Visual Quality of Residential Streets: Both Street and Yard Trees Make a Difference

Literature Cited

1. 1.↵
   1. Buhyoff, G.J.,
   2. Gauthier, L.J.,&
   3. Wellman, J.D.

   1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. Forest Science 30:71–82.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Daniel, T.C. and
   2. Boster, R.S.

   1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service research paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
3. 3.↵
   1. Getz, D.A.,
   2. Karow, A., &
   3. Kielbaso, J.J

   . 1982. Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. J. Arboric. 8:258–263.

   OpenUrl
4. 4.↵
   1. Grey, G.W., &
   2. Deneke, F.J.

   1986. Urban Forestry (2nd ed.). John Wiley, New York.
5. 5.↵
   1. G.A. Bradley

   1. Kaplan, R.

   1984. Human needs for renewable resources and supportive environments. In G.A. Bradley (ed), Land use and forest resources in a changing environment: The urban/forest interface (pp. 133–140). University of Washington Press, Seattle.
6. 6.↵
   1. Lien, J.N., &
   2. Buhyoff, G.J.

   1986. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. Environmental Management 22:245–254.

   OpenUrl
7. 7.↵
   1. Schroeder, H.W., &
   2. Cannon, W.N. Jr.

   1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. J. Arboric. 9:237–243.

   OpenUrl
8. 8.↵
   1. Schroeder, H.W.,
   2. Buhyoff, G.J., &
   3. Cannon, W.N. Jr.

   1986. Cross-validation of predictive models for esthetic quality of residential streets. J. Arboric. Environmental Management 23:309–316.

   OpenUrl
9. 9.↵
   1. Ulrich, R.S.

   1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29–44.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science