泰山登天景区风景林资源分类及景观评价初步研究
|
摘要
泰山是我国的历史名山,其风景林是泰山风景的重要组成部分,泰山登天景区集优美的自然景观、无与伦比的历史文化遗存与典型的地质遗迹的完美结合,是泰山旅游的必经之路。本文在搜集整理泰山风景林资料基础上,采取以线路两侧调查为主,通过实地踏查、典型风景林样地调查(树种组成、树木胸径、活枝下高、树高、冠幅等)的方法,摸清了泰山登天景区风景林的资源状况和生长现状。同时通过拍摄风景林样地照片,制成幻灯片,让评价者按十分制(0-9)对每张幻灯片打分,然后将评分值进行标准化处理的方法,得到了美景度值——SBE值。对各景观要素进行分解,以SBE值为因变量,各要素值为自变量,建立与美景度相关的模型,找出影响泰山风景林景观美感的主要景观要素。结果分述如下:
1.对泰山主要的观赏树种资源进行了分类整理,从观赏的角度将泰山的观赏树种分成了观叶、观花、观果、观形四大类;从生态学和美学的角度对泰山的风景林树种资源进行了评价。认为泰山风景林还应进一步丰富树种,并对现有林分进行改造,特别应绿化现有裸地,使形成不同景观斑块。
2.对泰山登天景区样地调查结果进行分析,表明:泰山登天景区风景林林分密度过高,限制了树木的生长,林内多为小径级、小冠幅树木,使得林分的美感度大大降低。相对于针叶树油松、侧柏,阔叶树麻栎、栓皮栎、刺槐、五角槭有着较高的胸径、冠幅和明显的色彩变化。
3.摸清了登山登天景区的风景林主要树种分布情况。随着海拔的升高,树种种类逐渐减少。在海拔200～1000m,林分是以侧柏或油松为优势树种的混交林;海拔超过1000m,则是以油松为主的混交林。从风景林树种组成看,彩叶树种较少,主要是以油松、侧柏为主的常绿针叶树种。登山登天景区现存的大量古树名木时泰山历史文化的记录者,有着特殊的景观价值。
4.通过比较各景观的SBE值,发现泰山登天景区各类型风景林的美景度值大小排序为:栎林﹤侧柏林﹤刺槐林﹤油松林﹤五角槭林﹤落叶松、赤杨混交林﹤栎柏混交林﹤落叶松林﹤峭壁侧柏油松林。
5.模型模拟结果显示,影响泰山登天景区风景林景观的主要要素为:林下枯落物、胸径大小、郁闭度、林下层统一度。通过模型外要素与SBE值两两比较分析讨论,发现除了进入模型的四个变量外,树干排列、林下层高度、自然整枝、平均树高对泰山风景林的影响也较大。
根据评价结果,认为应该加强对现有风景林资源的保护,小范围的增加彩叶乔木,同时保护和种植有一定观赏性的林下灌木,丰富泰山风景林的植物种类。而通过调查,发现风景林林分密度过大,树木胸径较小,而且影响了林分卫生状况。建议通过合理的疏伐,提高林内光照,培养大径级林木,改善林分的卫生状况,丰富树种,进行林分抚育,开发灌木资源提高林分的美景度,同时要加强保护古树名木。
Mountain Tai has the most historical and natural view,its landscape forest is important part of Mountain Tai landscape. Heaven scenery zone in Mount Tai is most important tourism route which a perfect combination composed of typical geological heritages and beautiful natural scenery and unique historic heritages. By collecting materials, tread survey and investigating representative sample plots (trees species, diameter at the breast height, tree height, branching height and crown width etc.), investigated and analyzed resources and growth situation of Mountain Tai landscape forest. At the same time, photos of these plots were taken. Then the photos were estimated by college students and the scores of the photos were transformed into SBE value. Finally model was established between SBE cost and the landscape factors of the photos. Conclusions were as follows:
1. Based on ornamental value, the tree species resources of the landscape forest of the mountain Tai can be classified four kinds, such as view-leafed plant, view-flowered tree, view-shaped plant, view-fruited trees. And the resource of landscape forest was evaluated from the angle of aesthetic and ecological.
2. Discuss the relationship between the aesthetic of landscape forests and their forestry characteristic, such as density and main tree species. The forest density is so high as to limit the growth of trees. The broad leaved tree forest has the bigger diameter at breast height, crown width, variety of color than conifer.
3. Studied the distributing of the main landscape forest tree species along Heaven scenery zone route of Mountain Tai, results showed that tree species decrease with different altitude gradients. From 200～1000 meters, the stands is the mixed forests which dominant species is Pinus tabulaeformi or Platycladus orientalis. Above 1000 meters, the stands are evergreen forests which dominant species is Pinus tabulaeformi. From the viewpoint of tree species composition, the main tree species in Mountain Tai are evergreen conifer trees; the colorful tree species are few. A lot of ancient and famous trees existing in heaven scenery zone of Mountain Tai is historical recorder and has special ornamental value.
4. Compared the SBE value of the sights, the results showed that the order of the SBE value of the sights in heaven scenery zone heaven scenery zone is: Oakery﹤oriental arborvitae﹤Locust forest﹤Chinese Pine forest 5.The modeling result shows that the main factors affecting the sight of landscape forest in heaven scenery zone of Mountain are litter, diameter at breast height, canopy density and the unitize degree of the under storey. By pair-wise comparison between surplus factors and SBE value analysis, the arrangement stock, the height of under storey, natural pruning and tree height also played an important influence to the aesthetic sight of the landscape forest.
According to evaluation result, some proposals were pointed on: protecting the existing landscape forest resources; at the some time increasing colorful trees and ornamental shrubs; improving sanitation condition of forest; protecting ancient and famous trees; thinning high density stands; protecting and exploiting shrubs resources etc.
1.对泰山主要的观赏树种资源进行了分类整理,从观赏的角度将泰山的观赏树种分成了观叶、观花、观果、观形四大类;从生态学和美学的角度对泰山的风景林树种资源进行了评价。认为泰山风景林还应进一步丰富树种,并对现有林分进行改造,特别应绿化现有裸地,使形成不同景观斑块。
2.对泰山登天景区样地调查结果进行分析,表明:泰山登天景区风景林林分密度过高,限制了树木的生长,林内多为小径级、小冠幅树木,使得林分的美感度大大降低。相对于针叶树油松、侧柏,阔叶树麻栎、栓皮栎、刺槐、五角槭有着较高的胸径、冠幅和明显的色彩变化。
3.摸清了登山登天景区的风景林主要树种分布情况。随着海拔的升高,树种种类逐渐减少。在海拔200～1000m,林分是以侧柏或油松为优势树种的混交林;海拔超过1000m,则是以油松为主的混交林。从风景林树种组成看,彩叶树种较少,主要是以油松、侧柏为主的常绿针叶树种。登山登天景区现存的大量古树名木时泰山历史文化的记录者,有着特殊的景观价值。
4.通过比较各景观的SBE值,发现泰山登天景区各类型风景林的美景度值大小排序为:栎林﹤侧柏林﹤刺槐林﹤油松林﹤五角槭林﹤落叶松、赤杨混交林﹤栎柏混交林﹤落叶松林﹤峭壁侧柏油松林。
5.模型模拟结果显示,影响泰山登天景区风景林景观的主要要素为:林下枯落物、胸径大小、郁闭度、林下层统一度。通过模型外要素与SBE值两两比较分析讨论,发现除了进入模型的四个变量外,树干排列、林下层高度、自然整枝、平均树高对泰山风景林的影响也较大。
根据评价结果,认为应该加强对现有风景林资源的保护,小范围的增加彩叶乔木,同时保护和种植有一定观赏性的林下灌木,丰富泰山风景林的植物种类。而通过调查,发现风景林林分密度过大,树木胸径较小,而且影响了林分卫生状况。建议通过合理的疏伐,提高林内光照,培养大径级林木,改善林分的卫生状况,丰富树种,进行林分抚育,开发灌木资源提高林分的美景度,同时要加强保护古树名木。
Mountain Tai has the most historical and natural view,its landscape forest is important part of Mountain Tai landscape. Heaven scenery zone in Mount Tai is most important tourism route which a perfect combination composed of typical geological heritages and beautiful natural scenery and unique historic heritages. By collecting materials, tread survey and investigating representative sample plots (trees species, diameter at the breast height, tree height, branching height and crown width etc.), investigated and analyzed resources and growth situation of Mountain Tai landscape forest. At the same time, photos of these plots were taken. Then the photos were estimated by college students and the scores of the photos were transformed into SBE value. Finally model was established between SBE cost and the landscape factors of the photos. Conclusions were as follows:
1. Based on ornamental value, the tree species resources of the landscape forest of the mountain Tai can be classified four kinds, such as view-leafed plant, view-flowered tree, view-shaped plant, view-fruited trees. And the resource of landscape forest was evaluated from the angle of aesthetic and ecological.
2. Discuss the relationship between the aesthetic of landscape forests and their forestry characteristic, such as density and main tree species. The forest density is so high as to limit the growth of trees. The broad leaved tree forest has the bigger diameter at breast height, crown width, variety of color than conifer.
3. Studied the distributing of the main landscape forest tree species along Heaven scenery zone route of Mountain Tai, results showed that tree species decrease with different altitude gradients. From 200～1000 meters, the stands is the mixed forests which dominant species is Pinus tabulaeformi or Platycladus orientalis. Above 1000 meters, the stands are evergreen forests which dominant species is Pinus tabulaeformi. From the viewpoint of tree species composition, the main tree species in Mountain Tai are evergreen conifer trees; the colorful tree species are few. A lot of ancient and famous trees existing in heaven scenery zone of Mountain Tai is historical recorder and has special ornamental value.
4. Compared the SBE value of the sights, the results showed that the order of the SBE value of the sights in heaven scenery zone heaven scenery zone is: Oakery﹤oriental arborvitae﹤Locust forest﹤Chinese Pine forest
According to evaluation result, some proposals were pointed on: protecting the existing landscape forest resources; at the some time increasing colorful trees and ornamental shrubs; improving sanitation condition of forest; protecting ancient and famous trees; thinning high density stands; protecting and exploiting shrubs resources etc.
引文
[1]车生泉.长春净月潭森林公园自然景观资源生态评价[J]. 上海农学院学报, 1999, 17 (3): 189-194
[2]陈昌笃等. 景观生态学的由来和发展[M]. 见: 肖笃宁主编. 景观生态学——理论、方法[3]及应用. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1991.
[4]陈秋华,森林旅游资源 P—R 评价法的研究[J].福建林学院学报 2003,23(1):57-60
[5]陈鑫峰,贾黎明. 京西山区森林林内景观评价研究[J].林业科学. 2003,39(4):59-66
[6]陈鑫峰,沈国舫: 森林游憩的几个重要概念辨析[J].世界林业研究:2000,13(1),69-76
[7]陈鑫峰,王雁.国内外森林景观的定量评价和经营技术研究现状[J].世界林业研究,,2000,13(5):31-38.
[8]陈鑫峰,王雁.森林美剖析——主论森林植物的形式美[J],林业科学,2001,37(2):122-130.
[9]褚泓阳. 华山风景区旅游环境资源分析[J]. 西北林学院学报, 1997, 12(1): 70
[10] 但 新 球 , 龚 艳 . 论 森 林 景 观 形 式 美 感 设 计 中 南 林 业 调 查 规划.2000,19(4):30-34
[11]但新球.森林景观资源美学价值评价指标体系的研究[J].中南林业调查规划,1995,(3):44～48.
[12]邓立斌,李艳宏,吴小群.千山仙人台国家森林公园风景资源评价[J]. 西北林学院学报: 2004,19(1):123-125
[13]丁维. 苏州园林风景系统综合评价[J].南京林业大学学报,1990,14 (4): 44-49
[14]杜方明,赵怀琼,陈乃富,陈文康.天堂寨国家森林公园旅游资源评价[J].皖西学院学报,2004,20(5):118-121,125
[15]冯书成,武永照,冯嵘,等.森林旅游资源评价方法与标准的研究[J].陕西林业科技,2000(1):23-26,40
[16] 顾 金 荣 . 风 景 林 的 林 貌 结 构 及 其 配 置 [J]. 华 东 森 林 经理,1990,(2):10-12.
[17]郭衡,时以群,王云瑞.泰山景观资源评价与游人审美效应分析[J].华东森林经理,1995,9(2):47-52
[18]郭晋平.森林景观生态研究[M].北京大学出版社,2001.
[19]胡欣欣,胡宗庆,张惠光.福建省茫荡山自然保护区森林景观评价[J]. 林业经济问题(双月刊),2006,26(1):39-43
[20]黄建,王碧琴.多种评价方法在景观评价中的综合应用[J].江西科学,2006,24(4):151-153
[21]李春干,赵德海, 卫日强.森林旅游资源等级评价方法的研究[J].南京林业大学学报. 1996,20(3)年 9 月,64-68.
[22]李春干,赵德海,卫日强.森林旅游资源等级评价方法的研究[J].南京林业大学学报. 1996,20(3)年 9 月,64-68.
[23]李春阳. 帽儿山森林景观质量评价[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 1991, 19 (6): 91-95
[24]李世东. 张家界国家森林公园风景质量评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报, 1993, 17 (4): 43-47
[25]李文敏. 宝鸡天台山风景名胜区森林植被景观与评价[J]. 中国园林, 1998, 14 (60): 35-37
[26]李晓储,万志洲,黄利斌,徐海兵,刘署雯.紫金山风景林林相改造异龄复层混交模式研究[J].中国城市林业,2006.4 (4):9-12.
[27]李群,崔兵,王君玫.浅议风景林的建设与欣赏[J].防护林科技,1997,(3):40-41.
[28]李宏彬,郭春华.风景林建设的艺术性与生态观[J].西北林学院学报,2006,21(3):134-137.
[29]李景侠,康永祥.观赏植物学[M].中国林业出版社,2005.
[30]李昆仑.层次分析法在城市道路景观评价中的运用.武汉大学学报(工学版),2005,38(1):143-147,152.
[31]陆元昌,洪玲霞,雷相东. 基于森林资源二类调查数据的森林景观分类研究[J]. 林业科学: 2005,41(2),21-29
[32]陆兆苏.森林美学初探[J].华东森林经理,1995,9(3):24-28.
[33] 陆 兆 苏 . 森 林 美 学 与 森 林 公 园 的 建 设 [J]. 华 东 森 林 经理,1996,10(1):44-49.
[34]陆兆苏等.紫金山风景林的动态及其经营对策[J].南京林学院学报.1985,(3):1～11.
[35]吕君,刘丽梅.东坡赤壁风景名胜区旅游发展的景观评价研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007, 8(4):309-311
[36]罗明春. 森林公园景点分级方法讨论[J]. 森林旅游, 1998 (5): 12-14
[37]马剑英,王刚,任王君,贾戎.兰州地区森林旅游资源质量评价模型的研究[J].草 业 学 报. 2003.12(1),99-103
[38]蒙可泉,林中衍,李建新.广西黄猄洞天坑国家森林公园的风景资源分析与评价[J].广西科学院学报,2004,20 (3):182-185
[39]孟平,吴诗华.风景林概述[J].中国园林:1995,11(4):39-41
[40]倪淑萍,施德法.普陀山风景区森林景观研究.华东森林经理[J].1996,(1):58～63.
[41]秦华. 旺苍县鼓城山森林公园景观评价[J].西南农业大学学报,1993,15 (6): 527-530
[42]邵辉,宋力,支晓晶,刘平.AHP法综合评价医巫闾山森林公园景观资源[J].辽宁林业科技,2007,(1):34-38
[43]苏雪痕.植物造景[M]. 北京:中国林业出版社[M],1994.:0-150
[44]孙向阳.山西省庞泉沟自然保护区生态旅游资源及其评价[J].北京林业大学学报, 1996, 18 (2): 16-23
[45]王华东, 王建. 城市景观生态学雏议[J]. 城市环境与城市生态, 1991, (1) : 6-27.
[46]王竞红,魏殿文,张峥嵘.深圳市莲花山公园植物景观评价[J].国土与自然资源研究 2007(1):57-58
[47]王小德,风景林建设初探[J].华东森林经理:2000,14:12-14
[48]王雁,陈鑫峰.心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用[J].林业科学,1999,35(5):110-117.
[49]吴小舟, 甘肃大河坝国家森林公园旅游资源评价[J].甘肃林业科技,2005,31(3),53-55
[50]吴章文.流溪河国家森林公园旅游气候研究[J].中南林学院学报,1995,15(1):67-74.
[51]武建勇等.庞泉沟自然保护区风景资源质量评价研究[J]. 河北林果研究,2003,18(增刊) :203-207
[52]杨帆.森林公园景观设计的基本原理[J].林业调杳规划.2000,19(2)
[53]杨尚英.秦岭北坡森林公园综合评价模型研究[J].西北林学院学报2006, 21(1):136- 138
[54]杨学军等.东平国家森林公园风景林美学评价及经营对策[J].上海农学院学报,1999,17(3):201-207,236
[55]于志熙. 城市生态学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1992.
[56]余世孝,郭泺.山东泰山地区景观结构变化及其分形分析[J].生态学报,2005,25(1) , 129-134
[57]俞孔坚. 中国风景区景观评价方法初探[M]. 见: 肖笃宁主编, 景观生态学——理论、方法及应用. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1991.
[58]俞孔坚.自然风景质量评价研究——BIB-LCJ 审美评判测量法[J].北京林业大学学报,1988,10(2):1-7.
[59]翟明普,张 荣,阎海平.风景评价在风景林建设中应用研究进展[J].世界林业研究:2003,16(6):16-19
[60]张杰.帽儿山森林公园旅游资源与评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2000,28(2): 57-60
[61]张景群,王志贞.森林景观资源评价指标体系研究[J].陕西林业科技2003,4:49-53
[62]张景群,吴万兴,万婷春.陕西太平森林公园林景资源评价[J].西北林学院学报 2006, 21(2):168-171.
[63]章齐国.营造森林的美学功能[J].安徽林业, 2006 (1): 22.
[64]郑洲翔,陈锡沐,翁殊斐,杨学成.运用 BIB-LCJ 审美评判法评价棕榈科植物景观[J].亚热带植物科学,2007,36(1):46-48
[65]钟全林,周华盛.森林景观质量评价理论、内容与方法[J].华东森林经理:2004,14,37-39.
[66]Arthur L M, Boster R S. Measuring scenic beauty: A selected annotated bibliography. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-25, Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Exp Stn, Fort Collins, Colo., 1976.
[67]Arthur L M. predicting scenic beauty of environments: some empirical tests. For. Sci., 1977, 23(2):151-160.
[68]Baskent, Emin Z. Controlling spatial structure of forested landscapes: a case study towards landscape management. Landscape Ecology, 1999, 14(1): 83-97
[69]Beanscrn R E et al. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas landscape auchitects aluation. USDA For Scrv Res Pap INT-348 7P. 1985
[70]Bishop I D. Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modeling of scenic beauty. Landscape end Urban Planning, 1996, 34:125-134.
[71]Bishop I D. Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modeling of scenic beauty. Landscape end Urban Planning, 1996, 34:125-134.
[72]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to Ponderosa pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap RM-256, Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Exp Stn, Fort Collins, Colo., 1984.
[73]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci., 1986,32(2)471-487
[74]Buhyoff G J, et al. Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands. For. Sci., 1986, 32(3):769-778.
[75]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Arndt L K. Replication of a scenic preference function. For. Sci., 1980, 26(2):227-230.
[76]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimation psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. For. Sci., 1978, 24:424-432.
[77]Buhyoff G J., J D. Wellman, Harvey, R A. Fraster, Landscape Architect’s Interpretation of People’s Landscape Preference, J Environ. Manage. 1978, (6):225-262.
[78]Buhyoff G J., J D. Wellman, Landscape Preference Metrics. AnInternational Comparison. J. Environ. Manage. 1983, 16:181-190
[79]Crofts R S, Cooke R U. Landscape Evaluation: A comparison of technique. Occasional Papers, no 25, Department of Geography, University College London.1974
[80]Daniel T C, Viking J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I, Wohlwill J F. Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum Press, 1983.
[81]Daniel, Terry C.; Boster, Ron S. 1979. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. R M-167.Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA
[82]Daniel,T.C.,R.S. Boster,1976, Measuring Landscape Aesthetics The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method,USDA Forest Serv.Res,Pap.RM-167,66.
[83]Flynn M M. A method of assessing near-view scenic beauty models: A comparison of neural networks and multiple linear regressions. A thesis submitted to the requirements for the degree of M.S. in the Graduate College, The University of Arizona, 1997.
[84]Hull Ⅳ R B, Buhyoff G J, Gordell H K. Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roodside pine forests. Landscape Journal, 1987,6(2):113-122.
[85]Hull Ⅳ R B. Buhyoff G J. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessment compatible with forest planning efforts. For. Sci., 1986, 32(2):271-286.
[86]Hull Ⅳ R B. et al. Measurement of scenic beauty: the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. For. Sci., 1984, 30(4):1084-1096.
[87]Hull IV R B, Buhyoff G J, The scemic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts [J]. For Sci, 1996, 32(2):271-286
[88]Hull IV R B, Forest visual quality management and research. P485-498 in outdoor recreation benchmark Proc of the national outdoor recreationforum.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 5E-52.1988
[89]Jackson R H, et al. Assessment of the environmental impact of high voltage power transmission lines. J.Environ. Manage. , 1978(6):153-170.
[90]Kaplan S, Wendt J S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics 1972, 12(4).
[91]Litton R B, Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J.For. 1974(7):392-397.
[92]Lucas R C. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall wilderness Complex 1970-1982. USDA, For. Ser. Res. Paper INT 345, Ogden, UT, 1985.
[93]Oka, K., and Y, Ueno.1982.Landscape management and selective cutting system in the Imasu District, Japan. Forest Research, 6:1-14
[94]Ribe, Robert G. 1990. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landscape Joural. 9(2):86-101
[95]Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J, et al. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands. For. Sci., 1988,34(4):846-863.
[96]Schroeder H, Daniel T C. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. For. Sci., 1981, 27(1):71-80.
[97]Shafer E L, Rutherford W, Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. J For., 1969, 67:415-419.
[98]Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies J. Environ. Manage. 1980(11):61-76.
[99]Vodak M C, Roberts P L, Wellman J D, et al. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. For. Sci., 1985,31(2):289-301.
[100]Williams. How the familiarity of a landscape affects appreciation of it. J. Environ. Manage. 1985, 21:63-67.
[101]Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 1982, 9(1) 63-69.
[102]Zube, E. H., D.G. Pitt, & T. W. Anderson. Perception and Prediction ofScenic Resource Values of the Northeast. In, Landscape Assessment, Values, Perception, and Research.1975.P.151
[2]陈昌笃等. 景观生态学的由来和发展[M]. 见: 肖笃宁主编. 景观生态学——理论、方法[3]及应用. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1991.
[4]陈秋华,森林旅游资源 P—R 评价法的研究[J].福建林学院学报 2003,23(1):57-60
[5]陈鑫峰,贾黎明. 京西山区森林林内景观评价研究[J].林业科学. 2003,39(4):59-66
[6]陈鑫峰,沈国舫: 森林游憩的几个重要概念辨析[J].世界林业研究:2000,13(1),69-76
[7]陈鑫峰,王雁.国内外森林景观的定量评价和经营技术研究现状[J].世界林业研究,,2000,13(5):31-38.
[8]陈鑫峰,王雁.森林美剖析——主论森林植物的形式美[J],林业科学,2001,37(2):122-130.
[9]褚泓阳. 华山风景区旅游环境资源分析[J]. 西北林学院学报, 1997, 12(1): 70
[10] 但 新 球 , 龚 艳 . 论 森 林 景 观 形 式 美 感 设 计 中 南 林 业 调 查 规划.2000,19(4):30-34
[11]但新球.森林景观资源美学价值评价指标体系的研究[J].中南林业调查规划,1995,(3):44～48.
[12]邓立斌,李艳宏,吴小群.千山仙人台国家森林公园风景资源评价[J]. 西北林学院学报: 2004,19(1):123-125
[13]丁维. 苏州园林风景系统综合评价[J].南京林业大学学报,1990,14 (4): 44-49
[14]杜方明,赵怀琼,陈乃富,陈文康.天堂寨国家森林公园旅游资源评价[J].皖西学院学报,2004,20(5):118-121,125
[15]冯书成,武永照,冯嵘,等.森林旅游资源评价方法与标准的研究[J].陕西林业科技,2000(1):23-26,40
[16] 顾 金 荣 . 风 景 林 的 林 貌 结 构 及 其 配 置 [J]. 华 东 森 林 经理,1990,(2):10-12.
[17]郭衡,时以群,王云瑞.泰山景观资源评价与游人审美效应分析[J].华东森林经理,1995,9(2):47-52
[18]郭晋平.森林景观生态研究[M].北京大学出版社,2001.
[19]胡欣欣,胡宗庆,张惠光.福建省茫荡山自然保护区森林景观评价[J]. 林业经济问题(双月刊),2006,26(1):39-43
[20]黄建,王碧琴.多种评价方法在景观评价中的综合应用[J].江西科学,2006,24(4):151-153
[21]李春干,赵德海, 卫日强.森林旅游资源等级评价方法的研究[J].南京林业大学学报. 1996,20(3)年 9 月,64-68.
[22]李春干,赵德海,卫日强.森林旅游资源等级评价方法的研究[J].南京林业大学学报. 1996,20(3)年 9 月,64-68.
[23]李春阳. 帽儿山森林景观质量评价[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 1991, 19 (6): 91-95
[24]李世东. 张家界国家森林公园风景质量评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报, 1993, 17 (4): 43-47
[25]李文敏. 宝鸡天台山风景名胜区森林植被景观与评价[J]. 中国园林, 1998, 14 (60): 35-37
[26]李晓储,万志洲,黄利斌,徐海兵,刘署雯.紫金山风景林林相改造异龄复层混交模式研究[J].中国城市林业,2006.4 (4):9-12.
[27]李群,崔兵,王君玫.浅议风景林的建设与欣赏[J].防护林科技,1997,(3):40-41.
[28]李宏彬,郭春华.风景林建设的艺术性与生态观[J].西北林学院学报,2006,21(3):134-137.
[29]李景侠,康永祥.观赏植物学[M].中国林业出版社,2005.
[30]李昆仑.层次分析法在城市道路景观评价中的运用.武汉大学学报(工学版),2005,38(1):143-147,152.
[31]陆元昌,洪玲霞,雷相东. 基于森林资源二类调查数据的森林景观分类研究[J]. 林业科学: 2005,41(2),21-29
[32]陆兆苏.森林美学初探[J].华东森林经理,1995,9(3):24-28.
[33] 陆 兆 苏 . 森 林 美 学 与 森 林 公 园 的 建 设 [J]. 华 东 森 林 经理,1996,10(1):44-49.
[34]陆兆苏等.紫金山风景林的动态及其经营对策[J].南京林学院学报.1985,(3):1～11.
[35]吕君,刘丽梅.东坡赤壁风景名胜区旅游发展的景观评价研究[J].内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007, 8(4):309-311
[36]罗明春. 森林公园景点分级方法讨论[J]. 森林旅游, 1998 (5): 12-14
[37]马剑英,王刚,任王君,贾戎.兰州地区森林旅游资源质量评价模型的研究[J].草 业 学 报. 2003.12(1),99-103
[38]蒙可泉,林中衍,李建新.广西黄猄洞天坑国家森林公园的风景资源分析与评价[J].广西科学院学报,2004,20 (3):182-185
[39]孟平,吴诗华.风景林概述[J].中国园林:1995,11(4):39-41
[40]倪淑萍,施德法.普陀山风景区森林景观研究.华东森林经理[J].1996,(1):58～63.
[41]秦华. 旺苍县鼓城山森林公园景观评价[J].西南农业大学学报,1993,15 (6): 527-530
[42]邵辉,宋力,支晓晶,刘平.AHP法综合评价医巫闾山森林公园景观资源[J].辽宁林业科技,2007,(1):34-38
[43]苏雪痕.植物造景[M]. 北京:中国林业出版社[M],1994.:0-150
[44]孙向阳.山西省庞泉沟自然保护区生态旅游资源及其评价[J].北京林业大学学报, 1996, 18 (2): 16-23
[45]王华东, 王建. 城市景观生态学雏议[J]. 城市环境与城市生态, 1991, (1) : 6-27.
[46]王竞红,魏殿文,张峥嵘.深圳市莲花山公园植物景观评价[J].国土与自然资源研究 2007(1):57-58
[47]王小德,风景林建设初探[J].华东森林经理:2000,14:12-14
[48]王雁,陈鑫峰.心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用[J].林业科学,1999,35(5):110-117.
[49]吴小舟, 甘肃大河坝国家森林公园旅游资源评价[J].甘肃林业科技,2005,31(3),53-55
[50]吴章文.流溪河国家森林公园旅游气候研究[J].中南林学院学报,1995,15(1):67-74.
[51]武建勇等.庞泉沟自然保护区风景资源质量评价研究[J]. 河北林果研究,2003,18(增刊) :203-207
[52]杨帆.森林公园景观设计的基本原理[J].林业调杳规划.2000,19(2)
[53]杨尚英.秦岭北坡森林公园综合评价模型研究[J].西北林学院学报2006, 21(1):136- 138
[54]杨学军等.东平国家森林公园风景林美学评价及经营对策[J].上海农学院学报,1999,17(3):201-207,236
[55]于志熙. 城市生态学[M]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1992.
[56]余世孝,郭泺.山东泰山地区景观结构变化及其分形分析[J].生态学报,2005,25(1) , 129-134
[57]俞孔坚. 中国风景区景观评价方法初探[M]. 见: 肖笃宁主编, 景观生态学——理论、方法及应用. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1991.
[58]俞孔坚.自然风景质量评价研究——BIB-LCJ 审美评判测量法[J].北京林业大学学报,1988,10(2):1-7.
[59]翟明普,张 荣,阎海平.风景评价在风景林建设中应用研究进展[J].世界林业研究:2003,16(6):16-19
[60]张杰.帽儿山森林公园旅游资源与评价[J].东北林业大学学报,2000,28(2): 57-60
[61]张景群,王志贞.森林景观资源评价指标体系研究[J].陕西林业科技2003,4:49-53
[62]张景群,吴万兴,万婷春.陕西太平森林公园林景资源评价[J].西北林学院学报 2006, 21(2):168-171.
[63]章齐国.营造森林的美学功能[J].安徽林业, 2006 (1): 22.
[64]郑洲翔,陈锡沐,翁殊斐,杨学成.运用 BIB-LCJ 审美评判法评价棕榈科植物景观[J].亚热带植物科学,2007,36(1):46-48
[65]钟全林,周华盛.森林景观质量评价理论、内容与方法[J].华东森林经理:2004,14,37-39.
[66]Arthur L M, Boster R S. Measuring scenic beauty: A selected annotated bibliography. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-25, Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Exp Stn, Fort Collins, Colo., 1976.
[67]Arthur L M. predicting scenic beauty of environments: some empirical tests. For. Sci., 1977, 23(2):151-160.
[68]Baskent, Emin Z. Controlling spatial structure of forested landscapes: a case study towards landscape management. Landscape Ecology, 1999, 14(1): 83-97
[69]Beanscrn R E et al. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas landscape auchitects aluation. USDA For Scrv Res Pap INT-348 7P. 1985
[70]Bishop I D. Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modeling of scenic beauty. Landscape end Urban Planning, 1996, 34:125-134.
[71]Bishop I D. Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modeling of scenic beauty. Landscape end Urban Planning, 1996, 34:125-134.
[72]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to Ponderosa pine. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap RM-256, Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Exp Stn, Fort Collins, Colo., 1984.
[73]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci., 1986,32(2)471-487
[74]Buhyoff G J, et al. Prediction of scenic quality for southern pine stands. For. Sci., 1986, 32(3):769-778.
[75]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Arndt L K. Replication of a scenic preference function. For. Sci., 1980, 26(2):227-230.
[76]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimation psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. For. Sci., 1978, 24:424-432.
[77]Buhyoff G J., J D. Wellman, Harvey, R A. Fraster, Landscape Architect’s Interpretation of People’s Landscape Preference, J Environ. Manage. 1978, (6):225-262.
[78]Buhyoff G J., J D. Wellman, Landscape Preference Metrics. AnInternational Comparison. J. Environ. Manage. 1983, 16:181-190
[79]Crofts R S, Cooke R U. Landscape Evaluation: A comparison of technique. Occasional Papers, no 25, Department of Geography, University College London.1974
[80]Daniel T C, Viking J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I, Wohlwill J F. Behavior and the natural environment. New York: Plenum Press, 1983.
[81]Daniel, Terry C.; Boster, Ron S. 1979. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. R M-167.Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA
[82]Daniel,T.C.,R.S. Boster,1976, Measuring Landscape Aesthetics The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method,USDA Forest Serv.Res,Pap.RM-167,66.
[83]Flynn M M. A method of assessing near-view scenic beauty models: A comparison of neural networks and multiple linear regressions. A thesis submitted to the requirements for the degree of M.S. in the Graduate College, The University of Arizona, 1997.
[84]Hull Ⅳ R B, Buhyoff G J, Gordell H K. Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roodside pine forests. Landscape Journal, 1987,6(2):113-122.
[85]Hull Ⅳ R B. Buhyoff G J. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessment compatible with forest planning efforts. For. Sci., 1986, 32(2):271-286.
[86]Hull Ⅳ R B. et al. Measurement of scenic beauty: the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. For. Sci., 1984, 30(4):1084-1096.
[87]Hull IV R B, Buhyoff G J, The scemic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts [J]. For Sci, 1996, 32(2):271-286
[88]Hull IV R B, Forest visual quality management and research. P485-498 in outdoor recreation benchmark Proc of the national outdoor recreationforum.USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. 5E-52.1988
[89]Jackson R H, et al. Assessment of the environmental impact of high voltage power transmission lines. J.Environ. Manage. , 1978(6):153-170.
[90]Kaplan S, Wendt J S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics 1972, 12(4).
[91]Litton R B, Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J.For. 1974(7):392-397.
[92]Lucas R C. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and use patterns in the Bob Marshall wilderness Complex 1970-1982. USDA, For. Ser. Res. Paper INT 345, Ogden, UT, 1985.
[93]Oka, K., and Y, Ueno.1982.Landscape management and selective cutting system in the Imasu District, Japan. Forest Research, 6:1-14
[94]Ribe, Robert G. 1990. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landscape Joural. 9(2):86-101
[95]Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J, et al. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands. For. Sci., 1988,34(4):846-863.
[96]Schroeder H, Daniel T C. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. For. Sci., 1981, 27(1):71-80.
[97]Shafer E L, Rutherford W, Selection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. J For., 1969, 67:415-419.
[98]Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies J. Environ. Manage. 1980(11):61-76.
[99]Vodak M C, Roberts P L, Wellman J D, et al. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. For. Sci., 1985,31(2):289-301.
[100]Williams. How the familiarity of a landscape affects appreciation of it. J. Environ. Manage. 1985, 21:63-67.
[101]Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 1982, 9(1) 63-69.
[102]Zube, E. H., D.G. Pitt, & T. W. Anderson. Perception and Prediction ofScenic Resource Values of the Northeast. In, Landscape Assessment, Values, Perception, and Research.1975.P.151
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |