城市公园绿地社会服务功能评价研究
|
摘要
本文以泰安市区公园绿地为例,结合地理信息系统(GIS)的技术和方法,引入新的研究方法和指标,探讨城市公园绿地的景观格局、公园绿地的可达性及公平性问题;同时结合使用后评价法(POE)和条件价值法(CVM),采用问卷调查和实地观察的方式对城市公园绿地的使用状况和非使用价值进行评价分析,旨在为今后城市绿地的建设提供科学依据。主要研究结论如下:
1、城市绿地景观格局分析
以QuickBird影像为主,结合其他图文资料,运用景观生态学方法,选用Fragstats软件,从斑块类型水平和景观水平上,对研究区内的绿地斑块进行分析。绿地斑块类型组成分析表明,数量上中型斑块最多,随后依次是小型斑块、中大型斑块和大型斑块;面积上中大型斑块总面积最多,随后依次是中型斑块、大型斑块和小型斑块。斑块特征值表明,林地LPI最高,PD、ED、LSI较低;附属绿地PD、LSI最高,ED较高,LPI较低;公园绿地PD、ED、LPI、LSI均较低;其他绿地LPI最低,PD、ED、LSI居中;廊道绿地ED最高,PD、LPI、LSI较高。斑块空间结构分析表明,附属绿地和廊道绿地的斑块破碎度最高,林地最低。通过绿地整体多样性指数分析,优势度较低,绿地丰富度较小,多样性需要提高。运用SPSS软件对9个景观指数进行相关分析,结果表明相同面积情况下,斑块数的变化能引起斑块边界、形状的变化,进而引起PD、ED、PAFRAC的相应变化;D与E呈负相关。主成分分析表明,斑块特征指数和空间结构指数为第一主成分指标,LPI和D为第二主成分指标,各类型绿地的综合评价得分以附属绿地最高,公园绿地和林地最低。通过上述分析指出了研究区内绿地景观格局存在的问题,建议发展城市公园绿地和加强廊道绿地建设。
2、城市绿地社会服务功能可达性分析
以QuickBird影像为主,结合其他图文资料,基于GIS技术,运用ARCMAP中的Spatial Analyst模块的Distance/Cost Weighted的方法,计算可达性,结果如下:
整体绿地可达性分析表明,随时间增加,服务面积比和服务人口比呈现下降趋势;分象限分析,综合服务面积比和服务人口比,服务能力最好的是第8象限,最低的是第5、6象限。公园绿地现状可达性分析表明,15 min内能满足近20%人口的需要,综合服务面积比和服务人口比,服务能力最好的是第1象限,第4、5、6象限为0,其他象限介于之间。公园绿地规划可达性分析表明,服务面积比和服务人口比在15 min内分别为27.73%和24.57%,相对于现状分析,数据均有所提高,特别是第4、5象限,但第6象限没有明显改善。基于上述研究认为,城市绿地可达性的提高主要与绿地面积和斑块数量、绿地空间分布格局以及道路网有关,对于服务人口则和人口密度紧密相关。公园绿地公平性分析表明,公园绿地更多地为社会经济地位较高者使用,在一定程度上反映出其服务的不公平性。因此建议在研究区第六象限增设公园绿地,以提高其服务能力。
3、城市绿地使用状况和非使用价值评价研究
运用POE方法和CVM方法,采用观察、访谈和问卷等形式,以研究区内的公园绿地为调研对象,进行评价分析,结果如下:城市绿地使用者的活动主要分为3类:老年人的健身活动,中青年人的休闲活动,儿童、青少年活动,另有演出、展览等其他活动。
城市绿地使用状况问卷调查结果表明:居民日常休憩主要是居住区绿地和小游园,周末多选择城市公园和广场,节假日则去周边风景区;出游的工具依次是步行、非机动车和机动车。居民对各类绿地设施的不满意度最高,对各类景观的不满意度较低。在各类活动空间中,公园中对餐饮空间的不满意度最高(24.4%),在广场中对安静空间的不满意度最高(15.9%)。
城市绿地非使用价值评价研究结果表明:以泰安城市公园绿地为例,支付意愿率在2次调查中分别为60.6%和61.0%;支付意愿平均值分别为38.12元/(人·年)和38.80元/(人·年),中位值均为20.00元/(人·年)。相关分析表明,支付意愿与对城市绿化的满意程度显著相关;支付意愿值与学历、月收入均呈极显著相关;其他因素的相关性不显著。建立的回归方程能解释变量间的相关问题,通过了F检验和t检验,但拟合优度并不高。研究结论有助于政府了解哪些因素影响居民对绿地资源的态度和实际行动,有利于城市绿地的整体发展。
This dissertation presents an empirical study of evaluation on the social service function of urban green space. Taking Tai’an city as an example, landscape pattern, accessibility and equity were analyzed by using GIS technology and other new methods. Meanwhile, the usage and non-use evaluation of urban green space were analyzed, by using POE, CVM, questionnaire and observation. The research aimsto provide advice for the construction of urban green space. The major findings of the present study are summarized as follows:
1. Analysis of urban green space landscape pattern
In the dissertation, landscape patterns of urban green space were analyzed on patch level and landscape indexes by using Fragstats software, on the basis of landscape ecology theory, Quickbird images and other graphic materials.
Analysis of patch composition showed that, regarding the number, medium patches were the most, followed by small patches, larger patches and the largest patches. With respect to the total area, the larger patches were the most, followed by medium patches, the largest patches and small patches. Analysis of feature values showed that LPI of forest was the highest, while PD, ED and LSI were comparatively lower. PD and LSI of ubsidiary green space were the highest, while ED was comparatively higher, and LPI were the lower. PD, ED, LPI, and LSI of parks were lower. LPI of other green was the lowest, while PD, ED and LSI were in the middle. ED of corridor green spaces was the highest, while PD, LPI and LSI were higher. Analysis of spatial structure of patches showed that corridor green space and subsidiary green space had the highest fragmentation while forest the lowest. Diversity analysis showed that dominance and richness were low, and diversity needed to improve. Nine landscape indices correlation analysis, with the use of SPSS software, showed that number of patches could cause changes in boundary and shape of patches, and then caused the changes in PD, ED and PAFRAC, and D and E were negative related. Primary component analysis indicated that patch feature indices and landscape indices were the first primary component index, LPI and D were the second. The total evaluation result showed that subsidiary green was the highest and parks and forset were the lowest. Based on these analyses, the development of urban park and corridor green space was proposed to improve landscape pattern.
2. Analysis of social service function of urban green space
Accessibility was calculated with the distance/cost weighted of spatial analyst in ArcMap, based on QuickBird images and other graphic materials.
Accessibility of the overall green space showed that the service area and population ratio was the downward trend, increasing with time. Sub-quadrant analysis and integrated service area and population ratio showed that the 8th quadrant was the best, and the 5th and the 6th quadrant were the lowest. Accessibility of the park showed that service could meet the need of 20% of the population in 15 min. Sub-quadrant analysis showed that the 1st quadrant was the best, the 4th, 5th, and 6th quadrants were zero, and other quadrants were between the range. Accessibility of park planning, service area and population ratios were 27.73% and 24.57% in 15min. Data was improved, especially in the 4th and 5th quadrants, but no significant improvement in the 6th quadrant. Based on the above, the improvement of accessibility of urban green space was related to green area, patch number, space structure and road network. Analyses of park equity showed that the more parks for the use of higher socio-economic status, to a certain extent, reflected the unfairness of the services.Urban park was proposed to build in the 6thquadrants to meet people’s need.
3. Research of usage and non-use values evaluation of urban green space
With the methods of POE and CVM, using observation, interviews and questionnaires, parks in study region were analyzed. The results were as follows:
Activities in urban green space divided into three categories: leisure activities, fitness activities, children and youth activities, and other activities such as performances and exhibitions.
Survey of usage of urban green space showed that people often go residential green space in weekdays, city parks and squares in weekends and scenic spot in holidays. Travel tools were mainly on foot, non-motor vehicles and motor vehicles in turn. Residents were most dissatisfied with facilities while less satisfied with landscape. And residents were most dissatisfied with dining space in parks (24.4%), and most dissatisfied with quiet space in squares (15.9%).
Research on non-use value evaluation of urban green space showed that ratios of willingness to pay in two surveys were 60.6% and 61.0%; and average values were 38.12 yuan/(people·year) and 38.80 yuan/(people·year), median value was 20 yuan/(people·year). Correlation analysis showed that willingness to pay and the satisfaction were significantly related. Willingness to pay value were significantly related with educational experience and monthly income, and other factors had some correlation but not significant. Regression equation explained the variables by the F test and t test, but the goodness of fit was not high. The result had a positive significance for government understanding what factors affect the attitude of residents and overall development of urban green space.
1、城市绿地景观格局分析
以QuickBird影像为主,结合其他图文资料,运用景观生态学方法,选用Fragstats软件,从斑块类型水平和景观水平上,对研究区内的绿地斑块进行分析。绿地斑块类型组成分析表明,数量上中型斑块最多,随后依次是小型斑块、中大型斑块和大型斑块;面积上中大型斑块总面积最多,随后依次是中型斑块、大型斑块和小型斑块。斑块特征值表明,林地LPI最高,PD、ED、LSI较低;附属绿地PD、LSI最高,ED较高,LPI较低;公园绿地PD、ED、LPI、LSI均较低;其他绿地LPI最低,PD、ED、LSI居中;廊道绿地ED最高,PD、LPI、LSI较高。斑块空间结构分析表明,附属绿地和廊道绿地的斑块破碎度最高,林地最低。通过绿地整体多样性指数分析,优势度较低,绿地丰富度较小,多样性需要提高。运用SPSS软件对9个景观指数进行相关分析,结果表明相同面积情况下,斑块数的变化能引起斑块边界、形状的变化,进而引起PD、ED、PAFRAC的相应变化;D与E呈负相关。主成分分析表明,斑块特征指数和空间结构指数为第一主成分指标,LPI和D为第二主成分指标,各类型绿地的综合评价得分以附属绿地最高,公园绿地和林地最低。通过上述分析指出了研究区内绿地景观格局存在的问题,建议发展城市公园绿地和加强廊道绿地建设。
2、城市绿地社会服务功能可达性分析
以QuickBird影像为主,结合其他图文资料,基于GIS技术,运用ARCMAP中的Spatial Analyst模块的Distance/Cost Weighted的方法,计算可达性,结果如下:
整体绿地可达性分析表明,随时间增加,服务面积比和服务人口比呈现下降趋势;分象限分析,综合服务面积比和服务人口比,服务能力最好的是第8象限,最低的是第5、6象限。公园绿地现状可达性分析表明,15 min内能满足近20%人口的需要,综合服务面积比和服务人口比,服务能力最好的是第1象限,第4、5、6象限为0,其他象限介于之间。公园绿地规划可达性分析表明,服务面积比和服务人口比在15 min内分别为27.73%和24.57%,相对于现状分析,数据均有所提高,特别是第4、5象限,但第6象限没有明显改善。基于上述研究认为,城市绿地可达性的提高主要与绿地面积和斑块数量、绿地空间分布格局以及道路网有关,对于服务人口则和人口密度紧密相关。公园绿地公平性分析表明,公园绿地更多地为社会经济地位较高者使用,在一定程度上反映出其服务的不公平性。因此建议在研究区第六象限增设公园绿地,以提高其服务能力。
3、城市绿地使用状况和非使用价值评价研究
运用POE方法和CVM方法,采用观察、访谈和问卷等形式,以研究区内的公园绿地为调研对象,进行评价分析,结果如下:城市绿地使用者的活动主要分为3类:老年人的健身活动,中青年人的休闲活动,儿童、青少年活动,另有演出、展览等其他活动。
城市绿地使用状况问卷调查结果表明:居民日常休憩主要是居住区绿地和小游园,周末多选择城市公园和广场,节假日则去周边风景区;出游的工具依次是步行、非机动车和机动车。居民对各类绿地设施的不满意度最高,对各类景观的不满意度较低。在各类活动空间中,公园中对餐饮空间的不满意度最高(24.4%),在广场中对安静空间的不满意度最高(15.9%)。
城市绿地非使用价值评价研究结果表明:以泰安城市公园绿地为例,支付意愿率在2次调查中分别为60.6%和61.0%;支付意愿平均值分别为38.12元/(人·年)和38.80元/(人·年),中位值均为20.00元/(人·年)。相关分析表明,支付意愿与对城市绿化的满意程度显著相关;支付意愿值与学历、月收入均呈极显著相关;其他因素的相关性不显著。建立的回归方程能解释变量间的相关问题,通过了F检验和t检验,但拟合优度并不高。研究结论有助于政府了解哪些因素影响居民对绿地资源的态度和实际行动,有利于城市绿地的整体发展。
This dissertation presents an empirical study of evaluation on the social service function of urban green space. Taking Tai’an city as an example, landscape pattern, accessibility and equity were analyzed by using GIS technology and other new methods. Meanwhile, the usage and non-use evaluation of urban green space were analyzed, by using POE, CVM, questionnaire and observation. The research aimsto provide advice for the construction of urban green space. The major findings of the present study are summarized as follows:
1. Analysis of urban green space landscape pattern
In the dissertation, landscape patterns of urban green space were analyzed on patch level and landscape indexes by using Fragstats software, on the basis of landscape ecology theory, Quickbird images and other graphic materials.
Analysis of patch composition showed that, regarding the number, medium patches were the most, followed by small patches, larger patches and the largest patches. With respect to the total area, the larger patches were the most, followed by medium patches, the largest patches and small patches. Analysis of feature values showed that LPI of forest was the highest, while PD, ED and LSI were comparatively lower. PD and LSI of ubsidiary green space were the highest, while ED was comparatively higher, and LPI were the lower. PD, ED, LPI, and LSI of parks were lower. LPI of other green was the lowest, while PD, ED and LSI were in the middle. ED of corridor green spaces was the highest, while PD, LPI and LSI were higher. Analysis of spatial structure of patches showed that corridor green space and subsidiary green space had the highest fragmentation while forest the lowest. Diversity analysis showed that dominance and richness were low, and diversity needed to improve. Nine landscape indices correlation analysis, with the use of SPSS software, showed that number of patches could cause changes in boundary and shape of patches, and then caused the changes in PD, ED and PAFRAC, and D and E were negative related. Primary component analysis indicated that patch feature indices and landscape indices were the first primary component index, LPI and D were the second. The total evaluation result showed that subsidiary green was the highest and parks and forset were the lowest. Based on these analyses, the development of urban park and corridor green space was proposed to improve landscape pattern.
2. Analysis of social service function of urban green space
Accessibility was calculated with the distance/cost weighted of spatial analyst in ArcMap, based on QuickBird images and other graphic materials.
Accessibility of the overall green space showed that the service area and population ratio was the downward trend, increasing with time. Sub-quadrant analysis and integrated service area and population ratio showed that the 8th quadrant was the best, and the 5th and the 6th quadrant were the lowest. Accessibility of the park showed that service could meet the need of 20% of the population in 15 min. Sub-quadrant analysis showed that the 1st quadrant was the best, the 4th, 5th, and 6th quadrants were zero, and other quadrants were between the range. Accessibility of park planning, service area and population ratios were 27.73% and 24.57% in 15min. Data was improved, especially in the 4th and 5th quadrants, but no significant improvement in the 6th quadrant. Based on the above, the improvement of accessibility of urban green space was related to green area, patch number, space structure and road network. Analyses of park equity showed that the more parks for the use of higher socio-economic status, to a certain extent, reflected the unfairness of the services.Urban park was proposed to build in the 6thquadrants to meet people’s need.
3. Research of usage and non-use values evaluation of urban green space
With the methods of POE and CVM, using observation, interviews and questionnaires, parks in study region were analyzed. The results were as follows:
Activities in urban green space divided into three categories: leisure activities, fitness activities, children and youth activities, and other activities such as performances and exhibitions.
Survey of usage of urban green space showed that people often go residential green space in weekdays, city parks and squares in weekends and scenic spot in holidays. Travel tools were mainly on foot, non-motor vehicles and motor vehicles in turn. Residents were most dissatisfied with facilities while less satisfied with landscape. And residents were most dissatisfied with dining space in parks (24.4%), and most dissatisfied with quiet space in squares (15.9%).
Research on non-use value evaluation of urban green space showed that ratios of willingness to pay in two surveys were 60.6% and 61.0%; and average values were 38.12 yuan/(people·year) and 38.80 yuan/(people·year), median value was 20 yuan/(people·year). Correlation analysis showed that willingness to pay and the satisfaction were significantly related. Willingness to pay value were significantly related with educational experience and monthly income, and other factors had some correlation but not significant. Regression equation explained the variables by the F test and t test, but the goodness of fit was not high. The result had a positive significance for government understanding what factors affect the attitude of residents and overall development of urban green space.
引文
安勇,卓丽环.哈尔滨市绿地系统复层绿色量分析[J].东北林业大学学报, 2007, 35(7): 74-75.
敖长林,李一军,冯磊,等.基于CVM的三江平原湿地非使用价值评价[J].生态学报2010, 30(23): 6470-6477.
波普诺D.李强,等译.社会学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 1999, 242-243.
布仁仓,胡远满,常禹,等.景观指数之间的相关分析[J].生态学报, 2005, 25,(10): 2764-2775.
车生泉,宋永昌.上海城市公园绿地景观格局分析[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2002, 20(4): 322-327.
车生泉,王洪轮.城市园林绿地研究综述[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2001, 19(3): 229-234.
陈波,卢山.杭州西湖风景区绿地生态服务功能价值评估[J].浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2009, 35(6): 686-690.
陈秋菲,宋力,李明智.沈阳市青年公园使用状况评价研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2009, 11(2): 174-177.
陈爽,王丹,王进.城市绿地服务功能的居民认知度研究[J].人文地理, 2010, 114(4): 55-59.
陈雯,王远飞.城市公园区位分配公平性评价研究—以上海市外环线以内区域为例[J]. 安徽师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 32(4): 373-377.
程好好,曾辉,汪自书,等.城市绿地类型及格局特征与地表温度的关系—以深圳特区为例[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 45(3): 495-501.
储亦婷,顾远英,杨学军,等. POE方法在桂林市绿地系统规划中的应用[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2005, 23(2): 193-197.
房城,王成,郭二果,等.城郊森林公园游憩与游人生理健康关系—以北京百望山森林公园为例[J].东北林业大学学报, 2010, 38(3): 87-88.
冯晶艳.居住区规划使用后评估方法研究[D].华东师范大学硕士学位论文, 2008.
高峻,杨名静,陶康华.上海城市绿地景观格局的分析研究[J].中国园林, 2000, 16(1): 53-56.
高原荣重(杨增志,阎稳藩,纪昭民,等译).城市绿地规划[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 1983.
韩静,胡绍学.温故而知新—使用后评价(POE)方法简介[J].建筑学报, 2006, 1(1): 80-82.
郝凌子.城市绿地开放空间浅析[J].安徽建筑工业学院学报(自然科学版), 2006,14(6): 63-66.
何鹏,张会儒.常用景观指数的因子分析和筛选方法研究[J].林业科学研究, 2009, 22(4): 470-474.
何兴元,陈玮,徐文铎,等.沈阳城区绿地生态系统景观结构与异质性分析[J].应用生态学报, 2003, 14(12): 2085-2089.
贺锋,董金凯,谢小龙,等.北京奥林匹克森林公园人工湿地生态系统服务非使用价值的评估[J].长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(7): 782-789.
侯碧清.基于高分辨率卫星图像的株洲市绿地景观结构特征分析[J].林业科学, 2007, 43(3): 127-132.
侯立春,许正昊,徐磊,等.城市居住区绿地评价新指标的探索与构建[J].生态经济, 2010, (8):172-175.
胡志斌,何兴元,陆庆轩,等.基于GIS的绿地景观可达性研究—以沈阳市为例[J].沈阳建筑大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 21(6): 671-675.
黄蕾,段百灵,袁增伟,田丰,等.湖泊生态系统服务功能支付意愿的影响因素—以洪泽湖为例[J].生态学报, 2010, 30 (2): 487-497.
黄晓鸾,张国强,贾建忠.城市生存环境绿色量值群的研究(6)—城市生存环境绿色量值群[J].中国园林, 1998, 14(6):57-60.
黄翌,胡召玲,王健,等.基于GIS的徐州主城区公共绿地可达性研究[J].徐州师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 27(3): 72-75.
建设部.城市绿地分类标准[S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2002.
建设部.园林基本术语标准[S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2002.
江海燕,肖荣波,周春山.广州中心城区公园绿地消费的社会分异特征及供给对策[J]. 规划师, 2010, (2): 66-72.
江海燕,周春山,肖荣波.广州公园绿地的空间差异及社会公平研究[J].城市规划, 2010, (4): 43-48.
姜允芳,刘滨宜,刘颂,等.国外市域绿地系统分类研究的述评[J].城市规划学刊,
2007, 172, (6):109-114. 金秋,赵伟韬.沈阳五里河公园公众破坏行为研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2009, 11(4): 481-484.
金远.对城市绿地指标的分析[J].中国园林, 2006, 8 (8): 56-60.
克莱尔·库珀·马库斯,卡罗琳·弗朗西斯,编著;俞孔坚,孙鹏,王志芳,等译.人性场所[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2001.
李传成.高校新区大学生食堂设计及用后评价-基于行为理论的建筑设计及使用研究[J]. 建筑学报, 2007, (2): 88-91.
李洪波,李燕燕.武夷山自然保护区生态旅游系统能值分析[J].生态学报, 2009, 29(11): 5869-5876.
李敏.城市绿地系统与人居环境规划[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社. 1999。
李师炜,董琳,林永善,等.厦门岛城市绿地可达性研究[J].中国城市林业, 2008, 6(6): 29-61.
李文,张林,李莹.哈尔滨城市公园可达性和服务效率分析[J].中国园林, 2010,8:59-62.
李小马,刘常富.基于网络分析的沈阳城市公园可达性和服务[J].生态学报, 2009, 29(3): 1554-1562.
李星墨,段广德.基于GIS的呼和浩特城市扩展轴上的绿地景观格局梯度分析[J].内蒙古农业大学学报, 2010, 31(2): 89-94.
李莹,白墨,杨开忠,等.居民为改善北京市大气环境质量的支付意愿研究[J].城市环境与城市生态, 2001, 14(5): 6-8.
李贞,王丽荣,管东升.广州城市绿地系统景观异质性分析[J].应用生态学报, 2000,11(1): 127-130.
梁颢严,肖荣波,廖远涛.基于服务能力的公园绿地空间分布合理性评价[J].中国园林, 2010, 9(9): 15-19.
刘常富,李京泽,李小马,等.基于模拟景观的城市森林景观格局指数选取[J].应用生态学报, 2009, 20(5): 1125-1131.
刘金川,乔鑫,刘丽.实证研究大城市区域性公园服务范围—以上海市杨浦公园为例[J].中国园林, 2010, 8(8): 88-91.
刘萍,范文涛,李园园.乌鲁木齐市城市绿地景观结构特征研究[J].北京林业大学学报, 2007, 29(6): 93-98.
刘学全,唐万鹏,周志翔,等.宜昌市城区不同绿地类型环境效应[J].东北林业大学学报, 2004, 32(5): 53-54.
刘云国,刘加利,张慧智,等.城市绿地规划指标体系研究—以岳阳市为例[J].湖南大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 31(1): 71-74.
芦建国,孙琴.火车站站前广场使用状况的调查研究—以南京火车站站前广场为例[J].建筑学报, 2008, (1): 34-37.
马锦义.论城市绿地系统的组成与分类[J].中国园林, 2002, 1(1): 23-26.
马林兵,曹小曙.基于GIS的城市公共绿地景观可达性评价方法[J].中山大学学报(自然科学版), 2006, 45(6): 111-115.
马琳,陆玉麒.南京市主城区公园绿地景观格局分析[J].地域研究与开发, 2010, 29(3): 73-76.
阮晓峰,胡欢,王祥荣.高校校园绿地景观格局指数评析[J].复旦学报, 2009, 48(1): 100-105.
邵琳,黄嘉伟.城市公园系统公共服务格局分析-以无锡市传统中心区为例[J].中国园林, 2007, 11(11): 68-72.
沈涛,丁建丽,张玉进,等.基于遥感的乌鲁木齐市绿地资源信息提取技术研究[J]. 福建林业科技, 2004, 31(2): 31-35.
石金莲,王兵,李俊清.城市公园使用状况评价(POE)应用案例研究—以北京玉渊潭公园为例[J].旅游学刊, 2006, 21(2):67-70.
石忆邵,张蕊.大型公园绿地对住宅价格的时空影响效应-以上海市黄兴公园绿地为例[J].地理研究, 2010, 29(3): 510-520.
孙晓春.关于国家园林城市绿地指标的探讨[J].中国园林, 2009, 6(6):80-84.
谭少华,赵万民.城市公园绿地社会功能研究[J].重庆建筑大学学报, 2007, 29(5): 6-10.
王翠娟.成都市中心城区绿地系统生态服务功能价值评估研究[D].四川农业大学硕士学位论文, 2008, 6.
王凤珍,周志祥,郑忠明.武汉市典型城市湖泊湿地资源非使用价值评价[J].生态学报, 2010, 30(12): 3261-3269.
王丽荣,李贞,管东生.广州城市绿地系统景观生态学分析[J].城市环境与城市生态,1998, 11(3): 26-29.
王湃,凌雪冰,张安录. CVM评估休闲农地的存在价值—以武汉市和平农庄为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2009, 23 (6): 66-71.
王庆日.城市绿地的价值及其评估研究[D].杭州:浙江大学博士学位论文, 2003: 92-104.
王修信,朱启疆,陈声海,等.城市公园绿地水、热与CO2通量观测与分析[J].生态学报, 2007, 27(8): 3232-3239.
王原,吴泽民,张浩,等.基于RS和GIS的马鞍山市分区城市森林景观格局综合评价[J].北京林业大学学报, 2008,30(4): 46-52.
邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级[M].北京,高等教育出版社, 2007.
吴丽娟,周亮,王新杰,等.北京城市绿地系统景观多样性分析[J].北京林业大学学报, 2007, 29(2): 88-92.
乌日汗.基于RS和GIS的城市绿地景观动态及其规划研究—以深圳市为例[D].南京:南京林业大学博士学位论文, 2008.
武文婷,包志毅,汤庚国.基于支付意愿法的杭州市园林植物景观游憩价值评估研究[J].中国园林, 2010, 6(6): 63-67.
肖华斌,袁奇峰,徐会军.基于可达性和服务面积的公园绿地空间分布研究[J].规划师, 2009, 25(2): 83-88.
肖荣波,周志翔,王鹏程,等.武钢工业区绿地景观格局分析及综合评价[J].生态学报, 2004, 24(9): 1924-1930.
谢军飞,李炜民,李延明,等.基于Patch Analyst的北京城市公园景观格局指数评价[J]. 城市环境与城市生态, 2007, 20(6): 14-16.
徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用[J].生态学报, 2003, 23(9): 1841-1850.
徐丽,卞晓庆,秦小林,等.空间粒度变化对合肥市景观格局指数的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2010, 21(5): 1167-1173.
许丽忠,吴春山,王菲凤,等.条件价值法评估旅游资源非使用价值的可靠性检验[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(10): 4301-4309.
扬·盖尔著.何人可译.交往与空间[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2002.
杨凯,赵军.城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析[J].生态学报, 2005, 25(6): 1391-1396.
杨瑞卿.徐州市城市绿地景观格局与生态功能及其优化研究[D].南京:南京林业大学博士学位论文, 2006.
尹海伟,孔繁花,宗跃光.城市绿地可达性与公平性评价[J].生态学报, 2008, 28 (7): 3375-3383.
尹海伟,孔繁花.济南市城市绿地可达性分析[J].植物生态学报, 2006, 30(1): 17-24
尹海伟,徐建刚,孔繁花.上海城市绿地宜人性对房价的影响[J].生态学报, 2009, 29(8): 4492-4500.
应君,沈肖.中国园林设计中引入使用后评价的意义和方法[J].浙江林学院学报, 2009, 26(3): 417-420.
俞兵.基于RS和GIS南京城市绿地景观格局研究[D].河海大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
俞孔坚,段铁武,李迪华.景观可达性作为衡量城市绿地系统功能指标的评价方法与案例[J].城市规划, 1999, 23(8): 8-11
俞曦,汪芳.城市园林游憩活动谱研究-以无锡市为例[J].中国园林, 2008, 3(3): 84-88.
张浩,王祥荣.城市绿地的三维生态特征及其生态功能[J].中国环境科学, 2001, 21(2): 101-104.
张金屯,邱扬,郑风英.景观格局的数量研究方法[J].山地学报, 2000, 18(4): 346-352
张欣,安春啸,聂云,等.天津大学建筑馆改造用后满意度研究[J].建筑学报, 2006(1): 83-85.
张茵,蔡运龙.用条件估值法评估九寨沟的游憩价值—CVM方法的校正与比较[J].经济地理, 2010, 30(7): 1205-1211.
张志斌,曹琪.城市山体公园使用后评价-以兰州五泉山公园为例[J].西北师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 46(5): 114-19.
章俊华.日本城市绿地空间(上)[J].中国园林, 2001, 5(5):37-41.
章俊华.日本城市绿地空间(下)[J].中国园林, 2001, 6(6):49-51
章裕超.基于GIS对合肥市绿地景观可达性的研究[D].合肥:安徽农业大学硕士学位论文, 2008.
赵东汉.使用后评价POE在国外的发展特点及在中国的适用性研究[J].北京大学学报:自然科学版, 2007, 43(6): 797-802.
赵红霞.聊城市城市绿地空间结构及功能研究[D].南京:南京林业大学博士学位论文,2007.
赵秀敏.从建成环境评价分析城市开放空间的规划与设计—基于城市社区公园建成环境评价及游客行为模式的案例分析[J].装饰, 2009, (10): 80-81.
赵耘,舒清态,刘安华,等.西山森林公园森林景观分类与排序研究[J].江西农业大学学报, 2010, 32(6): 1202-1208.
周坚华.城市绿量测算模式及信息系统[J].地理学报, 2001, 56(1): 14-23.
周坚华.以绿化三维量分析植物群降解SO2的宏观效应[J].中国环境科学, 1999, 19(2): 161-164.
周亮,王挺,马娜,等.基于GIS的城市公共绿地空间可达性研究—以武汉市汉口地区为例[J].云南地理环境研究, 2008, 20(4):11-15.
周廷刚,郭达志.基于GIS的城市绿地景观空间结构研究—以宁波市为例[J].生态学报, 2003, 23(5): 901-907.
周廷刚,郭达志.基于GIS的城市绿地景观引力场研究—以宁波市为例[J].生态学报, 2004, 24(6): 1157-1163.
周廷刚,罗红霞,郭达志.基于遥感影像的城市空间三维绿量(绿化三维量)定量研究[J].生态学报, 2005, 25(3): 415-420.
朱黎霞,李瑞冬.城市绿地分类标准的实践修正[J].中国园林, 2007, 7(7): 87-90.
祝宁,李敏,柴一新.哈尔滨市绿地系统生态功能分析[J].生态学报, 2002, 13(9): 1117-1120.
宗雪,崔国发,袁婧.基于条件价值法的大熊猫(Ailuropodamelanoleuca)存在价值评估[J].生态学报, 2008, 28(5): 2090-2098.
Alex Y. H. Lo, Jim C. Y. Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city in HongKong [J]. Urban Forestry&Urban Greening, 2010, 9:113-120.
Alexis Comber, Chris Brunsdon, Edmund Green. Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2008, 86(1): 103-114.
Alwx Y. H. Lo, Jim C. Y. Differential community effect on perception and use of urban greenspaces [J]. Cities, 2010, 27:430-442.
Auguest Heckscher. Open space-the life of American city [M]. New York: Harper&Row,1984:55-69.
Carson R. T., Mitchell R. C. The Value of Clean Water: the Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishm2ble and Swimmable Quality Water [J]. Water Resources Research, 1993, 29: 2445-2245.
Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainablecity [J]. Landscape and urban planning, 2004, 68:129-138.
Chih-Fang Fang , Der-Lin Ling. Investigation of the noise reduction provided by tree belts [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 4:187-195.
Daniel Franco, Davide Franco, Ilda Mannino. The role of agroforestry networks in landscape socioeconomic processes:the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, 55:239-256.
Davis R. K. Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem [J]. Natural Resources Journal, 1963 (3): 239-249. Douglas M. Green, Micheal G. Baker. Urbanization impacts on hm2bitat and bird communities in a Sonoran desert ecosystem [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 63(4): 225-239.
Sattout E. J., Talbouk S. N., Caligari P. D. S. Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon:An application of contingent valuation method for conservation [J]. Ecological Economics, 2007, 61:315-322.
Francisco J. Escobed, David J. Nowak. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2009, 90(3-4): 102-110.
Hansen W. G.. How aceessibility shapes land-use [J]. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1959(25):73-76.
Hengjin Dong, Bocar Kouyate, John Cairnsc, et al. A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimatingwillingness-to-pay in a
rural population inWestAfrica [J]. Social Science &Medicine, 2003, 56: 2181-2189. Jamie Tratalo, Richmard A. Fuller, Philip H. Warren, et al. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 83(4): 308-317.
Jensen M. B., Persson B., GUuldager S., et al. Green structure and sustainability—developing a tool for local planning [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002, 52:117-133.
Jianjun Jin, Zhishi Wang, Xuenmin Liu. Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao:A policy and contingent valuation study[J]. Ecological Economic, 2008, 68: 328-335.
Jim C.Y., Chen S.S. Comprehensive green space planningbased on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 65(3): 95-116.
Jim C. Y., Wendy Y. Chen. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspace in Guangzhou, China [J]. Landscape and urban planning, 2006, 75:81-96.
Klaus Seeland, Sabine Dübendorfer, Ralf Hmansmann. Making friends in Zurich's urban forests and parks: The role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures [J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2008.
Klaus Seeland, Simone Nicolè. Public green space and disabled users[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2006(5):29-34.
Kwan M.P., Rurray A.T. Recent advances in accessibility research:Representation, methodology and applications[J]. Geographical System, 2003(5):129-138.
Kyushik , Seunghyun Jeong. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 82(2):25-32.
Liisa Tyrv?inen, Hmannu V??n?nen. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1998, 43(1-3): 105-118.
Lodon Planning Advisory Committee. Open space planning in London [M]. Lodon: artillery house, 1992:17-34.
Mallick R. K., Routray J. K. Identification and accessibility analysis of rural service centers in Kendrapara District, Orissa, India: a GIS-based application[J]. International Journal of Applied Earth Observations and Geoinformation, 2001, 3(1), 99-105.
Marcos Alvarez Diaz, Manuel Gonzalez Gomez, Angeles Saavedra Gonzalez , et al. On dichotomous choice contingent valuation data analysis semiparametric methods and genetic programming [J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2010, 16:145-156.
Marjo Neuvonen, Tuija Sievanen, Susan Tonnes, et al. Access to green and the frequency of visits-A case study in Helsinki[J]. Urban Forsety&Urban Greening, 2007(6):235-247.
Nassaueer J.I. Cultural principle of landscape ecology [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1995, 10(4): 229-237.
O’Neill RV. Multiple landscape scales: An intersite comparison [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1991, 5(30): 137-144.
Rroman R.T. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1995, 10: 133-142.
Salvador del Saz-Salazar, Pau Rausel-Koster. A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: dealing with zero responses [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2008, 84: 241-251.
Seong Hoon C.h, Neelam C. Poudyal, Roland K. Roberts. Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 66: 403-416.
Shivanand Balram, Suzana Dragi evi . Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2005, 71:147-162.
Turner M.G. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Landscape Patterns [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1990, 4(1): 21-23.
Wendy Y. Chen, Jim C. Y. Cost-benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai [J]. Cities, 2008, 25: 298-309.
Yang Wang, Yi Sheng Zhang. Air quality assessment by contingent valuation in Ji’nan, China [J]. Journal of Environment Management, 2009, 90:1022-1029.
敖长林,李一军,冯磊,等.基于CVM的三江平原湿地非使用价值评价[J].生态学报2010, 30(23): 6470-6477.
波普诺D.李强,等译.社会学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社, 1999, 242-243.
布仁仓,胡远满,常禹,等.景观指数之间的相关分析[J].生态学报, 2005, 25,(10): 2764-2775.
车生泉,宋永昌.上海城市公园绿地景观格局分析[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2002, 20(4): 322-327.
车生泉,王洪轮.城市园林绿地研究综述[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2001, 19(3): 229-234.
陈波,卢山.杭州西湖风景区绿地生态服务功能价值评估[J].浙江大学学报(农业与生命科学版), 2009, 35(6): 686-690.
陈秋菲,宋力,李明智.沈阳市青年公园使用状况评价研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2009, 11(2): 174-177.
陈爽,王丹,王进.城市绿地服务功能的居民认知度研究[J].人文地理, 2010, 114(4): 55-59.
陈雯,王远飞.城市公园区位分配公平性评价研究—以上海市外环线以内区域为例[J]. 安徽师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 32(4): 373-377.
程好好,曾辉,汪自书,等.城市绿地类型及格局特征与地表温度的关系—以深圳特区为例[J].北京大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 45(3): 495-501.
储亦婷,顾远英,杨学军,等. POE方法在桂林市绿地系统规划中的应用[J].上海交通大学学报(农业科学版), 2005, 23(2): 193-197.
房城,王成,郭二果,等.城郊森林公园游憩与游人生理健康关系—以北京百望山森林公园为例[J].东北林业大学学报, 2010, 38(3): 87-88.
冯晶艳.居住区规划使用后评估方法研究[D].华东师范大学硕士学位论文, 2008.
高峻,杨名静,陶康华.上海城市绿地景观格局的分析研究[J].中国园林, 2000, 16(1): 53-56.
高原荣重(杨增志,阎稳藩,纪昭民,等译).城市绿地规划[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 1983.
韩静,胡绍学.温故而知新—使用后评价(POE)方法简介[J].建筑学报, 2006, 1(1): 80-82.
郝凌子.城市绿地开放空间浅析[J].安徽建筑工业学院学报(自然科学版), 2006,14(6): 63-66.
何鹏,张会儒.常用景观指数的因子分析和筛选方法研究[J].林业科学研究, 2009, 22(4): 470-474.
何兴元,陈玮,徐文铎,等.沈阳城区绿地生态系统景观结构与异质性分析[J].应用生态学报, 2003, 14(12): 2085-2089.
贺锋,董金凯,谢小龙,等.北京奥林匹克森林公园人工湿地生态系统服务非使用价值的评估[J].长江流域资源与环境, 2010, 19(7): 782-789.
侯碧清.基于高分辨率卫星图像的株洲市绿地景观结构特征分析[J].林业科学, 2007, 43(3): 127-132.
侯立春,许正昊,徐磊,等.城市居住区绿地评价新指标的探索与构建[J].生态经济, 2010, (8):172-175.
胡志斌,何兴元,陆庆轩,等.基于GIS的绿地景观可达性研究—以沈阳市为例[J].沈阳建筑大学学报(自然科学版), 2005, 21(6): 671-675.
黄蕾,段百灵,袁增伟,田丰,等.湖泊生态系统服务功能支付意愿的影响因素—以洪泽湖为例[J].生态学报, 2010, 30 (2): 487-497.
黄晓鸾,张国强,贾建忠.城市生存环境绿色量值群的研究(6)—城市生存环境绿色量值群[J].中国园林, 1998, 14(6):57-60.
黄翌,胡召玲,王健,等.基于GIS的徐州主城区公共绿地可达性研究[J].徐州师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2009, 27(3): 72-75.
建设部.城市绿地分类标准[S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2002.
建设部.园林基本术语标准[S].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2002.
江海燕,肖荣波,周春山.广州中心城区公园绿地消费的社会分异特征及供给对策[J]. 规划师, 2010, (2): 66-72.
江海燕,周春山,肖荣波.广州公园绿地的空间差异及社会公平研究[J].城市规划, 2010, (4): 43-48.
姜允芳,刘滨宜,刘颂,等.国外市域绿地系统分类研究的述评[J].城市规划学刊,
2007, 172, (6):109-114. 金秋,赵伟韬.沈阳五里河公园公众破坏行为研究[J].沈阳农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2009, 11(4): 481-484.
金远.对城市绿地指标的分析[J].中国园林, 2006, 8 (8): 56-60.
克莱尔·库珀·马库斯,卡罗琳·弗朗西斯,编著;俞孔坚,孙鹏,王志芳,等译.人性场所[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2001.
李传成.高校新区大学生食堂设计及用后评价-基于行为理论的建筑设计及使用研究[J]. 建筑学报, 2007, (2): 88-91.
李洪波,李燕燕.武夷山自然保护区生态旅游系统能值分析[J].生态学报, 2009, 29(11): 5869-5876.
李敏.城市绿地系统与人居环境规划[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社. 1999。
李师炜,董琳,林永善,等.厦门岛城市绿地可达性研究[J].中国城市林业, 2008, 6(6): 29-61.
李文,张林,李莹.哈尔滨城市公园可达性和服务效率分析[J].中国园林, 2010,8:59-62.
李小马,刘常富.基于网络分析的沈阳城市公园可达性和服务[J].生态学报, 2009, 29(3): 1554-1562.
李星墨,段广德.基于GIS的呼和浩特城市扩展轴上的绿地景观格局梯度分析[J].内蒙古农业大学学报, 2010, 31(2): 89-94.
李莹,白墨,杨开忠,等.居民为改善北京市大气环境质量的支付意愿研究[J].城市环境与城市生态, 2001, 14(5): 6-8.
李贞,王丽荣,管东升.广州城市绿地系统景观异质性分析[J].应用生态学报, 2000,11(1): 127-130.
梁颢严,肖荣波,廖远涛.基于服务能力的公园绿地空间分布合理性评价[J].中国园林, 2010, 9(9): 15-19.
刘常富,李京泽,李小马,等.基于模拟景观的城市森林景观格局指数选取[J].应用生态学报, 2009, 20(5): 1125-1131.
刘金川,乔鑫,刘丽.实证研究大城市区域性公园服务范围—以上海市杨浦公园为例[J].中国园林, 2010, 8(8): 88-91.
刘萍,范文涛,李园园.乌鲁木齐市城市绿地景观结构特征研究[J].北京林业大学学报, 2007, 29(6): 93-98.
刘学全,唐万鹏,周志翔,等.宜昌市城区不同绿地类型环境效应[J].东北林业大学学报, 2004, 32(5): 53-54.
刘云国,刘加利,张慧智,等.城市绿地规划指标体系研究—以岳阳市为例[J].湖南大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 31(1): 71-74.
芦建国,孙琴.火车站站前广场使用状况的调查研究—以南京火车站站前广场为例[J].建筑学报, 2008, (1): 34-37.
马锦义.论城市绿地系统的组成与分类[J].中国园林, 2002, 1(1): 23-26.
马林兵,曹小曙.基于GIS的城市公共绿地景观可达性评价方法[J].中山大学学报(自然科学版), 2006, 45(6): 111-115.
马琳,陆玉麒.南京市主城区公园绿地景观格局分析[J].地域研究与开发, 2010, 29(3): 73-76.
阮晓峰,胡欢,王祥荣.高校校园绿地景观格局指数评析[J].复旦学报, 2009, 48(1): 100-105.
邵琳,黄嘉伟.城市公园系统公共服务格局分析-以无锡市传统中心区为例[J].中国园林, 2007, 11(11): 68-72.
沈涛,丁建丽,张玉进,等.基于遥感的乌鲁木齐市绿地资源信息提取技术研究[J]. 福建林业科技, 2004, 31(2): 31-35.
石金莲,王兵,李俊清.城市公园使用状况评价(POE)应用案例研究—以北京玉渊潭公园为例[J].旅游学刊, 2006, 21(2):67-70.
石忆邵,张蕊.大型公园绿地对住宅价格的时空影响效应-以上海市黄兴公园绿地为例[J].地理研究, 2010, 29(3): 510-520.
孙晓春.关于国家园林城市绿地指标的探讨[J].中国园林, 2009, 6(6):80-84.
谭少华,赵万民.城市公园绿地社会功能研究[J].重庆建筑大学学报, 2007, 29(5): 6-10.
王翠娟.成都市中心城区绿地系统生态服务功能价值评估研究[D].四川农业大学硕士学位论文, 2008, 6.
王凤珍,周志祥,郑忠明.武汉市典型城市湖泊湿地资源非使用价值评价[J].生态学报, 2010, 30(12): 3261-3269.
王丽荣,李贞,管东生.广州城市绿地系统景观生态学分析[J].城市环境与城市生态,1998, 11(3): 26-29.
王湃,凌雪冰,张安录. CVM评估休闲农地的存在价值—以武汉市和平农庄为例[J]. 中国土地科学, 2009, 23 (6): 66-71.
王庆日.城市绿地的价值及其评估研究[D].杭州:浙江大学博士学位论文, 2003: 92-104.
王修信,朱启疆,陈声海,等.城市公园绿地水、热与CO2通量观测与分析[J].生态学报, 2007, 27(8): 3232-3239.
王原,吴泽民,张浩,等.基于RS和GIS的马鞍山市分区城市森林景观格局综合评价[J].北京林业大学学报, 2008,30(4): 46-52.
邬建国.景观生态学——格局、过程、尺度与等级[M].北京,高等教育出版社, 2007.
吴丽娟,周亮,王新杰,等.北京城市绿地系统景观多样性分析[J].北京林业大学学报, 2007, 29(2): 88-92.
乌日汗.基于RS和GIS的城市绿地景观动态及其规划研究—以深圳市为例[D].南京:南京林业大学博士学位论文, 2008.
武文婷,包志毅,汤庚国.基于支付意愿法的杭州市园林植物景观游憩价值评估研究[J].中国园林, 2010, 6(6): 63-67.
肖华斌,袁奇峰,徐会军.基于可达性和服务面积的公园绿地空间分布研究[J].规划师, 2009, 25(2): 83-88.
肖荣波,周志翔,王鹏程,等.武钢工业区绿地景观格局分析及综合评价[J].生态学报, 2004, 24(9): 1924-1930.
谢军飞,李炜民,李延明,等.基于Patch Analyst的北京城市公园景观格局指数评价[J]. 城市环境与城市生态, 2007, 20(6): 14-16.
徐中民,张志强,龙爱华,等.额济纳旗生态系统服务恢复价值评估方法的比较与应用[J].生态学报, 2003, 23(9): 1841-1850.
徐丽,卞晓庆,秦小林,等.空间粒度变化对合肥市景观格局指数的影响[J].应用生态学报, 2010, 21(5): 1167-1173.
许丽忠,吴春山,王菲凤,等.条件价值法评估旅游资源非使用价值的可靠性检验[J]. 生态学报, 2007, 27(10): 4301-4309.
扬·盖尔著.何人可译.交往与空间[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社, 2002.
杨凯,赵军.城市河流生态系统服务的CVM估值及其偏差分析[J].生态学报, 2005, 25(6): 1391-1396.
杨瑞卿.徐州市城市绿地景观格局与生态功能及其优化研究[D].南京:南京林业大学博士学位论文, 2006.
尹海伟,孔繁花,宗跃光.城市绿地可达性与公平性评价[J].生态学报, 2008, 28 (7): 3375-3383.
尹海伟,孔繁花.济南市城市绿地可达性分析[J].植物生态学报, 2006, 30(1): 17-24
尹海伟,徐建刚,孔繁花.上海城市绿地宜人性对房价的影响[J].生态学报, 2009, 29(8): 4492-4500.
应君,沈肖.中国园林设计中引入使用后评价的意义和方法[J].浙江林学院学报, 2009, 26(3): 417-420.
俞兵.基于RS和GIS南京城市绿地景观格局研究[D].河海大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
俞孔坚,段铁武,李迪华.景观可达性作为衡量城市绿地系统功能指标的评价方法与案例[J].城市规划, 1999, 23(8): 8-11
俞曦,汪芳.城市园林游憩活动谱研究-以无锡市为例[J].中国园林, 2008, 3(3): 84-88.
张浩,王祥荣.城市绿地的三维生态特征及其生态功能[J].中国环境科学, 2001, 21(2): 101-104.
张金屯,邱扬,郑风英.景观格局的数量研究方法[J].山地学报, 2000, 18(4): 346-352
张欣,安春啸,聂云,等.天津大学建筑馆改造用后满意度研究[J].建筑学报, 2006(1): 83-85.
张茵,蔡运龙.用条件估值法评估九寨沟的游憩价值—CVM方法的校正与比较[J].经济地理, 2010, 30(7): 1205-1211.
张志斌,曹琪.城市山体公园使用后评价-以兰州五泉山公园为例[J].西北师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2010, 46(5): 114-19.
章俊华.日本城市绿地空间(上)[J].中国园林, 2001, 5(5):37-41.
章俊华.日本城市绿地空间(下)[J].中国园林, 2001, 6(6):49-51
章裕超.基于GIS对合肥市绿地景观可达性的研究[D].合肥:安徽农业大学硕士学位论文, 2008.
赵东汉.使用后评价POE在国外的发展特点及在中国的适用性研究[J].北京大学学报:自然科学版, 2007, 43(6): 797-802.
赵红霞.聊城市城市绿地空间结构及功能研究[D].南京:南京林业大学博士学位论文,2007.
赵秀敏.从建成环境评价分析城市开放空间的规划与设计—基于城市社区公园建成环境评价及游客行为模式的案例分析[J].装饰, 2009, (10): 80-81.
赵耘,舒清态,刘安华,等.西山森林公园森林景观分类与排序研究[J].江西农业大学学报, 2010, 32(6): 1202-1208.
周坚华.城市绿量测算模式及信息系统[J].地理学报, 2001, 56(1): 14-23.
周坚华.以绿化三维量分析植物群降解SO2的宏观效应[J].中国环境科学, 1999, 19(2): 161-164.
周亮,王挺,马娜,等.基于GIS的城市公共绿地空间可达性研究—以武汉市汉口地区为例[J].云南地理环境研究, 2008, 20(4):11-15.
周廷刚,郭达志.基于GIS的城市绿地景观空间结构研究—以宁波市为例[J].生态学报, 2003, 23(5): 901-907.
周廷刚,郭达志.基于GIS的城市绿地景观引力场研究—以宁波市为例[J].生态学报, 2004, 24(6): 1157-1163.
周廷刚,罗红霞,郭达志.基于遥感影像的城市空间三维绿量(绿化三维量)定量研究[J].生态学报, 2005, 25(3): 415-420.
朱黎霞,李瑞冬.城市绿地分类标准的实践修正[J].中国园林, 2007, 7(7): 87-90.
祝宁,李敏,柴一新.哈尔滨市绿地系统生态功能分析[J].生态学报, 2002, 13(9): 1117-1120.
宗雪,崔国发,袁婧.基于条件价值法的大熊猫(Ailuropodamelanoleuca)存在价值评估[J].生态学报, 2008, 28(5): 2090-2098.
Alex Y. H. Lo, Jim C. Y. Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city in HongKong [J]. Urban Forestry&Urban Greening, 2010, 9:113-120.
Alexis Comber, Chris Brunsdon, Edmund Green. Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2008, 86(1): 103-114.
Alwx Y. H. Lo, Jim C. Y. Differential community effect on perception and use of urban greenspaces [J]. Cities, 2010, 27:430-442.
Auguest Heckscher. Open space-the life of American city [M]. New York: Harper&Row,1984:55-69.
Carson R. T., Mitchell R. C. The Value of Clean Water: the Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishm2ble and Swimmable Quality Water [J]. Water Resources Research, 1993, 29: 2445-2245.
Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainablecity [J]. Landscape and urban planning, 2004, 68:129-138.
Chih-Fang Fang , Der-Lin Ling. Investigation of the noise reduction provided by tree belts [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 4:187-195.
Daniel Franco, Davide Franco, Ilda Mannino. The role of agroforestry networks in landscape socioeconomic processes:the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, 55:239-256.
Davis R. K. Recreation Planning as an Economic Problem [J]. Natural Resources Journal, 1963 (3): 239-249. Douglas M. Green, Micheal G. Baker. Urbanization impacts on hm2bitat and bird communities in a Sonoran desert ecosystem [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 63(4): 225-239.
Sattout E. J., Talbouk S. N., Caligari P. D. S. Economic value of cedar relics in Lebanon:An application of contingent valuation method for conservation [J]. Ecological Economics, 2007, 61:315-322.
Francisco J. Escobed, David J. Nowak. Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2009, 90(3-4): 102-110.
Hansen W. G.. How aceessibility shapes land-use [J]. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 1959(25):73-76.
Hengjin Dong, Bocar Kouyate, John Cairnsc, et al. A comparison of the reliability of the take-it-or-leave-it and the bidding game approaches to estimatingwillingness-to-pay in a
rural population inWestAfrica [J]. Social Science &Medicine, 2003, 56: 2181-2189. Jamie Tratalo, Richmard A. Fuller, Philip H. Warren, et al. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 83(4): 308-317.
Jensen M. B., Persson B., GUuldager S., et al. Green structure and sustainability—developing a tool for local planning [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002, 52:117-133.
Jianjun Jin, Zhishi Wang, Xuenmin Liu. Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao:A policy and contingent valuation study[J]. Ecological Economic, 2008, 68: 328-335.
Jim C.Y., Chen S.S. Comprehensive green space planningbased on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, 65(3): 95-116.
Jim C. Y., Wendy Y. Chen. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspace in Guangzhou, China [J]. Landscape and urban planning, 2006, 75:81-96.
Klaus Seeland, Sabine Dübendorfer, Ralf Hmansmann. Making friends in Zurich's urban forests and parks: The role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures [J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2008.
Klaus Seeland, Simone Nicolè. Public green space and disabled users[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2006(5):29-34.
Kwan M.P., Rurray A.T. Recent advances in accessibility research:Representation, methodology and applications[J]. Geographical System, 2003(5):129-138.
Kyushik , Seunghyun Jeong. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 82(2):25-32.
Liisa Tyrv?inen, Hmannu V??n?nen. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1998, 43(1-3): 105-118.
Lodon Planning Advisory Committee. Open space planning in London [M]. Lodon: artillery house, 1992:17-34.
Mallick R. K., Routray J. K. Identification and accessibility analysis of rural service centers in Kendrapara District, Orissa, India: a GIS-based application[J]. International Journal of Applied Earth Observations and Geoinformation, 2001, 3(1), 99-105.
Marcos Alvarez Diaz, Manuel Gonzalez Gomez, Angeles Saavedra Gonzalez , et al. On dichotomous choice contingent valuation data analysis semiparametric methods and genetic programming [J]. Journal of Forest Economics, 2010, 16:145-156.
Marjo Neuvonen, Tuija Sievanen, Susan Tonnes, et al. Access to green and the frequency of visits-A case study in Helsinki[J]. Urban Forsety&Urban Greening, 2007(6):235-247.
Nassaueer J.I. Cultural principle of landscape ecology [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1995, 10(4): 229-237.
O’Neill RV. Multiple landscape scales: An intersite comparison [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1991, 5(30): 137-144.
Rroman R.T. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1995, 10: 133-142.
Salvador del Saz-Salazar, Pau Rausel-Koster. A double-hurdle model of urban green areas valuation: dealing with zero responses [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2008, 84: 241-251.
Seong Hoon C.h, Neelam C. Poudyal, Roland K. Roberts. Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space [J]. Ecological Economics, 2008, 66: 403-416.
Shivanand Balram, Suzana Dragi evi . Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2005, 71:147-162.
Turner M.G. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Landscape Patterns [J]. Landscape Ecology, 1990, 4(1): 21-23.
Wendy Y. Chen, Jim C. Y. Cost-benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai [J]. Cities, 2008, 25: 298-309.
Yang Wang, Yi Sheng Zhang. Air quality assessment by contingent valuation in Ji’nan, China [J]. Journal of Environment Management, 2009, 90:1022-1029.