The Aesthetic Experience of Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Paul H

Home , Natural landscape

This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain.

The Aesthetic Experience of Sustainable Forest Ecosystems Paul H. Gobster1

I Abstract - The social acceptability of "Ecosystem Management" and other sustainable forest ecosystem approaches rests in large part on people's aesthetic response to management change. For many, this response is based on a "scenic aesthetic" that is narrowly defined and largely visual in nature. The process of change is often perceived negatively, especially when it involves the death of trees by natural or human-induced causes. The sce~ic aesthetic remains the culturally dominant mode of appreciation; it is reinforced by research models of landscape perception and by landscape management practices, hindering progress towards other social goals such as biological diversity and ecosystem health. In contrast, an "ecological aesthetic" as espoused by Aldo Leopold and others requires a learned experience of the multimodal, dynamic qualities of forest environments, and appreciates both subtle and dramatic changes exhibited in the cycles of life and death. As such, adoption of an ecological aesthetic could help resolve perceived conflicts among social goals. Suggestions for planning, management, research and theory gleaned from an ecological aesthetic show how we might achieve sustainable forest ecosystems that are understood and appreciated by our public.

Our fll'St and most immediate response to the environment is thus under the current paradigm of visual management practice often an aesthetic one (Kaplan 1987). Although the adage that and research we have few guidelines for resolving aesthetic and you "can't judge a book by looking at its cover" bears a great biological/ecological goal conflicts. The primacy that aesthetics deal of truth, our evaluation of a place frequently depends on plays in people's evaluation of environments suggests that in what we see from an aesthetic point of view. In the forest order for sustainable ecosystem management to be fully landscape, this implies that the appearance of the environment accepted, a better understanding is needed of how aesthetic and reflects the quality and care that goes into its management, and biological/ecological outcomes are perceived and interact. In this treatments that conflict with our aesthetic preferences may be paper I attempt to show how aesthetic appreciation of sustainable construed as signs of poor management (Hull 1988, Nassauer, forest ecosystems requires an expansion of our understanding 1988). of what beauty in the landscape can mean and provide to people, In this paper I argue that current approaches to forest visual and how a redefined program of landscape practice and research management practice and research are inadequate for dealing can be instrumental in discovering this beauty and with aesthetic issues in the context of sustainable ecosystem communicating it to the public. I conclude with some practical management. Since their inception some thirty years ago, these ideas for bringing this sustainable "ecological aesthetic" into approaches have tended to emphasize the fonnal, visual, and the vocabulary of landscape practitioners and researchers, to static characteristics of landscape scenery, a response to the provide a better integration of aesthetic and biological/ecological dominant cultural mode of landscape perception and experience. goals in the management of forest ecosystems. However, forest ecosystems managed for sustainable values may "Sustainability" has a variety of meanings when applied in exhibit few characteristics one typically thinks of as scenic, and the context of forest ecosystems (Gale and Cordray 1991). My use of the term sustainability focuses on the ecological aspects of sustainability, specifically on management approaches and 1 Research Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, North Central practices that aim to restore and maintain the ecological structure Forest Experiment Station, Chicago, IL. and function of ecosystems, and preselVe and enhance the health

246 and diversity of species and ecological communities. Examples The kinds of forests characterized by these attributes confonn of management approaches include "New Forestry" and vety closely to those popularized by landscape painters of the "Ecosystem Management" (e.g., Franklin 1989, Robertson 17th and 18th centuty, who together with writers, landscape 1992), where forest and related wildland ecosystems are designers, and gentlemen travelers brought about an aesthetic managed for multiple resource values, including commodity appreciation for landscapes that were natural in character (Ruth values such as timber, and "ecological restoration" (Jordan et 1972, Nash 1973, Cox 1985). In the U.S., painters of forest al. 1987), where commodity values usually do not enter the landscapes emphasized the dramatic panoramas of the picture. Examples of management practices implemented to mountainous west and the lush, tidy, pastoral views of the east. achieve desired future conditions include direct manipulation Their idea of natural beauty was a highly selective one, defined through cutting, burning~ and other intentional activities, and by a rigid set of criteria. Landscape painters often stylized nature, indirect management that permits or encourages natural and composed a scene by adapting fonnal design principles to processes and disturbances like fire; timber falls, and diseases enhance the beauty oflthe nature they saw (Clark 1949). to accomplish sustainable management goals. This natural, scenic ideal is evident in current landscape management and research programs whose objectives are to assess aesthetic quality. "Visual resource management" programs such as the Forest Service's "Visual Management FOREST AESTHETICS IN CULTURE, System" (1974) were developed to deal comprehensively with MANAGEMENT, AN[) RESEARCH aesthetic issues on our public forest lands. Like the methods of the landscape painters and designers, aesthetic quality is defined People's aesthetic preferences arise from a number of in part on the basis of fonnal principles of variety in line, form, different sources, but of these, our dominant culture has played color, and texture. Landscapes that exhibit these features are the major role in shaping our aesthetic preferences for landscapes evaluated as "distinctive" and given high levels of protection, (Rees 1975). I feel three cultural legacies are particularly while landscapes that are "common" or "minimal" in their important in understanding our current preferences for forest variety are allowed to be more intensively used for timber landscapes and forest landscape management: these include an hatvesting or other purposes. While relatively few empirical attraction to an idealized nature; an orientation to a static, visual studies have used fonnal or "artistic" design attributes to mode of landscape experience; and an aversion to disruption identify landscape preferences (Gobster and Chenoweth 1989), and change. Together, these legacies are responsible for what I the focus on evaluation and comparison is a trait common to will call the "scenic aesthetic" mode of landscape appreciation most studies, and methods are often geared to finding the "most TIle preponderance of the scenic aesthetic in our society makes scenic" landscapes for protecting. it difficult for many people to appreciate the more subtle, Our current orientation to an idealized nature has made it experiential, and dynamic qualities that often characterize difficult to metge aesthetic objectives with those relating to the sustainable forest ecosystems, qualities that relate to a much management of sustainable forest ecosystems. Many sustainable different, "ecological aesthetic." In the following sections I will forest ecosystems do not display the fonnal, compositional discuss how these two aesthetics differ, and describe how the properties of an idealized nature. In my own region of the Lake emphasis of contemporaty landscape research and practice on States, many of the areas identified as valuable for the protection the scenic aesthetic could affect our ability to implement of endangered species or ecosystems are unspectacular areas of sustainable ecosystem practices that are aesthetically acceptable. flat, interior forest, prairie, marsh, bog, and barren land. Such areas frequently merit visual variety ratings of "common" or " minimal," and are thus prone to be discounted as unworthy of aesthetic consideration. By the same token, management Idealized Nature practices enacted to maintain or enhance ecological function such as prescribed burning or the retention of downed wood Empirical studies of people's landscape perceptions have often detraGt from the tidy, stylized naturalism of the scenic identified important attributes of wildland forests that contribute ideal. By maintaining a limited standard of aesthetic value such to visual quality. Research findings indicate a high visual as "visual" or" scenic" quality, we are negating many of the preference for" near-view" forest stands with large trees (Arthur attributes of biologically diverse ecosystems that, in product or 1977, Buhyoff et al. 1986), an heIbaceous ground cover (patey process, can contribute to a richer, multidimensional and Evans 1979, Brown and Daniel 1984), and an open understanding of the aesthetics of nature. mid-stoty with high visual penetration that affords a park-like AIdo Leopold was one of the first to point out a different character (Brown and Daniel 1984, Ruddell et al. 1989). type of aesthetic in the natural landscape, one that did not Additionally, many "vista" forest landscapes of aesthetic appeal confonn to the canons of idealized beauty expressed by popular exhibit distant views and high topographic relief (propst and scenety. The elements of this "ecological aesthetic" were Buhyoff 1980, Buhyoff et al. 1982, Gobster and Chenoweth referred to implicitly in many of Leopold's essays, and have 1989). more recently been brought to light in the writings of Callicott

247 and his colleagues (e.g., Callicott 1992). With respect to the vmy by region, but in areas with flat topography this might only fonnal qualities of an idealized nature, Flader and Callicott mean a narrow "peek-a-boo strip" of uncut trees to mask forest (1991) conclude: "For [Leopold], the esthetic appeal of the hatvesting activity to the unaware motorist zooming by (Wood countIy... [had] little to do with its adventitious colors and 1988). shapes-and nothing at all to do with its scenic and picturesque Most research in landscape aesthetics has done little to colors- but everything to do with the integrity of its explore varieties of aesthetic experience beyond the scenic. evolutionaty and ecological processes" (p. 9-10). Leopold thus Methods to assess aesthetic perceptions often consider only expands our concept of natural beauty to encompass a wide "visual quality" or "scenic beauty" as dependent variables, range of sustainable forest ecosystems. By appreciating forest which are operationalized by a simple check matk. on a rating ecosystems for their biological diversity and health, we redefme scale (Daniel and Boster 1976). A photograph or slide substitutes the goal of much which is done in landscape research and for the actual landscape in most studies, which, like the management from identifying and protecting the most beautiful landscape paintirlf or Claude Glass, is a flat, framed snapshot forest sites, to discovering and interpreting the varieties of of a single point m time. The entire assessment process usually ecological beauty present in ea{:h forest site (Evernden 1985). requires only a few seconds for a person to view and rate each landscape scene, further reducing the "landscape experience" to a momentary judgment. Landscape Experience Because many sustainable forest ecosystems lack the formal qualities of an idealized nature, it is difficult to experience them The scenic aesthetic is driveri by a second factor that is highly as one would a landscape painting. There may be no prospect, related to our culture, that is the way in which we experience no ''view'' in the traditionaI- sense, and thus nothing "scenic" the beauty of nature. Tenns and activities from the romantic to behold (Evenxlen 1983). In Leopold's ecological aesthetic, period reveal our cultural biases of landscape appreciation however, there is much to experience in these non-picturesque "Scenic" and "picturesque" beauty were coined to refer to landscapes. Aesthetic qualities engage all of the senses, not just landscapes that exhibited the desired fonnal aesthetic qualities sight. Ecosystems are appreciated for their detail and for the found in landscape paintings, and use of the term "landscape" "big picture," but ecological beauty is most highly manifested took on an artistic meaning, as a view seen from a specific in the interplay across scales, such as in the existence of wild perspective (Rees 1975). The aesthetic experience of landscapes species sustained by a community that retains a high degree of thus came to be associated with the view of a static composition, ecological integrity. Aesthetic experience for Leopold is a and such an activity was referred to as "sightseeing" or cumulative process that begins in the mind of the individual and "picturesque touring" (Adler 1989). Carlson (1979) describes is refmed and nurtured through an intimate relationship with the the birth of the "landscape cult" in the 18th and 19th centuries, environment over time. Most importantly, Leopold's landscape who developed sightseeing as a leisure pastime, and even went experience ties aesthetics together with ethics, giving moral so far as to use a device called the Claude Glass, through which justification to the pursuit and protection of beauty in the a landscape could be viewed in "proper" framing, color, and environment: "A thing is right when it tends to preselVe the perspective. integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is Scenic touring continues to be the way most people wrong when it tends otherwise (Leopold 1981: 224-225). This experience the forest landscape. "Driving for pleasure" and changes our idea of the aesthetics of nature from one of viewing "sightseeing" are among the top activities of visitors to public scenery as a passive form of entertainment to one that engages patk and forest areas (Cordell et al. 1990), and while the Claude our hearts and minds towards participatory action Glass is no longer in use, the forest landscape is similarly framed and experienced through the windshield of the automobile, the viewfmder of the camera, and the designated scenic overlook. Disruption and Change Like a painting, our experience of a landscape is often limited to a view at one point in time, and with most of us living in A third factor that comprises our scenic aesthetic has not wban areas, we rarely get to experience how forest landscapes received much direct attention by landscape writers or change on a daily, seasonal, or yearly basis. researchers, yet is pelVasive in our culture. This is our aversion Because of the high popularity of sightseeing by car, forest to change in the forest landscape, especially change that signals landscape management often focuses on visual enhancement and a disruption in our static ideal of beauty. This aversion is evident mitigation activities along road corridors. This is evidenced in in our empirical studies which show radical changes in scenic the National Forest's "Scenic Byways" program (Robertson beauty "flows" over the course of a growing cycle (Hull and 1988), and in visual management criteria for identifying areas BuhyofI 1986, Palmer 1990, Ribe 1991), and negative responses of high "visual sensitivity" (USDA Forest SelVice 1974). These to standing dead trees (Benson and Ullrich 1981, Ribe 1990), areas receive priority treatment as visual retention zones, and downed wood (Vodak et al. 1985, Brown and Danie11986~ Ribe are managed to provide a naturally appearing forest condition 1991), insect and disease outbreaks (BuhyofI and Lueschner with few signs of disruption Viewshed management strategies 1978, Hollenhorst et al. 1993), and fIre (Anderson et al. 1982,

2" Taylor and Daniel 1984). These findings in many ways conflict it is possible that methods that explore the experience of with what ecologists are telling us about the beneficial effects landscapes might arrive at a much different understanding of the that some kinds of disruptions- both natural and human aesthetic values of change. induced ~an bring to forest ecosystems (e.g., Ostly and As a keen observer of nature, Leopold's ecological Nicholls 1992, Maser et al. 1979, Hunter 1990, Baker 1992). appreciation was closely tied to the dynamics of change. In his In one sense these research findings are simple expressions essays in Sand County Almanac, Leopold (1981) gives many of our preference for tidiness, mature trees, and a lush forest examples of how ordinaIy places take on aesthetic significance understory, but in another sense they may reflect deeper cultural through the experience of change. In "Prairie Birthday," aversions to change. One of the most deep seated of these is Leopold's daily obselVations of prairie flora growing around a change that brings on disease and death. Human diseases have "backward fann" make clear how the beauty of a diverse long been associated with eviL and the metaphors we use to environment unveils itself through the course of a growing describe diseases, those aftlicted, and actions towards treatment season. In "A Mighty Fortress," he conveys how tree insects are often equated with warfare against evil (Sontag 1978). Fear and disease transfonned his "ailing" woodlot into a wildlife of death is universal to most societies, and even though many haven And in what is perhaps his strongest appeal to an religions believe in an afterlife, our concept of death has a strong ecological aesthetic, in a "Conservation Esthetic," Leopold sense of pennanency (Becker 1984). Whether or not these states that the perception of beauty and quality comes with an fundamental attitudes towards human disease and death are understanding of the natural processes through which linked to how we think about forest diseases and the death of ecosystems evolve and are maintained. trees, it is clear that they exkibit many of the same characteristics. For example, our culture has tended to view forest insect outbreaks in a mostly negative way, and has used ADOPTING AN ECOLOGICAL warfare-like tactics (including propaganda campaigns) to try to AESTHETIC IN THE MANAGEMENT OF wipe them out, however unsuccessfully (Carson 1962). We have SUSTAINABLE FOREST ECOSYSTEMS long viewed healthy trees as a sign of a healthy forest (Ostly and Nicholls 1992), and as with human diseases, have tended This review has shown that our orientation to the scenic to focus on treatment of the symptoms of forest diseases rather aesthetic is strongly grounded in our culture. In forest that trying to understand the causes. And because our ideal ecosystems this aesthetic is reinforced by the places we designate image is of a mature forest frozen in time, the death of trees by for recreation, and by the methods through which we manage natural forces or human intention may convey a permanent end forests for aesthetic eqjoyment. Research knowledge of people's rather than a point in a cycle (American Forest Council 1991). aesthetic preferences for forests accumulated over the past three Following the popular scenic aesthetic, many of our current decades is fonnidable, but it, too, is limited in its methods and landscape management guidelines attempt to reduce the scope of inquity, and tends to "mop up" questions relating to ooticeability of change. Regeneration sites are located away from our understanding and application of the scenic aesthetic rather areas of human use, are screened, or are designed to blend in than expand aesthetic theory through discovery and expression with the fonns and lines found in the natural landscape (Bacon of alternative paradigms. and 1\vombly 1980). While the presence of wildlife adds Leopold's ecological aesthetic provides such an alternative, considerable scenic interest to the landscape (Hull and McCarthy one that offers promise in merging the goals of aesthetic 1988), dead "snag" trees and slash piles created for wildlife preferences and ecological sustainability. In a recent paper that food and cover are also located so that they minimize disruption discussed some related aspects of scenic and ecological to the visual scene (USDA Forest Service no date). Prescribed aesthetics (Gobster in press), I argued that because the scenic fire can also improve the beauty and diversity of the understory, aesthetic was so deeply entrenched in our culture it would be but the immediate negative visual effects are mitigated by difficult to get people to "see" beauty in an ecological sense. leaving unburned islands, limiting the amount of road frontage To sidestep the wait for such a cultural evolution to occur, I that is treated, and restricting burns to periods of low visitor use outlined a synthetic approach called " appropriateness analysis" (Bacon and Dell 1985). The "illusions" created by these that might help to resolve immediate conflicts between techniques further the idea that a natural forest is one that is managing forests for aesthetic and biodiversity goals. At the mature, tidy, and unchanging (Wood 1988). same time, I suggested that trade-off analyses such as Landscape research has tended to focus on people's aesthetic appropriateness analysis were at best a short-tenn fix, and that response to discrete changes in the landscape rather than to in order to move towards a more sustainable forest landscape understand how the dynamics of change are perceived or that is also socially acceptable, landscape practitioners and experienced. For example, the visual effects of a prescribed burn researchers needed to develop the ideas and tools to begin to or the slash left from a timber harvest can be highly negative, understand and implement an ecological aesthetic here and now. but in many environments their duration is quite brief (Bacon In the second part of this paper I wish to flesh out some ideas and Dell 1985). Although such studies are consistent with the of how an ecological aesthetic might be realized. Many of these fact that most people see the forest at only snapshots in time, ideas have been stated previously by others, but by bringing

249 them together under the focus of sustainable ecosystems I hope Incorporate contextual considerations into they might provide the reader with some practical insights on ecological management how we might incorporate ecological thinking into plaruring and program development, on-the-ground management, and research Perceptions of the appropriateness of management activities and theoty development in landscape aesthetics. are dependent on the context or setting in which management change is to occur. Tlusty (1992) provides a conceptual model for understanding how different aesthetic management criteria might be applied to different types of forest settings. He Some Ideas for Planning and Program identifies three major setting types: "Functional" settings like Development wilderness areas or plantations, where management emphasis is not on aesthetics, and aesthetic management is thus "hands off" . or mitigative in ~ture; "recreational" settings where emphasis Continue to move "visual management" towards is on the visual, scenic landscape and aesthetic management an ecological approach . activities confonn to people's notions of idealized nature; and " ecosystem" settings, where emphasis is on sustaining the The Forest Service's Visual Management System (USDA structure and function of the ecosystem and aesthetic Forest Service 1974) and related policies and programs have management aims toward principles conveyed by Leopold's gone far to bring visual quality issues into the forest planning ecological aesthetic. The "Recreation Opportunity Spectrum" process. In many cases, however, landscape management for (USDA Forest Service 1286) offers a somewhat different visual quality has been reduced to one of mitigating the visual concept of settings, but could also be used to understand and impacts of timber harvesting and other resource development plan for ecologically sustainable forest management activities activities that do not confonn to public expectations of a that are appropriate in scale, duration, and other considerations "naturally appearing forest." Sustainable forest ecosystem as one moves across the wilderness-to-U1ban spectrum (Gobster management offers new opportunities to help redefine public in press). expectations of naturalness, and landscape management programs should recognize the need for an "expanded" aesthetic that incOlporates principles of ecological sustainability explicitly Some Ideas for On-the-Ground Management into methods and practices. Revisions of the Visual Management System handbook are currently underway, and show a sensitivity to ecological management concerns (Galliano et al. 1992). As Show a "conspicuous experiential quality" resource-specific handbooks and training programs are updated, these, too, should reflect a broader, ecological aesthetic in VISual mitigation practices such as screening, edge shaping, landscape management principles and practices. One recent or location are connnonly used to reduce the impacts of resource example that moves in this direction is a regionally-produced activities that might not meet people's expectations for a publication that uses landscape ecology as a basis for forest naturally appearing forest environment. Should sustainable landscape analysis and design (Diaz and Apostol 1992). ecosystem management practices that violate this same scenic ideal be similarly mitigated? Thayer (1989) argues not, maintaining that the " visibility and imageability of the sustainable landscape is critical to its experiential impact and Expand the concept of "scenic byways" programs the rate at which it will be adopted and emulated in common use" (p. 108). This implies that in order for an ecological Scenic roads programs have been developed by the Forest aesthetic to become understood and appreciated by the public, Service and other agencies in recent years to showcase it must be seen and experienced. This "conspicuous experiential outstanding natural and cultural scenery available to the quality" will help speed the diffusion of change in aesthetic automobile traveler (USDOT Federal Highway expectations (Thayer 1989). Administration 1988). While the emphasis is currently on the scenic aesthetic as described in this paper, programs like the Forest Service's Scenic Byways program (Robertson 1988) Use design cues to "reveal" ecological beauty offer significant opportunities to interpret the ecological aesthetic of sustainable forest ecosystem management to mass Nassauer's research on landscape restoration in agricultural audiences. Interpretive signs, roadside pullouts, short-loop (1992) and subwban (in press) settings suggests that design cues trails, and other suggested byway developments could be used can convey powerful messages that "messy" ecological to bring people out from behind the windshields of their cars practices show human care and stewardship rather than neglect and towards a deeper understanding and appreciation of or mistreatment. In other words, "conspicuous experiential sustainable forest ecosystems. quality" need not be of the "in your face" variety, and design

250 cues can help reveal and express the intentions behind and processes maintained through sustainable management sustainable management practices. In settings where practices. Guided tours are one important way to reach large recreational use dominates, these cues might include some audiences, and have shown potential in communicating the picturesque conventions like framing or the use of texture, benefits of "new forestry" practices (Brunson 1992). Public height, and color contrast to call attention to sustainable land participation in ecosystem management activities is less easy to use practices. These practices might be small in scale and of accomplish on a large scale, but can be extremely effective on limited duration, but would be visible to the recreationist, a project basis. Student internships and summer youth camps perhaps along a winding, well-maintained nature trail. sponsored by national forests or scouting groups are two types Selective cutting, and even some planting of immediate of existing programs that could be geared towards ecological foreground views with native but showy under-, mid-, and management. Ecological restoration programs have made overstOIY species might be done to enhance the visual, scenic effective use of volunteers, who often dedicate much of their effects. In forest areas away from concentrated recreational free time in activitiestlike cutting, burning, seed collecting, and use, picturesque conventions might by replaced by less planting. In the Chicago area where I live, the Nature stylistic cues like mowing or low-key fencing that still convey Conservancy's Volunteer Stewards Network has grown to over human intent and land stewardship. In backcountry areas, 5,000 members in the past 15 years, and for many in the cues might be subtle or missing altogether- perhaps network, restoration has become a leisure activity that has deep unobtrusive marker posts in representative areas, keyed to a aesthetic, symbolic, and spiritual implications (Lonsdorf 1993). brochure available off-site. For these sites, care is exhibited by ecological integrity and larS-ely up to forest users to discover it.

Use information to interpret sustainable forest Some Ideas for Research and Theory ecosystem management practices Development .

For Leopold, knowledge was an important precursor to the comprehension of ecological beauty. Information can be an Investigate the attributes of sustainable forest important tool in conveying knowledge about the intent and ecosystems that relate to aesthetic quality purpose behind sustainable management practices, especially for some management activities like burning, where it is Much of the past research on people's perception of difficult to employ design cues to improve public landscapes has been directed towards identifying "universal" acceptability. On-site information such as signage, predictors of landscape quality (e.g., Wohlwill 1976), and interpretive nature trails, stewardship programs, and the like looking at the visual impacts of different resource-oriented can aid in communicating messages to the public. Newsletters management practices (e.g., Ribe 1988). With new forestry, or brochures put out by many forests and restoration groups ecosystem management, ecological restoration, and other are useful off-site ways to spread the word, as are local sustainable ecosystem approaches attaining wider application, newspapers. It is critical, however, that this information be forest landscape perception research has the opportunity to expressed with sincerity and in an objective manner to avoid expand this orientation in some significant ways. One of these suspicion that managers are trying to "fool the public" (Wood is in the types of management practices that are studied- we 1988). need more in-depth studies that look specifically at sustainable ecosystem management practices such as prescribed burning, snag trees left for wildlife, and cutting Involve the public to gain a deeper patterns that minimize forest fragmentation. Along with basic understanding and experience of "ecological" management practices, we also need more information on beauty people's aesthetic responses to the structure and function of forest ecosystems. In this respect, a key need is for Experience is the essential counterpart to information for information about the perception of change, especially on how attaining knowledge and appreciation of sustainable the dynamics of change are perceived and experienced. ecosystems. Experience can be facilitated through the design Finally and most importantly for developing ecological of self-guided nature tours~ by the encouragement of aesthetics, we need information about the unique qualities nature-oriented recreation like birding, plant identification, that make each forest type and ecosystem aesthetically hunting, and nature photography~ and by providing other significant. Evernden's (1983) criticism of visual forms of unassisted nature experience opportunities. Directed management's emphasis on "thingness" in relation to the activities are particularly valuable ways through which forest aesthetic qualities of prairie ecosystems vividly illustrates the users can gain experience and appreciation of natural systems importance of studying natural landscapes on their own terms.

251 Investigate the people's aesthetic experiences of understanding how sustainable ecosystems are perceived and sustainable forest ecosystems experienced. For example, our study of aesthetic experiences had study participants carry small diaries with them to write The search for landscape attributes, whether general or down quantitative and qualitative information about their unique to a given ecosystem, provides only part of the aesthetic experiences (Chenoweth and Gobster 1990). Hull et knowledge needed to expand our understanding of an al. (1992) similarly used diaries and beepers to obtain ecological aesthetic. The other side of the equation where quantitative ratings of people's moods, satisfaction, and more information is needed is on the nature of the aesthetic perceptions of scenic beauty in order to understand the response itself. Because most studies have operationalized dynamics of recreation experiences. Focusing, a technique people's aesthetic responses to landscapes as "vi~ual quality" from experiential psychotherapy, is a qualitative method that or "scenic beauty" ratings of photographic environmental has been suggested as a means to understand the non-vernal surrogates, we know very little about how real places are "felt senses" that result from aesthetic experience of the experienced (Hull and Stewart, 1992), or about the wider environment (Scfuoeder 1990). Other qualitative approaches nature of aesthetic responses. Zube et al's. (1982) framework such as first-hand aesthetic description (Berleant 1992), for landscape perception research laid out a rich source of literary analysis (porteous 1986), and obselVation (Seamon ideas for understanding the aesthetic experience of and Nordin 1980) have been described as phenomenological landscapes, a set of ideas which take on a heightened sense alternatives to positivist methods of analysis (Seamon 1982), of significance in the context of an ecological aesthetic. Using and hold particular promise in exploring the aesthetic the terms of their framework, the aesthetic of the surrounding, experience of sustainable ecosystems. multimodal, information-rich environment of sustainable forest ecosystems is one that is appreciated by movement and exploration rather than by gazing at a view, is perceived and experienced through multiple senses simultaneously, is interpreted through affective, cognitive, and symbolic meanings, and invites participation and meaningful Build ecological aesthetics into landscape interaction. Each aspect of the Zube et al. (1982) framework perception theory deselVes renewed attention as aesthetic perception studies of sustainable ecosystems increase in the years ahead. Finally, research on the perception of sustainable forest Colleague Rick Chenoweth and I have begun to look at ecosystems has the potential to advance our theoretical aesthetic experiences in the landscape in a somewhat different understanding of environmental aesthetics. Carlson's (1993) way, not only examining the attributes of the landscape and review of landscape assessment concludes that most of the the characteristics of the experience, but also trying to theoretical development has focused on models and theories understand the "ecology" of experiences in time and space that attempt to identify and put into an organizational and in relation to social and situational conditions, and the framework the basic person- and landscape- related variables value aesthetic experiences play in people's lives (Chenoweth that help to explain landscape preferences. While this work and Gobster 1990, Gobster and Chenoweth 1990). While not has been valuable in explaining which landscapes are addressing sustainable ecosystems in particular, we think our preferred, current theory in landscape assessment does little work holds significant potential for understanding how to justify why they are preferable. For example, just because aesthetic experiences in non-spectacular ecosystems like the complete removal of slash and downed wood may make prairies might differ or are valued in comparison with a forest stand more scenically preferred, it does not justify experiences in more "traditionally" scenic areas. For this preference. As Carlson (1993) concludes, justificatory example, many people's aesthetic experiences from our work theory is needed in this field because: "We need not only to showed the importance of environmental knowledge and of be able to explain what is preferred and desired by way of the dynamic, ephemeral characteristics of the environment landscapes, but also to establish what is preferable and some of the same qualities exhibited in Leopold's ecological desirable. Only by references to the preferable and the aesthetic. desirable do we have the ultimate grounding for landscape evaluation and for the more practical matters of landscape planning and design" (p. 55). Expand the repertOire of methods In this sense, Leopold's land ethic provides an important foundation to a justificatory theory of landscape aesthetics. Investigations of some of the ecosystem- and experience By uniting beauty with ecological stability and integrity, related phenomenon mentioned above will require new and Leopold's land ethic provides a normative justification for innovative methods. "Experiential approaches" to landscape preferable and desirable landscape management that enhances assessment include a wide range of qualitative and quantitative the sustainability of forest ecosystems for human, biological, methods (Gobster 1990), and hold significant promise for and ecological values.

252 CONCLUSION Baker, W.L. 1992. The landscape ecology of large disturbances in the design and management of nature reselVes. Landscape Evidence of evolving land management approaches in wban, Ecology. 7(3): 181-194. agricultural, and wildland environments shows that the concept Becker, E. 1984. The terror of death. In E. S. Shneidman, Ed., of ecosystem sustainability is becoming accepted at least on Death: Current Perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield some basic level by many professional and lay persons. But for Publishing Co. 12-15. most, this acceptance has been largely because of an intellectual Benson, R.E.; Ullrich, IR. 1981. Visual impacts of forest understanding, and not because the products or processes of management activities: Findings on public preferences. sustainable landscape management are inherently preferred. Our Research Paper !NT-262. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of cultural ties to the scenic aesthetic run deep, and because of the Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range primacy of aesthetics in environmental perception, a greater Experiment Station commitment toward the adoption of innovative methods for Berleant, A. 1992. The Aesthetics of Environment. Philadelphia: ecological sustainability has not been forthcoming. Temple University Press. Leopold's ecological aesthetic offers guidance for merging Brown, T.C.; Daniel, T.C. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: biological and ecological concepts of sustainability with Concepts and applications to Ponderosa Pine. Research Paper aesthetic appreciation Experience is a key component of this RM-256. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, aesthetic, where both intellectual and affective capacities engage Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range an individual to understand, appreciate, and ultimately act upon Experiment Station the environment in a purposeful way. This last point is a crucial Brown, T.C.; Daniel, T.C. 1986: Predicting scenic beauty of one for greater adoption and acceptance of sustainable forest timber stands. Forest Science. 32: 471-487. ecosystem management, and suggests that approaches that foster Brunson, M.A. 1992. Social acceptability of New Perspectives experiential contact with natural systems and processes can lead practices and conditions. Final Report. Seattle, WA: U.S. to positive behaviors to protect them 1be ideas discussed in Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest this paper provide some first steps for how we can help to Research Station advance this evolution of change, not only among our public Buhyoff, G.l; Hull, R.B.; Lien, J.N.; Cordell, H.K. 1986. groups but also in our own institutional cultures of landscape Prediction of scenic quality for Southern Pine stands. Forest management and research. Science. 32(3): 769-778. Buhyoff, G.l; Luesclmer, W.A. 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science. 24(3): 424-432. REFERENCES Buhyoff, GJ.; Wellman, lD.; Daniel, T.C. 1982. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce Adler, I 1989. Origins of sightseeing. Annals of Tourism budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science. 28: 827-838. Research. 21(16): 7-29. Callicott, lB. 1992. The land aesthetic. Renewable Resources American Forest Council. 1991. 1be Forest Archetype: The Journal. 10: 12-17. Structure of Public Perception (video). Washington, DC: Carlson, A. 1979. Formal qualities in the natural environment. Oppix and Hider, Inc. Journal of Aesthetic Education 13(3): 99-114. Anderson, L.M.~ Levi, DJ.~ Daniel, T.C.~ Dietrich, IH. 1982. Carlson, A. 1993. On the theoretical vacuum in landscape The esthetic effects of prescribed burning: A case study. assessment. Landscape Journal. 12(1): 51-56. Research Note RM-413. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. New York: Crest Books. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Chenoweth, R.E.~ Gobster, P.H. 1990. The nature and ecology Range Experiment Station of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape Journal. Arthur, L.M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest 9(1): 1-8. environments: Some empirical tests. Forest Science. 23(2): Clatk, K. 1949. Landscape into Art. London: Jolm Murray. 151-160. Cordell, H.K~; Bergstrom, IC.; Hartmann, L.A.; English, D.B.K. Bacon, W.R.; Dell, I 1985. National forest landscape 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation and wilderness management volume 2, chapter 6: Fire. Agriculture Handbook situation in the United States 1989-2040. General Teclmical No. 608. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Report RM-189. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 89. Agriculture, Forest SelVice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Bacon, W.R.; Twombly, A.D. 1980. National forest landscape Range Experiment Station 112. management volume 2, chapter 5: Timber. Agriculture Cox, T.R. 1985. Americans and their forests: Romanticism, Handbook No. 559. Washington, DC: U.S. Government progress, and science in the late nineteenth century. Journal Printing Office. 223. of Forest History. 29: 156-168.

253 Daniel, T.C.; Boster, RS. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: 13-14, 1988. General Technical Report SE-52. Athens, GA: The scenic beauty estimation method. Research Paper U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Experiment Station 485-498. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Hull, R.B.; Buhyoff, GJ. 1986. The scenic beauty temporal Experiment Station distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty Diaz, N.; Apostol, D. 1992. Forest landscape analysis and assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest design: A process for developing and implementing Science. 32: 271-286. land management objectives for landscape patterns. Hull, RB.; Mc Carthy, M.M. 1988. Change in the landscape. Report No. R6 ECO-TP-043-92. Portland, OR: U.S. Landscape and Urban Planning. 15: 265-278. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Hull, R.B.; Stewart, W.P. 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic Northwest Region. beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 12:

Evemden, N. 1983. Beauty and nothingness: The prairie as a 101-114. I failed resource. Landscape. 27: 1-8. Hull, R.B.; Stewart, W.P.; Vi, Y.K. 1992. Experience patterns: Evemden, N. 1985. The Natural Alien Toronto: University of Capturing the dynamic nature of a recreation experience. Toronto Press. 160. Journal of Leisure Research. 24(3): 240-252. Flader, S.L.; Callicott, 1.B., Eds. 1991. The River of the Mother Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestty: of God, and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold. Madison: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. University of Wisconsin Pre.ss. 384. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Franklin, J.F. 1989. Toward a jl£W forestIy. American Forests. . Huth, H. 1972. Nature and t,he American: Three Centuries of Nov.IDee.: 37-44. Changing Attitudes. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Gale, R.P.; Cordray, S.M 1991. What should forests sustain? Press. Eight answers. Journal of ForestIy. 89(5): 31-36. Jordan, W.R.; Gilpin, M.E.; Aber, 1.D. 1987. Restoration Galliano, S.; Anderson, L.; Iverson, W. 1992. VMS- Update and ecology: Ecological restoration as a technique for basic new directions. Presented at First National Landscape research. In: Jordan, W.R.; Gilpin, M.E:; Aber, 1.D., Eds. Architects Workshop, Sheraton Denver Tech Center, Denver, Restoration Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University CO, October 26-29, 1992. Press. 3-21. Gobster, P.H. 1990. Experiential approaches to landscape Kaplan, S. 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: assessment. In: R.I. Selby, K.H. Anthony, J. Choi, and B. Environmental preference from an evolutionaty perspective. Orland, Eds., Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 21st Environment and Behavior. 19(1): 3-32. Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Leopold, A. 1981. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here Association. Oklahoma City: EDRA, Inc. 184. and There. New York: Oxford University Press. Gobster, P.H. in press. Forest aesthetics, biodiversity, and the Lonsdorf, R. 1993. Playing in the great outdoors: Earth calls perceived appropriateness of ecosystem management us to meaningful activities which allow us to play, to learn, practices. In: Proceedings, Wotkshop on Defining Social and to help. Conscious Choice 6(4): 36-37. Acceptability of Forests and ForestIy Practices, June 23-25, Maser, C.; Anderson, R.G.; Cromack, K., Jr.; Williams,1.T.; 1992, Kelso, Washington Seattle, WA: U.S. Department of Martin, RE. 1979. Dead and down woody material. In: 1. W. Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Thomas, Ed., Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Station Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agricultural Gobster, P.H.; Chenoweth, R.E. 1989. The dimensions of Handbook 553. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of aesthetic preference: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Agriculture, Forest Service. 78-95. Environmental Management 29(1): 47-72. Nash, R. 1973. Wilderness and the American Mind New Haven, Gobster, P.H.; Chenoweth, R.E. 1990. Peak aesthetic CT: Yale University Press. experiences and the natural landscape. In R.I. Selby, K.H. Nassauer, J.I. 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as Anthony, 1. Choi, and B. Orland, Eds., Coming of Age: a form of care. HortScience. 23(6): 973-977. Proceedings of the 21 st Annual Conference of the Nassauer, J.I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a Environmental Design Research Association Oklahoma City: matter of policy. Landscape Ecology. 6(4): 239-250. EDRA, Inc. 185-191. Nassauer, 1.1. in press. Perception of the ecosystem function of Hollenhorst, S.1.; Brock, S.M.; Friemund, W.A.; Twety, MJ. suburban residential sites. In: P.H. Gobster, Ed., Managing 1993. Predicting the effects of gypsy moth on near-view urban and high use recreation settings. General Technical aesthetic preferences and recreation appeal. Forest Science. Report NC-xxx. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 39(1): 28-40. Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Hull, R.B. 1988. Forest visual quality management and research. Station. In: Outdoor Recreation BenchmaIk 1988: Proceedings of the Ostty, M.E.; Nicholls, T.H. 1992. Do healthy trees make a National Outdoor Recreation Forum. Tampa, Florida Januaty healthy forest? Phytopathology. 82(10): 1135.

254 Palmer, 1.F. 1990. Aesthetics of the Northeastern forest: The Schroeder, H.W. 1990. The felt sense of natural environments. influence of season and time since harvest. In: T.A. More, In: RI. Selby, K.H. Anthony, 1. Choi, and B. Orland, Eds., M.P. Donnelly, A.R. Graefe, and J.J. Vaske, Eds., Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference Proceedings of the 1990 Northeastern Recreation Research of the Environmental Design Research Association. Symposiwn. General Technical Report NE-145. Radnor, PA: Oklahoma City: EDRA, Inc. 192-195. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Seamon, D. 1982. The phenomenological contribution to Forest Experiment Station 185-190. environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Patey, R.C.; Evans, R.M. 1979. Identification of scenically Psychology. 2: 119-140. preferred forest landscapes. In: G. Elsner and R.C. Seamon, D.; Nordin, C. 1980. MatKetplace as place ballet: A Smardon (Technical coordinators), Proceedings of Our Swedish example. Landscape. 24: 35-41. National Landscape. General Technical Report PSW-25. Sontag, S. 1978. Illness as metaphor. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Inc. SelVice, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Taylor, 1.G.~ Daniel, T.C. 1984. Prescribed fire: Public Station. 532-538. education and perception Journal of ForestI)'. 82: 361-365. Porteous, 1.D. 1986. Inscape: Landscapes of the mind in the Thayer, R.L., Jr. 1989. The experience of sustainable landscapes. Canadian and Mexican novels of Malcom Lowry. The Landscape Journal. 8(2): 101-110. Canadian Geographer. 30(2): 123-131. Tlusty, W.G. 1992. Visual and recreation values of white pine. Propst, D.B.~ Buhyoff, G.J. 1980. Po.licy capturing and landscape In: R.A. Stine and M.1. Boughman, Eds., White Pine preference quantification: A methodological study. Journal Symposiwn Proceedings. Publication NR-BU-6044. St. Paul, of Environmental Management. 11: 45-59. MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. 84-97. Rees, R. 1975. The sceneI)' cult: Changing landscape tastes U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. National over three centuries. Landscape. 19(1): 39-47. Forest landscape management, volume 2, chapter 1: The Rtbe, R.G. 1988. The aesthetics offorestty: What has empirical Visual Management System Agricultural Handbook No. 462. preference research taught us? Environmental Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 48. 13(1): 55-74. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. The 1986 Ribe, R.G. 1990. A general model for understanding the ROS book. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of perception of scenic beauty in Northern Hardwood forests. Agriculture, Forest Service. Landscape Journal. 9(2): 86-101. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest SelVice. no date. Ribe, R. G. 1991. The scenic impact of key forest attributes National Forest landscape management, volwne 2, chapter and long-term management alternatives for hardwood _: Wildlife habitat management. Unpublished Draft. forests. In: Proceedings of the 8th Central Hardwoods U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Forest Conference. General Technical Report NE-148. Administration 1988. Scenic byways. Publication Number Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest FHWA-DF-88-004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of SelVice, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 35-54. Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Robertson, F.D. 1988. A Federal agency looks ahead. Paper Vodak, M.C.; Roberts, P.L.; Wellman, 1. D.; Buhyoff, G.1. 1985. presented at the Scenic Byways '88 Conference, Dulles Scenic impacts of Eastern Hardwoods management. Forest Marriott Hotel, Washington, DC, May 3, 1988. 4. Science. 31(2): 289-301. Robertson, F.D. 1992. Ecosystem management of the Wohlwill, J.F. 1976. Environmental aesthetics: The National Forests and Grasslands (letter of June 4, 1992). environment as a source of affect. In: I. Altman and 1.F. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Wohlwill, Eds. Human Behavior and the Environment, Vol. SelVice: 6. 1. New Yolk: Plenwn. 37-86. Ruddell, E.1.~ Gramann, 1.H.; Rudis, V.A.; Westphal, J.M. Wood, D. 1988. Unnatural illusions: Some words about visual 1989. The psychological utility of visual penetration in resource management. Landscape Journal. 7(2): 192-205. near-view forest scenic beauty models. Environment and Zube, EH.; Sell, 1.L.; Taylor, 1.G. 1982. Landscape perception: Behavior. 21(4): 393-412. Research, assessment, aId theOlY. Landscape Planning. 9: 1-33.

255