Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Assessment of the forest landscape along selected motor vehicle routes Cover

Assessment of the forest landscape along selected motor vehicle routes

Open Access
|Apr 2016

References

  1. Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G., Headley A.D. 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, 139–144.
  2. Arnberger A., Haider W. 2005. Social effects on crowding preferences of urban forest visitors. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 3 (3/4), 125–136.
  3. Arriaza M., Canas-Ortega J.F., Canas-Madueno J.A., Ruiz-Aviles P. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115–125.
  4. Bell S. 1997. Design for outdoor recreation. Spon Press 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE.
  5. Bogdanowski J. 1990. Metoda jednostek i wnętrz architektoniczno-krajobrazowych (JARK-WAK) w studiach i projektowaniu. [The method of units and scenic-architectural interiors (JARK-WAK) in study and design]. Politechnika Krakowska, Kraków [in Polish].
  6. Borkowski Z. 2003. Ocena atrakcyjności wizualnej ciągu pieszego doliny Marianki [Assessment of visual attractiveness of the pedestrian route in Marianka valley]. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, 11, 177–183 [in Polish].
  7. Clay G.R., Smidt R.K. 2004. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66, 239–255.
  8. European Landscape Convention signed in Florence. 2000. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/236096/8413.pdf. accessed 27 November 2015.
  9. Evans G.W., Wood K.W. 1980. Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environment and Behavior, 12 (2), 255–273.
  10. Forczek-Brataniec U. 2007. Droga w krajobrazie. Projektowanie dróg z uwzględnieniem czynników otaczającego krajobrazu. [Road in the landscape. Designing roads taking into account the surrounding landscape factors]. Autostrady, 4, 56-64 [in Polish].
  11. Forczek-Brataniec U. 2008. Widok z drogi. Krajobraz w percepcji dynamicznej. [View from the road. Landscape in the perception of dynamic]. Elamed, Katowice [in Polish].
  12. Gundersen V.S., Frivold L.H. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 7 (4), 241–258.
  13. Hammitt W.E., Patterson M.E., Noe F.P. 1994. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, 171–183.
  14. Janeczko E. 2002. Environmental and social determinants of recreational functions of forests Mazowiecki Landscape Park. Ph.D. thesis, SGGW, Warsaw [in Polish].
  15. Janeczko E. 2012. Assessment of forest landscape along some communication routes. Wydawnictwo SGGW, Warsaw [in Polish].
  16. Jensen F.S. 1993. Landscape managers’ and politicians’ perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. Forest and Landscape Research, 1 (1), 79–93.
  17. Jones G.R., Sorey D.F., Scott C.C. 2007. Landscape Architecture Graphic Standards. Hoboken. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
  18. Karjalainen E., Komulainen M. 1999. The visual effect of felling on small- and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 55 (3), 167–181.
  19. Kellomäki S., Savolainen R. 1984. The scenic value of forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning, 11 (2), 97–107.
  20. Paschalis P. 2009. Leśnictwo a leśna turystyka i rekreacja. [Forestry and forest tourism and recreation]. Studia i Materiały Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Leśnej, 4 (23), 29–35 [in Polish].
  21. Polat A.T., Akay A. 2015. Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14 (3), 573–582.
  22. Scrinzi G., Floris A. 2000. Featuring and modelling forest recreation in Italy. Forestry, 73 (2), 173–185.
  23. Śleszyński P. 1997. Z badań nad fizjonomią środowiska przyrodniczego. [From the research on natural environment physiognomy]. Prace i Studia Geograficzne, 21, 255–297 [in Polish].
  24. Sullivan W.C. 1994. Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe. Citizen preferences for nature and developer settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, 85–101.
  25. Tahvanainen L., Tyrvainen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, 53–70.
  26. The National Road Safety Programme GAMBIT, 2005. http://www.krbrd.gov.pl/gambit/gambit_2005.htm. Accessed 27 November 2015.
  27. Tunnard Ch., Pushkarev B. 1963. Man – made America. Chaos or control? Yale University Press, New Haven.
  28. Vander Stoep G.A., Duniavy L. 1992. Public involvement in developing park and open space recreation management strategies. In: Proceedings of the Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Gen Tech Rep NE-176, 63–68.
  29. Wójcicki T. 1995. Rules of landscaping in the vicinity of roads. Zeszyty Naukowo-Techniczne Oddziału Stowarzyszenia Inżynierów i Techników Komunikacji w Krakowie, 38.
  30. Wolf K.L. 2003. Freeway roadside management: the urban forest beyond the white line. Journal of Arboriculture, 29 (3), 127–136.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ffp-2016-0005 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677
Language: English
Page range: 43 - 51
Submitted on: Jan 28, 2016
Accepted on: Mar 9, 2016
Published on: Apr 30, 2016
Published by: Forest Research Institute
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2016 Emilia Janeczko, Krzysztof Janeczko, Tadeusz Moskalik, Małgorzata Woźnicka, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.