UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Aesthetic judgments of forest trees in relationship to timber quality 1980

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1980_A6_7 B44.pdf [ 19.04MB ]
UBC_1980_A6_7 B44.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0075347.json
JSON-LD: 1.0075347+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0075347.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0075347+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0075347+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0075347+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0075347.ris

Full Text

AESTHETIC JUDGMENTS OF FOREST TREES IN RELATIONSHIP TO TIMBER QUALITY by PIETER JAN BEKKER B.Sc, The University of Alberta, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES PARKS AND RECREATION RESOURCES FACULTY OF FORESTRY We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1980 PIETER JAN BEKKER, 1980 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Pcuie^ > ^GrtegSh ^C^aXi&t^j /2teU&U>C*Xs&- The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 1-6 BP 75-5 1 1 E i i Abstract This study explores the r e l a t i o n s h i p between timber q u a l i t y and aesthe- t i c q u a l i t y of f o r e s t trees, i n hope of uncovering c r i t e r i a with which both timber management and f o r e s t aesthetics may be r e a l i z e d on the same land base. Findings may also apply to exclusive use r e c r e a t i o n f o r e s t s . Twenty-four mature trees, growing along a wilderness t r a i l i n B r i t i s h Columbia, were selected according to three timber q u a l i t y classes and paired so that a l l possible combinations of the q u a l i t y classes were evenly repre- sented. Wilderness rec r e a t i o n users were asked to judge the attractiveness of the trees, s e l e c t the one tree of each p a i r they preferred, and give reasons for t h e i r preference. Study r e s u l t s showed a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p existed between timber q u a l i t y and aesthetic q u a l i t y . However, while the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s i f i - cation did a e s t h e t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between good and poor timber q u a l i t y trees, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n could not, with any consistency, a e s t h e t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between good and average timber q u a l i t y trees, or s i m i l a r tim- ber q u a l i t y trees. Tree height was also p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d with aesthetic q u a l i t y , and could d i s t i n g u i s h the preferred trees three of the four times that timber q u a l i t y could not. I t therefore was more accurate than timber quality i n assessing the aesthetic q u a l i t y of forest trees. Reasons for tree preference most often chosen were: more balanced, s t r a i g h t e r trunk, fewer dead trunk branches and more a t t r a c t i v e background scenery. Variety both within and between stands, and the r e t e n t i o n of some t a l l trees may, where important to the good husbandry of p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t lands, contribute considerably toward increasing the compatability of timber man- agement and f o r e s t a e s t h e t i c s . i i i Table of Contents Title page Abstract Table of Contents L i s t of Tables List of Figures . Acknowle dg emen t s CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The Problem Objectives Literature Review Literature Findings CHAPTER II. STUDY DESCRIPTION Study Design The Study Area . The Sites . . . . The Trees . Page i CHAPTER III. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS General E f f i ciency of Field Data Collection Aesthetic Preference and Ratings Compc The Timber Quality-Aesthetic Quality Relationship The Aesthetic Ratings Variability i n the Aesthetic Ratings ) a r i s o n ix 111 vi VI1 1 4 4 5 10 11 13 17 20 20 22 23 23 26 iv The Tree Preferences 28 Variability in Preference 31 Reasons for Preference 33 Given Reasons 33 Deduced Reasons 41 A Within Site Comparison 45 CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 49 LITERATURE CITED 54 APPENDICES I. Scientific Names of Species Mentioned in the Text and Tables 58 II. Recorded Tree Data 60 III. Photographic Record of Study Trees 63 IV. The Questionnaire 112 V L i s t of Tables Table Page I C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Site s Used i n the Study 16 II Timber Quality C l a s s i f i c a t i o n for I n t e r i o r Douglas F i r Trees 30 cm. DBH and Greater 19 III Sampling Period Summary and Pa r t i c i p a n t Numbers . . . . 21 IV Mean Aesthetic Ratings Rank Ordered and Separated i n t o Timber Quality Classes 25 V Mean Aesthetic Rating Variances per Tree and per Timber Quality Class 27 VI Preference Count Comparisons for Trees Within Each P a i r . . 29 VII V a r i a b i l i t y i n Preference 32 VIII Given Reasons f o r Preference 34 IX The Number of Times Possible Frequencies of a Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c ' s Use per Person Occurred 40 X Cor r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s from Comparisons Between Mean Aesthetic Ratings and Measured Tree Variables . . . 42 XI A Within S i t e Tree Aesthetics Ranking 47 v i L i s t of Figures Figure p a g e 1. The Stein Main T r a i l , from Trailhead to River Crossing . . 12 2. Viewing Course Layout on S i t e I. 14 3. Viewing Course Layout on S i t e II 15 4. Mean Aesthetic Ratings Versus Tree Height 44 v i i Acknowledgement Many sincere thanks go to Dr. Peter Dooling, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Parks and Forest Recreation, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, for h i s encouragement, guidance and support throughout the study; to Dr. Stanley Coren, Faculty of Arts, Department of Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r h i s patient explanation of perception research and data a n a l y s i s ; and to Dr. Peter Murtha, Faculty of Forestry, Depart- ment of S o i l Science, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r h i s i n t e r e s t and review of the study. Thanks also go to Gerry Middleton of Forintek Canada Corporation, Vancouver, and Dr. Don Munro, Faculty of Forestry, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r t h e i r help with the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Above a l l , I wish to thank my wife Marilyn, and son Ian; both helped with the f i e l d work i n countless ways, were patient, and gave encouragement when i t was most needed. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION The Problem If timber management and forest recreation trends continue, conflicts between them w i l l also continue to occur. These conflicts arise because in most cases timber management and forest recreation are viewed as being i n - compatible (Noyes, 1966; Rickard et a l . , 1967; Rudolf, 1967). The aversion many forest recreationists have of forest stands managed primarily for wood production is indicative of such a view. Instead they seek wild or natural-looking forest land to recreate in, in part because the aestheti- cally pleasing forest stands found there enhance their recreation experi- ence (Brush, 1978; Cook, 1971; Sieker, 1955). People demand and receive productive forest land for the exclusive use of recreation (Cook, 1971; Dooling, 1978; Fr i t z , 1967). History suggests that this is a necessary step in protecting the aesthetic value of forest recreation areas. "Historically, the forest park movement in America o r i - ginated and derived i t s strength from the fact that exploitation of forest and range lands commonly — and indeed typically — l e f t desolate, un- sightly wastes unproductive of commodity or beauty" (Show, 1937, p. 214). Today, an environmentally aware public sees many forestry practices that detract from the visual quality of the landscape. For example, they see that large tree monocultures diminish the natural diversity of a land- scape, and that indiscriminate clfearcutting leaves visual scars where none should be (Warden, 1971). Such practices have led to the view that regard- less of the economic values, " i f high recreation values are present, u t i l i - zation must be forgone" (Show 1937, p. 215). There is a real need for forest parks and wilderness areas. However, " i t is not enough to identify five or even ten per cent of natural resources as protected park land, for i t is our treatment of the ninety or ninety-five 2 per cent of our land and water resources which w i l l l a r g e l y determine the qu a l i t y and extent of r e c r e a t i o n a l opportunity and the image of [ B r i t i s h Columbia] to the outside world as a desirable place or otherwise to v i s i t and recreate i n " (B.C. Mini s t r y of the Environment, 1979, p. 72). Forest beauty should not stop at the boundary of a forest park, but extend into the fo r e s t regions of B r i t i s h Columbia and elsewhere. I t should be seen i n forests close to public highways, settlements, and t r i b u t a r y to logging road access and water systems opened up by t h i s access (Marshall, 1974). In these areas the forest should be regarded not only as a timber resource, but as part of the human environment, a place (Twiss, 1969). The appearance of the forests i n such places should r e f l e c t the desires of the many and increasing number of people v i s i t i n g them, i f only i n r e - cognition that by f a r the greater part of B r i t i s h Columbia's f o r e s t lands belongs to the public (Warden, 1971). Can forest stands be grown and managed so that timber and forest re- cre a t i o n a l values are concurrently realized? Does economic use necessa r i l y destroy a fore s t ' s beauty? These questions point to the basic problem of blending timber management and fo r e s t aesthetics. In many publications s i l v i c u l t u r e , defined as the a r t of producing and tending a f o r e s t (Smith, 1962), i s recommended to solve t h i s problem (Cromie, 1937; Koehler, 1922; McDonald and Whiteley, 1972; Neff, 1965; Rudolf, 1967; Rosencrang, 1957; Hough, Stansbury and Associates, Ltd., 1973). However, such publications proclaim the authors' i n t u i t i v e judgments, personal tastes and subjective standards, and are not based on user preferences (Lime, 1972). As a r e s u l t , forest managers who e i t h e r follow the recommended s i l v i c u l t u r e methods or th e i r own tastes when in t e g r a t i n g recreation into the management scheme, may not be pleasing the recreating public to the extent they could. The reason: t h e i r taste i n forest scenery may d i f f e r from that of the recrea- 3 tionists (Buhyoff et a l . , 1978; Clark et a l . , 1971; Hendee and Harris, 1970; Kaplan, 1973; Lime, 1972; Peterson, 1974). More particularly, the educational training most managers receive seems to introduce bias i n their perception (Kaplan, 1973) . The point i s that mangers cannot assume that there is a good f i t between their preferences and those of the recreating public. Therefore, i f the goal is to create a high quality environment in which to recreate, managers should compare their views with those most affected by their decisions (Buhyoff, 1978; UNESCO, 1973) . To address the problem of blending timber management and forest aes- thetics — aesthetics as judged by on-site users — perhaps the best place to start looking for answers is at the basic component of forest stands: the trees. It is usually thought that people relate to the stand as a whole and not to the individual trees comprising the stand. However, when using silviculture methods to meet a specific objective, be i t timber, water, wildlife, or forest beauty, i t i s achieved by adding, subtracting, or a l - tering individual trees, either singularly, in groups, or en masse (Cook, 1971) . Forest managers have c r i t e r i a with which to judge the timber quality of trees. They also know that a stand should ideally consist of t a l l , straight, clean-boled and healthy trees i f their objective is timber pro- duction (Cook, 1971). Few c r i t e r i a exist, however, with which to judge the aesthetic quality of forest trees, and none are particularly applicable to British Columbia's forests. This study's aim is to establish the aes- thetic c r i t e r i a of selected forest trees. Identifying the relationship between timber quality and aesthetic quality of forest trees should help f u l f i l l this aim. Having aesthetic c r i t e r i a , managers can more confident- ly manage forest stands for a combination of economic and aesthetic object- ives, or for aesthetics alone. 4 Objectives To guide the study's aim, the following objectives were proposed: 1. To i d e n t i f y possible r e l a t i o n s h i p s between timber q u a l i t y and a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y of selected f o r e s t trees. 2. To i d e n t i f y which of the v i s i b l e physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f o r e s t trees, and the v i s i b l e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f o r e s t stands i n the trees' immediate surroundings, have a p o s i t i v e , negative, or n e u t r a l e f f e c t on stated aesthetic preferences. 3. To determine the consistency with which each p a r t i c i p a n t chose, from selected forest trees of d i f f e r e n t timber q u a l i t i e s , e i t h e r higher or lower timber q u a l i t y trees. L i t e r a t u r e Review A number of research studies concerning f o r e s t aesthetics have been done i n the United States where l e g i s l a t i o n such as the M u l t i p l e Use-Sus- tained Y i e l d Act (1960) and the National Environmental P o l i c y Act (1969) require the consideration of landscape aesthetics i n f o r e s t management (Arthur, 1977). In Canada such l e g i s l a t i o n does not e x i s t . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g then that only one forest aesthetics research study (carried out i n Quebec) has been done i n Canada. Three general methods have been used to c o l l e c t data i n f o r e s t aesthe- t i c s assessment studies. One method, used by F r i s s e l l and Duncan (1965), was d i r e c t observation of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s ' reactions to various f o r e s t en- vironments. In t h e i r study, they observed the i n t e n s i t y of campsite use that various forest types received, and were able to deduce which type was f a - vored. A second method, used by Shafer and Mietz (1969) was to ask rec- r e a t i o n i s t s of t h e i r scenic preferences. Some studies used both the ob- servation and s o l i c i t a t i o n methods (Hancock, 1973; James and C o r d e l l , 1970; Klukas and Duncan, 1967). In Klukas and Duncan's (1967) study, for example, 5 visitors to Itasca State Park in Minnesota were observed as they drove around the park. At each of the park's four major forest types i t was no- ted when cars slowed, stopped, or stopped and passengers disembarked. To supplement the observation data, visitors at several of the park's tourist f a c i l i t i e s and major attractions were asked of their forest stand prefer- ences. The third method was the use of photographs of natural scenery, i n - stead of the scene i t s e l f , to e l i c i t aesthetic responses (Arthur, 1977; d'Amour, 1976; Kaplan, 1977; Rutherford and Shafer, 1969). The use of pho- tographs has been the most popular method because i t allows viewing con- ditions to be controlled, a variety of respondent groups may easily parti- cipate, and time, money and effort are saved. Some researchers, by com- paring responses to photographs of the scene and the scene i t s e l f , have concluded that both can e l i c i t similar responses (Brush, 1978; Daniel et a l . , 1973). Recreationists solicited for their aesthetic assessments were generally asked to respond in one of two manners: one, they could compare forest scenes and state which one they preferred (Cook, 1971; d'Amour, 1976; Kaplan, 1977; Shafer and Burke, 1965); or two, they could view scenes individually and use a Likert scale rating to indicate their judgments of each scene's attractiveness (Arthur, 1977; Brush, 1978; Daniel et a l . , 1973). Literature Findings Stands. Recurrent in the research literature i s the aesthetic appeal attributed to open, spacious forest stands when compared to dense, less penetrable woods (Brush, 1978; F r i s s e l l and Duncan, 1965; Kaplan, 1977; Shafer and Burke, 1965). One reason for this is that in more spacious stands, sunlight can readily penetrate to the forest floor, a condition greatly favored over the dark monotonous stretches closed-in conifers pro- vide (d'Amour, 1976). On the forest floor a medium between f u l l , dense 6 undergrowth and no undergrowth at a l l i s preferred (Hancock, 1973; d'Amour, 1976) . Forest openings varying in size from a tree height in diameter up to four or five acres have also been found aesthetically appealing to many forest visitors (Brush, 1978; Shafer and Mietz, 1969). Such openings pro- vide contrast in lighting, color, temperature and visual access (Shafer and Mietz, 1969). In several studies, mixed stands were preferred to pure stands, although pure stands of old growth were also favored (Cook, 1971; d'Amour, 1976; Sha- fer and Mietz, 1969). Cook (1971) noted that forest visitors preferred va- riety rather than uniformity in tree size. It seems that heterogeneity within and between stands i s a sought after quality in aesthetic forests. Lastly, several studies found that s i l v i c u l t u r a l l y treated stands were preferred to untreated, "natural" stands (Arthur, 1977; Daniel et a l . , 1973; Rutherford and Shafer, 1969). In Rutherford and Shafer's (1969) study for example, a softwood stand, having received selection cutting, was favored 77% of the time over a similar but uncut stand. With hardwoods however, the cut and uncut stands were equally preferred. The time of the s i l v i c u l t u r a l treatment is an overriding factor in stand aesthetics. Fresh evidence of tree harvesting has been found to evoke negative aesthetic responses (Brush, 1978), whereas stands thinned, stripcut or selection cut ten or more years ago have been found most aesthetically pleasing by many (Arthur, 1977; Daniel et a l . , 1973; Rutherford and Shafer, 1969). In the latter case, time w i l l have allowed residual trees to adjust to the removal of adjacent trees, and the groundcover, in response to i n - creased sunlight penetration, w i l l have grown to hide stumps and slash l e f t by logging. Trees. In his study on hardwoods in the Eastern United States, Cook 7 (1971) established a positive correlation between timber quality and aes- thetic quality of forest trees. However, the relation "was somewhat weak and more than somewhat erratic" (Cook, 1971, p. 142). For deciduous tree species, he found that straight, balanced trees with many crown branches and attractive backgrounds were favored over more subordinate trees. Cook (1971) also found that in order for trees to be aesthetically pleasing they need to be highly visible. Their crowns, for example, cannot be obscured by the crowns of adjacent trees. In most cases this condition can be met only in more spacious stands, or along a forest edge. In other studies, people preferred large forest trees over smaller ones (Brush, 1978; Klukas and Duncan, 1967). This preference held even in residential areas. Kalmbach and Kielbaso (1979) found that large street trees were preferred 78% of the time over small ones. Two Minnesota-based studies by F r i s s e l l and Duncan (1965) and Klukas and Duncan (1967) found that pine trees were a favorite specie among forest vi s i t o r s . In Itasca State Park, interview results showed that visitors pre- ferred red pine, white pine, or a combination of the two 67% of the time over other species such as paper birch, spruce and balsam f i r . Also, observation data showed that the red pine stands were the only ones where visitors would stop their vehicles and disembark to take photographs or have a better look. In the Quetico-Superior canoe country in Minnesota, canoeists occupied camp- sites within pine stands 91% of the time, in hardwood stands 6% of the time, and spruce-fir stands 3% of the time, even though pine stands comprised only a small portion of the shoreline vegetation available. There was a practical explanation for this: besides being aesthetically pleasing, the pine-stands provided ready access due to their brush-free and spacious characteristics. A more recent study done in Quebec showed that deciduous and coniferous trees were, in general, equally preferred (d'Amour, 1976). Thirty-six per 8 cent of i t s respondents chose conifers, 42% chose deciduous trees, and 22% liked both. The deciduous trees were seen as providing variety in contin- uous stretches of coniferous forest. Other environmental variables which are not necessarily a part of the immediate forest scene but nonetheless have been found to sway preference assessments are clouds, water, landforms such as mountains, and man-made elements (Craik, 1972; Zube et a l . , 1974; Wohlwill and Harris, 1979). Viewers. Perceptions and preferences vary not only according to a scene's physical attributes: gender, age, education, place of residence, and familiarity with the environment in question have also explained to some degree variances in personal preferences (Cook, 1971; Kalmbach and Kielbaso, 1979; Klukas and Duncan, 1967; Sonnenfeld, 1966; Zube et a l . , 1974). Cook (1971) for example, found that men strongly preferred better timber quality trees, whereas women showed no consistent preference for either better or poorer timber quality trees. In Klukas and Duncan's (1967) Itasca State Park study, vegetative type preferences were partially explained by visitor's place of residence. Minnesotans preferred red pine with greater frequency (51%) than did non- Minnesotans (41%), and non-Minnesotans preferred white birch (7.8%) more often than did Minnesotans (1.3%). Apparently white birch grew state-wide, whereas the red pine found in Itasca were the largest in the state. Recreation activity also has explained variances in perceptions and preferences. Lucas (1964) found that canoeists i n the Boundary Waters Canoe Area perceived the extent of the wilderness to be smaller than did motor-boaters, and Brush (1978) found that activities such as skiing, snowmobiling, horseback riding and trailbike riding explained preference for clearings and spacious, open stands. He reasoned that these a c t i v i - ties involved rapid motion through the woods and therefore needed clear 9 views ahead for safety and o r i e n t a t i o n . CHAPTER I I . STUDY DESCRIPTION Study Design Cook's (1971) basic study design was adapted f o r t h i s study's use. A "viewing course" co n s i s t i n g of twelve pa i r s of trees was established along a forest t r a i l . The trees were selected so that three timber q u a l i t y classes (see Table II) were equally represented: eight trees were i n tim- ber q u a l i t y class 1 (good timber q u a l i t y ) , eight trees were i n timber q u a l i t y class 2 (average timber q u a l i t y ) , and eight were i n timber q u a l i t y class 3 (poor timber q u a l i t y ) . A l l trees were the same species and had a DBH (diameter at breast height) equal to or greater than 30 centimeters (12 inches). The twelve tree pa i r s consisted of the s i x possible combinations of timber q u a l i t y classes represented twice ( i . e . two each of 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-2, 2-3, 3-3). Painted plywood pointers on 2x2 inch wooden stakes pointed to the two trees of each p a i r , one of which was randomly assigned a brown "A" on a white backboard, the other a "B". The pointers also served to mark and number the locatio n s of 12 viewpoints from which the 12 tree pa i r s could be seen. Viewpoints were located next to the t r a i l or as close to i t as possible. Forest v i s i t o r s 15 years and older were asked to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. I f they agreed they were given a questionnaire (see Appendix IV) and a p e n c i l . A demonstration viewpoint (see viewpoint D i n f i g u r e 2) and pair of trees, along with a "demo" questionnaire sheet, were used to demon- strate how the questionnaire was to be f i l l e d out. P a r t i c i p a n t s were i n - structed to stand d i r e c t l y behind the pointers and observe the two trees marked A and B. Told to go by " f e e l " , they were to rate, using a nine scale r a t i n g , the aesthetic q u a l i t y of each, then i n d i c a t e t h e i r ratings, along with t h e i r preference f o r either tree A or B, and t h e i r reasons f o r 11 preference i n the questionnaire provided. I f t h e i r reasons f o r p r e f e r r i n g a tree were not on the questionnaire l i s t , they were asked to write them i n . A f t e r p a r t i c i p a n t s had completed tree p a i r 1 t h e i r questionnaires were checked to see i f they were f i l l i n g them out properly. I f so, they were shown the second viewpoint. Since f i v e of the l a s t s i x viewpoints were o f f the t r a i l and not r e a d i l y seen, p a r t i c i p a n t s were guided along the viewing course. Any t a l k regarding the study however was l i m i t e d to c l a r i f y i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n s already given to them. Aft e r completing the viewing course, they were asked i n the questionnaire to state t h e i r age and gender, and write any comments they had. The Study Area A forest i d e a l l y suited f o r t h i s study's purposes had to meet the following requirements: (1) be v i s i t e d by r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , (2) contain merchantable trees, C3) have v a r i e t y i n tree form and tree condition, (4) have uniformity i n surroundings and (5) be open enough to see trees i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . The Stein River watershed was found to contain such f o r e s t s . An area 2 of 1114 square kilometers (430 mile ), the "Stein" i s located i n the south- ern reach of the Coast Mountains between the L i l l o o e t and Fraser River Valleys (see i n s e t , f i g u r e 1). The town of Lytton i s due east. The area consists of a glaciated v a l l e y that transects the surround- ing mountains i n a predominantly easterly d i r e c t i o n . The mountain peaks reach elevations up to 2900 meters. The v a l l e y f l o o r drops i n e l e v a t i o n from 1100 meters i n the west to 200 meters i n the east. The v a l l e y i s broad and u-shaped i n the west; eastward i t narrows and becomes a canyon which a f t e r 20 kilometers abuts on the Fraser River V a l l e y . Landforms i n Location of Figure 1. The Stein Main T r a i l , from T r a i l h e a d to River Crossing. Contours i n Feet Study Area . Map Adapted from Freeman and Thompson (1979). 13 the v a l l e y consist of outwash terraces that border the S t e i n River and talus slopes that s k i r t the v a l l e y sides. The Stein i s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the B.C. Forest Service and i s being increasingly used for xjilderness recreation. Main access to the area i s v i a the eastern end of the v a l l e y . A t r a i l follows the r i v e r f o r some 21 kilometers to Ponderosa Creek, located 10 kilometers west of the cable crossing (see f i g u r e 1). The t r a i l worsens considerably past Ponderosa Creek, discouraging a l l but the most ardent hikers. The lower h a l f of the v a l l e y i s i n Rowe's (1972) Montane f o r e s t region and Krajina (1969) c l a s s i f i e s i t i n the I n t e r i o r Douglas f i r biogeoclimatic zone. Douglas f i r and ponderosa pine grow i n open stands on the v a l l e y f l o o r , with Douglas f i r dominating north aspects and ponderosa pine domina- ting south aspects. Western red cedar and black cottonwood l i n e the creeks and r i v e r . Trembling aspen grow i n clumps at the base of the talus slopes and young stands of lodgepole pine are also seen. The S i t e s Two mature Douglas f i r forest s i t e s approximately \ kilometer apart were used f o r the viewing course (see figures 2 and 3). Each s i t e contained s i x tree p a i r s . The s i t e s d i f f e r e d i n a number of ways, as table I shows. F i r s t , s i t e I had by f a r the larger trees, as can be seen by comparing average DBH and height classes between s i t e s . Secondly, the s i t e s d i f f e r e d i n their capa- b i l i t y to produce f o r e s t s . Site^" index, derived from the mean height and age of sample trees (see Appendix I I ) , indicates that s i t e I had "good" c a p a b i l i t y and s i t e II had "medium" c a p a b i l i t y . Third, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n ^ S i t e , used as an i n d i c a t o r of an area's c a p a b i l i t y to produce f o r e s t s , i s determined through tree height-tree age r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Soc. Am. For., 1958) . 10 0 10 20 m I I l I LEGEND • • • S t e i n Main T r a i l Viewpoint Access / \ Viewpoint S i g h t - L i n e /\B F o r e s t Trees Figure 2. Viewing Course Layout on S i t e I .  16 TABLE I. CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES USED IN THE STUDY CHARACTERISTICS SITE I SITE II Dominant Species: * Average Height Class: * Average Age Class: + Site Index: Average DBH: (for trees 30 cm. DBH+) Average diameter growth in last 10 years: * Stocking: Crown Closure: Understory: Groundcover: Terrain: Douglas f i r 37.5-46.4 m. 141-250 years 35 m. at reference age 100 years 83.5 cm. 1.90 cm. 76 or more trees per hectare 27.5 cm. DBH+ 60-80% Douglas f i r and Paper birch 9-20 m. t a l l with Western red cedar. Douglas maple, and Alder.5-9 m. t a l l 90% Even ground—flat river terraces with scattered erratics Douglas f i r 19.5-28.4 m. 141-250 years 25 m. at reference age 100 years 54.8 cm. 0.64 cm. 76 or more trees per hectare 27.5 cm. DBH+ 40-60% Sparsely scattered Paper birch and Douglas maple 3-8 m. t a l l with Douglas f i r seedlings 1 m. t a l l 60% Uneven ground— bouldered benches * B.C. Ministry of Forests (1978). + B.C. Ministry of Forests (1979). 17 capability was also reflected in the growth rates: in the last 10 years, site I trees had three times the diameter growth of site II trees (see Appendix 2). The fourth difference between sites was in timber quality: roughly 60 per cent of site I tree's were in timber quality class 1, whereas no timber quality class 1 trees existed in site II. Lastly, as indicated by the amount of crown closure, understory and ground cover, site II was more open, allowing better views of the sky, surrounding mountains and tree stands. The Trees In order for trees to be selected for the study, they had to meet various requirements. Fi r s t , they could hot have the river in their visible surroundings: i t would sway aesthetic preferences. Second, they had to f i t one of three timber quality classes (see table II), preferably with trees representing the extreme outside ends of their classes in quality classes 1 and 3, and the middle of quality class 2. Third, they had to be paired so that a l l possible timber quality combinations were represented twice. Lastly, the trees in each pair were to have similar backgrounds and DBH's, be equally well seen and roughly equidistant from their common viewpoint. In the f i n a l viewing course layout, the equidistance condition was met by only half the pairs. The selected trees were measured and measurements recorded on standard B.C. Forest Service cruise t a l l y sheets (see Appendix II). The trees were also photographed (see Appendix III) using a Mamiya C220 camera with a 6x6 cm. format and 50 mm. lens. A l l trees were photographed as close to their designated viewpoints as possible. One d i f f i c u l t y in photographing the site I trees arose: i f a tree was over 30 m. t a l l and had to be photo- graphed closer than 30 m. from the tree, i t s image did not f i t entirely inside a single photographic frame. To alleviate this problem the top 18 and bottom halves of such trees were photographed separately and the re- sulting prints subsequently spliced together. This is not a recommended practice. Future studies should explore the use of a wider angle lens or choose stands more open than site I. The Timber Quality Classification The timber quality classification presented in table II was adapted from several under study by Dobie and Middleton (1977). It is applicable to Interior Douglas f i r trees 30 cm. DBH or greater only. Three things should be noted about this classification. One, i t uses exterior tree characteristics to estimate interior timber quality. However, there are "no reliable external indicators of interior wood quality" (Mcin- tosh, 1964). Timber degrading conditions such as rot or shake for example, are not manifest externally u n t i l well established inside the tree. There- fore, this classification only estimates external timber quality. Two, because trees were to be aesthetically judged from one viewing direction only, they had to be objectively evaluated from that same direction. There- fore the number of trunk branches, stubs, and tree defects were recorded only as seen from the viewpoint. Thirdly, the classification does not account for future tree growth. A timber quality class 2 tree possessing good growth and form could grow into a quality 1 tree, and a quality class 1 tree could grow decadent and become a quality class 2 or 3 tree. 19 TABLE II. TIMBER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION FOR INTERIOR DOUGLAS FIR TREES 30 CM. DBH AND GREATER TIMBER QUALITY CLASS 1 1. Tree height should be at least 30.5 meters (100 f t . ) . 2. Height to the f i r s t live limb should be at least 10 meters. 3. It should have a clear bole in the lower 10 meters, but a few epicormic branches are allowed in the top 1/3 of the lower ten meters. 4. It should have no open scars, no conks or blind conks, no fork or crook, no spiral grain, no major sweep ( 7 10 cm/5 m) or lean (z*10° from v e r t i - cal) . 5. It may not have resin exuding from the bole (indicative of shake). 6. It should have a healthy, balanced, and relatively dense crown. 7. No dead or broken tops are allowed. 8. The crown should have a dominant or codomirarit position in the forest canopy. TIMBER QUALITY CLASS 2 1. Tree height should be at least 24.4 meters (80 f t . ) . 2. Height to the f i r s t l i v e limb should be at least 5.2 meters (17 f t . ) . 3. A clear bole in the lower 5.2 meters is desired, but dead trunk bran- ches are o.k. 4. The minimum requirement of this class is that the tree contain one 5- meter sawlog. 5. A lean less than 15° from vertical i s o.k., as is sweep, dead or broken top, fork or crook. 6. It may have any one or a combination of defects, but no conks or blind conks. 7. Trunk resinosus i s allowed. 8. The crown may have a dominant, codominant, intermediate or suppressed position in the forest canopy. TIMBER QUALITY CLASS 3 1. The tree must have a DBH of at least 30 cm. (12 in.). 2. A quality class 2 sawlog cannot be taken from i t . 3. It must be alive. CHAPTER I I I . ANALYSIS OF RESULTS General E f f i c i e n c y of F i e l d Data C o l l e c t i o n In the period from August 1st to September 4th (1979) i n c l u s i v e , 61 backpackers, a l l i n groups except f o r one loner, hiked past the portion of t r a i l used for the study (see Table III) . Thirteen of them refused to par- t i c i p a t e and 11 were under the study's minimum age of 15, leaving 37 res- pondents. On the f i r s t sampling day however, two respondents from the same group gave both trees i n a l l pa i r s the highest r a t i n g possible (9), without choosing preferred trees. They thought that trees rated less appealing would be logged—an idea spawned l i k e l y from a combination of the contro- versy surrounding the Stein (logging versus wilderness preservation) and the researcher's unrehearsed procedural explanation on the f i r s t sampling day. At any rate, t h e i r lack of aesthetic discernment between trees made t h e i r responses useless, consequently leaving 35 useable responses i n a l l . This small sample siz e made the o r i g i n a l l y planned analysis of socioeconomic variables impossible. However the uniformity of data, as evidenced i n Table V, indicates that the small sample s i z e need not detract from any conclu- sions that have been made. Most respondents were from B r i t i s h Columbia's lower mainland and on a three to f i v e day wilderness outing. They were comprised of roughly twice as many males as females, and twice as many were under 35 years of age as were 35 or older. Most respondents completed the questionnaire i n h a l f an hour and enjoyed the task asked of them. Only two, each from separate groups, said another time would have been better when they were not so t i r e d from backpacking or i n such a hurry to get to a c e r t a i n campsite by night- f a l l . A l l respondents except one viewed the trees i n exactly the same order. TABLE I I I . SAMPLING PERIOD SUMMARY AND PARTICIPANT NUMBERS.* NO. OF NO. OF DAY + GROUPS NO. OF PEOPLE NO. OF USABLE DATE INTERCEPTED PEOPLE 15 OR OLDER PARTICIPANTS RESPONSES WEATHER Wed. 08/1/79 1 8 A o t I sunny, warm Sat. 4 2 8 8 5 5 cloudy, warm Tue. 7 2 4 4 9 o Z sunny, warm Sun. 12 2 6 6 0 0 sunny, hot Sat. 18 1 3 2 2 2 cloudy, warm Sun. 19 1 2 2 2 2 cloudy, warm Wed. 22 1 1 1 1 1 f a i r , warm Wed. 29 4 -} o 3 sunny, warm F r i . 31 2 2 2 2 f a i r , warm Sat. 09/1 4 16 13 13 13 rainy, cool Sun. 2 2 7 5 3 3 rainy, cool T o t a l s : 18 61 50 37 35 ^Format adapted from Cook (1971) +Sampling period consisted of a l l " days from 0 8 / 1 . to 09/4 19.79 inclusive.: 35 days i n t o t a l . 22 Consequently, i t i s possible that sequence relevant factors such as p r a c t i c e and fatigue a f f e c t e d the respondent's judgments—and therefore the d a t a — a s they progressed along the viewing course. Most respondents, f o r example, took two to four minutes to assess tree p a i r 1, but only one to two minutes to assess tree p a i r 12. In response to the aforementioned f a c t o r s , several recommendations f o r future studies are noted. F i r s t , future studies should be conducted i n more in t e n s i v e l y used rec r e a t i o n f o r e s t s , i d e a l l y near established campgrounds. This would hopefully increase sample s i z e and a l l e v i a t e the e f f e c t of heavy backpacks and h i k i n g fatigue on study r e s u l t s . Secondly, to minimize the e f f e c t of sequence relevant f a c t o r s , the viewing course should be established along a looped t r a i l . The f i r s t group encountered could then be sent clock- wise around the viewing course, and the second group i n a counterclockwise d i r e c t i o n . Questionnaires could be assembled to allow f o r this viewing sequence change. Aesthetic Preference and Ratings Comparison At the data compilation stage an infrequent discrepancy was noticed. Since respondents were asked to give both aesthetic ratings and preferences, i t was expected that they would prefer, of a p a i r of trees, the one they had chosen as being the most a t t r a c t i v e . Sometimes however, a tree rated as less a t t r a c t i v e was preferred. These data discrepancies, i n combination with Li t t o n ' s (1973) doubt-provoking statement that "... preference assessment r e a l l y has nothing to do with a e s t h e t i c s , " led to the comparison of tree pre- ferences and aesthetic ratings using a f o u r f o l d point c o r r e l a t i o n t e s t . The 2 test's outcome, an r ^ value, was found to be 0.95. This i s highly s i g n i - 2 BC - AD r = _p / (A+B)(C+D)(A+C)(B+D) where A = the number of times tree A was rated higher but tree B was f i e a n t (P< .05) and very close to perfect concordance, which would give an r value of 1. Therefore i t can be concluded that the preferences -p v were highly correlated with the attractiveness-unattractiveness tree ratings assigned by the Stein wilderness users. Aesthetic ratings and preference assessments supplement each other: the aesthetic ratings allow comparisons to be made between any of the 24 trees, but i n i t i a l l y have no standard to which each tree can be compared. (A standard i s mentally established a f t e r a few trees have been judged.) Preference assessment on the other hand always provides a standard—the pair-mate—but does not allow ready comparisons between trees of d i f f e r e n t p a i r s . The Timber Quality - Aesthetic Quality Relationship The main objective of t h i s study was to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f indeed one existed, between timber q u a l i t y and aesthetic q u a l i t y of f o r e s t trees. For this purpose, both the aesthetic ratings and the within- p a i r preferences of the respondents were matched with the appropriate timber q u a l i t y trees and analyzed. The Aesthetic Ratings Mean aesthetic ratings were derived by averaging the L i k e r t scale ratings received per tree. These were matched with t h e i r appropriate timber q u a l i t i e s and a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , measuring the degree of a s s o c i a t i o n between them, was calculated and found to be r = 0.53 (dF = 22, (note 2, cont'd) preferred; B = the number of times tree A was rated higher and preferred; C = the number of times tree B was rated higher and preferred; D = the number of times tree B was rated higher but tree A was preferred. 24 3 P^.05). This r value i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . I t was therefore con- cluded that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between timber q u a l i t y and aes- t h e t i c q u a l i t y . Expressed i n another way, the r value obtained states that one's accuracy i n p r e d i c t i n g the aesthetic q u a l i t y of forest trees w i l l i n - 2 crease by 28% (r ) once t h e i r timber q u a l i t i e s are known. The next step i n the analysis looked closer at the timber q u a l i t y - aesthetic q u a l i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p , and consisted of rank-ordering the mean aesthetic ratings and separating them into t h e i r respective timber q u a l i t y classes (table IV). They were then used to c a l c u l a t e an o v e r a l l mean r a t i n g per timber q u a l i t y c l a s s . F i r s t noticed i n table IV was that the q u a l i t y class 3 trees had c l u s - tered below the other two q u a l i t y classes, i n d i c a t i n g that i n general, poor timber q u a l i t y trees tended to be rated as l e s s a t t r a c t i v e than the good or average timber q u a l i t y trees. Table IV f o r example shows that of the seven trees whose means were below 5.0 — and therefore found generally unattrac- t i v e — f i v e belonged to q u a l i t y class 3. The majority of q u a l i t y class 3 trees, then, were found to be u n a t t r a c t i v e . This f i n d i n g was substantiated by comparing the low o v e r a l l mean r a t i n g of q u a l i t y class 3 with whose of q u a l i t y classes 1 and 2. T-tests comparing q u a l i t y classes 1 and 3, and 2 and 3, showed s i g n i f i c a n t differences (t = 3.01 and 4.25 respectively, P<:.o5). This shows that timber q u a l i t y class 3 trees, as a group, were rated as l e s s a t t r a c t i v e than the trees of e i t h e r timber q u a l i t y class 1 or 2. This conclusion implies that i f the aesthetic q u a l i t y of a group of 3 r = rife xy - ; (g. x) (fe.y) / ( n * x ^ _ U x ) ^ ) ( n £ y ^ - ( i y ) ^ ) where n = the number of trees, x = the timber q u a l i t y , y = the mean aesthetic ratings per tree. 25 TABLE IV'.. MEAN AESTHETIC RATINGS RANK ORDERED AND SEPARATED INTO TIMBER QUALITY CLASSES RANK TREE • TIMBER QUALITY, CLASSES ORDER # POSITION 1 2 3 1 5 7.457 2 23 Z6.571 3 2 6.486 4 12 6.382 5 18 6.343 6 20 6.314 7 9 6.242 8 19 6.143 9 6 5.886 10 10 5.857 .11 24 5.743 12 4 5.714 13 16 5.629 14 14 5.514 15 17 5.171 16 7 5.086 17 1 5.059 18 22 4.943 19 15 4.886 20 8 4.857 21 3 4.853 22 21 4.829 23 11 4.676 24 13 3.829 O v e r a l l Mean Ratings Per Timber Quality Class: 5.925 5.998 4.885 26 i n d i v i d u a l trees has to be predicted, one step toward greater p r e d i c t i v e accuracy would be to a t t r i b u t e most timber q u a l i t y class 3 trees with low aesthetic q u a l i t y . The o v e r a l l mean ratings f o r timber q u a l i t y classes 1 and 2 were also compared. The differ e n c e between them however was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g - n i f i c a n t ( t = 0.02, p<.05). As groups therefore, q u a l i t y class 1 and 2 trees were a t t r i b u t e d almost equal aesthetic q u a l i t y . This suggests that timber q u a l i t y cannot accurately p r e d i c t , when comparing q u a l i t y class 1 and 2 trees, which ones are more a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing. V a r i a b i l i t y i n the Aesthetic Ratings To examine how diverse the opinions of respondents were regarding the aesthetic q u a l i t y of fo r e s t trees, the variances of the mean aesthetic r a - tings were grouped together into t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r timber q u a l i t y classes (Table V) . Organized i n t h i s manner, i t could also be seen whether res- pondents agreed or disagreed more i n any p a r t i c u l a r timber q u a l i t y c l a s s . Table V shows respondents were i n f a i r agreement over the aesthetic q u a l i t y of a l l but two of the trees, the exceptions being trees #12 and #14. Tree #12 had a lower fork and tree #14 had a severe crook (see App- endix 3). As a group then, respondents were unclear as to the aesthetic q u a l i t y a t t r i b u t a b l e to these uniquely featured trees: some r e a l l y l i k e d them, others were n e u t r a l , and s t i l l others did not l i k e them at a l l . A comparison of the timber q u a l i t y class mean variances showed that only those of timber q u a l i t y classes 1 and 3 were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (t = 5.104, p<.05). This indicates that respondents as a group agreed less on the aesthetic q u a l i t y of poor timber q u a l i t y trees than they did over good timber q u a l i t y trees. Both these findings suggest that obvious timber defects such as forks, 27 TABLE :.V. MEAN AESTHETIC RATING VARIANCES PER TREE AND PER TIMBER QUALITY CLASS TIMBER QUALITY CLASS 1 2 3 TREE RATING TREE RATING TREE RATING # VARIANCE if VARIANCE // VARIANCE 2 2.081 8 1.891 1 3.390 4 2.210 12 4.122 3 3.402 5 1.432 16 1.770 13 2.676 6 2.692 18 2.173 14 5.022 7 1.316 19 1.303 15 1.869 9 2.877 20 2.281 17 1.617 10 2.538 23 2.017 21 2.911 11 1.741 24 1.903 22 3.467 Mean Variance per Timber Class: 2.110 2.182 3.044 28 crooks, scars and severe sweeps and leans found s i n g u l a r l y or i n combination on most q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 trees and some q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 trees e l i c i t ambi- v a l e n t a e s t h e t i c responses from f o r e s t v i s i t o r s . Some people f i n d them a t t r a c t i v e ; others f i n d them a e s t h e t i c a l l y d e t r a c t i n g . The Tree Preferences To f a c i l i t a t e the a n a l y s i s of the preference data, the tree p a i r s were s p l i t i n t o s i m i l a r and d i s s i m i l a r timber q u a l i t y groups ( t a b l e V I ) . The number of preferences f o r a t r e e i n each p a i r were then compared to see i f one t r e e was p r e f e r r e d a s i g n i f i c a n t number of times over the other. I f , f o r the s i m i l a r p a i r s , the number of preferences f o r i n d i v i d u a l trees was s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those of t h e i r pair-mates, i t could be concluded that timber q u a l i t y does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e as f i n e l y between trees as does a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y . Table VI shows that the number of pre- ferences i n h a l f the s i m i l a r p a i r s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t at a pro- b a b i l i t y l e v e l of 0.05. These r e s u l t s , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h an e a r l i e r f i n d i n g , suggest that the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s too coarse to p r e d i c t a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y a c c u r a t e l y , e s p e c i a l l y when having to d i s c r i m i - nate between trees of s i m i l a r timber q u a l i t y , or between timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 and 2 t r e e s . Tree p a i r s 3 and 7 (see Appendix I I I ) i l l u s t r a t e the d i f f e r e n c e i n preference trees of s i m i l a r timber q u a l i t y can e l i c i t . In tree p a i r 3 — both i t s trees were su p e r i o r timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 trees — the d i f f e r e n c e was e s p e c i a l l y s t r i k i n g , w i t h t r e e #5 p r e f e r r e d more than seven times as o f t e n as t r e e #6. Both trees were t a l l and wide of g i r t h , but t r e e #5 was the l a r g e r of the two. Both trees were s t r a i g h t and leaned s l i g h t l y , but t h e i r crowns d i f f e r e d r a d i c a l l y : t r e e #5 had a s h a r p l y c o n i c a l crown that spanned two-thirds of the tree's h e i g h t , whereas t r e e #6 had a crown 29 TABLE VI. PREFERENCE COUNT COMPARISONS FOR TREES WITHIN EACH PAIR TIMBER NUMBER TREE TREE QUALITY OF TIMES Z PAIR // CLASS PREFERRED A. SIMILAR PAIRS 3 5 1 30 4.226* 6 1 4 5 9 1 21 1.372 10 1 13 10 19 2 15 0.686 20 2 19 12 23 2 25 2.535* 24 2 10 7 13 . 3 8 2.959* 14 3 25 11 21 3 15 0.353 22 3 17 B. DISSIMILAR PAIRS 4 7 1 24 2.197* 8 2 11 6 11 1 5 4.226* 12 2 30 8 15 3 8 3.210* 16 2 27 9 17 3 7 3.550* 18 2 28 1 1 3 8 3.210* 2 1 27 2 3 3 11 2.197* 4 1 24 Z = frequency of choice - N (.5) \l N (.25) *Denotes significance at 0.05 level of probability or better. 30 rounded on top and concentrated i n the top one-third of the tree. The reasons most often chosen f o r p r e f e r r i n g tree #5 were more balanced (12x), s t r a i g h t e r trunk (12x), wider trunk (9x), rougher bark (8x) and more a t - t r a c t i v e background scenery (8x). The small sizes of trees #13 and #14 i n p a i r 7 were almost i d e n t i c a l , and both had f i r e markings on t h e i r lower trunks and a number of dead trunk branches. Tree #14 had a severe crook i n i t s lower trunk where tree #13 had a major sweep. Their small s i z e s , and t h e i r defects, placed both into timber q u a l i t y class 3, yet tree #14 was a e s t h e t i c a l l y preferred three times as often as tree #13. Nineteen respondents chose "more crooked trunk" as a reason f o r p r e f e r r i n g #14, and f i v e people chose " s t r a i g h t e r trunk" as a reason f o r p r e f e r r i n g #13. In th i s case i t seems that the type of phy- s i c a l defect, or perhaps i t s degree, played an important r o l e i n tree pre- ference. The two pairs discussed above i l l u s t r a t e that trees s i m i l a r i n timber q u a l i t y may be assessed d i f f e r e n t l y . I t was concluded therefore that the aesthetic q u a l i t y of f o r e s t trees cannot be predicted accurately or con- s i s t e n t l y by the timber q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a as they are. Some modifications or additions would have to be made to increase t h e i r accuracy and con- sistency. That each timber q u a l i t y c l a s s i s represented by a d i f f e r e n t i - a l l y preferred p a i r of trees s i m i l a r i n timber q u a l i t y shows also that the c r i t e r i a of a l l three timber q u a l i t y classes need modifications. Of the d i s s i m i l a r tree p a i r s , a l l contained trees that were d i f f e r - e n t i a l l y preferred a s i g n i f i c a n t number of times. Five of the s i x tree pairs showed that t h e i r better timber q u a l i t y trees were preferred more often, leaving only one tree p a i r that showed the opposite trend. The exception, p a i r 6, showed the greatest difference i n preference with tree #12 preferred s i x times as often as tree #11. Tree #11 was an average 31 timber quality class 1 tree whereas tree #12 was slightly t a l l e r , had a denser crown and forked one meter up from the ground (see Appendix III). In this case i t seems that the fork, in combination with greater tree height and crown density, was more important to tree preference than better timber quality. The attractiveness of the fork was reflected by the number of respondent comments regarding the desirability of forks and other mishapen features. Such variety producing features were favored over stands con- sisting solely of less interesting, straighter, healthier trees. The dissimilar pairs were ordered from least dissimilar down to most dissimilar in timber quality. The Z values in table VI show however that increasing dissimilarity i s not accompanied by an increasing number of pre- ferences for the better timber quality trees: preferences for the poorer timber quality trees s t i l l constitute a sizeable minority in each pair. It i s these exceptions, of course, that are hard to predict. A f i n a l count of dissimilar pair preferences shows that poorer timber quality trees were preferred 75 times, and the better timber quality trees preferred 135 times. Comparing these counts showed that the better timber quality trees were preferred a significantly greater number of times (z = 4.14, p<.05). This definite majority substantiates the earlier finding that a po- sitive correlation exists between timber quality and aesthetic quality. Variability in Preference To analyze the v a r i a b i l i t y in individual respondents'• preferences, the dissimilar tree pairs were grouped according to the timber qualities they harbored (i.e. types 1-2, 2-3, 1-3). It was then noted whether a person who had preferred the better timber quality tree upon seeing the f i r s t of each pair type, switched their preference to the poorer timber quality tree upon seeing the second tree pair of that type, and vice- versa. The results are shown in table VII. 32 TABLE VII. VARIABILITY IN PREFERENCE CONSISTENT VARIABLE Type of Prefer better Prefer poorer Prefer better Prefer poorer Pairs tree both times tree both times than poorer than better tree tree 1 - 2 3 9 21 2 2 - 3 24 4 3 4 1 - 3 20 4 7 4 Table VII shows that more people are consistent i n t h e i r preference than are not. I t also shows that b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y trees were con- s i s t e n t l y preferred more often than the poorer timber q u a l i t y trees. Com- paring timber q u a l i t y class 2 and 3 trees, and 1 and 3 trees, shows that i n both cases the better timber q u a l i t y trees are consistently preferred at le a s t f i v e times as often. This substantiates an e a r l i e r f i n d i n g that poorer timber q u a l i t y trees are generally less preferred than better timber q u a l i t y trees. The exception to th i s trend i s i n the type 1-2 pairs where the poorer timber q u a l i t y trees are cons i s t e n t l y preferred more often than the better timber q u a l i t y trees. This r e s u l t i s o l a t e d from the rest seems to in d i c a t e that timber q u a l i t y 2 trees are preferred over timber q u a l i t y 1 trees. Table VI shows however that the better timber quality tree was preferred s i g n i f i c a n t l y more often i n the f i r s t type 1-2 p a i r en- countered. This reconfirms that aesthetic q u a l i t y of timber q u a l i t y 1 and 2 trees are, i n general, s i m i l a r . Also to be noted i s the s u b s t a n t i a l number of people who switched pre- ferences from the better to the poorer timber q u a l i t y trees, and vice-versa. By doing so, they indicated a desire f o r stands to be comprised of an assort- ment of timber q u a l i t y trees, rather than of better timber q u a l i t y trees only. 33 Reasons f or Preference As i n the f i r s t objective, so for the second objective, there were two types of data to work with. On the one hand were the reasons given by respondents f o r t h e i r preferences, on the other were the measured tree variables such as height and DBH, which also could a i d i n i d e n t i f y i n g reasons f o r preference. Given Reasons f o r Preference Pa r t i c i p a n t s were asked to give from 1 to 4 reasons why at each p a i r they preferred one tree over the other. The number of reasons they a c t u a l l y gave averaged three per tree and ranged from none to eight. The number of times each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c had been used by a l l respondents was counted and the count converted to a percent of the t o t a l number of times a l l charac- t e r i s t i c s were used. Also, a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had paired opposites. Each opposite p a i r described two d i f f e r e n t degrees of a sing l e a t t r i b u t e (e.g. trunk width, ground evenness). Therefore, to give each a t t r i b u t e r e l a t i v e weight, the percentages of each of the paired opposites were added. Table VIII shows the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n the same order as respondents saw them, matched with t h e i r respective counts and percents, and the a t t r i b u t e per- cents. The four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s chosen most often by respondents, and l i s t e d i n order of decreasing importance, were: more balanced, s t r a i g h t e r trunk, more a t t r a c t i v e background scenery, and fewer dead trunk branches. Straighter trunk and fewer dead trunk branches a f f e c t timber q u a l i t y po- s i t i v e l y , more balanced may or may not a f f e c t timber q u a l i t y , and more a t t r a c t i v e background does not a f f e c t timber q u a l i t y at a l l . For that matter, a l l tree c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s associated with good timber q u a l i t y were chosen more often than t h e i r pair-opposites. To f a c i l i t a t e the analysis of the given reasons f o r preference, they 34 TABLE VIII. GIVEN REASONS FOR PREFERENCE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE NO. OF TIMES CHOSEN % OF TIMES CHOSEN ATTRIBUTE % More balanced More lopsided Wider trunk Narrower trunk 128 45 47 7 9.20 3.23 3.38 0.50 12.43 3.88 Shorter trunk Longer trunk More lean Less lean 2 30 35 31 0.14 2.16 2.51 2.23 2.30 4.74 More crooked trunk Straighter trunk More dead trunk branches Fewer dead trunk branches 48 114 20 85 3.45 8.19 1.44 6.11 11.64 7.55 Rougher bark Smoother bark 47 41 3.38 2.95 6.33 More scars Fewer scars 27 53 1.94 3.81 5.75 More holes Fewer holes 2 11 0.14 0.79 0.93 More fungus Less fungus Denser crown Sparser crown Broader crown Narrower crown 30 18 47 13 28 13 2.16 1.29 3.38 0.93 2.01 0.93 3.45 4.31 2.94 Longer crown Shorter crown 47 3 3.38 0.22 3.60 More dead crown branches Fewer dead crown branches 10 42 0.72 3.02 3,74 35 TABLE VIII (CONT'D) CHARACTERISTICS. OF THE TREE'S SURROUNDINGS NO. OF TIMES CHOSEN % OF TIMES CHOSEN ATTRIBUTE % Mixed tree species Uniform tree species Mixed tree sizes Uniform tree sizes Uneven tree spacing Even tree spacing Denser undergrowth Sparser undergrowth Even ground Uneven ground Flatter ground Steeper ground More attractive background scenery- Less attractive background scenery Written comments 16 14 29 16 13 11 22 25 12 22 109 11 48 1.15 1.01 2.08 1.15 0.93 0.79 1.58 1.80 0.86 1.58 0.57 0.65 7.83 0.79 3.66 2:16 3.23 1.72 3.38 2.44 1.22 8.62 3.66 36 were divided under the following headings: the overall tree, the trunk, the crown, the tree's surroundings, and the written comments. The overall tree. The characteristics pertinent to the overall tree are more balanced/more lopsided and more lean/less lean. More lean and less lean were almost equally favored. Added together they form the attribute of "degree of lean", which was ranked as seventh most used. This relatively high rank is evidence that the degree of lean is important in aesthetic quality. Also, the similar scores for more or less lean indicate that many degrees of lean are welcome. A l l selected trees leaned somewhat, with tree #2 leaning the least (see Appendix III). Tree #3 leaned the most and, de- spite i t s low rating, s t i l l received a written comment about i t s "attract- ive lean." More balanced was chosen three times as often as more lopsided; i t was also chosen more often than any other characteristic. This suggests that an aesthetically pleasing tree should f i r s t of a l l be well balanced. How- ever, the substantial number of times more lopsided was chosen attests to the fact that lopsided trees are sometimes also favored. Of a l l the a t t r i - butes, degree of balance was the most important. That i t was list e d f i r s t in the questionnaire may have elevated the number of times i t was chosen; however, other attributes l i s t e d later were also used many times. The trunk. Ten of the 16 characteristics pertaining to the trunk dealt with i t s surface features. Fewer dead trunk branches, fewer holes, fewer scars, and more fungus were favored at least twice as often as their pair- opposites. Rough and smooth bark were about equally favored. The fungus characteristic produced confusion. Both degrees of fungus together were chosen 48 times as reasons for preference, but there was no sign of fungus, such as brackets, on any of the selected trees. Lichen however grew pro- l i f i c on many of the trunks and lower branches, especially on site II. The 37 number of times "more fungus" was chosen as a reason for preference in site I was eight; i t was chosen 22 times in site II however. Comparing these counts showed that "more fungus" was chosen a significantly greater number 9 4 of times in site II (x z = 5.63, p«c.05). Also, looking at trees i n d i v i - dually showed that tree #16, a site II tree supporting many more lichens than i t s pair-mate, received "more fungus" more often as a reason for pre- ference than any other tree. No one assigned i t "less fungus". Its pair- mate, tree #15, received neither "more fungus" or "less fungus" as prefer- ence reasons. Other tree pairs received counts that were less skewed or even contradictory. For example, respondents had chosen "more fungus" four times and "less fungus" three times for tree #18. In cases like this i t was debatable which tree of a pair actually had more lichen. The above findings led to the conclusion that respondents had equated lichens with fungus, assuming one was the other. Also potentially confusing was the difference between a dead trunk branch and a dead crown branch. Longer stubs just below the f i r s t live limb could have been thought as belonging to either the trunk or the crown. In the future, perhaps respondents could i n i t i a l l y be told that the crown starts at the f i r s t l i v e limb and that anything below that belongs to the trunk. The six remaining trunk characteristics referred to the trunk as a whole, Wider trunk, longer trunk, and straighter trunk were a l l substantially favored over their pair-opposites. It was noted though that crooked trunk, 4 *\ = ( / F i - v - 1 ) 2 * F + -p where F^ = frequency of use of characteristic 1 2 in site I F 2 - frequency of use of characteristic in site II 38 although subordinate to s t r a i g h t e r trunk, was chosen more often than longer trunk and j u s t as often as wider trunk as a reason f o r preference. Its r e l a t i v e importance, then, shows a l l the i n d i c a t i o n s of i t s being one of the overriding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that Cook (1971) r e f e r s to. That i s , at times a crooked trunk w i l l be preferred, contrary to expectation, over one that i s wider, longer, or s t r a i g h t e r . The crown. Of the eight crown c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , four were substanti- a l l y favored over their pair-opposites. Longer crown was favored 15 to 1 to shorter crown; fewer dead crown branches was favored 4 to 1 to more dead crown branches; denser crown was favored 3 to 1 to sparser crown, and broader crown was favored 2 to 1 over narrower crown. The favored charac- t e r i s t i c s c o l l e c t i v e l y describe a h e a l t h i e r crown, and therefore l i k e l y a h e a l t h i e r tree. The crowns of many of the trees p a r t i a l l y produced a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n aesthetic q u a l i t y . Trees #2 and #4 (see Appendix III) for example, were very s i m i l a r , e s p e c i a l l y i n height and DBH. Tree //2 was rated con- siderably higher however. Their greatest difference was i n t h e i r crowns. Tree #2 had the larger crown whereas tree #4 had a clump of dead branches breaking the continuity of i t s crown i n h a l f . Based on the crown charac- t e r i s t i c s most often chosen as reasons f o r preference, tree #2 could have been predicted as having the most aesthetic q u a l i t y . The high ratings tree #18 received could also have been predicted on t h i s basis. Of the selected trees i t was the only one with no dead branches on either i t s trunk or i n i t s long crown. The tree's surroundings. More a t t r a c t i v e background scenery" was chosen more often as a reason for preference than any other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c describing the tree's surroundings. This was to be expected since i t alone 39 could r e f e r to a l l the other "surroundings" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s combined. I f a respondent l i k e d something about a tree's surroundings, but could not quite f i g u r e out what, choosing "more a t t r a c t i v e background scenery" would cover i t . That less a t t r a c t i v e background scenery was chosen at a l l was s u r p r i s i n g . Perhaps those choosing i t thought that the le s s a t t r a c t i v e background acted as a contrasting f o i l that displayed the tree's aesthetic a t t r i b u t e s to advantage. Of the s i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p e r t a i n i n g to the surrounding trees, mixed and uniform tree species, and even and uneven tree spacing were chosen an almost equal number of times. This indicates that a v a r i e t y of tree spe- cies and tree spacings l i k e l y appeal to most people. That mixed tree sizes were favored more often than uniform tree sizes suggests a tendency for un- even-aged stands to be preferred over even-aged stands. Mentioned l a s t are the s i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s dealing with the f o r e s t f l o o r . The only one chosen considerably more often than i t s paired oppo- s i t e was uneven ground. The unevenness of t e r r a i n was due to dry g u l l i e s and boulders dispersed over the otherwise f l a t terraces. F l a t t e r and steeper ground were equally preferred i n the trees' surroundings. Denser and sparser undergrowth were also nearly equally preferred, perhaps r e - f l e c t i n g that a very noticeable diffe r e n c e i n undergrowth density did not ex i s t between trees of any one p a i r . A v a r i e t y i n undergrowth density then, pleased the respondents. The a t t r i b u t e of undergrowth density, a l - though not chosen many times, was used more often than others such as trunk length or crown width to explain the preference. This, i f anything, shows that surroundings also play a d e c i s i v e r o l e i n the o v e r a l l aesthetic appeal of a tree. The number of times each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was used was important, but also important was the way i n which they were used. S p e c i f i c a l l y , there 40 was concern that people would find some easy way to use characteristics that they would then repeatedly employ. To examine this aspect, a table was made that showed how many times each respondent had used each charac- t e r i s t i c . From i t a t a l l y was taken of the number of times characteristics were used once, twice, three times, and so on up to 12 times. Table IX summarizes this t a l l y . It shows that as the frequency of the use of a characteristic goes up, the number of times that frequency occurs goes down. TABLE IX. THE NUMBER OF TIMES POSSIBLE FREQUENCIES OF A CHARACTERISTIC'S USE PER PERSON OCCURRED Possible frequency of a characteristic's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 use per person Number of times that frequency 301 134 81 43 28 14 17 2 3 1 0 1 occurred Specifically, any one characteristic was used 6 or less times by 4 out of every 5 people. Of course more balanced, straighter trunk and more attract- ive background scenery were used more often by most persons than any of the other characteristics. This was due to two factors: their applicability in a l l comparisons, and their ease of application. More attractive background scenery, to i l l u s t r a t e the f i r s t factor, could be applied in a l l cases whereas scarring, found on only a few of the selected trees, applied in those cases only. An example of the second factor would be deciding whether one tree was straighter than the other, this being much easier than deciding which of two trees was surrounded by more tree species. Nevertheless, only once was the same characteristic (straighter trunk) used to explain preference at a l l twelve pairs. In a l l , the figures indi- cate that specific characteristics were repeatedly used by the same per- sons, but seldom f o r a l l cases, and that other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were used l i b e r a l l y to pinpoint the preference. The written comments. Respondents wrote 51 comments i n the question- naires to supplement the provided reasons f o r preference. Twenty-three people had written comments; twelve had not. Trees #12 and #23 (see App- endix III) received the most comments with 10 and 6 comments res p e c t i v e l y . Most of the comments f o r tree #12 referred to i t s fork, that i t gave the tree "character" or was "unusual" or " i n t e r e s t i n g " . The comments for tree #23 r e f e r r e d to i t s " g r a c e f u l " lean and branches, and i t s "nice shape". "Int e r e s t i n g " and "unusual" were the words most often used. Other comments refe r r e d to such things as bark color, the foreground, the tree's health, l i g h t i n g conditions, the presence of l i c h e n . I d e a l l y the trees and t h e i r surroundings would have been s c r u t i n i z e d before completing the l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s supplied i n the questionnaire. Perhaps " f o r k i n g " would then have been on i t and morefungus/less fungus would have been replaced by more l i c h e n / l e s s l i c h e n . A l l l i s t e d character- i s t i c s were used at l e a s t twice, i n d i c a t i n g that a preference assessment procedure has room f o r them a l l . Deduced Reasons Rather than r e l y s o l e l y on the respondents, the measured tree variables were also analyzed i n hope of i d e n t i f y i n g which v i s i b l e p h y s i c a l character- i s t i c s influenced the aesthetic q u a l i t y of f o r e s t trees. I f any of the v a r i a b l e s d i d indeed influence a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y , t h e i r ease of measurement would i n turn make predictions of tree aesthetic q u a l i t y easier, and per- haps more accurate. The measured va r i a b l e s consisted of tree height, DBH, the number of knots i n the lower ten meters, and the heights of the f i r s t l i v e limb and stub. The values of each v a r i a b l e were matched with the mean aesthetic 42 ratings in order to measure the degree of association between them. The resulting correlation equivalents, or r_ values, are li s t e d in table X. TABLE X. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEAN AESTHETIC RATINGS AND MEASURED TREE VARIABLES Tree Height (m.) DBH (cm.) Knots First 10 m. Height, of': First Live Limb Height of First Stub r: 0.68* 0.61* -0.48* 0.37 0.30 * Significant at 0,05 level of probability. As the r_ values show, tree height is the most reliable single indicator of aesthetic quality. The coefficient of determination, _r , indicates that i t alone explains 46% of the variation in the mean aesthetic ratings. Relating this correlation to the timber quality classes, the taller trees within each class generally received the highest ratings. Hence for aesthetic quality predictions, not only can trees be differentiated by timber quality class, but by height within and between timber quality classes as well. The prob- lem then of the timber quality classification being too coarse to predict aesthetic quality accurately, especially between trees of similar timber quality, is in part solved by tree height. Regarding the l i s t of characteristics, i t should be noted that res- pondents could show their preference for the tall e r trees either by select- ing both longer trunk and longer crown or .by writing i t on the characteris- tics l i s t s provided. Only two wrote " t a l l e r " as a reason for preference. If future tree aesthetics research is conducted and i t uses a characterist- ics l i s t , both " t a l l e r tree" and "shorter tree" should be included charac- teri s t i c s . 43 The l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between aesthetic q u a l i t y and tree height i s shown i n fi g u r e 4. The tendency for t a l l e r trees to be rated higher can be seen i n the p l o t t e d data points, but t h e i r s c a t t e r i n g away from the l i n e indicates that other factors are at play here too. Diameter at breast height proved also to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with aesthetic q u a l i t y . This was expected however because of i t s i n t e r - dependence with tree height: the t a l l e r the tree, the wider i t usually i s . Diameter at breast height then, adds l i t t l e i f any p r e d i c t i v e power i f tree height i s already known. The number of knots ( l i v e and dead branches) seen on the lower ten meters of the tree proved to be negatively correlated with aesthetic qua- l i t y . That i s , as the number of knots increases, aesthetic q u a l i t y de- creases. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n , however, i s caused mainly from the dead branches, and not the l i v e ones. This was concluded for two rea- sons: f i r s t , dead trunk and crown branches usually outnumbered l i v e ones on the lower trunks of selected trees; secondly, longer crowns were pre- ferred, and the more l i v e branches i n the lower portion of the tree, the greater the chance of having a long crown. Height to f i r s t l i v e limb was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with aesthetic q u a l i t y . On the one hand a lower f i r s t l i v e limb would l i k e l y mean a longer crown; on the other hand, a higher f i r s t l i v e limb would mean a longer trunk. As both conditions were a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing, no d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n could e x i s t . Height to f i r s t stub was likewise not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with aesthetic q u a l i t y . I t had been expected, since dead trunk branches were generally disfavored, that a low stub would mean low aesthetic q u a l i t y . However, i r r e g u l a r i t i e s such as the very low stub found on tree #12, which nonetheless received a high r a t i n g , are a probable cause of the 44 45 non-significance. After examining the accuracy with which the variables individually predicted aesthetic quality of forest trees, i t was desirable to know i f more precise predictions could be made when they worked in combination with each other. (Tree aesthetics i s , after a l l , a result of many interde- pendent factors.) For this purpose a step-wise multiple regression analysis was used. Simply speaking, this form of regression analysis chooses various combinations of the independent variables (tree variables), multiplies each variable within each combination by an appropriately weighted value, and then estimates how accurately each combination predicts the dependent va- riable (mean aesthetic ratings). The end product is a set of regression equations constituting various predictive accuracies. The most accurate regression equation"* explained 69% of the variance in the mean aesthetic ratings. The limited number of trees and participants sampled though, restrict i t s application in forest management. However, its general find- ing that the aesthetic quality of forest trees can be predicted agrees with Cook's (1971) findings. A Within Site Comparison The two study sites were separately scrutinized to see what effect each had on tree aesthetics. Although this was outside of the proposed research objectives, i t was f e l t i t would lend a valuable perspective to this study. To scrutinize the sites separately, the trees on each were rank or- ~* Mean aesthetic rating = 5.769 + 0.080 (tree height i n meters) - 0.045 (number of knots in lower 10 m.) - 0.142 (height to f i r s t live limb in m.) - 0.139 (height of f i r s t stub in m.) 46 dered a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y . As t a b l e XI i l l u s t r a t e s , the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 and 3 t r e e s on s i t e I I s e p a r a t e d w e l l on the b a s i s of a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y . T h i s e x e m p l i f i e s the e a r l i e r f i n d i n g t h a t a good d i s t i n c t i o n e x i s t s between q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 and 3 t r e e s . S i t e I shows a more i r r e g u l a r p a t t e r n however, w i t h a h i g h l y r a t e d c l a s s 2 t r e e and a s h o r t c l a s s 1 t r e e d i s p e r s i n g the timber q u a l i t y class 1 t r e e r a t i n g s . These r e s u l t s can be d i s c u s s e d b e s t by r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between timber q u a l i t i e s . The t i m b e r q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 t r e e s on s i t e I I f o r example, were the t a l l e s t t h a t s i t e had to o f f e r , o r p o s s e s s e d the b e s t p o s s i b l e growth form. P l a c e d amongst the q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 t r e e s , they cut a f i n e f i g u r e i n d e e d . There was good c o n t r a s t , b o t h i n h e i g h t and form, between the two timber q u a l i t y c l a s s e s . T h i s i n t u r n l e d to the ready a e s t h e t i c d i s t i n c t i o n between them. On the o t h e r hand, the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 t r e e s on s i t e I d i d not dominate as c o n s p i c u o u s l y as d i d the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 t r e e s on s i t e I I . They s t o o d amongst many o t h e r t a l l , w e l l - f o r m e d t r e e s t h a t were j u s t as s u i t a b l e f o r q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 t r e e s e xcept t h a t t h e i r crowns were not i n f u l l view. W i t h i n such a m a t r i x , the s e l e c t e d c l a s s 1 t r e e s g e n e r a l l y d i d not s t a n d out w e l l . The h i g h l y r a t e d q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 t r e e on s i t e I i s a n o t h e r c a s e i n p o i n t . I t was n o t competing w i t h the q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 t r e e s on t h e dimensions of h e i g h t o r good form as much as on the d i m e n s i o n o f u n i q u e n e s s . I t s f o r k p r o - v i d e d p l e a s i n g c o n t r a s t among the s i n g l e stemmed t r e e s and because o f t h a t was r a t e d h i g h l y . The q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 t r e e w i t h the l o w e s t mean a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g w e l l e x e m p l i f i e s the above d i s c u s s i o n : i t was s h o r t e s t o f the c l a s s 1 t r e e s ; i t was s h o r t e s t o f t h e s e l e c t e d t r e e s on s i t e I, and i t was not unique i n any way. C onsequently, i t r e c e i v e d low a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s . Timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 t r e e s were the dominants on s i t e I I , and timber 47 TABLE XI. A WITHIN SITE TREE AESTHETICS RANKING RANK ORDER TREE MEAN TIMBER POSITION // AESTHETIC QUALITY WITHIN STAND RATING CLASS A. SITE I 1 5 7.457 1 2 2 6.486 1 3 12 6.382 2 4 9 6.242 1 5 6 5.886 1 6 10 5.857 1 7 4 5.714 1 8 7 5.086 1 9 1 5.059 3 10 8 4.857 2 11 3 4.853 3 12 11 4.676 1 B. SITE II 1 23 6.571 2 2 18 6.343 2 3 20 6.314 2 4 19 6.143 2 5 24 5.743 2 6 16 5.629 2 7 14 5.514 3 8 17 5.171 3 9 22 4.943 3 10 15 4.886 3 11 21 4.829 3 12 13 3.829 3 48 q u a l i t y class 1 trees were generally dominant on s i t e I. Their equal dominance r o l e s r e s u l t e d i n t h e i r r e c e i v i n g near equal o v e r a l l aestheti ratings and preference counts. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of the timber q u a l i t y classes within each s i t e then, helped to explain t h e i r general aestheti r e l a t i o n s h i p s . CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study investigated three things: (1) the re l a t i o n s h i p s between timber q u a l i t y and aesthetic q u a l i t y of forest trees; (2) the e f f e c t v i s - i b l e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of forest trees and t h e i r surroundings have on forest tree aesthetic preferences; (3) the consistency i n preference for e i t h e r better or poorer timber q u a l i t y trees. Study trees were i n - t e r i o r Douglas f i r , 30 cm. DBH or greater, growing i n the Stein River v a l l e y . Twenty-four were chosen according to three timber q u a l i t y classes, and paired so that a l l possible combinations of the q u a l i t y classes were evenly represented. The r e s u l t i n g pairs i n turn were evenly divided be- tween two s i t e s % kilometer apart. Wilderness backpackers were asked to rate the attractiveness of the trees, to compare the two trees of each p a i r and se l e c t the one they preferred, then check reasons f o r t h e i r pre- ference . In i n t e r p r e t i n g the study findings i t should be noted that s t a t i s t i c - a l t e s t i n g necessitated the pooling of responses; the r e s u l t s therefore represent the judgements of a group and tend to mask i n d i v i d u a l responses. That the i n d i v i d u a l responses were r e l a t i v e l y uniform, however, as shown by the minimal variance i n the mean aesthetic ratings, o f f e r s some assu- rance of t h e i r representativeness. Another form of assurance, and an i n t e r e s t i n g one at that, was found when comparing study findings with those of Cook (1971). He performed h i s study nine years ago, on the other side of the continent on deciduous trees; yet many of both studies' findings were s i m i l a r . Witness e s p e c i a l l y the reasons given f o r preference. Both studies found that trees were pre- ferred i f they were balanced, had a s t r a i g h t trunk, and a t t r a c t i v e back- ground scenery. A difference between the studies however was in the fourth most l i s t e d reason f o r preference: Cook found i t to be many crown 50 branches; i n t h i s study i t was few dead trunk branches. This study's chief f i n d i n g was that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p exists between timber q u a l i t y and a preference assessment of forest trees, d i r e c t l y viewed. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , people found timber q u a l i t y class 3 (poor) trees o v e r a l l less a t t r a c t i v e than timber q u a l i t y class 1 and 2 (good and average) trees, and timber q u a l i t y class 1 and 2 trees of generally equal a t t r a c t i v e - ness. Timber q u a l i t y i n other words, could not with any consistency, a e s t h e t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between timber q u a l i t y class 1 and 2 trees. I t also could not, with any consistency, a e s t h e t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between trees of s i m i l a r timber q u a l i t y . That i s , when comparing two trees of s i m i l a r timber q u a l i t y , be they both i n class 1, 2, or 3, h a l f the time they were judged as a e s t h e t i c a l l y quite d i s s i m i l a r . I t was found that tree height and diameter at breast height could however d i f f e r e n t i a t e more accurately between these trees. S p e c i f i c a l l y , large trees were preferred over smaller ones. Tree si z e was found then to a e s t h e t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n - t i a t e where timber q u a l i t y could not. I t therefore was more accurate than timber q u a l i t y i n p r e d i c t i n g the aesthetic q u a l i t y of f o r e s t trees. Knowing the e f f e c t tree s i z e had on aesthetic q u a l i t y , the reason f o r timber q u a l i t y class 1 and 2 trees being judged equal i n aesthetic q u a l i t y became c l e a r . On s i t e I, timber q u a l i t y class 1 trees were the dominants; on s i t e I I , timber q u a l i t y class 2 trees were the dominants. The dominant trees on both s i t e s were found a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing, r e s u l t i n g therefore i n t h e i r aesthetic e q u a l i t y . The timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 trees however, were the subordinates on both s i t e s , and therefore received generally low aes- t h e t i c r a t i n g s . . Other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s people preferred were long, broad, dense and healthy (few dead crown branches) crowns . Based on them, i t could have 51 been predicted that some trees, indistinguishable from others otherwise, would be preferred. In analyzing the consistency of people's preferences, i t was found that more people were consistent in their preference for either better or poorer timber quality trees than were not. Also found was that the better timber quality trees were consistently preferred more than twice as often as the poorer timber quality, trees. Those inconsistent in their preference con- stituted a sizeable minority, however, indicating a desire for a variety of timber quality trees. Analyzing the variance in aesthetic ratings revealed that people agreed less on the aesthetic quality of poor timber quality trees than they did for good timber quality trees. This could be seen especially with a forked tree and a tree with a severe crook: both showed a greater variance in aesthetic ratings than the other trees. As stated in the introduction, this study's aim was to establish aes- thetic quality c r i t e r i a for forest trees. Also, the relationship between timber quality and aesthetic quality was to reveal possible compatibilities between timber production and recreation, and give the c r i t e r i a their needed objectivity for application i n exclusive use recreation forests. The nature of the data does not allow the establishment of a definitive aesthetic hierarchy among countless forest trees — an impossibility at any rate — but does allow aesthetic distinctions to be made, with some confidence, between interior Douglas f i r trees of the same stand. To i l l u s t r a t e the application of the study findings, some aspects of aesthetic stand manage- ment in forest recreation areas are discussed. Tree cutting is the most prevalent form of stand management. It can maintain or enhance a stand's aesthetics i f tree selection is guided by aesthetic c r i t e r i a . One criterion, for example, i s that big trees are attractive, and should therefore be retained whenever possible or feasible. 52 I f the recreation s i t e i s within a timber production f o r e s t , t h i s could mean the re t e n t i o n of a percentage of trees past t h e i r economic maturity, allowing them to reach f u l l s i z e . When such trees present a safety hazard due to decadence, they can be s e l e c t i o n cut and replaced by new growth, or be removed a l l at once and the recreation s i t e located elsewhere. Straight, w e l l balanced trees with long, broad, dense and healthy crowns should also be retained, hopefully to comprise the larger part of the stand's overstory. When necessary, they could also be s e l e c t i o n cut. Cutting trees to manipulate stand density i s c a l l e d thinning. A stand i s thinned for many reasons, some of which may be to increase ease of access, to harden the stand f o r intensive recreation use, to give re- si d u a l trees room to grow, or to encourage regeneration and herbaceous growth. In thinning, many poor timber q u a l i t y trees can be removed from the stand without aesthetic detriment, as long as they do not constitute a major part of the stand. Those e x h i b i t i n g unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s should however be retained to provide contrast i n the stand. Trees that s h e l t e r specimen trees by maintaining the stand's windfirmness should also be retained, but allow good views of the dominants and other specimen trees. When stands are thinned, the change i n stand l i g h t i n g should be noted, and perhaps contrasted with p r e v a i l i n g f o r e s t conditions. Contrasting l i g h t i n t e n s i t i e s can also be provided by fo r e s t openings of varied s i z e . Views to the scenery outside of the stand can be emphasized. An enclosed view of alpine peaks, a lake, or other features may be exposed by the removal of s p e c i f i c trees. Tree cutt i n g should encourage regeneration. Since Douglas f i r i s commonly a pioneer species, i t s regeneration necessitates clearcuttings of 53 various sizes, large group selection cuts, or planting under more closed- in conditions. In later years, the resulting immature stand can be thinned to favor potential timber quality class 1 and 2 trees, and uniquely formed trees. Respondents indicated by their "additional comments" and preference reasons that they preferred variety in the stand. Specifically, they de- sired uneven aged, mixed specie stands with variety in tree lean, tree density and undergrowth density. Although skewed toward the healthy end, a range of tree conditions was also desired. This preference for within stand variety can l i k e l y be translated to a preference for between stand variety as well. Uneven-aged and imma- ture stands mixed with even-aged and mature stands would, for example, lik e l y provide variety appreciated by many. A suggestion for future study is the aspect of preferred tree species. For example, are a ponderosa pine and Douglas f i r of similar timber quality equal in aesthetic quality? Are preferences similar province-wide? 54 Literature Cited Arthur, Louise M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. For. Sci. 23 (2): 151-160. B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1979. Forest Inventory Report No. 1 (unpublish- ed) : Site index equations and curves for the major tree species in British Columbia. 60 pp. 1978. Forest Service Cruising Procedures and Cruise Compilation. 118 pp B.C. Ministry of the Environment. 1979. Recreation and Tourism in the British Columbia Environment. 96 pp. Brush, Robert Owen. 1978. Perception of stand attractiveness by forest landowners of Massachusetts. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Massachusetts. 94 pp. Buyhoff, G.J., J.D. Wellman, H. Harvey, and R.A. Fraser. 1978. Landscape architects' interpretations of people's landscape preferences. J. Environ. Management 6 (3): 255-262. Clark, R., J.C. Hendee, and F.L. Campbell. 1971. Values, behavior and conflict in modern camping culture. J. Leisure Research 3 (3): 143-159. Cook, Walter L. 1971. The aesthetic quality of forest trees. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, State University College of Forestry at Syracuse University, New York. 168 pp. Craik, Kenneth H. 1972. Appraising the objectivity of landscape dimensions. In J.V. K r u t i l l a (ed.), Natural Enviforiments: Studies in Theoreti- cal and Applied Analysis. John Hopkins University Press, B a l t i - more. Pp. 292-346. Cromie, George A. 1937. Simpler methods of forest landscaping. J. For- estry 35 (12): 1129-1133. d'Amour, Therese. 1976. Perception of forest aesthetics in Quebec, Canada. Unpublished M.Sc. McGill University, Montreal. 171 pp. Daniel, Terry C , Lawrence Wheeler, Ron S. Boster, and Paul R. Best, Jr. 1973. Quantitative evaluation of landscapes: an application of signal detection analysis. Man-Environment Systems 3 (5): 330-343. Dobie, J. and G.R. Middleton. 1977. Tree quality classes for B.C. interior Douglas f i r . Western Forest Products Laboratory. (Unpublished paper.) Working plan, study no. VP-191. Vancouver. 5 pp. Dooling, Peter J. 1978. "Recreation and Aesthetics and Forest Management." In proceedings: Regimes for Management of Plantations and Natural Stands Conference"! Ctr. Continuing Education, University of Bri t i s h Columbia. Pp. 135-164. 55 Freeman, Roger D. and David Thompson. 1979. Exploring the Stein River Valley. Hemlock Printers, Canada. 162 pp. F r i s s e l l , Jr., Sidney S., and Donald P. Duncan. 1965. Campsite preference and deterioration in the Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. J. For- estry 63 (4): 256-260. Fritz, Emanuel. 1967. The Redwood Park proposals: a redwood forester's view. J. Forestry 65 (5): 312-319. Hancock, H.K. 1973. Recreation preference: i t s relation to user behavior. J. Forestry 71 (6): 336-337. Hendee, J.C. and R.W. Harris. 1970. Foresters' perceptions of wilderness user attitudes and preferences. J. Forestry 68 (12): 759-762. Hough, Stansbury and Associates, Ltd. 1973. Design Guidelines for Forest Management. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 181 James, George A., and Harold K. Cordell. 1970. Importance of shading to visitors selecting a campsite at Indian Boundary Campground in Tennessee. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Res. Note SE-130, Ashville, North Carolina. 5 pp. Kalmbach, Kevin L., and J. James Kielbaso. 1979. Resident attitudes to- ward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. J. Ar- boriculture 5 (6): 124-129. Kaplan, Rachel. 1973. Predictors of environmental preferences: designers and "clients." In Community Design Research, vol. 1 - selected papers. Fourth International EDRA Conference. Dowden, Hutchin- son and Ross, Inc., Pennsylvania. Pp. 265-274. . 1977. Preference and everyday nature: Method and appli- cation. In Perspectives on Environment and Behavior, Daniel Stokols (ed.). Plenum Press, New York. 360 pp. Klukas, Richard W., and Donald P. Duncan. 1967. Vegetational preferences among Itasca park vi s i t o r s . J. Forestry 65 (1): 18-21. Koehler, Hans J. 1922. Notes on practical forest aesthetics. Landscape Architecture 12 (4): 224-232. Krajina, V.J. 1969. Ecology of Western North America, vol. 2. Dept. of Botany, Univerity of British Columbia. 349 pp. Lime, David W. 1972. Behavioral research in outdoor recreation management an example of how visitors select campgrounds. In Joachim F. Wohlwill and Daniel H. Carson (eds.), Environment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications. American Psychological Association. Pp. 198-212. 56 Litton, Jr., R. Burton. 1973. A personal communication quoted (on p.6) in P.A. Murtha and M. Greco. Appraisal of Forest Aesthetic Values: an Annotated Bibliography. Forest Management Institute, Information Report FMR-X-79, 1975. 56 pp. Lucas, Robert C. 1964. Wilderness perception and use: the example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Natural Resources Journal, vol.3: 394-411. Marshall, H.N. 1974. Problems, Trends, and Techniques in Forest Recre- ation. Paper presented at the Tenth Commonwealth Forestry Conference. 25 pp. McDonald, P h i l l i p M., and Raymond V. Whiteley. 1972. Logging a roadside stand to protect scenic values. J. Forestry 70 (2): 80-82. Mcintosh, J.A. 1964. Log and Tree Quality Standards for Douglas Fir in B.C. Interior. Forest Products Research Branch, Contribution no. P-69, Dept. of Forestry, Canada. 3 pp. Neff, Paul E. 1965. Applied silviculture in managing outdoor recreation sites. Proceedings: Society of American Foresters, pp. 34-35. Noyes, John H. 1968. Timber Harvesting and Forest Aesthetics. Univer- sity of Massachusetts, Coop. Ext. Service, Publication 440. 19 pp, Peterson, George L. 1974. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness en- vironment: congruence between perception and aspiration. Environment and Behavior 6 (2): 169-193. Rickard, W.M., J.M. Hughes, and C.A. Newport. 1967. Economic Evaluation and Choice in Old Growth Douglas Fir Landscape Management. U.S. Forest Service Res. Paper PNW-49. 33 pp. Rosencrans, W.S. 1957. Logging in recreational forests. American Forests 63 (5): 53-59. Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Department of the Environ- ment, Canadian Forest Service, Publication No. 1300. 172 pp. Rudolf, Paul 0. 1967. Silviculture for recreation area management. J. Forestry 65 (6): 385-390. Rutherford, Jr., William, and Elwood L. Shafer, Jr. 1969. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. J. Forestry 67 (6): 415-419. Shafer, Jr., E.L., and Hubert D. Burke. 1965. Preferences for outdoor recreation f a c i l i t i e s in four state parks. J. Forestry 63 (7): 512-518. , and James Mietz. 1969. Aesthetic and emotional experiences rate high with northeast wilderness hikers. Environment and Behavior 9 (2): 187-197. 57 Show, S.B. 1937. Integrating recreation and aesthetics into multiple- purpose forest management. J. Forestry 35 (2): 214-218. Sieker, John. 1955. Management of timber stands on recreation areas. Proceedings: Society of American Foresters, pp. 106-109. Smith, David M. 1962. The Practice of Silviculture. (7th ed.) John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 578 pp. Society of American Foresters. 1958. Forestry Terminology; a Glossary of Technical Terms Used in Forestry (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C. 97 pp. Sonnenfeld, J. 1966. Variable values in space and landscape: an inquiry into the nature of environmental necessity. J. Social Issues 22 (4): 71-82. Twiss, Robert H. 1969. Conflicts in forest landscape management - the need for forest environmental design. J. Forestry 67 (1): 19-23. UNESCO. 1973. Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB): Expert Panel on Project 13: Perception of Environmental Quality. MAB Report Series no. 9. Paris: UNESCO House. 76 pp. Warden, Geoff. 1971 Whose forest? Whose ecology? B.C. Outdoors 27 (4): 52-55. Wohlwill, Joachim F., and Glenn Harris. 1979. Perceived Congruity of Man-Made Elements in Forested and other Natural Contexts. Grant PL 85-934, Northeastern For. Exp. Station. U.S. Forest Service. 39 pp. Zube, E.H., D.G. Pitt, and T.W. Anderson. 1974. Perception and Measure- ments of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Amherst: Institute for Man and the Environment, University of Massachusetts. 191 pp. 58 APPENDIX I. SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES MENTIONED IN THE TEXT AND TABLES 5 9 SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES MENTIONED IN THE TEXT AND TABLES S c i e n t i f i c Name Abies balsamea (L.) M i l l . Acer glabrum Torr. var. d o u g l a s i i (Hook.) Dipp, Alnus t e n u i f o l i a Nutt. Betula papyrifera Marsh. Picea spp. A. Die t r . Pinus contorta Dougl. Pinus ponderosa Laws. Pinus resinosa A i t . Pinus strobus L. Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray Populus tremuloides Michx. Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Biessn.) Franco Thuja p l i c a t a Donn Common Name Balsam f i r Douglas maple Mountain alder Paper b i r c h Spruce Lodgepole pine Ponderosa pine Red pine White pine Black cottonwood Trembling aspen Douglas f i r Western red cedar 60 APPENDIX II RECORDED TREE DATA R D. Pt N H A L L 1 TlJ M A U . IN Ii C D U K S B A K W A T E K P H O C * g — • O o I* o 0» YO.A ft Oo T R E E C L A3 S 5 BLIND CONK 0 Or B TOP SPIRA LIVE o t L IMB l^t STUB l-J ro o o 3i m </> H (/) m 3D < o m o c j m f ro CO x m m R D. P t N H A L L L I D f M ! : t l N u . D U K S B A K W A T E R P R O O F J m "I TREE: C L A S S PATH. COCE QUALITY CODE KNOT CODE QUARTERS 10) WITH KNOTS O.f !Ocm. j " CROWN C L A S S ( C / C ) 1 (DOMINANT 2 | CO-OOMINfiNT rN T E. "MEDIATE SUPPRESSED CONDITIONS AFFECTING A P P R A I S A L S FOR THIS PLOT ROUGHNESS T O a! a • o z NUMBER O o | 1 ^ ~ ' a ; kT E R lA I cr z> (/> ) R O C h cr o < 3E E T L E  M IS T U  or S T O R Y  A L L O W T H  a a < :n a. X X Ul < o o o E s | « I P < = Si £ * d e S O IL  M l S O IL  M O  E X P O S E C  D E F O L  B A R K  1  B R A N C H  V IG O U  a. a z W IN D F . U N O E R G R 1 1 a " ! 1 2*1 ZS 27 26 29 30] 31 32 |33 *34 35 36 37 38i 39 ! 1 I i 48 49 50 31 52 53 54 35 56 4 ! ! I ! i i T i 1 1 1 I s l i I T E i S L O P E - r t c o m average percent slope lor plol T E R R A I N - record as coded i - Even 2 • R O U G H N E S S •   - Rolling 3 - Gull.ed 4 - Broken -dumber of Plot Quorters with obstacles over .25metrei -Number of obstacles By classes (record nine or more obstacles as 9 ) 1-. Q3-»hec totes subplot O E P T H TO M I N E R A L S O I L - r e c o r d tne depth of organic mattnai in O.I metres S O ' L D E P T H - ^ Depth to bedrock or hardpan in metres - tenths of metre required fur first metre only. D E F O L I A T O R S / B A R K B E E T L E / B R A N C H M I S T L E T O E - COOE AS 0 - Nona I - Light 2 - Moderate 3 - Heavy 4 - Past Occurence V I G O U R - CODE AS I - Thri f ty • Average 3 - Decadent U N D E R S T O R Y - number of stems of commercial species below tne minimum d .b .h . on a .004 ho subplot 3.60m radius) SOIL M A T E R I A L - CODE AS W I N D F A L L - number over 5 0 % sound onq ma ling on 0 .004 ho subplot U N D E R G R O W T H - CODE AS 1 - l ight - does not affect vrulking 2 - medium - affects walking 3 - heavy - difficult woikinQ ft influences work combinations ore acceptable < - very heavy - very difficult ( *g. 63 - grovel - silt > walk ng S influences 10 - Orgcnrc Soi y . 5 m deep. work greatly. 20 - Cloy 60 - Gravel 30 - Silt 70 - Cobble E X P O S E D ROCK - CODE AS 40 - Loom 80 - Boulder 0 - none 50 - Sond 90 - Exposed 1 - light 1 • 10 "A area affected Bedrock 2 - moderate - 1 - 30 % area affected S O I L M O I S T U R E - COOE A S I - Dry heavy - 31 % a over area affected rock bluffs or cl i f fs 3 - Wet 4 — Swampy R E M A R K S - other defects & q u o l i t y , f a c t o r s a f f e c t i ng logg ing . V E G E T A T I O N (MAIN 'HHBACIOUS AND SHHJR SPECIES) GROWTH R A T E S - ( c o m p l e t e oniy when d i r e c t ed ) RINGS L A S T t . S cm TEN YEAR GROWTH crn. 25! 26 ! £ 7 } 2 9 j 29 | 301 31 32 i RINGS L A S T TEN YEAR GROWTH RINGS L A S T 2.5 cm TEN YEAR GROWTH _ L _ CERTIFIED THAT THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT OF SAMPLING DONE BY ME AT T H E P L A C E SHOWN. S N O W D E P T H .08 79 TREE CLASS PATH COOE QUALITY CODE i KNOT CODE CROWS C L A S S Rturtuol Spir-jl 0 - AtH-r.! QUARTOS 13) " I ' M • •.CTS IC /C) z 5uip«ct 3 Gram LEAN 0 - 0 -•».-» ) tdl ! i | T - o £ E 3 — r 1 ; DCWI.'.A.'.T J Deod Potential 4 ;.v.;.:.:.:.::i 0 - »0n« Z, | 0», J - CPiE 0 j A j roi.o 5 n Dead Uttim 5 . . . . 1 -• WmOf I T~~.TFoC*F-~A' = 5 V . , , . , R- Z •- Mojof i * TWO 0 I 5 j * 7 _ ' . . ! . . _ . *_ 4 1 >I;OP=E;5EL> CONDITIONS AFFECTING A P P R A I S A L S FOR THIS PLOT *- a. u . s i o. cc J 34 j 35 I 36[37~ J L 50 I 51 I 52153 S L O P E - record average perc<nl slope tor plot. T E R R A I N - record o» coded I - Even 2 - Rolling Z - Gullied 4 - Broken R O U G H N E S S - -Number of Plot Quarters with obstacles over .25metres -Number of obstacles by classes (record nine or more obstacles as 9 ) - . 004 hectores subplot D E P T H TO M I N E R A L S O I L - r e c o r d trie depin of . organic materiel in O.I metres D E F O L I A T O R S / BARK B E E T L E / B R A N C H M I S T L E T O E - C O D E AS 0 - None ! - L.'gnt 2 - Woderar* 3 - Heavy 4 - Past Occurence V I G O U R - CODE AS I - Thrifty 2 - Average 3 - Der.asent S O I L D E P T H - SOIL M A T E R I A L • Depth to bedrock or hardpun in metres - tenths ci melee required for first metre only. • CODE AS combinations are acceptable ( eg. 63 - gravel - slit ) 10 - Organic Soil > , 3 m deep 20 - Clay 60 - 6ravel 30 - Silt 70 - Cobble 40 - Loom 80 - Boulder 50 - Sand 90 - E ipo**d Bedrock U N D E R S T O R Y U N D E R G R O W T H • S O I L M O I S T U R E - COOE AS 3 — Wet 4 — Swampy nunioer cf stems of cammercial species fctloit the minimum d.b.h. on a ,000 ho subplot 3.60m radius) numbsr aver 50 /4 sound opo,mating on o, .C04ho su&BlO- CODE AS I - l ight - does not affec? Min ing 1 - medium - o.'!*cts wciki.i^ 3 - heavy - diff icult wolJuno 9 Inftueccei w c * 4 - very heavy - y«ry difficult violkir.g, & influences work greatly E X P O S E D ROCK - CODE AS 0 - none 1 - h g n t - l - ! 0 % area affected 2 - moderate - 1 1 - 3 0 % area Offecrei 3 - heavy - 31% S over area affected 4 - rock bluffs or cl i f fs R E M A R K S - other defects & q u a l i t y , f a c t o r s o f f e c t i ng logg ing. ; V E G E T A T I O N (MAIN ••ER0ACIOU5 A'lO SHRUB S?ECt£S1 G R O W T H RATES — {complete only when d i r ec ted ) j C A R D  | T R E E NO. RINGS L A S T 2.5 cm T E N YEAR GROWTH c m . TREE NO. RINGS L A S T 2.5 cm TEN YEAR GROWTH T R E E IJO. RINGS L A S T 2.5 cm TEN YEAR GROWTH 1 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 3B 39 j 4C 41 42 43 44 4 5 1 4 6 1 4 7 46 5 i (c 3 6 0 3 ZZ 3 6 7 O . . . . t | 1 j * 5 / 7 X 0 / <> CERTIFIED THAT THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT OF SAMPLING OONE BY ME AT T H E P L A C E SHOWN. 63 APPENDIX III PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF STUDY TREES 64 TREE PAIR 1 TREE A OR // 1 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.059 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 28.7 m. DBH: 72.2 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Scars on lower 2/3 of tree; fork in middle 1/3. Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 8.2 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 6.1 m. Knots in f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots in second 5 meters: 12 Distance from viewpoint: 7.6 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 130° COMMENTS A deep 2 meter long f i r e scar could be seen on the lower 1/3 of the bole. This tree was the closest of a l l selected trees to i t s viewpoint. 65 66 TREE PAIR 1 TREE B OR # 2 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.486 DESCRIPTION To t a l Height: 42.7 m. DBH: 82.0 cm. Timber Quality Class: 1 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 10.1 m.̂ Height to f i r s t stub: 8.5 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 3 Distance from viewpoint: 18.9 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 22° COMMENTS This tree leaned the le a s t of a l l selected trees. I t had a long, f u l l crown and was surrounded by dense undergrowth. 67 68 TREE PAIR 2 TREE A OR # 3 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.853 DESCRIPTION Tot a l Height: 18.3 m. DBH: 67.5 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Broken top. Quality Remarks: Lean (>10° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 8.2 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 8.2 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 10 Distance from viewpoint: 18.0 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 125° COMMENTS This tree received flecked sunlight only. I t s extreme lean provided contrast i n the stand. 69 70 TREE PAIR 2 TREE B OR # 4 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.714 DESCRIPTION Total height: 46.6 m. DBH: 84.2 cm. Timber Quality Class: 1 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t live limb: 15.2 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 8.5 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots in second 5 meters: 2 Distance from viewpoint: 20.1 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 354° COMMENTS This tree looked like tree #2 except for a clump of dead branches that disrupted the continuity of it s crown. Dense undergrowth surrounded i t . 71 72 TREE PAIR 3 TREE A OR # 5 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 7.457 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 52.7.m. DBH: 133.6 cm. Timber Quality Class: 1 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 10.1 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 9.1 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 1 Distance from viewpoint: 27.7 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 76° COMMENTS This was the largest of the selected trees. I t had a long, f u l l and tapered crown. Black streaks were on i t s base, evidence of long past groundfires. 73 74 TREE PAIR 3 TREE B OR # 6 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.886 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 46.6 m. DBH: 100.3 cm. Timber Quality Class; 1 Pathological Renarks: None Quailty Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 12.8 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 11.0 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 4 Distance from viewpoint: 27.7 m. Azimuth from viewpont: 268° COMMENTS This tree was on the edge of a fo r e s t opening and was either front or s i d e l i t . An old creekbed could be seen i n the foreground. Other tree species surrounded i t . 75 TREE PAIR 4 TREE A OR # 7 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.086 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 38.4 m. DBH: 75.1 cm. Timber Quality Class: 1 Pathological Remarks; None. Quality Remarks: Minor sweep (-e 10 cm./5 m.) Height to f i r s t live limb: 11.3 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 11.3 m. Knots in f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots in second 5 meters: 0 Distance from viewpoint: 14.6 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 347° COMMENTS This tree bordered the same forest opening as tree #6, and stood next to the t r a i l . 77 78 TREE PAIR 4 TREE B OR # 8 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.857 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 30.8 m. DBH: 58.8 cm. Timber Quality Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: Resinosus on lower portion of bole. Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 6.1 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 1.5 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 18 Knots i n second 5 meters: 29 Distance from viewpoint: 14.6 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 40° COMMENTS Compared to tree #7, th i s tree was rougher barked at i t s base, and i t s background was more open and varied i n tree s i z e . Its crown melded with two others. 79 80 TREE PAIR 5 TREE A OR # 9 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.242 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 43.9 m. DBH: 89.1 cm. Timber Quality Class: 1 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t live limb: 17.4 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 6.1 m. Knots in f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 3 Distance from viewpoint: 33.5 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 338° COMMENTS This tree had a sparse crown. It could be mo readily seen in situ than this photo depicts.  82 TREE PAIR 5 TREE B OR # 10 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.857 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 42.4 m. DBH: 125.4 cm. Timber Quality Class: 1 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 10.4 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 7.6 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 7 Distance from viewpoint: 35.1 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 245° COMMENTS The lower h a l f of t h i s tree was normally i n shade, and i t s crown was normally i n f u l l sunlight. Its bark was deeply furrowed. A smaller stand of trees could be seen behind i t . This tree could be more r e a d i l y seen i n s i t u than t h i s photo i l l u s t r a t e s . 83 84 TREE PAIR 6 TREE A OR # 11 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.676 DESCRIPTION Tot a l Height: 31.4 m. DBH: 59.0 cm. Timber Quality Class: 1 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 15.5 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 7.0 m. Knots on f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 3 Distance from viewpoint: 13.7 m. Azimuth-from viewpoint: 266° COMMENTS This was the smallest of the timber q u a l i t y class 1 trees. I t had a short, sparse crown and grew next to the t r a i l . 85 86 TREE PAIR 6 TREE B OR # 12 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.382 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 34.4 m. DBH: 55.0 cm. Timber Quality Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: Fork i n lower 1/3 Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 13.1 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 2.1 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 3 Knots i n second 5 meters: 1 Distance from viewpoint: 16.2 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 297° COMMENTS This tree had the unique feature of a lower fork. Both stems had f u l l but short crowns. A younger tree stand could be seen behind i t . 87 88 TREE PAIR 7 TREE A OR # 13 MEAN EASTHETIC RATING: 3.829 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 19.8 m. DBH: 32.5 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Scar i n lower 1/3 Quality Remarks: Major sweep (>• 10 cm./5 m.); Lean (> 10° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 4.6 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 4.3 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 2 Knots i n second 5 meters: 22 Distance from viewpoint: 15.5 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 247° COMMENTS This was the smallest of a l l the selected trees. It had a f i r e scar running 3 meters up i t s base and numerous dead lower branches. 89 90 TREE PAIR 7 TREE B OR // 14 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.514 DESCRIPTION Tot a l Height: 19.2 m. DBH: 34.8 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Crook i n lower 1/3 Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 3.4 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 0.3 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 20 Knots i n second 5 meters: 17 Distance from viewpoint: 21.0 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 82° COMMENTS This tree had a unique crook and numerous dead lower branches. I t received ' side an backlighting only. Charred tree trunks were i n the foreground and an expanse of sky could be seen i n the background. 91 TREE PAIR 8 TREE A OR # 15 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.886 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 17.1 m. DBH: 56.0 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Scar i n lower 1/3; dead top. Quality Remarks: Lean (0°-4.9° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 4.3 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 2.1 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 12 Knots i n second 5 meters: 26 Distance from viewpoint: 36.6 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 262° COMMENTS This tree had a prominent f i r e scar on i t s lower trunk. Trees of s i m i l a r height surrounded i t . I t was fur t h e s t , of a l l selected trees, from the viewpoint. 93 94 TREE PAIR 8 TREE B OR # 16 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.629 DESCRIPTION Tot a l Height: 27.1 m. DBH: 52.0 cm. Timber Quality Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 10.4 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 7.0 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 8 Distance from viewpoint: 16.8 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 30° COMMENTS This tree had good growth form. Mountain slopes and ridges could be r e a d i l y seen i n the background.  96 TREE PAIR 9 TREE A OR # 17 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.171 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 22.9 m. DBH: 53.0 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Scar i n lower 1/3 Quality Remarks: Lean (s>10° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 5.5 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 3.0 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 10 Knots i n second 5 meters: 25 Distance from viewpoint: 19.2 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 267° COMMENTS This tree grew on the edge of a swale. A huge boulder added i n t e r e s t to i t s background. 97 98 TREE PAIR 9 TREE B OR # 18 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.343 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 28.3 m. DBH: 55.5 cm. Timber Quality Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 5.8 m. Height to f i r s t stub: no stubs present Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 5 Distance from viewpoint: 17.7 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 180° COMMENTS This tree had good growth form and no dead branches. A mountain top and younger stand could be seen i n the background. 99 100 TREE PAIR 10 TREE A OR # 19 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.143 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 30.2 m. DBH: 71.3 cm. Timber Quality Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 7.3 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 7.3 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 6 Distance from viewpoint: 29.3 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 217° COMMENTS This tree had good growth form. I t received only side and backlig h t i n g . I t had a l i g h t background. 101 102 TREE PAIR 10 TREE B OR if 20 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.314 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 35.7 m. DBH: 75.2 cm. Timber Quality Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: None Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 8.8 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 1.2 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 6 Knots i n second 5 meters: 14 Distance from viewpoint: 33.5 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 112° COMMENTS This tree grew i n a small depression. Tt had a symmetrical crown and was the t a l l e s t of the s i t e II trees. 103 104 TREE PAIR 11 TREE A OR # 21 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.829 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 15.8 m. DBJ: 41.6 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Crook at top Quality Remarks: Lean (>10° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 6.1 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 1.8 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 5 Knots i n second 5 meters: 9 Distance from viewpoint: 20.1 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 232° COMMENTS This tree had a denser crown than tree #22. I t had a l i g h t background i n which a young tree stand and mountain ridge could be seen. 105 106 TREE PAIR 11 TREE B OR # 22 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.943 DESCRIPTION Tot a l Height: 21.0 m. DBH: 49.5 cm. Timber Quality Class: 3 Pathological Remarks: Crooks i n a l l 3 th i r d s of tree Quality Remarks: Sweep (<10 cm./5 m.); Lean (5°-9.9° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 8.8 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 2.7 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 7 Knots i n second 5 meters: 8 Distance from viewpoint: 25.6 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 166° COMMENTS This tree received only side and backlig h t i n g . A mountainside, high stump and young tree stand could be seen i n the background. 107 108 TREE PAIR 12 TREE A OR # 23 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.571 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 33.2 m. DBH: 64.7 cm. Timber Quality Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: None Quality Remarks: Sweep («=10 cm./5 m.) Lean (5° - 9.9° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 9.4 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 9.4 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n second 5 meters: 3 Distance from viewpoint: 22.9 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 293° COMMENTS This tree had a uniquely sweeping trunk and a symmetrical, sparse but healthy crown. I t received front and s i d e l i g h t i n g only.  110 TREE PAIR 12 TREE B OR # 24 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.743 DESCRIPTION Total Height: 30.2 m. DBH: 71.7 cm. Timber Qua l i t y Class: 2 Pathological Remarks: Crook i n top 1/3 of tree. Quality Remarks: Lean (0°-4.9° from v e r t i c a l ) Height to f i r s t l i v e limb: 6.7 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 4.6 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 1 Knots i n second 5 meters: 18 Distance from viewpoint: 25.6 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 270° COMMENTS This tree had a wide lower bole that tapered quickly to a twisted top. I t had scorched bark at i t s base, and stood beside the t r a i l . I l l 112 APPENDIX IV THE QUESTIONNAIRE 113 RECREATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT FACULTY OF FORESTRY UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BALLOT FOR YOUR PREFERENCES ON THE AESTHETIC QUALITY OF FOREST TREES INSTRUCTIONS 1. Your preferences must be yours alone. There are no r i g h t or wrong answers here. 2. Stand d i r e c t l y behind the numbered stake and, using the 9-point r a t i n g scale, rate both tree A and tree B. 3. Now compare tree A with tree B. C i r c l e the one you a e s t h e t i c a l l y prefer. Also give reasons f o r your preference. 4. Upon completion, please return t h i s b a l l o t to the researcher. 114 V I E W I N G S T A T I O N # 1. HOW DO Y O D RATE E A C H T R E E ? 2. C I R C L E Y O U R P R E F E R R E D T R E E . 3. WHY D I D YOD P R E F E R I T ? ( C I R C L E DP TO 4 O F YOUR MOST IMPORTANT R E A S O N S . ) DEMO A B A B CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE MORE SCARS FEWER SCARS HOSE BOLES MORE BALANCED MORE LOPSIDED HIDES TRUNK NARROWER TRUNK SHORTER TRUNK LONCER TRUNK MORE LEAN LESS LEAN MORE CROOKED TRUNK STRAIGHTER TRUNK MORE DEAD TRUNK BRANCHES FEWER DEAD TRUNK BRANCHES ROUGHER BARK SMOOTHER BARK FEWER HOLES MORE FUNGUS LESS FUNGUS DENSER CROWN SPARSER CROWN BROADER CROWN NARROWER CROWN LONGER CROWN SHORTER CROWN MORE DEAD CROWN BRANCHES FEWER DEAD CROWN BRANCHES CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE'S SURROUNDINGS MIXED TREE SPECIES UNIFORM TREE SPECIES MIXED TREE SIZES UNIFORM TREE SIZES UQEVEN TREE SPACING EVEN TREE SPACING DENSER UNDERGROWTH SPARSER UNDERGROWTH EVEN GROUND UNEVEN GROUND FLATTER GROUND STEEPER GROUND MORE ATTRACTIVE BACKGROUND SCENERY LKSS ATTRACTIVE BACKGROUND SCENERY Stacked on top of the "Demo" h a l f of t h i s page were 12 numbered sheets j u s t l i k e i t , one f o r each of the 12 t r e e p a i r s . 115 RATING SCALE 116 A N Y A D D I T I O N A L COMMENTS? P E R S O N A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S Name: Sex: L_I Female L_J Male Age: O 15-24 O 35-44 CD 55-64 CZ3 25-34 • 45-54 O 65 and over T H A N K Y O U F O R P A R T I C I P A T I N G !

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 2 10
United States 2 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 2 0
Unknown 1 0
Tokyo 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items