Environmental Management

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 119–128 | Cite as

Viewer preference for spatial arrangement of park trees: An application of video-imaging technology

  • Herbert W. Schroeder
  • Brian Orland
Research

Abstract

Research on perception of parks and recreation settings has examined several important tree attributes that influence people's visual preferences. This research, however, has usually not considered the spatial arrangement of the trees, partly because of the lack of adequate methods for representing tree arrangements with systematically manipulated geometries. In the study reported here, computer video-imaging techniques were used to construct simulated landscape scenes that varied on specific dimensions of the spatial configuration of trees. The simulations were rated for visual preference by three respondent groups: a university class, a bicycle club, and a women's civic group. Preference ratings were significantly influenced by the number of trees in the scene, by the number of clumps into which trees were grouped, and by the diameter of the clumps. The video-imaging technology implemented in this study offers important methodological advantages for the design of carefully controlled experiments to study human response to variation in landscape treatments.

Key words

Trees Spacing Parks Video-imaging Landscape 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Autodesk Inc. 1987. AutoShade, Version 1.0. Autodesk. Sausalito, California.Google Scholar
  2. Autodesk Inc. 1988. AutoCAD, Release 9.0. Autodesk. Sausalito, California.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, I. D., and P. N. A. Leahy. 1989. Assessing the visual impact of development proposals: The validity of computer simulations.Landscape Journal 8:92–100.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, T. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to Ponderosa Pine. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Research Paper RM-256, 35 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Chenoweth, R. E. 1991. Seeing the future: Aesthetic policy implications of visual technology.Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association 3(1):6–13.Google Scholar
  6. Clay, G. R. (1987). Assessing the utility of computer-video simulations in landscape architecture. Unpublished MLA thesis. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 88 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Daniel, T. C., and R. S. Boster. 1976. Measuring landscape aesthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. Research Paper RM-167, 66 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Feimer, N. R., K. H. Craik, R. C. Smardon, and S. R. J. Sheppard. 1979. Appraising the reliability of visual impact assessment methods. Pages 286–295in Our national landscape. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Berkeley, California. General Technical Report PSW-35.Google Scholar
  9. Green, T. L. 1984. Maintaining and preserving wooded parks.Journal of Arboriculture 10(7):193–197.Google Scholar
  10. Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, S., R. Kaplan, and J. S. Wendt. 1972. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material.Perception and Psychophysics 12:354–356.Google Scholar
  12. Orland, B. 1986a. Image advantage: Computer visual simulations.Landscape Architecture 76(1):58–63.Google Scholar
  13. Orland, B. 1986b. Empirical validation of digital video simulation (abstract). Page 39in Proceedings, Regional Science Association, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  14. Orland, B. 1988. Video-imaging: A powerful tool for visualization and analysis.Landscape Architecture 78(4):78–88.Google Scholar
  15. Orland, B., and S. Sachs. 1987. Simulation of proposed water storage structures (video presentation). Project report for DuPage County Forest Preserve District. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
  16. Orland, B., R. Sullivan, and G. Messer. 1988. Illinois Route 2: The Blackhawk Trail. Project report for Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 48 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Orland, B., J. LaFontaine, and T. C. Daniel. 1990a. Alternative futures for forested landscapes. Pages 48–57in Proceedings, resource technology 1990: Second international symposium on advanced technology in natural resource management. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Orland, B., T. C. Daniel, J. LaFontaine, and C. Goldberg. 1990b. Visual effects of insect damage in western mixed confierous forests. Final Report for USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Work Unit 4501. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 33 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Schroeder, H. W. 1986. Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape esthetics.Journal of Environmental Management 23:325–333.Google Scholar
  20. Schroeder, H. W., and L. M. Anderson. 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites.Journal of Leisure Research 16(2):178–194.Google Scholar
  21. Shafer, E. L., Jr., J. F. Hamilton, Jr., and E. A. Schmidt. 1969. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model.Journal of Leisure Research 1(1):1–19.Google Scholar
  22. Turk, A. G. (1990). Towards an understanding of human-computer interaction aspects of geographic information systems.Cartography 19(1):31–60.Google Scholar
  23. Vining, J., and B. Orland. 1989. The video advantage: A comparison of two environmental representation techniques.Environmental Management 29:275–283.Google Scholar
  24. Vining, J., A. Ebreo, and B. Orland. 1990. Assessing the value of urban street trees: A comparison of prices and social benefits. Final report for USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Chicago. Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 33 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert W. Schroeder
    • 1
  • Brian Orland
    • 2
  1. 1.USDA Forest ServiceNorth Central Forest Experiment StationChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations