风景区公路景观美学评价与环境保护设计
|
摘要
2003年交通部示范工程四川川主寺至九寨沟旅游公路(以下简称“川九路”)被誉为新中国成立50多年来我国首条环保景观路。自川九路之后,公路环保景观逐渐成为交通行业和社会公众所关注的领域,人们对出行的需求不再只是简单的空间移动,而是更加注重公路沿线景观美学的欣赏与环境的保护,最终达到人与自然相和谐的境界。本研究正是在这样的背景下展开。
本文首先应用国外景观美学评价方法“心理物理学法”对风景区公路景观进行了美学评价;然后对川九路提出的新理念进行了提升,提出了关联性设计(context sensitive design,简称CSD)与景观分段设计新理念,指导了世界自然遗产卧龙自然保护区旅游公路景观规划;拓展了CSD理念重要内容之一的公路环保建设的内涵,提出了在中国开展路域生态学研究的框架,最后研究了作为路域生态学重要内容之一的公路动物通道设置的关键技术。取得的成果如下:
1、公路自然景观美感度大于人文景观美感度,然而有些人文景观类型也有较高美感度,如农田、特色建筑景观等;自然景观组成要素美感度大于人文景观组成要素,前者包括水体、森林、花卉、天象、草地,后者包括农田、人工种植、村庄、雕塑和广告牌;公众偏好具有自然性、独特性、变化性和生动性特征的景观,而对于景观的娱乐性、文化历史性和整体性等特征不大关注;通过景观细部特征分析得知,中景和远景景观的美感度较高;组成要素色彩对比较强的景观美感度较高;格局特征为连续性的景观美感度较高;本研究美学感知主体包括景观环保专家、景观专业学生、非专业学生和普通市民,研究发现四类群体美学偏好具有共性,差异性体现在景观环保专家美学评价具有稳定性,而非专业群体评价波动性较大,景观环保专家更偏好自然景观;性别、专业、学历对公路景观美学感知影响不具有显著差异;道路使用者路域景观美学感知与人工设施特色性、人工设施距离、设施融合度、植被盖度、景观质地、水体大小、植被类型、景观多样性、景观自然性、景观开阔性、景观完整性、景观生动性都是在0.01水平上显著相关;景观美学感知与天象特色和道路在视域中显著性两个因子在0.05水平上显著相关。建立了道路路域景观美学评价模型:景观美学质量(Y)=2.1+0.675×植被种类(X1)-0.535×景观完整性(X2)。
2、CSD理念可以在公路建设各个阶段贯彻,川九路的成功之处在于灵活运用设计标准与指标、公路廊道综合功能得到较为全面的体现、多学科专家团队自始至终的指导和公路景观美学设计的深入研究。在CSD理念指导下提出了在我国全面开展“路域生态学”研究的设想,给出了学科框架和理论体系。
3、提出了公路景观分段设计新理念,认为公路景观可划分为景观特色带、景观过渡带及景观特色点,景观特色带内至少体现一种景观美学特征,而在景观过渡带内不需要体现过多美学特征,只要公路与周围景观融合即可,在景观单调地区景观特色带或过渡带长度可取3km左右,在线形多变地区(如山区)可取10km或更长。景观特色点可能分布在景观特色带与景观过渡带内,但是在实际景观规划中应尽量把景观特色点划分到景观特色带内。
4、详细总结发达国家生态敏感区域公路动物通道设置方法和原则,结合世界自然遗产卧龙自然保护区实际,通过现场踏勘、专家咨询、公路沿线访谈及发放调查表的方式确定了卧龙生态敏感区域公路动物通道位置,从工程设计上提出了不同种类动物通道设置的关键技术,包括通道规划、通道内部设计、外部配套设计、通道组织管理、通道监测等。
本文的创新点在于提出了公路景观美学的定量化评价方法,从宏观和微观角度提出了公路景观整体规划设计新理念架构,以及公路动物通道设置的关键技术。值得一提的是,本文比较系统地提出了未来在我国全面开展“路域生态学”研究的设想。
The highway from Chuanzhusi to Jiuzhaigou is a demonstration project of Ministry of Communications in Year 2003, which is known for the first scenic road since 50 years. From then on, road environmental protection and aesthetics is becoming a research field attracted lots of attention more and more. The traditional transportation function of road is not satisfied with road user, and other functions such as aesthetics, environmental protection, cultural characters and entertainment etc all become hot point cared by public and government. This is the background of this study.
In this paper, firstly we assess the scenic highway landscape aesthetics by the Psychophysical methods; then we provide new ideas of context sensitive design and landscape sections design based on new ideas provided by Chuanzhusi to Jiuzhaigou demonstration project, and we develop highway environmental protection construction as one of the important content of CSD, provide the frame of the subject of road ecology. Finally, we provide the key technology of highway wildlife passage design. Conclusion is following:
1. The average score of natural landscape aesthetic quality is higher than artificial landscape; however some artificial landscape gets high aesthetic scores, the former including water, forest, wild flowers, atmosphere and lawn, and the latter including farmland, some artificial buildings, plantation and billboard. The landscape owning characters including natural, vividness, varieties and uniqueness is preferred to that of entertainment, cultural and integrity characters. Wide viewshed is preferred by road user rather than narrow viewshed. Highway landscape composing of vivid elements such as colorful flowers has high aesthetics scores, and landscape of continuity character has higher aesthetic scores. Landscape perception groups is composed of landscape architecture, landscape students, common students and civil public, four groups have similar aesthetic perception, while they have difference, that is aesthetic opinion of landscape architecture is similar, other groups is wave, and landscape architecture prefer natural landscape to artificial landscape. The impact of sex, specialty and degree on landscape aesthetic perception is not prominence. Road landscape aesthetics quality is significant correlate with those indexes including character of roadside artificial architecture, the distance between road and artificial architecture, the harmony level between architecture and surroundings, the covering level of roadside vegetation, landscape texture, the amount of roadside water, the types of roadside vegetation, landscape diversity, the depth of view, the landscape intactness, landscape vividness, the character of atmospheric phenomena and proportion of road in view. The assessment model only consists of the diversity level of roadside vegetation and landscape intactness.
2. The idea of Context sensitive design can be apply through all stage of road construction. The excellent success of Chuanzhusi to Jiuzhaigou scenic road construction is such: flexibility to make use of design standard and guideline, comprehensive functions of road corridor is embodied obviously, multidisciplinary experts panel to guide through all stage of road construction and deeply study the road landscape aesthetics. A new research field named“road ecology”is provided, including subject schedule and conception system.
3. New idea of road landscape section design is provided, we divided road landscape into landscape characteristic section, landscape transition section and landscape characteristic point. At least one landscape aesthetic character is embodied in landscape characteristic section, while none requirement in landscape transition section. The length of either is not a fixed number; approximately 3km can be applied among landscape monotony area, approximately 10km or more among mountain area. Landscape characteristic points can distribute in landscape characteristic section or landscape transition section, while we advice landscape architecture should make possible divide landscape characteristic point into landscape characteristic section in practice.
4. Based on summarizing design methods and guideline of road wildlife passage in ecological sensitive area in western developed countries, we take Wolong natural preserve as research area, firstly we identify road wildlife passage location by surveying locate, expert consultation, questionnaire etc, then we provide key technology of different category wildlife passage, including: wildlife passage planning, design interior, design exterior, management and inspect etc.
The innovation contents of this paper is to provide quantitative assessment method of road landscape aesthetics, and the idea frame of highway landscape planning and design from angle of both holistic and partial, and provide design key technology of highway wildlife passage. A point deserving attention, which is this paper systemically provides the planning of developing the subject of road ecology in China.
本文首先应用国外景观美学评价方法“心理物理学法”对风景区公路景观进行了美学评价;然后对川九路提出的新理念进行了提升,提出了关联性设计(context sensitive design,简称CSD)与景观分段设计新理念,指导了世界自然遗产卧龙自然保护区旅游公路景观规划;拓展了CSD理念重要内容之一的公路环保建设的内涵,提出了在中国开展路域生态学研究的框架,最后研究了作为路域生态学重要内容之一的公路动物通道设置的关键技术。取得的成果如下:
1、公路自然景观美感度大于人文景观美感度,然而有些人文景观类型也有较高美感度,如农田、特色建筑景观等;自然景观组成要素美感度大于人文景观组成要素,前者包括水体、森林、花卉、天象、草地,后者包括农田、人工种植、村庄、雕塑和广告牌;公众偏好具有自然性、独特性、变化性和生动性特征的景观,而对于景观的娱乐性、文化历史性和整体性等特征不大关注;通过景观细部特征分析得知,中景和远景景观的美感度较高;组成要素色彩对比较强的景观美感度较高;格局特征为连续性的景观美感度较高;本研究美学感知主体包括景观环保专家、景观专业学生、非专业学生和普通市民,研究发现四类群体美学偏好具有共性,差异性体现在景观环保专家美学评价具有稳定性,而非专业群体评价波动性较大,景观环保专家更偏好自然景观;性别、专业、学历对公路景观美学感知影响不具有显著差异;道路使用者路域景观美学感知与人工设施特色性、人工设施距离、设施融合度、植被盖度、景观质地、水体大小、植被类型、景观多样性、景观自然性、景观开阔性、景观完整性、景观生动性都是在0.01水平上显著相关;景观美学感知与天象特色和道路在视域中显著性两个因子在0.05水平上显著相关。建立了道路路域景观美学评价模型:景观美学质量(Y)=2.1+0.675×植被种类(X1)-0.535×景观完整性(X2)。
2、CSD理念可以在公路建设各个阶段贯彻,川九路的成功之处在于灵活运用设计标准与指标、公路廊道综合功能得到较为全面的体现、多学科专家团队自始至终的指导和公路景观美学设计的深入研究。在CSD理念指导下提出了在我国全面开展“路域生态学”研究的设想,给出了学科框架和理论体系。
3、提出了公路景观分段设计新理念,认为公路景观可划分为景观特色带、景观过渡带及景观特色点,景观特色带内至少体现一种景观美学特征,而在景观过渡带内不需要体现过多美学特征,只要公路与周围景观融合即可,在景观单调地区景观特色带或过渡带长度可取3km左右,在线形多变地区(如山区)可取10km或更长。景观特色点可能分布在景观特色带与景观过渡带内,但是在实际景观规划中应尽量把景观特色点划分到景观特色带内。
4、详细总结发达国家生态敏感区域公路动物通道设置方法和原则,结合世界自然遗产卧龙自然保护区实际,通过现场踏勘、专家咨询、公路沿线访谈及发放调查表的方式确定了卧龙生态敏感区域公路动物通道位置,从工程设计上提出了不同种类动物通道设置的关键技术,包括通道规划、通道内部设计、外部配套设计、通道组织管理、通道监测等。
本文的创新点在于提出了公路景观美学的定量化评价方法,从宏观和微观角度提出了公路景观整体规划设计新理念架构,以及公路动物通道设置的关键技术。值得一提的是,本文比较系统地提出了未来在我国全面开展“路域生态学”研究的设想。
The highway from Chuanzhusi to Jiuzhaigou is a demonstration project of Ministry of Communications in Year 2003, which is known for the first scenic road since 50 years. From then on, road environmental protection and aesthetics is becoming a research field attracted lots of attention more and more. The traditional transportation function of road is not satisfied with road user, and other functions such as aesthetics, environmental protection, cultural characters and entertainment etc all become hot point cared by public and government. This is the background of this study.
In this paper, firstly we assess the scenic highway landscape aesthetics by the Psychophysical methods; then we provide new ideas of context sensitive design and landscape sections design based on new ideas provided by Chuanzhusi to Jiuzhaigou demonstration project, and we develop highway environmental protection construction as one of the important content of CSD, provide the frame of the subject of road ecology. Finally, we provide the key technology of highway wildlife passage design. Conclusion is following:
1. The average score of natural landscape aesthetic quality is higher than artificial landscape; however some artificial landscape gets high aesthetic scores, the former including water, forest, wild flowers, atmosphere and lawn, and the latter including farmland, some artificial buildings, plantation and billboard. The landscape owning characters including natural, vividness, varieties and uniqueness is preferred to that of entertainment, cultural and integrity characters. Wide viewshed is preferred by road user rather than narrow viewshed. Highway landscape composing of vivid elements such as colorful flowers has high aesthetics scores, and landscape of continuity character has higher aesthetic scores. Landscape perception groups is composed of landscape architecture, landscape students, common students and civil public, four groups have similar aesthetic perception, while they have difference, that is aesthetic opinion of landscape architecture is similar, other groups is wave, and landscape architecture prefer natural landscape to artificial landscape. The impact of sex, specialty and degree on landscape aesthetic perception is not prominence. Road landscape aesthetics quality is significant correlate with those indexes including character of roadside artificial architecture, the distance between road and artificial architecture, the harmony level between architecture and surroundings, the covering level of roadside vegetation, landscape texture, the amount of roadside water, the types of roadside vegetation, landscape diversity, the depth of view, the landscape intactness, landscape vividness, the character of atmospheric phenomena and proportion of road in view. The assessment model only consists of the diversity level of roadside vegetation and landscape intactness.
2. The idea of Context sensitive design can be apply through all stage of road construction. The excellent success of Chuanzhusi to Jiuzhaigou scenic road construction is such: flexibility to make use of design standard and guideline, comprehensive functions of road corridor is embodied obviously, multidisciplinary experts panel to guide through all stage of road construction and deeply study the road landscape aesthetics. A new research field named“road ecology”is provided, including subject schedule and conception system.
3. New idea of road landscape section design is provided, we divided road landscape into landscape characteristic section, landscape transition section and landscape characteristic point. At least one landscape aesthetic character is embodied in landscape characteristic section, while none requirement in landscape transition section. The length of either is not a fixed number; approximately 3km can be applied among landscape monotony area, approximately 10km or more among mountain area. Landscape characteristic points can distribute in landscape characteristic section or landscape transition section, while we advice landscape architecture should make possible divide landscape characteristic point into landscape characteristic section in practice.
4. Based on summarizing design methods and guideline of road wildlife passage in ecological sensitive area in western developed countries, we take Wolong natural preserve as research area, firstly we identify road wildlife passage location by surveying locate, expert consultation, questionnaire etc, then we provide key technology of different category wildlife passage, including: wildlife passage planning, design interior, design exterior, management and inspect etc.
The innovation contents of this paper is to provide quantitative assessment method of road landscape aesthetics, and the idea frame of highway landscape planning and design from angle of both holistic and partial, and provide design key technology of highway wildlife passage. A point deserving attention, which is this paper systemically provides the planning of developing the subject of road ecology in China.
引文
[1] 江玉林,杜鹃.高等级公路生态环境保护问题与对策.公路.2000,8:68～72
[2] 李月辉,胡远满,李秀珍等.道路生态研究进展.应用生态学报.2003,14(3):447～452
[3] 索有瑞,黄雅丽.西宁地区公路两侧土壤和植物中铅含量及其评价.环境科学.1996, 17(2):74～76
[4] 徐佩,何毓蓉,张保华等.西部山区道路毁损土地的退化及其农业环境效应.西南农业学报.2004,17(6):746～749
[5] 戴强,袁佐平,张晋东等.道路及道路施工对若尔盖高寒湿地小型兽类及鸟类生境利用的影响.生物多样性. 2006,14(2):121～127
[6] Foran RTT,Alexander LE.Roads and their major ecological effects.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,1998,29:207～231
[7] Way J.M. Roadside verges and conservation in Britain: A review. Biological Conservation. 1977, 12:65～74
[8] Tabor R. Earthworms, crows, vibrations and motorways. New Scientist 1974. 62: 482～483
[9] Gary R.Clay, Terry C.Daniel. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,49:1～13
[10] 公路环境保护设计规范,中华人民共和国交通部,1998 年 7 月 21 日
[11] California Department of Transportation.1996. Guidelines for Official Designations of Scenic Highways. Web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/shpg1.htm.
[12] Oregon Department of Transportation. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. ODOT Transportation Development Division, Salem,OR,244.
[1] Clay G R, Smidt R K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, 66:239～255.
[2] U.S. Department of Transportation. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C. 1988.
[3] Federal highway Administration (FHWA), Byways Beginnings: Understanding, Inventorying, and Evaluating a Byway’s Intrinsic Qualities. National Scenic Byways Program Publication, Washington, DC, 1999, 80 pp.
[4] Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1. US Department of the Interior, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC. 1986
[5] US Forest Service, 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. U.S.D.A., Washington DC.
[6] American association of state highway and transportation officials. A guide for transportation landscape and environmental design , 1991,15～16
[7] Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G. Headley Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England.Landscape and Urban Planning.2003, 63:139～144
[8] Meitner M.J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning.2004,68:3～13
[9] Brush R., Chenoweth R.E., Barman T. Group difference in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning.2000,47:39～45
[10] Clay G.R., Daniel T.C. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,49:1～13
[11] Kent R.L. Determinng scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach. Landscape and Urban Planning,1993, 27:29~43
[12] Palmer J F. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, assachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,69:201～218
[13] Schmid W A. The emerging role of visual resource assessment and visualization in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001. 54:213～221
[14] 俞孔坚.景观:文化、生态与感知. 北京:科学出版社. 1998.
[15] Daniel T.C, Boster R.S., measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. In: USDA Forest Service Research Paper, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1976, RM-167.
[16] Terry C.D. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001.54:267～281.
[17] Flexibility in highway design , U.S. Department of transportation, Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) ,1997
[18] Yahner T G, Korostoff N, Johnson T P, et al. Cultural landscapes and landscape ecology in contemporary greenway planning, design and management: a case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995.33: 295～316.
[19] Kent R L, Elliott C L. Scenic routes linking and protecting natural and cultural landscape features: a greenway skeleton. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995. 33: 341～355.
[20] Bohemen H. Infrastructure, ecology and art. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002. 59:187～201.
[21] Little, C.E. Greenways for America.Baltimore, M.D,Johns Hopking University,1990
[22] Jongman R.H.G., Pungetti G. edit. Ecological networks and Greenways, New York: Cambridge university Press,2004
[23] Fabos J.G. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004, 68:321~342
[24] Iiyama N, Kamada M, Nakagoshi N. Ecological and social evaluation of landscape in a arural area with terraced paddies in southwestern Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 2005, 70:301~313
[25] Viles R L, Rosier D J. How to use roads in the creation of greenways: case studies in three New Zealand landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001. 55:15～27.
[26] Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 1991
[27] FHWA,National Scenic Byways Program,1995
[28] Ballon, P. Premieres observations sur l’efficacite des passages a gibier surl’autoroute A36. In Routes et faune sauvage, 311～316. Bagneaux, France: Service d’Etudes Techniques de Routes et Autoroutes. 1985.
[29] Carbaugh, B.J., Vaughan J.P., Bellis E.D., et al. Distribution and activity of white-tailed deer along an interstate highway. Journal of Wildlife Management 1975,39:570～581
[30] Kuennen, T. New Jersey’s I-78 preserves mountain habita. Roads and Bridges. 1989,2:69～73
[31] Gloyne, C.C., Clevenger A.P. Cougar use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology, 2001, 7:117~124
[32] Bohemen V. H.D. Mitigation and compensation of habitat fragmentation caused by roads: Strategy, objectives and practical measures. Transportation Research Record 1996,1475:133～137
[33] Keller, V., Pfister H.P. Wildlife passages as a means of mitigation effects of habitat fragmentation by roads and railway lines. In Habitat Fragmentation&infrastructure, edited by K.Canters, 70~80.Delft, Netherlands: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
[34] Pfister, H.P., Keller V., Reck H. etc. Bio-ecological effectiveness of wildlife overpasses or“green bridges over roads and railway lines. Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Germany: Herausgegeben vom Bundesministerium fur Verkehr Abeteilung Strassenbau.
[35] Keen, C.L., Lonnerdal B. Manganese toxicity in man and experimental animals. In Manganese in Metabolism and Enzyme Function, edited by V.L.Schramm and F.C.Wedler, 35～49. 1986. New York: Academic Press.
[36] Romin, L.A., Bissonette J.A. Deer-vehicle collisions: Status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife society Bulletin 1996,24:276～283
[37] 王晓俊.风景资源管理和视觉影响评估方法初探. 南京林业大学学报.1992,16(3):70～76
[38] 王晓俊.美国风景资源管理系统及其方法.自然资源学报.1993,8(4):371～380
[39] 陈力.景观影响评价中“景观”的内涵和应用探讨.环境污染与防治.2004,26(2):148～153
[40] 吴仁海.景观及视觉影响评价初探.环境科学研究.1999,12(3):58～59
[41] 王红.道路的环境景观评价分析. 重庆交通学院院报,1996 ,15(3):55～58,
[42] 陈雨人,朱照宏.道路环境影响评价指标体系的研究. 同济大学学报,1997.25(6):640～644.
[43] 崔崧,赵昀,金会军等. 高速公路两翼景观评价方法初探. 辽宁林业科技,2001.(2): 40～41.
[44] 张阳,董小林.公路景观及视觉影响评价方法研究. 西安公路交通大学学报,1999. 19(4):65～67.
[45] 王忠君,蔡君,张启翔.旅游活动对云蒙山国家森林公园景观及视觉的影响评价.2004,1:32～35
[46] 张 慧,沈渭寿,邹长新.青藏铁路景观视觉管理系统研究. 自然资源学报,2003. 18(6):719～725.
[47] 张 慧,沈渭寿,江腊沙等.青藏铁路沿线景观保护评价方法研究.生态学报,2004.24(3):574～582.
[48] 俞孔坚.观光旅游美学评价信息方法探讨 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 269～275
[49] 俞孔坚.系统景观美学研究～以湖泊景观为例 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 247～254
[50] 俞孔坚.园林风景偏好与社会文化背景的关系 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 255～260
[51] 俞孔坚.专家与公众审美差异研究及对策 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 261～268
[52] 贺志勇. 公路景观评价与 3S 技术应用研究. 华南理工大学博士论文,2003.10
[53] 于胜男. 高等级公路景观设计与评价. 北京工业大学硕士论文,2003.5
[54] 彭巍. 高等级公路景观设计与评价. 西安公路交通大学硕士论文,1998.5:3～62
[55] 陈晓娟,任晓净,姚永峰. 观众地区高速公路绿化探讨. 西北林学院学报,1999,14(2): 88～92
[56] 尹吉光,毛秀红,李尼尼. 高速公路中央分隔带绿化研究. 山东林业科技,2003,4:41～43
[57] 刘朝晖. 高速公路路域景观恢复工程设计初探. 交通环保. 2000,21(6):27～29
[58] 孟强, 范庆春, 路绮. 青海省平安至西宁高速公路景观绿化设计. 2001, 18(5):5～8
[59] 张阳. 公路景观学,中国建材工业出版社,北京,2004
[60] 龚莉,高速公路线形组合设计,东北林业大学硕士论文,2000.3
[61] 张秀丽. 道路建设与景观协调性研究. 长安大学硕士论文, 2002.5:11～36
[62] 韩立波. 高速公路服务区景观规划设计理论初探. 南京林业大学硕士论文,2003.6
[63] 尹吉光. 高速公路绿化初探. 北京林业大学硕士论文.2003.6
[64] 张静 . 高速 公 路互 通 立 交绿 地 景 观 规 划 设计研 究 . 南京林 业 大学硕 士论文.2004.6:17～42
[65] 魏中华,公路景观设计理论研究,北京工业大学博士论文,2005.3
[66] 李团胜,王萍. 绿道及其生态意义. 生态学杂志. 2001,20(6):59～61
[67] 刘滨谊,余畅. 美国绿道网络规划的发展与启示. 中国园林,2001,6:77～81
[68] 川主寺至九寨沟公路环保与景观设计关键技术研究研究报告.交通部规划研究院, 2005 年 2 月,22～24
[69] 夏霖,杨奇森,李增超等. 交通设施对可可西里藏羚羊季节性迁移的影响. 四川动物 2005,24(2):147～151
[70] 杨文斌.高速公路对野生动物生存环境的影响. 生命科学研究. 2004,8(2):146～150.
[71] 胡忠军,于长青,徐宏发,等. 道路对陆栖野生动物的生态学影响.生态学杂志. 2005,24(4):433～437
[72] 戴强,袁佐平,张晋东等. 道路及道路施工对若尔盖高寒湿地小型兽类及鸟类生境利用的影响. 生物多样性. 2006,14(2):121～127
[1] 王云 崔鹏 李海峰. 公路景观美学评价差异研究. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版) 2005,41(专辑):429～433
[2] Aesthetics Design Guidelines,Ohio Department of Transportation,2000
[3] Landscape and Aesthetics Design Manual,Texas Department of Transportation,2001
[4] Bell S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualization in the visual management of forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001,54: 201～211
[5] Karjalainen E, Komulainen M. Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning.1998,43:79～90
[6] Tahvanainen L, Tyrvainen L, Ihalainen M. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001,53: 53～70
[7] American association of state highway and transportation officials. A guide for transportation landscape and environmental design,1991,15～16
[8] Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stands level. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,56:11～20
[9] Purcell A.T, Lamb R.J. Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning.1998,42:57～66
[10] Franco D., Franco D, Mannino I. et al.The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape and Urban Planning .2003,62:119～138
[11] Philip S.C, Ted T.C. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning.1995,32:63～69
[12] En-Mi L, Tsuyoshi H. Three-dimensional visualization forest of landscapes by VRML. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2003,63:175～186
[13] Karjalainen E, Tyrvainen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,59:13～28
[14] Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega J.F., Canas-Madueno J.A. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,69:115～125
[15] Yoshitake K, Makoto Y, Brown R.D. Integration and visualization of the ecological value of rural landscapes in maintaining the physical environment of Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning.1997,39: 69～82
[16] Hernandez J, Garcia L, Ayuga F. Assessment of the visual impact made on the landscape by new buildings: a methodology for site selection. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,68:15～28
[17] Kent R.L. Determining scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach landscape and urban planning, 1993,27(1): 29～45
[18] Clay G.R., Smidt R.K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,66:239～255
[19] Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G., Headley A.D. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning .2003,63:139～144
[20] Brush R, Chenoweth R.E., Barman T. Group differences in the enjoyability of drivingthrough rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,47:39～45
[21] Meitner M.J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,68:3～13
[22] Burmil S. Daniel T.C. Hetherington J.D. Human values and perceptions of water in arid landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,44: 99～109
[23] Germino M.J, Reiners W.A, Blasko B.J. estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,53:71～83
[24] Kuiper J. Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity landscape planning at different planning-levels in the River area of The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998,43:91～104
[25] Robert L.R. Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998,42:225～237
[26] Yamashita S. Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of photo-projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,62:3～17
[27] Shannon S,Smardon R, Knudson M. Using visual assessment as a foundation for greenway planning in the St.Lawrence River Valley. Landscape and Urban Planning. 33(1995)357～371
[28] Ewald K.C. The neglect of aesthetics in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:255～266
[29] Mendel L.C. Kirkpatrick J.B. Assessing temporal changes in the reservation or the natural aesthetics resource using pictorial content analysis and a grid-based score system-the example of Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning.1999,43:181～190
[30] Coeterier J.F. Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,59:111～123
[31] Turkoglu H.D. Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. L. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997,39:55～67
[32] Habron D. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning .1998,42:45～56
[33] Gobster P. H. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning 1995,33:401～413
[34] Asakawa S., Yoshida K., Yabe K. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004.68:167～182
[35] Kent R.L., Elliott C.L. Scenic routes linking and protecting natural and cultural landscape features: a greenway skeleton. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1995,33:341～355
[36] Pullar D.V., Tidey M.E. Coupling 3D visualization to qualitative assessment of built environment designs. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,55:29～40
[37] Bergen S.D., McGaughey R.J., Fridley J.L. Data-driven simulation, dimensional accuracy and realism in a landscape visualization tool. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998,40:283～293
[38] Ervin S.M. Digital landscape modeling and visualization: a research agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:49～62
[39] Stamps A.E. Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002,60: 163～184
[40] Wherrett J.R. Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,45:209～217
[41] Bishop I.D. Testing perceived landscape colour difference using the Internet. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997,37:187～196
[42] Parsons R., Daniel T.C. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,60:43～56
[43] Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,44:177～198
[44] Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:149～161
[45] Steinitz C. Visual evaluation models: some complicating questions regarding memorable scenes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:283～287
[46] Palmer J.F. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997,37:109～113
[47] Kodmany K.A. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,45:37～45
[48] Yu Kong-jian. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design experts. Landscape and urban planning. 1995,32:107～126,
[49] 王雁,陈鑫峰. 心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用. 林业科学.1999,35(5):110～117
[50] 俞孔坚. 系统景观美学研究-以湖泊景观为例 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 247～254
[51] Daniel T.C, Boster R.S. measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. In: USDA Forest Service Research Paper, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1976, RM-167.
[52] Zube, E.H., Sell J.L., Taylor J.G. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1982, 9: 1～33.
[53] Kongjian Yu. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32:107～126
[54] Clay C.R., Daniel T.C. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,49: 1～13
[55] Wherrett J.R. Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research, Landscape and Urban Planning,1999,45: 209～217
[56] Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1985,(8):225～241
[57] U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Scenic Byways, Washington,DC,US Department of Transportation,Public, 1988:No. FHWA-DF-88-004
[58] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Byways Beginnings: Understanding , Inventorying, and Evaluation a Byway’s Intrinsic Qualities. National Scenic BywaysProgram Publication, Washington, DC, 1999: 80 pp.
[59] Visual impact assessment for highway projects. U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 1988
[60] Terry C.D. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001.54:267～281.
[61] 王云,崔鹏,江玉林,陈学平. 公路景观类型美学感知差异及其原因初步分析. 中外公路 2006,1:173～177
[62] Forman R T T, Sperling D, Bissonette J A. Et al. Road Ecology: Science and Solution. Washington :Island Press, 2002 : 109
[1] 魏中华,公路景观设计理论研究,北京工业大学博士学位论文,2005.3
[2] 张阳,公路景观学,北京:中国建材工业出版社,2004
[3] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/index.cfm
[4] 川主寺至九寨沟公路环保与景观设计关键技术研究研究报告.交通部规划研究院, 2005 年 2 月, 22～24
[5] Clay G R., Smid R K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, 66:239～255
[6] 王云,李海峰,崔鹏,吴浩. 卧龙自然保护区旅游公路景观规划与设计. 公路. 2006,第五期:153～158
[7] Flexibility in highway design,U.S. Department of transportation, Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) , 1997
[1] 四川师范学院编. 卧龙自然保护区动植物资源及保护. 成都:四川科学技术出版社,1992
[2] 夏霖,杨奇森,李增超等. 交通设施对可可西里藏羚羊季节性迁移的影响. 四川动物 2005,24(2):147～151
[2] 李月辉,胡远满,李秀珍等.道路生态研究进展.应用生态学报.2003,14(3):447～452
[3] 索有瑞,黄雅丽.西宁地区公路两侧土壤和植物中铅含量及其评价.环境科学.1996, 17(2):74～76
[4] 徐佩,何毓蓉,张保华等.西部山区道路毁损土地的退化及其农业环境效应.西南农业学报.2004,17(6):746～749
[5] 戴强,袁佐平,张晋东等.道路及道路施工对若尔盖高寒湿地小型兽类及鸟类生境利用的影响.生物多样性. 2006,14(2):121～127
[6] Foran RTT,Alexander LE.Roads and their major ecological effects.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,1998,29:207～231
[7] Way J.M. Roadside verges and conservation in Britain: A review. Biological Conservation. 1977, 12:65～74
[8] Tabor R. Earthworms, crows, vibrations and motorways. New Scientist 1974. 62: 482～483
[9] Gary R.Clay, Terry C.Daniel. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,49:1～13
[10] 公路环境保护设计规范,中华人民共和国交通部,1998 年 7 月 21 日
[11] California Department of Transportation.1996. Guidelines for Official Designations of Scenic Highways. Web site: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/shpg1.htm.
[12] Oregon Department of Transportation. 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. ODOT Transportation Development Division, Salem,OR,244.
[1] Clay G R, Smidt R K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, 66:239～255.
[2] U.S. Department of Transportation. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Office of Environmental Policy. Washington, D.C. 1988.
[3] Federal highway Administration (FHWA), Byways Beginnings: Understanding, Inventorying, and Evaluating a Byway’s Intrinsic Qualities. National Scenic Byways Program Publication, Washington, DC, 1999, 80 pp.
[4] Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1. US Department of the Interior, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC. 1986
[5] US Forest Service, 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. U.S.D.A., Washington DC.
[6] American association of state highway and transportation officials. A guide for transportation landscape and environmental design , 1991,15～16
[7] Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G. Headley Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England.Landscape and Urban Planning.2003, 63:139～144
[8] Meitner M.J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning.2004,68:3～13
[9] Brush R., Chenoweth R.E., Barman T. Group difference in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning.2000,47:39～45
[10] Clay G.R., Daniel T.C. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,49:1～13
[11] Kent R.L. Determinng scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach. Landscape and Urban Planning,1993, 27:29~43
[12] Palmer J F. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, assachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,69:201～218
[13] Schmid W A. The emerging role of visual resource assessment and visualization in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001. 54:213～221
[14] 俞孔坚.景观:文化、生态与感知. 北京:科学出版社. 1998.
[15] Daniel T.C, Boster R.S., measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. In: USDA Forest Service Research Paper, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1976, RM-167.
[16] Terry C.D. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001.54:267～281.
[17] Flexibility in highway design , U.S. Department of transportation, Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) ,1997
[18] Yahner T G, Korostoff N, Johnson T P, et al. Cultural landscapes and landscape ecology in contemporary greenway planning, design and management: a case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995.33: 295～316.
[19] Kent R L, Elliott C L. Scenic routes linking and protecting natural and cultural landscape features: a greenway skeleton. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995. 33: 341～355.
[20] Bohemen H. Infrastructure, ecology and art. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002. 59:187～201.
[21] Little, C.E. Greenways for America.Baltimore, M.D,Johns Hopking University,1990
[22] Jongman R.H.G., Pungetti G. edit. Ecological networks and Greenways, New York: Cambridge university Press,2004
[23] Fabos J.G. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004, 68:321~342
[24] Iiyama N, Kamada M, Nakagoshi N. Ecological and social evaluation of landscape in a arural area with terraced paddies in southwestern Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 2005, 70:301~313
[25] Viles R L, Rosier D J. How to use roads in the creation of greenways: case studies in three New Zealand landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001. 55:15～27.
[26] Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 1991
[27] FHWA,National Scenic Byways Program,1995
[28] Ballon, P. Premieres observations sur l’efficacite des passages a gibier surl’autoroute A36. In Routes et faune sauvage, 311～316. Bagneaux, France: Service d’Etudes Techniques de Routes et Autoroutes. 1985.
[29] Carbaugh, B.J., Vaughan J.P., Bellis E.D., et al. Distribution and activity of white-tailed deer along an interstate highway. Journal of Wildlife Management 1975,39:570～581
[30] Kuennen, T. New Jersey’s I-78 preserves mountain habita. Roads and Bridges. 1989,2:69～73
[31] Gloyne, C.C., Clevenger A.P. Cougar use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology, 2001, 7:117~124
[32] Bohemen V. H.D. Mitigation and compensation of habitat fragmentation caused by roads: Strategy, objectives and practical measures. Transportation Research Record 1996,1475:133～137
[33] Keller, V., Pfister H.P. Wildlife passages as a means of mitigation effects of habitat fragmentation by roads and railway lines. In Habitat Fragmentation&infrastructure, edited by K.Canters, 70~80.Delft, Netherlands: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
[34] Pfister, H.P., Keller V., Reck H. etc. Bio-ecological effectiveness of wildlife overpasses or“green bridges over roads and railway lines. Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Germany: Herausgegeben vom Bundesministerium fur Verkehr Abeteilung Strassenbau.
[35] Keen, C.L., Lonnerdal B. Manganese toxicity in man and experimental animals. In Manganese in Metabolism and Enzyme Function, edited by V.L.Schramm and F.C.Wedler, 35～49. 1986. New York: Academic Press.
[36] Romin, L.A., Bissonette J.A. Deer-vehicle collisions: Status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife society Bulletin 1996,24:276～283
[37] 王晓俊.风景资源管理和视觉影响评估方法初探. 南京林业大学学报.1992,16(3):70～76
[38] 王晓俊.美国风景资源管理系统及其方法.自然资源学报.1993,8(4):371～380
[39] 陈力.景观影响评价中“景观”的内涵和应用探讨.环境污染与防治.2004,26(2):148～153
[40] 吴仁海.景观及视觉影响评价初探.环境科学研究.1999,12(3):58～59
[41] 王红.道路的环境景观评价分析. 重庆交通学院院报,1996 ,15(3):55～58,
[42] 陈雨人,朱照宏.道路环境影响评价指标体系的研究. 同济大学学报,1997.25(6):640～644.
[43] 崔崧,赵昀,金会军等. 高速公路两翼景观评价方法初探. 辽宁林业科技,2001.(2): 40～41.
[44] 张阳,董小林.公路景观及视觉影响评价方法研究. 西安公路交通大学学报,1999. 19(4):65～67.
[45] 王忠君,蔡君,张启翔.旅游活动对云蒙山国家森林公园景观及视觉的影响评价.2004,1:32～35
[46] 张 慧,沈渭寿,邹长新.青藏铁路景观视觉管理系统研究. 自然资源学报,2003. 18(6):719～725.
[47] 张 慧,沈渭寿,江腊沙等.青藏铁路沿线景观保护评价方法研究.生态学报,2004.24(3):574～582.
[48] 俞孔坚.观光旅游美学评价信息方法探讨 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 269～275
[49] 俞孔坚.系统景观美学研究～以湖泊景观为例 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 247～254
[50] 俞孔坚.园林风景偏好与社会文化背景的关系 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 255～260
[51] 俞孔坚.专家与公众审美差异研究及对策 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 261～268
[52] 贺志勇. 公路景观评价与 3S 技术应用研究. 华南理工大学博士论文,2003.10
[53] 于胜男. 高等级公路景观设计与评价. 北京工业大学硕士论文,2003.5
[54] 彭巍. 高等级公路景观设计与评价. 西安公路交通大学硕士论文,1998.5:3～62
[55] 陈晓娟,任晓净,姚永峰. 观众地区高速公路绿化探讨. 西北林学院学报,1999,14(2): 88～92
[56] 尹吉光,毛秀红,李尼尼. 高速公路中央分隔带绿化研究. 山东林业科技,2003,4:41～43
[57] 刘朝晖. 高速公路路域景观恢复工程设计初探. 交通环保. 2000,21(6):27～29
[58] 孟强, 范庆春, 路绮. 青海省平安至西宁高速公路景观绿化设计. 2001, 18(5):5～8
[59] 张阳. 公路景观学,中国建材工业出版社,北京,2004
[60] 龚莉,高速公路线形组合设计,东北林业大学硕士论文,2000.3
[61] 张秀丽. 道路建设与景观协调性研究. 长安大学硕士论文, 2002.5:11～36
[62] 韩立波. 高速公路服务区景观规划设计理论初探. 南京林业大学硕士论文,2003.6
[63] 尹吉光. 高速公路绿化初探. 北京林业大学硕士论文.2003.6
[64] 张静 . 高速 公 路互 通 立 交绿 地 景 观 规 划 设计研 究 . 南京林 业 大学硕 士论文.2004.6:17～42
[65] 魏中华,公路景观设计理论研究,北京工业大学博士论文,2005.3
[66] 李团胜,王萍. 绿道及其生态意义. 生态学杂志. 2001,20(6):59～61
[67] 刘滨谊,余畅. 美国绿道网络规划的发展与启示. 中国园林,2001,6:77～81
[68] 川主寺至九寨沟公路环保与景观设计关键技术研究研究报告.交通部规划研究院, 2005 年 2 月,22～24
[69] 夏霖,杨奇森,李增超等. 交通设施对可可西里藏羚羊季节性迁移的影响. 四川动物 2005,24(2):147～151
[70] 杨文斌.高速公路对野生动物生存环境的影响. 生命科学研究. 2004,8(2):146～150.
[71] 胡忠军,于长青,徐宏发,等. 道路对陆栖野生动物的生态学影响.生态学杂志. 2005,24(4):433～437
[72] 戴强,袁佐平,张晋东等. 道路及道路施工对若尔盖高寒湿地小型兽类及鸟类生境利用的影响. 生物多样性. 2006,14(2):121～127
[1] 王云 崔鹏 李海峰. 公路景观美学评价差异研究. 兰州大学学报(自然科学版) 2005,41(专辑):429～433
[2] Aesthetics Design Guidelines,Ohio Department of Transportation,2000
[3] Landscape and Aesthetics Design Manual,Texas Department of Transportation,2001
[4] Bell S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualization in the visual management of forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001,54: 201～211
[5] Karjalainen E, Komulainen M. Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning.1998,43:79～90
[6] Tahvanainen L, Tyrvainen L, Ihalainen M. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001,53: 53～70
[7] American association of state highway and transportation officials. A guide for transportation landscape and environmental design,1991,15～16
[8] Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stands level. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,56:11～20
[9] Purcell A.T, Lamb R.J. Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning.1998,42:57～66
[10] Franco D., Franco D, Mannino I. et al.The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape and Urban Planning .2003,62:119～138
[11] Philip S.C, Ted T.C. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning.1995,32:63～69
[12] En-Mi L, Tsuyoshi H. Three-dimensional visualization forest of landscapes by VRML. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2003,63:175～186
[13] Karjalainen E, Tyrvainen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,59:13～28
[14] Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega J.F., Canas-Madueno J.A. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,69:115～125
[15] Yoshitake K, Makoto Y, Brown R.D. Integration and visualization of the ecological value of rural landscapes in maintaining the physical environment of Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning.1997,39: 69～82
[16] Hernandez J, Garcia L, Ayuga F. Assessment of the visual impact made on the landscape by new buildings: a methodology for site selection. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,68:15～28
[17] Kent R.L. Determining scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach landscape and urban planning, 1993,27(1): 29～45
[18] Clay G.R., Smidt R.K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,66:239～255
[19] Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G., Headley A.D. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning .2003,63:139～144
[20] Brush R, Chenoweth R.E., Barman T. Group differences in the enjoyability of drivingthrough rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,47:39～45
[21] Meitner M.J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004,68:3～13
[22] Burmil S. Daniel T.C. Hetherington J.D. Human values and perceptions of water in arid landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,44: 99～109
[23] Germino M.J, Reiners W.A, Blasko B.J. estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,53:71～83
[24] Kuiper J. Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity landscape planning at different planning-levels in the River area of The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998,43:91～104
[25] Robert L.R. Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998,42:225～237
[26] Yamashita S. Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of photo-projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,62:3～17
[27] Shannon S,Smardon R, Knudson M. Using visual assessment as a foundation for greenway planning in the St.Lawrence River Valley. Landscape and Urban Planning. 33(1995)357～371
[28] Ewald K.C. The neglect of aesthetics in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:255～266
[29] Mendel L.C. Kirkpatrick J.B. Assessing temporal changes in the reservation or the natural aesthetics resource using pictorial content analysis and a grid-based score system-the example of Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning.1999,43:181～190
[30] Coeterier J.F. Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,59:111～123
[31] Turkoglu H.D. Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. L. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997,39:55～67
[32] Habron D. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning .1998,42:45～56
[33] Gobster P. H. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning 1995,33:401～413
[34] Asakawa S., Yoshida K., Yabe K. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004.68:167～182
[35] Kent R.L., Elliott C.L. Scenic routes linking and protecting natural and cultural landscape features: a greenway skeleton. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1995,33:341～355
[36] Pullar D.V., Tidey M.E. Coupling 3D visualization to qualitative assessment of built environment designs. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,55:29～40
[37] Bergen S.D., McGaughey R.J., Fridley J.L. Data-driven simulation, dimensional accuracy and realism in a landscape visualization tool. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1998,40:283～293
[38] Ervin S.M. Digital landscape modeling and visualization: a research agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:49～62
[39] Stamps A.E. Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002,60: 163～184
[40] Wherrett J.R. Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,45:209～217
[41] Bishop I.D. Testing perceived landscape colour difference using the Internet. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997,37:187～196
[42] Parsons R., Daniel T.C. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002,60:43～56
[43] Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,44:177～198
[44] Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:149～161
[45] Steinitz C. Visual evaluation models: some complicating questions regarding memorable scenes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001,54:283～287
[46] Palmer J.F. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1997,37:109～113
[47] Kodmany K.A. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation and evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999,45:37～45
[48] Yu Kong-jian. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design experts. Landscape and urban planning. 1995,32:107～126,
[49] 王雁,陈鑫峰. 心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用. 林业科学.1999,35(5):110～117
[50] 俞孔坚. 系统景观美学研究-以湖泊景观为例 见:俞孔坚《景观:文化、生态与感知》北京:科学出版社,1998. 247～254
[51] Daniel T.C, Boster R.S. measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. In: USDA Forest Service Research Paper, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1976, RM-167.
[52] Zube, E.H., Sell J.L., Taylor J.G. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1982, 9: 1～33.
[53] Kongjian Yu. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32:107～126
[54] Clay C.R., Daniel T.C. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2000,49: 1～13
[55] Wherrett J.R. Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research, Landscape and Urban Planning,1999,45: 209～217
[56] Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1985,(8):225～241
[57] U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Scenic Byways, Washington,DC,US Department of Transportation,Public, 1988:No. FHWA-DF-88-004
[58] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Byways Beginnings: Understanding , Inventorying, and Evaluation a Byway’s Intrinsic Qualities. National Scenic BywaysProgram Publication, Washington, DC, 1999: 80 pp.
[59] Visual impact assessment for highway projects. U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 1988
[60] Terry C.D. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001.54:267～281.
[61] 王云,崔鹏,江玉林,陈学平. 公路景观类型美学感知差异及其原因初步分析. 中外公路 2006,1:173～177
[62] Forman R T T, Sperling D, Bissonette J A. Et al. Road Ecology: Science and Solution. Washington :Island Press, 2002 : 109
[1] 魏中华,公路景观设计理论研究,北京工业大学博士学位论文,2005.3
[2] 张阳,公路景观学,北京:中国建材工业出版社,2004
[3] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/index.cfm
[4] 川主寺至九寨沟公路环保与景观设计关键技术研究研究报告.交通部规划研究院, 2005 年 2 月, 22～24
[5] Clay G R., Smid R K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, 66:239～255
[6] 王云,李海峰,崔鹏,吴浩. 卧龙自然保护区旅游公路景观规划与设计. 公路. 2006,第五期:153～158
[7] Flexibility in highway design,U.S. Department of transportation, Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) , 1997
[1] 四川师范学院编. 卧龙自然保护区动植物资源及保护. 成都:四川科学技术出版社,1992
[2] 夏霖,杨奇森,李增超等. 交通设施对可可西里藏羚羊季节性迁移的影响. 四川动物 2005,24(2):147～151