Example forest types as shown in our survey. From each picture, we extracted data of specific forest characteristics, such as the percentage of conifers and deciduous trees or the height of the trees. We connected this data with the ratings of both forestry experts and people from the general public in order to simulate the potential for psychological restoration of differently managed forests.

By Birgit M. Probst, Astor Toraño Caicoya, Torben Hilmers, Kilian Ramisch, Tord Snäll, Jonathan Stoltz, Patrik Grahn, and Michael Suda.

Read the full paper here.

Research emphasizes the benefits of forests on human health and wellbeing, but the role of specific forest characteristics, e.g., the type of trees (coniferous or deciduous) or the height of trees is unclear. Such knowledge is important to understand what kind of forests could best support human wellbeing. Moreover, such knowledge could be used to predict how a forest’s potential for human wellbeing may develop depending on how the forest is managed.

We therefore asked both forestry experts and people from the general public to rate computer-generated pictures of different forest types based on how beautiful, diverse, natural, unique, and restorative (defined as the process of psychological recovery in nature) they perceived these forest types. We then combined their responses with the data depicted in the forest pictures (e.g., the proportion of coniferous or deciduous trees, tree height). We found that beauty was most important for how restorative participants rated the forest and that mixed forests were rated as most beautiful by both forestry experts and people from the general public. Based on our results, we simulated how a forest and its perceived restorativeness would develop over the course of 100 years based on how it is managed. Our simulations on forest management show that aiming for high forest diversity may best support psychological restoration. Specifically, ‘Set Aside’ (applying no management) and ‘Adaptation Forestry’ (aiming for forest diversity in a climate-resilient way) led to the highest levels of perceived restorativeness over the course of 100 years. While ‘Set Aside’ showed the highest outcomes, ‘Adaptation forestry’ could offer an alternative to also satisfy demands for timber. We conclude that more nuanced knowledge is needed to meet diverse demands and to inform forest management decisions on landscape level.