the benefits of urban trees

139
A summary of the benefits of urban trees accompanied by a selection of research papers and pamphlets.

Upload: doankhanh

Post on 01-Jan-2017

237 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Benefits of Urban Trees

��������������� ����� ��

A summary of the benefits of urban trees accompanied by a selectionof research papers and pamphlets.

Page 2: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Chris Hastie, July 2003

The Benefits of Urban TreesIntroductionTrees in towns bring with them both benefits and costs. Whilst many of the costs are wellknown to managers of urban trees, who watch the budgets and answer the phone todisgruntled residents, the benefits can be seen as nebulous and difficult to quantify or justify.Never the less, a considerable and expanding body of research exists on the benefits thaturban trees bring. This briefing note is an attempt to summarise some of the benefits ofurban trees. A number of papers relevant to the subject of the benefits of urban trees have,with the kind permission of their authors, been included in the appendices.

Economic BenefitsConsumer behaviourA study by the University of Washington established a number of benefits in terms ofconsumer experiences of business districts with trees (Wolf, 1998(a), Wolf, 1999 and Wolf,2003). Consumers reported consistently higher ratings for a number of categories related totheir perception of business districts with trees. They reported a willingness to pay more forparking in landscaped car parks and on average reported a willingness to pay an average ofabout 11% more for goods in a landscaped business district than a non landscaped district,with this figure being as high as 50% for convenience goods.

Both the business community and consumers were found to favour business districts withgood landscaping (Wolf, 1998(b)).

The quality of landscaping along approach routes to business districts has also been foundto positively influence consumer perceptions (Wolf, 2000).

Inward investmentThe attractiveness of an environment is an important factor in attracting inward investment.Both consumers and businesses have been found to favour districts with high tree cover andthe increase in retail prices that can be commanded in well landscaped areas canreasonably be assumed to be a positive benefit in attracting businesses to the district.

Property valuesSeveral studies in the USA have analysed the effect of tree cover on the price of residentialhouse sales, finding that values of properties in tree lined areas may be up to 6% greaterthan in similar areas without trees (Wolf, 1998 (c)).

The market in the UK is different and a direct translation of these data is not possible. Neverthe less, an informal telephone survey of estate agents in the Warwick area suggests thattree cover has a positive effect on saleability, if not directly on price. Properties on tree linedstreet were said to be in more demand and to sell faster.

Social BenefitsCrime reductionThe conventional wisdom has been that trees and other vegetation have a negative impacton crime because they provide cover for criminals and reduce opportunities for casualsurveillance.

Research in a particularly deprived area of inner city Chicago has suggested that this is infact not the case and that appropriate vegetation cover can lead to reduced crime rates (Kuoand Sullivan, 2001(a)). The study dealt largely with mown grass and high canopy trees,which do not provide cover in the same way as, for example, shrub planting. It looked at anarea with relatively homogenous architecture and a relatively homogenous population butwith differing levels of vegetation. Areas with higher vegetation cover were found to havelower rates of crime, as measured by reports to the police.

Page 3: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Chris Hastie, July 2003

Two mechanisms are suggested by which crime rates might be reduced by trees. The first isthrough an increase in surveillance, essentially because public open space with trees tendsto be used much more than space without trees. The second mechanism relates particularlyto violent crime and relates to evidence that vegetation has a mitigating effect on mentalfatigue, itself often a precursor of outbursts of anger and violence (Kuo and Sullivan,2001(b)).

Other social benefitsA wealth of research has been undertaken by the Human-Environment Research Laboratoryat the University of Illinois and has identified numerous beneficial effects that trees have onsociety. A good summary of these is a paper by Frances E. Kuo, “The Role of Arboriculturein a Healthy Social Ecology”, which is attached (Kuo, 2003).

Many of these benefits relate to encouraging people out of their homes and into public openspace, where they react more with others and build stronger social relationships. Anadditional benefit of interest is the positive effect that contact with nature can have onchildren with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) (Taylor, Kuo, Sullivan, 2001).

Dr Rachel Kaplan has found that desk workers who can see nature from their desksexperience 23% less time off sick than those who can not see any nature. Desk workers whocan see nature also report greater job satisfaction (reported by Wolf, 1998(d)), whilst hospitalpatients with views of trees have been found to recover significantly faster than those whocan not see any natural features.

Environmental BenefitsPollution interceptionResearch undertaken in the West Midlands by Lancaster University (Hewitt et al, undated)has established that trees can remove a number of pollutants from the atmosphere,including ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particles. The news is not all good though. Trees alsoproduce volatile organic compounds, VOCs, which in combination with some man madepollutants can lead to an increase in ozone, particulates and other pollutants.

Different species of tree have different net effects on air quality. Willows, poplars and oakscan potentially worsen air quality during hot weather, whilst ash, alder and birch haveamongst the greatest beneficial effects.

The study estimates that doubling the number of trees in the West Midlands would reduceexcess deaths due to particulate pollution by up to 140 per year.

Carbon sequestrationIt is well known that trees, in common with all vegetation, absorb carbon dioxide (one of theprincipal greenhouse gases) and release oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. Thecarbon absorbed by trees in this process is stored in the wood.

Whilst this most well known of benefits is real it seems it is often overstated. The study byLancaster University of trees in the West Midlands estimated that the total amount of carbonstored in trees within the conurbation represents the equivalent of about three weeks worthof CO2 emissions. Never the less, trees do have an important role to play in reducing theeffects of greenhouse gases, not only through carbon sequestration but perhaps moreimportantly through the effects that careful planting can have on fuel use.

Fuel useCareful tree planting can reduce the amount of fuel used on both heating and coolingbuildings. A considerable amount of research has been undertaken to quantify this in theUnited States, but little such research has been undertaken in the UK. Clearly differences inclimate mean that figures here can not be directly related to any part of the USA.

Trees provide shelter and reduce windspeed, thus reducing heat loss from buildings duringwinter. They also provide shade in the summer, whilst the evapo-transpiration of water fromthe leaf surface has a general cooling effect on surrounding air. This can significantly reducethe need for air conditioning during hot weather.

Page 4: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Chris Hastie, July 2003

Noise reductionTrees and other vegetation can play an important role in attenuating noise through reflectingand absorbing sound energy. One estimate suggests that 7db noise reduction is achievedfor every 33m of forest (Coder, 1996) whilst other reported field tests show apparentloudness reduced by 50% by wide belts of trees and soft ground (Dwyer et al, 1992).

HydrologyTrees have a number of hydrological effects. These include reducing erosion and improvingwater quality through interception of pollution. Perhaps the most important effect in Britain atpresent, given the trend for increasing winter flooding, is the reduction in ground water run-off. One study has estimated that for every 5% increase in tree cover area, run-off is reducedby 2% (Coder, 1996).

Wildlife BenefitsTrees are an important wildlife habitat. They provide nesting sites for birds and support awide range of insects that are an important food source for birds and other wildlife. Treesthat bear berries are also a direct source of food for many bird species.

In an urban setting, linear corridors of habitat are among the most important, connectingotherwise isolated areas to each other and out to the rural surroundings. Trees and othervegetation along highways, waterways and railways are particularly important to wildlife inthe respect.

Other BenefitsRoad safetyTrees can help improve road safety in a number of ways.

Trees lining streets give the impression of narrowing the street and encourage slowerdriving.

The stress reduction effects of trees (Wolf 1998(d), Kuo and Sullivan 2001(b)) are likely tohave the effect of reducing road rage and improving the attention of drivers.

Trees along streets also provide a buffer between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

Road surfacesManagers of both trees and highways are well aware of the detrimental effects that trees canhave on the surface of footways and carriageways through direct damage by roots. Less wellknown is the fact that the shade cast be trees can significantly increase the life of roadsurfaces by reducing the temperatures which the surface reaches during hot weather.

AcknowledgementsThanks are due to all those involved in research investigating the benefits and costs of trees.In particular thanks go to following for permission to reproduce articles, factsheets andleaflets relating to this area: Kathleen Wolf of the Center for Urban Horticulture at theUniversity of Washington, Frances Kuo of the Human Environment Research Laboratory atthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Nick Hewitt of Lancaster University, KimCoder of the University of Georgia, David Nowak of the USDA Forest Service NortheasternResearch Station and the International Society of Arboriculture.

Page 5: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Chris Hastie, July 2003

BibliographyPapers marked * are included in the appendices.

*Coder, KD, 1996 Identified Benefits of Community Trees and Forests, University of GeorgiaCooperative Extension Service - Forest Resources Publication FOR96-39

Dwyer, JF, McPherson,EG, Schroeder, HW andRowntree, R, 1992

Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest, [in] Journal ofArboriculture 18(5), pp 227 - 234.

*Hewitt, N, Stewart, H,Donovan, R andMacKenzie, R, undated.

Trees and Sustainable Urban Air Quality, Research summary fromLancaster University athttp://www.es.lancs.ac.uk/people/cnh/docs/UrbanTrees.htm

*Kuo, FE and Sullivan,WC, 2001(a)

Environment and Crime in the Inner City. Does Vegetation Reduce Crime[in] Environment and Behavior 33(3), pp 343 - 367

*Kuo, FE and Sullivan,WC, 2001(b)

Aggression and Violence in the Inner City - Effects of Environment viaMental Fatigue, [in] Environment and Behavior 33(4), pp 543 - 571

*Kuo, FE, 2003 The role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology [in] Journal ofArboriculture 29(3), pp148 - 155

*Nowak, DJ, undated The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality, USDA Forest Service,Syracuse, NY

*Taylor, AF, Kuo, FE,Sullivan, WC, 2001

COPING WITH ADD - The Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings[in] Environment and Behavior 33(1), pp 54 - 77

*Wolf, K, 1998(a) Trees in Business Districts - Positive Effects on Consumer Behaviour,University of Washington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #30.

*Wolf, K, 1998(b) Trees in Business Districts - Comparing Values of Consumers andBusiness, University of Washington College of Forest Resources,Factsheet #31.

*Wolf, K, 1998(c) Urban Forest Values: Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities, University ofWashington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #29.

*Wolf, K, 1998(d) Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants,University of Washington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #1.

*Wolf, K, 1999 Grow for the Gold, [in] TreeLink 14, Washington State Department ofNatural Resources

*Wolf, K, 2000 Community Image - Roadside Settings and Public Perceptions, Universityof Washington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #32.

*Wolf, K, 2003 Public Response to the Urban Forest in Inner-City Business Districts, [in]Journal of Arboriculture 29(3) pp 117 - 126

Page 6: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Chris Hastie, July 2003

AppendicesThe following factsheets, pamphlets and scientific papers provide some of the background tothe topics discussed here. They are reproduced with the kind permission of the authors and /or publishers.

Copyright in all these papers remains with the original copyright holder. This entire documentmay be distributed for non-commercial, educational purposes. If you wish to use any part ofthe document for any other purposes you should obtain permission from each author.

Page 7: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Identified Benefits of Community Trees and Forests

by Dr. Rim D. Coder, University of GeorgiaOctober 1996

Community trees and forests are valuable. To the 75% of the United States population that now live inurban and suburban areas, trees provide many goods and services. Values are realized by the people thatown the trees, by people nearby, and by society in general. People plant, maintain, conserve, and covettrees because of the values and benefits generated.

Tree benefits can be listed in many forms. The bottom-line is humans derive not a single-user value fromcommunity trees and forests, but a multi-product multi-value benefit. Some of these benefits stem fromcomponents and attributes of a single tree, while other benefits are derived from groups of trees function-ing together. What is the value of these multiple benefits? A 1985 study concluded that the annual eco-logical contribution of an average community tree was $270.

Values, functions, goods and services produced by community trees and forests can be evaluated foreconomic and quality of life components. While quality of life values are difficult to quantify, some of theeconomic values can suggest current and future negative or positive cash flows. In assessing changes indollar values, concerns for tree evaluation are most prevalent within: risk management costs (liability andsafety); value-added / capital increases to tree values; appreciation of tree and forest assets; maintenancecosts of tree and forest assets; and, level of management effectiveness and efficiency (total quality man-agement of community trees and forests -- TTQM).

Below are listed a selected series of goods, services, and benefits community trees across the nation andforests provide. These bullets of information are taken from a diversity of individual research projectsand, as such, are individually meaningless except under similar conditions. These items together dosuggest trends and concepts of value.

OUTLINE OF SELECTED BENEFITS

Environmental Benefits

Temperature and Energy UseShadeWind ControlActive Evaporation

Air quality

Oxygen ProductionPollution ReductionCarbon Dixoide Reduction

Hydrology

Water Run-OffWater Quality / Erosion

Noise Abatement

Glare ReductionAnimal Habitats

Economic / Social / Psychological Benefits

Economic StabilityProperty ValuesProduct Production

Aesthetic PreferencesVisual ScreeningRecreationHealthHuman Social Issues

Page 8: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Environmental Benefits

Temperature and Energy Use

Community heat islands (3 to 10 degrees F warmer than surrounding countryside) exist becauseof decreased wind, increased high density surfaces, and heat generated from human associated activities,all of which requires addition energy expenditures to off-set. Trees can be successfully used to mitigateheat islands. Trees reduce temperatures by shading surfaces, dissipating heat through evaporation, andcontrolling air movement responsible for advected heat.

Shade

- 20 degrees F lower temperature on a site from trees.- 35 degrees F lower hard surface temperature under tree shade than in full summer sun.- 27% decrease in summer cooling costs with trees.- 75% cooling savings under deciduous trees.- 50% cooling energy savings with trees. (1980) 20 degrees F lower room temperatures in uninsulated house

during summer from tree shade.- $242 savings per home per year in cooling costs with trees.- West wall shading is the best cooling cost savings component.- South side shade trees saved $38 per home per year.- 10% energy savings when cooling equipment shaded (no air flow reduction).- 12% increase in heating costs under evergreen canopy- 15% heating energy savings with trees, (1980)- 5% higher winter energy use under tree shade- $122 increase in annual heating costs with south and east wall shading off-set by $155 annual savings in

cooling costs.- Crown form and amount of light passing through a tree can be adjusted by crown reduction and thin-

ning.- Shade areas generated by trees are equivalent to $2.75 per square foot of value (1975 dollars).

Wind Control

- 50% wind speed reduction by shade trees yielded 7% reduction in heating energy in winter.- 8% reduction in heating energy in home from deciduous trees although solar gain was reduced.- $50 per year decrease in heating costs from tree control of wind.- Trees block winter winds and reduces “chill factor.”- Trees can reduce cold air infiltration and exchange in a house by maintaining a reduced wind or still

area.- Trees can be planted to funnel or baffle wind away from areas -- both vertical and horizontal concentra-

tions of foliage can modify air movement patterns.- Blockage of cooling breezes by trees increased by $75 per year cooling energy use.

Page 9: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Active Evaporation

- 65% of heat generated in full sunlight on a tree is dissipated by active evaporation from leaf surfaces.- 17% reduction in building cooling by active evaporation by trees.- One acre of vegetation transpires as much as 1600 gallons of water on sunny summer days.- 30% vegetation coverage will provide 66% as much cooling to a site as full vegetation coverage.- A one-fifth acre house lot with 30% vegetation cover dissipates as much heat as running two central air

conditioners.

Air Quality -- Trees help control pollution through acting as biological and physical nets, but they are alsopoisoned by pollution.

Oxygen Production -- One acre of trees generates enough oxygen each day for 18 people.

Pollution Reduction

- Community forests cleanse the air by intercepting and slowing particulate materials causing them to fallout, and by absorbing pollutant gases on surfaces and through uptake onto inner leaf surfaces.- Pollutants partially controlled by trees include nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide,carbon dioxide (required for normal tree function), ozone, and small particulates less than 10 microns insize.- Removal of particulates amounts to 9% across deciduous trees and 13% across evergreen trees.- Pollen and mold spore, are part of a living system and produced in tree areas, but trees also sweep out

of the air large amounts of these particulates.- In one urban park (212 ha), tree cover was found to remove daily 48 lbs particulates, 9 lbs nitrogen

dioxide, 6 lbs sulfur dioxide, and 1/2 lbs carbon monoxide. ($136 per day value based upon pollutioncontrol technology).- 60% reduction in street level particulates with trees.- One sugar maple (one foot in diameter) along a roadway removes in one growing season 60 mg cad-

mium, 140 mg chromium, 820 mg nickel and 5200mg lead from the environment.- Interiorscape trees can remove organic pollutants from indoor air.

Carbon Dioxide Reduction

- Approximately 800 million tons of carbon are currently stored in US community forests with 6.5million tons per year increase in storage ($22 billion equivalent in control costs).- A single tree stores on average 13 pounds of carbon annually.- A community forest can store 2.6 tons of carbon per acre per year.

Hydrology

- Development increases hard, non-evaporative surfaces and decreases soil infiltration -- increases watervolume, velocity and pollution load of run-off -- increases water quality losses, erosion, and flooding.

Page 10: The Benefits of Urban Trees

- Community tree and forest cover intercepts, slows, evaporates, and stores water through normal treefunctions, soil surface protection, and soil area of biologically active surfaces.

Water Run-Off

- 7% of winter precipitation intercepted and evaporated by deciduous trees.- 22% of winter precipitation intercepted and evaporated by evergreen trees.- 18% of growing season precipitation intercepted and evaporated by all trees.- For every 5% of tree cover area added to a community, run-off is reduced by approximately 2%- 7% volume reduction in six-hour storm flow by community tree canopies.- 17% (11.3 million gallons) run-off reduction from a twelve-hour storm with tree canopies in a medium-sized city ($226,000 avoided run-off water control costs).

Water Quality / Erosion

- Community trees and forests act as filters removing nutrients and sediments while increasing groundwater recharge.- 37,500 tons of sediment per square mile per year comes off of developing and developed landscapes --

trees could reduce this value by 95% ($336,000 annual control cost savings with trees).- 47% of surface pollutants are removed in first 15 minutes of storm -- this includes pesticides, fertilizers,

and biologically derived materials and litter.- 10,886 tons of soil saved annually with tree cover in a medium-sized city.

Noise Abatement

- 7db noise reduction per 100 feet of forest due to trees by reflecting and absorbing sound energy (solidwalls decrease sound by 15 db)- Trees provide “white noise, " the noise of the leaves and branches in the wind and associated naturalsounds, that masks other man-caused sounds.

Glare Reduction

- Trees help control light scattering, light intensity, and modifies predominant wavelengths on a site.- Trees block and reflect sunlight and artificial lights to minimize eye strain and frame lighted areas where

needed for architectural emphasis, safety, and visibility.

Animal Habitats

- Wildlife values are derived from aesthetic, recreation, and educational uses.- Lowest bird diversity is in areas of mowed lawn -- highest in area of large trees, greatest tree diversity,

and brushy areas.

Page 11: The Benefits of Urban Trees

- Highest native bird populations in areas of highest native plant populations.- Highly variable species attributes and needs must be identified to clearly determine tree and community

tree and forest influences.- Trees are living systems that interact with other living things in sharing and recycling resources -- assuch, trees are living centers where living thing congregate and are concentrated.

Economic / Social / Psychological Benefits

Economic Stability Community

- Community trees and forests provide a business generating, and a positive real estate transactionappearance and atmosphere.- Increased property values, increased tax revenues, increased income levels, faster real estate sales turn-

over rates, shorter unoccupied periods, increased recruitment of buyers, increased jobs, increased workerproductivity, and increased number of customers have all been linked to tree and landscape presence.- Tree amenity values are a part of real estate prices.

Property Values -- Real Estate Comparisons

- Clearing unimproved lots is costlier than properly preserving trees.- 6% ($2,686) total property value in tree cover.- $9,500 higher sale values due to tree cover.- 4% higher sale value with five trees in the front yard -- $257 per pine, $333 per hardwood, $336 per

large tree, and $0 per small tree.- $2,675 increase in sale price when adjacent to tree green space as compared to similar houses 200 feet

away from green space.- $4.20 decrease in residential sales price for every foot away from green space.- 27% increase in development land values with trees present.- 19% increase in property values with trees. (1971 & 1983)- 27% increase in appraised land values with trees. (1973)- 9% increase in property value for a single tree. (198 1)

Property Values - Tree Value Formula (CTLA 8th edition)

- Values of single trees in perfect conditions and locations in the Southeast range up to $100,000.- $100 million is the value of community trees and forests in Savannah, GA- $386 million is the value of community trees and forests in Oakland, CA (59% of this value is in resi-

dential trees).

Product Production

- Community trees and forests generate many traditional products for the cash and barter marketplacethat include lumber, pulpwood, hobbyist woods, fruits, nuts, mulch, composting materials, firewood, andnursery plants.

Page 12: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Aesthetic Preferences

- Conifers, large trees, low tree densities, closed tree canopies, distant views, and native species all hadpositive values in scenic quality.- Large old street trees were found to be the most important indicator of attractiveness in a community.- Increasing tree density (optimal 53 trees per acre) and decreasing understory density are associated

with positive perceptions.- Increasing levels of tree density can initiate feelings of fear and endangerment -- an optimum number of

trees allows for visual distances and openness while blocking or screening developed areas.- Species diversity as a distinct quantity was not important to scenic quality.

Visual Screening

- The most common use of trees for utilitarian purposes is screening undesirable and disturbing sightlines.- Tree crown management and tree species selection can help completely or partially block vision lines

that show human density problems, development activities, or commercial/ residential interfaces.

Recreation

- Contact with nature in many communities may be limited to local trees and green areas (for noticingnatural cycles, seasons, sounds, animals, plants, etc.) Trees are critical in this context.- $1.60 is the willing additional payment per visit for use of a tree covered park compared with a main-

tained lawn area.

Health

- Stressed individuals looking at slides of nature had reduced negative emotions and greater positivefeelings than when looking at urban scenes without trees and other plants.- Stressed individuals recuperate faster when viewing tree filled images.- Hospital patients with natural views from their rooms had significantly shorter stays, less pain medicine

required, and fewer post-operative complications.- Psychiatric patients are more sociable and less stressed when green things are visible and immediately

present.- Prison inmates sought less health care if they had a view of a green landscape.

Page 13: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Human Social Interactions

- People feel more comfortable and at ease when in shaded, open areas of trees as compared to areas ofhardscapes and non-living things.- People’s preferences for locating areas of social interactions in calming, beautiful, and nature-domi-

nated areas revolve around the presence of community trees and forests.- Trees and people are psychologically linked by culture, socialiition, and coadaptive history.

Reference for most of this material: Literature Review for the QUANTITREE computer program --“Quantifiable Urban Forest Benefits and Costs; Current Findings and Future Research.” In a white paperentitled Consolidating and Communicating Urban Forest Benefits. Davey Resource Group, Kent, OH.1993. Pp.25.

THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL-TURE AND COUNTIES OF THE STATE COOPERATING. THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSIONSERVICE OFFERS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, ASSISTANCE AND MATERIALS TO ALLPEOPLE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN AGE, SEX OR HANDI-CAP STATUS.

A UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ORGANIZATION

THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE FOREST RE-SOURCES UNIT PUBLICATION FOR96-39

Page 14: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Natural ResourcesWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TreeLink

D N R C O M M U N I T Y F O R E S T R Y P R O G R A M ✦ N U M B E R 1 4 ✦ S P R I N G 1 9 9 9

Growfor the

Gold

Trees

in Business

Districts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

By Kathleen L. Wolf, Ph.D.

Center for Urban Horticulture

University of Washington

Page 15: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Trees and business — it’s a

love-hate relationship!

There are certainly costs that

come with having trees on

streets. Yet, a new study

provides evidence that trees

have positive effects on

consumers. Despite their

costs, trees do provide indirect benefits to businesses.

About 70% of America’s gross domestic product is

attributed to purchases of individuals. Consumers

consider many factors when deciding on what

products and services to buy. Value, quality and

convenience are major messages that marketers

communicate about their products. Often overlooked

is the importance of the retail place on shopping

decisions. A pleasant, welcoming retail environment is

important to consumers.

How does the community forest influence consumers?

A national study, conducted by social scientists at the

University of Washington, used survey questionnaires

to investigate public perceptions about the role of

trees in revitalizing business districts. Surveys were

sent to selected districts in cities of the Pacific

Northwest, Austin, Los Angeles, Chicago, Pittsburgh

and Washington DC.

The project outcomes can help us plan and manage

urban forests to better meet business needs. They also

will help businesses focus their green investment for

highest returns. Here are highlights of the research

results.

GROW FOR THE GOLD

Category A.Category A. Little / No Vegetation

Category B.Category B. Naturalistic

Category C.Category C. High, Open Canopy

Category E.Category E. Formal Foliage

Consumers said they would be willing

Category D.Category D. Low, Dense Canopy

Page 16: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Low and High Ratings

Ratings were averaged for each of 32scenes. Scenes with the lowest and high-est mean ratings differ significantly invisual content. Highly valued scenescontain trees and accessory vegetation,including light and shade patterns asso-ciated with the plants. This result isconsistent with preference evaluations ofmany landscape settings; the presence oftrees generally enhances public judg-ment of visual quality. In this case athree point difference in means betweenthe highest and lowest rated scenes is astriking example of how plants canaffect consumers’ judgments of place.

Perception Categories

Analysis also reveals categories of imagesbased on similar patterns of response.Typically, differences in the categoriescan be attributed to both the content ofthe images and how the image elementsare arranged. Five visual categories wereidentified (see photos at left).

Mean Ratings

Preference ratings increase with thepresence of trees in the streetscape. Cat-egory “A” was rated lower, by far, thanthe other categories even though itsimages contain some vegetation. Cat-egory “B” images contain the most com-plex landscape plant blend, yet werevalued least of the image categories con-

Exploring Public Preferences

Preference surveys are a proven tool used to assess public values. The

survey showed retail settings with different amounts and arrangements

of vegetation. People were asked to rate scenes on how much they liked

them (1 = not at all, to 5 = very much). The ratings do express an aesthetic

judgment, but the basis of the judgment is very important — the capacity

of a place to meet the needs and concerns of a person.

taining trees. Meanwhile, larger trees areassociated with higher preference, as inCategories “C”, “D” and “E.” Both openand dense canopied trees are valued.Finally, the latter three categories alsoappear more ordered; both trees andaccessory vegetation are placed and man-aged to create distinct visual patterns.

Comparing Business

and Visitors

Both business and consumer surveygroups gave higher ratings to scenes withtrees. Yet, within all but one category(Category “E”) business respondentssignificantly differed from visitors in theirassessment of visual quality. Businessratings of Category “A” scenes werehigher than visitor ratings, despite thegrim, hard-featured character of the streetsetting. Meanwhile, business peopleconsistently rated landscaped scenes onCategories “B” through “D” lower thanvisitors, suggesting that merchants haveless appreciation for trees than the peoplethey wish to welcome to their shops.

Categories can be attributed to both the content of the images

TreeLink, Spring 1999

Lowest Rated Scene

Highest Rated Scene

to pay, on average, 12% higher for products in districts with trees.

ALL

PH

OTO

S B

Y K

ATH

LEEN

L.

WO

LF

Research support provided by the USDA Forest Service and

National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council.

f Ratings of business

people and the general public

were statistically compared

to better understand how their

values for the urban forest

may differ.

Page 17: The Benefits of Urban Trees

The Washington Community Forestry Council was organized by the Wash-

ington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1991. Its goal is toprovide leadership and vision to help citizens preserve, plant and maintaincommunity trees and forests. The Council consists of a general membershipand an Executive Advisory Committee to the State Forester. Join by calling

1-800-523-TREE.

“TreeLink” is a quarterly publication of the DNR Community ForestryProgram. The goal of the program is to assist communities in building self-

sustaining urban forestry and tree care programs with strong local support.

Editor: Kevin LeClair, Resource Protection, DNR.Graphic Design: Luis Prado, Communications Product Development, DNR.

Funding provided by DNR and the USDA-Forest Service.

Washington Community Forestry Council

BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE

PAID

OLYMPIA, WAPermit No. 263

Natural ResourcesWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF

WASHINGTON COMMUNITY FORESTRY COUNCIL

C/O DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

P.O. BOX 47037

OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7037

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

TREELINK, SPRING 1999. CPD JOB # 2.2.99

Consumer Perceptions and Behavior

Place Perceptions

Four perception categories emerged fromparticipants’ ratings of the three businessdistricts:❚ amenity and comfort,❚ interaction with merchants,❚ quality of product,❚ maintenance and upkeepConsumers’ ratings for each of the catego-ries were significantly higher for districtsthat had street trees and other landscapeimprovements. For instance, amenity andcomfort ratings were about 80% higher fora tree lined sidewalk compared to a non-shaded street. Also, quality of product rat-ings were 30% higher in districts havingtrees over those with barren sidewalks.Interaction with merchants items includedcustomer service issues; ratings were about15% higher for districts with trees.

Patronage Behavior

Actions follow our impressions of a place.Respondents were asked to give opinions oftheir behavior within the three shoppingdistricts, including travel time, travel dis-tance, duration of a visit, frequency of visitsand willingness-to-pay for parking. Again,trees make a difference. Considering all

Often taken for granted, our surroundings, both outdoor and indoor, affect

the course of our daily lives. Physical features define how we move and get

around in any space. In addition, elements of an environment send cues that

can influence our attitudes and behavior within a place. The study evaluated

how the character of a place influences shoppers’ behavior in a business

district. People were asked a series of questions about three hypothetical

business districts. What do consumers read from the visual cues of a place?

Here are some of the results.

behaviors, higher measures were reportedin the districts having trees. For instance,respondents claimed they would be willingto pay more for parking in a well land-scaped business district. This suggestsgreater revenues from shaded parkingcould offset the costs of parking space loss,a frequent objection to trees by merchants.

Pricing Patterns

Do trees influence how much people arewilling to pay for goods? Contingent valua-tion methods were used to assess how ame-nity values relate to customers’ price valua-tions. Survey respondents were asked tospecify a price for each of 15 items in abasket of goods in the business districts. Thesurvey participants consistently priced goodssignificantly higher in landscaped districts.Prices were, on average, about 12% higherfor products in the landscaped district com-pared to the no-tree district. This was trueof low-price, impulse-buy conveniencegoods (e.g. lunch sandwich, flower bou-quet), as well as bigger ticket, comparison-shopped items (e.g. sports shoes, newglasses). Given the low profit margins ofmost retail businesses, trees appear to pro-vide a significant amenity margin.

Growing Trees and

Revenue for Business

A goal of 15%

tree canopy cover

is recommended

by American

Forests for busi-

ness districts;

most American retail environ-

ments have 5% or less. How

can we encourage business

leaders to become advocates

for trees? While there are few

direct cost benefits, support of

the urban and community

forest provides other indirect

returns. A healthy, vital urban

forest sends messages that

welcome shoppers. Other

studies confirm that the pres-

ence of trees may boost

worker productivity and that

trees boost property values.

The community forest is an

asset for entire retail commu-

nities, as well as individual

business owners. A tree pro-

gram should be a part of

any business improvements

campaign.

Page 18: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Urban Forest Values:

Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities

��������� � ������������������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������ ��������� ��� ���������"!������#��������������$&% '������(�)��� �*! ��� ��$&� �)������' �+��� ���,$-�.���� ��� ��/+0#�����1 � 2+��' % �����3$+�����#������� �* ' ������� � ����%���% ��!������������������ ���4�"�3$ �������,2�����' ����5,��� /�6)��!�����$&���4���(���������"�)��� 7�� � $&� �������������� � �,��������� � 7�' ��2+��' % ��!�' �8�����������3$+��1��9%���!���������2+� �4����8�#����/�:3��� ������� �(����1 �;2<�9�������% �����=��1�� ��������8��� �<��% �������%������>��1��?�@�������#�������2.� �<� $&������#���' �"� ����� ��� ����/A�B������' �����"������������8�����=�,$C!��3��1�! ��� ��$&� ���������������(����� ��,1���' ' �#��7�� � 7�/�D���������1���' �#����E($F% ' ' %�� �<�#���(��������� � 7)�3$+��1 � � � ��$F�.����?��� ����� �>2.��' % ��! ' �"� $C������� ��� ��� G?8��5������>H�� ��1�������53�"�����(�)��$ $?���&��� 2<�9 ��' � �&��������! %���7����=������� ��� ������/=I ��2<���(����#������� ����1 �8 ' ������� � 7)�������������8�,$+��������� ���� �����������' �.��7J���#��K����8�� ��"������� �3$C�������4�,�"���.' ' ������L�� 8��4����#�� ' ������� ��7��>H�� ' ' � � �,�4�������"�����(��� ��� �����#�<%����"!���� ��$&� ����/��� ��M %��?���8���#����% ��������$F����!��,��1� ' ����� � ��7)��� ���������7���8�������,$-% ��! ����7����#���8� ��� �������������?��� $-��� ��� ���>HN� ��1���������� 8� O�� ��1 ��2+��' % ���P��� ��! ������$F� ��� �3$+��1��8% ��! ����$?�����#�(��/

QSR8TVU3W>X9R*Y[Z9R*\�]9^_]"R*`aQSR*Z�W>b)cd ]�T9U#R*b�ef � ���.G H�� ��� E;��1��"�����%����=��� ��M %���' � �&�*�3$<�������#� � ��$&' %�G�����,�8! �3��1�! � ��' ��7�� ����' ��� �* 1��+��� ����' %���!���������2+� ���.��G��3������/�g�' ��������E�� $@�(�����?����7�� ����' ' �*�' ������������������������$&���(E�,���9!�������8�9�=h�' � 2+� � 7i������1�� ��' ��7&�,E j���5,��������?���3$���1 �%���!������ ��$F�����k����%��&��%��4� ��1��?�)����������� !�%����������l8�����' � 2��#��! ' �8%���! �����' �����#��/

mlnCo p�q?r_sto�r_uwv8xyxyzCq?rls{v�xy|ip�|S}-��~��$&�����C�����#�8���#�<% ������������% ��' 1��#�&��� � 7)��� ��������' � ��7)�����(����3$@�@�&�+ � ����'�������� �<�#�����8!��������N��~ ��E� ������%���� ��7)����;2��#����7��"�.���8���;2+� ��7��P ���>��8����� �����81��.% ����1 ��' ��/>� ' ���<E!�%�� ' �<� ��7������ ����(2+� � 7=� ����� �?���������������������#�?���"�)1��#�&��G� ��' ��������$ $?���&��/A��8�?��%���� ���4���"�,��� ��������#�<% ����� ��� ����#8 �����?��%��4��� !��*��!��.%��)�����l� �����?E�� ��$&' % ������� ��7@��1 �� �����#������'�����8��#���?��% �4�#���3$-� ������!��N! %�� ' � � � 7���/

o�q����y��o�z@q?p���o�rlu{v8z@n-o�rl|Jq&rNs{}.���&�3�+� �3�,��+�������A���3�A�<���<��� �=���+�A�<�P�< +¡�� �<¢��A£���¤<�3¥,�����+� ���� �,�;¢@�§¦<���,� �F¦��"�&�����<¨������9�9�<©N£ �&¢��&�,� ���,��¦��F��� �<¨��3�,��+���Aª+�+�3�*�,�<�A�+�-©+¡<«�� �<¢��A£��>¤<�3¥,�����,�<���+�,� � �,¬K�F­V��F��� � �=���<�+�<� �9�F¦<�*��¤<�3¥������+� ��ª+�)�A£��V�<�������A�N� �,�3¦��� �,��®��=� ����¨��3�A�A� ���)��� �)�F� ���<�����,�&�+�������,��� �,�F� ªN�<��F��� ���3�,�+�A�<� ��������ª+�<�3�������A¥V� � ¯�� � ���<�V�<�*�F�S¡<°�¨�+���Aª.�<�3� �+¥)����¯3� �+¥,� � ���,� ���3� ���,�+±?�+���3�,���+�,� ¥,�+��¢

�#� ����' ' �3E��=8�&��% ���P�����#�"��! ������! ��$F�4��²� ~ �����N~ ³��8' !���/�3$+��1��"��8��' ' ����?��� ��' ������� ��7������#���3$@��� �� ��' ' %���� ��� /�I �:3����������������<E f �PE�$?�.��� ���(����������E(��1�� � ������4�������������2+��' %��"�3$C�.~�� / ´�8� ' ' � ����/

q?µ·¶ ��x�¸�n-uB¹ºo p�n-���y�8o�zCq?p)�»}P¼@1 �9����� �����3$C�)�(���4�����@�����#�"� �����������#���������� � E� �.����� !�' ��������% �,� ��7��1��"�����% ���)�3$<H��?�����A��1��?�@H�� ' '�$&��' '�������(2���8�����)�������1�����8% �(�)!��"���#8�,2�����!����)�(������ H��&�������<����� ����7���(�+�(����8/ I �8�����V�(��%����,E�½ ~�$ ��/(����' ' �(�����#���@�����#��� � ��������G��������#�*����� ��$&��' ' E��4����%���� ��7)�(�������H��?��������%�� �3$ $-!���½�~ ´7���' ' ��� ��/�:3�;2+� ��7�� �����"��.����� !�' �"��� �����"��� ��� ��� �,����� � �(����' '��% �;$&������H��?������"������7��#��#���)�(�+�(����8�>��1 �?��1 ��� ��' ���8��' ' ������8��%��������3$C��% ���3$ $&/

¾�¿�ÀPÁ�Â�à Ä,À�Å.Æ3Ç,È�É?À�À�Å�Â�Ê,Ë�Ì,à Â�Ê,È;Å.Í Ê�Ä�É&Î,Â�Ê�Ï�À�Ê,È;À�É&Å�Â�É�ÀÆ,Ç È;À�Ê)Æ�Á�À�É?à Æ,Æ3Ð�À�Ë�Ñ

ÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÔÙÚÛÜÝÞØßÔÓàÙÛÓ

á âãã äåäâæ ç âèäéêë äéâìèíäé

Page 19: The Benefits of Urban Trees

î�ï ð4ñ�ò ó&ô4ï õ�ök÷?ø�ñ4ù ú�õ?ö û�ü�ý?ô4ò�ô4þiÿ ý���õ?ò�õ�� ÿ ÷ ö+ô�����ï õ�õ?ö+ÿ ò���ÿ ÷ ÿ õ?ö� � � � � ��� �

���������������� �!"!# �$&%(') �!#*+�),�-.0/213/24658739;:6/24<:69;4>=3/?1>/2@+4A/27>BC/C:EDF7>DG/H73I8I;467>J :E/246:K7>L8@M;N;OQPSRTDG5;/2UV7>W>4A/C/2@XDF5;7>D)B 7>L8@8:EYZ7>I8J L;W[7>@;@8/2@+DFPDG58/H@8P�B B 7>4\=>7>B 9;/PSR]YZPSU^U/24AYZJ 7>B84A/C7>B;/C:EDG7>DF/;_<`8a;O73B :EP�7>W>4A/C/?@+DF5;7>D)B 7>L;@8:6YZ73I;J L8Wb/CL;587>L;YZ/C:<DG58/�:E7>B /C:7cI8I;/C7>B;PSRdYZPSUU^/24EYZJ 7>B;4A/C7>BC/2:6DG7>DF/;_

e ����,gf\�)%h������*+id H$+��j0�K kfl�),�-�m L;/:EDG98@81[B PSPTnZ/C@+7>Dko;p+=Z7>46J 7>q8B /C:GrQ734EYZ5;J DF/2YZDG984E/�7>L;@9;46q87>L^@d/?:6J W>LsrtPSRTI;PSDF/2L8DGJ 73B;J UI8PS4cDF7>L;YZ/J L+@;/CDG/C4�uUJ L;J L8WlPSR R J YZ/�PSYZYZ9;I87>L;YZ1b4673DF/C:E_�v)/2:E98B DF:�:69;W3W>/2:6DDG5873DkB 7>L8@8:AYZ7>I8/H7>U/CL;J DGJ /2:\5C7E=>/HDF5;/5;J W>5;/C:ED)Y>PS4E4A/CuB 7>DGJ PSL^w[J D�5+PSYZYZ9;I873L8YZ1[467>DG/2:Exc5;J W>5;/C4\/2=c/CL^DF5C7>L@8J 4E/2YZD)7>YZY>/C:E:<DGP�7>43DF/246J 7>B;4APT98DG/C:E_

29y{z?|d}�~F�]���A}��29

�#�2� �c�s�A��� �G���C���(�>���2� �2�s�G�C�C�����C� � �s�>�\�C���E�C���s���S�S�?���2�2���c�?����s�C�G�s�#� �;�\�#���C�>�+���C�6�G� �c�C� �G�C������?�6�?�^�C�s���s�Z�s�

 ¢¡¤£k¥Z¦¡b§¨c¥>©[ª&«&¬S­b®¡b¬)¨F¯V°�©[ª>±¡b£

²�PS9;:E/I;46J Y>/C:K7>4A/H7>B :EP�J L;R B 9;/CL;Y>/C@+q;1[DG58/HI;4E/C:E/CLCYZ/PSR]DF4E/C/2:E_^³K/?=c/2B PSI;/C46:<YZ7>L^U^7>´CJ UJ µ>/HI;46PSR J DF:<qC14E/CDG7>J L;J L;Wb/C´;J :ADFJ L;W¤DG4E/2/C:<PS4<4E/2I;B 7>L;DFJ L8Wb7>L^9846q;7>LR P�4A/C:EDk7>R DG/C4lY3P�L;:EDF469;YZDFJ PSL+J :<YZPTU^I;B /2DF/2@d_��$&���K�) �,g�)%·¶X�����¸,# �!#��,�i����G���),�-g¹ /?=3/2467>B:EDF9;@dJ /C:<5;76=3/73L;7>B 1Zµ3/2@XDG58/H/CR R /CY>DG:<P�R]DG46/2/C:<PSL7>YZDF9;7>B2:E7>B /2:�I;46J YZ/C:�PSR84A/C:EJ @8/CL;DFJ 7>BCI;4EPSI8/243DGJ /2:E_²�PSU/C:�w[J DF5H/?º89;J =Z7>B /2L8D#R /C7>DG984E/?:Frt:Eº89;7>4E/�R PSPSDG73W>/;xL;9;U^u�q8/24<PSR8qC7>DF5;4APSPSU^:ExEB PSYZ7>DFJ PTLsrQ7>4A/�/?=Z7>B 9873DF/2@8_» L^P�L;/H7>4A/C7¤7lN8OtJ L8YZ4A/C7>:E/HJ L+=>73B 9;/w[73:<7>:6:EPSYZJ 7>DG/2@w[J DF5^DF5;/I;4E/2:A/CL;YZ/PSR]DG46/2/C:E¼67>LJ L8YZ4E/27>:6/HPSR]o8_ ½^DGP¾8_ ½;OQw[7>:<4E/CICPS4>DG/C@+J L^7>L8PSDG58/24\:EDG98@81�_fl���)�",g��¿<� �$&%¢') �!#*+�À-TÁ DG/C7>UhPSRd4A/2:E/C7>4�YZ5;u/C46:<YZPSUI87>4E/C@^DG4E/2/:EJ µ3/7>L;@+I89Cq8B J Y[=Z7>B 9;7>DGJ PSL;:<PTR

5;PSU^/2:E_gÂ24E/2/:EJ µ3/@dJ @+L8PSD)7>R R /CYZD)DF5;/#Ã698@8W>U^/?L8DG:\PSRI;46J YZ/HR P�4<B PTwÄI846J YZ/5;P�U/C:Ax6q;98D)@dJ @+7>R R /2YZDk=Z73B 98/2:PSR]UPS4E/HY>PS:EDFB 1[5;PS9;:6/2:E_lÅ?PT4\U^PS4A//2´8I;/CL;:EJ =c/5;PSU^/2:6x6:EU7>B B;7>L;@XU/C@8J 9;UuG:EJ µ3/C@+DF4A/C/2:\/2L85;73L;YZ/C@DG58/�I;98q;B J Y>Æ :KI8/24EYZ/2I8DGJ PSLPSR84A/C7>BC/C:EDG7>DF/�=Z7>B 98/C_

*^$&����ik���^'l�)%hik����i����#fljX'k �!#*+�),�-KÇ :EJ L8W7b:EYZ7>B /HUHP�@8/2B8PSR]7bB 7>L;@+I87c4EYZ/2B x64A/C:E/C7>4AYZ5;/C46:KR PS98L;@DG5873DkDG58/246/�w[7>:<7¤o;p8Ot@8J R R /24A/2L8YZ/HJ L+73I;I8467>J :E/2@=>7>B 9;/q;7>:A/C@+PSL+DF5;/7>UPS98LCDk7>L;@X=>7>4cJ 7>DGJ PSL^PSR]DG46/?/Y>PS=3/24{_SÂ;73n2J L;W[J L;DFP�7>YZYZPS9;L;DkDG58/I;PSDF/2L8DGJ 73B8=Z73B 98/PSR7b58PS9;:E/qC98J B D)PSL+DG58/H:EJ DG/8x6DG5;/=Z7>B 98/HJ L;YZ4A/C7>:A/wbPS9;B @+q8/HYZB PS:6/DGP�½;Ol_

 ¢¡b¨>©¤¥>ªX©¤§H¦ÉÈt­bÊËÊË¡b¬TÌl¥Z©¤ªÍ&§Î¤¥Z¬S­¤§^ÊÏ¡¤§^¨>£

Ð�9;:EJ L;/C:E:E/C:<wbPS46nH587>4E@+DFP�PSR R /C4<I;4EPS@89;YZDF:<7>L;@:E/24Z=ZJ YZ/2:\DG5873D)U^/2/CD)DF5;/CJ 4\YZ98:EDGPTU^/24c:EÆ;L8/2/C@8:E_�Â)5;/I;4E/C:E/CL;DF7>DFJ PSLPS4\J U7>W>/PSR]:E5;PSI;:<7>L;@+q89;:6J L8/2:E:@8J :EDG4cJ YZDG:<J :<7>B :EPÑJ UI8PS43DF7>L;DF_SÂC4A/2/2:<58/2B I^YZ4A/C7>DG/7I;PS:EJ DGJ =>/H/CLC=>J 4APSL8U/CL;DkDG587>D)7>DFDG4673YZDF:<7>L8@+wb/CB YZPSU/2:YZPSL;:E98U/C46:E_

����$&,g*+�����Òi] �fl�k��$X [Ó^�"- » L+7¤:E9843=3/21[PSRPSL;/:EP�9;DF5;/24cL^Y>P�UU^9;L;J DG1�xcÔ;¾8OtPSR]DF5;/I89;q8B J YI;4E/CR /C464A/C@+DGPÑI;7>DF4APSL8J µ3/HYZPSU^UH/C4AYZJ 7>B;/2:EDF7>q;B J :E58uU/CL;DF:<w[5;PS:6/�:EDF469;YZDF9;4E/2:<7>L;@+I;7>46nCJ L8WbB PSDG:<7>4E/q;/C7>9;DFJ R J /2@Xw[J DF5^DF4A/C/2:\73L8@+PSDF5;/24\B 7>L;@8:6YZ73I;J L8W>_

Õ\Ö>×3Ö>Ø;ÖZÙ<Ú8ÖZÛXÜsÙKÝ�Õ<ÖZÛSÞZß�Ø8Ú8ÖZÛTàá?âGã�ä3å æEçéèFê�ëFì3ícícîcë ïCâGðcã�ñ�ò�ó?âéæ6ô�õ8öcã�ñcä3ô{÷�ã�øcæ6ô�ù3ú ñcõ�æEû�âGã�õ ü ñ3ûý�þcå õ ü ä3ü ô�÷�ü ø3å ü ñ3ãFâ�çgÿcæEâGô�øcæ6÷�õ ü �Fæ6ô�ë �Aæ6ã�õ õ å æ6ùcïCñcü �{ëGó������ÿ3â�æ6ô�ô{ë�+æ6ô�õ æ6âGñ�gõ â ë�� óZâ�ïCâGð3ã�ñ�òEósâéæ6ô�õ�cô�÷ �6ë����3ä3þc÷�ã�õ ü ósñ3è��]æEø3õ ë{ó���3ñ���ü â{ósñ���æ6ñcõ ã�å��8ósâFõ ü ÷�þcå õ þ3âéæ3ècï;ñcü �gó������Të��]ã���ü ô�è����Së

�Sæ6ô�õ��cæ6õ ü ÷�ô]ã�ñcä��#ó�����æ6â{÷�ü ã�å �]ü ô�õ�â�ü ÷�õ ô�ë�ì3ící�!3ë�"cóså ë�ìcè�#Só3ë�$cè�E÷�æ6ñcü ÷%�&��æ6âGü ÷�ã('EæE÷ �3ñcü ÷�ã�åCú ñ�� ósâ���ã�õ ü ósñ�Aæ6â�ü æ6ô�ë

�*)#çFæEâ èGý�÷�ÿ��3æEâGô{ósñ3è��A÷ �câ{ósæ6ä3æ6â&�+có�)#ñ3õ â{æ6æcëGì3ící�,3ë �Sô�ô�æ6ô�ô{ü ñcûõ��3æká?æ6ñcæ�� ü õ ôSãFñcä-�gósô�õ ôSó��Zõ��cæ¤ï;âGð6ã�ñ�òAósâ{æ6ô�õ ë�. ósþcâGñ3ã�åcó/��SâGðcósâGü ÷�þcå õ þcâ{æcè�ì�0�1 î�2%,�,�3�4�,�!�5cë

6 Þ?Ù�7>Ü�Ú�73à82ã�õ9�>å æ3æcñ\öcë �+ó2å � è�ÿ/�>ë9�Cë��æ3ñ>õéæcâ�� ó2â\ïdâFð>ãAñ:�]ó2â�õéü ÷AþZå õéþ>â�æÿ/�>ó2ñ>æcù%1 ,�;�$�2%$>ì�$�4�î�3>î�0�<sòcã>=>ù�1 ,�;�$�2�$�0>î�4?,�$>í�,��4?�KãAü å ùA@�)gó2å ��BHþ>ë ))ãAôC�>ü ñZû�õéó2ñ>ë æ6äZþ�+æ6ðKôGü õ�æ6ùD)�)�)Së ÷>� â ë )�ã�ô��3ü ñ3û�õ�ósñcë æ6ä>þ�E âGæ6ôGæ6ã�â{÷ �3ë æcñ��>��ü ñ3ä

F âGå ã�ñcä3è ";ü ñ6ü ñcû��G�3ðcâ�æ6ó>ëGìcí3í�,cë ' �cæ���� � æ6÷�õ8ó����Aõ�â{æEæ6õ�'6âéæ6æ6ôTósñÿ6æEâ�÷�æ6ü �FæAäH"sã�å þ3æ6ô]ó��H6æ6ô�ü ä3æ6ñcõ�ü ã�å6ÿ3â�ósø3æEâFõ ç{ë��cñ���ü âéó?ñ��kæ6ñcõã�ñcäKá?æ��cã���ü ósâ è�,�5�1 !�2�,cí�0�4 !�,3îcë

Page 20: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Trees in Business Districts:

Positive Effects on Consumer Behavior!

I*JCK�KALNMOJAK�P(Q�Q%R�S�Q�J�T�U L/V W�KALAL�X�YZJAK�[�K/W \&LA\�U�R>]�[�Q�W>S�V J ^�L�\�_�M?\-[�Q�W>L/U�^`K/J�LNJAKAL/a/Q%W�RGa�Q�L/V \�V b(K/c ]d\�QdL�_�Q%a�a�V W>PGK/WAb V JCQ�W�e^`K�W>\fLN_�M�b V W>PGM_�K/MOc \�_�]�U�J T�MOW�S�Q%JCKALA\�g/YN[�JCQ�LALNQ%U�J�W�Mf\�V Q�W�h ^iM�WA]�JCKCb�V \�M�c V jOV W P�T�U L/V W�KALALNR�V LA\�J V [�\fLNMOJCK�kGQ%J l�V W>PG_�MOJAR�\�Q[�JCK�Mf\�K�b�V T�J M�W \�h?b�V \�M�c�[OQ%W L/U�^NK/J�K/WCb�V JCQ�W�^iK/W>\fL/g�mn_C]-L�_�Q%U�c R�\�JCK/KALNT�KiM-a�M�J9\-Q�SoMOW`M�[�\�V Q%Wa�c M>W>pqdK/M�c \�_C]�M�W�R�k�K�c c e9^NM�V W \�M�V W�K/R�\�JCK/KAL�L/K/W�Rra�Q�L/V \�V b�KN^NKCLAL�M9P KCLNM�T�Q�U>\&\�_�KNM>a�a�K/MOc�Q�SoMR�V LA\�J V [�\�h \�_�Kis�U�M�c V \f]Q�SDa�JCQ�R(U�[�\fL�\�_�K/JAK�h>MOW�R�k�_�M9\-[�U LA\�Q%^NK/J*L�K/Jfb V [�KiMDL/_�Q�a�a�K/J�[�MOWrKCt&a�K/[�\�g�I_�KC]GM�JCKiM�WrV ^`a�Q%J9\�MOW>\-[OQ%^Na�Q�W�K/W \-Q�SoM�WC]a�J�Q�P(J M�^u\�QvMf\f\�J MO[�\&L/_�Q%a�a�K/J�LNMOW�R�b�V L/V \�Q�J�L/g>w&KCb V \�MOc V jOV W>PGR�V LA\OJ V [f\fLi^NU LA\-MOR(R�JCKALALiU�J�P K/W \W�K/K�ROLiQ�S(L/K�[�U�J V \f]�h�L/MOW�V \�M9\�V Q�W�ha�M>J l/V W P hAM�W�Rr^NM�J l�KC\�V WAP g/Y�\f\�K�W>\�V Q�W�\�Qd\�JCK/KCLNV LiMW�K�[�KALAL/MOJf]Ga�MOJ?\Q�SoMOWA]�V ^`a�JCQ�b�K/^NK/W \fLNa�JCQ�P(J M�^NgYNW�Rr_�M�b V W>P\�_�Kia�Q�L�V \OV b KiK/WAb�V JCQ�W�^NK/W>\[�J�K/M9\�K/RrT ]-\�JAK/KALN^NM ]�M�[f\�U�MOc c ]�K/M9L/K�L/Q%^iKNQ�S \�_�KNQ�\�_�K/J�V LAL�U�KAL/g�YN^`K�J>V [�MOWx�Q�JCKALA\fL/h M-W�Mf\�V Q%W�M�c \�JAK�KiW�Q�W�e9a�JAQ�S�V \�h?L/U P�P�KALA\fLNM&P(Q�M�c�Q�Soy�z>{u\�JCK/Ki[�MOW�Q�aC]�[�Q�b(K/J�V W`T�U L/V W�KALALNR�V LA\�J V [9\fL/| ^NQ�LA\JCKA\OM�V c�K/WAb V JCQ%W�^NK/W \fLNV W�\�_�Ki}�g ~HgA_�M?b(Kiz>{ZQ%J�c KALAL�g�w&KAL/K/M�JA[�_NJ�KAL/U�c \fL�L/U>P�P(KALA\D\�_/Mf\V WAb(KALA\�V W P�V W�\�JAK/KCLNV L�P�Q�Q%RS�Q�JH\�_�KiT�U L/V W�KALALNT�Q�\f\OQ%^�c V W�K/X

� � ����� � �(�O��� �>��� �r����� � � � �����*�G�� �N�����(�>� �(���>�����:� ���O���� �v�����(�������>�&����� �G� �O�%� �����d����� ���f��� ��� � ����� �O���(���� ��� �-�A���>�(�*� � �����v���A�G���*���(��� ���d�����>�(����� �:�A����>�(�*� � ���&���A�*���(�����O�>�:�>��� � � ���O��� �f���(��� �-�(�/�����O��� �� � ����� �*�(�>�O���(�¡�>�(�H�(� ���>�>�

¢ �(�� � �>�A�*�(�(��� �(���>� � �/���G�*����� �*�*����� ��� �(� �*�*�?���� �����C�����(�G���*�(�O� �r�/���*� �� ���   �:  � � ���>��£o�(�G�(� �%�>� ���� ���������(�>�����/���¤�>�>�f��� �(�¤�>� �¤� ���(�������r�������G���(�v���>���� �*�(� �v� �����>�:�>�(�����(�-¥ �����(� � ��� �*�(�O��  ���G���O�����/��������>�%� � �*�(�������¤� ��� � ���>�(����  �r��� ���&�������¤� ����  �(���(���G�*�(�������� ���(��������(�v� �/� �?�%� �*�&�:� ���(� ���¤�(  �������*£o� � ���?��� ���� �%��  �(�������v�(�������(�G���(���>���������-�����d�(  �����G� �O��  �(��� ������ ���n�>�(�*�(� ���O��� ���>� �H� �-���:�d�(� � � �����>��� � �����>� ����������*�   ��¡��� �r��� ¦����v�¤�>���O� ����/��§(�(���?��� �*�(���� �*�O���� ��� �  � ¦����?¨ � � �   � ¦/�������(�v� ��� �?�%� �*�&�¡� ��� � �-���(� ���� �%� �����(�>��� ���� (� �(� � � ��� ����� �?���O� �����>�©i� ���   � ���������/�%��� �� ���>�����A���v� ��� �   ����� � ��  �(���r� �����*�>������� �*�v��� �*�O�i�(  ������(��� �����O��� �*�(�>���(����� �H� �����G� ���(�?�%� �*�9���� �¡�(�O� ��� �(������f����� �(� �

ª�« ¬9­9®�« ¯ ­H°�±�²�³d­9®�´�´�¬�³�®�µO¯ ¯>´�¬�¬f³/® ¶· ´�¸>´�­9µ�­9« ³/¹

ª�« ¬9­9®�« ¯ ­Hº�±O»¼« ­9½­9®f´�´�¬f¾C¹�³-µ�¯ ¯ ´�¬�¬f³�® ¶· ´�¸>´�­9µ�­9« ³/¹

ª�« ¬9­9®�« ¯ ­H¿�±O»¼« ­f½­9®f´�´�¬*µO¹�ÀµO¯ ¯>´�¬�¬f³/® ¶· ´�¸>´�­9µ�­9« ³/¹

ÁÃÂGÄ*ŤÅÇÆ�Â�ȤÉGÉ�Ê�ËÌÎÍZÊ�ÏHÐ�ÄDÊ�ÑoÐ�ÏÒ`Ó�ÔDÕ(ÖD×ÙØ/Ú¡Ò�ÖdØ�ÕÜÛ�ÔdÝ�ÞßØ�Õ�Õ&Û�à�Ø/Õ�á

âuŤÏ�ŤãiÄ*ÑdÂåä:Ä*È�æiŤÑoУo� �r� ����� �*�(��  ���������/�O���*� � � �������v�>�¤��� �rç¤� � �����O�>� ���:����Z��� � � �(�����H� �O�(�>���v�>�(��� � �:§(� ���?��� �*��� ��� � ���&���� �>� ������� �������G�(�(�   � �i�(��� �����O��� �*�(����(�H�������(�G� �H  �r�/���� ������ �v� �A�%� ����  � èO� �(�¤�(� �>� � ���>����� �?���>� �����>�-é/�(��� � �%��v��� �r�>�����o�����>�/  ������������� �?���O� ������� �r��� ��� �����/����� �� ����� �C� �¤ê��*�����O�¡�/�?���*ë�(�?��� �(� ì(�*�*ë�(����  ��� �>�¤�(� ���������

íîïðñòóïôõö÷

øùóúïîûôöî

ü ýþþ ÿ�ÿý�� ý�ÿ��� ÿ�ý���ÿ�

Page 21: The Benefits of Urban Trees

� ������� ������� � ����� ����� � � � ��� � � �"!#� � � � $��&%�' ' ����� �(!#��)#!#��� ��*+�������,�- $�� !. /10 2 354 6 3 758 9

30:�;=<(>@?.A�BCBC>@D30

EGFIH J�KML"N#H O.P QIRCSUTVN#WIH FIXYO.QIFIZ#[�Q�\ \ KYXYK]QIR+^�QIL#KMNCO&_&KMN#QI`�L#a�KMN[ KMF�O.KMLGR QIL]EGLCb�TYFdceQIL�O.H a�`I\ O.`�LCKfgQMJ�KMhdb�K=L+iMjYjMk

ldm�nporqsltq]u(orqrv w�xzy]{}|~Y���I�@�z�����=�����"� �=� �Y�g���=�#�V�M����� �������=�}�=�����=�]���C����C�I���I�C�t�I�����z� �z� �I�����z�C�������z� �I�����Y�(���I�����I�"�M�}���I�C� ���=�"���� � ���"� �����C�

�����(�+� ���¡ (�+¢¤£}¥¦�¨§ ¥+©M�ª��+����©z («I��� ¥¦��¬¤� ��­¤®¯��©�«I­& (�+��°±¤²  �³ � ���¡¥+§+´�©�¥¦¢ ² «I��°®¯ (� �µ�����& (�+«��¶ (�&¢¯·t¸&¹�����¸

º �����"�I�}�=���C�I�"����� ���z�����»�M�z�z���Y���z���}�z���z�=�����"� �=�µ¼t���

�C� ���I� ��� �z������½ �t��� ���I�M�+����� �I� �5���"� ���z�µ���I���]�I���»�5���C�Y�"����C�M�=� �����»�Y���I�M�@½ �������C�V�����¾� �}�I�#�Y�I�=�}�=���z�C¿¶~V���� �I� �z�����V��À�ÁÂ���M�I� ���t���I� º ��� �������p�"����� �����&¼»�=�C�¾���������Ã�Ä�Å��I� ���I�M�&�����@�G���"�=�MÆ�½ � �I�M�»�C� �I�C¼t��½ Ǿ�V�������z�.�=�r�z�d�������Æ��C�I�����Y�»�5���C�=�C�zÈ&Á ½ �C��À�Ét���z½ � ���t�Y�eÊI�C���I�I������"���z� �I���&¼Ë�M�C�¾ÌIÄ�Å���� �����=�@� �}��� �5����� ����� �����(� �I�G���#�=�M��V�I�=�&�z�����C��¼t� �����I���C�C�=���"� ���C¼t��½ Ç=�"È Í �����=�"�z����� ���@¼t� �z�Î��=�#�z�I�������Â� ���=�}�Â� ���V½ �I�I�=�}�z���5�����}�=���"�=���(� �z�1� �"�C�I�M�"Ï�"���z� �I���µ¼t�M�#�}���������]Ð�ÑIŨ�I� �����=�&�����@�I� �5����� �����&¼Ë� ������C�M�=�"È

ltnew�u�y]{}neÒÓqÕÔÖq]×}nGØËxzyruÁ ���z� ���I�µ����½ ½ �V¼Õ�����@� �}���C�=�"�C� ���=� �Y�e�]��½ ���z�IÈ Ù¦�=Æ�"�I�����I�=���z�µ¼Ë�M�C�}���"Çz�=�r���Ó��� ���Ú���I� �I� ���I���Y�(���I�M� ��I�=���5��� ���µ¼t� �z�=� �����I�Â�����"�=�1�"��������� ���r�I� �5����� �����"À� �I�z½ �I�I� ���p��©V �Û&��³���� �¨�&ÜY��©V �Û&��³�¢&� °��� (�&«I�µÜY¢ ² ©V (�"� ¥¦�¥¦§+ pÛG� °�� ��ÜY§�©z�(Ý ² ���+«��¡¥+§�ÛG� °�� �"°p (�&¢�¬¯� ³ ³ � �+Þ��&��°�°�ß��¥+ß�¸& ��¯§5¥+©1¸& (©V¹�� �&Þ�È+Á��z��� ��À����C�=�M� ����ÇV�¾�]��� � ���=��Æ�=�I�z�=¿ º ���I�C� ���=��� �I�GÁ�à�à����=�I�5�(� ���"�"À��I� �z���=�@�}�=���"���#�=�

¼»�=�C�¾�#�=�I�����z�M�»� �@���I�¾�I� �5����� �.�����I�5�(� ���G�z�#�=�=�CÈ�~Y���� �I� �z�����z�IÀ��.�=�"���������M����� �z½ ��� �}�=�r�����C�p¼»���I½ �»�I�¼d� ½ ½ � ������Ó�����t�}���"������� �I����ÇM� ���p� ���G¼»�=½ ½I½ �������C�V�����=����I�C� ���=�"���I� �5����� ����È�á¦�I� ���"���z���=� �z���z�#�=���z�M�@�#�C���=�=���=����C���â�"���z���=�»�I����ÇM� ���e¼»����½ ���Y� �.�C�"�G�z���}�z���5�����V�������Ç=� �I�]�"�=���V�¾½ ���C�"À��G���C�MãI���M���]����ä��M�.��� ���@���Ú���#�=�M� �"��}�=�C�z�I�������"È

ltu+xzorxz{@ÒålËnew�w�q]ue{¾|æÚ�Ú���"�=�M� � ����½ �=�=�I�z�¾�I�V¼Õ�}���V���=�=����½ �¾�z�#� ¼t� ½ ½ � �I�¦��������p�����@�������I� ç º ������� �I���=���e�(��½ �=����� ���»�}�"���I���I�¼»�=�C�¾�I�C�=�r���d���"�"�M�"���I�Y¼è���}�=��� ���]����½ ���=���C�=½ ����������z���5�������M���"�I���"� �z� ����½ �I����� �����"ÈréY�������C�t�C�=�C�I�������M�����¼»�=�C�¾�z�CÇV�=�r���d�"���=�z� � �t�]�I�"� �z� ����� �=���z�»�Y�eÐ�Ñ�� ���=�}�� �¾�@ê��I���"ÇV�C�@�V�¦�������I�"ë@� ���z���1�I�=�"� �I�=�C�Â�I� �5�z�"� �����"Èá¦���"�=�Ú«� (����Þ(¥&©V� ��°r¥+§µÞ(¥¦¥+¢+°.ìí«I¥+�YÛ+���+� ���&«I�&Ü°�­+¥+¸&¸+� �+Þ�ÜV°z¸µ��«��  �³ ����ìU¼»�=�C�}� �=�z½ �I�I�=�Iȵá¦�I�}�"�������#����z����� �z� ���z�����@�������"� �5���=����½ �t�I�"� �z�=�»�������I� �"� ����� ��� �z������½ �

��� �����=�@� ��½ ���I�I�"�z���I�=�»�I� � �z�"� �����"¿ÓÊI��� �z�M�&¼»�=�C�IÀ"����5�I�=�������IÀ����������]Ð�ÐIÅ���� �����=�+����� �I�#���������z��� �@�z�=�½ ���I�I�"�z�����M�»�z���������C�=�r���Ú�����¾�I��Æ �z�C�=�}�I� � �z�"� ����È�áG��� �¼t���&���"�I�¾�V�g½ �V¼tÆ������ �V��À�� ������½ �C�=Æ��I���t�V���"���=��� �Y�I�z��������I��î��=È ��È�½ ���I�z���"������¼t� �V��À���½ �V¼»�M�@�����Iã��I�C�zï�À"���µ¼t�M½ ½���Â��� ���z�M�µ��� �zÇY�"��À"�V�������z�"� �"���=Æ��C�I�����I�M��� ���=�}�Âî��=È ��È�C�I������� �C�����M�"À"�I�#¼è��½ ���"�"�M�"ï�È�ðÚ� ���M�@�z���¾½ �V¼Õ�I�.�Y�.� ��}������� ��� �V�e�}���5�]�C�"���z� ½I�����"� ���=�"�C�=�"À5�z�C�=�=�����I���M���+������C�Y�(� ���p���C� ���I� ��� �z�z��� ê������M��� ���}��������� ��È ë

ñ¦ò=ó�ô�õ=ö]÷�ø�ù�ú�ø=û¶øIô(ü�ý�þÿ���������ÿ���� ������ ������������� �������! #"%$����&����')(*��+,+.-���� � /102��"43657� "�/!89'�:;� 57��"�/�(���-��<�� � =�>!��"�� � <;-�� � -�"7���@?35736��"4<;ACB ��57� � � -�� 3����')� A�3D @EGFG8H02��"I357�!E23"%:;� <�3Jrõ�ô�ü�K(òIü2LM ��� A�� 336�.NO PH��� Q =IR�A�O F�OR�A�����36S�T U�V�W�XYW�ZW�[ \�]�\�^�_606��`�S�T U�V�W�X!W�^�\�[�U�W�a�U�_�b�[ +,��� � S%c6de��� Q4fC-�O d���5IA�� ��g�� ���O 36'�-PH36$)5I� � 36S�d�d�dhO <�Q " O d���57A�� ��g�� ����O 36'�-i "736573��"I<;A�O 3�6:;+.� ��'

Page 22: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Trees in Business Districts:

Comparing Values of Consumers and Business

jlkDm�n�o�p q�r%o%ots�r�k#s�u rtv�q�w1o�x�k#s�s�r�yzo�o�x�v;y7rtv;q{v;s�s�y7r�|2p v }2p k#q1~�k#y@}2y7r�r%o%�t�.x�p o*�Dv�olk�q�rlk~Go�r7��r�y�v;u���n�r%o%}2p k�q�otp q�v.y7r�|2r�q�}q�v };p k#q�v2u�o�n�y ��r7�Dv2m�k#n�}9}2x�rtn�y�m�v;q�~4k#y7r%o%}.p q�m�n�o�p q�r%o%otw�p o�}2y�p |4} o��1�hr7�Gp }2v;u p �;p q���m�n�o�p q�r7o�ot|2k#�t�tn�q�p }2p r%o*~4v2|2rt�{v;q%�|6kG�{s�r%}2p }2p �Grt|2x�v2u u r�q���r7otv2q�w�x�v ��rtu p �tp }2r�w{y%r7o�k�n�y%|2r%o�}2kCv2w�w�y%r%o%ot�tv2q%�Cq�r�r�w�o���jlr7o�s�p }2r*}2x�r�p y1|6k6o%}�o��z}2y7r�r%ots�y%k6��p w�r�{v�q��Dp q�w�p y7r�|�},m�r�q�r7~Ip }�o�}2kCm�n�o�p q�r%o%o�r%otv;q�w{|6k#�t�ln�q�p |6v }2rts�k6o�p }2p ��rl�{r7o�o�v �Gr%o*}2x�v },|6v;q{v�}�}2y�v;|4}h��p o�p };k#yzotv2q�w�o�x�k�s�s�r�yzo���hr�|2r�q�},y%r7o�r�v2y7|6x{m%�&o�k�|6p v;u�o�|6p r�q�}2p o�}�otv }9};x�rt�.q�p ��r�yzo�p }��Dk~���v o�x�p q��2}2k#q{x�r�u s�otn�o�}2kCm�r%}�}2r�y1n�q�w�r�yzo%}2v;q�w�}2x�r��Gv2u n�r%otk~}2y7r�r%olp q{v�m�n�o�p q�r7o�ol|2k��{�ln�q�p }�����hr7�Gp }2v2u p �;p q���w�p o%}2y�p |4}�o*��r�y7r)p w�r�q�}2p ~4p r�w{p q{r�p �Gx�}�|6p }2p r%olv2y7k#n�q�w1}2x�r)�.q�p }2r�w1�}2v�}2r%o���@k6}2x{m�n�o�p q�r%o%ots�r�k#s�u rlv;q�w�q�r�v2y�m��Cy7r7o�p w�rq�}�o���r�y7rlv�o��6r�w�}2kD|6k#�ts�u r%}2rlv9o�n�y ��rI����.x�rts�y%kI�;r�|�},k#n�};|6k��{r7o��%m�v o�r�w�k#qv2q�v2u �2o�p otk6~�y%r%o�s�k�q�o�r%o��%x�r�u s�otn�o�}2kCs�u v2q{v�q�w��tv;q�v���rln�y�m�v2q1~ k#y7r%o%}�o�}2x�v�}.m�r7}�}2r�y��tr�r%}2m�n�o�p q�r%o%olq�r�rw;olp q!�t�{r�y�p |6v;� o|;p }�p r7o�

����������� �¢¡9£�¤�£�¡9£�¥¦��£�§¨�y%r7~�r�y7r�q�|6r*o�n�y���r7�2otv;y7rlv9}2k�k#u�n�o�r�w�}2k©v�o%o�r7o�ots�n�m�u p |��v;u n�r7o�~4k�y1w�p ~ ~�r�y7r�q�},u v�q�w�o�|6v�s�r*o�r7}�}2p q��;o���ª q1}2x�p o�o%}2n�w��s�r�k�s�u r*��r�y7rtv o��2r�w�}2kCy�v }2rt«�¬�o�|2r�q�r7o�~4kGy1x�k2�­�tn�|6x}2x�r4�Du p �6r�w�}2x�r*o�|6r�q�r%ol® o�|6v;u rtk6~�¯�°!q�k6},v�}�v2u u�}2kC±�°��Gr�y ��ln�|2x�²;���³x�p u r�}2x�rly�v�};p q��2otr%´Ys�y%r%o%otv;q�v;r7o%}2x�r%}2p |�;n�w����{r�q�}2��}2x�rtm�v o�p otk6~G}2x�r#�;n�w����{r�q�},p o���r�y �Dp �{s�k#y µ}2v2q%}�¶·}2x�rt|2v;s�v2|2p }��Ck6~�v.s�u v;|6r�}2kC�{r�r7}9};x�rtq�r�r�w�otv2q�w|6kGq�|2r�y�q�otk~�v,s�r�yzo�k#q���.x�r*o�|6r�q�r%o�o�x�k2�­y%r%};v;p u�o�r%}�}2p q��;o��Dp }2x{w�p ~ ~�r�y%r�q�},v;�{µk#n�q�}�otv;q�w���n�v;u p }��Dk~G��r%�Gr7}2v�}2p k�q����tq�v;u �6o�p otk6~G}2x�rly�v�}2p q��2ox�r�u s�otn�o�}2kCn�q�w�r�y�o%}2v;q�w�}2x�rl|6x�v2y�v2|�}2r�y�p o%};p |�otk~o%}2y7r�r%}�o�|6v�s�r7o1}2x�v�},v;y%r#�;n�w��Gr�w�}2k©x�vz��rlx�p ��x��Gp o�n�v;u��n�v2u p }�����¸rt|2v2q{v2u o�k&o%}2v }2p o%}2p |2v2u u �C|2k#�ts�v�y%r*}2x�rly�v�}2p q��2ok~9m�n�o�p q�r%o%ots�r�k#s�u rtv;q�w�}2x�r���r�q�r�y�v2u�s�n�m�u p |�};k©m�r%}�}2r�yn�q�w�r�yzo%}2v2q�w�x�k6�·}2x�r�p y!�Gv2u n�r%o�~�k#y!}2x�rtn�y%m�v;q�~4k#y7r%o%},�tvz�w�p ~ ~�ry �¹9º.»½¼H¾©¿­ÀCÁ�ÂDÀÄÃ!¼*ÅCÁ�¾©ÂDÆ�ÇÈ�hv�};p q��2o���r�y%rv ��r�y�v���r�w�~4k#y1r�v;|6x{k6~9«�¬1o�|6r�q�r%o��!�#|6r�q�r%o*�Dp };x�}2x�ru k6��r%o%},v;q�w�x�p ��x�r7o�}.�tr�v2q{y�v�}2p q��;otw�p ~ ~4r�y!o�p �Gq�p ~4p |2v2q�}2u �Dp q��p o�n�v2u�|2k#q�}2r�q�}2���³x�p u r*}2x�r7�Dw�p ~ ~�r�y!o�k#�trI��x�v },v2y7|2x�p µ}2r�|�}2n�y�v2u u ���}2x�r�p y1w�p ~ ~4r�y%r�q�|2rtp q{v;s�s�r�v;y�v2q�|2rtp o{p q�~4u n�r�q�|2r�wm���}2x�rls�y7r%o�r�q�|2rlk6~G}2y7r�r%olv2q�w�v;|6|2r%o%o�k#y ����r%��µ r%}2v�}2p k�q��p q�|;u n�w�p q���u p ��x�},v2q�w�o�x�v2w�rts�v�}�}2r�y�q�otv�o%o�k#|;p v�}2r�w.�Dp }2x1}2x�rs�u v�q�}�o����É}2x�y7r�rts�k#p q�}.w�p ~ ~�r�y7r�q�|6rlp q{�{r�v;q�ol®�k�q{v9o�|2v2u rk~9±�².p otvho%}2y�p ��p q���r%´Yv;�ts�u rlk~9x�k6�Ês�u v;q�} otv ~ ~4r�|4}|6kGq�o�n��{r�y�o�����n�w��G�tr�q�} otk~�s�u v;|2r����t|6y7ko%ol�tv2q7�&o%}2n�w�p r7ok~9w�p ��r�yzo�rtu v2q�w;o�|2v;s�r%o*}2x�rts�y7r%o�r�q�|2rtk~G};y%r�r7o{r�q�x�v2q�|6r%os�n�m�u p |G�;n�w��G�tr�q�},k6~��Gp o�n�v;u���n�v;u p }���

�Ë£�¡9��£țÍ���Î�¥ÐÏÊÑDÍ�£�Ò©Î�¡*��£�§�tq�v2u �2o�p otv;u o�k©y7r7��r�v2u ot|2v�};r%��k�y�p r%otk6~�p �{v �Gr7otm�v o�r�w�k#qo�p �tp u v;y1s�v }�}2r�y�q�otk6~�y7r%o�s�k#q�o�r������Gs�p |2v;u u ���w�p ~ ~4r�y7r�q�|2r%otp q}2x�rl|6v }2r%��k�y�p r%ot|6v�q�m�rtv�}�}2y�p m�n�}2r�w�}2kCm�k6}2x�}2x�rt|2k#q�}2r�q�}k~G}2x�rtp �{v �Gr%otv;q�w�x�k6�·}2x�rtp �{v �Grlr�u r��tr�q�}�otv2y%rv;y%y�v2q��Gr�w��1Ó�p �Gr*�Gp o�n�v;u�|2v�}2r7��k#y�p r%o���r�y7rlp w�r�q�}2p ~4p r�w�p q1}2x�p oo�}2n�w���

Ô�Õ6Ö9×6Ø�Ù!ÚIÛ;Ù ×6Ü,Ø4Ý�×6Þ6×ß.×6Û;Þ,à6á â6ã

ä�å æ2ç�×2Ø4Ù!Ú4Û2Ù ×6Ü,Ø�Ý�×6Þ×ß.×6Û;Þ,è6á â6é

êëìíîïðìñòóôõöð÷ìëøñóë

ù úûû üýüúþ ÿ ú�ü��� ü�ú���ü�

Page 23: The Benefits of Urban Trees

���� ��� ������� � ���������� � � ��� ��� �������! #"!$���� ��%'&($�) ������!*+���!��� �� ,�� �-$!�/.0���/��� ������21 3 45 6 4�78 9

31: ;+<�=?>A@-B�B�=?C31

DFEHG I(JLK/M!G NAOQPHR�SUT'M!VHG EHWXNAPHEHY!Z�P�[ [ JXWXJ\PHR,]�PHK!JLM�N#^#JLM!PH_�K!`(JLMZQJLE�NAJLKFR PHK\DFK�a�TXEcb0PHK�NAG `(_H[ NA_�K�JdePLI(JLfca�J+K,gLhXhLi

jlk�mlnpo-mrqts�n2utvxwzy�{A|A} |~{!|X�+��|�{/����� �����x� �+��{A|'���X|� � ���r���L|��L{A|!�X|X�L�(|��~}H��{!|X|A��� �e���+|0�!��{A|X|!���X�(�/�+|L�e�Q�����|A����{��t� � ����{�����|'��� � � |X{������Q} ��{������+���r���L���r���L|������+|X{������|!�H��{�� |!��|���|X�r���+���/����� ���x� �����H|A�x����������� ���X����|��|A�H|!������� ���X���Q����|!�+��{��t��� �����+|!���(���/����� �����L|����(�!��������+� |!�z� ���+�/�X�(�/�+|��+� ���/�?�L� |'�L�����|!� � |X{A|e����� �L|'��� |X���!��(}����L|�� �x��H|\�(����|!����{�� |!������������� �+� �/����{!|X|!�X�0�x|X��� � �L� � |L�� ��{���|X{���{!|X|A����{A|����!�X���(� ����|X� � � �����L� ���+|X{e�+{A|!}�|X{!|'�L�(|L�/���� �x�?����|!�+��{�� |!���+�/ +�����L��¡+�r¢��(���x���L|X�x���L���+|X���L|�����L���L� |X����{!|'|!����{!|0�H��� �L|X�+�r£~� �L��� � �'�����L|�� ������|X{-���L{A|X|������|!�H��{�� |A����� �X�¤���L�+|'��{r����{!|\��{!�+|X{!|'��¥��+�(������{!|~|!�����+������(|!�!�X��{��Q�H|!��|!������� ������{!|��+� �/�(|'�����L�������L����|X�������{!|'����|��+� �!��� �L� �,�H� �X�+���+�+������|X{����X�

¦�§ jl¨~mloes�n2uª©�«tv#s�n2kFv¬v�mzn2­c®ts�v#s q § oev�w¢��~�����L���L� �L|A�������L���������L�L��|X{��X�L{���|A�¯�H{����+���r������|�L� ���+|X{e{������ �����0���¯�X�(|X�L|!� � � ���e��{A|X|!�X��°-|!��� � � ���+� ����� �L�L�/��Q����|!����{��t¡��L���L� �+|!�!��{!|!�X�+���L�+|X�����r�X� ���+� }�� �(���/��� ���+� } } |'{!|'�} {A���±�H� �X� ���H{���� �r���L|X� {r���!�L|A���X��|X���?�~}���� �X�L���L²+�L��� � ���t³ �����|A�!���L���+´�� µX¡/¶��r¢��/�X� �L|!�!��{������ �/�/���~},�?����|!����{��t�r�X��|X�L|!�� |X{!|\�L� �H�X|X{-���L���e�H� �X� ����{e{������ �/���L�A�+|!�X�+� ��|F���L|F�H{�� ����L��{!�+� }�|X�����X{!|X���(�L��{���� ��|X{r�(}����L|e�!��{A|X|!�,�X|!����� �/�����x|X���+�� �L� � |L�/�+���'� �L|!�!�x�L|X���+� |��(�����X� �A��|X����� �¤{�����|X��� ���L�/�'�(���L|X��X��|X�L|!�������Q����|!�H��{/� |!���e���L{A�����H�� �� � � |X{����+���e�H� �L� ����{��X��X������|!�!��� ���Q���L���?�x|'{A�(�L�������x�L� ��|�� |!�!�x�/�+�L{!|X��� ����� ����}���{��{A|'|!�e���L���e���+|��L|X���L� |e���L|A� � � �X�r��� � |'� �(���x|0���?���+|X� {�X�L�����L�

·ª¸�¹QºL»½¼¿¾t¼lÀÂÁÄÃL¾�¼l¼½ºL¼l»Å�|A�'�X� ��F�'�����+|A�A�¬�/�L��������!�'�X��|~{ �\|~��Æ������X� ��� �!�r��{ |~|��\� �{�|����/� �A�'�X���'�X� �!�x�L� �A��{!� �����'Ç�È�����{A�L|~{!� ���/�X� � |'� �X����� �X��/��� �X|'���X� �/�A��� ���r�'���X|'��|¯�(}#�X���/�0��{A|'|��\�/�L���/����|A�A�~�H{��+|��+|A������ �H�\�X{����L�X��|��\�X� �+�X|A�A����� �'�X���'²X�L�/� � ����{!���� �!�/�~�/É��X|�X�X�X� � ���L{�|A}|'{ �¯�L�������L|'�!�'|¯���X������{�|¯���X|~�����/�X���'� |~��/{�|'|A�'� ���X���?���/{�|A}��X�'�L{A�L�X� �!�x�����\�X|¯�!�'|'�e���Q���X� �����'���H�L|~��X�\����{�|'|¯�/�/�L�H������Ér�L� �\�X|'{A��� ��¯���H{�|Ê��� �'� �X� � � �����}L�'� ���!��/�X�e�A�/��{�|A}�{��H���� � �X� � |¯�X{A���H� �L� �!�r���X|Ê}�H{A|A�A�r�/��|'�'� ��� |A��/�L��Q���H���'�'��|'{ ���/�X�X{�|~��� ���|L�

ËÊÌ+Í�Î-Ï+Ð\Ñ�Ò+Ó-Ô�ÒHÕzÒ�Î-Ö�×�ØÙ�Ú�ÛÚ�Ü�Ù/Ý~Þeßà~áLâLã áLäXå�æ,ç/è�é ê+ë'ç/ì-í-î�ï'ç/ë¯ç�ë'ð\ñ0ê�ò?òQó'ë'é è�ôõ ê�î ö~÷Aè�î�ô¬ø#ðXù�é ÷Aê�î�ô�ñ0ê�ó'ë'ú/é ì ûLü ë'èö~îAë'ç/è�é ê�ë'ç/ìXý�ê�ú/é ö(è�ôrê+þø,îAï'ê�î!é ú�ó'ì èó'î�ö?ç/ë'ð½í�ýHÿ�ø õ ê+îAö�÷Aè¬ý�ö~î!ù�é ú�ö�?Ï�άÖ���ÌHÖ��� ç/è��'ì ö~ö(ë�� �lê�ì þ û� ���ÿ� ��'ê�ë'ö���� ������������������������� õ ç! ��"� ���������������#����$��% �ò?ç�é ì ��&�'0ê+ì þ)(¤ó� 'eç�÷*�'é ë�+/èê�ë� ö(ð'ó���cö~ï¯÷Aé è�ö��!','-'. ú/þ î 'eç�÷*�'é ë�+�è�ê�ë� ö(ðXó�/ îAö(÷Aö(ç/î�ú!�� ö~ë(ù/òQé ë'ð

0.1�2#3�465�7 8:9; 5�<>=@?A3�B�C)3D0E1�B�5�F)8GIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KAL6M N�OP"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAL�M 9�R

0.1�2#3�465�7 8:LS-H 4�T�=@UF�3�B0.1�B�5�F�8GIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KAL6M V�WP"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAL�M 9�R

0.1�2#3�465�7 8:RX 162 Q 7�1�Y H C)2 H ZGIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KAL6M [�\P"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAR�M \�]

0.162�3�4!5�7 8^V_ 5�7�`^16Y _ 5�Y H 1!463G>H C H 2#5�7IJ3�1�B�KAL�M \�]P"Q C H B�3�C�C"J3�16B�KAL�M V�\

0.162�3�465�7 8a[�K;bH 2#2�Y 3)c X 5 G 3�463�2�1!2 H 5�BGIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KA[6M W�VP"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAR�M [�\

Page 24: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Community Image:

Roadside Settings and Public Perceptions

dfehg�i j�k�l�g�i mon"p�i l6p*lqeEr p�monsl6p*t�u"vwp*x�mzy6m�k j�p*i eEn"l6x�i {|eErI{"moeE{�k mzp*e}{�k j�g�m"~.�-x�m�r eEy���j�n�u�g�x�j�y�j�g�p*moy�e.rIj�{�k j�g�mzg�j�nl6x�j�{"m�p*x�m��|eEeEu"l6��j�p�p*i p*t�u"m�l6��j�n"usy!m�l!{�eEn"l6molqeErIp*x�m�{"mfeE{"k m��wx"e�l�{�mon"u|p�i �zmzi n|p*x�m��z~��|eEy6m�y6m�g�m�n�p*k v@�g�eh�z���zt�n"i p*i m�l�x"j6��m���m���t�n|p*e�g�eEn"l6i u�m�y�p�x"m�mor r mog�p*lqeEr"g�x"j�y�j�g�p�m�yqeErI{"k j�g�m�eEn|��eEp*x|y!m�l6i u>mfn"p�lqj�n�us��i l6i p*eEy�l6~� t�l�i n"mol6l�g�eE�z�|t�n"i p*i m�l6��i ns{�j�y�p*i g�t"k j�y��6p*j��bm�j�nsi n"p�m�y!m�l6p-i n|p*x"m�i �zj���mzp�x"j�p,p*x�m�i y:g�eE�z�zt�n"i p�vw{�y6e!��m�g�p�lqp*eg�ehn�l6t"�zm�y�l6~

� mzj�k k"y6m�k v�eEn|m�n���i y!eEn��|mon"p�j�k"g�t�m�l�p*e}i n"r eEy���eEt"y���t"u����|mon�p*lqj��"eEt�pan�mf��l6i p�t"j�p�i eEn�lqe.yq{�m�eE{�k m�~ � mj�p)p*y�i ��t�p*mzg�moy�p*j�i nsg�x�j�y�j�g�p*moy�i l6p�i g�lqp*e�{�k j�g�m�lq�"j�l6mou�eEnzi �z{"y6mol�l6i eEn"l6~���{�i k eEpal6p�t"u"v���g�eEn�u>t�g�p*mou�j�pap*x�m� n�i ��moy�l6i p*vweEr � j�l6x�i n"��p*eEn"��j�p*p*mo�|{�p*mfu�p�e�p�m�l6pap�x"mA��t"u����zm�n�p*lqp*x�j�pa{"moeE{�k mz�zj��bmzj���eEt"paj�n|t"n�r j��|i k i j�y�{"k j�g�m��j�l6m�useEn|i p*lqj�{�{"moj�y�j�n"g�m�r y�eE��j�r y6momf�wj�v�eEy�x"i ��x��wj6v�~

� x�i k mzu"y�i ��i n�����{�m�eE{�k mzg�e.n�l6i u"moy:�wx�moy6mzp�e}l�p�eE{o��l6x�eE{o��eEy�y!m�p�t"y�nsp�e}m���{�k eEy6m�k j�p�m�y#~|�qeEmolqp�x"m���i mb��r y!eE�p*x�m�y6eEj�usi n"r k t�m�n�g�m�p*x�m�l6mzu"m�g�i l6i eEn�l6 ��-x�i lqy6m�l6m�j�y6g�x|ehr r moy�lq{"y!m�k i �zi n�j�y�v�j�n�l��^moy�lqp�e}p*x�i lq¡�t"mol�p�i eEn|j�n�ueEr r m�y�lql6t"����mol�p�i eEn�l�r e.y���eEp*x|p*y�j�n�l6{"ehy�p*j�p�i eEn|j�n�u�g�eE�z�zt�n"i p*vw{�k j�n"n�i n���~

¢E£�¤^¤^¥�¦�§ ¨ ©�ªa«f¬�­ ®�¦�¦�§ ¦�¯-° £�±E²�¥�®6­ § ¨ ©:­ ®6¦�³�´�µ�®6¶�·D®6¦�³�¯�±)·�·�¦´)¶�®!µ!·a¸�®�´I£�µ�µ!¥�±)±)·�³�¹

º�»E¼,½»h¾�¿oÀ)Á�Â�ÃÄÁÅwºzÆ�Çq½»

¢.£�¤^¤^¥�¦�§ ¨ ©�Èa«fÉb§ ¨#¨#­ ·-¶�­ ®6¦�¦�§ ¦�¯a° £�±h­ ®6¦�³�´�µ!®!¶�·a£�±h¯�±)·�·�¦´�¶�®6µ�·a¸�®6´I£�µ�µ�¥�±)±)·�³�¹

Ê�ËDÌAÍ-Î.ÌAÏÐÍ@ËDÑ}Ò�Ó*Ñ.ÔÖÕ@×bØ�ÙÚÍ@ËDÑ}×�Ø.ÌAÛÜÍ@Ñ�Ý@ÝaÞaß|ÌAàaØ�ÞaÍ-Ì�Î.Ø�ÙáÙáÞDÏaÓ@Í â:ã

äåæçèéêæëìíî

ïðêñæåòëíå

ó ôõõ ö÷öôøù ôúöûüý öûôþúÿöû

Page 25: The Benefits of Urban Trees

����������� � �� ������������������� ��������� � ����������� ����!�" #$���% #���&�� �����(' ) *,+ - */.,0 1

2436587:98;=<6>@?BACA8<6DFEGHI�JLK�M�NPO�Q�RTSUHVN/W�X IYX SZH�[ZW�OYX Q�\ Q^]`_a[^Q:_cbZWP\ _dI�_�e�e�MZ[�X W,RK�Q^WPWX [UfK�H[U]gN HW/Q^]�JZ_Y\he�MUI�J�W,JZQ�R HfYN Q^Q^]�\6X WPJ�HiK�QjN�X Q�K�_abK�WPH�WPQje$Q^[UWPKkHlU_aMUWjW,JZQmI_c[UK�M�e$QjNaQ�[^OaX N _a[ne$Q�[ZWj_abUWPJUQS�o HIQnp�q�JUQ:K�WPHW/Qje$Q^[UWPK�I�_a[UWPHYX [UQ^]FX [Ub _�N�e$HWX _c[:HlZ_aMUWe$QjN I�JUH[UWPK�r�SnN _a]ZMUI�W,K�r�H[U]�K�QjN,OaX IQ^KUpUs�WPH�W�X K�W�X IHYo�H[UHYo RKUX KS�N _c]ZMUI�Q^]:W,J�N Q^Q I�HW,Q^f�_�N�X Q^KnlZH�K�Q^]:_Y[6N Q^K�SU_c[UK�QtSUHWPW,QjN [UK^u

vjwjxYy z|{axx�}gwj~�� y ����`�j�|{a~�� y zj�����j~��P~Y�U��{��� �j���c� y zj�L����zc�^{az y {azj�U{

32���Y���:���n����:�32

�i�a� ���V���� ���:�c���¡ Z��¢a� �a£V���|�a¤¥m�c¦ ¦ �Z£^�`�c��§��c���V����¨��V���c©a��ª^�V�¥m�V�c���V�i� �c�`�i��«c U�C¬ �c����� ª^©a¦ ��©c���­:©a£V©a���k®V¯V¯V¯

° M�N/W,JZQ|N�e$_�N QZr�e$Q^H[FN HW�X [UfK�_a[LQ�HI�JLI�H�WPQ^f�_$N/RT]nX b b QjN Q^]K^X f[�X b�X I�H[UWo R`± Sn²|p ³Z³�´�µ/r�\6X WPJ:WPJUQtI�_�e�e$MU[nX WPR¶X eiH�fQ^KI�_a[UWPHYX [�X [UfLei_�N QtfYN Q^Q�[:K�SUHIQTJZH�OYX [Zf$J�X fJUQjNYOHYo MUQ^K^p· HW�X [UfK�_cb�¸$SZSUQ^HYo X [Zfi¹tJUHYN HI�WPQcNc\TQ|N QmºZ³U»¼JnX fJUQjNYb _$NaW,JZQe$_$N Q6o H�[Z]UK�IH�SZQ�]�K�Q^W,W�X [UfYpn½�_aW/Q^[ZWX HYo�I_c[UK�M�e$QjN KkS�N _clUHl�o RX [Ub QjNa_cW,JZQ|NaI�JUHYN HI�W,QjN�X K�W�X I�K�_abUH I_$e�e�MZ[�X WPR lZH�K�Q^]L_a[OaX K�MUHYo�IMZQ^K�p · HWX [UfKk_cbUlU_cW,J¿¾�MUKUX [ZQ^K�K�ÀdMUHYo X W,R H�[Z]s�JZ_aSUSnX [Uf$¹T_c[�O�Q^[nX Q�[ZIQm\TQ|N QÁ´�ÂUÃ,ÄZ³U»8JnX f�JZQjN�X [:WPJ^QI_$e�e�MZ[�X W/RTJUH�OaX [Uf¶e$_�N QmfYN Q�Q�[LK�SUHI�QmH[Z]�O�Q^fQ^W,HW�X _c[�p

Å 987:ÆV5C<¿7:7ÈÇÉ5(Ê6ÆV>$3658;=<658ËqnJU_cK�Q:K�M�N,O�Q�R�Q�]�\ QjN Q:HVo K�_dH�KUÌ�Q^]�JU_a\he�MUI�J�W,JZQ�RTH�fYN Q�Q�]\6X W,JLH`o X K�Wj_cbUK�W,H�WPQje$Q^[UWPK�HlU_aMZWjJU_a\ÍlZMUKUX [UQ^K�K�Q^K:X [UWPQ|N HI�WPQ^]\6X W,JLWPJUQ:I�_�e�e$MU[�X WPR¶X [LWPJUQ:WP\T_ÁK�Q�WPW�X [ZfK^p�q�\T_ÁK�WPHWX K�WX IHYoI�HWPQ�f_$N�X Q^Kk\TQ|N QdX ]ZQ^[ZWX b�X Q^]nu

�gy �ny �m���TÎÍÎF{��/�Z{���Tμοwjziy ���gÏm{a~�� ���

ÐÒÑÔÓUÕ Ö|×�ØjÙUÚUÛZÜ6Ý�ÞnÖ Õ ßZÛcà|×�ÛcáCájÙ�Õ Ú^ÛaÙ�×�Õ à�âãÓU×�äjÕ àjåUæ�ÝkàCçVæ�ÓUæ�ÛÔè6ÓU×�Ø|×�Ûcá(æ�ÝéÛYÚZÓUÖ Ø|ÓUæ�ÛÔæ�ä|ÛFêjÛaÙ�ßZÛaêjæ�Õ Ý�à|×�Ý�Þnê|Ö ÓUßZÛæ�äjÓ^ætê|ÛcÝ�ê|Ö ÛgÑÔÓ�Ü6ÓU×�×�Ý�ßZÕ ÓUæ�ÛÔè6Õ æ�ä(ÙÝ�ÓUá�×�Õ á�ÛgÖ Ó^àjáj×ßZÓUêjÛcëiÐ�×`ê|ÛcÝ�ê|Ö ÛFájÙ�Õ Ú^ÛÔÞ ÙÝ�Ñìê|Ö ÓUßZÛgæ�ÝéêjÖ ÓUßZÛ|í�ÓdÞ Ù�ÛYÛaèdÓ�Ü6Ý�ÙäjÕ åUäjè6Ó�Ü6ÙÝ�ÓUá|×�Õ ájÛÔÕ ×�æ�ä|ÛÔÞ Õ Ù�×�æTÕ à|æ�ÙÝ�á�Ø|ßZæ�Õ Ý�àCæ�ÝéÓdßUÝ�ÑÔÑÔØ|àjÕ æ�Ü6æ�äjÓUæ Ñ(ÓUàaÜ6êjÛaÝ�ê|Ö ÛÔÛcîcêjÛaÙ�Õ ÛaàjßZÛ|ë`ïdÓUàCæ�ä|ÛÓUÑ(Ý�Ø|àjætÝ�ÞnåUÙÛcÛaàC×�ê|ÓUßZÛÔÓUà|á8Ú^ÛYåUÛcæ�ÓUæ�Õ Ý�àCÓUÖ Ý�àjådæ�äjÛÔÙ�Ý�ÓUáCÓUàjáCÕ àCÓÁßZÝ�Ñ(ÑÔØjà|Õ æ�Ü6Õ àjÞ Ö Ø|Ûaà|ßZÛÔèdäjÓUæTêjÛaÝ�ê|Ö Ûæ�äjÕ à|ðÔÝ�Þnæ�ä|ÓUæTê|Ö ÓUßZÛañ(âòä|Õ Ö ÛÔ×�æ�Øcá�Ü6Ù�Ûa×�Ø|Ö æ�×�×�äjÝ�Ø|Ö áCójÛgßZÝ�àj×�Õ á�ÛaÙ�ÛaáCê|Ù�ÛcÖ Õ ÑÔÕ à|ÓUÙ^Ü�í�æ�ä|ÛYÜdájÝé×�ØjåUåUÛa×�ætæ�ä|ÓUæTÚZÕ ×�ØjÓUÖßZäjÓUÙ�ÓUßZæ�ÛcÙ�Õ à|Þ Ö Ø|Ûcà|ßZÛc×Læ�ä|ÛgÕ Ñ(ÓUå�ÛgÝ�ÞnÓÁßZÝ�ÑÔÑ(Ø|àjÕ æ�Ü�ë�ô Ûc×�ÛcÓUÙßZäÔÝ�Øjæ�ßUÝ�Ñ(Ûc×LÓUÙÛg×�Ø|Ñ(ÑÔÓ^Ù�Õ õ^Ûcá(ó|ÛcÖ Ý�èLë

fYN Q�Q^[LI�_�eLe$MU[�X WPR�p ° _�N$X [ZK�WPH[UI�QZr�K�SZ_�N/WPK�K�JU_cQ�K�\ QcN QSnN�X I�Q�]�öZ»8J�X fJUQjN�X [LWPJUQ:fYN Q^Q^[:K�Q^WPW�X [Zfr�\mJ�X o QmH K^X WPÃ,]U_Y\m[]kX [Z[UQjNa_$NaH$b�o _Y\TQjNalU_cMU÷ZMUQ^Wj\iQjN Q:HK�KUX f[UQ^]g´�³Z»8J�X fJUQjNSnN�X I�Q�KUpYø¿N Q^Q^[FeiHYÌ,Q^K�H ]nX b b QjN Q�[UI�QjùcqnJUQ:SnN Q^K�Q�[ZI�Qm_abVWN Q^Q�KH[U]�fYN Q�Q^[:K�SUHI�Q6eiH�R SU_cK^X W�X O�Qjo R¶X [Ub�o MZQ^[UI�QmlZ_aW,J�I_c[^K�M�e$ÃQjN K^ú�HW,W�X W,MZ]UQ^K�HlZ_aMUW�WPJUQ:I�JUHYN H�I�W,QjNa_cbZH S�o HI�QmH[Z]�W/JZQSnN�X I�Q�K�W,JZHW|K�JU_cSUSUQjN K�HYN Q:\dX o o X [^f W,_ÁSZH�R HK�W,JZQ�RTK�JZ_YSW,JZQ|N Q�p

û >TÆVüdÆV58ý û DFËZËU<¿>m5C7¹T_c[UW�X [ZfQ�[ZWjO�HVo MUHWX _a[FX K�H¶e$Q^W,JZ_a]�Q�I_c[U_$e�X K�WPK�MZK�QmWP_OHYo MUQ:WPJ�X [UfK�W,JZH�W�I�H�[�[U_cWjlUQ:lU_cMUfJUWjH[U]�K�_�o ]�_c[LW,JZQe$HYN�ÌPQ^W�p�þ [�WPJ�X K�K�WPMU]VR SZQ^_aSno Q:\tQ|N QmHK^Ì�Q^]�WP_dK�SZQ�IaX b RT\tJUHWW,JZQ�R \ _cM�o ]�SUH�R b _�NaH I_$o o Q�I�W�X _c[L_abZf�_a_c]ZK�H[Z]LK�QjN,OaX IQ^KUp· Q^K�M�o WX [ZfiS�N�X IaX [^fiSUHWPW,QjN [UK�HYN Q6X [U]nX N Q�I�W X [U]nX I�HW,_$N K�_abUWPJUQOHYo MUQ:_cbZfYN Q^Q^[�K�SZH�I�Q:WP_ÁI�_�e�e$MU[�X WX Q^K^p�ÿ�_dWN Q�Q^KLX [Ub�o MZQ�[UI�QJU_c\ e�MZI�JLSZQ^_YS�o Q:HYN Q:\dX o o X [Uf WP_dSUH�RTb _$Naf�_c_a]ZK � q�JUQH[UK�\ QjNYb�N _�eCWPJjX KkK�W,MZ]ZR`X K���RQ^K^ù � ° _�NYHYo o�Q|X fJUW o X K�WPQ�]FX WPQ|e$K�rJ�X fJUQjNcK�WPHW,Q^]�S�N�X I�Q�K�\ QjN Q:fYX O�Q^[Lb _$NYf_c_a]ZKLX [LWPJUQ

����� �������� � ��������� ����� !��"���#%$'& (*),+.- )0/.12)�354�6 7�8935:�(�;=<9358�3>89?�#07�@.@BA9896 4�CB&D7�;FEHGI4�;5C�"J?LKM6 GI7�;>CB#07�A989NM6 : OL( �+P"2&D7;FE!GF4Q DEH;>KM6 NME.358L?R4�S9ETU35GIS96 89V>4�7�8� D4�354�EW+�EHX93>;=4�@YE!894Q7�ZM[H;I3>89GIX97�;=4�3>4�6 7�8\R�P��^]����D�_3>4�S9: EHE!8�`!a T�7�: Z O5bLS9ac+�a d>#0E!894�EH;0Z 7�;R( ;I<93>8e$�7�;54�6 N>A9: 4�A9;FE9OL(�8L6 K5E!;IGI6 4�Cf7�Z>T'35GFS96 89V>4�7�8bLS978LEH1�g h9i9j9kPj9l!j9m�n9o9n9p9d�&H35qL1Pg h9i9jLk�j9p9n9mch9j9r9h�[email protected]>6 : 15s!tu7�: ZwvWALa t*3>GIS96 89V>4�7�89a EH?LA9d T2EH<RGI6 4�EH1=t*t*t�a NMZ ; a t035GIS96 89V>4c7�89a E!?9A9x ;wE!GIEH35;wN>S9a E!8!K>@.6 89?

¹dX OaX Ii¹t_�eLe$QjN IQ6X [ZIYo MZ]ZQ^]:K�W,H�WPQje$Q^[UW,K�K�MZIJ:HKQ�Ye�QjN ÃI�JUH[UWPKkI�HVN QTHlU_cMUW|WPJUQtI�_�e`e�M^[nX W,R��cH[U].�SUMUlno X IiH[U]SnN�X O�H�WPQt_$N f�H[�X y�HWX _c[UKk\i_$N�ÌnWP_YfQ^W,JZQjN p ��zmX fJUQjN�o Q�O�Qco Kk_cbHfYN Q^Qje$Q^[UWjb _$NaWPJ�X K�I�H�WPQ^f�_�N/RT\THK�HK�K�_aIaX HW,Q^]�\dX WPJ:WPJUQfYN Q�Q^[LK�Q^W,WX [UfYpgþ K�K�MUQ^K�_abL¹t_�e�e�MU[nX W,R,zkQ^HYo WPJ¿± Q�p fYpb�X [ZH[UIaX HVo�I�_Y[Z]nX WX _c[Ur�IaN�X e$Q¿N HWPQ�µj\ Q|N Q:HVo K�_*{,MZ]ZfQ�]`W/_dlUQlZQ�WPWPQ|N�X [LW,JUQmfVN Q^Q�[ZQjNYI�_�e`e�MU[�X WPR�p

Page 26: The Benefits of Urban Trees

|�|D}~>�>�P�!�P�D��>���J�F���>�!� �^�u� �c���!�B�����^�D�D�M�'�^�W�������

�������M�M�%�B� �9�9� �����c�*�M� �=� ���!�9� �L�M�M�I����H� ���c�F�f��� �I� �D� �c� �f�c�H�P�%�5�D�� �M �5�5�����H�*�H��¡�� ¡��M�L�>���*�H��¡�� �5�M� � ¢����=� �����L�£�%¤D�H�5¡��M���M�D�£�f���M�M�M�f���H����M�M�!¥¦��J� � ��� �M *��¤M !�D�M�����!�I�F� �H�>�����5���0�!� �������>� �R� �%¤D�D�=¡P�M�%�M�M� �!��9�>��� �5�c�5� �����=�!�M����H� � �!¥§�M���,¤�� �M�>�u��¨9� �H�M�������M���>���D�B����� � ��� �5�>��!���!�5���H�M���9��©B���!¤�� �=���5ª��0�M�D¡�� �H�������M�M�=�M�5�J�M�����I� �£�Y¤D�H�5¡�� ���M�*����£�H�M���.� �%�M� �=� ���!�>� �D�M�*¤D�H�5 !�H�M�f�.���H�*�5� �=�M�%���5�u�0ªP�  �ª%¤D�H� �=�H� �£�Y�I�5����c�H�Mª��M�M� �B� �u�F� �^�� ! P� � �D *����!� �����F�B�5���%�f�J��� �=� �c�!����w���M�B� �D�M�^�f¤D�M�5¡�� �����=���*��� �J�M�D�M�L�����H�����=���J� �0¤D�M���D�J���£���=ª����

  �M�����H���=�*��� �D�M�����D���£���!�D�Y���%� �D¡����F�5�%�M�D���I�5�Q�����!� �����I�!���9�L« ���5ª����I�� ����� �H�M�������M���^�I� �£�B���H�u� � ���M� �%�M���¬���H����� � �I� ����� ���5�.���I�9���F�9�=��!���!�M���H�Mª­¤D�H�£®H�M�c���­���R�M�����D�����=�M�Y�=�,��¡��M� �����5���5ª��B¤��5�5�M�M�=� �M��D�M��������� �0�M���D�£�D� ����5� ���D�Y�5�� �!�M���Q�5�J�H���=�M� �=�9���£�=� �D !�f� �*�H�c¡�� �=�M� � ¢�¯� �D f����9� �����F�f��� �w�£�H� ��� �9�L�I�P�w¡����%�5�P�=�>�������Q�I�� ! ����I���=ª������ �H�M���Y���H�� ��¤��5�w�=�M�D�J�>����¤������>�D�£�B�5�Q�P���M� �>���%� �D ��L�>¤�¤��M�M� � �D %�M���M�F��������D�D¡�� �H�������M�D�5�L�I���Mª¬� �H�I�5�H�����=� ���¬�M�>�¬�M� �*���F���M�*�I�5�H���I� �w��^ ��M���M� ���Y�M���%¤D�D�5�I���I�!� �����M� �Y� �¬��� �I�5�w� ���5�R�M��� � �I������9� �����F��I��¤�¤��5�w�P�I�5�Y���D�>���=� �D ­�M���f�F�5�������M��� �M ­�B�M� �£��°�J���w�J�M�B�I�5�M���I�=�

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE±²ª�� � �*���D�D�Y�F�£����� �^�Yª��^¡��*������u���>�H�5�M�B�5ª��*�f�u� �=� ¤P� �����D���^�I� �£��D�P�f�9�^�5� �I�=�D���>� ��D�.�>���P�F�J�D�B¡ �^  �^�5�^�=� ��%�^©Q�.���^�Y�^�u�M� � | ����³M�H��­�>�I�uªP�^¡ � �=��^���9�D������¤P�^�H�D�.�D�P�B�H�^�9� �P�D�H�5� �D�>�9�^�£�5� �H !��w�L���­�­���f�^���D� � | ������´����MªH�!���D�P��� | �����M�D���>¡ ���!� ����� �H f�5ª��� �­¤��>�F�>�M�P�D�Y�>�P�5ª����P�F�J�D�.�I�>�!�^�I� �>�,¤H�!� ¡ �^�5�Y�D�H�5�^�!¤H�!� �9�f�^©Q�Y� �^�

�^���M� � | �����M�D�µ�� �c�5� �*� �.��P�>�­�%�^�J�>�P���>ª��*¤P���!�D�M� ¡ �M�B���M�P�^�=� �£��D���B¡ �D� �u�^�R�>���5ªP���P�w���M�f�=�5�!�^�=�u� �f�!�^�5�D� ��D�����D����­�^�!�D� �D��P� �I�£�H� �^�£�9���¡ �� �%�D�P�H�!�^�F�9�D�f���.�5ªP� �J�!�^�9�D�^�!�MªP�

Consumer/Environment Interaction¶M�I���DªP�� �>  � �D�D�>�5ªP�D�>�F�­�5��¤P�^�w�L��D·=�D�H¡ � �!��P���M�H�u�H� �P�D��� �^��D���D�=�5� �c���>�D�f�5ªP�B�M�>�H�B�5���5ªP� ���I�£�u�H�D�>�­� �5ªf�=�����P�R�����D��H�I�u�­�^�F·�M�H¡P� �!����­�M�H��� �D�5�^�H�D�^�5� �L�P���L���D� �D�5�9�M� �D�D�5� �I�£�f�P� �I�5� �H !�u� �9ª*�5ªP�¤�ªH�!�9� �D�M� ¯ �5�D�D  � �J� �*�P��%�D� �%�5�J�D�%�M�H¡ � �D���P���M�H��� �D��¸� �H�5�^�!¤��^�5¯�9�����D���D���B�9��M� ��^��� �c���!�M������­�M� �H�Y�^�=�>������ � | � }�¹ ´5±º�D¤��P���| � ¹�} �D��L��­�*¤P�^�w�L��D·=�M�H¡ � �!��P���D�H�P�H�^�L�M�^�H�Dª%� �.¤H�H�D�­� �L�D�%����I�5� �B�u� ���9¯ �!���L¤���D�9�*���I�I����¤H�5� ���H�9´��5�5ªP���f� �M¡ �^�I�5�  ��^�5� ���H����D� �D�>�D� �%�D�%� �H�5�^�!�D�^�5� ���P�D��¤P�^�F�9¤P�D���>� ¡ �*� �U���>�!� | � ¹�} �H�«P�c�H¤�9�M�H���I�Y�5�>¡P� �>�9���%�5�M� �*�£�D� �H�£��� �>�9�»�J¤�c���H�9��°�*�B�D�D� �5�

�£�w�H� �w�H�%�5�>� �B�=���u¤ªM�D�H� �=�>�I�H�£� �I� �> P�9¼J���D�c��¡P�£�^�*� �>�I�£�D¤>�D�£��D�£�Iª�c�� � �F�c�>�>�!�>ª�c�M�>�£�I�£�D� �w�I� �c�*�=� ��¤�� �>�5���I�Y�%�5���D®^�J�5 ��%�5�M� �*�=�L� �J��£�I� �L��£�>�  �� �w�D�>ª�9�9�w¡����F�I�P�uª�I�D¤� �I�5� ���I���%�£�D�w� ��� �> P�M¼J�L�H�£�^¡��£���0�5� �H�B�¬�5�L��5�L����=�I�£�I� ¡��J�=�u� �>�F�£�M�>�>�I� �>� ®^���M ��%�5�>� �*�£�Q�=��9�Iª��J½5���>� � � �,�=��5ª��£�>�>�£�I�c�u�I���J¤� �>�5�J�>��J�Iª��J¤�>�9¤�� ���%ª�f� ��ª��£�Q� �Q� �Q�c¾f�£�H�c� | ��� ¹ �5�¶L�>�!¤� ���5�I P�� �F� ¡��>� ���=¡��£�M� �£��¤ªM�D�H� �>�5�^�F�I�M�2�%� �Fª.�¬�>�5�� �> D�0�I��M�5¤M�>�£�H�5�M�I�£�I� �9�>�H�H� �M�I�£ D�M�c�F� �M ��¬�5��� �£�I� �M �� �>�w�=�>�¬�c�F� �L�J ��5� ��>�J� �M�L��I���H� �^¡��c���H°I¤>�D� �I�u�£¨�¤�c�M� �5��>�£�H�w�H�9�>� �>�H� �5�c�M��� �M ��H�>��.�c� �I� � ����c�H�«����5�D� � ���F���!�D� �­���B�5ª�� �5�D�D  � �J� �M�¤�ªH�9�9� �D�>�>�9���c�5� �H ­�5���5ªP�D� �

���P�!� ���^�=���5�¬�^�c�£�!�D�^�0�D��D�I�u�­���F�u�5�*�>ª��D� �.¤D�H��H�u�^�£���M�P��9���F¡�� �M�^�9���=�P�H¤H�H� �9� �D  � �D�=�5ª��^�D�*� �Y� � �£�>� �0� �H�=�5�!�%�^�5� ��¬�^�J�>�����5ªP��D�� �B�5�u�>�P�5�P��>�Y�D�H¡ � �D���P�­�D�D�0� ���D��H�I�u�­�������MªP�^¡ � �>�5���P�^�9¤P� �5��^¨L�5�M�H�9� ¡��f���^�!���^�>� �H W�M�P�f�!���>�D� �M�9�D� �D�P�D���I�£���P� ���R��f�I�>�5�!�� �H�5���!� �>�F�.�D�P�%¤H�H��H�u�^�£�9�5±²ªP� � �   �D���^�!�D�¤P���w�L��D·=�D�H¡ � �!��P�­�M�H�� �H�5���!�D�^�5� ��­ªP�^���J�D�D�Y�F�c���P� �D�f�L� �P�D�Q�5ªP� | ��³��M�9�D�5ªP�f�^�!�M�f�>��D���D�=���­�^�F·=�D�H¡�� �!���P�­�D�D�B� �H�5�^�!�D�^�5� ��¿ª��^�,���£�c�!�D���>�D�.�!�D� �^�5� ¡��D� ��=���º�!���L�D���!�DªW�^� �=�5�F�c���^À!¡��^�!�^�£�B���B�M� � | ����³D�M�

Urban Trees and Public GoodsÁ��P�5�­� �D�H  �f�����>�P�����F�J�D�f�c�H�D�Q�J�D�P�^�=� �£���M���Y�9�^�F¡ � �D�^�RªP�^� 9�H�>�­�%�D��H�9� �P�^�!�^�J� �­� �B�!�D�M�D�H�u�P�D�D�D���^�L�ÀP�^�9� � �­�>���9�^�F¡��D��­�M���=���!�^���5�P¡ �D� �u�D�D�I�u�Mª­���u�5ªP�>�9�f�^¨�¤H�!�^�I�9�M�Y�>ªD�!�>�P  ª­�­���!�����¤D�!� �>� �H ��H���P�M�­� ���9���P�R���5���^¨�� �I���=�5�Q�I���Dª¬¤D���J� � �  �����H��^Â��^���9�� �¬�D���%µ�� � � �MªP��� � | ����Ã�´�¶M�H�^�5� | ��� ¹ �D�¼,����¡��H� �¿�>� ���H���^�=� �c�*�!�w�L�H�w�!�HªR�=���w�P�����¬��¿�H�H¡�� �9����W�D�!�5�H�

� �­¤H�9�>¡��H�­�H�!�c�,�H�P�¿�D�Pª��D���H�D�W�H�H���5�u�Hª­�w�0�=���I�=�H�H���W�w�>�w��­�H���w  �H�­�H�H�0�D�����H� �Y½M�0�D� � �c�¿� �Ä�H¶�ªP�w�F�L�� | ����ÅD�H��©Y�� � �w�¡ �H� �u�w��ªP�w¡��Q�u�D�H�W�P�w�9� ¡ �H�.�£�!���Æ�^¨��c�9�H¤P��� �w�>� ���!���>�0�H�H¡�� �9���P¯�­�H�D�>�H�M���H�P�w�5� �c�R�H�P�Y�>ª��Q�=�����=�>� �c���>�^��� � � �c�­�M�P�=�M�!�w�=�>¯w���^�9� ¡��D�Ç ���w�£���H�H°�0�L�w�I¡�� �H�^�LÈP�5�M�J �����!�,�H���.���^�=¡�� �D�^�,ª��w¡ � �H É�W�^�9���w�>¯���^�9�D�f¡ �D� �u�w�.�w©f�D� � � | ��� } �H�

PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE URBAN FOREST IN

INNER-CITY BUSINESS DISTRICTSby Kathleen L. Wolf

Ê0Ë�ÌHÍFÎ>Ï�Ð!Í!Ñ «��^¡ � �5�D� � ¢��^�5� ��%¤D�!�> 9�H�D�f�Y�^�!���u�P�P���Q�­�^�­� �¬�­�M�H�� �P�P���!¯w�M� �£�Y���P�9� ���^�I�.�P� �=�£�!� �^�£�L�5�.�f���F���M�f�=�5�!�^�I�c�F�­¤H�!�> H�!�D�Ò�D�D����*�D�%� �­¤��>�F�5�D�D���D� �D�­�D�D�u� �%�^�!�D���>� �H ­�D�%�M¤P¤P�D�M� � �H ­�D�L�H�I�u�­�^��D�H¡ � �!���P�­�M�H�5�>�P�^��� �u���^�­�P�5�P�J�*�M���H�9� �P�^�H�D�%�*¤D�!� �>�!� �£�f  � ¡ �M��>ªP���P�5ªP�^�!�*���!�*�5� �5�D�%�­�M�H�­¤PªH�9�9� �D�M��� ��¤H�!�>¡��D�­�D�H�£�Y�P�M�D�H�9�ÓBªP� ���!�^�9�D�^�H�Dª­��¡ �D� �u�^�5�D�Y�5ªP�Q�!��� �f�=�P�c�H�D�^�R� �­�M��H�I�u�­���F·�D�H¡�� �H��P���D�D�u� �M�>���!�D���5� ��H�9�5�=���^�P�9� �D ���B�5ª��*�P� �I�£�!� �^�£�­� �P�¤H�P�J� � �   ����H�Y¤D�H�>¡�� �P�D�*���f�5ªP�*�D�����f�u�P� �£�Y�I�>�!���I�>�5�Ô���^�5� ����D��=�P�F¡��^�e��¡ �D� �u�^�>�>�W¤D�P��� � �Y¤P���!�D�D¤H�5� �L�H�L��¤P�^�£�!��P�^  �Q�J�Dª��^¡ � �>�� �H�5�M�H�5� ���H�9�L�D���¬¤D�!���H���^���­� � � � �H ��P�c�I���5�R¤P���­� �*�H�D� ���5� ��M�9ªP� ¤*�5�¡ �^�!� �D�W¤H�!�^�9�D�P�D�f�5���c�!�M�^�,� �.�!�^�5�D� �H�F�£�!�D�^�£�9�D�D¤P�^�9�P« �^�=��� �£��=�P 9 ��^�=���>ª��^�u�D���D�=�u���^�Q���Dª��^¡ � �>�f� �f¤P�>�9� �5� ¡ �D� �­�M�>�F�!�D� ���5�D�B�W� �5ª�=�£�!�D�^�£�9�D�D¤P�Q !�!�M�D�P� �H ¿����D� ���>�P�5ªP�^�!�f�D�> ��P� �5� ¡ �f�D���Y�J�MªP�^¡ � �>�!�D��P� ���D�H�L� ��H�9�«����9�D�^�!�Dª��>���>�D���­�^�R�>� �9�,�^�I�>����� � �Lª����J�^�!� �J�=�>�¤P�^�w�5�P���F�9ª�� ¤D����� �5ªB�����9� �P�^�I�Y�M����f���P� �5� �����!�^ ��^�H�P� �D Y���F�J�D��=�>�H�^�I��¤P� �D���P� �H %�D�P�¬�­�M�P�^ ��D���D�H�5�ÕBÖ9×%غ٠ÎMÚ Ì�Ñ �Q�w���D�H·I�D��­�Y�u��� � �R�I�>�!�^�I�c�F��´�¤D�P��� � �B¤P�^�H�D�D¤P¯

�5� ��D�9´=�!���5�M� �5�����!� �����I�9�

Û%Ü,Ý�ÞMßRàÄá'â�ã�ä�ÝuåLâæÜ�çéèëê ì,ßRíïî�Ü,ê�äuâ�å�ê!ð

Page 27: The Benefits of Urban Trees

ñPñDò óõôö ÷=ø�ùMúPûJö ü ý*þ ÿ�����ô����9ÿ��5ô��Pÿ ���Fû������Pô��Hÿ�����ü �������Pÿ������uü �����Dú��9ü �Pÿ����! fü �����!ü ý����

���"�$#�#Pü �5ü ô���%&��Pÿ'����� ý$Pô&�9ôýDü �Dö>ûJÿ��Pÿ^÷=ü �(���������DýDý��wú�ÿ)����PÿDô��Pö ÿfÿ$�PýDô5ú���=ÿ������!ÿDÿ��*�$��#������cú��HÿBü ��ýDü �5ü ÿ��*���!ÿfÿ�+,�5ÿ����Lü - ÿ$./ ýDü ÿ$���5ü ÷=ü ýfÿ�- ü #Pÿ��PýDÿfýDô��D÷=ü ��01��&����0ÿ�+2�Pÿ��!ü ÿ$�PýDÿ��Rô>÷ �����£ú��Hÿ!���!ÿ���3�9ôýMü ���>ÿ�#)4Wü ��¬ÿ$����$�PýDÿ�#)4Wô���5�ÿ��)���!ô�#Dúuý��5ü - ü ����6�78�$��ö �$�ñ$9:9�;�<$%&�(���^÷ ÷=ü ý=�3� �!ÿ������!ÿ$#Hú�ý��>ü ô��"6wù:���>�9ô����.ÿ���Dö .�ñ$9:9�ò$<$%�ÿ$0­ô���>ü ô����Dö&�����!ÿ����!0­ü �5ü ?����5ü ô@�"6A�Bö �!ü ý$2ñ�9�ò:B�<$%��$��#)�!ÿ����5ô&�����5ü ô@�%ô5÷ýDô&?=�Pü �>ü - ÿ*ý$�$���Dý>ü �5ü ÿ��C�PÿDÿ$#Pÿ$#B÷=ô&�Qû����Lü ý ÷ ú�Pý��5ü ô@�Pü �$?D�$��#���Hô@#Dú�ý��=ü -�ü � �E6�7�����ö ��������#�7��$��ö �$�eñ�9�ò�9:F,�0ü 0E���Hü ý$Éñ�9�9:;&<$.ùMú�û�ö ü ý=?�ôô�#��Yÿ����5ü 0E���5ü ô��$�C#�ÿ��Hü -Pÿ$#B÷ �!ô�0¸ÿ$��-�ü �!ô���0�ÿ$�$���Dö

�$��#"���3��ý$Pô&�9ôýMü �Dö>ûJÿ$�Pÿ^÷=ü �(�!0������Pô��PûJÿ'�����>�5ü ý^ú�ö ���Hö �!�G�Mö ü ÿ$�����>ôû�ú��Lü ��ÿ����!�^ú#Pü ÿ���ýDÿ��,.@���'�!ÿ����Dü ö@�$��#%ýMô�0E0­ÿ��!ýDü �Dö��9ÿ����5ü ��?��G%���Pÿú��Fû8���.÷=ô��!ÿ����*ü �.ô>÷ �5ÿ$�!�!ÿ�?=����#Pÿ�#D�Mö ô@�$?H���G�PÿDý����Fú0é÷ �!ô�0�$���Pô&�=�$��ýDÿBô&�!�Dúuü �,���PýDÿ2�>ôI�Mý��cú�MöMûú��9ü �Pÿ����C#Pÿ����!ü 0�ÿ$���6 óÔôö ÷ñ$9:9�ò$<$. / úuý$"�����5ü �£ú#Pÿ��.ü �PýMü �5ÿ ûJÿ$���-�ü ô&�A��������uÿDö ü 0­ü �����5ÿ0ô&����!ÿDýDö ú#Pÿ ú��Fû8���B÷=ô&�Hÿ��3��$�!ô&?G���$0!�Yü �"0��$���!�!ÿ����Dü ö&�9ÿ����5ü �$?��,.J 0­ÿ��!ü ý$�$�E�Pô��!ÿ������C6Hñ�9:9�9�<2�!ÿDýDô�0�0%ÿ$��#����&�����ú��Fû��$�1�Hÿ��&�Dü ö��$��#ýDô�0�0­ÿ��!ýMü �Dö@#Pü �>���!ü ý��(�C���- ÿ)�¬ñ�K�L¸ý$�$�Pô@���WýDô�- ÿ���F&��Pÿ �����5ü ô����Mö��- ÿ�����?�ÿ*ü �!�$���$�Hô�+Qü 0E���5ÿDö �EK�LE.

Tree Amenity ValuationJ -����Hü ÿ�����ô5÷��9ýMü ÿ&�$�=ü ÷Iü ý'0�ÿ��3�ô@#$�!���-Pÿ�ûJÿMÿ��¬ÿ�0E��ö ô���ÿ�#'�=ô*���>�9ÿ��>��Hú�û�ö ü ý1�$�Hÿ�÷Iÿ��Hÿ���ýMÿ1����#E��ÿ��HýMÿ��$�£ú8�Mö&�Hÿ�����ô@���!ÿ2�!ÿ�?�����#�ü �$?D#�ü -�ÿ��A�9ÿö �&��#$�!ý��&��ÿ��)6��Bö �Dü ý&Éñ&9�ò�B�FG7�����ö ���M�&��#M78�&��ö ���Éñ&9ò�9&<$.GN�ýMô,��ô@�0�ü �>���1��(-�ÿ �Mö �9ô!#�ÿ�-�ÿMö ô@��ÿ�#,ýMô@�$�5ü �$?Pÿ��$�:-��Mö ú8���5ü ô@�I0�ÿ����ô@#$�6���OQP�<�%34E�ü ý&�RCS Bô@�ÿ��A� �"6Dñ&9�9:B&<��Dÿ�?����$#$�1���)� TA0%ô@��ÿ��Iü U�ÿ�#�5ÿMý����ü VMú�ÿP÷Iô��*ÿMö ü ýMü �5ü �$?"�Dú�ûJö ü ý �$�Hÿ�÷Iÿ(�Dÿ���ýMÿ��G. W=�uô@�$�5ü �$?�ÿ����-��Mö ú����5ü ô@� �Fú��A-�ÿ����)���-�ÿPûJÿMÿ&�*ú:�9ÿ�# �IôC�����!ÿ��>�1�Dú�ûJö ü ý�4�ü ö ö ü �$?���ÿ��>��5ôI�����.÷Iô���ú��9ÿ�%�ýMô��$�!ÿ��A-����5ü ô@��%�ô��Q�Hÿ��>�=ô������5ü ô@��ô5÷Pú��wûQ���"����#�Fú:���Mö3�Hÿ��9ô5ú��HýMÿ���.GX.ô@��ÿ��3�ÿMö ÿ��>�G%Lÿ�0"��ü �Hü ý��Mö,������ö ü ý����=ü ô@�$�fô=÷���OQP�5ô.ÿMö ü ýMü �:-��Mö ú�ÿ��Q÷Fô��)�Dú�û�ö ü ý�?�ô�ô@#$�1���>�!ôLýDü ���5ÿ�# 4�ü �3*ú��wûQ���÷=ô��Dÿ��>���>�E���Hÿ�÷Iÿ�4Y6 Z����A-�[Mü ��ÿ�������#)O![&[���[���ÿ��2ñ&9:9�ò&<$.

Z �ÿ�$�Hô5û�ö ÿ�0)�Bô5÷���OQP\�Fú��A-�ÿ��"#ÿ��9ü ?��I:��-�ÿPû�ÿMÿ�� 4%ü #�ÿMö �#�ü �!ý�ú��>�9ÿ&#��&��#,ý&���Hÿ�÷ ú�ö ö �E#�ôLý�ú80�ÿ��$�Iÿ�#I6 PUü �=ý��ÿMö ö,����#I��(�A�!ô@�ñ�9ò�9�FLù&���(�=ôWñ&9:9�ò&<�.G��ü ���ô@�M����#I]Yÿcû�ÿ��Hö ÿ>ü �M6Mñ�9�9�^&<0ü #�ÿ����=ü ÷ �)�!ü +#�ÿ��!ü ?��,ÿMö ÿ&0�ÿ��$� � ÷Iô�� 0E�Mü �$�3�Mü ��ü ��?)�3�ÿ��Hÿ>ö ü ��û�ü ö ü ���¬ô5÷���O�P\�Fú���-�ÿ��������#�Hÿ(�Fú�ö � ��.G��ü �A�A�3%G5���ô34_4E�ô3�!ÿ���:#4E�ü ý�-��>ö ú�ÿ(�24­ü ö öIûQÿÿ����=ü 0"���5ÿ&#�. J ö �9ôG%3�Hÿ�����ô@��#�ÿ��$� �10Bú�����ûJÿ�$�Hô�-Pü #�ÿ�# 4�ü ��M�uýMö ÿ��������#I0�ÿ�����ü �$?!÷ ú�öG#�ÿ��!ý��Hü �$�=ü ô@�,ô5÷@���ÿ�?Pô�ô@#�. J �Dÿ��Mö ü �>�=ü ý���:#��ÿ�ú������Mö,������0�ÿ�����0%ÿ����ô@#I0fú����ûJÿPú:�9ÿ�# �5ôC����5-��Mö ú8���=ü ô,�VMú�ÿ��>�5ü ô@�$�G. J �IúJü �3��ûJö ÿ V>ú�ÿ����=ü ô@�0÷Iô���0"����0fú��>��ûJÿ#�ÿ�-�ÿMö ô,��ÿ�#'�3����?�ü -�ÿ��2�DÿMö ü ��û�ö ÿ�-��>ö ú�ÿ���. J #:#�ü �=ü ô@���>ö ö �&%����ÿ��Iú:�>-Pÿ��)���ô=ú�ö #,ý>ôLö ö ÿ>ý��ü �D÷Iô���0E���5ü ô@�%ô@�¬ô��3�ÿ��Q÷��Mý��5ô��A�Q�3�����c÷ ÷IÿMý���-��Mö ú�ÿ���.@��ü ���Mö ö �&%��3�ÿ#������0fú��>��û�ÿ �&�:�Mö ��U�ÿ&#*ú��!ü �$?1-��Mö ü #���3���5ü �>�5ü ý��Mö,�$�Hô�ý>ÿ�#Dú��Dÿ���.

Research ProgramJ 0Yúuö �>ü ������9ÿ$%������5ü ô����Dö&�!ÿ��9ÿ$���!ý$E�$�Hô&?G���$0`4����.ýDô���#HúJý��>ÿ$#)�>ôÿ�-=�Dö ú���5ÿQ�9ÿ�- ÿ����Mö�#Pü 0­ÿ$�$�Lü ô����Rô>÷uýDô@���Iú0­ÿ��>�,SHÿ�+2�Pÿ��!ü ÿ$��ýDÿ��Rô>÷ü ���Pÿ����^ýDü ���fû�ú��9ü ��ÿ����!#�ü �����!ü ý����G.@auú�Mö ü �����5ü -�ÿ*ü �$�5ÿ��>- ü ÿ�4!�G%,���Dÿ�÷=ÿ��&�ÿ$�PýDÿfÿ�-��Dö ú���>ü ô��$�G%:�$��#��Pÿ��!ýDÿ$���£ú�Dö&�!ÿ��G�Pô����9ÿ��84­ÿ��!ÿfÿDö ü ýDü �5ÿ$#�F�Pÿ��!ýDÿ$���£ú�Dö��!ÿ��=ú�ö �������!ÿ8�!ÿ��Pô&�>�5ÿ$#H�ÿ��!ÿ$.��Pô>ú���!ÿ��9ÿ$���!ý$DVDúuÿ��,��>ü ô����*���!ô&- ü #Pÿ$#"�Q÷ ���$0­ÿ�4Wô&��5f÷=ô&�Q�&�ÿ2�!ÿ��9ÿ$���!ý$�#�ÿ��Lü ?=��øñ�.�ób�����ü �Q���ÿ=�HÿDö ���5ü ô��$�G�ü �BûJÿ���4�ÿDÿ��)�����HÿDÿ���ö �$��#��9ý��&�Pÿ'����#ýDô@���Iú80�ÿ����GSG��ÿ��HýDÿ����5ü ô@�$�,ô5÷'���>�9ô�ýDü ���5ÿ$#.û�ú��9ü �Pÿ����!ÿ���c

;,. J �HÿQ�3Pÿ��!ÿ1�����d#�ü ÷ ÷Iÿ��Hÿ$��ýDÿ���ü �­ýMô��$�Iú80�ÿ��>�GS��������!ô@����?�ÿû�ÿ$���-�ü ô����DÿDö ���5ÿ�#'�=ôM���G�ô�����ü ��?�ÿ���-�ü �Mô@��0�ÿ$�$��S�Q-�ü �Iú�Mö��0�ÿ���ü �5ü ÿ��>c

e .C Bô�ÿ��8���ÿ)���Hÿ��9ÿ���ýMÿBô>÷����!ÿMÿ��Rü �1�!ÿ����Dü öÿ��$- ü �Hô���0­ÿ��$���ü �D÷=ö ú�ÿ$��ýMÿ�4E����JýMô,���Fú80­ÿ��A��4­ô5ú�ö #*û�ÿ�4­ü ö ö ü ��?)�5ô*�����f÷Iô���$�!ô�#Húuý��(��c

f .JóY���� #�ÿ$0�ô�?G���$���ü ý�÷��Dý��5ô&�A�*���Dÿ)�����9ôLýDü ���5ÿ�#!4­ü ��E#�ü ÷ ÷=ÿ����ÿ���ýDÿ��Rü �E#Pü �>���!ü ý����ÿ��DýDÿ����5ü ô@�$�G%:����� �Dô@����? ÿ�ûJÿ����-�ü ô&�3%��$��#�$�Hü ýMü �$?)-��Mö ú8���=ü ô@��c

J ����4­ÿ��>�8�5ô'��Pÿ��9ÿ1V>úuÿ����>ü ô����*���Hÿ1#Pü �!ÿDý��=ö �C�!ÿDö ���5ÿ$#!�5ô'��PÿT ûJô&� �>ô@0²ö ü �Pÿ$W÷=ü �Lý��Dö�ü ���=ÿ��!ÿ����(�.ô>÷�û�ú��Lü �Pÿ����C�$��#­ýMô�0�0­ÿ��!ýMÿ1����#�$�!ô&-Pü #�ÿ*ü ���9ü ?=$�(�!�����5ô*�ô&4Ô÷=ô&�Hÿ�����ûJÿ$�Pÿ�÷=ü ���!0E�����Mö ü ?��)4­ü �&�!ÿ��&�Mü ö�ÿ$���5ÿ����$�!ü �9ÿ$.

RESEARCH METHODSù�����ý$Pô�0­ÿ��(�!ü ý1�$��#­ÿMýDô@�Pô�0­ÿ��(�!ü ý��Iú��>- ÿ��d0%ÿ��&�ô�#��4­ÿ��!ÿÿ$0E��ö ô�� ÿ$#*�5ôE�����Lÿ����,ýDô@���Iú0­ÿ��8�!ÿ��G�Pô����9ÿ��5ô)�3���!ÿDÿ����9ý$�$�PÿýMô��:#�ü �5ü ô��$�Yü �'�Hÿ�- ü ���Mö ü U�ü �$?�ü ����ÿ��3�^ýDü ���fû�ú��9ü ��ÿ����!#�ü �����!ü ý����G.�Z'��DÿDÿ�����ô&��Pÿ��5ü ý$�Dö��9ýDÿ$�����!ü ô&�.ô>÷�PÿDü ?=HûJô&��Pôô@#fû�ú��Lü �Pÿ����M#�ü �����!ü ý�������!ÿMÿ����Lý$���Pÿ��4­ÿ��!ÿ!���Hÿ��9ÿ$�$�>ÿ$#Yú��9ü �$?eýDô�0���ô&�Lü �5ÿ���ô>÷ ��Pô&�5ô��?G���$��Pü ý*ü 0E��? ÿ��!�$��#"� �Pö �$�)- ü ÿ�4g�,5�ÿ��5ý$�.�Z'Pÿ=����!ÿDÿ=�9ýDÿ$�����Hü ô&�#�ü ÷ ÷Iÿ��Hÿ�#)4­ü ��)�Hÿ��,��ÿDý����5ô��Pÿ'VMú�����5ü ����%ö ôý$�(�>ü ô���%��$��#%ýDô�0E�Pö ÿ�+=�ü ���¿ô5÷�- ÿ�? ÿ������5ü ô���.:R ��Pÿ��Q�LýMÿ$�PÿfýDô@���>ÿ�����4����RýMô������!ôö ö ÿ$#ûJÿMý��^ú��9ÿ=�9ÿMýDô���#����>�1- ü �Iú8�Mö5÷=ÿ$���£ú��Hÿ��!6^ÿ$. ?�. %5û�ú�ü ö #Pü �$?���?�ÿ$%5ú��5ü ö ü ���ö ü �Pÿ���<Yý$�$�Yû�ÿ1#Pü �3�����Dý��>ô��>�*�$��#��^÷ ÷=ÿDý��=-�ü ÿ�4­ÿ����!ÿ��G�Pô����9ÿ6 / 0"����#�ô�� ñ�9�ò�ò:F@].ÿ��AU�ô�?E�$��# / �ü ÿ��1;:^:^:^�<�.

�(�)��Pÿ�h1ij$k�l�l�m��9ýMÿ$�:���!ü ô*6��Pü ?!ú��Dÿ¬ñ�<=��Pÿ#Pü �����!ü ý���ü �!#Pÿ�- ôü #,ô>÷- ÿ�?�ÿ������>ü ô���%:�$��#!�9ýDÿ$�Pÿ��.ýDô������Dü �Yú�Pü ���5ÿ��>�Fú8���5ÿ$#����A�����G�Rô>÷���5ô&�Dÿ�÷ �Dô��$���G.&Z'Pÿ�j$k�n�oGp q p i$r,n�sGj�k�l�l�m@�LýMÿ$�����!ü ôC6A��ü ?9ú��Hÿ';�<'#Pÿ��Pü ý����1��9ü 0�ü ö ���Q�����!ÿDÿ����9ýDÿ$�Pÿ24­ü �&%ÿ$VDúuü #Pü ���&�$�$�>ö �D�Pö �DýDÿ$#)�3���!ÿDÿ������!ÿDÿ��.ô>÷0�ÿ$#�ü ú0YPÿDü ?=���.@XRô�ýDô@�D÷=ö ü ý����Yô>÷:�(�HÿDÿ��Q4Wü �3)�3���Fú�ý��cú��!ÿ��Yô&�ü �H÷ ���������Fúuý��£ú��Hÿ ���Hÿ'#Pü �Hÿ>ý��5ö ���$�������Hÿ$�$�&.@��ü ���Mö ö �$%���Pÿ�t�p uGl3ov l�w&l3q nGq p i$r'�9ýDÿ$�����!ü ôM6��Pü ?9ú��Dÿ e <*ýDô������Dü ���!��- ÿ�? ÿ������5ü ô��%ýDô�0���ö ÿ&�0�ÿ$�$�uô5÷�0­ü +�ÿ$#)�G�PÿDýMü ÿ��fýDô�0E�Pô&�9ü �5ü ô��"�$��#�#�ü - ÿ��>�Lÿ=�����Fúuý��£ú��!ÿ�.J ýMýMÿ$�����ö �$�$�>ÿ��A�,%��,$�FúPû:�G%@�$��#)�(�HÿDÿ��C���HÿBü ���=ÿ���0­ü +�ÿ$#"�$��#ü �D÷=ô���0��Mö ö �E�Pö �DýMÿ$#'4Wü ���ü �'��Pÿ �Pÿ$#�ÿ������!ü ���)U�ô@�Pÿ�.

N��Dý$������>�>ü ýDü ���$�����!ÿ(�,�Pô@��#Pÿ$#!�5ô'��4­ô¬ô>÷:�&Pÿ2�&$�!ÿDÿ��9ýDÿ$������Hü ô��,.:�Pô��.ÿ$�Dý��%:�����>�5ü ýDü �������(��4Wÿ��!ÿ)���G5�ÿ�#1�5ô��$�!ô&- ü #Pÿ������>ü ��?��ô��E�Qû��$��5�ô>÷�Pÿ��!ýDÿ$���£ú8�Dö�#�ÿ��Lý��Hü ���5ô&�>�G. J �!ÿDýDô���#!�9ÿ��*ô5÷-=���!ü �^ûJö ÿ���ÿDö ü ýDü �5ÿ$#��������!ô@����?�ÿ�ûJÿ$���- ü ô&���!ÿ����Pô����9ÿ$.�þ ÿ��,��ô���#Pÿ$�$����Mö �9ô��G��ÿDýMü ÷=ü ÿ$#'���ÿDü �24­ü ö ö ü ��?��Pÿ������5ôM������6 ógZ*ù�< ÷Iô&�Bü �5ÿ�01�Yü ���ö ü �3��ô>÷�? ôô�#��C�$��#1�Lÿ��>- ü ýDÿ��,.�x����3��4Wÿ��Hÿ�-����!ü ��û�ö ÿ��8�5ôI#Pÿ��5ÿ���0­ü �Pÿ�����>�=ü ýMü ���������,S��9ôýDü ôÿDýDô@��ô�0­ü ý=�9ü �£ú���>ü ô���%��G�ô�����ü �$?Yû�ÿ$���- ü ô&������(�=ÿ������G%�����#%ý^úuö �cú����Mö5û��Dý$5$?��!ô>ú��#�.

��ôö ö ô&4­ü �$?��$�!ÿ��>ÿ����5ü �$?�%���Pÿ��Iú��>-�ÿ��14����1#�ü �����!ü û�ú��5ÿ�#)�5ô�Hÿ��9ü #�ÿ$�����.ô5÷:�!ÿ�- ü ���Dö ü U�ü �$?��PÿMü ?�HûJô&��Pô�ô�#Bû�ú��9ü ��ÿ����C#�ü �����!ü ý����Yü ��9ÿDö ÿ>ý��5ÿ$#"�). / .�ýDü �5ü ÿ��!���-Pü �$?��Pô@�Húuö ���5ü ô��$��?��Hÿ$���>ÿ�������$�2ñ�^:^:% ^�^�^�øxô�� J �$?�ÿMö ÿ��G%,��Mö ü ÷Iô�����ü �&F=óy�����ü �$?��=ô@��%, ). �8. F,��ü ý���?�ô@%,�cö ö ü ��ô�ü ��Fù�ô��>�=ö ����#�%@R�Dÿ�?�ô���F�ù�ü ��� �Iû�ú���?��%�ù�ÿ����$����ö -=�&�Pü ��F J ú����5ü ��%3Z�ÿ�+2���GF����# / ÿ������5ö ÿ�%5óz���GPü �$?��5ô@��.�Z)�ÿ��G�$0E�Pö ü ��?f÷ �$�$0�ÿ�÷=ô����Iú��>- ÿ��0E�Dü ö ü ��?!4����C#�ÿ��5ÿ���0­ü �Pÿ&#Bû:�!�9ý��HÿMÿ$�Pü �$?­ý��Hü �>ÿ��!ü �'�����&�ÿ*ýDü ����%���Pÿ&����ÿ�û�ú��9ü ��ÿ����!#Pü �����Hü ý���ö ÿ�-�ÿDö .�þ�ÿ��G�Pô@��#Pÿ������G�&0���ö ü �$?Y÷Iô&�Bÿ������ü ý����#,ý^ú�ö �£ú����Dö@#�ü - ÿ��>�9ü ���14E���!�Dú��A�Iúuÿ�#�.

Page 28: The Benefits of Urban Trees

{�{$|}&~&�������$��~&�����>�Q~&��� ���� �(�����)� |:���$�$��� ���D�:�:� �

�:~����$�������>�������>�M� �D�$�$���~&�:�����'��� �&� ���Q�D�����)������������E��� �"����� �$� �8�,� ��� ���$�$��� � ���� ���C���� ������� �)� ~@�$����� ~������3~&������A�����"�E��� � � �$�"�������~@���>���A�����3� �$�E�E�$� � � �$�E� � �������� �����&���*�$������������� � �����'������������G�$�!�Q� �$�)� ��~��Y~&�>�=�$��� ���&��3� ~@�I�E�&�1�����A����� �I� � ��� �G �1���� �$� ���$�����$��~&�����G ,�$���"� � �>��:��~�¡:���"�������$�����G���!�����,���~��)¢'£(¤I�$~������G�&�¥����������� �3� �$���������~��¦�G������� � ~&����������������G�������� �=�$���������&�$���§��"���&� ��� �>� �����&���:�&�����

�>�:���������2�E�(�$�����&�$�:�3~�$�(��� ���&���&�(�=�E� �3�:� �8���:�&�&� �>� �&��:� �A� ��� �(� �� �8�"� �����(� {�|�|@¨ �© �:�������M���&� � � ���$�=�"���$��>~,� � ~3�E������ ���&�"� �:�:�(� �&���$�&�� �3�:�&�"�=�$���&~,�:�"ª&���(�>�3� ~,�:�:�&� �$������ � � �&�:��§���~G�(�&�Q�@�&��������(���&�$� �1���&�(��~,�:����� ���&~@�"��:� �(�3� ª&�Q�(�>�3� ~@�:�:�&� �$�����E�(����$�(� �:���:���: ��E�:� � � � � | �E�(�$��:~,���:�&� � ���(�$����� �)~3�Q�$�(� �:���:�&��"� ���:~3�:�G�$�(���:~,�����&�>§�:� { �@«�$�(���:~@�������$�����'� �!� ~3�E�(���3�:�&�� ����� �����G� �����$��������� ���>�G���>�G��E���$�����(�������)�����3���C~�����¬:«g��~¬���« ��­ ���:� ���M���:� ­ �&��� �&�{&|@¨�|�® © ��� � � ���&� {&|�|�¯&�  G�(���&���~@�$��� ���(��� �$�C������������������������3���Q��~3�1� �������3����� ���1�����>��������(�$�����>�Q�&� � ��� ~3�E�(� ��° � � � �"��������:� � �

ANALYSIS AND

RESULTS° ���&�)�$���$� �G�G� �*� �*�������G�$�����$�� �)�3~����2�G�$����� ~����G�&�!���$� �G��� �� ���=������� �����&� ~������3~&�!�$�$���������� ���8� ���,���8� ���$� ����$������,����� �$��� �=�2���&���&� �3��� ���G :�����&������������� ~��H����~��$�$���������, ��$����������D������� �G�$�$������� ~D�$~��������$� ���~��$�G�

Trees and Perceptions�¥�,��� ~&�8�:� ¡:���>���G�$�$� �$������G��~��$�G� � ���$�1�!� ����� ����$�� ���3�8���C~������ �$���'��~�~��"�$����G��������� ���& ��G��~������ �$����~��E�������

±G² ³3´1µ�¶ ·3¸º¹�»G·�¼ ½3¾1¿�ÀG¹�¼ Á�·3·�¼ ¹�½�³3Â,·3ÃÄ´G¿�¼,¼ ¿'¹�½3³�² ·,Å

Æ2Ç(ÈGÉ2Ê�ËDÌ�Í$Î8É2Ï�Ç Ð2Ë�Ï�Ï1Ñ2Ç�Ï�Ò>Ê&Ç�ÓGÒQÏ�Ó�Ë�Ð=Ô:Ê&Ç(Õ�Ï�Ö$×IÕEØ=Ê�Ë�Ë�Ï1Ï$Ó�Ë�Ð2Ô�Ê&Ç�ÕÍ

Æ2Ç�È,É=Ê�Ë�Ù�Í$Î8É=Ï�Ç Ð2Ë�Ï�Ï1Ñ=Ç�Ï�Ò>Ê�Ç(Ó�ÒQÏ$Ó�Ë�Ð=Ô:Ê&Ç�Õ�Ï�Ö$Ø�Ê&Ô:Ñ2Ç�Ò>Ç�Õ�Ð2Ô�Ú�Ø�Ê&Ë�Ë�Ï)Ï�Ó�Ë�Ð=Ô�Ê&Ç�Õ8Í

±G² ³3´1µ�¶ ·3¸º¹�»G·�¼ ½3¾1¿�À�¹�¼ Á�·3·3¼ ¹�½3³3Â@·3ÃÛ´,¿�¼,¼ ¿'¹�½3³3² ·@Å

Page 29: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Ü�Ý�Þ ß`à�á â3ã@ä�å�æ�á ç è'é=ê�ë�ì�à�í�ëGê�î�àî�ï�ê ð�ñ>æ�ò�í�ó�à�ñ�ê�ë�î8ç í�ô�í�í�ê�ñ�õ�öç î�÷�ø$å�ëGç í�ê�ë�ë!ù1ç ë�î�ñ�ç è�î�ë

ç æ�ç á ç î�÷�ú@ò$í�û"üEê�ñ�è$ï�ò�í�î�î�ñ�ò$ç î(ëGý@é2ò�î�ç í�þ�ëQâ3à�ñ�î�ï�ê'Ý:ÿ�ì�ê�ñ$è$ê�ì$î�åò$áç î�ê$ü1ë�ñ�ò�í�þ=ê�û)â ñ�à�ü Ü � ç í�û�ç è$ò�î�ç í�þ�� ë�î�ñ�à@í�þ=á ÷�û�ç ëGò�þGñ�ê$ê�� ��î�à��� ëGì�ê$è$ç â ÷�ç í$þ�� ë�î�ñ�à@í�þ=á ÷�ò�þGñ�ê�ê�� �$ú�ç î�ï���ò�ëCò í�ê�å�î(ñ�ò$á@ì�à�ç í$î&ý

ð2ëGç í�þEò$è$è�ê$ì�î�ê$û"û�ê$è�ç ëGç à@í)ñAåá ê�ë �� ò�ì�á ò�í"ò$í�û ò�ì�á ò�í¥Ü��������î&àIû�ê�â3ç í�ê)ò$í�ûEí:ò$ü�ê2åí�û�ê�ñ�á ÷=ç í$þDè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ�ç ê�ëGú�û�ò�î&ò=ñ�ê$û�å8è�î�ç à�íê$í�î�ò$ç á ê$û�ì�ñ�ç í�è$ç ì�ò�á�ò��2ç ëQâ�ò$è�î�à&ñ)ò$í�ò�á ÷�ëGç ë�Dç î�ï���ò�ñ�ç ü�ò��Cñ$à&î�ò�î�ç à@í�ýó�à&å�ñ!è�ò�î&ê�þ�à&ñ�ç ê�ë!ê$ü�ê�ñ>þ=ê�û����!ü�ê$í�ç î(÷�ò$í�û"ö à�ü!â3à&ñ>î�ú��Äê�ñ�è$ï�ò$í$îô�í�î&ê�ñ�ò$è�î�ç à�í�ú � å8ò�á ç î�÷Dà&â�ä$ñ�à@û�åè�î�ë,ú@ò$í�û!�_ò$ç í�î&ê�í�ò$í�è$ê'ò�í�ûð1ì#"�ê�ê$ì�� ò$è$è$à&å8í$î&ç í�þ*â3à&ñ%$:ÿ�& à&â�î�ï�ê�î�à&î�ò$á�'=ò�ñ�ç ò�æ�á ê('�ò�ñ�ç ò$í�è$ê$ý) ê�*'=ò�ñ�ç ò�æ8á ê�ë+�ê�ñ�ê)è$à�í�ë�î�ñ>åè�î�ê$û1æ�÷Dò�þGþGñ�ê�þ=ò�î&ç í�þDüEê$ò�í!'=ò$á åê�ëò$è�ñ�à&ë�ëIò$á á�è$ò�î�ê�þ�à&ñ>÷Hç î�ê$ü!ë â3à&ñ*ê$ò$è�ïCñ�ê�ë,ì�à@í�û�ê$í�î�ý�ö ò�î�ê�þ�à&ñA÷ü�ê$ò$í�ë+Dê�ñ�ê)è$à@ü�ì�ò�ñ�ê$û1æ8ê�î,�ê$ê$í1ë�è$ê$í�ò�ñ�ç à&ë�å�ëGç í�þDà�í�ê�õ �ò�÷� ).- �#�`ò$í�û"ø�à@í�â�ê�ñ>ñ$à�í�ç@ì�à&ë�î8ï�à�è�î�ê�ë�î�ë � / ò�æ�á ê�Ü��$ý

ù)ç ë�î3ç í�è�î'ì�ò�î�î�ê�ñ�í�ëMà�â�ñ�ò�î3ç í$þ�ëñ�ê�ë�ì�à@í$ëGê1è�ï�ò�ñ�ò�è�î3ê�ñ�ç 0:ê�î3ï�êñ�ê�á ò�î�ç à@í$ëGï�ç ì$ëCà�â�î�ï�ê'û�ç ë�î ñ�ç è�î�ë!ò�í�û)î�ï:ê=â�à�å�ñ1ì�ê�ñ�è�ê�ì$î�å8ò�á,è�ò�î3ê�þ�à@õñ�ç ê(ëGý / ï�ê�13254�6�787:9,ëGè&ê�í�ò�ñ�ç à+Eò�ë)è�à@í�ë�ç ë�î3ê�í$î3á ÷)ñ�ò�î3ê�ûIá à"ê�ë>î�à@íê$ò�è�ï"à�â�î3ï�ê)ì�ê�ñ�è&ê�ì$î�å8ò�á&ë�è�ò�á ê�ë�ý�é=ê�ëGì:à@í�û�ê�í$î�ëCû�ê�ë�è�ñ�ç æQê$û'î�ï�êû�ç ë�î ñ�ç è�îò�ë�æ�ê�ç í�þ;� ë�î3ò�ñ<"�ú �(� æ�ò�ñAñ�ê�í�ú ��ò�í�û=� æ�á ê�ò�"�ý �

�_ê�ò$í��ï�ç á ê�ú3î�ï�ê'û�ç ë�î�ñ�ç è�î�ë!è$à@í�î�ò&ç í�ç í$þ>'�ê�þ�ê�î�ò�î�ç à@í�ú�4�6@?BA<C D C 2�EF?<G4�6�7:7:9Qò�í�û.H;C I<7:AKJ7:L�7:D ?<D C 2�E:ú,ï�ò�û�ï�ç þ�ï�ê�ñ2ñ�ò�î3ç í$þGëGú,ò�þ=ò�ç íIò�è�ñ�à&ë>ë!ò�á áì�ê�ñ$è$ê$ì�î�åò$á�è$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ�ç ê�ëGý:é2ê�ëGì�à�í�û�ê$í$î�ë*û�ê�ë,è�ñ�ç æ�ê$û1î�ï�êM4�6@?BABC D C 2�EN?<G4�6�7:7:9Qû�ç ë>î�ñ�ç è�î�ò�ë!� �ê�á è�à�üEç í$þ�ú �O� â ñ�ç ê&í�û�á ÷&ú �2ò�í�û'æ�ê�ç í$þ�>í�ê$ç þ=ï�æ�à&ñ�ï�à�à�û$÷P�Qò�í�û"à&æ�ëGê�ñ@'=ê$û)î�ï�ò�î�î�ï�ê5H�C IB7:A;J7L�7:D ?BD C 2�Eû�ç ë�î�ñ�ç è�î8ò$ì�ì�ê$ò�ñ�ê&û=� ñ�ê$á ò��2ç í�þ�ú �O�>ç í�'=ç î3ç í�þ�ú ��ò�í�ûK� �ê$á á õ�":ê&ì�î�ý �

ô îç ë!ê���ì�ê$è�î�ê$û)î�ï�ò�î�î�ï�êè$à�í$î(ñ�ò�ë>î1à&â=î(ñ�ê$ê�ë�à&ñIí�àî�ñ�ê$ê�ë*ç íEò)è$à�í�ë�åü�ê�ñê�í�'�ç ñ�à@í�üEê�í�î��à�åá ûç í�â3á åê�í�è$ê è$à�í�ë�å8ü�ê�ñ>ëBQR å8û$þ�üEê&í$î�ë1à�â �!üEê$í�ç î�÷Eò�í�ûö à@ü!â3à�ñAî�ý / ï�ê'è$à@í�î�ñ�ç æ:å�î�ç à@íà&âP'=ê�þ=ê�î�ò�î�ç à@í*î�à"à&î&ï�ê�ñì�ê�ñ�è$ê�ì�î åò$á R åû�þ�ü�ê$í$î�ëCà�âñ�ê�î�ò$ç á�ì�á ò$è$ê1ü�ê�ñ�ç î�ëMè$á à&ë,ê�ñò�î�î&ê�í�î&ç à@í�ý�é=ê$ì�ñ�ê�ëGê$í�î�ò�î�ç '=êç ü�ò�þ=ê�ë��ê�ñ�ê'è$ò�ñ�ê�â åá á ÷è$ï�à�ë,ê�í'î&àMê$á ç ü�ç í�ò�î�ê3":í�à�Eíè�à�í$â3à�å�í�û$ëGú@ç í�è�á åû�ç í$þ�á ê�'�ê�áà&â�î�ê$í�û:ê$û�í�ê�ë�ë �TS ê�ñ@0�à&þHò$í:ûU ò�á êIÜ�� ��$��)ò$í�û)åì�"�ê�ê$ì� ) ò�ëGò�ñ"Ü��������$ý@ù)ê�ëGì�ç î�êê�V�åç '=ò�á ê$í�è$ê"à&âë�î�ñ�ê$ê�î�ë,è$ò�ì�êî�ç û�ç í�ê�ë�ë�ú$î�ï�ê!ì�ñ�ê�ë,ê�í�è$ê!à�â'�ê�þ=ê�î�ò�î3ç à@í"ì�à&ëGç î�ç '�ê$á ÷ç í�â3á åê$í�è�ê$û"ò$ì�ì�ñ�ò$ç ëGò$á ë!à&â�_ò$ç í�î&ê�í�ò$í�è$ê'ò$í�û"ð1ì#":ê$ê$ì�ý

�Që8ñ$ê�'�ê$ò$á ê�û1æ:÷%�_ê�ñ&õè$ï�ò$í$î'ô(í$î&ê�ñ�ò�è�î&ç à�í�ò$í�û�åò$á ç î�÷�à&â8ä$ñ�à�û�åè�î�ëè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ$ç ê�ëGú,î�ï�êIì$ñ�ê�ëGê$í�è$êMà�âî�ñ�ê$ê�ë!ï�ò�ë�ëGç þ=í�ç â�ç è$ò�í�îì�à�ëGç î�ç '�ê'ç í$â3á åê�í�è�ê�ë!à�íè$à�í$ë3åü"ê�ñEç í�â3ê�ñ�ê$í�è$ê�ë

ò�æ8à3å�î8ò=ëGï�à�ì�ì�ç í�þ�ê$í�'=ç ñ�à�í�ü�ê$í$î&ý�_ò�ñ<":ê�î&ç í$þ1ë3î�å8û�ç ê�ë!ï�ò�'�êê�'�ò�á å8ò�î&ê$û!î�ï�ê�ñ�à�á ê1à&âM�Aò�î�ü�à&ëGì�ï�ê�ñ�ç è�ëB��à�íEè$à�í$ë3åüEê�ñCç í�î�ê$í�õî�ç à@í$ë!ò$í�û)æ�ê�ï�ò�'�ç à&ñ�ú�â�ç í�û�ç í$þ!î�ï�ò�î8ç í�û�à�à�ñ1ê&í�'=ç ñ�à�í�ü�ê�í�î�ò$áê�á ê�üEê�í�î�ë�ë�åè�ï�ò�ë1ü!å�ëGç è�ú@ì�ñ�à@û�å8è�î�á ò�÷�à�å�î�ú,ò�í�û"á ç þ=ï$î�ç í$þ�ò�á áè�à�í�î�ñ�ç æ:å�î�ê=î�à8ë�î�à&ñ�ê ç üEò�þ=ê � W ç ü�üEê�ñ)ò$í�û U à�á û�ê$í¥Ü��������$ý@ô�íî�å�ñ�í�ú�ë3î�à&ñ�ê'ç ü�ò�þ�ê)ç í�â3á å8ê$í�è�ê�ëCè$à@í�ë3å8ü�ê�ñ>ëBQ�ì�ê�ñ�è$ê$ì�î�ç à�í$ë � ù1à�û�û$ëê�î ò�á ý8Ü�����Ü���ý:ä$ñ�ç à&ñ�ñ�ê�ëGê�ò�ñ�è$ï�à�í�í�ò�î�å�ñ�ê1ò$í�û�è$ç î�÷*ë3î�ñ�ê$ê�î�ëë�åì�ì�à&ñ>î�ë�î�ï�ê=â3ç í�û�ç í$þ!î�ï�ò�î�æ�à&î�ï"ê�'=ò�á å8ò�î&ç '=ê ò�ì�ì�ñ�ò$ç ëGò$á ë � ) ò�ë,ò�ñÜ��������Cò�í�ûDò�â â3ê$è�î&ç '=êQñ�ê�ëGì�à�í$ë,ê ��X ï�ê$ê�î�ëIò�í�û%�_ò$í�0�ê�ñdÜ����8Ü��Cò�ñ�êæ�à�à�ë�î�ê$û*æ�÷Mî&ï�êCì$ñ�ê�ëGê$í�è$êCà&â=î�ñ�ê$ê�ëGý

/ ï�ê��_ê�ñ�è$ï�ò$í�î)ô�í�î�ê�ñ�ò$è�î&ç à�íDè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ>÷Hè�à@í�â3ç ñ�ü!ë î�ï�ò�îëGï�à@ì�ì�ê�ñ>ëMç í$â3ê�ñ8ëGà�è$ç ò$á$â�ò$è�î�à&ñ>ëâ ñ�à�ü ì�ï�÷GëGç è&ò$á�ò�î(î�ñ�ç æ�å�î&ê�ëMà&âòì�á ò$è�ê�ý��zì�ê�ñ>ëGà�í#Që*è$à&þ=í�ç î�ç '=ê1ç í�î�ê�ñ�ì�ñ�ê�î�ò�î&ç à�í$ë*ò$í�û!ñ�ê$ì�ñ$ê�ë,ê�í�î&ò$õî�ç à�í$ëCà�â�ì�á ò�è$ê'ê��,î&ê$í�û1î3àMç í�è$á åû�ê=î�ï�ê3V�åò$á ç î�÷�à&â:ëGà�è$ç ò$á�ç í�î�ê�ñ�ò$è�õî�ç à�í�ò�í�û)ñ�ê�ëGì�à�í$ë,ê�î�ï�ò�î�ï�ê'à�ñ�ëGï�ê'ê���ì�ê$è�î�ë�ý / ï�ç ëQâ3ç í�û�ç í$þ�ü�ò�÷æ�ê!à�â ì�ò�ñ>î&ç è�åá ò�ñ*ç ü�ì�à&ñAî�ò$í�è$ê�î&à)æ:å�ëGç í�ê�ë3ëGê�ëî&ï�ò�î)ò�ñ�êQë,ê�ñ@'=ç è�êà�ñ�ç ê�í�î�ê$û�ý�ô îüEò�÷�ò�á ëGàMï:ò�'=ê'ì$ñ�ç è$ê=æ�ê$ï�ò�'=ç à&ñ'ç üEì�á ç è$ò�î�ç à�í�ëGãU ñ�ê��ò$á�ò�í�û"ø�ò�":ê�ñ � Ü�� �����=â3à&åí�û'î&ï�ò�î�ë�î�à&ñ�ê=ëGê�î�î�ç í$þGë+�ç î�ïç í�î�ê�ñ�ò$è�î�ç '=ê$ú&â ñ�ç ê$í�û�á ÷CëGò�á ê�ëCì�ê�ñ>ëGà�í�í�ê$á�ì�ñ�à@û$åè$ê$û"ï�ç þ�ï�ê�ñ!ì�ñ�ç è$êò�è$è$ê�ì�î�ò�æ�ç á ç î�÷�ç í"è$à�í$ë3å�ü�ê�ñ>ëGý

Patronage Behaviorä:ò�î�ñ�à�í�ò�þ=ê�æ�ê$ï�ò�'=ç à&ñM'=ò�ñ�ç ò�æ�á ê�ë�è�à�í�ëGç ë�î�ê$ûHà3â2â3ç '=êCè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ�ç è$ò$áñ�ê�ë,ì�à@í�ë,ê!V�åê�ë�î�ç à�í$ë,ý:ä:ò�ñ>î&ç è$ç ì�ò$í�î�ë5Dê�ñ�ê)ò�ëB":ê$û!î�à'ëGì�ê$è$ç â ÷

YOZ,[F\O]^�_P`�a5\cb�Z dO^<b�b!ecZ,b�f@]�Z,g<f�b�g<^<dPh�]�Z,i#b�j�klZnm�^<epoP^<[<^<f@h�f@Z,i#dpb�g<^<dOh�]�Zni5`

qBr s:t!u�v wxzy�{Bw8| }:~>���By�| ��w:w:| y�}:s:�Fw��tB��|F| �3y�}:s:r w

Page 30: The Benefits of Urban Trees

���5������#�<�#��� �����+�@�����<� ���M� �n���<� ������������� ��� �������

�n�<���P������ �������,�<���#���  #� ¡8�����#�����N ��#�<���:� � �=�����c� ¡F� ���� �<��¢��M������������c� ¡B� �,¡B�N���� =£#���<¤ � ��¥>�8���c¦¨§�©�ªN«���¡B�� �� ������¡B£#�N��¡B�3 �� ¡:�,��� ������� �N��¡B�¡F� �;�O�P���<� ���5� �3�������¥c���<� ��¡+¬���������� � � ��£�¡B�� #ª§�¬p�N­ ¬�������� ���� �#­¥c���#�������#��� �B¡F� ¡+�:���5� ��¡%���c��� �M����� ���®��O�<��� ���� � ��¡F®#� £=�����P���<� ���+� ��¡���� #� ¡8�,�<� ���#¡F���������<� ��¡+�#¡F� ��¥

!̄����¡8�,¡>���# ;°#�<�������<±¡5²l¡8����� ¡:�� ��¡

� §(���+� � ��� ª ³O��¡F£�� ��¡B�3� �=��� � £#���,��� �#��¥P�c�c���<� ���+� ��¡�¬���¡+�8��M�# ����5�c¡F� ¥c�#� �:� �������� �!�<��� ����� !��� #� ¡8�,�<� �����c��¥c������� � �=��� ��������:ª

³c��¡F£�� ��¡B�c��5��®��c�n¬��M�c��¥P���������� K #� ¡8�,�<� ���,¡+¬���¡>��¥c��� �3¡B� �;� � ������# K #� � �8������ =� ��� � ¤��c¬����<¡�� ��� �¨�®��+´�µM¶�·�¸¸:¹����N�# �� ��� �N��ª�>�� ���c���@¡F�O����¡F£#�N��¡B��£����n����<�;� ¡%���c�  #�����ªF´�µ3¶�·�¸¸¹�����¡B£#� ��¡B��¡.���<���� �#�������,�<����� ����#��®��!� ��¬º���# ���»������®����#�®#�(�c���<� ���+� ��¡B±�������¥c����� ����� ���T�<���B¡>���# = �� �;� �#� ¡B®=� �3� �<��¢��M�������������P� ��¥!���¬p���< �®#��®#� ¥c®����# �����®#�!���@�<���B¡Bª�°»� ���P���@¡B��� ��������¡B£#� ��¡B��¡.��¡@¡B� ��� ������ ¬;� �®.¶�·8¼<½B¾ ¿ ¾ µ�ÀF¼BÁ�¶�·�¸:¸:¹����� .Â;¾ Ã<¸½=Ä:¸:Ÿ¿ ¼B¿ ¾ µ�À������»� ��¡8¡�� ����¢��5�����5����®#��� ��¬���¡8�»���# ;������®��!���@�<���<¡F��� �#��������¡F��� �>� �<��¢��M���#�������:®#���¡B� � ¥P®��� �; #����� � ���»�����®#�P�c����� ���+� ��¡B±�®#� ¥P®#���(�c��� �M�»� ���P��� ¡�� ������������ �=���M®#� ¥c®#���(� ����¢��M���#��� ��¡+�®#���3�®#�M´�µ»¶�·�¸¸¹�¡B���������<� �Nª

�>����:®����+����¡�£��N��¡B��£����,������;� ¡%���#�  ������ª�© ���,���N����¥P�O���n¡B£��N��¡B��������¡@¡.��� ��¡<�������n��� �¡.� ¡5¥<����������>���»�=�  �­����T�<���p�������¥P���� ��¡�ª�©�����®���£�¡�:®������3�����c�®�����¡B®��N�  �¡+�:�M�P� ¡<� �:���� �N�=���� �� �����P�����+��®����P� �����¡8¡<�N��� ­�n��� »¬�� �®»�:®��P� �#£��»�:� �����:��� �F�����#� ���N���;�����+ ���£�� ���:�� �ª

ÆO�@�5���>�:���<��¡@���� ��c� �������¡����<�>��� �:���p��®#��� � ����¥c�� %��= ����;� �#­¡8�,�<����(�®#�O�:� ¡F�������<���,�#�<��¡.��¡:¡B� ��� ����� �¬p� �®>�,�<����� ��¡:���� � ���� � �;���# �;��� ����������#���3��Çc£#����¡B��¡%� ���<������� �¡B��� �� ��¥B¡Bª§�®#�3£����,�<� �#�n¥c��P���<� ���5� ��¡5¡B£#����� � �p��� ��¡8�M�������5��®#���P� ���@¡5�®#���»�����;£#��������� ��� � ����#� ���@¥c�!�!����¡:��N�������5��¡B�(�:��% #� ¡:�,�<� ���,¡�®#���c� ��¥.�n������¡B��£��������­�� ��� � �>¥c�������<���� ��¥��� � #� �� � �#����<���c�����5��¡FªNÈ#���!� ��¡:����#������¥<�<��������

�,�<���P���� #� ¡:����#����¡M¬p���<������£#���@��� %�:���5�®#�+¬;� ��®�­ �,�<����¡M¡F�����#���<� ��¡<É���=��ÇO£#���# ��� ��n�<�� ������<���c�<�� #� �#¡+¬�� �®#� �= #����¡B�O���@�5���=£#�N£��M� ��­�� � ��¡�¡8�#¥B¥c��¡8�,¡>�3� ���@¥c��������¡:�� �;���!£#� �N� ªNÊ��K�� � #� ��� � �����<��¡F£�� �#­ #�����n¡5�<��£#���@��� >¥B������������¦*§�©��:��%£#���<¤�� ��¥p� �>�c��¥c����������  #� ¡8� �<� ���,¡BÉ ��� ��� �>¡>���+£#����¤�� ��¥>�<���c�����M��¡%� ��¡8�5 ��M�c���M¡B£#������¡+�+��� ��¥ #� ¡B£�� ������ ����>�n������¡%�;���!�5�3��� � ¡F���#������� ��¡8�5�����T¡F±�¦*§�©�®#� ¥P®#����:����¡.� �>�:���<��¡8���� � #� ¡:�,�<� ���,¡Fª

Products Pricing§�®��3� ��¡8�#¡F���»��������¡F£#�N��¡B�3� ����>¡%��¡8¡F��¡8¡B�� !�®����#� �#�;���<¤��������� ���#�� � � �,�!�c��� �M��¡>����,������¡>� ���������� �N�����P� �<�N���;�����,¡��#¡B� ��¥�°#² � ª� ����¤�������@¡���� �#¡8�����£��<�N ��M���,¡K���# %¡F���@�P� ����¡�� ����!��®��<���+¥c���#���������� ��¡8¡B��¡ ��Ë � �#�#�����!���5��� ª ������Ì�� ª °M� ���P���#� �������c¥P� �  �¡>�����c¬��  #��� ����c��� � ���+� �»���� K£����<��®#��¡B�� 3¬�� �®=� � �,�� �3 ���� � �+�n�<���� � ��ªNÍF®#�N£#£�� ��¥¥c�N�N �¡������>£��#�<��®#��¡B�� ���� ����%£#� ���#�#� ��¥Î���# ;��� ��£����<� ¡B� �����# ������¡B��� ������ �P��� �� �� ¡8�,��� ������� �ªNÈ�� �#��� � ���¡B£������ ��� �,�!¥P�N�N �¡>®����c�»®�� ¥c®�������� 3�<������¥P�#� �� � �K���# ����N��¡8�M�;����� ��c��� �n�#É�®��#¡B�N� � �,�� �3��� ��­£#����� ¡B� �!¡F®#�N£#£#� ��¥Î� ¡. �� �#�(�+���:�����!£��#�<��®���¡B��ª

ÏP��� �#� �;� ¡8�,¡%��� ��������¡B�3� �# #� ����¡������ ���c��¡@�� ¥P�����3�;���<¤����£#���n�:���<��¡ � ��ª ¥Pª ���®��3°»� ��¡8�M�����!©��<� ���3Ê��# #��ÇpÐ �+��¡B¤����5����¥c� �  �¡FÑ � ª³O��¡B£#�N�# #�����,¡+¬p���<����¡B¤ �� !���� �# #� ������O�®#�3£���� ���c��®����%¬����M�  !���¬�� � � � ��¥>���£����>�8���!������®���� ��Ì � ����>¡Bª§�®��<���M� �� #��Ç.�P���<� ���5� ��¡¬���������� ��¡8�,�@�M����� !���p��¥B¥<�<��¥c���� ��¥.¡8������ >�#��� �5��¡5�:���>��� ��� �����>¡¬�� ��®�� �=������®=£����  ��M���5� �� #��ÇÎ��� ��¡8¡��:���!������®K£#���@��� ��� £#����� � §����5� ���� ªN©��<� ���(�����¥B¥B�<��¥P���� �N��� ������� � ���(�c��� �M��¡�¬����<�3�  ������� �:� �� �������P�N�  %¡8�,�<�����¥c� ���5��®����c� ���.��� �:�����,¡BÉ#��£#£��<��ÇO� �;������� ��¡B���c��������¡F��¡£#���> �� ¡8�n��� ���M£#���>£��<�  ��+���nÒ ¡B���@�P� ����� �����Ó¬������O�<���;���c�� #ª

ÔFÕ8Ö8× Ø�Ù Ú Û8Ü�ÝFØ�ÞFÜ�Û ß+à Ü�× Ù�à Ö×NÜTÖ:Û:ÞFÕÙ�à ØÔNÕ:Ö× Ø�Ù#Ö:Õ:× Ûá�Ø�Ù�à Û:Ü#Õ:ÞFâ>à × Ûã%Ü ä Ø<Õ:âNà ÞFá å�Õ:Ù�à ÕÞFÖÛ!æ ç%èêé»Ø!× Ù�Û:ÛÜ ë�Ù�ÕâOì@× Ù,Û:Û:Ü í�à î�ÛâKå�Û:á�ì ï�é5ð»ñBïò#ó�ô õ�ö�÷ ø�ù�õ#ú�ûPü ó»ý�ü,þ�÷ ÿ�� ì ��� í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô�� ÿ�� ì �� BØ<Ü�à × à å�Û5à ã%Õá�Û �Pì � �Pì ��� � ì � � � ì �� Ý��Kì ����� ÿ â��ïP× × Ù�ÕÖ:× à å�ÛM× Ø>× Ø�FÙ�à Ü�× Ü �Pì ��� �Fì ÿ ����ß �Bì ������ß �Bì � � ��ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì

"#è

�MÕ:Ü#Õ(ÝFä Û:Õ:Ü�Õ:ÞF×BÕ× ã%Ø�Ü�Ý��NÛ:ÙnÛ �Pì ���� Ø�Ø<â!ÝNä Õ:Ö:Û�× Ø»Ûî�ÝFä Ø<Ù�Û �Pì ��� <ä Õ:Ö:ÛO× Ø��<Ù�Ø� +Ü�Û!� Ø�Ù"� �F× �FÙnÛOÝ��FÙnÖ#�BÕ:Ü�Û8Ü �Pì ���$��FÜ�à ÞFÛ8Ü�Ü�Û8Ü�Õ8ÙnÛ!� Ùnà Û8ÞBâFä %�Õ:ÞBâ�Õ8ÝFÝBÙ�Ø�Õ:Ö��FÕ��<ä Û �Pì � �& ô þ�' (�ù�õ�÷�) õ#÷ ô þ�ù*'�÷ ö�ü õ � � ì � í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô�� ÿ� ì ÿ �� Ø�Ø�âFÜ#Õ8ÞFâ!Ü�Û:Ù�å�à Ö@Û:Ü#Õ8Ù�Û!� Õ:à Ù�ä %5ÝBÙ�à Ö:Û:â �Pì � � �Pì ÿ � �#ì � ÿ �Pì � Ý��Kì ������ ÿ â���*�FØ<Ý�+<Û:Û:ÝFÛ:Ù�Ü�Õ:Ù�ÛOà Þ�� Ø<Ùnã%Õ:× à å�Û �Pì � ÿ �Oì ����ß �cì ����ß �cì ����ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì

"#è

� Ø�Ø<â!Ö#�NÜ�× Ø�ã%ÛÙ�Ü�Û:Ù�å�à Ö:Û �Pì � �ß�à å�Û:ÙnÜ�Û!��BÜ�à ÞFÛ8Ü�Ü�Û8Ü�Õ8ÞFâ�Ü�Û:Ùnå�à Ö8Û:Ü �Pì � �,.-�ù0/ ö�÷ ø%ü ý1Bþ�üú*-�'�÷ 2 �3�#ì �� í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô������Bì ����Mà á*��465��FÕ:ä à × %7�BÙ�Õ8ÞFâFÜPÕ:Ù�Û(Õ:å�Õ:à ä Õ#�Bä Û �Pì � � �Pì �� �#ì �� � ì ��� Ý��Kì ������ ÿ â�� <Ù�Ø�â��FÖ8× Ü�Õ:ÙnÛ8 5Û:ä ä 4,ã%Õ:âFÛOÕ:ÞFâ!ÙnÛ:ä à Õ#�Bä Û �Pì ��� �Fì �����ß �Bì ������ß �Bì ������ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì

"#è

í.Û8Ù�Ö��FÕ:ÞF× Ü9 5à ä ä�âBØMÜ�ÝFÛ8Ö:à Õ8ä�Ø�ÙnâFÛ:ÙnÜ �Pì � �& ù�ö õ#÷ ô õ�ù�õ9'Tô�ù�õ#ú;:"<*= ô@ô < �#ì � � í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô��>�����cì ���? ä Û:Õ:Þ!Õ:ÞFâ!ä à × × Û:Ù 4@� ÙnÛ:Û �Pì ��� �Pì ÿ � � ì ��� � ì � Ý��Kì ������ ÿ â��? Ø�ãA� Ø<Ùn× Õ#�Bä Û�Ü�× Ù�Û8Û:×FÜ�ÝFÕÖ:Û:Ü �Pì �B� �Fì � ��ß �Bì ���8��ß �cì ������ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì

"#è

CED�FEG�H I3J@J FEG�K.L�FEM@NPO�FEQAQ3FER�L�S3J@K M6FEGTFEHPRUI3S3G�M6V$ WTX*Y X"Z\[T] X*Y X*^\_0`\a�Y

b�c"d�e@fhg�i"jkfl�cnmEo@prq�fm#kfq�s3o@p9l!t�uvkc"s3fw�p9mEo@ft�c9l�xTk�p9yzq�c"mEo@t�pBl�t9i

Page 31: The Benefits of Urban Trees

{�|9| }�~n� �#���*�B�P� � �����0��9~n��������~U���B���8���P�*�>�B~����\���7� �>�\�9�B�0���0�U� �@�;���B��� �B�\������� ���@�� �\�@�

}�� ���B� �r�*�����>�9� ���@�� �0���E���9~n�B�B� �� � �~n~n���¢¡h���������0��B �����\�E�\��E�9���r��~���£��*�B� ���9�*�� �~n~�������¤T� �������B�E��� ��� �@�� �~n~�������~n¡h¡h���9�B� �� �E�B���B�  ��B�\�#�9�#���0�#����£���� �U�0��¥E¦��9�0��������� ��� �� ��@����B�����0����*~n����� �#�������¤T� ���>¡;�\�§"�0��� �� r� � ���0��\�@�B���¨0©7� �B�B�*�\���0�7��� ¥8{*ª"ª"«*¬�� �����9�\�B���9� �~n~n���¢�*� �0�����0�P�@���B� ����� � �;��~n������� �r����~n���U�\�6�¢~��7�0�������9�B� �* ¢£��*� �U�*�­ �U�*� � �@�������9�r�*~������ ­ �U�*���#� �*������� �*��¥® �������¯��~n¡r�B�0�� ��~n�����P�0�@¤T���*�¢�����*�B�0�� ~E�°¨0~n�B��� ¤;�0�±¢²A³U´�± �*�B�r�B~����#�\����~n�B�n�9~E���U�B~n�����0���@�#¬��B� ����� ~E���������  ��B� �#� �*������B� � ���0����B���0��¥"�!�0��B~n�B�9�����@�7����B~E�����*��}�¦��r� �0�#�7�#~��¢� ­ �7� £���� ����� �~n~n���¢� ���9�9��� �9�0���¢�B� ���@�� �\�6�P¤;� ���B~E�9�B�@����0��¥n���� �����B� � �#�\�����B���0��7�0�@¤;�����¢�@��������9�;�B~n� �6��*����~n�9�B� ��� ~����¯�0�����~n����� �B�0��0�.� �*�± �B���~�µ!� ¡h�0���*� �h«"¶"·¸��~E���*~n��£����9� ���"������¹"¶"·¸��~E�!���B~n�9�9� �� �����9�rº"«"·»��~E�!���9�*��� ��� �@�� �~�~n����¥ ± �B�E� ���� �.�B��� �� �¤;���  ������E��#�����B�B�0���A���*~E��0�¯���0�~E���°��� �����~n���U�\�@�� ����B�0��\�E���T�¢¡;~E�����~n�����0��£��0��� £��T{"{*¥ ª"«"·¼�B� � �#�0����B���P�.�0�@¤T�*���A�6�����¢���B�½�9~n� �@����

�*~n�9�B� ��� ~�����¥n¾#���0��� ����� ����� � �����  ��B� �#� ���*���U�9� � �#�0�����9���0���B��¡;~������6���0�E����;¿0��¡;���B� �@�z¡h�0�� �� �BÀ"�#�B�0����*����0�������@�¯�B~E�#������� ������\£������U�0�7�#~E��"�B�� �B�\�#���B� ���@�� �0�@�����B�>¡h�0��*�B�����6��¥

Respondent ComparisonsÁ � £B�������B�0�7�B~��B�����B~n� ������¡h�B� �0�.¤T�\��������0¤h��� ��~n¡Â� �9�B�0���3�*� �@��B�*�  ����7~E��9~n~n�����n�����U�9�0µ!�B���\�E���r¹9«"·Ã~E�"���0���B~n�B�B�����@�¢�B������9���U���n�B~E�B�����B~n� �h� �B�*~n¡h�0�A~��7��¾�Ä9«"¶"� ¶"¶"¶>~E�. �����0���0��¥n�B~E���@���~n�9���B�0��������U~E�9��0���B~n�9�B� �� T�B~��B�����9~n� ���A�9�����@¤;~°�B�0����~n������B�\���B�����.�������\�������E� �� h���U�*� �0� �B��~n¡;����� �6�7�0��� ~n����¥ ³ �B�*�3�B�\����~���9~E�9���*�B~n� ���.�E�*� � � �*�r�\�Uºnº"·h¥n���0 ��\��9� �� ����9~��B�9� �� �� �� ­ �7���B�\��#~��¢�B~n�� ���~n���0���A �~n~n���A���B�����0�3£�� �*�0���9¹"¶9·�����B~E�3�E���;~n�B�.��~�@¤;~7��� ¡;�\�¢�9�0�8¤;���*§9���E�B�r¹"«"·�� �B�9� �*�0�����>� �\�#��� � ��� ­ �U�����9�6��� ����¥±  ����B�0�����#�0£�~E�������~E�U�� ��\���B��~n�9� ����¤;� ���r¹n|"·�� �����B�*� ��¹"¶*�¢�*�9�«"¶*����*�B�>¹9|"·Â� �����9��� ��º"¶*��~E�!��~E�7�� ��0�#¥

Å�Æ3Ç�È�É0Ê@Ë ÌÍ É0Î Ê ÌEÈ*É3Ï�ÇÐÉ0È�É3Ñ Ò�Ó@Ë Ó Ô8Ì>Î Ê Ç3Ç3Ó�Õ ÖB× Ø#Ê É�Ù�Ú�Î Ê Ç3Ç�Õ ÖB×ÜÛ�Ë Ý�Ç3ÙrÞ#Ç3Ï#Ú�Õ ÖB×ß�à á!âPãnà ä ä à å�æ7ç èUç é6ê�ë3â\ä�ç èUé6â6ê#ì6í�î#ä ê�ì6â*ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ

! ð*ñóò*ò0ô Ú õEõ�öB÷rø>Ú ù*ù�ù*ö�ú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü Ó7ý ñ Ú þ*ÿ��\×� Ç3Ó6ÓUÎ ��É3È ò ù>û�Ë È���Î Ç0Ó õ�� ò � ò�òò ù>Î Ì ò�� ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó � þ�ù ÿ��*ù>Î Ì� � ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó ò ô ÿ òÿ*ù;ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó�ÌEÊ�ûUÌEÊ@Ç ÿ ò#ô �ÿØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ���� ò ùù ò ù ò� È ñ ò6ô È ñzò ��õ È ñ ò � ���à � ç ê#å#ì6â�ã"à ä ä à å�æ�ç è�ç é@ê�ë�â\ä@ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ

! ð�ñ �þ*Ú ô *öB÷rø°Ú ù�ù*ù*ö�ú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü Ó7ý ñ Ú ÿ �*ô ×� Ç3Ó6ÓUÎ ��É3È ò ûUË Ñ Ç ÿ ô ò ù ò Π̢õAûUË Ñ Ç3Ó þ� ÿ� ÿ�þõAÎ Ì ò ùAûUË Ñ Ç3Ó ò ÿ�ÿ ÿ��Û�ÌEÊ@Ç�Î ��É�È ò ùrûUË Ñ Ç3Ó ÿ ò�� �Ø�Ì*Î É�Ñ ò ù�ù ò ùù ò ù�ùÈ ñ ò6ô*ô È ñzò ��� È ñ ò � �ß�à á!â7ãnè���ä ��� î#â\å������#é6à å�æUë3à � à ç0ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ

! ð ñ ò ÿ*þ�Ú ò õ*ö�÷>ø°Ú ù�ù*ù*öBú9Ê É3û�Ç3Ê ü Ó7ý ñ Ú õ*ù ô ×��÷rΠ̯ÿ*ù°ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó � ò ò � ò ÿ*ù>Î Ì°õ � ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó �� ÿ�� ÿ �ò Î Ì����Ì���Ê@Ó ò�ò ÿ� ÿ�ûUÌEÊ@Ç�Î ��É3È����Ì���Ê Ó ò#ô ò#ôØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ò ù�ù ò ù ò� ò ù�ùÈ ñ ò6ô È ñzò ��� È ñ ò � ��*é6â�����â\å#ì �Aè�!!ë3à � à ç ��ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ

! ð ñ þ � Ú ��ÿEöB÷>ø°Ú ù*ù*ù�öBú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü ÓPý ñ Ú ÿ ò�ò ×".È�Æ3Ç�É!Ò�Ç�É3Ê.ÌEÊPÑ Ç3Ó6Ó �� �Å�Ç3Þ#Ç3Ê É3Ñ�Î Ë ûUÇ3ÓUÉ!Ò�Ç3É3ÊPΠ̯ûUÌEÈ�Î ��Ñ Ò þ�þ ÿ�õ þ òØ #�ÌAΠ̯Π��Ê Ç3Ç�Î Ë ûUÇ�Ó7÷*Ç3ÊPûUÌEÈ�Î � ò ÿ ÿ�ù �".È�Æ3Ç�É$#�Ç3Ç�%>ÌEÊ�ûUÌ�Ê Ç ò � ô ÿ òØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ���� ò ùù ò ù�ùÈ ñ ò �*ù È ñzò õ� È ñ ò ��&.à ä ä à å�æ7ç èUî#ê���ç è�î�ê#é('ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ

! ð ñ þ�ÿ*Ú � EöB÷>ø°Ú ù*ù*ù�öBú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü ÓPý ñ Ú ��\×) Ê6Ç#Ç þ�þ � �* ÷rÎ Ì�+*ù*Ú *õ>÷�Ç3Ê,��Ì-��Ê ÿ ò ò ò +*ù*Ú *õrÎ Ì.+�ù*Ú ô õr÷�Ç�Ê,��Ì���Ê ò-� � �Û�ÌEÊ@ǢΠ��É3È/+*ù*Ú ô õh÷�Ç0Ê0��Ì���Ê � ò ôØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ò ù�ù ò ùù ò ù ò� È ñ ò6ô � È ñzò ��ÿ È ñ ò � ô ú9ÌEÑ ��ûUÈ;Î ÌEÎ É3Ñ!÷�Ç3Ê@Æ3Ç0È�Î É3Ï�Ç�Ó�ûUÉ Ò21*Ç¢ûUÌEÊ Ç�Î ��É3È ò ù�ùrÙ3��ǢΠÌrÊ Ì���È�Ù�Ë È�Ï#Ú

4658769(:�;6<8=3>3:3?@58A-B CED%%%%% F 58G�A�CE?@5IH�:�5�?@5I9(J�D�B DE<

Page 32: The Benefits of Urban Trees

K�LEMN�O�P6QSR6T�UIO�VEWXQ�Y$O�QSZ [\P]U ^ PEQS_ LE`8a\M�b�c�d T\e L8f8fEM

g@_\h�_�T�QS[�i/jk_\^-i6OIl�hnm�_\QS_ol6_�h�Z pqR6_�l�^-Orp@_�R6_\QST\^-_oZ R3V�_\QS_�R6[�_\hT\YXO�P6^,l6Z s@_�Q�h�_@PEQ�Y,T�R�t6O�t3P]U T\^-Z OIR�h�u�^-i3PEh�v�T0t�QSO�YXT\YXZ U Z ^ erh�T�j�t6U _m/T�hoT\^(^-_�jkt3^-_�l6w�x�P6h�Z R6_�h�hol6Z h�^(QSZ [�^(hoiET\sqZ R3pk_\^-i6REZ [0tEOIt3PXU T\^-Z O�R[�OIR6[�_�R3^(QST\^-Z OIR3h a _�w pqw v-WXV Q3Z [�T�RrW�j�_ QSZ [�T�R6v-WXh�Z T�RrW�jk_\Q3Z [�T�R6v�O�Qy�Z h�tET�REZ [ b m�_\Q3_]Z l6_�R3^�Z V�Z _�l0V�O-Q�jkT�Z U Z R3pSh�w�z�OIRE_\^�i6_�U _\h�h�v�{ M8| O�V^�i6_}QS_\h�t6OIR6l6_�R3^(h]m�_\QS_}~�i6Z ^-_\���nT\P,[�T�h�Z T�R6wE�8O�m�QS_�t3Q3_\h�_�R�^�T\^-Z OIRO�V,tE_�OIt6U _0O�V,[�O�U O-QojkT\eoY,_0l3P]_@^-O]^-i6_0[�O�j�t6O�h�Z ^-Z OIR�O�V$j�T�Z U Z R3pU Z h�^(h�O�Qo_\^-i6R6Z [�Z ^(e@�\T\h�h�OI[�Z T�^�_�l�R6OIR3Q3_�h�t6OIR3h�_�YX_�i6T\s@Z O�Q-w

� ^-T�^�Z h�^-Z [�T�U8[�O�jktET�Q3Z h�O�R�h�O-V6Q3_�hSt8O�RElE_�R�^n[�iET\Q3T�[�^�_�Q3Z h�^�Z [\h,^�Ot6_�Q3[�_�t�^�Z O�REv�tET�^ Q�O�RET�p@_�v�T�REl�t�Q3Z [�Z R�prsqT�Q3Z T�YXU _�h$mk_�QS_n[�O�REl�P,[�^-_�lEwz�O,Q3_�U T�^-Z O�R�h�iEZ t�h}mk_�Q3_nZ lE_�R�^-Z V�Z _�l0Y}_�^(mk_�_�R.lE_�j�O-pSQ3T�tEi8Z [[�T�^�_�pqO-Q3Z _�h�T�REl�^�iE_0tE_�QS[�_�t�^�Z O�R�V�T�[�^�O-Q�h�v�h�PEpSpq_�h�^-Z R3po^-iET�^,tE_�O�tEU _O-V$lEZ sq_�Q�hS_nT pq_�v�p6_�RElE_�Q�v�hSiEO�tEtEZ R�p�Y}_�iET�sqZ O-Q�v�T�REl�Z RE[�O�j�_]Z R�V�_�Qh�Z jkZ U T�QrtE_�Q3[�_�t�^(PXT�U�^(Q3T�Z ^(hoT�Y$O-PE^,[�O�R�h�P,jk_�Q�tEU T�[�_�h�w

�]OIR3h�Z l6_�QSZ R3p�^-i6_qV�Z s@_0t6T�^(QSOIRET\pq_@sqT\QSZ T\YXU _\h�v�Z ^6m�T\h$V�O-P]R6l^�i6T\^EQS_\h�t6OIR6l6_�R�^(hXm�i6O]h�iEOIt�V QS_���PX_�R3^-U e�Z R6l6Z [�T\^�_�lkT0U O-m/_\Qt6T\^ Q3OIR6T\p@_�V QS_���P,_�R6[\e/Z R�V�O�QS_�h�^-_�l�Y8P6h�Z R6_\h�h�l6Z h�^(QSZ [\^ h a

!�$�LE� w ME�8� v�l3V � ` v�t���w fXK�b uIZ R3V Q3_���P]_�R3^Eh�i6OItEt6_\Q�h$V�T�s@O�QS_�ls@_\p@_\^-T\^-_�l�h�_\^(^-Z R�pSh�wE�6_�j�T�U _\hnQS_�t6O�Q�^-_�l/U O�m�_\Q,V QS_���P]_�RE[�Z _\h�O�Vh�iEO�Q�^-�\l3PEQST�^�Z O�R0sqZ h�Z ^(h�v-m�i6Z U _0jk_�R.[�U T�Z j�_�l�iEZ pqi6_�Q}V QS_���P,_�RE[�Z _�hO�V8h�iEO�Q�^EsqZ h�Z ^(h$mkZ ^-i6Z RrV�O�Q3_\h�^-_�l0h�iEO�tEt6Z R3p�h�_\^(^-Z R3p�h a

!� �K�� w K�L8� v�l3V � M v�t.��w f8fXK�b w���P6Q3Z R�pkt�Q3_\^-_�h�^-Z R3pqv�jk_�R.[�U T�Z jk_�l0^-Ol6O�jkO�QS_@V�OI[\P6h�_�lrh�iEOIt6t6Z R3p�T�R6l�U _�h�hXY8QSO�moh�Z R3pqu�^�iE_�Y$_�i6T\sqZ O�Qj�T\eop@_�R6_\QST�U Z �8_q^�O�T�U U�h�i6OItEt6Z R3p�_\�@t6_�QSZ _�R6[�_\h�w

� V$tIT Q�^�Z [(PXU T(Q0Z R�^�_ Q�_ h�^8m�_ Q�_qQ�_(h3tIO�RIl8_-R�^X[�iIT(Q�T-[ ^�_(Q�Z h�^�Z [(h�T�RIlt�Q�Z [-Z R�p]Q�_(h3tIO�R�h�_-w��0O�Q�_(h3tIO�RIlI_-R�^ h�v3Z RoT$i�eEt8O�^�iI_(^�Z [-T�U\h3Z ^ P$T(^�Z O�RIv^�T���_,Z R�^�OoT�[-[-O�P$R�^I^�iI_-Z Q0T(Y}Z U Z ^ e0^�O�tIT e��r��T(h�^IQ�_(h3_�T(Q�[-i]h�P8p�pE_(h�^ h�^�iIT ^Z VqZ RIlIZ [-T(^�_-lX~��]�rT-j�O�P$R�^ h]T(Q�_$RIO�j.Z R8T-U v�Y�PXl�pE_(^@[�O�R�h�^ Q�T�Z R�^�Y�Z T(hnZ hj�Z RIZ j.T-U�T-RIl�Z h]j�O�Q�_$_(sEZ lI_-R�^�m�iI_-R�j�T ��O�Q,T-RIl�[-O�h�^�U e�t�Q�O�p�Q�T-jrh]O�Qt�Q�O�l�P$[(^ h]T Q�_�s6T-U P}_-l a d Z ^�[-iI_-U U�T-R8lo�XT(Q�h3O�R K�` { `-b w3� RX^�i8Z h6h\^ P$l�e-vj�_-T�R�t�Q�Z [�_(h}V�O�Qnt�Q�O�l�P$[ ^$[�T(^�_(p6O�Q�Z _(h�h�_�_-j�_-lnm�Z ^�iIZ RnQ�_�T(h3OSR8T(Y}U _Q�T-R�pE_ h3w � R8U e�[-O�R-s6_-R8Z _�RI[�_8p6O�O�l�h0lIZ h�tIU T eE_�l,h3Z pER8Z V�Z [-T�R�^}l�Z V V�_ Q�_�RI[-_ hZ R�j._�T-R�hqY}_ ^ m�_-_�R�iIO�PIh3_-i8O�U l�Z RI[-O�j�_X[-T(^�_ pEO�Q�Z _(h a O�RI_-� m.T eWrz �X� W�� � L w ����� v�l�V � � v K�L�� v�to��w f���b w � tI_-[-Z T-U ^ e]p8O�O�l�h,t�Q�Z [-Z R�pEvj�O�h�^@U Z ��_-U e]^�O�Y}_}Z R�V�U P$_�RI[-_�lXY�e�Z RI[-OSj�_-v�sET(Q�Z _�l�l�P$_I^�OrR�P}j0Y}_(Q,O�VtI_(Q�h3O�R�h]Z R�iIO�PIh3_�iIO�U l a Wrz �$� W�� � M w {�{���v�l�V � L v K�L}K v]t���w f��-b vt6_�Q3iET�t�h�T�pqT�Z R�Q�_�V�U _�[�^-Z R�p�Z RE[�O�jk_r[�O-Q�Q3_\hStEO�RElE_�RE[�_�w

�EZ R6T�U U e�v�[�OIjktET\QSZ R�pk[�P]U ^(PEQST�U-p�Q�O�P,t3h�v�yoZ h�t6T�REZ [@Q�_\h�tEOIREl6_�R�^(hQ3_�tEO-Q�^�_�l�^-i6_rU O�m�_\h�^6s@T�U P]T�^�Z OIR�V�O�Q$h�t6_�[�Z T�U ^ eop@OIOIl3h a W�z �]� W� � M w M8LXK v�l�V � M v K8K �Iv�t.��w f8��b v�T�R.Z RE[�OIR8[�U P6h�Z s@_qQ3_\h�P,U ^,O-m�Z R�p^-O,^-iE_0U Z j�Z ^-_�l.[\P,U ^(PEQST�U�lEZ sq_\Q�h�Z ^(ekO�V8Q3_\h�t6O�REl6_�R3^(h�w

DISCUSSION��P6Y$U Z [�T\^(^-Z ^(P]l6_\h�T\YXO�P6^]T�R3e�RET\^ PEQST�U�QS_\h�O�PEQS[�_�Z h�h�P]_rO�QX^-OIt6Z [[�T�Roh�t6T�R�T}h�t6_�[\^(Q�P]j V Q�OIj¡OIt6t6OIRE_�R3^(h]^-O.T�l3s@OI[�T\^-_\h�w�¢�_\^@^-i6_Y8P6hSZ RE_\h�hXh�_�[\^-O�Q�O�VXT�R3ek[�OIjkjoP]R6Z ^(e�j�T\eoQ3_�U e�OIR�T0R6T\Q�Q3O�mQST�R3pq_oO�VnZ R3^-_\QS_\h�^ h�T�R6l�t6_\Q3[�_�t3^-Z OIR�h�T\h�ToiE_\P6Q3Z h�^-Z [$YXT\h�_$V�O�Qt�P6Y$U Z [0lEZ T�U O�pkOIR0^(QS_�_�h�Z R�[�Z ^-Z _�h�wIx�P6h�Z RE_\h�h�t6_�OItEU _\h�£�T\^(^-Z ^(P]lE_\hjkT\^(^-_\Q�v�V�O�Q}^-i6_0_�R3^ Q3_�t3Q�_�R6_\P6Q3Z T�UI[�OIjkjoP]R6Z ^(e�[�T�RrYX_0t6OIU Z ^�Z [�T�U U eT�[\^-Z sq_nT�REl�Z R3V�U P]_�RE[�_n[�Z ^(e�m�Z l6_nt3Q3O�p�Q3T�j�h�w

� OIj�_qYEPEh�Z R6_�h�ho[�O�jkjoP]REZ ^-Z _\h$m�_�U [�OIjk_@^(QS_�_\hoT\h�T[�OIR�h�P,j�_�Q-�\O�Q3Z _�R�^-_�l�T�j�_�REZ ^(e�w-¢�_�^,Z R.j�T�R3e�Z R�h�^-T�RE[�_�h�v-h�jkT�U UY8P6hSZ RE_\h�h�O�m�R6_\Q�h�T�REl�jkT�R6T\p@_\Q�h�O�s@_\Q3U OIOI�0^�iE_o[�OIR3^(QSZ Y8P6^-Z O�R3hO�V6^ Q�_�_\h]^�O0QS_\^-T�Z U3h�P][�[�_�h�h�w��ri6_\e�V�OI[\P6h�OIRo^-iE_oT�R6R6O-e@T�R6[�_\h�O�V^(Q3_�_�h�¤¥Q3_�l3P][�_�l0h�Z pqR6T\p6_@sqZ h�Z YXZ U Z ^(e�v-h�_�T�h�O�R6T�UIlE_\Y8QSZ h�v�T�RElh�_�[\P8QSZ ^ e�Z h�h�P,_\h�wIx3PEh�Z R6_�h�hot6_�OItEU _0[�T�RrY,_@Y$Z T\h�_�lrY8eo^�iE_h�Z ^ P,T�^�Z OIRkO-V,TrtET\Q�^-Z [\P,U T�Q}^ Q3_�_rO�Q}^ m�O�Z RrV QSO�R3^]O�VXT�h�i6OIt6v�V�T�Z U Z R�p^-OnQ3_�[�O�p@REZ �E_�^-i6_rl6Z h�^(QSZ [�^ m�Z l6_}YX_�R6_\V�Z ^(h,^-i6T�^n[�T�RoYX_rT\^ ^-T�Z R6_�l�Y8elE_\sq_�U OIt6Z R3pkT0��P,T�U Z ^(eoPEQ�Y,T�R0V�O�QS_\h�^-w

�ni6Z h$h�^(P]l�e�Z hoT@V�Z Q�h�^8h�^-_�t.Z R.l6O�[\P,j�_�R�^�Z R3p�Y,_�R6_�V�Z ^(hoT\h�h�O�[�Z �T�^�_�l0m/Z ^-i�i6T�s@Z R3po^(QS_�_\h�Z RrQS_\^-T�Z U-h�^(QS_�_\^(h�[�T�tE_�h�w�¦qj�t6Z QSZ [�T�UQS_�h�_�T\Q3[�i�[�T�R�YX_XP6h�_�l�^-OrYX_\^ ^-_\Q,P]R6l6_\Q�h�^-T�REl/i6O�m§[�OIR3h�P]j�_\Q�hT�RElr^�iE_�P6Q�YXT�R�V�O�QS_\h�^]Z R3^-_\QST�[�^�vIt3QSO�s@Z l6Z R3p�Z R3V�O�QSjkT\^�Z OIRkOIRYXO�^�io^-i6_rt3P6YXU Z [�s@T�U P]_0O�VE^ Q3_�_\h�T�R6lkj�T�R6T\pq_�j�_�R�^nt3QST�[\^-Z [�_\h,^-OO�t�^�Z jkZ �E_qQ3_�^(P6Q3R�hoO�R.t3P8YXU Z [0Z R3sq_�h�^-jk_�R�^-w��0iEZ h}h�^(P,l3e�PEh�_�ljoPXU ^-Z t6U _�T�t6t3QSOIT�[�iE_\h�O-V6QS_�h�O�PEQS[�_}s@T�U P]_�T\h�h�_\h�h�j�_�R3^q^�OP,R6lE_�Q�h�^-T�REl�t3PEY,U Z [@Q�_�h�tEOIR�h�_q^-O]^(Q3_�_\hoZ R�Z R8R6_\Q-�\[�Z ^-Z _\h�w��nOIR�h�P]jk�_�Q�h$sqT�U P,_@^(QS_�_\h�v�T�R6l.l6O,h�O�T�[\Q3O�h�hojoP]U ^-Z t6U _]l6Z j�_�R3h�Z OIR3h�w

Streetscape Perceptions and Inferencesx�PEh3Z RE_�h�h�lEZ h�^ Q3Z [�^(hoiET�sqZ R�po^ Q3_�_�hXmk_�Q3_0[�iET�Q3T�[�^-_�Q3Z �8_�l�T�h$YX_�Z R�pi8Z p6i8_ Q0Z RnsqZ h�P,T�U���PXT�U Z ^ e.T�R8l�[�O�j�V�O�Q�^�v�T�hrt�Q�O-sqZ l8Z R�p�j�O-Q3_t8O-h3Z ^-Z s6_]Z R�^�_�Q3T�[�^�Z O�RnmkZ ^�i�jk_�Q�[�iET�R�^(hSv�T�hriET(sqZ R�p�i8Z p6iE_�Q�����P,T�U Z ^ et�Q3O�l�P,[�^(hSv�T�REl0pq_�RE_�Q3T�U U e�T�tEtE_�T�Q�Z R3p�^-O,YX_qY}_\^ ^-_�QrjkT�Z R�^-T�Z RE_�l

T�R8l��8_�t�^IP,t8w � P,[�i_�s6T�U P,T�^-Z O�R�h�T�QS_Q3_�Z R�V�O-Q3[�_�l�Y8e�Q3_�hStEO�RE�l8_�R�^ h�£-[�U T�Z j�h�^-i8T�^8^�iE_ em.O�PXU l]Y}_EmkZ U U Z R�pn^�O^ Q3T sq_�USV�T�Q�^�iE_�Q�T�RElU O�R�pq_ Q�v�sqZ hSZ ^$j�O-Q�_O-V ^�_�R/T�REloV�O-Q�U O�R�pq_�Qt8_ Q3Z O�l�h�O-V�^�Z jk_�v�T�REltET e�jkO-Q3_�V�O-Q�t6T�Q3�IZ R�pm.iE_�Rns6Z hSZ ^�Z R�p0Q3_ ^�T�Z UtEU T�[�_�h]^�iET\^niET�sq_}^(Q3_�_�hSw

�0iE_nlEZ hS[�Z t6U Z RE_nO-Vh�O�[�Z T�UIt�h�eq[�i6OIU O�pSeO-V V�_\Q�h�Z R3h�Z p@i3^(hnV�O�QP,REl6_�Q�h�^-T�R6lEZ R�po^-i6_

¨�©�ª�«�¬�­�® ¯° «�±�ª�²]¬�«�±�® ³ ª�´�µ ¶n¯o³ ­�ª�ª-µ ·�­�¬�±}¸�³ ­ ª-ª�µ ¹�® ²�ª-±.º�ª�»E¸ ¼E¶,½n¾�¼¿@À Á6Â�à Á3Ä�à ÁEÅ�ÃoÆ$À�À�Ç�È ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ÉrÊ0Ë�Ìq¸ Ì@Í° ©�ª}©�­ ª�¬�´Î©�¯3«�ª�Ï�±�® «�«�ª�­�Ï�Ð Ñ ¯3Ò]ª�­8Ó�¯3Ô�Õ�Ô�ª�³�Ï Öq¸ Ì3Ö Í�×6¸ Ë3Ë Í�×6¸ Ø3Ö ÙrÚ.¸ Û�ÛSÛqÏ�Ü0±�ÐÑ Ô�«�©�Ý�µ\¬�«�±�Ò,® ©�Ý�Ï\¬�Ù�Ù�¯3® «�³ ´�ª�«�³�Ó�¯3¯3Þ Ü�¸ Ø�Ë�¨�ß à@¸ Ü�Û�¨�ß à@¸ Û�Ûr¨3ß á ÜEÏ(×,«�¯$µ ® »�¸

" â�ãä\å8À(æ�æ�Ä Á3çèÆ$À�À-Ç�È ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ÉrÊ0×@ÍS¸ Í�ͨ3Ù�¯S­ ³ µ6µ�Ý�¯3ª-µ�Ï�Ò,¬�³ ©�Ý}Ï�Ñ ® »�Ý�³�é\¬�©-Þ�ª�³�Ï ×S×6¸ à3Ü Ë3ê6¸ ËS× Ë3Ø6¸ ×3ê ÙrÚ.¸ Û�ÛSÛqÏ�Ü0±�Ð

Ù�¯S³ µ6¬-«�±�Ù�¬�«�µ�Ï�»�¬�Ñ Ñ ¯3«o¯3Ð�Ù�¬�® «�³ Í�Í�¸ Ë�Ìr¨�ß Í�ê@¸ Ø�Ür¨�ß Í�Ö@¸ à�Ër¨�ß á ÜqÏ�×r«�¯nµ\® »8¸" â�ã

ä\æ8Ã�Å Ä\ë�ì�í îkÆ$À�À-Ç�È ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ÉrÊ0Ü�×q¸ ê�ËïX® Ð ³SÐ ¯3­8µ�Ù�¯3Ô�µ\ª�ð Ù�¬�­ ³ «�ª�­�Ï\«�ª�Ò�»�Ñ ¬�µ\µ�ª�µ�Ï àqÍ3¸ Ö3Ö ê3Ì6¸ ØSÌ Ø3×6¸ Ü3Ë ÙrÚ.¸ Û�ÛSÛqÏ�Ü0±�Ь-­�³�Ù�­�® «�³�Ï�´�¯S³ ª�Ñ�­�¯S¯S´ Í�Ö@¸ ×�Ûr¨�ß ×�Û@¸ Ë@Í}¨�ß ×�Û@¸ Ø�Ìr¨�ß á ÜqÏ�×r«�¯0µ\® »8¸

" â�ãñ�ò3ó�ô�õ ö�÷(÷ ó�ô�ø$ù3ó�ú(ûXü3ó�ý�ý�ó�þnù�ÿ�÷(ø ú ó�ô/ó�õXþ]ö�ÿ�ô�ú��$ � ��� ����� ��� ��� �����

��������������� �"!$#&%�')(+*��-,�'.,�/�01��2435')�5/��$�-,�!$36�

Page 33: The Benefits of Urban Trees

758$9 :<;>= ?"@BA�C6DE= F GIH�J�K)L$;>M5K.J�NO;PNOQ6JSR TUDEV�MXW6;OT5JK�NYF MXZM$M6J�TO[�\PF N�]�^�C6K.F M6JK�K`_aF K�N�T)F GN�K

G�;-b�M6F N-F c�J`L5T);>G�JK"K.J�Kd;O?IL$= V�G�J�[ DEV�K.J�e�G�;>M5K�CPf�J�TYT)J�K.L6;BM5K.J�gh ;BG�F V�=BL�K"]�G�Q$;>= ;Ob)]�F K`e6J�?�F M6J�eID$]i^5T5J�Q6fjJ�NYV�= gBk�7�l$l�l�mSV�K`n NOQ$JK.G�F J�M5NOF ?�F G�K�N�CYe5]o;-?+Q$;-pqF M6e$F c�F e�CYV�= K NOQ$F M$r�sO?"J�J�= sBV�M$eID+J�Q$V�c�JSF MT)J�b�V�T5etNO;4;ONOQ6J�TIL6J�;>L$= JSV�M$eoQ$;-pqF M$e$F c�F e5CYV�= K.uNOQ6;OC6b�Q5N K.s?"J�J�= F M5b.K.s�V�M6e`DEJ�Q6V�c�F ;-TUK4V�T5J`V? ?"J�G�NOJ�e`D$]v;ON-Q6J�TwL$J�;>L6= J�g x

h ;>G�F V�=>L6JT)G�J�F c�J�TUKwV�K�K.J�f`DE= J�c�V�T5F ;-C6KEDEF N�Kw;O?YF M5?";-T)fiVN-F ;>MV�M6e$s>fiJ�e6F VN-J�etD>]�L$J�T)G�J�F c�J�Tte6F K.L6;-K)F NOF ;>M5K.sO?";OT)fqF fiL5T)J�K�KyF ;BM5K;-?Y;-NOQ6J�TUK.g>z�J�]�J�M5K`V�M6eoW6F K.r�Jtk�7�l$l�9�sBL6g>9${�mtM6;-NOJ�N-Q$V�NYnUL6J�;>L$= JG�;BM5NOF M�CP;OC$K.= ]aD�CYF = eXF fiL5T5J�K�K.F ;>MINOQ�J�;OT)F JK`V�M6eIC6K)J�NOQ$J�fjF MN-Q6J�F TwG�;>fif�J�T)G�J p�F NOQ�;-NOQ6J�TwL6J�;>L$= J�g xE|PD$K.J�TUc�J�e`N�T)V�F N�K1V�T)J NOQ6JF M6e6F T5J�G�NPG�CPJ�KEC6K)J�etN-;4F M5NOJ�T)L5T�J�N6?"J�J�= F M�b.Kys>L6JTUKy;BM6V�= F N�]�s>G�Q$V�T)V�G�[N-JTOs>V�M$eo= F r�J�= ]`D+J�Q$V�c�F ;-T}K.g>_aF c�J�TUK.JSF M5?";OT)f�VN-F ;>MXV�DE;-C6NEVL6J�TUK.;>MiF KwF M5NOJ�b.T5V�NOJ�eaNO;S?";-T)f~VtG�;BQ$J�T)J�M5NPF f�L5T)J�K�K.F ;>MoV�M6eb.CPF e6JIe6J�G�F K.F ;>M5KaV�DE;-C6NYQ6;-p<NO;4F M5NOJT)V�GN6p�F N-QoVIL$J�TUK.;>MXk :�]�J�TV�M6eXz$V�f`DEJ�T}N47�l>l�9�m�g>\P;>M5K.J���CYJ�M�NYF M�?";-T5f�V�NOF ;>MXV�M6eXJ���L6JT)F [J�M6G�J&p�F = =-DEJ&C6K)J�etD$]`N-Q$Jt;-D�KyJTUc�J�T NO;4G�;>M5?"F T)f~;OT`f�;>e$F ? ]`N-Q6JF fiL5T)J�K�K.F ;BM6g>H�V�L6F eoG�;-b�M6F N-F c�JIVK"K.J�KUK.f�J�M�NP;-?E;ON-Q$J�TUK`L5T5;-c�F e6JKwVDYV�K.F KS?�;-T1F M5?"J�T)J�M$G�J`V�M6e�J�c�V�= CPV�NOF ;BM�;-?SM$J�p�V�G���CPV�F M5N-V�M$G�J�K.g

^�CPF = N$K.J�N�NOF M�b)K`V�L6L$V�T)J�M5NO= ]iJ�c�;Br�J�K.F fiF = V�TaJc�V�= CPVNOF c�JT)J�KyL$;>M5K.J�Kyg6H&JKyL$;BM6e6J�M5N�K.uy;BL6J�M6[�J�M$e6J�ewKyG�J�M6V�T)F ;ie6JKyG�T5F L5NO;-TUKb�;PDYJ�]�;BM6eoL6Q5])K.F G�V�=-N�T)V�F N�K`V�M6eoF M6G�= CPe6JIF M�?"J�T)J�M6G�JKwV�DE;OC6NKy;BG�F V�=>V�M6eoL5K�]�G-Q6;>= ;-b�F G�V�=>F M5NOJ�T5V�G�NOF ;>M5K.g h ;BG�F V�=BL5K�]�G�Q6;y= ;Ob�F G�V�=G�;>M6G�J�L5N�K4;-?Pn K.;BG�F V�=$V�N�N�T)F D�C6N-F ;>M6xEV�M$e�nUF fiL5T)J�K�KyF ;>M`?";-T5f�VN-F ;>M6xT)J�V�e6F = ]1N�T)V�M5K.= V�NOJ NO;oG�;>M5K�CPf�J�TU�"J�M�c�F T5;>M6f�J�M5NSF M5NOJ�T)V�GN-F ;>M5K.g

Public Goods and Local Economics� V�M5]1DEJ�M6J�?"F N�K1;-?PM6V�N�C6T)V�=$V�M$e�J�M�c�F T);BM6f�J�M5NOV�=�T)JKy;-C$T5G�J�K4G�V�M$[M6;-N�DYJ&c�V�= CPJ�e�F M`NOQ6Jtf�V�T)r�J�NOL6= V�G�J&DEJ�G�V�C6K.Ja;O?PF M6G�;>f�L$= J�NOJa;-TM6;>M$J��&F K�NOJ�M5NYfiVT5r�J�N�K.gB\P;>M5NOF M�b�J�M5N�c�V�= CYV�NOF ;BMtp�VK+C6K.J�edF MtNOQ$F KK"N�CPe5]`N-;4J�K�N-F f�VNOJtF M6e6F T)J�G�N6c�V�= CYJ�Kw;O?YL5C$DY= F G&b�;>;Be5KEb�J�M6J�T)VN-J�eD$]wN�T)J�JK1F MaT)JN-V�F =-K.J�N�NOF M5b.K.s�c�V�= CYJ�KENOQ6V�NPfiV�]�;-? ? K.J�NPe6F T)J�G�NPG�;-K�N�Kk�J�g b�g sBF M5KUNOV�= = VNOF ;BMXV�M$eXfiV�F M�NOJ�M$V�M$G�J�mIe$F KUN�T5F GN�p�F e$J�g

� Q6J�;-T5JNOF G�V�= = ]�sOb�F c�J�Mt?�F � J�eoQ$;-C$K.J�Q6;B= eoF M6G�;>fiJ�sBJ��&L�T5JK�KyF ;BM5K;-?�: � AaT)J�L5T)J�K.J�M5N�?";-TUb�;>M6JaJ��&L6J�M6e�F N�C6T)J�K4;BM�;-NOQ6J�TEb�;B;>e�K4V�M6eKyJ�TUc�F G�JKdF M�J�� L�J�G�NOV�N-F ;>M�;-?�K.V�NOF K�?"V�GNOF ;>M�V�G�Q6F J�c�J�ew? T);Bf�VL5C$DE= F G�b�;B;>e$g � Q�JSV�e$e6F NOF ;>M$V�= 7�8���;OTafi;OT)JSJ��&L�T5J�K�K.J�eS: � A?";-TSb�;>;>e5KXV�K�Ky;BG�F V�NOJ�e4p�F N-Q�VYc�Jb�J�NOVN-J�e4K�N�T)J�J�N�KyG�V�L6JYT)J�L5T)JKyJ�M�N�KV�MoJ�� L$J�T)F J�M5NOF V�=OK.V�N-F K�?"V�G�NOF ;>MtC6NOF = F N�]aNOQ6V�NYF K`G�Q6;-K.J�Mo;-c�JT N-Q6VNV�c�V�F = V�DE= J+? T);>f~;-NOQ6J�T1L�C6T)G�Q6V�K.J�K.g

\P;OKUN��BD+J�M$J�?�F NYV�M$V�= ])K.F K`L�T5J�fiF K)J�eX;BMoG�;BM�K�CYfiJTtJ�&L�T�JKUK.J�ec�V�= CYJK+K)Q$;OCY= eID JSV�? C$N�C$T5J�T5JK)J�VT5G�QS?�;BG�C$K)gy\P;>M�N"F M�b�J�M�N>c�V�= CYV�[NOF ;BMIKUN�CYe$F JKa;O?�poF = e6= V�M$eX;OTa;BL$J�MIK.L�V�G�JSM$VN�C$T5V�=OT5JK);-C$T�G�JKN�]�L$F G�V�= = ]iVb)b)T5Jb6VNOJ6: � ASKUNOVN"J�fiJ�M�N KaV�GT5;-KUKaV�K.J�= J�GNOJ�edL$;BL�CY= V�[NOF ;BM$s"T5J�b�F ;BM$sB;OTIQ$;OC$K.J�Q$;B= e�K NO;1VK�K)J�K�K`M$;BM$fiVT5r>JN$DEJ�M$J�?�F Nc�V�= CYJKtk�^�VN"J�fiV�M1JNEV-= g�7-l�l>�>� � ])TUc6�-F M$J�MdV�M�eS�`����M���M$J�M�7-l>l��-m�g\P;BfiL$VT5F M�boe$F T5J-GNEG�;OKUN�Ka;O? F M�K�N"V�= = VN"F ;BMdV�M$eXfiV�M�Vb�J�fiJ-M�NE;O? VK�N�T5J�JN K.G�V�L$J�N";PN"Q�J�K�CYfifiJ�eoF M$e$F T5J�G�N$DEJ�M$J?�F N�K+c�V�= CYVN"F ;BMIT5Jc�J�V�= KM6JNEL�C$D+= F G�b�;B;Be�K c�V�= CYJKaV�M$eXG�V�MXF M�?�;OT5fje$J�G�F K)F ;BM�KaVD+;"C$NV�= = ;BG�VN"F M�b1C$T}DEV-M`?�;OT5JK�N�T5JK.;OC$T5G�JK4k�A�T5VNO;�7-l�l>��m�g

h J�c�J�T)V�=-T5J�K�CY= N�KwQ$V�c�JIF fiL6;-T}N-V�M5NEF fiL6= F G�V�NOF ;>M�KE?�;-T D>CPe5b�J�NOF M5bC6TUDYV�M`?";OT)J�K�NSL5T-;-b.T)V�faKyg�W$;-TwF M5K�N-V�M$G�J�s�M6;SK.F b�M6F ?�F G�V�M�NPe6F ? ?"J�T-[J�M6G�J�KYp�J�T5J&?";-CYM6eaDEJ�N�p�J�J�MaNOQ6J&T)V�N"F M5b)KY?";-T+N-Q$JP���"�.�)� � � ���y�.������O�"�+V�M$e4�i� �)�O�X�O�O�-�"� �)� � ���de$F K�N�T)F GN�KtV�G�T�;-K�K`V�= =BL$J�T�G�J�L�N CPV�=G�V�NOJ�b�;-T)F J�K`V�M6eXL�T)F G�JIF M6e$F G�J�K.g � Q$F K ?�F M$e6F M5b`K�C$b.b�JK�N�K+NOQ$VN

G�;>M�K�CPfiJ�T DEJ�Q6V�c�F ;OTaF K`fi;-K�NPe$F T5J�G�NO= ]�F M5?"= CYJ�M$G�J�etD�]`NOQ6Je6F G�Q$;ON-;>fa]�;-?IL5T)JKyJ�M$G�Jw;-TdVD$K.J�M6G�Jw;-?�N�T)J�J�K.s�F TUT)J�K.L6J�G�NOF c�Jw;-?NOQ6JSe6J�K.F b�Mie$J�N-V�F = F M�b�V�M�eiV�G�G�J�K�Ky;-T}]�L6= V�M5NOF M5b�g>W5C$N�C6T)J�T)J�K.J�V�T5G�QF K`M�J�J�e6J�etNO;1e6JNOJ�T5f�F M$JSF ?>NOQ6F K+?"F M$e6F M�b�F K`G-;>M�K.F K�NOJ�M�N$p�F NOQV�GN�CYV�=�DYJ�Q6V�c�F ;-Tw;OTwF K1V�MiV�TUNOF ?"V�G�NS;-?$NOQ6J&K"C�TUc�J�]�F M5K�N�TUCPf�J�M�N-g

CONCLUSIONS\Y;yM-KUCEfoJTIL�C�T5G-Q�V�K)F M�bIT5J-L�T�JK5J�M�N KaV�D+;"C$N>N po;y[ N"Q�F T�e�Ka;"?BN"Q�JJ-G-;yM�;yfoF GYV-G�N"F c�F N ]X;"?yN"Q>JYRIM�F N"J-e h N"V�N"J�K)g)Z�M$e>J-L�J�M�e�J-M�N+foJ�T�G�Q�V-M�N KF M4F M>M�J�T"[G-F N ]XM�J-F b6Q�D ;"T�Q>;B;yeYD>C�K)F M�J�KUKIe�F K}N T�F G�N K5s);yM�G�JEr>J�]IT�J�N�V�F =L�= V�]$J�T}K5s.M�;"p ?UV-G�JYG-;yfoL�J�N�F N"F c6JYL�T�JK}KUC�T5J$? T�;.f¡T5J�b6F ;yM�V�=)foV-= = K)sn D+F bSD+;"��x)T�JN�V�F = J�T}K5s.V-M�e1J-[ N"V-F = JT�K)g)¢`;Op£e�;yJK�N"Q�JY= ;yG-V-=.foJ�T5G-Q�V-M�NL�T�J�K5J�T}c6JS;OT&T�JK}N";"T�JIQ�F Ka;"TaQ�J�T K5= F G-JS;O?>N"Q�JIJOG-;yM$;yfoF GSL�F J�¤

h N�CPe5]`T5J�K�CP= N�K+K�C6b.b�JK�N6NOQ6V�NYQ6F b�Q$J�TaL5T)F G�J�c�V�= CPV�NOF ;>M5K`V�T)Jf�J�e$F VN-J�e`D$]vL5K�]�G�Q6;>= ;Ob�F G�V�=$F M�?"J�T)J�M6G�JKd;O?Pe6F K"N�T)F G�NIG�Q6V�T)V�G�N-J�TV�M6eXL5T�;>e�CPG�NY��CPV�= F N�]�g � Q�C6K.s>GT5J�VN-F M�b�V�M6etKUNOJ�p�V�T�e$F M�b�V�MtC$TUDEV�M?";OT)JK"NSG�V�M6;>L5]vf�V�]vJ�M6Q$V�M$G�J+T)Jc�J�M5CPJ�KP?�;-TED�C6K.F M6JK"K.J�K4F MwT5J�N-V-F =e6F K�N�T5F G�N�KPNOQ6V�NI;-? ?"JT1e6F c�J�TUK.JaL5T);>e5CPGN�K4V�N�c�VT)F J�e�L5T5F G�JKyg\S;BM�K"CYf�J�T1L5C6T5G�Q6V�K.J�K1L5T);-c�F e6J`G�;>fiL6J�M5K.VNO;-TU]4T)J�N�C6T)M5KP?";-Te$F K�N T)F G�N�p�F e6JIG�;OK"N�K`;-?�N�T5J�JIL6= V�M5NOF M5b�V�M6eofiV�F M�N-J�M6V�M$G�J�sBV�K+p�J�= =VKET5Jc�J�M5CYJIJ�M6Q6V�M6G�J�fiJ�M5N$?";-TaF M6e6F c�F e5CYV�=-D>C6K.F M6J�K�K.J�K.g

:jQ6F = JSf�V�M�]�G�;BM6e6F N"F ;>M5K`G�;BM5N�T)F D�C6NOJ�NO;1L6JT)G�J�L�NOF ;BM5K+D�]G�;BM�K�CPf�J�TUK`;-?EV�N�N�T)V�G�N-F c�J�sBe6J�K.F T)V�DE= J�K.Q6;>L6L�F M5b`K.J�N�NOF M5b)KysON-Q$F KK�N�CPe�]1K�C6b.b�JK"N�KYN-Q$V�N�N-Q$J&C6TUDEV�M`?";-T)JK"N�K.Q6;-CY= e`DEJaVtG�J�M5N�T)V�=J�= J�foJ�M5NY;-?�T)JN-V�F =BL6= V�G�J-g � V�M�]�f�V�T)r�J�NOF M5baK�N�CPe6F J�K`Q6V�c�J?";BG�C$K.J�ei;>MaN-Q6JtnUfiF G�T5;Bx+= J�c�J�=�;-?YL5T);>e�CPG�NPL6V�G�r$Vb�F M5b�V�M6eL$= V�G�J�f�J�M5NOsB;-TtF M6e6;B;-T&T5J�NOV�F =BG�;>M�?"F b.C$T)VNOF ;>M$g � Q6F K+K�N�CPe�]G�;BM�N�T5F D�C6NOJ�K4F M�?";-T)f�V�NOF ;BM�VDY;-C$N�N-Q6JanUf�V�GT5;>xY= J�c�J�=�;-?SG�;BM6[K�CPfiJTaL6J�T)G�J�L�N-F ;>M6�ONOQ6VNPF K.s-NOQ6JIL6;OKyF NOF c�JIF M�?�= CPJ�M6G�J�K`;-?�NOQ6J;-C$NOe6;B;-TwJ�M5c�F T5;BM6f�J�M5NP;BM�G�;BM5K"CYf�J�T`G�Q6;>F G�JtV�M6eaDYJ�Q$V�c�F ;-TOg

LITERATURE CITED¥ fiJ�T5F G�V�MXW6;OT5J�K�N�K.g 7�l�l>l�gB\SF N�]�¦&T5J�J�M6@B\SV�= G�CP= VNOF M�b`NOQ6J��YV�= CPJ;-?Y§1V�N�C6T5J�g-�YJ�TUK.F ;>Mo¨�g {IK.;-? N�p�V�T5JtfiV�M5CYV�=-?";-T ¥ T�G��aF Jp�¦aZ h g

^$VNOJ-fiV�M$syZ�g ©-g syª6gy_tF V�foV�M$e6syZ�g ¢wgBz>V�M�b.?�;OT5e$s.V�M$e ¥ g"©-;BM$J�K)g&7�l�lB��g¢1;OC$K.J�Q$;B= etp�F = = F M5b6M$J�K�K NO;1L6V]iV�M$eI?"VT5fiJ�T}K.upiF = = F M5b�M$J�K�K N";V�G�G�J�L5NIG�;>f�L$J�M5K.V�N-F ;>Mw?";-T1J�K�NOV�DY= F KyQ$F M5bvV+T)J�GT)J�V�NOF ;>M$V�=pi;B;>e$= V�M$e$gO©-gyª�M�c�F T�;BM$gBA�= V�M$M$g � V�M6Vb�J�gy¨�l�k�7m�@ 8+7� 9�¨�g

^$F K5QB;yL>s5H6g \Yg s�V-M>e � g ¥ g5¢tJ�D J�T�= J-F M>g67OlBlB{Bg � QBJEGO;yM-N�F M-b6JOM�Nc$VO= CEV�N�F ;.M1fXJ�N�Q�;.e�g�Z ME©O;.Q>M�K5;.M�s�H�g zBg s5VOM>ew¦Sg �Bg}©O;.Q>M�K5;.M1k�ª$e�K�g m-gª6G-;yM�;BfoF G$�EV-= CYV�N�F ;yM1;"?&§`V�N C�T�V-=.H�J�K);"C�TOG-J�K)@)Z K}KUCEJ�K)s � Q�J�;"T�]V-M�e ¥ L>L�= F G-V�N"F ;yM�K5g}:«J�K}N c$F J�p¬AOT�J�K}K5s)^�;�C+= e�J�T�s)\Y|wg58>8B{wL>L�g

^�T�J�Q�fis h g h g s h g � g.­YVKUK5F M$syV�M�e h g.W$J�F M$g&7-l>l>l>g h ;BG-F V�=A�K�]�G�Q$;B= ;Ob)]�gy¢w;-C$b�Q�NO;BM � F ? ?�= F M$sB§wJp«®6;OT5r�sy§E®�gy¯�¨�¯4L$L$g

\PF fiL�T)F G�Q6sy^6g 7�l�l�8�g ¥ N NOJ�M�NOF ;>M$V�="?"VNOF b.CYJ�?�;B= = ;Op�F M5baD�T)J�V�K�NG�V�M$G�J�T K�C6T�b�J�T�]�g>H�J�K)g>§EC6TUK.gB¢1J�V�= NOQ°7�¯�@}7�l�l��+8�{�±�g

_tV�F = ]�sy¦tg \Pgyk�ª6e$g md7�l�l>±>gy§wVN�C$T�J�uK h J�T}c�F G�JK.@ h ;>G�F JNOV�=_aJ�L6J�M6e6J�M6G�JI;>Mo§wV�N�C6T)V�=Bª�G�;-K�].K�N-J�f`K.gBZ K.= V�M6eoA�T)J�K�Kys:<VK)Q$F M�b)N";BM�sy_t\Ygy¨Bl>84L$L�g

_SF = = fXV-M�s5_Ig ¥ g)8B{B{B{Bg � VOF =5VOM�e1Z�M-N�J�T�M�J�N h C�T�c$J�]�K5@ � Q�J � V-F = ;"T�J-e_IJ�K5F b$M � J�N�Q�;ye>g}©O;.Q>MY:²F = J�]d³ h ;yM-K5s5§`J p�®6;"T�rBs5§ ®6g59B�B9`L�LBg

_I;Be�e�K)s�:´g ^�g s.­Eg ^�g � ;BM�T�;BJ-syV�M�ed_tgy¦�T�JpiV-= g&7-l>lE7-g � Q$JPJ? ?UJ�GN ;O?L�T5F G�J�s"D�T5V�M$e$syV�M$eIKUN";OT5JSF M�?�;OT5fiVN"F ;BMX;BMSD>C$]�JT}K)u�L5T);>e5CYG�NJ�c�V�= CYV�NOF ;>M5K.gO©�g � VT5r�J�NOgBH&J�K.gB8$��@ ¨�{$±�� ¨E7�l�g

Page 34: The Benefits of Urban Trees

µ�¶$·¸-¹-º6»)¼6½�¾>¹-¿$ÀE»UÁ+¹-») Ã�ºP¾ Ä�º$»)Å ¶$Æ�Ç�È�É�Ê�Ë ½�Ì ¶�Í�Í$È

Î&Ï`Ì�Å»"Ð"¸-Ñ ÒÑ ÐyÓ�Ñ ÔIÑ Ë Ã�Õ�Ö$Å»}×)¹B¼$ÐyØwÑ Ù�Ñ.ÚyÃ�Ö�»�¹BÅ�Û$Å»"Ðy½�¼$ÛdÜ�Ñ ÀaÑÜ&¹-Ï�¼5Ä�»)Å�Å�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ$¶ Ñ-ÀE×"×.Å�×�×. ¼5ÝwÄOÖ$Å&ÁEÅ�¼6Å�¿" Ä�×w½�¼6ÛiÃ�¹-×�Ä ×1¹-¿$ÄOÖ6ź6»UÁE½�¼t¿"¹-»)Å�×UÄ-Ñ-¸�Ñ-À+»UÁY¹O») Ã�Ñ µ�Þ�Ç}·�É�Ê ¶�¶$ß�à+¶�È$á Ñ

Î&ÏaÌ6Å»�Ð�¸-Ñ ÒÑ Ð.Ø`Ñ Ù�Ñ.Ú.Ã-Ö�»�¹yÅ�Û�Å»�Ð.½�¼�Û4ÕÑ Ø`Ñ.Ôt¹"Á>×UÄ"Å»"Ñ µ-Æ>Æ>á Ñ�âPÖ$ÅYÛ$Å-Å�ã×) Ý�¼$ ¿� Ã�½�¼�Ã�ÅY¹O¿Bº�»}Á+½�¼SÄ »5Å�Å�×a½-¼$ÛP¿�¹"»5Å×UÄ ×.Ñ.ä�¼dÕ>¾ ½Ä Ä"ÐyÜ�Ñ Ø`Ñ ÐyÜ�Ñ ÀaÑÜ�¹OÏo¼�Ä »�Å-Å�Ð)½-¼�Û4Õ�Ñ åPÑ Ë ºE Ã-æ Ç Ó6Û�×5Ñ É Ñ�âSÖ$ÅYÓ$Ã�¹y¾ ¹"Ý� Ã�½-¾.åEÂ Ä Ì ÊÕ-»�Å×.Å�»Uç� ¼�Ýo½-¼$ÛdÜ�Å×UÄ"¹O»5 ¼�Ýoè&»}Á+½-¼dé$ ¹BÛ$ ç�Å»}×) Ä�ÌOÑyèt¼$ ç6Å»�×.Â Ä Ìi¹"¿Ë ½×�×)½�Ã�Ö�º$×.Å�Ä�Ä ×aÕ�»5Å×U×)Ð"À`êiÖ$Å»}×UÄOÐ Ë À`Ñ ¶>ÆEµ ã$ã$Ñ

Ó)ç�Å»5ÅÄ�Ä"ÐBÕÑ é$Ñ ÐyÜ&Ñ ÔaÑ Ë ÑBÕ� Å�Ä"Å�»}×.Ðy½�¼6ÛXÕ�Ñ À`Ñ"âP Ä�º$×.Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�á ÑOâIÖ�ÅÃ�¹>¼�×"ºYê�Å�» à Å�¼5ç� »)¹>¼6ê�Å�¼5ÄP ¼5ÄOÅ�»)½-Ã�Ä- ¹>¼ Ê Àw¼o ¼5Ä�»)¹>Û5ºEÃ�ÄO ¹>¼tÄO¹ÄOÖ6Å�×.ã$Å�Ã� ½�¾B ×�×�ºYÅ�ÑBä�¼5ÄOÑO¸-ÑBÜ&Å×.Ñ Ë ½�»5æ�Å�ÄOÑ µ�µ�Ê Æ�ß�à`µ�Í�· Ñ

Ò$½�º�×)¹y¾ Û$Ð)åYÑ ¸OÑ Ð.½-¼>Û4Ü�Ñ ¸-Ñ)ë> ¾  Å�Ö�¹y¾ êoÑ µOÆ>ÆBì Ñ�âSÖ�ÅYÅ�Ã-¹y¼�¹Bêo Ã�ç6½-¾ ºYÅY¹"¿¹Bã�Å�¼P×)ã$½�Ã-Å�Ñ)ë>½�¼�Û$¾  ¼$Å�× Ê ë� ¼�Ã�¹y¾ ¼1ä�¼�×UÄOÑ.ë>½-¼$ÛdÕ>¹y¾  ÃÌOÑ ÞBÇ·-É�Ê}µ�à á Ñ

Ô&»5Å�Ï�½�¾ ÐyÎtÑ Ðy½�¼$ÛP¸-Ñ.é$½�æ�Å»�Ñ µ-Æ�Æ>á Ñ.Ît¹+»�ÅÄO½� ¾"×UÄO¹"»�ÅPÅ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼�êoÅ�¼�ÄO½�¾¿�½�ÃÄO¹O»}×w½¿ ¿�Å�Ã�ÄPÃ�¹B¼�×�ºYêiÅ»}×)í�ã�») Ã�ÅI½�Ã�Ã�Å�ã�Ä"½ÁE ¾ Â Ä Ì)îEÀ`¼iÅ-êiã$ »5 Ã�½�¾Åç�½�¾ ºY½Ä" ¹B¼$Ñ.ä�¼�Ä"Ñ"¸OÑ Ë ½»5æ�Å�ÄOÑ µ�Ê}µ�ÍBß-àaµ�µ-· Ñ

Ø1Å�»Uï$¹-Ý�Ð-â Ñ Ð>½�¼6ÛIâ$Ñ�ÀSÑ>Ôa½�¾ Å�Ñ µ�Æ$Æ�ì ÑyÕ�»5Å�¿"Å�»5Å�¼6Ã�Å&¿�¹-» º6»UÁE½�¼Á�ºP ¾ Û6 ¼5Ý.×`½�×a½�¿ ºP¼6Ã�ÄO ¹>¼o¹-¿E½�Ý�ÅS½�¼6Ûo¼6½�Ä�º6»)ÅIÃ�¹>¼�Ä-ÅðBÄ"ÑÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼$ÑBé$Å-Ö6½ç5Ñ ¶�Þ�Ç�µÉ�Ê á�á-à+ß�¶ Ñ

ØwÅ»}ï�¹OÝ�Ð�â�Ñ Ü�Ñ Ðy½�¼>ÛXÜ>Ñ"ë)Ñ�ÚyÖ$ Ż"Ñ ¶>Í>Í�Í ÑyåP¹yêiã$¾ Åð&Â Ä Ì�Ðy½Ý�Å-Ðy½-¼$ÛÁ�ºP ¾ Û$ ¼�Ý�ã�»�Å¿"Å»5Å�¼6Ã�Å�ÑBÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼6Ñ.é6Å�Ö6½ç5Ñ È�¶�Ç�á�É�Ê ·�·�ß�à ·�ß�· Ñ

ñP½�ã6¾ ½�¼$ÐBÜ&Ñ µ�Æ�Þ�È ÑOâtÖ$Å�»)¹B¾ ÅI¹-¿+¼6½�Ä�º�»)ÅI ¼IÄOÖ6Å�º$»UÁE½�¼XÃ�¹>¼�ÄOÅ�ðyÄOÑBä¼À`¾ Ä"êi½�¼$Ð.ä�Ñ Ðy½O¼$ÛS¸-Ñ ÒÑ�Ùò¹BÖ�¾ Ïi ¾ ¾ Ç Ó$Û�×.Ñ É Ñyé�Å�Ö$½ç6 ¹"»I½�¼$ÛPÄ"Ö$Åów½Ä�º$»5½�¾yÓ6¼5ç6 »�¹>¼$êiÅ�¼�Ä"ÑyÕ�¾ Å�¼5ºYêoÐyówÅÏ«ô�¹O»5æ>ÐyóEô�Ñ È>á>ì ã$ã$Ñ

õ�õ£õ Ñ µ�Æ�Æ$¶ ÑBè&»UÁY½�¼t¿"¹-»)Å�×�Ä�»UÌ�½�¼6ÛIÄOÖ6Å�Ï�¹-»)æ�ã6¾ ½�Ã�Å�ÑBä¼Ôt¹OÁ�×�Ä"Å�»"ÐyÕ�Ñ Ø`Ñ Ç Ó�Û$Ñ É Ñ Ë ½�¼$½Ý� ¼�Ýoè&»}ÁE½�¼X½�¼$ÛXØw Ý�Ö$ö�è�×.ÅÜ&Å�û)Å�½�ÄO ¹>¼XÚyÅ�Ä�ÄO ¼�Ý.×.Ñ>èaÚyÎ&À<Ò6¹-»5Å×"ÄYÚyÅ�»Uç� Ã�Å�Ð>ÔaÅ�¼6Å�»5½�¾â&Å�Ã�Ö$¼6 Ã�½�¾BÜ�Å�ã6¹O»UÄYó1åPö µ�ì$È ÑBów¹O»UÄOÖXåSÅ�¼5Ä�»)½�¾BÒ6¹-»�Å�×�ÄÓ)ð�ã$Å») êiÅ�¼5Ä+Ú�ÄO½ÄO ¹B¼$ÐBåPÖ$ Ã�½�Ý�¹BÐyä�ë�Ñ

ñY½�ã$¾ ½�¼$ÐBÜ�Ñ Ðy½�¼$ÛdÚyÑyñY½�ã$¾ ½�¼6Ñ µ�Æ�Þ�Æ ÑOâSÖ$ÅSÓ)ð&ã$Å�»5 Å�¼$Ã�ÅS¹O¿+ó`½Ä�º$»)Å ÊÀ<Õ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ ¹-Ý� Ã�½�¾>Õ�Å�»}×yã$Å�Ã�ÄO ç�Å�ÑBåP½�ê`Á�») Û5Ý�ÅIèt¼6 ç�Å�»}×) Ä�Ì�Õ�»)Å×"×.ÐówÅÏ ô�¹O»5æ�Ð.ó+ô�Ñ È�á>Í ã$ã�Ñ

ñI ¼�¼�Å)½U»-Ð5â+Ñ åIÑ Ð$ñSÑ ë6Ñ6é�Å}»B¼�Ö�½U»5Û.Ä�Ð6½�¼�Û�ñSÑ À4Ñ6ñ�»)Å)¼)Ä�¾ ÅU»-Ñ µ5Æ6Æ6· ÑÕ5»yÂ�¼�Ã) ã�¾�Å}×d¹�¿ Ë ½U»yæ6ÅUÄ� ¼.Ý Ñ�Ø4½U».ã�ÅU»4åI¹$¾�¾  ¼.×BÐ�ódÅ}Ϭô ¹�»yæ�ÐóPô Ñ Þ6Í6Þ ã�ã6Ñ

ë�Å�Ì�Å�¼�×.ÐO¸-Ñ ÕÑ Ðy½�¼$ÛdÚyÑ â&ÑBÒ$ ×.æ�Å�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�á Ñyä�êiã5»�Å×�×. ¹>¼I¿�¹-»5êi½�Ä" ¹>¼ ÊÒ5»�¹>ê«»5Å�Ã� ÄO½�¾ ×+ÄO¹P×�Ì�êiã6Ö6¹B¼6 Å�¿"½-¼5ÄO½�×�ÄO ÷�ºPÅ�Ñ>ä�¼oÎaÅç� ¼$Å�Ð>Õ�Ñ ÔtÑ ÐÎtÑ ë�ÑyØ`½�êi ¾ Ä�¹B¼$Ðy½�¼$ÛSâ�Ñ Ë ÑyøY×�Ä »�¹yê Ç Ó�Û�×)Ñ É ÑyÚ.¹BÃ� ½�¾yåP¹"Ý�¼$ Ä" ¹B¼ Êäêiã6½�ÃÄP¹B¼oÚ.¹>Ã� ½�¾BÕ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö6¹B¾ ¹-Ý.Ì�ÑOÀ`Ã�½�Û6Å�ê� ÃIÕ�»5Å×�×yÐBÚy½�¼XÎa Å�Ý�¹>Ðå6À`Ñ á�Í>È ã$ã>Ñ

Ë Ã-Õ>Ö�Å�»�×)¹y¼�Ð)Ó6Ñ ÔSÑ µ-ÆBÆ>· Ñ)ó`Å�ÄBÁ+Å-¼�Å¿UÂ Ä ×I¹"¿&Ö�Å-½�¾ Ä"Ö�ÌX½-¼�Û4ã�»�¹.Û�ºEÃÄ� ç6ź�»�Á+½-¼Y¿"¹"»�Å�×UÄ ×)Ñ)ä�¼4é�»�½-Û�¾ Å�Ì-Ð)ÔIÑ ÀaÑ Ç Ó6Û�Ñ É Ñ)è�»�Á+½-¼1Ò�¹"»�Å�×UÄë>½-¼�Û�×5Ã-½-ã�Å�× Ê ä�¼�Ä�Å�Ý5»�½�Ä" ¼�Ý Ë ºE¾ Ä� Û> ×5Ã- ã�¾  ¼�½�»�ÌdÕ>Å�»�×5ã�Å-Ã�Ä� ç�Å�×5ÑèI¼� ç6Å�»�×5Â Ä Ìd¹�¿.Ù<½�×)Ö� ¼�Ý5Ä�¹y¼1ÕO»�Å�×U×�Ð5Ú.Å-½�Ä Ä�¾ Å-ÐUÙ�ÀaÑ ¶>¶Bá ãBã�Ñ

Ë Â Ä"Ã�Ö$Å�¾ ¾ ÐyÜ&Ñ åPÑ Ð.½�¼$ÛdÜ�Ñ â&ÑyåP½»}×)¹B¼$Ñ µ-Æ>Þ>Æ Ñyè&×) ¼�ÝiÚ�º$»}ç�ÅÌ)×&ÄO¹YùE½�¾ ºYÅÕ�º6ÁE¾  ÃSÔt¹>¹BÛ�× Ê âIÖ6ÅSåP¹>¼�ÄO ¼5Ý�Å�¼�Ä�ùE½�¾ ºY½�ÄO ¹B¼ Ë ÅÄOÖ6¹BÛ$ÑÜ&Å×.¹-º6»�Ã�Å�×+¿U¹-» ÄOÖ$ÅIÒ5º$Ä�º6»5Å�ÐOÙ²½�×)Ö6 ¼�Ý.ÄO¹>¼$ÐBÎaåSÑ á�ì�È ã6ã$Ñ

Ë ¹>¹O»5Å�Ð>ÔtÑ â&Ñ µ�Æ>Þ�ß ÑBÓ�¼�ç� »5¹>¼6êiÅ�¼5ÄY½�¼6ÛtÁEÅ�Ö6½�ç� ¹-» »�Å�×yÅ�½�»�Ã�Öo ¼ów¹O»�ÄOÖSÀaêiÅ»� Ã�½ Ê Øw ×UÄO¹"»UÌ-ÐyÛ$Å�ç�Å�¾ ¹yã$êiÅ-¼�Ä ×.Ð.½�¼$ÛSºE¼�»�Å×5¹B¾ ç�Å�Û ×U×UºEÅ×5Ñ.ä�¼4Ú�Ä�¹yæ>¹y¾ ×)Ð)ÎtÑ Ð.½-¼$Û4ä�ÑUÀ`¾ ÄUêi½-¼ Ç Ó6Û�×)Ñ É Ñ.Ø`½-¼$Û�Á ¹y¹yæ1¹"¿Ó6¼�ç� »�¹y¼$êoÅ-¼�Ä�½�¾)Õ-×UÌ6Ã�Ö�¹y¾ ¹OÝ5Ì-Ñ�٣ ¾ ÅÌX½-¼$Û4Ú)¹B¼�×)Ð.ó`Å�Ï ô$¹"»5æ>Ð)ó+ô�Ñ

ó1½�×.½�»OÐ-¸�Ñ ë$Ñ µ�Æ�Þ>ß ÑBÓ�¼5ç� »�¹B¼6ê�Å�¼5ÄO½�¾BÃ�¹-»U»5Å�¾ ½�Ä-Å×w¹-¿EÅ�ç�½�¾ ºP½ÄO ç�Ž�ã6ã5»5½� ×.½�¾ ×4¹O¿PÃ�Å�¼�Ä�»)½�¾�Á$º$×y ¼6Å�×�×Y×.Ã�Å�¼6Å�×.Ñ$ë�½�¼6Û�×yÃ�½�ã$Åaè&»UÁY½�¼Õ�¾ ½�¼$¼$Ñ µ-á�ÊUµ>µ-ß ö µ�È>Í Ñ

õ¬õ¬õ Ñ µ�Æ>Æ�Þ Ñ"âIÖ6ÅPÓ)ç6½�¾ ºY½�Ä" ç�ÅSä�ê�½Ý�ÅS¹O¿>Ä"Ö$ÅSåP Ä�Ì�ÑyÚy½Ý�ÅÕ�º$ÁE¾  Ã�½�ÄO ¹B¼�×.ÐOâIÖ$¹-º�×.½�¼6ÛXø4½�æ�×.Ðyå�À`Ñ µ-Þ>¶ ã$ã6Ñ

ø4í Ît¹BÖ6Å»UÄ�Ì�ÐBÜ&Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�ì Ñ>è�×. ¼5Ý�Ã�¹>¼�Ä- ¼�Ý�Å�¼�Ä$ç�½�¾ ºY½�ÄO ¹>¼IÄO¹4Å�¼$Ö6½�¼$Ã�Åã�º$ÁE¾  ÃSã$½»}ÄO Ã� ã$½Ä" ¹y¼X ¼X¾ ¹BÃ�½�¾yã$¾ ½�¼$¼6 ¼�Ý6ÑyÜ�ÅÝ�ÑyÚ�Ä�ºYÛ$ÑÈ�Í�Ç}ß�É�Ê ì�ì�ß�à+ì�ß�Þ Ñ

Õ>½»}×5¹B¼�×)ÐyÜ�Ñ Ðyë>Ñ ÔtÑ"â&½�×�×) ¼�½»UÌ�Ð.Ü�Ñ ÚyÑ.èt¾ »� Ã�Ö�Ð Ë Ñ Ü�Ñ.ØwÅÁ+¾ Ð.½�¼$Û Ë ÑÔ »�¹-×�×.ê�½�¼6ö Àw¾ Å�ð&½�¼$Û$Å�»"Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Þ ÑOâtÖ6Å�ç� Å�Ï«¿ »�¹>ê«Ä-Ö$Å�»�¹B½�Û Êäêiã6¾  Ã�½ÄO ¹B¼5×+¿�¹-» ×�Ä�»�Å�×�×+»)Å�Ã�¹-ç�Å�»}Ì�½�¼$Ûo êiê`ºY¼6 ï$½ÄO ¹>¼6ÑO¸-ÑÓ�¼�ç� »5¹B¼6ÑyÕ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö$¹B¾ Ñ µ�Þ�Ƕ�É�ÊUµ�µ�È�àaµ�á�Í Ñ

Õ�»)½�Ä"¹BÐ"â�Ñ µ-Æ�Æ>Þ Ñyó`½Ä�º$»5½O¾yÜ�Å×)¹Oº$»�Ã�ÅP½�¼$ÛdÓ�¼�ç6 »�¹B¼$êiÅ�¼�Ä"½�¾Ó6Ã�¹B¼�¹Bêo Ã×)Ñ.ä�¹OÏi½YÚ�Ä"½�Ä"ÅPèI¼$ ç�Å�»}×)Â Ä ÌoÕ-»5Å�×U×)Ð�ÀaêiÅ�×.Ð.ä À`Ñ È>ì>á ã�ã�Ñ

ÚyÃ�Ö�»�¹>Å�Û$Å�»OÐ>Ø1Ñ Ù�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�¶ Ñ>Øw¹-º6×yÅ�Ö6¹>¾ Û6Å�»U×.í�Å�ç�½�¾ ºP½�ÄO ¹B¼5×w¹-¿�×"Ä�»5Å�Å�ÄÄ�»5Å�Å×` ¼I×�º$Á�º$»UÁ+½�¼XåYÖ6 Ã�½Ý�¹>Ñyä¼XÔt¹OÁ�×�ÄOÅ�»"ÐBÕ�Ñ Ø1Ñ Ç Ó�Û$Ñ É ÑË ½�¼$½�Ý� ¼�Ý�è&»UÁE½�¼o½-¼6ÛXØ1 Ý�Ö$ö�è ×.ÅSÜ&Å�Ã�»5Å�½�ÄO ¹B¼oÚyÅÄ�ÄO ¼5Ý)×�úèaÚyÎ&À<Ò$¹-»�Å�×�ÄYÚyÅ»Uç� Ã�Å�ÐBÔtÅ�¼6Å»)½�¾Oâ&Å�Ã�Ö6¼$ Ã�½�¾BÜ�Å�ã$¹-»}ÄYó1åPö µ�ì�È Ñó1¹O»}ÄOÖoåPÅ�¼5Ä�»5½�¾BÒ$¹-»5Å×�ÄEÓ)ð&ã$Å�»5 ê�Å�¼�ÄYÚ"ÄO½Ä" ¹B¼6ÐyåSÖ$ Ã�½Ý�¹>Ðyäë�Ñ

ÚyÖ$Å�ÅÄ�×.ÐOù$Ñ ë�Ñ ÐB½�¼$ÛoåPÑ ÎaÑ Ë ½�¼5ï$Å»"Ñ µ�Æ$ÆEµ ÑOÀ+¿ ¿"Å-Ã�ÄOÐBÃ�¹-Ý�¼$ ÄO ¹>¼$ÐB½�¼$Ûº6»UÁE½�¼`ç�Å�Ý�Å�ÄO½�Ä- ¹>¼ Ê Úy¹>êiÅaÅ�¿ ¿"Å�Ã�Ä�×w¹-¿P½�Û$Û$ ¼�Ý1Ä�»)Å�Å�×1½�¾ ¹>¼5Ý�Ã� Ä�Ì×�Ä�»5Å�Å�Ä�×.ÑBÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼6Ñyé6Å-Ö6½ç5Ñ ¶�È�Ç�È�É�Ê ¶�Þ�·�à+È�Í>á Ñ

Úyê�½�»)Û6¹>¼6ÐBÜ&Ñ åSÑ µ�Æ�Þ�Þ ÑyÕ�Å�»)Ã�Å�ã�Ä- ¹>¼o½�¼$Ûo½�Å�×UÄOÖ6Å�ÄO Ã×w¹-¿�ÄOÖ6Å�º$»UÁY½-¼Å�¼5ç� »)¹B¼6ê�Å�¼5Ä Ê Ü&Å�ç� Å�Ïq¹-¿�ÄOÖ6Å�»)¹>¾ ÅI¹-¿�ç�ÅÝ�Å�ÄO½�ÄO ¹B¼6Ñë$½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã6ÅIè »UÁY½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼6¼6Ñ µ�·$Ê Þ�·�à`µ�Í�ì Ñ

Ú.¹>êoêiÅ»"ÐBÜ�Ñ ÐBØwÑyÔ&ºPÅ�¼�Ä"Ö$Å»"ÐB½�¼$ÛXÕ�Ñ À`ÑBé$½»5æ�Å»�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Í ÑBÚ�º6»Uç�ÅÌ� ¼�ÝÖ6¹-º6×.Å�Ö6¹>¾ Û6Å�»Y»)Å�×.ã6¹B¼5×.Å+Ä-¹t×"Ä�»)Å�Å�Ä�Ä�»)Å�Å×.Ñ6ë�½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã$ÅE¸�ÑÆ�Ç�¶�É�Ê ß�Æ�à+Þ�· Ñ

Ú�ÄO¹Bæ>¹B¾ ×.ÐyÎtÑ µ�Æ�ß>Þ ÑyÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼$êiÅ�¼5Ä"½�¾yã5×UÌ�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ ¹OÝ)Ì�Ñ"À`¼$¼$ÑyÜ�Å�ç�ÑÕ�×"Ì�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ Ñ ¶�Æ$Ê ¶�·�È�à+¶>·�Æ Ñ

Ú"ºY¾ ¾  ç�½�¼$ÐOÙ�Ñ åPÑ µ�Æ�Æ$á ÑBÕ>Å»5Ã�Å�ã�ÄO ¹>¼�×w¹O¿�ÄOÖ$Å�»�º6»5½�¾ ö º6»}ÁE½�¼I¿ ») ¼�Ý�Å ÊåS Ä- ï$Å�¼�ã5»5Å�¿"Å�»)Å�¼6Ã�Å×P¿"¹O»w¼6½�Ä�º6»)½�¾�½�¼6Û�Û$Å�ç�Å�¾ ¹>ã$Å�Û`×yÅÄ�ÄO ¼5Ý.×.Ñë$½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã6ÅIè »UÁY½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼6¼6Ñ ¶�Æ$Ê Þ�·�à`µ�ÍEµ Ñ

â�Ì.»Uç6û� ¼6Å�¼6Ðyë�Ñ ÐB½�¼$ÛXØ1Ñ"ù`û�û�¼$û�¼6Å�¼6Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Þ ÑOâSÖ6ÅSÅ�Ã�¹B¼6¹Bêi Ã�ç�½�¾ ºPŹ-¿$º6»}ÁY½�¼t¿"¹-»)Å�×�ÄP½�êiÅ�¼6 ÄO Å× Ê Àw¼o½�ã6ã6¾  Ã�½Ä- ¹>¼o¹-¿$ÄOÖ6ÅÃ�¹>¼�ÄO ¼�Ý�Å�¼�Ä6ç�½�¾ ºP½�ÄO ¹B¼Xê�Å�ÄOÖ6¹BÛ6ÑBë$½�¼6Û5×.Ã-½�ã6ÅIè&»UÁE½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼$¼6Ñá$È$ÊUµ�Í�·�à`µ$µ�Þ Ñ

èt¾ ») Ã�Ö$ÐBÜ&Ñ Ú.Ñ µ�Æ�Þ�ì ÑBØEºPêo½�¼I»5Å�×.ã$¹>¼�×.Å×+ÄO¹Yç�ÅÝ�ÅÄO½�ÄO ¹B¼X½�¼$Û¾ ½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã6Å�×.Ñ>ë$½�¼6Û5×)Ã�½�ã6Åtè&»UÁY½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼$¼6Ñ µ�È�Ê ¶$Æ�à+á�á Ñ

Ùü½�ã�¼6Å»"ÐyÚyÑ µ�Æ�Þ�ß ÑOÀ«Ö6¹y¾  ×�Ä" Ã�ÐBÛ$Åç�Å�¾ ¹Bã$ê�Å�¼�ÄO½�¾ ÐO×UÌ.×UÄOÅ�êa×.ö¹-»5 Å�¼5ÄOÅ�ÛXÅ�¼5ç� »)¹B¼$êiÅ�¼�ÄO½�¾yã5×�Ì�Ã�Ö6¹B¾ ¹OÝ.Ì Ê Ú.¹BêiÅ�ÁEÅ�Ý� ¼$¼6 ¼�Ý)×.ÑBä�¼Ú"Ä"¹>æ>¹B¾ ×.ÐyÎtÑ Ðy½�¼$ÛXä�Ñ"Àa¾ Ä"ê�½�¼ Ç Ó�Û�×)Ñ É ÑyØw½�¼�Û�ÁE¹B¹Bæd¹O¿Ó�¼�ç� »�¹B¼$êiÅ�¼�ÄO½�¾yÕ�×UÌ�Ã�Ö$¹B¾ ¹OÝ)Ì Ç ù+¹B¾ Ñ ¶�É Ñ"٬ ¾ ÅÌo½�¼$ÛdÚy¹B¼�×.ÐyówÅÏô�¹O»5æ�ÐyóEô�Ñ

Ù<¹y¾ ¿"ÐyñYÑ ë�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Þ ÑBÓ�¼�ÄOÅ�»�ã�») ×. ¼�Ýi¾ ½�¼$Û5×.Ã�½�ã$Å× Ê é5º$×. ¼$Å�×�×`Û$ ×�Ä�»5 Ã�Ä�×½�¼$ÛIÄ"Ö6Å6º6»}ÁE½�¼I¿�¹O»5Å×UÄOÑyä�¼XñY¹B¾ ¾  ¼6ÐyåPÑ Ç Ó�Û�Ñ É ÑyåP ÄO Å× Á�Ìiów½Ä�º$»�Å�í×ÎaÅ�×. Ý�¼ Ê Õ�»)¹>Ã�Å�Å�Û6 ¼5Ý)×`¹-¿$ÄOÖ6Å Þ ÄOÖoó1½�ÄO ¹y¼6½�¾>è »UÁE½�¼oÒ6¹-»)Å�×�ÄåS¹>¼�¿"Å»5Å�¼$Ã�Å�ÑOÀ`ê�Å�»� Ã�½�¼oÒ$¹-»5Å�×�Ä�×.ÐOÙ²½�×.Ö� ¼�Ý.ÄO¹>¼$ÐBÎaåSÑ

Ù�Ì6Å»OÐyÜ�Ñ ÚyÑ Ðy½�¼6ÛSÀwÑ ¸�Ñyë�½-êaÁEÅ»UÄOÑ µ�Æ�Æ>á ÑOâIÖ$Å�»�¹B¾ ÅS¹O¿>Ä�»5½� ÄÃ�¹>¼5×�Ä�»UºPÃ�Ä�×1 ¼iã6Å�»U×.¹B¼iã6Å»)Ã�Å�ã5ÄO ¹B¼ Ê Àw¼XÖ6 ×�ÄO¹-») Ã�½�¾ã$Å»}×.ã$Å�ÃÄO ç�Å�Ñyä�¼XÎtÅç6 ¼$Å�ÐyÕÑ ÔtÑ ÐyÎtÑ ë>ÑyØw½�êo ¾ Ä"¹B¼$Ðy½�¼$ÛIâ�Ñ Ë ÑøP×�Ä »5¹>ê Ç Ó�Û�×)Ñ É ÑyÚy¹BÃ- ½�¾yåP¹OÝ�¼$ ÄO ¹B¼ Ê äêiã�½�ÃÄE¹>¼dÚy¹BÃ� ½�¾Õ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ ¹OÝ)Ì�Ñ"ÀwÃ�½�Û6Å-ê� ÃSÕ�»�Å×�×.ÐBÚ.½�¼XÎt Å�Ý6¹BÐBå�À`Ñ á�Í>È ã6ã$Ñ

ýP êoê�Å»"Ð Ë Ñ Ü�Ñ Ðy½�¼$ÛXë�Ñ ë>ÑBÔt¹B¾ Û$Å�¼$Ñ µ�Æ>Þ�Þ Ñyäêoã�»�Å�×U×. ¹B¼�×`¹O¿>»5ÅÄO½� ¾×�Ä-¹O»)Å�× Ê À<Ã�¹B¼5ÄOÅ�¼�ÄP½-¼6½�¾ Ì.×. ×`¹-¿EÃ�¹>¼5×�ºPêiÅ»a êi½�Ý�Å×yÑO¸�ÑBÜ&ÅÄO½� ¾ Ñì�á4Ç Ò$½�¾ ¾ É�Ê ¶�ì�·�à ¶�Æ>È Ñ

Page 35: The Benefits of Urban Trees

þ5ÿ�� ����� ��� ����� � ������������������� �!� "��$#&%'��( �*)�� %��+�,�-� �*.+������% /�0!� �21435����� ���+�,�768� �,�2%�� �+�2�

9!:�;�<>=�?A@CB�D�E�FGB�<�H'I�J ����� "�(5��KA(5� ����%5�2L�� ���-��(�%M�N���+%'�O�� %(+�,�P� �,� (5���5��� �RQ��+S��5� ����� �5T4(5��QR� ����Q5�-��� � �5T7� "�� ��%��+�P� (�%�� "�U�+�P��� �5� ( � � 1V�,� (�� ���N�W�N"��>���� � �NXY� ��T4�N%MT�(5��� Z�(�� � ��������0$�5���2%�(5�N[�%��5(6\�+S�� � ����]^�5�5��[O�,����� � (�� � ���*_�`P�5(+�2� � �NU �a(+��"�� �5T�� ���5b5U�0!"�� ��(�� � X4�5c.C��� ��%���(+�N� ����(5��6�� �,�2%�� ���-3������ �����,�V.C]^��%�� S��5]4� ����[��,�P���5� (��N� ���_+`P�5(+�2� � � U �d(���"�� � T�� ���5b5U���( � ��� �+%\0$"W( ]7�O��%\� ��0!��]4]^�+%5�N�_+`P�5(+�2� � � U �a(+��"�� �5T�� ���5b5U�0!� �21^�N�O0!"�� � (+T��e6\�5��(�%M�]4� ����� �f ��S�� %�����]^� �5� U�0-"�� � (�T���� ( ��Q*0!"�(5]\���+%\� �O0$��]^]^��%�� �$_+0!"�� � (+T���U.C� � � ����� �'b5UP#>%'�O( �A)�� %��+�,��0!� �-��� � �P�N���d(+��"�� �5T������U�6\g 0!g UP0!� �21^� �[O���,� � �*�(+%�K �V( ��QR�>� ��%��5(+�N� ���*_ h>��i�(+�b5U�j-�N%��5( �R3������ ���+�,�[O�,�����5� (+� � ���R� ��`��N���N"���%��R0$( � � �,�N%���� (�_�kW�N�O[V�5T�� � �+��U�0$( � � �� %���� (+b5U0!�������+%MS�(+� � ���*0-���5�,�-� � ( ���2�7_+W� �2�2�,�W�W%'T�"�UPW�5���5�,1�� S�(5��� (Cb5U�0!� �21^�N�W� %'� � (5��QR3���%��5(+�l� ��W� (5����� ��T4_�m!%��CT�����b5U�(5��Q�� "���0!� �21^�N�n (5��� �N��S���%\_ �d(+��"�� �5T�� ���5b5g

h\"�� ��%������5(�%�� "8X4(��-�,�!����� %'�N� Q7��1Y(>T�%�(5����� %���]�� "��o (+� � ����( ��#>%M��(5�A( ��Q*0$��]^]7�-��� �21^)�� %����,� %'18[7Q�S�� ��� %M1^0!� �!��� � �_�#\g `Pg�)�� %����,�-`P�+%MS�� � �5U� %5�2L��5��� o �!�l[V#\)�/�pWqW/�rWrEþ+b�g�0!� %M%5����������/Q��5���5�8� �����5��%���� ��TV�N"�� �e(�%'� � �5� �>�P"�� �-� Q8�-�\(5Q�Q�%��+����5Q7���� "��(+��� "�� %8(+�-K X4��� �,s8�!g X4(+��"�� �5T�� ����g �5Q �!g[VQ�Q�� � � ����( ���5%��2L��5�+�� �5�� %�]4(+� � ���*�5(5�$������ �!��QR(���X7X7X�g �+� % g X4(+��"�� ��T�� ����g � Q5��c%������5(+%��5"�g �5��S�]4� ��Q�g

t�uv�uw�x,y,z�{&v+v�| v�} w�~P}P�Wx,� � u v+v�� x� � � � u�NuO� �P�W� x�uv�}Pt�uv�� �Px�y,uv��~P| � ux,v+| } �A� ����w�v�z�| ~��N} � ~���N���������,�P�� uw�} } � u���\{^�������,�����>� � �� � �N� �M�\��� � w�v+z�| ~�� } �N~�� u,���

�!� I��>F � J k��C�V��%��NT�%�( ]4]4�+�VQ���%���S�� � (5� � ��(�� � ���\�����5�-������]4� �� �8��%�(5��� �\Q�(5���7� ���-ZW�������VQ�� (�� �(5� %����7Q����V�5�5���2%�����/ S�� � � ����g�#8��5%��NT�%�(5]^]4�8Q�����N%����,�N�+%�� �>��%'��(5� ���\�������$ ��2%��&�-�4¡5� ¡5]^�5���� ]4���N%'�N( ���!���N��%8�+%�¡5��%&�!�R�5��S�� %��������5]4�5���-Q����5��������]^]4(+�N� ���(+�C� � %�(5��� UN��� �5�R¢5�-� � ���������!������(+�V ��2%����5������� Q�¡�%�¡��5��]^]^���!����5%�� � %�� � ¡�¡�� (5���-Q�������¡�¢ �!� � � 14(��-�5(+�-�5�N�!�RQ������������ ���V� �( ]4¡5� � �N%�(��N� �����V��"�1���� ¢ �!����gW0!���C� �>%�� �5"���%��5"��\¡�S�(5� �!�\� �>%�£�� �\Q����(+%'��%��+�*Q�(5���A� �+�A� ���N�+%�(5��� � ���5�*�5��������]4]^(��N�+��%'�,c� ��S�� %��������5]^�5��� g�#8���\�5��¢ �! �� �\��(��� ����(5� ��(\¡�S�(5� �!¡\� ���7����%��5�5��/� � ���5�7Q���������� � �NU�� ���7� ��� �5�5� � �����7Q��$� ��]4���N%'� �5]^�5���-Q5�l��(��2%�����(���+�!� ��Q�¡���� %8Q�����( � �5]4� ���!���N��%O�-�^� %���Q��!� � U����!� ���5�\%��5� (+�N� ���(+S��5�&�!���&S�(�%�� ¡��¡8Q�� (5]4¡ ��(�T��5]4� ���!(�S��5�8Q����e(�%'�W%����e� ��� ����T¤Q����%M�!���e�5��]4]4��%��5� (5� ����gWkW���-%�¡��,�!� �N(+�C���,��T�T�¥�%��5���!¢5�!�\� �� ��]4���N%'� �5]4� ����Q����A�5�����P��]4]4(�� ����%'�¦���,�\��� �P� � � S�� ]4�5�5���5�N%'%�¡5� ¡

(�S�� �\� (\��%�¡��P�5���5�\Q�� (5]^¡5��(�T�� ]4�5���2�-S��+%'�C�V� �\� ����TYQ��+�-%'�!�+�PU�����5��Q�(5���O�N�N���N���������VQ�� ]^�5�5�P� �����V� �NT���� �N� S����7����5��]^���N%'� �5]4�5�5�N(5� ����g�kW�+��%�¡��,�!� �N(��2�*Q��V�5����%�� �5"���%��5"��+�¡�� (��O� � �,�P� ���$¡�T�(5� �5]4�5�����!���>�-(����8Q��\��(�%'� �5��(�%�� (��$(�S��5�\� ����5��]^]7�!��(����N¡��7Q�� (�� �(5� %����5�\%���T�(�%�QRQ���� (���� ( ��� �� �5(�� � ����� %��+�� � ¥�%��&��%'�-(5� ���\���$Q��8� (&T����,� � ����g

§ ��I�¨WFGF¤B�<�©�¨WI�I5�><�E�J .+��S�� � � � �*� �����+%'�M� ª5Q5� � ���5"�� �« �����5"�ª+� �2�,�-�+Z�� %�KW�5�\��� ��QR����S�� � (5� � ��� �+%'�!�5T����5%�� T�%�( ]4]4��( ]�¬� %�KW� ��g f � ����%M��(5�����7)W�N%M�,� ��%��NT�%�( ]4]­KW( ���*�5� ��X4� �5"5� � T��+�f � �5]R�5�������5��Q���% « ���,� ( � �2�!��T^�5� �����7(5�5T��5��� "�]^�5�j-���5�,�!]^�5�5� �5�5�!]7�,�5� Q5�&���5� ��U�(+�!� "\X4�5���R�� �-��� � "��-� � ����% %�� � %�� � ª+�!��(��!]®T���T��+�-�N�\X4� %�Q�U�Q�(��,�OZ5�!��ª5� "5��-��"51���� K�( � � ���5"��n ��%'�O���,����%'�!��T�� �4���N�CX4� ��Q�� TV��� ��Q�gW68� �����\)��N%'���5"��!�5Te����X4��%'� �+�Q�� �$����� � �$Q��+%83�ª��-]4�$� �*j-�����,�-]4� ��� � ��c,#8]\X4�5� � /�.C��� �+%�( K5� � �����N��!��Q\���K ����� �+%'�!Q�(����5��(�����Q�� ���-�+Z�� %�K5X4�5� �N�5� n � %'�N�5� � �5U�Q�� �\Q���%�� "¯ � �� ��� � � �5"��5�\�a(5� Q������,� (5��Q8T�� � � �����%M��X4��%5Q��5��g f � ���\��(+�N� ����(5� �#8�5� ��%M��!� "��!��T¦�-��X4��%'���� �VQ�� �7°$� �� ���N� � �5"�K��5� �2��(5K Z��5��� (5��Z�U.+�5�N�N��� � �����5�\� ±�%8W(�� �5�����5"�(�� �2�S���%�"�(5� � �5�\�!�WQ\²�(5"�� �-��T���/X4� � � � T�KW�5� �-� �*���5� (+� � ����Z �*S��+%'���5"�� �5Q��5���5�*3�(+�!]8�,� (5��Q�� %'��5�*� �« �+���5"�ª�� �C�,�,�C%�(�³�� ��Z5±�T�� ��g�68� � f %'T�������� ����>S���%�Q��+���N� � �5"��5��UWQ�(���Q�(��8j-�����,�-]4�5�5� �5��S���%�"W(5� � �5�*���N��� � � S4KW�N%M%�� � � ��%M�!� �,�-]4� �`�2%�(+³$� ������T�%'±-���-��T��5��]­� �*(5� � � �RKW�NT���� � � S�� ���!��Q n ��%5"�( � � �5����/Q�� ]R�5����� ����� ��g�6\� � f %MT�������� �,�P���+� (���� � ��%��5�*(��!� "R�5� ����3�(+��� �O� ±�%W(�%'�����%'���5"�(�� � �5�Y]4� � « �+�P�5"�ª�� �2�����Z�� %�K�� �¤� �Y3���Z5��T´(+���)��N%'�'�N�5�� (5��Z5�-��T7�!��Q�µ¶( ��(�T��5]^�5��� g

� B�I��>FGB�<\J kW�N�e��%�� T�%�(5]4(��eQ��>%��5"�(���� � � �N( �5� ·��7�����4����� ��5�������5� Q��N�V�5�R]7�!�5"��N�7Q�� ��2%�� �N�N�7Q��\���+T���� � �N����%'��(5���N��g�#8���%��NT�%�(5]4(\Q�(�������·�]4� �5�$��%M�-(5���A���!�5Q��>�P��%&�!�4�5� �5]4�5��� �� ]4���N%M�N(5�5�N�8��(�%�(7� (7��%�� (5�5� ·��YQ��&�!�Y(5]8�-� � ��� �O�(�S��N%�(���� �8��(�%�(�5��� �����,�!]^� Q�� % gN[��-��¢5�������!�P���^� ������� Q���%�(5Q��N�7�5��]4�!�-��(�5%�� �%�� Q�(5Q\%��5¢5�-� �+%��5�\���R]4� L��N%�( ]4� �5��� �!�¸ ��� � ��g f �,� (� ��S��C�� � T�(5�5� ·��R�+S�(5� ¹!(�� ����(5���5��Q���� � �Vº�%'����� ���7�5�R� (��� ��� �+%�(5�5�5� �����+�e(5]8�-� �5����>c-�5�����,�!]4� Q��N%UW���P��� � ��Q��A¡5���(+�P� �e� �� �N���O�5������ �5� �N�V��¹���� � �5� �7��%��NS�� �� �N�V���N%7� (\�N��]7�!��� Q�(5Q\��N%����,� ( � g#8��������Q�� �A��(5�5� ����(5����S�(5� �-·A� (��V����%��5�5���5� �����+�VQ��5����¹��-� � �5��U�� � ���(+�C%��������eQ��\�5��]4���N%'� ( ]4� �5��� �$1Y� (>�W�!�5��(�S���� �!�5�N(5Q^��(+%�(��(+T�(�%V���N%V� � �¦��%���Q5�!��� � �¦�5���7%��5� (5�5� ·��4(8� (8��%��+�P�5���5� (8Q��8� �N�º�%M����� ���e�5�^��(5� �P( L����-��%M��(5���N�PgWkW�N�-%����,�!� � (5Q��N�-�,��T�� ��%��5�»¢ �!�8� ��5��]^���N%M�N(5]^� � ���N�¦Q��5���N�����,�!]4� Q��N%8���,� º���� ��� �N� S�(5]^�5��� �%�� � ( �5� ����( Q��*�5���^�5�W�5��S���%�Q��5�5� ]4� � ���N�AQ��8� (��e�5(5� � ���e�5�7� ��Q�(���+�P(+�7Q�� ]^�5����� �����+�V�5� T���� � � S�(��O14Q���� ��]4��� %M� (5]4� �5�5�N��g�kW(� ��S��+�,� � T�( �5� ·��7� (5]7��� ¡ �8�,��T�� ��%��>�-(������e��(�%�(\��(��2%����5� ��� �N�e�5��5��]8�!��� Q�(5Q����VQ��\���+T����5� �N�V�5���\%��5� (5�5� ·��^($� (\��� (5���5( �5� ·��81]4( ��� L��*Q�� � �-� �P¢ �!�>��%M��(5����g

Page 36: The Benefits of Urban Trees

¼�½�¾ ¿WÀ!Á� Ã\Ä�Å�Æ>Á�Ç Å�Á ÈWÉOÊMË�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å$Ì Ï*Ð�ÑVÅ Ð Ç ÎNÄ5Ò4ÓPÁ�Í5Ì Ð Ç�Ô�Í Á�Ç Á Õ�Ò

Ö Ï\À�Ê'Ë�Ð5Ï*Í5Á�×^×8À!Ï�Ì Î Ì Å�Ø�Ù�Ð�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À-Ç Î À�Ê�Å�Ú�Ç Ð�Ò�ØVÐ5Ï*Ì ×^Ú�ÁNÊ�ÎNÐ Ï�Î�Ê�Á�Ç ÅÌ Ï\Î Ä�Å�Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ*ÁNÈ�Î Ä�Å�Ë-Ì Á�Ç ÁNÕ�Ì Í Ð5Ç�Å Í5ÁNØ'Ò�Ø,Î Å5×4Û Ö Î!Ú5Ê�ÁNÜ�Ì Ý�Å�Ø8Ä�Ð�Ë�Ì Î Ð�ÎÈÁNÊOÞ4Ì Ç Ý�Ç Ì È,Å\Ð5Ï�Ý*Í�Ê�Å5Ð�Î Å�ØVÐ\×4Á Ê�Å\Ä�Á Ø�Ú�Ì ÎNÐ+Ë-Ç Å>Ø�Å�Î2ÎNÌ Ï�ÕVÈ,ÁNÊ8×4Ð5Ï5ÒØPÚ�Å5Í Ì Å�ØVß ÈÁ ÊVÐ>Ê�Å+Ü�Ì Å�ÞàÁ È!Å5Ï5Ü�Ì Ê�Á�Ï�×^Å5Ï�Î Ð5ÇWÌ ×4Ú�Ð5Í+ÎCØVÁNÈ�À�ÊMË-Ð5ÏÈÁNÊ�Å�Ø,ÎCÊ,Ò Ù Ø�Å5Å8á>Þ7Ò�Å�Ê7Å�Î$Ð5Ç Û�¼5âWâWã5ä5ÛWá\Á�Å�ØeÐ�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å\Í5Á�Ï�ÎCÊ�Ì Ë�åÀ�ÎNÅ�ÎNÁ!ÎNÄ�Å\Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎÄ^ÁNÈWÎNÄ�Å�ØPÁ�Í5Ì Ð ÇWÅ Í5ÁNØ'Ò�ØÎ Å5׬Ð�Ø�ÞYÅ5Ç Ç æ

ç Å�ÈÁNÊ�Å�Å�è>Ð5×^Ì Ï�Ì Ï�Õ*é-ê�ë ì ê�ëí�ÎCÊ�Å5Å+ØVÍ5Á�Ï�ÎCÊ�Ì ËWÀ�Î Å�ÎNÁ¦Ð�Ä�Å Ð5Ç Î Ä�ÒØ�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å5Í5Á�Ç Á Õ�Ò5ÙPÌ Î!×^Ì Õ�Ä�Î�Ë�Å�Ê�Å5Ð+ØPÁ�Ï�Ð+Ë�Ç Å�Î Á¦Ð�Ø�îVê�ï éYÎ Ä�Å+Ò^×4Ì Õ�Ä5ÎÝ�Á�Ø�Á�ÛWð¦Ï�Å\Ú�ÁNØ'ØPÌ Ë�Ç Å\Ð5Ï�Ø,Þ4Å�ÊVÍ Á�×4Å+Ø-È Ê�Á�×àÐ>Ë�Á�Ý�ÒYÁNÈ�Þ^ÁNÊ�î\Î Ä�Ð�ÎÄ�Ð�ØOÎ2Ê�Ð5Ý�Ì Î Ì Á�Ï�Ð Ç Ç Ò4Ä�Ð5ÝRÏ�Á ÎNÄ�Ì Ï5Õ7Î Á¦Ý�Á!Þ4Ì Î Ä\ÎCÊ�Å5Å�Ø� ÎNÄ�Å�Ç Ì ÎÅ+Ê�Ð�Î2À�Ê�ÅÁ�Ï^ñ'Ý�Å�ÈÅ5Ï�Ø�Ì Ë-Ç Å�ØPÚ�Ð5Í5Å5Û ò�á\Å�ÈÅ5Ï�Ø�Ì Ë-Ç Å�ØPÚ�Ð Í5Å\ßMá8Óä>ÎNÄ�Å5Á Ê'Ò7ØÀ�Õ�Õ�Å�Ø,ÎCØÎ Ä�Ð�Î�Î Ä�Å8Ú�Ä5Ò�ØPÌ Í Ð5Ç ÈÅ5Ð�Î2À�Ê�Å�ØeÁNÈ-Ð&Ê�Å�Ø�Ì Ý�Å Ï�ÎNÌ Ð5ÇWÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�ÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý4Í5Ð5ÏÄ�Ð�Ü�Å�Ì ×4Ú�ÁNÊ'Î Ð5Ï5Î-Ì ×4Ú�Ð5Í�Î2Ø7Á�Ï\ØÎ2Ê�Å5Ï5Õ�ÎNÄRÁ È�Í5Á�×4×7À-Ï�Ì Î2Ò4Ð Ï�Ý\Ê�Ð�ÎNÅ+ØÁ È�Í�Ê�Ì ×^Å�Ì Ï\Î Ä�Ð+Î-Ï�Å5Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-Á Ê�Ä�Á�Á�ÝRß�óVÅ+Þ4×4Ð5Ïl¼5âWôWã ä5Û�á\Å�È,Å Ï�Ø�Ì Ë-Ç ÅØ�Ú�Ð5Í Å>Î Ä�Å5ÁNÊ'Ò4Ú�Á ØPÌ Î2ØPÙ�Ð5×^Á�Ï�ÕYÁNÎ Ä�Å�Ê>ÎNÄ�Ì Ï�Õ�Ø�ÙNÎ Ä�Ð�Î�ÎNÄ�Å\Ð�Ê�Í5Ä�Ì Î Å5Í5åÎ2À�Ê�Ð5Ç ÈÅ5Ð+ÎCÀ�Ê�Å�Ø7Ð Ï�Ý*Ú�Ä�Ò�Ø�Ì Í5Ð5Ç�Ç Ð�Ò�Á À�Î�ÁNÈWÊ�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å Ï�Î Ì Ð5Ç Ë�À-Ì Ç Ý�Ì Ï�Õ�Ø

Ø,À�Ë�ØÎ Ð5Ï�Î Ì Ð5Ç Ç ÒYÌ Ï�ÈÇ À!Å5Ï�Í Å�Ú�Ð�Î2ÎNÅ+Ê�Ï�ØVÁNÈ-Ì Ï�ÈÁNÊ�×RÐ5ÇWÍ Á�Ï�Î Ð5Í�Î!Ð5×4Á�Ï�ÕÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-Á Ê'Ø7Ð5Ï�ÝRÌ Ï�ÈÁ Ê�×RÐ5Ç Ø,À�Ê'Ü�Å5Ì Ç Ç Ð Ï�Í5Å Û�õ$Á�Ï5Î Ð5Í�Î-Ð5×^Á�Ï5ÕÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�ÁNÊMØVÐ Ï�ÝRÌ Ï�È,ÁNÊ�×RÐ5Ç ØÀ�Ê'Ü�Å Ì Ç Ç Ð5Ï�Í5Å�Ð�Ê�Å5ÙPÌ Ï�ÎCÀ�Ê�Ï�Ù�îWÏ�ÁNÞ4Ï\Î ÁË�Å�Ç Ì Ï�îWÅ5Ý\Î Á!Ø,ÎCÊ�Å5Ï�Õ�Î ÄRÁ ÈOÍ5Á�×4×8À!Ï�Ì Î2Ò4Ð5Ï�Ý*Ç Å�Ü�Å5Ç ØVÁ È�Í�Ê�Ì ×4Å�ß Ø�Å5ÅÃ&Ð�Ò�Ç Á Ê^¼ âW¾�¾$ÈÁ Ê&Ê�Å�Ü�Ì Å+Þ7ä5Û ÉVÇ Î Ä�Á À�Õ�Ä*Ï�ÁNÎ-Ð5Ç Ç�Ì Ï�Î Å�Ê'Ü�Å5Ï�Î Ì Á�Ï5ØË�Ð�Ø�Å5Ý^Á�Ï^á\Ó!Î Ä�Å5Á Ê'ÒYÄ�Ð+Ü�Å>Ë�Å5Å5Ï\ØÀ!Í Í5Å�Ø,ØÈ À-Ç�ß�õ$Ì ØPÏ�Å�Ê�ÁNØY¼5âWâWö5ä5ÙÎ Ä�Å$Ú�Ê�Á�×4Ì Ø�Å�Å ×7Ë�Á�Ý�Ì Å5Ý*Ì Ï*Ì Î2ØOØ�Á�×^Å�Î Ì ×4Å+ØOØ�Ú�Å5Í+ÎNÐ Í�À-Ç Ð+Ê&Ø,À!Í åÍ5Å+ØØ�Å�Ø7Ä�Ð�Ø7Ç Å Ý\ÎNÄ�Å�÷\Û ÓPÛPá8Å5Ú�Ð�ÊMÎN×^Å5Ï�Î!Á È�ÑeÁ À�Ø�Ì Ï�Õ4Ð5Ï�ÝR÷>Ê'Ë-Ð Ïá\Å�Ü�Å5Ç Á�Ú�×^Å5Ï5Î-ß�ÑV÷8á>ä�Ð Ï�ÝRÁ Î Ä�Å+Ê'Ø&Î Á¦Ì Ï5Ü�Å+Ø'Î-×4Ì Ç Ç Ì Á�Ï�Ø8ÁNÈOÝ�Á�Ç Ç Ð�Ê�ØÌ Ï�Ê�Å Ä�Ð�Ë�Ì Ç Ì Î Ð+ÎNÌ Ï5Õ4Ú5À�Ë�Ç Ì Í�Ä�ÁNÀ�Ø�Ì Ï�Õ^Ð5Ï�ÝRÁNÎ Ä�Å+Ê\Ï�Å Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�Á Ê�Ä�Á�Á�Ý�Ø7Ì ÏÇ Ì Ï�Å�Þ^Ì Î ÄAá�ÓOÕ�À-Ì Ý�Å Ç Ì Ï�Å+Ø�ß+÷\Û ÓPÛ�ÑV÷�áø¼ â�â�¾�ù�óVÅCÞ4×RÐ Ï´¼Nâ�âWúNä Û

Ö È�Ý�Å+ÈÅ5Ï�Ø�Ì Ë�Ç Å�ØPÚ�Ð Í5Å�ÎNÄ�Å5ÁNÊ'Ò4Ì ØVÍ5Á Ê'Ê�Å5Í�Î ÙNÎÄ�Å5Ï\Ü�Ì Î Ð5Ç ÙNÞ4Å5Ç Ç å À�Ø�Å ÝÊ�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å5Ï�Î Ì Ð5Ç�ÁNÀ�Î Ý�Á�ÁNÊOØ�Ú�Ð5Í Å�Ø�ØPÄ�Á À!Ç ÝRÚ�Ç Ð�ÒYÐ�Í+Ê'À!Í5Ì Ð5ÇNÊ�Á�Ç Å\Ì ÏØ,Î2Ê�ÅNÏ�Õ�Î Ä�Å5Ï�Ì Ï�Õ^Í Á�×^×8À-Ï�Ì Î2Ò^Ð5Ï�Ý*Ý�Å+Î Å+Ê'Ê�Ì Ï5Õ^Í+Ê�Ì ×4Å Û É7Ç Î Ä�ÁNÀ�Õ�ÄÝ�Å+ÈÅ Ï�Ø�Ì Ë�Ç Å&Ø�Ú�Ð5Í5Å&Î Ä�Å5ÁNÊMÒVØPÐ+Ò�Ø!Ü�Å�Ê'Ò¤Ç Ì Î2Î Ç Å\Ð�Ë�Á À�Î�Ü�Å�Õ�Å�Î Ð�ÎNÌ Á�Ï^Ú�Å+ÊØ�Å5Ù ÎÄ�Å�Î Ä�Å5ÁNÊMÒ4Í5Ç Å5Ð�Ê�Ç Ò4ÄWÐ�ØVÌ ×4Ú�Ç Ì Í5Ð+ÎNÌ Á�Ï5Ø�ÈÁ Ê\Ï�Ð�Î2À�Ê�Ð Ç Ù�Ð�ØOÞ4Å5Ç Ç�Ð�ØËWÀ!Ì Ç Î Ù5ÈÅ Ð�ÎCÀ�Ê�Å�ئÁNÈ�Ê�Å�Ø�Ì ÝWÅ5Ï�Î Ì Ð5ÇWÁNÀ�Î Ý�Á�ÁNÊ�ØPÚ�Ð Í5Å�Ø�Û Ö È�ÎNÄ�Å7Ú�Ê�Å�ØPÅ Ï�Í ÅÁNÈ�ÎCÊ�Å5Å+ØAÐ5Ï�ÝVÕ�Ê�Ð�Ø,Ø¦Ì ÏVÎÄ�Å�Ø�ÅOØ�Ú�Ð5Í5Å�ئÅ5Ï�Í ÁNÀ�Ê�Ð�Õ�Å�Ø!Ê�Å�Ø�Ì Ý�Å5Ï�Î2Ø�û,À�Ø�ÅÁNÈ�ÎÄ�Å�Ø�ÅOØ�Ú�Ð5Í5Å�Ø�Ù�Ú�Å�Ê�Ä�Ð Ú�Ø!Î Ä�Å�Ø�ÅOÈÅ Ð�ÎCÀ�Ê�Å�Ø!ÎÁ�ÁRÍ Ð5ÏYÚ�Ç Ð�Ò¤ÐOÊ�Á�Ç Å\Ì ÏØ,Î2Ê�Å Ï5Õ�Î Ä�Å5Ï�Ì Ï5Õ4Í Á�×^×7À�Ï�Ì Î2Ò^Ð5Ï�ÝRÝ�Å�Î Å+Ê'Ê�Ì Ï5Õ^Í+Ê�Ì ×^Å5Û

á8Á�Å+ئÐ�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç ÎCÀ�Ê�Å Ù�Ì Ï7ÈÐ5Í�Î Ù�Í5Á�Ï�ÎCÊ�Ì ËWÀ�ÎÅ&ÎNÁ�Î Ä�Å8Ä�Å5Ð5Ç Î Ä4ÁNÈÎ Ä�Å�Ø�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,Î Å5×7æ Ö ÏRÐ5Ï\À�Ê'Ë-Ð ÏRÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�ËOÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý�Ù ÞYÅ�×^Ì Õ�Ä�ÎÐ Ú�Ú5Ê5Á�Ð5Í Ä\ÎNÄ�Ì Ø7ü À!Å�Ø,Î Ì Á�Ï*Ì ÏRÐ�Ü�Ð�Ê�Ì Å�Î2Ò4ÁNÈWÞ4Ð+Ò�Ø�Û ýdÅ�×^Ì Õ�Ä�Î!Ð+ØPîÞ4Ä�Å+Î Ä�Å�Ê�Î2Ê�Å5Å�ØeÚ�Ç Ð�Ò¤Ð>Ê�Á�Ç Å8Ì Ï8ÎNÄ�Å8Ú�Ð�Î2ÎNÅ+Ê�Ï�ØVÁNÈ!Ì Ï�ÎNÅ+Ê'Ê�Å5Ç Ð�ÎNÌ Á�ÏÐ ×4Á�Ï5Õ4Ý�Ì È ÈÅ+Ê�Å5Ï�Î�Ê�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å Ï�Î�Ø,À�Ë�Ú�Á�Ú�À!Ç Ð+ÎNÌ Á�Ï�Ø�Û ýdÅ$×4Ì Õ�Ä5Î!Ð+Ø�îÞ4Ä�Å+Î Ä�Å�Ê�Î2Ê�Å5Å�ØeÐ�È ÈÅ5Í+Î�Ú�Ð+ÎCÎ Å�Ê�Ï�ØeÁNÈ�Î Å�Ê'Ê�Ì ÎNÁ Ê'ÒVÞYÌ Î Ä�Ì Ï7ÎNÄ�Å8Ï�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�åË�ÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý4ÁNÊ7Ú�Ð�Î2Î Å�Ê�Ï�ØeÁ È�Ê�Å�Ø�ÁNÀ�Ê�Í5Å\Å�è>Í5Ä�Ð5Ï�Õ�Å5Û ÉVÏ�Ý8ÞYÅ\×4Ì Õ�Ä�ÎÐ�Ø�î\Þ4Ä�Å�Î Ä�Å�Ê�Î2Ê�Å5Å�ئÅ5Ï�Ä�Ð5Ï�Í5Å&Ê�Å�Ø�Ì Ý�Å5Ï�Î�Ú�Á�Ú�À-Ç Ð�ÎNÌ Á�Ï�Ø�û�Í5Ð Ú�Ð5Í5Ì ÎCÒeÎÁÊ�Å�Ø�Ì ØÎ$Ì Ï�Í�À�ÊMØPÌ Á�Ï^ÁNÊVÁ À�Î2Ø�Ì Ý�Å&Î Ä�Ê�Å Ð�ÎCØ�Û Ã>Á$ÎNÄWÅ8Å�èPÎ Å5Ï�Î�Î Ä�Ð�ÎÐ�ÊMË�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å8Í5Á�Ï�Î2Ê�Ì ËWÀ�ÎNÅ�Ø-Î Á*Ð8Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ5ÒeØPÁPÍ5Ì Ð5ÇWÅ5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,Î Å5×4Ù5Þ4ÅÞ4ÁNÀ�Ç ÝRÅ�è>Ú�Å Í�Î-ÁNÎ Ä�Å+Ê'Þ4Ì Ø�Å�ØPÌ ×^Ì Ç Ð+Ê&À�ÊMË-Ð ÏRÐ�Ê5Å5Ð�ØOÞ4Ì ÎNÄ*Ð5Ï�ÝÞ4Ì ÎNÄ�Á À�Î�ÎCÊ�Å5Å�Ø-ÎNÁAÝ�Ì È ÈÅ�Ê8Ì Ï8Ø�Á�×4Å8Á ÊVÐ5Ç ÇWÁNÈ�Î Ä�Å�Ø�Å>Ê�Å�Ø�Ú�Å5Í�Î2ØPÛ

Ã!ÄWÌ Ø�ÐCÊ�Î,Ì ÍNÇ ÅWÊ5ÅCÜ�Ì ÅCÞ\Ø�È'Ì ÏWÝWÌ Ï Õ�Ø�È Ê5ÁP×þÐ-Ç Ì ÏWÅOÁÈ�Ì Ï Ü�ÅCØ'Î,Ì Õ�ÐCÎ,Ì ÁPÏÐNÝWÝNÊ�ÅCØ'Ø�Ì Ï ÕRÚ5Ê5ÅNÍNÌ Ø�ÅNÇ Ò\Î,ÄWÅCØ�Å!ü À-ÅCØ'Î,Ì ÁPÏ Ø�ÛɤØ�Å+Ê Ì ÅCØ\Á È&Ç Ð+Ê�Õ�ÅNå Ø�ÍNÐNÇ ÅØMÎ ÀOÝ�Ì Å2Ø$ÍNÁ�ÏWÝNÀ�Í2Î,ÅNÝVÌ ÏVÌ Ï�Ï�ÅCÊ,åCÍ Ì Î ÒAõ�ÄWÌ Í ÐCÕ�Á�Ù Ö Ç Ç Ì Ï�ÁPÌ Ø�Ù�÷$Û Ó�Û ÙMØMÒ�ØMÎ,Å ×RÐ2Î'Ì åÍNÐNÇ Ç ÒAÍNÁP×RÚWÐCÊ5ÅNÝ!Ë�À�Ì Ç ÝWÌ ÏNÕ�Ø�ÐNÏWÝ!Ø�Ú�ÐNÍNÅCØ�Þ^Ì ÎÄ�Ü�Ð+Ê�Ò�Ì Ï5ÕAÇ ÅCÜ�ÅNÇ Ø�ÁÈPÎ Ê5Å ÅÐNÏWÝ-Õ�Ê5ÐCØ'Ø\ÍNÁÜ�Å+Ê�Þ^ÄWÌ Ç Å!Í ÁPÏ Î Ê5ÁPÇ Ç Ì Ï Õ�È'Á Ê$Ï À�×RÅCÊ5ÁÀWØ>Ø�ÁPÍNÌ ÐNÇ�ÐNÏ�ÝÅNÏ Ü�Ì Ê5Á�ÏW×RÅNÏ ÎÐNÇ È'ÐNÍ+Î,ÁÊMØ�Û�ñ�ÿ�Ê5Å ÅNÏWÅCÊ�ò�Ø�ÅCÎ ÎÌ Ï Õ�ØOÞ^ÅCÊ�Å�Í ÁP×RÚWÐCÊ�ÅNÝ8Î,ÁÐCÊ5ÍNÄWÌ ÎÅNÍ+Î À�Ê5ÐNÇ Ç ÒRÍ ÁP×RÚWÐCÊ5ÐCËOÇ Å$ÁÊ\Ì ÝWÅNÏ ÎÌ ÍNÐNÇ�ÍNÁÀOÏ5Î,Å+Ê5ÚWÐCÊMÎ Ø8Ì Ï�ÎÅCÊ5×\ØÁÈ�ÎÄ�ÅNÌ Ê\ÚWÅCÊ�È,ÁÊ5×RÐNÏ�ÍNÅ$ÁPÏAÐ�ÞRÌ ÝWÅ�Ê5Ð Ï Õ�Å$ÁÈOÅNÍNÁØ'Ò�ØMÎÅN×­Ì ÏWÝWÌ ÍNÐ+Î,Á Ê�Ø�Û

GENERAL METHODÉlÜ�Ð+Ê�Ì Å+ÎCÒYÁNÈ-×^Å5Ð�Ø,À�Ê�Å�Ø�ÙNÊ�Å�Ø�Å5Ð�Ê�Í5Ä^Ý�Å�Ø�Ì Õ�Ï5ØPÙ�Ð5Ï�Ý8Ø,ÎNÐ+ÎNÌ Ø,ÎNÌ Í5Ð5ÇNÎNÁ�Á�Ç ØÞ4Å�Ê�Å�À�Ø�Å5Ý^Ì Ï\ÎNÄ�Ì ØVÇ Ì Ï�Å�ÁNÈWÞYÁ Ê�î�ùNÎ Ä�Å�Ú�Ð�Ê'Î Ì Í+À!Ç Ð�Ê'ØVÁNÈ�Ý�Ì È È,Å�Ê�Å5Ï�Î

������������ ��������� ������������ "!#���$�� ����&%

THE ROLE OF ARBORICULTURE IN A HEALTHY

SOCIAL ECOLOGYby Frances E. Kuo

')($*,+.-0/213+34 Ö Ï\À�ÊMË�Ð5ÏRÍ5Á�×4×8À!Ï�Ì ÎNÌ Å�Ø�Ù�Ð�ÊMË-ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À-Ç Î2À�Ê�Å�Í5Ç Å5Ð+Ê�Ç ÒÍ5Á�Ï�Î2Ê�Ì ËWÀ�Î Å�Ø�ÎNÁ!Î Ä�Å�Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄRÁNÈ�Î Ä�Å>Ë�Ì Á�Ç ÁNÕ�Ì Í5Ð5Ç�Å5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,ÎNÅ ×^ù�Ý�Á�Å�ØVÌ ÎÍ5Á�Ï�Î2Ê�Ì ËWÀ�Î Å>ÎNÁ$Î Ä�Å8Ä�Å5Ð5Ç Î Ä^ÁNÈ�ÎNÄ�Å>Ø�Á�Í5Ì Ð5ÇWÅ5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,Î Å5×»Ð�Ø-Þ^Å5Ç Ç æÔ�Ü�Ì Ý�Å Ï�Í Å�È Ê�Á�× Ø,Î2À-Ý�Ì Å�Ø8Ì Ï*Ì Ï�Ï�Å�Ê�å�Í5Ì Î Ò^õ$Ä�Ì Í5Ð+Õ�Á-Ø,À�Õ�Õ�Å�Ø,Î2Ø&Ø�Á�Û Ö Ï*ÐØPÅ�Ê�Ì Å�ØeÁNÈ�Ø,Î2À!Ý�Ì Å�ØVÌ Ï�Ü�Á�Ç Ü�Ì Ï�Õ¤Á Ü�Å�ÊY¼ Ù 57676^Ú�Å+Ê'ØPÁ�Ï,8�Ø�Ú�Ð5Í5Å\ÁNËWØ�Å�Ê�åÜ�Ð�Î Ì Á�Ï�Ø�Ù�½2676AÌ Ï5Î Å+Ê'Ü�Ì Å�Þ7Ø�Ù�Ä�ÁNÀ�Ø�Ì Ï�Õ^Ð+À�Î Ä�ÁNÊ�Ì Î2Ò7Ê�Å Í5ÁNÊ�Ý5ØPÙPÐ5Ï�ÝRãÒ�Å5Ð�Ê'ØAÁNÈ$Ú�Á�Ç Ì Í5Å7Í+Ê�Ì ×^Å�Ê�Å Ú�ÁNÊ'Î2ØPÙ�Î2Ê�Å5Å8Ð5Ï�ÝVÕ�Ê�Ð�Ø,ØAÍ5Á Ü�Å�Ê-Þ4Å�Ê�ÅØÒ�Ø,Î Å5×4Ð�Î Ì Í Ð5Ç Ç Ò4Ç Ì Ï�îWÅ5Ý\Î Á¦Ð>Þ4Ì Ý�Å�Ê�Ð Ï�Õ�Å�ÁNÈWØ�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å Í5ÁNØ,Ò�ØÎ Å5×Ì Ï�Ý�Ì Í Ð�Î ÁNÊ'Ø�ÛNÃ�Ä�Å+Ø�Å�Ì Ï�Ý�Ì Í5Ð�Î ÁNÊ'Ø7Ì Ï�Í5Ç À-Ý�Å5Ý\Ø,Î2Ê�Á�Ï5Õ�Å�Ê&Î Ì Å+ØVÐ ×^Á�Ï�ÕÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�Ë-Á Ê'ØPÙ Õ�Ê�Å5Ð+Î Å�Ê�Ø�Å5Ï�Ø�Å8ÁNÈ�Ø�Ð�ÈÅ�Î2ÒYÐ5Ï�Ý4Ð5Ý:9'À�Ø,ÎN×^Å5Ï�ÎNÙW×^ÁNÊ�ÅØÀ!Ú�Å+Ê'Ü�Ì ØPÌ Á�Ï^ÁNÈ�Í Ä�Ì Ç Ý�Ê�Å5ÏRÌ Ï^ÁNÀ�ÎNÝ�Á�Á ÊOØ�Ú�Ð5Í5Å�Ø�ÙWÄ�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ�Ì Å�Ê8Ú�Ð+ÎCÎ Å�Ê�Ï�ØÁNÈ�Í5Ä�Ì Ç Ý�Ê�Å Ï�û ØVÚ�Ç Ð+Ò�Ù�×^ÁNÊ�Å�À�ØPÅ$ÁNÈ�Ï�Å Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-Á Ê�Ä�Á�Á�ÝRÍ5Á�×^×^Á�ÏØPÚ�Ð5Í Å�ØPÙ ÈÅ�Þ4Å�Ê8Ì Ï�Í Ì Ü�Ì Ç Ì Î Ì Å�ØPÙ ÈÅ�Þ4Å�Ê8Ú�Ê�Á�Ú�Å�Ê'Î2Ò4Í�Ê�Ì ×4Å�Ø�Ù�Ð5Ï�Ý\ÈÅ+ÞYÅ�ÊÜ�Ì Á�Ç Å5Ï5Î!Í+Ê�Ì ×4Å�Ø�ÛÃ\Ä�Å�Ç Ì Ï�î$Ë�Å�Î2Þ4Å5Å5ÏAÐ�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í+À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å$Ð5Ï�Ý*ÐÄ�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ�Ì Å�Ê&ØPÁ�Í5Ì Ð Ç�Å5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,ÎNÅ5×®Î2À�Ê�Ï�ØVÁ À�Î�ÎNÁ!Ë-Å�Ø,À�Ê�Ú�Ê�Ì Ø�Ì Ï�Õ�Ç ÒØPÌ ×4Ú�Ç Å�Î Á¦Å�è>Ú�Ç Ð Ì Ï�Û Ö Ï\Ê�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å Ï�Î Ì Ð Ç�Ð+Ê�Å5Ð�Ø�ÙNË�Ð�Ê'Ê�Å5Ï�Ù ÎCÊ�Å5Å5Ç Å+Ø,ØØPÚ�Ð5Í Å�ØVÁNÈ Î Å5Ï\Ë-Å Í5Á�×4Å\ñMÏ�ÁA×^Ð5Ï�û Ø7Ç Ð Ï�Ý�ØPÙ ò�ÞYÄ�Ì Í5ÄRÝ�Ì ØPÍ5Á À�Ê�Ð�Õ�ÅÊ�Å�ØPÌ Ý�Å5Ï5Î$Ì Ï�ÎNÅ+Ê�Ð5Í+Î Ì Á�Ï^Ð Ï�Ý^Ì Ï5Ü�Ì Î Å\Í�Ê�Ì ×4Å5ÛNÃ\Ä�Å\Ú�Ê�Å�Ø�Å5Ï�Í Å�ÁNÈ�ÎCÊ�Å Å�ØÐ5Ï�Ý\Þ4Å Ç Ç å�×^Ð5Ì Ï�ÎÐ5Ì Ï�Å5Ý\Õ�Ê�Ð�Ø,Ø7Í5Ð5Ï�Î2Ê�Ð Ï5ØÈ,ÁNÊ�× Î Ä�Å�Ø�Å�Ï�Á¦×RÐ5Ï�û ØÇ Ð Ï�Ý5Ø8Ì Ï5Î ÁVÚ�Ç Å Ð�Ø�Ð5Ï5ÎÙ Þ^Å5Ç Í5Á�×^Ì Ï5Õ�ÙÞ^Å Ç Ç å À�Ø�Å Ý�Ø�Ú�Ð Í Å�Ø�Û<;7Ì ÎÐ Ç ÙÞ4Å Ç Ç åÀ�ØPÅ5Ý4Ï�Å Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-ÁNÊ�ÄWÁ�Á�Ý4Í5Á�×4×4Á�ÏVØ�Ú�Ð Í Å�Ø!Ø�Å�Ê'Ü�Å&ÎNÁ�Ë�ÁNÎ ÄØÎ2Ê�Å5Ï�Õ�Î Ä�Å5Ï8Î Ì Å+ØVÐ5×4Á�Ï5ÕeÊ�Å�ØPÌ Ý�Å5Ï5ÎCØVÐ Ï�Ý^Ý�Å�Î Å�Ê7Í�Ê�Ì ×^Å5Ù Î Ä�Å�Ê�Å�ËWÒÍ�Ê�Å5Ð�Î Ì Ï5Õ´Ä�Å5Ð5Ç Î Ä�Ì Å�Ê�Ù�ØPÐ+ÈÅ�ʦÏ�Å Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�ÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý�Ø�Û=?>3@�ACB -0D$*24 Ó�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å5Í Á�Ç ÁNÕ�Ò�ùNØ,Î Ê�Å Ï�Õ�Î ÄRÁ È�Í5Á�×^×7À!ÏWÌ ÎCÒ�ù

Í�Ê�Ì ×^Å5ù Ø�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç Ë�ÅNÏ�Å+ÈÌ Î2Ø�ù Ê�Å+Ø�Ì Ý�Å5Ï5Î Ì Ð5Ç Û

Page 37: The Benefits of Urban Trees

EGF2HI0J0KML3NMOGPQJ0R2S�L.TUJ0L3V WXK�P YZK2L3[?\ H7]X^G_G`�a OXbc\7d7d ^

e Y K�f7V [ ehg V Y<i7V N�Yji7V e P V N7[�J<RhV NGk�[ e YjV l�OZYjV JmN�f2V R Rn[ZLG[�f�W�J�N e V fQ[oL,OoTUP b�pqMJ<L$Y<i2[)rGK2L,r2J e [�J<RQYji2V e LG[ok�V [ g?s JmN2P b�O�TQL,V [oRUJ<k�[oL:k�V [ g JjRt [oY<i2Jmf2JmP J<l3b�V e rGL,J<k�V f2[�f�i2[oL,[�p�u?[ZYjO�V P [�f�f2[ e WoL,V rGYjV JmN e J<RQYji2[t [oY<i2Jmf2JmP J<l3bvRnJjL$Y<i7[)W�JmN e Y<V YwK�[�NGY e Y K�f2V [ evt Oob?T�[MRnJ<K�N7f�V N)Y<i2[J<L,V l�V N7O�P x,J<K7L3N7O�P3OoLXYjV W0P [ e p&y&V t V P OoL,P b s Yni2[ e r2[�W0V RnV W e YjOoYjV e YjV W0O0P[Xk�V f2[�N2W�[�K�N2f2[oLGP b�V NGl�[�O�W�i�P V N2z)L,[�r7J<L:Yj[�f�i2[oL,[)W�O�N{T�[MR.J<K�N2f�V NY<i2[�J<LGV l�V N2O0P x,J<K2LGN2O0P�OoL:YjV W�P [ e p&|ZN t O�N�b�W0O e [ e&s O�P V N2z�T�[oY g [�[�NYwL,[�[{W�J<k�[oLvO�N2f�O0N�J<K2Y<W�J t [)V e f2JmWoK t [�NGY<[�f�N2J0Y�JmN2P b}Tmbe YjOoY<V e YjV W�O�P&[ok�V f2[0N2W�[�J<RhO�L,[�P OoY<V JmN e i2V r)T7K2YUO�P e J�TQb t [�f2V OZYjV JmNY<[ e Y e [o~$O t V N7V N�l{Y<i7[�rGL,J�r2J e [�f t [�W0i7O�N2V e3t O�N2f�T7b�N�K t [ZL,J<K e3se J t [oY<V t [ e f2J<�7[0N e J<R s<e Y<OoYjV e Y<V WGO�P<Yj[ e Y e RnJ<Lvr2J<Y<[�NGYjV O�PmW�JmN�RnJ<K�N2f2�V NGl?RnO�WoYjJ<L e pn��i7V P [�O�P PnRnV N2f7V NGl e L,[�r2JjL:Y<[0f�i2[oLG[ g [oL,[ e YjOoYnV e Y<V W�O�P P be V l�N2V RnV W�O�NGY s V Y e i7J<K�P f{TU[)N2J<Yj[�f{Y<i2OoYQTUJ<Y<i�[oR Rj[�WoY e V �7[ e O�N7fWG[oL:YjO�V NGY b�P [ok�[�P e k�OoL,V [�f#O�WoL,J e.e f2V R Rn[oLG[�NGY)O�N2O�P b e [ e O�N2f�f7V R Rn[oL,[�NGYe Y K�f2V [ e pj�{i7[)r�K7L,r2J e [�J<RmYji2V e L,[ok�V [ g V e Y<J�V NGY L,Jm�f,K�W�[MY<i2[)W�J t�t JmN2O�P V YjV [ e J<RQYji2[ g J<LGz�O e O g i2JmP [OGN2f{YjJ�O�f2fGL,[ ene O{P OoL:l$[oL�YjiM[ t [)N2J<Y7R K�P P bvYwL,[�OoY<[�f�V NOGNGb�J<RQYji2[)W�JmN e YjV YwK�[�NGY e YwK�f2V [ en� Y<i7[ML,[�P OoYjV JmN e i2V rT�[oY g [�[�N?Y LG[�[ e O0N2f�O{i2[�O�P Y<iGb e JmW�V O�P�[�W�JmP J<l3b0p

Setting and Overall Research Design|ZN�[Z~$O t V N7V N�l?YjiQ[�r7JjYj[0N�YjV O0P�[ZR R.[�WZY e JnRmY LG[0[ e J�N�Oi2[0O0P Yni�b e J�W0V O0P3[0W<JmP Jjl3b s Yni7[�W0i7O�P P [0N�l2[ g O e YjJhRnV N7f�Oe [ZY YjV N�l�V N g i7V W0i�Yji7[�r�LG[ e [0N7W�[�J<R�Y LG[0[ e�g O eV N7f2[0r7[0N2f7[0N�Y�JjRUJ<Yni2[ZLhR.O0WoYnJ<L e P V zQ[0P bvYjJ�OZR Rn[0WZYMYni2[e J�W0V O0P3[0W0J�P Jjl,b0p3|wfQ[0O0P P b s O0N�b�N7[0V lMi�TUJjL<i7J�J�f e$g [e Y K�f7V [�f g JjK�P f t [0[ZYmRnJjK7L�WZL,V Yj[ZLGV O0p3qQV L e Y s O�r7JjYn[0N�YjV O0PL,[ e [0OZLGW�i e [ZY YjV N�l�i7O0f)YjJ}i2OZkM[MkMOZL,V OoYnV J�N�V N�Yji7[O t JjK�N�YUJjR�l,LG[0[0NW0J<kM[ZL)V t�t [0f7V OZYj[0P b�J<K7Y e V f7[L,[ e V f2[0N7W0[ e:� R L,J t r7P O0W0[ e Yji7OoY g [ZLG[MR K�P P�JjRhr7P O0NGY eYjJ�r2P O�W0[ e Yji7OZY g [oLG[MTUOZL:LG[0N�JjRUr7P O0N�Y e p&y&[0W0JmN7f s[�N�kMV LGJ�N t [0N�YjO0P�R:[0OZY K7L,[ e JjYji7[ZLUYji7O�N{k�[ZlM[ZYjOZYjV J�Ne i7J<K�P f�TU[�i2[0P fW0JmN e YnO0NGYUO0WZLGJ e:e L,[ e V f2[0N7W0[ e pn�)i2V L,f sL,[ e V f7[0N�Y e$e i7JjK�P f�TU[7LGO0N2f7J t P b�O e.e V l2N7[0f�YnJL,[ e V f2[0N7W0[ e JjLvO e:e V l�N7[0f�V L:LG[ e r7[0WoYnV kM[)JjR7Yji7[{O t JjK�N�YJ<R�l,L�[0[�N�W0JjkM[oLnp3q7V N2O0P P b s L�[ e V f2[0N�Y e$e iQJjK�P f�i2OZkM[�N7JV N�RnP K�[0N7W0[)J<kM[ZL�Yni7[ t O�V N�Yj[0N2O0N7W0[)J<RmYni2[�kM[ZlM[oYnOoYnV J�NN2[0OZL�Yji7[�V L{i7J t [<p��[�RjJ<K�NMf{Y g JrGK2T�P V W)iMJ<K e V N,l�f2[ok$[�P Jmr t [�N,Y e V N���i2V W�OXl�J

Y0iMOoY t [XYMY<iM[ e [{WZL3V Y<[XL,V O `Q� J<T�[oL.YM�hOXb�P J0Lv�J t [ e OGNMf?Y<iM[)|ZfMO{�Mp��[GP P e iMJ<K e V N,l#f7[Xk$[�P JQr t [GN,Y<pm��OGWGi�fM[Xk�[GP JQr t [GNGY�iMO e rMJmWGz7[XY eJ0R�YwL3[G[ e OGNMf}l&L3O ene O e�g [GP P7O e [X~�rMOGN e [ e J0RMT�OoL.L3[GN#OXL3[GO ] qMV l&KML3[EX_ pm��O�WGi�f2[Xk�[GP Jmr t [�N,Y�V eUe YwL3V z7V N,l�P b�WGJmN e V e Y<[GNGY�V N�OXL,WGi7V Y<[GWXYwK2L3[�pS�YMY<iM[$Y<V t [{J0R�J<KML e YZK�fMV [ e�s � J0T�[XL:Y2�hOXb$P J0Lv�J t [ e W�JQN e V e Y<[Gf�J0R\7��V f2[GNGY<V WGO�P E�� � e Y<J0L:b�OGr2OXL:Y t [GNGY2TQK�V P f2V N,l e P O�V f�J0K2Y�V N e V NGl�P [RjV P [{O�P JQNGl#O F p �7�oz t WGJ0LXL3V fMJ<L<pm��OGW�i{T7K�V P f2V N,l�OXY � J<T�[XL:Y7�hOXb�P J<L�J t [ e�g O e T�J0L,fM[XL3[�f�JQN?Y0i2[ g [ e Y2T2b#OGN�V N,Y<[XL e Y0OoY0[{i2V l�i g OobOGNMf?L3OGV P L3JQO�f?YZL,O�WGz e O�NMf�JQN?Y<iM[{[�O e YMT7b#O e V ~��XP OGNM[ t K�NMV WGV rMOGPY0i2J0L�J0K2l$i,RnOXLG[{O�N2f g V fM[ e V f2[ g O�P z7p<�{i2[{|of2O{�2p<��[�P P e fM[Zk$[�P JQrM�t [�N,Y�V N2WGP K�fM[�f E \ F P J g � L3V e [ ] \7�&Y<J F � e Y<J0L:b _ O�rMOoL.Y t [GN�YT7K�V P fMV NGl e P O�V f�JjK2Y�JmN�O$Y b$r2V W�OGPjl3L3V f�r2OoYwY<[oL3N2pm��i2V W�OXl�J���J0K e V NGlS�KMY<iMJ0L3V Ywb#rMJQP V W0V [ e L3[ e K�P Y�V N�fM[$RjO�WXYjJ�L3OGNMfMJ t O eje V l$N t [GN,Y�J<RL3[ e V fM[�N,Y e Y<J�OGrMOoL:Y t [GN,YMT7K�V P fMV N,l e R.J0LhT�J<Y0i�f2[Xk$[GP JQr t [GN,Y e�s

OGN2fvL3[ e V fM[GN,Y e i2OXk$[?NMJ�V N,RjP K�[GN2WG[vJ<k$[XLUY0iM[{P JQWGOXY<V JQN#J<Lt O�V N,Y<[GNMO�NMWG[?J0R2YwL3[G[ e J<LUl&L3O ene OXY)[�V Y<iM[XL}f2[ok$[GP Jmr t [GN,Y<p0�?i,K e&sY<i,LGJ<KMl$iMJ0K2Y�Y0i2V e LG[Xk$V [ g?s OGP PQWGJ t rMOXL3V e JQN e T�[XY g [G[�N#� l&LG[G[GN2[XL3�OGN2f��.P [ eje l&L3[�[GNM� e [XYwY0V NGl e L3[XRj[oL�Y0J e [XYwY<V NGl e�g iMV WGi#OoL3[v[GV Y0i2[XLL3J<KMl�iMP b t OXY<WGiM[Gf�J<L}V f7[GN,Y<V WGOGPQV N�O?iMJ e Y�J<R�OXL3WGi2V Y<[GWXYwKML3OGPWGi2OXL,OGWXY<[XL3V e Y<V W e OGNMf�L3[ e V f2[GN,Y�WGiMOXL,OGWXY<[XL3V e YjV W e p| Y e iMJ0K�P f?T�[{NMJ0Y<[Gf{Y<iMOXY s V N?Y<iM[ e YZK�fMV [ e L3[�rMJ0L.Y<[Gf�iM[oL3[ s

L3OoY0V N,l e J0R{� l&L3[G[�NMNM[ ene ��O�NMf�� l&L3[G[GNcWGJ0k$[XL3� t OXb�T�[�L,[Xl$OXL3fM[GfO e LGJ0K2l$iMP bc[G��K�V k$OGP [GN,YMY<J{L,OXY0V N,l e J<R�� YwL,[�[?WGJ<k$[XL<p �7S�P Y<iMJ0KMl$i� l3L3[�[GNMNM[ ene ��OGNMfc� l&L3[G[�NcWGJ<k$[XL3� g [oL3[�f2[XRjV NM[Gf�Y0J�V NMWGP K�fM[Ul&L3O eneWGJ<k�[XL s Y0iM[vO t J0K�N,Y)J0RMY L3[G[?WGJ0k$[XL�V N#O e WG[GN2[vV e Ohk$[oL.b e YwLGJQN,lr,L,[�fMV WXY0J0L}J0R�J0k$[XL3OGP Pox.K�f,l t [GN,Y e J0RMl&L,[G[GNMN2[ ene&� T2bcWGJQN,YwL3O e Y s Y0i7[O t J<K�N,Y)J0RMl&L3O ene W�J0k$[XL}OGrMr2[GOXL e Y<J�WGJQNGYZL3V TQKMY0[?P V YZY<P [hY0J{L,OXY0V N,l eJ0RUl3L3[G[�NMNM[ ene p

RESULTSWelcoming Residents OutdoorsS���K�OXL.Y<[XL0�XWG[GN,YwKMLnb�J0RMLG[ e [GOXLGWGi ] RnJ0L�L,[Xk$V [ g{sGe [G[v��OGr2P OGN#OGNMf��OGr2P OGN E�H � H�_ iMO e V N2fMV WGOXY<[Gf?Y<iMOXY s V N?l$[�NM[oL3O�P s KML.T�OGN�J0K2Y0f2JQJ0LOXL,[GO e�g V Y<i}YZL3[�[ e OXL3[ e K7T e Y0O�N,Y0V OGP P b t J<L3[}rGL,[XRj[XL.L3[Gf}Y<iMOGNe V t V P OoL e [XYwY<V NGl ehg V Y<iMJ<K7Y2YwL3[�[ e pmy�J t [)i2J0K e V N,l�OoKMY<i2J0L,V Ywbt OGN2OXl$[oL e�s iMJ g [Xk$[oL s i2Ook$[$Y0i2[$T�[�P V [XR7Y<iMOXY�P J g �XV NMWGJ t [�SUR L3V WGO�NS t [XL3V WGOGN e fMJQNM� Y�k$O�P K�[�YZL,[G[ ej� Y<iMOXYMYZL,[G[ e OZL,[?O t V fMf2P [G�XWGP O ener,L,[oRn[XL,[GNMWG[Gp a J0L,[GJ0k$[oL s V N#rMJQJ0L�V NMN2[XL0�XWGV YZbcNM[GV l$i,T�J<L3i2JQJQf eY<iM[XLG[{V e Y<iM[{WGJmNMWG[XL&N?Y<i2OXY2YwL,[G[ e L3[�f,K�WG[$k$V e V T�V P V YwbGpm�J0K e V N,lOXK2Y0i2J<L3V Ywb t O�NMOXl$[XL e OGN2f�rMJQP V WG[ e KMl3l$[ e Y�Y<i2OXYMYwL3[G[ e�t OGz7[L3[ e V fM[GN,Y e Rj[G[GP0K�N e OXRj[ � V R e J s Y<iM[vrGL3[ e [GNMWG[{J0RMYwL3[G[ e V NvY0iMV ee [XYwY<V N,l t V l$i,Y�OGWXYwK�OGP P b t OGz7[?J0KMY<fMJQJ0L e rMO�WG[ e P [ ene OXYwYwL3OGWXY<V k�[OGN2f�P [ ene K e OXT�P [GpQ�J g fMJ�rMJQJ0LUKML:T�OGNvL3[ e V fM[GN,Y e L3[ e rMJQNMfvY<JYwL,[G[ en� ��J0K�P fY<iM[�rGL,[ e [GNMWG[}J0R$YwL,[G[ e V NcJ0K2Y<fMJQJ0LOXL,[GO e iMOXk$[}N2J[XR Rj[�WXYvJ<L�[Xk$[GN t O�z2[�Y<i2[ e [�OXL3[GO e P [ eje OXYwYZL,O�WXY<V k$[�Y<JvL3[ e V fM[GN,Y ej�

�$�w���$�<�#���G �¡$¢2�<£.¤¥�G¦�£h§��$�Z¨w©$�Z¦$�&ªv¢7£U«�¬M§��,�0£h­�¢2®m¨w¬M�)¯¬M¤��,ª�° £.¬2¡$±�¢7¦�©c²n©$¢³�,´µ�3¨Z¨Zª#°w§�¬M£.£.¬M¤¥±�¶,·��Z£.¸$¬M��£�£.�<�&�3ª#°w¨w�3¹:£:±{¢7¦�©º·��Z£.¸¥£.�0�,�3ªc° ���w��¸�£.±m�

Page 38: The Benefits of Urban Trees

»,¼2½ ¾7¿�ÀmÁ<Â?Ã2Ä{Å�ÀmÆ Ä{À<Ç7ÈUÉ:Ê�À0É,Ë ÌX¿�Æ Íw¿2É3Ä)Ë Î�Ï{Ð�Ä�Ï�Æ Í0ÃGÑ#Ò�ÀmÌGË Ï�ÆQÓ�Ì�ÀQÆ À<Ô3Ñ

Õ ¿MÉhÇjË ÎMÖMË Î,Ô,×�×n¿MÔ&Ô$ÄX×nÍ2Í0Ã2ÏXÍ0ØmË Î?ÇnÏGÌXÍ<Ø0É3Äo×�Ë ÖMÄGÎGÍZ×&ÙXÉ,ÄX×�Ú7ÀQÎ,×&Ä$Í0ÀÍZÉ,ÄGÄX×}Ë ×}ÄXÛ�ÍwÉ,ÄGÜ#Ä0Æ Ñ#ÚMÀ<×&Ë Í0Ë Ý�Ä{ÞX¾2¿�À�ÄoÍ�ÏGÆ ßh»�à2à7á�âGß Õ ÎMÄ{ÃG¿�Î2Ö,É3Ä�ÖÉ3ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄ�Î,Íw×}À0Ç�Ï{ã�ÃMË ÌGÏoÔ$À�ÚG¿MÊ�Æ Ë Ì)ÃMÀ0¿7×&Ë Î,Ô#Ö2ÄXÝ$Ä�Æ ÀmÚMÜ#Ä�Î,Í7ä#ÄXÉ3ÄÏX×&å2Ä�Ö?Í<À�É3Äo×�Ú2ÀQÎ2Ö{Í<À�Ë Ü#ÏXÔ�ÄX×}ÞXÚMÃMÀ0ÍjÀ<×�Ë Üv¿�Æ ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎ,×nâ{ÖMÄ�ÚMË ÌXÍ<Ë Î,ÔÍ0ÃMÄGË É}ÌGÀ0¿2É.ÍZÑ$ÏoÉ3Ö?äcË Í<Ã�ÏGÎMÖvä#Ë Í<ÃMÀ0¿MÍ2ÍZÉ,ÄGÄX×&Ø�ä#Ë Í<Ã�À0Í<ÃMÄXÉUÇnÏGÌXÍ<À0É.×Þ:Æ Ë Ô�Ã,Í<Ë ÎGÔ$Ø<ä#Ä�ÏXÍ<Ã7ÄXÉjØmÚMÄ�ÀQÚ2Æ Ä{Ë Î{Í<ÃMÄ)Ì�À<¿MÉ:ÍZÑ�ÏXÉGÖ2ØmÄXÍ<Ì�ß â{ÃMÄ�Æ ÖÌGÀQÎ,×nÍ0ÏGÎGÍ0ßQÅ�Äo×�Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Íw×�×nÍZÉ3ÀmÎ,Ô$Æ Ñ#Ú,É3ÄXÇnÄoÉ.É3ÄGÖ�Ë Ü#ÏoÔ$ÄX×�äcË Í<ÃvÍ É3ÄGÄX×næÏGÎMÖÍ<ÃMÄ}Ü#À0É3ÄUÍwÉ3ÄGÄo×�Ø,Í<ÃMÄ�×nÍwÉ3ÀQÎ,Ô$ÄoÉ�Í<ÃMÄGË É�Ú,É3ÄXÇnÄXÉ3ÄGÎMÌGÄGß,ç�ÄGÏGÎÉ3ÏXÍ0Ë Î,Ô&×UÇjÀ0ÉUÍ<ÃMÄ{Ã2Ë Ô$Ã?ÍZÉ3Ä�Ä?ÖMÄ�Î,×�Ë ÍwÑcË Ü�ÏXÔ$Äo×�Þ:¼7è{ÍwÉ3ÄGÄX×}ÚMÄXÉvÃ2ÏXâäcÄXÉ3Ä{é?×nÍ<ÏGÎMÖMÏXÉ,Ö�ÖMÄXÝ$Ë ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎG×Ã2Ë Ô$Ã2ÄXÉhÍ<ÃMÏGÎvÍ<ÃMÄ?Ü#Ä�ÏGÎvÉ3ÏoÍ<Ë Î,Ô&×�ÇjÀ0ÉÍZÉ3ÄGÄ�Æ ÄX×n×�Ë Ü#ÏXÔ$ÄX×vÞ çc×�ê7ßn»$Ý$ÄoÉ.×j¿2×�½2ß ë�ÀQÎ�Ï?½{Í<À�è{×�Ì�ÏGÆ Ä�Ø<Ç É3ÀQÜì ÎMÀ0Í�ÏXÍ�ÏGÆ Æ ímÍ<À ì ÝMÄXÉnÑ#Üv¿�ÌGÃ2í â,ßmî,¿2É.Í<Ã2ÄXÉ<ØmÏGÚMÚ,ÉGÀ<ÛhË Ü#ÏoÍ0Ä�Æ Ñ�ÀmÎMÄGïÍ0ÃMË É3Ö�À0Ç7É,ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄ�ÎGÍw×�×n¿MÉ.Ý$ÄoÑ$ÄGÖ�ÌGÆ ÏGË Ü#Ä�Ö?Í<ÃMÏXÍ2Í0Ã2ÄXÑ}ä#À0¿�Æ Ö{¿M×&ÄÍ0ÃMÄGË É�ÌGÀ0¿MÉ:ÍZÑ$ÏXÉ,Ö�Ü#À0É3ÄvË Ç�ÍwÉ3ÄGÄX×�ä#ÄXÉ3Ä?ÚMÆ Ï�Î,Í0Ä�ÖMß

Â{ÃMÄo×&Ä$ÇnË ÎMÖ2Ë ÎGÔ&×h×n¿MÔ&Ô�ÄX×nÍ2Í<Ã2ÏXÍ<ØmË Î)¿MÉ:Ê�ÏGÎ�ÎMÄ�Ë Ô�Ã,Ê�À<É3Ã2ÀmÀmÖ,×&ØÍZÉ,ÄGÄo×}Ü#Ë Ô$ÃGÍ�ÚMÆ ÏoÑ�Ï{Ú2Ë Ý$À<Í<ÏGÆ<É3ÀmÆ Ä{Ë Î�Ö�É3Ïoä#Ë Î,Ô}É,ÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Íw×}Àj¿MÍw×&Ë ÖMÄ�ßÂ?ÃMÄoÑ}Ç ¿MÉ:Í<ÃMÄXÉh×n¿7Ô&Ô$Äo×nÍ�Ï�äcÏoÑ#Ë Î?ä#Ã2Ë ÌGÃ�ÏXÉ.Ê�À0É,Ë ÌX¿�Æ Íw¿MÉ,Ä{Ü�Ë Ô$ÃGÍÌGÀQÎ,ÍwÉ3Ë Ê7¿MÍ<Ä�Í<À�Ï{Ã2ÄGÏGÆ Í0Ã,Ñ}×&ÀQÌGË ÏGÆQÄGÌGÀ0×.Ñ&×nÍ0Ä�Ü}æðÊ2Ñ#ÄGÎMÃMÏGÎ7ÌGË ÎGÔÉ3ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄGÎGÍZ×&Ùo¿M×&Ä{ÀjÇ7Í<ÃMÄ$×&ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×Qñ.¿M×nÍ�À<¿2Íw×&Ë Ö2Ä$Í<ÃMÄGË ÉhÊ7¿�Ë Æ ÖMË ÎGÔ3×&ØÍ0ÃMÄoÉ3ÄXÊ2Ñ#ÚGÉ3ÀQÜ#À<Í<Ë Î,Ô#Ë ÎGÇjÀ0É3Ü#Ï�ÆQÌGÀQÎ,ÍjÏGÌXÍ�ÏGÜ#ÀmÎ,Ô#ÎMÄGË Ô$Ã,Ê�À<É.×�Ï�ÎMÖË Î,ÍwÉ,ÀQÖG¿�Ì�Ë ÎGÔ#Ë ÎGÇnÀ<É3Ü�Ï�Æ<×n¿MÉ:Ý�ÄGË Æ Æ Ï�ÎMÌ�Ä�ß

Adults’ Use of Outdoor Spacesò ÃMÀ<Í0À<×�Ë Ü}¿�Æ ÏoÍ0Ë ÀmÎG×�ØmÃMÀ0ä#ÄXÝ�ÄXÉ<ØmÏXÉ,Ä{Ï0ÚMÚ,ÉGÀ0Û�Ë Ü�ÏXÍ<Ë ÀmÎ,×�À<Ç7ÉGÄGÏGÆ Ë ÍwÑGØÏGÎMÖ�Ú,É3Ä�ÖMË ÌoÍ0Ë ÀQÎ,×}À<Ç2¿2×�Ä{ÏXÉ,Ä{Ü#ÄXÉGÄGÆ Ñ#ÚGÉ3Ä�ÖMË ÌoÍ0Ë ÀQÎ,×&ß0Â�À�ä#Ã2ÏXÍÄXÛmÍ<ÄGÎ,ÍMä#ÄXÉ,Ä?Ë ÎMÎ2ÄXÉ<ï:ÌGË ÍwÑ�É,ÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Íw×Ï0ÌGÌX¿MÉ3ÏXÍ<Ä?Ë Î�Ú,ÉGÄGÖMË ÌXÍ0Ë Î,Ô�Í<ÃMÏXÍÍ0ÃMÄXÑ�ä#À0¿�Æ Ö�¿M×&Ä ì Ô&É3ÄGÄGÎMÄXÉ,í�À0¿2Í0ÖMÀmÀ<É�×�ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×�Ü#À<É3Ä�À<Ç Í0Ä0Î,ó

ô ¿�Ë ÍjÄ)Ï�Ì�Ìo¿2ÉGÏoÍ<Ä�Ø�Ë Í7ä#À<¿�Æ Ö�Ï�Ú2Ú2Ä�ÏZÉnß�î2Ë Î2Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×hÇ É�ÀmÜõÍjÃ�ÉGÄ�ÄÖMË Ç ÇnÄoÉ,Ä�ÎGÍM×nÍ ¿�Ö2Ë Äo×}Ë Î2Ö2Ë Ì�ÏoÍ<Ä$Í<Ã2ÏoÍMÔ3É,Ä�Ä0Î2ÄoÉUÉ,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍjË Ï�ÆQÀ<¿2ÍjÖ2ÀmÀ<É×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×UÉ3Ä�Ì�Ä�Ë Ý�Ä{Ü�À<É,Ä$¿2×&Ä�Ç É3ÀmÜöÏ�ÖG¿�Æ Í2É,Äo×&Ë Ö2Ä�Î,Í ×UÍ<Ã2Ï�Î?ÍjÃ7Ä�Ë ÉÊ�ÏoÉ:É,Ä�Î�Ì�À<¿�ÎGÍ<ÄoÉ,Ú7ÏoÉ:Í ×&ß�÷ZÎ�ÀmÎ2Ä�×.Íw¿�ÖGÑ0ØnÉ,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍ ×vÆ Ë Ý�Ë ÎGÔ�Ë Î)Ô3ÉGÄGÄ�Î2ÄoÉÃ2Ë ÔMÃ2ï É,Ë ×&Ä�Ï0Ú2ÏoÉ:ÍjÜ�Ä�Î�Í7ÊQ¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×�É,Ä�Ú2ÀjÉXÍ<Ä0Ö)×&Ë Ô�Î7Ë Ç.Ë Ì�Ï0ÎGÍjÆ Ñ�Ü�À<É,ÄM¿2×3ÄÀ<ÇmÍjÃ2Ä�ÏoÉ,Ä0Ï,ñ:¿2×.ÍUÀ<¿7Íw×3Ë Ö2ÄMÍjÃ2Ä0Ë É�Ê7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ?ÍjÃ2Ï0Î�Ö2Ë Ö)É,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä0Î�Í ×vÆ Ë Ý�Ë ÎGÔË Î)ÊQ¿�Ë Æ Ö7Ë ÎGÔ,×�ä�Ë ÍnÃ�Æ ÄZ×.×�ÝMÄoÔMÄoÍjÏZÍjË À�Î�Þo¾Q¿�À}ÄZÍUÏ�Æ ß�»0àQàQá0â�ß&÷wÎ)Í ä�ÀÀ0ÍjÃ2ÄoÉ�×nÍw¿�Ö2Ë Äo×&Ø�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í2¿2×3Ä{À<ÇQÉ,Äo×&Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍjË Ï�Æ<×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×Uä�Ïo×UÇnÀ<¿�Î7Ö{Í<À�Ê�ÄÖMË ×&ÚGÉ,ÀmÚ2À<É:ÍjË ÀmÎ2ÏoÍjÄ�Æ Ñ¥Ì�ÀmÎ2Ì�Ä�ÎGÍwÉ,ÏoÍ<Ä�Ö#Ë Î�Ô3É,Ä�Ä�Î2ÄoÉ�Ý�ÄoÉ:×n¿2×�Ü�À<É,ÄÊ�ÏZÉ:É,Ä0Î)×3Ú2Ï�Ì0Äo×?Þoã�ÀmÆ ÄZÑ�ÄoÍUÏ�Æ ß$»0àQà7øQù&Òn¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý�Ï�Î�ÄoÍ�Ï0Æ ß Ø&Ë Î�ÚGÉ,Äo×.×jâ�ß�÷ZÎÍ<Ã2Ä)ã�ÀmÆ ÄXÑ�ÄoÍ�Ï�Æ ßj×.Íw¿�ÖGÑ0ØjÍ<Ã2Ä�Ô3ÉGÄ�ÏoÍ<ÄoÉ�ÍnÃ2Ä)ÎG¿�ÜvÊ�ÄoÉ?À<ÇQÍ ÉGÄ�Äo×�ÇnÀ<¿�Î2Ö�Ë ÎÏ�×3Ú2Ï�Ì�Ä�Ø0Í<Ã2Ä$Ô3É,Ä0ÏoÍ<ÄoÉhÍjÃ2Ä{Î,¿�ÜvÊUÄoÉvÀ<Ç�Ú2Ä�ÀmÚ2Æ Ä$ä#Ã2À�¿2×&Ä�Ö?ÍnÃ2Ä�×3Ú2Ï�Ì�Ä×&Ë Üv¿�Æ Í<Ï�Î2Ä�À<¿2×3Æ Ñ�ß<ç�À<ÉGÄ�À<Ý�ÄXÉjØ0ÍjÃ2Ä?Ì�Æ À<×,ÄoÉUÍ ÉGÄ�ÄX×�ä�ÄoÉGÄ�ÍjÀ�Ï�Ú7ÏoÉ:Í<Ü�Ä�ÎGÍÊ7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ,×3Ø�Ï0Î2Ö�ÍnÃG¿2×�ÍjÃ7Ä�Ü�ÀjÉ,Ä2Ý�Ë ×.¿�Ï<Æ Æ Ñ�Ï�Î2Ö�Ú2Ã�Ñ3×3Ë Ì�Ï0Æ Æ Ñ�Ï0Ì0Ì�Äo×.×3Ë ÊUÆ ÄÍ<Ã2ÄoÑ?ä�ÄoÉ,Ä�ØjÍjÃ2Ä�Ü�À<É,Ä�Ú2Ä�ÀmÚ2Æ Ä�×3Ú2Ä�ÎGÍQÍjË Ü�Ä�À<¿2Íw×3Ë Ö2Ä)Î7Ä�ÏoÉ�ÍjÃ7Ä�Ü�ß&÷ZÎÍ<Ã7Ä�Æ Àjä�ï ÉGË ×3Ä�Ö7ÄoÝMÄ�Æ ÀmÚ7Ü�Ä�Î�Í7×.Í ¿�Ö2Ë Ä�Ö7Ø&Î7À�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í ×?ÏoÍUÏ�Æ Æjä�ÄoÉ�ÄÀ0ÊQ×&ÄoÉ:Ý�Ä�Ö�Ë Î�ÏoÉ3Ä0Ïo×Ö2ÄoÝ�ÀmË Ö#À<Ç2ÍwÉ,Ä�Äo×&ß

Children’s Use of Outdoor Spacesú ÄvÏGÆ ×&À{ÇjÀ0¿�ÎMÖ�ÖMË Ç ÇjÄXÉ,ÄGÎMÌGÄo×Ë Î�ÌGÃMË Æ Ö�É,ÄGÎMÙ×�¿M×&ÄvÀ<Ç�À0¿MÍ<ÖMÀmÀ<É×�ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×ÏX×ÏhÇ ¿�Î7ÌXÍ0Ë ÀQÎ�À0ÇMÍwÉ,ÄGÄvÌ�À0Ý$ÄXÉ<ßQã)Ã2Ë Æ Ö,É,ÄGÎMÙ×�¿M×&ÄvÀ0Ç2ÉGÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎMïÍ0Ë ÏGÆ2À0¿MÍ<ÖMÀQÀ0É�×&Ú2ÏGÌGÄo×)ä#ÏX×�ÖMË ×�ÚGÉ3ÀQÚMÀ0É:Í<Ë ÀQÎMÏXÍ<ÄGÆ Ñ¥ÌGÀQÎMÌGÄ�Î,ÍZÉ,ÏoÍ0ÄGÖ#Ë ÎÔ&É3ÄGÄGÎMÄXÉUÝ$ÄXÉ.×n¿M×�Æ ÄX×n×�Ô&É3ÄGÄ�Î}×&ÚMÏGÌGÄo×jæûÏ�×jÍ<ÏXÍ<Ë ×nÍ<Ë ÌGÏ�Æ Æ Ñ�×�Ë Ô$Î2Ë ÇjË ÌGÏGÎ,ÍÇjË Î2Ö2Ë ÎGÔ�Ë Î�ÀmÎMÄ�×.Í ¿�ÖGÑ�ÞXã�ÀmÆ ÄoÑ�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ß�»�àQà7ø�â{Ï�Î2Ö�Ï)Ü�ÏXÉ:Ô�Ë Î7ÏGÆ Æ Ñ×&Ë Ô�ÎMË ÇjË ÌGÏ�ÎGÍ�ÀmÎ2Ä�Ë Î�Ï�ÎMÀ<Í<Ã2ÄoÉ?ÞXÚ�ü�ß ½7øQØ�Òj¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý$Ï�Î�ÄoÍ�Ï�Æ ß Ø�Ë Î�ÚGÉ,ÄX×.×nâGß÷oÎ#ÏGÖMÖMË Í<Ë ÀmÎMØ7Ü#À<É3ÄvÖMÄoÍ0ÏGË Æ ÄGÖ#À0Ê7×&ÄXÉ.Ý�ÏXÍ<Ë ÀmÎ,×�É3ÄXÝ$ÄGÏGÆ ÄGÖ#Ö2Ë Ç ÇnÄXÉ3ÄGÎMÌGÄX×

Ë Î�Ì�ÃMË Æ Ö,ÉGÄGÎMÙ×�Ê�ÄGÃMÏXÝ$Ë À0É.×}Ë ÎvÔ&É,ÄGÄGÎ2ÄXÉ�Ý�ÄXÉ.×n¿M×�Æ ÄX×j×�Ô&ÉGÄGÄGÎv×�ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×&ßã�ÃMË Æ ÖGÉ3ÄGÎ�Ë Î?Ô3É3ÄGÄGÎ{×�Ú2ÏGÌ�ÄX×Uä#ÄXÉ3Ä)Ü#À0É3Ä)Æ Ë å7Ä�Æ Ñ}Í<À�Ê�Ä$ÇjÀ0¿�ÎMÖÄ�Î,Ô�ÏoÔ$ÄGÖ�Ë Î�ÚMÆ ÏXÑ�ÏGÌXÍ<Ë Ý$Ë ÍjË ÄX×UÍ<ÃMÏ�Î�À0Í<Ã2ÄXÉvå7Ë ÎMÖ�×�À<Ç�ÏGÌoÍ<Ë Ý�Ë Í0Ë Äo×&ØQÏ�ÎMÖÍ<ÃMÄXÉ,Ä�äcÏX×ÏGÆ ×&À�Ë Î2ÌXÉ3ÄGÏX×3ÄGÖ#ÌXÉ3Ä�ÏXÍ0Ë Ý$ÄvÚ2Æ ÏXÑcË ÎvÔ3É3ÄGÄGÎ}×&ÚMÏGÌGÄo×ÞXîMÏoÊUÄXÉhÂhÏXÑ�Æ À<ÉvÄXÍ�ÏGÆ ßh»�à7à7á�âGß÷ZÎ)ÍjÃ2Äo×3Ä�×.Í ¿�Ö2Ë Äo×&ØnÊ�ÀjÍjÃ�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í ×&Ù<Ï�Î2Ö�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ Ö�É�Ä�Î2Ù×�Í<ÄoÉXÉ,Ë ÍjÀ<É,Ë Ï�Æ

Ú2ÏoÍ ÍjÄoÉ,ÎG×Uä#ÄoÉ,Ä$ÇnÀ<¿�Î2Ö?Í<À�ÊUÄ$×nÑ3×.Í<Ä�Ü�ÏoÍ<Ë Ì�Ï�Æ Æ Ñ}ÉGÄ�Æ ÏoÍ<Ä�Ö?ÍjÀ�Í<Ã2Ä{ÄoÛ&Í<Ä�Î�ÍÀjÇQÔGÉGÄ0Ä0Î�Ì0ÀjÝMÄoÉnß ò ÉGÄZ×.¿�Ü�ÏZÊUÆ Ñ�Ã7Ä0Ï�Æ ÍjÃ7Ë ÄZÉvÚ7ÏZÍ ÍjÄwÉ,Î�×}ÀjÇ7ÍnÄZÉ:ÉGË ÍnÀ<ÉGË Ï0Æ Ë Í Ñ,æÔ3É,Ä�ÏZÍjÄXÉU¿2×&Ä?À<Ç�À<¿2ÍjÖ2ÀmÀ<ÉU×3Ú2Ï�ÌGÄo×�ÊQÑ�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Íw×3Ø�Ô,É,Ä�ÏXÍjÄoÉ�¿2×3ÄvÀ<ÇÀ<¿2ÍjÖ7ÀmÀ<É$×&Ú2Ï�Ì�ÄZ×hÊ7Ñ�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ ÖGÉ,Ä�Î2Ø�Ï0Î2Ö�Ë Î2ÌoÉ,Ä�Ïo×3Ä�Ö�Ú2Æ ÏoÑ�Ë Î�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ ÖGÉ,Ä�ÎGæä�ÄoÉGÄ?Ïo×n×3ÀQÌ�Ë ÏoÍ<Ä�Övä�Ë ÍjÃvÔ,É,Ä�ÄGÎ2ÄoÉ}Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊ�À<É,Ã2À�ÀmÖv×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×3ß7÷ZÎÖGÉ,Ïoä�Ë ÎGÔvÉ,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍw×?À<¿2Íw×,Ë Ö7Ä�Ø�Ü�Ë ÔMÃGÍ7ÍwÉ,Ä0Äo×vÏ�Æ ×,À�Ë Î2ÌoÉ,Ä�ÏZ×&ÄMÍ<Ã2ÄMÍjË Ü�ÄÉGÄo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍw×�×&Ú2Ä�Î2Ö�Ë Î�ÚGÉGÀ<Û�Ë Ü�Ë ÍwÑ?Í<À�ÀmÎ2Ä)Ï�Î2À<ÍjÃ7ÄoÉjØjÍ<Ã2ÄoÉGÄoÊ7Ñ�ÚGÉGÀmÜ�À<ÍnïË ÎGÔ?×3ÀmÌ�Ë Ï�Æ�Ë ÎGÍ<ÄoÉ,Ï�ÌoÍ<Ë ÀmÎ�Ï0Ü�ÀmÎGÔ�Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊUÀ<É:×nó

Resident Interaction OutdoorsÕ ¿MÉhÇnË ÎMÖ2Ë Î,Ô&×�×n¿MÔ&Ô$Äo×jÍMÍjÃMÏXÍMÔ&É3ÄGÄGÎ�ÌGÀ0Ý$ÄXÉvË ×}Ë ÎMÖMÄGÄGÖ?É3ÄGÆ ÏXÍ<ÄGÖvÍ<ÀÍ<ÃMÄ{ÏGÜ#À<¿�Î,Í)À0Ç2×&ÀQÌGË ÏGÆQË Î,Í<ÄXÉ3ÏGÌoÍ0Ë ÀQÎ�Ë Î}É,ÄX×�Ë Ö2ÄGÎGÍ0Ë ÏGÆ7À<¿MÍ0Ö2ÀQÀ0É×&ÚMÏ�ÌGÄo×�ßQýhÉ3ÄGÄGÎ�ÌGÀ<Ý$ÄXÉUä#Ïo×�É3ÄGÆ Ë ÏXÊ�Æ ÑcÆ Ë ÎMå7ÄGÖvÍjÀ)Í0Ã2ÄvÎG¿�Ü}Ê�ÄXÉ}À0ÇË Î2Ö2Ë Ý�Ë Ö,¿�ÏGÆ ×U×&Ë Üv¿�Æ Í<ÏGÎ2ÄGÀj¿M×&Æ Ñ�Ú,É,ÄX×&Ä�Î,Í�Ë Î�ÏXÉ,Ä�Ïo×Qñ.¿M×nÍ�À<¿MÍw×&Ë Ö2ÄÏ�ÚMÏoÉ:ÍjÜ#Ä�Î,Í2Ê7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë Î,Ô3×}ÞXã�ÀQÆ ÄoÑ�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ßh»�à7à7ø�âGßnç�À0É,Ä{Ö2ÄoÍ<ÏGË Æ Ä�ÖÀ0Ê7×3ÄXÉ.Ý$ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎ,×�Ç ¿MÉ.Í<ÃMÄXÉU×n¿2Ô&Ô�ÄX×jÍMÍ<ÃMÏXÍMÍ<ÃMÄ?Î,¿�ÜvÊ�ÄXÉvÀ0Ç�ÄXÛ�ÚMÆ Ë ÌGË Í<Æ Ñ×&ÀmÌGË ÏGÆmÏ�ÌXÍ<Ë Ý�Ë Í<Ë Äo×}ÞXÄ�ß Ô$ß Ø<ÍjÏ�Æ å7Ë ÎGÔ$ØmÚ2Æ ÏoÑ$Ë ÎGÔ#Ì�ÏoÉ�ÖG×UÍ<À<Ô$ÄoÍ<ÃMÄoÉ<Øjä#À0É,å7Ë ÎGÔÀQÎ#Ï?ÌGÏXÉ�É3ÄGÚMÏGË É�Í0À0Ô�ÄXÍ0Ã2ÄoÉ.â}ÀQÌGÌX¿2É.É3Ë ÎGÔ¥Ë Î}É3ÄX×3Ë ÖMÄGÎGÍ0Ë ÏGÆ2À0¿2Í0ÖMÀmÀ0É×&Ú2Ï�Ì�ÄX×}Ë ×}Æ Ë Î2å2Ä�Ö?Í<À�Ô&ÉGÄ0ÄGÎ�ÌGÀ0Ý�ÄXÉ?ÞXÒj¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý�ÏGÎ�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ß ØmË Î�Ú,ÉGÄX×n×nâGß ú ÄÇnÀ<¿�Î2Ö�ø7ê7þöÜ�À<É,Ä)Ë ÎMÖ2Ë ÝMË ÖG¿�ÏGÆ ×}Ë ÎGÝ�ÀQÆ Ý$Ä�Ö�Ë Î)×&ÀmÌ�Ë Ï�ÆmÏ�ÌoÍ<Ë Ý�Ë Í<Ë Äo×}Ë Î×&ÚMÏ�Ì�ÄX×�ä#Ë Í0Ã�ÃMË Ô$Ã�Æ ÄXÝ$ÄGÆ ×}À0Ç7Ô&É3ÄGÄGÎ�ÌGÀ<Ý$ÄXÉhÍ<Ã2ÏGÎ�Ë Î?×�ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×�ä#Ë Í0ÃÆ À<äöÆ ÄoÝ$Ä�Æ ×}À<Ç7Ô3É3Ä�ÄGÎ�Ì�À0ÝMÄXÉ?ÞXÒj¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý$Ï�Î�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ß Ø�Ë Î�ÚGÉ3Äo×n×nâGß<Â{ÃMÄÚMÏoÍZÍjÄXÉ3Î}ä#ÏX×�×nÍZÉ3ÀmÎ,Ô$ÄX×nÍ�ÇjÀ0É�ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�Á2ã�ÀQÜ#ÚMÏoÉ3Ä�Ö�Í<À�Ü#À0É3ÄhÊ�ÏoÉ.É3ÄGÎ×&ÚMÏ�ÌGÄo×�Ø<Í0ÃMÄXÉ,Ä�ä#ÄXÉ3Ä�»�½2½Qþ�Ü#À0É3Ä{ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�ÄGÎGÔ�ÏXÔ$ÄGÖ�Ë Îv×&ÀQÌGË ÏGÆÏGÌoÍ0Ë Ý$Ë Í0Ë ÄX×�Ë Î?Ô&É3ÄGÄGÎ?×&ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×&ß

Children’s Access to Adults OutdoorsÂ?Ã2Ä{Ü�À0É3Ä$×�ÀmÌGË ÏGÆmÎMÏXÍw¿MÉ,Ä{À0Ç7É3ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄ�Î,ÍZ×&ÙGÏGÌoÍ0Ë Ý�Ë Í0Ë ÄX×�À<¿MÍZ×&Ë ÖMÄ$Í0Ã2ÄGË ÉÊ7¿�Ë Æ ÖMË Î,Ô3×�ÏGÚ2ÚMÄGÏoÉ.×�Í<À�ÄZÛmÍ<Ä�ÎMÖ�ÎMÀ<Í�ÀQÎ2Æ Ñ}Í0ÀÏ�Ö,¿�Æ ÍwÿUÏ�Ö,¿�Æ Í�Ë ÎGÍ0ÄoÉ3ÏGÌ0ïÍ<Ë ÀmÎG×UÊ7¿MÍ2Í<ÀÏGÖG¿�Æ ÍwÿhÌGÃ2Ë Æ Ö�Ë Î,Í<ÄoÉ3Ï�ÌXÍ<Ë ÀQÎG×}ÏX×Uä�Ä�Æ Æ ßm÷oÎ�ÀmÎMÄ�×nÍw¿�ÖGÑ�ØÍ<ÃMÄ}Ú,É3Äo×�ÄGÎMÌ�Ä�À0Ç$ÍZÉ3Ä�ÄX×�Ì�ÀmÎ,×�Ë ×nÍ0Ä�Î,Í0Æ ÑºÚ,É3ÄGÖ2Ë ÌoÍ<ÄGÖÔ&É3Ä�ÏXÍ0ÄXÉ�¿2×�Ä�À0ÇÉ,ÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Í<Ë Ï�Æ0×&ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×UÊ2Ñ#Ü�Ë ÛhÄ�ÖMïXÏXÔ$Ä$Ô&É,À0¿�Ú,×}À<Ç7Ñ�À0¿MÍ<Ã�ÏGÎMÖ�Ï�Ö,¿�Æ Íw×ÞXã�ÀmÆ ÄoÑ#ÄoÍ�ÏGÆ ßh»�à7à7ø�âGßm÷ZÎ�Ï�ÎMÀ<Í<ÃMÄoÉ<Ø<ä#Ä$ÇnÀ0¿�ÎMÖ)×nÑ&×nÍ<Ä�Ü#ÏoÍ<Ë ÌGÏ�Æ Æ ÑÃMË Ô$Ã2ÄoÉ�Æ ÄXÝ$ÄGÆ ×À0Ç�ÏGÌGÌGÄX×n×�Í<À�ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�ÇjÀ0É}ÌGÃMË Æ Ö�É3ÄGÎ#Ë ÎvÔ&É3ÄGÄGÎMÄoÉÝ$ÄoÉ.×n¿2×�Æ ÄX×n×�Ô&É,ÄGÄ�Îv×&ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×}Þ:îMÏoÊ�ÄXÉhÂhÏXÑ$Æ À0ÉvÄXÍ�ÏGÆ ßU»Gà7à7áGâGßÂ)ÃG¿2×�ÇnÏoÉjØ<ä#Ä{Ã2ÏoÝ�Ä$×3Ä�Ä�Î?ÍjÃ2ÏoÍMÍwÉGÄ�Äo×}Ï�Î2Ö{Ô&É,Ïo×.×�ÏoÍ ÍwÉ,Ï�ÌoÍ�Ú2Ä�ÀmÚ2Æ Ä

ÍjÀ�¿2×3Ä)Ë Î2Î2ÄoÉ<ïoÌGË ÍwÑ�Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊUÀ<ÉGÃ2ÀmÀmÖ{×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×}Ï�Î7Ö{ÍjÃ2ÏXÍ�Ë Î{Ô3É,Ä�Ä�Î2ÄoÉ×3Ú2Ï�Ì0Äo×UÍ<Ã2ÄoÉ,Ä{Ë ×}Ü�À<É,Ä$×3À�Ì�Ë Ï�ÆmÌ�ÀmÎGÍjÏ�ÌoÍ�Ï�Ü�ÀQÎGÔ�Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊUÀ<É:×UÍ<Ã2Ï�Î�Ë ÎÌ�ÀmÜ�Ú2ÏoÉ,ÏoÊ�Æ Ä$ÊUÏoÉ:ÉGÄ�Î?×3Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×3ß ú Ä�Ù Ý�Ä{Ï�Æ ×&À�×&Ä�Ä0Î{Í<Ã2ÏoÍ2ÍjÃ2Ä{ÚGÉ�À<Û$Ë Ü�Ë Í ÑÀ<Ç7ÍjÃ7Ä$ÍwÉ,Ä�Äo×UÍjÀ�Ï�Ú2ÏoÉ:Í<Ü�Ä0ÎGÍ2Ê7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×}Ü�ÏoÍwÍjÄoÉX×næCä#Ã2Ä�Î?Í É,Ä�Äo×�ÏoÉ,ÄÌ�Æ À<×3ÄoÉ�ÍjÀ�ÊQ¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×&Ø�Ú2Ä0ÀmÚ2Æ ÄM¿2×&Ä�ÍjÃ2Ä)À<¿2Í<Ö2ÀmÀjÉ$×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×vÜ�À<É,Ä�ßm÷ ÍÏ�Ú2Ú7Ä�ÏoÉ:×�ÍjÃ2ÏXÍ2ÍwÉ,Ä�Äo×�Ì�ÀmÎGÍ É,Ë Ê7¿2Í<Ä$Í<À�×.Ñ&×.Í<Ä�Ü�ÏoÍjË Ì�Ï�Æ Æ Ñ#Ã2Ä�ÏGÆ Í<Ã2Ë ÄoÉÚ2ÏoÍ ÍjÄoÉ,ÎG×}À<ÇUË ÎGÍ<ÄoÉ:É,Ä�Æ ÏoÍjË À�Î�Ï�Ü�ÀmÎGÔ�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í ×}Ï�Î7Ö�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ ÖGÉ,Ä�Î�À<¿2ÍjÖ2ÀmÀ<ÉX×&ßÂ{ÃMÄo×�Ä$ÇjË ÎMÖMË Î,Ô&×�ÏXÉ3Ä)ÄXÛhÌ�Ë Í<Ë Î,Ô�Ê�ÄGÌGÏX¿M×&Ä{Ï�ÌGÌGÄX×n×�Í<À�ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�ÚMÆ ÏXÑ3×

×n¿�Ì�Ã�Ï�Î�Ë Ü�Ú2À0É:Í<ÏGÎGÍ2É3ÀmÆ Ä�Ë Î�Ã2Ä�ÏGÆ Í<ÃGÑ#Ì�ÃMË Æ Ö�Ö7ÄXÝ�ÄGÆ ÀmÚ2Ü#Ä�Î,Í<ßã)Ã2Ë Æ Ö,É3ÄGÎ�ÏoÉ3Ä�×&ÀQÌGË Ï�Æ Ë �2Ä�Ö�Ë Î,Í<À)Í<ÃMÄ?Ü#À0É3Äo×Ï�ÎMÖ?×jÍ<ÏGÎMÖMÏoÉ3Ö,×À<Ç�ÏÌo¿�Æ Í ¿MÉ,Ä$Í<ÃGÉ3À0¿2Ô$Ã�Ë Ü#Ë Í<ÏXÍjË ÀmÎ�À<Ç�ÏGÖG¿�Æ Íw×&ØmÄXÛ�Ú2Æ ÏGÎ2ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎG×UÇ É3ÀmÜ

Page 39: The Benefits of Urban Trees

������������ ���������������� ����� ��������� "!�#�$�%'&( �)*�"+"+�#

�,-��� ��.0/" ��,/"� �.��1�����2����2� �' �.3�4/"����5-������� 67�8�3����,-�� ���9�� -�;: �,-��� �<.=!��'> ?7> /4&@� � � �AB '�,DCFE�A�5) � "G�H"I;JK�'L-.= '�,DCF�'L� ��� �3�'� � �� "G"M'$�>;N-��5�4L�A4/0 �,���� ��.���E����61� .0� ���O� .=E�� 67�4�4 '�;� �DE-���61�'���4� ��?:P� .Q����L �67� ��-I�� ��,����,�/�R�� ���9O����E �-������ ��4.Q��E���61� .0� ���S� .B����T�����L�U.Q��-���-?7��.Q�TE����,�� ���4���.V�����L�B,�A61��� ��E�:P���-�T�4�2���;�,������E-��4��� ��:B.= '�,D,"��� � ��W'���'��A)1XU! �=Y5�[Z���:\:P� .Q.�� ���D���T]�� ��� �'��'� ��,�^7����4L � �G�#"/�E�> � �$�>4_8���4L�T��`0���'�-��4L A�?0��������U��A.F� ,����a��� '�4.FE� ��'��.=E--��:S���4�T ',-��� ��.Q��E��567� .�� ����/4�4L����/4bP�T:P� ?1L�����`8E����A��3��b*�Ac,�'� � �W'���'�-�1����L �61� ���.c� �B�4L�A.0�8.FE ��'��.F>

Neighborhood Social Ties, Resource Flows_�L-�.��3 AB� �T��L�� .U-�A67� ��b�/�bP�TL� �67�7�3�F���.0��,D���S�������'��:P��..FE���'� �3� �� �� � )V���� A���',=���2���.0� ,�'�-��� ��"�4��4,�����.0E ����A.3de-��.0� ,���-�<.Ff�.F�������4L��.0�U.0E� ��'��.F/���L�'� = ����4� 67� �4� �A.V� �B��L�A.F�8.0E �����.0/'�3L� �:P�4���-�����".0�;��� �� � g�� �-?P� ���4L���.0�7.0E '�'��.0/;��L� � ,-����f.=E� �)\� ���4L�A.0�.FE� ����A.F/;���4�'>�h����<�����.�?1������)7����,�.0� :PE� )P�'�L '���� �-?B��L"�767� �4 �� � �<)������.0� ,����-��� ��"�4��4,�����.FE ��'��.3iVjV�A-��/�bP�U�<���=�4��bP ��,B.0����� ��������.Q)0.3�4��:k67 ��� A��� ��.��4L ��2,��D��4�2E�����4 �� �B.0E����� �3� �' �� � )=���-��.0� ,�'�-��� ���������,��;���.0E ����'>�_�L�TW����A.3�4� ���\L���-��� .�bPL�A�4L��4/��"):P �9�� �-?=���.0� ,������4� ���������,�;���.0E �����.c:P����767� �4 �� /��<�����.=�����-�<�� ��a��4�7�4���4L�2L�� '� �4L�)=� ������4� �;�� �-?P�4�� 2�'��:P:B����� �<)\� �T?7�'����� '� >

_TL����T� .�.Q���.Q�� ������ ��;��67� ,������7�3��.Q�?0?7�A.3����L� �����E�E�����<���� a��� ��.��3��=�� �.Q�� ���.������ ���� �-�4��� '����� ���\E'���67� ,�� 8�� ��L\:\ ���-� `V� ���:bPL�� �'L2.��;�'� '�Q�3� ��.B �:\�;��?D���'� ?1L����4�.�,���61�'� �;EO!A�'> ?1> /0l����U�A.��'�O��� '� > � "H�m"IFY��A-9"� �'.B�A�� '� > � " �+'$'>FJKE"E"�45�<����� �4� �A.U�Q�4T�' A.Q�� '�Q.0�;�'� '����;���3 '�A�4/;� ��� ��-�"/� A-�7?�-�' A�4�AUb\L��'�D���'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,�-�A.�� ,��'��� ..0E��'��,D:\�4-�1�3� :S�2� �T�3L���4���4,��;�48.�E" '�'��.B A-�4����,T�3L��'� TL��;:\�A.!�Z��;�;E��� � �H � I�n� '�'. � �m"H�IQ_8 '� ���4������ '� > � �G�H�$�>0o �U� ���Q�3�:S '�.0�;�'� '�;�'�;���3 '�A�� �:\�;��?\����� ?1L����45.=� .B 29"�A)B�Q '�A�4�4�� �T�4L���,��A61�'� �;E�a:\�������4��.0�;�'� '�3�3� �A.= ':\�;��?\���'� ?1L����35.0/; '��,T� -�'��.B A-�2 29��A)�3 '�A�3�4B� �S� ���Q�4-:S '�4.��;�'� '�;�'�;���4 '�A�3/�E"�A-L� 'E�.�� -�'��.=�' '�T��� �3� :\ A�4�'� ) �� �Q�'�A��3L���,��A61�'� �;E�:\�'�����4�����'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,�.0�;�'� '���4� �A.0>�k�-��:=���A=�3�"�3� �,�� �-?�.�.Q�?0?7��.Q���4L �����-����.c,��O� ���3 ��A��L��� E

.3�<����-?0�4L��'�D���'� ?L����4-L�;�;,2.0�;�'� '�4�3� �A.�>FoA�O 1.��<��,�)\�4� � M � E������ � �L�4��.�� ��?�-�A.0� ,��'�'�<.U- '��,��;:\� )\ A.�.0� ?1�"�',T�3�V A-�'L�� �4�'�A� ��- '� � )� ,"�'�'�3� �' '�Q����� � ,�� �'?-.8b\� �3L261 �5)� ��?S� ��6��� .��4�;6�A?�A�3 A�3� �F��/Q�3L"�?0-�'�'���A8�3L��1����� � ,�� ��?1/3�4L��1.��<-�;��?1�A7�3L��2���'� ?1L����4�L��;�;,�.0�;�'� '��4� ��.�!Ap"���c���� '� > � � �G�$'>0Z��;:SE� �-��,2�3�U-��.�� ,������ .�� � 6� ��?D� �-��� A�3� 6��� )��� �5���������� � ,"� ��?-.�/0� �","� 61� ,'�� �� .�� � 6� �'?S� ��?--���'�����"��� � ,"� ��?�.8-�'E��4��3�',O:\�4-�.��;�'� '�F '�A�Q� 61� �3� �A.B '��,O:\�4��161� .-� �3�45.�/9"���Abq:\�4-�T�4���3L��'� B���'� ?1L����45.�/�-�'E"�45�4�',��3L��'� B���'� ?1L����45.�bP�A-�:\�4-���'�;�����A����',�b\� �3LOL��'� E�� ��?S '��,�.Q��E�E��45�4� ��?S�;���� '�"�4�3L��A3/ '��,DL� ',2.Q� '�;��?1��8�Q�'�'� � ��?�.��4�����'� �;��?� ��?1>FN���5�3L��A3/3.Q�3 A�4� .��3� �' '�:\�',�� A�3� �;�2�3�A.Q� .�� �",�� �' A�3�',T�3L� A�"�3L���� � ��9����A� bP�'�'�261�A?1�A�Q A�4� �;�O '��,��'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,T.-�;�'� '�3�4� �A.B� .B�A`8E�� '� �"�',2�")B-�A.�� ,��'��� .0f�?���' A�4�A8��.�����U�4���3,��;�48.�E� '���A.B!�p"���V�A�� '� > � � "G4$�>3_1�4?1�A�4L��A3/3�4L��A.���Q� ��,�� ��?�..Q��?�?1�A.Q���3L� A���")S� ���A-�' A.�� ��?B�4L��2�;E�E"�4�� ����� �3� �A.��Q�48-�A.0� ,"�'���<.��3�:\���A�� '��,S� ���4�A- ��A�4/4?�-�'�'���AB�'�;:\:\�F��.0E� '�'�A.��Q '�'� � � �4 A�3�',T�4L��,��A61�'� �;E�:\�'���� '�",O:\ '� ���3�'�� '���'���4�U���'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,2.0�;�'� '�3�4� �A.�>_TL�� .U?1�'���A- ��FE� A� �3�A-�O�4���Q� ��,�� ��?-.BL� �.U���'���T-�'E�� � �' A�3�',O� �K .Q� ��,�)�4��.��'��� �4T�'� �4� g"�'�'.B!Ap�b\�'�;�D�A�� '� > � " ;G'$'>

o ��� .�� :\E��35�4 ������4�c���4�3��4L� A��� �O ����4�3L��A7.��<��,�)S�'�;:\E� A-� ��?��'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,B.��;�'� '�'�3� �A.��Q�4�-�A.�� ,������<.c�4��?�-�'�'��A�61�A5.5��.V� ��.�.

?���'���2����� � ,�� ��?�.�!Ar�5����.-�;� � � " �$'/F����.�� ?1��� ��� �� '����,"� � ���A-�'���'��.b\�A���Q�4���",O� �2�3L�������:����AT�4�U���'� ?1L����45.UbS� �4L2b\L��;:@-�A.�� ,��'��� .-�'E��35�4�',DL� A61� ��?B.Q� -�;��?��4� �A.�>;o ��:\ A)B���1�3L� ���.�L A-�',T��.��2�4��'�;:S:\�;��.�E� '�'�A.=�'����� -� �����4�A.=�;��� )B�4���3L��T,"�A61�'� �;E�:\�'�����4�.��<-�F��?B�4� �A.�bP� �4LD�;���2�48� bP�V���'� ?1L����4�.�/; A.B�;E�E��4.��',��3���Q�4.��4�A-� �'? .��<'�;��?S���A� bP�3-9K�4�;�3� ��.� A.B� �O 61� � � A?1���47.-:\ '� �3�3�4bP�">o ��� .c �� .0�O� :PE��5�� �����4�O�������7��L A�2�;����'��:\E������-�����

��'� ?1L�����-L����,�.0����� ����3� ��.c� ����L�� .�b*�4�9TbP A.��4L�7.0L ��� �-?P���-��.0�4�-����.������<bP�����D���� ?7L������.0>;N���� ��,� 67� ,-�� �� .�b*L��K� � 67�T� �� �-�4�'�-.0�BE��61�����)'/"���� ?7L�����-L����,B.F�;��� '���4� ��.c �-�B:P�4-�U�4L ��P E� �� A.0 ��-�7�3�� A�����Ads�4L��)* �����4L���3�����, ��4� �;�P���2 ��P� :PE�����4 ��-�.Q��61� 67 ��4.Q��- ��4��?0)'>;C;�;��� '���4� ��.= �:P����?P���� ?7L'���4�.cE�-�467� ,�T �'����,���� ����L������?7L�bPL� ��LS� �,� 67� ,��� �� .�.0L �-�1��A.F�4���'��.=!�r��� � �� "G��"I;C3�4 ���9 � "H"M'$�>;oA�DE����4B���;:P:B����� �4� �A.�/4.F�;��� '�4��� �A.= �:\���-?��'� ?1L������.V ���U�4L�U�3� �.3��� � ��B����,���Q���-.0�= A?1 �� �-.3�1��L���- �67 �?7��.V�4�E�461����<)�>;r-)P�����-�<�� ������� �-?=�4��.3�<����-?1��U��� ��.B �:P���-?P��'� ?7L�����5.F/�<����A.c:P �)*���L �����8���.�� ,���-�<.Ff����.0� � � �'������ �B�4L�U�3 '���B�4�.Q��,,�'��3� � '����� ���.F�A���� ���9'.V ���,\�':P���?7����'� ��.0>

_1��.Q��:P:\ ��� g��1��L��.U�3 �4/;����U�3� �,� �-?�.�.���?0?7��.Q���4L ���� �SE���4� ������a���� ��)*��'� ?7L-�����L�;��,-.0/'�<-����.V��4�2���� )*�'�L ������E ��<�4��0�-.�������.0� ,���-�1�4����� �4���� �� � � )V�"��2 '� .0�O�����-�<�� �����4�8���OL�� '� �4L� ��4/:P�4-�U.Q��EE�4���� 67��E ��<���A-�-.V����� �-�4������� ��4� �;��.V �:P���-?c���.0� ,���-�<.0/� ���� ��,� �-?c?0��' �����U.FL A-� �-?P�������.0��������.0>

Sense of Safety�����3L�7����?1� ���� �-?P�4���4L�� .�-�A67� �AbB/4b*�T �,�,--�A.Q.F�',���L�T���;�����0��4L ����<�����.c:P� ?7L-��,���A��' �.0�867� .F� ��� � � ��)P ��,B�4L���-����)=���,-�����T��� ��L��� ��A���� '�'.F A�3����)*���-��.0� ,�'�-�<.Ff�.F���-.0������.F A�3����)'>;jV��-��/'bP�B�'��:P�8� ��� ���� ��'� �B ���,P �,�,--��.3.���L�T� � ��9������<bP�����B������A.c ��,B.F A�3����)*,� -�����4� )�>Y'���67� ���.����.0�� ����LS� �,�� �� A����.��4L ��2���� ?1L-�����.�b*L��DL �67�

.Q�<��;�-?c.0����� ����4� �A.��3���:t:\������A� �3�����4� 61�8.0���'� ���?0�����E-.c!���> ?7> /nU-�'�'�-�� A��: � �G"�"I�uv ��-��� � �G � $->�N��B� ��.3�4 �����'/"�'��:PE ����,�4�V�'��:\:=���� �4� ��.=� ��bPL�� �'LS��'� ?7L-���4�.=L ',TbP�� '9"��U.0�;��� ��4�4� ��.0/�4L��.��UbP� ��LB.3�<����-?1���.0�;��� ��'��� ��.�bP����B:\��-�B�� 'E ���� ������"��� � ,� ��?P�'����.0����.Q��.=���267 '� ���A.= ���,S���4�:B.B!�hU������bt '�,l1:S:\����. � "G � $�/;:\����� �3�4�� ��?B���'L A67� ��3/;� ���3�A�67�'��� �-?\� ��E�-�4��� ��:����L" �67� ���.=���'���B! _U �)1� �3 � "G"G'$-/; ���,S,���Q�'�,� ��?=��L���� B���� ?1La�����L���;,-.= �?1 �� �-.Q������ :S�T!���> ?7> /;Y"���9"� �-.=���� �� > � " �+'$�>;o �".Q�<��;�a?7�A�.0����� '���4� ��.V �:P���-?*����� ?7L-���4�.V ���B9"��)V�3�D����' ���� �-?w:\������� �3�'���4� 67�'/-.0 ��3��c���� ?7L-�����L����,�.F/� ��,=����'��,=.0E �����.KL�'� EE--�;:P���4�8��� ��.c �:P���-?*���'� ?7L������.0/�E���L �E-.��4L�8?0����������.3.c�����'� ?1L������L�����,P� ��,-.0�� 'E�U��� �4� :\ ����'� )w �� �3���A�<.K� ��67��� .V���.F A�3���<) '�,T.0������� �<)P� �S T���� ?7L�����-L����,�>oA�S� ���A�a���� ��)P��'� ?1L����4-L�;��,-.0/�,�����-���',T.FE� �����.=� ���3� ��������

��'� ?1L������L�����,B.0 ��3���<)* '�,�.F�'����� ��)0ico �.0���':P��,SE� ��.0� ��� �7��L� ��-��.0� ,�'�-�<.=:P� ?7L���Q�����4.0 A�3�AB� �S 7.0�A���4� �-?\� ����L"��)P9"��Ab�/4�<���.3�4�',/ ���,D������� ,S�������-���;����L"��� B����� ?7L-�����.Qdx� �D���4L�AUb*�4�,-.0/�� �"�4L�A)L� �,2.3�<-����?=.0���'� ��4�4� ��.�b\� �4L��4L���� B����� ?7L�����5.0>4�����4L�7.0 ':P�1�4� :S��/� �.F�'��:\��,\E��.Q.0� ��� �8��L ��2��67�'�B��L���L� ?1La5�' '���E-)c�<�����.c��L �� '��a�4�A�� .��4� �2�4��E����� � �2L�����.0� �-?\:P� ?7L���-�',-���'�76� .0� ��� � � �<)'/4�4L��A��A�")-��,-����� ��?V-�A.F� ,���-�<.0f5.F�'��.F������.F A�3���<)�>

J���U�Q� ��,� ��?0.U.Q�?�?7��.Q���4L� ��4/F� ���Q ��A�4/4-��.0� ,������<.=� � 61� ��?P� �?0-���'���U�"��� � ,�� ��?0.��3�'���4.0� ?7�� �3� �' ��-�4� )=.0 ��3��8�4L ��S,�����L�'�

Page 40: The Benefits of Urban Trees

y-z�{ |"}�~;�4�����T�8~;� �T~4�"���5��~��-� ��}�� �<}����2� �D�T�c�'�'� �����P�F~;��� �'���1�'~�� ~4���

��~�}����4�����������<�=� � �� �-�P� �S�\~��-�7�������-�����"}�� � �� �-���F�;�-}����4������;~4}��3� ���� ���0���Q}���7������4����������0� �����-�<�c~�������������A�U��}�� � �� �-�0���Q������P~����T��~;�=�3~����4����� �T~��B���5��}�Q�4���S� ���3���� �U�3}�����~�}����� �-�0�B� ��7���������� ���k�T���0�"�'��y'�"zD�-}��� � �T�~4}��F� �-�=�-���0� ����-�<�c ��V~3¡k�0���3��~��7~4}S�3�'���;� � �7� �-�P�������A¢0£U�����S ��c~�¡[¡P��� �������7�1�7~�}¤������}��3�4�'���4~� � �7� �-�w����-��¢0£"�k�U�4����P��~��P�����-���=�3��U�-���0�~��-�0�����Q~��������F� ����-�<����3�0� �7������4~������ �A�4� �7��� �=�0�����'���7�����Q}�U����� ���4� �7�'� �=���������'���"}�� � �¥� �-���0�4���B�-�-����� ���3�'���;� ���� �7� ��}���� �=� � �� ���P�'�5���'���'�-�"�4~������������A���~��P�P~��c�0��������2�����~4�����'�V�4����7�����A�K�3��� �8��~����c�0���3���V�'���c�����<�4������5��}�Q�������4��'�S��� ���4��'� �B��~4}��-�4������A�5���=� � �7� �-�P�����0�'�����-�"��~����� �A��� �7��� �=���A�����'���0��������=¦5|�}�~K�����'� ��y'§�§"¨'©-�

Graffiti and Other Signs of Disorder�� ��� ���0��� ��~;�ª�'�~��4��A�U�Q�<}����=�Q}�0����Q���4������~4��~��� �P�"~�����F� ��������V� �=�0���'���������0���<��� �-�0���3�����'�����3�����"}�2��� �F~2�������7�3������«8������ �������7�Q�0�Q�3���P���4� ����� � �=�3�A¡*�A�B �� ���� �7� � � �4� ���0£ ¬e�4��T�'}�� �F�'����������S����<�<�P����� �P�A����������0� �7����4�����7�"�-�����"�~�¡P�S~����~����S����������-� �4~���� ����� }�����3� ~���� �-�1���k�T���0�����D§"­T�-���0� ����-�<�c~������D� ���A��¥��� �<�w����� �1�-��~4���~;~��B��~2�����~4���2~��=�4����� ����� ���������~���0�-�A� �3� ���"�����~��������U�0~�¥������ � �'�D� ����� �7� � � �4� �A�c� ���4��7��������A�c�����0�'�����-����~��4��'� �������5�4�P������"}�� � �� ���7�;�8���0� ��'�-�<�c~4�"���-���������U�"}�� � �� �-���������~4���4����3���Q���'�P���4� ���'� � �B�Q��¡P����� ���� ��'����A�=~����7�'���'� � �0�\��������� �3� �3� ���'��� � ���4�����4����=�4���� �=��~�}��������-������<�K���Q�0� �1�����=��~O�P~����U���������'���}�� � ��� ���0�=¦�®-��}����0~��¯y'§"§"§�©��4°@~�����~4�1���4�4�0�-���'����8��}�� � ��� ���0��¡P���-��3}��'�����A���4~��0� �1�� �Q� ���'�-�4� �B�3��¡P�A�B  �0~���� ���;� ����� �1� � � �4� ���0£ ¬x��~;� �Q����� ����}����4� �1�2� ���� �� ��}��'� ��±4�Q�<�-�'�-�1�A���B���'���1� �-�\�A�-~�}����±F���"�D� � � ���1�'������4� �1� �4� ���0��T����������-���T�-}��B�����B~����~��Q�0� ��� ����«8�� ������4� ~;�-���3~��U�4���� � ��

���A��¡P���'�����-�����=�'��D�T� ~�¡P���B� ���� ��'�����T~���� ����� �7� � � �4� ���0���2���-�����0������B~������������K�'��=�0�����Q�V�P���V��� �7����"�B�P~4���U¡P��� � ¥A���������B�3~���F����'�=����������A�-���3~��������=�� �7����V� � ����� � ��~�~��*~��2����-����<�-����~4������'� ���P��~��4� �'���D¦A®���~�¡P�D�'��T�c� �4�\�'�¤y'§"¨"²'©��4�=� �4�A�0�����4� �1�'� �'�3�4���0�������4����}�0�c~4�7�������'������0��������O�\���³� �-�<��~��-}����=�P~����= 5���7���O~������7�Q�<�-�����4£U¦ ´'�'��~4�"�*y'§�µ�yA©-�4¶8�������~��3����B��«8�� ������4� ~��S�\���P� � ��� �������0�-�������A�2�0~��'� �����~�����0� �7������Q�D����~�}���V�0�����'������F�����'���Q¬���������-�������0� ����'����¡P�~D�"�~�¡·����B�<��}�Q�T�������P~��4����c�A���B�P~������� �3�����4� �1��� �\� ���3�3� ��}�4� �-�* �� ~��������0~���� �'����~��-�<��~�� £�~��7���U¡*���A�1�1~����~��S� ���4��7�0������A�=~�}�<�F� ��7�4���� �B�~��\�A�c¦�¸U�������-�������P������� �y�§"¨"{�©��4�c�-�P�'��D��� �;~��"�4����0�7�Q�����4~��5�=�P� �7������~;�-�<��� ��}��4�'��¹��S���-������F�'��� �T�������A�����4����7�4��B�-�����0�������~���<�������K� �=�����0� ��'����� ���~�}����~�~����0��������=� �c� � ��"���B¡*� �4�\�P~4���8�Q}��������Q�Q� }��'�4������� �3~���� ���� }�����4� ~;�� �-�1�'�F�������=�0����'���V���������U��~2����� ���3���0}�� ��A������� �U�4~� ����}�5�0� ~;�-�=�����D�P� �~4�B~�}��<�F� ���7�4�-�������<�0�

Property Crimes, Violent Crimes�8~B�4��=��«F���'�-�8�4�����8�<�-�����O��~;�-�3�����F~F�P�c���-~4�����A��� ~��*���7��� �-�Q�� ����}����0� ~����0�;� ���0�'���\���D�~4�Q�F� ��� �1�4��A���4�����\�P� �7�����-�-~��1� ���7�0~;�P��P�����Q}����~��������Q���-�0�����7��� �-�Q�2�\~����8��� �1�� �Q� �������1�4�-�����A���=����¡*��� � ��8~K��«8���P� ��7�4�� �Bº�}����Q��� ~;���3¡\�2�'~;� � �'�A�3�'�O{��1�'�A�5�B~4�U��~;� � �'����-� �\����'�"~4��� �U�Q~3�T§�¨K�'���A���3�\�'���"��}�� � ��� �����B� �O~;����� �"���A�3¥A�'� �<����'� �1����~4�-��~;~;�S�'����}��0�'���4���T�A«F�3�'�'�2~4�"�<�-�'�T�'���B���-�A�Q�=�'~4�1�A�~3}��<��� �����'�'�'�D���"�A�5�4�\�'���"��}�� � ��� �'�B�3~c���-�'��� �A�"�3���2��}��B�U�A�T~4����-� �\���U���'�"~4�5�3�����Q~4�1�4�"�A���"}�� � �"� ���S¦�|"}�~c�����O�Q}�� � � �1�'�K{�­�­�y�©'�3�»�

�Q~4}����T�������4�'�\�A�3� �'�'� � �S�"�A�1�A�3� �1��-�'� �A�4� ~;������� �'�8���A� ¡P���'�T�3������-�'�������A�Q�=~4�"�3���T� �'�����-�'�'���T�'�����4���2��}��B�U�A�B~4���A�-� �\���=���A���}�� � ��� �'�����'��~4�5�3�'�2�3~��3�"����~;� � �'�'�Q�T��������'���"�A�T���}�� � ��� ���1¼���}��5�'~4}������ �����0�3�3���1�Q�A¡\���8�3~4�4�'�F�A�-� �\�A��±F�\~4�'�'~4�1�A�3�3�4��� �U���'� �A�3� ~;�"¥����� �O�A«0�3�'�����'�2�4~���~4�4�K���-~;�"�A�5�<�S�A�-� �\�A�B�'�"�2�1� ~;� �'�����A�-� �\�A���

DISCUSSION�����7��~�� ��~4���4��8}�������T�3~������Q��� ���4��8��� ~;� ~��� ������������� �4�S~������ �4� �A�� ��¡P�'� �����Q�4����� � �F�����±;��~�}�� ���4���7}���������Q~����������� ���P�T��� �1~��4���4��~�� �� �D���'��� �4�-�B�0~��'� �'�;���'~��Q�-�3�4�'�=�=�A��¡P��� � ¢������1�Q� ��� ���0���-���1� �A¡P�����A�-�7�3}���7���Q��0~���¹A�S�7������� ���c~4��� �����1��¥ �0����� �'�;�� �1�� �P��~;�-���-~�� � ����3� ��� �T�Q��}��� �A�F�;  �0���'������-£;�"}�� � ��� ���0�c�������F���������¡*���-�T��~��-�0� �F¥�4���-�3� �½����A�������4����� ¾����c�"�K���A���4���V������3~����\�������=~��*��¡P� �����������1�~��1��~���� ��������~��Q�0�Q�����·� ���� �����4~����0�-�0�-�����O�����=�0�����Q�O��~4�7����¡*�A�-�� � ��"���B¡P� �4�B�0�������4����}�0��~��������0� ��'�-��� ���"~�}��4�~;~����0������A���������}�� �<�c����S���� � �-�-������"����� �4�� ���B����<�������-�c~4������ � �-�-�'�¼�c~�}�4�~�~3��'���4� �1� �<�'���\~��-�7�0~;��� ���;� �'���A�����A��� ~��D���P~;�-�P�'��}�� ���0�;����'� ����� �A���A���3�����-�c~������-}�� ��¿U���� � �D� �-�4�������A��� ~��\�����B��}�������7� �0� ~����'�Q�<��~��-�1�A��0~���� ���'�4� ���V����B�0�������4���U�����0~�}�����8�0������ �-�*�'�P~��-�*���-}�� ����A�F� ����-�<�0���0���'�����A���F�����0�B~���0���3�A���w�����P���5�5}�3�4�P�������"� ~4¡*���� ���7�'� �V~����0����� �3� �4�"����\~��4�������0� �7�-�V~����F~;��� ���;�� �0~�������3�'�3��¡P����-�-~;������<�P����� �P���0��������Q��¡P���U�7� ~�� ���-���A��� �\�A�F��t�������4����0�7�3� ���� �'�0�c�A���7����� �����P�'�S� �T�����7���-���� �4� ~;����

�4�����B��}�0������~K����0����� ���7��� ~�� ~4�7� �'��������~��Q�0�3�3���=�0��� �-���A�����3�4� �-���A�-��� � ��� �c���\���5�1�����F����'� �3� ����� � �'���0�-�������0����'���=�P���P����7�T��Q}���3�4���-�4� ����� �\�������~��S�'�����\~��"�����8�3~�� � ~4¡P� �-�c�Q�������<�c~���'��~����0�Q�4���[� }���A�4� ~;�� �-�1�4�4���5��� �4~���� ���;��A���4���-����¡P� �4��� �D������'~��Q���3�4���·¦ ���������4����}��0�=~��1�F����������� � �3�����'���8}�0�c~4�7�0��������"��'�� � �-���'�-©��;� ���4�����-��� ���4� ~��'�F��� �-�=���\~��-�\�� � �3����������-���0� �������Q}�����~��-}�� ���4� ~��-�=¦�����}�� � ¿��'�� � �S� �-�4���-�����4� ~����3�F~;��� ���;� �-�4�A�����A��� ~;���������0~���� �����4� ���Q©�������<���A�-�-�c~��"�����F~4}�����7�3� ~4¡»¡*� �4�� �S���S����~��Q�0�0¥�4���q¦ �0���'�������������0~�}�����7�F����-� �-��©-�"����B�����0� ���'�-���0¼-��������'� �<�V�4~���A�F� ���2� ���}���0� ~��\����\~�}��<�0� ��8�4�-�����A���c¦ �-���-}������B�0�-��� �3� �����������-� �\�'�-���������4�����0���-�0�=~4�1�0���3�A���0©���U�����-�A�0�'���3�4�4���2�\~4�����-�'�'���\�A«8��� �'�����3� ~F�T�Q~4�B�2�'~;�����'�A�4� ~;�

���A�<¡S�'���T� �-�'�A�B�'��T��~;�'� �'�;�'�'~4�Q�����4�'�ª���'�'� �3�O� � �A�B� �D�7���<�-�'� �1���<�Q~3�3¥¡\�A�'�S�A«F�3�'���0� ~;�\~4�����A�Q�����0� ��� �7�0���'�'�7�4���'~4���4��À��A�Q�'����� ��� �7�0���'�'��3���'~3�5�B��}����1�A�Q� �U�4���A�"�1� �3�'� �3¡P�'� � ¥ }��0�'�2�-�A�0� �"�'���4� �'�3�����'�'�A�B�A�-�2������3~��3�"�T���A�1�'� ~;���\�'����~4�U��'� �1����~4�-��~;~;����~;��� �'�4�3� �A�=�'�����3������ �0��~4}��-�A�1�'�\�'����~4�T��~4�3�'���3� �'����A�-���A�<�-�A�3~4�5�2���'�'�A}��0���4���A����-~4�� ���T~;����~4�5� }���� �3� �A�U�Q~4��� ���Q~��-�\�'�3�0~;�'� �'�F�'~;���4�'�A���'�\~;�������� ��'��~4�5���'���O� ���<��~;��}��'��� ���Q~4�-�\���3��}��5�1�'� � � �'���'��¦AÁc�A¡\�\�'�y�§"Â;{'©��;Ã�}��U�Q� ����� �������Q}"���1�A�Q���3���A��3���T���-�A���'���'�2~4�"�<�-�'�A�=�'�'���U��2�����'� �0� �1�1�Q�'�A�4~4��� �T�4�����A«0�4�'���"�4~�¡\��� �'�T�-�A�-� ���'��� �=�'�A� }��'� � �B}�����'���D  �4�'�"�T~4¡P���A�5����� �S~3�Q£��-�A�0� ���'���4� �'��~4}��4��~F~4�������'�'�A�0��¹��S~4�4���A�¡\~4�����0�4�Q}��'�'�A���Q� }��4�-�A�0� �"�'���4� �'��~4}��3��~;~4�U���������A�=�A�-�2��� �1~4�4�'�;� ���3������'��� �4���B�0~;�'� �'�;�'�'~;� ~����S~4���2�'~;�\�B}���� �<���;�'�"�T�<���'�A�B�����2�2�"�A��'� �'�S�'����� �D�A�-�'�A�4� ���B��}��'�'�A���Q� }��4�-�A��� ���'���4� �'�F~4}��4��~;~4�8�0���'�'�A����1~�¡P���A���A«F�4�'�����\� ������2�'~;�����'�A�4� ~;�������<¡\�'���T� ���'�A�=�'���

��~;�'� �'���'�'~4�����Q�3�'�q���'�'� �4�D�A«0�4�'�����4~K�'~;���4�A«0� �=~4�4���A�U�4���'���4��~4������<}��"� �'�O���A�-��¢U�T����0� �1�'���A�-�1}����Q�����3�'�\�A�3� ���"}"���'���'~4}��-���1� ���1��2����� ~4�-��~;�2�3�����'� }���~Q�U�'~;�S�B}��"� � ����A�-�"������� �O�\������� ���T�4�"���~;�'� �'�4�Q�A�"�-� �T~4����~;~4�B����� �1����~4�-��~;~;���=� �=� �S���-�A���0� �1�'� �P�'~;����� ���4�����

Page 41: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Ä�Å�ÆÇ�È�ÉÊ�ËÌ�Í�È�Î�Ï�Ê�Ð�È�Ê�Ñ Ò�É�Í Ó�É�Ê�Ô�Õ�Ö"× Æ�Ø�Ù'Ú Ì�Û*Õ"Ü"Ü Æ

Ì'Ë�ÝDÔAÞ0Ó3Ô'Ë�ß0Ñ à1Ô�×�á'Ê5É�Ë�ß�È;Ë Ä Ö�Ö"Ö Ø'â Ì'Ë"Ý2Ó4ã�ÔÎQÑ Ê5ßQÓ"ß�Û�ß�Ó4Ô'ä\ÌAÓQÑ Ò2Ý�ÌAÓ3ÌÈ�ËTÓ3ã�Ñ ßBå'É�ÔAß�Ó4Ñ È;ËOÔ�Ò'ã�È�Ó3ã�Ô2Í È4Ê�Ô2×Aæ�Í È3à1ÔAÊ�ÔAÓ�Ì'Í ç;Õ�Ü"Ü�Õ Ø ç Ú È4Ê�Ô'È4à7ÔAÊ âÓ4ã�ÔAÊ-Ô2Ñ ß�ß�È;ä\Ô2Ñ Ë"Ý�Ñ Ò'ÌAÓ4Ñ È;ËTÓ3ã�ÌAÓ�ÌÓ4Ñ Ô1Ð�ÔAÓ èPÔ'Ô'ËTé�Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë2Ê�ÔAß�Ñ Ý"Ô'Ë�Ó3Ñ Ì'Íß0ê�Ì'Ò'ÔAßBÌ'Ë�Ý2ßQÓ Ê-Ô'Ë'é�Ó4ãOÈ4Î�Ò'È;ä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó<ÛDÑ ßBË�È4Ó�ÔAÞ8Ò'Í É�ß0Ñ à1Ô1Ó3Ècê�È;È4ÊË�Ô'Ñ é1ã�Ð�È4Ê-ã"È;È;Ý�ß-çQÏ=ËOÌAÊ5Ó3Ñ Ò'Í Ô�Ñ Ëcëì�íUî7ï ð ñ�ò0ï ó ô7õSö'ò0ï ì�ð ÷\×�ø7Ê�ÌAÛ�Ó3È;ËÕ�Ü�Ü�Ü Ø Í ÌAÉ�Ý'ßUÓ3ã�Ô"é�Ê-È4è\Ñ Ë�éSäSÈ4à1Ô'äSÔ'Ë'Ó�Ó3È4è\ÌAÊ-ÝOù�Ò'È;äSäBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó Ûé�Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë�ß â ú ß0ã�ÌAÊ-Ô'ÝDê�ÌAÊ-û�ß�Ó<É�Ò'û�Ô'ÝSÌAèPÌAÛSÈ;Ë�Ó3ã�ÔTÑ Ë�ß0Ñ Ý�ÔTÈ4Î�Ê-ÔAß�Ñ Ý�Ô'Ë�Ó3Ñ Ì'ÍÐ�Í È;Ò'û�ß0ç Ú È4ßQÓ�È4Î;Ó3ã�ÔAß0Ô�Ò�È;ä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó<Û�é-Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë-ßBã�ÌAà1ÔÐ�Ô'Ô'ËDÝ"ÔAà1Ô'Í üÈFê�Ô'ÝOÑ ËOä\Ñ Ý�Ý"Í Ô4ü1È4Ê1É�ê�ê�Ô�Ê4üAÑ Ë�Ò'È;äSÔ�Ë�Ô'Ñ é1ã�Ð�È4Ê'ã�È;ÈFÝ�ß�ýxã�È4É�ß�ÔAß�È;ËÌ�Ò'ÈFä\ä�É�Ë"Ñ Ó Û�é-Ê'Ô�Ô'ËOÑ ËKþcÔ�è@ÿ1È4Ê�û���Ñ Ó Û��ß�æ8Ê�Ô�Ô'Ë'è\Ñ Ò'ã���Ñ Í Í ÌAé1Ô�ß�Ô'Í ÍÎQÈ4Ê7ß0ÔAà1ÔAÊ-Ì'ÍFäSÑ Í Í Ñ È;ËOÝ�È;Í Í ÌAÊ5ßBÌ'ê�Ñ Ô'Ò�Ô'çQÿ1ÔAÓ"Ó4ã�Ô�ê�ÌAÓ<Ó3ÔAÊ�ËDÈ4ÎUË"Ô'Ñ é1ã�Ð�È4Ê4üã�È;È;ÝTÓ3Ñ ÔAßBÝ�ÔAà1Ô'Í È;ê�Ñ Ë�éBÎ Ê�È;ä@Ó4ã�Ô1ß�ã�ÌAÊ-Ô'ÝTÉ�ß�Ô2È4Î�Ó4ã�ÔAß�Ô2Ò'ÈFä\ä\È;Ëé�Ê-Ô'Ô'ËTß0ê�Ì'Ò'ÔAß=ÔAÞ1Ì'ÒAÓ4Í ÛPä\Ñ Ê5Ê-È4Ê5ß=È4É�ÊUÎQÑ Ë�Ý�Ñ Ë�é�ß�Î Ê-È;ä[ß0È;ä\Ô�È4Î"Ó3ã�Ôê"È;È4Ê�ÔAß�Ó�Ò'ÈFä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó3Ñ Ô�ßBÑ Ë2Ó4ã�Ô���Ë"Ñ Ó3Ô'Ý��QÓ4Ì�Ó4ÔAßFäSÈ4Ê�Ô'È4àÔAÊ â Ó3ã�Ñ ßê�ÌAÓ Ó4ÔAÊ-Ë\Ì'ê�ê�Ô'ÌAÊ5ß=Ì'ÒAÊ-È4ßQßcÝ�Ñ Î ÎQÔAÊ-Ô'Ë�Ó�Ò'ÈFä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó Ûcé�Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë�ß�èSÑ Ó3ãß�Ó Ê-Ñ û"Ñ Ë�éSÒ'ÈFË�ß0Ñ ß�Ó3Ô�Ë�ÒAÛ�ç���Í Ô'ÌAÊ-Í Û â Ó3ã�Ô�ÔAÞ�Ó3Ô'Ë�Ó"Ó3È�è\ã�Ñ Ò�ã2Ó<Ê�Ô�ÔAßê'Ê�È;äSÈ4Ó4Ô�ã�Ô'Ì'Í Ó3ã'ÛBß�È;Ò'Ñ Ì'ÍFÔ'Ò'È4ß�Û�ßQÓ3Ô'äBß�Ñ ËOÝ�Ñ à1ÔAÊ5ß�Ô1ß�ÔAÓ<Ó3Ñ Ë�é�ß�Ì'Ë�Ýê"È;ê�É�Í ÌAÓ3Ñ È;Ë�ßUÐ�Ô'Ì�Ê5ßUÎ É�Ê5Ó4ã"ÔAÊ�Ñ Ë�à1ÔAßQÓ3Ñ é1Ì�Ó3Ñ È;Ë�ç

�7Ô�é7Ì�Ê�ÝÍ Ô�ßQß=È4Î�ãÈ�è»è*Ñ ÝÔ�Í Û=Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ßBÌ�Ê�ÔTÍ Ñ Ë�û�Ô�Ý�Ó4È�ß0È�Ò�Ñ Ì�ÍÔ'Ò�È�ßQÛ0ß3Ó4Ô�ätãÔ�Ì�Í Ó4ã â Ñ Ó�Ñ ßcÑ äPêÈ�Ê�Ó4Ì�Ë-Ó�Ó4ÈOË�È�Ó�Ô7Ó4ãÌ�ÓÓ4ãÔ�Ò�È;Ë�Ó�Ô�ÞFÓ�È�ÎÓ4ãÔ�ß0ÔUßQÓ<É�ÝÑ Ô�ßQýxêÈ;È�Ê�ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë\ËÔ�Ñ é1ã-Ð�È4Ê�ãÈ�È�Ý-ßQýxÑ ßVê-Ê-Ô�Ò'Ñ ß0Ô�Í ÛVÓ4ãÔÒ'È�Ë-Ó4Ô�Þ;Ó1èPãÔ�Ê-ÔUß�È�Ò�Ñ Ì�Í"Ô�Ò�È�ßQÛ0ßQÓ�Ô�äqã�Ô�Ì�Í Ó4ãPÑ ßVÌ�Ó1é0Ê�Ô'Ì�Ó�Ô�ßQÓÊ�Ñ ß0ûSÌ�ËÝèPãÔ�Ê-ÔUÉÊ5Ð�Ì�ËBÓ<Ê-Ô�Ô�ßVÌ�Ê�Ô�Í Ô�Ì�ßQÓ2ê-Ê�Ô�ß0Ô�Ë�Ó4ç� qãÑ Í ÔBê�È�à7Ô�Ê�Ó<ÛwÑ ßVËÈ4Óß�Û7Ë�È�Ë�Û7ä\È�É�ß�è\Ñ Ó4ãSÌ'Í Ñ Ô�Ë�Ì�Ó4Ñ È;ËDÌ�Ë�Ý�Ê�Ñ ß0ûOÈ�Î�Ò�Ê-Ñ äPÔ â Ó4È�ÈVäSÌ�Ë�Ûê�ÈFÈ4Ê8É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËSË"Ô�Ñ é�ã'Ð�È3Ê-ã"ÈFÈFÝ'ßcÌ�Ê�ÔTÒ�ã"Ì�Ê�Ì�Ò�Ó3Ô�Ê-Ñ �"Ô�Ý�Ð;ÛPã"Ñ éãDÍ Ô�àÔ�Í ß=È4ÎäDÑ ß5Ó ÊAÉ"ß�Ó â Ñ ß�ÈFÍ Ì�ÓQÑ È0Ë â é-Ê�Ì�Î Î�Ñ Ó3Ñ â ê'Ê�ÈFê"Ô<Ê�Ó ÛKÒ�Ê�Ñ äSÔ â Ì�Ë"Ý�àÑ ÈFÍ Ô�Ë'Ó8Ò�Ê�Ñ äSÔ�ç� ÓäSÌ�Û=Ð�Ô7Ó3ã"Ì�ÓÓ3ã"Ô1é�Ê�Ô�Ì�Ó3Ô�ß�ÓÐ�Ô�Ë"Ô�ÎQÑ Ó ßcÈ3Î�É"Ê5Ð�Ì�Ë�Î�È4Ê�Ô�ß�Ó Ê5ÛPÌ�Ò�Ò�Ê�É�Ô7Ó3Èß-ÈFä\Ô�È4Î8Ñ Ó ßTã�Ñ ß�Ó3ÈQÊ�Ñ Ò�Ì'Í Í ÛDäSÈ3ß�Ó;É�Ë"Ý"Ô�Ê5ß�Ô�Ê5àÔ�ÝKÒ�È;Ë'ß5Ó3Ñ Ó É�Ô�Ë"Ò'Ñ Ô�ß-ç

�TãÔ7ÎQÑ ËÝÑ Ë�é�ß=ãÔ�Ê-ÔTãÌAà7ÔTÌ2Ë-É�ä=Ð�Ô�ÊBÈ4Î�Ñ äPê�Í Ñ Ò'Ì�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�ß�ÎQÈ�ÊÌAÊ�Ð�È4Ê�Ñ Ò�É�Í Ó<ÉÊ-Ô=Ì'Ë�ÝcÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê-Ô�ßQÓ<ÊQÛ�ç���Ñ Ê�ßQÓTÌ�ËÝ=Î3È�Ê-Ô'äPÈ�ßQÓ â Ó4ãÔ�ÛÊ-Ô�Ñ Ë�Î3È�Ê�Ò�Ô8Ó�ã�ÔUé�Ê-È�è*Ñ Ë-écÊ�Ô�Ò�È4é7ËÑ Ó�Ñ È�ËSÈ�Î�Ó�ãÔ8à7Ñ Ó4Ì�Í'Ê�È�Í Ô8Ó�Ê-Ô'Ô�ßVêÍ Ì�ÛÑ Ë�Ó4ãÔTÔ�Ò'È�Í È�é7Ñ Ò�Ì'Í â ß0È�Ò�Ñ Ì�Í â Ì�ËÝSÔ�Ò'È�Ë�È�äPÑ ÒTãÔ'Ì�Í Ó�ãSÈ�Î�È4ÉÊÒ'È�ä\ä=É�Ë�Ñ Ó4Ñ ÔAß0ç��0Ô'Ò�È�Ë�Ý â Ó4ãÔAÛPÌ�Ê5é0É�ÔÎ3È�Ê�ÌTä=É�Ò�ã�Ó4Ñ é7ã�Ó4Ô�ÊÑ Ë-Ó4Ô�é0Ê�ÌAÓ�Ñ È�ËPÈ�Î�Ó4ãÔ8ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê�ÔAß3Ó2Ñ Ë-Ó3ÈTÓ�ã�ÔUÊ�Ô�ß0Ñ Ý�Ô�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í'É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËÎQÌ�Ð"Ê�Ñ Ò'ç���ã�Ñ Ê-Ý â Ó4ã�Ô7Î3Ñ ËÝ�Ñ Ë�é0ß�ßQÉé0é1Ô�ßQÓ�Ó4ãÌ�Ó�Ì�Ê�Ð�È�Ê�Ñ ßQÓ��;Ê�Ô�ß0Ñ Ý�Ô�Ë-Óê�Ì�Ê�Ó4ËÔ�Ê�ß0ãÑ ê-ß=ä\Ì�Û=Ð�ÔTÌ�ËSÑ ä\êÈ�Ê�Ó4Ì�Ë�Ó�Î3Ì�Ò�Ó4È�ÊBÑ Ë�Î É�Í Í ÛcÊ-Ô�Ì'êÑ Ë-é=Ó4ãÔã�Ô�Ì�Í Ó�ã-ÛVßFÈ;Ò�Ñ Ì'ÍÔ�Ò�È�ß3Û�ß3Ó4Ô�ä Ð�Ô�ËÔAÎ3Ñ Ó<ßVÈ�Î1Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ß0ç

Vital Municipal Functions��ãÔ�ß0Ô8Î3Ñ ËÝÑ Ë-é0ß�Ð"Ê�È�Ì'ÝÔ�Ë\È4ÉÊ�É�ËÝÔAÊ�ßQÓ�Ì'ËÝÑ Ë-é*È4Î�Ó4ãÔ7Î É�ËÒ�Ó4Ñ È;Ë-ßÓ�Ê�Ô�ÔAß�ß0Ô�Ê�à7ÔTÑ Ë�É�Ê�Ð�Ì�Ë\Ò�È�ä\ä=É�ËÑ Ó4Ñ Ô�ß�ç�Ï�Ó�ê-Ê�Ô�ß0Ô�Ë-Ó â Ó�ã�Ô8Ê�È;Í Ô�È�ÎÌ�Ê�Ð�È4Ê�Ñ ÒAÉ�Í Ó<ÉÊ�ÔTÑ ËTÉÊ�Ð�Ì�ËSÔ�Ò�È�ßQÛ0ßQÓ4Ô�äBßcÑ ß=ê-Ê�Ñ äPÌ�Ê�Ñ Í ÛPÒ�È;ËÒ'Ô�ê-Ó<É�Ì�Í üÑ �"Ô�ÝDÑ Ë�Ó4Ô�Ê-ä=ß=È4Î�Ó4ãÔ2Ì�ÔAß3Ó4ã�Ô�Ó4Ñ Ò â Ô'Ë-àÑ Ê�È�Ë�äPÔ'Ë-Ó4Ì�Í â Ì'ËÝTèPÑ Í Ý�Í Ñ Î3ÔãÌ�Ð�Ñ Ó4Ì�ÓÎ É�ËÒ�Ó4Ñ È;Ë-ß�Ó�Ê-Ô�Ô�ß�ßFÔAÊ�à7Ô�ç���ãÔ7ÎQÑ ËÝ�Ñ Ë-é0ß�Ê�ÔAà7Ñ ÔAè*Ô�ÝDãÔ�Ê�Ôß3Éé�é7Ô�ßQÓ�Ì7ßQÉÐ"ß3Ó3Ì�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í Í ÛPÔ�Þ8êÌ�Ë�ÝÔ�ÝDÒ�È�Ë�Ò�Ô�ê-Ó<É�Ì�Í Ñ �"Ì�Ó4Ñ È�ËDä\Ì�Û=Ð�ÔÑ ËSÈ�Ê�ÝÔ�Ê4ç4Ï�Ê�Ð�È4Ê-Ñ Ò�É�Í Ó<ÉÊ-ÔTäPÌ�Û=Ð�Ô7à7ÌAßQÓ4Í Û=É�Ë�ÝÔ�Ê�à7Ì�Í É�Ô�Ý�Ê�Ô�Í Ì�Ó4Ñ à7ÔÓ�ÈVÑ Ó�ß=Ò'È�Ë-Ó<Ê-Ñ Ð�É�Ó3Ñ È�Ë-ß0ç

tÑ Ó4ãÑ Ë�Ó�ã�ÔTÍ Ñ Ó�ÔAÊ�Ì�Ó<ÉÊ�ÔTÈ�Ë�Ó4ãÔ7ßFÈFÒ�Ñ Ì'Í�Ð�Ô�ËÔ�Î3Ñ Ó<ßcÈ�Î"ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�ËÎ3È�Ê�Ô�ßQÓ�ß â Ó4ãÑ ß2èPÈ4Ê�û=Ê�Ô�Ñ Ë-Î3È�Ê�Ò'Ô�ßOÌ�ËÝPÔ�ÞFÓ�Ô'ËÝ-ß2Ó4ãÔ�Ê�Ô�ß0Ô�Ì�Ê-Ò�ã*È�ËÓ�Ê-Ô�Ô�ß=Ì'ËÝSã�Ô�Ì�Í Ó4ã�Û\ã-É�äPÌ�ËTÎ É�Ë�Ò�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�Ñ Ë�é7ç��8Ô'Ò�Ô�Ë�Ó�ÔAà7Ñ ÝÔ'Ë�Ò�Ô2Í Ñ Ëû'ßé0Ê�Ô�Ô�ËBÊ�ÔAßFÑ ÝÔ�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í�ßFÔ�Ó<Ó4Ñ Ë�é0ß�Ó�È�Ê�Ô�Ý-É�Ò'Ô�ÝSÌ�é0é0Ê�Ô�ßQß0Ñ È;Ë\×��É�ÈKÌ�ËÝ�3É�Í Í Ñ à7Ì'ËSÕ�Ü"Ü ÄAØ FÔ'Ëã�Ì'ËÒ'Ô�ÝDÒ'È�é1ËÑ Ó4Ñ à1Ô1Î É�Ë�Ò�Ó3Ñ È�Ë�Ñ Ë�é â Í Ñ Î3ÔÎ É�Ë�Ò�üÓ4Ñ È;Ë�Ñ Ë�é â Ì'Ë�ÝTèPÔ�Í Í3Ð�Ô'Ñ Ë�é\×�Ô'ç é1ç â �"É�ÈcÕ"Ü�Ü Ä ���Ì'ê�Í Ì'ËOÕ"Ü"Ü ÄAØ FÌ'Ë�Ý

é0Ê-Ô�Ì�Ó�Ô�ÊBÒ'Ì�êÌ�Ò�Ñ Ó<ÛcÎQÈ�ÊUßFÔ�Í Î3ü�ÝÑ ß0Ò�Ñ ê�Í Ñ ËÔT×��Ì�Ð�Ô�Ê��UÌ�Û7Í È�ÊBÔ�Ó�Ì�Í ç�Õ"Ü�Ü"Õ Ø ç�8È4é1Ô�Ó4ãÔ�Ê â Ó4ãÔBÔAà7Ñ ÝÔ'ËÒ�Ô7Ê-Ô�à7Ñ Ô�èPÔ�ÝPã�Ô�Ê-ÔUßQÉé�é1Ô�ß3Ó<ßVÌ8à7Ñ Ó�Ì�Í�Ê�È�Í ÔÎQÈ�ÊUÓ Ê-Ô�ÔAßcÑ ËTÓ4ãÔTã�Ô�Ì'Í Ó4ã-ÛBÎ É�Ë�Ò�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�Ñ Ë-éPÈ4Î�Ë�È4Ó�È�Ë�Í ÛPÑ ËÝ�Ñ à7Ñ Ý-É�Ì�Í ß âÐ"ÉÓ�ËÔ�Ñ é1ã-Ð�È�Ê�ãÈ;È�Ý-ß=Ì�ßUèPÔ�Í Í ç

Ú È�Ê-Ô7é1Ô�ËÔ�Ê-Ì�Í Í Û â Ó4ãÔ1Î3Ñ Ë�ÝÑ Ë-é0ß�Ê-Ô�à7Ñ Ô�èPÔ�ÝOãÔ�Ê-ÔTÒ�È;äPêÍ Ô�ä\Ô�Ë-ÓÌ�Ë�ÝSÔ�ÞFÓ4Ô�ËÝBÓ4ãÔTÍ Ì�Ê5é7Ô�ÊBÍ Ñ Ó�Ô�Ê-Ì�Ó�ÉÊ-Ô�ÝÈ�ÒAÉ�äPÔ�Ë�Ó4Ñ Ë�écÓ4ãÔ8Î É�ËÒ�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�ßÓ<Ê�Ô'ÔAß=ê-Ê'È�à7Ñ Ý�ÔTÑ Ë�É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËDÒ'È�äPäBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó�Ñ ÔAßFç��7È�éÔ�Ó4ãÔAÊUèPÑ Ó4ã�Ó4ãÔÔ�à1Ñ Ý�Ô'ËÒ�Ô�Í Ñ Ëû"Ñ Ë-écÓ<Ê�Ô�Ô�ß=Ì�ËÝ\È�Ó4ãÔ�ÊUà7Ô�é7Ô�Ó4Ì�Ó3Ñ È�Ë�Ó�ÈOÒ'Í Ô�Ì�ËSÌ�Ñ ÊBÌ�ËÝÒ�Í Ô�Ì�Ë�è*ÌAÓ�ÔAÊ â Ó4ãÑ ß=ËÔ�ètÔAà7Ñ ÝÔ�ËÒ'ÔTÍ Ñ Ëû"Ñ Ë-é=Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ß�Ó4ÈKãÔ�Ì�Í Ó4ãÑ Ô�Êê�Ì�Ó<Ó3Ô�Ê�Ë�ßcÈ4Î�Ñ ËÝ�Ñ à1Ñ Ý-É�Ì'Í;Ì'ËÝSË�Ô�Ñ é7ã�Ð�È4Ê�ã�È�È�ÝTÎ É�Ë�Ò�Ó4Ñ È�ËÑ Ë-é\êÈ�Ñ Ë�Ó<ßÓ4ÈKÌTäBÉ�Ò�ãSÍ Ì�Ê�é1Ô�Ê�Ó4ãÔ�äSÔ�ýsÓ<Ê�Ô�ÔAßcÌ�ËÝSê-ÉÐ�Í Ñ ÒTãÔ�Ì�Í Ó�ã�ç��Ì�ÊUÎ Ê�È�äÐ�Ô'Ñ Ë�é\Ì�ËDÌ�ä\Ô'ËÑ Ó<Û â Ó4ãÔ'Ë â Ñ Ó�Ì�ê�êÔ'Ì�Ê5ß�Ó4ãÌAÓ�Ó<Ê'Ô�ÔAß=ê�Í Ì�Û\ä=É�Í Ó4Ñ êÍ Ô âÎ É�Ë�ÝÌ'äPÔ�Ë-Ó4Ì�Í4Ê�È;Í ÔAßcÑ Ë�Ó3ãÔTÒ'È�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ë-É�Ô�ÝDãÔ�Ì�Í Ó3ãSÈ�Î"É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËSÒ�È�ä\ä=É�üË�Ñ Ó4Ñ Ô�ßcÌ'ËÝ�ß0ãÈ�É�Í Ý�Ð�Ô7Ê-Ô�é7ÌAÊ�ÝÔ�ÝSÑ Ë�Ó4ãÔ7ß0Ì�ä\ÔTÍ Ñ é7ã-Ó�ÌAßcÈ�Ó4ãÔAÊÉÊ5Ð�Ì�ËPÑ Ë-Î Ê�ÌAß3Ó<Ê�É�Ò�Ó<ÉÊ�Ì�Í�Ô�Í Ô�äPÔ�Ë-Ó<ß0ç

��ËSÍ Ñ Ë�û"Ñ Ë�é=Ó<Ê-Ô'Ô�ß�èPÑ Ó3ãTß0È;äPÔ2È4Î�È4ÉÊ�ä\È�ß�Ó�Ò�ã�Ì�Í Í Ô'Ë-é1Ñ Ë�éPÌ'ËÝÑ ä\ê�È�Ê5Ó�Ì'Ë-Ó�Ò�Ñ à7Ñ Ò1é7È�Ì'Í ß â Ó4ãÑ ß�èPÈ�Ê�ûOÒ�È;Ë-Ó<Ê�Ñ Ð"É�Ó4ÔAßcÌ2ËÔ�ètÌ�Ë�Ýê�È�Í Ñ Ó4Ñ Ò�Ì�Í Í Û\Ò�È�ä\êÔ'Í Í Ñ Ë�é\Ì'ÝÝÑ Ó4Ñ È;Ë�Ó4È�Ó4ã�ÔTÌ�Ê5é�É�äPÔ�Ë�Ó<ß�Î3È�Ê8ÉÊ5Ð�Ì'ËÎ3È4Ê-ÔAß3Ó<Ê�Û�ç� tãÑ Í ÔTê-Ê�È�à7Ñ Ý�Ñ Ë-éPÒ�Í Ô�Ì�ËÔAÊ=Ì'Ñ Ê â Ò�Í Ô'Ì�ËÔAÊUè*Ì�Ó4Ô�Ê â Ì�ËÝÈ�Ó4ã�ÔAÊBÔ�Ë-à7Ñ Ê�È�Ë�äPÔ�Ë-Ó4Ì�Í4Ð�Ô'ËÔ�Î3Ñ Ó<ßcÑ ß=È�Ð�à1Ñ È4Éß0Í ÛPÑ äPêÈ4Ê�Ó4Ì�Ë-Ó�Ì�ËÝà1Ì�Í É�Ì�Ð�Í Ô â Ó4ãÔ1Î3Ì�Ò�Ó�Ê�Ô�ä\Ì'Ñ Ë-ß�Ó�ã�Ì�Ó�Î3Ô�è»ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�ËDê�È�Í Ñ Ó4Ñ Ò�Ñ Ì�Ë-ß�à7Ñ Ô�èÓ4ãÔ�ß�ÔTÑ ßQßQÉ�Ô�ßcÌ�ßcÒ�Ô'Ë-Ó�Ê-Ì�Í4Ó4È2Ó4ãÔ�Ñ Ê=ÌAé7Ô�ËÝÌ�ß0ç��QÓ�Ê-È�Ë-é7Ô�ÊBÒ�È�äPäBÉ�ËÑ üÓ4Ñ Ô�ß â Ê-Ô�Ý-É�Ò�Ô�ÝSÒ�Ê-Ñ äPÔ7Ê�ÌAÓ4ÔAß â Ì�Ë�ÝSãÔ�Ì'Í Ó4ãÑ Ô�Ê â ä\È�Ê-Ô7à1Ñ Ó�Ì'Í�Ë�Ô�Ñ é7ã-Ð�È4Ê4üãÈ;È;Ý-ßQýsÓ4ãÔ�ß0Ô�Ì�Ê�Ô�È�ÉÓ4Ò'È�äPÔAß�Ó4ãÌ�Ó2ä\Ì�Û7È�Ê�ß=Ì�ËÝ\Ò�Ñ Ó<Û*Ò�È�É�Ë�Ò�Ñ Í ßßQÓ<Ê�Ñ à1Ô7Î3È4Ê â È4Î Ó4Ô�Ë�èPÑ Ó�ãSÍ Ñ Ó<Ó�Í ÔTÈ4ÊBËÈ�ßQÉ�Ò�Ò'Ô�ßQßFç���ãÔ1Î3Ñ ËÝÑ Ë-é0ß=ãÔ�Ê�ÔßQÉé0é1ÔAß3Ó1Ó�ãÌAÓ7ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê-ÔAß3Ó<Ê�ÛwãÔ�Í ê-ßKÌ'ÝÝ-Ê�Ô�ß�ß�ß0È�äPÔBÈ�Î�È�É�ÊVä\È�ßQÓÊ�Ô'Ò�È4é7Ë�Ñ ��Ô'ÝSÌ�ËÝSäPÈ4ß3Ó�Ò'ãÌ'Í Í Ô�Ë-é1Ñ Ë�é=ßFÈ;Ò�Ñ ÔAÓ�Ì�Í�ËÔ'Ô�Ý-ß0ç

Tighter Integration into the Residential Urban

Fabric� ËÔßQÓ�Ê-Ñ û"Ñ Ë-é\Ñ äPêÍ Ñ Ò�ÌAÓ�Ñ È;ËSÈ�Î"Ó4ãÑ ß�Ð�È�Ý�ÛPÈ�Î"è\È�Ê-ûDÑ ß�Ó4ãÌAÓÓ4ãÔÍ È�Ò�ÌAÓ4Ñ È�Ë\È�Î"Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ßcäPÌ�Ó<Ó4ÔAÊ�ßcÌ�Ó�Ì8ßQÉÊ�ê-Ê-Ñ ß0Ñ Ë-é7Í Û=Î3Ñ ËÔ�ü é0Ê�Ì�Ñ ËÔ�Ý�ßFÒ�Ì'Í Ô'ç�"Ì�Ê�Ó3Ñ Ò'Ñ êÌ'Ë-Ó�ßcÑ ËBÓ4ãÔ�ß0Ô8ßQÓ<É�ÝÑ Ô�ßcÌ�Í Í�ãÌ�à7Ô8Ê�Ô�Ì'Ý�Û*Ì�Ò�Ò�ÔAß3ß�Ó4ÈË�Ô�Ñ éã-Ð�È�Ê�ãÈ;È�Ý�é0Ê�Ô'Ô�Ë�ß�êÌ�Ò�ÔAßcÌ�Ë�ÝSÍ Ñ à1Ô7è*Ñ Ó4ã�Ñ ËSÌ7Î3Ô�ètäPÑ Í Ô�ß=È�ÎÈ�Ë�ÔTÈ4Î�Ó4ãÔTäPÈ�ßQÓ�Ô�ÞFÓ4Ô�Ë-ß�Ñ à7ÔTÔ�Þ8Ì�äPêÍ Ô�ß=È�Î�É�Ê5Ð�Ì�ËSËÌAÓ�ÉÊ�ÔTÑ ËþVÈ4Ê5Ó�ã�Ï=äPÔ�Ê�Ñ Ò�Ì�ý! �Ì'û�Ô Ú Ñ Ò�ãÑ é7Ì�ËSÌ�ËÝ�Ó4ãÔ2êÌ�Ê�û'ßcÌ'Í È�Ë�é�2ã�Ñ Ò�ÌAé7È��ß" "Ì�û"Ô#�FãÈ�Ê-Ô2øUÊ�Ñ à7Ô�ç��-ÉÊ5Ó�ã�Ô�Ê â Ó4ãÔ2êÌ�Ê�Ó�Ñ Ò�Ñ êÌ�Ë-Ó<ß=Ñ ËSÔ�Ì�Ò�ãßQÓ É�Ý'Û\Í Ñ à1Ô1èPÑ Ó4ã�Ñ ËTÓ4ãÔ1ß-Ì�ä\Ô2ËÔ'Ñ é1ã-Ð�È�Ê-ãÈ;È;Ý â èPÑ Ó4ãTÓ4ã�Ô1ß0Ì'äPÔÈ�à1Ô�Ê-Ì�Í Í�Í Ô�à7Ô�Í�È�Î"Ó<Ê-Ô�ÔTÒ�Ì'ËÈ�ê-Û'ç4ÿUÔ�Ó�Ñ Ë�ßQÓ�É�Ý-ÛPÌAÎ Ó�ÔAÊ�ßQÓ<É�Ý-Û â Ó4ãÔÎQÑ Ë�Ý�Ñ Ë-éPÑ ß�Ó�ã�Ì�Ó�ãÌ�à1Ñ Ë�é=Ó Ê-Ô�Ô�ß=ÝÑ Ê-Ô'Ò�Ó4Í Û\È�ÉÓ<ß0Ñ ÝÔTÈ�Ë�Ô$�ß=È�èPËÐ"É�Ñ Í ÝÑ Ë-é\Ñ ß=ÝÑ Î ÎQÔ�Ê�Ô'Ë-Ó�Ó�ã"Ì�ËSã�Ì�à7Ñ Ë-é=Ó4ã�È�ß0Ô7ß0Ì'äPÔ1Ó�Ê-Ô�Ô�ß�%�ÉßQÓÈ4ÉÓ<ß�Ñ ÝÔTË�Ô�Ñ é7ã-Ð�È4Ê-ãÈ;È�ÝTÐ"É�Ñ Í ÝÑ Ë�é0ß0ç��8È�Î É�Í Í ÛBÊ-Ô�Ì'ê�Ó4ãÔ7ß0È;Ò�Ñ Ì�ÍÐ�Ô�Ë�Ô�Î3Ñ Ó<ßKÈ�Î1Ó<Ê�Ô�ÔAß�Ó�ãÔ'Ë â Ó�ã�Ô�ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê�Ô�ßQÓTä\Ì�ÛwËÔ�Ô�Ý=Ó4È�Ð�ÔßQÉ�Ð"ßQÓ4Ì'Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í Í ÛPäPÈ4Ê�Ô1Ó�Ñ é1ã�Ó4Í ÛPÑ Ë-Ó4ÔAé0Ê�ÌAÓ�Ô'ÝSÑ Ë-Ó4È�Ó�ã�Ô7Ê-Ô�ß0Ñ ÝÔ�Ë�Ó4Ñ Ì'ÍÉÊ5Ð�Ì�ËBÎ3ÌAÐ�Ê�Ñ Ò8Ó�ã�Ì�Ë\Ñ ßcÒ�É�Ê�Ê�Ô'Ë-Ó�Í ÛcÊ�Ô�Ò�È�ä\äPÔ�Ë�ÝÔ�Ý�ç

Working with Citizens��ã�ÔÎQÈ;ÒAÉ�ß=È4Î�Ó3ã�Ñ ßUÊ-ÔAà1Ñ ÔAèsãÌAßUÐ�Ô'Ô'ËDÈ;ËTÓ3ã�Ô2ê"ã�Û�ß0Ñ Ò�Ì'ÍFê�Ê-È;Ý�É�ÒAÓ<ßBÈ3ÎÌAÊ5Ð�È3Ê�Ñ ÒAÉ�Í Ó É�Ê-Ô â Ð"É�ÓÓ4ã�ÔTê�Ê-È;Ò'ÔAßQßVÈ4Î�ÌAÊ5Ð�È4Ê-Ñ ÒAÉ�Í Ó<É�Ê-Ô8ß�É�Ê-Ô�Í Û*ã�ÌAßÑ ä\ê"Ì�ÒAÓ<ß�È;Ë2Ó3ã�Ôß�È;Ò'Ñ Ì'ÍFÔ4Ò'È4ß�Û�ß�Ó4Ô�äsÈ4ÎUÌ�Ò'È;ä\äTÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó<ÛSÌ�ßUè\Ô'Í Í ç&�Tã�Ì�ÓÑ ß â É"Ê5Ð�Ì'ËBÎQÈ4Ê-ÔAß�Ó<Ê5ÛPê�Ê-È4é�Ê-Ì'äBß=Ò�Ì'Ë�Ð�Ô8ß�Ó<Ê5É�ÒAÓ<É"Ê-Ô'Ý�ßQÉ�Ò'ã�Ó3ã�Ì�Ó�Ó4ã�ÔAÛê�Ê-ÈFä\È4Ó3ÔAýxÈ4ÊUÉ�Ë�Ý�ÔAÊ-ä\Ñ Ë�ÔAývÊ-ÔAß0Ñ ÝÔ'Ë�Ó ß'�'Ì'ê�ê'Ê-È;ê�Ê-Ñ ÌAÓ4Ñ È;ËSÈ4Î"Ó4ã�Ô'Ñ ÊË�Ô'Ñ éã�Ð�È4Ê�ã�È;È;ÝSÈ4É�Ó3Ý�È;È4Ê8ß0ê�Ì'Ò'ÔAß�ç��8È�Ó4ã�Ô2ÔAÞFÓQÔ'Ë�Ó�Ó4ã�ÌAÓ�é�Ê�Ô'Ô'Ë�Ñ Ë�éPÑ ß

Page 42: The Benefits of Urban Trees

(*),+ -�.�/�0�132,4#5�/�6 4#/�7�8:9<;=/�9*> ?�.�6 @A.,94B> CED#F"4�D�6 @�2$GIH�/�?$> D�6�JK?�/�6 /�LG

?$DM9<9*> 4�NO/�.,@P> CEDKQIDMGR@�2,DM@,9*4MS'T,4�?M@ S=9$4MS> N,4�C$@ S'U�?�2,/�> ?�4MSVD�C,NW D�6 .P4MSXQY> @�2#9*4MST�4�?M@�@�/=@�2,4�T$.,;=6 > ?�D�C,NZT$9*> W DM@�4KST,D�?�4MSR> C�@�2,4�> 9C�4�> LK2$;=/�9*2,/�/�N,['> @�S4�4�\RSR\Y/�94�6 > ]�4�6 GR@�/=7&/�S&@�4M9�@�2,4�]�> C,N�SR/�7:6 /�?�D�6S'/�?�> D�6�?�/�C$@A9�/�6�S/V4M7 7&4�?�@�> W 4�> CZN,4M@�4M9<9$> C$LO?M9*> \Y4�^�H'> \Y> 6 DM9*6 G�[�;�G> C W > @�> C$LOD�C,NB9*4�_�.P> 9*> C$L39*4MS> N,4�C$@ S'U�T�DM9<@�> ?�> T,DM@�> /�C�[�.,9<;:D�C�7&/�9*4MS`@A9<G\YD�G3;=4B?�DM9<9*> 4�N�/�.,@P> CEDKQYDMGR@�2,DM@=2�4�6 T$SX@A9*D�C$S`7&/�9\aDB\O4M9*4?�/�6 6 4�?�@�> /�CZ/�7XC�4�> L�2$;=/�9<SR> C$@�/"D�9*4�D�6 [`7 .PC,?M@�> /�C,> C$LO?�/�\O\3.PC,> @ GbQIDM@�?�2,> C$Lc/�.,@K7&/�9V4�D�?�2Y/�@�2,4M9�[�4�D�?�2O/�@�2,4M9US"T$9�/�T,4M9<@AG�[�D�C�NY4�D�?�2/�@�2�4M9*US3?�2,> 6 N$9$4�C�d�2�4�6 T�> C�LO/�.,@:> C�@�> \O4MS3/�7XC�4�4�N,d'2,D W > C$L#;:DM9�;=4�e?M.P4MSRD�C,NB;=6 /�?�]"T,DM9<@�> 4�S'd'4Mfg?�2,D�C$LK> C$L#LKDM9$N,4�C,> C$L3@�> T$S3D�C�NZ6 > 7&4S&@�/�9*> 4MSd�QY/�9*]�> C$L#@�/�LK4M@�2�4M9�@�/"> \YT$9�/ W 4K@�2,4�?�/�\Y\R.PC,> @ G�^

LITERATURE CITED8"h<8jiB/�\Y\I> S&S'> /�CE/�C#kR> /�6 4$C,?�4#D�C�NBlg/�.�@�2,^X(�m�n�o�^�kR> /�6 4$C,?$4D$C,N3lK/�.,@�2�0�h�S&Gg?�2�/�6 /�L'GKUSV5g4�S'T,/�C$S�4�^�8"\Y4�9*> ?$D$Ch�S&GK?$2,/�6 /�LK> ?�D�6�8:S&S'/�?$> DM@�> /�C,[�pqD�S'2�> C*L@�/�C,[�r3iB^

s 4$6 6 4$[�r3^ Jg^X(�m�n�t�^�1#2�4B> \YT�D�?�@P/�7:T,/ W 4�9`@AGY/�C3S'/�?$> D$6�C�4�@AQI/�9]�SD$C,N3S&.PT�T,/�9�@AS'^�uvD�9<9> DMLg4Bw�D�\I> 6 GO5�4 W ^�)�+�0 n�m�xR(�y�o�^

s 9�/�QYC�[ s ^ s ^ [�D�C�NEzM^�8V6 @�\YD�C�^�(�m�n�o�^�1g4�9<9*> @�/�9*> D$6 > @AG�[�N,4M7�4�C�S'> ;=6 4S'T�D$?�4#D$C,N39*4�S'> N�4�C*@�> D$6�;,.,9`Lg6 D�9<GK0�8"CO4�C W > 9/�C�\I4�C*@�D�6D�C�D�6 G'S> S'^�{�^�J�C W > 9*/�C�^�h�S&Gg?�2�/�6 ^�o�o�0 t�y�o�x:t�t�y�^

s 9`.�C$S'/�C�[�|�^:(�m�m�m�^�5g4�S'> N�4$C*@PD�T�T*9/�T*9> D�@�> /�CE/�7=N�4M7�4$C$S�> ;=6 4S'T�D�?$4B> COT$.�;:6 > ?#2,/�.�S'> C$Lg0�z�\IT,6 > ?�D�@�> /�C*S:7�/�9XS'DM7�4�@AGYD�C,N?$/�\Y\V.PC�> @AG�^�}3C�T$.�;=6 > S'2,4$NErR/�?M@�/�9D�6�r3> S&S'4�9<@�DM@�> /�C,[}3C,> W 4M9<S'> @ GY/�7:z�6 6 > C,/�> S[�}�9<;=D�C,D�e�iP2,D�\YT,D�> LKC,[�zM|�^

i�> S'C,4�9*/�S'[�F"^ ~R^g(�m,m�)�^�rR4M7�4�C*S'> ;=6 4BH'T�D�?$4�0�r34�@�4M9`9*> C*LYiK9$> \I4BD$C,Ns .P> 6 N�> C$LOi�/�\Y\3.PC,> @ G�^�}3^ H�^'r34�T�DM9<@�\Y4�C$@=/�7XF"/�.�S'> C�LOD�C,N}�9<;=D�CEr34 W 4�6 /�T,\Y4�C*@�[�p�D�S2�> C$L@�/�C,[�r3i�^

iP/�6 4MG�['5g^ |�^ [�w�^ J�^'-�.P/�['D�C,NBp�^ i�^�H&.P6 6 > W D�C,^�(�m�m���^�p�2�4M9$4PN,/�4�S?$/�\Y\V.�C�> @AGVL9/�QV�=132�4gS'/�?$> D$6�?$/�C*@�4�f�@�?�9*4$D�@�4$N3;,GYC�DM@�.�9*4> C#.,9<;=D$CET$.�;=6 > ?B2,/�.,S'> C$Lg^�JKC W > 9�/�C�^ s 4$2,D W ^�t�m�+�0 +���n�xX+�m�t�^

iP/�/�T,4M9&[�i�^ i�^�(�m���)�^�JKDMS`@�4M9#F"> 6 6�kR> 6 6 DMLK4�0�H'/�\Y4BH'/�?�> D�6z�\IT,6 > ?�D�@�> /�C�SV/�7:rR4MS'> LKC�^�132,4Bw*9�4�4Bh�9*4�S`S'[��"4�Q�lg/�9]�[��PlK^

r�9DMG'@�/�C�[�p�^�t�y�y�y�^�}X9`;=D�COT,6 D$C�C,> C$LK0�H�4$?�9$4�@,LKD�9$N,4$C$S'^�1B2�48=@�6 D�C*@�> ?Kuv/�C*@�2,6 GIt�n�)������$0`(�y�n�xR(�(�(�^

rg.,;:/�Q#['wM^ ['D�C,N�r3^'J�\Y\Y/�C$S^g(�m�n:(�^&1B2,4�iP/�\Y\3.PC�> @ GF=GKT,/�@�2,4MS> S^�z�CZ|�4MQY> S[�r3^ 8V^���J�N�^ ��^�5g4�D$?M@�> /�C$SX@�/�i�9$> \Y4�^�H'DMLK4h�.,;=6 > ?�D�@�> /�C$S*[ s 4 W 4M9*6 GOF"> 6 6 S'['i�8R^

rgQVGK4M9�[�{�^ wM^ [�JK^ ~#^�uv?�h�2,4M9<S/�C,[�F"^ p�^'H�?�2$9$/�4�N,4M9�[�D�C,NZ5g^ 8R^5�/�QIC*@A94$4$^:(�m�m,t�^�8=S�S'4�S&S'> C*L"@�2,4�;=4$C�4�7�> @�S"D$C�NY?$/�S&@ S�/�7,@�2�4.�9`;=D$CR7&/�94�S`@�^�{�^�8:9`;P/�9*> ?$^:(�n�),0 t�t���x:t,o�+�^

J*;�;:4�S4�C,[�JK^ s ^ [�~#^ |�^�-$�*/�S'[�D�C,N#k�^ {�^�-=/�C,4�?�C,> ^�(�m�����^�H'T,D�@�> D�64$?$/�6 /�L'GK0,z @AS"4�7 7�4�?�@�S�/�CR@�2,4R?$2�/�> ?$43/�7�7 9> 4$C�N*S�D$C,NY4$C�4$\Y> 4�S'^{�^�J*f�T,^�H�/�?�^'h�S&GK?�2�/�6 ^�(�t�0 )�y�)�xX):(�n�^

w�DM;=4M9g1XDMGK6 /�9�[�83^ [�wM^ JK^�-�.P/�[�D�C,N#p�^ iP^�H�.P6 6 > W D�C,^�t�y�y�t�^�k#> 4MQRSR/�7C,D�@A.,9*4#D�C�N#S4�6 7�e�N,> S'?�> T�6 > C,4$0�J W > N,4$C,?$4K7 9�/�\�> C�C,4�9�e�?�> @AG?�2,> 6 N$9*4$C,^�{�^�JKC W > 9*/�C,^�h�S&GK?$2,/�6 ^ [�H'T�4�?�> D�6�z S`S&.P4$0�JKC W > 9*/�C,\I4�C$@D�C�NZiB2,> 6 N*9*4�CEt�t�0 +�m�xX��o�^

w�DM;:4M9g1�DMGK6 /�9�[&8R^ [�8R^�p�> 6 4MG�['wM^ J�^�-�.P/�['D�C,NBp�^ i�^'H&.P6 6 > W D�C�^�(�m�m�n�^~X9/�QI> C*LV.�TE> CR@�2�4#> C�C�4�9R?$> @AGg0�~X9*4$4$C3S�T,D$?$4�SVD�S"T�6 D$?$4�S:@�/L9$/�Q3^�JKC W > 9$/�C,^ s 4�2�D W ^�o�y=(�0 o�xXt���^

~3D�C*S'[�F"^X(�m�����^�132,4#|�4 W > @A@�/�QIC�4M9`S$��h�D$C$@�2�4�/�C s /�/�]�S'[��"4�QlK/�9*]�[��=lK^

~36 / W 4M9�1g^ [�-P^�H�2,> C,4�Q#[�D�C,NEr3^�h�D�9<9`G�^�t�y�y�t�^�5gD�?�4BD�C,NE> @AS9*4�6 DM@�> /�C$S�2,> T3@�/P@�2�4K;=4�C�4M7�> @ASV/�7=?�/�\Y\V.=C�> @AGVLKD�9*N�4$C,> C*LY> CH�@�^�|�/�.�> S'^�iBD$C,D$N�> D�COi�/�C*L94�S&SV/�CO|�4$> S`.�94#5g4�S'4$D�9*?$28VC�C*.�D�6 s /�/�]O/�7�8:;�S&@A9D$?�@AS�($y�0&(�t��$xV(�o�y,^

~�94�4$C*;=DM.�\Y[�H�^ r3^X(�m�n�t,^ s 9> N$Lg> C*LR@�> 4�SVD�@,@�2,4#C,4$> Lg2$;=/�92,/�/�N6 4 W 4�6 ^�H�/�?$^���4M@�QI/�9*]�SR+�0 o�����x:o�n�+�^

~�9�4�4�C�;:4�9�LK[H'^ p�^ [`p�^ u�^*5g/�2�4�['D�C�N�{�^ 5K^&p�> 6 6 > D�\RS*^g(�m�n�t�^H'D�7`4M@ GZ> C.�9<;=D�CEC,4�> LK2$;=/�9*2,/�/�N$S&b�8j?�/�\YT,DM9*> S/�CZ/�7:T,2$GS> ?�D�6?�2,DM9*D�?�@�4M9*> S`@�> ?MSRD�C,NZ> C$7&/�9*\YD�6�@�4M9<9> @�/�9*> D�6'?�/�C$@A9*/�6�> CZ2,> LK2,eKD�C�N6 /�QYe�?�9*> \Y4�C�4�> LK2$;:/�9$2,/�/�N$S^�h�/�T$.P6 ^'JKC W > 9*/�C�^�)�o�0<(�+:(�xR(���)�^

{�D�?$/�;�S�[�{�^:(�m,�=(�^�132,43r#4$D�@�2OD$C�NO|,> 7�4#/�7=~�9*4$D�@�8V\I4�9> ?$D$Ci�> @�> 4MS^�5gD�C,N,/�\aF"/&.,S'4�[��"4MQvlg/�9*]�['�=l�^

-PD�T,6 D�C,[�5�^�t�y�y=(�^�132,4�C�DM@A.�9*4B/�7�@�2�4 W > 4�Qj7 9*/�\�2�/�\Y4�bh�S&Gg?$2,/�6 /�Lg> ?$D�6�;=4$C�4�7�> @AS'^�JKC W > 9�/�C,^ s 4$2,D W ^�o�o�+�0 )�y,��xX)�+�t,^

-PD�T�6 D�C,[�5g^ [�D$C,NEH�^�-PD�T,6 D$C,^�(�m�n�m�^�1#2�4BJ*f�T�4�9*> 4�C,?$4B/�7:�"D�@ .�9*4�08jh�S&Gg?$2�/�6 /�Lg> ?$D$6�h�4M9`S'T�4�?�@�> W 4$^�iBD$\R;,9*> N$Lg4#}3C�> W 4�9<S�> @AGIh�94�S`S'[i�D�\3;�9$> N�LK4�['}3-=^

-,.=/�[wM^ J�^'t�y�y:(�^'iP/�T,> C�L#QY> @�2�T�/ W 4M9�@ GK0'zA\YT�D�?�@ S3/�7X4�C W > 9�/�C�\O4�C�@D�C,N�DM@ @�4�C�@�> /�CZ> CB@�2,4=> C�C,4�9#?�> @ G�^'JKC W > 9�/�C�^ s 4�2�D W ^'o�o:(�0 )�xXo�+�^

-�.P/�[�wM^ JK^ [�u�^ s D�?�D�> ?�/�D�[D�C,NBp�^ i�^�H&.P6 6 > W D�C�^�(�m�m�n�^1'9D$C$S�7�/�9\Y> C$LI> C,C�4M9�e�?$> @AGIC�4$> Lg2*;=/�9*2�/�/�N*S'0�1'9*4$4�S'[�S�4$C$S�4#/�7S'DM7�4�@AG$[�D�C�NOT*9*4�7�4�9*4�C,?$4$^�JKC W > 9*/�C�^ s 4�2�D W ^�o�y=($0 t,n�x:)�m,^

-�.P/�[�wM^ JK^ [�D�C,N#p�^ i�^'H�.=6 6 > W D�C�^�t�y�y:(�^'JKC W > 9�/�C,\O4�C$@=D�C,NZ?M9*> \Y4P> C@�2�4#> C�C�4M9R?$> @�GK0�r3/�4MS W 4�LK4�@�D�@�> /�C394$N$.�?�4#?M9> \I4��VJKC W > 9/�C,^s 4$2,D W ^'o,o�o�0 o�+�o$xXo�����^

-�.=/�[$wA^ J,^ [Mp�^ i=^$H<.:6 6 > W D�C�[$5�^ |�^$i=/'6 4AG�[$D�C�NV|�^ s 9M.:C�S$/'C�^,(�m�m�n�^w�4�9<@&> 6 4,L*9�/�.=C,NP7`/�9B?�/�\O\3.=C�> @ G�0zAC�C�4�9�eM?�> @ GEC�4�> LK2�;X/�9$2�/�/�N?�/�\E\O/�CPS*T�D�?�4�S*^<8R\Z^`{�^*iP/'\O\3.:C�> @ GZh�S�G,?�2�/�6 ^�t�����0 n�t�o�x�n�)�(�^

-�QY4�/�C�[ s ^ H'^ [�p�^ i�^'H&.P6 6 > W D�C,['D�C,NB8R^�p�> 6 4MG�^g(�m�m�n�^'~�9$4�4�C?$/�\Y\I/�C3S'T�D$?�4�SVD$C,N3@�2�4gS'/�?$> D$6�> C*@�4�L'9$D�@�> /�CE/�7=> C�C�4�9�e�?$> @�G/�6 N,4�93D$N*.P6 @AS'^�JKC W > 9$/�C�^ s 4$2,D W ^�o�y���0 n�o�t�x:n�)�n�^

uv> 6 6 4M9�[�h�^ {�^ [�D�C�NE|�^ |�^�H�T�4�9<9&G�^X(�m�n���^�132,4gS'/�?$> D�6 > �,DM@�> /�CE/�7=D�C*LK4�9D$C�NED�L'L94�S&S'> /�C,^�u�4�9`9> 6 6 e�h�D$6 \I4M9R��^�o,o�0`(Mx:o=(�^

�"4�QY\YD�C�[���^�(�m���t�^�r34M7&4$C$S'> ;=6 4BH�T�D�?$4�0�i�9*> \Y4Bh�94 W 4�C*@�> /�C1B2*9�/�.�LK2E}�9<;=D�CEr34�S'> LKC���uvD�?�\Y> 6 6 D$C,[��V4MQjlK/�9]�[��=lK^

b�b�b!^X(�m�m���^�iK9*4�D�@�> C$LYr34�7&4$C$S'> ;=6 4#H'T�D�?$4�^�}3^ H�^�rR4�T�DM9<@�\I4�C$@/�7=F�/�.�S'> C$LID$C�NO}X9�;PD�COrR4 W 4�6 /�T�\I4$C$@�[���7 7�> ?$4#/�7=h�/�6 > ?�GrR4 W 4�6 /�T,\I4�C*@=D$C,NE5g4�S'4�D�9$?�2,[�p�DMS'2�> C$L@�/�C�[�rRi�^

��?�2$S[�JK^ [�D�C�N s ^�H�?$2,> 4�7 7�4�6 > C,^X(�m�n�+�^�|�D�C*L.PDMLK4#D�?$_�.P> S'> @�> /�COD�C�NS/�?$> D$6 > ��D�@�> /�C�0�132*94�4#N�4 W 4�6 /�T�\I4$C$@�D�6�S&@�/�9> 4�SVD$C�N3@�2�4�> 9> \YT,6 > ?�DM@�> /�C*S[�T,TEt�����xXo�t�y�^�z�CEH�?�2$QI4�N�4M9�[�5g^ [�D�C,NE5g^�|�4 W > C�4��JKN$S^ �$^�i�.P6 @ .,9*4K1#2,4�/�9<GK0�JS`S'DMGSR/�C#uv> C�N�[�H'4$6 7:D�C,NJK\I/�@�> /�C�^ s 9<.�C,C,4�9<� uvDM��4$6 [��=lg^

h�4M9*]�> C$S[�r#^ r3^ [�hM^'w,6 /�9$> C�['5g^ iP^�5g> ?�2,[�8V^&pqD�C�N,4�9<S'\YD�C,[�D�C,NZr3^ u�^iB2,D W > S'^X(�m�m�y,^�h�D�9<@�> ?$> T�DM@�> /�COD�C�N3@�2,4gS/�?�> D�6�D$C�NET�2$G'S'> ?$D�64$C W > 9/�C�\Y4$C$@P/�7�94MS> N,4$C$@�> D$6�;=6 /�?�]�S'0�i�9*> \I4BD$C,NE?$/�\Y\V.PC�> @AG?�/�C$@�4�f'@�^�8V\Y^�{�^�i�/�\O\R.�C,> @AGYh�S`GK?$2,/�6 ^g(�n=(�0 n�o�xR(�(�)�^

H&@�D�?�]�[�i�^ s ^���J�N�^ �$^�(�m���+�^�8V6 6��P.,93-P> C,0�H�@ 9*D�@�4MLK> 4MSX7&/�93H&.,9 W > W D�6�> CD s 6 D�?�]�i�/�\Y\R.PC,> @AG�^�F"DM9*T,4M93��5g/�Q#[��V4MQ�lg/�9*]�[��=lK^

H`.P6 6 > W D�C�[&p�^ iP^ ['w�^ J�^-�.=/�[D�C,N�H'^r#4�h�/�/�@�4�9�^*z�C�T�9�4�S`S^`1#2�4,7 9<.=> @:/&7.�9<;=D�CZC,DM@ .,9$4�0�k3> @�D�6'C,4�> L;:/�9$2,/�/�NBS'T,D�?�4�S'^�J�C W > 9�/�C,^ s 4�2,D W ^

1XD�6 ;:/�@�[�{�^ wM^ [�|�^ k,^ s DM9$N$QO4$6 6 [�D�C,NE5g^�-PD�T,6 D�C�^g(�m�n���^�1#2�4�7 .PC�?M@�> /�C�S/�7�.�9<;PD$CYC�D�@A.�94$0�}�S'4�S�D$C�N W D$6 .P4�S�/�7�N,> 7 7�4�94$C$@K@�GgT�4MS�/�7.,9<;PD�COC�DM@A.�9*4gS'4�@A@�> C$LS�^�{�^�8=9?�2�> @�4$?M@�^�h�6 D$C,C�^�5�4MS'^�+P(�0 +���x:��o�^

Page 43: The Benefits of Urban Trees

�$�,���������� $¡���¢,£=�`¤:���¥ ¦���¡ §��,�¨3©,ª�«�¬$­$®�¯� �°c©�±�±,¬

²X M°g¡ ����³�´gµ ¶�µ � ª�·�·�µ�¸=�P¹I ��B²�¨M���*¥ §����$¥  $¡�º$�P�,¦M§�¥ ����¥ �$»�¼½  $¹R¤��*¥ ¾$»g¨�¿3�,¥ Àg¨M�<Á'¥ §A°YÂ��$¨MÁ&Á'³�Ã"¨MÄjÅK���Æ�³�ÃPÅKµ

¿Rµ Ç�µ�ÈR¨�É� M�`§�¹I¨��$§P��¢=¸�����Á'¥ �$»I $�,¾E¿��`¤= $�EÈR¨MÀg¨�¡ ��É�¹Y¨��$§�µ � ª,ª�·�µ½ �¥ ¹I¨BÂ��*¨MÀg¨��$§�¥ ���#²3Ê$�*���,»KÊEËK�$ÀK¥ �*����¹Y¨��*§� $¡�ÈR¨MÁ'¥ »��,µ�Ê$§A§�É,® Ì ÌÄVÄVÄ3µ Ê$�P¾�µ »K��ÀÌ�É$�$��»K¾�¨MÁ'¦MÌ�¦�É$§�¨�¾,µ Ê$§�¹Y¡

Í� ��<�*¨���³�ÈRµ Î�µ � ª�· � µ�¸"¨$¡ É,¥ �$»IÃ"¨M§AÄY���Æ�Á$¼�¿3��¥ Àg¨M�`Á'¥ § °I��¢XÃ���§A�*¨ÈR �¹I¨BÂ��¨MÁ&Á³�Ã���§��*¨#È3 $¹Y¨$³�Î�Ã�µ

Ï�ÐÑgÒgÓ,ÔEÕAÖ*×KØ�Ù�ÖÒgÚ<Û�Ü Ç�É, $¦�¨B¡ ¥ ¹Y¥ §� M§�¥ ���$ÁVÉ$�*¨$¦�¡ �P¾,¨K§�Ê, ���Æ�¥ �$»¨$ $¦�ÊO��¢�§�Ê,¨#¹Y $��°I¥ �,¾�¥ ÀK¥ ¾*�P $¡ ÁV $�,¾E¥ �$Á&§�¥ §A��§�¥ ���*Á:§�Ê, �§PÉ,¡  �°g¨�¾OÆ�¨M°�*��¡ ¨�ÁV¥ �3§�Ê�¥ Á:Äc���Æ,µ�Ç�É�¨�¦$¥  �¡�§�Ê, $��Æ�Á:»g��§���£"�,¾*�*¨$ #º� �¤=¨M�:²� �°g¡ ���¢����R¡ ¨� �¾�¥ �$»R§�Ê�¨�ÄI���ÆZ���E¦$Ê,¥ ¡ ¾$�¨���³&§���Í�¥ ¡ ¡ ¥  �¹�Ç���¡ ¡ ¥ Àg ��B¢���� $¦$¦$¨�Á&Á:§���§�Ê�¨gÁ'¥ §�¨# $�,¾OÊ�¨$¡ ÉO¥ �3Á�¥ §�¨B $�� $¡ °'Á'¥ Á�³�§���´�¨�¤=¨$Æ� �ÊOÝ,¨MÀg¥ ��¨½ ��¡ ¨�°Y $�,¾OËÁ&§�Ê�¨��3ÈR �ÀK¥ Á=¢&���X§�Ê,¨$¥ �X�*��¡ ¨�ÁV¥ �O¥ �*§�¨M�`Àg¥ ¨MÄc¥ ��»g³�§���§�Ê�¨½ Ê�¥ ¦$ �»g��¸"����Á'¥ �*»V£=��§�Ê����¥ §�°I ���¾3�*¨�Á'¥ ¾�¨$�$§�Á:¢����X§�Ê�¨$¥ �XÁ`��É�É,���`§ $��¾Y¦$����É�¨M� �§�¥ ���R§�Ê*�����»KÊ�����§�³� $�,¾3§��B§�Ê�¨3Ã� �§�¥ ���� $¡�¿��<¤P ��Y $��¾½ ��¹Y¹R���,¥ §A°Yº,���*¨�Á`§A�`°R£V¾$ÀK¥ Á'���`° ½ ���P��¦�¥ ¡ ³�§�Ê,¨B¿3µ Ç�µ�º����$¨MÁ&§Ç�¨��<Àg¥ ¦�¨$³�¿3µ Ç�µ�È3¨�É� M�`§�¹Y¨$�$§P��¢=¸"���,Á¥ �*»Y $�,¾O¿��`¤= ��EÈR¨MÀK¨�¡ ��É,Þ¹I¨$�*§�³� ���¾3§�Ê,¨ ½ ����É�¨M� �§�¥ ÀK¨#Ç�§� �§�¨#´g¨�Á'¨$ ��*¦$Ê�³�Ëß�§�¨$�*Á'¥ ���O $��¾Ëg¾*��¦� �§�¥ ���YÇ�¨��<ÀK¥ ¦�¨X¢����:¢ ����¾�¥ �*»"§�Ê�¨g�¨�Á'¨$ ��¦$Ê�µ

àXá�áMâ áMã äå�ã�æ�ç&è�é ê�áMáMè�çëRì�í äå�î�ï,å�ð$â ç&è�å í ê�å�ã�ñKê�á�ê�äç&ò&ó3ô�äõ$è�ç&ä'ã è�ç ö÷�÷�ø'ùRú è ì ã ó#û3è$ç`å'ê�ç�û3ç&â ð$êü å'â ð�ê�ç&á�â ã öZè�éýAþ þ â å�è�â á�äã ü ç&õ*äå'äÿ��:óä í�� äâ ��åü ç&õ$äå'ä��$ýAô�� ÷'øK÷ � ü�¼ ú ¼é ÿ�� ì è� ì â ì ò ¼ ê� ì

��� Û��gÙ � Ü È# ���Á#¡ ¨�Á#¦���¹O¹3�=�� M��§�AÁg���<¤X �¥ ��¨�Á³¡ �  ���¤:���$¥ ¦��=¡ § ���$¨¦�����§ �$¥ ¤��=¨P¦�¡  �¥ �*¨�¹O¨���§���¡  �Á ���§��P¾�¨�¡ � ��¦���Á`°*Á`§��¹O¨,¤:¥ ��¡ ��»�¥ ���=¨��¹Y �¥ Á#¦�����§ �$¥ ¤��=¨�Þ §&ÞM¨�¡ ¡ ¨���»� �¡ ¨�¹O¨��$§��P¡  �Á ���§��P¾�¨P¡ � ��¦���Á<°*Á`§���¹O¨Á��¦�¥  �¡ �#È#¨MÁg¢` �¥ § ÁBÉ��$��ÀK¨��� ���§:¾ � �M§ �=¾,¨�ÁB¥ ��§ �*¨���¨�Á#¾,¨=¡  ,À�¥ ¡ ¡ ¨=¾�¨½ Ê�¥ ¦� �»��:Á<��»*»!���*¨���§X¦�¨�¡  �µÈ# ���Ág�=��¨,Á"���$¥ ¨P¾ � ��§ �=¾�¨�Á#¥ ¹OÉ�¡ ¥ ���= ���§É,¡ �,Á#¾�¨ � ¬�±�±"��¤�Á¨���ÀK �§&¥ ����Á3É�¨���Á������¨�Á*ÞM¹O¥ ¡ ¥ ¨M�=³�#�±�±�¨���§ ��¨�À*�P¨�Á*³¾,¨�ÁR¾������$��¨�ÁÞ�¹Y �¥ Á*���Z¾�¨�ÁR ���§����*¥ §���ÁR¨A§=¾�¨�ÁX�$ �É,É�����§ ÁR¾�¨�É���¡ ¥ ¦�¨B¾�¨¾,¨���ßI ���� ��¨MÁ*³�¥ ¡� �É�É� M�$ &% §'���=¨B¡ ¨�¦�����À�¨M��§= ��<¤X���(�B¨�§�»K &)������ �*��§� �¥ §Á`°*Á`§��¹O �§�¥ ���=¨�¹O¨���§X¡ ¥ �'�,�=�PÀ� �Á`§&¨P���'¹3¤��*¨=¾ � ¥ ��¾�¥ ¦� �§&¨�����ÁgÁ*��¦�¥  M��ßKµÂ� ��$¹O¥¦�¨�Á#¥ ��¾�¥ ¦� A§&¨�����Á³���P�$¨�§ �$����À� �¥ §`®`�=��¡ ¥ ¨���¾�¨�À���¥ Á*¥ �� �»,¨PÉ�¡ ��Á¢&����§�³`�=��É�¡ �,Ág»*�$ ���¾�Á¨���Á#¾�¨,Á���¦����$¥ §�=¨�§:¾ �  �¾� �É�§� �§&¥ ����³É,¡ ��Á3¾�¨Á`����À�¨�¥ ¡ ¡  ���¦�¨P¾�¨�ÁB¨���¢` ���§ Á+�P¡ � ¨�ߧ����$¥ ¨�����¾�¨=¡  P¹O �¥ Á����³¾�¨�Á#¹E¥ ¡ ¥ ¨���ß¾�¨(,$¨���ßOÉ�¡ ��ÁgÁ �¥ ��Á#É�������¡ ¨�Á#¨���¢` ���§ Á*³*É�¡ ��Á#¾ � ��§&¥ ¡ ¥ Á* �§�¥ ����¾�¨AÁB¨�ÁÉ� �¦�¨�Á¦���¹O¹3�=��Á#¾���À��'¥ Á*¥ �� �»�¨�³*¹O��¥ ��Á#¾�¨=¦��'¹OÉ�����§&¨�¹O¨���§ ÁB�����"¦�¥ À�¥ ¡ ¥ Á"��Á*³¹Y��¥ �$Á#¾�¨P¦��$¥ ¹O¨�ÁB¦�����§ �$¨P¡  =É$�$��É��$¥ ��§���³¨�§X¹Y��¥ ��Á3¾�¨P¦��$¥ ¹O¨AÁÀK¥ ��¡ ¨���§ Á*µ'Ý�¨P¡ ¥ ¨���¨���§ �$¨P¡ �  ���¤:���$¥ ¦��P¡ § ���$¨P¨�§��=�-��¦���Á`°*Á`§���¹O¨,Á*��¦�¥  �¡É,¡ �,ÁgÁ �¥ ��¨MÁ<§:¾�¨�À�¨�����¾,¨,¢` �.�����Á`���$É���¨��� ���§�¨,¢& �¦�¥ ¡ ¨��P¨�ßgÉ�¡ ¥ ���=¨��&µÈ3 ���Á#¡ ¨�Á3¹O¥ ¡ ¥ ¨���ß3�(��Á¥ ¾,¨���§�¥ ¨�¡ Á³¡ ¨�Á/)��'��¨�Á�Á<§����*¥ ¡ ¨�Á3¨�§�Á ���Á3 A��¤��$¨¾,¨�À�¥ ¨�����¨���§�Á'����À�¨$�*§P¾�¨�Á10"����¹I ��!�ÁR¡  $��¾*Á12�³�¦�¨+����¥�¾$��¦$���,� �»g¨¡ ¨�Á"¥ �*§�¨�� $¦�§�¥ ���*ÁV �Àg¨�¦3¡ ¨�Á=����Á'¥ ¾� $�*§AÁV¨�§�¥ �*Àg¥ §�¨# �� ¦��¥ ¹I¨$µ�Ý� É*����Á'¨$��¦$¨V¾$�  ��`¤��*¨�Á�¨�§#¾�¨X»g �),���V¤P¥ ¨��c¨$�$§��¨�§�¨$�*�,ÁZÉ,¨���ÀK¨$�*§§�� $�$Á�¢����¹I¨��V¦$¨�ÁV���Z¹I $�!�Á"¡  $��¾*Á"¨$�O¨�Á�É, $¦$¨�Á�É,¡  $¥ Á' $�*§AÁ'³

¥ �$ÀK¥ §� $�$§AÁR¨�§,�,§�¥ ¡ ¥ Á���Á'µ�ÈR¨�É,¡ ��Á³�¡ ¨MÁV¨MÁ'É� �¦�¨�ÁVÉ��,¤=¡ ¥ ¦MÁ:¤=¥ ¨��#��§�¥ ¡ ¥ Á3��ÁÉ� M�V¡ ¨�Àg��¥ Á�¥ �� �»g¨�¢� �Àg���¥ Á'¨$�*§B¡ ¨��¨$�*¢����¦�¨$¹I¨��*§B¾�¨�Á�¡ ¥ ¨��*Á�¨��*§��*¨¡ ¨�Á:�"�MÁ'¥ ¾, $�*§AÁV¨�§P¾!�M§������$��¨#¡ ¨#¦M�¥ ¹I¨$³�¦$¨*����¥�¦�����¨g���O¹Y¥ ¡ ¥ ¨M� É�¡ �,ÁÁ' $¥ �E¨�§,Á3�$¦����¥ §� $¥ �¨#É����,�R¡ ¨gÀg��¥ Á'¥ �, �»g¨$µ

4 �KÛ�5�ÙcÙcÖ$Ò76&5�Û�Û��KÒ�Ø�Ü ÎA�"Ç`§�8�¾�§&¨��=�=��¾�9:�'¹O¹#�=��¨��P§ �(8A»*§�¾�¥ ¨¶� ��:¹OÉ�¢`¡ ¨�»�¨=¨�¥ ��¾�¨���§�¥ »+)����;:#¨�Á`�=��¾�Ê�¨�¥ §X¾�¨�Á*<"Æ���Á`°*Á<§�¨�¹3Ág¤X¨�¥ ³¥ Á<§¨�ÁR �¤X¨��3 ��=¦�Ê#�$¨�¡ ¨�ÀK ���§�¢ =��#¾�¥ ¨;:3¨�Á`�=��¾�Ê�¨�¥ §=¾�¨�ÁXÁ��)�¥  �¡ ¨��<"Æ��&Á<°*Á`§&¨�¹3Á>�BÈ#¥ ¨=Ë*��»�¨�¤���¥ Á<Á¨=¨�¥ ��¨���Ç`§ �=¾�¥ ¨P A��Á#¾�¨�¹@?P¨���§ ���=¹À���� ½ Ê�¥ ¦� �»���)�¨�¥ »�¨���¾�¥ ¨AÁ*µÎA��¨�¥ ��¨��BÇ`§ �=¾�¥ ¨=¹E¥ §A=�¤X¨�� � ¬�±�±Â�¨M��Á*����¨��$¤X¨���¤: �¦�Ê�§ �=��»K¨���³A#�±�±ZÎA��§�¨���ÀK¥ ¨MÄ3Á³�¶�¨��$¥ ¦�Ê$§&¨��#À����¸V ���Á`»�¨�Á¨�¡ ¡ Á¦�Ê� �¢ §�¨����=�,¾"©P�� �Ê$�$¨PÂ���¡ ¥ )�¨�¥ ¤:¨��$¥ ¦�Ê$§&¨��,³`ÄR���$¾�¨���¾,¥ ¨¶ 8��:¹O¨,�=��¾B:g��==��¢`¡ 8�¦�Ê�¨���Á`°*Á<§�¨�¹O �§�¥ Á¦�Ê�À�¨���¤��=��¾�¨���¹O¥ §X¨�¥ ��¨��´K¨�¥ Ê�¨�À�����Ç'��)�¥  �¡ C�Æ���Á`°*Á<§&¨�¹OÞMÎA��¾�¥ Æ� �§&���$¨���µÈB¥ ¨�Á*¨PÎA��¾,¥ Æ� �§����$¨��¤X¨�¥ ��Ê� �¡ §�¨���®&Á<§�8��*Æ�¨M��¨$D:¨M�M¤:¥ �,¾��=��»K¨���¹O¥ §X¾,¨���ÃV �¦�Ê�¤: ��$��³&»*�(CFEP¨M��¨M�Ç¥ ���P¢ =���Ç¥ ¦�Ê�¨A�$Ê�¨�¥ §��=��¾P£3��É� �Á`Á<�=��»�³¹E¨�Ê��B¶�¨� ���¢ Á¥ ¦�Ê�§&¥ »*�=��»E¾�¨��9:¥ ��¾�¨���¾��$ ���Á<Á¨���³`»�¨�ÁG==��¾�¨��$¨�Á#ÇÉ�¥ ¨�¡ À�¨��$Ê� �¡ §�¨��PÀ����B9:¥ ��¾�¨��$��³¹O¨�Ê��:#¨�¤��$ ��P¦�Ê#À����EÆ���¹Y¹R�=�,¨�¨�¥ »K¨��,¨��H:��G==�$¢&¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��,³�ÄI¨��,¥ »K¨M�Ç&§ �* �¢ §� M§�¨���³�ÄY¨���¥ »�¨M�#Ë�¥ »,¨��$§ �P¹RÁ¾,¨�¡ ¥ Æ�§�¨��P�,¾�ÄY¨���¥ »�¨M�:3¨�ÄY �¡ § ÀK¨M�<¤��$¨�¦�Ê,¨��,µ'È3¥ ¨$D=¨M�<¤:¥ �,¾$�P�$»I)�ÄY¥ Á'¦�Ê,¨��Z¶, M�P¹OÉ$¢&¡ ¨�»K¨��P��¾»K¨MÁ>==�,¾,¨M�¨�¹vÁ'�F)�¥  �¡ ¨��-<�Æ���Á`°Á&§�¨�¹�¥ Á&§=¨M�<Á`§� M�=�,¡ ¥ ¦�ÊE¨�¥ �$¢� �¦�Ê*)��¨M�*Æ�¡ 8M�*¨��,µ�Î��R¤:¨MÄI��Ê,�$§�¨��J:3¨�¤:¥ ¨M§�¨��RÄI¨M�*¾,¨��O M�,¢ »K¨�¡  MÁ`Á'¨��,¨º�¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��Z¡ ¨�¥ ¦�Ê$§:ÃV¥ ¨�¹O ���¾$Á¡  ��,¾�³&ÄI �Á3¾,¥ ¨,£V��ÄO��Ê��,¨��#¨��$§�¹3�,§�¥ »§�)�� M»K¥ ¨��*¨��B�P�,¾E¨MÁ3¡ 8�¾$§ )��BD=¨M�<¤��$¨�¦�Ê,¨��E¨�¥ �,µ�È3¥ ¨�£V�$ÄY¨MÁ'¨��,Ê,¨�¥ §�ÀK���¶$8��=¹Y¨��B�P�,¾B»K¨�É�¢&¡ ¨M»*§�¨��-:���=P�, ��,¡  M»K¨��ZÆ� ����Z¾,¥ ¨MÁ¨ÃV¥ ¨�¹Y ��,¾$Á`¤:¨��*¨�¥ ¦�Ê�¨�¥ �Z¨A�<¢ �$¨M�P¡ ¥ ¦�Ê�¨�³&ÄY¥ ¡ ¡ Æ���¹O¹Y¨��,Ê�¨�¥ E�¨��,¾�¨�³»�¨��$��§ )�§�¨�º,¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��B�P¹3ÄO ��,¾,¨�¡ ��µ�¿3��¾BÀK¥ §� �¡ ¨,ÀK¥ ¨�¡�»�¨��$�,§ )�§�¨:3¨�¹O¨�¥ �$¢&¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��BÁ'���M»K¨��B¢ =,�#¨�¥ �,¨�É,��Á'¥ §�¥ ÀK¨7DX¨M�<¤=¥ �,¾$�P�$»R�P�$§�¨M�3¾,¨��Ã" �¦�Ê$¤: M��#�P�,¾BÀK¨M�*Ê,¥ �,¾�¨M��#ÀK¥ ¨�¡ ¨!D=¨��<¤��$¨�¦�Ê�¨��,µ

� ÖÛ"��Ù�ÖÒ3Ü ËK�O¡  �Á"¦���¹V���,¥ ¾� �¾�¨�Á:���`¤= $�, �Á'³�¡  # M�`¤P���¥ ¦���¡ §��,�* ¦$¡  ��* $¹Y¨$�*§�¨3¦$���*§A�¥ ¤,��°K¨# 3¡  �Á' $¡ ��¾Y¾�¨3¡ ��Á"¨�¦$��Á'¥ Á&§�¨$¹I �Á¤=¥ ��¡ K�»g¥ ¦$��ÁL��M'¡ �ZÊ, $¦$¨�§� �¹V¤=¥ �$�Y¦����Y¨$¡�¨$¦$��Á¥ Á&§�¨$¹I �Á'��¦$¥  $¡ ��Ý� ¨MÀg¥ ¾,¨$�,¦$¥  #¾�¨#¡ ��ÁV¨�Á&§A��¾�¥ ��Á"¨��O¡  #¦$¥ ��¾, $¾O¾�¨ ½ Ê�¥ ¦$ �»K�� �Á3N�¡ �Á&��»K¥ ¨��¨$µ�ËK�V���� �Á�¨M�¥ ¨3¾,¨R¨�Á&§A��¾�¥ ��Á�¦$��� � ¬�±�±O��¤�Á�¨��<Àg $¦$¥ ����¨�Á¨�Á'É, $¦�¥ ��Þ�É�¨��`Á'���� �³!#�±�±Y¨��*§��*¨�Àg¥ Á&§� �Á'³*�*¨�»g¥ Á&§A�*��Á�¾�¨V M��§����¥ ¾� �¾�¨�ÁP°¾���Á" (O���Á�¾�¨��¨$É����`§�¨�Á�¦M�*¥ ¹I¥ �� $¡ ¨�Á�¾�¨3É���¡ ¥ ¦�N  $³�¡  �Á�¦$��¤=¨��`§A��� �Á�¾�¨¡ ��Á1P��`¤P��¡ ¨�Á=°cÉ� �Á&§��B¢ �P¨M����RÁ'¥ Á&§�¨$¹QP�§�¥ ¦$ �¹I¨��*§�¨3¡ ¥ »g $¾� MÁ� ����� ��*»K�� $¹IÉ�¡ ¥ �Z¾,¨3¥ ��¾�¥ ¦� $¾,���¨�Á"¾,¨$¡�¨$¦$��Á'¥ Á�§�¨�¹I gÁ'��¦$¥  $¡ µ�ËÁ�§���Á¥ ��¾,¥ ¦$ $¾����*¨�Á�¥ ��¦$¡ ��°g¨��*����®�¡ ¥ »g �Á=¢ ��¨��`§�¨�Á"¨$�*§A�*¨�Àg¨$¦$¥ ����Á'³�»'� $�Á'¨$�$§�¥ ¾���¾�¨gÁ'¨�»'�,�¥ ¾� $¾3°R�*¨�»'��¡  �¦$¥ K���³�¹I �°K���XÁ&��É�¨M�`Àg¥ Á'¥ K��O¾�¨#¡ ��Á��¥ O,��Á"¨$�Y¨�Á'É� $¦$¥ ��Á� �¤=¥ ¨M�`§���Á�³�É� �§A�����¨�Á"¾�¨L,`��¨M»g��Á�¹QPMÁÁ' $¡ �P¾� �¤=¡ ¨MÁ"¾�¨#¡ ��Á"��¥ O���Á'³�¹Y �°g���X��Á'��¾�¨#¡ ��ÁV¨�Á'É� $¦$¥ ��Á"¦$��¹V����¨MÁÉ����R¡ ��Á=Àg¨$¦$¥ ����Á'³�¹Y¨$�����¨�Á=¢� $¡ §� MÁ�¦(N Àg¥ ¦$ �Á'³�É,��¦$��Á�¦��"N ¹I¨���¨�Á� 3¡  É*�*��É�¥ ¨$¾� $¾3°IÉ,��¦$��ÁV¦���N ¹I¨$�,¨�Á=Àg¥ ��¡ ¨$�$§���Á'µ�Ý� #¡ ¥ »g #¨$�*§A�¨#¡   ��<¤P���¥ ¦���¡ §A��� �°"���Y¨$¦$��Á'¥ Á&§�¨$¹I �Á���¦$¥  �¡�Á' $¡ �=¾� �¤P¡ ¨3¨�ÁP¢�P�¦$¥ ¡�¾�¨¨�ß�É,¡ ¥ ¦$ ���µ�ËK�JP��*¨� �Á=�*¨MÁ�¥ ¾,¨$��¦�¥  $¡ ¨�Á'³�¡ ��ÁV¨�Á'É� $¦�¥ ��Á�PM�¥ ¾,��Á�³�Á'¥ �P��<¤P��¡ ¨�Á'³�¦$���"¢ �¨�¦���¨$��¦$¥  :Á�¨V¦$���*Àg¥ ¨��`§�¨���¨��SR §�¥ ¨��`� �Á�����ÞÊ$��¹Y ��� �Á3T`³�¡  �ÁV¦��� �¡ ¨MÁ"���� $��¥ ¹Y $�O¡  #¥ �*§�¨�� �¦$¦$¥ K��E¾�¨#¡ ��Á�¨MÁ�¥ ¾�¨$�*§�¨�Á"¨3¥ �*Àg¥ §� $�Y $¡�¦��¥ ¹I¨$�,µ�Ý� 3É$�¨�Á�¨��,¦$¥  3¾�¨IPM�`¤P��¡ ¨�Á=°¦(�MÁ�É,¨�¾�¨�ÁB¤P¥ ¨$��¹I $�$§�¨$��¥ ¾���ÁEÉ*�P¨$¾�¨=§A� $�*Á&¢����¹I M��¨�Á&§� �ÁB§�¥ ¨��<� �ÁR`�,��Þ<Ê$��¹I $�� �Á3T:¨$�Y¨�Á'É� �¦$¥ ��Á=¤P¥ ¨$�R��Á' $¾���ÁP°IÉ�¡  $¦$¨$�$§�¨����Á�µ�Å�¡ ��Á¨�Á'É, �¦$¥ ��Á"¦$��¹V����¨MÁ�³�¤P¥ ¨��3�,§�¥ ¡ ¥ )� $¾���Á'³�Á'¥ �`Àg¨$�#§� $�$§���É, �� ¨�Á&§A�*¨$¦$Ê� ��"¡  �Á�¡ ¥ »g �Á�¨$�I¨�¡�Àg¨$¦$¥ ��¾� ��¥ �E¦$��¹Y�ZÉ� �� R¾�¨�§�¨$��¨��"¨�¡¦M�¥ ¹Y¨$��³�¦��¨� $��¾,��¦$��¹R�P��¥ ¾� $¾,¨�ÁV¹QP�Á:Á'¨�»'���$ �Á=°RÁ� �¡ �P¾� �¤=¡ ¨�Á'µ

Page 44: The Benefits of Urban Trees

UAVHWYX&Z[X\W^]H_@`SacbdVHbSe!X\f�g

h�iFj�k(lJm n oGpBq"k�lJj�p-r pLsJk(lAr n l�t�u+v(wFt(t$m n lFt1xAq"yApAr�wAm p�xAz {S|7iF}AzsJpLp�~"n l�tSrAk(n m ��l�pLpLr�xHk(l�rQq(|7sHsJwF~"n l�t$�I��w�iIw�i�jLk(l�|7��pLlxA��k(q"p�xHk(lAr���k(i�}�xHq"k(l���i|��!n rAp+{QpLm q"|7sJpHipLm n p�oGz�n l�xLw�iF��i�n xL�n l�t�{�k �"xL���F� pLiG�!r�k\�Sl�k�~(w�iFpHn lJq"n ~"n p�xHq"k(l�y�pLm ��w�x*~(|�q"k(m sk(l�r�q"|7�Ap�z ~(|�i�pLq"yAk(i&t$p-|7w�i+k�j�n m n ~G�1~"|�q(k(i�i��S|7lA������ �-�����+�S� ���������*�;�I���;�[�J���Qu@�Jk(l���|"o!~(y�p+~(k�xA}�x|�o!{Q|7iF}Hk�l�r1x�~"w�r���r pLsHk(l�r�r�n ipLqG~(pAr�k�~�~"pLl�~(n |7lIoG|7iIm |7l�t��pLi�n |7r�xH|"o!~(n sJp��L�Ix+{QpH��xF�!q(yA|7m |�t$n q(k(m m ��oGn m ~"pLiI|!w�~�pF�A~"iFk(l�pL�|7w�xJn l�oG|7iFsHk�~(n |7l�k(l�r�r n xF~(i�k�q�~"n |7l�xH|7w�iIsJn l�r�xHq"k�l�jApAq(|�sHpq"|�t$l�n ~(n � pLm ��oGk�~"n t$wApAr����(�-n iFpLqG~�pLrQk�~�~(pLl�~"n |7lIo>k�~(n t$wApL��q"k(li�pFxLw�m ~�n l�o�pLpLm n l�t(xJ|�o�k(l���n p�~��S|7i�x�~(i�p�xFxLz�n iFiFn ~(k(j�n m n ~���{Sn ~"y|�~"y�pLi\xJk(lLrQk(l�n l�k(jAn m n ~���~(|�q"|!l�q"pLl�~(iFk�~"pA����p�xApLk�iq"y�yAk�x

Urban Nature Benefits:

Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants

  ¡�¢'£�¤+¥�¦-§©¨�ª�¤'«1¬�­B£�® «1£�¤*¯°�±�²@³J±1´µ/¶�· ¸�¹�ºG»�· ¼\½�¾G¿$ÀJÁ>»GÂ�· ¶�à ¼�¾3¶�ÄFÅ/¾�Æ Æ ¹�Ã>¹*¾>¿�Ǿ3º�¹�» ¼*ÈA¹�»�¾3É�º�Ê�¹�» 1Ë$Ì�Í�Î�Ï�Ð!Ñ Í�Ò�Ï7Ó�Ñ Ô�Ï7Ó+Ô/Õ�Ö�Ë!Ò�Ì ×3Ø"Î�Ï�ÕFÔ/×3Ò�ÓÖ

ÙÚ"Û3Ü'Ý�ÞAßFß�Ü�à>á

âäã�å*æLç è$écç êQé�ë�é�ìAç í*ë�í*î�è�ç ì�ç å�êQé�ë�ïcìFí;ðñë�ê�òóã�í-æ>åäì�ô/é ë�õ�ö�÷�å+æGè å/ë�ìí+î�ìFô�åùøSú û;ú�÷�í*÷�ü�ý é ìAç í+ëóý ç þAå/ê@ç ëcü�æ�ÿ�é�ë�é'æGå�é ê7ú���ý é�ë�ìFê��3î íHæ>å�ê�ì�ê�é ë�ïå/è í+ê��$ê�ìFåIã�ê�é'æGå ç ã�÷/íHæFìFé ë�ì�ç ë�è�ç ìAç å�ê!ú��Lå�í+÷�ý åäé'æGådð�íBæ���ç ë�^ç ë ã�é ë�è�ç ìAç å7ê�ì�í ÷1æGå/ê�åIæ�þ�åäå��ç ê�ìAç ë�[ë�é ìFü�æ�é�ýLé'æ�å/é�êQé�ë�ïóæ>å�ê�ì�íBæ>ådí-æ�è'æGå/é�ìFåë�å!ð í+ë�å/ê7ú�û7è'ç å�ë�ìAç î�ç è^æGå/ê�å/é�æGè$ô�ì�å+ý ý êJü�êQìFô�é�ì�ü1æÿ�é�ëc÷Iý é�ë�ìFê�÷1æ�í;þ�ç ï'åã�é ë��ñÿ�å/ë�å/îFç ì�ê7ú� å��Lë�í*ð ìFô�é ì�÷1ý é�ë�ìFêäç ã�÷�æ�í*þ�ådìFô�å@å/ë�þ'ç æ>í*ë1ã�å�ë�ìÿ�[è í*ë�ìAæLç ÿ�ü�ìAç ë�[ìFí ÿ�å�ì�ìFåIæ1é�ç æ1é ë�ï^ð�é ìFåIæ���ü�é'ý ç ì��ñé�ë�ï�ô�å+ý ÷�ç ë���ì�íæ>å/ï�ü�è ådå�ë�å+æ����ñü�ê�å�ú

û7í*è'ç é'ýAê�è�ç å�ë�ìAç ê3ìFêQê�ìFü�ï��ñé�ë�í*ì�ô�åIæQý å7þAå+ýAí+î�ê�åIæ�þ'ç è$å�êQìFô�é�ì�÷1ý é ë�ìFêQ÷�æ�í��þ�ç ï'å@î í-æ�ü�æ�ÿ�é ë æå�ê7ç ï�å/ë�ìFê�ú�� é�æ��3ê�����æ>å7å/ë�ê3÷�é è å/ê�é ë�ïcìAæ�å/å�ê�é'æ>åùã�íHæGåì�ô�é ëdìFô�å���ý ü�ë���ê�í+î�ìFô�ådè'ç ì����-í-æ�� ÷�íHý ý ü�ìAç í+ëcê�è'æ�ü�ÿ�ÿ�åIæ>ê�ú � ��ô�å��ñé�î&î å�è$ìí+ü�æ1å7þ�å+æ�� ï'é��^ã�í+í*ï�ê��3é è ì�ç þ'ç ìAç å/ê�é ë�ïcå+ã�í*ì�ç í+ë�é'ýAô�å/é�ý ìFô�ú��ô�å!�ç ãS÷�æGí;þ�åäí+ü1æ���ü�é�ý ç ì��[í*îBý ç î\å ç ëcð[é��$êJìFô�é�ì�é'æ>åäê3í-ã�å/ìLç ã�å/ê�ü�ë�ï�åIæ �

ê3ìFí+í*ï��3í*î\ìFå/ë�ü�ë�ï'å+æGå/ê�ì�ç ãSé�ìFå/ï1ú ô�å�ì�ô�åIæ�ð�ådé�æ>åäé è ìAç þAåùç ë�ü1æÿ�é�ëcë�é ìFü1æGå�"\÷�ý é�ë�ìAç ë���ìAæ>å�å/ê����'æGí*ð^ç ë�#��é'æ �ï'å�ë�ê�$�í-æ1÷�é ê�ê7ç þAå+ý �[å/ë�è$í;ü�ë�ì�å+æ1è�ç ì��#�'æGå�å/ë%"\ê�ü�è ôcé�ê�é[ê�ì�æ�í-ý ýAìFô1æGí*ü���ôcé�÷�é�æ���$��3ð�åäå���÷�å+æLç å7ë�è åd÷�åIæê3í*ë�é�ýÿ�å�ë�å�î�ç ìFê�ìFô�é ì�é î\î å�è$ì�ô�í;ð ð�ådî\å�å+ý�é�ë�ïcî\ü�ë�è ìAç í*ë1ú��'æGí*í+î�í*î�÷�ê�� è$ô�í-ý í���ç è é'ýLé�ë�ïcê3í*è�ç é�ý�ÿ�å/ë�å�îFç ì�ê���ç þAå�ê�ü�êã�íHæGå æGå�é�ê�í+ë�êQìFí&��æGí*ð ãSíHæGå'�'æ>å/å�ëóç ëcè�ç ì�ç å�ê(�)/å+ý í;ð é'æ�ådå��é�ã�÷�ý å�ê�î�æ�í-ã ãSé ë�ñê�ì�ü�ï�ç å�ê7ú

*�+-,�.0/21�+43517648�9 :�;<:�/4=>,�?-/�1�:�8@*2.�9 1�+A/43B1�?�8�:C=�3>/�3>9 D�=�,�EF/49 G1>9 H4:�;I3B1>9 EF?4:C8�:�=�,�H�:�85J�KL9 MAN48O,>H!9 /�E�,�/4:�P *C=>3LN43>=�9 1BJ71>,Q=�,�/4=�:�/-G1>8�3B1�:-RTSL*�J!=�+4,�U ,�EF9 *�1B*WV�3>=>+4:�U43>/4D�X�1�:�N4+�:-/AY�3�N4U 3>/�D�:�;Z9 /-:1>+-:C=�+-3>8�3>=Z1>:�8�9 *�1�9 =B*A,�;[/43B1�?-8�3>U4N4U 3>=�:�*�1>+-3B173L8�:C8�:�*�1>,�8�3B1�9 H4:WG6-:�9 /�E�3\.�3@J�K�:�]41>:�/�1>K\;Z3B*�=�9 /43B1>9 ,�/�3>/4D�=�,�MCN43B1>9 649 U 9 1ZJ�R^`_ba2ced<agf�h7h�i h�j0k�d<l�fbmQk#^nd[o�o�pZq�d[iZmQr�sut 8 RV�3L=�+-:-U4Yv3LN-U 3>/2*-?48BHF:ZJ�:-D�D�:�*�w�.�,�8�w�:-8@*W3>64,�?�1�1�+4:�9 828�3B1>:C,�;9 U U /4:�*�*A3>/4D�U :OHF:�U4,�;�xL,!6T*�3B1>9 *�;I3>=B1�9 ,�/4R�X,!MA:�*�1�?-DLJ0N43>8\1�9 =�9 GN-3L/�1Z*C=�,�?4U DTH!9 :�.y/43B1L?48O:�;I8O,�Mz1>+4:�9 82D�:O*�w�*-K�,�1>+4:�8\*C=�,�?4U D/-,�1�R�{�+4,�*�:�.09 1�+-,�?�1�K .�+4:�/�3B*�w�:�D�3>64,�?�1�|4|�D�9 ; ;Z:�8�:�/�13>9 U MA:�/�1B*�K�=�U 3>9 MA:�D�}4~���MA,�8�:�1>9 MA:�*A,�;[9 U U /4:�*�*A9 /T1>+4:CN48�9 ,�8*�9 ]�MA,�/�1>+�*�R t :�*-w�.�,�8�w�:�8\*�.09 1>+�3�HF9 :I.�=�U 3>9 MA:�D�1>+4:

Page 45: The Benefits of Urban Trees

�I��� � ���0� ���e���B��� �O�I�>�Z�>� �����C�A�����C��� �>���T�>�4�>�T�>�4��� �T�4���-� �F� �O������ � ���B�F�-�����L����B���4�4�T���-�-� ���L�����C�����C�>�4�>� � �-���F� ���F���������-�O�� �������Z�������>���B�>���A�>�-��������B�����C�>�-�T�����4�����>� � ���A�����W�4�B�L� �����>�  ���Z�-� ���F�O���B�����������>�4���-� �B���z�Z����������>���-��¡��e�O���4���5������I����� � ���>�A���[�4� ���4���T� � �B�2���B�>� ���I�>�B��� ���-���>�4��¢��e�����4���5�>�����4���B��������������>� �4�4���>� ���-£¤�¥�¦2§<¤�¤'¦2§[¨�©0ª2¥�«B¬b­¯®�° ���O�����A� �C��� �>�-�2���>� �������>�4������4���e� � �B�>� �C�4�4�����@���>������£�±²�C���Q���-���%�>�4�B�e�����������L�������>����������>��� �A�4�>�Z�e���-�2� �A�A�-�4�������������³�B�2����� �4�B�A��� �C� �-� �-�2�>�4��>�4� � � �B�e�>�0�����4�<��� ���C���4�>� � �����F� ������� ���4�B�>� ������£C´����F���vµe� ��� ���

¶�·�¸L¹Oº » ¼@½ ¾ ½ »5¿½ À2½5ÁIÂBÃ�º Ä>¹OÅ�¹Oº »\Æ�Ç ½5¿�½5ÈÄLÉ�Ê ËI¹�º ½FÌ�Í�Í�Î�½�Ï�Ã�¹¶�¹O¹OÐÁIÑ ÒBÓ�Ñ Ô@Ñ ÂBÕBÓ�ÂB¹ÄBÔ�Ö!º\É�ÕBÓ4ÏIº@¹�¹OÊ�ÕBÓ�Å�¾ZÄ>º ¹�Ê ËIÊ@½!× Ó�Ø�½ ¿�½5Ç�Ù Õ Ë ËI»5Ø�½ Ú�½5Ø�Ä5·<Ó@ËIº@¹O¹�»\Ç ½ Û½\Ü�Ý�Ñ ÂBÞß ¹OÅ�Ñ ËIÄ>º\Ê àI»�á�âOã!ä�å@æIç æBèBé å\êIçIë>é ì í�î�ïZð ãZñ ãZð ò@é óOè!ô7õLãBñ ì æZð é óIè!ö-ð ÷IêOó�ø�é æIùIé ò@ãZð ñ é ì íOú>Ú�ûÃ�¹Oº\Ê ËIü\ÖFÓ�Ñ ý>¹Oº\Ê@Ñ Ë ¸vÄ5Ô4Ü�ÕBÊ@Ê\ÕBÂBÃ�Ý�Ê ¹ Ë ËIÊ4Ç�º@¹OÊ@Ê@½

þ4Õ5Ð�Ù ÕBÓ�»\Ø�½\Æ�ÁZ½\þ4Õ5Ð�Ù ÕBÓ�½FÌ�Í�ÿ�Í�½�á�âIã�ä����OãBð é ãZóOå@ã�æ����FêIì �Oð ãBî�ïZñ í�å\âIæZç æIèBé å@êOçIï5ãZð ñ ��ãZå@ì é ò@ãIúFÛ�Õ\û�É�º\Ñ Å�ÒB¹Oü\Û!ÕBûÉ�º\Ñ Å�ÒB¹�Ö!Ó�Ñ ýL¹Oº\Ê@Ñ Ë ¸vÇ�º\¹OÊ@Ê@½��¹ ·<Ñ Ê\»\Û½ Ú�½FÌ�Í�Í ��½���ð ãZãBó��FêOì �Ið ã�� ������êOó��FêIì �Oð ãZî á�âIã���ãZêIóOé óOèFæ��>ïZç êIóOì ñ�é ó�æ��Ið��5é ò@ãZñ ú[Û!ÃOÑ ÂZÕBÒ\Ä>ü5Ö!Ó�Ñ ý>¹Oº\Ê\Ñ Ë ¸vÄBÔ4× Ù Ù Ñ ÓOÄ>Ñ Ê�Ç�º ¹OÊ\Ê@½Ø�¹OÙ Ô\»@¶�½ ß ¹OÅ�Ñ ËIÄ>º àZ½�Ì�Í�Í���½-á�âOã!õLæZç ã�æ����!æBð ì é å��Oç ì �Ið ã!é ó������êOó��<ãZç ç � ø�ãBé óOè!êIóOù��IæZå\é êIç! 4ãBò@ãZç æ��!�ãZóIì úÇOÄ>º ËIÙ ÕBÓ�Å�»#"[Ø�üLÏ�Ñ ûÉ�¹Oº�Ç�º ¹OÊ\Ê@½

$�%�&(')%�&+*-, .�/�%�&+'10�2 , %3.3465�%�.�2�0�5�2879;:+<>=�?A@)B;C D E+FG=GH>IJH�:+<K<>=�LM LNG<>LOPD B;ORQ�O S�:+NUT�B;O�<�V W�X�C <>XGO!L�E�Q�N�V Y LO Z!V <>?[BJD+@\:+Z!=�V NG]+<>B�NGE�^6L:+<><>C LGE @1_a`�bGc`Gd�e>f�cGc�dFG=�B�NGL6g3h i�j�k�l�k�c�ke>d�m�d�b�nGo6:�p�g3h i�j�k�l�kGbd�e#i�k�`�i�nq�e>rs:+V C g+tuvBJC D�wxXGH uy:+Z!=GV N�]+<�B;N�H LzGXGn @1L6SRZ!V <>Lg+uyu{uKH W�D O�H u{:+Z�=�V NG]+<>B;NGH LzGX�| LNY�V O�B�e#r}V N�z

~G���s�����K�3�3�J�G���������y�!� �!�

���)�����+�������R�����+�����J�¡ ¢�) £�¥¤U¦¨§£©(�ª �4���I�L�A� � � ���C�L�4�T����-�����4�����4� �C�L�O�����4���Z���4�4���B�>� ���A�>�4��Z�����-���C���[��-�������� ���Z��£[«A�>���e�I�>�Z�L���@�-��� �-��� �4��� �����>�4�G¬-�4�B�>������-���B��� ���A�>�4���4���>� �>�����>�O�4���>���C������������� �>���B����>�4��� �����>�������>�>��>�4�T�-�-����������£(­ ���>�-��� ��� ���4�����4� � ���������>�4�T�I�>�A� � � ���A�-�-������4�4�4���5�>� ���C�����F� �����-�A�����Z���>�4�B�e���-�����4���B�F�C�4���-� �>� ����4���4�@�!� ���\�C�>�4�A�4�O���!� ���C�e�O�����4� ���v�Z���� ���-�C���4�>� � �����F�O�A����4���4�>��� � �!� ���F£T´���������e�����-���>�O���A���O�����>� �����-���-�4���>� �C�>���!�>�-��>�B�F���W�����4���4�>�v�F�O�������-�-�>�����-£¦2§<¨�©0ªA§[¨y¨�¬)®b§<¤4¥0«Bª�ªC¬�­U¯K°[«Bª2¥&®�° �4�B���O�>�C����4���������4��� �L�C� ��±e�4� ���B���3² �C�4�4�4� � �7�-������� �����4� ���C� ³��4� �!������>�4�W�O��� �W�������������W���A�4���������4��� ��� ���>�����4���\�����4�>�-�L�!�-�L�A� �Z�-£´ �4�C�4������� �����-�O�I�L���Z�B�8²4�>�4�>�\���A�������4�-� � �4� ���>�A�>�O�A�-�-����� �� �������>� ���>� ����� � �Z�-��� �������4� ��� �T�>�4�C�>�C���4���e���!�>�������C�>�4�T�F���B����F���>�0� �����>�O���4�-�T���4���A£{µW�@�-£+¶� � � ° �4� � � �!�>���>�-�¸·����>�4�>� ��¹��4������4���5�����-�B�7�O�O�-� �4�-���Z�C� � �!� ����� ���4�-� � �4� ���>�2��� ���T�>�������W���-��A�����C�>�������>�����Z��� �4�4�L� �������!� ��� �����e�C�����-����2�>�Q�����>����� ���

�������Z� � �B��£T´����-� �������B�2��� �����F�������T�F� �I�7�C�����4���\�7���-� ��������B�-����� �����A���O�C��� �>�-�A� �A�������I� � �Z�B���0� �>�T�>�4��� �2���4� � �4�������>�4���� �F�-� �I� �>�>���>� ��� �����A���-�C���!���O���������F� ��� ���4���-£ ´ �-�O�0�>� ���Q�����4���5�� �����C�����C���[�4�O�>�-� ���>���!� ��� ���4���C� ���>����I� � �Z�B�2��� �>���-�>�B�>�4���\������A�-�L�������>�g���-�����C� � �!� ����� ���4�4� � �4� ���>�2��� ���4�!���[�>�O������£°�§<¤�¤�¤�ª�ºQ¬�¬)°(»½¼�¼�¦2§<¤�¤�«Z¬�­¡»�­#¨U¾�«B¬1°�§<­QªA§®�° ���4�!�����!� ��� ���4���C�4�I�������L�2�C�4��� �T�����4�4�����Z�v�>�Q�������>������B�>�F�����O�-� ���C�4���4�@�F� ������� �>�2�>���>� �-� ����� ���������Z� � �B�e�O���-��� ���>� ���>�4���4�����T� ���>���B���-����� ���4£{¿-������� ���>�4�����F� �O���4�A�����B�C�>�����4�-��������4���!�4�>� �-�Q�L�4�4���>�����0�4� � �0�e����� �4£{À4���-���B�>� �!�2�-��� �����>� ���B�A�B��>�4�Cµe�-� ���-�@�-� �B�0���Á«�� ���4� �F�L�A�4�@�����B���4�4���>�4�B���-�>�-�-���C����4��� �F�4�-�����4�����L���0� �>���4� � �����>���������O�����B�-���>�-���W�>���C�-�-�O����� �F����B�C���>���F���I����A�>�4�T�>�4�����B�L�-�-� ���F£ ´ �-���-���>�4�B���>���C�A��������>�����T�B���@�L� �4�>� �4��� ���e�>���4������� �L�4�L�-�>�L�4�������������>��� �-�������>��������4�>���T�B�-��� � ���>�C���!�Z���>���>�4���F� �� ���4�>�4£

Â;Ã8Ä�Ã8ÂJÃGÅvÆ�Ã8ÇvÈAÅÁÉ�Â;Ã8ÇGÊvË�ÂJÆ�Ã8Ç

�4�B�C���!�4�������4�4� �����>�4�B�e�A���B�-�4�����>�4�C�4�O�>�-� ��� ���F� ���>�4������-�4�����-�O�A���[���4�2�4����� ����Ì ���4�>���B�C�4� ������4���������4���C�>�4���4���>�5����B�>�����-�������F���e�������7���>��������£[Íg�C�4�B���B���4�4�T�>�-�B�7�-�-���4� ��0�4�7�!� ���y�4�B�>�4�O�C�B� ���������L���������I�4����� ���-�B��� ���������4���y���-�4�4������4������� �!� ���F� �>�>�����>�O�����C�������4�!�����4���B������� �4�B�C�4���B�>���T� ���>����������>�4���B�Z�L�����>� ���A�>�4���4���������5�-�����B�-��� � ���>�C���!�Z���L�2�>�4���>���F���T����B�>�F��������� ���4£8ÎA�A� �������O�����>� ������� �Z���Z���Z���4�4��� ���O���������������4�4� ������������ �F� �����>�4���O���>�������������C� �A���>� � �����>�4�PÏ>� �C�C�4�4� ÐL�B�>� ������ �I���Z��ÑKÒ �>�4�C�����F�O���C���[�4���F�B�>� �F�C�O���-�-�����-�v�>�Q���������������I�-�� ³��4����� ���4���C� �C� �����C� �<���!� �Z� ���[�4�B�>�4���C�4�O�����������T���4����>���������B�4���-� �>�4�B�>� ���4£

Page 46: The Benefits of Urban Trees

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME

ENVIRONMENT AND

CRIME IN THE INNER CITY

Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?

FRANCES E. KUO is an assistant professor and codirector of the Human-Environ-

ment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her re-

search focuses on attention, defensible space, and novice-friendly information.

WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN is an associate professor and codirector of the Human-

Environment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

His research focuses on the psychological and social benefits of urban nature and citi-

zen participation in environmental decision making.

ABSTRACT: Although vegetation has been positively linked to fear of crime and

crime in a number of settings, recent findings in urban residential areas have hinted at

a possible negative relationship: Residents living in “greener” surroundings report

lower levels of fear, fewer incivilities, and less aggressive and violent behavior. This

study used police crime reports to examine the relationship between vegetation and

crime in an inner-city neighborhood. Crime rates for 98 apartment buildings with

varying levels of nearby vegetation were compared. Results indicate that although

residents were randomly assigned to different levels of nearby vegetation, the greener

a building’s surroundings were, the fewer crimes reported. Furthermore, this pattern

held for both property crimes and violent crimes. The relationship of vegetation to

crime held after the number of apartments per building, building height, vacancy rate,

and number of occupied units per building were accounted for.

The highway from one merchant town to another shall be cleared so that no

cover for malefactors should be allowed for a width of two hundred feet on ei-

ther side; landlords who do not effect this clearance will be answerable for rob-

beries committed in consequence of their default, and in case of murder they

will be in the king’s mercy.

—Statute of Winchester of 1285, Chapter V, King Edward I

343

AUTHORS’ NOTE: A portion of these findings was presented in invited testimony to

the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC). This

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 3, May 2001 343-367

© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.

Page 47: The Benefits of Urban Trees

There is a long tradition of addressing crime in problem areas by removing

vegetation. As early as 1285, the English King Edward I sought to reduce

highway robbery by forcing property owners to clear highway edges of trees

and shrubs (Pluncknett, 1960). Today, that tradition continues as park author-

ities, universities, and municipalities across North America engage in active

programs to remove vegetation because it is thought to conceal and facilitate

criminal acts (Michael & Hull, 1994; Nasar & Fisher, 1993; Weisel, Gouvis,

& Harrell, 1994).

One of the settings in which crime is of greatest concern today is the

inner-city neighborhood. To combat crime in this setting, should vegetation

be removed? This article suggests the opposite. We present theory and evi-

dence to suggest that far from abetting crime, high-canopy trees and grass

may actually work to deter crime in poor inner-city neighborhoods.

COULD THERE BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE?

As a rule, the belief is that vegetation facilitates crime because it hides per-

petrators and criminal activity from view. Here, we review the evidence in

support of this “rule” and suggest conditions under which it might not apply.

Although no studies to date have examined whether crime rates are actu-

ally higher in the presence of dense vegetation, a variety of evidence links

dense vegetation with fear, fear of crime, and possibly crime itself.

It is certainly the case that many people fear densely vegetated areas. In

research on urban parks, densely wooded areas have consistently been asso-

ciated with fear. In one study, safety ratings for 180 scenes of urban parks

showed that individuals felt most vulnerable in densely forested areas and

safest in open, mowed areas (Schroeder & Anderson, 1984). And in another

study, individuals who were asked for their open-ended responses to photo-

344 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

work was also supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Exten-

sion Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Project No. ILLU-65-0387.

Weare grateful for the assistance of many individuals and other institutions as well.

John Potter and Liesette Brunson assisted in data entry and data analysis in the initial

stages of this project. A reviewer’s suggestion substantially strengthened the analyses

presented here. The Chicago Housing Authority and the management of Ida B. Wells

were helpful in many ways, and the Chicago Police Department graciously gave us

access to their year-end crime reports. Jerry Barrett helped produce the figures, and

Helicopter Transport of Chicago donated the helicopter flight over Ida B. Wells. Cor-

respondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frances E. Kuo, Human-

Environment Research Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1103 S. Dorner, Urbana,

IL, 61801; e-mail: [email protected].

Page 48: The Benefits of Urban Trees

graphs of urban parks indicated that heavily vegetated areas seemed danger-

ous (Talbot & Kaplan, 1984). Although neither of these studies specifically

probed fear of crime (as opposed to more general fear), it was clear that at

least some participants had crime in mind; one respondent specifically sug-

gested that weedy areas gave muggers good hiding places (Talbot & Kaplan,

1984).

Dense vegetation has also been linked specifically to fear of crime. In

safety ratings for 180 scenes of parking lots, the more a photo was covered by

vegetation, the lower the perceived security (Shaffer & Anderson, 1985).

And in research examining fear of crime on a university campus, dense

understories that reduced views into areas where criminals might hide were

associated with fear of crime (Nasar & Fisher, 1993). In these and other stud-

ies, view distance seems to be an important factor. Fear of crime is higher

where vegetation blocks views (Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Kuo, Bacaicoa, &

Sullivan, 1998; Michael & Hull, 1994).

Not only has dense vegetation been linked to general fears and to fear of

crime in particular, but two studies have pointed more directly at a facilitative

role of vegetation in crime. In the first study, park managers and park police

indicated that dense vegetation is regularly used by criminals to conceal their

activities (Michael & Hull, 1994). In the second, burglars themselves lent

support to this notion. In this study, automobile burglars described how they

used dense vegetation in a variety of ways, including to conceal their selec-

tion of a target and their escape from the scene, to shield their examination of

stolen goods, and finally, in the disposal of unwanted goods (Michael, Hull,

& Zahm, 1999). At the same time, Michael and his coauthors made it clear

that vegetation was neither necessary nor sufficient for a crime to take place.

The clear theme in all these studies is that dense vegetation provides

potential cover for criminal activities, possibly increasing the likelihood of

crime and certainly increasing the fear of crime. Large shrubs, underbrush,

and dense woods all substantially diminish visibility and therefore are capa-

ble of supporting criminal activity.

But, not all vegetation blocks views. A well-maintained grassy area cer-

tainly does not block views; widely spaced, high-canopy trees have minimal

effect on visibility; and flowers and low-growing shrubs seem unlikely to

provide cover for criminal activities. We suggest that although the rule that

vegetation aids crime may hold for visibility-decreasing forms of vegetation,

there are systematic exceptions to this rule. To wit, we propose that widely

spaced, high-canopy trees and other visibility-preserving forms of vegetation

do not promote crime.

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 345

Page 49: The Benefits of Urban Trees

MIGHT VEGETATION DETER CRIME? THEORY

Furthermore, we propose that in some settings, visibility-preserving

forms of vegetation may actually deter crime. Specifically, we propose that in

poor inner-city neighborhoods, vegetation can inhibit crime through the fol-

lowing two mechanisms: by increasing surveillance and by mitigating some

of the psychological precursors to violence. Let’s look at each of these in

turn.

Increasing surveillance. Surveillance is a well-established factor in crimi-

nal activity. Jane Jacobs (1961) suggested that the simple presence of more

“eyes on the street” would deter crime, and this concept was prominent in

Oscar Newman’s (1972) classic Defensible Space and appeared in Jeffery’s

(1971) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Since then, many

studies have shown that perpetrators avoid areas with greater surveillance

and greater likelihood of intervention (e.g., Bennett, 1989; Bennett &

Wright, 1984; Cromwell, Olson, & Avary, 1991; Poyner & Webb, 1992).

And, substantial research has shown that criminals avoid well-used residen-

tial areas where their activities might easily be observed (Coleman, 1987;

Macdonald & Gifford, 1989; Merry, 1981; Rhodes & Conley, 1981).

There is some evidence to suggest that in inner-city neighborhoods, vege-

tation might introduce more eyes on the street by increasing residents’ use of

neighborhood outdoor spaces. A series of studies conducted in inner-city

neighborhoods has shown that treed outdoor spaces are consistently more

well used by youth, adults, and mixed-age groups than are treeless spaces;

moreover, the more trees in a space, the greater the number of simultaneous

users (Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1997; Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998;

W. C. Sullivan, Kuo, & DePooter, 2001). Not surprisingly then, a recent study

found that children were twice as likely to have adult supervision in green

inner-city neighborhood spaces than in similar but barren spaces (A. F. Tay-

lor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998). Thus, in these settings, higher levels of

vegetation not only preserve visibility but may also increase surveillance.

Perhaps just as important as actual surveillance in deterring crime is

implied surveillance. Newman (1972) suggested that criminals might be

deterred by environmental cues suggesting that surveillance is likely even

when no observers are present (also see Jeffery, 1971; R. B. Taylor, 1988).

Consistent with this, territorial markers have been empirically linked to lower

rates of incivilities and crime (Brown & Altman, 1983; Perkins, Brown, &

Taylor, 1996; Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993; R. B. Taylor,

1988). (And even those E&B readers who are not criminals may have

346 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 50: The Benefits of Urban Trees

experienced the power of implied surveillance—on the highway after pass-

ing an empty police car.)

There is some evidence to suggest that residential vegetation can act as a

territorial marker. Chaudhury (1994) showed front views of houses to students

and examined how a host of environmental features affected their ratings of

territorial personalization. He found that the presence and maintenance of

vegetative features was the strongest predictor of territorial personalization,

with an R-squared of .65. Similarly, Brown and colleagues (Brown &

Altman, 1983; Brown & Bentley, 1993) found evidence suggesting that

plants and other territorial markers make properties less attractive for bur-

glary. We suggest that well-maintained vegetation may constitute a particu-

larly effective territorial marker. Well-maintained vegetation outside a home

serves as one of the cues to care (Nassauer, 1988), suggesting that the inhabit-

ants actively care about their home territory and potentially implying that an

intruder would be noticed and confronted.

Mitigating psychological precursors to violence. Another mechanism by

which vegetation might inhibit crime is through mitigating mental fatigue. S.

Kaplan (1987) suggested that one of the costs of mental fatigue may be a

heightened propensity for “outbursts of anger and potentially . . . violence”

(p. 57), and three proposed symptoms of mental fatigue—irritability, inatten-

tiveness, and decreased control over impulses—are each well-established

psychological precursors to violence. Irritability is linked with aggression in

numerous studies (e.g., Caprara & Renzi, 1981; Coccaro, Bergeman,

Kavoussi, & Seroczynski, 1997; Kant, Smith-Seemiller, & Zeiler, 1998;

Kavoussi & Coccaro, 1998; Stanford, Greve, & Dickens, 1995). Inattentive-

ness has been closely tied to aggression in both children (Stewart, 1985) and

adolescents (Scholte, van Aken, & van Leishout, 1997). And, impulsivity is

associated with aggression and violence in a variety of populations (for

reviews, see Brady, Myrick & McElroy, 1998; Markovitz, 1995; Tuinier,

Verhoeven, & Van Praag, 1996).

A considerable body of studies indicates that vegetation aids in the recov-

ery from mental fatigue. Contact with nature in a variety of forms—wilder-

ness areas, prairie, community parks, window views, and interior plants—is

systematically linked with enhanced cognitive functioning as measured by

both self-report and performance on objective tests (e.g., Canin, 1991;

Cimprich, 1993; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; R. Kaplan, 1984; Lohr,

Pearson-Mimms, & Goodwin, 1996; Miles, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1998; Ovitt,

1996; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). To the extent that irritability, inatten-

tiveness, and impulsivity are symptoms of mental fatigue, as first proposed in

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 347

Page 51: The Benefits of Urban Trees

S. Kaplan (1987) and recently elucidated in Kuo and Sullivan (in press),

reductions in mental fatigue should decrease violent behavior.

In sum, we propose that vegetation can deter crime in poor urban neigh-

borhoods in any or all of the following ways: by increasing residents’ infor-

mal surveillance of neighborhood spaces, by increasing the implied sur-

veillance of these spaces, and by mitigating residents’ mental fatigue,

thereby reducing the potential for violence. Next, we review empirical work

pointing at a negative relationship between vegetation and crime.

MIGHT VEGETATION DETER CRIME? CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

There are a number of scattered hints in the empirical literature that vege-

tation might have a negative relationship to crime in residential settings.

A few studies have used images to examine the relationship between vege-

tation and sense of safety in residential settings. The findings from residential

settings are in direct contrast to those obtained in studies of nonresidential

settings: In residential settings, the more vegetation there is, the less fear of

crime. One study used photographs of residential sites to examine effects of

architectural and landscape features on fear of crime and found that higher

levels of vegetation were associated with less fear of crime (Nasar, 1982).

Another study used drawings of residences and found that properties

appeared safer when trees and shrubs were included than when they were not

(Brower, Dockett, & Taylor, 1983). And, similar results were obtained from

an experiment using computer-based photo simulations. In that study, an

inner-city courtyard was depicted with varying densities of trees: The more

dense the tree planting was, the greater the sense of safety (Kuo, Bacaicoa,

et al., 1998).

One study used controlled comparisons of real residential settings to

examine the relationship between vegetation and sense of safety. In a public

housing development where residents were randomly assigned to architec-

turally identical apartment buildings with varying levels of vegetation imme-

diately outside, those residents who lived in buildings with more trees and

grass gave systematically higher endorsements to the statement “I feel safe

living here” than did their counterparts living in relatively barren buildings

(Kuo, Sullivan, et al., 1998). That is, not only do images of green residential

settings evoke a greater sense of safety, but individuals living in such settings

report a greater sense of safety as well.

There is some indication that this greater sense of safety is warranted. A

few studies have examined the relationship between vegetation and “incivili-

ties.” R. B. Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower (as cited in R. B. Taylor, 1988)

compared street blocks with higher and lower levels of high-maintenance

348 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 52: The Benefits of Urban Trees

gardening and found fewer problems reported on street blocks with higher

levels of high-maintenance gardening. And in another study, Stamen (1993)

surveyed landscaped and nonlandscaped areas in a community and found

that the incidence of vandalism or graffiti in sites without plantings was 90%

as compared to 10% in sites with plantings. Similarly, Brunson (1999) exam-

ined both physical and social incivilities in public housing outdoor spaces

with trees and grass versus in similar spaces without vegetation. Resident

reports indicated that graffiti, vandalism, and littering were systematically

lower in outdoor spaces with trees and grass than in comparable, more barren

spaces (Brunson, 1999). Furthermore, resident reports indicated that social

incivilities, such as the presence of noisy, disruptive individuals, strangers,

and illegal activity, were also systematically lower in the greener outdoor

spaces (Brunson, 1999).

Additional evidence that vegetation may reduce crime comes from two

studies that examined the relationship between residential vegetation and

residents’ levels of aggression and violence. Mooney and Nicell (1992) com-

pared violent assaults by Alzheimer patients during two consecutive sum-

mers in five long-term care facilities—three without gardens and two in

which exterior gardens were installed. In Alzheimer patients, increases in the

number of aggressive assaults each year are typical because of the progres-

sive deterioration of cognitive faculties; and indeed, in the facilities without

gardens, the incidence of violent assaults increased dramatically over time.

By contrast, the incidence of violent assaults in the other facilities stayed the

same or decreased slightly after gardens were installed.

Another study compared levels of aggression and violence in an urban

public housing neighborhood where residents played no role in planting or

maintaining the vegetation outside their apartments and were randomly

assigned to levels of greenness. Levels of aggression and violence were sys-

tematically lower for individuals living in green surroundings than for indi-

viduals living in barren surroundings; moreover, lack of nature significantly

predicted levels of mental fatigue, which in turn significantly predicted

aggression. Mediation testing indicated that the relationship between vegeta-

tion and aggression was fully mediated through attention (Kuo & Sullivan,

in press).

In sum, there is a variety of evidence suggesting that vegetation may be

linked to lower levels of crime in residential neighborhoods, particularly

poor inner-city neighborhoods. Residential vegetation has been linked with a

greater sense of safety, fewer incivilities, and less aggressive and violent

behavior. Of these findings, the most direct evidence of a negative link

between vegetation and crime comes from residents’ reports of illegal

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 349

Page 53: The Benefits of Urban Trees

activities in the space outside their apartment building and from residents’

self-reports of (criminally) aggressive behavior.

The study presented here is the first to examine the relationship between

vegetation and crime in an inner-city neighborhood using police crime

reports. Although police crime reports are far from infallible (O’Brien,

1990), one advantage of such reports is that they are based on actual counts of

crimes reported over the course of a year and thus are less subject to the dis-

tortions introduced by having residents estimate the frequencies of such

events from memory. Thus, the convergence of findings from resident reports

and police reports would lend confidence to a negative link between vegeta-

tion and crime. In this study, we examined the relationship between the vege-

tation outside of apartment buildings and the number of police crime reports

for those buildings over a 2-year period. We collected police data on property

crimes, violent crimes, and total crimes for 98 apartment buildings in one

inner-city neighborhood and used the amount of tree and grass cover outside

each building to predict crime.

METHOD

Data presented here were collected as part of the Vital Neighborhood

Common Spaces archive, a multistudy research effort examining the effects

of the physical environment on the functioning of individuals, families, and

communities residing in urban public housing.

POPULATION, SETTING, AND DESIGN

Ida B. Wells is a large public housing development in Chicago. Wells pro-

vides housing for approximately 5,700 individuals, of which 65% are female,

97% are African American, and 44% are children younger than 14 years old

(Chicago Housing Authority, 1995). Ida B. Wells is one of the 12 poorest

neighborhoods in the United States (Ihejirika, 1995). At the time of this

study, approximately 93% of the people living at Wells were officially unem-

ployed, and roughly 50% of the families received Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (Chicago Housing Authority, 1995).

The amount of nature outside apartment buildings at Ida B. Wells varies

considerably. When the development was originally built in the 1940s, trees

and grass were planted around each of the low-rise buildings. Over time,

many of these green spaces have been paved in an effort to keep dust down

and maintenance costs low; this paving has killed many of the original trees,

350 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 54: The Benefits of Urban Trees

leaving some areas completely barren, others with small trees or some grass,

and still others with mature high-canopy trees (see Figure 1). Because shrubs

were relatively rare, vegetation at Ida B. Wells was essentially the amount of

tree and grass cover around each building.

A number of apartment buildings at Wells were excluded from this study.

First, the high-rise and midrise (seven-story) buildings were excluded to keep

the buildings sampled similar in size, number of residents, and amount of

outdoor common space. Second, of the 124 low-rise (one to four stories)

apartment buildings, those buildings adjacent or nearly adjacent to the police

station within the development were excluded because the presence of police

officers would be expected to be a significant deterrent to crime. And finally,

a small cluster of low-rise buildings was excluded because the buildings’

irregular placement with respect to each other and the street made it unclear

where the common space associated with one building ended and the next

began. The final sample included 98 buildings.

Ida B. Wells offers a number of rare methodological advantages for inves-

tigating the relationship between residential vegetation and crime. Although

levels of vegetation outside the apartment buildings vary considerably, the

residents are strikingly homogeneous with respect to many of the individual

characteristics that have been shown to increase vulnerability to crime—

income, education, and life circumstances. This similarity among residents

coupled with the consistent low-rise architecture decreases the sources of

extraneous variability in crime. This increases the power to detect differences

in the amount of crime associated with differences in the level of vegetation

outside each apartment building.

Perhaps more important, the apartment assignment procedures and land-

scaping policies of public housing work to ensure that there are no systematic

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 351

Figure 1: Ground Level View at Ida B. Wells Showing Apartment Buildings With

Varying Amounts of Tree and Grass Cover

Page 55: The Benefits of Urban Trees

relationships between the vegetation outside an apartment building and the

characteristics of its residents. Applicants for public housing at Ida B. Wells

(and elsewhere in Chicago public housing) are assigned to individual apart-

ments without regard for the level of nearby vegetation. And although resi-

dents have some choice in accepting or rejecting a particular apartment in

theory, in practice the level of nearby vegetation is not a significant factor in

residents’ choices, and most residents simply accept the first available apart-

ment (Kuo, Sullivan, et al., 1998). Moreover, residents play little or no role in

decisions to introduce or remove trees. Thus, in this study, there were no a pri-

ori reasons to expect a relationship between the level of vegetation outside an

apartment building and the characteristics of its inhabitants—more “respon-

sible” residents might just as likely live in barren buildings as in green

buildings.

MEASURES

Crime reports. Chicago Police Department year-end Uniform Crime

Reports were analyzed for this study. These crime reports summarize for

each address at Ida B. Wells the specific crimes (e.g., aggravated assault and

strong-armed robbery) that were reported during the year. These reports

include both citizen-initiated complaints and those filed by an officer without

a citizen complaint.

When a crime is reported to the police, an officer is dispatched to interview

the victim or victims and any witnesses. The officer then files a report about

the incident describing the specific crime or crimes, the date, the address

where the crime(s) occurred, and other pertinent information. Details from

this report are then summarized in the year-end crime reports.

From 2 years of crime reports, we created three summary variables index-

ing crime for each low-rise apartment building at Ida B. Wells, following the

classification scheme used by the Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 1999). In this scheme, property crime is the sum of simple thefts,

vehicle thefts, burglaries, and arson; violent crime includes assaults, batter-

ies, robberies, and homicides; and total crimes is the sum of all crimes

reported.

Vegetation. To assess the density of trees and grass around each of the

low-rise buildings, we took dozens of 35mm slide photographs of the devel-

opment by helicopter, passing over each cluster of buildings from a number

of vantages (see Figure 2). We also took ground-level photographs of many of

the outdoor spaces. All the slides were taken in June when the tree canopy

352 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 56: The Benefits of Urban Trees

was full and the grass was green. For each building, the aerial slides were put

together with slides taken at ground level; there were at minimum three dif-

ferent views from aerial and ground-level photos of each space (front, back,

left side, and right side) around each building. Five students in landscape

architecture and horticulture then independently rated the level of vegetation

in each space. Each of the individuals rating the spaces received a map of the

development that defined the boundaries of the specific spaces under study.

The raters viewed the slides and recorded their ratings on the maps. A total of

220 spaces was rated, each on a 5-point scale (0 = no trees or grass, 4 = a space

completely covered with tree canopy). Interrater reliability for these ratings

was .94.1 The five ratings were averaged to give a mean nature rating for each

space. The nature ratings for the front, back, and side spaces around each

building were then averaged to produce a summary vegetation rating. Ratings

of vegetation for the 98 buildings ranged from 0.6 to 3.0.

Other factors likely to affect crime. Four additional variables possibly

related to vegetation and the number of crimes reported per building were

assessed through (a) on-site analysis, (b) Chicago Housing Authority floor

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 353

Figure 2: Aerial View of a Portion of Ida B. Wells Showing Buildings With Varying

Amounts of Tree and Grass Cover

Page 57: The Benefits of Urban Trees

plans of each building type in the development, and (c) Chicago Housing

Authority apartment vacancy records.

Number of units is the number of apartment units in a building; the range

was from 4 to 20.

Number of occupied units is the average number of units rented in a partic-

ular building during the 2 years of the study; the mean was 7.8, and the range

was from 0.5 to 15. We were able to obtain data on 84 of the 98 buildings in

this sample.

Vacancy is the 2-year average of the number of vacant apartments divided

by the number of units in the building; the mean was 13%, and the range was

from 0% to 92%. We were able to obtain data on 84 of the 98 buildings in this

sample.

Building height is the number of floors in a building; the range was from 1

to 4.

RESULTS

If vegetation reduces crime, then we would expect to find that the greener

a building’s surroundings are, the fewer crimes reported. Perhaps the most

straightforward test of this possibility is to conduct simple regressions with

vegetation as the independent variable and the three summary crime indices

as dependent variables (see Table 1). Results from these ordinary least

squares regressions indicate that vegetation is significantly and negatively

related to each of the measures of crime. The greener a building’s surround-

ings are, the fewer total crimes; this pattern holds for both property crimes

and violent crimes. For each of the three indices, vegetation accounts for 7%

to 8% of the variance in the number of crimes reported per building.

Figure 3 provides a more concrete sense of the amount of crime associated

with different levels of vegetation. For this figure, the continuous vegetation

variable was recoded into the following three categories: low (ratings from

354 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

TABLE 1

Simple Ordinary Least Squares Regressions

Using Vegetation to Predict Crimes Per Building

Total Crimes Property Crimes Violent Crimes

Predictor R2

β p Value R2

β p Value R2

β p Value

Vegetation .08 –2.2 < .01 .07 –1.0 < .01 .07 –1.3 <.01

Page 58: The Benefits of Urban Trees

0.0 up to 1.0), medium (from 1.0 up to 2.0), and high (from 2.0 up to 3.0,

inclusive). Figure 3 shows the average number of total, property, and violent

crimes reported for buildings with low, medium, and high levels of vegeta-

tion. Compared to buildings with low levels of vegetation, those with

medium levels had 42% fewer total crimes, 40% fewer property crimes, and

44% fewer violent crimes. The comparison between low and high levels of

vegetation was even more striking: Buildings with high levels of vegetation

had 52% fewer total crimes, 48% fewer property crimes, and 56% fewer vio-

lent crimes than buildings with low levels of vegetation. Fisher’s protected

least significant difference analyses indicate that for each measure of crime,

low and medium buildings were significantly different at p < .05. The same

pattern held for comparisons between low and high buildings. Although

buildings with high levels of vegetation had 17% fewer total crimes, 13%

fewer property crimes, and 21% fewer violent crimes than buildings with

medium levels of vegetation, these differences were not statistically

significant.

These data reveal a clear negative relationship between vegetation and

crime and hint that this relationship is strongest when comparing buildings

with low levels of vegetation to buildings with either medium or high levels.

Although these findings are exciting and intriguing, they do not control for

other important variables. The analyses that follow provide a closer look at

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 355

Figure 3: Mean Number of Crimes Reported Per Building for Apartment Build-

ings With Different Amounts of Vegetation (each icon represents one

reported crime)

Page 59: The Benefits of Urban Trees

the relationship between vegetation and crime, taking into account other fac-

tors likely to affect the number of crimes per building.

TESTING POTENTIAL CONFOUNDS

Controlling for number of apartments. Perhaps one of the most important

variables to control for in predicting the amount of crime in a setting (e.g., a

building, neighborhood, or city) is the number of people in that setting.

Because more apartments per building mean more potential perpetrators and

more potential victims, one would expect more crimes in buildings with more

apartments. Indeed, previous research has shown the number of units in a

building to be related to the number of reported crimes (Newman & Franck,

1980). Thus, it is not surprising that in this sample, strong positive linear rela-

tionships exist between the number of units and the number of property

crimes (r = .62, p < .0001), violent crimes (r = .63, p < .0001), and total crimes

(r = .67, p < .0001). That is, the more apartments in a building, the more

crimes reported for that building.

To examine whether the relationship between vegetation and crime still

held when the number of apartments in a building was controlled, a series of

multiple regressions were conducted in which both vegetation and number of

units were used to predict the number of crimes reported per building. As

Table 2 shows, when the number of units per building is controlled, vegeta-

tion continues to be a significant negative predictor of total crime, property

crime, and violent crime. In other words, the level of greenness around a

building at Ida B. Wells predicts the number of crimes that have occurred in

that building even after the number of apartments in the building has been

accounted for.

356 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

TABLE 2

Multiple Regressions Using Number of Units

and Vegetation to Predict Crimes Per Building

Total Crime Property Crimes Violent Crimes

Predictors β p Value β p Value β p Value

Number of units 0.70 < .0001 0.31 < .0001 0.39 < .0001

Vegetation –1.44 < .05 –0.63 < .05 –0.81 < .05

NOTE: The multiple regressions for total crimes: adjusted R2

= .52 (N = 98, p < .0001); for property

crime:adjusted R2= .45 (N = 98, p < .0001); for violent crime:adjusted R

2= .44 (N = 98, p < .0001).

Page 60: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Other potential confounds. To identify other potential confounds between

vegetation and crime, correlations were conducted between vegetation and

the following three factors that have been shown in other studies to be associ-

ated with crime: vacancy rate (R. B. Taylor, Shumaker, & Gottfredson, 1985),

the number of occupied apartments per building (Newman & Franck, 1980),

and building height (Newman, 1972; Newman & Franck, 1980). As the first

column in Table 3 shows, vegetation is not related to either vacancy rate or

number of occupied units but is strongly and negatively related to building

height; the taller the building is, the lower the level of vegetation. The fourth

column in Table 3 indicates that building height has a strong positive relation-

ship to total crime, property crime, and violent crime. Thus, the relationship

between vegetation and crime is confounded by building height: Taller build-

ings are both less green and have more reported crimes than shorter buildings.

These findings raise the possibility that vegetation predicts crime only by vir-

tue of its shared variance with building height.

To test for this possibility, we examined whether vegetation still predicts

crime when building height and number of units are controlled. Table 4 pro-

vides the results of a series of multiple regressions in which vegetation, build-

ing height, and number of units were used to predict crime. If vegetation

predicts crime by virtue of its relationship with building height, then vegeta-

tion should no longer predict crime when building height is controlled, and

building height should predict crime with vegetation controlled. As Table 4

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 357

TABLE 3

Intercorrelations Among Possible Predictors

of Crime and Three Crime Scales

Number Number of

of Vacant Occupied Building Property Violent

Vegetation Units Rate Units Height Crime Crime

Vegetation

Number of units –.15

Vacancy rate –.02 .26

Number of

occupied units .12 .82** –.31**

Building height –.48** .67** .40** .35**

Property crime –.27** .62** .01 .38** .53**

Violent crime –.27** .63** .25** .30** .58** .72**

Total crime –.29** .67** .16 .38** .60** .91** .95**

**p < .01.

Page 61: The Benefits of Urban Trees

shows, however, this is not the case; vegetation remains a significant or mar-

ginally significant predictor of crime with building height and number of

units controlled. Moreover, building height has no predictive power when

vegetation and number of units are controlled. These findings indicate that

although building height is confounded with vegetation, it cannot account for

the link between vegetation and crime.

Thus far, the analyses have established that (a) there is a reliable associa-

tion between the amount of vegetation outside a building and the number of

crimes recorded for that building by the police, (b) these relationships are

independent of the number of units in a building, and (c) these relationships

are independent of building height. These analyses show that vegetation pre-

dicts crime and that this relationship cannot be accounted for by these other

confounding variables.

DOES ADDING VEGETATION IMPROVE THE

CURRENT ARSENAL OF CRIME PREDICTORS?

To determine whether vegetation makes any unique, additional contribu-

tion to the current arsenal of predictors, we conducted a multiple regression

in which all available significant predictors of crime were entered (i.e., vege-

tation, other predictors that were confounded with vegetation, and other pre-

dictors that were not confounded with vegetation). This kitchen-sink

multiple regression, in which vegetation and number of units, building

height, vacancy rate, and number of occupied units were entered as predic-

tors, indicated that vegetation does make a unique contribution to the current

arsenal of predictors. Vegetation was a significant predictor of total crime (β= –1.1, p = .05) even when all other crime predictors have been accounted for.

Moreover, the relatively low variance inflation factor for vegetation in this

regression (1.31) indicates that vegetation is relatively independent of the

358 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

TABLE 4

Multiple Regression Using Three Independent Variables (number of

units, vegetation, and building height) to Predict Crimes Per Building

Total Crime Property Crimes Violent Crimes

Predictors β p Value β p Value β p Value

Number of units 0.69 .0001 0.33 .0001 0.34 .0001

Vegetation –1.41 < .05 –0.69 < .05 –0.55 .07

Building height 0.05 ns –0.13 ns 0.18 ns

NOTE: The multiple regressions for total crimes: adjusted R2

= .51 (N = 98, p < .0001); for property

crime:adjusted R2= .44 (N = 98, p < .0001); for violent crime:adjusted R

2= .43 (N = 98, p < .0001).

Page 62: The Benefits of Urban Trees

other predictors. In addition, comparison of the adjusted R2s of the kitchen-

sink multiple regressions with and without vegetation indicated that the addi-

tional predictive power gained by adding vegetation outweighs the loss of

degrees of freedom incurred in increasing the total number of predictors. The

adjusted R2for the model with only the current arsenal of predictors was .23;

the adjusted R2for the model with the current arsenal of predictors plus vege-

tation was .26. Although this increase represents only 3% of the total variance

in crime, it represents a sizable proportion of the current predictive power

(13%). Together, these findings indicate that adding vegetation improves the

current arsenal of predictors, adding unique explanatory power.

A Cuthbert plot (Cp) analysis yielded additional evidence of the predic-

tive power of vegetation. Cp analysis is a technique for determining the most

powerful, most parsimonious model out of a set of multiple predictors (SAS

Institute, 1998). Essentially, given a set of predictors, Cp analysis tests all

possible combinations of predictors and selects the best model. An alterna-

tive to comparing adjusted R2s, Cp analysis is particularly helpful when there

is multicollinearity between predictors, as was the case here. Cp analysis

indicated that the best model for predicting total crime, selecting from the

entire set of available predictors (number of units, building height, vacancy

rate, number of occupied units, and vegetation), comprises only two predic-

tors—number of units and vegetation (Cp = 1.32). Thus, in these data, the

best possible model of crime comprises only vegetation and one other

predictor.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the relationship between vegetation and crime for 98

apartment buildings in an inner-city neighborhood. Analyses revealed con-

sistent, systematically negative relationships between the density of trees and

grass around the buildings and the number of crimes per building reported to

the police. The greener a building’s surroundings are, the fewer total crimes;

moreover, this relationship extended to both property crimes and violent

crimes. Levels of nearby vegetation explained 7% to 8% of the variance in the

number of crimes reported per building. The link between vegetation and

crime could not be accounted for by either of the two confounding variables

identified. Vegetation contributed significant additional predictive power

above and beyond four other classic environmental predictors of crime. And

out of all possible combinations of available predictors, vegetation was iden-

tified as one of the two predictors in the best possible model of crime.

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 359

Page 63: The Benefits of Urban Trees

The findings contribute to our understanding of the relationship between

vegetation and crime and suggest opportunities for intervention and future

research.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF VEGETATION AND CRIME

One contribution of this work is to propose a systematic exception to the

rule that vegetation promotes crime. The rule in both folk theory and environ-

mental criminology has been that vegetation promotes crime by providing

concealment for criminals and criminal activities. If the mechanism by which

vegetation affects crime is indeed concealment, then one implication of this

rule is that vegetation should not promote crime when it preserves visibility.

The contribution here is simply to point out that many forms of vegetation

preserve visibility and therefore ought not promote crime. Indeed, we found

that in this sample of inner-city apartment buildings, buildings with widely

spaced, high-canopy trees and grassy areas did not experience higher rates of

crime. These findings suggest that at the very least, crime prevention con-

cerns do not justify removing high-canopy vegetation in inner-city neighbor-

hoods. They demonstrate that one of the classic suspects in environmental

criminology does not always promote crime.

Moreover, the findings indicate a large and systematically negative link

between levels of vegetation and police reports of crime in this setting.

Although this is the first study to demonstrate such a link, the findings are

consistent with previous work linking vegetation with lower levels of incivil-

ities (Brunson, 1999; Stamen, Yates, & Cline, as cited in S. Sullivan, 1993) as

well as previous work linking vegetation with lower levels of aggression and

violence (Kuo & Sullivan, in press). The results obtained here were based on

police crime reports, whereas the Brunson (1999) and the Kuo and Sullivan

(in press) findings were based on residents’ memories and self- reports. The

convergence of findings from such different measures lends confidence that

in inner-city residential settings, the relationship between vegetation and

crime is negative—the more vegetation, the less crime.

A third contribution of the work here is to help resolve a puzzle in previous

work on residential vegetation and sense of safety. A number of studies have

found that residential vegetation is associated with greater sense of safety

(Brower et al., 1983; Kuo, Bacaicoa, et al., 1998; Kuo, Sullivan, et al., 1998;

Nasar, 1982). In combination with the old rule that vegetation promotes

crime, such findings raised the disturbing possibility that residents systemati-

cally misperceive green areas as safe. And yet other research has found good

concurrent validity between measures of fear, perceptions of disorder, and

media reports of crime (e.g., Perkins & Taylor, 1996). The finding here that

360 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 64: The Benefits of Urban Trees

vegetation is systematically linked with lower levels of crime suggests that

individuals are accurate in their perception of green areas as safer.

A final contribution of this work is to propose two mechanisms by which

vegetation may deter crime in inner-city neighborhoods. Specifically, we

propose that vegetation may deter crime both by increasing informal surveil-

lance and by mitigating some of the psychological precursors to violence.

Although neither of these mechanisms—nor the more general question of

causality—can be addressed in these data, there is clear empirical support for

these mechanisms in other work. Substantial previous research has shown

that surveillance deters crime and that in inner-city neighborhoods, greener

outdoor spaces receive greater use, thereby increasing informal surveillance.

Moreover, Kuo and Sullivan’s (in press) work showed that for residents ran-

domly assigned to apartment buildings with different levels of vegetation,

higher levels of vegetation systematically predicted lower levels of aggres-

sion, and mediation analyses indicated that this link was mediated via

attentional functioning. In addition, we can address a number of alternative

interpretations for the findings here. Public housing policies in this setting are

such that levels of income, education, and employment among residents are

largely held constant; residents are randomly assigned to varying levels of

vegetation; and the amount of trees and grass outside an apartment is not

under residents’ control. And the confound analyses conducted here indicate

that the link between vegetation and lower crime could not be explained by a

number of classic environmental predictors of crime—vacancy rates, build-

ing height, the number of apartments, and the number of occupied apartments

in a building.

POSSIBILITIES FOR INTERVENTION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings in this study set the stage for more ambitious explorations of

the relationship between urban residential vegetation and crime. Now that

there is good reason to think that visibility-preserving vegetation does not

necessarily promote crime and may even inhibit crime in inner-city neighbor-

hoods, it seems appropriate to attempt an intervention study or two. Interven-

tion studies employing true experimental designs might be used to answer a

number of important questions with regard to the effects of vegetation on

crime. Urban public housing communities might be especially amenable

sites for such research as housing authorities tend to have centralized control

over landscaping for dozens and even hundreds of identical buildings.

A study in which identical or matched apartment buildings in a poor urban

area were randomly assigned to receive different levels of vegetation could

help address the question of causality and the question of the shape of the

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 361

Page 65: The Benefits of Urban Trees

relationship between vegetation and crime. Would crime rates decrease lin-

early or curvilinearly with increasing vegetation? In this sample, the differ-

ence between low and moderate green cover buildings was 3.1 crimes, but the

difference between moderate and high green cover buildings was only 0.7

crimes. One possible interpretation of this pattern is that the relationship

between vegetation and crime is nonlinear with diminishing returns. Another

is that the 0.7 crime difference between the moderate and high vegetation

conditions is a poor estimate because of the relatively low number of

high-vegetation buildings in the sample, and the relationship between vege-

tation and crime is actually linear across the entire range of vegetation.

Future studies might systematically vary the arrangement and mainte-

nance of vegetation and examine the rates of crime associated with these fac-

tors. The vegetation in this study was not configured to provide symbolic

barriers or to mark the territory of particular apartment buildings. Would

arrangements that create symbolic barriers and delineate the territory of par-

ticular residences (e.g., with small hedges) be more effective in decreasing

crime than other arrangements? Brown and colleagues (Brown & Altman,

1983; Brown & Bentley, 1993) found evidence suggesting that plants and

other territorial markers may make a property less attractive for burglary, but

no study has yet randomly assigned different planting arrangements to differ-

ent buildings and compared the resulting rates of property crime. Analo-

gously, well-maintained vegetation seems to be a particularly effective

territorial marker (Chaudhury, 1994), but research has yet to systematically

examine the effect of different levels of maintenance on crime.

Future research might also look more closely—and more broadly—at the

outcomes of planting interventions. In this sample, vegetation predicted lev-

els of both property crime and violent crime. This is noteworthy given that

studies in environmental criminology often find that the relationship between

the physical environment and crime depends on the specific category of

crime (e.g., Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993). It would be interesting and

useful to examine the relationships between vegetation and more specific cat-

egories of crime or other categories altogether. For instance, does vegetation

have more of an effect on impulsive crimes than on “rational” crimes? We

might expect impulsive crimes committed out of frustration or rage to be

reduced through the beneficial effects of vegetation on mental fatigue. And to

the extent that perpetrators consciously calculate risks in selecting their tar-

gets, more “rational,” premeditated crimes might be reduced through the

beneficial effects of vegetation on informal surveillance.

In examining the outcomes of planting interventions, it will be important

to address the possible displacement of crime. One of the standard concerns

in efforts to combat crime is that although interventions may reduce crime in

362 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 66: The Benefits of Urban Trees

targeted locations, the effect may be to simply displace crime to other areas,

yielding no overall decrease in crime (Gabor, 1981). Would adding vegeta-

tion and decreasing crime in one part of an inner-city neighborhood simply

increase crime in another part of the neighborhood? The answer may depend

on the type of crime in question. By reducing the irritability, impulsivity, and

cognitive deficits associated with mental fatigue and hence preventing minor

conflicts from spiraling out of control, vegetation might inhibit violent

crimes in some residences without increasing violent crimes in others. On the

other hand, by increasing informal surveillance of some outdoor spaces with-

out reducing the actual impetus for burglary and other premeditated crimes,

vegetation might serve to simply shift such crimes to more vulnerable targets.

Future research should examine rates of crime both in and around the inter-

vention areas.

Such comparisons might shed light on the mechanisms by which vegeta-

tion affects crime. To further address the question of mechanism, levels of

informal surveillance and mental fatigue might be measured in buildings

receiving the planting intervention and in matched buildings selected as con-

trols. Mediation analyses could then be conducted to examine the joint links

between vegetation, crime, and the proposed mediators. Does vegetation

affect crime only when it increases residents’ use of outdoor spaces and lev-

els of informal surveillance?

Finally, one exciting possibility for future work would be to compare the

outcomes from intervention studies in which residents were either involved

or uninvolved in the greening process. The question here would be whether

the process of tree planting could enhance residents’ territoriality, thereby

deterring crime over and above the direct effect of the presence of vegetation.

Active involvement in tree-planting programs has been claimed to enhance a

community’s sense of territoriality (Dwyer, McPherson, Schroeder, &

Rowntree, 1992), and the community greening lore is replete with stories in

which greening efforts have been accompanied by dramatic decreases in

crime and incivilities (e.g., Hynes, 1996; Lewis, 1980; Littman, 1996; Trust

for Public Lands, 1996). Previous research in inner-city neighborhoods sug-

gests that residents would be willing to help plant and care for trees (Kuo,

Bacaicoa, et al., 1998). As planting is the single largest cost associated with

the care and maintenance of the urban forest (McPherson, Nowak, &

Rowntree, 1994), involving residents would substantially defray the already

low costs associated with a planting intervention.

Ultimately, the largest reductions in crime will come from strategies that

address the factors underlying crime (e.g., intense poverty and the availabil-

ity of guns). In the meantime, this study offers a ray of hope by identifying an

easily manipulable environmental feature that has a systematic, negative

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 363

Page 67: The Benefits of Urban Trees

relationship with property crimes, violent crime, and total crimes. The work

presented here suggests the exciting possibility that in barren inner-city

neighborhoods, planting a few trees may work to inhibit crime, creating safer

neighborhoods for poor families and their children.

NOTE

1. In these data, agreement between raters is analogous to the reliability of items in a scale;

the hope is that different raters will respond to a particular building in a similar fashion. Thus, to

assess interrater agreement, a Cronbach’s alpha was calculated with individual raters treated like

individual items in a scale and individual buildings treated like individual respondents.

REFERENCES

Bennett, T. (1989). Burglars’ choice of targets. In D. Evans & D. Herbert (Eds.), The geography

of crime (pp. 176-192). New York: Routledge.

Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender. Brookfield,

VT: Gower.

Brady, K. T., Myrick, H., & McElroy, S. (1998). The relationship between substance use disor-

ders, impulse control disorders, and pathological aggression. American Journal on Addic-

tions, 7, 221-230.

Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the

complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,

13, 3-28.

Brower, S., Dockett, K., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Residents’ perceptions of territorial features and

perceived local threat. Environment and Behavior, 15, 419-437.

Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An

environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203-220.

Brown, B. B., & Bentley, D. L. (1993). Residential burglars judge risk: The role of territoriality.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 51-61.

Brunson, L. (1999). Resident appropriation of defensible space in public housing: Implications

for safety and community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). National crime victimization survey: Criminal victimization

1998, changes 1997-98 with trends 1993-98 (NCJ 176353). Washington, DC: Department of

Justice Office of Justice Programs.

Canin, L. H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintaining self-care.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Caprara, G. V., & Renzi, P. (1981). The frustration-aggression hypothesis vs. irritability.

Recherches de Psychologie Sociale, 3, 75-80.

364 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 68: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Chaudhury, H. (1994). Territorial personalization and place-identity: A case study in Rio Grande

Valley, Texas. In A. D. Seidel (Ed.), Banking on design (pp. 46-54). Oklahoma City, OK:

EDRA.

Chicago Housing Authority. (1995). Statistical profile: The Chicago Housing Authority 1994 to

1995. Chicago: Author.

Cimprich, B. (1993). Development of an intervention to restore attention in cancer patients.

Cancer Nursing, 16, 83-92.

Coccaro, E. F., Bergeman, C. S., Kavoussi, R. J., & Seroczynski, A. D. (1997). Heritability of

aggression and irritability: A twin study of the Buss-Durkee aggression scales in adult male

subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273-284.

Coleman, A. (1987). Utopia on trial: Vision and reality in planned housing. London: Shipman.

Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social con-

text created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-492.

Cromwell, P. F., Olson, J. N., & Avary, D. W. (1991). Breaking and entering: An ethnographic

analysis of burglary. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., & Rowntree, R. A. (1992). Assessing the ben-

efits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Aboriculture, 18, 227-234.

Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Pros-

pect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35-65.

Gabor, T. (1981). The crime displacement hypothesis: An empirical examination. Crime and

Delinquency, 27, 390-404.

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experi-

ence. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.

Hynes, H. P. (1996). A patch of Eden: America’s inner-city gardeners. White River Junction,

VT: Chelsea Green.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.

Jeffery, R. C. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kant, R., Smith-Seemiller, L., & Zeiler, D. (1998). Treatment of aggression and irritability after

head injury. Brain Injury, 12, 661-666.

Kaplan, R. (1984). Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: An analysis of a continu-

ing program. Leisure Sciences, 6, 271-290.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Mental fatigue and the designed environment. In J. Harvey & D. Henning

(Eds.), Public environments (pp. 55-60). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research

Association.

Kavoussi, R. J., & Coccaro, E. F. (1998). Divalproex sodium for impulsive aggressive behavior

in patients with personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 676-680.

Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees,

sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.

Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (in press). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Impacts of

environment and mental fatigue. Environment & Behavior, 33(4).

Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community:

Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26,

823-851.

Lewis, C. A. (1980). Gardening programs promote improved maintenance and community rela-

tions in public housing developments. Journal of Housing, 37, 614-617.

Littman, M. (1996). Green city. The neighborhood works: Building alternative visions for the

city [Online]. Available: www:http://cnt.org/tnw/193grnci.htm

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 365

Page 69: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mimms, C. H., & Goodwin, G. K. (1996). Interior plants may improve

worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmen-

tal Horticulture, 14, 97-100.

Macdonald, J. E., & Gifford, R. (1989). Territorial cues and defensible space theory: The bur-

glar’s point of view. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 193-205.

Markovitz, P. (1995). Pharmacotherapy of impulsivity, aggression, and related disorders. In

E. Hollander (Ed.), Impulsivity and aggression (pp. 263-287). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

McPherson, E. G., Nowak, D. J., & Rowntree, R. A. (1994). Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem:

Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project (Report NE-186). Washington, DC:

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Merry, S. E. (1981). Defensible space undefended. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 16, 397-422.

Michael, S. N., & Hull, R. B. (1994). Effects of vegetation on crime in urban parks. Blacksburg:

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, College of Forestry and Wildlife

Resources, Department of Forestry.

Michael, S. N., Hull, R. B., & Zahm, D. L. (1999). Environmental factors influencing auto bur-

glary: A case study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Miles, I., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1998). Prairie restoration volunteers: The benefits of par-

ticipation. Urban Ecosystems, 2(1), 27-41.

Mooney, P., & Nicell, P. L. (1992). The importance of exterior environment for Alzheimer resi-

dents: Effective care and risk management. Healthcare Management Forum, 5(2), 23-29.

Nasar, J. L. (1982). A model relating visual attributes in the residential environment to fear of

crime. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 247-255.

Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. S. (1993). “Hot spots” of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187-206.

Nassauer, J. I. (1988). Landscape care: Perceptions of local people in landscape ecology and sus-

tainable development. In Landscape and land use planning: Proceedings from the 1988

International Federation of Landscape Architects World Congress (pp. 27-41). Washington,

DC: American Society of Landscape Architects.

Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban planning. New York:

Macmillan.

Newman, O., & Franck, K. (1980). Factors influencing crime and instability in urban housing

developments. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National

Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.

O’Brien, R. M. (1990). Estimating the reliability of aggregate-level variables based on individ-

ual-level characteristics. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 473-503.

Ovitt, M. A. (1996). The effect of a view of nature on performance and stress reduction of ICU

nurses. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois.

Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment: Predicting

participation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 85-110.

Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). Ecological assessments of community disorder: Their

relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 24, 63-107.

Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical environment

of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 13, 29-49.

Pluncknett, T.F.T. (1960). Edward I and criminal law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

366 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001

Page 70: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Poyner, B., & Webb, B. (1992). Reducing theft of shopping bags in city center markets. In R. V.

Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (pp. 99-107). New York:

Harrow & Henston.

Rhodes, W. M., & Conley, C. (1981). Crime and mobility: An empirical study. In P. J.

Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 167-188).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

SAS Institute. (1998). Users guide, Volume 2, Version 6 (4th ed.). Cary, NC: Author.

Scholte, R.H.J., van Aken, M.A.G., & van Leishout, C.F.M. (1997). Adolescent personality fac-

tors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer

rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 534-554.

Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation

sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178-194.

Shaffer, G. S., & Anderson, L. M. (1985). Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban

parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 311-323.

Stamen, T. (1993). Graffiti deterrent proposed by horticulturalist [Press release]. Riverside:

University of California, Riverside.

Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., & Dickens, T. J. (1995). Irritability and impulsiveness: Relation-

ship to self-reported impulsive aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,

757-760.

Stewart, M. A. (1985). Aggressive conduct disorder: A brief review. Aggressive Behavior, 11,

323-331.

Sullivan, S. (1993, July 21). Anti-tagger idea that grows on you. The Press Enterprise, p. 1.

Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & DePooter, S. (2001). Tree cover and social activities in inner-city

neighborhood common spaces. Manuscript in preparation.

Talbot, J., & Kaplan, R. (1984). Needs and fears: The response to trees and nature in the inner

city. Journal of Arboriculture, 10, 222-228.

Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green

spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30, 3-27.

Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, R. B., Shumaker, S. A., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1985). Neighborhood-level links between

physical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence. Journal

of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 261-275.

Tennessen, C., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environ-

mental Psychology, 15, 77-85.

Trust for Public Lands. (1996). Healing America’s cities: How urban parks can make cities safe

and healthy. San Francisco: Author.

Tuinier, S., Verhoeven, W.M.A., & Van Praag, H. M. (1996). Serotonin and disruptive behavior:

A critical evaluation of the clinical data. Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experi-

mental, 11, 469-482.

Weisel, D. L., Gouvis, C., & Harrell, A. V. (1994). Addressing community decay and crime:

Alternative approaches and explanations (Final report submitted to the National Institute of

Justice). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 367

Page 71: The Benefits of Urban Trees

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE

AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE

IN THE INNER CITY

Effects of Environment via

Mental Fatigue

FRANCES E. KUO is an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign. Her research examines effects of the environment on healthy human

functioning in individuals, families, and communities.

WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN is an associate professor at the University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on the psychological and social benefits of

urban nature and citizen participation in environmental decision making.

ABSTRACT: S. Kaplan suggested that one outcome of mental fatigue may be an

increased propensity for outbursts of anger and even violence. If so, contact with

nature, which appears to mitigate mental fatigue, may reduce aggression and vio-

lence. This study investigated that possibility in a setting and population with rela-

tively high rates of aggression: inner-city urban public housing residents. Levels of

aggression were compared for 145 urban public housing residents randomly assigned

to buildings with varying levels of nearby nature (trees and grass). Attentional func-

tioning was assessed as an index of mental fatigue. Residents living in relatively bar-

ren buildings reported more aggression and violence than did their counterparts in

greener buildings. Moreover, levels of mental fatigue were higher in barren buildings,

and aggression accompanied mental fatigue. Tests for the proposed mechanism and

for alternative mechanisms indicated that the relationship between nearby nature and

aggression was fully mediated through attentional functioning.

The power of the physical environment to influence human aggression is

well established. Crowding, high temperatures, and noise have all been

linked to aggression and violence (Baker, 1984; Baum & Koman, 1976;

Donnerstein & Wilson, 1976; Rule, Taylor, & Dobbs, 1987). Each of these

features of the physical environment has been associated with heightened

levels of aggression; are there features of the physical environment that work

to diminish levels of aggression and violence? This study examines whether

543

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 4, July 2001 543-571

© 2001 Sage Publications

Page 72: The Benefits of Urban Trees

natural elements such as trees and grass can decrease aggression. In addition,

it tests a potential mechanism by which natural features—and by extension

other environmental features—may affect aggression. In doing so, it sug-

gests a new role for environment and behavior research in an important public

policy domain—addressing aggression and violence in inner cities—and

contributes possible new insight into the psychological factors underlying

human aggression.

There are hints in the literature that exposure to nearby nature, for

instance, a garden or a grassy area with trees, may reduce aggression. For

instance, violent assaults by Alzheimer patients were compared during two

consecutive summers in five long-term care facilities, two in which exterior

gardens were installed and three without gardens (Mooney & Nicell, 1992).

In Alzheimer patients, increases in the number of aggressive assaults each

year are typical as a consequence of the progressive deterioration of cognitive

processes; and indeed, in the facilities without gardens, the incidence of vio-

lent assaults increased dramatically. By contrast, in the other facilities, the

incidence of violent assaults stayed the same or decreased slightly after gar-

dens were installed. More recently in another study, some subsets of prison

inmates reported less hostility after participating in a gardening project than

before, although these findings were not consistent across different analyses

(Rice & Remy, 1998).

Why might we expect the findings from these two studies to reflect a more

general, systematic phenomenon? By what mechanism might exposure to

nearby nature leave individuals in a less aggressive state? Here, we review

544 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

AUTHORS’ NOTE: A portion of these findings was presented in invited testimony to

the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) and at the

27th International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association,

Salt Lake City, Utah, May 1996. The data for this study were drawn from the Coping

With Poverty archive, a multistudy research effort supported by a grant from NUCFAC

(F. E. Kuo and W. C. Sullivan, principal investigators). This work was also supported

by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Depart-

ment of Agriculture, under Project No. ILLU-65-0387. Thanks go to Rebekah Coley

for training and supervising resident interviewers, Esther Davis and Doris Gayles for

recruiting and interviewing participants, the Robert Taylor Homes residents for their

participation, and the management of the Chicago Housing Authority for their as-

sistance throughout. Ann Schlosser suggested the Conflict Tactics Scale and made

many contributions during the early stages of this project. Correspondence concern-

ing this article should be addressed to Frances E. Kuo, Human-Environment Re-

search Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1103 S. Dorner, Urbana, IL 61801; e-mail:

[email protected].

Page 73: The Benefits of Urban Trees

theory and evidence suggesting first that natural settings assist in recovery

from mental fatigue and second that aggression may increase with mental

fatigue and decrease with its recovery. We then present an analysis suggest-

ing that residents of disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods may be subject

to chronic mental fatigue. Finally, we test the possibility that, in an urban

public housing community, the presence of trees and grass lowers the inci-

dence of aggressive and violent behavior among residents living nearby.

NATURE AND MENTAL FATIGUE

Attention restoration theory (S. Kaplan, 1995) proposes that exposure to

nature reduces mental fatigue, or more precisely, directed attention fatigue.

S. Kaplan (1995) noted that many settings, stimuli, and tasks in modern life

draw on the capacity to deliberately direct attention or pay attention. The

information-processing demands of everyday life—traffic, phones, conver-

sations, problems at work, and complex decisions—all take their toll, result-

ing in mental fatigue, a state characterized by inattentiveness, irritability, and

impulsivity. In contrast, natural settings and stimuli such as landscapes and

animals seem to effortlessly engage our attention, allowing us to attend with-

out paying attention. For this and a number of other reasons, S. Kaplan sug-

gested, contact with nature provides a respite from deliberately directing

one’s attention.

Indeed, there is growing empirical evidence of the attentionally restor-

ative effects of natural settings. Evidence of cognitively rejuvenating effects

comes from a variety of “natural” settings, including wilderness areas

(Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; R. Kaplan, 1984), prairies (Miles, Sullivan, &

Kuo, 1998), community parks (Canin, 1991; Cimprich, 1993), views of

nature through windows (Ovitt, 1996; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995), and

even rooms with interior plants (Lohr, Pearson-Mims, & Goodwin, 1996).

Moreover, these studies have demonstrated links between contact with nature

and more effective attentional functioning in a variety of populations—AIDS

caregivers, cancer patients, college students, prairie restoration volunteers,

participants in a wilderness program, and employees of large organizations.

MENTAL FATIGUE AND AGGRESSION

If contact with nature is attentionally restorative, how then might

attentional restoration mitigate aggression? S. Kaplan (1987) suggested that

one of the costs of mental fatigue might be a heightened propensity for “out-

bursts of anger and potentially . . . violence” (p. 57). The following analysis

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 545

Page 74: The Benefits of Urban Trees

shows how each of three symptoms of mental fatigue might contribute to

aggression.

First, mental fatigue may contribute to aggression because of its effects on

cognitive processing. A common theme in some recent theories of aggression

is that information processing plays a central role in managing social situa-

tions, especially potential conflicts (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge &

Crick, 1990; Dodge & Schwartz, 1997; Martinko & Zellars, 1998). For

example, Dodge and Crick (1990) proposed that a child’s behavioral

response to a social stimulus is a function of the following five steps of infor-

mation processing: encoding of social cues, interpretation of social cues,

response search, response evaluation, and enactment. The proposal here is

that in problematic social situations, relatively automatic, effortless cognitive

processing (e.g., “Bob took my computer station!”) is more likely to generate

conflict-escalating behavior than is more reasoned, effortful, reflective pro-

cessing (e.g., “Hmm . . . did I leave any clues that I was working there?”). As

the individual’s willingness and ability to engage in more reflective, effortful

processing decreases with mental fatigue, social behavior is likely to become

increasingly thoughtless, tactless, and unstrategic, allowing conflicts to spi-

ral out of control (see Rubin, Bream, & Rose-Krasnor, 1991, for a similar

proposal with respect to children’s social problem solving).

There is some evidence to suggest that deficits in effortful processing are

indeed associated with aggression. In school settings, deficits in effortful

processing are likely to manifest in inattentiveness, and inattentiveness has

been closely tied to aggression in both children (Stewart, 1985) and adoles-

cents (Scholte, van Aken, & van Lieshout, 1997). Indeed, the tie between

attention deficits and hyperactivity on one hand and conduct problems and

aggression on the other has been so strong that there has been some debate as

to whether these disorders are distinct (see Hinshaw, 1987, for a meta-analysis

indicating that these disorders are distinct although correlated). Conversely,

Rabiner, Lenhart, and Lochman (1990) found that when aggressive children

were encouraged to be more reflective in their responses to problematic

social situations, their generation of conflict-escalating responses dropped to

the same levels as their nonaggressive, nonrejected peers. Thus, it seems

plausible that the deficits in effortful processing that are symptomatic of

mental fatigue may contribute to aggression.

Mental fatigue may also contribute to aggression because of its effects on

emotion—specifically, heightened irritability. Irritability appears to be a fre-

quent side effect of mentally fatiguing tasks, such as the vigilance tasks

involved in air traffic control (Thackray, Bailey, & Touchstone, 1979; Warm &

Dember, 1986). Not surprisingly, irritability is linked with aggression in

numerous studies (e.g., Caprara & Renzi, 1981; Coccaro, Bergeman,

546 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 75: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Kavoussi, & Seroczynski, 1997; Kant, Smith-Seemiller, & Zeiler, 1998;

Kavoussi & Coccaro, 1998; Stanford, Greve, & Dickens, 1995). Irritable

individuals are prone to aggression when faced with frustration (Caprara &

Renzi, 1981), and pharmacological treatments that reduce aggression also

reduce irritability (Kant et al., 1998; Kavoussi & Coccaro, 1998). Thus, it

seems plausible that the irritability symptomatic of mental fatigue might con-

tribute to aggression.

Finally, mental fatigue may also contribute to aggression because of its

effects on behavior—specifically, decreased control over impulses. S. Kap-

lan (1987) noted that one of the hallmarks of mental fatigue is a difficulty

inhibiting behavioral impulses. Impulsivity in turn is associated with aggres-

sion and violence in a variety of populations (for reviews, see Brady, Myrick, &

McElroy, 1998; Markovitz, 1995; Tuinier, Verhoeven, & Van Praag, 1996).

Violent parolees are more impulsive than nonviolent parolees (Cherek,

Moeller, Dougherty, & Rhoades, 1997), maritally violent men are more

impulsive than maritally nonviolent men (Barnett & Hamberger, 1992), and

among depressed males, impulsive individuals are more likely to be aggres-

sive than nonimpulsive individuals (Hynan & Grush, 1986). Not surprisingly,

then, Luengo and colleagues (Luengo, Carrillo-de-la-Pena, Otero, &

Romero, 1994) found in their 1-year longitudinal study that present

impulsivity ratings predict future antisocial behavior, including aggression.

In sum, each of these factors—impairments in effortful cognitive process-

ing, irritability, and impulsivity—has been independently implicated in

aggression. To the extent that mental fatigue combines these three factors,

mental fatigue seems likely to contribute substantially to aggression.

INNER CITIES AND CHRONIC MENTAL FATIGUE

Poor, inner-city neighborhoods may be an especially promising context in

which to study the effects of nature and attentional restoration on aggression.

As the following analysis, drawn from Kuo (1992), suggests, the attentional

demands associated with poverty and the inner-city environment are likely to

place this population at special risk for chronic mental fatigue and

fatigue-related aggression. As a consequence, residents of poor, inner-city

neighborhoods may have a special need for the mental respite provided by

nearby nature.

The attentional demands of poverty are many and unremitting. For the

poor, even basic concerns such as rent, utilities, and food are ongoing chal-

lenges that require effortful problem solving and reasoning. Added to these

are the attentional challenges posed by major life events. Poverty brings

with it a greater susceptibility and vulnerability to drastic life changes.

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 547

Page 76: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Underinsured and having no financial cushion against setbacks, even a minor

temporary trauma such as a child’s illness can have far-reaching effects,

eventually necessitating major readjustments in life, family, and work

domains. Making these adjustments requires sustained, high levels of mental

functioning.

Moreover, the environmental characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods

place additional demands on attention. First and foremost, the ever-present

possibility of crime or violence places high demands on attention (see

Cohen & Spacapan, 1978, for an analysis of the attentional demands imposed

by unpredictable stressors). Danger requires individuals to be vigilant for

signs of impending trouble, to continuously consider possible responses to

new situations, and to consider the ramifications of those responses. Second,

the home environment may place further demands on attention; lack of ade-

quate space and facilities makes purposive functioning more effortful as

more problem solving is required to accomplish goals in unsupportive or

inadequate settings. Problem solving may be made all the more fatiguing by

the lack of quiet, safe settings in which to think. And finally, for the many

inner-city residents who lack natural settings in their everyday environment

(nearby parks, views to green spaces, and gardens), recovery from mental

fatigue may be especially rare.

Over time, the ongoing and acute attentional demands of poverty, in com-

bination with the mentally fatiguing characteristics of the inner-city environ-

ment, seem likely to yield chronic high levels of mental fatigue. Thus, among

inner-city inhabitants lacking ready access to attentionally restorative set-

tings, we might expect chronic high levels of mental fatigue and a heightened

propensity for aggressive behavior. Conversely, among residents with ready

access to nature, we might expect comparatively low levels of mental fatigue

and aggression.

Two questions are central to this study. First, does nearby nature reduce

aggression and violence? And second, if so, is this effect mediated via

attentional restoration? To examine these questions, structured interviews

and attentional tests were conducted with urban public housing residents.

Because official adult residents are predominately single mothers, the struc-

tured interviews focused on intrafamily aggression and violence rather than

other forms of violence. Attentional performance and self-reports of aggres-

sion were then compared for residents living in buildings with relatively high

versus relatively low levels of nearby nature, and mediation tests were used to

examine whether attentional restoration might account for a relationship

between nature and aggression.

To explore possible alternative accounts for a nature-aggression relation-

ship, a number of additional tests were conducted. A test for spuriousness

548 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 77: The Benefits of Urban Trees

(Evans & Lepore, 1997) was conducted to guard against alternative accounts

in general. In addition, the following three particular alternative accounts

were given specific attention: (a) Positive mood, (b) stress recovery, and

(c) social support were each identified as theoretically plausible explanations

for a link between nature and reduced aggression. Positive mood has been

linked directly with contact with nature (Hull & Michael, 1995), and it seems

plausible that positive moods could reduce the propensity for aggression

(Pihl & Zacchia, 1986, tested this notion but found no evidence for it). Simi-

larly, stress (or more precisely, recovery from stress) has been linked directly

with contact with nature (Ulrich et al., 1991), and stress also appears to con-

tribute to aggression (Bolger, Thomas, & Eckenrode, 1997; Chang, 1994).

And finally, there is some indication that neighborhood social ties and sup-

port networks are stronger around greener neighborhood spaces (Kuo,

Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998); in turn,

child abuse is less prevalent among parents who have social support

(Garbarino & Sherman, 1980; Roth, 1986).

METHOD

THE SITE: A NATURAL EXPERIMENT

ON THE EFFECTS OF NEARBY NATURE

A number of methodological criteria were employed in the selection of a

site for this research. Robert Taylor Homes (RTH) in Chicago was rare in that

it simultaneously met each of these criteria.

First, although the amount of vegetation outside the buildings at RTH var-

ies considerably from building to building, other environmental features are

held remarkably constant from one building to another. Because the build-

ings are architecturally identical, at RTH, building size, building layout,

building facilities, architectural detail, and the number of residential units per

building are held constant (see Figure 1). Moreover, because the buildings are

placed in single file along a 3-mile corridor, the features of the surrounding

landscape are similar from one building to another. Each building is bordered

on the west by an interstate highway and railroad tracks and bordered on the

east by a six-lane municipal thoroughfare and wide sidewalk.

Second, public housing policies result in de facto random assignment of

residents with respect to levels of nearby nature at RTH. Although housing

applicants to the Chicago Housing Authority can specify their choice of

development (e.g., RTH vs. some other development), they have little choice

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 549

Page 78: The Benefits of Urban Trees

550 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Figure 1: Attrition Has Left Some Buildings Surrounded by Only Concrete and

Asphalt and Others With Pockets of Green

Page 79: The Benefits of Urban Trees

of where they will be assigned within a development (i.e., this apartment vs.

another apartment within RTH).1 Moreover, the scale of the Chicago Housing

Authority precludes the placement of “better” (e.g., more responsible and

less aggressive) residents in “better” (e.g., greener) locations. Clerks in a cen-

tral office handle all assignments of residents to apartments for 40,700 units

in 1,479 buildings across 17 developments throughout the city. They gener-

ally have never met or seen the applicants for housing and most likely have

never set foot in most of the Housing Authority’s developments. It is im-

plausible that anyone could remember the characteristics of so many build-

ings, let alone take them into account in assigning apartments.

Third, residents at RTH have little role in the landscaping outside their

building. When RTH was originally built in the 1960s, trees and grass were

planted around each of the 28 high-rise buildings. Over time, the majority of

these green spaces have been paved in an effort to keep dust down and main-

tenance costs low; this paving has killed many of the original trees, leaving

some buildings with completely barren common spaces, others with a few

scattered trees, and still others with leftover pockets of green. Ongoing land-

scape maintenance at RTH is handled entirely by a small landscaping crew

serving all of the developments managed by the Chicago Housing Authority;

residents are not involved in maintenance, and funds are inadequate to fulfill

special requests from residents. Thus, a relationship between greenness of

common spaces and aggression in this setting cannot be explained by a pro-

cess in which especially effective or cooperative residents have made their

surroundings greener.

In sum, RTH constitutes a naturally occurring experiment on the effects of

residential vegetation, with random assignment of residents to vegetation

conditions, no control of residents over levels of vegetation, and a host of

environmental variables held constant. An additional methodologically

desirable feature of RTH for this study is that the residents are strikingly

homogeneous with respect to many of the individual characteristics that

might be expected to affect aggression—income, education, life circum-

stances, and perhaps most important, economic opportunities.

PROCEDURE, PARTICIPANTS, AND DESIGN

To maximize participants’ ease in responding, interviewers were selected

to be as similar to interviewees as possible. Three African American female

residents of RTH were hired and trained to conduct the recruitment, inter-

viewing, and testing for this research. All three were longtime residents of

RTH (19 years or more) residing in buildings outside the study sample. Thus,

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 551

Page 80: The Benefits of Urban Trees

interviewers were matched to interviewees not only in major demographic

characteristics such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status but also in life

circumstances, background, and more subtle social cues such as patterns of

speech and dress.

In preparation for interviewing and testing, interviewers completed exten-

sive training (50 hours of general training in interview methods, 12 hours

learning the specific interview measures used, and 14 hours of supervised

and unsupervised practice in performing practice interviews). In addition, an

on-site research supervisor met regularly with the interviewers to review pro-

cedures and address any difficulties or questions. Interviewers did not inter-

view individuals with whom they were previously familiar, and interviewers

were counterbalanced for nature condition.

Recruitment was conducted door to door in buildings spanning the range

of vegetation of RTH. Sampling was restricted to 18 buildings—buildings

adjacent to parks, police stations, and other relatively unique features were

excluded to minimize effects of extraneous factors on residents’ access to

nearby nature. Within buildings, sampling was restricted to apartments on

Floors 2 through 4, where residents had maximal physical and visual access

to the trees outside their building (there are no residences on the first floor).

Recruitment criteria included not only environmental factors but also resi-

dent characteristics. Women heads of household younger than the age of 65

were invited to participate in a University of Illinois study about life at RTH.

Recruitment focused on women because official adult residents in urban pub-

lic housing are overwhelmingly female—80% in RTH (Chicago Housing

Authority, 1995).2 Participants were told that they could refuse to answer any

question and could stop the interview at any time and that they would receive

$10 on completion of the interview.

Of the 158 qualified residents invited to participate, 92% chose to partici-

pate, yielding a final sample of 145 residents, 69 with relatively low levels of

nearby nature and 76 with relatively high levels of nearby nature. The com-

posite participant profile is that of a 34-year-old African American single

woman with a high school or high school equivalency diploma raising three

children on an annual household income of less than $10,000.

Individual interviews were conducted during summer and fall months in

participants’ apartments. Residents’ attentional capacity, aggression, and a

number of control variables likely to be associated with aggression were

assessed as part of a 45-minute structured interview.

552 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 81: The Benefits of Urban Trees

MEASURES

Nearby nature. Levels of nearby nature were assessed using standardized

sets of photographs and multiple independent raters. For each of the 18 build-

ings to be sampled, a standardized set of photographs was taken from eye

level of the area immediately surrounding the building. As Figure 2 shows,

each standardized set comprises 16 photographs taken from specified van-

tage points; most showed views looking out from the building, and the

remaining showed views looking across the building.

To obtain ratings of the nearby nature for each building, the photographs

were arranged at 18 stations (drawing tables in a design studio), with each

station showing all 16 photographs for a given building. Undergraduate and

graduate students in horticulture then independently rated levels of nearby

nature for each of the 18 buildings. First, raters visited each of the stations to

familiarize themselves with the range of vegetation in the 18 buildings. Sec-

ond, they visited each station again in turn and provided a single greenness

rating for each building based on the 16 photographs. Raters were encour-

aged to use the entire response scale from 0 to 4 (0 = not at all green , 1 = a

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 553

Figure 2: Plan View of an Apartment Building at Robert Taylor Homes With

Nearby TreesNOTE: The numbers within the building indicate apartments. The arrows indicate the position from

which photographs were taken (for each building) that were then rated by 22 independent raters.

Note that despite the presence of trees outside a building, residents in particular apartments may

have little or no visual access to trees.

Page 82: The Benefits of Urban Trees

little green, 2 = somewhat green, 3 = quite green, and 4 = very green). For

each building, greenness ratings from the 22 raters were averaged to produce

a summary greenness rating. These averaged greenness ratings ranged from

0.8 for the building with the least nearby nature to 3.6 for the greenest

building.

With these data, agreement between raters is analogous to the reliability of

items in a scale; the hope is that different raters will respond to a particular

building in a similar fashion. Thus, to assess interrater agreement, a

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated, with individual raters treated as individual

items in a scale and individual buildings treated as individual respondents.

This procedure yielded an alpha of .97, indicating a high level of agreement

between raters with regard to building greenness.

Greenness ratings were used as the basis for assignment to conditions.

Buildings whose ratings fell below the midpoint of the range were designated

barren; buildings whose ratings were at or above the midpoint were desig-

nated green. Greenness ratings for the 7 buildings in the barren condition

ranged from 0.8 to 1.7, with a mean of 1.2. Greenness ratings for the 11 build-

ings in the green condition ranged from 2.0 to 3.6, with a mean of 2.6. In inter-

preting these ratings, it should be noted that because raters were encouraged

to use the entire response scale, even a high greenness rating of 3.6, or very

green, is relative to the range of vegetation at RTH; as Figure 1 shows, even

the greenest pockets at RTH are neither especially large nor especially lush in

vegetation.

There were no systematic differences between barren and green buildings

in environmental factors such as pedestrian or automobile traffic, nearness to

parking, or nearness to parks, schools, or other facilities. There was no sys-

tematic pattern in the sequence of green and barren buildings along the 3-mile

corridor; green and barren buildings were not clustered but rather haphaz-

ardly interspersed. Some barren buildings were oriented north-south, others

east-west; similarly for green buildings. For barren buildings, in the places

where trees or grass might have been, there was only bare dirt or asphalt, and

even the green buildings were surrounded by large areas of bare dirt or

asphalt.

To check for possible condition differences in participant characteristics

for barren versus green buildings, a series of t tests was conducted. As would

be expected given random assignment of residents to nature conditions, no

significant condition differences were found in demographic characteristics,

household characteristics, or other variables potentially related to aggres-

sion. Specifically, green and barren participants did not differ in age, educa-

tion, employment, income, size of household, marital status, number of

554 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 83: The Benefits of Urban Trees

children, years in apartment, years in public housing, health ratings, health

symptoms, alcohol use, prescription drug use, or other drug use.

Attentional functioning. The capacity for directed attention was assessed

with the Digit Span Backwards (DSB) test. Digit Span Backwards is a stan-

dardized neurocognitive measure and is used in the measurement of

attentional fatigue (Cimprich, 1993; Schwartz, 1994; Tennessen &

Cimprich, 1995) and in the clinical measurement of attention (Lezak, 1983;

Mesulam, 1985). DSB is particularly useful for field settings because it is

easy to administer: The administrator reads aloud a series of digits (e.g., “2, 5,

1”), and participants are asked to repeat back the series in reverse order (e.g.,

“1, 5, 2”). Series are administered in increasing length; if a participant fails a

series of a given length, a second series of equal length is administered.

Scoring was based on the longest series performed correctly within two

attempts.

Aggression. The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, 1979) is a widely

used self-report measure designed to assess levels of intrafamily aggression

and violence. It has been used in more than 100 studies (see bibliography in

Straus, 1995). The CTS has a test-retest reliability of .97 (parent-to-child

aggression) (DuRant, Pendergrast, & Cadenhead, 1994), an internal consis-

tency of .88 (wife-to-husband aggression) (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,

1980), and good concurrent validity with other measures of parental

psychosocial distress (Wissow, Wilson, Roter, Larson, & Hope, 1992).

To elicit reports of aggressive behavior, participants are asked to think of

situations in which they had a disagreement or were angry with a specified

family member and to indicate how often they used each of 18 conflict tac-

tics, beginning with socially acceptable tactics (e.g., reasoning) and ending

with violent tactics. Table 1 shows the 14 aggressive conflict tactics from the

CTS. The responses to these 14 items provide an index of overall aggression.

The first 6 items index psychological aggression: verbal and symbolic acts

intended to cause psychological pain or fear. The remaining 8 items index

violence: the use of physical force or violence. These 8 items comprise both

mild violence (3 behaviors unlikely to cause injury) and severe violence (5

behaviors likely to cause injury).

For each of the specific conflict tactics, participants are asked to indicate

how often they have used it in the past 12 months on a 7-point scale (0 = never

to 6 = more than 20 times, with X = don’t know). If participants reply never or

don’t know, they are then asked, “Did you ever . . . ?” (yes/no). These ques-

tions are asked in reference to two specified family members—first the

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 555

Page 84: The Benefits of Urban Trees

respondent’s partner (or the adult with whom they are closest) and then their

child (or if they have more than one, the child with whom they have the most

conflicts).

This procedure yields estimates of both the frequency of specific aggres-

sive behaviors used in the past year and the range of aggressive behaviors

employed over the respondent’s lifetime. In general, more aggressive per-

sons employ a wider range of aggressive behaviors; for instance, Person A

might only use verbally aggressive tactics, whereas Person B might use not

only verbally aggressive tactics but also physically aggressive tactics. For

each of the different categories of aggression (overall aggression, psycholog-

ical aggression, and so forth), the range of tactics a respondent has used in

that category is calculated by taking the proportion of the number of different

tactics employed out of the total number of different tactics. For instance, an

individual who has employed each of the 14 different overall aggression tac-

tics would have an overall aggression range of 1.0; an individual who has

employed only 7 of those tactics (typically, the less serious ones) would have

an overall aggression range of 0.5. Similarly, the range of violent tactics

would refer to the proportion of the 8 violent tactics that a respondent had

employed. It should be noted that the term range is not used in the statistical

sense here; the different conflict tactics are not assumed to be on an interval

scale.

556 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

TABLE 1

Overall Aggression Items From the Conflict Tactics Scale

Psychological aggression

Insulted or swore at the other

Sulked or refused to talk

Stomped out of the room or house

Did or said something to spite the other

Threatened to hit or throw something

Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something

Violence

Mild violence

Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other one

Slapped the other one

Threw something at the other one

Severe violence

Kicked, bit, or hit with a fist

Hit or tried to hit with something

Beat up the other one

Threatened with a knife or gun

Used a knife or gun

Page 85: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Other factors likely to affect aggression. Three additional variables that

seemed likely to be related to nearby nature, attention, or aggression were

assessed through self-report using a 5-point scale (0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 =

a medium amount, 3 = quite a lot, and 4 = very much). Positive mood was

assessed with the Positive Mood subscale of the Profile of Mood States

(POMS). Participants rated themselves on six adjectives (lively, active, ener-

getic, cheerful, full of pep, and vigorous). The POMS has been shown to be a

valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of mood (McNair, Lorr, &

Droppleman, 1981). Stress was assessed with the question “How stressful is

this period in your life?” And social integration was assessed with an 8-item

scale, alpha = .80, that included items such as “How well do you know the

people next door?”; “Are people here concerned with helping and supporting

one another?”; and “Is there a strong feeling of belonging here?” (see Kuo

et al., 1998, for details).

RESULTS

Results are presented in three subsections. First, descriptive statistics on

intrafamily aggression and participants’ attentional resources are presented.

Second, the central hypothesis is tested. And third, potential mechanisms

underlying the relationship between nearby nature and aggression are

explored.

AGGRESSION AND MENTAL

FATIGUE AT ROBERT TAYLOR HOMES

Consistent with previous research, levels of aggression in this population

were much higher than in national samples. A majority of participants in this

sample (61%) reported having engaged in a violent act against their partner at

least once in their lives, a rate approximately 4 times that reported in two

national probability samples of couples in the United States (Straus, 1979;

Straus & Gelles, 1988) but consistent with rates from a sample of formerly

married African American women (57%) (Neff, Holamon, & Schluter,

1995). Aggression against children showed much the same pattern. A major-

ity of the participants in this sample reported hitting their child with some-

thing at least once in their lives (56%), approximately 4 times the rate

reported in a national sample of two-caretaker households with at least one

child (Straus & Gelles, 1986).

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 557

Page 86: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Participants’ DSB scores provide an index of attentional resources in this

inner-city population. According to Lezak (1983), scores of 4 or 5 on this ver-

sion of the DSB test are within normal limits, depending on the individual’s

educational level. In this sample, the mean DSB score was 4.8, with a stan-

dard deviation of 1.1, indicating substantial variation in attentional

functioning.

TESTING THE CENTRAL HYPOTHESES

If the availability of nearby nature reduces the propensity for aggression,

then residents living in green conditions should report less aggression than

their counterparts living in barren conditions: less frequent aggression in the

past year and a narrower range of aggressive tactics used over the course of

their lifetime. A series of planned, one-tailed t tests were conducted to exam-

ine condition differences in frequency and range of aggression, first against

the respondent’s partner and then against their child.

Aggression against partner. Tables 2 and 3 show the findings with respect

to the frequency of aggression against partner in the past year and the range of

aggressive tactics used against partner over the lifetime.

As the first row of Table 2 shows, there was a significant condition differ-

ence in the frequency of overall aggression against partner during the past

year. That is, residents living in green conditions reported significantly less

overall aggression against their partners than did their counterparts living in

barren conditions. The following rows in Table 2 show the findings for spe-

cific forms of aggression. The second row indicates that there was a signifi-

cant condition difference in psychological aggression against partner;

residents living in green conditions were significantly less likely to have

engaged in psychological aggression against their partners than were resi-

dents living in barren conditions. Does this effect extend to more violent

forms of aggression? Because the violence indices produce extremely

skewed distributions, Straus (1979) recommended dichotomizing these indi-

ces into violent and nonviolent categories. If a participant had engaged in at

least one of the eight violent conflict tactics during the past year, they were

designated violent; otherwise, they were designated nonviolent. As rows 3

through 5 of Table 2 show, nearby nature is related to the use of violence

against partner during the past year. Violence scores were significantly lower

for residents living in green conditions than those living in barren conditions.

Furthermore, this pattern held for both the more mild forms of violence and

the more severe forms of violence. Both mild violence rates and severe

558 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 87: The Benefits of Urban Trees

violence rates were significantly lower in the green condition than in the bar-

ren condition. Mean differences between the green and barren conditions for

the various aggression subscales ranged from one third to one half of a stan-

dard deviation.

Table 3 shows the findings with respect to the range of aggressive conflict

tactics used against partner over the participant’s lifetime. As the first row

shows, there was a significant condition difference in the range of overall

aggression tactics used. That is, residents living in green conditions report

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 559

TABLE 2

Mean Rates of Aggression Against Partner

During Past Year in Green Versus Barren Condition

Barren Green

M SD M SD t p

Overall aggression 1.04 0.88 0.76 1.07 1.68 < .05

Psychological aggression 1.47 1.20 1.00 1.26 2.24 .01

Violence 0.73 0.45 0.49 0.50 2.99 < .01

Mild violence 0.73 0.45 0.49 0.50 3.06 .001

Severe violence 0.48 0.50 0.31 0.47 2.10 < .05

NOTE: The response scale for the original items in this table was from 0 (never ) to 6 (more than 20

times). Because the violence, mild violence, and severe violence indices were skewed, we followed

Straus’s (1979, p. 80) recommendation that these scales be dichotomized into violent and nonvio-

lent categories.Thus, for these three indices, 0 indicates having engaged in none of the specific tac-

tics during the past year, and 1 indicates having engaged in at least one of the tactics during the past

year. Degrees of freedom ranged from 136 to 140.

TABLE 3

Range of Aggression Tactics Used Against Partner

in Lifetime in Green Versus Barren Conditions

Barren Green

M SD M SD t p

Overall aggression .44 .28 .32 .30 2.39 < .01

Psychological aggression .58 .36 .44 .35 2.46 < .01

Violence .32 .27 .24 .32 1.54 .06

Mild violence .52 .39 .35 .40 2.50 < .01

Severe violence .19 .24 .16 .29 0.80 .22

NOTE: In response to questions about having ever used specific aggressive conflict tactics, partici-

pants responded never (0) or yes (1). Standard deviations are in parentheses; degrees of freedom

ranged from 136 to 140.

Page 88: The Benefits of Urban Trees

using a narrower set of aggressive conflict tactics against their partners over

their lifetime than did their counterparts living in barren conditions. The

following rows in Table 3 show the findings for specific forms of aggres-

sion. The second row indicates that there was a significant condition differ-

ence in psychological aggression against partner; residents living in green

conditions used a significantly narrower set of psychologically aggressive

conflict tactics than did residents living in barren conditions. The third row of

the table suggests that nearby nature may be related to the range of violent

conflict tactics used against partners. For residents living in green conditions,

the set of violent tactics used was 25% smaller than for those living in barren

conditions, a marginally significant difference (p = .06). Although there was

no difference in the range of severe forms of violence used against partners,

there was a significant condition difference in more mild forms: Residents

living in green conditions report using a smaller set of mildly violent conflict

tactics against their partners over their lifetime than did their counterparts liv-

ing in barren conditions. Mean differences between the green and barren con-

ditions ranged from more than one quarter to one half of a standard deviation.

Aggression against a child. The conditions leading to aggression against

an adult family member may be quite different from those leading to aggres-

sion against one’s child. Conflicts with children are likely to be more fre-

quent than those with adult family members and often center around

disciplinary issues. At the same time, some forms of aggression may be less

socially acceptable against children than against adults. Does the relationship

between nearby nature and aggression found for women and their partners

exist for women and their children? Condition differences were examined for

aggressive conflict tactics used with children, specifically, the child with

whom the participant had the most conflicts. A t test showed that greenness

was related to the range of psychologically aggressive tactics used against

children: Lifetime scores for proportion of psychologically aggressive tactics

used were significantly lower for participants living in the green condition

than for their counterparts living in the barren condition (.54 vs. .62), t(140) =

1.83, p < .05. But the effect did not hold for the frequency of psychological

aggression during the past year or for the frequency or range of more violent

forms of aggression against children.

In sum, there were a number of indications that nearby nature has a miti-

gating effect on aggression and violence: Nearby nature was systematically

related to lower scores on multiple indices of aggression against partners and

one index of aggression against children.

560 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 89: The Benefits of Urban Trees

TESTING FOR UNDERLYING MECHANISMS

What mechanism or mechanisms might underlie the association between

nearby nature and aggression? The following analyses tested for each of the

following: the proposed mechanism, the possibility that some unspecified

mechanism might be at work, and three specific alternative mechanisms.

If effects of nearby nature on aggression operate through attentional resto-

ration, a number of predictions follow. First, residents living in green condi-

tions should show higher levels of attentional functioning than their

counterparts living in barren conditions. A planned student t test showed that

indeed, mean DSB scores were significantly higher in the green condition (M =

5.0, SD = 1.0) than in the barren condition (M = 4.6, SD = 1.2), t(138) = 1.74,

p < .05, differing by more than one third of a standard deviation.

Second, if effects of nearby nature on aggression operate through

attentional restoration, then attentional functioning should be systematically

related to aggression. Using the lifetime measure of overall aggression

against partner as a summary index of aggression, an ordinary least squares

regression was conducted using DSB scores to predict levels of aggression.

As predicted, there was a significant negative relationship between DSB per-

formance and overall aggression (β = –.26, R2 = .07, F = 9.9, p < .0025). By

this summary measure of aggression, the better a participant’s attentional

functioning, the less aggression she had engaged in.

And finally, if effects of nearby nature on aggression operate through

attentional restoration, the relationship between nature and aggression

should statistically depend on the relationship between attention and aggres-

sion. These interdependencies are important to examine when hypothesizing

mediation because significant associations among three variables are possi-

ble without there being a mediation relationship between them. For example,

in this case, nearby nature might enhance attention and reduce aggression but

influence aggression through some other mechanism than attention. In that

case, the nature-aggression relationship would most likely be statistically

independent of the nature-attention relationship. If, on the other hand, con-

tact with nearby nature reduces aggression via the restoration of attentional

resources, we would expect the nature-aggression relationship to diminish or

disappear when attention is statistically controlled.

Accordingly, a multiple regression was used to test for the joint relation-

ships among nearby nature, attentional performance, and levels of aggres-

sion. When DSB (the proposed mediator) was controlled in a regression

between greenness and overall aggression, greenness was no longer a signifi-

cant predictor (β = –.13, p = .11, R2 = .09, F = 6.5, p < .0025). Complete, or

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 561

Page 90: The Benefits of Urban Trees

“perfect,” mediation requires that the independent variable has no additional

predictive power when the mediator is controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986);

thus, these findings indicate that attentional restoration could be the sole

mechanism underlying the nature-aggression relationship found here.

Could the links among nature, attention, and aggression be explained by

some unspecified confounding variable or some alternative mechanism?

Evans and Lepore (1997) suggested addressing what they referred to as “the

spuriousness problem” by conducting an analysis in which the relationship

between the hypothesized mediator and the outcome variable is examined

while the independent variable is controlled. By their reasoning, if there is

some unspecified confounding variable responsible for the relationships

among nature, attention, and aggression, then attention will not be signifi-

cantly related to aggression when nature is controlled. In fact, the multiple

regression described earlier addresses this possibility: DSB was a significant

predictor of overall aggression (β = –.24, p < .01) when greenness was con-

trolled. This finding indicates that some unspecified mechanism cannot

account for the relationships among DSB, greenness, and overall aggression.

These findings were echoed in follow-up analyses examining the follow-

ing three specific, theoretically plausible, alternative mechanisms: positive

mood, stress, and social integration. Planned student t tests showed that

greenness was unrelated to positive mood, t(142) = –.04, p = .48, and stress,

t(140) = .17, p = .43, but was related to social integration, t(140) = 2.7, p < .01.

Correlational analyses showed that overall aggression was related to neither

mood, r(141) = –.07, p = .48, nor stress, r(139) = .135, p = .11, nor social inte-

gration, r(142) = –.06, p = .48. Together, these results indicate that neither posi-

tive mood, nor stress, nor social integration mediate the nature-aggression

relationship found here. Moreover, these analyses reinforce the aforemen-

tioned mediation and spuriousness findings, indicating that the effect of

nature on aggression found here may be wholly mediated through attentional

restoration.

DISCUSSION

In 145 adult women randomly assigned to a series of architecturally iden-

tical apartment buildings, levels of aggression and violence were signifi-

cantly lower among individuals who had some nearby nature outside their

apartments than among their counterparts who lived in barren conditions.

Furthermore, as would be predicted if this relationship were mediated by

mental (attentional) fatigue, (a) residents living in greener settings

562 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 91: The Benefits of Urban Trees

demonstrated reliably better performance on measures of attentional func-

tioning, (b) attentional performance predicted scores on a summary index of

aggression, and (c) the relationship between nearby nature and aggression

scores became nonsignificant when attention was controlled. Finally,

follow-up analyses examining potential alternative mediators revealed no

significant relationships between aggression and mood, stress, or social inte-

gration, and a test for unspecified mediators similarly ruled out alternative

mechanisms.

It should be noted that the predicted relationship between nearby nature

and aggression was not consistently found for more violent forms of aggres-

sion or for aggression against children. Of the various forms of aggression

examined in this study, these may be the most susceptible to social desirabil-

ity effects. Future research might use other strategies to examine the

nature-aggression relationship for forms of aggression that are most difficult

to assess through self-report.

To what extent can the nature-aggression relationship found here be inter-

preted as an effect of nearby nature on aggression? The following consider-

ations lend confidence in a causal interpretation of these data: the random

assignment of residents to nature condition; the consistently negative find-

ings across numerous checks for condition differences in participant, house-

hold, and interviewer characteristics; the consistency of architectural and

other environmental features over the two conditions; the use of multiple

buildings per condition; and the use of double-blind measures for both

nearby nature and aggression. Numerous tests were conducted to identify the

particular causal pathway between nature and aggression. Results from all of

these tests were of one accord: The mediation tests indicated a pathway

through attention, and the spuriousness test and direct tests of alternative

mediators all worked to rule out other possible pathways. Although other

possibilities cannot be ruled out entirely, the only interpretation consistent

with the complete set of findings here is that nearby nature reduces aggres-

sion by supporting attentional functioning. At this juncture, attention restora-

tion theory (S. Kaplan, 1995) provides the best explanation for the link

between nature and aggression.

Having addressed the question of internal validity, we turn now to external

validity. To what extent do the relationships found in this study generalize to

the real world? External validity depends in large part on how the constructs

in a study are operationalized. In this study, the constructs were

operationalized as directly as possible; to the extent we could, we avoided

using surrogates or proxies. For example, measuring the vegetation around

participants’ homes was a more direct way to assess the effects of residential

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 563

Page 92: The Benefits of Urban Trees

nature than, say, showing slides of nature in a classroom. Similarly, using a

performance measure of attention provided a more direct measure of

attentional functioning than asking participants to rate how attentive they

feel. And, asking participants to estimate the actual frequency of specific

aggressive behaviors in the past year provided a more direct measure of in

situ aggression than obtaining ratings of feelings of aggression in a labora-

tory setting or eliciting hostile attributions in hypothetical contexts. Relying

on relatively direct measures of nature, attention, and aggression lends

greater confidence that the relationships found here are true outside of this

study. The large sample size employed (145 participants) further strengthens

the case for external validity.

At the same time, there is reason for caution in assuming that these effects

generalize to forms of aggression not studied here or to aggression in other

populations and settings. Although the mental fatigue hypothesis should

apply to many forms of aggression and it is quite clear that both men and

women are subject to mental fatigue, this work examined only intrafamily

aggression by women. Future research should examine effects of nature on

aggression by men and other forms of aggression (e.g., road rage and gang

violence).

These qualifications notwithstanding, domestic violence is an important

topic in and of itself, and findings with regard to domestic violence have

far-reaching implications. A substantial literature has established that com-

pared with children from nonviolent families, children of violent families are

more likely to grow up to be violent. This increased risk for violent behavior

includes not only children who were victims of abuse but also those who wit-

nessed abuse (Bandura, 1973, 1978; DuRant et al., 1994; Rice & Remy,

1998; Wissow et al., 1992; Wolfe, Jaffe, Wilson, & Zak, 1985). Thus, identi-

fying possible avenues to reducing domestic violence may pay benefits for

generations to come. By reducing intrafamily aggression and thus children’s

socialization into aggressive and violent behaviors, green neighborhood

spaces may indirectly reduce aggression in future generations.

This work has implications for understanding and preventing aggression

and for our understanding of the psychological effects of natural

environments.

UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING AGGRESSION

One contribution of this work is to suggest a potential explanation for a

number of poorly understood phenomena in the environment-behavior litera-

ture on human aggression. Mental fatigue might help account for the relation-

ships found between crowding and aggression (Ani & Grantham-McGregor,

564 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 93: The Benefits of Urban Trees

1998; Nijman & Rector, 1999; Palmstierna, Huitfeldt, & Wistedt, 1991) and

noise and aggression (Donnerstein & Wilson, 1976; Gaur, 1988; Geen &

McCown, 1984; Sherrod, Moore, & Underwood, 1979), and for urban-rural

differences in aggression (Fingerhut, Ingram, & Feldman, 1998). Noise and

crowding both seem likely to place demands on attention (Cohen &

Spacapan, 1978), and urban environments tend not only to be noisier and

more crowded than rural environments but also less green than rural environ-

ments. Thus, urban environments seem likely to be more attentionally fatigu-

ing and less attentionally restorative in general than rural environments.

Future research might examine whether these phenomena are indeed fatigue

related.

This work may also offer insight into some phenomena in human aggres-

sion that do not necessarily involve the physical environment. For example,

both the extremely high rates of aggression and violence in poor families

and the link between stressful life events and aggression (Guerra,

Huesmann, Tolan, Van Acker, & Eron, 1995; Hammond & Yung, 1991;

Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Vaden, 1990; Spencer, Dobbs, & Phillips, 1988;

Straus et al., 1980) might be explained at least in part by mental fatigue. As

described in the introduction, poverty is likely to place relatively high, un-

remitting demands on attention. And stressful life events such as moving to a

new home or having a family member become seriously ill can involve sub-

stantial amounts of problem solving, contingency planning, and other atten-

tionally demanding, mentally fatiguing forms of cognition. If the relatively

high rates of aggression associated with poverty and stressful life events are

indeed partially attributable to mental fatigue, future research should find

links between poverty and mental fatigue as well as links between stressful

life events and mental fatigue.

This work also suggests a number of possible interventions for addressing

aggression and violence in the inner city. Specifically, efforts to improve con-

flict behavior might involve preventing, detecting, and treating attentional

fatigue. For example, conflict behavior might be improved by preventing

attentional fatigue through reducing the attentional demands of the environ-

ment by means of soundproofing, reducing crowding, and increasing safety.

Similarly, providing insurance against the drastic life changes to which the

poor are most susceptible might also help prevent fatigue and fatigue-related

aggression. DSB and other tests of attentional functioning might help detect

fatigue and let individuals know when they are most at risk for aggressive or

violent behavior. Finally, strategies for treating attentional fatigue, including

taking green breaks and getting more sleep, might help prevent

fatigue-related aggression.

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 565

Page 94: The Benefits of Urban Trees

UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF NATURAL

ENVIRONMENTS ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR

This work contributes to our understanding of the psychological effects of

natural environments in a number of ways. First, the findings provide strong

evidence for a potential effect of nature that has been largely unexplored—

reducing aggression and violence. Previous research on the effects of nature

has focused on its effects on mood, recovery from stress, everyday function-

ing, and attention (e.g., Cimprich, 1993; Hartig et al., 1991; Hull & Michael,

1995; Ulrich et al., 1991), and only two previous studies have hinted at a

potential effect of nature on aggression (Mooney & Nicell, 1992; Rice &

Remy, 1998). This study demonstrates a link between nature and reduced

aggression in an experimental design and provides clear support for the pro-

posed mechanism of attentional restoration. In doing so, it extends attention

restoration theory and shows that the theory has implications for a concern as

important and socially relevant as levels of aggression and violence in

inner-city neighborhoods.

A second contribution is to raise an interesting question with regard to the

benefits of residential nature. In these data, the vegetation around apartment

buildings was significantly related to measures of attentional functioning but

not to measures of stress or positive mood. This is consistent with the previ-

ous literature: Other studies have found significant relationships between

residential vegetation and measures of attention (R. Kaplan, 2001 [this

issue]; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995), and to date we are unaware of any stud-

ies demonstrating links between residential nature and either stress or posi-

tive mood. Are there in fact no relationships between residential nature and

stress or residential nature and mood? Perhaps these relationships exist and

the procedures in this study simply failed to uncover them. It also seems pos-

sible that mood and stress are simply not affected by highly habituated forms

of nature. This seems a fascinating question for future research.

A third contribution of this work concerns the density and extent of nature

necessary to convey benefits. It might seem implausible that a few trees and

grass in relatively small areas outside public housing apartment buildings

could have any clear effects on residents’ levels of aggression. Yet this low

dose of vegetation has been shown to have far-reaching and positive effects

on a number of other important outcomes, including residents’ management

of major life issues (Kuo, 2001) and neighborhood social ties (Kuo et al.,

1998; Kweon et al., 1998). Future research might explore how the benefits of

contact with nature vary as a function of the density of vegetation.

A final contribution of this work is to suggest that the geographic distribu-

tion of natural areas matters. Although large central or regional parks are

566 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 95: The Benefits of Urban Trees

clearly important components of urban design, the results of this study sug-

gest that a few major parks are not enough. All residents of RTH live within 2

miles of one of the most extensive examples of urban nature in North Amer-

ica—Lake Michigan and the parks along Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Yet

the proximity to these tremendous natural resources is apparently insufficient

to keep all residents of RTH at similar levels of attentional functioning. Per-

haps, as Rachel Kaplan (1985) suggested, cities should be designed with

nature at every doorstep.

NOTES

1. Given that residents do have some choice of apartment within Robert Taylor Homes

(RTH), it seemed possible (although not likely) that better functioning and therefore potentially

less aggressive residents might self-select into greener buildings. As a check on that possibility,

participants were asked what criteria were important to them in choosing a place to live: Of 118

responses, 93% were clearly unrelated to levels of vegetation (47% of respondents “just needed a

place;” 12% desired safety or cleanliness; 10% were concerned about access to work, school, or

family; 9% were concerned about cost; 8% were concerned about space or number of bedrooms;

6% wanted an apartment on a “low floor,” perhaps because of the frequency of elevator malfunc-

tions; and 1 participant mentioned sense of community). Seven percent of respondents expressed

concerns that might be interpreted as related to levels of vegetation (e.g., location, neighbor-

hood, area, and environment), and 1 participant of the 145 specifically reported that a “natural

setting” was important to her. However, analyses indicated that these participants lived in no

greener areas on average than the remainder of the participants in this study. Thus, the level of

nearby nature does not seem to be an important criterion in residents’ selection of apartments

within RTH; moreover, it appears that the level of choice residents have in selecting an apartment

is sufficiently low that even residents who might strongly value access to nature are no more

likely to be assigned to a green area.

2. Eligibility requirements for public housing and some other forms of public aid favor single

mothers. This creates a pressure for families not to list adult males as official residents (and for

these unofficial residents not to participate in studies about life at RTH).

REFERENCES

Ani, C. C., & Grantham-McGregor, S. (1998). Family and personal characteristics of aggressive

Nigerian boys: Differences from and similarities with Western findings. Journal of Adoles-

cent Health, 23, 311-317.

Baker, C. F. (1984). Sensory overload and noise in the ICU: Sources of environmental stress.

Critical Care Quarterly, 6(4), 66-80.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 567

Page 96: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3),

12-29.

Barnett, O. W., & Hamberger, L. K. (1992). The assessment of maritally violent men on the Cali-

fornia Psychological Inventory. Violence and Victims, 7, 15-28.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy-

chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Baum, A., & Koman, S. (1976). Differential response to anticipated crowding: Psychological

effects of social and spatial density. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,

526-536.

Bolger, K., Thomas, M., & Eckenrode, J. (1997). Disturbances in relationships: Parenting, fam-

ily development, and child maltreatment. In J. Garbarino (Ed.), Understanding abusive fami-

lies: An ecological approach to theory and practice (pp. 86-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brady, K. T., Myrick, H., & McElroy, S. (1998). The relationship between substance use disor-

ders, impulse control disorders, and pathological aggression. American Journal on Addic-

tions, 7, 221-230.

Canin, L. H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintaining self-care.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Caprara, G. V., & Renzi, P. (1981). The frustration-aggression hypothesis vs. irritability.

Recherches de Psychologie Sociale, 3, 75-80.

Chang, Y. C. (1994). Parenting stress and social support of mothers who physically abuse their

children in Hong Kong. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 261-269.

Cherek, D. R., Moeller, F. G., Dougherty, D. M., & Rhoades, H. (1997). Studies of violent and

nonviolent male parolees: II. Laboratory and psychometric measurements of impulsivity.

Biological Psychiatry, 41, 523-529.

Chicago Housing Authority. (1995). Statistical profile: The Chicago Housing Authority 1994 to

1995. Chicago: Author.

Cimprich, B. (1993). Development of an intervention to restore attention in cancer patients.

Cancer Nursing, 16, 83-92.

Coccaro, E. F., Bergeman, C. S., Kavoussi, R. J., & Seroczynski, A. D. (1997). Heritability of

aggression and irritability: A twin study of the Buss-Durkee aggression scales in adult male

subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273-284.

Cohen, S., & Spacapan, S. (1978). The aftereffects of stress: An attentional interpretation. Envi-

ronmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 43-57.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing

mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behav-

ior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8-22.

Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997). Social information processing mechanisms in aggressive

behavior. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior

(pp. 171-180). New York: John Wiley.

Donnerstein, E., & Wilson, D. W. (1976). Effects of noise and perceived control on ongoing and

subsequent aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 774-781.

DuRant, R. H., Pendergrast, R. A., & Cadenhead, C. (1994). Exposure to violence and victimiza-

tion and fighting behavior by urban Black adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15,

311-318.

Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1997). Moderating and mediating processes in environment-

behavior research. In G. T. Moore (Ed.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design, Vol.

568 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 97: The Benefits of Urban Trees

4: Toward the integration of theory, methods, research, and utilization (pp. 255- 285).

Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.

Fingerhut, L. A., Ingram, D. D., & Feldman, J. J. (1998). Homicide rates among U.S. teenagers

and young adults: Differences by mechanism, level of urbanization, race, and sex, 1987

through 1995. Journal of American Medical Association, 280, 423-427.

Garbarino, J., & Sherman, D. (1980). High-risk neighborhoods and high-risk families: The

human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Development, 51, 188-198.

Gaur, S. D. (1988). Noise: Does it make you angry? Indian Psychologist, 5, 51-56.

Geen, R. G., & McCown, E. J. (1984). Effects of noise and attack on aggression and physiologi-

cal arousal. Motivation and Emotion, 8, 231-241.

Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P. H., Van Acker, R., & Eron, L. D. (1995). Stressful

events and individual beliefs as correlates of economic disadvantage and aggression among

urban children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 518-528.

Hammond, W. R., & Yung, B. R. (1991). Preventing violence in at-risk African-American youth.

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2, 1-16.

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experi-

ences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1987). On the distinction between attentional deficits/hyperactivity and conduct

problems/aggression in child psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 443-463.

Hull, R. B., & Michael, S. E. (1995). Nature-based recreation, mood change, and stress restora-

tion. Leisure Sciences, 17, 1-14.

Hynan, D. J., & Grush, J. E. (1986). Effects of impulsivity, depression, provocation, and time on

aggressive behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 158-171.

Kant, R., Smith-Seemiller, L., & Zeiler, D. (1998). Treatment of aggression and irritability after

head injury. Brain Injury, 12, 661-666.

Kaplan, R. (1984). Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: An analysis of a continu-

ing program. Leisure Sciences, 6, 271-290.

Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment.

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 115-127.

Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and

Behavior, 33, 507-542.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Mental fatigue and the designed environment. In J. Harvey & D. Henning

(Eds.), Public environments (pp. 55-60). Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research

Association.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.

Kavoussi, R. J., & Coccaro, E. F. (1998). Divalproex sodium for impulsive aggressive behavior

in patients with personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 676-680.

Kuo, F. E. (1992, March). Inner cities and chronic mental fatigue. Presentation at the Environ-

mental Design Research Association Conference, Denver, CO.

Kuo, F. E. (2001). Effective life functioning in the inner city: Impacts of environment and atten-

tion. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community:

Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26,

823-851.

Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C., & Wiley, A. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integra-

tion of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30, 832-858.

Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 569

Page 98: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H., & Goodwin, G. K. (1996). Interior plants may improve worker

productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmental Hor-

ticulture, 14, 97-100.

Luengo, M. A., Carrillo-de-la-Pena, M. T., Otero, J. M., & Romero, E. (1994). A short-term lon-

gitudinal study of impulsivity and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66, 542-548.

Markovitz, P. (1995). Pharmacotherapy of impulsivity, aggression, and related disorders. In

E. Hollander (Ed.), Impulsivity and aggression (pp. 263-287). New York: John Wiley.

Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and aggression:

A cognitive appraisal perspective. In R. W. Griffin (Ed.), Dysfunctional behavior in organi-

zations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 1-42). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

McNair, D., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1981). EITS manual for the Profile of Mood States.

San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

Mesulam, M. (1985). Principles of behavioral neurology. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Miles, I., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1998). Prairie restoration volunteers: The benefits of par-

ticipation. Urban Ecosystems, 2, 27-41.

Mooney, P., & Nicell, P. L. (1992). The importance of exterior environment for Alzheimer resi-

dents: Effective care and risk management. Healthcare Management Forum, 5(2), 23-29.

Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. D. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks, and

Mexican Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial predictors, and alco-

hol consumption. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 1-21.

Nijman, H.L.I., & Rector, G. (1999). Crowding and aggression on inpatient psychiatric wards.

Psychiatric Services, 50, 830-831.

Ovitt, M. A. (1996). The effect of a view of nature on performance and stress reduction of ICU

nurses. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois.

Palmstierna, T., Huitfeldt, B., & Wistedt, B. (1991). The relationship of crowding and aggressive

behavior on a psychiatric intensive care unit. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 42,

1237-1240.

Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Vaden, N. A. (1990). Income level, gender, ethnicity, and

household compositions as predictors of children’s school-based competence. Child Devel-

opment, 61, 485-494.

Pihl, R. O., & Zacchia, C. (1986). Alcohol and aggression: A test of the affect arousal hypothesis.

Aggressive Behavior, 12, 367-375.

Rabiner, D. L., Lenhart, L., & Lochman, J. E. (1990). Automatic versus reflective social problem

solving in relation to children’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 26, 1010-

1016.

Rice, J. S., & Remy, L. L. (1998). Impacts of horticultural therapy on psychosocial functioning

among urban jail inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 26, 169-191.

Roth, F. (1986). A practice regimen for diagnosis and treatment of child abuse. Child Welfare, 54,

268-273.

Rubin, K. H., Bream, L. A., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1991). Social problem solving and aggression

in childhood. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of child-

hood aggression (pp. 219-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rule, B., Taylor, B., & Dobbs, A. (1987). Priming effects of heat on aggressive thoughts. Social

Cognition, 5, 131-143.

Scholte, R.H.J., van Aken, M.A.G., & van Lieshout, C.F.M. (1997). Adolescent personality fac-

tors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer

rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 534-554.

570 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001

Page 99: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Schwartz, D. (1994). The measurement of inhibitory attention and psychological effectiveness

among adolescents. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Michigan.

Sherrod, D. R., Moore, B. S., & Underwood, B. (1979). Environmental noise, perceived control,

and aggression. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 245-252.

Spencer, M. B., Dobbs, B., & Phillips, D. (1988). African-American adolescents: Adaptational

processes and socioeconomic diversity I behavioral outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 11,

117-137.

Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., & Dickens, T. J. (1995). Irritability and impulsiveness: Relation-

ship to self-reported impulsive aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,

757-760.

Stewart, M. A. (1985). Aggressive conduct disorder: A brief review. Aggressive Behavior, 11,

323-331.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)

Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M. A. (1995). Manual for the Conflict Tactics Scales. Durham, NH: University of New

Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975

to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,

465-479.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1988). How violent are American families? Estimates from the

National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T.

Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in

research (pp. 14-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the

American family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Tennessen, C., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environ-

mental Psychology, 15, 77-85.

Thackray, R. I., Bailey, J. P., & Touchstone, R. M. (1979). The effect of increased monitoring

load on vigilance performance using a simulated radar display. Ergonomics, 22, 529-539.

Tuinier, S., Verhoeven, W.M.A., & Van Praag, H. M. (1996). Serotonin and disruptive behavior:

A critical evaluation of the clinical data. Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experi-

mental, 11, 469-482.

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress

recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psy-

chology, 11, 201-230.

Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1986). Awake at the switch. Psychology Today, 20(4), 46-53.

Wissow, L. W., Wilson, M. E., Roter, D., Larson, S., & Hope, I. B. (1992). Family violence and

the evaluation of behavioral concerns in a pediatric primary care clinic. Medical Care, 30,

150-165.

Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Children of battered women: The relation

of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 53, 657-665.

Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 571

Page 100: The Benefits of Urban Trees

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD

COPING WITH ADD

The Surprising Connection

to Green Play Settings

ANDREA FABER TAYLOR is a doctoral candidate at the University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on the design of developmentally support-

ive outdoor environments for children.

FRANCES E. KUO is an assistant professor and codirector of the Human-Environ-

ment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her re-

search focuses on attention, defensible space, and novice-friendly information.

WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN is an associate professor and codirector of the Human-

Environment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

His research focuses on the psychological and social benefits of urban nature and on

citizen participation in environmental decision making.

ABSTRACT: Attention Restoration Theory suggests that contact with nature sup-

ports attentional functioning, and a number of studies have found contact with every-

day nature to be related to attention in adults. Is contact with everyday nature also

related to the attentional functioning of children? This question was addressed

through a study focusing on children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). This

study examined the relationship between children’s nature exposure through leisure

activities and their attentional functioning using both within- and between-subjects

comparisons. Parents were surveyed regarding their child’s attentional functioning

after activities in several settings. Results indicate that children function better than

usual after activities in green settings and that the “greener” a child’s play area, the

less severe his or her attention deficit symptoms. Thus, contact with nature may sup-

port attentional functioning in a population of children who desperately need

attentional support.

Over 2 million children in the United States alone are struggling to cope

with a chronic attentional deficit, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) (Barkley,

54

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the require-

ments for a doctoral degree in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 1, January 2001 54-77

© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.

Page 101: The Benefits of Urban Trees

1995).1ADD reduces children’s attentional capacity and in doing so, has det-

rimental effects on many aspects of life (e.g., school, interpersonal relation-

ships, personal growth). Unfortunately, of the available treatments, some

have costly side effects, and the remaining have limited effectiveness. Sur-

prisingly, the physical environment has not been examined as a potential

source of support for children with ADD. Attention Restoration Theory

(Kaplan, 1995) proposes that nature may support attentional functioning, and

a growing body of evidence indicates that, in adults with regular attentional

capacity, nature is supportive of attentional functioning. Could natural envi-

ronments support attentional functioning in children with attention deficits?

The study presented here examined the effects of children’s afterschool and

weekend activity settings on their attention deficit symptoms.

In this section, we describe ADD and its treatment, review the previous

work on nature and attention, and present the central questions motivating

this study.

ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER

Attention Deficit Disorders are surprisingly common and have far reach-

ing consequences. ADD occurs in about 3% to 7% of school-age children

(Barkley, 1997; Bender, 1997; Hinshaw, 1994). Moreover, there is substan-

tial evidence that ADD in childhood can disrupt cognitive and social develop-

ment in several pivotal areas. First, children with ADD tend to have poor

academic performance (for reviews, see Barkley, 1997; Bender, 1997;

Hinshaw, 1994). Second, they are at increased risk for problems in the social

arena as well. For example, they tend to have poor peer relationships and are

often rejected by their peers (Alessandri, 1992; for reviews, see Bender,

1997; Berk, 1994; Hinshaw, 1994). They also tend to have poor relations with

their parents and have a higher rate of family conflict (Barkley,

Anastopoulos, Guevremont, & Fletcher, 1992). In addition, children with

ADD tend to display more aggressive and antisocial behavior (for reviews,

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 55

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. This research was supported by a grant

from the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, and the Cooper-

ative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-

ture under Project No. ILLU-65-0387l. We thank all the parents who participated in

this research project, especially Patrick Sullivan. We also thank Dr. Lisa Monda-

Amaya, Dr. Annette Lansford, and Dr. William Stewart for their helpful suggestions.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrea Faber Taylor,

Human Environment Research Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1103 S. Dorner Dr.,

Urbana, IL 61801, or [email protected].

Page 102: The Benefits of Urban Trees

see Barkley, 1997; Hinshaw, 1994). Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that

children with ADD are often also at greater risk for low self-esteem, anxiety, and

depression (for reviews, see Barkley, 1997; Bender, 1997; Hinshaw, 1994).

ADD is essentially defined as a developmental lag in the specific area of

attentional control. Thus, diagnosis involves evaluating a child’s attentional

control relative to their same-age peers (American Psychiatric Association,

1994). Specifically, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-

ders (DSM-IV) defines ADD as a persistent pattern of inattention “that is

more frequent and severe than is typically observed in individuals at a compa-

rable level of development” (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 78).

Barkley (1998) suggests that children with ADD can be expected to display

attentional control at a level 30% behind their same-age non-ADD peers; for

example, a 10-year-old ADD child generally displays behaviors more typical

of a 7-year-old child.

Current evidence suggests that this lag in attentional development is due

to biological factors (Barkley, 1995; Shue & Douglas, 1992). For example,

physiological recordings obtained through magnetic resonance imaging

show physical differences in the brain morphology of children with ADD.

Specifically, the right frontal lobe, which plays a key role in directed attention

(Foster, Eskes, & Stuss, 1994), was found to be smaller in children with ADD

(Hynd, Semrud-Clikeman, Lorys, Novey, & Eliopulos, 1990) than in chil-

dren with age-appropriate attentional control. Thus, although folk theory

holds that the immaturity of behaviors in ADD children is the product of

social factors such as poor parenting, the evidence suggests that ADD is a

biologically based disorder and not the product of the social or physical envi-

ronment (Barkley, 1998; National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], 1994).

HOW IS ADD TREATED?

Current treatments for ADD are limited in effectiveness and have many

shortcomings (for reviews, see Fiore, Becker, & Nero, 1993; Hinshaw, 1994).

Stimulant medications, such as Ritalin, Dexedrine, and Cylert, are the pri-

mary treatment for ADD (Hinshaw, 1994; NIMH, 1994; Swanson et al.,

1993). In 9 out of 10 children, these medications help sustain attention and

provide temporary gains in academic productivity (NIMH, 1994), but unfor-

tunately, they fail to improve children’s long-term social and academic out-

comes (for review, see Hinshaw, 1994). In addition, these medications have

serious side effects. They often suppress appetite and disrupt sleep (Hinshaw,

1994; NIMH, 1994), and in some children, they induce extreme depression

and unusually flattened affect (Douglas, 1972).

56 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 103: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Behavioral therapies are a second form of treatment for ADD. These

include direct contingency management, in which children earn or lose

points for specific behaviors, and cognitive behavioral procedures, in which

children learn how to self-monitor attention and impulsive behavior (for

review, see Fiore et al., 1993; Hinshaw, 1994). Unfortunately, these therapies

are typically not sufficient to bring children into normal ranges of functioning

(Fiore et al., 1993; Hinshaw, 1994).

Given the difficulties associated with medication and behavior ther-

apy-based treatments, there is a clear need to explore alternative means of

treating ADD. Could contact with nature support the attentional functioning

of children who have ADD? Both theory and evidence regarding the relation-

ship between contact with nature and attentional functioning suggest it

might.

NATURE AND ATTENTION

Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995) proposes that natural envi-

ronments can assist attentional functioning. To understand how this might be

so, let us review James’s (1892/1962) theory of attention, and then Kaplan’s

(1995) application of that theory to Attention Restoration Theory.

James proposed that humans have two types of attention: voluntary and

involuntary. Voluntary attention, or what Kaplan (1995) calls directed atten-

tion, is the kind of attention we use when we deliberately pay attention. This

form of attention is employed in attending to tasks (e.g., problem solving) or

situations (e.g., driving in heavy traffic) that require sustained attention and

that are not inherently easy to attend to. After prolonged and intense use,

directed attention becomes fatigued (Glosser & Goodglass, 1990; Kaplan,

1995). By contrast, involuntary attention is easy and does not require effort

(James, 1892/1962). James suggested that certain elements in the environ-

ment draw on our involuntary attention: “strange things, moving things, wild

animals, bright things, pretty things, words, blows, blood, etc. etc. etc.”

(James, 1892/1962, p. 231). Reliance on involuntary attention can be useful

for the rest and recovery of fatigued directed attention. Kaplan (1995) pro-

poses that stimuli and environments that draw primarily on involuntary atten-

tion give directed attention a chance to rest. Attention Restoration Theory

suggests that natural environments assist in recovery from directed attention

fatigue in part because they draw on involuntary attention rather than directed

attention (Kaplan, 1995).

A number of studies in adult populations support Attention Restoration

Theory. Several studies have shown that nature draws on involuntary atten-

tion (e.g., Kaplan, 1973, 1983; Kaplan & Talbot, 1983; Ulrich, 1981). In

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 57

Page 104: The Benefits of Urban Trees

addition, a number of other studies have shown that exposure to natural envi-

ronments can be effective in restoring directed attention from fatigue (Canin,

1991; Cimprich, 1990; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Kuo, in press; Lohr,

Pearson-Mims, & Goodwin, 1996; Miles, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1998; Ovitt, 1996;

Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). In one study, exposure to natural environ-

ments through leisure activities was shown to be related to attentional func-

tioning in adults. A study of AIDS caregivers found that nature activities and

quiet activities were associated with robust attentional functioning, whereas

activities such as TV watching, shopping, and watching or playing organized

sports were associated with poorer attentional functioning (Canin, 1991).

NATURE AND ATTENTION IN CHILDREN

Could contact with nature support attention in children? Theoretical and

empirical work in landscape architecture and environmental psychology has

addressed numerous possible other benefits of nature for children, including

providing privacy, mental stimulation, and sensory stimulation and support-

ing important developmental activities such as play, creative forms of play,

and exploratory and divergent thinking (Heseltine, 1987; Jansson, 1984;

Kirkby, 1989; Miller, 1972; Moore, 1986, 1989; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994;

Senda, 1992; Striniste & Moore, 1989; Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998;

Trancik & Evans, 1995). Only one article has raised the question of nature’s

potential impacts on children’s attention (Trancik & Evans, 1995). Trancik

and Evans (1995) suggest that the design of day care settings should include

spaces supporting “restoration,” such as natural areas, because preschool

children may be susceptible to mental fatigue as they adapt to a new pre-

school environment. However, this idea has not been empirically examined.

There are reasons to think that Attention Restoration Theory extends to

children. Like adults, children may become attentionally fatigued. For exam-

ple, children’s schoolwork requires extended periods of deliberate, effortful

attention. And like adults, children often must carry out these tasks in a con-

text filled with powerful distractions that constantly demand attention,

making it extremely difficult to concentrate on the task at hand. In addition,

because children’s attention is not fully developed (Mackworth, 1976; Shaffer,

1985), they may be fighting off distractions with less attentional control than

adults. Thus, children may need attentionally supportive environments

where they can go to restore. It seems plausible that natural environments

might support attention in children, including children with ADD.

58 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 105: The Benefits of Urban Trees

This study examined whether contact with nature assists attentional func-

tioning in children with ADD. Two hypotheses were formulated and tested:

one regarding the immediate aftereffects of contact with nature, and the other

regarding the general effects of nature on the severity of a child’s ADD symp-

toms. Specifically, we proposed that

Hypothesis 1: Attention deficit symptoms will be more manageable after activities

in green settings than after activities in other settings.

Hypothesis 2: The greener a child’s everyday environment, the more manageable

their attention deficit symptoms will be in general.

To address these hypotheses, we conducted a survey of parents of children

with ADDs. For each child, we collected information about the aftereffects of

leisure activities conducted in different settings, the amount of nature in their

everyday environment, and the severity of their symptoms in general. In addi-

tion, six possible alternative explanations for a nature-attention relationship

were examined.

METHOD

The questionnaire and procedures for this study were developed through a

multifaceted qualitative data collection effort. The methodology was guided

by interviews with children with ADD, their parents, and a variety of profes-

sionals with expertise in ADD (pediatricians, a professor of special educa-

tion, and a fifth-grade teacher). The methodology was also guided by

classroom observations of four ADD children (10-11 years old).

The questionnaire was pretested with four different families, one family at

a time. As parents completed each section of the questionnaire, the following

concerns were addressed: (a) whether the activities included in the survey

adequately covered the range of activities 7- to 12-year-olds engage in, (b)

whether parents understood the concept of post-activity attentional function-

ing, (c) whether the rating scales were appropriate, and (d) whether the nature

measures were easily interpretable and usable. After each pretest, revisions

were made to the questionnaire before further pretesting.

It is worth noting that an effort was made to develop a questionnaire for the

ADD children themselves; however, pretesting indicated that the children

were not able to reliably report on any aftereffects of their activities on their

attention deficit symptoms.

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 59

Page 106: The Benefits of Urban Trees

QUESTIONNAIRE

The final version of the questionnaire was printed as a small booklet that

took about 30 to 40 minutes to complete. On the cover, the following narra-

tive introduced participants to the idea that children’s activities might have

aftereffects on their attention.

Think about how you feel after a difficult week. You may find it more difficult

than usual to pay attention. On the other hand, after a good vacation, you may

find that it’s relatively easy to focus your attention.

We suspect that the same may be true for children. There are many different

ways children can spend their time outside of school. For children with atten-

tion deficits, it’s possible that some activities leave children functioning better

than usual, while other activities leave children in worse shape.

In other words, perhaps during the hour or so after your child does a certain

activity, you find that their ADD/ADHD symptoms are worse than usual. Or

vice versa; perhaps after doing another activity, you find that your child is func-

tioning better than usual.

To make the concept attentional functioning more concrete, four specific

attention deficit symptoms were listed:

• Can’t stay focused on unappealing tasks (homework or chores)

• Can’t complete tasks

• Can’t listen and follow directions

• Easily distracted

These symptoms are modified selections from the diagnostic criteria for

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (pp. 83-84 of DSM-IV; APA,

1994). Because Attention Restoration Theory suggests a relationship

between nature and attentional functioning, but not necessarily between

nature and hyperactivity-impulsivity, only symptoms of inattention were

selected. In addition, because parents rarely observe their children in the

classroom, only symptoms readily apparent in a home setting were

presented.

In the first section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to nomi-

nate up to two afterschool and weekend activities that they felt left their

child functioning especially well and up to two activities that they felt left

their child functioning especially poorly. Parents completed the sentence,

“After ____ my child’s ADD symptoms are much less noticeable than usual.

My child is in good shape.” Parents were asked to nominate up to two best

activities. Parents then did the same for worst activities: “After ____ my

60 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 107: The Benefits of Urban Trees

child’s ADD symptoms are much more noticeable than usual. My child is in

bad shape.” For both items, parents had the option of marking none, if they

had not noticed any activities that were particularly helpful or harmful for

their child’s attention. About 66% of parents were able to nominate at least

one activity that was best for their child; 68% were able to nominate at least

one that was worst. Parents’ nominations were later coded in terms of their

likely settings by an individual blind to the best and worst labels. Each of the

activities was classified as either Green (likely to take place in a relatively

natural setting), Not Green (unlikely to take place in a relatively natural set-

ting), or Ambiguous (ambiguous with respect to physical setting). For exam-

ple, camping trip, fishing, and soccer were coded as Green, whereas video

games, TV, and homework were coded as Not Green. Activities such as play-

ing outside and rollerblading were coded as Ambiguous.

In the second section, participants were presented with a list of afterschool

and weekend activities and asked to rate each activity in terms of any afteref-

fects of that activity on their child’s attention deficit symptoms. These

postactivity attentional functioning ratings, or PAAF ratings, were made on a

5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = much worse to 5 = much better, with a mid-

point of 3 = same as usual; don’t know was also an option. Twenty-five activi-

ties were presented in three lists: 11 activities conducted indoors, 6 activities

conducted in built outdoor spaces (defined as mostly human-made areas—

parking lots, downtown areas, or just a neighborhood space that doesn’t have

much greenery), and 8 activities conducted in green outdoor spaces (defined

as mostly natural areas—a park, a farm, or just a “green” backyard or neigh-

borhood space). Each activity was rated for two social contexts: after the

activity was conducted alone, or with one person, and after the activity was

conducted with two or more people.

In the final section of the questionnaire, parents answered a series of gen-

eral questions about their child, their household, and the child’s everyday sur-

roundings. Parents answered the question, In general, how severe would you

say your child’s ADD or ADHD symptoms are (when not on medication)?

using a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = very mild to 5 = very severe. They

reported their child’s age, sex, grade in school, diagnoses other than ADD/

ADHD, number of adult caregivers, and the household income. In addition,

parents assessed the greenness of their child’s everyday surroundings.

To assist parents in assessing the level of nature in their child’s everyday

surroundings, parents were first presented with a set of six photo pairs of pos-

sible play settings ranging from places indoors where it feels very much

indoors (two photos of windowless rooms) to places where there might be

“wild” things: flowers, trees, animals, etc. (two photos of relatively untamed

landscapes). The photo pairs were independently rated by 21 horticulture

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 61

Page 108: The Benefits of Urban Trees

students for greenness or naturalness on a scale of 1 = low to 10 = high), with

an interrater reliability of .994. To avoid collecting information about play

spaces used during other seasons (e.g., winter), parents were asked to select

one photo pair description as representative of where their child played dur-

ing the previous week. Parents were then asked whether their child’s activi-

ties in the previous week were representative of their normal routine (yes/no).

In addition to assessing the level of nature in their child’s typical play set-

tings, parents were asked to assess the overall greenness of their family’s resi-

dence, the amount of tree cover in their yard, and the amount of grass in their

yard. Overall greenness around the home was rated on a 5-point Likert-type

scale (1 = not at all green, 5 = very green). To assess tree cover, parents were

shown four photos depicting yards with different levels of tree cover and

asked to select one that best represented the amount of tree cover in their front

yard and one that best represented the amount of tree cover in their back yard.

The amount of grass was measured through the same procedure.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

Participation was limited to parents or legal guardians of children 7 to 12

years old who had been formally diagnosed with ADD or ADHD (i.e., diag-

nosed by a physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist).

Participants were recruited through flyers distributed to pediatricians’

offices, medical clinics, schools, and parent support groups such as Children

and Adults with Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD). Partic-

ipants were also recruited through advertisements placed in major newspa-

pers. Newspaper advertisements were restricted to the midwestern United

States to ensure roughly comparable climate and vegetation across the sam-

ple. The flyers and advertisements invited parents to participate in a

mail-back or Internet-based survey about the effects of ADD/ADHD chil-

dren’s afterschool and weekend activities on their symptoms. Two incentives

were offered: a list of recommendations based on the study’s findings and a

choice of a pizzeria gift certificate or a children’s book about ADD.

Questionnaire data were collected, as suggested by a pediatrician and spe-

cial education professor, when the attentional demands of school would make

potential effects of nature on attention most salient to parents. Data were

collected from mid-September, after children’s school routines were well

established, through the end of October, before inclement weather might sig-

nificantly limit outdoor play. Paper copies of the questionnaire were mailed

to parents who volunteered by phone or by e-mail, and an electronic version

of the questionnaire was also made available on the Internet. The Dillman

(1978) follow-up methodology was employed to encourage participants to

62 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 109: The Benefits of Urban Trees

return the mail-back questionnaire within the time frame of the study. By the

deadline, 77 paper copies of the questionnaire were returned, or 58% of those

mailed. An additional 19 questionnaires were completed on the Internet, for a

total of 96 completed questionnaires.

Given the use of convenience sampling, it is important to note that this

sample was similar to other samples of children with ADDs. The ratio of boys

to girls with attention deficits in the general population is estimated to be 3:1

(Barkley, 1990; Bender, 1997) or even 4:1 (American Psychiatric Associa-

tion, 1994); the ratio of boys to girls in this sample was 3:1. Overall, this sam-

ple had more children with ADHD (61%) than ADD (39%). The ratio of

ADD to ADHD in the general population is estimated at 1:1.7 for boys and

1:2.2 for girls (Szatmari, Offord, & Boyle, 1989); the ratio of ADD to ADHD

in this sample was 1:1.6 for boys and 1:1.5 for girls. The percentage of ADD

or ADHD boys having at least one comorbid disorder in the general popula-

tion is 44%, whereas 29% of girls have at least one comorbid disorder

(Szatmari et al., 1989); in our sample, 52% of boys had one comorbid disor-

der, and 36% of girls had one comorbid disorder. The mean age of children in

this sample was 9.4 years, with a standard deviation of 1.5 years. About 63%

of the parents reported their household income to be $50,000 or greater.

After the questionnaire data from the complete sample were analyzed, a

subset of questionnaire participants was invited to a focus group dinner to

discuss the findings. Eight questionnaire participants who had indicated

interest in a follow-up interview attended. Focus group participants first

briefly reacquainted themselves with the questionnaire and were asked to

discuss any parts of the questionnaire they had found difficult to understand

or complete. They were then asked if they had any guesses about the central

hypothesis of the study, or “what the study was after.” Some of the major find-

ings were then presented, and participants were asked to describe any experi-

ences they had had related to each of these findings, either in keeping with the

findings or in contrast to the findings. Finally, participants were asked to

describe their observations regarding different activities, different activity

settings, and their aftereffects on their children’s symptoms

RESULTS

Does contact with nature assist attentional functioning in children with

ADD? First, we present tests of the central hypotheses, along with relevant

quotes and anecdotes from interviews with parents. Then, we present tests of

several alternative explanations for the central findings.

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 63

Page 110: The Benefits of Urban Trees

TESTING OF CENTRAL HYPOTHESES

Each of the two central hypotheses was tested in multiple ways. Tests of

the first hypothesis involved within subjects comparisons; tests of the second

hypothesis involved between subjects comparisons.

Hypothesis 1. The first hypothesis was that attention deficit symptoms

will be more manageable after activities in green settings than after activities

in other settings. This hypothesis was first tested by examining the activities

nominated by parents as particularly helpful (best) or harmful (worst) for

their children’s attention deficit symptoms: 113 best activities and 106 worst

activities were nominated. If green settings are more attentionally support-

ive, then activities typically conducted in green settings should be

overrepresented among the activit ies nominated as best and

underrepresented among the activities nominated as worst. Indeed, as Table 1

shows, of the 20 Green activities (activities judged by an independent coder

as likely to take place in a relatively natural setting), 17 were nominated as

best, and 3 were nominated as worst (85% vs. 15%). Furthermore, Not Green

activities were overrepresented among the activities nominated as worst

(57%; 43% best). A chi-square confirmed that the likelihood that an activity

would be nominated as best or worst significantly differed for different set-

tings, χ2(2) = 12.74, p < .01. This finding raises the possibility that partici-

pants nominated Green activities as best because they had guessed the central

hypothesis of the study. However, during the focus group, questionnaire par-

ticipants said they had not guessed that the study was about the relationship

between nature and attention.

The first hypothesis was then tested by examining parents’ ratings of their

children’s attention deficit symptoms after participating in various activities

in one of three settings. The mean PAAF rating for all activities was 3.22

(between 3 = same as usual and 4 = better than usual) with a standard devia-

tion of .48. Mean PAAF ratings for specific activities ranged from 2.14, for

homework with others indoors, to 3.80, for riding bike alone in green set-

64 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

TABLE 1

Activities Nominated as Best and Worst for

Attention Deficit Disorder Symptoms, Classified by Likely Setting

Likely Setting Best Worst

Green (e.g., fishing, soccer) 85% (17) 15% (3)

Ambiguous (rollerblading, playing outside) 56% (43) 44% (34)

Not Green (video games, TV) 43% (53) 57% (69)

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are ns for each group.

Page 111: The Benefits of Urban Trees

tings. If nature is supportive of ADD children’s attentional functioning,

activities conducted in green outdoor settings should receive higher PAAF

ratings, on average, than activities conducted in indoor settings or built out-

door settings. In fact, a repeated measures ANOVA indicates that PAAF rat-

ings do differ by setting, F(2, 82) = 15.51, p < .0001 (see Figure 1). Green

activities received a significantly higher PAAF rating on average than indoor

activities, Fishers PLSD d = .30, p < .0001, (M = 3.53 versus 3.22, respec-

tively) and a significantly higher rating than built outdoor activities, Fishers

PLSD d = .28, p < .0001, (M = 3.53 versus 3.24, respectively).

In the comparison of PAAF ratings for indoor versus green outdoor set-

tings reported above, homework was included as one of the indoor activities

because it constitutes an important afterschool and weekend indoor activity.

However, whereas the other activities rated in the survey are truly leisure

activities, homework is not a leisure activity, and is particularly attentionally

demanding. Thus, it seems unfair to compare indoor activities to outdoor

activities with homework included as an indoor activity. Hence, we com-

pared PAAF ratings for indoor versus green outdoor activities, excluding

homework from the analysis. Even with homework excluded, the pattern

held, with green outdoor activities still receiving significantly greater PAAF

scores than indoor activities, Fisher’s PLSD d = .25, p = .0001.

The aftereffects of activities on children’s attention deficit symptoms

were further explored in the focus group. Participants were asked if they had

had any experiences, either positive or negative, related to any aftereffects of

green settings on their child’s attention. One parent said she had recently

begun taking her son to the local park for 30 minutes each morning before

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 65

Figure 1: Mean Postactivity Attentional Functioning Ratings for Indoor, Built

Outdoor, and Green Outdoor Activities

Page 112: The Benefits of Urban Trees

school because the weather was nice, and they “had some time to kill.” She

then said,

Come to think of it, I have noticed his attitude toward going to school has been

better, and his school work has been better this past week. I think it’s because

spending time at the park is pleasurable, peaceful, quiet, calming.

Another parent suggested that his son, although usually struggling against his

attention deficit symptoms, can “hit golf balls with me for 2 hours at a time,”

and “he fishes for hours at a time alone.” This father reported that, after these

activities, his son’s attention deficit symptoms “are minimal,” and “he’s very

relaxed.” “When I read the results of your study, they hit me in the face,” con-

tinued this parent. “I thought, yes I’ve seen this!” (referring to the positive

effects of nature on ADD children’s attentional functioning). In contrast,

none of the focus group participants could report any instances in which

green outdoor activities exacerbated their child’s attention deficit symptoms.

Hypothesis 2. The second central hypothesis in this study was that the

greener the child’s everyday environment, the more manageable their atten-

tion deficit symptoms will be in general. This hypothesis was first tested by

examining the relationship between the greenness of the child’s play setting

during the previous week and the severity of their attention deficit symptoms.

The mean rating of children’s overall severity of symptoms fell between

average and severe (M = 3.53, range = 1-5). Many (39%) were rated as having

average severity of symptoms, whereas half (50%) had symptoms that were

rated as severe or very severe. Most parents reported that their children

played in places with big trees and grass (44%), or indoor places without win-

dows (16%), or places where there is a lot of open grass (13%). If greenness

of play environment affects attentional functioning, then children who play

in greener settings should receive lower severity of symptoms ratings.

Indeed, a regression analysis between horticulture students’ greenness rat-

ings of the play setting categories and parents’ severity of symptoms ratings

revealed a significant positive relationship, R2 = .08, F(1, 91) = 8.18, p < .01.

The greener the child’s play environment during the previous week, the less

severe their symptoms.

Does this relationship hold when children were excluded from the analy-

ses if their play environments during the previous week was atypical of their

usual play environments? Yes, the relationship still held; R2= .06, F(1, 70) =

4.48, p < .05.

To further explore this relationship, Figure 2 shows the mean severity of

ADD symptoms associated with different play settings, excluding the built

66 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 113: The Benefits of Urban Trees

outdoors setting due to the few children in that category. The pattern of means

reinforces the regression findings. In addition, the pattern of means raises the

intriguing possibility that indoor settings with windows may be more sup-

portive than indoor settings without windows and that there are minimal dif-

ferences between open grassy settings and settings that include trees.

This hypothesis was also examined by testing for a relationship between

various measures of residential greenness and the overall severity of symp-

toms. Most children’s residential surroundings (overall greenness) were

rated as being quite green (M = 4.26, on a 5-point scale). Most children had a

large area of grass in their front yard and in their back yard (M = 2.91 and

3.27, respectively, on a 1 to 4-point scale). Children also had large amounts of

tree cover in front and in back of their homes (M = 2.92 and 3.15, respectively,

on a 4-point scale). Based on our second hypothesis, children who live in resi-

dential areas rated as highly green should receive lower overall severity of

symptoms ratings than children who live in less green residential settings.

However, we did not find this to be the case; regression analyses indicate that

measures of overall greenness, grass cover, and tree cover in the front and

back yards were not significantly related to severity of symptoms.2

Given that three measures of nature were found to be related to attention,

why didn’t we find a relationship between residential nature and severity of

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 67

Figure 2: Mean Severity of Attention Deficit Symptoms for Five Play Settings

Page 114: The Benefits of Urban Trees

symptoms? One possible explanation is that the children in this sample do not

gain much exposure to the nature surrounding their homes. It is plausible that

these children do not spend much time in their yards, especially because there

was such a clear, significant relationship between the greenness of where

they played and the severity of their symptoms. The fact that most of the sam-

ple (75%) were boys may explain the nonsignificant relationship between

residential nature and these children’s attentional functioning (severity of

symptoms). Interviews with parents during pretesting, as well as comments

from the focus group, indicate that boys rarely play in their own yards; they

generally choose to play elsewhere.

The effects of extended contact with nature on overall severity of symp-

toms were further explored in the focus group. Parents were asked, “Has any-

one taken your ADD child on a ‘pure’ nature experience, such as camping, hik-

ing, fishing, biking, etc. in a State park, National park, or other natural area? If

so, what happened? Anything memorable?” One parent’s response was “Pure

nature vacations are the only vacations we can take! Theme parks are a night-

mare. Two weeks camping in a pop-up camper is just bliss. We have a great

time. He’s great.”

TESTING OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS

The findings above indicate that there is a relationship between nature and

attentional functioning in children with ADD. This is consistent with

Kaplan’s theory that contact with nature leads to attentional restoration.

Might it be, however, that the correlations reported above were obtained in

the absence of any real relationship between nature and attentional function-

ing? In other words, does the nature-attention relationship exist merely

because both nature activities and attentional functioning are related to some

other, third, factor? In search of a potential third factor, six alternative hypoth-

eses are considered below.

First, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning not

because they are green, but because they are conducted outdoors? If so, we

would expect that green outdoor activities and built outdoor activities to have

average PAAF scores that would not differ significantly. However, a paired t

test examining differences in PAAF scores between green outdoor activities

and built outdoor activities indicates that green activities received signifi-

cantly higher average PAAF scores than built outdoor activities, t(82) = 4.38,

p < .0001 (M = 3.54 versus 3.24, respectively). Not only did built outdoor

activities receive lower PAAF scores than green outdoor activities, but a

paired t test indicates that built outdoor activities’ PAAF scores are not signif-

icantly greater than indoor activities’ PAAF scores, t(82)= .29, p = .77, (M =

68 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 115: The Benefits of Urban Trees

3.24 and 3.24, respectively). Thus, green activities’ relationship to attention

cannot be explained by green activities taking place outdoors.

Second, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning

not because they are green but because they are conducted in a particular

social context, either alone or with one person, or with larger groups? If so,

we would expect that when social context is controlled, the physical environ-

ment in which an activity takes place would have no effect on attention deficit

symptoms. A 2 × 2 (2 physical settings × 2 social contexts) repeated measures

ANOVA indicates that green outdoor activities received higher PAAF scores,

on average, than did indoor activities, F(1, 85) = 44.69, p < .0001, or built out-

door activities, F(1, 72) = 13.04, p < .01. Furthermore, no interaction was

found between physical setting and social setting in either of these analyses.

Thus, the social environment cannot explain the relationship between PAAF

scores and green settings.

Third, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning not

because they are green, but because they are physically active? If so, we

would expect that physically active green outdoor activities would receive

higher PAAF scores than passive green activities. To examine this possibility,

an independent coder coded all the activities as active or passive. For exam-

ple, reading books or magazines and creative activities were coded as pas-

sive, whereas bike, skate or skateboard, explore, climb tree, or play in tree

houses were coded as active. A paired t test indicates no significant difference

between PAAF scores of active and passive activities done in green settings,

t(83) = 1.13, p = .26. Thus, green activities’ relationship to attention cannot

be explained by green activities being either active or passive.

Fourth, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning

not because they are green, but because these activities are qualitatively dif-

ferent from activities done in other settings? Could it be that the activities we

selected to measure PAAF for green outdoor settings happen to be uniquely

supportive of attentional functioning whereas the activities selected for the

indoor and built outdoor settings are uniquely unsupportive of attentional

functioning, thus making the differences found not due to setting but due to

the activities themselves. If so, we would expect that we would not find set-

ting differences when comparing PAAF ratings for a single set of activities

after a child does the activities in each of the three settings. The activities

matched across setting were creative activities (art, music, models, Legos,

collections, etc.), pretending (house, action figures, Power Rangers, etc.),

and organized sports. A repeated measures ANOVA comparing three differ-

ent physical settings and controlling for two social settings indicates that

attentional functioning differs systematically by physical setting, F(2, 62) =

3.06, p = .05. Moreover, paired comparisons indicated that the same

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 69

Page 116: The Benefits of Urban Trees

activities, when conducted in green outdoor settings, were associated with

better attentional functioning than when they were conducted in either built

outdoor settings or indoor settings, F(1, 63) = 6.17, p < .05, and F(1, 81) =

4.14, p = .05, respectively). Thus, the differences in attentional functioning

between green activities and activities conducted in other settings seem to be

due to setting rather than activity.

Fifth, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning not

because they are green but because they are preferred? If this is the case, then

preferred activities should be attentionally supportive. Consistent with this

idea, attentionally supportive activities were indeed preferred; a t test indi-

cated that the mean preference rating for activities nominated as attentionally

best for ADD children was significantly greater than 3.0 (a neutral preference

rating), t(62) = 29.70, p < .0001 (M = 4.70). However, preferred activities

were also nominated as attentionally worst for ADD children, t(64) = 3.03,

p < .01 (M = 3.45). Thus, worst activities were preferred as well as best activi-

ties. Both means are more positive than neutral. Thus, preference does not

appear to be responsible for making an activity attentionally supportive, and

the relationship between green activities and attention cannot be explained

by green activities being preferred.

Finally, could it be that some activities are more supportive of attentional

functioning because they coincide with medicated periods? Although our

data do not permit a direct test of this possibility, we can test for a relationship

between medication effects and activities nominated as best and worst. If medi-

cation effects are related to activities being nominated as attentionally sup-

portive, then we would expect best activities to have been conducted while a

child was medicated and worst activities to have been conducted while a child

was unmedicated. However, parents’ reports indicate that most activities

(64%) nominated as best occur while medications are no longer effective (the

dose has worn off). Conversely, 54% of activities nominated as worst occur

while medications are still effective. Thus, the relationship between green

activities and attention cannot be explained by green activities coinciding

with medicated periods.

These analyses indicate that of the six alternative explanations tested, none

could explain the nature-attention relationship found.

DISCUSSION

Does nature support attentional functioning in children with ADDs? Sev-

eral analyses suggest that contact with nature is systematically related to less-

70 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 117: The Benefits of Urban Trees

ened attention deficit symptoms. Activities nominated as helpful in reducing

attention deficit symptoms were disproportionately likely to take place in

green outdoor settings. Conversely, activities nominated as exacerbating

symptoms were disproportionately likely to take place in non-green outdoor

settings. Parent ratings of PAAF were also systematically higher, on average,

for activities conducted in green outdoor settings than for activities con-

ducted in either built outdoor or indoor settings. Although the greenness of a

child’s residential setting was unrelated to the severity of their ADD symp-

toms, the greenness of their play setting was related to symptom severity;

ADD symptoms were milder for those children with greener play settings.

Children who played in windowless indoor settings had significantly more

severe symptoms than children who played in grassy outdoor spaces with or

without trees did.

Multiple alternative explanations for these findings were tested. The rela-

tionship between nature and attention could not be explained by confounds

between contact with nature and any of the following factors: being outdoors,

social environment, amount of physical activity, types of activity, preference

for nature, or timing of medication.

Although these findings are based on correlational data, the design of this

study provides more support for a causal interpretation than is typical for

correlational work. First, most correlational work gives no confidence in the

temporal order of the relationship found, establishing only that A is related to

B. This study not only establishes a strong nature-attention relationship, it

also suggests a direction to that relationship. Because this study specifically

focuses on attentional functioning after activities, it seems more plausible

that participation in green activities causes improved attentional functioning

than that improved attentional functioning causes participation in green

activities. Remember that parents had the option of indicating that their

child’s attentional functioning was the same as usual, if indeed the child did

not improve after the activities. Second, most correlational work involves

between-subjects comparisons, in which individual differences may account

for the findings. This study establishes a strong nature-attention relationship

within subjects. We found that green activities are associated with better

attentional functioning within the same individual. Such within-individual

fluctuations in attentional functioning cannot be accounted for by

between-individual differences such as intelligence or wealth. Moreover, the

combination of between- and within-subjects comparisons in this study over-

comes the limitations of a within-subjects comparison alone. For example,

parents might rate their child as functioning better attentionally after activi-

ties in green settings simply because they believe spending time in green set-

tings is good for children. This would explain the within-subjects findings

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 71

Page 118: The Benefits of Urban Trees

but not the between-subjects findings. Thus, although definitive evidence of a

causal relationship awaits a true experiment, we believe the current findings

strongly merit a causal interpretation.

GENERALIZABILITY

Before we discuss the contributions and implications of these findings, a

few cautions regarding their generalizability are in order. The sample used

here, although relatively representative of the general population of ADD

children, does have some potential limitations. The children in this sample

were perceived by their parents to have relatively severe attention deficit

symptoms. Also, the families were relatively wealthy, with 63% earning an

annual household income of $50,000 or more. And the majority of this sam-

ple lived in relatively green residential areas. Thus, the findings may not gen-

eralize to children with milder symptoms, who have families with lower

incomes, or who live in relatively barren residential surroundings.

In addition, the location and timing of the data collection may pose some

limitations regarding generalizability. The data were collected from a limited

geographic region, the midwestern United States. Thus, the question arises,

do these findings apply to children living in regions without green trees and

grass? For example, children in desert settings may not receive the same ben-

efits from contact with nearby natural outdoor settings. Furthermore, this

study was conducted within a short period of time during a single season,

autumn. Is the nature-attention relationship still as strong during the summer

months, when children have fewer attentional demands (i.e., no school-

work)? Is the nature-attention relationship as strong during the winter

months, when there is very little green vegetation available?

CONTRIBUTIONS

This work contributes to the research on nature and attention in three

ways. The work here extends Attention Restoration Theory, expands the lit-

erature concerning children and nature, and provides a potential new method-

ology for studying directed attention in children.

This study extends Attention Restoration Theory to a new population, pro-

viding evidence that the theory may apply to children. Whereas Attention

Restoration Theory suggests that nature supports directed attention function-

ing in all humans, previous research has only provided evidence that the the-

ory applies to adults (Canin, 1991; Cimprich, 1990; Hartig et al., 1991; Kuo,

in press; Lohr et al., 1996; Miles et al., 1998; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995).

This study is the first to indicate that the theory applies to at least a subpopu-

72 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 119: The Benefits of Urban Trees

lation of children, children with ADD. Thus, there is now evidence that

Attention Restoration Theory applies to both adults with normal attentional

functioning and children whose attentional functioning is compromised.

Together, these findings provide some indication that the nature-attention

relationship may apply to all children.

This study also extends the literature on the benefits of nature for children.

The previous literature has provided some evidence that green spaces foster

play and—of particular importance—creative play (Kirkby, 1989; Moore, 1989;

Taylor et al., 1998). In addition, previous investigators have suggested that

contact with nature supports children’s general well-being by providing chil-

dren with privacy and mental and sensory stimulation (Heseltine, 1987; Jansson,

1984; Miller, 1972; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994; Senda, 1992; Striniste & Moore,

1989). To date, however, no studies have examined the effects of contact with

nature on children’s attentional functioning. Trancik and Evans (1995) did

speculate that, for preschoolers, the stress of the new school environment

might cause attentional fatigue and that, therefore, preschoolers might bene-

fit from opportunities to play in green settings. The findings here suggest that

Trancik and Evans’s ideas are worth testing.

Finally, this study provides a potential new methodology for studying

directed attention in children. The consistent and statistically significant dif-

ferences between different activities found here suggest that parents are able

to systematically assess the aftereffects of activities on their children’s

attentional functioning and can estimate the magnitude of these effects on a

Likert-type scale. Furthermore, it appears that most parents are able to nomi-

nate activities that have especially positive and negative effects on their

child’s attention. Future research should assess the reliability and concurrent

validity of these measures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings here have a number of implications for practice and future

research. For children with ADD and their parents, these findings have a clear

and inexpensive implication: Children with ADD can support their

attentional functioning and minimize their symptoms simply by spending

time in green settings. More specifically, children with ADD might use these

findings in the following ways. First, before engaging in attentionally

demanding tasks such as schoolwork and homework, ADD children might

maximize their attentional capacity by spending time in green settings. Sec-

ond, ADD children might reduce the overall severity of their symptoms by

spending time in green settings on a daily basis. According to parents in the

focus group, children with ADD who engage in green activities function

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 73

Page 120: The Benefits of Urban Trees

better both during the activity and for some time afterward. It is worth noting

that children with ADD can follow these recommendations at little or no

financial cost by using public and private green areas.

The findings of this study have implications for the design of children’s

environments such as school yards. Given that maximal attentional function-

ing is necessary for optimal academic performance, one implication of these

findings is that green schoolyards could play an important role in children’s

academic pursuits. For example, recess may be more than just a time for

releasing physical energy but also an important time for restoring attention.

Children with ADD, and possibly all children, may perform better through-

out the school day if given breaks in a green environment. In addition, per-

haps something as simple as a view out the classroom window onto a green

space may be providing children with much needed rest of their directed

attention.

The findings of this study also have a number of implications for future

research. Future research might replicate these findings both in similar set-

tings (children’s afterschool and weekend play environments), with other

populations (e.g., ADD children in the southwest United States, non-ADD

children), and in other settings. For example, do children who attend schools

with particularly green school yards function better attentionally throughout

the day than children who attend less green schools? Does the physical set-

ting of summer camp affect ADD children’s attention deficit symptoms? Per-

haps, summer camps in natural settings (e.g., camping in a state park) are

more beneficial for children with ADD than indoor summer camps (e.g.,

indoor sports camps or arts camps). Furthermore, future research might

explore which specific elements of green settings are crucial in supporting

attentional functioning.

Future research might also explore the temporal characteristics of the

nature-attention relationship. In this study, we examined functioning imme-

diately after participation in green activities but did not measure the duration

of the activities or the duration of the effects. Is it necessary to spend some

minimum amount of time in nature-related activities to experience the restor-

ative benefits of nature? For children with ADD, how does a 10-minute walk

in the park compare to a 30-minute walk in the park in terms of restoring

attentional functioning? Kuo (in press) has proposed that future research

should determine the shape of the dose response curve for nature and atten-

tion. For example, perhaps attentional functioning increases with increasing

exposure to nature only up to a point, after which the benefits level out and

additional exposure to nature produces little additional benefit. Another issue

that deserves investigation concerns the duration of the effects. How long do

74 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 121: The Benefits of Urban Trees

they last? Do the effects degrade in a linear fashion or do they degrade

suddenly?

This study has shown that nature may support attentional functioning in

children with ADD. These finding have tremendous implications for a large

number of children (more than 2 million in the United States alone) strug-

gling day-in and day-out with attention deficit symptoms. These children and

their families could potentially benefit from something as simple as spending

time in green areas. In addition, these findings hold potential value for chil-

dren who do not have ADD. Optimal levels of attentional functioning are

essential for all children so that they maximize learning and achievement in

school. Thus, all children’s attentional functioning may benefit from some-

thing as inexpensive and direct as incorporating vegetation into places where

children live, learn, and play.

NOTES

1. The acronym ADD will be used throughout this article because this research theoretically

hinges on children’s attention deficits. However, the information also applies to ADHD, as

ADHD is a broader diagnostic term under which a child can be diagnosed as predominantly inat-

tentive (attention deficit), or inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive (American Psychiatric Asso-

ciation, 1994).

2. It is striking that in spite of a small n and thus low power for analysis, girls’ severity of

symptoms were significantly related to several measures of residential greenness.

REFERENCES

Alessandri, S. M. (1992). Attention, play, and social behavior in ADHD preschoolers. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(3), 263-288.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-

ders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and

treatment. New York: Guilford.

Barkley, R. A. (1995). Taking Charge of ADHD. New York: Guilford.

Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Con-

structing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65-94.

Barkley, R. A. (1998, September). ADHD in children and adolescents: Theory, diagnosis, and

management. Paper presented at the Developing Child XIX Conference, Champaign, IL.

Barkley, R. A., Anastopoulos, A. D., Guevremont, D. C., & Fletcher, K. E. (1992). Adolescents

with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Mother-adolescent interactions, family

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 75

Page 122: The Benefits of Urban Trees

beliefs and conflicts, and maternal psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-

ogy, 20(3), 263-288.

Bender, W. N. (1997). Understanding ADHD: A practical guide for teachers and parents. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berk, L. E. (1994). Child development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Canin, L. H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintaining self-care.

Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Cimprich, B. (1990). Attentional fatigue and restoration in individuals with cancer. Unpub-

lished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John

Wiley.

Douglas, V. I. (1972). Stop, look, and listen: The problem of sustained attention and impulse

control in hyperactive and normal children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 4(4),

259-282.

Fiore, T. A., Becker, E. A., & Nero, R. C. (1993). Interventions for students with attention defi-

cits. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 163-173.

Foster, J. K., Eskes, G. A., & Stuss, D. T. (1994). The cognitive neuropsychology of attention: A

frontal lobe perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(2), 133-147.

Glosser, G., & Goodglass, H. (1990). Disorders in executive control functions among aphasic

and other brain damaged patients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,

12, 485-501.

Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experi-

ences. Environment & Behavior, 23(1), 3-26.

Heseltine, P. a. J. H. (1987). Playgrounds: The planning, design, and construction of play envi-

ronments. London: Mitchell.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1994). Attention deficits and hyperactivity in children (Vol. 29). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Hynd, G. W., Semrud-Clikeman, M., Lorys, A. R., Novey, E. S., & Eliopulos, D. (1990). Brain

morphology in developmental dyslexia and attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity. Archives

of Neurology, 47, 919-926.

James, W. (1962). Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Collier Books. (Original work

published 1892)

Jansson, B. (1984). Children’s play and nature in an urban environment. New York: Peter Lang.

Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman & J. Wohlwill (Eds.),

Behavior and The natural environment (pp. 127-161). New York: Plenum.

Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment & Behavior, 5(2),

145-161.

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.

Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983) Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. Human

Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 163-203.

Kirkby, M. (1989). Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environment Quar-

terly, 6(1, spring), 7-12.

Kuo, F. E. (in press). Effective life functioning in the inner city: Impacts of environment and

attention. Environment & Behavior.

Lohr, V., Pearson-Mims, C., & Goodwin, G. (1996). Interior plants may improve worker produc-

tivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmental Horticul-

ture, 14(2), 97-100.

76 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001

Page 123: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Mackworth, J. F. (1976). Development of attention. In V. Hamilton & M. Vernon (Eds.), The

development of cognitive process (pp. 111-152). London: Academic Press.

Miles, I., Sullivan, W., & Kuo, F. (1998). Ecological restoration volunteers: The benefits of par-

ticipation. Urban Ecosystems, 2, 27-41.

Miller, P. L. (1972). Creative outdoor play areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Moore, R. C. (1986). The power of nature orientations of girls and boys toward biotic and abiotic

play settings on a reconstructed schoolyard. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 3(3),

52-69.

Moore, R. C. (1989). Plants as play props. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6(1), 3-6.

Nabhan, G. P., & Trimble, S. (1994). The geography of childhood: Why children need wild

places. Boston: Beacon.

National Institute of Mental Health. (1994). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (No.

94-3572). Washington, DC: Author.

Ovitt, M. (1996). The effect of a view of nature on performance and stress reduction of ICU

nurses. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Senda, M. (1992). Design of children’s play environments. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shaffer, D. R. (1985). Developmental psychology: Theory, research, and applications.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Shue, K. L., & Douglas, V. I. (1992). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and the frontal

lobe syndrome. Brain and Cognition, 20, 104-124.

Striniste, N. A., & Moore, R. C. (1989). Early childhood outdoors: A literature review related to

the design of childcare environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6(4), 25-31.

Swanson, J., McBurnett, K., Wigal, T., Pfiffner, L. J., Lerner, M. C., WIlliams, L., Christian, D.

L., Tamm, L., Willcutt, E., Crowley, K., Clevenger, W., Khouzam, N., Woo, C., Crinella, F.

M., & Fisher, T. D. (1993). Effect of stimulant medication on children with Attention Deficit

Disorder: A review of reviews. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 154-162.

Szatmari, P., Offord, D. R., & Boyle, M. H. (1989). Ontario Child Health Study: Prevalence of

attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. Journal Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30,

219-230.

Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green

spaces as places to grow. Environment & Behavior, 30(1), 3-27.

Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Envi-

ronmental Psychology, 15(1), 77-85.

Trancik, A. M., & Evans, G. W. (1995). Spaces fit for children: Competency in design of daycare

center environments. Children’s Environments, 12(3), 311-319.

Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environ-

ment & Behavior, 13(5), 523-556.

Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 77

Page 124: The Benefits of Urban Trees
Page 125: The Benefits of Urban Trees

������ ��� ��� ������� ��������

Trees can improve the environment by

• benefitting human health

• affecting air quality

• providing shade and humidity

• having aesthetic qualities

• increasing biodiversity

• creating a sense of community

• increasing property prices

People plant trees forso many reasons that itis not possible to pro-duce a scoring systemthat considers all thefactors. Here, we focuson the ability of urbantrees to improve airquality. Some trees arebetter than others atdoing this.

To do this, we have developed an Urban Tree Air Quality Score (UTAQS), using theWest Midlands as a typical urban region in Great Britain. This pamphlet describes• the way trees affect air quality• the system we have developed to test the ability of trees to influence air quality• the final tree ranking or UTAQS.

We hope urban planners and policy makers will consider the effects trees can haveon air quality and that UTAQS will be a useful tool for them.

But they can also damage property and requiremaintenance. Trees are all different. It wouldtherefore be useful to have a system that canshow which tree species are best and which arebad for the urban environment.

You don’t have to be a tree surgeon to appreciate the value of urban trees. Theyaffect our lives in more ways than we realise. Did you know that patients recovermore quickly from major surgery if they can see trees from their hospital bed?

Page 126: The Benefits of Urban Trees

Most people assume that trees only benefit air quality. In fact, some treespecies can have a negative effect and actually help to form pollutants inthe atmosphere.

The removal of pollutants by trees is a local effect, whereas the formationof pollutants from compounds emitted by trees happens downwind of thetrees themselves. To generate an Urban Tree Air Quality Score, we need toweigh the local benefits against the remote costs. In order to do this, wehave used a case study, and this is described in the rest of the brochure.

Trees can remove pol-lutants, especially ozone,nitrogen dioxide, and

particles) from the air whichmakes the atmosphere cleaner.Trees also remove carbon diox-ide from the atmosphere but wetreat this separately on page 9.Carbon dioxide is a greenhousegas which is having effects onthe earth’s climate.

Trees can emit gasesknown as volatileorganic compounds

(VOCs). These are what you cansmell in forests. VOCs, in combi-nation with the man-made oxidesof nitrogen (NOx), can contributeto the production of other pollut-ants, especially ozone and parti-cles, which damage human healthwhen in the lower atmosphere.

������ ����� ������� � �����

Page 127: The Benefits of Urban Trees

We surveyed 32,000 ran-domly chosen trees in theWest Midlands in 1999, re-cording tree age, condition,height and trunk diameter.The survey process is de-scribed on the right.

Using these results, we wereable to predict the tree popula-tion of each urban land class and hence the species composition and size ofthe whole West Midlands tree population. The pie chart shows the compositionof species in the West Midlands and the table shows the number of trees ineach land class and in the West Midlands conurbation as a whole.

�� ����� �����

������� ���� �� ������ �� ���������� ����

The West Midlands urban area is 900 km2 insize. We divided it into eight different urbanland classes using maps of land cover in thearea. Each km2 belongs to one of the eightclasses as shown on the left. The descriptionsof the land classes give a general idea of thedominant land cover in the class, but don’tmean that the whole km2 is covered with thatland cover type. For example, on average only42% of woodland (land class 8) is actually cov-ered with woodland.

� �� �� �������������

Page 128: The Benefits of Urban Trees

We calculated leaf area, foliar biomass and stored carbon from the tree size datacollected in the West Midlands survey for each land class and scaled the leaf at-tributes monthly to account for the growth cycle of deciduous trees. These maps showthe distributions of these attributes in the West Midlands during the month of August.

The emissions of volatile organic compounds that would take place at a temperatureof 30oC in bright sunlight were calculated by multiplying the foliar biomass of eachtree species by the relevent emission potential for each species, found atwww.es.lancs.ac.uk/cnhgroup/iso-emissions.pdf. Isoprene and the monoterpene familyare the most important naturallyemitted VOCs so the assignmentwas limited to these compounds.Summing the EPs for each landclass gives the isoprene andmonoterpene emission distribu-tions shown here.

����������� �� ������� ��������� ����� ������ �� ������� �����

�� �������� �� ������� � ���� ����� �� !

"��������� ����������� ����� ������# !

The proportions of grass, water, trees andbuilt-up land in each land class are unique.Each surface has a unique capacity to cap-ture chemical species (i.e. has a unique depo-sition potential). The DPs of five chemicalcompounds important to urban air quality(ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitric

acid and carbon monoxide) were weighted in proportion to the land cover areas togenerate land class DPs. This map shows the distribution of ozone DP in the WestMidlands in August, the highest values being in the most vegetated areas.

Leaf ea (km2/km2)<1

22 - 3

44 - 6

Stored carbon (t/km2)

0

70 24024 639

640 - 8 289 24 9

Page 129: The Benefits of Urban Trees

���������� ���� ��� �������������� ����� �� �������

CiTTyCAT (the Cambridge Tropospheric Trajectory model of Chemistry and Trans-port) is a computer model that simulates the chemistry of the lowest part of theatmosphere by picking up emissions, performing chemical reactions and deposit-ing some of the products of the reactions at the earth’s surface. The diagram belowshows the way CiTTyCAT works.

We used CiTTyCAT to simulate atmospheric chemistry over the current West Mid-lands tree population for a five-day period. This gives the model enough time for thechemistry to reach a steady daily cycle. We then tested the effects of planting differ-ent tree species on the air quality in the region. We selected the 30 most commontree species in the West Midlands, making up 90% of the total population, andadded 20% more trees of each of the 30 species in turn to the existing population.We recalculated the biomass and leaf area of each land class for each new treepopulation, and then calculated new emission and deposition potentials.

Finally, we ran the CiTTyCAT model for five days for each scenario and simulatedair quality in the West Midlands with each of the different tree populations.

Page 130: The Benefits of Urban Trees

������ ����� ��� ������ �����

* The air quality standard for ozone in the UK is an 8-hour running mean of 50 ppb not to be

exceeded on more than 10 days in one year. This is set as part of the government’s National Air

Quality Strategy. Details are found at www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/index.html.�

���� �����

To rank the ability of the different tree species to affect air quality, we compared theconcentrations of pollutants with each new tree population against those producedby the current one. We used a simple equation that takes into account the effect ofchanging tree species on pollutant forma-tion and deposition, using ozone to repre-sent all the relevant pollutants. The changein ozone concentration with each tree popu-lation was compared to the air quality stand-ard for ozone* to estimate the significanceof the change.

We grouped the tree species according totheir effect on air quality. They are grouped below as

• trees that have the greatest capacity to improve air quality

• trees that have a smaller capacity to improve air quality

• trees that have the potential to worsen air quality.

Page 131: The Benefits of Urban Trees

����������� ���� ������� �� ����������� �����

To try to answer some of these questions, we measured the long-term (50year) average deposition rate of airborne particles in urban air, such as thoseemitted by cars, on woodland, grassland and other short vegetation in the WestMidlands conurbation. We did this by measuring the amount of naturally occur-ring radioactive compounds, found as particles in the atmosphere and soils,and then worked out the effect of trees on the rates of pollutant deposition.

Trees are popularly believed to remove pollution from the atmosphere, remov-ing both gases and particles. However, this idea has developed largely withoutcareful measurements in real-life conditions to show

a) how large the effect is,b) what processes control it andc) how it might be exploited to improve air quality in urban areas.

The measurements show that

��� ���� ������ ��� � ������� ��� ������� ���

�� mature, mixed woodland cap-tures airborne particles at approxi-mately three times the rate ofgrassland.

� trees on the edge of woodland aremore effective at capturing airborneparticles than the trees in the centreof the wood because they have largerleaf areas and are exposed to thewind.

Page 132: The Benefits of Urban Trees

In our tree survey of West Midlands, the area of land in each sampled hectarethat was potentially available for tree-planting in the future was noted. This wasused to caluate a land class average ‘future planting potential’ area, or FPP.We used the computer models to plant the FPP areas with ‘instant’ maturewoodland, and then calculated the change in atmospheric concentration ofPM10 (particles smaller than about 10 �m aerodynamic diameter)*. There werereductions in PM10 concentration with each scenario as shown below.

We wanted to see the effect of various tree-planting schemes on the deposi-tion of pollutants in the West Midlands so once again we used computer mod-els that simulate atmospheric dispersion, transport and deposition.

The main concern over airborne particles in cities is their effect on humanhealth. A number of epidemiological studies have shown that a rise in PM10

concentrations of 10 �g m-3 (as a 24 hour average) is associated with an in-crease in mortality of 1%. The reduction in PM10 concentrations which wouldresult from future tree planting would therefore be beneficial to human health.Quantifying this benefit is more difficult. However, using these health statisticsand our predictions of the effects of tree planting on urban air quality, we esti-mate that doubling the number of trees in the West Midlands could reduceexcess deaths due to particles in the air by up to 140 per year.

��� �������� �� ���������

��� ��� �� �� ��

*We used PM10 because the Government’s air quality standard for particles (50 �g m-3

as a 24 hour running mean) is based on this definition of size. These particles are be-lieved to be small enough to reach the lungs.

Page 133: The Benefits of Urban Trees

��������� ����� ������

The total amount of carbon stored in the West Midlands tree population is equiva-lent to only 6% of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from the WestMidlands in a single year. In other words, all the trees in the West Midlands hold theequivalent of three weeks worth of emissions of CO2 from the conurbation. Giventhe relatively small amount of carbon stored in the trees, we have not includedcarbon storage (sequestration) in our tree score. However, we have grouped thethirty species considered in our score into those that have high, medium or lowgrowth rates, i.e. carbon sequestration rates, so that this factor can be consideredwhen developing planting schemes.

We calculated the total amount ofcarbon stored by each tree spe-cies in the West Midlands. The topten carbon storing species areshown on the right. By far the mostimportant is the English oak(Quercus robur) with 36% of thetotal stored carbon because thesetrees are so big. However, it is slowgrowing so it has taken longer toaccumulate it s carbon than someof the other species listed.

�������������������� ������������� �������� �

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������

*In all of this, we have not considered the effect trees have on the storage of carbon in soils

(soils are a major store of carbon).

Page 134: The Benefits of Urban Trees

������

Trees are an integral part of the urban environment, affecting communitiesecologically, socially, economically and physically and they benefit human health.We have looked at the effects of trees on air quality, trying to answer two ques-tions:

1. Which trees are the best to plant to sustain and improve air quality?

2. How big is the effect trees have on urban air quality?

Trees remove airborne pollutantsat three times the rate of grassland.Trees at the edge of woodland aremore effective at removing atmos-pheric pollutants than trees in thecentre of woodland. This is due toboth larger leaf areas and greaterexposure to the wind. By plantingtrees in all possible sites in theWest Midlands (doubling thenumber of trees), the concentrationof small particles could be reducedby 25%. This could lead to a re-duction of 140 deaths caused byairborne particles each year in theWest Midlands.

������ ���� �� � ���

Trees that don t emit the most reac-tive volatile organic compounds(VOCs), but do have large leaf sur-face areas have the best effect onair quality. Scots pine, common al-der, larch, Norway maple, field ma-ple, ash and silver birch remove themost pollutants without contributingto the formation of new pollutants.Oaks, poplars and willows can havedetrimental effects on air qualitydownwind, so care needs to betaken when planting these speciesin very large numbers. Overall, theeffects on air quality of very largescale planting of almost all tree spe-cies in cities would be positive.

��

Page 135: The Benefits of Urban Trees

������������� ����������

����������� ��� �������������� �������

��������� ��� �������������� ���� �������� �������

� �������� !�������"

� �������

� #$� %&'�!(

)��*�+%%�$,-%�,././$

0�1*�+%%�$,-%�,./.2,

���� ���3��������������

0��� �������� ������4� ������ �������

5����� ����� �� ���

)��� ������ �� ��������� �"� ����� ��� ���4� ���

6 ��4� 7��� �������4� 7��� 8��(��9��� :� ����

�� ���� ��� �������� !�������"�����!��� ������:� ������

0� ���� ���;��� ����������� )��� �������� �� ������

�"� ���� �������� ������������ 7�������;������<� !�=

���� 7������������ ���� ���� ������������ >!7?��)@

���������� >������ ?�)AB-A--/C@�

Page 136: The Benefits of Urban Trees

1

THE EFFECTS OF URBAN TREES ON AIR QUALITY

David J. Nowak

USDA Forest Service, Syracuse, NY

Urban vegetation can directly and indirectly affect local and regional air quality by altering the

urban atmospheric environment. The four main ways that urban trees affect air quality area:

Temperature reduction and other microclimatic effects

Removal of air pollutants

Emission of volatile organic compounds and tree maintenance emissions

Energy effects on buildings

Temperature Reduction: Tree transpiration and tree canopies affect air temperature, radiation

absorption and heat storage, wind speed, relative humidity, turbulence, surface albedo, surface

roughness and consequently the evolution of the mixing-layer height. These changes in local

meteorology can alter pollution concentrations in urban areasb. Although trees usually contribute

to cooler summer air temperatures, their presence can increase air temperatures in some

instancesc. In areas with scattered tree canopies, radiation can reach and heat ground surfaces; at

the same time, the canopy may reduce atmospheric mixing such that cooler air is prevented from

reaching the area. In this case, tree shade and transpiration may not compensate for the increased

air temperatures due to reduced mixingd. Maximum mid-day air temperature reductions due to

trees are in the range of 0.04oC to 0.2oC per percent canopy cover increasee. Below individual

and small groups of trees over grass, mid-day air temperatures at 1.5 m above ground are 0.7oC

to 1.3oC cooler than in an open areaf. Reduced air temperature due to trees can improve air

quality because the emission of many pollutants and/or ozone-forming chemicals are temperature

dependent. Decreased air temperature can also reduce ozone formation.

Removal of Air Pollutants: Trees remove gaseous air pollution primarily by uptake via leaf

stomata, though some gases are removed by the plant surface. Once inside the leaf, gases diffuse

into intercellular spaces and may be absorbed by water films to form acids or react with inner-leaf

surfacesg. Trees also remove pollution by intercepting airborne particles. Some particles can be

absorbed into the tree, though most particles that are intercepted are retained on the plant surface.

The intercepted particle often is resuspended to the atmosphere, washed off by rain, or dropped to

the ground with leaf and twig fallg. Consequently, vegetation is only a temporary retention site for

many atmospheric particles.

In 1994, trees in New York City removed an estimated 1,821 metric tons of air pollution at an

estimated value to society of $9.5 million. Air pollution removal by urban forests in New York

was greater than in Atlanta (1,196 t; $6.5 million) and Baltimore (499 t; $2.7 million), but

pollution removal per m2 of canopy cover was fairly similar among these cities (New York: 13.7

g/m2/yr; Baltimore: 12.2 g/m2/yr; Atlanta: 10.6 g/m2/yr)h. These standardized pollution removal

rates differ among cities according to the amount of air pollution, length of in-leaf season,

precipitation, and other meteorological variables. Large healthy trees greater than 77 cm in

diameter remove approximately 70 times more air pollution annually (1.4 kg/yr) than small healthy

trees less than 8 cm in diameter (0.02 kg/yr)k.

Air quality improvement in New York City due to pollution removal by trees during daytime

of the in-leaf season averaged 0.47% for particulate matter, 0.45% for ozone, 0.43% for sulfur

dioxide, 0.30% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.002% for carbon monoxide. Air quality improves with

Page 137: The Benefits of Urban Trees

2

increased percent tree cover and decreased mixing-layer heights. In urban areas with 100% tree

cover (i.e., contiguous forest stands), short-term improvements in air quality (one hour) from

pollution removal by trees were as high as 15% for ozone, 14% for sulfur dioxide, 13% for

particulate matter, 8% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.05% for carbon monoxideh.

Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Emissions of volatile organic compounds by

trees can contribute to the formation of ozone and carbon monoxide. However, in atmospheres

with low nitrogen oxide concentrations (e.g., some rural environments), VOCs may actually

remove ozonei,j

. Because VOC emissions are temperature dependent and trees generally lower air

temperatures, increased tree cover can lower overall VOC emissions and, consequently, ozone

levels in urban areasl.

VOC emission rates also vary by species. Nine genera that have the highest standardized

isoprene emission ratem,n

, and therefore the greatest relative effect among genera on increasing

ozone, are: beefwood (Casuarina spp.), Eucalyptus spp., sweetgum (Liquidambar spp.), black

gum (Nyssa spp.), sycamore (Platanus spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), black

locust (Robinia spp.), and willow (Salix spp.). However, due to the high degree of uncertainty in

atmospheric modeling, results are currently inconclusive as to whether these genera will

contribute to an overall net formation of ozone in cities (i.e., ozone formation from VOC

emissions are greater than ozone removal). Some common genera in Brooklyn, NY, with the

greatest relative effect on lowering ozone were mulberry (Morus spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.),

linden (Tilia spp.) and honey locust (Gleditsia sp.)n.

Because urban trees often receive relatively large inputs of energy, primarily from fossil fuels,

to maintain vegetation structure, the emissions from these maintenance activities need to be

considered in determining the ultimate net effect of urban forests on air quality. Various types of

equipment are used to plant, maintain, and remove vegetation in cities. These equipment include

various vehicles for transport or maintenance, chain saws, back hoes, leaf blowers, chippers, and

shredders. The use and combustion of fossil fuels to power this equipment leads to the emission of

carbon dioxide (approximately 0.7 kg/l of gasoline, including manufacturing emissionso) and other

chemicals such as VOCs, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and particulate matterp.

Trees in parking lots can also affect evaporative emissions from vehicles, particularly through

tree shade. Increasing parking lot tree cover from 8% to 50% could reduce Sacramento County,

CA, light duty vehicle VOC evaporative emission rates by 2% and nitrogen oxide start emissions

by less than 1%q.

Energy Effects on Buildings: Trees reduce building energy use by lowering temperatures and

shading buildings during the summer, and blocking winds in winterr. However, they also can

increase energy use by shading buildings in winter, and may increase or decrease energy use by

blocking summer breezes. Thus, proper tree placement near buildings is critical to achieve

maximum building energy conservation benefits.

When building energy use is lowered, pollutant emissions from power plants are also lowered.

While lower pollutant emissions generally improve air quality, lower nitrogen oxide emissions,

particularly ground-level emissions, may lead to a local increase in ozone concentrations under

certain conditions due to nitrogen oxide scavenging of ozones. The cumulative and interactive

effects of trees on meteorology, pollution removal, and VOC and power plant emissions

determine the overall impact of trees on air pollution.

Page 138: The Benefits of Urban Trees

3

Combined Effects: Changes in urban microclimate can affect pollution emission and formation,

particularly the formation of ozone. A model simulation of a 20 percent loss in the Atlanta area

forest due to urbanization led to a 14 percent increase in ozone concentrations for a modeled dayl.

Although there were fewer trees to emit VOCs, an increase in Atlanta’s air temperatures due to

the urban heat island, which occurred concomitantly with tree loss, increased VOC emissions

from the remaining trees and anthropogenic sources, and altered ozone chemistry such that

concentrations of ozone increased.

A model simulation of California’s South Coast Air Basin suggests that the air quality impacts

of increased urban tree cover may be locally positive or negative with respect to ozone. The net

basin-wide effect of increased urban vegetation is a decrease in ozone concentrations if the

additional trees are low VOC emitterst.

Modeling the effects of increased urban tree cover on ozone concentrations from Washington,

DC to central Massachusetts reveals that urban trees generally reduce ozone concentrations in

cities, but tend to slightly increase average ozone concentrations in the overall modeling domain.

Interactions of the effects of trees on the physical and chemical environment demonstrate that

trees can cause changes in pollution removal rates and meteorology, particularly air temperatures,

wind fields, and mixing-layer heights, which, in turn, affect ozone concentrationsu.

Urban Forest Management: Urban forest management strategies to help improve air quality

includev:

• Increase the number of healthy trees (increases pollution removal).

• Sustain existing tree cover (maintains pollution removal levels).

• Maximize use of low VOC emitting trees (reduces ozone and carbon monoxide formation).

• Sustain large, healthy trees (large trees have greatest per tree effects).

• Use long-lived trees (reduces long-term pollutant emissions from planting and removal).

• Use low maintenance trees (reduces pollutants emissions from maintenance activities).

• Reduce fossil fuel use in maintaining vegetation (reduces pollutant emissions).

• Plant trees in energy conserving locations (reduces pollutant emissions from power plants).

• Plant trees to shade parked cars (reduces vehicular VOC emissions).

• Supply ample water to vegetation (enhances pollution removal and temperature reduction).

• Plant trees in polluted areas or heavily populated areas (maximizes tree air quality benefits).

• Avoid pollutant sensitive species (increases tree health).

• Utilize evergreen trees for particulate matter reduction (year-round removal of particles).

Page 139: The Benefits of Urban Trees

4

aNowak, D.J.. 1995. Trees pollute? A “TREE” explains it all, in: Proc. 7th Natl. Urban For. Conf., (C. Kollin and

M. Barratt, eds.), American Forests, Washington, DC, pp. 28-30.bNowak, D.J., McHale P.J., Ibarra, M., Crane, D., Stevens, J., and Luley, C. 1998. Modeling the effects of urban

vegetation on air pollution, In: Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XII. (S. Gryning amd N.

Chaumerliac, eds.) Plenum Press, New York, pp. 399-407.cMyrup, L.O., McGinn, C.E., and Flocchini, R.G. 1991. An analysis of microclimate variation in a suburban

environment, in: Seventh Conference of Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA,

pp. 172-179.dHeisler, G. M., Grant, R. H., Grimmond, S., and Souch, C. 1995. Urban forests--cooling our communities? In:

Inside Urban Ecosystems, Proc. 7th Nat. Urban Forest Conf., American Forests, Washington, DC. pp. 31-34.eSimpson, J.R. 1998. Urban forest impacts on regional cooling and heating energy use: Sacramento County case

study. J. Arboric. 24(4):201-214.fSouch, C.A. and Souch, C. 1993. The effect of trees on summertime below canopy urban climates: a case study,

Bloomington, Indiana. J. Arboric. 19(5):303-312.gSmith, W. H. 1990. Air pollution and forests. New York: Springer-Verlag. 618 p.hNowak, D.J. and Crane, D.E. In press. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: quantifying urban forest

structure and functions. In: Hansen, M. (Ed.) Second International Symposium: Integrated Tools for Natural

Resources Inventories in the 21st Century. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.iCrutzen, P.J., Delany, A.C., Greenberg, J. Haagenson, P., Heidt, L. Lueb, R., Pollock, W., Seiler, W., Wartburg,

A., and Zimmerman, P. 1985. Tropospheric chemical composition measurements in Brazil during the dry

season. J. Atmos. Chem. 2: 233-256jJacob, D.J. and Wofsy, S.C. 1988. Photochemistry of biogenic emissions over the Amazon forest. J. Geophys. Res.

93(D2): 1477-1486.kNowak, D.J. 1994d. Air pollution removal by Chicago's urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G, D.J. Nowak and R.A.

Rowntree. Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA

Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186. pp. 63-81.lCardelino, C.A. and Chameides, W.L. 1990. Natural hydrocarbons, urbanization, and urban ozone. J. Geophys.

Res. 95(D9):13,971-13,979.mGeron, C.D., Guenther, A.B., and Pierce, T.E. 1994. An improved model for estimating emissions of volatile

organic compounds from forests in the eastern United States. J. Geophys. Res. 99(D6):12,773-12,791.nNowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., and Ibarra, M. In review. Brooklyn’s Urban Forest. USDA Forest Service

Gen. Tech. Rep.oGraham, R.L., Wright, L.L., and Turhollow, A.F. 1992. The potential for short-rotation woody crops to reduce

U.S. CO2 emissions. Climatic Change. 22: 223-238.pU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Nonroad engine and vehicle emission study -- report. USEPA

Office of Air and Radiation ANR-43. EPA-21A-2001. Washington, DC.qScott, K.I., Simpson, J.R., and McPherson, E.G. 1999. Effects of tree cover on parking lot microclimate and vehicle emissions.

J. Arboric. 25(3):129-142.rHeisler, G.M. 1986. Energy savings with trees. J. Arboric. 12(5):113-125.sRao, S. T. and Sistla, G. 1993. Efficacy of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons emissions control in ozone

attainment strategies as predicted by the Urban Airshed Model. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 67:95-116.tTaha, H. 1996. Modeling impacts of increased urban vegetation on ozone air quality in the South Coast Air Basin.

Atmos. Environ. 30(20):3423-3430.uNowak, D.J., Civerolo, K.L., Rao, S.T., Sistla, S., Luley, C.J., and Crane, D.E. 2000. A modeling study of the

impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmos. Environ. 34:1601-1613.vNowak, D.J. in press. The interactions between urban forests and global climate change. In: Abdollahi, K. and

Ning, Z.H.(eds.) Urban forests and global climate change. Franklin Press.

For more information, contact:

David J. Nowak, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station

5 Moon Library, SUNY-CESF, Syracuse, NY 13210

(315) 448-3212 FAX: (315) 448-3216

e-mail: [email protected] web site: www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse