ثبت ویژگی‌های بصری سیمای سرزمین با استفاده از شاخص‌ها: بر اساس نظریه زیبایی‌شناختی سیمای سرزمین
محورهای موضوعی : آب و محیط زیست
سپیده سعیدی
1
(- دکتری ارزیابی و آمایش محیط‌زیست، گروه مجیط زیست، دانشکده شیلات و محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع‌طبیعی گرگان، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات))
سحر سعیدی
2
(کارشناس ارشد ارزیابی محیط‌زیست، گروه مجیط زیست، دانشکده شیلات و محیط‌زیست، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع‌طبیعی گرگان، ایران.)
کلید واژه: ویژگی‌های بصری, شاخص‌های سیمای سرزمین, تحلیل سیمای سرزمین,
چکیده مقاله :
این مقاله روشی برای ثبت ویژگی‌های بصری سیمای سرزمین، با استفاده ازشاخص‌های بدست آمده از 9 مفهوم نظریه-مبنا مربوط به درک سیمای سرزمین را ارایه می‌کند. هدف این مقاله برقراری ارتباط بین نظریه زیبایی‌شناختی سیمای سرزمین و شاخص‌های بصری و سپس کشف و انتخاب تاثیرگذارترین شاخص‌ها است. مراحل مختلف از جزییات مفاهیم بصری گرفته تا شاخص‌های بصری قابل اندازه‌گیری توضیح داده شده و به نظریه‌های ترجیح سیمای سزمین و درک سیمای سرزمین پیوند داده شده‌اند. این مقاله بیش تر بر روی کاربرد شاخص‌ها و ارایه منابع اطلاعاتی ممکن برای تحلیل شاخص‌ها تمرکز کرده است. مقاله شامل بحثی درخصوص انتخاب شاخص‌های مناسب سیمای سرزمین از طریق فرآیند فیلتر کردن است. با فیلتر کردن مجموعه‌ی مناسبی از شاخص‌های بصری برای یک پروژه خاص یا مرتبط با سیمای سرزمین شناسایی می‌شوند. رابطه‌ی بین مفاهیم و قابلیت‌های شاخص‌های بصری برای ثبت تغییرات خصوصیات سیمای سرزمین و دیگر مسایل مربوط به تفسیر شاخص‌ها نیز به تفضیل بحث شده است.
This paper presents one way that landscape visual character can be captured using indicators derived from nine theory-based concepts related to landscape perception. The paper aims to establish links between landscape aesthetic theory and visual indicators, thus exploring what landscape indicators are really indicating. The steps from abstract visual concepts to measurable visual indicators are described, and links are made to theories of landscape preferences and perception. The focus of the paper is on the application of indicators, including a presentation of the possible data sources of the presented indicators. The paper includes a discussion on the selection of appropriate landscape indicators through a suggested filtering process. The ‘filtering’ will identify a suitable set of visual indicators for application within a specific project or landscape context. The relationships between the concepts and the ability of visual indicators to capture changes in landscape character and other issues related to interpretation are discussed
1- Swanwick, C, 2002. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland (London: The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage).
2- Wascher, D. M, (Ed.) 2005. European Landscape Character Areas: typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final project report as deliverable from the EUs Accompanying Measure project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI).
3- Countryside Council for Wales, 2006. LANDMAP Information System, available online at: [www.landmap.ccw.gov.uk/files/CCW_FinalPDFEng.pdf], accessed 27 June 2007.
4- Dramstad, W. E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W. J., Skar, B., Helliksen, W., Sollund, M. L. B., Tveit, M. S., Geelmuyden, A. K. &Framstad, E, 2001. Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, pp. 257 – 268.
5- Tveit, M., Ode, A ˚. & Fry, G, 2006. Key visual concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character, Landscape Research, 31, pp. 229 – 255.
6- Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S, 1989. The Experience of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
7- Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O, 1993. TheBiophilia Hypothesis (Washington, DC: Island Press/ShearwaterBooks).
8- Schu¨ pbach, B, 2002. Methods for indicators to assess landscape aesthetic, in: W. Dramstad& C. Sogge (Eds) Agricultural impacts on landscapes: developing indicators for policy analysis, NIJOS/OECD Expert Meeting, Agricultural Indicators, pp. 270 – 281, Oslo.
9- Gulinck, G., Mu´ gica, M., de Lucio, J. V. &Atauri, J. A, 2001. 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, 55, pp. 257 – 270.
10- De la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J. A. & de Lucio, J. V, 2006. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, pp. 393 – 407.
11- Germino, M. J., Reiners, W. A., Blasko, B. J., McLeod, D. & Bastian, C. T, 2001. Estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS, Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, pp. 71 – 83.
12- Giles, R. H. &Trani, M. K, 1999. Key elements of landscape pattern measures, Environmental Management, 23, pp. 477 – 481.
13- Hunziker, M. & Kienast, F, 1999. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty: a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment, Landscape Ecology, 14, pp. 161 – 176.
14- Palmer, J. F, 2004. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, pp. 201 – 218.
15- VanMansvelt, J. D. & Kuiper, J, 1999. Criteria for the humanity realm: psychology and physiognomy and cultural heritage, in: D. van Mansvelt& M. J. van der Lubbe (Eds) Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management, pp. 116 – 134 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science).
16- Fjellstad, W. J., Dramstad, W. E., Strand, G. H. & Fry, G. L. A, 2001. Heterogeneity as a measure of spatial pattern for monitoring agricultural landscapes, Norwegian Journal of Geography, 55, pp. 71 – 76.
17- Hands, D. E. & Brown, R. D, 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, pp. 57 – 70.
18- Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A. & Ruiz-Aviles, P, 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, pp. 115 – 125.
19- Hulshoff, R. M, 1995. Landscape indexes describing a Dutch landscape, Landscape Ecology, 10, pp. 101 – 111.
20- Weinstoerffer, J. &Girardin, P, 2000. Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator, Ecological Modelling, 130, pp. 95 – 109.
21- Green, D. G., Klomp, N., Rimmington, G. &Sadedin, S, 2007. Complexity in Landscape Ecology (Dordrecht: Springer).
22- McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C. &Ene, E, 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available online at: [www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/ fragstats.html], accessed 4 December 2007.
23- Litton, R. B., Sorensen, J. & Beatty, R. A, 1974. Water and Landscape: An Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape (New York: Water Information Center).
24- Pearson, D. M, 2002. The application of local measures of spatial autocorrelation for describing pattern in north Australian landscapes, Journal of Environmental Management, 64, pp. 85 – 95.
25- DeZonia, B. &Mladenoff, D. J, 2004. IAN 1.0.15, Computer software program produced by the authors at the Department of Forest Ecology & Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Available online at: [http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu/projects/ian/], accessed 4 December 2007.
26- Kellert, S. R, 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society (Washington, DC: Shearwater Books).
27- Hopkinson, R. G, 1971. The quantitative assessment of visual intrusion, Journal of the Town Planning Institute, 57, pp. 445 – 449.
28- Iverson, W. D, 1985. And that’s about the size of it: visual magnitude as a measurement of the physical landscape, Landscape Journal, 4, pp. 14 – 22.
29- Nassauer, J. I, 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames, Landscape Journal, 14, pp. 161 – 170.
30- Nassauer, J. I, 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology, in: J. I. Nassauer (Ed.) Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, pp. 67 – 83 (Washington, DC: Island Press).
31- Sheppard, S. R. J, 2001. Beyond Visual Resource Management: Emerging Theories of an Ecological Aesthetic and Visible Stewardship. Forests and Landscapes—Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics, IUFRO Research Series No. 6, pp. 149 – 172 (Wallingford: CABI Publishing).
32- Bell, S, 1999. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process (London: Spon).
33- Lynch, J. A. & Gimblett, R. H, 1992. Perceptual values in the cultural landscape: a spatial model for assessing and mapping perceived mystery in rural environments, Journal of Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 16, pp. 453 – 471.
34- Tuan, Y, 1974. Topophilia (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
35- Coeterier, J. F, 2002. Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites, Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, pp. 111 – 123.
36- Jessel, B, 2006. Elements, characteristics and character: information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators, Ecological Indicators, 6, pp. 153 – 167.
37- Gobster, P. H, 2001. Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration, Landscape and Urban Planning, 56, pp. 35 – 51.
38- Palmer, J. F. &Lankhorst, J. R. K, 1998. Evaluating visible spatial diversity in the landscape, Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, pp. 65 – 78.
39- Vining, J., Daniel, T. C. & Schroeder, H. W, 1984. Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes, Journal of Leisure Research, 16, pp. 124 – 135.
40- Brabyn, L, 2005. Solutions for characterising natural landscapes in New Zealand using geographical information systems, Journal of Environmental Management, 76, pp. 23 – 34.
41- Ayad, Y. M, 2005. Remote sensing and GIS in modelling visual landscape change: a case study of the north-western arid coast of Egypt, Landscape and Urban Planning, 73, pp. 307 – 325.
42- Hagerhall, C. M., Purcell, T. & Taylor, R, 2004. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, pp. 247 – 255.
43- Antrop, M. & Van Eetvelde, V, 2000. Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics, Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, pp. 43 – 58.
44- Taylor, P. D, 2002. Fragmentation and cultural landscapes: tightening the relationship between human beings and the environment, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, pp. 93 – 99.
45- Lowenthal, D, 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
46- Fairclough, G., Lambrick, G. &McNab, A, (Eds) 1999. Yesterday’s World, Tomorrow’s Landscape. The English Heritage Historic Landscape Project 1992 – 94 (London: English Heritage).
47- Darlington, J, 2002. Mapping Lancashire’s historic landscape: the Lancashire Historic Landscape Characterisationprogramme, in: G. Fairclough& S. Rippon (Eds) Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change, pp. 97 – 105 (Exeter: Short Run Press).
48- Brassley, P, 1998. On the unrecognized significance of the ephemeral landscape, Landscape Research, 23, pp. 119 – 132.
49- Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Silm, S. &Roosaare, J, 2005. Seasonal indicators and seasons of Estonian landscapes, Landscape Research, 30, pp. 173 – 191.
50- Hendriks, K., Stobbelaar, D. J. & Van Mansvelt, J. D, 2000. The appearance of agriculture. An assessment of the quality of landscape of both organic and conventional horticultural farms in West Friesland, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77, pp. 157 – 175.
51- Morgan, R, 1999. Some factors affecting coastal landscape aesthetic quality assessment, Landscape Research, 24, pp. 167 – 184.
52- Purcell, A. T. & Lamb, R. J, 1998. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach, Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, pp. 57 – 66.
53- Nasar, J. L. & Li, M, 2004. Landscape mirror: the attractiveness of reflecting water, Landscape and Urban Planning, 66, pp. 233 – 238.
54- Li, H. & Wu, J, 2004. Use and misuse of landscape indices, Landscape Ecology, 19, pp. 389 – 399.
55- Lausch, A. & Herzog, F, 2002. Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability, Ecological Indicators, 2, pp. 3 – 15.
56- Trent, R. B., Neumann, E. &Kvashny, A, 1987. Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research, Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, pp. 225 – 235.
57- Palmer, J. F. & Hoffman, R. E, 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments, Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, pp. 149 – 161.
