A summary of the benefits of urban trees accompanied by a selection of research papers and pamphlets.
��������������� ����� ��
A summary of the benefits of urban trees accompanied by a selectionof research papers and pamphlets.
Chris Hastie, July 2003
The Benefits of Urban TreesIntroductionTrees in towns bring with them both benefits and costs. Whilst many of the costs are wellknown to managers of urban trees, who watch the budgets and answer the phone todisgruntled residents, the benefits can be seen as nebulous and difficult to quantify or justify.Never the less, a considerable and expanding body of research exists on the benefits thaturban trees bring. This briefing note is an attempt to summarise some of the benefits ofurban trees. A number of papers relevant to the subject of the benefits of urban trees have,with the kind permission of their authors, been included in the appendices.
Economic BenefitsConsumer behaviourA study by the University of Washington established a number of benefits in terms ofconsumer experiences of business districts with trees (Wolf, 1998(a), Wolf, 1999 and Wolf,2003). Consumers reported consistently higher ratings for a number of categories related totheir perception of business districts with trees. They reported a willingness to pay more forparking in landscaped car parks and on average reported a willingness to pay an average ofabout 11% more for goods in a landscaped business district than a non landscaped district,with this figure being as high as 50% for convenience goods.
Both the business community and consumers were found to favour business districts withgood landscaping (Wolf, 1998(b)).
The quality of landscaping along approach routes to business districts has also been foundto positively influence consumer perceptions (Wolf, 2000).
Inward investmentThe attractiveness of an environment is an important factor in attracting inward investment.Both consumers and businesses have been found to favour districts with high tree cover andthe increase in retail prices that can be commanded in well landscaped areas canreasonably be assumed to be a positive benefit in attracting businesses to the district.
Property valuesSeveral studies in the USA have analysed the effect of tree cover on the price of residentialhouse sales, finding that values of properties in tree lined areas may be up to 6% greaterthan in similar areas without trees (Wolf, 1998 (c)).
The market in the UK is different and a direct translation of these data is not possible. Neverthe less, an informal telephone survey of estate agents in the Warwick area suggests thattree cover has a positive effect on saleability, if not directly on price. Properties on tree linedstreet were said to be in more demand and to sell faster.
Social BenefitsCrime reductionThe conventional wisdom has been that trees and other vegetation have a negative impacton crime because they provide cover for criminals and reduce opportunities for casualsurveillance.
Research in a particularly deprived area of inner city Chicago has suggested that this is infact not the case and that appropriate vegetation cover can lead to reduced crime rates (Kuoand Sullivan, 2001(a)). The study dealt largely with mown grass and high canopy trees,which do not provide cover in the same way as, for example, shrub planting. It looked at anarea with relatively homogenous architecture and a relatively homogenous population butwith differing levels of vegetation. Areas with higher vegetation cover were found to havelower rates of crime, as measured by reports to the police.
Chris Hastie, July 2003
Two mechanisms are suggested by which crime rates might be reduced by trees. The first isthrough an increase in surveillance, essentially because public open space with trees tendsto be used much more than space without trees. The second mechanism relates particularlyto violent crime and relates to evidence that vegetation has a mitigating effect on mentalfatigue, itself often a precursor of outbursts of anger and violence (Kuo and Sullivan,2001(b)).
Other social benefitsA wealth of research has been undertaken by the Human-Environment Research Laboratoryat the University of Illinois and has identified numerous beneficial effects that trees have onsociety. A good summary of these is a paper by Frances E. Kuo, “The Role of Arboriculturein a Healthy Social Ecology”, which is attached (Kuo, 2003).
Many of these benefits relate to encouraging people out of their homes and into public openspace, where they react more with others and build stronger social relationships. Anadditional benefit of interest is the positive effect that contact with nature can have onchildren with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) (Taylor, Kuo, Sullivan, 2001).
Dr Rachel Kaplan has found that desk workers who can see nature from their desksexperience 23% less time off sick than those who can not see any nature. Desk workers whocan see nature also report greater job satisfaction (reported by Wolf, 1998(d)), whilst hospitalpatients with views of trees have been found to recover significantly faster than those whocan not see any natural features.
Environmental BenefitsPollution interceptionResearch undertaken in the West Midlands by Lancaster University (Hewitt et al, undated)has established that trees can remove a number of pollutants from the atmosphere,including ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particles. The news is not all good though. Trees alsoproduce volatile organic compounds, VOCs, which in combination with some man madepollutants can lead to an increase in ozone, particulates and other pollutants.
Different species of tree have different net effects on air quality. Willows, poplars and oakscan potentially worsen air quality during hot weather, whilst ash, alder and birch haveamongst the greatest beneficial effects.
The study estimates that doubling the number of trees in the West Midlands would reduceexcess deaths due to particulate pollution by up to 140 per year.
Carbon sequestrationIt is well known that trees, in common with all vegetation, absorb carbon dioxide (one of theprincipal greenhouse gases) and release oxygen during the process of photosynthesis. Thecarbon absorbed by trees in this process is stored in the wood.
Whilst this most well known of benefits is real it seems it is often overstated. The study byLancaster University of trees in the West Midlands estimated that the total amount of carbonstored in trees within the conurbation represents the equivalent of about three weeks worthof CO2 emissions. Never the less, trees do have an important role to play in reducing theeffects of greenhouse gases, not only through carbon sequestration but perhaps moreimportantly through the effects that careful planting can have on fuel use.
Fuel useCareful tree planting can reduce the amount of fuel used on both heating and coolingbuildings. A considerable amount of research has been undertaken to quantify this in theUnited States, but little such research has been undertaken in the UK. Clearly differences inclimate mean that figures here can not be directly related to any part of the USA.
Trees provide shelter and reduce windspeed, thus reducing heat loss from buildings duringwinter. They also provide shade in the summer, whilst the evapo-transpiration of water fromthe leaf surface has a general cooling effect on surrounding air. This can significantly reducethe need for air conditioning during hot weather.
Chris Hastie, July 2003
Noise reductionTrees and other vegetation can play an important role in attenuating noise through reflectingand absorbing sound energy. One estimate suggests that 7db noise reduction is achievedfor every 33m of forest (Coder, 1996) whilst other reported field tests show apparentloudness reduced by 50% by wide belts of trees and soft ground (Dwyer et al, 1992).
HydrologyTrees have a number of hydrological effects. These include reducing erosion and improvingwater quality through interception of pollution. Perhaps the most important effect in Britain atpresent, given the trend for increasing winter flooding, is the reduction in ground water run-off. One study has estimated that for every 5% increase in tree cover area, run-off is reducedby 2% (Coder, 1996).
Wildlife BenefitsTrees are an important wildlife habitat. They provide nesting sites for birds and support awide range of insects that are an important food source for birds and other wildlife. Treesthat bear berries are also a direct source of food for many bird species.
In an urban setting, linear corridors of habitat are among the most important, connectingotherwise isolated areas to each other and out to the rural surroundings. Trees and othervegetation along highways, waterways and railways are particularly important to wildlife inthe respect.
Other BenefitsRoad safetyTrees can help improve road safety in a number of ways.
Trees lining streets give the impression of narrowing the street and encourage slowerdriving.
The stress reduction effects of trees (Wolf 1998(d), Kuo and Sullivan 2001(b)) are likely tohave the effect of reducing road rage and improving the attention of drivers.
Trees along streets also provide a buffer between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
Road surfacesManagers of both trees and highways are well aware of the detrimental effects that trees canhave on the surface of footways and carriageways through direct damage by roots. Less wellknown is the fact that the shade cast be trees can significantly increase the life of roadsurfaces by reducing the temperatures which the surface reaches during hot weather.
AcknowledgementsThanks are due to all those involved in research investigating the benefits and costs of trees.In particular thanks go to following for permission to reproduce articles, factsheets andleaflets relating to this area: Kathleen Wolf of the Center for Urban Horticulture at theUniversity of Washington, Frances Kuo of the Human Environment Research Laboratory atthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Nick Hewitt of Lancaster University, KimCoder of the University of Georgia, David Nowak of the USDA Forest Service NortheasternResearch Station and the International Society of Arboriculture.
Chris Hastie, July 2003
BibliographyPapers marked * are included in the appendices.
*Coder, KD, 1996 Identified Benefits of Community Trees and Forests, University of GeorgiaCooperative Extension Service - Forest Resources Publication FOR96-39
Dwyer, JF, McPherson,EG, Schroeder, HW andRowntree, R, 1992
Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest, [in] Journal ofArboriculture 18(5), pp 227 - 234.
*Hewitt, N, Stewart, H,Donovan, R andMacKenzie, R, undated.
Trees and Sustainable Urban Air Quality, Research summary fromLancaster University athttp://www.es.lancs.ac.uk/people/cnh/docs/UrbanTrees.htm
*Kuo, FE and Sullivan,WC, 2001(a)
Environment and Crime in the Inner City. Does Vegetation Reduce Crime[in] Environment and Behavior 33(3), pp 343 - 367
*Kuo, FE and Sullivan,WC, 2001(b)
Aggression and Violence in the Inner City - Effects of Environment viaMental Fatigue, [in] Environment and Behavior 33(4), pp 543 - 571
*Kuo, FE, 2003 The role of Arboriculture in a Healthy Social Ecology [in] Journal ofArboriculture 29(3), pp148 - 155
*Nowak, DJ, undated The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality, USDA Forest Service,Syracuse, NY
*Taylor, AF, Kuo, FE,Sullivan, WC, 2001
COPING WITH ADD - The Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings[in] Environment and Behavior 33(1), pp 54 - 77
*Wolf, K, 1998(a) Trees in Business Districts - Positive Effects on Consumer Behaviour,University of Washington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #30.
*Wolf, K, 1998(b) Trees in Business Districts - Comparing Values of Consumers andBusiness, University of Washington College of Forest Resources,Factsheet #31.
*Wolf, K, 1998(c) Urban Forest Values: Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities, University ofWashington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #29.
*Wolf, K, 1998(d) Urban Nature Benefits: Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants,University of Washington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #1.
*Wolf, K, 1999 Grow for the Gold, [in] TreeLink 14, Washington State Department ofNatural Resources
*Wolf, K, 2000 Community Image - Roadside Settings and Public Perceptions, Universityof Washington College of Forest Resources, Factsheet #32.
*Wolf, K, 2003 Public Response to the Urban Forest in Inner-City Business Districts, [in]Journal of Arboriculture 29(3) pp 117 - 126
Chris Hastie, July 2003
AppendicesThe following factsheets, pamphlets and scientific papers provide some of the background tothe topics discussed here. They are reproduced with the kind permission of the authors and /or publishers.
Copyright in all these papers remains with the original copyright holder. This entire documentmay be distributed for non-commercial, educational purposes. If you wish to use any part ofthe document for any other purposes you should obtain permission from each author.
Identified Benefits of Community Trees and Forests
by Dr. Rim D. Coder, University of GeorgiaOctober 1996
Community trees and forests are valuable. To the 75% of the United States population that now live inurban and suburban areas, trees provide many goods and services. Values are realized by the people thatown the trees, by people nearby, and by society in general. People plant, maintain, conserve, and covettrees because of the values and benefits generated.
Tree benefits can be listed in many forms. The bottom-line is humans derive not a single-user value fromcommunity trees and forests, but a multi-product multi-value benefit. Some of these benefits stem fromcomponents and attributes of a single tree, while other benefits are derived from groups of trees function-ing together. What is the value of these multiple benefits? A 1985 study concluded that the annual eco-logical contribution of an average community tree was $270.
Values, functions, goods and services produced by community trees and forests can be evaluated foreconomic and quality of life components. While quality of life values are difficult to quantify, some of theeconomic values can suggest current and future negative or positive cash flows. In assessing changes indollar values, concerns for tree evaluation are most prevalent within: risk management costs (liability andsafety); value-added / capital increases to tree values; appreciation of tree and forest assets; maintenancecosts of tree and forest assets; and, level of management effectiveness and efficiency (total quality man-agement of community trees and forests -- TTQM).
Below are listed a selected series of goods, services, and benefits community trees across the nation andforests provide. These bullets of information are taken from a diversity of individual research projectsand, as such, are individually meaningless except under similar conditions. These items together dosuggest trends and concepts of value.
OUTLINE OF SELECTED BENEFITS
Environmental Benefits
Temperature and Energy UseShadeWind ControlActive Evaporation
Air quality
Oxygen ProductionPollution ReductionCarbon Dixoide Reduction
Hydrology
Water Run-OffWater Quality / Erosion
Noise Abatement
Glare ReductionAnimal Habitats
Economic / Social / Psychological Benefits
Economic StabilityProperty ValuesProduct Production
Aesthetic PreferencesVisual ScreeningRecreationHealthHuman Social Issues
Environmental Benefits
Temperature and Energy Use
Community heat islands (3 to 10 degrees F warmer than surrounding countryside) exist becauseof decreased wind, increased high density surfaces, and heat generated from human associated activities,all of which requires addition energy expenditures to off-set. Trees can be successfully used to mitigateheat islands. Trees reduce temperatures by shading surfaces, dissipating heat through evaporation, andcontrolling air movement responsible for advected heat.
Shade
- 20 degrees F lower temperature on a site from trees.- 35 degrees F lower hard surface temperature under tree shade than in full summer sun.- 27% decrease in summer cooling costs with trees.- 75% cooling savings under deciduous trees.- 50% cooling energy savings with trees. (1980) 20 degrees F lower room temperatures in uninsulated house
during summer from tree shade.- $242 savings per home per year in cooling costs with trees.- West wall shading is the best cooling cost savings component.- South side shade trees saved $38 per home per year.- 10% energy savings when cooling equipment shaded (no air flow reduction).- 12% increase in heating costs under evergreen canopy- 15% heating energy savings with trees, (1980)- 5% higher winter energy use under tree shade- $122 increase in annual heating costs with south and east wall shading off-set by $155 annual savings in
cooling costs.- Crown form and amount of light passing through a tree can be adjusted by crown reduction and thin-
ning.- Shade areas generated by trees are equivalent to $2.75 per square foot of value (1975 dollars).
Wind Control
- 50% wind speed reduction by shade trees yielded 7% reduction in heating energy in winter.- 8% reduction in heating energy in home from deciduous trees although solar gain was reduced.- $50 per year decrease in heating costs from tree control of wind.- Trees block winter winds and reduces “chill factor.”- Trees can reduce cold air infiltration and exchange in a house by maintaining a reduced wind or still
area.- Trees can be planted to funnel or baffle wind away from areas -- both vertical and horizontal concentra-
tions of foliage can modify air movement patterns.- Blockage of cooling breezes by trees increased by $75 per year cooling energy use.
Active Evaporation
- 65% of heat generated in full sunlight on a tree is dissipated by active evaporation from leaf surfaces.- 17% reduction in building cooling by active evaporation by trees.- One acre of vegetation transpires as much as 1600 gallons of water on sunny summer days.- 30% vegetation coverage will provide 66% as much cooling to a site as full vegetation coverage.- A one-fifth acre house lot with 30% vegetation cover dissipates as much heat as running two central air
conditioners.
Air Quality -- Trees help control pollution through acting as biological and physical nets, but they are alsopoisoned by pollution.
Oxygen Production -- One acre of trees generates enough oxygen each day for 18 people.
Pollution Reduction
- Community forests cleanse the air by intercepting and slowing particulate materials causing them to fallout, and by absorbing pollutant gases on surfaces and through uptake onto inner leaf surfaces.- Pollutants partially controlled by trees include nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide,carbon dioxide (required for normal tree function), ozone, and small particulates less than 10 microns insize.- Removal of particulates amounts to 9% across deciduous trees and 13% across evergreen trees.- Pollen and mold spore, are part of a living system and produced in tree areas, but trees also sweep out
of the air large amounts of these particulates.- In one urban park (212 ha), tree cover was found to remove daily 48 lbs particulates, 9 lbs nitrogen
dioxide, 6 lbs sulfur dioxide, and 1/2 lbs carbon monoxide. ($136 per day value based upon pollutioncontrol technology).- 60% reduction in street level particulates with trees.- One sugar maple (one foot in diameter) along a roadway removes in one growing season 60 mg cad-
mium, 140 mg chromium, 820 mg nickel and 5200mg lead from the environment.- Interiorscape trees can remove organic pollutants from indoor air.
Carbon Dioxide Reduction
- Approximately 800 million tons of carbon are currently stored in US community forests with 6.5million tons per year increase in storage ($22 billion equivalent in control costs).- A single tree stores on average 13 pounds of carbon annually.- A community forest can store 2.6 tons of carbon per acre per year.
Hydrology
- Development increases hard, non-evaporative surfaces and decreases soil infiltration -- increases watervolume, velocity and pollution load of run-off -- increases water quality losses, erosion, and flooding.
- Community tree and forest cover intercepts, slows, evaporates, and stores water through normal treefunctions, soil surface protection, and soil area of biologically active surfaces.
Water Run-Off
- 7% of winter precipitation intercepted and evaporated by deciduous trees.- 22% of winter precipitation intercepted and evaporated by evergreen trees.- 18% of growing season precipitation intercepted and evaporated by all trees.- For every 5% of tree cover area added to a community, run-off is reduced by approximately 2%- 7% volume reduction in six-hour storm flow by community tree canopies.- 17% (11.3 million gallons) run-off reduction from a twelve-hour storm with tree canopies in a medium-sized city ($226,000 avoided run-off water control costs).
Water Quality / Erosion
- Community trees and forests act as filters removing nutrients and sediments while increasing groundwater recharge.- 37,500 tons of sediment per square mile per year comes off of developing and developed landscapes --
trees could reduce this value by 95% ($336,000 annual control cost savings with trees).- 47% of surface pollutants are removed in first 15 minutes of storm -- this includes pesticides, fertilizers,
and biologically derived materials and litter.- 10,886 tons of soil saved annually with tree cover in a medium-sized city.
Noise Abatement
- 7db noise reduction per 100 feet of forest due to trees by reflecting and absorbing sound energy (solidwalls decrease sound by 15 db)- Trees provide “white noise, " the noise of the leaves and branches in the wind and associated naturalsounds, that masks other man-caused sounds.
Glare Reduction
- Trees help control light scattering, light intensity, and modifies predominant wavelengths on a site.- Trees block and reflect sunlight and artificial lights to minimize eye strain and frame lighted areas where
needed for architectural emphasis, safety, and visibility.
Animal Habitats
- Wildlife values are derived from aesthetic, recreation, and educational uses.- Lowest bird diversity is in areas of mowed lawn -- highest in area of large trees, greatest tree diversity,
and brushy areas.
- Highest native bird populations in areas of highest native plant populations.- Highly variable species attributes and needs must be identified to clearly determine tree and community
tree and forest influences.- Trees are living systems that interact with other living things in sharing and recycling resources -- assuch, trees are living centers where living thing congregate and are concentrated.
Economic / Social / Psychological Benefits
Economic Stability Community
- Community trees and forests provide a business generating, and a positive real estate transactionappearance and atmosphere.- Increased property values, increased tax revenues, increased income levels, faster real estate sales turn-
over rates, shorter unoccupied periods, increased recruitment of buyers, increased jobs, increased workerproductivity, and increased number of customers have all been linked to tree and landscape presence.- Tree amenity values are a part of real estate prices.
Property Values -- Real Estate Comparisons
- Clearing unimproved lots is costlier than properly preserving trees.- 6% ($2,686) total property value in tree cover.- $9,500 higher sale values due to tree cover.- 4% higher sale value with five trees in the front yard -- $257 per pine, $333 per hardwood, $336 per
large tree, and $0 per small tree.- $2,675 increase in sale price when adjacent to tree green space as compared to similar houses 200 feet
away from green space.- $4.20 decrease in residential sales price for every foot away from green space.- 27% increase in development land values with trees present.- 19% increase in property values with trees. (1971 & 1983)- 27% increase in appraised land values with trees. (1973)- 9% increase in property value for a single tree. (198 1)
Property Values - Tree Value Formula (CTLA 8th edition)
- Values of single trees in perfect conditions and locations in the Southeast range up to $100,000.- $100 million is the value of community trees and forests in Savannah, GA- $386 million is the value of community trees and forests in Oakland, CA (59% of this value is in resi-
dential trees).
Product Production
- Community trees and forests generate many traditional products for the cash and barter marketplacethat include lumber, pulpwood, hobbyist woods, fruits, nuts, mulch, composting materials, firewood, andnursery plants.
Aesthetic Preferences
- Conifers, large trees, low tree densities, closed tree canopies, distant views, and native species all hadpositive values in scenic quality.- Large old street trees were found to be the most important indicator of attractiveness in a community.- Increasing tree density (optimal 53 trees per acre) and decreasing understory density are associated
with positive perceptions.- Increasing levels of tree density can initiate feelings of fear and endangerment -- an optimum number of
trees allows for visual distances and openness while blocking or screening developed areas.- Species diversity as a distinct quantity was not important to scenic quality.
Visual Screening
- The most common use of trees for utilitarian purposes is screening undesirable and disturbing sightlines.- Tree crown management and tree species selection can help completely or partially block vision lines
that show human density problems, development activities, or commercial/ residential interfaces.
Recreation
- Contact with nature in many communities may be limited to local trees and green areas (for noticingnatural cycles, seasons, sounds, animals, plants, etc.) Trees are critical in this context.- $1.60 is the willing additional payment per visit for use of a tree covered park compared with a main-
tained lawn area.
Health
- Stressed individuals looking at slides of nature had reduced negative emotions and greater positivefeelings than when looking at urban scenes without trees and other plants.- Stressed individuals recuperate faster when viewing tree filled images.- Hospital patients with natural views from their rooms had significantly shorter stays, less pain medicine
required, and fewer post-operative complications.- Psychiatric patients are more sociable and less stressed when green things are visible and immediately
present.- Prison inmates sought less health care if they had a view of a green landscape.
Human Social Interactions
- People feel more comfortable and at ease when in shaded, open areas of trees as compared to areas ofhardscapes and non-living things.- People’s preferences for locating areas of social interactions in calming, beautiful, and nature-domi-
nated areas revolve around the presence of community trees and forests.- Trees and people are psychologically linked by culture, socialiition, and coadaptive history.
Reference for most of this material: Literature Review for the QUANTITREE computer program --“Quantifiable Urban Forest Benefits and Costs; Current Findings and Future Research.” In a white paperentitled Consolidating and Communicating Urban Forest Benefits. Davey Resource Group, Kent, OH.1993. Pp.25.
THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL-TURE AND COUNTIES OF THE STATE COOPERATING. THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSIONSERVICE OFFERS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, ASSISTANCE AND MATERIALS TO ALLPEOPLE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN AGE, SEX OR HANDI-CAP STATUS.
A UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ORGANIZATION
THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE FOREST RE-SOURCES UNIT PUBLICATION FOR96-39
Natural ResourcesWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TreeLink
D N R C O M M U N I T Y F O R E S T R Y P R O G R A M ✦ N U M B E R 1 4 ✦ S P R I N G 1 9 9 9
Growfor the
Gold
Trees
in Business
Districts
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By Kathleen L. Wolf, Ph.D.
Center for Urban Horticulture
University of Washington
Trees and business — it’s a
love-hate relationship!
There are certainly costs that
come with having trees on
streets. Yet, a new study
provides evidence that trees
have positive effects on
consumers. Despite their
costs, trees do provide indirect benefits to businesses.
About 70% of America’s gross domestic product is
attributed to purchases of individuals. Consumers
consider many factors when deciding on what
products and services to buy. Value, quality and
convenience are major messages that marketers
communicate about their products. Often overlooked
is the importance of the retail place on shopping
decisions. A pleasant, welcoming retail environment is
important to consumers.
How does the community forest influence consumers?
A national study, conducted by social scientists at the
University of Washington, used survey questionnaires
to investigate public perceptions about the role of
trees in revitalizing business districts. Surveys were
sent to selected districts in cities of the Pacific
Northwest, Austin, Los Angeles, Chicago, Pittsburgh
and Washington DC.
The project outcomes can help us plan and manage
urban forests to better meet business needs. They also
will help businesses focus their green investment for
highest returns. Here are highlights of the research
results.
GROW FOR THE GOLD
Category A.Category A. Little / No Vegetation
Category B.Category B. Naturalistic
Category C.Category C. High, Open Canopy
Category E.Category E. Formal Foliage
Consumers said they would be willing
Category D.Category D. Low, Dense Canopy
Low and High Ratings
Ratings were averaged for each of 32scenes. Scenes with the lowest and high-est mean ratings differ significantly invisual content. Highly valued scenescontain trees and accessory vegetation,including light and shade patterns asso-ciated with the plants. This result isconsistent with preference evaluations ofmany landscape settings; the presence oftrees generally enhances public judg-ment of visual quality. In this case athree point difference in means betweenthe highest and lowest rated scenes is astriking example of how plants canaffect consumers’ judgments of place.
Perception Categories
Analysis also reveals categories of imagesbased on similar patterns of response.Typically, differences in the categoriescan be attributed to both the content ofthe images and how the image elementsare arranged. Five visual categories wereidentified (see photos at left).
Mean Ratings
Preference ratings increase with thepresence of trees in the streetscape. Cat-egory “A” was rated lower, by far, thanthe other categories even though itsimages contain some vegetation. Cat-egory “B” images contain the most com-plex landscape plant blend, yet werevalued least of the image categories con-
Exploring Public Preferences
Preference surveys are a proven tool used to assess public values. The
survey showed retail settings with different amounts and arrangements
of vegetation. People were asked to rate scenes on how much they liked
them (1 = not at all, to 5 = very much). The ratings do express an aesthetic
judgment, but the basis of the judgment is very important — the capacity
of a place to meet the needs and concerns of a person.
taining trees. Meanwhile, larger trees areassociated with higher preference, as inCategories “C”, “D” and “E.” Both openand dense canopied trees are valued.Finally, the latter three categories alsoappear more ordered; both trees andaccessory vegetation are placed and man-aged to create distinct visual patterns.
Comparing Business
and Visitors
Both business and consumer surveygroups gave higher ratings to scenes withtrees. Yet, within all but one category(Category “E”) business respondentssignificantly differed from visitors in theirassessment of visual quality. Businessratings of Category “A” scenes werehigher than visitor ratings, despite thegrim, hard-featured character of the streetsetting. Meanwhile, business peopleconsistently rated landscaped scenes onCategories “B” through “D” lower thanvisitors, suggesting that merchants haveless appreciation for trees than the peoplethey wish to welcome to their shops.
Categories can be attributed to both the content of the images
TreeLink, Spring 1999
Lowest Rated Scene
Highest Rated Scene
to pay, on average, 12% higher for products in districts with trees.
ALL
PH
OTO
S B
Y K
ATH
LEEN
L.
WO
LF
Research support provided by the USDA Forest Service and
National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council.
f Ratings of business
people and the general public
were statistically compared
to better understand how their
values for the urban forest
may differ.
The Washington Community Forestry Council was organized by the Wash-
ington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1991. Its goal is toprovide leadership and vision to help citizens preserve, plant and maintaincommunity trees and forests. The Council consists of a general membershipand an Executive Advisory Committee to the State Forester. Join by calling
1-800-523-TREE.
“TreeLink” is a quarterly publication of the DNR Community ForestryProgram. The goal of the program is to assist communities in building self-
sustaining urban forestry and tree care programs with strong local support.
Editor: Kevin LeClair, Resource Protection, DNR.Graphic Design: Luis Prado, Communications Product Development, DNR.
Funding provided by DNR and the USDA-Forest Service.
Washington Community Forestry Council
BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE
PAID
OLYMPIA, WAPermit No. 263
Natural ResourcesWASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
WASHINGTON COMMUNITY FORESTRY COUNCIL
C/O DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 47037
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7037
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
TREELINK, SPRING 1999. CPD JOB # 2.2.99
Consumer Perceptions and Behavior
Place Perceptions
Four perception categories emerged fromparticipants’ ratings of the three businessdistricts:❚ amenity and comfort,❚ interaction with merchants,❚ quality of product,❚ maintenance and upkeepConsumers’ ratings for each of the catego-ries were significantly higher for districtsthat had street trees and other landscapeimprovements. For instance, amenity andcomfort ratings were about 80% higher fora tree lined sidewalk compared to a non-shaded street. Also, quality of product rat-ings were 30% higher in districts havingtrees over those with barren sidewalks.Interaction with merchants items includedcustomer service issues; ratings were about15% higher for districts with trees.
Patronage Behavior
Actions follow our impressions of a place.Respondents were asked to give opinions oftheir behavior within the three shoppingdistricts, including travel time, travel dis-tance, duration of a visit, frequency of visitsand willingness-to-pay for parking. Again,trees make a difference. Considering all
Often taken for granted, our surroundings, both outdoor and indoor, affect
the course of our daily lives. Physical features define how we move and get
around in any space. In addition, elements of an environment send cues that
can influence our attitudes and behavior within a place. The study evaluated
how the character of a place influences shoppers’ behavior in a business
district. People were asked a series of questions about three hypothetical
business districts. What do consumers read from the visual cues of a place?
Here are some of the results.
behaviors, higher measures were reportedin the districts having trees. For instance,respondents claimed they would be willingto pay more for parking in a well land-scaped business district. This suggestsgreater revenues from shaded parkingcould offset the costs of parking space loss,a frequent objection to trees by merchants.
Pricing Patterns
Do trees influence how much people arewilling to pay for goods? Contingent valua-tion methods were used to assess how ame-nity values relate to customers’ price valua-tions. Survey respondents were asked tospecify a price for each of 15 items in abasket of goods in the business districts. Thesurvey participants consistently priced goodssignificantly higher in landscaped districts.Prices were, on average, about 12% higherfor products in the landscaped district com-pared to the no-tree district. This was trueof low-price, impulse-buy conveniencegoods (e.g. lunch sandwich, flower bou-quet), as well as bigger ticket, comparison-shopped items (e.g. sports shoes, newglasses). Given the low profit margins ofmost retail businesses, trees appear to pro-vide a significant amenity margin.
Growing Trees and
Revenue for Business
A goal of 15%
tree canopy cover
is recommended
by American
Forests for busi-
ness districts;
most American retail environ-
ments have 5% or less. How
can we encourage business
leaders to become advocates
for trees? While there are few
direct cost benefits, support of
the urban and community
forest provides other indirect
returns. A healthy, vital urban
forest sends messages that
welcome shoppers. Other
studies confirm that the pres-
ence of trees may boost
worker productivity and that
trees boost property values.
The community forest is an
asset for entire retail commu-
nities, as well as individual
business owners. A tree pro-
gram should be a part of
any business improvements
campaign.
Urban Forest Values:
Economic Benefits of Trees in Cities
��������� � ������������������� ��� ��� ��� ��� ������ ��������� ��� ���������"!������#��������������$&% '������(�)��� �*! ��� ��$&� �)������' �+��� ���,$-�.���� ��� ��/+0#�����1 � 2+��' % �����3$+�����#������� �* ' ������� � ����%���% ��!������������������ ���4�"�3$ �������,2�����' ����5,��� /�6)��!�����$&���4���(���������"�)��� 7�� � $&� �������������� � �,��������� � 7�' ��2+��' % ��!�' �8�����������3$+��1��9%���!���������2+� �4����8�#����/�:3��� ������� �(����1 �;2<�9�������% �����=��1�� ��������8��� �<��% �������%������>��1��?�@�������#�������2.� �<� $&������#���' �"� ����� ��� ����/A�B������' �����"������������8�����=�,$C!��3��1�! ��� ��$&� ���������������(����� ��,1���' ' �#��7�� � 7�/�D���������1���' �#����E($F% ' ' %�� �<�#���(��������� � 7)�3$+��1 � � � ��$F�.����?��� ����� �>2.��' % ��! ' �"� $C������� ��� ��� G?8��5������>H�� ��1�������53�"�����(�)��$ $?���&��� 2<�9 ��' � �&��������! %���7����=������� ��� ������/=I ��2<���(����#������� ����1 �8 ' ������� � 7)�������������8�,$+��������� ���� �����������' �.��7J���#��K����8�� ��"������� �3$C�������4�,�"���.' ' ������L�� 8��4����#�� ' ������� ��7��>H�� ' ' � � �,�4�������"�����(��� ��� �����#�<%����"!���� ��$&� ����/��� ��M %��?���8���#����% ��������$F����!��,��1� ' ����� � ��7)��� ���������7���8�������,$-% ��! ����7����#���8� ��� �������������?��� $-��� ��� ���>HN� ��1���������� 8� O�� ��1 ��2+��' % ���P��� ��! ������$F� ��� �3$+��1��8% ��! ����$?�����#�(��/
QSR8TVU3W>X9R*Y[Z9R*\�]9^_]"R*`aQSR*Z�W>b)cd ]�T9U#R*b�ef � ���.G H�� ��� E;��1��"�����%����=��� ��M %���' � �&�*�3$<�������#� � ��$&' %�G�����,�8! �3��1�! � ��' ��7�� ����' ��� �* 1��+��� ����' %���!���������2+� ���.��G��3������/�g�' ��������E�� $@�(�����?����7�� ����' ' �*�' ������������������������$&���(E�,���9!�������8�9�=h�' � 2+� � 7i������1�� ��' ��7&�,E j���5,��������?���3$���1 �%���!������ ��$F�����k����%��&��%��4� ��1��?�)����������� !�%����������l8�����' � 2��#��! ' �8%���! �����' �����#��/
mlnCo p�q?r_sto�r_uwv8xyxyzCq?rls{v�xy|ip�|S}-��~��$&�����C�����#�8���#�<% ������������% ��' 1��#�&��� � 7)��� ��������' � ��7)�����(����3$@�@�&�+ � ����'�������� �<�#�����8!��������N��~ ��E� ������%���� ��7)����;2��#����7��"�.���8���;2+� ��7��P ���>��8����� �����81��.% ����1 ��' ��/>� ' ���<E!�%�� ' �<� ��7������ ����(2+� � 7=� ����� �?���������������������#�?���"�)1��#�&��G� ��' ��������$ $?���&��/A��8�?��%���� ���4���"�,��� ��������#�<% ����� ��� ����#8 �����?��%��4��� !��*��!��.%��)�����l� �����?E�� ��$&' % ������� ��7@��1 �� �����#������'�����8��#���?��% �4�#���3$-� ������!��N! %�� ' � � � 7���/
o�q����y��o�z@q?p���o�rlu{v8z@n-o�rl|Jq&rNs{}.���&�3�+� �3�,��+�������A���3�A�<���<��� �=���+�A�<�P�< +¡�� �<¢��A£���¤<�3¥,�����+� ���� �,�;¢@�§¦<���,� �F¦��"�&�����<¨������9�9�<©N£ �&¢��&�,� ���,��¦��F��� �<¨��3�,��+���Aª+�+�3�*�,�<�A�+�-©+¡<«�� �<¢��A£��>¤<�3¥,�����,�<���+�,� � �,¬K�FV��F��� � �=���<�+�<� �9�F¦<�*��¤<�3¥������+� ��ª+�)�A£��V�<�������A�N� �,�3¦��� �,��®��=� ����¨��3�A�A� ���)��� �)�F� ���<�����,�&�+�������,��� �,�F� ªN�<��F��� ���3�,�+�A�<� ��������ª+�<�3�������A¥V� � ¯�� � ���<�V�<�*�F�S¡<°�¨�+���Aª.�<�3� �+¥)����¯3� �+¥,� � ���,� ���3� ���,�+±?�+���3�,���+�,� ¥,�+��¢
�#� ����' ' �3E��=8�&��% ���P�����#�"��! ������! ��$F�4��²� ~ �����N~ ³��8' !���/�3$+��1��"��8��' ' ����?��� ��' ������� ��7������#���3$@��� �� ��' ' %���� ��� /�I �:3����������������<E f �PE�$?�.��� ���(����������E(��1�� � ������4�������������2+��' %��"�3$C�.~�� / ´�8� ' ' � ����/
q?µ·¶ ��x�¸�n-uB¹ºo p�n-���y�8o�zCq?p)�»}P¼@1 �9����� �����3$C�)�(���4�����@�����#�"� �����������#���������� � E� �.����� !�' ��������% �,� ��7��1��"�����% ���)�3$<H��?�����A��1��?�@H�� ' '�$&��' '�������(2���8�����)�������1�����8% �(�)!��"���#8�,2�����!����)�(������ H��&�������<����� ����7���(�+�(����8/ I �8�����V�(��%����,E�½ ~�$ ��/(����' ' �(�����#���@�����#��� � ��������G��������#�*����� ��$&��' ' E��4����%���� ��7)�(�������H��?��������%�� �3$ $-!���½�~ ´7���' ' ��� ��/�:3�;2+� ��7�� �����"��.����� !�' �"��� �����"��� ��� ��� �,����� � �(����' '��% �;$&������H��?������"������7��#��#���)�(�+�(����8�>��1 �?��1 ��� ��' ���8��' ' ������8��%��������3$C��% ���3$ $&/
¾�¿�ÀPÁ�Â�à Ä,À�Å.Æ3Ç,È�É?À�À�Å�Â�Ê,Ë�Ì,à Â�Ê,È;Å.Í Ê�Ä�É&Î,Â�Ê�Ï�À�Ê,È;À�É&Å�Â�É�ÀÆ,Ç È;À�Ê)Æ�Á�À�É?à Æ,Æ3Ð�À�Ë�Ñ
ÒÓÔÕÖ×ØÔÙÚÛÜÝÞØßÔÓàÙÛÓ
á âãã äåäâæ ç âèäéêë äéâìèíäé
î�ï ð4ñ�ò ó&ô4ï õ�ök÷?ø�ñ4ù ú�õ?ö û�ü�ý?ô4ò�ô4þiÿ ý���õ?ò�õ�� ÿ ÷ ö+ô�����ï õ�õ?ö+ÿ ò���ÿ ÷ ÿ õ?ö� � � � � ��� �
���������������� �!"!# �$&%(') �!#*+�),�-.0/213/24658739;:6/24<:69;4>=3/?1>/2@+4A/27>BC/C:EDF7>DG/H73I8I;467>J :E/246:K7>L8@M;N;OQPSRTDG5;/2UV7>W>4A/C/2@XDF5;7>D)B 7>L8@8:EYZ7>I8J L;W[7>@;@8/2@+DFPDG58/H@8P�B B 7>4\=>7>B 9;/PSR]YZPSU^U/24AYZJ 7>B84A/C7>B;/C:EDG7>DF/;_<`8a;O73B :EP�7>W>4A/C/?@+DF5;7>D)B 7>L;@8:6YZ73I;J L8Wb/CL;587>L;YZ/C:<DG58/�:E7>B /C:7cI8I;/C7>B;PSRdYZPSUU^/24EYZJ 7>B;4A/C7>BC/2:6DG7>DF/;_
e ����,gf\�)%h������*+id H$+��j0�K kfl�),�-�m L;/:EDG98@81[B PSPTnZ/C@+7>Dko;p+=Z7>46J 7>q8B /C:GrQ734EYZ5;J DF/2YZDG984E/�7>L;@9;46q87>L^@d/?:6J W>LsrtPSRTI;PSDF/2L8DGJ 73B;J UI8PS4cDF7>L;YZ/J L+@;/CDG/C4�uUJ L;J L8WlPSR R J YZ/�PSYZYZ9;I87>L;YZ1b4673DF/C:E_�v)/2:E98B DF:�:69;W3W>/2:6DDG5873DkB 7>L8@8:AYZ7>I8/H7>U/CL;J DGJ /2:\5C7E=>/HDF5;/5;J W>5;/C:ED)Y>PS4E4A/CuB 7>DGJ PSL^w[J D�5+PSYZYZ9;I873L8YZ1[467>DG/2:Exc5;J W>5;/C4\/2=c/CL^DF5C7>L@8J 4E/2YZD)7>YZY>/C:E:<DGP�7>43DF/246J 7>B;4APT98DG/C:E_
29y{z?|d}�~F�]���A}��29
�#�2� �c�s�A��� �G���C���(�>���2� �2�s�G�C�C�����C� � �s�>�\�C���E�C���s���S�S�?���2�2���c�?����s�C�G�s�#� �;�\�#���C�>�+���C�6�G� �c�C� �G�C������?�6�?�^�C�s���s�Z�s�
¢¡¤£k¥Z¦¡b§¨c¥>©[ª&«&¬Sb®¡b¬)¨F¯V°�©[ª>±¡b£
²�PS9;:E/I;46J Y>/C:K7>4A/H7>B :EP�J L;R B 9;/CL;Y>/C@+q;1[DG58/HI;4E/C:E/CLCYZ/PSR]DF4E/C/2:E_^³K/?=c/2B PSI;/C46:<YZ7>L^U^7>´CJ UJ µ>/HI;46PSR J DF:<qC14E/CDG7>J L;J L;Wb/C´;J :ADFJ L;W¤DG4E/2/C:<PS4<4E/2I;B 7>L;DFJ L8Wb7>L^9846q;7>LR P�4A/C:EDk7>R DG/C4lY3P�L;:EDF469;YZDFJ PSL+J :<YZPTU^I;B /2DF/2@d_��$&���K�) �,g�)%·¶X�����¸,# �!#��,�i����G���),�-g¹ /?=3/2467>B:EDF9;@dJ /C:<5;76=3/73L;7>B 1Zµ3/2@XDG58/H/CR R /CY>DG:<P�R]DG46/2/C:<PSL7>YZDF9;7>B2:E7>B /2:�I;46J YZ/C:�PSR84A/C:EJ @8/CL;DFJ 7>BCI;4EPSI8/243DGJ /2:E_²�PSU/C:�w[J DF5H/?º89;J =Z7>B /2L8D#R /C7>DG984E/?:Frt:Eº89;7>4E/�R PSPSDG73W>/;xL;9;U^u�q8/24<PSR8qC7>DF5;4APSPSU^:ExEB PSYZ7>DFJ PTLsrQ7>4A/�/?=Z7>B 9873DF/2@8_» L^P�L;/H7>4A/C7¤7lN8OtJ L8YZ4A/C7>:E/HJ L+=>73B 9;/w[73:<7>:6:EPSYZJ 7>DG/2@w[J DF5^DF5;/I;4E/2:A/CL;YZ/PSR]DG46/2/C:E¼67>LJ L8YZ4E/27>:6/HPSR]o8_ ½^DGP¾8_ ½;OQw[7>:<4E/CICPS4>DG/C@+J L^7>L8PSDG58/24\:EDG98@81�_fl���)�",g��¿<� �$&%¢') �!#*+�À-TÁ DG/C7>UhPSRd4A/2:E/C7>4�YZ5;u/C46:<YZPSUI87>4E/C@^DG4E/2/:EJ µ3/7>L;@+I89Cq8B J Y[=Z7>B 9;7>DGJ PSL;:<PTR
5;PSU^/2:E_gÂ24E/2/:EJ µ3/@dJ @+L8PSD)7>R R /CYZD)DF5;/#Ã698@8W>U^/?L8DG:\PSRI;46J YZ/HR P�4<B PTwÄI846J YZ/5;P�U/C:Ax6q;98D)@dJ @+7>R R /2YZDk=Z73B 98/2:PSR]UPS4E/HY>PS:EDFB 1[5;PS9;:6/2:E_lÅ?PT4\U^PS4A//2´8I;/CL;:EJ =c/5;PSU^/2:6x6:EU7>B B;7>L;@XU/C@8J 9;UuG:EJ µ3/C@+DF4A/C/2:\/2L85;73L;YZ/C@DG58/�I;98q;B J Y>Æ :KI8/24EYZ/2I8DGJ PSLPSR84A/C7>BC/C:EDG7>DF/�=Z7>B 98/C_
*^$&����ik���^'l�)%hik����i����#fljX'k �!#*+�),�-KÇ :EJ L8W7b:EYZ7>B /HUHP�@8/2B8PSR]7bB 7>L;@+I87c4EYZ/2B x64A/C:E/C7>4AYZ5;/C46:KR PS98L;@DG5873DkDG58/246/�w[7>:<7¤o;p8Ot@8J R R /24A/2L8YZ/HJ L+73I;I8467>J :E/2@=>7>B 9;/q;7>:A/C@+PSL+DF5;/7>UPS98LCDk7>L;@X=>7>4cJ 7>DGJ PSL^PSR]DG46/?/Y>PS=3/24{_SÂ;73n2J L;W[J L;DFP�7>YZYZPS9;L;DkDG58/I;PSDF/2L8DGJ 73B8=Z73B 98/PSR7b58PS9;:E/qC98J B D)PSL+DG58/H:EJ DG/8x6DG5;/=Z7>B 98/HJ L;YZ4A/C7>:A/wbPS9;B @+q8/HYZB PS:6/DGP�½;Ol_
¢¡b¨>©¤¥>ªX©¤§H¦ÉÈtbÊËÊË¡b¬TÌl¥Z©¤ªÍ&§Î¤¥Z¬S¤§^ÊÏ¡¤§^¨>£
Ð�9;:EJ L;/C:E:E/C:<wbPS46nH587>4E@+DFP�PSR R /C4<I;4EPS@89;YZDF:<7>L;@:E/24Z=ZJ YZ/2:\DG5873D)U^/2/CD)DF5;/CJ 4\YZ98:EDGPTU^/24c:EÆ;L8/2/C@8:E_�Â)5;/I;4E/C:E/CL;DF7>DFJ PSLPS4\J U7>W>/PSR]:E5;PSI;:<7>L;@+q89;:6J L8/2:E:@8J :EDG4cJ YZDG:<J :<7>B :EPÑJ UI8PS43DF7>L;DF_SÂC4A/2/2:<58/2B I^YZ4A/C7>DG/7I;PS:EJ DGJ =>/H/CLC=>J 4APSL8U/CL;DkDG587>D)7>DFDG4673YZDF:<7>L8@+wb/CB YZPSU/2:YZPSL;:E98U/C46:E_
����$&,g*+�����Òi] �fl�k��$X [Ó^�"- » L+7¤:E9843=3/21[PSRPSL;/:EP�9;DF5;/24cL^Y>P�UU^9;L;J DG1�xcÔ;¾8OtPSR]DF5;/I89;q8B J YI;4E/CR /C464A/C@+DGPÑI;7>DF4APSL8J µ3/HYZPSU^UH/C4AYZJ 7>B;/2:EDF7>q;B J :E58uU/CL;DF:<w[5;PS:6/�:EDF469;YZDF9;4E/2:<7>L;@+I;7>46nCJ L8WbB PSDG:<7>4E/q;/C7>9;DFJ R J /2@Xw[J DF5^DF4A/C/2:\73L8@+PSDF5;/24\B 7>L;@8:6YZ73I;J L8W>_
Õ\Ö>×3Ö>Ø;ÖZÙ<Ú8ÖZÛXÜsÙKÝ�Õ<ÖZÛSÞZß�Ø8Ú8ÖZÛTàá?âGã�ä3å æEçéèFê�ëFì3ícícîcë ïCâGðcã�ñ�ò�ó?âéæ6ô�õ8öcã�ñcä3ô{÷�ã�øcæ6ô�ù3ú ñcõ�æEû�âGã�õ ü ñ3ûý�þcå õ ü ä3ü ô�÷�ü ø3å ü ñ3ãFâ�çgÿcæEâGô�øcæ6÷�õ ü �Fæ6ô�ë �Aæ6ã�õ õ å æ6ùcïCñcü �{ëGó������ÿ3â�æ6ô�ô{ë�+æ6ô�õ æ6âGñ�gõ â ë�� óZâ�ïCâGð3ã�ñ�òEósâéæ6ô�õ�cô�÷ �6ë����3ä3þc÷�ã�õ ü ósñ3è��]æEø3õ ë{ó���3ñ���ü â{ósñ���æ6ñcõ ã�å��8ósâFõ ü ÷�þcå õ þ3âéæ3ècï;ñcü �gó������Të��]ã���ü ô�è����Së
�Sæ6ô�õ��cæ6õ ü ÷�ô]ã�ñcä��#ó�����æ6â{÷�ü ã�å �]ü ô�õ�â�ü ÷�õ ô�ë�ì3ící�!3ë�"cóså ë�ìcè�#Só3ë�$cè�E÷�æ6ñcü ÷%�&��æ6âGü ÷�ã('EæE÷ �3ñcü ÷�ã�åCú ñ�� ósâ���ã�õ ü ósñ�Aæ6â�ü æ6ô�ë
�*)#çFæEâ èGý�÷�ÿ��3æEâGô{ósñ3è��A÷ �câ{ósæ6ä3æ6â&�+có�)#ñ3õ â{æ6æcëGì3ící�,3ë �Sô�ô�æ6ô�ô{ü ñcûõ��3æká?æ6ñcæ�� ü õ ôSãFñcä-�gósô�õ ôSó��Zõ��cæ¤ï;âGð6ã�ñ�òAósâ{æ6ô�õ ë�. ósþcâGñ3ã�åcó/��SâGðcósâGü ÷�þcå õ þcâ{æcè�ì�0�1 î�2%,�,�3�4�,�!�5cë
6 Þ?Ù�7>Ü�Ú�73à82ã�õ9�>å æ3æcñ\öcë �+ó2å � è�ÿ/�>ë9�Cë��æ3ñ>õéæcâ�� ó2â\ïdâFð>ãAñ:�]ó2â�õéü ÷AþZå õéþ>â�æÿ/�>ó2ñ>æcù%1 ,�;�$�2%$>ì�$�4�î�3>î�0�<sòcã>=>ù�1 ,�;�$�2�$�0>î�4?,�$>í�,��4?�KãAü å ùA@�)gó2å ��BHþ>ë ))ãAôC�>ü ñZû�õéó2ñ>ë æ6äZþ�+æ6ðKôGü õ�æ6ùD)�)�)Së ÷>� â ë )�ã�ô��3ü ñ3û�õ�ósñcë æ6ä>þ�E âGæ6ôGæ6ã�â{÷ �3ë æcñ��>��ü ñ3ä
F âGå ã�ñcä3è ";ü ñ6ü ñcû��G�3ðcâ�æ6ó>ëGìcí3í�,cë ' �cæ���� � æ6÷�õ8ó����Aõ�â{æEæ6õ�'6âéæ6æ6ôTósñÿ6æEâ�÷�æ6ü �FæAäH"sã�å þ3æ6ô]ó��H6æ6ô�ü ä3æ6ñcõ�ü ã�å6ÿ3â�ósø3æEâFõ ç{ë��cñ���ü âéó?ñ��kæ6ñcõã�ñcäKá?æ��cã���ü ósâ è�,�5�1 !�2�,cí�0�4 !�,3îcë
Trees in Business Districts:
Positive Effects on Consumer Behavior!
I*JCK�KALNMOJAK�P(Q�Q%R�S�Q�J�T�U L/V W�KALAL�X�YZJAK�[�K/W \&LA\�U�R>]�[�Q�W>S�V J ^�L�\�_�M?\-[�Q�W>L/U�^`K/J�LNJAKAL/a/Q%W�RGa�Q�L/V \�V b(K/c ]d\�QdL�_�Q%a�a�V W>PGK/WAb V JCQ�W�e^`K�W>\fLN_�M�b V W>PGM_�K/MOc \�_�]�U�J T�MOW�S�Q%JCKALA\�g/YN[�JCQ�LALNQ%U�J�W�Mf\�V Q�W�h ^iM�WA]�JCKCb�V \�M�c V jOV W P�T�U L/V W�KALALNR�V LA\�J V [�\fLNMOJCK�kGQ%J l�V W>PG_�MOJAR�\�Q[�JCK�Mf\�K�b�V T�J M�W \�h?b�V \�M�c�[OQ%W L/U�^NK/J�K/WCb�V JCQ�W�^iK/W>\fL/g�mn_C]-L�_�Q%U�c R�\�JCK/KALNT�KiM-a�M�J9\-Q�SoMOW`M�[�\�V Q%Wa�c M>W>pqdK/M�c \�_C]�M�W�R�k�K�c c e9^NM�V W \�M�V W�K/R�\�JCK/KAL�L/K/W�Rra�Q�L/V \�V b�KN^NKCLAL�M9P KCLNM�T�Q�U>\&\�_�KNM>a�a�K/MOc�Q�SoMR�V LA\�J V [�\�h \�_�Kis�U�M�c V \f]Q�SDa�JCQ�R(U�[�\fL�\�_�K/JAK�h>MOW�R�k�_�M9\-[�U LA\�Q%^NK/J*L�K/Jfb V [�KiMDL/_�Q�a�a�K/J�[�MOWrKCt&a�K/[�\�g�I_�KC]GM�JCKiM�WrV ^`a�Q%J9\�MOW>\-[OQ%^Na�Q�W�K/W \-Q�SoM�WC]a�J�Q�P(J M�^u\�QvMf\f\�J MO[�\&L/_�Q%a�a�K/J�LNMOW�R�b�V L/V \�Q�J�L/g>w&KCb V \�MOc V jOV W>PGR�V LA\OJ V [f\fLi^NU LA\-MOR(R�JCKALALiU�J�P K/W \W�K/K�ROLiQ�S(L/K�[�U�J V \f]�h�L/MOW�V \�M9\�V Q�W�ha�M>J l/V W P hAM�W�Rr^NM�J l�KC\�V WAP g/Y�\f\�K�W>\�V Q�W�\�Qd\�JCK/KCLNV LiMW�K�[�KALAL/MOJf]Ga�MOJ?\Q�SoMOWA]�V ^`a�JCQ�b�K/^NK/W \fLNa�JCQ�P(J M�^NgYNW�Rr_�M�b V W>P\�_�Kia�Q�L�V \OV b KiK/WAb�V JCQ�W�^NK/W>\[�J�K/M9\�K/RrT ]-\�JAK/KALN^NM ]�M�[f\�U�MOc c ]�K/M9L/K�L/Q%^iKNQ�S \�_�KNQ�\�_�K/J�V LAL�U�KAL/g�YN^`K�J>V [�MOWx�Q�JCKALA\fL/h M-W�Mf\�V Q%W�M�c \�JAK�KiW�Q�W�e9a�JAQ�S�V \�h?L/U P�P�KALA\fLNM&P(Q�M�c�Q�Soy�z>{u\�JCK/Ki[�MOW�Q�aC]�[�Q�b(K/J�V W`T�U L/V W�KALALNR�V LA\�J V [9\fL/| ^NQ�LA\JCKA\OM�V c�K/WAb V JCQ%W�^NK/W \fLNV W�\�_�Ki}�g ~HgA_�M?b(Kiz>{ZQ%J�c KALAL�g�w&KAL/K/M�JA[�_NJ�KAL/U�c \fL�L/U>P�P(KALA\D\�_/Mf\V WAb(KALA\�V W P�V W�\�JAK/KCLNV L�P�Q�Q%RS�Q�JH\�_�KiT�U L/V W�KALALNT�Q�\f\OQ%^�c V W�K/X
� � ����� � �(�O��� �>��� �r����� � � � �����*�G�� �N�����(�>� �(���>�����:� ���O���� �v�����(�������>�&����� �G� �O�%� �����d����� ���f��� ��� � ����� �O���(���� ��� �-�A���>�(�*� � �����v���A�G���*���(��� ���d�����>�(����� �:�A����>�(�*� � ���&���A�*���(�����O�>�:�>��� � � ���O��� �f���(��� �-�(�/�����O��� �� � ����� �*�(�>�O���(�¡�>�(�H�(� ���>�>�
¢ �(�� � �>�A�*�(�(��� �(���>� � �/���G�*����� �*�*����� ��� �(� �*�*�?���� �����C�����(�G���*�(�O� �r�/���*� �� ��� �: � � ���>��£o�(�G�(� �%�>� ���� ���������(�>�����/���¤�>�>�f��� �(�¤�>� �¤� ���(�������r�������G���(�v���>���� �*�(� �v� �����>�:�>�(�����(�-¥ �����(� � ��� �*�(�O�� ���G���O�����/��������>�%� � �*�(�������¤� ��� � ���>�(���� �r��� ���&�������¤� ���� �(���(���G�*�(�������� ���(��������(�v� �/� �?�%� �*�&�:� ���(� ���¤�( �������*£o� � ���?��� ���� �%�� �(�������v�(�������(�G���(���>���������-�����d�( �����G� �O�� �(��� ������ ���n�>�(�*�(� ���O��� ���>� �H� �-���:�d�(� � � �����>��� � �����>� ����������*� ��¡��� �r��� ¦����v�¤�>���O� ����/��§(�(���?��� �*�(���� �*�O���� ��� � � ¦����?¨ � � � � ¦/�������(�v� ��� �?�%� �*�&�¡� ��� � �-���(� ���� �%� �����(�>��� ���� (� �(� � � ��� ����� �?���O� �����>�©i� ��� � ���������/�%��� �� ���>�����A���v� ��� � ����� � �� �(���r� �����*�>������� �*�v��� �*�O�i�( ������(��� �����O��� �*�(�>���(����� �H� �����G� ���(�?�%� �*�9���� �¡�(�O� ��� �(������f����� �(� �
ª�« ¬99®�« ¯ H°�±�²�³d9®�´�´�¬�³�®�µO¯ ¯>´�¬�¬f³/® ¶· ´�¸>´�9µ�9« ³/¹
ª�« ¬99®�« ¯ Hº�±O»¼« 9½9®f´�´�¬f¾C¹�³-µ�¯ ¯ ´�¬�¬f³�® ¶· ´�¸>´�9µ�9« ³/¹
ª�« ¬99®�« ¯ H¿�±O»¼« f½9®f´�´�¬*µO¹�ÀµO¯ ¯>´�¬�¬f³/® ¶· ´�¸>´�9µ�9« ³/¹
ÁÃÂGÄ*ŤÅÇÆ�Â�ȤÉGÉ�Ê�ËÌÎÍZÊ�ÏHÐ�ÄDÊ�ÑoÐ�ÏÒ`Ó�ÔDÕ(ÖD×ÙØ/Ú¡Ò�ÖdØ�ÕÜÛ�ÔdÝ�ÞßØ�Õ�Õ&Û�à�Ø/Õ�á
âuŤÏ�ŤãiÄ*ÑdÂåä:Ä*È�æiŤÑoУo� �r� ����� �*�(�� ���������/�O���*� � � �������v�>�¤��� �rç¤� � �����O�>� ���:����Z��� � � �(�����H� �O�(�>���v�>�(��� � �:§(� ���?��� �*��� ��� � ���&���� �>� ������� �������G�(�(� � �i�(��� �����O��� �*�(����(�H�������(�G� �H �r�/���� ������ �v� �A�%� ���� � èO� �(�¤�(� �>� � ���>����� �?���>� �����>�-é/�(��� � �%��v��� �r�>�����o�����>�/ ������������� �?���O� ������� �r��� ��� �����/����� �� ����� �C� �¤ê��*�����O�¡�/�?���*ë�(�?��� �(� ì(�*�*ë�(���� ��� �>�¤�(� ���������
íîïðñòóïôõö÷
øùóúïîûôöî
ü ýþþ ÿ�ÿý�� ý�ÿ��� ÿ�ý���ÿ�
� ������� ������� � ����� ����� � � � ��� � � �"!#� � � � $��&%�' ' ����� �(!#��)#!#��� ��*+�������,�- $�� !. /10 2 354 6 3 758 9
30:�;=<(>@?.A�BCBC>@D30
EGFIH J�KML"N#H O.P QIRCSUTVN#WIH FIXYO.QIFIZ#[�Q�\ \ KYXYK]QIR+^�QIL#KMNCO&_&KMN#QI`�L#a�KMN[ KMF�O.KMLGR QIL]EGLCb�TYFdceQIL�O.H a�`I\ O.`�LCKfgQMJ�KMhdb�K=L+iMjYjMk
ldm�nporqsltq]u(orqrv w�xzy]{}|~Y���I�@�z�����=�����"� �=� �Y�g���=�#�V�M����� �������=�}�=�����=�]���C����C�I���I�C�t�I�����z� �z� �I�����z�C�������z� �I�����Y�(���I�����I�"�M�}���I�C� ���=�"���� � ���"� �����C�
�����(�+� ���¡ (�+¢¤£}¥¦�¨§ ¥+©M�ª��+����©z («I��� ¥¦��¬¤� ��¤®¯��©�«I& (�+��°±¤² �³ � ���¡¥+§+´�©�¥¦¢ ² «I��°®¯ (� �µ�����& (�+«��¶ (�&¢¯·t¸&¹�����¸
º �����"�I�}�=���C�I�"����� ���z�����»�M�z�z���Y���z���}�z���z�=�����"� �=�µ¼t���
�C� ���I� ��� �z������½ �t��� ���I�M�+����� �I� �5���"� ���z�µ���I���]�I���»�5���C�Y�"����C�M�=� �����»�Y���I�M�@½ �������C�V�����¾� �}�I�#�Y�I�=�}�=���z�C¿¶~V���� �I� �z�����V��À�ÁÂ���M�I� ���t���I� º ��� �������p�"����� �����&¼»�=�C�¾���������Ã�Ä�Å��I� ���I�M�&�����@�G���"�=�MÆ�½ � �I�M�»�C� �I�C¼t��½ Ǿ�V�������z�.�=�r�z�d�������Æ��C�I�����Y�»�5���C�=�C�zÈ&Á ½ �C��À�Ét���z½ � ���t�Y�eÊI�C���I�I������"���z� �I���&¼Ë�M�C�¾ÌIÄ�Å���� �����=�@� �}��� �5����� ����� �����(� �I�G���#�=�M��V�I�=�&�z�����C��¼t� �����I���C�C�=���"� ���C¼t��½ Ç=�"È Í �����=�"�z����� ���@¼t� �z�Î��=�#�z�I�������Â� ���=�}�Â� ���V½ �I�I�=�}�z���5�����}�=���"�=���(� �z�1� �"�C�I�M�"Ï�"���z� �I���µ¼t�M�#�}���������]Ð�ÑIŨ�I� �����=�&�����@�I� �5����� �����&¼Ë� ������C�M�=�"È
ltnew�u�y]{}neÒÓqÕÔÖq]×}nGØËxzyruÁ ���z� ���I�µ����½ ½ �V¼Õ�����@� �}���C�=�"�C� ���=� �Y�e�]��½ ���z�IÈ Ù¦�=Æ�"�I�����I�=���z�µ¼Ë�M�C�}���"Çz�=�r���Ó��� ���Ú���I� �I� ���I���Y�(���I�M� ��I�=���5��� ���µ¼t� �z�=� �����I�Â�����"�=�1�"��������� ���r�I� �5����� �����"À� �I�z½ �I�I� ���p��©V �Û&��³���� �¨�&ÜY��©V �Û&��³�¢&� °��� (�&«I�µÜY¢ ² ©V (�"� ¥¦�¥¦§+ pÛG� °�� ��ÜY§�©z�(Ý ² ���+«��¡¥+§�ÛG� °�� �"°p (�&¢�¬¯� ³ ³ � �+Þ��&��°�°�ß��¥+ß�¸& ��¯§5¥+©1¸& (©V¹�� �&Þ�È+Á��z��� ��À����C�=�M� ����ÇV�¾�]��� � ���=��Æ�=�I�z�=¿ º ���I�C� ���=��� �I�GÁ�à�à����=�I�5�(� ���"�"À��I� �z���=�@�}�=���"���#�=�
¼»�=�C�¾�#�=�I�����z�M�»� �@���I�¾�I� �5����� �.�����I�5�(� ���G�z�#�=�=�CÈ�~Y���� �I� �z�����z�IÀ��.�=�"���������M����� �z½ ��� �}�=�r�����C�p¼»���I½ �»�I�¼d� ½ ½ � ������Ó�����t�}���"������� �I����ÇM� ���p� ���G¼»�=½ ½I½ �������C�V�����=����I�C� ���=�"���I� �5����� ����È�á¦�I� ���"���z���=� �z���z�#�=���z�M�@�#�C���=�=���=����C���â�"���z���=�»�I����ÇM� ���e¼»����½ ���Y� �.�C�"�G�z���}�z���5�����V�������Ç=� �I�]�"�=���V�¾½ ���C�"À��G���C�MãI���M���]����ä��M�.��� ���@���Ú���#�=�M� �"��}�=�C�z�I�������"È
ltu+xzorxz{@ÒålËnew�w�q]ue{¾|æÚ�Ú���"�=�M� � ����½ �=�=�I�z�¾�I�V¼Õ�}���V���=�=����½ �¾�z�#� ¼t� ½ ½ � �I�¦��������p�����@�������I� ç º ������� �I���=���e�(��½ �=����� ���»�}�"���I���I�¼»�=�C�¾�I�C�=�r���d���"�"�M�"���I�Y¼è���}�=��� ���]����½ ���=���C�=½ ����������z���5�������M���"�I���"� �z� ����½ �I����� �����"ÈréY�������C�t�C�=�C�I�������M�����¼»�=�C�¾�z�CÇV�=�r���d�"���=�z� � �t�]�I�"� �z� ����� �=���z�»�Y�eÐ�Ñ�� ���=�}�� �¾�@ê��I���"ÇV�C�@�V�¦�������I�"ë@� ���z���1�I�=�"� �I�=�C�Â�I� �5�z�"� �����"Èá¦���"�=�Ú«� (����Þ(¥&©V� ��°r¥+§µÞ(¥¦¥+¢+°.ìí«I¥+�YÛ+���+� ���&«I�&Ü°�+¥+¸&¸+� �+Þ�ÜV°z¸µ��«�� �³ ����ìU¼»�=�C�}� �=�z½ �I�I�=�Iȵá¦�I�}�"�������#����z����� �z� ���z�����@�������"� �5���=����½ �t�I�"� �z�=�»�������I� �"� ����� ��� �z������½ �
��� �����=�@� ��½ ���I�I�"�z���I�=�»�I� � �z�"� �����"¿ÓÊI��� �z�M�&¼»�=�C�IÀ"����5�I�=�������IÀ����������]Ð�ÐIÅ���� �����=�+����� �I�#���������z��� �@�z�=�½ ���I�I�"�z�����M�»�z���������C�=�r���Ú�����¾�I��Æ �z�C�=�}�I� � �z�"� ����È�áG��� �¼t���&���"�I�¾�V�g½ �V¼tÆ������ �V��À�� ������½ �C�=Æ��I���t�V���"���=��� �Y�I�z��������I��î��=È ��È�½ ���I�z���"������¼t� �V��À���½ �V¼»�M�@�����Iã��I�C�zï�À"���µ¼t�M½ ½���Â��� ���z�M�µ��� �zÇY�"��À"�V�������z�"� �"���=Æ��C�I�����I�M��� ���=�}�Âî��=È ��È�C�I������� �C�����M�"À"�I�#¼è��½ ���"�"�M�"ï�È�ðÚ� ���M�@�z���¾½ �V¼Õ�I�.�Y�.� ��}������� ��� �V�e�}���5�]�C�"���z� ½I�����"� ���=�"�C�=�"À5�z�C�=�=�����I���M���+������C�Y�(� ���p���C� ���I� ��� �z�z��� ê������M��� ���}��������� ��È ë
ñ¦ò=ó�ô�õ=ö]÷�ø�ù�ú�ø=û¶øIô(ü�ý�þÿ���������ÿ���� ������ ������������� �������! #"%$����&����')(*��+,+.-���� � /102��"43657� "�/!89'�:;� 57��"�/�(���-��<�� � =�>!��"�� � <;-�� � -�"7���@?35736��"4<;ACB ��57� � � -�� 3����')� A�3D @EGFG8H02��"I357�!E23"%:;� <�3Jrõ�ô�ü�K(òIü2LM ��� A�� 336�.NO PH��� Q =IR�A�O F�OR�A�����36S�T U�V�W�XYW�ZW�[ \�]�\�^�_606��`�S�T U�V�W�X!W�^�\�[�U�W�a�U�_�b�[ +,��� � S%c6de��� Q4fC-�O d���5IA�� ��g�� ���O 36'�-PH36$)5I� � 36S�d�d�dhO <�Q " O d���57A�� ��g�� ����O 36'�-i "736573��"I<;A�O 3�6:;+.� ��'
Trees in Business Districts:
Comparing Values of Consumers and Business
jlkDm�n�o�p q�r%o%ots�r�k#s�u rtv�q�w1o�x�k#s�s�r�yzo�o�x�v;y7rtv;q{v;s�s�y7r�|2p v }2p k#q1~�k#y@}2y7r�r%o%�t�.x�p o*�Dv�olk�q�rlk~Go�r7��r�y�v;u���n�r%o%}2p k�q�otp q�v.y7r�|2r�q�}q�v };p k#q�v2u�o�n�y ��r7�Dv2m�k#n�}9}2x�rtn�y�m�v;q�~4k#y7r%o%}.p q�m�n�o�p q�r%o%otw�p o�}2y�p |4} o��1�hr7�Gp }2v;u p �;p q���m�n�o�p q�r7o�ot|2k#�t�tn�q�p }2p r%o*~4v2|2rt�{v;q%�|6kG�{s�r%}2p }2p �Grt|2x�v2u u r�q���r7otv2q�w�x�v ��rtu p �tp }2r�w{y%r7o�k�n�y%|2r%o�}2kCv2w�w�y%r%o%ot�tv2q%�Cq�r�r�w�o���jlr7o�s�p }2r*}2x�r�p y1|6k6o%}�o��z}2y7r�r%ots�y%k6��p w�r�{v�q��Dp q�w�p y7r�|�},m�r�q�r7~Ip }�o�}2kCm�n�o�p q�r%o%o�r%otv;q�w{|6k#�t�ln�q�p |6v }2rts�k6o�p }2p ��rl�{r7o�o�v �Gr%o*}2x�v },|6v;q{v�}�}2y�v;|4}h��p o�p };k#yzotv2q�w�o�x�k�s�s�r�yzo���hr�|2r�q�},y%r7o�r�v2y7|6x{m%�&o�k�|6p v;u�o�|6p r�q�}2p o�}�otv }9};x�rt�.q�p ��r�yzo�p }��Dk~���v o�x�p q��2}2k#q{x�r�u s�otn�o�}2kCm�r%}�}2r�y1n�q�w�r�yzo%}2v;q�w�}2x�r��Gv2u n�r%otk~}2y7r�r%olp q{v�m�n�o�p q�r7o�ol|2k��{�ln�q�p }�����hr7�Gp }2v2u p �;p q���w�p o%}2y�p |4}�o*��r�y7r)p w�r�q�}2p ~4p r�w{p q{r�p �Gx�}�|6p }2p r%olv2y7k#n�q�w1}2x�r)�.q�p }2r�w1�}2v�}2r%o���@k6}2x{m�n�o�p q�r%o%ots�r�k#s�u rlv;q�w�q�r�v2y�m��Cy7r7o�p w�rq�}�o���r�y7rlv�o��6r�w�}2kD|6k#�ts�u r%}2rlv9o�n�y ��rI����.x�rts�y%kI�;r�|�},k#n�};|6k��{r7o��%m�v o�r�w�k#qv2q�v2u �2o�p otk6~�y%r%o�s�k�q�o�r%o��%x�r�u s�otn�o�}2kCs�u v2q{v�q�w��tv;q�v���rln�y�m�v2q1~ k#y7r%o%}�o�}2x�v�}.m�r7}�}2r�y��tr�r%}2m�n�o�p q�r%o%olq�r�rw;olp q!�t�{r�y�p |6v;� o|;p }�p r7o�
����������� �¢¡9£�¤�£�¡9£�¥¦��£�§¨�y%r7~�r�y7r�q�|6r*o�n�y���r7�2otv;y7rlv9}2k�k#u�n�o�r�w�}2k©v�o%o�r7o�ots�n�m�u p |��v;u n�r7o�~4k�y1w�p ~ ~�r�y7r�q�},u v�q�w�o�|6v�s�r*o�r7}�}2p q��;o���ª q1}2x�p o�o%}2n�w��s�r�k�s�u r*��r�y7rtv o��2r�w�}2kCy�v }2rt«�¬�o�|2r�q�r7o�~4kGy1x�k2��tn�|6x}2x�r4�Du p �6r�w�}2x�r*o�|6r�q�r%ol® o�|6v;u rtk6~�¯�°!q�k6},v�}�v2u u�}2kC±�°��Gr�y ��ln�|2x�²;���³x�p u r�}2x�rly�v�};p q��2otr%´Ys�y%r%o%otv;q�v;r7o%}2x�r%}2p |�;n�w����{r�q�}2��}2x�rtm�v o�p otk6~G}2x�r#�;n�w����{r�q�},p o���r�y �Dp �{s�k#y µ}2v2q%}�¶·}2x�rt|2v;s�v2|2p }��Ck6~�v.s�u v;|6r�}2kC�{r�r7}9};x�rtq�r�r�w�otv2q�w|6kGq�|2r�y�q�otk~�v,s�r�yzo�k#q���.x�r*o�|6r�q�r%o�o�x�k2�y%r%};v;p u�o�r%}�}2p q��;o��Dp }2x{w�p ~ ~�r�y%r�q�},v;�{µk#n�q�}�otv;q�w���n�v;u p }��Dk~G��r%�Gr7}2v�}2p k�q����tq�v;u �6o�p otk6~G}2x�rly�v�}2p q��2ox�r�u s�otn�o�}2kCn�q�w�r�y�o%}2v;q�w�}2x�rl|6x�v2y�v2|�}2r�y�p o%};p |�otk~o%}2y7r�r%}�o�|6v�s�r7o1}2x�v�},v;y%r#�;n�w��Gr�w�}2k©x�vz��rlx�p ��x��Gp o�n�v;u��n�v2u p }�����¸rt|2v2q{v2u o�k&o%}2v }2p o%}2p |2v2u u �C|2k#�ts�v�y%r*}2x�rly�v�}2p q��2ok~9m�n�o�p q�r%o%ots�r�k#s�u rtv;q�w�}2x�r���r�q�r�y�v2u�s�n�m�u p |�};k©m�r%}�}2r�yn�q�w�r�yzo%}2v2q�w�x�k6�·}2x�r�p y!�Gv2u n�r%o�~�k#y!}2x�rtn�y%m�v;q�~4k#y7r%o%},�tvz�w�p ~ ~�ry �¹9º.»½¼H¾©¿ÀCÁ�ÂDÀÄÃ!¼*ÅCÁ�¾©ÂDÆ�ÇÈ�hv�};p q��2o���r�y%rv ��r�y�v���r�w�~4k#y1r�v;|6x{k6~9«�¬1o�|6r�q�r%o��!�#|6r�q�r%o*�Dp };x�}2x�ru k6��r%o%},v;q�w�x�p ��x�r7o�}.�tr�v2q{y�v�}2p q��;otw�p ~ ~4r�y!o�p �Gq�p ~4p |2v2q�}2u �Dp q��p o�n�v2u�|2k#q�}2r�q�}2���³x�p u r*}2x�r7�Dw�p ~ ~�r�y!o�k#�trI��x�v },v2y7|2x�p µ}2r�|�}2n�y�v2u u ���}2x�r�p y1w�p ~ ~4r�y%r�q�|2rtp q{v;s�s�r�v;y�v2q�|2rtp o{p q�~4u n�r�q�|2r�wm���}2x�rls�y7r%o�r�q�|2rlk6~G}2y7r�r%olv2q�w�v;|6|2r%o%o�k#y ����r%��µ r%}2v�}2p k�q��p q�|;u n�w�p q���u p ��x�},v2q�w�o�x�v2w�rts�v�}�}2r�y�q�otv�o%o�k#|;p v�}2r�w.�Dp }2x1}2x�rs�u v�q�}�o����É}2x�y7r�rts�k#p q�}.w�p ~ ~�r�y7r�q�|6rlp q{�{r�v;q�ol®�k�q{v9o�|2v2u rk~9±�².p otvho%}2y�p ��p q���r%´Yv;�ts�u rlk~9x�k6�Ês�u v;q�} otv ~ ~4r�|4}|6kGq�o�n��{r�y�o�����n�w��G�tr�q�} otk~�s�u v;|2r����t|6y7ko%ol�tv2q7�&o%}2n�w�p r7ok~9w�p ��r�yzo�rtu v2q�w;o�|2v;s�r%o*}2x�rts�y7r%o�r�q�|2rtk~G};y%r�r7o{r�q�x�v2q�|6r%os�n�m�u p |G�;n�w��G�tr�q�},k6~��Gp o�n�v;u���n�v;u p }���
�Ë£�¡9��£țÍ���Î�¥ÐÏÊÑDÍ�£�Ò©Î�¡*��£�§�tq�v2u �2o�p otv;u o�k©y7r7��r�v2u ot|2v�};r%��k�y�p r%otk6~�p �{v �Gr7otm�v o�r�w�k#qo�p �tp u v;y1s�v }�}2r�y�q�otk6~�y7r%o�s�k#q�o�r������Gs�p |2v;u u ���w�p ~ ~4r�y7r�q�|2r%otp q}2x�rl|6v }2r%��k�y�p r%ot|6v�q�m�rtv�}�}2y�p m�n�}2r�w�}2kCm�k6}2x�}2x�rt|2k#q�}2r�q�}k~G}2x�rtp �{v �Gr%otv;q�w�x�k6�·}2x�rtp �{v �Grlr�u r��tr�q�}�otv2y%rv;y%y�v2q��Gr�w��1Ó�p �Gr*�Gp o�n�v;u�|2v�}2r7��k#y�p r%o���r�y7rlp w�r�q�}2p ~4p r�w�p q1}2x�p oo�}2n�w���
Ô�Õ6Ö9×6Ø�Ù!ÚIÛ;Ù ×6Ü,Ø4Ý�×6Þ6×ß.×6Û;Þ,à6á â6ã
ä�å æ2ç�×2Ø4Ù!Ú4Û2Ù ×6Ü,Ø�Ý�×6Þ×ß.×6Û;Þ,è6á â6é
êëìíîïðìñòóôõöð÷ìëøñóë
ù úûû üýüúþ ÿ ú�ü��� ü�ú���ü�
���� ��� ������� � ���������� � � ��� ��� �������! #"!$���� ��%'&($�) ������!*+���!��� �� ,�� �-$!�/.0���/��� ������21 3 45 6 4�78 9
31: ;+<�=?>A@-B�B�=?C31
DFEHG I(JLK/M!G NAOQPHR�SUT'M!VHG EHWXNAPHEHY!Z�P�[ [ JXWXJ\PHR,]�PHK!JLM�N#^#JLM!PH_�K!`(JLMZQJLE�NAJLKFR PHK\DFK�a�TXEcb0PHK�NAG `(_H[ NA_�K�JdePLI(JLfca�J+K,gLhXhLi
jlk�mlnpo-mrqts�n2utvxwzy�{A|A} |~{!|X�+��|�{/����� �����x� �+��{A|'���X|� � ���r���L|��L{A|!�X|X�L�(|��~}H��{!|X|A��� �e���+|0�!��{A|X|!���X�(�/�+|L�e�Q�����|A����{��t� � ����{�����|'��� � � |X{������Q} ��{������+���r���L���r���L|������+|X{������|!�H��{�� |!��|���|X�r���+���/����� ���x� �����H|A�x����������� ���X����|��|A�H|!������� ���X���Q����|!�+��{��t��� �����+|!���(���/����� �����L|����(�!��������+� |!�z� ���+�/�X�(�/�+|��+� ���/�?�L� |'�L�����|!� � |X{A|e����� �L|'��� |X���!��(}����L|�� �x��H|\�(����|!����{�� |!������������� �+� �/����{!|X|!�X�0�x|X��� � �L� � |L�� ��{���|X{���{!|X|A����{A|����!�X���(� ����|X� � � �����L� ���+|X{e�+{A|!}�|X{!|'�L�(|L�/���� �x�?����|!�+��{�� |!���+�/ +�����L��¡+�r¢��(���x���L|X�x���L���+|X���L|�����L���L� |X����{!|'|!����{!|0�H��� �L|X�+�r£~� �L��� � �'�����L|�� ������|X{-���L{A|X|������|!�H��{�� |A����� �X�¤���L�+|'��{r����{!|\��{!�+|X{!|'��¥��+�(������{!|~|!�����+������(|!�!�X��{��Q�H|!��|!������� ������{!|��+� �/�(|'�����L�������L����|X�������{!|'����|��+� �!��� �L� �,�H� �X�+���+�+������|X{����X�
¦�§ jl¨~mloes�n2uª©�«tv#s�n2kFv¬v�mzn2c®ts�v#s q § oev�w¢��~�����L���L� �L|A�������L���������L�L��|X{��X�L{���|A�¯�H{����+���r������|�L� ���+|X{e{������ �����0���¯�X�(|X�L|!� � � ���e��{A|X|!�X��°-|!��� � � ���+� ����� �L�L�/��Q����|!����{��t¡��L���L� �+|!�!��{!|!�X�+���L�+|X�����r�X� ���+� }�� �(���/��� ���+� } } |'{!|'�} {A���±�H� �X� ���H{���� �r���L|X� {r���!�L|A���X��|X���?�~}���� �X�L���L²+�L��� � ���t³ �����|A�!���L���+´�� µX¡/¶��r¢��/�X� �L|!�!��{������ �/�/���~},�?����|!����{��t�r�X��|X�L|!�� |X{!|\�L� �H�X|X{-���L���e�H� �X� ����{e{������ �/���L�A�+|!�X�+� ��|F���L|F�H{�� ����L��{!�+� }�|X�����X{!|X���(�L��{���� ��|X{r�(}����L|e�!��{A|X|!�,�X|!����� �/�����x|X���+�� �L� � |L�/�+���'� �L|!�!�x�L|X���+� |��(�����X� �A��|X����� �¤{�����|X��� ���L�/�'�(���L|X��X��|X�L|!�������Q����|!�H��{/� |!���e���L{A�����H�� �� � � |X{����+���e�H� �L� ����{��X��X������|!�!��� ���Q���L���?�x|'{A�(�L�������x�L� ��|�� |!�!�x�/�+�L{!|X��� ����� ����}���{��{A|'|!�e���L���e���+|��L|X���L� |e���L|A� � � �X�r��� � |'� �(���x|0���?���+|X� {�X�L�����L�
·ª¸�¹QºL»½¼¿¾t¼lÀÂÁÄÃL¾�¼l¼½ºL¼l»Å�|A�'�X� ��F�'�����+|A�A�¬�/�L��������!�'�X��|~{ �\|~��Æ������X� ��� �!�r��{ |~|��\� �{�|����/� �A�'�X���'�X� �!�x�L� �A��{!� �����'Ç�È�����{A�L|~{!� ���/�X� � |'� �X����� �X��/��� �X|'���X� �/�A��� ���r�'���X|'��|¯�(}#�X���/�0��{A|'|��\�/�L���/����|A�A�~�H{��+|��+|A������ �H�\�X{����L�X��|��\�X� �+�X|A�A����� �'�X���'²X�L�/� � ����{!���� �!�/�~�/É��X|�X�X�X� � ���L{�|A}|'{ �¯�L�������L|'�!�'|¯���X������{�|¯���X|~�����/�X���'� |~��/{�|'|A�'� ���X���?���/{�|A}��X�'�L{A�L�X� �!�x�����\�X|¯�!�'|'�e���Q���X� �����'���H�L|~��X�\����{�|'|¯�/�/�L�H������Ér�L� �\�X|'{A��� ��¯���H{�|Ê��� �'� �X� � � �����}L�'� ���!��/�X�e�A�/��{�|A}�{��H���� � �X� � |¯�X{A���H� �L� �!�r���X|Ê}�H{A|A�A�r�/��|'�'� ��� |A��/�L��Q���H���'�'��|'{ ���/�X�X{�|~��� ���|L�
ËÊÌ+Í�Î-Ï+Ð\Ñ�Ò+Ó-Ô�ÒHÕzÒ�Î-Ö�×�ØÙ�Ú�ÛÚ�Ü�Ù/Ý~Þeßà~áLâLã áLäXå�æ,ç/è�é ê+ë'ç/ì-í-î�ï'ç/ë¯ç�ë'ð\ñ0ê�ò?òQó'ë'é è�ôõ ê�î ö~÷Aè�î�ô¬ø#ðXù�é ÷Aê�î�ô�ñ0ê�ó'ë'ú/é ì ûLü ë'èö~îAë'ç/è�é ê�ë'ç/ìXý�ê�ú/é ö(è�ôrê+þø,îAï'ê�î!é ú�ó'ì èó'î�ö?ç/ë'ð½í�ýHÿ�ø õ ê+îAö�÷Aè¬ý�ö~î!ù�é ú�ö�?Ï�άÖ���ÌHÖ��� ç/è��'ì ö~ö(ë�� �lê�ì þ û� ���ÿ� ��'ê�ë'ö���� ������������������������� õ ç! ��"� ���������������#����$��% �ò?ç�é ì ��&�'0ê+ì þ)(¤ó� 'eç�÷*�'é ë�+/èê�ë� ö(ð'ó���cö~ï¯÷Aé è�ö��!','-'. ú/þ î 'eç�÷*�'é ë�+�è�ê�ë� ö(ðXó�/ îAö(÷Aö(ç/î�ú!�� ö~ë(ù/òQé ë'ð
0.1�2#3�465�7 8:9; 5�<>=@?A3�B�C)3D0E1�B�5�F)8GIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KAL6M N�OP"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAL�M 9�R
0.1�2#3�465�7 8:LS-H 4�T�=@UF�3�B0.1�B�5�F�8GIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KAL6M V�WP"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAL�M 9�R
0.1�2#3�465�7 8:RX 162 Q 7�1�Y H C)2 H ZGIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KAL6M [�\P"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAR�M \�]
0.162�3�4!5�7 8^V_ 5�7�`^16Y _ 5�Y H 1!463G>H C H 2#5�7IJ3�1�B�KAL�M \�]P"Q C H B�3�C�C"J3�16B�KAL�M V�\
0.162�3�465�7 8a[�K;bH 2#2�Y 3)c X 5 G 3�463�2�1!2 H 5�BGIH C H 2#5�7>J3�16B�KA[6M W�VP"Q C H B�3�C�C>J3�1�B�KAR�M [�\
Community Image:
Roadside Settings and Public Perceptions
dfehg�i j�k�l�g�i mon"p�i l6p*lqeEr p�monsl6p*t�u"vwp*x�mzy6m�k j�p*i eEn"l6x�i {|eErI{"moeE{�k mzp*e}{�k j�g�m"~.�-x�m�r eEy���j�n�u�g�x�j�y�j�g�p*moy�e.rIj�{�k j�g�mzg�j�nl6x�j�{"m�p*x�m��|eEeEu"l6��j�p�p*i p*t�u"m�l6��j�n"usy!m�l!{�eEn"l6molqeErIp*x�m�{"mfeE{"k m��wx"e�l�{�mon"u|p�i �zmzi n|p*x�m��z~��|eEy6m�y6m�g�m�n�p*k v@�g�eh�z���zt�n"i p*i m�l�x"j6��m���m���t�n|p*e�g�eEn"l6i u�m�y�p�x"m�mor r mog�p*lqeEr"g�x"j�y�j�g�p�m�yqeErI{"k j�g�m�eEn|��eEp*x|y!m�l6i u>mfn"p�lqj�n�us��i l6i p*eEy�l6~� t�l�i n"mol6l�g�eE�z�|t�n"i p*i m�l6��i ns{�j�y�p*i g�t"k j�y��6p*j��bm�j�nsi n"p�m�y!m�l6p-i n|p*x"m�i �zj���mzp�x"j�p,p*x�m�i y:g�eE�z�zt�n"i p�vw{�y6e!��m�g�p�lqp*eg�ehn�l6t"�zm�y�l6~
� mzj�k k"y6m�k v�eEn|m�n���i y!eEn��|mon"p�j�k"g�t�m�l�p*e}i n"r eEy���eEt"y���t"u����|mon�p*lqj��"eEt�pan�mf��l6i p�t"j�p�i eEn�lqe.yq{�m�eE{�k m�~ � mj�p)p*y�i ��t�p*mzg�moy�p*j�i nsg�x�j�y�j�g�p*moy�i l6p�i g�lqp*e�{�k j�g�m�lq�"j�l6mou�eEnzi �z{"y6mol�l6i eEn"l6~���{�i k eEpal6p�t"u"v���g�eEn�u>t�g�p*mou�j�pap*x�m� n�i ��moy�l6i p*vweEr � j�l6x�i n"��p*eEn"��j�p*p*mo�|{�p*mfu�p�e�p�m�l6pap�x"mA��t"u����zm�n�p*lqp*x�j�pa{"moeE{�k mz�zj��bmzj���eEt"paj�n|t"n�r j��|i k i j�y�{"k j�g�m��j�l6m�useEn|i p*lqj�{�{"moj�y�j�n"g�m�r y�eE��j�r y6momf�wj�v�eEy�x"i ��x��wj6v�~
� x�i k mzu"y�i ��i n�����{�m�eE{�k mzg�e.n�l6i u"moy:�wx�moy6mzp�e}l�p�eE{o��l6x�eE{o��eEy�y!m�p�t"y�nsp�e}m���{�k eEy6m�k j�p�m�y#~|�qeEmolqp�x"m���i mb��r y!eE�p*x�m�y6eEj�usi n"r k t�m�n�g�m�p*x�m�l6mzu"m�g�i l6i eEn�l6 ��-x�i lqy6m�l6m�j�y6g�x|ehr r moy�lq{"y!m�k i �zi n�j�y�v�j�n�l��^moy�lqp�e}p*x�i lq¡�t"mol�p�i eEn|j�n�ueEr r m�y�lql6t"����mol�p�i eEn�l�r e.y���eEp*x|p*y�j�n�l6{"ehy�p*j�p�i eEn|j�n�u�g�eE�z�zt�n"i p*vw{�k j�n"n�i n���~
¢E£�¤^¤^¥�¦�§ ¨ ©�ªa«f¬� ®�¦�¦�§ ¦�¯-° £�±E²�¥�®6 § ¨ ©: ®6¦�³�´�µ�®6¶�·D®6¦�³�¯�±)·�·�¦´)¶�®!µ!·a¸�®�´I£�µ�µ!¥�±)±)·�³�¹
º�»E¼,½»h¾�¿oÀ)Á�Â�ÃÄÁÅwºzÆ�Çq½»
¢.£�¤^¤^¥�¦�§ ¨ ©�Èa«fÉb§ ¨#¨# ·-¶� ®6¦�¦�§ ¦�¯a° £�±h ®6¦�³�´�µ!®!¶�·a£�±h¯�±)·�·�¦´�¶�®6µ�·a¸�®6´I£�µ�µ�¥�±)±)·�³�¹
Ê�ËDÌAÍ-Î.ÌAÏÐÍ@ËDÑ}Ò�Ó*Ñ.ÔÖÕ@×bØ�ÙÚÍ@ËDÑ}×�Ø.ÌAÛÜÍ@Ñ�Ý@ÝaÞaß|ÌAàaØ�ÞaÍ-Ì�Î.Ø�ÙáÙáÞDÏaÓ@Í â:ã
äåæçèéêæëìíî
ïðêñæåòëíå
ó ôõõ ö÷öôøù ôúöûüý öûôþúÿöû
����������� � �� ������������������� ��������� � ����������� ����!�" #$���% #���&�� �����(' ) *,+ - */.,0 1
2436587:98;=<6>@?BACA8<6DFEGHI�JLK�M�NPO�Q�RTSUHVN/W�X IYX SZH�[ZW�OYX Q�\ Q^]`_a[^Q:_cbZWP\ _dI�_�e�e�MZ[�X W,RK�Q^WPWX [UfK�H[U]gN HW/Q^]�JZ_Y\he�MUI�J�W,JZQ�R HfYN Q^Q^]�\6X WPJ�HiK�QjN�X Q�K�_abK�WPH�WPQje$Q^[UWPKkHlU_aMUWjW,JZQmI_c[UK�M�e$QjNaQ�[^OaX N _a[ne$Q�[ZWj_abUWPJUQS�o HIQnp�q�JUQ:K�WPHW/Qje$Q^[UWPK�I�_a[UWPHYX [UQ^]FX [Ub _�N�e$HWX _c[:HlZ_aMUWe$QjN I�JUH[UWPK�r�SnN _a]ZMUI�W,K�r�H[U]�K�QjN,OaX IQ^KUpUs�WPH�W�X K�W�X IHYo�H[UHYo RKUX KS�N _c]ZMUI�Q^]:W,J�N Q^Q I�HW,Q^f�_�N�X Q^KnlZH�K�Q^]:_Y[6N Q^K�SU_c[UK�QtSUHWPW,QjN [UK^u
vjwjxYy z|{axx�}gwj~�� y ����`�j�|{a~�� y zj�����j~��P~Y�U��{��� �j���c� y zj�L����zc�^{az y {azj�U{
32���Y���:���n����:�32
�i�a� ���V���� ���:�c���¡ Z��¢a� �a£V���|�a¤¥m�c¦ ¦ �Z£^�`�c��§��c���V����¨��V���c©a��ª^�V�¥m�V�c���V�i� �c�`�i��«c U�C¬ �c����� ª^©a¦ ��©c���:©a£V©a���k®V¯V¯V¯
° M�N/W,JZQ|N�e$_�N QZr�e$Q^H[FN HW�X [UfK�_a[LQ�HI�JLI�H�WPQ^f�_$N/RT]nX b b QjN Q^]K^X f[�X b�X I�H[UWo R`± Sn²|p ³Z³�´�µ/r�\6X WPJ:WPJUQtI�_�e�e$MU[nX WPR¶X eiH�fQ^KI�_a[UWPHYX [�X [UfLei_�N QtfYN Q^Q�[:K�SUHIQTJZH�OYX [Zf$J�X fJUQjNYOHYo MUQ^K^p· HW�X [UfK�_cb�¸$SZSUQ^HYo X [Zfi¹tJUHYN HI�WPQcNc\TQ|N QmºZ³U»¼JnX fJUQjNYb _$NaW,JZQe$_$N Q6o H�[Z]UK�IH�SZQ�]�K�Q^W,W�X [UfYpn½�_aW/Q^[ZWX HYo�I_c[UK�M�e$QjN KkS�N _clUHl�o RX [Ub QjNa_cW,JZQ|NaI�JUHYN HI�W,QjN�X K�W�X I�K�_abUH I_$e�e�MZ[�X WPR lZH�K�Q^]L_a[OaX K�MUHYo�IMZQ^K�p · HWX [UfKk_cbUlU_cW,J¿¾�MUKUX [ZQ^K�K�ÀdMUHYo X W,R H�[Z]s�JZ_aSUSnX [Uf$¹T_c[�O�Q^[nX Q�[ZIQm\TQ|N QÁ´�ÂUÃ,ÄZ³U»8JnX f�JZQjN�X [:WPJ^QI_$e�e�MZ[�X W/RTJUH�OaX [Uf¶e$_�N QmfYN Q�Q�[LK�SUHI�QmH[Z]�O�Q^fQ^W,HW�X _c[�p
Å 987:ÆV5C<¿7:7ÈÇÉ5(Ê6ÆV>$3658;=<658ËqnJU_cK�Q:K�M�N,O�Q�R�Q�]�\ QjN Q:HVo K�_dH�KUÌ�Q^]�JU_a\he�MUI�J�W,JZQ�RTH�fYN Q�Q�]\6X W,JLH`o X K�Wj_cbUK�W,H�WPQje$Q^[UWPK�HlU_aMZWjJU_a\ÍlZMUKUX [UQ^K�K�Q^K:X [UWPQ|N HI�WPQ^]\6X W,JLWPJUQ:I�_�e�e$MU[�X WPR¶X [LWPJUQ:WP\T_ÁK�Q�WPW�X [ZfK^p�q�\T_ÁK�WPHWX K�WX IHYoI�HWPQ�f_$N�X Q^Kk\TQ|N QdX ]ZQ^[ZWX b�X Q^]nu
�gy �ny �m���TÎÍÎF{��/�Z{���Tμοwjziy ���gÏm{a~�� ���
ÐÒÑÔÓUÕ Ö|×�ØjÙUÚUÛZÜ6Ý�ÞnÖ Õ ßZÛcà|×�ÛcáCájÙ�Õ Ú^ÛaÙ�×�Õ à�âãÓU×�äjÕ àjåUæ�ÝkàCçVæ�ÓUæ�ÛÔè6ÓU×�Ø|×�Ûcá(æ�ÝéÛYÚZÓUÖ Ø|ÓUæ�ÛÔæ�ä|ÛFêjÛaÙ�ßZÛaêjæ�Õ Ý�à|×�Ý�Þnê|Ö ÓUßZÛæ�äjÓ^ætê|ÛcÝ�ê|Ö ÛgÑÔÓ�Ü6ÓU×�×�Ý�ßZÕ ÓUæ�ÛÔè6Õ æ�ä(ÙÝ�ÓUá�×�Õ á�ÛgÖ Ó^àjáj×ßZÓUêjÛcëiÐ�×`ê|ÛcÝ�ê|Ö ÛFájÙ�Õ Ú^ÛÔÞ ÙÝ�Ñìê|Ö ÓUßZÛgæ�ÝéêjÖ ÓUßZÛ|í�ÓdÞ Ù�ÛYÛaèdÓ�Ü6Ý�ÙäjÕ åUäjè6Ó�Ü6ÙÝ�ÓUá|×�Õ ájÛÔÕ ×�æ�ä|ÛÔÞ Õ Ù�×�æTÕ à|æ�ÙÝ�á�Ø|ßZæ�Õ Ý�àCæ�ÝéÓdßUÝ�ÑÔÑÔØ|àjÕ æ�Ü6æ�äjÓUæ Ñ(ÓUàaÜ6êjÛaÝ�ê|Ö ÛÔÛcîcêjÛaÙ�Õ ÛaàjßZÛ|ë`ïdÓUàCæ�ä|ÛÓUÑ(Ý�Ø|àjætÝ�ÞnåUÙÛcÛaàC×�ê|ÓUßZÛÔÓUà|á8Ú^ÛYåUÛcæ�ÓUæ�Õ Ý�àCÓUÖ Ý�àjådæ�äjÛÔÙ�Ý�ÓUáCÓUàjáCÕ àCÓÁßZÝ�Ñ(ÑÔØjà|Õ æ�Ü6Õ àjÞ Ö Ø|Ûaà|ßZÛÔèdäjÓUæTêjÛaÝ�ê|Ö Ûæ�äjÕ à|ðÔÝ�Þnæ�ä|ÓUæTê|Ö ÓUßZÛañ(âòä|Õ Ö ÛÔ×�æ�Øcá�Ü6Ù�Ûa×�Ø|Ö æ�×�×�äjÝ�Ø|Ö áCójÛgßZÝ�àj×�Õ á�ÛaÙ�ÛaáCê|Ù�ÛcÖ Õ ÑÔÕ à|ÓUÙ^Ü�í�æ�ä|ÛYÜdájÝé×�ØjåUåUÛa×�ætæ�ä|ÓUæTÚZÕ ×�ØjÓUÖßZäjÓUÙ�ÓUßZæ�ÛcÙ�Õ à|Þ Ö Ø|Ûcà|ßZÛc×Læ�ä|ÛgÕ Ñ(ÓUå�ÛgÝ�ÞnÓÁßZÝ�ÑÔÑ(Ø|àjÕ æ�Ü�ë�ô Ûc×�ÛcÓUÙßZäÔÝ�Øjæ�ßUÝ�Ñ(Ûc×LÓUÙÛg×�Ø|Ñ(ÑÔÓ^Ù�Õ õ^Ûcá(ó|ÛcÖ Ý�èLë
fYN Q�Q^[LI�_�eLe$MU[�X WPR�p ° _�N$X [ZK�WPH[UI�QZr�K�SZ_�N/WPK�K�JU_cQ�K�\ QcN QSnN�X I�Q�]�öZ»8J�X fJUQjN�X [LWPJUQ:fYN Q^Q^[:K�Q^WPW�X [Zfr�\mJ�X o QmH K^X WPÃ,]U_Y\m[]kX [Z[UQjNa_$NaH$b�o _Y\TQjNalU_cMU÷ZMUQ^Wj\iQjN Q:HK�KUX f[UQ^]g´�³Z»8J�X fJUQjNSnN�X I�Q�KUpYø¿N Q^Q^[FeiHYÌ,Q^K�H ]nX b b QjN Q�[UI�QjùcqnJUQ:SnN Q^K�Q�[ZI�Qm_abVWN Q^Q�KH[U]�fYN Q�Q^[:K�SUHI�Q6eiH�R SU_cK^X W�X O�Qjo R¶X [Ub�o MZQ^[UI�QmlZ_aW,J�I_c[^K�M�e$ÃQjN K^ú�HW,W�X W,MZ]UQ^K�HlZ_aMUW�WPJUQ:I�JUHYN H�I�W,QjNa_cbZH S�o HI�QmH[Z]�W/JZQSnN�X I�Q�K�W,JZHW|K�JU_cSUSUQjN K�HYN Q:\dX o o X [^f W,_ÁSZH�R HK�W,JZQ�RTK�JZ_YSW,JZQ|N Q�p
û >TÆVüdÆV58ý û DFËZËU<¿>m5C7¹T_c[UW�X [ZfQ�[ZWjO�HVo MUHWX _a[FX K�H¶e$Q^W,JZ_a]�Q�I_c[U_$e�X K�WPK�MZK�QmWP_OHYo MUQ:WPJ�X [UfK�W,JZH�W�I�H�[�[U_cWjlUQ:lU_cMUfJUWjH[U]�K�_�o ]�_c[LW,JZQe$HYN�ÌPQ^W�p�þ [�WPJ�X K�K�WPMU]VR SZQ^_aSno Q:\tQ|N QmHK^Ì�Q^]�WP_dK�SZQ�IaX b RT\tJUHWW,JZQ�R \ _cM�o ]�SUH�R b _�NaH I_$o o Q�I�W�X _c[L_abZf�_a_c]ZK�H[Z]LK�QjN,OaX IQ^KUp· Q^K�M�o WX [ZfiS�N�X IaX [^fiSUHWPW,QjN [UK�HYN Q6X [U]nX N Q�I�W X [U]nX I�HW,_$N K�_abUWPJUQOHYo MUQ:_cbZfYN Q^Q^[�K�SZH�I�Q:WP_ÁI�_�e�e$MU[�X WX Q^K^p�ÿ�_dWN Q�Q^KLX [Ub�o MZQ�[UI�QJU_c\ e�MZI�JLSZQ^_YS�o Q:HYN Q:\dX o o X [Uf WP_dSUH�RTb _$Naf�_c_a]ZK � q�JUQH[UK�\ QjNYb�N _�eCWPJjX KkK�W,MZ]ZR`X K���RQ^K^ù � ° _�NYHYo o�Q|X fJUW o X K�WPQ�]FX WPQ|e$K�rJ�X fJUQjNcK�WPHW,Q^]�S�N�X I�Q�K�\ QjN Q:fYX O�Q^[Lb _$NYf_c_a]ZKLX [LWPJUQ
����� �������� � ��������� ����� !��"���#%$'& (*),+.- )0/.12)�354�6 7�8935:�(�;=<9358�3>89?�#07�@.@BA9896 4�CB&D7�;FEHGI4�;5C�"J?LKM6 GI7�;>CB#07�A989NM6 : OL( �+P"2&D7;FE!GF4Q DEH;>KM6 NME.358L?R4�S9ETU35GIS96 89V>4�7�8� D4�354�EW+�EHX93>;=4�@YE!894Q7�ZM[H;I3>89GIX97�;=4�3>4�6 7�8\R�P��^]����D�_3>4�S9: EHE!8�`!a T�7�: Z O5bLS9ac+�a d>#0E!894�EH;0Z 7�;R( ;I<93>8e$�7�;54�6 N>A9: 4�A9;FE9OL(�8L6 K5E!;IGI6 4�Cf7�Z>T'35GFS96 89V>4�7�8bLS978LEH1�g h9i9j9kPj9l!j9m�n9o9n9p9d�&H35qL1Pg h9i9jLk�j9p9n9mch9j9r9h�[email protected]>6 : 15s!tu7�: ZwvWALa t*3>GIS96 89V>4�7�89a EH?LA9d T2EH<RGI6 4�EH1=t*t*t�a NMZ ; a t035GIS96 89V>4c7�89a E!?9A9x ;wE!GIEH35;wN>S9a E!8!K>@.6 89?
¹dX OaX Ii¹t_�eLe$QjN IQ6X [ZIYo MZ]ZQ^]:K�W,H�WPQje$Q^[UW,K�K�MZIJ:HKQ�Ye�QjN ÃI�JUH[UWPKkI�HVN QTHlU_cMUW|WPJUQtI�_�e`e�M^[nX W,R��cH[U].�SUMUlno X IiH[U]SnN�X O�H�WPQt_$N f�H[�X y�HWX _c[UKk\i_$N�ÌnWP_YfQ^W,JZQjN p ��zmX fJUQjN�o Q�O�Qco Kk_cbHfYN Q^Qje$Q^[UWjb _$NaWPJ�X K�I�H�WPQ^f�_�N/RT\THK�HK�K�_aIaX HW,Q^]�\dX WPJ:WPJUQfYN Q�Q^[LK�Q^W,WX [UfYpgþ K�K�MUQ^K�_abL¹t_�e�e�MU[nX W,R,zkQ^HYo WPJ¿± Q�p fYpb�X [ZH[UIaX HVo�I�_Y[Z]nX WX _c[Ur�IaN�X e$Q¿N HWPQ�µj\ Q|N Q:HVo K�_*{,MZ]ZfQ�]`W/_dlUQlZQ�WPWPQ|N�X [LW,JUQmfVN Q^Q�[ZQjNYI�_�e`e�MU[�X WPR�p
|�|D}~>�>�P�!�P�D��>���J�F���>�!� �^�u� �c���!�B�����^�D�D�M�'�^�W�������
�������M�M�%�B� �9�9� �����c�*�M� �=� ���!�9� �L�M�M�I����H� ���c�F�f��� �I� �D� �c� �f�c�H�P�%�5�D�� �M �5�5�����H�*�H��¡�� ¡��M�L�>���*�H��¡�� �5�M� � ¢����=� �����L�£�%¤D�H�5¡��M���M�D�£�f���M�M�M�f���H����M�M�!¥¦��J� � ��� �M *��¤M !�D�M�����!�I�F� �H�>�����5���0�!� �������>� �R� �%¤D�D�=¡P�M�%�M�M� �!��9�>��� �5�c�5� �����=�!�M����H� � �!¥§�M���,¤�� �M�>�u��¨9� �H�M�������M���>���D�B����� � ��� �5�>��!���!�5���H�M���9��©B���!¤�� �=���5ª��0�M�D¡�� �H�������M�M�=�M�5�J�M�����I� �£�Y¤D�H�5¡�� ���M�*����£�H�M���.� �%�M� �=� ���!�>� �D�M�*¤D�H�5 !�H�M�f�.���H�*�5� �=�M�%���5�u�0ªP� �ª%¤D�H� �=�H� �£�Y�I�5����c�H�Mª��M�M� �B� �u�F� �^�� ! P� � �D *����!� �����F�B�5���%�f�J��� �=� �c�!����w���M�B� �D�M�^�f¤D�M�5¡�� �����=���*��� �J�M�D�M�L�����H�����=���J� �0¤D�M���D�J���£���=ª����
�M�����H���=�*��� �D�M�����D���£���!�D�Y���%� �D¡����F�5�%�M�D���I�5�Q�����!� �����I�!���9�L« ���5ª����I�� ����� �H�M�������M���^�I� �£�B���H�u� � ���M� �%�M���¬���H����� � �I� ����� ���5�.���I�9���F�9�=��!���!�M���H�Mª¤D�H�£®H�M�c������R�M�����D�����=�M�Y�=�,��¡��M� �����5���5ª��B¤��5�5�M�M�=� �M��D�M��������� �0�M���D�£�D� ����5� ���D�Y�5�� �!�M���Q�5�J�H���=�M� �=�9���£�=� �D !�f� �*�H�c¡�� �=�M� � ¢�¯� �D f����9� �����F�f��� �w�£�H� ��� �9�L�I�P�w¡����%�5�P�=�>�������Q�I�� ! ����I���=ª������ �H�M���Y���H�� ��¤��5�w�=�M�D�J�>����¤������>�D�£�B�5�Q�P���M� �>���%� �D ��L�>¤�¤��M�M� � �D %�M���M�F��������D�D¡�� �H�������M�D�5�L�I���Mª¬� �H�I�5�H�����=� ���¬�M�>�¬�M� �*���F���M�*�I�5�H���I� �w��^ ��M���M� ���Y�M���%¤D�D�5�I���I�!� �����M� �Y� �¬��� �I�5�w� ���5�R�M��� � �I������9� �����F��I��¤�¤��5�w�P�I�5�Y���D�>���=� �D �M���f�F�5�������M��� �M �B�M� �£��°�J���w�J�M�B�I�5�M���I�=�
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE±²ª�� � �*���D�D�Y�F�£����� �^�Yª��^¡��*������u���>�H�5�M�B�5ª��*�f�u� �=� ¤P� �����D���^�I� �£��D�P�f�9�^�5� �I�=�D���>� ��D�.�>���P�F�J�D�B¡ �^ �^�5�^�=� ��%�^©Q�.���^�Y�^�u�M� � | ����³M�H���>�I�uªP�^¡ � �=��^���9�D������¤P�^�H�D�.�D�P�B�H�^�9� �P�D�H�5� �D�>�9�^�£�5� �H !��w�L�������f�^���D� � | ������´����MªH�!���D�P��� | �����M�D���>¡ ���!� ����� �H f�5ª��� �¤��>�F�>�M�P�D�Y�>�P�5ª����P�F�J�D�.�I�>�!�^�I� �>�,¤H�!� ¡ �^�5�Y�D�H�5�^�!¤H�!� �9�f�^©Q�Y� �^�
�^���M� � | �����M�D�µ�� �c�5� �*� �.��P�>��%�^�J�>�P���>ª��*¤P���!�D�M� ¡ �M�B���M�P�^�=� �£��D���B¡ �D� �u�^�R�>���5ªP���P�w���M�f�=�5�!�^�=�u� �f�!�^�5�D� ��D�����D�����^�!�D� �D��P� �I�£�H� �^�£�9���¡ �� �%�D�P�H�!�^�F�9�D�f���.�5ªP� �J�!�^�9�D�^�!�MªP�
Consumer/Environment Interaction¶M�I���DªP�� �> � �D�D�>�5ªP�D�>�F��5��¤P�^�w�L��D·=�D�H¡ � �!��P���M�H�u�H� �P�D��� �^��D���D�=�5� �c���>�D�f�5ªP�B�M�>�H�B�5���5ªP� ���I�£�u�H�D�>�� �5ªf�=�����P�R�����D��H�I�u��^�F·�M�H¡P� �!�����M�H��� �D�5�^�H�D�^�5� �L�P���L���D� �D�5�9�M� �D�D�5� �I�£�f�P� �I�5� �H !�u� �9ª*�5ªP�¤�ªH�!�9� �D�M� ¯ �5�D�D � �J� �*�P��%�D� �%�5�J�D�%�M�H¡ � �D���P���M�H��� �D��¸� �H�5�^�!¤��^�5¯�9�����D���D���B�9��M� ��^��� �c���!�M�������M� �H�Y�^�=�>������ � | � }�¹ ´5±º�D¤��P���| � ¹�} �D��L���*¤P�^�w�L��D·=�M�H¡ � �!��P���D�H�P�H�^�L�M�^�H�Dª%� �.¤H�H�D�� �L�D�%����I�5� �B�u� ���9¯ �!���L¤���D�9�*���I�I����¤H�5� ���H�9´��5�5ªP���f� �M¡ �^�I�5� ��^�5� ���H����D� �D�>�D� �%�D�%� �H�5�^�!�D�^�5� ���P�D��¤P�^�F�9¤P�D���>� ¡ �*� �U���>�!� | � ¹�} �H�«P�c�H¤�9�M�H���I�Y�5�>¡P� �>�9���%�5�M� �*�£�D� �H�£��� �>�9�»�J¤�c���H�9��°�*�B�D�D� �5�
�£�w�H� �w�H�%�5�>� �B�=���u¤ªM�D�H� �=�>�I�H�£� �I� �> P�9¼J���D�c��¡P�£�^�*� �>�I�£�D¤>�D�£��D�£�Iª�c�� � �F�c�>�>�!�>ª�c�M�>�£�I�£�D� �w�I� �c�*�=� ��¤�� �>�5���I�Y�%�5���D®^�J�5 ��%�5�M� �*�=�L� �J��£�I� �L��£�>� �� �w�D�>ª�9�9�w¡����F�I�P�uª�I�D¤� �I�5� ���I���%�£�D�w� ��� �> P�M¼J�L�H�£�^¡��£���0�5� �H�B�¬�5�L��5�L����=�I�£�I� ¡��J�=�u� �>�F�£�M�>�>�I� �>� ®^���M ��%�5�>� �*�£�Q�=��9�Iª��J½5���>� � � �,�=��5ª��£�>�>�£�I�c�u�I���J¤� �>�5�J�>��J�Iª��J¤�>�9¤�� ���%ª�f� ��ª��£�Q� �Q� �Q�c¾f�£�H�c� | ��� ¹ �5�¶L�>�!¤� ���5�I P�� �F� ¡��>� ���=¡��£�M� �£��¤ªM�D�H� �>�5�^�F�I�M�2�%� �Fª.�¬�>�5�� �> D�0�I��M�5¤M�>�£�H�5�M�I�£�I� �9�>�H�H� �M�I�£ D�M�c�F� �M ��¬�5��� �£�I� �M �� �>�w�=�>�¬�c�F� �L�J ��5� ��>�J� �M�L��I���H� �^¡��c���H°I¤>�D� �I�u�£¨�¤�c�M� �5��>�£�H�w�H�9�>� �>�H� �5�c�M��� �M ��H�>��.�c� �I� � ����c�H�«����5�D� � ���F���!�D� ����B�5ª�� �5�D�D � �J� �M�¤�ªH�9�9� �D�>�>�9���c�5� �H �5���5ªP�D� �
���P�!� ���^�=���5�¬�^�c�£�!�D�^�0�D��D�I�u����F�u�5�*�>ª��D� �.¤D�H��H�u�^�£���M�P��9���F¡�� �M�^�9���=�P�H¤H�H� �9� �D � �D�=�5ª��^�D�*� �Y� � �£�>� �0� �H�=�5�!�%�^�5� ��¬�^�J�>�����5ªP��D�� �B�5�u�>�P�5�P��>�Y�D�H¡ � �D���P��D�D�0� ���D��H�I�u��������MªP�^¡ � �>�5���P�^�9¤P� �5��^¨L�5�M�H�9� ¡��f���^�!���^�>� �H W�M�P�f�!���>�D� �M�9�D� �D�P�D���I�£���P� ���R��f�I�>�5�!�� �H�5���!� �>�F�.�D�P�%¤H�H��H�u�^�£�9�5±²ªP� � � �D���^�!�D�¤P���w�L��D·=�D�H¡ � �!��P��M�H�� �H�5���!�D�^�5� ��ªP�^���J�D�D�Y�F�c���P� �D�f�L� �P�D�Q�5ªP� | ��³��M�9�D�5ªP�f�^�!�M�f�>��D���D�=����^�F·=�D�H¡�� �!���P��D�D�B� �H�5�^�!�D�^�5� ��¿ª��^�,���£�c�!�D���>�D�.�!�D� �^�5� ¡��D� ��=���º�!���L�D���!�DªW�^� �=�5�F�c���^À!¡��^�!�^�£�B���B�M� � | ����³D�M�
Urban Trees and Public GoodsÁ��P�5�� �D�H �f�����>�P�����F�J�D�f�c�H�D�Q�J�D�P�^�=� �£���M���Y�9�^�F¡ � �D�^�RªP�^� 9�H�>��%�D��H�9� �P�^�!�^�J� �� �B�!�D�M�D�H�u�P�D�D�D���^�L�ÀP�^�9� � ��>���9�^�F¡��D���M���=���!�^���5�P¡ �D� �u�D�D�I�u�Mª���u�5ªP�>�9�f�^¨�¤H�!�^�I�9�M�Y�>ªD�!�>�P ª����!�����¤D�!� �>� �H ��H���P�M�� ���9���P�R���5���^¨�� �I���=�5�Q�I���Dª¬¤D���J� � � �����H��^Â��^���9�� �¬�D���%µ�� � � �MªP��� � | ����Ã�´�¶M�H�^�5� | ��� ¹ �D�¼,����¡��H� �¿�>� ���H���^�=� �c�*�!�w�L�H�w�!�HªR�=���w�P�����¬��¿�H�H¡�� �9����W�D�!�5�H�
� �¤H�9�>¡��H��H�!�c�,�H�P�¿�D�Pª��D���H�D�W�H�H���5�u�Hª�w�0�=���I�=�H�H���W�w�>�w���H���w �H��H�H�0�D�����H� �Y½M�0�D� � �c�¿� �Ä�H¶�ªP�w�F�L�� | ����ÅD�H��©Y�� � �w�¡ �H� �u�w��ªP�w¡��Q�u�D�H�W�P�w�9� ¡ �H�.�£�!���Æ�^¨��c�9�H¤P��� �w�>� ���!���>�0�H�H¡�� �9���P¯��H�D�>�H�M���H�P�w�5� �c�R�H�P�Y�>ª��Q�=�����=�>� �c���>�^��� � � �c��M�P�=�M�!�w�=�>¯w���^�9� ¡��D�Ç ���w�£���H�H°�0�L�w�I¡�� �H�^�LÈP�5�M�J �����!�,�H���.���^�=¡�� �D�^�,ª��w¡ � �H É�W�^�9���w�>¯���^�9�D�f¡ �D� �u�w�.�w©f�D� � � | ��� } �H�
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THE URBAN FOREST IN
INNER-CITY BUSINESS DISTRICTSby Kathleen L. Wolf
Ê0Ë�ÌHÍFÎ>Ï�Ð!Í!Ñ «��^¡ � �5�D� � ¢��^�5� ��%¤D�!�> 9�H�D�f�Y�^�!���u�P�P���Q��^�� �¬��M�H�� �P�P���!¯w�M� �£�Y���P�9� ���^�I�.�P� �=�£�!� �^�£�L�5�.�f���F���M�f�=�5�!�^�I�c�F�¤H�!�> H�!�D�Ò�D�D����*�D�%� �¤��>�F�5�D�D���D� �D��D�D�u� �%�^�!�D���>� �H �D�%�M¤P¤P�D�M� � �H �D�L�H�I�u��^��D�H¡ � �!���P��M�H�5�>�P�^��� �u���^��P�5�P�J�*�M���H�9� �P�^�H�D�%�*¤D�!� �>�!� �£�f � ¡ �M��>ªP���P�5ªP�^�!�*���!�*�5� �5�D�%��M�H�¤PªH�9�9� �D�M��� ��¤H�!�>¡��D��D�H�£�Y�P�M�D�H�9�ÓBªP� ���!�^�9�D�^�H�Dª��¡ �D� �u�^�5�D�Y�5ªP�Q�!��� �f�=�P�c�H�D�^�R� ��M��H�I�u����F·�D�H¡�� �H��P���D�D�u� �M�>���!�D���5� ��H�9�5�=���^�P�9� �D ���B�5ª��*�P� �I�£�!� �^�£�� �P�¤H�P�J� � � ����H�Y¤D�H�>¡�� �P�D�*���f�5ªP�*�D�����f�u�P� �£�Y�I�>�!���I�>�5�Ô���^�5� ����D��=�P�F¡��^�e��¡ �D� �u�^�>�>�W¤D�P��� � �Y¤P���!�D�D¤H�5� �L�H�L��¤P�^�£�!��P�^ �Q�J�Dª��^¡ � �>�� �H�5�M�H�5� ���H�9�L�D���¬¤D�!���H���^���� � � � �H ��P�c�I���5�R¤P���� �*�H�D� ���5� ��M�9ªP� ¤*�5�¡ �^�!� �D�W¤H�!�^�9�D�P�D�f�5���c�!�M�^�,� �.�!�^�5�D� �H�F�£�!�D�^�£�9�D�D¤P�^�9�P« �^�=��� �£��=�P 9 ��^�=���>ª��^�u�D���D�=�u���^�Q���Dª��^¡ � �>�f� �f¤P�>�9� �5� ¡ �D� ��M�>�F�!�D� ���5�D�B�W� �5ª�=�£�!�D�^�£�9�D�D¤P�Q !�!�M�D�P� �H ¿����D� ���>�P�5ªP�^�!�f�D�> ��P� �5� ¡ �f�D���Y�J�MªP�^¡ � �>�!�D��P� ���D�H�L� ��H�9�«����9�D�^�!�Dª��>���>�D����^�R�>� �9�,�^�I�>����� � �Lª����J�^�!� �J�=�>�¤P�^�w�5�P���F�9ª�� ¤D����� �5ªB�����9� �P�^�I�Y�M����f���P� �5� �����!�^ ��^�H�P� �D Y���F�J�D��=�>�H�^�I��¤P� �D���P� �H %�D�P�¬��M�P�^ ��D���D�H�5�ÕBÖ9×%غ٠ÎMÚ Ì�Ñ �Q�w���D�H·I�D���Y�u��� � �R�I�>�!�^�I�c�F��´�¤D�P��� � �B¤P�^�H�D�D¤P¯
�5� ��D�9´=�!���5�M� �5�����!� �����I�9�
Û%Ü,Ý�ÞMßRàÄá'â�ã�ä�ÝuåLâæÜ�çéèëê ì,ßRíïî�Ü,ê�äuâ�å�ê!ð
ñPñDò óõôö ÷=ø�ùMúPûJö ü ý*þ ÿ�����ô����9ÿ��5ô��Pÿ ���Fû������Pô��Hÿ�����ü �������Pÿ������uü �����Dú��9ü �Pÿ����! fü �����!ü ý����
���"�$#�#Pü �5ü ô���%&��Pÿ'����� ý$Pô&�9ôýDü �Dö>ûJÿ��Pÿ^÷=ü �(���������DýDý��wú�ÿ)����PÿDô��Pö ÿfÿ$�PýDô5ú���=ÿ������!ÿDÿ��*�$��#������cú��HÿBü ��ýDü �5ü ÿ��*���!ÿfÿ�+,�5ÿ����Lü - ÿ$./ ýDü ÿ$���5ü ÷=ü ýfÿ�- ü #Pÿ��PýDÿfýDô��D÷=ü ��01��&����0ÿ�+2�Pÿ��!ü ÿ$�PýDÿ��Rô>÷ �����£ú��Hÿ!���!ÿ���3�9ôýMü ���>ÿ�#)4Wü ��¬ÿ$����$�PýDÿ�#)4Wô���5�ÿ��)���!ô�#Dúuý��5ü - ü ����6�78�$��ö �$�ñ$9:9�;�<$%&�(���^÷ ÷=ü ý=�3� �!ÿ������!ÿ$#Hú�ý��>ü ô��"6wù:���>�9ô����.ÿ���Dö .�ñ$9:9�ò$<$%�ÿ$0ô���>ü ô����Dö&�����!ÿ����!0ü �5ü ?����5ü ô@�"6A�Bö �!ü ý$2ñ�9�ò:B�<$%��$��#)�!ÿ����5ô&�����5ü ô@�%ô5÷ýDô&?=�Pü �>ü - ÿ*ý$�$���Dý>ü �5ü ÿ��C�PÿDÿ$#Pÿ$#B÷=ô&�Qû����Lü ý ÷ ú�Pý��5ü ô@�Pü �$?D�$��#���Hô@#Dú�ý��=ü -�ü � �E6�7�����ö ��������#�7��$��ö �$�eñ�9�ò�9:F,�0ü 0E���Hü ý$Éñ�9�9:;&<$.ùMú�û�ö ü ý=?�ôô�#��Yÿ����5ü 0E���5ü ô��$�C#�ÿ��Hü -Pÿ$#B÷ �!ô�0¸ÿ$��-�ü �!ô���0�ÿ$�$���Dö
�$��#"���3��ý$Pô&�9ôýMü �Dö>ûJÿ$�Pÿ^÷=ü �(�!0������Pô��PûJÿ'�����>�5ü ý^ú�ö ���Hö �!�G�Mö ü ÿ$�����>ôû�ú��Lü ��ÿ����!�^ú#Pü ÿ���ýDÿ��,.@���'�!ÿ����Dü ö@�$��#%ýMô�0E0ÿ��!ýDü �Dö��9ÿ����5ü ��?��G%���Pÿú��Fû8���.÷=ô��!ÿ����*ü �.ô>÷ �5ÿ$�!�!ÿ�?=����#Pÿ�#D�Mö ô@�$?H���G�PÿDý����Fú0é÷ �!ô�0�$���Pô&�=�$��ýDÿBô&�!�Dúuü �,���PýDÿ2�>ôI�Mý��cú�MöMûú��9ü �Pÿ����C#Pÿ����!ü 0�ÿ$���6 óÔôö ÷ñ$9:9�ò$<$. / úuý$"�����5ü �£ú#Pÿ��.ü �PýMü �5ÿ ûJÿ$���-�ü ô&�A��������uÿDö ü 0ü �����5ÿ0ô&����!ÿDýDö ú#Pÿ ú��Fû8���B÷=ô&�Hÿ��3��$�!ô&?G���$0!�Yü �"0��$���!�!ÿ����Dü ö&�9ÿ����5ü �$?��,.J 0ÿ��!ü ý$�$�E�Pô��!ÿ������C6Hñ�9:9�9�<2�!ÿDýDô�0�0%ÿ$��#����&�����ú��Fû��$�1�Hÿ��&�Dü ö��$��#ýDô�0�0ÿ��!ýMü �Dö@#Pü �>���!ü ý��(�C���- ÿ)�¬ñ�K�L¸ý$�$�Pô@���WýDô�- ÿ���F&��Pÿ �����5ü ô����Mö��- ÿ�����?�ÿ*ü �!�$���$�Hô�+Qü 0E���5ÿDö �EK�LE.
Tree Amenity ValuationJ -����Hü ÿ�����ô5÷��9ýMü ÿ&�$�=ü ÷Iü ý'0�ÿ��3�ô@#$�!���-Pÿ�ûJÿMÿ��¬ÿ�0E��ö ô���ÿ�#'�=ô*���>�9ÿ��>��Hú�û�ö ü ý1�$�Hÿ�÷Iÿ��Hÿ���ýMÿ1����#E��ÿ��HýMÿ��$�£ú8�Mö&�Hÿ�����ô@���!ÿ2�!ÿ�?�����#�ü �$?D#�ü -�ÿ��A�9ÿö �&��#$�!ý��&��ÿ��)6��Bö �Dü ý&Éñ&9�ò�B�FG7�����ö ���M�&��#M78�&��ö ���Éñ&9ò�9&<$.GN�ýMô,��ô@�0�ü �>���1��(-�ÿ �Mö �9ô!#�ÿ�-�ÿMö ô@��ÿ�#,ýMô@�$�5ü �$?Pÿ��$�:-��Mö ú8���5ü ô@�I0�ÿ����ô@#$�6���OQP�<�%34E�ü ý&�RCS Bô@�ÿ��A� �"6Dñ&9�9:B&<��Dÿ�?����$#$�1���)� TA0%ô@��ÿ��Iü U�ÿ�#�5ÿMý����ü VMú�ÿP÷Iô��*ÿMö ü ýMü �5ü �$?"�Dú�ûJö ü ý �$�Hÿ�÷Iÿ(�Dÿ���ýMÿ��G. W=�uô@�$�5ü �$?�ÿ����-��Mö ú����5ü ô@� �Fú��A-�ÿ����)���-�ÿPûJÿMÿ&�*ú:�9ÿ�# �IôC�����!ÿ��>�1�Dú�ûJö ü ý�4�ü ö ö ü �$?���ÿ��>��5ôI�����.÷Iô���ú��9ÿ�%�ýMô��$�!ÿ��A-����5ü ô@��%�ô��Q�Hÿ��>�=ô������5ü ô@��ô5÷Pú��wûQ���"����#�Fú:���Mö3�Hÿ��9ô5ú��HýMÿ���.GX.ô@��ÿ��3�ÿMö ÿ��>�G%Lÿ�0"��ü �Hü ý��Mö,������ö ü ý����=ü ô@�$�fô=÷���OQP�5ô.ÿMö ü ýMü �:-��Mö ú�ÿ��Q÷Fô��)�Dú�û�ö ü ý�?�ô�ô@#$�1���>�!ôLýDü ���5ÿ�# 4�ü �3*ú��wûQ���÷=ô��Dÿ��>���>�E���Hÿ�÷Iÿ�4Y6 Z����A-�[Mü ��ÿ�������#)O![&[���[���ÿ��2ñ&9:9�ò&<$.
Z �ÿ�$�Hô5û�ö ÿ�0)�Bô5÷���OQP\�Fú��A-�ÿ��"#ÿ��9ü ?��I:��-�ÿPû�ÿMÿ�� 4%ü #�ÿMö �#�ü �!ý�ú��>�9ÿ&#��&��#,ý&���Hÿ�÷ ú�ö ö �E#�ôLý�ú80�ÿ��$�Iÿ�#I6 PUü �=ý��ÿMö ö,����#I��(�A�!ô@�ñ�9ò�9�FLù&���(�=ôWñ&9:9�ò&<�.G��ü ���ô@�M����#I]Yÿcû�ÿ��Hö ÿ>ü �M6Mñ�9�9�^&<0ü #�ÿ����=ü ÷ �)�!ü +#�ÿ��!ü ?��,ÿMö ÿ&0�ÿ��$� � ÷Iô�� 0E�Mü �$�3�Mü ��ü ��?)�3�ÿ��Hÿ>ö ü ��û�ü ö ü ���¬ô5÷���O�P\�Fú���-�ÿ��������#�Hÿ(�Fú�ö � ��.G��ü �A�A�3%G5���ô34_4E�ô3�!ÿ���:#4E�ü ý�-��>ö ú�ÿ(�24ü ö öIûQÿÿ����=ü 0"���5ÿ&#�. J ö �9ôG%3�Hÿ�����ô@��#�ÿ��$� �10Bú�����ûJÿ�$�Hô�-Pü #�ÿ�# 4�ü ��M�uýMö ÿ��������#I0�ÿ�����ü �$?!÷ ú�öG#�ÿ��!ý��Hü �$�=ü ô@�,ô5÷@���ÿ�?Pô�ô@#�. J �Dÿ��Mö ü �>�=ü ý���:#��ÿ�ú������Mö,������0�ÿ�����0%ÿ����ô@#I0fú����ûJÿPú:�9ÿ�# �5ôC����5-��Mö ú8���=ü ô,�VMú�ÿ��>�5ü ô@�$�G. J �IúJü �3��ûJö ÿ V>ú�ÿ����=ü ô@�0÷Iô���0"����0fú��>��ûJÿ#�ÿ�-�ÿMö ô,��ÿ�#'�3����?�ü -�ÿ��2�DÿMö ü ��û�ö ÿ�-��>ö ú�ÿ���. J #:#�ü �=ü ô@���>ö ö �&%����ÿ��Iú:�>-Pÿ��)���ô=ú�ö #,ý>ôLö ö ÿ>ý��ü �D÷Iô���0E���5ü ô@�%ô@�¬ô��3�ÿ��Q÷��Mý��5ô��A�Q�3�����c÷ ÷IÿMý���-��Mö ú�ÿ���.@��ü ���Mö ö �&%��3�ÿ#������0fú��>��û�ÿ �&�:�Mö ��U�ÿ&#*ú��!ü �$?1-��Mö ü #���3���5ü �>�5ü ý��Mö,�$�Hô�ý>ÿ�#Dú��Dÿ���.
Research ProgramJ 0Yúuö �>ü ������9ÿ$%������5ü ô����Dö&�!ÿ��9ÿ$���!ý$E�$�Hô&?G���$0`4����.ýDô���#HúJý��>ÿ$#)�>ôÿ�-=�Dö ú���5ÿQ�9ÿ�- ÿ����Mö�#Pü 0ÿ$�$�Lü ô����Rô>÷uýDô@���Iú0ÿ��>�,SHÿ�+2�Pÿ��!ü ÿ$��ýDÿ��Rô>÷ü ���Pÿ����^ýDü ���fû�ú��9ü ��ÿ����!#�ü �����!ü ý����G.@auú�Mö ü �����5ü -�ÿ*ü �$�5ÿ��>- ü ÿ�4!�G%,���Dÿ�÷=ÿ��&�ÿ$�PýDÿfÿ�-��Dö ú���>ü ô��$�G%:�$��#��Pÿ��!ýDÿ$���£ú�Dö&�!ÿ��G�Pô����9ÿ��84ÿ��!ÿfÿDö ü ýDü �5ÿ$#�F�Pÿ��!ýDÿ$���£ú�Dö��!ÿ��=ú�ö �������!ÿ8�!ÿ��Pô&�>�5ÿ$#H�ÿ��!ÿ$.��Pô>ú���!ÿ��9ÿ$���!ý$DVDúuÿ��,��>ü ô����*���!ô&- ü #Pÿ$#"�Q÷ ���$0ÿ�4Wô&��5f÷=ô&�Q�&�ÿ2�!ÿ��9ÿ$���!ý$�#�ÿ��Lü ?=��øñ�.�ób�����ü �Q���ÿ=�HÿDö ���5ü ô��$�G�ü �BûJÿ���4�ÿDÿ��)�����HÿDÿ���ö �$��#��9ý��&�Pÿ'����#ýDô@���Iú80�ÿ����GSG��ÿ��HýDÿ����5ü ô@�$�,ô5÷'���>�9ô�ýDü ���5ÿ$#.û�ú��9ü �Pÿ����!ÿ���c
;,. J �HÿQ�3Pÿ��!ÿ1�����d#�ü ÷ ÷Iÿ��Hÿ$��ýDÿ���ü �ýMô��$�Iú80�ÿ��>�GS��������!ô@����?�ÿû�ÿ$���-�ü ô����DÿDö ���5ÿ�#'�=ôM���G�ô�����ü ��?�ÿ���-�ü �Mô@��0�ÿ$�$��S�Q-�ü �Iú�Mö��0�ÿ���ü �5ü ÿ��>c
e .C Bô�ÿ��8���ÿ)���Hÿ��9ÿ���ýMÿBô>÷����!ÿMÿ��Rü �1�!ÿ����Dü öÿ��$- ü �Hô���0ÿ��$���ü �D÷=ö ú�ÿ$��ýMÿ�4E����JýMô,���Fú80ÿ��A��4ô5ú�ö #*û�ÿ�4ü ö ö ü ��?)�5ô*�����f÷Iô���$�!ô�#Húuý��(��c
f .JóY���� #�ÿ$0�ô�?G���$���ü ý�÷��Dý��5ô&�A�*���Dÿ)�����9ôLýDü ���5ÿ�#!4ü ��E#�ü ÷ ÷=ÿ����ÿ���ýDÿ��Rü �E#Pü �>���!ü ý����ÿ��DýDÿ����5ü ô@�$�G%:����� �Dô@����? ÿ�ûJÿ����-�ü ô&�3%��$��#�$�Hü ýMü �$?)-��Mö ú8���=ü ô@��c
J ����4ÿ��>�8�5ô'��Pÿ��9ÿ1V>úuÿ����>ü ô����*���Hÿ1#Pü �!ÿDý��=ö �C�!ÿDö ���5ÿ$#!�5ô'��PÿT ûJô&� �>ô@0²ö ü �Pÿ$W÷=ü �Lý��Dö�ü ���=ÿ��!ÿ����(�.ô>÷�û�ú��Lü �Pÿ����C�$��#ýMô�0�0ÿ��!ýMÿ1����#�$�!ô&-Pü #�ÿ*ü ���9ü ?=$�(�!�����5ô*�ô&4Ô÷=ô&�Hÿ�����ûJÿ$�Pÿ�÷=ü ���!0E�����Mö ü ?��)4ü �&�!ÿ��&�Mü ö�ÿ$���5ÿ����$�!ü �9ÿ$.
RESEARCH METHODSù�����ý$Pô�0ÿ��(�!ü ý1�$��#ÿMýDô@�Pô�0ÿ��(�!ü ý��Iú��>- ÿ��d0%ÿ��&�ô�#��4ÿ��!ÿÿ$0E��ö ô�� ÿ$#*�5ôE�����Lÿ����,ýDô@���Iú0ÿ��8�!ÿ��G�Pô����9ÿ��5ô)�3���!ÿDÿ����9ý$�$�PÿýMô��:#�ü �5ü ô��$�Yü �'�Hÿ�- ü ���Mö ü U�ü �$?�ü ����ÿ��3�^ýDü ���fû�ú��9ü ��ÿ����!#�ü �����!ü ý����G.�Z'��DÿDÿ�����ô&��Pÿ��5ü ý$�Dö��9ýDÿ$�����!ü ô&�.ô>÷�PÿDü ?=HûJô&��Pôô@#fû�ú��Lü �Pÿ����M#�ü �����!ü ý�������!ÿMÿ����Lý$���Pÿ��4ÿ��!ÿ!���Hÿ��9ÿ$�$�>ÿ$#Yú��9ü �$?eýDô�0���ô&�Lü �5ÿ���ô>÷ ��Pô&�5ô��?G���$��Pü ý*ü 0E��? ÿ��!�$��#"� �Pö �$�)- ü ÿ�4g�,5�ÿ��5ý$�.�Z'Pÿ=����!ÿDÿ=�9ýDÿ$�����Hü ô&�#�ü ÷ ÷Iÿ��Hÿ�#)4ü ��)�Hÿ��,��ÿDý����5ô��Pÿ'VMú�����5ü ����%ö ôý$�(�>ü ô���%��$��#%ýDô�0E�Pö ÿ�+=�ü ���¿ô5÷�- ÿ�? ÿ������5ü ô���.:R ��Pÿ��Q�LýMÿ$�PÿfýDô@���>ÿ�����4����RýMô������!ôö ö ÿ$#ûJÿMý��^ú��9ÿ=�9ÿMýDô���#����>�1- ü �Iú8�Mö5÷=ÿ$���£ú��Hÿ��!6^ÿ$. ?�. %5û�ú�ü ö #Pü �$?���?�ÿ$%5ú��5ü ö ü ���ö ü �Pÿ���<Yý$�$�Yû�ÿ1#Pü �3�����Dý��>ô��>�*�$��#��^÷ ÷=ÿDý��=-�ü ÿ�4ÿ����!ÿ��G�Pô����9ÿ6 / 0"����#�ô�� ñ�9�ò�ò:F@].ÿ��AU�ô�?E�$��# / �ü ÿ��1;:^:^:^�<�.
�(�)��Pÿ�h1ij$k�l�l�m��9ýMÿ$�:���!ü ô*6��Pü ?!ú��Dÿ¬ñ�<=��Pÿ#Pü �����!ü ý���ü �!#Pÿ�- ôü #,ô>÷- ÿ�?�ÿ������>ü ô���%:�$��#!�9ýDÿ$�Pÿ��.ýDô������Dü �Yú�Pü ���5ÿ��>�Fú8���5ÿ$#����A�����G�Rô>÷���5ô&�Dÿ�÷ �Dô��$���G.&Z'Pÿ�j$k�n�oGp q p i$r,n�sGj�k�l�l�m@�LýMÿ$�����!ü ôC6A��ü ?9ú��Hÿ';�<'#Pÿ��Pü ý����1��9ü 0�ü ö ���Q�����!ÿDÿ����9ýDÿ$�Pÿ24ü �&%ÿ$VDúuü #Pü ���&�$�$�>ö �D�Pö �DýDÿ$#)�3���!ÿDÿ������!ÿDÿ��.ô>÷0�ÿ$#�ü ú0YPÿDü ?=���.@XRô�ýDô@�D÷=ö ü ý����Yô>÷:�(�HÿDÿ��Q4Wü �3)�3���Fú�ý��cú��!ÿ��Yô&�ü �H÷ ���������Fúuý��£ú��Hÿ ���Hÿ'#Pü �Hÿ>ý��5ö ���$�������Hÿ$�$�&.@��ü ���Mö ö �$%���Pÿ�t�p uGl3ov l�w&l3q nGq p i$r'�9ýDÿ$�����!ü ôM6��Pü ?9ú��Dÿ e <*ýDô������Dü ���!��- ÿ�? ÿ������5ü ô��%ýDô�0���ö ÿ&�0�ÿ$�$�uô5÷�0ü +�ÿ$#)�G�PÿDýMü ÿ��fýDô�0E�Pô&�9ü �5ü ô��"�$��#�#�ü - ÿ��>�Lÿ=�����Fúuý��£ú��!ÿ�.J ýMýMÿ$�����ö �$�$�>ÿ��A�,%��,$�FúPû:�G%@�$��#)�(�HÿDÿ��C���HÿBü ���=ÿ���0ü +�ÿ$#"�$��#ü �D÷=ô���0��Mö ö �E�Pö �DýMÿ$#'4Wü ���ü �'��Pÿ �Pÿ$#�ÿ������!ü ���)U�ô@�Pÿ�.
N��Dý$������>�>ü ýDü ���$�����!ÿ(�,�Pô@��#Pÿ$#!�5ô'��4ô¬ô>÷:�&Pÿ2�&$�!ÿDÿ��9ýDÿ$������Hü ô��,.:�Pô��.ÿ$�Dý��%:�����>�5ü ýDü �������(��4Wÿ��!ÿ)���G5�ÿ�#1�5ô��$�!ô&- ü #Pÿ������>ü ��?��ô��E�Qû��$��5�ô>÷�Pÿ��!ýDÿ$���£ú8�Dö�#�ÿ��Lý��Hü ���5ô&�>�G. J �!ÿDýDô���#!�9ÿ��*ô5÷-=���!ü �^ûJö ÿ���ÿDö ü ýDü �5ÿ$#��������!ô@����?�ÿ�ûJÿ$���- ü ô&���!ÿ����Pô����9ÿ$.�þ ÿ��,��ô���#Pÿ$�$����Mö �9ô��G��ÿDýMü ÷=ü ÿ$#'���ÿDü �24ü ö ö ü ��?��Pÿ������5ôM������6 ógZ*ù�< ÷Iô&�Bü �5ÿ�01�Yü ���ö ü �3��ô>÷�? ôô�#��C�$��#1�Lÿ��>- ü ýDÿ��,.�x����3��4Wÿ��Hÿ�-����!ü ��û�ö ÿ��8�5ôI#Pÿ��5ÿ���0ü �Pÿ�����>�=ü ýMü ���������,S��9ôýDü ôÿDýDô@��ô�0ü ý=�9ü �£ú���>ü ô���%��G�ô�����ü �$?Yû�ÿ$���- ü ô&������(�=ÿ������G%�����#%ý^úuö �cú����Mö5û��Dý$5$?��!ô>ú��#�.
��ôö ö ô&4ü �$?��$�!ÿ��>ÿ����5ü �$?�%���Pÿ��Iú��>-�ÿ��14����1#�ü �����!ü û�ú��5ÿ�#)�5ô�Hÿ��9ü #�ÿ$�����.ô5÷:�!ÿ�- ü ���Dö ü U�ü �$?��PÿMü ?�HûJô&��Pô�ô�#Bû�ú��9ü ��ÿ����C#�ü �����!ü ý����Yü ��9ÿDö ÿ>ý��5ÿ$#"�). / .�ýDü �5ü ÿ��!���-Pü �$?��Pô@�Húuö ���5ü ô��$��?��Hÿ$���>ÿ�������$�2ñ�^:^:% ^�^�^�øxô�� J �$?�ÿMö ÿ��G%,��Mö ü ÷Iô�����ü �&F=óy�����ü �$?��=ô@��%, ). �8. F,��ü ý���?�ô@%,�cö ö ü ��ô�ü ��Fù�ô��>�=ö ����#�%@R�Dÿ�?�ô���F�ù�ü ��� �Iû�ú���?��%�ù�ÿ����$����ö -=�&�Pü ��F J ú����5ü ��%3Z�ÿ�+2���GF����# / ÿ������5ö ÿ�%5óz���GPü �$?��5ô@��.�Z)�ÿ��G�$0E�Pö ü ��?f÷ �$�$0�ÿ�÷=ô����Iú��>- ÿ��0E�Dü ö ü ��?!4����C#�ÿ��5ÿ���0ü �Pÿ&#Bû:�!�9ý��HÿMÿ$�Pü �$?ý��Hü �>ÿ��!ü �'�����&�ÿ*ýDü ����%���Pÿ&����ÿ�û�ú��9ü ��ÿ����!#Pü �����Hü ý���ö ÿ�-�ÿDö .�þ�ÿ��G�Pô@��#Pÿ������G�&0���ö ü �$?Y÷Iô&�Bÿ������ü ý����#,ý^ú�ö �£ú����Dö@#�ü - ÿ��>�9ü ���14E���!�Dú��A�Iúuÿ�#�.
{�{$|}&~&�������$��~&�����>�Q~&��� ���� �(�����)� |:���$�$��� ���D�:�:� �
�:~����$�������>�������>�M� �D�$�$���~&�:�����'��� �&� ���Q�D�����)������������E��� �"����� �$� �8�,� ��� ���$�$��� � ���� ���C���� ������� �)� ~@�$����� ~������3~&������A�����"�E��� � � �$�"�������~@���>���A�����3� �$�E�E�$� � � �$�E� � �������� �����&���*�$������������� � �����'������������G�$�!�Q� �$�)� ��~��Y~&�>�=�$��� ���&��3� ~@�I�E�&�1�����A����� �I� � ��� �G �1���� �$� ���$�����$��~&�����G ,�$���"� � �>��:��~�¡:���"�������$�����G���!�����,���~��)¢'£(¤I�$~������G�&�¥����������� �3� �$���������~��¦�G������� � ~&����������������G�������� �=�$���������&�$���§��"���&� ��� �>� �����&���:�&�����
�>�:���������2�E�(�$�����&�$�:�3~�$�(��� ���&���&�(�=�E� �3�:� �8���:�&�&� �>� �&��:� �A� ��� �(� �� �8�"� �����(� {�|�|@¨ �© �:�������M���&� � � ���$�=�"���$��>~,� � ~3�E������ ���&�"� �:�:�(� �&���$�&�� �3�:�&�"�=�$���&~,�:�"ª&���(�>�3� ~,�:�:�&� �$������ � � �&�:��§���~G�(�&�Q�@�&��������(���&�$� �1���&�(��~,�:����� ���&~@�"��:� �(�3� ª&�Q�(�>�3� ~@�:�:�&� �$�����E�(����$�(� �:���:���: ��E�:� � � � � | �E�(�$��:~,���:�&� � ���(�$����� �)~3�Q�$�(� �:���:�&��"� ���:~3�:�G�$�(���:~,�����&�>§�:� { �@«�$�(���:~@�������$�����'� �!� ~3�E�(���3�:�&�� ����� �����G� �����$��������� ���>�G���>�G��E���$�����(�������)�����3���C~�����¬:«g��~¬���« �� ���:� ���M���:� �&��� �&�{&|@¨�|�® © ��� � � ���&� {&|�|�¯&� G�(���&���~@�$��� ���(��� �$�C������������������������3���Q��~3�1� �������3����� ���1�����>��������(�$�����>�Q�&� � ��� ~3�E�(� ��° � � � �"��������:� � �
ANALYSIS AND
RESULTS° ���&�)�$���$� �G�G� �*� �*�������G�$�����$�� �)�3~����2�G�$����� ~����G�&�!���$� �G��� �� ���=������� �����&� ~������3~&�!�$�$���������� ���8� ���,���8� ���$� ����$������,����� �$��� �=�2���&���&� �3��� ���G :�����&������������� ~��H����~��$�$���������, ��$����������D������� �G�$�$������� ~D�$~��������$� ���~��$�G�
Trees and Perceptions�¥�,��� ~&�8�:� ¡:���>���G�$�$� �$������G��~��$�G� � ���$�1�!� ����� ����$�� ���3�8���C~������ �$���'��~�~��"�$����G��������� ���& ��G��~������ �$����~��E�������
±G² ³3´1µ�¶ ·3¸º¹�»G·�¼ ½3¾1¿�ÀG¹�¼ Á�·3·�¼ ¹�½�³3Â,·3ÃÄ´G¿�¼,¼ ¿'¹�½3³�² ·,Å
Æ2Ç(ÈGÉ2Ê�ËDÌ�Í$Î8É2Ï�Ç Ð2Ë�Ï�Ï1Ñ2Ç�Ï�Ò>Ê&Ç�ÓGÒQÏ�Ó�Ë�Ð=Ô:Ê&Ç(Õ�Ï�Ö$×IÕEØ=Ê�Ë�Ë�Ï1Ï$Ó�Ë�Ð2Ô�Ê&Ç�ÕÍ
Æ2Ç�È,É=Ê�Ë�Ù�Í$Î8É=Ï�Ç Ð2Ë�Ï�Ï1Ñ=Ç�Ï�Ò>Ê�Ç(Ó�ÒQÏ$Ó�Ë�Ð=Ô:Ê&Ç�Õ�Ï�Ö$Ø�Ê&Ô:Ñ2Ç�Ò>Ç�Õ�Ð2Ô�Ú�Ø�Ê&Ë�Ë�Ï)Ï�Ó�Ë�Ð=Ô�Ê&Ç�Õ8Í
±G² ³3´1µ�¶ ·3¸º¹�»G·�¼ ½3¾1¿�À�¹�¼ Á�·3·3¼ ¹�½3³3Â@·3ÃÛ´,¿�¼,¼ ¿'¹�½3³3² ·@Å
Ü�Ý�Þ ß`à�á â3ã@ä�å�æ�á ç è'é=ê�ë�ì�à�í�ëGê�î�àî�ï�ê ð�ñ>æ�ò�í�ó�à�ñ�ê�ë�î8ç í�ô�í�í�ê�ñ�õ�öç î�÷�ø$å�ëGç í�ê�ë�ë!ù1ç ë�î�ñ�ç è�î�ë
ç æ�ç á ç î�÷�ú@ò$í�û"üEê�ñ�è$ï�ò�í�î�î�ñ�ò$ç î(ëGý@é2ò�î�ç í�þ�ëQâ3à�ñ�î�ï�ê'Ý:ÿ�ì�ê�ñ$è$ê�ì$î�åò$áç î�ê$ü1ë�ñ�ò�í�þ=ê�û)â ñ�à�ü Ü � ç í�û�ç è$ò�î�ç í�þ�� ë�î�ñ�à@í�þ=á ÷�û�ç ëGò�þGñ�ê$ê�� ��î�à��� ëGì�ê$è$ç â ÷�ç í$þ�� ë�î�ñ�à@í�þ=á ÷�ò�þGñ�ê�ê�� �$ú�ç î�ï���ò�ëCò í�ê�å�î(ñ�ò$á@ì�à�ç í$î&ý
ð2ëGç í�þEò$è$è�ê$ì�î�ê$û"û�ê$è�ç ëGç à@í)ñAåá ê�ë �� ò�ì�á ò�í"ò$í�û ò�ì�á ò�í¥Ü��������î&àIû�ê�â3ç í�ê)ò$í�ûEí:ò$ü�ê2åí�û�ê�ñ�á ÷=ç í$þDè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ�ç ê�ëGú�û�ò�î&ò=ñ�ê$û�å8è�î�ç à�íê$í�î�ò$ç á ê$û�ì�ñ�ç í�è$ç ì�ò�á�ò��2ç ëQâ�ò$è�î�à&ñ)ò$í�ò�á ÷�ëGç ë�Dç î�ï���ò�ñ�ç ü�ò��Cñ$à&î�ò�î�ç à@í�ýó�à&å�ñ!è�ò�î&ê�þ�à&ñ�ç ê�ë!ê$ü�ê�ñ>þ=ê�û����!ü�ê$í�ç î(÷�ò$í�û"ö à�ü!â3à&ñ>î�ú��Äê�ñ�è$ï�ò$í$îô�í�î&ê�ñ�ò$è�î�ç à�í�ú � å8ò�á ç î�÷Dà&â�ä$ñ�à@û�åè�î�ë,ú@ò$í�û!�_ò$ç í�î&ê�í�ò$í�è$ê'ò�í�ûð1ì#"�ê�ê$ì�� ò$è$è$à&å8í$î&ç í�þ*â3à&ñ%$:ÿ�& à&â�î�ï�ê�î�à&î�ò$á�'=ò�ñ�ç ò�æ�á ê('�ò�ñ�ç ò$í�è$ê$ý) ê�*'=ò�ñ�ç ò�æ8á ê�ë+�ê�ñ�ê)è$à�í�ë�î�ñ>åè�î�ê$û1æ�÷Dò�þGþGñ�ê�þ=ò�î&ç í�þDüEê$ò�í!'=ò$á åê�ëò$è�ñ�à&ë�ëIò$á á�è$ò�î�ê�þ�à&ñ>÷Hç î�ê$ü!ë â3à&ñ*ê$ò$è�ïCñ�ê�ë,ì�à@í�û�ê$í�î�ý�ö ò�î�ê�þ�à&ñA÷ü�ê$ò$í�ë+Dê�ñ�ê)è$à@ü�ì�ò�ñ�ê$û1æ8ê�î,�ê$ê$í1ë�è$ê$í�ò�ñ�ç à&ë�å�ëGç í�þDà�í�ê�õ �ò�÷� ).- �#�`ò$í�û"ø�à@í�â�ê�ñ>ñ$à�í�ç@ì�à&ë�î8ï�à�è�î�ê�ë�î�ë � / ò�æ�á ê�Ü��$ý
ù)ç ë�î3ç í�è�î'ì�ò�î�î�ê�ñ�í�ëMà�â�ñ�ò�î3ç í$þ�ëñ�ê�ë�ì�à@í$ëGê1è�ï�ò�ñ�ò�è�î3ê�ñ�ç 0:ê�î3ï�êñ�ê�á ò�î�ç à@í$ëGï�ç ì$ëCà�â�î�ï�ê'û�ç ë�î ñ�ç è�î�ë!ò�í�û)î�ï:ê=â�à�å�ñ1ì�ê�ñ�è�ê�ì$î�å8ò�á,è�ò�î3ê�þ�à@õñ�ç ê(ëGý / ï�ê�13254�6�787:9,ëGè&ê�í�ò�ñ�ç à+Eò�ë)è�à@í�ë�ç ë�î3ê�í$î3á ÷)ñ�ò�î3ê�ûIá à"ê�ë>î�à@íê$ò�è�ï"à�â�î3ï�ê)ì�ê�ñ�è&ê�ì$î�å8ò�á&ë�è�ò�á ê�ë�ý�é=ê�ëGì:à@í�û�ê�í$î�ëCû�ê�ë�è�ñ�ç æQê$û'î�ï�êû�ç ë�î ñ�ç è�îò�ë�æ�ê�ç í�þ;� ë�î3ò�ñ<"�ú �(� æ�ò�ñAñ�ê�í�ú ��ò�í�û=� æ�á ê�ò�"�ý �
�_ê�ò$í��ï�ç á ê�ú3î�ï�ê'û�ç ë�î�ñ�ç è�î�ë!è$à@í�î�ò&ç í�ç í$þ>'�ê�þ�ê�î�ò�î�ç à@í�ú�4�6@?BA<C D C 2�EF?<G4�6�7:7:9Qò�í�û.H;C I<7:AKJ7:L�7:D ?<D C 2�E:ú,ï�ò�û�ï�ç þ�ï�ê�ñ2ñ�ò�î3ç í$þGëGú,ò�þ=ò�ç íIò�è�ñ�à&ë>ë!ò�á áì�ê�ñ$è$ê$ì�î�åò$á�è$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ�ç ê�ëGý:é2ê�ëGì�à�í�û�ê$í$î�ë*û�ê�ë,è�ñ�ç æ�ê$û1î�ï�êM4�6@?BABC D C 2�EN?<G4�6�7:7:9Qû�ç ë>î�ñ�ç è�î�ò�ë!� �ê�á è�à�üEç í$þ�ú �O� â ñ�ç ê&í�û�á ÷&ú �2ò�í�û'æ�ê�ç í$þ�>í�ê$ç þ=ï�æ�à&ñ�ï�à�à�û$÷P�Qò�í�û"à&æ�ëGê�ñ@'=ê$û)î�ï�ò�î�î�ï�ê5H�C IB7:A;J7L�7:D ?BD C 2�Eû�ç ë�î�ñ�ç è�î8ò$ì�ì�ê$ò�ñ�ê&û=� ñ�ê$á ò��2ç í�þ�ú �O�>ç í�'=ç î3ç í�þ�ú ��ò�í�ûK� �ê$á á õ�":ê&ì�î�ý �
ô îç ë!ê���ì�ê$è�î�ê$û)î�ï�ò�î�î�ï�êè$à�í$î(ñ�ò�ë>î1à&â=î(ñ�ê$ê�ë�à&ñIí�àî�ñ�ê$ê�ë*ç íEò)è$à�í�ë�åü�ê�ñê�í�'�ç ñ�à@í�üEê�í�î��à�åá ûç í�â3á åê�í�è$ê è$à�í�ë�å8ü�ê�ñ>ëBQR å8û$þ�üEê&í$î�ë1à�â �!üEê$í�ç î�÷Eò�í�ûö à@ü!â3à�ñAî�ý / ï�ê'è$à@í�î�ñ�ç æ:å�î�ç à@íà&âP'=ê�þ=ê�î�ò�î�ç à@í*î�à"à&î&ï�ê�ñì�ê�ñ�è$ê�ì�î åò$á R åû�þ�ü�ê$í$î�ëCà�âñ�ê�î�ò$ç á�ì�á ò$è$ê1ü�ê�ñ�ç î�ëMè$á à&ë,ê�ñò�î�î&ê�í�î&ç à@í�ý�é=ê$ì�ñ�ê�ëGê$í�î�ò�î�ç '=êç ü�ò�þ=ê�ë��ê�ñ�ê'è$ò�ñ�ê�â åá á ÷è$ï�à�ë,ê�í'î&àMê$á ç ü�ç í�ò�î�ê3":í�à�Eíè�à�í$â3à�å�í�û$ëGú@ç í�è�á åû�ç í$þ�á ê�'�ê�áà&â�î�ê$í�û:ê$û�í�ê�ë�ë �TS ê�ñ@0�à&þHò$í:ûU ò�á êIÜ�� ��$��)ò$í�û)åì�"�ê�ê$ì� ) ò�ëGò�ñ"Ü��������$ý@ù)ê�ëGì�ç î�êê�V�åç '=ò�á ê$í�è$ê"à&âë�î�ñ�ê$ê�î�ë,è$ò�ì�êî�ç û�ç í�ê�ë�ë�ú$î�ï�ê!ì�ñ�ê�ë,ê�í�è$ê!à�â'�ê�þ=ê�î�ò�î3ç à@í"ì�à&ëGç î�ç '�ê$á ÷ç í�â3á åê$í�è�ê$û"ò$ì�ì�ñ�ò$ç ëGò$á ë!à&â�_ò$ç í�î&ê�í�ò$í�è$ê'ò$í�û"ð1ì#":ê$ê$ì�ý
�Që8ñ$ê�'�ê$ò$á ê�û1æ:÷%�_ê�ñ&õè$ï�ò$í$î'ô(í$î&ê�ñ�ò�è�î&ç à�í�ò$í�û�åò$á ç î�÷�à&â8ä$ñ�à�û�åè�î�ëè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ$ç ê�ëGú,î�ï�êIì$ñ�ê�ëGê$í�è$êMà�âî�ñ�ê$ê�ë!ï�ò�ë�ëGç þ=í�ç â�ç è$ò�í�îì�à�ëGç î�ç '�ê'ç í$â3á åê�í�è�ê�ë!à�íè$à�í$ë3åü"ê�ñEç í�â3ê�ñ�ê$í�è$ê�ë
ò�æ8à3å�î8ò=ëGï�à�ì�ì�ç í�þ�ê$í�'=ç ñ�à�í�ü�ê$í$î&ý�_ò�ñ<":ê�î&ç í$þ1ë3î�å8û�ç ê�ë!ï�ò�'�êê�'�ò�á å8ò�î&ê$û!î�ï�ê�ñ�à�á ê1à&âM�Aò�î�ü�à&ëGì�ï�ê�ñ�ç è�ëB��à�íEè$à�í$ë3åüEê�ñCç í�î�ê$í�õî�ç à@í$ë!ò$í�û)æ�ê�ï�ò�'�ç à&ñ�ú�â�ç í�û�ç í$þ!î�ï�ò�î8ç í�û�à�à�ñ1ê&í�'=ç ñ�à�í�ü�ê�í�î�ò$áê�á ê�üEê�í�î�ë�ë�åè�ï�ò�ë1ü!å�ëGç è�ú@ì�ñ�à@û�å8è�î�á ò�÷�à�å�î�ú,ò�í�û"á ç þ=ï$î�ç í$þ�ò�á áè�à�í�î�ñ�ç æ:å�î�ê=î�à8ë�î�à&ñ�ê ç üEò�þ=ê � W ç ü�üEê�ñ)ò$í�û U à�á û�ê$í¥Ü��������$ý@ô�íî�å�ñ�í�ú�ë3î�à&ñ�ê'ç ü�ò�þ�ê)ç í�â3á å8ê$í�è�ê�ëCè$à@í�ë3å8ü�ê�ñ>ëBQ�ì�ê�ñ�è$ê$ì�î�ç à�í$ë � ù1à�û�û$ëê�î ò�á ý8Ü�����Ü���ý:ä$ñ�ç à&ñ�ñ�ê�ëGê�ò�ñ�è$ï�à�í�í�ò�î�å�ñ�ê1ò$í�û�è$ç î�÷*ë3î�ñ�ê$ê�î�ëë�åì�ì�à&ñ>î�ë�î�ï�ê=â3ç í�û�ç í$þ!î�ï�ò�î�æ�à&î�ï"ê�'=ò�á å8ò�î&ç '=ê ò�ì�ì�ñ�ò$ç ëGò$á ë � ) ò�ë,ò�ñÜ��������Cò�í�ûDò�â â3ê$è�î&ç '=êQñ�ê�ëGì�à�í$ë,ê ��X ï�ê$ê�î�ëIò�í�û%�_ò$í�0�ê�ñdÜ����8Ü��Cò�ñ�êæ�à�à�ë�î�ê$û*æ�÷Mî&ï�êCì$ñ�ê�ëGê$í�è$êCà&â=î�ñ�ê$ê�ëGý
/ ï�ê��_ê�ñ�è$ï�ò$í�î)ô�í�î�ê�ñ�ò$è�î&ç à�íDè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ>÷Hè�à@í�â3ç ñ�ü!ë î�ï�ò�îëGï�à@ì�ì�ê�ñ>ëMç í$â3ê�ñ8ëGà�è$ç ò$á$â�ò$è�î�à&ñ>ëâ ñ�à�ü ì�ï�÷GëGç è&ò$á�ò�î(î�ñ�ç æ�å�î&ê�ëMà&âòì�á ò$è�ê�ý��zì�ê�ñ>ëGà�í#Që*è$à&þ=í�ç î�ç '=ê1ç í�î�ê�ñ�ì�ñ�ê�î�ò�î&ç à�í$ë*ò$í�û!ñ�ê$ì�ñ$ê�ë,ê�í�î&ò$õî�ç à�í$ëCà�â�ì�á ò�è$ê'ê��,î&ê$í�û1î3àMç í�è$á åû�ê=î�ï�ê3V�åò$á ç î�÷�à&â:ëGà�è$ç ò$á�ç í�î�ê�ñ�ò$è�õî�ç à�í�ò�í�û)ñ�ê�ëGì�à�í$ë,ê�î�ï�ò�î�ï�ê'à�ñ�ëGï�ê'ê���ì�ê$è�î�ë�ý / ï�ç ëQâ3ç í�û�ç í$þ�ü�ò�÷æ�ê!à�â ì�ò�ñ>î&ç è�åá ò�ñ*ç ü�ì�à&ñAî�ò$í�è$ê�î&à)æ:å�ëGç í�ê�ë3ëGê�ëî&ï�ò�î)ò�ñ�êQë,ê�ñ@'=ç è�êà�ñ�ç ê�í�î�ê$û�ý�ô îüEò�÷�ò�á ëGàMï:ò�'=ê'ì$ñ�ç è$ê=æ�ê$ï�ò�'=ç à&ñ'ç üEì�á ç è$ò�î�ç à�í�ëGãU ñ�ê��ò$á�ò�í�û"ø�ò�":ê�ñ � Ü�� �����=â3à&åí�û'î&ï�ò�î�ë�î�à&ñ�ê=ëGê�î�î�ç í$þGë+�ç î�ïç í�î�ê�ñ�ò$è�î�ç '=ê$ú&â ñ�ç ê$í�û�á ÷CëGò�á ê�ëCì�ê�ñ>ëGà�í�í�ê$á�ì�ñ�à@û$åè$ê$û"ï�ç þ�ï�ê�ñ!ì�ñ�ç è$êò�è$è$ê�ì�î�ò�æ�ç á ç î�÷�ç í"è$à�í$ë3å�ü�ê�ñ>ëGý
Patronage Behaviorä:ò�î�ñ�à�í�ò�þ=ê�æ�ê$ï�ò�'=ç à&ñM'=ò�ñ�ç ò�æ�á ê�ë�è�à�í�ëGç ë�î�ê$ûHà3â2â3ç '=êCè$ò�î�ê�þ=à&ñ�ç è$ò$áñ�ê�ë,ì�à@í�ë,ê!V�åê�ë�î�ç à�í$ë,ý:ä:ò�ñ>î&ç è$ç ì�ò$í�î�ë5Dê�ñ�ê)ò�ëB":ê$û!î�à'ëGì�ê$è$ç â ÷
YOZ,[F\O]^�_P`�a5\cb�Z dO^<b�b!ecZ,b�f@]�Z,g<f�b�g<^<dPh�]�Z,i#b�j�klZnm�^<epoP^<[<^<f@h�f@Z,i#dpb�g<^<dOh�]�Zni5`
qBr s:t!u�v wxzy�{Bw8| }:~>���By�| ��w:w:| y�}:s:�Fw��tB��|F| �3y�}:s:r w
���5������#�<�#��� �����+�@�����<� ���M� �n���<� ������������� ��� �������
�n�<���P������ �������,�<���#��� #� ¡8�����#�����N ��#�<���:� � �=�����c� ¡F� ���� �<��¢��M������������c� ¡B� �,¡B�N���� =£#���<¤ � ��¥>�8���c¦¨§�©�ªN«���¡B�� �� ������¡B£#�N��¡B�3 �� ¡:�,��� ������� �N��¡B�¡F� �;�O�P���<� ���5� �3�������¥c���<� ��¡+¬���������� � � ��£�¡B�� #ª§�¬p�N ¬�������� ���� �#¥c���#�������#��� �B¡F� ¡+�:���5� ��¡%���c��� �M����� ���®��O�<��� ���� � ��¡F®#� £=�����P���<� ���+� ��¡���� #� ¡8�,�<� ���#¡F���������<� ��¡+�#¡F� ��¥
!̄����¡8�,¡>���# ;°#�<�������<±¡5²l¡8����� ¡:�� ��¡
� §(���+� � ��� ª ³O��¡F£�� ��¡B�3� �=��� � £#���,��� �#��¥P�c�c���<� ���+� ��¡�¬���¡+�8��M�# ����5�c¡F� ¥c�#� �:� �������� �!�<��� ����� !��� #� ¡8�,�<� �����c��¥c������� � �=��� ��������:ª
³c��¡F£�� ��¡B�c��5��®��c�n¬��M�c��¥P���������� K #� ¡8�,�<� ���,¡+¬���¡>��¥c��� �3¡B� �;� � ������# K #� � �8������ =� ��� � ¤��c¬����<¡�� ��� �¨�®��+´�µM¶�·�¸¸:¹����N�# �� ��� �N��ª�>�� ���c���@¡F�O����¡F£#�N��¡B��£����n����<�;� ¡%���c� #�����ªF´�µ3¶�·�¸¸¹�����¡B£#� ��¡B��¡.���<���� �#�������,�<����� ����#��®��!� ��¬º���# ���»������®����#�®#�(�c���<� ���+� ��¡B±�������¥c����� ����� ���T�<���B¡>���# = �� �;� �#� ¡B®=� �3� �<��¢��M�������������P� ��¥!���¬p���< �®#��®#� ¥c®����# �����®#�!���@�<���B¡Bª�°»� ���P���@¡B��� ��������¡B£#� ��¡B��¡.��¡@¡B� ��� ������ ¬;� �®.¶�·8¼<½B¾ ¿ ¾ µ�ÀF¼BÁ�¶�·�¸:¸:¹����� .Â;¾ Ã<¸½=Ä:¸:Ÿ¿ ¼B¿ ¾ µ�À������»� ��¡8¡�� ����¢��5�����5����®#��� ��¬���¡8�»���# ;������®��!���@�<���<¡F��� �#��������¡F��� �>� �<��¢��M���#�������:®#���¡B� � ¥P®��� �; #����� � ���»�����®#�P�c����� ���+� ��¡B±�®#� ¥P®#���(�c��� �M�»� ���P��� ¡�� ������������ �=���M®#� ¥c®#���(� ����¢��M���#��� ��¡+�®#���3�®#�M´�µ»¶�·�¸¸¹�¡B���������<� �Nª
�>����:®����+����¡�£��N��¡B��£����,������;� ¡%���#� ������ª�© ���,���N����¥P�O���n¡B£��N��¡B��������¡@¡.��� ��¡<�������n��� �¡.� ¡5¥<����������>���»�=� �����T�<���p�������¥P���� ��¡�ª�©�����®���£�¡�:®������3�����c�®�����¡B®��N� �¡+�:�M�P� ¡<� �:���� �N�=���� �� �����P�����+��®����P� �����¡8¡<�N��� �n��� »¬�� �®»�:®��P� �#£��»�:� �����:��� �F�����#� ���N���;�����+ ���£�� ���:�� �ª
ÆO�@�5���>�:���<��¡@���� ��c� �������¡����<�>��� �:���p��®#��� � ����¥c�� %��= ����;� �#¡8�,�<����(�®#�O�:� ¡F�������<���,�#�<��¡.��¡:¡B� ��� ����� �¬p� �®>�,�<����� ��¡:���� � ���� � �;���# �;��� ����������#���3��Çc£#����¡B��¡%� ���<������� �¡B��� �� ��¥B¡Bª§�®#�3£����,�<� �#�n¥c��P���<� ���5� ��¡5¡B£#����� � �p��� ��¡8�M�������5��®#���P� ���@¡5�®#���»�����;£#��������� ��� � ����#� ���@¥c�!�!����¡:��N�������5��¡B�(�:��% #� ¡:�,�<� ���,¡�®#���c� ��¥.�n������¡B��£���������� ��� � �>¥c�������<���� ��¥��� � #� �� � �#����<���c�����5��¡FªNÈ#���!� ��¡:����#������¥<�<��������
�,�<���P���� #� ¡:����#����¡M¬p���<������£#���@��� %�:���5�®#�+¬;� ��®� �,�<����¡M¡F�����#���<� ��¡<É���=��ÇO£#���# ��� ��n�<�� ������<���c�<�� #� �#¡+¬�� �®#� �= #����¡B�O���@�5���=£#�N£��M� ���� � ��¡�¡8�#¥B¥c��¡8�,¡>�3� ���@¥c��������¡:�� �;���!£#� �N� ªNÊ��K�� � #� ��� � �����<��¡F£�� �# #�����n¡5�<��£#���@��� >¥B������������¦*§�©��:��%£#���<¤�� ��¥p� �>�c��¥c���������� #� ¡8� �<� ���,¡BÉ ��� ��� �>¡>���+£#����¤�� ��¥>�<���c�����M��¡%� ��¡8�5 ��M�c���M¡B£#������¡+�+��� ��¥ #� ¡B£�� ������ ����>�n������¡%�;���!�5�3��� � ¡F���#������� ��¡8�5�����T¡F±�¦*§�©�®#� ¥P®#����:����¡.� �>�:���<��¡8���� � #� ¡:�,�<� ���,¡Fª
Products Pricing§�®��3� ��¡8�#¡F���»��������¡F£#�N��¡B�3� ����>¡%��¡8¡F��¡8¡B�� !�®����#� �#�;���<¤��������� ���#�� � � �,�!�c��� �M��¡>����,������¡>� ���������� �N�����P� �<�N���;�����,¡��#¡B� ��¥�°#² � ª� ����¤�������@¡���� �#¡8�����£��<�N ��M���,¡K���# %¡F���@�P� ����¡�� ����!��®��<���+¥c���#���������� ��¡8¡B��¡ ��Ë � �#�#�����!���5��� ª ������Ì�� ª °M� ���P���#� �������c¥P� � �¡>�����c¬�� #��� ����c��� � ���+� �»���� K£����<��®#��¡B�� 3¬�� �®=� � �,�� �3 ���� � �+�n�<���� � ��ªNÍF®#�N£#£�� ��¥¥c�N�N �¡������>£��#�<��®#��¡B�� ���� ����%£#� ���#�#� ��¥Î���# ;��� ��£����<� ¡B� �����# ������¡B��� ������ �P��� �� �� ¡8�,��� ������� �ªNÈ�� �#��� � ���¡B£������ ��� �,�!¥P�N�N �¡>®����c�»®�� ¥c®�������� 3�<������¥P�#� �� � �K���# ����N��¡8�M�;����� ��c��� �n�#É�®��#¡B�N� � �,�� �3��� ��£#����� ¡B� �!¡F®#�N£#£#� ��¥Î� ¡. �� �#�(�+���:�����!£��#�<��®���¡B��ª
ÏP��� �#� �;� ¡8�,¡%��� ��������¡B�3� �# #� ����¡������ ���c��¡@�� ¥P�����3�;���<¤����£#���n�:���<��¡ � ��ª ¥Pª ���®��3°»� ��¡8�M�����!©��<� ���3Ê��# #��ÇpÐ �+��¡B¤����5����¥c� � �¡FÑ � ª³O��¡B£#�N�# #�����,¡+¬p���<����¡B¤ �� !���� �# #� ������O�®#�3£���� ���c��®����%¬����M� !���¬�� � � � ��¥>���£����>�8���!������®���� ��Ì � ����>¡Bª§�®��<���M� �� #��Ç.�P���<� ���5� ��¡¬���������� ��¡8�,�@�M����� !���p��¥B¥<�<��¥c���� ��¥.¡8������ >�#��� �5��¡5�:���>��� ��� �����>¡¬�� ��®�� �=������®=£���� ��M���5� �� #��ÇÎ��� ��¡8¡��:���!������®K£#���@��� ��� £#����� � §����5� ���� ªN©��<� ���(�����¥B¥B�<��¥P���� �N��� ������� � ���(�c��� �M��¡�¬����<�3� ������� �:� �� �������P�N� %¡8�,�<�����¥c� ���5��®����c� ���.��� �:�����,¡BÉ#��£#£��<��ÇO� �;������� ��¡B���c��������¡F��¡£#���> �� ¡8�n��� ���M£#���>£��<� ��+���nÒ ¡B���@�P� ����� �����Ó¬������O�<���;���c�� #ª
ÔFÕ8Ö8× Ø�Ù Ú Û8Ü�ÝFØ�ÞFÜ�Û ß+à Ü�× Ù�à Ö×NÜTÖ:Û:ÞFÕÙ�à ØÔNÕ:Ö× Ø�Ù#Ö:Õ:× Ûá�Ø�Ù�à Û:Ü#Õ:ÞFâ>à × Ûã%Ü ä Ø<Õ:âNà ÞFá å�Õ:Ù�à ÕÞFÖÛ!æ ç%èêé»Ø!× Ù�Û:ÛÜ ë�Ù�ÕâOì@× Ù,Û:Û:Ü í�à î�ÛâKå�Û:á�ì ï�é5ð»ñBïò#ó�ô õ�ö�÷ ø�ù�õ#ú�ûPü ó»ý�ü,þ�÷ ÿ�� ì ��� í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô�� ÿ�� ì �� BØ<Ü�à × à å�Û5à ã%Õá�Û �Pì � �Pì ��� � ì � � � ì �� Ý��Kì ����� ÿ â��ïP× × Ù�ÕÖ:× à å�ÛM× Ø>× Ø�FÙ�à Ü�× Ü �Pì ��� �Fì ÿ ����ß �Bì ������ß �Bì � � ��ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì
"#è
�MÕ:Ü#Õ(ÝFä Û:Õ:Ü�Õ:ÞF×BÕ× ã%Ø�Ü�Ý��NÛ:ÙnÛ �Pì ���� Ø�Ø<â!ÝNä Õ:Ö:Û�× Ø»Ûî�ÝFä Ø<Ù�Û �Pì ��� <ä Õ:Ö:ÛO× Ø��<Ù�Ø� +Ü�Û!� Ø�Ù"� �F× �FÙnÛOÝ��FÙnÖ#�BÕ:Ü�Û8Ü �Pì ���$��FÜ�à ÞFÛ8Ü�Ü�Û8Ü�Õ8ÙnÛ!� Ùnà Û8ÞBâFä %�Õ:ÞBâ�Õ8ÝFÝBÙ�Ø�Õ:Ö��FÕ��<ä Û �Pì � �& ô þ�' (�ù�õ�÷�) õ#÷ ô þ�ù*'�÷ ö�ü õ � � ì � í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô�� ÿ� ì ÿ �� Ø�Ø�âFÜ#Õ8ÞFâ!Ü�Û:Ù�å�à Ö@Û:Ü#Õ8Ù�Û!� Õ:à Ù�ä %5ÝBÙ�à Ö:Û:â �Pì � � �Pì ÿ � �#ì � ÿ �Pì � Ý��Kì ������ ÿ â���*�FØ<Ý�+<Û:Û:ÝFÛ:Ù�Ü�Õ:Ù�ÛOà Þ�� Ø<Ùnã%Õ:× à å�Û �Pì � ÿ �Oì ����ß �cì ����ß �cì ����ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì
"#è
� Ø�Ø<â!Ö#�NÜ�× Ø�ã%ÛÙ�Ü�Û:Ù�å�à Ö:Û �Pì � �ß�à å�Û:ÙnÜ�Û!��BÜ�à ÞFÛ8Ü�Ü�Û8Ü�Õ8ÞFâ�Ü�Û:Ùnå�à Ö8Û:Ü �Pì � �,.-�ù0/ ö�÷ ø%ü ý1Bþ�üú*-�'�÷ 2 �3�#ì �� í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô������Bì ����Mà á*��465��FÕ:ä à × %7�BÙ�Õ8ÞFâFÜPÕ:Ù�Û(Õ:å�Õ:à ä Õ#�Bä Û �Pì � � �Pì �� �#ì �� � ì ��� Ý��Kì ������ ÿ â�� <Ù�Ø�â��FÖ8× Ü�Õ:ÙnÛ8 5Û:ä ä 4,ã%Õ:âFÛOÕ:ÞFâ!ÙnÛ:ä à Õ#�Bä Û �Pì ��� �Fì �����ß �Bì ������ß �Bì ������ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì
"#è
í.Û8Ù�Ö��FÕ:ÞF× Ü9 5à ä ä�âBØMÜ�ÝFÛ8Ö:à Õ8ä�Ø�ÙnâFÛ:ÙnÜ �Pì � �& ù�ö õ#÷ ô õ�ù�õ9'Tô�ù�õ#ú;:"<*= ô@ô < �#ì � � í.Û@Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ í.Û8Õ8Þ Ô��>�����cì ���? ä Û:Õ:Þ!Õ:ÞFâ!ä à × × Û:Ù 4@� ÙnÛ:Û �Pì ��� �Pì ÿ � � ì ��� � ì � Ý��Kì ������ ÿ â��? Ø�ãA� Ø<Ùn× Õ#�Bä Û�Ü�× Ù�Û8Û:×FÜ�ÝFÕÖ:Û:Ü �Pì �B� �Fì � ��ß �Bì ���8��ß �cì ������ß æ ÿ ����ÞNØ3ÜTà á�ì
"#è
CED�FEG�H I3J@J FEG�K.L�FEM@NPO�FEQAQ3FER�L�S3J@K M6FEGTFEHPRUI3S3G�M6V$ WTX*Y X"Z\[T] X*Y X*^\_0`\a�Y
b�c"d�e@fhg�i"jkfl�cnmEo@prq�fm#kfq�s3o@p9l!t�uvkc"s3fw�p9mEo@ft�c9l�xTk�p9yzq�c"mEo@t�pBl�t9i
{�|9| }�~n� �#���*�B�P� � �����0��9~n��������~U���B���8���P�*�>�B~����\���7� �>�\�9�B�0���0�U� �@�;���B��� �B�\������� ���@�� �\�@�
}�� ���B� �r�*�����>�9� ���@�� �0���E���9~n�B�B� �� � �~n~n���¢¡h���������0��B �����\�E�\��E�9���r��~���£��*�B� ���9�*�� �~n~�������¤T� �������B�E��� ��� �@�� �~n~�������~n¡h¡h���9�B� �� �E�B���B� ��B�\�#�9�#���0�#����£���� �U�0��¥E¦��9�0��������� ��� �� ��@����B�����0����*~n����� �#�������¤T� ���>¡;�\�§"�0��� �� r� � ���0��\�@�B���¨0©7� �B�B�*�\���0�7��� ¥8{*ª"ª"«*¬�� �����9�\�B���9� �~n~n���¢�*� �0�����0�P�@���B� ����� � �;��~n������� �r����~n���U�\�6�¢~��7�0�������9�B� �* ¢£��*� �U�*� �U�*� � �@�������9�r�*~������ �U�*���#� �*������� �*��¥® �������¯��~n¡r�B�0�� ��~n�����P�0�@¤T���*�¢�����*�B�0�� ~E�°¨0~n�B��� ¤;�0�±¢²A³U´�± �*�B�r�B~����#�\����~n�B�n�9~E���U�B~n�����0���@�#¬��B� ����� ~E��������� ��B� �#� �*������B� � ���0����B���0��¥"�!�0��B~n�B�9�����@�7����B~E�����*��}�¦��r� �0�#�7�#~��¢� �7� £���� ����� �~n~n���¢� ���9�9��� �9�0���¢�B� ���@�� �\�6�P¤;� ���B~E�9�B�@����0��¥n���� �����B� � �#�\�����B���0��7�0�@¤;�����¢�@��������9�;�B~n� �6��*����~n�9�B� ��� ~����¯�0�����~n����� �B�0��0�.� �*�± �B���~�µ!� ¡h�0���*� �h«"¶"·¸��~E���*~n��£����9� ���"������¹"¶"·¸��~E�!���B~n�9�9� �� �����9�rº"«"·»��~E�!���9�*��� ��� �@�� �~�~n����¥ ± �B�E� ���� �.�B��� �� �¤;��� ������E��#�����B�B�0���A���*~E��0�¯���0�~E���°��� �����~n���U�\�@�� ����B�0��\�E���T�¢¡;~E�����~n�����0��£��0��� £��T{"{*¥ ª"«"·¼�B� � �#�0����B���P�.�0�@¤T�*���A�6�����¢���B�½�9~n� �@����
�*~n�9�B� ��� ~�����¥n¾#���0��� ����� ����� � ����� ��B� �#� ���*���U�9� � �#�0�����9���0���B��¡;~������6���0�E����;¿0��¡;���B� �@�z¡h�0�� �� �BÀ"�#�B�0����*����0�������@�¯�B~E�#������� ������\£������U�0�7�#~E��"�B�� �B�\�#���B� ���@�� �0�@�����B�>¡h�0��*�B�����6��¥
Respondent ComparisonsÁ � £B�������B�0�7�B~��B�����B~n� ������¡h�B� �0�.¤T�\��������0¤h��� ��~n¡Â� �9�B�0���3�*� �@��B�*� ����7~E��9~n~n�����n�����U�9�0µ!�B���\�E���r¹9«"·Ã~E�"���0���B~n�B�B�����@�¢�B������9���U���n�B~E�B�����B~n� �h� �B�*~n¡h�0�A~��7��¾�Ä9«"¶"� ¶"¶"¶>~E�. �����0���0��¥n�B~E���@���~n�9���B�0��������U~E�9��0���B~n�9�B� �� T�B~��B�����9~n� ���A�9�����@¤;~°�B�0����~n������B�\���B�����.�������\�������E� �� h���U�*� �0� �B��~n¡;����� �6�7�0��� ~n����¥ ³ �B�*�3�B�\����~���9~E�9���*�B~n� ���.�E�*� � � �*�r�\�Uºnº"·h¥n���0 ��\��9� �� ����9~��B�9� �� �� �� �7���B�\��#~��¢�B~n�� ���~n���0���A �~n~n���A���B�����0�3£�� �*�0���9¹"¶9·�����B~E�3�E���;~n�B�.��~�@¤;~7��� ¡;�\�¢�9�0�8¤;���*§9���E�B�r¹"«"·�� �B�9� �*�0�����>� �\�#��� � ��� �U�����9�6��� ����¥± ����B�0�����#�0£�~E�������~E�U�� ��\���B��~n�9� ����¤;� ���r¹n|"·�� �����B�*� ��¹"¶*�¢�*�9�«"¶*����*�B�>¹9|"·Â� �����9��� ��º"¶*��~E�!��~E�7�� ��0�#¥
Å�Æ3Ç�È�É0Ê@Ë ÌÍ É0Î Ê ÌEÈ*É3Ï�ÇÐÉ0È�É3Ñ Ò�Ó@Ë Ó Ô8Ì>Î Ê Ç3Ç3Ó�Õ ÖB× Ø#Ê É�Ù�Ú�Î Ê Ç3Ç�Õ ÖB×ÜÛ�Ë Ý�Ç3ÙrÞ#Ç3Ï#Ú�Õ ÖB×ß�à á!âPãnà ä ä à å�æ7ç èUç é6ê�ë3â\ä�ç èUé6â6ê#ì6í�î#ä ê�ì6â*ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ
! ð*ñóò*ò0ô Ú õEõ�öB÷rø>Ú ù*ù�ù*ö�ú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü Ó7ý ñ Ú þ*ÿ��\×� Ç3Ó6ÓUÎ ��É3È ò ù>û�Ë È���Î Ç0Ó õ�� ò � ò�òò ù>Î Ì ò�� ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó � þ�ù ÿ��*ù>Î Ì� � ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó ò ô ÿ òÿ*ù;ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó�ÌEÊ�ûUÌEÊ@Ç ÿ ò#ô �ÿØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ���� ò ùù ò ù ò� È ñ ò6ô È ñzò ��õ È ñ ò � ���à � ç ê#å#ì6â�ã"à ä ä à å�æ�ç è�ç é@ê�ë�â\ä@ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ
! ð�ñ �þ*Ú ô *öB÷rø°Ú ù�ù*ù*ö�ú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü Ó7ý ñ Ú ÿ �*ô ×� Ç3Ó6ÓUÎ ��É3È ò ûUË Ñ Ç ÿ ô ò ù ò Π̢õAûUË Ñ Ç3Ó þ� ÿ� ÿ�þõAÎ Ì ò ùAûUË Ñ Ç3Ó ò ÿ�ÿ ÿ��Û�ÌEÊ@Ç�Î ��É�È ò ùrûUË Ñ Ç3Ó ÿ ò�� �Ø�Ì*Î É�Ñ ò ù�ù ò ùù ò ù�ùÈ ñ ò6ô*ô È ñzò ��� È ñ ò � �ß�à á!â7ãnè���ä ��� î#â\å������#é6à å�æUë3à � à ç0ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ
! ð ñ ò ÿ*þ�Ú ò õ*ö�÷>ø°Ú ù�ù*ù*öBú9Ê É3û�Ç3Ê ü Ó7ý ñ Ú õ*ù ô ×��÷rΠ̯ÿ*ù°ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó � ò ò � ò ÿ*ù>Î Ì°õ � ûUË È���Î Ç3Ó �� ÿ�� ÿ �ò Î Ì����Ì���Ê@Ó ò�ò ÿ� ÿ�ûUÌEÊ@Ç�Î ��É3È����Ì���Ê Ó ò#ô ò#ôØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ò ù�ù ò ù ò� ò ù�ùÈ ñ ò6ô È ñzò ��� È ñ ò � ��*é6â�����â\å#ì �Aè�!!ë3à � à ç ��ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ
! ð ñ þ � Ú ��ÿEöB÷>ø°Ú ù*ù*ù�öBú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü ÓPý ñ Ú ÿ ò�ò ×".È�Æ3Ç�É!Ò�Ç�É3Ê.ÌEÊPÑ Ç3Ó6Ó �� �Å�Ç3Þ#Ç3Ê É3Ñ�Î Ë ûUÇ3ÓUÉ!Ò�Ç3É3ÊPΠ̯ûUÌEÈ�Î ��Ñ Ò þ�þ ÿ�õ þ òØ #�ÌAΠ̯Π��Ê Ç3Ç�Î Ë ûUÇ�Ó7÷*Ç3ÊPûUÌEÈ�Î � ò ÿ ÿ�ù �".È�Æ3Ç�É$#�Ç3Ç�%>ÌEÊ�ûUÌ�Ê Ç ò � ô ÿ òØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ���� ò ùù ò ù�ùÈ ñ ò �*ù È ñzò õ� È ñ ò ��&.à ä ä à å�æ7ç èUî#ê���ç è�î�ê#é('ïÕ Í Ç�É3Ê Ó6ÌEÈ
! ð ñ þ�ÿ*Ú � EöB÷>ø°Ú ù*ù*ù�öBú"Ê@É3ûUÇ3Ê@ü ÓPý ñ Ú ��\×) Ê6Ç#Ç þ�þ � �* ÷rÎ Ì�+*ù*Ú *õ>÷�Ç3Ê,��Ì-��Ê ÿ ò ò ò +*ù*Ú *õrÎ Ì.+�ù*Ú ô õr÷�Ç�Ê,��Ì���Ê ò-� � �Û�ÌEÊ@ǢΠ��É3È/+*ù*Ú ô õh÷�Ç0Ê0��Ì���Ê � ò ôØ�Ì*Î É�Ñ ò ù�ù ò ùù ò ù ò� È ñ ò6ô � È ñzò ��ÿ È ñ ò � ô ú9ÌEÑ ��ûUÈ;Î ÌEÎ É3Ñ!÷�Ç3Ê@Æ3Ç0È�Î É3Ï�Ç�Ó�ûUÉ Ò21*Ç¢ûUÌEÊ Ç�Î ��É3È ò ù�ùrÙ3��ǢΠÌrÊ Ì���È�Ù�Ë È�Ï#Ú
4658769(:�;6<8=3>3:3?@58A-B CED%%%%% F 58G�A�CE?@5IH�:�5�?@5I9(J�D�B DE<
K�LEMN�O�P6QSR6T�UIO�VEWXQ�Y$O�QSZ [\P]U ^ PEQS_ LE`8a\M�b�c�d T\e L8f8fEM
g@_\h�_�T�QS[�i/jk_\^-i6OIl�hnm�_\QS_ol6_�h�Z pqR6_�l�^-Orp@_�R6_\QST\^-_oZ R3V�_\QS_�R6[�_\hT\YXO�P6^,l6Z s@_�Q�h�_@PEQ�Y,T�R�t6O�t3P]U T\^-Z OIR�h�u�^-i3PEh�v�T0t�QSO�YXT\YXZ U Z ^ erh�T�j�t6U _m/T�hoT\^(^-_�jkt3^-_�l6w�x�P6h�Z R6_�h�hol6Z h�^(QSZ [�^(hoiET\sqZ R3pk_\^-i6REZ [0tEOIt3PXU T\^-Z O�R[�OIR6[�_�R3^(QST\^-Z OIR3h a _�w pqw v-WXV Q3Z [�T�RrW�j�_ QSZ [�T�R6v-WXh�Z T�RrW�jk_\Q3Z [�T�R6v�O�Qy�Z h�tET�REZ [ b m�_\Q3_]Z l6_�R3^�Z V�Z _�l0V�O-Q�jkT�Z U Z R3pSh�w�z�OIRE_\^�i6_�U _\h�h�v�{ M8| O�V^�i6_}QS_\h�t6OIR6l6_�R3^(h]m�_\QS_}~�i6Z ^-_\���nT\P,[�T�h�Z T�R6wE�8O�m�QS_�t3Q3_\h�_�R�^�T\^-Z OIRO�V,tE_�OIt6U _0O�V,[�O�U O-QojkT\eoY,_0l3P]_@^-O]^-i6_0[�O�j�t6O�h�Z ^-Z OIR�O�V$j�T�Z U Z R3pU Z h�^(h�O�Qo_\^-i6R6Z [�Z ^(e@�\T\h�h�OI[�Z T�^�_�l�R6OIR3Q3_�h�t6OIR3h�_�YX_�i6T\s@Z O�Q-w
� ^-T�^�Z h�^-Z [�T�U8[�O�jktET�Q3Z h�O�R�h�O-V6Q3_�hSt8O�RElE_�R�^n[�iET\Q3T�[�^�_�Q3Z h�^�Z [\h,^�Ot6_�Q3[�_�t�^�Z O�REv�tET�^ Q�O�RET�p@_�v�T�REl�t�Q3Z [�Z R�prsqT�Q3Z T�YXU _�h$mk_�QS_n[�O�REl�P,[�^-_�lEwz�O,Q3_�U T�^-Z O�R�h�iEZ t�h}mk_�Q3_nZ lE_�R�^-Z V�Z _�l0Y}_�^(mk_�_�R.lE_�j�O-pSQ3T�tEi8Z [[�T�^�_�pqO-Q3Z _�h�T�REl�^�iE_0tE_�QS[�_�t�^�Z O�R�V�T�[�^�O-Q�h�v�h�PEpSpq_�h�^-Z R3po^-iET�^,tE_�O�tEU _O-V$lEZ sq_�Q�hS_nT pq_�v�p6_�RElE_�Q�v�hSiEO�tEtEZ R�p�Y}_�iET�sqZ O-Q�v�T�REl�Z RE[�O�j�_]Z R�V�_�Qh�Z jkZ U T�QrtE_�Q3[�_�t�^(PXT�U�^(Q3T�Z ^(hoT�Y$O-PE^,[�O�R�h�P,jk_�Q�tEU T�[�_�h�w
�]OIR3h�Z l6_�QSZ R3p�^-i6_qV�Z s@_0t6T�^(QSOIRET\pq_@sqT\QSZ T\YXU _\h�v�Z ^6m�T\h$V�O-P]R6l^�i6T\^EQS_\h�t6OIR6l6_�R�^(hXm�i6O]h�iEOIt�V QS_���PX_�R3^-U e�Z R6l6Z [�T\^�_�lkT0U O-m/_\Qt6T\^ Q3OIR6T\p@_�V QS_���P,_�R6[\e/Z R�V�O�QS_�h�^-_�l�Y8P6h�Z R6_\h�h�l6Z h�^(QSZ [\^ h a
!�$�LE� w ME�8� v�l3V � ` v�t���w fXK�b uIZ R3V Q3_���P]_�R3^Eh�i6OItEt6_\Q�h$V�T�s@O�QS_�ls@_\p@_\^-T\^-_�l�h�_\^(^-Z R�pSh�wE�6_�j�T�U _\hnQS_�t6O�Q�^-_�l/U O�m�_\Q,V QS_���P]_�RE[�Z _\h�O�Vh�iEO�Q�^-�\l3PEQST�^�Z O�R0sqZ h�Z ^(h�v-m�i6Z U _0jk_�R.[�U T�Z j�_�l�iEZ pqi6_�Q}V QS_���P,_�RE[�Z _�hO�V8h�iEO�Q�^EsqZ h�Z ^(h$mkZ ^-i6Z RrV�O�Q3_\h�^-_�l0h�iEO�tEt6Z R3p�h�_\^(^-Z R3p�h a
!� �K�� w K�L8� v�l3V � M v�t.��w f8fXK�b w���P6Q3Z R�pkt�Q3_\^-_�h�^-Z R3pqv�jk_�R.[�U T�Z jk_�l0^-Ol6O�jkO�QS_@V�OI[\P6h�_�lrh�iEOIt6t6Z R3p�T�R6l�U _�h�hXY8QSO�moh�Z R3pqu�^�iE_�Y$_�i6T\sqZ O�Qj�T\eop@_�R6_\QST�U Z �8_q^�O�T�U U�h�i6OItEt6Z R3p�_\�@t6_�QSZ _�R6[�_\h�w
� V$tIT Q�^�Z [(PXU T(Q0Z R�^�_ Q�_ h�^8m�_ Q�_qQ�_(h3tIO�RIl8_-R�^X[�iIT(Q�T-[ ^�_(Q�Z h�^�Z [(h�T�RIlt�Q�Z [-Z R�p]Q�_(h3tIO�R�h�_-w��0O�Q�_(h3tIO�RIlI_-R�^ h�v3Z RoT$i�eEt8O�^�iI_(^�Z [-T�U\h3Z ^ P$T(^�Z O�RIv^�T���_,Z R�^�OoT�[-[-O�P$R�^I^�iI_-Z Q0T(Y}Z U Z ^ e0^�O�tIT e��r��T(h�^IQ�_(h3_�T(Q�[-i]h�P8p�pE_(h�^ h�^�iIT ^Z VqZ RIlIZ [-T(^�_-lX~��]�rT-j�O�P$R�^ h]T(Q�_$RIO�j.Z R8T-U v�Y�PXl�pE_(^@[�O�R�h�^ Q�T�Z R�^�Y�Z T(hnZ hj�Z RIZ j.T-U�T-RIl�Z h]j�O�Q�_$_(sEZ lI_-R�^�m�iI_-R�j�T ��O�Q,T-RIl�[-O�h�^�U e�t�Q�O�p�Q�T-jrh]O�Qt�Q�O�l�P$[(^ h]T Q�_�s6T-U P}_-l a d Z ^�[-iI_-U U�T-R8lo�XT(Q�h3O�R K�` { `-b w3� RX^�i8Z h6h\^ P$l�e-vj�_-T�R�t�Q�Z [�_(h}V�O�Qnt�Q�O�l�P$[ ^$[�T(^�_(p6O�Q�Z _(h�h�_�_-j�_-lnm�Z ^�iIZ RnQ�_�T(h3OSR8T(Y}U _Q�T-R�pE_ h3w � R8U e�[-O�R-s6_-R8Z _�RI[�_8p6O�O�l�h0lIZ h�tIU T eE_�l,h3Z pER8Z V�Z [-T�R�^}l�Z V V�_ Q�_�RI[-_ hZ R�j._�T-R�hqY}_ ^ m�_-_�R�iIO�PIh3_-i8O�U l�Z RI[-O�j�_X[-T(^�_ pEO�Q�Z _(h a O�RI_-� m.T eWrz �X� W�� � L w ����� v�l�V � � v K�L�� v�to��w f���b w � tI_-[-Z T-U ^ e]p8O�O�l�h,t�Q�Z [-Z R�pEvj�O�h�^@U Z ��_-U e]^�O�Y}_}Z R�V�U P$_�RI[-_�lXY�e�Z RI[-OSj�_-v�sET(Q�Z _�l�l�P$_I^�OrR�P}j0Y}_(Q,O�VtI_(Q�h3O�R�h]Z R�iIO�PIh3_�iIO�U l a Wrz �$� W�� � M w {�{���v�l�V � L v K�L}K v]t���w f��-b vt6_�Q3iET�t�h�T�pqT�Z R�Q�_�V�U _�[�^-Z R�p�Z RE[�O�jk_r[�O-Q�Q3_\hStEO�RElE_�RE[�_�w
�EZ R6T�U U e�v�[�OIjktET\QSZ R�pk[�P]U ^(PEQST�U-p�Q�O�P,t3h�v�yoZ h�t6T�REZ [@Q�_\h�tEOIREl6_�R�^(hQ3_�tEO-Q�^�_�l�^-i6_rU O�m�_\h�^6s@T�U P]T�^�Z OIR�V�O�Q$h�t6_�[�Z T�U ^ eop@OIOIl3h a W�z �]� W� � M w M8LXK v�l�V � M v K8K �Iv�t.��w f8��b v�T�R.Z RE[�OIR8[�U P6h�Z s@_qQ3_\h�P,U ^,O-m�Z R�p^-O,^-iE_0U Z j�Z ^-_�l.[\P,U ^(PEQST�U�lEZ sq_\Q�h�Z ^(ekO�V8Q3_\h�t6O�REl6_�R3^(h�w
DISCUSSION��P6Y$U Z [�T\^(^-Z ^(P]l6_\h�T\YXO�P6^]T�R3e�RET\^ PEQST�U�QS_\h�O�PEQS[�_�Z h�h�P]_rO�QX^-OIt6Z [[�T�Roh�t6T�R�T}h�t6_�[\^(Q�P]j V Q�OIj¡OIt6t6OIRE_�R3^(h]^-O.T�l3s@OI[�T\^-_\h�w�¢�_\^@^-i6_Y8P6hSZ RE_\h�hXh�_�[\^-O�Q�O�VXT�R3ek[�OIjkjoP]R6Z ^(e�j�T\eoQ3_�U e�OIR�T0R6T\Q�Q3O�mQST�R3pq_oO�VnZ R3^-_\QS_\h�^ h�T�R6l�t6_\Q3[�_�t3^-Z OIR�h�T\h�ToiE_\P6Q3Z h�^-Z [$YXT\h�_$V�O�Qt�P6Y$U Z [0lEZ T�U O�pkOIR0^(QS_�_�h�Z R�[�Z ^-Z _�h�wIx�P6h�Z RE_\h�h�t6_�OItEU _\h�£�T\^(^-Z ^(P]lE_\hjkT\^(^-_\Q�v�V�O�Q}^-i6_0_�R3^ Q3_�t3Q�_�R6_\P6Q3Z T�UI[�OIjkjoP]R6Z ^(e�[�T�RrYX_0t6OIU Z ^�Z [�T�U U eT�[\^-Z sq_nT�REl�Z R3V�U P]_�RE[�_n[�Z ^(e�m�Z l6_nt3Q3O�p�Q3T�j�h�w
� OIj�_qYEPEh�Z R6_�h�ho[�O�jkjoP]REZ ^-Z _\h$m�_�U [�OIjk_@^(QS_�_\hoT\h�T[�OIR�h�P,j�_�Q-�\O�Q3Z _�R�^-_�l�T�j�_�REZ ^(e�w-¢�_�^,Z R.j�T�R3e�Z R�h�^-T�RE[�_�h�v-h�jkT�U UY8P6hSZ RE_\h�h�O�m�R6_\Q�h�T�REl�jkT�R6T\p@_\Q�h�O�s@_\Q3U OIOI�0^�iE_o[�OIR3^(QSZ Y8P6^-Z O�R3hO�V6^ Q�_�_\h]^�O0QS_\^-T�Z U3h�P][�[�_�h�h�w��ri6_\e�V�OI[\P6h�OIRo^-iE_oT�R6R6O-e@T�R6[�_\h�O�V^(Q3_�_�h�¤¥Q3_�l3P][�_�l0h�Z pqR6T\p6_@sqZ h�Z YXZ U Z ^(e�v-h�_�T�h�O�R6T�UIlE_\Y8QSZ h�v�T�RElh�_�[\P8QSZ ^ e�Z h�h�P,_\h�wIx3PEh�Z R6_�h�hot6_�OItEU _0[�T�RrY,_@Y$Z T\h�_�lrY8eo^�iE_h�Z ^ P,T�^�Z OIRkO-V,TrtET\Q�^-Z [\P,U T�Q}^ Q3_�_rO�Q}^ m�O�Z RrV QSO�R3^]O�VXT�h�i6OIt6v�V�T�Z U Z R�p^-OnQ3_�[�O�p@REZ �E_�^-i6_rl6Z h�^(QSZ [�^ m�Z l6_}YX_�R6_\V�Z ^(h,^-i6T�^n[�T�RoYX_rT\^ ^-T�Z R6_�l�Y8elE_\sq_�U OIt6Z R3pkT0��P,T�U Z ^(eoPEQ�Y,T�R0V�O�QS_\h�^-w
�ni6Z h$h�^(P]l�e�Z hoT@V�Z Q�h�^8h�^-_�t.Z R.l6O�[\P,j�_�R�^�Z R3p�Y,_�R6_�V�Z ^(hoT\h�h�O�[�Z �T�^�_�l0m/Z ^-i�i6T�s@Z R3po^(QS_�_\h�Z RrQS_\^-T�Z U-h�^(QS_�_\^(h�[�T�tE_�h�w�¦qj�t6Z QSZ [�T�UQS_�h�_�T\Q3[�i�[�T�R�YX_XP6h�_�l�^-OrYX_\^ ^-_\Q,P]R6l6_\Q�h�^-T�REl/i6O�m§[�OIR3h�P]j�_\Q�hT�RElr^�iE_�P6Q�YXT�R�V�O�QS_\h�^]Z R3^-_\QST�[�^�vIt3QSO�s@Z l6Z R3p�Z R3V�O�QSjkT\^�Z OIRkOIRYXO�^�io^-i6_rt3P6YXU Z [�s@T�U P]_0O�VE^ Q3_�_\h�T�R6lkj�T�R6T\pq_�j�_�R�^nt3QST�[\^-Z [�_\h,^-OO�t�^�Z jkZ �E_qQ3_�^(P6Q3R�hoO�R.t3P8YXU Z [0Z R3sq_�h�^-jk_�R�^-w��0iEZ h}h�^(P,l3e�PEh�_�ljoPXU ^-Z t6U _�T�t6t3QSOIT�[�iE_\h�O-V6QS_�h�O�PEQS[�_}s@T�U P]_�T\h�h�_\h�h�j�_�R3^q^�OP,R6lE_�Q�h�^-T�REl�t3PEY,U Z [@Q�_�h�tEOIR�h�_q^-O]^(Q3_�_\hoZ R�Z R8R6_\Q-�\[�Z ^-Z _\h�w��nOIR�h�P]jk�_�Q�h$sqT�U P,_@^(QS_�_\h�v�T�R6l.l6O,h�O�T�[\Q3O�h�hojoP]U ^-Z t6U _]l6Z j�_�R3h�Z OIR3h�w
Streetscape Perceptions and Inferencesx�PEh3Z RE_�h�h�lEZ h�^ Q3Z [�^(hoiET�sqZ R�po^ Q3_�_�hXmk_�Q3_0[�iET�Q3T�[�^-_�Q3Z �8_�l�T�h$YX_�Z R�pi8Z p6i8_ Q0Z RnsqZ h�P,T�U���PXT�U Z ^ e.T�R8l�[�O�j�V�O�Q�^�v�T�hrt�Q�O-sqZ l8Z R�p�j�O-Q3_t8O-h3Z ^-Z s6_]Z R�^�_�Q3T�[�^�Z O�RnmkZ ^�i�jk_�Q�[�iET�R�^(hSv�T�hriET(sqZ R�p�i8Z p6iE_�Q�����P,T�U Z ^ et�Q3O�l�P,[�^(hSv�T�REl0pq_�RE_�Q3T�U U e�T�tEtE_�T�Q�Z R3p�^-O,YX_qY}_\^ ^-_�QrjkT�Z R�^-T�Z RE_�l
T�R8l��8_�t�^IP,t8w � P,[�i_�s6T�U P,T�^-Z O�R�h�T�QS_Q3_�Z R�V�O-Q3[�_�l�Y8e�Q3_�hStEO�RE�l8_�R�^ h�£-[�U T�Z j�h�^-i8T�^8^�iE_ em.O�PXU l]Y}_EmkZ U U Z R�pn^�O^ Q3T sq_�USV�T�Q�^�iE_�Q�T�RElU O�R�pq_ Q�v�sqZ hSZ ^$j�O-Q�_O-V ^�_�R/T�REloV�O-Q�U O�R�pq_�Qt8_ Q3Z O�l�h�O-V�^�Z jk_�v�T�REltET e�jkO-Q3_�V�O-Q�t6T�Q3�IZ R�pm.iE_�Rns6Z hSZ ^�Z R�p0Q3_ ^�T�Z UtEU T�[�_�h]^�iET\^niET�sq_}^(Q3_�_�hSw
�0iE_nlEZ hS[�Z t6U Z RE_nO-Vh�O�[�Z T�UIt�h�eq[�i6OIU O�pSeO-V V�_\Q�h�Z R3h�Z p@i3^(hnV�O�QP,REl6_�Q�h�^-T�R6lEZ R�po^-i6_
¨�©�ª�«�¬��® ¯° «�±�ª�²]¬�«�±�® ³ ª�´�µ ¶n¯o³ �ª�ª-µ ·��¬�±}¸�³ ª-ª�µ ¹�® ²�ª-±.º�ª�»E¸ ¼E¶,½n¾�¼¿@À Á6Â�à Á3Ä�à ÁEÅ�ÃoÆ$À�À�Ç�È ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ÉrÊ0Ë�Ìq¸ Ì@Í° ©�ª}©� ª�¬�´Î©�¯3«�ª�Ï�±�® «�«�ª��Ï�Ð Ñ ¯3Ò]ª�8Ó�¯3Ô�Õ�Ô�ª�³�Ï Öq¸ Ì3Ö Í�×6¸ Ë3Ë Í�×6¸ Ø3Ö ÙrÚ.¸ Û�ÛSÛqÏ�Ü0±�ÐÑ Ô�«�©�Ý�µ\¬�«�±�Ò,® ©�Ý�Ï\¬�Ù�Ù�¯3® «�³ ´�ª�«�³�Ó�¯3¯3Þ Ü�¸ Ø�Ë�¨�ß à@¸ Ü�Û�¨�ß à@¸ Û�Ûr¨3ß á ÜEÏ(×,«�¯$µ ® »�¸
" â�ãä\å8À(æ�æ�Ä Á3çèÆ$À�À-Ç�È ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ÉrÊ0×@ÍS¸ Í�ͨ3Ù�¯S ³ µ6µ�Ý�¯3ª-µ�Ï�Ò,¬�³ ©�Ý}Ï�Ñ ® »�Ý�³�é\¬�©-Þ�ª�³�Ï ×S×6¸ à3Ü Ë3ê6¸ ËS× Ë3Ø6¸ ×3ê ÙrÚ.¸ Û�ÛSÛqÏ�Ü0±�Ð
Ù�¯S³ µ6¬-«�±�Ù�¬�«�µ�Ï�»�¬�Ñ Ñ ¯3«o¯3Ð�Ù�¬�® «�³ Í�Í�¸ Ë�Ìr¨�ß Í�ê@¸ Ø�Ür¨�ß Í�Ö@¸ à�Ër¨�ß á ÜqÏ�×r«�¯nµ\® »8¸" â�ã
ä\æ8Ã�Å Ä\ë�ì�í îkÆ$À�À-Ç�È ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ¹�ª�¬�« ÉrÊ0Ü�×q¸ ê�ËïX® Ð ³SÐ ¯38µ�Ù�¯3Ô�µ\ª�ð Ù�¬� ³ «�ª��Ï\«�ª�Ò�»�Ñ ¬�µ\µ�ª�µ�Ï àqÍ3¸ Ö3Ö ê3Ì6¸ ØSÌ Ø3×6¸ Ü3Ë ÙrÚ.¸ Û�ÛSÛqÏ�Ü0±�Ь-�³�Ù��® «�³�Ï�´�¯S³ ª�Ñ��¯S¯S´ Í�Ö@¸ ×�Ûr¨�ß ×�Û@¸ Ë@Í}¨�ß ×�Û@¸ Ø�Ìr¨�ß á ÜqÏ�×r«�¯0µ\® »8¸
" â�ãñ�ò3ó�ô�õ ö�÷(÷ ó�ô�ø$ù3ó�ú(ûXü3ó�ý�ý�ó�þnù�ÿ�÷(ø ú ó�ô/ó�õXþ]ö�ÿ�ô�ú��$ � ��� ����� ��� ��� �����
��������������� �"!$#&%�')(+*��-,�'.,�/�01��2435')�5/��$�-,�!$36�
758$9 :<;>= ?"@BA�C6DE= F GIH�J�K)L$;>M5K.J�NO;PNOQ6JSR TUDEV�MXW6;OT5JK�NYF MXZM$M6J�TO[�\PF N�]�^�C6K.F M6JK�K`_aF K�N�T)F GN�K
G�;-b�M6F N-F c�J`L5T);>G�JK"K.J�Kd;O?IL$= V�G�J�[ DEV�K.J�e�G�;>M5K�CPf�J�TYT)J�K.L6;BM5K.J�gh ;BG�F V�=BL�K"]�G�Q$;>= ;Ob)]�F K`e6J�?�F M6J�eID$]i^5T5J�Q6fjJ�NYV�= gBk�7�l$l�l�mSV�K`n NOQ$JK.G�F J�M5NOF ?�F G�K�N�CYe5]o;-?+Q$;-pqF M6e$F c�F e�CYV�= K NOQ$F M$r�sO?"J�J�= sBV�M$eID+J�Q$V�c�JSF MT)J�b�V�T5etNO;4;ONOQ6J�TIL6J�;>L$= JSV�M$eoQ$;-pqF M$e$F c�F e5CYV�= K.uNOQ6;OC6b�Q5N K.s?"J�J�= F M5b.K.s�V�M6e`DEJ�Q6V�c�F ;-TUK4V�T5J`V? ?"J�G�NOJ�e`D$]v;ON-Q6J�TwL$J�;>L6= J�g x
h ;>G�F V�=>L6JT)G�J�F c�J�TUKwV�K�K.J�f`DE= J�c�V�T5F ;-C6KEDEF N�Kw;O?YF M5?";-T)fiVN-F ;>MV�M6e$s>fiJ�e6F VN-J�etD>]�L$J�T)G�J�F c�J�Tte6F K.L6;-K)F NOF ;>M5K.sO?";OT)fqF fiL5T)J�K�KyF ;BM5K;-?Y;-NOQ6J�TUK.g>z�J�]�J�M5K`V�M6eoW6F K.r�Jtk�7�l$l�9�sBL6g>9${�mtM6;-NOJ�N-Q$V�NYnUL6J�;>L$= JG�;BM5NOF M�CP;OC$K.= ]aD�CYF = eXF fiL5T5J�K�K.F ;>MINOQ�J�;OT)F JK`V�M6eIC6K)J�NOQ$J�fjF MN-Q6J�F TwG�;>fif�J�T)G�J p�F NOQ�;-NOQ6J�TwL6J�;>L$= J�g xE|PD$K.J�TUc�J�e`N�T)V�F N�K1V�T)J NOQ6JF M6e6F T5J�G�NPG�CPJ�KEC6K)J�etN-;4F M5NOJ�T)L5T�J�N6?"J�J�= F M�b.Kys>L6JTUKy;BM6V�= F N�]�s>G�Q$V�T)V�G�[N-JTOs>V�M$eo= F r�J�= ]`D+J�Q$V�c�F ;-T}K.g>_aF c�J�TUK.JSF M5?";OT)f�VN-F ;>MXV�DE;-C6NEVL6J�TUK.;>MiF KwF M5NOJ�b.T5V�NOJ�eaNO;S?";-T)f~VtG�;BQ$J�T)J�M5NPF f�L5T)J�K�K.F ;>MoV�M6eb.CPF e6JIe6J�G�F K.F ;>M5KaV�DE;-C6NYQ6;-p<NO;4F M5NOJT)V�GN6p�F N-QoVIL$J�TUK.;>MXk :�]�J�TV�M6eXz$V�f`DEJ�T}N47�l>l�9�m�g>\P;>M5K.J���CYJ�M�NYF M�?";-T5f�V�NOF ;>MXV�M6eXJ���L6JT)F [J�M6G�J&p�F = =-DEJ&C6K)J�etD$]`N-Q$Jt;-D�KyJTUc�J�T NO;4G�;>M5?"F T)f~;OT`f�;>e$F ? ]`N-Q6JF fiL5T)J�K�K.F ;BM6g>H�V�L6F eoG�;-b�M6F N-F c�JIVK"K.J�KUK.f�J�M�NP;-?E;ON-Q$J�TUK`L5T5;-c�F e6JKwVDYV�K.F KS?�;-T1F M5?"J�T)J�M$G�J`V�M6e�J�c�V�= CPV�NOF ;BM�;-?SM$J�p�V�G���CPV�F M5N-V�M$G�J�K.g
^�CPF = N$K.J�N�NOF M�b)K`V�L6L$V�T)J�M5NO= ]iJ�c�;Br�J�K.F fiF = V�TaJc�V�= CPVNOF c�JT)J�KyL$;>M5K.J�Kyg6H&JKyL$;BM6e6J�M5N�K.uy;BL6J�M6[�J�M$e6J�ewKyG�J�M6V�T)F ;ie6JKyG�T5F L5NO;-TUKb�;PDYJ�]�;BM6eoL6Q5])K.F G�V�=-N�T)V�F N�K`V�M6eoF M6G�= CPe6JIF M�?"J�T)J�M6G�JKwV�DE;OC6NKy;BG�F V�=>V�M6eoL5K�]�G-Q6;>= ;-b�F G�V�=>F M5NOJ�T5V�G�NOF ;>M5K.g h ;BG�F V�=BL5K�]�G�Q6;y= ;Ob�F G�V�=G�;>M6G�J�L5N�K4;-?Pn K.;BG�F V�=$V�N�N�T)F D�C6N-F ;>M6xEV�M$e�nUF fiL5T)J�K�KyF ;>M`?";-T5f�VN-F ;>M6xT)J�V�e6F = ]1N�T)V�M5K.= V�NOJ NO;oG�;>M5K�CPf�J�TU�"J�M�c�F T5;>M6f�J�M5NSF M5NOJ�T)V�GN-F ;>M5K.g
Public Goods and Local Economics� V�M5]1DEJ�M6J�?"F N�K1;-?PM6V�N�C6T)V�=$V�M$e�J�M�c�F T);BM6f�J�M5NOV�=�T)JKy;-C$T5G�J�K4G�V�M$[M6;-N�DYJ&c�V�= CPJ�e�F M`NOQ6Jtf�V�T)r�J�NOL6= V�G�J&DEJ�G�V�C6K.Ja;O?PF M6G�;>f�L$= J�NOJa;-TM6;>M$J��&F K�NOJ�M5NYfiVT5r�J�N�K.gB\P;>M5NOF M�b�J�M5N�c�V�= CYV�NOF ;BMtp�VK+C6K.J�edF MtNOQ$F KK"N�CPe5]`N-;4J�K�N-F f�VNOJtF M6e6F T)J�G�N6c�V�= CYJ�Kw;O?YL5C$DY= F G&b�;>;Be5KEb�J�M6J�T)VN-J�eD$]wN�T)J�JK1F MaT)JN-V�F =-K.J�N�NOF M5b.K.s�c�V�= CYJ�KENOQ6V�NPfiV�]�;-? ? K.J�NPe6F T)J�G�NPG�;-K�N�Kk�J�g b�g sBF M5KUNOV�= = VNOF ;BMXV�M$eXfiV�F M�NOJ�M$V�M$G�J�mIe$F KUN�T5F GN�p�F e$J�g
� Q6J�;-T5JNOF G�V�= = ]�sOb�F c�J�Mt?�F � J�eoQ$;-C$K.J�Q6;B= eoF M6G�;>fiJ�sBJ��&L�T5JK�KyF ;BM5K;-?�: � AaT)J�L5T)J�K.J�M5N�?";-TUb�;>M6JaJ��&L6J�M6e�F N�C6T)J�K4;BM�;-NOQ6J�TEb�;B;>e�K4V�M6eKyJ�TUc�F G�JKdF M�J�� L�J�G�NOV�N-F ;>M�;-?�K.V�NOF K�?"V�GNOF ;>M�V�G�Q6F J�c�J�ew? T);Bf�VL5C$DE= F G�b�;B;>e$g � Q�JSV�e$e6F NOF ;>M$V�= 7�8���;OTafi;OT)JSJ��&L�T5J�K�K.J�eS: � A?";-TSb�;>;>e5KXV�K�Ky;BG�F V�NOJ�e4p�F N-Q�VYc�Jb�J�NOVN-J�e4K�N�T)J�J�N�KyG�V�L6JYT)J�L5T)JKyJ�M�N�KV�MoJ�� L$J�T)F J�M5NOF V�=OK.V�N-F K�?"V�G�NOF ;>MtC6NOF = F N�]aNOQ6V�NYF K`G�Q6;-K.J�Mo;-c�JT N-Q6VNV�c�V�F = V�DE= J+? T);>f~;-NOQ6J�T1L�C6T)G�Q6V�K.J�K.g
\P;OKUN��BD+J�M$J�?�F NYV�M$V�= ])K.F K`L�T5J�fiF K)J�eX;BMoG�;BM�K�CYfiJTtJ�&L�T�JKUK.J�ec�V�= CYJK+K)Q$;OCY= eID JSV�? C$N�C$T5J�T5JK)J�VT5G�QS?�;BG�C$K)gy\P;>M�N"F M�b�J�M�N>c�V�= CYV�[NOF ;BMIKUN�CYe$F JKa;O?�poF = e6= V�M$eX;OTa;BL$J�MIK.L�V�G�JSM$VN�C$T5V�=OT5JK);-C$T�G�JKN�]�L$F G�V�= = ]iVb)b)T5Jb6VNOJ6: � ASKUNOVN"J�fiJ�M�N KaV�GT5;-KUKaV�K.J�= J�GNOJ�edL$;BL�CY= V�[NOF ;BM$s"T5J�b�F ;BM$sB;OTIQ$;OC$K.J�Q$;B= e�K NO;1VK�K)J�K�K`M$;BM$fiVT5r>JN$DEJ�M$J�?�F Nc�V�= CYJKtk�^�VN"J�fiV�M1JNEV-= g�7-l�l>�>� � ])TUc6�-F M$J�MdV�M�eS�`����M���M$J�M�7-l>l��-m�g\P;BfiL$VT5F M�boe$F T5J-GNEG�;OKUN�Ka;O? F M�K�N"V�= = VN"F ;BMdV�M$eXfiV�M�Vb�J�fiJ-M�NE;O? VK�N�T5J�JN K.G�V�L$J�N";PN"Q�J�K�CYfifiJ�eoF M$e$F T5J�G�N$DEJ�M$J?�F N�K+c�V�= CYVN"F ;BMIT5Jc�J�V�= KM6JNEL�C$D+= F G�b�;B;Be�K c�V�= CYJKaV�M$eXG�V�MXF M�?�;OT5fje$J�G�F K)F ;BM�KaVD+;"C$NV�= = ;BG�VN"F M�b1C$T}DEV-M`?�;OT5JK�N�T5JK.;OC$T5G�JK4k�A�T5VNO;�7-l�l>��m�g
h J�c�J�T)V�=-T5J�K�CY= N�KwQ$V�c�JIF fiL6;-T}N-V�M5NEF fiL6= F G�V�NOF ;>M�KE?�;-T D>CPe5b�J�NOF M5bC6TUDYV�M`?";OT)J�K�NSL5T-;-b.T)V�faKyg�W$;-TwF M5K�N-V�M$G�J�s�M6;SK.F b�M6F ?�F G�V�M�NPe6F ? ?"J�T-[J�M6G�J�KYp�J�T5J&?";-CYM6eaDEJ�N�p�J�J�MaNOQ6J&T)V�N"F M5b)KY?";-T+N-Q$JP���"�.�)� � � ���y�.������O�"�+V�M$e4�i� �)�O�X�O�O�-�"� �)� � ���de$F K�N�T)F GN�KtV�G�T�;-K�K`V�= =BL$J�T�G�J�L�N CPV�=G�V�NOJ�b�;-T)F J�K`V�M6eXL�T)F G�JIF M6e$F G�J�K.g � Q$F K ?�F M$e6F M5b`K�C$b.b�JK�N�K+NOQ$VN
G�;>M�K�CPfiJ�T DEJ�Q6V�c�F ;OTaF K`fi;-K�NPe$F T5J�G�NO= ]�F M5?"= CYJ�M$G�J�etD�]`NOQ6Je6F G�Q$;ON-;>fa]�;-?IL5T)JKyJ�M$G�Jw;-TdVD$K.J�M6G�Jw;-?�N�T)J�J�K.s�F TUT)J�K.L6J�G�NOF c�Jw;-?NOQ6JSe6J�K.F b�Mie$J�N-V�F = F M�b�V�M�eiV�G�G�J�K�Ky;-T}]�L6= V�M5NOF M5b�g>W5C$N�C6T)J�T)J�K.J�V�T5G�QF K`M�J�J�e6J�etNO;1e6JNOJ�T5f�F M$JSF ?>NOQ6F K+?"F M$e6F M�b�F K`G-;>M�K.F K�NOJ�M�N$p�F NOQV�GN�CYV�=�DYJ�Q6V�c�F ;-Tw;OTwF K1V�MiV�TUNOF ?"V�G�NS;-?$NOQ6J&K"C�TUc�J�]�F M5K�N�TUCPf�J�M�N-g
CONCLUSIONS\Y;yM-KUCEfoJTIL�C�T5G-Q�V�K)F M�bIT5J-L�T�JK5J�M�N KaV�D+;"C$N>N po;y[ N"Q�F T�e�Ka;"?BN"Q�JJ-G-;yM�;yfoF GYV-G�N"F c�F N ]X;"?yN"Q>JYRIM�F N"J-e h N"V�N"J�K)g)Z�M$e>J-L�J�M�e�J-M�N+foJ�T�G�Q�V-M�N KF M4F M>M�J�T"[G-F N ]XM�J-F b6Q�D ;"T�Q>;B;yeYD>C�K)F M�J�KUKIe�F K}N T�F G�N K5s);yM�G�JEr>J�]IT�J�N�V�F =L�= V�]$J�T}K5s.M�;"p ?UV-G�JYG-;yfoL�J�N�F N"F c6JYL�T�JK}KUC�T5J$? T�;.f¡T5J�b6F ;yM�V�=)foV-= = K)sn D+F bSD+;"��x)T�JN�V�F = J�T}K5s.V-M�e1J-[ N"V-F = JT�K)g)¢`;Op£e�;yJK�N"Q�JY= ;yG-V-=.foJ�T5G-Q�V-M�NL�T�J�K5J�T}c6JS;OT&T�JK}N";"T�JIQ�F Ka;"TaQ�J�T K5= F G-JS;O?>N"Q�JIJOG-;yM$;yfoF GSL�F J�¤
h N�CPe5]`T5J�K�CP= N�K+K�C6b.b�JK�N6NOQ6V�NYQ6F b�Q$J�TaL5T)F G�J�c�V�= CPV�NOF ;>M5K`V�T)Jf�J�e$F VN-J�e`D$]vL5K�]�G�Q6;>= ;Ob�F G�V�=$F M�?"J�T)J�M6G�JKd;O?Pe6F K"N�T)F G�NIG�Q6V�T)V�G�N-J�TV�M6eXL5T�;>e�CPG�NY��CPV�= F N�]�g � Q�C6K.s>GT5J�VN-F M�b�V�M6etKUNOJ�p�V�T�e$F M�b�V�MtC$TUDEV�M?";OT)JK"NSG�V�M6;>L5]vf�V�]vJ�M6Q$V�M$G�J+T)Jc�J�M5CPJ�KP?�;-TED�C6K.F M6JK"K.J�K4F MwT5J�N-V-F =e6F K�N�T5F G�N�KPNOQ6V�NI;-? ?"JT1e6F c�J�TUK.JaL5T);>e5CPGN�K4V�N�c�VT)F J�e�L5T5F G�JKyg\S;BM�K"CYf�J�T1L5C6T5G�Q6V�K.J�K1L5T);-c�F e6J`G�;>fiL6J�M5K.VNO;-TU]4T)J�N�C6T)M5KP?";-Te$F K�N T)F G�N�p�F e6JIG�;OK"N�K`;-?�N�T5J�JIL6= V�M5NOF M5b�V�M6eofiV�F M�N-J�M6V�M$G�J�sBV�K+p�J�= =VKET5Jc�J�M5CYJIJ�M6Q6V�M6G�J�fiJ�M5N$?";-TaF M6e6F c�F e5CYV�=-D>C6K.F M6J�K�K.J�K.g
:jQ6F = JSf�V�M�]�G�;BM6e6F N"F ;>M5K`G�;BM5N�T)F D�C6NOJ�NO;1L6JT)G�J�L�NOF ;BM5K+D�]G�;BM�K�CPf�J�TUK`;-?EV�N�N�T)V�G�N-F c�J�sBe6J�K.F T)V�DE= J�K.Q6;>L6L�F M5b`K.J�N�NOF M5b)KysON-Q$F KK�N�CPe�]1K�C6b.b�JK"N�KYN-Q$V�N�N-Q$J&C6TUDEV�M`?";-T)JK"N�K.Q6;-CY= e`DEJaVtG�J�M5N�T)V�=J�= J�foJ�M5NY;-?�T)JN-V�F =BL6= V�G�J-g � V�M�]�f�V�T)r�J�NOF M5baK�N�CPe6F J�K`Q6V�c�J?";BG�C$K.J�ei;>MaN-Q6JtnUfiF G�T5;Bx+= J�c�J�=�;-?YL5T);>e�CPG�NPL6V�G�r$Vb�F M5b�V�M6eL$= V�G�J�f�J�M5NOsB;-TtF M6e6;B;-T&T5J�NOV�F =BG�;>M�?"F b.C$T)VNOF ;>M$g � Q6F K+K�N�CPe�]G�;BM�N�T5F D�C6NOJ�K4F M�?";-T)f�V�NOF ;BM�VDY;-C$N�N-Q6JanUf�V�GT5;>xY= J�c�J�=�;-?SG�;BM6[K�CPfiJTaL6J�T)G�J�L�N-F ;>M6�ONOQ6VNPF K.s-NOQ6JIL6;OKyF NOF c�JIF M�?�= CPJ�M6G�J�K`;-?�NOQ6J;-C$NOe6;B;-TwJ�M5c�F T5;BM6f�J�M5NP;BM�G�;BM5K"CYf�J�T`G�Q6;>F G�JtV�M6eaDYJ�Q$V�c�F ;-TOg
LITERATURE CITED¥ fiJ�T5F G�V�MXW6;OT5J�K�N�K.g 7�l�l>l�gB\SF N�]�¦&T5J�J�M6@B\SV�= G�CP= VNOF M�b`NOQ6J��YV�= CPJ;-?Y§1V�N�C6T5J�g-�YJ�TUK.F ;>Mo¨�g {IK.;-? N�p�V�T5JtfiV�M5CYV�=-?";-T ¥ T�G��aF Jp�¦aZ h g
^$VNOJ-fiV�M$syZ�g ©-g syª6gy_tF V�foV�M$e6syZ�g ¢wgBz>V�M�b.?�;OT5e$s.V�M$e ¥ g"©-;BM$J�K)g&7�l�lB��g¢1;OC$K.J�Q$;B= etp�F = = F M5b6M$J�K�K NO;1L6V]iV�M$eI?"VT5fiJ�T}K.upiF = = F M5b�M$J�K�K N";V�G�G�J�L5NIG�;>f�L$J�M5K.V�N-F ;>Mw?";-T1J�K�NOV�DY= F KyQ$F M5bvV+T)J�GT)J�V�NOF ;>M$V�=pi;B;>e$= V�M$e$gO©-gyª�M�c�F T�;BM$gBA�= V�M$M$g � V�M6Vb�J�gy¨�l�k�7m�@ 8+7� 9�¨�g
^$F K5QB;yL>s5H6g \Yg s�V-M>e � g ¥ g5¢tJ�D J�T�= J-F M>g67OlBlB{Bg � QBJEGO;yM-N�F M-b6JOM�Nc$VO= CEV�N�F ;.M1fXJ�N�Q�;.e�g�Z ME©O;.Q>M�K5;.M�s�H�g zBg s5VOM>ew¦Sg �Bg}©O;.Q>M�K5;.M1k�ª$e�K�g m-gª6G-;yM�;BfoF G$�EV-= CYV�N�F ;yM1;"?&§`V�N C�T�V-=.H�J�K);"C�TOG-J�K)@)Z K}KUCEJ�K)s � Q�J�;"T�]V-M�e ¥ L>L�= F G-V�N"F ;yM�K5g}:«J�K}N c$F J�p¬AOT�J�K}K5s)^�;�C+= e�J�T�s)\Y|wg58>8B{wL>L�g
^�T�J�Q�fis h g h g s h g � g.YVKUK5F M$syV�M�e h g.W$J�F M$g&7-l>l>l>g h ;BG-F V�=A�K�]�G�Q$;B= ;Ob)]�gy¢w;-C$b�Q�NO;BM � F ? ?�= F M$sB§wJp«®6;OT5r�sy§E®�gy¯�¨�¯4L$L$g
\PF fiL�T)F G�Q6sy^6g 7�l�l�8�g ¥ N NOJ�M�NOF ;>M$V�="?"VNOF b.CYJ�?�;B= = ;Op�F M5baD�T)J�V�K�NG�V�M$G�J�T K�C6T�b�J�T�]�g>H�J�K)g>§EC6TUK.gB¢1J�V�= NOQ°7�¯�@}7�l�l��+8�{�±�g
_tV�F = ]�sy¦tg \Pgyk�ª6e$g md7�l�l>±>gy§wVN�C$T�J�uK h J�T}c�F G�JK.@ h ;>G�F JNOV�=_aJ�L6J�M6e6J�M6G�JI;>Mo§wV�N�C6T)V�=Bª�G�;-K�].K�N-J�f`K.gBZ K.= V�M6eoA�T)J�K�Kys:<VK)Q$F M�b)N";BM�sy_t\Ygy¨Bl>84L$L�g
_SF = = fXV-M�s5_Ig ¥ g)8B{B{B{Bg � VOF =5VOM�e1Z�M-N�J�T�M�J�N h C�T�c$J�]�K5@ � Q�J � V-F = ;"T�J-e_IJ�K5F b$M � J�N�Q�;ye>g}©O;.Q>MY:²F = J�]d³ h ;yM-K5s5§`J p�®6;"T�rBs5§ ®6g59B�B9`L�LBg
_I;Be�e�K)s�:´g ^�g s.Eg ^�g � ;BM�T�;BJ-syV�M�ed_tgy¦�T�JpiV-= g&7-l>lE7-g � Q$JPJ? ?UJ�GN ;O?L�T5F G�J�s"D�T5V�M$e$syV�M$eIKUN";OT5JSF M�?�;OT5fiVN"F ;BMX;BMSD>C$]�JT}K)u�L5T);>e5CYG�NJ�c�V�= CYV�NOF ;>M5K.gO©�g � VT5r�J�NOgBH&J�K.gB8$��@ ¨�{$±�� ¨E7�l�g
µ�¶$·¸-¹-º6»)¼6½�¾>¹-¿$ÀE»UÁ+¹-») Ã�ºP¾ Ä�º$»)Å ¶$Æ�Ç�È�É�Ê�Ë ½�Ì ¶�Í�Í$È
Î&Ï`Ì�Å»"Ð"¸-Ñ ÒÑ ÐyÓ�Ñ ÔIÑ Ë Ã�Õ�Ö$Å»}×)¹B¼$ÐyØwÑ Ù�Ñ.ÚyÃ�Ö�»�¹BÅ�Û$Å»"Ðy½�¼$ÛdÜ�Ñ ÀaÑÜ&¹-Ï�¼5Ä�»)Å�Å�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ$¶ Ñ-ÀE×"×.Å�×�×. ¼5ÝwÄOÖ$Å&ÁEÅ�¼6Å�¿" Ä�×w½�¼6ÛiÃ�¹-×�Ä ×1¹-¿$ÄOÖ6ź6»UÁE½�¼t¿"¹-»)Å�×UÄ-Ñ-¸�Ñ-À+»UÁY¹O») Ã�Ñ µ�Þ�Ç}·�É�Ê ¶�¶$ß�à+¶�È$á Ñ
Î&ÏaÌ6Å»�Ð�¸-Ñ ÒÑ Ð.Ø`Ñ Ù�Ñ.Ú.Ã-Ö�»�¹yÅ�Û�Å»�Ð.½�¼�Û4ÕÑ Ø`Ñ.Ôt¹"Á>×UÄ"Å»"Ñ µ-Æ>Æ>á Ñ�âPÖ$ÅYÛ$Å-Å�ã×) Ý�¼$ ¿� Ã�½�¼�Ã�ÅY¹O¿Bº�»}Á+½�¼SÄ »5Å�Å�×a½-¼$ÛP¿�¹"»5Å×UÄ ×.Ñ.ä�¼dÕ>¾ ½Ä Ä"ÐyÜ�Ñ Ø`Ñ ÐyÜ�Ñ ÀaÑÜ�¹OÏo¼�Ä »�Å-Å�Ð)½-¼�Û4Õ�Ñ åPÑ Ë ºE Ã-æ Ç Ó6Û�×5Ñ É Ñ�âSÖ$ÅYÓ$Ã�¹y¾ ¹"Ý� Ã�½-¾.åEÂ Ä Ì ÊÕ-»�Å×.Å�»Uç� ¼�Ýo½-¼$ÛdÜ�Å×UÄ"¹O»5 ¼�Ýoè&»}Á+½-¼dé$ ¹BÛ$ ç�Å»}×) Ä�ÌOÑyèt¼$ ç6Å»�×.Â Ä Ìi¹"¿Ë ½×�×)½�Ã�Ö�º$×.Å�Ä�Ä ×aÕ�»5Å×U×)Ð"À`êiÖ$Å»}×UÄOÐ Ë À`Ñ ¶>ÆEµ ã$ã$Ñ
Ó)ç�Å»5ÅÄ�Ä"ÐBÕÑ é$Ñ ÐyÜ&Ñ ÔaÑ Ë ÑBÕ� Å�Ä"Å�»}×.Ðy½�¼6ÛXÕ�Ñ À`Ñ"âP Ä�º$×.Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�á ÑOâIÖ�ÅÃ�¹>¼�×"ºYê�Å�» à Å�¼5ç� »)¹>¼6ê�Å�¼5ÄP ¼5ÄOÅ�»)½-Ã�Ä- ¹>¼ Ê Àw¼o ¼5Ä�»)¹>Û5ºEÃ�ÄO ¹>¼tÄO¹ÄOÖ6Å�×.ã$Å�Ã� ½�¾B ×�×�ºYÅ�ÑBä�¼5ÄOÑO¸-ÑBÜ&Å×.Ñ Ë ½�»5æ�Å�ÄOÑ µ�µ�Ê Æ�ß�à`µ�Í�· Ñ
Ò$½�º�×)¹y¾ Û$Ð)åYÑ ¸OÑ Ð.½-¼>Û4Ü�Ñ ¸-Ñ)ë> ¾  Å�Ö�¹y¾ êoÑ µOÆ>ÆBì Ñ�âSÖ�ÅYÅ�Ã-¹y¼�¹Bêo Ã�ç6½-¾ ºYÅY¹"¿¹Bã�Å�¼P×)ã$½�Ã-Å�Ñ)ë>½�¼�Û$¾  ¼$Å�× Ê ë� ¼�Ã�¹y¾ ¼1ä�¼�×UÄOÑ.ë>½-¼$ÛdÕ>¹y¾  ÃÌOÑ ÞBÇ·-É�Ê}µ�à á Ñ
Ô&»5Å�Ï�½�¾ ÐyÎtÑ Ðy½�¼$ÛP¸-Ñ.é$½�æ�Å»�Ñ µ-Æ�Æ>á Ñ.Ît¹+»�ÅÄO½� ¾"×UÄO¹"»�ÅPÅ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼�êoÅ�¼�ÄO½�¾¿�½�ÃÄO¹O»}×w½¿ ¿�Å�Ã�ÄPÃ�¹B¼�×�ºYêiÅ»}×)í�ã�») Ã�ÅI½�Ã�Ã�Å�ã�Ä"½ÁE ¾ Â Ä Ì)îEÀ`¼iÅ-êiã$ »5 Ã�½�¾Åç�½�¾ ºY½Ä" ¹B¼$Ñ.ä�¼�Ä"Ñ"¸OÑ Ë ½»5æ�Å�ÄOÑ µ�Ê}µ�ÍBß-àaµ�µ-· Ñ
Ø1Å�»Uï$¹-Ý�Ð-â Ñ Ð>½�¼6ÛIâ$Ñ�ÀSÑ>Ôa½�¾ Å�Ñ µ�Æ$Æ�ì ÑyÕ�»5Å�¿"Å�»5Å�¼6Ã�Å&¿�¹-» º6»UÁE½�¼Á�ºP ¾ Û6 ¼5Ý.×`½�×a½�¿ ºP¼6Ã�ÄO ¹>¼o¹-¿E½�Ý�ÅS½�¼6Ûo¼6½�Ä�º6»)ÅIÃ�¹>¼�Ä-ÅðBÄ"ÑÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼$ÑBé$Å-Ö6½ç5Ñ ¶�Þ�Ç�µÉ�Ê á�á-à+ß�¶ Ñ
ØwÅ»}ï�¹OÝ�Ð�â�Ñ Ü�Ñ Ðy½�¼>ÛXÜ>Ñ"ë)Ñ�ÚyÖ$ Ż"Ñ ¶>Í>Í�Í ÑyåP¹yêiã$¾ Åð&Â Ä Ì�Ðy½Ý�Å-Ðy½-¼$ÛÁ�ºP ¾ Û$ ¼�Ý�ã�»�Å¿"Å»5Å�¼6Ã�Å�ÑBÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼6Ñ.é6Å�Ö6½ç5Ñ È�¶�Ç�á�É�Ê ·�·�ß�à ·�ß�· Ñ
ñP½�ã6¾ ½�¼$ÐBÜ&Ñ µ�Æ�Þ�È ÑOâtÖ$Å�»)¹B¾ ÅI¹-¿+¼6½�Ä�º�»)ÅI ¼IÄOÖ6Å�º$»UÁE½�¼XÃ�¹>¼�ÄOÅ�ðyÄOÑBä¼À`¾ Ä"êi½�¼$Ð.ä�Ñ Ðy½O¼$ÛS¸-Ñ ÒÑ�Ùò¹BÖ�¾ Ïi ¾ ¾ Ç Ó$Û�×.Ñ É Ñyé�Å�Ö$½ç6 ¹"»I½�¼$ÛPÄ"Ö$Åów½Ä�º$»5½�¾yÓ6¼5ç6 »�¹>¼$êiÅ�¼�Ä"ÑyÕ�¾ Å�¼5ºYêoÐyówÅÏ«ô�¹O»5æ>ÐyóEô�Ñ È>á>ì ã$ã$Ñ
õ�õ£õ Ñ µ�Æ�Æ$¶ ÑBè&»UÁY½�¼t¿"¹-»)Å�×�Ä�»UÌ�½�¼6ÛIÄOÖ6Å�Ï�¹-»)æ�ã6¾ ½�Ã�Å�ÑBä¼Ôt¹OÁ�×�Ä"Å�»"ÐyÕ�Ñ Ø`Ñ Ç Ó�Û$Ñ É Ñ Ë ½�¼$½Ý� ¼�Ýoè&»}ÁE½�¼X½�¼$ÛXØw Ý�Ö$ö�è�×.ÅÜ&Å�û)Å�½�ÄO ¹>¼XÚyÅ�Ä�ÄO ¼�Ý.×.Ñ>èaÚyÎ&À<Ò6¹-»5Å×"ÄYÚyÅ�»Uç� Ã�Å�Ð>ÔaÅ�¼6Å�»5½�¾â&Å�Ã�Ö$¼6 Ã�½�¾BÜ�Å�ã6¹O»UÄYó1åPö µ�ì$È ÑBów¹O»UÄOÖXåSÅ�¼5Ä�»)½�¾BÒ6¹-»�Å�×�ÄÓ)ð�ã$Å») êiÅ�¼5Ä+Ú�ÄO½ÄO ¹B¼$ÐBåPÖ$ Ã�½�Ý�¹BÐyä�ë�Ñ
ñY½�ã$¾ ½�¼$ÐBÜ�Ñ Ðy½�¼$ÛdÚyÑyñY½�ã$¾ ½�¼6Ñ µ�Æ�Þ�Æ ÑOâSÖ$ÅSÓ)ð&ã$Å�»5 Å�¼$Ã�ÅS¹O¿+ó`½Ä�º$»)Å ÊÀ<Õ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ ¹-Ý� Ã�½�¾>Õ�Å�»}×yã$Å�Ã�ÄO ç�Å�ÑBåP½�ê`Á�») Û5Ý�ÅIèt¼6 ç�Å�»}×) Ä�Ì�Õ�»)Å×"×.ÐówÅÏ ô�¹O»5æ�Ð.ó+ô�Ñ È�á>Í ã$ã�Ñ
ñI ¼�¼�Å)½U»-Ð5â+Ñ åIÑ Ð$ñSÑ ë6Ñ6é�Å}»B¼�Ö�½U»5Û.Ä�Ð6½�¼�Û�ñSÑ À4Ñ6ñ�»)Å)¼)Ä�¾ ÅU»-Ñ µ5Æ6Æ6· ÑÕ5»yÂ�¼�Ã) ã�¾�Å}×d¹�¿ Ë ½U»yæ6ÅUÄ� ¼.Ý Ñ�Ø4½U».ã�ÅU»4åI¹$¾�¾  ¼.×BÐ�ódÅ}Ϭô ¹�»yæ�ÐóPô Ñ Þ6Í6Þ ã�ã6Ñ
ë�Å�Ì�Å�¼�×.ÐO¸-Ñ ÕÑ Ðy½�¼$ÛdÚyÑ â&ÑBÒ$ ×.æ�Å�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�á Ñyä�êiã5»�Å×�×. ¹>¼I¿�¹-»5êi½�Ä" ¹>¼ ÊÒ5»�¹>ê«»5Å�Ã� ÄO½�¾ ×+ÄO¹P×�Ì�êiã6Ö6¹B¼6 Å�¿"½-¼5ÄO½�×�ÄO ÷�ºPÅ�Ñ>ä�¼oÎaÅç� ¼$Å�Ð>Õ�Ñ ÔtÑ ÐÎtÑ ë�ÑyØ`½�êi ¾ Ä�¹B¼$Ðy½�¼$ÛSâ�Ñ Ë ÑyøY×�Ä »�¹yê Ç Ó�Û�×)Ñ É ÑyÚ.¹BÃ� ½�¾yåP¹"Ý�¼$ Ä" ¹B¼ Êäêiã6½�ÃÄP¹B¼oÚ.¹>Ã� ½�¾BÕ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö6¹B¾ ¹-Ý.Ì�ÑOÀ`Ã�½�Û6Å�ê� ÃIÕ�»5Å×�×yÐBÚy½�¼XÎa Å�Ý�¹>Ðå6À`Ñ á�Í>È ã$ã>Ñ
Ë Ã-Õ>Ö�Å�»�×)¹y¼�Ð)Ó6Ñ ÔSÑ µ-ÆBÆ>· Ñ)ó`Å�ÄBÁ+Å-¼�Å¿UÂ Ä ×I¹"¿&Ö�Å-½�¾ Ä"Ö�ÌX½-¼�Û4ã�»�¹.Û�ºEÃÄ� ç6ź�»�Á+½-¼Y¿"¹"»�Å�×UÄ ×)Ñ)ä�¼4é�»�½-Û�¾ Å�Ì-Ð)ÔIÑ ÀaÑ Ç Ó6Û�Ñ É Ñ)è�»�Á+½-¼1Ò�¹"»�Å�×UÄë>½-¼�Û�×5Ã-½-ã�Å�× Ê ä�¼�Ä�Å�Ý5»�½�Ä" ¼�Ý Ë ºE¾ Ä� Û> ×5Ã- ã�¾  ¼�½�»�ÌdÕ>Å�»�×5ã�Å-Ã�Ä� ç�Å�×5ÑèI¼� ç6Å�»�×5Â Ä Ìd¹�¿.Ù<½�×)Ö� ¼�Ý5Ä�¹y¼1ÕO»�Å�×U×�Ð5Ú.Å-½�Ä Ä�¾ Å-ÐUÙ�ÀaÑ ¶>¶Bá ãBã�Ñ
Ë Â Ä"Ã�Ö$Å�¾ ¾ ÐyÜ&Ñ åPÑ Ð.½�¼$ÛdÜ�Ñ â&ÑyåP½»}×)¹B¼$Ñ µ-Æ>Þ>Æ Ñyè&×) ¼�ÝiÚ�º$»}ç�ÅÌ)×&ÄO¹YùE½�¾ ºYÅÕ�º6ÁE¾  ÃSÔt¹>¹BÛ�× Ê âIÖ6ÅSåP¹>¼�ÄO ¼5Ý�Å�¼�Ä�ùE½�¾ ºY½�ÄO ¹B¼ Ë ÅÄOÖ6¹BÛ$ÑÜ&Å×.¹-º6»�Ã�Å�×+¿U¹-» ÄOÖ$ÅIÒ5º$Ä�º6»5Å�ÐOÙ²½�×)Ö6 ¼�Ý.ÄO¹>¼$ÐBÎaåSÑ á�ì�È ã6ã$Ñ
Ë ¹>¹O»5Å�Ð>ÔtÑ â&Ñ µ�Æ>Þ�ß ÑBÓ�¼�ç� »5¹>¼6êiÅ�¼5ÄY½�¼6ÛtÁEÅ�Ö6½�ç� ¹-» »�Å�×yÅ�½�»�Ã�Öo ¼ów¹O»�ÄOÖSÀaêiÅ»� Ã�½ Ê Øw ×UÄO¹"»UÌ-ÐyÛ$Å�ç�Å�¾ ¹yã$êiÅ-¼�Ä ×.Ð.½�¼$ÛSºE¼�»�Å×5¹B¾ ç�Å�Û ×U×UºEÅ×5Ñ.ä�¼4Ú�Ä�¹yæ>¹y¾ ×)Ð)ÎtÑ Ð.½-¼$Û4ä�ÑUÀ`¾ ÄUêi½-¼ Ç Ó6Û�×)Ñ É Ñ.Ø`½-¼$Û�Á ¹y¹yæ1¹"¿Ó6¼�ç� »�¹y¼$êoÅ-¼�Ä�½�¾)Õ-×UÌ6Ã�Ö�¹y¾ ¹OÝ5Ì-Ñ�٣ ¾ ÅÌX½-¼$Û4Ú)¹B¼�×)Ð.ó`Å�Ï ô$¹"»5æ>Ð)ó+ô�Ñ
ó1½�×.½�»OÐ-¸�Ñ ë$Ñ µ�Æ�Þ>ß ÑBÓ�¼5ç� »�¹B¼6ê�Å�¼5ÄO½�¾BÃ�¹-»U»5Å�¾ ½�Ä-Å×w¹-¿EÅ�ç�½�¾ ºP½ÄO ç�Ž�ã6ã5»5½� ×.½�¾ ×4¹O¿PÃ�Å�¼�Ä�»)½�¾�Á$º$×y ¼6Å�×�×Y×.Ã�Å�¼6Å�×.Ñ$ë�½�¼6Û�×yÃ�½�ã$Åaè&»UÁY½�¼Õ�¾ ½�¼$¼$Ñ µ-á�ÊUµ>µ-ß ö µ�È>Í Ñ
õ¬õ¬õ Ñ µ�Æ>Æ�Þ Ñ"âIÖ6ÅPÓ)ç6½�¾ ºY½�Ä" ç�ÅSä�ê�½Ý�ÅS¹O¿>Ä"Ö$ÅSåP Ä�Ì�ÑyÚy½Ý�ÅÕ�º$ÁE¾  Ã�½�ÄO ¹B¼�×.ÐOâIÖ$¹-º�×.½�¼6ÛXø4½�æ�×.Ðyå�À`Ñ µ-Þ>¶ ã$ã6Ñ
ø4í Ît¹BÖ6Å»UÄ�Ì�ÐBÜ&Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�ì Ñ>è�×. ¼5Ý�Ã�¹>¼�Ä- ¼�Ý�Å�¼�Ä$ç�½�¾ ºY½�ÄO ¹>¼IÄO¹4Å�¼$Ö6½�¼$Ã�Åã�º$ÁE¾  ÃSã$½»}ÄO Ã� ã$½Ä" ¹y¼X ¼X¾ ¹BÃ�½�¾yã$¾ ½�¼$¼6 ¼�Ý6ÑyÜ�ÅÝ�ÑyÚ�Ä�ºYÛ$ÑÈ�Í�Ç}ß�É�Ê ì�ì�ß�à+ì�ß�Þ Ñ
Õ>½»}×5¹B¼�×)ÐyÜ�Ñ Ðyë>Ñ ÔtÑ"â&½�×�×) ¼�½»UÌ�Ð.Ü�Ñ ÚyÑ.èt¾ »� Ã�Ö�Ð Ë Ñ Ü�Ñ.ØwÅÁ+¾ Ð.½�¼$Û Ë ÑÔ »�¹-×�×.ê�½�¼6ö Àw¾ Å�ð&½�¼$Û$Å�»"Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Þ ÑOâtÖ6Å�ç� Å�Ï«¿ »�¹>ê«Ä-Ö$Å�»�¹B½�Û Êäêiã6¾  Ã�½ÄO ¹B¼5×+¿�¹-» ×�Ä�»�Å�×�×+»)Å�Ã�¹-ç�Å�»}Ì�½�¼$Ûo êiê`ºY¼6 ï$½ÄO ¹>¼6ÑO¸-ÑÓ�¼�ç� »5¹B¼6ÑyÕ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö$¹B¾ Ñ µ�Þ�Ƕ�É�ÊUµ�µ�È�àaµ�á�Í Ñ
Õ�»)½�Ä"¹BÐ"â�Ñ µ-Æ�Æ>Þ Ñyó`½Ä�º$»5½O¾yÜ�Å×)¹Oº$»�Ã�ÅP½�¼$ÛdÓ�¼�ç6 »�¹B¼$êiÅ�¼�Ä"½�¾Ó6Ã�¹B¼�¹Bêo Ã×)Ñ.ä�¹OÏi½YÚ�Ä"½�Ä"ÅPèI¼$ ç�Å�»}×)Â Ä ÌoÕ-»5Å�×U×)Ð�ÀaêiÅ�×.Ð.ä À`Ñ È>ì>á ã�ã�Ñ
ÚyÃ�Ö�»�¹>Å�Û$Å�»OÐ>Ø1Ñ Ù�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�¶ Ñ>Øw¹-º6×yÅ�Ö6¹>¾ Û6Å�»U×.í�Å�ç�½�¾ ºP½�ÄO ¹B¼5×w¹-¿�×"Ä�»5Å�Å�ÄÄ�»5Å�Å×` ¼I×�º$Á�º$»UÁ+½�¼XåYÖ6 Ã�½Ý�¹>Ñyä¼XÔt¹OÁ�×�ÄOÅ�»"ÐBÕ�Ñ Ø1Ñ Ç Ó�Û$Ñ É ÑË ½�¼$½�Ý� ¼�Ý�è&»UÁE½�¼o½-¼6ÛXØ1 Ý�Ö$ö�è ×.ÅSÜ&Å�Ã�»5Å�½�ÄO ¹B¼oÚyÅÄ�ÄO ¼5Ý)×�úèaÚyÎ&À<Ò$¹-»�Å�×�ÄYÚyÅ»Uç� Ã�Å�ÐBÔtÅ�¼6Å»)½�¾Oâ&Å�Ã�Ö6¼$ Ã�½�¾BÜ�Å�ã$¹-»}ÄYó1åPö µ�ì�È Ñó1¹O»}ÄOÖoåPÅ�¼5Ä�»5½�¾BÒ$¹-»5Å×�ÄEÓ)ð&ã$Å�»5 ê�Å�¼�ÄYÚ"ÄO½Ä" ¹B¼6ÐyåSÖ$ Ã�½Ý�¹>Ðyäë�Ñ
ÚyÖ$Å�ÅÄ�×.ÐOù$Ñ ë�Ñ ÐB½�¼$ÛoåPÑ ÎaÑ Ë ½�¼5ï$Å»"Ñ µ�Æ$ÆEµ ÑOÀ+¿ ¿"Å-Ã�ÄOÐBÃ�¹-Ý�¼$ ÄO ¹>¼$ÐB½�¼$Ûº6»UÁE½�¼`ç�Å�Ý�Å�ÄO½�Ä- ¹>¼ Ê Úy¹>êiÅaÅ�¿ ¿"Å�Ã�Ä�×w¹-¿P½�Û$Û$ ¼�Ý1Ä�»)Å�Å�×1½�¾ ¹>¼5Ý�Ã� Ä�Ì×�Ä�»5Å�Å�Ä�×.ÑBÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼6Ñyé6Å-Ö6½ç5Ñ ¶�È�Ç�È�É�Ê ¶�Þ�·�à+È�Í>á Ñ
Úyê�½�»)Û6¹>¼6ÐBÜ&Ñ åSÑ µ�Æ�Þ�Þ ÑyÕ�Å�»)Ã�Å�ã�Ä- ¹>¼o½�¼$Ûo½�Å�×UÄOÖ6Å�ÄO Ã×w¹-¿�ÄOÖ6Å�º$»UÁY½-¼Å�¼5ç� »)¹B¼6ê�Å�¼5Ä Ê Ü&Å�ç� Å�Ïq¹-¿�ÄOÖ6Å�»)¹>¾ ÅI¹-¿�ç�ÅÝ�Å�ÄO½�ÄO ¹B¼6Ñë$½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã6ÅIè »UÁY½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼6¼6Ñ µ�·$Ê Þ�·�à`µ�Í�ì Ñ
Ú.¹>êoêiÅ»"ÐBÜ�Ñ ÐBØwÑyÔ&ºPÅ�¼�Ä"Ö$Å»"ÐB½�¼$ÛXÕ�Ñ À`ÑBé$½»5æ�Å»�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Í ÑBÚ�º6»Uç�ÅÌ� ¼�ÝÖ6¹-º6×.Å�Ö6¹>¾ Û6Å�»Y»)Å�×.ã6¹B¼5×.Å+Ä-¹t×"Ä�»)Å�Å�Ä�Ä�»)Å�Å×.Ñ6ë�½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã$ÅE¸�ÑÆ�Ç�¶�É�Ê ß�Æ�à+Þ�· Ñ
Ú�ÄO¹Bæ>¹B¾ ×.ÐyÎtÑ µ�Æ�ß>Þ ÑyÓ�¼�ç� »�¹B¼$êiÅ�¼5Ä"½�¾yã5×UÌ�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ ¹OÝ)Ì�Ñ"À`¼$¼$ÑyÜ�Å�ç�ÑÕ�×"Ì�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ Ñ ¶�Æ$Ê ¶�·�È�à+¶>·�Æ Ñ
Ú"ºY¾ ¾  ç�½�¼$ÐOÙ�Ñ åPÑ µ�Æ�Æ$á ÑBÕ>Å»5Ã�Å�ã�ÄO ¹>¼�×w¹O¿�ÄOÖ$Å�»�º6»5½�¾ ö º6»}ÁE½�¼I¿ ») ¼�Ý�Å ÊåS Ä- ï$Å�¼�ã5»5Å�¿"Å�»)Å�¼6Ã�Å×P¿"¹O»w¼6½�Ä�º6»)½�¾�½�¼6Û�Û$Å�ç�Å�¾ ¹>ã$Å�Û`×yÅÄ�ÄO ¼5Ý.×.Ñë$½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã6ÅIè »UÁY½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼6¼6Ñ ¶�Æ$Ê Þ�·�à`µ�ÍEµ Ñ
â�Ì.»Uç6û� ¼6Å�¼6Ðyë�Ñ ÐB½�¼$ÛXØ1Ñ"ù`û�û�¼$û�¼6Å�¼6Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Þ ÑOâSÖ6ÅSÅ�Ã�¹B¼6¹Bêi Ã�ç�½�¾ ºPŹ-¿$º6»}ÁY½�¼t¿"¹-»)Å�×�ÄP½�êiÅ�¼6 ÄO Å× Ê Àw¼o½�ã6ã6¾  Ã�½Ä- ¹>¼o¹-¿$ÄOÖ6ÅÃ�¹>¼�ÄO ¼�Ý�Å�¼�Ä6ç�½�¾ ºP½�ÄO ¹B¼Xê�Å�ÄOÖ6¹BÛ6ÑBë$½�¼6Û5×.Ã-½�ã6ÅIè&»UÁE½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼$¼6Ñá$È$ÊUµ�Í�·�à`µ$µ�Þ Ñ
èt¾ ») Ã�Ö$ÐBÜ&Ñ Ú.Ñ µ�Æ�Þ�ì ÑBØEºPêo½�¼I»5Å�×.ã$¹>¼�×.Å×+ÄO¹Yç�ÅÝ�ÅÄO½�ÄO ¹B¼X½�¼$Û¾ ½�¼6Û5×.Ã�½�ã6Å�×.Ñ>ë$½�¼6Û5×)Ã�½�ã6Åtè&»UÁY½�¼oÕ�¾ ½�¼$¼6Ñ µ�È�Ê ¶$Æ�à+á�á Ñ
Ùü½�ã�¼6Å»"ÐyÚyÑ µ�Æ�Þ�ß ÑOÀ«Ö6¹y¾  ×�Ä" Ã�ÐBÛ$Åç�Å�¾ ¹Bã$ê�Å�¼�ÄO½�¾ ÐO×UÌ.×UÄOÅ�êa×.ö¹-»5 Å�¼5ÄOÅ�ÛXÅ�¼5ç� »)¹B¼$êiÅ�¼�ÄO½�¾yã5×�Ì�Ã�Ö6¹B¾ ¹OÝ.Ì Ê Ú.¹BêiÅ�ÁEÅ�Ý� ¼$¼6 ¼�Ý)×.ÑBä�¼Ú"Ä"¹>æ>¹B¾ ×.ÐyÎtÑ Ðy½�¼$ÛXä�Ñ"Àa¾ Ä"ê�½�¼ Ç Ó�Û�×)Ñ É ÑyØw½�¼�Û�ÁE¹B¹Bæd¹O¿Ó�¼�ç� »�¹B¼$êiÅ�¼�ÄO½�¾yÕ�×UÌ�Ã�Ö$¹B¾ ¹OÝ)Ì Ç ù+¹B¾ Ñ ¶�É Ñ"٬ ¾ ÅÌo½�¼$ÛdÚy¹B¼�×.ÐyówÅÏô�¹O»5æ�ÐyóEô�Ñ
Ù<¹y¾ ¿"ÐyñYÑ ë�Ñ µ�Æ�Æ�Þ ÑBÓ�¼�ÄOÅ�»�ã�») ×. ¼�Ýi¾ ½�¼$Û5×.Ã�½�ã$Å× Ê é5º$×. ¼$Å�×�×`Û$ ×�Ä�»5 Ã�Ä�×½�¼$ÛIÄ"Ö6Å6º6»}ÁE½�¼I¿�¹O»5Å×UÄOÑyä�¼XñY¹B¾ ¾  ¼6ÐyåPÑ Ç Ó�Û�Ñ É ÑyåP ÄO Å× Á�Ìiów½Ä�º$»�Å�í×ÎaÅ�×. Ý�¼ Ê Õ�»)¹>Ã�Å�Å�Û6 ¼5Ý)×`¹-¿$ÄOÖ6Å Þ ÄOÖoó1½�ÄO ¹y¼6½�¾>è »UÁE½�¼oÒ6¹-»)Å�×�ÄåS¹>¼�¿"Å»5Å�¼$Ã�Å�ÑOÀ`ê�Å�»� Ã�½�¼oÒ$¹-»5Å�×�Ä�×.ÐOÙ²½�×.Ö� ¼�Ý.ÄO¹>¼$ÐBÎaåSÑ
Ù�Ì6Å»OÐyÜ�Ñ ÚyÑ Ðy½�¼6ÛSÀwÑ ¸�Ñyë�½-êaÁEÅ»UÄOÑ µ�Æ�Æ>á ÑOâIÖ$Å�»�¹B¾ ÅS¹O¿>Ä�»5½� ÄÃ�¹>¼5×�Ä�»UºPÃ�Ä�×1 ¼iã6Å�»U×.¹B¼iã6Å»)Ã�Å�ã5ÄO ¹B¼ Ê Àw¼XÖ6 ×�ÄO¹-») Ã�½�¾ã$Å»}×.ã$Å�ÃÄO ç�Å�Ñyä�¼XÎtÅç6 ¼$Å�ÐyÕÑ ÔtÑ ÐyÎtÑ ë>ÑyØw½�êo ¾ Ä"¹B¼$Ðy½�¼$ÛIâ�Ñ Ë ÑøP×�Ä »5¹>ê Ç Ó�Û�×)Ñ É ÑyÚy¹BÃ- ½�¾yåP¹OÝ�¼$ ÄO ¹B¼ Ê äêiã�½�ÃÄE¹>¼dÚy¹BÃ� ½�¾Õ�×�Ì�Ã�Ö$¹>¾ ¹OÝ)Ì�Ñ"ÀwÃ�½�Û6Å-ê� ÃSÕ�»�Å×�×.ÐBÚ.½�¼XÎt Å�Ý6¹BÐBå�À`Ñ á�Í>È ã6ã$Ñ
ýP êoê�Å»"Ð Ë Ñ Ü�Ñ Ðy½�¼$ÛXë�Ñ ë>ÑBÔt¹B¾ Û$Å�¼$Ñ µ�Æ>Þ�Þ Ñyäêoã�»�Å�×U×. ¹B¼�×`¹O¿>»5ÅÄO½� ¾×�Ä-¹O»)Å�× Ê À<Ã�¹B¼5ÄOÅ�¼�ÄP½-¼6½�¾ Ì.×. ×`¹-¿EÃ�¹>¼5×�ºPêiÅ»a êi½�Ý�Å×yÑO¸�ÑBÜ&ÅÄO½� ¾ Ñì�á4Ç Ò$½�¾ ¾ É�Ê ¶�ì�·�à ¶�Æ>È Ñ
þ5ÿ�� ����� ��� ����� � ������������������� �!� "��$#&%'��( �*)�� %��+�,�-� �*.+������% /�0!� �21435����� ���+�,�768� �,�2%�� �+�2�
9!:�;�<>=�?A@CB�D�E�FGB�<�H'I�J ����� "�(5��KA(5� ����%5�2L�� ���-��(�%M�N���+%'�O�� %(+�,�P� �,� (5���5��� �RQ��+S��5� ����� �5T4(5��QR� ����Q5�-��� � �5T7� "�� ��%��+�P� (�%�� "�U�+�P��� �5� ( � � 1V�,� (�� ���N�W�N"��>���� � �NXY� ��T4�N%MT�(5��� Z�(�� � ��������0$�5���2%�(5�N[�%��5(6\�+S�� � ����]^�5�5��[O�,����� � (�� � ���*_�`P�5(+�2� � �NU �a(+��"�� �5T�� ���5b5U�0!"�� ��(�� � X4�5c.C��� ��%���(+�N� ����(5��6�� �,�2%�� ���-3������ �����,�V.C]^��%�� S��5]4� ����[��,�P���5� (��N� ���_+`P�5(+�2� � � U �d(���"�� � T�� ���5b5U���( � ��� �+%\0$"W( ]7�O��%\� ��0!��]4]^�+%5�N�_+`P�5(+�2� � � U �a(+��"�� �5T�� ���5b5U�0!� �21^�N�O0!"�� � (+T��e6\�5��(�%M�]4� ����� �f ��S�� %�����]^� �5� U�0-"�� � (�T���� ( ��Q*0!"�(5]\���+%\� �O0$��]^]^��%�� �$_+0!"�� � (+T���U.C� � � ����� �'b5UP#>%'�O( �A)�� %��+�,��0!� �-��� � �P�N���d(+��"�� �5T������U�6\g 0!g UP0!� �21^� �[O���,� � �*�(+%�K �V( ��QR�>� ��%��5(+�N� ���*_ h>��i�(+�b5U�j-�N%��5( �R3������ ���+�,�[O�,�����5� (+� � ���R� ��`��N���N"���%��R0$( � � �,�N%���� (�_�kW�N�O[V�5T�� � �+��U�0$( � � �� %���� (+b5U0!�������+%MS�(+� � ���*0-���5�,�-� � ( ���2�7_+W� �2�2�,�W�W%'T�"�UPW�5���5�,1�� S�(5��� (Cb5U�0!� �21^�N�W� %'� � (5��QR3���%��5(+�l� ��W� (5����� ��T4_�m!%��CT�����b5U�(5��Q�� "���0!� �21^�N�n (5��� �N��S���%\_ �d(+��"�� �5T�� ���5b5g
h\"�� ��%������5(�%�� "8X4(��-�,�!����� %'�N� Q7��1Y(>T�%�(5����� %���]�� "��o (+� � ����( ��#>%M��(5�A( ��Q*0$��]^]7�-��� �21^)�� %����,� %'18[7Q�S�� ��� %M1^0!� �!��� � �_�#\g `Pg�)�� %����,�-`P�+%MS�� � �5U� %5�2L��5��� o �!�l[V#\)�/�pWqW/�rWrEþ+b�g�0!� %M%5����������/Q��5���5�8� �����5��%���� ��TV�N"�� �e(�%'� � �5� �>�P"�� �-� Q8�-�\(5Q�Q�%��+����5Q7���� "��(+��� "�� %8(+�-K X4��� �,s8�!g X4(+��"�� �5T�� ����g �5Q �!g[VQ�Q�� � � ����( ���5%��2L��5�+�� �5�� %�]4(+� � ���*�5(5�$������ �!��QR(���X7X7X�g �+� % g X4(+��"�� ��T�� ����g � Q5��c%������5(+%��5"�g �5��S�]4� ��Q�g
t�uv�uw�x,y,z�{&v+v�| v�} w�~P}P�Wx,� � u v+v�� x� � � � u�NuO� �P�W� x�uv�}Pt�uv�� �Px�y,uv��~P| � ux,v+| } �A� ����w�v�z�| ~��N} � ~���N���������,�P�� uw�} } � u���\{^�������,�����>� � �� � �N� �M�\��� � w�v+z�| ~�� } �N~�� u,���
�!� I��>F � J k��C�V��%��NT�%�( ]4]4�+�VQ���%���S�� � (5� � ��(�� � ���\�����5�-������]4� �� �8��%�(5��� �\Q�(5���7� ���-ZW�������VQ�� (�� �(5� %����7Q����V�5�5���2%�����/ S�� � � ����g�#8��5%��NT�%�(5]^]4�8Q�����N%����,�N�+%�� �>��%'��(5� ���\�������$ ��2%��&�-�4¡5� ¡5]^�5���� ]4���N%'�N( ���!���N��%8�+%�¡5��%&�!�R�5��S�� %��������5]4�5���-Q����5��������]^]4(+�N� ���(+�C� � %�(5��� UN��� �5�R¢5�-� � ���������!������(+�V ��2%����5������� Q�¡�%�¡��5��]^]^���!����5%�� � %�� � ¡�¡�� (5���-Q�������¡�¢ �!� � � 14(��-�5(+�-�5�N�!�RQ������������ ���V� �( ]4¡5� � �N%�(��N� �����V��"�1���� ¢ �!����gW0!���C� �>%�� �5"���%��5"��\¡�S�(5� �!�\� �>%�£�� �\Q����(+%'��%��+�*Q�(5���A� �+�A� ���N�+%�(5��� � ���5�*�5��������]4]^(��N�+��%'�,c� ��S�� %��������5]^�5��� g�#8���\�5��¢ �! �� �\��(��� ����(5� ��(\¡�S�(5� �!¡\� ���7����%��5�5��/� � ���5�7Q���������� � �NU�� ���7� ��� �5�5� � �����7Q��$� ��]4���N%'� �5]^�5���-Q5�l��(��2%�����(���+�!� ��Q�¡���� %8Q�����( � �5]4� ���!���N��%O�-�^� %���Q��!� � U����!� ���5�\%��5� (+�N� ���(+S��5�&�!���&S�(�%�� ¡��¡8Q�� (5]4¡ ��(�T��5]4� ���!(�S��5�8Q����e(�%'�W%����e� ��� ����T¤Q����%M�!���e�5��]4]4��%��5� (5� ����gWkW���-%�¡��,�!� �N(+�C���,��T�T�¥�%��5���!¢5�!�\� �� ��]4���N%'� �5]4� ����Q����A�5�����P��]4]4(�� ����%'�¦���,�\��� �P� � � S�� ]4�5�5���5�N%'%�¡5� ¡
(�S�� �\� (\��%�¡��P�5���5�\Q�� (5]^¡5��(�T�� ]4�5���2�-S��+%'�C�V� �\� ����TYQ��+�-%'�!�+�PU�����5��Q�(5���O�N�N���N���������VQ�� ]^�5�5�P� �����V� �NT���� �N� S����7����5��]^���N%'� �5]4�5�5�N(5� ����g�kW�+��%�¡��,�!� �N(��2�*Q��V�5����%�� �5"���%��5"��+�¡�� (��O� � �,�P� ���$¡�T�(5� �5]4�5�����!���>�-(����8Q��\��(�%'� �5��(�%�� (��$(�S��5�\� ����5��]^]7�!��(����N¡��7Q�� (�� �(5� %����5�\%���T�(�%�QRQ���� (���� ( ��� �� �5(�� � ����� %��+�� � ¥�%��&��%'�-(5� ���\���$Q��8� (&T����,� � ����g
§ ��I�¨WFGF¤B�<�©�¨WI�I5�><�E�J .+��S�� � � � �*� �����+%'�M� ª5Q5� � ���5"�� �« �����5"�ª+� �2�,�-�+Z�� %�KW�5�\��� ��QR����S�� � (5� � ��� �+%'�!�5T����5%�� T�%�( ]4]4��( ]�¬� %�KW� ��g f � ����%M��(5�����7)W�N%M�,� ��%��NT�%�( ]4]KW( ���*�5� ��X4� �5"5� � T��+�f � �5]R�5�������5��Q���% « ���,� ( � �2�!��T^�5� �����7(5�5T��5��� "�]^�5�j-���5�,�!]^�5�5� �5�5�!]7�,�5� Q5�&���5� ��U�(+�!� "\X4�5���R�� �-��� � "��-� � ����% %�� � %�� � ª+�!��(��!]®T���T��+�-�N�\X4� %�Q�U�Q�(��,�OZ5�!��ª5� "5��-��"51���� K�( � � ���5"��n ��%'�O���,����%'�!��T�� �4���N�CX4� ��Q�� TV��� ��Q�gW68� �����\)��N%'���5"��!�5Te����X4��%'� �+�Q�� �$����� � �$Q��+%83�ª��-]4�$� �*j-�����,�-]4� ��� � ��c,#8]\X4�5� � /�.C��� �+%�( K5� � �����N��!��Q\���K ����� �+%'�!Q�(����5��(�����Q�� ���-�+Z�� %�K5X4�5� �N�5� n � %'�N�5� � �5U�Q�� �\Q���%�� "¯ � �� ��� � � �5"��5�\�a(5� Q������,� (5��Q8T�� � � �����%M��X4��%5Q��5��g f � ���\��(+�N� ����(5� �#8�5� ��%M��!� "��!��T¦�-��X4��%'���� �VQ�� �7°$� �� ���N� � �5"�K��5� �2��(5K Z��5��� (5��Z�U.+�5�N�N��� � �����5�\� ±�%8W(�� �5�����5"�(�� �2�S���%�"�(5� � �5�\�!�WQ\²�(5"�� �-��T���/X4� � � � T�KW�5� �-� �*���5� (+� � ����Z �*S��+%'���5"�� �5Q��5���5�*3�(+�!]8�,� (5��Q�� %'��5�*� �« �+���5"�ª�� �C�,�,�C%�(�³�� ��Z5±�T�� ��g�68� � f %'T�������� ����>S���%�Q��+���N� � �5"��5��UWQ�(���Q�(��8j-�����,�-]4�5�5� �5��S���%�"W(5� � �5�*���N��� � � S4KW�N%M%�� � � ��%M�!� �,�-]4� �`�2%�(+³$� ������T�%'±-���-��T��5��]� �*(5� � � �RKW�NT���� � � S�� ���!��Q n ��%5"�( � � �5����/Q�� ]R�5����� ����� ��g�6\� � f %MT�������� �,�P���+� (���� � ��%��5�*(��!� "R�5� ����3�(+��� �O� ±�%W(�%'�����%'���5"�(�� � �5�Y]4� � « �+�P�5"�ª�� �2�����Z�� %�K�� �¤� �Y3���Z5��T´(+���)��N%'�'�N�5�� (5��Z5�-��T7�!��Q�µ¶( ��(�T��5]^�5��� g
� B�I��>FGB�<\J kW�N�e��%�� T�%�(5]4(��eQ��>%��5"�(���� � � �N( �5� ·��7�����4����� ��5�������5� Q��N�V�5�R]7�!�5"��N�7Q�� ��2%�� �N�N�7Q��\���+T���� � �N����%'��(5���N��g�#8���%��NT�%�(5]4(\Q�(�������·�]4� �5�$��%M�-(5���A���!�5Q��>�P��%&�!�4�5� �5]4�5��� �� ]4���N%M�N(5�5�N�8��(�%�(7� (7��%�� (5�5� ·��YQ��&�!�Y(5]8�-� � ��� �O�(�S��N%�(���� �8��(�%�(�5��� �����,�!]^� Q�� % gN[��-��¢5�������!�P���^� ������� Q���%�(5Q��N�7�5��]4�!�-��(�5%�� �%�� Q�(5Q\%��5¢5�-� �+%��5�\���R]4� L��N%�( ]4� �5��� �!�¸ ��� � ��g f �,� (� ��S��C�� � T�(5�5� ·��R�+S�(5� ¹!(�� ����(5���5��Q���� � �Vº�%'����� ���7�5�R� (��� ��� �+%�(5�5�5� �����+�e(5]8�-� �5����>c-�5�����,�!]4� Q��N%UW���P��� � ��Q��A¡5���(+�P� �e� �� �N���O�5������ �5� �N�V��¹���� � �5� �7��%��NS�� �� �N�V���N%7� (\�N��]7�!��� Q�(5Q\��N%����,� ( � g#8��������Q�� �A��(5�5� ����(5����S�(5� �-·A� (��V����%��5�5���5� �����+�VQ��5����¹��-� � �5��U�� � ���(+�C%��������eQ��\�5��]4���N%'� ( ]4� �5��� �$1Y� (>�W�!�5��(�S���� �!�5�N(5Q^��(+%�(��(+T�(�%V���N%V� � �¦��%���Q5�!��� � �¦�5���7%��5� (5�5� ·��4(8� (8��%��+�P�5���5� (8Q��8� �N�º�%M����� ���e�5�^��(5� �P( L����-��%M��(5���N�PgWkW�N�-%����,�!� � (5Q��N�-�,��T�� ��%��5�»¢ �!�8� ��5��]^���N%M�N(5]^� � ���N�¦Q��5���N�����,�!]4� Q��N%8���,� º���� ��� �N� S�(5]^�5��� �%�� � ( �5� ����( Q��*�5���^�5�W�5��S���%�Q��5�5� ]4� � ���N�AQ��8� (��e�5(5� � ���e�5�7� ��Q�(���+�P(+�7Q�� ]^�5����� �����+�V�5� T���� � � S�(��O14Q���� ��]4��� %M� (5]4� �5�5�N��g�kW(� ��S��+�,� � T�( �5� ·��7� (5]7��� ¡ �8�,��T�� ��%��>�-(������e��(�%�(\��(��2%����5� ��� �N�e�5��5��]8�!��� Q�(5Q����VQ��\���+T����5� �N�V�5���\%��5� (5�5� ·��^($� (\��� (5���5( �5� ·��81]4( ��� L��*Q�� � �-� �P¢ �!�>��%M��(5����g
¼�½�¾ ¿WÀ!Á� Ã\Ä�Å�Æ>Á�Ç Å�Á ÈWÉOÊMË�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å$Ì Ï*Ð�ÑVÅ Ð Ç ÎNÄ5Ò4ÓPÁ�Í5Ì Ð Ç�Ô�Í Á�Ç Á Õ�Ò
Ö Ï\À�Ê'Ë�Ð5Ï*Í5Á�×^×8À!Ï�Ì Î Ì Å�Ø�Ù�Ð�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À-Ç Î À�Ê�Å�Ú�Ç Ð�Ò�ØVÐ5Ï*Ì ×^Ú�ÁNÊ�ÎNÐ Ï�Î�Ê�Á�Ç ÅÌ Ï\Î Ä�Å�Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ*ÁNÈ�Î Ä�Å�Ë-Ì Á�Ç ÁNÕ�Ì Í Ð5Ç�Å Í5ÁNØ'Ò�Ø,Î Å5×4Û Ö Î!Ú5Ê�ÁNÜ�Ì Ý�Å�Ø8Ä�Ð�Ë�Ì Î Ð�ÎÈÁNÊOÞ4Ì Ç Ý�Ç Ì È,Å\Ð5Ï�Ý*Í�Ê�Å5Ð�Î Å�ØVÐ\×4Á Ê�Å\Ä�Á Ø�Ú�Ì ÎNÐ+Ë-Ç Å>Ø�Å�Î2ÎNÌ Ï�ÕVÈ,ÁNÊ8×4Ð5Ï5ÒØPÚ�Å5Í Ì Å�ØVß ÈÁ ÊVÐ>Ê�Å+Ü�Ì Å�ÞàÁ È!Å5Ï5Ü�Ì Ê�Á�Ï�×^Å5Ï�Î Ð5ÇWÌ ×4Ú�Ð5Í+ÎCØVÁNÈ�À�ÊMË-Ð5ÏÈÁNÊ�Å�Ø,ÎCÊ,Ò Ù Ø�Å5Å8á>Þ7Ò�Å�Ê7Å�Î$Ð5Ç Û�¼5âWâWã5ä5ÛWá\Á�Å�ØeÐ�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å\Í5Á�Ï�ÎCÊ�Ì Ë�åÀ�ÎNÅ�ÎNÁ!ÎNÄ�Å\Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎÄ^ÁNÈWÎNÄ�Å�ØPÁ�Í5Ì Ð ÇWÅ Í5ÁNØ'Ò�ØÎ Å5׬Ð�Ø�ÞYÅ5Ç Ç æ
ç Å�ÈÁNÊ�Å�Å�è>Ð5×^Ì Ï�Ì Ï�Õ*é-ê�ë ì ê�ëí�ÎCÊ�Å5Å+ØVÍ5Á�Ï�ÎCÊ�Ì ËWÀ�Î Å�ÎNÁ¦Ð�Ä�Å Ð5Ç Î Ä�ÒØ�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å5Í5Á�Ç Á Õ�Ò5ÙPÌ Î!×^Ì Õ�Ä�Î�Ë�Å�Ê�Å5Ð+ØPÁ�Ï�Ð+Ë�Ç Å�Î Á¦Ð�Ø�îVê�ï éYÎ Ä�Å+Ò^×4Ì Õ�Ä5ÎÝ�Á�Ø�Á�ÛWð¦Ï�Å\Ú�ÁNØ'ØPÌ Ë�Ç Å\Ð5Ï�Ø,Þ4Å�ÊVÍ Á�×4Å+Ø-È Ê�Á�×àÐ>Ë�Á�Ý�ÒYÁNÈ�Þ^ÁNÊ�î\Î Ä�Ð�ÎÄ�Ð�ØOÎ2Ê�Ð5Ý�Ì Î Ì Á�Ï�Ð Ç Ç Ò4Ä�Ð5ÝRÏ�Á ÎNÄ�Ì Ï5Õ7Î Á¦Ý�Á!Þ4Ì Î Ä\ÎCÊ�Å5Å�Ø� ÎNÄ�Å�Ç Ì ÎÅ+Ê�Ð�Î2À�Ê�ÅÁ�Ï^ñ'Ý�Å�ÈÅ5Ï�Ø�Ì Ë-Ç Å�ØPÚ�Ð5Í5Å5Û ò�á\Å�ÈÅ5Ï�Ø�Ì Ë-Ç Å�ØPÚ�Ð Í5Å\ßMá8Óä>ÎNÄ�Å5Á Ê'Ò7ØÀ�Õ�Õ�Å�Ø,ÎCØÎ Ä�Ð�Î�Î Ä�Å8Ú�Ä5Ò�ØPÌ Í Ð5Ç ÈÅ5Ð�Î2À�Ê�Å�ØeÁNÈ-Ð&Ê�Å�Ø�Ì Ý�Å Ï�ÎNÌ Ð5ÇWÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�ÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý4Í5Ð5ÏÄ�Ð�Ü�Å�Ì ×4Ú�ÁNÊ'Î Ð5Ï5Î-Ì ×4Ú�Ð5Í�Î2Ø7Á�Ï\ØÎ2Ê�Å5Ï5Õ�ÎNÄRÁ È�Í5Á�×4×7À-Ï�Ì Î2Ò4Ð Ï�Ý\Ê�Ð�ÎNÅ+ØÁ È�Í�Ê�Ì ×^Å�Ì Ï\Î Ä�Ð+Î-Ï�Å5Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-Á Ê�Ä�Á�Á�ÝRß�óVÅ+Þ4×4Ð5Ïl¼5âWôWã ä5Û�á\Å�È,Å Ï�Ø�Ì Ë-Ç ÅØ�Ú�Ð5Í Å>Î Ä�Å5ÁNÊ'Ò4Ú�Á ØPÌ Î2ØPÙ�Ð5×^Á�Ï�ÕYÁNÎ Ä�Å�Ê>ÎNÄ�Ì Ï�Õ�Ø�ÙNÎ Ä�Ð�Î�ÎNÄ�Å\Ð�Ê�Í5Ä�Ì Î Å5Í5åÎ2À�Ê�Ð5Ç ÈÅ5Ð+ÎCÀ�Ê�Å�Ø7Ð Ï�Ý*Ú�Ä�Ò�Ø�Ì Í5Ð5Ç�Ç Ð�Ò�Á À�Î�ÁNÈWÊ�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å Ï�Î Ì Ð5Ç Ë�À-Ì Ç Ý�Ì Ï�Õ�Ø
Ø,À�Ë�ØÎ Ð5Ï�Î Ì Ð5Ç Ç ÒYÌ Ï�ÈÇ À!Å5Ï�Í Å�Ú�Ð�Î2ÎNÅ+Ê�Ï�ØVÁNÈ-Ì Ï�ÈÁNÊ�×RÐ5ÇWÍ Á�Ï�Î Ð5Í�Î!Ð5×4Á�Ï�ÕÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-Á Ê'Ø7Ð5Ï�ÝRÌ Ï�ÈÁ Ê�×RÐ5Ç Ø,À�Ê'Ü�Å5Ì Ç Ç Ð Ï�Í5Å Û�õ$Á�Ï5Î Ð5Í�Î-Ð5×^Á�Ï5ÕÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�ÁNÊMØVÐ Ï�ÝRÌ Ï�È,ÁNÊ�×RÐ5Ç ØÀ�Ê'Ü�Å Ì Ç Ç Ð5Ï�Í5Å�Ð�Ê�Å5ÙPÌ Ï�ÎCÀ�Ê�Ï�Ù�îWÏ�ÁNÞ4Ï\Î ÁË�Å�Ç Ì Ï�îWÅ5Ý\Î Á!Ø,ÎCÊ�Å5Ï�Õ�Î ÄRÁ ÈOÍ5Á�×4×8À!Ï�Ì Î2Ò4Ð5Ï�Ý*Ç Å�Ü�Å5Ç ØVÁ È�Í�Ê�Ì ×4Å�ß Ø�Å5ÅÃ&Ð�Ò�Ç Á Ê^¼ âW¾�¾$ÈÁ Ê&Ê�Å�Ü�Ì Å+Þ7ä5Û ÉVÇ Î Ä�Á À�Õ�Ä*Ï�ÁNÎ-Ð5Ç Ç�Ì Ï�Î Å�Ê'Ü�Å5Ï�Î Ì Á�Ï5ØË�Ð�Ø�Å5Ý^Á�Ï^á\Ó!Î Ä�Å5Á Ê'ÒYÄ�Ð+Ü�Å>Ë�Å5Å5Ï\ØÀ!Í Í5Å�Ø,ØÈ À-Ç�ß�õ$Ì ØPÏ�Å�Ê�ÁNØY¼5âWâWö5ä5ÙÎ Ä�Å$Ú�Ê�Á�×4Ì Ø�Å�Å ×7Ë�Á�Ý�Ì Å5Ý*Ì Ï*Ì Î2ØOØ�Á�×^Å�Î Ì ×4Å+ØOØ�Ú�Å5Í+ÎNÐ Í�À-Ç Ð+Ê&Ø,À!Í åÍ5Å+ØØ�Å�Ø7Ä�Ð�Ø7Ç Å Ý\ÎNÄ�Å�÷\Û ÓPÛPá8Å5Ú�Ð�ÊMÎN×^Å5Ï�Î!Á È�ÑeÁ À�Ø�Ì Ï�Õ4Ð5Ï�ÝR÷>Ê'Ë-Ð Ïá\Å�Ü�Å5Ç Á�Ú�×^Å5Ï5Î-ß�ÑV÷8á>ä�Ð Ï�ÝRÁ Î Ä�Å+Ê'Ø&Î Á¦Ì Ï5Ü�Å+Ø'Î-×4Ì Ç Ç Ì Á�Ï�Ø8ÁNÈOÝ�Á�Ç Ç Ð�Ê�ØÌ Ï�Ê�Å Ä�Ð�Ë�Ì Ç Ì Î Ð+ÎNÌ Ï5Õ4Ú5À�Ë�Ç Ì Í�Ä�ÁNÀ�Ø�Ì Ï�Õ^Ð5Ï�ÝRÁNÎ Ä�Å+Ê\Ï�Å Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�Á Ê�Ä�Á�Á�Ý�Ø7Ì ÏÇ Ì Ï�Å�Þ^Ì Î ÄAá�ÓOÕ�À-Ì Ý�Å Ç Ì Ï�Å+Ø�ß+÷\Û ÓPÛ�ÑV÷�áø¼ â�â�¾�ù�óVÅCÞ4×RÐ Ï´¼Nâ�âWúNä Û
Ö È�Ý�Å+ÈÅ5Ï�Ø�Ì Ë�Ç Å�ØPÚ�Ð Í5Å�ÎNÄ�Å5ÁNÊ'Ò4Ì ØVÍ5Á Ê'Ê�Å5Í�Î ÙNÎÄ�Å5Ï\Ü�Ì Î Ð5Ç ÙNÞ4Å5Ç Ç å À�Ø�Å ÝÊ�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å5Ï�Î Ì Ð5Ç�ÁNÀ�Î Ý�Á�ÁNÊOØ�Ú�Ð5Í Å�Ø�ØPÄ�Á À!Ç ÝRÚ�Ç Ð�ÒYÐ�Í+Ê'À!Í5Ì Ð5ÇNÊ�Á�Ç Å\Ì ÏØ,Î2Ê�ÅNÏ�Õ�Î Ä�Å5Ï�Ì Ï�Õ^Í Á�×^×8À-Ï�Ì Î2Ò^Ð5Ï�Ý*Ý�Å+Î Å+Ê'Ê�Ì Ï5Õ^Í+Ê�Ì ×4Å Û É7Ç Î Ä�ÁNÀ�Õ�ÄÝ�Å+ÈÅ Ï�Ø�Ì Ë�Ç Å&Ø�Ú�Ð5Í5Å&Î Ä�Å5ÁNÊMÒVØPÐ+Ò�Ø!Ü�Å�Ê'Ò¤Ç Ì Î2Î Ç Å\Ð�Ë�Á À�Î�Ü�Å�Õ�Å�Î Ð�ÎNÌ Á�Ï^Ú�Å+ÊØ�Å5Ù ÎÄ�Å�Î Ä�Å5ÁNÊMÒ4Í5Ç Å5Ð�Ê�Ç Ò4ÄWÐ�ØVÌ ×4Ú�Ç Ì Í5Ð+ÎNÌ Á�Ï5Ø�ÈÁ Ê\Ï�Ð�Î2À�Ê�Ð Ç Ù�Ð�ØOÞ4Å5Ç Ç�Ð�ØËWÀ!Ì Ç Î Ù5ÈÅ Ð�ÎCÀ�Ê�Å�ئÁNÈ�Ê�Å�Ø�Ì ÝWÅ5Ï�Î Ì Ð5ÇWÁNÀ�Î Ý�Á�ÁNÊ�ØPÚ�Ð Í5Å�Ø�Û Ö È�ÎNÄ�Å7Ú�Ê�Å�ØPÅ Ï�Í ÅÁNÈ�ÎCÊ�Å5Å+ØAÐ5Ï�ÝVÕ�Ê�Ð�Ø,Ø¦Ì ÏVÎÄ�Å�Ø�ÅOØ�Ú�Ð5Í5Å�ئÅ5Ï�Í ÁNÀ�Ê�Ð�Õ�Å�Ø!Ê�Å�Ø�Ì Ý�Å5Ï�Î2Ø�û,À�Ø�ÅÁNÈ�ÎÄ�Å�Ø�ÅOØ�Ú�Ð5Í5Å�Ø�Ù�Ú�Å�Ê�Ä�Ð Ú�Ø!Î Ä�Å�Ø�ÅOÈÅ Ð�ÎCÀ�Ê�Å�Ø!ÎÁ�ÁRÍ Ð5ÏYÚ�Ç Ð�Ò¤ÐOÊ�Á�Ç Å\Ì ÏØ,Î2Ê�Å Ï5Õ�Î Ä�Å5Ï�Ì Ï5Õ4Í Á�×^×7À�Ï�Ì Î2Ò^Ð5Ï�ÝRÝ�Å�Î Å+Ê'Ê�Ì Ï5Õ^Í+Ê�Ì ×^Å5Û
á8Á�Å+ئÐ�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç ÎCÀ�Ê�Å Ù�Ì Ï7ÈÐ5Í�Î Ù�Í5Á�Ï�ÎCÊ�Ì ËWÀ�ÎÅ&ÎNÁ�Î Ä�Å8Ä�Å5Ð5Ç Î Ä4ÁNÈÎ Ä�Å�Ø�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,Î Å5×7æ Ö ÏRÐ5Ï\À�Ê'Ë-Ð ÏRÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�ËOÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý�Ù ÞYÅ�×^Ì Õ�Ä�ÎÐ Ú�Ú5Ê5Á�Ð5Í Ä\ÎNÄ�Ì Ø7ü À!Å�Ø,Î Ì Á�Ï*Ì ÏRÐ�Ü�Ð�Ê�Ì Å�Î2Ò4ÁNÈWÞ4Ð+Ò�Ø�Û ýdÅ�×^Ì Õ�Ä�Î!Ð+ØPîÞ4Ä�Å+Î Ä�Å�Ê�Î2Ê�Å5Å�ØeÚ�Ç Ð�Ò¤Ð>Ê�Á�Ç Å8Ì Ï8ÎNÄ�Å8Ú�Ð�Î2ÎNÅ+Ê�Ï�ØVÁNÈ!Ì Ï�ÎNÅ+Ê'Ê�Å5Ç Ð�ÎNÌ Á�ÏÐ ×4Á�Ï5Õ4Ý�Ì È ÈÅ+Ê�Å5Ï�Î�Ê�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å Ï�Î�Ø,À�Ë�Ú�Á�Ú�À!Ç Ð+ÎNÌ Á�Ï�Ø�Û ýdÅ$×4Ì Õ�Ä5Î!Ð+Ø�îÞ4Ä�Å+Î Ä�Å�Ê�Î2Ê�Å5Å�ØeÐ�È ÈÅ5Í+Î�Ú�Ð+ÎCÎ Å�Ê�Ï�ØeÁNÈ�Î Å�Ê'Ê�Ì ÎNÁ Ê'ÒVÞYÌ Î Ä�Ì Ï7ÎNÄ�Å8Ï�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�åË�ÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý4ÁNÊ7Ú�Ð�Î2Î Å�Ê�Ï�ØeÁ È�Ê�Å�Ø�ÁNÀ�Ê�Í5Å\Å�è>Í5Ä�Ð5Ï�Õ�Å5Û ÉVÏ�Ý8ÞYÅ\×4Ì Õ�Ä�ÎÐ�Ø�î\Þ4Ä�Å�Î Ä�Å�Ê�Î2Ê�Å5Å�ئÅ5Ï�Ä�Ð5Ï�Í5Å&Ê�Å�Ø�Ì Ý�Å5Ï�Î�Ú�Á�Ú�À-Ç Ð�ÎNÌ Á�Ï�Ø�û�Í5Ð Ú�Ð5Í5Ì ÎCÒeÎÁÊ�Å�Ø�Ì ØÎ$Ì Ï�Í�À�ÊMØPÌ Á�Ï^ÁNÊVÁ À�Î2Ø�Ì Ý�Å&Î Ä�Ê�Å Ð�ÎCØ�Û Ã>Á$ÎNÄWÅ8Å�èPÎ Å5Ï�Î�Î Ä�Ð�ÎÐ�ÊMË�ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å8Í5Á�Ï�Î2Ê�Ì ËWÀ�ÎNÅ�Ø-Î Á*Ð8Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ5ÒeØPÁPÍ5Ì Ð5ÇWÅ5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,Î Å5×4Ù5Þ4ÅÞ4ÁNÀ�Ç ÝRÅ�è>Ú�Å Í�Î-ÁNÎ Ä�Å+Ê'Þ4Ì Ø�Å�ØPÌ ×^Ì Ç Ð+Ê&À�ÊMË-Ð ÏRÐ�Ê5Å5Ð�ØOÞ4Ì ÎNÄ*Ð5Ï�ÝÞ4Ì ÎNÄ�Á À�Î�ÎCÊ�Å5Å�Ø-ÎNÁAÝ�Ì È ÈÅ�Ê8Ì Ï8Ø�Á�×4Å8Á ÊVÐ5Ç ÇWÁNÈ�Î Ä�Å�Ø�Å>Ê�Å�Ø�Ú�Å5Í�Î2ØPÛ
Ã!ÄWÌ Ø�ÐCÊ�Î,Ì ÍNÇ ÅWÊ5ÅCÜ�Ì ÅCÞ\Ø�È'Ì ÏWÝWÌ Ï Õ�Ø�È Ê5ÁP×þÐ-Ç Ì ÏWÅOÁÈ�Ì Ï Ü�ÅCØ'Î,Ì Õ�ÐCÎ,Ì ÁPÏÐNÝWÝNÊ�ÅCØ'Ø�Ì Ï ÕRÚ5Ê5ÅNÍNÌ Ø�ÅNÇ Ò\Î,ÄWÅCØ�Å!ü À-ÅCØ'Î,Ì ÁPÏ Ø�ÛɤØ�Å+Ê Ì ÅCØ\Á È&Ç Ð+Ê�Õ�ÅNå Ø�ÍNÐNÇ ÅØMÎ ÀOÝ�Ì Å2Ø$ÍNÁ�ÏWÝNÀ�Í2Î,ÅNÝVÌ ÏVÌ Ï�Ï�ÅCÊ,åCÍ Ì Î ÒAõ�ÄWÌ Í ÐCÕ�Á�Ù Ö Ç Ç Ì Ï�ÁPÌ Ø�Ù�÷$Û Ó�Û ÙMØMÒ�ØMÎ,Å ×RÐ2Î'Ì åÍNÐNÇ Ç ÒAÍNÁP×RÚWÐCÊ5ÅNÝ!Ë�À�Ì Ç ÝWÌ ÏNÕ�Ø�ÐNÏWÝ!Ø�Ú�ÐNÍNÅCØ�Þ^Ì ÎÄ�Ü�Ð+Ê�Ò�Ì Ï5ÕAÇ ÅCÜ�ÅNÇ Ø�ÁÈPÎ Ê5Å ÅÐNÏWÝ-Õ�Ê5ÐCØ'Ø\ÍNÁÜ�Å+Ê�Þ^ÄWÌ Ç Å!Í ÁPÏ Î Ê5ÁPÇ Ç Ì Ï Õ�È'Á Ê$Ï À�×RÅCÊ5ÁÀWØ>Ø�ÁPÍNÌ ÐNÇ�ÐNÏ�ÝÅNÏ Ü�Ì Ê5Á�ÏW×RÅNÏ ÎÐNÇ È'ÐNÍ+Î,ÁÊMØ�Û�ñ�ÿ�Ê5Å ÅNÏWÅCÊ�ò�Ø�ÅCÎ ÎÌ Ï Õ�ØOÞ^ÅCÊ�Å�Í ÁP×RÚWÐCÊ�ÅNÝ8Î,ÁÐCÊ5ÍNÄWÌ ÎÅNÍ+Î À�Ê5ÐNÇ Ç ÒRÍ ÁP×RÚWÐCÊ5ÐCËOÇ Å$ÁÊ\Ì ÝWÅNÏ ÎÌ ÍNÐNÇ�ÍNÁÀOÏ5Î,Å+Ê5ÚWÐCÊMÎ Ø8Ì Ï�ÎÅCÊ5×\ØÁÈ�ÎÄ�ÅNÌ Ê\ÚWÅCÊ�È,ÁÊ5×RÐNÏ�ÍNÅ$ÁPÏAÐ�ÞRÌ ÝWÅ�Ê5Ð Ï Õ�Å$ÁÈOÅNÍNÁØ'Ò�ØMÎÅN×Ì ÏWÝWÌ ÍNÐ+Î,Á Ê�Ø�Û
GENERAL METHODÉlÜ�Ð+Ê�Ì Å+ÎCÒYÁNÈ-×^Å5Ð�Ø,À�Ê�Å�Ø�ÙNÊ�Å�Ø�Å5Ð�Ê�Í5Ä^Ý�Å�Ø�Ì Õ�Ï5ØPÙ�Ð5Ï�Ý8Ø,ÎNÐ+ÎNÌ Ø,ÎNÌ Í5Ð5ÇNÎNÁ�Á�Ç ØÞ4Å�Ê�Å�À�Ø�Å5Ý^Ì Ï\ÎNÄ�Ì ØVÇ Ì Ï�Å�ÁNÈWÞYÁ Ê�î�ùNÎ Ä�Å�Ú�Ð�Ê'Î Ì Í+À!Ç Ð�Ê'ØVÁNÈ�Ý�Ì È È,Å�Ê�Å5Ï�Î
������������ ��������� ������������ "!#���$�� ����&%
THE ROLE OF ARBORICULTURE IN A HEALTHY
SOCIAL ECOLOGYby Frances E. Kuo
')($*,+.-0/213+34 Ö Ï\À�ÊMË�Ð5ÏRÍ5Á�×4×8À!Ï�Ì ÎNÌ Å�Ø�Ù�Ð�ÊMË-ÁNÊ�Ì Í�À-Ç Î2À�Ê�Å�Í5Ç Å5Ð+Ê�Ç ÒÍ5Á�Ï�Î2Ê�Ì ËWÀ�Î Å�Ø�ÎNÁ!Î Ä�Å�Ä�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄRÁNÈ�Î Ä�Å>Ë�Ì Á�Ç ÁNÕ�Ì Í5Ð5Ç�Å5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,ÎNÅ ×^ù�Ý�Á�Å�ØVÌ ÎÍ5Á�Ï�Î2Ê�Ì ËWÀ�Î Å>ÎNÁ$Î Ä�Å8Ä�Å5Ð5Ç Î Ä^ÁNÈ�ÎNÄ�Å>Ø�Á�Í5Ì Ð5ÇWÅ5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,Î Å5×»Ð�Ø-Þ^Å5Ç Ç æÔ�Ü�Ì Ý�Å Ï�Í Å�È Ê�Á�× Ø,Î2À-Ý�Ì Å�Ø8Ì Ï*Ì Ï�Ï�Å�Ê�å�Í5Ì Î Ò^õ$Ä�Ì Í5Ð+Õ�Á-Ø,À�Õ�Õ�Å�Ø,Î2Ø&Ø�Á�Û Ö Ï*ÐØPÅ�Ê�Ì Å�ØeÁNÈ�Ø,Î2À!Ý�Ì Å�ØVÌ Ï�Ü�Á�Ç Ü�Ì Ï�Õ¤Á Ü�Å�ÊY¼ Ù 57676^Ú�Å+Ê'ØPÁ�Ï,8�Ø�Ú�Ð5Í5Å\ÁNËWØ�Å�Ê�åÜ�Ð�Î Ì Á�Ï�Ø�Ù�½2676AÌ Ï5Î Å+Ê'Ü�Ì Å�Þ7Ø�Ù�Ä�ÁNÀ�Ø�Ì Ï�Õ^Ð+À�Î Ä�ÁNÊ�Ì Î2Ò7Ê�Å Í5ÁNÊ�Ý5ØPÙPÐ5Ï�ÝRãÒ�Å5Ð�Ê'ØAÁNÈ$Ú�Á�Ç Ì Í5Å7Í+Ê�Ì ×^Å�Ê�Å Ú�ÁNÊ'Î2ØPÙ�Î2Ê�Å5Å8Ð5Ï�ÝVÕ�Ê�Ð�Ø,ØAÍ5Á Ü�Å�Ê-Þ4Å�Ê�ÅØÒ�Ø,Î Å5×4Ð�Î Ì Í Ð5Ç Ç Ò4Ç Ì Ï�îWÅ5Ý\Î Á¦Ð>Þ4Ì Ý�Å�Ê�Ð Ï�Õ�Å�ÁNÈWØ�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å Í5ÁNØ,Ò�ØÎ Å5×Ì Ï�Ý�Ì Í Ð�Î ÁNÊ'Ø�ÛNÃ�Ä�Å+Ø�Å�Ì Ï�Ý�Ì Í5Ð�Î ÁNÊ'Ø7Ì Ï�Í5Ç À-Ý�Å5Ý\Ø,Î2Ê�Á�Ï5Õ�Å�Ê&Î Ì Å+ØVÐ ×^Á�Ï�ÕÏ�Å5Ì Õ�Ä�Ë-Á Ê'ØPÙ Õ�Ê�Å5Ð+Î Å�Ê�Ø�Å5Ï�Ø�Å8ÁNÈ�Ø�Ð�ÈÅ�Î2ÒYÐ5Ï�Ý4Ð5Ý:9'À�Ø,ÎN×^Å5Ï�ÎNÙW×^ÁNÊ�ÅØÀ!Ú�Å+Ê'Ü�Ì ØPÌ Á�Ï^ÁNÈ�Í Ä�Ì Ç Ý�Ê�Å5ÏRÌ Ï^ÁNÀ�ÎNÝ�Á�Á ÊOØ�Ú�Ð5Í5Å�Ø�ÙWÄ�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ�Ì Å�Ê8Ú�Ð+ÎCÎ Å�Ê�Ï�ØÁNÈ�Í5Ä�Ì Ç Ý�Ê�Å Ï�û ØVÚ�Ç Ð+Ò�Ù�×^ÁNÊ�Å�À�ØPÅ$ÁNÈ�Ï�Å Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-Á Ê�Ä�Á�Á�ÝRÍ5Á�×^×^Á�ÏØPÚ�Ð5Í Å�ØPÙ ÈÅ�Þ4Å�Ê8Ì Ï�Í Ì Ü�Ì Ç Ì Î Ì Å�ØPÙ ÈÅ�Þ4Å�Ê8Ú�Ê�Á�Ú�Å�Ê'Î2Ò4Í�Ê�Ì ×4Å�Ø�Ù�Ð5Ï�Ý\ÈÅ+ÞYÅ�ÊÜ�Ì Á�Ç Å5Ï5Î!Í+Ê�Ì ×4Å�Ø�ÛÃ\Ä�Å�Ç Ì Ï�î$Ë�Å�Î2Þ4Å5Å5ÏAÐ�Ê'Ë�ÁNÊ�Ì Í+À!Ç Î2À�Ê�Å$Ð5Ï�Ý*ÐÄ�Å5Ð5Ç ÎNÄ�Ì Å�Ê&ØPÁ�Í5Ì Ð Ç�Å5Í5ÁNØ,Ò�Ø,ÎNÅ5×®Î2À�Ê�Ï�ØVÁ À�Î�ÎNÁ!Ë-Å�Ø,À�Ê�Ú�Ê�Ì Ø�Ì Ï�Õ�Ç ÒØPÌ ×4Ú�Ç Å�Î Á¦Å�è>Ú�Ç Ð Ì Ï�Û Ö Ï\Ê�Å+ØPÌ Ý�Å Ï�Î Ì Ð Ç�Ð+Ê�Å5Ð�Ø�ÙNË�Ð�Ê'Ê�Å5Ï�Ù ÎCÊ�Å5Å5Ç Å+Ø,ØØPÚ�Ð5Í Å�ØVÁNÈ Î Å5Ï\Ë-Å Í5Á�×4Å\ñMÏ�ÁA×^Ð5Ï�û Ø7Ç Ð Ï�Ý�ØPÙ ò�ÞYÄ�Ì Í5ÄRÝ�Ì ØPÍ5Á À�Ê�Ð�Õ�ÅÊ�Å�ØPÌ Ý�Å5Ï5Î$Ì Ï�ÎNÅ+Ê�Ð5Í+Î Ì Á�Ï^Ð Ï�Ý^Ì Ï5Ü�Ì Î Å\Í�Ê�Ì ×4Å5ÛNÃ\Ä�Å\Ú�Ê�Å�Ø�Å5Ï�Í Å�ÁNÈ�ÎCÊ�Å Å�ØÐ5Ï�Ý\Þ4Å Ç Ç å�×^Ð5Ì Ï�ÎÐ5Ì Ï�Å5Ý\Õ�Ê�Ð�Ø,Ø7Í5Ð5Ï�Î2Ê�Ð Ï5ØÈ,ÁNÊ�× Î Ä�Å�Ø�Å�Ï�Á¦×RÐ5Ï�û ØÇ Ð Ï�Ý5Ø8Ì Ï5Î ÁVÚ�Ç Å Ð�Ø�Ð5Ï5ÎÙ Þ^Å5Ç Í5Á�×^Ì Ï5Õ�ÙÞ^Å Ç Ç å À�Ø�Å Ý�Ø�Ú�Ð Í Å�Ø�Û<;7Ì ÎÐ Ç ÙÞ4Å Ç Ç åÀ�ØPÅ5Ý4Ï�Å Ì Õ�Ä5Ë-ÁNÊ�ÄWÁ�Á�Ý4Í5Á�×4×4Á�ÏVØ�Ú�Ð Í Å�Ø!Ø�Å�Ê'Ü�Å&ÎNÁ�Ë�ÁNÎ ÄØÎ2Ê�Å5Ï�Õ�Î Ä�Å5Ï8Î Ì Å+ØVÐ5×4Á�Ï5ÕeÊ�Å�ØPÌ Ý�Å5Ï5ÎCØVÐ Ï�Ý^Ý�Å�Î Å�Ê7Í�Ê�Ì ×^Å5Ù Î Ä�Å�Ê�Å�ËWÒÍ�Ê�Å5Ð�Î Ì Ï5Õ´Ä�Å5Ð5Ç Î Ä�Ì Å�Ê�Ù�ØPÐ+ÈÅ�ʦÏ�Å Ì Õ�Ä�Ë�ÁNÊ�Ä�Á�Á�Ý�Ø�Û=?>3@�ACB -0D$*24 Ó�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç�Å5Í Á�Ç ÁNÕ�Ò�ùNØ,Î Ê�Å Ï�Õ�Î ÄRÁ È�Í5Á�×^×7À!ÏWÌ ÎCÒ�ù
Í�Ê�Ì ×^Å5ù Ø�Á�Í5Ì Ð5Ç Ë�ÅNÏ�Å+ÈÌ Î2Ø�ù Ê�Å+Ø�Ì Ý�Å5Ï5Î Ì Ð5Ç Û
EGF2HI0J0KML3NMOGPQJ0R2S�L.TUJ0L3V WXK�P YZK2L3[?\ H7]X^G_G`�a OXbc\7d7d ^
e Y K�f7V [ ehg V Y<i7V N�Yji7V e P V N7[�J<RhV NGk�[ e YjV l�OZYjV JmN�f2V R Rn[ZLG[�f�W�J�N e V fQ[oL,OoTUP b�pqMJ<L$Y<i2[)rGK2L,r2J e [�J<RQYji2V e LG[ok�V [ g?s JmN2P b�O�TQL,V [oRUJ<k�[oL:k�V [ g JjRt [oY<i2Jmf2JmP J<l3b�V e rGL,J<k�V f2[�f�i2[oL,[�p�u?[ZYjO�V P [�f�f2[ e WoL,V rGYjV JmN e J<RQYji2[t [oY<i2Jmf2JmP J<l3bvRnJjL$Y<i7[)W�JmN e Y<V YwK�[�NGY e Y K�f2V [ evt Oob?T�[MRnJ<K�N7f�V N)Y<i2[J<L,V l�V N7O�P x,J<K7L3N7O�P3OoLXYjV W0P [ e p&y&V t V P OoL,P b s Yni2[ e r2[�W0V RnV W e YjOoYjV e YjV W0O0P[Xk�V f2[�N2W�[�K�N2f2[oLGP b�V NGl�[�O�W�i�P V N2z)L,[�r7J<L:Yj[�f�i2[oL,[)W�O�N{T�[MR.J<K�N2f�V NY<i2[�J<LGV l�V N2O0P x,J<K2LGN2O0P�OoL:YjV W�P [ e p&|ZN t O�N�b�W0O e [ e&s O�P V N2z�T�[oY g [�[�NYwL,[�[{W�J<k�[oLvO�N2f�O0N�J<K2Y<W�J t [)V e f2JmWoK t [�NGY<[�f�N2J0Y�JmN2P b}Tmbe YjOoY<V e YjV W�O�P&[ok�V f2[0N2W�[�J<RhO�L,[�P OoY<V JmN e i2V r)T7K2YUO�P e J�TQb t [�f2V OZYjV JmNY<[ e Y e [o~$O t V N7V N�l{Y<i7[�rGL,J�r2J e [�f t [�W0i7O�N2V e3t O�N2f�T7b�N�K t [ZL,J<K e3se J t [oY<V t [ e f2J<�7[0N e J<R s<e Y<OoYjV e Y<V WGO�P<Yj[ e Y e RnJ<Lvr2J<Y<[�NGYjV O�PmW�JmN�RnJ<K�N2f2�V NGl?RnO�WoYjJ<L e pn��i7V P [�O�P PnRnV N2f7V NGl e L,[�r2JjL:Y<[0f�i2[oLG[ g [oL,[ e YjOoYnV e Y<V W�O�P P be V l�N2V RnV W�O�NGY s V Y e i7J<K�P f{TU[)N2J<Yj[�f{Y<i2OoYQTUJ<Y<i�[oR Rj[�WoY e V �7[ e O�N7fWG[oL:YjO�V NGY b�P [ok�[�P e k�OoL,V [�f#O�WoL,J e.e f2V R Rn[oLG[�NGY)O�N2O�P b e [ e O�N2f�f7V R Rn[oL,[�NGYe Y K�f2V [ e pj�{i7[)r�K7L,r2J e [�J<RmYji2V e L,[ok�V [ g V e Y<J�V NGY L,Jm�f,K�W�[MY<i2[)W�J t�t JmN2O�P V YjV [ e J<RQYji2[ g J<LGz�O e O g i2JmP [OGN2f{YjJ�O�f2fGL,[ ene O{P OoL:l$[oL�YjiM[ t [)N2J<Y7R K�P P bvYwL,[�OoY<[�f�V NOGNGb�J<RQYji2[)W�JmN e YjV YwK�[�NGY e YwK�f2V [ en� Y<i7[ML,[�P OoYjV JmN e i2V rT�[oY g [�[�N?Y LG[�[ e O0N2f�O{i2[�O�P Y<iGb e JmW�V O�P�[�W�JmP J<l3b0p
Setting and Overall Research Design|ZN�[Z~$O t V N7V N�l?YjiQ[�r7JjYj[0N�YjV O0P�[ZR R.[�WZY e JnRmY LG[0[ e J�N�Oi2[0O0P Yni�b e J�W0V O0P3[0W<JmP Jjl3b s Yni7[�W0i7O�P P [0N�l2[ g O e YjJhRnV N7f�Oe [ZY YjV N�l�V N g i7V W0i�Yji7[�r�LG[ e [0N7W�[�J<R�Y LG[0[ e�g O eV N7f2[0r7[0N2f7[0N�Y�JjRUJ<Yni2[ZLhR.O0WoYnJ<L e P V zQ[0P bvYjJ�OZR Rn[0WZYMYni2[e J�W0V O0P3[0W0J�P Jjl,b0p3|wfQ[0O0P P b s O0N�b�N7[0V lMi�TUJjL<i7J�J�f e$g [e Y K�f7V [�f g JjK�P f t [0[ZYmRnJjK7L�WZL,V Yj[ZLGV O0p3qQV L e Y s O�r7JjYn[0N�YjV O0PL,[ e [0OZLGW�i e [ZY YjV N�l�i7O0f)YjJ}i2OZkM[MkMOZL,V OoYnV J�N�V N�Yji7[O t JjK�N�YUJjR�l,LG[0[0NW0J<kM[ZL)V t�t [0f7V OZYj[0P b�J<K7Y e V f7[L,[ e V f2[0N7W0[ e:� R L,J t r7P O0W0[ e Yji7OoY g [ZLG[MR K�P P�JjRhr7P O0NGY eYjJ�r2P O�W0[ e Yji7OZY g [oLG[MTUOZL:LG[0N�JjRUr7P O0N�Y e p&y&[0W0JmN7f s[�N�kMV LGJ�N t [0N�YjO0P�R:[0OZY K7L,[ e JjYji7[ZLUYji7O�N{k�[ZlM[ZYjOZYjV J�Ne i7J<K�P f�TU[�i2[0P fW0JmN e YnO0NGYUO0WZLGJ e:e L,[ e V f2[0N7W0[ e pn�)i2V L,f sL,[ e V f7[0N�Y e$e i7JjK�P f�TU[7LGO0N2f7J t P b�O e.e V l2N7[0f�YnJL,[ e V f2[0N7W0[ e JjLvO e:e V l�N7[0f�V L:LG[ e r7[0WoYnV kM[)JjR7Yji7[{O t JjK�N�YJ<R�l,L�[0[�N�W0JjkM[oLnp3q7V N2O0P P b s L�[ e V f2[0N�Y e$e iQJjK�P f�i2OZkM[�N7JV N�RnP K�[0N7W0[)J<kM[ZL�Yni7[ t O�V N�Yj[0N2O0N7W0[)J<RmYni2[�kM[ZlM[oYnOoYnV J�NN2[0OZL�Yji7[�V L{i7J t [<p��[�RjJ<K�NMf{Y g JrGK2T�P V W)iMJ<K e V N,l�f2[ok$[�P Jmr t [�N,Y e V N���i2V W�OXl�J
Y0iMOoY t [XYMY<iM[ e [{WZL3V Y<[XL,V O `Q� J<T�[oL.YM�hOXb�P J0Lv�J t [ e OGNMf?Y<iM[)|ZfMO{�Mp��[GP P e iMJ<K e V N,l#f7[Xk$[�P JQr t [GN,Y<pm��OGWGi�fM[Xk�[GP JQr t [GNGY�iMO e rMJmWGz7[XY eJ0R�YwL3[G[ e OGNMf}l&L3O ene O e�g [GP P7O e [X~�rMOGN e [ e J0RMT�OoL.L3[GN#OXL3[GO ] qMV l&KML3[EX_ pm��O�WGi�f2[Xk�[GP Jmr t [�N,Y�V eUe YwL3V z7V N,l�P b�WGJmN e V e Y<[GNGY�V N�OXL,WGi7V Y<[GWXYwK2L3[�pS�YMY<iM[$Y<V t [{J0R�J<KML e YZK�fMV [ e�s � J0T�[XL:Y2�hOXb$P J0Lv�J t [ e W�JQN e V e Y<[Gf�J0R\7��V f2[GNGY<V WGO�P E�� � e Y<J0L:b�OGr2OXL:Y t [GNGY2TQK�V P f2V N,l e P O�V f�J0K2Y�V N e V NGl�P [RjV P [{O�P JQNGl#O F p �7�oz t WGJ0LXL3V fMJ<L<pm��OGW�i{T7K�V P f2V N,l�OXY � J<T�[XL:Y7�hOXb�P J<L�J t [ e�g O e T�J0L,fM[XL3[�f�JQN?Y0i2[ g [ e Y2T2b#OGN�V N,Y<[XL e Y0OoY0[{i2V l�i g OobOGNMf?L3OGV P L3JQO�f?YZL,O�WGz e O�NMf�JQN?Y<iM[{[�O e YMT7b#O e V ~��XP OGNM[ t K�NMV WGV rMOGPY0i2J0L�J0K2l$i,RnOXLG[{O�N2f g V fM[ e V f2[ g O�P z7p<�{i2[{|of2O{�2p<��[�P P e fM[Zk$[�P JQrM�t [�N,Y�V N2WGP K�fM[�f E \ F P J g � L3V e [ ] \7�&Y<J F � e Y<J0L:b _ O�rMOoL.Y t [GN�YT7K�V P fMV NGl e P O�V f�JjK2Y�JmN�O$Y b$r2V W�OGPjl3L3V f�r2OoYwY<[oL3N2pm��i2V W�OXl�J���J0K e V NGlS�KMY<iMJ0L3V Ywb#rMJQP V W0V [ e L3[ e K�P Y�V N�fM[$RjO�WXYjJ�L3OGNMfMJ t O eje V l$N t [GN,Y�J<RL3[ e V fM[�N,Y e Y<J�OGrMOoL:Y t [GN,YMT7K�V P fMV N,l e R.J0LhT�J<Y0i�f2[Xk$[GP JQr t [GN,Y e�s
OGN2fvL3[ e V fM[GN,Y e i2OXk$[?NMJ�V N,RjP K�[GN2WG[vJ<k$[XLUY0iM[{P JQWGOXY<V JQN#J<Lt O�V N,Y<[GNMO�NMWG[?J0R2YwL3[G[ e J<LUl&L3O ene OXY)[�V Y<iM[XL}f2[ok$[GP Jmr t [GN,Y<p0�?i,K e&sY<i,LGJ<KMl$iMJ0K2Y�Y0i2V e LG[Xk$V [ g?s OGP PQWGJ t rMOXL3V e JQN e T�[XY g [G[�N#� l&LG[G[GN2[XL3�OGN2f��.P [ eje l&L3[�[GNM� e [XYwY0V NGl e L3[XRj[oL�Y0J e [XYwY<V NGl e�g iMV WGi#OoL3[v[GV Y0i2[XLL3J<KMl�iMP b t OXY<WGiM[Gf�J<L}V f7[GN,Y<V WGOGPQV N�O?iMJ e Y�J<R�OXL3WGi2V Y<[GWXYwKML3OGPWGi2OXL,OGWXY<[XL3V e Y<V W e OGNMf�L3[ e V f2[GN,Y�WGiMOXL,OGWXY<[XL3V e YjV W e p| Y e iMJ0K�P f?T�[{NMJ0Y<[Gf{Y<iMOXY s V N?Y<iM[ e YZK�fMV [ e L3[�rMJ0L.Y<[Gf�iM[oL3[ s
L3OoY0V N,l e J0R{� l&L3[G[�NMNM[ ene ��O�NMf�� l&L3[G[GNcWGJ0k$[XL3� t OXb�T�[�L,[Xl$OXL3fM[GfO e LGJ0K2l$iMP bc[G��K�V k$OGP [GN,YMY<J{L,OXY0V N,l e J<R�� YwL,[�[?WGJ<k$[XL<p �7S�P Y<iMJ0KMl$i� l3L3[�[GNMNM[ ene ��OGNMfc� l&L3[G[�NcWGJ<k$[XL3� g [oL3[�f2[XRjV NM[Gf�Y0J�V NMWGP K�fM[Ul&L3O eneWGJ<k�[XL s Y0iM[vO t J0K�N,Y)J0RMY L3[G[?WGJ0k$[XL�V N#O e WG[GN2[vV e Ohk$[oL.b e YwLGJQN,lr,L,[�fMV WXY0J0L}J0R�J0k$[XL3OGP Pox.K�f,l t [GN,Y e J0RMl&L,[G[GNMN2[ ene&� T2bcWGJQN,YwL3O e Y s Y0i7[O t J<K�N,Y)J0RMl&L3O ene W�J0k$[XL}OGrMr2[GOXL e Y<J�WGJQNGYZL3V TQKMY0[?P V YZY<P [hY0J{L,OXY0V N,l eJ0RUl3L3[G[�NMNM[ ene p
RESULTSWelcoming Residents OutdoorsS���K�OXL.Y<[XL0�XWG[GN,YwKMLnb�J0RMLG[ e [GOXLGWGi ] RnJ0L�L,[Xk$V [ g{sGe [G[v��OGr2P OGN#OGNMf��OGr2P OGN E�H � H�_ iMO e V N2fMV WGOXY<[Gf?Y<iMOXY s V N?l$[�NM[oL3O�P s KML.T�OGN�J0K2Y0f2JQJ0LOXL,[GO e�g V Y<i}YZL3[�[ e OXL3[ e K7T e Y0O�N,Y0V OGP P b t J<L3[}rGL,[XRj[XL.L3[Gf}Y<iMOGNe V t V P OoL e [XYwY<V NGl ehg V Y<iMJ<K7Y2YwL3[�[ e pmy�J t [)i2J0K e V N,l�OoKMY<i2J0L,V Ywbt OGN2OXl$[oL e�s iMJ g [Xk$[oL s i2Ook$[$Y0i2[$T�[�P V [XR7Y<iMOXY�P J g �XV NMWGJ t [�SUR L3V WGO�NS t [XL3V WGOGN e fMJQNM� Y�k$O�P K�[�YZL,[G[ ej� Y<iMOXYMYZL,[G[ e OZL,[?O t V fMf2P [G�XWGP O ener,L,[oRn[XL,[GNMWG[Gp a J0L,[GJ0k$[oL s V N#rMJQJ0L�V NMN2[XL0�XWGV YZbcNM[GV l$i,T�J<L3i2JQJQf eY<iM[XLG[{V e Y<iM[{WGJmNMWG[XL&N?Y<i2OXY2YwL,[G[ e L3[�f,K�WG[$k$V e V T�V P V YwbGpm�J0K e V N,lOXK2Y0i2J<L3V Ywb t O�NMOXl$[XL e OGN2f�rMJQP V WG[ e KMl3l$[ e Y�Y<i2OXYMYwL3[G[ e�t OGz7[L3[ e V fM[GN,Y e Rj[G[GP0K�N e OXRj[ � V R e J s Y<iM[vrGL3[ e [GNMWG[{J0RMYwL3[G[ e V NvY0iMV ee [XYwY<V N,l t V l$i,Y�OGWXYwK�OGP P b t OGz7[?J0KMY<fMJQJ0L e rMO�WG[ e P [ ene OXYwYwL3OGWXY<V k�[OGN2f�P [ ene K e OXT�P [GpQ�J g fMJ�rMJQJ0LUKML:T�OGNvL3[ e V fM[GN,Y e L3[ e rMJQNMfvY<JYwL,[G[ en� ��J0K�P fY<iM[�rGL,[ e [GNMWG[}J0R$YwL,[G[ e V NcJ0K2Y<fMJQJ0LOXL,[GO e iMOXk$[}N2J[XR Rj[�WXYvJ<L�[Xk$[GN t O�z2[�Y<i2[ e [�OXL3[GO e P [ eje OXYwYZL,O�WXY<V k$[�Y<JvL3[ e V fM[GN,Y ej�
�$�w���$�<�#���G �¡$¢2�<£.¤¥�G¦�£h§��$�Z¨w©$�Z¦$�&ªv¢7£U«�¬M§��,�0£h�¢2®m¨w¬M�)¯¬M¤��,ª�° £.¬2¡$±�¢7¦�©c²n©$¢³�,´µ�3¨Z¨Zª#°w§�¬M£.£.¬M¤¥±�¶,·��Z£.¸$¬M��£�£.�<�&�3ª#°w¨w�3¹:£:±{¢7¦�©º·��Z£.¸¥£.�0�,�3ªc° ���w��¸�£.±m�
»,¼2½ ¾7¿�ÀmÁ<Â?Ã2Ä{Å�ÀmÆ Ä{À<Ç7ÈUÉ:Ê�À0É,Ë ÌX¿�Æ Íw¿2É3Ä)Ë Î�Ï{Ð�Ä�Ï�Æ Í0ÃGÑ#Ò�ÀmÌGË Ï�ÆQÓ�Ì�ÀQÆ À<Ô3Ñ
Õ ¿MÉhÇjË ÎMÖMË Î,Ô,×�×n¿MÔ&Ô$ÄX×nÍ2Í0Ã2ÏXÍ0ØmË Î?ÇnÏGÌXÍ<Ø0É3Äo×�Ë ÖMÄGÎGÍZ×&ÙXÉ,ÄX×�Ú7ÀQÎ,×&Ä$Í0ÀÍZÉ,ÄGÄX×}Ë ×}ÄXÛ�ÍwÉ,ÄGÜ#Ä0Æ Ñ#ÚMÀ<×&Ë Í0Ë Ý�Ä{ÞX¾2¿�À�ÄoÍ�ÏGÆ ßh»�à2à7á�âGß Õ ÎMÄ{ÃG¿�Î2Ö,É3Ä�ÖÉ3ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄ�Î,Íw×}À0Ç�Ï{ã�ÃMË ÌGÏoÔ$À�ÚG¿MÊ�Æ Ë Ì)ÃMÀ0¿7×&Ë Î,Ô#Ö2ÄXÝ$Ä�Æ ÀmÚMÜ#Ä�Î,Í7ä#ÄXÉ3ÄÏX×&å2Ä�Ö?Í<À�É3Äo×�Ú2ÀQÎ2Ö{Í<À�Ë Ü#ÏXÔ�ÄX×}ÞXÚMÃMÀ0ÍjÀ<×�Ë Üv¿�Æ ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎ,×nâ{ÖMÄ�ÚMË ÌXÍ<Ë Î,ÔÍ0ÃMÄGË É}ÌGÀ0¿2É.ÍZÑ$ÏoÉ3Ö?äcË Í<Ã�ÏGÎMÖvä#Ë Í<ÃMÀ0¿MÍ2ÍZÉ,ÄGÄX×&Ø�ä#Ë Í<Ã�À0Í<ÃMÄXÉUÇnÏGÌXÍ<À0É.×Þ:Æ Ë Ô�Ã,Í<Ë ÎGÔ$Ø<ä#Ä�ÏXÍ<Ã7ÄXÉjØmÚMÄ�ÀQÚ2Æ Ä{Ë Î{Í<ÃMÄ)Ì�À<¿MÉ:ÍZÑ�ÏXÉGÖ2ØmÄXÍ<Ì�ß â{ÃMÄ�Æ ÖÌGÀQÎ,×nÍ0ÏGÎGÍ0ßQÅ�Äo×�Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Íw×�×nÍZÉ3ÀmÎ,Ô$Æ Ñ#Ú,É3ÄXÇnÄoÉ.É3ÄGÖ�Ë Ü#ÏoÔ$ÄX×�äcË Í<ÃvÍ É3ÄGÄX×næÏGÎMÖÍ<ÃMÄ}Ü#À0É3ÄUÍwÉ3ÄGÄo×�Ø,Í<ÃMÄ�×nÍwÉ3ÀQÎ,Ô$ÄoÉ�Í<ÃMÄGË É�Ú,É3ÄXÇnÄXÉ3ÄGÎMÌGÄGß,ç�ÄGÏGÎÉ3ÏXÍ0Ë Î,Ô&×UÇjÀ0ÉUÍ<ÃMÄ{Ã2Ë Ô$Ã?ÍZÉ3Ä�Ä?ÖMÄ�Î,×�Ë ÍwÑcË Ü�ÏXÔ$Äo×�Þ:¼7è{ÍwÉ3ÄGÄX×}ÚMÄXÉvÃ2ÏXâäcÄXÉ3Ä{é?×nÍ<ÏGÎMÖMÏXÉ,Ö�ÖMÄXÝ$Ë ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎG×Ã2Ë Ô$Ã2ÄXÉhÍ<ÃMÏGÎvÍ<ÃMÄ?Ü#Ä�ÏGÎvÉ3ÏoÍ<Ë Î,Ô&×�ÇjÀ0ÉÍZÉ3ÄGÄ�Æ ÄX×n×�Ë Ü#ÏXÔ$ÄX×vÞ çc×�ê7ßn»$Ý$ÄoÉ.×j¿2×�½2ß ë�ÀQÎ�Ï?½{Í<À�è{×�Ì�ÏGÆ Ä�Ø<Ç É3ÀQÜì ÎMÀ0Í�ÏXÍ�ÏGÆ Æ ímÍ<À ì ÝMÄXÉnÑ#Üv¿�ÌGÃ2í â,ßmî,¿2É.Í<Ã2ÄXÉ<ØmÏGÚMÚ,ÉGÀ<ÛhË Ü#ÏoÍ0Ä�Æ Ñ�ÀmÎMÄGïÍ0ÃMË É3Ö�À0Ç7É,ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄ�ÎGÍw×�×n¿MÉ.Ý$ÄoÑ$ÄGÖ�ÌGÆ ÏGË Ü#Ä�Ö?Í<ÃMÏXÍ2Í0Ã2ÄXÑ}ä#À0¿�Æ Ö{¿M×&ÄÍ0ÃMÄGË É�ÌGÀ0¿MÉ:ÍZÑ$ÏXÉ,Ö�Ü#À0É3ÄvË Ç�ÍwÉ3ÄGÄX×�ä#ÄXÉ3Ä?ÚMÆ Ï�Î,Í0Ä�ÖMß
Â{ÃMÄo×&Ä$ÇnË ÎMÖ2Ë ÎGÔ&×h×n¿MÔ&Ô�ÄX×nÍ2Í<Ã2ÏXÍ<ØmË Î)¿MÉ:Ê�ÏGÎ�ÎMÄ�Ë Ô�Ã,Ê�À<É3Ã2ÀmÀmÖ,×&ØÍZÉ,ÄGÄo×}Ü#Ë Ô$ÃGÍ�ÚMÆ ÏoÑ�Ï{Ú2Ë Ý$À<Í<ÏGÆ<É3ÀmÆ Ä{Ë Î�Ö�É3Ïoä#Ë Î,Ô}É,ÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Íw×}Àj¿MÍw×&Ë ÖMÄ�ßÂ?ÃMÄoÑ}Ç ¿MÉ:Í<ÃMÄXÉh×n¿7Ô&Ô$Äo×nÍ�Ï�äcÏoÑ#Ë Î?ä#Ã2Ë ÌGÃ�ÏXÉ.Ê�À0É,Ë ÌX¿�Æ Íw¿MÉ,Ä{Ü�Ë Ô$ÃGÍÌGÀQÎ,ÍwÉ3Ë Ê7¿MÍ<Ä�Í<À�Ï{Ã2ÄGÏGÆ Í0Ã,Ñ}×&ÀQÌGË ÏGÆQÄGÌGÀ0×.Ñ&×nÍ0Ä�Ü}æðÊ2Ñ#ÄGÎMÃMÏGÎ7ÌGË ÎGÔÉ3ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄGÎGÍZ×&Ùo¿M×&Ä{ÀjÇ7Í<ÃMÄ$×&ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×Qñ.¿M×nÍ�À<¿2Íw×&Ë Ö2Ä$Í<ÃMÄGË ÉhÊ7¿�Ë Æ ÖMË ÎGÔ3×&ØÍ0ÃMÄoÉ3ÄXÊ2Ñ#ÚGÉ3ÀQÜ#À<Í<Ë Î,Ô#Ë ÎGÇjÀ0É3Ü#Ï�ÆQÌGÀQÎ,ÍjÏGÌXÍ�ÏGÜ#ÀmÎ,Ô#ÎMÄGË Ô$Ã,Ê�À<É.×�Ï�ÎMÖË Î,ÍwÉ,ÀQÖG¿�Ì�Ë ÎGÔ#Ë ÎGÇnÀ<É3Ü�Ï�Æ<×n¿MÉ:Ý�ÄGË Æ Æ Ï�ÎMÌ�Ä�ß
Adults’ Use of Outdoor Spacesò ÃMÀ<Í0À<×�Ë Ü}¿�Æ ÏoÍ0Ë ÀmÎG×�ØmÃMÀ0ä#ÄXÝ�ÄXÉ<ØmÏXÉ,Ä{Ï0ÚMÚ,ÉGÀ0Û�Ë Ü�ÏXÍ<Ë ÀmÎ,×�À<Ç7ÉGÄGÏGÆ Ë ÍwÑGØÏGÎMÖ�Ú,É3Ä�ÖMË ÌoÍ0Ë ÀQÎ,×}À<Ç2¿2×�Ä{ÏXÉ,Ä{Ü#ÄXÉGÄGÆ Ñ#ÚGÉ3Ä�ÖMË ÌoÍ0Ë ÀQÎ,×&ß0Â�À�ä#Ã2ÏXÍÄXÛmÍ<ÄGÎ,ÍMä#ÄXÉ,Ä?Ë ÎMÎ2ÄXÉ<ï:ÌGË ÍwÑ�É,ÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Íw×Ï0ÌGÌX¿MÉ3ÏXÍ<Ä?Ë Î�Ú,ÉGÄGÖMË ÌXÍ0Ë Î,Ô�Í<ÃMÏXÍÍ0ÃMÄXÑ�ä#À0¿�Æ Ö�¿M×&Ä ì Ô&É3ÄGÄGÎMÄXÉ,í�À0¿2Í0ÖMÀmÀ<É�×�ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×�Ü#À<É3Ä�À<Ç Í0Ä0Î,ó
ô ¿�Ë ÍjÄ)Ï�Ì�Ìo¿2ÉGÏoÍ<Ä�Ø�Ë Í7ä#À<¿�Æ Ö�Ï�Ú2Ú2Ä�ÏZÉnß�î2Ë Î2Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×hÇ É�ÀmÜõÍjÃ�ÉGÄ�ÄÖMË Ç ÇnÄoÉ,Ä�ÎGÍM×nÍ ¿�Ö2Ë Äo×}Ë Î2Ö2Ë Ì�ÏoÍ<Ä$Í<Ã2ÏoÍMÔ3É,Ä�Ä0Î2ÄoÉUÉ,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍjË Ï�ÆQÀ<¿2ÍjÖ2ÀmÀ<É×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×UÉ3Ä�Ì�Ä�Ë Ý�Ä{Ü�À<É,Ä$¿2×&Ä�Ç É3ÀmÜöÏ�ÖG¿�Æ Í2É,Äo×&Ë Ö2Ä�Î,Í ×UÍ<Ã2Ï�Î?ÍjÃ7Ä�Ë ÉÊ�ÏoÉ:É,Ä�Î�Ì�À<¿�ÎGÍ<ÄoÉ,Ú7ÏoÉ:Í ×&ß�÷ZÎ�ÀmÎ2Ä�×.Íw¿�ÖGÑ0ØnÉ,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍ ×vÆ Ë Ý�Ë ÎGÔ�Ë Î)Ô3ÉGÄGÄ�Î2ÄoÉÃ2Ë ÔMÃ2ï É,Ë ×&Ä�Ï0Ú2ÏoÉ:ÍjÜ�Ä�Î�Í7ÊQ¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×�É,Ä�Ú2ÀjÉXÍ<Ä0Ö)×&Ë Ô�Î7Ë Ç.Ë Ì�Ï0ÎGÍjÆ Ñ�Ü�À<É,ÄM¿2×3ÄÀ<ÇmÍjÃ2Ä�ÏoÉ,Ä0Ï,ñ:¿2×.ÍUÀ<¿7Íw×3Ë Ö2ÄMÍjÃ2Ä0Ë É�Ê7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ?ÍjÃ2Ï0Î�Ö2Ë Ö)É,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä0Î�Í ×vÆ Ë Ý�Ë ÎGÔË Î)ÊQ¿�Ë Æ Ö7Ë ÎGÔ,×�ä�Ë ÍnÃ�Æ ÄZ×.×�ÝMÄoÔMÄoÍjÏZÍjË À�Î�Þo¾Q¿�À}ÄZÍUÏ�Æ ß�»0àQàQá0â�ß&÷wÎ)Í ä�ÀÀ0ÍjÃ2ÄoÉ�×nÍw¿�Ö2Ë Äo×&Ø�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í2¿2×3Ä{À<ÇQÉ,Äo×&Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍjË Ï�Æ<×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×Uä�Ïo×UÇnÀ<¿�Î7Ö{Í<À�Ê�ÄÖMË ×&ÚGÉ,ÀmÚ2À<É:ÍjË ÀmÎ2ÏoÍjÄ�Æ Ñ¥Ì�ÀmÎ2Ì�Ä�ÎGÍwÉ,ÏoÍ<Ä�Ö#Ë Î�Ô3É,Ä�Ä�Î2ÄoÉ�Ý�ÄoÉ:×n¿2×�Ü�À<É,ÄÊ�ÏZÉ:É,Ä0Î)×3Ú2Ï�Ì0Äo×?Þoã�ÀmÆ ÄZÑ�ÄoÍUÏ�Æ ß$»0àQà7øQù&Òn¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý�Ï�Î�ÄoÍ�Ï0Æ ß Ø&Ë Î�ÚGÉ,Äo×.×jâ�ß�÷ZÎÍ<Ã2Ä)ã�ÀmÆ ÄXÑ�ÄoÍ�Ï�Æ ßj×.Íw¿�ÖGÑ0ØjÍ<Ã2Ä�Ô3ÉGÄ�ÏoÍ<ÄoÉ�ÍnÃ2Ä)ÎG¿�ÜvÊ�ÄoÉ?À<ÇQÍ ÉGÄ�Äo×�ÇnÀ<¿�Î2Ö�Ë ÎÏ�×3Ú2Ï�Ì�Ä�Ø0Í<Ã2Ä$Ô3É,Ä0ÏoÍ<ÄoÉhÍjÃ2Ä{Î,¿�ÜvÊUÄoÉvÀ<Ç�Ú2Ä�ÀmÚ2Æ Ä$ä#Ã2À�¿2×&Ä�Ö?ÍnÃ2Ä�×3Ú2Ï�Ì�Ä×&Ë Üv¿�Æ Í<Ï�Î2Ä�À<¿2×3Æ Ñ�ß<ç�À<ÉGÄ�À<Ý�ÄXÉjØ0ÍjÃ2Ä?Ì�Æ À<×,ÄoÉUÍ ÉGÄ�ÄX×�ä�ÄoÉGÄ�ÍjÀ�Ï�Ú7ÏoÉ:Í<Ü�Ä�ÎGÍÊ7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ,×3Ø�Ï0Î2Ö�ÍnÃG¿2×�ÍjÃ7Ä�Ü�ÀjÉ,Ä2Ý�Ë ×.¿�Ï<Æ Æ Ñ�Ï�Î2Ö�Ú2Ã�Ñ3×3Ë Ì�Ï0Æ Æ Ñ�Ï0Ì0Ì�Äo×.×3Ë ÊUÆ ÄÍ<Ã2ÄoÑ?ä�ÄoÉ,Ä�ØjÍjÃ2Ä�Ü�À<É,Ä�Ú2Ä�ÀmÚ2Æ Ä�×3Ú2Ä�ÎGÍQÍjË Ü�Ä�À<¿2Íw×3Ë Ö2Ä)Î7Ä�ÏoÉ�ÍjÃ7Ä�Ü�ß&÷ZÎÍ<Ã7Ä�Æ Àjä�ï ÉGË ×3Ä�Ö7ÄoÝMÄ�Æ ÀmÚ7Ü�Ä�Î�Í7×.Í ¿�Ö2Ë Ä�Ö7Ø&Î7À�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í ×?ÏoÍUÏ�Æ Æjä�ÄoÉ�ÄÀ0ÊQ×&ÄoÉ:Ý�Ä�Ö�Ë Î�ÏoÉ3Ä0Ïo×Ö2ÄoÝ�ÀmË Ö#À<Ç2ÍwÉ,Ä�Äo×&ß
Children’s Use of Outdoor Spacesú ÄvÏGÆ ×&À{ÇjÀ0¿�ÎMÖ�ÖMË Ç ÇjÄXÉ,ÄGÎMÌGÄo×Ë Î�ÌGÃMË Æ Ö�É,ÄGÎMÙ×�¿M×&ÄvÀ<Ç�À0¿MÍ<ÖMÀmÀ<É×�ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×ÏX×ÏhÇ ¿�Î7ÌXÍ0Ë ÀQÎ�À0ÇMÍwÉ,ÄGÄvÌ�À0Ý$ÄXÉ<ßQã)Ã2Ë Æ Ö,É,ÄGÎMÙ×�¿M×&ÄvÀ0Ç2ÉGÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎMïÍ0Ë ÏGÆ2À0¿MÍ<ÖMÀQÀ0É�×&Ú2ÏGÌGÄo×)ä#ÏX×�ÖMË ×�ÚGÉ3ÀQÚMÀ0É:Í<Ë ÀQÎMÏXÍ<ÄGÆ Ñ¥ÌGÀQÎMÌGÄ�Î,ÍZÉ,ÏoÍ0ÄGÖ#Ë ÎÔ&É3ÄGÄGÎMÄXÉUÝ$ÄXÉ.×n¿M×�Æ ÄX×n×�Ô&É3ÄGÄ�Î}×&ÚMÏGÌGÄo×jæûÏ�×jÍ<ÏXÍ<Ë ×nÍ<Ë ÌGÏ�Æ Æ Ñ�×�Ë Ô$Î2Ë ÇjË ÌGÏGÎ,ÍÇjË Î2Ö2Ë ÎGÔ�Ë Î�ÀmÎMÄ�×.Í ¿�ÖGÑ�ÞXã�ÀmÆ ÄoÑ�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ß�»�àQà7ø�â{Ï�Î2Ö�Ï)Ü�ÏXÉ:Ô�Ë Î7ÏGÆ Æ Ñ×&Ë Ô�ÎMË ÇjË ÌGÏ�ÎGÍ�ÀmÎ2Ä�Ë Î�Ï�ÎMÀ<Í<Ã2ÄoÉ?ÞXÚ�ü�ß ½7øQØ�Òj¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý$Ï�Î�ÄoÍ�Ï�Æ ß Ø�Ë Î�ÚGÉ,ÄX×.×nâGß÷oÎ#ÏGÖMÖMË Í<Ë ÀmÎMØ7Ü#À<É3ÄvÖMÄoÍ0ÏGË Æ ÄGÖ#À0Ê7×&ÄXÉ.Ý�ÏXÍ<Ë ÀmÎ,×�É3ÄXÝ$ÄGÏGÆ ÄGÖ#Ö2Ë Ç ÇnÄXÉ3ÄGÎMÌGÄX×
Ë Î�Ì�ÃMË Æ Ö,ÉGÄGÎMÙ×�Ê�ÄGÃMÏXÝ$Ë À0É.×}Ë ÎvÔ&É,ÄGÄGÎ2ÄXÉ�Ý�ÄXÉ.×n¿M×�Æ ÄX×j×�Ô&ÉGÄGÄGÎv×�ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×&ßã�ÃMË Æ ÖGÉ3ÄGÎ�Ë Î?Ô3É3ÄGÄGÎ{×�Ú2ÏGÌ�ÄX×Uä#ÄXÉ3Ä)Ü#À0É3Ä)Æ Ë å7Ä�Æ Ñ}Í<À�Ê�Ä$ÇjÀ0¿�ÎMÖÄ�Î,Ô�ÏoÔ$ÄGÖ�Ë Î�ÚMÆ ÏXÑ�ÏGÌXÍ<Ë Ý$Ë ÍjË ÄX×UÍ<ÃMÏ�Î�À0Í<Ã2ÄXÉvå7Ë ÎMÖ�×�À<Ç�ÏGÌoÍ<Ë Ý�Ë Í0Ë Äo×&ØQÏ�ÎMÖÍ<ÃMÄXÉ,Ä�äcÏX×ÏGÆ ×&À�Ë Î2ÌXÉ3ÄGÏX×3ÄGÖ#ÌXÉ3Ä�ÏXÍ0Ë Ý$ÄvÚ2Æ ÏXÑcË ÎvÔ3É3ÄGÄGÎ}×&ÚMÏGÌGÄo×ÞXîMÏoÊUÄXÉhÂhÏXÑ�Æ À<ÉvÄXÍ�ÏGÆ ßh»�à7à7á�âGß÷ZÎ)ÍjÃ2Äo×3Ä�×.Í ¿�Ö2Ë Äo×&ØnÊ�ÀjÍjÃ�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í ×&Ù<Ï�Î2Ö�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ Ö�É�Ä�Î2Ù×�Í<ÄoÉXÉ,Ë ÍjÀ<É,Ë Ï�Æ
Ú2ÏoÍ ÍjÄoÉ,ÎG×Uä#ÄoÉ,Ä$ÇnÀ<¿�Î2Ö?Í<À�ÊUÄ$×nÑ3×.Í<Ä�Ü�ÏoÍ<Ë Ì�Ï�Æ Æ Ñ}ÉGÄ�Æ ÏoÍ<Ä�Ö?ÍjÀ�Í<Ã2Ä{ÄoÛ&Í<Ä�Î�ÍÀjÇQÔGÉGÄ0Ä0Î�Ì0ÀjÝMÄoÉnß ò ÉGÄZ×.¿�Ü�ÏZÊUÆ Ñ�Ã7Ä0Ï�Æ ÍjÃ7Ë ÄZÉvÚ7ÏZÍ ÍjÄwÉ,Î�×}ÀjÇ7ÍnÄZÉ:ÉGË ÍnÀ<ÉGË Ï0Æ Ë Í Ñ,æÔ3É,Ä�ÏZÍjÄXÉU¿2×&Ä?À<Ç�À<¿2ÍjÖ2ÀmÀ<ÉU×3Ú2Ï�ÌGÄo×�ÊQÑ�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Íw×3Ø�Ô,É,Ä�ÏXÍjÄoÉ�¿2×3ÄvÀ<ÇÀ<¿2ÍjÖ7ÀmÀ<É$×&Ú2Ï�Ì�ÄZ×hÊ7Ñ�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ ÖGÉ,Ä�Î2Ø�Ï0Î2Ö�Ë Î2ÌoÉ,Ä�Ïo×3Ä�Ö�Ú2Æ ÏoÑ�Ë Î�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ ÖGÉ,Ä�ÎGæä�ÄoÉGÄ?Ïo×n×3ÀQÌ�Ë ÏoÍ<Ä�Övä�Ë ÍjÃvÔ,É,Ä�ÄGÎ2ÄoÉ}Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊ�À<É,Ã2À�ÀmÖv×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×3ß7÷ZÎÖGÉ,Ïoä�Ë ÎGÔvÉ,Äo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍw×?À<¿2Íw×,Ë Ö7Ä�Ø�Ü�Ë ÔMÃGÍ7ÍwÉ,Ä0Äo×vÏ�Æ ×,À�Ë Î2ÌoÉ,Ä�ÏZ×&ÄMÍ<Ã2ÄMÍjË Ü�ÄÉGÄo×3Ë Ö2Ä�ÎGÍw×�×&Ú2Ä�Î2Ö�Ë Î�ÚGÉGÀ<Û�Ë Ü�Ë ÍwÑ?Í<À�ÀmÎ2Ä)Ï�Î2À<ÍjÃ7ÄoÉjØjÍ<Ã2ÄoÉGÄoÊ7Ñ�ÚGÉGÀmÜ�À<ÍnïË ÎGÔ?×3ÀmÌ�Ë Ï�Æ�Ë ÎGÍ<ÄoÉ,Ï�ÌoÍ<Ë ÀmÎ�Ï0Ü�ÀmÎGÔ�Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊUÀ<É:×nó
Resident Interaction OutdoorsÕ ¿MÉhÇnË ÎMÖ2Ë Î,Ô&×�×n¿MÔ&Ô$Äo×jÍMÍjÃMÏXÍMÔ&É3ÄGÄGÎ�ÌGÀ0Ý$ÄXÉvË ×}Ë ÎMÖMÄGÄGÖ?É3ÄGÆ ÏXÍ<ÄGÖvÍ<ÀÍ<ÃMÄ{ÏGÜ#À<¿�Î,Í)À0Ç2×&ÀQÌGË ÏGÆQË Î,Í<ÄXÉ3ÏGÌoÍ0Ë ÀQÎ�Ë Î}É,ÄX×�Ë Ö2ÄGÎGÍ0Ë ÏGÆ7À<¿MÍ0Ö2ÀQÀ0É×&ÚMÏ�ÌGÄo×�ßQýhÉ3ÄGÄGÎ�ÌGÀ<Ý$ÄXÉUä#Ïo×�É3ÄGÆ Ë ÏXÊ�Æ ÑcÆ Ë ÎMå7ÄGÖvÍjÀ)Í0Ã2ÄvÎG¿�Ü}Ê�ÄXÉ}À0ÇË Î2Ö2Ë Ý�Ë Ö,¿�ÏGÆ ×U×&Ë Üv¿�Æ Í<ÏGÎ2ÄGÀj¿M×&Æ Ñ�Ú,É,ÄX×&Ä�Î,Í�Ë Î�ÏXÉ,Ä�Ïo×Qñ.¿M×nÍ�À<¿MÍw×&Ë Ö2ÄÏ�ÚMÏoÉ:ÍjÜ#Ä�Î,Í2Ê7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë Î,Ô3×}ÞXã�ÀQÆ ÄoÑ�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ßh»�à7à7ø�âGßnç�À0É,Ä{Ö2ÄoÍ<ÏGË Æ Ä�ÖÀ0Ê7×3ÄXÉ.Ý$ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎ,×�Ç ¿MÉ.Í<ÃMÄXÉU×n¿2Ô&Ô�ÄX×jÍMÍ<ÃMÏXÍMÍ<ÃMÄ?Î,¿�ÜvÊ�ÄXÉvÀ0Ç�ÄXÛ�ÚMÆ Ë ÌGË Í<Æ Ñ×&ÀmÌGË ÏGÆmÏ�ÌXÍ<Ë Ý�Ë Í<Ë Äo×}ÞXÄ�ß Ô$ß Ø<ÍjÏ�Æ å7Ë ÎGÔ$ØmÚ2Æ ÏoÑ$Ë ÎGÔ#Ì�ÏoÉ�ÖG×UÍ<À<Ô$ÄoÍ<ÃMÄoÉ<Øjä#À0É,å7Ë ÎGÔÀQÎ#Ï?ÌGÏXÉ�É3ÄGÚMÏGË É�Í0À0Ô�ÄXÍ0Ã2ÄoÉ.â}ÀQÌGÌX¿2É.É3Ë ÎGÔ¥Ë Î}É3ÄX×3Ë ÖMÄGÎGÍ0Ë ÏGÆ2À0¿2Í0ÖMÀmÀ0É×&Ú2Ï�Ì�ÄX×}Ë ×}Æ Ë Î2å2Ä�Ö?Í<À�Ô&ÉGÄ0ÄGÎ�ÌGÀ0Ý�ÄXÉ?ÞXÒj¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý�ÏGÎ�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ß ØmË Î�Ú,ÉGÄX×n×nâGß ú ÄÇnÀ<¿�Î2Ö�ø7ê7þöÜ�À<É,Ä)Ë ÎMÖ2Ë ÝMË ÖG¿�ÏGÆ ×}Ë ÎGÝ�ÀQÆ Ý$Ä�Ö�Ë Î)×&ÀmÌ�Ë Ï�ÆmÏ�ÌoÍ<Ë Ý�Ë Í<Ë Äo×}Ë Î×&ÚMÏ�Ì�ÄX×�ä#Ë Í0Ã�ÃMË Ô$Ã�Æ ÄXÝ$ÄGÆ ×}À0Ç7Ô&É3ÄGÄGÎ�ÌGÀ<Ý$ÄXÉhÍ<Ã2ÏGÎ�Ë Î?×�ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×�ä#Ë Í0ÃÆ À<äöÆ ÄoÝ$Ä�Æ ×}À<Ç7Ô3É3Ä�ÄGÎ�Ì�À0ÝMÄXÉ?ÞXÒj¿�Æ Æ Ë Ý$Ï�Î�ÄXÍ�Ï�Æ ß Ø�Ë Î�ÚGÉ3Äo×n×nâGß<Â{ÃMÄÚMÏoÍZÍjÄXÉ3Î}ä#ÏX×�×nÍZÉ3ÀmÎ,Ô$ÄX×nÍ�ÇjÀ0É�ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�Á2ã�ÀQÜ#ÚMÏoÉ3Ä�Ö�Í<À�Ü#À0É3ÄhÊ�ÏoÉ.É3ÄGÎ×&ÚMÏ�ÌGÄo×�Ø<Í0ÃMÄXÉ,Ä�ä#ÄXÉ3Ä�»�½2½Qþ�Ü#À0É3Ä{ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�ÄGÎGÔ�ÏXÔ$ÄGÖ�Ë Îv×&ÀQÌGË ÏGÆÏGÌoÍ0Ë Ý$Ë Í0Ë ÄX×�Ë Î?Ô&É3ÄGÄGÎ?×&ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×&ß
Children’s Access to Adults OutdoorsÂ?Ã2Ä{Ü�À0É3Ä$×�ÀmÌGË ÏGÆmÎMÏXÍw¿MÉ,Ä{À0Ç7É3ÄX×&Ë ÖMÄ�Î,ÍZ×&ÙGÏGÌoÍ0Ë Ý�Ë Í0Ë ÄX×�À<¿MÍZ×&Ë ÖMÄ$Í0Ã2ÄGË ÉÊ7¿�Ë Æ ÖMË Î,Ô3×�ÏGÚ2ÚMÄGÏoÉ.×�Í<À�ÄZÛmÍ<Ä�ÎMÖ�ÎMÀ<Í�ÀQÎ2Æ Ñ}Í0ÀÏ�Ö,¿�Æ ÍwÿUÏ�Ö,¿�Æ Í�Ë ÎGÍ0ÄoÉ3ÏGÌ0ïÍ<Ë ÀmÎG×UÊ7¿MÍ2Í<ÀÏGÖG¿�Æ ÍwÿhÌGÃ2Ë Æ Ö�Ë Î,Í<ÄoÉ3Ï�ÌXÍ<Ë ÀQÎG×}ÏX×Uä�Ä�Æ Æ ßm÷oÎ�ÀmÎMÄ�×nÍw¿�ÖGÑ�ØÍ<ÃMÄ}Ú,É3Äo×�ÄGÎMÌ�Ä�À0Ç$ÍZÉ3Ä�ÄX×�Ì�ÀmÎ,×�Ë ×nÍ0Ä�Î,Í0Æ ÑºÚ,É3ÄGÖ2Ë ÌoÍ<ÄGÖÔ&É3Ä�ÏXÍ0ÄXÉ�¿2×�Ä�À0ÇÉ,ÄX×&Ë Ö2ÄGÎ,Í<Ë Ï�Æ0×&ÚMÏ�ÌGÄX×UÊ2Ñ#Ü�Ë ÛhÄ�ÖMïXÏXÔ$Ä$Ô&É,À0¿�Ú,×}À<Ç7Ñ�À0¿MÍ<Ã�ÏGÎMÖ�Ï�Ö,¿�Æ Íw×ÞXã�ÀmÆ ÄoÑ#ÄoÍ�ÏGÆ ßh»�à7à7ø�âGßm÷ZÎ�Ï�ÎMÀ<Í<ÃMÄoÉ<Ø<ä#Ä$ÇnÀ0¿�ÎMÖ)×nÑ&×nÍ<Ä�Ü#ÏoÍ<Ë ÌGÏ�Æ Æ ÑÃMË Ô$Ã2ÄoÉ�Æ ÄXÝ$ÄGÆ ×À0Ç�ÏGÌGÌGÄX×n×�Í<À�ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�ÇjÀ0É}ÌGÃMË Æ Ö�É3ÄGÎ#Ë ÎvÔ&É3ÄGÄGÎMÄoÉÝ$ÄoÉ.×n¿2×�Æ ÄX×n×�Ô&É,ÄGÄ�Îv×&ÚMÏGÌ�ÄX×}Þ:îMÏoÊ�ÄXÉhÂhÏXÑ$Æ À0ÉvÄXÍ�ÏGÆ ßU»Gà7à7áGâGßÂ)ÃG¿2×�ÇnÏoÉjØ<ä#Ä{Ã2ÏoÝ�Ä$×3Ä�Ä�Î?ÍjÃ2ÏoÍMÍwÉGÄ�Äo×}Ï�Î2Ö{Ô&É,Ïo×.×�ÏoÍ ÍwÉ,Ï�ÌoÍ�Ú2Ä�ÀmÚ2Æ Ä
ÍjÀ�¿2×3Ä)Ë Î2Î2ÄoÉ<ïoÌGË ÍwÑ�Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊUÀ<ÉGÃ2ÀmÀmÖ{×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×}Ï�Î7Ö{ÍjÃ2ÏXÍ�Ë Î{Ô3É,Ä�Ä�Î2ÄoÉ×3Ú2Ï�Ì0Äo×UÍ<Ã2ÄoÉ,Ä{Ë ×}Ü�À<É,Ä$×3À�Ì�Ë Ï�ÆmÌ�ÀmÎGÍjÏ�ÌoÍ�Ï�Ü�ÀQÎGÔ�Î2Ä�Ë Ô�ÃGÊUÀ<É:×UÍ<Ã2Ï�Î�Ë ÎÌ�ÀmÜ�Ú2ÏoÉ,ÏoÊ�Æ Ä$ÊUÏoÉ:ÉGÄ�Î?×3Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×3ß ú Ä�Ù Ý�Ä{Ï�Æ ×&À�×&Ä�Ä0Î{Í<Ã2ÏoÍ2ÍjÃ2Ä{ÚGÉ�À<Û$Ë Ü�Ë Í ÑÀ<Ç7ÍjÃ7Ä$ÍwÉ,Ä�Äo×UÍjÀ�Ï�Ú2ÏoÉ:Í<Ü�Ä0ÎGÍ2Ê7¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×}Ü�ÏoÍwÍjÄoÉX×næCä#Ã2Ä�Î?Í É,Ä�Äo×�ÏoÉ,ÄÌ�Æ À<×3ÄoÉ�ÍjÀ�ÊQ¿�Ë Æ Ö2Ë ÎGÔ3×&Ø�Ú2Ä0ÀmÚ2Æ ÄM¿2×&Ä�ÍjÃ2Ä)À<¿2Í<Ö2ÀmÀjÉ$×&Ú2Ï�Ì�Äo×vÜ�À<É,Ä�ßm÷ ÍÏ�Ú2Ú7Ä�ÏoÉ:×�ÍjÃ2ÏXÍ2ÍwÉ,Ä�Äo×�Ì�ÀmÎGÍ É,Ë Ê7¿2Í<Ä$Í<À�×.Ñ&×.Í<Ä�Ü�ÏoÍjË Ì�Ï�Æ Æ Ñ#Ã2Ä�ÏGÆ Í<Ã2Ë ÄoÉÚ2ÏoÍ ÍjÄoÉ,ÎG×}À<ÇUË ÎGÍ<ÄoÉ:É,Ä�Æ ÏoÍjË À�Î�Ï�Ü�ÀmÎGÔ�Ï�ÖG¿�Æ Í ×}Ï�Î7Ö�Ì�Ã2Ë Æ ÖGÉ,Ä�Î�À<¿2ÍjÖ2ÀmÀ<ÉX×&ßÂ{ÃMÄo×�Ä$ÇjË ÎMÖMË Î,Ô&×�ÏXÉ3Ä)ÄXÛhÌ�Ë Í<Ë Î,Ô�Ê�ÄGÌGÏX¿M×&Ä{Ï�ÌGÌGÄX×n×�Í<À�ÏGÖ,¿�Æ Íw×�ÚMÆ ÏXÑ3×
×n¿�Ì�Ã�Ï�Î�Ë Ü�Ú2À0É:Í<ÏGÎGÍ2É3ÀmÆ Ä�Ë Î�Ã2Ä�ÏGÆ Í<ÃGÑ#Ì�ÃMË Æ Ö�Ö7ÄXÝ�ÄGÆ ÀmÚ2Ü#Ä�Î,Í<ßã)Ã2Ë Æ Ö,É3ÄGÎ�ÏoÉ3Ä�×&ÀQÌGË Ï�Æ Ë �2Ä�Ö�Ë Î,Í<À)Í<ÃMÄ?Ü#À0É3Äo×Ï�ÎMÖ?×jÍ<ÏGÎMÖMÏoÉ3Ö,×À<Ç�ÏÌo¿�Æ Í ¿MÉ,Ä$Í<ÃGÉ3À0¿2Ô$Ã�Ë Ü#Ë Í<ÏXÍjË ÀmÎ�À<Ç�ÏGÖG¿�Æ Íw×&ØmÄXÛ�Ú2Æ ÏGÎ2ÏXÍ<Ë ÀQÎG×UÇ É3ÀmÜ
������������ ���������������� ����� ��������� "!�#�$�%'&( �)*�"+"+�#
�,-��� ��.0/" ��,/"� �.��1�����2����2� �' �.3�4/"����5-������� 67�8�3����,-�� ���9�� -�;: �,-��� �<.=!��'> ?7> /4&@� � � �AB '�,DCFE�A�5) � "G�H"I;JK�'L-.= '�,DCF�'L� ��� �3�'� � �� "G"M'$�>;N-��5�4L�A4/0 �,���� ��.���E����61� .0� ���O� .=E�� 67�4�4 '�;� �DE-���61�'���4� ��?:P� .Q����L �67� ��-I�� ��,����,�/�R�� ���9O����E �-������ ��4.Q��E���61� .0� ���S� .B����T�����L�U.Q��-���-?7��.Q�TE����,�� ���4���.V�����L�B,�A61��� ��E�:P���-�T�4�2���;�,������E-��4��� ��:B.= '�,D,"��� � ��W'���'��A)1XU! �=Y5�[Z���:\:P� .Q.�� ���D���T]�� ��� �'��'� ��,�^7����4L � �G�#"/�E�> � �$�>4_8���4L�T��`0���'�-��4L A�?0��������U��A.F� ,����a��� '�4.FE� ��'��.=E--��:S���4�T ',-��� ��.Q��E��567� .�� ����/4�4L����/4bP�T:P� ?1L�����`8E����A��3��b*�Ac,�'� � �W'���'�-�1����L �61� ���.c� �B�4L�A.0�8.FE ��'��.F>
Neighborhood Social Ties, Resource Flows_�L-�.��3 AB� �T��L�� .U-�A67� ��b�/�bP�TL� �67�7�3�F���.0��,D���S�������'��:P��..FE���'� �3� �� �� � )V���� A���',=���2���.0� ,�'�-��� ��"�4��4,�����.0E ����A.3de-��.0� ,���-�<.Ff�.F�������4L��.0�U.0E� ��'��.F/���L�'� = ����4� 67� �4� �A.V� �B��L�A.F�8.0E �����.0/'�3L� �:P�4���-�����".0�;��� �� � g�� �-?P� ���4L���.0�7.0E '�'��.0/;��L� � ,-����f.=E� �)\� ���4L�A.0�.FE� ����A.F/;���4�'>�h����<�����.�?1������)7����,�.0� :PE� )P�'�L '���� �-?B��L"�767� �4 �� � �<)������.0� ,����-��� ��"�4��4,�����.FE ��'��.3iVjV�A-��/�bP�U�<���=�4��bP ��,B.0����� ��������.Q)0.3�4��:k67 ��� A��� ��.��4L ��2,��D��4�2E�����4 �� �B.0E����� �3� �' �� � )=���-��.0� ,�'�-��� ���������,��;���.0E ����'>�_�L�TW����A.3�4� ���\L���-��� .�bPL�A�4L��4/��"):P �9�� �-?=���.0� ,������4� ���������,�;���.0E �����.c:P����767� �4 �� /��<�����.=�����-�<�� ��a��4�7�4���4L�2L�� '� �4L�)=� ������4� �;�� �-?P�4�� 2�'��:P:B����� �<)\� �T?7�'����� '� >
_TL����T� .�.Q���.Q�� ������ ��;��67� ,������7�3��.Q�?0?7�A.3����L� �����E�E�����<���� a��� ��.��3��=�� �.Q�� ���.������ ���� �-�4��� '����� ���\E'���67� ,�� 8�� ��L\:\ ���-� `V� ���:bPL�� �'L2.��;�'� '�Q�3� ��.B �:\�;��?D���'� ?1L����4�.�,���61�'� �;EO!A�'> ?1> /0l����U�A.��'�O��� '� > � "H�m"IFY��A-9"� �'.B�A�� '� > � " �+'$'>FJKE"E"�45�<����� �4� �A.U�Q�4T�' A.Q�� '�Q.0�;�'� '����;���3 '�A�4/;� ��� ��-�"/� A-�7?�-�' A�4�AUb\L��'�D���'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,�-�A.�� ,��'��� ..0E��'��,D:\�4-�1�3� :S�2� �T�3L���4���4,��;�48.�E" '�'��.B A-�4����,T�3L��'� TL��;:\�A.!�Z��;�;E��� � �H � I�n� '�'. � �m"H�IQ_8 '� ���4������ '� > � �G�H�$�>0o �U� ���Q�3�:S '�.0�;�'� '�;�'�;���3 '�A�� �:\�;��?\����� ?1L����45.=� .B 29"�A)B�Q '�A�4�4�� �T�4L���,��A61�'� �;E�a:\�������4��.0�;�'� '�3�3� �A.= ':\�;��?\���'� ?1L����35.0/; '��,T� -�'��.B A-�2 29��A)�3 '�A�3�4B� �S� ���Q�4-:S '�4.��;�'� '�;�'�;���4 '�A�3/�E"�A-L� 'E�.�� -�'��.=�' '�T��� �3� :\ A�4�'� ) �� �Q�'�A��3L���,��A61�'� �;E�:\�'�����4�����'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,�.0�;�'� '���4� �A.0>�k�-��:=���A=�3�"�3� �,�� �-?�.�.Q�?0?7��.Q���4L �����-����.c,��O� ���3 ��A��L��� E
.3�<����-?0�4L��'�D���'� ?L����4-L�;�;,2.0�;�'� '�4�3� �A.�>FoA�O 1.��<��,�)\�4� � M � E������ � �L�4��.�� ��?�-�A.0� ,��'�'�<.U- '��,��;:\� )\ A.�.0� ?1�"�',T�3�V A-�'L�� �4�'�A� ��- '� � )� ,"�'�'�3� �' '�Q����� � ,�� �'?-.8b\� �3L261 �5)� ��?S� ��6��� .��4�;6�A?�A�3 A�3� �F��/Q�3L"�?0-�'�'���A8�3L��1����� � ,�� ��?1/3�4L��1.��<-�;��?1�A7�3L��2���'� ?1L����4�L��;�;,�.0�;�'� '��4� ��.�!Ap"���c���� '� > � � �G�$'>0Z��;:SE� �-��,2�3�U-��.�� ,������ .�� � 6� ��?D� �-��� A�3� 6��� )��� �5���������� � ,"� ��?-.�/0� �","� 61� ,'�� �� .�� � 6� �'?S� ��?--���'�����"��� � ,"� ��?�.8-�'E��4��3�',O:\�4-�.��;�'� '�F '�A�Q� 61� �3� �A.B '��,O:\�4��161� .-� �3�45.�/9"���Abq:\�4-�T�4���3L��'� B���'� ?1L����45.�/�-�'E"�45�4�',��3L��'� B���'� ?1L����45.�bP�A-�:\�4-���'�;�����A����',�b\� �3LOL��'� E�� ��?S '��,�.Q��E�E��45�4� ��?S�;���� '�"�4�3L��A3/ '��,DL� ',2.Q� '�;��?1��8�Q�'�'� � ��?�.��4�����'� �;��?� ��?1>FN���5�3L��A3/3.Q�3 A�4� .��3� �' '�:\�',�� A�3� �;�2�3�A.Q� .�� �",�� �' A�3�',T�3L� A�"�3L���� � ��9����A� bP�'�'�261�A?1�A�Q A�4� �;�O '��,��'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,T.-�;�'� '�3�4� �A.B� .B�A`8E�� '� �"�',2�")B-�A.�� ,��'��� .0f�?���' A�4�A8��.�����U�4���3,��;�48.�E� '���A.B!�p"���V�A�� '� > � � "G4$�>3_1�4?1�A�4L��A3/3�4L��A.���Q� ��,�� ��?�..Q��?�?1�A.Q���3L� A���")S� ���A-�' A.�� ��?B�4L��2�;E�E"�4�� ����� �3� �A.��Q�48-�A.0� ,"�'���<.��3�:\���A�� '��,S� ���4�A- ��A�4/4?�-�'�'���AB�'�;:\:\�F��.0E� '�'�A.��Q '�'� � � �4 A�3�',T�4L��,��A61�'� �;E�:\�'���� '�",O:\ '� ���3�'�� '���'���4�U���'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,2.0�;�'� '�3�4� �A.�>_TL�� .U?1�'���A- ��FE� A� �3�A-�O�4���Q� ��,�� ��?-.BL� �.U���'���T-�'E�� � �' A�3�',O� �K .Q� ��,�)�4��.��'��� �4T�'� �4� g"�'�'.B!Ap�b\�'�;�D�A�� '� > � " ;G'$'>
o ��� .�� :\E��35�4 ������4�c���4�3��4L� A��� �O ����4�3L��A7.��<��,�)S�'�;:\E� A-� ��?��'� ?1L����4-L��;�;,B.��;�'� '�'�3� �A.��Q�4�-�A.�� ,������<.c�4��?�-�'�'��A�61�A5.5��.V� ��.�.
?���'���2����� � ,�� ��?�.�!Ar�5����.-�;� � � " �$'/F����.�� ?1��� ��� �� '����,"� � ���A-�'���'��.b\�A���Q�4���",O� �2�3L�������:����AT�4�U���'� ?1L����45.UbS� �4L2b\L��;:@-�A.�� ,��'��� .-�'E��35�4�',DL� A61� ��?B.Q� -�;��?��4� �A.�>;o ��:\ A)B���1�3L� ���.�L A-�',T��.��2�4��'�;:S:\�;��.�E� '�'�A.=�'����� -� �����4�A.=�;��� )B�4���3L��T,"�A61�'� �;E�:\�'�����4�.��<-�F��?B�4� �A.�bP� �4LD�;���2�48� bP�V���'� ?1L����4�.�/; A.B�;E�E��4.��',��3���Q�4.��4�A-� �'? .��<'�;��?S���A� bP�3-9K�4�;�3� ��.� A.B� �O 61� � � A?1���47.-:\ '� �3�3�4bP�">o ��� .c �� .0�O� :PE��5�� �����4�O�������7��L A�2�;����'��:\E������-�����
��'� ?1L�����-L����,�.0����� ����3� ��.c� ����L�� .�b*�4�9TbP A.��4L�7.0L ��� �-?P���-��.0�4�-����.������<bP�����D���� ?7L������.0>;N���� ��,� 67� ,-�� �� .�b*L��K� � 67�T� �� �-�4�'�-.0�BE��61�����)'/"���� ?7L�����-L����,B.F�;��� '���4� ��.c �-�B:P�4-�U�4L ��P E� �� A.0 ��-�7�3�� A�����Ads�4L��)* �����4L���3�����, ��4� �;�P���2 ��P� :PE�����4 ��-�.Q��61� 67 ��4.Q��- ��4��?0)'>;C;�;��� '���4� ��.= �:P����?P���� ?7L'���4�.cE�-�467� ,�T �'����,���� ����L������?7L�bPL� ��LS� �,� 67� ,��� �� .�.0L �-�1��A.F�4���'��.=!�r��� � �� "G��"I;C3�4 ���9 � "H"M'$�>;oA�DE����4B���;:P:B����� �4� �A.�/4.F�;��� '�4��� �A.= �:\���-?��'� ?1L������.V ���U�4L�U�3� �.3��� � ��B����,���Q���-.0�= A?1 �� �-.3�1��L���- �67 �?7��.V�4�E�461����<)�>;r-)P�����-�<�� ������� �-?=�4��.3�<����-?1��U��� ��.B �:P���-?P��'� ?7L�����5.F/�<����A.c:P �)*���L �����8���.�� ,���-�<.Ff����.0� � � �'������ �B�4L�U�3 '���B�4�.Q��,,�'��3� � '����� ���.F�A���� ���9'.V ���,\�':P���?7����'� ��.0>
_1��.Q��:P:\ ��� g��1��L��.U�3 �4/;����U�3� �,� �-?�.�.���?0?7��.Q���4L ���� �SE���4� ������a���� ��)*��'� ?7L-�����L�;��,-.0/'�<-����.V��4�2���� )*�'�L ������E ��<�4��0�-.�������.0� ,���-�1�4����� �4���� �� � � )V�"��2 '� .0�O�����-�<�� �����4�8���OL�� '� �4L� ��4/:P�4-�U.Q��EE�4���� 67��E ��<���A-�-.V����� �-�4������� ��4� �;��.V �:P���-?c���.0� ,���-�<.0/� ���� ��,� �-?c?0��' �����U.FL A-� �-?P�������.0��������.0>
Sense of Safety�����3L�7����?1� ���� �-?P�4���4L�� .�-�A67� �AbB/4b*�T �,�,--�A.Q.F�',���L�T���;�����0��4L ����<�����.c:P� ?7L-��,���A��' �.0�867� .F� ��� � � ��)P ��,B�4L���-����)=���,-�����T��� ��L��� ��A���� '�'.F A�3����)*���-��.0� ,�'�-�<.Ff�.F���-.0������.F A�3����)'>;jV��-��/'bP�B�'��:P�8� ��� ���� ��'� �B ���,P �,�,--��.3.���L�T� � ��9������<bP�����B������A.c ��,B.F A�3����)*,� -�����4� )�>Y'���67� ���.����.0�� ����LS� �,�� �� A����.��4L ��2���� ?1L-�����.�b*L��DL �67�
.Q�<��;�-?c.0����� ����4� �A.��3���:t:\������A� �3�����4� 61�8.0���'� ���?0�����E-.c!���> ?7> /nU-�'�'�-�� A��: � �G"�"I�uv ��-��� � �G � $->�N��B� ��.3�4 �����'/"�'��:PE ����,�4�V�'��:\:=���� �4� ��.=� ��bPL�� �'LS��'� ?7L-���4�.=L ',TbP�� '9"��U.0�;��� ��4�4� ��.0/�4L��.��UbP� ��LB.3�<����-?1���.0�;��� ��'��� ��.�bP����B:\��-�B�� 'E ���� ������"��� � ,� ��?P�'����.0����.Q��.=���267 '� ���A.= ���,S���4�:B.B!�hU������bt '�,l1:S:\����. � "G � $�/;:\����� �3�4�� ��?B���'L A67� ��3/;� ���3�A�67�'��� �-?\� ��E�-�4��� ��:����L" �67� ���.=���'���B! _U �)1� �3 � "G"G'$-/; ���,S,���Q�'�,� ��?=��L���� B���� ?1La�����L���;,-.= �?1 �� �-.Q������ :S�T!���> ?7> /;Y"���9"� �-.=���� �� > � " �+'$�>;o �".Q�<��;�a?7�A�.0����� '���4� ��.V �:P���-?*����� ?7L-���4�.V ���B9"��)V�3�D����' ���� �-?w:\������� �3�'���4� 67�'/-.0 ��3��c���� ?7L-�����L����,�.F/� ��,=����'��,=.0E �����.KL�'� EE--�;:P���4�8��� ��.c �:P���-?*���'� ?7L������.0/�E���L �E-.��4L�8?0����������.3.c�����'� ?1L������L�����,P� ��,-.0�� 'E�U��� �4� :\ ����'� )w �� �3���A�<.K� ��67��� .V���.F A�3���<) '�,T.0������� �<)P� �S T���� ?7L�����-L����,�>oA�S� ���A�a���� ��)P��'� ?1L����4-L�;��,-.0/�,�����-���',T.FE� �����.=� ���3� ��������
��'� ?1L������L�����,B.0 ��3���<)* '�,�.F�'����� ��)0ico �.0���':P��,SE� ��.0� ��� �7��L� ��-��.0� ,�'�-�<.=:P� ?7L���Q�����4.0 A�3�AB� �S 7.0�A���4� �-?\� ����L"��)P9"��Ab�/4�<���.3�4�',/ ���,D������� ,S�������-���;����L"��� B����� ?7L-�����.Qdx� �D���4L�AUb*�4�,-.0/�� �"�4L�A)L� �,2.3�<-����?=.0���'� ��4�4� ��.�b\� �4L��4L���� B����� ?7L�����5.0>4�����4L�7.0 ':P�1�4� :S��/� �.F�'��:\��,\E��.Q.0� ��� �8��L ��2��67�'�B��L���L� ?1La5�' '���E-)c�<�����.c��L �� '��a�4�A�� .��4� �2�4��E����� � �2L�����.0� �-?\:P� ?7L���-�',-���'�76� .0� ��� � � �<)'/4�4L��A��A�")-��,-����� ��?V-�A.F� ,���-�<.0f5.F�'��.F������.F A�3���<)�>
J���U�Q� ��,� ��?0.U.Q�?�?7��.Q���4L� ��4/F� ���Q ��A�4/4-��.0� ,������<.=� � 61� ��?P� �?0-���'���U�"��� � ,�� ��?0.��3�'���4.0� ?7�� �3� �' ��-�4� )=.0 ��3��8�4L ��S,�����L�'�
y-z�{ |"}�~;�4�����T�8~;� �T~4�"���5��~��-� ��}�� �<}����2� �D�T�c�'�'� �����P�F~;��� �'���1�'~�� ~4���
��~�}����4�����������<�=� � �� �-�P� �S�\~��-�7�������-�����"}�� � �� �-���F�;�-}����4������;~4}��3� ���� ���0���Q}���7������4����������0� �����-�<�c~�������������A�U��}�� � �� �-�0���Q������P~����T��~;�=�3~����4����� �T~��B���5��}�Q�4���S� ���3���� �U�3}�����~�}����� �-�0�B� ��7���������� ���k�T���0�"�'��y'�"zD�-}��� � �T�~4}��F� �-�=�-���0� ����-�<�c ��V~3¡k�0���3��~��7~4}S�3�'���;� � �7� �-�P�������A¢0£U�����S ��c~�¡[¡P��� �������7�1�7~�}¤������}��3�4�'���4~� � �7� �-�w����-��¢0£"�k�U�4����P��~��P�����-���=�3��U�-���0�~��-�0�����Q~��������F� ����-�<����3�0� �7������4~������ �A�4� �7��� �=�0�����'���7�����Q}�U����� ���4� �7�'� �=���������'���"}�� � �¥� �-���0�4���B�-�-����� ���3�'���;� ���� �7� ��}���� �=� � �� ���P�'�5���'���'�-�"�4~������������A���~��P�P~��c�0��������2�����~4�����'�V�4����7�����A�K�3��� �8��~����c�0���3���V�'���c�����<�4������5��}�Q�������4��'�S��� ���4��'� �B��~4}��-�4������A�5���=� � �7� �-�P�����0�'�����-�"��~����� �A��� �7��� �=���A�����'���0��������=¦5|�}�~K�����'� ��y'§�§"¨'©-�
Graffiti and Other Signs of Disorder�� ��� ���0��� ��~;�ª�'�~��4��A�U�Q�<}����=�Q}�0����Q���4������~4��~��� �P�"~�����F� ��������V� �=�0���'���������0���<��� �-�0���3�����'�����3�����"}�2��� �F~2�������7�3������«8������ �������7�Q�0�Q�3���P���4� ����� � �=�3�A¡*�A�B �� ���� �7� � � �4� ���0£ ¬e�4��T�'}�� �F�'����������S����<�<�P����� �P�A����������0� �7����4�����7�"�-�����"�~�¡P�S~����~����S����������-� �4~���� ����� }�����3� ~���� �-�1���k�T���0�����D§"T�-���0� ����-�<�c~������D� ���A��¥��� �<�w����� �1�-��~4���~;~��B��~2�����~4���2~��=�4����� ����� ���������~���0�-�A� �3� ���"�����~��������U�0~�¥������ � �'�D� ����� �7� � � �4� �A�c� ���4��7��������A�c�����0�'�����-����~��4��'� �������5�4�P������"}�� � �� ���7�;�8���0� ��'�-�<�c~4�"���-���������U�"}�� � �� �-���������~4���4����3���Q���'�P���4� ���'� � �B�Q��¡P����� ���� ��'����A�=~����7�'���'� � �0�\��������� �3� �3� ���'��� � ���4�����4����=�4���� �=��~�}��������-������<�K���Q�0� �1�����=��~O�P~����U���������'���}�� � ��� ���0�=¦�®-��}����0~��¯y'§"§"§�©��4°@~�����~4�1���4�4�0�-���'����8��}�� � ��� ���0��¡P���-��3}��'�����A���4~��0� �1�� �Q� ���'�-�4� �B�3��¡P�A�B �0~���� ���;� ����� �1� � � �4� ���0£ ¬x��~;� �Q����� ����}����4� �1�2� ���� �� ��}��'� ��±4�Q�<�-�'�-�1�A���B���'���1� �-�\�A�-~�}����±F���"�D� � � ���1�'������4� �1� �4� ���0��T����������-���T�-}��B�����B~����~��Q�0� ��� ����«8�� ������4� ~;�-���3~��U�4���� � ��
���A��¡P���'�����-�����=�'��D�T� ~�¡P���B� ���� ��'�����T~���� ����� �7� � � �4� ���0���2���-�����0������B~������������K�'��=�0�����Q�V�P���V��� �7����"�B�P~4���U¡P��� � ¥A���������B�3~���F����'�=����������A�-���3~��������=�� �7����V� � ����� � ��~�~��*~��2����-����<�-����~4������'� ���P��~��4� �'���D¦A®���~�¡P�D�'��T�c� �4�\�'�¤y'§"¨"²'©��4�=� �4�A�0�����4� �1�'� �'�3�4���0�������4����}�0�c~4�7�������'������0��������O�\���³� �-�<��~��-}����=�P~����= 5���7���O~������7�Q�<�-�����4£U¦ ´'�'��~4�"�*y'§�µ�yA©-�4¶8�������~��3����B��«8�� ������4� ~��S�\���P� � ��� �������0�-�������A�2�0~��'� �����~�����0� �7������Q�D����~�}���V�0�����'������F�����'���Q¬���������-�������0� ����'����¡P�~D�"�~�¡·����B�<��}�Q�T�������P~��4����c�A���B�P~������� �3�����4� �1��� �\� ���3�3� ��}�4� �-�* �� ~��������0~���� �'����~��-�<��~�� £�~��7���U¡*���A�1�1~����~��S� ���4��7�0������A�=~�}�<�F� ��7�4���� �B�~��\�A�c¦�¸U�������-�������P������� �y�§"¨"{�©��4�c�-�P�'��D��� �;~��"�4����0�7�Q�����4~��5�=�P� �7������~;�-�<��� ��}��4�'��¹��S���-������F�'��� �T�������A�����4����7�4��B�-�����0�������~���<�������K� �=�����0� ��'����� ���~�}����~�~����0��������=� �c� � ��"���B¡*� �4�\�P~4���8�Q}��������Q�Q� }��'�4������� �3~���� ���� }�����4� ~;�� �-�1�'�F�������=�0����'���V���������U��~2����� ���3���0}�� ��A������� �U�4~� ����}�5�0� ~;�-�=�����D�P� �~4�B~�}��<�F� ���7�4�-�������<�0�
Property Crimes, Violent Crimes�8~B�4��=��«F���'�-�8�4�����8�<�-�����O��~;�-�3�����F~F�P�c���-~4�����A��� ~��*���7��� �-�Q�� ����}����0� ~����0�;� ���0�'���\���D�~4�Q�F� ��� �1�4��A���4�����\�P� �7�����-�-~��1� ���7�0~;�P��P�����Q}����~��������Q���-�0�����7��� �-�Q�2�\~����8��� �1�� �Q� �������1�4�-�����A���=����¡*��� � ��8~K��«8���P� ��7�4�� �Bº�}����Q��� ~;���3¡\�2�'~;� � �'�A�3�'�O{��1�'�A�5�B~4�U��~;� � �'����-� �\����'�"~4��� �U�Q~3�T§�¨K�'���A���3�\�'���"��}�� � ��� �����B� �O~;����� �"���A�3¥A�'� �<����'� �1����~4�-��~;~;�S�'����}��0�'���4���T�A«F�3�'�'�2~4�"�<�-�'�T�'���B���-�A�Q�=�'~4�1�A�~3}��<��� �����'�'�'�D���"�A�5�4�\�'���"��}�� � ��� �'�B�3~c���-�'��� �A�"�3���2��}��B�U�A�T~4����-� �\���U���'�"~4�5�3�����Q~4�1�4�"�A���"}�� � �"� ���S¦�|"}�~c�����O�Q}�� � � �1�'�K{���y�©'�3�»�
�Q~4}����T�������4�'�\�A�3� �'�'� � �S�"�A�1�A�3� �1��-�'� �A�4� ~;������� �'�8���A� ¡P���'�T�3������-�'�������A�Q�=~4�"�3���T� �'�����-�'�'���T�'�����4���2��}��B�U�A�B~4���A�-� �\���=���A���}�� � ��� �'�����'��~4�5�3�'�2�3~��3�"����~;� � �'�'�Q�T��������'���"�A�T���}�� � ��� ���1¼���}��5�'~4}������ �����0�3�3���1�Q�A¡\���8�3~4�4�'�F�A�-� �\�A��±F�\~4�'�'~4�1�A�3�3�4��� �U���'� �A�3� ~;�"¥����� �O�A«0�3�'�����'�2�4~���~4�4�K���-~;�"�A�5�<�S�A�-� �\�A�B�'�"�2�1� ~;� �'�����A�-� �\�A���
DISCUSSION�����7��~�� ��~4���4��8}�������T�3~������Q��� ���4��8��� ~;� ~��� ������������� �4�S~������ �4� �A�� ��¡P�'� �����Q�4����� � �F�����±;��~�}�� ���4���7}���������Q~����������� ���P�T��� �1~��4���4��~�� �� �D���'��� �4�-�B�0~��'� �'�;���'~��Q�-�3�4�'�=�=�A��¡P��� � ¢������1�Q� ��� ���0���-���1� �A¡P�����A�-�7�3}���7���Q��0~���¹A�S�7������� ���c~4��� �����1��¥ �0����� �'�;�� �1�� �P��~;�-���-~�� � ����3� ��� �T�Q��}��� �A�F�; �0���'������-£;�"}�� � ��� ���0�c�������F���������¡*���-�T��~��-�0� �F¥�4���-�3� �½����A�������4����� ¾����c�"�K���A���4���V������3~����\�������=~��*��¡P� �����������1�~��1��~���� ��������~��Q�0�Q�����·� ���� �����4~����0�-�0�-�����O�����=�0�����Q�O��~4�7����¡*�A�-�� � ��"���B¡P� �4�B�0�������4����}�0��~��������0� ��'�-��� ���"~�}��4�~;~����0������A���������}�� �<�c����S���� � �-�-������"����� �4�� ���B����<�������-�c~4������ � �-�-�'�¼�c~�}�4�~�~3��'���4� �1� �<�'���\~��-�7�0~;��� ���;� �'���A�����A��� ~��D���P~;�-�P�'��}�� ���0�;����'� ����� �A���A���3�����-�c~������-}�� ��¿U���� � �D� �-�4�������A��� ~��\�����B��}�������7� �0� ~����'�Q�<��~��-�1�A��0~���� ���'�4� ���V����B�0�������4���U�����0~�}�����8�0������ �-�*�'�P~��-�*���-}�� ����A�F� ����-�<�0���0���'�����A���F�����0�B~���0���3�A���w�����P���5�5}�3�4�P�������"� ~4¡*���� ���7�'� �V~����0����� �3� �4�"����\~��4�������0� �7�-�V~����F~;��� ���;�� �0~�������3�'�3��¡P����-�-~;������<�P����� �P���0��������Q��¡P���U�7� ~�� ���-���A��� �\�A�F��t�������4����0�7�3� ���� �'�0�c�A���7����� �����P�'�S� �T�����7���-���� �4� ~;����
�4�����B��}�0������~K����0����� ���7��� ~�� ~4�7� �'��������~��Q�0�3�3���=�0��� �-���A�����3�4� �-���A�-��� � ��� �c���\���5�1�����F����'� �3� ����� � �'���0�-�������0����'���=�P���P����7�T��Q}���3�4���-�4� ����� �\�������~��S�'�����\~��"�����8�3~�� � ~4¡P� �-�c�Q�������<�c~���'��~����0�Q�4���[� }���A�4� ~;�� �-�1�4�4���5��� �4~���� ���;��A���4���-����¡P� �4��� �D������'~��Q���3�4���·¦ ���������4����}��0�=~��1�F����������� � �3�����'���8}�0�c~4�7�0��������"��'�� � �-���'�-©��;� ���4�����-��� ���4� ~��'�F��� �-�=���\~��-�\�� � �3����������-���0� �������Q}�����~��-}�� ���4� ~��-�=¦�����}�� � ¿��'�� � �S� �-�4���-�����4� ~����3�F~;��� ���;� �-�4�A�����A��� ~;���������0~���� �����4� ���Q©�������<���A�-�-�c~��"�����F~4}�����7�3� ~4¡»¡*� �4�� �S���S����~��Q�0�0¥�4���q¦ �0���'�������������0~�}�����7�F����-� �-��©-�"����B�����0� ���'�-���0¼-��������'� �<�V�4~���A�F� ���2� ���}���0� ~��\����\~�}��<�0� ��8�4�-�����A���c¦ �-���-}������B�0�-��� �3� �����������-� �\�'�-���������4�����0���-�0�=~4�1�0���3�A���0©���U�����-�A�0�'���3�4�4���2�\~4�����-�'�'���\�A«8��� �'�����3� ~F�T�Q~4�B�2�'~;�����'�A�4� ~;�
���A�<¡S�'���T� �-�'�A�B�'��T��~;�'� �'�;�'�'~4�Q�����4�'�ª���'�'� �3�O� � �A�B� �D�7���<�-�'� �1���<�Q~3�3¥¡\�A�'�S�A«F�3�'���0� ~;�\~4�����A�Q�����0� ��� �7�0���'�'�7�4���'~4���4��À��A�Q�'����� ��� �7�0���'�'��3���'~3�5�B��}����1�A�Q� �U�4���A�"�1� �3�'� �3¡P�'� � ¥ }��0�'�2�-�A�0� �"�'���4� �'�3�����'�'�A�B�A�-�2������3~��3�"�T���A�1�'� ~;���\�'����~4�U��'� �1����~4�-��~;~;����~;��� �'�4�3� �A�=�'�����3������ �0��~4}��-�A�1�'�\�'����~4�T��~4�3�'���3� �'����A�-���A�<�-�A�3~4�5�2���'�'�A}��0���4���A����-~4�� ���T~;����~4�5� }���� �3� �A�U�Q~4��� ���Q~��-�\�'�3�0~;�'� �'�F�'~;���4�'�A���'�\~;�������� ��'��~4�5���'���O� ���<��~;��}��'��� ���Q~4�-�\���3��}��5�1�'� � � �'���'��¦AÁc�A¡\�\�'�y�§"Â;{'©��;Ã�}��U�Q� ����� �������Q}"���1�A�Q���3���A��3���T���-�A���'���'�2~4�"�<�-�'�A�=�'�'���U��2�����'� �0� �1�1�Q�'�A�4~4��� �T�4�����A«0�4�'���"�4~�¡\��� �'�T�-�A�-� ���'��� �=�'�A� }��'� � �B}�����'���D �4�'�"�T~4¡P���A�5����� �S~3�Q£��-�A�0� ���'���4� �'��~4}��4��~F~4�������'�'�A�0��¹��S~4�4���A�¡\~4�����0�4�Q}��'�'�A���Q� }��4�-�A�0� �"�'���4� �'��~4}��3��~;~4�U���������A�=�A�-�2��� �1~4�4�'�;� ���3������'��� �4���B�0~;�'� �'�;�'�'~;� ~����S~4���2�'~;�\�B}���� �<���;�'�"�T�<���'�A�B�����2�2�"�A��'� �'�S�'����� �D�A�-�'�A�4� ���B��}��'�'�A���Q� }��4�-�A��� ���'���4� �'�F~4}��4��~;~4�8�0���'�'�A����1~�¡P���A���A«F�4�'�����\� ������2�'~;�����'�A�4� ~;�������<¡\�'���T� ���'�A�=�'���
��~;�'� �'���'�'~4�����Q�3�'�q���'�'� �4�D�A«0�4�'�����4~K�'~;���4�A«0� �=~4�4���A�U�4���'���4��~4������<}��"� �'�O���A�-��¢U�T����0� �1�'���A�-�1}����Q�����3�'�\�A�3� ���"}"���'���'~4}��-���1� ���1��2����� ~4�-��~;�2�3�����'� }���~Q�U�'~;�S�B}��"� � ����A�-�"������� �O�\������� ���T�4�"���~;�'� �'�4�Q�A�"�-� �T~4����~;~4�B����� �1����~4�-��~;~;���=� �=� �S���-�A���0� �1�'� �P�'~;����� ���4�����
Ä�Å�ÆÇ�È�ÉÊ�ËÌ�Í�È�Î�Ï�Ê�Ð�È�Ê�Ñ Ò�É�Í Ó�É�Ê�Ô�Õ�Ö"× Æ�Ø�Ù'Ú Ì�Û*Õ"Ü"Ü Æ
Ì'Ë�ÝDÔAÞ0Ó3Ô'Ë�ß0Ñ à1Ô�×�á'Ê5É�Ë�ß�È;Ë Ä Ö�Ö"Ö Ø'â Ì'Ë"Ý2Ó4ã�ÔÎQÑ Ê5ßQÓ"ß�Û�ß�Ó4Ô'ä\ÌAÓQÑ Ò2Ý�ÌAÓ3ÌÈ�ËTÓ3ã�Ñ ßBå'É�ÔAß�Ó4Ñ È;ËOÔ�Ò'ã�È�Ó3ã�Ô2Í È4Ê�Ô2×Aæ�Í È3à1ÔAÊ�ÔAÓ�Ì'Í ç;Õ�Ü"Ü�Õ Ø ç Ú È4Ê�Ô'È4à7ÔAÊ âÓ4ã�ÔAÊ-Ô2Ñ ß�ß�È;ä\Ô2Ñ Ë"Ý�Ñ Ò'ÌAÓ4Ñ È;ËTÓ3ã�ÌAÓ�ÌÓ4Ñ Ô1Ð�ÔAÓ èPÔ'Ô'ËTé�Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë2Ê�ÔAß�Ñ Ý"Ô'Ë�Ó3Ñ Ì'Íß0ê�Ì'Ò'ÔAßBÌ'Ë�Ý2ßQÓ Ê-Ô'Ë'é�Ó4ãOÈ4Î�Ò'È;ä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó<ÛDÑ ßBË�È4Ó�ÔAÞ8Ò'Í É�ß0Ñ à1Ô1Ó3Ècê�È;È4ÊË�Ô'Ñ é1ã�Ð�È4Ê-ã"È;È;Ý�ß-çQÏ=ËOÌAÊ5Ó3Ñ Ò'Í Ô�Ñ Ëcëì�íUî7ï ð ñ�ò0ï ó ô7õSö'ò0ï ì�ð ÷\×�ø7Ê�ÌAÛ�Ó3È;ËÕ�Ü�Ü�Ü Ø Í ÌAÉ�Ý'ßUÓ3ã�Ô"é�Ê-È4è\Ñ Ë�éSäSÈ4à1Ô'äSÔ'Ë'Ó�Ó3È4è\ÌAÊ-ÝOù�Ò'È;äSäBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó Ûé�Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë�ß â ú ß0ã�ÌAÊ-Ô'ÝDê�ÌAÊ-û�ß�Ó<É�Ò'û�Ô'ÝSÌAèPÌAÛSÈ;Ë�Ó3ã�ÔTÑ Ë�ß0Ñ Ý�ÔTÈ4Î�Ê-ÔAß�Ñ Ý�Ô'Ë�Ó3Ñ Ì'ÍÐ�Í È;Ò'û�ß0ç Ú È4ßQÓ�È4Î;Ó3ã�ÔAß0Ô�Ò�È;ä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó<Û�é-Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë-ßBã�ÌAà1ÔÐ�Ô'Ô'ËDÝ"ÔAà1Ô'Í üÈFê�Ô'ÝOÑ ËOä\Ñ Ý�Ý"Í Ô4ü1È4Ê1É�ê�ê�Ô�Ê4üAÑ Ë�Ò'È;äSÔ�Ë�Ô'Ñ é1ã�Ð�È4Ê'ã�È;ÈFÝ�ß�ýxã�È4É�ß�ÔAß�È;ËÌ�Ò'ÈFä\ä�É�Ë"Ñ Ó Û�é-Ê'Ô�Ô'ËOÑ ËKþcÔ�è@ÿ1È4Ê�û���Ñ Ó Û��ß�æ8Ê�Ô�Ô'Ë'è\Ñ Ò'ã���Ñ Í Í ÌAé1Ô�ß�Ô'Í ÍÎQÈ4Ê7ß0ÔAà1ÔAÊ-Ì'ÍFäSÑ Í Í Ñ È;ËOÝ�È;Í Í ÌAÊ5ßBÌ'ê�Ñ Ô'Ò�Ô'çQÿ1ÔAÓ"Ó4ã�Ô�ê�ÌAÓ<Ó3ÔAÊ�ËDÈ4ÎUË"Ô'Ñ é1ã�Ð�È4Ê4üã�È;È;ÝTÓ3Ñ ÔAßBÝ�ÔAà1Ô'Í È;ê�Ñ Ë�éBÎ Ê�È;ä@Ó4ã�Ô1ß�ã�ÌAÊ-Ô'ÝTÉ�ß�Ô2È4Î�Ó4ã�ÔAß�Ô2Ò'ÈFä\ä\È;Ëé�Ê-Ô'Ô'ËTß0ê�Ì'Ò'ÔAß=ÔAÞ1Ì'ÒAÓ4Í ÛPä\Ñ Ê5Ê-È4Ê5ß=È4É�ÊUÎQÑ Ë�Ý�Ñ Ë�é�ß�Î Ê-È;ä[ß0È;ä\Ô�È4Î"Ó3ã�Ôê"È;È4Ê�ÔAß�Ó�Ò'ÈFä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó3Ñ Ô�ßBÑ Ë2Ó4ã�Ô���Ë"Ñ Ó3Ô'Ý��QÓ4Ì�Ó4ÔAßFäSÈ4Ê�Ô'È4àÔAÊ â Ó3ã�Ñ ßê�ÌAÓ Ó4ÔAÊ-Ë\Ì'ê�ê�Ô'ÌAÊ5ß=Ì'ÒAÊ-È4ßQßcÝ�Ñ Î ÎQÔAÊ-Ô'Ë�Ó�Ò'ÈFä\äBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó Ûcé�Ê-Ô'Ô'Ë�ß�èSÑ Ó3ãß�Ó Ê-Ñ û"Ñ Ë�éSÒ'ÈFË�ß0Ñ ß�Ó3Ô�Ë�ÒAÛ�ç���Í Ô'ÌAÊ-Í Û â Ó3ã�Ô�ÔAÞ�Ó3Ô'Ë�Ó"Ó3È�è\ã�Ñ Ò�ã2Ó<Ê�Ô�ÔAßê'Ê�È;äSÈ4Ó4Ô�ã�Ô'Ì'Í Ó3ã'ÛBß�È;Ò'Ñ Ì'ÍFÔ'Ò'È4ß�Û�ßQÓ3Ô'äBß�Ñ ËOÝ�Ñ à1ÔAÊ5ß�Ô1ß�ÔAÓ<Ó3Ñ Ë�é�ß�Ì'Ë�Ýê"È;ê�É�Í ÌAÓ3Ñ È;Ë�ßUÐ�Ô'Ì�Ê5ßUÎ É�Ê5Ó4ã"ÔAÊ�Ñ Ë�à1ÔAßQÓ3Ñ é1Ì�Ó3Ñ È;Ë�ç
�7Ô�é7Ì�Ê�ÝÍ Ô�ßQß=È4Î�ãÈ�è»è*Ñ ÝÔ�Í Û=Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ßBÌ�Ê�ÔTÍ Ñ Ë�û�Ô�Ý�Ó4È�ß0È�Ò�Ñ Ì�ÍÔ'Ò�È�ßQÛ0ß3Ó4Ô�ätãÔ�Ì�Í Ó4ã â Ñ Ó�Ñ ßcÑ äPêÈ�Ê�Ó4Ì�Ë-Ó�Ó4ÈOË�È�Ó�Ô7Ó4ãÌ�ÓÓ4ãÔ�Ò�È;Ë�Ó�Ô�ÞFÓ�È�ÎÓ4ãÔ�ß0ÔUßQÓ<É�ÝÑ Ô�ßQýxêÈ;È�Ê�ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë\ËÔ�Ñ é1ã-Ð�È4Ê�ãÈ�È�Ý-ßQýxÑ ßVê-Ê-Ô�Ò'Ñ ß0Ô�Í ÛVÓ4ãÔÒ'È�Ë-Ó4Ô�Þ;Ó1èPãÔ�Ê-ÔUß�È�Ò�Ñ Ì�Í"Ô�Ò�È�ßQÛ0ßQÓ�Ô�äqã�Ô�Ì�Í Ó4ãPÑ ßVÌ�Ó1é0Ê�Ô'Ì�Ó�Ô�ßQÓÊ�Ñ ß0ûSÌ�ËÝèPãÔ�Ê-ÔUÉÊ5Ð�Ì�ËBÓ<Ê-Ô�Ô�ßVÌ�Ê�Ô�Í Ô�Ì�ßQÓ2ê-Ê�Ô�ß0Ô�Ë�Ó4ç� qãÑ Í ÔBê�È�à7Ô�Ê�Ó<ÛwÑ ßVËÈ4Óß�Û7Ë�È�Ë�Û7ä\È�É�ß�è\Ñ Ó4ãSÌ'Í Ñ Ô�Ë�Ì�Ó4Ñ È;ËDÌ�Ë�Ý�Ê�Ñ ß0ûOÈ�Î�Ò�Ê-Ñ äPÔ â Ó4È�ÈVäSÌ�Ë�Ûê�ÈFÈ4Ê8É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËSË"Ô�Ñ é�ã'Ð�È3Ê-ã"ÈFÈFÝ'ßcÌ�Ê�ÔTÒ�ã"Ì�Ê�Ì�Ò�Ó3Ô�Ê-Ñ �"Ô�Ý�Ð;ÛPã"Ñ éãDÍ Ô�àÔ�Í ß=È4ÎäDÑ ß5Ó ÊAÉ"ß�Ó â Ñ ß�ÈFÍ Ì�ÓQÑ È0Ë â é-Ê�Ì�Î Î�Ñ Ó3Ñ â ê'Ê�ÈFê"Ô<Ê�Ó ÛKÒ�Ê�Ñ äSÔ â Ì�Ë"Ý�àÑ ÈFÍ Ô�Ë'Ó8Ò�Ê�Ñ äSÔ�ç� ÓäSÌ�Û=Ð�Ô7Ó3ã"Ì�ÓÓ3ã"Ô1é�Ê�Ô�Ì�Ó3Ô�ß�ÓÐ�Ô�Ë"Ô�ÎQÑ Ó ßcÈ3Î�É"Ê5Ð�Ì�Ë�Î�È4Ê�Ô�ß�Ó Ê5ÛPÌ�Ò�Ò�Ê�É�Ô7Ó3Èß-ÈFä\Ô�È4Î8Ñ Ó ßTã�Ñ ß�Ó3ÈQÊ�Ñ Ò�Ì'Í Í ÛDäSÈ3ß�Ó;É�Ë"Ý"Ô�Ê5ß�Ô�Ê5àÔ�ÝKÒ�È;Ë'ß5Ó3Ñ Ó É�Ô�Ë"Ò'Ñ Ô�ß-ç
�TãÔ7ÎQÑ ËÝÑ Ë�é�ß=ãÔ�Ê-ÔTãÌAà7ÔTÌ2Ë-É�ä=Ð�Ô�ÊBÈ4Î�Ñ äPê�Í Ñ Ò'Ì�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�ß�ÎQÈ�ÊÌAÊ�Ð�È4Ê�Ñ Ò�É�Í Ó<ÉÊ-Ô=Ì'Ë�ÝcÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê-Ô�ßQÓ<ÊQÛ�ç���Ñ Ê�ßQÓTÌ�ËÝ=Î3È�Ê-Ô'äPÈ�ßQÓ â Ó4ãÔ�ÛÊ-Ô�Ñ Ë�Î3È�Ê�Ò�Ô8Ó�ã�ÔUé�Ê-È�è*Ñ Ë-écÊ�Ô�Ò�È4é7ËÑ Ó�Ñ È�ËSÈ�Î�Ó�ãÔ8à7Ñ Ó4Ì�Í'Ê�È�Í Ô8Ó�Ê-Ô'Ô�ßVêÍ Ì�ÛÑ Ë�Ó4ãÔTÔ�Ò'È�Í È�é7Ñ Ò�Ì'Í â ß0È�Ò�Ñ Ì�Í â Ì�ËÝSÔ�Ò'È�Ë�È�äPÑ ÒTãÔ'Ì�Í Ó�ãSÈ�Î�È4ÉÊÒ'È�ä\ä=É�Ë�Ñ Ó4Ñ ÔAß0ç��0Ô'Ò�È�Ë�Ý â Ó4ãÔAÛPÌ�Ê5é0É�ÔÎ3È�Ê�ÌTä=É�Ò�ã�Ó4Ñ é7ã�Ó4Ô�ÊÑ Ë-Ó4Ô�é0Ê�ÌAÓ�Ñ È�ËPÈ�Î�Ó4ãÔ8ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê�ÔAß3Ó2Ñ Ë-Ó3ÈTÓ�ã�ÔUÊ�Ô�ß0Ñ Ý�Ô�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í'É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËÎQÌ�Ð"Ê�Ñ Ò'ç���ã�Ñ Ê-Ý â Ó4ã�Ô7Î3Ñ ËÝ�Ñ Ë�é0ß�ßQÉé0é1Ô�ßQÓ�Ó4ãÌ�Ó�Ì�Ê�Ð�È�Ê�Ñ ßQÓ��;Ê�Ô�ß0Ñ Ý�Ô�Ë-Óê�Ì�Ê�Ó4ËÔ�Ê�ß0ãÑ ê-ß=ä\Ì�Û=Ð�ÔTÌ�ËSÑ ä\êÈ�Ê�Ó4Ì�Ë�Ó�Î3Ì�Ò�Ó4È�ÊBÑ Ë�Î É�Í Í ÛcÊ-Ô�Ì'êÑ Ë-é=Ó4ãÔã�Ô�Ì�Í Ó�ã-ÛVßFÈ;Ò�Ñ Ì'ÍÔ�Ò�È�ß3Û�ß3Ó4Ô�ä Ð�Ô�ËÔAÎ3Ñ Ó<ßVÈ�Î1Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ß0ç
Vital Municipal Functions��ãÔ�ß0Ô8Î3Ñ ËÝÑ Ë-é0ß�Ð"Ê�È�Ì'ÝÔ�Ë\È4ÉÊ�É�ËÝÔAÊ�ßQÓ�Ì'ËÝÑ Ë-é*È4Î�Ó4ãÔ7Î É�ËÒ�Ó4Ñ È;Ë-ßÓ�Ê�Ô�ÔAß�ß0Ô�Ê�à7ÔTÑ Ë�É�Ê�Ð�Ì�Ë\Ò�È�ä\ä=É�ËÑ Ó4Ñ Ô�ß�ç�Ï�Ó�ê-Ê�Ô�ß0Ô�Ë-Ó â Ó�ã�Ô8Ê�È;Í Ô�È�ÎÌ�Ê�Ð�È4Ê�Ñ ÒAÉ�Í Ó<ÉÊ�ÔTÑ ËTÉÊ�Ð�Ì�ËSÔ�Ò�È�ßQÛ0ßQÓ4Ô�äBßcÑ ß=ê-Ê�Ñ äPÌ�Ê�Ñ Í ÛPÒ�È;ËÒ'Ô�ê-Ó<É�Ì�Í üÑ �"Ô�ÝDÑ Ë�Ó4Ô�Ê-ä=ß=È4Î�Ó4ãÔ2Ì�ÔAß3Ó4ã�Ô�Ó4Ñ Ò â Ô'Ë-àÑ Ê�È�Ë�äPÔ'Ë-Ó4Ì�Í â Ì'ËÝTèPÑ Í Ý�Í Ñ Î3ÔãÌ�Ð�Ñ Ó4Ì�ÓÎ É�ËÒ�Ó4Ñ È;Ë-ß�Ó�Ê-Ô�Ô�ß�ßFÔAÊ�à7Ô�ç���ãÔ7ÎQÑ ËÝ�Ñ Ë-é0ß�Ê�ÔAà7Ñ ÔAè*Ô�ÝDãÔ�Ê�Ôß3Éé�é7Ô�ßQÓ�Ì7ßQÉÐ"ß3Ó3Ì�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í Í ÛPÔ�Þ8êÌ�Ë�ÝÔ�ÝDÒ�È�Ë�Ò�Ô�ê-Ó<É�Ì�Í Ñ �"Ì�Ó4Ñ È�ËDä\Ì�Û=Ð�ÔÑ ËSÈ�Ê�ÝÔ�Ê4ç4Ï�Ê�Ð�È4Ê-Ñ Ò�É�Í Ó<ÉÊ-ÔTäPÌ�Û=Ð�Ô7à7ÌAßQÓ4Í Û=É�Ë�ÝÔ�Ê�à7Ì�Í É�Ô�Ý�Ê�Ô�Í Ì�Ó4Ñ à7ÔÓ�ÈVÑ Ó�ß=Ò'È�Ë-Ó<Ê-Ñ Ð�É�Ó3Ñ È�Ë-ß0ç
tÑ Ó4ãÑ Ë�Ó�ã�ÔTÍ Ñ Ó�ÔAÊ�Ì�Ó<ÉÊ�ÔTÈ�Ë�Ó4ãÔ7ßFÈFÒ�Ñ Ì'Í�Ð�Ô�ËÔ�Î3Ñ Ó<ßcÈ�Î"ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�ËÎ3È�Ê�Ô�ßQÓ�ß â Ó4ãÑ ß2èPÈ4Ê�û=Ê�Ô�Ñ Ë-Î3È�Ê�Ò'Ô�ßOÌ�ËÝPÔ�ÞFÓ�Ô'ËÝ-ß2Ó4ãÔ�Ê�Ô�ß0Ô�Ì�Ê-Ò�ã*È�ËÓ�Ê-Ô�Ô�ß=Ì'ËÝSã�Ô�Ì�Í Ó4ã�Û\ã-É�äPÌ�ËTÎ É�Ë�Ò�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�Ñ Ë�é7ç��8Ô'Ò�Ô�Ë�Ó�ÔAà7Ñ ÝÔ'Ë�Ò�Ô2Í Ñ Ëû'ßé0Ê�Ô�Ô�ËBÊ�ÔAßFÑ ÝÔ�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í�ßFÔ�Ó<Ó4Ñ Ë�é0ß�Ó�È�Ê�Ô�Ý-É�Ò'Ô�ÝSÌ�é0é0Ê�Ô�ßQß0Ñ È;Ë\×��É�ÈKÌ�ËÝ�3É�Í Í Ñ à7Ì'ËSÕ�Ü"Ü ÄAØ FÔ'Ëã�Ì'ËÒ'Ô�ÝDÒ'È�é1ËÑ Ó4Ñ à1Ô1Î É�Ë�Ò�Ó3Ñ È�Ë�Ñ Ë�é â Í Ñ Î3ÔÎ É�Ë�Ò�üÓ4Ñ È;Ë�Ñ Ë�é â Ì'Ë�ÝTèPÔ�Í Í3Ð�Ô'Ñ Ë�é\×�Ô'ç é1ç â �"É�ÈcÕ"Ü�Ü Ä ���Ì'ê�Í Ì'ËOÕ"Ü"Ü ÄAØ FÌ'Ë�Ý
é0Ê-Ô�Ì�Ó�Ô�ÊBÒ'Ì�êÌ�Ò�Ñ Ó<ÛcÎQÈ�ÊUßFÔ�Í Î3ü�ÝÑ ß0Ò�Ñ ê�Í Ñ ËÔT×��Ì�Ð�Ô�Ê��UÌ�Û7Í È�ÊBÔ�Ó�Ì�Í ç�Õ"Ü�Ü"Õ Ø ç�8È4é1Ô�Ó4ãÔ�Ê â Ó4ãÔBÔAà7Ñ ÝÔ'ËÒ�Ô7Ê-Ô�à7Ñ Ô�èPÔ�ÝPã�Ô�Ê-ÔUßQÉé�é1Ô�ß3Ó<ßVÌ8à7Ñ Ó�Ì�Í�Ê�È�Í ÔÎQÈ�ÊUÓ Ê-Ô�ÔAßcÑ ËTÓ4ãÔTã�Ô�Ì'Í Ó4ã-ÛBÎ É�Ë�Ò�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�Ñ Ë-éPÈ4Î�Ë�È4Ó�È�Ë�Í ÛPÑ ËÝ�Ñ à7Ñ Ý-É�Ì�Í ß âÐ"ÉÓ�ËÔ�Ñ é1ã-Ð�È�Ê�ãÈ;È�Ý-ß=Ì�ßUèPÔ�Í Í ç
Ú È�Ê-Ô7é1Ô�ËÔ�Ê-Ì�Í Í Û â Ó4ãÔ1Î3Ñ Ë�ÝÑ Ë-é0ß�Ê-Ô�à7Ñ Ô�èPÔ�ÝOãÔ�Ê-ÔTÒ�È;äPêÍ Ô�ä\Ô�Ë-ÓÌ�Ë�ÝSÔ�ÞFÓ4Ô�ËÝBÓ4ãÔTÍ Ì�Ê5é7Ô�ÊBÍ Ñ Ó�Ô�Ê-Ì�Ó�ÉÊ-Ô�ÝÈ�ÒAÉ�äPÔ�Ë�Ó4Ñ Ë�écÓ4ãÔ8Î É�ËÒ�Ó4Ñ È�Ë�ßÓ<Ê�Ô'ÔAß=ê-Ê'È�à7Ñ Ý�ÔTÑ Ë�É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËDÒ'È�äPäBÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó�Ñ ÔAßFç��7È�éÔ�Ó4ãÔAÊUèPÑ Ó4ã�Ó4ãÔÔ�à1Ñ Ý�Ô'ËÒ�Ô�Í Ñ Ëû"Ñ Ë-écÓ<Ê�Ô�Ô�ß=Ì�ËÝ\È�Ó4ãÔ�ÊUà7Ô�é7Ô�Ó4Ì�Ó3Ñ È�Ë�Ó�ÈOÒ'Í Ô�Ì�ËSÌ�Ñ ÊBÌ�ËÝÒ�Í Ô�Ì�Ë�è*ÌAÓ�ÔAÊ â Ó4ãÑ ß=ËÔ�ètÔAà7Ñ ÝÔ�ËÒ'ÔTÍ Ñ Ëû"Ñ Ë-é=Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ß�Ó4ÈKãÔ�Ì�Í Ó4ãÑ Ô�Êê�Ì�Ó<Ó3Ô�Ê�Ë�ßcÈ4Î�Ñ ËÝ�Ñ à1Ñ Ý-É�Ì'Í;Ì'ËÝSË�Ô�Ñ é7ã�Ð�È4Ê�ã�È�È�ÝTÎ É�Ë�Ò�Ó4Ñ È�ËÑ Ë-é\êÈ�Ñ Ë�Ó<ßÓ4ÈKÌTäBÉ�Ò�ãSÍ Ì�Ê�é1Ô�Ê�Ó4ãÔ�äSÔ�ýsÓ<Ê�Ô�ÔAßcÌ�ËÝSê-ÉÐ�Í Ñ ÒTãÔ�Ì�Í Ó�ã�ç��Ì�ÊUÎ Ê�È�äÐ�Ô'Ñ Ë�é\Ì�ËDÌ�ä\Ô'ËÑ Ó<Û â Ó4ãÔ'Ë â Ñ Ó�Ì�ê�êÔ'Ì�Ê5ß�Ó4ãÌAÓ�Ó<Ê'Ô�ÔAß=ê�Í Ì�Û\ä=É�Í Ó4Ñ êÍ Ô âÎ É�Ë�ÝÌ'äPÔ�Ë-Ó4Ì�Í4Ê�È;Í ÔAßcÑ Ë�Ó3ãÔTÒ'È�Ë-Ó4Ñ Ë-É�Ô�ÝDãÔ�Ì�Í Ó3ãSÈ�Î"É�Ê�Ð�Ì�ËSÒ�È�ä\ä=É�üË�Ñ Ó4Ñ Ô�ßcÌ'ËÝ�ß0ãÈ�É�Í Ý�Ð�Ô7Ê-Ô�é7ÌAÊ�ÝÔ�ÝSÑ Ë�Ó4ãÔ7ß0Ì�ä\ÔTÍ Ñ é7ã-Ó�ÌAßcÈ�Ó4ãÔAÊÉÊ5Ð�Ì�ËPÑ Ë-Î Ê�ÌAß3Ó<Ê�É�Ò�Ó<ÉÊ�Ì�Í�Ô�Í Ô�äPÔ�Ë-Ó<ß0ç
��ËSÍ Ñ Ë�û"Ñ Ë�é=Ó<Ê-Ô'Ô�ß�èPÑ Ó3ãTß0È;äPÔ2È4Î�È4ÉÊ�ä\È�ß�Ó�Ò�ã�Ì�Í Í Ô'Ë-é1Ñ Ë�éPÌ'ËÝÑ ä\ê�È�Ê5Ó�Ì'Ë-Ó�Ò�Ñ à7Ñ Ò1é7È�Ì'Í ß â Ó4ãÑ ß�èPÈ�Ê�ûOÒ�È;Ë-Ó<Ê�Ñ Ð"É�Ó4ÔAßcÌ2ËÔ�ètÌ�Ë�Ýê�È�Í Ñ Ó4Ñ Ò�Ì�Í Í Û\Ò�È�ä\êÔ'Í Í Ñ Ë�é\Ì'ÝÝÑ Ó4Ñ È;Ë�Ó4È�Ó4ã�ÔTÌ�Ê5é�É�äPÔ�Ë�Ó<ß�Î3È�Ê8ÉÊ5Ð�Ì'ËÎ3È4Ê-ÔAß3Ó<Ê�Û�ç� tãÑ Í ÔTê-Ê�È�à7Ñ Ý�Ñ Ë-éPÒ�Í Ô�Ì�ËÔAÊ=Ì'Ñ Ê â Ò�Í Ô'Ì�ËÔAÊUè*Ì�Ó4Ô�Ê â Ì�ËÝÈ�Ó4ã�ÔAÊBÔ�Ë-à7Ñ Ê�È�Ë�äPÔ�Ë-Ó4Ì�Í4Ð�Ô'ËÔ�Î3Ñ Ó<ßcÑ ß=È�Ð�à1Ñ È4Éß0Í ÛPÑ äPêÈ4Ê�Ó4Ì�Ë-Ó�Ì�ËÝà1Ì�Í É�Ì�Ð�Í Ô â Ó4ãÔ1Î3Ì�Ò�Ó�Ê�Ô�ä\Ì'Ñ Ë-ß�Ó�ã�Ì�Ó�Î3Ô�è»ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�ËDê�È�Í Ñ Ó4Ñ Ò�Ñ Ì�Ë-ß�à7Ñ Ô�èÓ4ãÔ�ß�ÔTÑ ßQßQÉ�Ô�ßcÌ�ßcÒ�Ô'Ë-Ó�Ê-Ì�Í4Ó4È2Ó4ãÔ�Ñ Ê=ÌAé7Ô�ËÝÌ�ß0ç��QÓ�Ê-È�Ë-é7Ô�ÊBÒ�È�äPäBÉ�ËÑ üÓ4Ñ Ô�ß â Ê-Ô�Ý-É�Ò�Ô�ÝSÒ�Ê-Ñ äPÔ7Ê�ÌAÓ4ÔAß â Ì�Ë�ÝSãÔ�Ì'Í Ó4ãÑ Ô�Ê â ä\È�Ê-Ô7à1Ñ Ó�Ì'Í�Ë�Ô�Ñ é7ã-Ð�È4Ê4üãÈ;È;Ý-ßQýsÓ4ãÔ�ß0Ô�Ì�Ê�Ô�È�ÉÓ4Ò'È�äPÔAß�Ó4ãÌ�Ó2ä\Ì�Û7È�Ê�ß=Ì�ËÝ\Ò�Ñ Ó<Û*Ò�È�É�Ë�Ò�Ñ Í ßßQÓ<Ê�Ñ à1Ô7Î3È4Ê â È4Î Ó4Ô�Ë�èPÑ Ó�ãSÍ Ñ Ó<Ó�Í ÔTÈ4ÊBËÈ�ßQÉ�Ò�Ò'Ô�ßQßFç���ãÔ1Î3Ñ ËÝÑ Ë-é0ß=ãÔ�Ê�ÔßQÉé0é1ÔAß3Ó1Ó�ãÌAÓ7ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê-ÔAß3Ó<Ê�ÛwãÔ�Í ê-ßKÌ'ÝÝ-Ê�Ô�ß�ß�ß0È�äPÔBÈ�Î�È�É�ÊVä\È�ßQÓÊ�Ô'Ò�È4é7Ë�Ñ ��Ô'ÝSÌ�ËÝSäPÈ4ß3Ó�Ò'ãÌ'Í Í Ô�Ë-é1Ñ Ë�é=ßFÈ;Ò�Ñ ÔAÓ�Ì�Í�ËÔ'Ô�Ý-ß0ç
Tighter Integration into the Residential Urban
Fabric� ËÔßQÓ�Ê-Ñ û"Ñ Ë-é\Ñ äPêÍ Ñ Ò�ÌAÓ�Ñ È;ËSÈ�Î"Ó4ãÑ ß�Ð�È�Ý�ÛPÈ�Î"è\È�Ê-ûDÑ ß�Ó4ãÌAÓÓ4ãÔÍ È�Ò�ÌAÓ4Ñ È�Ë\È�Î"Ó<Ê�Ô�Ô�ßcäPÌ�Ó<Ó4ÔAÊ�ßcÌ�Ó�Ì8ßQÉÊ�ê-Ê-Ñ ß0Ñ Ë-é7Í Û=Î3Ñ ËÔ�ü é0Ê�Ì�Ñ ËÔ�Ý�ßFÒ�Ì'Í Ô'ç�"Ì�Ê�Ó3Ñ Ò'Ñ êÌ'Ë-Ó�ßcÑ ËBÓ4ãÔ�ß0Ô8ßQÓ<É�ÝÑ Ô�ßcÌ�Í Í�ãÌ�à7Ô8Ê�Ô�Ì'Ý�Û*Ì�Ò�Ò�ÔAß3ß�Ó4ÈË�Ô�Ñ éã-Ð�È�Ê�ãÈ;È�Ý�é0Ê�Ô'Ô�Ë�ß�êÌ�Ò�ÔAßcÌ�Ë�ÝSÍ Ñ à1Ô7è*Ñ Ó4ã�Ñ ËSÌ7Î3Ô�ètäPÑ Í Ô�ß=È�ÎÈ�Ë�ÔTÈ4Î�Ó4ãÔTäPÈ�ßQÓ�Ô�ÞFÓ4Ô�Ë-ß�Ñ à7ÔTÔ�Þ8Ì�äPêÍ Ô�ß=È�Î�É�Ê5Ð�Ì�ËSËÌAÓ�ÉÊ�ÔTÑ ËþVÈ4Ê5Ó�ã�Ï=äPÔ�Ê�Ñ Ò�Ì�ý! �Ì'û�Ô Ú Ñ Ò�ãÑ é7Ì�ËSÌ�ËÝ�Ó4ãÔ2êÌ�Ê�û'ßcÌ'Í È�Ë�é�2ã�Ñ Ò�ÌAé7È��ß" "Ì�û"Ô#�FãÈ�Ê-Ô2øUÊ�Ñ à7Ô�ç��-ÉÊ5Ó�ã�Ô�Ê â Ó4ãÔ2êÌ�Ê�Ó�Ñ Ò�Ñ êÌ�Ë-Ó<ß=Ñ ËSÔ�Ì�Ò�ãßQÓ É�Ý'Û\Í Ñ à1Ô1èPÑ Ó4ã�Ñ ËTÓ4ãÔ1ß-Ì�ä\Ô2ËÔ'Ñ é1ã-Ð�È�Ê-ãÈ;È;Ý â èPÑ Ó4ãTÓ4ã�Ô1ß0Ì'äPÔÈ�à1Ô�Ê-Ì�Í Í�Í Ô�à7Ô�Í�È�Î"Ó<Ê-Ô�ÔTÒ�Ì'ËÈ�ê-Û'ç4ÿUÔ�Ó�Ñ Ë�ßQÓ�É�Ý-ÛPÌAÎ Ó�ÔAÊ�ßQÓ<É�Ý-Û â Ó4ãÔÎQÑ Ë�Ý�Ñ Ë-éPÑ ß�Ó�ã�Ì�Ó�ãÌ�à1Ñ Ë�é=Ó Ê-Ô�Ô�ß=ÝÑ Ê-Ô'Ò�Ó4Í Û\È�ÉÓ<ß0Ñ ÝÔTÈ�Ë�Ô$�ß=È�èPËÐ"É�Ñ Í ÝÑ Ë-é\Ñ ß=ÝÑ Î ÎQÔ�Ê�Ô'Ë-Ó�Ó�ã"Ì�ËSã�Ì�à7Ñ Ë-é=Ó4ã�È�ß0Ô7ß0Ì'äPÔ1Ó�Ê-Ô�Ô�ß�%�ÉßQÓÈ4ÉÓ<ß�Ñ ÝÔTË�Ô�Ñ é7ã-Ð�È4Ê-ãÈ;È�ÝTÐ"É�Ñ Í ÝÑ Ë�é0ß0ç��8È�Î É�Í Í ÛBÊ-Ô�Ì'ê�Ó4ãÔ7ß0È;Ò�Ñ Ì�ÍÐ�Ô�Ë�Ô�Î3Ñ Ó<ßKÈ�Î1Ó<Ê�Ô�ÔAß�Ó�ãÔ'Ë â Ó�ã�Ô�ÉÊ�Ð�Ì�Ë=Î3È�Ê�Ô�ßQÓTä\Ì�ÛwËÔ�Ô�Ý=Ó4È�Ð�ÔßQÉ�Ð"ßQÓ4Ì'Ë-Ó4Ñ Ì�Í Í ÛPäPÈ4Ê�Ô1Ó�Ñ é1ã�Ó4Í ÛPÑ Ë-Ó4ÔAé0Ê�ÌAÓ�Ô'ÝSÑ Ë-Ó4È�Ó�ã�Ô7Ê-Ô�ß0Ñ ÝÔ�Ë�Ó4Ñ Ì'ÍÉÊ5Ð�Ì�ËBÎ3ÌAÐ�Ê�Ñ Ò8Ó�ã�Ì�Ë\Ñ ßcÒ�É�Ê�Ê�Ô'Ë-Ó�Í ÛcÊ�Ô�Ò�È�ä\äPÔ�Ë�ÝÔ�Ý�ç
Working with Citizens��ã�ÔÎQÈ;ÒAÉ�ß=È4Î�Ó3ã�Ñ ßUÊ-ÔAà1Ñ ÔAèsãÌAßUÐ�Ô'Ô'ËDÈ;ËTÓ3ã�Ô2ê"ã�Û�ß0Ñ Ò�Ì'ÍFê�Ê-È;Ý�É�ÒAÓ<ßBÈ3ÎÌAÊ5Ð�È3Ê�Ñ ÒAÉ�Í Ó É�Ê-Ô â Ð"É�ÓÓ4ã�ÔTê�Ê-È;Ò'ÔAßQßVÈ4Î�ÌAÊ5Ð�È4Ê-Ñ ÒAÉ�Í Ó<É�Ê-Ô8ß�É�Ê-Ô�Í Û*ã�ÌAßÑ ä\ê"Ì�ÒAÓ<ß�È;Ë2Ó3ã�Ôß�È;Ò'Ñ Ì'ÍFÔ4Ò'È4ß�Û�ß�Ó4Ô�äsÈ4ÎUÌ�Ò'È;ä\äTÉ�Ë�Ñ Ó<ÛSÌ�ßUè\Ô'Í Í ç&�Tã�Ì�ÓÑ ß â É"Ê5Ð�Ì'ËBÎQÈ4Ê-ÔAß�Ó<Ê5ÛPê�Ê-È4é�Ê-Ì'äBß=Ò�Ì'Ë�Ð�Ô8ß�Ó<Ê5É�ÒAÓ<É"Ê-Ô'Ý�ßQÉ�Ò'ã�Ó3ã�Ì�Ó�Ó4ã�ÔAÛê�Ê-ÈFä\È4Ó3ÔAýxÈ4ÊUÉ�Ë�Ý�ÔAÊ-ä\Ñ Ë�ÔAývÊ-ÔAß0Ñ ÝÔ'Ë�Ó ß'�'Ì'ê�ê'Ê-È;ê�Ê-Ñ ÌAÓ4Ñ È;ËSÈ4Î"Ó4ã�Ô'Ñ ÊË�Ô'Ñ éã�Ð�È4Ê�ã�È;È;ÝSÈ4É�Ó3Ý�È;È4Ê8ß0ê�Ì'Ò'ÔAß�ç��8È�Ó4ã�Ô2ÔAÞFÓQÔ'Ë�Ó�Ó4ã�ÌAÓ�é�Ê�Ô'Ô'Ë�Ñ Ë�éPÑ ß
(*),+ -�.�/�0�132,4#5�/�6 4#/�7�8:9<;=/�9*> ?�.�6 @A.,94B> CED#F"4�D�6 @�2$GIH�/�?$> D�6�JK?�/�6 /�LG
?$DM9<9*> 4�NO/�.,@P> CEDKQIDMGR@�2,DM@,9*4MS'T,4�?M@ S=9$4MS> N,4�C$@ S'U�?�2,/�> ?�4MSVD�C,NW D�6 .P4MSXQY> @�2#9*4MST�4�?M@�@�/=@�2,4�T$.,;=6 > ?�D�C,NZT$9*> W DM@�4KST,D�?�4MSR> C�@�2,4�> 9C�4�> LK2$;=/�9*2,/�/�N,['> @�S4�4�\RSR\Y/�94�6 > ]�4�6 GR@�/=7&/�S&@�4M9�@�2,4�]�> C,N�SR/�7:6 /�?�D�6S'/�?�> D�6�?�/�C$@A9�/�6�S/V4M7 7&4�?�@�> W 4�> CZN,4M@�4M9<9$> C$LO?M9*> \Y4�^�H'> \Y> 6 DM9*6 G�[�;�G> C W > @�> C$LOD�C,NB9*4�_�.P> 9*> C$L39*4MS> N,4�C$@ S'U�T�DM9<@�> ?�> T,DM@�> /�C�[�.,9<;:D�C�7&/�9*4MS`@A9<G\YD�G3;=4B?�DM9<9*> 4�N�/�.,@P> CEDKQYDMGR@�2,DM@=2�4�6 T$SX@A9*D�C$S`7&/�9\aDB\O4M9*4?�/�6 6 4�?�@�> /�CZ/�7XC�4�> L�2$;=/�9<SR> C$@�/"D�9*4�D�6 [`7 .PC,?M@�> /�C,> C$LO?�/�\O\3.PC,> @ GbQIDM@�?�2,> C$Lc/�.,@K7&/�9V4�D�?�2Y/�@�2,4M9�[�4�D�?�2O/�@�2,4M9US"T$9�/�T,4M9<@AG�[�D�C�NY4�D�?�2/�@�2�4M9*US3?�2,> 6 N$9$4�C�d�2�4�6 T�> C�LO/�.,@:> C�@�> \O4MS3/�7XC�4�4�N,d'2,D W > C$L#;:DM9�;=4�e?M.P4MSRD�C,NB;=6 /�?�]"T,DM9<@�> 4�S'd'4Mfg?�2,D�C$LK> C$L#LKDM9$N,4�C,> C$L3@�> T$S3D�C�NZ6 > 7&4S&@�/�9*> 4MSd�QY/�9*]�> C$L#@�/�LK4M@�2�4M9�@�/"> \YT$9�/ W 4K@�2,4�?�/�\Y\R.PC,> @ G�^
LITERATURE CITED8"h<8jiB/�\Y\I> S&S'> /�CE/�C#kR> /�6 4$C,?�4#D�C�NBlg/�.�@�2,^X(�m�n�o�^�kR> /�6 4$C,?$4D$C,N3lK/�.,@�2�0�h�S&Gg?�2�/�6 /�L'GKUSV5g4�S'T,/�C$S�4�^�8"\Y4�9*> ?$D$Ch�S&GK?$2,/�6 /�LK> ?�D�6�8:S&S'/�?$> DM@�> /�C,[�pqD�S'2�> C*L@�/�C,[�r3iB^
s 4$6 6 4$[�r3^ Jg^X(�m�n�t�^�1#2�4B> \YT�D�?�@P/�7:T,/ W 4�9`@AGY/�C3S'/�?$> D$6�C�4�@AQI/�9]�SD$C,N3S&.PT�T,/�9�@AS'^�uvD�9<9> DMLg4Bw�D�\I> 6 GO5�4 W ^�)�+�0 n�m�xR(�y�o�^
s 9�/�QYC�[ s ^ s ^ [�D�C�NEzM^�8V6 @�\YD�C�^�(�m�n�o�^�1g4�9<9*> @�/�9*> D$6 > @AG�[�N,4M7�4�C�S'> ;=6 4S'T�D$?�4#D$C,N39*4�S'> N�4�C*@�> D$6�;,.,9`Lg6 D�9<GK0�8"CO4�C W > 9/�C�\I4�C*@�D�6D�C�D�6 G'S> S'^�{�^�J�C W > 9*/�C�^�h�S&Gg?�2�/�6 ^�o�o�0 t�y�o�x:t�t�y�^
s 9`.�C$S'/�C�[�|�^:(�m�m�m�^�5g4�S'> N�4$C*@PD�T�T*9/�T*9> D�@�> /�CE/�7=N�4M7�4$C$S�> ;=6 4S'T�D�?$4B> COT$.�;:6 > ?#2,/�.�S'> C$Lg0�z�\IT,6 > ?�D�@�> /�C*S:7�/�9XS'DM7�4�@AGYD�C,N?$/�\Y\V.PC�> @AG�^�}3C�T$.�;=6 > S'2,4$NErR/�?M@�/�9D�6�r3> S&S'4�9<@�DM@�> /�C,[}3C,> W 4M9<S'> @ GY/�7:z�6 6 > C,/�> S[�}�9<;=D�C,D�e�iP2,D�\YT,D�> LKC,[�zM|�^
i�> S'C,4�9*/�S'[�F"^ ~R^g(�m,m�)�^�rR4M7�4�C*S'> ;=6 4BH'T�D�?$4�0�r34�@�4M9`9*> C*LYiK9$> \I4BD$C,Ns .P> 6 N�> C$LOi�/�\Y\3.PC,> @ G�^�}3^ H�^'r34�T�DM9<@�\Y4�C$@=/�7XF"/�.�S'> C�LOD�C,N}�9<;=D�CEr34 W 4�6 /�T,\Y4�C*@�[�p�D�S2�> C$L@�/�C,[�r3i�^
iP/�6 4MG�['5g^ |�^ [�w�^ J�^'-�.P/�['D�C,NBp�^ i�^�H&.P6 6 > W D�C,^�(�m�m���^�p�2�4M9$4PN,/�4�S?$/�\Y\V.�C�> @AGVL9/�QV�=132�4gS'/�?$> D$6�?$/�C*@�4�f�@�?�9*4$D�@�4$N3;,GYC�DM@�.�9*4> C#.,9<;=D$CET$.�;=6 > ?B2,/�.,S'> C$Lg^�JKC W > 9�/�C�^ s 4$2,D W ^�t�m�+�0 +���n�xX+�m�t�^
iP/�/�T,4M9&[�i�^ i�^�(�m���)�^�JKDMS`@�4M9#F"> 6 6�kR> 6 6 DMLK4�0�H'/�\Y4BH'/�?�> D�6z�\IT,6 > ?�D�@�> /�C�SV/�7:rR4MS'> LKC�^�132,4Bw*9�4�4Bh�9*4�S`S'[��"4�Q�lg/�9]�[��PlK^
r�9DMG'@�/�C�[�p�^�t�y�y�y�^�}X9`;=D�COT,6 D$C�C,> C$LK0�H�4$?�9$4�@,LKD�9$N,4$C$S'^�1B2�48=@�6 D�C*@�> ?Kuv/�C*@�2,6 GIt�n�)������$0`(�y�n�xR(�(�(�^
rg.,;:/�Q#['wM^ ['D�C,N�r3^'J�\Y\Y/�C$S^g(�m�n:(�^&1B2,4�iP/�\Y\3.PC�> @ GF=GKT,/�@�2,4MS> S^�z�CZ|�4MQY> S[�r3^ 8V^���J�N�^ ��^�5g4�D$?M@�> /�C$SX@�/�i�9$> \Y4�^�H'DMLK4h�.,;=6 > ?�D�@�> /�C$S*[ s 4 W 4M9*6 GOF"> 6 6 S'['i�8R^
rgQVGK4M9�[�{�^ wM^ [�JK^ ~#^�uv?�h�2,4M9<S/�C,[�F"^ p�^'H�?�2$9$/�4�N,4M9�[�D�C,NZ5g^ 8R^5�/�QIC*@A94$4$^:(�m�m,t�^�8=S�S'4�S&S'> C*L"@�2,4�;=4$C�4�7�> @�S"D$C�NY?$/�S&@ S�/�7,@�2�4.�9`;=D$CR7&/�94�S`@�^�{�^�8:9`;P/�9*> ?$^:(�n�),0 t�t���x:t,o�+�^
J*;�;:4�S4�C,[�JK^ s ^ [�~#^ |�^�-$�*/�S'[�D�C,N#k�^ {�^�-=/�C,4�?�C,> ^�(�m�����^�H'T,D�@�> D�64$?$/�6 /�L'GK0,z @AS"4�7 7�4�?�@�S�/�CR@�2,4R?$2�/�> ?$43/�7�7 9> 4$C�N*S�D$C,NY4$C�4$\Y> 4�S'^{�^�J*f�T,^�H�/�?�^'h�S&GK?�2�/�6 ^�(�t�0 )�y�)�xX):(�n�^
w�DM;=4M9g1XDMGK6 /�9�[�83^ [�wM^ JK^�-�.P/�[�D�C,N#p�^ iP^�H�.P6 6 > W D�C,^�t�y�y�t�^�k#> 4MQRSR/�7C,D�@A.,9*4#D�C�N#S4�6 7�e�N,> S'?�> T�6 > C,4$0�J W > N,4$C,?$4K7 9�/�\�> C�C,4�9�e�?�> @AG?�2,> 6 N$9*4$C,^�{�^�JKC W > 9*/�C,^�h�S&GK?$2,/�6 ^ [�H'T�4�?�> D�6�z S`S&.P4$0�JKC W > 9*/�C,\I4�C$@D�C�NZiB2,> 6 N*9*4�CEt�t�0 +�m�xX��o�^
w�DM;:4M9g1�DMGK6 /�9�[&8R^ [�8R^�p�> 6 4MG�['wM^ J�^�-�.P/�['D�C,NBp�^ i�^'H&.P6 6 > W D�C�^�(�m�m�n�^~X9/�QI> C*LV.�TE> CR@�2�4#> C�C�4�9R?$> @AGg0�~X9*4$4$C3S�T,D$?$4�SVD�S"T�6 D$?$4�S:@�/L9$/�Q3^�JKC W > 9$/�C,^ s 4�2�D W ^�o�y=(�0 o�xXt���^
~3D�C*S'[�F"^X(�m�����^�132,4#|�4 W > @A@�/�QIC�4M9`S$��h�D$C$@�2�4�/�C s /�/�]�S'[��"4�QlK/�9*]�[��=lK^
~36 / W 4M9�1g^ [�-P^�H�2,> C,4�Q#[�D�C,NEr3^�h�D�9<9`G�^�t�y�y�t�^�5gD�?�4BD�C,NE> @AS9*4�6 DM@�> /�C$S�2,> T3@�/P@�2�4K;=4�C�4M7�> @ASV/�7=?�/�\Y\V.=C�> @AGVLKD�9*N�4$C,> C*LY> CH�@�^�|�/�.�> S'^�iBD$C,D$N�> D�COi�/�C*L94�S&SV/�CO|�4$> S`.�94#5g4�S'4$D�9*?$28VC�C*.�D�6 s /�/�]O/�7�8:;�S&@A9D$?�@AS�($y�0&(�t��$xV(�o�y,^
~�94�4$C*;=DM.�\Y[�H�^ r3^X(�m�n�t,^ s 9> N$Lg> C*LR@�> 4�SVD�@,@�2,4#C,4$> Lg2$;=/�92,/�/�N6 4 W 4�6 ^�H�/�?$^���4M@�QI/�9*]�SR+�0 o�����x:o�n�+�^
~�9�4�4�C�;:4�9�LK[H'^ p�^ [`p�^ u�^*5g/�2�4�['D�C�N�{�^ 5K^&p�> 6 6 > D�\RS*^g(�m�n�t�^H'D�7`4M@ GZ> C.�9<;=D�CEC,4�> LK2$;=/�9*2,/�/�N$S&b�8j?�/�\YT,DM9*> S/�CZ/�7:T,2$GS> ?�D�6?�2,DM9*D�?�@�4M9*> S`@�> ?MSRD�C,NZ> C$7&/�9*\YD�6�@�4M9<9> @�/�9*> D�6'?�/�C$@A9*/�6�> CZ2,> LK2,eKD�C�N6 /�QYe�?�9*> \Y4�C�4�> LK2$;:/�9$2,/�/�N$S^�h�/�T$.P6 ^'JKC W > 9*/�C�^�)�o�0<(�+:(�xR(���)�^
{�D�?$/�;�S�[�{�^:(�m,�=(�^�132,43r#4$D�@�2OD$C�NO|,> 7�4#/�7=~�9*4$D�@�8V\I4�9> ?$D$Ci�> @�> 4MS^�5gD�C,N,/�\aF"/&.,S'4�[��"4MQvlg/�9*]�['�=l�^
-PD�T,6 D�C,[�5�^�t�y�y=(�^�132,4�C�DM@A.�9*4B/�7�@�2�4 W > 4�Qj7 9*/�\�2�/�\Y4�bh�S&Gg?$2,/�6 /�Lg> ?$D�6�;=4$C�4�7�> @AS'^�JKC W > 9�/�C,^ s 4$2,D W ^�o�o�+�0 )�y,��xX)�+�t,^
-PD�T�6 D�C,[�5g^ [�D$C,NEH�^�-PD�T,6 D$C,^�(�m�n�m�^�1#2�4BJ*f�T�4�9*> 4�C,?$4B/�7:�"D�@ .�9*4�08jh�S&Gg?$2�/�6 /�Lg> ?$D$6�h�4M9`S'T�4�?�@�> W 4$^�iBD$\R;,9*> N$Lg4#}3C�> W 4�9<S�> @AGIh�94�S`S'[i�D�\3;�9$> N�LK4�['}3-=^
-,.=/�[wM^ J�^'t�y�y:(�^'iP/�T,> C�L#QY> @�2�T�/ W 4M9�@ GK0'zA\YT�D�?�@ S3/�7X4�C W > 9�/�C�\O4�C�@D�C,N�DM@ @�4�C�@�> /�CZ> CB@�2,4=> C�C,4�9#?�> @ G�^'JKC W > 9�/�C�^ s 4�2�D W ^'o�o:(�0 )�xXo�+�^
-�.P/�[�wM^ JK^ [�u�^ s D�?�D�> ?�/�D�[D�C,NBp�^ i�^�H&.P6 6 > W D�C�^�(�m�m�n�^1'9D$C$S�7�/�9\Y> C$LI> C,C�4M9�e�?$> @AGIC�4$> Lg2*;=/�9*2�/�/�N*S'0�1'9*4$4�S'[�S�4$C$S�4#/�7S'DM7�4�@AG$[�D�C�NOT*9*4�7�4�9*4�C,?$4$^�JKC W > 9*/�C�^ s 4�2�D W ^�o�y=($0 t,n�x:)�m,^
-�.P/�[�wM^ JK^ [�D�C,N#p�^ i�^'H�.=6 6 > W D�C�^�t�y�y:(�^'JKC W > 9�/�C,\O4�C$@=D�C,NZ?M9*> \Y4P> C@�2�4#> C�C�4M9R?$> @�GK0�r3/�4MS W 4�LK4�@�D�@�> /�C394$N$.�?�4#?M9> \I4��VJKC W > 9/�C,^s 4$2,D W ^'o,o�o�0 o�+�o$xXo�����^
-�.=/�[$wA^ J,^ [Mp�^ i=^$H<.:6 6 > W D�C�[$5�^ |�^$i=/'6 4AG�[$D�C�NV|�^ s 9M.:C�S$/'C�^,(�m�m�n�^w�4�9<@&> 6 4,L*9�/�.=C,NP7`/�9B?�/�\O\3.=C�> @ G�0zAC�C�4�9�eM?�> @ GEC�4�> LK2�;X/�9$2�/�/�N?�/�\E\O/�CPS*T�D�?�4�S*^<8R\Z^`{�^*iP/'\O\3.:C�> @ GZh�S�G,?�2�/�6 ^�t�����0 n�t�o�x�n�)�(�^
-�QY4�/�C�[ s ^ H'^ [�p�^ i�^'H&.P6 6 > W D�C,['D�C,NB8R^�p�> 6 4MG�^g(�m�m�n�^'~�9$4�4�C?$/�\Y\I/�C3S'T�D$?�4�SVD$C,N3@�2�4gS'/�?$> D$6�> C*@�4�L'9$D�@�> /�CE/�7=> C�C�4�9�e�?$> @�G/�6 N,4�93D$N*.P6 @AS'^�JKC W > 9$/�C�^ s 4$2,D W ^�o�y���0 n�o�t�x:n�)�n�^
uv> 6 6 4M9�[�h�^ {�^ [�D�C�NE|�^ |�^�H�T�4�9<9&G�^X(�m�n���^�132,4gS'/�?$> D�6 > �,DM@�> /�CE/�7=D�C*LK4�9D$C�NED�L'L94�S&S'> /�C,^�u�4�9`9> 6 6 e�h�D$6 \I4M9R��^�o,o�0`(Mx:o=(�^
�"4�QY\YD�C�[���^�(�m���t�^�r34M7&4$C$S'> ;=6 4BH�T�D�?$4�0�i�9*> \Y4Bh�94 W 4�C*@�> /�C1B2*9�/�.�LK2E}�9<;=D�CEr34�S'> LKC���uvD�?�\Y> 6 6 D$C,[��V4MQjlK/�9]�[��=lK^
b�b�b!^X(�m�m���^�iK9*4�D�@�> C$LYr34�7&4$C$S'> ;=6 4#H'T�D�?$4�^�}3^ H�^�rR4�T�DM9<@�\I4�C$@/�7=F�/�.�S'> C$LID$C�NO}X9�;PD�COrR4 W 4�6 /�T�\I4$C$@�[���7 7�> ?$4#/�7=h�/�6 > ?�GrR4 W 4�6 /�T,\I4�C*@=D$C,NE5g4�S'4�D�9$?�2,[�p�DMS'2�> C$L@�/�C�[�rRi�^
��?�2$S[�JK^ [�D�C�N s ^�H�?$2,> 4�7 7�4�6 > C,^X(�m�n�+�^�|�D�C*L.PDMLK4#D�?$_�.P> S'> @�> /�COD�C�NS/�?$> D$6 > ��D�@�> /�C�0�132*94�4#N�4 W 4�6 /�T�\I4$C$@�D�6�S&@�/�9> 4�SVD$C�N3@�2�4�> 9> \YT,6 > ?�DM@�> /�C*S[�T,TEt�����xXo�t�y�^�z�CEH�?�2$QI4�N�4M9�[�5g^ [�D�C,NE5g^�|�4 W > C�4��JKN$S^ �$^�i�.P6 @ .,9*4K1#2,4�/�9<GK0�JS`S'DMGSR/�C#uv> C�N�[�H'4$6 7:D�C,NJK\I/�@�> /�C�^ s 9<.�C,C,4�9<� uvDM��4$6 [��=lg^
h�4M9*]�> C$S[�r#^ r3^ [�hM^'w,6 /�9$> C�['5g^ iP^�5g> ?�2,[�8V^&pqD�C�N,4�9<S'\YD�C,[�D�C,NZr3^ u�^iB2,D W > S'^X(�m�m�y,^�h�D�9<@�> ?$> T�DM@�> /�COD�C�N3@�2,4gS/�?�> D�6�D$C�NET�2$G'S'> ?$D�64$C W > 9/�C�\Y4$C$@P/�7�94MS> N,4$C$@�> D$6�;=6 /�?�]�S'0�i�9*> \I4BD$C,NE?$/�\Y\V.PC�> @AG?�/�C$@�4�f'@�^�8V\Y^�{�^�i�/�\O\R.�C,> @AGYh�S`GK?$2,/�6 ^g(�n=(�0 n�o�xR(�(�)�^
H&@�D�?�]�[�i�^ s ^���J�N�^ �$^�(�m���+�^�8V6 6��P.,93-P> C,0�H�@ 9*D�@�4MLK> 4MSX7&/�93H&.,9 W > W D�6�> CD s 6 D�?�]�i�/�\Y\R.PC,> @AG�^�F"DM9*T,4M93��5g/�Q#[��V4MQ�lg/�9*]�[��=lK^
H`.P6 6 > W D�C�[&p�^ iP^ ['w�^ J�^-�.=/�[D�C,N�H'^r#4�h�/�/�@�4�9�^*z�C�T�9�4�S`S^`1#2�4,7 9<.=> @:/&7.�9<;=D�CZC,DM@ .,9$4�0�k3> @�D�6'C,4�> L;:/�9$2,/�/�NBS'T,D�?�4�S'^�J�C W > 9�/�C,^ s 4�2,D W ^
1XD�6 ;:/�@�[�{�^ wM^ [�|�^ k,^ s DM9$N$QO4$6 6 [�D�C,NE5g^�-PD�T,6 D�C�^g(�m�n���^�1#2�4�7 .PC�?M@�> /�C�S/�7�.�9<;PD$CYC�D�@A.�94$0�}�S'4�S�D$C�N W D$6 .P4�S�/�7�N,> 7 7�4�94$C$@K@�GgT�4MS�/�7.,9<;PD�COC�DM@A.�9*4gS'4�@A@�> C$LS�^�{�^�8=9?�2�> @�4$?M@�^�h�6 D$C,C�^�5�4MS'^�+P(�0 +���x:��o�^
�$�,���������� $¡���¢,£=�`¤:���¥ ¦���¡ §��,�¨3©,ª�«�¬$$®�¯� �°c©�±�±,¬
²X M°g¡ ����³�´gµ ¶�µ � ª�·�·�µ�¸=�P¹I ��B²�¨M���*¥ §����$¥ $¡�º$�P�,¦M§�¥ ����¥ �$»�¼½ $¹R¤��*¥ ¾$»g¨�¿3�,¥ Àg¨M�<Á'¥ §A°YÂ��$¨MÁ&Á'³�Ã"¨MÄjÅK���Æ�³�ÃPÅKµ
¿Rµ Ç�µ�ÈR¨�É� M�`§�¹I¨��$§P��¢=¸�����Á'¥ �$»I $�,¾E¿��`¤= $�EÈR¨MÀg¨�¡ ��É�¹Y¨��$§�µ � ª,ª�·�µ½ �¥ ¹I¨BÂ��*¨MÀg¨��$§�¥ ���#²3Ê$�*���,»KÊEËK�$ÀK¥ �*����¹Y¨��*§� $¡�ÈR¨MÁ'¥ »��,µ�Ê$§A§�É,® Ì ÌÄVÄVÄ3µ Ê$�P¾�µ »K��ÀÌ�É$�$��»K¾�¨MÁ'¦MÌ�¦�É$§�¨�¾,µ Ê$§�¹Y¡
Í� ��<�*¨���³�ÈRµ Î�µ � ª�· � µ�¸"¨$¡ É,¥ �$»IÃ"¨M§AÄY���Æ�Á$¼�¿3��¥ Àg¨M�`Á'¥ § °I��¢XÃ���§A�*¨ÈR �¹I¨BÂ��¨MÁ&Á³�Ã���§��*¨#È3 $¹Y¨$³�Î�Ã�µ
Ï�ÐÑgÒgÓ,ÔEÕAÖ*×KØ�Ù�ÖÒgÚ<Û�Ü Ç�É, $¦�¨B¡ ¥ ¹Y¥ §� M§�¥ ���$ÁVÉ$�*¨$¦�¡ �P¾,¨K§�Ê, ���Æ�¥ �$»¨$ $¦�ÊO��¢�§�Ê,¨#¹Y $��°I¥ �,¾�¥ ÀK¥ ¾*�P $¡ ÁV $�,¾E¥ �$Á&§�¥ §A��§�¥ ���*Á:§�Ê, �§PÉ,¡ �°g¨�¾OÆ�¨M°�*��¡ ¨�ÁV¥ �3§�Ê�¥ Á:Äc���Æ,µ�Ç�É�¨�¦$¥ �¡�§�Ê, $��Æ�Á:»g��§���£"�,¾*�*¨$ #º� �¤=¨M�:²� �°g¡ ���¢����R¡ ¨� �¾�¥ �$»R§�Ê�¨�ÄI���ÆZ���E¦$Ê,¥ ¡ ¾$�¨���³&§���Í�¥ ¡ ¡ ¥ �¹�Ç���¡ ¡ ¥ Àg ��B¢���� $¦$¦$¨�Á&Á:§���§�Ê�¨gÁ'¥ §�¨# $�,¾OÊ�¨$¡ ÉO¥ �3Á�¥ §�¨B $�� $¡ °'Á'¥ Á�³�§���´�¨�¤=¨$Æ� �ÊOÝ,¨MÀg¥ ��¨½ ��¡ ¨�°Y $�,¾OËÁ&§�Ê�¨��3ÈR �ÀK¥ Á=¢&���X§�Ê,¨$¥ �X�*��¡ ¨�ÁV¥ �O¥ �*§�¨M�`Àg¥ ¨MÄc¥ ��»g³�§���§�Ê�¨½ Ê�¥ ¦$ �»g��¸"����Á'¥ �*»V£=��§�Ê����¥ §�°I ���¾3�*¨�Á'¥ ¾�¨$�$§�Á:¢����X§�Ê�¨$¥ �XÁ`��É�É,���`§ $��¾Y¦$����É�¨M� �§�¥ ���R§�Ê*�����»KÊ�����§�³� $�,¾3§��B§�Ê�¨3Ã� �§�¥ ���� $¡�¿��<¤P ��Y $��¾½ ��¹Y¹R���,¥ §A°Yº,���*¨�Á`§A�`°R£V¾$ÀK¥ Á'���`° ½ ���P��¦�¥ ¡ ³�§�Ê,¨B¿3µ Ç�µ�º����$¨MÁ&§Ç�¨��<Àg¥ ¦�¨$³�¿3µ Ç�µ�È3¨�É� M�`§�¹Y¨$�$§P��¢=¸"���,Á¥ �*»Y $�,¾O¿��`¤= ��EÈR¨MÀK¨�¡ ��É,Þ¹I¨$�*§�³� ���¾3§�Ê,¨ ½ ����É�¨M� �§�¥ ÀK¨#Ç�§� �§�¨#´g¨�Á'¨$ ��*¦$Ê�³�Ëß�§�¨$�*Á'¥ ���O $��¾Ëg¾*��¦� �§�¥ ���YÇ�¨��<ÀK¥ ¦�¨X¢����:¢ ����¾�¥ �*»"§�Ê�¨g�¨�Á'¨$ ��¦$Ê�µ
àXá�áMâ áMã äå�ã�æ�ç&è�é ê�áMáMè�çëRì�í äå�î�ï,å�ð$â ç&è�å í ê�å�ã�ñKê�á�ê�äç&ò&ó3ô�äõ$è�ç&ä'ã è�ç ö÷�÷�ø'ùRú è ì ã ó#û3è$ç`å'ê�ç�û3ç&â ð$êü å'â ð�ê�ç&á�â ã öZè�éýAþ þ â å�è�â á�äã ü ç&õ*äå'äÿ��:óä í�� äâ ��åü ç&õ$äå'ä��$ýAô�� ÷'øK÷ � ü�¼ ú ¼é ÿ�� ì è� ì â ì ò ¼ ê� ì
��� Û��gÙ � Ü È# ���Á#¡ ¨�Á#¦���¹O¹3�=�� M��§�AÁg���<¤X �¥ ��¨�Á³¡ � ���¤:���$¥ ¦��=¡ § ���$¨¦�����§ �$¥ ¤��=¨P¦�¡ �¥ �*¨�¹O¨���§���¡ �Á ���§��P¾�¨�¡ � ��¦���Á`°*Á`§��¹O¨,¤:¥ ��¡ ��»�¥ ���=¨��¹Y �¥ Á#¦�����§ �$¥ ¤��=¨�Þ §&ÞM¨�¡ ¡ ¨���»� �¡ ¨�¹O¨��$§��P¡ �Á ���§��P¾�¨P¡ � ��¦���Á<°*Á`§���¹O¨Á��¦�¥ �¡ �#È#¨MÁg¢` �¥ § ÁBÉ��$��ÀK¨��� ���§:¾ � �M§ �=¾,¨�ÁB¥ ��§ �*¨���¨�Á#¾,¨=¡ ,À�¥ ¡ ¡ ¨=¾�¨½ Ê�¥ ¦� �»��:Á<��»*»!���*¨���§X¦�¨�¡ �µÈ# ���Ág�=��¨,Á"���$¥ ¨P¾ � ��§ �=¾�¨�Á#¥ ¹OÉ�¡ ¥ ���= ���§É,¡ �,Á#¾�¨ � ¬�±�±"��¤�Á¨���ÀK �§&¥ ����Á3É�¨���Á������¨�Á*ÞM¹O¥ ¡ ¥ ¨M�=³�#�±�±�¨���§ ��¨�À*�P¨�Á*³¾,¨�ÁR¾������$��¨�ÁÞ�¹Y �¥ Á*���Z¾�¨�ÁR ���§����*¥ §���ÁR¨A§=¾�¨�ÁX�$ �É,É�����§ ÁR¾�¨�É���¡ ¥ ¦�¨B¾�¨¾,¨���ßI ���� ��¨MÁ*³�¥ ¡� �É�É� M�$ &% §'���=¨B¡ ¨�¦�����À�¨M��§= ��<¤X���(�B¨�§�»K &)������ �*��§� �¥ §Á`°*Á`§��¹O �§�¥ ���=¨�¹O¨���§X¡ ¥ �'�,�=�PÀ� �Á`§&¨P���'¹3¤��*¨=¾ � ¥ ��¾�¥ ¦� �§&¨�����ÁgÁ*��¦�¥ M��ßKµÂ� ��$¹O¥¦�¨�Á#¥ ��¾�¥ ¦� A§&¨�����Á³���P�$¨�§ �$����À� �¥ §`®`�=��¡ ¥ ¨���¾�¨�À���¥ Á*¥ �� �»,¨PÉ�¡ ��Á¢&����§�³`�=��É�¡ �,Ág»*�$ ���¾�Á¨���Á#¾�¨,Á���¦����$¥ §�=¨�§:¾ � �¾� �É�§� �§&¥ ����³É,¡ ��Á3¾�¨Á`����À�¨�¥ ¡ ¡ ���¦�¨P¾�¨�ÁB¨���¢` ���§ Á+�P¡ � ¨�ߧ����$¥ ¨�����¾�¨=¡ P¹O �¥ Á����³¾�¨�Á#¹E¥ ¡ ¥ ¨���ß¾�¨(,$¨���ßOÉ�¡ ��ÁgÁ �¥ ��Á#É�������¡ ¨�Á#¨���¢` ���§ Á*³*É�¡ ��Á#¾ � ��§&¥ ¡ ¥ Á* �§�¥ ����¾�¨AÁB¨�ÁÉ� �¦�¨�Á¦���¹O¹3�=��Á#¾���À��'¥ Á*¥ �� �»�¨�³*¹O��¥ ��Á#¾�¨=¦��'¹OÉ�����§&¨�¹O¨���§ ÁB�����"¦�¥ À�¥ ¡ ¥ Á"��Á*³¹Y��¥ �$Á#¾�¨P¦��$¥ ¹O¨�ÁB¦�����§ �$¨P¡ =É$�$��É��$¥ ��§���³¨�§X¹Y��¥ ��Á3¾�¨P¦��$¥ ¹O¨AÁÀK¥ ��¡ ¨���§ Á*µ'Ý�¨P¡ ¥ ¨���¨���§ �$¨P¡ � ���¤:���$¥ ¦��P¡ § ���$¨P¨�§��=�-��¦���Á`°*Á`§���¹O¨,Á*��¦�¥ �¡É,¡ �,ÁgÁ �¥ ��¨MÁ<§:¾�¨�À�¨�����¾,¨,¢` �.�����Á`���$É���¨��� ���§�¨,¢& �¦�¥ ¡ ¨��P¨�ßgÉ�¡ ¥ ���=¨��&µÈ3 ���Á#¡ ¨�Á3¹O¥ ¡ ¥ ¨���ß3�(��Á¥ ¾,¨���§�¥ ¨�¡ Á³¡ ¨�Á/)��'��¨�Á�Á<§����*¥ ¡ ¨�Á3¨�§�Á ���Á3 A��¤��$¨¾,¨�À�¥ ¨�����¨���§�Á'����À�¨$�*§P¾�¨�Á10"����¹I ��!�ÁR¡ $��¾*Á12�³�¦�¨+����¥�¾$��¦$���,� �»g¨¡ ¨�Á"¥ �*§�¨�� $¦�§�¥ ���*ÁV �Àg¨�¦3¡ ¨�Á=����Á'¥ ¾� $�*§AÁV¨�§�¥ �*Àg¥ §�¨# �� ¦��¥ ¹I¨$µ�Ý� É*����Á'¨$��¦$¨V¾$� ��`¤��*¨�Á�¨�§#¾�¨X»g �),���V¤P¥ ¨��c¨$�$§��¨�§�¨$�*�,ÁZÉ,¨���ÀK¨$�*§§�� $�$Á�¢����¹I¨��V¦$¨�ÁV���Z¹I $�!�Á"¡ $��¾*Á"¨$�O¨�Á�É, $¦$¨�Á�É,¡ $¥ Á' $�*§AÁ'³
¥ �$ÀK¥ §� $�$§AÁR¨�§,�,§�¥ ¡ ¥ Á���Á'µ�ÈR¨�É,¡ ��Á³�¡ ¨MÁV¨MÁ'É� �¦�¨�ÁVÉ��,¤=¡ ¥ ¦MÁ:¤=¥ ¨��#��§�¥ ¡ ¥ Á3��ÁÉ� M�V¡ ¨�Àg��¥ Á�¥ �� �»g¨�¢� �Àg���¥ Á'¨$�*§B¡ ¨��¨$�*¢����¦�¨$¹I¨��*§B¾�¨�Á�¡ ¥ ¨��*Á�¨��*§��*¨¡ ¨�Á:�"�MÁ'¥ ¾, $�*§AÁV¨�§P¾!�M§������$��¨#¡ ¨#¦M�¥ ¹I¨$³�¦$¨*����¥�¦�����¨g���O¹Y¥ ¡ ¥ ¨M� É�¡ �,ÁÁ' $¥ �E¨�§,Á3�$¦����¥ §� $¥ �¨#É����,�R¡ ¨gÀg��¥ Á'¥ �, �»g¨$µ
4 �KÛ�5�ÙcÙcÖ$Ò76&5�Û�Û��KÒ�Ø�Ü ÎA�"Ç`§�8�¾�§&¨��=�=��¾�9:�'¹O¹#�=��¨��P§ �(8A»*§�¾�¥ ¨¶� ��:¹OÉ�¢`¡ ¨�»�¨=¨�¥ ��¾�¨���§�¥ »+)����;:#¨�Á`�=��¾�Ê�¨�¥ §X¾�¨�Á*<"Æ���Á`°*Á<§�¨�¹3Ág¤X¨�¥ ³¥ Á<§¨�ÁR �¤X¨��3 ��=¦�Ê#�$¨�¡ ¨�ÀK ���§�¢ =��#¾�¥ ¨;:3¨�Á`�=��¾�Ê�¨�¥ §=¾�¨�ÁXÁ��)�¥ �¡ ¨��<"Æ��&Á<°*Á`§&¨�¹3Á>�BÈ#¥ ¨=Ë*��»�¨�¤���¥ Á<Á¨=¨�¥ ��¨���Ç`§ �=¾�¥ ¨P A��Á#¾�¨�¹@?P¨���§ ���=¹À���� ½ Ê�¥ ¦� �»���)�¨�¥ »�¨���¾�¥ ¨AÁ*µÎA��¨�¥ ��¨��BÇ`§ �=¾�¥ ¨=¹E¥ §A=�¤X¨�� � ¬�±�±Â�¨M��Á*����¨��$¤X¨���¤: �¦�Ê�§ �=��»K¨���³A#�±�±ZÎA��§�¨���ÀK¥ ¨MÄ3Á³�¶�¨��$¥ ¦�Ê$§&¨��#À����¸V ���Á`»�¨�Á¨�¡ ¡ Á¦�Ê� �¢ §�¨����=�,¾"©P�� �Ê$�$¨PÂ���¡ ¥ )�¨�¥ ¤:¨��$¥ ¦�Ê$§&¨��,³`ÄR���$¾�¨���¾,¥ ¨¶ 8��:¹O¨,�=��¾B:g��==��¢`¡ 8�¦�Ê�¨���Á`°*Á<§�¨�¹O �§�¥ Á¦�Ê�À�¨���¤��=��¾�¨���¹O¥ §X¨�¥ ��¨��´K¨�¥ Ê�¨�À�����Ç'��)�¥ �¡ C�Æ���Á`°*Á<§&¨�¹OÞMÎA��¾�¥ Æ� �§&���$¨���µÈB¥ ¨�Á*¨PÎA��¾,¥ Æ� �§����$¨��¤X¨�¥ ��Ê� �¡ §�¨���®&Á<§�8��*Æ�¨M��¨$D:¨M�M¤:¥ �,¾��=��»K¨���¹O¥ §X¾,¨���ÃV �¦�Ê�¤: ��$��³&»*�(CFEP¨M��¨M�Ç¥ ���P¢ =���Ç¥ ¦�Ê�¨A�$Ê�¨�¥ §��=��¾P£3��É� �Á`Á<�=��»�³¹E¨�Ê��B¶�¨� ���¢ Á¥ ¦�Ê�§&¥ »*�=��»E¾�¨��9:¥ ��¾�¨���¾��$ ���Á<Á¨���³`»�¨�ÁG==��¾�¨��$¨�Á#ÇÉ�¥ ¨�¡ À�¨��$Ê� �¡ §�¨��PÀ����B9:¥ ��¾�¨��$��³¹O¨�Ê��:#¨�¤��$ ��P¦�Ê#À����EÆ���¹Y¹R�=�,¨�¨�¥ »K¨��,¨��H:��G==�$¢&¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��,³�ÄI¨��,¥ »K¨M�Ç&§ �* �¢ §� M§�¨���³�ÄY¨���¥ »�¨M�#Ë�¥ »,¨��$§ �P¹RÁ¾,¨�¡ ¥ Æ�§�¨��P�,¾�ÄY¨���¥ »�¨M�:3¨�ÄY �¡ § ÀK¨M�<¤��$¨�¦�Ê,¨��,µ'È3¥ ¨$D=¨M�<¤:¥ �,¾$�P�$»I)�ÄY¥ Á'¦�Ê,¨��Z¶, M�P¹OÉ$¢&¡ ¨�»K¨��P��¾»K¨MÁ>==�,¾,¨M�¨�¹vÁ'�F)�¥ �¡ ¨��-<�Æ���Á`°Á&§�¨�¹�¥ Á&§=¨M�<Á`§� M�=�,¡ ¥ ¦�ÊE¨�¥ �$¢� �¦�Ê*)��¨M�*Æ�¡ 8M�*¨��,µ�Î��R¤:¨MÄI��Ê,�$§�¨��J:3¨�¤:¥ ¨M§�¨��RÄI¨M�*¾,¨��O M�,¢ »K¨�¡ MÁ`Á'¨��,¨º�¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��Z¡ ¨�¥ ¦�Ê$§:ÃV¥ ¨�¹O ���¾$Á¡ ��,¾�³&ÄI �Á3¾,¥ ¨,£V��ÄO��Ê��,¨��#¨��$§�¹3�,§�¥ »§�)�� M»K¥ ¨��*¨��B�P�,¾E¨MÁ3¡ 8�¾$§ )��BD=¨M�<¤��$¨�¦�Ê,¨��E¨�¥ �,µ�È3¥ ¨�£V�$ÄY¨MÁ'¨��,Ê,¨�¥ §�ÀK���¶$8��=¹Y¨��B�P�,¾B»K¨�É�¢&¡ ¨M»*§�¨��-:���=P�, ��,¡ M»K¨��ZÆ� ����Z¾,¥ ¨MÁ¨ÃV¥ ¨�¹Y ��,¾$Á`¤:¨��*¨�¥ ¦�Ê�¨�¥ �Z¨A�<¢ �$¨M�P¡ ¥ ¦�Ê�¨�³&ÄY¥ ¡ ¡ Æ���¹O¹Y¨��,Ê�¨�¥ E�¨��,¾�¨�³»�¨��$��§ )�§�¨�º,¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��B�P¹3ÄO ��,¾,¨�¡ ��µ�¿3��¾BÀK¥ §� �¡ ¨,ÀK¥ ¨�¡�»�¨��$�,§ )�§�¨:3¨�¹O¨�¥ �$¢&¡ 8�¦�Ê,¨��BÁ'���M»K¨��B¢ =,�#¨�¥ �,¨�É,��Á'¥ §�¥ ÀK¨7DX¨M�<¤=¥ �,¾$�P�$»R�P�$§�¨M�3¾,¨��Ã" �¦�Ê$¤: M��#�P�,¾BÀK¨M�*Ê,¥ �,¾�¨M��#ÀK¥ ¨�¡ ¨!D=¨��<¤��$¨�¦�Ê�¨��,µ
� ÖÛ"��Ù�ÖÒ3Ü ËK�O¡ �Á"¦���¹V���,¥ ¾� �¾�¨�Á:���`¤= $�, �Á'³�¡ # M�`¤P���¥ ¦���¡ §��,�* ¦$¡ ��* $¹Y¨$�*§�¨3¦$���*§A�¥ ¤,��°K¨# 3¡ �Á' $¡ ��¾Y¾�¨3¡ ��Á"¨�¦$��Á'¥ Á&§�¨$¹I �Á¤=¥ ��¡ K�»g¥ ¦$��ÁL��M'¡ �ZÊ, $¦$¨�§� �¹V¤=¥ �$�Y¦����Y¨$¡�¨$¦$��Á¥ Á&§�¨$¹I �Á'��¦$¥ $¡ ��Ý� ¨MÀg¥ ¾,¨$�,¦$¥ #¾�¨#¡ ��ÁV¨�Á&§A��¾�¥ ��Á"¨��O¡ #¦$¥ ��¾, $¾O¾�¨ ½ Ê�¥ ¦$ �»K�� �Á3N�¡ �Á&��»K¥ ¨��¨$µ�ËK�V���� �Á�¨M�¥ ¨3¾,¨R¨�Á&§A��¾�¥ ��Á�¦$��� � ¬�±�±O��¤�Á�¨��<Àg $¦$¥ ����¨�Á¨�Á'É, $¦�¥ ��Þ�É�¨��`Á'���� �³!#�±�±Y¨��*§��*¨�Àg¥ Á&§� �Á'³*�*¨�»g¥ Á&§A�*��Á�¾�¨V M��§����¥ ¾� �¾�¨�ÁP°¾���Á" (O���Á�¾�¨��¨$É����`§�¨�Á�¦M�*¥ ¹I¥ �� $¡ ¨�Á�¾�¨3É���¡ ¥ ¦�N $³�¡ �Á�¦$��¤=¨��`§A��� �Á�¾�¨¡ ��Á1P��`¤P��¡ ¨�Á=°cÉ� �Á&§��B¢ �P¨M����RÁ'¥ Á&§�¨$¹QP�§�¥ ¦$ �¹I¨��*§�¨3¡ ¥ »g $¾� MÁ� ����� ��*»K�� $¹IÉ�¡ ¥ �Z¾,¨3¥ ��¾�¥ ¦� $¾,���¨�Á"¾,¨$¡�¨$¦$��Á'¥ Á�§�¨�¹I gÁ'��¦$¥ $¡ µ�ËÁ�§���Á¥ ��¾,¥ ¦$ $¾����*¨�Á�¥ ��¦$¡ ��°g¨��*����®�¡ ¥ »g �Á=¢ ��¨��`§�¨�Á"¨$�*§A�*¨�Àg¨$¦$¥ ����Á'³�»'� $�Á'¨$�$§�¥ ¾���¾�¨gÁ'¨�»'�,�¥ ¾� $¾3°R�*¨�»'��¡ �¦$¥ K���³�¹I �°K���XÁ&��É�¨M�`Àg¥ Á'¥ K��O¾�¨#¡ ��Á��¥ O,��Á"¨$�Y¨�Á'É� $¦$¥ ��Á� �¤=¥ ¨M�`§���Á�³�É� �§A�����¨�Á"¾�¨L,`��¨M»g��Á�¹QPMÁÁ' $¡ �P¾� �¤=¡ ¨MÁ"¾�¨#¡ ��Á"��¥ O���Á'³�¹Y �°g���X��Á'��¾�¨#¡ ��ÁV¨�Á'É� $¦$¥ ��Á"¦$��¹V����¨MÁÉ����R¡ ��Á=Àg¨$¦$¥ ����Á'³�¹Y¨$�����¨�Á=¢� $¡ §� MÁ�¦(N Àg¥ ¦$ �Á'³�É,��¦$��Á�¦��"N ¹I¨���¨�Á� 3¡ É*�*��É�¥ ¨$¾� $¾3°IÉ,��¦$��ÁV¦���N ¹I¨$�,¨�Á=Àg¥ ��¡ ¨$�$§���Á'µ�Ý� #¡ ¥ »g #¨$�*§A�¨#¡ ��<¤P���¥ ¦���¡ §A��� �°"���Y¨$¦$��Á'¥ Á&§�¨$¹I �Á���¦$¥ �¡�Á' $¡ �=¾� �¤P¡ ¨3¨�ÁP¢�P�¦$¥ ¡�¾�¨¨�ß�É,¡ ¥ ¦$ ���µ�ËK�JP��*¨� �Á=�*¨MÁ�¥ ¾,¨$��¦�¥ $¡ ¨�Á'³�¡ ��ÁV¨�Á'É� $¦�¥ ��Á�PM�¥ ¾,��Á�³�Á'¥ �P��<¤P��¡ ¨�Á'³�¦$���"¢ �¨�¦���¨$��¦$¥ :Á�¨V¦$���*Àg¥ ¨��`§�¨���¨��SR §�¥ ¨��`� �Á�����ÞÊ$��¹Y ��� �Á3T`³�¡ �ÁV¦��� �¡ ¨MÁ"���� $��¥ ¹Y $�O¡ #¥ �*§�¨�� �¦$¦$¥ K��E¾�¨#¡ ��Á�¨MÁ�¥ ¾�¨$�*§�¨�Á"¨3¥ �*Àg¥ §� $�Y $¡�¦��¥ ¹I¨$�,µ�Ý� 3É$�¨�Á�¨��,¦$¥ 3¾�¨IPM�`¤P��¡ ¨�Á=°¦(�MÁ�É,¨�¾�¨�ÁB¤P¥ ¨$��¹I $�$§�¨$��¥ ¾���ÁEÉ*�P¨$¾�¨=§A� $�*Á&¢����¹I M��¨�Á&§� �ÁB§�¥ ¨��<� �ÁR`�,��Þ<Ê$��¹I $�� �Á3T:¨$�Y¨�Á'É� �¦$¥ ��Á=¤P¥ ¨$�R��Á' $¾���ÁP°IÉ�¡ $¦$¨$�$§�¨����Á�µ�Å�¡ ��Á¨�Á'É, �¦$¥ ��Á"¦$��¹V����¨MÁ�³�¤P¥ ¨��3�,§�¥ ¡ ¥ )� $¾���Á'³�Á'¥ �`Àg¨$�#§� $�$§���É, �� ¨�Á&§A�*¨$¦$Ê� ��"¡ �Á�¡ ¥ »g �Á�¨$�I¨�¡�Àg¨$¦$¥ ��¾� ��¥ �E¦$��¹Y�ZÉ� �� R¾�¨�§�¨$��¨��"¨�¡¦M�¥ ¹Y¨$��³�¦��¨� $��¾,��¦$��¹R�P��¥ ¾� $¾,¨�ÁV¹QP�Á:Á'¨�»'���$ �Á=°RÁ� �¡ �P¾� �¤=¡ ¨�Á'µ
UAVHWYX&Z[X\W^]H_@`SacbdVHbSe!X\f�g
h�iFj�k(lJm n oGpBq"k�lJj�p-r pLsJk(lAr n l�t�u+v(wFt(t$m n lFt1xAq"yApAr�wAm p�xAz {S|7iF}AzsJpLp�~"n l�tSrAk(n m ��l�pLpLr�xHk(l�rQq(|7sHsJwF~"n l�t$�I��w�iIw�i�jLk(l�|7��pLlxA��k(q"p�xHk(lAr���k(i�}�xHq"k(l���i|��!n rAp+{QpLm q"|7sJpHipLm n p�oGz�n l�xLw�iF��i�n xL�n l�t�{�k �"xL���F� pLiG�!r�k\�Sl�k�~(w�iFpHn lJq"n ~"n p�xHq"k(l�y�pLm ��w�x*~(|�q"k(m sk(l�r�q"|7�Ap�z ~(|�i�pLq"yAk(i&t$p-|7w�i+k�j�n m n ~G�1~"|�q(k(i�i��S|7lA������ �-�����+�S� ���������*�;�I���;�[�J���Qu@�Jk(l���|"o!~(y�p+~(k�xA}�x|�o!{Q|7iF}Hk�l�r1x�~"w�r���r pLsHk(l�r�r�n ipLqG~(pAr�k�~�~"pLl�~(n |7lIoG|7iIm |7l�t��pLi�n |7r�xH|"o!~(n sJp��L�Ix+{QpH��xF�!q(yA|7m |�t$n q(k(m m ��oGn m ~"pLiI|!w�~�pF�A~"iFk(l�pL�|7w�xJn l�oG|7iFsHk�~(n |7l�k(l�r�r n xF~(i�k�q�~"n |7l�xH|7w�iIsJn l�r�xHq"k�l�jApAq(|�sHpq"|�t$l�n ~(n � pLm ��oGk�~"n t$wApAr����(�-n iFpLqG~�pLrQk�~�~(pLl�~"n |7lIo>k�~(n t$wApL��q"k(li�pFxLw�m ~�n l�o�pLpLm n l�t(xJ|�o�k(l���n p�~��S|7i�x�~(i�p�xFxLz�n iFiFn ~(k(j�n m n ~���{Sn ~"y|�~"y�pLi\xJk(lLrQk(l�n l�k(jAn m n ~���~(|�q"|!l�q"pLl�~(iFk�~"pA����p�xApLk�iq"y�yAk�x
Urban Nature Benefits:
Psycho-Social Dimensions of People and Plants
¡�¢'£�¤+¥�¦-§©¨�ª�¤'«1¬�B£�® «1£�¤*¯°�±�²@³J±1´µ/¶�· ¸�¹�ºG»�· ¼\½�¾G¿$ÀJÁ>»GÂ�· ¶�à ¼�¾3¶�ÄFÅ/¾�Æ Æ ¹�Ã>¹*¾>¿�Ǿ3º�¹�» ¼*ÈA¹�»�¾3É�º�Ê�¹�» 1Ë$Ì�Í�Î�Ï�Ð!Ñ Í�Ò�Ï7Ó�Ñ Ô�Ï7Ó+Ô/Õ�Ö�Ë!Ò�Ì ×3Ø"Î�Ï�ÕFÔ/×3Ò�ÓÖ
ÙÚ"Û3Ü'Ý�ÞAßFß�Ü�à>á
âäã�å*æLç è$écç êQé�ë�é�ìAç í*ë�í*î�è�ç ì�ç å�êQé�ë�ïcìFí;ðñë�ê�òóã�í-æ>åäì�ô/é ë�õ�ö�÷�å+æGè å/ë�ìí+î�ìFô�åùøSú û;ú�÷�í*÷�ü�ý é ìAç í+ëóý ç þAå/ê@ç ëcü�æ�ÿ�é�ë�é'æGå�é ê7ú���ý é�ë�ìFê��3î íHæ>å�ê�ì�ê�é ë�ïå/è í+ê��$ê�ìFåIã�ê�é'æGå ç ã�÷/íHæFìFé ë�ì�ç ë�è�ç ìAç å�ê!ú��Lå�í+÷�ý åäé'æGådð�íBæ���ç ë�^ç ë ã�é ë�è�ç ìAç å7ê�ì�í ÷1æGå/ê�åIæ�þ�åäå��ç ê�ìAç ë�[ë�é ìFü�æ�é�ýLé'æ�å/é�êQé�ë�ïóæ>å�ê�ì�íBæ>ådí-æ�è'æGå/é�ìFåë�å!ð í+ë�å/ê7ú�û7è'ç å�ë�ìAç î�ç è^æGå/ê�å/é�æGè$ô�ì�å+ý ý êJü�êQìFô�é�ì�ü1æÿ�é�ëc÷Iý é�ë�ìFê�÷1æ�í;þ�ç ï'åã�é ë��ñÿ�å/ë�å/îFç ì�ê7ú� å��Lë�í*ð ìFô�é ì�÷1ý é�ë�ìFêäç ã�÷�æ�í*þ�ådìFô�å@å/ë�þ'ç æ>í*ë1ã�å�ë�ìÿ�[è í*ë�ìAæLç ÿ�ü�ìAç ë�[ìFí ÿ�å�ì�ìFåIæ1é�ç æ1é ë�ï^ð�é ìFåIæ���ü�é'ý ç ì��ñé�ë�ï�ô�å+ý ÷�ç ë���ì�íæ>å/ï�ü�è ådå�ë�å+æ����ñü�ê�å�ú
û7í*è'ç é'ýAê�è�ç å�ë�ìAç ê3ìFêQê�ìFü�ï��ñé�ë�í*ì�ô�åIæQý å7þAå+ýAí+î�ê�åIæ�þ'ç è$å�êQìFô�é�ì�÷1ý é ë�ìFêQ÷�æ�í��þ�ç ï'å@î í-æ�ü�æ�ÿ�é ë æå�ê7ç ï�å/ë�ìFê�ú�� é�æ��3ê�����æ>å7å/ë�ê3÷�é è å/ê�é ë�ïcìAæ�å/å�ê�é'æ>åùã�íHæGåì�ô�é ëdìFô�å���ý ü�ë���ê�í+î�ìFô�ådè'ç ì����-í-æ�� ÷�íHý ý ü�ìAç í+ëcê�è'æ�ü�ÿ�ÿ�åIæ>ê�ú � ��ô�å��ñé�î&î å�è$ìí+ü�æ1å7þ�å+æ�� ï'é��^ã�í+í*ï�ê��3é è ì�ç þ'ç ìAç å/ê�é ë�ïcå+ã�í*ì�ç í+ë�é'ýAô�å/é�ý ìFô�ú��ô�å!�ç ãS÷�æGí;þ�åäí+ü1æ���ü�é�ý ç ì��[í*îBý ç î\å ç ëcð[é��$êJìFô�é�ì�é'æ>åäê3í-ã�å/ìLç ã�å/ê�ü�ë�ï�åIæ �
ê3ìFí+í*ï��3í*î\ìFå/ë�ü�ë�ï'å+æGå/ê�ì�ç ãSé�ìFå/ï1ú ô�å�ì�ô�åIæ�ð�ådé�æ>åäé è ìAç þAåùç ë�ü1æÿ�é�ëcë�é ìFü1æGå�"\÷�ý é�ë�ìAç ë���ìAæ>å�å/ê����'æGí*ð^ç ë�#��é'æ �ï'å�ë�ê�$�í-æ1÷�é ê�ê7ç þAå+ý �[å/ë�è$í;ü�ë�ì�å+æ1è�ç ì��#�'æGå�å/ë%"\ê�ü�è ôcé�ê�é[ê�ì�æ�í-ý ýAìFô1æGí*ü���ôcé�÷�é�æ���$��3ð�åäå���÷�å+æLç å7ë�è åd÷�åIæê3í*ë�é�ýÿ�å�ë�å�î�ç ìFê�ìFô�é ì�é î\î å�è$ì�ô�í;ð ð�ådî\å�å+ý�é�ë�ïcî\ü�ë�è ìAç í*ë1ú��'æGí*í+î�í*î�÷�ê�� è$ô�í-ý í���ç è é'ýLé�ë�ïcê3í*è�ç é�ý�ÿ�å/ë�å�îFç ì�ê���ç þAå�ê�ü�êã�íHæGå æGå�é�ê�í+ë�êQìFí&��æGí*ð ãSíHæGå'�'æ>å/å�ëóç ëcè�ç ì�ç å�ê(�)/å+ý í;ð é'æ�ådå��é�ã�÷�ý å�ê�î�æ�í-ã ãSé ë�ñê�ì�ü�ï�ç å�ê7ú
*�+-,�.0/21�+43517648�9 :�;<:�/4=>,�?-/�1�:�8@*2.�9 1�+A/43B1�?�8�:C=�3>/�3>9 D�=�,�EF/49 G1>9 H4:�;I3B1>9 EF?4:C8�:�=�,�H�:�85J�KL9 MAN48O,>H!9 /�E�,�/4:�P *C=>3LN43>=�9 1BJ71>,Q=�,�/4=�:�/-G1>8�3B1�:-RTSL*�J!=�+4,�U ,�EF9 *�1B*WV�3>=>+4:�U43>/4D�X�1�:�N4+�:-/AY�3�N4U 3>/�D�:�;Z9 /-:1>+-:C=�+-3>8�3>=Z1>:�8�9 *�1�9 =B*A,�;[/43B1�?-8�3>U4N4U 3>=�:�*�1>+-3B173L8�:C8�:�*�1>,�8�3B1�9 H4:WG6-:�9 /�E�3\.�3@J�K�:�]41>:�/�1>K\;Z3B*�=�9 /43B1>9 ,�/�3>/4D�=�,�MCN43B1>9 649 U 9 1ZJ�R^`_ba2ced<agf�h7h�i h�j0k�d<l�fbmQk#^nd[o�o�pZq�d[iZmQr�sut 8 RV�3L=�+-:-U4Yv3LN-U 3>/2*-?48BHF:ZJ�:-D�D�:�*�w�.�,�8�w�:-8@*W3>64,�?�1�1�+4:�9 828�3B1>:C,�;9 U U /4:�*�*A3>/4D�U :OHF:�U4,�;�xL,!6T*�3B1>9 *�;I3>=B1�9 ,�/4R�X,!MA:�*�1�?-DLJ0N43>8\1�9 =�9 GN-3L/�1Z*C=�,�?4U DTH!9 :�.y/43B1L?48O:�;I8O,�Mz1>+4:�9 82D�:O*�w�*-K�,�1>+4:�8\*C=�,�?4U D/-,�1�R�{�+4,�*�:�.09 1�+-,�?�1�K .�+4:�/�3B*�w�:�D�3>64,�?�1�|4|�D�9 ; ;Z:�8�:�/�13>9 U MA:�/�1B*�K�=�U 3>9 MA:�D�}4~���MA,�8�:�1>9 MA:�*A,�;[9 U U /4:�*�*A9 /T1>+4:CN48�9 ,�8*�9 ]�MA,�/�1>+�*�R t :�*-w�.�,�8�w�:�8\*�.09 1>+�3�HF9 :I.�=�U 3>9 MA:�D�1>+4:
�I��� � ���0� ���e���B��� �O�I�>�Z�>� �����C�A�����C��� �>���T�>�4�>�T�>�4��� �T�4���-� �F� �O������ � ���B�F�-�����L����B���4�4�T���-�-� ���L�����C�����C�>�4�>� � �-���F� ���F���������-�O�� �������Z�������>���B�>���A�>�-��������B�����C�>�-�T�����4�����>� � ���A�����W�4�B�L� �����>� ���Z�-� ���F�O���B�����������>�4���-� �B���z�Z����������>���-��¡��e�O���4���5������I����� � ���>�A���[�4� ���4���T� � �B�2���B�>� ���I�>�B��� ���-���>�4��¢��e�����4���5�>�����4���B��������������>� �4�4���>� ���-£¤�¥�¦2§<¤�¤'¦2§[¨�©0ª2¥�«B¬b¯®�° ���O�����A� �C��� �>�-�2���>� �������>�4������4���e� � �B�>� �C�4�4�����@���>������£�±²�C���Q���-���%�>�4�B�e�����������L�������>����������>��� �A�4�>�Z�e���-�2� �A�A�-�4�������������³�B�2����� �4�B�A��� �C� �-� �-�2�>�4��>�4� � � �B�e�>�0�����4�<��� ���C���4�>� � �����F� ������� ���4�B�>� ������£C´����F���vµe� ��� ���
¶�·�¸L¹Oº » ¼@½ ¾ ½ »5¿½ À2½5ÁIÂBÃ�º Ä>¹OÅ�¹Oº »\Æ�Ç ½5¿�½5ÈÄLÉ�Ê ËI¹�º ½FÌ�Í�Í�Î�½�Ï�Ã�¹¶�¹O¹OÐÁIÑ ÒBÓ�Ñ Ô@Ñ ÂBÕBÓ�ÂB¹ÄBÔ�Ö!º\É�ÕBÓ4ÏIº@¹�¹OÊ�ÕBÓ�Å�¾ZÄ>º ¹�Ê ËIÊ@½!× Ó�Ø�½ ¿�½5Ç�Ù Õ Ë ËI»5Ø�½ Ú�½5Ø�Ä5·<Ó@ËIº@¹O¹�»\Ç ½ Û½\Ü�Ý�Ñ ÂBÞß ¹OÅ�Ñ ËIÄ>º\Ê àI»�á�âOã!ä�å@æIç æBèBé å\êIçIë>é ì í�î�ïZð ãZñ ãZð ò@é óOè!ô7õLãBñ ì æZð é óIè!ö-ð ÷IêOó�ø�é æIùIé ò@ãZð ñ é ì íOú>Ú�ûÃ�¹Oº\Ê ËIü\ÖFÓ�Ñ ý>¹Oº\Ê@Ñ Ë ¸vÄ5Ô4Ü�ÕBÊ@Ê\ÕBÂBÃ�Ý�Ê ¹ Ë ËIÊ4Ç�º@¹OÊ@Ê@½
þ4Õ5Ð�Ù ÕBÓ�»\Ø�½\Æ�ÁZ½\þ4Õ5Ð�Ù ÕBÓ�½FÌ�Í�ÿ�Í�½�á�âIã�ä����OãBð é ãZóOå@ã�æ����FêIì �Oð ãBî�ïZñ í�å\âIæZç æIèBé å@êOçIï5ãZð ñ ��ãZå@ì é ò@ãIúFÛ�Õ\û�É�º\Ñ Å�ÒB¹Oü\Û!ÕBûÉ�º\Ñ Å�ÒB¹�Ö!Ó�Ñ ýL¹Oº\Ê@Ñ Ë ¸vÇ�º\¹OÊ@Ê@½��¹ ·<Ñ Ê\»\Û½ Ú�½FÌ�Í�Í ��½���ð ãZãBó��FêOì �Ið ã�� ������êOó��FêIì �Oð ãZî á�âIã���ãZêIóOé óOèFæ��>ïZç êIóOì ñ�é ó�æ��Ið��5é ò@ãZñ ú[Û!ÃOÑ ÂZÕBÒ\Ä>ü5Ö!Ó�Ñ ý>¹Oº\Ê\Ñ Ë ¸vÄBÔ4× Ù Ù Ñ ÓOÄ>Ñ Ê�Ç�º ¹OÊ\Ê@½Ø�¹OÙ Ô\»@¶�½ ß ¹OÅ�Ñ ËIÄ>º àZ½�Ì�Í�Í���½-á�âOã!õLæZç ã�æ����!æBð ì é å��Oç ì �Ið ã!é ó������êOó��<ãZç ç � ø�ãBé óOè!êIóOù��IæZå\é êIç! 4ãBò@ãZç æ��!�ãZóIì úÇOÄ>º ËIÙ ÕBÓ�Å�»#"[Ø�üLÏ�Ñ ûÉ�¹Oº�Ç�º ¹OÊ\Ê@½
$�%�&(')%�&+*-, .�/�%�&+'10�2 , %3.3465�%�.�2�0�5�2879;:+<>=�?A@)B;C D E+FG=GH>IJH�:+<K<>=�LM LNG<>LOPD B;ORQ�O S�:+NUT�B;O�<�V W�X�C <>XGO!L�E�Q�N�V Y LO Z!V <>?[BJD+@\:+Z!=�V NG]+<>B�NGE�^6L:+<><>C LGE @1_a`�bGc`Gd�e>f�cGc�dFG=�B�NGL6g3h i�j�k�l�k�c�ke>d�m�d�b�nGo6:�p�g3h i�j�k�l�kGbd�e#i�k�`�i�nq�e>rs:+V C g+tuvBJC D�wxXGH uy:+Z!=GV N�]+<�B;N�H LzGXGn @1L6SRZ!V <>Lg+uyu{uKH W�D O�H u{:+Z�=�V NG]+<>B;NGH LzGX�| LNY�V O�B�e#r}V N�z
~G���s�����K�3�3�J�G���������y�!� �!�
���)�����+�������R�����+�����J�¡ ¢�) £�¥¤U¦¨§£©(�ª �4���I�L�A� � � ���C�L�4�T����-�����4�����4� �C�L�O�����4���Z���4�4���B�>� ���A�>�4��Z�����-���C���[��-�������� ���Z��£[«A�>���e�I�>�Z�L���@�-��� �-��� �4��� �����>�4�G¬-�4�B�>������-���B��� ���A�>�4���4���>� �>�����>�O�4���>���C������������� �>���B����>�4��� �����>�������>�>��>�4�T�-�-����������£( ���>�-��� ��� ���4�����4� � ���������>�4�T�I�>�A� � � ���A�-�-������4�4�4���5�>� ���C�����F� �����-�A�����Z���>�4�B�e���-�����4���B�F�C�4���-� �>� ����4���4�@�!� ���\�C�>�4�A�4�O���!� ���C�e�O�����4� ���v�Z���� ���-�C���4�>� � �����F�O�A����4���4�>��� � �!� ���F£T´���������e�����-���>�O���A���O�����>� �����-���-�4���>� �C�>���!�>�-��>�B�F���W�����4���4�>�v�F�O�������-�-�>�����-£¦2§<¨�©0ªA§[¨y¨�¬)®b§<¤4¥0«Bª�ªC¬�U¯K°[«Bª2¥&®�° �4�B���O�>�C����4���������4��� �L�C� ��±e�4� ���B���3² �C�4�4�4� � �7�-������� �����4� ���C� ³��4� �!������>�4�W�O��� �W�������������W���A�4���������4��� ��� ���>�����4���\�����4�>�-�L�!�-�L�A� �Z�-£´ �4�C�4������� �����-�O�I�L���Z�B�8²4�>�4�>�\���A�������4�-� � �4� ���>�A�>�O�A�-�-����� �� �������>� ���>� ����� � �Z�-��� �������4� ��� �T�>�4�C�>�C���4���e���!�>�������C�>�4�T�F���B����F���>�0� �����>�O���4�-�T���4���A£{µW�@�-£+¶� � � ° �4� � � �!�>���>�-�¸·����>�4�>� ��¹��4������4���5�����-�B�7�O�O�-� �4�-���Z�C� � �!� ����� ���4�-� � �4� ���>�2��� ���T�>�������W���-��A�����C�>�������>�����Z��� �4�4�L� �������!� ��� �����e�C�����-����2�>�Q�����>����� ���
�������Z� � �B��£T´����-� �������B�2��� �����F�������T�F� �I�7�C�����4���\�7���-� ��������B�-����� �����A���O�C��� �>�-�A� �A�������I� � �Z�B���0� �>�T�>�4��� �2���4� � �4�������>�4���� �F�-� �I� �>�>���>� ��� �����A���-�C���!���O���������F� ��� ���4���-£ ´ �-�O�0�>� ���Q�����4���5�� �����C�����C���[�4�O�>�-� ���>���!� ��� ���4���C� ���>����I� � �Z�B�2��� �>���-�>�B�>�4���\������A�-�L�������>�g���-�����C� � �!� ����� ���4�4� � �4� ���>�2��� ���4�!���[�>�O������£°�§<¤�¤�¤�ª�ºQ¬�¬)°(»½¼�¼�¦2§<¤�¤�«Z¬�¡»�#¨U¾�«B¬1°�§<QªA§®�° ���4�!�����!� ��� ���4���C�4�I�������L�2�C�4��� �T�����4�4�����Z�v�>�Q�������>������B�>�F�����O�-� ���C�4���4�@�F� ������� �>�2�>���>� �-� ����� ���������Z� � �B�e�O���-��� ���>� ���>�4���4�����T� ���>���B���-����� ���4£{¿-������� ���>�4�����F� �O���4�A�����B�C�>�����4�-��������4���!�4�>� �-�Q�L�4�4���>�����0�4� � �0�e����� �4£{À4���-���B�>� �!�2�-��� �����>� ���B�A�B��>�4�Cµe�-� ���-�@�-� �B�0���Á«�� ���4� �F�L�A�4�@�����B���4�4���>�4�B���-�>�-�-���C����4��� �F�4�-�����4�����L���0� �>���4� � �����>���������O�����B�-���>�-���W�>���C�-�-�O����� �F����B�C���>���F���I����A�>�4�T�>�4�����B�L�-�-� ���F£ ´ �-���-���>�4�B���>���C�A��������>�����T�B���@�L� �4�>� �4��� ���e�>���4������� �L�4�L�-�>�L�4�������������>��� �-�������>��������4�>���T�B�-��� � ���>�C���!�Z���>���>�4���F� �� ���4�>�4£
Â;Ã8Ä�Ã8ÂJÃGÅvÆ�Ã8ÇvÈAÅÁÉ�Â;Ã8ÇGÊvË�ÂJÆ�Ã8Ç
�4�B�C���!�4�������4�4� �����>�4�B�e�A���B�-�4�����>�4�C�4�O�>�-� ��� ���F� ���>�4������-�4�����-�O�A���[���4�2�4����� ����Ì ���4�>���B�C�4� ������4���������4���C�>�4���4���>�5����B�>�����-�������F���e�������7���>��������£[Íg�C�4�B���B���4�4�T�>�-�B�7�-�-���4� ��0�4�7�!� ���y�4�B�>�4�O�C�B� ���������L���������I�4����� ���-�B��� ���������4���y���-�4�4������4������� �!� ���F� �>�>�����>�O�����C�������4�!�����4���B������� �4�B�C�4���B�>���T� ���>����������>�4���B�Z�L�����>� ���A�>�4���4���������5�-�����B�-��� � ���>�C���!�Z���L�2�>�4���>���F���T����B�>�F��������� ���4£8ÎA�A� �������O�����>� ������� �Z���Z���Z���4�4��� ���O���������������4�4� ������������ �F� �����>�4���O���>�������������C� �A���>� � �����>�4�PÏ>� �C�C�4�4� ÐL�B�>� ������ �I���Z��ÑKÒ �>�4�C�����F�O���C���[�4���F�B�>� �F�C�O���-�-�����-�v�>�Q���������������I�-�� ³��4����� ���4���C� �C� �����C� �<���!� �Z� ���[�4�B�>�4���C�4�O�����������T���4����>���������B�4���-� �>�4�B�>� ���4£
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME
ENVIRONMENT AND
CRIME IN THE INNER CITY
Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?
FRANCES E. KUO is an assistant professor and codirector of the Human-Environ-
ment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her re-
search focuses on attention, defensible space, and novice-friendly information.
WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN is an associate professor and codirector of the Human-
Environment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
His research focuses on the psychological and social benefits of urban nature and citi-
zen participation in environmental decision making.
ABSTRACT: Although vegetation has been positively linked to fear of crime and
crime in a number of settings, recent findings in urban residential areas have hinted at
a possible negative relationship: Residents living in “greener” surroundings report
lower levels of fear, fewer incivilities, and less aggressive and violent behavior. This
study used police crime reports to examine the relationship between vegetation and
crime in an inner-city neighborhood. Crime rates for 98 apartment buildings with
varying levels of nearby vegetation were compared. Results indicate that although
residents were randomly assigned to different levels of nearby vegetation, the greener
a building’s surroundings were, the fewer crimes reported. Furthermore, this pattern
held for both property crimes and violent crimes. The relationship of vegetation to
crime held after the number of apartments per building, building height, vacancy rate,
and number of occupied units per building were accounted for.
The highway from one merchant town to another shall be cleared so that no
cover for malefactors should be allowed for a width of two hundred feet on ei-
ther side; landlords who do not effect this clearance will be answerable for rob-
beries committed in consequence of their default, and in case of murder they
will be in the king’s mercy.
—Statute of Winchester of 1285, Chapter V, King Edward I
343
AUTHORS’ NOTE: A portion of these findings was presented in invited testimony to
the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC). This
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 3, May 2001 343-367
© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.
There is a long tradition of addressing crime in problem areas by removing
vegetation. As early as 1285, the English King Edward I sought to reduce
highway robbery by forcing property owners to clear highway edges of trees
and shrubs (Pluncknett, 1960). Today, that tradition continues as park author-
ities, universities, and municipalities across North America engage in active
programs to remove vegetation because it is thought to conceal and facilitate
criminal acts (Michael & Hull, 1994; Nasar & Fisher, 1993; Weisel, Gouvis,
& Harrell, 1994).
One of the settings in which crime is of greatest concern today is the
inner-city neighborhood. To combat crime in this setting, should vegetation
be removed? This article suggests the opposite. We present theory and evi-
dence to suggest that far from abetting crime, high-canopy trees and grass
may actually work to deter crime in poor inner-city neighborhoods.
COULD THERE BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE?
As a rule, the belief is that vegetation facilitates crime because it hides per-
petrators and criminal activity from view. Here, we review the evidence in
support of this “rule” and suggest conditions under which it might not apply.
Although no studies to date have examined whether crime rates are actu-
ally higher in the presence of dense vegetation, a variety of evidence links
dense vegetation with fear, fear of crime, and possibly crime itself.
It is certainly the case that many people fear densely vegetated areas. In
research on urban parks, densely wooded areas have consistently been asso-
ciated with fear. In one study, safety ratings for 180 scenes of urban parks
showed that individuals felt most vulnerable in densely forested areas and
safest in open, mowed areas (Schroeder & Anderson, 1984). And in another
study, individuals who were asked for their open-ended responses to photo-
344 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
work was also supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Exten-
sion Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Project No. ILLU-65-0387.
Weare grateful for the assistance of many individuals and other institutions as well.
John Potter and Liesette Brunson assisted in data entry and data analysis in the initial
stages of this project. A reviewer’s suggestion substantially strengthened the analyses
presented here. The Chicago Housing Authority and the management of Ida B. Wells
were helpful in many ways, and the Chicago Police Department graciously gave us
access to their year-end crime reports. Jerry Barrett helped produce the figures, and
Helicopter Transport of Chicago donated the helicopter flight over Ida B. Wells. Cor-
respondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frances E. Kuo, Human-
Environment Research Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1103 S. Dorner, Urbana,
IL, 61801; e-mail: [email protected].
graphs of urban parks indicated that heavily vegetated areas seemed danger-
ous (Talbot & Kaplan, 1984). Although neither of these studies specifically
probed fear of crime (as opposed to more general fear), it was clear that at
least some participants had crime in mind; one respondent specifically sug-
gested that weedy areas gave muggers good hiding places (Talbot & Kaplan,
1984).
Dense vegetation has also been linked specifically to fear of crime. In
safety ratings for 180 scenes of parking lots, the more a photo was covered by
vegetation, the lower the perceived security (Shaffer & Anderson, 1985).
And in research examining fear of crime on a university campus, dense
understories that reduced views into areas where criminals might hide were
associated with fear of crime (Nasar & Fisher, 1993). In these and other stud-
ies, view distance seems to be an important factor. Fear of crime is higher
where vegetation blocks views (Fisher & Nasar, 1992; Kuo, Bacaicoa, &
Sullivan, 1998; Michael & Hull, 1994).
Not only has dense vegetation been linked to general fears and to fear of
crime in particular, but two studies have pointed more directly at a facilitative
role of vegetation in crime. In the first study, park managers and park police
indicated that dense vegetation is regularly used by criminals to conceal their
activities (Michael & Hull, 1994). In the second, burglars themselves lent
support to this notion. In this study, automobile burglars described how they
used dense vegetation in a variety of ways, including to conceal their selec-
tion of a target and their escape from the scene, to shield their examination of
stolen goods, and finally, in the disposal of unwanted goods (Michael, Hull,
& Zahm, 1999). At the same time, Michael and his coauthors made it clear
that vegetation was neither necessary nor sufficient for a crime to take place.
The clear theme in all these studies is that dense vegetation provides
potential cover for criminal activities, possibly increasing the likelihood of
crime and certainly increasing the fear of crime. Large shrubs, underbrush,
and dense woods all substantially diminish visibility and therefore are capa-
ble of supporting criminal activity.
But, not all vegetation blocks views. A well-maintained grassy area cer-
tainly does not block views; widely spaced, high-canopy trees have minimal
effect on visibility; and flowers and low-growing shrubs seem unlikely to
provide cover for criminal activities. We suggest that although the rule that
vegetation aids crime may hold for visibility-decreasing forms of vegetation,
there are systematic exceptions to this rule. To wit, we propose that widely
spaced, high-canopy trees and other visibility-preserving forms of vegetation
do not promote crime.
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 345
MIGHT VEGETATION DETER CRIME? THEORY
Furthermore, we propose that in some settings, visibility-preserving
forms of vegetation may actually deter crime. Specifically, we propose that in
poor inner-city neighborhoods, vegetation can inhibit crime through the fol-
lowing two mechanisms: by increasing surveillance and by mitigating some
of the psychological precursors to violence. Let’s look at each of these in
turn.
Increasing surveillance. Surveillance is a well-established factor in crimi-
nal activity. Jane Jacobs (1961) suggested that the simple presence of more
“eyes on the street” would deter crime, and this concept was prominent in
Oscar Newman’s (1972) classic Defensible Space and appeared in Jeffery’s
(1971) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Since then, many
studies have shown that perpetrators avoid areas with greater surveillance
and greater likelihood of intervention (e.g., Bennett, 1989; Bennett &
Wright, 1984; Cromwell, Olson, & Avary, 1991; Poyner & Webb, 1992).
And, substantial research has shown that criminals avoid well-used residen-
tial areas where their activities might easily be observed (Coleman, 1987;
Macdonald & Gifford, 1989; Merry, 1981; Rhodes & Conley, 1981).
There is some evidence to suggest that in inner-city neighborhoods, vege-
tation might introduce more eyes on the street by increasing residents’ use of
neighborhood outdoor spaces. A series of studies conducted in inner-city
neighborhoods has shown that treed outdoor spaces are consistently more
well used by youth, adults, and mixed-age groups than are treeless spaces;
moreover, the more trees in a space, the greater the number of simultaneous
users (Coley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1997; Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998;
W. C. Sullivan, Kuo, & DePooter, 2001). Not surprisingly then, a recent study
found that children were twice as likely to have adult supervision in green
inner-city neighborhood spaces than in similar but barren spaces (A. F. Tay-
lor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998). Thus, in these settings, higher levels of
vegetation not only preserve visibility but may also increase surveillance.
Perhaps just as important as actual surveillance in deterring crime is
implied surveillance. Newman (1972) suggested that criminals might be
deterred by environmental cues suggesting that surveillance is likely even
when no observers are present (also see Jeffery, 1971; R. B. Taylor, 1988).
Consistent with this, territorial markers have been empirically linked to lower
rates of incivilities and crime (Brown & Altman, 1983; Perkins, Brown, &
Taylor, 1996; Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993; R. B. Taylor,
1988). (And even those E&B readers who are not criminals may have
346 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
experienced the power of implied surveillance—on the highway after pass-
ing an empty police car.)
There is some evidence to suggest that residential vegetation can act as a
territorial marker. Chaudhury (1994) showed front views of houses to students
and examined how a host of environmental features affected their ratings of
territorial personalization. He found that the presence and maintenance of
vegetative features was the strongest predictor of territorial personalization,
with an R-squared of .65. Similarly, Brown and colleagues (Brown &
Altman, 1983; Brown & Bentley, 1993) found evidence suggesting that
plants and other territorial markers make properties less attractive for bur-
glary. We suggest that well-maintained vegetation may constitute a particu-
larly effective territorial marker. Well-maintained vegetation outside a home
serves as one of the cues to care (Nassauer, 1988), suggesting that the inhabit-
ants actively care about their home territory and potentially implying that an
intruder would be noticed and confronted.
Mitigating psychological precursors to violence. Another mechanism by
which vegetation might inhibit crime is through mitigating mental fatigue. S.
Kaplan (1987) suggested that one of the costs of mental fatigue may be a
heightened propensity for “outbursts of anger and potentially . . . violence”
(p. 57), and three proposed symptoms of mental fatigue—irritability, inatten-
tiveness, and decreased control over impulses—are each well-established
psychological precursors to violence. Irritability is linked with aggression in
numerous studies (e.g., Caprara & Renzi, 1981; Coccaro, Bergeman,
Kavoussi, & Seroczynski, 1997; Kant, Smith-Seemiller, & Zeiler, 1998;
Kavoussi & Coccaro, 1998; Stanford, Greve, & Dickens, 1995). Inattentive-
ness has been closely tied to aggression in both children (Stewart, 1985) and
adolescents (Scholte, van Aken, & van Leishout, 1997). And, impulsivity is
associated with aggression and violence in a variety of populations (for
reviews, see Brady, Myrick & McElroy, 1998; Markovitz, 1995; Tuinier,
Verhoeven, & Van Praag, 1996).
A considerable body of studies indicates that vegetation aids in the recov-
ery from mental fatigue. Contact with nature in a variety of forms—wilder-
ness areas, prairie, community parks, window views, and interior plants—is
systematically linked with enhanced cognitive functioning as measured by
both self-report and performance on objective tests (e.g., Canin, 1991;
Cimprich, 1993; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; R. Kaplan, 1984; Lohr,
Pearson-Mimms, & Goodwin, 1996; Miles, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1998; Ovitt,
1996; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). To the extent that irritability, inatten-
tiveness, and impulsivity are symptoms of mental fatigue, as first proposed in
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 347
S. Kaplan (1987) and recently elucidated in Kuo and Sullivan (in press),
reductions in mental fatigue should decrease violent behavior.
In sum, we propose that vegetation can deter crime in poor urban neigh-
borhoods in any or all of the following ways: by increasing residents’ infor-
mal surveillance of neighborhood spaces, by increasing the implied sur-
veillance of these spaces, and by mitigating residents’ mental fatigue,
thereby reducing the potential for violence. Next, we review empirical work
pointing at a negative relationship between vegetation and crime.
MIGHT VEGETATION DETER CRIME? CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
There are a number of scattered hints in the empirical literature that vege-
tation might have a negative relationship to crime in residential settings.
A few studies have used images to examine the relationship between vege-
tation and sense of safety in residential settings. The findings from residential
settings are in direct contrast to those obtained in studies of nonresidential
settings: In residential settings, the more vegetation there is, the less fear of
crime. One study used photographs of residential sites to examine effects of
architectural and landscape features on fear of crime and found that higher
levels of vegetation were associated with less fear of crime (Nasar, 1982).
Another study used drawings of residences and found that properties
appeared safer when trees and shrubs were included than when they were not
(Brower, Dockett, & Taylor, 1983). And, similar results were obtained from
an experiment using computer-based photo simulations. In that study, an
inner-city courtyard was depicted with varying densities of trees: The more
dense the tree planting was, the greater the sense of safety (Kuo, Bacaicoa,
et al., 1998).
One study used controlled comparisons of real residential settings to
examine the relationship between vegetation and sense of safety. In a public
housing development where residents were randomly assigned to architec-
turally identical apartment buildings with varying levels of vegetation imme-
diately outside, those residents who lived in buildings with more trees and
grass gave systematically higher endorsements to the statement “I feel safe
living here” than did their counterparts living in relatively barren buildings
(Kuo, Sullivan, et al., 1998). That is, not only do images of green residential
settings evoke a greater sense of safety, but individuals living in such settings
report a greater sense of safety as well.
There is some indication that this greater sense of safety is warranted. A
few studies have examined the relationship between vegetation and “incivili-
ties.” R. B. Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower (as cited in R. B. Taylor, 1988)
compared street blocks with higher and lower levels of high-maintenance
348 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
gardening and found fewer problems reported on street blocks with higher
levels of high-maintenance gardening. And in another study, Stamen (1993)
surveyed landscaped and nonlandscaped areas in a community and found
that the incidence of vandalism or graffiti in sites without plantings was 90%
as compared to 10% in sites with plantings. Similarly, Brunson (1999) exam-
ined both physical and social incivilities in public housing outdoor spaces
with trees and grass versus in similar spaces without vegetation. Resident
reports indicated that graffiti, vandalism, and littering were systematically
lower in outdoor spaces with trees and grass than in comparable, more barren
spaces (Brunson, 1999). Furthermore, resident reports indicated that social
incivilities, such as the presence of noisy, disruptive individuals, strangers,
and illegal activity, were also systematically lower in the greener outdoor
spaces (Brunson, 1999).
Additional evidence that vegetation may reduce crime comes from two
studies that examined the relationship between residential vegetation and
residents’ levels of aggression and violence. Mooney and Nicell (1992) com-
pared violent assaults by Alzheimer patients during two consecutive sum-
mers in five long-term care facilities—three without gardens and two in
which exterior gardens were installed. In Alzheimer patients, increases in the
number of aggressive assaults each year are typical because of the progres-
sive deterioration of cognitive faculties; and indeed, in the facilities without
gardens, the incidence of violent assaults increased dramatically over time.
By contrast, the incidence of violent assaults in the other facilities stayed the
same or decreased slightly after gardens were installed.
Another study compared levels of aggression and violence in an urban
public housing neighborhood where residents played no role in planting or
maintaining the vegetation outside their apartments and were randomly
assigned to levels of greenness. Levels of aggression and violence were sys-
tematically lower for individuals living in green surroundings than for indi-
viduals living in barren surroundings; moreover, lack of nature significantly
predicted levels of mental fatigue, which in turn significantly predicted
aggression. Mediation testing indicated that the relationship between vegeta-
tion and aggression was fully mediated through attention (Kuo & Sullivan,
in press).
In sum, there is a variety of evidence suggesting that vegetation may be
linked to lower levels of crime in residential neighborhoods, particularly
poor inner-city neighborhoods. Residential vegetation has been linked with a
greater sense of safety, fewer incivilities, and less aggressive and violent
behavior. Of these findings, the most direct evidence of a negative link
between vegetation and crime comes from residents’ reports of illegal
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 349
activities in the space outside their apartment building and from residents’
self-reports of (criminally) aggressive behavior.
The study presented here is the first to examine the relationship between
vegetation and crime in an inner-city neighborhood using police crime
reports. Although police crime reports are far from infallible (O’Brien,
1990), one advantage of such reports is that they are based on actual counts of
crimes reported over the course of a year and thus are less subject to the dis-
tortions introduced by having residents estimate the frequencies of such
events from memory. Thus, the convergence of findings from resident reports
and police reports would lend confidence to a negative link between vegeta-
tion and crime. In this study, we examined the relationship between the vege-
tation outside of apartment buildings and the number of police crime reports
for those buildings over a 2-year period. We collected police data on property
crimes, violent crimes, and total crimes for 98 apartment buildings in one
inner-city neighborhood and used the amount of tree and grass cover outside
each building to predict crime.
METHOD
Data presented here were collected as part of the Vital Neighborhood
Common Spaces archive, a multistudy research effort examining the effects
of the physical environment on the functioning of individuals, families, and
communities residing in urban public housing.
POPULATION, SETTING, AND DESIGN
Ida B. Wells is a large public housing development in Chicago. Wells pro-
vides housing for approximately 5,700 individuals, of which 65% are female,
97% are African American, and 44% are children younger than 14 years old
(Chicago Housing Authority, 1995). Ida B. Wells is one of the 12 poorest
neighborhoods in the United States (Ihejirika, 1995). At the time of this
study, approximately 93% of the people living at Wells were officially unem-
ployed, and roughly 50% of the families received Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (Chicago Housing Authority, 1995).
The amount of nature outside apartment buildings at Ida B. Wells varies
considerably. When the development was originally built in the 1940s, trees
and grass were planted around each of the low-rise buildings. Over time,
many of these green spaces have been paved in an effort to keep dust down
and maintenance costs low; this paving has killed many of the original trees,
350 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
leaving some areas completely barren, others with small trees or some grass,
and still others with mature high-canopy trees (see Figure 1). Because shrubs
were relatively rare, vegetation at Ida B. Wells was essentially the amount of
tree and grass cover around each building.
A number of apartment buildings at Wells were excluded from this study.
First, the high-rise and midrise (seven-story) buildings were excluded to keep
the buildings sampled similar in size, number of residents, and amount of
outdoor common space. Second, of the 124 low-rise (one to four stories)
apartment buildings, those buildings adjacent or nearly adjacent to the police
station within the development were excluded because the presence of police
officers would be expected to be a significant deterrent to crime. And finally,
a small cluster of low-rise buildings was excluded because the buildings’
irregular placement with respect to each other and the street made it unclear
where the common space associated with one building ended and the next
began. The final sample included 98 buildings.
Ida B. Wells offers a number of rare methodological advantages for inves-
tigating the relationship between residential vegetation and crime. Although
levels of vegetation outside the apartment buildings vary considerably, the
residents are strikingly homogeneous with respect to many of the individual
characteristics that have been shown to increase vulnerability to crime—
income, education, and life circumstances. This similarity among residents
coupled with the consistent low-rise architecture decreases the sources of
extraneous variability in crime. This increases the power to detect differences
in the amount of crime associated with differences in the level of vegetation
outside each apartment building.
Perhaps more important, the apartment assignment procedures and land-
scaping policies of public housing work to ensure that there are no systematic
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 351
Figure 1: Ground Level View at Ida B. Wells Showing Apartment Buildings With
Varying Amounts of Tree and Grass Cover
relationships between the vegetation outside an apartment building and the
characteristics of its residents. Applicants for public housing at Ida B. Wells
(and elsewhere in Chicago public housing) are assigned to individual apart-
ments without regard for the level of nearby vegetation. And although resi-
dents have some choice in accepting or rejecting a particular apartment in
theory, in practice the level of nearby vegetation is not a significant factor in
residents’ choices, and most residents simply accept the first available apart-
ment (Kuo, Sullivan, et al., 1998). Moreover, residents play little or no role in
decisions to introduce or remove trees. Thus, in this study, there were no a pri-
ori reasons to expect a relationship between the level of vegetation outside an
apartment building and the characteristics of its inhabitants—more “respon-
sible” residents might just as likely live in barren buildings as in green
buildings.
MEASURES
Crime reports. Chicago Police Department year-end Uniform Crime
Reports were analyzed for this study. These crime reports summarize for
each address at Ida B. Wells the specific crimes (e.g., aggravated assault and
strong-armed robbery) that were reported during the year. These reports
include both citizen-initiated complaints and those filed by an officer without
a citizen complaint.
When a crime is reported to the police, an officer is dispatched to interview
the victim or victims and any witnesses. The officer then files a report about
the incident describing the specific crime or crimes, the date, the address
where the crime(s) occurred, and other pertinent information. Details from
this report are then summarized in the year-end crime reports.
From 2 years of crime reports, we created three summary variables index-
ing crime for each low-rise apartment building at Ida B. Wells, following the
classification scheme used by the Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1999). In this scheme, property crime is the sum of simple thefts,
vehicle thefts, burglaries, and arson; violent crime includes assaults, batter-
ies, robberies, and homicides; and total crimes is the sum of all crimes
reported.
Vegetation. To assess the density of trees and grass around each of the
low-rise buildings, we took dozens of 35mm slide photographs of the devel-
opment by helicopter, passing over each cluster of buildings from a number
of vantages (see Figure 2). We also took ground-level photographs of many of
the outdoor spaces. All the slides were taken in June when the tree canopy
352 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
was full and the grass was green. For each building, the aerial slides were put
together with slides taken at ground level; there were at minimum three dif-
ferent views from aerial and ground-level photos of each space (front, back,
left side, and right side) around each building. Five students in landscape
architecture and horticulture then independently rated the level of vegetation
in each space. Each of the individuals rating the spaces received a map of the
development that defined the boundaries of the specific spaces under study.
The raters viewed the slides and recorded their ratings on the maps. A total of
220 spaces was rated, each on a 5-point scale (0 = no trees or grass, 4 = a space
completely covered with tree canopy). Interrater reliability for these ratings
was .94.1 The five ratings were averaged to give a mean nature rating for each
space. The nature ratings for the front, back, and side spaces around each
building were then averaged to produce a summary vegetation rating. Ratings
of vegetation for the 98 buildings ranged from 0.6 to 3.0.
Other factors likely to affect crime. Four additional variables possibly
related to vegetation and the number of crimes reported per building were
assessed through (a) on-site analysis, (b) Chicago Housing Authority floor
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 353
Figure 2: Aerial View of a Portion of Ida B. Wells Showing Buildings With Varying
Amounts of Tree and Grass Cover
plans of each building type in the development, and (c) Chicago Housing
Authority apartment vacancy records.
Number of units is the number of apartment units in a building; the range
was from 4 to 20.
Number of occupied units is the average number of units rented in a partic-
ular building during the 2 years of the study; the mean was 7.8, and the range
was from 0.5 to 15. We were able to obtain data on 84 of the 98 buildings in
this sample.
Vacancy is the 2-year average of the number of vacant apartments divided
by the number of units in the building; the mean was 13%, and the range was
from 0% to 92%. We were able to obtain data on 84 of the 98 buildings in this
sample.
Building height is the number of floors in a building; the range was from 1
to 4.
RESULTS
If vegetation reduces crime, then we would expect to find that the greener
a building’s surroundings are, the fewer crimes reported. Perhaps the most
straightforward test of this possibility is to conduct simple regressions with
vegetation as the independent variable and the three summary crime indices
as dependent variables (see Table 1). Results from these ordinary least
squares regressions indicate that vegetation is significantly and negatively
related to each of the measures of crime. The greener a building’s surround-
ings are, the fewer total crimes; this pattern holds for both property crimes
and violent crimes. For each of the three indices, vegetation accounts for 7%
to 8% of the variance in the number of crimes reported per building.
Figure 3 provides a more concrete sense of the amount of crime associated
with different levels of vegetation. For this figure, the continuous vegetation
variable was recoded into the following three categories: low (ratings from
354 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
TABLE 1
Simple Ordinary Least Squares Regressions
Using Vegetation to Predict Crimes Per Building
Total Crimes Property Crimes Violent Crimes
Predictor R2
β p Value R2
β p Value R2
β p Value
Vegetation .08 –2.2 < .01 .07 –1.0 < .01 .07 –1.3 <.01
0.0 up to 1.0), medium (from 1.0 up to 2.0), and high (from 2.0 up to 3.0,
inclusive). Figure 3 shows the average number of total, property, and violent
crimes reported for buildings with low, medium, and high levels of vegeta-
tion. Compared to buildings with low levels of vegetation, those with
medium levels had 42% fewer total crimes, 40% fewer property crimes, and
44% fewer violent crimes. The comparison between low and high levels of
vegetation was even more striking: Buildings with high levels of vegetation
had 52% fewer total crimes, 48% fewer property crimes, and 56% fewer vio-
lent crimes than buildings with low levels of vegetation. Fisher’s protected
least significant difference analyses indicate that for each measure of crime,
low and medium buildings were significantly different at p < .05. The same
pattern held for comparisons between low and high buildings. Although
buildings with high levels of vegetation had 17% fewer total crimes, 13%
fewer property crimes, and 21% fewer violent crimes than buildings with
medium levels of vegetation, these differences were not statistically
significant.
These data reveal a clear negative relationship between vegetation and
crime and hint that this relationship is strongest when comparing buildings
with low levels of vegetation to buildings with either medium or high levels.
Although these findings are exciting and intriguing, they do not control for
other important variables. The analyses that follow provide a closer look at
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 355
Figure 3: Mean Number of Crimes Reported Per Building for Apartment Build-
ings With Different Amounts of Vegetation (each icon represents one
reported crime)
the relationship between vegetation and crime, taking into account other fac-
tors likely to affect the number of crimes per building.
TESTING POTENTIAL CONFOUNDS
Controlling for number of apartments. Perhaps one of the most important
variables to control for in predicting the amount of crime in a setting (e.g., a
building, neighborhood, or city) is the number of people in that setting.
Because more apartments per building mean more potential perpetrators and
more potential victims, one would expect more crimes in buildings with more
apartments. Indeed, previous research has shown the number of units in a
building to be related to the number of reported crimes (Newman & Franck,
1980). Thus, it is not surprising that in this sample, strong positive linear rela-
tionships exist between the number of units and the number of property
crimes (r = .62, p < .0001), violent crimes (r = .63, p < .0001), and total crimes
(r = .67, p < .0001). That is, the more apartments in a building, the more
crimes reported for that building.
To examine whether the relationship between vegetation and crime still
held when the number of apartments in a building was controlled, a series of
multiple regressions were conducted in which both vegetation and number of
units were used to predict the number of crimes reported per building. As
Table 2 shows, when the number of units per building is controlled, vegeta-
tion continues to be a significant negative predictor of total crime, property
crime, and violent crime. In other words, the level of greenness around a
building at Ida B. Wells predicts the number of crimes that have occurred in
that building even after the number of apartments in the building has been
accounted for.
356 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
TABLE 2
Multiple Regressions Using Number of Units
and Vegetation to Predict Crimes Per Building
Total Crime Property Crimes Violent Crimes
Predictors β p Value β p Value β p Value
Number of units 0.70 < .0001 0.31 < .0001 0.39 < .0001
Vegetation –1.44 < .05 –0.63 < .05 –0.81 < .05
NOTE: The multiple regressions for total crimes: adjusted R2
= .52 (N = 98, p < .0001); for property
crime:adjusted R2= .45 (N = 98, p < .0001); for violent crime:adjusted R
2= .44 (N = 98, p < .0001).
Other potential confounds. To identify other potential confounds between
vegetation and crime, correlations were conducted between vegetation and
the following three factors that have been shown in other studies to be associ-
ated with crime: vacancy rate (R. B. Taylor, Shumaker, & Gottfredson, 1985),
the number of occupied apartments per building (Newman & Franck, 1980),
and building height (Newman, 1972; Newman & Franck, 1980). As the first
column in Table 3 shows, vegetation is not related to either vacancy rate or
number of occupied units but is strongly and negatively related to building
height; the taller the building is, the lower the level of vegetation. The fourth
column in Table 3 indicates that building height has a strong positive relation-
ship to total crime, property crime, and violent crime. Thus, the relationship
between vegetation and crime is confounded by building height: Taller build-
ings are both less green and have more reported crimes than shorter buildings.
These findings raise the possibility that vegetation predicts crime only by vir-
tue of its shared variance with building height.
To test for this possibility, we examined whether vegetation still predicts
crime when building height and number of units are controlled. Table 4 pro-
vides the results of a series of multiple regressions in which vegetation, build-
ing height, and number of units were used to predict crime. If vegetation
predicts crime by virtue of its relationship with building height, then vegeta-
tion should no longer predict crime when building height is controlled, and
building height should predict crime with vegetation controlled. As Table 4
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 357
TABLE 3
Intercorrelations Among Possible Predictors
of Crime and Three Crime Scales
Number Number of
of Vacant Occupied Building Property Violent
Vegetation Units Rate Units Height Crime Crime
Vegetation
Number of units –.15
Vacancy rate –.02 .26
Number of
occupied units .12 .82** –.31**
Building height –.48** .67** .40** .35**
Property crime –.27** .62** .01 .38** .53**
Violent crime –.27** .63** .25** .30** .58** .72**
Total crime –.29** .67** .16 .38** .60** .91** .95**
**p < .01.
shows, however, this is not the case; vegetation remains a significant or mar-
ginally significant predictor of crime with building height and number of
units controlled. Moreover, building height has no predictive power when
vegetation and number of units are controlled. These findings indicate that
although building height is confounded with vegetation, it cannot account for
the link between vegetation and crime.
Thus far, the analyses have established that (a) there is a reliable associa-
tion between the amount of vegetation outside a building and the number of
crimes recorded for that building by the police, (b) these relationships are
independent of the number of units in a building, and (c) these relationships
are independent of building height. These analyses show that vegetation pre-
dicts crime and that this relationship cannot be accounted for by these other
confounding variables.
DOES ADDING VEGETATION IMPROVE THE
CURRENT ARSENAL OF CRIME PREDICTORS?
To determine whether vegetation makes any unique, additional contribu-
tion to the current arsenal of predictors, we conducted a multiple regression
in which all available significant predictors of crime were entered (i.e., vege-
tation, other predictors that were confounded with vegetation, and other pre-
dictors that were not confounded with vegetation). This kitchen-sink
multiple regression, in which vegetation and number of units, building
height, vacancy rate, and number of occupied units were entered as predic-
tors, indicated that vegetation does make a unique contribution to the current
arsenal of predictors. Vegetation was a significant predictor of total crime (β= –1.1, p = .05) even when all other crime predictors have been accounted for.
Moreover, the relatively low variance inflation factor for vegetation in this
regression (1.31) indicates that vegetation is relatively independent of the
358 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
TABLE 4
Multiple Regression Using Three Independent Variables (number of
units, vegetation, and building height) to Predict Crimes Per Building
Total Crime Property Crimes Violent Crimes
Predictors β p Value β p Value β p Value
Number of units 0.69 .0001 0.33 .0001 0.34 .0001
Vegetation –1.41 < .05 –0.69 < .05 –0.55 .07
Building height 0.05 ns –0.13 ns 0.18 ns
NOTE: The multiple regressions for total crimes: adjusted R2
= .51 (N = 98, p < .0001); for property
crime:adjusted R2= .44 (N = 98, p < .0001); for violent crime:adjusted R
2= .43 (N = 98, p < .0001).
other predictors. In addition, comparison of the adjusted R2s of the kitchen-
sink multiple regressions with and without vegetation indicated that the addi-
tional predictive power gained by adding vegetation outweighs the loss of
degrees of freedom incurred in increasing the total number of predictors. The
adjusted R2for the model with only the current arsenal of predictors was .23;
the adjusted R2for the model with the current arsenal of predictors plus vege-
tation was .26. Although this increase represents only 3% of the total variance
in crime, it represents a sizable proportion of the current predictive power
(13%). Together, these findings indicate that adding vegetation improves the
current arsenal of predictors, adding unique explanatory power.
A Cuthbert plot (Cp) analysis yielded additional evidence of the predic-
tive power of vegetation. Cp analysis is a technique for determining the most
powerful, most parsimonious model out of a set of multiple predictors (SAS
Institute, 1998). Essentially, given a set of predictors, Cp analysis tests all
possible combinations of predictors and selects the best model. An alterna-
tive to comparing adjusted R2s, Cp analysis is particularly helpful when there
is multicollinearity between predictors, as was the case here. Cp analysis
indicated that the best model for predicting total crime, selecting from the
entire set of available predictors (number of units, building height, vacancy
rate, number of occupied units, and vegetation), comprises only two predic-
tors—number of units and vegetation (Cp = 1.32). Thus, in these data, the
best possible model of crime comprises only vegetation and one other
predictor.
DISCUSSION
This study examined the relationship between vegetation and crime for 98
apartment buildings in an inner-city neighborhood. Analyses revealed con-
sistent, systematically negative relationships between the density of trees and
grass around the buildings and the number of crimes per building reported to
the police. The greener a building’s surroundings are, the fewer total crimes;
moreover, this relationship extended to both property crimes and violent
crimes. Levels of nearby vegetation explained 7% to 8% of the variance in the
number of crimes reported per building. The link between vegetation and
crime could not be accounted for by either of the two confounding variables
identified. Vegetation contributed significant additional predictive power
above and beyond four other classic environmental predictors of crime. And
out of all possible combinations of available predictors, vegetation was iden-
tified as one of the two predictors in the best possible model of crime.
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 359
The findings contribute to our understanding of the relationship between
vegetation and crime and suggest opportunities for intervention and future
research.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF VEGETATION AND CRIME
One contribution of this work is to propose a systematic exception to the
rule that vegetation promotes crime. The rule in both folk theory and environ-
mental criminology has been that vegetation promotes crime by providing
concealment for criminals and criminal activities. If the mechanism by which
vegetation affects crime is indeed concealment, then one implication of this
rule is that vegetation should not promote crime when it preserves visibility.
The contribution here is simply to point out that many forms of vegetation
preserve visibility and therefore ought not promote crime. Indeed, we found
that in this sample of inner-city apartment buildings, buildings with widely
spaced, high-canopy trees and grassy areas did not experience higher rates of
crime. These findings suggest that at the very least, crime prevention con-
cerns do not justify removing high-canopy vegetation in inner-city neighbor-
hoods. They demonstrate that one of the classic suspects in environmental
criminology does not always promote crime.
Moreover, the findings indicate a large and systematically negative link
between levels of vegetation and police reports of crime in this setting.
Although this is the first study to demonstrate such a link, the findings are
consistent with previous work linking vegetation with lower levels of incivil-
ities (Brunson, 1999; Stamen, Yates, & Cline, as cited in S. Sullivan, 1993) as
well as previous work linking vegetation with lower levels of aggression and
violence (Kuo & Sullivan, in press). The results obtained here were based on
police crime reports, whereas the Brunson (1999) and the Kuo and Sullivan
(in press) findings were based on residents’ memories and self- reports. The
convergence of findings from such different measures lends confidence that
in inner-city residential settings, the relationship between vegetation and
crime is negative—the more vegetation, the less crime.
A third contribution of the work here is to help resolve a puzzle in previous
work on residential vegetation and sense of safety. A number of studies have
found that residential vegetation is associated with greater sense of safety
(Brower et al., 1983; Kuo, Bacaicoa, et al., 1998; Kuo, Sullivan, et al., 1998;
Nasar, 1982). In combination with the old rule that vegetation promotes
crime, such findings raised the disturbing possibility that residents systemati-
cally misperceive green areas as safe. And yet other research has found good
concurrent validity between measures of fear, perceptions of disorder, and
media reports of crime (e.g., Perkins & Taylor, 1996). The finding here that
360 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
vegetation is systematically linked with lower levels of crime suggests that
individuals are accurate in their perception of green areas as safer.
A final contribution of this work is to propose two mechanisms by which
vegetation may deter crime in inner-city neighborhoods. Specifically, we
propose that vegetation may deter crime both by increasing informal surveil-
lance and by mitigating some of the psychological precursors to violence.
Although neither of these mechanisms—nor the more general question of
causality—can be addressed in these data, there is clear empirical support for
these mechanisms in other work. Substantial previous research has shown
that surveillance deters crime and that in inner-city neighborhoods, greener
outdoor spaces receive greater use, thereby increasing informal surveillance.
Moreover, Kuo and Sullivan’s (in press) work showed that for residents ran-
domly assigned to apartment buildings with different levels of vegetation,
higher levels of vegetation systematically predicted lower levels of aggres-
sion, and mediation analyses indicated that this link was mediated via
attentional functioning. In addition, we can address a number of alternative
interpretations for the findings here. Public housing policies in this setting are
such that levels of income, education, and employment among residents are
largely held constant; residents are randomly assigned to varying levels of
vegetation; and the amount of trees and grass outside an apartment is not
under residents’ control. And the confound analyses conducted here indicate
that the link between vegetation and lower crime could not be explained by a
number of classic environmental predictors of crime—vacancy rates, build-
ing height, the number of apartments, and the number of occupied apartments
in a building.
POSSIBILITIES FOR INTERVENTION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The findings in this study set the stage for more ambitious explorations of
the relationship between urban residential vegetation and crime. Now that
there is good reason to think that visibility-preserving vegetation does not
necessarily promote crime and may even inhibit crime in inner-city neighbor-
hoods, it seems appropriate to attempt an intervention study or two. Interven-
tion studies employing true experimental designs might be used to answer a
number of important questions with regard to the effects of vegetation on
crime. Urban public housing communities might be especially amenable
sites for such research as housing authorities tend to have centralized control
over landscaping for dozens and even hundreds of identical buildings.
A study in which identical or matched apartment buildings in a poor urban
area were randomly assigned to receive different levels of vegetation could
help address the question of causality and the question of the shape of the
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 361
relationship between vegetation and crime. Would crime rates decrease lin-
early or curvilinearly with increasing vegetation? In this sample, the differ-
ence between low and moderate green cover buildings was 3.1 crimes, but the
difference between moderate and high green cover buildings was only 0.7
crimes. One possible interpretation of this pattern is that the relationship
between vegetation and crime is nonlinear with diminishing returns. Another
is that the 0.7 crime difference between the moderate and high vegetation
conditions is a poor estimate because of the relatively low number of
high-vegetation buildings in the sample, and the relationship between vege-
tation and crime is actually linear across the entire range of vegetation.
Future studies might systematically vary the arrangement and mainte-
nance of vegetation and examine the rates of crime associated with these fac-
tors. The vegetation in this study was not configured to provide symbolic
barriers or to mark the territory of particular apartment buildings. Would
arrangements that create symbolic barriers and delineate the territory of par-
ticular residences (e.g., with small hedges) be more effective in decreasing
crime than other arrangements? Brown and colleagues (Brown & Altman,
1983; Brown & Bentley, 1993) found evidence suggesting that plants and
other territorial markers may make a property less attractive for burglary, but
no study has yet randomly assigned different planting arrangements to differ-
ent buildings and compared the resulting rates of property crime. Analo-
gously, well-maintained vegetation seems to be a particularly effective
territorial marker (Chaudhury, 1994), but research has yet to systematically
examine the effect of different levels of maintenance on crime.
Future research might also look more closely—and more broadly—at the
outcomes of planting interventions. In this sample, vegetation predicted lev-
els of both property crime and violent crime. This is noteworthy given that
studies in environmental criminology often find that the relationship between
the physical environment and crime depends on the specific category of
crime (e.g., Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993). It would be interesting and
useful to examine the relationships between vegetation and more specific cat-
egories of crime or other categories altogether. For instance, does vegetation
have more of an effect on impulsive crimes than on “rational” crimes? We
might expect impulsive crimes committed out of frustration or rage to be
reduced through the beneficial effects of vegetation on mental fatigue. And to
the extent that perpetrators consciously calculate risks in selecting their tar-
gets, more “rational,” premeditated crimes might be reduced through the
beneficial effects of vegetation on informal surveillance.
In examining the outcomes of planting interventions, it will be important
to address the possible displacement of crime. One of the standard concerns
in efforts to combat crime is that although interventions may reduce crime in
362 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
targeted locations, the effect may be to simply displace crime to other areas,
yielding no overall decrease in crime (Gabor, 1981). Would adding vegeta-
tion and decreasing crime in one part of an inner-city neighborhood simply
increase crime in another part of the neighborhood? The answer may depend
on the type of crime in question. By reducing the irritability, impulsivity, and
cognitive deficits associated with mental fatigue and hence preventing minor
conflicts from spiraling out of control, vegetation might inhibit violent
crimes in some residences without increasing violent crimes in others. On the
other hand, by increasing informal surveillance of some outdoor spaces with-
out reducing the actual impetus for burglary and other premeditated crimes,
vegetation might serve to simply shift such crimes to more vulnerable targets.
Future research should examine rates of crime both in and around the inter-
vention areas.
Such comparisons might shed light on the mechanisms by which vegeta-
tion affects crime. To further address the question of mechanism, levels of
informal surveillance and mental fatigue might be measured in buildings
receiving the planting intervention and in matched buildings selected as con-
trols. Mediation analyses could then be conducted to examine the joint links
between vegetation, crime, and the proposed mediators. Does vegetation
affect crime only when it increases residents’ use of outdoor spaces and lev-
els of informal surveillance?
Finally, one exciting possibility for future work would be to compare the
outcomes from intervention studies in which residents were either involved
or uninvolved in the greening process. The question here would be whether
the process of tree planting could enhance residents’ territoriality, thereby
deterring crime over and above the direct effect of the presence of vegetation.
Active involvement in tree-planting programs has been claimed to enhance a
community’s sense of territoriality (Dwyer, McPherson, Schroeder, &
Rowntree, 1992), and the community greening lore is replete with stories in
which greening efforts have been accompanied by dramatic decreases in
crime and incivilities (e.g., Hynes, 1996; Lewis, 1980; Littman, 1996; Trust
for Public Lands, 1996). Previous research in inner-city neighborhoods sug-
gests that residents would be willing to help plant and care for trees (Kuo,
Bacaicoa, et al., 1998). As planting is the single largest cost associated with
the care and maintenance of the urban forest (McPherson, Nowak, &
Rowntree, 1994), involving residents would substantially defray the already
low costs associated with a planting intervention.
Ultimately, the largest reductions in crime will come from strategies that
address the factors underlying crime (e.g., intense poverty and the availabil-
ity of guns). In the meantime, this study offers a ray of hope by identifying an
easily manipulable environmental feature that has a systematic, negative
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 363
relationship with property crimes, violent crime, and total crimes. The work
presented here suggests the exciting possibility that in barren inner-city
neighborhoods, planting a few trees may work to inhibit crime, creating safer
neighborhoods for poor families and their children.
NOTE
1. In these data, agreement between raters is analogous to the reliability of items in a scale;
the hope is that different raters will respond to a particular building in a similar fashion. Thus, to
assess interrater agreement, a Cronbach’s alpha was calculated with individual raters treated like
individual items in a scale and individual buildings treated like individual respondents.
REFERENCES
Bennett, T. (1989). Burglars’ choice of targets. In D. Evans & D. Herbert (Eds.), The geography
of crime (pp. 176-192). New York: Routledge.
Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender. Brookfield,
VT: Gower.
Brady, K. T., Myrick, H., & McElroy, S. (1998). The relationship between substance use disor-
ders, impulse control disorders, and pathological aggression. American Journal on Addic-
tions, 7, 221-230.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the
complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
13, 3-28.
Brower, S., Dockett, K., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Residents’ perceptions of territorial features and
perceived local threat. Environment and Behavior, 15, 419-437.
Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An
environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203-220.
Brown, B. B., & Bentley, D. L. (1993). Residential burglars judge risk: The role of territoriality.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 51-61.
Brunson, L. (1999). Resident appropriation of defensible space in public housing: Implications
for safety and community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). National crime victimization survey: Criminal victimization
1998, changes 1997-98 with trends 1993-98 (NCJ 176353). Washington, DC: Department of
Justice Office of Justice Programs.
Canin, L. H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintaining self-care.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Caprara, G. V., & Renzi, P. (1981). The frustration-aggression hypothesis vs. irritability.
Recherches de Psychologie Sociale, 3, 75-80.
364 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
Chaudhury, H. (1994). Territorial personalization and place-identity: A case study in Rio Grande
Valley, Texas. In A. D. Seidel (Ed.), Banking on design (pp. 46-54). Oklahoma City, OK:
EDRA.
Chicago Housing Authority. (1995). Statistical profile: The Chicago Housing Authority 1994 to
1995. Chicago: Author.
Cimprich, B. (1993). Development of an intervention to restore attention in cancer patients.
Cancer Nursing, 16, 83-92.
Coccaro, E. F., Bergeman, C. S., Kavoussi, R. J., & Seroczynski, A. D. (1997). Heritability of
aggression and irritability: A twin study of the Buss-Durkee aggression scales in adult male
subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273-284.
Coleman, A. (1987). Utopia on trial: Vision and reality in planned housing. London: Shipman.
Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social con-
text created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-492.
Cromwell, P. F., Olson, J. N., & Avary, D. W. (1991). Breaking and entering: An ethnographic
analysis of burglary. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, E. G., Schroeder, H. W., & Rowntree, R. A. (1992). Assessing the ben-
efits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Aboriculture, 18, 227-234.
Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Pros-
pect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35-65.
Gabor, T. (1981). The crime displacement hypothesis: An empirical examination. Crime and
Delinquency, 27, 390-404.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experi-
ence. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
Hynes, H. P. (1996). A patch of Eden: America’s inner-city gardeners. White River Junction,
VT: Chelsea Green.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
Jeffery, R. C. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kant, R., Smith-Seemiller, L., & Zeiler, D. (1998). Treatment of aggression and irritability after
head injury. Brain Injury, 12, 661-666.
Kaplan, R. (1984). Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: An analysis of a continu-
ing program. Leisure Sciences, 6, 271-290.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Mental fatigue and the designed environment. In J. Harvey & D. Henning
(Eds.), Public environments (pp. 55-60). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research
Association.
Kavoussi, R. J., & Coccaro, E. F. (1998). Divalproex sodium for impulsive aggressive behavior
in patients with personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 676-680.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees,
sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (in press). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Impacts of
environment and mental fatigue. Environment & Behavior, 33(4).
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community:
Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26,
823-851.
Lewis, C. A. (1980). Gardening programs promote improved maintenance and community rela-
tions in public housing developments. Journal of Housing, 37, 614-617.
Littman, M. (1996). Green city. The neighborhood works: Building alternative visions for the
city [Online]. Available: www:http://cnt.org/tnw/193grnci.htm
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 365
Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mimms, C. H., & Goodwin, G. K. (1996). Interior plants may improve
worker productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmen-
tal Horticulture, 14, 97-100.
Macdonald, J. E., & Gifford, R. (1989). Territorial cues and defensible space theory: The bur-
glar’s point of view. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 193-205.
Markovitz, P. (1995). Pharmacotherapy of impulsivity, aggression, and related disorders. In
E. Hollander (Ed.), Impulsivity and aggression (pp. 263-287). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
McPherson, E. G., Nowak, D. J., & Rowntree, R. A. (1994). Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem:
Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project (Report NE-186). Washington, DC:
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
Merry, S. E. (1981). Defensible space undefended. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 16, 397-422.
Michael, S. N., & Hull, R. B. (1994). Effects of vegetation on crime in urban parks. Blacksburg:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, College of Forestry and Wildlife
Resources, Department of Forestry.
Michael, S. N., Hull, R. B., & Zahm, D. L. (1999). Environmental factors influencing auto bur-
glary: A case study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Miles, I., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1998). Prairie restoration volunteers: The benefits of par-
ticipation. Urban Ecosystems, 2(1), 27-41.
Mooney, P., & Nicell, P. L. (1992). The importance of exterior environment for Alzheimer resi-
dents: Effective care and risk management. Healthcare Management Forum, 5(2), 23-29.
Nasar, J. L. (1982). A model relating visual attributes in the residential environment to fear of
crime. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 247-255.
Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. S. (1993). “Hot spots” of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187-206.
Nassauer, J. I. (1988). Landscape care: Perceptions of local people in landscape ecology and sus-
tainable development. In Landscape and land use planning: Proceedings from the 1988
International Federation of Landscape Architects World Congress (pp. 27-41). Washington,
DC: American Society of Landscape Architects.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban planning. New York:
Macmillan.
Newman, O., & Franck, K. (1980). Factors influencing crime and instability in urban housing
developments. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National
Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
O’Brien, R. M. (1990). Estimating the reliability of aggregate-level variables based on individ-
ual-level characteristics. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 473-503.
Ovitt, M. A. (1996). The effect of a view of nature on performance and stress reduction of ICU
nurses. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois.
Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment: Predicting
participation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 85-110.
Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). Ecological assessments of community disorder: Their
relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 24, 63-107.
Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical environment
of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 13, 29-49.
Pluncknett, T.F.T. (1960). Edward I and criminal law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
366 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / May 2001
Poyner, B., & Webb, B. (1992). Reducing theft of shopping bags in city center markets. In R. V.
Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (pp. 99-107). New York:
Harrow & Henston.
Rhodes, W. M., & Conley, C. (1981). Crime and mobility: An empirical study. In P. J.
Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 167-188).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
SAS Institute. (1998). Users guide, Volume 2, Version 6 (4th ed.). Cary, NC: Author.
Scholte, R.H.J., van Aken, M.A.G., & van Leishout, C.F.M. (1997). Adolescent personality fac-
tors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer
rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 534-554.
Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation
sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178-194.
Shaffer, G. S., & Anderson, L. M. (1985). Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban
parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 311-323.
Stamen, T. (1993). Graffiti deterrent proposed by horticulturalist [Press release]. Riverside:
University of California, Riverside.
Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., & Dickens, T. J. (1995). Irritability and impulsiveness: Relation-
ship to self-reported impulsive aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,
757-760.
Stewart, M. A. (1985). Aggressive conduct disorder: A brief review. Aggressive Behavior, 11,
323-331.
Sullivan, S. (1993, July 21). Anti-tagger idea that grows on you. The Press Enterprise, p. 1.
Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & DePooter, S. (2001). Tree cover and social activities in inner-city
neighborhood common spaces. Manuscript in preparation.
Talbot, J., & Kaplan, R. (1984). Needs and fears: The response to trees and nature in the inner
city. Journal of Arboriculture, 10, 222-228.
Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green
spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30, 3-27.
Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R. B., Shumaker, S. A., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1985). Neighborhood-level links between
physical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence. Journal
of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 261-275.
Tennessen, C., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 15, 77-85.
Trust for Public Lands. (1996). Healing America’s cities: How urban parks can make cities safe
and healthy. San Francisco: Author.
Tuinier, S., Verhoeven, W.M.A., & Van Praag, H. M. (1996). Serotonin and disruptive behavior:
A critical evaluation of the clinical data. Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experi-
mental, 11, 469-482.
Weisel, D. L., Gouvis, C., & Harrell, A. V. (1994). Addressing community decay and crime:
Alternative approaches and explanations (Final report submitted to the National Institute of
Justice). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Kuo, Sullivan / VEGETATION AND CRIME 367
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE
AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE
IN THE INNER CITY
Effects of Environment via
Mental Fatigue
FRANCES E. KUO is an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign. Her research examines effects of the environment on healthy human
functioning in individuals, families, and communities.
WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN is an associate professor at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on the psychological and social benefits of
urban nature and citizen participation in environmental decision making.
ABSTRACT: S. Kaplan suggested that one outcome of mental fatigue may be an
increased propensity for outbursts of anger and even violence. If so, contact with
nature, which appears to mitigate mental fatigue, may reduce aggression and vio-
lence. This study investigated that possibility in a setting and population with rela-
tively high rates of aggression: inner-city urban public housing residents. Levels of
aggression were compared for 145 urban public housing residents randomly assigned
to buildings with varying levels of nearby nature (trees and grass). Attentional func-
tioning was assessed as an index of mental fatigue. Residents living in relatively bar-
ren buildings reported more aggression and violence than did their counterparts in
greener buildings. Moreover, levels of mental fatigue were higher in barren buildings,
and aggression accompanied mental fatigue. Tests for the proposed mechanism and
for alternative mechanisms indicated that the relationship between nearby nature and
aggression was fully mediated through attentional functioning.
The power of the physical environment to influence human aggression is
well established. Crowding, high temperatures, and noise have all been
linked to aggression and violence (Baker, 1984; Baum & Koman, 1976;
Donnerstein & Wilson, 1976; Rule, Taylor, & Dobbs, 1987). Each of these
features of the physical environment has been associated with heightened
levels of aggression; are there features of the physical environment that work
to diminish levels of aggression and violence? This study examines whether
543
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 4, July 2001 543-571
© 2001 Sage Publications
natural elements such as trees and grass can decrease aggression. In addition,
it tests a potential mechanism by which natural features—and by extension
other environmental features—may affect aggression. In doing so, it sug-
gests a new role for environment and behavior research in an important public
policy domain—addressing aggression and violence in inner cities—and
contributes possible new insight into the psychological factors underlying
human aggression.
There are hints in the literature that exposure to nearby nature, for
instance, a garden or a grassy area with trees, may reduce aggression. For
instance, violent assaults by Alzheimer patients were compared during two
consecutive summers in five long-term care facilities, two in which exterior
gardens were installed and three without gardens (Mooney & Nicell, 1992).
In Alzheimer patients, increases in the number of aggressive assaults each
year are typical as a consequence of the progressive deterioration of cognitive
processes; and indeed, in the facilities without gardens, the incidence of vio-
lent assaults increased dramatically. By contrast, in the other facilities, the
incidence of violent assaults stayed the same or decreased slightly after gar-
dens were installed. More recently in another study, some subsets of prison
inmates reported less hostility after participating in a gardening project than
before, although these findings were not consistent across different analyses
(Rice & Remy, 1998).
Why might we expect the findings from these two studies to reflect a more
general, systematic phenomenon? By what mechanism might exposure to
nearby nature leave individuals in a less aggressive state? Here, we review
544 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
AUTHORS’ NOTE: A portion of these findings was presented in invited testimony to
the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) and at the
27th International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association,
Salt Lake City, Utah, May 1996. The data for this study were drawn from the Coping
With Poverty archive, a multistudy research effort supported by a grant from NUCFAC
(F. E. Kuo and W. C. Sullivan, principal investigators). This work was also supported
by the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, under Project No. ILLU-65-0387. Thanks go to Rebekah Coley
for training and supervising resident interviewers, Esther Davis and Doris Gayles for
recruiting and interviewing participants, the Robert Taylor Homes residents for their
participation, and the management of the Chicago Housing Authority for their as-
sistance throughout. Ann Schlosser suggested the Conflict Tactics Scale and made
many contributions during the early stages of this project. Correspondence concern-
ing this article should be addressed to Frances E. Kuo, Human-Environment Re-
search Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1103 S. Dorner, Urbana, IL 61801; e-mail:
theory and evidence suggesting first that natural settings assist in recovery
from mental fatigue and second that aggression may increase with mental
fatigue and decrease with its recovery. We then present an analysis suggest-
ing that residents of disadvantaged inner-city neighborhoods may be subject
to chronic mental fatigue. Finally, we test the possibility that, in an urban
public housing community, the presence of trees and grass lowers the inci-
dence of aggressive and violent behavior among residents living nearby.
NATURE AND MENTAL FATIGUE
Attention restoration theory (S. Kaplan, 1995) proposes that exposure to
nature reduces mental fatigue, or more precisely, directed attention fatigue.
S. Kaplan (1995) noted that many settings, stimuli, and tasks in modern life
draw on the capacity to deliberately direct attention or pay attention. The
information-processing demands of everyday life—traffic, phones, conver-
sations, problems at work, and complex decisions—all take their toll, result-
ing in mental fatigue, a state characterized by inattentiveness, irritability, and
impulsivity. In contrast, natural settings and stimuli such as landscapes and
animals seem to effortlessly engage our attention, allowing us to attend with-
out paying attention. For this and a number of other reasons, S. Kaplan sug-
gested, contact with nature provides a respite from deliberately directing
one’s attention.
Indeed, there is growing empirical evidence of the attentionally restor-
ative effects of natural settings. Evidence of cognitively rejuvenating effects
comes from a variety of “natural” settings, including wilderness areas
(Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; R. Kaplan, 1984), prairies (Miles, Sullivan, &
Kuo, 1998), community parks (Canin, 1991; Cimprich, 1993), views of
nature through windows (Ovitt, 1996; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995), and
even rooms with interior plants (Lohr, Pearson-Mims, & Goodwin, 1996).
Moreover, these studies have demonstrated links between contact with nature
and more effective attentional functioning in a variety of populations—AIDS
caregivers, cancer patients, college students, prairie restoration volunteers,
participants in a wilderness program, and employees of large organizations.
MENTAL FATIGUE AND AGGRESSION
If contact with nature is attentionally restorative, how then might
attentional restoration mitigate aggression? S. Kaplan (1987) suggested that
one of the costs of mental fatigue might be a heightened propensity for “out-
bursts of anger and potentially . . . violence” (p. 57). The following analysis
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 545
shows how each of three symptoms of mental fatigue might contribute to
aggression.
First, mental fatigue may contribute to aggression because of its effects on
cognitive processing. A common theme in some recent theories of aggression
is that information processing plays a central role in managing social situa-
tions, especially potential conflicts (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge &
Crick, 1990; Dodge & Schwartz, 1997; Martinko & Zellars, 1998). For
example, Dodge and Crick (1990) proposed that a child’s behavioral
response to a social stimulus is a function of the following five steps of infor-
mation processing: encoding of social cues, interpretation of social cues,
response search, response evaluation, and enactment. The proposal here is
that in problematic social situations, relatively automatic, effortless cognitive
processing (e.g., “Bob took my computer station!”) is more likely to generate
conflict-escalating behavior than is more reasoned, effortful, reflective pro-
cessing (e.g., “Hmm . . . did I leave any clues that I was working there?”). As
the individual’s willingness and ability to engage in more reflective, effortful
processing decreases with mental fatigue, social behavior is likely to become
increasingly thoughtless, tactless, and unstrategic, allowing conflicts to spi-
ral out of control (see Rubin, Bream, & Rose-Krasnor, 1991, for a similar
proposal with respect to children’s social problem solving).
There is some evidence to suggest that deficits in effortful processing are
indeed associated with aggression. In school settings, deficits in effortful
processing are likely to manifest in inattentiveness, and inattentiveness has
been closely tied to aggression in both children (Stewart, 1985) and adoles-
cents (Scholte, van Aken, & van Lieshout, 1997). Indeed, the tie between
attention deficits and hyperactivity on one hand and conduct problems and
aggression on the other has been so strong that there has been some debate as
to whether these disorders are distinct (see Hinshaw, 1987, for a meta-analysis
indicating that these disorders are distinct although correlated). Conversely,
Rabiner, Lenhart, and Lochman (1990) found that when aggressive children
were encouraged to be more reflective in their responses to problematic
social situations, their generation of conflict-escalating responses dropped to
the same levels as their nonaggressive, nonrejected peers. Thus, it seems
plausible that the deficits in effortful processing that are symptomatic of
mental fatigue may contribute to aggression.
Mental fatigue may also contribute to aggression because of its effects on
emotion—specifically, heightened irritability. Irritability appears to be a fre-
quent side effect of mentally fatiguing tasks, such as the vigilance tasks
involved in air traffic control (Thackray, Bailey, & Touchstone, 1979; Warm &
Dember, 1986). Not surprisingly, irritability is linked with aggression in
numerous studies (e.g., Caprara & Renzi, 1981; Coccaro, Bergeman,
546 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
Kavoussi, & Seroczynski, 1997; Kant, Smith-Seemiller, & Zeiler, 1998;
Kavoussi & Coccaro, 1998; Stanford, Greve, & Dickens, 1995). Irritable
individuals are prone to aggression when faced with frustration (Caprara &
Renzi, 1981), and pharmacological treatments that reduce aggression also
reduce irritability (Kant et al., 1998; Kavoussi & Coccaro, 1998). Thus, it
seems plausible that the irritability symptomatic of mental fatigue might con-
tribute to aggression.
Finally, mental fatigue may also contribute to aggression because of its
effects on behavior—specifically, decreased control over impulses. S. Kap-
lan (1987) noted that one of the hallmarks of mental fatigue is a difficulty
inhibiting behavioral impulses. Impulsivity in turn is associated with aggres-
sion and violence in a variety of populations (for reviews, see Brady, Myrick, &
McElroy, 1998; Markovitz, 1995; Tuinier, Verhoeven, & Van Praag, 1996).
Violent parolees are more impulsive than nonviolent parolees (Cherek,
Moeller, Dougherty, & Rhoades, 1997), maritally violent men are more
impulsive than maritally nonviolent men (Barnett & Hamberger, 1992), and
among depressed males, impulsive individuals are more likely to be aggres-
sive than nonimpulsive individuals (Hynan & Grush, 1986). Not surprisingly,
then, Luengo and colleagues (Luengo, Carrillo-de-la-Pena, Otero, &
Romero, 1994) found in their 1-year longitudinal study that present
impulsivity ratings predict future antisocial behavior, including aggression.
In sum, each of these factors—impairments in effortful cognitive process-
ing, irritability, and impulsivity—has been independently implicated in
aggression. To the extent that mental fatigue combines these three factors,
mental fatigue seems likely to contribute substantially to aggression.
INNER CITIES AND CHRONIC MENTAL FATIGUE
Poor, inner-city neighborhoods may be an especially promising context in
which to study the effects of nature and attentional restoration on aggression.
As the following analysis, drawn from Kuo (1992), suggests, the attentional
demands associated with poverty and the inner-city environment are likely to
place this population at special risk for chronic mental fatigue and
fatigue-related aggression. As a consequence, residents of poor, inner-city
neighborhoods may have a special need for the mental respite provided by
nearby nature.
The attentional demands of poverty are many and unremitting. For the
poor, even basic concerns such as rent, utilities, and food are ongoing chal-
lenges that require effortful problem solving and reasoning. Added to these
are the attentional challenges posed by major life events. Poverty brings
with it a greater susceptibility and vulnerability to drastic life changes.
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 547
Underinsured and having no financial cushion against setbacks, even a minor
temporary trauma such as a child’s illness can have far-reaching effects,
eventually necessitating major readjustments in life, family, and work
domains. Making these adjustments requires sustained, high levels of mental
functioning.
Moreover, the environmental characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods
place additional demands on attention. First and foremost, the ever-present
possibility of crime or violence places high demands on attention (see
Cohen & Spacapan, 1978, for an analysis of the attentional demands imposed
by unpredictable stressors). Danger requires individuals to be vigilant for
signs of impending trouble, to continuously consider possible responses to
new situations, and to consider the ramifications of those responses. Second,
the home environment may place further demands on attention; lack of ade-
quate space and facilities makes purposive functioning more effortful as
more problem solving is required to accomplish goals in unsupportive or
inadequate settings. Problem solving may be made all the more fatiguing by
the lack of quiet, safe settings in which to think. And finally, for the many
inner-city residents who lack natural settings in their everyday environment
(nearby parks, views to green spaces, and gardens), recovery from mental
fatigue may be especially rare.
Over time, the ongoing and acute attentional demands of poverty, in com-
bination with the mentally fatiguing characteristics of the inner-city environ-
ment, seem likely to yield chronic high levels of mental fatigue. Thus, among
inner-city inhabitants lacking ready access to attentionally restorative set-
tings, we might expect chronic high levels of mental fatigue and a heightened
propensity for aggressive behavior. Conversely, among residents with ready
access to nature, we might expect comparatively low levels of mental fatigue
and aggression.
Two questions are central to this study. First, does nearby nature reduce
aggression and violence? And second, if so, is this effect mediated via
attentional restoration? To examine these questions, structured interviews
and attentional tests were conducted with urban public housing residents.
Because official adult residents are predominately single mothers, the struc-
tured interviews focused on intrafamily aggression and violence rather than
other forms of violence. Attentional performance and self-reports of aggres-
sion were then compared for residents living in buildings with relatively high
versus relatively low levels of nearby nature, and mediation tests were used to
examine whether attentional restoration might account for a relationship
between nature and aggression.
To explore possible alternative accounts for a nature-aggression relation-
ship, a number of additional tests were conducted. A test for spuriousness
548 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
(Evans & Lepore, 1997) was conducted to guard against alternative accounts
in general. In addition, the following three particular alternative accounts
were given specific attention: (a) Positive mood, (b) stress recovery, and
(c) social support were each identified as theoretically plausible explanations
for a link between nature and reduced aggression. Positive mood has been
linked directly with contact with nature (Hull & Michael, 1995), and it seems
plausible that positive moods could reduce the propensity for aggression
(Pihl & Zacchia, 1986, tested this notion but found no evidence for it). Simi-
larly, stress (or more precisely, recovery from stress) has been linked directly
with contact with nature (Ulrich et al., 1991), and stress also appears to con-
tribute to aggression (Bolger, Thomas, & Eckenrode, 1997; Chang, 1994).
And finally, there is some indication that neighborhood social ties and sup-
port networks are stronger around greener neighborhood spaces (Kuo,
Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998); in turn,
child abuse is less prevalent among parents who have social support
(Garbarino & Sherman, 1980; Roth, 1986).
METHOD
THE SITE: A NATURAL EXPERIMENT
ON THE EFFECTS OF NEARBY NATURE
A number of methodological criteria were employed in the selection of a
site for this research. Robert Taylor Homes (RTH) in Chicago was rare in that
it simultaneously met each of these criteria.
First, although the amount of vegetation outside the buildings at RTH var-
ies considerably from building to building, other environmental features are
held remarkably constant from one building to another. Because the build-
ings are architecturally identical, at RTH, building size, building layout,
building facilities, architectural detail, and the number of residential units per
building are held constant (see Figure 1). Moreover, because the buildings are
placed in single file along a 3-mile corridor, the features of the surrounding
landscape are similar from one building to another. Each building is bordered
on the west by an interstate highway and railroad tracks and bordered on the
east by a six-lane municipal thoroughfare and wide sidewalk.
Second, public housing policies result in de facto random assignment of
residents with respect to levels of nearby nature at RTH. Although housing
applicants to the Chicago Housing Authority can specify their choice of
development (e.g., RTH vs. some other development), they have little choice
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 549
550 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
Figure 1: Attrition Has Left Some Buildings Surrounded by Only Concrete and
Asphalt and Others With Pockets of Green
of where they will be assigned within a development (i.e., this apartment vs.
another apartment within RTH).1 Moreover, the scale of the Chicago Housing
Authority precludes the placement of “better” (e.g., more responsible and
less aggressive) residents in “better” (e.g., greener) locations. Clerks in a cen-
tral office handle all assignments of residents to apartments for 40,700 units
in 1,479 buildings across 17 developments throughout the city. They gener-
ally have never met or seen the applicants for housing and most likely have
never set foot in most of the Housing Authority’s developments. It is im-
plausible that anyone could remember the characteristics of so many build-
ings, let alone take them into account in assigning apartments.
Third, residents at RTH have little role in the landscaping outside their
building. When RTH was originally built in the 1960s, trees and grass were
planted around each of the 28 high-rise buildings. Over time, the majority of
these green spaces have been paved in an effort to keep dust down and main-
tenance costs low; this paving has killed many of the original trees, leaving
some buildings with completely barren common spaces, others with a few
scattered trees, and still others with leftover pockets of green. Ongoing land-
scape maintenance at RTH is handled entirely by a small landscaping crew
serving all of the developments managed by the Chicago Housing Authority;
residents are not involved in maintenance, and funds are inadequate to fulfill
special requests from residents. Thus, a relationship between greenness of
common spaces and aggression in this setting cannot be explained by a pro-
cess in which especially effective or cooperative residents have made their
surroundings greener.
In sum, RTH constitutes a naturally occurring experiment on the effects of
residential vegetation, with random assignment of residents to vegetation
conditions, no control of residents over levels of vegetation, and a host of
environmental variables held constant. An additional methodologically
desirable feature of RTH for this study is that the residents are strikingly
homogeneous with respect to many of the individual characteristics that
might be expected to affect aggression—income, education, life circum-
stances, and perhaps most important, economic opportunities.
PROCEDURE, PARTICIPANTS, AND DESIGN
To maximize participants’ ease in responding, interviewers were selected
to be as similar to interviewees as possible. Three African American female
residents of RTH were hired and trained to conduct the recruitment, inter-
viewing, and testing for this research. All three were longtime residents of
RTH (19 years or more) residing in buildings outside the study sample. Thus,
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 551
interviewers were matched to interviewees not only in major demographic
characteristics such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status but also in life
circumstances, background, and more subtle social cues such as patterns of
speech and dress.
In preparation for interviewing and testing, interviewers completed exten-
sive training (50 hours of general training in interview methods, 12 hours
learning the specific interview measures used, and 14 hours of supervised
and unsupervised practice in performing practice interviews). In addition, an
on-site research supervisor met regularly with the interviewers to review pro-
cedures and address any difficulties or questions. Interviewers did not inter-
view individuals with whom they were previously familiar, and interviewers
were counterbalanced for nature condition.
Recruitment was conducted door to door in buildings spanning the range
of vegetation of RTH. Sampling was restricted to 18 buildings—buildings
adjacent to parks, police stations, and other relatively unique features were
excluded to minimize effects of extraneous factors on residents’ access to
nearby nature. Within buildings, sampling was restricted to apartments on
Floors 2 through 4, where residents had maximal physical and visual access
to the trees outside their building (there are no residences on the first floor).
Recruitment criteria included not only environmental factors but also resi-
dent characteristics. Women heads of household younger than the age of 65
were invited to participate in a University of Illinois study about life at RTH.
Recruitment focused on women because official adult residents in urban pub-
lic housing are overwhelmingly female—80% in RTH (Chicago Housing
Authority, 1995).2 Participants were told that they could refuse to answer any
question and could stop the interview at any time and that they would receive
$10 on completion of the interview.
Of the 158 qualified residents invited to participate, 92% chose to partici-
pate, yielding a final sample of 145 residents, 69 with relatively low levels of
nearby nature and 76 with relatively high levels of nearby nature. The com-
posite participant profile is that of a 34-year-old African American single
woman with a high school or high school equivalency diploma raising three
children on an annual household income of less than $10,000.
Individual interviews were conducted during summer and fall months in
participants’ apartments. Residents’ attentional capacity, aggression, and a
number of control variables likely to be associated with aggression were
assessed as part of a 45-minute structured interview.
552 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
MEASURES
Nearby nature. Levels of nearby nature were assessed using standardized
sets of photographs and multiple independent raters. For each of the 18 build-
ings to be sampled, a standardized set of photographs was taken from eye
level of the area immediately surrounding the building. As Figure 2 shows,
each standardized set comprises 16 photographs taken from specified van-
tage points; most showed views looking out from the building, and the
remaining showed views looking across the building.
To obtain ratings of the nearby nature for each building, the photographs
were arranged at 18 stations (drawing tables in a design studio), with each
station showing all 16 photographs for a given building. Undergraduate and
graduate students in horticulture then independently rated levels of nearby
nature for each of the 18 buildings. First, raters visited each of the stations to
familiarize themselves with the range of vegetation in the 18 buildings. Sec-
ond, they visited each station again in turn and provided a single greenness
rating for each building based on the 16 photographs. Raters were encour-
aged to use the entire response scale from 0 to 4 (0 = not at all green , 1 = a
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 553
Figure 2: Plan View of an Apartment Building at Robert Taylor Homes With
Nearby TreesNOTE: The numbers within the building indicate apartments. The arrows indicate the position from
which photographs were taken (for each building) that were then rated by 22 independent raters.
Note that despite the presence of trees outside a building, residents in particular apartments may
have little or no visual access to trees.
little green, 2 = somewhat green, 3 = quite green, and 4 = very green). For
each building, greenness ratings from the 22 raters were averaged to produce
a summary greenness rating. These averaged greenness ratings ranged from
0.8 for the building with the least nearby nature to 3.6 for the greenest
building.
With these data, agreement between raters is analogous to the reliability of
items in a scale; the hope is that different raters will respond to a particular
building in a similar fashion. Thus, to assess interrater agreement, a
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated, with individual raters treated as individual
items in a scale and individual buildings treated as individual respondents.
This procedure yielded an alpha of .97, indicating a high level of agreement
between raters with regard to building greenness.
Greenness ratings were used as the basis for assignment to conditions.
Buildings whose ratings fell below the midpoint of the range were designated
barren; buildings whose ratings were at or above the midpoint were desig-
nated green. Greenness ratings for the 7 buildings in the barren condition
ranged from 0.8 to 1.7, with a mean of 1.2. Greenness ratings for the 11 build-
ings in the green condition ranged from 2.0 to 3.6, with a mean of 2.6. In inter-
preting these ratings, it should be noted that because raters were encouraged
to use the entire response scale, even a high greenness rating of 3.6, or very
green, is relative to the range of vegetation at RTH; as Figure 1 shows, even
the greenest pockets at RTH are neither especially large nor especially lush in
vegetation.
There were no systematic differences between barren and green buildings
in environmental factors such as pedestrian or automobile traffic, nearness to
parking, or nearness to parks, schools, or other facilities. There was no sys-
tematic pattern in the sequence of green and barren buildings along the 3-mile
corridor; green and barren buildings were not clustered but rather haphaz-
ardly interspersed. Some barren buildings were oriented north-south, others
east-west; similarly for green buildings. For barren buildings, in the places
where trees or grass might have been, there was only bare dirt or asphalt, and
even the green buildings were surrounded by large areas of bare dirt or
asphalt.
To check for possible condition differences in participant characteristics
for barren versus green buildings, a series of t tests was conducted. As would
be expected given random assignment of residents to nature conditions, no
significant condition differences were found in demographic characteristics,
household characteristics, or other variables potentially related to aggres-
sion. Specifically, green and barren participants did not differ in age, educa-
tion, employment, income, size of household, marital status, number of
554 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
children, years in apartment, years in public housing, health ratings, health
symptoms, alcohol use, prescription drug use, or other drug use.
Attentional functioning. The capacity for directed attention was assessed
with the Digit Span Backwards (DSB) test. Digit Span Backwards is a stan-
dardized neurocognitive measure and is used in the measurement of
attentional fatigue (Cimprich, 1993; Schwartz, 1994; Tennessen &
Cimprich, 1995) and in the clinical measurement of attention (Lezak, 1983;
Mesulam, 1985). DSB is particularly useful for field settings because it is
easy to administer: The administrator reads aloud a series of digits (e.g., “2, 5,
1”), and participants are asked to repeat back the series in reverse order (e.g.,
“1, 5, 2”). Series are administered in increasing length; if a participant fails a
series of a given length, a second series of equal length is administered.
Scoring was based on the longest series performed correctly within two
attempts.
Aggression. The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Straus, 1979) is a widely
used self-report measure designed to assess levels of intrafamily aggression
and violence. It has been used in more than 100 studies (see bibliography in
Straus, 1995). The CTS has a test-retest reliability of .97 (parent-to-child
aggression) (DuRant, Pendergrast, & Cadenhead, 1994), an internal consis-
tency of .88 (wife-to-husband aggression) (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,
1980), and good concurrent validity with other measures of parental
psychosocial distress (Wissow, Wilson, Roter, Larson, & Hope, 1992).
To elicit reports of aggressive behavior, participants are asked to think of
situations in which they had a disagreement or were angry with a specified
family member and to indicate how often they used each of 18 conflict tac-
tics, beginning with socially acceptable tactics (e.g., reasoning) and ending
with violent tactics. Table 1 shows the 14 aggressive conflict tactics from the
CTS. The responses to these 14 items provide an index of overall aggression.
The first 6 items index psychological aggression: verbal and symbolic acts
intended to cause psychological pain or fear. The remaining 8 items index
violence: the use of physical force or violence. These 8 items comprise both
mild violence (3 behaviors unlikely to cause injury) and severe violence (5
behaviors likely to cause injury).
For each of the specific conflict tactics, participants are asked to indicate
how often they have used it in the past 12 months on a 7-point scale (0 = never
to 6 = more than 20 times, with X = don’t know). If participants reply never or
don’t know, they are then asked, “Did you ever . . . ?” (yes/no). These ques-
tions are asked in reference to two specified family members—first the
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 555
respondent’s partner (or the adult with whom they are closest) and then their
child (or if they have more than one, the child with whom they have the most
conflicts).
This procedure yields estimates of both the frequency of specific aggres-
sive behaviors used in the past year and the range of aggressive behaviors
employed over the respondent’s lifetime. In general, more aggressive per-
sons employ a wider range of aggressive behaviors; for instance, Person A
might only use verbally aggressive tactics, whereas Person B might use not
only verbally aggressive tactics but also physically aggressive tactics. For
each of the different categories of aggression (overall aggression, psycholog-
ical aggression, and so forth), the range of tactics a respondent has used in
that category is calculated by taking the proportion of the number of different
tactics employed out of the total number of different tactics. For instance, an
individual who has employed each of the 14 different overall aggression tac-
tics would have an overall aggression range of 1.0; an individual who has
employed only 7 of those tactics (typically, the less serious ones) would have
an overall aggression range of 0.5. Similarly, the range of violent tactics
would refer to the proportion of the 8 violent tactics that a respondent had
employed. It should be noted that the term range is not used in the statistical
sense here; the different conflict tactics are not assumed to be on an interval
scale.
556 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
TABLE 1
Overall Aggression Items From the Conflict Tactics Scale
Psychological aggression
Insulted or swore at the other
Sulked or refused to talk
Stomped out of the room or house
Did or said something to spite the other
Threatened to hit or throw something
Threw or smashed or hit or kicked something
Violence
Mild violence
Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other one
Slapped the other one
Threw something at the other one
Severe violence
Kicked, bit, or hit with a fist
Hit or tried to hit with something
Beat up the other one
Threatened with a knife or gun
Used a knife or gun
Other factors likely to affect aggression. Three additional variables that
seemed likely to be related to nearby nature, attention, or aggression were
assessed through self-report using a 5-point scale (0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 =
a medium amount, 3 = quite a lot, and 4 = very much). Positive mood was
assessed with the Positive Mood subscale of the Profile of Mood States
(POMS). Participants rated themselves on six adjectives (lively, active, ener-
getic, cheerful, full of pep, and vigorous). The POMS has been shown to be a
valid and reliable instrument for the measurement of mood (McNair, Lorr, &
Droppleman, 1981). Stress was assessed with the question “How stressful is
this period in your life?” And social integration was assessed with an 8-item
scale, alpha = .80, that included items such as “How well do you know the
people next door?”; “Are people here concerned with helping and supporting
one another?”; and “Is there a strong feeling of belonging here?” (see Kuo
et al., 1998, for details).
RESULTS
Results are presented in three subsections. First, descriptive statistics on
intrafamily aggression and participants’ attentional resources are presented.
Second, the central hypothesis is tested. And third, potential mechanisms
underlying the relationship between nearby nature and aggression are
explored.
AGGRESSION AND MENTAL
FATIGUE AT ROBERT TAYLOR HOMES
Consistent with previous research, levels of aggression in this population
were much higher than in national samples. A majority of participants in this
sample (61%) reported having engaged in a violent act against their partner at
least once in their lives, a rate approximately 4 times that reported in two
national probability samples of couples in the United States (Straus, 1979;
Straus & Gelles, 1988) but consistent with rates from a sample of formerly
married African American women (57%) (Neff, Holamon, & Schluter,
1995). Aggression against children showed much the same pattern. A major-
ity of the participants in this sample reported hitting their child with some-
thing at least once in their lives (56%), approximately 4 times the rate
reported in a national sample of two-caretaker households with at least one
child (Straus & Gelles, 1986).
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 557
Participants’ DSB scores provide an index of attentional resources in this
inner-city population. According to Lezak (1983), scores of 4 or 5 on this ver-
sion of the DSB test are within normal limits, depending on the individual’s
educational level. In this sample, the mean DSB score was 4.8, with a stan-
dard deviation of 1.1, indicating substantial variation in attentional
functioning.
TESTING THE CENTRAL HYPOTHESES
If the availability of nearby nature reduces the propensity for aggression,
then residents living in green conditions should report less aggression than
their counterparts living in barren conditions: less frequent aggression in the
past year and a narrower range of aggressive tactics used over the course of
their lifetime. A series of planned, one-tailed t tests were conducted to exam-
ine condition differences in frequency and range of aggression, first against
the respondent’s partner and then against their child.
Aggression against partner. Tables 2 and 3 show the findings with respect
to the frequency of aggression against partner in the past year and the range of
aggressive tactics used against partner over the lifetime.
As the first row of Table 2 shows, there was a significant condition differ-
ence in the frequency of overall aggression against partner during the past
year. That is, residents living in green conditions reported significantly less
overall aggression against their partners than did their counterparts living in
barren conditions. The following rows in Table 2 show the findings for spe-
cific forms of aggression. The second row indicates that there was a signifi-
cant condition difference in psychological aggression against partner;
residents living in green conditions were significantly less likely to have
engaged in psychological aggression against their partners than were resi-
dents living in barren conditions. Does this effect extend to more violent
forms of aggression? Because the violence indices produce extremely
skewed distributions, Straus (1979) recommended dichotomizing these indi-
ces into violent and nonviolent categories. If a participant had engaged in at
least one of the eight violent conflict tactics during the past year, they were
designated violent; otherwise, they were designated nonviolent. As rows 3
through 5 of Table 2 show, nearby nature is related to the use of violence
against partner during the past year. Violence scores were significantly lower
for residents living in green conditions than those living in barren conditions.
Furthermore, this pattern held for both the more mild forms of violence and
the more severe forms of violence. Both mild violence rates and severe
558 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
violence rates were significantly lower in the green condition than in the bar-
ren condition. Mean differences between the green and barren conditions for
the various aggression subscales ranged from one third to one half of a stan-
dard deviation.
Table 3 shows the findings with respect to the range of aggressive conflict
tactics used against partner over the participant’s lifetime. As the first row
shows, there was a significant condition difference in the range of overall
aggression tactics used. That is, residents living in green conditions report
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 559
TABLE 2
Mean Rates of Aggression Against Partner
During Past Year in Green Versus Barren Condition
Barren Green
M SD M SD t p
Overall aggression 1.04 0.88 0.76 1.07 1.68 < .05
Psychological aggression 1.47 1.20 1.00 1.26 2.24 .01
Violence 0.73 0.45 0.49 0.50 2.99 < .01
Mild violence 0.73 0.45 0.49 0.50 3.06 .001
Severe violence 0.48 0.50 0.31 0.47 2.10 < .05
NOTE: The response scale for the original items in this table was from 0 (never ) to 6 (more than 20
times). Because the violence, mild violence, and severe violence indices were skewed, we followed
Straus’s (1979, p. 80) recommendation that these scales be dichotomized into violent and nonvio-
lent categories.Thus, for these three indices, 0 indicates having engaged in none of the specific tac-
tics during the past year, and 1 indicates having engaged in at least one of the tactics during the past
year. Degrees of freedom ranged from 136 to 140.
TABLE 3
Range of Aggression Tactics Used Against Partner
in Lifetime in Green Versus Barren Conditions
Barren Green
M SD M SD t p
Overall aggression .44 .28 .32 .30 2.39 < .01
Psychological aggression .58 .36 .44 .35 2.46 < .01
Violence .32 .27 .24 .32 1.54 .06
Mild violence .52 .39 .35 .40 2.50 < .01
Severe violence .19 .24 .16 .29 0.80 .22
NOTE: In response to questions about having ever used specific aggressive conflict tactics, partici-
pants responded never (0) or yes (1). Standard deviations are in parentheses; degrees of freedom
ranged from 136 to 140.
using a narrower set of aggressive conflict tactics against their partners over
their lifetime than did their counterparts living in barren conditions. The
following rows in Table 3 show the findings for specific forms of aggres-
sion. The second row indicates that there was a significant condition differ-
ence in psychological aggression against partner; residents living in green
conditions used a significantly narrower set of psychologically aggressive
conflict tactics than did residents living in barren conditions. The third row of
the table suggests that nearby nature may be related to the range of violent
conflict tactics used against partners. For residents living in green conditions,
the set of violent tactics used was 25% smaller than for those living in barren
conditions, a marginally significant difference (p = .06). Although there was
no difference in the range of severe forms of violence used against partners,
there was a significant condition difference in more mild forms: Residents
living in green conditions report using a smaller set of mildly violent conflict
tactics against their partners over their lifetime than did their counterparts liv-
ing in barren conditions. Mean differences between the green and barren con-
ditions ranged from more than one quarter to one half of a standard deviation.
Aggression against a child. The conditions leading to aggression against
an adult family member may be quite different from those leading to aggres-
sion against one’s child. Conflicts with children are likely to be more fre-
quent than those with adult family members and often center around
disciplinary issues. At the same time, some forms of aggression may be less
socially acceptable against children than against adults. Does the relationship
between nearby nature and aggression found for women and their partners
exist for women and their children? Condition differences were examined for
aggressive conflict tactics used with children, specifically, the child with
whom the participant had the most conflicts. A t test showed that greenness
was related to the range of psychologically aggressive tactics used against
children: Lifetime scores for proportion of psychologically aggressive tactics
used were significantly lower for participants living in the green condition
than for their counterparts living in the barren condition (.54 vs. .62), t(140) =
1.83, p < .05. But the effect did not hold for the frequency of psychological
aggression during the past year or for the frequency or range of more violent
forms of aggression against children.
In sum, there were a number of indications that nearby nature has a miti-
gating effect on aggression and violence: Nearby nature was systematically
related to lower scores on multiple indices of aggression against partners and
one index of aggression against children.
560 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
TESTING FOR UNDERLYING MECHANISMS
What mechanism or mechanisms might underlie the association between
nearby nature and aggression? The following analyses tested for each of the
following: the proposed mechanism, the possibility that some unspecified
mechanism might be at work, and three specific alternative mechanisms.
If effects of nearby nature on aggression operate through attentional resto-
ration, a number of predictions follow. First, residents living in green condi-
tions should show higher levels of attentional functioning than their
counterparts living in barren conditions. A planned student t test showed that
indeed, mean DSB scores were significantly higher in the green condition (M =
5.0, SD = 1.0) than in the barren condition (M = 4.6, SD = 1.2), t(138) = 1.74,
p < .05, differing by more than one third of a standard deviation.
Second, if effects of nearby nature on aggression operate through
attentional restoration, then attentional functioning should be systematically
related to aggression. Using the lifetime measure of overall aggression
against partner as a summary index of aggression, an ordinary least squares
regression was conducted using DSB scores to predict levels of aggression.
As predicted, there was a significant negative relationship between DSB per-
formance and overall aggression (β = –.26, R2 = .07, F = 9.9, p < .0025). By
this summary measure of aggression, the better a participant’s attentional
functioning, the less aggression she had engaged in.
And finally, if effects of nearby nature on aggression operate through
attentional restoration, the relationship between nature and aggression
should statistically depend on the relationship between attention and aggres-
sion. These interdependencies are important to examine when hypothesizing
mediation because significant associations among three variables are possi-
ble without there being a mediation relationship between them. For example,
in this case, nearby nature might enhance attention and reduce aggression but
influence aggression through some other mechanism than attention. In that
case, the nature-aggression relationship would most likely be statistically
independent of the nature-attention relationship. If, on the other hand, con-
tact with nearby nature reduces aggression via the restoration of attentional
resources, we would expect the nature-aggression relationship to diminish or
disappear when attention is statistically controlled.
Accordingly, a multiple regression was used to test for the joint relation-
ships among nearby nature, attentional performance, and levels of aggres-
sion. When DSB (the proposed mediator) was controlled in a regression
between greenness and overall aggression, greenness was no longer a signifi-
cant predictor (β = –.13, p = .11, R2 = .09, F = 6.5, p < .0025). Complete, or
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 561
“perfect,” mediation requires that the independent variable has no additional
predictive power when the mediator is controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986);
thus, these findings indicate that attentional restoration could be the sole
mechanism underlying the nature-aggression relationship found here.
Could the links among nature, attention, and aggression be explained by
some unspecified confounding variable or some alternative mechanism?
Evans and Lepore (1997) suggested addressing what they referred to as “the
spuriousness problem” by conducting an analysis in which the relationship
between the hypothesized mediator and the outcome variable is examined
while the independent variable is controlled. By their reasoning, if there is
some unspecified confounding variable responsible for the relationships
among nature, attention, and aggression, then attention will not be signifi-
cantly related to aggression when nature is controlled. In fact, the multiple
regression described earlier addresses this possibility: DSB was a significant
predictor of overall aggression (β = –.24, p < .01) when greenness was con-
trolled. This finding indicates that some unspecified mechanism cannot
account for the relationships among DSB, greenness, and overall aggression.
These findings were echoed in follow-up analyses examining the follow-
ing three specific, theoretically plausible, alternative mechanisms: positive
mood, stress, and social integration. Planned student t tests showed that
greenness was unrelated to positive mood, t(142) = –.04, p = .48, and stress,
t(140) = .17, p = .43, but was related to social integration, t(140) = 2.7, p < .01.
Correlational analyses showed that overall aggression was related to neither
mood, r(141) = –.07, p = .48, nor stress, r(139) = .135, p = .11, nor social inte-
gration, r(142) = –.06, p = .48. Together, these results indicate that neither posi-
tive mood, nor stress, nor social integration mediate the nature-aggression
relationship found here. Moreover, these analyses reinforce the aforemen-
tioned mediation and spuriousness findings, indicating that the effect of
nature on aggression found here may be wholly mediated through attentional
restoration.
DISCUSSION
In 145 adult women randomly assigned to a series of architecturally iden-
tical apartment buildings, levels of aggression and violence were signifi-
cantly lower among individuals who had some nearby nature outside their
apartments than among their counterparts who lived in barren conditions.
Furthermore, as would be predicted if this relationship were mediated by
mental (attentional) fatigue, (a) residents living in greener settings
562 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
demonstrated reliably better performance on measures of attentional func-
tioning, (b) attentional performance predicted scores on a summary index of
aggression, and (c) the relationship between nearby nature and aggression
scores became nonsignificant when attention was controlled. Finally,
follow-up analyses examining potential alternative mediators revealed no
significant relationships between aggression and mood, stress, or social inte-
gration, and a test for unspecified mediators similarly ruled out alternative
mechanisms.
It should be noted that the predicted relationship between nearby nature
and aggression was not consistently found for more violent forms of aggres-
sion or for aggression against children. Of the various forms of aggression
examined in this study, these may be the most susceptible to social desirabil-
ity effects. Future research might use other strategies to examine the
nature-aggression relationship for forms of aggression that are most difficult
to assess through self-report.
To what extent can the nature-aggression relationship found here be inter-
preted as an effect of nearby nature on aggression? The following consider-
ations lend confidence in a causal interpretation of these data: the random
assignment of residents to nature condition; the consistently negative find-
ings across numerous checks for condition differences in participant, house-
hold, and interviewer characteristics; the consistency of architectural and
other environmental features over the two conditions; the use of multiple
buildings per condition; and the use of double-blind measures for both
nearby nature and aggression. Numerous tests were conducted to identify the
particular causal pathway between nature and aggression. Results from all of
these tests were of one accord: The mediation tests indicated a pathway
through attention, and the spuriousness test and direct tests of alternative
mediators all worked to rule out other possible pathways. Although other
possibilities cannot be ruled out entirely, the only interpretation consistent
with the complete set of findings here is that nearby nature reduces aggres-
sion by supporting attentional functioning. At this juncture, attention restora-
tion theory (S. Kaplan, 1995) provides the best explanation for the link
between nature and aggression.
Having addressed the question of internal validity, we turn now to external
validity. To what extent do the relationships found in this study generalize to
the real world? External validity depends in large part on how the constructs
in a study are operationalized. In this study, the constructs were
operationalized as directly as possible; to the extent we could, we avoided
using surrogates or proxies. For example, measuring the vegetation around
participants’ homes was a more direct way to assess the effects of residential
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 563
nature than, say, showing slides of nature in a classroom. Similarly, using a
performance measure of attention provided a more direct measure of
attentional functioning than asking participants to rate how attentive they
feel. And, asking participants to estimate the actual frequency of specific
aggressive behaviors in the past year provided a more direct measure of in
situ aggression than obtaining ratings of feelings of aggression in a labora-
tory setting or eliciting hostile attributions in hypothetical contexts. Relying
on relatively direct measures of nature, attention, and aggression lends
greater confidence that the relationships found here are true outside of this
study. The large sample size employed (145 participants) further strengthens
the case for external validity.
At the same time, there is reason for caution in assuming that these effects
generalize to forms of aggression not studied here or to aggression in other
populations and settings. Although the mental fatigue hypothesis should
apply to many forms of aggression and it is quite clear that both men and
women are subject to mental fatigue, this work examined only intrafamily
aggression by women. Future research should examine effects of nature on
aggression by men and other forms of aggression (e.g., road rage and gang
violence).
These qualifications notwithstanding, domestic violence is an important
topic in and of itself, and findings with regard to domestic violence have
far-reaching implications. A substantial literature has established that com-
pared with children from nonviolent families, children of violent families are
more likely to grow up to be violent. This increased risk for violent behavior
includes not only children who were victims of abuse but also those who wit-
nessed abuse (Bandura, 1973, 1978; DuRant et al., 1994; Rice & Remy,
1998; Wissow et al., 1992; Wolfe, Jaffe, Wilson, & Zak, 1985). Thus, identi-
fying possible avenues to reducing domestic violence may pay benefits for
generations to come. By reducing intrafamily aggression and thus children’s
socialization into aggressive and violent behaviors, green neighborhood
spaces may indirectly reduce aggression in future generations.
This work has implications for understanding and preventing aggression
and for our understanding of the psychological effects of natural
environments.
UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING AGGRESSION
One contribution of this work is to suggest a potential explanation for a
number of poorly understood phenomena in the environment-behavior litera-
ture on human aggression. Mental fatigue might help account for the relation-
ships found between crowding and aggression (Ani & Grantham-McGregor,
564 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
1998; Nijman & Rector, 1999; Palmstierna, Huitfeldt, & Wistedt, 1991) and
noise and aggression (Donnerstein & Wilson, 1976; Gaur, 1988; Geen &
McCown, 1984; Sherrod, Moore, & Underwood, 1979), and for urban-rural
differences in aggression (Fingerhut, Ingram, & Feldman, 1998). Noise and
crowding both seem likely to place demands on attention (Cohen &
Spacapan, 1978), and urban environments tend not only to be noisier and
more crowded than rural environments but also less green than rural environ-
ments. Thus, urban environments seem likely to be more attentionally fatigu-
ing and less attentionally restorative in general than rural environments.
Future research might examine whether these phenomena are indeed fatigue
related.
This work may also offer insight into some phenomena in human aggres-
sion that do not necessarily involve the physical environment. For example,
both the extremely high rates of aggression and violence in poor families
and the link between stressful life events and aggression (Guerra,
Huesmann, Tolan, Van Acker, & Eron, 1995; Hammond & Yung, 1991;
Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Vaden, 1990; Spencer, Dobbs, & Phillips, 1988;
Straus et al., 1980) might be explained at least in part by mental fatigue. As
described in the introduction, poverty is likely to place relatively high, un-
remitting demands on attention. And stressful life events such as moving to a
new home or having a family member become seriously ill can involve sub-
stantial amounts of problem solving, contingency planning, and other atten-
tionally demanding, mentally fatiguing forms of cognition. If the relatively
high rates of aggression associated with poverty and stressful life events are
indeed partially attributable to mental fatigue, future research should find
links between poverty and mental fatigue as well as links between stressful
life events and mental fatigue.
This work also suggests a number of possible interventions for addressing
aggression and violence in the inner city. Specifically, efforts to improve con-
flict behavior might involve preventing, detecting, and treating attentional
fatigue. For example, conflict behavior might be improved by preventing
attentional fatigue through reducing the attentional demands of the environ-
ment by means of soundproofing, reducing crowding, and increasing safety.
Similarly, providing insurance against the drastic life changes to which the
poor are most susceptible might also help prevent fatigue and fatigue-related
aggression. DSB and other tests of attentional functioning might help detect
fatigue and let individuals know when they are most at risk for aggressive or
violent behavior. Finally, strategies for treating attentional fatigue, including
taking green breaks and getting more sleep, might help prevent
fatigue-related aggression.
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 565
UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF NATURAL
ENVIRONMENTS ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR
This work contributes to our understanding of the psychological effects of
natural environments in a number of ways. First, the findings provide strong
evidence for a potential effect of nature that has been largely unexplored—
reducing aggression and violence. Previous research on the effects of nature
has focused on its effects on mood, recovery from stress, everyday function-
ing, and attention (e.g., Cimprich, 1993; Hartig et al., 1991; Hull & Michael,
1995; Ulrich et al., 1991), and only two previous studies have hinted at a
potential effect of nature on aggression (Mooney & Nicell, 1992; Rice &
Remy, 1998). This study demonstrates a link between nature and reduced
aggression in an experimental design and provides clear support for the pro-
posed mechanism of attentional restoration. In doing so, it extends attention
restoration theory and shows that the theory has implications for a concern as
important and socially relevant as levels of aggression and violence in
inner-city neighborhoods.
A second contribution is to raise an interesting question with regard to the
benefits of residential nature. In these data, the vegetation around apartment
buildings was significantly related to measures of attentional functioning but
not to measures of stress or positive mood. This is consistent with the previ-
ous literature: Other studies have found significant relationships between
residential vegetation and measures of attention (R. Kaplan, 2001 [this
issue]; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995), and to date we are unaware of any stud-
ies demonstrating links between residential nature and either stress or posi-
tive mood. Are there in fact no relationships between residential nature and
stress or residential nature and mood? Perhaps these relationships exist and
the procedures in this study simply failed to uncover them. It also seems pos-
sible that mood and stress are simply not affected by highly habituated forms
of nature. This seems a fascinating question for future research.
A third contribution of this work concerns the density and extent of nature
necessary to convey benefits. It might seem implausible that a few trees and
grass in relatively small areas outside public housing apartment buildings
could have any clear effects on residents’ levels of aggression. Yet this low
dose of vegetation has been shown to have far-reaching and positive effects
on a number of other important outcomes, including residents’ management
of major life issues (Kuo, 2001) and neighborhood social ties (Kuo et al.,
1998; Kweon et al., 1998). Future research might explore how the benefits of
contact with nature vary as a function of the density of vegetation.
A final contribution of this work is to suggest that the geographic distribu-
tion of natural areas matters. Although large central or regional parks are
566 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
clearly important components of urban design, the results of this study sug-
gest that a few major parks are not enough. All residents of RTH live within 2
miles of one of the most extensive examples of urban nature in North Amer-
ica—Lake Michigan and the parks along Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. Yet
the proximity to these tremendous natural resources is apparently insufficient
to keep all residents of RTH at similar levels of attentional functioning. Per-
haps, as Rachel Kaplan (1985) suggested, cities should be designed with
nature at every doorstep.
NOTES
1. Given that residents do have some choice of apartment within Robert Taylor Homes
(RTH), it seemed possible (although not likely) that better functioning and therefore potentially
less aggressive residents might self-select into greener buildings. As a check on that possibility,
participants were asked what criteria were important to them in choosing a place to live: Of 118
responses, 93% were clearly unrelated to levels of vegetation (47% of respondents “just needed a
place;” 12% desired safety or cleanliness; 10% were concerned about access to work, school, or
family; 9% were concerned about cost; 8% were concerned about space or number of bedrooms;
6% wanted an apartment on a “low floor,” perhaps because of the frequency of elevator malfunc-
tions; and 1 participant mentioned sense of community). Seven percent of respondents expressed
concerns that might be interpreted as related to levels of vegetation (e.g., location, neighbor-
hood, area, and environment), and 1 participant of the 145 specifically reported that a “natural
setting” was important to her. However, analyses indicated that these participants lived in no
greener areas on average than the remainder of the participants in this study. Thus, the level of
nearby nature does not seem to be an important criterion in residents’ selection of apartments
within RTH; moreover, it appears that the level of choice residents have in selecting an apartment
is sufficiently low that even residents who might strongly value access to nature are no more
likely to be assigned to a green area.
2. Eligibility requirements for public housing and some other forms of public aid favor single
mothers. This creates a pressure for families not to list adult males as official residents (and for
these unofficial residents not to participate in studies about life at RTH).
REFERENCES
Ani, C. C., & Grantham-McGregor, S. (1998). Family and personal characteristics of aggressive
Nigerian boys: Differences from and similarities with Western findings. Journal of Adoles-
cent Health, 23, 311-317.
Baker, C. F. (1984). Sensory overload and noise in the ICU: Sources of environmental stress.
Critical Care Quarterly, 6(4), 66-80.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 567
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3),
12-29.
Barnett, O. W., & Hamberger, L. K. (1992). The assessment of maritally violent men on the Cali-
fornia Psychological Inventory. Violence and Victims, 7, 15-28.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baum, A., & Koman, S. (1976). Differential response to anticipated crowding: Psychological
effects of social and spatial density. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,
526-536.
Bolger, K., Thomas, M., & Eckenrode, J. (1997). Disturbances in relationships: Parenting, fam-
ily development, and child maltreatment. In J. Garbarino (Ed.), Understanding abusive fami-
lies: An ecological approach to theory and practice (pp. 86-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brady, K. T., Myrick, H., & McElroy, S. (1998). The relationship between substance use disor-
ders, impulse control disorders, and pathological aggression. American Journal on Addic-
tions, 7, 221-230.
Canin, L. H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintaining self-care.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Caprara, G. V., & Renzi, P. (1981). The frustration-aggression hypothesis vs. irritability.
Recherches de Psychologie Sociale, 3, 75-80.
Chang, Y. C. (1994). Parenting stress and social support of mothers who physically abuse their
children in Hong Kong. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 261-269.
Cherek, D. R., Moeller, F. G., Dougherty, D. M., & Rhoades, H. (1997). Studies of violent and
nonviolent male parolees: II. Laboratory and psychometric measurements of impulsivity.
Biological Psychiatry, 41, 523-529.
Chicago Housing Authority. (1995). Statistical profile: The Chicago Housing Authority 1994 to
1995. Chicago: Author.
Cimprich, B. (1993). Development of an intervention to restore attention in cancer patients.
Cancer Nursing, 16, 83-92.
Coccaro, E. F., Bergeman, C. S., Kavoussi, R. J., & Seroczynski, A. D. (1997). Heritability of
aggression and irritability: A twin study of the Buss-Durkee aggression scales in adult male
subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273-284.
Cohen, S., & Spacapan, S. (1978). The aftereffects of stress: An attentional interpretation. Envi-
ronmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 43-57.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing
mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.
Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behav-
ior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8-22.
Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997). Social information processing mechanisms in aggressive
behavior. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior
(pp. 171-180). New York: John Wiley.
Donnerstein, E., & Wilson, D. W. (1976). Effects of noise and perceived control on ongoing and
subsequent aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 774-781.
DuRant, R. H., Pendergrast, R. A., & Cadenhead, C. (1994). Exposure to violence and victimiza-
tion and fighting behavior by urban Black adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15,
311-318.
Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1997). Moderating and mediating processes in environment-
behavior research. In G. T. Moore (Ed.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design, Vol.
568 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
4: Toward the integration of theory, methods, research, and utilization (pp. 255- 285).
Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.
Fingerhut, L. A., Ingram, D. D., & Feldman, J. J. (1998). Homicide rates among U.S. teenagers
and young adults: Differences by mechanism, level of urbanization, race, and sex, 1987
through 1995. Journal of American Medical Association, 280, 423-427.
Garbarino, J., & Sherman, D. (1980). High-risk neighborhoods and high-risk families: The
human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Development, 51, 188-198.
Gaur, S. D. (1988). Noise: Does it make you angry? Indian Psychologist, 5, 51-56.
Geen, R. G., & McCown, E. J. (1984). Effects of noise and attack on aggression and physiologi-
cal arousal. Motivation and Emotion, 8, 231-241.
Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P. H., Van Acker, R., & Eron, L. D. (1995). Stressful
events and individual beliefs as correlates of economic disadvantage and aggression among
urban children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 518-528.
Hammond, W. R., & Yung, B. R. (1991). Preventing violence in at-risk African-American youth.
Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 2, 1-16.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experi-
ences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1987). On the distinction between attentional deficits/hyperactivity and conduct
problems/aggression in child psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 443-463.
Hull, R. B., & Michael, S. E. (1995). Nature-based recreation, mood change, and stress restora-
tion. Leisure Sciences, 17, 1-14.
Hynan, D. J., & Grush, J. E. (1986). Effects of impulsivity, depression, provocation, and time on
aggressive behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 158-171.
Kant, R., Smith-Seemiller, L., & Zeiler, D. (1998). Treatment of aggression and irritability after
head injury. Brain Injury, 12, 661-666.
Kaplan, R. (1984). Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: An analysis of a continu-
ing program. Leisure Sciences, 6, 271-290.
Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 115-127.
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and
Behavior, 33, 507-542.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Mental fatigue and the designed environment. In J. Harvey & D. Henning
(Eds.), Public environments (pp. 55-60). Edmond, OK: Environmental Design Research
Association.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kavoussi, R. J., & Coccaro, E. F. (1998). Divalproex sodium for impulsive aggressive behavior
in patients with personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 676-680.
Kuo, F. E. (1992, March). Inner cities and chronic mental fatigue. Presentation at the Environ-
mental Design Research Association Conference, Denver, CO.
Kuo, F. E. (2001). Effective life functioning in the inner city: Impacts of environment and atten-
tion. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for community:
Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26,
823-851.
Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C., & Wiley, A. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integra-
tion of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30, 832-858.
Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 569
Lohr, V. I., Pearson-Mims, C. H., & Goodwin, G. K. (1996). Interior plants may improve worker
productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmental Hor-
ticulture, 14, 97-100.
Luengo, M. A., Carrillo-de-la-Pena, M. T., Otero, J. M., & Romero, E. (1994). A short-term lon-
gitudinal study of impulsivity and antisocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 542-548.
Markovitz, P. (1995). Pharmacotherapy of impulsivity, aggression, and related disorders. In
E. Hollander (Ed.), Impulsivity and aggression (pp. 263-287). New York: John Wiley.
Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence and aggression:
A cognitive appraisal perspective. In R. W. Griffin (Ed.), Dysfunctional behavior in organi-
zations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 1-42). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
McNair, D., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1981). EITS manual for the Profile of Mood States.
San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Mesulam, M. (1985). Principles of behavioral neurology. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
Miles, I., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1998). Prairie restoration volunteers: The benefits of par-
ticipation. Urban Ecosystems, 2, 27-41.
Mooney, P., & Nicell, P. L. (1992). The importance of exterior environment for Alzheimer resi-
dents: Effective care and risk management. Healthcare Management Forum, 5(2), 23-29.
Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. D. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks, and
Mexican Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial predictors, and alco-
hol consumption. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 1-21.
Nijman, H.L.I., & Rector, G. (1999). Crowding and aggression on inpatient psychiatric wards.
Psychiatric Services, 50, 830-831.
Ovitt, M. A. (1996). The effect of a view of nature on performance and stress reduction of ICU
nurses. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois.
Palmstierna, T., Huitfeldt, B., & Wistedt, B. (1991). The relationship of crowding and aggressive
behavior on a psychiatric intensive care unit. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 42,
1237-1240.
Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Vaden, N. A. (1990). Income level, gender, ethnicity, and
household compositions as predictors of children’s school-based competence. Child Devel-
opment, 61, 485-494.
Pihl, R. O., & Zacchia, C. (1986). Alcohol and aggression: A test of the affect arousal hypothesis.
Aggressive Behavior, 12, 367-375.
Rabiner, D. L., Lenhart, L., & Lochman, J. E. (1990). Automatic versus reflective social problem
solving in relation to children’s sociometric status. Developmental Psychology, 26, 1010-
1016.
Rice, J. S., & Remy, L. L. (1998). Impacts of horticultural therapy on psychosocial functioning
among urban jail inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 26, 169-191.
Roth, F. (1986). A practice regimen for diagnosis and treatment of child abuse. Child Welfare, 54,
268-273.
Rubin, K. H., Bream, L. A., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1991). Social problem solving and aggression
in childhood. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of child-
hood aggression (pp. 219-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rule, B., Taylor, B., & Dobbs, A. (1987). Priming effects of heat on aggressive thoughts. Social
Cognition, 5, 131-143.
Scholte, R.H.J., van Aken, M.A.G., & van Lieshout, C.F.M. (1997). Adolescent personality fac-
tors in self-ratings and peer nominations and their prediction of peer acceptance and peer
rejection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 534-554.
570 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / July 2001
Schwartz, D. (1994). The measurement of inhibitory attention and psychological effectiveness
among adolescents. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Michigan.
Sherrod, D. R., Moore, B. S., & Underwood, B. (1979). Environmental noise, perceived control,
and aggression. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 245-252.
Spencer, M. B., Dobbs, B., & Phillips, D. (1988). African-American adolescents: Adaptational
processes and socioeconomic diversity I behavioral outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 11,
117-137.
Stanford, M. S., Greve, K. W., & Dickens, T. J. (1995). Irritability and impulsiveness: Relation-
ship to self-reported impulsive aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,
757-760.
Stewart, M. A. (1985). Aggressive conduct disorder: A brief review. Aggressive Behavior, 11,
323-331.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)
Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (1995). Manual for the Conflict Tactics Scales. Durham, NH: University of New
Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975
to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,
465-479.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1988). How violent are American families? Estimates from the
National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T.
Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in
research (pp. 14-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the
American family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Tennessen, C., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environ-
mental Psychology, 15, 77-85.
Thackray, R. I., Bailey, J. P., & Touchstone, R. M. (1979). The effect of increased monitoring
load on vigilance performance using a simulated radar display. Ergonomics, 22, 529-539.
Tuinier, S., Verhoeven, W.M.A., & Van Praag, H. M. (1996). Serotonin and disruptive behavior:
A critical evaluation of the clinical data. Human Psychopharmacology Clinical and Experi-
mental, 11, 469-482.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress
recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psy-
chology, 11, 201-230.
Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1986). Awake at the switch. Psychology Today, 20(4), 46-53.
Wissow, L. W., Wilson, M. E., Roter, D., Larson, S., & Hope, I. B. (1992). Family violence and
the evaluation of behavioral concerns in a pediatric primary care clinic. Medical Care, 30,
150-165.
Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Children of battered women: The relation
of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53, 657-665.
Kuo, Sullivan / AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE 571
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD
COPING WITH ADD
The Surprising Connection
to Green Play Settings
ANDREA FABER TAYLOR is a doctoral candidate at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on the design of developmentally support-
ive outdoor environments for children.
FRANCES E. KUO is an assistant professor and codirector of the Human-Environ-
ment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her re-
search focuses on attention, defensible space, and novice-friendly information.
WILLIAM C. SULLIVAN is an associate professor and codirector of the Human-
Environment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
His research focuses on the psychological and social benefits of urban nature and on
citizen participation in environmental decision making.
ABSTRACT: Attention Restoration Theory suggests that contact with nature sup-
ports attentional functioning, and a number of studies have found contact with every-
day nature to be related to attention in adults. Is contact with everyday nature also
related to the attentional functioning of children? This question was addressed
through a study focusing on children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). This
study examined the relationship between children’s nature exposure through leisure
activities and their attentional functioning using both within- and between-subjects
comparisons. Parents were surveyed regarding their child’s attentional functioning
after activities in several settings. Results indicate that children function better than
usual after activities in green settings and that the “greener” a child’s play area, the
less severe his or her attention deficit symptoms. Thus, contact with nature may sup-
port attentional functioning in a population of children who desperately need
attentional support.
Over 2 million children in the United States alone are struggling to cope
with a chronic attentional deficit, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) (Barkley,
54
AUTHORS’ NOTE: This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for a doctoral degree in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the
ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 1, January 2001 54-77
© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.
1995).1ADD reduces children’s attentional capacity and in doing so, has det-
rimental effects on many aspects of life (e.g., school, interpersonal relation-
ships, personal growth). Unfortunately, of the available treatments, some
have costly side effects, and the remaining have limited effectiveness. Sur-
prisingly, the physical environment has not been examined as a potential
source of support for children with ADD. Attention Restoration Theory
(Kaplan, 1995) proposes that nature may support attentional functioning, and
a growing body of evidence indicates that, in adults with regular attentional
capacity, nature is supportive of attentional functioning. Could natural envi-
ronments support attentional functioning in children with attention deficits?
The study presented here examined the effects of children’s afterschool and
weekend activity settings on their attention deficit symptoms.
In this section, we describe ADD and its treatment, review the previous
work on nature and attention, and present the central questions motivating
this study.
ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER
Attention Deficit Disorders are surprisingly common and have far reach-
ing consequences. ADD occurs in about 3% to 7% of school-age children
(Barkley, 1997; Bender, 1997; Hinshaw, 1994). Moreover, there is substan-
tial evidence that ADD in childhood can disrupt cognitive and social develop-
ment in several pivotal areas. First, children with ADD tend to have poor
academic performance (for reviews, see Barkley, 1997; Bender, 1997;
Hinshaw, 1994). Second, they are at increased risk for problems in the social
arena as well. For example, they tend to have poor peer relationships and are
often rejected by their peers (Alessandri, 1992; for reviews, see Bender,
1997; Berk, 1994; Hinshaw, 1994). They also tend to have poor relations with
their parents and have a higher rate of family conflict (Barkley,
Anastopoulos, Guevremont, & Fletcher, 1992). In addition, children with
ADD tend to display more aggressive and antisocial behavior (for reviews,
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 55
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. This research was supported by a grant
from the National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, and the Cooper-
ative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture under Project No. ILLU-65-0387l. We thank all the parents who participated in
this research project, especially Patrick Sullivan. We also thank Dr. Lisa Monda-
Amaya, Dr. Annette Lansford, and Dr. William Stewart for their helpful suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrea Faber Taylor,
Human Environment Research Laboratory, University of Illinois, 1103 S. Dorner Dr.,
Urbana, IL 61801, or [email protected].
see Barkley, 1997; Hinshaw, 1994). Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that
children with ADD are often also at greater risk for low self-esteem, anxiety, and
depression (for reviews, see Barkley, 1997; Bender, 1997; Hinshaw, 1994).
ADD is essentially defined as a developmental lag in the specific area of
attentional control. Thus, diagnosis involves evaluating a child’s attentional
control relative to their same-age peers (American Psychiatric Association,
1994). Specifically, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders (DSM-IV) defines ADD as a persistent pattern of inattention “that is
more frequent and severe than is typically observed in individuals at a compa-
rable level of development” (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 78).
Barkley (1998) suggests that children with ADD can be expected to display
attentional control at a level 30% behind their same-age non-ADD peers; for
example, a 10-year-old ADD child generally displays behaviors more typical
of a 7-year-old child.
Current evidence suggests that this lag in attentional development is due
to biological factors (Barkley, 1995; Shue & Douglas, 1992). For example,
physiological recordings obtained through magnetic resonance imaging
show physical differences in the brain morphology of children with ADD.
Specifically, the right frontal lobe, which plays a key role in directed attention
(Foster, Eskes, & Stuss, 1994), was found to be smaller in children with ADD
(Hynd, Semrud-Clikeman, Lorys, Novey, & Eliopulos, 1990) than in chil-
dren with age-appropriate attentional control. Thus, although folk theory
holds that the immaturity of behaviors in ADD children is the product of
social factors such as poor parenting, the evidence suggests that ADD is a
biologically based disorder and not the product of the social or physical envi-
ronment (Barkley, 1998; National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], 1994).
HOW IS ADD TREATED?
Current treatments for ADD are limited in effectiveness and have many
shortcomings (for reviews, see Fiore, Becker, & Nero, 1993; Hinshaw, 1994).
Stimulant medications, such as Ritalin, Dexedrine, and Cylert, are the pri-
mary treatment for ADD (Hinshaw, 1994; NIMH, 1994; Swanson et al.,
1993). In 9 out of 10 children, these medications help sustain attention and
provide temporary gains in academic productivity (NIMH, 1994), but unfor-
tunately, they fail to improve children’s long-term social and academic out-
comes (for review, see Hinshaw, 1994). In addition, these medications have
serious side effects. They often suppress appetite and disrupt sleep (Hinshaw,
1994; NIMH, 1994), and in some children, they induce extreme depression
and unusually flattened affect (Douglas, 1972).
56 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
Behavioral therapies are a second form of treatment for ADD. These
include direct contingency management, in which children earn or lose
points for specific behaviors, and cognitive behavioral procedures, in which
children learn how to self-monitor attention and impulsive behavior (for
review, see Fiore et al., 1993; Hinshaw, 1994). Unfortunately, these therapies
are typically not sufficient to bring children into normal ranges of functioning
(Fiore et al., 1993; Hinshaw, 1994).
Given the difficulties associated with medication and behavior ther-
apy-based treatments, there is a clear need to explore alternative means of
treating ADD. Could contact with nature support the attentional functioning
of children who have ADD? Both theory and evidence regarding the relation-
ship between contact with nature and attentional functioning suggest it
might.
NATURE AND ATTENTION
Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, 1995) proposes that natural envi-
ronments can assist attentional functioning. To understand how this might be
so, let us review James’s (1892/1962) theory of attention, and then Kaplan’s
(1995) application of that theory to Attention Restoration Theory.
James proposed that humans have two types of attention: voluntary and
involuntary. Voluntary attention, or what Kaplan (1995) calls directed atten-
tion, is the kind of attention we use when we deliberately pay attention. This
form of attention is employed in attending to tasks (e.g., problem solving) or
situations (e.g., driving in heavy traffic) that require sustained attention and
that are not inherently easy to attend to. After prolonged and intense use,
directed attention becomes fatigued (Glosser & Goodglass, 1990; Kaplan,
1995). By contrast, involuntary attention is easy and does not require effort
(James, 1892/1962). James suggested that certain elements in the environ-
ment draw on our involuntary attention: “strange things, moving things, wild
animals, bright things, pretty things, words, blows, blood, etc. etc. etc.”
(James, 1892/1962, p. 231). Reliance on involuntary attention can be useful
for the rest and recovery of fatigued directed attention. Kaplan (1995) pro-
poses that stimuli and environments that draw primarily on involuntary atten-
tion give directed attention a chance to rest. Attention Restoration Theory
suggests that natural environments assist in recovery from directed attention
fatigue in part because they draw on involuntary attention rather than directed
attention (Kaplan, 1995).
A number of studies in adult populations support Attention Restoration
Theory. Several studies have shown that nature draws on involuntary atten-
tion (e.g., Kaplan, 1973, 1983; Kaplan & Talbot, 1983; Ulrich, 1981). In
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 57
addition, a number of other studies have shown that exposure to natural envi-
ronments can be effective in restoring directed attention from fatigue (Canin,
1991; Cimprich, 1990; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Kuo, in press; Lohr,
Pearson-Mims, & Goodwin, 1996; Miles, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1998; Ovitt, 1996;
Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). In one study, exposure to natural environ-
ments through leisure activities was shown to be related to attentional func-
tioning in adults. A study of AIDS caregivers found that nature activities and
quiet activities were associated with robust attentional functioning, whereas
activities such as TV watching, shopping, and watching or playing organized
sports were associated with poorer attentional functioning (Canin, 1991).
NATURE AND ATTENTION IN CHILDREN
Could contact with nature support attention in children? Theoretical and
empirical work in landscape architecture and environmental psychology has
addressed numerous possible other benefits of nature for children, including
providing privacy, mental stimulation, and sensory stimulation and support-
ing important developmental activities such as play, creative forms of play,
and exploratory and divergent thinking (Heseltine, 1987; Jansson, 1984;
Kirkby, 1989; Miller, 1972; Moore, 1986, 1989; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994;
Senda, 1992; Striniste & Moore, 1989; Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998;
Trancik & Evans, 1995). Only one article has raised the question of nature’s
potential impacts on children’s attention (Trancik & Evans, 1995). Trancik
and Evans (1995) suggest that the design of day care settings should include
spaces supporting “restoration,” such as natural areas, because preschool
children may be susceptible to mental fatigue as they adapt to a new pre-
school environment. However, this idea has not been empirically examined.
There are reasons to think that Attention Restoration Theory extends to
children. Like adults, children may become attentionally fatigued. For exam-
ple, children’s schoolwork requires extended periods of deliberate, effortful
attention. And like adults, children often must carry out these tasks in a con-
text filled with powerful distractions that constantly demand attention,
making it extremely difficult to concentrate on the task at hand. In addition,
because children’s attention is not fully developed (Mackworth, 1976; Shaffer,
1985), they may be fighting off distractions with less attentional control than
adults. Thus, children may need attentionally supportive environments
where they can go to restore. It seems plausible that natural environments
might support attention in children, including children with ADD.
58 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
This study examined whether contact with nature assists attentional func-
tioning in children with ADD. Two hypotheses were formulated and tested:
one regarding the immediate aftereffects of contact with nature, and the other
regarding the general effects of nature on the severity of a child’s ADD symp-
toms. Specifically, we proposed that
Hypothesis 1: Attention deficit symptoms will be more manageable after activities
in green settings than after activities in other settings.
Hypothesis 2: The greener a child’s everyday environment, the more manageable
their attention deficit symptoms will be in general.
To address these hypotheses, we conducted a survey of parents of children
with ADDs. For each child, we collected information about the aftereffects of
leisure activities conducted in different settings, the amount of nature in their
everyday environment, and the severity of their symptoms in general. In addi-
tion, six possible alternative explanations for a nature-attention relationship
were examined.
METHOD
The questionnaire and procedures for this study were developed through a
multifaceted qualitative data collection effort. The methodology was guided
by interviews with children with ADD, their parents, and a variety of profes-
sionals with expertise in ADD (pediatricians, a professor of special educa-
tion, and a fifth-grade teacher). The methodology was also guided by
classroom observations of four ADD children (10-11 years old).
The questionnaire was pretested with four different families, one family at
a time. As parents completed each section of the questionnaire, the following
concerns were addressed: (a) whether the activities included in the survey
adequately covered the range of activities 7- to 12-year-olds engage in, (b)
whether parents understood the concept of post-activity attentional function-
ing, (c) whether the rating scales were appropriate, and (d) whether the nature
measures were easily interpretable and usable. After each pretest, revisions
were made to the questionnaire before further pretesting.
It is worth noting that an effort was made to develop a questionnaire for the
ADD children themselves; however, pretesting indicated that the children
were not able to reliably report on any aftereffects of their activities on their
attention deficit symptoms.
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 59
QUESTIONNAIRE
The final version of the questionnaire was printed as a small booklet that
took about 30 to 40 minutes to complete. On the cover, the following narra-
tive introduced participants to the idea that children’s activities might have
aftereffects on their attention.
Think about how you feel after a difficult week. You may find it more difficult
than usual to pay attention. On the other hand, after a good vacation, you may
find that it’s relatively easy to focus your attention.
We suspect that the same may be true for children. There are many different
ways children can spend their time outside of school. For children with atten-
tion deficits, it’s possible that some activities leave children functioning better
than usual, while other activities leave children in worse shape.
In other words, perhaps during the hour or so after your child does a certain
activity, you find that their ADD/ADHD symptoms are worse than usual. Or
vice versa; perhaps after doing another activity, you find that your child is func-
tioning better than usual.
To make the concept attentional functioning more concrete, four specific
attention deficit symptoms were listed:
• Can’t stay focused on unappealing tasks (homework or chores)
• Can’t complete tasks
• Can’t listen and follow directions
• Easily distracted
These symptoms are modified selections from the diagnostic criteria for
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (pp. 83-84 of DSM-IV; APA,
1994). Because Attention Restoration Theory suggests a relationship
between nature and attentional functioning, but not necessarily between
nature and hyperactivity-impulsivity, only symptoms of inattention were
selected. In addition, because parents rarely observe their children in the
classroom, only symptoms readily apparent in a home setting were
presented.
In the first section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to nomi-
nate up to two afterschool and weekend activities that they felt left their
child functioning especially well and up to two activities that they felt left
their child functioning especially poorly. Parents completed the sentence,
“After ____ my child’s ADD symptoms are much less noticeable than usual.
My child is in good shape.” Parents were asked to nominate up to two best
activities. Parents then did the same for worst activities: “After ____ my
60 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
child’s ADD symptoms are much more noticeable than usual. My child is in
bad shape.” For both items, parents had the option of marking none, if they
had not noticed any activities that were particularly helpful or harmful for
their child’s attention. About 66% of parents were able to nominate at least
one activity that was best for their child; 68% were able to nominate at least
one that was worst. Parents’ nominations were later coded in terms of their
likely settings by an individual blind to the best and worst labels. Each of the
activities was classified as either Green (likely to take place in a relatively
natural setting), Not Green (unlikely to take place in a relatively natural set-
ting), or Ambiguous (ambiguous with respect to physical setting). For exam-
ple, camping trip, fishing, and soccer were coded as Green, whereas video
games, TV, and homework were coded as Not Green. Activities such as play-
ing outside and rollerblading were coded as Ambiguous.
In the second section, participants were presented with a list of afterschool
and weekend activities and asked to rate each activity in terms of any afteref-
fects of that activity on their child’s attention deficit symptoms. These
postactivity attentional functioning ratings, or PAAF ratings, were made on a
5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = much worse to 5 = much better, with a mid-
point of 3 = same as usual; don’t know was also an option. Twenty-five activi-
ties were presented in three lists: 11 activities conducted indoors, 6 activities
conducted in built outdoor spaces (defined as mostly human-made areas—
parking lots, downtown areas, or just a neighborhood space that doesn’t have
much greenery), and 8 activities conducted in green outdoor spaces (defined
as mostly natural areas—a park, a farm, or just a “green” backyard or neigh-
borhood space). Each activity was rated for two social contexts: after the
activity was conducted alone, or with one person, and after the activity was
conducted with two or more people.
In the final section of the questionnaire, parents answered a series of gen-
eral questions about their child, their household, and the child’s everyday sur-
roundings. Parents answered the question, In general, how severe would you
say your child’s ADD or ADHD symptoms are (when not on medication)?
using a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 = very mild to 5 = very severe. They
reported their child’s age, sex, grade in school, diagnoses other than ADD/
ADHD, number of adult caregivers, and the household income. In addition,
parents assessed the greenness of their child’s everyday surroundings.
To assist parents in assessing the level of nature in their child’s everyday
surroundings, parents were first presented with a set of six photo pairs of pos-
sible play settings ranging from places indoors where it feels very much
indoors (two photos of windowless rooms) to places where there might be
“wild” things: flowers, trees, animals, etc. (two photos of relatively untamed
landscapes). The photo pairs were independently rated by 21 horticulture
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 61
students for greenness or naturalness on a scale of 1 = low to 10 = high), with
an interrater reliability of .994. To avoid collecting information about play
spaces used during other seasons (e.g., winter), parents were asked to select
one photo pair description as representative of where their child played dur-
ing the previous week. Parents were then asked whether their child’s activi-
ties in the previous week were representative of their normal routine (yes/no).
In addition to assessing the level of nature in their child’s typical play set-
tings, parents were asked to assess the overall greenness of their family’s resi-
dence, the amount of tree cover in their yard, and the amount of grass in their
yard. Overall greenness around the home was rated on a 5-point Likert-type
scale (1 = not at all green, 5 = very green). To assess tree cover, parents were
shown four photos depicting yards with different levels of tree cover and
asked to select one that best represented the amount of tree cover in their front
yard and one that best represented the amount of tree cover in their back yard.
The amount of grass was measured through the same procedure.
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
Participation was limited to parents or legal guardians of children 7 to 12
years old who had been formally diagnosed with ADD or ADHD (i.e., diag-
nosed by a physician, psychologist, or psychiatrist).
Participants were recruited through flyers distributed to pediatricians’
offices, medical clinics, schools, and parent support groups such as Children
and Adults with Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD). Partic-
ipants were also recruited through advertisements placed in major newspa-
pers. Newspaper advertisements were restricted to the midwestern United
States to ensure roughly comparable climate and vegetation across the sam-
ple. The flyers and advertisements invited parents to participate in a
mail-back or Internet-based survey about the effects of ADD/ADHD chil-
dren’s afterschool and weekend activities on their symptoms. Two incentives
were offered: a list of recommendations based on the study’s findings and a
choice of a pizzeria gift certificate or a children’s book about ADD.
Questionnaire data were collected, as suggested by a pediatrician and spe-
cial education professor, when the attentional demands of school would make
potential effects of nature on attention most salient to parents. Data were
collected from mid-September, after children’s school routines were well
established, through the end of October, before inclement weather might sig-
nificantly limit outdoor play. Paper copies of the questionnaire were mailed
to parents who volunteered by phone or by e-mail, and an electronic version
of the questionnaire was also made available on the Internet. The Dillman
(1978) follow-up methodology was employed to encourage participants to
62 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
return the mail-back questionnaire within the time frame of the study. By the
deadline, 77 paper copies of the questionnaire were returned, or 58% of those
mailed. An additional 19 questionnaires were completed on the Internet, for a
total of 96 completed questionnaires.
Given the use of convenience sampling, it is important to note that this
sample was similar to other samples of children with ADDs. The ratio of boys
to girls with attention deficits in the general population is estimated to be 3:1
(Barkley, 1990; Bender, 1997) or even 4:1 (American Psychiatric Associa-
tion, 1994); the ratio of boys to girls in this sample was 3:1. Overall, this sam-
ple had more children with ADHD (61%) than ADD (39%). The ratio of
ADD to ADHD in the general population is estimated at 1:1.7 for boys and
1:2.2 for girls (Szatmari, Offord, & Boyle, 1989); the ratio of ADD to ADHD
in this sample was 1:1.6 for boys and 1:1.5 for girls. The percentage of ADD
or ADHD boys having at least one comorbid disorder in the general popula-
tion is 44%, whereas 29% of girls have at least one comorbid disorder
(Szatmari et al., 1989); in our sample, 52% of boys had one comorbid disor-
der, and 36% of girls had one comorbid disorder. The mean age of children in
this sample was 9.4 years, with a standard deviation of 1.5 years. About 63%
of the parents reported their household income to be $50,000 or greater.
After the questionnaire data from the complete sample were analyzed, a
subset of questionnaire participants was invited to a focus group dinner to
discuss the findings. Eight questionnaire participants who had indicated
interest in a follow-up interview attended. Focus group participants first
briefly reacquainted themselves with the questionnaire and were asked to
discuss any parts of the questionnaire they had found difficult to understand
or complete. They were then asked if they had any guesses about the central
hypothesis of the study, or “what the study was after.” Some of the major find-
ings were then presented, and participants were asked to describe any experi-
ences they had had related to each of these findings, either in keeping with the
findings or in contrast to the findings. Finally, participants were asked to
describe their observations regarding different activities, different activity
settings, and their aftereffects on their children’s symptoms
RESULTS
Does contact with nature assist attentional functioning in children with
ADD? First, we present tests of the central hypotheses, along with relevant
quotes and anecdotes from interviews with parents. Then, we present tests of
several alternative explanations for the central findings.
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 63
TESTING OF CENTRAL HYPOTHESES
Each of the two central hypotheses was tested in multiple ways. Tests of
the first hypothesis involved within subjects comparisons; tests of the second
hypothesis involved between subjects comparisons.
Hypothesis 1. The first hypothesis was that attention deficit symptoms
will be more manageable after activities in green settings than after activities
in other settings. This hypothesis was first tested by examining the activities
nominated by parents as particularly helpful (best) or harmful (worst) for
their children’s attention deficit symptoms: 113 best activities and 106 worst
activities were nominated. If green settings are more attentionally support-
ive, then activities typically conducted in green settings should be
overrepresented among the activit ies nominated as best and
underrepresented among the activities nominated as worst. Indeed, as Table 1
shows, of the 20 Green activities (activities judged by an independent coder
as likely to take place in a relatively natural setting), 17 were nominated as
best, and 3 were nominated as worst (85% vs. 15%). Furthermore, Not Green
activities were overrepresented among the activities nominated as worst
(57%; 43% best). A chi-square confirmed that the likelihood that an activity
would be nominated as best or worst significantly differed for different set-
tings, χ2(2) = 12.74, p < .01. This finding raises the possibility that partici-
pants nominated Green activities as best because they had guessed the central
hypothesis of the study. However, during the focus group, questionnaire par-
ticipants said they had not guessed that the study was about the relationship
between nature and attention.
The first hypothesis was then tested by examining parents’ ratings of their
children’s attention deficit symptoms after participating in various activities
in one of three settings. The mean PAAF rating for all activities was 3.22
(between 3 = same as usual and 4 = better than usual) with a standard devia-
tion of .48. Mean PAAF ratings for specific activities ranged from 2.14, for
homework with others indoors, to 3.80, for riding bike alone in green set-
64 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
TABLE 1
Activities Nominated as Best and Worst for
Attention Deficit Disorder Symptoms, Classified by Likely Setting
Likely Setting Best Worst
Green (e.g., fishing, soccer) 85% (17) 15% (3)
Ambiguous (rollerblading, playing outside) 56% (43) 44% (34)
Not Green (video games, TV) 43% (53) 57% (69)
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are ns for each group.
tings. If nature is supportive of ADD children’s attentional functioning,
activities conducted in green outdoor settings should receive higher PAAF
ratings, on average, than activities conducted in indoor settings or built out-
door settings. In fact, a repeated measures ANOVA indicates that PAAF rat-
ings do differ by setting, F(2, 82) = 15.51, p < .0001 (see Figure 1). Green
activities received a significantly higher PAAF rating on average than indoor
activities, Fishers PLSD d = .30, p < .0001, (M = 3.53 versus 3.22, respec-
tively) and a significantly higher rating than built outdoor activities, Fishers
PLSD d = .28, p < .0001, (M = 3.53 versus 3.24, respectively).
In the comparison of PAAF ratings for indoor versus green outdoor set-
tings reported above, homework was included as one of the indoor activities
because it constitutes an important afterschool and weekend indoor activity.
However, whereas the other activities rated in the survey are truly leisure
activities, homework is not a leisure activity, and is particularly attentionally
demanding. Thus, it seems unfair to compare indoor activities to outdoor
activities with homework included as an indoor activity. Hence, we com-
pared PAAF ratings for indoor versus green outdoor activities, excluding
homework from the analysis. Even with homework excluded, the pattern
held, with green outdoor activities still receiving significantly greater PAAF
scores than indoor activities, Fisher’s PLSD d = .25, p = .0001.
The aftereffects of activities on children’s attention deficit symptoms
were further explored in the focus group. Participants were asked if they had
had any experiences, either positive or negative, related to any aftereffects of
green settings on their child’s attention. One parent said she had recently
begun taking her son to the local park for 30 minutes each morning before
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 65
Figure 1: Mean Postactivity Attentional Functioning Ratings for Indoor, Built
Outdoor, and Green Outdoor Activities
school because the weather was nice, and they “had some time to kill.” She
then said,
Come to think of it, I have noticed his attitude toward going to school has been
better, and his school work has been better this past week. I think it’s because
spending time at the park is pleasurable, peaceful, quiet, calming.
Another parent suggested that his son, although usually struggling against his
attention deficit symptoms, can “hit golf balls with me for 2 hours at a time,”
and “he fishes for hours at a time alone.” This father reported that, after these
activities, his son’s attention deficit symptoms “are minimal,” and “he’s very
relaxed.” “When I read the results of your study, they hit me in the face,” con-
tinued this parent. “I thought, yes I’ve seen this!” (referring to the positive
effects of nature on ADD children’s attentional functioning). In contrast,
none of the focus group participants could report any instances in which
green outdoor activities exacerbated their child’s attention deficit symptoms.
Hypothesis 2. The second central hypothesis in this study was that the
greener the child’s everyday environment, the more manageable their atten-
tion deficit symptoms will be in general. This hypothesis was first tested by
examining the relationship between the greenness of the child’s play setting
during the previous week and the severity of their attention deficit symptoms.
The mean rating of children’s overall severity of symptoms fell between
average and severe (M = 3.53, range = 1-5). Many (39%) were rated as having
average severity of symptoms, whereas half (50%) had symptoms that were
rated as severe or very severe. Most parents reported that their children
played in places with big trees and grass (44%), or indoor places without win-
dows (16%), or places where there is a lot of open grass (13%). If greenness
of play environment affects attentional functioning, then children who play
in greener settings should receive lower severity of symptoms ratings.
Indeed, a regression analysis between horticulture students’ greenness rat-
ings of the play setting categories and parents’ severity of symptoms ratings
revealed a significant positive relationship, R2 = .08, F(1, 91) = 8.18, p < .01.
The greener the child’s play environment during the previous week, the less
severe their symptoms.
Does this relationship hold when children were excluded from the analy-
ses if their play environments during the previous week was atypical of their
usual play environments? Yes, the relationship still held; R2= .06, F(1, 70) =
4.48, p < .05.
To further explore this relationship, Figure 2 shows the mean severity of
ADD symptoms associated with different play settings, excluding the built
66 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
outdoors setting due to the few children in that category. The pattern of means
reinforces the regression findings. In addition, the pattern of means raises the
intriguing possibility that indoor settings with windows may be more sup-
portive than indoor settings without windows and that there are minimal dif-
ferences between open grassy settings and settings that include trees.
This hypothesis was also examined by testing for a relationship between
various measures of residential greenness and the overall severity of symp-
toms. Most children’s residential surroundings (overall greenness) were
rated as being quite green (M = 4.26, on a 5-point scale). Most children had a
large area of grass in their front yard and in their back yard (M = 2.91 and
3.27, respectively, on a 1 to 4-point scale). Children also had large amounts of
tree cover in front and in back of their homes (M = 2.92 and 3.15, respectively,
on a 4-point scale). Based on our second hypothesis, children who live in resi-
dential areas rated as highly green should receive lower overall severity of
symptoms ratings than children who live in less green residential settings.
However, we did not find this to be the case; regression analyses indicate that
measures of overall greenness, grass cover, and tree cover in the front and
back yards were not significantly related to severity of symptoms.2
Given that three measures of nature were found to be related to attention,
why didn’t we find a relationship between residential nature and severity of
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 67
Figure 2: Mean Severity of Attention Deficit Symptoms for Five Play Settings
symptoms? One possible explanation is that the children in this sample do not
gain much exposure to the nature surrounding their homes. It is plausible that
these children do not spend much time in their yards, especially because there
was such a clear, significant relationship between the greenness of where
they played and the severity of their symptoms. The fact that most of the sam-
ple (75%) were boys may explain the nonsignificant relationship between
residential nature and these children’s attentional functioning (severity of
symptoms). Interviews with parents during pretesting, as well as comments
from the focus group, indicate that boys rarely play in their own yards; they
generally choose to play elsewhere.
The effects of extended contact with nature on overall severity of symp-
toms were further explored in the focus group. Parents were asked, “Has any-
one taken your ADD child on a ‘pure’ nature experience, such as camping, hik-
ing, fishing, biking, etc. in a State park, National park, or other natural area? If
so, what happened? Anything memorable?” One parent’s response was “Pure
nature vacations are the only vacations we can take! Theme parks are a night-
mare. Two weeks camping in a pop-up camper is just bliss. We have a great
time. He’s great.”
TESTING OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS
The findings above indicate that there is a relationship between nature and
attentional functioning in children with ADD. This is consistent with
Kaplan’s theory that contact with nature leads to attentional restoration.
Might it be, however, that the correlations reported above were obtained in
the absence of any real relationship between nature and attentional function-
ing? In other words, does the nature-attention relationship exist merely
because both nature activities and attentional functioning are related to some
other, third, factor? In search of a potential third factor, six alternative hypoth-
eses are considered below.
First, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning not
because they are green, but because they are conducted outdoors? If so, we
would expect that green outdoor activities and built outdoor activities to have
average PAAF scores that would not differ significantly. However, a paired t
test examining differences in PAAF scores between green outdoor activities
and built outdoor activities indicates that green activities received signifi-
cantly higher average PAAF scores than built outdoor activities, t(82) = 4.38,
p < .0001 (M = 3.54 versus 3.24, respectively). Not only did built outdoor
activities receive lower PAAF scores than green outdoor activities, but a
paired t test indicates that built outdoor activities’ PAAF scores are not signif-
icantly greater than indoor activities’ PAAF scores, t(82)= .29, p = .77, (M =
68 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
3.24 and 3.24, respectively). Thus, green activities’ relationship to attention
cannot be explained by green activities taking place outdoors.
Second, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning
not because they are green but because they are conducted in a particular
social context, either alone or with one person, or with larger groups? If so,
we would expect that when social context is controlled, the physical environ-
ment in which an activity takes place would have no effect on attention deficit
symptoms. A 2 × 2 (2 physical settings × 2 social contexts) repeated measures
ANOVA indicates that green outdoor activities received higher PAAF scores,
on average, than did indoor activities, F(1, 85) = 44.69, p < .0001, or built out-
door activities, F(1, 72) = 13.04, p < .01. Furthermore, no interaction was
found between physical setting and social setting in either of these analyses.
Thus, the social environment cannot explain the relationship between PAAF
scores and green settings.
Third, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning not
because they are green, but because they are physically active? If so, we
would expect that physically active green outdoor activities would receive
higher PAAF scores than passive green activities. To examine this possibility,
an independent coder coded all the activities as active or passive. For exam-
ple, reading books or magazines and creative activities were coded as pas-
sive, whereas bike, skate or skateboard, explore, climb tree, or play in tree
houses were coded as active. A paired t test indicates no significant difference
between PAAF scores of active and passive activities done in green settings,
t(83) = 1.13, p = .26. Thus, green activities’ relationship to attention cannot
be explained by green activities being either active or passive.
Fourth, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning
not because they are green, but because these activities are qualitatively dif-
ferent from activities done in other settings? Could it be that the activities we
selected to measure PAAF for green outdoor settings happen to be uniquely
supportive of attentional functioning whereas the activities selected for the
indoor and built outdoor settings are uniquely unsupportive of attentional
functioning, thus making the differences found not due to setting but due to
the activities themselves. If so, we would expect that we would not find set-
ting differences when comparing PAAF ratings for a single set of activities
after a child does the activities in each of the three settings. The activities
matched across setting were creative activities (art, music, models, Legos,
collections, etc.), pretending (house, action figures, Power Rangers, etc.),
and organized sports. A repeated measures ANOVA comparing three differ-
ent physical settings and controlling for two social settings indicates that
attentional functioning differs systematically by physical setting, F(2, 62) =
3.06, p = .05. Moreover, paired comparisons indicated that the same
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 69
activities, when conducted in green outdoor settings, were associated with
better attentional functioning than when they were conducted in either built
outdoor settings or indoor settings, F(1, 63) = 6.17, p < .05, and F(1, 81) =
4.14, p = .05, respectively). Thus, the differences in attentional functioning
between green activities and activities conducted in other settings seem to be
due to setting rather than activity.
Fifth, could it be that green activities enhance attentional functioning not
because they are green but because they are preferred? If this is the case, then
preferred activities should be attentionally supportive. Consistent with this
idea, attentionally supportive activities were indeed preferred; a t test indi-
cated that the mean preference rating for activities nominated as attentionally
best for ADD children was significantly greater than 3.0 (a neutral preference
rating), t(62) = 29.70, p < .0001 (M = 4.70). However, preferred activities
were also nominated as attentionally worst for ADD children, t(64) = 3.03,
p < .01 (M = 3.45). Thus, worst activities were preferred as well as best activi-
ties. Both means are more positive than neutral. Thus, preference does not
appear to be responsible for making an activity attentionally supportive, and
the relationship between green activities and attention cannot be explained
by green activities being preferred.
Finally, could it be that some activities are more supportive of attentional
functioning because they coincide with medicated periods? Although our
data do not permit a direct test of this possibility, we can test for a relationship
between medication effects and activities nominated as best and worst. If medi-
cation effects are related to activities being nominated as attentionally sup-
portive, then we would expect best activities to have been conducted while a
child was medicated and worst activities to have been conducted while a child
was unmedicated. However, parents’ reports indicate that most activities
(64%) nominated as best occur while medications are no longer effective (the
dose has worn off). Conversely, 54% of activities nominated as worst occur
while medications are still effective. Thus, the relationship between green
activities and attention cannot be explained by green activities coinciding
with medicated periods.
These analyses indicate that of the six alternative explanations tested, none
could explain the nature-attention relationship found.
DISCUSSION
Does nature support attentional functioning in children with ADDs? Sev-
eral analyses suggest that contact with nature is systematically related to less-
70 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
ened attention deficit symptoms. Activities nominated as helpful in reducing
attention deficit symptoms were disproportionately likely to take place in
green outdoor settings. Conversely, activities nominated as exacerbating
symptoms were disproportionately likely to take place in non-green outdoor
settings. Parent ratings of PAAF were also systematically higher, on average,
for activities conducted in green outdoor settings than for activities con-
ducted in either built outdoor or indoor settings. Although the greenness of a
child’s residential setting was unrelated to the severity of their ADD symp-
toms, the greenness of their play setting was related to symptom severity;
ADD symptoms were milder for those children with greener play settings.
Children who played in windowless indoor settings had significantly more
severe symptoms than children who played in grassy outdoor spaces with or
without trees did.
Multiple alternative explanations for these findings were tested. The rela-
tionship between nature and attention could not be explained by confounds
between contact with nature and any of the following factors: being outdoors,
social environment, amount of physical activity, types of activity, preference
for nature, or timing of medication.
Although these findings are based on correlational data, the design of this
study provides more support for a causal interpretation than is typical for
correlational work. First, most correlational work gives no confidence in the
temporal order of the relationship found, establishing only that A is related to
B. This study not only establishes a strong nature-attention relationship, it
also suggests a direction to that relationship. Because this study specifically
focuses on attentional functioning after activities, it seems more plausible
that participation in green activities causes improved attentional functioning
than that improved attentional functioning causes participation in green
activities. Remember that parents had the option of indicating that their
child’s attentional functioning was the same as usual, if indeed the child did
not improve after the activities. Second, most correlational work involves
between-subjects comparisons, in which individual differences may account
for the findings. This study establishes a strong nature-attention relationship
within subjects. We found that green activities are associated with better
attentional functioning within the same individual. Such within-individual
fluctuations in attentional functioning cannot be accounted for by
between-individual differences such as intelligence or wealth. Moreover, the
combination of between- and within-subjects comparisons in this study over-
comes the limitations of a within-subjects comparison alone. For example,
parents might rate their child as functioning better attentionally after activi-
ties in green settings simply because they believe spending time in green set-
tings is good for children. This would explain the within-subjects findings
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 71
but not the between-subjects findings. Thus, although definitive evidence of a
causal relationship awaits a true experiment, we believe the current findings
strongly merit a causal interpretation.
GENERALIZABILITY
Before we discuss the contributions and implications of these findings, a
few cautions regarding their generalizability are in order. The sample used
here, although relatively representative of the general population of ADD
children, does have some potential limitations. The children in this sample
were perceived by their parents to have relatively severe attention deficit
symptoms. Also, the families were relatively wealthy, with 63% earning an
annual household income of $50,000 or more. And the majority of this sam-
ple lived in relatively green residential areas. Thus, the findings may not gen-
eralize to children with milder symptoms, who have families with lower
incomes, or who live in relatively barren residential surroundings.
In addition, the location and timing of the data collection may pose some
limitations regarding generalizability. The data were collected from a limited
geographic region, the midwestern United States. Thus, the question arises,
do these findings apply to children living in regions without green trees and
grass? For example, children in desert settings may not receive the same ben-
efits from contact with nearby natural outdoor settings. Furthermore, this
study was conducted within a short period of time during a single season,
autumn. Is the nature-attention relationship still as strong during the summer
months, when children have fewer attentional demands (i.e., no school-
work)? Is the nature-attention relationship as strong during the winter
months, when there is very little green vegetation available?
CONTRIBUTIONS
This work contributes to the research on nature and attention in three
ways. The work here extends Attention Restoration Theory, expands the lit-
erature concerning children and nature, and provides a potential new method-
ology for studying directed attention in children.
This study extends Attention Restoration Theory to a new population, pro-
viding evidence that the theory may apply to children. Whereas Attention
Restoration Theory suggests that nature supports directed attention function-
ing in all humans, previous research has only provided evidence that the the-
ory applies to adults (Canin, 1991; Cimprich, 1990; Hartig et al., 1991; Kuo,
in press; Lohr et al., 1996; Miles et al., 1998; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995).
This study is the first to indicate that the theory applies to at least a subpopu-
72 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
lation of children, children with ADD. Thus, there is now evidence that
Attention Restoration Theory applies to both adults with normal attentional
functioning and children whose attentional functioning is compromised.
Together, these findings provide some indication that the nature-attention
relationship may apply to all children.
This study also extends the literature on the benefits of nature for children.
The previous literature has provided some evidence that green spaces foster
play and—of particular importance—creative play (Kirkby, 1989; Moore, 1989;
Taylor et al., 1998). In addition, previous investigators have suggested that
contact with nature supports children’s general well-being by providing chil-
dren with privacy and mental and sensory stimulation (Heseltine, 1987; Jansson,
1984; Miller, 1972; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994; Senda, 1992; Striniste & Moore,
1989). To date, however, no studies have examined the effects of contact with
nature on children’s attentional functioning. Trancik and Evans (1995) did
speculate that, for preschoolers, the stress of the new school environment
might cause attentional fatigue and that, therefore, preschoolers might bene-
fit from opportunities to play in green settings. The findings here suggest that
Trancik and Evans’s ideas are worth testing.
Finally, this study provides a potential new methodology for studying
directed attention in children. The consistent and statistically significant dif-
ferences between different activities found here suggest that parents are able
to systematically assess the aftereffects of activities on their children’s
attentional functioning and can estimate the magnitude of these effects on a
Likert-type scale. Furthermore, it appears that most parents are able to nomi-
nate activities that have especially positive and negative effects on their
child’s attention. Future research should assess the reliability and concurrent
validity of these measures.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The findings here have a number of implications for practice and future
research. For children with ADD and their parents, these findings have a clear
and inexpensive implication: Children with ADD can support their
attentional functioning and minimize their symptoms simply by spending
time in green settings. More specifically, children with ADD might use these
findings in the following ways. First, before engaging in attentionally
demanding tasks such as schoolwork and homework, ADD children might
maximize their attentional capacity by spending time in green settings. Sec-
ond, ADD children might reduce the overall severity of their symptoms by
spending time in green settings on a daily basis. According to parents in the
focus group, children with ADD who engage in green activities function
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 73
better both during the activity and for some time afterward. It is worth noting
that children with ADD can follow these recommendations at little or no
financial cost by using public and private green areas.
The findings of this study have implications for the design of children’s
environments such as school yards. Given that maximal attentional function-
ing is necessary for optimal academic performance, one implication of these
findings is that green schoolyards could play an important role in children’s
academic pursuits. For example, recess may be more than just a time for
releasing physical energy but also an important time for restoring attention.
Children with ADD, and possibly all children, may perform better through-
out the school day if given breaks in a green environment. In addition, per-
haps something as simple as a view out the classroom window onto a green
space may be providing children with much needed rest of their directed
attention.
The findings of this study also have a number of implications for future
research. Future research might replicate these findings both in similar set-
tings (children’s afterschool and weekend play environments), with other
populations (e.g., ADD children in the southwest United States, non-ADD
children), and in other settings. For example, do children who attend schools
with particularly green school yards function better attentionally throughout
the day than children who attend less green schools? Does the physical set-
ting of summer camp affect ADD children’s attention deficit symptoms? Per-
haps, summer camps in natural settings (e.g., camping in a state park) are
more beneficial for children with ADD than indoor summer camps (e.g.,
indoor sports camps or arts camps). Furthermore, future research might
explore which specific elements of green settings are crucial in supporting
attentional functioning.
Future research might also explore the temporal characteristics of the
nature-attention relationship. In this study, we examined functioning imme-
diately after participation in green activities but did not measure the duration
of the activities or the duration of the effects. Is it necessary to spend some
minimum amount of time in nature-related activities to experience the restor-
ative benefits of nature? For children with ADD, how does a 10-minute walk
in the park compare to a 30-minute walk in the park in terms of restoring
attentional functioning? Kuo (in press) has proposed that future research
should determine the shape of the dose response curve for nature and atten-
tion. For example, perhaps attentional functioning increases with increasing
exposure to nature only up to a point, after which the benefits level out and
additional exposure to nature produces little additional benefit. Another issue
that deserves investigation concerns the duration of the effects. How long do
74 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
they last? Do the effects degrade in a linear fashion or do they degrade
suddenly?
This study has shown that nature may support attentional functioning in
children with ADD. These finding have tremendous implications for a large
number of children (more than 2 million in the United States alone) strug-
gling day-in and day-out with attention deficit symptoms. These children and
their families could potentially benefit from something as simple as spending
time in green areas. In addition, these findings hold potential value for chil-
dren who do not have ADD. Optimal levels of attentional functioning are
essential for all children so that they maximize learning and achievement in
school. Thus, all children’s attentional functioning may benefit from some-
thing as inexpensive and direct as incorporating vegetation into places where
children live, learn, and play.
NOTES
1. The acronym ADD will be used throughout this article because this research theoretically
hinges on children’s attention deficits. However, the information also applies to ADHD, as
ADHD is a broader diagnostic term under which a child can be diagnosed as predominantly inat-
tentive (attention deficit), or inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive (American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation, 1994).
2. It is striking that in spite of a small n and thus low power for analysis, girls’ severity of
symptoms were significantly related to several measures of residential greenness.
REFERENCES
Alessandri, S. M. (1992). Attention, play, and social behavior in ADHD preschoolers. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(3), 263-288.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-
ders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and
treatment. New York: Guilford.
Barkley, R. A. (1995). Taking Charge of ADHD. New York: Guilford.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Con-
structing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 65-94.
Barkley, R. A. (1998, September). ADHD in children and adolescents: Theory, diagnosis, and
management. Paper presented at the Developing Child XIX Conference, Champaign, IL.
Barkley, R. A., Anastopoulos, A. D., Guevremont, D. C., & Fletcher, K. E. (1992). Adolescents
with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Mother-adolescent interactions, family
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 75
beliefs and conflicts, and maternal psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
ogy, 20(3), 263-288.
Bender, W. N. (1997). Understanding ADHD: A practical guide for teachers and parents. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berk, L. E. (1994). Child development (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Canin, L. H. (1991). Psychological restoration among AIDS caregivers: Maintaining self-care.
Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Cimprich, B. (1990). Attentional fatigue and restoration in individuals with cancer. Unpub-
lished dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John
Wiley.
Douglas, V. I. (1972). Stop, look, and listen: The problem of sustained attention and impulse
control in hyperactive and normal children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 4(4),
259-282.
Fiore, T. A., Becker, E. A., & Nero, R. C. (1993). Interventions for students with attention defi-
cits. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 163-173.
Foster, J. K., Eskes, G. A., & Stuss, D. T. (1994). The cognitive neuropsychology of attention: A
frontal lobe perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(2), 133-147.
Glosser, G., & Goodglass, H. (1990). Disorders in executive control functions among aphasic
and other brain damaged patients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
12, 485-501.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experi-
ences. Environment & Behavior, 23(1), 3-26.
Heseltine, P. a. J. H. (1987). Playgrounds: The planning, design, and construction of play envi-
ronments. London: Mitchell.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1994). Attention deficits and hyperactivity in children (Vol. 29). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hynd, G. W., Semrud-Clikeman, M., Lorys, A. R., Novey, E. S., & Eliopulos, D. (1990). Brain
morphology in developmental dyslexia and attention deficit disorder/hyperactivity. Archives
of Neurology, 47, 919-926.
James, W. (1962). Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Collier Books. (Original work
published 1892)
Jansson, B. (1984). Children’s play and nature in an urban environment. New York: Peter Lang.
Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman & J. Wohlwill (Eds.),
Behavior and The natural environment (pp. 127-161). New York: Plenum.
Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment & Behavior, 5(2),
145-161.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983) Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. Human
Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 163-203.
Kirkby, M. (1989). Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environment Quar-
terly, 6(1, spring), 7-12.
Kuo, F. E. (in press). Effective life functioning in the inner city: Impacts of environment and
attention. Environment & Behavior.
Lohr, V., Pearson-Mims, C., & Goodwin, G. (1996). Interior plants may improve worker produc-
tivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. Journal of Environmental Horticul-
ture, 14(2), 97-100.
76 ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2001
Mackworth, J. F. (1976). Development of attention. In V. Hamilton & M. Vernon (Eds.), The
development of cognitive process (pp. 111-152). London: Academic Press.
Miles, I., Sullivan, W., & Kuo, F. (1998). Ecological restoration volunteers: The benefits of par-
ticipation. Urban Ecosystems, 2, 27-41.
Miller, P. L. (1972). Creative outdoor play areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moore, R. C. (1986). The power of nature orientations of girls and boys toward biotic and abiotic
play settings on a reconstructed schoolyard. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 3(3),
52-69.
Moore, R. C. (1989). Plants as play props. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6(1), 3-6.
Nabhan, G. P., & Trimble, S. (1994). The geography of childhood: Why children need wild
places. Boston: Beacon.
National Institute of Mental Health. (1994). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (No.
94-3572). Washington, DC: Author.
Ovitt, M. (1996). The effect of a view of nature on performance and stress reduction of ICU
nurses. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Senda, M. (1992). Design of children’s play environments. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shaffer, D. R. (1985). Developmental psychology: Theory, research, and applications.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Shue, K. L., & Douglas, V. I. (1992). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and the frontal
lobe syndrome. Brain and Cognition, 20, 104-124.
Striniste, N. A., & Moore, R. C. (1989). Early childhood outdoors: A literature review related to
the design of childcare environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6(4), 25-31.
Swanson, J., McBurnett, K., Wigal, T., Pfiffner, L. J., Lerner, M. C., WIlliams, L., Christian, D.
L., Tamm, L., Willcutt, E., Crowley, K., Clevenger, W., Khouzam, N., Woo, C., Crinella, F.
M., & Fisher, T. D. (1993). Effect of stimulant medication on children with Attention Deficit
Disorder: A review of reviews. Exceptional Children, 60(2), 154-162.
Szatmari, P., Offord, D. R., & Boyle, M. H. (1989). Ontario Child Health Study: Prevalence of
attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. Journal Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30,
219-230.
Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green
spaces as places to grow. Environment & Behavior, 30(1), 3-27.
Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology, 15(1), 77-85.
Trancik, A. M., & Evans, G. W. (1995). Spaces fit for children: Competency in design of daycare
center environments. Children’s Environments, 12(3), 311-319.
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environ-
ment & Behavior, 13(5), 523-556.
Taylor et al. / COPING WITH ADD 77
������ ��� ��� ������� ��������
Trees can improve the environment by
• benefitting human health
• affecting air quality
• providing shade and humidity
• having aesthetic qualities
• increasing biodiversity
• creating a sense of community
• increasing property prices
People plant trees forso many reasons that itis not possible to pro-duce a scoring systemthat considers all thefactors. Here, we focuson the ability of urbantrees to improve airquality. Some trees arebetter than others atdoing this.
To do this, we have developed an Urban Tree Air Quality Score (UTAQS), using theWest Midlands as a typical urban region in Great Britain. This pamphlet describes• the way trees affect air quality• the system we have developed to test the ability of trees to influence air quality• the final tree ranking or UTAQS.
We hope urban planners and policy makers will consider the effects trees can haveon air quality and that UTAQS will be a useful tool for them.
But they can also damage property and requiremaintenance. Trees are all different. It wouldtherefore be useful to have a system that canshow which tree species are best and which arebad for the urban environment.
�
You don’t have to be a tree surgeon to appreciate the value of urban trees. Theyaffect our lives in more ways than we realise. Did you know that patients recovermore quickly from major surgery if they can see trees from their hospital bed?
Most people assume that trees only benefit air quality. In fact, some treespecies can have a negative effect and actually help to form pollutants inthe atmosphere.
The removal of pollutants by trees is a local effect, whereas the formationof pollutants from compounds emitted by trees happens downwind of thetrees themselves. To generate an Urban Tree Air Quality Score, we need toweigh the local benefits against the remote costs. In order to do this, wehave used a case study, and this is described in the rest of the brochure.
Trees can remove pol-lutants, especially ozone,nitrogen dioxide, and
particles) from the air whichmakes the atmosphere cleaner.Trees also remove carbon diox-ide from the atmosphere but wetreat this separately on page 9.Carbon dioxide is a greenhousegas which is having effects onthe earth’s climate.
Trees can emit gasesknown as volatileorganic compounds
(VOCs). These are what you cansmell in forests. VOCs, in combi-nation with the man-made oxidesof nitrogen (NOx), can contributeto the production of other pollut-ants, especially ozone and parti-cles, which damage human healthwhen in the lower atmosphere.
������ ����� ������� � �����
�
We surveyed 32,000 ran-domly chosen trees in theWest Midlands in 1999, re-cording tree age, condition,height and trunk diameter.The survey process is de-scribed on the right.
Using these results, we wereable to predict the tree popula-tion of each urban land class and hence the species composition and size ofthe whole West Midlands tree population. The pie chart shows the compositionof species in the West Midlands and the table shows the number of trees ineach land class and in the West Midlands conurbation as a whole.
�� ����� �����
������� ���� �� ������ �� ���������� ����
The West Midlands urban area is 900 km2 insize. We divided it into eight different urbanland classes using maps of land cover in thearea. Each km2 belongs to one of the eightclasses as shown on the left. The descriptionsof the land classes give a general idea of thedominant land cover in the class, but don’tmean that the whole km2 is covered with thatland cover type. For example, on average only42% of woodland (land class 8) is actually cov-ered with woodland.
� �� �� �������������
�
We calculated leaf area, foliar biomass and stored carbon from the tree size datacollected in the West Midlands survey for each land class and scaled the leaf at-tributes monthly to account for the growth cycle of deciduous trees. These maps showthe distributions of these attributes in the West Midlands during the month of August.
The emissions of volatile organic compounds that would take place at a temperatureof 30oC in bright sunlight were calculated by multiplying the foliar biomass of eachtree species by the relevent emission potential for each species, found atwww.es.lancs.ac.uk/cnhgroup/iso-emissions.pdf. Isoprene and the monoterpene familyare the most important naturallyemitted VOCs so the assignmentwas limited to these compounds.Summing the EPs for each landclass gives the isoprene andmonoterpene emission distribu-tions shown here.
����������� �� ������� ��������� ����� ������ �� ������� �����
�� �������� �� ������� � ���� ����� �� !
"��������� ����������� ����� ������# !
The proportions of grass, water, trees andbuilt-up land in each land class are unique.Each surface has a unique capacity to cap-ture chemical species (i.e. has a unique depo-sition potential). The DPs of five chemicalcompounds important to urban air quality(ozone, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitric
acid and carbon monoxide) were weighted in proportion to the land cover areas togenerate land class DPs. This map shows the distribution of ozone DP in the WestMidlands in August, the highest values being in the most vegetated areas.
�
Leaf ea (km2/km2)<1
22 - 3
44 - 6
Stored carbon (t/km2)
0
70 24024 639
640 - 8 289 24 9
���������� ���� ��� �������������� ����� �� �������
CiTTyCAT (the Cambridge Tropospheric Trajectory model of Chemistry and Trans-port) is a computer model that simulates the chemistry of the lowest part of theatmosphere by picking up emissions, performing chemical reactions and deposit-ing some of the products of the reactions at the earth’s surface. The diagram belowshows the way CiTTyCAT works.
We used CiTTyCAT to simulate atmospheric chemistry over the current West Mid-lands tree population for a five-day period. This gives the model enough time for thechemistry to reach a steady daily cycle. We then tested the effects of planting differ-ent tree species on the air quality in the region. We selected the 30 most commontree species in the West Midlands, making up 90% of the total population, andadded 20% more trees of each of the 30 species in turn to the existing population.We recalculated the biomass and leaf area of each land class for each new treepopulation, and then calculated new emission and deposition potentials.
Finally, we ran the CiTTyCAT model for five days for each scenario and simulatedair quality in the West Midlands with each of the different tree populations.
�
������ ����� ��� ������ �����
* The air quality standard for ozone in the UK is an 8-hour running mean of 50 ppb not to be
exceeded on more than 10 days in one year. This is set as part of the government’s National Air
Quality Strategy. Details are found at www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/index.html.�
���� �����
To rank the ability of the different tree species to affect air quality, we compared theconcentrations of pollutants with each new tree population against those producedby the current one. We used a simple equation that takes into account the effect ofchanging tree species on pollutant forma-tion and deposition, using ozone to repre-sent all the relevant pollutants. The changein ozone concentration with each tree popu-lation was compared to the air quality stand-ard for ozone* to estimate the significanceof the change.
We grouped the tree species according totheir effect on air quality. They are grouped below as
• trees that have the greatest capacity to improve air quality
• trees that have a smaller capacity to improve air quality
• trees that have the potential to worsen air quality.
����������� ���� ������� �� ����������� �����
�
To try to answer some of these questions, we measured the long-term (50year) average deposition rate of airborne particles in urban air, such as thoseemitted by cars, on woodland, grassland and other short vegetation in the WestMidlands conurbation. We did this by measuring the amount of naturally occur-ring radioactive compounds, found as particles in the atmosphere and soils,and then worked out the effect of trees on the rates of pollutant deposition.
Trees are popularly believed to remove pollution from the atmosphere, remov-ing both gases and particles. However, this idea has developed largely withoutcareful measurements in real-life conditions to show
a) how large the effect is,b) what processes control it andc) how it might be exploited to improve air quality in urban areas.
The measurements show that
��� ���� ������ ��� � ������� ��� ������� ���
�� mature, mixed woodland cap-tures airborne particles at approxi-mately three times the rate ofgrassland.
� trees on the edge of woodland aremore effective at capturing airborneparticles than the trees in the centreof the wood because they have largerleaf areas and are exposed to thewind.
�
In our tree survey of West Midlands, the area of land in each sampled hectarethat was potentially available for tree-planting in the future was noted. This wasused to caluate a land class average ‘future planting potential’ area, or FPP.We used the computer models to plant the FPP areas with ‘instant’ maturewoodland, and then calculated the change in atmospheric concentration ofPM10 (particles smaller than about 10 �m aerodynamic diameter)*. There werereductions in PM10 concentration with each scenario as shown below.
We wanted to see the effect of various tree-planting schemes on the deposi-tion of pollutants in the West Midlands so once again we used computer mod-els that simulate atmospheric dispersion, transport and deposition.
The main concern over airborne particles in cities is their effect on humanhealth. A number of epidemiological studies have shown that a rise in PM10
concentrations of 10 �g m-3 (as a 24 hour average) is associated with an in-crease in mortality of 1%. The reduction in PM10 concentrations which wouldresult from future tree planting would therefore be beneficial to human health.Quantifying this benefit is more difficult. However, using these health statisticsand our predictions of the effects of tree planting on urban air quality, we esti-mate that doubling the number of trees in the West Midlands could reduceexcess deaths due to particles in the air by up to 140 per year.
��� �������� �� ���������
��� ��� �� �� ��
*We used PM10 because the Government’s air quality standard for particles (50 �g m-3
as a 24 hour running mean) is based on this definition of size. These particles are be-lieved to be small enough to reach the lungs.
�
��������� ����� ������
The total amount of carbon stored in the West Midlands tree population is equiva-lent to only 6% of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere from the WestMidlands in a single year. In other words, all the trees in the West Midlands hold theequivalent of three weeks worth of emissions of CO2 from the conurbation. Giventhe relatively small amount of carbon stored in the trees, we have not includedcarbon storage (sequestration) in our tree score. However, we have grouped thethirty species considered in our score into those that have high, medium or lowgrowth rates, i.e. carbon sequestration rates, so that this factor can be consideredwhen developing planting schemes.
We calculated the total amount ofcarbon stored by each tree spe-cies in the West Midlands. The topten carbon storing species areshown on the right. By far the mostimportant is the English oak(Quercus robur) with 36% of thetotal stored carbon because thesetrees are so big. However, it is slowgrowing so it has taken longer toaccumulate it s carbon than someof the other species listed.
�������������������� ������������� �������� �
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������
*In all of this, we have not considered the effect trees have on the storage of carbon in soils
(soils are a major store of carbon).
������
Trees are an integral part of the urban environment, affecting communitiesecologically, socially, economically and physically and they benefit human health.We have looked at the effects of trees on air quality, trying to answer two ques-tions:
1. Which trees are the best to plant to sustain and improve air quality?
2. How big is the effect trees have on urban air quality?
Trees remove airborne pollutantsat three times the rate of grassland.Trees at the edge of woodland aremore effective at removing atmos-pheric pollutants than trees in thecentre of woodland. This is due toboth larger leaf areas and greaterexposure to the wind. By plantingtrees in all possible sites in theWest Midlands (doubling thenumber of trees), the concentrationof small particles could be reducedby 25%. This could lead to a re-duction of 140 deaths caused byairborne particles each year in theWest Midlands.
������ ���� �� � ���
Trees that don t emit the most reac-tive volatile organic compounds(VOCs), but do have large leaf sur-face areas have the best effect onair quality. Scots pine, common al-der, larch, Norway maple, field ma-ple, ash and silver birch remove themost pollutants without contributingto the formation of new pollutants.Oaks, poplars and willows can havedetrimental effects on air qualitydownwind, so care needs to betaken when planting these speciesin very large numbers. Overall, theeffects on air quality of very largescale planting of almost all tree spe-cies in cities would be positive.
��
������������� ����������
����������� ��� �������������� �������
��������� ��� �������������� ���� �������� �������
� �������� !�������"
� �������
� #$� %&'�!(
)��*�+%%�$,-%�,././$
0�1*�+%%�$,-%�,./.2,
���� ���3��������������
0��� �������� ������4� ������ �������
5����� ����� �� ���
)��� ������ �� ��������� �"� ����� ��� ���4� ���
6 ��4� 7��� �������4� 7��� 8��(��9��� :� ����
�� ���� ��� �������� !�������"�����!��� ������:� ������
0� ���� ���;��� ����������� )��� �������� �� ������
�"� ���� �������� ������������ 7�������;������<� !�=
���� 7������������ ���� ���� ������������ >!7?��)@
���������� >������ ?�)AB-A--/C@�
1
THE EFFECTS OF URBAN TREES ON AIR QUALITY
David J. Nowak
USDA Forest Service, Syracuse, NY
Urban vegetation can directly and indirectly affect local and regional air quality by altering the
urban atmospheric environment. The four main ways that urban trees affect air quality area:
Temperature reduction and other microclimatic effects
Removal of air pollutants
Emission of volatile organic compounds and tree maintenance emissions
Energy effects on buildings
Temperature Reduction: Tree transpiration and tree canopies affect air temperature, radiation
absorption and heat storage, wind speed, relative humidity, turbulence, surface albedo, surface
roughness and consequently the evolution of the mixing-layer height. These changes in local
meteorology can alter pollution concentrations in urban areasb. Although trees usually contribute
to cooler summer air temperatures, their presence can increase air temperatures in some
instancesc. In areas with scattered tree canopies, radiation can reach and heat ground surfaces; at
the same time, the canopy may reduce atmospheric mixing such that cooler air is prevented from
reaching the area. In this case, tree shade and transpiration may not compensate for the increased
air temperatures due to reduced mixingd. Maximum mid-day air temperature reductions due to
trees are in the range of 0.04oC to 0.2oC per percent canopy cover increasee. Below individual
and small groups of trees over grass, mid-day air temperatures at 1.5 m above ground are 0.7oC
to 1.3oC cooler than in an open areaf. Reduced air temperature due to trees can improve air
quality because the emission of many pollutants and/or ozone-forming chemicals are temperature
dependent. Decreased air temperature can also reduce ozone formation.
Removal of Air Pollutants: Trees remove gaseous air pollution primarily by uptake via leaf
stomata, though some gases are removed by the plant surface. Once inside the leaf, gases diffuse
into intercellular spaces and may be absorbed by water films to form acids or react with inner-leaf
surfacesg. Trees also remove pollution by intercepting airborne particles. Some particles can be
absorbed into the tree, though most particles that are intercepted are retained on the plant surface.
The intercepted particle often is resuspended to the atmosphere, washed off by rain, or dropped to
the ground with leaf and twig fallg. Consequently, vegetation is only a temporary retention site for
many atmospheric particles.
In 1994, trees in New York City removed an estimated 1,821 metric tons of air pollution at an
estimated value to society of $9.5 million. Air pollution removal by urban forests in New York
was greater than in Atlanta (1,196 t; $6.5 million) and Baltimore (499 t; $2.7 million), but
pollution removal per m2 of canopy cover was fairly similar among these cities (New York: 13.7
g/m2/yr; Baltimore: 12.2 g/m2/yr; Atlanta: 10.6 g/m2/yr)h. These standardized pollution removal
rates differ among cities according to the amount of air pollution, length of in-leaf season,
precipitation, and other meteorological variables. Large healthy trees greater than 77 cm in
diameter remove approximately 70 times more air pollution annually (1.4 kg/yr) than small healthy
trees less than 8 cm in diameter (0.02 kg/yr)k.
Air quality improvement in New York City due to pollution removal by trees during daytime
of the in-leaf season averaged 0.47% for particulate matter, 0.45% for ozone, 0.43% for sulfur
dioxide, 0.30% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.002% for carbon monoxide. Air quality improves with
2
increased percent tree cover and decreased mixing-layer heights. In urban areas with 100% tree
cover (i.e., contiguous forest stands), short-term improvements in air quality (one hour) from
pollution removal by trees were as high as 15% for ozone, 14% for sulfur dioxide, 13% for
particulate matter, 8% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.05% for carbon monoxideh.
Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Emissions of volatile organic compounds by
trees can contribute to the formation of ozone and carbon monoxide. However, in atmospheres
with low nitrogen oxide concentrations (e.g., some rural environments), VOCs may actually
remove ozonei,j
. Because VOC emissions are temperature dependent and trees generally lower air
temperatures, increased tree cover can lower overall VOC emissions and, consequently, ozone
levels in urban areasl.
VOC emission rates also vary by species. Nine genera that have the highest standardized
isoprene emission ratem,n
, and therefore the greatest relative effect among genera on increasing
ozone, are: beefwood (Casuarina spp.), Eucalyptus spp., sweetgum (Liquidambar spp.), black
gum (Nyssa spp.), sycamore (Platanus spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), black
locust (Robinia spp.), and willow (Salix spp.). However, due to the high degree of uncertainty in
atmospheric modeling, results are currently inconclusive as to whether these genera will
contribute to an overall net formation of ozone in cities (i.e., ozone formation from VOC
emissions are greater than ozone removal). Some common genera in Brooklyn, NY, with the
greatest relative effect on lowering ozone were mulberry (Morus spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.),
linden (Tilia spp.) and honey locust (Gleditsia sp.)n.
Because urban trees often receive relatively large inputs of energy, primarily from fossil fuels,
to maintain vegetation structure, the emissions from these maintenance activities need to be
considered in determining the ultimate net effect of urban forests on air quality. Various types of
equipment are used to plant, maintain, and remove vegetation in cities. These equipment include
various vehicles for transport or maintenance, chain saws, back hoes, leaf blowers, chippers, and
shredders. The use and combustion of fossil fuels to power this equipment leads to the emission of
carbon dioxide (approximately 0.7 kg/l of gasoline, including manufacturing emissionso) and other
chemicals such as VOCs, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, and particulate matterp.
Trees in parking lots can also affect evaporative emissions from vehicles, particularly through
tree shade. Increasing parking lot tree cover from 8% to 50% could reduce Sacramento County,
CA, light duty vehicle VOC evaporative emission rates by 2% and nitrogen oxide start emissions
by less than 1%q.
Energy Effects on Buildings: Trees reduce building energy use by lowering temperatures and
shading buildings during the summer, and blocking winds in winterr. However, they also can
increase energy use by shading buildings in winter, and may increase or decrease energy use by
blocking summer breezes. Thus, proper tree placement near buildings is critical to achieve
maximum building energy conservation benefits.
When building energy use is lowered, pollutant emissions from power plants are also lowered.
While lower pollutant emissions generally improve air quality, lower nitrogen oxide emissions,
particularly ground-level emissions, may lead to a local increase in ozone concentrations under
certain conditions due to nitrogen oxide scavenging of ozones. The cumulative and interactive
effects of trees on meteorology, pollution removal, and VOC and power plant emissions
determine the overall impact of trees on air pollution.
3
Combined Effects: Changes in urban microclimate can affect pollution emission and formation,
particularly the formation of ozone. A model simulation of a 20 percent loss in the Atlanta area
forest due to urbanization led to a 14 percent increase in ozone concentrations for a modeled dayl.
Although there were fewer trees to emit VOCs, an increase in Atlanta’s air temperatures due to
the urban heat island, which occurred concomitantly with tree loss, increased VOC emissions
from the remaining trees and anthropogenic sources, and altered ozone chemistry such that
concentrations of ozone increased.
A model simulation of California’s South Coast Air Basin suggests that the air quality impacts
of increased urban tree cover may be locally positive or negative with respect to ozone. The net
basin-wide effect of increased urban vegetation is a decrease in ozone concentrations if the
additional trees are low VOC emitterst.
Modeling the effects of increased urban tree cover on ozone concentrations from Washington,
DC to central Massachusetts reveals that urban trees generally reduce ozone concentrations in
cities, but tend to slightly increase average ozone concentrations in the overall modeling domain.
Interactions of the effects of trees on the physical and chemical environment demonstrate that
trees can cause changes in pollution removal rates and meteorology, particularly air temperatures,
wind fields, and mixing-layer heights, which, in turn, affect ozone concentrationsu.
Urban Forest Management: Urban forest management strategies to help improve air quality
includev:
• Increase the number of healthy trees (increases pollution removal).
• Sustain existing tree cover (maintains pollution removal levels).
• Maximize use of low VOC emitting trees (reduces ozone and carbon monoxide formation).
• Sustain large, healthy trees (large trees have greatest per tree effects).
• Use long-lived trees (reduces long-term pollutant emissions from planting and removal).
• Use low maintenance trees (reduces pollutants emissions from maintenance activities).
• Reduce fossil fuel use in maintaining vegetation (reduces pollutant emissions).
• Plant trees in energy conserving locations (reduces pollutant emissions from power plants).
• Plant trees to shade parked cars (reduces vehicular VOC emissions).
• Supply ample water to vegetation (enhances pollution removal and temperature reduction).
• Plant trees in polluted areas or heavily populated areas (maximizes tree air quality benefits).
• Avoid pollutant sensitive species (increases tree health).
• Utilize evergreen trees for particulate matter reduction (year-round removal of particles).
4
aNowak, D.J.. 1995. Trees pollute? A “TREE” explains it all, in: Proc. 7th Natl. Urban For. Conf., (C. Kollin and
M. Barratt, eds.), American Forests, Washington, DC, pp. 28-30.bNowak, D.J., McHale P.J., Ibarra, M., Crane, D., Stevens, J., and Luley, C. 1998. Modeling the effects of urban
vegetation on air pollution, In: Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XII. (S. Gryning amd N.
Chaumerliac, eds.) Plenum Press, New York, pp. 399-407.cMyrup, L.O., McGinn, C.E., and Flocchini, R.G. 1991. An analysis of microclimate variation in a suburban
environment, in: Seventh Conference of Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA,
pp. 172-179.dHeisler, G. M., Grant, R. H., Grimmond, S., and Souch, C. 1995. Urban forests--cooling our communities? In:
Inside Urban Ecosystems, Proc. 7th Nat. Urban Forest Conf., American Forests, Washington, DC. pp. 31-34.eSimpson, J.R. 1998. Urban forest impacts on regional cooling and heating energy use: Sacramento County case
study. J. Arboric. 24(4):201-214.fSouch, C.A. and Souch, C. 1993. The effect of trees on summertime below canopy urban climates: a case study,
Bloomington, Indiana. J. Arboric. 19(5):303-312.gSmith, W. H. 1990. Air pollution and forests. New York: Springer-Verlag. 618 p.hNowak, D.J. and Crane, D.E. In press. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: quantifying urban forest
structure and functions. In: Hansen, M. (Ed.) Second International Symposium: Integrated Tools for Natural
Resources Inventories in the 21st Century. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report.iCrutzen, P.J., Delany, A.C., Greenberg, J. Haagenson, P., Heidt, L. Lueb, R., Pollock, W., Seiler, W., Wartburg,
A., and Zimmerman, P. 1985. Tropospheric chemical composition measurements in Brazil during the dry
season. J. Atmos. Chem. 2: 233-256jJacob, D.J. and Wofsy, S.C. 1988. Photochemistry of biogenic emissions over the Amazon forest. J. Geophys. Res.
93(D2): 1477-1486.kNowak, D.J. 1994d. Air pollution removal by Chicago's urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G, D.J. Nowak and R.A.
Rowntree. Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report NE-186. pp. 63-81.lCardelino, C.A. and Chameides, W.L. 1990. Natural hydrocarbons, urbanization, and urban ozone. J. Geophys.
Res. 95(D9):13,971-13,979.mGeron, C.D., Guenther, A.B., and Pierce, T.E. 1994. An improved model for estimating emissions of volatile
organic compounds from forests in the eastern United States. J. Geophys. Res. 99(D6):12,773-12,791.nNowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., Stevens, J.C., and Ibarra, M. In review. Brooklyn’s Urban Forest. USDA Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Rep.oGraham, R.L., Wright, L.L., and Turhollow, A.F. 1992. The potential for short-rotation woody crops to reduce
U.S. CO2 emissions. Climatic Change. 22: 223-238.pU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Nonroad engine and vehicle emission study -- report. USEPA
Office of Air and Radiation ANR-43. EPA-21A-2001. Washington, DC.qScott, K.I., Simpson, J.R., and McPherson, E.G. 1999. Effects of tree cover on parking lot microclimate and vehicle emissions.
J. Arboric. 25(3):129-142.rHeisler, G.M. 1986. Energy savings with trees. J. Arboric. 12(5):113-125.sRao, S. T. and Sistla, G. 1993. Efficacy of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons emissions control in ozone
attainment strategies as predicted by the Urban Airshed Model. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 67:95-116.tTaha, H. 1996. Modeling impacts of increased urban vegetation on ozone air quality in the South Coast Air Basin.
Atmos. Environ. 30(20):3423-3430.uNowak, D.J., Civerolo, K.L., Rao, S.T., Sistla, S., Luley, C.J., and Crane, D.E. 2000. A modeling study of the
impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmos. Environ. 34:1601-1613.vNowak, D.J. in press. The interactions between urban forests and global climate change. In: Abdollahi, K. and
Ning, Z.H.(eds.) Urban forests and global climate change. Franklin Press.
For more information, contact:
David J. Nowak, Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station
5 Moon Library, SUNY-CESF, Syracuse, NY 13210
(315) 448-3212 FAX: (315) 448-3216
e-mail: [email protected] web site: www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse