Resident's attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. communities

Arboriculture and Urban Forestry

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 236-246

  Schroeder, Herbert ^a   Flannigan, John ^b   Coles, Richard ^c  

^a NORTH CENTRAL RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b North Somerset Council   (United Kingdom)

^c BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Benefits; Residents; Street trees; United Kingdom; United States

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY FORESTRY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GROWTH RATE; TREE; URBAN FORESTRY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 33749044027     PISSN: 02785226     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anon. 1990. Town & Country Planning Act, sections 198-210. Her Majesty's Stationery Officer, London, UK.
2. Anon. 2003. Solihull Urban Tree Strategy. Solihull Urban Metropolitan Council, Solihull, UK.
3. Baker, R. (Ed.). 1984. Proceedings of Seminars on Trees & Planning. Polytechnic of the South Bank, Paper No. PCP 17. London, UK.
4. Clouston, B., and K. Stansfield (Eds.). 1981. Trees in Towns: Maintenance and Management. Architectural Press, London, UK.
5. Coles, R., and M. Caserio. 2004. Understanding and facilitating the social outputs of urban green spaces. Open Space: People Space, An International Conference on Inclusive Outdoor Environments. Edinburgh, UK.
6. Daily Mirror. 2004. Call the Copse over Phantom Gardener. Wednesday, February 4. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_objectid= 13911869%26method=full%26siteid=94762-name_page.html (accessed 7/27/05).
7. DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs). 2002. Survey of Public Attitudes to Quality of Life and to the Environment - 2001. Press Release accessed from http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/ 021009c.htm (accessed 6/21/05).
8. Dobson, M., and D. Patch. 1997. Trees in dispute. Arboricultural Practice, Note 3. Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service, Farnham, UK.
9. Flannigan, J. 2005. An evaluation of residents' attitudes to street trees in southwest England. Arboricultural Journal 28:219-241.
10. Fraser, E.D., and W.A. Kenney. 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 26:107-113.
11. Hays, W.L. 1973. Statistics for the Social Sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
12. Heerwagen, J.H., and G.H. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats and aesthetics, pp. 142-146. In The Biophilia Hypothesis Kellert, S.R., and E.O. Wilson, Eds. Island Press, Washington, DC.
13. Hitchmough, J.D., and A.M. Bonugli. 1997. Attitudes of residents of a medium sized town in southwest Scotland to street trees. Landscape Research. 22:327-337.
14. Horticulture Week. 1994. Volume 215, No. 11 (March 17). Haymarket Trade & Leisure Magazines.
15. Jackson, J.E. 1991. A User's Guide to Principal Components. Wiley, New York, NY.
16. Kaiser, H.F. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20:141-151.
17. Kalmbach, K.L., and J.J. Kielbaso. 1979. Residents' attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. Journal of Arboriculture 5:124-129.
18. Kaplan, K., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
19. O'Brien, L., and J. Claridge (Eds.). 2002. Trees are Company: Social Science Research Into Woodlands and the Natural Environment. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK.
20. Riseley, T.F. 1969. Street trees - liabilities or assets. Arboricultural Journal. 1: 194-198.
21. Schroeder, H.W., and W.N. Cannon Jr. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture 9:237-243.
22. Schroeder, H.W., and S.R. Ruffolo. 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture 22:35-43.
23. Sheets, V.L., and C.D. Manzer. 1991. Affect, cognition and urban vegetation: some effects of adding trees along city streets. Environment and Behavior 23:285-304.
24. Sommer, R. 1997. Further cross national studies of tree form preference. Ecological Psychology 9:153-160.
25. Sommer, R., P.A. Barker, H. Guenther, and K. Kurani. 1989. Householder evaluation of two street tree species. Journal of Arboriculture 15:99-103.
26. Sommer, R., H. Guenther, and P.A. Barker. 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal 9:79-85.
27. Sommer, R., H. Guenther, P.A. Barker, and J.P. Swenson. 1993a. Comparison of four methods of street tree assessment. Journal of Arboriculture 19:27-34.
28. Sommer, R., and B.A. Sommer. 1989. The factor structure of street tree attributes. Journal of Arboriculture 15:243-246.
29. Sommer, R., and J. Summit. 1995. An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment and Behavior 27: 540-557.
30. Sommer, R., and J. Summit. 1996. Cross national rankings of tree shape. Ecological Psychology 8:327-341.
31. Sommer, R., J. Summit, and A. Clements. 1993b. Slide ratings of street tree attributes: Some methodological issues and answers. Landscape Journal 12:17-22.
32. Summit, J., and R. Sommer. 1999. Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment and Behavior 31: 550-576.
33. Williams, K. 2002. Exploring resident preferences for street trees in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Arboriculture 28:161-170.
34. World Meteorological Organization. 2006. http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html (accessed 1/10/06).