基于GIS技术的景观视觉质量评价研究
|
摘要
环境问题越来越引起各国重视,政府和机构开始关注环境治理和管理问题,但大自然赋予人类有限的景观资源也在不断受到污染和遭到践踏,景观管理是环境管理的重要组成部分,要求我们不仅要进行环境管理,更要进行景观管理。
本文在大量阅读国外理论方法和实践经验文献的基础上,结合我们国家已有的研究成果,通过对景观视觉资源的系统调查、整理和分析,对景观视觉质量进行了重新解读。将景观特征分解为生物物理要素、形式要素和心理因素,建立景色质量、视觉敏感度和视觉吸收力三个方面结合的景观视觉质量综合评价的理论框架,扩展了质量评价的定义,制定指标和标准,结合GIS技术与常规评价方法,以九寨沟自然保护区为例,分区域-路段-样点进行多维度的评价,形成了完整的评价系统。论文从理论和实践两个方面探索了如何综合评价景观视觉质量的可行途径,最后对景观规划与资源管理提出了相应的意见和建议,从而为九寨沟的景观视觉资源保护和景观管理提供依据。
本文通过研究得到以下结论：
(1)基于景色质量的通用评价准则,从生动性、独特性、多样性、完整性和空间性5方面进行研究,在GIS技术中加入景观格局指数计算方式,得到景色质量评价结果最佳的区域分布在树正沟、日则沟、则查洼沟和扎如沟,面积占研究区总面积的14.8,最高等级的视觉单元集中在几条主沟的区域内。
①树正沟整体景色质量表现良好,35号和47号视觉单元是整个树正沟的核心区域。日则沟景点分布较多的26号视觉单元,也成为整个日则沟的精华部分。则查洼沟3号和扎如沟42号视觉单元是最佳景色质量评价结果。丹祖沟整体景色质量评价结果较差,没有最佳的视觉单元。
②近景距离带中深入扎如沟,景色质量变佳；树正沟整个路段景色质量评价较好,尤其是20-27号路段为景色质量最佳路段；则查洼沟32-34和4044号路段景色质量最佳。日则沟镜海、珍珠滩等景点分布的45-46号路段景色质量最佳。中景距离带中沟口路段景色质量一般；扎如沟8-12号路段景色质量评价等级较高；树正沟总体评价结果良好。则查洼沟上下季节海附近路段获得一级景色质量路段。日则沟51-54号路段景色质量较差,其余路段评价都较好。
③采用SBE法对区域内若干乘车样点进行问卷统计,得到最佳的景点火花海,五花海等。应用数量化理论Ⅰ建立SBE值与各因子之间关系模型,确定对景色质量贡献最大的是地形地貌、景观丰富度和可见湖面个数3个因子。
(2)通过选取相对坡度、视觉机率、相对视距和醒目程度四个评价因子研究九寨沟自然保护区景观视觉敏感度可以发现：
①树正沟景观敏感度是整个研究区等级最高,应当作为重点保护区。日则沟景点均分布在一级敏感度区域内,则查洼沟情况类似；扎如沟公路右侧39号视觉单元敏感度高,跟其坡度变化有关,丹祖沟整个区域景观视觉敏感度普遍偏低。
②从路段来看,近景范围中扎如沟郭都寨路段、树正沟的盆景滩路段、则查洼沟的上下季节海景点路段、日则沟的镜海路段是敏感度较高的区域。中景范围内各路段变化趋于平缓,总体情况小于近景范围内敏感度数值,这与中景范围内水景优势作用变小,植被优势变大有关。
③九寨沟自然保护区盆景滩、火花海、犀牛海、诺日朗瀑布、五彩池、熊猫海和箭竹海的视觉敏感度最高,以自然景观为主,在旅游开发的过程中要注意生态环境的保护和协调。
(3)通过选取坡度、坡向、地形起伏度、植被丰富度、植被格局和土壤稳定性六个评价因子研究九寨沟自然保护区景观视觉吸收力可以发现：
①影响景观吸收力的最直接的因素是植被,植物群落成份越丰富、结构越复杂,吸收力也越高。区域内诺日朗游客中心附近的各大景区范围内吸收力很强,扎如沟的纳西寨和树正寨区域是景观视觉吸收力最高的区域。则查洼沟、日则沟和丹祖沟总体随着海拔增高呈现减弱的阶梯式。
②从整个公路和栈道沿线来看,近景景观视觉吸收力综合评价较高,扎如沟呈现先降低再升高的趋势。整个树正沟路段吸收力随路段数的增加而降低。则查洼沟28-36号路段和日则沟49号路段、55号路段吸收力分值最高。中景范围内吸收力变化则较为稳定,吸收力数值较近景吸收力数值高,这与植被分布较多以及离开公路距离较远有关。
③研究区内盆景滩、火花海、树正群海和五花海等景点区域景观视觉吸收能力最强。其他景点所见视域范围内景观视觉吸收力比较低,轻度或局部的人为活动都可能带来强烈的或大面积的生态和视觉冲击。
(4)将以上三部分内容进行分值叠加后得到景观视觉质量综合评价结果。根据九寨沟自然保护区景观现状,确定了管理目标和未来发展建议。研究表明：
①在区域范围内：树正寨、诺日朗游客中心和镜海范围内的区域景观视觉质量综合评价最高,是景观保护的重点区域。扎如沟景观规划潜力最大,要重视景观视觉质量评价在未来景观管理和开发中的影响。可进行大幅改造的是日则沟19号、则查洼沟24号和扎如沟39号视觉单元。未来可以接受发展的区域主要集中在三条主沟有景点分布的附近,这些区域的吸收力等级普遍较高。
②500m近景距离带中扎如沟公路末端11-12号路段、树正沟13-14号路段及26号路段、则查洼沟32-34号路段、日则沟45-46号路段景观质量评价结果良好；三条主沟公路上没有需要大幅改造的路段,重点保护的路段主要分布在三条主沟交汇处,不能进行景观破坏。未来可以接受发展的区域在扎如沟口以及则查洼沟部分吸收力等级高的路段中。
③1500m中景距离带扎如沟口4号路段和树正沟13-14号路段、则查洼沟下季节海景点附近34号路段和日则沟镜海景点附近46号路段景观质量评价结果较好。目前应重点保护的路段有树正沟13-14号路段,树正沟犀牛海附近24号路段及日则沟镜海附近46号路段。树正沟在近景距离带中不适宜发展的路段在中景范围内可以适当进行发展,则查洼沟五花海和长海附近的路段依然处于低吸收力状态,不适宜进行进一步发展。
本文的创新点在于：
(1)在国内外相关研究成果的基础上,确立了景观视觉质量评价的研究框架,将景观生物物理要素、形式要素和心理要素结合起来构建评价指标,扩展了以往只评价风景质量的景观视觉评价体系,提出景观视觉质量包括景色质量评价、视觉敏感性评价和视觉吸收力评价三个方面,建立景观视觉质量综合评价的流程和体系；
(2)构建了符合实际情况的多元、开放型的评价方法体系和评价模型,将GIS空间分析技术和景观格局指数引入到景观视觉质量评价中,将抽象的视觉评价延伸到量化的层次,将所有指标的评价结果转化为1-5分的定量数值,并进行叠加分析,使评价过程更具有普适性；
(3)开展了九寨沟景观视觉质量评价的案例研究,建立相关景观视觉资源数据库,使用点—线—面结合的研究尺度,使得评价更全面。
本论文研究意义在于：
(1)丰富了景观视觉评价的范畴。本文尝试在景观视觉质量评价中加入一些景观生态学的景观指数作为评价因子,以及对景观的稳定性进行评价,以丰富了景观视觉评价的范畴。
(2)对视觉资源的规划与管理提供指导作用。作为环境规划和管理的重要组成部分,景观污染问题总会逐步引起人们的关注的,为了进行景观的保护、规划和管理,景观视觉质量评价显得尤为必要。
(3)利用新技术为景观视觉评价研究提供新的思路。景观评价缺乏统一的评价标准和方法,比较难用科学的方法评价景观的视觉效果,结合GIS是一种非常好的尝试,累积视域分析、环境对比亮度提取、空间开阔度等新方法都为景观视觉质量评价提供了新的思路和方法,弥补了传统研究方法的不足。
(4)本文将这些研究指标和方法运用到世界级自然保护区——九寨沟的实例中。建立景观视觉资源数据库,完成区域和三条主沟公路及多个样点相结合的点-线-面综合评价并对景观规划与管理提出了相应的建议,为该地区以及同类型景区的景观视觉评价工作和景观管理和旅游可持续发展提供了科学依据。
鉴于本文作者能力和时间限制,所提出的景观视觉质量评价框架、方法还有必要进行更深入的研究。研究区域的评价指标的分级有待进一步的完善,多种评价方法的结合还需仔细推敲。另外,技术上还可以进一步挖掘GIS强大的空间分析技术来进行更深入的研究,这些方面还有待今后在实践中积累更多的资料后进行详细研究。
Environmental problems are becoming increasingly attracted national attention, governments and institutions began to focus on environmental governance and management issues, but the limited natural aesthetics resources which the nature has given to human are constantly contamination and trampled, landscape management is an important part of environmental management, requiring us not only to conduct environmental management, but also to carry out landscape management
In this paper, on the basis of a lot of literature reading of the foreign theoretical methods and practical experience, it combines with our country existing research results, tries systematic investigation, collation and analysis of landscape visual resources, re-interprets the visual quality of the landscape. The landscape features are decomposed into biophysical elements, form elements and psychological elements, the paper establishes the theoretical framework and evaluation process of landscape visual quality assessment which combine three aspects named the scenery quality, visual sensitivity, and visual absorption capability. It expands the definition of quality assessment, develops the indicators and criteria which combined with GIS technology and conventional evaluation methods, takes Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve for example, forms a complete evaluation system with multi-dimensional evaluation which combines sub-regional, sections and samples,
The paper explores from both theoretical and practical aspects of how feasible way of comprehensive evaluation of landscape visual quality, and, finally, it gives the comments and suggestions to landscape planning and resource management, and thus provide the basis for Jiuzhaigou landscape visual resource protection and planning.
This paper studies the following conclusions:
(1) Based on the general evaluation standard, we research on vitality, uniqueness, diversity, completeness and spatiality, applying landscape pattern index calculation method into GIS technology. It figures out that the best evaluated lake areas of landscape quality assessment are Shuzheng Valley, Rize Valley, Zezhawa Valley and Zharu Valley, accounting for14.8%of the total research areas. And the visual units of the highest grade centralize within the area of main valleys.
①The Shuzheng Valley performs well in general scenery quality. No.35and No.47visual units are the core area of the whole area. In Rize Valley, No.26visual unit which enjoys the most spots is superset of the area. No3visual unit of Zezhawa Valley and No.42visual unit of Zharu Valley are the best in terms of scenery quality evaluation. Danzu Valley overall evaluation results of scenery quality is poor, there is no best visual units.
②Among close-range, scenery quality become better when going deep into Zharu Valley; the ways around Shuzheng Valley have good evaluation result of scenery quality, especially the No.20-27sections. While sections of No.32-34and No.45-46in Zezhawa Valley are the best. No.45-46sections in Rize Valley which scattered with the Jing Sea, Zhenzhu Beach, Zhenzhu Beach Waterfalls and other spots are best in scenery quality.
③Among mid-range, the sections of entrance of valley have ordinary landscape quality. No.8-12sections of Zharu Valley have higher scenery quality. The evaluated result of Shuzheng Valley is generally good. Around Shangjijie Sea and Xiajijie Sea, the section of Zezhawa Valley has the first-degree scenery quality. But No.51-54sections of Rize Valley have relatively worse scenery quality, while other sections are good in evaluation.
④It uses SBE method to evaluate the key point areas within the research range and discover that the best spots are Huohua Sea, Wuhua Sea and Nuorilang Waterfalls. By using quantification theory I to establish the landscape evaluation model of SBE value and the landscape category, we can confirm that the most contributive factors to scenery quality are topography, richness of landscape and number of visible lakes.
(2) By selecting evaluation factors, relative slope, visual probability, the degree of relative line-of-sight and eye-catching, results of the research of landscape visual sensitivity in Jiuzhaigou Natural Reserve can be found as follows:
①Landscape sensitivity of Shuzheng Valley is the highest level in the area, which shall be viewed as key protected areas. Spots of Rize Valley are distributed in the primary sensitivity area, and Zezhawa Valley has the similar situation; No.39section on the right side of Zharu Valley road has high visual sensitivity, which is associated with its gradient change. And the landscape visual sensitivity of the whole region of Danzu Valley is generally low.
②From close-range area, landscape visual sensitivity evaluation results, road around Guodu Village of Zharu Valley, the section of Penjing Beach of Shuzheng Valley, road around the Shangjijie Sea and Xiajijie Sea of Zezhawa Valley, and road around the Jing Sea are sensitive. Section changes of mid-range areas are flat and the overall sensitivity is less than that of the close-range areas. This is due to the decreasing effect of water landscape and the increasing advantages brought by plants.
③In Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve, Penjing beach, Huohua Sea, Xiniu Sea, Nuorilang Waterfalls, Wucai pools, Xiongmao Sea and Jianzhu Sea have the highest visual sensitivity, with the priority in natural landscape. Accordingly, the protection and the coordination of the ecological environment should be paid attention to the process of tourism development.
(3) By selecting the factors of slope, aspect, terrain degrees, vegetation richness, vegetation pattern and soil stability, results of the research of six evaluation factor of landscape visual absorption capability in Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve can be found as follows:
①The most direct factors that affect the absorbability of the landscape are plants. If plants are dense and are of variety, and the structure more complicated, the self-adjustment ability of the community would be stronger, and the absorption capability higher. In the areas, spots around Nuorilang tourist center have strong absorption capability. The Naxi Village of Zharu Valley and Shuzheng Village have the strongest landscape visual absorption capability. Zezhawa Valley, Rize Valley and Danzu Valley have similar situations; the overall trend is that absorption capability is decreased as altitude increased.
②From the perspectives of roads and plank roads around, close-range spots are better evaluated in comprehensive visual absorption capability. For example, the trend of result of Zharu Valley is descending first, then ascend. The absorption capability of Shuzheng Valley areas descends while the number of road section increases. No.28-36sections of Zezhawa Valley and No.49section and No.55section of Rize Valley enjoy the highest marks in terms of absorption capability. As for mid-range areas, the change of absorptive is relatively steady. They have higher marks than close shot areas in absorption capability as well. This is due to the dense distribution of plants and long distance from roads.
③In this area, the best visual absorption capability belongs to Penjing Beach, Huohua Sea, Shuzheng Sea groups and Wuhua Sea. Other spots have lower absorption capability within visible areas, in which slight activities of human being would bring intense and extensive impact on ecology.
(4) Overlaid the scores of above three part of the contents and then get the landscape visual quality assessment results. According to the landscape status to determine the management objectives and future development proposals in Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve. Studies show that:
①In the regional:The regional landscape of Shuzheng Village, Nuorilang visitor center and Jing Sea are the highest visual quality assessment areas which are the key protected areas. Zharu Valley has greatest potential on landscape planning; it should pay attention to the impact of visual landscape quality assessment in the future landscape management and development. The visual units which can substantially modify are No.19in Rize Valley, No.24in Zezhawa Valley and No.39in Zharu Valley. Acceptable future development areas are mainly concentrated in three main valleys which have attractions located near them, areas generally have higher level of absorption capability.
②Close-range within500m distance, landscape quality evaluation results are good in sections of No.11-12in road ends of Zharu Valley, No.13-14and No.26in Shuzheng Valley, No.45-46in Rize Valley. Three main Valley roads are no need for substantial modified. Key protection sections are mainly distributed in three main Valley interchange area and landscape can't be destroyed. Future acceptable development area is in the entry area of Zharu Valley as well as some road sections of Zechawa Valley with higher level of absorption capability.
③Middle-range with1500m distance, landscape quality evaluation results are good in sections of No.4in entry area of Zharu Valley, No.13-14Shuzheng Valley, No.34near Xiajijie Sea attraction in Zechawa Valley and No.46near Jing Sea attraction in Rize Valley. It should focus on the protection of sections are the No.13-14in the Shuzheng Valley, No.24near Xiniu Sea in Shuzheng Valley and No.46near Jing Sea in Rize Valley. The sections which are unsuitable for development in close-range in Shuzheng Valley are now suitable for the properly development in middle-range. The sections of Wuhua Sea in Zechawa Valley and near Chang Sea Valley are still in the low absorption capability, unsuitable for further development.
The innovation of this paper is to:
(1) On the basis of relevant research results at home and abroad to establish landscape visual quality assessment framework. It establishes evaluation index by combining the biophysical elements of the landscape, form elements and psychological elements, and proposes landscape visual quality should include three aspects of the scenery quality evaluation, visual sensitivity evaluation and visual absorption capability for the establishment of landscape visual quality assessment processes and systems. It extends the landscape visual quality valuation system that the previous evaluation only takes scenic landscape visual quality evaluation.
(2) It builds a pluralistic and open evaluation methods system and evaluation model which is in line with the actual situation. GIS spatial analysis technology and landscape pattern indexes are introduced into the landscape visual quality assessment, the abstract visual evaluation extends to the quantify level, the evaluation results of all the indicators are taken into quantitative values of1-5, and overlay analysis, make the evaluation process more universal.
(3) It carries out a case study of Jiuzhaigou landscape visual quality assessment. It builds landscape visual resource database and makes more comprehensive evaluation by using binding studies scale of point--line-surface.
In this paper, the theoretical significance is:
(1) It enriches the scope of the landscape visual evaluation; The paper tries to add some landscape index of landscape ecology to the landscape visual as evaluation factors, as well as evaluating the stability of the landscape, in order to enrich the scope of landscape visual evaluation.
(2) To provide guidance for scenic visual resources planning and management. As an important part of environmental planning and management, the landscape pollution will gradually aroused the concern of the people, so the visual landscape quality analysis and assessment is particularly necessary.
(3) To provide new ideas for landscape visual evaluation studies by using new technologies. Because of the lack of uniform evaluation criteria and methods of landscape evaluation, it will become more difficult to use the scientific method to evaluate the visual effects of the landscape. Combined with GIS is a very good attempt, including cumulative viewed, brightness extraction, the space openness and other new methods provides new ideas and methods for landscape visual quality evaluation, making up the traditional research methods lack.
(4) In this paper, these indicators and methods applied to the World-Class Nature Reserve-Jiuzhaigou example, it builds landscape visual resource database and completes the complex point-line-surface evaluation combining with the entire region and the three main Valley along the road and many sights,and then putting forward corresponding countermeasures for landscape planning and visual resource management, providing a scientific basis of landscape visual evaluation, landscape management and sustainable development of the landscape for the area and the same type of scenic area
However, due to the ability and limit time of the author, the research of visual quality is still preliminary, the proposed evaluation framework, methods are relatively simple, there is a need for more in-depth research. The classification of the evaluation of the study area needs to be further improved, the combination of a variety of evaluation methods need to be considered carefully. In addition, the technology also can further tap GIS powerful spatial analysis techniques to more in-depth research, these aspects have yet to accumulate more information for detailed study in practice in the future.
本文在大量阅读国外理论方法和实践经验文献的基础上,结合我们国家已有的研究成果,通过对景观视觉资源的系统调查、整理和分析,对景观视觉质量进行了重新解读。将景观特征分解为生物物理要素、形式要素和心理因素,建立景色质量、视觉敏感度和视觉吸收力三个方面结合的景观视觉质量综合评价的理论框架,扩展了质量评价的定义,制定指标和标准,结合GIS技术与常规评价方法,以九寨沟自然保护区为例,分区域-路段-样点进行多维度的评价,形成了完整的评价系统。论文从理论和实践两个方面探索了如何综合评价景观视觉质量的可行途径,最后对景观规划与资源管理提出了相应的意见和建议,从而为九寨沟的景观视觉资源保护和景观管理提供依据。
本文通过研究得到以下结论：
(1)基于景色质量的通用评价准则,从生动性、独特性、多样性、完整性和空间性5方面进行研究,在GIS技术中加入景观格局指数计算方式,得到景色质量评价结果最佳的区域分布在树正沟、日则沟、则查洼沟和扎如沟,面积占研究区总面积的14.8,最高等级的视觉单元集中在几条主沟的区域内。
①树正沟整体景色质量表现良好,35号和47号视觉单元是整个树正沟的核心区域。日则沟景点分布较多的26号视觉单元,也成为整个日则沟的精华部分。则查洼沟3号和扎如沟42号视觉单元是最佳景色质量评价结果。丹祖沟整体景色质量评价结果较差,没有最佳的视觉单元。
②近景距离带中深入扎如沟,景色质量变佳；树正沟整个路段景色质量评价较好,尤其是20-27号路段为景色质量最佳路段；则查洼沟32-34和4044号路段景色质量最佳。日则沟镜海、珍珠滩等景点分布的45-46号路段景色质量最佳。中景距离带中沟口路段景色质量一般；扎如沟8-12号路段景色质量评价等级较高；树正沟总体评价结果良好。则查洼沟上下季节海附近路段获得一级景色质量路段。日则沟51-54号路段景色质量较差,其余路段评价都较好。
③采用SBE法对区域内若干乘车样点进行问卷统计,得到最佳的景点火花海,五花海等。应用数量化理论Ⅰ建立SBE值与各因子之间关系模型,确定对景色质量贡献最大的是地形地貌、景观丰富度和可见湖面个数3个因子。
(2)通过选取相对坡度、视觉机率、相对视距和醒目程度四个评价因子研究九寨沟自然保护区景观视觉敏感度可以发现：
①树正沟景观敏感度是整个研究区等级最高,应当作为重点保护区。日则沟景点均分布在一级敏感度区域内,则查洼沟情况类似；扎如沟公路右侧39号视觉单元敏感度高,跟其坡度变化有关,丹祖沟整个区域景观视觉敏感度普遍偏低。
②从路段来看,近景范围中扎如沟郭都寨路段、树正沟的盆景滩路段、则查洼沟的上下季节海景点路段、日则沟的镜海路段是敏感度较高的区域。中景范围内各路段变化趋于平缓,总体情况小于近景范围内敏感度数值,这与中景范围内水景优势作用变小,植被优势变大有关。
③九寨沟自然保护区盆景滩、火花海、犀牛海、诺日朗瀑布、五彩池、熊猫海和箭竹海的视觉敏感度最高,以自然景观为主,在旅游开发的过程中要注意生态环境的保护和协调。
(3)通过选取坡度、坡向、地形起伏度、植被丰富度、植被格局和土壤稳定性六个评价因子研究九寨沟自然保护区景观视觉吸收力可以发现：
①影响景观吸收力的最直接的因素是植被,植物群落成份越丰富、结构越复杂,吸收力也越高。区域内诺日朗游客中心附近的各大景区范围内吸收力很强,扎如沟的纳西寨和树正寨区域是景观视觉吸收力最高的区域。则查洼沟、日则沟和丹祖沟总体随着海拔增高呈现减弱的阶梯式。
②从整个公路和栈道沿线来看,近景景观视觉吸收力综合评价较高,扎如沟呈现先降低再升高的趋势。整个树正沟路段吸收力随路段数的增加而降低。则查洼沟28-36号路段和日则沟49号路段、55号路段吸收力分值最高。中景范围内吸收力变化则较为稳定,吸收力数值较近景吸收力数值高,这与植被分布较多以及离开公路距离较远有关。
③研究区内盆景滩、火花海、树正群海和五花海等景点区域景观视觉吸收能力最强。其他景点所见视域范围内景观视觉吸收力比较低,轻度或局部的人为活动都可能带来强烈的或大面积的生态和视觉冲击。
(4)将以上三部分内容进行分值叠加后得到景观视觉质量综合评价结果。根据九寨沟自然保护区景观现状,确定了管理目标和未来发展建议。研究表明：
①在区域范围内：树正寨、诺日朗游客中心和镜海范围内的区域景观视觉质量综合评价最高,是景观保护的重点区域。扎如沟景观规划潜力最大,要重视景观视觉质量评价在未来景观管理和开发中的影响。可进行大幅改造的是日则沟19号、则查洼沟24号和扎如沟39号视觉单元。未来可以接受发展的区域主要集中在三条主沟有景点分布的附近,这些区域的吸收力等级普遍较高。
②500m近景距离带中扎如沟公路末端11-12号路段、树正沟13-14号路段及26号路段、则查洼沟32-34号路段、日则沟45-46号路段景观质量评价结果良好；三条主沟公路上没有需要大幅改造的路段,重点保护的路段主要分布在三条主沟交汇处,不能进行景观破坏。未来可以接受发展的区域在扎如沟口以及则查洼沟部分吸收力等级高的路段中。
③1500m中景距离带扎如沟口4号路段和树正沟13-14号路段、则查洼沟下季节海景点附近34号路段和日则沟镜海景点附近46号路段景观质量评价结果较好。目前应重点保护的路段有树正沟13-14号路段,树正沟犀牛海附近24号路段及日则沟镜海附近46号路段。树正沟在近景距离带中不适宜发展的路段在中景范围内可以适当进行发展,则查洼沟五花海和长海附近的路段依然处于低吸收力状态,不适宜进行进一步发展。
本文的创新点在于：
(1)在国内外相关研究成果的基础上,确立了景观视觉质量评价的研究框架,将景观生物物理要素、形式要素和心理要素结合起来构建评价指标,扩展了以往只评价风景质量的景观视觉评价体系,提出景观视觉质量包括景色质量评价、视觉敏感性评价和视觉吸收力评价三个方面,建立景观视觉质量综合评价的流程和体系；
(2)构建了符合实际情况的多元、开放型的评价方法体系和评价模型,将GIS空间分析技术和景观格局指数引入到景观视觉质量评价中,将抽象的视觉评价延伸到量化的层次,将所有指标的评价结果转化为1-5分的定量数值,并进行叠加分析,使评价过程更具有普适性；
(3)开展了九寨沟景观视觉质量评价的案例研究,建立相关景观视觉资源数据库,使用点—线—面结合的研究尺度,使得评价更全面。
本论文研究意义在于：
(1)丰富了景观视觉评价的范畴。本文尝试在景观视觉质量评价中加入一些景观生态学的景观指数作为评价因子,以及对景观的稳定性进行评价,以丰富了景观视觉评价的范畴。
(2)对视觉资源的规划与管理提供指导作用。作为环境规划和管理的重要组成部分,景观污染问题总会逐步引起人们的关注的,为了进行景观的保护、规划和管理,景观视觉质量评价显得尤为必要。
(3)利用新技术为景观视觉评价研究提供新的思路。景观评价缺乏统一的评价标准和方法,比较难用科学的方法评价景观的视觉效果,结合GIS是一种非常好的尝试,累积视域分析、环境对比亮度提取、空间开阔度等新方法都为景观视觉质量评价提供了新的思路和方法,弥补了传统研究方法的不足。
(4)本文将这些研究指标和方法运用到世界级自然保护区——九寨沟的实例中。建立景观视觉资源数据库,完成区域和三条主沟公路及多个样点相结合的点-线-面综合评价并对景观规划与管理提出了相应的建议,为该地区以及同类型景区的景观视觉评价工作和景观管理和旅游可持续发展提供了科学依据。
鉴于本文作者能力和时间限制,所提出的景观视觉质量评价框架、方法还有必要进行更深入的研究。研究区域的评价指标的分级有待进一步的完善,多种评价方法的结合还需仔细推敲。另外,技术上还可以进一步挖掘GIS强大的空间分析技术来进行更深入的研究,这些方面还有待今后在实践中积累更多的资料后进行详细研究。
Environmental problems are becoming increasingly attracted national attention, governments and institutions began to focus on environmental governance and management issues, but the limited natural aesthetics resources which the nature has given to human are constantly contamination and trampled, landscape management is an important part of environmental management, requiring us not only to conduct environmental management, but also to carry out landscape management
In this paper, on the basis of a lot of literature reading of the foreign theoretical methods and practical experience, it combines with our country existing research results, tries systematic investigation, collation and analysis of landscape visual resources, re-interprets the visual quality of the landscape. The landscape features are decomposed into biophysical elements, form elements and psychological elements, the paper establishes the theoretical framework and evaluation process of landscape visual quality assessment which combine three aspects named the scenery quality, visual sensitivity, and visual absorption capability. It expands the definition of quality assessment, develops the indicators and criteria which combined with GIS technology and conventional evaluation methods, takes Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve for example, forms a complete evaluation system with multi-dimensional evaluation which combines sub-regional, sections and samples,
The paper explores from both theoretical and practical aspects of how feasible way of comprehensive evaluation of landscape visual quality, and, finally, it gives the comments and suggestions to landscape planning and resource management, and thus provide the basis for Jiuzhaigou landscape visual resource protection and planning.
This paper studies the following conclusions:
(1) Based on the general evaluation standard, we research on vitality, uniqueness, diversity, completeness and spatiality, applying landscape pattern index calculation method into GIS technology. It figures out that the best evaluated lake areas of landscape quality assessment are Shuzheng Valley, Rize Valley, Zezhawa Valley and Zharu Valley, accounting for14.8%of the total research areas. And the visual units of the highest grade centralize within the area of main valleys.
①The Shuzheng Valley performs well in general scenery quality. No.35and No.47visual units are the core area of the whole area. In Rize Valley, No.26visual unit which enjoys the most spots is superset of the area. No3visual unit of Zezhawa Valley and No.42visual unit of Zharu Valley are the best in terms of scenery quality evaluation. Danzu Valley overall evaluation results of scenery quality is poor, there is no best visual units.
②Among close-range, scenery quality become better when going deep into Zharu Valley; the ways around Shuzheng Valley have good evaluation result of scenery quality, especially the No.20-27sections. While sections of No.32-34and No.45-46in Zezhawa Valley are the best. No.45-46sections in Rize Valley which scattered with the Jing Sea, Zhenzhu Beach, Zhenzhu Beach Waterfalls and other spots are best in scenery quality.
③Among mid-range, the sections of entrance of valley have ordinary landscape quality. No.8-12sections of Zharu Valley have higher scenery quality. The evaluated result of Shuzheng Valley is generally good. Around Shangjijie Sea and Xiajijie Sea, the section of Zezhawa Valley has the first-degree scenery quality. But No.51-54sections of Rize Valley have relatively worse scenery quality, while other sections are good in evaluation.
④It uses SBE method to evaluate the key point areas within the research range and discover that the best spots are Huohua Sea, Wuhua Sea and Nuorilang Waterfalls. By using quantification theory I to establish the landscape evaluation model of SBE value and the landscape category, we can confirm that the most contributive factors to scenery quality are topography, richness of landscape and number of visible lakes.
(2) By selecting evaluation factors, relative slope, visual probability, the degree of relative line-of-sight and eye-catching, results of the research of landscape visual sensitivity in Jiuzhaigou Natural Reserve can be found as follows:
①Landscape sensitivity of Shuzheng Valley is the highest level in the area, which shall be viewed as key protected areas. Spots of Rize Valley are distributed in the primary sensitivity area, and Zezhawa Valley has the similar situation; No.39section on the right side of Zharu Valley road has high visual sensitivity, which is associated with its gradient change. And the landscape visual sensitivity of the whole region of Danzu Valley is generally low.
②From close-range area, landscape visual sensitivity evaluation results, road around Guodu Village of Zharu Valley, the section of Penjing Beach of Shuzheng Valley, road around the Shangjijie Sea and Xiajijie Sea of Zezhawa Valley, and road around the Jing Sea are sensitive. Section changes of mid-range areas are flat and the overall sensitivity is less than that of the close-range areas. This is due to the decreasing effect of water landscape and the increasing advantages brought by plants.
③In Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve, Penjing beach, Huohua Sea, Xiniu Sea, Nuorilang Waterfalls, Wucai pools, Xiongmao Sea and Jianzhu Sea have the highest visual sensitivity, with the priority in natural landscape. Accordingly, the protection and the coordination of the ecological environment should be paid attention to the process of tourism development.
(3) By selecting the factors of slope, aspect, terrain degrees, vegetation richness, vegetation pattern and soil stability, results of the research of six evaluation factor of landscape visual absorption capability in Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve can be found as follows:
①The most direct factors that affect the absorbability of the landscape are plants. If plants are dense and are of variety, and the structure more complicated, the self-adjustment ability of the community would be stronger, and the absorption capability higher. In the areas, spots around Nuorilang tourist center have strong absorption capability. The Naxi Village of Zharu Valley and Shuzheng Village have the strongest landscape visual absorption capability. Zezhawa Valley, Rize Valley and Danzu Valley have similar situations; the overall trend is that absorption capability is decreased as altitude increased.
②From the perspectives of roads and plank roads around, close-range spots are better evaluated in comprehensive visual absorption capability. For example, the trend of result of Zharu Valley is descending first, then ascend. The absorption capability of Shuzheng Valley areas descends while the number of road section increases. No.28-36sections of Zezhawa Valley and No.49section and No.55section of Rize Valley enjoy the highest marks in terms of absorption capability. As for mid-range areas, the change of absorptive is relatively steady. They have higher marks than close shot areas in absorption capability as well. This is due to the dense distribution of plants and long distance from roads.
③In this area, the best visual absorption capability belongs to Penjing Beach, Huohua Sea, Shuzheng Sea groups and Wuhua Sea. Other spots have lower absorption capability within visible areas, in which slight activities of human being would bring intense and extensive impact on ecology.
(4) Overlaid the scores of above three part of the contents and then get the landscape visual quality assessment results. According to the landscape status to determine the management objectives and future development proposals in Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve. Studies show that:
①In the regional:The regional landscape of Shuzheng Village, Nuorilang visitor center and Jing Sea are the highest visual quality assessment areas which are the key protected areas. Zharu Valley has greatest potential on landscape planning; it should pay attention to the impact of visual landscape quality assessment in the future landscape management and development. The visual units which can substantially modify are No.19in Rize Valley, No.24in Zezhawa Valley and No.39in Zharu Valley. Acceptable future development areas are mainly concentrated in three main valleys which have attractions located near them, areas generally have higher level of absorption capability.
②Close-range within500m distance, landscape quality evaluation results are good in sections of No.11-12in road ends of Zharu Valley, No.13-14and No.26in Shuzheng Valley, No.45-46in Rize Valley. Three main Valley roads are no need for substantial modified. Key protection sections are mainly distributed in three main Valley interchange area and landscape can't be destroyed. Future acceptable development area is in the entry area of Zharu Valley as well as some road sections of Zechawa Valley with higher level of absorption capability.
③Middle-range with1500m distance, landscape quality evaluation results are good in sections of No.4in entry area of Zharu Valley, No.13-14Shuzheng Valley, No.34near Xiajijie Sea attraction in Zechawa Valley and No.46near Jing Sea attraction in Rize Valley. It should focus on the protection of sections are the No.13-14in the Shuzheng Valley, No.24near Xiniu Sea in Shuzheng Valley and No.46near Jing Sea in Rize Valley. The sections which are unsuitable for development in close-range in Shuzheng Valley are now suitable for the properly development in middle-range. The sections of Wuhua Sea in Zechawa Valley and near Chang Sea Valley are still in the low absorption capability, unsuitable for further development.
The innovation of this paper is to:
(1) On the basis of relevant research results at home and abroad to establish landscape visual quality assessment framework. It establishes evaluation index by combining the biophysical elements of the landscape, form elements and psychological elements, and proposes landscape visual quality should include three aspects of the scenery quality evaluation, visual sensitivity evaluation and visual absorption capability for the establishment of landscape visual quality assessment processes and systems. It extends the landscape visual quality valuation system that the previous evaluation only takes scenic landscape visual quality evaluation.
(2) It builds a pluralistic and open evaluation methods system and evaluation model which is in line with the actual situation. GIS spatial analysis technology and landscape pattern indexes are introduced into the landscape visual quality assessment, the abstract visual evaluation extends to the quantify level, the evaluation results of all the indicators are taken into quantitative values of1-5, and overlay analysis, make the evaluation process more universal.
(3) It carries out a case study of Jiuzhaigou landscape visual quality assessment. It builds landscape visual resource database and makes more comprehensive evaluation by using binding studies scale of point--line-surface.
In this paper, the theoretical significance is:
(1) It enriches the scope of the landscape visual evaluation; The paper tries to add some landscape index of landscape ecology to the landscape visual as evaluation factors, as well as evaluating the stability of the landscape, in order to enrich the scope of landscape visual evaluation.
(2) To provide guidance for scenic visual resources planning and management. As an important part of environmental planning and management, the landscape pollution will gradually aroused the concern of the people, so the visual landscape quality analysis and assessment is particularly necessary.
(3) To provide new ideas for landscape visual evaluation studies by using new technologies. Because of the lack of uniform evaluation criteria and methods of landscape evaluation, it will become more difficult to use the scientific method to evaluate the visual effects of the landscape. Combined with GIS is a very good attempt, including cumulative viewed, brightness extraction, the space openness and other new methods provides new ideas and methods for landscape visual quality evaluation, making up the traditional research methods lack.
(4) In this paper, these indicators and methods applied to the World-Class Nature Reserve-Jiuzhaigou example, it builds landscape visual resource database and completes the complex point-line-surface evaluation combining with the entire region and the three main Valley along the road and many sights,and then putting forward corresponding countermeasures for landscape planning and visual resource management, providing a scientific basis of landscape visual evaluation, landscape management and sustainable development of the landscape for the area and the same type of scenic area
However, due to the ability and limit time of the author, the research of visual quality is still preliminary, the proposed evaluation framework, methods are relatively simple, there is a need for more in-depth research. The classification of the evaluation of the study area needs to be further improved, the combination of a variety of evaluation methods need to be considered carefully. In addition, the technology also can further tap GIS powerful spatial analysis techniques to more in-depth research, these aspects have yet to accumulate more information for detailed study in practice in the future.
引文
1 《牛津高阶英汉双解词典》,第四版增补本,第883页
[1]Acar C, Kurdoglu B C, Kurdoglu O, et al. Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey)[J]. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,2006,13(6):499-512.
[2]Amir S, Gidalizon E. Expert-based method for the evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1990,30(3):251-263.
[3]Appleton J. The experience of landscape[J]. New York:Wiley,1996.
[4]Appleton J. The aesthetics of landscape[J]. Rural Plann,1979,7:5.
[5]Arthur L M, Boster R S. Measuring scenic beauty:A selected annotated bibliography[M]. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture,1976.
[6]Arthur L M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:Some empirical tests[J]. Forest Science,1977,23(2):151-160.
[7]Arthur L M, Daniel T C, Boster R S. Landscape assessment:a critical review of research and methods[J]. Landscape Manage.,1977,4:109-129.
[8]Magill A W, Litton R B. A color measuring system for landscape assessment[J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(1):45-54.
[9]Bacon W R. The visual management system of forest service, USDA[J]. G Elsner, RC Smardon. Proceedings of Our National Landscape,1979.
[10]Bergen S D, McGaughey R J, Fridley J L. Data-driven simulation, dimensional accuracy and realism in a landscape visualization tool[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1998,40(4): 283-293.
[11]Bishop I D, Bruce Hull R. Integrating technologies for visual resource management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1991,32(4):295-312.
[12]Bishop I D, Hulse D W. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1):59-70.
[13]Bishop I D. Predicting movement choices in virtual environments[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,56(3):97-106.
[14]Brown T, Keane T, Kaplan S. Aesthetics and management:bridging the gap[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1986,13:1-10.
[15]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands[J]. Forest science,1986, 32(2):471-487.
[16]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Context effects in perceived environmental quality assessment: scene selection and landscape quality ratings[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1987,7(3): 233-250.
[17]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Scaling of ratings:concepts and methods[M]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1990.
[18]Brunson M, Shelby B. Assessing recreational and scenic quality[J]. Journal of forestry, 1992,90(7):37-41.
[19]Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D, Harvey H, et al. Landscape architects' interpretations of people's landscape preferences[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1978,6(3):255-262.
[20]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands[J]. Forest Science,1978,24(3):424-432.
[21]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Arndt L K. Notes:Replication of a Scenic Preference Function[J]. Forest Science,1980,26(2):227-230.
[22]Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D. The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions[J]. Journal of Leisure Research,1980,12(3):257-272.
[23]Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas[J]. Forest Science,1982,28(4):827-838.
[24]Bulut Z, Yilmaz H. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method[J]. Environmental monitoring and assessment,2009,154(1-4):459-468.
[25]Calvin J S. An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscapes[J]. Environment and Behavior,1972,4(4):447-470.
[26]Carlson A A. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty [J]. Landscape Planning, 1977,4:131-172.
[27]Cats-Baril W L, Gibson L. Evaluating aesthetics:The major issues and a bibliography [J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(2):93-102.
[28]Cerny J W. Landscape amenity assessment bibliography. Monticello,111.:Council of Planning Libraries[J]. Exchange Bibliographies,1972:287.
[29]Clay G R, Daniel T C. Scenic landscape assessment:the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2000,49(1): 1-13.
[30]Craik K H. Individual variation in landscape description[A].In:Zube E H, Brush R O, Fabos J (Ed.),Landscape Assessment[C].New York:Hutchinson &Ross,1975.
[31]Craik K. H, Feimer N R. Setting Technical Standards for Visual Impact Assessment Procedures[A]. In:Elsner G H, Smardon R C.(Eds), Proceedings of our National Landscape, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.,1979.
[32]Crofts R S. The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation[J]. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,1975:124-129.
[33]Daniel T C, Wheeler L, Boster R S, et al. Quantitative evaluation of landscapes:An application of signal detection analysis to forest management alternatives[J]. Man-environment systems,1973,3:330-344.
[34]Daniel T C, Boster R S. Measuring landscape esthetics:the scenic beauty estimation method[M]. Fort Collins, CO:Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1976.
[35]Daniel T C, Anderson L M, Schroeder H W, et al. Mapping the scenic beauty of forest landscapes[J]. Leisure Sciences,1977,1(1):35-52.
[36]Daniel T C, Schroeder H. Scenic beauty estimation model:predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes[J]. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,1979 (PSW-35):514-523.
[37]Daniel T C, Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality[M]//Behavior and the natural environment. Springer US,1983:39-84.
[38]Daniel T C. Data visualization for decision support in environmental management[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1992,21(4):261-263.
[39]Daniel T C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2001,54(1):267-281.
[40]Daniel T C, Meitner M M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations:the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,2001,21(1):61-72.
[41]Daniel T C. Chapter two:Aesthetic Preference and Ecological[J]. Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainablility, and Aesthetics,2001 (6):15-30.
[42]Dearden P. Public participation and scenic quality analysis[J]. Landscape Planning,1981, 8(1):3-19.
[43]Elsner G H, Smardon R C. Proceedings of Our National Landscape:A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, Incline Village, Nevada[C]. Berkeley:Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,1979.
[44]Farina A. L'ecologia dei sistemi ambientali[M]. CLEUP,1993.
[45]Feimer N R, Craik K H, Smardon R C, et al. Appraising the reliability of visual impact assessment methods[C]//Elsner G H and Smardon R G, Our National Landscape Conference Proceedings, USDA Forest Service Report, PSW-35.1979.
[46]Feimer N R, Smardon R C, Craik K H. Evaluating the effectiveness of observer based visual resource and impact assessment methods[J]. Landscape Research,1981,6(1):12-16.
[47]Forestry Commission of Tasmania. A manual for forest landscape management[M]. Forestry Commission, Tasmania,1990.
[48]Forman R T T, Godron M. Landscape ecology[M]. New York:John Wiley& Sons,1986.
[49]Forman R T T. Land mosaics:the ecology of landscapes and regions[M]. Cambridge university press,1995.
[50]Garc'ia J M, Canas I. La valoracion del paisaje. In:Ayuga,F. (Ed.), Gestion Sostenible de Paisajes Rurales. Tecnicas eIngenier'ia.Mundi-Prensa, Madrid,2001.
[51]Gobster P H, Chenoweth R E. The dimensions of aesthetic preference:a quantitative analysis[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1989,29(1):47-72.
[52]Gobster P H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management[J]. Landscape Journal,1999,18(1):54-64.
[53]Halls P J. Geographic information science:innovation driven by application[J]. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,2001,25(1):1-4.
[54]Harper D B, Warback J D. Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone[M]. School Landscape Arch., College Environ. Sci. For., State Univ. New York, Syracuse, NY,1976,305.
[55]Hartig T, Mang M, Evans G W. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences[J]. Environment and behavior,1991,23(1):3-26.
[56]Heath T. Environment aesthetics the state of the art, theory, practice and research[J]. Copper and Brass Information Center, Sydney,1975,66.
[57]Helliwell D R. Perception and preference in landscape appreciation—a review of the literature[J]. Landscape Research,1976,1(12):4-6.
[58]Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments:mountains, canyons, and deserts[J]. Landscape Journal,1987,6(2):140-152.
[59]Herzog T, Smith G A. Danger, mystery, and environmental preference[J]. Environment and Behavior,1988,20(3):320-344.
[60]Hetherington J, Daniel T C, Brown T C. Is motion more important than it sounds?:the medium of presentation in environment perception research[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,1993,13(4):283-291.
[61]Hodges C W. The measurement of landscape aesthetics[J]. Working Paper, Perception and Policy Working Group, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto,1978 (2):55.
[62]Hull R B, Buhyoff G J. Distance and scenic beauty:a non-monotonic relationship[J]. Environ. Behav.,1983,15:77-91.
[63]Hull R B, Buhyoff G J. Individual and group reliability of landscape assessments[J]. Landscape Planning,1984,11(1):67-71.
[64]Hull R B, Buhyoff G J, Cordell H K. Psychophysical models:an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests[J]. Landscape journal,1987,6(2):113-122.
[65]Hull R B, Stewart W P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1992,12(2):101-114.
[66]Bishop I D, Hulse D W. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1):59-70.
[67]Jacques D L. Landscape appraisal:the case for a subjective theory[J]. Journal of environmental management,1980,10(2):107-113.
[68]Jones G R, Ady J, Gray B A. Scenic and recreational highway study for the state of Washington[J]. Landscape Planning,1976,3(3):151-302.
[69]Priskin J. Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism::the case of the Central Coast Region of Western Australia[J]. Tourism Management,2001,22(6):637-648.
[70]Kaltenborn B P, Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2002,59(1):1-11.
[71]Kaplan R. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference[J].1975:118-119.
[72]Kaplan R. The analysis of perception via preference:A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced[J]. Landscape planning,1985,12(2):161-176.
[73]Kaplan S, Kaplan R, Wendt J S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual materialfJ]. Perception & Psychophysics,1972,12(4):354-356.
[74]Kaplan S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment 5.4[J]. Environmental Design Research:Selected papers,1973,1:275.
[75]Kaplan S. An informal model for the prediction of preference[J]. Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross,1975:92-101.
[76]Kaplan S. Concerning the power of content-identifying methodologies[J]. Assessing amenity resource values,1979:4-13.
[77]Kaplan S. Perception and landscape:conceptions and misconceptions [J]. Environmental aesthetics:Theory, research, and application,1988:45-55.
[78]Karjalainen E, Tyrvainen L, Salminen H, et al. Visualization in forest landscape preference research[C]//Resource Technology'98 Nordic. Proceedings of an international symposium on advanced technology in environmental and natural resources, Rovaniemi, Finland, 8-12 June 1998. Metsantutkimuslaitos (Finnish Forest Research Institute),2000 (791):1-13.
[79]Kellomaki S, Savolainen R. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory[J]. Landscape Planning,1984,11(2):97-107.
[80]Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management, Assessment. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment[M]. Taylor & Francis,2002.
[81]Latimer D A, Hogo H, Daniel T C. The effects of atmospheric optical conditions on perceived scenic beauty[J]. Atmospheric Environment (1967),1981,15(10):1865-1874.
[82]Laughlin N A, Garcia M W. Attitudes of landscape architects in the USD A Forest Service toward the Visual Management System[J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(2):135-139.
[83]Law C S, Zube E H. An approach to the study of landscape values:Perceived and experienced[C]//In The landscape:Critical issues and resources, proceedings of the 1983 Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture conference (pp.282-292). Logan:Utah State University. 1983.
[84]Blocker L, Slider T, et al. Landscape Aesthetics[M]. USDA Forest Service,1995.
[85]Anderson L, Mosier J, Chandler G. Proceedings of OUR NATIONAL LANDSCAPE:A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, Incline Village, Nevada[C]. Visual Absorption Capability,1979:164-171.
[86]Linton D L. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource[J]. The Scottish Geographical Magazine,1968,84(3):219-238.
[87]Litton R B. Forest landscape description and inventories:A basis for land planning and design[M]. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, US Department of Agriculture, 1968.
[88]Litton R B. "Aesthetic Dimension of the landscape" in Krutilla,John V. ed. Natural Environments—Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis[M].Baltimore,M.D.:the John Hopkins University Press,1972.
[89]Litton R B. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes[J]. Journal of Forestry,1974,72(7): 392-397.
[90]Litton R B, Tetlow R J. A landscape inventory framework:Scenic analyses of the Northern Great Plains[M]. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture,1978.
[91]Litton R B. Descriptive Approaches to Landscape Analysis. In:Elsner,Gary H., and Richard C. Smardon,technical coordinators.1979.Proceedings of our national landscape:a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource[Incline Village,Nev.,April 23-25,1979].Gen.Tech.Rep.PSW-GTR-35.Berkeley,CA.Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp.Stn.,Forest Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture:p.77-87.
[92]Litton R B. "Visual Assessment of Natural Landscapes" in Sadler.B. and Carlson,A. ed. Environmental Aesthetics:Essays in Interpretation.Victoria,University of Victoria,B.C.1982.
[93]Litton R B. Visual vulnerability of the landscape:control of visual quality[J]. Research paper WO,1984.
[94]Litton R B. Aesthetic Quality on the Lower American River.1985.
[95]Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics:is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1999,44(4): 177-198.
[96]Lowenthal D. The bicentennial landscape:a mirror held up to the past[J]. Geographical Review,1977:253-267.
[97]Lowenthal D. Finding valued landscapes[J]. Working Paper, Perception and Policy Working Group, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto,1978,2 (4):373-418.
[98]Magill A W, Litton R B. A color measuring system for landscape assessment[J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(1):45-54.
[99]Malm W, Kelley K, Molenar J, et al. Human perception of visual air quality (uniform haze)[J]. Atmospheric Environment (1967),1981,15(10):1875-1890.
[100]Antrop M. Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis [J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment,2000,77(1):17-28.
[101]Marsh J. Scenery evaluation and landscape perception:a bibliography [J]. Council Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, Monticello, IL,1972.
[102]Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega J F, Canas-Madueno J A, et al. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2004,69(1):115-125.
[103]Meitner M J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon:relating perceptual judgments to locations[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2004,68(1):3-13.
[104]Murray A C. Methods of landscape analysis[M]. Landscape Res. Group, London, 1967,49.
[105]NRA(National Rivers Authority),River Landscape Assessment[M]. Conservation—Technical Handbook 2.Bristol:National Rivers Authority.,1993.
[106]Orland B, Marans R W, Stokols D. Synthetic landscapes-a review of video-imaging applications in environmental perception research, planning, and design[M]. In:Marans, R., Stokols, D. (Eds.), Environmental Simulation:Research and Policy Issues. Plenum Press, New York,1993: 213-231..
[107]Palmer J F, Zube E H. Numerical and perceptual landscape classification[J]. Studies in Landscape Perception. University of Massachusetts, Institute for Man and Environment, Amherst, MA,1976:43-57.
[108]Palmer J F. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1997,37(1):109-113.
[109]Palmer J F, Hoffman R E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1):149-161.
[110]Parsons R, Daniel T C. Assessing visibility impairment in class I parks and wilderness areas:A comparison of policy-relevant methods[J]. Society & Natural Resources,1988,1(1): 227-240.
[111]Parsons R, Tassinary L G, Ulrich R S, et al. The view from the road:implications for stress recovery and immunization[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,1998,18(2):113-140.
[112]Penning-Rowsell E. Alternative approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation[M]. Middlesex Polytechnic,1973.
[113]Peterson G L, Neumann E S. Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment[J].1969,1:219-237.
[114]Pickett S T A, Cadenasso M L. Landscape ecology:spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems[J]. Science,1995,269(5222):331-334.
[115]Purcell A T. Landscape perception, preference and schema discrepancy[J]. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,1987,14(1):67-92.
[116]Ramos B, Panagopoulos T. Aesthetic and visual impact assessment of a quarry expansion[J]. Complexity,2006,1(1):2-2.
[117]Ribe R.G. Scenic beanty perceptions across the ROS spectrum. J.Environ.Manage.,1994, 42:199-221.
[118]Richard C Smardon, James F Palmer, John P Felleman. Foundations for visual project analysis [M]台北：田园城市文化事业有限公司,1996：205-283.
[119]Risser P G. Landscape ecology:directions and approaches [M]. Illinois Natural History Survey,1984.
[120]Ruddell E J, Gramann J H, Rudis V A, et al. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models[J]. Environment and Behavior,1989,21(4): 393-412.
[121]Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J, et al. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands[J]. Forest Science,1988,34(4):846-863.
[122]Parsons R, Daniel T C. Good looking:in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,60(1):43-56.
[123]Schroeder H W, Daniel T C. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors[J]. Environment and Behavior,1980,12(3):349-366.
[124]Schroeder H W, Brown T C. Alternative functional forms for an inventory-based landscape perception model[J]. Journal of Leisure Research,1983,15(2):156-163.
[125]Schroeder H W. Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape esthetics[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1986,23(4):325-333.
[126]Sell J L, Taylor J G, Zube E H. Toward a theoretical framework for landscape perception[J]. Env. Percept.& Behav:An Inventory & Prospect, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1984:61-83.
[127]Sepanmaa Y. The Beauty of Environment. A general model for environmental aesthetics[C]//Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series B. Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1986,234:1-184.
[128]Shafer E L, Hamilton J F, Schmidt E A. Natural landscape preferences:a predictive model[J].1969.
[129]Shafer E L, Richards T A. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes[M]. Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,1974.
[130]Shang H, Bishop I D. Visual thresholds for detection, recognition and visual impact in landscape settings[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,2000,20(2):125-140.
[131]Sheppard S T. RJ.Visual Simulation:a User's Guide for Architects, Engineers, and Planners[J]. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,1989.
[132]Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,11(1):61-76.
[133]Smardon R C, Palmer J F, Felleman J P. Foundations for visual project analysis[M]. New York:Wiley,1986.
[134]Stamps Ⅲ A E. Use of photographs to simulate environments:A meta-analysis[J]. Perceptual and Motor Skills,1990,71(3):907-913.
[135]Stewart T R, Middleton P, Downton M, et al. Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1984,4(4):283-302.
[136]Taylor J G, Zube E H, Sell J L. Landscape assessment and perception research methodsfJ]. 1987.
[137]Taylor J G, Charles. The Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia. Boston,Mass.:Kingfisher Publication,2000.
[138]Tinsley H E, Weiss D J. Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments[J]. Journal of Counseling Psychology,1975,22(4):358.
[139]Tlusty W. The use of VIEWIT and perspective plot to assist in determining the landscape's visual absorption capability[J]. Notes,1979.
[140]Turner M G, Gardner R H, Dale V H, et al. Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes[J]. Oikos,1989:121-129.
[141]Tzolova G V. An experiment in greenway analysis and assessment:The Danube River[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1995,33(1):283-294.
[142]Ulrich R S. Visual landscape preference:A model and application [J]. Man-Environment Systems,1977,7(5):279-293.
[143]Ulrich R S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment[M]//Behavior and the natural environment. Springer US,1983:85-125.
[144]U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics:A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook number No.701. Washington,D.C.:U.S.D.A., Forest Service.1995.
[145]U.S.Forest Service.Recreation Branch,B.C.,Canada,1994:5.
[146]USD A, Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management, Vol.1, Agriculture handbook 434, US Government Printing office,1973.
[147]USDI, Bureau of Land Management.Visual Resource Management,BLM Manual.US Government Printing office,1976.
[148]USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture, SCS Tech Release,65,1978.
[149]USDI B L M. Visual Resource Management (Supersedes Rel.8-4)[M]. Washington, DC, 1984.
[150]Vining J, Orland B. The video advantage:a comparison of two environmental representation techniques[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1989,29.
[151]Wickham J D, Rhtters K H. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size[J]. International Journal of Remote Sensing,1995,16(18):3585-3594.
[152]Wohlwill J F. Environmental aesthetics:The environment as a source of affect[J]. Human Behaviour and Environment. Advances in Theory and Research,1976,1.
[153]Wong K K, Domroes M. The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong:likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives[J]. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,2005,32(4):617-632.
[154]Yeomans W C. A proposed biophysical approach to visual absorption capability (VAC)[C]//Proceedings of our national landscape:A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource.1979:157-163.
[155]Zube E H, Dega H. Wisconsin's Lake Superior shoreline[J]. Wisconsin Dept. of Resource Development, Lake Superior South Shore Area Report,1964,3.
[156]Zube E H. A new technology for taconite badlands[J]. Landscape Architecture,1966,56: 136-150.
[157]Zube E H. Evaluation of the visual and cultural environment[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,1970,25,137-141.
[158]Zube E H. Scenery & a natural resource. Landscape Arch.,1973,63:4-10.
[159]Zube E H. Rating everyday rural landscapes of the northeastern US[J]. Landscape Architecture,1973,63(4):371-375.
[160]Zube E H. Cross-Disciplinary and Intermode Agreement on the Description and Evaluation of Landscape Resources[J]. Environment and Behavior,1974,6(1):69-90.
[161]Zube E H, Pitt D G, Anderson T W. Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the southern Connecticut River Valley[M]. Amherst, MA:Institute for Man and His Environment, University of Massachusetts,1974.
[162]Zube E H, Mills Jr L. Cross cultural explorations in landscape perception[J]. Studies in Landscape Perception, EH Zube, ed. Publication No,1976:162-169.
[163]Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception:research, application and theory[J]. Landscape planning,1982,9(1):1-33.
[164]Zube E H. Themes in landscape assessment theory[J]. Landscape Journal,1984,3(2): 104-110.
[165]Zube E H, Simcox D E, Law C S. Perceptual landscape simulations:history and prospect[J]. Landscape Journal,1987,6(1):62-80.
[166]Zube E H. From synthesis to analysis and back again[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1987,7,425-433.
[167]Zube E H. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values[J]. Landscape Ecology,1987, 1(1):37-45.
[168]Zube E H, Kennedy C B. Urban forests in the desert?[J]. Journal of Arboriculture,1990, 16(4):95-98.
[169]Zube E H. Environmental psychology, global issues, and local landscape research[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1991,11(4):321-334.
[170]Zube E H. Looking back to the future:Education for landscape architecture.Apersonal view[J]. Landscape Council Ring,1995,10,8.
[171]Zube, E. H. J. B. Jackson and the American landscape[J]. Landscape Journal,1997,16, 21-23.
[172]保罗·戈比斯特.西方生态美学的进展：从景观感知与评估的视角看[J].学术研究,2010,4.
[173]布仁仓,胡远满,常禹,李秀珍,贺红士.景观指数之间的相关分析[J].生态学报,2005,25(10)：2764-2774.
[174]曹娟,梁伊任,章俊华.北京市自然保护区景观调查与评价初探[J]中国园林,2004(7)：67-71.
[175]陈百明,周小萍.《土地利用现状分类》国家标准的解读[J].自然资源学报2007,22(6)：994-1003.
[176]陈传康,高豫功,俞孔坚,等.丹霞风景名胜区的旅游开发研究[J].地理学报,1990,45(3)：284-294.
[177]陈从周.钟情山水知己泉石——漫谈风景名胜区建设管理[J].城市规划,1985(5)：28-30.
[178]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.
[179]陈有民.论中国的风景类型[J].北京林学院学报,1982(2)：17-20.
[180]陈有民.中国自然风景区域的划分[J].北京林学院学报,1982(2)：21-34.
[181]邓秋才,韩铭哲,段广德,韩鹏.哈达门国家森林公园风景质量的分析与评价[J].内蒙古林学院学报(自然科学版),1996,18(2)：11-19.
[182]冯刚.景区游客时空分流导航管理[M].北京大学出版社,中国林业出版社,2011：90.
[183]甘伟林.必须保护好风景名胜[J].地理知识,1983(12)：11-12.
[184]韩海辉,高婷,易欢,杨敏,阎晓娟,任广利,杨军录.基于变点分析法提取地势起伏度——以青藏高原为例[J].地理科学,2012,3201：101-104.
[185]韩铭哲,段广德等.哈达门国家森林公园景观视觉敏感度的评价[J].内蒙古林学院学报,1995(3)：1-9.
[186]贺文慧,杨昕,汤国安,周毅.基于数字高程模型的城市地表开阔度研究——以南京老城区为例[J].地球信息科学学报,2012,14(7101)：94-100.
[187]恒醇.生态美学[M].太原：山西人民教育出版社,2000,25-78.
[188]胡畔,权东计,王振.遗址旅游区景观资源评价方法探讨——以宁夏水洞沟景观资源为例[J].西北大学学报(自然科学版),2008,3(2)：318-322.
[189]蒋勇军,况明生,齐代华.基于GIS的重庆市旅游资源评价、分析与规划研究[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(1)：38-46.
[190]李晖.风景评价的灰色聚类风景资源评价中一种新的量化方法[J].中国园林,2002,18(1)：14-16.
[191]李素馨.视觉景观资源评估之研究——以台北县坪林乡为例[D].台湾大学园艺学研究所硕士论文,1983.
[192]李素馨.环境知觉和环境美质评估[J].规划与设计学报,1995,1(4)：53-74.
[193]李书娟,曾辉,夏洁.景观空间动态模型研究现状和应重点解决的问题[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(4)：701-706.
[194]李效文,田甜,贾黎明,等.北京山区侧柏游憩林抚育技术模式研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2008,30(3)：44-50.
[195]林隆贤.视觉距离带对视觉资源经营管理之影响——以日月潭国家风景区为例[D].台湾,私立东海大学,2012.
[196]刘滨谊.风景景观工程体系化[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1990：5-6.
[197]刘滨谊.景观环境视觉质量评估[J].同济大学学报,1990,3：24-29.
[198]刘滨谊.中国风景园林规划设计学科专业的重大转变与对策[J].中国园林,2001(1)：7-10..
[199]刘东旭等.澳大利亚的公路工程环境保护[J].国外公路,2001,1：15-18.
[200]刘惠明,杨燕琼,罗富和.基于3S技术的景观敏感度测定研究[J].华南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2003,24(3)：78-81.
[201]刘少英,章小平,曾宗永.九寨沟自然保护区的生物多样性[M].成都：四川科学技术出版社,2007：14-108.
[202]柳孟松.基于三维动态模型的公路景观视觉影响评级研究[D].2008：5.
[203]陆兆苏,赵德海,赵仁寿.南京市钟山风景区森林经理的实践和研究[J].华东森林经理,1991,(5)：3-8.
[204]欧阳勋志.婺源县森林景观美学评价及其对生态旅游影响的研究[D].南京：南京林业大学,2004.
[205]帕特里克·米勒Patrick Miller,姜珊[译],刘滨谊[校].美国的风景管理：克莱特湖风景管理研究[J].中国园林,2012,28(3)：15-21.
[206]宋永昌.植被生态学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[207]孙娴,林振山,王式功.山区地形开阔度的分布式模型[J].中国沙漠,2008,02：344-402.
[208]孙筱祥.中国风景名胜区[J].北京林学院学报,1982(2)：12-16.
[209]覃婕,周志翔,滕明君,王燕燕,史梅容.武汉市九峰城市森林保护区景观敏感度评价[J].长江流域资源与环境,2009,v.1805：453-458.
[210]谭偲.河流景观特质评估之研究——以台北县双溪为例[D].国立台湾大学地理环境资源学研究所硕士论文,2001.
[211]汤国安,赵牡丹.地理信息系统[M].北京：科学出版社,2000.
[212]汤国安,杨昕ArcGIS地理信息系统空间分析实验教程[M].北京：科学出版社,2006.
[213]汤晓敏,王云,咸进国,王祥荣.基于RS-GIS的长江三峡景观视觉敏感度模糊评价[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2008,36(12)：1679-1685.
[214]王保忠,王保明,何平.景观资源美学评价的理论与方法[J].应用生态学报.2006,17(9)：1733-1739.
[215]王存禄,袁颖等.景观视觉敏感度评价在森林公园规划设计中的应用[J].甘肃林业科技,2000,25(3)：9-12.
[216]王晓俊.美国风景资源管理系统及其方法[J].自然资源学报,1993,8(4)：371-380.
[217]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.
[218]王云才,陈田,石忆邵.文化遗址的景观敏感度评价及可持续利用——以新疆塔什库尔干石头城为例[J].地理研究,2006,25(3)：517-525.
[219]王云才.基于景观破碎度分析的传统地域文化景观保护模式——以浙江诸暨市直埠镇为例[J].地理研究,2011,30(1)：10-22.
[220]王忠君,蔡君,张启翔.旅游活动对云蒙山国家森林公园景观及视觉的影响评价[J].河北林业科技,2004(1)：32-35.
[221]吴必虎,李咪咪.小兴安岭风景道旅游景观评价[J].地理学报,2001,56(2)：214-222.
[222]吴承照,曹霞.景观资源量化评价的主要方法(模型)——综述及比较[J].旅游科学,2005,19(1)：32-39.
[223]吴家骅著,叶南译.景观形态学[M].北京市：中国建筑工业出版社,1999.
[224]肖笃宁,钟林生.景观分类与评价的生态原则[J].应用生态学报,1998,9(2)：217-222.
[225]肖笃宁.景观生态学研究进展[M].长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1999.
[226]谢凝高.试论“因山就势”[J].中国园林杂志,1985(1)：47-52.
[227]徐汉明,刘振东.中国地势起伏度研究[J].测绘学报,1991,20(4)：311-319.
[228]徐建春,赵英时,刘振华.利用遥感和GIS研究内蒙古中西部地区环境变化[J].遥感学报,2002,6(2)：142-150.
[229]杨树文,谢飞,冯光胜,刘涛.基于SPOT5图像的岩溶地貌单元自动提取方法[J].2012,24(2)：56-60.
[230]俞孔坚.中国自然风景资源管理系统初探[J].中国园林,1987,(3)：33-37.
[231]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.
[232]俞孔坚,吉庆萍.专家与公众审美差异研究及其对策[J].中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
[233]俞孔坚.景观敏感度及其闽值评价研究[J].地理研究,1991,10(2)：38-51.
[234]俞孔坚.景观保护规划的景观敏感度依据及案例研究[J].城市规划,1991,2：46-49.
[235]俞孔坚.景观：文化、生态与感知[M].北京：科学出版社,1998：40-50.
[236]俞孔坚,李迪华,段铁武.敏感地段的景观安全格局设计及地理信息系统应用——以北京香山滑雪场为例[J].中国园林,2001：11-16.
[237]俞孔坚.论景观[J].中国建筑装饰装修,2003,12：22-28.
[238]张国强,贾贯中.风景规划——《风景名胜区规划规范》实施手册[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003：9-10.
[239]张慧,沈渭寿,邹民新.青藏铁路景观视觉管理系统研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(6)：719-725.
[240]张敏.环境美学：现代美学的新发展[J].湖北社会科学,2005,(3)：107-110.
[241]张善峰,许大为等.牡丹峰国家森林公园开发强度控制策略[J].森林工程,2005,21(3)：1-4.
[242]朱畅中.自然风景区的规划建设与风景保护[J].城市规划,1982(1)：34-40.
[243]朱观海.论当前风景区建设的一种动向[J].城市规划汇刊,1985(5)：26.
[244]周锐,李月辉.基于景观敏感度的森林公园景点评价[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(11)：2460-2466.
[245]周向频.景观规划中的审美研究[J].城市规划汇刊,1995,(2)：54-60.
[1]Acar C, Kurdoglu B C, Kurdoglu O, et al. Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey)[J]. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,2006,13(6):499-512.
[2]Amir S, Gidalizon E. Expert-based method for the evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1990,30(3):251-263.
[3]Appleton J. The experience of landscape[J]. New York:Wiley,1996.
[4]Appleton J. The aesthetics of landscape[J]. Rural Plann,1979,7:5.
[5]Arthur L M, Boster R S. Measuring scenic beauty:A selected annotated bibliography[M]. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture,1976.
[6]Arthur L M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:Some empirical tests[J]. Forest Science,1977,23(2):151-160.
[7]Arthur L M, Daniel T C, Boster R S. Landscape assessment:a critical review of research and methods[J]. Landscape Manage.,1977,4:109-129.
[8]Magill A W, Litton R B. A color measuring system for landscape assessment[J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(1):45-54.
[9]Bacon W R. The visual management system of forest service, USDA[J]. G Elsner, RC Smardon. Proceedings of Our National Landscape,1979.
[10]Bergen S D, McGaughey R J, Fridley J L. Data-driven simulation, dimensional accuracy and realism in a landscape visualization tool[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1998,40(4): 283-293.
[11]Bishop I D, Bruce Hull R. Integrating technologies for visual resource management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1991,32(4):295-312.
[12]Bishop I D, Hulse D W. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1):59-70.
[13]Bishop I D. Predicting movement choices in virtual environments[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,56(3):97-106.
[14]Brown T, Keane T, Kaplan S. Aesthetics and management:bridging the gap[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1986,13:1-10.
[15]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands[J]. Forest science,1986, 32(2):471-487.
[16]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Context effects in perceived environmental quality assessment: scene selection and landscape quality ratings[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1987,7(3): 233-250.
[17]Brown T C, Daniel T C. Scaling of ratings:concepts and methods[M]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1990.
[18]Brunson M, Shelby B. Assessing recreational and scenic quality[J]. Journal of forestry, 1992,90(7):37-41.
[19]Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D, Harvey H, et al. Landscape architects' interpretations of people's landscape preferences[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1978,6(3):255-262.
[20]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands[J]. Forest Science,1978,24(3):424-432.
[21]Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Arndt L K. Notes:Replication of a Scenic Preference Function[J]. Forest Science,1980,26(2):227-230.
[22]Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D. The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions[J]. Journal of Leisure Research,1980,12(3):257-272.
[23]Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas[J]. Forest Science,1982,28(4):827-838.
[24]Bulut Z, Yilmaz H. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method[J]. Environmental monitoring and assessment,2009,154(1-4):459-468.
[25]Calvin J S. An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscapes[J]. Environment and Behavior,1972,4(4):447-470.
[26]Carlson A A. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty [J]. Landscape Planning, 1977,4:131-172.
[27]Cats-Baril W L, Gibson L. Evaluating aesthetics:The major issues and a bibliography [J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(2):93-102.
[28]Cerny J W. Landscape amenity assessment bibliography. Monticello,111.:Council of Planning Libraries[J]. Exchange Bibliographies,1972:287.
[29]Clay G R, Daniel T C. Scenic landscape assessment:the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2000,49(1): 1-13.
[30]Craik K H. Individual variation in landscape description[A].In:Zube E H, Brush R O, Fabos J (Ed.),Landscape Assessment[C].New York:Hutchinson &Ross,1975.
[31]Craik K. H, Feimer N R. Setting Technical Standards for Visual Impact Assessment Procedures[A]. In:Elsner G H, Smardon R C.(Eds), Proceedings of our National Landscape, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.,1979.
[32]Crofts R S. The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation[J]. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,1975:124-129.
[33]Daniel T C, Wheeler L, Boster R S, et al. Quantitative evaluation of landscapes:An application of signal detection analysis to forest management alternatives[J]. Man-environment systems,1973,3:330-344.
[34]Daniel T C, Boster R S. Measuring landscape esthetics:the scenic beauty estimation method[M]. Fort Collins, CO:Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1976.
[35]Daniel T C, Anderson L M, Schroeder H W, et al. Mapping the scenic beauty of forest landscapes[J]. Leisure Sciences,1977,1(1):35-52.
[36]Daniel T C, Schroeder H. Scenic beauty estimation model:predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes[J]. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,1979 (PSW-35):514-523.
[37]Daniel T C, Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality[M]//Behavior and the natural environment. Springer US,1983:39-84.
[38]Daniel T C. Data visualization for decision support in environmental management[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1992,21(4):261-263.
[39]Daniel T C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2001,54(1):267-281.
[40]Daniel T C, Meitner M M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations:the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,2001,21(1):61-72.
[41]Daniel T C. Chapter two:Aesthetic Preference and Ecological[J]. Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainablility, and Aesthetics,2001 (6):15-30.
[42]Dearden P. Public participation and scenic quality analysis[J]. Landscape Planning,1981, 8(1):3-19.
[43]Elsner G H, Smardon R C. Proceedings of Our National Landscape:A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, Incline Village, Nevada[C]. Berkeley:Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,1979.
[44]Farina A. L'ecologia dei sistemi ambientali[M]. CLEUP,1993.
[45]Feimer N R, Craik K H, Smardon R C, et al. Appraising the reliability of visual impact assessment methods[C]//Elsner G H and Smardon R G, Our National Landscape Conference Proceedings, USDA Forest Service Report, PSW-35.1979.
[46]Feimer N R, Smardon R C, Craik K H. Evaluating the effectiveness of observer based visual resource and impact assessment methods[J]. Landscape Research,1981,6(1):12-16.
[47]Forestry Commission of Tasmania. A manual for forest landscape management[M]. Forestry Commission, Tasmania,1990.
[48]Forman R T T, Godron M. Landscape ecology[M]. New York:John Wiley& Sons,1986.
[49]Forman R T T. Land mosaics:the ecology of landscapes and regions[M]. Cambridge university press,1995.
[50]Garc'ia J M, Canas I. La valoracion del paisaje. In:Ayuga,F. (Ed.), Gestion Sostenible de Paisajes Rurales. Tecnicas eIngenier'ia.Mundi-Prensa, Madrid,2001.
[51]Gobster P H, Chenoweth R E. The dimensions of aesthetic preference:a quantitative analysis[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1989,29(1):47-72.
[52]Gobster P H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management[J]. Landscape Journal,1999,18(1):54-64.
[53]Halls P J. Geographic information science:innovation driven by application[J]. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,2001,25(1):1-4.
[54]Harper D B, Warback J D. Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone[M]. School Landscape Arch., College Environ. Sci. For., State Univ. New York, Syracuse, NY,1976,305.
[55]Hartig T, Mang M, Evans G W. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences[J]. Environment and behavior,1991,23(1):3-26.
[56]Heath T. Environment aesthetics the state of the art, theory, practice and research[J]. Copper and Brass Information Center, Sydney,1975,66.
[57]Helliwell D R. Perception and preference in landscape appreciation—a review of the literature[J]. Landscape Research,1976,1(12):4-6.
[58]Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments:mountains, canyons, and deserts[J]. Landscape Journal,1987,6(2):140-152.
[59]Herzog T, Smith G A. Danger, mystery, and environmental preference[J]. Environment and Behavior,1988,20(3):320-344.
[60]Hetherington J, Daniel T C, Brown T C. Is motion more important than it sounds?:the medium of presentation in environment perception research[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,1993,13(4):283-291.
[61]Hodges C W. The measurement of landscape aesthetics[J]. Working Paper, Perception and Policy Working Group, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto,1978 (2):55.
[62]Hull R B, Buhyoff G J. Distance and scenic beauty:a non-monotonic relationship[J]. Environ. Behav.,1983,15:77-91.
[63]Hull R B, Buhyoff G J. Individual and group reliability of landscape assessments[J]. Landscape Planning,1984,11(1):67-71.
[64]Hull R B, Buhyoff G J, Cordell H K. Psychophysical models:an example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests[J]. Landscape journal,1987,6(2):113-122.
[65]Hull R B, Stewart W P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1992,12(2):101-114.
[66]Bishop I D, Hulse D W. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,1994,30(1):59-70.
[67]Jacques D L. Landscape appraisal:the case for a subjective theory[J]. Journal of environmental management,1980,10(2):107-113.
[68]Jones G R, Ady J, Gray B A. Scenic and recreational highway study for the state of Washington[J]. Landscape Planning,1976,3(3):151-302.
[69]Priskin J. Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism::the case of the Central Coast Region of Western Australia[J]. Tourism Management,2001,22(6):637-648.
[70]Kaltenborn B P, Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2002,59(1):1-11.
[71]Kaplan R. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference[J].1975:118-119.
[72]Kaplan R. The analysis of perception via preference:A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced[J]. Landscape planning,1985,12(2):161-176.
[73]Kaplan S, Kaplan R, Wendt J S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual materialfJ]. Perception & Psychophysics,1972,12(4):354-356.
[74]Kaplan S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment 5.4[J]. Environmental Design Research:Selected papers,1973,1:275.
[75]Kaplan S. An informal model for the prediction of preference[J]. Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross,1975:92-101.
[76]Kaplan S. Concerning the power of content-identifying methodologies[J]. Assessing amenity resource values,1979:4-13.
[77]Kaplan S. Perception and landscape:conceptions and misconceptions [J]. Environmental aesthetics:Theory, research, and application,1988:45-55.
[78]Karjalainen E, Tyrvainen L, Salminen H, et al. Visualization in forest landscape preference research[C]//Resource Technology'98 Nordic. Proceedings of an international symposium on advanced technology in environmental and natural resources, Rovaniemi, Finland, 8-12 June 1998. Metsantutkimuslaitos (Finnish Forest Research Institute),2000 (791):1-13.
[79]Kellomaki S, Savolainen R. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory[J]. Landscape Planning,1984,11(2):97-107.
[80]Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management, Assessment. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment[M]. Taylor & Francis,2002.
[81]Latimer D A, Hogo H, Daniel T C. The effects of atmospheric optical conditions on perceived scenic beauty[J]. Atmospheric Environment (1967),1981,15(10):1865-1874.
[82]Laughlin N A, Garcia M W. Attitudes of landscape architects in the USD A Forest Service toward the Visual Management System[J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(2):135-139.
[83]Law C S, Zube E H. An approach to the study of landscape values:Perceived and experienced[C]//In The landscape:Critical issues and resources, proceedings of the 1983 Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture conference (pp.282-292). Logan:Utah State University. 1983.
[84]Blocker L, Slider T, et al. Landscape Aesthetics[M]. USDA Forest Service,1995.
[85]Anderson L, Mosier J, Chandler G. Proceedings of OUR NATIONAL LANDSCAPE:A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, Incline Village, Nevada[C]. Visual Absorption Capability,1979:164-171.
[86]Linton D L. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource[J]. The Scottish Geographical Magazine,1968,84(3):219-238.
[87]Litton R B. Forest landscape description and inventories:A basis for land planning and design[M]. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, US Department of Agriculture, 1968.
[88]Litton R B. "Aesthetic Dimension of the landscape" in Krutilla,John V. ed. Natural Environments—Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis[M].Baltimore,M.D.:the John Hopkins University Press,1972.
[89]Litton R B. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes[J]. Journal of Forestry,1974,72(7): 392-397.
[90]Litton R B, Tetlow R J. A landscape inventory framework:Scenic analyses of the Northern Great Plains[M]. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture,1978.
[91]Litton R B. Descriptive Approaches to Landscape Analysis. In:Elsner,Gary H., and Richard C. Smardon,technical coordinators.1979.Proceedings of our national landscape:a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource[Incline Village,Nev.,April 23-25,1979].Gen.Tech.Rep.PSW-GTR-35.Berkeley,CA.Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp.Stn.,Forest Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture:p.77-87.
[92]Litton R B. "Visual Assessment of Natural Landscapes" in Sadler.B. and Carlson,A. ed. Environmental Aesthetics:Essays in Interpretation.Victoria,University of Victoria,B.C.1982.
[93]Litton R B. Visual vulnerability of the landscape:control of visual quality[J]. Research paper WO,1984.
[94]Litton R B. Aesthetic Quality on the Lower American River.1985.
[95]Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics:is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1999,44(4): 177-198.
[96]Lowenthal D. The bicentennial landscape:a mirror held up to the past[J]. Geographical Review,1977:253-267.
[97]Lowenthal D. Finding valued landscapes[J]. Working Paper, Perception and Policy Working Group, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto,1978,2 (4):373-418.
[98]Magill A W, Litton R B. A color measuring system for landscape assessment[J]. Landscape Journal,1986,5(1):45-54.
[99]Malm W, Kelley K, Molenar J, et al. Human perception of visual air quality (uniform haze)[J]. Atmospheric Environment (1967),1981,15(10):1875-1890.
[100]Antrop M. Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis [J]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment,2000,77(1):17-28.
[101]Marsh J. Scenery evaluation and landscape perception:a bibliography [J]. Council Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, Monticello, IL,1972.
[102]Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega J F, Canas-Madueno J A, et al. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2004,69(1):115-125.
[103]Meitner M J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon:relating perceptual judgments to locations[J]. Landscape and urban planning,2004,68(1):3-13.
[104]Murray A C. Methods of landscape analysis[M]. Landscape Res. Group, London, 1967,49.
[105]NRA(National Rivers Authority),River Landscape Assessment[M]. Conservation—Technical Handbook 2.Bristol:National Rivers Authority.,1993.
[106]Orland B, Marans R W, Stokols D. Synthetic landscapes-a review of video-imaging applications in environmental perception research, planning, and design[M]. In:Marans, R., Stokols, D. (Eds.), Environmental Simulation:Research and Policy Issues. Plenum Press, New York,1993: 213-231..
[107]Palmer J F, Zube E H. Numerical and perceptual landscape classification[J]. Studies in Landscape Perception. University of Massachusetts, Institute for Man and Environment, Amherst, MA,1976:43-57.
[108]Palmer J F. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1997,37(1):109-113.
[109]Palmer J F, Hoffman R E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1):149-161.
[110]Parsons R, Daniel T C. Assessing visibility impairment in class I parks and wilderness areas:A comparison of policy-relevant methods[J]. Society & Natural Resources,1988,1(1): 227-240.
[111]Parsons R, Tassinary L G, Ulrich R S, et al. The view from the road:implications for stress recovery and immunization[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,1998,18(2):113-140.
[112]Penning-Rowsell E. Alternative approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation[M]. Middlesex Polytechnic,1973.
[113]Peterson G L, Neumann E S. Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment[J].1969,1:219-237.
[114]Pickett S T A, Cadenasso M L. Landscape ecology:spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems[J]. Science,1995,269(5222):331-334.
[115]Purcell A T. Landscape perception, preference and schema discrepancy[J]. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,1987,14(1):67-92.
[116]Ramos B, Panagopoulos T. Aesthetic and visual impact assessment of a quarry expansion[J]. Complexity,2006,1(1):2-2.
[117]Ribe R.G. Scenic beanty perceptions across the ROS spectrum. J.Environ.Manage.,1994, 42:199-221.
[118]Richard C Smardon, James F Palmer, John P Felleman. Foundations for visual project analysis [M]台北：田园城市文化事业有限公司,1996：205-283.
[119]Risser P G. Landscape ecology:directions and approaches [M]. Illinois Natural History Survey,1984.
[120]Ruddell E J, Gramann J H, Rudis V A, et al. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models[J]. Environment and Behavior,1989,21(4): 393-412.
[121]Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J, et al. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference models of southern pine stands[J]. Forest Science,1988,34(4):846-863.
[122]Parsons R, Daniel T C. Good looking:in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,60(1):43-56.
[123]Schroeder H W, Daniel T C. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors[J]. Environment and Behavior,1980,12(3):349-366.
[124]Schroeder H W, Brown T C. Alternative functional forms for an inventory-based landscape perception model[J]. Journal of Leisure Research,1983,15(2):156-163.
[125]Schroeder H W. Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape esthetics[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1986,23(4):325-333.
[126]Sell J L, Taylor J G, Zube E H. Toward a theoretical framework for landscape perception[J]. Env. Percept.& Behav:An Inventory & Prospect, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1984:61-83.
[127]Sepanmaa Y. The Beauty of Environment. A general model for environmental aesthetics[C]//Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series B. Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1986,234:1-184.
[128]Shafer E L, Hamilton J F, Schmidt E A. Natural landscape preferences:a predictive model[J].1969.
[129]Shafer E L, Richards T A. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes[M]. Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,1974.
[130]Shang H, Bishop I D. Visual thresholds for detection, recognition and visual impact in landscape settings[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,2000,20(2):125-140.
[131]Sheppard S T. RJ.Visual Simulation:a User's Guide for Architects, Engineers, and Planners[J]. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,1989.
[132]Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,11(1):61-76.
[133]Smardon R C, Palmer J F, Felleman J P. Foundations for visual project analysis[M]. New York:Wiley,1986.
[134]Stamps Ⅲ A E. Use of photographs to simulate environments:A meta-analysis[J]. Perceptual and Motor Skills,1990,71(3):907-913.
[135]Stewart T R, Middleton P, Downton M, et al. Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1984,4(4):283-302.
[136]Taylor J G, Zube E H, Sell J L. Landscape assessment and perception research methodsfJ]. 1987.
[137]Taylor J G, Charles. The Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia. Boston,Mass.:Kingfisher Publication,2000.
[138]Tinsley H E, Weiss D J. Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgments[J]. Journal of Counseling Psychology,1975,22(4):358.
[139]Tlusty W. The use of VIEWIT and perspective plot to assist in determining the landscape's visual absorption capability[J]. Notes,1979.
[140]Turner M G, Gardner R H, Dale V H, et al. Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes[J]. Oikos,1989:121-129.
[141]Tzolova G V. An experiment in greenway analysis and assessment:The Danube River[J]. Landscape and urban planning,1995,33(1):283-294.
[142]Ulrich R S. Visual landscape preference:A model and application [J]. Man-Environment Systems,1977,7(5):279-293.
[143]Ulrich R S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment[M]//Behavior and the natural environment. Springer US,1983:85-125.
[144]U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics:A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook number No.701. Washington,D.C.:U.S.D.A., Forest Service.1995.
[145]U.S.Forest Service.Recreation Branch,B.C.,Canada,1994:5.
[146]USD A, Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management, Vol.1, Agriculture handbook 434, US Government Printing office,1973.
[147]USDI, Bureau of Land Management.Visual Resource Management,BLM Manual.US Government Printing office,1976.
[148]USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture, SCS Tech Release,65,1978.
[149]USDI B L M. Visual Resource Management (Supersedes Rel.8-4)[M]. Washington, DC, 1984.
[150]Vining J, Orland B. The video advantage:a comparison of two environmental representation techniques[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,1989,29.
[151]Wickham J D, Rhtters K H. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size[J]. International Journal of Remote Sensing,1995,16(18):3585-3594.
[152]Wohlwill J F. Environmental aesthetics:The environment as a source of affect[J]. Human Behaviour and Environment. Advances in Theory and Research,1976,1.
[153]Wong K K, Domroes M. The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong:likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives[J]. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,2005,32(4):617-632.
[154]Yeomans W C. A proposed biophysical approach to visual absorption capability (VAC)[C]//Proceedings of our national landscape:A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource.1979:157-163.
[155]Zube E H, Dega H. Wisconsin's Lake Superior shoreline[J]. Wisconsin Dept. of Resource Development, Lake Superior South Shore Area Report,1964,3.
[156]Zube E H. A new technology for taconite badlands[J]. Landscape Architecture,1966,56: 136-150.
[157]Zube E H. Evaluation of the visual and cultural environment[J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,1970,25,137-141.
[158]Zube E H. Scenery & a natural resource. Landscape Arch.,1973,63:4-10.
[159]Zube E H. Rating everyday rural landscapes of the northeastern US[J]. Landscape Architecture,1973,63(4):371-375.
[160]Zube E H. Cross-Disciplinary and Intermode Agreement on the Description and Evaluation of Landscape Resources[J]. Environment and Behavior,1974,6(1):69-90.
[161]Zube E H, Pitt D G, Anderson T W. Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the southern Connecticut River Valley[M]. Amherst, MA:Institute for Man and His Environment, University of Massachusetts,1974.
[162]Zube E H, Mills Jr L. Cross cultural explorations in landscape perception[J]. Studies in Landscape Perception, EH Zube, ed. Publication No,1976:162-169.
[163]Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception:research, application and theory[J]. Landscape planning,1982,9(1):1-33.
[164]Zube E H. Themes in landscape assessment theory[J]. Landscape Journal,1984,3(2): 104-110.
[165]Zube E H, Simcox D E, Law C S. Perceptual landscape simulations:history and prospect[J]. Landscape Journal,1987,6(1):62-80.
[166]Zube E H. From synthesis to analysis and back again[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1987,7,425-433.
[167]Zube E H. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values[J]. Landscape Ecology,1987, 1(1):37-45.
[168]Zube E H, Kennedy C B. Urban forests in the desert?[J]. Journal of Arboriculture,1990, 16(4):95-98.
[169]Zube E H. Environmental psychology, global issues, and local landscape research[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1991,11(4):321-334.
[170]Zube E H. Looking back to the future:Education for landscape architecture.Apersonal view[J]. Landscape Council Ring,1995,10,8.
[171]Zube, E. H. J. B. Jackson and the American landscape[J]. Landscape Journal,1997,16, 21-23.
[172]保罗·戈比斯特.西方生态美学的进展：从景观感知与评估的视角看[J].学术研究,2010,4.
[173]布仁仓,胡远满,常禹,李秀珍,贺红士.景观指数之间的相关分析[J].生态学报,2005,25(10)：2764-2774.
[174]曹娟,梁伊任,章俊华.北京市自然保护区景观调查与评价初探[J]中国园林,2004(7)：67-71.
[175]陈百明,周小萍.《土地利用现状分类》国家标准的解读[J].自然资源学报2007,22(6)：994-1003.
[176]陈传康,高豫功,俞孔坚,等.丹霞风景名胜区的旅游开发研究[J].地理学报,1990,45(3)：284-294.
[177]陈从周.钟情山水知己泉石——漫谈风景名胜区建设管理[J].城市规划,1985(5)：28-30.
[178]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.
[179]陈有民.论中国的风景类型[J].北京林学院学报,1982(2)：17-20.
[180]陈有民.中国自然风景区域的划分[J].北京林学院学报,1982(2)：21-34.
[181]邓秋才,韩铭哲,段广德,韩鹏.哈达门国家森林公园风景质量的分析与评价[J].内蒙古林学院学报(自然科学版),1996,18(2)：11-19.
[182]冯刚.景区游客时空分流导航管理[M].北京大学出版社,中国林业出版社,2011：90.
[183]甘伟林.必须保护好风景名胜[J].地理知识,1983(12)：11-12.
[184]韩海辉,高婷,易欢,杨敏,阎晓娟,任广利,杨军录.基于变点分析法提取地势起伏度——以青藏高原为例[J].地理科学,2012,3201：101-104.
[185]韩铭哲,段广德等.哈达门国家森林公园景观视觉敏感度的评价[J].内蒙古林学院学报,1995(3)：1-9.
[186]贺文慧,杨昕,汤国安,周毅.基于数字高程模型的城市地表开阔度研究——以南京老城区为例[J].地球信息科学学报,2012,14(7101)：94-100.
[187]恒醇.生态美学[M].太原：山西人民教育出版社,2000,25-78.
[188]胡畔,权东计,王振.遗址旅游区景观资源评价方法探讨——以宁夏水洞沟景观资源为例[J].西北大学学报(自然科学版),2008,3(2)：318-322.
[189]蒋勇军,况明生,齐代华.基于GIS的重庆市旅游资源评价、分析与规划研究[J].自然资源学报,2004,19(1)：38-46.
[190]李晖.风景评价的灰色聚类风景资源评价中一种新的量化方法[J].中国园林,2002,18(1)：14-16.
[191]李素馨.视觉景观资源评估之研究——以台北县坪林乡为例[D].台湾大学园艺学研究所硕士论文,1983.
[192]李素馨.环境知觉和环境美质评估[J].规划与设计学报,1995,1(4)：53-74.
[193]李书娟,曾辉,夏洁.景观空间动态模型研究现状和应重点解决的问题[J].应用生态学报,2004,15(4)：701-706.
[194]李效文,田甜,贾黎明,等.北京山区侧柏游憩林抚育技术模式研究[J].北京林业大学学报,2008,30(3)：44-50.
[195]林隆贤.视觉距离带对视觉资源经营管理之影响——以日月潭国家风景区为例[D].台湾,私立东海大学,2012.
[196]刘滨谊.风景景观工程体系化[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1990：5-6.
[197]刘滨谊.景观环境视觉质量评估[J].同济大学学报,1990,3：24-29.
[198]刘滨谊.中国风景园林规划设计学科专业的重大转变与对策[J].中国园林,2001(1)：7-10..
[199]刘东旭等.澳大利亚的公路工程环境保护[J].国外公路,2001,1：15-18.
[200]刘惠明,杨燕琼,罗富和.基于3S技术的景观敏感度测定研究[J].华南农业大学学报(自然科学版),2003,24(3)：78-81.
[201]刘少英,章小平,曾宗永.九寨沟自然保护区的生物多样性[M].成都：四川科学技术出版社,2007：14-108.
[202]柳孟松.基于三维动态模型的公路景观视觉影响评级研究[D].2008：5.
[203]陆兆苏,赵德海,赵仁寿.南京市钟山风景区森林经理的实践和研究[J].华东森林经理,1991,(5)：3-8.
[204]欧阳勋志.婺源县森林景观美学评价及其对生态旅游影响的研究[D].南京：南京林业大学,2004.
[205]帕特里克·米勒Patrick Miller,姜珊[译],刘滨谊[校].美国的风景管理：克莱特湖风景管理研究[J].中国园林,2012,28(3)：15-21.
[206]宋永昌.植被生态学[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[207]孙娴,林振山,王式功.山区地形开阔度的分布式模型[J].中国沙漠,2008,02：344-402.
[208]孙筱祥.中国风景名胜区[J].北京林学院学报,1982(2)：12-16.
[209]覃婕,周志翔,滕明君,王燕燕,史梅容.武汉市九峰城市森林保护区景观敏感度评价[J].长江流域资源与环境,2009,v.1805：453-458.
[210]谭偲.河流景观特质评估之研究——以台北县双溪为例[D].国立台湾大学地理环境资源学研究所硕士论文,2001.
[211]汤国安,赵牡丹.地理信息系统[M].北京：科学出版社,2000.
[212]汤国安,杨昕ArcGIS地理信息系统空间分析实验教程[M].北京：科学出版社,2006.
[213]汤晓敏,王云,咸进国,王祥荣.基于RS-GIS的长江三峡景观视觉敏感度模糊评价[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版),2008,36(12)：1679-1685.
[214]王保忠,王保明,何平.景观资源美学评价的理论与方法[J].应用生态学报.2006,17(9)：1733-1739.
[215]王存禄,袁颖等.景观视觉敏感度评价在森林公园规划设计中的应用[J].甘肃林业科技,2000,25(3)：9-12.
[216]王晓俊.美国风景资源管理系统及其方法[J].自然资源学报,1993,8(4)：371-380.
[217]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.
[218]王云才,陈田,石忆邵.文化遗址的景观敏感度评价及可持续利用——以新疆塔什库尔干石头城为例[J].地理研究,2006,25(3)：517-525.
[219]王云才.基于景观破碎度分析的传统地域文化景观保护模式——以浙江诸暨市直埠镇为例[J].地理研究,2011,30(1)：10-22.
[220]王忠君,蔡君,张启翔.旅游活动对云蒙山国家森林公园景观及视觉的影响评价[J].河北林业科技,2004(1)：32-35.
[221]吴必虎,李咪咪.小兴安岭风景道旅游景观评价[J].地理学报,2001,56(2)：214-222.
[222]吴承照,曹霞.景观资源量化评价的主要方法(模型)——综述及比较[J].旅游科学,2005,19(1)：32-39.
[223]吴家骅著,叶南译.景观形态学[M].北京市：中国建筑工业出版社,1999.
[224]肖笃宁,钟林生.景观分类与评价的生态原则[J].应用生态学报,1998,9(2)：217-222.
[225]肖笃宁.景观生态学研究进展[M].长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1999.
[226]谢凝高.试论“因山就势”[J].中国园林杂志,1985(1)：47-52.
[227]徐汉明,刘振东.中国地势起伏度研究[J].测绘学报,1991,20(4)：311-319.
[228]徐建春,赵英时,刘振华.利用遥感和GIS研究内蒙古中西部地区环境变化[J].遥感学报,2002,6(2)：142-150.
[229]杨树文,谢飞,冯光胜,刘涛.基于SPOT5图像的岩溶地貌单元自动提取方法[J].2012,24(2)：56-60.
[230]俞孔坚.中国自然风景资源管理系统初探[J].中国园林,1987,(3)：33-37.
[231]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.
[232]俞孔坚,吉庆萍.专家与公众审美差异研究及其对策[J].中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
[233]俞孔坚.景观敏感度及其闽值评价研究[J].地理研究,1991,10(2)：38-51.
[234]俞孔坚.景观保护规划的景观敏感度依据及案例研究[J].城市规划,1991,2：46-49.
[235]俞孔坚.景观：文化、生态与感知[M].北京：科学出版社,1998：40-50.
[236]俞孔坚,李迪华,段铁武.敏感地段的景观安全格局设计及地理信息系统应用——以北京香山滑雪场为例[J].中国园林,2001：11-16.
[237]俞孔坚.论景观[J].中国建筑装饰装修,2003,12：22-28.
[238]张国强,贾贯中.风景规划——《风景名胜区规划规范》实施手册[M].北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003：9-10.
[239]张慧,沈渭寿,邹民新.青藏铁路景观视觉管理系统研究[J].自然资源学报,2003,18(6)：719-725.
[240]张敏.环境美学：现代美学的新发展[J].湖北社会科学,2005,(3)：107-110.
[241]张善峰,许大为等.牡丹峰国家森林公园开发强度控制策略[J].森林工程,2005,21(3)：1-4.
[242]朱畅中.自然风景区的规划建设与风景保护[J].城市规划,1982(1)：34-40.
[243]朱观海.论当前风景区建设的一种动向[J].城市规划汇刊,1985(5)：26.
[244]周锐,李月辉.基于景观敏感度的森林公园景点评价[J].应用生态学报,2008,19(11)：2460-2466.
[245]周向频.景观规划中的审美研究[J].城市规划汇刊,1995,(2)：54-60.
© 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 |