Volunteered geographic information, urban forests, & environmental justice

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

Volumn 53, Issue , 2015, Pages 65-75

  Foster, Alec ^a   Dunham, Ian M ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital divide; Geographically weighted general linear models; Social justice; Urban forests; Volunteered geographic information

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY;

DIGITAL DIVIDE; GENERAL LINEAR MODELS; SOCIAL JUSTICE; URBAN FORESTS; VOLUNTEERED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION;

FORESTRY;

CARTOGRAPHY; DEMOGRAPHY; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; GIS; MAPPING; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; URBAN FORESTRY;

EID: 85028222217     PISSN: 01989715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Anderson L.M., Cordell K.H. Residential property values improve with trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 1985, 9(3):162-166.
2. Andreu, M. G., Friedman, M. H., Landry, S. M., & Northrop, R. J. (2008). City of Tampa urban ecological analysis 2006-2007 (p. 84). Tampa, FL.
3. Beers D.G. The centennial city 1865-1867. Philadelphia: A 300 year history 1982, 417-440. W.W. Norton & Company. R.F. Weigley (Ed.).
4. Bolund P., Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 1999, 29(2):293-301. 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
5. Brownlow A. An archaeology of fear and environmental change in Philadelphia. Geoforum 2006, 37(2):227-245. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.02.009.
6. Brownlow A. Between rights and responsibilities: Insurgent performance in an invisible landscape. Environment and Planning A 2011, 43(6):1268-1286. 10.1068/a436.
7. Buijs A.E., Elands B.H.M., Langers F. No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 91(3):113-123. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.
8. Chakraborty J., Bosman M. Measuring the digital divide in the United States: Race, income, and personal computer ownership. The Professional Geographer 2005, 57(3):395-410. .
9. Chen W.Y., Jim C. Assessment and valuation of ecosystem services provided by urban forests. Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: International perspectives 2008, 53-83. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. M.M. Carreiro, Y.-C. Song, J. Wu (Eds.).
10. Cinnamon J., Schuurman N. Confronting the data-divide in a time of spatial turns and volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal 2012, 78(4):657-674. 10.1007/s10708-012-9458-6.
11. Coleman D., Georgiadou Y., Labonte J. Volunteered geographic information: The nature and motivation of produsers. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 2009, 4:332-358. 10.2902/1725-0463.2009.04.art16.
12. Comber A., Brunsdon C., Green E. Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 86(1):103-114. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002.
13. Connors J., Lei S., Kelly M. Citizen science in the age of neogeography: Utilizing volunteered geographic information for environmental monitoring. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2012, 102(6):1267-1289. .
14. Conway T., Shakeel T., Atallah J. Community groups and urban forestry activity: Drivers of uneven canopy cover?. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 101:321-329. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.037.
15. Crutcher M., Zook M. Placemarks and waterlines: Racialized cyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth. Geoforum 2009, 40(4):523-534. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.01.003.
16. Cutter S. Living with risk: The geography of technological hazards 1993, Arnold, New York, NY, p. 214.
17. Dai D. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene?. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 102(4):234-244. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002.
18. Donovan G.H., Butry D.T. Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 94(2):77-83. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.019.
19. Dunham I.M., Foster A. Proximate landscapes of economic inclusion in southeastern Pennsylvania. The Professional Geographer 2014, (May):1-13. 10.1080/00330124.2014.907697.
20. Dunn M.M., Dunn R.S. The founding, 1681-1701. Philadelphia: A 300 year history 1982, 1-32. W.W. Norton & Company.
21. Dwyer J.F., Mcpherson E.G., Schroeder H.W., Rowntree R.A. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 1992, 18(September):227-234.
22. Ebenreck S. The value of trees. Shading our cities 1989, 49-57. Island Press, Washington, DC. G. Moll, S. Ebenreck (Eds.).
23. Elmendorf B.W.F., Willits F.K., Sasidharan V. Urban park and forest participation and landscape preference: A comparison between blacks and whites in Philadelphia. Journal of Arboriculture 2005, 31(6):318-326.
24. Elmendorf B.W.F., Willits F.K., Sasidharan V. Urban park and forest participation and landscape preference: A review of the relevant literature. Journal of Arboriculture 2005, 31(November):311-317.
25. Elwood S. Geographic information science: Emerging research on the societal implications of the geospatial web. Progress in Human Geography 2009, 34(3):349-357. 10.1177/0309132509340711.
26. Elwood S., Goodchild M., Sui D. Researching volunteered geographic information: Spatial data, geographic research, and new social practice. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2012, 102(3):37-41. .
27. Fraser E.D.G., Kenney W.A. Cultural background and landscape history as factors affecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 2000, 26(2):106-113.
28. Gerhold H.D. Origins of urban forestry. Urban and community forestry in the Northeast 2007, 1-23. Springer. J.E. Kuser (Ed.).
29. Gilbert M. Theorizing digital and urban inequalities. Information, Communication & Society 2010, 13(7):1000-1018. 10.1080/1369118X.2010.499954.
30. Girres J.-F., Touya G. Quality assessment of the French OpenStreetMap dataset. Transactions in GIS 2010, 14(4):435-459. 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01203.x.
31. Haklay M. How good is volunteered geographical information? Acomparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2010, 37(4):682-703. 10.1068/b35097.
32. Heidt V., Neef M. Benefits of urban green space for improving urban climate. Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: International perspectives 2008, 84-96. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. J. Wu, M.M. Carreiro, Y.C. Song (Eds.).
33. Hester R.T., Blazej N.J., Moore I.S. Whose wild? Resolving cultural and biological diversity conflicts in urban wilderness. Landscape Journal 1999, 18(2):137-146. 10.3368/lj.18.2.137.
34. Heynen N.C., Lindsey G. Correlations of urban forest canopy cover: Implications for local public works. Public Works Management and Policy 2003, 8(1):33-47. 10.1177/1087724X03253604.
35. Heynen N.C., Perkins H.A., Roy P. The impact of political economy on the political ecology of uneven urban green space. Urban Affairs Review 2006, 42(1):3-25. 10.1177/1078087406290729.
36. Heynen N.C., Perkins H.A., Roy P. Failing to grow their own justice? The co-production of racial/gendered labor and Milwaukee's urban forest. Urban Geography 2007, 38(8):732-754. 10.2747/0272-3638.28.8.732.
37. Ho C., Sasidharan V., Elmendorf W., Willits F.K. Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. Journal of Leisure Research 2005, 37(3):281-306.
38. Jensen R., Gatrell J., Boulton J., Harper B. Using remote sensing and geographic information systems to study urban quality of life and urban forest amenities. Ecology and Society 2004, 9(5):10.
39. Kaplan R., Talbot J.F. Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning 1988, 15:107-117. 10.1016/0169-2046(88)90019-9.
40. Kielbaso, J. J. (2008). Management of urban forests in the United States. In Carreiro, M. M., Song, Y. -C. & Wu, J. (Eds.), Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: International perspectives (pp. 240-258). Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
41. Konijnendijk C.C., Ricard R.M., Kenney A., Randrup T.B. Defining urban forestry - A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2006, 4(3-4):93-103. 10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003.
42. Landry S.M., Chakraborty J. Street trees and equity: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41(11):2651-2670. 10.1068/a41236.
43. Lohr B.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. Journal of Arboriculture 2004, 30(1):28-35.
44. Martin D.C. Apartheid in the great outdoors: American advertising and the reproduction of a racialized outdoor leisure identity. Journal of Leisure Research 2004, 36(4):513-535.
45. Nakaya, T. (2012). GWR4 user manual.
46. Nowak, D. J., Hoehn, R. E. I., Crane, D. E., Stevens, J. C., & Walton, J. T. (2007). Assessing urban forest effects and values: Philadelphia's urban forest (p. 22). Newtown Square, PA.
47. Nutter, M. (2009). Greenworks Philadelphia (p. 100).
48. O'Neil-Dunne, J. (2011). A report on the city of Philadelphia's existing and possible tree canopy (p. 12).
49. Payne L.L., Mowen A.J., Orsega-Smith E. An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: The role of residential location, race, and age. Leisure Sciences 2002, 24(2):181-198. 10.1080/01490400252900149.
50. Pedlowski M.A., Carneiro Da Silva V.A., Adell J.J.C., Heynen N.C. Urban forest and environmental inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Urban Ecosystems 2002, 6:9-20. 10.1023/A:1025910528583.
51. Perkins H.A. Gramsci in green: Neoliberal hegemony through urban forestry and the potential for a political ecology of praxis. Geoforum 2011, 42(5):558-566. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.05.001.
52. Perkins H.A., Heynen N., Wilson J. Inequitable access to urban reforestation: The impact of urban political economy on housing tenure and urban forests. Cities 2004, 21(4):291-299. 10.1016/j.cities.2004.04.002.
53. PhillyTreeMap. (n.d.). Retrieved August 11, 2012, from http://www.phillytreemap.org/.
54. Pincetl S. Implementing municipal tree planting: Los Angeles million-tree initiative. Environmental Management 2010, 45(2):227-238. 10.1007/s00267-009-9412-7.
55. Pulido L. Rethinking environmental racism: White priviledge and urban development in southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2000, 90(1):12-40. 10.1111/0004-5608.00182.
56. Sailor D.J. Simulated urban climate response to modification in surface albedo and vegetative cover. Journal of Applied Meteorology 1995, 34:1694-1705. 10.1175/1520-0450-34.7.1694.
57. Sampson R.N. Introduction. Shading our cities 1989, xiii-xv. Island Press, Washington, DC. G. Moll, S. Ebenreck (Eds.).
58. Sander H., Polasky S., Haight R.G. The value of urban tree cover: A hedonic property price model in Ramsey and Dakota counties, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Economics 2010, 69:1646-1656. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.011.
59. Simpson J.R. Improved estimates of tree-shade effects on residential energy use. Energy and Buildings 2002, 34:1067-1076. 10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00028-2.
60. Tulloch D.L. Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal 2008, 72(3-4):161-171. 10.1007/s10708-008-9185-1.
61. United States Census (2011). <>. [accessed 17.12.12]. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/4260000.html.
62. Ulrich R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984, 224(4647):420-421. 10.1126/science.6143402.
63. Velarde M.D., Fry G., Tveit M. Health effects of viewing landscapes - Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2007, 6(4):199-212. 10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001.
64. Wachter S.M., Wong G. What is a tree worth? Green-city strategies, signaling and housing prices. Real Estate Economics 2008, 36(2):213-239. 10.1111/j.1540-6229.2008.00212.x.
65. Weigley R.F. The border city in the Civil War, 1854-1865. Philadelphia: A 300 year history 1982, 364-416. W.W. Norton & Company. R.F. Weigley (Ed.).
66. Xiao Q., Mcpherson E.G. Rainfall interception by Santa Monica's municipal urban forest. Urban Ecosystems 2003, 6:291-302. 10.1023/B:UECO.0000004828.05143.67.