A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference

Bin Jiang, Linda Larsen, Brian M Deal, William C Sullivan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Does adding more and more trees to a residential street yield a reliable increase in preference? Or is there a point at which, in terms of preference, additional trees will have minimal effect, no effect, or even a negative effect? To address these questions, we selected 121 community streets in four Midwestern urban areas in the U.S. and produced a panoramic photograph of each site and then measured the density of tree cover visible at eye level (Panorama). We also collected Google Earth aerial photographs to measure the top-down tree cover density (Google) for the sites. Then, 320 individuals provided preference ratings for a randomized subset of the panoramic photographs (15 pictures per person). Through linear and curvilinear regression analysis, we found a power line model best describes the relationship between each measure of tree cover density and preference. The power lines have a similar shape: when sites are relatively barren, a slight increase in tree density yields a steep increase in preference. After tree cover density exceeded those values, however, higher tree densities yielded smaller, but still positive increases in preference. These findings suggest that to ensure a moderate level of preference, tree cover density should be not less than 41% as measured by panoramic photographs or 20% as measured by Google Earth aerial photographs. Planting trees in barren residential areas will result in considerably more impact than if the same trees were planted in already green areas. Still, the findings here demonstrate that, for preference, every tree matters.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)16-25
Number of pages10
JournalLandscape and Urban Planning
Volume139
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

Fingerprint

photograph
power line
aerial photograph
dose
tree planting
regression analysis
urban area
effect
residential area

Keywords

  • Community street
  • Dose-response curve
  • Google Earth
  • Panorama
  • Preference
  • Tree cover density

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. / Jiang, Bin; Larsen, Linda; Deal, Brian M; Sullivan, William C.

In: Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 139, 01.07.2015, p. 16-25.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6b5df8c59aee4c5cbdd365976c39c2f4,
title = "A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference",
abstract = "Does adding more and more trees to a residential street yield a reliable increase in preference? Or is there a point at which, in terms of preference, additional trees will have minimal effect, no effect, or even a negative effect? To address these questions, we selected 121 community streets in four Midwestern urban areas in the U.S. and produced a panoramic photograph of each site and then measured the density of tree cover visible at eye level (Panorama). We also collected Google Earth aerial photographs to measure the top-down tree cover density (Google) for the sites. Then, 320 individuals provided preference ratings for a randomized subset of the panoramic photographs (15 pictures per person). Through linear and curvilinear regression analysis, we found a power line model best describes the relationship between each measure of tree cover density and preference. The power lines have a similar shape: when sites are relatively barren, a slight increase in tree density yields a steep increase in preference. After tree cover density exceeded those values, however, higher tree densities yielded smaller, but still positive increases in preference. These findings suggest that to ensure a moderate level of preference, tree cover density should be not less than 41{\%} as measured by panoramic photographs or 20{\%} as measured by Google Earth aerial photographs. Planting trees in barren residential areas will result in considerably more impact than if the same trees were planted in already green areas. Still, the findings here demonstrate that, for preference, every tree matters.",
keywords = "Community street, Dose-response curve, Google Earth, Panorama, Preference, Tree cover density",
author = "Bin Jiang and Linda Larsen and Deal, {Brian M} and Sullivan, {William C}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "139",
pages = "16--25",
journal = "Landscape and Urban Planning",
issn = "0169-2046",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference

AU - Jiang, Bin

AU - Larsen, Linda

AU - Deal, Brian M

AU - Sullivan, William C

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - Does adding more and more trees to a residential street yield a reliable increase in preference? Or is there a point at which, in terms of preference, additional trees will have minimal effect, no effect, or even a negative effect? To address these questions, we selected 121 community streets in four Midwestern urban areas in the U.S. and produced a panoramic photograph of each site and then measured the density of tree cover visible at eye level (Panorama). We also collected Google Earth aerial photographs to measure the top-down tree cover density (Google) for the sites. Then, 320 individuals provided preference ratings for a randomized subset of the panoramic photographs (15 pictures per person). Through linear and curvilinear regression analysis, we found a power line model best describes the relationship between each measure of tree cover density and preference. The power lines have a similar shape: when sites are relatively barren, a slight increase in tree density yields a steep increase in preference. After tree cover density exceeded those values, however, higher tree densities yielded smaller, but still positive increases in preference. These findings suggest that to ensure a moderate level of preference, tree cover density should be not less than 41% as measured by panoramic photographs or 20% as measured by Google Earth aerial photographs. Planting trees in barren residential areas will result in considerably more impact than if the same trees were planted in already green areas. Still, the findings here demonstrate that, for preference, every tree matters.

AB - Does adding more and more trees to a residential street yield a reliable increase in preference? Or is there a point at which, in terms of preference, additional trees will have minimal effect, no effect, or even a negative effect? To address these questions, we selected 121 community streets in four Midwestern urban areas in the U.S. and produced a panoramic photograph of each site and then measured the density of tree cover visible at eye level (Panorama). We also collected Google Earth aerial photographs to measure the top-down tree cover density (Google) for the sites. Then, 320 individuals provided preference ratings for a randomized subset of the panoramic photographs (15 pictures per person). Through linear and curvilinear regression analysis, we found a power line model best describes the relationship between each measure of tree cover density and preference. The power lines have a similar shape: when sites are relatively barren, a slight increase in tree density yields a steep increase in preference. After tree cover density exceeded those values, however, higher tree densities yielded smaller, but still positive increases in preference. These findings suggest that to ensure a moderate level of preference, tree cover density should be not less than 41% as measured by panoramic photographs or 20% as measured by Google Earth aerial photographs. Planting trees in barren residential areas will result in considerably more impact than if the same trees were planted in already green areas. Still, the findings here demonstrate that, for preference, every tree matters.

KW - Community street

KW - Dose-response curve

KW - Google Earth

KW - Panorama

KW - Preference

KW - Tree cover density

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924985927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924985927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.018

DO - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.018

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84924985927

VL - 139

SP - 16

EP - 25

JO - Landscape and Urban Planning

JF - Landscape and Urban Planning

SN - 0169-2046

ER -