. 11). A threshold was defined at about 0.4 of a mile, where ered sensual because 41 percent liked the clearings (table 7). At 

56 percent of the people had detected the thinnings and 34 1.6 miles, 86 percent of the respondents had not detected the 

percent disliked them (table 7). Within that distance, 63 percent clearing, and 74 percent of them liked whatever they saw. 

had detected and 28 percent disliked the thinnings. Based on Unfortunately, some were attracted by buildings in the forethese findings, the landscape was classified as indistinct. Howev- ground, so their attention may not have focused on the clearing. 

er, comments overheard from the audiences, as well as the low The ski runs at Bald Mountain were detected by 52 percent 

amount of identification (3 percent from 0.3 of a mile), suggest of the respondents from over 5 miles, but only 31 percent 

that few people understood what had happened to the landscape. detected them at 7.5 miles (table 7). Furthermore, 34 percent 

A series of parallel clearcuts, near Sisi Butte, were detected liked the ski area, so it was classified as sensual. Bald Mounby 60 percent of the respondents from 2.2 miles, but only 32 tain also had an identification threshold from 1.8 miles where 

percent detected them from 3 miles (table 7). And despite a 13 53 percent of the people knew they were looking at ski runs and 

percent difference in disliking between samples, a majority of nearly all of them liked the scene (table 7). Another identificathose detecting management liked the cuttings (37 percent). tion threshold was located at 3.6 miles because 45 percent of 

Some people thought they were seeing ski runs, but most the respondents knew they saw a ski area. However, the reseemed unaware they were looking at clearcuts. Possibly the spondents proved to be professionals who worked for a natural 

green cast of the cuttings or the visual fuzziness caused by light resource agency---a highly sensitized population that might 

rain, may have created a favorable visual experience for the easily identify a ski area from considerable distance. 

respondents. Regardless, the landscape was classified as sensual. 

Figure 11-Thinning of lodgepole pine regeneration, in the Sleeping Child Burn, created a landscape that was not easily interpreted. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 21 
Despite being detected by 46 percent of the respondents, the 

regenerating clearcuts at Bad News Camp were not detected by 

44 percent of the respondents, and 20 percent did not like 

whatever they saw. Further examination revealed that 32 percent of them did not like snags and 29 percent did not like the 

"sick" trees. The old-growth forest, in the foreground, had been 

severely damaged by insects, so many snags and dead or dying 

trees were evident. Apparently, the dead and dying trees drew 

the attention of many respondents, possibly distracting them 

from the obvious clearcut with its 13-year-old regeneration. 

Not-Detected Landscapes 

Landscapes were classified as not detected when 50 percent 

or more of the respondents failed to detect the target subjects, 

and a threshold was not identified. Twenty of the not detected 

landscapes were liked and classified as vague, while only one 

landscape was disliked or obscure. Essentially, the vast majority of people perceived landscapes as a mosaic of components 

that included lakes, mountains, meadows, hills, rivers, valleys, 

forests, or deserts. The land also may have been seen as various 

patterns, colors, or textures; as arid, dry, or barren; as enclosed 

or expansive; or as smoggy or hazy. Sometimes, roads, trails, 

farms, buildings, mines, timber cuttings, or other human influences may have been mentioned. In those cases, man-made 

objects were not critical elements. 

Some of the landscapes classified as not detected provided 

information that may be useful for management. For example, I 

was surprised to learn that 41 percent of the respondents did not 

report seeing two very large clearcuts (about 150 acres each), 

with 20-year-old regeneration, on Little Guard Peak (fig. 12). 

In general, they liked the scene, particularly the forest stands, 

and some reported seeing meadows, patches, terraces, bare 

areas, burns, and patterns, any of which could have been the 

clearcuts. Only 1 percent identified the regenerating cuts from 

2 miles (3.2 km), and they liked them. Moreover, 52 percent 

detected the cuts, 35 percent liked them, and 12 percent disliked them. One might assume from these findings, that even 

large cuts may be seen favorably, provided they are well stocked 

with young trees giving the site a green look, as was the case 

with the cuttings on Little Guard Peak. 

Figure 12 - The large regenerating clearcuts on Little Guard Peak were detected by only 52 percent of the respondents. Thirty-five percent liked the 

scene, while only 12 percent disliked it. 

22 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Dominant landscape features may divert attention from management action. At Badger Mountain, the seen area of brush 

clearing was 1.2 acres (0.5 ha.). However, it was too small to 

overcome Mount Lassen which commanded attention. Ninetyfive percent of the respondents did not report the clearing, and 

at 2 miles 86 percent saw the mountain. Equally difficult to 

detect was the small fuelbreak at Pinnacles National Monument. Ninety-four percent saw mostly rocks or peaks, and 77 

percent liked the scene. Apparently, very obvious consequences of management may not attract attention, and small consequences seem likely to be overlooked in the presence of visually powerful natural features. 

I could easily detect Timberline Ski Area on Mount Hood 

from about 16 miles (25.7 km) (fig. 13A), yet 88 percent of the 

respondents failed to detect it when portrayed from 2.7 miles (4.3 

km) (fig. 13B). It was seen as a square in a snowfield on the side 

of the mountain. At the nearest distance, 36 percent reported the 

mountain, 15 percent reported snow, and 36 percent saw the 

forest in the foreground. Despite looking directly at the ski area, 

the attraction of the spectacular snow-covered peak, with storm 

clouds swirling around it, seemed to absorb attention without 

revealing the ski runs. Even, the edge, so distinct to a trained 

observer, was not sufficiently clear to attract more than 8 percent 

of the respondents. This is an example of a dominant landscape 

feature capturing human interest and preventing people from 

focusing sufficient attention to detect other landscape elements. 

An active gold mine at Philadelphia Canyon had a seen area 

of 31 acres, yet it was not detected by 79 percent of the 

respondents even at the nearest view distance of 1.6 miles (2.6 

km) (fig. 3D). Most respondents, even those who detected or 

identified the mine, liked what they saw. And, most people, 

including those who had not mentioned the mine and disliked 

the scene, reported seeing natural landscape features. This 

seemed remarkable, because the top of the mountain had been 

removed and tailings spilled down the slopes. The color of the 

tailings may explain why people generally did not see the mining, 

just as color and texture were found to reduce the visibility of 

transmission corridors and towers (Driscoll and others 1976). 

Commonly, mine tailings contrast with surface soils and vegetation. For example, the tailings at Sampson Peak were light gray 

in contrast with the light brown soil and green shrubs, and at 

Goose Peak the light brown tailings contrasted with the green 

forest. However, the tailings at Philadelphia Canyon were multicolored and blended with the surface soils and vegetation. 

The effect was a pleasant scene accepted by the respondents. 

Perception of Management and its 

Quality 

Respondents were asked, for the last nine slides of each show, 

whether they thought the landscapes were managed or unmanaged and to give their opinion about the quality of any management perceived. Opinions on management were limited to the last 

nine slides to minimize bias that might be introduced had the 

questions been included from the beginning. Fifty-nine samples 

of the perception of management and quality were obtained for 

only 32 managed areas, and only 17 of the areas were represented 

by two or more viewing distances (App. E). 

Thirty one managed areas were perceived as having been 

subjected to some degree of management by 55 to 94 percent of 

the people, and 22 of the areas were seen as managed by 70 

percent or more (App. E). Fifty percent or more of them thought 

management was fair to intensive and quality was fair to well 

done for 18 of the areas, but that it was poor to devastating for 3 

of them. One of the managed areas was perceived as managed by less than 50 percent of the respondents; 44 percent 

thought it was managed when they viewed it from 7.5 miles 

(12.1 km). Since the management area was seen across a 

wilderness area, more people may have thought it was managed had they seen it from a shorter distance. Fifty percent or 

more of the respondents thought management intensity was 

low to moderate for 20 of 32 managed areas and that quality 

was fair to well done on 21 of them. All managed sites were 

seen as unmanaged by some people, and all management was 

perceived as devastating by a few people. 

Opinions on Specific Cases 

The road at Frankish Peak was perceived as low management intensity by 54 percent at 2.7 miles, and 55 percent rated 

it fair to well done (table 8). But at 1.4 miles, 45 percent rated 

the intensity as medium to intensive, and quality was rated poor 

by 36 percent and devastating by 14 percent. At 1.4 miles 

timber cuttings and other clearings were "seen" twice as frequently as at 2.7 miles, and the same was true for bare areas. 

This may account for management quality being perceived as 

not very good since many people tend not to like cuttings or 

clearings. However, the perception of timber cuttings is puzzling, because the lower slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains 

do not support timber-southern California simply is not a 

timber producing region. Again, people see what they are 

"programmed" to see; they tend to fill their expectations with 

their own reality. One other condition also may contribute to 

the poor opinion of management quality, especially when we 

consider that people are prone to make esthetic evaluations. 

The view seen from 2.7 miles (fig. 8A) was expansive and more 

attractive than that seen from 1.4 miles (fig. 8B). Esthetic 

evaluations may account for the perception of less manage

ment and good quality at the greater distance. 

Forty-six percent of the respondents thought the landscape 

was managed as they viewed the scene that contained the 

Mount Wilson Observatory and radio towers from 7.5 miles 

(table 8). Twenty-six percent thought the management quality 

was fair and 34 percent thought it well done. This result was 

not surprising, since the view was across the San Gabriel 

Wilderness, and the observatory had not been detected by 94 

percent of the people at that distance. 

Perceptions of management were high for the mines at 

French Creek (79 percent) at 1.3 miles and Lone Tree Creek 

(88 percent) at 6.2 miles (table 8). Also, at the same distances, 

management quality was rated fair to well done by 69 percent 

for French Creek and 74 percent for Lone Tree Creek. At 

French Creek the landscape was seen as managed by 83 percent of the viewers at half a mile, and quality was perceived as 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 23 
A 

B 

Figure 13-Timberline Ski Area on Mount Hood (A) was quickly detected by a trained observer from about 16 miles (25.7 

km), but (B) was not even mentioned by 88 percent of the respondents who saw this simulation from a 2.7 mile (4.3 km) 

viewing distance. 

24 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Table 8-Percent of opinions of whether landscapes containing evidence of various management actions were managed and the quality of the management

Management1 Quality2 

Subject Miles INT MOD VYL TMG UMG NOR WLD FAR POR DVT NOR 

Percent 

Frankish Peak 

fire road 

1.4 

2.7 

17 

5 

28 

12 

34 

54 

80 

71 

8 

22 

12 

7 

6 

19 

26 

36 

36 

21 

14 

6 

19 

19 

Mt. Wilson Observatory 7.5 2 5 39 46 44 11 34 26 6 2 33 

French Creek mines 0.5 16 29 39 83 11 6 9 36 30 15 11 

1.3 4 37 39 79 11 10 23 46 14 1 16 

Lone Tree Creek 1.6 5 4 36 55 32 14 9 30 18 16 28 

mines 6.2 16 47 24 88 6 6 32 42 14 2 10 

Sisi Butte clearcut 2.2 44 24 12 80 9 10 22 22 26 14 16 

3.0 33 38 13 84 8 7 35 32 15 6 12 

5.2 29 18 72 10 18 29 29 12 4 27 

7.4 14 23 84 7 9 23 42 14 2 18 

Mifflin Creek 1.0 29 35 22 86 8 6 38 31 15 2 14 

clearcuts 1.5 4 39 14 68 14 18 29 30 11 6 24 

2.0 24 33 23 80 8 11 38 29 12 3 18 

2.9 11 46 27 84 10 6 32 41 13 1 14 

Martin Creek 1.0 25 5 89 4 7 13 21 38 22 7 

Regenerating cuts 2.2 32 48 13 93 1 6 12 34 44 6 5 

3.2 23 42 15 80 15 5 16 37 33 5 9 

Church Hills, 0.5 9 22 35 66 29 5 14 26 28 8 24 

Wild Goose 1.0 18 22 18 58 28 14 24 27 11 3 34 

juniper clearing 1.4 5 23 32 60 26 14 20 27 16 2 35 

3.3 2 24 31 57 26 18 29 37 6 0 28 

Sardine Falls--- 0.5 9 12 20 42 51 7 44 16 6 0 33 

natural 1.0 15 30 23 68 25 8 45 22 6 0 28 

Cuyamaca Rancho 1.2 21 33 23 76 16 8 26 16 30 12 17 

meadow---natural 1.9 18 19 28 65 27 9 17 26 31 7 20 

2.7 7 15 28 50 37 14 30 23 10 5 32 

1

Management: 2Quality: 

INT = intensively TMG = total management WLD = well done DVT = devastating 

MOD = moderately UMG = unmanaged FAR = fair NOR = no response 

VYL = very little NOR = no response POR = poor 

25 

1

59 

poor to devastating by 45 percent of the people. However, the 

landscape containing the Lone Tree Creek mines, when seen 

from 1.6 miles, was perceived as managed by only 55 percent 

of the respondents, and 32 percent thought the landscape was 

unmanaged. Nevertheless, 34 percent thought the management 

quality was poor to devastating. A possible explanation is that, at 

1.6 miles, bare areas and erosion were disliked and presumed to 

show a lack of management. Yet, at 6.2 miles large farms were 

clearly visible, may have diverted attention from the mines, and 

possibly contributed to a perception of management. While 

farms and mountains were liked by those who had not detected 

the mines, they were not a consideration at 1.6 miles: 

Numbers of Responses 

Perception 1.6 miles 6.2 miles 

Disliked: 

Bare Areas 15 2 

Erosion 12 2 

Liked: 

Farms 0 21 

Mountains 1 23 

The clearcuts at Sisi Butte were seen as moderately to 

intensively managed by 68 percent of the respondents from 2.2 

miles and by 71 percent from 3 miles (table 8). Yet, 67 percent 

thought management was fair to well done from 3 miles, while 

only 44 percent held that opinion when the 10 acre seen-area 

was viewed from 2.2 miles (fig. 14). Furthermore, 19 percent 

of the respondents disliked the clearcuts without being able to 

identify them-some thought they were looking at ski runs. 

The figure shows how the cuttings dominate the scene to 

enhance the perception of poor management. 

Opinions on Regeneration 

A landscape containing two large clearcuts (estimated at 

about 200 acres each), near Mifflin Creek in the Big Hole 

Valley, viewed from 2.9 miles (4.6 km) was perceived as 

moderately managed by 46 percent of the respondents, and fair 

to well done by 73 percent (table 8). When the same landscape 

was seen from 1 mile, only 35 percent thought it moderately 

managed, while 29 percent reported intensive management. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 25 
Figure 14-Sisi Butte clearcuts, from a simulated 2.2 miles (3.5 km), were thought to be intensively managed by a majority of respondents, but the quality 

of management was considered good. A few perceived the cuttings as ski trails. 

Nevertheless, opinions of the quality of management remained 

nearly the same: 73 percent reported fair to well done for 2.9 

miles and 69 percent did so for 1 mile. Furthermore, at 1 mile 

31 percent detected the clearcuts and most liked the view, 

while only 5 percent knew what they were seeing. Some people 

actually thought the cuttings were lakes. 

One goal of the study was to determine if or when regeneration of vegetation would successfully mask the impact of management actions so that identification and then detection would 

no longer be possible. A definitive answer was not revealed by 

the data. Identification thresholds were not identified for regeneration on any sites, but a detection threshold was identified 

for the regenerating clearcuts at Martin Creek (table 5). Only 

23 percent of the respondents thought the Martin Creek site 

was intensively managed when viewed from 3.2 miles, but 59 

percent thought so from 1 mile (table 8). And, quality of 

management was rated poor to devastating by 38 percent from 

3.2 miles, but by 60 percent from 1 mile. Twenty-two percent 

thought it was devastating, but only 5 percent thought that from 

3.2 miles. The difference of opinion for the near and far views 

may be explained by roads and cuttings being seen less frequently at the greater distance: 

26 

Feature seen Respondents who disliked view at ... 

1 mile 2.2 miles 3.2 miles 

Road 23 3 2 

Cuttings 55 54 30 

But the difference also may be related to the more focused 

orientation of the near view. It emphasized the cuttings, but the 

22-year-old regeneration did not project an image of a vigorous, well-stocked stand. 

The 2-year-old juniper clearing on the Church Hills, as seen 

from Wild Goose Canyon, was cleared in irregular patterns to 

give the appearance of a natural, though abrupt, ecotone between trees and grass (fig. 15A). Sixty-seven percent of the 

respondents failed to detect the activity at 1 mile or less. 

Surprisingly, slightly more than 25 percent actually thought the 

area was unmanaged regardless of viewing distance (table 8). 

Most people regarded the management as fair to well done 

regardless of distance, but from half a mile 28 percent thought 

management was poor (fig. 15B). At that distance, clearings, 

cuttings, sparse brush, burns, and bare areas were reported and 

may have contributed to perceptions of poor management. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
A

B 

Figure 15-The Church Hills landscape from Wild Goose Canyon, (A) from a simulated 1.4 miles (2.2 km) was seen as good 

management, and was thought to be unmanaged by 25 percent of the respondents; and (B) from a simulated distance of 

half a mile (0.8 km), was regarded as poor management by 28 percent of the respondents. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 27 
Perceived Management in Natural Areas 

I assumed that if people believed an area was natural, they 

would report it as unmanaged, and either they would not report 

management quality or possibly report "well done." Management was perceived and reported by 50 to 76 percent of the 

respondents for five of the six natural areas when seen at the 

nearest distance sampled (App. E). Most of the areas were not 

perceived as intensively managed. The quality of the "management" was considered fair to well done by more than 50 percent 

of the respondents for only half of the areas at the nearest 

distance. "Fair to well done" was reported in a range from 42 to 

68 percent, and "well done" from only 17 to 46 percent. 

Sardine Falls was the only natural area reported as natural 

by more than 50 percent of the respondents (table 8). Yet, 68 

percent perceived management at 1 mile, but 51 percent thought 

it was unmanaged at half a mile. The quality of management 

was not seen as better or worse regardless of distance. Comparing figures 16A and 16B, the main difference is the broader 

view in figure 16A which emphasizes a meadow with sagebrush, some riparian vegetation, and scattered pines. I assumed the meadow was perceived as management, possibly a 

ranch or maybe the line of the stream was seen as a road. A few 

people even mentioned roads, trails, manipulations, cuttings, 

or bare areas-elements that enhance the image of management. But, further analysis of responses showed that a meadow 

was reported at 1 mile but not at half a mile, mountains and 

forest reports decreased at half a mile, snow remained about the 

same, and waterfall sightings increased dramatically: 

Feature seen Frequency of reports at ... 

0.5 mile 1 mile 

Snow 49 46 

Waterfall 26 2 

Mountains 17 24 

Forest 11 24 

Meadow 0 21 

Since the meadow was not seen at half a mile, where the 

perception of management was much less, it may have been the 

landscape element predominantly responsible for the image of 

management at 1 mile. 

A natural meadow, at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, was the 

only natural site to be rated as devastating management quality 

by over 10 percent of the people. At 2.7 miles, 50 percent of the 

respondents thought it was managed, 53 percent saw the management as fair to well done, and only 5 percent thought it was 

devastating. However, from 1.2 miles, 76 percent said it was 

managed, 30 percent said it was poor, and 12 percent reported it 

was devastating. The increased perception of poor management 

is explained by the more frequent reports of disliked clearings, 

cuttings, bare areas, sparse vegetation, and no regeneration at 

1.2 miles: 31 reports versus only 2 reports at 2.7 miles. 

Implications for Research 

and Management 

The results provide general information for managers, and 

offer opportunities for more intensive research. The research 

results did not, however, provide a means to classify visual 

sensitivity or verify the visual quality objectives of the Visual 

Management System and Visual Resource Management, based 

on the concern people have for the scenic quality of landscapes. 

Managed landscapes can be classified by the visual threshold meaning model according to identification, detection, or 

nondetection by a few visually sensitive people and according 

to whether they liked, disliked, or were indifferent to the perceived components. The study also found that, not only did a 

majority of the respondents perceive management as well done, 

the few who had detected or identified management actions also 

liked what they saw. Thus, 23 of 30 detected actions were liked 

and 8 of 12 identified actions were liked. This result suggests 

that the model might be used to develop an operational classification of public concern for scenic quality. However, additional research would be needed to identify a range of sizes in relation 

to observational distances for any given management action. 

The threshold meaning model proved effective for identifying threshold distances at which a few viewers, possibly sensitized by education and interest, could detect or identify specific 

management actions. Additional research may determine if 

thresholds can be identified for the majority of less sophisticated viewers. Future studies should not emphasize numerous 

management actions, but they should focus on a specific ac

tion, as was done in the Pacific Northwest to determine how the 

visibility of powerlines was influenced by tower type and rightof-way clearing (Driscoll and others 1976). Future studies also 

should be limited to a specific regional landscape, not several 

landscape types. For example, clearcutting might be studied in 

the Douglas-fir forests of Washington and Oregon or the lodgepole pine forests of western Montana. Regardless of the location, people should be shown illustrations of a progressive 

range of cutting sizes and distances as well as stages from 

freshly cut to fully regenerated cuts. A similar approach 

could be taken for mining, vegetation type conversions, ski areas, 

roads, and other man-made visual impacts. 

Despite some limitations, slides or photographs remain an 

acceptable surrogate for the monetarily and logistically restricttive procedure of transporting respondents into landscapes. 

Another concept, visual absorption capability (VAC), which 

is a measure of the capability of landscapes to meet visual 

quality objectives through the ability of various landscape 

components to absorb the visual impact of management actions 

(Anderson and others 1976), could be supported by the development of comprehensive visual thresholds. For example, VAC 

suggests that well defined edges have low absorption capability, because they can be focal points. Certainly, the large per28 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
A

B 

Figure 16-The natural scene at Sardine Falls was (A) thought to be managed when seen from 1 mile (1.6 km); but (B) from 

a simulated half a mile (0.8 km) was correctly perceived as unmanaged by 51 percent of the viewers. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 29 
centage of respondents who reported the cuttings at Martin 

Creek and Sisi Butte as well as the prominent ski runs on Bald 

Mountain were attracted by the prominent cutting edges. And, 

it should be equally clear that the low color contrast between 

the mining overcast and adjacent land was probably responseble for the nearly 80 percent nondetection at Philadelphia 

Canyon. However, until thresholds can be precisely defined for 

specific management actions and regional landscapes, the model 

cannot be used and VAC will suffer that same difficulty as the 

management objectives-it will have no basis in public concern for landscape quality. 

Though the photographic samples were obtained from a 

cross-section of western landscapes and management actions, 

the scale of critical elements was of limited range with regard 

to both size of the elements and the distances from them to the 

observer. Consequently, detection or identification thresholds 

could not be identified for a progression of sizes or distances 

for each critical element sampled. However, the data have 

shown that some viewers were sensitive to management actions, for the sizes and at the distances studied. This result 

suggests that specific thresholds exist, and a few people are 

sensitive to management at the thresholds. 

Most of the people who did not detect or identify the management reported general landscape components such as trees, 

valleys, hills, and mountains. However, managers are well 

advised not to assume respondents did not see the consequences of management. The management may not have been as 

important to them as other objects. Given a change of scale, 

either subject size or distance from the observer to the subject, 

perceptions of the "apparently unobservant" viewers may 

change. If change leads to detection or identification of a 

management action, it may also lead to a positive or negative 

reaction on the part of observers. 

The majority of respondents identified management. Furthermore, most respondents thought the management was fairly good, and they perceived natural areas, in the study, as 

managed. However, people, in general, may use different criteria to evaluate landscapes and management than do trained 

professionals or segments of society sensitized by their particular environmental interests (Sewell 1971). Respondents who 

identified and thought management was good may be like 

people who use developed recreation sites and commonly talk 

about being "in the wilderness." Management may be perceived in very general terms. If developed sites are seen as "in 

the wilderness," then possibly "management" may be perceived on landscapes whether natural or managed. One might 

consider that people from a predominantly urban society are 

usually confronted with management wherever they go. Thus, 

management on wildland areas may be expected and acceptable to city dwellers. 

30 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix A 

Study Locations and Subjects 

Locations Subjects 

Aliso Canyon, Angeles National Forest. Powerlines (area burned 

California in 1979). 

Andrews Experimental Forest, Willamette Regeneration in 17-yearNational Forest, Blue River, Oregon old clearcut planted in 1966; 

hardwoods to the right. 

Apache Canyon, Ventura County, Los Natural canyon with erosion, 

Padres National Forest, California and natural dry river bed 

Avenue of the Giants, Eel River, near Regenerating redwood in 

Miranda, California 25-year-old clearcut on 

private land. 

Bad News Camp, Bitterroot National Regenerating clearcut (13 years) 

Forest, Montana with insects infesting the 

adjacent mature forest. 

Badger Mountain, Lassen National Brush clearing (10 yrs) with 

Forest, California Mount Lassen dominating view. 

Bald Mountain, Sawtooth National Forest, Summer view of ski runs which, 

Sun Valley, Idaho, are easily seen. 

Beaver Creek, Tillamook State Forest, Current cutting and 10- and 15-

Tillamook, Oregon year-old regeneration on other 

cuts. 

Big Prather Meadow, Stanislaus National Cutting for subdivision; cut 

Forest, California shortly before 1971 (12 yrs). 

Black Fox Mountain, Shasta-Trinity Brush clearing on ridge with 

National Forest, California sprayed brush in foreground. 

Black Mountain, Badger Pass, Beaverhead One-year-old clearcuts and 

National Forest, Montana sagebrush in black appearing 

forest 

Black Mountain, Beaverhead National Same as above. 

Forest, Bannack, Montana 

Capitol Hill, Carbon Creek, Idaho Natural forest adjacent to an 

Panhandle National Forests, Idaho area burned in 1908. 

Church Hills, Holden off-ramp, Juniper clearings (2 yrs) for 

Holden, Utah wildlife habitat improvement. 

Church Hills. 1-15, Holden, Utah Juniper clearings (same). 

Church Hills, Wild Goose Canyon, Juniper clearings (same). 

Holden, Utah 

Craters of the Moon National Monument, Natural lava flow; resembles 

Idaho mine tailings seen in Nevada. 

Crestview, U.S. 395, Inyo National Salvage logging (22 yrs) 

Forest, California presents a sparse appearing 

forest when viewed from above. 

Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego Natural meadow surrounded by 

County, California pine/oak forest. 

Death Valley Junction, State Route 190, Parallel mining roads cut 

California through desert brush. 

Deer Butte. McKenzie Ranger District, Partial cuts and clearcuts, 

Willamette National Forest, Oregon regrown to snowbrush (32 years) 

Dry creek, Big Hole Ranch, Beaverhead Clearcut (395 acres) done 5 

National Forest, Montana years ago (1977-78). 

Locations Subjects 

Everett Hill, Mt. Shasta, Shasta Trinity Brush clearing surrounded by 

National Forest, California mixed-conifer forest. 

Frankish Peak, Glendora Ridge Road, 

Angeles National Forest, California 

Fire road and old burn. 

French Creek. Beaverhead National Several abandoned mines with 

Forest, Montana dirt road in foreground. 

Funeral Range, State Route 190, Natural desert mountains 

Death Valley Junction, California (resembles mining). 

Goose Peak and Sunset Peak, Idaho Mines on slope; microwave 

Panhandle National Forest, Idaho and lookout on peaks. 

Haugan Mountain, Lolo National Forest, Seventy-three-year-old regenMontana eration following 1910 fire. 

Horse Mountain, Mendocino National Brush clearing in Round Mt. 

Forest. California burn of 1966 (16 yrs later). 

Kratka Ridge, San Gabriel Wilderness, Building (outside wilderness) 

Angeles National Forest, California appears as long gray rock. 

La Posta Road, San Diego County, Satellite tracking dish at top 

California of chaparral covered hill. 

Lake Como and Tin Cup Creek, Bitterroot Single tree selection cuttings 

National Forest, Montana (600 acres in 60- to 80-acre 

blocks) after 13 years. 

Lick Creek. Bitterroot National Forest, Clearcut 1971, burned 1973, 

Montana planted 1981-82 (60 acres) and 

viewed after 13 years. 

Little Crater Lake Campground, Mount Regenerating clearcut (cut in 

Hood National Forest, Oregon 1969, planted in 1970, and 

now 13-years-old). 

Little Fall Creek, North of Willamett e Twenty-rear-old regeneration 

National Forest, Oregon on a large area having at least 

two age classes. 

Little Guard Peak, Idaho Panhandle Large regenerating clearcuts; 

National Forests, Idaho cut 20 years ago and planted 18 

years ago. 

Lone Tree Creek, White Mountains, Inyo Abandoned gold mine: probably 

National Forest, California active in late 1800’s for gold. 

Lost Creek, Idaho Panhandle National Regeneration after 1910 fire 

Forests, Idaho (73 yrs). 

Mammoth Mountain, Inyo National Forest, Ski area; runs are not easily 

California seen since timber is scattered. 

Martin Creek, Bitterroot National Forest, Regenerating clearcuts (cut 22 

Montana years ago and planted 20 

years ago). 

McIntosh Well, Shasta-Trinity National Pine plantation (20 years) with 

Forest, Bartle, California Mount Shasta in the back 

ground. 

Mendenhall Peak, Angeles National Latticed utility tower seen 

Forest, California on a ridge through smog. 

Mifflin Creek and Jumbo: Mountain, Large clearcuts, done in 

Beaverhead National Forest. Montana 1977-78 (5-yrs-old). 

Moon Pass, Idaho Panhandle National Regeneration on area burned in 

Forests, Idaho 1910 and 1979 and planted in 

1980 (73 years after 1910). 

Mount Saint Helens, Clearwater Creek Salvage logging at Mount Saint 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Helens 3 years after the 

Washington eruption. 

Mount Wilson, Angeles National Forest, Observatory and communication 

California towers seen across wilderness. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 31 
Appendix A, continued 

Locations Subjects 

Oak Grove Butt e , Cl a ckama s Range r Regenerating clearcut (15- to 

District, Mount Hood National Forest, 20-yrs-old and 25 ft tall). 

Oregon

Philadelphia Canyon, south of Battle Active gold mine blends with

Mountain, Nevada surrounding landscape. 

Pickel Meadow, Marine Mountain Buildings at training center.

Warfare Training Center, Sonora Pass,

California 

Pine Creek, Inyo National Forest, Mine tailing ponds in canyon

California with spectacular cliffs.

Pinnacles, National Monument, San fuelbreak below rock as seen.

Benito County. California from park entry road. 

Poleta Creek, Inyo National Forest, Microwave tower and off-road 

Bishop, California vehicle trails.

Reynolds Creek, Bitterroot National Natural forest and mountains.

Forest, Montana 

Sampson Peak, San Benito County, Cinnabar and coal mines 

California abandoned for over 40 years.

Sardine Falls. Sonora Pass. Toiyabe Natural waterfalls, forest,

National Forest, California meadow, and mountains.

Schultz Creek, Beaverhead National Six-year-old burn with trees 

Forest, Montana still standing. 

Silvertip, Clackamas Ranger District. Clearcuts (1 yr) and 

Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon regenerating clearcuts.

Sisi Butte, Clackamas Ranger District, Clearcuts (about 15 yrs) in 

Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon rows that resemble ski runs.

Siskiyou Lake. Mount Shasta City,, Brush cleared and piled in an 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest, California are surrounded by forest.

Locations Subjects 

Sleeping Child Burn, Blue Mountain, Pine regeneration following a 

Bitterroot National Forest, Montana 1961 burn was thinned 7 years 

ago 

Southern Belle Mine, White Mountains, Gold mine abandoned 80 years 

Inyo National Forest, California ago (1910) after operating for 

75 years. 

Steel Creek (upslope), Beaverhead Type conversion completed 7 

National Forest, Wisdom, Montana years ago (fence divides the 

grass from the sagebrush). 

Steel Creek (open), Beaverhead National Eight-year-old type conversion 

Forest, Wisdom, Montana (burn) seen as an open field. 

Stovepipe Wells, Death Valley National Natural dunes and mountains. 

Monument, California. 

Suntop, near Mt. Rainier, Snoqualmie Regenerating Douglas-fir 

National Forest, Washington clearcuts after 30 years. 

Timberline, Mount Hood National Forest, Ski area seen as a square 

Oregon in a snowfield. 

Ward Mountain, Humboldt National Terraces on grass slope to 

Forest, Ely, Nevada control erosion 25 years ago. 

Westside Cemetery, Plumas National Gravestone in a pioneer 

Forest, Calpine-Beckwourth, California cemetery. 

White Mountains, Inyo National Forest, Switchbacking trails to mines 

north of Laws, California above Southern Belle claims. 

Whitman Creek and Sumpter Creek, Clearcuts and shelterwood cuts 

Rogue River National Forest, Oregon (17 yrs) in Douglas-fir. 

Yellowjacket Ridge and Applegate Cuttings (20 yrs) and roads 

Reservoir, Rogue River National Forest, on ridge above a reservoir. 

Oregon 

32 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix B 

Questionnaire 

(Answer blanks for slides 8-27 have been moved from this example questionnaire because they are repetitious.) 

Landscape Assessment Questionnaire O.M.B. Number 0596-0090____ 

Slide Series Number _____________ Expires 12/31/86 ______ 

WHAT DO YOU SEE? 

Please do not write your name on the questionnaire.

You will not be identified with any of your responses. Data from each person

will be combined to provide group results. You will remain anonymous. 

Please ignore the numbers in parentheses; they will be used to code answers. 

Part I: Personal Background 

1. Please check the category that most nearly identifies your occupation. 

Retired or unemployed ................................ [ ] (1)

Professional and technical ........................... [ ] (2)

Managers, officials, and proprietors ................. [ ] (3)

Clerical workers ..................................... [ ] (4)

Sales workers ........................................ [ ] (5)

Craftsmen and foremen ................................ [ ] (6)

Operatives (drivers, deliverymen, etc.) .............. [ ] (7)

Laborers ............................................. [ ] (8)

Service workers (waiters, cooks, bartenders, etc.) ... [ ] (9) 

2. If your employment is directly concerned with natural resources (forests,

water, minerals, etc.), please check this box. [ ] 

3. What is your age? 4. What is your sex? 

15-24 years ............ [ ] (1) Female .....[ ] (1)

25-34 years ............ [ ] (2)

35-44 years ............ [ ] (3) Male ...... [ ] (2)

45-54 years ............ [ ] (4)

55-

64 years ............. [ ] (5)

65 years and over ...... [ ] (6)

5. Where do you live now?

Metropolitan area:

In central city ....... [ ] (1) State 

In suburbs ............ [ ] (2)

Outside metropolitan area.... [ ] (3) How long? years 

6. Where did you live most of your life?

Metropolitan area:

In central city ....... [ ] (1) State 

In suburbs ............ [ ] (2)

Outside metropolitan area.... [ ] (3) How long? years 

continued 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 33 
Appendix B, continued 

7. What was your total family income before taxes during the past year? (Your

name is not on the questionnaire; your answer will be anonymous.) 

Less than $5,000 ........ [ ] (1)

$5,000 to $9,999 .......[ ] (2)

$10,000 to $14,999 ...... [ ] (3)

$15,000 to $19,999 ...... [ ] (4)

$20,000 to $24,999 ..... [ ] (5)

$25,000 to $34,999 ..... [ ] (6)

$35,000 to $49,999 ..... [ ] (7)

$50,000 and over ....... [ ] (8) 

8. What is the highest level of school you have completed? 

Elementary school: 

Less than 8 years .. [ ] (1)

8 years ............ [ ] (2)

High school: 

1-3 years ......... [ ] (3)

4 years ............ [ ] (4)

College: 

1-3 years ......... [ ] (5)

4 years ........... [ ] (6)

Over 4 years ...... [ ] (7) 

9. Please list your membership in any professional or nonprofessional clubs, 

societies, or associations that are concerned with the conservation, management, 

or preservation of our natural resources (forests, ranges, water, minerals, air,

wilderness, or scenic). 

a)___________________________________________________________________ 

b)___________________________________________________________________ 

c) ___________________________________________________________________ 

d)___________________________________________________________________ 

10. Please look at the following list of outdoor recreational activities and 

check those in which you actively participate on natural resource areas 

(forests, rangelands, or deserts): 

Fishing........ [ ] (1)

Hiking......... [ ] (2)

Camping........ [ ] (3)

Picnicing...... [ ] (4)

Sight seeing... [ ] (5)

Nature study. .. [ ] (6)

ORV use ....... [ ] (7) 

Hunting ............[ ] (8)

Skiing ..............[ ] (9)

Climbing ............[ ] (10)

Boating .............[ ] (11)

Swimming ............[ ] (12)

Horseback riding .... [ ] (13)

Photography, art.... [ ] (14) 

continued 

34 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix B, continued 

Part II: Landscape Assessment Responses

Answer for each slide: 

Briefly describe, in order of importance to you, the two objects that 

attracted your attention in the picture, and indicate for each object 

whether you like it, dislike it, or are indifferent (Indf.) about it. 

Slide No. 1 

Describe What Attracted you. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

Slide No. 2 

Describe What Attracted You. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

Slide No. 3 

Describe What Attracted you. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ]

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

Slide No. 4 

Describe What Attracted You. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

Slide No. 5 

Describe What Attracted You. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________[ ] [ ] [ ] 

Slide No. 6 

Describe What Attracted You. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

Slide No. 7 Describe What Attracted you. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

continued 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 35 
Appendix B, continued 

Part III: Landscape Perception Responses 

Answer for each slide: 

a) Briefly describe, in order of importance to you, the two objects that 

attracted your attention in the picture, and indicate for each object 

whether you like it, dislike it, or are indifferent (Indf.) about it. 

b) In your opinion, has the landscape been managed (e.g., subject to timber 

harvesting, grazing, mining, or other uses), and what is your opinion of 

the quality of management: 

Slide No. 28 

a) Describe What Attracted You. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) ______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) ________________________________________________[ ] [ ] [ ] 

b) Management Intensity

Quality Managed:

Intensively. [ ] (1)

Moderately .. [ ] (2)

Very little . [ ] (3)

Unmanaged ..... [ ] (4) 

Slide No. 29 

a) Describe What Attracted You. 

Management 

Well-done ..... [ ] (1)

Fair .......... [ ] (2)

Poor .......... [ ] (3)

Devastating ...[ ] (4) 

Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1)_______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

b) Management Intensity

Quality Managed:

Intensively . [ ] (1)

Moderately .. [ ] (2)

Very little . [ ] (3)

Unmanaged ..... [ ] (4) 

Slide No. 30 

Management 

Well-done ..... [ ] (1)

Fair .......... [ ] (2)

Poor .......... [ ] (3)

Devastating ... [ ] (4) 

a) Describe What Attracted You. Like Dislike Indf. 

(1) (2) (3)

1) ______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

2) _______________________________________________ [ ] [ ] [ ] 

b) Management Intensity Management 

Quality Managed:

Intensively . [ ] (1) Well-done.... [ ] (1)

Moderately .. [ ] (2) Fair......... [ ] (2)

Very little . [ ] (3) Poor......... [ ] (3)

Unmanaged ..... [ ] (4) Devastating.. [ ] (4) 

That completes the assessments. Thank you very much for your 

participation. 

36 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix C 

Social Characteristics of 

Respondents 

Personal Characteristics 

Occupation percent (n) Gross Family Income percent (n) 

Retired/unemployed 29.0 (227) Less than 5,000 .7 (20) 

Professional/technical 40.9 (320) 5,000 - 9,999 .4 (33) 

Manager/official/owner .3 (73 ) 10,000 - 14,999 6.4 (48) 

Clerical workers 5.7 (4 5) 15,000 - 19,999 5.5 ( 4 1 ) 

Sales workers 2.7 (21) 20,000 - 24,999 8.3 (62) 

Craftsmen/foremen 7.5 (59) 25,000 - 34,999 19.8 (148) 

Operatives/delivery .0 ( 8 ) 35,000 - 49,999 23.9 (178) 

Laborers 2.6 (20) 50,000 and over 29.0 (216) 

Service workers 1.3 (10) 

Totals 100.0 (746) 

Totals 100.0 (783) 

Education 

Occupation Related to

Natural Resources 

percent (n) Elementary school 

percent (n) 

Under 8 years 1.2 ( 9 ) 

Yes 24.7 (194) 8 years 0.6 ( 5 ) 

No 75.3 (592) High school 

l to 3 years 5.0 (3 9) 

Totals 100.0 (786) 4 years 3.3 (104) 

College 

1 to 3 years 30.0 234) 

Age of Respondents percent (n) 4 years 11.7 ( 9 1 ) 

Over 4 years 38.3 (299) 

Under 15 1.0 ( 8) 

15 to 24 8.7 (68) Totals 100.1 (781) 

25 to 34 18.5 (145) 

35 to 44 22.8 (179) 

45 to 54 20.2 (158) Frequency of Wildland 

55 to 64 14.7 (115) Recreation Activity percent (n) 

Over 65 14.2 (111) 

None 1.9 (15) 

Totals 100.1 (784) Low (1-2 activities) .4 (73 ) 

Moderate (3-5) 36.8 (286) 

High (6-10) 45.0 (350) 

Sex of Respondents percent (n) Very high (over 10) 6.9 (5 4 ) 

Female 39.5 (305) Totals 100.0 778) 

Male 60.5 (468) 

Totals 100.0 (773) 

2

4

9

1

(

9

(

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 37 
Appendix C, continued 

Location Lived in 

Most of Life percent (n) 

Central city 18.5 (144) 

Suburbs 58.2 (452) 

Outside city 21.9 (170) 

City and suburbs 0.4 ( 3) 

Suburbs and outside 0.8 ( 6 ) 

All locations 0.3 ( 2 ) 

Location of Current 

Residence percent (n) 

Central city 17.3 (135) 

Suburbs 59.7 (466) 

Outside city 22.4 (175) 

City and suburbs 0.0 ( 0 ) 

Suburbs and outside 0.4 ( 3 ) 

All locations 0.3 ( 2 ) 

Total 1 (781) Total 100.1 (777) 

Region of Current Region Lived in 

Residence rcent (n Most of Life percent (n) 

Several regions 0.3 ( 2) Several regions 0.7 ( 5 ) 

Pacific coast 96.4 (744) Pacific coast 77.2 (584) 

Pacific interior 1.7 ( 13) Pacific interior 3.3 ( 25) 

Central .4 ( 3) Central 8.2 (62) 

Northeast 5 ( 4 ) Northeast 7.3 (5 5) 

Southeast 0.1 ( 1) Southeast 0.5 ( 4 ) 

South 0.1 ( 1) South 0.5 ( 4) 

Canada 0.3 ( 2) Canada 0.7 ( 5) 

Other foreign 0.3 ( 2 ) Other foreign 1.6 ( 12) 

Total 100.1 (772) Total 100.0 (756) 

Time Lived at Time Where Lived 

Current Residence percent (n) Most of Life percent (n) 

Less than 2 years 6.8 (52) Less than 2 years 0.0 ( 0) 

2 to 5 years 10.4 ( 8 0 ) 2 to 5 years 0.3 ( 2) 

6 to 10 years 13.0 (100) 6 to 10 years 3.0 ( 23 ) 

11 to 20 years 20.9 (161) 11 to 20 years 19.0 (145) 

21 to 30 years 17.7 (136) 21 to 30 years 29.5 (225) 

More than 30 years 31.3 (241) More than 30 years 48.2 (367) 

Total 100.1 (770) Total 100.0 (762) 

100.

pe

0

0.

Types of Groups Sampled 

Government agencies (natural resource) 

Professional societies (natural resource) 

Conservation organizations (cause oriented, e.g., Sierra

Club, Wilderness Society, Audubon Society, etc.) 

Conservation organizations (activity oriented, e.g., 

ORV clubs, hunting and fishing clubs, etc.) 

General public (shows at visitor center, others) 

Industrial organizations (natural resource) 

Miscellaneous organizations (PTA, garden clubs, bicycle 

clubs, service clubs, etc.) 

College students (natural resource) 

College students (other) 

percent (n) 

11.1 (87) 

8.3 (65) 

12.3 (97) 

23.0 (181) 

15.1 (119) 

3.2 (25) 

22.4 (176) 

3.2 (25) 

1.4 ( 11) 

Total 100.0 (786) 

continued 

38 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix C, continued 

Organizational Affiliation by Society Groups

Each of 788 respondents could specify membership in 1 to 4 organizations 

Respondents 

Professional Groups: percent (n) 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 0.5 (4) 

American Fisheries Society 2.5 (20) 

American Forestry Association 0.6 (5) 

American Museum of Natural History 0.1 (1) 

American Society of Landscape Architects 1.4 (11) 

American Sociology Association 0.1 (1) 

Association of Interpretive Naturalists 0.3 (2) 

Association of National Park Rangers 0.3 (2) 

Canadian Entomological Society 0.4 (3) 

Canadian Institute of Forestry 0.3 (2) 

Ecological Society of America 0.5 (4) 

Engineers, all 0.3 (2) 

Entomological Society of America 0.5 (4) 

International Society of Arboriculture 0.3 (2) 

International Union Forestry Research Organizations 0.1 (1) 

Licensed foresters, landscape architects, etc. 0.1 (1) 

Miscellaneous professional societies 1.5 (12) 

Park Ranger Association of California 0.1 (1) 

Society of American Foresters 2.4 (19) 

Soc. Range Management 0.1 (1) 

Soil Conservation Society of America 0.1 ( 1) 

Surveying societies (national, state, local) 0.1 ( 1) 

The Wildlife Society 1.3 (10) 

Western Interpreters Association 0.3 (2) 

Total Responses for Professional Groups 9.9 (112) 

Group of Ten: 

Environmental Defense Fund 0.3 (2) 

Environmental Policy Institute 0.0 (0) 

Friends of the Earth 0.6 (5) 

National Audubon Society 6.3 ( 5 0 ) 

National Parks & Conservation Association 0.3 (2) 

National Wildlife Federation 2.9 ( 2 3 ) 

Natural Resources Defense Council 0.6 (5) 

Sierra Club 15.6 (123) 

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 0.0 (0) 

The Wilderness Society 3.1 ( 2 4 ) 

Total Responses for the Group of Ten 20.6 (234) 

Other Conservation Groups: 

Earth First 0.3 (2) 

Greenpeace 0.8 (6) 

National Geographic Society 0.6 (5) 

National Recreation and Park Association 0.4 (3) 

Smithsonian Institution 0.1 (1) 

The Cousteau Society 0.9 (7) 

The Nature Conservancy 4.7 ( 3 7 ) 

California Native Plant Society 0.6 (5) 

California Park and Recreation Society 1.3 (10) 

California Wildlife Federation 2.4 (19) 

Environmentally oriented groups 12.6 (99) 

Local conservation groups 9.6 ( 7 6 ) 

Planning & Conservation League 0.1 (1) 

Save-the-Redwoods League 0.1 (1) 

California Conservation Corps 1.4 (11) 

Total Responses for Other Conservation Groups 25.0 283) 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 39 
Appendix C, continued 

Organizational Affiliation by Society Groups (continued) 

Sportsmens Groups: 

California Striped Bass Association 

California Trout 

California Waterfowl Association 

Ducks Unlimited 

National Rifle Association

Off Road Vehicle Clubs

Sportsmens Clubs (hunting, fishing, etc.)

Trout Unlimited 

Total Responses for Sportsmens Groups 

Industrial Groups: 

Assoc. concerning signs, billboards, etc. 

Mining, in general 

National Forest Products Association

Utilities (water, power, etc.) 

Various logging associations

Western Timber Association

Total Responses for Industrial Groups 

Responses for Miscellaneous Groups 

Total Responses for the Affiliated 

Total Responses for the Unaffiliated 

Total Responses 

Unaffiliated Respondents 

Respondents that Belonged to 1 to 4 Groups 

Total Respondents 

Number of Responses 

Percent Responses =------------------ ---------------------x 100 

1134 

Number of Respondents 

Percent Responses = ----------------- ---------------------x 100 

788 

Respondents 

percent (n) 

0.1 (1) 

1.0 (8) 

0.6 (5) 

1.8 (14) 

1.4 (11) 

6.2 (49) 

10.4 (82) 

0.3 (2) 

15.2 (172) 

percent (n) 

0.1 (1) 

0.3 (2) 

0.1 (1) 

0.1 (1) 

2.2 (17) 

0.1 (1) 

2.0 (23) 

0.2 (2) 

72.9 (826) 

27.2 (308) 

100.1 (1134) 

39.1 (308) 

60.9 (480) 

100.0 (788) 

40 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix D 

Visual Threshold Meaning Model 

Critical components are arranged in decreasing percentages Center if liked. * signifies components for which a seen deterup from the center if they were disliked, and down from the mination was not calculated because the component filled most 

of the view. 

NOT DETECTED: DETECTED: IDENTIFIED: (other than critical (critical element (critical element 

element seen) seen, not identified) identified) 

OBSCURE (dislike) INDISTINCT (dislike) UNACCEPTABLE 

Clearcut 

2.9 acres (1.2 ha)

23-12 percent (combined)

0.9-1.3 mi (1.4-2.1 km)

Beaver Creek 

Sanitation cuts 

* 

23-02 percent 

2.4-6.7 mi (3.9-10.8 km)

Mount Saint Helens 

Regenerating clearcuts

4.5 acres (1.8 ha)

46-26 percent 

0.8-1.3 mi (1.3-2.1 km)

Bad News Camp 

Brush clearing Abandoned mines 6.4 acres (2.6 ha) 2.0 acres (0.8 ha) 47-21 percent 24-0.3 percent 

1.5-2.1 mi (2.4-3.4 km) 0.5-0.8 mi (0.8-1.3 km) Horse Mountain French Creek 

Thinning Observatory 13 ft (4.0 m) 0.8 acre (0.3 ha) 56-39 percent 25-10 percent

0.4-0.6 mi (0.6-0.9 km) 3.2-4.7 mi (5.1-7.6 km) Sleeping Child Mount Wilson 

Regenerating clearcuts Fire road

23.6 acres (9.6 ha) 1370 ft (418 mi) 76-46 percent 39-29 percent

2.2-3.2 mi (3.5-5.1 km) 1.9-2.7 mi (3.0 4.3 km) Martin Creek Frankish Peak 

Regeneration Partial cuts Utility tower 

* * 97 ft (30 m)

60 percent nondetect 77-67 percent (combined) 59-18 percent 

1.7 mi (2.7 km) 0.5-0.8 mi (0.8-1.3 km) 0.6-1.1 mi (0.9-1.8 km Moon Pass Deer Butte Mendenhall Peak 

OBSCURE (dislike) INDISTINCT (dislike) UNACCEPTABLE 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 41 
Appendix D, continued 

NOT DETE CTED: DETECTED: IDENTIFIED: 

(other than critical (critical element (critical element 

ele ment seen) seen, not identified) identified) 

VAGUE (like) S E N S U A L (like) P URP OS EFU L 

Brush clearing Clearcuts 

1.2 acres (o.5 ha) 10.1 acres (4.1 ha) 

95 percent nondetect 60-32 percent 

2.0 mi (3.2 KM) 2.2-3.0 mi (3.5-4.8 km) 

Badger Mtn/Lassen Sisi Butte 

Fuelbreak Brush clearing 

0.02 acre (0.008 ha) 2.4 acres (1.0 ha) 

94 percent nondetect 58-09 percent 

0.6 mi (1.0 km) 0.8-1.6 mi (1.3-2.6 km) 

Pinnacles Siskiyou Lake 

Powerlines 

1130 ft (344 m)

48-15 percent 

0.9-1.3 mi (1.4-2.1 km)

Aliso Canyon 

Satellite dish 

97 ft (30 m)

46-18 percent 

1.1-2.2 mi (1.8-2.2 km)

La Posta Road 

Microwave tower Ski Area Headstones 

155 ft (471 m) 2.9 acres (1.2 ha) 0.06 acre (0.02ha) 

94 percent nondetect 52-31 percent (combined) 43-02 percent 

1.0 mi (1.6 km)) 5.2-7.3 mi (8.4-11.7 km) 0.2-0.3 mi (0.3-0.5 km)

Poleta Creek Bald Mountain Westside Cemetery 

Clearcuts Bum

0.7 acre (0.3 ha) 4.3 acres (1.7 ha)

92 percent nondetect 45-19 percent 

2.2 mi (3.5 km) 1.6-2.6 mi (2.6-4.2 km)

Black Mtn/Bannack Schultz Creek 

Regeneration Trails 

* 1159 ft (353 m) 

90 percent nondetect 39-06 percent (combined)

1.0 ml (1.6 km) 2.2-3.2 mi (3.5-5.1 km)

Haugan Mountain White Mountains 

Brush, Clearing Regenerating clearcut 

* 35.0 acres (14.2 ha) 

89 percent nondetect 36-10 percent 

0.3 mi (0.5 km) 1.0-2.0 mi (1.6-3.2 km) 

Steel Creek open Ave. of the Giants 

Abandon mines Subdivision clearing 

1.1 acre (o.4 ha)) 8.4 acres (3.4 ha) 

89 percent nondetect 33-12 percent 

1.6 mi (2.6 km) 1.0-1.8 mi (1.6-2.9 km) 

Sampson Peak Prather Meadow 

Partial Cuttings Clearcuts 

91.0 acre (36.8 ha) 2.3 acres (0.9 ha)

88 percent nondetect 31-13 percent 

2.3 mi (3.7 km) 1.0- 1.5 mi (1.6-2.4 km)

Lake Como Mifflin Creek 

Regeneration 

25.0 acres (10.1 ha)

41-19 percent 

3.6-5.1 mi (0.8-2.2 km)

Silvertip/Clackamas 

Clearcut 

0.6 acre (0.2 ha)

34-12 percent 

0.5-1.4 mil (0.8-22 km) 

Lick Creek 

Buildings 

1.4 acres (0.6 ha)

25-08 percent 

1.3-2.4 mi (2.1-3.9 km)

Pickel Meadow 

Cuttings and roads

4.6 acres (1.9 ha)

24-06 percent 

3.2-4.8 mi (5.1-7.7 km)

Yellowjacket Ridge 

Brush clearing

7.1 acres (2.9 ha)

16-03 percent 

0.9-1.3 mi (1.4-2.1 km)

Everitt Hill 

Ski area (square) Abandoned mines 

11.7 acres (4.7 ha) 3.6 acres (1.5 ha) 

88 percent nondetect 29-11 percent (combined) 

2.7 mi (4.3 km) 1.6-2.7 mi (2.6-4.3 km) 

Timberline Lone Tree Creek 

VAGUE (like) SENSUAL (like) PURPOSEFUL 

42 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix D, continued 

NOT DETECTED: DETECTED: IDENTIFIED: 

(other than critical (critical element (critical element 

element seen) seen, not identified) identified) 

VAGUE (like) SENSUAL (like) PURPOSEFUL 

Regenerating clearcut Clearcut 

1.2 acres (0.5 ha)

88 percent nondetect 

0.3 m9i (0.5 km) 

Little Crater Lake 

4.0 acres (1.6 ha) 

27-10 percent (combined) 

0.7-1.4 mi (1.1-2.2 km) 

Dry Creek 

Brush clearing Juniper clearing 

* * 

87 percent nondetect 27-11 percent 

0.3 mi (0.5 km) 1.2-2.0 mi (1.9-3.2 km) 

Steel Creek upslope Church Hills/I-15 

Clearcuts Regeneration 

0.5 acre (1 2 ha) * 

87 percent nondetect 26-16 percent 

1.6 mi (2.6 km) 0.2-0.5 mi (0.3-0.8 km) 

Black Mtn/Badger Oak Grove/Clackamas 

Building 

0.03 acre (0.01 ha) 

85 percent nondetect 

0.8 mi (1. 3 km) 

Regeneration 

3.6 acres (1.4 ha) 

25-02 percent 

1.5-2.1 mi (2.4-3.4 km) 

Kratka Ridge Suntop 

Regeneration 

* 

Juniper clearing 

* 

83 percent nondetect 

0,9 mi (1.4 km) 

Lost Creek 

22-10 percent (combined) 

1.0-1.4 mi (1.6-2.2 km) 

Church Hills/WG. 

Clearcuts 

6.5 acres (2.6 ha)

80 percent nondetect 

3.1 mi (5.0 km)

Whitman Creek 

Abandoned mines 

0.7 acre (0.3 ha) 

21-04 percent (combined) 

1.7-2.8 mi (2.7-4.5 km) 

Southern Belle 

Ski area Mine tailings 

0.6 acres (0.2 ha) 0.8 acre (0.3 ha) 

78 percent nondetect 19-01 percent 

1.8 mi (2.9 km) 0.5-1.0 mi (0.8-1.6 km) 

Mammoth Mountain Pine Creek 

Terracing Parallel roads 

2.5 acres (1.0 ha) 360 ft (110 m)

76 percent nondetect 18-05 percent 

1.1 mi (1.8 km) 1.8-2.2 mi (2.9-3.5 km) Ward Mountain Death Valley Jet. 

Partial Cuttings Mines 

* 2.2 acres (0.9 ha) 

70 percent nondetect 18-08 percent (combined) 

0.6 mi (1.0 km) 3.6-5.0 mi (5.8-8.0 km) 

Crestview Goose Peak 

Plantation Juniper clearing 

3.6 acres (1.5 ha) * 

64 percent nondetect 17-06 percent (combined)

1.0 mi (1.6 km) 2.0-3.3 mi (3.2-5.3 km)

McIntosh Well Church Hills/Holden 

VAGUE (like) SENSUAL (like) PURPOSEFUL 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 43 
Appendix D, continued 

NOT DETECTED: DETECTED: IDENTIFIED: (other than critical 

element seen) 

(critical element 

seen, not identified) (critical element 

identified) 

VAGUE (like) SENSUAL (like) PURPOSEFUL 

Regenerating clearcuts

3.5 acres (1.4 ha)

47 percent nondetect 

0.6 mi (1.0 km)

Andrews Exp. Forest 

Active mining

30.0 acres (12.1 ha)

16-06 percent (combined)

1.6-2.0 mi (2.6-3.2 km)

Philadelphia Canyon 

Regeneration 

* 

13-01 percent 

0.8-1.2 mi (1.3-1.9 km)

Little Fall Creek 

Brush clearing

4.5 acres (1.8 ha)

12-0 percent (combined)

3.9-6.5 mi (6.3-10.5 km)

Black Fox Mtn.

Regenerating clearcuts

* (no threshold)

53 percent (combined detection) 

2.0 mi (3.2 km)

Little Guard 

VAGUE (like) SENSUAL (like) PURPOSEFUL 

NOT DETECTED: DETECTED: IDENTIFIED: (other than critical (critical element (critical element 

element seen) seen, not identified) identified) 

44 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Appendix E 

Respondents' Opinions of

Management and Quality 

The following table lists opinions of respondents, in percent, about whether landscapes are managed or not, and the 

Management: Quality: 

I = intensively W = well done 

M = moderately F = fair

L = very little P = poor

T = total management D = devastating 

U = unmanaged R = no response 

R = no response 

quality of any management detected for various management 

activities and natural landscapes. Symbols indicate the following:

Management Quality Subject Miles I M L T U R W F P D R 

Various management actions 

Mammoth Ski Area 1.8 9 18 24 60 22 16 47 16 7 3 26 

3.0 10 35 21 67 24 11 38 28 11 2 21 

La Posta Satellite dish 1.1 13 37 34 84 13 3 14 37 35 6 8 

Westside Cemetery 0.2 9 39 41 89 8 3 21 47 18 3 10 

Death Valley roads 1.8 10 27 28 65 24 11 19 31 19 3 28 

Frankish Road 1.4 17 28 34 80 8 12 6 26 36 14 19 

2.7 5 12 54 71 22 7 19 36 21 6 19 

White Mountains trail 2.2 8 18 43 68 23 9 17 36 14 15 19 

Mt. Wilson Observatory 7.5 2 5 39 46 44 11 34 26 6 2 33 

Schultz Creek bum 1.6 26 48 14 87 6 7 10 43 30 10 8 

Mining 

French Creek mines 0.5 16 29 39 83 11 6 9 36 30 15 11 

1.3 4 37 39 79 11 10 23 36 14 1 16 

Lone Tree Creek mines 1.6 5 14 36 55 32 14 9 30 18 16 28 

6.2 16 47 24 88 6 6 32 42 14 2 10 

Sampson Peak mines 3.2 9 25 29 62 22 16 23 30 16 1 30 

Pine Creek tailings 0.5 10 29 26 64 24 11 31 32 7 7 23 

Goose Peak mines 1.2 20 29 30 78 14 8 28 39 8 7 18 

2.5 8 44 23 75 8 16 27 42 8 0 23 

Southern Belle mines 0.4 14 16 27 58 24 19 8 25 26 13 28 

1.7 5 31 28 63 24 13 14 41 10 2 32 

Timber harvesting 

Sisi Butte clearcuts 2.2 44 24 12 80 9 10 22 22 26 14 16 

3.0 33 38 13 84 8 7 35 32 15 6 12 

5.2 25 29 18 72 10 18 29 29 12 4 27 

7.4 14 47 23 84 7 9 23 42 14 2 18 

Lick Creek clearcut 0.5 17 49 24 90 1 9 24 39 24 3 9 

1.4 15 31 24 70 24 6 39 26 10 5 20 

Beaver Creek clearcut 0.9 26 45 21 93 4 3 21 44 22 6 6 

Black Mountain 2.9 26 24 25 74 18 8 28 24 19 15 15 

Bannack clearcut 

continued 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 45 
Appendix E, continued 

Subject Miles I M 

Management 

L T U 

Quality 

R W F P D R 

Timber harvesting, continued 

Mifflin Creek 1.0 29 35 22 86 8 6 38 31 15 2 14 

clearcuts 1.5 14 39 14 68 14 18 29 30 11 5 24 

2.0 24 33 23 80 8 11 38 29 12 3 18 

2.9 11 46 27 84 10 6 32 41 13 1 14 

Whitman Creek 3.1 21 18 35 74 17 9 50 21 6 2 20 

cuttings 5.2 16 33 33 82 8 10 35 37 11 0 17 

7.4 4 41 32 78 8 14 31 42 3 1 22 

Deer Butte partial 0.3 61 21 12 94 1 5 13 22 46 15 5 

cuttings 0.5 48 16 17 82 9 9 14 28 28 18 13 

0.8 31 29 17 76 7 16 16 23 28 13 21 

Sleeping Child thinning 0.2 63 17 7 87 7 7 21 31 22 18 8 

Forest regeneration 

Martin Creek 1.0 59 25 5 89 4 7 13 21 38 22 7 

regenerating cuts 2.2 32 48 13 93 1 6 12 34 44 6 5 

3.2 23 42 15 80 15 5 16 37 33 5 9 

Avenue of the Giants 1.0 20 32 23 74 15 11 31 27 26 4 13 

regeneration 

Bad News Camp 0.8 24 33 16 74 20 7 9 38 25 12 16 

regenerating cuts 1.3 26 35 18 79 13 8 34 30 19 5 12 

Lost Creek fire 0.9 15 18 29 61 24 15 41 14 15 1 30 

regeneration 1.5 25 43 17 85 3 12 49 26 9 0 17 

Moon Pass regeneration 1.7 32 45 15 91 2 7 10 45 36 3 7 

Range type conversions 

Horse Mountain 1.5 34 38 17 90 1 9 13 28 38 14 8 

brush clearing 2.1 16 37 24 77 7 16 19 30 28 3 21 

3.0 21 23 26 70 19 11 10 22 38 8 22 

Everitt brush clearing 1.3 13 52 19 84 3 13 20 46 19 2 13 

Church Hills/Wild 0.5 9 22 35 66 29 5 14 26 28 8 24 

Goose juniper clearing 1.0 18 22 18 58 28 14 24 27 11 3 34 

1.4 5 23 32 60 26 14 20 27 16 2 35 

3.3 2 24 31 57 26 18 29 37 6 0 28 

Church Hills/Holden 2.0 33 31 10 73 14 13 16 31 27 8 19 

juniper clearing 3.3 38 33 13 84 5 12 31 47 10 0 12 

Steel Creek/up slope 1.0 14 42 22 78 10 11 30 32 16 1 21 

clearing 

Natural landscapes (unmanaged) 

Apache Canyon dry 2.1 9 24 31 76 24 12 17 32 18 3 30 

river 11 29 27 67 21 12 33 25 11 3 28 

7.1 7 28 38 72 19 9 33 29 19 2 17 

Sardine Falls 0.5 9 12 20 42 51 7 44 16 6 0 33 

1.0 15 30 23 68 25 8 45 22 6 0 28 

Reynolds Creek 0.3 14 28 17 59 28 13 31 22 13 0 33 

forest 0.6 21 33 14 68 26 6 46 22 5 2 24 

Apache Canyon erosion 1.6 10 23 28 60 31 9 30 21 24 6 20 

Craters of Moon 0.5 6 13 32 50 40 9 22 24 14 7 33 

lava flow 1.0 2 11 32 45 36 19 19 24 22 2 34 

Cuyamaca Rancho 1.2 21 33 23 76 16 8 26 16 30 12 17 

meadow 1.9 18 19 28 65 27 9 17 26 31 7 20 

2.7 7 15 28 50 37 14 30 23 10 5 32 

46 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
Glossary 

The following are model terms used to describe landscapes: 

Censorable 

Defines landscapes that are sufficiently legible to evoke negative 

emotional reactions on the part of observers who dislike what they 

see; observers might write letters condemning the actions seen. 

Chaotic 

Used to describe the condition when people find a landscape to be 

illegible (cannot assign a meaning to it) and they dislike it (Lee 1976); 

wholly confused or disordered perceptions; see indistinct. 

Commendable 

Defines landscapes that are sufficiently legible to evoke positive 

emotional reactions on the part of observers who like what is seen; 

observers might write letters praising the actions seen. 

Critical elements 

Objects in landscapes (natural or man-made) which, for whatever 

reason, attract an observer's attention. In this study, critical elements 

were any natural landscape component of an unmanaged (natural) 

landscape and objects or actions in a managed landscape such as timber 

harvesting, mining, roads, or buildings that were important to an observer. 

Indistinct 

As with chaotic, describes landscapes that are illegible to observers, that is, they detect critical elements but can not identify them and 

do not like the scene; not clearly marked or defined; not clearly 

distinguishable or perceptible to observers; preferred for use in the 

Threshold Meaning Model because it is more descriptive of observer 

perceptions than is "chaotic." 

Legibility 

A concept, originally defined for cities, referring to the ease with 

which inhabitants recognized city parts and organized them into coherent patterns (Lynch 1960); used herein to describe the meaning or 

what people can decipher about a landscape by observing its features 

(Lee 1976). Landscapes may be legible or illegible. 

Obscure 

Defines landscapes that are disliked and illegible to observers. 

They cannot detect critical elements and may not know why they 

dislike such scenes. 

Purposeful 

Defines landscapes that observers like and find legible (Lee 

1976); observers detected critical elements, could identify them, 

and liked the scene. 

Sensual 

Defines landscapes that observers like and find illegible (Lee 

1976); observers detect critical elements, but can not identify them, 

yet like the scene. 

Unacceptable 

Defines landscapes that are legible but disliked by observers (Lee 

1976); observers detected critical elements, could identify them, but 

did not like what they saw. 

Vague 

Defines landscapes that are liked and illegible to observers, in 

which they cannot detect critical elements and may not know why 

they like such scenes. 

Observer 

A person, with regard to visual resources, who sees, watches, 

perceives, or notices components of landscapes as well as the influence on the components of various natural or man-made occurrences. 

Trained observer 

A person whose observational skills have been enhanced by specialized knowledge and experience to permit their attention to be more 

precisely focused (to be visually sensitized) and thereby more complete and accurate in their perceptions of particular aspects of a visual 

scene (Vernon 1968). 

Uninformed observer 

A person who has not been provided standards for assessing landscape scenes, i.e., not told that management actions are present. 

Untrained observer 

A person whose observational skills have not been enhanced by 

specialized training and experience. Such a person may not see 

particular components of landscapes, not even when their attention 

is drawn to them. 

Threshold 

"The minimal amount of information required for the accomplishment of a perceptual task." (Dember 1960). 

Detection threshold 

The point at which something is first seen by an observer, but not 

identified; something is seen, but not enough information is transmitted to allow it to be identified. 

Identification threshold 

The point at which minimal information is available to permit 

recognition without a standard provided to aid discrimination; an 

observer is not told that a management action is present. 

Reaction threshold 

A presumed point at which the visual influence of an identified 

action is sufficient to cause an observer to respond to what was seen in 

some emotive manner. 

Recognition threshold 

The point at which minimal information is available to permit 

recognition by comparison with a standard provided to aid discrimination; an observer is told that a management action is present. 

Recovery-time thresholds 

Thresholds that are defined by stages of plant succession when 

growth is sufficient to screen objects or mask changes. A "loss of 

identification threshold" is described when vegetative development 

sufficiently reduces discrimination so that an observer can detect but 

no longer identify an object or action. And, a "loss of detection 

threshold" is described when vegetative cover finally has developed 

sufficiently to prevent an observer from detecting an object or action. 

USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 47 
References 

Anderson, Lee; Galliano, Steve; Neville, Bob; and others. 1976. VAC: visual 

absorption capability. San Francisco, CA: California Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 25 p. 

Castaneda, Carlos. 1971. A separate reality. New York: Simon and Schuster; 

317 p. 

Clark, Roger N., Project Leader. 6 September 1983. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Seattle, 

WA. [Personal discussion]. 

Daniel, Terry C.; Boster, Ron S. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: 

the scenic beauty estimation method. Research Paper RM-167. Fort 

Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 66 p. 

Dember, William N. 1960. The psychology of perception. San Francisco, 

CA: Holt, Rinehard and Winston; 402 p. 

Driscoll, Edward C., Jr.; Gray, Brian A.; Blair, William G.E.; Ady, John F. 

1976. Measuring the visibility of high voltage transmission facilities in 

the Pacific Northwest. Final report to the Bonneville Power Administration, United States Department of Interior. Contract 14.03.6017N. Seattle, WA: Jones and Jones; 55 p. 

Franz, M. -L. von. 1964. Science and the unconscious. In: Carl G. Jung 

and others. 1964. Man and His Symbols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and 

Company, Inc.; 304-310. 

Gibson, James P. 1950. The perception of the visual world. Boston, MA: 

Houghton Mifflin Co. (The Riverside Press, Cambridge); 235 p. 

Hampe, Gary D. 1988. The influence of sociocultural factors upon 

scenic preferences. In: Noe, Francis P.; Hammitt, William E. Visual preferences of travelers along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Scientific Monograph 

Series No. 18. Washington, DC: National Park Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior; 202 p. 

Herzog, Thomas R. 1987. A cognitive analysis of preference for natural 

environments: mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape Journal 

6(2):140-152. 

Jung, Carl G.; Henderson, Joseph L.; Franz, M. -L. von.; Jaffe, Anielia. 

1964. Man and his symbols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 

Inc.; 320 p. 

Kaplan, Rachel. 1975. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of 

preference.. In: Zube, Ervin H.; Brush, Robert 0.; Fabos, Julius Gy. 

Landscape Assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 

Inc.; 118-129. 

Kaplan, Rachel. 1979. Visual resources and the public: An empirical approach. In: Proceedings of Our National Landscape, A Conference on 

Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, 

Incline Village, NV, April 23-25, 1979; Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 209-216. 

Kaplan, Stephen. 1975. An informal model for the prediction of 

preference. In: Zube, Ervin H.; Brush, Robert 0.; Fabos, Julius Gy. 

Landscape Assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 

Inc.; 92-101. 

Kaplan, Stephen. 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental 

preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19(1):3-32. 

Koffka, Kurt. 1963. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, 

Brace and World, Inc.; 720 p. 

Laughlin, Nora Alix; Garcia, Margot W. 1986. Attitudes of landscape 

architects in the USDA Forest Service toward the visual management 

system. Landscape Journal 5(2):135-139. 

Lee, Robert G. 1976. Research on the human sensitivity level portion 

U.S. Forest Service visual management system, final report. Report 

submitted to the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station as 

part of a cooperative agreement with the University of California, Berkeley, CA: 58 p. 

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The image of the city.Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press 

& Harvard University Press; 194 p. 

Palmer, James F. 20 July 1989. College of Environmental Science and 

Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY. [Letter to Arthur 

W. Magill]. 2 leaves. 

Palmer, James F.; Alonso, Santiago; Dong-hee, Koh; Gury, Jacques; 

Hernandez, Yezmin; Ohno, Ryuzo; Oneto, Gilberto; Pogacnik, Andrej; 

Smardon, Richard. 1988. Cross-cultural assessment of visual impact 

simulations. Syracuse, NY: College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York; 36 p. 

Penning-Rowsell, Edmund C. 1979. The social value of English landscapes. 

In: Proceedings of Our National Landscape, A Conference on Applied 

Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource; Incline 

Village, NV: 23-25 April 1979; Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: 

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; 249-255. 

Schroeder, Herbert W. 1988. The significance of landscapes. Second 

Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management, University of 

Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, June 6-9, 1988. Chicago, IL: North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 5 p. 

Sewell, W.R.D. 1971. Environmental perceptions and attitudes of 

engineers and public health officials. Environment and Behavior 3(1): 

23-59. 

Thayer, Robert L.; Freeman, Carla M. 1987. Altamont: public perceptions of 

a wind energy landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 14(1987): 379-

398. 

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, 

attitudes and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 260 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. National Forest 

Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual Management System. Agriculture Handbook 462, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 47 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1975. Visual

Resource Management. BLM Manual, Washington, DC. 

Vernon, M. D. 1968. The psychology of perception. Baltimore, MD: 

Penguin Books; 265 p. 

Zube, Ervin H.; Simcox, David E.; Law, Charles S. 1987. Perceptual 

landscape simulations: history and prospect. Landscape Journal 6(1): 

62-80. 

48 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-203. 1990. 
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal leadership in forestry. 

It carries out this role through four main activities: 

• Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest System lands 

• Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners to help 

protect and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed lands 

• Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance programs to 

improve living conditions in rural areas 

• Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources utilization. 

The Pacific Southwest Research Station 

• Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American Samoa 

and the western Pacific. 

Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or 

with any handicapping conditions are welcome to use and enjoy 

all facilities, programs, and services of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency 

policy, and should be reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC 20250.