北京市城区城市森林结构及景观美学评价研究
|
摘要
城市森林是城市生态系统的重要组成部分,结构和功能是其首要特征,了解城市森林的结构及其与功能的关系、协调城市森林多种功能的发挥是更好地建设城市森林的关键。而城市森林景观质量是其社会服务功能的重要方面。
本研究以北京市城区城市森林为研究对象,以群落学调查为基础,对城市森林的植物组成结构特征及空间分布特点进行了研究；对景观质量评价的指标、方法进行了研究；对典型城市森林景观美学质量和主要树种的单体景观美学质量进行了评价、对景观美学质量预测检验进行了研究。以此阐述北京市城区城市森林的结构特征、探究结构与景观质量之间的关系、揭示影响城市森林景观美学质量的主要因子。以进一步为北京城市森林的景观建设和改造优化实践提供参考、为城市森林生态系统服务功能的提升提供理论依据。主要结论如下：
(1)北京市城区城市森林依据群落外貌的优势种类型可划分为71个群落类型,分为针叶林、阔叶林、针阔混交林和竹林四种外貌类型和七种生活型类型。城区城市森林植物108科323属633种,分别占北京市植物总科、属、种数的63.12%、33.82%和29.62%,总体数量偏低；在木本植物中,松科、杨柳科、蔷薇科等构成了城区城市森林植物群落的优势科；乡土种仅占全北京乡土种的22.00%,比例偏低,而引进种占全北京引种植物的48.30%,国外引进种占20.68%,比例偏高；木本植物乡土种低于外来种；乡土乔木、灌木、草本种占北京山区野生乔木、灌木、草本种的62.22%、53.45%和23.56%。受地带性的影响同时在城市化建设的人为干扰下表现出一定的变异性；乡土植物利用不够,尤其灌木和草本植物乡土种有十分大的应用潜力；少数几个种应用频度高而多数种应用频度低,是造成植被景观单一的原因之一。
(2)受人为因素干扰,乔、冠、草不同层次的多样性指数在不同城市森林绿地有一定的差异,总体多样性指数以草本层最高；乔、冠、草不同层次的Patrick指数为以草本层最高、灌木层最低、乔木层居中；Pielou指数表现为乔木层>灌木层>草本层。城区城市森林的建设受人为干扰影响较大,规律性较差,木本Simpson指数、Patrick指数、草本和乡土草本Patrick指数都呈高斯模型的变化趋势；草本Simpson指数呈指数模型变化趋势；乡土木本种Patrick指数呈球状模型变化趋势；半方差曲线中木本Patrick指数、乡土草本种Patrick指数和草本Patrick指数的基台值最高；木本Patrick指数和Simpson指数的结构方差比最高；木本Simpson指数各个方向异质性差；乡土木本种Patrick指数在不同方向上,基台值、块金值和变程均不相同,具有条带状各向异性的特征,表现出一定的不均衡性；木本Patrick指数在大斑块中间分布有值更高或更低的小斑块,南、北部有一定的差异；草本Patrick指数值除西北部较高、市中心区较低外,其余地方插值图斑块边界复杂、斑块破碎化较严重、斑块呈交错分布；乡土种Patrick指数值规律性明显,市中心区低、向市区四周延伸逐渐增加；北京城区城市森林植物种组成状况明显受到人为干扰,种类和分布都产生了复杂变化。
(3)以实际调查查阅相关文献资料为基础初选评价因子,应用灰色系统理论、层次分析法、统计评判法等对影响城市森林景观美学质量的指标进行筛选,最后确定郁闭度、灌木盖度、草本盖度、胸径分布、林分密度、枯枝明显度、空间联系性、观赏特性多样性、灌草统一度、枯树倒木、枯枝落叶等23个指标是影响北京城区城市森林景观美学质量的重要指标,构建评价指标体系。
(4)应用AHP法、SMPPC法、TOPSIS法和SBE法四种方法分别对城市森林景观样地进行评价,四种不同评价方法获得的景观值不存在显著性差异,都能够体现整体景观特征,可信度较强。心理物理学的SBE法以大众品味作为评判标准,评价结果具有数量基础,操作简单易行,且结果可信度高,SBE法仍然是当前行之有效的城市森林景观评价方法；其余三种方法评价客观性强,但过程比较复杂。实践中四种评价方法可以结合应用;随着计算机技术和地理信息技术的发展,新的评价方法不断涌现,对于城市森林景观建设具有很好的促进作用。
(5)采用SBE法评价城市森林景观质量,不同类型城市森林景观美景度以近自然公园最高、郊野公园最低；不同植被类型景观质量以阔叶纯林、混交林和针阔混交林最高、常绿针叶纯林最低；采用多元数量化方法,构建了不同城市森林类型景观美景度模型；利用曲线回归构建了单因素模型,各模型拟合度高,可以反映不同城市森林绿地和各景观要素的景观美学质量特征,郁闭度、草本盖度、林分密度对景观的影响都呈二次曲线模型；调整林分结构使林分密度、郁闭度等处于中等级别以形成良好的景观空间是今后建设的重点；这为进一步城市森林的景观优化提供了理论基础依据。
(6)景观美景度法和灰色关联法对城市森林树种单体景观的评价结果具有很好的一致性；单体景观评价显示,针叶树景观质量高于阔叶树、外来种高于乡土种；城区城市森林中Ⅰ、Ⅱ级景观乔木树种各占18.97%和63.79%,它们在城市森林中出现频率和单种数量均占绝对优势,体现了北京城市森林的整体景观面貌和风格特色；外来树种丰富了城市森林景观内容,但更要加大乡土种的应用力度,使其充分发挥景观效果。
(7)以不同模型对城市森林景观美学质量进行预测评价,卡方统计检验说明实测值与五种模型的预测值之间没有显著差异,五种模型的预测值都是合理的。进一步分析,BP模型预测精度高、稳定性好、风险低,预测合格率达90%,同时其决定系数高,线性关系好；总体上BP模型的预测检验效果最好,建议使用BP模型进行城市森林景质量的预测评价。
(8)典型公园城市森林景观引入POE评价,结果表明目前城市森林景观建设还不能很好地满足使用者的需求,景观质量的提升还有很大空间。要以多学科知识为指导、循序渐进,不断提高景观质量。
Urban forest is the key components of urban ecosystem and structure and function is its primary characteristics. To understand the city forest structure and its relationship with function and to coordinate variety functions for the better construction is the key area. The landscape quality is the most important aspect of it's social service function.
This study taking the urban forest of Beijing city as the research object, the plants composition-structure characteristics and spatial distribution characteristics are studied by the community survey as the foundation, landscape quality evaluation index and method are studied, the typical urban forest landscape aesthetic quality and the main species of monomer landscape aesthetic quality are evaluated, landscape aesthetic quality prediction test was researched. Then elaborating the structural features of the urban forest, exploring the relationship between the structure and landscape quality, revealing the main factors to affect the aesthetic quality of urban forest landscape, providing a reference for landscape construction, renovation and optimization practice of the urban forest and providing a theoretical basis for the enhancement of the urban forest ecosystem services in Beijing. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) It can be divided into72community types based on community appearance of dominant species in urban forest of Beijing city, and it can be divided into coniferous forest, broad-leaved forest, broad-leaved and coniferous mixed forest and bamboo forest four physiognomy types and seven kinds of life types. According to the urban floral category, there are633plant species in total which belong to108families and323genus in the green space in urban forest of Beijing city, which occupy63.12%,33.82%and29.62%of the total plant families, genus and species, the overall population is low and focus on Compositae, Gramineae, Leguminosae, Rosaceae, Cyperaceae such worldwide families. Pinaceae. Salicaceae and Rosaceae constituted dominant families in plant community of woody plants. Native species have a low proportion and occupy22%of the total native plant species in Beijing. Exotic species have a high proportion and occupy48.30%of exotic plants in Beijing, and native arbors, shrubs, herbs occupy62.22%,53.45%and23.56%of total species of Beijing mountainous area. It showed a certain amount of variability by influence of zonal effects and urbanization of the human disturbance. Native plants use is not enough, especially shrub and herb plants have very great application potential. A few kinds of application of high frequency application of low frequency and which was one of the reasons the vegetation landscape single.
(2) Arbor, shrub, herb diversity index have certain differences in different urban forest green space from human interference. Patrick index is arranged in the herbs layer, arbor layer and shrub layer, and Pielou index is arranged in the arbor layer, shrub layer and herbs layer. Wood Simpson index, Patrick index and herb Patrick index were Gaussian model trend, herb Simpson index was exponential model trend, native wood Patrick index showed a trend of spherical model. Semivariance curve of wood Patrick index and herb (local herb) Patrick index have high Still value, woody Patrick index and Simpson index have high structural variance ratio value, native wood Patrick index are not the same trends in different directions on Sill, Nugget value and the Range process and banded anisotropic characteristics, showing a certain degree of imbalance. Wood Patrick index in the big patches distribution among have value higher or lower small patches, there is a certain difference from South to north. Herb Patrick index was lower in city center and higher in the northwestern, the rest place where the boundary complex, patch fragmentation more serious, patch is crisscross distribution. Native Patrick index regularity is obvious, the downtown area low, toward the city around extensions gradually increase. Urban forest plant species composition condition clearly influenced by the human interference, types and distribution has had a complex changes.
(3) Based on the actual investigation and access relevant literature material as the basic primary evaluation factors, the indicators of the aesthetic quality of urban forest landscape were screened through grey system theory, analytic hierarchy process and statistics evaluation method. Then Identified density of canopy, coverage of herbage, stock density, diameter distribution, noticeability of dead branch, spatial relation, ornamental characteristics diversity, unified degree of shrub and grass et cl23indicators that affect the aesthetic quality of urban forest landscape of Beijing city, then evaluation index system were established.
(4) Landscape sample evaluation were conducted with AHP method SM-PPC method, TOPSIS method and SBE method. Four different method for the evaluation of the landscape value does not exist significant differences, to be able to reflect the overall landscape features, credibility is stronger. Psychological paradigm's SBE method are easy operation with mass taste as evaluation standards and Evaluation results are reliable, SBE method is still effective landscape evaluation method current. The objectivity of the other three kinds of methods is strong, but the process is more complex. Four evaluation methods can be combined with practice applications. With the development of computer technology and geographic information technologies, new evaluation methods continue to emerge, has a good role in promoting the construction of urban forest landscape.
(5) Landscape quality evaluation were conducted using SBE method in urban forest, and nearly nature park is the highest value and country park is the lowest value of landscape beauty in different types of urban forest, and broad-leaved and coniferous mixed forest has the highest value and deciduous broad-leaved pure forest has the lowest value of landscape beauty in different vegetation types. Different types of urban forest landscape beauty models were built using multiple quantitative method, the single factor models were constructed using curve regression method. The model fitting high, each model fitting degree is high, can reflect the characteristics of different urban forest green space and the landscape elements of landscape aesthetic quality. Crown density, herb coverage and stand density are two times curve model in test. Adjust forest structure so that the stand and canopy density are in medium level so as to form a good landscape is the key construction aspect in the future. Which provides a theoretical basis for further optimization of urban forest landscape.
(6) Landscape beauty value method and gray association analysis in good agreement with the evaluation results has the very good consistency with scenic beauty estmation method and grey correlation analysis method in urban forest species monomer landscape. Monomer landscape evaluation shows that conifers landscape quality higher than broadleaf trees, exotic species higher than native species. Ⅰ,Ⅱ grade landscape tree species each accounted for18.97%and63.79%, frequency and single-number account for an absolute advantage in the urban forest. It embodies the overall appearance and style of urban forest landscape in Beijing. We should make fully exerting landscape effect to increase the application of native species.
(7) Urban forest scenery aesthetic quality was predicted and tested in five different model, and chi-square statistical test shows no significant differences between the measured value and the predictive value of the five models. The BP model has high forecast accuracy, good stability, low risk, higher decision coefficient, good linear relationship and predict pass rate up to90%. Generally, the BP model prediction effect is the best, we suggest using BP model in the prediction of urban forest landscape quality.
(8) POE method was used in typical parks, the results show that the current urban forest landscape construction still cannot meet the needs of users. It has a large space in increasing the quality of urban forest landscape and improving the quality of urban forest landscape constantly based on multi-disciplinary knowledge is a very hard work.
本研究以北京市城区城市森林为研究对象,以群落学调查为基础,对城市森林的植物组成结构特征及空间分布特点进行了研究；对景观质量评价的指标、方法进行了研究；对典型城市森林景观美学质量和主要树种的单体景观美学质量进行了评价、对景观美学质量预测检验进行了研究。以此阐述北京市城区城市森林的结构特征、探究结构与景观质量之间的关系、揭示影响城市森林景观美学质量的主要因子。以进一步为北京城市森林的景观建设和改造优化实践提供参考、为城市森林生态系统服务功能的提升提供理论依据。主要结论如下：
(1)北京市城区城市森林依据群落外貌的优势种类型可划分为71个群落类型,分为针叶林、阔叶林、针阔混交林和竹林四种外貌类型和七种生活型类型。城区城市森林植物108科323属633种,分别占北京市植物总科、属、种数的63.12%、33.82%和29.62%,总体数量偏低；在木本植物中,松科、杨柳科、蔷薇科等构成了城区城市森林植物群落的优势科；乡土种仅占全北京乡土种的22.00%,比例偏低,而引进种占全北京引种植物的48.30%,国外引进种占20.68%,比例偏高；木本植物乡土种低于外来种；乡土乔木、灌木、草本种占北京山区野生乔木、灌木、草本种的62.22%、53.45%和23.56%。受地带性的影响同时在城市化建设的人为干扰下表现出一定的变异性；乡土植物利用不够,尤其灌木和草本植物乡土种有十分大的应用潜力；少数几个种应用频度高而多数种应用频度低,是造成植被景观单一的原因之一。
(2)受人为因素干扰,乔、冠、草不同层次的多样性指数在不同城市森林绿地有一定的差异,总体多样性指数以草本层最高；乔、冠、草不同层次的Patrick指数为以草本层最高、灌木层最低、乔木层居中；Pielou指数表现为乔木层>灌木层>草本层。城区城市森林的建设受人为干扰影响较大,规律性较差,木本Simpson指数、Patrick指数、草本和乡土草本Patrick指数都呈高斯模型的变化趋势；草本Simpson指数呈指数模型变化趋势；乡土木本种Patrick指数呈球状模型变化趋势；半方差曲线中木本Patrick指数、乡土草本种Patrick指数和草本Patrick指数的基台值最高；木本Patrick指数和Simpson指数的结构方差比最高；木本Simpson指数各个方向异质性差；乡土木本种Patrick指数在不同方向上,基台值、块金值和变程均不相同,具有条带状各向异性的特征,表现出一定的不均衡性；木本Patrick指数在大斑块中间分布有值更高或更低的小斑块,南、北部有一定的差异；草本Patrick指数值除西北部较高、市中心区较低外,其余地方插值图斑块边界复杂、斑块破碎化较严重、斑块呈交错分布；乡土种Patrick指数值规律性明显,市中心区低、向市区四周延伸逐渐增加；北京城区城市森林植物种组成状况明显受到人为干扰,种类和分布都产生了复杂变化。
(3)以实际调查查阅相关文献资料为基础初选评价因子,应用灰色系统理论、层次分析法、统计评判法等对影响城市森林景观美学质量的指标进行筛选,最后确定郁闭度、灌木盖度、草本盖度、胸径分布、林分密度、枯枝明显度、空间联系性、观赏特性多样性、灌草统一度、枯树倒木、枯枝落叶等23个指标是影响北京城区城市森林景观美学质量的重要指标,构建评价指标体系。
(4)应用AHP法、SMPPC法、TOPSIS法和SBE法四种方法分别对城市森林景观样地进行评价,四种不同评价方法获得的景观值不存在显著性差异,都能够体现整体景观特征,可信度较强。心理物理学的SBE法以大众品味作为评判标准,评价结果具有数量基础,操作简单易行,且结果可信度高,SBE法仍然是当前行之有效的城市森林景观评价方法；其余三种方法评价客观性强,但过程比较复杂。实践中四种评价方法可以结合应用;随着计算机技术和地理信息技术的发展,新的评价方法不断涌现,对于城市森林景观建设具有很好的促进作用。
(5)采用SBE法评价城市森林景观质量,不同类型城市森林景观美景度以近自然公园最高、郊野公园最低；不同植被类型景观质量以阔叶纯林、混交林和针阔混交林最高、常绿针叶纯林最低；采用多元数量化方法,构建了不同城市森林类型景观美景度模型；利用曲线回归构建了单因素模型,各模型拟合度高,可以反映不同城市森林绿地和各景观要素的景观美学质量特征,郁闭度、草本盖度、林分密度对景观的影响都呈二次曲线模型；调整林分结构使林分密度、郁闭度等处于中等级别以形成良好的景观空间是今后建设的重点；这为进一步城市森林的景观优化提供了理论基础依据。
(6)景观美景度法和灰色关联法对城市森林树种单体景观的评价结果具有很好的一致性；单体景观评价显示,针叶树景观质量高于阔叶树、外来种高于乡土种；城区城市森林中Ⅰ、Ⅱ级景观乔木树种各占18.97%和63.79%,它们在城市森林中出现频率和单种数量均占绝对优势,体现了北京城市森林的整体景观面貌和风格特色；外来树种丰富了城市森林景观内容,但更要加大乡土种的应用力度,使其充分发挥景观效果。
(7)以不同模型对城市森林景观美学质量进行预测评价,卡方统计检验说明实测值与五种模型的预测值之间没有显著差异,五种模型的预测值都是合理的。进一步分析,BP模型预测精度高、稳定性好、风险低,预测合格率达90%,同时其决定系数高,线性关系好；总体上BP模型的预测检验效果最好,建议使用BP模型进行城市森林景质量的预测评价。
(8)典型公园城市森林景观引入POE评价,结果表明目前城市森林景观建设还不能很好地满足使用者的需求,景观质量的提升还有很大空间。要以多学科知识为指导、循序渐进,不断提高景观质量。
Urban forest is the key components of urban ecosystem and structure and function is its primary characteristics. To understand the city forest structure and its relationship with function and to coordinate variety functions for the better construction is the key area. The landscape quality is the most important aspect of it's social service function.
This study taking the urban forest of Beijing city as the research object, the plants composition-structure characteristics and spatial distribution characteristics are studied by the community survey as the foundation, landscape quality evaluation index and method are studied, the typical urban forest landscape aesthetic quality and the main species of monomer landscape aesthetic quality are evaluated, landscape aesthetic quality prediction test was researched. Then elaborating the structural features of the urban forest, exploring the relationship between the structure and landscape quality, revealing the main factors to affect the aesthetic quality of urban forest landscape, providing a reference for landscape construction, renovation and optimization practice of the urban forest and providing a theoretical basis for the enhancement of the urban forest ecosystem services in Beijing. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) It can be divided into72community types based on community appearance of dominant species in urban forest of Beijing city, and it can be divided into coniferous forest, broad-leaved forest, broad-leaved and coniferous mixed forest and bamboo forest four physiognomy types and seven kinds of life types. According to the urban floral category, there are633plant species in total which belong to108families and323genus in the green space in urban forest of Beijing city, which occupy63.12%,33.82%and29.62%of the total plant families, genus and species, the overall population is low and focus on Compositae, Gramineae, Leguminosae, Rosaceae, Cyperaceae such worldwide families. Pinaceae. Salicaceae and Rosaceae constituted dominant families in plant community of woody plants. Native species have a low proportion and occupy22%of the total native plant species in Beijing. Exotic species have a high proportion and occupy48.30%of exotic plants in Beijing, and native arbors, shrubs, herbs occupy62.22%,53.45%and23.56%of total species of Beijing mountainous area. It showed a certain amount of variability by influence of zonal effects and urbanization of the human disturbance. Native plants use is not enough, especially shrub and herb plants have very great application potential. A few kinds of application of high frequency application of low frequency and which was one of the reasons the vegetation landscape single.
(2) Arbor, shrub, herb diversity index have certain differences in different urban forest green space from human interference. Patrick index is arranged in the herbs layer, arbor layer and shrub layer, and Pielou index is arranged in the arbor layer, shrub layer and herbs layer. Wood Simpson index, Patrick index and herb Patrick index were Gaussian model trend, herb Simpson index was exponential model trend, native wood Patrick index showed a trend of spherical model. Semivariance curve of wood Patrick index and herb (local herb) Patrick index have high Still value, woody Patrick index and Simpson index have high structural variance ratio value, native wood Patrick index are not the same trends in different directions on Sill, Nugget value and the Range process and banded anisotropic characteristics, showing a certain degree of imbalance. Wood Patrick index in the big patches distribution among have value higher or lower small patches, there is a certain difference from South to north. Herb Patrick index was lower in city center and higher in the northwestern, the rest place where the boundary complex, patch fragmentation more serious, patch is crisscross distribution. Native Patrick index regularity is obvious, the downtown area low, toward the city around extensions gradually increase. Urban forest plant species composition condition clearly influenced by the human interference, types and distribution has had a complex changes.
(3) Based on the actual investigation and access relevant literature material as the basic primary evaluation factors, the indicators of the aesthetic quality of urban forest landscape were screened through grey system theory, analytic hierarchy process and statistics evaluation method. Then Identified density of canopy, coverage of herbage, stock density, diameter distribution, noticeability of dead branch, spatial relation, ornamental characteristics diversity, unified degree of shrub and grass et cl23indicators that affect the aesthetic quality of urban forest landscape of Beijing city, then evaluation index system were established.
(4) Landscape sample evaluation were conducted with AHP method SM-PPC method, TOPSIS method and SBE method. Four different method for the evaluation of the landscape value does not exist significant differences, to be able to reflect the overall landscape features, credibility is stronger. Psychological paradigm's SBE method are easy operation with mass taste as evaluation standards and Evaluation results are reliable, SBE method is still effective landscape evaluation method current. The objectivity of the other three kinds of methods is strong, but the process is more complex. Four evaluation methods can be combined with practice applications. With the development of computer technology and geographic information technologies, new evaluation methods continue to emerge, has a good role in promoting the construction of urban forest landscape.
(5) Landscape quality evaluation were conducted using SBE method in urban forest, and nearly nature park is the highest value and country park is the lowest value of landscape beauty in different types of urban forest, and broad-leaved and coniferous mixed forest has the highest value and deciduous broad-leaved pure forest has the lowest value of landscape beauty in different vegetation types. Different types of urban forest landscape beauty models were built using multiple quantitative method, the single factor models were constructed using curve regression method. The model fitting high, each model fitting degree is high, can reflect the characteristics of different urban forest green space and the landscape elements of landscape aesthetic quality. Crown density, herb coverage and stand density are two times curve model in test. Adjust forest structure so that the stand and canopy density are in medium level so as to form a good landscape is the key construction aspect in the future. Which provides a theoretical basis for further optimization of urban forest landscape.
(6) Landscape beauty value method and gray association analysis in good agreement with the evaluation results has the very good consistency with scenic beauty estmation method and grey correlation analysis method in urban forest species monomer landscape. Monomer landscape evaluation shows that conifers landscape quality higher than broadleaf trees, exotic species higher than native species. Ⅰ,Ⅱ grade landscape tree species each accounted for18.97%and63.79%, frequency and single-number account for an absolute advantage in the urban forest. It embodies the overall appearance and style of urban forest landscape in Beijing. We should make fully exerting landscape effect to increase the application of native species.
(7) Urban forest scenery aesthetic quality was predicted and tested in five different model, and chi-square statistical test shows no significant differences between the measured value and the predictive value of the five models. The BP model has high forecast accuracy, good stability, low risk, higher decision coefficient, good linear relationship and predict pass rate up to90%. Generally, the BP model prediction effect is the best, we suggest using BP model in the prediction of urban forest landscape quality.
(8) POE method was used in typical parks, the results show that the current urban forest landscape construction still cannot meet the needs of users. It has a large space in increasing the quality of urban forest landscape and improving the quality of urban forest landscape constantly based on multi-disciplinary knowledge is a very hard work.
引文
[1]白雪梅,赵松山.指标选择与简化的定量分析方法探讨[J].财经问题研究.1995,(4):63-66.
[2]薄曦,韩冬青.环境设计评估的结构——过程方法[J].新建筑,1990,27(2):66-69.
[3]曹娟,梁伊任,章俊华.北京市自然保护区景观调查及评价初探[J].中国园林,2004,20(7):67-71.
[4]车生泉,王洪轮.城市绿地研究综述[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版),2001,19(3)：230-234.
[5]车文泉,何兴元,陈玮,等.沈阳树木园绿地管理信息系统的构建[A].见城市森林生态学研究进展[C],北京:中国林业出版社,2002:309-313.
[6]蔡春菊.扬州城市森林发展研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院博士论文,2004.
[7]陈昌笃,鲍世行.中国的城市化及其发展趋势[J].生态学报,1994,4(1):84-90.
[8]陈敏豪.生态文化与文明前景[M].武汉：武汉出版社,1995.
[9]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.
[10]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):122-132.
[11]丛(?)春,李吉跃.试论城市林业在我国城市发展中的地位[J].北京林业大学学报,1997,19(2):1-10.
[12]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,1995,13(3):44-48.
[13]董文福,管东生.城市生态系统中的森林研究[J].前沿论坛,2002,(8):44-46.
[14]董智勇.世界林业发展道路[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1992.
[15]杜学敏.美学：概念与学科——“美学”面面观[J].人文杂志,2007,6:113-118.
[16]甘敬.北京山区森林健康评价研究[D].北京林业大学,2007.
[17]高峰,宋永昌,张庆费.遥感和GIS支持下的城市植被制图及其特性分析[J].植物生态学报,2002,26(1)：1-9.
[18]高清.都市森林[M].台湾：国立编译出版社,1984.
[19]顾春熙.城市生态学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1990.
[20]顾金荣.风景林的林貌结构及其配置[J].华东森林经理,1990,4(2)：10-12.
[21]何兴元,陈玮,徐文铎,等.一个典型城市森林的群落生态学剖析—中国科学院沈阳树木园[A].见城市森林生态学研究进展[C],北京：中国林业出版社,2002,90-99.
[22何兴元,金莹杉,朱文泉,等.城市森林生态学的基本理论与研究方法[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(12)：889-892.
[23]何兴元,刘常富.城市森林分类探讨[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(5)：175-178.
[24]贺士元.北京植物志[M].北京:北京出版社,1993.
[25]胡欣欣,王李进,陈平留.基于投影寻踪模型的森林景观评价[J].江西农业大学学报,2009,31(2)：306-310.
[26]胡志斌,何兴元.沈阳市城市森林结构与效益分析[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12): 2108-2112.
[27]化明艳,郑德俊.高校数字图书馆信息服务能力关键评价指标筛选[J].新世纪图书馆,2011,9：32-36.
[28]黄宏业,刘侠,陈宝树.CBEQS-1卫星IRBMSS数据在城市绿地系统规划的应用[J].航天返回与遥感,2001,22(3)：65-67.
[29]黄茹兰,林晏州.行道树视觉景观偏好影响因素的探讨[J].中国园艺,1998,44(1):323.
[30]简兴,苗永美.语义差别法(SD)在风景区自然景观评价中的应用—以安徽省凤阳县禅窟寺景区为例[J].资源开发与市场,2008,24(11)：988-990.
[31]简兴.层次分析法在城市绿地景观评价中的应用[J].资源开发与市场,2009,25(7):610-613.
[32]江泽慧.加快城市森林建设,走生态化城市发展道路[J].中国城市林业,1(1):4-11.
[33]江泽慧.中国现代林业[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2000.
[34]蒋有绪..城市森林是现代化健全的城市生态系统的基础[J].中国城市林业,2004,2(2):4-7.
[35]金莹杉,何兴元,陈玮,等.沈阳市建成区行道树的结构和功能研究[J].生态学杂志,2002,21(6)：24-28.
[36]柯金良等译.世界资源报告[M].北京：中国环境出版社,1989.
[37]孔繁花,赵善伦,张伟,等.济南市绿地系统景观空间结构分析[J].山东省农业管理干部学院学报,2002,18(2)：108-109.
[38]冷平生,高润清.1995.城市森林提高我国城市绿化水平的新思路[J].科技导报,1995,(12):59-61.
[39]李春阳,周晓峰.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.
[40]李俊生,高吉喜,张晓岚,等.城市化对生物多样性的影响研究综述[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(8)：953-957.
[41]李昆仑.层次分析法在城市道路景观评价中的运用[J].武汉大学学报(工学版),2005,38(1):34-35.
[42]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.
[43]李舒仪.南京市玄武湖公园植物景观评价与优化[D].南京：南京林业大学,2009.
[44]李艳.武汉市九峰城市森林保护区植物景观美学分析评价[D].武汉：华中农业大学硕士学位论文,2006.
[45]林玉莲,胡正凡.环境心理学[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2001.
[46]林晏州.影响安全岛行道树景观美质之因素研究[J].中国园艺,2000,46(3):313-330.
[47]刘滨谊.风景景观工程体系化[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1990
[48]刘滨谊.现代景观规划设计[M].南京：东南大学出版社,2005.
[49]刘常富,何兴元.沈阳市建成区树种结构分析[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2004,35(2)：116-121.
[50]刘常富,李海梅,何兴元.城市森林概念探析[J].生态学杂志,2003,22(5)：146-149.
[51]刘殿芳.当论城市森林[J],国土与自然资源研究,1997,3：47-50.
[52]刘叔成,夏之放,楼昔勇.美学基本原理(第4版)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[53]刘维斯,颜玉娟,都晓璐.城市公园植物景观评价指标体系建立方法研究[J].山西建筑,2009,35(14)：343-344.
[54]陆道调.城市林业的作用及构成体系[J].云南林业调查规划设计,1999,24(4),41-54.
[55]罗玲玲,陆伟.POE研究的国际趋势与引入中国的现实思考[J].建筑学报,2004(8):83.
[56]吕先忠,楼炉焕,李根有.杭州市行道树现状调查及布局设想[J].浙江林学院学报,2000,(3)：309-314.
[57]罗明春.森林公园景点分级方法讨论[J].森林旅游,1998,(5):12-14.
[58]马锦义.论城市绿地系统的组成与分类[J].中国园林,2002,1:23-26.
[59]马克明,傅伯杰,郭旭东.农业区城市化对植物多样性的影响—遵化的研究[J].应用生态学报,2001,12(6)：837-840.
[60]马灵芳,管东生,郑淑颖.广州新河浦小区庭园树木特征及其环境空间的关系[J].城市环境与城市生态,2000,13(1)：25-27.
[61]彭羽,刘雪华.城市化对植物多样性影响的研究进展[J].生物多样性,2007,15(5):558-562.
[62]彭镇华.林网化与水网化—中国城市森林建设理念的探究[J].中国城市林业,2003,1(1):1-6.
[63]彭镇华.林网化与水网化—中国城市森林建设理念的探究[J].中国城市林业，2003,1(2):1-4.
[64]彭镇华.上海现代城市森林研究[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2003.
[65]彭镇华.中国城市森林[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2003.
[66]祁素萍,宋淑梅.中国古典园林各阶段发展述要[J].山西农业大学学报,1999,4：322-325,369.
[67]钱能志.遵义市城区城市森林结构与生态功能研究[D].南京林业大学,2005.
[68]钱学森.社会主义中国应该建山水城市[N].科技日报,1993-3-1.
[69]秦华,陈福寿,马向东.旺苍县鼓城山森林公园景观评价[J].西南农业大学学报,1993,(6):527-530.
[70]秦小苏.达州市城区园林植物的配置与景观评价研究[D].四川农业大学硕士学位论文,2011.
[71]沈国舫.森林的社会、文化和景观功能及巴黎的城市森林[J].世界林业研究.1992,2:7-12.
[72]沈洁,史童伟.人工植物群落调查与评价方法设计探讨[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(10):172-174.
[73]石平,张广新,白听旸,等.SBE法评价沈阳市典型居住庭园的植物配置效果[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2005,36(4)：471-474.
[74]宋新建.呼和浩特市综合公园植物景观评价[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2008
[75]宋永昌.城市森林研究中的几个问题[J].中国城市林业,2004,2(1):4-9.
[76]宋永昌.对中国植被分类系统的认知和建议[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(8):882-892.
[77]孙儒冰,李博.普通生态学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1992.
[78]孙振帮.常绿树在东北城市绿化中的应用及景观评价[D].东北林业大学硕士学位论文,2005
[79]田志慧,陈克霞,达良俊,等.城市化进程中上海植被的多样性、空间格局和动态响应(Ⅲ):高度城市化影响下上海中心城区杂草区系特征[J].华东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2008,(4):49-54.
[80]王成,蔡春菊,陶康华.城市森林的概念、范围及其研究[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(2):23-2.
[81]王成.关于城镇绿地建设中生态学原理的应用问题,见彭镇华编著《中国森林生态网络体系建设》[M].中国林业出版社,2003a,57-61.
[82]王刚,车代弟.基于SD法的哈尔滨市居住区园林景观评价[J].现代园林,2010,(5):40-43.
[83]王竞红.园林植物景观评价体系的研究[D].东北林业大学博士学位论文,2008.
[84]王明浩.中国城市发展问题透视[J].城市发展研究,2003,(3):23-25.
[85]王木林,缪荣兴.城市森林的成分及其类型[J].林业科学研究,1997,10(5)：531-536.
[86]王木林.城市林业的研究与进展[J].林业科学,1995,31(5)：460-466.
[87]王祥荣.生态与环境—城市可持续发展与生态环境调控新论2000南京：东南大学出版社,2000
[88]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
[89]王义文.城市森林的兴起及其发展趋势题[J].世界林业研究,1994,5(1):42-49.
[90]王义文.城市森林理论与指标体系的研究[J].见城市森林生态学研究进展,中国林业出版社,2002：9-30.
[91]王应刚,李建梅,李淑兰,等.人为干扰对城市地区植物多样性的影响[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(2)：102-104.
[92]工政权.地统计学及在生态学中的应用[M].北京：科学出版社,1999.
[93]魏长晶,李江风,张志.森林旅游资源开发潜力定量评价研究——以武汉市为例[J].资源开发与市场,2006,22(3)：220-223.
[94]温全平.城市森林规划理论和方法[D].同济大学,2008.
[95]文益君,周根苗,张晓蕾,等.基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价[J].林业科学,2009,45(1)：1-7.
[96]吴楚材.张家界国家森林公园环境质量评价[J].中国园林,1995,10(3):32-38.
[97]吴人坚.建设有中国特色的生态城市[J].环境导报2001,(3):39-41
[98]吴人坚.生态城市建设的原理和途径—兼论上海的现状和发展[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.
[99]吴人韦.国外城市绿地的发展历程[J].城市规划,1998.22(6):39-43.
[100]吴泽民,吴际友,高健,等.合肥市区森林景观格局分析[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12):2117-2122.
[101]吴泽民,吴澜.城市森林与城市森林游憩[J].中国城市林业,2004,4(6):34-36.
[102]吴泽民.城市林业的发展及城市森林的经营管理[J].安徽农业大学学报,1993,20(4): 359-362.
[103]肖化顺,曾思齐.湖南云山森林公园森林景观数量化评价[J].中南林业调查规划,2003,22(2)：43-46.
[104]徐岩岩.哈尔滨居住区植物景观评价[D].东北林业大学硕士学位论文,2006
[105]许浩.国外城市绿地系统规划[M].北京：中国建筑工业处版社,2003.
[106]许克福,吴泽民,陈家龙.合肥市不同类型城市森林树种多样性比较[J].东北林业大学学报,2010,38(3)：26-30.
[107]杨赉丽.城市园林绿地规划[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1994.
[108]杨学军,林源祥,胡文辉,等.上海城市园林植物群落的物种丰富度调查[J].中国园林,2000,16(3)：67-69.
[109]杨学军,唐东芹.园林植物群落及其设计有关问题探讨[J].中国园林,2011,1：97-100.
[110]杨懿琨,陈亮明,周德明.基于SBE法的长沙市居民区机物景观化化评价[J].中南林业调查规划,2007,26(1)：35-38.
[111]叶功富,洪志猛等.城市森林学[M].厦门厦门大学出版社,2004.
[112]叶镜中.城市林业的生态作用与规划原则[J].南京林业大学学报,2000,24(1):13-16.
[113]于守超,翟付顺,张秀省,等.基于SBE法的聊城市公园植物景观量化评价[J].北方园艺,2009,(8)：223-226.
[114]于志熙.城市生态学[M].北京：中国园林出版社,1992.
[115]詹志勇,廖洪涛.香港与广州城市行道树群落比较研究[J].地理学报,1997,52(S1)：127-139.
[116]张金屯,Picket S T A.城市化对森林植被、土壤和景观的影响[J].生态学报,1999,19(5):654-658.
[117]张庆费.城市森林——21世纪城市绿化的新选择[J].上海建设科技1999,(3)：27-28.
[118]张少杰,肖铁桥.合肥城市森林景观格局分析[J].安徽建筑工业学院学报(自然科学版),2007,15(4)：56-59.
[119]张伟.灵石山国家森林公园森林景观美学评价方法[J].宁德师专学报(自然科学版),2008,20(1)：21-25.
[120]张晓萍.问卷调查法在森林公园景观评价及旅游管理中的应用[J].台湾农业探索,2006,(1)：37-40.
[121]章俊华.规划设计学中的调查分析法——SD法[J].中国园林,2004,10：54-58.
[122]章志都,徐程扬,龚岚,等.基于SBE法的北京市郊野公园绿地结构质量评价技术[J].林业科学,2011,47(8)：53-60.
[123]赵德海.风景林美学评价方法的研究[J].南京林业大学学报,1990,14(4):50-55.
[124]赵东汉.使用后评价POE在国外的发展特点及在中国的适用性究[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版),2007,43(6)：797-801.
[125]赵纪军.对“大地园林化”的历史考察[J].中国园林,2010(10)：56-60.
[126]赵绍鸿.森林关学与森林美[N].中国绿色时报,2007-4-24-A03.
[127]赵兴华.浅谈森林美学[J].新疆林业,1994,3：40-41.
[128]郑岩.哈尔滨城市公园植物群落特征及其景观评价[D].东北林业大学硕士学位论文,2007
[129]郑芷青.广州城市行道树特征分析[J].城市环境与城市生态,1996,(3):38-41.
[130]郑洲翔,陈锡沐,翁殊斐.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.
[131]中国植被编辑委员会,中国植被[M].北京：科学出版社,1980.
[132]周春玲,张启翔,孙迎坤.居住区绿地的美景度评价[J].中国园林.2006.(4):62-67.
[133]周根苗.基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价[D].中南林业科技大学硕士学位论文,2008
[134]周明浩,李延平,史祖民.卫生城市和健康城市[J].环境与健康杂志,2000,17(6):377-380.
[135]周维权.中国古典园林史[M].北京：清华大学出版社,1990.
[136]周文佐,潘剑君,刘高德.南京城市绿地现状遥感分析[J].遥感技术与应用,2002,17(1):22-23.
[137]朱存明.论中国美学的方法问题[J].马克思主义美学研究,2009,5:328-343.
[138]朱俊,中国城市森林学理论与实证研究[D]。复旦大学博士学位论文,2004.
[139]Abdollahi K K, Ning Z H. Urban Vegetation and Their Relative Ability in Particle Pollution[J]. American Meteo-rological Society,1999.1(15):127.
[140]Ali Ozbolen, Arzu Kalin. The semantic value of plants in the perception of space[J]. Building and Environment,2001,36:257-79.
[141]Arthur L M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:Some empirical tests[J]. Forest science,1977,23(2):151-160.
[142]Benson R E. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas-landscape architects' evaluation[M]. USDA for Service Research,1985.
[143]Berry, Brian JL, Gillard, Quentin. The Changing Shape of Metropolitan Ameriea, Cotnmuting Patterns, Urban Fields and Decentralization Proeesses,1960-1970[M]. Cambridge, MA:Ballinger Publishing Co.,1977.
[144]Bertin R F. Losses of native plant species from Worcester[J]. Rhodora,2002,104:325-349.
[145]Buffoff GL, Leuschner W A, Arndt L K. Replication of a scenic preference function[J]. Forest Science,1980,26(2):227-230.
[146]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimation psychological disutility from damaged forest stands[J]. For Sci,1978,24:424-432.
[147]Burrough P A. Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environm ental data[J]. Nature,1981, 29(4):240-242.
[148]Byers J E. Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes[J]. Oikos,2002,97(3):449-458.
[149]Chocholouskovd Z, Pysek A P. Changes in composition and structure of urban flora over 120 years:a case study of the city of Plzen[J]. Flora:Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants,2003,198(5):366-376.
[150]Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH et al. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management[J]. Ecol Appl,1996.6(3):665-691.
[151]Crane P, Kinzig A. Nature in the metropolis. Science,2005,308(7526):1225-1225.
[152]Crofts R S, Cooke R U. Landscape Evaluation:A comparison of technique[M]. Occasional. Department of Geography, University College London,1974.
[153]Dagmar v.Janowsky, Gero Becher. Characteristics and needs of different user groups in the urban forest of Stuttgart. [J]. Journal of nature conservation,2003,11:251-259.
[154]Daniel T C, Boster R S. Measuring landscape esthetics:The scenic beauty estimation method [M]. Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Exp Stn, Fort Collins, Colo,1976.
[155]David M J. Geostatististics ore reserve estimation[M]. Amsterdam Elsevier,1977.
[156]DeCandido R, Muir A A, Gargiullo M B. A first approximation of the historical and extant vascular flora of New York City:implications for native plant species conservation[J]. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society,2004,131(3):243-251.
[157]Deutschewitz K, Lausch A,Kuhn I, Klotz S. Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany[J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography,2003, 12(4):299-311.
[158]Douglas I. Human settlements.In:Meyer WB, Turner Ⅱ BLeds. Changes in Land Use and Land Cover:A global perspective[M]. Cam-bridge:Cambridge University Press,1994. E.Lynn Miller. Environmental Conseience Before Ian McHarg[J]. Landsepe Architecture,1999,11: 58-62.
[159]Fergal M. Forestry and the environment asustainable prospect [J]. Irish Forestry,1977,2:33-41.
[160]Gene W G, Frederick JD. Urban forestry[M]. New York:Wiley,1986.
[161]Gordoon A B. Urban Forest Landscapes:Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives[M]. Seattle: University of Washington Press,1995,22-28,25-100.
[162]Grey G W.. The Urban Forest:Comprehensive Management[M]. NewYork:Wiley 1996,18-23.
[163]Hao MH, Ren ZY. Land Use/Land Cover Change and Eco-Environment Response to LUCC in arming-Pastoral Zone, China[J]. Agricultural Sciences in China,2009,8(1):91-97. Hildebrandt, et al. A review of urban forestry education in the 1990s[J]. J. For,1993,91(3):40-42.
[164]Holling CS. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social system[J], Ecosystems,2001,4:390-405.
[165]Honnay O, Piessens K, van Landuyt M, Hermy M, Gulinck H. Satellite based land use and landscape complexity indices as predictors for regional plant species diversity[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2003,63(4):241-250.
[166]Hull Ⅳ R B et al. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures[J]. For.Sci.,1984,30(4):1084-1096.
[167]Hull Ⅳ R B, Buhyoff G J, Gordell H K. Psychophysical models:an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roodside pine forests[J].. Landscape Journal,1987,6(2):113-122.
[168]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[J]. For Sci,1986,32(2):271-286.
[169]Hull IV R B. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgement and scienic beauty estimation procedures[J]. For. Sci.,1984,30(4):1084-1096.
[170]Issaks E, Srivastava R M. An intioduction to applied geostatistics[M]. New York:Oxford University Press, USA,1989.
[171]Johnson MP. Environmental impacts of urban sprawl:a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda[J]. Environment and Planning,2001,3:23-28.
[172]Jorgensen, E. The history of urban forestry in Canada[C]. In First Canada Urban Fores Conference 1993,14-18
[173]Journel A G, C J Huijbegts. Mining geostatistics[M]. London:Academic Press UK,1978.
[174]Konijnedijk C C. Urban and peri-urban forestry in a developmentcontext-strategy and implementation[J]. Journal ofArboriculture,2004,30:269-277.
[175]Kuhn I, Brandl R, Klotz S. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich[J]. Evolution and Ecological Research,2004,6:749-764.
[176]Lawrece HW, et al. The neoclassical origins of Modern urban forest[J], For. Conser. History 1993.37(1):26-36.
[177]Liisa, Tyrvainen, Hannu, Vaananen. The Economic value of urban forest amenities:an application of the contingent valuation method[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1998,43(3):105-118.
[178]Linton D L. The assessment of scenery as a Natural Resource[J]. Scottish Geographical Magazine,1988,84:219-238.
[179]Magurran A E. Ecological diversity and its measurement[M]. New Jersy:Princeton University Press,1988.
[180]Mark J. A brief history of urban forestry in the United States[J]. Arboricult. J,1996,257-275.
[181]Mark J. The development of urban forestry in Britain-part[J]. Arboricult. J,1997,4:317-330.
[182]Mark J. The development of urban forestry in the Republic of Ireland[J]. Irish For,1997,2: 14-32.
[183]Matheron G..Principles of geostatistics[J]. Econ Geol,1963,58:1246-1266.
[184]McKinney M L. Effects of urbanization on species richness:A review of plants and animals[J]. Urban Ecosystems,2008,11(2):161-176.
[185]McKinney M L. Urbanization as amajor cause ofbiotic homogenization[J]. Biological Conservation,2006,27:247-260.
[186]McPherson E G. Structure and sustainability of Sacramento'surbanforestry[J]. Journal of Arboriculture,1998,24(2):174-189.
[187]Melvin J, Banghrna. The Role of Government in Urban Forestry in the S Town Mceting Forestry[M],1980
[188]Miller R W. Urban forestry:Planning and management urban greenspaces[M].2nd ed. New Jersey; Prentice Hal,1988.
[189]Miller RW. Urban Forestry[M]. New Jersey:Prentice Hall,1996.
[190]Mitsch W J, Jingsong Yan.. Ecological Engineering Contrasting Experiences in China with the west, editorial paper[J]. Ecological Engineering,1993,2:177-191.
[191]Miyawaki A. Creative ecology:Restoration of native forests by native trees[J]. Plant Biotechnology,1999,16(1):15-25.
[192]Miyawaki A. Creative ecology:Restoration of native forests by native trees[J]. Plant Biotechnology,1999,16(1):15-25.
[193]Moffatt S F, McLachlan S M, Kenkel N C. Impacts of land use on riparian forest along an urban-rural gradient in southern Manitoba[J]. Plant Ecology,2004,174(1):119-135.
[194]Nowak D J, Crane D E, Stevens JC. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States[J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,2006,4:115-123.
[195]Nowak D J. Urban forest structure:The state of Chicago's urban forest.Northeatem Forest Experiment Station, GeneralTechnical Report NE.18 DC:US DA,1994, a:3-18.
[196]Ong M C, Curtin-Brosnan J, Diette G B, et cl. Performance of Likert-type and Visual Analog Scales in the Assessment of Allergy Symptoms in Minority Patients[J]. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,2010,125 (2):53.
[197]Osgood C E, Suci G J, Tannenbaum P H. Measurement of meaning[M]. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.1957:30-63.
[198]Paquet J, Belanger L. Public acceptability thresholds of clear cutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes[J]. Forest Science,1997,43(1):46-55.
[199]Preiser W F E, Rabinowitz H Z, White E T. Post-Occupancy Evaluation[M]. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,1988,1-50.
[200]Ribe R G. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forest[J]. Landsc J,1990,9 (2):86-101.
[201]Rowantree R A. Ecology of the Urban forest-Introduction to Part I[J]. Urban Ecology,1984, (8):1-11.
[202]Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands[J]. Forest Science,1988,34(4):846-863.
[203]Ryan C, Garland R.. The use of a specific non-response option on Liken-type scales[J]. Tourism Management,1999,20(1):107-113.
[204]Schotrko D J, O'Keeffe L E. Geo-statistical description of the special distribution Lygus Hesperus (Heteroptera:Miridae)in lentils[J]. J Econ Ent.1989,82(5):1277-1288.
[205]Shafer E L, Rutherford W. Slection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands[J]..J.For.,1969,67:415-419.
[206]Sukopp H, Hejny S, Kowarik I. Urban ecology: Plants and plant communities in urban environments[M]. The Hague:SPB Academic Publishing,1990.
[207]Susan D, Jessica T. Assess to the outdoors:using photographic comparison to assess preferences of assisted living residents[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2005,73(2-3):184-199.
[208]Vodak M C. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management[J]. Forest Science,1985,31(2): 289-301.
[209]W. F. Elmendorf, A. E. Luloff.. Using ecosystem-based and traditional land-use planning to.conserve greenspace[J]. Journal of Arboriculture,1999,25(5):264-273.
[210]Walker J S, Grimm N B, Briggs J M, et cl. Effects of urbanization on plant species diversity in central Arizona[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,2009,7:465-470.
[211]Weiming Liao, Keiitirou Nogami. Prediction of Near-View Scenic Beauty in Artificial Stands of Hinoki (Chamaecyparis obtusa S.et Z.) [J]. J. For. Res..1999,4:93-98.
[212]William C. Vernam. Summary Roport Secssion Al. Workshop B. National Urban Forestry Conference[C]. Washington,1978.
[213]Wolfgang Ev, PreiserF.E, Harvey Z, et cl. Post-Occupancy Evaluation[M]. New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,1988.
[214]Zimmerman, Alex, Martin, Mark. Post-occupancy evaluation:benefits and barriers [J]. Building Research and Information,2001,29 (2) (2001):168-174.
[2]薄曦,韩冬青.环境设计评估的结构——过程方法[J].新建筑,1990,27(2):66-69.
[3]曹娟,梁伊任,章俊华.北京市自然保护区景观调查及评价初探[J].中国园林,2004,20(7):67-71.
[4]车生泉,王洪轮.城市绿地研究综述[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版),2001,19(3)：230-234.
[5]车文泉,何兴元,陈玮,等.沈阳树木园绿地管理信息系统的构建[A].见城市森林生态学研究进展[C],北京:中国林业出版社,2002:309-313.
[6]蔡春菊.扬州城市森林发展研究[D].北京：中国林业科学研究院博士论文,2004.
[7]陈昌笃,鲍世行.中国的城市化及其发展趋势[J].生态学报,1994,4(1):84-90.
[8]陈敏豪.生态文化与文明前景[M].武汉：武汉出版社,1995.
[9]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.
[10]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):122-132.
[11]丛(?)春,李吉跃.试论城市林业在我国城市发展中的地位[J].北京林业大学学报,1997,19(2):1-10.
[12]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,1995,13(3):44-48.
[13]董文福,管东生.城市生态系统中的森林研究[J].前沿论坛,2002,(8):44-46.
[14]董智勇.世界林业发展道路[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1992.
[15]杜学敏.美学：概念与学科——“美学”面面观[J].人文杂志,2007,6:113-118.
[16]甘敬.北京山区森林健康评价研究[D].北京林业大学,2007.
[17]高峰,宋永昌,张庆费.遥感和GIS支持下的城市植被制图及其特性分析[J].植物生态学报,2002,26(1)：1-9.
[18]高清.都市森林[M].台湾：国立编译出版社,1984.
[19]顾春熙.城市生态学[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1990.
[20]顾金荣.风景林的林貌结构及其配置[J].华东森林经理,1990,4(2)：10-12.
[21]何兴元,陈玮,徐文铎,等.一个典型城市森林的群落生态学剖析—中国科学院沈阳树木园[A].见城市森林生态学研究进展[C],北京：中国林业出版社,2002,90-99.
[22何兴元,金莹杉,朱文泉,等.城市森林生态学的基本理论与研究方法[J].应用生态学报,2002,13(12)：889-892.
[23]何兴元,刘常富.城市森林分类探讨[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(5)：175-178.
[24]贺士元.北京植物志[M].北京:北京出版社,1993.
[25]胡欣欣,王李进,陈平留.基于投影寻踪模型的森林景观评价[J].江西农业大学学报,2009,31(2)：306-310.
[26]胡志斌,何兴元.沈阳市城市森林结构与效益分析[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12): 2108-2112.
[27]化明艳,郑德俊.高校数字图书馆信息服务能力关键评价指标筛选[J].新世纪图书馆,2011,9：32-36.
[28]黄宏业,刘侠,陈宝树.CBEQS-1卫星IRBMSS数据在城市绿地系统规划的应用[J].航天返回与遥感,2001,22(3)：65-67.
[29]黄茹兰,林晏州.行道树视觉景观偏好影响因素的探讨[J].中国园艺,1998,44(1):323.
[30]简兴,苗永美.语义差别法(SD)在风景区自然景观评价中的应用—以安徽省凤阳县禅窟寺景区为例[J].资源开发与市场,2008,24(11)：988-990.
[31]简兴.层次分析法在城市绿地景观评价中的应用[J].资源开发与市场,2009,25(7):610-613.
[32]江泽慧.加快城市森林建设,走生态化城市发展道路[J].中国城市林业,1(1):4-11.
[33]江泽慧.中国现代林业[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2000.
[34]蒋有绪..城市森林是现代化健全的城市生态系统的基础[J].中国城市林业,2004,2(2):4-7.
[35]金莹杉,何兴元,陈玮,等.沈阳市建成区行道树的结构和功能研究[J].生态学杂志,2002,21(6)：24-28.
[36]柯金良等译.世界资源报告[M].北京：中国环境出版社,1989.
[37]孔繁花,赵善伦,张伟,等.济南市绿地系统景观空间结构分析[J].山东省农业管理干部学院学报,2002,18(2)：108-109.
[38]冷平生,高润清.1995.城市森林提高我国城市绿化水平的新思路[J].科技导报,1995,(12):59-61.
[39]李春阳,周晓峰.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.
[40]李俊生,高吉喜,张晓岚,等.城市化对生物多样性的影响研究综述[J].生态学杂志,2005,24(8)：953-957.
[41]李昆仑.层次分析法在城市道路景观评价中的运用[J].武汉大学学报(工学版),2005,38(1):34-35.
[42]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.
[43]李舒仪.南京市玄武湖公园植物景观评价与优化[D].南京：南京林业大学,2009.
[44]李艳.武汉市九峰城市森林保护区植物景观美学分析评价[D].武汉：华中农业大学硕士学位论文,2006.
[45]林玉莲,胡正凡.环境心理学[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2001.
[46]林晏州.影响安全岛行道树景观美质之因素研究[J].中国园艺,2000,46(3):313-330.
[47]刘滨谊.风景景观工程体系化[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1990
[48]刘滨谊.现代景观规划设计[M].南京：东南大学出版社,2005.
[49]刘常富,何兴元.沈阳市建成区树种结构分析[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2004,35(2)：116-121.
[50]刘常富,李海梅,何兴元.城市森林概念探析[J].生态学杂志,2003,22(5)：146-149.
[51]刘殿芳.当论城市森林[J],国土与自然资源研究,1997,3：47-50.
[52]刘叔成,夏之放,楼昔勇.美学基本原理(第4版)[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[53]刘维斯,颜玉娟,都晓璐.城市公园植物景观评价指标体系建立方法研究[J].山西建筑,2009,35(14)：343-344.
[54]陆道调.城市林业的作用及构成体系[J].云南林业调查规划设计,1999,24(4),41-54.
[55]罗玲玲,陆伟.POE研究的国际趋势与引入中国的现实思考[J].建筑学报,2004(8):83.
[56]吕先忠,楼炉焕,李根有.杭州市行道树现状调查及布局设想[J].浙江林学院学报,2000,(3)：309-314.
[57]罗明春.森林公园景点分级方法讨论[J].森林旅游,1998,(5):12-14.
[58]马锦义.论城市绿地系统的组成与分类[J].中国园林,2002,1:23-26.
[59]马克明,傅伯杰,郭旭东.农业区城市化对植物多样性的影响—遵化的研究[J].应用生态学报,2001,12(6)：837-840.
[60]马灵芳,管东生,郑淑颖.广州新河浦小区庭园树木特征及其环境空间的关系[J].城市环境与城市生态,2000,13(1)：25-27.
[61]彭羽,刘雪华.城市化对植物多样性影响的研究进展[J].生物多样性,2007,15(5):558-562.
[62]彭镇华.林网化与水网化—中国城市森林建设理念的探究[J].中国城市林业,2003,1(1):1-6.
[63]彭镇华.林网化与水网化—中国城市森林建设理念的探究[J].中国城市林业，2003,1(2):1-4.
[64]彭镇华.上海现代城市森林研究[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2003.
[65]彭镇华.中国城市森林[M].北京:中国林业出版社,2003.
[66]祁素萍,宋淑梅.中国古典园林各阶段发展述要[J].山西农业大学学报,1999,4：322-325,369.
[67]钱能志.遵义市城区城市森林结构与生态功能研究[D].南京林业大学,2005.
[68]钱学森.社会主义中国应该建山水城市[N].科技日报,1993-3-1.
[69]秦华,陈福寿,马向东.旺苍县鼓城山森林公园景观评价[J].西南农业大学学报,1993,(6):527-530.
[70]秦小苏.达州市城区园林植物的配置与景观评价研究[D].四川农业大学硕士学位论文,2011.
[71]沈国舫.森林的社会、文化和景观功能及巴黎的城市森林[J].世界林业研究.1992,2:7-12.
[72]沈洁,史童伟.人工植物群落调查与评价方法设计探讨[J].贵州农业科学,2009,37(10):172-174.
[73]石平,张广新,白听旸,等.SBE法评价沈阳市典型居住庭园的植物配置效果[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2005,36(4)：471-474.
[74]宋新建.呼和浩特市综合公园植物景观评价[D].内蒙古农业大学硕士学位论文,2008
[75]宋永昌.城市森林研究中的几个问题[J].中国城市林业,2004,2(1):4-9.
[76]宋永昌.对中国植被分类系统的认知和建议[J].植物生态学报,2011,35(8):882-892.
[77]孙儒冰,李博.普通生态学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1992.
[78]孙振帮.常绿树在东北城市绿化中的应用及景观评价[D].东北林业大学硕士学位论文,2005
[79]田志慧,陈克霞,达良俊,等.城市化进程中上海植被的多样性、空间格局和动态响应(Ⅲ):高度城市化影响下上海中心城区杂草区系特征[J].华东师范大学学报(自然科学版),2008,(4):49-54.
[80]王成,蔡春菊,陶康华.城市森林的概念、范围及其研究[J].世界林业研究,2004,17(2):23-2.
[81]王成.关于城镇绿地建设中生态学原理的应用问题,见彭镇华编著《中国森林生态网络体系建设》[M].中国林业出版社,2003a,57-61.
[82]王刚,车代弟.基于SD法的哈尔滨市居住区园林景观评价[J].现代园林,2010,(5):40-43.
[83]王竞红.园林植物景观评价体系的研究[D].东北林业大学博士学位论文,2008.
[84]王明浩.中国城市发展问题透视[J].城市发展研究,2003,(3):23-25.
[85]王木林,缪荣兴.城市森林的成分及其类型[J].林业科学研究,1997,10(5)：531-536.
[86]王木林.城市林业的研究与进展[J].林业科学,1995,31(5)：460-466.
[87]王祥荣.生态与环境—城市可持续发展与生态环境调控新论2000南京：东南大学出版社,2000
[88]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
[89]王义文.城市森林的兴起及其发展趋势题[J].世界林业研究,1994,5(1):42-49.
[90]王义文.城市森林理论与指标体系的研究[J].见城市森林生态学研究进展,中国林业出版社,2002：9-30.
[91]王应刚,李建梅,李淑兰,等.人为干扰对城市地区植物多样性的影响[J].生态学杂志,2004,23(2)：102-104.
[92]工政权.地统计学及在生态学中的应用[M].北京：科学出版社,1999.
[93]魏长晶,李江风,张志.森林旅游资源开发潜力定量评价研究——以武汉市为例[J].资源开发与市场,2006,22(3)：220-223.
[94]温全平.城市森林规划理论和方法[D].同济大学,2008.
[95]文益君,周根苗,张晓蕾,等.基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价[J].林业科学,2009,45(1)：1-7.
[96]吴楚材.张家界国家森林公园环境质量评价[J].中国园林,1995,10(3):32-38.
[97]吴人坚.建设有中国特色的生态城市[J].环境导报2001,(3):39-41
[98]吴人坚.生态城市建设的原理和途径—兼论上海的现状和发展[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2000.
[99]吴人韦.国外城市绿地的发展历程[J].城市规划,1998.22(6):39-43.
[100]吴泽民,吴际友,高健,等.合肥市区森林景观格局分析[J].应用生态学报,2003,14(12):2117-2122.
[101]吴泽民,吴澜.城市森林与城市森林游憩[J].中国城市林业,2004,4(6):34-36.
[102]吴泽民.城市林业的发展及城市森林的经营管理[J].安徽农业大学学报,1993,20(4): 359-362.
[103]肖化顺,曾思齐.湖南云山森林公园森林景观数量化评价[J].中南林业调查规划,2003,22(2)：43-46.
[104]徐岩岩.哈尔滨居住区植物景观评价[D].东北林业大学硕士学位论文,2006
[105]许浩.国外城市绿地系统规划[M].北京：中国建筑工业处版社,2003.
[106]许克福,吴泽民,陈家龙.合肥市不同类型城市森林树种多样性比较[J].东北林业大学学报,2010,38(3)：26-30.
[107]杨赉丽.城市园林绿地规划[M].北京：中国林业出版社,1994.
[108]杨学军,林源祥,胡文辉,等.上海城市园林植物群落的物种丰富度调查[J].中国园林,2000,16(3)：67-69.
[109]杨学军,唐东芹.园林植物群落及其设计有关问题探讨[J].中国园林,2011,1：97-100.
[110]杨懿琨,陈亮明,周德明.基于SBE法的长沙市居民区机物景观化化评价[J].中南林业调查规划,2007,26(1)：35-38.
[111]叶功富,洪志猛等.城市森林学[M].厦门厦门大学出版社,2004.
[112]叶镜中.城市林业的生态作用与规划原则[J].南京林业大学学报,2000,24(1):13-16.
[113]于守超,翟付顺,张秀省,等.基于SBE法的聊城市公园植物景观量化评价[J].北方园艺,2009,(8)：223-226.
[114]于志熙.城市生态学[M].北京：中国园林出版社,1992.
[115]詹志勇,廖洪涛.香港与广州城市行道树群落比较研究[J].地理学报,1997,52(S1)：127-139.
[116]张金屯,Picket S T A.城市化对森林植被、土壤和景观的影响[J].生态学报,1999,19(5):654-658.
[117]张庆费.城市森林——21世纪城市绿化的新选择[J].上海建设科技1999,(3)：27-28.
[118]张少杰,肖铁桥.合肥城市森林景观格局分析[J].安徽建筑工业学院学报(自然科学版),2007,15(4)：56-59.
[119]张伟.灵石山国家森林公园森林景观美学评价方法[J].宁德师专学报(自然科学版),2008,20(1)：21-25.
[120]张晓萍.问卷调查法在森林公园景观评价及旅游管理中的应用[J].台湾农业探索,2006,(1)：37-40.
[121]章俊华.规划设计学中的调查分析法——SD法[J].中国园林,2004,10：54-58.
[122]章志都,徐程扬,龚岚,等.基于SBE法的北京市郊野公园绿地结构质量评价技术[J].林业科学,2011,47(8)：53-60.
[123]赵德海.风景林美学评价方法的研究[J].南京林业大学学报,1990,14(4):50-55.
[124]赵东汉.使用后评价POE在国外的发展特点及在中国的适用性究[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版),2007,43(6)：797-801.
[125]赵纪军.对“大地园林化”的历史考察[J].中国园林,2010(10)：56-60.
[126]赵绍鸿.森林关学与森林美[N].中国绿色时报,2007-4-24-A03.
[127]赵兴华.浅谈森林美学[J].新疆林业,1994,3：40-41.
[128]郑岩.哈尔滨城市公园植物群落特征及其景观评价[D].东北林业大学硕士学位论文,2007
[129]郑芷青.广州城市行道树特征分析[J].城市环境与城市生态,1996,(3):38-41.
[130]郑洲翔,陈锡沐,翁殊斐.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.
[131]中国植被编辑委员会,中国植被[M].北京：科学出版社,1980.
[132]周春玲,张启翔,孙迎坤.居住区绿地的美景度评价[J].中国园林.2006.(4):62-67.
[133]周根苗.基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价[D].中南林业科技大学硕士学位论文,2008
[134]周明浩,李延平,史祖民.卫生城市和健康城市[J].环境与健康杂志,2000,17(6):377-380.
[135]周维权.中国古典园林史[M].北京：清华大学出版社,1990.
[136]周文佐,潘剑君,刘高德.南京城市绿地现状遥感分析[J].遥感技术与应用,2002,17(1):22-23.
[137]朱存明.论中国美学的方法问题[J].马克思主义美学研究,2009,5:328-343.
[138]朱俊,中国城市森林学理论与实证研究[D]。复旦大学博士学位论文,2004.
[139]Abdollahi K K, Ning Z H. Urban Vegetation and Their Relative Ability in Particle Pollution[J]. American Meteo-rological Society,1999.1(15):127.
[140]Ali Ozbolen, Arzu Kalin. The semantic value of plants in the perception of space[J]. Building and Environment,2001,36:257-79.
[141]Arthur L M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:Some empirical tests[J]. Forest science,1977,23(2):151-160.
[142]Benson R E. Attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas-landscape architects' evaluation[M]. USDA for Service Research,1985.
[143]Berry, Brian JL, Gillard, Quentin. The Changing Shape of Metropolitan Ameriea, Cotnmuting Patterns, Urban Fields and Decentralization Proeesses,1960-1970[M]. Cambridge, MA:Ballinger Publishing Co.,1977.
[144]Bertin R F. Losses of native plant species from Worcester[J]. Rhodora,2002,104:325-349.
[145]Buffoff GL, Leuschner W A, Arndt L K. Replication of a scenic preference function[J]. Forest Science,1980,26(2):227-230.
[146]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimation psychological disutility from damaged forest stands[J]. For Sci,1978,24:424-432.
[147]Burrough P A. Fractal dimensions of landscapes and other environm ental data[J]. Nature,1981, 29(4):240-242.
[148]Byers J E. Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes[J]. Oikos,2002,97(3):449-458.
[149]Chocholouskovd Z, Pysek A P. Changes in composition and structure of urban flora over 120 years:a case study of the city of Plzen[J]. Flora:Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants,2003,198(5):366-376.
[150]Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH et al. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management[J]. Ecol Appl,1996.6(3):665-691.
[151]Crane P, Kinzig A. Nature in the metropolis. Science,2005,308(7526):1225-1225.
[152]Crofts R S, Cooke R U. Landscape Evaluation:A comparison of technique[M]. Occasional. Department of Geography, University College London,1974.
[153]Dagmar v.Janowsky, Gero Becher. Characteristics and needs of different user groups in the urban forest of Stuttgart. [J]. Journal of nature conservation,2003,11:251-259.
[154]Daniel T C, Boster R S. Measuring landscape esthetics:The scenic beauty estimation method [M]. Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Exp Stn, Fort Collins, Colo,1976.
[155]David M J. Geostatististics ore reserve estimation[M]. Amsterdam Elsevier,1977.
[156]DeCandido R, Muir A A, Gargiullo M B. A first approximation of the historical and extant vascular flora of New York City:implications for native plant species conservation[J]. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society,2004,131(3):243-251.
[157]Deutschewitz K, Lausch A,Kuhn I, Klotz S. Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany[J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography,2003, 12(4):299-311.
[158]Douglas I. Human settlements.In:Meyer WB, Turner Ⅱ BLeds. Changes in Land Use and Land Cover:A global perspective[M]. Cam-bridge:Cambridge University Press,1994. E.Lynn Miller. Environmental Conseience Before Ian McHarg[J]. Landsepe Architecture,1999,11: 58-62.
[159]Fergal M. Forestry and the environment asustainable prospect [J]. Irish Forestry,1977,2:33-41.
[160]Gene W G, Frederick JD. Urban forestry[M]. New York:Wiley,1986.
[161]Gordoon A B. Urban Forest Landscapes:Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives[M]. Seattle: University of Washington Press,1995,22-28,25-100.
[162]Grey G W.. The Urban Forest:Comprehensive Management[M]. NewYork:Wiley 1996,18-23.
[163]Hao MH, Ren ZY. Land Use/Land Cover Change and Eco-Environment Response to LUCC in arming-Pastoral Zone, China[J]. Agricultural Sciences in China,2009,8(1):91-97. Hildebrandt, et al. A review of urban forestry education in the 1990s[J]. J. For,1993,91(3):40-42.
[164]Holling CS. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social system[J], Ecosystems,2001,4:390-405.
[165]Honnay O, Piessens K, van Landuyt M, Hermy M, Gulinck H. Satellite based land use and landscape complexity indices as predictors for regional plant species diversity[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2003,63(4):241-250.
[166]Hull Ⅳ R B et al. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures[J]. For.Sci.,1984,30(4):1084-1096.
[167]Hull Ⅳ R B, Buhyoff G J, Gordell H K. Psychophysical models:an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roodside pine forests[J].. Landscape Journal,1987,6(2):113-122.
[168]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[J]. For Sci,1986,32(2):271-286.
[169]Hull IV R B. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgement and scienic beauty estimation procedures[J]. For. Sci.,1984,30(4):1084-1096.
[170]Issaks E, Srivastava R M. An intioduction to applied geostatistics[M]. New York:Oxford University Press, USA,1989.
[171]Johnson MP. Environmental impacts of urban sprawl:a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda[J]. Environment and Planning,2001,3:23-28.
[172]Jorgensen, E. The history of urban forestry in Canada[C]. In First Canada Urban Fores Conference 1993,14-18
[173]Journel A G, C J Huijbegts. Mining geostatistics[M]. London:Academic Press UK,1978.
[174]Konijnedijk C C. Urban and peri-urban forestry in a developmentcontext-strategy and implementation[J]. Journal ofArboriculture,2004,30:269-277.
[175]Kuhn I, Brandl R, Klotz S. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich[J]. Evolution and Ecological Research,2004,6:749-764.
[176]Lawrece HW, et al. The neoclassical origins of Modern urban forest[J], For. Conser. History 1993.37(1):26-36.
[177]Liisa, Tyrvainen, Hannu, Vaananen. The Economic value of urban forest amenities:an application of the contingent valuation method[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1998,43(3):105-118.
[178]Linton D L. The assessment of scenery as a Natural Resource[J]. Scottish Geographical Magazine,1988,84:219-238.
[179]Magurran A E. Ecological diversity and its measurement[M]. New Jersy:Princeton University Press,1988.
[180]Mark J. A brief history of urban forestry in the United States[J]. Arboricult. J,1996,257-275.
[181]Mark J. The development of urban forestry in Britain-part[J]. Arboricult. J,1997,4:317-330.
[182]Mark J. The development of urban forestry in the Republic of Ireland[J]. Irish For,1997,2: 14-32.
[183]Matheron G..Principles of geostatistics[J]. Econ Geol,1963,58:1246-1266.
[184]McKinney M L. Effects of urbanization on species richness:A review of plants and animals[J]. Urban Ecosystems,2008,11(2):161-176.
[185]McKinney M L. Urbanization as amajor cause ofbiotic homogenization[J]. Biological Conservation,2006,27:247-260.
[186]McPherson E G. Structure and sustainability of Sacramento'surbanforestry[J]. Journal of Arboriculture,1998,24(2):174-189.
[187]Melvin J, Banghrna. The Role of Government in Urban Forestry in the S Town Mceting Forestry[M],1980
[188]Miller R W. Urban forestry:Planning and management urban greenspaces[M].2nd ed. New Jersey; Prentice Hal,1988.
[189]Miller RW. Urban Forestry[M]. New Jersey:Prentice Hall,1996.
[190]Mitsch W J, Jingsong Yan.. Ecological Engineering Contrasting Experiences in China with the west, editorial paper[J]. Ecological Engineering,1993,2:177-191.
[191]Miyawaki A. Creative ecology:Restoration of native forests by native trees[J]. Plant Biotechnology,1999,16(1):15-25.
[192]Miyawaki A. Creative ecology:Restoration of native forests by native trees[J]. Plant Biotechnology,1999,16(1):15-25.
[193]Moffatt S F, McLachlan S M, Kenkel N C. Impacts of land use on riparian forest along an urban-rural gradient in southern Manitoba[J]. Plant Ecology,2004,174(1):119-135.
[194]Nowak D J, Crane D E, Stevens JC. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States[J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,2006,4:115-123.
[195]Nowak D J. Urban forest structure:The state of Chicago's urban forest.Northeatem Forest Experiment Station, GeneralTechnical Report NE.18 DC:US DA,1994, a:3-18.
[196]Ong M C, Curtin-Brosnan J, Diette G B, et cl. Performance of Likert-type and Visual Analog Scales in the Assessment of Allergy Symptoms in Minority Patients[J]. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology,2010,125 (2):53.
[197]Osgood C E, Suci G J, Tannenbaum P H. Measurement of meaning[M]. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.1957:30-63.
[198]Paquet J, Belanger L. Public acceptability thresholds of clear cutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes[J]. Forest Science,1997,43(1):46-55.
[199]Preiser W F E, Rabinowitz H Z, White E T. Post-Occupancy Evaluation[M]. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,1988,1-50.
[200]Ribe R G. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forest[J]. Landsc J,1990,9 (2):86-101.
[201]Rowantree R A. Ecology of the Urban forest-Introduction to Part I[J]. Urban Ecology,1984, (8):1-11.
[202]Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands[J]. Forest Science,1988,34(4):846-863.
[203]Ryan C, Garland R.. The use of a specific non-response option on Liken-type scales[J]. Tourism Management,1999,20(1):107-113.
[204]Schotrko D J, O'Keeffe L E. Geo-statistical description of the special distribution Lygus Hesperus (Heteroptera:Miridae)in lentils[J]. J Econ Ent.1989,82(5):1277-1288.
[205]Shafer E L, Rutherford W. Slection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands[J]..J.For.,1969,67:415-419.
[206]Sukopp H, Hejny S, Kowarik I. Urban ecology: Plants and plant communities in urban environments[M]. The Hague:SPB Academic Publishing,1990.
[207]Susan D, Jessica T. Assess to the outdoors:using photographic comparison to assess preferences of assisted living residents[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2005,73(2-3):184-199.
[208]Vodak M C. Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management[J]. Forest Science,1985,31(2): 289-301.
[209]W. F. Elmendorf, A. E. Luloff.. Using ecosystem-based and traditional land-use planning to.conserve greenspace[J]. Journal of Arboriculture,1999,25(5):264-273.
[210]Walker J S, Grimm N B, Briggs J M, et cl. Effects of urbanization on plant species diversity in central Arizona[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,2009,7:465-470.
[211]Weiming Liao, Keiitirou Nogami. Prediction of Near-View Scenic Beauty in Artificial Stands of Hinoki (Chamaecyparis obtusa S.et Z.) [J]. J. For. Res..1999,4:93-98.
[212]William C. Vernam. Summary Roport Secssion Al. Workshop B. National Urban Forestry Conference[C]. Washington,1978.
[213]Wolfgang Ev, PreiserF.E, Harvey Z, et cl. Post-Occupancy Evaluation[M]. New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,1988.
[214]Zimmerman, Alex, Martin, Mark. Post-occupancy evaluation:benefits and barriers [J]. Building Research and Information,2001,29 (2) (2001):168-174.