You are on page 1of 22

Landscape and Urban Planning, 15 ( 1988 ) 85 106

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands


85
Perception and Aesthetics of the Urban Environment: Review
of the Role of Vegetation
RICHARD C. SMARDON
Institutefor Environmental Policy and Planning, Faculties ofEnvironmental Studies and Landscapeiirchitecture, SUNY College
ofEnvironmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210 (U.S.A.)
(Accepted for publication 17 July 1987)
ABSTRACT
Smardon, R.C., 1988. Perception and aesthet-
ics of the urban environment: review of the
role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Plann.,
15: 85-106.
This paper is a review of the role that urban
vegetation plays in regard to human behavior
and the perception of urban environments. This
includes a review of the functions or benefits of
urban vegetation to human use-economic ben-
efits, instrumental or physiological functions
and perceptual functions including visual, sen-
sory benefits and symbolic aspects. The second
part of the paper reviews the roles of urban veg-
etation in performing these various functions at
different environmental scales and in different
contexts. Finally, there is a review of means to
assess change in the quality of urban vegetation
in the environment as well as using vegetation
to improve urban environmental perceptual
quality.
INTRODUCTION
This paper is a review of the role that urban
vegetation plays in regard to human behavior
and perception of urban environments. Al-
though urban vegetation traditionally has been
defined as urban trees, I have broadened this
review to include all urban vegetation includ-
ing shrubs and ground vegetation which might
be called urban greenspace.
The paper begins with a review of the func-
tions or benefits of urban vegetation to human
use - including economic benefits, instru-
mental or physiological functions, perceptual
functions including visual and sensory bene-
fits and symbolic functions.
The second section of the paper will review
these various functions as they have been doc-
umented at different urban scales ranging from
whole cities or urbanizing regions, to transpor-
tation corridors, to districts of neighborhoods
to street-scape or specific places such as parks
or residential structures.
The second section of the paper will also ad-
dress means of assessing change in the quality
of urban vegetation in the environment as well
0169-2046/88/$03.50 0 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
86
as ways of utilizing vegetation to improve ur-
ban environmental quality.
URBAN VEGETATION FUNCTIONS AND
VALUES
Economic benejits
Economic benefits of urban vegetation have
been quantified for some direct and indirect
benelits. The true nature of these benefits,
however, are not known other than the fact that
appraisers and property owners pay more for
certain property with trees and adjacent to ur-
ban parks and open space areas. Studies have
documented (Payne, 1973; Payne and Strom,
1975: Morales et al., 1976) that the presence
of trees on developed residential lots contrib-
uted up to 12%, and on undeveloped land up
to 27%, of the estimated market values. A re-
cent study found a positive relationship be-
tween price and proximity to green belt areas
(Correll and Knetson, 1978 ), and the positive
effect of parks and open space on values of ad-
jacent properties has been well documented
(Kitchen and Hendon, 1967: Gold, 1972b;
Weicher and Zerbst, 1973: Hammer et al.,
1974).
Instrumental/physiological.functions of urban
vegetation
Ulrichs ( 1979) research has addressed the
nature restoration hypothesis- the notion
that natural views tend to be therapeutic com-
pared with urban scenes in terms of reducing
stress and anxiety. Consistent with the resto-
ration hypothesis, exposure to the vegetation
views significantly reduced feelings of fear, and
positive effects such as affection and elation
were increased. By contrast, the urban presen-
tations actually aggravated anxiety, particu-
larly in terms of increased feelings of sadness.
These findings applied to both sexes, and to
subjects with either rural or urban back-
grounds (Ulrich, 1979). Based on this and
subsequent research (Ulrich. 1983, 198 1 ), it
is suggested that people may benefit most from
visual encounters with nature when they are
uncomfortably stressed or anxious.
A recent study examined post-surgical re-
covery data for patients in a suburban Penn-
sylvania hospital to determine whether
assignment to a room with a window view of a
natural setting might have therapeutic influ-
ences (Ulrich, 1984). Recovery data were
compared for pairs of patients with the same
operation who were closely matched for vari-
ables such as age, sex, weight, tobacco use and
previous hospitalization. The patients were as-
signed to rooms that were identical except for
window view; one member of each pair over-
looked a small stand of deciduous trees (mixed
hardwoods) while the other had a view of a
brown brick building wall. Individuals with tree
views had significantly shorter post-operative
hospital stays, had far fewer negative evalua-
tive comments in nurses notes, and tended to
have lower scores for minor post-surgical com-
plications. These findings strongly suggest that
the view of trees has a comparative therapeu-
tic influence on the patients. A whole field of
horticultural therapy has recently received re-
newed interest and which includes providing
access and activities oriented toward raising
plants (Watson and Burlingame. 1960: Ka-
plan, 1973; Lewis. 1973 ).
It has been alleged that urban trees have po-
sitively altered microclimate through produc-
tion of shade, wind reduction and glare
reduction. Whytes ( 1980) study of small ur-
ban spaces in New York especially noted the
importance of shade for inducing use and sat-
isfaction. A recent study of residential green-
space in Syracuse, New York (Palmer, 1986),
noted that cool shade in the summer was es-
pecially valued, but also noted that vegetation
did not do as much as residents expected in
blocking cold winter winds, reducing noise,
screening bright lights, blocking views of their
property, and reducing harsh glare. It is now
87
generally accepted that urban vegetation is
usually not very effective in blocking un-
wanted noise (Smith, 1970; Herrington, 1974;
Reethof and Heisler, 1976)) but could play a
role when used with landforms and structures
in suburban and rural areas (Fig. 1).
It is generally asserted in the technical liter-
ature that vegetation does serve physiologi-
cally to mitigate noise effects by screening off
visually the adjacent noise source (Herring-
ton, 1974; Reethof and Heisler, 1976) al-
though there is no emperical evidence. In fact,
there is some evidence (Southworth, 1969)
that when the sense of sight is removed
(through a blindfold) that other senses such as
hearing are heightened. Physical effects of veg-
etation on amelioration of urban noise, influ-
ence on air quality and effects on urban winds
is summarized by Rowntree ( 1986); and
methodological considerations in human eval-
uation of environmental noise are presented by
Weinstein ( 1976).
With respect to air temperatures, forests are
generally considered capable of making the
temperature range more narrow than that of a
nearby open area through reduction in sum-
mer maxima and increase in winter minima.
Atmospheric humidity has a tendency to be
higher than in adjacent open areas. Trees tran-
spire water and act as sources of water vapor.
Forests do exert a very significant influence on
wind velocities. The establishment of stands
and rows of trees for purposes of wind reduc-
tion is perhaps the most prevalent form of mi-
croclimate alteration accomplished by
employing vegetation. This may be difficult in
urban areas because of lack of space. The key
to microclimate benefits is the increase in hu-
man comfort zone which is attributable to the
ability of vegetation to ameliorate high and low
temperatures, to provide shade and to filter or
block glare and to moderate wind velocities.
For many people, planting, cultivating and
managing vegetation is a form of recreation
(Appleyard, 1980). Also the fruits, nuts,
leaves, wood and wood chips harvested from
trees and other urban vegetation adds to the
recreation activity and positive process (Ap-
pleyard, 1980; More, 1985). In fact, there is a
wide field of recent renewed interest, known as
horticultural therapy, whose purpose is to al-
low eldery or handicapped persons to have a
therapeutic experience in growing, cultivating
and managing vegetation whether it be flow-
ers, vegetables or trees. Horticulture, as ther-
apy, is actually very old. It is based on the
notion that urban ills can be mitigated by re-
turning people to the soil. School, prison and
mental health institution gardens were very
popular in the early 1900s. School gardens
came back in the 1950s, but they were discon-
tinued in prisons because prisoners had to be
paid wages.
Horticultural therapy involves the use of
plants (and plant-related activities) as a me-
dium through which positive behavioral, psy-
chological and physical benefits can be
maintained or improved. Gardening activities
can be tailored to the individuals abilities and
interests, and provide meaningful activity that
serves as a work substitute for instutional-
ized geriatrics (Train, 1974). Some of the other
known benefits of horticultural programs and
activities include: (a) increase in active par-
ticipation (Relf, 198 1); (b) an increase in re-
ceptiveness (Stramm and Barber, 1978); (c)
integration and subsequent improvement of
biological and psychological factors (Train,
1974; Relf, 1981): (d) increased concentra-
tion, attention span and alertness (Kaplan,
1973; Relf, 1981); (e) an increase in self es-
teem (McAndrew, 1980). Used as part of the
solution to creative design, horticultural ther-
apy has been used in developing design pro-
grams for activities and structure for an
institutions population (Lilien-McDonough,
1986).
Trees are used by children for climbing and
hiding, testing physical skills, and building tree
houses (Brush and More, 1976; Appleyard,
1980). It should be noted though that urban
children may have different perceptions of
(a)
(b) Headlight and overhead light glare.
(cl
Vegetation intercepts the movement of dust particles from the parking
lot to the immediate surroundings.
Fig. I Physical functions of urban vegetation. (a) production of shade: (b) glare reduction: (c) mtcrception of dust.
89
trees and may think of them as more utilitar-
ian than as a play device.
Urban vegetation can be a setting for recre-
ation both at home and in an urban park situ-
ation. In a recent survey of urban residential
use of greenspace in Syracuse, New York (Pal-
mer, 1986), residents were asked about the
frequency and location of common activities
in their front and backyards. The most com-
mon activity is parking the automobile during
the summer. Two other utilitarian activities
occur primarily in the backyard: drying clothes
and excercising the dog. Passive activities such
as playing music, or just sitting and relaxing are
next in frequency. Other activities include
watching wildlife or birds, reading, feeding
birds or wildlife, and sunbathing. Mainte-
nance activities concerned with greenspace in-
cluded the following: watering plants by hand,
mowing the lawn, flower gardening, weeding
the lawn or garden and vegetable gardening.
Activities involving social play and entertain-
ment include the following: playing with
friends or children, entertaining friends or
family, and picnicking or eating outside (Pal-
mer, 1986 ).
Physical park attributes may also influence
peoples activity; that is, particular behaviors
may be associated with certain dimensions of
park landscape. In a recent study by More
( 1985 ) of two large urban parks in Boston and
Hartford, Connecticut, the following findings
relate to recreational activities and urban
vegetation.
Grass correlates positively with sleeping, in-
dulging and eating. In Boston, it is also corre-
lated with eating and play, while in Hartford,
it is positively associated with reading. Shrubs
are negatively associated with most activities;
their very presence reduces the space available
for activity, but the effect is not strong as the
correlations are neither large nor significant.
Trees have interesting effects in two dimen-
sions - number and size. The number of trees
is positively correlated with many activities but
especially with sleeping and reading - two ac-
tivities that occur in the shade. In Boston, the
number of trees in a sector was also correlated
with conversing, eating, play, music/dance,
feeding and indulging. Large trees fostered
conversing, play, reading and sleeping in both
cities. In Boston only, they positively were as-
sociated with feeding, indulging, eating and
music/dance. Again, shade may be of primary
importance ( More, 198 5 ) .
Perceptualfunctions and values of urban vegetation
The following functions and values are more
psychological than behavioral or physical -
however, there is some overlap between phys-
iological functions and perceptual functions as
Ulrichs ( 1985) work with hospital patients
and views of vegetation affecting recovery rates
indicates.
Perceptual functions and values are subdi-
vided as those that are primarily visual and
sensory vs. symbolic. Here, again, the overlap
is obvious. This includes the aesthetic appre-
ciation of natural vegetation structure, form,
foliage pattern; the changing nature of fruit,
flowers and leaves and the massing in stands
and forests (Appleyard, 1980). Nelson ( 1976 )
talks at length about the aesthetic elements of
line, form, color and texture as they relate to
trees in the urban environment; emotional
qualities affecting aesthetics and additional
characteristics such as silhouettes, sculptural
quality, reflections and intricacy and geometry.
Urban vegetation, especially trees and
shrubs, is used extensively through ornamen-
tal horticulture as ornament or decoration for
individual tastes or for public image. This is
true at an individual specimen level where trees
are carved, trimmed, sculptured into cones,
cubes, pyramids, walls, spheres and any other
desirable shape (Appleyard, 1980). The Japa-
nese shape their miniature trees as banzai -
imitating nature on a smaller scale.
Trees have also been used in groups to
achieve certain shapes and masses such as walls
or bosques and lined up in axial symmetry in
90
baroque gardens in France which later carried
over to certain cities in the U.S. such as Wash-
ington. DC, and Philadelphia (Zube, 1973).
Good historical overviews of the use of trees
in civic design are provided by Zube ( 1970,
1973 ). As Schmid appropriately states exten-
sive observation leads to the inescapable con-
clusion that the plants which occupy Anglo-
American front yards are present... because
they are traditional ornaments necessary to
maintain a public image of the appropriate set-
ting for single family houses (Schmid, 1975,
p. 106). More on the symbolic value of orna-
ment is reviewed later.
An often forgotten sensory function stimu-
lated by urban vegetation is smell (Gibbon,
1986 ). Trees and vegetation exude scents and
odors that, on the whole. are appealing and
stimulating. As Appleyard ( 1980) so aptly il-
lustrates, the scent of pine trees, especially after
rain, conjures up quite vivid memories of cer-
tain experiences or associations.
There can be positive urban sounds (South-
worth, 1969) and among them are the sounds
of rustling leaves, creaking branches, and the
whistling of wind. Sometimes birds nesting in
trees supply music (Appleyard, 1980).
Urban vegetation provides different kinds of
screening that is quite useful in urban environ-
ments. One type of screening is to block views
to objectionable objects or scenes (Reethof and
Heisler, 1976; Brush et al., 1979; Appleyard,
1980). Brush et al. (1979) have done specific
studies on various types of forest to provide a
screen, or buffer between usually incompatible
land uses ( Fig. 2 ). Measurements taken in de-
ciduous and coniferous stands in summer and
winter show that screening is lowest with con-
tinuous stands of sparse understory and high-
est at the edge of the forest where understory
vegetation is thick.
Other architectural-like uses of vegetation
are space definition, privacy control and pro-
gressive realization or gradual opening up a
view of a special scene (Reethof and Heisler,
1976). Still another form of screening is the ef-
feet of vegetation on blocking or filtering light
-
especially direct and indirect glare (Free-
man, 1973; Appleyard, 1980; Erickson, 1980).
Trees are easier on the eyes!
As pointed out by Appleyard, the gentle
greens, yellows and blues of trees with their
softer-textured leaves that filter and reflect the
light, making ever-changing patterns, provide
a much needed contrast to the reds, whites, and
grays, the often coarse and barren textures, the
hard reflections and glare of the static, con-
structed environment (Appleyard, 1980 ) .
Trees absorb structures and in a larger scale
have a visual absorptive capacity or vegetative
opacity for absorbing or dampening the im-
pacts of urban development (Jacobs and Way,
1969a,b). At the same time, trees add visual
diversity or complexity to urban environment
(Rapoport and Hawks. 1970).
The extent of landscaping or greenery im-
mediately surrounding the structure is found
to enhance the ability to recall a building via
cognitive mapping (Evans et al.. 1982). Au-
thors speculated that the buildings surrounded
by trees and other vegetation are more remem-
bered partly because the greenery increases at-
tractiveness and makes the structures more
noticeable. I have recently experimented with
improving the appearance of highway com-
mercial strips and found that vegetation as a
single design element is more effective than fa-
cade improvement or street furniture (Smar-
don and Goukas. 1984; Lambe and Smardon,
1986).
Building facade treatments and signs tend to
compete visually with each other when seen
from a moving automobile. The detail is not
perceived or too much detail is perceived as
stimulus overload. Vegetation in the form of
trees breaks up otherwise continuous building
facades and signage while providing delinea-
tion of space, shrubs anchor structures to the
ground, and grass or ground cover creates edge
with the pavement (see Fig. 3). All forms of
vegetation have a more substantial visual im-
provement to the urban strip environment
91
Landscapi ng separates pedestri ans and parki ngl otvehi cl es
Natural buf f eri ng f or user enj oyment
Fig. 2. Screening and psychological functions. (a) screening parking lots; (b) screening traffic; (c) aesthetic and sensory
environment.
91
star-New6
Second section
NW, 30 I981
/1
How does Main Street look to you?
See pages
two and three
lage of
Visual char
/
i
i
I
I
j
Nort :h Syrac use
ac 4er ar meas
*
I Photograph points
93
Main Street... Frompage
Taft Rd. intersection
Area 1
Proposed Alternative One
l No change
Proposed Alternative Two
I. Small, cluttered. signs would
be removed, consolidated or
put on building fronts. Large.
easy to read signs would re-
main.
2. Gravel parking area in front of
buildings would be paved.
3. Roadside edge would be added.
4. Shrubs would be planted
around buildings.
Proposed Alternative Three
1. Small. cluttered, signs would
be removed, consolidated or
put on building fronts. Large,
easy to read signs would re-
main.
2. Gravel parking area in front of
buildings would be paved.
3. Curbs would be added.
4. Shrubs would be planted
around buildings.
5. Entrances to buildings would
be better defined.
6. Trees and planters would be
planted along roadside edge.
Parochial
Area 2
Proposed Alternative One
*No change
Proposed Alternative Two
I. SIgnage would be simplified
and put on the building fronts.
2. The roads edge would be
grass~seeded and a curb added.
3. Some vegetation would be
planted.
4. Business entrances better
defined.
Proposed Alternative Three
I. Signage would be simplified
and put on the building fronts.
2. Sidewalks would be added
throughout area.
3. Roadside edge cleaned up.
4. Area treed heavily.
5. Utility poles and lines
eliminated.
Fig. 3. Sample visual districts and photomontaged simulations showing vegetative planting alternatives for Main Streeet, North
Syracuse, NY.
Fig. 4. Sycamores along Memorial Drive along the Charles River in Cambridge, MA. Photograph used with permission of A.E.
perceived in motion from building facade or
sign improvement at a fraction of the cost.
SJ,mbolic Ilakes and functions
The second part of perceptual functions/
benefits addresses urban vegetation and espe-
cially trees as symbolic. Appleyard ( 1980) lists
many symbolic functions of urban vegetation
and trees, but I will only present three that are
reinforced by existing literature.
They are a visible symbol of the natural
world. Trees are the primary and sometimes
the last representatives of nature in the city and
thus individuals or groups may see trees as an-
chors of stability in the urban scene. Apple-
yard ( 1980) points out that the Elm Tree Riots
in Stockholm focused on a cluster of elms
around a teahouse in one of Stockholms parks,
which the transit authority wanted to uproot.
Similarly. several people chained themselves to
the sycamores along Memorial Drive when the
highway department in Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, proposed to fell them (see Fig. 4).
Schmid ( 1975 ) points out that individual trees
seem less appreciated as public relics in the
midwest than in the east but notes that indi-
vidual Chicagoans treasure their venerable bur
oaks. As Schmid also notes, there is a close
connection between trees valued as historic in-
dividual organisms and trees valued as social
symbols which evoke complex and as yet
poorly defined cultural values. Some of these
trees are institutionally recognized for their
composite values in the National Register of
Trees. Many states and cities are doing Heri-
tage Trees or Great Trees programs.
A recent paper by Sanford and Neumann
( 1987 ) describes how urban trees are artifacts
reflecting both synchronic and drachronic cul-
tural features and, as artifacts, may be used to
understand cultural change.
95
Perhaps the aggregate of the first instance is
the second instance -that a group of trees be-
come symbolically associated with a particular
place, street or community. The author found
that residents had fond memories of stately
elms bordering a major street in Fredonia, New
York (Lambe and Smardon, 1986). We may
think of the chestnuts of Paris, the cypresses of
Rome, the plane trees of London, or palms in
Hawaii. Certainly the sycamores along Mem-
orial Drive in Cambridge (Fig. 4) are an exist-
ing manifestation of such an image. Groups of
trees may also illustrate classic civic and park
design as described by Zube ( 1970, 1973) and
Arnold ( 1980). Also remnants of undisturbed
open space and the resultant preservation bat-
tles create such symbolic images such as the
political battle to save Lynn Woods in Massa-
chusetts (Gordon and Lambrix, 1973) or the
controversy over historic reconstruction of
parts of Central Park in New York City.
According to Schmid ( 1975) and others,
American ideas of residential landscape as or-
nament and symbol derive from the European
vision of nature translated into a new conti-
nent. The beliefs which gave rise to the green
symbols that constitute American frontyards
share a close kinship to the non-material wor-
ship of nature via post-Renaissance landscape
painting artists and the Romantic movement
of the nineteenth century. To the extent that
gardens do not provide a chance for commun-
ion with nature and to the extent that they cease
to embody a manageable microcosm of the
world of nature, they function merely as con-
ventional forms of display.
Yard maintenance is also a major social ac-
tivity of suburban living in terms of expected
levels of yard maintenance. Reynolds ( 1972 )
found a sharp difference among homeowners
in the amount of tolerance they expressed for
untidy lawn maintenance by neighbors accord-
ing to the homeowners motivation for main-
taining his own yard. Respondents in the Ann
Arbor sample who saw their own lawn main-
tenances as a civic contribution were espe-
cially concerned that their neighbors keep the
grass cut. Similar expectations were found in a
sampling of residential greenspace owners in
Syracuse, New York (Palmer, 1986).
ROLE OF URBAN VEGETATION IN
DIFFERENT SCALES AND CONTEXTS
General preference-for urban vegetation
Now that we have examined some of the
functions of urban vegetation, the next step is
to ascertain what research can tell us about how
people value urban vegetation in different ur-
ban living contexts (Table 1). A small but
growing experimental literature has examined
aesthetic preferences for urban scenes with and
without vegetation (Ulrich, 1973). At a gen-
eral level, a consistent finding has been that the
presence of vegetation, especially trees, has po-
sitive effects on preference (Ulrich, 1985). An
early investigation by Lynch and Rivkin
(1959) found that a sample of pedestrians in
downtown Boston universally responded in a
very positive, pleasurable manner to vegeta-
tion, particularly to views of the public gar-
dens. Thayer and Atwood ( 1978) compared
pleasantness ratings for slide pairs of urban
scenes that were similar except for the pres-
ence or absence of vegetation, and reported that
the presence of plants usually increased ratings
significantly. The sole exception was a strip de-
velopment where plants presumably occupied
only a small portion of view compared with
broad expanses of highway and clutter associ-
ated with signs, facades, and utility wires. I
have found that major planting proposals, pre-
sented using visual simulation, yield positive
responses from subjects as the amount of veg-
etation increases (Smardon and Goukas. 1984:
Lambe and Smardon, 1986) (see also Fig. 3).
Another investigation revealed that resi-
dents of a high-density housing complex rated
96
T.ABLE I
.Array of urban landscape assessment studies
Landscape Whole city or town urbanizing Trans. corridor roadside view District neighborhood Streetscape
assessment reg. place/path
paradigm
Expert Yuill and Joyner (1979)
Pogacnik ( 1979a)
Appleyard et al. ( 1964) Lynch and Rivkin ( 1959) Cullcn (1971)
Jacobs and Way ( 1969a ) Lambe and Phillips ( I98 I ) Willmott et al.
Lambe and Smardon ( 1986) Lynch (1960) (1983)
Smardon ( I983a)
Psychological Brush and Palmer ( 1979)
Carp et al. (1976)
Crystal and Brush ( 1978 )
Garling (1976)
Palmer ( 1983)
Pogacnik (1979b)
Thayer and Atwood ( 1978 )
Wright ( 1974)
Ulrich ( 1973) Frey (1981) Craik and Apple-
Evans and Wood ( 1980) Palmer ( 1984) yard ( 1980)
Craik (1975) Peterson ( I967 )
Smardon and Goukas ( 1984) Robinson ( 1080) Willmott et al.
Huspeth ( I981 ) (1983)
Zoelling (1981)
Cognrtive Evans ct al. (1982) Winkel et al. ( I969 ) Davis ( 1970 ) Groat (1981)
Harrisson and Howard ( 1971) Lynch (1960)
Herzog et al. ( 1976) Zoclling ( 198 I )
Palmer ( 1984 )
Experiential Carr and Schissler ( I969 ) Hack et al. ( I974 ) Hack et al.
Craik (1975) (1974)
Feimer (1984) Whytc (1980)
Smardon and Goukas ( 1984)
urban settings far higher in preference when
they contained prominent amounts of fore-
ground and middleground vegetation, and
when buildings were at middleground or
greater distances (Ulrich and Addams, 198 1 ).
Similarly, a study of high-rise dwellers found
that residents valued the amount of green-
space (lawn, shrubs and trees) in their high-
rise views (Zoelling, 198 1 ).
The same residents in the Ulrich and Ad-
dams ( 198 1) study accorded lowest prefer-
ence to commercial areas that lacked
vegetation and were visually complex because
of signs, wires and mixed facades. Likewise, a
factor analysis study of preferences for a di-
verse sample of urban photographs identified
an Urban Nature factor in views, character-
ized by large amounts of trees and other vege-
tation, that scored much higher than other
types of built scenes (Herzog et al., 1976 ).
Importantly, this pattern of findings favor-
ing vegetation appears to hold across widely
different groups in America. A study of an ex-
ceptionally diverse sample of 250 residents of
inner city areas of Detroit (70% black sub-
jects; 30% white ) concluded there was a broad
agreement in terms of strongly positive feel-
ings for trees in cities (Getz et al., 1982 ). This
investigation also found that low income inner
city residents judged a woodland scene to be
much higher in beauty than a downtown com-
mercial view lacking trees.
The importance of views containing vegeta-
tion has further emerged in studies of neigh-
borhood preferences and satisfactions. On the
basis of several studies of moderate and high
density housing complexes in Britain and
America, Cooper-Marcus ( 1982 ) concluded
that residents tended to judge attractiveness of
their neighborhoods largely by what they saw
from their windows - which agrees with stud-
ies of high-rise residents (Zoelling, 198 1) -
and that the vast majority of residents pre-
ferred views that included vegetation, as op-
posed to, buildings or parking lots devoid of
vegetation.
However, not all views of vegetation in resi-
dential areas are necessarily preferred. Other
research suggests that residents respond with
moderately low preference to neighborhood
scenes consisting of empty grass-covered ex-
panses lacking trees and shrubs (Kaplan,
1983). As with commercial and other built
landscapes, residential scenes tend to be espe-
cially favored, when they contain prominent
97
trees (e.g. Brush and Palmer, 1979; Nasar,
1983). Similarly, in a study of simulated front-
yard landscaping alternatives (Fig. 5 ), Palmer
( 1986) found that any condition with only an
open lawn at ground level or with a very dense
two-tree canopy is disliked. A hedge along the
front walk was most preferred, followed closely
by the ornamental tree with foundation shrubs.
Continued investigation makes it clear that
there is a desired balance between ground and
canopy enclosure. Also, overgrown shrubs
along the front walk were the most disliked, as
well as herbaceous ground cover, vegetable
garden and bare dirt under two shade trees.
Vegetative reaction to unmown lawn was mod-
J-2
Fig. 5.
--J - I
Fig. 5
Fig. 5.
99
. , I.
Fig. 5
-
1251
-
126))
Fig. 5. Sample photomontaged frontyard landscaping alternatives from Residential Greenspace Visual Quality Study by Palmer
(1986).
T
Z a<15 translation
4
2 axs rotation
Fig. 6. Schematic view of the SUNY ESF Environmental Simulator: illustrating the 4 degrees of freedom of movement of
modelscope in the model (.I-, eland z translation and 2 rotation), as well as the principle components of the simulator.
the
est, but the comparable mown lawn simulation
was rated substantially higher.
Findings from the study of inner city Detroit
residents (Getz et al., 1982) showed that the
attractiveness of urban trees was considered
their most important benefit, and that residen-
tial streets recieved the highest importance rat-
ings for tree plantings. In a study of street tree
plantings in five midwestern cities, street trees
over 25 feet tall are aesthetically preferable to
smaller trees. Also, street tree planting densi-
ties of one tree per house appear satisfactory to
a large segment of the population (Kalmbach
and Kielbaso, 1978 ).
Additional insights concerning the prefer-
ence effects of trees come from a recent appli-
cation of psychophysical regression modeling
to residential street scenes (Buhyoff et al..
1984). Among the most important physical
variables in terms of positive relationships with
preference were total area of a view depicting
vegetation, basal area per tree stem, and
amount of tree crown enclosure. Results sug-
gested that street scenes with small diameter
trees may be less preferred than views having
large diameter trees.
A noteworthy finding was that the relation-
ship between preference and amount of trees
and other vegetation may be non-monotonic,
that is, vegetation up to a point which then
might flatten out or possibly decline. This has
some parallels with Paynes finding ( 1973 ) in
regard to rise in market value of residential
property as the number of trees increase - to
103
a point. It also parallels Palmers work ( 1986)
with preferences of amount and type of front-
yard residential greenspace - more is better
up to a point.
Ulrich ( 1986 ) points out that little research
has been done on the perception of urban veg-
etation while traveling on urban roadways.
Automobile travel has drastic effects on land-
scape perception (Appleyard et al., 1964) such
as diminishing peripheral vision as speed in-
creases (Pusharev, 196 1; Hornbeck and Oker-
lund, 1976) and loss of perception of
foreground detail (Ulrich, 1976). Although
Ulrich maintains that these effects of auto
movement have been largely ignored in re-
search on urban landscape aesthetics, I would
argue to the contrary. Although much percep-
tion research addresses the static views of
landscape, there have been significant, al-
though not numerous, studies on perception of
the environment from the highway while in
motion. The most signiIicant work in the
United States has been that done at the Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, environmental
simulator by Appleyard and Craik ( 1980) and
Craik ( 1975). Further work with Marin
County data by Feimer ( 1984) compares
modes of static and dynamic simulation. Other
noteworthy work includes work by Carr and
Schissler ( 1969) on perceptual selection and
memory in the view from the road, work by
Appleyard and Lintel1 ( 1972) on the effects of
traffic on residents, and the work of the author
(Smardon and Goukas, 1984; Smardon, 1985;
Lambe and Smardon, 1985, 1986), Evans and
Wood ( 1980) and Ulrich ( 1973) himself.
Ulrichs ( 1973) study was of a group of
Michigan shoppers who could choose between
driving a slow wooded parkway or a fast but
unattractive expressway to a large shopping
center. The shoppers chose the parkway for
slightly more than half their trips because of
the views of natural wooded roadsides. Smar-
don and Goukas ( 1984) studied a commercial
strip in North Syracuse - classified the strip
into visual districts using videotape sequences
as data, simulated alternative roadside land-
scaping alternatives using scale models and a
moving gantry drive modelscope (see Fig. 6 ) .
The operating visual modelscopes in Berkeley,
California (Craik, 1975 ) , Syracuse, New York
(Fig. 6) (Smardon, 1983a,b) and Lund, Swe-
den (Janssens and Kiiller, 1986) yield prom-
ise of more urban landscape perception
research from a dynamic perspective. The per-
tinence to perception of vegetation is that veg-
etation can be modeled - introduced into a
scale model context or removed or even simu-
lated at different growth time periods to ascer-
tain its positive or negative effects (see Figs. 3
and 5).
SUMMARY
There is now a body of developing knowl-
edge on urban vegetation functions and re-
search. There exists a framework for urban
aesthetic inventory, analysis and evaluation
(see Blair, 1980; Smardon et al., 1986). There
also exist methods for urban visual impact
analysis (Blair, 1980a; Smardon, 1983a;
Smardon et al., 1986) as well as mitigation or
reclamation of degraded urban visual environ-
ments (Lambe and Smardon, 1986). The par-
ticular promise of urban vegetation is that it
can be one of the most cost effective (Ulrich,
1985 ) and rapid improvements (Blair, 1980b;
Smardon and Goukas, 1984) in the aesthetic
quality of degraded urban environments.
Careful attention to the roles of vegetation in
roadsides, residential streets, and front and
backyards can yield useful urban vegetation
management dividends. More research needs
to be undertaken on the full range of aesthetic
functions of urban vegetation as experienced
in static and dynamic modes.
The attention to the roles of urban vegeta-
tion can be extended to action by the urban
planner/designer. This can be illustrated by the
more classic urban designs for urban areas such
as Washington, DC, or Philadelphia to the re-
cent Dayton, Ohio, climate modiIication proj-
ect as described by Spirn ( 1984); to streetscape
104
revitalization as proposed by Appleyard in his
book Livable Streets (Appleyard, 198 1 ) and
the author: to site specific use of plant mate-
rials as proposed by Hough ( 1984). The basic
challenge is the same - to use urban vegeta-
tion as a revitalizing element to effect major
changes in the urban landscape - according to
original application by intuitive design which
can be bolstered by recent empirical research.
The full range of aesthetic functions in-
cludes visual, scenic. olfactory and tactile ef-
fects of urban vegetation as well as
multisensory effects. For example, what is the
connection of perceived noise reduction due to
vegetative screening of an adjacent noise
source? What is the connection of glare reduc-
tion of vegetation as it affects visual perform-
ance and human comfort zones? How
important are tactile and olfactory sensory ef-
fects of vegetation on the memory of signifi-
cant events and places? Lastly. what is the
potential of urban vegetation for such appli-
cations as horticultural therapy for institution-
alized geriatrics and medical recuperation
therapy for different population and age
groups?
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like gratefully to acknowl-
edge early review comments and suggestions by
Dr. Rowan Rowntree and Dr. James Palmer.
REFERENCES
Appleyard, D.. 1980. Urban trees, urban forests: what do they
mean? In: Hopkins. G. (Editor). Proc. of the National
Urban Forestry Conference I. November 13-16, 1978.
Washington, DC, ESF Publication 80-003, SUNY College
of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse. NY. pp.
138-155.
Appleyard. D. and Craik, K.. 1980. The Berkeley environ-
mental simulation laboratory and its research program. Int.
Rev. .4ppl. Psychol.. 27( 1 ): 53-55.
Appleyard, D. and Lintell, M., 1972. The Environmental
quality of city streets: the residents viewpoint. J. Am. Inst.
Plann.. 38: 84-101.
Appleyard, D.. Lynch. K. and Meyer. J.R., 1964. The View
from the Road. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press. Cambridge, MA.
Appleyard D. with Gerson, M.S. and Lintell. M., 1981. Liv-
able Streets. University of California Press, Berkeley. CA.
Arnold, H.F., 1980. Trees in Urban Design. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Blair. W.G.E., 1980a. Visual Resource Management. Envi-
ronmental Comment. The IJrban Land Institute. Wash-
ington, DC. pp. 4-l 5.
Blair. W.G.E., 1980b. Visual success story at a new inter-
change. Environmental Comment. July 1980: lo- 19.
Brush, R.O. and More. T..-\.. 1976. Some psychological and
social aspects of trees in the city. Better Trees for Metro-
politan Landscapes Symp. Proc. USDA Forest Surv. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NE-22. Northeastern For. Range Exp. Stn..
Upper Darby, PA.
Brush, R.O. and Palmer, J.F., 1979. Measuring the impact of
urbanization on scenic quality: land use change in the
Northeast. Our National Landscape, compiled by G. Els-
ncr and R. Smardon. pp. 358-364.
Brush, R.O.. Williamson. D.N. and Fabos. J. Gy., 1979. Vis-
ual screening potential of forest vegetation. Urban Ecol..
4: 207-2 16.
Buhyoff, G.J.. Gauthier. L.J. and Wellman, J.D.. 1984. Pre-
dicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation
measurements. For. Sci.. 30: 7 l-82.
Carp, F.. Zawadski. R. and Shorhan, H.. 1976. Dimensions
of urban environment and quality. Environ. Behav.. 8( 2):
239-264.
Carr. S. and Schissler, P.. 1969. The city as a trip: perceptual
selection and memory in the view from the road. Environ.
Behav.. I: 7-35.
Cooper-Marcus, C.. 1982. The aesthetics of family housing:
the residents viewpoint. Landscape Res., 7: 9-l 3.
Correll, M.R. and Knetson, J.L.. 1978. The effects of green-
belts on residential property values: Some findings on the
political economy of open space. Land. Econ.. 54: 207-
17.
Cratk. K.H.. 1975. Individual variations in landscape de-
scription. In: Zube, E.H., Brush. R.O. and Fabos. J.Gy.
(Editors), Landscape Assessment: Value. Perceptions and
Resources. Dowden. Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg,
P.4. pp. I30- I 50.
Craik, K.H. and Appleyard. D., 1980. Streets of San Fran-
cisco: Brunswicks lens model applied to urban inference
and assessment. J. Social Issues. 36: 72-85.
Crystal, J.H. and Brush, R.O.. 1978. Measuring scenic qual-
ity at the urban fringe. Landscape Res., 3 (3 ): 9. 14.
Cullen. G.. 1971. The Concise Townscape. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Davis, K.P.. 1970. Land: the common denominator in forest
resource management: emphasis on urban relationships.
J. For.. 68: 628-63 1.
Erickson, D.K., 1980. Seattle - copmg with visual impact:
evaluation of light and glare. Environ. Comment, July
1980: 8-l 5.
Evans, G.W. and Wood, K.W.. 1980. Assessment ofenviron-
mental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environ.
Behav., 12: 255-273.
Evans, G.W., Smith, C. and Pezdek, K.. 1982. Cognitive maps
and urban form. .APA J., Spring: 232-244.
Feimer, N.R., 1984. Environmental perception: the effects of
media, evaluative context and observer sample. J. Envi-
ron. Psychol., 4( 1): 61-80.
Freeman, C., 1973. Tree species selection and planting. In:
Miller, H.C. (Editor), Proc. Urban Forestry Conf., SUNY
ESF, Syracuse, NY, pp. 38-42.
Frey, J.E., 198 1. Preferences, satisfactions and the physical
environments of urban neighborhoods. Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, the University of Michigan and University Micro-
films International, Ann Arbor, MI.
Garling, T., 1976. The structural analysis of environmental
perception and cognition: a multi-dimensional scaling ap-
proach. Environ. Behav., 8: 385-415.
Getz, D.A., Karow, A. and Kielbaso, J.J., 1982. Inner city
preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. J. Ar-
boric., 8: 258-263.
Gibbons, B., 1986. The intimate sense of smell. Nat. Geogr.,
170: 324-344.
Gold, SM., 1972a. Non-use of neighborhood parks. J. Am.
Inst. Plann., 38: 369-378.
Gold, SM., 1972b. Social and economic benefits of trees in
cities. J. For., 75 (2): 84-87.
Gordon, B and Lambrix, T.G., 1973. The battle of Lynn
Woods (Massachusetts). Nat. Hist., 82 (9): 76-S 1.
Groat, L., 1982. Meaning in post-modern architecture: an ex-
amination using the multiple sorting task. J. Environ. Psy-
chol., 2: 3-22.
Hammer, T.R., Coughlin, R.E. and Horn, E.T., 1974. The ef-
fect of a large urban park on real estate. J. Am. Inst. Plann.,
40(4): 274-277.
Harrison, J.D. and Howard, W.A., 1972. The role of meaning
in the urban image. Environ. Behav.: 379-4 11.
Herrington, L.P., 1974. Trees and acoustics in urban areas. J.
For., August: 462-465.
Herzog, T., Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R., 1976. The prediction
of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Pop. Environ.,
5: 43-59.
Hornbeck, P.L. and Okerlund. G.A., Jr., 1976. Visual Values
for the Highway User. USDOT, Federal Highway Admin-
istration, Washington, DC.
Hough, M., 1984. City Form and Natural Process: Towards a
NewUrbanVernacular.VanNostrandReinhold,NewYork.
Huspeth, T.R., 1982. Citizen participation in revitalization
of the Burlington, Vermont Water Front. Environmental
Program, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Jacobs, P. and Way, D., 1969a. How much development can
landscape absorb? Landscape Archit., 58: 70-72.
Jacobs, P. and Way. D., 1969b. Visual analysis of landscape
development. Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA.
Janssens, J. and Ktiller, R., 1986. Utilizing an environmental
simulation laboratory in Sweden. In: Smardon, R.C., Pal-
mer, J.F. and Felleman, J.P. (Editors), Foundations for
Visual Project Analysis. John Wiley, New York, pp. 265-
275.
Kalmbach, K.L. and Kielbaso, J.J., 1978. Attitudes toward
selected characteristics of street tree plantings. Dow Gar-
dens of Michigan State University, unpublished paper, 16
PP.
Kaplan, R., 1973. Some psychological benefits of gardening.
Environ. Behav., 5 (June): 145-161.
Kaplan, R., 1983. The role of nature in urban context. In:
Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J.F. (Editors), Human Behavior
and Environment. Vol. 6, Plenum, New York, pp. 127-
161.
Kitchen, J.W. and Hendon, W.S., 1967. Land values adjacent
to an urban neighborhood park. Land Econ., 43: 357-360.
Lambe, R.A. and Philips, P., 198 1. Main Street: A reflection
of Lancaster, New Hampshire. In: R. Lambe (Editor),
Community Explorations: A Design and Planning Port-
folio. SUNY/ESF Faculty of Landscape Architecture,
Syracuse, pp. 29-39.
Lambe, R.A. and Smardon, R.C., 1985. Color photocopy for
visual simulation. Landscape Res., lO( 3): 18-20.
Lambe, R.A. and Smardon, R.C., 1986. Commercial highway
landscape reclamation: a participatory approach. Land-
scape Plann., 12: 353-385.
Lewis, C.A., 1973. People-plant interaction: A new horticul-
tural perspective. Am. Hortic., 52(2): I S-25.
Lilien-McDonough, D., 1986. Guidelines for outdoor garden
site selection, design and activity use at a geriatric facility:
The Jewish Home of Central New York: A Case Study.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, Faculty of Landscape Ar-
chitecture, ESF, SUNY, Syracuse, NY.
Lynch, K.. 1960. The Image of the City. Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lynch, K. and Rivkin, M., 1959. A walk around the block.
Landscape, 8: 24-34.
McAndrew, E., 1980. An analysis of horticultural therapy ac-
tivities in licensed nursing homes. M.S. Thesis, Kansas
State University, Manhattan, KS.
Morales, D., Boyce, B.N. and Favsetti, R.J., 1976. The con-
tribution of trees to residential property value: Manches-
ter, Connecticut. Valuation. 23(2): 27-43.
More, T.A., 1985. Central City Parks: A Behavioral Perspec-
tive. School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont,
Burlington, 74 pp.
Nasar, J.L., 1983. Adult viewers preferences in residential
scenes: a study of the relationship of environmental attri-
butes to preference. Environ. Behav., 15: 589-614.
Nelson, W.R., 1976. Aesthetic consideration in the selection
and use of trees in the urban environment. Symp. Proc.:
Better Trees for Metropolitan Landscapes. USDA For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. NE-22, pp. 13-29.
Palmer, J.F., 1983. Assessment of coastal wetlands in Dennis,
Massachusetts. In: R.C. Smardon (Editor), The Future of
Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values. Allenheld-
Osmum, Totowa, N.J.
Palmer, J.F., 1984. Neighborhoods as stands in the urban for-
est. Urban Ecol., 8: 229-241.
Palmer, J.F., 1986. Residents characterization of their resi-
dential greenspace resource. Report to the Consortium for
Environmental Studies, USDA Forest Service, SUNY ESF.
Payne, B.R., 1973. The twenty-nine tree home improvement
plan. Nat. Hist., 82: 74-75.
Payne, B.R. and Strom, S., 1975. The contribution of trees to
the appraised value of unimproved residential land. Val-
uation, 22(2): 36-45.
Peterson, G.L., 1967. A model of preference: quantitative
analysis of the perception of the visual appearance of res-
idential neighborhoods. J. Reg. Sci., 7 ( 1): 19-3 1
106
Pogacnik. A., 1979a. A visual information system and its use
in urban planning. Urban Ecol., 4: 29-43.
PogaEnik. A., 1979b. Environmental public preferences as
obtained by the method of photointerpretation in the Lju-
bljana Region. Urban Ecol., 4: 45-59.
Pusharev, B.. 196 1. The aesthetics of freeway design. Land-
scape. 10: 7-14.
Rapoport. A. and Hawks. R., 1970. The perception of urban
complexity. .4m. Inst. Plann. J., 36: 106-l I I.
Reethof. G. and Heisler, G.M., 1976. Trees and forests for
noise abatement and visual screening. Symp. Proc.: Better
Trees for Metropolitan Landscape, USDA For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rpt. NE-22.
Relf, D., 198 I. Dynamics of horticultural therapy. Rehabil.
Lit. V. 42(5-6): 147-160.
Reynolds. R., 1972. Differences in perception and function
of the lawn in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Unpublished Mas-
ters Thesis, University of Michigan. 52 pp.
Robinson, J.W., 1980. Images of housing. Minneapolis: a
limited study of urban residents attitudes and values.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Minnesota.
Rowntree, R.A., 1986. Ecology of the urban forest - intro-
duction to part II. Urban Ecol., 9: 229-243.
Sanford, R.M. and Neumann, T.W., 1987. The urban tree as
a cultural artifact. Northeastern Environ. Sci. J.. 6: 46-52.
Schmid. J.A.. 1975. Urban vegetation: A review and Chicago
case study. Research Paper No. 101, Department of Ge-
ography. University of Chicago, pp. 103-I 12.
Smardon, R.C., 1983a. Urban visual impact assessment and
design evaluation through simulation. UD Rev.. 6(2/3 ):
12-15.
Smardon, R.C., 1983b. Assessingcommunity image: tools for
perception and consensus building. Environmental Pref-
erence and Landscape Management Symp.. Connecticut
College, New London. CT. pp. 12- 18.
Smardon. R.C.. 1985. .4 visual approach to redesigning the
commercial strip highway. In The Roadside Environ-
ment. Transportation Research Record 10 16, Transpor-
tation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, pp. 1-6.
Smardon, R.C. and Goukas. M.M., 1984. Village of North
Syracuse main street assessment study. Occasional Paper
ESF 84-010, Faculty of Landscape Architecture. SUNY
ESF, Syracuse, NY.
Smardon, R.C. with Costello. T. and Eggink. H.. 1986. Urban
visual description and analysis. In: Smardon. R.C., Pal-
mer. J.F. and Fellernan, J.P. (Editors). Foundations for
Visual Project Analysis, John Wiley. New York, pp. I1 5-
135.
Smith. W.H.. 1970. Technical review: trees in the city. JAIP,
36(6): 429-436.
Southworth, M.S., 1969. The sonic environment ofcities. En-
viron Behav., 1 ( I ): 49-70.
Spirn, A.W.. 1984. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and
Human Design. Basic Books, New York.
Stramm. I. and Barber. A., 1978. The nature and change in
horticultural therapy. Paper presented at the 6th .4nn.
Conf., NCTRH. Topeka, KS.
Thayer, R.L. and Atwood, B.C., 1978. Plants. complexity and
pleasure in urban and suburban environment. Environ.
Psych. Non-verb. Behav.. 3: 67-76.
Train, R., 1976. The effect of horticultural therapy in main-
taining life satisfaction of geriatrics. MS. Thesis, Kansas
State University. Manhattan, KS.
Ulrich. R.S., 1973. Scenery and the shopping trip: the road-
side environment as a factor in route choice. Michigan
Geographical Publication No. 12, Department of Geog-
raphy, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI. 176 pp.
Ulrich, R.S.. 1979. Visual landscape and psychological well-
being. Landscape Res.. 4: 17-23.
Ulrich. R.S.. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some psy-
chological effects. Environ. Behav.. 13: 523-556.
Ulrich. R.S., 1983. .4esthetic and affective response to natu-
ral environment. In: Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J.F. (Edi-
tors). Human Behavior and Environment. Vol. 6. Plenum,
New York, pp. 85-125.
Ulrich, R.S.. 1984. View through a window may influence re-
covery from surgery. Science. 224: 420-42 I.
Ulrich. R.S., 1985. .4esthetic and emotional influences of
vegetation: A review of the scientific literature. Docu-
ment D22: 1985. Swedish Council for Building Research.
Ulrich, R.S. and Addams, D.L., 198 I. Psychological and rec-
reational benefits of a residential park. J. Leisure Res., 13:
43-65.
Watson, D.P. and Burlingame, .4.W.. 1960. Therapy through
horticulture. MacMillan. New York.
Weicher. J. and Zerbst. R., 1973. The externalities of neigh-
borhood parks: an empirical investigation. Land Econ..
49(I): 99-105.
Weinstein. N.D., 1976. Human evaluations ofenvironmcntal
noise. In: K.H. Craik and E.H. Zube (Editors). Perceiv-
ing Environmental Quality: Research and Application.
Plenum Press. New York. pp. 229-252.
Whyte. W.. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. The
Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
Willmott, G.. Smardon, R.C. and McNeil, R. 1983. Water-
front revitalization in Clayton. New York. Small Town,
14(3): 12-19.
Winkel, G.H., Malek, R. and Thiel, P.. 1969. The role of per-
sonality differences in judgements of roadside quality.
Environ. Behav., I: 199-223.
Wright. G., 1974. Appraisal of visual landscape qualities in a
region selected for accelerated growth. Landscape Plann..
I: 307-327.
Yuill, G.G. and Joyner, S.A., Jr., 1979. Assessing the visual
resource and visual suitability values in metropolizing
landscapes. Our National Landscape, compiled by Elsner.
G. and Smardon, R.C.. pp. 318-357.
Zoelling, M.M.. 198 I. Urban high-rise dwellers visual per-
ceptions of form and space in the Central Business Dis-
trict of Syracuse, New York. Unpublished Masters Thesis.
Landscape Architecture, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY.
Zube, E.H.. 1970. Trees and woodlands in the design of the
urban environment. In: Little. S. and Noyes, J.H. (Edi-
tors). Symp. on Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing En-
vironment. August I 8-2 1, 1970. Planning and Resource
Development Series No. 17, Holdsworth Natural Re-
sources Center, University of Massachusetts. Amherst.
MA. pp. 145-I 50.
Zube, E.H.. 1973. The natural history of urban trees, Nat, Hist.
Msg.. November 1973.

You might also like