Satisfaction with urban trees associates with tree canopy cover and tree visibility around the home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many world cities want to expand the number of urban trees. How this expansion occurs should consider what people expect from trees based on how they experience and perceive these trees. Therefore, we need a better understanding of how people’s perceptions of urban trees may relate to the abundance of urban trees. This research examined whether people’s satisfaction with urban trees and satisfaction with the management of those trees were related to objective measures of greenery such as the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), percent tree canopy cover, and the Viewshed Greenness Visibility Index (VGVI) for trees. We used a demographic and geographically representative survey of 223 residents in Toronto, Canada, and calculated NDVI, canopy cover, and VGVI at three neighborhood sizes. We analyzed the data using generalized linear regression. We found that canopy cover and VGVI had a strong positive association with satisfaction with urban trees. The associations were stronger at larger neighborhood scales. There were no statistically significant associations with NDVI or satisfaction with the management of urban trees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".