绿化景观的视觉环境质量评价研究
|
摘要
随着工业、能源、交通、旅游等事业的迅速发展及快速城市化进程,景观的视觉环境不断遭受破坏,视觉污染和其他环境污染一样,越来越严重地威胁着人们的身心健康。绿化景观虽不能提供给人们维持生命活力的物质,但在一定程度上能够代替大自然环境来满足人们的生理和心理需求。西方国家已开展了较为丰富的景观视觉环境质量的评价研究,且大多数发达国家已经建立了景观视觉环境影响评价制度。我国的风景园林具有悠久的历史,曾以丰富的传统山水审美理论和实用的设计方法而雄踞世界,然而现代景观视觉环境的科学评价与保护研究则较落后。由于对景观视觉环境影响的认识不足、评价的理论和方法尚不成熟,目前我国的景观视觉环境质量评价还未广泛开展起来。
本文在调研国内外景观美学评价的理论方法与实践经验的基础上,考虑现有的条件,将“绿化景观的视觉环境质量评价”作为研究主题。分析了研究背景和意义,明确了研究对象的概念,探讨了绿化景观视觉环境质量的评价方法和技术,并应用到四个实例研究中。此外还分析了视觉环境质量评价在环境规划与管理中的应用。主要研究内容和结论包括：
(1)深入探讨了绿化景观视觉环境质量评价的概念、特点及功能,总结景观视觉环境质量评价的理论框架和方法学体系,明确视觉环境质量评价对改善环境管理决策质量、促进综合决策的重要意义。其中,景观审美评价可以分为专家学派、心理物理学派、认知学派和经验学派,评价方法主要有“基于专业／设计”和“基于公众感知”的评价方法。
(2)选择具有代表意义的城市高压线下绿化景观、江南农村居住区绿化景观、城市滨水绿化景观作为实例研究对象。依据绿化景观的视觉环境功能,结合具体的研究对象,从景观的视觉环境质量、语义变量和物理特征要素等方面构建多元复合的评价指标体系,并将视觉环境质量评价应用到绿化景观综合价值的评价中。在理论和实例研究基础上,给出未来景观规划和视觉资源管理的相应对策,建议将景观视觉环境影响评价纳入环境影响评价中去。
(3)评价对象是能反映研究地特点的景观照片,评价者以高校学生为主、兼顾普通公众,评价方法综合了“基于专业／设计”和“基于公众感知”的评价方法,评价指标随着研究对象的不同而不同。根据评价结果,选用相关分析、线性回归分析和因子分析来明确绿化景观视觉环境质量与语义变量和物理特征要素之间的关系以及语义变量和物理特征要素之间的关系。
(4)实例的研究结论具有较强一致性,例如公众都喜欢拥有更多植被类型的绿化景观,以自然景观为主的适当增添有益人工要素(如景石、亭台廊榭、木栈道、雕塑等)的绿化景观比纯自然绿化景观具有更高的美学质量,语义变量“独特性”和“生动性”与绿化景观的视觉环境质量显著相关,物理特征要素“植被类型”、“景观色彩对比”以及“有利的人工景观”对景观视觉环境质量有显著作用。
(5)建议健全针对景观视觉环境保护的法律法规,研究编制景观视觉环境影响评价导则的依据、方法,初步制定景观视觉环境影响评价的流程和内容,并应将拟议行动对视觉环境影响的评价结果作为环境规划与管理的重要内容之一。
(6)限于时间和作者水平,本文还只是初步研究,未来需要进行更深入的探讨,主要包括：①绿化景观视觉环境质量评价的理论、方法学体系以及具体的评价技术需进一步完善；②本文实例中的评价方法对所研究的绿化景观是合适的,但绿化景观类型多样,文中的评价指标体系是否适用于其他绿化景观,还需在更多、更完整的案例研究中检验；③本文研究具有空间上的变化,但缺乏时间上的变化,可在未来研究中补充；④结合景观所处的自然环境质量进行视觉环境质量的评价研究很重要；⑤可以借助计算机可视化技术来模拟实施某些拟议行动后将会出现的景观视觉环境,进而评价和预测拟议行动对绿化景观视觉环境造成影响。
With the rapid development of worldwide urbanization and expansion in the fields of industry, energy, and communications, landscape visual environment have suffered significant damage. Landscape visual pollution along with other pollutions poses an increasing threat to man's health, both physically and spiritually. Although green landscaping can not provide materials required to sustain life, it can replace natural environment in part to meet people's physical and psychological needs. There are have been numerous theoretical methods and practices developed and implemented on the landscape visual quality assessment (LVQA) in western countries, and a majority of developed countries have established formal landscape visibility environment assessment institutions. Landscape Architecture of China has a long history and received a worldwide reputation for its abundant traditional aesthetic theories and practical design methods. However, scientific assessment and protection work for contemporary landscape visual quality is a relatively new field. Now, the LVQA is not popular in China because of insufficient recognition for visual environment, lack of evaluation methods, and few legislative protections.
Based on the investigating the international theories and methods of LVQA thoroughly, summarizing China's national situation, and considering the existing research supports, "The assessment of visual quality of green landscaping" was selected as the research topic. From establishing a clear understanding of Visual Quality Assessment of Green Landscaping, the feasibility of evaluation methods and techniques was discussed with four practical examples. Moreover, visual quality assessment was used in environmental planning and management. The main contents and conclusions are as followings:
(1) Intensively investigate the concept, characteristics and functional meanings of the visual quality assessment of green landscaping. Summarize the theoretical framework and methodology system of LVQA. Among them, the LVQA is divided into expert paradigm, psychophysical paradigm, cognitive paradigm, and experimental paradigm; the two major methods for assessing the visual quality of landscapes are "expert/design" and "public perception-based" approaches. Moreover, this paper made it clear that LVQA has important significance to improve the environment management strategy and promote the comprehensive strategy.
(2) This paper chose three representative research objects:urban green landscaping under high-voltage lines, green landscaping in rural residential areas and urban waterfront green landscaping. According to the function of visual environment of green landscaping and the different research objects, the multiple evaluation index systems were established which consisted of the green landscaping visual quality, landscape semantic descriptors and landscape physical components. The semantic descriptors were also applied to study the comprehensive evaluation of green landscaping. Furthermore, we gave some suggestions for future landscape planning and visual resources management. Visual environmental impact assessment should be included in environmental impact assessment.
(3) Photos were selected and used in the survey captured the most relevant features of different landscapes. The valuators are mainly college students and general public were also considered. The methodology combined the "expert/design "and "public perception-based" approaches and different evaluation indicators were applied in different research objects. The contributions of the attributes contained in a photo to its overall scenic beauty via correlation, regression and factor analyses. According to the evaluation results, we explored the relationships among public preferences, landscape semantic descriptors and landscape physical.
(4) the research findings in four examples had some common ground and they are as follows:the public appears to prefer areas with a greater variety of vegetation and rich colors; areas with both natural features and a selection of human additions (rockery, traditional house, and fountains et al.) received higher ratings than areas with only natural features; semantic descriptors of vividness and distinctiveness proved to be significantly correlated with visual quality of green landscaping; type of vegetation, color contrast and presence of positive man-made elements had significant positive influences on scenic beauty.
(5) This paper made such suggestions on perfecting the laws and regulations for landscape visual quality, compiling the guidelines for visual environmental impact assessment, and establishing the interaction mechanism between visual environmental impact assessment and landscape planning and management.
(6) Because of limited time and resources, the researchs in this paper are preliminary. More intensive studies should be made in the future:①the theory, methodology and specific evaluation techniques need to be further improved;②The application methods of visual quality assessment are suitable for these four examples, but more integrative cases need to be done to test and verify these evaluation methods due to green landscaping has many types;③this paper did not carry out more researches on different time series and this inadequacy requires a more detailed study;④it is important that the surrounding environments should be concerned when we assess the landscape visual quality;⑤computer visualization technology can be used to appear future visual environments of green landscaping which will be affected by some certain proposed actions, and the visual environment impacts could be evaluated and predicted on the basis of this simulation.
本文在调研国内外景观美学评价的理论方法与实践经验的基础上,考虑现有的条件,将“绿化景观的视觉环境质量评价”作为研究主题。分析了研究背景和意义,明确了研究对象的概念,探讨了绿化景观视觉环境质量的评价方法和技术,并应用到四个实例研究中。此外还分析了视觉环境质量评价在环境规划与管理中的应用。主要研究内容和结论包括：
(1)深入探讨了绿化景观视觉环境质量评价的概念、特点及功能,总结景观视觉环境质量评价的理论框架和方法学体系,明确视觉环境质量评价对改善环境管理决策质量、促进综合决策的重要意义。其中,景观审美评价可以分为专家学派、心理物理学派、认知学派和经验学派,评价方法主要有“基于专业／设计”和“基于公众感知”的评价方法。
(2)选择具有代表意义的城市高压线下绿化景观、江南农村居住区绿化景观、城市滨水绿化景观作为实例研究对象。依据绿化景观的视觉环境功能,结合具体的研究对象,从景观的视觉环境质量、语义变量和物理特征要素等方面构建多元复合的评价指标体系,并将视觉环境质量评价应用到绿化景观综合价值的评价中。在理论和实例研究基础上,给出未来景观规划和视觉资源管理的相应对策,建议将景观视觉环境影响评价纳入环境影响评价中去。
(3)评价对象是能反映研究地特点的景观照片,评价者以高校学生为主、兼顾普通公众,评价方法综合了“基于专业／设计”和“基于公众感知”的评价方法,评价指标随着研究对象的不同而不同。根据评价结果,选用相关分析、线性回归分析和因子分析来明确绿化景观视觉环境质量与语义变量和物理特征要素之间的关系以及语义变量和物理特征要素之间的关系。
(4)实例的研究结论具有较强一致性,例如公众都喜欢拥有更多植被类型的绿化景观,以自然景观为主的适当增添有益人工要素(如景石、亭台廊榭、木栈道、雕塑等)的绿化景观比纯自然绿化景观具有更高的美学质量,语义变量“独特性”和“生动性”与绿化景观的视觉环境质量显著相关,物理特征要素“植被类型”、“景观色彩对比”以及“有利的人工景观”对景观视觉环境质量有显著作用。
(5)建议健全针对景观视觉环境保护的法律法规,研究编制景观视觉环境影响评价导则的依据、方法,初步制定景观视觉环境影响评价的流程和内容,并应将拟议行动对视觉环境影响的评价结果作为环境规划与管理的重要内容之一。
(6)限于时间和作者水平,本文还只是初步研究,未来需要进行更深入的探讨,主要包括：①绿化景观视觉环境质量评价的理论、方法学体系以及具体的评价技术需进一步完善；②本文实例中的评价方法对所研究的绿化景观是合适的,但绿化景观类型多样,文中的评价指标体系是否适用于其他绿化景观,还需在更多、更完整的案例研究中检验；③本文研究具有空间上的变化,但缺乏时间上的变化,可在未来研究中补充；④结合景观所处的自然环境质量进行视觉环境质量的评价研究很重要；⑤可以借助计算机可视化技术来模拟实施某些拟议行动后将会出现的景观视觉环境,进而评价和预测拟议行动对绿化景观视觉环境造成影响。
With the rapid development of worldwide urbanization and expansion in the fields of industry, energy, and communications, landscape visual environment have suffered significant damage. Landscape visual pollution along with other pollutions poses an increasing threat to man's health, both physically and spiritually. Although green landscaping can not provide materials required to sustain life, it can replace natural environment in part to meet people's physical and psychological needs. There are have been numerous theoretical methods and practices developed and implemented on the landscape visual quality assessment (LVQA) in western countries, and a majority of developed countries have established formal landscape visibility environment assessment institutions. Landscape Architecture of China has a long history and received a worldwide reputation for its abundant traditional aesthetic theories and practical design methods. However, scientific assessment and protection work for contemporary landscape visual quality is a relatively new field. Now, the LVQA is not popular in China because of insufficient recognition for visual environment, lack of evaluation methods, and few legislative protections.
Based on the investigating the international theories and methods of LVQA thoroughly, summarizing China's national situation, and considering the existing research supports, "The assessment of visual quality of green landscaping" was selected as the research topic. From establishing a clear understanding of Visual Quality Assessment of Green Landscaping, the feasibility of evaluation methods and techniques was discussed with four practical examples. Moreover, visual quality assessment was used in environmental planning and management. The main contents and conclusions are as followings:
(1) Intensively investigate the concept, characteristics and functional meanings of the visual quality assessment of green landscaping. Summarize the theoretical framework and methodology system of LVQA. Among them, the LVQA is divided into expert paradigm, psychophysical paradigm, cognitive paradigm, and experimental paradigm; the two major methods for assessing the visual quality of landscapes are "expert/design" and "public perception-based" approaches. Moreover, this paper made it clear that LVQA has important significance to improve the environment management strategy and promote the comprehensive strategy.
(2) This paper chose three representative research objects:urban green landscaping under high-voltage lines, green landscaping in rural residential areas and urban waterfront green landscaping. According to the function of visual environment of green landscaping and the different research objects, the multiple evaluation index systems were established which consisted of the green landscaping visual quality, landscape semantic descriptors and landscape physical components. The semantic descriptors were also applied to study the comprehensive evaluation of green landscaping. Furthermore, we gave some suggestions for future landscape planning and visual resources management. Visual environmental impact assessment should be included in environmental impact assessment.
(3) Photos were selected and used in the survey captured the most relevant features of different landscapes. The valuators are mainly college students and general public were also considered. The methodology combined the "expert/design "and "public perception-based" approaches and different evaluation indicators were applied in different research objects. The contributions of the attributes contained in a photo to its overall scenic beauty via correlation, regression and factor analyses. According to the evaluation results, we explored the relationships among public preferences, landscape semantic descriptors and landscape physical.
(4) the research findings in four examples had some common ground and they are as follows:the public appears to prefer areas with a greater variety of vegetation and rich colors; areas with both natural features and a selection of human additions (rockery, traditional house, and fountains et al.) received higher ratings than areas with only natural features; semantic descriptors of vividness and distinctiveness proved to be significantly correlated with visual quality of green landscaping; type of vegetation, color contrast and presence of positive man-made elements had significant positive influences on scenic beauty.
(5) This paper made such suggestions on perfecting the laws and regulations for landscape visual quality, compiling the guidelines for visual environmental impact assessment, and establishing the interaction mechanism between visual environmental impact assessment and landscape planning and management.
(6) Because of limited time and resources, the researchs in this paper are preliminary. More intensive studies should be made in the future:①the theory, methodology and specific evaluation techniques need to be further improved;②The application methods of visual quality assessment are suitable for these four examples, but more integrative cases need to be done to test and verify these evaluation methods due to green landscaping has many types;③this paper did not carry out more researches on different time series and this inadequacy requires a more detailed study;④it is important that the surrounding environments should be concerned when we assess the landscape visual quality;⑤computer visualization technology can be used to appear future visual environments of green landscaping which will be affected by some certain proposed actions, and the visual environment impacts could be evaluated and predicted on the basis of this simulation.
引文
奥斯特罗斯基,冯文炯等译.现代城市建设.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1986.
比特·霍尔,邹德慈等译.城市和区域规划.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1983.
曹娟,梁伊任,章俊花.北京自然保护区景观调查与评价初探.中国园林,2004,20(7)：67-71.
陈从周.中国诗文与中国园林艺术.扬州大学学报(人文社科版).1985,1-3.
陈薇,冯炜,焦泽阳虚拟现实技术与沿江景观研究.建筑学报,2001,(6)：9-12.
陈鑫峰,贾黎明.京西山区森林林内景观评价研究.林业科学,2003,39(4)：59-66
陈鑫峰,贾黎明,王雁等.京西山区风景游憩林季相景观评价及经营技术原则.北京林业大学学报,2008,30(4)：39-45.
陈彦光周一星.城市化Logistic过程的阶段划分及其空间解释—对Northam曲线的修正与发展.经济地理,2005,25(6)：817-822.
陈有民.论中国的风景类型.北京林业大学学报,1982,(2)：17-20.
程翠云,钱新,万玉秋等.水库大坝突发事件应急预案可行性评价方法初探.水利水运工程学报,2009,1：71-75.
邓秋才,韩铭哲,段广德.哈达门国家森林公园风景质量的分析与评价.内蒙古林学院学报.1996,18(2)：11-19.
丁维,李正方,王长永.江苏海门县农村生态环境评价方法.农村生态环境,1994,10(2)：38-40.
杜克塞迪斯,王锦堂译.台北：台隆书店,1994.
范业正,郭来喜.中国海滨旅游地气候适宜性评价.自然资源学报,1998,13(4)：304-311.
房明惠,罗新,王张民.合肥市景观水环境综合评价.城市环境与城市生态,2009,22(5)：1-4.
方敏彦,章明,张德罡.宝钢车间防护绿地不同配置模式环境效益评价.草地学报,2009,17(3)：365-370.
高原荣重,杨增志等译.城市绿地规划.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1983.
国家环境保护总局环境工程评估中心.环境影响评价相关法律法规汇编.北京：中国环境出版社,2005.
国庆喜,王天明.丰林自然保护区景观生态评价：量化与解释.应用生态学报,2005,16(5)：825-832.
郭鑫.呼和浩特城市绿地景观格局与树种选择及其规划研究.内蒙古：内蒙古农业大学,2010(博十论文).
韩周林,胡庭兴,孙大江.高压走廊的景观设计与思考—以绵阳永兴镇生态走廊设计为例.四川建
筑,2007,27(3)：11-14.
郝凌子.城市绿地开放空间研究.南京：南京林业大学,2004(硕十论文).
何东进,洪伟,胡海清等.武夷山风景名胜区景观空间格局变化及其干扰效应模拟.生态学报,2004,24(8)：1602-1610.
胡蓉,邱道持,王昕亚等.农用地景观功能评价.西南师范大学学报,2006,31(4)：186-189.
蒋勇军,况明生,齐代华.基于GIS的重庆市旅游资源评价,分析与规划研究.自然资源学报,2004,19(1)：38-46.
坎特,李兴基等译.环境影响评价.北京：中国环境管理经济与法学学会,1982.
况平城市园林绿地系统规划中的适宜度分析.中国园林.1996,11(4)：47-50.
马俊峰.评价活动论.北京：中国人民大学出版社，1994：352-358.
南京林业大学.中国林业词典.上海：上海科学技术出版社，1994.
周维权.中国古典园林史.北京：清华大学出版社,1990.
勒·勃·卢恩茨,朱筠珍等泽.绿化建设.北京：中国工业出版社,1956.
李锋,王如松.城市绿地系统的生态服务功能评价、规划与预测研究—以扬州市为例.生态学报,2003,23(9)：1929-1936.
李晖.风景评价的灰色聚类—风景资源评价中一种新的量化方法.中国园林,2002,8(1)：14-16.
李连科.哲学价值论.北京：人民大学出版社,1992.
李听.城市高压线下绿化景观的新尝试.园林设计,2008,2(8)：3-6.
李原.世界城市知识大全.北京：世界知识出版社,1985.
李悦铮.辽宁沿海地区旅游资源评价研究.自然资源学报,2000,15(1)：46-50.
李展一,赵力群.统计分析.上海：上海科学普及出版社,1991.
李铮生.城市园林绿地规划与设计(第2版.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2006.
梁修存,丁登山.国外旅游资源评价研究进展.自然资源学报,2002,17(2)：253-260.
林玉莲,胡正凡.环境心理学.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2000.
刘滨谊.风景景观工程体系化.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1990：5-6.
刘基.浅析合肥市高压走廊景观绿化设计.工程与建设,2006,20(3)：205-207.
刘黎明乡村景观规划.北京：中国农业出版社,2003：1-7.
刘黎明,李宪文,严力蛟等.乡村景观规划.北京：中国农业大学出版社,2003：8.
刘叔成,夏之放,楼昔勇等.美学基本原理.上海：上海人民出版社,1984：35-231.
卢恩茨,朱筠珍等译.绿化建设.北京：中国工业出版社,1956.
陆兆苏,赵德海,赵仁寿.南京市钟山风景区森林经理的实践和研究.华东森林经理,1991,(5)：3-8.
毛炯玮.城市自然遗留地的景观美学评价—以上海市为例.上海交通大学硕十论文,2009.
欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.天然阔叶林景观质量评价及其垂直结构优化技术.应用生态学报,2007,18(6)：1388-1392.
彭建,王仰麟,吴健生等.区域生态系统健康评价.生态学报,2007,27(11)：4877-4885.
任春晓.环境哲学新论.南昌：江西人民出版社,2003.
宋力,何兴元,张洁.沈阳城市公园植物景观美学质量测定方法研究—美景度评估法、平均值法和成对比较法的比较.沈阳农业大学学报,2006,37(2)：200-203.
苏雪痕,城市园林植物规划的方法与应用—植物材料的调查与规划.中国园林,2004,(6)：61-65.
孙筱祥.中国风景名胜区.北京林业大学学报,1982,(2)：12-16.
谭开欧,李玉生.长江三峡工程水库蓄水后旅游景观变化预测.中国岩溶,1998,17(3)：296-300.
谭偲.河流景观特质评估之研究—以台北县双溪为例.台北：国立台湾大学地理资源学研究所,2001(硕士论文).
谭少华,赵万民,城市公园绿地社会功能研究.重庆建筑大学学报,2007,29(5)：6-10.
汤晓敏.景观视觉环境评价的理论、方法与应用研究.复旦大学博士论文,2007.
王保忠,安树青,王彩霞等.城市园林绿化及其关键技术.东北林业大学学报,2005a,33(4)：16-18.
王保忠,何平,安树青等.南洞庭湖湿地景观文化的结构与特征研究.湿地科学,2005b,3(4)：241-248.
王保忠,王保明,何平.景观资源美学评价的理论与方法.应用生态学报,2006,17(9)：1733-1739.
王彩霞,何平,王保忠等.株洲市道路植物景观的数量化分析中南林学院学报,2004,24(1)：100-103.
王凤.公众参与环保行为机理研究.北京：中国环境科学出版社,2008.
王桂萍,绿水交融的乐章—三林世博家园高压走廊绿带景观设计.中外建筑,2008,(6)：99-100.
王娟,崔保山,刘杰等.云南澜沧江流域土地利用及其变化对景观生态风险的影响.环境科学学报,2008,28(2)：269-277.
王丽霞,任志远.基于GIS的区域植被-土壤生态系统需水定量测评—以陕北延安地区为例.地理 学报,2006,61(7)：763-770.
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.
王晓俊.美国风景资源管理系统及方法.世界林业研究,1992,(5)：68-76.
王晓俊.森林风景美的心理物理学评价方法.世界林业研究,1995,8(6)：8-15.
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.
王永洁,王亚娟,刘小鹏.宁夏农业生态环境质量综合评价及优化研究.水土保持研究,2007,14(5)：53-56.
温公颐等.逻辑学基础教程.天津：天津人民出版社,1987：1.
吴家骅.景观形态学—景观美学比较研究.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1995.
吴家骅,叶南译.景观形态学.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1999.
夏征农等.辞海.上海：上海辞书出版社,1999.
香港环境保护署.环境影响评估程序的技术备忘录(附件18)：景观及视觉影响评估的指引.http://sc.info.gov.hk/gb/www.epd.gov.hk/eia/tc chi/legis/memeorandum/annex18.html
肖笃宁.景观生态学研究进展.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1999.
肖笃宁.景观生态学：理论、方法及应用.北京：中国林业出版社,1991.
肖笃宁,解伏菊,魏建兵.景观价值与景观保护评价.地理科学,2006,26(4)：506-512.
谢花林.乡村景观功能评价.生态学报,2004,24(9)：1988-1993.
谢花林,李波,刘黎明等.北京山区景观功能评价.山地学报,2004,22(6)：756-761.
谢花林,刘黎明,徐为.乡村景观美感评价研究.经济地理,2003,23(3)：423-426.
谢凝高.试论因山就势.中国园林,1985,1：47-52.
许浩.城市景观规划设计理论与技法.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2006：8.
许浩.国外城市绿地系统规划.北京：中国l：业出版社,2003：11.
许树柏.层次分析法原理.天津：天津大学出版社,1998：160-165.
薛惠锋,苗治平.水域景观美学价值评价理论研究.人文地理,1994,9(2)：15-20.
阎守邕,丁纪,濮静娟等.中国旅游资源分区的初步研究.自然资源学报,1989,4(2)：112-122.
亚历山大,王听度,周序鸿泽.模式语言：城镇建筑结构.知识产权出版社,2002：2.
俞孔坚.风景资源评价的主要学派及方法.青年风景师文集,1988：31-41.
俞孔坚.景观：文化、生态与感知.北京：科学出版社,1998.
俞孔坚.论景观概念及其研究发展.北京林业大学学报,1987,9(4)：433-438.
俞孔坚.景观敏感度及其闽值评价研究.地理研究,1991,10(2)：38-51.
俞孔坚.专家与公众审美差异研究及其对策.中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
俞孔坚.自然风景景观评价方法.中国园林,1986,3：38-40.
俞孔坚.自然风景质量评价研究—BIB-LCJ审美评判测量法.北京林业大学学报,1988,10(2)：1-7.
俞孔坚,李迪华.景观设计：专业,学科与教育.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003：12-23.
俞孔坚,李迪华.城市景观之路与市长们交流.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003.
俞孔坚,吉庆萍.专家与公众景观审美差异研究及对策明.中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
俞孔坚,李迪华,段铁武.敏感地段的景观安全格局设计及地理信息系统应用—以北京香山滑雪场为例.中国园林,2001：11-16.
张国强,贾贯中.风景规划—风景名胜区规划规范实施手册.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003：10-32.
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.
张侃,张建英,陈英旭等.基于土地利用变化的杭州市绿地生态服务价值CITYgreen模型评价.应 用生报,2006,17(10)：1918-1922.
张林波,王维,吴春旭等.基于GIS的视觉景观影响定量评价方法理论与实践生态学报,2008,28(6)：2784-2791.
张荣.北京西山风景游憩林抚育的研究.北京：北京林业大学,2003(硕士论文).
张卫东,方海兰,张德顺等.城市绿化景观观赏性的心理学研究.心理科学,2008,31(4)：823-826.
中华人民共和国建设部.城市规划基本术语标准.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1999.
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局.旅游区(点)质量等级划分与评定(GB/T17775-2003).2004.
周锐,李月辉,胡远满等.基于景观敏感度的森林公园景点评价.应用生态学报,2008,19(11)：2460-2466.
周向频.景观规划中的审美研究.城市规划汇刊,1995,(2)：54-60.
朱光潜.2001.西方美学历史.北京：人民文艺出版社,2001：12-23.
朱晓东.城市优美环境的要素与层次理论：提升城市竞争力的基础.科技与经济,2003,16(1)：33-37.
朱小雷.建成环境主观评价方法研究.广州：华南理工大学,2003(博士论文).
Acar C, Kurdoglu B C, Kurdoglu O, et al. Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The International Journal of Sustainable Development andWorld Ecology,2006,13(6):499-512.
Acar C, Sakici C. Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environment,2008,43(6):1153-1170.
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(3),139-144.
Amir S, Gidalizon E. Expert-based method for the evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape. Journal of Environmental Management,1990,30(3),251-263.
Amos R. Human aspects of urban form. New York:Pergamon,1977.
Anderson L. Visual Absorption Capability, In Our National Landscape. G. Elsner and R. Smardon (eds), USDA Forest Service Genernal Technical Report PSW-35,1979.
Angileri V, Toccolini A. The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning,1993,24(1-4):105-112.
Antrop M. Background Concepts for Integrated Landscape Analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2000,77(1-2):17-28.
Appleton J H. The Experience of Landscape. New York:Wiley,1975.
Arizona Department of Transportation (Arizona DOT). Application Procedures for Designation of Parkways, Historic and Scenic Roads in Arizona. Parkways, Historic and ScenicRoads Advisory Committee Publication, Phoenix, Arizona,1993:82.
Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega J F, Canas-Madueno J A et al. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,69:115-125.
Arthur L M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:Some empirical tests. Forest Science, 1977,23(2):151-160.
Arthur L M, Daniel T C, Boster R S. Landscape assessment:a critical review of research and method. Landscape Mange.,1977,4:109-129.
HeckscherA. Open Space-the Life of American City. New York:Harper & Row,1984.
Bacon W R. The visual management. System of the forest service, USDA. In:Proceedings of Our National Landscape (USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. PSW-35). Berkeley, Calif. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979.
Bijsterveld K. "The city of din":decibels, noise, and neighbors in the Netherlands,1910-1980. Osiris,2003,18:173-193.
Bill L, Heath T. What is a skyline:A quantitative approach. Architectural Science Review,1994,37: 163-170.
Bishop I D, Hull R B. Intergrating technologies for visual resource management. J. Environ. Manage.,1991,32:295-312.
Bishop I, Leahy P NA. Assessing the visual impact of development proposal:the validity of computer simulations. Landscape J.,1989,8:92-100.
Blasco E, Gonzalez-Olabarria J R, Rodriguez-Veiga P, et al. Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain). Journal of Forestry Research,2009,20(1):73-78.
Blocker L, Slider T. Landscape Aesthetics. USDA Forest Service,1995.
Brian Clouston,陈自新,许慈安译.风景园林植物配置.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1992.
Briggs D J, France J. Landscape Evaluation:A comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,10:263-275.
Brown T, Keane T, Kaplan S. Aesthetics and management:bridging the gap. Landscape and Urban Planning,1986,13:1-10.
Brown T C, Daniel T C. Context effects in perceived environmental quality assessment:scene selection and landscape quality rating. J. Environ. Psychol.,1987,7:233-250.
Brown T C, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic beauty of forest timber stands. Forest Sci.,1986,32: 471-487.
Brown T C, Daniel T C. Scaling of ratings:concepts and methods. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-293 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO,1990.
Brunson M, Shelby, B. Assessing recreational and scenic quality:how does New Forestry rate? J. Forestry,1992,90(7):37-41.
Buhyoff G J, Gauthier L J, Wellman J D. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurement. Forest Sci.,1984,30:71-82.
Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science,1978,24:424-432.
Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Arndt LK. Replication of a scenic preference function. Forest Science, 1980,26:227-230.
Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Wellman J D. Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage. J. Environ. Manage.,1979,8:261-267.
Buhyoff G J, Wellman J. The specification of non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. J. Leisure Res.,1980,12:257-272.
Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Sci.,1982,28:827-838.
Bulut Z, Karahan F, Sezen I. Determining visual beauties of natural waterscape:a case study of Tortum valley (Erzurum/Turkey). Scientific Research and Essay,2010,5 (2):170-182.
Bulut Z, Yilmaz H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2008,141(1-3): 121-129.
Bulut Z, Yilmaz H. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2009,154:459-468.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1. US Department of the Interior, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC.1986a.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. US Department of the Interior, Office of Public Affairs,Washington, DC.1986b.
Callicott J B. The Land Aesthetic. In:Callieott J B (EdS).Companion to a Sand County Almanac: Interpretive and Critical Essays. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press,1983:345-358.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Guidelines for Official Designations of Scenic Highways.1996. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/shpgl.htm
Calvin J S, Dearinger J A, Curtin M E. An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscape. Environment and Behavior,1972,4(4):447-470.
Campbell D T, Finke D W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod martix. Psychological Bulletin,1959,56(2):81-105.
Canada, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. Forest Landscape Handbook. The Information Service Branch, Ministry of Forests,1981.
Carlson A. Appreciation and the Natural Environment. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1979(37):267-276.
Carlson A. Nature, aesthetic appreciation and knowledge. J. Aesthetics Art Criticism,1995,53(4): 393-400.
Carlson, A. Nature and Positive Aesthetics. Environment Ethics.1984, (6):5-34.
Chen B, Adimo O A, Bao Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users'perspective:The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2009,93:76-82.
Chenoweth R E, Gobster P H. The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape Journal,1990,9(1):1-8.
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(1-2):1-13.
Clay G R, Marsh S E. Spectral analysis for articulating scenic color changes in a coniferous landscape. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,1997,63(12):1353-1362.
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(4):239-255.
Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission. Design Guidelines for Visual Resources Along Scenic and Historic Byways. Colorado Department of Transportation.2002.
Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado DOT). Frisco to Breckenridge:State Highway 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Colorado Department of Transportation.2002.
Cook P S, Cable T T. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32(1):63-69.
Costanza R, D'Arge R, De Groot R, et al. The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature,1997,387(15):253-260.
Craik K H. Individual variation in landscape description [A]. In:Zuba E H, Brush R O, Fabos J G. (Ed.). Landscape Assessment [C]. New York:Hutchinson & Ross,1975.
Craik K H, Feimer N R.1979. Setting technical standards for visual impact assessment procedures. In:Elsner G, Smardon R. (Ed.) Proceedings of Our National Landscape. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.
Crofts R S. The Landscape Component Approach to Landscape Evaluation. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographer,1975,66:124-129.
Daniel T C. Criteria for the development of perceived environmental quality indices. In:Zube E, Craik K. (Eds.). Perceived Environmental Quality Indices. New York:Plenum Press,1977.
Daniel T C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-4),267-281.
Daniel T C, Boster R S. Measuring landscape esthetics:the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Fort Collins:Rock Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1976.
Daniel T C, Meitner M J. Representational validity of landscape visualizations:the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol.,2001,21: 61-72.
Daniel T C, Schroeder H. Scenic beauty estimation model:Predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. In:Elsner G H, Smardon R C, (Eds.). Proceedings of our national landscape:A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, PSW-35. Berkeley, California:USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979:514-523.
Daniel T C, Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In:Altman I, Wohlwill J. (Ed.). Human Behavior and Environment VI. New York:Plenum Press,1983: 39-84.
Daniel T C, Wheeler L, Boster R S, et al. An application of signal detection analysis to forest management alternatives. Man-Environ. Syst.,1973,3:330-344.
Edward Relph. Rational landscape and humanistic geography. London:Croom Helm,1981.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projeets.office of Environment Policy Washington, D.C.,1981.
Feimer N R, Craik K H, Smardon R C, et al. Appraising the reliability of visual impact assessment methods. In:Elsner G, Smardon R. (Ed.). Proceedings of Our National Landscape. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA,1979:286-295.
Feimer N R, Smardon R C, Craik K. H. Evaluating the effectiveness of observer-based visual resource and impact assessment methods. Landscape Res.,1981,6:12-16.
Gandy R, Meitner M J. Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning. The effects of an advanced traveller information system on scenic beauty ratings and the enjoyment of a recreational drive. Landscape and Urban Planning,2007,82(1-2):85-93.
Gimblett H R, Itami R M, Fitzgibbon J E. Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal,1985,4(2):87-96.
Gobster P H. Aldo Leopold's ecological aesthetics:integrating aesthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry,1995,93(2),6-10.
Gobster P H, Chenoweth R E. The dimensions of aesthetic preference:a quantitative analysis. J. Environ. Manage,1989,29(1),47-72.
Gobster P H, Nassauer J I, Daniel T C. The shared landscape:what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol.,2007,22:959-972.
Gulinck H, Mugica M, DeLucio J V, et al. A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,55:257-270.
Giilez S. A method for evaluation areas for national park status. Environmental management,1992,16(6): 811-818.
Habron D. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and urban planning,1998,42(1): 45-56.
Hackett B. Planting Design. New York:McGRAN-HILL,1979.
Haider W, Hunt L. Visual aesthetic quality of northern Ontrario's forested shorelines. Environmental Management,2002,29(3):324-334.
Han K T. An exploration of relationship among the responses to natural scenes:scenic beauty, preference, and restoration. Environment and Behavior,2010,42(2):243-270.
Hands D E, Brown R D. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,58(1):57-70.
Hartig T, Mange M, Evans G W. Restorative effects of natural environement experience. Environ. Behav.,1991,23(1):3-26.
He J, Tsou J Y, Xue Y et al. (). A visual landscape assessment approach for high-density urban development. In Martens B, Brown, A (Ed.). Computer aided architectural design future. Netherlands:Springer,2005:125-134.
He P, Wang B Z. Study on landscape ecological assessment and eco-tourism in the Dongting Lake wetland. J. Environ. Sci.,2003,15(2):271-278.
Hernandez J, Garcia L, Ayuga F. Integration methodologies for visual impact assessment of rural buildings by geographic information systems. Biosystems Engineering,2004,88(2):255-263.
Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1985,5(3):225-241.
Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments:mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape J.,1987,6(2):140-152.
Herzog T R, Bosley P J. Tranquility and preference as effective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology.1992,12:115-127.
Herzog T R, Smith G A. Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environ. Behav.,1988,20: 320-344.
Hetherington J, Daniel T C, Brown T C. Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environmental perception research. J. Environ. Psychol.,1993,13:283-291.
Hull R B. and Buhyoff G J. Distance and scenic beauty:a non-monotonic relationship. Environ. Behav.,1983,15:77-91.
Hull R B, Buhyoff G J. Individual and group reliability of landscape assessment. Landscape Planning,1984,11(1):67-71.
Hull R B, Buhyoff G J, Cordell H K. Psychophysical models:An example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landsc. J.,1987,6 (2):113-122.
Hull R B, Buhyoff G J, Daniel T C. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science,1984,30(4):1084-1096.
Hull R B, Stewart W P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgement. J. Environ. Psychol.,1992, 12:101-114.
Hull R B IV. Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban parks. Environment and Behavior,1989,21(3):323-345.
Iiyama N, Kamad M, Nakagoshi N. Ecological and social evaluation of landscape in a rural area with terraced paddies in southwestern Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning,2005,70:301-313.
Jackson R H, Hudman L E. Assessment of the environmental impact of high voltage power transmission lines. Journal of Environmental Management,1978,6:153-170.
Jacques D L. Landscape appraisal:the case for a subjective theory. J. Environ. Manage.,1980,10: 107-113.
Jensen M B, Persson B, Guldager S, et al. Green structure and sustainalbility-developing a tool for local planning. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,52(2-3):117-133.
Julianna P. Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism:the case of central coast region of Western Australia. Tour. Manage.,2001,22 (6):637-648.
Kaltenborn B P, Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,59:1-11.
Kaplan R. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In:Zube E, Brush R, Fabos J. (Ed.). Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Stroudsburg, Pa:Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1975:118-119.
Kaplan R. Preference and everyday nature:method and application. In:Stokols D. (Ed.). Perspective on environment and behavior:theory research and application. New York:Plenum, 1977:235-250.
Kaplan R. The analysis of perception via preference:A strategy for studding how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning,1985,12:161-176.
Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1989.
Kaplan S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In:Zube E H, Brush R O, Fabos JG. (Ed.). Landscape assessment, values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa:Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1975:92-102.
Kaplan S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment. In:Preiser W F E. (Ed.) Environmental Design Research. Stroudsburg, Pa:Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1973.
Kaplan S. Concerning the power of contentidentifying methodologies. In:Assessing Amenity Resource Values. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-68.1979a:4-13.
Kaplan S. Perception and landscape:conception and misconception. In:proceedings of Our National Landscape. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35.1979b: 241-248.
Kaplan S, Kaplan R. Cognition and environment:function in in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger,1982:252.
Kaplan S, Kaplan R, Wendt J. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception Psychophys,1972,12:350-356.
Kellomaki S, Savolainen R. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning,1984,11(2):97-107.
Kernohan D, et al. User participation in building design and management:a generic approach to building evaluation. Boston:Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, OX,1992.
Krause C L. Our visual landscape:managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-2):239-254.
Lagro J A. Landscape context of rural residential development in southeastern Wisconsis (USA). Landscape Ecology,1998,13(2):65-77.
Land Use Consultants. A planning classification of scottish landscape resources. Countryside Commission for Scotland, Occasional Paper,1971.
Latimer D A, Hogo H, Daniel T C. The effects of atmospheric optical conditions on perceived scenic beauty. Atmos. Environ.,1981,15:1865-1874.
Laughlin N A, Garcia M W. Attitudes of Landscape Architects in the USDA Forest Service Toward the Visual Management System. Landscape Journal,1986,5(2):135-139.
Laurie I C. (1975). Aesthetic factors in visual evaluation. In Zube E N, Brush R O, Fabos J G. (Ed.). Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions and Resources. Stroudsburg Pa:Dowden Hutchinson and Ross,1975:102-117.
Lewis P H Jr. Quality corridors for Wisconsin. Landscape Architecture,1964,54:100-107.
Li Y F, Sun X, Zhu X D, et al. An early warning method of landscape ecological security in rapid urbanizing coastal areas and its application in Xiamen, China. Ecological Modelling,2010a, 221(19):2251-2260.
Li Y F, Zhu X D, Sun X, et al. Landscape effects of environmental impact on bay-area wetlands under rapid urban expansion and development policy:A case study of Lianyungang, China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2010b,94:218-227.
Linton, D L. The assessment of scenery as a Natural Resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 1968,84:219-238.
Litton R B, Forest Jr. Landscape Description and Inventories:A Basis for Land Planning and Design[Z]. Berkeley, California:USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Research Paper PSW-49.1968.
Litton R B Jr. Aesthetic Dimensions of the Landscape. In:Krutilla J V.(Ed.). Natural Environments: Studies in theoretical and applied analysis. Baltimore:published for Resources for the Future by the Johns Hopkins University Press,1972,91-262.
Litton R B Jr. Descriptive approaches to landscape analysis. In:proceedings of Our National Landscape (USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. PSW-35) Berkeley, Calif. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979.
Litton R B Jr. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories:A Basis for Land Planning and Design. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, PSW-49 Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.1968.
Litton R B Jr. Visual vulnerability of forest landscape. Journal of Forestry,1974,7:392-397.
Litton R B Jr, Tetlow R J. A landscape inventory framework:Scenic analyses of the Northern Great Plains. USD Forest Service.research paper. PSW-135.1978.
London Planning Advisory Committee. Open Space Planning in London. London:Artillery House, 1992.
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(4):177-198.
Lowental D. Past time, present place:landscape and memory. Geogr. Rev.,1975,65:1-36.
Lowental D. The bicentennial landscape:a mirror held up to the past. Geogr. Rev.,1977,67: 249-267.
Magill A W, Litton R B Jr. A color measuring system for landscape assessment. Landscape Journal, 1980,5(1):45-54.
Malm W, Kelly K, Molenar J, et al. Human perception of visual air quality:uniform haze. Atmos. Environ.,1981,15:1874-1890.
Meitner M J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon:relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,68(1),3-13.
Menard S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks:Sage publications,1995:7-106.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Minnesota DOT). Aesthetic Initiative Measurement System:Final Report. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul.2001.
National Park Service (NPS). Visual Quality of Built Environments in National Parks. US Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C.,1993b.
National Park Service (NPS). Management Policies 2001. US Department of the Interior. NPS D116. Washington, D. C.,2000:137.
National Rivers Authority (NRA). River Landscape Assessment. Conservation-Technical Handbook 2. Bristol:National Rivers Authority,1993.
Naveh Z, Lieberman A S. Landscape ecology:theory and application. New York:Springer-Verleg, 1984.
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: US 70:Ruidoso Downs to Riverside. AC-MIP-070-4(35)264.CN 3393. Santa Fe, NM.2001.
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. New Mexico Scenic and Historic Byways. UNM Printing Services, Alburquerque, NM.2002.
Niemczynowicz J. Megacities from a water perspective. Water International,1996,21:198-205.
Nijnik M, Zahvoyska L, Nijnik A, et al. Public evaluation of landscape content and change:Several examples from Europe. Land Use Policy,2008,26:77-86.
Onate J J. Agro-environmental schemes and the European agricultural landscape:the role of indicators as valuing tools for evolution. Landscape Ecology,2000,15(6):271-280.
Oregon Department of Transportation (Oregon DOT).1999 Oregon Highway Plan. ODOT Transportation Development Division, Salem, OR,1999:244.
Orians G H, Heerwagen J H. Evolved response to landscapes. Evolution of Mind, Culture and Society SS.2008,555-579.
Orland B. Synthetic landscapes:a review of video-imaging application in environmental perception research, planning and design. In:Marans R, Stokols D. (Eds.), Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues. New York:Plenum Press,2009:213-251.
Palmer J F. Stability of landscape perception in the face of landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning,1997,37(1/2),109-113.
Palmer J F, Hoffman R E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-4):149-161.
Park J R, Stabler M J, Jones P J, et al. Evaluating the role of environmental quality in the sustainable rural economic development of England. Environment, Development and Sustainability,2008, 11(4):735-750.
Parsons R, Daniel T C. Assessing visibility impairment in class I parks and wildness areas:a comparison of policy-relevant methods. Soc. Nat. Resources,1988,1:227-240.
Parsons R, Tassinary L G, Ulrich RS, et al. The view from the road:implication for stress recovery and immunization. J. Environ. Pshchol.,1998,18:113-140.
Pavlikakis G E, Tsihrintzis, V A. (). Ecosystem management:a holistic approach to the management of the natural resources. In Brebbia C A, Uso J L. (Ed.), Ecosystems and Sustainable Development II. Proceedings of the International Conference ECOSUD. Lemnos, Greece:WIT Press.1999:385-394.
Peterson G L, Neumann E S. Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment. J. Leisure Res.,1969,1:219-237.
Poggio L, Vrscaj B. A GIS-based human health risk assessment for urban green space planning—an example from Grugliasco (Italy). Science of the total environment,2009,409:5961-5970.
Porteous J D. Environmental Aesthetics:Ideas, Politics and Planning. London:Routledge,1996.
Priestley T, Evans G W. Resident perceptions of a nearby electric transmission line. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1996,16:65-74.
Purcell A T. Landscape perception, preference and schema discrepancy. Environ. Planning,1987,14, 67-92.
Real E, Arce C, Sabucedo J. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2000,20(4):355-373.
Ribe R G. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest:Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2006,26(2): 100-115.
Ribe RG. Scenic beauty perceptions across the ROS spectrum. J. Environ. Manage.,1994,42: 199-221.
Ross R W Jr. The Bureau of Land Management and Visual Resource Management--an overview. In: Proceedings of Our National Landscape:(USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. PSW-35). Berkeley, Galif:Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979.
Roth M. Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment- an empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,78(3):179-192.
Ruddel E J, Gramann J H, Rudis V A, et al. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty model. Environ. Behav.,1989,21(4):383-412.
Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J, et al. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference model of southern pine stands. Forest Sci.,1988,34(4):846-863.
Salwasser H. Gaining perspective:forestry for the future. J. Forestry,1990,88:32-38.
SandstrOm U G, Angelstam P, Khakee A. Urban comprehensive planning—identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,75: 43-57.
Sayadi S, Gonzalez Roa M C, Calatrava Requena J. Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecological Economics, 2005,55(4):539-550.
Schroeder H W. Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape aesthetics. J. Environ. Manage.,1986,23(4):325-333.
Schroeder H W, Brown T C. Alternative functional forms for an inventory based landscape perception model. J. Leisure Res.,1983,15:156-163.
Schroeder H W, Daniel T C. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environment and Behavior,1980,12,349-366.
Schroeder H W, Daniel T C. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science,1981,27:71-80.
Seinfeld J H. Air pollution:a half century of progress. AIChE Journal,2004,50,1096-1108.
Shafer E L, Hamilton J F, Schmidt E A. Natural landscape preferences:a predictive model. J. Leisure Res.,1969,1:1-19.
Shafer E L, Richards T A. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. Upper Darby PA:USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-302,1974.
Shafer E L, Rutherford W. Slection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. J. For.,1969,67:415-419.
Sheppard S R J. Visual Simulation:A users guide for architects. Engineers and Planners. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,1989, p20.
Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage.,1980,11,61-76.
Silva J P, Santos M, Queiros L, et al. Estimating the influence of overhead transmission power lines and landscape context on the density of little bustard Tetrax tetrax breeding populations. Ecological Modelling,2010,221:1954-1963.
Smardon R C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment:review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning,1988,15:85-106.
Smardon R C. Water recreation in North America. Landscape and Urban Planning,1988,16(1-2): 127-143.
Stamps A E. Use of photographs to simulate environments. A meta-anlysis. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1990,71:907-913.
Stewart T R, Middleton P, Downton M, et al. Judgements of photographs versus field observation in studies of perception and judgement of thevisual environment. J. Environ. Psychol.,1984,4(4): 283-302.
Sullivan W C, Lovell S T. Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,77(1-2):152-166.
Tahvanainen L, Ihalainen M, Hietala-Koivu R, et al. Measures of the EU agri-environmental protection scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management,2002,66:213-227.
The Countryside Agency. Interim Landscape Character Assessment Guidance. London:The Countryside Agency,1999.
Therivel R, Rosario M. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London:Earthscan Publication Ltd,1996.
Therivel R, Wilson E, Thomson S, et al. et al. Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan Publication Ltd,1992.
Thurstone L L. The measurement of values. The University of Chicago Press,1959:322.
Tinsley H E, Weiss D J. Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgement. J. Counselling Psychol.,1975,22:358-376.
Tips W E J, Savasdisara T. The influence of the environmental background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning,1986,13:125-133.
Torgerson W S. Theory and method of scaling. New York:John wiley,1985:460.
Turner T. Open space planning in Landon:from standard per 1000 to green strategy. Town Planning Review,1992,(4):365-386.
Tzolova G V. An experiment in greenway analysis and assessment:the Danibe River. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,33(1-3):283-294.
Ulrich R S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment, In Wohlwill J F, Altman I. (Ed.). Behavior and environment. NewYork:Plenum Press,1983:85-125.
Ulrich R S. Natural versus urban scenes:Some psychophysiological effects.Environment and Behavior,1981,13(5):523-556.
Ulrich R S. Visual landscape preference:a model and application. Man-Environ. Syst.,1977,7: 279-293.
USDA Forest Service. Landscape Aestheties:A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook No.701. USDA Forest service, Washington, DC.,1995.
USDA Forest Service. National Forest Landscape Management. Agriculture handbook 434,1973,1.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture. SCS Tech Release 65,1978.
USDI Bureau of Land Management.8400-Visual Resource Management (Supersedes Rev.8-4). Washington, D. C.,1984.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management:Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1,1986.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management:Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1,1986.
USDI Burcau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management. BLM Manual,1976.
US Department of Transportation (US DOT). An Analysis and Summary of the 1990 National Scenic Byways Study Inventory. Federal Highway Administration Publication FHWA-PD-91-014, Washington, D. C.,1991:137.
US Department of Transportation (US DOT). Community Guide to Planning and Managing a Scenic Byway. Federal Highway Administration Publication, Washington, D. C.,1999:76.
US Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics:A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,1995.
Velarde M D, Fry G, Tveit, M. Health effects of viewing landscapes—landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,2007,6(4):199-212.
Vining J, Orland B. The video advantage:a comparison of two environmental representation techniques. Environ. Manage.,1989,29:275-283.
Washington State Department of Transportation (Wash DOT). Scenic Byway Designation Process Report. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA,2001:36.
Webb E J, Campbell, D T, Schwartz, R D, et al. Unobtrusive measures. Chicago:Rand McNally. 1969.
Weber T, Sloan A, Wolf J. Maryland's green infrastructure assessment:development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,77(1-2), 94-110.
Western D, Henry W. Economics and Conservation in Third World National Parks. Bioscience,1979, 29(7):414-418.
Wherrett J R. Creating landscape preference models using the Internet as a medium for surveys. Landscape Research,2000,25,79-96.
Wohlwill J E. Environmental aesthetics:the environment as a source of affects. In:Altman, I., Wohlwill J. (Ed.), Human Behavior and Environment:Advance in Theories and Research, Vol. 1. New York:Plenum Press,1976, 1p.
Wolock D M, Winter T C, McMahon G. Delineation and Evaluation of Hydrologic-Landscape Regions in the United States Using Geographic Information System Tools and Multivariate Statistical Analyses. Environmental Management,2004,34:71-88.
Wong K K, Domroes M. The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning, 2005,32,617-632.
Xu C, Liu M, Zhang C, et al. The spatiotemporal dynamics of rapid urban growth in the Nanjing metropolitan region of China. Landscape Ecology,2007,22(6),925-937.
Yang J, Zhao L, Mcbride J, et al. Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of urban forests in cities. Landscape and Urban Planning,2009,91(2),97-104.
Yeomans W C. A Proposed Biophysical Approach to Visual Absorption Capability, In Our National Landscape. Elsner G, Smardon R. (ed.). USDA Forest Service Genernal Technical Report PSW-35,1979.
Yu K. Cultural variations in landscape preference:comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32(2),107-126.
Yu K, Li D, Li N. The evolution of greenways in China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006, 76(1-4),223-239.
Zhang K X, Wang R, Shen CC, et al. Temporal and spatial characteristics of the urban heat island during rapid urbanization in Shanghai, China. Environment Monitoring and Assessment,2010, 169(1-4):101-112.
Zube E H. Themes in landscape assessment theory. Landscape Journal,1984,3 (2):104-110.
Zube E H, Pitt D C, Anderson T W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In:Zube E H, Brush R O, Julius G. (Ed.), Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions, and Resources. PA:Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Stroudsbury,1975,367p.
Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception:research application and theory. Landscape Planning,1982,9:1-33.
Zube E H, Simcox D E, Law C S. Perceptual Landscape Simulations:History and Prospect. Landscape J.,1987, (6):62-80.
比特·霍尔,邹德慈等译.城市和区域规划.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1983.
曹娟,梁伊任,章俊花.北京自然保护区景观调查与评价初探.中国园林,2004,20(7)：67-71.
陈从周.中国诗文与中国园林艺术.扬州大学学报(人文社科版).1985,1-3.
陈薇,冯炜,焦泽阳虚拟现实技术与沿江景观研究.建筑学报,2001,(6)：9-12.
陈鑫峰,贾黎明.京西山区森林林内景观评价研究.林业科学,2003,39(4)：59-66
陈鑫峰,贾黎明,王雁等.京西山区风景游憩林季相景观评价及经营技术原则.北京林业大学学报,2008,30(4)：39-45.
陈彦光周一星.城市化Logistic过程的阶段划分及其空间解释—对Northam曲线的修正与发展.经济地理,2005,25(6)：817-822.
陈有民.论中国的风景类型.北京林业大学学报,1982,(2)：17-20.
程翠云,钱新,万玉秋等.水库大坝突发事件应急预案可行性评价方法初探.水利水运工程学报,2009,1：71-75.
邓秋才,韩铭哲,段广德.哈达门国家森林公园风景质量的分析与评价.内蒙古林学院学报.1996,18(2)：11-19.
丁维,李正方,王长永.江苏海门县农村生态环境评价方法.农村生态环境,1994,10(2)：38-40.
杜克塞迪斯,王锦堂译.台北：台隆书店,1994.
范业正,郭来喜.中国海滨旅游地气候适宜性评价.自然资源学报,1998,13(4)：304-311.
房明惠,罗新,王张民.合肥市景观水环境综合评价.城市环境与城市生态,2009,22(5)：1-4.
方敏彦,章明,张德罡.宝钢车间防护绿地不同配置模式环境效益评价.草地学报,2009,17(3)：365-370.
高原荣重,杨增志等译.城市绿地规划.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1983.
国家环境保护总局环境工程评估中心.环境影响评价相关法律法规汇编.北京：中国环境出版社,2005.
国庆喜,王天明.丰林自然保护区景观生态评价：量化与解释.应用生态学报,2005,16(5)：825-832.
郭鑫.呼和浩特城市绿地景观格局与树种选择及其规划研究.内蒙古：内蒙古农业大学,2010(博十论文).
韩周林,胡庭兴,孙大江.高压走廊的景观设计与思考—以绵阳永兴镇生态走廊设计为例.四川建
筑,2007,27(3)：11-14.
郝凌子.城市绿地开放空间研究.南京：南京林业大学,2004(硕十论文).
何东进,洪伟,胡海清等.武夷山风景名胜区景观空间格局变化及其干扰效应模拟.生态学报,2004,24(8)：1602-1610.
胡蓉,邱道持,王昕亚等.农用地景观功能评价.西南师范大学学报,2006,31(4)：186-189.
蒋勇军,况明生,齐代华.基于GIS的重庆市旅游资源评价,分析与规划研究.自然资源学报,2004,19(1)：38-46.
坎特,李兴基等译.环境影响评价.北京：中国环境管理经济与法学学会,1982.
况平城市园林绿地系统规划中的适宜度分析.中国园林.1996,11(4)：47-50.
马俊峰.评价活动论.北京：中国人民大学出版社，1994：352-358.
南京林业大学.中国林业词典.上海：上海科学技术出版社，1994.
周维权.中国古典园林史.北京：清华大学出版社,1990.
勒·勃·卢恩茨,朱筠珍等泽.绿化建设.北京：中国工业出版社,1956.
李锋,王如松.城市绿地系统的生态服务功能评价、规划与预测研究—以扬州市为例.生态学报,2003,23(9)：1929-1936.
李晖.风景评价的灰色聚类—风景资源评价中一种新的量化方法.中国园林,2002,8(1)：14-16.
李连科.哲学价值论.北京：人民大学出版社,1992.
李听.城市高压线下绿化景观的新尝试.园林设计,2008,2(8)：3-6.
李原.世界城市知识大全.北京：世界知识出版社,1985.
李悦铮.辽宁沿海地区旅游资源评价研究.自然资源学报,2000,15(1)：46-50.
李展一,赵力群.统计分析.上海：上海科学普及出版社,1991.
李铮生.城市园林绿地规划与设计(第2版.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2006.
梁修存,丁登山.国外旅游资源评价研究进展.自然资源学报,2002,17(2)：253-260.
林玉莲,胡正凡.环境心理学.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2000.
刘滨谊.风景景观工程体系化.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1990：5-6.
刘基.浅析合肥市高压走廊景观绿化设计.工程与建设,2006,20(3)：205-207.
刘黎明乡村景观规划.北京：中国农业出版社,2003：1-7.
刘黎明,李宪文,严力蛟等.乡村景观规划.北京：中国农业大学出版社,2003：8.
刘叔成,夏之放,楼昔勇等.美学基本原理.上海：上海人民出版社,1984：35-231.
卢恩茨,朱筠珍等译.绿化建设.北京：中国工业出版社,1956.
陆兆苏,赵德海,赵仁寿.南京市钟山风景区森林经理的实践和研究.华东森林经理,1991,(5)：3-8.
毛炯玮.城市自然遗留地的景观美学评价—以上海市为例.上海交通大学硕十论文,2009.
欧阳勋志,廖为明,彭世揆.天然阔叶林景观质量评价及其垂直结构优化技术.应用生态学报,2007,18(6)：1388-1392.
彭建,王仰麟,吴健生等.区域生态系统健康评价.生态学报,2007,27(11)：4877-4885.
任春晓.环境哲学新论.南昌：江西人民出版社,2003.
宋力,何兴元,张洁.沈阳城市公园植物景观美学质量测定方法研究—美景度评估法、平均值法和成对比较法的比较.沈阳农业大学学报,2006,37(2)：200-203.
苏雪痕,城市园林植物规划的方法与应用—植物材料的调查与规划.中国园林,2004,(6)：61-65.
孙筱祥.中国风景名胜区.北京林业大学学报,1982,(2)：12-16.
谭开欧,李玉生.长江三峡工程水库蓄水后旅游景观变化预测.中国岩溶,1998,17(3)：296-300.
谭偲.河流景观特质评估之研究—以台北县双溪为例.台北：国立台湾大学地理资源学研究所,2001(硕士论文).
谭少华,赵万民,城市公园绿地社会功能研究.重庆建筑大学学报,2007,29(5)：6-10.
汤晓敏.景观视觉环境评价的理论、方法与应用研究.复旦大学博士论文,2007.
王保忠,安树青,王彩霞等.城市园林绿化及其关键技术.东北林业大学学报,2005a,33(4)：16-18.
王保忠,何平,安树青等.南洞庭湖湿地景观文化的结构与特征研究.湿地科学,2005b,3(4)：241-248.
王保忠,王保明,何平.景观资源美学评价的理论与方法.应用生态学报,2006,17(9)：1733-1739.
王彩霞,何平,王保忠等.株洲市道路植物景观的数量化分析中南林学院学报,2004,24(1)：100-103.
王凤.公众参与环保行为机理研究.北京：中国环境科学出版社,2008.
王桂萍,绿水交融的乐章—三林世博家园高压走廊绿带景观设计.中外建筑,2008,(6)：99-100.
王娟,崔保山,刘杰等.云南澜沧江流域土地利用及其变化对景观生态风险的影响.环境科学学报,2008,28(2)：269-277.
王丽霞,任志远.基于GIS的区域植被-土壤生态系统需水定量测评—以陕北延安地区为例.地理 学报,2006,61(7)：763-770.
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.
王晓俊.美国风景资源管理系统及方法.世界林业研究,1992,(5)：68-76.
王晓俊.森林风景美的心理物理学评价方法.世界林业研究,1995,8(6)：8-15.
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.
王永洁,王亚娟,刘小鹏.宁夏农业生态环境质量综合评价及优化研究.水土保持研究,2007,14(5)：53-56.
温公颐等.逻辑学基础教程.天津：天津人民出版社,1987：1.
吴家骅.景观形态学—景观美学比较研究.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1995.
吴家骅,叶南译.景观形态学.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1999.
夏征农等.辞海.上海：上海辞书出版社,1999.
香港环境保护署.环境影响评估程序的技术备忘录(附件18)：景观及视觉影响评估的指引.http://sc.info.gov.hk/gb/www.epd.gov.hk/eia/tc chi/legis/memeorandum/annex18.html
肖笃宁.景观生态学研究进展.长沙：湖南科学技术出版社,1999.
肖笃宁.景观生态学：理论、方法及应用.北京：中国林业出版社,1991.
肖笃宁,解伏菊,魏建兵.景观价值与景观保护评价.地理科学,2006,26(4)：506-512.
谢花林.乡村景观功能评价.生态学报,2004,24(9)：1988-1993.
谢花林,李波,刘黎明等.北京山区景观功能评价.山地学报,2004,22(6)：756-761.
谢花林,刘黎明,徐为.乡村景观美感评价研究.经济地理,2003,23(3)：423-426.
谢凝高.试论因山就势.中国园林,1985,1：47-52.
许浩.城市景观规划设计理论与技法.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2006：8.
许浩.国外城市绿地系统规划.北京：中国l：业出版社,2003：11.
许树柏.层次分析法原理.天津：天津大学出版社,1998：160-165.
薛惠锋,苗治平.水域景观美学价值评价理论研究.人文地理,1994,9(2)：15-20.
阎守邕,丁纪,濮静娟等.中国旅游资源分区的初步研究.自然资源学报,1989,4(2)：112-122.
亚历山大,王听度,周序鸿泽.模式语言：城镇建筑结构.知识产权出版社,2002：2.
俞孔坚.风景资源评价的主要学派及方法.青年风景师文集,1988：31-41.
俞孔坚.景观：文化、生态与感知.北京：科学出版社,1998.
俞孔坚.论景观概念及其研究发展.北京林业大学学报,1987,9(4)：433-438.
俞孔坚.景观敏感度及其闽值评价研究.地理研究,1991,10(2)：38-51.
俞孔坚.专家与公众审美差异研究及其对策.中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
俞孔坚.自然风景景观评价方法.中国园林,1986,3：38-40.
俞孔坚.自然风景质量评价研究—BIB-LCJ审美评判测量法.北京林业大学学报,1988,10(2)：1-7.
俞孔坚,李迪华.景观设计：专业,学科与教育.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003：12-23.
俞孔坚,李迪华.城市景观之路与市长们交流.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003.
俞孔坚,吉庆萍.专家与公众景观审美差异研究及对策明.中国园林,1990,(2)：19-23.
俞孔坚,李迪华,段铁武.敏感地段的景观安全格局设计及地理信息系统应用—以北京香山滑雪场为例.中国园林,2001：11-16.
张国强,贾贯中.风景规划—风景名胜区规划规范实施手册.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,2003：10-32.
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.
张侃,张建英,陈英旭等.基于土地利用变化的杭州市绿地生态服务价值CITYgreen模型评价.应 用生报,2006,17(10)：1918-1922.
张林波,王维,吴春旭等.基于GIS的视觉景观影响定量评价方法理论与实践生态学报,2008,28(6)：2784-2791.
张荣.北京西山风景游憩林抚育的研究.北京：北京林业大学,2003(硕士论文).
张卫东,方海兰,张德顺等.城市绿化景观观赏性的心理学研究.心理科学,2008,31(4)：823-826.
中华人民共和国建设部.城市规划基本术语标准.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1999.
中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局.旅游区(点)质量等级划分与评定(GB/T17775-2003).2004.
周锐,李月辉,胡远满等.基于景观敏感度的森林公园景点评价.应用生态学报,2008,19(11)：2460-2466.
周向频.景观规划中的审美研究.城市规划汇刊,1995,(2)：54-60.
朱光潜.2001.西方美学历史.北京：人民文艺出版社,2001：12-23.
朱晓东.城市优美环境的要素与层次理论：提升城市竞争力的基础.科技与经济,2003,16(1)：33-37.
朱小雷.建成环境主观评价方法研究.广州：华南理工大学,2003(博士论文).
Acar C, Kurdoglu B C, Kurdoglu O, et al. Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The International Journal of Sustainable Development andWorld Ecology,2006,13(6):499-512.
Acar C, Sakici C. Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environment,2008,43(6):1153-1170.
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(3),139-144.
Amir S, Gidalizon E. Expert-based method for the evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape. Journal of Environmental Management,1990,30(3),251-263.
Amos R. Human aspects of urban form. New York:Pergamon,1977.
Anderson L. Visual Absorption Capability, In Our National Landscape. G. Elsner and R. Smardon (eds), USDA Forest Service Genernal Technical Report PSW-35,1979.
Angileri V, Toccolini A. The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning,1993,24(1-4):105-112.
Antrop M. Background Concepts for Integrated Landscape Analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,2000,77(1-2):17-28.
Appleton J H. The Experience of Landscape. New York:Wiley,1975.
Arizona Department of Transportation (Arizona DOT). Application Procedures for Designation of Parkways, Historic and Scenic Roads in Arizona. Parkways, Historic and ScenicRoads Advisory Committee Publication, Phoenix, Arizona,1993:82.
Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega J F, Canas-Madueno J A et al. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,69:115-125.
Arthur L M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments:Some empirical tests. Forest Science, 1977,23(2):151-160.
Arthur L M, Daniel T C, Boster R S. Landscape assessment:a critical review of research and method. Landscape Mange.,1977,4:109-129.
HeckscherA. Open Space-the Life of American City. New York:Harper & Row,1984.
Bacon W R. The visual management. System of the forest service, USDA. In:Proceedings of Our National Landscape (USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. PSW-35). Berkeley, Calif. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979.
Bijsterveld K. "The city of din":decibels, noise, and neighbors in the Netherlands,1910-1980. Osiris,2003,18:173-193.
Bill L, Heath T. What is a skyline:A quantitative approach. Architectural Science Review,1994,37: 163-170.
Bishop I D, Hull R B. Intergrating technologies for visual resource management. J. Environ. Manage.,1991,32:295-312.
Bishop I, Leahy P NA. Assessing the visual impact of development proposal:the validity of computer simulations. Landscape J.,1989,8:92-100.
Blasco E, Gonzalez-Olabarria J R, Rodriguez-Veiga P, et al. Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain). Journal of Forestry Research,2009,20(1):73-78.
Blocker L, Slider T. Landscape Aesthetics. USDA Forest Service,1995.
Brian Clouston,陈自新,许慈安译.风景园林植物配置.北京：中国建筑工业出版社,1992.
Briggs D J, France J. Landscape Evaluation:A comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management,1980,10:263-275.
Brown T, Keane T, Kaplan S. Aesthetics and management:bridging the gap. Landscape and Urban Planning,1986,13:1-10.
Brown T C, Daniel T C. Context effects in perceived environmental quality assessment:scene selection and landscape quality rating. J. Environ. Psychol.,1987,7:233-250.
Brown T C, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic beauty of forest timber stands. Forest Sci.,1986,32: 471-487.
Brown T C, Daniel T C. Scaling of ratings:concepts and methods. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-293 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO,1990.
Brunson M, Shelby, B. Assessing recreational and scenic quality:how does New Forestry rate? J. Forestry,1992,90(7):37-41.
Buhyoff G J, Gauthier L J, Wellman J D. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurement. Forest Sci.,1984,30:71-82.
Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science,1978,24:424-432.
Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Arndt LK. Replication of a scenic preference function. Forest Science, 1980,26:227-230.
Buhyoff G J, Leuschner W A, Wellman J D. Aesthetic impacts of southern pine beetle damage. J. Environ. Manage.,1979,8:261-267.
Buhyoff G J, Wellman J. The specification of non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. J. Leisure Res.,1980,12:257-272.
Buhyoff G J, Wellman J D, Daniel T C. Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Sci.,1982,28:827-838.
Bulut Z, Karahan F, Sezen I. Determining visual beauties of natural waterscape:a case study of Tortum valley (Erzurum/Turkey). Scientific Research and Essay,2010,5 (2):170-182.
Bulut Z, Yilmaz H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2008,141(1-3): 121-129.
Bulut Z, Yilmaz H. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,2009,154:459-468.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1. US Department of the Interior, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC.1986a.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1. US Department of the Interior, Office of Public Affairs,Washington, DC.1986b.
Callicott J B. The Land Aesthetic. In:Callieott J B (EdS).Companion to a Sand County Almanac: Interpretive and Critical Essays. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press,1983:345-358.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Guidelines for Official Designations of Scenic Highways.1996. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/shpgl.htm
Calvin J S, Dearinger J A, Curtin M E. An attempt at assessing preferences for natural landscape. Environment and Behavior,1972,4(4):447-470.
Campbell D T, Finke D W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod martix. Psychological Bulletin,1959,56(2):81-105.
Canada, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. Forest Landscape Handbook. The Information Service Branch, Ministry of Forests,1981.
Carlson A. Appreciation and the Natural Environment. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1979(37):267-276.
Carlson A. Nature, aesthetic appreciation and knowledge. J. Aesthetics Art Criticism,1995,53(4): 393-400.
Carlson, A. Nature and Positive Aesthetics. Environment Ethics.1984, (6):5-34.
Chen B, Adimo O A, Bao Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users'perspective:The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2009,93:76-82.
Chenoweth R E, Gobster P H. The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape Journal,1990,9(1):1-8.
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(1-2):1-13.
Clay G R, Marsh S E. Spectral analysis for articulating scenic color changes in a coniferous landscape. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,1997,63(12):1353-1362.
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(4):239-255.
Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission. Design Guidelines for Visual Resources Along Scenic and Historic Byways. Colorado Department of Transportation.2002.
Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado DOT). Frisco to Breckenridge:State Highway 9 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Colorado Department of Transportation.2002.
Cook P S, Cable T T. The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32(1):63-69.
Costanza R, D'Arge R, De Groot R, et al. The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature,1997,387(15):253-260.
Craik K H. Individual variation in landscape description [A]. In:Zuba E H, Brush R O, Fabos J G. (Ed.). Landscape Assessment [C]. New York:Hutchinson & Ross,1975.
Craik K H, Feimer N R.1979. Setting technical standards for visual impact assessment procedures. In:Elsner G, Smardon R. (Ed.) Proceedings of Our National Landscape. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.
Crofts R S. The Landscape Component Approach to Landscape Evaluation. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographer,1975,66:124-129.
Daniel T C. Criteria for the development of perceived environmental quality indices. In:Zube E, Craik K. (Eds.). Perceived Environmental Quality Indices. New York:Plenum Press,1977.
Daniel T C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-4),267-281.
Daniel T C, Boster R S. Measuring landscape esthetics:the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167. Fort Collins:Rock Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,1976.
Daniel T C, Meitner M J. Representational validity of landscape visualizations:the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol.,2001,21: 61-72.
Daniel T C, Schroeder H. Scenic beauty estimation model:Predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. In:Elsner G H, Smardon R C, (Eds.). Proceedings of our national landscape:A conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, PSW-35. Berkeley, California:USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979:514-523.
Daniel T C, Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In:Altman I, Wohlwill J. (Ed.). Human Behavior and Environment VI. New York:Plenum Press,1983: 39-84.
Daniel T C, Wheeler L, Boster R S, et al. An application of signal detection analysis to forest management alternatives. Man-Environ. Syst.,1973,3:330-344.
Edward Relph. Rational landscape and humanistic geography. London:Croom Helm,1981.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projeets.office of Environment Policy Washington, D.C.,1981.
Feimer N R, Craik K H, Smardon R C, et al. Appraising the reliability of visual impact assessment methods. In:Elsner G, Smardon R. (Ed.). Proceedings of Our National Landscape. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA,1979:286-295.
Feimer N R, Smardon R C, Craik K. H. Evaluating the effectiveness of observer-based visual resource and impact assessment methods. Landscape Res.,1981,6:12-16.
Gandy R, Meitner M J. Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning. The effects of an advanced traveller information system on scenic beauty ratings and the enjoyment of a recreational drive. Landscape and Urban Planning,2007,82(1-2):85-93.
Gimblett H R, Itami R M, Fitzgibbon J E. Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal,1985,4(2):87-96.
Gobster P H. Aldo Leopold's ecological aesthetics:integrating aesthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry,1995,93(2),6-10.
Gobster P H, Chenoweth R E. The dimensions of aesthetic preference:a quantitative analysis. J. Environ. Manage,1989,29(1),47-72.
Gobster P H, Nassauer J I, Daniel T C. The shared landscape:what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol.,2007,22:959-972.
Gulinck H, Mugica M, DeLucio J V, et al. A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,55:257-270.
Giilez S. A method for evaluation areas for national park status. Environmental management,1992,16(6): 811-818.
Habron D. Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape and urban planning,1998,42(1): 45-56.
Hackett B. Planting Design. New York:McGRAN-HILL,1979.
Haider W, Hunt L. Visual aesthetic quality of northern Ontrario's forested shorelines. Environmental Management,2002,29(3):324-334.
Han K T. An exploration of relationship among the responses to natural scenes:scenic beauty, preference, and restoration. Environment and Behavior,2010,42(2):243-270.
Hands D E, Brown R D. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,58(1):57-70.
Hartig T, Mange M, Evans G W. Restorative effects of natural environement experience. Environ. Behav.,1991,23(1):3-26.
He J, Tsou J Y, Xue Y et al. (). A visual landscape assessment approach for high-density urban development. In Martens B, Brown, A (Ed.). Computer aided architectural design future. Netherlands:Springer,2005:125-134.
He P, Wang B Z. Study on landscape ecological assessment and eco-tourism in the Dongting Lake wetland. J. Environ. Sci.,2003,15(2):271-278.
Hernandez J, Garcia L, Ayuga F. Integration methodologies for visual impact assessment of rural buildings by geographic information systems. Biosystems Engineering,2004,88(2):255-263.
Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1985,5(3):225-241.
Herzog T R. A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments:mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape J.,1987,6(2):140-152.
Herzog T R, Bosley P J. Tranquility and preference as effective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology.1992,12:115-127.
Herzog T R, Smith G A. Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environ. Behav.,1988,20: 320-344.
Hetherington J, Daniel T C, Brown T C. Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environmental perception research. J. Environ. Psychol.,1993,13:283-291.
Hull R B. and Buhyoff G J. Distance and scenic beauty:a non-monotonic relationship. Environ. Behav.,1983,15:77-91.
Hull R B, Buhyoff G J. Individual and group reliability of landscape assessment. Landscape Planning,1984,11(1):67-71.
Hull R B, Buhyoff G J, Cordell H K. Psychophysical models:An example with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landsc. J.,1987,6 (2):113-122.
Hull R B, Buhyoff G J, Daniel T C. Measurement of scenic beauty:the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science,1984,30(4):1084-1096.
Hull R B, Stewart W P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgement. J. Environ. Psychol.,1992, 12:101-114.
Hull R B IV. Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban parks. Environment and Behavior,1989,21(3):323-345.
Iiyama N, Kamad M, Nakagoshi N. Ecological and social evaluation of landscape in a rural area with terraced paddies in southwestern Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning,2005,70:301-313.
Jackson R H, Hudman L E. Assessment of the environmental impact of high voltage power transmission lines. Journal of Environmental Management,1978,6:153-170.
Jacques D L. Landscape appraisal:the case for a subjective theory. J. Environ. Manage.,1980,10: 107-113.
Jensen M B, Persson B, Guldager S, et al. Green structure and sustainalbility-developing a tool for local planning. Landscape and Urban Planning,2000,52(2-3):117-133.
Julianna P. Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism:the case of central coast region of Western Australia. Tour. Manage.,2001,22 (6):637-648.
Kaltenborn B P, Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning,2002,59:1-11.
Kaplan R. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In:Zube E, Brush R, Fabos J. (Ed.). Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Stroudsburg, Pa:Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1975:118-119.
Kaplan R. Preference and everyday nature:method and application. In:Stokols D. (Ed.). Perspective on environment and behavior:theory research and application. New York:Plenum, 1977:235-250.
Kaplan R. The analysis of perception via preference:A strategy for studding how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning,1985,12:161-176.
Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1989.
Kaplan S. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In:Zube E H, Brush R O, Fabos JG. (Ed.). Landscape assessment, values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa:Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1975:92-102.
Kaplan S. Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment. In:Preiser W F E. (Ed.) Environmental Design Research. Stroudsburg, Pa:Dowden, Hutchison and Ross,1973.
Kaplan S. Concerning the power of contentidentifying methodologies. In:Assessing Amenity Resource Values. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-68.1979a:4-13.
Kaplan S. Perception and landscape:conception and misconception. In:proceedings of Our National Landscape. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-35.1979b: 241-248.
Kaplan S, Kaplan R. Cognition and environment:function in in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger,1982:252.
Kaplan S, Kaplan R, Wendt J. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception Psychophys,1972,12:350-356.
Kellomaki S, Savolainen R. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning,1984,11(2):97-107.
Kernohan D, et al. User participation in building design and management:a generic approach to building evaluation. Boston:Butterworth Architecture, Oxford, OX,1992.
Krause C L. Our visual landscape:managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-2):239-254.
Lagro J A. Landscape context of rural residential development in southeastern Wisconsis (USA). Landscape Ecology,1998,13(2):65-77.
Land Use Consultants. A planning classification of scottish landscape resources. Countryside Commission for Scotland, Occasional Paper,1971.
Latimer D A, Hogo H, Daniel T C. The effects of atmospheric optical conditions on perceived scenic beauty. Atmos. Environ.,1981,15:1865-1874.
Laughlin N A, Garcia M W. Attitudes of Landscape Architects in the USDA Forest Service Toward the Visual Management System. Landscape Journal,1986,5(2):135-139.
Laurie I C. (1975). Aesthetic factors in visual evaluation. In Zube E N, Brush R O, Fabos J G. (Ed.). Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions and Resources. Stroudsburg Pa:Dowden Hutchinson and Ross,1975:102-117.
Lewis P H Jr. Quality corridors for Wisconsin. Landscape Architecture,1964,54:100-107.
Li Y F, Sun X, Zhu X D, et al. An early warning method of landscape ecological security in rapid urbanizing coastal areas and its application in Xiamen, China. Ecological Modelling,2010a, 221(19):2251-2260.
Li Y F, Zhu X D, Sun X, et al. Landscape effects of environmental impact on bay-area wetlands under rapid urban expansion and development policy:A case study of Lianyungang, China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2010b,94:218-227.
Linton, D L. The assessment of scenery as a Natural Resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 1968,84:219-238.
Litton R B, Forest Jr. Landscape Description and Inventories:A Basis for Land Planning and Design[Z]. Berkeley, California:USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Research Paper PSW-49.1968.
Litton R B Jr. Aesthetic Dimensions of the Landscape. In:Krutilla J V.(Ed.). Natural Environments: Studies in theoretical and applied analysis. Baltimore:published for Resources for the Future by the Johns Hopkins University Press,1972,91-262.
Litton R B Jr. Descriptive approaches to landscape analysis. In:proceedings of Our National Landscape (USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. PSW-35) Berkeley, Calif. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979.
Litton R B Jr. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories:A Basis for Land Planning and Design. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, PSW-49 Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.1968.
Litton R B Jr. Visual vulnerability of forest landscape. Journal of Forestry,1974,7:392-397.
Litton R B Jr, Tetlow R J. A landscape inventory framework:Scenic analyses of the Northern Great Plains. USD Forest Service.research paper. PSW-135.1978.
London Planning Advisory Committee. Open Space Planning in London. London:Artillery House, 1992.
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(4):177-198.
Lowental D. Past time, present place:landscape and memory. Geogr. Rev.,1975,65:1-36.
Lowental D. The bicentennial landscape:a mirror held up to the past. Geogr. Rev.,1977,67: 249-267.
Magill A W, Litton R B Jr. A color measuring system for landscape assessment. Landscape Journal, 1980,5(1):45-54.
Malm W, Kelly K, Molenar J, et al. Human perception of visual air quality:uniform haze. Atmos. Environ.,1981,15:1874-1890.
Meitner M J. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon:relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning,2004,68(1),3-13.
Menard S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks:Sage publications,1995:7-106.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Minnesota DOT). Aesthetic Initiative Measurement System:Final Report. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul.2001.
National Park Service (NPS). Visual Quality of Built Environments in National Parks. US Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C.,1993b.
National Park Service (NPS). Management Policies 2001. US Department of the Interior. NPS D116. Washington, D. C.,2000:137.
National Rivers Authority (NRA). River Landscape Assessment. Conservation-Technical Handbook 2. Bristol:National Rivers Authority,1993.
Naveh Z, Lieberman A S. Landscape ecology:theory and application. New York:Springer-Verleg, 1984.
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: US 70:Ruidoso Downs to Riverside. AC-MIP-070-4(35)264.CN 3393. Santa Fe, NM.2001.
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. New Mexico Scenic and Historic Byways. UNM Printing Services, Alburquerque, NM.2002.
Niemczynowicz J. Megacities from a water perspective. Water International,1996,21:198-205.
Nijnik M, Zahvoyska L, Nijnik A, et al. Public evaluation of landscape content and change:Several examples from Europe. Land Use Policy,2008,26:77-86.
Onate J J. Agro-environmental schemes and the European agricultural landscape:the role of indicators as valuing tools for evolution. Landscape Ecology,2000,15(6):271-280.
Oregon Department of Transportation (Oregon DOT).1999 Oregon Highway Plan. ODOT Transportation Development Division, Salem, OR,1999:244.
Orians G H, Heerwagen J H. Evolved response to landscapes. Evolution of Mind, Culture and Society SS.2008,555-579.
Orland B. Synthetic landscapes:a review of video-imaging application in environmental perception research, planning and design. In:Marans R, Stokols D. (Eds.), Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues. New York:Plenum Press,2009:213-251.
Palmer J F. Stability of landscape perception in the face of landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning,1997,37(1/2),109-113.
Palmer J F, Hoffman R E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning,2001,54(1-4):149-161.
Park J R, Stabler M J, Jones P J, et al. Evaluating the role of environmental quality in the sustainable rural economic development of England. Environment, Development and Sustainability,2008, 11(4):735-750.
Parsons R, Daniel T C. Assessing visibility impairment in class I parks and wildness areas:a comparison of policy-relevant methods. Soc. Nat. Resources,1988,1:227-240.
Parsons R, Tassinary L G, Ulrich RS, et al. The view from the road:implication for stress recovery and immunization. J. Environ. Pshchol.,1998,18:113-140.
Pavlikakis G E, Tsihrintzis, V A. (). Ecosystem management:a holistic approach to the management of the natural resources. In Brebbia C A, Uso J L. (Ed.), Ecosystems and Sustainable Development II. Proceedings of the International Conference ECOSUD. Lemnos, Greece:WIT Press.1999:385-394.
Peterson G L, Neumann E S. Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment. J. Leisure Res.,1969,1:219-237.
Poggio L, Vrscaj B. A GIS-based human health risk assessment for urban green space planning—an example from Grugliasco (Italy). Science of the total environment,2009,409:5961-5970.
Porteous J D. Environmental Aesthetics:Ideas, Politics and Planning. London:Routledge,1996.
Priestley T, Evans G W. Resident perceptions of a nearby electric transmission line. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1996,16:65-74.
Purcell A T. Landscape perception, preference and schema discrepancy. Environ. Planning,1987,14, 67-92.
Real E, Arce C, Sabucedo J. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2000,20(4):355-373.
Ribe R G. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest:Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2006,26(2): 100-115.
Ribe RG. Scenic beauty perceptions across the ROS spectrum. J. Environ. Manage.,1994,42: 199-221.
Ross R W Jr. The Bureau of Land Management and Visual Resource Management--an overview. In: Proceedings of Our National Landscape:(USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. PSW-35). Berkeley, Galif:Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.1979.
Roth M. Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment- an empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,78(3):179-192.
Ruddel E J, Gramann J H, Rudis V A, et al. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty model. Environ. Behav.,1989,21(4):383-412.
Rudis V A, Gramann J H, Ruddell E J, et al. Forest inventory and management-based visual preference model of southern pine stands. Forest Sci.,1988,34(4):846-863.
Salwasser H. Gaining perspective:forestry for the future. J. Forestry,1990,88:32-38.
SandstrOm U G, Angelstam P, Khakee A. Urban comprehensive planning—identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,75: 43-57.
Sayadi S, Gonzalez Roa M C, Calatrava Requena J. Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecological Economics, 2005,55(4):539-550.
Schroeder H W. Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape aesthetics. J. Environ. Manage.,1986,23(4):325-333.
Schroeder H W, Brown T C. Alternative functional forms for an inventory based landscape perception model. J. Leisure Res.,1983,15:156-163.
Schroeder H W, Daniel T C. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environment and Behavior,1980,12,349-366.
Schroeder H W, Daniel T C. Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science,1981,27:71-80.
Seinfeld J H. Air pollution:a half century of progress. AIChE Journal,2004,50,1096-1108.
Shafer E L, Hamilton J F, Schmidt E A. Natural landscape preferences:a predictive model. J. Leisure Res.,1969,1:1-19.
Shafer E L, Richards T A. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. Upper Darby PA:USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-302,1974.
Shafer E L, Rutherford W. Slection cuts increased natural beauty in two Adirondack forest stands. J. For.,1969,67:415-419.
Sheppard S R J. Visual Simulation:A users guide for architects. Engineers and Planners. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,1989, p20.
Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage.,1980,11,61-76.
Silva J P, Santos M, Queiros L, et al. Estimating the influence of overhead transmission power lines and landscape context on the density of little bustard Tetrax tetrax breeding populations. Ecological Modelling,2010,221:1954-1963.
Smardon R C. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment:review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning,1988,15:85-106.
Smardon R C. Water recreation in North America. Landscape and Urban Planning,1988,16(1-2): 127-143.
Stamps A E. Use of photographs to simulate environments. A meta-anlysis. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1990,71:907-913.
Stewart T R, Middleton P, Downton M, et al. Judgements of photographs versus field observation in studies of perception and judgement of thevisual environment. J. Environ. Psychol.,1984,4(4): 283-302.
Sullivan W C, Lovell S T. Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,77(1-2):152-166.
Tahvanainen L, Ihalainen M, Hietala-Koivu R, et al. Measures of the EU agri-environmental protection scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management,2002,66:213-227.
The Countryside Agency. Interim Landscape Character Assessment Guidance. London:The Countryside Agency,1999.
Therivel R, Rosario M. The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London:Earthscan Publication Ltd,1996.
Therivel R, Wilson E, Thomson S, et al. et al. Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan Publication Ltd,1992.
Thurstone L L. The measurement of values. The University of Chicago Press,1959:322.
Tinsley H E, Weiss D J. Interrater reliability and agreement of subjective judgement. J. Counselling Psychol.,1975,22:358-376.
Tips W E J, Savasdisara T. The influence of the environmental background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning,1986,13:125-133.
Torgerson W S. Theory and method of scaling. New York:John wiley,1985:460.
Turner T. Open space planning in Landon:from standard per 1000 to green strategy. Town Planning Review,1992,(4):365-386.
Tzolova G V. An experiment in greenway analysis and assessment:the Danibe River. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,33(1-3):283-294.
Ulrich R S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment, In Wohlwill J F, Altman I. (Ed.). Behavior and environment. NewYork:Plenum Press,1983:85-125.
Ulrich R S. Natural versus urban scenes:Some psychophysiological effects.Environment and Behavior,1981,13(5):523-556.
Ulrich R S. Visual landscape preference:a model and application. Man-Environ. Syst.,1977,7: 279-293.
USDA Forest Service. Landscape Aestheties:A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook No.701. USDA Forest service, Washington, DC.,1995.
USDA Forest Service. National Forest Landscape Management. Agriculture handbook 434,1973,1.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. Procedure to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture. SCS Tech Release 65,1978.
USDI Bureau of Land Management.8400-Visual Resource Management (Supersedes Rev.8-4). Washington, D. C.,1984.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management:Visual Resource Inventory. BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1,1986.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management:Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1,1986.
USDI Burcau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management. BLM Manual,1976.
US Department of Transportation (US DOT). An Analysis and Summary of the 1990 National Scenic Byways Study Inventory. Federal Highway Administration Publication FHWA-PD-91-014, Washington, D. C.,1991:137.
US Department of Transportation (US DOT). Community Guide to Planning and Managing a Scenic Byway. Federal Highway Administration Publication, Washington, D. C.,1999:76.
US Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics:A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook Number 701. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.,1995.
Velarde M D, Fry G, Tveit, M. Health effects of viewing landscapes—landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,2007,6(4):199-212.
Vining J, Orland B. The video advantage:a comparison of two environmental representation techniques. Environ. Manage.,1989,29:275-283.
Washington State Department of Transportation (Wash DOT). Scenic Byway Designation Process Report. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA,2001:36.
Webb E J, Campbell, D T, Schwartz, R D, et al. Unobtrusive measures. Chicago:Rand McNally. 1969.
Weber T, Sloan A, Wolf J. Maryland's green infrastructure assessment:development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006,77(1-2), 94-110.
Western D, Henry W. Economics and Conservation in Third World National Parks. Bioscience,1979, 29(7):414-418.
Wherrett J R. Creating landscape preference models using the Internet as a medium for surveys. Landscape Research,2000,25,79-96.
Wohlwill J E. Environmental aesthetics:the environment as a source of affects. In:Altman, I., Wohlwill J. (Ed.), Human Behavior and Environment:Advance in Theories and Research, Vol. 1. New York:Plenum Press,1976, 1p.
Wolock D M, Winter T C, McMahon G. Delineation and Evaluation of Hydrologic-Landscape Regions in the United States Using Geographic Information System Tools and Multivariate Statistical Analyses. Environmental Management,2004,34:71-88.
Wong K K, Domroes M. The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning, 2005,32,617-632.
Xu C, Liu M, Zhang C, et al. The spatiotemporal dynamics of rapid urban growth in the Nanjing metropolitan region of China. Landscape Ecology,2007,22(6),925-937.
Yang J, Zhao L, Mcbride J, et al. Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of urban forests in cities. Landscape and Urban Planning,2009,91(2),97-104.
Yeomans W C. A Proposed Biophysical Approach to Visual Absorption Capability, In Our National Landscape. Elsner G, Smardon R. (ed.). USDA Forest Service Genernal Technical Report PSW-35,1979.
Yu K. Cultural variations in landscape preference:comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning,1995,32(2),107-126.
Yu K, Li D, Li N. The evolution of greenways in China. Landscape and Urban Planning,2006, 76(1-4),223-239.
Zhang K X, Wang R, Shen CC, et al. Temporal and spatial characteristics of the urban heat island during rapid urbanization in Shanghai, China. Environment Monitoring and Assessment,2010, 169(1-4):101-112.
Zube E H. Themes in landscape assessment theory. Landscape Journal,1984,3 (2):104-110.
Zube E H, Pitt D C, Anderson T W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In:Zube E H, Brush R O, Julius G. (Ed.), Landscape Assessment:Values, Perceptions, and Resources. PA:Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Stroudsbury,1975,367p.
Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception:research application and theory. Landscape Planning,1982,9:1-33.
Zube E H, Simcox D E, Law C S. Perceptual Landscape Simulations:History and Prospect. Landscape J.,1987, (6):62-80.