国际视觉景观研究评述

doi:10.11820/dlkxjz.2013.06.015

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 视觉景观研究在旅游景区建设、城乡规划与管理等领域具有广泛的应用前景。本文对近10 年国外相关研究进行回顾, 将其分为视觉景观质量评价、视觉影响评价、视觉景观偏好3 个方面, 阐述三者的基本含义、理论来源, 重点介绍每个领域的研究主题、方法与技术, 同时分析其中存在的优缺点及借鉴意义。在景观质量评价方面, 研究重点仍在景观元素及特征对景观质量的影响, 心理物理学方法居主导地位, 呈现专家方法与之结合的趋势。在视觉影响评价方面, 城乡建筑及能源设施产生的视觉影响为近期学者关注的焦点, GIS和3D可视化技术拓展了质量评价和影响评价的时空尺度, 提高了精确性。在视觉景观偏好方面, 学者从欣赏的主客体即人与景观两个角度进行了研究, 深入挖掘人的自然、文化属性及景观特征对景观偏好的影响, 并证实对景观的偏爱能够促进景观保护与土地合理利用。最后对近期国外研究状况进行总结, 提出了未来研究的方向及对国内研究的有益启示。

关键词: 规划管理, 景观偏好, 景观质量, 视觉景观, 视觉影响, 综述

Abstract: Visual landscape study has a wide application prospect in the construction of scenic spots as well as urban and rural planning and management. Related foreign researches in the last decade were reviewed and divided into three parts in this paper: visual landscape quality assessment, visual impact assessment, and visual landscape preference. The basic implications and theoretical sources were introduced. This paper mainly concerns the topics, methods and techniques of each field. At the same time, advantages, disadvantages as well as relevant significance were analyzed. First, in landscape quality assessment, the research emphasis was the contribution of landscape elements and features to landscape quality. Psychophysical approaches were commonly used in this area, but there was an apparent tendency toward combination of the expert-based approach and the psychophysical approach. Secondly, visual impact caused by urban and rural buildings and renewable-energy facilities received much attention. GIS and 3D visualization techniques enlarged temporal-spatial scales and improved the precision of quality and impact assessment. Thirdly, scholars investigated visual landscape preference from two perspectives: human and landscape which was respectively subjective and objective part of appreciation. Not only human natural and cultural attributes but also landscape features were deeply explored to demonstrate the influence in landscape preference. It was confirmed that landscape preference could promote landscape preservation and rational land use. In conclusion, the progresses of the studies on visual landscape were summarized as follows: visual landscape study was more instructive in landscape planning and construction, because the subjective and objective methods were gradually integrated and the techniques were diversified; study areas were unbalanced and study objects were a little dull, so more relevant researches should be made in the developing countries and scholars should pay much attention to visual impact of a large variety of landscape types; there was a need for comprehensive perspectives as the number of interdisciplinary studies was increasing; the foreign researches had some enlightenment for the domestic ones.

Key words: landscape preference, landscape quality, planning and management, review, visual impact, visual landscape

齐童, 王亚娟, 王卫华. 国际视觉景观研究评述[J]. 地理科学进展, 2013, 32(6): 975-983.

QI Tong, WANG Yajuan, WANG Weihua. A review on visual landscape study in foreign countries[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2013, 32(6): 975-983.

参考文献

[1] Arriaza M, Cañas-Ortega J F, Cañas-Madueño J A, et al. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1): 115-125.
[2] Ayad Y M. 2005. Remote sensing and GIS in modeling visual landscape change: A case study of the northwestern arid coast of Egypt. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(4): 307-325.
[3] Beza B B. 2010. The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(4): 306-317.
[4] Cañas I, Ayuga E, Ayuga F. 2009. A contribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy, 26(4): 1173-1181.
[5] Carvalho-Ribeiro S M, Lovett A. 2011. Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. Forest Policy and Economics, 13 (1): 46-54.
[6] Clay G R, Daniel T C. 2000. Scenic landscape assessment: The effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49(1-2): 1-13.
[7] Daniel T C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 267-281.
[8] De Groot W T, Van den Born R J G. 2003. Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: An exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(3): 127-138.
[9] De Vries S, De Groot M, Boers J. 2012. Eyesores in sight: Quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(1-2): 118-127.
[10] Dramstad W E, Tveit M S, Fjellstad W J, et al. 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4): 465-474.
[11] Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, et al. 2003. The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(3): 119-138.
[12] Fry G, Tveit M S, Ode Å, et al. 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9(5): 933-947.
[13] Gallent N, Andersson J. 2007. Representing England's rural-urban fringe. Landscape Research, 32(1): 1-21.
[14] Garré S, Meeus S, Gulinck H. 2009. The dual role of roads in the landscape: A case study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(2): 125-135.
[15] Hernández J, García L, Ayuga F. 2004a. Integration methodologies for visual impact assessment of rural buildings by geographic information systems. Biosystems Engineering, 88(2): 255-263.
[16] Hernández J, García L, Ayuga F. 2004b. Assessment of the visual impact made on the landscape by new buildings: A methodology for site selection. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1): 15-28.
[17] Junge X, Lindemann-Matthies P, Hunziker M, et al. 2011. Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biological Conservation, 144(5): 1430-1440.
[18] Kaplan A, Taskin T, Önenc A. 2006. Assessing the visual quality of rural and urban-fringed landscapes surrounding livestock farms. Biosystems Engineering, 95(3): 437-448.
[19] Kim N H, Kang H H. 2009. The aesthetic evaluation of coastal landscape. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 13(2): 65-74.
[20] Lange E, Hehl-Lange S, Brewer M J. 2008. Scenario-visualization for the assessment of perceived green space qualities at the urban-rural fringe. Journal of Environmental Management, 89(3): 245-256.
[21] Li R J, Lu Z. 2011. Virtual expression and LOD model designing for theme park based on semantic features: A case of the water and soil conservation technology park. Progress in Geography, 30(4): 504-512. [李仁杰, 路紫. 2011. 主题公园多细节层次景观语义模型与虚拟表述: 以北京延庆县水土保持科技示范园为例. 地理科学进展, 30(4): 504-512.]
[22] Liu H L, Li D H, Huang G. 2006. Landscape assessment on impacts of the hydroelectric development in the valley region: Case study of Nujiang River. Progress in Geography, 25(5): 21-31. [刘海龙, 李迪华, 黄刚. 2006.峡谷区域水电开发景观影响评价: 以怒江为例. 地理科学进展, 25(5): 21-31.]
[23] Lokocz E, Ryan R L, Sadler A J. 2011. Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(2): 65-76.
[24] Lothian A. 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44 (4): 177-198.
[25] Lupp G, Höchtl F, Wende W. 2011. "Wilderness": A designation for Central European landscapes? Land Use Policy, 28(3): 594-603.
[26] Mao J W, Zhu F J, Che S Q. 2010. Study on landscape assessment of urban remnant natural area: Theory and application of psychophysical method. Chinese Landscape Architecture, (3): 51-54. [毛炯玮, 朱飞捷, 车生泉. 2010. 城市自然遗留地景观美学评价的方法研究: 心理物理学方法的理论与应用. 中国园林, (3): 51-54.]
[27] Meitner M J. 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1): 3-13.
[28] Misgav A. 2000. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4): 143-159.
[29] Molina-Ruiz J, Martínez-Sánchez M J, Pérez-Sirvent C, et al. 2011. Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to evaluate visual impact in wind farms. Renewable Energy, 36(3): 1125-1132.
[30] Möller B. 2006. Changing wind-power landscapes: Regional assessment of visual impact on land use and population in Northern Jutland, Denmark. Applied Energy, 83(5): 477-494.
[31] Müderrisoğlu H, Eroğlu E, Özkan S, et al. 2006. Visual perception of tree forms. Building and Environment, 41(6): 796-806.
[32] Ode Å, Fry G, Tveit M S, et al. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1): 375-383.
[33] Ode Å, Tveit M S, Fry G. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1): 89-117.
[34] Ouyang X Z, Liao W M, Peng S K. 2007. Landscape quality evaluation and vertical structure optimization of natural broad leaf forest. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 18 (6): 1388-1392. [欧阳勋志, 廖为明, 彭世揆. 2007. 天然阔叶林景观质量评价及其垂直结构优化技术. 应用生态学报, 18(6): 1388-1392.]
[35] Palmer J F, Hoffman R E. 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 149-161.
[36] Panagopoulos T. 2009. Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecological Economics, 68(10): 2485-2489.
[37] Pflüger Y, Rackham A, Larned S. 2010. The aesthetic value of river flows: An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95 (1-2): 68-78.
[38] Pullar D V, Tidey M E. 2001. Coupling 3D visualisation to qualitative assessment of built environment designs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55(1): 29-40.
[39] Ramírez á, Ayuga-Téllez E, Gallego E, et al. 2011. A simplifi ed model to assess landscape quality from rural roads in Spain. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 142 (3-4): 205-212.
[40] Rodrigues M, Montañés C, Fueyo N. 2010. A method for the assessment of the visual impact caused by the large-scale deployment of renewable-energy facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(4): 240-246.
[41] Rogge E, Nevens F, Gulinck H. 2008. Reducing the visual impact of "greenhouse parks" in rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(1): 76-83.
[42] Roth M. 2006. Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment: An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3): 179-192.
[43] Schmid W A. 2001. The emerging role of visual resource assessment and visualisation in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 213-221.
[44] Sevenant M, Antrop M. 2010. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy, 27 (3): 827-842.
[45] Stamps III A E. 1997. A paradigm for distinguishing significant from nonsignificant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17(4): 249-293.
[46] Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, et al. 2001. Forest management and public perceptions: Visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53(1-4): 53-70.
[47] Tang X M, Wang X R. 2007. Landscape visual environment assessment(LVEA): Conception, origin and development. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University: Agricultural Science, 25(3): 173-179. [汤晓敏, 王祥荣. 2007. 景观视觉环境评价: 概念、起源与发展. 上海交通大学学报: 农业科学版, 25(3): 173-179.]
[48] Tönnes S, Karjalainen E, Löfström I, et al. 2004. Scenic impacts of retention trees in clear-cutting areas. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19(4): 348-357.
[49] Torres-Sibille A C, Cloquell-Ballester V-A, Cloquell-Ballester V-A, et al. 2009a. Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(1): 40-66.
[50] Torres-Sibille A C, Cloquell-Ballester V-A, Cloquell-Ballester V-A, et al. 2009b. Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants: An objective and a subjective approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5): 986-999.
[51] Tsoutsos T, Tsouchlaraki A, Tsiropoulos M, et al. 2009. Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island. Applied Energy, 86(4): 546-553.
[52] Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3): 229-255.
[53] Tveit M S. 2009. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference: A comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9): 2882-2888.
[54] Van den Berg A E, Koole S L. 2006. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4): 362-372.
[55] Van den Berg A E, Van Winsum-Westra M. 2010. Manicured, romantic, or wild? The relation between need for structure and preferences for garden styles. Urban Forestry& Urban Greening, 9(3): 179-186.
[56] Walker A J, Ryan R L. 2008. Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2): 141-152.
[57] Wang B Z, Wang B M, He P. 2006. Aesthetic theory and meth-od of landscape resource assessment. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 17(9): 1733-1739. [王保忠, 王保明, 何平. 2006. 景观资源美学评价的理论与方法. 应用生态学报, 17(9): 1733-1739.]
[58] Weng S F, Ke F, Li C M. 2009. Application of AHP and SBE methods in the study of landscape plant composition in Guangzhou parks. Chinese Landscape Architecture, (4): 78-81. [翁殊斐, 柯峰, 黎彩敏. 2009. 用AHP 法和SBE 法研究广州公园植物景观单元. 中国园林, (4): 78-81.]
[59] Wu B H, Li M M. 2001. EDVAET: A Linear landscape evaluation technique: A case study on the Xiaoxing'anling scenery drive. Acta Geographica Sinica, 56(2): 214-222. [吴必虎, 李咪咪. 2001. 小兴安岭风景道旅游景观评价. 地理学报, 56(2): 214-222.]
[60] Yabuki N, Miyashita K, Fukuda T. 2011. An invisible height evaluation system for building height regulation to preserve good landscapes using augmented reality. Automation in Construction, 20(3): 228-235.
[61] Yu K J. 1987. A discussion about the conception of landscape and the development of landscape study. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 9(4): 433-439. [ 俞孔坚. 1987. 论景观概念及其研究的发展. 北京林业大学学报, 9(4): 433-439.]
[62] Zhang H, Shen W S, Jiang L S, et al. 2004. Approach of evaluation on landscape protection along the Qinghai-Tibet Railway. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 24(3): 575-582. [ 张慧, 沈渭寿, 江腊沙, 等. 2004. 青藏铁路沿线景观保护评价方法研究. 生态学报, 24(3): 575-582.]
[63] Zheng B, Zhang Y Q, Chen J Q. 2010. Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(1): 1-8.