Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 69, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 355-368

  Martin, Chris A ^a   Warren, Paige S ^b   Kinzig, Ann P ^c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b 24061 ^*  (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Alien vegetation; Ecological aesthetics; Median family income; Native vegetation; Urban landscape

Indexed keywords

ARID REGIONS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PARKS; URBAN PLANNING; VEGETATION;

LANDSCAPE; VARIATIONS;

LAND USE;

GREENSPACE; NEIGHBORHOOD; PERENNIAL PLANT; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; URBAN AREA; VEGETATION DYNAMICS;

PHOENIX;

EID: 4644363671     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.034     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anderson, E., 1956. Man as a maker of new plants and new plant communities. In: Thomas, W.L. (Ed.), Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 763-777.
2. Araujo M.B. The coincidence of people and biodiversity in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12:2003;5-12
3. Dana E.D., Vivas S., Mota J.F. Urban vegetation of Almeria City - a contribution to urban ecology in Spain. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59:2002;203-216
4. Dow K. Social dimensions of gradients in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst. 4:2000;255-275
5. Fraser E.D.G., Kenney W.A. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. J. Arboricult. 26:2000;106-112
6. Gobster P.H. Urban parks as green walls of green magnets? Interracial relations in neighborhood boundary parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 41:1998;43-55
7. Grove J.M., Burch W.R. A social ecology approach to applications of urban ecosystem and landscape analyses: a case study of Baltimore, Maryland. Urban Ecosyst. 1:1997;259-275
8. Hope, D., Zhu, W., Gries, C., Oleson, J., Kaye, J., Grimm, N.B., Jenerette, D., Kinzig, A., 2003. Spatial variation in soil nitrate concentrations across an urban ecosystem. Urban Ecosyst., in press.
9. Iverson L.R., Cook E.A. Urban forest cover of the Chicago region and its relation to household density and income. Urban Ecosyst. 4:2000;105-124
10. Kaplan R., Talbot J.F. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a review and recent findings. Landsc. Urban Plan. 15:1988;107-117
11. Karlik J.F., Winer A.M. Plant species composition, calculated leaf masses and estimated biogenic emissions of urban landscape types from a field survey in Phoenix, Arizona. Landsc. Urban Plan. 53:2001;123-134
12. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc. Urban Plan. 44:1999;177-198
13. Martin C.A., Peterson K.A., Stabler L.B. Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona: practices, preferences and covenants codes and restrictions (CC&Rs). J. Arboricult. 29:2003;9-17
14. Martin C.A., Stabler L.B. Plant gas exchange and water status in urban desert landscapes. J. Arid Environ. 51:2002;235-254
15. Matson P.A., Parton W.J., Power A.G., Swift M.J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science. 277:1997;504-509
16. McKinney, M.L., Lockwood, J.L., 2001. Biotic homogenization: a sequential and selective process. In: McKinney, M.L., Lockwood, J.L. (Eds.), Biotic Homogenization. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1-17.
17. Miller P.R., Winer A.M. Composition and dominance in Los Angeles basin urban vegetation. Urban Ecol. 8:1984;29-54
18. Motloch, 1991. Introduction to Landscape Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 307 pp.
19. Noe F., Snow R. Hispanic cultural influence on environmental concern. J. Environ. Educ. 21:1990;27-34
20. Parsons R., Daniel T.C. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 60:2002;43-56
21. Pickett S.T., Cadenasso M.L. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science. 269:1996;331-334
22. Pysek P. Alien and native species in central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. J. Biogeogr. 25:1998;155-163
23. Rebele F. Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett. 4:1994;173-187
24. Roy D.B., Hill M.O., Rotbery P. Effects of urban land cover on the local species pool in Britain. Ecography. 22:1999;507-515
25. Shaw W.M., Harris L.K., Livingston M. Vegetative characteristics of urban land covers in metropolitan Tucson. Urban Ecosyst. 2:1998;65-73
26. Sukopp, H., Werner, P., 1983. Urban environments and vegetation. In: Holzer, W., Wegner, M.J.A., Ikusima, I. (Eds.), Man's Impact on Vegetation. Junk, The Hague, pp. 247-260.
27. Talarchek G.M. The urban forest of New Orleans - an exploratory analysis of relationships. Urban Geogr. 11:1990;65-86
28. Tyrvainen L., Vaananen H. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 43:1998;105-118
29. Ulrich R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 13:1986;29-44
30. Warren, P.S., Kinzig, A.P., Martin, C.A., 2003. Making sense of the city Human socioeconomic status predicts avian community structure in urban parks. Ecology, submitted.
31. Weiss, M.J., 2000. The Clustered World How We Live, What We Buy, and What It All Means About Who We Are. Little, Brown, and Co., Boston.
32. Whitney G.G., Adams S.D. Man as maker of new plant communities. J. Appl. Ecol. 17:1980;431-448