土地利用的地域性认同研究：理论与方法
|
摘要
快速城市化进程中,土地利用景观发生显著的变化,同时土地景观认同(Landscape identity)随之改变。土地利用是一个综合复杂的系统性问题,“人地关系”和谐发展强调了人与土地组成的是一个交互循环的体系。我国土地管理有很强的“自上而下”特征,土地利用研究也注重探索土地利用变化的机制、土地利用的科学调控方法,然而自上而下的土地管理策略及相应的土地利用研究方法往往偏重于上层管理者对土地利用自身演化规律的判断,未能慎重研究并考虑土地使用者对土地利用的认知。近年来,土地利用矛盾,尤其是土地征收矛盾的增加一方面反应了我国自上而下土地管理制度体系中存在的不合理性,另一方面反应了土地利用者需要表达自身意愿的强烈性。土地管理者可以依据土地的物理属性、利用水平、地区经济条件等客观条件,制定策略提高土地利用效率和产出水平,然而当政策制定者认为其管理策略的出发点都是为了合理高效利用土地、促进区域经济可持续增长的时候,有关土地利用的矛盾还是层出不穷,其中最为主要的原因之一是缺乏对人与自然交互作用过程中人与地之间主观情感联系的充分理解和关注。
地域性认同就是从社会性的角度反映人们对区域的认识,是人们在与其周围的自然、社会空间交互作用的过程中产生的,区域空间在人们主观认知中的呈现。土地利用或景观的变化必然引起区域空间的改变,进而影响人们的地域性认同,地域性认同的变化反过来会对人们利用自然资源的行为乃至区域的发展产生影响。土地利用空间政策的制定需要重视地域性认同,反映各阶层利益需求和土地利用的经济、生态、社会文化价值,这就要求土地规划者能够从传统的规划模式中走出来,因为土地利用的方向不仅仅是规划者的专家技能判断,也不只是政治管理者对区域发展的单方面认识,而是需要兼顾各社会主体的土地利用价值观、感知与认同。国外已经越来越重视地域性认同在空间规划、资源管理、区域发展和社会资本培育等问题中的作用,然而在国内,有关土地利用的地域性认同研究还未得到普遍深入的开展,如何更好地诠释和理解土地利用中社会主体、地域性认同和土地景观变化的关系,将地域性认同理论与我国的土地利用问题相互结合起来,是我国土地管理研究中有待充实的一个主题或领域。
本研究探讨我国土地利用中的地域性认同问题。土地利用中的地域性认同研究将土地利用的复杂性与土地利用主体的复杂性相互结合,解释了人与土地交互作用过程中,土地利用给社会主体带来不同的主观认知,不同的社会主体对土地利用具有不同的认知。研究中借鉴荷兰以及西方其他国家的土地利用经验,对比我国的国情,从土地利用评价、土地利用规划等角度,分析如何将地域性认同的理论更好地运用到我国土地利用管理体系中。在探讨我国土地利用管理发展历程的基础上,指出我国当前土地利用研究还未很好地诠释和理解土地利用变化、土地管理／利用者和地域性认同之间的关系,然后分析了地域性认同理论在土地利用规划和土地利用评价研究中的应用价值,借助基于SoftGIS技术的土地景观热点测度系统(Landscape Hotspotmonitor),调查荷兰6个区域和中国南京栖霞区、鼓楼区、玄武区等地区居民的土地利用认同情况,用实证案例说明了不同社会主体土地利用认同存在的竞争性。主要研究结论有：
(1)地域性认同将客观的自然现实与主观的社会认知相结合,包含居民的地域性认同和地区的地域性认同两层内涵,两者在含义、作用与测度方法上都存在差异,但也具有很多微妙的联系。当人们为一个地方的形成构建地域性认同的时候,这个地方同时也为生活在其中的居民带来了身份认同。论文提出了地域性认同研究的四维分图,希望学者们运用或研究地域性认同理论的时候,能根据各自研究问题的需要找到合适的切入点,从明确的角度更清晰地阐释地域性认同理论。
(2)土地利用评价研究主要有土地自然生态、经济以及社会价值和影响评价,对比国外,我国对于土地利用社会文化价值的评价还较薄弱,土地管理者与其他相关主体很难理解土地利用决策或项目在实施过程中的困难性,以及所引发的社会矛盾背后的原因。地域性认同作为研究客观环境与人们主观认知的理论,有助于分析土地利用对社会带来的影响,解释土地利用的社会价值。论文提出了一个基于地域性认同的土地利用社会价值或影响评价的一般性框架,该模型综合社会学理论、地域性认同理论和土地利用评价知识,可为我国土地利用社会价值评价研究提供借鉴。
(3)土地规划除了用于保护农地资源,防止城市过度扩张,还要满足和协调人们日益增长的对空间环境的多样性需求,居民对土地利用认同的差异和矛盾是土地规划需解决的难题。地域性认同、公众参与和土地规划是紧密关联的。土地利用规划过程需要政府、规划者、受规划者等一起协商,然而当前土地利用规划功能区的划分主要反映的是规划者对区域自然、社会、经济条件的认识和感知,同时规划者还受地方精英(如政府官员)对区域的地域性认同的影响,主体功能区划分结果是他们对区域的地域性认同之间相互妥协的结果。
(4)基于互联网的SoftGIS方法主要研究人与土地或环境相互作用过程中产生的经验、知识、感受或价值观,有助于分析土地利用中的地域性认同问题。基于SoftGIS的土地景观热点测度系统(Landscape Hotspotmonitor, LHSM)在荷兰得以顺利运行,分析结果表明,在现实具体的居民土地利用和生活情景中,不同的社会主体对不同空间尺度的土地景观价值、土地利用方式、土地景观视觉效应、土地景观偏好距离等的认同都具有可能的差异性,有些群体的认同也具有一致性。从而,在土地利用规划和土地利用评价过程中,除了传统的土地利用规划图件编绘、规划指标设定等硬数据研究,规划者、研究人员、管理者等还应该结合研究现实准确的土地利用/景观信息以及受土地利用政策影响的居民/社会主体的土地利用认同,因为土地利用中的地域性认同具有多样性和竞争性。
(5)一个地区的土地利用管理可从其它地区的发展历程中借鉴相应的经验,对比不同社会文化背景下的土地利用认同差异,如我国和西方发达国家的居民的土地利用认同差异,可为我国研究土地利用中社会主体的主观感知问题提供参考。土地景观热点测度系统(LHSM)选择了我国南京地区进行调查研究,并将调查结果与LHSM在荷兰的调查数据进行了对比,分析了居民对土地景观的价值与利用目的的认同差异。结果表明,无论是整体上,还是从性别、年龄、居住来源地和学历水平等方面,两地的居民都表现出了差异性的土地利用认同,但同时也表现出相似之处。影响不同社会文化背景下的不同社会主体对土地利用认同差异的原因是多方面的,具有复杂性,有待根据现实具体土地利用问题/项目及需要进行深入分析。
论文最后指出,在今后土地利用的地域性认同问题研究中,需进一步丰富样本数据,同时对已有数据进行进一步深入的挖掘,依据现实土地利用需解决的问题或理论研究的需要,修改和完善目前的SoftGIS系统,为土地利用软数据研究铺垫基础。此外,还需要结合基于地域性认同的土地规划和评价模型,将有关土地利用软数据的分析结论应用到多重空间尺度的土地利用管理实践中,结合土地利用变化过程的复杂性以及地域性认同的动态性,进一步探讨土地利用变化对地域性认同的影响,以及地域性认同变化对土地利用变化的反作用。
Under rapid urbanization, remarkable landscape change has taken place, which brings change to landscape identity at the mean time. Land use is a complex system. The so called development of the harmonious relationship between man and land indicates a mutual and circular land use system. Land resources management in China is well known by its strong 'top-down'characteristic, while land use research in China pays much attention to the rules of land use change and the rational land use control methods. However,'top-down'land management and relevant research are usually biased by the judgment and preference of superior governors or social elites. Lay people's perception and knowledge of land use are under articulated. Increasing land use conflicts of recent years, especially conflicts in land expropriation, have reflected the irrationality of the'top-down'land resources management system in China on one hand, and land users'strong desire to have their perception expressed on the other hand. By evaluating land quality, e.g. physical quality, land use intensity, etc., land managers have been for a long time making policies to improve land use efficiency and output. Yet, when policy makers think the intention of their management is to use land in a better way and to promote regional economic development, land use conflicts still arise endlessly. One of the major reasons can be the insufficient understanding and recognition of the subjective connections between man and land.
The theory of place identity studies people's perception of regions from the social view. Place identity is the reflection of physical region in people's mind when people interact with their living natural and social environment. Landscape change can definitely alter a region in respect of spatial outlook, which will affect place identity of the region if we value people's subjective feelings in landscape change process. The change of place identity may in return influences people's behavior of land use, or even regional development. Spatial policy of land use needs to be made through a way which regards place identity, different stakeholders'demands and the economic, ecological and cultural value of land use. Planners have to get away from the constraint of the traditional land planning strategy. The direction of future land use can not be predicted by planning experts alone, nor can it be determined by political elites' knowledge about the development potential of a place. Different stakeholders' value orientation of land use, as well as their perception of landscape identity, should be considered in land use policy making. Studies in the west have attached increasing importance to the role of place identity which can have effect on spatial planning, natural resources management, social capital and regional development. In China, however, few researches have been done on place identity issues within land use. To understand and explain the relationship among land use actors, place identity and landscape change could be a meaningful research field in China, as far as land management is concerned. Incorporating place identity theory with land use study can enrich what we have for a long time thought about the land use problem in China.
This study explores place identity within land use research. Analysis on place identity issues in land use may combine the complexity of land use and the complexity of land use actors. It also helps to explain the variety of subjective cognition land use brings to social actors, and the different perception social actors have on land use. Land use management experience of the western countries, especially of the Netherlands, is introduced in this thesis, and by comparing the situation in China, it analyzes how to apply the theory of place identity to land use management study in China in view of land planning and appraisal. Based on the history of land use management in China in recent decades, the thesis points out that there is insufficient study on the relationship among land use, land use managers/users and place identity. The merit of incorporating the theory of place identity with land use planning and appraisal is studied. A SoftGIS based landscape identity and preference study system, Landscape Hotspotmonitor, is introduced. The Hotspotmonitor is a new enquiry tool that allows assessing spatially specific landscape identity and preferences of clearly defined impact populations. With the Hotspotmonitor, investigations on land use identity and preference were carried out in six regions in the Netherlands and one region in China. The empirical analysis results show that competitive perceptions on land use exist among social actors of various backgrounds at different spatial scales. Major conclusions of this thesis are followed.
(1) Place identity integrates physical world and subjective social cognition. It is a fuzzy term referring either to the distinctiveness of a place or to individual's selfhood labeled by places. These two aspects of place identity are different in respects of concept, function and measurement, but there are subtle connections between them. When people build up identity in a place, the place brings identity to its inhabitants at the same time. Researchers need to find a position when they initiate place identity studies, otherwise place identity will remain abstruse to readers. A preliminary classification of place identity is proposed in the thesis, to help geographers and other pursuers on place identity find their position.
(2) The study of land appraisal usually concerns the ecological, economic and socio-cultural values of the landscape. Compared with the west, land appraisal in China needs more efforts on the socio-cultural values of the landscape. Land resources managers and relevant actors are always frustrated by the difficulty of implementing land use policy or projects. It seems hard for them to reach the truth behind the conflicts. The theory of place identity is about the relationship between physical environment and citizens' subjective cognition. It can help to understand the social impact of land use and explain the socio-cultural values of the landscape. The thesis proposes a general appraisal framework of the socio-cultural values and impact of land use. This framework integrates theories of sociology, place identity and land use evaluation. It is expected to contribute a bit to the research of the socio-cultural values of the landscape in China.
(3) Land planning in China is to protect the loss of agricultural land and prevent fast urban sprawl. Besides, land planning needs to mediate and solve people's various demands on limited natural space. Conflicts of land use identity ascribed by different social actors are challenging land use planning. Place identity, public participation and land planning are intertwined. Planning needs negotiations among government, planner and stakeholders affected by land use plan. However, current Major Function Oriented Zoning planning in China represents mainly the planners'perception and knowledge about the natural, social and economic quality of places, while local elites'place identity is considered with high priority. The result of Major Function Oriented Zoning usually turns out to be a compromise between the identities they ascribe to a region.
(4) Internet based SoftGIS methods include Geographical Information produced by the users of the environment/landscape which usually is empirical and can be collected and processed as a part of the GIS. Such geo-information consists residents'experience, knowledge, perception and value orientation etc.. It would be reasonable and a good option to analyze the place identity issues in land use with SoftGIS methods. The implementation of the SoftGIS based Landscape Hotspotmonitor turns out to be successful. The results of the SoftGIS data analyzing indicate that at different spatial scales, social actors with different backgrounds may show different cognition on the value of landscape, land use, the visual quality of landscape, the distance of landscape preference. However, there is also some consensus among these social actors on the perception of identity. Under different specific living contexts, we can hardly find a common rule about residents' perception of land use identity. Thereby, planners, scholars and governors should incorporate the empirical land use information and the stakeholders' perception on land use identity with spatial planning, rather than stick to the traditional 'hard' planning approaches, e.g. mapping land use plan and calculating land use quota.
(5) Land use experience of a region can be valuable for other regions as far as land management and relevant study are concerned. The study of cross-cultural land use/landscape identity ascribed by different groups of residents, e.g. comparison between China and the western developed countries, may help us understand the social actors' perception of land use by examining the gap of landscape change and management of different societies. The soft data of land use experience in Nanjing, China, are collected with the Landscape Hotspotmonitor. Comparing the Hotspotmonitor data of Nanjing and the Netherlands, the thesis analyzes residents' perception on landscape attractiveness and the purpose of natural land use. The results show that the residents with different culture backgrounds hold different perception on land use, which can be evidenced either from a comprehensive view or from views of subgroups divided by gender, age, resident area and education. However, the residents also share some common cognition of land use. The residents from both societies identify green, quiet, naturalness, water and recreation as the most attractive characteristics of their preferred landscape, and they value'amusement'and 'having a break' the major purposes of natural landscape recreation. For the difference of land use perception between groups of cultural variation as well as other divisions, the reason is complex. Practical explanation can only be obtained through further analysis on concrete cases of land use problem or project.
In the end, the thesis points out some subsequent work which could be done to improve this study. Firstly, more sample population in the investigation in China is needed. Further data mining with the database at hand should be done. For other practical problems or theoretical study about land use in the future, we can consider of revising or improving the current SoftGIS system, which may enrich the soft database of land use. Secondly, it is necessary to combine the place identity based land use planning and appraisal models with the SoftGIS data analysis, in order to test the study results on land resources management practices at various spatial scales. Last but not least, attention should also be paid to the empirical study on the relationship between the transformation of land use and place identity.
地域性认同就是从社会性的角度反映人们对区域的认识,是人们在与其周围的自然、社会空间交互作用的过程中产生的,区域空间在人们主观认知中的呈现。土地利用或景观的变化必然引起区域空间的改变,进而影响人们的地域性认同,地域性认同的变化反过来会对人们利用自然资源的行为乃至区域的发展产生影响。土地利用空间政策的制定需要重视地域性认同,反映各阶层利益需求和土地利用的经济、生态、社会文化价值,这就要求土地规划者能够从传统的规划模式中走出来,因为土地利用的方向不仅仅是规划者的专家技能判断,也不只是政治管理者对区域发展的单方面认识,而是需要兼顾各社会主体的土地利用价值观、感知与认同。国外已经越来越重视地域性认同在空间规划、资源管理、区域发展和社会资本培育等问题中的作用,然而在国内,有关土地利用的地域性认同研究还未得到普遍深入的开展,如何更好地诠释和理解土地利用中社会主体、地域性认同和土地景观变化的关系,将地域性认同理论与我国的土地利用问题相互结合起来,是我国土地管理研究中有待充实的一个主题或领域。
本研究探讨我国土地利用中的地域性认同问题。土地利用中的地域性认同研究将土地利用的复杂性与土地利用主体的复杂性相互结合,解释了人与土地交互作用过程中,土地利用给社会主体带来不同的主观认知,不同的社会主体对土地利用具有不同的认知。研究中借鉴荷兰以及西方其他国家的土地利用经验,对比我国的国情,从土地利用评价、土地利用规划等角度,分析如何将地域性认同的理论更好地运用到我国土地利用管理体系中。在探讨我国土地利用管理发展历程的基础上,指出我国当前土地利用研究还未很好地诠释和理解土地利用变化、土地管理／利用者和地域性认同之间的关系,然后分析了地域性认同理论在土地利用规划和土地利用评价研究中的应用价值,借助基于SoftGIS技术的土地景观热点测度系统(Landscape Hotspotmonitor),调查荷兰6个区域和中国南京栖霞区、鼓楼区、玄武区等地区居民的土地利用认同情况,用实证案例说明了不同社会主体土地利用认同存在的竞争性。主要研究结论有：
(1)地域性认同将客观的自然现实与主观的社会认知相结合,包含居民的地域性认同和地区的地域性认同两层内涵,两者在含义、作用与测度方法上都存在差异,但也具有很多微妙的联系。当人们为一个地方的形成构建地域性认同的时候,这个地方同时也为生活在其中的居民带来了身份认同。论文提出了地域性认同研究的四维分图,希望学者们运用或研究地域性认同理论的时候,能根据各自研究问题的需要找到合适的切入点,从明确的角度更清晰地阐释地域性认同理论。
(2)土地利用评价研究主要有土地自然生态、经济以及社会价值和影响评价,对比国外,我国对于土地利用社会文化价值的评价还较薄弱,土地管理者与其他相关主体很难理解土地利用决策或项目在实施过程中的困难性,以及所引发的社会矛盾背后的原因。地域性认同作为研究客观环境与人们主观认知的理论,有助于分析土地利用对社会带来的影响,解释土地利用的社会价值。论文提出了一个基于地域性认同的土地利用社会价值或影响评价的一般性框架,该模型综合社会学理论、地域性认同理论和土地利用评价知识,可为我国土地利用社会价值评价研究提供借鉴。
(3)土地规划除了用于保护农地资源,防止城市过度扩张,还要满足和协调人们日益增长的对空间环境的多样性需求,居民对土地利用认同的差异和矛盾是土地规划需解决的难题。地域性认同、公众参与和土地规划是紧密关联的。土地利用规划过程需要政府、规划者、受规划者等一起协商,然而当前土地利用规划功能区的划分主要反映的是规划者对区域自然、社会、经济条件的认识和感知,同时规划者还受地方精英(如政府官员)对区域的地域性认同的影响,主体功能区划分结果是他们对区域的地域性认同之间相互妥协的结果。
(4)基于互联网的SoftGIS方法主要研究人与土地或环境相互作用过程中产生的经验、知识、感受或价值观,有助于分析土地利用中的地域性认同问题。基于SoftGIS的土地景观热点测度系统(Landscape Hotspotmonitor, LHSM)在荷兰得以顺利运行,分析结果表明,在现实具体的居民土地利用和生活情景中,不同的社会主体对不同空间尺度的土地景观价值、土地利用方式、土地景观视觉效应、土地景观偏好距离等的认同都具有可能的差异性,有些群体的认同也具有一致性。从而,在土地利用规划和土地利用评价过程中,除了传统的土地利用规划图件编绘、规划指标设定等硬数据研究,规划者、研究人员、管理者等还应该结合研究现实准确的土地利用/景观信息以及受土地利用政策影响的居民/社会主体的土地利用认同,因为土地利用中的地域性认同具有多样性和竞争性。
(5)一个地区的土地利用管理可从其它地区的发展历程中借鉴相应的经验,对比不同社会文化背景下的土地利用认同差异,如我国和西方发达国家的居民的土地利用认同差异,可为我国研究土地利用中社会主体的主观感知问题提供参考。土地景观热点测度系统(LHSM)选择了我国南京地区进行调查研究,并将调查结果与LHSM在荷兰的调查数据进行了对比,分析了居民对土地景观的价值与利用目的的认同差异。结果表明,无论是整体上,还是从性别、年龄、居住来源地和学历水平等方面,两地的居民都表现出了差异性的土地利用认同,但同时也表现出相似之处。影响不同社会文化背景下的不同社会主体对土地利用认同差异的原因是多方面的,具有复杂性,有待根据现实具体土地利用问题/项目及需要进行深入分析。
论文最后指出,在今后土地利用的地域性认同问题研究中,需进一步丰富样本数据,同时对已有数据进行进一步深入的挖掘,依据现实土地利用需解决的问题或理论研究的需要,修改和完善目前的SoftGIS系统,为土地利用软数据研究铺垫基础。此外,还需要结合基于地域性认同的土地规划和评价模型,将有关土地利用软数据的分析结论应用到多重空间尺度的土地利用管理实践中,结合土地利用变化过程的复杂性以及地域性认同的动态性,进一步探讨土地利用变化对地域性认同的影响,以及地域性认同变化对土地利用变化的反作用。
Under rapid urbanization, remarkable landscape change has taken place, which brings change to landscape identity at the mean time. Land use is a complex system. The so called development of the harmonious relationship between man and land indicates a mutual and circular land use system. Land resources management in China is well known by its strong 'top-down'characteristic, while land use research in China pays much attention to the rules of land use change and the rational land use control methods. However,'top-down'land management and relevant research are usually biased by the judgment and preference of superior governors or social elites. Lay people's perception and knowledge of land use are under articulated. Increasing land use conflicts of recent years, especially conflicts in land expropriation, have reflected the irrationality of the'top-down'land resources management system in China on one hand, and land users'strong desire to have their perception expressed on the other hand. By evaluating land quality, e.g. physical quality, land use intensity, etc., land managers have been for a long time making policies to improve land use efficiency and output. Yet, when policy makers think the intention of their management is to use land in a better way and to promote regional economic development, land use conflicts still arise endlessly. One of the major reasons can be the insufficient understanding and recognition of the subjective connections between man and land.
The theory of place identity studies people's perception of regions from the social view. Place identity is the reflection of physical region in people's mind when people interact with their living natural and social environment. Landscape change can definitely alter a region in respect of spatial outlook, which will affect place identity of the region if we value people's subjective feelings in landscape change process. The change of place identity may in return influences people's behavior of land use, or even regional development. Spatial policy of land use needs to be made through a way which regards place identity, different stakeholders'demands and the economic, ecological and cultural value of land use. Planners have to get away from the constraint of the traditional land planning strategy. The direction of future land use can not be predicted by planning experts alone, nor can it be determined by political elites' knowledge about the development potential of a place. Different stakeholders' value orientation of land use, as well as their perception of landscape identity, should be considered in land use policy making. Studies in the west have attached increasing importance to the role of place identity which can have effect on spatial planning, natural resources management, social capital and regional development. In China, however, few researches have been done on place identity issues within land use. To understand and explain the relationship among land use actors, place identity and landscape change could be a meaningful research field in China, as far as land management is concerned. Incorporating place identity theory with land use study can enrich what we have for a long time thought about the land use problem in China.
This study explores place identity within land use research. Analysis on place identity issues in land use may combine the complexity of land use and the complexity of land use actors. It also helps to explain the variety of subjective cognition land use brings to social actors, and the different perception social actors have on land use. Land use management experience of the western countries, especially of the Netherlands, is introduced in this thesis, and by comparing the situation in China, it analyzes how to apply the theory of place identity to land use management study in China in view of land planning and appraisal. Based on the history of land use management in China in recent decades, the thesis points out that there is insufficient study on the relationship among land use, land use managers/users and place identity. The merit of incorporating the theory of place identity with land use planning and appraisal is studied. A SoftGIS based landscape identity and preference study system, Landscape Hotspotmonitor, is introduced. The Hotspotmonitor is a new enquiry tool that allows assessing spatially specific landscape identity and preferences of clearly defined impact populations. With the Hotspotmonitor, investigations on land use identity and preference were carried out in six regions in the Netherlands and one region in China. The empirical analysis results show that competitive perceptions on land use exist among social actors of various backgrounds at different spatial scales. Major conclusions of this thesis are followed.
(1) Place identity integrates physical world and subjective social cognition. It is a fuzzy term referring either to the distinctiveness of a place or to individual's selfhood labeled by places. These two aspects of place identity are different in respects of concept, function and measurement, but there are subtle connections between them. When people build up identity in a place, the place brings identity to its inhabitants at the same time. Researchers need to find a position when they initiate place identity studies, otherwise place identity will remain abstruse to readers. A preliminary classification of place identity is proposed in the thesis, to help geographers and other pursuers on place identity find their position.
(2) The study of land appraisal usually concerns the ecological, economic and socio-cultural values of the landscape. Compared with the west, land appraisal in China needs more efforts on the socio-cultural values of the landscape. Land resources managers and relevant actors are always frustrated by the difficulty of implementing land use policy or projects. It seems hard for them to reach the truth behind the conflicts. The theory of place identity is about the relationship between physical environment and citizens' subjective cognition. It can help to understand the social impact of land use and explain the socio-cultural values of the landscape. The thesis proposes a general appraisal framework of the socio-cultural values and impact of land use. This framework integrates theories of sociology, place identity and land use evaluation. It is expected to contribute a bit to the research of the socio-cultural values of the landscape in China.
(3) Land planning in China is to protect the loss of agricultural land and prevent fast urban sprawl. Besides, land planning needs to mediate and solve people's various demands on limited natural space. Conflicts of land use identity ascribed by different social actors are challenging land use planning. Place identity, public participation and land planning are intertwined. Planning needs negotiations among government, planner and stakeholders affected by land use plan. However, current Major Function Oriented Zoning planning in China represents mainly the planners'perception and knowledge about the natural, social and economic quality of places, while local elites'place identity is considered with high priority. The result of Major Function Oriented Zoning usually turns out to be a compromise between the identities they ascribe to a region.
(4) Internet based SoftGIS methods include Geographical Information produced by the users of the environment/landscape which usually is empirical and can be collected and processed as a part of the GIS. Such geo-information consists residents'experience, knowledge, perception and value orientation etc.. It would be reasonable and a good option to analyze the place identity issues in land use with SoftGIS methods. The implementation of the SoftGIS based Landscape Hotspotmonitor turns out to be successful. The results of the SoftGIS data analyzing indicate that at different spatial scales, social actors with different backgrounds may show different cognition on the value of landscape, land use, the visual quality of landscape, the distance of landscape preference. However, there is also some consensus among these social actors on the perception of identity. Under different specific living contexts, we can hardly find a common rule about residents' perception of land use identity. Thereby, planners, scholars and governors should incorporate the empirical land use information and the stakeholders' perception on land use identity with spatial planning, rather than stick to the traditional 'hard' planning approaches, e.g. mapping land use plan and calculating land use quota.
(5) Land use experience of a region can be valuable for other regions as far as land management and relevant study are concerned. The study of cross-cultural land use/landscape identity ascribed by different groups of residents, e.g. comparison between China and the western developed countries, may help us understand the social actors' perception of land use by examining the gap of landscape change and management of different societies. The soft data of land use experience in Nanjing, China, are collected with the Landscape Hotspotmonitor. Comparing the Hotspotmonitor data of Nanjing and the Netherlands, the thesis analyzes residents' perception on landscape attractiveness and the purpose of natural land use. The results show that the residents with different culture backgrounds hold different perception on land use, which can be evidenced either from a comprehensive view or from views of subgroups divided by gender, age, resident area and education. However, the residents also share some common cognition of land use. The residents from both societies identify green, quiet, naturalness, water and recreation as the most attractive characteristics of their preferred landscape, and they value'amusement'and 'having a break' the major purposes of natural landscape recreation. For the difference of land use perception between groups of cultural variation as well as other divisions, the reason is complex. Practical explanation can only be obtained through further analysis on concrete cases of land use problem or project.
In the end, the thesis points out some subsequent work which could be done to improve this study. Firstly, more sample population in the investigation in China is needed. Further data mining with the database at hand should be done. For other practical problems or theoretical study about land use in the future, we can consider of revising or improving the current SoftGIS system, which may enrich the soft database of land use. Secondly, it is necessary to combine the place identity based land use planning and appraisal models with the SoftGIS data analysis, in order to test the study results on land resources management practices at various spatial scales. Last but not least, attention should also be paid to the empirical study on the relationship between the transformation of land use and place identity.
引文
1. 贝华,黄建武,吴文媛等.土地的弹性规划[J].规划师,2005,(6)：46-50.
2. 蔡玉梅,张文新,赵言文.中国土地利用规划进展述评[J].国土资源,2007,5：14-17.
3. 蔡玉梅.土地利用规划应与社会经济发展同步[R].中国土地学会6.25土地日论坛.2004.
4. 常小燕,聂宜民,董晓声等.基于、VebGIS的县级土地利用总体规划管理信息系统的设计.山东农业大学学报,2004,35(4)
5. 陈海,王涛,梁小英,高海东.基于MAS的农户土地利用模型构建与模拟——以陕西省米脂县孟岔村为例.地理学报,2009,(12)
6. 陈会广,曲福田,陈江龙.山东省耕地资源价值评估研究.中国人口资源与环境,2003,13(1).
7. 陈静,付梅臣,陶金等.唐山市土地利用效益评价及驱动机制.资源与产业,2010,(1).
8. 陈晴晔.我国征用农村土地存在的问题[J].山东社会科学,2006,(4)：100-102.
9. 成士梅.地理信息系统与遥感在城市和农业土地利用规划中的应用综述.干旱区地理,1996,19(4)
10.程江,杨凯,刘兰岚,李博.上海中心城区土地利用变化对区域降雨径流的影响研究.自然资源学报,2010,25(6).
11.程克群,方政,丁爱武.安徽省主体功能区的评价指标设计.统计与决策,2010,(6).
12.戴俊骋.中国征地和补偿制度的E-R模型分析和重建[J].中国土地科学,2008,(9)：20-26.
13.邓祥征,刘纪远,战金艳等.区域土地利用变化的多情景分析一以内蒙古自治区太仆寺旗为例.地球信息科学,2004,6(1)：81-89.
14.丁偕,李满春.基于GIS的土地利用规划公众参与研究.现代测绘,2006,29(3)
15.丁珊胭.县级土地利用总体规划的评价分析[D].浙江大学：杭州.2007.
16.杜国明,江华.我国征地纠纷的现状、特征及解决机制[J].南方农村,2006,(6)：27-29.
17.杜忠潮,韩申山等.基于主成分分析的土地生态安全评价实证研究——以陕西省10个省辖市为例.水土保持通报,2009,(6).
18.方萌,刘高焕.黄河三角洲土地生产潜力的GIS评价.地球信息科学,2004,6(3)
19.傅伯杰.土地利用评价研究的回顾与展望.自然资源,1990,(3).
20.傅伯杰,陈利顶,马诚.土地可持续利用评价的指标体系与方法.自然资源学报,1997,(2).
21.高龙.城市演变中的场所地域性研究[D].武汉：华中科技大学,2006.
22.高新民.网络民主与中国式民主政治.人民论坛(中),2010,(4)
23.高燕,叶艳妹.农村居民点用地整理的适宜性评价指标体系及方法研究.土壤,2004,36(4).
24.郭斌,任志远,高孟绪.3S支持的城市土地利用变化与生态安全评价研究.测绘科学,2010,(2).
25.国土资源部土地利用管理司.农用地分等定级估价：理论·方法·实践.北京：地质出版社,2004.
26.国务院发展研究中心课题组.主体功能区形成机制和分类管理政策研究[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2008.
27.韩立志.土壤图的编绘.现代农业,1980,(8)
28.郝晋珉,安萍莉.景观评价在县级土地利用规划中的应用[J].农业工程学报,1996,,12(4),90-95.
29.胡雪飞.我国土地规划公众参与现状分析[J].四川经济管理学院学报,2008,(1),21-24.
30.华波.江苏省土地利用总体规划实施的评价与分析研究[D].南京师范大学：南京.2007.
31.黄大全,林坚,梁进社等.北京市土地利用总体规划执行情况的评价方法[J].地理科学进展,2008,27(5)：79-86.
32.黄海.重庆市土地生态承载力评价研究.安徽农业科学,2008,(19).
33.黄贤金, 曲福田.我国农村土地市场建设与发展研究.2006, 资源网,http://www.lrn.cn/economic/landeco/200603/t20060322_85286.htm
34.胡多才,杜葵.高原地区土地利用经济效益评价探析——以云南省为例.江西农业学报,2010,(5)
35.亢远飞.土地整理对局地景观格局的影响—以忠县拔山镇土地整理项目为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2008.
36.孔祥斌,刘灵伟,秦静.基于农户土地利用行为的北京大兴区耕地质量评价.地理学报,2008,(8)
37.黎诚.土地利用总体规划实施评价研究[D].西北农林科技大学：杨凌.2008.
38.黎夏,刘小平,李少英.智能式GIS与空间优化.北京：科学出版社,2010.
39.黎夏,叶嘉安.约束性单元自动演化CA模型及可持续城市发展形态的模拟.地理学报,1999,(4)
40.李春越,谢永生,王益.生态经济适宜性评价基础上的农户土地资源优化配置初探.干旱地区农业研究,2005,(4).
41.李敬峰.基于景观格局演变的农村居民点整理研究—以唯宁县为例[D].南京：南京农业大学博士论文,2008.
42.李蕾蕾.跨文化传播及其对旅游目的地地方文化认同的影响[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000,17(2),95-100.
43.李满春,高月明.基于工作流和G1S的土地利用规划管理信息系统体系结构研究.现代测绘,2004,27(5).
44.李璞,王慎敏,周寅康.基于层次分析法的土地开发项目区未利用地地力评价研究——以克拉玛依市2000hm-2土地开发项目为例.安徽农业科学,2008,(2).
45.李学仁,王秀成,李正芳,杜启铭.河南省信阳地区土地类型初步研究.地域研究与开发,1982,(1).
46.李猷,王仰麟,彭建等.基于景观生态的城市土地开发适宜性评价——以丹东市为例.生态学报,2010,(8).
47.李英弘.高雄市城市光廊场所依恋之研究[D].台湾：逢甲大学,2005.
48.李永红.现况调查列联表资料的SPSS分析.循证医学,2008,8(1)
49.李振京,冯冰,郭冠男.主体功能区建设的理论、实践综述[J].中国经贸导刊,2007,(7)：18-20.
50.练洪洋.“良民”是对公民的亵渎[N].中国青年报,2009-05-13.
51.刘谦和.GIS进展及其在土地管理工作中的应用.甘肃农业大学学报,1994,(4)
52.刘涛,史广.基于WebGIS的农村土地利用规划网络信息发布系统的设计研究.河北农业科学,2009,13(12)
53.刘鎏.土地利用总体规划实施评价研究[D].西南大学：重庆.2007.
54.刘相超.中牟县农业土地景观生态规划与设计研究.河南大学硕士学位论文,2002.
55.刘亚起,姜丽丽,黄成君.基于WebGIS的基本农田土地整理与规划网络信息应用研究.测绘与空间地理信息,2006,29(3)
56.刘彦随.山地农业资源的时空性与持续利用研究—以陕西秦巴山地为例.长江流域资源与环境,1999,8(4).
57.刘彦随.基于景观类型格局的退化土地利用优化配置—以陕北风沙滩地区为例[J].干旱区地理,1998.21(4),28-33.
58.刘勇,刘友兆,徐萍.区域土地资源生态安全评价—以浙江嘉兴市为例.资源科学,2004,(5).
59.刘宇.开发区建设中的耕地占用问题与建议[J].农村经济,1993,(3)：18-20.
60.刘振乾,刘红玉,吕宪国.三江平原湿地生态脆弱性研究.应用生态学报,2001,12(2).
61.刘正山.分税制与解决土地财政之道[N].21世纪经济报道,2006年9月4日,第031版.
62.刘志坚.土地利用规划的公共参与研究[D].南京：南京农业大学博士论文,2007.
63.倪绍祥.近10年来中国土地利用评价研究的进展.自然资源学报,2003,18(6).
64.倪绍样,陈传康.我国土地利用评价研究的近今进展.地理学报,1993,48(1).
65.倪绍祥,谭少华.近年来我国土地利用/覆被变化研究的进展.中国地理学会自然地理专业委员会.土地覆被变化及其环境效应.北京：星球地图出版社.2002.
66.聂倩,闫利,蔡元波.基于遥感和GIS的土地适宜性评价.地理空间信息,2004,6(3)
67.茅于轼.粮食安全靠什么[J].农村金融研究,2009,(4)：58.
68.彭补拙,李春华,濮励杰.中亚热带北缘青梅土宜评价方法探讨.自然资源,1994,(2).
69.彭建超,吴群.国内外城市地价时空演变研究进展.资源科学,2008a,30(1)：64-71.
70.彭建超,徐春鹏,吴群,余德贵,陈健.长三角地区城市土地利用集约度区域分异研究.中国人口资源与环境,2008b,18(2)：103-109.
71.彭建超,吴群.坐标网格农用地标准样地体系构建方法及应用.中国土地科学,2007a,21(1)：20-26.
72.彭建超,吴群,何守春.桑园用地定级探讨.国土资源科技管理,2007c,24(4)：125-129.
73.彭建超,吴群,郭贯成.Arclnfo8在农用地定级中的应用研究—以江都市为例.国土资源遥感,2005,(4)：46-50.
74.蒲荣昆,朱大明.基于GIS的土地整理研究.地矿测绘,2006,22(4)
75.漆良华,周金星,张旭东等.长江上游山丘区土地承载力研究与评价——以四川省宜宾市为例.长江流域资源与环境,2007,(2).
76.钱江.划时代的红手印[J].党史博览,2008,(9)：5-10.
77.秦百顺.地理信息系统(GIS)在小流域治理规划中的应用.南京师大学报(自然科学版),1996,16(1)
78.邱观史.发改委：中国目前粮食供需总量基本平衡,库存充裕.中华新闻网,http://www.chinanews.com.cn,2008年05月06日.
79.邱扬,傅伯杰.土地持续利用评价的景观生态学基础.资源科学,2000,(11).
80.冉圣宏,吕昌河,贾克敬等.基于生态服务价值的全国土地利用变化环境影响评价.环境科学,2006,(10).
81.任家强,汪景宽,李双异.农村居民点土地集约利用评价与潜力分析—以锦州市巧鸟街道为例.中国人口·资源与环境,2010,(s1)
82.邵绘春,诸培新,曲福田.农地价值表现及其对农户土地经营决策的影响—以南京市城市边缘区农户为例.中国土地科学,2008,22(4).
83.深圳市国土资源和房产管理局.深圳土地革命—回顾深圳土地管理20年历程[J].国土资源通讯,2006,(19)：11-12.
84.史同广,郑国强,王智勇,王林林.中国土地适宜性评价研究进展.地理科学进展,2007,(2).
85.史育龙.主体功能区规划与城乡规划、土地利用总体规划相互关系研究[J].宏观经济研究,2008,(8)：35-40.
86.石玉胜,肖捷颖,沈彦俊,刘敏.士地利用与景观格局变化的空间分异特征研究—以天津市蓟县地区为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2010,18(2),416-421.
87.帅红,李景保.南方小型矿业城镇土地生态敏感性评价—以湖南省桂阳县为例.热带地理,2010,(3)
88.孙彩歌,钟凯文,刘旭拢,解靓.基于ALOS遥感数据的新丰江流域生态安全GIS评价.地球信息科学学报,2010,12(2)
89.孙希华,侯西勇.长清县土地生产力综合评价研究.地球信息科学,2002,(2).
90.TD/T1004-2003,中华人民共和国国土资源行业标准.农用地分等规程[S].
91.TD/T1005-2003,中华人民共和国国土资源行业标准.农用地定级规程[S].
92.TD/T1006-2003,中华人民共和国国土资源行业标准.农用地估价规程[S].
93.唐文跃.地方感研究进展及研究框架[J].旅游学刊,2007,22(11),70-77.
94.王成.局地士地利用变化及景观格局研究—以重庆市沙坪坝区为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
95.王翠华,冉瑞平,魏晋.区域土地综合承载力空间差异评价研究——以四川省为例.国土与自然资源研究,2010,(2).
96.王建国,杨林章,单艳红.模糊数学在土壤质量评价中的应用研究.土壤学,2001,38(2).
97.王坷许,红卫,王人潮,朱荫涓.应用污染模型和地理信息系统评价和管理农业非点源污染.环境污染与防治,1997,19(6)
98.王惠.开发区发展带动下的西安城市扩张：一种“非典型性”郊区化进程[J].中国软科学,2007,(10)：93-103.
99.王秋兵.土地资源学.北京：中国农业出版社,2003.
100.王瑞雪,颜廷武.现行征地补偿标准不合理性分析[J].中国土地科学,2007,(6)：47-51.
101.王书华,毛汉英.土地综合承载力指标体系设计及评价一中国东部沿海地区案例研究.自然资源学报,2001,16(3).
102.王万茂.浅议土地资源持续利用问题.欧名豪,黄贤金,严金明主编.王万茂教授从教50周年纪念文集,中国大地出版社,2006,171-177.
103.王万茂.土地利用规划与可持续发展.欧名豪,黄贤金,严金明主编.王万茂教授从教50周年纪念文集,中国大地出版社,2006,261-267.
104.王业侨.节约和集约用地评价指标体系研究.中国土地科学,2006,20(3).
105.王莹,王铮,黎华群.旅游资源的G1S评价系统.地球信息科学,2004,6(1)
106.王雨晴,宋戈.城市土地利用综合效益评价与案例研究.地理科学,2006,(12).
107.韦素琼.闽台土地利用变化及其驱动因子的区域对比研究.福建师范大学博士学位论文,2005.
108.吴群,彭建超,郭贯成,黄卫常.农用地资源修正法定级之技术路线探讨—以佛山市高明区为例.长江流域资源与环境,2007b,16(2)：186-191.
109.吴睿鸫.“土地财政”的根源是分税制不合理[N].新京报,2007年11月27日,第B02版.
110.夏皖徽.中国的农村改革因何始于安徽,成于安徽[J].决策探索,2008,(2)：5-10.
111.聂云峰,陈红顺,夏斌,冯里涛.基于多智能体与GIS城市土地利用变化仿真研究.计算机应用研究,2009,(7).
112.谢宏全,陈秋计.WebGIS在矿区土地复垦规划中的应用研究.河北理工学院学报,2004,26(1)
113.谢艳,秦启文,王勇.征地补偿模式的经济学分析[J].中国土地科学,2008,(10)：12-16.
114.徐建刚,屠帆,韩雪培.城市商业土地级差地租的GIS评价方法研究.地理科学,1996,16(2).
115.徐世武,刘秀珍.基于GIS的土地利用规划辅助编制系统.地球科学—中国地质大学学报,2006,31(5).
116.薛建春,白中科.城市化进程中土地可持续利用评价指标体系研究.干旱区资源与环境,2010,(1).
117.杨国栋,贾成前.高速公路复垦土地适宜性评价的BP人工神经网络模型.系统工程理论与实践,2002,22(4).
118.杨华,尹君,张贵军,张大璐.城市土地合理利用评价实证研究.商业时代,2009,(28)
119.杨勤业,郑度,吴绍洪,葛全胜.20世纪50年代以来中国综合自然地理研究进展.地理研究,2005,24(6).
120.杨蓉.城郊被征地拆迁农民集体上访事件的社会学分析[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007.
121.杨雪,郝新宇,王春明等.基于公平性的征地补偿方案研究[J].中国土地科学,2008,(3)：4-10.
122.杨永芳,艾少伟.生态补偿在征地补偿中的缺失及路径选择[J].中国土地科学,2007,(6)：52-57.
123.叶宝莹,祝艳,季玮等.基于遥感和GIS的三江平原农业景观空间格局与土地利用变化研究.国土资源遥感,2007,(3)：78-81.
124.易映辉,李友丰,朱雪辉,李芳.基于GIS的土地执法监察管理信息系统设计与研究.测绘科学,2009,34(s1)
125.尤瑞玲.G1S 支持的土地利用/覆被变化及其景观格局研究—以湖北省安陆市烟店镇项目区为例[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2007.
126.于洪明.城镇土地定级估价研究——以杜蒙县泰康镇土地分等定级与地价评估为例[D].哈尔滨：东北农业大学,2000.
127.余心杰,何勇.基于Web GIS的土地评估系统研究与开发.中国农机化,2006,(3)
128.曾妮.治涌遭遇抢种抢建风[N].南方日报,2009-03-27(C02)
129.赵晶.上海城市土地利用与景观格局的空间演变研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2004.
130.赵永江,董建国,张莉.主体功能区规划指标体系研究—以河南省为例.地域研究与开发,2007,(12).
131.张飞.中国农地非农化中政府行为研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2006.
132.张峰,徐建刚.GIS 在城市规划公众参与中的应用初探.城市规划,2002,(8).
133.张甘霖,吴运金,赵玉国.基于SOTER的中国耕地后备资源自然质量适宜性评价.农业工程学报,2010,(4).
134.张光宇.土地资源优化配置的物元模型.系统工程理论与实践,1998,(1).
135.张俊岭,夏斌,卫宝山.基于WebGIS的公众参与规划系统框架设计.农机化研究,2006,(5).
136.张利,陈影,周亚鹏.基于RS和GIS的土地利用动态监测技术及应用.黑龙江工程学院学报,2009,23(3)
137.张雷,吴克宁,吕巧灵,王秀丽.郑州市郊区农业土地的可持续性利用评价.农业工程学报,2008,(s1).
138.张蓬涛,杨红.基于人工神经网络的基准地价预测模型研究—以河北省主要城市为例.中国土地科学,2000,14(5).
139.张秋琴.区域土地可持续利用景观生态评价—以重庆市江津区为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
140.张树杰,温仲明,焦峰.土地利用变化环境影响的外部性及其对策.水土保持研究,2005,12(1).
141.张小虎,雷国平,袁磊.黑龙江省土地生态安全评价.中国人口资源与环境,2009,(1).
142.张晓春,徐晖.基于Web GIS的土地交易信息系统.测绘与空间地理信息,2006,29(5)
143.张晓萍,焦锋,李锐.地块尺度土地可持续利用评价指标与方法探讨——以陕北安塞纸坊沟为例.环境科学进展,1999,(5).
144.张晓彤,宇振荣,王晓军等.场景可视化在乡村景观评价中的应用[J].生态学报,2010,30(7),1699-1705.
145.张雅彬,孙在宏,吴长彬.基于GIS的土地利用总体规划管理信息系统的开发与研究.南京师大学报(自然科学版),2004,27(2)
146.张友安,郑伟元.土地利用总体规划的刚性与弹性[J].中国土地科学,2004,(1)：24-27.
147.张泽建.基于GIS的地籍管理信息系统的设计研究.浙江师范大学,硕士毕业论文,2009.
148.宗仁.中国土地利用规划体系结构研究.南京农业大学,博士毕业论文,2004.
149.周慧珍.社队土壤图编制的几个设计问题.土壤通报,1981,(1)
150.朱辉艳.论宪政维度下被征地农民的利益保护[J].华中师范大学研究生学报,2007,14(2)：18-23.
151.朱久兴.关于县级主体功能区规划相关问题探讨[J].浙江经济,2007,(12)：52-53.
152.祝小迁,程久苗,王娟,李渊.近十年我国城市土地集约利用评价研究进展.现代化城市研究,2007,(7).
153. Abdullah M, Saleh E,1998, "Place identity:the visual image of Saudi Arabian cities" Habitatitnl 22(2) 149-164
154. Acevedo,M.F.,Callicott,J.B.,Monticino,M. et al,2007.Models of natural and human dynamics in forest landscapes:Cross-site and cross-cultural synthesis. Geoforum 39,846-866.
155. Adler, R.H.2000, Hard and soft data:a semiotic point of view. Schweiz Med Wochenschr,130: 1249-1251.
156. Altman I, Low S M.1992 Place attachment:A conceptual enquiry (Plenum, New York)
157. Amundsen. A.B (2001) Articulations of identity:a methodological essay and a report on Askim and Tidaholm, NoordXXI Report no.19. Available online at.
158. Antonsich M,2010, "Meanings of place and aspects of the self:an interdisciplinary and empirical account" GeoJournal 75119-132
159. Aranzabal, I., Schmitz, M.F., Aquilera, P. and Pineda, F.D. (2008), Modelling of landscape changes derived from the dynamics of socio-ecological systems-a case of study in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape, Ecol. Indic.8, pp.672-685.
160. Basso K,1996 Wisdom sits in places:landscape and language among the Western Apache (UNM Press, New Mexico)
161.Becu,N., Perez,P., Walker.B., Barreteau,O., Le Page.C.2003.Agent-based simulation of a small catchment water management in northern Thailand:description of the catchscape model. Ecological Modelling 170,319-331.
162. Benveniste, G. Mastering the politics of planning:crafting credible plans and policies that make a difference[M]. Jossey-Bass.1989.
163. Billig M,1995 Banal Nationalism (Sage Publications, London)
164. Bonaiuto M, Breakwell G M, Cano I,1996, "Identity processes and environmental threat:the effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution" Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 6157-175
165. Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Martorella H, and Bonnes M,2002, "Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes:the case of natural protected areas" Journal of Economic Psychology 23631-653
166. Boudon,R.,2003.Beyond Rational Choice Theory.Annual Review of Sociology,29,1-21.
167. Brace C,1999, "Finding England everywhere:regional identity and the construction of national identity,1890-1940" Ecumene 6(1) 90-109
168. Bridger J,1996, "Community imagery and the built environment" The Sociological Quarterly 37(3) 353-374
169. Brown B, Perkins D, Brown G,2003, "Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood:Individual and block levels of analysis" Journal of Environmental Psychology 23259-71
170. Brown, G., Raymond, C..The relationship between place attachment and landscape values. Applied Geography,2007, (27):89-111.
171. Buijs A E, Elands B H M, Langers F,2009, "No wilderness for immigrants:cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences" Landscape and Urban Planning 91(3) 113-123
172. Buijs, A.E.2009b, Lay people's images of nature:comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources,22:417-432.
173. Buijs, A.E.2009c, Public Natures:Social representations of nature and local practices. PhD Thesis Wageningen University.
174. Butula, S.2009, Public preferences towards landscape identity-a case study of Riparian landscapes in Croatia. Drustvena istrazivanja:Journal for General Social Issues,18 (3),479-501.
175. Calvin, J. S., Dearinger, J. A., Curtin, M. C. (1972), An attempt at assessing preference for national landscapes. Environment and Behavior 4:447-470.
176. Carrus G, Bonaiuto M, Bonnes M,2005, "Environmental concern, regional identity, and support for protected areas in Italy" Environment and Behavior 37 237-257
177. Castella, J.C., Kam, S.P.. Quang, D.D., Verburg, P.H., Hoanh. C.T.(2007), Combining top-down and bottom-up modeling approaches of land use/cover change to support public policies:Application to sustainable management of natural resources in northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy,24:531-545.
178. CENR.2000. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
179. Chow K, Healey M,2008, "Place attachment and place identity:First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to university" Journal of Environmental Psychology 28362-372
180. Council of Europe,2000. The European Landscape Convention-Firenze,20.X.2000 (ETS No.176). Official text in English and Explanatory Report.Council of Europe,Strasbourg.
181. de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M., Boumans, R.2002, A typology for the description, classification and valuation of Ecosystem Functions. Goods Services Econ,41(3):393-408.
182.de Groot,R.S.,van der Perk,J.P.,Chiesura,A.,van Vliet, A.J.H.,2003. Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital.Ecol.Econ.44(2-3),187-204.
183.Dea-Sik Kim, Ha-Woo Chung. Spatial diffusion modeling of new residential area for land-use planning of rural village. Journal of urban planning and development.2005,131(3):181-194.
184. Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism:towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy,2005,8(2):125-139.
185. Dirven, E., Groenewegen, J. And van Hoof, S., (editors) 1993, Stuck in a region? Changing scales for regional identity. Netherlands Geographical Studies 155, Utrecht.
186. Dredge D, Jenkins J,2003, "Destination place identity and regional tourism policy" Tourism Geographies 5(4) 383-407
187. Entrikin J N,1991 The betweenness of place:towards a geography of modernity. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
188. Eswaran, H., Beinroth, F., Reich, P.(1999), Global land resources and population-supporting capacity. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,14, pp.129-136.
189. European Commission. The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies:The Netherlands. Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,1999.
190. Fairweather, John, Simon Swaffield.2001. Visitor experience of Kaikoura, New Zealand:An interpretive study using photographs of landscapes and the Q method. Tourism Management 22: 219-228.
191. Fischer, F.2000, Citizens, experts, and the environment:the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham and London.
192. Forester J.,1987, Planning in the face of conflict. Journal of the American Planning Association 53(3)303-314
193. Foster, S.2006, The city as an ecological space:social capital and urban land use. Notre Dame Law Review,82(2).
194. Fulton,D.C., M.J.Manfredo, and J.Lipscomb.1996.Wildlife value orientations:A conceptual and measurement approach.Hum.Dimens.Wildl.1(2):24-47.
195. Gisevius,W.(1993)Kohaliku omavalitsuse poliitika Saksamaa Liitvabariigis.Tallinn:ESDP Kirjastus.
196. Giuliani M V, Feldman R,1993, "Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context" Journal of Environmental Psychology 13(3) 267-274
197. Gospodini A,2004, "Urban morphology and place identity in European cities:built heritage and innovative design" Journal of Urban Design 9(2) 225-248
198. Groote P, Haartsen T,2008, "The communication of heritage:creating place identities" in Eds B Graham, P Howard The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity (Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire) pp181-194
199. Haartsen T, Groote P, Huigen P P P,2000, "Claiming rural identities:dynamics, contexts, policies" (Van Gorcum, Assen)
200. Haartsen T, Groote P, Huigen P P P,2003, "Measuring age differentials in representations of rurality in The Netherlands" Journal of Rural Studie 19245-252
201. Hague C, Jenkins P,2005 Place identity, participation and planning (Routledge, Oxfordshire)
202. Hajer, M., Zonneveld, W.. Spatial planning in the network society-rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands [J]. European Planning Studies,2000,3 (3):337-355.
203. Hansen-Moller, J.2006, The Meaning of Landscape:A Diagram for Analysing the Relationship between Culture and Nature, based on C. S. Peirce's Semiotics. In:Eva Naripea, Virve Sarapik, Jaak Tomberg (Eds.) Tallinn, pp.85-108
204. Hauge A L,2007, "Identity and place:a critical comparison of three identity theories" Architectural science review 50(1) 44-51
205. Hawkes, J. (1951). A Land. New York NY:Random House; (1991). Reprinted with an introduction by Robert Finch. Boston, MA:Beacon Press.
206. Hawthorne T, Krygier J, Kwan M,2008, "Mapping ambivalence:Exploring the geographies of community change and rails-to-trails development using photo-based Q method and PPGIS" Geoforum39 1058-1078
207. Hayami, Y., Ruttan, V.W.. Agricultural development[M]. Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins Press,1985.
208. Heerink, N., Kuiper, M., Shi, X.(2007),'Farm household responses to China's new rural income support policy:A village-level analysis.' in:M. Spoor, N. Heerink and F. Qu (eds.) Dragons with clay feet? Transition, sustainable land use and rural environment in China and Vietnam. Lexington, Mass:Lexington Books.
209. Heikkinen, T., Sairinen, R.2007, Social impact assessment in regional land use planning. Stockholm,Sweden:Nordic Research Programme Report 2005-2008. Report 3.
210. Herber, M.W.2004, Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts-the role of place-identity in risk perception. Environmental Science & Policy,7(2),109-116
211. Hernandez B, Hidalgo M C, Salazar-Laplace M E, Hess S,2007, "Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives" Journal of Environmental Psychology 27310-319
212. Horst, Han van der,1996.The Low Sky:Understanding the Dutch. Scriptum Books,Schiedam.
213. Howlett, M., Rayner, J., Tollefson, C.2009, From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. Forest Policy and Economics,11(5/6),383-391.
214. Huigen P P P, Meijering L,2005, "Making places:A story of the Venen", in Eds G J Ashworth, B Graham Senses of place, senses of time (Ashgate, Aldershot/Burlington)
215. Hull IV R B, Lam M, Vigo G,1994, "Place identity:symbols of self in the urban fabric" Landscape and Urban Planning 28109-120
216. Hummon,D.,1992. Community attachment:local sentiment and sense of place. In:Altman, I., Low, S.(Eds.), Place Attachment. Plenum, NY, pp.253-278.
217. Hurrell A,1995, "Regionalism in theoretical perspective", in Eds L Fawcett, A Hurrell Regionalism in world politics:regional organization and international order (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 37-73
218.Innes, J.E. Planning through consensus building:a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal[J]. Journal of the American planning association,1996,62(4):460-472.
219. Jackson,J.B.,1986.The vernacular landscape.In:Penning-Rowsell,E.,Lowenthal, D.(Eds.),Landscape Meanings and Values.Allen and Unwin,London,pp.65-81.
220. James, P., Gittins, J. W.. Local landscape character assessment:An evaluation of community-led schemes in cheshire[J]. Landscape Research,2007,32(4),423-442.
221. John, M., Chathukulam, J.. Building social capital through state initiative:participatory planning in Kerala [J]. Economic and Political Weekly,2002, May 18:1939-1948.
222. Jorgensen B S, Stedman R C,2001, "Sense of place as an attitude" Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(3) 233-248
223. Kacowicz, Arie M,1999, "Regionalization, globalization, and nationalism:Convergent, divergent, or overlapping?'" Alternatives:Global, Local, Political 24(4) 527-555
224. Kahila,M.(2006).Possibilities of Web-based softGIS Method in Revealing Residents Evaluation Knowledge of the Living Environment. Paper, FUTURE-Future Urban Research in Europe, The Electronic City Conference,3-5 February 2006,Bratislava,Czech.
225. Kaplan, Rachel, Eugene Herbert.1987. Cultural and subcultural cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning 14:281-293.
226. Karjalainen, E., Tyrvaeinen, L. (2002), Visualization in forest landscape preference research:a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning,59,13-28.
227. Keegstra R,2009, Representations of the Loire Valley (Master thesis of the University of Groningen)
228. Khakee, A., Barbanente,A., Borri.D.2000, Expert and experiential knowledge in planning. Journal of the Operational Research Society,51,776-788.
229. Kienast, F., Wildi, O., Ghosh, S.,2007. Change and transformation:a synthesis. In:F., Kienast, O., Wildi, S., Ghosh, A Changing World Challenges for Landscape Research, Sringer, pp.1-4
230. Knapp W,2006, "Planning in peri-urban regions:on regional identity and organizing capacity", in Eds N Bertrand, V Kreibich Europe's city-regions competitiveness:growth regulation and peri-urban land management (Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, Assen) pp 61-84
231. Koomen, E., Kuhlman, T., Groen, J, Bouwman, A.. Simulating the future of agricultural land use change in the Netherlands[J]. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie,2006,96 (2): 218-224.
232. Kyle G T, Absher J D, Graefe A R,2003, "The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences" Leisure Sciences 2533-50
233. Kyle G T, Graefe A R, Manning R, Bacon J,2004, "Effects of place attachment on users' perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting" Journal of Environmental Psychology 24213-225
234. Lalli M,1992, "Urban-related identity" Journal of Environmental Psychology 12(4) 285-303
235. LEI,CBS. Agricultural and horticultural figures 2008[R]. The Hague:LEI,CBS,2008.
236. Lewicka M,2008, "Place attachment, place identity, and place memory:Restoring the forgotten city past" Journal of Environmental Psychology 28209-231
237. Lewis, J. L.2010, Interethnic preferences for landscape change:a comparison of first nations and Euro-Canadian residents. Landscape Journal.29(2):215-231.
238. Lorzing,H.,1992.The nature of landscape:a personal quest.010 Publishers,Rotterdam,176 pp.
239. Louw, E., van der Krabben, E., Priemus, H.2004,空间开发政策：荷兰地方和区域政府职能的转变.国土资源情报,(3).
240. Lowenthal, D. (Ed.) (1967), Environmental Perception and Behavior. Chicago:American Geographic Society.
241. Lyons, E.(1983), Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 15: 487-511.
242. Massey D,1994 Space, place and gender (Polity, Cambridge)
243. Massey D,1995, "The conceptualization of place", in Eds D Massey, P Jess A place in the world (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 45-85
244. Manzo L C, Perkins D D,2006, "Finding common ground:the importance of place attachment to community participation and planning" Journal of Planning Literature 20335-350
245. Meier-Dallach, H.P.(1980) Ra"umliche Identitat-Regionalistische Bewegung,lnformation zur Raumentwicklung,5.
246. Meyer, W.B., Turner, B. L.(1994), Changes in land use and land cover:a global perspective. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
247. Morey, E., Thiene, M., De Salvo, M., Signorello, G.2008, Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation. Ecological Economics 68,536-546.
248. Mougiakakou S G, Tsouchlaraki A L, Cassios C, Nikita K S, Matsopoulos G K, Uzunoglu N K, 2005, SCAPEVIEWER:preliminary results of a landscape perception classification system based on neural network technology. Ecological Engineering 24,5-15
249. Moxley,R.,1985.Vertical assistance, population size and growth in the context and results of community civic action. J. Community Dev.Soc.16,57-74.
250. Nasar, J.1984. Visual preferences in urban street scenes:A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15 (1):79-93.
251. Needham, B.. Dutch land use planning[M]. Den Haag:Sdu Uitgevers,2007.
252. Nogue J, Vicente J,2004, "Landscape and national identity in Catalonia" Political Geography 23 113-132
253. Nyerges, Timothy(2005).Scaling-Up as a Grand Challenge for Public Participation GIS. Directions Magazine.15.1.2006
254. Olson,J.M., Alagarswamy,G., Andresenn,J. et al,2007. Integrating Diverse Methods to Understand Climate-Land Interactions in East Africa.Geoforum 39,898-911.
255. Paasi A,1986, "The institutionalization of regions:a theoretical framework for the understanding of the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity" Fennia 164105-146
256. Paasi A,1991, "Deconstructing regions:notes on the scales of spatial life" Environment and Planning A 23239-256
257. Paasi A,1996 Territories, boundaries and consciousness (Wiley, Chichester)
258. Paasi A,2001, "Europe as a social process and discourse:considerations of place, boundaries and identity" European Urban and Regional Studies 8(1) 7-28
259. Paasi A,2002a, "Regional identities and the challenge of the mobile world", in Ed Thor Ola Engen Kulturell identitet og regional utvikling (Hogskolen i Hedemark Rapport Nr 8, Hamar) pp 33-48
260. Paasi A,2002b, "Place and region:regional worlds and words" Progress in Human Geography 26(6) 802-811
261. Paasi A,2002c, "Bounded spaces in the mobile world:deconstructing'regional identity" Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93(2) 137-148
262. Paasi A,2003, "Region and place:regional identity in question" Progress in Human Geography 27(4) 475-485
263. Paasi A,2004, "Place and region:looking through the prism of scale" Progress in Human Geography 28(4) 536-546
264. Paasi A,2009a, "Regions and regional dynamics", in Ed C Rumford The SAGE Handbook of European Studies (SAGE, Los Angeles) pp 464-484
265. Paasi A,2009b, "The resurgence of the'Region'and'Regional Identity':theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe" Review of International Studies 35 121-146
266. Palmer, J.F.,2004. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning,69 (2/3),201-218.
267. Parker, D.C., Hessl, A., Davis, S.C.,2008, Complexity, land-use modeling,and the human dimension:Fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum 39,789-804.
268. Patel M., Kok, K., Rothman, D.S.2007, Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis:An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy,24,546-561
269. Penalosa, E.1980, The social function of land. Habitatintl,4(4-6),691-698.
270. Pessina, V., Meroni, F.2009, A WebGIS tool for seismic hazard scenarios and risk analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.29(9),1274-1281.
271. Peter Ho, (2001), Greening without conflict? Environmentalism, NGOs and civil society in China. Development and Change,32,893-921.
272. Peter Ho, Vermeer, E. B., (2006), China's limits to growth? The difference between absolute, relative and precautionary limits. Development and Change,37(1),255-271.
273. Peterson G,1988, "Local symbols and place identity:Tucson and Albuquerque" The Social Science Journal 25(4) 451-461
274. Pinto Correia T, (2000), landscape identity, a key for integration In B Pedroli(ed) Landscape-our home/Lebenscraum landschaft Uitgeverij Christofoor, pp 145-149
275. Pontius J., Robert G., Wideke B., et al.2008. Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change. Annals of Regional Science.42(1):11-47.
276. Pretty, G H, Chipuer H M, Bramston P,2003, "Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns:the discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity" Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 273-287
277. Proshansky H M,1976 Environmental psychology:people and their physical setting (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York)
278. Proshansky H M,1978, "The city and self-identity" Environment and Behavior 10147-169
279. Proshansky H M, Fabian A K, Kaminoff R,1983. "Place-identity:physical world socialization of the self" Journal of Environmental Psychology 357-83
280. Raagmaa, G.. Regional identity and social capital in regional economic development and planning[A]. European Regional Science Association, ERSA conference papers,2001.
281. Raagmaa G, 2002, "Regional identity in regional development and planning" European planning studies 1055-76
282. Rantanen, H., Kahila, M.2009, The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management,90,1981-1990
283. Ritalahti J,2008, "Regional identity in destination development", in Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes,5-7 March, Porvoo-Borga, Finland
284. Roe,M.H.,2003.The social dimensions of landscape sustainability. In:Benson, J.F.,Roe,M.H.(Eds.), Landscape and Sustainability.Routledge,London,pp.58-83.
285. Rossi D,2005, "Regional identities on the borders and the European identity:South Tyrol, its multiple identities and integration in the EU", in Space and Power in Europe:Culture, Communication and the Politics of Identity (IP student papers 2005-2006, Erasmus Mundus), http://www.euroculturemaster.org/default.aspx?sec=3&sub=4
286. Rossi, E., Kuitunen, M.1996, Ranking of habitats for the assessment of ecological impact in land use planning. Biological Conservation,77(2-3),227-234.
287. Rydin, Y., Pennington, M.. Public participation and local environmental planning:the collective action problem and potential of social capital[J]. Local environment,2000,5 (2):153-169.
288. Sairinen, R.2004, Assessing social impacts of urban land-use plans:from theory to practice. Boreal Environment Research, (9):509-517.
289. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C.,2003. Knowledge building. In:Guthrie, J. W.(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education, second ed. Macmillan Reference, New York, pp.1370-1373.
290. Schama,S.,1995.Landscape and Memory.London:Harper Collins.
291. Schlossberg, Shuford.2005, Delineating "public" and "participation" in PPGIS. URISA Journal.16 (2).
292. Scott, M. J., David Canter.1997. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17:263-281.
293. Selman, P.. Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning[J]. Planning theory & practice,2001,2 (1):13-30.
294. Shamai S, Israel O,1991, "Sense of place:an empirical measurement" Geofmm 22(3) 347-358
295. Sheppard E.2001, Quantitative geography:representations, practices and possibilities. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 19,535-554
296. Sijtsma, F.J., Farjon, H., van Kampen. P.2011, Evaluation of landscape changes-enriching the economist's toolbox. (Forthcoming)
297. Simao. A., Densham, P.J., Haklay, M.2009, Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation:An application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. Journal of Environmental Management,90,2027-2040
298. Spilling,O.R.(1991) Entrepreneurship in a cultural perspective, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,3,pp.33-48.
299. Stern,P.C., T.Dietz.1994.The value basis of environmental concern. J. Social Issues,50(3):65-84.
300. Thompson,S.C.G., M.A.Barton.1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J.Environ.Psychol.14(2):149-157.
301. Stewart W P, Liebert D, Larkin K W,2004, "Community identities as visions for landscape change" Landscape and Urban Planning 69 315-334
302. Stokols D, Shumaker S A,1981, "People in places", in Ed J H Harvey Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 441-488
303. Stoll-Kleeman S,2001, "Barriers to nature conservation in Germany:A model explaining opposition to protected areas" Journal of Environmental Psychology 21369-385
304. Swanwick, C.,2009. Landscape as an integrating framework for upland management. In:Bonn, A., Allott, T., Hubacek,K., Stewart,J.(Eds.), Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands. Routledge, Abingdon, pp.339-357.
305. Sweeney,G.P.(1990)Indigenous development strategies in peripheral regions:the example of Ireland, in H.Ewers and J.Allesch(Eds)Innovation and Regional Development:Strategies, Instruments, and Policy Co-ordination,pp.265-285.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
306. Tan, R., Beckmann, V., Van den Berg, V., Qu, F.. Governing farmland conversion:Comparing China with the Netherlands and Germany[J]. Land Use Policy,2009,26(4):961-974.
307. Terada T,2003, "Constructing an'East Asian'concept and growing regional identity:from EAEC to ASEAN+3" The Pacific Review 16(2) 251-277
308. Terluin I J,2001, Rural regions in the EU:Exploring differences in Economic Development (PhD dissertation of the University of Groningen, Groningen)
309. Thompson,M., R.Ellis, A.Wildavsky.1990. Cultural theory. Boulder, CO:Westview.
310. Tips, Walter, Tongchai Savasdisara.1986. The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:225-230.
311. Tony Saich. Governance and Politics of China. New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2004.
312. Tsubohara, S.. The effectiveness of an open planning process in obtaining public support[R]. Groningen:URSI, University of Groningen,2008.
313.Tubbs, C.R., Blackwood, J.W.1971, Ecological evaluation of land for planning purposes. Biological Conservation,3(3),169-172.
314. Tulloch L.David and Shapiro Tamara(2003).The intersection of data access and public participation: impacting GIS users'success?. URISA Journal,15, APA II.
315. Tveit, M.S. (2009), Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference:a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management,90,2882-2888.
316. Twigger-Ross,C.L.,Uzzell,D.L.,1996.Place and identity processes.J. Environ.Psychol.16.205-220.
317. Twigger-Ross C L, Bonaiuto M, Breakwell G,2003, "Identity theories and environmental psychology", in Eds M Bonnes, T Lee, M Bonaiuto, Psychological theories for environmental issues (Ashgate Publishing Limited, England) pp 203-233
318. Uzzell D, Pol E, Badenas D,2002, "Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability" Environment and Behavior 3426-53
319. Van den Berg A E,1999, Individual differences in the aesthetic evaluation of natural landscapes (PhD dissertation of the University of Groningen, Groningen)
320. Van den Brink, A., A. van der Valk and T. van Dijk (2006) Planning and the challenges of the metropolitan landscape:Innovation in the Netherlands. International Planning Studies 11 (3-4), p. 147-165.
321. Van der Valk, A.J. van der.2002. The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58,201-210.
322. Van Houtum H, Lagendijk A,2000, "Contextualising Regional Identity and Imagination in the Construction of Polycentric Urban Regions:The Cases of the Ruhr Area and the Basque Country" Urban Studies 38(4) 747-767
323. Van Ravesteyn, N., Evers, D.. Unseen Europe A survey of EU politics and its impact on spatial development in the Netherlands[M]. Rotterdam:Nai Publishers,2004.
324. Van Rekom J, Go F,2006, "Being discovered:a blessing to local identities" Annals of Tourism Research 33(3) 767-784
325. Vries, S. de, Roos, J., Buijs, A.E.2007, Mapping the attractiveness of the Dutch countryside:a GIS-based landscape appreciation model. Forest Snow and Landscape Research,81,1/2,43-58.
326. Wadley, R. L., Mertz, O., Christensen, A. E.. Local land use strategies in a globalizing world-managing social and environmental dynamics[J]. Land Dgradation & Development.2006, 17(2).117-121
327. Walsh.S.J.,Entwisle,B.,Rindfuss,R.R.,Page,P.H.,2006.Spatial simulation modeling of land use/land cover change scenarios in Northeastern Thailand:a cellular automata approach. Journal of Land Science 1(1).5-28.
328. Weiner, Daniel, Trevor M. Harris and William J. Craig(2001). Community participation and geographic information systems. Paper presented at the "ESF-NSF Workshop on Access to Geographic Information and Participatory Approaches Using GI". Spoleto,2001
329. Weitkamp, G.2010, Capturing the view:a GIS based procedure to assess perceived landscape openness. PhD thesis, Wageningen Universtiy, the Netherlands.
330. Wherrett, J.R.(1999), Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape and Urban Planning,45.209-217.
331. White D D, Virden R J. van Riper C J,2008. "Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting" Environmental Management 42647-657
332. White R,1998, "Dynamic integrated urban models" Canadian Journal of Regional Science 21, 357-363
333. Williams,C.H.(1999).The communal defense of threatened environments and identities. GeografskiVestnik,71,105-120.
334. Williams D R, Roggenbuck J W,1989, "Measuring place attachment:Some preliminary results" in Eds L H McAvoy, D Howard Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure Research Symposium (National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington, VA) pp 32
335. Woltjer, J. Consensus planning[M]. England:Ashgate publishing limited,2000.
336. Wrbka, T., Erb, K.H., Schulz, N.B., Peterseil, J., Hahn, C., Haberl, H.,2004. Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21,289-306.
337. Yu, Kongjian.1995. Cultural variations in landscape preference:Comparisons among Chinese subgroups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning 32:107-126.
338. Yuen B,2005, "Searching for place identity in Singapore" Habitat International 29197-214
339. Zhu,J., Peter Ho. Not against the state, just protecting residents'interests[A].Peter Ho, Edmonds, R. China's Enbedded Activism[C]. Lodon and New York:Routledge,2007,151-170.
2. 蔡玉梅,张文新,赵言文.中国土地利用规划进展述评[J].国土资源,2007,5：14-17.
3. 蔡玉梅.土地利用规划应与社会经济发展同步[R].中国土地学会6.25土地日论坛.2004.
4. 常小燕,聂宜民,董晓声等.基于、VebGIS的县级土地利用总体规划管理信息系统的设计.山东农业大学学报,2004,35(4)
5. 陈海,王涛,梁小英,高海东.基于MAS的农户土地利用模型构建与模拟——以陕西省米脂县孟岔村为例.地理学报,2009,(12)
6. 陈会广,曲福田,陈江龙.山东省耕地资源价值评估研究.中国人口资源与环境,2003,13(1).
7. 陈静,付梅臣,陶金等.唐山市土地利用效益评价及驱动机制.资源与产业,2010,(1).
8. 陈晴晔.我国征用农村土地存在的问题[J].山东社会科学,2006,(4)：100-102.
9. 成士梅.地理信息系统与遥感在城市和农业土地利用规划中的应用综述.干旱区地理,1996,19(4)
10.程江,杨凯,刘兰岚,李博.上海中心城区土地利用变化对区域降雨径流的影响研究.自然资源学报,2010,25(6).
11.程克群,方政,丁爱武.安徽省主体功能区的评价指标设计.统计与决策,2010,(6).
12.戴俊骋.中国征地和补偿制度的E-R模型分析和重建[J].中国土地科学,2008,(9)：20-26.
13.邓祥征,刘纪远,战金艳等.区域土地利用变化的多情景分析一以内蒙古自治区太仆寺旗为例.地球信息科学,2004,6(1)：81-89.
14.丁偕,李满春.基于GIS的土地利用规划公众参与研究.现代测绘,2006,29(3)
15.丁珊胭.县级土地利用总体规划的评价分析[D].浙江大学：杭州.2007.
16.杜国明,江华.我国征地纠纷的现状、特征及解决机制[J].南方农村,2006,(6)：27-29.
17.杜忠潮,韩申山等.基于主成分分析的土地生态安全评价实证研究——以陕西省10个省辖市为例.水土保持通报,2009,(6).
18.方萌,刘高焕.黄河三角洲土地生产潜力的GIS评价.地球信息科学,2004,6(3)
19.傅伯杰.土地利用评价研究的回顾与展望.自然资源,1990,(3).
20.傅伯杰,陈利顶,马诚.土地可持续利用评价的指标体系与方法.自然资源学报,1997,(2).
21.高龙.城市演变中的场所地域性研究[D].武汉：华中科技大学,2006.
22.高新民.网络民主与中国式民主政治.人民论坛(中),2010,(4)
23.高燕,叶艳妹.农村居民点用地整理的适宜性评价指标体系及方法研究.土壤,2004,36(4).
24.郭斌,任志远,高孟绪.3S支持的城市土地利用变化与生态安全评价研究.测绘科学,2010,(2).
25.国土资源部土地利用管理司.农用地分等定级估价：理论·方法·实践.北京：地质出版社,2004.
26.国务院发展研究中心课题组.主体功能区形成机制和分类管理政策研究[M].北京：中国发展出版社,2008.
27.韩立志.土壤图的编绘.现代农业,1980,(8)
28.郝晋珉,安萍莉.景观评价在县级土地利用规划中的应用[J].农业工程学报,1996,,12(4),90-95.
29.胡雪飞.我国土地规划公众参与现状分析[J].四川经济管理学院学报,2008,(1),21-24.
30.华波.江苏省土地利用总体规划实施的评价与分析研究[D].南京师范大学：南京.2007.
31.黄大全,林坚,梁进社等.北京市土地利用总体规划执行情况的评价方法[J].地理科学进展,2008,27(5)：79-86.
32.黄海.重庆市土地生态承载力评价研究.安徽农业科学,2008,(19).
33.黄贤金, 曲福田.我国农村土地市场建设与发展研究.2006, 资源网,http://www.lrn.cn/economic/landeco/200603/t20060322_85286.htm
34.胡多才,杜葵.高原地区土地利用经济效益评价探析——以云南省为例.江西农业学报,2010,(5)
35.亢远飞.土地整理对局地景观格局的影响—以忠县拔山镇土地整理项目为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2008.
36.孔祥斌,刘灵伟,秦静.基于农户土地利用行为的北京大兴区耕地质量评价.地理学报,2008,(8)
37.黎诚.土地利用总体规划实施评价研究[D].西北农林科技大学：杨凌.2008.
38.黎夏,刘小平,李少英.智能式GIS与空间优化.北京：科学出版社,2010.
39.黎夏,叶嘉安.约束性单元自动演化CA模型及可持续城市发展形态的模拟.地理学报,1999,(4)
40.李春越,谢永生,王益.生态经济适宜性评价基础上的农户土地资源优化配置初探.干旱地区农业研究,2005,(4).
41.李敬峰.基于景观格局演变的农村居民点整理研究—以唯宁县为例[D].南京：南京农业大学博士论文,2008.
42.李蕾蕾.跨文化传播及其对旅游目的地地方文化认同的影响[J].深圳大学学报(人文社会科学版),2000,17(2),95-100.
43.李满春,高月明.基于工作流和G1S的土地利用规划管理信息系统体系结构研究.现代测绘,2004,27(5).
44.李璞,王慎敏,周寅康.基于层次分析法的土地开发项目区未利用地地力评价研究——以克拉玛依市2000hm-2土地开发项目为例.安徽农业科学,2008,(2).
45.李学仁,王秀成,李正芳,杜启铭.河南省信阳地区土地类型初步研究.地域研究与开发,1982,(1).
46.李猷,王仰麟,彭建等.基于景观生态的城市土地开发适宜性评价——以丹东市为例.生态学报,2010,(8).
47.李英弘.高雄市城市光廊场所依恋之研究[D].台湾：逢甲大学,2005.
48.李永红.现况调查列联表资料的SPSS分析.循证医学,2008,8(1)
49.李振京,冯冰,郭冠男.主体功能区建设的理论、实践综述[J].中国经贸导刊,2007,(7)：18-20.
50.练洪洋.“良民”是对公民的亵渎[N].中国青年报,2009-05-13.
51.刘谦和.GIS进展及其在土地管理工作中的应用.甘肃农业大学学报,1994,(4)
52.刘涛,史广.基于WebGIS的农村土地利用规划网络信息发布系统的设计研究.河北农业科学,2009,13(12)
53.刘鎏.土地利用总体规划实施评价研究[D].西南大学：重庆.2007.
54.刘相超.中牟县农业土地景观生态规划与设计研究.河南大学硕士学位论文,2002.
55.刘亚起,姜丽丽,黄成君.基于WebGIS的基本农田土地整理与规划网络信息应用研究.测绘与空间地理信息,2006,29(3)
56.刘彦随.山地农业资源的时空性与持续利用研究—以陕西秦巴山地为例.长江流域资源与环境,1999,8(4).
57.刘彦随.基于景观类型格局的退化土地利用优化配置—以陕北风沙滩地区为例[J].干旱区地理,1998.21(4),28-33.
58.刘勇,刘友兆,徐萍.区域土地资源生态安全评价—以浙江嘉兴市为例.资源科学,2004,(5).
59.刘宇.开发区建设中的耕地占用问题与建议[J].农村经济,1993,(3)：18-20.
60.刘振乾,刘红玉,吕宪国.三江平原湿地生态脆弱性研究.应用生态学报,2001,12(2).
61.刘正山.分税制与解决土地财政之道[N].21世纪经济报道,2006年9月4日,第031版.
62.刘志坚.土地利用规划的公共参与研究[D].南京：南京农业大学博士论文,2007.
63.倪绍祥.近10年来中国土地利用评价研究的进展.自然资源学报,2003,18(6).
64.倪绍样,陈传康.我国土地利用评价研究的近今进展.地理学报,1993,48(1).
65.倪绍祥,谭少华.近年来我国土地利用/覆被变化研究的进展.中国地理学会自然地理专业委员会.土地覆被变化及其环境效应.北京：星球地图出版社.2002.
66.聂倩,闫利,蔡元波.基于遥感和GIS的土地适宜性评价.地理空间信息,2004,6(3)
67.茅于轼.粮食安全靠什么[J].农村金融研究,2009,(4)：58.
68.彭补拙,李春华,濮励杰.中亚热带北缘青梅土宜评价方法探讨.自然资源,1994,(2).
69.彭建超,吴群.国内外城市地价时空演变研究进展.资源科学,2008a,30(1)：64-71.
70.彭建超,徐春鹏,吴群,余德贵,陈健.长三角地区城市土地利用集约度区域分异研究.中国人口资源与环境,2008b,18(2)：103-109.
71.彭建超,吴群.坐标网格农用地标准样地体系构建方法及应用.中国土地科学,2007a,21(1)：20-26.
72.彭建超,吴群,何守春.桑园用地定级探讨.国土资源科技管理,2007c,24(4)：125-129.
73.彭建超,吴群,郭贯成.Arclnfo8在农用地定级中的应用研究—以江都市为例.国土资源遥感,2005,(4)：46-50.
74.蒲荣昆,朱大明.基于GIS的土地整理研究.地矿测绘,2006,22(4)
75.漆良华,周金星,张旭东等.长江上游山丘区土地承载力研究与评价——以四川省宜宾市为例.长江流域资源与环境,2007,(2).
76.钱江.划时代的红手印[J].党史博览,2008,(9)：5-10.
77.秦百顺.地理信息系统(GIS)在小流域治理规划中的应用.南京师大学报(自然科学版),1996,16(1)
78.邱观史.发改委：中国目前粮食供需总量基本平衡,库存充裕.中华新闻网,http://www.chinanews.com.cn,2008年05月06日.
79.邱扬,傅伯杰.土地持续利用评价的景观生态学基础.资源科学,2000,(11).
80.冉圣宏,吕昌河,贾克敬等.基于生态服务价值的全国土地利用变化环境影响评价.环境科学,2006,(10).
81.任家强,汪景宽,李双异.农村居民点土地集约利用评价与潜力分析—以锦州市巧鸟街道为例.中国人口·资源与环境,2010,(s1)
82.邵绘春,诸培新,曲福田.农地价值表现及其对农户土地经营决策的影响—以南京市城市边缘区农户为例.中国土地科学,2008,22(4).
83.深圳市国土资源和房产管理局.深圳土地革命—回顾深圳土地管理20年历程[J].国土资源通讯,2006,(19)：11-12.
84.史同广,郑国强,王智勇,王林林.中国土地适宜性评价研究进展.地理科学进展,2007,(2).
85.史育龙.主体功能区规划与城乡规划、土地利用总体规划相互关系研究[J].宏观经济研究,2008,(8)：35-40.
86.石玉胜,肖捷颖,沈彦俊,刘敏.士地利用与景观格局变化的空间分异特征研究—以天津市蓟县地区为例[J].中国生态农业学报,2010,18(2),416-421.
87.帅红,李景保.南方小型矿业城镇土地生态敏感性评价—以湖南省桂阳县为例.热带地理,2010,(3)
88.孙彩歌,钟凯文,刘旭拢,解靓.基于ALOS遥感数据的新丰江流域生态安全GIS评价.地球信息科学学报,2010,12(2)
89.孙希华,侯西勇.长清县土地生产力综合评价研究.地球信息科学,2002,(2).
90.TD/T1004-2003,中华人民共和国国土资源行业标准.农用地分等规程[S].
91.TD/T1005-2003,中华人民共和国国土资源行业标准.农用地定级规程[S].
92.TD/T1006-2003,中华人民共和国国土资源行业标准.农用地估价规程[S].
93.唐文跃.地方感研究进展及研究框架[J].旅游学刊,2007,22(11),70-77.
94.王成.局地士地利用变化及景观格局研究—以重庆市沙坪坝区为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
95.王翠华,冉瑞平,魏晋.区域土地综合承载力空间差异评价研究——以四川省为例.国土与自然资源研究,2010,(2).
96.王建国,杨林章,单艳红.模糊数学在土壤质量评价中的应用研究.土壤学,2001,38(2).
97.王坷许,红卫,王人潮,朱荫涓.应用污染模型和地理信息系统评价和管理农业非点源污染.环境污染与防治,1997,19(6)
98.王惠.开发区发展带动下的西安城市扩张：一种“非典型性”郊区化进程[J].中国软科学,2007,(10)：93-103.
99.王秋兵.土地资源学.北京：中国农业出版社,2003.
100.王瑞雪,颜廷武.现行征地补偿标准不合理性分析[J].中国土地科学,2007,(6)：47-51.
101.王书华,毛汉英.土地综合承载力指标体系设计及评价一中国东部沿海地区案例研究.自然资源学报,2001,16(3).
102.王万茂.浅议土地资源持续利用问题.欧名豪,黄贤金,严金明主编.王万茂教授从教50周年纪念文集,中国大地出版社,2006,171-177.
103.王万茂.土地利用规划与可持续发展.欧名豪,黄贤金,严金明主编.王万茂教授从教50周年纪念文集,中国大地出版社,2006,261-267.
104.王业侨.节约和集约用地评价指标体系研究.中国土地科学,2006,20(3).
105.王莹,王铮,黎华群.旅游资源的G1S评价系统.地球信息科学,2004,6(1)
106.王雨晴,宋戈.城市土地利用综合效益评价与案例研究.地理科学,2006,(12).
107.韦素琼.闽台土地利用变化及其驱动因子的区域对比研究.福建师范大学博士学位论文,2005.
108.吴群,彭建超,郭贯成,黄卫常.农用地资源修正法定级之技术路线探讨—以佛山市高明区为例.长江流域资源与环境,2007b,16(2)：186-191.
109.吴睿鸫.“土地财政”的根源是分税制不合理[N].新京报,2007年11月27日,第B02版.
110.夏皖徽.中国的农村改革因何始于安徽,成于安徽[J].决策探索,2008,(2)：5-10.
111.聂云峰,陈红顺,夏斌,冯里涛.基于多智能体与GIS城市土地利用变化仿真研究.计算机应用研究,2009,(7).
112.谢宏全,陈秋计.WebGIS在矿区土地复垦规划中的应用研究.河北理工学院学报,2004,26(1)
113.谢艳,秦启文,王勇.征地补偿模式的经济学分析[J].中国土地科学,2008,(10)：12-16.
114.徐建刚,屠帆,韩雪培.城市商业土地级差地租的GIS评价方法研究.地理科学,1996,16(2).
115.徐世武,刘秀珍.基于GIS的土地利用规划辅助编制系统.地球科学—中国地质大学学报,2006,31(5).
116.薛建春,白中科.城市化进程中土地可持续利用评价指标体系研究.干旱区资源与环境,2010,(1).
117.杨国栋,贾成前.高速公路复垦土地适宜性评价的BP人工神经网络模型.系统工程理论与实践,2002,22(4).
118.杨华,尹君,张贵军,张大璐.城市土地合理利用评价实证研究.商业时代,2009,(28)
119.杨勤业,郑度,吴绍洪,葛全胜.20世纪50年代以来中国综合自然地理研究进展.地理研究,2005,24(6).
120.杨蓉.城郊被征地拆迁农民集体上访事件的社会学分析[D].南京：南京师范大学,2007.
121.杨雪,郝新宇,王春明等.基于公平性的征地补偿方案研究[J].中国土地科学,2008,(3)：4-10.
122.杨永芳,艾少伟.生态补偿在征地补偿中的缺失及路径选择[J].中国土地科学,2007,(6)：52-57.
123.叶宝莹,祝艳,季玮等.基于遥感和GIS的三江平原农业景观空间格局与土地利用变化研究.国土资源遥感,2007,(3)：78-81.
124.易映辉,李友丰,朱雪辉,李芳.基于GIS的土地执法监察管理信息系统设计与研究.测绘科学,2009,34(s1)
125.尤瑞玲.G1S 支持的土地利用/覆被变化及其景观格局研究—以湖北省安陆市烟店镇项目区为例[D].武汉：华中师范大学,2007.
126.于洪明.城镇土地定级估价研究——以杜蒙县泰康镇土地分等定级与地价评估为例[D].哈尔滨：东北农业大学,2000.
127.余心杰,何勇.基于Web GIS的土地评估系统研究与开发.中国农机化,2006,(3)
128.曾妮.治涌遭遇抢种抢建风[N].南方日报,2009-03-27(C02)
129.赵晶.上海城市土地利用与景观格局的空间演变研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2004.
130.赵永江,董建国,张莉.主体功能区规划指标体系研究—以河南省为例.地域研究与开发,2007,(12).
131.张飞.中国农地非农化中政府行为研究[D].南京：南京农业大学,2006.
132.张峰,徐建刚.GIS 在城市规划公众参与中的应用初探.城市规划,2002,(8).
133.张甘霖,吴运金,赵玉国.基于SOTER的中国耕地后备资源自然质量适宜性评价.农业工程学报,2010,(4).
134.张光宇.土地资源优化配置的物元模型.系统工程理论与实践,1998,(1).
135.张俊岭,夏斌,卫宝山.基于WebGIS的公众参与规划系统框架设计.农机化研究,2006,(5).
136.张利,陈影,周亚鹏.基于RS和GIS的土地利用动态监测技术及应用.黑龙江工程学院学报,2009,23(3)
137.张雷,吴克宁,吕巧灵,王秀丽.郑州市郊区农业土地的可持续性利用评价.农业工程学报,2008,(s1).
138.张蓬涛,杨红.基于人工神经网络的基准地价预测模型研究—以河北省主要城市为例.中国土地科学,2000,14(5).
139.张秋琴.区域土地可持续利用景观生态评价—以重庆市江津区为例[D].重庆：西南大学,2007.
140.张树杰,温仲明,焦峰.土地利用变化环境影响的外部性及其对策.水土保持研究,2005,12(1).
141.张小虎,雷国平,袁磊.黑龙江省土地生态安全评价.中国人口资源与环境,2009,(1).
142.张晓春,徐晖.基于Web GIS的土地交易信息系统.测绘与空间地理信息,2006,29(5)
143.张晓萍,焦锋,李锐.地块尺度土地可持续利用评价指标与方法探讨——以陕北安塞纸坊沟为例.环境科学进展,1999,(5).
144.张晓彤,宇振荣,王晓军等.场景可视化在乡村景观评价中的应用[J].生态学报,2010,30(7),1699-1705.
145.张雅彬,孙在宏,吴长彬.基于GIS的土地利用总体规划管理信息系统的开发与研究.南京师大学报(自然科学版),2004,27(2)
146.张友安,郑伟元.土地利用总体规划的刚性与弹性[J].中国土地科学,2004,(1)：24-27.
147.张泽建.基于GIS的地籍管理信息系统的设计研究.浙江师范大学,硕士毕业论文,2009.
148.宗仁.中国土地利用规划体系结构研究.南京农业大学,博士毕业论文,2004.
149.周慧珍.社队土壤图编制的几个设计问题.土壤通报,1981,(1)
150.朱辉艳.论宪政维度下被征地农民的利益保护[J].华中师范大学研究生学报,2007,14(2)：18-23.
151.朱久兴.关于县级主体功能区规划相关问题探讨[J].浙江经济,2007,(12)：52-53.
152.祝小迁,程久苗,王娟,李渊.近十年我国城市土地集约利用评价研究进展.现代化城市研究,2007,(7).
153. Abdullah M, Saleh E,1998, "Place identity:the visual image of Saudi Arabian cities" Habitatitnl 22(2) 149-164
154. Acevedo,M.F.,Callicott,J.B.,Monticino,M. et al,2007.Models of natural and human dynamics in forest landscapes:Cross-site and cross-cultural synthesis. Geoforum 39,846-866.
155. Adler, R.H.2000, Hard and soft data:a semiotic point of view. Schweiz Med Wochenschr,130: 1249-1251.
156. Altman I, Low S M.1992 Place attachment:A conceptual enquiry (Plenum, New York)
157. Amundsen. A.B (2001) Articulations of identity:a methodological essay and a report on Askim and Tidaholm, NoordXXI Report no.19. Available online at
158. Antonsich M,2010, "Meanings of place and aspects of the self:an interdisciplinary and empirical account" GeoJournal 75119-132
159. Aranzabal, I., Schmitz, M.F., Aquilera, P. and Pineda, F.D. (2008), Modelling of landscape changes derived from the dynamics of socio-ecological systems-a case of study in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape, Ecol. Indic.8, pp.672-685.
160. Basso K,1996 Wisdom sits in places:landscape and language among the Western Apache (UNM Press, New Mexico)
161.Becu,N., Perez,P., Walker.B., Barreteau,O., Le Page.C.2003.Agent-based simulation of a small catchment water management in northern Thailand:description of the catchscape model. Ecological Modelling 170,319-331.
162. Benveniste, G. Mastering the politics of planning:crafting credible plans and policies that make a difference[M]. Jossey-Bass.1989.
163. Billig M,1995 Banal Nationalism (Sage Publications, London)
164. Bonaiuto M, Breakwell G M, Cano I,1996, "Identity processes and environmental threat:the effects of nationalism and local identity upon perception of beach pollution" Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 6157-175
165. Bonaiuto M, Carrus G, Martorella H, and Bonnes M,2002, "Local identity processes and environmental attitudes in land use changes:the case of natural protected areas" Journal of Economic Psychology 23631-653
166. Boudon,R.,2003.Beyond Rational Choice Theory.Annual Review of Sociology,29,1-21.
167. Brace C,1999, "Finding England everywhere:regional identity and the construction of national identity,1890-1940" Ecumene 6(1) 90-109
168. Bridger J,1996, "Community imagery and the built environment" The Sociological Quarterly 37(3) 353-374
169. Brown B, Perkins D, Brown G,2003, "Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood:Individual and block levels of analysis" Journal of Environmental Psychology 23259-71
170. Brown, G., Raymond, C..The relationship between place attachment and landscape values. Applied Geography,2007, (27):89-111.
171. Buijs A E, Elands B H M, Langers F,2009, "No wilderness for immigrants:cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences" Landscape and Urban Planning 91(3) 113-123
172. Buijs, A.E.2009b, Lay people's images of nature:comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources,22:417-432.
173. Buijs, A.E.2009c, Public Natures:Social representations of nature and local practices. PhD Thesis Wageningen University.
174. Butula, S.2009, Public preferences towards landscape identity-a case study of Riparian landscapes in Croatia. Drustvena istrazivanja:Journal for General Social Issues,18 (3),479-501.
175. Calvin, J. S., Dearinger, J. A., Curtin, M. C. (1972), An attempt at assessing preference for national landscapes. Environment and Behavior 4:447-470.
176. Carrus G, Bonaiuto M, Bonnes M,2005, "Environmental concern, regional identity, and support for protected areas in Italy" Environment and Behavior 37 237-257
177. Castella, J.C., Kam, S.P.. Quang, D.D., Verburg, P.H., Hoanh. C.T.(2007), Combining top-down and bottom-up modeling approaches of land use/cover change to support public policies:Application to sustainable management of natural resources in northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy,24:531-545.
178. CENR.2000. Integrated Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
179. Chow K, Healey M,2008, "Place attachment and place identity:First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to university" Journal of Environmental Psychology 28362-372
180. Council of Europe,2000. The European Landscape Convention-Firenze,20.X.2000 (ETS No.176). Official text in English and Explanatory Report.Council of Europe,Strasbourg.
181. de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M., Boumans, R.2002, A typology for the description, classification and valuation of Ecosystem Functions. Goods Services Econ,41(3):393-408.
182.de Groot,R.S.,van der Perk,J.P.,Chiesura,A.,van Vliet, A.J.H.,2003. Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital.Ecol.Econ.44(2-3),187-204.
183.Dea-Sik Kim, Ha-Woo Chung. Spatial diffusion modeling of new residential area for land-use planning of rural village. Journal of urban planning and development.2005,131(3):181-194.
184. Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism:towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy,2005,8(2):125-139.
185. Dirven, E., Groenewegen, J. And van Hoof, S., (editors) 1993, Stuck in a region? Changing scales for regional identity. Netherlands Geographical Studies 155, Utrecht.
186. Dredge D, Jenkins J,2003, "Destination place identity and regional tourism policy" Tourism Geographies 5(4) 383-407
187. Entrikin J N,1991 The betweenness of place:towards a geography of modernity. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
188. Eswaran, H., Beinroth, F., Reich, P.(1999), Global land resources and population-supporting capacity. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,14, pp.129-136.
189. European Commission. The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies:The Netherlands. Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,1999.
190. Fairweather, John, Simon Swaffield.2001. Visitor experience of Kaikoura, New Zealand:An interpretive study using photographs of landscapes and the Q method. Tourism Management 22: 219-228.
191. Fischer, F.2000, Citizens, experts, and the environment:the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham and London.
192. Forester J.,1987, Planning in the face of conflict. Journal of the American Planning Association 53(3)303-314
193. Foster, S.2006, The city as an ecological space:social capital and urban land use. Notre Dame Law Review,82(2).
194. Fulton,D.C., M.J.Manfredo, and J.Lipscomb.1996.Wildlife value orientations:A conceptual and measurement approach.Hum.Dimens.Wildl.1(2):24-47.
195. Gisevius,W.(1993)Kohaliku omavalitsuse poliitika Saksamaa Liitvabariigis.Tallinn:ESDP Kirjastus.
196. Giuliani M V, Feldman R,1993, "Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context" Journal of Environmental Psychology 13(3) 267-274
197. Gospodini A,2004, "Urban morphology and place identity in European cities:built heritage and innovative design" Journal of Urban Design 9(2) 225-248
198. Groote P, Haartsen T,2008, "The communication of heritage:creating place identities" in Eds B Graham, P Howard The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity (Ashgate Publishing, Hampshire) pp181-194
199. Haartsen T, Groote P, Huigen P P P,2000, "Claiming rural identities:dynamics, contexts, policies" (Van Gorcum, Assen)
200. Haartsen T, Groote P, Huigen P P P,2003, "Measuring age differentials in representations of rurality in The Netherlands" Journal of Rural Studie 19245-252
201. Hague C, Jenkins P,2005 Place identity, participation and planning (Routledge, Oxfordshire)
202. Hajer, M., Zonneveld, W.. Spatial planning in the network society-rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands [J]. European Planning Studies,2000,3 (3):337-355.
203. Hansen-Moller, J.2006, The Meaning of Landscape:A Diagram for Analysing the Relationship between Culture and Nature, based on C. S. Peirce's Semiotics. In:Eva Naripea, Virve Sarapik, Jaak Tomberg (Eds.) Tallinn, pp.85-108
204. Hauge A L,2007, "Identity and place:a critical comparison of three identity theories" Architectural science review 50(1) 44-51
205. Hawkes, J. (1951). A Land. New York NY:Random House; (1991). Reprinted with an introduction by Robert Finch. Boston, MA:Beacon Press.
206. Hawthorne T, Krygier J, Kwan M,2008, "Mapping ambivalence:Exploring the geographies of community change and rails-to-trails development using photo-based Q method and PPGIS" Geoforum39 1058-1078
207. Hayami, Y., Ruttan, V.W.. Agricultural development[M]. Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins Press,1985.
208. Heerink, N., Kuiper, M., Shi, X.(2007),'Farm household responses to China's new rural income support policy:A village-level analysis.' in:M. Spoor, N. Heerink and F. Qu (eds.) Dragons with clay feet? Transition, sustainable land use and rural environment in China and Vietnam. Lexington, Mass:Lexington Books.
209. Heikkinen, T., Sairinen, R.2007, Social impact assessment in regional land use planning. Stockholm,Sweden:Nordic Research Programme Report 2005-2008. Report 3.
210. Herber, M.W.2004, Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts-the role of place-identity in risk perception. Environmental Science & Policy,7(2),109-116
211. Hernandez B, Hidalgo M C, Salazar-Laplace M E, Hess S,2007, "Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives" Journal of Environmental Psychology 27310-319
212. Horst, Han van der,1996.The Low Sky:Understanding the Dutch. Scriptum Books,Schiedam.
213. Howlett, M., Rayner, J., Tollefson, C.2009, From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of the British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. Forest Policy and Economics,11(5/6),383-391.
214. Huigen P P P, Meijering L,2005, "Making places:A story of the Venen", in Eds G J Ashworth, B Graham Senses of place, senses of time (Ashgate, Aldershot/Burlington)
215. Hull IV R B, Lam M, Vigo G,1994, "Place identity:symbols of self in the urban fabric" Landscape and Urban Planning 28109-120
216. Hummon,D.,1992. Community attachment:local sentiment and sense of place. In:Altman, I., Low, S.(Eds.), Place Attachment. Plenum, NY, pp.253-278.
217. Hurrell A,1995, "Regionalism in theoretical perspective", in Eds L Fawcett, A Hurrell Regionalism in world politics:regional organization and international order (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 37-73
218.Innes, J.E. Planning through consensus building:a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal[J]. Journal of the American planning association,1996,62(4):460-472.
219. Jackson,J.B.,1986.The vernacular landscape.In:Penning-Rowsell,E.,Lowenthal, D.(Eds.),Landscape Meanings and Values.Allen and Unwin,London,pp.65-81.
220. James, P., Gittins, J. W.. Local landscape character assessment:An evaluation of community-led schemes in cheshire[J]. Landscape Research,2007,32(4),423-442.
221. John, M., Chathukulam, J.. Building social capital through state initiative:participatory planning in Kerala [J]. Economic and Political Weekly,2002, May 18:1939-1948.
222. Jorgensen B S, Stedman R C,2001, "Sense of place as an attitude" Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(3) 233-248
223. Kacowicz, Arie M,1999, "Regionalization, globalization, and nationalism:Convergent, divergent, or overlapping?'" Alternatives:Global, Local, Political 24(4) 527-555
224. Kahila,M.(2006).Possibilities of Web-based softGIS Method in Revealing Residents Evaluation Knowledge of the Living Environment. Paper, FUTURE-Future Urban Research in Europe, The Electronic City Conference,3-5 February 2006,Bratislava,Czech.
225. Kaplan, Rachel, Eugene Herbert.1987. Cultural and subcultural cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning 14:281-293.
226. Karjalainen, E., Tyrvaeinen, L. (2002), Visualization in forest landscape preference research:a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning,59,13-28.
227. Keegstra R,2009, Representations of the Loire Valley (Master thesis of the University of Groningen)
228. Khakee, A., Barbanente,A., Borri.D.2000, Expert and experiential knowledge in planning. Journal of the Operational Research Society,51,776-788.
229. Kienast, F., Wildi, O., Ghosh, S.,2007. Change and transformation:a synthesis. In:F., Kienast, O., Wildi, S., Ghosh, A Changing World Challenges for Landscape Research, Sringer, pp.1-4
230. Knapp W,2006, "Planning in peri-urban regions:on regional identity and organizing capacity", in Eds N Bertrand, V Kreibich Europe's city-regions competitiveness:growth regulation and peri-urban land management (Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, Assen) pp 61-84
231. Koomen, E., Kuhlman, T., Groen, J, Bouwman, A.. Simulating the future of agricultural land use change in the Netherlands[J]. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie,2006,96 (2): 218-224.
232. Kyle G T, Absher J D, Graefe A R,2003, "The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences" Leisure Sciences 2533-50
233. Kyle G T, Graefe A R, Manning R, Bacon J,2004, "Effects of place attachment on users' perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting" Journal of Environmental Psychology 24213-225
234. Lalli M,1992, "Urban-related identity" Journal of Environmental Psychology 12(4) 285-303
235. LEI,CBS. Agricultural and horticultural figures 2008[R]. The Hague:LEI,CBS,2008.
236. Lewicka M,2008, "Place attachment, place identity, and place memory:Restoring the forgotten city past" Journal of Environmental Psychology 28209-231
237. Lewis, J. L.2010, Interethnic preferences for landscape change:a comparison of first nations and Euro-Canadian residents. Landscape Journal.29(2):215-231.
238. Lorzing,H.,1992.The nature of landscape:a personal quest.010 Publishers,Rotterdam,176 pp.
239. Louw, E., van der Krabben, E., Priemus, H.2004,空间开发政策：荷兰地方和区域政府职能的转变.国土资源情报,(3).
240. Lowenthal, D. (Ed.) (1967), Environmental Perception and Behavior. Chicago:American Geographic Society.
241. Lyons, E.(1983), Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 15: 487-511.
242. Massey D,1994 Space, place and gender (Polity, Cambridge)
243. Massey D,1995, "The conceptualization of place", in Eds D Massey, P Jess A place in the world (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 45-85
244. Manzo L C, Perkins D D,2006, "Finding common ground:the importance of place attachment to community participation and planning" Journal of Planning Literature 20335-350
245. Meier-Dallach, H.P.(1980) Ra"umliche Identitat-Regionalistische Bewegung,lnformation zur Raumentwicklung,5.
246. Meyer, W.B., Turner, B. L.(1994), Changes in land use and land cover:a global perspective. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
247. Morey, E., Thiene, M., De Salvo, M., Signorello, G.2008, Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation. Ecological Economics 68,536-546.
248. Mougiakakou S G, Tsouchlaraki A L, Cassios C, Nikita K S, Matsopoulos G K, Uzunoglu N K, 2005, SCAPEVIEWER:preliminary results of a landscape perception classification system based on neural network technology. Ecological Engineering 24,5-15
249. Moxley,R.,1985.Vertical assistance, population size and growth in the context and results of community civic action. J. Community Dev.Soc.16,57-74.
250. Nasar, J.1984. Visual preferences in urban street scenes:A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15 (1):79-93.
251. Needham, B.. Dutch land use planning[M]. Den Haag:Sdu Uitgevers,2007.
252. Nogue J, Vicente J,2004, "Landscape and national identity in Catalonia" Political Geography 23 113-132
253. Nyerges, Timothy(2005).Scaling-Up as a Grand Challenge for Public Participation GIS. Directions Magazine.15.1.2006
254. Olson,J.M., Alagarswamy,G., Andresenn,J. et al,2007. Integrating Diverse Methods to Understand Climate-Land Interactions in East Africa.Geoforum 39,898-911.
255. Paasi A,1986, "The institutionalization of regions:a theoretical framework for the understanding of the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity" Fennia 164105-146
256. Paasi A,1991, "Deconstructing regions:notes on the scales of spatial life" Environment and Planning A 23239-256
257. Paasi A,1996 Territories, boundaries and consciousness (Wiley, Chichester)
258. Paasi A,2001, "Europe as a social process and discourse:considerations of place, boundaries and identity" European Urban and Regional Studies 8(1) 7-28
259. Paasi A,2002a, "Regional identities and the challenge of the mobile world", in Ed Thor Ola Engen Kulturell identitet og regional utvikling (Hogskolen i Hedemark Rapport Nr 8, Hamar) pp 33-48
260. Paasi A,2002b, "Place and region:regional worlds and words" Progress in Human Geography 26(6) 802-811
261. Paasi A,2002c, "Bounded spaces in the mobile world:deconstructing'regional identity" Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93(2) 137-148
262. Paasi A,2003, "Region and place:regional identity in question" Progress in Human Geography 27(4) 475-485
263. Paasi A,2004, "Place and region:looking through the prism of scale" Progress in Human Geography 28(4) 536-546
264. Paasi A,2009a, "Regions and regional dynamics", in Ed C Rumford The SAGE Handbook of European Studies (SAGE, Los Angeles) pp 464-484
265. Paasi A,2009b, "The resurgence of the'Region'and'Regional Identity':theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in Europe" Review of International Studies 35 121-146
266. Palmer, J.F.,2004. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning,69 (2/3),201-218.
267. Parker, D.C., Hessl, A., Davis, S.C.,2008, Complexity, land-use modeling,and the human dimension:Fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum 39,789-804.
268. Patel M., Kok, K., Rothman, D.S.2007, Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis:An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy,24,546-561
269. Penalosa, E.1980, The social function of land. Habitatintl,4(4-6),691-698.
270. Pessina, V., Meroni, F.2009, A WebGIS tool for seismic hazard scenarios and risk analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.29(9),1274-1281.
271. Peter Ho, (2001), Greening without conflict? Environmentalism, NGOs and civil society in China. Development and Change,32,893-921.
272. Peter Ho, Vermeer, E. B., (2006), China's limits to growth? The difference between absolute, relative and precautionary limits. Development and Change,37(1),255-271.
273. Peterson G,1988, "Local symbols and place identity:Tucson and Albuquerque" The Social Science Journal 25(4) 451-461
274. Pinto Correia T, (2000), landscape identity, a key for integration In B Pedroli(ed) Landscape-our home/Lebenscraum landschaft Uitgeverij Christofoor, pp 145-149
275. Pontius J., Robert G., Wideke B., et al.2008. Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change. Annals of Regional Science.42(1):11-47.
276. Pretty, G H, Chipuer H M, Bramston P,2003, "Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns:the discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity" Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 273-287
277. Proshansky H M,1976 Environmental psychology:people and their physical setting (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York)
278. Proshansky H M,1978, "The city and self-identity" Environment and Behavior 10147-169
279. Proshansky H M, Fabian A K, Kaminoff R,1983. "Place-identity:physical world socialization of the self" Journal of Environmental Psychology 357-83
280. Raagmaa, G.. Regional identity and social capital in regional economic development and planning[A]. European Regional Science Association, ERSA conference papers,2001.
281. Raagmaa G, 2002, "Regional identity in regional development and planning" European planning studies 1055-76
282. Rantanen, H., Kahila, M.2009, The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. Journal of Environmental Management,90,1981-1990
283. Ritalahti J,2008, "Regional identity in destination development", in Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes,5-7 March, Porvoo-Borga, Finland
284. Roe,M.H.,2003.The social dimensions of landscape sustainability. In:Benson, J.F.,Roe,M.H.(Eds.), Landscape and Sustainability.Routledge,London,pp.58-83.
285. Rossi D,2005, "Regional identities on the borders and the European identity:South Tyrol, its multiple identities and integration in the EU", in Space and Power in Europe:Culture, Communication and the Politics of Identity (IP student papers 2005-2006, Erasmus Mundus), http://www.euroculturemaster.org/default.aspx?sec=3&sub=4
286. Rossi, E., Kuitunen, M.1996, Ranking of habitats for the assessment of ecological impact in land use planning. Biological Conservation,77(2-3),227-234.
287. Rydin, Y., Pennington, M.. Public participation and local environmental planning:the collective action problem and potential of social capital[J]. Local environment,2000,5 (2):153-169.
288. Sairinen, R.2004, Assessing social impacts of urban land-use plans:from theory to practice. Boreal Environment Research, (9):509-517.
289. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C.,2003. Knowledge building. In:Guthrie, J. W.(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education, second ed. Macmillan Reference, New York, pp.1370-1373.
290. Schama,S.,1995.Landscape and Memory.London:Harper Collins.
291. Schlossberg, Shuford.2005, Delineating "public" and "participation" in PPGIS. URISA Journal.16 (2).
292. Scott, M. J., David Canter.1997. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17:263-281.
293. Selman, P.. Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning[J]. Planning theory & practice,2001,2 (1):13-30.
294. Shamai S, Israel O,1991, "Sense of place:an empirical measurement" Geofmm 22(3) 347-358
295. Sheppard E.2001, Quantitative geography:representations, practices and possibilities. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 19,535-554
296. Sijtsma, F.J., Farjon, H., van Kampen. P.2011, Evaluation of landscape changes-enriching the economist's toolbox. (Forthcoming)
297. Simao. A., Densham, P.J., Haklay, M.2009, Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation:An application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. Journal of Environmental Management,90,2027-2040
298. Spilling,O.R.(1991) Entrepreneurship in a cultural perspective, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,3,pp.33-48.
299. Stern,P.C., T.Dietz.1994.The value basis of environmental concern. J. Social Issues,50(3):65-84.
300. Thompson,S.C.G., M.A.Barton.1994. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J.Environ.Psychol.14(2):149-157.
301. Stewart W P, Liebert D, Larkin K W,2004, "Community identities as visions for landscape change" Landscape and Urban Planning 69 315-334
302. Stokols D, Shumaker S A,1981, "People in places", in Ed J H Harvey Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ) pp 441-488
303. Stoll-Kleeman S,2001, "Barriers to nature conservation in Germany:A model explaining opposition to protected areas" Journal of Environmental Psychology 21369-385
304. Swanwick, C.,2009. Landscape as an integrating framework for upland management. In:Bonn, A., Allott, T., Hubacek,K., Stewart,J.(Eds.), Drivers of Environmental Change in Uplands. Routledge, Abingdon, pp.339-357.
305. Sweeney,G.P.(1990)Indigenous development strategies in peripheral regions:the example of Ireland, in H.Ewers and J.Allesch(Eds)Innovation and Regional Development:Strategies, Instruments, and Policy Co-ordination,pp.265-285.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
306. Tan, R., Beckmann, V., Van den Berg, V., Qu, F.. Governing farmland conversion:Comparing China with the Netherlands and Germany[J]. Land Use Policy,2009,26(4):961-974.
307. Terada T,2003, "Constructing an'East Asian'concept and growing regional identity:from EAEC to ASEAN+3" The Pacific Review 16(2) 251-277
308. Terluin I J,2001, Rural regions in the EU:Exploring differences in Economic Development (PhD dissertation of the University of Groningen, Groningen)
309. Thompson,M., R.Ellis, A.Wildavsky.1990. Cultural theory. Boulder, CO:Westview.
310. Tips, Walter, Tongchai Savasdisara.1986. The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:225-230.
311. Tony Saich. Governance and Politics of China. New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2004.
312. Tsubohara, S.. The effectiveness of an open planning process in obtaining public support[R]. Groningen:URSI, University of Groningen,2008.
313.Tubbs, C.R., Blackwood, J.W.1971, Ecological evaluation of land for planning purposes. Biological Conservation,3(3),169-172.
314. Tulloch L.David and Shapiro Tamara(2003).The intersection of data access and public participation: impacting GIS users'success?. URISA Journal,15, APA II.
315. Tveit, M.S. (2009), Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference:a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management,90,2882-2888.
316. Twigger-Ross,C.L.,Uzzell,D.L.,1996.Place and identity processes.J. Environ.Psychol.16.205-220.
317. Twigger-Ross C L, Bonaiuto M, Breakwell G,2003, "Identity theories and environmental psychology", in Eds M Bonnes, T Lee, M Bonaiuto, Psychological theories for environmental issues (Ashgate Publishing Limited, England) pp 203-233
318. Uzzell D, Pol E, Badenas D,2002, "Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability" Environment and Behavior 3426-53
319. Van den Berg A E,1999, Individual differences in the aesthetic evaluation of natural landscapes (PhD dissertation of the University of Groningen, Groningen)
320. Van den Brink, A., A. van der Valk and T. van Dijk (2006) Planning and the challenges of the metropolitan landscape:Innovation in the Netherlands. International Planning Studies 11 (3-4), p. 147-165.
321. Van der Valk, A.J. van der.2002. The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58,201-210.
322. Van Houtum H, Lagendijk A,2000, "Contextualising Regional Identity and Imagination in the Construction of Polycentric Urban Regions:The Cases of the Ruhr Area and the Basque Country" Urban Studies 38(4) 747-767
323. Van Ravesteyn, N., Evers, D.. Unseen Europe A survey of EU politics and its impact on spatial development in the Netherlands[M]. Rotterdam:Nai Publishers,2004.
324. Van Rekom J, Go F,2006, "Being discovered:a blessing to local identities" Annals of Tourism Research 33(3) 767-784
325. Vries, S. de, Roos, J., Buijs, A.E.2007, Mapping the attractiveness of the Dutch countryside:a GIS-based landscape appreciation model. Forest Snow and Landscape Research,81,1/2,43-58.
326. Wadley, R. L., Mertz, O., Christensen, A. E.. Local land use strategies in a globalizing world-managing social and environmental dynamics[J]. Land Dgradation & Development.2006, 17(2).117-121
327. Walsh.S.J.,Entwisle,B.,Rindfuss,R.R.,Page,P.H.,2006.Spatial simulation modeling of land use/land cover change scenarios in Northeastern Thailand:a cellular automata approach. Journal of Land Science 1(1).5-28.
328. Weiner, Daniel, Trevor M. Harris and William J. Craig(2001). Community participation and geographic information systems. Paper presented at the "ESF-NSF Workshop on Access to Geographic Information and Participatory Approaches Using GI". Spoleto,2001
329. Weitkamp, G.2010, Capturing the view:a GIS based procedure to assess perceived landscape openness. PhD thesis, Wageningen Universtiy, the Netherlands.
330. Wherrett, J.R.(1999), Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape and Urban Planning,45.209-217.
331. White D D, Virden R J. van Riper C J,2008. "Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting" Environmental Management 42647-657
332. White R,1998, "Dynamic integrated urban models" Canadian Journal of Regional Science 21, 357-363
333. Williams,C.H.(1999).The communal defense of threatened environments and identities. GeografskiVestnik,71,105-120.
334. Williams D R, Roggenbuck J W,1989, "Measuring place attachment:Some preliminary results" in Eds L H McAvoy, D Howard Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure Research Symposium (National Recreation and Park Association, Arlington, VA) pp 32
335. Woltjer, J. Consensus planning[M]. England:Ashgate publishing limited,2000.
336. Wrbka, T., Erb, K.H., Schulz, N.B., Peterseil, J., Hahn, C., Haberl, H.,2004. Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21,289-306.
337. Yu, Kongjian.1995. Cultural variations in landscape preference:Comparisons among Chinese subgroups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning 32:107-126.
338. Yuen B,2005, "Searching for place identity in Singapore" Habitat International 29197-214
339. Zhu,J., Peter Ho. Not against the state, just protecting residents'interests[A].Peter Ho, Edmonds, R. China's Enbedded Activism[C]. Lodon and New York:Routledge,2007,151-170.