北京西山风景游憩林抚育的研究
|
摘要
风景游憩林抚育在我国是一个崭新的课题，具有广阔的发展前景。风景游憩林抚育同其他林种有所不同，其目的在于景观的培育和可及度的增加。
北京西山的森林基本上都是50年代以后营造的以防护和水源涵养为目的人工林，主要树种为侧柏、油松、刺槐等。目前林分风景点太少，风景没有吸引力。由于小西山的地理位置，决定了小西山森林经营定位必须是建设以社会效益为中心兼顾其它效益的风景游憩林，对原有森林按照风景游憩林的标准和要求进行抚育势在必行。
本文利用西山林场资源清查资料和样地调查，运用数量化方法对影响侧柏、刺槐和油松林分生长的主导立地因子进行了分析，根据林龄、地类、郁闭度和主导立地因子进行了林分经营类型划分；利用聚类分析方法对灌木林立地进行了划分；按照风景游憩林的要求探讨了抚育措施；定量分析了侧柏、刺槐和油松3个林分的生长合理密度；探讨了针叶林和阔叶林美景度同抚育措施的关系；分析了林分抚育如何影响林分光、热、水等生态因子的变化。结果表明：土壤厚度是影响侧柏、刺槐生长的主导立地因子，坡位、土壤厚度是影响刺槐生长的主导因子；侧柏、刺槐、油松和灌木林的经营类型分别划分为7类、12类、15类和3类；根据每一种经营类型的特点确定了相应的抚育强度；侧柏、油松林分在不同土壤厚度、刺槐林在阳坡薄土层条件下胸径同年龄相关关系显著，从而计算出不同年龄、不同郁闭度下林分生长的合理密度；针叶林的美景度同树高、枝下高、通透性和灌木数呈正相关，同密度、郁闭度、灌木高度呈负相关；阔叶林的美景度同树高、枝下高、通透性和灌木高呈正相关，同郁闭度、灌木数量呈负相关；林分抚育后生态因子发生了明显变化：光照增加，空气温度增高，空气湿度减少，土壤水分增加。
在上述研究基础上，本文对风景游憩林抚育理论做了探讨，在风景林林木分级、间伐方法等方面提出了一些新观点；针对西山风景游憩林的特点，较深入讨论了风景游憩林抚育中应该强调的安全、私密性、景观多样性和园林措施应用等若干技术问题。
Scenic and recreational forest tending is a brand-new research field in our country, and it has extensive development perspective. The ways concerning scenic and recreational forest tending are quite different from other ones, whose purpose is mainly centered on the increase of beauty value and accessibility of forest.
Most forest in West Mountain of Beijing has been afforested since the 1950s with the water and soil conservation orientation. Platycladus orientalis, Robinia pseudoacacia and Pinus tabularformis are the main tree species. At present forest in West Mountain has very low scenic attraction, thus forest tending based on scenic and recreational forest characteristics and centered on social benefit while giving attention to other ones is of great necessity due to its special location in Beijing.
By utilizing forest resource check data and samplings in West Mountain, the thesis analyses the main site factors affecting the growth of three tree species, Platycladus orientalis, Robinia pseudoacacia and Pinus tabularformis in order to classify forest management types which are also based on age, canopy degree and tree composition whereas cluster analysis is given to shrubbery sublots to classify its types. Rational densities are quantitatively analysed for the above three tree species; Relations between scenic forest tending methods and their beauty value are discussed and models are built up. and the paper also analyses how forest tending methods affecting forest ecological factors like light, temperature and soil water conditions. The results are as follows: Soil thickness is the main factor affecting the growth of Platycladus orientalis and Pinus tabularformis while soil thickness and slope position are the main factors affecting the growth of Robinia pseudoacacia, The management types of Platycladus orientalis, Robinia pseudoacacia, Pinus tabularformis and shrubbery are classified into 7,12,15 and 3 respectively, and special tending advice is given to each management type; Relations between diameter at breast height(d.b.h) and age are quite strong when Platycladus orientalis and Pinus tabularformis sublots are respectively divided into groups by different soil layers and Robinia pseudoacacia by sunny slope and thin soil layer, and rational densities of different age and canopy degree are thus calculated; Beauty value of coniferous stands is positively related to tree height, live branch height and numbers of shrubbery, but negatively related to density, canopy degree and height of shrubbery; and beauty value of hardwood stands is positively related to tree height, live branch height and height of shrubbery, but negatively related to canopy degree and numbers of shrubbery; The changes of ecological factors before and after tending are remarkable as follows: the increase of light, the rise of air temperature, the decrease of air humidity and increase of soil water.
Based on what mentioned above, the paper further probes into the scenic and recreational forest tending theory and some new viewpoints such as tree classification of
ascenic forest and thinning methods are put forward. In addition, considering the characteristics of West Mountain, tending technologies that need focusing on such as security, privacy, scenic diversity and horticulture measure application are thoroughly discussed.
北京西山的森林基本上都是50年代以后营造的以防护和水源涵养为目的人工林，主要树种为侧柏、油松、刺槐等。目前林分风景点太少，风景没有吸引力。由于小西山的地理位置，决定了小西山森林经营定位必须是建设以社会效益为中心兼顾其它效益的风景游憩林，对原有森林按照风景游憩林的标准和要求进行抚育势在必行。
本文利用西山林场资源清查资料和样地调查，运用数量化方法对影响侧柏、刺槐和油松林分生长的主导立地因子进行了分析，根据林龄、地类、郁闭度和主导立地因子进行了林分经营类型划分；利用聚类分析方法对灌木林立地进行了划分；按照风景游憩林的要求探讨了抚育措施；定量分析了侧柏、刺槐和油松3个林分的生长合理密度；探讨了针叶林和阔叶林美景度同抚育措施的关系；分析了林分抚育如何影响林分光、热、水等生态因子的变化。结果表明：土壤厚度是影响侧柏、刺槐生长的主导立地因子，坡位、土壤厚度是影响刺槐生长的主导因子；侧柏、刺槐、油松和灌木林的经营类型分别划分为7类、12类、15类和3类；根据每一种经营类型的特点确定了相应的抚育强度；侧柏、油松林分在不同土壤厚度、刺槐林在阳坡薄土层条件下胸径同年龄相关关系显著，从而计算出不同年龄、不同郁闭度下林分生长的合理密度；针叶林的美景度同树高、枝下高、通透性和灌木数呈正相关，同密度、郁闭度、灌木高度呈负相关；阔叶林的美景度同树高、枝下高、通透性和灌木高呈正相关，同郁闭度、灌木数量呈负相关；林分抚育后生态因子发生了明显变化：光照增加，空气温度增高，空气湿度减少，土壤水分增加。
在上述研究基础上，本文对风景游憩林抚育理论做了探讨，在风景林林木分级、间伐方法等方面提出了一些新观点；针对西山风景游憩林的特点，较深入讨论了风景游憩林抚育中应该强调的安全、私密性、景观多样性和园林措施应用等若干技术问题。
Scenic and recreational forest tending is a brand-new research field in our country, and it has extensive development perspective. The ways concerning scenic and recreational forest tending are quite different from other ones, whose purpose is mainly centered on the increase of beauty value and accessibility of forest.
Most forest in West Mountain of Beijing has been afforested since the 1950s with the water and soil conservation orientation. Platycladus orientalis, Robinia pseudoacacia and Pinus tabularformis are the main tree species. At present forest in West Mountain has very low scenic attraction, thus forest tending based on scenic and recreational forest characteristics and centered on social benefit while giving attention to other ones is of great necessity due to its special location in Beijing.
By utilizing forest resource check data and samplings in West Mountain, the thesis analyses the main site factors affecting the growth of three tree species, Platycladus orientalis, Robinia pseudoacacia and Pinus tabularformis in order to classify forest management types which are also based on age, canopy degree and tree composition whereas cluster analysis is given to shrubbery sublots to classify its types. Rational densities are quantitatively analysed for the above three tree species; Relations between scenic forest tending methods and their beauty value are discussed and models are built up. and the paper also analyses how forest tending methods affecting forest ecological factors like light, temperature and soil water conditions. The results are as follows: Soil thickness is the main factor affecting the growth of Platycladus orientalis and Pinus tabularformis while soil thickness and slope position are the main factors affecting the growth of Robinia pseudoacacia, The management types of Platycladus orientalis, Robinia pseudoacacia, Pinus tabularformis and shrubbery are classified into 7,12,15 and 3 respectively, and special tending advice is given to each management type; Relations between diameter at breast height(d.b.h) and age are quite strong when Platycladus orientalis and Pinus tabularformis sublots are respectively divided into groups by different soil layers and Robinia pseudoacacia by sunny slope and thin soil layer, and rational densities of different age and canopy degree are thus calculated; Beauty value of coniferous stands is positively related to tree height, live branch height and numbers of shrubbery, but negatively related to density, canopy degree and height of shrubbery; and beauty value of hardwood stands is positively related to tree height, live branch height and height of shrubbery, but negatively related to canopy degree and numbers of shrubbery; The changes of ecological factors before and after tending are remarkable as follows: the increase of light, the rise of air temperature, the decrease of air humidity and increase of soil water.
Based on what mentioned above, the paper further probes into the scenic and recreational forest tending theory and some new viewpoints such as tree classification of
ascenic forest and thinning methods are put forward. In addition, considering the characteristics of West Mountain, tending technologies that need focusing on such as security, privacy, scenic diversity and horticulture measure application are thoroughly discussed.
引文
1． 万志洲，李晓储等．南京中山陵风景区常绿阔叶树种引进及风景林林相改造技术的研究．江苏林业科技，2001，5：22—26
2． 万俊生．天然油松次生林天然更新新法．中国林业，1998，10：41
3． 卫金．侧柏造林研究初报．山西林业科技，2001，6(增)：11-16
4． 马胜元．大同市油松人工林经营研究．山西林业，2000，2：28-29
5． 云俊枝，雅洁，姚智敏．浅谈灌木与油松林的生长关系．内蒙古林业调查设计，1998，4：151-154
6． 卞义宁．陇东半干旱地区刺槐水保林合理密度分析与探讨．中国水土保持，1996，3：22-25
7． 卞义宁．陇东黄土高原沟壑区刺愧水保林合理密度初探．中国水土保持，1994，9：32-37
8． 王小德．风景林景观建设初探．华东森林经理，2000，1：12-14
9． 王世忠，李树民．半干旱地区油松纯林改造成混交林效益分析．林业科技通讯，1999，6：22-24
10．王传书，张钧成主编．林业哲学与森林美学问题研究．北京：科学出版社，1992
11．王如新，李建飞．油松修枝强度的确定．林业科技通讯，1994，4：20
12．王克勤，王斌瑞．黄土高原刺槐林间伐改造研究．应用生态学报，2002，13(1)：11-15
13．韦新良．会稽山旅游度假区森林景观配置研究．中南林业调查规划，1999，1：16—19
14．韦新良．森林景观类型划分技术探讨．华东森林经理，1997，2：29—32
15．兰显臻．辽西地区刺槐人工林分类经营措施的探讨．辽宁林业科技，1998，2：26—29
16．冯树成编著．森林公园管理学概论．陕西太白国家森林公园管理处印，1995
17．叶镜中，孙多 编著．森林经营学．北京：中国林业出版社，1995
18．田奇凡 阎海平等．北京西山国家森林公园景观格局的初步研究．北京林业大学学报，1997(增刊号)．
19．刘占朝，王团荣，张洪礼．河南省太行山刺槐用材林经营类型划分．河南林业科技，1995，2：5-8
20．刘淑明，孙丙寅，孙长忠．油松蒸腾速率与环境因子关系的研究．西北林学院学报，1999，14(4)：27-30
21．刘增文，余清珠，王进全．刺槐林更新改造对林地水分环境的影响．西北林学院学报，1995，10(增)：53-57
22．刘增喜，姚勇．飞播油松幼林抚育间伐技术探讨．河南林业科技，1996，4：16-17
23．刘德章，毕君，侯箕，马增旺．太行山区油松天然次生林经营类型的划分．河北林业科技，1996，4：31-32
24．吕忠义．森林公园总体规划理论与技术的探讨．华东森林经理，2000，1：1—9
25．孙进成．不同郁闭度林冠下人工更新油松幼林生长调查．陕西林业科技，1999，3：26—27
26．孙进成．浅谈黄龙山林业局油松人工林现状与经营措施．陕西林业科技，2001，3：29-31
27．毕君，高洪真，王振亮．多用途树种—刺槐研究的进展与趋势．河北林学院学报，1995，10(1)：92-96
28．余清珠，王进鑫．沟坡刺槐林改造方式得初探．林业科技通讯，1996，8：19-20
29．吴枞林，刘向龙，杜芬芬，王晓飞．子午岭林区油松密度管理图的编制．甘肃林业科技，2002，27(2)：27-31
30．吴钦孝，杨新民，列·卡皮雅宁．油松结构组织规律性的研究．水土保持学报，1994，8(4)：1-3
31．张广军，杜纪山，张存旭．长武县刺槐林立地、经营类型及现实生产力的研究．西北林学院学报，1997，12(2)：31-36
32．李中选，刘金策．森林抚育间伐．北京：中国林业出版社，1988
33．李文荣，赵卫中，郭晋平，李武玮．山西油松自然类型的划分及其性状的判别分析，植物学报，1994，36(4)：312—319
34．李世界，李德民，柳中棣，白国学．辽西地区油松人工林密度作用规律的研究．辽宁林业科技，1994，5：19—20
35．李永生，张晋英，张新波，谢英杰，郭增跃．晋东南石灰岩区油松灌木水保用材林
油松适宜密度研究．山西林业科技，1996，4：31-35
36．李自忠．半干旱地区侧柏、油松生长规律及抗性初探．甘肃林业科技，2001，26(3)：38-41
37．李春干，廖泽刊．森林景观空间配置问题的探讨．中南林业调查规划，1994，1：58—61
38．李海，焦力．冀东石灰岩山地油松人工林定量间伐技术研究．河北林业科技，1996，4：3-7
39．杨式瑁．论山东森林公园主体景观建设．山东林业科技，2001，6：30-31
40．杨澄，黄汉民，张新友．油松幼龄林竟争指标的初步研究．陕西林业科技，1996，3：32-36
41．沈佐曹，雅宁，李任敏，李永生．晋东南石灰岩山地油松人工林立地类型划分及评价．林业科学，1996，32(1)：16-23
42．陆兆苏等．南京市中山风景区森林经理的实践和研究．华东森林经理，1991，1：1—6
43．陆兆苏等．按照风景林的特点建设森林公园．华东森林经理，1994，2：12—17
44．陈宝良，王久川，蔡秀玲．油松林解放伐成效研究．河北林业科技，1994，2：13—15
45．陈鑫峰．京西山地区森林景观评价和风景游憩林营建研究—兼论太行山区的森林游憩业的建设．博士论文，2000年．
46．练心江等．试论城市森林的综合效益及其保护对策．黑河科技，1999，1：31—32
47．范会敏，王文凤．刺槐的经营与开发利用，河北林果研究，1999，14(2)：194—197
48．俞孔坚．自然风景质量研究—BIB—LCJ审美评判测量法．北京林业大学学报，1988a，10(2)1—11
49．俞孔坚．论景观概念及其研究发展．北京林业大学学报，1987，4：433—439
50．俞孔坚．青年风景师文摘(文集)，城市设计情报资料，1988b，31—41
51．俞孔坚．中国科学技术协会首届青年学术年会论文集，中国科学技术出版社，1992 169—175，
52．姚勇．栾川县飞播油松幼林抚育间伐试验初报．河南林业科技，1996，4：31-32
53．娄志伟，李具来，刘涌．芬兰的森林经营与自然保护．林业勘查设计，2000，1：5—7
54．赵云，姚录贤，宋丽文，一个具有重要经济价值及多用途树种—刺槐．吉林林业科
技，1999，5：56-58
55．赵宏伟，李宝船．刺槐人工林经营密度的研究．防护林科技，1999，3：9-13
56．赵忠，薛德自，刘西平．几种混交树种根、叶对油松生长的影响．西北林学院学报，1995，10(增)：62-66
57．赵忠，薛德自，苏印泉，张凤兰．油松侧柏混交林效益及种间关系的研究．西北林学院学报，1994，9(1)：12-17
58．唐守正．多元统计分析方法．北京：中国林业出版社，1986
59．夏振平．北京地区油松生长性状相关性及早期选择的研究．林业资源管理，1998，6：28-33
60．徐丽梅，高扬，杜绍武．阜新地区油松纯林改造效益分析．辽宁林业科技，1998(3)：10-12
61．徐国桢．在建立森林公园时如何对现有森林进行改造．中南林业调查规划，1994，1：51—53
62．徐晓潮，俞益民，王昌宁．银北地区刺槐适宜的立地类型及生长调查．防护林科技，1995，1：29-31
63．翁友恒．厦门市生态风景林建设与评价．福建林勘院，2001，15：52～54
64．郭宝章，严玉玲．森林美景之特征与育林作业之配合．现代育林，1991，1：32—38
65．顾斌，张良．太行山区油松人工林经营类型划分与管理措施探讨．河北林业科技，1997，1：28-30
66．顾金荣．风景林的林貌结构及配置．华东森林经理，1990，2：10—12
67．高鹏．人工刺槐林生态经济效益的研究．山西水土保持科技，1994，2：8-10
68．崔洲平．浅析油松的林学特性．内蒙古林业，2000，8：31-32
69．梁波，于艳华，翟爱进．徐州市侧柏林分改造措施．华东森林经理，2001，15(3)：22—23
70．梁守伦，王洪涛，冀永敏．太行山油松人工林林分密度控制图的编制．山西林业科技，1993，3：1-6
71．彭鸿．林龄和立地对渭北黄土高原刺槐和油松人工林的影响．西北林学院学报，2001，16(3)：1-6
72．彭鸿，Bernd Stimm, Hany Kateb．渭北刺槐和油松人工林林分质量初步研究．
陕西林业科技，2001，3：1-7
73．惠兴学，柳中棣．油松黄栌混交林的研究．林业科技，1994，19(1)：8-9
74．蒋有绪．新世纪的城市林业方向生态风景林—兼论其在深圳市的示范意义．林业科学，2001，1：138-140
75．韩冰，吴钦孝，刘向东，汪有科，赵鸿雁．油松林枯落物层防止溅蚀的研究．水土保持研究，1994，1(3)：14-18
76．雷启迪，刘明久，刘景彦．改造辽西山地人工油松纯林为混交林的探讨．生态学杂志，1997，16(1)：8-13
77．薄润香，奥小平．灌木群落对上壤肥力及油松生长的影响．山西林业科技，1996，1：40-43
78. Alman,I.1975.The environment and social behavior:privacy personal space,Territory, Crowding. Brooks/Cole,Monterre. CA
79. Appleton,J.1975.The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London. England.
80. Arthur, L. M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests. Forest Science. 23(2): 151-160.
81. Benson, R.E., and J.R. Ullrich. 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: Findings on public preferences. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14p
82. Bishop, I.D and Hulse, D.W. 1994. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 30, 59-70.
83. Briggs, D.J. and France, J. 1980. Landscape Evaluation: A comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 263-275.
84. British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 1981. Forest Landscape Handbook. Information Services Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., Canada. 100 p.
85. Brown, T.C., and T.C. Daniel. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to ponderosa pine. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p.
86. Brown, T.C., and T.C. Daniel. 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 32(2):471-487
87. Brash, R.O. 1980. Forests can be managed for esthetics: A study of forest-land owners in Massachusetts. pp. 349-360 In G. Hopkins (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, November 13-16, 1978. Syracuse, NY: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
88. Brown, Thomas C.; Daniel, Terry C. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to ponderosa pine. Res. Pap. RM-256. Fort Collins,Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p.
89. Brown, Thomas C.; Daniel, Terry C. 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science. 32(2): 471-487.
90. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Hull IV, R. B.; Lien, J. N.; Cordell, H. K. 1986. Prediction of scenic quality
for southern pine stands. Forest Science. 32(3): 769-778.
91. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Leuschner, William A. 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science. 24(3): 242-432.
92. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Wellman, J. D. 1979. Seasonality bias in landscape preference research. Leisure Sciences. 2(2): 181-190.
93. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Wellman, J. D. 1980. The specification of a nonlinear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. Journal of Leisure Research. 12: 257-272.
94. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Wellman, J. D.; Daniel, Terry C. 1982. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science. 28(4): 827-838.
95. Cooper, A and Murray, R. 1992 .A structured method of landscape assessment and countryside management. Applied Geography, 12, 319-338.
96. Crofts, R.S. and Cooke, R.U. 1974, Landscape Evaluation: A comparison of techniques. Occasional Papers, no 25, Department of Geography, University College London.
97. Crofts, R.S. 1975. The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, no 66, 124-129.
98. Daniel, Terry C.; Boster, Ron S. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. RM-167. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA
99. Daniel, Terry C.; Schroeder, Herbert. 1979. Scenic beauty estimation model:Predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. In: Elsner, G. H.; Smardon,R. C., tech. coord. Proceedings of our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource; 1979 April 23-25; Incline Village, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 514-523.
100. Daniel, T.C. and Vining,J.,1983 Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality, In behavior and natural environment. Vol.6 Altman, Ⅰ.Wohlowill, J,F.(Eds). New York Plenum press 39—84
101. Echelberger, H.E. 1976. The visual impact of timber harvests on forest aesthetics. (Doctoral dissertation). Syracuse, NY: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 232 p.
102. Fabos, J. Gy. and A. McGregor. 1979. A Position Paper & Review of Methods for Assessment of Visual / Aesthetic Landscape Qualities. Report to the Australian Heritage Commission. Center for Environmental Studies, University of Melbourne. 147p.
103. Hamilton, Rick A. 1999. Forest~*A~*Syst: A self-assessment guide for managing your forest. North Carolina State University Department of Forestry.
104. Hammitt,W.E.2000.The relationship of being - away at privacy in urban forest recreation environments. Environ. Behav. 32:521-540
105. Hammitt, W.E.,and G. Brown. 1984.Functions of privacy in wilderness environment. Leisure Sci.6:151-166
106. Hammitt,W.E.,and W. M.Rutlin. 1995.Use encounter standards and curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sci. 17:245-252
107. Hodgest-, 1998. 英国森林的枯死木：重点和策略。Forestry.71(2):99—112
108. Hollenhorst, Steven J.; Brock, Samuel M.; Freimund, Wayne A.; Twery, Mark J. 1993. Predicting the effects of gypsy moth on near-view aesthetic preferences and recreation appeal. Forest Science. 39(1): 28-40.
109. Hull, R. B., IV; Buhyoff, G. J. 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science. 32(2):
271-286.
110. Hull, R. Bruce, IV; Buhyoff, G. J.; Cordell, H. Ken. 1987. Psychophysical models:An example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landscape Journal. 6:113-122.
111. Hull, R. Bruce, IV; Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Daniel, Terry C. 1984. Measurement of scenic beauty: The law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science. 30(4): 1084-1096.
112. Hull, R. Bruce, Ⅳ. 1988. Forest visual quality management and research. In:Watson, A. H. comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum; 1988 January 13-14; Tampa, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, North Carolina: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 485-498.
113. Hull, R. Bruce, IV; Stewart, W. P. 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 12:101-114.
114. Hull, R.B., IV, and G.J. Buhyoff. 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science, 32(2):271-286.
115. James S. Meadows and J.C.G. Goelz 1996 Fourth-year effects of thinning on growth and epicormic branching in a red oak-sweetgum stand on a minor streambottom site in west-central Alabama.
116. Jackson R H et al. 1978 ,Assessment of the environmental impact of high voltage power transmission lines.J.Environ. Manage, 6:153—170
117. Kellomki, S. 1975. Forest stand preferences of recreationists. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 146:1-36.
118. Kaplan, R. 1985. The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161-176.
119. Kopka, S. and M. Ross. 1984. A study of the reliability of the Bureau of Land Management visual resource assessment scheme. Landscape Planning 11(2):161-166.
120. Land Use Consultants (1971) A Planning Classification of Scottish Landscape Resources. Countryside Commission for Scotland, Occasional paper nol, Vol 2.
121. Linton, D.L. 1968. The assessment of scenery as a Natural Resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 84, 219-238. McAulay, 1988
122. Naveh,Z. and Lieberman,A.S.,1984,Landescape ecology theory and application. Springer-- verlag.365
123. Nyland, R.D., P.J. Craul, D.F. Behrend, H.E. Echelberger, W.J. Gabriel, R.L. Nissen, Jr., R. Uebler, and J. Zaenetske. 1976. Logging and its effects in the northern hardwoods. Syracuse, NY: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 134 p.
124. Oka, K., and Y. Ueno. 1982. Landscape management and selective cutting system in the Imasu District, Japan. Forest Recreation Research, 6:1-14
125. Paquet J ,Belanger. L.Public acceptability thresholds of clear cutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes, Forest Science, 1997,43(1):46—55
126. Patey, Roberta C.; Richard M. Evans. 1979. Identification of scenically preferred forest landscapes. In: Elsner, G. H.; Smardon, R. C., tech. coord. Proceedings of our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource; 1979 April 23-25; Incline Village, NV.Berkeley, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 532-538.
127. Proshansky ,H.M.,W.H.Ittelson, and L.G. Rivlin. I976.Freedom of choice and behavior in a physical setting .Environmental psychology:people and their physical settings. Holt,Rinehart, and
Winston,New York,NY
128. Pukkda-, 1998. 欧洲赤杨幼林对不同疏伐强度的反应。Scand. J.For. Res. 13(2):141—150
129. Ribe, Robert G. 1990. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landscape Journal. 9(2): 86-101.
130. Ruddell, Edward J.; Gramann, James H.; Rudis, Victor A.; Westphal, Joanne M.1989. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior. 21(4): 393-412.
131. Savolainen, R., and S. Kellomki. 1981. Scenic value of forest landscape. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 170:1-80
132. Savolainen, R., and S. Kellomki. 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning, 11:97-107
133. Schmierer, A. C. 1982. Visual Resource Management in the US Forest Service: History of Litigation and Legislation, Application of Techniques and Policy Implications. M.S. Thesis, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 155 p.
134. Shafer E L,Rutherford W. Slection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. J.For.,1969b,67:415—419
135. Shafer E L,Meitz J. It seems possible to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. USDA Forest service Res Pap NE-162 Upper Darby, Pa:Northeast For. Exp. Stn. 1997
136. Suttleworth S. 1980a .The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies.J.Environ. Manage., 11:61—76
137. Shuttleworth, S. 1980b. The Evaluation of Landscape Quality. Landscape Research, 5, 14-20.
138. Staffelbach, E. 1984. A new foundation for forest aesthetics. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift, 39:1179-1181
139. Schroeder, Herbert W.; Daniel, Terry C. 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science. 27(1): 71-80.
140. Schroeder, H.W. 1984. Environmental perception rating scales: a ease for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior. 16(5): 573-598.
141. Schroeder, H.W. 1987. Dimensions of variation in urban park preference: a psychophysical analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 7" 123-141
142. Schroeder. Herbert W.; Gobster. Paul H.; Frid, Ross. 1993. Visual quality of human-made clearings in central Michigan conifers. Res. Pap. NC-313. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 9 p.
143. Stankey, G.H.1989.Solitude for the multitudes:Managing recreational use in wilderness.public places and spaces. Plenum Press, New York,NY
144. Stankey, G.H.1973 Vistor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,USDA Forest S ervice,Res. Rep. INT-142.Ogden. UT
145. Ulrich,R.S., 1977,Visual landscape preference,a model and application ,Man-environment systems 7(5):297-393
146. Ulrich,R.S.,1983.Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment ,In behavior and environment. Altman.I.and Wohlwill,J.F.(Eds)New York,Plenum Press.p85-125
147. USDA Forest Service. 1982. National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning. Federal Register. Vol. 47 No. 190. p. 43037-43052. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
148. Vodak, M.C.; Roberts, P.L.; Wellman, J.D.;Buhyoff, G.J. 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern
hardwood management. Forest Science.31 (2): 289-301.
149. Westin,A.E. 1967 Privacy and Freedom.Atheneum, New York,NY
150. Willam E.Hammitt 2002. Urban forests and parks as privacy refuges Journal of Arboriculture 28(1): 19—26
151. Zube E.H.,D.G. Pitt&T.W. Anderson, 1975.Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In,Landscape Assessment,values,perception and research(E.H.Zube,R.O.Brush and J.G. Fabos,eds) P151, Stroudsburg, Penn., Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
152. Zube, Ervin H.; Sell, J. L.; Taylor, J. G. 1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning. 9: 1-33.
153. Zube, E. H., D. G. Pitt, and T. W. Anderson. 1975. Perception and Prediction of Scenic Resource Values of the Northeast. In Landscape assessment: values, perceptions, and resources, p. 151-167. E. H. Zube, R. O.Brush, and J.Gy. Fabos,eds.Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA
2． 万俊生．天然油松次生林天然更新新法．中国林业，1998，10：41
3． 卫金．侧柏造林研究初报．山西林业科技，2001，6(增)：11-16
4． 马胜元．大同市油松人工林经营研究．山西林业，2000，2：28-29
5． 云俊枝，雅洁，姚智敏．浅谈灌木与油松林的生长关系．内蒙古林业调查设计，1998，4：151-154
6． 卞义宁．陇东半干旱地区刺槐水保林合理密度分析与探讨．中国水土保持，1996，3：22-25
7． 卞义宁．陇东黄土高原沟壑区刺愧水保林合理密度初探．中国水土保持，1994，9：32-37
8． 王小德．风景林景观建设初探．华东森林经理，2000，1：12-14
9． 王世忠，李树民．半干旱地区油松纯林改造成混交林效益分析．林业科技通讯，1999，6：22-24
10．王传书，张钧成主编．林业哲学与森林美学问题研究．北京：科学出版社，1992
11．王如新，李建飞．油松修枝强度的确定．林业科技通讯，1994，4：20
12．王克勤，王斌瑞．黄土高原刺槐林间伐改造研究．应用生态学报，2002，13(1)：11-15
13．韦新良．会稽山旅游度假区森林景观配置研究．中南林业调查规划，1999，1：16—19
14．韦新良．森林景观类型划分技术探讨．华东森林经理，1997，2：29—32
15．兰显臻．辽西地区刺槐人工林分类经营措施的探讨．辽宁林业科技，1998，2：26—29
16．冯树成编著．森林公园管理学概论．陕西太白国家森林公园管理处印，1995
17．叶镜中，孙多 编著．森林经营学．北京：中国林业出版社，1995
18．田奇凡 阎海平等．北京西山国家森林公园景观格局的初步研究．北京林业大学学报，1997(增刊号)．
19．刘占朝，王团荣，张洪礼．河南省太行山刺槐用材林经营类型划分．河南林业科技，1995，2：5-8
20．刘淑明，孙丙寅，孙长忠．油松蒸腾速率与环境因子关系的研究．西北林学院学报，1999，14(4)：27-30
21．刘增文，余清珠，王进全．刺槐林更新改造对林地水分环境的影响．西北林学院学报，1995，10(增)：53-57
22．刘增喜，姚勇．飞播油松幼林抚育间伐技术探讨．河南林业科技，1996，4：16-17
23．刘德章，毕君，侯箕，马增旺．太行山区油松天然次生林经营类型的划分．河北林业科技，1996，4：31-32
24．吕忠义．森林公园总体规划理论与技术的探讨．华东森林经理，2000，1：1—9
25．孙进成．不同郁闭度林冠下人工更新油松幼林生长调查．陕西林业科技，1999，3：26—27
26．孙进成．浅谈黄龙山林业局油松人工林现状与经营措施．陕西林业科技，2001，3：29-31
27．毕君，高洪真，王振亮．多用途树种—刺槐研究的进展与趋势．河北林学院学报，1995，10(1)：92-96
28．余清珠，王进鑫．沟坡刺槐林改造方式得初探．林业科技通讯，1996，8：19-20
29．吴枞林，刘向龙，杜芬芬，王晓飞．子午岭林区油松密度管理图的编制．甘肃林业科技，2002，27(2)：27-31
30．吴钦孝，杨新民，列·卡皮雅宁．油松结构组织规律性的研究．水土保持学报，1994，8(4)：1-3
31．张广军，杜纪山，张存旭．长武县刺槐林立地、经营类型及现实生产力的研究．西北林学院学报，1997，12(2)：31-36
32．李中选，刘金策．森林抚育间伐．北京：中国林业出版社，1988
33．李文荣，赵卫中，郭晋平，李武玮．山西油松自然类型的划分及其性状的判别分析，植物学报，1994，36(4)：312—319
34．李世界，李德民，柳中棣，白国学．辽西地区油松人工林密度作用规律的研究．辽宁林业科技，1994，5：19—20
35．李永生，张晋英，张新波，谢英杰，郭增跃．晋东南石灰岩区油松灌木水保用材林
油松适宜密度研究．山西林业科技，1996，4：31-35
36．李自忠．半干旱地区侧柏、油松生长规律及抗性初探．甘肃林业科技，2001，26(3)：38-41
37．李春干，廖泽刊．森林景观空间配置问题的探讨．中南林业调查规划，1994，1：58—61
38．李海，焦力．冀东石灰岩山地油松人工林定量间伐技术研究．河北林业科技，1996，4：3-7
39．杨式瑁．论山东森林公园主体景观建设．山东林业科技，2001，6：30-31
40．杨澄，黄汉民，张新友．油松幼龄林竟争指标的初步研究．陕西林业科技，1996，3：32-36
41．沈佐曹，雅宁，李任敏，李永生．晋东南石灰岩山地油松人工林立地类型划分及评价．林业科学，1996，32(1)：16-23
42．陆兆苏等．南京市中山风景区森林经理的实践和研究．华东森林经理，1991，1：1—6
43．陆兆苏等．按照风景林的特点建设森林公园．华东森林经理，1994，2：12—17
44．陈宝良，王久川，蔡秀玲．油松林解放伐成效研究．河北林业科技，1994，2：13—15
45．陈鑫峰．京西山地区森林景观评价和风景游憩林营建研究—兼论太行山区的森林游憩业的建设．博士论文，2000年．
46．练心江等．试论城市森林的综合效益及其保护对策．黑河科技，1999，1：31—32
47．范会敏，王文凤．刺槐的经营与开发利用，河北林果研究，1999，14(2)：194—197
48．俞孔坚．自然风景质量研究—BIB—LCJ审美评判测量法．北京林业大学学报，1988a，10(2)1—11
49．俞孔坚．论景观概念及其研究发展．北京林业大学学报，1987，4：433—439
50．俞孔坚．青年风景师文摘(文集)，城市设计情报资料，1988b，31—41
51．俞孔坚．中国科学技术协会首届青年学术年会论文集，中国科学技术出版社，1992 169—175，
52．姚勇．栾川县飞播油松幼林抚育间伐试验初报．河南林业科技，1996，4：31-32
53．娄志伟，李具来，刘涌．芬兰的森林经营与自然保护．林业勘查设计，2000，1：5—7
54．赵云，姚录贤，宋丽文，一个具有重要经济价值及多用途树种—刺槐．吉林林业科
技，1999，5：56-58
55．赵宏伟，李宝船．刺槐人工林经营密度的研究．防护林科技，1999，3：9-13
56．赵忠，薛德自，刘西平．几种混交树种根、叶对油松生长的影响．西北林学院学报，1995，10(增)：62-66
57．赵忠，薛德自，苏印泉，张凤兰．油松侧柏混交林效益及种间关系的研究．西北林学院学报，1994，9(1)：12-17
58．唐守正．多元统计分析方法．北京：中国林业出版社，1986
59．夏振平．北京地区油松生长性状相关性及早期选择的研究．林业资源管理，1998，6：28-33
60．徐丽梅，高扬，杜绍武．阜新地区油松纯林改造效益分析．辽宁林业科技，1998(3)：10-12
61．徐国桢．在建立森林公园时如何对现有森林进行改造．中南林业调查规划，1994，1：51—53
62．徐晓潮，俞益民，王昌宁．银北地区刺槐适宜的立地类型及生长调查．防护林科技，1995，1：29-31
63．翁友恒．厦门市生态风景林建设与评价．福建林勘院，2001，15：52～54
64．郭宝章，严玉玲．森林美景之特征与育林作业之配合．现代育林，1991，1：32—38
65．顾斌，张良．太行山区油松人工林经营类型划分与管理措施探讨．河北林业科技，1997，1：28-30
66．顾金荣．风景林的林貌结构及配置．华东森林经理，1990，2：10—12
67．高鹏．人工刺槐林生态经济效益的研究．山西水土保持科技，1994，2：8-10
68．崔洲平．浅析油松的林学特性．内蒙古林业，2000，8：31-32
69．梁波，于艳华，翟爱进．徐州市侧柏林分改造措施．华东森林经理，2001，15(3)：22—23
70．梁守伦，王洪涛，冀永敏．太行山油松人工林林分密度控制图的编制．山西林业科技，1993，3：1-6
71．彭鸿．林龄和立地对渭北黄土高原刺槐和油松人工林的影响．西北林学院学报，2001，16(3)：1-6
72．彭鸿，Bernd Stimm, Hany Kateb．渭北刺槐和油松人工林林分质量初步研究．
陕西林业科技，2001，3：1-7
73．惠兴学，柳中棣．油松黄栌混交林的研究．林业科技，1994，19(1)：8-9
74．蒋有绪．新世纪的城市林业方向生态风景林—兼论其在深圳市的示范意义．林业科学，2001，1：138-140
75．韩冰，吴钦孝，刘向东，汪有科，赵鸿雁．油松林枯落物层防止溅蚀的研究．水土保持研究，1994，1(3)：14-18
76．雷启迪，刘明久，刘景彦．改造辽西山地人工油松纯林为混交林的探讨．生态学杂志，1997，16(1)：8-13
77．薄润香，奥小平．灌木群落对上壤肥力及油松生长的影响．山西林业科技，1996，1：40-43
78. Alman,I.1975.The environment and social behavior:privacy personal space,Territory, Crowding. Brooks/Cole,Monterre. CA
79. Appleton,J.1975.The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London. England.
80. Arthur, L. M. 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: Some empirical tests. Forest Science. 23(2): 151-160.
81. Benson, R.E., and J.R. Ullrich. 1981. Visual impacts of forest management activities: Findings on public preferences. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14p
82. Bishop, I.D and Hulse, D.W. 1994. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 30, 59-70.
83. Briggs, D.J. and France, J. 1980. Landscape Evaluation: A comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 263-275.
84. British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. 1981. Forest Landscape Handbook. Information Services Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C., Canada. 100 p.
85. Brown, T.C., and T.C. Daniel. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to ponderosa pine. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p.
86. Brown, T.C., and T.C. Daniel. 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, 32(2):471-487
87. Brash, R.O. 1980. Forests can be managed for esthetics: A study of forest-land owners in Massachusetts. pp. 349-360 In G. Hopkins (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference, November 13-16, 1978. Syracuse, NY: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
88. Brown, Thomas C.; Daniel, Terry C. 1984. Modeling forest scenic beauty: Concepts and application to ponderosa pine. Res. Pap. RM-256. Fort Collins,Colorado: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 35 p.
89. Brown, Thomas C.; Daniel, Terry C. 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science. 32(2): 471-487.
90. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Hull IV, R. B.; Lien, J. N.; Cordell, H. K. 1986. Prediction of scenic quality
for southern pine stands. Forest Science. 32(3): 769-778.
91. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Leuschner, William A. 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science. 24(3): 242-432.
92. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Wellman, J. D. 1979. Seasonality bias in landscape preference research. Leisure Sciences. 2(2): 181-190.
93. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Wellman, J. D. 1980. The specification of a nonlinear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. Journal of Leisure Research. 12: 257-272.
94. Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Wellman, J. D.; Daniel, Terry C. 1982. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science. 28(4): 827-838.
95. Cooper, A and Murray, R. 1992 .A structured method of landscape assessment and countryside management. Applied Geography, 12, 319-338.
96. Crofts, R.S. and Cooke, R.U. 1974, Landscape Evaluation: A comparison of techniques. Occasional Papers, no 25, Department of Geography, University College London.
97. Crofts, R.S. 1975. The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, no 66, 124-129.
98. Daniel, Terry C.; Boster, Ron S. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. RM-167. Fort Collins, Colorado: USDA
99. Daniel, Terry C.; Schroeder, Herbert. 1979. Scenic beauty estimation model:Predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. In: Elsner, G. H.; Smardon,R. C., tech. coord. Proceedings of our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource; 1979 April 23-25; Incline Village, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 514-523.
100. Daniel, T.C. and Vining,J.,1983 Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality, In behavior and natural environment. Vol.6 Altman, Ⅰ.Wohlowill, J,F.(Eds). New York Plenum press 39—84
101. Echelberger, H.E. 1976. The visual impact of timber harvests on forest aesthetics. (Doctoral dissertation). Syracuse, NY: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 232 p.
102. Fabos, J. Gy. and A. McGregor. 1979. A Position Paper & Review of Methods for Assessment of Visual / Aesthetic Landscape Qualities. Report to the Australian Heritage Commission. Center for Environmental Studies, University of Melbourne. 147p.
103. Hamilton, Rick A. 1999. Forest~*A~*Syst: A self-assessment guide for managing your forest. North Carolina State University Department of Forestry.
104. Hammitt,W.E.2000.The relationship of being - away at privacy in urban forest recreation environments. Environ. Behav. 32:521-540
105. Hammitt, W.E.,and G. Brown. 1984.Functions of privacy in wilderness environment. Leisure Sci.6:151-166
106. Hammitt,W.E.,and W. M.Rutlin. 1995.Use encounter standards and curves for achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sci. 17:245-252
107. Hodgest-, 1998. 英国森林的枯死木：重点和策略。Forestry.71(2):99—112
108. Hollenhorst, Steven J.; Brock, Samuel M.; Freimund, Wayne A.; Twery, Mark J. 1993. Predicting the effects of gypsy moth on near-view aesthetic preferences and recreation appeal. Forest Science. 39(1): 28-40.
109. Hull, R. B., IV; Buhyoff, G. J. 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science. 32(2):
271-286.
110. Hull, R. Bruce, IV; Buhyoff, G. J.; Cordell, H. Ken. 1987. Psychophysical models:An example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landscape Journal. 6:113-122.
111. Hull, R. Bruce, IV; Buhyoff, Gregory J.; Daniel, Terry C. 1984. Measurement of scenic beauty: The law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science. 30(4): 1084-1096.
112. Hull, R. Bruce, Ⅳ. 1988. Forest visual quality management and research. In:Watson, A. H. comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum; 1988 January 13-14; Tampa, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, North Carolina: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 485-498.
113. Hull, R. Bruce, IV; Stewart, W. P. 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 12:101-114.
114. Hull, R.B., IV, and G.J. Buhyoff. 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: An attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science, 32(2):271-286.
115. James S. Meadows and J.C.G. Goelz 1996 Fourth-year effects of thinning on growth and epicormic branching in a red oak-sweetgum stand on a minor streambottom site in west-central Alabama.
116. Jackson R H et al. 1978 ,Assessment of the environmental impact of high voltage power transmission lines.J.Environ. Manage, 6:153—170
117. Kellomki, S. 1975. Forest stand preferences of recreationists. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 146:1-36.
118. Kaplan, R. 1985. The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161-176.
119. Kopka, S. and M. Ross. 1984. A study of the reliability of the Bureau of Land Management visual resource assessment scheme. Landscape Planning 11(2):161-166.
120. Land Use Consultants (1971) A Planning Classification of Scottish Landscape Resources. Countryside Commission for Scotland, Occasional paper nol, Vol 2.
121. Linton, D.L. 1968. The assessment of scenery as a Natural Resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 84, 219-238. McAulay, 1988
122. Naveh,Z. and Lieberman,A.S.,1984,Landescape ecology theory and application. Springer-- verlag.365
123. Nyland, R.D., P.J. Craul, D.F. Behrend, H.E. Echelberger, W.J. Gabriel, R.L. Nissen, Jr., R. Uebler, and J. Zaenetske. 1976. Logging and its effects in the northern hardwoods. Syracuse, NY: SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 134 p.
124. Oka, K., and Y. Ueno. 1982. Landscape management and selective cutting system in the Imasu District, Japan. Forest Recreation Research, 6:1-14
125. Paquet J ,Belanger. L.Public acceptability thresholds of clear cutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes, Forest Science, 1997,43(1):46—55
126. Patey, Roberta C.; Richard M. Evans. 1979. Identification of scenically preferred forest landscapes. In: Elsner, G. H.; Smardon, R. C., tech. coord. Proceedings of our national landscape: A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource; 1979 April 23-25; Incline Village, NV.Berkeley, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 532-538.
127. Proshansky ,H.M.,W.H.Ittelson, and L.G. Rivlin. I976.Freedom of choice and behavior in a physical setting .Environmental psychology:people and their physical settings. Holt,Rinehart, and
Winston,New York,NY
128. Pukkda-, 1998. 欧洲赤杨幼林对不同疏伐强度的反应。Scand. J.For. Res. 13(2):141—150
129. Ribe, Robert G. 1990. A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in northern hardwood forests. Landscape Journal. 9(2): 86-101.
130. Ruddell, Edward J.; Gramann, James H.; Rudis, Victor A.; Westphal, Joanne M.1989. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior. 21(4): 393-412.
131. Savolainen, R., and S. Kellomki. 1981. Scenic value of forest landscape. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 170:1-80
132. Savolainen, R., and S. Kellomki. 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning, 11:97-107
133. Schmierer, A. C. 1982. Visual Resource Management in the US Forest Service: History of Litigation and Legislation, Application of Techniques and Policy Implications. M.S. Thesis, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 155 p.
134. Shafer E L,Rutherford W. Slection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. J.For.,1969b,67:415—419
135. Shafer E L,Meitz J. It seems possible to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. USDA Forest service Res Pap NE-162 Upper Darby, Pa:Northeast For. Exp. Stn. 1997
136. Suttleworth S. 1980a .The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies.J.Environ. Manage., 11:61—76
137. Shuttleworth, S. 1980b. The Evaluation of Landscape Quality. Landscape Research, 5, 14-20.
138. Staffelbach, E. 1984. A new foundation for forest aesthetics. Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift, 39:1179-1181
139. Schroeder, Herbert W.; Daniel, Terry C. 1981. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science. 27(1): 71-80.
140. Schroeder, H.W. 1984. Environmental perception rating scales: a ease for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior. 16(5): 573-598.
141. Schroeder, H.W. 1987. Dimensions of variation in urban park preference: a psychophysical analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 7" 123-141
142. Schroeder. Herbert W.; Gobster. Paul H.; Frid, Ross. 1993. Visual quality of human-made clearings in central Michigan conifers. Res. Pap. NC-313. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 9 p.
143. Stankey, G.H.1989.Solitude for the multitudes:Managing recreational use in wilderness.public places and spaces. Plenum Press, New York,NY
144. Stankey, G.H.1973 Vistor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,USDA Forest S ervice,Res. Rep. INT-142.Ogden. UT
145. Ulrich,R.S., 1977,Visual landscape preference,a model and application ,Man-environment systems 7(5):297-393
146. Ulrich,R.S.,1983.Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment ,In behavior and environment. Altman.I.and Wohlwill,J.F.(Eds)New York,Plenum Press.p85-125
147. USDA Forest Service. 1982. National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning. Federal Register. Vol. 47 No. 190. p. 43037-43052. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
148. Vodak, M.C.; Roberts, P.L.; Wellman, J.D.;Buhyoff, G.J. 1985. Scenic impacts of eastern
hardwood management. Forest Science.31 (2): 289-301.
149. Westin,A.E. 1967 Privacy and Freedom.Atheneum, New York,NY
150. Willam E.Hammitt 2002. Urban forests and parks as privacy refuges Journal of Arboriculture 28(1): 19—26
151. Zube E.H.,D.G. Pitt&T.W. Anderson, 1975.Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In,Landscape Assessment,values,perception and research(E.H.Zube,R.O.Brush and J.G. Fabos,eds) P151, Stroudsburg, Penn., Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
152. Zube, Ervin H.; Sell, J. L.; Taylor, J. G. 1982. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning. 9: 1-33.
153. Zube, E. H., D. G. Pitt, and T. W. Anderson. 1975. Perception and Prediction of Scenic Resource Values of the Northeast. In Landscape assessment: values, perceptions, and resources, p. 151-167. E. H. Zube, R. O.Brush, and J.Gy. Fabos,eds.Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA