L’rbort Ecolog_v. !li I 1934 1 99-l
Elsev~er
Science
Publishers
RESIDENTIAL
25
B.b’..
99
Amsterdam
Printed
N .A RICHARDS.
.\BSTR
J R
11 hlay
N A..
space
and
MALLETTE,
R/J.
SIhlPSON
and
State
E A. MACIE
L’ni~ersrt_y of New
\‘ork.
I
193.3
hlallette.
snd
tracts
in
Variation
in
dlvldual
lots.
tracts.
total
while
highly
tiiied
back
hood.
number
this
>;rrds
stud>.
ol’ lots
odtxcnt
tree
limited
resources
crogeneous.
or
lot
and
and
lot
ot’ the
are=
Among
and
canopy
area
and
enamlned
and
show
more
or
little
on
lots
care
oi
public
managed
pattern
lots
streetsIdes
and
Thlj
ten
only
especially
tracts
garden
to
oi
The
greenspace
were
compared
documents
resource
the
areas.
the
end
with
iden,
side.
and
neighbor.
trees.
the
a large.
on
LBTI,
the
(actors
in front.
to
lawn
\rlth
Rlost
111.
within
correlated
orientations
study
and
blocks.
be attrthuted
vegetetlon
selected
characteristics
components.
and
green,
99-l
25.
heterogenetty
components
Intel’ests
residential
in
tracts.
highly
among
01’ resident
8:
lots
to
IS
Ecol..
phystcal
greater
and
greenspace
greenspece
In
greenspace
tracts
3110 cannot
personal
thr
have
Residentus
L!rhon
residrntlal
groundco\er.
3s evidence
Ion.
adjacent
other
19h4.
attrtbutable
pa\tng
to
E.-A..
York
Lariation
equrllly
and
Shrub.
l‘eatures
compoilt
practkally
about
4b’:
their
attributable
Dlstrihutlon
uere
species
to
lots
neighhors.
eluding
IS
on
identify
structures
variation
area
esamined
to
size
ot’
relatlonshlp
Indlvtdu;il
In tree
In
lot
R.J
and hlacle.
Syracu;e.
New.
tit!
were
NY
areas
substantkl
greenspace
ation
vegetation
Syracuse.
ltttle
Simpson.
in 3 mature
residential
and
shows
.
J.R
Legctation
Creenipace
census
are
LN A MATLJRE CITY:
ACT
Richards.
tirea
Netherlands
NEW SORK
College of Enlllronmental
Science and Forestp,
Syracuse.AV\’ 132/O 1U.s.4 I
I Accepted
in The
AND VEGETATION
GREENSPACE
SYRACUSE,
-
in.
more
bet,
resident131
lots in Syracuse
INTRDDLtCTION
hlost investigations
of
on public space, especially
urban greenspace
and vegetation
have
streetsides and parks. The predominantly
focused
private
greenspace
associated
with urban residential
properties
has received little
study even though
it may he the most important
greenspace in the dail)
lives of urban residents.
Urban
open space inventories
for planning
purposes often ignore residential
greenspace.
although
it may equal or esceed
the open spaces inventoried.
Few aerial photo
interpretations
of urban
greenspace
and vegetation
have heen done at sufficient
dettil
to discern
the intricate
interspersion
of residential
greenspace
with structures
and
paving I hlarotz
and Coiner.
1973).
One of the few urban tree inventories
to include residential
vegetation
\vas by Last et al. (19’761 for Edinburgh,
Scotland.
lots,
They
reported
Indicating
the
that
importance
815
of
of
that
city’s
residential
trees
were
greenspace
on
resldentwl
and
\,egetation
there.
At least
greetxpace:
two reasons ran be Identified
for so little
study of residential
it IS recognized
to be estremely
diverse. and therefore
difficult
to study: and.
‘and decisions.
cisions relating
generally.
it has not been a direct subject of public poliq
Hotvever.
this resource certainly
15 impacted
tq. public deto residentinl
life in a city.
Also, the assets and deficiencies
of resiclentlal
greenspace
and vegetation
should he considered
in managing
the pu Mic-sector
greenspace.
because these obviously
interrelate
in both
the physical ‘and social systems of cities.
Our
is part
study
of residential
greet-space
and vegetation
in
of R continuing
cxase study of the total greenspace
Syracuse.
and
N1
VegetatKJll
resources
of the city:
theu- character.
distribution.
value. ‘and management.
Part of this research has been the study of the city’s greenspace subsystems:
institutional.
residential
and commercial
identified
as streetslcles.
parks.
greenspace.
and
street
resources
tree
lands.
vacant
This
streetside
netbvork
the other
subsystems.
we re‘alized
\‘eDr
early.
to study
because
Intensive
\vas completed
of the
study
of
the streetside
I Richards
first
and
space and
Stevens.
19791.
provicles
a useful
matris
upon
which
to relate
Research
on the other
subsystems
is continuing.
that residential
greenspace
was the most difficult
great
number
of
individual
lots and
managers
in-
volvecl.
IVe
clistinguish
between
greenspace.
the space capable
of supporting
and the vegetation
actually
being supported
there.
For this
vegetation.
study,
greenspace
is described
planimetrk4ly
as soil surface
area capable
So defined.
greenspace
is determlned
by subof supporting
1:egetation.
tracting
the areas of structures
and pavmg from lot areas. Herbaceous
and
shrub
vegetation
effectiveI>.
occupies
greenspace
surface
area. However.
can estree boles u3ually
occul~y
negligible
surface
area. but tree crowns
tend
over
structures
and paving
as dell
as other
vegetation.
Therefore.
tree crowns
must he described
at a different
level. inclel:Jendent
of greenspace dimensions.
Our studies
to date have not aclclressed
the estenwe
and I~JcJssi
My ii nder other
spread of tree roots under the greenspace wrface.
surfaces. but thlj 15 indicated
by other tree dirnenslons.
The primm’
objective
of this stucly was the cletailed
characterization
of resiclentinl
greenspace
and vegetation.
and their variability
in the city.
\Ve sought
this informatIon
both
to contribute
to our evolwng
model
of
in Syracuse.
and t0 test InetllcJdolcJg
that
might
greenspace
resources
be useful
mined
by
both local
111 other
cities.
Residential
greens~:Jace a.reas are strongly
cleter.
the initial
layout
and development
of residential
l(ltj:
reflecting
topographic
constraints
ancl clevelol~ment
patterns
at that time.
One ivould
espect
that greenspace
uses and
reflect
mcJre of the individuality
of residents
toward
groulJing
pothesized
that
tenclencws
vegetation
wlthln
lots might
over time.
However.
we hyof residents
sharing
similar
101
social
characteristics.
along
with
the
initial
factors
of lot
layout
and de-
velopment,
might result in less variation
in residential
greenspace characteristics within
neighborhoods
or within
blocks than among different
residential
areas of the city. Our study was designed to test this hypothesis.
Knowledge
of the levels of variation
in greenspace characteristics
is needed
for effective
IJ Infeasible
sampling
to take
of these resources in a city. because generally,
it
a large sample or complete
inventory’ of residential
greenspace at a detailed level.
We also had a more qualitative
hypothesis
that physical
evidence
of
the treatment
of residential
greenspace
and vegetation
indicates
residents’
revealed
preferences
toward
these resources and. therefore,
may be more
realistic
than
of residential
direct
surveys of attitudes
‘and values. Because
greenspace
and vegetation
are mised with many
the values
other indi-
vidual and neighborhood
values associated
with residential
life, the treatment of greenspace should mdicate priorities
actually given to this resource.
Our
was
interest
beyond
was in the information
the hcope of this study
content
of the physical evidence;
it
to relate this to espressed attitudes
or detailed social characteristics
of residences.
One interesting
aspect of urban residential
as xe
predominant
potentially
espress
in Syracuse
and many
three
faces:
social
lots
other
front
with
detached
communities.
yards
suggest
houses.
is that
the
the)
interaction
of residents
wlth the neighborhood;
side yards may express more direct
interactions
between
adJacent
residences
or other
adjacent
land uses:
and back yards may tndicate a more individual
orientation
as well as interactlon
with neighbors.
The physIcal evidence
of the relative treatment
of front.
side, and back yards should give clues to the social orientation
of residents
in their greenspace
use and management.
Alternatively.
full
retlectlon
of resident
orientation
might be blunted
by inertia,
to the estent that residents may accept the status quo in their residential greenspace
and vegetation
unless they are dissatisfied
enough to change them. However. changes do occur over time. Schmid
119751 described
the transition
from ‘open’
to ‘closed’ residential
landscapes over time in the prairie environment
of Chicago.
Our study sought to identify
what differences
in
the residential
landscape
within Syracuse.
STUD\’
might
have
evolved
in different
neighborhoods
SITES
Syracuse 1s one of the eastern-most
cities arising Prom westward expansion
of the post-colonial
llnited
States.
Initially
settled
about
1800
around
a salt industry
from lakeshore
saltsprings.
Syracuse grew to be chartered
as a city in 1848,
prlmaril>V because of its situation
in central New York,
IInkIng
the Erie Canal with easy north-south
transportation
routes. The
city
only
has moderate
topography.
total
local constraints
to development
relative
relief
due to steep
of about
100 m. and
slopes. Syracuse grew
rapidly with moderate
industrial
development
from the mid-1800’s
the 1920’s;
reachuig a peak population
of over 200000
m 1930,
through
through
both growth
and annexation.
Since 1950. the city population
has declined
as growth has shIfted to the surrounding
metropolitan
area. Today. Syracuse
is a mature
city of 170000
populatlon,
undergoing
continuing
internal
change as the center of a maturing
metropolitan
county of 470000
populatlon. We consider
Syracuse a good. medial case-study city for the northeastern Llnlted States.
For the study of residential
greenspace.
we selected
ten census tracts
from the 53 predominantly
residential
tracts in Syracuse.
escluding
from
consideration
ten tracts with mostly
non-residential
landuse. Census tract
boundaries
do not necessarily
coincide
with
neighborhood
or developmental
boundaries.
and generally
recognized
neighborhoods
in Syracuse
each encompass
two or more tracts. Therefore,
of recognized
residential
neighborhoods
were
basis of
predominant
development
age, lot
tracts representing
chosen.
primarily
size. and
housing
type
a range
on the
as oh-
served during the previous streetside
study (Richards
and Stevens. 19791.
llse of census tracts pen-nits comparison
of standard census data. which
also influenced
our selection of tracts tTable II. The study tracts encompass
18’; of the 1980 population
and housing units. and l-l?
of the
area of
the city including its non-residential
tracts.
Syracuse
predominantly
has detached,
wood-frame.
one-to-four
unit
residences
on private
lots. hlost housmg
is 30-80
years old, and about
10’; of the units are owner-occupied
(Table
I). In spite of a 147 decline
in population
oi’er the last decade,
the city has had a slight increase in
housing units because splitting
of residences into additional
units and neb
apartment
construction
has counteracted
building
demolition.
This is in
line with recent urban changes throughout
the northeastern
llnited
States.
as the average number
of persons per household
has declined.
The stud]
tracts contain
few of the larger multi-unit
dwellings
in the city. many of
which are in predominantly
non-residential
tracts where median household
incomes tend to be low. Therefore.
compared
with city’ averages, the range
of study tracts is skewed
toward
single-unit,
owner-occupied
homes and
higher median
incomes.
This reflects
our intentional
focus on residential
areas. rather
than on all residential
conditions
in the city. Housing units
in commercial
areas typically
have little
residential
greenspace,
whereas
the more
institutionalized
greenspace
associated
with
large, multi-unit
dwellings warrants separate study.
Figure
1 identifies
the location
of the ten study tracts in relation
to
the current
boundaries.
the Central
Business District,
and the areas developed
as of 1908
- roughly
differentiating
the older and newer parts
of the city. Some of the range in residential
patterns are illustrated
in Fig.
2. Briefly
characterizing
the study tracts in order of age, 23 is in a marginally residential
area near the city center; 6 and 27 are in old areas with
strong neighborhood
and ethnic identities;
54 is undergoing
deterioration
103
104
and
loss of
housing.
and
change
in
racial
compositlon;
and
51
is in earl)
stages of similar
change. Tract 45 is in a slightly
newer, university-impacted
area; 3 is characterized
by one-family
homes on small lots; 19 by slightl)
larger lots but more multi-unit
dwellings.
The newest
tracts. 61.3 and 48.
have mostly
suburban-type
development
of smgle
family
homes
on relatively
large
lots (Table
STLiD\’
RlETHODS
I).
The study
was conducted
in the late spring
and summer
of 1980.
In
each census tract studied.
we random-sampled
one out of every sis blockfaces that contzuncd
at least three residential
lots. One tract
was sampled
more
intensively
before
selectwg
this sample
of blockfaces.
\\‘ithin
each
sampled
blockface.
evev
third
lot. starting
randomly.
was studied
in detail:
ivith the further
conditions
that no less than
per blfJckfaCe
were sampled.
and that
these
tivo or more
coldd
include
than four
one but
lots
not
both comer
lots. This resulted
In about
5% sample of residential
lots within
the study
tracts. Because resident
permission
for access to lots was required.
failures
to get this forced
some shifts
in the sampling
pattern.
However.
were fe\\.
this should
not have caused a significant
bias. because refusals
fig.
2. Residential
patterns
on relalively
large lots
tracl~: 141 tract 6. mostly
in Syracuse. Reproduced
from color mfrared photos. scales approximately equal. Portions of three study census
dwellings. 10 tract 61 3. mos.tly 1-unit dwellings
2- -I-unit dwelling> on zmall lot>: (B) tract -15. mostly I--2.unit
and
repeated
visits
eventually
reached
people
487 residential
lots on 171 blockfaces
about 105 mandays of field work.
were
at most
studied,
residences.
requiring
In all.
a total
of
Our basic unit of area for recording
field data was set at 9.29 m’: a
10 ’ 10 foot square convenient
for translating
foot measurements.
This
unit wa5 selected as practical
for on-ground
estimation
of vegetation
areas.
and a a bakance between
the time demands
of smaller units and the loss
of detail
in larger units. We sought to identify
more interspersed
detail
than has usually been obtained
in studies of urban greenspace. Lot boundaries ivere tape-measured
to correct
errors in city maps. Building
dimensions and its location
on the lot were measured,
and the number
of residential
units. condition
of residences, and area and type of other structures were recorded.
Areas of paving and g-reenspace types were estimated
in 9.29-m’
units . so that the total equalled
the measured
lot areas after
subtracting
the structure
areas. Scaled sketch-maps
were used to aid in
accounting
for .alI space in each lot. Front,
side. and backyards
tvere described separately
a3 to paving area and type, and greenspace areas in lawn,
shrub. g‘artlen. ancl other cover. The geenspace
areas were further detailed
by use and care classes. as described in the results.
Trees in the yards were not Eissigned greenspace
area. but rather were
recorded
by numbers of stems. species. diameter
b.h. (at 1.4 m), estimated
tot&al height. and height to the base of the cr0ir.n. The tree crown canopy
area
and
at
its widest
translating
plane
this
was determined
to circular
area.
The
by estimating
entire
crown
the average
radius
area of trees In the
yards was inclucled regardless of whether
it estended
beyond
the lot. Because overhanging
crowns
from trees outside
the lot were not counted,
this \%‘a5 felt to t.ompensate
in determining
crown
area coverage
on the
~amplecl lots. \i’e ‘also collected
clata 011 the greenspace area and trees on
the public streetsIde
strip adjacent
to study lots. to compare
the residential ancl streetsIde
space and tree resources.
Some of the tree data were
collrctrd
ft_)r a more detailed
study of urban tree crowns.
reported
separattll>’
1,. hlallette
I 1982).
Among
other
findIngs.
hlallette
confirmed
that our e3iniation
of horizontal
crown
area
a5 circles closely approslmated
a.reLx obtalned
by
more
detailed
determination
of
their
irregular
4~al’rs.
.A minimum
of 97 in format ion bits \\err
recorded
for each lot. The
5tucl!. 1~35 designed
to use analysis of vanance
to partltlon
the variation
founcl in all quantitative
data among census tracts. among blockfaces within
blockfaces
(sampling
tractts Iespi-rimentsl
error’), and among lots lvithin
error).
Bec*auje errors in the data collection
are believecl to be minor. the
error
terms obtatned
can he attributed
primarily
to actu,al variation
at
thrse
le\,els.
for cles~:ript i\e
Qualitative
pi
t-pose%.
data
were
simply
summed
for
each
census
tract
1(J;
RESllLTS
Quantrtatioe
characteristics
of residential
lots
Our major quantitative
hypothesis,
relating to the variation
of residential lot characteristics
among and within study tracts, is tested by the analyses of variance summarized
in Table II. The high significance
of F values
for most variables is not surprising
because of the strength of the experimental
design. The proportions
of the variation
attributable
to census
tracts,
blockfaces
within
tracts. and lots within
blockfaces.
are of greater
interest.
Collectively,
these analyses confirm
the value of our three-strata
sampling
of tracts, blockfaces.
and lots. But they suggest that fewer blockfaces could
have been sampled.
to reduce fieldwork
without
impairing
our findings.
The means and standard deviations
for data from all sampled
lots permit
comparison
of the total variation
found among lot characteristics (Table
II). Figure 3 illustrates
the mean lot areas sampled in the ten
census
tracts
and
corded,
but
this fqure.
TABLE
their
mean
the variation
proportions
within
tracts
in
must
the
various
be considered
components
re-
in interpreting
II
I’ariation
In characteristics
\‘ariable
of sampled
Percent
lots
of total
variance
attributed
toa
All sampled
lots
Llnlts
in studb,
Block
tracts
In tracts
block
Lot
area
36
Lot
width
31**
Lot
length
9 **
Residence
Other
Lawn
Shrub
tree
**
1;
**
j
iaces
hlean
S D.
618
193
16
ml
39
39
10
ml
62
121
-16
rn’
$2
24
23
rn’
m’
‘21 **
79
91
43
26
32
271
229
**
9a
12s
2.2 * *
rn’
5
30
rn.
86
32
22
29
25
Im’l
(m’i
67
55
9’:
(m
I
I
I
1
1
1
frn.1
20
numbers
area
**
26
*I
12 **
20 **
54
6b
21**
9 **
8 *’
-13 **
Id **
17 **
36
73
75
5.2
151
7.4
18l!i
Irn’l
st reelside
greenspace
area
numbers
tree canopy
‘From
5”
in
trees
tree canopy
Adjacent
-II
2
11 **
0
11**
area
36
**
2,**
13
area
cover
29 **
25
1_I**
0
area
Residential
tree
area
area
area
Garden
Other
area
structure
Paving
**
faces
Lots
Census
analyses
area
of
Numbersoiobservations
variance:
**qnlficant
In analyses.
F at
10 census
30
0;
40
0 01
tracts.
level
. s
significant
171 blockfaces.
20
0.h
(m.l
75
( m ‘I
F al 0.10
478 101s
level
Residential
tracts.
and
lot area \\a~ taken
also \vas espected
to
into
account
affect
other
in
lot
selection
of
characteristws;
the
stud)
so this
is the independent
varlnble
against
which
the other
data is compared
tTa.
Me 111. i’ariation
in lot area is about evenI>. partitioned
among tracts. blockfaces. and individual
lots. This indicates
some unlforn~it)p
of lot size within
tracts
and also within
blockfaces.
but not strong
control
at either
level.
hlean
lot ‘area
for tracts
range from
13-l to 1032 ml. The two
newest
tract5 clearly
average
iarger lots. hut mean lot size of the other
tracts cloes
not follow
the orcler of their development
ages I Fig. 3 I.
WIthIn
the
lot
climensions.
variation
in
lot
~itlth
is similar
to
that
of
lot areas. Lot length.
or depth.
15 largely
controlled
by street
layout
and
consequent
bloc-k size. w more v&Ant IOII 15 at tnlwtalAe
to the blockface
Ie\,el. The weak control
of lot lengths
at the tract
level suggests that the
layout
of blocks
ha
vaned
less throughout
the city
than has their sub
division
into lot$.
the resiclence
depends
on Iwllcllng
design.
The
lot area occupied
I+
was built
for single
or multiple-faniil
inclucling
whet her the structure
occupancy’.
The \,ariation
in rr~idence
area IS mostly
attributable
to the
individual
lot lei,el. and indicates
the heterogeneity
of house sizes throughout Syracuse.
Residence
area is not very closely
relatecl
to mean iot area
among
older
tracts.
tracts.
partly
because
Residence
area
there
data
on
are
more
the
multi-family
residences
in
two newest tracts are distorted
whereas the separately
recorded,
by inclusion
of many attached
garages,
detached garages are more common
in older tracts. When areas of detached
garages are added to residence areas, differences
among the tracts are further reduced.
Variation
in are&as of other structures
on lots, primarily
detached garages, is not significant
among tracts and is largely an individual
lot characteristic.
Similarly.
the area of paving is a highly individual
lot
feature.
averaging
close to a constant
area across tracts. The significant
control
of paving at the blockface
level probably
which affects the length of walks and driveways.
Creetlspace
The
among
results
from
lot
length.
areas
mean
tracts.
ranges from
195 to 793 m-’
greenspace
area of lots. which
is determined
by subtracting
the mean residence, other struc-
ture. and paving areas from lot areas (Fig. 3). Because mean areas of structures ruid paving vq
less among tracts than do lot areas. mean greenspace
areas range from 13 to 77S of mean lot areas among tracts. This confn-ms
the espected:
larger residential
lots generally
have greater
proportions
of greenspace,
but greenspace
lot areas unless the are& of
are&as cannot
be estimated
structures
and paving are
from residential
also considered.
A companion
study
compared
the accuracy
ncl
utility
of large-scale
(1:12 0001 aerial photo interpretation
with detailed
ground truth obtamed
in this study ISimpson.
19811. Comparing
color and color-infrared
photos
taken IN late summer
1980
with our ground data m Tract
19. Simpson
concluded
that lot and structure
areas could
be accurately
measurecl on
either film type. Hoivever.
areas of paving and various types of greenspace
were more difficult
to identify
and tree crowns.
Paving area
because
probably
of visual interference
could
he determined
by txuldings
better from
photos taken in the leafless season. but more detailed informatmn
space features requires substantial
on-ground
sampling.
Among
the vegetation
components
of lot greenspace.
only
shoivs more variation
attributable
to tracts than to individual
on greenlabvn area
lots tTa-
hle 11). Mean lawn area increases diq~roportlonately
to total greenspace
area. so mean lawn proportions
range from 52 to 80% of greenspace areas
among tracts (Fig. 31. In contrast,
most variation
in shrub area is attributable
to the individual
lots. Although
some relationship
between
shrub
and total greenspace
area is suggested, the tracts bvith the most greenspace
tend to have a lower proportion
of their greenspace
in shrubs. Areas of
other cover Include non-lawn
groundcover
vegetation
and bare soil resulting
from sampling
or tree shade. Most vanatlon
in other cover area is attrlbutable to individual
lots. and the proportions
of greenspace area in other
cover show no pattern among tracts. Variation
in garclen area is overwhelmingly at the individual
lot level. and is non-significant
among tracts.
110
The vanation
among
vegetation
components
correlations
between
geenspace
area and the
ponents
on individual
lots in each tract (Table
is further
examined
tq
areas of greenspace
comIII).
Correlations
between
lawn and total
greenspace
areas are highly significant
in all tracts. and
they esplain
most of the variation
in la\vn areas on individual
lots. Howe\:er. correlations
between
shrub and total greenspace areas. and between
other cover and total greenspace.
are significant
in fewer tracts. and these
generally
individual
are
esplain
less than
lots. Correlations
non-qnificant
to one
unusually
arninrd
correlations
separately
In front.
to
the
TABLE
\‘s,.lahles
correlations
in
most
large
half of the variation
in these components
on
between
garden
and tot&al greenspace
areas
tracts.
garden
and
and
the
best
lot sampled
correlation
in that
tract.
is attributed
We also es-
between
total greenspace
are% and their components
side. and back yards tno table).
Results are similar
for
the combined
yards.
but
vav
Range
01
more
;miong
tracts.
Ill
Numberot’trxts
ilgnificint
uith
correl_atlonsd
r
\aiuesb
.Acrosj the study tracts. lawn area tends to occupy most of the greater
greenspace
on larger lots: are*
of shrubs and other cover are only weakI>
related to greenspace
area. and most ianatlon
must be explained
by other
factors.
There
14 generally
little
relationship
between
garden
and total
these findings in terms of equal
greenspace
areas among
lots. Esprewng
with larger lot3 have more total
area
of residential
blocks. neighborhoods
dlfference
111 total areas
area in la\\-ri5. less In gardens. ruid no consi3tent
of shrubs and other cover. Considering
the heterogeneity
among lots and
also the more diverse character
of shrubs. gardens and other cover than
it appears that the dwrsity
of vegetation
misture
is greater in
of lawn.
111
neighborhoods
with
smaller
lots even though
there
1s more greenspace
in larger-tot neighborhoods.
Our
findings
on residential
greenspace
in the study tracts appear to
provide
a reasonable
basis for characterizing
this resource throughout
residential
areas of Syracuse.
Combined
with other information,
they
permit
within
preliminary
the total
estimation
greenspace
of the proportion
resources
of the
the
also
of residential
greenspace
city.
Total
greenspace
in
Syracuse
was previously
estimated
from
1972
aerial photos as 58% of
the city’s area (Richards.
unpublished.
19791. This had probably changed-tlttle 1))’ 1980.
For the ten census tracts III the current stud)‘. estimated
total
greenspace
ranged from 41 to 765, of the tract areas. showing an increase
from the inner city outward
but also reflectmg
the location
of parks and
other large greenspaces
in the city. The average for these tracts. weighted
by tract areas. is 6OY greenspace.
Applying
the present residential
findings
to the earlier total estimates.
we estimate
that 62’; of the total greenspace
in the ten tracts is residential.
Using information
from several sources along
with this study. we derive a preliminary
estimate that residential
greenspace
constitutes
about 485, of the total greenspace in Syracuse. For comparison,
we estimate
that the city’s public parks contain
about 9? and the public
streetsides
about
7T of the total greenspace.
Refinement
of all these estimates awaits better mformation
on institutional.
commercial
and vacant
greenspace
in the city,
but it is evident
that residential
greenspace
is a
prominent
part of the total resource.
Resider1 tial
It
should
trees
be
recalled
that
trees
were
not
included
in
the
greenspace
areas. but rather. were counted
and their overhead canopy areas estimated
on a separate
plane. Tree canopy area is more useful than tree numbers
for examining
the impacts
of trees on residential
areas and can be estlmated from appropriate
aerial photos as well as from the ground (Fig. 2).
However.
tree numbers
are valuable
complementary
data for calculation
of average canopy area per tree, as an indication
of tree sizes and the threedimensional
impacts of trees on tots.
Among
tracts, there is a rather wide range in mean number
of trees
per lot, and a slightly
narrower
range of crown canopy
area (Table
IV).
Compared
with the variation
in lot areas, however,
less variation
in numbers of trees per lot is attributable
to tracts and more is attributable
to
individual
lots (Table
II). Variation
in crown canopy areas is even more
attributable
to individual
tots, because of variation
in tree size.
Comparing
the mean tree canopy
areas with greenspace
areas among
tracts, the resulting
ratios range from 22 to 62R, canopy to greenspace,
and give an indication
of the relative soil areas supporting
the tree crowns.
However,
the tree crowns are over structures
and paving as well as greenspace: so the ratios of canopy area to lot area, ranging from 11 to 33%
112
among
tracts, are better
indicators
of the residential
tree cover (Fig. 31.
However,
mean proportions
of tree canopy cover on lots are not consistently
related
the two most
to mean lot sizes among
recently developed
tracts
tracts. A partial explanation
with large lots average more.
is that
smaller
trees; suggesting that much of their tree cover is not yet fully grown. Older
tracts tend to have more mature trees, but tree cover may have been more
deliberately
restricted
in
the
tracts
averaging
small
lots.
Correlations
of
tree canopy
area with total greenspace area on individual
lots are highly
significant
in most tracts, but these account for less than half of the variation in canopy area on lots (Table
III).
Consequently,
much of the variation in t,ree cover among both tracts and lots remains unesplained
by this
study, and apparently
reflects more complex
factors of community
history
and individual
choice.
TABLE
Trees
I\’
on residential
lots and adjacent
Range
Tree
numbers
Tree
canopy
per lot
area
1m )
Tree
canopy
areas
area>
census
Residential
lots
Adjacent
Range
Median
Range
1 9-14.3
0.3-
3.9
1.0
“G-99
1 :3- 4 3
b
‘I’l--r;‘,
36
ratio-
Range
hledian
9.1-1r
1
3.1-24
1
2 l-10
1
10
33-24;
tracts
streetside<
Rledian
.3I‘J
2%
(7
numbers
among
11-_;L’
Canopy/Ereenspace
Greenspace
median
118
(rn.1
1rn.l
Tree
and
54-‘29.5
51--3;
195-_; 93
Canopy
area/tree
Creenspace
area
ResidentiallStreetside
streebides
0.6
24
:y,III
“$4
110
1
7 1
.“, 1
Because tree cover can affect
other vegetation
on residential
lots, we
also correlated
tree canopy area with areas of other greenspace components
on lots (Table
III).
Trees impede
lawn growth in Syracuse. but the highI>
significant
correlations
bet\veen
lawn and tree canopy area in four tracts
are positive.
We interpret
these as reflecting
co-relationships
of both tree
canopy
and lawn areas to greenspace
area. Correlations
between
shrub
and tree canopy area are highly significant
in only two tracts. and account
for lIttIe
of the variation
in shrub area on lots. Tree cover is inimical
to
most gardening
in Syracuse.
but the one highly
significant
correlation
is positive,
and is probably
due to co-relationshIps
with greenspace area.
We espected
positive
correlations
betiveen
other cover and tree canop]
area. because other cover includes bare 3011 and shade-tolerant
plants under
113
trees.
Of
the
variables,
canopy
seven
four
area,
tracts
suggest
and
relations
between
arately
for front,
with
highly
a direct
three
suggest
significant
correlation
correlations
between
co-relationships
with
other
between
cover
greenspace
tree cover
and greenspace
component
areas
side and back yards are poorer,
suggesting
that
these
and
tree
area.
Cor-
done
septhe green-
space components
and tree cover are not accommodated
by different
allocations
among yards. Therefore,
with the esceptlon
of other cover directly
associated
with
trees, there is little
evidence
of direct
relationships
- positive
or negative
- betbveen
tree cover
and greenspace
component
are%
in the study tracts.
trees naturally
reproduce
and
This
finding
has plausible
esplanations:
grow
well
in
Syracuse.
and
tend
to
fill
any
spaces
in
M hich
they
are
al-
IoLved to grow.
However,
generally
less than half of the residential
greenspace is tree-canopied;
so there
appears
to be a conscious
restriction
of
tree cover on resldentlal
lots. This reduces correlation
and conflict
between
trees and other
vegetation.
The lack of correlation
may also result
from
residents
tolerating
some conflict
between
trees and other
vegetation
if
the trees are otherwise
valued.
Residents
to-day
have the opportunity
for complex
flected
In simple correlations.
.-Idjecent
strwtside
living
with
decisions
their
that
greenspace
daymay not be re-
space and trees
\!!e measured
unpaved.
adjacent
public
streetside
present.
these were used
green5pace
area rather
than
total
area on the
strip.
In most cases where public
sidewalks
were
ti the practical
boundary
between
streetside
and
residential
greenspace.
Legal
boundaries
are often
slightly
inslde
front
yards ‘and not identifiable
lvithout
survey
data; so the legal streetside
area
may have been slightly
underestlmated.
Where public
sidewalks
were absent
!n portions
of the newer tracts.
the public
streetside
portion
was estimated
from other
evidence.
The width
of the streetside
strip is usually
constant
for a blockface.
and differences
tn the original
allocation
of public
streetsicle space can be observed
among
tracts and blocks.
Therefore,
some of
the \:arlation
in streetside
greenspace
area is attributable
to tracts.
but
more 15 attributable
to blockfaces
(Table
111.
Most
w-iation
in street
tree numbers
and street
tree canopy
area per
lot is attributable
to the mdiviclual
lots. Only
part of this is due to variatlon
in the Iimitecl
streetside
space. The relationship
bet\veen
street
tree
canopy
and streetside
greenspace
area is ‘also vev
~\e‘ak. as suggested
I,
the ratios
of mean c‘anop~. area to streetside
greenspace
area. which
range
from
33 to 247’7 among
the study
tracts.
However.
the mean ratios over
1005
In half of the tracts indicate
the great dependence
of many
street
trees on adjacent
frontJ,ard
greenspace
for their support.
Comparing
street
trees with residential
trees. we found
averages of from
3 to 24 times
more
residential
trees runong
the study
tracts (Table
Il’).
114
There is a smaller ratio of 2 to 10 times more canopy area of residential
trees than of street trees, because the street trees average larger size. From
more
detailed
esamination
of
our
tree
data.
Mallette
(1982)
concluded
that the crowns of the larger street trees have been modified
more by
pruning,
whereas
large residential
trees apparently
have had their numbers controlled
more
than their crowns
pruned
to reduce
interference
Hith other residential
features. On the other hand. the crowns of smaller
residential
trees.
such as flowering
or fruit
trees and small
commonly
have their crowns
modified
by pruning.
to be practical.
cost-efficient
management
responses
on residential lots.
conifers,
more
These would
appear
to control
tree cover
Tree specres
We identified
tree species on both the
public
streetsides
to esamine
differences
L’). The 2500
on residential
residential
lots and the adjacent
in species composition
(Table
residential
trees recorded should be a good sample of species
lots in the study tracts. The 315 street trees provide a weaker
R;lngti
Range
and mcdlan
hledlan
among
census
Rang*?
tracts
hlr-dltin
115
basis for species comparison.
so we tested the accuracy
of this sample
against the 1005
inventory
of street trees taken two years earlier (Richards
and Stevens,
1979).
The proportions
of the most common
species in our
street
tree sample
compare
very closely
with the 1005
inventory.
but
as would
be espected,
less common
species are sampled
less accurately.
Residential
trees include many natural
volunteers
from local seed sources,
as well as transplanted
wildlings
and commercial
street trees are uncommon,
but an estimated
35’;
trees and probably
a higher proportion
jacent residents - often using transplanted
nursery stock. Volunteer
of recently planted street
in the past were planted
by adwildlings (Richards
and Stevens,
19’i9).
On the other hand, city plantings
of nursery stork include more
exotic street tree species than are commonly
available to residents.
Maple
is the most common
genus on both residential
lots and streetsides in all study tracts. but the genus as well as the major species. Norway
maple,
constitutes
a higher proportion
of streetside
than of residential
trees in nine tracts. There
is also a higher proportion
of silver maple in
the streetside
samples of seven tracts. The data on sugar maple is inconclusive. but boxelder
appears to be more common
on the residential
lots.
Norway
maple
is naturalized
and volunteers
freely in Syracuse.
Residential
discrimination
against this species is indicated.
probably
because
of its dense shade and heavy leaf litter. The native silver maple has lighter
foliage,
but there may be discrimination
against its vigorous powth
and
large ultimate
size on residential
lots. Sugar maple is the major native species
as well as a popular shade tree throughout
central New York. It volunteers
less than the other maples in Syracuse,
and also its rather large size and
dense crown
may discourage
its use on residential
lots. Boselder
\:olunteers freely, and may be accepted
moderate size and crown-density.
The
connotation
of
the
term
more
‘shade
on residential
tree’
is not
lots
because
entirely
of
positive
its
in
Syracuse.
The normal
daily
maximum
temperature
is above 25°C
onlh
109 days per year. from mid-hlay
through August; and there is an average
of only 635, of the possible sunshine during this. the sunniest period of
the
year.
Shade
is undesirable
for
a greater
portion
of
the
year.
ancl the
visual and other benefits
of trees are more significant.
Increased
interest
in solar supplementation
of home heating
may cause further
discrimination against residential shade trees in Syracuse.
Conifers
can be useful on residenrlal
lots in Syracuse
for windbreaks
and green color in Lvinter. but are generally unsuitable
as street treer; here.
Spruce is the second most common
genus. affter maple. on the residential
lots sampled;
only a few were found on the adjacent
streetsides.
Norway
spruce,
P~cea abres, 1s used most for Lvindbreaks
and screens. and blue
spruce, P. prrngens.
is more common
as a specimen tree. The ‘cedars’, prilots
marily
Thuja
SC>. but also Juniper-us
sp.. were found on residential
in all tracts, but not on streetsides sampled. Pines. mostly white and Scot5
were found on residential
lots In nine
pine, PIIIUS stroblrs
and P. sylveslris.
tracts. but none were on the streetsides sampled.
116
Species of the Rose family.
especially
cherry,
plum.
apple and pear.
were found
on residential
lots in nine tracts, but on few adJacent streetsides. Some species volunteer
in Syracuse; most ornamental
anct fruit species
are more practical
on residential
lots than
high maintenance
needs.
The native elms were vey popular street
before
the
advent
of
the
Dutch
elm
on streetsides
because
and residential
trees in Syracuse
disease in
the
1950’s.
of
thelr
because
their
high crowns
and light foliage caused minimal
conflict
with other urban
features.
N’e found elms persisting
on residential
tots in eight tracts but
on few streetsides
sampled.
Some
residents:
most are wilcl volunteers
of the elms are being maintained
which.
along with the volunteers
1)~
in
parks and other area.
continue
to keep the dise&e active. This is of concern in management
of the disease to permit
limited
use of elms again
in the city (Lanier.
1982).
The other listed genera. found on sampled lots in at least half of the
study tracts. appecu to be more common
on residentA
lots than on streetsides. Some tree species are widely
promoted
by mail-order
nurseries for
residential
planting.
but are generally
poor for urban lots: for esample.
becau_se of rank growth;
and various
willows
and poplars.
Popuhrs
q..
‘white’
birches. Betula 513.. because of destructive
Insect pests. Only a fe\!,
trees of these species were found on residential
tots: none on the adjacent
streetsides.
In all. 31 tree genera were recorded
on the residential
lots.
and 14 genera on the streetsides.
This apparent
dlfference
in divenit>
may result partly
from the smaller number
of street trees sampled: ovet
40 genera were recorded
in the previous
100?
inventory
of street trees
1979).
Several esotic species
throughout
the tit)’
I Richards
and Stevens.
that have been planted
recently
by the city are seldom seen on residential
lots. Of these. Giukgo and Zt~/hoi~a sp. were in our streetside samples.
In general.
the specier; composition
of residential
trees appears
to
be
Naples
predominate
less on
conservative
and practical
for its purposes.
the lots than on the adJacent streetsides.
but also the apparently
greatel
diversity on the lots is composed mostly of native or l\ell-known
introduced
species. Recently.
many cities have shown increased concern for the regulation
of trees on pnvate
tots In the public Interest. Our findings suggest
that. with
the possible esception
of emergency
measures
for control
of
insect or disease epidemics.
there
of residential
trees in Syracuse.
Qualitatioe
N’e
characteristrcs
regard
the
is little
of rcsrdential
allocation
of
justification
for public
regulation
lots
non-greenspace
and
greenspace
features
runong front. sides, culcl back yards. and the care of residences and of vegetation In yards. as more qualitative
characteristics
of residential
lots. These
characteristics
can be espected
to Show great variation
among individual
lots. Therefore.
most of these data were simply averaged b!- tracts. to com-
p,are the ranges of tract means
information
sought. we decided
and
that
the medians of these means.
more sophisticated
treatment
For the
of these
data was not warranted.
Data on residences
and other non-greenspace
features
of sampled lots
are summarized
in Table VI. The proportions
of single-unit
residences
recorded
in tracts are higher than those reported
in the census data. suggesting a bias in our sampling
method
against multi-unit
dwellings
and.
therefore.
also against
rental
may have resulted
from
our
one-unit
dwelling5
T.-IBLE
can
be
units.
However.
errors,
because
difficult
to
identify
from
residcnttal
lots
and
other.
nun.greenspacc* I’CBIUWSOn
Range
Range
Residence
and median
hlpdisn
TV pr
one.l’amily
residences
Ij+.I’atntly
Restdence
7;
0
residences
condition
escellent
condition
2 iJ
needing
minor
repair5
64
needtng
mator
repairs
10
badI>, deteriorated
structure3
detached
other
garages
4rj
s
and decks
swimming
plq
2
on loti
buildings
patto<
.j
pools
and gsmc
1
cou r[s
Ct
P;1\ ing areas by predominant
black top 01’ asphalt
concl’ete
gre\el or compActed
brick
0i
in front
tot21
ynrd;
tn side J erds
in hack yards
Tencr.
I’ront
yards
side .\cirds
beck 1 ard<
Tight
wire
iron1
iettces
yards
stde yards
htick
>oil
or stone
Proportion
No
discrepanq
in formerly
outside
evidence.
\‘I
Strurturec
Other
some of the
multiple
units
!,al,d<
pising
type
Amon@
sampled
cettius
tracts
tn study
1”;:
I
tract5
The condition
of residences
was recorded
for comparison
with
the indicated
care of the residential
greenspace.
Housing
needing
minor
repairs
can be considered
the normal
condition
in Syracuse.
because woodframe
structures
over 30 years old requve
frequent
repair.
The proportions
of
houses
in excellent
condition,
and also those needing
major
repar,
range
more
widely
tends
to be
come
levels.
involved.
among
tracts.
The average
condition
of residences
in tracts
related
to census data on owner-occupancy
and median inbut some inconsistencies
suggest
that
other
factors
are also
Other
structures
on
cause they
are features
of the other
than added
swimming
lots. and
lots
indicate
alternative
that may be added
or
structures
are detached
garages;
in the older tracts.
Recreational
these are being removed
structures
- patios and
behlost
more
decks.
pools and playing
courts
- are highly
mclivldual
features
among
most lots have none of these. This may reflect
the city’s
climate.
the modest
incomes
of
reational
facilities
within
recreational
structures.
Dlstriblc
uses for greenspace.
removed
over time.
t/o11 urld
treatmerlt
most rejldents.
and the many
other
and near the city. reducing
priorities
o/‘space
in .vards
Recording
greenspace.
vegetation
and other
side and back yards prowdrs
a more detailed
Sards are defined
by the
to the sides of residences.
outdoor
recfor personal
features
separately
view of residential
fur front.
lot use.
location
of the residence:
side yards are adjacent
Residential
lots In Syracuse
normally
have t\vo
side J.a.rds of unequal
l\.ldth.
One side is usually
occupied
I~). a drivtway:
the other
side may have more greenspace.
depending
on the lot and house
iridth.
Il;e use the dibtrlbution
of greenspace
among
yards
as the basis
for comparing
the distribution
and treatment
of otherf’eatures
in the yards.
The
metllan
and
62’;
of
In
257
back
of
yards
the
preenspace
reflects
surprising
in
front
yards.
uniformity
1-L”;
In side
yards
among
most
tracts
(Table
\‘111. .\pparently.
a rather
consistent
pattern
of positlonmg
houses
on lots has been practiced
in Syracuse
throughout
its histow
and Independent of lot bizt’. Other
houbing
pattems
not common
in Syracuse.
such a5
houses close to the street.
semi-attached
or rot\’ houses.
or more recent
cluster
housing
result
in different
dlstrlbutlon~
of greenspace
among yards.
and Its distribution
among
We were
interWed
in the type
of paving.
yards.
becsuje
of its effect
on bvaterprooflng
wrfacnes.
In all tl’acts. the
or asphalt.
clriveways
and concrete
must
Common
pavings
are t:)lacktop.
such
as
brick.
stone
or
gravei.
are less
slcle~valks.
hlore
porous
pavtngs.
common
(Table
\‘I\.
CombmIng
the distribution
of paving and other structure areas and of ~~eenspace
among
yads.
a median
of 45% of the side
yard
area between
houses
is covered
with
mostly
imprniou~
surfaces.
ivhereas
27% of
ered
by paving
the front
or other
yard area and 21% of the back yard area is c’ovstructures.
The
limited
capacity
of side yard
119
greenspace
to
se,asonally
wet
handle
the
basements
drained soils in the
sufficient
greenspace
Creenjpace
runoff
residential
to absorb
charwtertstic>
01’ I’ront.
among
lawn
hledian
vegetable
Ilower
other
cover
tree
numbers
Stde
-
well-
yards
have
back
Back
1 ards
Range
.7_.>
_
_
1
Ij- 1 2
1 z-5;
S-66
6-“1
garden
garden
area
t ret: cenop>
;Irc;r
ol’ 1 drds
wtth
lawn,
Mtth
shrubs
4-20
66-9;
16-65
11-3”
u ith gardens
other
),ards
hlrdian
Range
hlcdian
14
I2
19
53-65
4 l-65
2-Y-4&
62
62
40
:jt?-lir@
43--ci;
2;-$2
Qb
58
66
:j--26
j- L
7 !j
bare
soil I’rom
trampling
o-11
-
bare
soil irom
trees
9-15
-
cultivated
-
u ild groundcover
groundcover
5-33
8-24
b-55
trees
Predominant
4
20
1;
11
12
;8
40
.,__.-I
COLCI
-
w.ith
for
deep,
area
active
with
\ ards
11-22
1.3-29
acttve
Percent
is responsible
J ards
1
jhru b tirea
-
paving
predominantly
yards
dre;i
area
garden
and
despite
.tdt;. and hack
Range
alI greenspace
roofs
areas. Generally,
only the
most of their water load.
Front
Dtjtribution
from
in Syracuse.
iunrtion
9
4
lk
15
16
5-39
S-50
l-l
12
24
21
55-90
72
26
44
1”
14
0
5-56
w-5
o-23
‘l-60
O-28
34
3
I0
41
1
40
5;
5
38
46
15
7
S6
33
“S-53
36-6-l
O-23
11-36
35-_;5
6-30
o-31
6-90
IO-81
35
5ti
6
31
60
14
5
49
-14
oi shrubs
in )‘;irds
hedge
4-45
“3-73
r,-v3
foundation
hedge
and
iou ndat ton
specimen
human food
Care
i&
b-3
01’ vegeration
in )‘ards
IAN ns showing
tntensc
lawns
casual
showing
neglected
care
care
lawns
shrubs
showing
intensILe
shrubs
showing
casual
H ild or neglected
care
shrubs
trees showing
intensive
trees
casual
wild
showing
or neglected
care
care
care
trees
23-s-1
26-6s
O-19
12--51
25- ; 3
o-3d
tj-‘>:j
S6-IO0
O-63
120
We also recorded
of yards
the presence
to indicate
and type
its use for enclosure
of fencing
along
or screening.
the boundaries
In most
tracts,
over
90% of the front yards, over 8057 of side yards and over half of the back
yards are not fenced (Table
VI).
Conversely,
less than half of the back
yards,
people
and few front or side yards, have wire fences sufficient
to restrict
or dogs. The few wooden
screens and rustic fences also are most I>
in back yards. No clear differences
the census tracts.
We were
interested
in the use of fencing
in the distribution,
care
and
are indicated
function
among
of vegetation
types in front,
side and back yards as indications
of the revealed preferences of residents
toward
their greenspace.
and also resident orientations
toward
the neighborhood,
adjacent
neighbors
and their
more
personal
interests.
This may be most valid for one-family,
owner-occupied
homes.
as are predominant
in this study: the attitudes
differ
from
the preferences
of residences
in
of the care of greenspace with the care of
owner-occupied
and rented
residences
to
buildings
versus yards. but this cannot
be
spect,
resident
tenure
should
have been
of property
managers ma>
rented units. Comparisons
residences may be valid for both
identify
the priorities
given to
tested from our data. In retrorecorded
when
permission
for
access to lots was obtained.
To compare
the care of residences and greenspace, we equated
houses needing minor repairs wlth casual care of vegetation
as the generAy
expected
norms in Syracuse.
More and less intensive care
of
both
could
be consistently
the comparisons
are meaningful.
We also attempted
to distinguish
distirquished.
wild
from
SO we believe
neglected
vegetation,
that
be-
cause shrubs and trees m particular
can be left unattended
for several yeara
in locations
suitable
for wildlife
habitat,
screening.
and other values. Llnattended
vegetation
M’~S judged
wild unless uncorrected
damage or other
However.
it is difficult
to discern
resident
problems
suggested
neglect.
motives for leaving vegetation
unattended.
and our criteria for wild versus
neglected
vegetation
were not sufficient
to accomplish
this. Direct
inter.
viekvs with residents would be desirable
to refine this distinction.
because
conflicting
attitudes
toward
wild vegetation
‘are apparent
among city residents.
In most
study
tracts,
lawns
are nearly
universal
III
front
and back yards.
and only a little less common
In the smaller side yard5 ITable
median distribution
of la\ix area closely matches the distribution
VIII.
The
of green-
space ruea among the three yards. Compared
with the care of residence<.
lawns generally show fairly good care. and there is only a moderate decline
in care from front to back yards. There is no clear pattern
for intensive
care of lawn5 among
in all tracts.
However.
tracts:
mo<t
this is a personal
choice of many
neglected
lawns are in tracts with
housing in poor repair.
In all tracts, more front yards have shrubs
and the proportlon
of shrub area to greenspacr
residrnts
the most
than cto sictr or back yards.
area is ‘also highest in front
121
yards. Most shrubs receive intensive care
care in side and back yards. The relatively
worthy
in light of much
of Lawn care. Identifying
in front yards, and more casual
intensive care of shrubs is note-
less commercial
promotion
of shrub
shrub areas in Jrards by their primary
care than
function.
foundation
shrubs predominate
in front yards and are also common
in
side yards, but are not common
along the backs of houses. Hedge and foun.
dation
shrubs are used together
to encircle
more front yards. but hedge
shrubs alone are most comtnon
in back yards. Specimen or flowermg shrubs
are most common
in back yards. where we also recorded most shrubs for
human
food - primarily
grapes and brambles.
Rubus sp. The occurrence
of food shrubs is probably
underestimated
because small areas of these
occaslonall~p M’ere included with other shrubs.
The relatively
lo\\, proportion
of shrub area in relation to available grernspace in back yrvds is unfortunate
for urb~l wildlife.
eq~eciall> songbirds.
for which shrub cover IS partrcularl>~ valuable I DeGraaf and Thomas. 19761.
Interconnecting
bat:k y,ards through the centers of blocks offer the greatest
potential
for habitat
corridors
is most residential
areas. .A survey of altitudes
toward
~\.ildhfe in several urban areas of Neil, I’ork
reported
that
Syracuse
respondents
espressed
above-average
Interest
III encoutxglng
backyard
or neighborhood
wildlife
with respondents
from other cities.
!BroM.n and Dawjon.
19751. But along
they pave more attention
to bird feeders.
houses. and w’ater structures than to wildlife plants.
As would be expected.
the occurrence
of gardens
able
than
that
or side yards.
of
flower-garden
or
but are present
garclrtw occupy
of the \,egetable
of
laa.ns
slightly
garden
area
shrubs.
in most
Gardens
are
back yards.
in yards
absent
In most
from
is more
most
varifront
trac’ts. vegetable
greater
total area than do flower
gardens.
hlost
&area is U-I hack yards. but the median proportion
to greenspace
area 1~ greater
III side and front
!V~cl~.
This suggests that flower gardening
is oriented
more to the neighborhood
ruid neighbors.
w.hile vegetable gardening
either 15 more prwate or slmpl>
reflects the greater space available In bat.-k yards.
Gardens
also r;aq’ more over time than do Iawns and shrubs. \\‘e distinguished
active from inactive prdens
to get a partial Indication
of change
over time: rec:entl>p added gardens c:ouid not be identified.
.A median of
usually
from the prt’.
35 of back>pard vegetable
garclens are abandoned.
VIOLIS year. Tll~ suggests a small annual variation
in this activity
in most
tracts. I\lnny perennihl
flowers can persist for several ).ears after abandonment. so these indrcate decline
in gardening
interest over a longer period.
hleclians of 11’; of the flo\f.er garden area in front and slcle yarcl~. and
l-15 in ba(:k yarcl~. rue inactive. The highest proportions
of Inactive flower
gardens &are in tracts that have undergone
substantial
change from o\\.nerowuparic~~ to renters in the last decade.
Other
cover generally
occupies
a smaller
proportIon
of front
yards.
ancl more of back yards. in t-elation to greenspace areas. Cultivated
grounclcover. especially
\‘rnca. Pa~h.w7ndra.
and Hedera sp.. is the most common
type in front
vated species
yards. but
in side and
wild groundcover
back yards. Wild
is nearly as common
groundcover,
mostly
as cultiperennial
forb species. map indicate
either casualness or neglect of these areas. Bare
soil from trampling
is minor in comparison
with lawn area, but increases
from front
to back yards as a reflection
of more casual lawn care. The
area of bare soil from tree shade is proportional
to tree
but averages only about 10% of the tree ca~~opy area.
Trees
are
absent
yards in nine
tracts.
Median
from
most
front
yards
in seven tracts,
tracts, but are present in the
distribution
of tree canopy
cover
and
in yards.
most
side
majority
of back yards in all
area is roughly
proportional
to greenspace area among yards. but tree numbers are proportionally
greater
111 back yards because of more small trees there. Casual care of trees predominates,
and a much lower proportion
of trees have received intensive
care than have shrubs or lawns. The relatively
high proportions
of wild
or neglected
trees in side and back yards suggests that many of these trees
have been left deliberately
for screening between houses and lots. On many
older lots, thesta trees have overgrown
and replaced
shrub hedges. However. it appears that most of the wild or neglected trees are removed when
they interfere
with other yard values:
would have accumulated
in these yards.
The
yards.
study
clearly
Treatment
of
indicate?;
frontyard
entation
to the neighborhood.
mixed;
there IS relatively
heavy
otherwise
differences
vegetation
greater
in resident
generally
tree
canopy
orientation
area
among
suggests a strong
ori-
Orientation
to adjacent
neighbors
is more
use of flowers in side yards. but also more
use of heclge shrubs and wild or neglected
Back yards appear to be more personally
trees that may serve as screens.
oriented
to the residents. and
they generally receive more casual care.
The changes from open to closed residential
landscapes over time. dlscussed by Schmid
119751.
do not apply as \vell to Syracuse.
blast front
yards
are quite open in all study tracts. Most back yards are closed b>
fences. hedge shrubs. or tree screens. and average only slightly more open
in the newer than tn the older tract>. Open and closed landscapes In the
residential
areas of Syracuse
are interspersed.
rather than being related
vev clexl)’
tcJ devek>pnlent
&a&g?.
Because
front
yards strongly
relate to and impact
on the streetsides
and neighborhood.
it is useful to consider
frontyard
and public streetside
space and vegetation
together
as the <treetfront
resource.
\‘lewed
from
aerial photos.
residential
areas in Syracuse generally shop. prominent
strips
of greenspace
and trees running
through
back yards and smaller strips
along street fronts I Fig. 3’1. Comparing
the two resource areas. back yards
and street fronts.
our study finds a range runong tract means of 1.5 to
2.-l times more backy,ud
than streetfront
greensparr.
and 0.9 to 1.8 times
more backyard
tree canopy &area. Therefore.
III most tracts.
proportionally
greater tree canopy
is supported
to greater stresses on streetfront
by the streetfront
space. This contributes
trees that must be reflectrcl III their joint.
123
the
more
public-private
management.
Conversely,
of backyard trees appears justified
in this respect.
Our
findings
of different
physical
character
and
casual
implied
management
social
orienta-
tion of front, side and back yards in Syracuse invites speculation
on the
probable
effects
of other types of residential
layout not common
in this
city. Positioning
of houses close to the public streetside
reduces the potential
use of frontyard
vegetation
and places more emphasis on building
fronts.
Perhaps more important
is the reduced streetfront
space for support of public street trees. Reduction
of side yards by semi-attached
or
because of the more limited
sideyard
row housing may have less effect,
space to be lost. and also the ambivalent
orientation
toward adjacent neighbors. However,
if this housing pattern
is associated
with narrower
lots.
impacts between neighbors may be intensified
in back yards.
In many
recent
developments
using cluster housing,
back yards have
been reduced
in favor of more public or communal
greenspace
area. If
closure of the back yards is not developed
or permitted,
they may serve
Also, the practice
in some new deless personal
functions
for residents.
velopments
of separating
sidewalks
from streets.
and locating
them instead in public or communal
space behind houses. reduces the distinction
between
public
and
personal
parison
with the character
rtises interesting
questions
orientations
of
front
and
back
and use of residential
greenspace
as to how these new developments
yards.
Com-
111 Syracuse
will reflect
residential heterogeneity
over time.
Syracuse is a moderatedensitJ’
city with apparently
adequate
and useful
resident ial greenspace
resources.
at least In Its predominantly
residential
at the 1980 population
densit),
areas. It is also reasonably
space-efficient:
of
Syracuse.
the
current
population
of
the
United
States
would
occup
less than 15 of the nation’s
land area. It would be informative
to have
comparable
studies of residential
greenspnce
and vegetation
character
in
communities
reflecting
alternative
approaches
to efficient
use of residential
space.
The fmdings of this study do noI
hypothesis:
that changing development
to share similar
social characteristics
in
residential
grernspace
character
city. Rather,
this study documents
space and vegetation
in Syracuse.
from 30 to 100 years old - ample
among lots, even where they may
However.
because of the rather
provlcle strong support
of our Initial
patterns and tendencies
of residents
should
result In fewer differences
within
great
areas
than
heterogeneity
among
are&as of
of residential
the
green-
hlost residential
areas of this city range
time for espresslon of much individualit!
have been more homogeneous
origInally.
\veak relationshIps
of most lot compo-
nents to features
mdentifiable
by tracts in Syracuse.
1l.e believe that our
detajlecl analysis of 187 lots in ten selected census tracts provides an ade-
quate basis for ch,aracterizing
residential
greenspace
and vegetation
throughout this city.
Provision
for more residential
greenspace
by developing
large1
lots in portions
of Syracuse
~w~marily has resulted
features
of residential
vegetation
are dependent
than available
space.
in more lawn area. Other
mostly
on factors
other
This study
gives credence
to our hypothesis
that physical
evidence of
the treatment
of residential
greenspace and vegetation.
as compared
with
other features withln
lots. indicates
residents’ revealed preferences
toward
these resources.
However.
motwes
cannot
be determined
wholly
from
@ysical
evidence.
and it 1s difficult
to separate
Inertia
from current
values.
Distinction
between
otvner-occupied
and rented
residences
would
have
been useful in this study to refine
yards espress different
orientations
the concept
of residents
that front. side. and back
toward the neighborhoods.
adjacent neighbors, and more k’ersonal interests.
This case study
describes
greenspace
and vegetation
in a resldentlal
pattern common
in many urban communities
of the same development
period
in the Clnited States - detached.
mostly
single-family
houses but also twoor more-unit
residences.
positioned
on generally
rectangular
lots
so as
to provide
front.
side and back yards. Comparable
studies in other communities
and residential
patterns
are needed to esamine
the effects
of
regional
differences
and alternative
approaches
to use of residential
space
on the chraracter ,and use of residential
greenspace
and vegetation.
We recommend
our gener,aJ methodolom
modifications
to recluce fieldwork
for such studies.
but suggest some
and to refine information.
We believe
that.
for any consideration
of residential
greenspace
and vegetation.
at
least some data at about the level of detail used in this study 13 needed
to qualify
more
readily
available
generalizecl
information
on these compies
resources.
This
study
was partially
supl.‘orted
by funding
from
the C:onsortwm
for Environmental
Forestry
Studieb.
L1SD.A Forest
Service.
Valuable
advice on manuscript
development
was provided
by R.A.
Rowntree
and
R.A.
Sanders.
Northeastern
Forest
Esperiment
Station.
USDA
Forest
Service.
Lanler.
C N..
Proc.
Dtvtsion
Last,
19b:!
Dutch
Elm
oi
F T..
Natural
Good.
Its stock
oi
Behariol.,modifytng
chemicals
Disease
-1-7
Sympostttm.
Resources.
J.E.C..
trees.
Wtnnipeg.
Watson.
R.H.
a continutng
Man..
and
amenity
Dutch
1951.
In
October
pp.
Crleg,
and
elm
dtrease
IVtnnlpeg.
control.
hItin.
In
hlanltoba
3;1--39.1.
. 1976. The
D A
timber
resource
city
Scott.
oi
Edinburgh
For.
-
11%
30
126
hlallette.
J R..
1932.
hlensurational
Science
oi
Enwronmental
70 pp.
hlarotz.
data
C.A
and
Richards.
197.5.
Nebv Sork.
1975.
Department
Slmpsun.
and
Syracuse,
d A.,
R.-J..
Bur
Syracuw.
611 pp.
State
Census.
ShlS.4.
urban
trees. hl S Thesis.
College
of New York. $racuse.
NY.
snd characterization
. 12
hleteorol
oisuriace
material
919-923
trees in Syracuse
State Ltnnewty
-
oi
7.3 pp
vegetatton
-
197il
PHCt
a review
Unlversttl
oi
urban
photovaphy.
l[niversit>’
1571
J. Appl.
oi
ltntversit>,
J C.. 1X9
Streetside
space and Street
oi En\trr~nmental
Science and Fore+ty.
Inirstigation
aerial
State
Acquisition
studies.
of Geography.
1681
N l’.
NY.
Llrban
color.infrared
and Forestry.
1I.S
. 1973
J C
climatological
N .A. and Stevens.
hltsc
Pub1 . College
Schmld.
161.
Coiner.
for urban
charactertzatton
and Forestry.
residenti
hl S Thesis.
of New
York.
Census
uf
1 ,.309.
;Ind
oi Chicago.
I! S.
Syracuse.
populatlun
Department
Chicago
IL.
266
greenspace
Collepr?
stud?
Res
Pap
uith
lerge.scale
Envtronmental
color
Science
61 pp.
NS.
and
of
of
case
pp
housing.
Commerce.
census
tracts
Washington.
DC.