Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 200-209

  Lindal, Pall J ^a   Hartig, Terry ^b  

^a REYKJAVIK UNIVERSITY   (Iceland)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Architectural complexity; Environmental preference; Psychological restoration; Restorative environments; Urbanization

Indexed keywords

DIGITAL IMAGE; GRASS; PERCEPTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; URBAN AREA; URBAN PLANNING; URBAN POPULATION; URBANIZATION; VEGETATION STRUCTURE;

ICELAND;

EID: 84940162547     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Bell S., Blom D., Rautamäki M., Castel-Branco C., Simson A., Olsen I.A. Design of urban forests. Urban Forests and Trees 2005, Springer, New York, NY. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
2. de Kort Y.A.W., Meijnders A.L., Sponselee A.A.G., IJsselsteijn W.A. What's wrong with virtual trees? Restoring from stress in a mediated environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26:309-320.
3. Department of Planning and Environment Reykjavik Municipal Plan 2010-2030: July 2013 Proposal 2013, Department of Planning and Environment, Reykjavik, Iceland: City of Reykjavik.
4. Enquist M., Arak A. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 1994, 372:169-172.
5. Ewing R. Residential street design: do the British and Australians know something Americans do not?. Transp. Res. Rec. 1994, 1455:42-49.
6. Ewing R., Handy S., Brownson R.C., Clemente O., Winston E. Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. J. Phys. Act. Health 2006, 3(Suppl. 1):S223-S240.
7. Fuller R.A., Irvine K.N., Devine-Wright P., Warren P.H., Gaston K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3:390-394.
8. Getz D.A., Karow A., Kielbaso J.J. Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. J. Arboric. 1982, 8:258-263.
9. Gorman J. Residents' opinions on the value of street trees depending on tree location. J. Arboric. 2004, 30:36-44.
10. Grey G.W., Deneke F. Urban Forestry 1978, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
11. Hartig T. Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape Urban Plann. 1993, 25:17-36.
12. Hartig T., Korpela K., Evans G.W., Garling T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand. Hous. Plann. Res. 1997, 14:175-194.
13. Hartig T., Kaiser F.G., Bowler P.A. Further development of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Working Paper No. 5 1997, Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Gävle, Sweden.
14. Hartig T., Mitchell R., De Vries S., Frumkin H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35:207-228.
15. Hartig T., Staats H. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26:215-226.
16. Hartig T., van den Berg A., Hägerhäll C., Tomalak M., Bauer N., Hansmann R., Ojala A., Syngollitou E., Carrus G., van Herzele A., Bell S., Camilleri Podesta M.T., Waaseth G. Health benefits of nature experience: psychological social and cultural processes. Forests, Trees, and Human Health 2011, 127-168. Springer, Dordrecht. K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. De Vries, K. Seeland, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
17. Health Council of the Netherlands Nature and Health: The Influence of Nature on Social, Psychological and Physical Well-being 2004, Health Council of the Netherlands and Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Den Hague.
18. Herzog T.R., Black A.M., Fountaine K.A., Knotts D.J. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17:165-170.
19. Jacobs A.B. Keynote: looking, learning, making. Places 1997, 1:4-7.
20. Jiang B., Chang C.-Y., Sullivan W.C. A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landscape Urban Plann. 2014, 132:26-36.
21. Kalmbach K.L., Kielbaso J.J. Resident attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. J. Arboric. 1979, 5:124-129.
22. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
23. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Ryan R.L. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature 1998, Island Press, Washington, DC.
24. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15:169-182.
25. Laumann K., Garling T., Stormark K.M. Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21:31-44.
26. Lindal P.J. Restorative environmental design for densifying cities. Faculty of Architecture Design & Planning 2013, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, (Doctoral dissertation).
27. Lindal P.J., Hartig T. Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 33:26-36.
28. Lohr V.I., Pearson-Mims C.H., Tarnai J., Dillman D.A. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J. Arboric. 2004, 30:28-35.
29. Mitchell R., Astell-Burt T., Richardson E.A. A comparison of greenspace indicators for epidemiological research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2011, 65:853-858.
30. Nielsen A.B., Møller F. Is coppice a potential for urban forestry? The social perspective. Urban For. Urban Greening 2008, 7:129-138.
31. Nordh H., Alalouch C., Hartig T. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Greening 2011, 10:95-103.
32. Nordh H., Hartig T., Hagerhall C.M., Fry G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Greening 2009, 8:225-235.
33. Preacher K.J., Hayes A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40:879-891.
34. Portland Parks and Recreation City Nature Urban Forestry (no date). Street Tree Planting and Establishment Guidelines. City of Portland, OR, USA. Retrieved May 13, 2010 from 〈〉. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/trees/article/514074.
35. Reynarsson B. The planning of Reykjavik. Iceland: three ideological waves - a historical overview 1999, 14:49-67. Plann. Perspect.
36. Rohrmann B., Bishop I. Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2002, 22:319-331.
37. Schroeder H.W., Orland B. Viewer preference for spatial arrangement of park trees: an application of video imaging technology. Environ. Manage. 1994, 18:119-128.
38. Schroeder H.W., Flannigan J., Coles R. Residents' attitudes toward street trees in the UK and U.S. Communities. Arboric. Urban For. 2006, 32:236-246.
39. Smardon R.C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Plann. 1988, 15:85-106.
40. Sommer R., Guenther H., Barker P.A. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape J. 1990, 9:79-85.
41. Summit J., Sommer R. Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environ. Behav. 1999, 31:550-576.
42. Staats H., Kieviet A., Hartig T. Where to recover from attentional fatigue: an expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23:147-157.
43. Stamps A.E. Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Percept. Mot. Skills 1990, 71:907-913.
44. Stamps A.E. Some streets of San Francisco: preference effects of trees, cars, wires, and buildings. Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 1997, 24:81-93.
45. Stamps A.E. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis. J. Plann. Lit. 1999, 14:155-175.
46. Stamps A.E. Use of static and dynamic media to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Percept. Mot. Skills 2010, 111:355-364.
47. Tabachnick B., Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics 2007, Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Boston. 5th ed.
48. Texas Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (no date). Sec. 9-11-11. Tree ordinance. Retrieved May 14, 2010 from 〈〉. http://www.isatexas.com/members/Ordinances/2012_Ordinances/Public_Tree_Care_Ordinances/Coppell%20-%20Public%20Tree%20Care.pdf.
49. Thayer R.L., Atwood B.G. Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environ. Psychol. Nonverbal Behav. 1978, 3:67-76.
50. Thwaites K., Helleur E., Simkins I.M. Restorative urban open space: exploring the spatial configuration of human emotional fulfillment in urban open space. Landscape Res. 2005, 30:525-547.
51. Todorova A., Asakawa S., Aikoh T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo Japan. Landscape Urban Plann. 2004, 69:403-416.
52. Tomalak M., Rossi E., Ferrini F., Moro P. Negative aspects and hazardous effects of forest environment on human health. Forests, Trees, and Human Health 2011, Springer, New York, NY. K. Nilsson, M. Sangster, C. Gallis, T. Hartig, S. de Vries, K. Seeland, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
53. van den Berg A., Koole S.L., van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23:135-146.
54. van Dillen S.M.E., de Vries S., Groenewegen P.P., Spreeuwenberg P. Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents' health: adding quality to quantity. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2012, 66:e8.
55. Valtchanov D., Barton K.R., Ellard C. Restorative effects of virtual nature settings. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Networking 2010, 13:503-512.
56. Velarde M.D., Fry G., Tveit M. Health effects of viewing landscapes: landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For. Urban Greening 2007, 6:199-213.
57. Weber R., Schnier J., Jacobsen T. Aesthetics of streetscapes: influence of fundamental properties on aesthetic judgments of urban space. Percept. Mot. Skills 2008, 106:128-146.
58. Wolf K.L. Freeway roadside management: the urban forest beyond the white line. J. Arboric. 2003, 29:127-136.
59. Wolf K.L. Nature in the retail environment: comparing consumer and business response to urban forest conditions. Landscape J. 2004, 23:40-51.
60. Wolf K.L. Strip malls, city trees, and community values. Arboric. Urban For. 2009, 35:33-40.