Does density of green infrastructure predict preference?

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 40, Issue , 2019, Pages 236-244

  Suppakittpaisarn, Pongsakorn ^a   Jiang, Bin ^b   Slavenas, Marcus ^c   Sullivan, William C ^c  

^a CHIANG MAI UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Curve estimation; Dose responses; Eye level vegetation density; Green stormwater infrastructure; Preference

Indexed keywords

DENSITY; ESTIMATION METHOD; INFRASTRUCTURE; LANDSCAPE; METHODOLOGY; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; STORMWATER; UNDERSTORY; VEGETATION;

CANIS FAMILIARIS;

EID: 85042864535     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adevi, A.A., Grahn, P., Preferences for landscapes: a matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background?. Landscape Res. 37 (2012), 27–49.
2. Appleton, J., Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 1975, 120–123.
3. Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., Strumse, E., Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 5 (2006), 35–44.
4. Chen, Z., Xu, B., Enhancing urban landscape configurations by integrating 3D landscape pattern analysis with people's landscape preferences. Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (2016), 1–13.
5. Chen, Z., Xu, B., Gao, B., Assessing visual green effects of individual urban trees using airborne Lidar data. Sci. Total Environ. 536 (2015), 232–244.
6. Chen, Z., Xu, B., Devereux, B., Assessing public aesthetic preferences towards some urban landscape patterns: the case study of two different geographic groups. Environ. Monit. Assess., 188, 2016, 4.
7. Coutts, C., Hahn, M., Green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12 (2015), 9768–9798.
8. Glantz, S.A., Slinker, B.K., Primer of Applied Regression and Analysis of Variance. 1990, McGraw-Hill, Health Professions Division.
9. Holtan, M.T., Dieterlen, S.L., Sullivan, W.C., Social life under cover: tree canopy and social capital in Baltimore, Maryland. Environ. Behav. 47:5 (2015), 502–525 (0013916513518064).
10. Howley, P., Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 72 (2011), 161–169.
11. Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S., Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 104 (2012), 66–74.
12. Jiang, B., Establishing Dose-Response Curves for the Impact of Urban Forests on Recovery from Acute Stress and Landscape Preference, Landscape Architecture. 2014, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
13. Jiang, B., Chang, C.-Y., Sullivan, W.C., A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc. Urban Plann. 132 (2014), 26–36.
14. Jiang, B., Larsen, L., Deal, B., Sullivan, W.C., A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc. Urban Plann. 139 (2015), 16–25.
15. Jiang, B., Li, D., Larsen, L., Sullivan, W.C., A dose-response curve describing the relationship between urban tree cover density and self-reported stress recovery. Environ. Behav. 48:4 (2016), 607–629 (0013916514552321).
16. Jiang, B., Deal, B., Pan, H., Larsen, L., Hsieh, C.-H., Chang, C.-Y., Sullivan, W.C., Remotely-sensed imagery vs. eye-level photography: evaluating associations among measurements of tree cover density. Landsc. Urban Plann. 157 (2017), 270–281.
17. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T., Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plann. 60 (2002), 135–150.
18. Jungels, J., Rakow, D.A., Allred, S.B., Skelly, S.M., Attitudes and aesthetic reactions toward green roofs in the Northeastern United States. Landsc. Urban Plann. 117 (2013), 13–21.
19. Junker, B., Buchecker, M., Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landsc. Urban Plann. 85 (2008), 141–154.
20. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Ryan, R.L., With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. 1998, Island Press, Washington, D.C, c1998.
21. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., Kellert, Stephen R., Wilson, Edward O., (eds.)The Biophilia Hypothesis, 1993, Island Press, Washington, D.C, c1993.
22. Kenwick, R.A., Shammin, M.R., Sullivan, W.C., Preferences for riparian buffers. Landsc. Urban Plann. 91 (2009), 88–96.
23. Korpela, K., Hartig, T., Restorative qualities of favorite places. J. Environ. Psychol. 16 (1996), 221–233.
24. Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Aggression and violence in the inner city: effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environ. Behav. 33 (2001), 543–571.
25. Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Environment and crime in the inner city does vegetation reduce crime?. Environ. Behav. 33 (2001), 343–367.
26. Kuo, F.E., Coping with poverty impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environ. Behav. 33 (2001), 5–34.
27. Lee, K.E., Williams, K.J., Sargent, L.D., Farrell, C., Williams, N.S., Living roof preference is influenced by plant characteristics and diversity. Landsc. Urban Plann. 122 (2014), 152–159.
28. Li, D., Sullivan, W.C., Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc. Urban Plann. 148 (2016), 149–158.
29. Li, D., Deal, B., Zhou, X., Slavenas, M., Sullivan, W.C., Moving beyond the neighborhood: daily exposure to nature and adolescents’ mood. Landsc. Urban Plann. 173 (2018), 33–43.
30. NCSA, N.C.f.S.A., Use Case: Designing Green Infrastructure Considering Storm Water and Human Requirements. 2016.
31. Nassauer, J.I., Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape J. 14 (1995), 161–170.
32. Nassauer, J.I., Cultural Sustainability: Aligning Aesthetics and Ecology. 1997, Island Press.
33. Padhy, S., Black, E., Cowdery, B., Diesendruck, L., Dietze, M., Jansen, G., Kooper, R., Kumar, P., Lee, J., Liu, R., Autocuration cyberinfrastructure for scientific discovery and preservation, e-Science (e-Science). 2015 IEEE 11th International Conference on IEEE, 2015, 264–267.
34. Purcell, T., Peron, E., Berto, R., Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environ. Behav. 33 (2001), 93–106.
35. Rechtman, O., Visual perception of agricultural cultivated landscapes: key components as predictors for landscape preferences. Landscape Res. 38 (2013), 273–294.
36. Schwarz, G., Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals Stat. 6 (1978), 461–464.
37. Simonič, T., Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscapes. J. Biotechnol. 81 (2003), 338–369.
38. Sullivan, W.C., Lovell, S.T., Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landsc. Urban Plann. 77 (2006), 152–166.
39. Suppakittpaisarn, P., Sullivan, W., Which Kinds of Stormwater Green Infrastructure Do People Prefer?. 2015, Environmental Design and Research Association, Los Angeles.
40. Suppakittpaisarn, P., Larsen, L., Sullivan, W.C., How Different Do Designers and Laypeople Prefer Green Stormwater Infrastructure?. 2016, Environmental Design Research Association, Raleigh, NC.
41. Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coping with ADD The surprising connection to green play settings. Environ. Behav. 33 (2001), 54–77.
42. Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T., Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plann., 69, 2004, 13.
43. Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 1 (2003), 135–149.
44. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, P., Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plann., 61, 2007, 11.
45. US-EPA, What Is Green Infrastructure?. 2015.
46. Ulrich, R.S., Visual Landscape Preference: A Model and Application Man-Environment Systems. 1977.
47. Ulrich, R.S., Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. Wilson, E.O., Kellert, S.R., (eds.)The Biophilia Hypothesis, 1993, Island Press, Washington DC, 74–137.
48. Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L., van der Wulp, N.Y., Environmental preference and restoration: (how)are they related?. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (2003), 135–146.
49. Wang, X., Rodiek, S., Wu, C., Chen, Y., Li, Y., Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban Forest. Urban Green. 15 (2016), 112–122.
50. White, E.V., Gatersleben, B., Greenery on residential buildings: does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty?. J. Environ. Psychol. 31 (2011), 89–98.
51. Yang, J., Zhao, L., Mcbride, J., Gong, P., Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of urban forests in cities. Landsc. Urban Plann. 91 (2009), 97–104.
52. Zajonc, R.B., Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol., 35, 1980, 151.
53. Zhao, J., Wang, R., Luo, P., Xing, L., Sun, T., Visual ecology: exploring the relationships between ecological quality and aesthetic preference. Landscape Ecol. Eng. 13 (2017), 107–118.