Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(5): September 2006 245 ogy of Sommer et al. (1990) can be adapted to study how attitudes toward trees vary across communities in different countries. In the future, more focused multinational studies, with a closer match among tree sizes, tree species, manage- ment techniques, and spatial layout of the street, could help determine how attitudes vary between cultures and climatic zones. Further comparisons between communities within a region could show how attitudes toward trees are influenced by local factors such as available building space, neighbor- hood age, and urban planning policies. This kind of knowl- edge could help urban foresters and arborists to tailor tree management to the particular needs and desires of the local community. LITERATURE CITED Anon. 1990. Town & Country Planning Act, sections 198–210. Her Majesty’s Stationery Officer, London, UK. ———. 2003. Solihull Urban Tree Strategy. Solihull Urban Metropolitan Council, Solihull, UK. Baker, R. (Ed.). 1984. Proceedings of Seminars on Trees & Planning. Polytechnic of the South Bank, Paper No. PCP 17. London, UK. Clouston, B., and K. Stansfield (Eds.). 1981. Trees in Towns: Maintenance and Management. Architectural Press, Lon- don, UK. Coles, R., and M. Caserio. 2004. Understanding and facili- tating the social outputs of urban green spaces. Open Space: People Space, An International Conference on In- clusive Outdoor Environments. Edinburgh, UK. Daily Mirror. 2004. Call the Copse over Phantom Gardener. Wednesday, February 4. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ topstories/tm_objectid13911869%26method full%26siteid94762-name_page.html (accessed 7/27/05). DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Af- fairs). 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). Dobson, M., and D. Patch. 1997. Trees in dispute. Arbori- cultural Practice, Note 3. Arboricultural Advisory and In- formation Service, Farnham, UK. Flannigan, J. 2005. An evaluation of residents’ attitudes to street trees in southwest England. Arboricultural Journal 28:219–241. 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. Hays, W.L. 1973. Statistics for the Social Sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. 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, Wash- ington, DC. Hitchmough, J.D., and A.M. Bonugli. 1997. Attitudes of resi- dents of a medium sized town in southwest Scotland to street trees. Landscape Research. 22:327–337. Horticulture Week. 1994. Volume 215, No. 11 (March 17). Haymarket Trade & Leisure Magazines. Jackson, J.E. 1991. A User’s Guide to Principal Components. Wiley, New York, NY. Kaiser, H.F. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment 20:141–151. Kalmbach, K.L., and J.J. Kielbaso. 1979. Residents’ attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. Journal of Arboriculture 5:124–129. Kaplan, K., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. O’Brien, L., and J. Claridge (Eds.). 2002. Trees are Company: Social Science Research Into Woodlands and the Natural Environment. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, UK. Riseley, T.F. 1969. Street trees—liabilities or assets. Arbori- cultural Journal. 1:194–198. 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. Schroeder, H.W., and S.R. Ruffolo. 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Arboriculture 22:35–43. 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. Sommer, R. 1997. Further cross national studies of tree form preference. Ecological Psychology 9:153–160. Sommer, R., P.A. Barker, H. Guenther, and K. Kurani. 1989. Householder evaluation of two street tree species. Journal of Arboriculture 15:99–103. Sommer, R., H. Guenther, and P.A. Barker. 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal 9:79–85. Sommer, R., H. Guenther, P.A. Barker, and J.P. Swenson. 1993a. Comparison of four methods of street tree assess- ment. Journal of Arboriculture 19:27–34. Sommer, R., and B.A. Sommer. 1989. The factor structure of street tree attributes. Journal of Arboriculture 15:243–246. Sommer, R., and J. Summit. 1995. An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment and Behavior 27: 540–557. ———. 1996. Cross national rankings of tree shape. Eco- logical Psychology 8:327–341. Sommer, R., J. Summit, and A. Clements. 1993b. Slide rat- ings of street tree attributes: Some methodological issues and answers. Landscape Journal 12:17–22. ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2006
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
