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.