Environment, Behavior, and Design Research on Urban Forests

  • Herbert W. Schroeder
Part of the Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design book series (AEBD, volume 2)

Abstract

To many people the term urban forest seems incongruous and contradictory. But a look around any major city quickly reveals that trees and other vegetation are an important feature in many urban settings. For example, an aerial photo survey of Dayton, Ohio, showed that 22% of the city’s land area is covered with trees, and that 35% is covered with other kinds of vegetation (Sanders & Stevens, 1984). According to one overall estimate, 30% of the average city in the United States is covered with trees, a proportion larger than the average tree cover for countryside (Dwyer, Deneke, Grey, & Moeller, 1983).

Keywords

Cage Transportation Coherence Beach Resi 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, P. G., Stevens, T. H., & More, T. A. (1985). Measuring the economic value of urban parks: A caution. Leisure Sciences, 7(4), 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allton, D. J., & Lieber, S. R. (1983). Attributes of Chicago trail areas. Leisure Sciences, 5(3), 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ames, R. G. (1980). Urban tree planting programs: A sociological perspective. HortScience, 25(2), 135–137.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. M., & Cordell, H. K. (1985). Residential property values improved by landscaping with trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 9(3), 162–166.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, L. M., & Eaton, T. A. (1986). Liability for damage caused by hazardous trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 12(8), 189–195.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, L. M., & Schroeder, H. W. (1983). Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape. Landscape Planning, 10, 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, L. M., Mulligan, B. E., Goodman, L. S., & Regen, H. Z. (1983). Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior, 15(5), 539–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buhyoff, G. J., Gauthier, L. J., & Wellman, J. D. (1984). Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. ForestScience, 30(1), 71–82.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, H. H., & Clark, R. N. (1983). Increasing public involvement to reduce de-preciative behavior in recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 5(4), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chubb, M., & Westover, T. N. (1980). Antisocial behavior: Typology, messages, and implications for recreation resource managers. In Proceedings of Land-Use Allocation: Processes, People, Politics, Professionals. Spokane, WA.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, R. N., & Stankey, G. H. (1979). The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning, management, and research (USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-98). Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  12. Coughlin, R. E., & Strong, A. L. (1983). Forests, fields, and urban development: Planning as though vegetation really mattered (Research Report Series no. 2). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of City and Regional Planning.Google Scholar
  13. Coughlin, R. E., Mendes, D. C., & Strong, A. L. (1984). Private trees and public interest: Programs for protecting and planting trees in metropolitan areas (Research Report Series no. 10). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Department of City and Regional Planning.Google Scholar
  14. Darragh, A. J., Peterson, G. L., & Dwyer, J. F. (1983). Travel cost models at the urban scale. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(2), 89–94.Google Scholar
  15. Dwyer, J. F. (1980). Managing urban forests for recreation. Trends, 17(4) 11–14.Google Scholar
  16. Dwyer, J. F., & Schroeder, H. W. (1982). Urban river recreation: New challenges and opportunities. Naturalist, 33(Summer), 6–10.Google Scholar
  17. Dwyer, J. F., & Strong, A. L. (1986). Urban-rural forestry in the Netherlands. Journal of Forestry, 84(2), 57–59.Google Scholar
  18. Dwyer, J. F., Deneke, F. J., Grey, G. W., & Moeller, G. H. (1983). Urban forests: Where trees and people go together. In 1983 USDA yearbook of agriculture. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  19. Dwyer, J. F., Schroeder, H. W., & Buck, R. L. (1985). Patterns of use in an urban forestrecreation area. In Proceedings of the 1985 National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium, Vol. 2. Myrtle Beach, SC.Google Scholar
  20. Fritschen, J. M., & Stynes, D. J. (1980). Interpretation for urban audiences. In Proceedings of the Association of Interpretative Naturalists Workshop. Cape Cod, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Getz, D. A., Karow, A., & Kielbaso, J. J. (1982). Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. Journal of Arboriculture, 8(10), 258–263.Google Scholar
  22. Godbey, G., & Blazey, M. (1983). Old people in urban parks: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3), 229–244.Google Scholar
  23. Gold, S. M. (1983a). A human service approach to recreation planning. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 1(1), 27–37.Google Scholar
  24. Gold, S. M. (1983b). Risk management in public playgrounds. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 1(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
  25. Grey, G. W., & Deneke, F. J. (1986). Urban forestry (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Hagerty, J. K., Stevens, T. H., Allen, P. G., & More, T. (1982). Benefits from urban open space and recreational parks: A case study. Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, 11(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  27. Hayward, D. G., & Weitzer, W. H. (1983). Understanding urban park users: A key to effective planning and management. Parks and Recreation Resources, 2(2), 24–27.Google Scholar
  28. Hayward, D. G., & Weitzer, W. H. (1984). The public’s image of urban parks: Past amenity, present ambivalence, uncertain future. Urban Ecology, 8, 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutchison, R., & Fidel, K. (1984). Mexican-American recreation activities: A reply to McMillen. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(4), 344–349.Google Scholar
  31. Kaplan, R. (1980). Citizen participation in the design and evaluation of a park. Environment and Behavior, 12(4), 494–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaplan, R. (1981). Evaluation of an urban vest-pocket park (USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-195). St. Paul: North Central Forest Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, R. (1982). Managing greenspace in multiple-family neighborhoods. In Proceedings of the 1982 Convention of the Society of American Foresters. Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  34. Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  35. Kaplan, R. (1984a). Dominant and variant values in environmental preference. In A. S. Devlin & S. L. Taylor (Eds.), Environmental preference and landscape preference. New London: Connecticut College.Google Scholar
  36. Kaplan, R. (1984b). Human needs for renewable resources and supportive environments. In G. A. Bradley (Ed.) Land use and forest resources in a changing environment: The urban/forest interface. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kaplan, R. (1984c). Impact of urban nature: A theoretical analysis. Urban Ecology, 8, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 115–127.Google Scholar
  39. Kellert, S. R. (1984). Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecology, 8, 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lieber, S. R., & Allton, D. J. (1983). Modeling trail area evaluations in metropolitan Chicago. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3), 184–202.Google Scholar
  41. Lieber, S. R., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1985). Physical and social conditions affecting recreation site preferences. Environment and Planning A, 17, 1613–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lien, J. N., & Buhyoff, G. J. (1986). Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. Journal of Environmental Management, 22(3), 245–254.Google Scholar
  43. Marans, R. W., & Fly, J. M. (1981). Recreation and the quality of urban life (Research Report Series). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  44. Metro, L. J., Dwyer, J. F., & Dreschler, E. S. (1981). Forest experiences of fifth-grade Chicago public school students (USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-216). St. Paul: North Central Forest Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  45. Morales, D. J., Micha, F. R., & Weber, R. L. (1983). Two methods of evaluating trees on residential sites. Journal of Arboriculture, 9(1), 21–24.Google Scholar
  46. More, T. A. (1980). Trail deterioration as an indicator of trail use in an urban forest recreation area (USDA Forest Service Research Note NE-292). Broomall, PA: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  47. More, T. A. (1983). The nonusers of an urban forest interpretive center. Journal of Interpretation, 8(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  48. More, T. A. (1984). A practical guide to the use of observation in the study of urban parks. In J. D. Peine (Ed.), Proceedings of a workshop on unobtrusive techniques to study social behavior in parks. Atlanta: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.Google Scholar
  49. More, T. A. (1985a). Central city parks: A behavioral perspective. Burlington: University of Vermont, School of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  50. More, T. A. (1985b). Evaluating and interpreting use data in urban park settings. In Proceedings of the 1985 National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium Vol. 2. Myrtle Beach, SC.Google Scholar
  51. Nasar, J. L. (1981). Visual preferences of elderly public housing residents: Residential street scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Leary, J. T. (1982). Managing urban river corridors: Implications for urban forestry. In Proceedings of the 1982 Convention of the Society of American Foresters. Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  53. O’Leary, J. T., & Benjamin, P. J. (1982). Ethnic variation in leisure behavior: The Indiana case (Station Bulletin no. 349). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural resources, Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  54. Palmer, J. F. (1984). Neighborhoods as stands in the urban forest. Urban Ecology, 8, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peterson, G. L., Dwyer, J. F., & Darragh, A. J. (1983). A behavioral urban recreation site choice model. Leisure Sciences, 6(1), 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peterson, G. L., Stynes, D. J., Rosenthal, D. H., & Dwyer, J. F. (1985). Substitution in recreation choice behavior. In Proceedings of symposium on recreation choice behavior (USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-184, pp. 19–30). Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station.Google Scholar
  57. Samdahl, D. M., & Christensen, H. H. (1985). Environmental cues and vandalism: An exploratory study of picnic table carving. Environment and Behavior, 17(4), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanders, R. A. (1981). Diversity in the street trees of Syracuse, New York. Urban Ecology, 5, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sanders, R. A. (1984). Estimating satisfaction levels for a city’s vegetation. Urban Ecology, 8, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sanders, R. A., & Rowntree, R. A. (1984). Environmental management through urban forestry on the hillsides of Cincinnati, Ohio. Journal of Environmental Management, 19, 161–174.Google Scholar
  61. Sanders, R. A., & Stevens, J. C. (1984). Urban forest of Dayton, Ohio: A preliminary assessment. Urban Ecology, 8, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schabel, H. G., & Dwyer, J. F. (1985). Institutional aspects of forest recreation resource management in West Germany. Landscape Journal, 4(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  63. Schroeder, H. W. (1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 8(12), 317–322.Google Scholar
  64. Schroeder, H. W. (1983). Variations in the perception of urban forest recreation sites. Leisure Sciences, 5(3), 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(2), 178–194.Google Scholar
  66. Schroeder, H. W., & Appelt, P. (1985). Public attitudes toward a municipal forestry program. Journal of Arboriculture, 11(1), 18–21.Google Scholar
  67. Schroeder, H. W., & Cannon, W. N. Jr. (1983). The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture, 9(9), 237–243.Google Scholar
  68. Schroeder, H. W., & Green, T. L. (1985). Public preference for tree density in municipal parks. Journal of Arboriculture, 11(9) 272–277.Google Scholar
  69. Schroeder, H. W., & Louviere, J. J. (1986). A model for predicting distribution of recreational use over a system of parks. In Proceedings of the Forestry Microcomputer Software Symposium. Morgantown: West Virginia University, Division of ForestryGoogle Scholar
  70. Shaffer, G. S., & Anderson, L. M. (1985). Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shaw, W. W., Mangun, W. R., & Lyons, J. R. (1985). Residential enjoyment of wildlife resources by Americans. Leisure Sciences, 7(3), 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smardon, R. C. (1985). A visual approach to redesigning the commercial strip highway. Transportation Research Record No. 1016, 1–6.Google Scholar
  73. Spotts, D. M., & Stynes, D. J. (1984). Public awareness and knowledge of urban parks: A case study. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2(4), 1–12.Google Scholar
  74. Spotts, D. M., & Stynes, D. J. (1985). Measuring the public’s familiarity with recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(4), 253–265Google Scholar
  75. Stamps, S. M. Jr., & Stamps, M. B. (1985). Race, class, and leisure activities of urban residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(1), 40–56.Google Scholar
  76. Stiegler, J. E. (1985). Public perception of the urban forest. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Minnesota, Graduate School, St. Paul.Google Scholar
  77. Stynes, D. J., Spotts, D. M., & Strunk, J. R. (1985). Relaxing assumptions of perfect information in park visitation models. Professional Geographer, 37(1), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Talbot, J. F. (1982). Zoning reconsidered: The impacts of environmental aesthetics in urban neighborhoods. In P. Bart, A. Chen, & G. Francesato (Eds.), Proceedings of EDRA 13: Knowledge for Design. Washington, DC: Environmental Design and Research Association.Google Scholar
  79. Talbot, J. F., & Kaplan, R. (1984). Needs and fears: The response to trees and nature in the inner city. Journal of Arboriculture, 10(8), 222–228.Google Scholar
  80. Talbot, J. F., & Kaplan, R. (1986). Judging the sizes of urban open areas: Is bigger always better? Landscape Journal, 5(2), 83–92Google Scholar
  81. Tyznik, A. (1981). Trees as design elements in the landscape. Journal of Arboriculture, 7(2), 53–55.Google Scholar
  82. Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ulrich, R. S., & Addoms, D. L. (1981). Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
  86. Ulrich, R. S., & Simons, R. F. (1986). Recovery from stress during exposure to everyday outdoor environments. In Proceedings of EDRA 17. Washington, DC: Environmental Design and Research Association.Google Scholar
  87. Vining, J., Daniel, T. C, & Schroeder, H. W. (1984). Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(2), 124–135.Google Scholar
  88. Wendling, R. C. (1980). Black/white differences in outdoor recreation behavior: State-of-the-art and recommendations for management and research. In Proceedings of Social Research in National Parks and Wildland Areas. Gatlinburg, TN.Google Scholar
  89. Wendling, R. C., Gabriel, S., Dwyer, J. F., & Buck, R. L. (1981). Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois. Journal of Forestry, 79(9), 602–605.Google Scholar
  90. West, P. C. (Ed.). (1981). Vestiges of a cage Vol. 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Natural Resource Sociology Research Lab.Google Scholar
  91. West, P. C. (1984). Social stigma and community recreation participation by the mentally and physically handicapped. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 18(1), 40–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Westover, T. N. (1985a). Perceptions of crime and safety in three midwestern parks. Professional Geographer, 37(4), 410–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Westover, T. N. (1985b). Perceptions of rule compliance and law enforcement in urban and suburban parks. Recreation Research Review, 12(2), 22–29.Google Scholar
  94. Westover, T. N. (1986). Park use and perception: Gender differences. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 4(2), 1–8.Google Scholar
  95. Wohlwill, J. F., & Harris, G. (1980). Response to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural-recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 3(4), 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Young, R. A., & Flowers, M. L. (1982). Users of an urban natural area: Their characteristics, use patterns, satisfactions, and recommendations (Forestry research report 82–4). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Department of Forestry, Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert W. Schroeder
    • 1
  1. 1.North Central Forest Experiment StationU.S. Department of Agriculture Forest ServiceChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations