Residential tree planting and care: A study of attitudes and behavior in Sacramento, California

Journal of Arboriculture

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 89-97

  Summit, Joshua ^a   McPherson, E Gregory ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Public policy; Tree maintenance; Urban forestry

Indexed keywords

GREENSPACE; TREE PLANTING; URBAN FORESTRY;

USA, CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO;

EID: 0031819032     PISSN: 02785226     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Akbari, H., S. Davis, S. Dorsano, J. Huang, and S. Winnett (Eds.). 1992. Cooling Our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
2. Appleyard, D. 1980. Urban trees, urban forests: What do they mean? In Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference. Nov. 1978:138-155. State University of New York Press, Syracuse, NY.
3. Arnold, H.F. 1980. Trees in Urban Design.Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
4. Dwyer, J., E.G. McPherson, H. Schroeder, and R. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J. Arboric. 18:227-234.
5. Heisler, G. 1986. Energy savings with trees. J. Arboric. 15:113-125.
6. Hull, R. Bruce, IV. 1992. How the public values urban forests. J. Arboric. 18:98-101.
7. Jacobs, J. 1993. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York, NY.
8. Kaplan, S. 1987. Aesthetics, affect and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environ. Behav. 19:3-32.
9. Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge
10. McPherson, E.G. 1994. Benefits and costs of tree planting and care in Chicago. In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and R.A. Rowntree (Eds.). Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA For. Serv. Northeast. For. Exp.Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NE-GTR-186.
11. McPherson, E.G., and J.R. Simpson. 1995. Shade trees as a demand-side resource. Home Energy. March/April 1995:11-17.
12. Nowak, D.J. 1994. Air pollution removal by Chicago's urban forest. In McPherson, E.G., D.J. Nowak, and R.A. Rowntree (Eds.). Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA For. Serv. Northeast. For. Exp. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NE-GTR-186.
13. Payne, B.R., and S. Strom. 1975. The contribution of trees to the appraisal value of unimproved residential land. Valuation 22:36-45.
14. Relf, D. 1981. Dynamics of horticultural therapy. Rehabil. Lit. 42:147-160.
15. Schroeder, H.W. 1989. Environment, behavior, and design research on urban forests, pp. 87-117. In Zube, E.H., and G.T. Moore (Eds.). Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design, vol. 2. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
16. Sheets, V.L., and C.D. Manzer. 1991. Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation: Some effects of adding trees along city streets. Environ. Behav. 23:285-304.
17. Smardon, R. 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landsc. Urb. Plann. 15:85-106.
18. Sommer, R., F. Learey, and J. Summit. 1993. The social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting. J. Arboric. 20:170-175.
19. Sommer, R., and J. Summit. 1995. An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environ. Behav. 27:540-557.
20. Summit, J., and R. Sommer. 1998. Urban tree-planting programs: A model for encouraging environmentally protective behavior. Atmosph. Environ. 32:1-5.
21. Ulrich, R.S. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environ. Behav. 13:523-556.
22. Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224: 420-421.
23. Vogel, N. 1996. A legacy in danger: Lack of care imperils capital's aging trees. Sacramento Bee, May 12, A1.
24. Williamson, R.D. 1973. Bird - and people -neighborhoods. Nat. Hist. 82: 55-57.