Householder Evaluations of Street Trees in a Chicago Suburb

Literature Cited

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

   . 1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. Forest Science 30(1): 71–82.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Lien, J.N., and
   2. G.J. Buhyoff

   . 1986. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. J. Environmental Management 22(3): 245–254.

   OpenUrl
3. 3.↵
   1. Schroeder, H.W. and
   2. W.N. Cannon, Jr.

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

   OpenUrl
4. 4.↵
   1. Schroeder, H.W.and
   2. W.N. Cannon, Jr.

   . 1987. Visual quality of residential streets: Both street and yard trees make a difference. J. Arboric. 13(10): 236–239.

   OpenUrl
5. 5.↵
   1. Gobster, P.H.

   1. Schroeder, H.W. and
   2. S.R. Ruffolo

   . 1993. Householders’ evaluations of street trees in suburban Chicago. In Gobster, P.H. (ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Sites (p.68–72). North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-163, St. Paul, MN.
6. 6.↵
   1. Schroeder, H.W.,
   2. G.J. Buhyoff, and
   3. W.N. Cannon, Jr.

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

   OpenUrl
7. 7.↵
   1. Sommer, R. and
   2. B.A. Sommer

   . 1989. The factor structure of street tree attributes. J. Arboric.15(10): 243–246.

   OpenUrl
8. 8.↵
   1. Sommer, R.,
   2. P.A. Barker,
   3. H. Guenther, and
   4. K. Kurani

   . 1989. Householder evaluation of two street tree species. J. Arboric. 15(4): 99–103

   OpenUrl
9. 9.↵
   1. Sommer, R.,
   2. H. Guenther, and
   3. P.A. Barker

   . 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape J. 9(2): 79–85.

   OpenUrl