Remote Sensing as a Program Assessment Device: The case of Urban Forestry and the Competition for Local Investment

  • Jay D. Gatrell
  • Ryan R. Jensen


Economic Development Remote Sensing Urban Forest Local Economic Development Urban Canopy 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, S. 2001. Personal Communication, City Managers Office, Ocala, FL, March 22.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. and H. Cordell. 1985. Residential property values improve by landscaping with trees. Scandinavian Journal of Applied Forestry 9:162–166.Google Scholar
  3. Calzonetti, F. and Gatrell, J. 2000. State Science and Technology Planning in Rural States: Challenges Facing Practitioners. Economic Development Quarterly.Google Scholar
  4. Calavita, N. 1997. Vale of tiers. Planning 63(3):18–21.Google Scholar
  5. Calavita, N. 1992. Growth machines and ballot box planning. The San Diego case. Journal of Urban Affairs 14(1):1–24.Google Scholar
  6. Calavita, N. and R. Caves. 1994. Planners attitudes toward growth: A comparative case study. Journal of the American Planning Association 60:483–500.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, K. 1998. Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, Political Geography, 17:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, K. 1995. Globalisation, competition, and the politics of local economic development, Urban Studies, 32:213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox, K. and Mair, A. 1991. From localised social structures to localities as agents, Environment and Planning A, 23:197–231.Google Scholar
  10. Daniels, P. W. 1985. Service Industries: A Geographical Appraisal. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  11. DeFelippis, J. 1999. Alternatives to the “New Urban Politics” finding locality and autonomy in local economic Development, Political Geography, 18:973–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eisinger, P. 1988. The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Cooling Our Communities A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  14. Flores, A., S. Pickett, W. Zipperer, R. Pouyat and R. Pirani. 1998. Adopting a modern ecological view of the metropolitan landscape: the case of a greenspace system for the New York City region. Landscape and Urban Planning 39:295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freilich, R. 1999. From Sprawl to Growth: Successful Legal, Planning, and Environmental Systems. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  16. Gainesville, City of; Office of Management & Budget 2001. City of Gainesville Citizen Opinion Survey, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Gainesville, City of; Office of Management & Budget 2001. City of Gainesville Citizen Opinion Survey, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. Gainesville, City of; Office of Management & Budget 2001. City of Gainesville FY 00-01 Workplan.Google Scholar
  19. Gatrell, J. and Jensen, R. 2002. Growth through greening: Developing and assessing alternative economic development programmes. Applied Geography 22:331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gatrell, J. 2001. Localized Innovation. Economic Development Review.Google Scholar
  21. Gatrell, J. 1999. Re-thinldng economic development in peripheral regions. Social Science Journal 36:623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, A. 1988. The new regional geography in English and French-Speaking countries. Progress in Human Geography 12:208–227.Google Scholar
  23. Glasmeier, A. and Howland, M. 1994. Service-led rural development: definitions, theories, and empirical evidence. International Regional Science Review 16:197–229.Google Scholar
  24. Harvey, D. 1989. The Conditions of Postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Jessop, B. and Sum, N. 2000. ‘An Entrepreneurial City in Action: Hong Kong’s Emerging Strategies in and for (Inter-)Urban Competition’, published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University Scholar
  26. Jonas, A.E.G. and Wilson, D., eds. 1999. The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives two decades later, New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jensen, R.R. 2000. Measurement, Comparison, and Use of Remotely Derived Leaf Area Index Predictors. Dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  28. Jensen, R.R., J.R. Boulton, and B.T. Harper. Accepted; in press. “The Relationship Between Urban Leaf Area and Household Energy Usage in Terre Haute, Indiana, USA.” Journal of Arboriculture.Google Scholar
  29. Kato, Y., M. Yokohari and R. Brown. 1997. Integration and visualization of the ecological value of rural landscapes in maintaining the physical environment of Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 6:1271–1318.Google Scholar
  30. Knox, P. 2000. Urbanization: An Introduction to Urban Geography. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Kotkin, J. 2000. The New Geography: How the Digital Revolution Is Reshaping the American Landscape. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  32. Kuo, F. 2001. Coping with poverty: impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior 33:5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Larson, R.C. and Camahan, W.H. 1997. The influence of surface characteristics on urban radiant temperatures. Geocarto International 12:5–16.Google Scholar
  34. Logan, J, and H. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes. Berkeley: UC Press.Google Scholar
  35. Loveridge, S. 1996. On the continuing popularity of industrial recruitment. Economic Development Quarterly 10:151–158.Google Scholar
  36. Lyon, D. 1994. Postmodernity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  37. Malecki, E. 1991. Technology and Economic Development: the Dynamics of Local, Regional, and National Change. London: Longman Scientific and Technical.Google Scholar
  38. McPherson, E. 2000. Expenditures associated with conflicts between street tree root growth and hardscape in California. Journal of Arboriculture 26(6): 289–297.Google Scholar
  39. McPherson, E., K. Scott and J. Simpson. 1998. Estimating cost effectiveness of residential yard trees for improving air quality in Sacramento, Califomia, using existing models. Atmospheric Environment 32:75–84.Google Scholar
  40. Merrifield, A. 1993. The struggle over place: redeveloping American Can in southeast Baltimore, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18:102–121.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, R. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Green Spaces. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Miller, B. 1997. Political action and the geography of defense investment: geographical scale and the representation of the Massachusetts Miracle, Political Geography, 16:171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Molotch, H., W. Freudenburg and K. Paulsen. 2000. History repeats itself, but how? City character, urban tradition, and the accomplishment of place. American Sociological Review 65:791–823.Google Scholar
  44. Molotch, H. 1993. The city as growth machine. Journal of Urban Affairs 15:29–53.Google Scholar
  45. O’Farrell, P., Moffat, L., and Hitchens, D. 1993. Manufacturing demand for business services in a core and peripheral region: Does flexible production imply vertical disintegration of business services? Regional Studies, 27:385–400.Google Scholar
  46. Osbome, L. and Smith, V. 1996. Environmental amenities as sources of product differentiation and market power. Duke University, Department of Economic, Duke Economics Working Paper, #96-08.Google Scholar
  47. Pred, A. 1984. Place historically contingent process: Structuration and the time geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74:279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pred, A. 1990. Making histories and Constructing Human Geographies. Boulder: West-view.Google Scholar
  49. Quattorchi, D. and J. Luvall. 1999. High spatial resolution airbome multi-spectral thermal infrared data to support analysis and modeling tasks in the EOS IDS project Atlanta. []Google Scholar
  50. Ridd, M. and J. Liu. 1998. A comparison of four algorithms for change detection in an urban environment. Remote Sensing of the Environment 63:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rose, G. 1988. Locality, politics, and culture: Poplar in the 1920s. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space:151–168.Google Scholar
  52. Rose, G. 1990. Imagining Poplar in the 1920s: Contested concepts of community. Journal of Historical Geography 16:425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ross, B. 2001. Suburbs, status and sprawl. Dissent Winter:50–55.Google Scholar
  54. Ross, D. and Friedman, R. 1990. The emerging Third Wave: New Economic Development Strategies in the ‘90s&quote;, The Entrepreneurial Economy Review, 9:3–10.Google Scholar
  55. Robinson, F. and Sadler, D. 1985. Routine action, reproduction of social relations, and the place market: Consett after closure, Society and Space, 3:109–120.Google Scholar
  56. Sherman, L. 2000. The hole in the doughnut: Center cities and sprawl. Annals, AAPSS 50-Simpson, J.R. and E.G. McPherson. 1998. Simulation of tree shade impacts on residential energy use for space conditioning in Sacramento. Atmospheric Environment: Urban Atmospheres, 32:69–74.Google Scholar
  57. Simpson, J.R. 1998. Urban forest impacts on regional space conditioning energy use: Sacramento County case study. Journal of Arboriculture. 24(4): 201–214.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, S. 1993. Bounding Borders: Claiming space and making place in rural Scotland. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18:291–308Google Scholar
  59. Smith, N. 1992. Geography, difference and the politics of Scale, in Doherty et al. (eds), Postmodernism and the Social Sciences. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  60. Stone, C. 1993. Urban regimes and the capacity to govern. Journal of Urban Affairs 15:1–28.Google Scholar
  61. Storper, M. 1997. Regional World. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  62. Thompson, D. and Frazier, D. 2001. Street People. The Star Banner, January 22. [].Google Scholar
  63. Towers, G. 1997. GIS versus the community: Siting power in Southern West Virginia. Applied Geography 17:111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tyrvainen, L. and H. Vaananen. 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation model. Landscape and Urban Planning 43:105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vogel, R. & Swanson, B. 1989. The growth machine versus the anti-growth coalition: the battle for our communities. Urban Affairs Quarterly 25:62–85.Google Scholar
  66. Weitz, J. 1999. Sprawl Busting: State Programs to Guide Growth. Chicago: APA Planners Press.Google Scholar
  67. Best Best [].Google Scholar
  68. Money Magazine. 2001. The best places to live. [].Google Scholar
  69. TreePeople. 2000. TreePeople Home Page. []Google Scholar
  70. TreeLink. 2000. NUCFAC Website Dedicated to Urban Forestry Resources. [].Google Scholar
  71. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 2001. Western Center for UrbanGoogle Scholar
  72. Forest Research & Education [].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay D. Gatrell
    • 1
  • Ryan R. Jensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography, Geology & AnthropologyIndiana State UniversityTerre Haute

Personalised recommendations