literature

	Addressing Social and Environmental Needs through Community Tree Planting Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. & The Department of Geography Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis
	Project Home Page

Selected References on the Benefits of Urban Trees and Green Space

Daniel, T.C. 2001. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21^st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 267-281.

Daniel reviews historical efforts to assess the visual quality of landscapes and contemplates the future of this research.

Miller, D. 2001. A method for estimating change in the visibility of land cover. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 91-104.

Miller discusses spatial modeling in assessing land cover visibility and change.

Nelson, T., T. Johnson, M. Strong, and G. Rudakewich. 2001. Perception of tree canopy. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 315-324.

The authors investigate the perception of tree cover based the completeness of canopy closure, leaf-on versus leaf-off conditions, and the ratio of the amount of leaf to the amount of branch.

Brunson, L., F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Resident appropriation of defensible space in public housing: Implications for safety and community. Environment and Behavior 33(5): 626-652.

This research addresses the question of how residents of public housing communities defend their "near home" space and what affect this has on local crime and feelings of safety.

Kuo, F.E., M. Bacaicoa, and W.C. Sullivan. 1998. Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior 30(1): 28-59.

Kuo et al. link tree density, placement, and grass maintenance to preferences and the sense of safety in inner-city neighborhoods.

Kuo, F.E. and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and crime in the inner-city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior 33(3): 343-367.

Popular belief holds that vegetation cover leads to increased fear of crime and increased incidence of crime. Kuo and Sullivan suggest that widely spaced, high canopy tree cover and “visibility preserving vegetation” may actually reduce fear and crime.

Coley, R.L., F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 1997. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior 29(4): 468-494.

Coley et al. examines the availability of nature in public space. Findings show that increased “natural elements” leads to increased social interactions in urban neighborhoods.

Ewing, R., T.L. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A. Zlot, S. Raudenbush. 2003. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion 18: 47-57.

The authors propose and test three hypotheses: residents in sprawling locations walk less, weigh more and have higher rates of health issues linked to physical inactivity.

Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C. 2001. Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings. Environment & Behavior. 33(1): 54-77.

Study illustrates the positive influences of green settings on children with ADD.

Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C. 2002. Views of Nature and Self-Discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49-63.

Suggests that views of natural settings improve concentration in children.

Frumkin, H. 2001. Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 20(3): 234-240.

Frumkin examines the positive effects that the natural environment can have on human health. He evaluates these using four aspects of nature: animals, plants, landscape and wilderness.

Frank, L.D., T.L. Schmid, J.F. Sallis, J. Chapman, and B.E. Saelens. 2005. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 28(2S2): 117-125.

Frank et al. measured three factors of the built environment: land-use, residential density, and street connectivity. They found that community design can lead to increased amounts of physical activity.

Galindo, M.P. and J.A. Corraliza. 2000. Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: Relationships between preference judgments for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain 4: 13-27.

An examination of the relationship between the aesthetic quality of landscapes and psychological health.

Jackson, R.J. 2003. The impact of the built environment on health: An emerging field. American Journal of Public Health 93(9): 1382-1384.

Review of literature regarding the effects of the built environment on public health.

Kuo, F.E. 2001. Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior 33(1): 5-34.

Kuo questions if the presence of nature in poor communities affects the residents ability to face the daily challenges of impoverished lives.

Kuo, F.E. and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33(4): 543-571.

This paper investigates whether mental fatigue and, consequently, increased aggression can be diminished with exposure to natural environments.

Kuo, F.E., Faber Taylor, A. 2004. A potential treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence from a National Study. American Journal of Public Health. 94(9): 1580-1586.

Suggests that green settings reduce negative effects of ADHD.

Plantinga, A.J. and S. Bernell. 2005. A spatial economic analysis of urban land use and obesity. Journal of Regional Science 45(3): 473-492.

Using an urban spatial model, the relationship between urban development and body weight is examined.

Srinivasan, S., L.R. O’Fallon, A. Dearry. 2003. Creating healthy communities, healthy homes, healthy people: Initiating a research agenda on the built environment and public health. American Journal of Public Health 93(9): 1446-1450.

Taylor, A.F., F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior 33(1): 54-77.

Taylor et al. investigates the connection between attention deficit disorders in children and time spent in "green" spaces. They conclude that children perform better after being in green spaces and the "greener" the environment, the less severe the symptoms.

Taylor, A.F., F.E. Kuo, and W.C. Sullivan. 2001b. Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner-city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 49-64.

The authors explore three aspects of self-discipline in inner-city children: concentration, impulse inhibition, and delayed gratification. The finding suggest that green spaces may play a role in self-discipline behaviors.

Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224(4647): 420-421.

Post-surgery patients with a view of natural settings from their hospital window recovered quicker, had fewer complaints, needed less pain medication, and had fewer post-surgical complications.

Whitehouse, S., J.W. Varni, M. Seid, C. Cooper-Marcus, M.J. Ensberg, J.R. Jacobs, and R.S. Mehlenbeck. 2001. Evaluating a children’s hospital garden environment: utilization and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 301-314.

Whitehouse et al. surveyed and observed patients and parents in a children’s hospital to determine the effectiveness of a healing garden. Results show that while the garden was effective, changes were needed in order to fully receive the benefits.

Wilson, E.O. 2001. Nature matters. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 20(3): 241-242.

Editorial piece in response to Frumkin’s examination of human health and the environment.

Wells, N. 2000. At home with nature: Effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior 32(6): 775-795.

Wells questions whether the view from a child’s home has an effect on their well-being and cognitive functioning.

Dwyer, J.F., D.J. Nowak, M.H. Noble, S.M. Sisinni. 2000. Connecting people with ecosystems in the 21^st century: an assessment of our nation’s urban forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-490. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 483 p.

A national assessment of urban forest resources by state, county, and urban areas.

Nowak, D.J., K.L. Civerolo, S. Trivikrama Rao, G. Sistla, C.J. Luley, and D.E. Crane. 2000. A modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric Environment 34: 1601-1613.

A study of the local and regional effects on urban trees on ozone concentrations.

Nowak, D.J. and P.R. O’Conner, comps. 2001. Syracuse urban forest master plan: guiding the city’s forest resource into the 21^st century. General Technical Report NE-287. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 50 p.

This report contains a comprehensive assessment of the urban forest in Syracuse. Also included are recommendations for future resource management.

Nowak, D.J., J.T. Walton, S. Myeong, and D.E. Crane. Urban canopy enhancements through interactive mapping. Project Summary. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 31 p.

The summary of a project designed to collect and map land cover and tree data and make this data available to the public through the Open Accessible Spaces Information System (OASIS).