Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticles

Preferred Features of Urban Parks and Forests

Herbert W. Schroeder
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) December 1982, 8 (12) 317-322; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1982.072
Herbert W. Schroeder
North Central Forest Expt. Sta., Chicago, Illinois
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Example of an attractive recreation site. This scene shows natural features such as trees, water, and open space. The area appears well maintained and the vegetation is healthy. Although no specific facilities are visible, the large open area would provide opportunities for a variety of outdoor activities.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Example of an unattractive recreation site. The fence is an undesirable man-made feature dominating the scene, and litter is very evident. The trees have no leaves and there appears to be no large open area for recreation activities.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Recreation site preferred by nonurban but not by urban individuals. Nonurban individuals generally thought the naturalness of this forest was an attractive feature, while urban people generally thought this site was too wild and not suitable for recreation.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Features mentioned as desirable for urban forest recreation sites

    FeaturePercent of Sample1
    Respondents
    Urban (N=5 7)Nonurban (N=39jTotal (N=96)
    Vegetation567263
      Trees466754
      Many121514
      Not too many 4 3 3
      Shade 7 8 7
      Grass212322
    Water resources445448
      Lakes and ponds202622
    Fields and open space193325
      With trees 413 7
    Activities392131
      Trail activities 710 8
      Passive activities12 810
    Man-made characteristics213125
      Paths122317
      Benches 710 8
    Nature262827
    Peace and quiet302126
    Few people212322
    Well maintained 72113
    Clean16 813
    Solitude111311
    • ↵1The percents do not add up to 100 because most individuals gave more than one response to each question.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Features mentioned as undesirable for urban forest recreation sites

    FeaturePercent of Sample1
    Respondents
    Urban (N=5 7)Nonurban <N=39)Total (N=96)
    Man-made characteristics256742
      Fences124927
      Playgrounds142820
      Pavement 72615
      Lamp posts 0 8 6
    Vegetation problems303632
      Tree problems232624
      Too few 72314
      Too many12 5 9
      Poor condition 4 3 3
    Grass problems161516
      Too little 5 3 4
      Needs mowing 2 5 3
      Poor condition 9 8 8
    Poorly maintained333132
    Urban Surroundings253830
    Crowded352330
    Litter181517
    Large open areas112617
    Nothing to do, boring 9 8 6
    Unsafe12 0 7
    Too wild 5 5 5
    • ↵1The percents do not add up to 100 because most individuals gave more than one response to each question.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Additional information desired about urban forest recreation sites

    ItemPercent of Sample1
    Respondents
    Urban (N=5 7)Nonurban (N=39)Total (N=96)
    Location352330
    Surroundings253629
    Safety112617
    Appearance of whole area112316
    Facilities121815
    Accessibility141314
    Activities and uses141314
    Number of users 91511
    Kind of users121011
    Noise 42110
    • ↵1The percents do not add up to 100 because most individuals gave more than one response to each question.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 8, Issue 12
December 1982
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Preferred Features of Urban Parks and Forests
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Preferred Features of Urban Parks and Forests
Herbert W. Schroeder
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1982, 8 (12) 317-322; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1982.072

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Preferred Features of Urban Parks and Forests
Herbert W. Schroeder
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1982, 8 (12) 317-322; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1982.072
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Evaluating the Reproducibility of Tree Risk Assessment Ratings Across Commonly Used Methods
  • London Plane Bark Exfoliation and Tree-Ring Growth in Urban Environments
  • Green Infrastructure with Actual Canopy Parameterization: A Simulation Study for Heat Stress Mitigation in a Hot-Humid Urban Environment
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire