Forest aesthetic indicators in sustainable forest management standards

Abstract

Sustainable forest management (SFM) standards have been criticized for their lack of aesthetic indicators, which some consider to be an important social component of forestry. To provide a basis for the inclusion of aesthetic indicators in SFM frameworks, we used Delphi techniques to survey the beliefs and opinions of SFM and aesthetic experts. The three major reasons provided for the lack of aesthetic indicators were a lack of aesthetic training among those designing criteria and indicators, a bias against aesthetics, which are often considered to be highly subjective, and the general omission of people with knowledge of aesthetics during the development of SFM standards. Based on the responses, we present 10 possible aesthetic indicators appropriate for international SFM standards, including eight quantitative and two qualitative indicators. We also provide 18 other potential aesthetic indicators, which can be applied at various scales of SFM, ranging from local to national. These results should provide guidance to groups developing and revising criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management at various scales, from local to international.

Recent Deforestation Pattern Changes (2000–2017) in the Central Carpathians: A Gray-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix and Fractal Analysis Approach

“…According to FAO [23], deforestation represents the loss of forest cover and implies transformation into another land use caused by human or natural perturbations. Deforestation reduces the essential values of a forest's role as a climatic regulator [24,25], hydrological function [26,27], social and aesthetic values [28,29], and ecological values [3]. Deforestation has become a significant perturbation in forest stability for the Carpathian Mountains, one of the mountains that preserve virgin forests [30], protected areas [8], and endemic species of flora and fauna [17,31].…”

Quantitative Techniques in Participatory Forest Management

“…While international standards have important effects on the definition of SFM in participating countries, they have been criticized for the lack of any indicators that are directly related to social aspects-especially scenic beauty-and for the predominance of economic and ecological indicators (Lim 2012).…”

“…• Area, surface density, and (Lim 2012) variability indices (Vila et al 2006) • Size of viewshed (Germino et al 2001;Gulinck et al 2001 The banks of rivers, streams, sensitivity, so care must be taken over the lakes, and reservoirs must be maintained with natural preservation or enhancement of the landscape and its vegetation to protect water quality, minimize erosion, visual quality (Forestry Commission 2003). The and provide shelter and refuge for aquatic life.…”

Mapping Forest Health Using Spectral and Textural Information Extracted from SPOT-5 Satellite Images

“…2016, 8,719 2 of 20 finally defined forest health as a condition of forest ecosystems that sustained their complexity while providing for human needs. This definition made a great effort to combine the social, ecological and economical perspectives [13] and was adopted by the US forest service and is frequently used in the forestry literature [13][14][15].…”