PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Maloof, Joan]
On: 28 June 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 923328187]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Environmental Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713642046

Measuring the beauty of forests
Joan Maloofa
a Salisbury University, Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies, Salisbury, MD, USA

Online publication date: 23 June 2010

To cite this Article Maloof, Joan(2010) 'Measuring the beauty of forests', International Journal of Environmental Studies,
67: 3, 431 — 437
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00207231003676113
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207231003676113

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713642046
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207231003676113
http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf


International Journal of Environmental Studies,
Vol. 67, No. 3, June 2010, 431–437

International Journal of Environmental Studies
ISSN 0020-7233 print: ISSN 1029-0400 online © 2010 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207231003676113

Measuring the beauty of forests

JOAN MALOOF*

Salisbury University, Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies, 224 Henson Hall, 1101 Camden 
Ave., Salisbury, MD 21801, USA

Taylor and FrancisGENV_A_468133.sgm

(Received 4 February 2010)
10.1080/00207231003676113International Journal of Environmental Studies0020-7233 (print)/1029-0400 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis0000000002010JoanMaloofjemaloof@salisbury.edu

Aesthetic considerations are increasingly being taken into account when forest management decisions
are made, but more quantitative studies testing assumptions are needed. This study tests the assump-
tion that mature forests are perceived as being more beautiful than young forests; it also tests the
philosophical concept of ‘serious beauty’, which hypothesises that the more knowledge one has about
the ecological functioning of an environment, the more beautiful it will seem. All tests were done in
situ. University students (N = 334) rated the mature forest as more beautiful than the young forest.
The young forest was rated as less than neutral in appearance, and the mature forest was rated as more
beautiful than neutral. Male students rated the forest as more beautiful than the females did. No
significant difference was seen between the ratings from before or after an ecology presentation. Thus
we did not confirm the serious beauty hypothesis in this instance.

Keywords: Environmental aesthetics; Forest age; Serious beauty; Nature aesthetics; Gender perception

Introduction

The quality of ‘beauty’ is largely thought of as being based on subjective feelings that differ
from person to person. But is beauty really judged differently by different individuals? Is it
merely ‘in the eye of the beholder’? Although this is what many have been led to believe, when
these questions are assessed quantitatively we find that the experience of beauty is more univer-
sal than individual. The studies that have been done, mostly by psychologists or landscape
architects, find that we have a common aesthetic sense, and that arguments against the objec-
tivity of aesthetic judgments usually overstate the extent of disagreement [1,2]. For example,
in studies where participants were asked to rate photographs of various scenes, a solid preference
was shown for scenes of the natural world, and particularly for scenes including trees [3,4].

These preferences often lead to conflicts when the public objects to the cutting of trees –
on both public and private lands. Forest defenders frequently cite biodiversity and carbon
sequestration as reasons for leaving the forest uncut, but just as frequently they note the
beauty of the forest. The consensus seems to be that older forests are more beautiful than
younger forests. Studies done in the American southwest confirm that that number one
predictor of scenic beauty, at both the stand and the site level, is the size of the trees: the
larger the trees the higher the estimates of scenic beauty [5–7].

*Email: jemaloof@salisbury.edu

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
M
a
l
o
o
f
,
 
J
o
a
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
5
:
5
0
 
2
8
 
J
u
n
e
 
2
0
1
0



432 J. Maloof

In recent decades, in part to avoid these conflicts, forest managers have been asked to take
the aesthetic impacts of their logging plans into consideration; but methods of aesthetic
assessment of forested landscapes have been spread out across disciplines as diverse as land-
scape architecture, economics, philosophy, geography, and psychology; and no consensus
has been reached on a common methodology [8,9]. Frequently assessments are based on
photographs, or the opinion of only a few persons [10–12].

The aesthetics of beauty have traditionally been the domain of philosophers, but recently a
few leading philosophers of environmental aesthetics have suggested that ecologists trained
in natural history are those best able to appreciate nature’s beauty [13,14]. These contempo-
rary philosophers agree that beauty is more than just form; knowledge is involved in its
interpretation, particularly knowledge of the natural sciences. The philosophers argue that
because ecologists understand the workings of nature, the beauty that ecologists see in a
forest is a more ‘serious’ beauty (in the terminology of the philosophers). This understanding
leads to appreciation, appreciation leads to valuing the aesthetics, and valuing the aesthetics
leads to an enhanced experience of beauty. The notion that people alter their preferences as a
result of learning new information is also termed an ‘ecological aesthetic’ in contrast to an
uninformed ‘scenic aesthetic’.

Ecologists, on the other hand, have largely shrugged off the responsibility for determining
nature’s beauty. If pressed to explain our aesthetic sense, ecologists are more likely to cite
responses developed through natural selection during human evolution than recently acquired
knowledge [15].

My research questions quantitatively measure perceptions of natural beauty. In this study I
test whether an educational presentation on forest ecology immediately prior to experiencing
the forest makes a difference in the rating of its beauty. (This is the ‘serious beauty’ hypothe-
sis of the philosophers.) I also test whether a mature forest stand is perceived as being
more beautiful than a younger forest stand. I test these questions within the forest, not by
photographs.

Materials and methods

University students of varying majors between the ages of 18 and 23, and enrolled in an
introductory biology class, were bussed in groups of 20–24 to an area where a young forest
stand and a mature forest stand exist in close proximity (the Nassawango Field Station,
Wicomico County, MD, USA). The study was conducted during regularly scheduled labora-
tory sessions, 12–15 October 2009.

As each class arrived students were divided randomly into two groups. One group was led
directly to the forest where students were told only that they were participating in a research
project investigating environmental aesthetics. No mention was made regarding the age of
the forest stands. Students entered either a young or mature forest on a 10 m long path, where
they completed the survey while standing, surrounded by the forest. The ‘young’ forest was a
loblolly pine plantation, typical of the area. Native loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) 11 years old,
3–17 cm in diameter, and spaced approximately 1 m apart, comprised the dominant trees.
The ‘mature’ forest was located directly across a dirt lane from the young forest. It, too, had
been logged and managed for pine, but the pines were 57 years old, 30–44 cm in diameter,
and spaced approximately 5 m apart. Other tree species such as American holly, sweet gum,
and southern red oak grew among the pines, as is typical for an older pine plantation in the
area. In both forests, climate, soil type, and aspect were similar.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
M
a
l
o
o
f
,
 
J
o
a
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
5
:
5
0
 
2
8
 
J
u
n
e
 
2
0
1
0



Measuring the beauty of forests 433

Students rated the forests by placing a mark on the survey sheet along a 20 cm line that
was labelled ‘Unattractive’ to the far left, ‘Neutral’ in the centre, and ‘Beautiful’ to the far
right. No definition was given for the term ‘beauty’. Students were simply asked to use their
own personal definition. After viewing and rating the first forest stand students were led to
the second forest stand directly across the road. In addition to rating the forests by marking
the line, students were also asked which forest stand was more beautiful. Answer choices
were ‘the first one’, ‘the second one’, or ‘both were equal’.

Meanwhile the second group was taken inside the field station and given a 20-minute
presentation on forest ecology and shown a few specimens of the tree species in the forest.
The presentation made no reference to forest beauty or age, although many of the illustrating
slides were taken in older forests. The presentation concentrated on the ecological function
and ecological services provided by a forest (e.g. energy capture, carbon capture, habitat,
improved stormwater quality, improved air quality, etc.). After the presentation this group
was taken to the forest to complete the survey in the same manner as the first group.

After the surveys were collected the marks were translated to numerical values by measur-
ing the distance the mark fell along the line. In this manner ‘Unattractive’ became equal to 0,
‘Neutral’ became equal to 10, and ‘Beautiful’ became equal to 20.

Three hundred and thirty-eight students visited the field station and completed the surveys.
Only four students were older than 23 years and those four were dropped from the analysis to
concentrate the demographic to 18–23-year-olds, leaving 334 for the final analysis;
146 males and 187 females.

In an analysis of environmental perception rating scales Schroeder [16] determined that ‘in
all cases the simple mean rating produced virtually identical results to the more sophisticated
analyses’. Consequently, I used mean ratings for all comparisons. Data were normally
distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk) and the statistics package SPSS 17.0
was used for analysis.

Results

When all ratings were combined the students rated the mature forest stand as being more
beautiful than the young forest stand (figure 1; paired t-test, p < 0.005). The mean rating for
the mature forest was 12.1 (SE = 0.21) putting it above neutral, while the mean rating for the
young forest was 8.8 (SE = 0.26) putting it below neutral. There were 329 responses to the
question that directly asked which forest was more beautiful. Fifty students said they were
both equal, 47 chose the younger forest, and 232 chose the mature forest. Of the students who
chose one forest over another in terms of beauty, 17% selected the young forest and 83%
selected the mature forest.
Figure 1. Males perceived the forest as more beautiful than the females when the mean of the combined ratings for both young and mature. Differences are significant (p < 0.005).

When all ratings were combined by gender, males and females showed no difference in the
mean spread between ratings of the young and mature forests (males = 3.2, females = 3.3;
two-tailed t-test, p = 0.780), but males rated the forest as more beautiful overall (figure 2;
11.1 vs 10.0, SE 0.30 and 0.26 respectively; two-tailed t-test, p < 0.005). The mean forest
beauty rating for males was above neutral while the mean forest beauty rating for females
was neutral.
Figure 2. The mature forest was rated as more beautiful than the young forest. Differences are significant (p < .005).

When the data were examined according to whether or not the students had seen the
presentation before rating the forests (figure 3), the ratings were higher after the presenta-
tion for both the young (8.4 before presentation versus 9.2 after presentation) and the
mature (11.9 before presentation, 12.3 after presentation) forest, but the differences were

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
M
a
l
o
o
f
,
 
J
o
a
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
5
:
5
0
 
2
8
 
J
u
n
e
 
2
0
1
0



434 J. Maloof

Figure 1. The mature forest was rated as more beautiful than the young forest. Differences are significant
(p < 0.005).

Figure 2. Males rated the forest higher in beauty than the females did (Individual ratings for both young and mature
forests were combined and the means were used for comparison. Differences are significant p < 0.005).

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
M
a
l
o
o
f
,
 
J
o
a
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
5
:
5
0
 
2
8
 
J
u
n
e
 
2
0
1
0



Measuring the beauty of forests 435

not statistically significant (two-tailed t-test, p = 0.120 and p = 0.387, respectively). Again,
both mean ratings were below neutral for the young forest and above neutral for the mature
forest.
Figure 3. A presentation on forest ecology prior to viewing the forest stands made no significant difference in the ratings of the forests.

In other studies no consistent differences were detected in scenic beauty estimates given by
students and nonstudents [7] therefore these figures are likely to represent the responses of a
general population.

Discussion

In 1949 Aldo Leopold wrote, ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’ [17]. In
the 60 years since it was published this has become his most frequently quoted line.
Although many studies have attempted to measure the integrity and stability of biotic
communities, far fewer studies have been focused specifically on measuring the beauty of
the biotic community. Consequently, we have no standardized tools used for measuring
beauty, and no agreed method for comparing and communicating the attractiveness of
various landscapes.

Despite this lack of quantification, the aesthetic qualities of natural areas are frequently
mentioned as a reason for preserving them from development. But if aesthetic arguments are
to be taken seriously in planning and policy-making then some level of objectivity and agree-
ment is necessary. More studies are needed to quantify common responses to natural scenes.
In this study I was able to show that 83% of the participants in a controlled study rated the
mature forest as more beautiful than the young forest. This overwhelming agreement gives
strength to the argument that there is a shared, objective, basis to the quality of beauty in the
natural world.

Figure 3. A presentation on forest ecology prior to viewing the forest stands made no significant difference in the
ratings of the forests.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
M
a
l
o
o
f
,
 
J
o
a
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
5
:
5
0
 
2
8
 
J
u
n
e
 
2
0
1
0



436 J. Maloof

I found that the older forest was rated as more beautiful than the younger forest even
though all other factors (terrain, soil type, climate, time of day) were similar. The mature
forest was rated as above neutral and the young forest was rated as less than neutral in terms
of beauty. Overall, males rated the forest as more beautiful than females.

Most attempts at measuring nature aesthetics use photographs [e.g. 3,12,18], but in this
study the measurements were done in situ. Visual perceptions are the most powerful
determining factor in aesthetic preferences, but by measuring preferences in the actual envi-
ronment more subtle perceptions such as sounds, smells, and even the feel of the soil
beneath the feet, may be included in the ratings. Although the methodology of this experi-
ment is simple, this was a trade-off in return for the ability to test a large pool of subjects
in situ.

Viewing a presentation about forest ecology immediately preceding the survey increased
the ratings a small, but insignificant, amount. Hence the ‘serious beauty’ hypothesis of the
philosophers was not confirmed by my results. (The hypothesis states that the more one
understands the natural world the more beautiful it will seem.) These results strengthen the
argument that our aesthetic preferences are biologically based (and hence not capable of
being readily changed) rather than knowledge- based (and thus likely to change depending on
circumstances). These results indicate that knowledge of the forest ecosystem does not appre-
ciably alter the perception of beauty. These results are similar to the findings of Hill and
Davidson [12] who found that varying the information that participants received about
restoration decisions (some information favouring cleared areas and some information
favouring forested areas) did not significantly alter the strong shared preferences for
photographs of certain scenes.

In this study the mature forest was selected as being more beautiful than the young forest.
In effect, the subjects preferred the older forest. Although this is not surprising, a quantifica-
tion of this preference is important for environmental economists and policy-makers, who
relate choice to value [19,20]. Because older trees are preferred, they are more valuable than
younger trees to the observer (in the currency of beauty); just as older trees are more valuable
than younger trees to the logger (in the currency of money). Given these circumstances we
should expect conflicts between these two groups to increase as forests age, and to reach
intense levels concerning the fate of mature forests.

This study was conducted in a single young and a single mature forest stand in close prox-
imity to one another, to reduce variables. The results could be strengthened by repeating it in
other young and mature forests; and in other seasons. It is also possible that a lengthier course
of study might influence the ratings. There is much more research which needs to be done
regarding the beauty of nature. It would be interesting to learn why the forests were rated as
more beautiful by the males than the females. Is this a result of familiarity? Of safety? Or is it
an inherent difference in the sexes?

Beyond the questions relating to our perceptions of beauty in nature, there are also
questions that remain regarding the policy implications of our perceptions. The philoso-
pher Allen Carlson notes that ‘An aesthetics of nature that cannot support grounds for
preserving that which we find beautiful is not worthy of consideration’ [21]. Should
beauty have a place in determining environmental policy? If we can say that one place is
more beautiful than another, indeed, if it is more beautiful than most, or even all, other
places are we then ethically obligated to preserve it? Leopold would answer these
questions in the affirmative, but more understanding of the thing we call beauty is needed
before it can be used as a determining factor in land use decisions. This research is an
exploratory step in that direction.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
M
a
l
o
o
f
,
 
J
o
a
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
5
:
5
0
 
2
8
 
J
u
n
e
 
2
0
1
0



Measuring the beauty of forests 437

References

[1] Daniel, T.C., 2001, Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability, in: S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw
(Eds) Forests and Landscape: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (New York: CABI), pp. 15–30.

[2] Brady, E., 2003, Aesthetics of the Natural Environment (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press).
[3] Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S., 1989, The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press).
[4] Preston, R., 2001, Scenic Amenity: Measuring Community Appreciation of Landscape Aesthetics at Moggill

and Glen Rock (Brisbane: The State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Environ-
mental Protection Agency), ISBN 0 7345 1767 X.

[5] Arthur, L.M., 1977, Predicting scenic beauty of forested environments: some empirical tests. Forest Science,
23(2), 151–159.

[6] Schroeder, H.W. and Daniel, T.C., 1981, Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest land-
scapes. Forest Science, 27(1), 71–80.

[7] Brown, T.C. and Daniel, T.C., 1986, Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 32(2), 471–
487.

[8] Panagopoulos, T., 2009, Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecological Economics, 68, 2485–2489.
[9] Garcia-Rivera, A., Graves, M. and Neumann, C., 2009, Beauty in the living world. Zygon, 44, 243–263.

[10] USDA (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service), 1995, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery
Management: Agriculture Handbook Number 701 (Washington, DC: USDA)..

[11] Sheppard, S.R.J., 2004, Visual analysis of forest landscapes, in: Landscape and Planning. (Maryland Heights,
MO: Elsevier).

[12] Hill, D. and Daniel, T.C., 2008, Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape pref-
erences. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 34–49.

[13] Parsons, G., 2008, Aesthetics & Nature (New York: Continuum).
[14] Carlson, A., 2007, The requirements for an adequate aesthetics of nature. Environmental Philosophy, 4, 1–14.
[15] Kellert, S.R. (Ed.), 1995, The Biophilia Hypothesis (Washington, DC: Island Press).
[16] Schroeder, H.W., 1984, Environmental Perception Rating Scales: a case for simple methods of analysis. Envi-

ronment and Behavior, 16, 573–597.
[17] Leopold, A., 1949 (1966), A Sand County Almanac (Oxford: Oxford University Press (New York: Ballantine

Books)).
[18] Van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A. and Coeterier, F., 1998, Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature

development plans: a multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 141–157.
[19] Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E.B., 1989 (1999), Blueprint for a Green Economy (London: Earth-

scan Publications).
[20] Simpson, R.D., 2007, David Pearce and the economic valuation of biodiversity. Environmental Resource

Economics, 37, 91–109.
[21] Carlson, A., 2009, Nature & Landscape (New York: Columbia University Press).

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
 
B
y
:
 
[
M
a
l
o
o
f
,
 
J
o
a
n
]
 
A
t
:
 
1
5
:
5
0
 
2
8
 
J
u
n
e
 
2
0
1
0