UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Aesthetic judgments of forest trees in relationship to timber quality Bekker, Pieter Jan 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 ]
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
Original Record: 1.0075347 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0075347.txt
Citation
1.0075347.ris

Full Text

AESTHETIC JUDGMENTS OF FOREST TREES IN RELATIONSHIP TO TIMBER QUALITY  by  PIETER JAN BEKKER B.Sc,  The U n i v e r s i t y  of A l b e r t a ,  1977  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES PARKS AND RECREATION RESOURCES FACULTY OF FORESTRY  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as to the r e q u i r e d  conforming  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April  1980  PIETER JAN BEKKER, 1980  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h 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  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  1-6 BP 75-5 1 1 E  ^C^aXi&t^j  /2teU&U>C*Xs&-  ii Abstract  T h i s study e x p l o r e s the tic  q u a l i t y of f o r e s t t r e e s ,  timber management and base.  F i n d i n g s may  r e l a t i o n s h i p between timber q u a l i t y and  i n hope of u n c o v e r i n g c r i t e r i a w i t h which both  forest aesthetics  Twenty-four mature t r e e s ,  so  that a l l p o s s i b l e  sented. of the  be use  the  one  the  recreation  same  quality  classes  land  forests.  growing a l o n g a w i l d e r n e s s t r a i l  combinations o f the  select  r e a l i z e d on  a c c o r d i n g to t h r e e timber q u a l i t y  Wilderness r e c r e a t i o n trees,  may  a l s o a p p l y to e x c l u s i v e  Columbia, were s e l e c t e d  aesthe-  in British  classes  and  paired  were e v e n l y  u s e r s were asked to judge the  repre-  attractiveness  t r e e of each p a i r they p r e f e r r e d ,  and  give  reasons f o r t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e . 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 q u a l i t y and  aesthetic  quality.  existed  However, w h i l e the  timber q u a l i t y  cation  d i d 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  trees,  the  classification  c o u l d not,  d i f f e r e n t i a t e between good and ber  quality  trees.  q u a l i t y , and that  timber q u a l i t y c o u l d not.  quality  i n a s s e s s i n g the  the  I t t h e r e f o r e was  aesthetic  trees,  or s i m i l a r  t h r e e of the  tim-  aesthetic four  times  more a c c u r a t e than timber  q u a l i t y of f o r e s t  Reasons f o r t r e e p r e f e r e n c e most o f t e n straighter  trees  quality  aesthetically  also p o s i t i v e l y related with preferred  classifi-  poor timber  consistency,  average timber q u a l i t y  T r e e h e i g h t was  could d i s t i n g u i s h  w i t h any  between timber  trees.  chosen were: more b a l a n c e d ,  trunk, fewer dead trunk branches and  more a t t r a c t i v e background  scenery. Variety  both w i t h i n  and  between stands, and  t r e e s may,  where important to the  contribute  c o n s i d e r a b l y toward i n c r e a s i n g  agement and  forest  aesthetics.  the  retention  o f some  good husbandry o f p r o v i n c i a l f o r e s t the  compatability of  tall lands,  timber man-  iii Table of Contents T i t l e page  Page i  Abstract  ix  Table of Contents  111  L i s t of Tables L i s t of Figures .  vi  Acknowle dg emen t s  VI1  CHAPTER I.  INTRODUCTION  The Problem  1  Objectives 4  L i t e r a t u r e Review  4  Literature Findings CHAPTER I I .  5  STUDY DESCRIPTION  Study Design  10  The Study Area . The Sites The Trees  .  .  11 .  .  .  13 17  CHAPTER I I I . ANALYSIS OF RESULTS General E f f i ciency of F i e l d Data C o l l e c t i o n Aesthetic Preference and Ratings Compc )arison The Timber Quality-Aesthetic Quality Relationship The Aesthetic Ratings V a r i a b i l i t y i n the Aesthetic Ratings  20 20 22 23 23 26  iv The Tree Preferences  28  V a r i a b i l i t y i n Preference  31  Reasons f o r Preference  33  Given Reasons  33  Deduced Reasons  41  A Within Site Comparison  45  CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  49  LITERATURE CITED  54  APPENDICES I. II. III. IV.  S c i e n t i f i c Names of Species Mentioned i n the Text and Tables Recorded Tree Data Photographic Record of Study Trees The Questionnaire  58 60 63 112  V L i s t o f Tables Table  Page  I  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f S i t e s Used i n the Study  II  Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  16  f o r I n t e r i o r Douglas F i r T r e e s  30 cm. DBH and G r e a t e r III  Sampling  IV  Mean A e s t h e t i c R a t i n g s Rank Ordered  19  P e r i o d Summary and P a r t i c i p a n t Numbers . and Separated  .  .  .  into  Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s e s V  25  Mean A e s t h e t i c R a t i n g V a r i a n c e s p e r Tree and p e r Timber Quality Class  27  VI  P r e f e r e n c e Count Comparisons f o r Trees W i t h i n Each P a i r  VII  Variability  VIII  Given Reasons f o r P r e f e r e n c e  IX  The Number o f Times P o s s i b l e F r e q u e n c i e s o f a  .  .  i n Preference  34  40  C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s from Comparisons Between Mean A e s t h e t i c R a t i n g s and Measured Tree V a r i a b l e s  XI  29 32  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c ' s Use per Person Occurred X  21  A W i t h i n S i t e Tree A e s t h e t i c s Ranking  .  .  .  42 47  vi L i s t of Figures Figure  p from T r a i l h e a d to R i v e r C r o s s i n g  .  .  a g e  1.  The S t e i n Main T r a i l ,  12  2.  Viewing Course Layout on S i t e I .  14  3.  Viewing Course Layout on S i t e I I  15  4.  Mean A e s t h e t i c R a t i n g s Versus Tree H e i g h t  44  vii Acknowledgement Many s i n c e r e thanks go to Dr. P e t e r D o o l i n g , Department o f Parks and F o r e s t R e c r e a t i o n , f o r h i s encouragement, guidance and support Stanley  University of B r i t i s h  Coren, F a c u l t y o f A r t s , Department o f Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y o f of perception  research  data a n a l y s i s ; and to Dr. P e t e r Murtha, F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y , Depart-  ment o f S o i l S c i e n c e , and  Columbia,  throughout the study; to Dr.  B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r h i s p a t i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n and  Faculty of Forestry,  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r h i s i n t e r e s t  review o f the s t u d y . Thanks a l s o go to Gerry M i d d l e t o n  o f F o r i n t e k Canada  Corporation,  Vancouver, and Dr. Don Munro, F a c u l t y o f F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, f o r t h e i r h e l p w i t h  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 w i f e M a r i l y n , and son I a n ; b o t h helped w i t h  the f i e l d work i n c o u n t l e s s ways, were p a t i e n t , and gave  encouragement when i t was most needed.  CHAPTER I.  INTRODUCTION  The Problem I f timber management and forest recreation trends continue, c o n f l i c t s between them w i l l also continue to occur.  These c o n f l i c t s a r i s e because i n  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 r e c r e a t i o n i s t s have of forest stands managed primarily for wood production i s i n d i c a t i v e of such a view.  Instead they seek wild or  natural-looking forest land to recreate i n , i n part because the aesthetic a l l y pleasing forest stands found there enhance t h e i r recreation experience (Brush, 1978;  Cook, 1971; Sieker, 1955).  People demand and receive productive forest land f o r the exclusive use of recreation (Cook, 1971;  Dooling, 1978;  F r i t z , 1967).  History suggests  that this i s a necessary step i n protecting the aesthetic value of forest recreation areas.  " H i s t o r i c a l l y , the forest park movement i n America o r i -  ginated and derived i t s strength from the fact that e x p l o i t a t i o n of forest and range lands commonly —  and indeed t y p i c a l l y —  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 v i s u a l quality of the landscape.  For example, they  see that large tree monocultures diminish the natural d i v e r s i t y of a landscape, and that indiscriminate clfearcutting leaves v i s u a l 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 i s a r e a l need for forest parks and wilderness areas.  However,  " i t i s not enough to i d e n t i f y five or even ten per cent of natural resources as protected park land, f o r i t i s our treatment of the ninety or ninety-five  2 per cent o f our l a n d and water r e s o u r c e s which w i l l l a r g e l y determine the q u a l i t y and extent o f r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y and the image o f Columbia] to the o u t s i d e w o r l d  [British  as a d e s i r a b l e p l a c e o r o t h e r w i s e  to v i s i t  and r e c r e a t e i n " (B.C. M i n i s t r y o f the Environment, 1979, p. 72). F o r e s t beauty s h o u l d n o t stop a t the boundary o f a f o r e s t park, but extend  i n t o the f o r e s t r e g i o n s o f B r i t i s h Columbia and elsewhere.  I t should  be seen i n f o r e s t s c l o s e to p u b l i c highways, s e t t l e m e n t s , and t r i b u t a r y to l o g g i n g road access and water systems opened up by t h i s a c c e s s ( M a r s h a l l , 1974).  In these areas  the f o r e s t s h o u l d be regarded n o t o n l y as a timber  r e s o u r c e , but as p a r t o f the human environment, a p l a c e The  appearance o f the f o r e s t s i n such p l a c e s s h o u l d r e f l e c t  of the many and i n c r e a s i n g number o f people v i s i t i n g c o g n i t i o n t h a t by f a r the g r e a t e r p a r t o f B r i t i s h belongs Can  (Twiss,  1969). the d e s i r e s  them, i f o n l y i n r e -  Columbia's f o r e s t  lands  t o the p u b l i c (Warden, 1971). f o r e s t stands be grown and managed so t h a t timber  c r e a t i o n a l values are c o n c u r r e n t l y r e a l i z e d ? d e s t r o y a f o r e s t ' s beauty? b l e n d i n g timber management silviculture,  Does economic use n e c e s s a r i l y  These q u e s t i o n s p o i n t to the b a s i c problem o f and f o r e s t a e s t h e t i c s .  d e f i n e d as the a r t o f producing  In many p u b l i c a t i o n s  and t e n d i n g a f o r e s t  1962), i s recommended t o s o l v e t h i s problem (Cromie, McDonald and W h i t e l e y , Hough, Stansbury  and f o r e s t r e -  1972; N e f f , 1965; Rudolf,  and A s s o c i a t e s , L t d . , 1973).  1937; K o e h l e r ,  (Smith, 1922;  1967; Rosencrang, 1957;  However, such  publications  p r o c l a i m the a u t h o r s ' i n t u i t i v e judgments, p e r s o n a l t a s t e s and s u b j e c t i v e standards,  and a r e n o t based on user p r e f e r e n c e s  (Lime,  1972).  As a r e s u l t ,  f o r e s t managers who e i t h e r f o l l o w the recommended s i l v i c u l t u r e methods o r t h e i r own t a s t e s when i n t e g r a t i n g r e c r e a t i o n i n t o  the management  scheme,  may not be p l e a s i n g the r e c r e a t i n g p u b l i c to the e x t e n t they c o u l d . reason:  The  t h e i r t a s t e i n f o r e s t scenery may d i f f e r from t h a t o f t h e r e c r e a -  3 t i o n i s t s (Buhyoff et a l . , 1978; Kaplan, 1973;  Lime, 1972;  Clark et a l . , 1971;  Hendee and Harris,  1970;  Peterson, 1974).  More p a r t i c u l a r l y , the educational t r a i n i n g most managers receive seems to introduce bias i n t h e i r perception  (Kaplan, 1973) .  The point i s that  mangers cannot assume that there i s a good f i t between their preferences those of the recreating public.  Therefore,  and  i f the goal i s to create a high  quality environment i n which to recreate, managers should compare their views with those most affected by t h e i r decisions (Buhyoff, 1978;  UNESCO, 1973) .  To address the problem of blending timber management and forest aesthetics —  aesthetics as judged by on-site users —  perhaps the best place  to s t a r t looking f o r answers i s at the basic component of forest stands: the trees.  I t i s usually thought that people r e l a t e to the stand as a whole  and not to the i n d i v i d u a l trees comprising  the stand.  However, when using  s i l v i c u l t u r e methods to meet a s p e c i f i c objective, be i t timber, water, w i l d l i f e , or forest beauty, i t i s achieved by adding, subtracting, or a l tering i n d i v i d u a l trees, either s i n g u l a r l y , i n groups, or en masse (Cook, 1971) . Forest managers have c r i t e r i a with which to judge the timber q u a l i t y of trees.  They also know that a stand should i d e a l l y consist of t a l l ,  straight, clean-boled and healthy trees i f their objective i s timber production (Cook, 1971).  Few  c r i t e r i a e x i s t , however, with which to judge  the aesthetic q u a l i t y of forest trees, and none are p a r t i c u l a r l y applicable to B r i t i s h Columbia's f o r e s t s .  This study's aim i s to e s t a b l i s h the aes-  thetic c r i t e r i a of selected forest trees.  Identifying the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between timber quality and aesthetic quality of forest trees should f u l f i l l this aim.  help  Having aesthetic c r i t e r i a , managers can more confident-  ly manage forest stands f o r a combination of economic and aesthetic objectives, or for aesthetics  alone.  4 Objectives To 1.  To  guide the  s t u d y ' s aim,  identify possible  q u a l i t y of s e l e c t e d 2.  To  following  relationships  forest  i d e n t i f y which o f  the  objectives  were proposed:  between timber q u a l i t y and  aesthetic  trees.  the v i s i b l e p h y s i c a l  forest  trees,  and  trees'  immediate s u r r o u n d i n g s , have a p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e , or n e u t r a l  on 3.  stated To  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  aesthetic  forest  trees  timber q u a l i t y  c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h which each p a r t i c i p a n t  lower  Review  concerning f o r e s t a e s t h e t i c s  U n i t e d S t a t e s where l e g i s l a t i o n such as  Y i e l d Act  (1960) and  consideration  have been  the M u l t i p l e  the N a t i o n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l P o l i c y Act  require  the  1977).  In Canada such l e g i s l a t i o n does not  that o n l y one  chose, from  trees.  A number o f r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s  tained  effect  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 h i g h e r or  Literature  done i n the  the  preferences.  determine the  selected  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  of landscape a e s t h e t i c s  forest aesthetics  Use-Sus(1969)  i n f o r e s t management  exist.  I t i s not  r e s e a r c h study ( c a r r i e d out  (Arthur,  surprising  i n Quebec)  then  has  been done i n Canada. Three g e n e r a l methods have been used to c o l l e c t d a t a i n f o r e s t t i c s assessment s t u d i e s . was  One  method, used by  F r i s s e l l and  d i r e c t observation of r e c r e a t i o n i s t s ' reactions  vironments.  In t h e i r study, they observed the  various forest vored.  types r e c e i v e d ,  and  A second method, used by  r e a t i o n i s t s of t h e i r scenic servation K l u k a s and  and  Duncan (1965),  to v a r i o u s f o r e s t  i n t e n s i t y of  Shafer and  preferences.  M i e t z (1969) was  Some s t u d i e s  In Klukas and  to ask  that  farec-  used b o t h the  James and  en-  campsite use  were a b l e to deduce which type was  s o l i c i t a t i o n methods (Hancock, 1973;  Duncan, 1967).  aesthe-  Cordell,  ob1970;  Duncan's (1967) study, f o r example,  5 v i s i t o r s to Itasca State Park i n Minnesota were observed as they drove around the park.  At each of the park's four major forest types i t was  ted when cars slowed, stopped, or stopped and passengers disembarked. supplement  noTo  the observation data, v i s i t o r s at several of the park's t o u r i s t  f a c i l i t i e s and major attractions were asked of their forest stand preferences.  The t h i r d 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,  d'Amour, 1976; Kaplan, 1977; Rutherford and Shafer, 1969).  1977;  The use of pho-  tographs has been the most popular method because i t allows viewing conditions to be controlled, a variety of respondent groups may e a s i l y p a r t i cipate, and time, money and e f f o r t 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 al.,  1973). Recreationists s o l i c i t e d f o r their aesthetic assessments were generally  asked to respond i n 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 i n d i v i d u a l l y and use a L i k e r t scale rating to indicate their judgments of each scene's attractiveness (Arthur, 1977; Brush, 1978; Daniel et a l . ,  1973).  Literature Findings Stands.  Recurrent i n the research l i t e r a t u r e 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 Shafer and Burke, 1965).  and Duncan, 1965; Kaplan,  1977;  One reason for this i s that i n more spacious  stands, sunlight can readily penetrate to the forest f l o o r , a condition greatly favored over the dark monotonous stretches closed-in conifers provide (d'Amour, 1976).  On the forest f l o o r 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 i n size from a tree height i n diameter up to four or f i v e acres have also been found a e s t h e t i c a l l y appealing to many forest v i s i t o r s (Brush, 1978;  Shafer and Mietz, 1969).  Such openings pro-  vide contrast i n l i g h t i n g , color, temperature and v i s u a l 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; fer and Mietz, 1969).  d'Amour, 1976;  Sha-  Cook (1971) noted that forest v i s i t o r s preferred va-  r i e t y rather than uniformity i n tree s i z e .  I t seems that heterogeneity  within and between stands i s a sought after quality i n aesthetic f o r e s t s . 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 . , Rutherford and Shafer, 1969).  1973;  In Rutherford and Shafer's (1969) study for  example, a softwood stand, having received selection cutting, was 77% of the time over a similar but uncut stand.  favored  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 i s an overriding factor i n stand aesthetics. Fresh evidence of tree harvesting has been found to evoke negative aesthetic responses  (Brush, 1978), whereas stands thinned, s t r i p c u t  or selection cut ten or more years ago have been found most a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing by many (Arthur, 1977; 1969).  Daniel et a l . , 1973;  Rutherford and Shafer,  In the l a t t e r case, time w i l l have allowed r e s i d u a l trees to adjust  to the removal of adjacent trees, and the groundcover, i n 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 i n the Eastern United States, Cook  7 (1971) established a positive correlation between timber quality and aesthetic quality of forest trees.  However, the r e l a t i o n "was  and more than somewhat e r r a t i c " (Cook, 1971, p. 142).  somewhat weak  For deciduous tree  species, he found that straight, balanced trees with many crown branches and a t t r a c t i v e backgrounds were favored over more subordinate trees. Cook (1971) also found that i n order for trees to be a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing they need to be highly v i s i b l e .  Their crowns, for example, cannot  be obscured by the crowns of adjacent trees.  In most cases this condition  can be met only i n 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). r e s i d e n t i a l areas.  This preference held even i n  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 visitors.  In Itasca State Park, interview results showed that v i s i t o r s 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 v i s i t o r s would stop their vehicles and disembark to take photographs or have a better look. In the Quetico-Superior canoe country i n Minnesota, canoeists occupied camps i t e s within pine stands 91% of the time, i n 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 a v a i l a b l e .  There was a p r a c t i c a l  explanation f o r t h i s : besides being a e s t h e t i c a l l y pleasing, the pine-stands provided ready access due to their brush-free and spacious c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A more recent study done i n Quebec showed that deciduous and coniferous trees were, i n general, equally preferred (d'Amour, 1976).  T h i r t y - s i x per  8 cent of i t s respondents chose conifers, 42% chose deciduous trees, and 22% l i k e d both.  The deciduous trees were seen as providing variety i n 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, Viewers.  1979).  Perceptions and preferences vary not only according to a  scene's physical a t t r i b u t e s : gender, age, education, place of residence, and f a m i l i a r i t y with the environment i n question have also explained to some degree variances i n personal preferences (Cook, 1971; Kalmbach and Kielbaso, 1979; Klukas and Duncan, 1967; Sonnenfeld, 1966; Zube et a l . , 1974).  Cook (1971) f o r example, found that men strongly preferred better  timber quality trees, whereas women showed no consistent preference f o r either better or poorer timber quality trees. In Klukas and Duncan's (1967) Itasca State Park study, vegetative type preferences were p a r t i a l l y explained by v i s i t o r ' s place of residence. Minnesotans preferred red pine with greater frequency (51%) than did nonMinnesotans  (41%), and non-Minnesotans  often than did Minnesotans  preferred white b i r c h (7.8%) more  (1.3%). Apparently white b i r c h grew state-wide,  whereas the red pine found i n Itasca were the largest i n the state. Recreation a c t i v i t y also has explained variances i n 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 a c t i v i t i e s such as skiing, snowmobiling, horseback r i d i n g and t r a i l b i k e r i d i n g 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 f o r s a f e t y and  orientation.  CHAPTER I I .  STUDY DESCRIPTION  Study  Design  Cook's (1971) b a s i c study d e s i g n was adapted  f o r t h i s study's use.  A  "viewing c o u r s e " c o n s i s t i n g o f twelve p a i r s o f t r e e s was e s t a b l i s h e d a l o n g a forest t r a i l .  The t r e e s were s e l e c t e d so t h a t t h r e e timber  quality  c l a s s e s (see T a b l e I I ) were e q u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d : e i g h t t r e e s were i n t i m b e r q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 (good q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 (average  timber q u a l i t y ) ,  timber q u a l i t y ) , and e i g h t were i n timber  c l a s s 3 (poor timber q u a l i t y ) . DBH  e i g h t t r e e s were i n timber quality  A l l t r e e s were the same s p e c i e s and had a  (diameter a t b r e a s t h e i g h t ) e q u a l to o r g r e a t e r than 30 c e n t i m e t e r s  (12 i n c h e s ) . The  twelve t r e e p a i r s c o n s i s t e d o f the s i x p o s s i b l e combinations  of  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s e s r e p r e s e n t e d twice ( i . e . two each o f 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-2, 2-3, 3-3). to  P a i n t e d plywood p o i n t e r s on 2x2 i n c h wooden s t a k e s p o i n t e d  the two t r e e s o f each p a i r , one o f which was randomly a s s i g n e d a brown  "A" on a white backboard,  the o t h e r a "B".  The p o i n t e r s a l s o s e r v e d to  mark and number the l o c a t i o n s o f 12 v i e w p o i n t s from which the 12 t r e e p a i r s c o u l d be seen.  Viewpoints were l o c a t e d next  to the t r a i l  o r as c l o s e to  i t as p o s s i b l e . F o r e s t v i s i t o r s 15 y e a r s and o l d e r were asked study.  I f they agreed  and a p e n c i l .  t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the  they were given a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix IV)  A demonstration  viewpoint  (see v i e w p o i n t D i n f i g u r e 2) and  p a i r o f t r e e s , a l o n g w i t h a "demo" q u e s t i o n n a i r e s h e e t , were used s t r a t e how the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was to be f i l l e d s t r u c t e d to s t a n d d i r e c t l y b e h i n d marked A and B. scale rating,  out.  P a r t i c i p a n t s were i n -  the p o i n t e r s and observe  T o l d t o go by " f e e l " ,  to demon-  the two t r e e s  they were t o r a t e , u s i n g a n i n e  the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f each,  then i n d i c a t e t h e i r  ratings,  a l o n g w i t h t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r e i t h e r t r e e A o r B, and t h e i r reasons f o r  11 preference  i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r o v i d e d .  I f t h e i r reasons f o r p r e f e r r i n g  a t r e e were not on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e l i s t ,  they were asked to w r i t e  them  in. A f t e r p a r t i c i p a n t s had checked to see  i f they were f i l l i n g  shown the second v i e w p o i n t . the t r a i l course.  completed t r e e p a i r 1 t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were them out p r o p e r l y .  S i n c e f i v e of the l a s t  I f so, they were  s i x viewpoints  and not r e a d i l y seen, p a r t i c i p a n t s were guided Any  t a l k regarding  the study however was  limited  i n s t r u c t i o n s a l r e a d y g i v e n to them.  A f t e r completing  they were asked i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  to s t a t e t h e i r age  w r i t e any  comments they  the  viewing  to c l a r i f y i n g  the v i e w i n g and  the  course,  gender,  and  had.  The A forest  along  were o f f  Study Area  i d e a l l y s u i t e d f o r t h i s study's  purposes had  f o l l o w i n g 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 ,  merchantable t r e e s , C3)  have v a r i e t y i n t r e e form and  have u n i f o r m i t y i n surroundings  and  to meet (2)  the  contain  tree condition,  (5) be open enough to see  (4)  trees i n their  entirety. The  S t e i n R i v e r watershed was  found to c o n t a i n such f o r e s t s .  An  area  2 of 1114  square k i l o m e t e r s  (430 m i l e ), the " S t e i n " i s l o c a t e d i n the  e r n reach of the Coast Mountains between the L i l l o o e t and  Fraser  V a l l e y s (see i n s e t , f i g u r e 1 ) .  east.  The ing  The  town of L y t t o n i s due  a r e a c o n s i s t s of a g l a c i a t e d v a l l e y t h a t t r a n s e c t s the  mountains i n a predominantly e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n .  reach  e l e v a t i o n s up  to 2900 meters.  The  The  south-  River  surround-  mountain peaks  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 e a s t .  broad and  u-shaped i n the west; eastward i t narrows and becomes a canyon  which a f t e r 20 k i l o m e t e r s  The  abuts on the F r a s e r R i v e r V a l l e y .  valley is  Landforms i n  L o c a t i o n of Study A r e a .  F i g u r e 1.  The  S t e i n Main T r a i l ,  from T r a i l h e a d to R i v e r C r o s s i n g .  Contours i n F e e t  Map  Adapted  from Freeman and Thompson  (1979).  13 the v a l l e y c o n s i s t o f outwash t e r r a c e s slopes  t h a t s k i r t the v a l l e y  The  t h a t b o r d e r the S t e i n R i v e r  S t e i n i s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the B.C.  Forest  Service  and  end  of the v a l l e y .  A  trail  the r i v e r f o r some 21 k i l o m e t e r s to Ponderosa Creek, l o c a t e d  considerably  cable  crossing  is  recreation.  Main access to the a r e a i s v i a the e a s t e r n  k i l o m e t e r s west of the  talus  sides.  b e i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y used f o r x j i l d e r n e s s  follows  and  (see f i g u r e 1 ) .  p a s t Ponderosa Creek, d i s c o u r a g i n g  The  a l l but  10  t r a i l worsens  the most ardent  hikers. The and  lower h a l f o f the v a l l e y i s i n Rowe's (1972) Montane f o r e s t  Krajina  zone.  (1969) c l a s s i f i e s  Douglas f i r and  i t i n the I n t e r i o r Douglas f i r b i o g e o c l i m a t i c  ponderosa pine grow i n open stands on  f l o o r , w i t h Douglas f i r dominating n o r t h a s p e c t s and t i n g south a s p e c t s .  Western r e d cedar and  and  river.  and  young stands of l o d g e p o l e p i n e are a l s o  talus  creeks  slopes  seen.  Sites  mature Douglas f i r f o r e s t s i t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y \ k i l o m e t e r 3).  Each s i t e  apart contained  tree p a i r s . The  I had  by  s i t e s d i f f e r e d i n a number of ways, as f a r the  l a r g e r t r e e s , as  h e i g h t c l a s s e s between s i t e s . bility age  valley  b l a c k cottonwood l i n e the  were used f o r the v i e w i n g course (see f i g u r e s 2 and six  the  ponderosa p i n e domina-  Trembling aspen grow i n clumps at the base o f the  The Two  region  to produce f o r e s t s .  of sample t r e e s  c a p a b i l i t y and  site  can be  seen by  Secondly, the  t a b l e I shows.  First,  site  comparing average DBH  and  s i t e s d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r capa-  Site^" index, d e r i v e d  from the mean h e i g h t  (see Appendix I I ) , i n d i c a t e s  t h a t s i t e I had  I I had  Third,  "medium" c a p a b i l i t y .  and  "good"  this difference  in  ^ 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 t r e e h e i g h t - t r e e age r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Soc. Am. For., 1958) .  10  0  I  I  10 l  20 m I  LEGEND • • • S t e i n Main T r a i l Viewpoint Access /\ Viewpoint Sight-Line /\B F o r e s t Trees F i g u r e 2.  V i e w i n g Course Layout on S i t e I .  16 TABLE I . CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES USED IN THE STUDY  CHARACTERISTICS  SITE I  SITE I I  Dominant Species:  Douglas f i r  Douglas f i r  *  Average Height Class:  37.5-46.4 m.  19.5-28.4 m.  *  Average Age Class:  141-250 years  141-250 years  +  Site Index:  35 m. at reference age 100 years  25 m. at reference age 100 years  Average DBH: (for trees 30 cm. DBH+)  83.5 cm.  54.8 cm.  1.90 cm.  0.64 cm.  Stocking:  76 or more trees per hectare 27.5 cm. DBH+  76 or more trees per hectare 27.5 cm. DBH+  Crown Closure:  60-80%  40-60%  Understory:  Douglas f i r and Paper b i r c h 9-20 m. t a l l with Western red cedar. Douglas maple, and Alder.5-9 m. t a l l  Sparsely scattered Paper b i r c h and Douglas maple 3-8 m. t a l l with Douglas f i r seedlings 1 m. tall  Groundcover:  90%  60%  Terrain:  Even g r o u n d — f l a t r i v e r terraces with scattered e r r a t i c s  Uneven ground— bouldered benches  Average diameter growth in l a s t 10 years: *  *  B.C. Ministry of Forests (1978).  +  B.C. Ministry of Forests (1979).  17 capability was  also r e f l e c t e d i n the growth rates: i n the l a s t 10 years,  s i t e I trees had three times the diameter growth of s i t e II trees Appendix 2).  The fourth difference between s i t e s was  (see  i n timber quality:  roughly 60 per cent of s i t e I tree's were i n timber quality class 1, whereas no timber quality class 1 trees existed i n s i t e I I .  L a s t l y , as indicated  by the amount of crown closure, understory and ground cover, s i t e 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 various requirements.  to meet  F i r s t , they could hot have the r i v e r i n their v i s i b l e  surroundings: i t would sway aesthetic preferences.  Second, they had to  f i t one of three timber quality classes (see table I I ) , preferably with trees representing the extreme outside ends of t h e i r classes i n 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 twice.  represented  Lastly, the trees i n each p a i r were to have s i m i l a r backgrounds  and DBH's, be equally well seen and roughly equidistant from their common viewpoint. was  In the f i n a l viewing course layout, the equidistance  condition  met by only h a l f the p a i r s . The selected trees were measured and measurements recorded on  B.C.  Forest Service cruise t a l l y sheets (see Appendix I I ) .  standard  The trees were  also photographed (see Appendix III) using a Mamiya C220 camera with a 6x6 cm.  format  their designated  and 50 mm.  lens.  A l l trees were photographed as close to  viewpoints as possible.  the s i t e I trees arose: i f a tree was  One  d i f f i c u l t y i n photographing  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 e n t i r e l y inside a single photographic frame.  To a l l e v i a t e this problem the top  18 and bottom halves of such trees were photographed s u l t i n g prints subsequently spliced together. practice.  separately and the r e -  This i s not a recommended  Future studies should explore the use of a wider angle lens or  choose stands more open than s i t e I.  The Timber Quality C l a s s i f i c a t i o n The timber quality c l a s s i f i c a t i o n presented i n table II was adapted from several under study by Dobie and Middleton (1977).  I t i s applicable  to Interior Douglas f i r trees 30 cm. DBH or greater only. Three things should be noted about this c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  One, i t uses  exterior tree c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to estimate i n t e r i o r timber quality.  However,  there are "no r e l i a b l e external indicators of i n t e r i o r wood q u a l i t y " (Mcintosh, 1964).  Timber degrading conditions such as r o t or shake f o r example,  are not manifest externally u n t i l w e l l established inside the tree. fore, this c l a s s i f i c a t i o n only estimates external timber quality.  ThereTwo,  because trees were to be a e s t h e t i c a l l y judged from one viewing d i r e c t i o n only, they had to be objectively evaluated from that same d i r e c t i o n .  There-  fore the number of trunk branches, stubs, and tree defects were recorded only as seen from the viewpoint. future tree growth.  Thirdly, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n does not account f o r  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 I I . 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 l i v e limb should be at least 10 meters.  3.  I t should have a clear bole i n the lower 10 meters, but a few epicormic branches are allowed i n the top 1/3 of the lower ten meters.  4.  I t should have no open scars, no conks or b l i n d conks, no fork or crook, no s p i r a l grain, no major sweep ( 7 10 cm/5 m) or lean (z*10° from v e r t i cal) .  5.  I t may not have resin exuding from the bole (indicative of shake).  6.  I t should have a healthy, balanced, and r e l a t i v e l y dense crown.  7.  No dead or broken tops are allowed.  8.  The crown should have a dominant or codomirarit position i n 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 i n the lower 5.2 meters i s desired, but dead trunk branches are o.k.  4.  The minimum requirement of this class i s that the tree contain one 5meter sawlog.  5.  A lean less than 15° from v e r t i c a l i s o.k., as i s sweep, dead or broken top,  6.  fork or crook.  I t may have any one or a combination of defects, but no conks or b l i n d conks.  7.  Trunk resinosus i s allowed.  8.  The crown may have a dominant, codominant, intermediate or suppressed position i n 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.  I t must be a l i v e .  CHAPTER I I I .  ANALYSIS OF RESULTS  General E f f i c i e n c y o f F i e l d Data In  Collection  the p e r i o d from August  1st t o 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 l o n e r , h i k e d p a s t the p o r t i o n o f t r a i l used f o r the study (see T a b l e I I I ) . t i c i p a t e and 11 were under pondents.  On the f i r s t  T h i r t e e n o f them r e f u s e d to p a r -  the study's minimum age o f 15, l e a v i n g 37  sampling day however, two respondents from the same  group gave both t r e e s i n a l l p a i r s the h i g h e s t r a t i n g p o s s i b l e choosing p r e f e r r e d t r e e s . would be l o g g e d — a n  They thought  (9), without  that trees rated l e s s appealing  i d e a spawned l i k e l y  v e r s y s u r r o u n d i n g the S t e i n  from a combination o f the c o n t r o -  ( l o g g i n g v e r s u s w i l d e r n e s s p r e s e r v a t i o n ) and  r e s e a r c h e r ' s unrehearsed p r o c e d u r a l e x p l a n a t i o n on the f i r s t At  res-  sampling  the  day.  any r a t e , t h e i r l a c k o f a e s t h e t i c discernment between t r e e s made t h e i r  responses u s e l e s s , c o n s e q u e n t l y l e a v i n g 35 u s e a b l e responses i n a l l .  This  s m a l l sample s i z e made the o r i g i n a l l y planned a n a l y s i s of socioeconomic variables impossible.  However the u n i f o r m i t y o f d a t a , as evidenced i n T a b l e  V, i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s m a l l sample s i z e need not d e t r a c t from any c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t have been made. Most respondents were from B r i t i s h Columbia's t h r e e to f i v e day w i l d e r n e s s o u t i n g . as many males as females, and were 35 o r o l d e r .  lower mainland and on a  They were comprised o f roughly t w i c e  twice as many were under 35 y e a r s of age as  Most respondents completed  hour and enjoyed the t a s k asked o f them.  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n h a l f  Only two,  an  each from s e p a r a t e  groups, s a i d another time would have been b e t t e r when they were not so  tired  from backpacking o r i n such a h u r r y to get to a c e r t a i n campsite by n i g h t fall. All  respondents except one viewed  the t r e e s i n e x a c t l y the same o r d e r .  TABLE I I I . SAMPLING PERIOD SUMMARY AND PARTICIPANT NUMBERS.*  DAY  +  DATE  GROUPS INTERCEPTED  NO. OF PEOPLE  NO. OF PEOPLE 15 OR OLDER  Wed.  08/1/79  1  8  A  Sat.  4  2  8  Tue.  7  2  Sun.  12  Sat.  NO. OF PARTICIPANTS  NO. OF USABLE RESPONSES o  WEATHER  t  I  sunny, warm  8  5  5  c l o u d y , warm  4  4  9  o Z  sunny, warm  2  6  6  0  0  sunny, h o t  18  1  3  2  2  2  c l o u d y , warm  Sun.  19  1  2  2  2  2  c l o u d y , warm  Wed.  22  1  1  1  1  f a i r , warm  Wed.  29  4  -}  o  Fri.  31  3  sunny, warm  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  18  61  50  37  35  Totals:  1  ^Format adapted from Cook ( 1 9 7 1 ) +  Sampling period  consisted  o f a l l " days from  0 8 / 1 . to 0 9 / 4 19.79 i n c l u s i v e . : 35 days i n t o t a l .  22 Consequently, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t sequence r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s such as p r a c t i c e and  f a t i g u e a f f e c t e d the respondent's j u d g m e n t s — a n d t h e r e f o r e  they p r o g r e s s e d a l o n g took two  the v i e w i n g c o u r s e .  data—as  Most respondents, f o r example,  to f o u r minutes to a s s e s s t r e e p a i r 1, but  to a s s e s s t r e e p a i r  the  o n l y one  to two  minutes  12.  In response to the aforementioned f a c t o r s , s e v e r a l recommendations f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s are n o t e d .  F i r s t , f u t u r e studies should  be  conducted i n more  i n t e n s i v e l y used r e c r e a t i o n f o r e s t s , i d e a l l y near e s t a b l i s h e d campgrounds. T h i s would h o p e f u l l y  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 f a t i g u e on study r e s u l t s . e f f e c t of sequence r e l e v a n t along  a looped t r a i l .  The  f a c t o r s , the v i e w i n g course should first  group encountered c o u l d  w i s e around the v i e w i n g c o u r s e , and direction.  Questionnaires  Secondly, to minimize  then be  the second group i n a  c o u l d be assembled to a l l o w  be  the  established sent  clock-  counterclockwise  f o r this viewing  sequence change. Aesthetic Preference At Since  and  R a t i n g s Comparison  the data c o m p i l a t i o n  a t t r a c t i v e was Litton's  ferences  the most a t t r a c t i v e . preferred.  These data d i s c r e p a n c i e s ,  nothing  =  preferences,  and  a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s using  BC  they  -  2  was  had  i n combination w i t h preference  assessment  to do w i t h a e s t h e t i c s , " l e d to the comparison of t r e e  t e s t ' s outcome, an r ^ v a l u e ,  p  noticed.  Sometimes however, a t r e e r a t e d as l e s s  (1973) doubt-provoking statement t h a t "...  r e a l l y has  r  was  expected t h a t they would p r e f e r , o f a p a i r of t r e e s , the one  chosen as b e i n g  _  discrepancy  respondents were asked to g i v e b o t h a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s and  i t was  2  s t a g e an i n f r e q u e n t  a f o u r f o l d point c o r r e l a t i o n test.  found to be 0.95.  This i s highly  / (A+B)(C+D)(A+C)(B+D) r a t e d h i g h e r but  tree B  The  signi-  AD  where A = the number of times t r e e A was  pre-  was  fieant an r -p  (P< .05) value  and  of 1.  very  c l o s e to p e r f e c t concordance, which would  Therefore  i t can be  concluded t h a t the  v  preferences  were h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s - u n a t t r a c t i v e n e s s assigned  by  the S t e i n w i l d e r n e s s  t r e e s , but (A standard Preference  i s mentally assessment on  p a i r - m a t e — b u t does not  assessments supplement each  comparisons to be made between any  i n i t i a l l y have no  standard  other:  o f the  to which each t r e e can be  e s t a b l i s h e d a f t e r a few  24  compared.  t r e e s have been judged.)  the o t h e r hand always p r o v i d e s allow  tree ratings  users.  A e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s and p r e f e r e n c e the a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s a l l o w  give  a  standard—the  ready comparisons between t r e e s of d i f f e r e n t  pairs.  The The if  Timber Q u a l i t y - A e s t h e t i c Q u a l i t y  main o b j e c t i v e of t h i s study was  indeed one  forest trees.  p a i r preferences  Aesthetic  a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y of  t h i s purpose, b o t h the a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s and  of the respondents were matched w i t h the  timber q u a l i t y t r e e s and The  to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  e x i s t e d , between timber q u a l i t y and For  Relationship  the  within-  appropriate  analyzed.  Ratings  Mean a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s were d e r i v e d by a v e r a g i n g the L i k e r t s c a l e r a t i n g s r e c e i v e d per  tree.  These were matched w i t h t h e i r  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  (note  2,  c a l c u l a t e d and  found to be  appropriate  r = 0.53  (dF =  22,  cont'd)  preferred; B = the number o f times t r e e A was C = the number of times t r e e B was D = the number o f times t r e e B was  r a t e d h i g h e r and r a t e d h i g h e r and r a t e d h i g h e r but  preferred; preferred; t r e e A was p r e f e r r e d .  24 P^.05).  This r value  3  is statistically  cluded that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p thetic quality.  significant.  t h e r e f o r e con-  e x i s t s between timber q u a l i t y and  Expressed i n another way,  one's a c c u r a c y i n p r e d i c t i n g  I t was  the a e s t h e t i c  the  aes-  r value obtained states  q u a l i t y of f o r e s t  that  trees w i l l i n -  2 c r e a s e by  28%  The  (r ) once t h e i r timber q u a l i t i e s are known.  next s t e p i n the  analysis  aesthetic  quality relationship,  aesthetic  ratings  classes per  and  (table IV).  t e r e d below the  and  i n table  o t h e r two  IV was  tended to be trees.  then, were found to be  quality classes 3,  or 2.  as  low 1 and  the  as  indicating  —  and  2.  T-tests  3.  (n*x^  The  clus-  i n g e n e r a l , poor good  of the  T h i s f i n d i n g was  or  seven  unattrac-  m a j o r i t y of q u a l i t y c l a s s  comparing q u a l i t y ( t = 3.01  trees  and  that  of e i t h e r  i f the  3  substantiated  classes 4.25  Ux)^)(n y^ £  -  (iy)^)  where n = the number o f t r e e s , x = the timber q u a l i t y , y = the mean a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s  per  tree.  1 and  3,  and  2  respectively, as a group, were  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s  aesthetic  - ; (g. x) (fe.y) _  had  l e s s a t t r a c t i v e than the  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 t r e e s ,  This conclusion implies  /  that  t h e r e f o r e found g e n e r a l l y  unattractive.  l e s s a t t r a c t i v e than the  xy  3 trees  o v e r a l l mean r a t i n g of q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 w i t h whose of  T h i s shows t h a t  rife  quality  an o v e r a l l mean r a t i n g  quality class  3 r =  timber  T a b l e IV f o r example shows that  showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  P<:.o5). rated  rated  f i v e belonged to q u a l i t y c l a s s  comparing the  and  that  quality classes,  t r e e s whose means were below 5.0  by  -  of r a n k - o r d e r i n g the mean  s e p a r a t i n g them i n t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e  average timber q u a l i t y  trees,  timber q u a l i t y  class.  timber q u a l i t y t r e e s  tive —  consisted  They were then used to c a l c u l a t e  timber q u a l i t y F i r s t noticed  looked c l o s e r at the  1  q u a l i t y o f a group o f  25 TABLE IV'.. MEAN AESTHETIC RATINGS RANK ORDERED AND SEPARATED INTO TIMBER QUALITY CLASSES  RANK ORDER POSITION  TREE #  1  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11  5 23 2 12 18 20 9 19 6 10 24 4 16 14 17 7 1 22 15 8 3 21 11 13  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  O v e r a l l Mean  • TIMBER QUALITY, CLASSES 2  3  7.457 Z6.571 6.486 6.382 6.343 6.314 6.242 6.143 5.886 5.857 5.743 5.714 5.629 5.514 5.171 5.086 5.059 4.943 4.886 4.857 4.853 4.829 4.676 3.829  Ratings  Per Timber Q u a l i t y  Class:  5.925  5.998  4.885  26 i n d i v i d u a l t r e e s has to be p r e d i c t e d ,  one s t e p toward g r e a t e r  predictive  accuracy would be to a t t r i b u t e most timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 t r e e s w i t h low aesthetic The  quality. o v e r a l l mean r a t i n g s f o r timber q u a l i t y c l a s s e s  compared. nificant  The d i f f e r e n c e between them however was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y ( t = 0.02, p < . 0 5 ) .  As groups t h e r e f o r e ,  t r e e s were a t t r i b u t e d almost e q u a l a e s t h e t i c timber q u a l i t y cannot a c c u r a t e l y and  V a r i a b i l i t y i n the A e s t h e t i c examine how d i v e r s e  aesthetic  T h i s suggests  pleasing.  Ratings the o p i n i o n s o f respondents were r e g a r d i n g  q u a l i t y of f o r e s t trees,  V) .  that  p r e d i c t , when comparing q u a l i t y c l a s s 1  the  the v a r i a n c e s of the mean a e s t h e t i c r a -  t i n g s were grouped t o g e t h e r i n t o t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r timber q u a l i t y (Table  sig-  q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 and 2  quality.  2 t r e e s , which ones a r e more a e s t h e t i c a l l y  To  1 and 2 were a l s o  Organized i n t h i s manner, i t c o u l d  classes  a l s o be seen whether r e s -  pondents agreed o r d i s a g r e e d 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 . T a b l e V shows respondents were i n f a i r agreement over the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f a l l but two o f the t r e e s , #14.  the e x c e p t i o n s b e i n g t r e e s  #12 and  Tree #12 had a lower f o r k and t r e e #14 had a s e v e r e crook (see App-  endix 3 ) .  As a group then, respondents were u n c l e a r as to the a e s t h e t i c  q u a l i t y a t t r i b u t a b l e to these u n i q u e l y f e a t u r e d them, o t h e r s were n e u t r a l , and s t i l l  t r e e s : some r e a l l y  o t h e r s d i d n o t l i k e them a t a l l .  A comparison o f the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s mean v a r i a n c e s showed only  those o f timber q u a l i t y c l a s s e s  ( t = 5.104, p < . 0 5 ) .  This  indicates  Both these f i n d i n g s  that  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 h a t respondents as a group agreed  l e s s on the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f poor timber q u a l i t y t r e e s over good timber q u a l i t y  liked  than they d i d  trees. suggest t h a t obvious timber d e f e c t s  such as f o r k s ,  27  TABLE :.V. MEAN AESTHETIC RATING VARIANCES PER TREE AND PER TIMBER QUALITY CLASS  TIMBER QUALITY CLASS  1 TREE #  RATING VARIANCE  2  2.081  4  2 TREE if  RATING VARIANCE  3 TREE //  RATING VARIANCE  8  1.891  1  3.390  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 V a r i a n c e per Timber C l a s s : 2.110  2.182  3.044  28 crooks,  s c a r s and s e v e r e sweeps and l e a n s found s i n g u l a r l y or i n c o m b i n a t i o n  on most q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 t r e e s and  some q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 t r e e s 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 . a t t r a c t i v e ; others The  Tree  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 .  Preferences  To f a c i l i t a t e the a n a l y s i s of the p r e f e r e n c e s p l i t i n t o s i m i l a r and number of p r e f e r e n c e s one  t r e e was If,  t r e e s was  Some people f i n d them  d a t a , the t r e e p a i r s were  d i s s i m i l a r t i m b e r q u a l i t y groups ( t a b l e V I ) .  The  f o r a t r e e i n each p a i r were then compared to see i f  p r e f e r r e d a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f times o v e r the  f o r the s i m i l a r p a i r s , the number o f p r e f e r e n c e s  other.  for individual  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 p a i r - m a t e s , i t c o u l d  be c o n c l u d e d t h a t t i m b e r 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 t r e e s as does a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y . ferences  T a b l e VI shows t h a t the number o f  pre-  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 a t a  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  pro-  earlier  f i n d i n g , suggest t h a t the t i m b e r q u a l i t y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s too c o a r s e 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 h a v i n g to d i s c r i m i n a t e between t r e e s o f s i m i l a r t i m b e r q u a l i t y , or between t i m b e r q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 and  2 trees.  Tree p a i r s 3 and preference  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  t r e e s of s i m i l a r t i m b e r q u a l i t y can e l i c i t .  In tree p a i r 3  b o t h i t s t r e e s were s u p e r i o r t i m b e r q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 t r e e s — was  —  the d i f f e r e n c e  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.  B o t h t r e e s were t a l l and wide of g i r t h , but t r e e #5  the l a r g e r of the two.  B o t h t r e e s were s t r a i g h t and  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  leaned s l i g h t l y ,  was but  a s h a r p l y c o n i c a l crown t h a t  spanned t w o - t h i r d s of the t r e e ' 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  TREE PAIR  TREE //  TIMBER QUALITY CLASS  NUMBER OF TIMES PREFERRED  Z  A. SIMILAR PAIRS 3  5 6  1 1  30 4  4.226*  5  9 10  1 1  21 13  1.372  10  19 20  2 2  15 19  0.686  12  23 24  2 2  25 10  2.535*  7  13 14  .3 3  8 25  2.959*  11  21 22  3 3  15 17  0.353  B. DISSIMILAR PAIRS 4  7 8  1 2  24 11  2.197*  6  11 12  1 2  5 30  4.226*  8  15 16  3 2  8 27  3.210*  9  17 18  3 2  7 28  3.550*  1  1 2  3 1  8 27  3.210*  2  3 4  3 1  11 24  2.197*  Z = frequency of choice - N (.5) \l N (.25) *Denotes significance at 0.05 l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y or better.  30 rounded on top and c o n c e n t r a t e d  i n t h e top o n e - t h i r d  o f the t r e e .  The  reasons most o f t e n chosen f o r p r e f e r r i n g t r e e #5 were more b a l a n c e d  (12x),  s t r a i g h t e r trunk (12x), wider trunk ( 9 x ) , rougher bark (8x) and more a t t r a c t i v e background s c e n e r y ( 8 x ) . The  s m a l l s i z e s o f t r e e s #13 and #14 i n p a i r 7 were almost  identical,  and both had f i r e markings on t h e i r lower trunks and a number o f dead trunk branches. had  Tree #14 had a severe crook i n i t s lower trunk where t r e e #13  a major sweep.  T h e i r s m a l l s i z e s , and t h e i r d e f e c t s , p l a c e d b o t h i n t o  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 3, y e t t r e e #14 was a e s t h e t i c a l l y p r e f e r r e d three as o f t e n as t r e e #13.  times  N i n e t e e n respondents chose "more crooked t r u n k " 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 t r u n k " as a reason f o r p r e f e r r i n g #13.  I n t h i s case i t seems t h a t t h e type o f phy-  s i c a l d e f e c t , o r perhaps i t s degree, p l a y e d  an important r o l e i n t r e e  pre-  ference. The  two p a i r s d i s c u s s e d  above i l l u s t r a t e  q u a l i t y may be a s s e s s e d d i f f e r e n t l y .  t h a t t r e e s s i m i l a r i n timber  I t was concluded t h e r e f o r e  that the  a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f f o r e s t t r e e s cannot be p r e d i c t e d a c c u r a t e l y o r cons 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 a r e .  o r a d d i t i o n s would have to be made to i n c r e a s e sistency.  Some m o d i f i c a t i o n s  t h e i r accuracy and con-  That each timber q u a l i t y c l a s s i s r e p r e s e n t e d  by a d i f f e r e n t i -  a l l y p r e f e r r e d p a i r o f t r e e s s i m i l a r i n timber q u a l i t y shows a l s o that the criteria Of  o f a l l three  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s e s need  the d i s s i m i l a r t r e e p a i r s , a l l c o n t a i n e d  e n t i a l l y p r e f e r r e d a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f times.  modifications. t r e e s t h a t were d i f f e r F i v e o f the s i x t r e e  p a i r s showed t h a t t h e i r b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s were p r e f e r r e d more o f t e n , l e a v i n g o n l y one t r e e p a i r t h a t showed t h e o p p o s i t e exception,  p a i r 6, showed the g r e a t e s t  trend.  difference i n preference  #12 p r e f e r r e d s i x times as o f t e n as t r e e #11.  The  with  Tree #11 was an average  tree  31 timber quality class 1 tree whereas tree #12 was  s l i g h t l y t a l l e r , had a  denser crown and forked one meter up from the ground (see Appendix I I I ) . In this case i t seems that the fork, i n combination with greater tree height and crown density, was more important to tree preference quality.  The attractiveness of the fork was  respondent comments regarding features.  than better timber  r e f l e c t e d by the number of  the d e s i r a b i l i t y of forks and other mishapen  Such variety producing features were favored over stands con-  s i s t i n g s o l e l y of less i n t e r e s t i n g , s t r a i g h t e r , h e a l t h i e r trees. The d i s s i m i l a r pairs were ordered from least d i s s i m i l a r down to most d i s s i m i l a r i n timber q u a l i t y .  The Z values i n table VI show however that  increasing d i s s i m i l a r i t y i s not accompanied by an increasing number of preferences for the better timber quality trees: preferences  f o r the poorer  timber quality trees s t i l l constitute a sizeable minority i n each p a i r . I t i s these exceptions,  of course, that are hard to predict.  of d i s s i m i l a r p a i r preferences  A f i n a l count  shows that poorer timber quality trees were  preferred 75 times, and the better timber q u a l i t y trees preferred times.  135  Comparing these counts showed that the better timber quality trees  were preferred a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater number of times (z = 4.14,  p<.05).  This d e f i n i t e majority substantiates the e a r l i e r finding that a pos i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between timber q u a l i t y and aesthetic q u a l i t y . V a r i a b i l i t y i n Preference To analyze the v a r i a b i l i t y i n i n d i v i d u a l respondents'• preferences, the d i s s i m i l a r tree p a i r s were grouped according to the timber q u a l i t i e s they harbored ( i . e . types 1-2, person who  2-3,  1-3).  I t was  then noted whether a  had preferred the better timber quality tree upon seeing  f i r s t of each p a i r type, switched t h e i r preference  the  to the poorer timber  quality tree upon seeing the second tree p a i r of that type, and v i c e versa.  The results are shown i n table VII.  32 TABLE V I I . VARIABILITY IN PREFERENCE  CONSISTENT Type o f Pairs  Prefer better t r e e b o t h times  VARIABLE  P r e f e r poorer t r e e b o t h times  Prefer better than p o o r e r tree  P r e f e r poorer than b e t t e r tree  1 - 2  3  9  21  2  2 - 3  24  4  3  4  1 - 3  20  4  7  4  T a b l e V I I shows t h a t more people a r e c o n s i s t e n t than a r e n o t .  i n t h e i r preference  I t a l s o shows t h a t b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s were con-  s i s t e n t l y p r e f e r r e d more o f t e n than the p o o r e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s . paring  Com-  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 and 3 t r e e s , and 1 and 3 t r e e s , shows t h a t i n  b o t h cases the b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y p r e f e r r e d a t l e a s t f i v e times as o f t e n .  This substantiates  an e a r l i e r f i n d i n g t h a t  p o o r e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s a r e g e n e r a l l y l e s s p r e f e r r e d than b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s .  The e x c e p t i o n to t h i s t r e n d i s i n the type 1-2  p a i r s where the p o o r e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s a r e c o n s i s t e n t l y p r e f e r r e d more o f t e n than the b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s .  T h i s r e s u l t i s o l a t e d from the  r e s t seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t timber q u a l i t y 2 t r e e s a r e p r e f e r r e d over quality 1 trees.  T a b l e VI shows however t h a t the b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y  t r e e was p r e f e r r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n i n the f i r s t countered.  timber  type 1-2 p a i r en-  T h i s r e c o n f i r m s t h a t a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f timber q u a l i t y 1 and  2 trees are, i n general,  similar.  A l s o to be noted i s the s u b s t a n t i a l number o f people who switched p r e f e r e n c e s from the b e t t e r to the p o o r e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s , and v i c e - v e r s a . By d o i n g so, they i n d i c a t e d a d e s i r e f o r stands to be comprised o f an a s s o r t ment o f timber q u a l i t y t r e e s , r a t h e r than o f b e t t e r timber q u a l i t y t r e e s  only.  33 Reasons f o r P r e f e r e n c e As i n the f i r s t  o b j e c t i v e , so f o r the second o b j e c t i v e , t h e r e  were two types o f data to work w i t h .  On the one hand were the reasons  g i v e n by respondents f o r t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s , on the o t h e r were the measured t r e e v a r i a b l e s such as h e i g h t and DBH, which a l s o c o u l d a i d i n i d e n t i f y i n g reasons f o r p r e f e r e n c e . Given Reasons f o r P r e f e r e n c e P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o g i v e from 1 t o 4 reasons why a t each p a i r they p r e f e r r e d one t r e e over the o t h e r . gave averaged  The number o f reasons they a c t u a l l y  t h r e e p e r t r e e and ranged from none to e i g h t .  The number o f  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 c o n v e r t e d to a p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l number o f times a l l c h a r a c -  t e r i s t i c s were used.  A l s o , a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had p a i r e d o p p o s i t e s .  o p p o s i t e p a i r d e s c r i b e d two d i f f e r e n t trunk w i d t h , ground evenness).  Each  degrees o f a s i n g l e a t t r i b u t e ( e . g .  T h e r e f o r e , to g i v e each a t t r i b u t e  relative  w e i g h t , t h e p e r c e n t a g e s o f each o f t h e p a i r e d o p p o s i t e s were added.  Table  V I I I shows the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n the same o r d e r as respondents saw them, matched w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e counts and p e r c e n t s , and the a t t r i b u t e p e r cents. The f o u r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s chosen most o f t e n by respondents, and l i s t e d i n o r d e r o f d e c r e a s i n g importance, were: more b a l a n c e d , s t r a i g h t e r trunk, more a t t r a c t i v e background  s c e n e r y , and fewer dead trunk branches.  S t r a i g h t e r 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 b a l a n c e d may o r may n o t a f f e c t t i m b e r q u a l i t y , and more a t t r a c t i v e background  does n o t a f f e c t  timber q u a l i t y a t a l l .  For t h a t  matter, a l l t r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h good timber q u a l i t y were chosen more o f t e n than t h e i r To f a c i l i t a t e  pair-opposites.  the a n a l y s i s o f the g i v e n reasons f o r p r e f e r e n c e , they  34 TABLE V I I I . GIVEN REASONS FOR PREFERENCE  NO. OF TIMES  % OF TIMES  CHOSEN  CHOSEN  %  128 45  9.20 3.23  12.43  Wider t r u n k Narrower trunk  47 7  3.38 0.50  3.88  S h o r t e r trunk Longer trunk  2 30  0.14 2.16  2.30  More l e a n Less l e a n  35 31  2.51 2.23  4.74  48 114  3.45 8.19  11.64  More dead trunk branches Fewer dead trunk branches  20 85  1.44 6.11  7.55  Rougher bark Smoother bark  47 41  3.38 2.95  6.33  More s c a r s Fewer s c a r s  27 53  1.94 3.81  5.75  More h o l e s Fewer h o l e s  2 11  0.14 0.79  0.93  More fungus L e s s fungus  30 18  2.16 1.29  3.45  Denser crown S p a r s e r crown  47 13  3.38 0.93  4.31  Broader crown Narrower crown  28 13  2.01 0.93  2.94  Longer crown S h o r t e r 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  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE  More b a l a n c e d More l o p s i d e d  More crooked trunk S t r a i g h t e r trunk  ATTRIBUTE  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  16 14  1.15 1.01  2:16  Mixed tree sizes Uniform tree sizes  29 16  2.08 1.15  3.23  Uneven tree spacing Even tree spacing  13 11  0.93 0.79  1.72  Denser undergrowth Sparser undergrowth  22 25  1.58 1.80  3.38  Even ground Uneven ground  12 22  0.86 1.58  2.44  0.57 0.65  1.22  F l a t t e r ground Steeper ground More a t t r a c t i v e background sceneryLess a t t r a c t i v e background scenery Written  comments  109  7.83  11  0.79  48  3.66  8.62  3.66  36 were divided under the following headings: the o v e r a l l tree, the trunk, the crown, the tree's surroundings, and the written comments. The o v e r a l l tree.  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s pertinent to the o v e r a l l tree  are more balanced/more lopsided and more lean/less lean. lean were almost equally favored.  Added together  More lean and less  they form the a t t r i b u t e of  "degree of lean", which was ranked as seventh most used.  This r e l a t i v e l y  high rank i s evidence that the degree of lean i s important i n aesthetic quality.  Also, the s i m i l a r scores f o r 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 I I I ) .  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 " a t t r a c t ive  lean." More balanced was chosen three times as often as more lopsided; i t was  also chosen more often than any other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . This suggests that an a e s t h e t i c a l l y 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. butes, degree of balance was the most important.  Of a l l the a t t r i -  That i t was l i s t e d  first  i n the questionnaire may have elevated the number of times i t was chosen; however, other attributes l i s t e d l a t e r were also used many times. The trunk.  Ten of the 16 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 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 l e a s t twice as often as their p a i r opposites.  Rough and smooth bark were about equally favored.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c produced confusion.  The fungus  Both degrees of fungus together were  chosen 48 times as reasons f o r 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 s i t e I I .  The  37 number of times "more fungus" was chosen as a reason f o r preference i n s i t e I was eight; i t was chosen 22 times i n s i t e II however.  Comparing these  counts showed that "more fungus" was chosen a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater number 9z  of times i n s i t e II ( x  = 5.63, p«c.05).  4  Also, looking at trees i n d i v i -  dually showed that tree #16, a s i t e I I tree supporting many more lichens than i t s pair-mate, received "more fungus" more often as a reason for preference than any other tree.  No one assigned i t "less fungus".  Its p a i r -  mate, tree #15, received neither "more fungus" or "less fungus" as preference 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 f o r tree #18.  In cases l i k e t h i s  i t was debatable which tree of a p a i r actually had more lichen.  The above  findings l e d to the conclusion that respondents had equated lichens with fungus, assuming one was the other. Also p o t e n t i a l l y 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  s t a r t s at the f i r s t l i v e limb and that anything below that belongs to the trunk. The s i x remaining trunk c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s referred to the trunk as a whole, Wider trunk, longer trunk, and straighter trunk were a l l substantially favored over their pair-opposites.  4  *\ = *  (/F  i -v F + -p 1 2  It was noted though that crooked trunk,  1)2  where F^ = frequency of use of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c in site I F  2  - frequency of use of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c in s i t e II  38 although s u b o r d i n a t e to s t r a i g h t e r trunk, was trunk and  chosen more o f t e n than  j u s t as o f t e n as w i d e r trunk as a reason f o r p r e f e r e n c e .  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 o f i t s b e i n g the o v e r r i d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t Cook (1971) r e f e r s t o . times a crooked trunk w i l l be p r e f e r r e d , c o n t r a r y that i s wider, longer, The  crown.  a l l y favored to s h o r t e r  Of  Longer crown was  crown; fewer dead crown branches was  favored  favored  healthier  tree.  in aesthetic quality.  breaking  Trees #2  however.  and  #4  and  Their greatest  DBH.  characa  differentiation  rated  con-  i n t h e i r crowns.  Based on the crown c h a r a c -  r e c e i v e d c o u l d a l s o have been p r e d i c t e d on  The  and  a clump o f dead branches  been p r e d i c t e d as h a v i n g the most a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y .  i t s long  to 1  crown,  favored  T r e e //2 was  the l a r g e r crown whereas t r e e #4 had  the o n l y one w i t h no  15  therefore l i k e l y  d i f f e r e n c e was  the c o n t i n u i t y of i t s crown i n h a l f .  t r e e s i t was  one  (see Appendix I I I ) f o r example,  t e r i s t i c s most o f t e n chosen as reasons f o r p r e f e r e n c e ,  #18  The  t r e e s p a r t i a l l y produced a  s i m i l a r , e s p e c i a l l y i n height  Tree #2 had  over  4 to 1 to more  3 to 1 to s p a r s e r  2 to 1 over narrower crown.  crowns o f many of the  favored  favored  c o l l e c t i v e l y d e s c r i b e a h e a l t h i e r crown, and  siderably higher  of  That i s , a t  to e x p e c t a t i o n ,  teristics  were v e r y  one  the e i g h t crown c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , f o u r were s u b s t a n t i -  dead crown branches; denser crown was  The  Its  or s t r a i g h t e r .  over their p a i r - o p p o s i t e s .  broader crown was  longer  t r e e #2 The  this basis.  c o u l d have  high ratings Of  the  tree  selected  dead branches on e i t h e r i t s trunk or i n  crown. tree's surroundings.  More a t t r a c t i v e background s c e n e r y "  chosen more o f t e n as a reason f o r p r e f e r e n c e d e s c r i b i n g the t r e e ' s s u r r o u n d i n g s .  T h i s was  than any to be  was  other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  expected s i n c e i t alone  39  c o u l d r e f e r to a l l the o t h e r " s u r r o u n d i n g s " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s combined. a respondent  l i k e d something  If  about a t r e e ' s s u r r o u n d i n g s , but c o u l d n o t  q u i t e f i g u r e out what, c h o o s i n g "more a t t r a c t i v e background s c e n e r y " would cover i t .  That l e s s a t t r a c t i v e background scenery was  surprising.  Perhaps those c h o o s i n g i t thought  background a c t e d as a c o n t r a s t i n g f o i l a t t r i b u t e s to  chosen a t a l l was  t h a t the l e s s  attractive  that d i s p l a y e d the t r e e ' s a e s t h e t i c  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 s u r r o u n d i n g t r e e s , mixed and u n i f o r m t r e e s p e c i e s , and even and uneven t r e e s p a c i n g were chosen almost  equal number o f times.  c i e s and  This i n d i c a t e s that a v a r i e t y of tree  t r e e s p a c i n g s l i k e l y a p p e a l to most p e o p l e .  spe-  That mixed t r e e  were f a v o r e d more o f t e n than u n i f o r m t r e e s i z e s suggests a tendency  an  sizes  f o r un-  even-aged stands to be p r e f e r r e d over even-aged s t a n d s . Mentioned floor. s i t e was  l a s t a r e the s i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e a l i n g w i t h the f o r e s t  The o n l y one chosen uneven ground.  c o n s i d e r a b l y more o f t e n than i t s p a i r e d oppo-  The unevenness o f t e r r a i n was  and b o u l d e r s d i s p e r s e d over the o t h e r w i s e f l a t  due  terraces.  to dry Flatter  gullies and  s t e e p e r ground were e q u a l l y p r e f e r r e d i n the t r e e s ' s u r r o u n d i n g s .  Denser  and s p a r s e r undergrowth were a l s o n e a r l y e q u a l l y p r e f e r r e d , perhaps  re-  f l e c t i n g t h a t a v e r y n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n undergrowth d e n s i t y d i d not e x i s t between t r e e s o f any one p a i r . then, p l e a s e d the respondents.  A v a r i e t y i n undergrowth d e n s i t y  The a t t r i b u t e o f undergrowth d e n s i t y , a l -  though not chosen many times, was  used more o f t e n than o t h e r s such as  trunk l e n g t h o r crown w i d t h to e x p l a i n the p r e f e r e n c e .  This, i f anything,  shows t h a t surroundings a l s o p l a y 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 o f times each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was a l s o important was  the way  used was  i n which they were used.  important, but  Specifically,  there  40 was concern that people would find some easy way that they would then repeatedly employ.  to use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  To examine this aspect, a table  was made that showed how many times each respondent had used each characteristic.  From i t a t a l l y was taken of the number of times c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  were used once, twice, three times, and so on up to 12 times. summarizes this t a l l y .  Table IX  It shows that as the frequency of the use of a  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 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 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ' s use per person Number of times that frequency occurred  1  2  3  301 134 81  4  5  43  28  6  14  7  8  17  9  2  3  10  11  12  1  0  1  S p e c i f i c a l l y , any one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was used 6 or less times by 4 out of every 5 people. ive background  Of course more balanced, straighter trunk and more a t t r a c t scenery were used more often by most persons than any of the  other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  This was due to two factors: their a p p l i c a b i l i t y i n  a l l comparisons, and their ease of application.  More a t t r a c t i v e  background  scenery, to i l l u s t r a t e the f i r s t factor, could be applied i n a l l cases whereas scarring, found on only a few of the selected trees, applied i n 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 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (straighter trunk) used to explain preference at a l l twelve p a i r s .  In a l l , the figures i n d i -  cate that s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were repeatedly used by the same per-  sons, but  seldom f o r a l l cases,  liberally  to p i n p o i n t  the  The w r i t t e n comments.  and  t h a t other  preference. Respondents wrote 51 comments i n the  n a i r e s to supplement the p r o v i d e d  reasons f o r p r e f e r e n c e .  p e o p l e had w r i t t e n comments; twelve had endix I I I ) received  #23  T r e e s #12  or was  Twenty-three  and  before  (see App-  6 comments r e s p e c t i v e l y .  " u n u s u a l " or " i n t e r e s t i n g " . branches, and  The  the  comments f o r t r e e  i t s " n i c e shape".  r e f e r r e d to such t h i n g s as bark c o l o r , the f o r e g r o u n d , the  I d e a l l y the  #23  " u n u s u a l " were the words most o f t e n used.  lighting conditions,  question-  r e f e r r e d to i t s f o r k , t h a t i t gave  r e f e r r e d to i t s " g r a c e f u l " l e a n and  " I n t e r e s t i n g " and  not.  the most comments w i t h 10 and  Most of the comments f o r t r e e #12 tree "character"  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were used  Other comments tree's  health,  the presence o f l i c h e n .  t r e e s and  c o m p l e t i n g the l i s t  t h e i r s u r r o u n d i n g s would have been s c r u t i n i z e d o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u p p l i e d 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 r e p l a c e d by more l i c h e n / l e s s l i c h e n . i s t i c s were used a t l e a s t twice, procedure has  A l l listed  i n d i c a t i n g that a preference  character-  assessment  room f o r them a l l .  Deduced Reasons Rather than r e l y were a l s o a n a l y z e d istics  s o l e l y on  the respondents, the measured t r e e v a r i a b l e s  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  i n f l u e n c e d the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f f o r e s t t r e e s .  I f any  characterof  the  v a r i a b l e s d i d indeed i n f l u e n c e a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y , t h e i r ease o f measurement would i n t u r n make p r e d i c t i o n s of t r e e a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y e a s i e r , and haps more The  accurate.  measured v a r i a b l e s c o n s i s t e d of t r e e h e i g h t ,  knots i n the lower ten meters, and stub.  The  per-  values  the h e i g h t s  DBH,  of the f i r s t  the number of l i v e limb  and  of each v a r i a b l e were matched w i t h the mean a e s t h e t i c  42 ratings i n order to measure the degree of association between them. r e s u l t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n equivalents,  or r_ values,  The  are l i s t e d i n table X.  TABLE X. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FROM COMPARISONS BETWEEN MEAN AESTHETIC RATINGS AND MEASURED TREE VARIABLES  r:  Tree Height (m.)  DBH (cm.)  Knots First 10 m.  0.68*  0.61*  -0.48*  Height, of': First Live Limb  Height of First Stub  0.37  0.30  * S i g n i f i c a n t at 0,05 l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y .  As the r_ values show, tree height i s the most r e l i a b l e single indicator of aesthetic q u a l i t y .  The c o e f f i c i e n t of determination, _r , indicates that i t  alone explains 46% of the v a r i a t i o n i n the mean aesthetic ratings.  Relating  this c o r r e l a t i o n to the timber quality classes, the t a l l e r trees within each class generally received the highest  ratings.  Hence f o r aesthetic quality  predictions, not only can trees be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by timber quality class, but by height within and between timber quality classes as well.  The prob-  lem then of the timber quality c l a s s i f i c a t i o n being too coarse to predict aesthetic quality accurately, e s p e c i a l l y between trees of similar timber quality, i s i n part solved by tree  height.  Regarding the l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t should be noted that respondents could show their preference f o r the t a l l e r trees either by s e l e c t ing both longer trunk and longer crown or .by w r i t i n g i t on the characterist i c s l i s t s provided.  Only two wrote " t a l l e r " as a reason f o r preference.  I f future tree aesthetics research  i s 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 teristics .  charac-  43  The  linear relationship  shown i n f i g u r e 4.  The  between a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y and  tendency  for taller  tree height i s  t r e e s to be r a t e d h i g h e r can  seen i n the p l o t t e d d a t a p o i n t s , but t h e i r s c a t t e r i n g away from the i n d i c a t e s t h a t o t h e r f a c t o r s are a t p l a y here Diameter a t b r e a s t h e i g h t proved with aesthetic quality.  T h i s was  be  line  too.  a l s o to be p o s i t i v e l y  correlated  expected however because of i t s i n t e r -  dependence w i t h t r e e h e i g h t : the t a l l e r  the t r e e , the wider  i t usually i s .  Diameter a t b r e a s t h e i g h t then, adds l i t t l e i f any p r e d i c t i v e power i f t r e e h e i g h t i s a l r e a d y known. The number of knots meters of the t r e e proved lity.  ( l i v e and  dead branches) seen on the lower  to be n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h a e s t h e t i c qua-  That i s , as the number of knots  creases.  increases, aesthetic quality  The n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n , however, i s caused mainly  dead branches,  ten  and not the l i v e ones.  T h i s was  concluded  from  f o r two  dethe  rea-  sons: f i r s t ,  dead trunk and crown branches u s u a l l y outnumbered l i v e ones  on the lower  trunks of s e l e c t e d t r e e s ; s e c o n d l y , l o n g e r crowns were p r e -  f e r r e d , and  the more l i v e branches i n the lower p o r t i o n of the t r e e ,  the  g r e a t e r the chance o f h a v i n g a l o n g crown. Height  to f i r s t  aesthetic quality.  live On  limb was  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  the one hand a lower f i r s t  correlated with  l i v e limb would  mean a l o n g e r crown; on the o t h e r hand, a h i g h e r f i r s t mean a l o n g e r trunk.  likely  l i v e limb would  As both c o n d i t i o n s were a e s t h e t i c a l l y p l e a s i n g , no  direct c o r r e l a t i o n could e x i s t . Height  to f i r s t  aesthetic quality.  stub was  l i k e w i s e not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h  I t had been expected,  s i n c e dead trunk branches were  g e n e r a l l y d i s f a v o r e d , t h a t a low stub would mean low a e s t h e t i c However, i r r e g u l a r i t i e s such as the v e r y low stub found on t r e e  quality. #12,  which n o n e t h e l e s s r e c e i v e d a h i g h r a t i n g , are a p r o b a b l e cause of the  44  45 non-significance. After examining the accuracy with which the variables i n d i v i d u a l l y predicted aesthetic quality of forest trees, i t was  desirable to know i f  more precise predictions could be made when they worked i n combination with each other. pendent factors.) was  used.  (Tree aesthetics i s , after a l l , a r e s u l t of many interdeFor this purpose a step-wise multiple regression analysis  Simply speaking, this form of regression analysis chooses various  combinations of the independent variables (tree v a r i a b l e s ) , multiplies each variable within each combination by an appropriately weighted value, then estimates how  accurately each combination predicts the dependent va-  r i a b l e (mean aesthetic r a t i n g s ) .  The end product i s a set of regression  equations constituting various predictive accuracies. regression equation"* explained ratings.  The most accurate  69% of the variance i n the mean aesthetic  The limited number of trees and participants sampled though,  r e s t r i c t i t s application i n forest management. ing  and  However, i t s general  find-  that the aesthetic quality of forest trees can be predicted agrees  with Cook's (1971) findings.  A Within Site Comparison The  two study s i t e s were separately scrutinized to see what e f f e c t  each had on tree aesthetics. research objectives, i t was  Although t h i s was  outside of the proposed  f e l t i t would lend a valuable perspective  to  this study. To s c r u t i n i z e the s i t e s separately,  the trees on each were rank or-  ~* Mean aesthetic r a t i n g = 5.769 + 0.080 (tree height i n meters) - 0.045 (number of knots i n lower 10 m.) - 0.142 (height to f i r s t l i v e limb i n m.) - 0.139 (height of f i r s t stub i n m.)  46 dered  according  timber of  to  their  quality class  aesthetic  distinction  2 and  quality.  1 tree  between timber  be  the  aesthetic class  The that  timber  1  trees  on  site  quality  class  2 trees  on  site  trees  t h a t were j u s t as  except  their  crowns were not  the  selected  rated not or  that  quality class  competing w i t h good  vided  f o r m as  pleasing  t h a t was The  rated  any  was way.  trees  the  shortest  the  the  on  contrast  the  or  3  led  hand,  on  stand  trees  site  on  out  trees,  to  the  they  the  ready  did  well.  s i n g l e stemmed  trees  tall, trees  The  highly  It of  was height  Its fork and  timber  matrix,  dimensions  uniqueness.  quality  the  1  such a  cut  form,  timber  as  for  best  and  case i n point. the  a  II  the  a m o n g s t many o t h e r  I i s another 1  and  a  relationships  i n height  conspicuously  d i d not  good  ratings.  possessed  Within  basis  a  tree  tree  the  i n turn  view.  dimension of  among t h e  class 2  both  other  the  the  S i t e I shows  quality class  the  on  suitable for quality class  quality class  much as  rated  offer,  This  in full  site  3 trees.  contrast,  On  generally  2 t r e e on  pro-  because  of  highly.  quality class  exemplifies it  class 1  to  They s t o o d  well-formed  well  f i n d i n g that  regarding  dominate as  II.  illustrates,  quality class 2 trees  good  I d i d not  earlier  by  had  them.  XI  q u a l i t y class 1  quality classes.  d i s t i n c t i o n between  table  separated  2 and  best  amongst  T h e r e was  II  the  timber  site  As  a highly  timber  Placed  f i n e f i g u r e indeed. two  the  discussed  tallest  growth form.  the  exemplifies  dispersing  qualities.  example, were  between  site  however, w i t h  These r e s u l t s can  a  on  e x i s t s between q u a l i t y c l a s s  class  possible  quality.  3 trees  This  more i r r e g u l a r p a t t e r n short  aesthetic  1  tree with  above d i s c u s s i o n : of  the  Consequently,  selected  the  l o w e s t mean a e s t h e t i c  i t was  trees  i t received  on  low  shortest site  I,  aesthetic  Timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 2 t r e e s were the  of and  the  rating well  class  i t was  not  1  trees; unique  in  ratings.  dominants on  site  I I , and  timber  47 TABLE XI. A WITHIN SITE TREE AESTHETICS RANKING  RANK ORDER POSITION WITHIN STAND  TREE //  A.  MEAN AESTHETIC RATING  SITE  TIMBER QUALITY CLASS  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 c l a s s 1 t r e e s were g e n e r a l l y dominance r o l e s r e s u l t e d ratings  relationships.  each s i t e  Their  i n t h e i r r e c e i v i n g near e q u a l o v e r a l l  and p r e f e r e n c e counts.  classes within  dominant on s i t e I .  The  equal aestheti  relationship  o f the timber  quality  then, h e l p e d to e x p l a i n  t h e i r general  aestheti  CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS T h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e d t h r e e t h i n g s : (1) the 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 o f f o r e s t t r e e s ; (2) the e f f e c t 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 on f o r e s t  vis-  t r e e s and t h e i r surroundings have  t r e e a e s t h e t i c p r e f e r e n c e s ; (3) the c o n s i s t e n c y i n p r e f e r e n c e  f o r e i t h e r b e t t e r o r poorer timber q u a l i t y t r e e s .  Study  t r e e s were i n -  t e r i o r Douglas f i r ,  30 cm. DBH o r g r e a t e r , growing  valley.  were chosen a c c o r d i n g to t h r e e timber q u a l i t y  Twenty-four  and p a i r e d so that a l l p o s s i b l e combinations evenly r e p r e s e n t e d .  i n the S t e i n R i v e r classes,  o f the q u a l i t y c l a s s e s were  The r e s u l t i n g p a i r s i n t u r n were evenly d i v i d e d be-  tween two s i t e s % k i l o m e t e r a p a r t .  W i l d e r n e s s backpackers  were asked t o  r a t e the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f the t r e e s , t o compare the two t r e e s o f each p a i r and s e l e c t the one they p r e f e r r e d , then check reasons f o r t h e i r p r e ference . In i n t e r p r e t i n g the study f i n d i n g s i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t a l t e s t i n g n e c e s s i t a t e d the p o o l i n g o f responses;  statistic-  the r e s u l t s t h e r e f o r e  r e p r e s e n t t h e judgements o f 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 v a r i a n c e i n the mean a e s t h e t i c r a t i n g s , o f f e r s some a s s u rance o f t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s . Another  form o f assurance, and an i n t e r e s t i n g one a t t h a t , was found  when comparing study f i n d i n g s w i t h those o f Cook (1971).  He performed h i s  study n i n e years ago, on the o t h e r s i d e o f the c o n t i n e n t on deciduous t r e e s ; y e t many o f both s t u d i e s ' f i n d i n g s were s i m i l a r . the reasons g i v e n f o r p r e f e r e n c e .  Both  Witness  especially  s t u d i e s found t h a t t r e e s were p r e -  f e r r e d i f they were b a l a n c e d , had a s t r a i g h t trunk, and a t t r a c t i v e background s c e n e r y .  A d i f f e r e n c e between the s t u d i e s however was i n the  f o u r t h most l i s t e d r e a s o n f o r p r e f e r e n c e : Cook found i t t o be many crown  50 branches;  i n t h i s study i t was  few dead trunk branches.  T h i s study's c h i e f f i n d i n g was  that  a positive relationship  between timber q u a l i t y and a p r e f e r e n c e assessment viewed.  of f o r e s t  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , people found timber q u a l i t y  exists  trees,  directly  c l a s s 3 (poor)  o v e r a l l l e s s a t t r a c t i v e than timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 and 2 (good and trees,  and timber q u a l i t y c l a s s  ness.  Timber q u a l i t y  1 and 2 t r e e s  of generally  i n o t h e r words, c o u l d not  average)  equal a t t r a c t i v e -  w i t h any c o n s i s t e n c y ,  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 also  trees  class  1 and 2 t r e e s .  It  c o u l d not, w i t h any c o n s i s t e n c y , 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  o f 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 b o t h i n c l a s s 1, 2, o r 3, h a l f the time they were judged as a e s t h e t i c a l l y q u i t e  dissimilar.  I t was  found that  tree  h e i g h t and diameter a t b r e a s t h e i g h t c o u l d however d i f f e r e n t i a t e more accurately  between these t r e e s .  over s m a l l e r ones.  Tree s i z e was  S p e c i f i c a l l y , large  found then to a e s t h e t i c a l l y  t i a t e where timber q u a l i t y c o u l d n o t . timber q u a l i t y i n p r e d i c t i n g Knowing the e f f e c t t r e e  t r e e s were  I t t h e r e f o r e was  the a e s t h e t i c  differen-  more a c c u r a t e than  q u a l i t y of f o r e s t  s i z e had on a e s t h e t i c  preferred  quality,  trees. the reason f o r  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 1 and 2 t r e e s b e i n g judged e q u a l i n a e s t h e t i c became c l e a r .  On s i t e  I, timber q u a l i t y  on s i t e I I , timber q u a l i t y c l a s s trees  c l a s s 1 t r e e s were the  2 t r e e s were the dominants.  on b o t h s i t e s were found a e s t h e t i c a l l y p l e a s i n g ,  in their aesthetic  equality.  The  The  resulting  quality  dominants; dominant therefore  timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 3 t r e e s however, were  the s u b o r d i n a t e s on both s i t e s , and t h e r e f o r e r e c e i v e d  generally  low  aes-  thetic ratings. . Other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s people p r e f e r r e d healthy  (few dead crown branches)  crowns .  were l o n g , broad, dense and Based  on them, i t c o u l d have  51 been predicted that some trees, indistinguishable from others otherwise, would be preferred. In analyzing the consistency of people's preferences, more people were consistent i n their preference timber q u a l i t y trees than were not.  i t was  found that  for either better or poorer  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 i n their preference  con-  s t i t u t e d a sizeable minority, however, i n d i c a t i n g a desire for a variety of timber q u a l i t y trees.  Analyzing  the variance i n aesthetic ratings revealed  that people agreed less on the aesthetic q u a l i t y 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 i n aesthetic ratings than the other trees. As stated i n the introduction, this study's aim was thetic quality c r i t e r i a for forest trees. timber q u a l i t y and aesthetic quality was  to e s t a b l i s h aes-  Also, the relationship between to reveal possible compatibilities  between timber production and recreation, and give the c r i t e r i a their needed o b j e c t i v i t y f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n exclusive use recreation forests. of the data does not allow the establishment hierarchy among countless forest trees —  The nature  of a d e f i n i t i v e aesthetic  an i m p o s s i b i l i t y at any rate  —  but does allow aesthetic d i s t i n c t i o n s to be made, with some confidence, between i n t e r i o r 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 management i n forest recreation areas are  discussed.  Tree cutting i s the most prevalent form of stand management.  It can  maintain or enhance a stand's aesthetics i f tree s e l e c t i o n i s guided by aesthetic c r i t e r i a .  One  c r i t e r i o n , for example, i s that b i g trees are  a t t r a c t i v e , and should therefore be retained whenever possible or f e a s i b l e .  52 I f the r e c r e a t i o n s i t e i s w i t h i n a timber p r o d u c t i o n f o r e s t , t h i s c o u l d mean the r e t e n t i o n o f a percentage  o f t r e e s p a s t t h e i r economic m a t u r i t y ,  a l l o w i n g them t o r e a c h f u l l s i z e .  When such t r e e s p r e s e n t a s a f e t y h a z a r d  due  to decadence, they can be s e l e c t i o n c u t and r e p l a c e d by new growth,  o r be removed a l l a t once and t h e r e c r e a t i o n s i t e l o c a t e d S t r a i g h t , w e l l balanced  t r e e s w i t h l o n g , broad,  elsewhere.  dense and h e a l t h y crowns  s h o u l d a l s o be r e t a i n e d , h o p e f u l l y t o comprise the l a r g e r p a r t o f the stand's  overstory.  When n e c e s s a r y ,  C u t t i n g t r e e s to manipulate  they c o u l d a l s o be s e l e c t i o n c u t .  stand d e n s i t y i s c a l l e d t h i n n i n g .  s t a n d i s t h i n n e d f o r many reasons,  A  some o f which may be t o i n c r e a s e ease  of a c c e s s , to harden t h e s t a n d f o r i n t e n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n use,  to g i v e r e -  s i d u a l t r e e s room t o grow, o r t o encourage r e g e n e r a t i o n and herbaceous growth.  I n t h i n n i n g , many poor timber  the stand without  a e s t h e t i c detriment,  a major p a r t o f the s t a n d .  q u a l i t y t r e e s can be removed from as l o n g as they do not c o n s t i t u t e  Those e x h i b i t i n g unique  characteristics  s h o u l d however be r e t a i n e d to p r o v i d e c o n t r a s t i n the s t a n d . s h e l t e r specimen t r e e s by m a i n t a i n i n g t h e stand's windfirmness  Trees t h a t should  a l s o be r e t a i n e d , b u t a l l o w good views o f the dominants and other specimen trees. When stands a r e t h i n n e d , the change i n s t a n d l i g h t i n g s h o u l d be noted, and perhaps c o n t r a s t e d w i t h p r e v a i l i n g f o r e s t c o n d i t i o n s .  Contrasting  l i g h t i n t e n s i t i e s can a l s o be p r o v i d e d by f o r e s t openings o f v a r i e d s i z e . Views to t h e scenery o u t s i d e o f the s t a n d can be emphasized.  An e n c l o s e d  view o f a l p i n e peaks, a l a k e , o r o t h e r f e a t u r e s may be exposed by t h e removal o f s p e c i f i c t r e e s . T r e e c u t t i n g s h o u l d encourage r e g e n e r a t i o n .  S i n c e Douglas f i r i s  commonly a p i o n e e r s p e c i e s , i t s r e g e n e r a t i o n n e c e s s i t a t e s c l e a r c u t t i n g s o f  53  various sizes, large group s e l e c t i o n cuts, or planting under more closedi n conditions.  In l a t e r years, the r e s u l t i n g 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 reasons that they preferred variety i n the stand.  preference  S p e c i f i c a l l y , they de-  sired uneven aged, mixed specie stands with variety i n tree lean, tree density and undergrowth density.  Although skewed toward the healthy end,  a range of tree conditions was also desired. This preference to a preference  f o r within stand variety can l i k e l y be translated  f o r between stand variety as w e l l .  Uneven-aged and imma-  ture stands mixed with even-aged and mature stands would, f o r example, l i k e l y provide variety appreciated by many. A suggestion  f o r future study i s the aspect of preferred tree species.  For example, are a ponderosa pine and Douglas f i r of s i m i l a r timber quality equal i n aesthetic quality?  Are preferences  s i m i l a r province-wide?  54 Literature Cited Arthur, Louise M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. For. S c i . 23 (2): 151-160. B.C. Ministry of Forests. 1979. Forest Inventory Report No. 1 (unpublished) : S i t e index equations and curves for the major tree species i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 60 pp. 1978. Forest Service Cruising Procedures and Cruise Compilation. 118 pp B.C. Ministry of the Environment. 1979. B r i t i s h Columbia Environment.  Recreation and Tourism i n the 96 pp.  Brush, Robert Owen. 1978. Perception of stand attractiveness by forest landowners of Massachusetts. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univ e r s i t y of Massachusetts. 94 pp. Buyhoff, G.J., J.D. Wellman, H. Harvey, and R.A. Fraser. 1978. Landscape a r c h i t e c t s ' 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 c o n f l i c t i n 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 o b j e c t i v i t y of landscape dimensions. In J.V. K r u t i l l a (ed.), Natural Enviforiments: Studies i n Theoretic a l 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. estry 35 (12): 1129-1133.  J . For-  d'Amour, Therese. 1976. Perception of forest aesthetics i n Quebec, Canada. Unpublished M.Sc. McGill University, Montreal. 171 pp. Daniel, Terry C , Lawrence Wheeler, Ron S. Boster, and Paul R. Best, J r . 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. i n t e r i o r 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 B r i t i s h Columbia. Pp. 135-164.  55 Freeman, Roger D. and David Thompson. 1979. Valley. Hemlock Printers, Canada.  Exploring the Stein River 162 pp.  F r i s s e l l , J r . , Sidney S., and Donald P. Duncan. 1965. Campsite preference and deterioration i n the Quetico-Superior Canoe Country. J . Forestry 63 (4): 256-260. F r i t z , Emanuel. view.  1967. The Redwood Park proposals: a redwood forester's J . Forestry 65 (5): 312-319.  Hancock, H.K. 1973. Recreation preference: i t s r e l a t i o n to user behavior. J. Forestry 71 (6): 336-337. Hendee, J.C. and R.W. H a r r i s . 1970. Foresters' perceptions of wilderness user attitudes and preferences. J . Forestry 68 (12): 759-762. Hough, Stansbury and Associates, Ltd. 1973. Design Guidelines f o r Forest Management. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. 181 James, George A., and Harold K. Cordell. 1970. Importance of shading to v i s i t o r s selecting a campsite at Indian Boundary Campground i n Tennessee. U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Res. Note SE-130, A s h v i l l e , North Carolina. 5 pp. Kalmbach, Kevin L., and J . James Kielbaso. 1979. Resident attitudes toward selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of street tree plantings. J . Arboriculture 5 (6): 124-129. Kaplan, Rachel. 1973. Predictors of environmental preferences: designers and " c l i e n t s . " In Community Design Research, v o l . 1 - selected papers. Fourth International EDRA Conference. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Pennsylvania. Pp. 265-274. . 1977. Preference and everyday nature: Method and a p p l i 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 v i s i t o r s . J . Forestry 65 (1): 18-21. Koehler, Hans J . 1922. Notes on p r a c t i c a l forest aesthetics. Landscape Architecture 12 (4): 224-232. Krajina, V.J. 1969. Ecology of Western North America, v o l . 2. Dept. of Botany, Univerity of B r i t i s h Columbia. 349 pp. Lime, David W. 1972. Behavioral research i n outdoor recreation management an example of how v i s i t o r s 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 L i t t o n , J r . , R. Burton. 1973. A personal communication quoted (on p.6) i n P.A. Murtha and M. Greco. Appraisal of Forest Aesthetic Values: an Annotated Bibliography. Forest Management I n s t i t u t e , 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 i n Forest Recreation. 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 F i r i n B.C. I n t e r i o r . Forest Products Research Branch, Contribution no. P-69, Dept. of Forestry, Canada. 3 pp. Neff, Paul E. 1965. Applied s i l v i c u l t u r e i n managing outdoor recreation s i t e s . Proceedings: Society of American Foresters, pp. 34-35. Noyes, John H. 1968. Timber Harvesting and Forest Aesthetics. Univers i t y of Massachusetts, Coop. Ext. Service, Publication 440. 19 pp, Peterson, George L. 1974. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness vironment: congruence between perception and a s p i r a t i o n . Environment and Behavior 6 (2): 169-193.  en-  Rickard, W.M., J.M. Hughes, and C.A. Newport. 1967. Economic Evaluation and Choice i n Old Growth Douglas F i r Landscape Management. U.S. Forest Service Res. Paper PNW-49. 33 pp. Rosencrans, W.S. 1957. Logging i n recreational forests. 63 (5): 53-59. Rowe, J.S.  American Forests  1972. Forest Regions of Canada. Department of the Environment, Canadian Forest Service, Publication No. 1300. 172 pp.  Rudolf, Paul 0. 1967. S i l v i c u l t u r e for recreation area management. J . Forestry 65 (6): 385-390. Rutherford, J r . , William, and Elwood L. Shafer, J r . 1969. Selection cuts increased natural beauty i n two Adirondack forest stands. J . Forestry 67 (6): 415-419. Shafer, J r . , E.L., and Hubert D. Burke. 1965. Preferences for outdoor recreation f a c i l i t i e s i n 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 multiplepurpose 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 S i l v i c u l t u r e . and Sons, Inc. New York. 578 pp.  (7th ed.)  John Wiley  Society of American Foresters. 1958. Forestry Terminology; a Glossary of Technical Terms Used i n Forestry (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C. 97 pp. Sonnenfeld, J . 1966. Variable values i n space and landscape: an inquiry into the nature of environmental necessity. J . Social Issues 22 (4): 71-82. Twiss, Robert H. 1969. C o n f l i c t s i n forest landscape management - the need f o r 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. P a r i s : UNESCO House. 76 pp.  Warden, Geoff. 1971 52-55.  Whose forest? Whose ecology?  B.C. Outdoors 27 (4):  Wohlwill, Joachim F., and Glenn Harris. 1979. Perceived Congruity of Man-Made Elements i n Forested and other Natural Contexts. Grant PL 85-934, Northeastern For. Exp. Station. U.S. Forest Service. 39 pp. Zube, E.H., D.G. P i t t , and T.W. Anderson. 1974. Perception and Measurements of Scenic Resources i n the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Amherst: I n s t i t u t e f o r Man and the Environment, University of Massachusetts. 191 pp.  58  APPENDIX I. SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES MENTIONED IN THE TEXT AND TABLES  59 SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES MENTIONED IN THE TEXT AND TABLES  S c i e n t i f i c Name A b i e s balsamea  (L.) M i l l .  Common Name Balsam f i r  Acer glabrum T o r r . v a r . d o u g l a s i i (Hook.) Dipp, Douglas maple Alnus t e n u i f o l i a Nutt.  Mountain a l d e r  B e t u l a p a p y r i f e r a Marsh.  Paper b i r c h  P i c e a spp. A. D i e t r .  Spruce  P i n u s c o n t o r t a Dougl.  Lodgepole pine  Pinus ponderosa Laws.  Ponderosa pine  Pinus resinosa A i t .  Red  P i n u s s t r o b u s L.  White p i n e  Populus t r i c h o c a r p a T o r r . & Gray  Black  Populus t r e m u l o i d e s Michx.  T r e m b l i n g aspen  pine  cottonwood  Pseudotsuga m e n z i e s i i v a r . g l a u c a ( B i e s s n . ) Franco  Douglas f i r  T h u j a p l i c a t a Donn  Western r e d cedar  60  APPENDIX  II  RECORDED TREE DATA  R D. Pt N H A L L 1 TlJ DUKSBAK  M A U . IN Ii C  WATEKPHOC*  Oo 0»  ro o  g  —•  O o  TREE  I*  C L A3 S  o 3i m </> H  5  (/) m 3D  <  BLIND CONK  o  o m  o  c  0 Or B TOP SPIRA  CO  YO.A  ft  LIVE LIMB  ot l^t  STUB  l-J  J  x  jm m m  f ro  m  "I  R D. P t N H A L L L I D f M ! : t l N u . DUKSBAK WATERPROOF  PATH. COCE  QUALITY  CODE  KNOT CODE QUARTERS 10) WITH KNOTS  (DOMINANT  2 |  O.f !Ocm.  AFFECTING  27  26  29  ! ! I !i  SLOPE -  32|33  T  as coded  MINERAL  DEPTH -  37  nine  SOIL  ^ Depth fur  MATERIAL -  39 1  slope lor plol  1  first  i  I  Isli I T  bedrock of  - COOE  -  in O.I  metres  or  hardpan  metre  CODE  COOE I -  -  Thrifty  J  Deod  Potential  n  Dead  Uttim  SUPPRESSED  5  ;.v.;....:i  4  STORY  z  52  53  54  BRANCH  35  a  .004  UNDERGROWTH -  CODE  required  .si  t . S cm  GROWTH  MISTLETOE  2 -  SLOPE  - record average perc<nl slope tor  TERRAIN  commercial  tne m i n i m u m  ho  over  of  -  record  j A j  roi.o 5  1 ;  DCWI.'.A.'.T  I T~~.TFoC*F-~A' =  I  _'..!.._.  j *7 FOR T H I S  0  r  4  5  1  *_  >I;OP=E;5EL>  PLOT  0  EXPOSED  ROCK  o» coded  TO  MINERAL .  SOIL  -  l i g h t - does not affect vrulking medium - a f f e c t s walking  3  -  heavy -  <  -  very heavy  CODE 0  difficult woikinQ influences work  DEPTH-  none light  2  -  nine  SOIL  organic Depth  -CODE  BARK  AS  4 - Broken  or more obstacles  -  materiel  to  for  first  in O.I  bedrock  or  4 -  CODE  ci  9)  species  of  SOIL  M A T E R I A L • • CODE  CODE  AS  ( eg. 6 3 -  1 • 10 "A area affected moderate - 1 - 3 0 % area affected  acceptable  g r a v e l - slit )  10 -  Organic Soil >  20 -  Clay  ,3m  deep  60  -  6ravel  70  - Cobble  30 -  Silt  40 -  Loom  80  -  50 -  Sand  90  - Eipo**d  EXPOSED  ROCK  COOE  aver on  of  3-  Der.asent  cammercial  the m i n i m u m d . b . h . subplot 3 . 6 0 m  50/4 o,  radius)  sound .C04ho  su&BlO-  AS  I 1  -  l i g h t - does not affec? M i n i n g medium - o.'!*cts wciki.i^  3  -  heavy -  4  -  very heavy - y«ry difficult  -  Boulder  CODE 0  -  d i f f i c u l t wolJuno Inftueccei w c *  9  AS  AS  none  1 -  Bedrock MOISTURE -  Woderar*  violkir.g, & influences work greatly  affected SOIL  stems  , 0 0 0 ho  opo,mating UNDERGROWTH •  required  metre only.  combinations are  MISTLETOE  2 -  Occurence  2 - Average cf  fctloit  a  numbsr  ft  difficult  Thrifty nunioer  metres  melee  Past  AS  UNDERSTORY  hardpun in  BRANCH  ! - L.'gnt  I -  as  BEETLE /  0 - None 3 - Heavy  on  - r e c o r d trie depin  metres - tenths  AS  -  1 -  DEFOLIATORS /  2 - Rolling  - . 004 hectores subplot  subplot  1 2  -  plot.  Even  hgnt-l-!0%  area  - 11-30%  affected  2  -  moderate  3 4  -  heavy 3 1 % S over area rock b l u f f s or c l i f f s  area Offecrei affected  3 — Wet 4 — Swampy  affecting  logging.  R E M A R K S - other  TEN  RINGS  YEAR  GROWTH  _ L _  STATEMENT  OF  SAMPLING  DONE  SNOW  DEPTH  .08 79  TEN  only when  RINGS  TREE  LAST  YEAR  TREE  NO.  2.5 cm  GROWTH  NO.  logging.  TEN  LAST 2.5  cm  directed) RINGS  YEAR  TREE  GROWTH  IJO.  TEN  LAST 2.5  YEAR  cm  GROWTH  cm.  j  32  offecting  VEGETATION  R A T E S — {complete  RINGS  YEAR  2.5 cm  & quality , factors  (MAIN ••ER0ACIOU5 A'lO SHRUB S?ECt£S1  GROWTH  TEN  LAST  GROWTH  defects  ;  (MAIN 'HHBACIOUS AND SHHJR SPECIES)  oniy when d i r e c t e d )  RINGS  A TRUE SHOWN.  I -  - N u m b e r of Plot Quarters with obstacles over .25metres - N u m b e r of obstacles by classes (record  DEPTH  AS  - very  -  radius)  sound . 0 0 4 ho  5 0 I 51 I 5 2 1 5 3  VIGOUR ROUGHNESS  d.b.h.  subplot 3 . 6 0 m  50%  on  Decadent  heavy 31 % a over area rock b l u f f s or c l i f f s  LAST  C E R T I F I E D T H A T THIS IS BY ME AT THE PLACE  CPiE 0  £ E  L  Moderate  crn. 2 5 ! 26 ! £ 7 } 2 9 j 2 9 | 301 31  -  0  34 j 35 I 36[37~  |  i  TEN  T-o  J  o. cc  walk ng S influences work greatly.  & quolity , factors  RATES-(complete  YEAR  ! i |  a. u  *-  CARD  RINGS  AFFECTING  56  Occurence  stems  below  number  acceptable  defects  a. a  3 -  species  onq ma ling in  or  • Average of  3 - Wet 4 — Swampy  LAST  | », J  CROWS C L A S S IC/C)  —  3  tdl  i * TWO APPRAISALS  Z •- Mojof  VEGETATION  GROWTH  Z,  1 -• WmOf  RCONDITIONS  KNOT CODE QUARTOS 13) " I ' M • •.CTS  )  LEAN  0 - »0n«  : : : :  5....  V.,,.,  PLOT  31  Past  number  AS  R E M A R K S - other  CO-OOMINfiNT  i  CODE 0 - 0 -•».-»  Z - Gullied  WINDFALL -  metre only.  Dry  3  AS  Bedrock MOISTURE -  BEETLE /  I - Light  9)  of  50  4 -  on depth  49  0 - Nona  I -  as  48  3 - Heavy  AS  UNDERSTORY  ( * g . 6 3 - grovel - silt > 10 - Orgcnrc Soi y . 5 m deep. 20 - C l o y 60 - Gravel 30 - Silt 70 - Cobble 4 0 - Loom 80 - Boulder 50 - Sond 9 0 - Exposed  SOIL  QUALITY 0 - AtH-r.!  Spir-jl Gram  J  DEFOLIATORS / BARK  AS  combinations ore  COOE  i  E  subplot  mattnai  PATH  5uip«ct  rN T E. "MEDIATE  WINDF. ALL  DEFOL  !  2 •- Rolling 4 - Broken  or more obstacles  - r e c o r d tne  to  CODE  BARK 13EETLE  ROCh  38i  1 1  Even 3 - Gull.ed  metres - tenths  SOIL  36  - d u m b e r of Plot Quorters with obstacles over .25metrei - N u m b e r of obstacles By c l a s s e s  organic SO'L  35  i -  1-. Q3-»hec totes TO  <  VIGOUR  (record  OEPTH  *34  i  average percent  record  ROUGHNESS •  31  i  - rtcom  TERRAIN  cr o  P  "! 1  30]  cr z> (/>  BRANCH MISTU  I  a 1  2*1 ZS  e  s|«  o  4  < = Si £ * d  E  ;  EXPOSEC)  o o  Ml kTERlAI  <  1  a  MO  X X Ul  o | ^ ~'  NUMBER  SOIL  O  z  a • o :n a.  CLASS Rturtuol  z  O  SOIL  a!  j "  FOR T H I S  T  ROUGHNESS  a a <  APPRAISALS  VIGOU  CONDITIONS  TREE  CROWN C L A S S (C/C) 1  1  CLASS  UNOERGR O W T H  TREE:  1  25  26  5  i  (c  5  /  7  27  26  29  30  31  32  33  34  3 0 3 ZZ 3 6 X 0 / <>  CERTIFIED THAT THIS IS BY M E AT THE PLACE  35  36  37  3B  39  j  4C  6 7O  A TRUE SHOWN.  41  42  43  44  45146147 | 1  j  ....  46  *  t STATEMENT  OF  SAMPLING  OONE  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 i n 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 i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n 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 T o t a l H e i g h t : 42.7 m. DBH: 82.0 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 1 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  Height to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 10.1 m.^  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 8.5 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 3 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 18.9 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 22°  COMMENTS T h i s t r e e leaned the l e a s t o f a l l s e l e c t e d I t had a l o n g ,  trees.  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 T o t a l H e i g h t : 18.3 m. DBH: 67.5 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y  Class: 3  P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: Broken t o p .  Q u a l i t y Remarks: Lean ( > 1 0 ° from v e r t i c a l )  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e limb:  H e i g h t to f i r s t  s t u b : 8.2 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  8.2 m.  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 10 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 18.0 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 125°  COMMENTS This  tree received  flecked sunlight only. I t s  extreme l e a n p r o v i d e d  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 l i v e 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 i n second 5 meters: 2 Distance from viewpoint: 20.1 m. Azimuth from viewpoint: 354°  COMMENTS This tree looked l i k e tree #2 except f o r a clump of dead branches that disrupted the continuity of i t s crown.  Dense undergrowth surrounded i t .  71  72 TREE PAIR 3 TREE A OR # 5 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 7.457 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 52.7.m. DBH: 133.6 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 1 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  Height  to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 10.1 m.  Height  to f i r s t  s t u b : 9.1 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 1 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t :  27.7 m.  Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 76°  COMMENTS T h i s was t h e l a r g e s t o f t h e s e l e c t e d t r e e s . a l o n g , f u l l and tapered crown.  I t had  B l a c k s t r e a k s were  on i t s base, evidence o f l o n g p a s t g r o u n d f i r e s .  73  74  TREE PAIR 3 TREE B OR # 6 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.886 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 46.6 m. DBH: 100.3 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y  Class; 1  P a t h o l o g i c a l Renarks: None  Q u a i l t y Remarks: None  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 12.8 m.  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 11.0 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 4 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 27.7 m. Azimuth from viewpont: 268°  COMMENTS T h i s t r e e was on t h e edge o f a f o r e s t opening and was e i t h e r f r o n t o r s i d e l i t . be seen i n t h e f o r e g r o u n d . surrounded i t .  An o l d creekbed Other t r e e  species  could  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 l i v e limb: 11.3 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 11.3 m. Knots i n f i r s t 5 meters: 0 Knots i n 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 T o t a l H e i g h t : 30.8 m. DBH: 58.8 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y  Class: 2  P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: Resinosus on lower p o r t i o n o f b o l e .  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 6.1 m.  H e i g h t to f i r s t  s t u b : 1.5 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 18  Knots i n second 5 meters: 29 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 14.6 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 40°  COMMENTS Compared t o t r e e #7, t h i s t r e e was rougher barked a t i t s base, and i t s background was more open and v a r i e d in  tree size.  I t s crown melded w i t h two o t h e r s .  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 l i v e limb: 17.4 m. Height to f i r s t stub: 6.1 m. Knots i n 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.  I t could be mo  readily seen i n s i t u than this photo depicts.  82 TREE PAIR 5 TREE B OR # 10 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 5.857 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 42.4 m. DBH:  125.4 cm.  Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 1 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  Height to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 10.4 m.  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 7.6 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 7 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 35.1 m. Azimuth  from v i e w p o i n t : 245°  COMMENTS The lower h a l f o f t h i s t r e e was n o r m a l l y i n shade, and i t s crown was n o r m a l l y i n f u l l s u n l i g h t . I t s bark was deeply furrowed. c o u l d be seen b e h i n d i t .  A smaller stand o f trees T h i s t r e e c o u l d be more  r e a d i l y seen i n s i t u than t h i s photo  illustrates.  83  84 TREE PAIR 6 TREE A OR # 11 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.676 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 31.4 m. DBH: 59.0 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 1 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 15.5 m.  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 7.0 m.  Knots on f i r s t Knots i n second  5 meters: 0 5 meters: 3  D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 13.7 m. Azimuth-from v i e w p o i n t : 266°  COMMENTS T h i s was t h e s m a l l e s t trees.  o f the timber q u a l i t y c l a s s 1  I t had a s h o r t , s p a r s e 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 T o t a l H e i g h t : 34.4 m. DBH: 55.0 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 2 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: Fork i n lower 1/3  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  Height to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 13.1 m.  Height t o f i r s t  s t u b : 2.1 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 3  Knots i n second 5 meters: 1 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 16.2 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 297°  COMMENTS This  t r e e had the unique f e a t u r e  Both stems had f u l l but s h o r t  o f a lower  crowns.  t r e e s t a n d c o u l d be seen b e h i n d i t .  fork.  A younger  87  88  TREE PAIR 7 TREE A OR # 13 MEAN EASTHETIC RATING:  3.829  DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 19.8 m. DBH:  32.5 cm.  Timber Q u a l i t y  Class: 3  P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: S c a r i n lower 1/3  Q u a l i t y 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 l i m b : 4.6 m.  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 4.3 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 2  Knots i n second 5 meters: 22 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 15.5 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 247°  COMMENTS T h i s was t h e s m a l l e s t  of a l l the s e l e c t e d  trees.  I t had a f i r e s c a r r u n n i n g 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 T o t a l H e i g h t : 19.2 m. DBH:  34.8 cm.  Timber Q u a l i t y  Class: 3  P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: Crook i n lower 1/3  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 3.4 m.  H e i g h t to f i r s t  s t u b : 0.3 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 20  Knots i n second 5 meters: 17 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 21.0 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 82°  COMMENTS This  t r e e had a unique crook and numerous dead lower  branches.  I t r e c e i v e d ' s i d e an b a c k l i g h t i n g  only.  Charred t r e e t r u n k s were i n t h e f o r e g r o u n d and an expanse o f sky c o u l d be seen i n the background.  91  TREE PAIR 8 TREE A OR # 15 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.886 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 17.1 m. DBH: 56.0 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 3 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: S c a r i n lower 1/3; dead t o p .  Q u a l i t y Remarks:  Lean (0°-4.9° from v e r t i c a l )  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 4.3 m.  H e i g h t to f i r s t  s t u b : 2.1 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 12  Knots i n second 5 meters: 26 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 36.6 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 262°  COMMENTS This  t r e e had a prominent f i r e s c a r on i t s lower  trunk.  Trees o f s i m i l a r h e i g h t surrounded i t . I t  was f u r t h e s t , o f a l l s e l e c t e d t r e e s , from the viewpoint.  93  94 TREE PAIR 8 TREE B OR # 16 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING:  5.629  DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 27.1 m. DBH: 52.0 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 2 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  Height to f i r s t  l i v e limb: 10.4 m.  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 7.0 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 8 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 16.8 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 30°  COMMENTS T h i s t r e e had good growth form.  Mountain  slopes  and r i d g e s c o u l d 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 T o t a l H e i g h t : 22.9 m. DBH: 53.0 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y  Class: 3  P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: S c a r i n lower 1/3  Q u a l i t y Remarks: Lean (s>10° from v e r t i c a l )  Height to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 5.5 m.  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 3.0 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 10  Knots i n second 5 meters: 25 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 19.2 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 267°  COMMENTS This  t r e e grew on t h e edge o f a swale.  added i n t e r e s t t o i t s background.  A huge b o u l d e r  97  98 TREE PAIR 9 TREE B OR # 18 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.343 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 28.3 m. DBH: 55.5 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 2 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 5.8 m.  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : no stubs p r e s e n t  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 5 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 17.7 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t :  180°  COMMENTS T h i s t r e e had good growth form and no dead b r a n c h e s . A mountain top and younger s t a n d c o u l d be seen i n t h e background.  99  100 TREE PAIR 10 TREE A OR # 19 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.143 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 30.2 m. DBH:  71.3 cm.  Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 2 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  Height to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 7.3 m.  Height t o f i r s t  s t u b : 7.3 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 6 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 29.3 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t :  217°  COMMENTS This  t r e e had good growth form.  s i d e and b a c k l i g h t i n g .  I t received  I t had a l i g h t  only  background.  101  102 TREE PAIR 10 TREE B OR if 20 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.314 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 35.7 m. DBH:  75.2 cm.  Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 2 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: None  H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 8.8 m.  Height t o f i r s t  s t u b : 1.2 m.  Knots i n f i r s t Knots i n second  5 meters: 6 5 meters:  14  D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 33.5 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 112°  COMMENTS T h i s t r e e grew i n a s m a l l d e p r e s s i o n . a symmetrical s i t e I I trees.  crown and was the t a l l e s t  T t had of the  103  104 TREE PAIR 11 TREE A OR # 21 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING:  4.829  DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 15.8 m. DBJ: 41.6 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y  Class: 3  P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: Crook a t top  Q u a l i t y Remarks: Lean ( > 1 0 ° from v e r t i c a l )  Height to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 6.1 m.  H e i g h t to f i r s t  s t u b : 1.8 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  5 meters: 5  Knots i n second 5 meters: 9 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 20.1 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 232°  COMMENTS This  t r e e had a denser crown than t r e e #22. I t  had a l i g h t background i n which a young s t a n d and mountain r i d g e c o u l d be seen.  tree  105  106 TREE PAIR 11 TREE B OR # 22 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 4.943 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 21.0 m. DBH: 49.5 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 3 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: Crooks i n a l l 3 t h i r d s o f t r e e  Q u a l i t y Remarks: Sweep ( < 1 0 cm./5 m.); Lean (5°-9.9° from v e r t i c a l ) H e i g h t to f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 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 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 25.6 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 166°  COMMENTS This  tree received  o n l y s i d e and b a c k l i g h t i n g .  A m o u n t a i n s i d e , h i g h stump and young t r e e c o u l d be seen i n the background.  stand  107  108 TREE PAIR 12 TREE A OR # 23 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING: 6.571 DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 33.2 m. DBH: 64.7 cm. Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 2 P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: None  Q u a l i t y Remarks: Sweep («=10 cm./5 m.) Lean (5° - 9.9° from  Height t o f i r s t  live  Height to f i r s t  s t u b : 9.4 m.  Knots i n f i r s t  vertical)  l i m b : 9.4 m.  5 meters: 0  Knots i n second 5 meters: 3 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 22.9 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 293°  COMMENTS T h i s t r e e had a u n i q u e l y sweeping trunk and a symmetrical, s p a r s e b u t h e a l t h y crown. I t r e c e i v e d f r o n t and s i d e l i g h t i n g o n l y .  110 TREE PAIR 12 TREE B OR # 24 MEAN AESTHETIC RATING:  5.743  DESCRIPTION T o t a l H e i g h t : 30.2 m. DBH:  71.7 cm.  Timber Q u a l i t y C l a s s : 2  P a t h o l o g i c a l Remarks: Crook i n top 1/3 o f t r e e .  Q u a l i t y Remarks: Lean (0°-4.9° from v e r t i c a l ) Height t o f i r s t  l i v e l i m b : 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 D i s t a n c e from v i e w p o i n t : 25.6 m. Azimuth from v i e w p o i n t : 270°  COMMENTS T h i s t r e e had a wide lower b o l e t h a t q u i c k l y t o a t w i s t e d top.  tapered  I t had s c o r c h e d  b a r k a t i t s base, and stood b e s i d e the t r a i l .  Ill  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 p r e f e r e n c e s must be yours a l o n e .  There  a r e no r i g h t o r wrong answers h e r e .  2.  Stand d i r e c t l y behind t h e numbered stake and,  u s i n g t h e 9-point r a t i n g s c a l e ,  rate  b o t h t r e e A and t r e e B.  3.  Now compare t r e e A w i t h t r e e B. one you a e s t h e t i c a l l y p r e f e r .  C i r c l e the  Also give  reasons f o r your p r e f e r e n c e .  4.  Upon c o m p l e t i o n , p l e a s e r e t u r n t h i s b a l l o t to t h e r e s e a r c h e r .  114  VIEWING STATION #  DEMO  1. HOW DO Y O D R A T E 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  TREE.  3. WHY D I D Y O D P R E F E R I T ? (CIRCLE  D P T O 4 O F YOUR  MOST I M P O R T A N T  REASONS.)  A  B A  B  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE MORE BALANCED  MORE SCARS  MORE LOPSIDED  FEWER SCARS  HIDES TRUNK  HOSE BOLES  NARROWER TRUNK  FEWER HOLES  SHORTER TRUNK  MORE FUNGUS  LONCER TRUNK  LESS FUNGUS  MORE LEAN  DENSER CROWN  LESS LEAN  SPARSER CROWN  MORE CROOKED TRUNK  BROADER CROWN  STRAIGHTER TRUNK  NARROWER CROWN  MORE DEAD TRUNK BRANCHES  LONGER CROWN  FEWER DEAD TRUNK BRANCHES  SHORTER CROWN  ROUGHER BARK  MORE DEAD CROWN BRANCHES  SMOOTHER BARK  FEWER DEAD CROWN BRANCHES  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TREE'S SURROUNDIN MIXED TREE SPECIES  DENSER UNDERGROWTH  UNIFORM TREE SPECIES  SPARSER UNDERGROWTH  MIXED TREE SIZES  EVEN GROUND  UNIFORM TREE SIZES  UNEVEN GROUND  UQEVEN TREE SPACING  FLATTER GROUND  EVEN TREE SPACING  STEEPER GROUND  MORE ATTRACTIVE BACKGROUND SCENERY LKSS ATTRACTIVE BACKGROUND SCENERY  S t a c k e d on t o p o f t h e "Demo" h a l f o f t h i s page were 12 numbered s h e e t s j u s t l i k e i t , one f o r each o f t h e 12 t r e e p a i r s .  115  RATING SCALE  116  ANY ADDITIONAL  PERSONAL  COMMENTS?  CHARACTERISTICS  Name: L_I  Sex: Age:  Female  L_J  Male  O  15-24  O  35-44  CD  55-64  CZ3  25-34  •  45-54  O  65 and over  THANK Y O U FOR P A R T I C I P A T I N G !  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 4 0
China 2 10
Japan 1 0
Canada 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 3 0
Beijing 2 0
Montreal 1 0
Tokyo 1 0
Unknown 1 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075347/manifest

Comment

Related Items