Full Length Research Paper
References
|
American Forests (2015). Washington D.C. urban forest facts. |
|
|
Bjerke T, Østdahl T, Thrane C, Strumse E (2006).Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriatenessfor recreation.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 5:35-44. |
|
|
Chen C (2001). Design for the environmental: Aquality-based model for green product development. Manage. Sci. 47:250-263. |
|
|
Chiam M, Soutar G, Yeo A (2009). Online and off-line travel packages preferences: A conjoint analysis. Int. J. Tourism Res.11:31-40. |
|
|
De Groot WT, Van den Born RJG (2003). Visions of natureand the landscape type preferences: An exploration in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning. 63:127-138. |
|
|
Elmendorf WF, Willits FK, Sisidharan V (2005). Urban park and forest participation and landscape preference: A review of the relevant literature. J. Arboric. 31:311-317. |
|
|
Farber S, Griver B (2000). Using conjoint analysis to value ecosystem change Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:1407-1412. |
|
|
Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J. Mark. 54:3-19. |
|
|
Gustafsson A, Ekdahl F, Bergman B (1999). Conjoint analysis: A useful tool in the design process. Total Qual. Manage. 10:327-343. |
|
|
Katoshevski R, Timmermans H (2001). Using conjoint analysis to formulate user-centered guidelines for urban design: the example of new residential development in Israel. J. Urban Des. 6:37-53. |
|
|
Konijnendijk CC (2008). The forest and the city: The cultural landscape of urban woodland. NY: Springer. |
|
|
Lohr VI (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms.Environment and Behavior. 38(5):667-688. |
|
|
Louviere JJ (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. CA: Sage Publications. |
|
|
Nowak DJ, Hoehn III RE, Crane DE, Stevens JC, Walton JT (2006). Assessing urban forest effects and values: Washington, DC's urban forest.Resource Bulletin NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agric. Forest Service, Northern Research Station. |
|
|
O' Brien E (2006). Social housing and greenspace: A case study in inner London. Forestry 79:535-549. |
|
|
Parsons R (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canärd or curiosity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 32(3):227-244. |
|
|
Plot AT, Akay A (2015).Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation areausers and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry Urban Greening. 14:573-582. |
|
|
Qin J, Zhou X, Sun C, Leng H, Lian Z (2013). Influence of green spaces on environmental satisfaction and physiological status of urban residents. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 12(4):490-497. |
|
|
Schroeder HW (1991). Preferences and meaning of arboretum landscapes: Combining quantitative and qualitative data. J. Environ. Psychol. 3:231-248. |
|
|
Schroeder HW (1987). Dimensions in variations of urban park preference. J. Environ. Psychol. 7:123-141. |
|
|
Turpie J, Joubert A (2004). The value of flower tourism on the Bokkeveld plateau – a botanical hotspot.Development South Africa. 21:645-662. |
|
|
Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003). Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry Urban Greening. 1:135-149. |
|
|
Van Limburg B (1998). City marketing: A multi-attribute approach. Tourism Management. 19:475-477. |
|
|
Wolf KL (2005). Trees in the small city retail business district: comparing resident and visitor preferences. J. For. 103: 390-395. |
|
|
Won D, Hwang S, Kleiber D (2009). How do golfers choose a course? A conjoint analysis of influencing factors. J. Park Recreat. Admin. 27:1-16. |
|
Copyright © 2024 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
