" -'"""- WISE): . '23; h.h,"w is?“
I'lll4k I'I" :""-'}§'I EKI‘I | ~32": ‘I 'EII ”61-" II '5
'I' W ,E , ‘11". IINF‘II 'I-‘QI 'J'I'. $"ol" ."..'
"'II" "'I"\' . )' lulu-133!“ E" I\ “$55ng
I. I'u'. ' ‘1 5 $569.3 #0 '
:II'II‘L‘ IE'.E(\A
.:.E“'~ “'1. "'I\\ ' ' 'I
I' '..I‘\* .‘t‘J ."..

 
 
  

.' E'.;:IE'HI
I‘ ,I”l

I':\: “‘0' EEEEE‘EEI . .: "_"
IE") iEEI‘EEIE'IEH \I

  

  
 
  

I .
. ~' I'I‘n I - I‘.
'u I IS" :GII" . .'.‘.\I“ ""I'\'

:"‘§ 3;". “IE; ‘E'EEh-EI,’ Ell: 5‘, Eg'E‘E‘HI‘I

      
 
 
 

 
    

)IIT. '
I 3"”: *"“IE'I HESS”
Q'I".I ‘Ii‘.
IE. 'II'

 
 
   
 

‘ \I
'K‘IY'EI' * ~M 'E'EE“;
EN 5 "lnI‘I

MI
I; ,2'

          
  
      
 
 
 

II II‘II
|\ EI*‘I‘..E.I .I‘ I. EEIEE".

f2.
._

 
 
 
 
  
   
     

       
 
    
     
            

ENI'

IIEEI
‘. .
I“ ,_

 

"I'I'I'I

Iv- ’Ill.l .'I' I;
E'J' II"
:5" EEK 'I"" NIH "“JE 5.3
.4 .

‘A-

 
  
           

  
   
 
 
 
  

 
  

 
      
  
 
        
     

      
  

    
  
    
     
    
  
     
    
   
  

2‘ ..

'5 ' ' ‘ .I 9| , .

351$ .I' w 2 LEEEEE “VIE”. 'I' "I"'"II"'II'EE""- E I\

IN IE'J J'JIII'I'EE."'E' '.‘I'I Wk \5' ‘3: V5". . ."l

I 5 v 5'.’ I I"""'"‘."5 I II' "" ' "'(""" " ' '*.'I A ' " x"

-': , , I . :"z‘r. .4; ' ‘ ‘ .555." .. ...:'.;.. .Iwmw

v" ' E‘ ..'I '. II‘t.lI\."(E ‘. ' 'ETM " "'I': "- ',\"""'""'~.'" '3"...

>1”: _ . E..-7E '5 935?. E'U .. 'E'I'M" 'I {"4" IIEE 93" .j IIEIEIEI'. E it. I\‘3 ..',.

I . E‘EEEEEEE , .EIII 'E ..... . .I

,I'f. VI.“ \"VI‘I'. ““215" .III'IIVw $11)?” I "\52'

4 I ”Iv ,I-EI I ,EII I I |"III ")E' IE'I‘I”. 13.7%,! .’ ‘ '\;f:' II I II
“Vii." ' )5}.....~.I‘. "“;‘.\ -.-:<9) .I. U5‘1'.“1.* 99M l‘.- “A

"II'IFEE' l‘l IVEE‘I

EE'I'IEIII-

I ”2)::(‘4‘

2"} 'C

. 5?”, {HIE \' 9 E,“ ';§|‘v

2: -‘ . .-, 1:)».3 "‘31“. II" "'5'"? I?
. -.r . "329' ? IE“. . .,>.:.\.I‘-‘~.¢": II: (I I.) ~" '1'" "\I‘Iré *“".I'<<~. WW '5‘)“

I1'55 'I‘:'5EIE;EEE N: "I; ‘Il‘h' ' ' ' .‘."':'." €0.45"? E“ W\'."" I": " ""|8' " 'l. I' “8" {\{23156' %'\\)"I( IVE:§(§E MES" OI'EED;II

. ' ' ' '. I " 5""; "'5'” II V I'\“yv\" "I I“; Va"

I... ‘\I§.I‘¥'*'I~”‘*9"<~°I III).

l'|\-~ éflh’fi‘I A U‘\\\ \E ‘ 3+. \IEIEIE

““2587, '3: E1-71'<I,.‘.E:I)f.--,~5" ”s ' ‘;

..I.,\~ 1f) ’I’TIEEK"'\‘I.\~I' EEEE

I 'VI ”\EEEEEEvEI EE~EE E II ,
.‘I' v ~-:§ 35'3“ :Eiittx "§\

.Ig', 5,: 5 152?! ‘1',“

EI'Q‘ 'lo “'3‘“ "E'I'E' '3?“ «is, ‘II

     
     
  
 
 
      

     
   
  

  

     
    

“III. II}-
I

   
      
 
       
   

  

 
       
 
 
 

  

    

 

   
     
    

 
 

 
 
 
   
   
     
      

 
     
   

. «um: I}: II C'f'l' {:35
" {'13}! \Q'
' I'II‘II “(’5‘
.I-'. . I" 'I EII'K '. '{I' IEIE'v 3'“ )E\
(VI-Ina I 4 E'KIE-I EI'iEE'I| E. II I:Ill:."
.‘I‘EIEE‘E , '2' E'II_I‘EE _IE 5
'. ‘ ,,\ . I - I" I I NI
a". LI. I' ~"I'*EII IE2. I'.‘ 'zIEIw :.:I E. ,I, ‘ E . \ E '."_'.'.. .EE‘E‘EEEE'
x. 3““. ‘,'.IE.IEIE»,I-E-EIEEIE. IE II ‘ I E I I I. I" "1' J.) .'I I Vb
""'I‘ ‘ II‘I‘""" ‘ ‘-')"‘)"‘ 'I'I'"" -- *I‘” .. ..I' .C'IHEEI 'I'""“ I‘I;2,
I I' "I .V' .* II E.’ ". .“ IIHI ‘1“.E.IEE ",."'I E 'I E, ”IE; _. ‘E_ EE E ‘I’ I." EEE;EE
,.-‘ W" I‘,-,', n'. 3., -',.I* 'N hm". 2E'r'" I I IE ,. Id’u . EEE- I I" ,.I {‘IIEEEI I L'II' EI'I‘?!I"IE" I.
'LI"5.‘I' I' 2' I' 'I" I'I' 53"“. 1"" I"I;l:":'l ‘I."‘lr.l "I " ' '5'"""""'I'u I-‘IE‘ I.":' E.‘EEEI\"\ :E', IH’.“| ';I :1: I '9'" II
I . I . o. .. I . .. . I A“ .
I I" "E I." ,E’ 'El t' IEIE , {'0 ,‘E El I .'.. ) IE I . II'V I-E- "KIEEEEISE II . "I I. .\ EIEEtE'IE/EE‘E‘I'PE' 5. '1 “E
I 1+ 6'." :EII‘; 'E‘EHN‘II I 1| "I\l \EI IILWV'

  
 

  

'EI{_'V (Q) E I'V‘h'l EIIEE'E“

_ 5" 'QIIJI-I' :‘I:
EIEEEEE “3:“ “I EEEEE
' b1"

  
  
 

  

‘II
I

, I
I <

‘II

I,

.I4I-..
I “I” tau

‘1‘!
N
Y

  

. ‘ . . ,, ' '. ".55 'I I.

5 I. .~' ‘E E ‘ '3 , 5'55"""."' 2' .. EE555'|,(| "H. 2‘2"} .II . I "5"“

'I‘ ‘I 5‘ ""I i" .I'" ""EI MI.

E&:;& EE .' IE I E , E E E"-.'5 ‘IEEEE 'IEI H l*2"”,""'E"E1I::'EE','E5‘I'I
'I'

| . ' , ,, ‘9 *., . E
III-— I I .. I. ww-
“* la? 26‘ E’ II. E. “E E .l'."I"2'-E E‘JIE ”MEI“ LiI'I‘ E‘EEIE'I' ._~I2I “B2,, "in

  

_ lfllillllllllzllliflfllllllljlllMllllfllllllfl ,

L , '1 1

Michigan :3 rate
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
SOCIAL ATTITUDES TOWARD
CULTIVATED LANDSCAPE TREES

FOCUSING ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

OF STREET TREE PLANTINGS
presented by

Kevin Lee Kalmba ch

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS degree in Forestry

 

 

 

Major professor

Date November 94, 1978

 

0-7639

 

SOCIAL ATTITUDES TOWARD CULTIVATED LANDSCAPE TREES
FOCUSING ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

OF STREET TREE PLANTINGS

BY

Kevin Lee Kalmbach

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forestry

1978

<€Vdgfiyfgy

ABSTRACT

SOCIAL ATTITUDES TOWARD CULTIVATED LANDSCAPE TREES

FOCUSING ON SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

OF STREET TREE PLANTINGS

BY
Kevin Lee Kalmbach

A fundamental lack of empirical research pertaining

to aesthetic preferences of the public regarding urban

landscape content has led to the evolution of widely ac-

cepted intuitive assumptions which may be to a large ex-

tent inaccurate.

Examination of societal attitudes toward landscape

trees and selected characteristics of street tree plantings

by means of survey techniques utilizing verbal questions,

photograph preference selection and the semantic differen-

tial in five Midwestern cities indicates that:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Trees are aesthetically desireable in urban
settings.

Street trees over 25 feet tall are aesthetically
preferable to smaller trees.

Street tree planting densities of one tree per
home appear satisfactory to a large component
of the population.

Street tree size preference is largely independ-
ent of age, level of education and sex. If

special grouping techniques are employed,

Kevin Lee Kalmbach

however, the age and education factors indi-
cate the existence of relationships regarding

tree size preference.

To
Debra

My Wife

ii

P REFACE

Life in urban environments strikes one as becoming
increasingly complex, specialized, congested, and artifi-
cial. Yet many of the fundamental requirements of human
existence remain unchanged including the need for pure
air to breathe, shade from the summer sun, and all of the
other positive attributes we have come to associate with
landscape trees.

The relative amount of time, expertise, and money
spent on the study of the environment is at an all time
high. Never before have we known so much about ourselves
and the good and bad of our own creations.

The compelling social movement to upgrade urban
environments is beginning to be felt in our cities and
towns. One cannot help but wonder if such a force isn't,
to a great extent, rooted in something as fundamental as
the devastating losses to Dutch elm disease which have
ravaged the countenance of large portions of urban
America.

Among the activities spurred on by groups interested
in the "regreening" of America and "Keeping America Beau-
tiful" is increased emphasis on tree planting.

Which trees are to be planted and how best to

iii

maintain them is the ongoing challenge addressed by several
allied professions, among them being the fields of utility
and urban forestry, nursery science, tree breeding, and land-
scape planning and design which brings us to the study at hand.

Claims have been made over the past twenty years by
patriarch spokesmen from various facets of the landscape
tree industry (nurserymen, municipal arborists, academi~
cians, and horticultural curators) to the effect that low
growing trees are the answer to the planting question in
urban situations based on principles of design and ease of
management. Shorter trees fit in with the decor of ranch-
type homes and reduce interference with utility lines
(Pirone 1972). Questioning whether what is good for the
architect and good for the tree manager is good for the
taxpayer/inhabitant, we have attempted to address this
questiOn and others in an empirical study of social atti-
tudes toward landscape trees in urban settings giving
prime consideration to street trees in particular.

It is hOped that the information uncovered by this
study will serve as a springboard for others interested
in unraveling portions of the relationship between man and
his environment.

The approach taken in this study was very straight
forward using the most appropriate simple tools available.
Description of the study and discussion of its results is
intended as much for the use of the practitioner as for

the researcher.

iv

For assistance received in the undertaking of this
study, I am indebted to several scores of people. Head-
ing the list is my dear wife, whose encouragement and per-
sonal sacrifices provided me with the determination and
precious hours needed to complete this undertaking.

I wish to thank my adviser, Dr. J. James Kielbaso,
whom I was able to call on with little regard as to the
day of the week or hour of the day over the course of the
last 3% years for assistance and guidance.

Special thanks to my secretary, Joanne Atkinson,
who typed innumerable tables and large portions of the text
for this and related papers and to my employer, Doug Chap-
man, and the Dow Gardens for providing me time away from
work for carrying out tasks associated with the project
and for financial assistance in completing course work for
my Masters program.

I would like to acknowledge the assistance afforded
by the Parks Departments in Flint, Lansing, and Saginaw,
and to thank city foresters Dennis Bowles , Nino Mauro, and Bob
Cool, and Flint forestry technician John Nugent, for
helping me locate tree plantings used in survey photo-
graphs.

Thanks is extended to Ted Myers, Bill Collins, and
Bruce Roberts for contibuting slides of street scenes for
possible use in the survey.

I am indebted to my mother and the other canvassers,

Barb Mayeda, Brock LaMarca, and Marshall Baeckeroot, who

took the survey to the streets and into the homes of inter-

viewees.

I also want to express my gratitude for statistical
advice and computer programming assistance provided by

Mark Williamson and Anne Oribello.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . .

Impetus for Investigation

II LITERATURE REVIEW . . . .

III METHODS AND PROCEDURES .

Development of the Survey

Original Considerations . . . . .

Expansion of Scope .
Pilot StUdy O O O O I

Instrument

Determination of Sample Size

The Finalized Questionnaire . . .

Design Features .

Description of Major Parts .

Administration of the Survey . . . .

Populations Sampled .
Sampling Technique .

Subtle Differences in Questionnaires

Analysis Methods . . . .
Computer Analysis . .

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .

Semantic Differential . .

Observational Note on the Use of the
Semantic Differential . . . . .

Verbal Size Preference .

vii

Page

ix

10

10

10
ll
15

16
18

18
19

21

21
21
23

23
23

25
25

26
28

Photo Selection Choices . . . . . . . . .

Selection Responses by Age, Education,

and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Residential Planting Density Preference .

Survey Effect on Verbal Tree Size and
Density Preferences . . . . . . . . . .

Trends in Photo Selection . . . . . . . .

Notes on Photo Content and Subsequent
Selectin Patterns . . . . . . . . .

V CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 EXAMPLE OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . .

2 SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR SEMANTIC DIFFEREN-

TIAL DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR PHOTO SELECTION
DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

4 SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION OF
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR STREET TREE PLANTING

DENSITY DISCUSSION 0 O O U C O O O O I 0

viii

Page
30
33
34

35
36

39
43
46
48

48

57

65

71

74

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Comparison of existing neighborhood tree size
description and verbal size preference for
five midwest cities - 1978 . . . . . . . . . . 29

2. Comparison of preferred tree size by verbal
and photo selection techniques in five mid-
WGSt Cities - 1978 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 31

3. Preference for numbers of trees on street
compared by existing numbers for five mid-
west cities - 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4. Photo selection rates by pair in raw
numbers 0 O O O O I O O O C O I O O O O O O O 6 6

5. Photo selection response patterns for indi-
vidual pairs grouped by home height . . . . . 67

6. Photo selection response patterns for
individual pairs grouped by home height . . . 68

7. Photo selection response patterns for
individual pairs grouped by home height . . . 69

8. Photo selection response patterns for
individual pairs grouped by home height . . . 70

9. Comparison of large tree photo selection
rates by sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

10. Comparison of large tree photo selection
rates by educational level . . . . . . . . . . 72

11. Comparison of large tree photo selection
rates by age group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

12. Comparison of desired planting density and
current planting density . . . . . . . . . . . 74

ix

Figure

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Composite semantic differential responses for
two Cities I O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O C O

Semantic differential response to a 25' silver
maple (Acer saccharinum) for two cities . . .

Silver maple (25') in height (Acer sacchar-
inum) O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Semantic differential response to a 60' black
maple (Acer niqra) for two cities . . . . . .

Blackmaple (60') in height (Acer niqra) . . .

Semantic differential response to a street
planted to trees 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Scene of street planted to trees . . . . . . .

Semantic differential response to a street
scene devoid of trees . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scene of street devoid of trees . . . . . . .

Representative photographs of paired street
scenes for two seasons . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

27

57

58

59
6O

61
62

63
64

65

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Impetus for Inves tigation

 

The impetus for this study stems from the popular
touting of small ornamental trees for use as street trees
and as major components of urban landscapes by tree man-
agers and nurserymen at the expense of what they have
termed missplaced "forest giants" or the traditional med-
ium and large trees found on Midwestern city streets. In
addition to the obvious attributes of small size, not the
least of which is low maintenance in many instances,
claims that people actually prefer small trees led us to
question the basis on which these claims were made.

Unaware of any concerted attempts to obtain the
thoughts of the public on the size or number of street
trees that appealed to them, a survey was developed that
would begin to sketch the meaning that trees hold for
peOple in urban environments with strong emphasis on
street trees, focusing on the size variable in particular.
The underlying hypothesis for this study was that the pub-
lic, in fact, had no preference as to large or small

street trees, with large being defined as over twenty-five

feet in height at maturity.

Of major concern in the development of the study
was collection of data that would have practical import
for municipal tree care bodies so that they could better
serve their citizens. Further intent included the estab-
lishment of a general data base for future study of public

preference in urban landscape considerations.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature reviewed prior to and in the course of
this investigation comes from several fields. It should
be noted that research relating to perceptual phenomena
in urban environments relating to vegetation is not abund-
ant.

The literature cited in this paper can be broken
down into four categories. However, some references ful-
fill the requirements of more than one category.

Categories:

(1) Related works encompassing perceptual

aesthetic and physical content features
of essentially urban environments and their
relationships with man.

(2) Works done on societal attitudes and values

concerning trees in urban settings pertaining
to the general public and special interest

groups.

(3) Technical literature for use in survey design,
interpretation, and analysis techniques.

(4) Literature identifying Specific intuitive
assumptions which form the basis for this in-
vestigation.

Individual works are briefly described below. They

are grouped in the order of the four listed categories,

with each being placed in the most appropriate category.

Many of the works of E.L. Shafer (Shafer and Rich-
ards 1974) have dealt with the use of photographs as a
means of assessing people's attitudes and reactions toward
scenes in urban and rural settings. These works have pro-
vided the basis for many other studies, including the one
being discussed and others cited herein.

Other works involving perceptual phenomena include
a study by Legg and Hicks (1976) which incorporated the
use of line drawings and photos in studying public prefer-
ence regarding desirable attributes and species of shade
trees in Texas.

The Legg and Hicks study examined local nursery-
mens' and residents' attitudes toward shade tree attri-
butes, such as growth rate, shape and form, susceptibility
to insect, disease, or hazard problems, amount of shade
provided (crown density), autumn coloration and/or produc-
tion of attractive flowers or fruits, and nuisance factors,
such as leaf and fruit drop, sap dripping, or sprouting.

Their results showed among other things that con-i
sumers considered all of the listed attributes to be of
some importance, rating them all between 1.6 and 2.4 on a
scale of one to three, with three being most important.
Consumers ranked shade as the single most important
attribute, followed in descending importance by insect,
disease, and hazard susceptibility, longevity, growth
rate, shape, flowers and fall color, ease of establish-

ment, and nuisance. Whether the tree was evergreen was

the least important.

Ranking of crown shape desirability based on re-
spondent reactions to line drawings of six common crown
forms shows spreading branched and vase shaped to be the
most popular, with broad oval and globe shaped being
slightly less popular. Columnar and narrow conical were
significantly less popular than the four other shapes.

Also, in the realm of human perceptions and re-
sponses to the visual environment is literature from the
disciplines of architecture and psychology which support
the need for research of the type proposed in this thesis.
Selected passages from two authors will complete the lit-
erature listed under category 1.

Trends in modern urban development, urban aesthetic
quality, formulation of design concepts, and the need for
additional research pertaining to perceptual phenomena have
been noted by Sanoff (1969) in studying the socio-psycho-
logical aspects of the physical environment.

There is evidence to indicate that individuals
have a requirement for sensory intake of appreci-
ably varied perceptions while an extreme lack of
external stimulation can have deleterious conse-
quences.

Our vernacular past is rich with visually
satisfying communities whose development was based
on a leisurely sequence of growth. Today's devel-
opment is rapid and changes come swiftly. Urban
environments alter their character within a few
years. The population increase and mania for
speed outweighs consideration of quality, and en-
vironments are created with very little forethought.
With this increasing urban development, there ap-
pears to be a loss of aesthetic quality where the

environment becomes monotonous, impersonal, and
standardized.

Sanoff

. . . Rarely is visual satisfaction exper-
ienced (by people today) and, as a result, indi-
vidual's aesthetic sensitivity remains unawakened
(Sanoff 1969).

Mentioning designers and the state of their art,
continues,

. . . Designers of man's environment have little
more to rely upon as a basis for their decisions
than their own intuition and their own response to
the environment. Though the designer today may be
dissatisfied with the appropriateness of his solu-
tion, he is still unable to predict the conse-
quences of his decisions with any degree of accur—
acy. The rationale for the design of visual impact
of the environment has not been based on a system—
atic analysis of the user's perceptions, but on a
group of aesthetically inclined individuals who
have formalized their intuitions into heuristics
(Sanoff 1969).

Turning to the future, the importance of understand-

ing how people perceive their physical world and the need

for further study in this area is noted.

. . . To alleviate the visual poverty in urban
areas, a body of knowledge about perceptual phenom-
ena is necessary to increase the sensitivity of the
interrelation between behavior and the physical en-
vironment. . . .

. . . How peOple perceive their everyday physi-
cal world, their distinctions about it and the sig-
nificant factors affecting comprehension are all
questions which are of great importance to archi-
tects and urban designers and require immediate
attention (Sanoff 1969).

Similar thoughts concerning the infancy of behav-

ioral research on human responsiveness to environment and

a need for more research of this type are expressed by

Kenneth Craik (1969).

The dearth of psychological research relating to

human responses to the physical environment and the lack

of scientific basis for environmental behavioral assump-
tions is discussed by Craik below:

. . . The lack of a system of metrics for de-
scribing and systematically varying complex envi-
ronmental displays is one reason for the neglect
of the everyday physical environment in psycholog-
ical research. Psychologists have readily made
use of physical variables provided by physicists,
such as temperature, luminance, hue, and amplitude,
but have not made use of complementary environmental
variables which geographers and environmental de-
signers might be able to contribute to the common
effort. . . .

Throughout all levels of environmental design,
management, and policy formation, there is em-
bedded a structure of assumptions about the inter-
play between human behavior and the everyday phys-
ical environment. . . . These environmental-
behavioral assumptions, usually functioning
implicitly in the design and the decision-making
process, are seldom grounded in systematic empir-
ical knowledge. . . .

Behavioral research on human responsiveness to
landscape is in an early stage of development
(Craik 1969).

Inclusion of these passages was intended to indicate
a need for empirical studies involving societal perceptions
of different aspects of the physical environment, such as
the one undertaken.

Works examined concerned with measuring attitudes
and values of trees in urban settings include a study by
Wilson (1962) indicating that large shade trees rank
ahead of such things as:

(1) parking space on a residential lot,

(2) garbage and trash disposal service,

(3) natural gas service to the home, and

(4) increased yard size.

These findings were indicated by spending patterns

exhibited by people in North Carolina participating in a
survey game requiring them to spend a hypothetical muni-
cipal budget to their own satisfaction, within parameters,
simulating real life budgetary decision making.

Kielbaso (1971) noted that:

Homes and building sites with trees usually
sell more quickly and at higher prices than pro-
perties with no trees. Realty authorities have
attributed an increased valuation per home to
areas beautified by a sound street tree program.

A recent outgrowth of sincere interest in improving
"the quality of landscape trees grown in metropolitan re-
gions" was the formation of the Metropolitan Tree Improve-
ment Alliance (METRIA). Membership in the alliance is
composed of nurserymen, municipal and highway arborists,
landscape planners, tree breeders, and other specialists,
who are interested in working together for the improvement
of trees for metropolitan landscapes. The cornerstone of
the organization is the free exchange of information among
Specialists on a somewhat regular basis, to avoid duplicae
tion of effort, to keep members up to date on technical
matters, and to give direction for future research efforts.

Current activities include design and implementation
of a tree performance testing project to be integrated
later with soil testing and disease and insect surveys.
Selection and preservation of germplasm of selected trees
for breeding purposes is being explored as well as coor-

dination among nurserymen and breeders in deve10ping, test-

ing, and releasing new varieties (Gerhold 1978).

Although a very young organization, METRIA shows
promise of providing a well rounded approach to urban
tree improvement for years to come.

References falling in category three consisted pri-
marily of texts describing considerations of importance
for survey design. Dawes (1972) provided information per-
taining to ubiquitous rating scales, such as the semantic
differential. Hamburg (1970) was sought out for basic
information pertaining to the establishment of sample
size for surveys of this type.

One lone source relating to category four is men-
tioned in passing in the preface of this paper. Pirone
(1972) alludes to the existence of a concept prescribing
the use of short trees in urban planting.

Rather than try and discuss all of the intertwined
similarities and related supportive ramifications these
studies and articles have with the current study, pertin-
ent points will be discussed in greater detail later in
the body of this paper as their relevance becomes appar-
ent. Let it suffice to say at this point that this study
does not hinge extensively on any other known research

done to data except in the area of survey technique.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Development of the Survey Instrument

 

Original Considerations

 

The survey in its final form was an outward expan-
sion of one fundamental question, that being: Is there
any substance to the claim that the general public pre-
fers small ornamental street trees?

The work of Shafer and Richards (1974) spawned the
idea for a photo comparison format to address this ques-
tion. Their findings indicate that when color photoqraphs
and slides of scenes capture "most of the variation of
natural and man-made environments, the adjective-pair mea-
surement of response to the picture presentations agrees
favorably with similarly measured on-site responses to the
same scenes."

Taking the use of photographs a step further, it was
projected that persons are able to formulate overall reac-
tions to photographed scenes and would be able to perform
forced rankings of pairs of photographs based on aesthetic
preference. Thence, the photo selection format used to
examine street tree size preference was formulated.

The goal was to obtain pairs of photographs

10

11

depicting street scenes of equivalent content with one
fundamental difference, that being the size of street

trees shown.

Expansion of Scope

 

After deciding on a method of dealing with this
question, the decision was made to expand the scope of the
survey, since the data collection effort would remain essen-
tially the same and because it would allow for a more com-
plete assessment of the overall attitude of people toward
cultivated landscape trees and street trees.

Conversations with Michigan State University asso-
ciate professor of Psychology Dr. Ralph Levine (personal
conversation 1977), indicated a need for data reflecting
attitudes toward the attributes embodied by street trees in
the form of verbal questions. After developing lists of
positive and negative attributes of street trees in urban
environments for use in such a question, we decided to in-
corporate the use of photographs and the semantic differ-'
ential to address this question for several reasons:

1) Work done by Legg and Hicks (1976) had already

addressed a significant portion of the questions
related to the attributes of shade trees, a
very similar subject.

2) The list of pertinent positive attributes com-

piled was longer than the list of negative

attributes. Having no scientific basis on

3)

4)

12

which to assign weighted values as to the rela-
tive importance of individual attributes, it
was believed that response patterns would tend
to be interpreted in an overall positive conno-
tation no matter how negatively a person re-
sponded to the question.

Since the semantic differential rating scale
offered a measurement of personal reaction to

a scene, it was inferred that characteristic
scenes of individual trees and street tree
plantings could be used to gather a general
attitude measurement as to the aesthetic de-
sirability of trees in urban environments
that would be flavored by individuals' feelings
about the attributes of trees as well.
Incorporation of a widely used and accepted
tool such as the semantic differential in our
survey was strongly suggested by Michigan State
University computer institute specialist for .
social science Dr. Robert Miley (personal con-
versation 1977) as being desirable from the
standpoint of contributing to the universal
body of scientific social research. Use of a
standard tool adds versatility in providing

a common denominator for comparison with other
contemporary research and for future analysis

in some other form as interpretive analyses

13

evolve.

The semantic differential is a tool widely used by
social psychologists and others interested in measuring the
meaning concepts hold for individuals. Devised by Osgood,
Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957), the differential consists of
three basic elements:

1) a concept to be evaluated in terms of its

semantic or attitudinal properties.

2) a bipolar adjective pair which anchors the two
extremes included on a scale.

3) undefined graduations imposed on a continuum
consisting of a series of steps in the form of
dashes or boxes usually numbering between five
and nine, with seven steps appearing to be the
optimal number.

In the research leading to the final development of

the technique, Osgood et a1. (1957) factor analyzed 76
pairs of polar adjectives (opposite in meaning). Findings
from among twenty-six different cultures demonstrated that
three principle factors accounted for most of the semantic
loadings (Dawes 1972). These factors are (1) evaluation
(i.e. good-bad), (2) potency (i.e. strong-weak), and

(3) activity (i.e. active-passive). An individual's rat-
ing of a concept on these three factors, will fairly ac-
curately predict his rating of the concept on a wide var-
iety of bipolar semantic scales.

The semantic differential is commonly utilized in

14

two different ways: (1) to measure the semantic proper-
ties of words and concepts objectively in a tri-dimensional .
semantic space and (2) more frequently as a simple attitude
scale, focused on the affective domain or the evaluative
dimension.

In the current survey, the semantic differential
was used as an attitude scale to elicit personal attitudes
regarding small and large shade trees as well as the amen-
ity value trees hold for individuals when associated with
residential street plantings. In particular, examinations
of the desirability of a pair of street scenes with and
without a planting of street trees were made. Also, re-
sponses to a twenty-five foot tree and a sixty foot tree
of Similar form depicted in specimen situations on golf
courses were measured.* Subjects viewed scenes reproduced
as 5" x 7" color photographs.

Scenes were evaluated on the 27 adjective scales
used by Shafer and Richards (1974) for their study of
viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of
those scenes. A similar set of scales was used by San-
off (1969) for evaluation of urban environments.

To minimize introducing response bias resulting
from survey design, the Scales were presented in four dif-
ferent orders corresponding to the four different scenes

and the order in which the four photographs were viewed

 

*COpieS of photos used in semantic differential
portion of the questionnaire are included in Appendix 2.

15

was varied for the three different forms of the survey.
The word pairs were arranged as illustrated by Shafer and
Richards (1974) in a manner that appears to place the more
desirable cmf the two adjectives on the right hand Side of
the scale most of the time.

Analysis of data has been confined to a graphic
representation of the arithmetic mean obtained for the 27
scales by photograph for each sample population.

Final additions to questionnaire content involved
verbal questions pertaining to tree plantings on the
streets where respondents resided (tolxacompared with
photo preferences) and some very fundamental demographic

data.

Pilot Study

 

A pilot study simulating the proposed photo pref-
erence ranking portion of the survey was conducted since
it was a major component of the survey and because it was
an uncommon technique possibly having unforeseen design or
presentation flaws. Study participants consisted primarily
of friends, fellow workers and acquaintances with whom
the interviewer could converse freely, in hopes that an
accurate assessment of the technique could be made.

No design or presentation problems were noted by
the twenty-one participants. Remarks made by one or two
people concerning their photo selection criteria did lead

to a content change in the wording of survey instructions.

16

This revision was the inclusion of a note in the finalized
questionnaire directing respondents not to let themselves be
influenced by photo quality and content, but to concentrate
on the trees shown. Persons administering the survey were
instructed to emphasize this point in their explanations

as well.

Determination of Sample Size

Since the pilot study was composed of the size
question forming the basis for the entire investigation,
response patterns obtained from the pilot were used to
determine the sample size required for the survey as a
whole.

Respondents sampled in the pilot study indicated
an 87% large tree scene photo selection rate, as opposed
to 13% for small trees.

The method selected for determination of sample

size was suggested by Hamburg (1970).

n z z2 (p) (l-p)

2
e

n = number of samples to be taken
2 = the range of Standard errors specified
p = the proportion of the population responding
to a given stimuli in one of two ways expressed
as a decimal
l-p = the proportion of the population responding in

a manner opposite to p expressed as a decimal

17

e = the percentage of allowable Specified sampling

error

For purposes of this survey, the original number of
questionnaires to be completed was derived from values of:
z = 2 for a 95% confidence specification, p = .87, l-p =
.13, and e = .05.

Applying the above formula, a minimum of 181 com-
pleted questionnaires were needed to obtain generalize-
able data pertaining to selected urban populations in the
Midwest as a whole.

Further investigation of the subject indicated that
sample sizes of 100 for taking generalizable measurements
of individual urban populations are not uncommon according
to statistical advisers consulted.

It is interesting to note that reducing the sample
size to 100 is possible with the Hamburg formula by in-
creasing the amount of allowable sampling error to 6.75%
as Opposed to the standard 5%.

Applying the small pilot study sample size and p
value to the sample size formula, it was determined that
further sampling should have yielded p values ranging from
.7232 to 1.0168 in 98 out of 100 cases with an allowable
sampling error of 14.68%.

From these determinations, samples of 100 and 105
were obtained in the first two cities surveyed to permit
the extrapolation of tendencies within the specific popu-

lations and to test or further establish the proportion

18

of large tree photos selected.

The results obtained in Midland and Saginaw indi-
cated p values of .89 and .60 respectively. Since the pro-
portion of large tree scenes selected in Saginaw was out-
side of the range expected as indicated by the pilot sample
allowing for sampling errors as great as 14.68%, it was
concluded that the 87% large tree preference value ob-
tained in the pilot was probably higher than the actual
value and that perhaps the pOpulation examined in the
pilot sample was somewhat abnormal.

Based on the Saginaw response, the decision was
made to substitute a lower p value in the formula to
determine a more accurate minimum sample size. Thus a
p of .70 was chosen since it lay between the two values
and was located on the conservative end of the range of
possible p values.

Using a p of .70 with a 95% confidence specifica-
tion and 5% allowable sampling error a minimum sample
size of 336 was obtained. Completed survey findings are
based on 344 interviews in five cities. The observed five

city large tree selection rate obtained was 72.75%.

The Finalized Questionnaire

 

Design Features
In an effort to combat the effects of respondent
fatigue or apathy, steps were taken to reduce built-in

survey instrument bias.

19

The questionnaire was produced in three versions,
identical in content but having varied presentation se-
quences for the various sections.* The photo preference
pairs grouped by season were presented in different or-
ders for the three survey forms. Photograph order for
the semantic differential scenes was also varied as were
the verbal components of these questions. The order of
presentation for the photo preference section and the
semantic differential section was varied on one of the
three versions of the questionnaire.

The intent of these measures was to more evenly
distribute responses that for some reason were not repre-

sentative of the participants' true feelings.

Description of Major Parts
The questionnaire was composed of four basic parts.
Each is briefly described below:

1) Verbal questions were used to get an idea of
the respondent's current neighborhood street
tree situation as a point of reference. They
were asked about dominant Size class present,
the density or spacing of street trees, and
whether they were satisfied with these two
characteristics of their neighborhood street

tree planting, or if they would prefer to see

 

*A copy of the questionnaire is included in appen-
dix 1.

2)

3)

4)

20

alterations.

Another portion of the questionnaire utilized
semantic differential adjective pairs or
attitude scales to determine respondent reac-
tions to a large and a small tree of similar
form and to see if street trees favorably
affect perceptions of residential street
scenes.

People were asked to view 28 paired street
scenes and select the scenes "most pleasing to
the eye" based on the trees shown. Each pair
was composed of a scene with street trees less
than 25 feet tall and a scene with trees over
25 feet tall. Since the trees were shown at
some distance, scenes of immature, potentially
large trees, were sometimes used to represent
small trees, with the expectation that the
average person would not be noticeably affec-
ted by the substitution. Photographs were all
taken in residential settings. Deciduous trees
were represented in all four seasons of the
year. Pairs were matched as nearly as pos-
sible in qualities other than size of trees.
Difficulties were experienced in obtaining
perfect matches.

Respondents were asked to supply some basic

demographic data as to their age, sex, level

21

of education, and whether they lived in a city,

town, suburb, or rural area.

Administration of the Survey

 

Populations Sampled

 

To date five Midwestern cities in the two-State
area of Michigan and Illinois have been studied. The
Michigan cities surveyed were East Lansing, Midland, and
Saginaw. In Illinois, the Chicago suburbs of Highland
Park and Wheeling were examined.

Average completion time for the questionnaire was
approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Personal reac-
tions to taking the survey were mixed at first. However,
by the time the questionnaire was completed most people
expressed, or implied, attitudes of interest and/or enjoy-
ment as a result of having taken the time to complete it.

Numbers of persons interviewed ranged from highs
of 105 and 100 for Saginaw and Midland, respectively, to
71 in Highland Park, 43 in East Lansing, and 25 in Wheel-

ing.

Samplinngechnique

 

As is often the case, a combination of sampling
methods was used in the four cities sampled in a door to
door manner. The combination of sampling techniques used
could aptly be termed stratified cluster samplings.

Cities selected as sample populations were not

chosen completely at random. Instead, selection was

22

based on locational convenience and manpower availability.

Cities were roughly stratified into four basic
geographic quadrants, within which interviewers selected
random neighborhoods to take their cluster samples. A
cluster unit was composed of a neighborhood of a given
age with a discernable street tree population such as
even age large, even age small, uneven age large and
small, and no street trees. Sampling concentration was
heaviest in neighborhoods with even age large and small
trees, where 120 interviews with persons having small
street trees and 121 interviews with persons having large
street trees were obtained.

Primary sampling units were individual homes.
Strict adherence to a random pattern of home selection was
not possible in all samples due to the number of people
not at home. Frequently every home on a street was called
on just to obtain an average of one completed question-
naire on one side of an average city block.

The fifth city (Midland) was sampled in a shopping
mall where both volunteers and enlistees responded to
questionnaires. It had been hoped that the mall sampling
format would have been a relatively simple and rapid
method of administering the survey. However, as it turned
out administrative policies adhered to by mall managements
made it difficult and extremely time consuming to continue

sampling in this manner.

23

Subtle Differences in Questionnaires

 

Slight modifications exist between the question-
naires used in the Saginaw-Midland surveys and the East
Lansing, Highland Park, and Wheeling surveys. Some of the
questionnaires used in the latter three cities contained
repetition of the questions involving verbal Size and den-
sity preference in order to explore the possibility that
the survey instrument could affect verbal preferences in
a short time frame. Also, the semantic differential ques-
tions were omitted or only spot checked in East Lansing,
Highland Park, and Wheeling to expedite the survey pro-

cedure.

Analysis Methods

 

Computer Analysis

 

Data processing was conducted at the Michigan State
University Computer Science Laboratory in East Lansing.
Programming and consultative assistance was obtained from
Applications Programming computer service.

The canned program selected for use in analysis of
the survey was the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). This program was selected because of
ready adaptability to our needs and because of the wide
acceptance and use of this program.

The most commonly used features of the program
were the simple two axis crosstabulation with and without

control of a third variable and the frequency count.

24

Figures generated by the computer were used in some
hand calculations involving several aspects of trends in

photo selection.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Semantic Differential

 

Responses to an open grown twenty-five foot Silver
maple (Acer saccharinum) and a sixty foot black maple
(Acer nigra) of similar form growing on golf courses eli-
cited remarkably similar responses from sample populations
in Midland and Saginaw. The fact that there was no evident
preference difference attributable to tree size may be due
to the lack of an object providing a sense of scale in the
photographs.

Surprisingly, the street scene with street trees was
viewed essentially identically to the single tree specimen
photos in both cities.* Variation was limited to minor
points attributable to obvious scene differences like
symmetry, degree of monotony, and amount of variation pre-
sent. Differences between the street scene and either of
the two Specimen photos for any semantic pair never ex-
ceeded one full step on the seven-step scale.

Response to the residential scene devoid of a

 

*Graphic response patterns by photo for Midland
and Saginaw are included in Appendix 2.

25

26

street tree planting was radically different from the three
scenes containing one or more trees. In fact, average re-
sponses for this photo reflected what would normally be
considered the more negative concepts present on the dif-
ferential scales. A composite graph depicting the re-
sponses to all four scenes in Midland and Saginaw is given
in Figure 1.

Semantic responses obtained from the eight people
in East Lansing answering this portion of the survey dif-
fered on some points with Midland and Saginaw. However,
the overall trend of favoring tree scenes is readily dis-
cernable.

The results of the semantic differential analysis
strongly suggests that in the minds of residents trees do
enhance urban settings.

Observational Note on the Use of
the Semantic Differential

 

 

Response patterns to the semantic differential
rating scales display some similarity to those obtained
by Sanoff (1969) in his Study of urban environments.
Points of commonality include:

1) Scenes which were "liked" to any extent re-
ceived ratings for semantic pairs which tended
to cluster around the middle of the response
range, indicating slight amounts of emotion
associated with scenes eliciting favorable
responses.

2) Response patterns for scenes which were "dis-
liked" to any extent, in contrast, polarized
much more frequently, indicating greater amounts
of emotion present in response to these scenes.

........... MIDLAND
----' SAG INAH

CONNONPLACE
UNENOTIONAL
DRY

UGLY

BORING

COLD
FEMININE
SOFT
PRIVATE
USUAL
UNPLEASANT
NONOTONOUS
UNITY
UNSTINULATING
EMPTY
FRUSTRATING
STATIC
DEPRESSING
STALE
CALNING
PEACEFUL
DISLIKE
DISCORD
ASYUNETRICAL
HEAK

SAD
DISORDERED

Figure l.

27

1 2 3 A S 6

TREELESS TREES
11 ”Emu-sign 11

II II\NI [TEN/A

[13‘] 42%. II II

Ilv;TV’/II I)

U «15’11
[I 411.: 11 11.31:;2111

11 11‘” 11 11
11 11 1113.11
11 ..

II
II;

 

11 1314311 W11???”

11 11 1194‘“? 11

11 ,yr’ 11 115211 11
i In

11 ‘1 11 11 11
11 1‘13” 11 11.11:
11 11.37111 \11{€ 11
II iIII I] f,
11"
11
11
11.
11
11

11 11.911 3..
11 1'11 11 1113;”

11 1:1 11 1:1511

 

for two cities

7

H
II
II
U
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I]
I]
II
II
II
II
I]
I]
II
II
II
II

UNIQUE
EMOTIONAL
NET
BEAUTIFUL
INTERESTING
WARM

. NASCULINE

HARD

PUBLIC
UNUSUAL
PLEASANT
VARIED
VARIETY
STINULATING
FULL
SATISFYING
DYNAMIC
EXHILARATING
FRESH
EXCITING
DISRUPTIVE
LIKE
HARMONY
SYNNETRICAL
STRONG
HAPPY
ORDERED

Composite semantic differential responses

28

These trends may be coincidental or they may possibly be
peculiar to scenes illustrating architectural and land-
scape components of urban environments. Shafer and Rich-
ards (1974) experienced a wider range of responde to

their "liked" scenes most of which were in rural settings.

Verbal Size Preference

 

Comparison of respondents' existing tree size and
their verbal preference (Table 1) suggests that the pref-
erence for a change in tree size is four-to-one in favor
of larger tree size over a smaller tree size. It appears
that people having large trees are verbally more content
with their existing tree size than people having small
trees as evidenced by 57% of those having large trees in—
dicating a preference for their existing tree size in
comparison to 40% of those having small trees and prefer-
ring their small trees.

Saginaw was an exception to these trends, exhibit-
ing no strong preference for either larger or smaller
trees. Verbal preference for smaller trees was indicated
1.4 to 1 over larger trees. For the persons in Saginaw
preferring their existing tree size, the small tree group
had a 57% preference percentage compared to 49% for the
large tree group.

Overall, 50% of those with small trees, indicated
a preference for larger trees while only 11% of those

having large trees indicated a preference for smaller

29

Table 1. Comparison of Existing Neighborhood Tree Size
Description and Verbal Size Preference for
Five Midwest Citiesl - 1978

 

Verbal Preference
Existing Tree

 

 

. Total
Size #/%
Same Smaller Larger .
Size Trees Trees Uncertain
25 ' tall or less 48 S 60 7 120/36
Over 25' tall 69 13 28 11 \ 121/36

8 - 25' tall
or less 21 3 31 5 60/18
8 - over 25'

No street trees 4 10 14 8 36/11

 

Total #/% 142/42 31/9 133/40 31/9 377

 

 

 

Chi square significance - .0000

1Saginaw, Midland, E. Lansing, Michigan and High-
land Park and Wheeling, Illinois
trees. Once again, the City of Saginaw deviated from the
trend, having 24% of the small tree owners preferring
smaller trees than they currently had. By way of explana-
tion, it has been suggested that the effects of a 1976 ice
storm are still fresh in the minds of many Saginaw citi-
zens who suffered the loss of electrical power, telephone
service and in some cases damage to homes and autos when

large trees were broken by the ice burden.

30

Photo Selection Choices

 

When asked to select appealing street scenes based
on street tree size (Table 2), 78% of the respondents sel-
ected over 50% large tree scenes, Opposed to 18% selecting
a majority of small tree scenes.* By individual sample
population, the percentages of people favoring majorities
of large tree photographs ranged from a low of 56% for
the small sample in Wheeling to a high of 89% in Midland.
Sixty-six percent of the persons verbally uncertain as to
preferred tree size selected a majority of large tree
scenes. People having existing mixed plantings of large and
small trees favor large trees 9.5 to l.

A more detailed analysis of those verbally prefer-
ring the "same" size trees is made in Table 2 by subdivid-
ing ”same" into "existing" sizes and then comparing verbal
preference with photo selection preference. This provides
Opportunity for examination of their photo selection tenden-
cies as well as to see which groups demonstrated the most
consistency between verbal and photo selection prefer—
ences.

The major points of interest include:

1) Of the 49 respondents verbally preferring exis-

ting small trees, 52% selected a majority of
large tree scenes. Wheeling, Illinois was the

only exception to the trend with no one in

 

*Representative photographs of paired scenes are
included in Appendix 3.

31

Table 2. Comparison of Preferred Tree Size by Verbal
and Photo Selection Techniques in Five Midwest
Cities1 - 1978

 

Photo Selection Preference2

Verbal Number/%

 

 

 

 

 

Preference Small Large Total Sample
0-3 4-6 7 8-10 11-14
Same 8 18 5 22 90 143/42
Exaufing3
Sma££ 8 13 3 9 16 49
Lange 3 1 8 57 69
Auxui 1 1 5 14 21
None 1 3 4
Small(er) 16 3 2 5 6 32/9
Large(r) 4 5 4 21 101 135/39
Uncertain 8 1 2 5 17 33/10
Total 36 27 13 53 214 343/100
% of Total 10% 8% 4% 16% 62%

 

1Saginaw, Midland and East Lansing, Michigan and
Highland Park and Wheeling, Illinois.

2Number of large tree photos selected of 14 pos-
sible: Chi square significance - .0000

3"Existing" categories shown as subsets of "Same."

32

this category selecting over 50% large tree
scenes.

2) Of those verbally preferring existing small
trees, a surprising 33% actually chose 11-14
large tree scenes.

3) Of the 69 respondents verbally preferring ex-
isting large trees, 94% selected a majority of
large tree scenes.

4) Of the three preferring existing large trees
and selecting substantial numbers of small,
none selected over 42% small tree scenes.

Attempting an explanation of large tree preference,

we have noted that shade was considered the most important
attribute exhibited by shade trees in the Legg and Hicks
study. Perhaps shade is one, if not the most important,
function of a street tree in the minds of residents. Ob-
viously, large trees shade greater areas than small trees.
Growth rate, crown shape, and longevity were also consid-
ered important attributes by participants in the Legg and
Hicks study. Perhaps rapid growth, spreading and vase-
like growth habits*, and long life are associated with

large trees by individuals.

 

*Attempts to substantiate crown shape preference
with photographs used in the current study were fruitless.

33

Selection Responses by Age, Education, and Sex

Examined individually, cities demonstrated no sig-
nificant tendencies in photo selection based on age, ed-
ucation or sex. Statements relating to these variables
will be confined to the five-city average.*

No apparent differences concerning tree size pref-
erence exist between female and male respondents. Five-
city data showed males selected large trees 80% of the
time compared to 76% for females.

Differences exist for education groups when com-
bined into the broad classifications "up through high
school" and "more than high school" (Table 10). Persons
receiving additional training beyond high school were
slightly more likely to select larger trees than persons
receiving up to and including a high school education.
Selection rates were 83% large for those with "more than
a high school" education as compared to 63% large for the
"up thru high school" group. No significant relationships
were found unless the above classifications were used.

A relationship exists between tree size preference
and a person's age only when respondents are divided into
two groups; age 49 years and below and over 50 years
(Table 11). Further breakdown of age classifications
proved insignificant. The younger group selected an aver-

age of 83% large tree scenes compared to 66% for the fifty

 

*Copies of computer printouts for these factors are
in Appendix 4.

34

and over age group. Perhaps fixed income, impending fixed
income, inability to rake a tree lawn, bad experience with
large trees, etc. could have an influence on photo sel-
ection tendencies for middle-aged and senior citizens.
Again, the figures are not significant for any individual

city but an overall relationship exists.

Residential Planting Density Preference

 

Overall, 59% of interviewees favored more trees
in their particular residential street planting (Table 3).
Only 2% of the respondents preferred fewer trees, while
thirty-seven percent preferred their existing planting
density. The relationship between existing planting den-
sity and the number of trees desired is somewhat inversely
proportional in nature. As might be expected, the desire
for more trees is strongest among the groups having no
street trees or an occasional street tree, 82% and 92% re-
spectively favoring more trees. People living on streets
having approximately one tree for every other home pre-
ferred more street trees 80% of the time. Streets aver-
aging one tree per home satisfied 58% of the sampled res-
idents and streets averaging more than one tree per home
satisfied 59% of the residents; leaving 40% and 33% of
these two groups preferring even more trees.

The inference from Table 3 is that the satisfaction
level for a majority of persons is reached with planting

densities of approximately one tree per home.

35

Table 3. Preference for Numbers of Trees on Street Com-
pared by Existing Numbers for Five Midwest
Cities - 1978

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
Existing Preferred Number #/%
Trees Raw
Per Home Same More Fewer Uncertain Total
None 3/11 22/82 1/4 1/4 27/8
Occasional l/3 35/92 0/0 2/5 38/11
App.One-Half 15/16 75/80 3/3 1/1 94/27
One 70/58 48/40 1/1 1/1 120/35
More than One 38/59 21/33 2/3 3/5 64/19
#/% 127/37 201/59 7/2 8/2 343/100

 

Chi square significance ~ .0000

1Numbers in cells are number in category and % of
row total--i.e. #/%.

Survey Effect on Verbal Tree Size
and Density Preferences

 

 

Responses to the before and after questions con-
cerning tree size preference and planting density pref-
erence registered very little change for the 54 persons
sampled in this manner. If anything, larger trees were
slightly more favored afterwards. Spacing or density re-

sponses were virtually identical on both occasions.

36

Trends in Photo Selection

 

The five cities differed on photo pair preference
selections on five of fourteen possible occasions, mean-
ing that at least one of the five cities selected a maj-
ority of small tree scenes for five of the fourteen photo
pairs. This indicates that at the very least 35% of the
photo pairs were of roughly equivalent quality and con-
tained no insurmountable undetected visual "disqualifi-
ers."* This amount of difference is considered desirable
from the aspect of producing an unbiased survey instrument.

It is impossible to completely validate the survey
instrument based on the response patterns of interviewees
after the fact. Instead, reliance was placed on results
obtained from the pilot study which revealed no flagrant
reoccurring comments from persons consulted concerning
scene pairing. Contrary to the actual survey interview
format, persons participating in the pilot study were
asked to comment on the photo selection component and its
makeup.

Obviously, some photos were more popular than others
as would be expected when searching for some type of trend
or lack thereof concerning the attempted control of a
single variable. Therefore, it is not surprising that in

several cases cities' response patterns were similar in

 

*Visual "disqualifier" is defined here as an aspect
of photo quality or content which causes a given photograph
to be selected abnormally either more or less often than if
the "disqualifier" was not present.

37

the sense that the majorities were frequently of relatively
high or low magnitudes concurrently for individual photos.
Theoretically, the relative popularity of a scene should
be the result of the tree size variables depicted in a
given pair; at worst it is hoped that preference decisions
are only modified to a small extent by subtle tree char-
acteristics not controlled for in matching photo pairs.
A not-so—subtle example of this nature that was controlled
would be the profuse flowering depicted on small trees in
the spring, versus nonapparent or nonshowy flowering on
large shade trees at that time of year. While small flower-
ing trees were preferred by only one city of five from
among three photo pairs depicting spring flowering on small
trees, large tree majority preference margins were notice-
ably lower than in summer (green leaved) and winter (leaf-
less) photo depictions.

The least popular large tree scene was selected by
a majority of people in only two of the five cities. This
particular scene was chosen 37% of the time by the city
preferring it the least, East Lansing. The least popular
small tree scene was selected 6% of the time and was not
selected by a majority of peOple in any one city.

Analysis of photo selection responses indicates
that photograph quality was not a strong, if even a dis-
cernable, influence on individual responses.

In general, the photographs of large trees were of

slightly lower quality than their small tree counterparts,

38

due mainly to poor differentiation (washout) in high con-
trast situations involving dense shade, pavement glare, and
cloudy skies. The problem stemmed partially from the
automated photo printing operation used to print pictures
from color slides, which was too expensive to have repeated
or done by hand originally. Respondents were not to let
photo quality and several other variables influence their
choices, and some doubt still exists as to whether these
variables, in fact, caused any bias in photo selection.

Of the two most questionable large tree photographs, one
was selected second to its paired small tree photo in two
of five cities, Saginaw and Wheeling, and was among the
four least chosen large tree majority selections in East
Lansing and Midland. The other large tree photo of lowest
quality was preferred by a majority of persons in each

city and appeared among the four least selected in only

two of five cities. To say that photo quality either
affected or failed to affect photo selection is not pos-
sible to determine. In either case, the effect would be
considered minimal.

Three of the five least popular large tree scenes
overall were from the fall color pairs, making fall the
least desirable large tree season. One of the three
scenes was the least desirable large tree scene in the
study, being selected only 48% of the time in comparison
to 52% for its corresponding small tree counterpart.

The other four least popular large tree photos were

39

selected either 63 or 64 percent of the time.

By season, the large tree photo selection popular-
ity range appears as follows: 80% summer, 76% winter,
70% spring, 64% fall.

Notes on Photo Content and Subsequent
Selection Patterns

 

 

A line of thought posed early by persons consulted
during the design phase of the study concerned possible
effects that variations among structure and Spacial fac-
tors present in street scenes could have on survey re-
sponses regarding preferred tree size.

Ideally, the variable factors of house height,
front lawn depth, tree lawn width, and street width would
have been matched identically in photo pairs as would have
tree shape, tree color, number of visible telephone poles,
street signs, fire hydrants, parked cars, etc.

Unfortunately, locating fully stocked streets of
well maintained, uniform street trees was difficult to
accomplish at best, so that "perfect" matches based on
the physical attributes of neighborhoods suffered to some
degree.

An attempt was made to depict the full gamut of
tree size, and yard depth situations. However, it was
found that certain situations such as any combination of
tree size and a deep yard was difficult to locate if the
other prerequisites of planting uniformity, etc. were met.

Selections were made closely approximating these

4O

situations. At least one representation of each combina-
tion was obtained. Lawn or yard depth was broken down
into three classifications:

1) shallow,

2) medium,

3) deep.

The variables of tree lawn or boulevard width, as
well as street width, were combined irrespective of each
other in a few situations when the other criteria were
being satisfied. The impact of these differences was
considered small.

Landscape architects apply principles of scale and
proportion with regard to tree size and proximity to a
home. How far reaching these principles are in the minds
of the public is not known. Combining this question with
the possibility that house size may be associated with
economic status by respondents as indicated by the pilot
study, examination of responses was undertaken to deter-
mine if response patterns could be biased due to the
houses depicted in photographs. Although people were
asked not to let themselves be influenced by the type of
home they might prefer in a pair of scenes, it was con-
sidered necessary to examine responses in this vein since
the possibility of some response bias exists due to photo

quality as discussed earlier.*

 

*Comparison of tree size photo preference selections
and corresponding house heights based on visual analysis of
photographs and recorded responses is in Appendix 3.

41

Since Midland and Highland Park preferred large
trees in all 14 photo pairs, statements referring to pre-
ferred tree size and accompanying house height will re-
flect the Saginaw, East Lansing, and Wheeling data.

In photo pairs where the houses in the small tree
photographs were taller than the houses in the correspond-
ing large tree photos, the large tree photos were selected
100% of the time.

Selection of photos from pairs depicting homes of
similar height was dominated by large trees in three of
four situations.

For six photo pairs where the large trees were
shown in front of taller homes than the small trees were,
large tree photos were selected unanimously for three
pairs with small trees winning out on 3 of 6 and 2 of 6
occasions on the remaining three pairs in Saginaw and
Wheeling respectively.

In short, if all other factors are considered to
be constant, the combined three-city photo selection data
involving house size implies one of two things: 1) either
that people were not influenced by house height and made
their photo selections based solely on the tree they pre-
ferred or 2) that if home height had an influence on photo
selection, large trees in front of one story homes were
not viewed as an undesirable combination, being preferred
four of five possible times, whereas, a small tree plant-

ing in front of 18-2 story homes was never preferred from

42

among four such possible offerings.

Societal responses in photo selection tend to
discount the argument that large trees dwarf small (low)
homes and are considered less aesthetically pleasing in
these situations than they are in front of taller homes.
Also, home height is either not associated with overall
home size and ultimate value assuming large homes are the
most desireable, or again interviewees were not influenced
in their photo selections by the height of the homes de-

picted.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

Now to combine survey findings into a meaningful
message for urban foresters, municipal arborists, social
psychologists, nurserymen, horticulturists, landscape
architects, academicians, and urban environmentalists.

Conclusions may be divided into six major parts.
Relevant discussion is interjected on a point-by-point
basis.

(A) Man's requirement for a green, tree enriched
environment is not only a biological and reported psycho-
logical need, but also an aesthetic need. The Current
survey examines responses to urban scenes with and without
the presence of trees. The message obtained is that trees
ameliorate urban surroundings, thereby giving rise to a
sense of need in situations devoid of trees.

(B) In residential situations, people favor large
street trees 25 feet tall and over by photo selection in
78% of the cases when only aesthetic considerations are
addressed. Qualifications to be noted regarding this
figure are:

(1) Survey respondents were not made aware of any

43

44

economic implications associated with large
trees as opposed to small trees.

(2) Utilities and other site factors were inten-
tionally omitted from the scope of the survey
and consequently reSponses do not directly re-
flect these considerations.

Professional tree managers should have a strong
grasp of local site factor constraints and should know
how to deal with these variables effectively without in-
put from a less qualified source. The intent was to find
out what peOple liked so that the tree manager could use
that information as an input in the planting decision pro-
cess. Obviously, trees over 25 feet tall at maturity are
not suitable in every situation, but when site factors and
economic conditions permit, these trees should be con-
sidered.

(C) Even persons having small trees and verbally
preferring them actually seem to prefer large trees based
on their photo selections. Despite the appealing attri-
butes small trees possess for their owners, there is
something about a medium sized or large tree that is
aesthetically more attractive.

(D) Photo selection responses tend to discount
the argument that large trees drawf one-story (ranch-
style) homes and are considered less aesthetically pleas-
ing in these situations than they are in front of taller

homes.

45

(E) The variables of age, education, and sex
appear to have minimal influence on tree size preference
when based on photo selection. There is a definite trend,
however, for young, more educated persons ‘UD prefer large
trees more consistently than older less educated persons.

(F) A planting density of one tree per home may be
a viable rule of thumb for the average residential lot as
far as general resident satisfaction is concerned. One
tree satisfies a majority, whereas one tree per two homes
satisfies only 16% of respondents.

Once again, these conclusions pertain to deciduous
tree plantings and sample resident populations in the
Midwest. Conclusions drawn, are not intended to encompass

areas having vastly different climates and tree types.

LITERATURE CITED

LITERATURE CITED

Craik, K. 1969. Human responsiveness to landscape: an
environmental psychologicalgperspective. N.C.
State University School of Design. Student Publi-
cation 18:168-193.

 

 

Dawes, R. M. 1972. Fundamentals of attitude measurement.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. pp. 93-119.

 

Gerhold, H. D. 1978. "History and goals of metria, the
metropolitan tree improvement alliance." Journal
of Arboriculture 4:3. pp. 62-66.

Hamburg, M. 1970. Statistical analysis for decision mak-
ing. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. pp. 388-392.

 

Kielbaso, J. J. 1971. Economic values of trees in the
urban locale. Symposium on the Role of Trees in
the South's Urban Environment, Proceedings, Univ.
of Georgia, Athens.

Legg, M. H. and R. R. Hicks, Jr. 1976. Public decision
making in selecting trees for human settlements.
In_John W. Andresen (ed.). Trees and forests for
human settlements.

 

 

 

Osgood, C. E., G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum. 1957.
The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois
Press. Urbana, Illinois.

 

Pirone, P. P. 1972. Tree maintenance. Oxford University
Press, New York. 4th edition. p. x.

 

Sanoff, H. 1969. Visual attributes of the physical
environment. N.C. State University School of
Design. Student Publication 18:36-60.

 

 

Shafer, E. L., Jr. and T. A. Richards. 1974. A comparison
of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photo-
graphs of those scenes. U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Research Paper NE-302.

 

 

46

47

Wilson, R. L. 1962. Livibility of the city: attitudes
and urban development. pp. 359-399. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. New York. In Stuart Chapin and Shirley
Weiss (eds.) Urban growth dynamics.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

EXAMPLE OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX 1

EXAMPLE OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

STREET TREE VISUAL PREFERENCE £93!!!

LIE: OP EQEIEIIEQES QEED IN THE SURVEY

1.) srroot troo: troo gravins also: a stroot or road. usually
botsooa tho curb and sidouaik. In rural
aroas. thoso troos soy ho up to 15 too:
tro- tho para-oat.

2.) saoll troo: in this survoy a snail troo is 25 foot tall or loss
at maturity.

3.) largo tros: in this survoy s largo troo is ass that is avor 25 foot tall
at saturity.

453

49

* This survoy was tillod out by a voluntoor

onlistoo

(1“

(5)

 

4:

8.

Issiggggial Stroo; Troo Doocrigtion

Turn to pogo ono in tho notobook whore thoro isa pictux..of a noighborhood
haying stroot troos approximately 25 foot tall. Circla tho nunbor of tho
stats-ant bolov boat doscrihing tho sizo of tho najority of stroot troos
in your noighborhood.

A nsjority of tho stroot troos in my noighborhood aro tho sans siao or (1)
snallar than thooo picturod on pogo ono.

A oajority of tho stroot troos in my noighborhood aro largor than tho (2)
troos picturod on pogo ono.

Tho stroot troos in ny noighborhood aro about oqually dividsd botvoon (3)
tho snail and largo oiao clasaos.

Thoro aro no stroot troos to spoak of in sy noighborhood. (4)

which of tho following statononts boat doscribos tho stroot troos in
front of tho hoaas on your stroot or road? (Circlo can)

No stroot troos (1)

An occasional stroot troo (2)

A stroot troo in front of half of tho honss (3)
A stroot troo in front of oach homo (4)

Hora than ono stroot troo in front of oach homo (5)

Rssidggtial stroot Troo Density and Sizo Proferonco
If it vars possiblo to altar the stroot troos in your noighborhood. would
you liko to soo: (circle ono on both linos)

sans nunbor of troos noro troos favor troos uncortain

1 .2. .3. 9.

tho sans oiaod troos anallor troos largo: troos uncortain
l 2 3 4

(6)

(71

- (8)

(9)

50

c. Scans Doscrigtion Exorciso

Diroctions:

Tho nor: four pagoa of this qusstionnairo aro to bo usod to giwo your
inprossions of tho four sconos on pagos 2, 3.1o. and 5 of tho notobook.
Tho quostionnairo pagos in this soction hows 27 pairs of words sopsratod
by a sorios of sovon boros. To rogistor your roactions, placo a chock
oork in ono of tho sovon boxos botwosn oach pair of words.

A.osrk in box nunbor 4 inplios a noutral roaction.which isn't associatod
with oithor of tho two words. Marks in horas nuoborod l or 7 inply a
strong fooling associatod with ono of tho two words. horas (2 and 3) and

(5 and 6) indicato sons dogroo of tooling is associatod with ono of tho
two words.

COMMONPLACE
UNENOTIONAL
DRY

UGLY

BORING

COLD
FEMININE
SOFT
PRIVATE
USUAL
UNPLEASANT
NONOTONOUS
UNITY
UNSTIMULATING
EMPTY
FRUSTRATING
STATIC
DEPRESSING
STALE
CALMING
PEACEFUL
DISLIKE
DISCORD
ASYMMETRICAL
HEAK

SAD
DISORDERED

51

REACTION TO PHOTO PAGE 2.

1

II
[I
II
II
II
(I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

2

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

II

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

3

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
'11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11'
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

11

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I)
II
II
II

II

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

5

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I)
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

'11

II
II
II

6

II
II
II
II
II
II
I)
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

7

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
[I
II
I)
II
II
II
II

UNIQUE
EMOTIONAL
NET
BEAUTIFUL
INTERESTING
HARM

, NASCULINE

HARD

PUBLIC
UNUSUAL
PLEASANT
VARIED
VARIETY
STIMULATING
FULL
SATISFYING
DYNAMIC
EXHILARATING
FRESH
EXCITING
DISRUPTIVE
LIKE
HARMONY
SYMMETRICAL
STRONG
HAPPY
ORDERED

(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(13)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(14)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(19)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)

52

REACTION TO PHOTO PAGE 3.

1 2 3 A S 6 7

COMMONPLACE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 UNIOUE 1311
DRY 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 NET (3:)

BORING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 INTERESTING 1:91
FEMININE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 MASCULINE 1101

PRIVATE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 PUBLIC 1111
UNPLEASANT 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 PLEASANT 1 1:21
UNITY 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 VARIETY 11:1
EMPTY 11 11 11. 11 11 11 11 FULL 11:1
STATIC 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 DYNAMIC 1m
STALE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 FRESH (1:)
PEACEFUL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 DISRUPTIVE 1171
DISCORD 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 HARMONY (1:1
HEAR 11 11' 11 11 11 11 11 STRONG (be)
DISORDERED 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ORDERED 150)

UNEMOTIONAL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 EMOTIONAL (:11
UGLY 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 BEAUTIFUL 1:21

COLD 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 HARM 1:31
SOFT 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 nARD 1511
USUAL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 UNUSUAL (:51
MONOTONOUS 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 VARIED (:61

UNSTIMULATING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 STIMULATING 1:11
FRUSTRATING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 SATISFYING 1581
.DEPRESSING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 EXHILARATING 1:91

CALMING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 EXCITING (so)
DISLIKE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 LIKE . 1111
ASYMMETRICAL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 SYMMETRICAL <62)
SAD HAPPY (631

53

REACTION TO PHOTO PAGE A.

UNEMOTIONAL

UGLY

COLD

SOFT

USUAL
MONOTONOUS
UNSTIMULATING

FRUSTRATING

' DEPRESSING

CALMING

DISLIKE

ASYMMETRICAL

SAD
COMMONPLACE
DRY
BORING
FEMININE
PRIVATE
UNPLEASANT
UNITY
EMPTY
STATIC
STALE
PEACEFUL
DISCORD
WEAK
DISORDERED

2

II
II
I]
II
II
II
II
II
II
I)
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I]
II
II
II
I)
II

3 A 5 6

.11 11 11 11

11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 1'1 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11

7

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I)
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

EMOTIONAL
BEAUTIFUL
HARM

HARD
UNUSUAL
VARIED
STIMULATING
SATISFYING
EXHILARATING
EXCITING
LIKE
SYMMETRICAL
HAPPY
UNIOUE

NET
INTERESTING
MASCULINE
PUBLIC
PLEASANT
VARIED

FULL
DYNAMIC
FRESH
DISRUPTIVE
HARMONY
STRONG
ORDERED

(64)
(65)
(66)
(57)
(68)
(69)
(70)
(71)
(72)
(73)
(7‘)
(75)
(76)
(77)
(78)
(79)
(30)
(31)
(82)
(83)
(84)
(85)
(86)
(87)
(88)
(89)
(90)

54

RENJDON'NIPHORJHNIES.

1 2 3 A S 6 7

DISORDERED 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 ORDERED <91)
SAD 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 HAPPY 1921

YEAR 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 STRONG 19:1
ASYMMETRICAL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 SYMMETRICAL <91)
DISCORD 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 HARMONY (9:)
DISLIKE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 LIKE 1961
PEACEFUL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 DISRUPTIVE 197)
CALMING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 EXCITING 19:)
STALE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 FRESH (99)
. DEPRESSING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 EXHILARATING (loo)
STATIC 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 DYNAMIC . 1101)
FRUSTRATING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 SATISFYING 1:02)
EMPTY 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 FULL 110:1
UNSTIMULATING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 STIMULATING 110:1
UNITY 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 VARIETY 110:1
MONOTONOUS 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 VARIED (106)
UNPLEASANT 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 PLEASANT. 11071
USUAL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 UNUSUAL 110:)
PRIVATE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 PUBLIC 11091

SOFT 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 HARD 11101
FEMININE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 MASCULINE 11111
COLD 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 HARM 11:2)

BORING 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 INTERESTING (1131
UGLY 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 BEAUTIFUL (1111

DRY 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 NET (11:)
UNEMOTIONAL 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 EMOTIONAL 11161
COMMONPLACE 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 UNIQUE 11111

55

Via or So uon

In this portion of tho survoy, you aro askad to indicato stroot troos
that aro appoaling to you by viowing psirod photographs. Efforts

hays boon nods to notch similar sconos so that tho noin difforonco
botwoon tho photos in a givon pair is tho troos shown. Wo aro 9_o_§_
asking that you Judgo photo quality. sky color. or tho honos you

profor. but to concontrsto on tho troo; alono.

Diroctions:

Turn to pagos 6 and 7 in tho notsbook and soloct tho scans having
stroot troos soot ploasing to your oyo as you look down tho stroot.

Indicats your proforonco by circling oithor (L) for loft photograph

or (I) for right photograph nort to tho pogo nunbor bolow..

Procood through tho notobook in this nannor solocting cos of tho photos

in oach pair.
pagos 6 G 7 L R (118-119)
pagos 8 G 9 L 8 (120-121)
pagos 10 8 11 L R (122-123)
pagos 12 6 13 L R (126-125)
pagos 14 G 15 L R (126-127)
pagos 16 6 17 L R (128-129)
pagos 18 8 19 L I (130-131)
pagos 20 6 21 L R (132-133)
pagos 22 a 23 L I (134-135)
pagos 26 6 25 L I (136-137)
pagos 26 i 27 L 2 (138-139)
pagos 28 8 29 L 8 (140-141)
pagos 30 6 31 L R (142-143)
pagos 32 6 33 L R (166-145)

56

W

What is your son? Halo
Fooalo

Placo a check ( ) bosido tho catagpry which includos your ago.

 

 

Undo: 20
20 - 29
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 - 59
60 - 69
over 69

 

Ploaso chock tho highost level of oducotion you.havo cooplotod:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(A)
(S)

-(6)

(7)

Sons Grads School

Grads School

Sons High School

High School
Sons Collogo

Aasociato Dogroo

Bacholor Dogroo
0thor

Background Data (continuod)

 

 

(1)
(2)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

(Ploaao chock only ono iron.)
Occupation: which of tho following boot doscribos your usual occupation?

(166)

(167)

(148)

Laboror or oporotor (truck drivor, sssonbly lino workor, otc.)... (1)

rtmtonou....'....uo.oo..................”nonunuuuo...
Infidel]. 01‘ .d.‘ (bOOkk‘.p.r, Clerk. .tCo)oooooooooooooooooooooo
Mloy.doooooooooooooooooooooooosooosoooooooosooooooooooooooooo

Profossional (doctor. lawyor. toachor, otc.).....................

”tiradOOOOOOIOOOOOOOCOOIOOOOOOCOO0..OI..0.0000000000000IOOOIOOOOO

“2’16. "m: (b‘rb‘r, COOk, ”lice“. .tCo)ooooooooooooooooooo
m‘mrosoooooaoooooaoooooooooooaoooaasaoooaooooooooooooooooooo
Craftsnon (skillod workor, nochanic, carpontor. otc.)............

8m.nt00000OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO0.0I.0......I.OIOOOIOCOOOOOOIIOOOCOIO

(3) (149-150

Managor or proprietor (otoro owner, offics administrator, otc.).. (11)

Do you livo in: (circlo ono)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

city
town
suburb
rural

(l)
(2)
(3)

(151)

(A) g

APPENDIX 2

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR SEMANTIC

DIFFERENTIAL DISCUSSION

APPENDIX 2

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR SEMANTIC
DIFFERENTIAL DISCUSSION
‘—-——--‘ Saginaw

Olmmoo- Mi d1 and

1978 12311567

COMONPLACE 11 11 11 ~11 11 11 11 UNIQUE
UNEI’OTIONAL 11 11 11 11511 11 11 EMOTIONAL
DRY 11 11 11 {(5.11 11 11 NET

UGLY 11 11 11 11 ‘13:, 11 11 BEAUTIFUL
BORING 11 11 11 11:3": 11 11 INTERESTING
COLD 11 11 11 11’?) 11 11 HARM
FEMININE 11 11 11551711 11 11 MASCULINE
SOFT 11 11 1(141 11 11 11 HARD
PRIVATE 11 11 11:51:: 11 11 11 PUBLIC
USUAL 11 11 11 " 11 11 11 UNUSUAL
UNPLEASANT 11 11 11%” 11 PLEASANT
FUNOTONOUS 11 11 11 11;“11 11 11 VARIED
UNITY 11 11 11 11$ 11 11 11 VARIETY
UNSTIMULATING 11 11 11 112‘” 11 11 STIMULATING
EMPTY 11 11 11 11-1‘1 11 11 FULL
FRUSTRATING 11 11 11 11 11:11 11 SATISFYING
STATIC 11 11 11 111311 11 11 DYNAMIC
DEPRESSING 11 11 11 11 11 11.11 EXHILARATING
STALE 11 11 11 1.1.31) 11 11 FRESH
CALMING 11 11 MT 11 11 11 EXCITING
PEACEFUL 11 1’: 11 11 11 11 DISRUPTIVE
DISLII’E 11 1M0 11 LIKE
DISCORD 11 11 11 11f11 11 1111111101111
ASYN’ETRICAL 11 11 11 111311 11 11 SWMETRICAL
NEAK 11 11 11 11111 11 11 STRONG
SAD [I I1 [1 [1 $1 I] [1 HAPPY
DISORDERED 11 11 11 11 :11 11 11 ORDERED

(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(26)
(25)
(26)
(17)
(23)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)

Figure 2. Semantic differential response to a 25'
silver maple (Acer saccharinum) for two

cities
57

58

 

Figure 3. Silver maple (25') in
height(Acer saccharinum)

59

_———-—- Saginaw
Midland -
1978 1 2 3 l1 5 6 7
CDMI'ONPLACE 11 11 11 ”\5” 11 11 UNIOUE 110)

UNEIDTIONAL 11 11 11 11311 11 11 EMOTIONAL 1111
DRY 11 11 11 wink: 11 NET 1121
UGLY 11 11 11 11 11,,1 11 BEAUTIFUL 11:11

BORING 11 11 11 11 115’11 11 INTERESTING 1w

COLD 11 11 11 11- 1g 11 11 HARM us)
FEMININE 11 11 11 1W3 11 11.MASCULINE 1111

' sat-'1 11 11 1116:; 11 11 11 11111111 117)
PRIVATE 11 11 11 13>11 11 11 PUBLIC 1m
USUAL 11 11 11 (11111 11 11 UNUSUAL m)
UNPLEASANT 11 11 11 1W1 11 PLEASANT 120)
I'ONOTONOUS 11 11 11 11 11 11 VARIED 1m
UNITY 11 11 11 11 11- 11 11 VARIETY 1221
UNSTIMULATING 11 11 11 11 11,311 11 STIMULATING 1231
EMPTY 11 11 11 11 11111 11 FULL (21)
FRUSTRATING 11 11 11 11 1131111 SATISFYING 12:1
STATIC 11 11 11 11 11 11 DYNAMIC m1
DEPRESSING 11 11 11 11 1 11.11 EXHILARATING 1211
STALE 11 11 11 11 1.1311 11 FRESH 12:)

    
 

CALMING 11 11 11'
PEACEFUL 11 11

II II EXCITING (29)
I] II DISRUPTIVE (so)

DISLIKE 11,11 11 1 11 LIKE 1311
DISCORD 11 11 11 11 11in 11 HARMONY 1321
ASYIN’ETRICAL 11 11 11 11 ‘1{ 11 11 SYNNETRICAL 13:11
HEAK 1111 11 11 11‘11 11 STRONG 1311

SAD 11 11 11 11 11:11 11 HAPPY 13:1
DISORDERED 11 11 11 11 11511 11 ORDERED (36)

Figure 4. Semantic differential response to a 60'
black maple (Acer nigra) for two cities

60

 

Figure 5. Black maple (60') in
height (Acer nigra)

Saginaw

 

<~ “ Midland

1978

COMMONPLACE
UNEMOTIONAL
DRY

UGLY

BORING

COLD
FEMININE
SOFT
PRIVATE
USUAL
UNPLEASANT
MONOTONOUS
UNITY
UNSTIMULATING
EMPTY
FRUSTRATING
STATIC
DEPRESSING
STALE
CALMING
PEACEFUL
DISLIKE
DISCORD
ASYMMETRICAL
NEAK

SAD
DISORDERED

Figure 6.

61

1

U
U
U
H
H
U
U
U
H
H
H
H
[I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

2

11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11

3

II
II

II

II
II
I]

A S

I1\II

{1:}I>I

IkkII

6

II

II

II
II

1%111

11.;‘I11
'|

[Toll]

II’}L’II3

IP’II

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

II
[I
U
[I
II
II

I

II :fifll

0P)II I]

II
II
II
II
II
II

II

1:17 11
1,1 11
{1\\11
11;}11
1.11/11

§£}/7II

1112: 11 11

II
[I

{h 11

II! II
'I

II (M II

7

II
II
II
II
II
II

11.

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I]
II
II
II
II
II

street planted to trees

UNIQUE
EMOTIONAL
NET

BEAUTIFUL

INTERESTING
NARM
MASCULINE
HARD
PUBLIC
UNUSUAL
PLEASANT
VARIED
VARIETY
STIMULATING
FULL
SATISFYING
DYNAMIC

EXHILARATING

FRESH
EXCITING
DISRUPTIVE
LIKE
HARMONY
SYA1ETRICAL
STRONG
HAPPY
ORDERED

Semantic differential response to a

(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(26)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(23)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(36)
(35)
(36)

62

 

Figure 7. Scene of street planted
to trees

---_--~

Saginaw
00m... Mi d1 and

1978

COMMONPLACE
UNEMOTIONAL
DRY

UGLY

BORING

COLD
FEMININE

I SOFT
PRIVATE
USUAL
UNPLEASANT
MONOTONOUS
UNITY
UNSTIMULATING
EMPTY
FRUSTRATING
STATIC
DEPRESSING
STALE
CALMING
PEACEFUL
DISLIKE
DISCORD
ASYMMETRICAL
HEAK

SAD
DISORDERED

Figure 8.

63

1 2 3 A

11 1111,11 11
\-.
11 11111 11
11 1.1,; ,1 11
11:;‘1'Ily 11 11
11 “116 11 11
11 11.1311 11
11 11
11 11 11 11
11 11
11 11
11 41;“ 11

11 113-1,” 11

11 11 :3-111
11 f"! 11 11

11 11
11 1.511 11
11 11311 11
11 .1111 11 11
115.11\1 11
11 11 1'1‘ 1
11 11 11 11
11211:”11 11
11 1131111 11
11 11,11 11
11 1,71’ 11 11
11 11‘ 11 11
11 1.13.11 11

5

II
II
II
II
II
II

11“ 111,11

I

Ufa/1,1511
11 11

U
H

U
I]
H
II
II
II

5

II

II
II
II
II

7

II
II
II
II
II
II

11.

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

UNIQUE
EMOTIONAL
NET '
BEAUTIFUL
INTERESTING
HARM
MASCULINE
HARD

PUBLIC
UNUSUAL
PLEASANT
VARIED
VARIETY
STIMULATING
FULL
SATISFYING
DYNAMIC
EXHILARATING
FRESH
EXCITING
DISRUPTIVE
LIKE
HARMONY
SYMMETRICAL
STRONG
HAPPY
ORDERED

street scene devoid of trees

Semantic differential response to a

(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(1‘)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(26)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(23)
(19)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(3‘)
(35)
(36)

64

 

Figure 9. Scene of street devoid
of trees

APPENDIX 3

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR PHOTO

SELECTION DISCUSSION

APPENDIX 3

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR PHOTO
SELECTION DISCUSSION

 

Winter

Figure 10. Representative photographs of paired street
scenes for two seasons

65

TREE
SIZE

66

Table 4.

PHOTO SELECTION RATES BY PAIR IN RAW NUMBERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Script numerals indicate among the four least selected large

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tree scenes for a given city.

Asterisk indicates small tree scenes selected over 50% of the

time in a given city.

L - Large tree scene

 

 

 

S - Small tree scene

 

 

 

PAIR NUMBER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
L 45 68 62 75 76 72 52 43 76 54 4s 64 7o 70 SAGINAN
s 60* 37 43 3o 29 33 53* 62* 29 51 60* 41 35 35
L 76 86 80 -85 89 92 78 60 85 68 80 9o 94 92 MIDLAND
s 24 14 20 15 11. 8 22 4o 15 32 20 1o 6 8
L 26 35 29 39 4o 38 30 17 32 31 28 38 39 41 E. LANSING
s 19 1o 16 6 5 7 15 28* 13 14 17 7 6 4
L 61 63 63 58 64 6O 46 37 52 55 58 62 65 64 H. PARK
5 10 8 8 13 7 11 25 34 19 16 13 9 6 7
L 11 15 14 20 17 14 15 12 14 15 12 13 18 16 WHEELING
s 14* 1o 11 5 8 11 1o 13* 11 10 13* 12 7 9
L 219 267 248 277 286 276 221 169 259 223 223 267 286 I283 FIVE CITY
3 127 79 98 69 6o 70 125 177 87‘123 123 79 60 63 TOTAL
1
SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER

67'

Table 5 .

PHOTO SELECTION RESPONSE PATTERNS FOR INDIVIDUAL PAIRS

 

GROUPED BY HOME HEIGHT

The three photo pairs where the homes in the
small tree scenes are taller than the homes in
corresponding large tree scenes.

Home Hei C1

Photo Selectigg Fgegggngg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-11 "75 1-11 63 13-2 63
L
1142 30 2 4 2 3 SAGINAW
s
1.11 85 1-13 sq 11-2 86
L MIDLAND
13-2 15 2 20 2 14
s
1-1s 39 1.11 2 13-2 3
L 8. LANSING
11-2. 6 2 16 2 10
__§2
1-11 58’ 1-13 63 13-2 63
._L A
11-2 13 2 . 2 . , . , H. P RR
s
1.13 20 1.13 1% 13-2 13
L , -
“F* 11-2 5 2 11 2 1Q "HEELING
s
1.1; 277 1.13 248 13-2 267
L
13-2 69 2 .98 2 79 - gggcher
s

 

1Home height described in stories and half-stories.

L - Large tree scene '8 - Small tree scene

68

Table 6.

PHOTO SELECTION RESPONSE PATTERNS FOR INDIVIDUAL PAIRS
GROUPED BY HOME HEIGHT

The six photo pairs where the homes in the
large tree scenes are taller than the homes in
corresponding small tree scenes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
Pho o Selectio Fr ue

I; ‘45 2 72 2 52 2 45 2 64 2 70

L SACINAW
1 6o 1 33 1 53 1 6o 1 41 1 35

s
1; 76 2 92 2 78 2 8O 2 9o 2 92

L MIDLAND
1 27 1 8 1 22 1 20 1 10 1 8

s
1; 26 2 38 2 3o 2 28 2' 38 2 41

L E. LANSING
1 19 1 7 1 15 1 17 1 7 1 ‘4

S
15 61 2 6o 2 46 2 58 2 62 2 64

L _ a. PARK
1 10 *1 11 1 25 1 13 1 9 1 7

S
13 11 2 14 2 15 2 12 2 13 2 16

——9 WHEELING

1 14 1 11 1 1o 1 13 1 12 1 9

s
13 219 2 276 2 221 2 223 2 267 2 283

L

FIVE CITY

1 127 1 7o 1 125 1 123 1 79 1 63 TOTAL

3 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1Home height described in stories and half-stories.

L - Large tree scene 8 - Small tree scene

69

Table 7.

PHOTO SELECTION RESPONSE PATTERNS FOR INDIVIDUAL PAIRS
GROUPED BY HOME HEIGHT

The four photo pairs where the homes in large
and small tree scenes were of equivalent height.

Home Height1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 ‘43 1 54 1 76 13-2 70
L
SAGINAw
1 62 1 51 1 29 13-2 35
S
1 6o 1 68 1 85 11-2 94
__£, MIDLAND
1 4o 1 32 1 15 11-2 6
s
1 17 1 31 1 32 15-2 39
L E. LANSING
1 28 1 14 1 13 11-2 6
s A
1 37 1 55 1 52 15-2 65
L ' H. PARK
1 34 1 16 1 19 13-2 6
s
1 12 1 15 1 14 13-2 18
L
‘—* 1 13 1 lO 1 11 11-2 7 WHEELING
s
1 169 1 223 1 259 15-2 286
L
1 177' 1 123 1 “‘87 13-2 60 ¥3¥§LCITY
s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1Home height described in stories and half-stories.

L - Large tree scene S - Small tree scene

70

Table 8.

PHOTO SELECTION RESPONSE PATTERNS FOR INDIVIDUAL PAIRS
GROUPED BY HOME HEIGHT

The photo pair where homes were not visible in
looking down the street.

1

Photo Se ect n F e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘36
L 29 SAGINAN
s
85
L MIDLAND
15
s .
32
L E LANSING
13’ '
's
52 }
L 19 '_ h H. PARK
3
14
.L. -
11 WHEELING
S
259
L FIVE CITY
3 87 TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1Home height described in stories and half-stories.

L - Large tree scene S - Small tree scene

APPENDIX 4

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION

OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

APPENDIX 4

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR DISCUSSION

OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Table 9.

Comparison of Large Tree Photo Selection Rates

by Sex
SEX
COUNT I
now PCT I keypunch
COL 937 I male female error
TOT PCT I ISI .20: 501
LARGE '-"O-P-I-1“--2-I‘?------I-"-“'-I
3. I 17 1 19 1 0 1
1 47.2 1 5g.e 1 o 1
I 10.4 I 10.8 I O I
1 5.1 1, 5.1 1 o 1
-1-:----=-1-=---;--1--4-----1
9. I I it I O I
I 33.3 I 66.7 I D I
I . 2.6 I 5.3 I U I
DICE--.-2-!.?.--‘--1-0‘.--..!
7. I 7 I 6 I O I
I 53.8 I 46.2 I O I
1 2.1 1 1.8 1 0 I
-‘P-----=-!PQCQ-é-- l uO‘f‘O..I
1D. I 22 I 33 I 1 I
1 41.5 1 56.: 1 1.9 1
I 13.4 I 17.9 1 100.0 I
I 6.5 t 8.8 I 03 I
-1-:----s-1-=---;--1--9-----1
14. I 109 I 153 I 0 I
I Eu.4 1 48d I o I
1 32.0 1 36.2 1 o 1
-‘.2----2.:'9---;-.1--.--...l
COLUHN 164 17! 1
RA” CHI SQUARE $ 9161864 WITH 8 DEGREES
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS = 5

71

RON
TOTAL

36
19.6

27
7.9

341
106.6

OF FREEDOM,

SIGNIFICANCE a
£523

gun-..on....-.~-'-..--------._.--

72

Table 10.

Comparison of Large Tree Photo Selection Rates by
Eduction Level

KEVII KALNaACH 07/2.
canssrAas n- -scoaes vs 82 _ .
FILE TREE (CREATION DATE = 17728778 1 51191

e o o o . e o o e e o o o o o o o o C R O S S T A 3 J L A T I 0 N O F 1
LARGE BY EDUC

o O r v o e o o o o o e o o o o o g e o t o o e e o o O o 0 v 9 o o O o o o o

uc
COUNT {ED high more than.
Rod pcr ; keypunch school high 87H
COL HGT 1 error or less school TOTAL
ToT 9c? 1 CI 1.! 2.!
LARGE '°"9-'-I'r'--'--I'r-----'I-"-"~-I
3. I o I I7 I 19 I 36
No. of
Large
Trees
selected 1 n 1 47.2 1 52.6 1 11.5
' I 0 I 19.3 I 7.5 I
I 0 I 5.5 I 5. 6 I
‘IP-.---._-ld-_----OO1...--0-o:
5. I 0 I i! I 12 I 27
I 0 I 55. g I 44.4 I 7.9
I o I 17. n I 4.7 1
I 0 1 4. a I 3.5 1
-I""'-"I-"--'-- I- 3---.-I
7. I . 0 1 I 1 12 1 13
I 0 I 7.7 I 92.3 I 3.8
I 0 1 1.? 1 4.7 1
I 0 I .3 I 305 I
1 o I 1 I? ."
O I 1.9 I 22.6 I 7515 I 15.5
1 100.0 I 13.6 I 15.8 I
I . I 3.5 I 11. I
-!-------.I..:---;--I“-3---.-I
14. I o I 43 I 170 I 213
I 0 I 25.2 I 79.8 I 62.3
I 0 I 48. 9 I 67.2 I
I 0 I 12. e I 49. 7 I
.{occooooot;----.Co1-..---Qut
COLUMN 88 253 .342
TOTAL .3 25.7 74.0 103.0
RAH CHI SQUARE ! 32.58987 HITH 8 DEGREES 0F FREEDOM. SIGHIFICANCE ?

NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS : 4

C'---qa..--------Q--q..---.-C-.5.---.-—-.‘.—

Comparison of Large Tree Photo Selection Rates

KEVIN KALHBACH

FILE TREE

(CREATION DATE 3

73

Table 11.

by Age Group

o 0 o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

F7/28/78 I
c R 0 S S T A a J L t 7 x O a

O

r

02/?

i

t o o 0 . o o o o o o e o o o g . . o . 3 o S o o o q o i o a I i g o o o 6 §

LARGE
‘ AGE
COUNT 149 years 50 years
ROH ear Iand and
COL PCT [under over
TOT RCT I 1.1 2.I
.-..§-.-!-:--;-?.I;3-..-;.-I
. I 7 I 19 I
gggzgf x 47.2 t 52.. x
Treés I 7.3 I 17.5 I
selected I 5'0 I 5.9 I
-‘uod-chcx---O-c-'x
‘. 13 I -14
I 5 6 I 13.3 I
I 3:a_ x m I
0"---0-OII-g---ant
2. I 9 I 4 I
I 6902 I 36.9 I
I 3.8 I 3.7 I
I 2.6 I 1.2 I
I I ------:o!-=.-..--9x
10. I 34 I 19 I
I 64.2 I 35.8 I
I 14.5 I 17.8 I
I 9.9 I 5.6 I
a l .f-OQ-égqu.--?-q!
15, I 161 I 5? I
I 75.6 I 24.4 I
I 58.8 I 48.5 I
DI.---.-..:-:-.:--Ix
COLUMN 234 108
TOIAL 66.4 31..

RAH CHI SQUARE I
NUMBER OF HISSIHG

13013655 HITH
OBSERVATIONS 3

ROM
TOTAL

36
1005

7.9

13
3.8

53
15.5

213
62.3

342

100.0
3 DEGREES OF EREEDOUI

4

SIGNIFICANCE 3-
lQQLZ

O . a o a
.
. 0
C I Q . G Q -~. I O . . O p . ._~ . .- I I - 3° .' C. C D- - -- ." O C .-o- O - ._ Q. --

APPENDIX 5

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR STREET TREE

PLANTING DENSITY DISCUSSION

74

APPENDIX 5

SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL FOR STREET TREE

PLANTING DENSITY DISCUSSION

Table 12.

Comparison of Desired Planting Density and
Current Planting Density

 

”u-“ .

C!-:....?.“2..-...l..‘¢.‘..‘-..-'-..
s. I 35 x 21 I 2 I .3
“0" than I 59.4 I 32.! I 3.1 I 4.7
I 28.6 I 37.5

M
a.

one tree A 29.9 I 15..

Desire
RoH 9c? [same more fewer uncertain 98"
COL PCT Inumber. trees trees T3I1L
TOT PCT I 1.1 2.I 3.! 4II
‘2 COO-.0'olfludcuocc1-2..-‘CCI.“-0.q.!..--'-..I
Now I. I 3 I 2% z 1 I 1 r 27
Have no I 11.1 I 81.! I 3.7 I 3.7 I 239
street I 2.4 I 10.9 I 14.3 I 12.5 I
trees I .9 I 6.4 I . I .3 I
-I.--..-‘.I‘g..-;-.‘QO‘OCCOOICOOQ’OCO!

2. I 1 x 39 I a I 2 I :8
occasionalI 2.6 I 92.? I 0 I 533‘ I 1151
street I .8 I 17.4 I 0 I 25.0 I
tree I .3 I 15,? I I 36- I

o1.-.---?.!-.--.;..:..‘-¢o~-1.-.o,.o¢t

. I 15 I 79 I I 1 I 94

trees in I 16.0 I--79.! I 3.2 I 121' I 2234
front of I 11.8 I 37.3 I 42.9 I 1235' I
half the I 4.4 I 21,; I .9 I I3 I
homes II-cooooq-IOC-.-;..1.03.0-..10-.-'oool

‘. I 70 I I! I 1 I 1 I 220
trees in I 53,3 I 46.3. I .8 I .8 I 35:0
front of I 55.1 I 23.9 I 14.3 I 12.5- I
each home I 20.4 I 14.' I .3 I .3 I

I

I

I

in front 0 11.; I 6.1 I .6 I .9 I

eaCh homo.I-go..-:.[;9--.;.-[.-3-....[....,.--[
COLUHN 127 251 7 a 353
TOTAL 37.0 58.6 2.0 2.3 160.8

”Au Ch: cGUARE ! 90.81532 HITH 12 DEGREES 0F FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE = .0000
NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS.s 3