Quantitative assessment of the treescape and cityscape of Nanjing, China

Landscape Ecology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 395-412

  Chen, Sophia S ^a   Jim, C Y ^b  

^a NANJING INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND LIMNOLOGY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Cityscape; Nanjing; Species diversity; Treescape; Urban forest; Urban landscape; Urban tree

Indexed keywords

GREENSPACE; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TREE; URBAN FORESTRY; URBAN PLANNING;

CHINA;

EID: 0242656333     PISSN: 09212973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1026146123459     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Anderson C.J., Campbell D.J., Ritchie R.M. and Smith D.L.O. 1989. Soil shear strength measurements and their relevance to windthrow in Sitka spruce. Soil Use and Management 5: 62-66.
2. Bradshaw A.D., Hunt B. and Walmsley T. 1995. Trees in the Urban Landscape: Principles and Practice. E & FN Spon, London, UK.
3. Breuste J., Feldmann H. and Uhlmann O. (eds) 1998. Urban Ecology. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
4. Chen S, and Yao S.M. 1998. Study on land saving measures in the expansion of medium-sized or small cities in the case of southeast coastal region in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica 18: 425-432.
5. Forman R.T.T. and Godron M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley. New York, New York, USA.
6. Godefroid S. 2001. Temporal analysis of the Brussels flora as indicator for changing environmental quality. Landscape and Urban Planning 52: 203-224.
7. Gilbert O.L. 1989. The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
8. Ihse M. 1995. Swedish agricultural landscapes-patterns and changes during the last 50 years, studied by aerial photos. Landscape and Urban Planning 31: 21-37.
9. Iverson L.R. and Cook E.A. 2000. Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosystems 4: 105-124.
10. Jaenson R., Bassuk N., Schwager S. and Headley D. 1992. A statistical method for the accurate and rapid sampling of urban street tree populations. Journal of Arboriculture 18: 171-183.
11. Jim C.Y. 1989. Tree canopy cover, land use and planning implications in urban Hong Kong. Geoforum 20: 57-68.
12. Jim C.Y. 1993. Trees and landscape of a suburban residential neighbourhood in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 23: 119-143.
13. Jim C.Y. 1997a. Roadside trees in urban Hong Kong: Part 3 tree size and growth space. Arboricultural Journal 21: 73-88.
14. Jim C.Y. 1997b. Roadside trees in urban Hong Kong: Part 4 tree growth and environmental condition. Arboricultural Journal 21: 89-99.
15. Jim C.Y. 1998. Urban soil characteristics and limitations for landscape planting in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 235-249.
16. Jim C.Y. and Liu H.T. 2001. Species diversity of three major urban forest types in Guangzhou City, China. Forest Ecology and Management 146: 99-114.
17. Li B.L. 2000. Why is the holistic approach becoming so important in landscape ecology? Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 27-41.
18. Mander U. and Jongman R.H.G. 1998. Human impact on rural landscapes in central and northern Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 41: 149-153.
19. McDonnell M.J. and Pickett S.T.A. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71: 1231-1237.
20. Medley L.E. and Mcdonnell M.J. 1995. Forest-landscape structure along an urban-to-rural gradient. Professional Geographer 47: 159-168.
21. Miller P.R. and Winer A.M. 1984. Composition and dominance in Los Angeles Basin urban vegetation. Urban Ecology 8: 29-54.
22. Nadel I.B. 1977. Trees in the City. Pergamon, New York, New York, USA.
23. Poracsky J. and Scott M. 1999. Industrial-area street trees in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Arboriculture 25: 9-17.
24. Rowntree R.A. 1983. Configuration of tree canopy cover in urban land uses. Geographical Perspective 51: 49-53.
25. Sanders R.A. 1980/1981. Diversity in the street trees of Syracuse, New York. Urban Ecology 5: 33-43.
26. Sanders R.A. 1984. Some determinants of urban forest structure. Urban Ecology 8: 13-27.
27. Schmid J.A. 1975. Urban Vegetation: Review and Chicago Case Study. Research Paper No. 161. University of Chicago Department of Geography, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
28. Simpson E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.
29. Skanes H.M. and Bunce R.G.H. 1997. Directions of landscape change (1974-1993) in Virestad, Sweden: characterised by multivariate analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 36: 61-75.
30. Sudha P. and Ravindranath N.H. 2000. A study of Bangalore urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 47: 47-63.
31. Sukopp H., Hejny S. and Kowarik I. (eds) 1990. Urban Ecology: Plants and Plant Communities in Urban Environments. SPB Academic, The Hague, The Netherlands.
32. Talarchek G.M. 1987. Indicators of urban forest condition in New Orleans. Journal of Arboriculture 13: 217-224.
33. Talarchek G.M. 1990. The urban forest of New Orleans: an explanatory analysis of relationships. Urban Geography 11: 65-86.
34. Walker T.D. 1990. Functional and aesthetic uses of plants in design. In: Carpenter P.L. and Walker T.D. (eds), Plants in the Landscape. 2nd edn. W.H. Freeman, New York, New York, USA, pp. 152-178.
35. Welch J.M. 1994. Street and park trees of Boston: a comparison of urban forest structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 29: 131-143.
36. Whitney G.G. 1985. A quantitative analysis of the flora and plant communities of a representative midwestern U.S. town. Urban Ecology 9: 143-160.
37. Wickop E. 1998. Environmental quality targets for urban structural units in Leipzig with a view to sustainable urban development. In: Breuste J., Feldmann H. and Uhlmann O. (eds), Urban Ecology. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 49-54.
38. Zmyslony J. and Gagnon D. 1998. Residential management of urban front-yard landscape: a random process? Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 295-307.