Advertisement

Benefits and Uses of Urban Forests and Trees

  • Liisa Tyrväinen
  • Stephan Pauleit
  • Klaus Seeland
  • Sjerp de Vries

Keywords

Green Space Urban Forest Urban Green Space Urban Tree Urban Climate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashcroft P (2002) Case study: walking the way to health initiative. Summary of papers of the National Conference Green space and healthy living, 14 May 2002, Manchester. National Urban Forestry Unit (NUFU), WolverhamptonGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelsson-Lindgren C (1995) Forest aesthetics. In: Hytönen M (ed) Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. METLA, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, pp 279–294Google Scholar
  3. Barker G (1997) A framework for the future: green networks with multiple uses in and around towns and cities. English Nature Research Report No. 256. English Nature, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckett KP, Freer-Smith PH, Taylor G (1998) Urban woodlands: their role in reducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environ Pollut 99:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell S (1999) Landscape. Pattern, perception and process. Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Brahe P (1974) Klimatische Auswirkungen von Gehölzen auf unbebaute Stadtplätze (Climatic impacts of woody vegetation on non-built city squares). Gartenamt 23(2):61–70, (in German)Google Scholar
  7. Burkhardt I, Duhme F (1996) Ökologische Bausteine Messestadt-Riem. Teil I — Stadtplanung (Ecological building stones Messestadt-Riem. Part I — City planning). Referat für Bauordnung und Stadtplanung, LH München, (in German)Google Scholar
  8. CITYgreen (2003) http://www.americanforests.org/productsandpubs/citygreen/ (last accessed July 2004)Google Scholar
  9. Coles RW, Bussey SC (2000) Urban forest landscapes in the UK — Progressing the social agenda. Landscape Urban Plan 52:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Däßler HG (1991) Einfluß von Luftverunreinigungen auf die Vegetation (Influence of air pollution on vegetation). Gustav Fischer, Jena, (in German)Google Scholar
  11. Daniel TC, Vining J (1983) Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF (eds) Behavior and the natural environment (human behavior and environment, Vol. 6). Plenum Press, New York NY, pp 39–84Google Scholar
  12. Dawson D (1994) Are habitat corridors conduits for animals and plants in a fragmented landscape? A review of the scientific evidence. English Nature Research Report No. 94. English Nature, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  13. De Vries S (2000). Regional differences in the demand for and supply of nature-based recreation within The Netherlands. In: Krishnapillay, B, et al. (eds) Forests and Soiety: the role of research. Proceedings of the XXI IUFRO World Congress 2000, Malaysia, 7–12 August. IUFRO/FRIM, Vienna/Kuala Lumpur, Vol. 1, pp 453–464Google Scholar
  14. De Vries S, Goossen M (2002) Modelling recreational visits to forests and nature areas. Urban For Urban Green 1(1):5–15Google Scholar
  15. De Vries S, Verheij R, Groenewegen P, Spreeuwenberg P (2003). Natural environments, healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between nature and health. Environ Plann A A35(10):1717–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duhme F, Pauleit S (1992) Naturschutzprogramm für München. Landschaftsöklogisches Rahmenkonzept (Nature protection programme for Munich. Landscape ecological frame concept). Georgrapische Rundschau 44(10):554–561, (in German)Google Scholar
  17. Eliasson I (2000) The use of climate knowledge in urban planning. Landscape Urban Plan 48:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elsasser P (1996) Der Erholungwert des Waldes: Monetare Bewertung der Erholungsleistung ausgewählter Wälder in Deutchland (The recreational value of forests: Monetary valuation of the recreational performance of selected forests in Germany). Schriften zur Forstökonomie Bd. 11. Sauerländer, Frankfurt am Main, (in German)Google Scholar
  19. Forrest M, Konijnendijk CC, Randrup TB (eds) (1999) COST Action E12 — research and development in urban forestry in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  20. Freer-Smith PH, Broadmeadow MSJ (1996) Urban woodland and the benefits for local air quality. Arboriculture Advisory and Information Service Research Note, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  21. German-Chiari C, Seeland K (2004) Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry research. For Policy Econ 6(1):3–13Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert OL (1989) The ecology of urban habitats. Chapmann and Hall, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Givoni B (1991) Impact of planted areas on urban environmental quality: a review. Atmos Environ B-Urb 25(3):289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grahn P (1997) Lekar i skog ger barn identitet (Plays in the forest gives the child identity). Skog & Forskning 1:52–57, (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  25. Grahn P, Stigsdotter U (2003) Landscape planning and stress. Urban For Urban Green 2(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartig T, Böök A, Garvill J, Olsson T, Gärling T (1996). Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scand J Psychol 37:378–393Google Scholar
  27. Jensen FS (1995) Forest recreation. In: Hytönen M (ed) Multiple-use forestry in the Nordic countries. METLA, The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp 245–278Google Scholar
  28. Jensen FS (1999) Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s. The Research Series No. 26. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, HørsholmGoogle Scholar
  29. Jókövi EM (2000). Vrijetijdsbesteding van allochtonen en autochtonen in de openbare ruimte. Een onderzoek naar de relatie met sociaal-economische en etnisch-culturele kenmerken (Immigrant leisure time spending in public space. A study of the relation with socio-economic and ethnic-cultural characteristics). Alterra-rapport 295. Alterra, Wageningen, (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  30. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature — a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Karjalainen E, Tyrväinen L (2002) Visualisation in landscape preference research: a review of Finnish forest visualization systems. Landscape Urban Plan 885:1–16Google Scholar
  32. Kuttler W (1993) Stadtklima. In: Sukopp H, Wittig R (eds) Stadtökologie (urban ecology). G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 113–153, (in German)Google Scholar
  33. Kweon BC, Sullivan WC, Wiley AR (1998) Green common spaces and the social integration of inner city older adults. Environ Behav 30(6):832–858Google Scholar
  34. Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape Urban Plan 44:177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lucas OWR (1991) The design of forest landscapes. Forestry Commission, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Luttik J (2000) The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in The Netherlands. Landscape Urban Plan 48:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manning WJ, Feder WA (1980) Biomonitoring air pollutants with plants. Applied Science Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Matzarakis A (2002) Validation of modelled mean radiant temperature within urban structures. Conference on agricultural and forest meteorology — 12th joint conference on the applications of air pollution meteorology with — 4th symposium on the urban environment, AMS, pp 172–173, available from http://www.mif.uni-freiburg.de/matzarakis/papers/norfolk_rayman.pdf (last accessed July 2004)Google Scholar
  39. Mayer H (1990) Human-biometeorologische Bewertung des Stadtklimas (Human-biometeorological valuation of the city climate). In: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDI-Kommission Reinhaltung der Luft (ed) Umweltmeteorologie. VDI-Schriftenreihe 15, pp 87–104, (in German)Google Scholar
  40. Mayer H, Matzarakis A (2003) Human-biometeorological assessment of the urban climate: methods, results, deficiencies. In: Klysik K, Oke TR, Fortuniak K, Grimmond CSB, Wibig J (eds) Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Urban Climate (ICUC 5), 1–5 September 2003, Lodz, Poland, Vol. 2. International Association of Urban Climate/World Meteorological Society/University of Lodz, Lodz etc., pp 87–90Google Scholar
  41. McPherson EG (1994) Energy-saving potential of trees in Chicago. In: McPherson EG, Nowak DL, Rowntree RA (eds) Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186. Radnor, Pennsylvania, pp 95–114Google Scholar
  42. McPherson EG (1998) Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Sacramento’s urban forest. J Arboriculture 24(4):215–223Google Scholar
  43. McPherson EG, Simpson JR (2002) A comparison of municipal forest benefits and costs in Modesto and Santa Monica, California, USA. Urban For Urban Green 2(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  45. Nachbarschaftsverband Stuttgart (1992) Klimaatlas. Klimauntersuchung fur den Nachbarschaftsverband Stuttgart und angrenzende Teile der Region Stuttgart (Climate atlas. Climate research for the Nachschaftsverband Stuttgart and adjoining parts of the Region Stuttgart). Stuttgart, (in German)Google Scholar
  46. Nowak DJ (1994) Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urban forest. In: McPherson EG, Nowak DJ, Rowntree RA (eds) Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186, Radnor PA, pp 63–81Google Scholar
  47. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC, Ibarra M (2002) Brooklyn’s urban forest. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North-eastern Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NE-290, Radnor PAGoogle Scholar
  48. NUFU (1999) Trees and healthy living. Proceedings of National Conference, Wolverhampton, UK, 17 November 1999. National Urban Forestry Unit, WolverhamptonGoogle Scholar
  49. NUFU (2002) Summary of papers of the National Conference Greenspace and Healthy Living, 14 May 2002, Manchester. National Urban Forestry Unit, WolverhamptonGoogle Scholar
  50. Ode Å, Fry G (2002) Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban For Urban Green 1:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oke TR (1989) The micrometeorology of the urban forest. Philos T Roy Soc B 324(1223):335–349Google Scholar
  52. Palmquist RB (1991) Hedonic methods. In: Braden JB, Kolstad CD (eds) Measuring the demand for environmental quality. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 77–120Google Scholar
  53. Parsons R, Tassinary LG, Ulrich RS, Hebl MR, Grossman-Alexander M (1998) The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunization. J Environ Psychol 18:113–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pauleit S, Duhme F (2000a) Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban planning. J Landscape Urban Plan 52(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pauleit S, Duhme F (2000b) GIS assessment of Munich’s urban forest structure for urban planning. J Arboriculture 26(3):133–141Google Scholar
  56. Perry D, Handley JF (2000) The potential for woodland on urban and industrial wasteland in England and Wales. Forestry Commission Technical Paper 29. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  57. Peterken GF (1974) A method for assessing woodland flora for conservation using indicator species. Biol Conserv 6:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Poëte M (1913) La promenade à Paris au XVIIe siècle. L’art de se promener — Les lieux de promenade dans la ville et aux environs (The Paris promenade of the 17th century. The art of walking — The place of the walk in the city and its surroundings). A. Colin, Paris, (in French)Google Scholar
  59. Pouta E, Sievänen T (2001). Luonnon virkistyskäytön kysyntätutkimuksen tulokset — Kuinka suomalaiset ulkoilevat? (Results of a demand study on outdoor recreation.) In: Sievänen T (ed) Luonnon virkistyskäyttö papers 802:32–76, 195–196Google Scholar
  60. Randrup TB, Paulsen L, Holgersen S (2003) VAT 03 — Værdisætning af træer I byrum, have, park og landskab (Monetary valuation of trees in urban space, garden, park and landscape). Forlaget Grønt Miljø, Frederiksberg, (in Danish)Google Scholar
  61. Robinette C (1972) Plants, people and environmental quality. Department of the Interior. National Park Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Ribe RG (1989) The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environ manage 13(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmithüsen F, Kazemi Y, Seeland K (1997) Perceptions and attitudes of the population towards forests and their social benefits. Social origins and research topics of studies conducted in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between 1960 and 1995. IUFRO Occasional Paper 7. IUFRO, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  64. Scrinzi GJ, Tosi V, Agatea P, Flamminj T (1995). Gli Italiani e il bosco; coordinate quali-quantitative dell’utenza turistica in Italia (Italians and the wood. The forest recreantion demand in Italy). Comunicazioni di Ricerca ISAFA 95/1, Trento, (in Italian)Google Scholar
  65. Seeland K, Moser K, Scheuthle H, Kaiser FG (2002) Public acceptance of restrictions imposed on recreati-onal activities in the peri-urban nature reserve Sihlwald, Switzerland. Urban For Urban Green 1(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sievänen T, De Vries S, Scrinzi G, Floris A (2000) The recreational function of European forests. In: Forests and society: the role of research, proceedings of the XXI IUFRO World Congress 2000, Malaysia, 7–12 August. Vol. 1, Sub-plenary sessions. IUFRO/FRIM, Vienna/Kuala Lumpur, pp 453–463Google Scholar
  67. Silva MA (1996) La signification de l’arbre pour la ville et les habitants de Genève. Une étude à l’exemple de certains arbres et des traditions genevoises et leur continuité à travers les siècles (The importance of the tree for the city and inhabitants of Geneva. A study on the example of certain trees and Geneva traditions and their continuity over time). Unpublished diploma thesis. Chair of Forest Policy and Forest Economics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, (in French)Google Scholar
  68. Silvennoinen H, Pukkala T, Tahvanainen L (2002) Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 17:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Statistics Netherlands (1997) Dagrecratie 1995/1996 (Daytrips 1995/1996). Statistics Netherlands (CBS), Voorburg/Heerlen, (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  70. Steidle-Schwahn A (2002) Das Management der Pflege kommunaler Grünflächen (Management of municipal greenspace maintenance). Eigenverlag, München, (in German)Google Scholar
  71. Stewart H, Owen S, Donovan R, MacKenzie R, Hewitt N (2001) Trees and sustainable urban air quality. Brochure, Lancaster University and Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  72. Sukopp H, Wittig R (eds) (1993) Stadtökologie (Urban ecology). G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, (in German)Google Scholar
  73. Turner K, Pearce D, Bateman I (1994) Environmental economics. An elementary introduction. Harvester, WheatsheafGoogle Scholar
  74. Tyrväinen L (1999) Monetary valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. Academic dissertation. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research papers 739. Finnish Forest Research Institute, VantaaGoogle Scholar
  75. Tyrväinen L (2001) Use and valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. J Environ manage 62:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tyrväinen L, Miettinen A (2000) Property prices and urban forest amenities. J Environ Econ Manag 39(2):205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tyrväinen L, Väänänen, H (1998). The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the Contingent Valuation Method. Landscape Urban Plan 43:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Can ecological and aesthetic values be combined in urban forest management? Urban For Urban Green 1(3):135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol 11:201–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van der Zande AN, Berkhuizen JC, Van Latesteijn HC, Ter Keurs WJ, Poppelaars AC (1984) Impact of ourdoor recreation on the density of a number of breeding bird species in woods adjacent to urban residential areas. Biol Conserv 30(1):1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Dorp D, Opdam PFD (1987) Effects of patch size, isolation and regional abundance on forest bird communities. Landscape Ecol 1:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van Herzele A, Wiedemann T (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape Urban Plan 63:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Whitford V, Handley J, Ennos R (2001) City form and natural process — Indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas. Landscape Urban Plan 57:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Willaert D (1999) Stadsvlucht of verstedelijking? Een analyse van migratiebewegingen in België (Urban espace or urbanisation? Analysis of migration flows in Belgium). Planologisch Nieuws 19:109–126, (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  85. Xiao Q, McPherson EG, Ustin SL, Grismer ME, Simpson JR (2000) Winter rainfall interception by two mature open-grown trees in Davis, California. Hydrol Process 14:763–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Plan 9:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liisa Tyrväinen
    • 1
  • Stephan Pauleit
    • 2
  • Klaus Seeland
    • 3
  • Sjerp de Vries
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest EcologyUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Parks and Urban LandscapesDanish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, KVLDenmark
  3. 3.Institute for Human-Environment SystemsSwiss Federal Institute of TechnologySwitzerland
  4. 4.AlterraWageningen University and Research CentreThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations