Thesis Oscar Andersson. "My Forest is My Garden" by Oscar Andersson

â&#x20AC;&#x153;My Forest is My Gardenâ&#x20AC;?

Management of Urban and Peri-Urban Forests in Denmark and attitudes of. forest owners - through a health perspective.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;My Forest is My Gardenâ&#x20AC;?

Management of Urban and Peri-Urban Forests in Denmark and attitudes of. forest owners - through a health perspective. Masters Thesis in Landscape Architecture 2016

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN FA C U LT Y O F S C I E N C E

“My Forest is My Garden” Author: Oscar Alexander Andersson (vsm164) 30 ECTS Master Thesis in Landscape Architecture Supervisor: Ulrika K. Stigsdotter Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources Management

August 8. 2016

|2|

Oscar Alexander Andersson

Preface “Never follow anyone else’s path, unless you’re in the woods and you’re lost and you see a path. Then by all means follow that path.” ― Ellen DeGeneres My name is Oscar Andersson and this thesis is my final work as a Landscape Architect student at University of Copenhagen. I would like to thank some people that have helped me through this period of writing my thesis: My supervisor Ulrika Stigsdotter: Thank you for your great guidance and support during this period! Jørgen Bo Larsen: Thank you for your input that kept me focused on what is relevant and not everything else. Vivian Kvist: You have embraced and shared my enthusiasm and shared valuable knowledge. Thank you! Frank Søndergaard Jensen: You are just so knowledgeable when it comes to recreational use of natural areas in Denmark, thank you for your input and support! Victoria Linn Lygum: You have been a very helpful guiding hand when I have felt a bit lost and in need of direction. Klaus Harnvig: You are the ground which I stand on. You are my most important mental support and it goes so far beyond this thesis. Hulda Daviðsdóttir: We have supported each other in our respective theses and just having you by my side made it all a bit more joyful. All my interviewees: You have given me all the “juice” of this thesis. Thanks to you I have learned things about Danish forests that I could never have read in a book.

|3|

Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................... ........ 8

Box

Oscars thesis Definition of what a peri-urban woodland is................... 9

1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 1.1 An important remark........................................................................................... 1.2 Topics..................................................................................................................... 1.2.1 The interdisciplinary approach.............................................................. 1.2.2 The health perspective........................................................................... 1.2.3 The ownerships...................................................................................... 1.2.4 The problem........................................................................................... 1.2.5 The theory.............................................................................................. 1.2.6 The study................................................................................................ 1.2.7 The importance of the study.................................................................. 1.3 Narrowing down subject.................................................................................. 1.4 Narrowing down case.......................................................................................

11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13

2 Thesis statement and Aim........................................................................ 14 2.1 Thesis statement................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Aim..................................................................................................................... 14 3 Methods..................................................................................................... 3.1 Literature study (general).................................................................................. 3.2 Case study (specific).......................................................................................... 3.2.1 Site analyses............................................................................................ 3.2.2 Interviews............................................................................................... 4 Forest management................................................................................... 4.1 Definition of a forest.......................................................................................... 4.2 Forests in Denmark........................................................................................... 4.3 A brief history of Danish forests....................................................................... 4.4 Nature-based forest management, what is it?................................................. 4.4.1 Nature-based forest management in Danish forests............................. 4.4.2 What is it good for?................................................................................ 4.4.3 Is something missing?............................................................................. 4.5 Forest Development Types................................................................................ 4.5.1 Climatological and soil aspects.............................................................. 4.5.2 Social aspect........................................................................................... 4.6 Ecosystem services............................................................................................. 4.7 Urban Forestry and the social value of nature-based forest management........................................................................................................ 4.7.1 Forests close to people; why would people benefit from that....................

|4|

16 16 16 16 16 18 18 18 19 21 21 21 23 23 23 23 24 25 25

5 Mental Health............................................................................................ 5.1 What is mental fatigue/stress? ......................................................................... 5.2 How is it a problem for the society?.................................................................. 5.3 What is mental restoration?.............................................................................. 5.4 How can the natural environments aid mental restoration?.......................... 5.5 What is it with forested environments that have a particularly restorative effect on people?......................................................... 5.5.1 Forests in general.................................................................................... 5.5.2 Spatial characteristics of forests that support mental restoration........ 5.5.3 Variations between enclosed and more open forested rooms / spaces........................................................................... 5.5.4 Water in forests....................................................................................... 5.6 Psychology of restorative environments.......................................................... 5.6.1 Being Away............................................................................................. 5.6.2 Soft Fascination...................................................................................... 5.6.3 Feeling of safety....................................................................................... 5.4.4 Experiencing nature through all senses................................................. 5.4.5 Unlocking the mind --> getting into a reflective mode.........................

27 27 27 28 28

6 6.1 6.2 6.3

Physical health........................................................................................... Sedentary lifestyle.............................................................................................. How are forests linked to physical health?....................................................... Which qualities of a forested area can stimulate physical activity?................

33 33 33 33

7 Stakeholders............................................................................................... 7.1 Who are the stakeholders?................................................................................ 7.2 Economic interests............................................................................................. 7.3 Public involvement............................................................................................ 7.5 Collaboration...................................................................................................... 7.6 Potential conflicts / disagreements...................................................................

34 34 35 35 36 36

28 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32

|5|

8 Case study.................................................................................................. 8.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 8.2 Analyses.............................................................................................................. 8.3 Data collection................................................................................................... 8.4 Overview of Danish towns................................................................................ 8.5 Choosing a representative town....................................................................... 8.6 Kolding and its landscape................................................................................. 8.7 A brief history of forests in and around Kolding ........................................... 8.8 UPUFs forests in Kolding................................................................................. 8.9 Who owns the forests?....................................................................................... 8.10 How much UPUFs are there?............................................................................. 8.11 Choosing a few representative forests.............................................................. 8.12 Description of the chosen forests..................................................................... 8.12.1 Marielund / Bramdrup skov.................................................................. 8.12.2 Harte skov.............................................................................................. 8.12.3 Seest skov / Kolding kirkeskov................................................................ 8.12.4 Skov ved RebĂŚk strand.......................................................................... 8.12.5 Vonsild skov.........................................................................................

38 38 38 38 39 39 42 47 51 51 55 56 59 69 60 61 62 63

9 Results........................................................................................................ 64 9.1 The presentation of the results.......................................................................... 64 10 10.1 10.2

The field work ........................................................................................... How are the forests experienced....................................................................... 10.1.1 Marielund / Bramdrup skov................................................................. 10.1.2 Harte skov.............................................................................................. 10.1.3 Seest skov / Kolding kirkeskov................................................................ 10.1.4 Skov ved RebĂŚk strand.......................................................................... 10.1.5 Vonsild skov........................................................................................... Sum up...............................................................................................................

65 65 66 68 70 72 73 73

11 Interviews................................................................................................... 11.1 Interviewing forest owners of forests surrounding Kolding using a questionnaire......................................................................................... 11.2 Results of the interviews.................................................................................... 11.2.1 Background data................................................................................... 11.2.2 Management........................................................................................... 11.2.3 Forest guests............................................................................................ 11.2.4 Paths....................................................................................................... 11.2.5 Visions..................................................................................................... 11.2.6 Recreation / Health promotion..............................................................

|6|

76 76 76 77 77 77 78 78

12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5

Answering the questions from the thesis statement................................ How do we obtain health promoting nature qualities in UPUFs through forest management?.............................................................................. Are some UPUFs not seen as a place of public service for the citizens of the town by the forest managers, but merely as a wood production area?..................................................................................... Are some forest owners even reluctant of having visitors in their forests? (With potential problems such as littering, vandalism and loose dogs).................................................................. Do forest owners think that they won’t gain anything economically from improving restorative qualities in their forests? (Too expensive)........ Do forest owners/managers lack the tools and/or the knowledge to manage their forests in a direction that support the development of health promoting forested environments?.....................

13 Discussion.................................................................................................. 13.1 Small size of study.............................................................................................. 13.2 Obstacles 1– No common strategy................................................................... 13.3 Obstacles 2– A handbook?................................................................................ 13.4 Obstacles 3– Reluctant owners......................................................................... 13.5 Obstacles 4 – The behaviour of forest visitors................................................. 13.6 Obstacles 5 – The “My Forest is My Garden”-attitude....................................... 13.7 How can the existing urban and peri-urban forests be improved in terms of potential public health benefits?................................... 13.8 What have I learned........................................................................................... 13.9 What would I have done differently ...............................................................

82 82 82 82 82 83 83

14 Conclusions................................................................................................ 14.1 Strengths and weaknesses................................................................................. 15 Perspectives................................................................................................ 15.1 Implications for practise.................................................................................... 15.2 Implications for further research......................................................................

85 85

16 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4

87 87 91 92 93

References.................................................................................................. Literature references.......................................................................................... Figure and picture references............................................................................ Web references................................................................................................... List of figures.........................................................................................................

80 80 80 81 81

84 84 84

86 86 86

X Appendixes................................................................................................. 96 X1 Questionnaire (In Danish).................................................................................. 96 X2 Some photographs................................................................................................ 106

|7|

Abstract Very strong evidence supports the theory that urban and peri-urban forests play an important role for the promotion of peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health and well-being, as they are natural areas close to where people live. It is important, though, that the forests are designed and managed properly to function as a health supportive environment and that the forests are accessible enough to be visited. Urban and peri-urban forests, hereafter abbreviated as UPUFs, are wooded areas in, or at the fringe of, urban areas. In this thesis I have, through literature research, investigated what the characteristics of urban and peri-urban forests are that make them restorative. I have also made site analyses of five chosen forests in and at the fringe (within 3 km) of one Danish town, Kolding, to map and investigate current spatial and informational qualities in relation to mental restoration as well as physical activity. Finally I have, through interviews, investigated Danish forest ownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perspective of UPUFs: their primary goals with their forests, their awareness regarding health benefits from nature experiences, current management strategies of their forests in relation to human recreation of health promotion, their attitudes towards forest visitors and whether they as owners of UPUFs, see themselves as providers of health supportive environments.

|8|

I have found that there is a great potential for developing health promoting qualities in many of the UPUFs of Kolding with some minor adjustments in the management. I have also found that, among forest owners, there is a great difference in attitudes towards forest visitors, especially between owners of public and private forests, where owners of private forests are generally much more reluctant in their attitudes towards visitors. To achieve success in improving health promotion in UPUFs, the greatest challenge is, in one way or another, to improve the willingness of private forest owners for their forests to be a place for health promotion of the citizens of the adjacent town.

Oscars thesis’ Definition of what a peri-urban forest is This thesis is about urban and peri-urban forests. Some explanation of how the term is defined might be in place for the reader to be on the same page as the writer. Generally one can claim that urban forests lay within or at the border of an urban area and peri-urban forests lays within the fringe of it. But how far out does the fringe go? To my knowledge, there aren’t an international standardized set of criteria for this. One of the main aspects of UPUFs is the possibility for everyday use of it. That is determined by whether or not the forest is readily accessible by foot; “The key factor for active use is easy access to the areas, preferably within walking distance from home.” (Tyrväinen et al. 2005). In Danish studies, intervals have been used to describe distance-related issues on forest visits. On the following graphs (fig. 1), (fig. 2) and (fig. 3) these intervals clearly show the influence distance have on visits.

Figure 1 Percentage of respondents, who had more than »X« km’s travel to the forest. Respondents’ distribution in 1977, 1994 and 2008 (Kvist Johansen et al. 2013). Translated to English by author.

|9|

Figure 2 The influence of travelling distance on the choice of transport in 2008 (Kvist Johansen et al. 2013). Translated to English by author.

Figure 3 Graph combining distance and means of transportation (De Økonomiske Råd 2014). Translated to English by author.

According to these graphs, more than half of all visits to forests (fig. 1 and fig. 2) and nature areas (fig. 3) are made within a distance of 3km. 3km also seem to be the limit where, below that, most visits are by foot or bicycle and above that, most visits are by motorized vehicles. It thus seems like forests farther away than 3km wouldn’t be used regularly as part of an individuals’ daily life. Forests being situated beyond 3km away from an urbanized area are therefore too remote to be regarded as urban or peri-urban.

| 10 |

Introduction

1. Introduction 1.1 An important remark In this thesis the expression “forests” are used continuously on the expense of the expression “woodlands”, except for in citations where the expression “woodlands” is used. The chosen expression refers to areas larger than 0.5 hectares with at least 10% canopy cover. (See more thorough definition in the chapter “Forest Management”). 1.2 Topics The following sub-sections presents different topics within this thesis and why they are chosen. 1.2.1 The interdisciplinary approach This study has its foundation in both forestry and in environmental psychology (and health) and is thus interdisciplinaty. It can be argued that the interdisciplinary approach is necessary when working with UPUFs, as they have the possibility to provide important services to many different sectors. If one’s concentration is directed only within one sector, the other sectors will be ignored and the potential for the forest to have multiple benefits will not be fully realized. 1.2.2 The health perspective Numerous studies have been done on how nature experiences benefits human health. How it can aid mental restoration (Sonntag-Öström et al. 2014, Ulrich et al. 1991), how it can decrease stress (Annerstedt et al. 2010, Skärbäck 2007) and anger and aggressiveness (Hartig et al. 2003). One study has found that human health is affected positively with decreasing distance from the private home to nearest green space (Stigsdotter et al. 2010). Other studies clearly show that green areas close to where one live are used to a much greater extent than green areas farther away, hence green areas with the highest health promoting value are the urban green areas. (Hansmann et al. 2007, Rydberg & Falck 2000).

1.2.3 The ownerships We have gained great knowledge about the importance of experiencing nature, but knowledge about the role of the providers of nature is still much more limited. In Denmark most city parks are owned by the associated municipality, but UPUFs can, apart from the municipality, be owned by: The State, Churches, NGOs, Private companies and Private persons. The Municipality, The State and Churches count as public forests, whereas Private companies, Private persons and NGOs count as private forests. Out of these six main sectors, private persons own the largest area, both considering all forests in Denmark and the urban forests of one chosen Danish town, Kolding. 1.2.4 The problem Considering the proportionally large area of private owned forests, one would assume that these are the most important recreational forests in Denmark. This is, however, not the case. Opposed to public forests, private forests have limited access. According to Danish law, access to private forests is only permitted by foot or bicycles on paths and between 6 Am and sunset. It can be further limited under certain circumstances, for example if the forest is smaller than 5 hectares or during times when the forest is rented out for hunting. Public forests are not allowed to limit access in the same extent. State forests are even obliged to promote recreation in their forests. This difference may have resulted in a big difference in forest visits between private and public forests.

| 11 |

Introduction 1.2.5 The theory I believe that there are many UPUFs in Denmark that do not fulfil a potential of being a health promoting environment that they have, especially among private owned forests, and that one of the reasons for this is that they are not managed in a way that support accessibility and the development of health promoting forested environments. Many citizens of Danish towns might not know about the sheer existence of some UPUFs, only because there is nothing indicating an invite for a visit. In this study I will investigate why it is so. 1.2.6 The study In this thesis I take offset partly in literature study, partly in interviews of forest owners of a few chosen forests and partly in making visits to these forests to analyse the current qualities regarding physical recreation and mental restoration as well as the potential for improving these qualities. 1.2.7 The importance of the study In comparison with other European countries, the forest cover in Denmark is very small, covering a mere 14.4% of the total land area (Nord-Larsen et al. 2015). It can therefore be argued that forests in Denmark are in need of greater consideration in terms of recreational and health promoting use than forests in most other European countries.

1.3 Narrowing down subject It’s always a challenge to narrow down one’s subject to a manageable size and to not include too many topics. The general topic of this thesis is management of health promoting natural environments. I’ve chosen to work with forests and not with other natural environments, such as meadows and coastal areas, since forests have a specific set of management tools that differs vastly from those of other natural environments. These nature areas need, however, not to be neglected when working with recreation and human health, since they too have important functions as restorative environments. They will also be briefly analysed in this thesis. I’ve chosen to work with UPUFs and not rural forests. The reason for this is that: 1. For a forest to function as a health promoting environment for an individual it needs to be visited regularly. (Hansmann et al. 2007). 2. For a forest to be visited regularly, it needs to be situated close to where the individual have his or her daily life. – Distance is crucial. The science field of health promoting environments can be divided into two branches. (Fig. 4). There are currently initiatives in Denmark to increase the cover of forested land. That is, however, not a focus of this study. I’ve chosen only to focus on already existing forests, as forests need to be at a certain age before health promoting qualities can emerge and develop.

Figure 4 The two branches of health promoting environments. One branch deals with rehabilitation from diseases (improvement of ill health), the other branch deals with sustaining a state of good health and to prevent diseases to develop (maintenance and fortification of good health). I’ve chosen to focus on the branch that deals with prevention of diseases. (Stigsdotter 2005).

| 12 |

Introduction

My focus is also on investigating the management of the forests and how the management can support health promoting use of the forests, rather than the users and their preferences and actual use of the forests. The reason for this is that much research has already been conducted about the users’ perspective. 1.4 Narrowing down case When initiating my work on the case study of this thesis, I planned on working with five Danish towns. I soon realized that it was much more work than I have time for within the scope of this thesis, so I narrowed it down to one town, Kolding. After finding 34 forests split on more than 160 forest owners, owning a total of more than 400 cadastres, I decided on narrowing down my study to five forests. These five forests are situated all around the town of Kolding in varied landscape types. They also have owners from each of the five major owner groups, making them representative as “typical” UPUFs of Kolding. More details about the case will be explained in the chapter “Case study”.

| 13 |

Thesis statement and Aim

2. Thesis statement and Aim 2.1 Thesis statement: We have through research gained knowledge about that human beings achieve health benefits from visiting forests and nature. We also have some ideas about what type of nature qualities that provides health effects on humans. The task now is to implement this knowledge actively into forest management of UPUFs, so that restorative qualities of those forests are improved and so that the public can benefit and experience restoration of good quality when visiting these forests. We must get from theory to practice â&#x20AC;&#x201C; How do we develop health promoting nature qualities in UPUFs through forest management? The answer is that we need to be in dialogue with owners of existing forests to make progress. My hypothesis is that there are many UPUFs in Denmark that do not fulfil their inherent potential of being a health promoting environment. One of the reasons for this can be that they are not managed in ways that support the development of health promoting forested environments. Another reason can be that many citizens of Danish towns might not know about the sheer existence of some UPUFs, only because there is nothing indicating an invite for a visit. Why is it so? - Are some UPUFs not seen as a place of public service for the citizens of the town by the forest managers, but merely as a wood production area? - Are some forest owners even reluctant of having visitors in their forests? (With potential problems such as littering, vandalism and loose dogs) - Do forest owners think that they wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t gain anything economically from improving restorative qualities in their forests? (Too expensive) - Do forest owners/managers lack the tools and/or the knowledge to manage their forests in a direction that support the development of health promoting forested environments?

| 14 |

2.2 Aim: I want to investigate the current situation in Danish UPUFs in terms of health promoting and recreational qualities. To do this I will use scientific evidence in the field of environmental health to, on a general level, detect which qualities of the forests that can promote both mental and physical health and, on a specific level, do spatial analyses from visits to UPUFs where those potential qualities can be investigated. I also want to do research on ownerships of Danish UPUFs and, through interviews with Danish forest owners, investigate whether there are differences between them in relation to attitudes towards forest visitors. Also through the interviews, I want to investigate what level of knowledge the forest owners have regarding the potential health benefits forest visits may have on visitors. Finally I want to investigate if there is any interest by forest owners in a user friendly handbook with forest management tools that can increase recreational and health promoting qualities for UPUFs in Denmark. The prospect I have is that the knowledge gained from this project can reveal what (some of) the obstacles are for increasing the health promoting qualities as well as the availability of Danish UPUFs.

Thesis statement and Aim

| 15 |

Methods

3. Methods I have worked both generally and specifically with the subject of this thesis using three distinct methods. (fig. 5). On a general level I have studied literature that deals with restorative environments, management of urban forests and recreational values of forests. I have done this to investigate what makes a forest a restorative environment and to present evidence that strongly supports the theory that UPUFs are important for public health. On a specific level I have chosen a case study and worked partly with site analyses of some existing UPUFs and partly with interviewing owners of the forests visited. 3.1 General A study of research that deals with the general preconditions of forest management and health promoting environments is necessary as evidence based fundament of the thesis. 3.1.1 Literature research The chosen field of literature research in this thesis is deliberately large, since I work interdisciplinary, combining the field of forest management with the field of environmental psychology and health design. I have mainly used three research web portals to find relevant articles; ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and ResearchGate.

| 16 |

3.2 Specific To be able to validate whether or not my thesis statement holds water, I need to conduct a case study, moving from a general level to a site specific level. 3.2.1 Site analyses The experience based qualities of a forest can only be assessed through visits. I have therefore made visits to the chosen forests so that I can get a broad understanding of the forest structures and the experience of getting around. 3.2.2 Interviews I want to gain knowledge about forest ownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attitudes and the most straightforward method for doing this is by finding specific forest owners and to hear them out. The method of interviewing forest owners and forest managers in Denmark, working with the town of Kolding as a case study, was chosen to obtain some very specific knowledge regarding management and attitudes. I have used a questionnaire as a framework for my interviews. (See appendix 1).

Methods

METHODS General Specific

1 Literature research 2_Site analysis 3_Interviews Figure 5 The methods of the study.

| 17 |

Forest management

4. Forest management This and the following chapters make out the scientific base of this thesis and are thus heavily based on literature research and filled with citations. 4.1 Definition of a forest In Denmark, the definition of a forest is as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The forest area includes all actual forest stands that are larger than 0.5 hectares, wider than 20 meters, with trees higher than 5 meters and a crown cover of more than 10 %, or trees that are potentially able to achieve these values at the location. Christmas trees and decorative greenery on agricultural land is also included. Help areas as forest roads and firebreaks as well as houses in forests are also included. Orchards and areas with urban or cottages are not included.â&#x20AC;?

4.2 Forests in Denmark In a European context, forest cover in Denmark is sparse. It can therefore be argued that it is more important to think multi-functionality into Danish forests, and in particular UPUFs, to a higher degree than in many other European countries. Legislation regarding access and what one may or may not do in Danish forests differs significantly whether the forest is owned by the public or the private sector. The figure below (fig. 6) points out the differences:

(Nord-Larsen et al. 2015). Translated to English by author.

Figure 6 Legislation regarding access and what one may or may not do in Danish forests. (Danish forest and nature agency 2005). Translated to English by author.

| 18 |

Forest management 4.3 A brief history of Danish forests Climatically, Denmark has close to perfect conditions for forests to develop. These supportive climatic conditions in combination with the relatively smooth terrain of the Danish landscape have, however, resulted in turning much of the land use from forests into more profitable agricultural fields. This trend can be traced back to the bronze age, where nearly 100% of the Danish area was covered in forests, until the early 19th century where the forest cover had shrunk down to a mere 2-3% of the total area. At this period it became apparent that the situation was not sustainable and further deforestation was prohibited by law. Problems with sand drift had become more and more severe and it became harder to find wood. The remaining forested areas were protected, so that the land use could not be changed after fellings – they needed to remain as forests.

Throughout the 19th century initiatives were made to stop sand drift (especially of western Jutland) by afforestation of sturdy Mountain pines (Pinus mugo). The method proved successful, but much of the landscape affected by sand drift had now become so sandy, so that agriculture of this land was no longer a sensible option. Instead more afforestation took place, now mostly of conifers, such as Norway spruce (Picea abies). Afforestation has since continued and forests do now cover 14.4% of the total area in Denmark. (Nord-Larsen et al. 2015). In recent years more focus on values of forests other than production values have arisen. Much of the natural flora and fauna in Denmark has found to be associated with forests (Petersen et al. 2016) and preference studies show that forests are the most popular setting for outdoor recreation. (Jensen 1998 I, De Økonomiske Råd 2014) These discovered values have strengthened the arguments for further afforestation and slowly changed the perception of what a “good” forest is.

| 19 |

Forest management

A development that has been misfortunate regarding the possibilities for getting around in the landscape and thus visit forests, is the decline in country lanes during the 20th century, which is illustrated in research by Katrine HĂ¸jring and Ole H. Caspersen. In the following figure (fig. 7) showing an area of 25 square kilometers, the decline in country lanes clearly shows with a reduction from 97 km to 51 km, equivalent to approximately 50% between 1950 and 1991.

Not only is the total length of the country lanes reduced, they are also much more fragmented than before and thus less accessible and more likely to lead to dead ends. A repeated study shows that this development has been continuing also from 1988 to 2010. (Fig. 8).

Figure 7 Decrease of country lanes between 1950 and 1991. (HĂ¸jring 2002).

Figure 8 Continued decrease of country lanes between 1988 and 2010. (Caspersen & Nyed 2011).

| 20 |

Forest management 4.4 Nature-based forest management, what is it? At the section for Landscape and Forestry at the University of Copenhagen, a modern way of forest management has been developed; Nature-based forest management. It is a different approach to forestry than the conventional mono-culture forests, where focus is on optimization of crop production. Nature-based forest management instead has focus on crop production, ecological functions and social functions. (Larsen 2012). “Nature-based forestry is based on continuous forest cover, species mixtures, uneven-aged stand structures, selective harvest, and intensive use of natural regeneration.” (Nielsen & Jensen 2007). Some of the main goals of Nature-based forest management are to: - preserve a continuous forest climate - make more use of natural regeneration - use native species and species - make species selection fit with soil and climatic conditions at the location - support biotopes by leaving deadwood on the forest floor - restore natural hydrology

4.4.1 Nature-based forest management in Danish forests Since 2005 all state forests in Denmark have agreed on changing the from their previous forest management methods into the newly developed Nature-based forest management. 4.4.2 What is it good for? By turning away from the conventional forestry approach with its thinking of optimization of production, one opens the door for considering other types of values, which can potentially increase the cumulative value to a higher level than conventional forestry can. With other words; a small trade-off in wood production can, with smart management, result in great gains of other values. These alternative values are not direct first hand monetary values, which make them easy to overlook. They are rather secondary values and values for the society. The figure on the following page (fig. 9) illustrates these aspects quite clearly, number of “+” represents level of goal fulfilment:

| 21 |

Forest management

Figure 9 Benefits from Nature-based forestry (Larsen 2012).

| 22 |

Forest management 4.4.3 Is something missing? It can be argued that the potential benefit for human health and well-being is undervalued within the concept of Nature-based forest management and that this value can add significantly to the total value of the concept, if more actively worked into it. 4.5 Forest Development Types A way to implement Nature-based forest management into user friendly tools for foresters is by using Forest Development Types, abbreviated as FDTs. Currently, 19 different FDTs have been developed, which all are adjusted to be functional in Denmark. FDTs are the long term goal for a forest dynamics. They are composed of tree species that has the potential of growing well together, meaning that one species wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be too dominant and weaken the growing conditions of other species. The dynamics of growth and natural regeneration should be self-sustainable. A description of an FDT is an information sheet that consists of a forest diagram that illustrates the dynamics and social relationships of the tree species complemented by descriptions of: - the structure of the expected stand, - the species composition, - the expected dynamics, - the expected functions of such a forest within the three categories; wood production values, nature values and recreational values, - the expected occurrence, showing which part of Denmark that has suitable conditions. At the bottom of the sheet, there is another diagram that shows the range of soil and water conditions that are suitable for the FDT. (Larsen & Nielsen 2007).

4.5.1 Climatological and soil aspects Even though Denmark is a small country which lay completely within the temperate nemoral climate zone, there is enough difference in conditions to make some species compositions more suitable in one region of Denmark than another. The major factors that determine which species that can grow where in Denmark are the soil conditions and as a consequence of that, water availability. The catalogue of the FDTs has been worked out in a way so that all the variance of Danish climate and soil conditions are covered. 4.5.2 Social aspect All FDTs are evaluated in terms of the social values they can provide and each of the FDTs has a description of what values it can provide socially. Emphasis is often put on the variation of age and species of the stand, making the experience of the forest stand more interesting and diverse than a conventional forest stand would.

| 23 |

Forest management 4.6 Ecosystem services The multiple value of a certain land use can be analysed by the concept named ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits provided by ecosystems and can be divided into four distinct categories: - Provisional services, which include food, water, timber, fibre and crops. - Regulating services, which include regula tion of climate, floods, disease, water quality and waste treatment. - Cultural services, which include recreation, aesthetic enjoyment and spiritual fulfil ment. - Supporting services, which include soil formation, pollination, and nutrient cycling. (Reid et al. 2005).

The focus of this study is mainly within cultural services, whereas the focus of a conventional forester would typically be almost solely on provisional services. The following figure (fig. 10) show the relation between the ecosystem services and their potential positive outcomes:

Figure 10 The relation between the ecosystem services and their potential positive outcomes. (Reid et al. 2005).

| 24 |

Forest management 4.7 Urban Forestry and the social value of nature-based forest management As distance from an urban area decreases, the social value of a forest increases. It is hence also increasingly relevant to put greater emphasis on such values within the forest management. This distinct characteristic of forests close to urban areas has made it reasonable to formulate the concept of urban forestry. Within science, urban forestry is a rather new concept that is still under development. One early definition of urban forestry is: “The art, science and technology of managing trees and forest resources in and around urban community ecosystems for the physiological, sociological, economic and aesthetic benefits trees provide” (Helms 1998). The first comprehensive, European reference book on urban forestry was published as late as in 2005. (Konijnendijk et al. 2005). In that book it is stated that; “Good urban forests do not occur by accident; some form of planning and design is needed to ensure that woodlands, parks and street trees enhance the cityscape and provide settings that encourage people to use them as part of their everyday life. They must be welcoming, safe, attractive and conducive to a wide range of uses.” (Bell et al. 2005). The social value of nature-based forest management rhymes well with the concept of urban forestry, since both put emphasis on the recreational use of forests. One study on nature-based forest management found that there are indications for; “...considerable recreational benefits associated with the visually more diverse structures likely to develop in nature-based forest management.” (Nielsen, Olsen & Lundhede 2007).

According to the (rather limited) experience I have, the strength of the concept of nature-based forest management approach is that the methodology speaks clearly to people within forestry, whereas the concept of urban forestry targets a wider audience, including scientists, politicians and laymen. 4.7.1 Forests close to people; why would people benefit from that? Numerous studies have shown that amenity values as well as property values of residence areas increases as distance to nature areas decreases. (Præstholm et al. 2002, Tyrväinen 1999). Other studies have found associations between distance to a green space and health and health-related quality of life. (Stigsdotter et al. 2010, Grahn & Stigsdotter 2003). Urban green spaces can also act as a buffer, increasing the coping capacity of stressful events among citizens (van den Berg et al. 2010). There seem to be a strong association between proximity to forests and self-reported improvement of quality of life (Præstholm et al. 2002). Another study put further emphasis on the benefits from nature; not only do nature experiences have beneficial effects on people. Prolonged duration and repeated experiences are shown to have cumulative beneficial effects. (Hansmann et al. 2007). As all these mentioned studies show, there is a wide array of positive outcomes for people from UPUFs. The evidence for this is so overwhelming that there are explicit cry-outs from researchers on the importance of urban nature; “We have to restore forests and develop nature where people live.” (Larsen & Nielsen 2012).

| 25 |

Forest management

To further cement what researchers have found out, the following figures (fig. 11) and (fig. 12) indicates that people in Denmark generally wants more forests and trees close to where they live:

Figure 11 The figure tells, in Danish, that “more forests” are one of the most preferred possible directions for development of the neighbouring area, only second to “more bicycle paths”. (Kaae & Madsen 2003).

Figure 12 Level of perceived importance of different ladscape features in nearest urban green space according to respondendts, in %. (Schipperijn et al, 2013).

The next few chapters will go into detail with how forests and nature is important for human health and well-being.

| 26 |

Mental Health

5. Mental health To be able to make forest management interventions that help to improve the health promoting qualities, one needs to have some background knowledge on the diseases one wants to prevent and what characteristics of a forested environment that can have a preventive effect. In this chapter the focus is on mental health and in the following chapter the focus is on physical health. I have chosen to put more emphasis on the chapter about mental health than about physical health, since my interest and expertise are more pronounced regarding mental health aspects. 5.1 What is mental fatigue/stress? Stress is an autonomous reaction to something that is perceived as threatening. This reaction; “triggers, among other things, the circulatory system and causes the release of a number of hormones, such as cortisol and catecholamines, and simultaneously shuts down kidney and digestive functions. The entire organism is mobilized for an emergency.” (Ottosson & Grahn 2008). Stress is thus an effective way of preparing the body to solve an immediate problem. The problem emerges when the cause for the stress reaction cannot be solved quickly and/or if new stress catalysts are continuously added. The lack of relief can then empty the resources for coping and the stress response can evolve into mental fatigue and exhaustion syndrome. When the resources have been emptied, the stress response starts working in the opposite direction and problem solving becomes increasingly difficult;

When these problems start to emerge, it’s a signal that one needs mental restoration. However, a common response is to feel bad about not living up to one’s own standards and thus not allowing oneself the much needed rest. This response leads to a negative spiral regarding mental health. Apart from mental fatigue and exhaustion syndrome, also other diseases can develop; “Prolonged period without the possibility of recovery makes these reactions become dysfunctional and harmful (for instance, the lack of recovery is injurious for the cardiovascular system and the neurohormonal systems of the body)”. (Corazon et. al 2010). 5.2 How is it a problem for the society? When the stress reaction has developed long enough, the capability of functioning at a work place diminishes and one has to go on a sick leave. Rehabilitation from stress related diseases is often a time consuming process and full working capacity is extremely difficult to regain. A population that is increasingly affected by stress related diseases is thus extremely costly for the society. “For 2001, the costs for the Swedish public sector have been calculated to be at least ten billion Euro, and for burnout-depression syndromes alone, the total costs have been estimated to about 8 billion Euro per year” (Grahn & Stigsdotter 2003).

“The most prominent symptoms of “stress-triggered fatigue reactions” are a general feeling of being chased, harassed and stressed, fatigue, irritability, lack of ability to concentrate, insomnia, muscular tension, body ache, stomach trouble, hypersensitivity to sound and light, itches, dizziness, chest pains, impaired short-term memory and general anxiety and depression.” (Grahn & Stigsdotter 2003).

| 27 |

Mental Health 5.3 What is mental restoration? “Restoration is the process of renewing physical, psychological and social capabilities diminished in ongoing efforts to meet adaptive demands.” (Hansmann et al. 2007). Mental restoration can thus be described as regaining the capacity to concentrate and to hold focus on demanding tasks. Physically, mental restoration means that the sympathetic response system, which increases alertness, is replaced with the parasympathetic ditto, which increases relaxation. 5.4 How can the natural environments aid mental restoration? The idea that nature is good for the human mind has been around since ancient times; “In the almost five-thousand-year-old work The Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia, the historical king sings his song of praise to a magnificent garden of paradise. In the garden, King Gilgamesh finds comfort and strength after the sorrow he experienced at the death of his friend.” (Stigsdotter 2005). 150 years ago the famous landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted stated that for individuals experiencing stress, viewing nature; “...employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it; tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind over the body, gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system” (Olmsted, 1865). In more recent times more and more evidence strongly supports that statement by Olmsted. There have been numerous studies on the effect different surroundings have on the state of mind of people. Results of those studies strongly points in the direction that natural surroundings have greater stress reducing qualities than non-natural, urban surroundings, with faster recuperation (Ulrich et al. 1991) and decreased anger and aggressiveness (Hartig et al. 2003).

| 28 |

Stephen Kaplan (1992) argues that one can have restorative expreiences in different environments, but that natural environmens seem to be particularly restorative. Ulrich (1991) further states that some qualities of nature; “…might elicit a parasympathetically dominated response similar to a mild, eyes-open form of ‘relaxation response’ or wakeful, meditation-like state.” This statement suggests that the parasympathetic response system can be triggered by being in a natural environment, which thus supports mental restoration. 5.5 What is it with forested environments that have a particularly restorative effect on people? Forests do undoubtedly affect people in a special way, but what is it with forests that do affect people in a way other environments cannot? The following sub-sections discusses specific nature qualities of forests that might promote mental health.

Mental Health 5.5.1 Forests in general When talking about recreational values, one important recreational value of forests is the experience of intimacy there is under the canopy of a forest is not present in other landscape elements. Larsen & Nielsen (2012) argue that; “…the forest is unique as it is the only landscape element with an understorey environment” They also argue that the human experience depends on the vegetation structure as a whole, indicating that the more well-structured the forest is, the greater recreational values it can provide. (Larsen & Nielsen 2012). When talking about well-being, Simon Bell argues that forests are particularly important; “...because of the way that trees enclose the observer, screen or focus views and contribute to a multi-sensory “engagement” with the environment, create specific aesthetic conditions.” (Bell & Ward Thompson 2014). Bell also argues that forests provide separation from the urban environment through blocking out visual connection, replacing a stressful urban setting with a harmonious exposure to nature. It also seems like people generally prefer those types of natural environments that have a restorative value over other types; “Purcell et al. (2001) showed that restoration and preference are well correlated and theorise that restorative value of a scene may be used as a basis for preference judgment – a view supported by other research. “ (Vassiljev et al. 2015). Linking this with the high level of preference for forests among Danish citizens, one can argue that forests in general could be labelled as restorative environments.

5.5.2 Spatial characteristics of forests that support mental restoration Not all types of forested environments have restorative effects though. Naturalness is seemingly preferred among visitors (Nassauer 1995). One study that takes offset in how different characteristics in parks and green spaces affects people’s level of stress. According to that study, a setting labelled as “Nature” which; “has a wild and untouched quality”…“has a significant and positive connection [with decreasing levels of stress]” (Grahn & Stigsdotter 2010). If this characteristic is reflected upon a forested setting it suggests that if silvicultural management interventions are visually apparent, the restorative quality of the setting would be reduced. That same study found that; “...a combination of Refuge, Nature and Rich in Species, and a low or no presence of Social, is the most preferred urban green space, and could be interpreted as the most restorative environment for stressed individuals.” Interpreting these results into a check list for forest qualities that can reduce stress and thus support mental restoration, the forest should be perceived as rather wild, lush and safe. A quality it should not have in regard to mental restoration is gathering places. Other things that can reduce or hamper the restorative quality of a forested environment is for example traffic noise (Skärbäck 2007) and limited or blocked view (Kaplan et al. 1998, Vassiljev et al. 2015). Serenity and good orientation is thus also important factors for mental restoration in a forest. (ibid.)

| 29 |

Mental Health 5.5.3 Variations between enclosed and more open forested rooms/spaces Things that can help improving orientation in a forest are variations between enclosed and more open forested rooms/spaces;

5.5.4 Water in forests Another feature that naturally helps improving orientation through creating more open forested spaces is lakes. Lakes are also highly preferred among forest visitors;

“For users of urban forests the variation between enclosed, semi-open and open areas is important for orientating in the landscape and for the experience of unity and coherence.” (Larsen & Nielsen 2012). As mentioned earlier, there is a great correlation between preference and restoration and semi-open forest landscapes is therefore arguably restorative;

“Recent and earlier studies have also shown highest preferences for scenes with water” … “but there is also research documenting the importance of openness, light and variation in topography”. (Sonntag-Öström et al. 2014).

“Many preference studies have shown that the semi-open forest landscape is among those most appreciated by leisure seekers. The scattered trees and open canopy offer exploring potential in the landscape and feelings of safety while walking between trees rather than under a closed canopy or in an open area.” (ibid.) Variations in forest stands should also be present in a smaller, interior level; “…users of any urban woodland are varied and so are their preferences for stand interiors. … to fully develop the recreational and ecological potential of urban forests these should include a wider range of forest interiors”

| 30 |

“They preferred the bright, open forest settings and settings with a view over the surroundings, and preferably a view over a lake”. (Nordström et al. 2015). However, such a distinct feature as a lake is not necessary for a forest to be restorative; “…being close to a lake is nice, but not necessary to give the forest a high rehabilitation value” (ibid.) 5.6 Psychology of restorative environments As mentioned earlier, stress is an autonomous reaction that activates the sympathetic response system. The natural way to turn back to a relaxed state is by getting an autonomous reaction that activates the parasympathetic response system. Being autonomous, activation of the parasympathetic response system is not easily controlled by thought. Instead one has to be in a setting and get the sensory impressions necessary to activate the parasympathetic response system; a restorative environment. But how can forests trigger mental restoration? To get rid of stress, one has to put oneself in another state of mind. The following sections describe characteristics of the state of mind needed to achieve restoration.

Mental Health 5.6.1 Being Away (in forests) Being Away can be described as a state of mind, but also as physically moving oneself to another place than the usual. Being Away physically can certainly lay the foundation for Being Away mentally. To get rid of stress, first one has to get away from the setting that is causing stress and to a setting that is different enough for not reminding about worries and stress; “There are reasons to believe that stress caused by high noise preferably can be reduced by recreation in silent areas such as forests close to dwellings.” (Skärbäck 2007). “Daily hassles or rather irritating worries about money and work (indicating the need for restoration) were significantly positively related to restoration. The more worries there were, the more intensive the restorative experiences were.” (Korpela et al. 2008). When the need for getting away from noise and demands has grown large, arriving to a setting that supports that state of mind can be extremely relieving. It can be like a release of pressures that have been building up in the everyday environment. Forests have good base characteristics for providing a sense of Being Away; “…because of the way that trees enclose the observer, screen or focus views and contribute to a multi-sensory “engagement” with the environment, create specific aesthetic conditions” (Bell & Ward Thompson 2014). The term “Being Away” is coined by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan as one of four parameters of their definition of restorative environments. The other three are Extent, Fascination and Compatibility.

5.6.2 Soft Fascination (in forests) Soft Fascination is to experience objects/stimuli that can capture and hold attention in one’s environment that can distract from negative feelings connected to stress, although not so intense that one cannot put oneself in a reflective state of mind. This state of mind, where one is effortlessly holding one’s attention at something fascinating, while simultaneously in a reflective mode is thought to be very restorative. (Kaplan & Kaplan 1989, p. 197). Forests that are rich in species are naturally rich in such objects/stimuli. 5.6.3 Feeling of safety (in forests) Feeling of safety is perhaps the most important state of mind for having a restorative experience; “…very little is known about how to design and maintain urban green spaces in such a way as to optimize their health benefits … One precondition, however, is quite generally thought to be important for restorative effects: safety” (Tyrväinen et al. 2005). The feeling of being unsafe is close to the feeling of stress. The body becomes more tense and the mind more alert. Therefore a prerequisite for an environment to be restorative is that it must feel safe to be in. There are some specific things that can be done to increase safety in forests, such as: well-lit routes with good views to the surroundings (Korpela et al. 2008) and visibility through active management of the understorey and an impression that the area is controlled (Tyrväinen et al. 2005). The dilemma is that excessive focus on safety issues of forests undermines the nature quality of it. One needs to balance delicately between “raw” but still unfrightening nature qualities. This two-sided characteristic of the forest experience is clearly expressed in that some forested environments can even; “…evoke a mixture of positive and negative feelings and thoughts.” (van den Berg & Konijnendijk 2012).

| 31 |

Mental Health

Bell (2005) also argue about the importance of finding the right balance; “Woods should enclose the visitor and screen the visual reminders of the city from view whilst at the same time avoiding creating an impression that frightens people.” (Bell et al. 2005). Urban foresters suggest that, for finding that balance, forest should have distinct areas that have a safer atmosphere with for example simple vegetation structures with great visual permeability and signposting, whereas other areas should have wilder atmospheres with more complex vegetation and enclosed forest rooms. As a forest visitor, through repeated visits, gets more accustomed to the forest, he or she might eventually learn to appreciate the wilder, and possibly more restorative, side of the forest. (Bell et al. 2005, Rydberg & Falck 2000, Konijendijk 2008).

5.6.4 Experiencing nature through all senses (in forests) One important factor in activating the parasympathetic response system is by experiencing sensory impressions that supports restoration. It is through the senses one can get in the previously mentioned states of mind; Being Away, Soft Fascination and feeling of safety. One of the most supportive environments for evoking these emotions and state of mind is the forest; “It is, however, woodland that provides the strongest sense of separation. This is because the mass of trees and the effect of their height can create an inward looking landscape, a separate world, where the visible and audible reminders of the external landscape can be blocked out and the constant, inescapable stimulation to the senses, which can be one of the negative aspects of an urban setting, replaced by the calming and harmonious exposure to nature.” (Bell et al. 2005). 5.6.5 Unlocking the mind --> getting into a reflective mode One of the characteristics about mental fatigue is that the mind is “locked up” in a destructive pattern; “...severe stress causes our entire informational apparatus - comprising senses, emotions and cognition—to function badly, which makes us feel insecure, which in turn causes us to become even more stressed.” (Ottosson & Grahn 2008). When one, through being in a restorative environment can change one’s state of mind, one can also break the negative pattern and get to a deeper stage of restoration that; “...involves ‘reflections on one’s life, on one’s priorities and possibilities, on one’s actions and one’s goals’ (Kaplan & Kaplan 1989, p. 197).” (Hartig et al. 2011). The experience of being in a forest can thus create new pathways for thoughts and make the forest visitor get new perspectives that can help to process things that have been unsolved for a long time and thus relieving the mind.

| 32 |

Physical health

6. Physical health 6.1 Sedentary lifestyle Physical activity is crucial to human health and well-being; “In the United Kingdom, physical inactivity was found to be directly responsible for 3% of morbidity and mortality, resulting in an estimated cost to the National Health Service over 1.5 billion EUR annually.” (Allender et al., 2007). Not being enough physically active is thus a direct cause for getting ill and it is an increasing problem in western societies. (O’Brien et al. 2011). It can cause different physical illnesses, but it can also cause mental illnesses; “In contemporary western societies, many physical illnesses, including coronary disease and cancer, are strongly related to sedentary, physically inactive lifestyles, and chronic stress.” (Hansmann et al. 2007). The study further cements the link between physical activities and mental health; “Positive effects increased with length of visit, and individuals practising sports (e.g., jogging, biking, playing ball) showed significantly higher improvements than those engaged in less strenuous activities (e.g., taking a walk or relaxing). These findings support previous research on how exercise in green spaces promotes well-being and recovery from stress.” (ibid.) The last sentence also tells that the outdoor physical activity is also related to mental health, a statement that rhymes well with the described findings of the previous chapter.

6.2 How are forests linked to physical health? Physical activity is under most circumstances something that is health promoting for both body and mind, but recent epidemiological studies have found that being physically active in a natural environment have health outcomes that are particularly good. (Mitchell 2012) and (Bell & Ward Thompson 2014). There are other studies indicating that merely being in a forest motivates people to move around and be physically active. (Rydberg & Falck 2000) and (Sugiyama and Ward Thompson 2007). 6.3 Which qualities of a forested area can stimulate physical activity? Not much is known about forests in particular, but a study made on urban green spaces point out that; “Presence of a larger Urban Green Spaces (>5 ha) with a wooded area, a water feature, a walking and/or cycling route, lights along (some) trails, a pleasant view to the outside of the Urban Green Spaces, a bike rack, or a parking lot might stimulate Physical Activity.” (Schipperijn et al. 2013). The results of that study indicates that a certain degree of naturalness with high levels of variation combined with proper facilities promotes visitors to be more physically active. Other studies suggest that walking is among the most important health promoting activities and this activity should thus be supported in a health promoting environment. (Stigsdotter & Grahn 2011, Rydberg & Falck 2000).

| 33 |

Stakeholders

7. Stakeholders One thing that is important to consider when working with UPUFs is the needs and inclinations of the different stakeholders that have interest in such forests. There are some trade-offs for a forest owner in relation to having an increased public access in his/her forest. Increasing accessibility and differentiating the forest structures will have a negative influence on productions. The potential societal benefits from UPUFs are believed to be higher than the economic losses from the forest owners, so there are good reasons for increasing accessibility for citizens to those forests.

| 34 |

7.1 Who are the stakeholders? The owners and the users of the forests are the most important stakeholders. In a Danish context, the owners can be divided into owners of public forests and owners of private forests. The three main owners of public forests are: The State (The Nature Agency) The Municipalities The Church The three main owners of private forests are: Private persons Private companies NGO:s The forest users most often include the forest owners, but apart from them other stakeholders also count as users. Among them are: The public Hunters Other than that there are also organizations involved in the management, nature qualities as well as in the use of forests. In Denmark there are several organizations involved in management (and counselling thereof) of forests. To name a few: Skovdyrkerforeningen Dansk Skovforening HedeDanmark SkovByKon There are also some organizations that work primarily with restoring and improving nature qualities. Among them are: Danmarks Naturfredningsforening Verdens skove Finally there are some organizations that work primarily with sustaining and improving recreational and, in recent years, also health promoting qualities in forests (and other outdoor environments). Among them are: Hjerteforeningen FriluftstĂĽdet (which is an umbrella organization with 91 member organizations)

Stakeholders 7.2 Economic interests The willingness to do something is most often a result of what one might gain from it. For private forest owners there hasn’t been a wide range of economic goods from forests historically. It is in more recent years that more and more forest products has been marketed, apart from wood (from mature trees), they can now sell products with a much shorter rotation period, such as: Christmas trees, decorative greenery and energy wood. Apart from production, the main income has been from hunting rentals. (Boon 2003). For public forests, the main income sources have been approximately the same, but more and more focus has been on additional uses of those forests for societal benefits. Recreational use of Danish forests is not easily evaluated, since the access to forests in Denmark is free. However, some studies use travel cost measurements and willingness to pay to get an idea of an economic value for forest recreation. One study found that; “…on average, the Danish population value access to forested sites at approximately 3.76 €/visit.” (Termansen et al. 2013). There is also an increased public interest in using forests for different sports and adventure activities, where there is potential for user payments and thus also an income for the forest owner. The potential public health benefits from visiting UPUFs can be a very large societal economic benefit, so it makes sense for governmental owners, such as the state and the municipalities, to work with increasing recreational and health promoting qualities of their forests (since a healthier population cost less for the society). Private forest owners don’t get such gains.

7.3 Public involvement There are possibilities for the public to get involved and help out with the management of forests in their proximity, however; “Denmark has a long tradition of volunteering in the social sector and amateur sports, but people seem more reluctant when local greenspaces are concerned.” (Konijnendijk 2013). Instead, the majority of the interest the public have in UPUFs has to do with their own needs and inclinations, where there is no or little gain for the forest owner. The exception is the hunters, whose interest is still on their own needs and inclination, but where the forest owner is paid for their use of the forest. (Boon 2003). If the public is involved with management issues of UPUFs, there are possibilities for; “…enhancing ownership, legitimacy, and improving the quality of decision-making” (Konijnendijk 2013).

| 35 |

Stakeholders 7.5 Collaboration Collaboration in the decision process as well as in management and maintenance issues can be of great importance and be beneficial for both owners and users if done properly. But there can be difficult to make it work; â&#x20AC;&#x153;it has also been made clear that meaningful public involvement is not always easy to achieve and often will require a step-wise process of moving from governance by government to sharing power and responsibility.â&#x20AC;? (Konijnendijk 2013). In a study by Braunstein et al. (2011) regarding governmental decision to lay out paths on privately owned land, they found out that the owners appreciated being involved in the decision process and found it irritating when promises were not held.

| 36 |

7.6 Potential conflicts / disagreements There are many pitfalls to avoid when working with issues regarding owners and users of UPUFs. Forest visitors who do things that are not permitted by law are a big source of conflicts. According to Olsen (2001), 47% of forest owners in Denmark experience this as problematic and that there are (at least) 17 of those non-law abiding behaviours. The six most problematic behaviours are: - Loose dogs - Trekking outside of roads and paths - Driving of motorized vehicles - Riding without permission - Littering - Mountain biking outside of roads and paths The reasons for these behaviours being problematic is not just because they are not permitted by law, but also because of it actually harming the forest environment and disturbing the wildlife. (Olsen 2001). Conflicts can also emerge between hunters and other users (ibid.) as well as in between users. (Bakhtiari et al. 2014). There has, however, been made an experimental study where recreational paths were laid out in private owned nature areas. In that study, it was concluded that owners pre-perception of visitors with improper behaviour were true to some degree, but they were generally a bit exaggerated and the actual behaviour pattern of visitors werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t as bad as they had feared. (Braunstein et al. 2011).

Stakeholders

Figure 13 Collaboration in the decision process is important.

| 37 |

Case study

8. Case study 8.1 Introduction The use of a case study enables me to do two things that are crucial for fulfilling the aims of this study: - Site visits enables me to experience actual forests and make site analyses of their rec reational and health promoting potential. - Interviewing actual forest owners enables me to gain first-hand information about forest management and attitudes regarding public access in existing forests.

8.3 Data collection The data needed for the analyses used for narrowing down the subject was mainly collected through ArcGIS. With ArcGIS I had the tools to determine: - the urban areas - the 3km distances from the urban areas - the forest cover - the soil composition - the landscape topography - the size and number of cadastres

Before doing these things, the forests must first be chosen. To do that, a selection process must be conducted. The selection process helped me to narrow down my case to five forests and seven forest owners.

The name of individual cadastres was found through “Denmark’s environment portal”: http://arealinformation.miljoeportal.dk/distribution/ The owner of each cadastre was found through “the public information server”: https://ois.dk/ A historical analysis was conducted to learn about the historical distribution of forests and maps were found through a website with historical maps of Denmark by the department for geographical data: http://hkpn.gst.dk/

8.2 Analyses Several types of analyses need to be conducted to get an overview of the case. The methodology of narrowing down the case involved many analyses which will be further explained in the following sections. Spatial analyses were made based on site visits to determine recreational and health promoting qualities of chosen forests. Finally the interviews were analysed and held up against the thesis statement.

| 38 |

Case study 8.4 Overview of Danish towns (GIS) The first map on following two pages (fig. 14) is a topographic map of Denmark (not including the island of Bornholm). The map also includes a layer that shows the forest cover and red outlines of the 25 biggest towns in Denmark. The outlines represent the 3km distance from the urban area, within which UPUFs may be situated. The chosen town, Kolding, is marked with a slightly thicker blue outline.

8.5 Choosing a representative town (GIS) Choosing a representative town was a tricky task. First I needed to be clear on what I wanted to investigate with the case study and how detailed the study were to be. Doing a thorough detailed research on ownerships of all 25 towns was not a realistic option for this project, so I focused on state forests as a parameter for choosing among Danish towns. I wanted state forests to be part of the UPUFs of the town I were about to choose, but not too dominantly represented. The reason for choosing state forests as a parameter is that a map of all state owned land in Denmark is readily accessible at the website of Naturstyrelsen – a governmental organization that manages all state owned land: http://naturstyrelsen.dk/media/nst/67930/NST_ arealer%20og%20NFEr.pdf The second of the two maps on the following two pages (fig. 15) show areas owned by the state. It can be seen that within some urban areas, especially on Zealand, none of the forests are owned by the state, whereas some other urban areas has solely forests owned by the state. At first I wanted to sort out 5 representative Danish towns and for this I developed a set of inclusion criteria: - Both state forests and other forests. - Not too dominated by state forests, both by number and by area. - Not too dominated by forests other than state forests – also area wise. - Several different “forest zones” (Denmark has four). - Manageable size of town (Below 150 000inh.). The chosen five towns were: Esbjerg, Kolding, Horsens, Herning and Viborg. Soon I realized that five towns were four too many and one single town were chosen. From these alternative towns, Kolding was chosen strictly by convenience.

| 39 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 14 The 25 biggest urban and peri-urban areas in Denmark, marked with red outlines, except the chosen town Kolding, which is marked with a blue outline. The map also show forested areas of Denmark. (GIS).

| 40 |

Case study

Figure 15 Areas owned by the state (Danish Nature Agency) are here shown in purple. “Naturforvaltningsenheder og arealer” (Danish Nature Agency)+(GIS).

| 41 |

Case study 8.6 Kolding and its landscape Kolding is the 7th biggest town in Denmark with almost 60000inh. (Danmarks Statistik: Statistikbanken). It is part of the “triangle-area” which consists mainly of three big towns situated close to each other, Kolding, Vejle and Fredericia, which are all among the 25 biggest towns in Denmark. The proximity between these urban centres means that there are great potential for further growth in the area. Kolding is situated at the base of a fjord. The landscape in and around Kolding is a river valley, created during the last ice age, where the glacier shoved great amounts of soil, mainly from the Baltic sea bed, to the west. When melting, great rivers were created underneath the ice. These rivers dug numerous distinct, what were to become, valleys in the moraine landscape. The deepest part of the valley around Kolding is currently under sea level and makes out the fjord. The whole area where Kolding is now situated is a very typical example of a glacier created river valley and this quite dramatic landscape is clearly visible on a height model map made through ArcGIS. (Fig. 16). Some forests can be quite clearly visible on this map, as the canopies reach quite high above the ground. The slopes of the valley are somewhat steep and thus not suitable as agricultural land. They have to some extent remained as forested land, but many of these areas have been turned into pastures. The bottoms of the valleys are dominated by wet meadows and small lakes, often with a stream running through.

| 42 |

The plateau in which the river has dug its way through consists of rich moraine soil which is very suitable for plant growth of any kind. (Fig. 17) shows a soil map collected from ArcGIS. If the vegetation were to develop naturally it would end up as forested land in the whole area, which it probably was long ago. Instead, the area has now mostly been turned into agricultural fields with forested “islands” spread out in between. This mosaic looking land use is clearly visible on an ortophoto over Kolding. (Fig 18). The population of Kolding is concentrated in the centre of the town and in some suburbs; Bramdrupdam, Seest, Tved, Vonsild and Nørre Bjert. (Fig 19). Kolding is also a transport node in Denmark for motorized traffic to all parts of Denmark as well as to Germany in the south.

Case study

Â´

Figure 16 Height model of the landscape around Kolding. (GIS).

| 43 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 17 Soil map of the landscape around Kolding. (GIS).

| 44 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 18 Ortophoto of the landscape around Kolding. (GIS).

| 45 |

Case study

Â´

Bramdrupdam NĂ¸rre Bjert

Tved Seest

Vonsild

Figure 19 Analysis map of the population and infrastructure around Kolding. (GIS).

| 46 |

Case study 8.7 A brief history of forests in and around Kolding As seen on these three historical maps (fig. 20, fig. 21 and fig. 22), deforestation that contributed in fragmenting some of the forests occurred between 1780 and circa 1880, but since then no further deforestation has taken place. On the contrary, some new forests have been planted. Most notably is Harte skov, which was planted between 1991 and 1994. Another interesting fact is that many of the other forested areas of today were also forested back in 1780, making the land use, and thus the forest climate continuous over many centuries with a potential for specialized forest habitats to develop over time. Maps earlier than from 1780 are not particularly precise and thus not very reliable, so investigating the forest cover around Kolding from older maps wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t contribute further to the understanding. The map from circa 1880 is made between 1842 and 1899. Historical maps are found through the Danish department for geographical data: http:// hkpn.gst.dk/

| 47 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 20 Historical map of the landscape around Kolding in 1780 (collected from the Danish department for geographical data).

| 48 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 21 Historical map of the landscape around Kolding circa 1880 (collected from the Danish department for geographical data).

| 49 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 22 Current topographical map of the landscape around Kolding. (collected from the Danish environmental portal).

| 50 |

Case study 8.8 UPUFs in Kolding (GIS) When working with the forests in and around Kolding it was decided to have an inclusion criteria and the limit was chosen to be 3 km from the urban area of Kolding. The potential recreational use of the forests are, as earlier mentioned, increased with decreased distance to the urban area and with this fact in mind, a 1 km limit for forests of special interest was also introduced. The following map (fig. 23) shows the forested areas in and around Kolding with two buffer lines which represent 1 km distance and 3 km distance from the urban area. Forested areas marked as green lays partly or completely within 1 km and forested areas marked with yellow lays between 1 and 3 km from the urban area. Bright green areas represent forests which just barely lay on the 1 km limit. ArcGIS was used as the major method for finding the forests. A GIS layer based on a semi-automatic system that has tracked forests in Denmark through remote sensing was used for mapping the majority of the UPUFs around Kolding (Huber & TĂ¸ttrup 2012). The forest tracking system is, however, not entirely flawless and there are a few mismatches, both for forests that do exist that werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t tracked and for forests that do not exist that were tracked. These mismatches were controlled for and corrected through studying of the most recent available orthophoto of the area from 2014. There are still some minor mismatches and disputable areas regarding forests in and around Kolding, but it was decided not to spend more time on correcting these. In total, 34 forests were found, quite evenly distributed, within 3 km around Kolding.

8.9 Who owns the forests? (OIS data and GIS) The first step in conducting interviews of forest owners is simply to find out who owns the forests. All Danish properties are measured out into cadastres and information about ownerships of each cadastre is readily available. It is however a time consuming work to map the ownerships of forests around the town of Kolding, as it probably is around most Danish towns, since almost every forest is made up by numerous cadastres. The two maps on pages (53 and 54) (fig. 24 and fig. 25) are both cadastral maps showing forests in and around Kolding. The first map shows the relevant cadastres in red and yellow colours. The red marked cadastres indicate that the whole cadastre is covered with forested vegetation, whereas the yellow marked cadastres are only partly covered with forested vegetation. The second map only take ownerships into consideration and the colours here indicate by which of the six major owner groups each cadastre is owned by.

| 51 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 23 Topographical map showing all found UPUFs in and around Kolding. (GIS).

| 52 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 24 Cadastral map showing cadastres with UPUFs in and around Kolding. Colours are showing partly or completely forested cadastres. (GIS).

| 53 |

Case study

Â´

Figure 25 Cadastral map showing cadastres with UPUFs in and around Kolding. Colours are showing ownerships of those cadastres. (GIS).

| 54 |

Case study 8.10 How much UPUFs are there? (GIS) 34 individual forests were found through mapping of forests in and around Kolding within (or partly within) the chosen distance limit of 3 km. Approximately 1 670 hectares of forested land was found within those 3 km, counting for 8.9% of the total land cover of 18 820 hectares. In a Danish context, this percentage is a bit low, as the forest cover is about 14.4% of the total area in Denmark. (Nord-Larsen et al. 2015). The following graph (fig. 26) shows the percentage of the 1 670 hectares of forest in and around Kolding divided into the different owner groups.

The composition of ownerships of forests in Kolding corresponds remarkably well with those on a national scale, collected from the national nature agency, which is in charge of all state forests. (Fig. 27). The only big difference between the two is that the municipality owns comparably more forest in and around Kolding than in Denmark as a whole, which can be expected as municipalities in Denmark in general focuses more on urban areas than on rural areas. The method for mapping ownerships of the forests is presented later in this thesis.

Figure 26 Percentage of UPUFs in and around Kolding by ownerships.

Figure 27 Percentage of forests in Denmark as a whole by ownerships. (Nord-Larsen et al. 2015).

| 55 |

Case study 8.11 Choosing a few representative forests (GIS) The need for further reduction of the case quickly became apparent when investigating the ownerships of forests in and around Kolding, so a decision was made to limit the number of forests to five. I wanted to interview forest owners from as many different owner categories as possible, so that I would gain knowledge about similarities and differences between different types of forest owners. For the forests to be as relevant as possible in terms of recreational use and health promotion, distance was an important factor in choosing forests. Since my method of defining the distance measures the direct line, and not the actual travel distance, I didn’t want to choose forests that risked being more than 3km away following existing routes. One prerequisite was therefore that part of the forest should be within 1km from Kolding by a direct line. The very most central forest of Kolding, Marielund/ Bramdrup skov, was chosen as it is the biggest forest owned by the municipality and because it is one of the only “true” urban forest of Kolding, as it is situated right in the centre of the town. As this forest is very well used recreationally and most likely the preferred forest to visit for people living in that part of the town, I did not want to include other forests right close by, but rather forests in other ends of Kolding. Marielund/ Bramdrup skov stretches from the centre of Kolding towards northeast. Therefore the other forests I chose for my case are situated in the south and western part of Kolding.

| 56 |

The next forest chosen for the case is the most urban of the state forests, Harte skov, which is situated straight to the west of Kolding. The remaining three forests are completely or partly private forests, and where both a church and a private company are represented. They are chosen to represent different landscape types and to be the potentially most preferred forest for visiting for different parts of the citizens of Kolding, situated at the south-west, to the south and to the east of Kolding. The chosen forests are: - Marielund / Bramdrup skov (Municipal forest) - Harte skov (State forest) - Seest skov / Kolding kirkeskov (Partly private, partly church and partly municipal forest) - Skov ved Rebæk strand (“forest by the Rebæk shore”) (Partly municipal and partly private forest) - Vonsild skov (Private forest) A map of the chosen forests is shown on the next page. The map also shows the urban area, the 1 and 3 kilometre limits around it, larger roads and lakes and waterbodies. (Fig. 28). On the page after, cadastral maps are showing the ownerships of the chosen forests individually. (Fig 29 through fig. 33) cf. (fig. 25). A thorough description of the chosen forests comes in the following section.

Case study

Â´

Figure 28 The chosen forests and where they are situated in relation to the urban area of Kolding. (GIS).

| 57 |

Case study

Figure 29 Cadastral map of Marielund/Bramdrup skov (Municipal forest) (GIS).

Figure 30 Cadastral map of Harte skov (State forest) (GIS).

Figure 31 Cadastral map of Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov (Partly private, partly church and partly municipal forest) (GIS).

Figure 33 Cadastral map of Vonsild skov (Private forest). (GIS).

| 58 |

Figure 32 Cadastral map of Skov ved Rebæk strand (Partly municipal and partly private forest) (GIS). Note that the biggest cadastre is mostly agricultural land.

Figure 34 Colour sheme for cadastres.

Case study 8.12 Description of the chosen forests On the following pages the five chosen forests will be described more thoroughly. 8.12.1 Marielund / Bramdrup skov (Municipal forest) Marielund skov and Bramdrup skov are municipal forests situated on both sides of one of the most prominent “branch” of the Kolding river valley landscape, making the landscape of the forests quite dramatic with steep valley sides. This gives the area a mountainous atmosphere, even though there are no hard rock cliffs to be seen. The bottom of the valley is held as an open pasture that separates the two forests from each other. The southernmost part of Marielund skov does also cover the bottom of the valley, enclosing the Marielund lake. The area has a long history of recreational use and has been admired for its landscape beauty through time. Today, the location at the very centre of Kolding makes the forest the most preferred nature area to visit amongst citizens of Kolding. The popularity of the forest has in recent years put increased pressure onto the use of the forest and more and more user groups are interested in using the area for their respective uses. The uses range between recreational walking, jogging, dog walking as well as bird watching and riding mountain bikes. The municipality of Kolding, who owns the forest has the intent that the forest should be used recreationally, but has also through an interview, expressed increased concern about potential conflicts between different user groups as more uses are pressed into the same forest. Out of the five forests, Marielund / Bramdrup skov is the second largest with its 98 hectares of forested area.

Figure 35 Soil types at Marielund/Bramdrup skov (GIS). Cf. fig. 17

Figure 36 Elevation at Marielund/Bramdrup skov (GIS). Cf. fig. 16

Figure 37 Ortophoto at Marielund/Bramdrup skov (GIS).

| 59 |

Case study 8.12.2 Harte skov (State forest) Harte skov is a young forest, planted between 1991 and 1994 by the state. It is planted on previous agricultural land in between two of the major “branches” of the Kolding river valley. Along the edges of the forest that faces the valleys, the landscape is just as dramatic as in Marielund skov, but most of the forest is situated on a rather flat plateau. The greater part of the forest is situated more than one kilometre from the urban area but all of the forest lay within three kilometres. At the time of planting, wood production values were still the main interest, but over the 25 years that have passed since, other values have gained more and more attention. Harte skov is nowadays regarded as mainly a recreational forest with some wood production values added to it. The forest is still a very young forest and its spatial qualities are still developing. A small part of the forest is, as yet the only urban or peri-urban forest in Kolding, laid out as a “dog forest”. A dog forest is an area where dogs are allowed to run without a leach. There are currently more than 390 such forests in Denmark: http://www.hundeskovene.dk/ (In Danish) Most often dog forests are fenced, as is the case with the area in Harte skov. Out of the five forests, Harte skov is the largest with its 174 hectares of forested area. The maps are therefore in a larger scale than those of the other forests.

Figure 38 Soil types at Harte skov (GIS). Cf. fig. 17

Figure 39 Elevation at Harte skov (GIS). Cf. fig. 16

Figure 40 Ortophoto at Harte skov (GIS).

| 60 |

Case study 8.12.3 Seest skov / Kolding kirkeskov (Partly private, partly church and partly municipal forest) As seen on the map from 1780, the area where the forest is situated today was back then part of a much larger contiguous forested area, which was to be fragmented sometime during the following 100 years. Since then (circa 1880), the forested area has stayed almost exactly the same. The ground is gently sloping to the east, except for the easternmost part, where the slope is much steeper. This eastern edge is part of the river valley in and around Kolding. The soil in and around Seest skov is rich, which can explain the deforestation in many neighbouring areas between 1780 and circa 1880. In 1856 part of the forest was given to the Sct. Nicolai church of Kolding, to which it still belongs. The rest of the forest is private, except the north-eastern corner. This part of the forest is situated on the opposite side of the river valley and is owned by the municipality. The forest is not used very heavily for recreation, since it lacks recreational facilities. It’s mostly used for forestry and hunting. Out of the five forests, Seest skov / Kolding kirkeskov is the third largest with its 56 hectares of forested area.

Figure 41 Soil types at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov (GIS). Cf. fig. 17

Figure 42 Elevation at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov (GIS). Cf. fig. 16

Figure 43 Ortophoto at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov (GIS).

| 61 |

Case study 8.12.4 Skov ved Rebæk strand (Partly municipal and partly private forest) As with Seest skov / Kolding kirkeskov, skov ved Rebæk strand was part of a larger contiguous forested area by 1780, which was later to become fragmented. Since the end of the 19th century the forest area has increased to the east. As with the three previous forests, skov ved Rebæk Strand is situated along the river valley. The difference is that skov ved Rebæk strand is situated where the valley goes deeper than the sea level and is thus part of the Kolding fjord. The westernmost part of the forest, which is about 750 meters long and just between 40 and 50 meters wide lays right on the steep slope down to the fjord and is owned by the municipality. The rest of the forest is privately owned. Parts of the forest is accessible through one of Denmark’s national cycle routes: http://trafikkort. vejdirektoratet.dk/index.html?usertype=3 There is, however, limited access to the private owned parts of the forest outside of this route. Path systems within the private part of the forest other than the cycle route are almost non-existing and there is thus no recreational use of the forest for people other than the owners. Out of the five forests, skov ved Rebæk strand is the smallest with its 31 hectares of forested area.

Figure 44 Soil types at Skov ved Rebæk strand (GIS). Cf. fig. 17

Figure 45 Elevation at Skov ved Rebæk strand (GIS). Cf. fig. 16

| 62 |

Figure 46 Ortophoto at Skov ved Rebæk strand (GIS).

Case study 8.12.5 Vonsild skov (Private forest) Vonsild skov was, just as the previous two forests, part of a larger contiguous forested area back in 1780 that in the following century became fragmented. Since circa 1880, the area of the forest has remained exactly the same. Today the 100% private owned forest appears as an island in a dominantly agricultural landscape. Vonsild skov is the only out of the five chosen forests that is not situated along one of the river valleys around Kolding. Instead it lays on a plateau just south of the river valley. The only access to the forest is from a road without a bicycle path, although there is a bicycle path less than 100 meters away, so there is potential for improving recreational accessibility greatly with just small means. Out of the five forests, Vonsild skov is the second smallest with its 51 hectares of forested area.

Â´

Figure 47 Soil types at Vonsild skov (GIS). Cf. fig. 17

Â´

Figure 48 Elevation at Vonsild skov (GIS). Cf. fig. 16

Â´

Figure 49 Ortophoto at Vonsild skov (GIS).

| 63 |

Results

9. Results 9.1 The presentation of the results The results of this thesis consist mainly of the outcomes of my case study, which builds upon the literature research. The results of this study is thus divided into three chapters; one chapter each for the two main methods of the case study and a chapter where these methods and the literature study are held up against the questions asked in my thesis statement. (Fig. 50). 10 The field work 11 The interviews 12 Answering the questions from the thesis statement

Literature research Â¤ Case study Â¤

RESULTS

}

1 Field work 3 Answering the + questions from the 2Interviews thesis statement Figure 50 The results of the study.

| 64 |

The field work

10. The field work 10.1 How the forests are experienced The field work is one of the three main methods of this thesis. After the five forests were chosen and before I conducted the interviews, I visited the forests to experience them on myself. I did this to gain greater understanding of; - The forest structure (age and planting structure) - The perception of the landscape and atmosphere of the forest (landscape types) - The perceived distance to the town (perceived remoteness of the forest) - The actual and perceived accessibility of the forests (paths leading to and into the forest) - The peacefulness of the forest (perceived level of noise from urban environment) - The “wildness” of the forest (perceived naturalness of vegetation, the experience of “being away”)

Learning and experiencing these things helped me analysing the forests and prepared me for conducting the interviews of the forest owners. It also gave me clear indications of how well suited the forests are in terms of mental restoration and for physical activity. As described earlier, perceived peacefulness and wildness of a forest increases the potential for mental restoration and that high levels of accessibility increases the potential for physical activity. Visits to all five forests were conducted during the spring and summer of 2016, mostly on days with sunny weather. All forests were only visited one or two times, so all parts of the forests weren’t visited and, as a result the analyses of the forests are rather shallow.

| 65 |

The field work 10.1.1 Marielund/Bramdrup skov Marielund/Bramdrup skov was visited on 14th of April 2016 and the first impression I got of the forest is that it’s a well-developed recreational forest with a wide array of uses. The forest structure: Most forested areas consist of well-aged deciduous forest stands (mainly beech) with high visual permeability. The perception of the landscape and atmosphere of the forest: Paths in the forest takes one up and down the river valley, making the perception of the landscape intense and interesting. There is also great variation between open and enclosed landscape types. The perceived distance to the town: The forest is situated right in the middle of the town, so it doesn’t feel remote at all. The actual and perceived accessibility of the forests: The forest is accessible from all directions so the accessibility is generally very good. There are however few concerns regarding accessibility for handicapped people for whom only a limited amount of entry points are accessible. The main path system in the forest is both wide and flat enough even for wheelchairs to get around.

| 66 |

The peacefulness of the forest: The down-part of this forest is that it is so popular and filled with activities that peaceful places might be hard to find. One should not expect complete solitude in any part of the forest, but the experience I had was that the farther from the lake you got, the fewer people you met. The “wildness” of the forest: Due to the age of the forest, planting structures have become diffuse enough for the forest to appear as natural. It is however apparent that the main focuses in the management of the forest are accessibility and activities. The experience of being away is thus not very apparent. Biggest asset: The accessibility/proximity. Biggest disadvantage: That it’s too crowded (lack of peacefulness).

The field work

Figure 52 Wide and accessible paths with clear and informational signage. Figure 51 The open area between Marielund and Bramdrup.

Figure 53 Differentiated path systems.

Figure 55 Benches could be found throughout the forest.

Figure 54 Specialized mountain bike routes.

| 67 |

The field work 10.1.2 Harte skov Harte skov was visited on the 18th of May and again on the 30th of May 2016 and the first impression I got from the forest is that it’s a young forest with an astonishing surrounding landscape. As it is the biggest of the five chosen forests, it is also the forest which I have the least complete coverage of. My fieldwork of Harte skov is therefore limited to the southern part of the forest, which is completely separated from the northern part as there are agricultural fields in between the two parts. The forest structure: The young forest is planted in rows which are still clearly visible, hampering the experience of naturalness in the forest. But to compensate for this, as I experienced it, a great diversity of species has been planted. The forest, despite of it’s young age, is planted before the forest development types were created. Instead the forest consists of rather small monoculture areas with meadows in between. This type of structure creates an artificial, although very varied course through the forest. The perception of the landscape and atmosphere of the forest: Changes between open and more enclosed landscape types are worked into the forest plantation. This created a spatially diverse course through the forest even though the landscape in the forest isn’t very hilly. On the other hand, the north-western edge of the forest, which is at the edge of a slope to one of the river valleys, has several great landscape vistas over the surrounding landscape, providing that part of the forest with a grand atmosphere.

The perceived distance to the town: According to the buffer lines, Harte skov is just about one kilometre away from the part of Kolding which is situated closest to the forest. This part is however a quite small suburb, so for people living in a more densely populated part of Kolding, Harte skov would appear as a remote area. The actual and perceived accessibility of the forests: As it is a state forest, one is allowed to walk where one wants to within the forest. There is also a well-established path system in the forest. However, how one gets to the forest is as simple. Either one can go by one road that passes over one highway and under another, or one can go on a path along a railway which is no longer in use called “Troldhedebanestien”. Either way, the distance one has to travel exceeds 3 kilometres, unless one lives in the earlier mentioned suburb. The peacefulness of the forest: As with other state forests, recreational functions in Harte skov are taken into consideration. The state forests have arranged recreational functions into three categories which can be interpreted as different levels of expected need for visitor facilities. The areas with most need for facilities is called facility zone, whereas the area with the least need is called the quiet zone. However, in Harte skov no area is laid out to be a quiet zone. Even though that is the case, opportunities for experiencing peacefulness in Harte skov is great. The “wildness” of the forest: There is potential for a wildness character to develop in Harte skov, but for now, the plantation structures are still much too visible for the forest to appear as natural or wild. Biggest asset: The size and surroundings. Biggest disadvantage: That it’s too far away.

| 68 |

The field work

Figure 56 Magnificent views.

Figure 58 Some forest atmosphere have begun to develop.

Figure 57 Small monoculture areas planted in straight lines.

Figure 59 Possibility for camping in the forest.

Figure 60 The path system makes the best out of the forest edges.

| 69 |

The field work 10.1.3 Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov was visited on the 13th of April and again on the 14th of June 2016 and the first impression I got from the forest is that it feels more distant from the town than it really is and that it’s rich in nature. The forest structure: The forest structure in Seest skov is quite diverse as there are several individual forest owners who apparently have different ways of managing their forests. The most structurally diverse part of the forest is that owned by the church. The forest management of this part of the forest seem to be close to nature, but lacking any aspirations of being a recreational forest with extremely diffuse paths which are completely overgrown with tall grasses. Other parts of the forest have a stricter structural appearance, especially in areas with conifers where even-aged monocultures are planted in rows. These areas are quite small, so the overall appearance of the forest structure is still diverse. The perception of the landscape and atmosphere of the forest: Just as the forest structure is diverse, the perception of the landscape also differs in different part of the forest. The path systems in the forest are often leading to diffuse dead ends, which hampers the feeling of safety when walking in the forest. It also adds insecurity on whether one is even allowed to walk further, as parts of the forest are privately owned. The greatest experience of the forest atmosphere is at the eastern edge of the forest, where one can walk along the base of one of the river valleys looking up on the steep forested slope.

The perceived distance to the town: The forest is situated close to both Seest and Vonsild, both of which are quite densely populated areas of Kolding. Despite of this, Seest skov doesn’t appear to be close to the town and I didn’t see a single forest visitor on neither of my visits to the forest. The actual and perceived accessibility of the forests: The forest has five entry points, although two are through private properties, so only three of the entry points are publically accessible. At neither of these entry points there are any signs indicating that a visit to the forest is welcome. There are however some signage on the opposite side of the river valley, in the area owned by the municipality. All those signs lead the visitor along the valley and not into the forest. Overall it is as if the forest tries to hide from potential visitors, indicating that the forest owners have little interest in improving public access to their forest. The peacefulness of the forest: The feeling of remoteness also induces a feeling of peacefulness. Even though the forest is situated closer to the town centre than Harte skov, it feels more like a hideaway or a hidden gem. The diffuse and sometimes confusing path system can hamper the feeling of peacefulness as it can contribute to a fear of getting lost. The “wildness” of the forest: The level of perceived wildness varies through the forest. Areas in the part of the forest owned by the church appear wild and at some places even abandoned. In other parts of the forests, silvicultural practises are much more apparent and the forest is thus more “tamed”. Biggest asset: The peacefulness. Biggest disadvantage: The confusing and vague path system.

| 70 |

The field work

Figure 61 Roads for forest machines. Hunting facilities can also be seen on this picture.

Figure 63 Young oak plantation provides a light atmosphere.

Figure 62 One of the many different atmospheres within the forest.

Figure 64 Accessibility is hampered as path system is not well maintained in parts of the forest. (In the church owned part of the forest).

Figure 65 Forest edge at the bottom of the valley.

| 71 |

The field work 10.1.4 Skov ved Rebæk strand Skov ved Rebæk strand was visited on the 31st of May 2016 and the first impression I got from the forest is the dramatic forested slope right down to the fjord. The second impression was the big contrast of structure between the municipality owned part of the forest and the privately owned part. The forest structure: As already mentioned, the structure of the forest differed a lot, despite of the fact that it’s the smallest of the five forests. The municipality owned part of the forest consists mainly of old beech trees, but also other mature climax deciduous species. As one walks into the privately owned part of the forest the structure first turns into a grove of flowering trees in a pasture landscape and then into a monoculture spruce stand and then again into a deciduous dominated stand, although not as mature as in the municipality owned part of the forest. The perception of the landscape and atmosphere of the forest: The atmosphere is dominated by the proximity to the fjord and the steep slope down to it. Other than that, the great variation of landscape types along the path is an outstanding landscape feature. The forest lacks explorative qualities, as there are only few accessible paths. Within the privately owned parts of the forest, there is only one gravel path which leads from one end of the forest to the other. The perceived distance to the town: As the forest is situated right next to the most central beach area in Kolding, it is certainly known by many citizens of the town. For citizens not living in the quarter of Rebæk one does have to cross a moderately trafficked road to get to the forest. There are, however, two easily accessible passages. All in all the forest is perceived as close to the town.

| 72 |

The actual and perceived accessibility of the forests: The accessibility to and through the forest is good. The accessibility within the forest is good in the municipality owned part of the forest and not good at all in the private owned part of the forest. There are even fences with barbed wire along the forest edge at some places. There are currently no possibilities to walk a circular path within the forest. The shortest circular route goes far beyond the forest and out on the country side, a distance of 9.4 kilometres. The peacefulness of the forest: As the gravel path through the forest is part of one of Denmark’s national cycle routes many people use it for jogging and bicycling, thus decreasing the levels of peacefulness. In the municipality owned part of the forest one can find access paths to the shore of the fjord and experience a peaceful atmosphere. Although still close to the main path, sounds from the waves would diminish disturbance from users of the path. The “wildness” of the forest: As the forest structure is very varied, so is the wildness experience. In the municipality owned part of the forest there is some wildness, just because of the old forest atmosphere and the dramatic landscape. Some other parts of the forest have also got a wildness quality, but those parts are not physically accessible and thus only vaguely perceived from a distance from the path. Biggest asset: The variation along the path and the landscape. Biggest disadvantage: Lack of circular paths and “unfriendliness” of private parts of the forest towards forest visitors.

The field work

Figure 66 Barbed wire creates an unwelcoming atmosphere in parts of the forest.

Figure 67 Variations between open pastures and dense forest rooms enriches the experience of walking in the forest.

Figure 68 Benches could be found in the municipality owned part of the forest.

Figure 69 Blind end of a side path in private owned part of the forest. Wild but inaccessible.

Figure 70 Where the shore of the fjord meets the forest, one can experience a peaceful and secluded atmosphere.

| 73 |

The field work 10.1.5 Vonsild skov Vonsild skov was visited on the 31st of May 2016 and the first impression I got from the forest is that for a private forest, the path system was remarkably well maintained and that walking in the forest felt both peaceful and safe. The forest structure: The forest consists of several patches of monoculture stands, both of deciduous and coniferous species. The individual patches of coniferous trees are felled through clear cutting, but as the patches are small and of different age, the forest atmosphere is only slightly harmed. The difference in age and species make the experience of walking through the forest diverse in spite of the dominantly monoculture stands. The perception of the landscape and atmosphere of the forest: Although there aren’t particularly old trees in the forest, it is perceived as an old forest as the flora and fauna of the forest is well developed. The perception that the forest supports a rich wildlife makes the atmosphere of the forest interesting despite the comparably dull and flat landscape in which the forest is situated. The perceived distance to the town: The entrance to the forest is situated approximately two kilometres south east of the quarter of Vonsild. For citizens living in the southern and eastern parts of Vonsild, Vonsild skov is the closest forest and thus possibly the most preferred forest to visit. There is, however, no signs showing the way to the forest, so people might not know about it. Being at the forest, the town seem distant as it’s not visible from the forest.

| 74 |

The actual and perceived accessibility of the forests: From the quarter of Vonsild, there is a bicycle path leading almost all the way to the only entrance point of the forest and there are well maintained paths within the forest. The actual accessibility is sufficient, but it might be a bit too far away from Kolding to be perceived as an urban forest and thus a site for everyday use. As with Seest skov, the forest seems almost hidden from visitors as there are nothing but a sign telling that motorized traffic is forbidden at the entrance and no signs showing the way to the forest from the town. The peacefulness of the forest: The forest is situated far away from heavily trafficked roads, so disturbing anthropogenic noise is kept at a minimum. There are some hunting facilities in the forest which are clearly visible from the path, which for a forest visitor seeking peacefulness might be perceived as a slightly disturbing feature, but overall there is a high level of peacefulness throughout the forest. The paths are also clearly visible and feel safe to walk on. The risk of getting lost is also close to non-existing as the all paths lead back to the entrance. The “wildness” of the forest: The forest doesn’t feel particularly wild as it seems very well maintained. The older deciduous stands have a slight wildness to them, but the overall impression of the forest is that it has a great wildlife, but that it’s “tamed”. Biggest asset: The peacefulness / the feeling of safety. Biggest disadvantage: The lack of perceived accessibility / the lack of a welcoming entrance. 10.2 Sum up What stands out when comparing the forests is that all five forests do have some good qualities in terms of both mental restoration and physical activity. However, none of the forests have high levels at all parameters. When visiting the forests, the general impression was that you are welcome to visit the public forest, but not so much in the private forests.

The field work

Figure 71 Some old trees are kept in newly replanted areas of the forest.

Figure 72 A framed view to the neighbouring forest to the north.

Figure 74 A semi-open and serene forest room. Figure 73 Hunting facilities is visible throughout the forest.

Figure 76 Wooden sculptures creates a creative â&#x20AC;&#x153;entranceâ&#x20AC;? to the forest.

Figure 75 Clear and well maintained paths.

| 75 |

Interviews

11. Interviews 11.1 Interviewing forest owners of forests surrounding Kolding using a questionnaire Making interviews is one of the three main study methods of this thesis. Making the interviews gave me first-hand information about the management of the forests and laid the foundation for answering the main questions of the thesis statement. A questionnaire was made to structure the questions asked at the interviews and it has been developed by me with help from my supervisor, Ulrika Stigsdotter, Jørgen Bo Larsen and Frank Søndergaard Jensen. It has also been revised further with the help from my first interviewee, Claus Simonsen. The questionnaire is in Danish and is included in the thesis as appendix (1).

It consists of six “chapters”, each with a specific theme. The first chapter presents the background data of the chosen forested cadastre/cadastres. The second chapter deals with details regarding the silvicultural management of the forest. The third chapter deals with existing and planned interventions regarding experience and accessibility for forest visitors. The fourth chapter deals specifically with paths and accessibility. The fifth chapter deals with the forest owners’ own visions for the future of his/her forest. The sixth and final chapter deals with the perspective of the forest as a health promoting environment and the attitudes regarding the idea of developing such qualities in their forest. The chapter also deals with the owners’ feeling of responsibility towards the bigger community and if the attitudes and willingness could be improved by strengthening the community of forest owners or with a hand book. 11.2 Results of the interviews In total six persons were interviewed, representing seven forest owners of four different owner sectors; State forests, Municipal forests, Church forests and Private forests. All five chosen forests are represented among the interviewees.

Figure 77 Interviewing using a questionnaire.

11.2.1 Background data The questions regarding background data were not asked during interviews, but were answered by the author on beforehand, using data sources regarding the cadastres. The size of the forest cadastres ranged between 35 400m² (one of the private forests) and 1 287 600m² (Harte skov). The distance (from the majority of the forest) to the urban area was between 0-1km for four of the forests and 1-2km for two of the forests. The actual travel distance is a bit longer in most cases though.

| 76 |

Interviews 11.2.2 Management The questions in this chapter were about management issues such as forest types, management regimes, rotation age, close to nature principles, focus areas and collaborations in the management. All forests were dominantly or solely deciduous forests. The management regimes differed a bit between the forests, but none of the forests had large clear cut regimes. There were some uncertainties regarding the rotation age of some of the owners, as some didn’t have age or target diameter as the base for deciding when to do fellings. Generally rotation ages were long (>50 years for conifers and >70 years for deciduous trees). Regarding principles there were some variations, but all owners used some kind of close to nature management, whether or not they had any knowledge about the concept itself. The focus areas differed between forests. Out of the six persons, only the state forest had a Christmas tree production and seed production. All private forests, as well as the church and the state forests had focus on hunting. All but one had focus on nature qualities. Regarding outdoor recreation, the state and the municipal forests had focus on public recreation and one of the private forest owners had focus on commercialized recreation. One other of the private forest owners had focus on recreation for himself and his family. All forest owners had focus on wood production, although for two owners, it was just a minor focus area. Most forest owners, both private and public, got management assistance and guidance from Skovdyrkerforeningen, which is an organization that deals with exactly those issues.

11.2.3 Forest guests: The questions in this chapter are about facilities that can improve feeling of safety and be welcoming and includes following parameters: arrival areas, signage, other facilities, variations of forested rooms and view-points. Interestingly, none of the owners that didn’t have outdoor recreation as a focus area in the management of their forests had any plans on developing any facilities for forest guests, whereas all that had outdoor recreation as a focus area did work with at least some of the parameters. Some of the owners that didn’t focus on outdoor recreation did work with variation in forested rooms, but not for the sake of visitors, but for nature and hunting qualities. 11.2.4 Paths: The questions in this chapter are related to accessibility and quality of the experience of getting around in the forest. None of the private forest owners did work with paths in their forests, apart from forest roads for machines connected to forestry. Two of the private owners expressed that they basically didn’t want to invite visitors to their forests and the third private owner had a similar opinion, although excursions that were arranged and planned on beforehand with the owner were welcome. The representative from the church forest told me that the paths in the forest had been a bit neglected lately, but that the existing paths otherwise were mainly maintained for machines. Both the state and the municipal forest owners expressed that they had great focus on the path system, making it both varied experience-wise and greatly differentiated to fit different users, such as mountain bike riders, people who have handicap and people who wants serene nature experiences.

| 77 |

Interviews 11.2.5 Visions: The only question in this chapter is as follows: “How would your forest look like in 20 years if it fulfilled all your visions?” The reason for asking such an open question was to involve the owners in a more discussion-like conversation, rather than just answering questions and to let them tell about the forest in their own words. The visions differed a bit between different owners. One of the private forest owners expressed that more needs to be done to tackle the problem with loose dogs and people riding mountain bikes outside of paths. Another of the private forest owners wanted to make the forest rooms more open in places to support hunting better. The third forest owner planned on planting some coniferous trees to improve conditions for pheasants. The representative for the church expressed that there weren’t really any visions for their forest, as nobody within the church counsel were interested enough in the forest to think visionary regarding the forest. However, during our interview, the representative came up with many ideas. One was to establish excursions for children to play in the forest, something that could be arranged as the forest is today. Another idea was to arrange service of worship in the forest, which would require that the accessibility in the forest were improved. The representative also said that the church needs volunteers for realizing any of these ideas. The representative of the municipal forest wanted to create more zones within the forest to avoid conflicts between users, but that it would be hard to accomplish since there are so many user groups combined with the limited size of the forest. The representative of the state forest said that it is the political visions that are being followed and that those can change quite rapidly. The current plans aims for a more diverse forest.

| 78 |

11.2.6 Recreation / Health promotion: The questions in this chapter focus on the health aspects of forests. The first questions are about the interest and feeling of responsibility of the forest owner to develop health promoting qualities for visitors in their forest. The last couple of questions present suggestions of methods to help develop such qualities and the forest owners are asked if any of those methods would be of any help for them. At the end of the interview, the forest owners are free to tell about reasons and arguments for the attitudes that they have regarding public use of both their forest and UPUFs of Kolding in general. They also got the opportunity to say what they think is the best way to move forward with recreation and health in forests for the public. The answers I got from this chapter most clearly showed the difference in attitudes between private and public forests. All private owners expressed reluctance towards doing anything for forest visitors as none of them had any interest in an increased number of visitors. One of the owners said: “It is not included in the management aim to raise the issue [of improving recreational and health promoting qualities]”. Both the municipal and the state forest have a wide range of facilities for recreation and to promote physical health. The municipal forest has several routes for walking or running as well as special mountain bike tracks. There is also collaboration with the nearby hospital on using parts of the forest for some physical rehabilitation and training for patients. The state forest has facilities for more rural outdoor recreation, such as shelter camping and horse riding as well as a variety of walking routes.

Interviews

One of the private owners expressed that the only way for him to establish anything to promote physical health would be to have forest fitness where the users had to pay to use it. He further explained that the fact that public forests establish forest fitness and mountain bike tracks as a free of charge public service undermines the foundation for private owners to establish those things, since the users would not expect to pay for it. He also rhetorically said: “Why should it be for free to do fitness in a forest when it isn’t for free in a fitness centre?” Regarding mental health, none of the private owners had any interest in developing such qualities, whereas the representatives for the state and the municipal forests claimed that they had the intention that their forests should indeed have such qualities. In the municipal forest the focus had been mainly on physical recreation, so that there weren’t really much space left that is serene enough to support mental restoration. The representative for the church forest explained that nothing had been done in their forest to develop health promoting qualities and that the reason for that is that the church doesn’t have the responsibility to do it, in combination with the reason that there isn’t enough interest and motivation in the forest from the counsel for anything to be done. The first of the suggestions for helping to develop health promoting qualities was to have increased collaboration between different forest owners. None of the forest owners were especially enthusiastic about that idea and didn’t believe that it could lead to any improvements. The representative for the church forest said that the idea is interesting but that it would be difficult to agree on regulations and expectations.

One of the private owners had the opinion that the public forests could do more with their own areas regarding recreation and health promotion before involving the private forests and another of the private forest owners said: “Somebody else must create a willingness in me and I must get something off of it myself.” The second and last suggestion was to get a handbook on forest management that improves health promoting qualities. The only forest owner that showed any interest was that of the church forest. She said that a handbook could be a source of inspiration and that it could motivate the church to make more out of its forest. All the other owners showed no interest in a handbook. The representative for the state forests didn’t think that a handbook would help but that some sort of subsidies could work. One of the private forest owners also expressed that subsidies could maybe work for his forest. The other two private forest owners expressed that because the small size of their forests, they would not be interested in it, even with subsidies. The cadastres they own are, in their opinion, too small to carry pressure from public use. One of them suggested that owners of larger forests could maybe be interested in a subsidy system for promotion of recreation and health. All the private forest owners wanted to protect the hunting quality of their forest, a quality which they felt would be hampered if public pressure increased. Two of them also criticized the disrespectful behaviour of some forest visitors that do not follow laws and gets aggressive when confronted with it. None of the forest owners were particularly visionary regarding the best way to move forward with recreation and health in forests for the public, although they did all agree with me that it is important to work with on some level. Answers from interviewees are translated to English by author.

| 79 |

Answering the questions from the thesis statement

12. Answering the questions from the thesis statement To wrap up the results of this study, the literature, the field work and the interviews are used together to answer the questions I asked myself in the thesis statement: 12.1 How do we obtain health promoting nature qualities in UPUFs through forest management? From my literature research I found out that health promoting qualities are a little bit different when promoting mental health from when promoting physical health. For promoting mental health, the forest should be perceived as rather wild, lush and safe. It should also provide good orientation and serenity. All these characteristics might be difficult to achieve simultaneously, as some of them are slightly contradictory. Through management a forest that should promote mental health should therefore have areas focusing more on feeling of safety and orientation and other areas, where the more wild, untouched, lush and serene qualities are more prominent. One should avoid having gathering places in parts of the forest designed for promoting mental health. It should, however, also be said that it’s very difficult to claim something with absolute certainty, since it “…is a complex question, considering that landscapes are dynamic and perceived individually.” (Annerstedt et al. 2010). For promoting physical health, the forest should be perceived as natural and welcoming, it should have trails, waterbodies, nice views and great variation.

| 80 |

12.2 Are some UPUFs not seen as a place of public service for the citizens of the town by the forest managers, but merely as a wood production area? This question paints up the issue like it’s either one way or the other. In reality, I have experienced, forest owners, especially private ones, do not see their forest as a public service, but they see it rather as a private service. They do enjoy spending time in their own forest and they do appreciate the nature qualities and the wildlife of their forests. They do not think that the public should necessarily enjoy spending time in their forest, but rather in a public forest. 12.3 Are some forest owners even reluctant of having visitors in their forests? (With potential problems such as littering, vandalism and loose dogs) Yes, this is indeed an issue worth taking seriously. My findings strongly support those of Olsen (2001) that forest owners experience forest some visitors as problematic. Good intentions on improving public health will not get you anywhere as long as the forest owners perceive visitors as being a problem. Nuisance caused by visitors seems to be more severe for private forest owners than for public forest owners. This difference is probably only a difference in attitudes by the forest owners and not among the visitors. The difference in legislation of public access might be the reason for this, as visitors presumably tend to behave in a similar manner in public and in private forests and thus violate legislations to a greater degree in private forests, causing reluctant attitudes towards visitors from privately owned forests.

Answering the questions from the thesis statement 12.4 Do forest owners think that they won’t gain anything economically from improving restorative qualities in their forests? (Too expensive) Yes, for private owners not gaining anything personally is a major argument for not improving restorative qualities in their forests. However, from the interviews I made, it seemed like the opinions they had wouldn’t change significantly by getting paid. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, visitors were generally not behaving respectful enough when visiting their property. Secondly, they thought that the public forests had enough capacity for providing the public with these services and that the public sector could do more to improve qualities in their forests. This opinion does actually seem to have some validity to it, as a Danish research project found that “…the low provision of recreational facilities combined with the general lack of management plans suggests that the recreational potential of small woodland units is underestimated by Danish municipalities and in need of greater consideration.” (Nielsen et al. 2013). 12.5 Do forest owners/managers lack the tools and/or the knowledge to manage their forests in a direction that support the development of health promoting forested environments? Through my interviews, I got the impression that forest owners either think that they already have sufficient knowledge about managing forests to promote health or that they have no interest in doing anything to improve the experience for forest visitors. The exception was the church, for which it seemed like lack of knowledge as well as motivation were the biggest limitation for developing their forest in a health promoting direction. The idea of a handbook on forest management that improves health promoting qualities is thus not sufficient as a stand-alone tool to make forest owners more willing to do that.

| 81 |

Discussion

13. Discussion 13.1 Small size of study To make it clear right away: none of the results from the interviews or the site analyses can be properly generalized to Denmark as a whole because of the small size of the study. This thesis should rather be read as a pilot study, where all statements regarding the case study should be interpreted as assumptions rather than generalizations. Like many people before me doing research projects, the preliminary aims are by far in excess of what one can actually manage in due time. I started off wanting to investigate five towns; I ended up choosing only one. I then aimed for investigating all forests of that town; I ended up choosing five (out of approximately 35). I then aimed for interviewing all forest owners of the chosen forests; I ended up interviewing six (out of 27). 13.2 Obstacles 1 – No common strategy The UPUFs in Denmark are owned by many different people and there isn’t a common strategy for the use of the forests by the citizens of the urban areas. It seems like each sector focuses almost exclusively on their own forested areas, so that, as a citizen, one need to search at several places to get an overview over the potential for nature restoration in his/her neighbourhood and that the quality of the restorative experience may vary a lot from forest to forest and even within forests as borders between ownerships often lay in the middle of forests. This characteristic of many Danish forests can make the experience of walking in a forest very heterogeneous; suddenly one might find oneself in a part of the forest where one does not feel welcome, which can be distressing.

| 82 |

13.3 Obstacles 2 – A handbook? One of the obstacles is the lack of tools for forest owners on managing urban forests, as for example a handbook on how to do. Through my research, I have found out that a handbook would not be the solution for many of the forest owners, as there are other, more important issues that they value higher than the lack of tools. According to the forest owners, there are only in a limited amount of cases where a handbook would possibly have an influence on the way the forests are managed. 13.4 Obstacles 3 – Reluctant owners One of the main obstacles, especially considering private forests, is the lack of willingness from forest owners to invite visitors to their forests. One reason for this is fear of visitors behaving improperly. (See also Obstacles 4). This behaviour includes: littering, vandalism, loose dogs, and mountain bike riders outside paths. A second other reason, which can be complementary to the first reason, is that the forest owner wants to have one’s forest for oneself only. (See also Obstacles 5). A third reason is that private forest owners generally think that it is the public sector that has all the responsibility to provide those services.

Discussion 13.5 Obstacles 4 – The behaviour of forest visitors Although the fear from forest owners that forest visitors may behave improperly in many cases is a bit exaggerated (Braunstein et al. 2011), there really is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. Is there a way of making forest visitors, who do not adhere to the legislation, to change their behaviour? Maybe more information campaigns are needed to increase the awareness of the public on what one may or may not do in Danish forests. Research by Frank Søndergaard Jensen clearly shows that there is a lack of knowledge among the Danish population on these issues as shown in the following figure. (Fig. 78):

This lack of knowledge in combination with the ongoing reduction of country lanes (Højring & Caspersen 1999) increases the risk of a bad experience of getting around in the landscape by the public, which can result in frustrations and conflicts between the public and the forest owners.

Figure 78 What Danish people beleieve they know regarding what one may or may not do in Danish forests. (Jensen 1998 II). Translated to English by author.

13.6 Obstacles 5 – The “My Forest is My Garden”attitude The majority of the private forest owners I interviewed clearly expressed the opinion that their forests were their property and made the analogy of a private garden. Through my interviews, one of the interviewees told me; “You wouldn’t just walk into someone’s garden, so why should you walk around in someone’s forest?” Given that the distribution of UPUFs in Denmark is generally low, these kinds of statements can be problematic, as some of the private owned forests are potentially very valuable as health promoting environments.

| 83 |

Discussion 13.7 How can the existing UPUFs be improved in terms of potential public health benefits? There is great room for improvement. In many cases not much needs to be done to achieve a great outcome. However, from what I’ve learned writing this thesis, the challenge is not so much how to improve qualities in terms of physical and mental health, but much more how to improve forest owners’ willingness to open up their forests to be a public service destination. This is a problem that is almost exclusively related to the private forests (which are the majority of Danish forests). Managers of municipal and state forests are, from what I’ve learned in this thesis, both aware and willing to make efforts to develop and maintain health promoting qualities of their forests. However, the focus by the municipality and the state seems to be mostly on promoting physical health and not as much on mental health. The church seems to have low priority of their forests so for them; the lack of interest is the main problem, maybe also lack of finance. The way to make the municipality and the state increase their efforts to develop health promoting qualities of their forests could be to convince them about the societal economic benefits of an improved health for the towns’ citizens. Promising budgets could maybe do the trick. The way to make the church increase their efforts to develop health promoting qualities of their forests could be to inform them about how it can help people to cope with stress and improve their quality of life. A handbook and some manpower could maybe do the trick. The way to make the private person increase their efforts to develop health promoting qualities of their forests could be to really involve them in the importance of their forests. To convince them that public urban forests are not sufficient enough to maintain good health for all the citizens of the town. In general it is important to meet the forest owner at eye level to avoid conflicts. One should treat the forest owner with respect, discuss and suggest improvements and be open for compromises. Otherwise they might feel like they are being treated with paternalism and unfair demands and thus become more reluctant than before.

| 84 |

13.8 What have I learned There isn’t a good and comprehensive index over all UPUFs in Denmark currently, which could be a used as a guideline on the needs and potentials regarding UPUFs in different towns across the country. The ownership of forests in Denmark differs a lot between individual forests as well as between whole towns. This makes it hard to get an overview of UPUFs in Denmark and to map the potential for developing more recreational and health promoting qualities in those forests. I have also learned that many private forest owners view on their forests is similar to that of their own gardens and that they basically don’t really want uninvited people to be on their property. It’s merely something they accept in cases where they are obliged to by law, such as with pedestrians on paths. The vegetation structure of the UPUFs that I have investigated was diverse, both regarding age and species composition, more so than I had expected. The diversity lays a good foundation for the forest to be a health promoting environment. 13.9 What would I have done differently I would have involved more stakeholders and interviewed representatives from a wider range of organisations. One of my original plans was to make a handbook for forest owners on how to develop health promoting forest environments. This plan was not realized as I didn’t manage to set aside ebnough time to write it. I was a also bit discouraged by the general lack of interest from my interviewees. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a base for existance for such a book, but more background research needs to be done to figure out how this type of information is provided in the most optimal way.

Conclusions

14. Conclusions Almost all of the results from my case study support my hypothesis that many UPUFs, especially private owned forests, do not entirely fulfil their inherent potential of being a health promoting environment, mainly due to lack of accessibility to, and within, forests. As shown in this study, there is a range of factors preventing this potential for being fulfilled. However, the interviews clearly show that none of these factors are considered as completely blocking the development towards a higher degree of utilization by the public of the forests; yet the private owners impose a larger challenge than the publicly owned forests. Through the field study it can be concluded that all five chosen forests are rich in spatial and structural variety, which I, through my literature study, have found to be an important factor for a forest to be health promoting. These findings canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be extrapolated to be valid for all Danish UPUFs, but it clearly indicates that there is a potential for UPUFs in some forests around Kolding to provide more health promoting qualities than they do today. 14.1 Strengths and weaknesses Using three distinctively different methods in this study is a strength as they highlight the topic from different angles and thus strengthening the legitimacy of the study. The small number of forest owners is a weakness, but the broad range of forest owners is a strength.

| 85 |

Perspectives

15. Perspectives This project have taught me that there is a lot more to be done in Denmark, both regarding management of UPUFs to improve health promoting qualities and regarding accessibility to some of the forests as well as within some of the forests.

These mapping tools could also be used as a platform for further research and to focus the effort on improving the accessibility of urban and peri-urban forest in Denmark to where itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most needed.

15.1 Implications for practise The results of this study imply that dealing with the private forest owners is one of the biggest challenges for the future regarding fulfilling the potential of the forests of being health promoting environments. It is therefore important to find creative methods to soften the attitudes of the owners. One way to do this could be through an interactive internet-based platform. First step is to improve the tools for mapping of urban and peri-urban forest in Denmark, which could possibly also be extended as a world-wide tool. This tool should detect actual travel distances (using routes available by foot or bicycle) to forests from the nearest dwelling rather than, as I have done, measure the straight line from the urban area (which contains both dwellings and industrial areas). The tool could be further improved by being able to count residents within a certain distance from the forests. Second step is mapping the ownerships of all UPUFs in Denmark, which can create a greater overview of public and private forests on a national level. Together, these two mapping tools could be transformed into an interactive platform, so that all Danish citizens should be able to get user friendly information about how to get to all forests within walking distance from their dwelling and, just as important, get information on who owns the forests. Research have shown that if the forest owner is asked on beforehand, he/she is more willing to accept a specific type of activity in his/her forest. (Olsen 2001). Such an interactive tool can therefore make it much easier for forest visitors to contact the owner and thus improve the relationship between forest owners and forest visitors.

15.2 Implications for further research As this study has characteristics of being a pilot study and no universal conclusions can be drawn, so further research can be made with similar problem formulation to produce further evidence regarding potential for health promotion in Danish UPUFs and/or regarding attitudes of forest owners. A topic that also needs to be investigated further is the access roads to forests and the quality of those.

| 86 |

References

16. References 16.1 Literature references Allender S., Foster C., Scarborough P. et al. (2007). The burden of physical activity-related ill health in the UK. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61: 344–8. Annerstedt M., Norman J., Boman M., Mattsson L., Grahn P., Währborg P. (2010). Finding stress relief in a forest. Ecol. Bull. 2010; 53:33–42. Bakhtiari F, Jacobsen J B, Jensen F S. (2014). Willingness to travel to avoid recreation conflicts in Danish forests. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2014, 13(4): 662-671 Bell S., Blom D., Rautamäki M., Castel-Branco C., Simson A., Olsen I.A. (2005). Design of urban forests. In: Konijnendijk C.C., Nilsson K., Randrup T.B., Schipperijn J. (eds.) Urban forests and trees. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 149–186 Bell, S. & Ward Thompson, C. (2014). Human engagement with forest environments: implications for physical and mental health and wellbeing. In T Fenning (ed.), Challenges and Opportunities for the World’s Forests in the 21st Century. Forestry Sciences, vol. 81, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 71-92., 10.1007/978-94-007-7076-8_5 Boon, T.E. (2003). Hvad mener de danske skovejere? Spørgeundersøgelse blandt private skovejere i Danmark. Skovbrugsserien nr. 33, Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm. 73 p. (In Danish). Braunstein, E. M., Lassen, J. N., Præstholm, S. (2011). Fakta og myter om stier -erfaringsopsamling for bedre rekreative stier. Sammenfatning. Landskabsværkstedet, 2011. (In Danish). Corazon, S.S., Stigsdotter, U.K., Claudi, A.G., & Nilsson, K. (2010). Development of a nature-based therapy concept for stress patients at the Danish healing forest garden Nacadia. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 20, 34–51. Grahn, P. & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2, 1–18. Grahn, P. & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 264–275. Gustavsson R., Hermy M., Konijnendijk C.C., Steidle-Schwahn A. (2005). Management of urban woodland and parks – searching for creative and sustainable concepts. In: Konijnendijk C.C., Nilsson K., Randrup T.B., Schipperijn J. (eds) Urban woodlands and trees. Springer, Berlin, pp 369–397 Haahr, J. & Andkjær, S. (2011). Muligheder og begrænsninger for friluftsliv-introduktion til problemstilling og konference. Muligheder Og Begrænsninger for Friluftsliv. Hansmann R, Hug S, Seeland K (2007). Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban For Urban Green 6:213–225 Hartig T., Evans G.W., Jamner L.D., et al. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003; 23:109–23. Hartig T., van den Berg A. E., Hägerhäll C. M., Tomalak M., Bauer N., Hansmann R., Ojala A., Syngollitou E., Carrus G., van Herzele A., Bell S., Camilleri Podesta M. T., Waaseth G. (2011). Health Benefits of Nature Experience: Psychological, Social and Cultural Processes. In: Nilsson K., Sangster M., Gallis C., Hartig T., Vries S., Seeland K., Schipperijn J. (eds.) Forests, Trees and Human Health Springer, Dordrecht, pp 127–168 Huber, S. & Tøttrup, C. (2012). National Danish Forest Mapping 2012. Documentation. Technical Note. September 2012. Available at: www.dhi-gras.com Højring, K., (2002). The right to roam the countryside—law and reality concerning public access to the landscape in Denmark. Landscape and urban planning, 59(1), pp.29-41.

| 87 |

References

Jensen, F. S. (1998 I). Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s. Ph.D. thesis, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Unit of Landscape, Copenhagen. Jensen, F. S. (1998 II). Friluftsliv i det åbne land 1994/95. - Forskningsserien nr. 25, Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm, 1998. (In Danish). Kaplan R., Kaplan S. (1989). The experience of nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Kaplan, S. (1992). The restorative environment: Nature and human experience. In D. Relf (Ed.) Role of Horticulture in Human Well-being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Timber Press, Arlington, Virginia, pp. 134–142. Kaplan R., Kaplan, S. & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People in Mind. Washington: Island Press. Konijnendijk C.C., Nilsson K., Randrup T.B., Schipperijn J. (eds.). (2005). Urban forests and trees. Springer, Dordrecht Konijnendijk C.C. (2008). The forest and the city: The cultural landscape of urban woodland. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, N.Y. Konijnendijk C.C. (2013). From Government to Governance: Contribution to the political ecology of urban forestry. In book: Urban Forests, Trees and Greenspace - A political ecology perspective. Publisher: Routledge, Editors: Anders L. Sandberg, Adrina Bardekijan, Sadia Butt, pp.35-46 Korpela K. M., Ylén M., Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H. (2008). Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favourite places. Health & Place; 14:636-652. Kvist Johannsen, V., Nord-Larsen, T., Riis-Nielsen, T. M., Thomsen, E., Suadicani, K. & Bilde Jørgensen, B. (2013). Skove og plantager 2012, Skov & Landskab, Frederiksberg. Larsen, J.B., Nielsen, A.B., (2007). Nature-based forest management—where are we going? Elaborating forest development types in and with practice. For. Ecol. Manage. 238, 107–117. Larsen, J.B. (2012). Close-to-Nature Forest Management: The Danish Approach to Sustainable Forestry, Sustainable Forest Management - Current Research, Dr. Julio J. Diez (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51 0621-0, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-forest-manage ment-currentresearch/sustainable-forestry-through-close-to-nature-management Larsen J.B., Nielsen A.B. (2012). Urban forest landscape restoration—applying forest development types in design and planning. In: Stanturf J, Lamb D, Madsen P (eds) Forest landscape restoration: integrating natural and social science. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 177–199 Miljøministeriet, Skov- og Naturstyrelsen (2005). Handlingsplan for naturnær skovdrift i statsskovene. ISBN: 87-7279-602-2 (In Danish). Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal. 14(2): 161-170 Nielsen, A.B., Jensen, R.B. (2007). Some visual aspects of planting design and silviculture across contemporary forest management paradigms – perspectives for urban afforestation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6(3). Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., Lundhede T. (2007). An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80 (2007), pp. 63–71 Nielsen A.B., Konijnendijk C.C., Wiström B., Jensen R.B. (2013). Municipal woodland in Denmark: resources, governance and management. Scand J For Res 28:49–63 Nordström EM., Dolling. A, Skärbäck E., Stoltz J., Grahn P., Lundell Y. (2015). Forests for wood production and stress recovery: trade-offs in long-term forest management planning. Original paper. Eur J Forest Res. Springer. Nord-Larsen, T., Kvist Johannsen, V., Riis-Nielsen, T. M., Thomsen, I., Schou, E., Suadicani, K. & Bilde Jørgensen, B. (2015). Skove og plantager 2014, Skov & Landskab, Frederiksberg.

| 88 |

References

O’Brien, L., Burls, A., Bentsen, P., Hilmo, I., Holter, K., Haberling, D., et al. (2011). Outdoor education, life long learning and skills development in woodlands and greenspaces: The potential links to health and well-being. In: K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hatig, S. de Vries, K. Seeland & T. Schipperijin (Eds.), Forests, Trees and Human Health (pp. 343-374). New York: Springer. Olmsted, F. L. (1865). The value and care of parks. Report to the Congress of the State of California. [Reprinted in R. Nash, Ed., (1976). The American Environment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp 18-24.] Olsen T. B. (2001). Skovejeres aftaler med brugere. En undersøgelse af holdninger og erfaringer. Speciale. Den Kgl. Veterinær- og Landbohøjskole, Frederiksberg. (In Danish). Ottosson, J., & Grahn, P. (2008). The role of natural settings in crisis rehabilitation: how does the level of crisis influence the response to experiences of nature with regard to measures of rehabilitation? Landscape Research, 33(1), 51–70. Petersen, A.H., Lundhede T.H., Bruun H.H., Heilmann-Clausen J., Thorsen B.J., Strange N., Rahbek C. (2016). Bevarelse af biodiversiteten i de danske skove. En analyse af den nødvendige indsats, og hvad den betyder for skovens andre samfundsgoder. Center for Makroøkologi, Evolution og Klima, Københavns Universitet. Præstholm, S., Jensen, F.S., Hasler, B., Damgaard, C., Erichsen E. (2002). Forests improve qualities and values of local areas in Denmark. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 1 (2002), pp. 97–106 Purcell, T.; Peron, E. ; Berto, R. (2001). Why do Preferences Differ between Scene Types? Environment and Behavior 33-1:93-106. Rydberg, D. & Falck, J. (2000). Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47, 1–18. Schipperijn J., Bentsen P., Troelsen J., Toftager M., Stigsdotter U.K. (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For Urban Gree 12:109–116 Skärbäck E. (2007). Urban forests as compensation measures for infrastructure development. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4): 279–285. Sonntag-Öström E., Nordin, M., Lundell, Y., Dolling, A., Wiklund, U., Karlsson, M., Carlberg, B., Slunga Järvholm, L. (2014). Restorative effects of visits to urban and forest environments in patients with exhaustion disorder. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 344–354. Stigsdotter, U. K., (2005). Landscape architecture and health. Evidence-based health promoting design and planning. Published Dissertation. Department of Landscape Planning, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. Stigsdotter, U. K., Ekholm O., Schipperijn J., Toftager M., Kamper-Jørgensen F., Randrup T. B. (2010). Health promoting outdoor environments: associations between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scand. J. Public Health 38:411–17 Stigsdotter, U. K., Grahn P. (2011). Stressed individuals’ preferences for activities and environmental characteristics in green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10 (4), pp. 295–304 Sugiyama, T., Ward Thompson, C. (2007). Older people’s health, outdoor activity and supportiveness of neighbourhood environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 168– 175 Termansen, M., McClean, C.J., Jensen, F.S. (2013). Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecol. Econ. 92, 48–57. Tyrväinen, L. (1999). Monetary valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. Academic dissertation. Finnish Forest Research Institute. Research papers 739, 1999. pp. 53, 76. Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., de Vries, S. (2005). Benefits and Uses of Urban Forests and Trees. In: Konijnendijk C.C., Nilsson K., Randrup T.B., Schipperijn J. (eds.) Urban forests and trees. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 81–114

| 89 |

References

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11,201-230. van den Berg A. E., Maas J., Verheij R. A. et al. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010; 70 (8):1203–10. van den Berg A. E., Konijnendijk C.C. (2012). Ambivalence towards nature and natural landscapes, in: L. Steg, de Groot J. I. M., van den Berg A. E., (Eds.) Environmental Psychology: An Introduction. British Psychological Society and Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK. p. 67–76. Vassiljev P., Bell S., Raet J. (2015). Restorative value of pine forest compared with spruce forest: an experiment using an immersive, simulated, Estonian winter landscape. In: ECLAS 2015 – Landscapes in Flux: Book of abstracts & conference guide of the scientific international conference, 20-23 September 2015, Tartu, Estonian University of Life Sciences. Tartu: Estonian University of Life Sciences, 51 pp.

| 90 |

References 16.2 Figure and picture references Caspersen, O.H. & Nyed, P.K. (2011). Udviklingen af markveje og stier i det åbne land. Dato: 25-08-2011 Videnblad nr. 06.01-59 Emne: Friluftsliv. Skov & Landskab, København Universitet. (In Danish). Page 2, Page 20 in Thesis Danish forest and nature agency. (2005). Naturen må gerne betrædes-men træd varsomt. Folder regarding admittance laws and regulations, revised 2005. Can be downloaded here: http:// naturstyrelsen.dk/media/nst/Attachments/naturen_maa_gerne.pdf (In Danish). Page 2-3, Page 18-19 in Thesis De Økonomiske Råd (2014). Økonomi og miljø 2014. (In Danish). Page 117, Page 10 in Thesis Højring, K., (2002). The right to roam the countryside—law and reality concerning public access to the landscape in Denmark. Landscape and urban planning, 59(1), pp.29-41. Page 36, Page 20 in Thesis Jensen, F. S. (1998 II). Friluftsliv i det åbne land 1994/95. - Forskningsserien nr. 25, Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm, 1998. (In Danish). Page?, Page 83 in Thesis Kaae, B.C. & Madsen, L.M. (2003). Holdninger og ønsker til Danmarks natur. By- og Landsplanserien nr. 21, Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm, 2003, 128 s. ill. (In Danish). Page 64, Page 26 in Thesis Kvist Johannsen, V., Nord-Larsen, T., Riis-Nielsen, T. M., Thomsen, E., Suadicani, K. & Bilde Jørgensen, B. (2013). Skove og plantager 2012, Skov & Landskab, Frederiksberg. (In Danish). Page 143-144, Page 9-10 in Thesis Larsen, J.B. (2012). Close-to-Nature Forest Management: The Danish Approach to Sustainable Forestry, Sustainable Forest Management - Current Research, Dr. Julio J. Diez (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51 0621-0, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-forest management-currentresearch/sustainable-forestry-through-close-to-nature-management Page 201, Page 22 in Thesis Nord-Larsen, T., Kvist Johannsen, V., Riis-Nielsen, T. M., Thomsen, I., Schou, E., Suadicani, K. & Bilde Jørgensen, B. (2015). Skove og plantager 2014, Skov & Landskab, Frederiksberg. Page 71, Page 55 in Thesis Reid, W.V., Mooney, H.A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S.R., Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Hassan, R. and Kasperson, R., (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Page VI, Page 24 in Thesis Schipperijn J., Bentsen P., Troelsen J., Toftager M., Stigsdotter U.K. (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban For Urban Gree 12:109–116 Page 113, Page 26 in Thesis Stigsdotter, U. K., (2005). Landscape architecture and health. Evidence-based health promoting design and planning. Published Dissertation. Department of Landscape Planning, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. Page 10, Page 12 in Thesis

| 91 |

References 16.3 Web references Danmarks Statistik Statistikbanken Tabel BY1 http://www.statistikbanken.dk. (data collected 22. of June 2016). Den Offentlige Informationsserver “The public information server” https://ois.dk/ (data collected from April through July 2016). Geodatastyrelsen “The department for geographical data“ http://hkpn.gst.dk/ (data collected 11.of july 2016). Hundeskovene: “Dog forests” http://www.hundeskovene.dk/ (In Danish) (data collected 4. of August 2016). Kortforsyningen http://download.kortforsyningen.dk/content/dtkh%C3%B8je-m%C3%A5lebordsblade (data collected 10. of July 2016). Miljøportalen “Denmark’s environment portal” http://arealinformation.miljoeportal.dk/distribution/ (data collected from April through July 2016). Naturstyrelsen “The nature agency” http://naturstyrelsen.dk/media/nst/67930/NST_arealer%20og%20 NFEr.pdf (data collected 22. of June 2016). Vejdirektoratet “Denmark’s national cycle routes” http://trafikkort.vejdirektoratet.dk/index. html?usertype=3 (data collected 10. of July 2016).

| 92 |

References 16.4 List of figures Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18: Figure 19: Figure 20: Figure 21: Figure 22: Figure 23: Figure 24: Figure 25: Figure 26: Figure 27: Figure 28: Figure 29: Figure 30: Figure 31: Figure 32: Figure 33:

“Distance-related issues on forest visits” (Kvist Johansen et al. 2013). “Distance-related issues on forest visits“ (Kvist Johansen et al. 2013). “Distance-related issues on nature visits” (De Økonomiske Råd 2014). “The two branches of health promoting environments.” (Stigsdotter 2005). “The methods of the study” (By author). “Legislation regarding access and what one may or may not do in Danish forests “ (Danish forest and nature agency 2005). “Decrease of country lanes between 1950 and 1991.“ (Højring 2002). “Continued decrease of country lanes between 1988 and 2010.” (Caspersen & Nyed 2011). “Benefits from Nature-based forestry” (Larsen 2012). “The relation between the ecosystem services and their potential positive outcomes.” (Reid et al. 2005). “The most preferred possible directions for development of the neighbouring area.“ (Kaae & Madsen 2003). (Schipperijn et al, 2013). “Collaboration in the decision process is important.” (By author). “The 25 biggest urban and peri-urban areas in Denmark.” (GIS). (By author). “Areas owned by the state (Danish Nature Agency).”(GIS). (By author and “Naturforvaltningsenheder og arealer” by Danish nature agency. http://naturstyrelsen.dk/ media/nst/67930/NST_arealer%20og%20NFEr.pdf) “Height model of the landscape around Kolding.” (GIS). Existing GIS-layer “Soil map of the landscape around Kolding.” (GIS). Existing GIS-layer “Ortophoto of the landscape around Kolding.” (GIS). Existing GIS-layer “Analysis map of the population and infrastructure around Kolding.” (GIS). (By author). “Historical map of the landscape around Kolding in 1780.” (collected from the Danish department for geographical data: http://hkpn.gst.dk/). “Historical map of the landscape around Kolding circa 1880.” (collected from the Danish department for geographical data: http://hkpn.gst.dk/). “Current topographical map of the landscape around Kolding.” (collected from the Danish environmental portal: http://arealinformation.miljoeportal.dk/distribution/). “Topographical map showing all found UPUFs in and around Kolding. (GIS). (Existing GIS-layer + author). “Cadastral map showing cadastres with UPUFs in and around Kolding.” (GIS). (Existing GIS-layer + author). “Cadastral map showing cadastres with UPUFs in and around Kolding.” (GIS). (Existing GIS-layer + author). “Percentage of UPUFs in and around Kolding by ownerships.” (By author). “Percentage of forests in Denmark as a whole by ownerships.” (Nord-Larsen et al. 2015). The chosen forests and where they are situated in relation to the urban area of Kolding. (GIS).(By author). “Cadastral map of one of the chosen forests.” (GIS). (By author). “Cadastral map of one of the chosen forests.” (GIS). (By author). “Cadastral map of one of the chosen forests.” (GIS). (By author). “Cadastral map of one of the chosen forests.” (GIS). (By author). “Cadastral map of one of the chosen forests.” (GIS). (By author).

| 93 |

References

Figure 34: Figure 35: Figure 36: Figure 37: Figure 38: Figure 39: Figure 40: Figure 41: Figure 42: Figure 43: Figure 44: Figure 45: Figure 46: Figure 47: Figure 48: Figure 49: Figure 50: Figure 51: Figure 52: Figure 53: Figure 54: Figure 55: Figure 56: Figure 57: Figure 58: Figure 59: Figure 60: Figure 61: Figure 62: Figure 63: Figure 64: Figure 65: Figure 66: Figure 67: Figure 68: Figure 69: Figure 70: Figure 71: Figure 72: Figure 73: Figure 74: Figure 75: Figure 76:

| 94 |

“Colour sheme for cadastres.” (By author). “Soil types at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Elevation at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Ortophoto at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS). (By author). “Soil types at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS). (By author). “Elevation at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Ortophoto at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Soil types at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Elevation at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Ortophoto at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Soil types at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Elevation at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Ortophoto at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Soil types at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Elevation at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “Ortophoto at one of the chosen forests.” (GIS).(By author). “The results of the study.” (By author). “Photo taken at Marielund/Bramdrup skov” (By author) on 14th of April 2016. “Photo taken at Marielund/Bramdrup skov” (By author) on 14th of April 2016. “Photo taken at Marielund/Bramdrup skov” (By author) on 14th of April 2016. “Photo taken at Marielund/Bramdrup skov” (By author) on 14th of April 2016. “Photo taken at Marielund/Bramdrup skov” (By author) on 14th of April 2016. “Photo taken at Harte skov” (By author) on the 30th of May. “Photo taken at Harte skov” (By author) on the 18th of May. “Photo taken at Harte skov” (By author) on the 18th of May. “Photo taken at Harte skov” (By author) on the 18th of May. “Photo taken at Harte skov” (By author) on the 18th of May. “Photo taken at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov” (By author) 13th of April. “Photo taken at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov” (By author) 14th of June. “Photo taken at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov” (By author) 13th of April. “Photo taken at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov” (By author) 14th of June. “Photo taken at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov” (By author) 13th of April. “Photo taken at skov ved Rebæk strand” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at skov ved Rebæk strand” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at skov ved Rebæk strand” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at skov ved Rebæk strand” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at skov ved Rebæk strand” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at Vonsild skov” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at Vonsild skov” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at Vonsild skov” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at Vonsild skov” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at Vonsild skov” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at Vonsild skov” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016.

References

Figure 77: Figure 78: Figure 79: Figure 80: Figure 81: Figure 82:

“Interviewing using a questionnaire.” (By author). “What Danish people beleieve they know regarding what one may or may not do in Danish forests.“ (Jensen 1998 II). “Photo taken at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov” (By author) 13th of April. “Photo taken at Seest skov/Kolding kirkeskov” (By author) 14th of June. “Photo taken at skov ved Rebæk strand” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016. “Photo taken at skov ved Rebæk strand” (By author) on the 31st of May 2016.

| 95 |

Appendixes

X. Appendixes

X1 Questionnaire

| 96 |

Appendixes

| 97 |

Appendixes

| 98 |

Appendixes

| 99 |

Appendixes

| 100 |

Appendixes

| 101 |

Appendixes

| 102 |

Appendixes

| 103 |

Appendixes

| 104 |

Appendixes

| 105 |

Appendixes

X2 Some photographs

Figure 79 View in Seest skov/Kolding Kirkeskov on the 13 of April 2016.

Figure 80 The same view in Seest skov/Kolding Kirkeskov on the 14 of June 2016.

The forests that were chosen for this thesis were visited during a timespan of more than 2 months between the 13th of April to the 14th of June 2016.

| 106 |

Experience differs throughout the seasons and site analysis should ideally have been made at all four seasons to cover those differences in experience. This is a view from a forest that was visited on the very first and the very last day of the field work. Seest skov/Kolding Kirkeskov.

Appendixes

Figure 81 Table and benches in Municipal owned part of skov ved RebĂŚk strand.

Figure 82 Table and benches in Privare owned part of skov ved RebĂŚk strand.

These two pictures, only taken a few hundred metres apart, clearly shows the difference in attitudes between public and private forest owners towards recrational use of the forest by the public.

Facilities are well kept within the cadastre owned by the municipality and neglected within the private owned cadastre.

| 107 |

The title of this thesis: â&#x20AC;&#x153;My Forest is My Gardenâ&#x20AC;? is not an actual citation, but rather the essence of the attitude of some private forest owners: Caring and Protective.

UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN FA C U LT Y O F S C I E N C E