4.7 Article

Homeowner preferences for wooded front yards and backyards: Implications for carbon storage

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 1-10

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.001

关键词

Climate change; Pen-urban; Residential landscape; Suburban; Urban forest

资金

  1. Environmental Protection Agency STAR Fellowship [FP91750901-1]
  2. National Science Foundation's program on the Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems [GEO-0814542]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study contributes to understanding of social preferences, norms, and behaviors in residential landscapes that affect planning, design, and management of trees, which store carbon and contribute to mitigating climate change. We investigated southeast Michigan homeowner preferences for different styles of front yards and backyards that were more or less wooded, learning what landscape characteristics they preferred and how their preferences related to their own yard management behavior. We surveyed homeowners, who selected their most preferred front yard and backyard from a series of images and indicated what characteristics were important to their preferences. We developed a homeowner typology based on their stated preferences for more and less wooded front yards and backyards, distinguished each type by landscape characteristics that were most important to homeowners, and tested whether homeowners of each preference type managed their actual yards consistent with type. Our results show that homeowners are heterogeneous in their preferences, identifying different characteristics as important according to type, but that only mowing of their actual yard is consistent with type. We also found that both important characteristics and actual uses of homeowners' yards varied between front yards and backyards. Both homeowner types and front yard/backyard differences suggest opportunities for planning and maintaining larger urban woodlands on residential lots. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据