| 城镇森林视觉景观异质性对美学质量的影响 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 马冰倩,徐程扬,刘江,常成,赵凯,孔祥琦,龙嘉翼.城镇森林视觉景观异质性对美学质量的影响[J].浙江农林大学学报,2019,36(2):366-374. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 马冰倩 徐程扬 刘江 常成 赵凯 孔祥琦 龙嘉翼 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 北京林业大学 林学院, 北京 100083 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 林业公益性行业重大资助项目201404301 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 北京市海淀区东升镇各大高校内以建筑为背景的城市森林景观十分丰富。结合样地实测和景观照片的分析，运用美景度（SBE）评价、主成分分析和聚类分析等方法，探讨了视觉景观异质性与美学质量之间的联系。结果表明:以建筑为背景的城镇森林视觉景观异质性与美景值呈显著负相关，基于视觉景观异质性和美景度将视觉景观分为3类:①高异质、低质量景观（类型Ⅰ）:视觉景观异质性最高，斑块密度（PD），景观多样性指数（SHDI），景观均匀度指数（SIEI），分离度指数（SPLIT），景观形态指数（SHAPE），分形维数（FRAC）均最高，最大斑块指数（LPI）和连通度指数（CONTAG）最低，视觉景观连通性差、结构不稳定，构景因子的植被比例（VE）和植被建筑比例（R）最低，建筑比例（BU）最高，形状和边界的复杂主要体现在硬质要素（建筑和道路）上，整体美学质量差，可观赏性不高；②中等异质质量景观（类型Ⅱ）:视觉景观异质性中等，整体稳定性、连通性、建筑和植被比例均中等，SHAPE和FRAC最低，景观美学质量仅次于类型Ⅰ景观；③低异质、高质量景观（类型Ⅲ）:视觉景观异质性最低，PD，SHDI，SIEI，SPLIT及BU最低；LPI，CONTAG及VE和R最高且SHAPE，FRAC与景观Ⅰ相似，整体稳定性强，连通性高，植被丰富，植被斑块边界和形状富有一定的变化，公众喜好度最高。由此可见，随着视觉景观异质性增强，城镇森林的美学质量显著下降，而增加视野中的植被可提高美景度，相反，增加建筑比例则会降低美景度。
|
| 关 键 词： | 森林生态学 美景度 城市森林 视觉景观异质性 |
| 收稿时间： | 2018-02-05 |
Visual heterogeneity and visual landscape quality of urban forests as an architectural backdrop |
| |
| MA Bingqian,XU Chengyang,LIU Jiang,CHANG Cheng,ZHAO Kai,KONG Xiangqi,LONG Jiayi.Visual heterogeneity and visual landscape quality of urban forests as an architectural backdrop[J].Journal of Zhejiang A&F University,2019,36(2):366-374. |
| |
| Authors: | MA Bingqian XU Chengyang LIU Jiang CHANG Cheng ZHAO Kai KONG Xiangqi LONG Jiayi |
| |
| Institution: | College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China |
| |
| Abstract: | To determine the relationship between visual landscape heterogeneity and aesthetic quality of an urban forest landscape as a backdrop for the buildings of the universities in Dongsheng Town, Haidian District, Beijing, analysis and measurement of sample plots and landscape photos were evaluated by means of scenic beauty estimation (SBE), principal component analysis, and cluster analysis. Analysis also included patch density (PD), Shannon's diversity index (SHDI), Simpson's evenness index (SIEI), splitting index (SPLIT), fractal dimension index (FRAC), largest patch index (LPI), contagion index (CONTAG), proportion of vegetation (VE), ratio (R), and proportion of buildings (BU). Results showed a significant negative correlation (P=0.007) between the urban forest landscape heterogeneity and aesthetic quality. All visual landscapes, based on visual landscape heterogeneity and SBE, were divided into 3 types. Type Ⅰ was high heterogeneity and low quality landscape. This heterogeneity of the visual landscape had the highest PD, SHDI, SIEI, SPLIT, and FRAC, but LPI and CONTAG were lowest. This led to poor connectivity and structural instability in the visual landscape, and the landscape design had the lowest VE and R; whereas, BU was highest. Complexity of shape and boundaries was mainly embodied in hard elements (buildings and roads) with aesthetic qualities of the entire area and the ornamental capacity being poor. Type Ⅱ was medium heterogeneity and medium landscape quality. Here heterogeneity of the visual landscape was medium with the aesthetic quality being inferior to Type Ⅰ. Overall stability, connectivity, and BU and VE were moderate with SPLIT and FRAC being lowest. Type Ⅲ was low heterogeneity and high-quality landscape. Compared to heterogeneity of the other landscapes, Type Ⅲ was lowest. PD, SHDI, SIEI, SPLIT, and BU were lowest, and LPI, CONTAG, VE, and R were highest. Also, SPLIT and FRAC were similar to Type Ⅰ. Since the public generally prefers a landscape with high stability and connectivity, rich vegetation, and complex boundaries and shapes, with the enhancement of visual landscape heterogeneity, the aesthetic quality of the urban forest noticeably decreased(P=0.007); whereas, vegetation in the field of vision increased aesthetic quality, as opposed to an increase in the proportion of buildings. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《浙江农林大学学报》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《浙江农林大学学报》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
