Volume 40 Issue 4
Aug.  2023
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents

TAO Yizhou, LI Zhaohui, YAN Shaojun. Landscape performance assessment of Tianhuangping Forest Town, Anji County[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2023, 40(4): 883-891. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20230327
Citation: TAO Yizhou, LI Zhaohui, YAN Shaojun. Landscape performance assessment of Tianhuangping Forest Town, Anji County[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2023, 40(4): 883-891. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20230327

Landscape performance assessment of Tianhuangping Forest Town, Anji County

doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20230327
  • Received Date: 2023-02-02
  • Accepted Date: 2023-06-26
  • Rev Recd Date: 2023-06-26
  • Available Online: 2023-07-13
  • Publish Date: 2023-08-20
  •   Objective  Build a landscape performance evaluation system in line with the characteristics of the coordinated development of forest characteristic towns to provide a basis for the scientific evaluation of their construction benefits and development level.   Method  Taking Tianhuangping Forest Town in Anji County as the research object, through the questionnaire survey and field research, and the corresponding evaluation index system are used to construct the hierarchical analysis method and Delphi method, and its landscape performance is comprehensively evaluated.   Result  (1) Tianhuangping Forest Town with an forest ecological service value of 716 million yuan in 2022, its ecosystem service value per unit area is 76 000 yuan·hm−2·a−1, higher than the provincial average. Among them, the value of carbon fixation and oxygen release and water conservation accounts for a relatively large proportion, for 46% and 41%, respectively. (2) Good small town livable environment indicators, but the forest phase landscape is relatively single, and characteristic landscape construction needs to be improved. (3) The linkage of the three industries has achieved remarkable results, industrial structure has been effectively adjusted. The gross domestic product of forestry industry, per capita disposable income and other indicators are higher than the provincial average. (4) The ecological culture represented by the “Two Mountains” culture has been fully explored and carried forward.   Conclusion  The landscape performance evaluation of Tianhuangping Forest Town is “excellent”. Its planning and construction consider both ecological protection and economic development, realizing the effective transformation from clear water and green mountains to golden mountains and silver mountains, and can provide reference for the planning and construction of the same type of forest characteristic town. [Ch, 5 tab. 30 ref.]
  • [1] LI Weike, ZHANG Chen, GU Xinghan, NIU Shukui, YIN Jiyan, LIU Xiaodong.  Impact assessment of fuel regulation measures in Platycladus orientalis forest in Western Hills of Beijing . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(3): 472-479. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20190343
    [2] GE Yang, ZHANG Jianguo.  Spatial distribution features and influence factors of forest towns in Zhejiang Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(2): 374-381. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2020.02.024
    [3] TANG Huichao, HONG Quan, XU Bin.  Landscape performance assessment of phase I of greenway around Qingshan Lake National Forest Park, Zhejiang Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(6): 1177-1185. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20200167
    [4] ZHANG Jianguo, XU Wenjun, CUI Huiping, MEI Yangyang, CAI Bifan.  Air anions concentration variation in Forest Park of Citrus Groves in Quzhou . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2016, 33(1): 26-32. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2016.01.004
    [5] ZHOU Zigui, XIA Shufang, MEI Li, WU Jiasheng.  Classification and evaluation of the ecological public welfare forest of Pinus massoniana in northwest Zhejiang . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2014, 31(4): 611-618. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2014.04.018
    [6] ZHAI Li-li, FANG Wei-min, CHEN Fa-di, WANG Xiao-shuai, WU Hong-mi, ZHANG Lin.  Drought resistance of Guoqing chrysanthemum with small inflorescences . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2012, 29(2): 166-172. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2012.02.003
    [7] WANG Rong.  Principal component analysis and evaluation of waterfowl habitats along the coastline of Fujian Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2011, 28(3): 472-478. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.2011.03.020
    [8] WEI Xin-liang.  Quantitative evaluation of rural forest-ecological adaptability . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2009, 26(1): 1-6.
    [9] ZHANG Zhi-jie, YI Li-ta, HAN Hai-rong, YUAN Wei-gao.  Study on forest carrying capacity in Zhejiang Province . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2009, 26(3): 368-374.
    [10] HUANG Xiang-yun, HU De-fu, TANG Xiao-ping, WANG Zhi-chen, LIU Wei-shi.  Field survey of south China tigers and their habitat evaluation in Hupingshan National Reserve . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2004, 21(2): 180-184.
    [11] JI Ya-lan, ZHENG Si-wei, CAI Xi-ping.  Research on evaluating index system of the status and role of forestry . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2003, 20(2): 162-167.
    [12] TONG Zai-kang, ZHENG Yong-ping.  Index system for evaluating industrial usability of the new clones of Aigeiros section . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2002, 19(3): 264-268.
    [13] GUO Ren-jian, CHEN Fa-rong, ZHU Quan.  Evaluation and analysis of capacity of forestry sustainable development in Chun’an County . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2001, 18(4): 337-344.
    [14] HUANG Yue-jin, TANG Jin-chun, SUN Bing-nan.  Application of GIS in agriculture land suitability evaluation . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1999, 16(4): 406-410.
    [15] Wu Yanxiong, Guo Renjian, Zhou Guomo.  Early-warning analysis of the stability of regional forest resources system . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1999, 16(1): 66-69.
    [16] Guo Renjian, Tong Zhiyu, Weng Dongming, Zhang Hongwei.  Valuation on implemented working plan of Changhua Forest Farm . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1998, 15(3): 293-297.
    [17] Zheng Siwei, Chen Yongfu..  Examination Indicators and Exaluation Methods of Value-keeping and Value-adding of State-owned Forest Assets. . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1997, 14(3): 281-286.
    [18] Zhu Xi, Jiang Yongjin, Chen Xiefu.  Evaluatlon of Terrstrial Vertebrate Resouces in Yongkang City。 . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1996, 13(2): 200-214.
    [19] He Fuji, Ma Lingfei, Xu Yuanke..  Comparative Studies on Wood Properties for Different Superior Trees of Chinese Fir. . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1995, 12(1): 24-30.
    [20] Si Jinping, Yan Jianmin, Pan Xinping, Liu Rao, Mei Xiaolin.  Establishment of Quantitative Site Index Table for officinal Magnolia in Jingning County of Zhejiang Prvoince . Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 1993, 10(1): 63-68.
  • [1]
    NI Jianwei, ZHOU Chaowei, FENG Mengxia, et al. China forest town development report 2017−2018 [R]// PANG Bo, NI Jianwei. Annual Report on Development of Forest Town in China(2018). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2018: 1 −31.
    [2]
    WANG Jingxin, ZHI Xiaojuan. Rural revitalization in China and its regional spatial reconstruction: case study and prospects of “building up characteristic towns with beautiful countryside” to revitalize Chinese countryside [J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2018, 18(2): 17 − 26, 157 − 158.
    [3]
    YAN Ge, CUI Caixian, CHANG Zhenshan. Policy interpretation and path of return of healthy development of forest town: a case study of Wugong forest town in Xianyang City [J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University (Social Sciences), 2020, 19(3): 49 − 54.
    [4]
    ZHANG Yingjie, ZENG Yingxiang, ZHANG Jinzhu, et al. Analysis on the progress in practice of the first batch of national forest town construction pilot [J]. Forestry Economics, 2019, 41(9): 99 − 105.
    [5]
    GE Yang, ZHANG Jianguo. Spatial distribution features and influence factors of forest towns in Zhejiang Province [J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(2): 374 − 381.
    [6]
    CHEN Chen, SUN Haitao, HUANG Yingli. Ecological welfare of China’s forest towns: concept, formation, mechanism, and evaluation index system [J/OL]. Security and Communication Networks, 2022: 8948709[2023-01-02]. doi: 10.1155/2022/8948709.
    [7]
    FORSTER N, HEATHER W, BARBARA D, et al. Landscape performance: past, present, and future [J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015, 22(1): 40 − 51.
    [8]
    YANG Yang, LIN Guangsi. The development, connotations, and interests of research on landscap-e performance evaluation for evidence-based design [J]. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 2020, 8(2): 74 − 83.
    [9]
    LIU Jie. Empirical research on the landscape performance of designed ecologies through afield observation of saline-alkalisoil improvement in Qiaoyuan Park of Tianjin [J]. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 2019, 7(1): 68 − 81.
    [10]
    CAO Hongli, WU Zhongjun. Landscape performance evaluation of the terraced fields in Dazhai Village, Longsheng Various Nationalities Autonomous County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region [J]. Wetland Science, 2020, 18(4): 397 − 406.
    [11]
    TANG Huichao, HONG Quan, XU Bin. Landscape performance assessment of phase Ⅰ of greenway around Qingshan Lake National Forest Park, Zhejiang Province [J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020, 37(6): 1177 − 1185.
    [12]
    XIANG Lingyan, TIAN Yunqing, PAN Yucong. Study on landscape evaluation and optimization strategy of Central Park in Qingkou Town [J/OL]. Scientific Reports, 2022 (12): 1978[2023-01-05]. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-06006-z.
    [13]
    ZHAO Tiezheng, ZHAO Yang, LI Minghan. Landscape performance for coordinated development of rural communities & small-towns based on “ecological priority and all-area integrated development”: six case studies in east China’s Zhejiang Province [J/OL]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(15): 4096[2023-01-02]. doi:10.2991/emim-18.2018.22.
    [14]
    SHEN Lan, ZHANG Yikang, YAO Minfeng, et al. Combination weighting integrated with TOPSIS for landscape performance evaluation: a case study of microlandscape from rural areas in southeast China [J/OL]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(15): 9794[2023-01-02]. doi:10.3390/su14159794.
    [15]
    TAO Yizhou, LIU Song, ZHANG Hongliang, et al. Research on “Two Mountains” demonstration forest town planning in Anji, Zhejiang Province [J]. Journal of Chinese Urban Forestry, 2017, 15(1): 43 − 46.
    [16]
    WANG Zuhua, CAI Liangliang, GUAN Qingwei, et al. Evaluation of forest ecosystem services in Chun’an County [J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2010, 27(5): 757 − 761.
    [17]
    JIANG Wenwei, ZHOU Guomo, YU Shuquan. Research on nutrient status of soils under main forest types in Anji mountainous region [J]. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2004, 18(4): 73 − 76, 100.
    [18]
    WU Weizhi, ZHU Chenghao, ZHANG Yifeng. Research on net primary forest productivity in Huzhou City [J]. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry Science and Technology, 2021, 41(1): 33 − 39.
    [19]
    WANG Xue, ZHOU Guomo, XU Xiaojun, et al. Estimating net primary productivity in a bamboo stand using a wireless sensor network [J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2017, 34(1): 78 − 85.
    [20]
    ZUO Shilei, JIN Shanshan, GU Xiaoqin. Assessment of forest ecosystem service value accounting in priority area of biodiversity protection in Anji County of geography census [J]. Bulletin of Surveying and Mapping, 2022(1): 139 − 144.
    [21]
    CHRISTOPHER D E, KWEON B S, SARAH A, et al. Landscape performance measurement and assessment of multifunctional landscapes [J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015, 22(1): 32 − 39.
    [22]
    Landscape Architecture Foundation. Landscape Performance [EB/OL]. 2019-01-01[2023-01-24]. https://www.lafoundation.org/what-we-do/research/landscape-performance.
    [23]
    JIANG Chunqian, HE Yiling, WEI Xinliang. Assessment on the indicators for forest-based eco-tourism benefit [J]. Forest Research, 2004, 17(3): 334 − 339.
    [24]
    ZHENG Mansheng, ZHANG Jing. Comprehensive evaluation and analysis of the development level of China’s forest tourism eco-environment [J]. Forestry Economics, 2020, 42(5): 30 − 39.
    [25]
    CAI Bifan, YU Yiwu, FANG Gongyong, et al. Index system and standards of quality evaluation of forest tourist areas in Zhejiang Province [J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2009, 26(6): 884 − 890.
    [26]
    WANG Xun, FAN Baoming, LI Zhiyong, et al. Forest cultural value evaluation index system and methodology [J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2021, 41(1): 202 − 212.
    [27]
    NI Jianwei, YANG Yefan, ZHANG Yuxiang. Report on the development index of national most beautiful forest Town in 2018−2019 [R]//PANG Bo, NI Jianwei. Annual Report on Development of Forest Town in China (2019). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2019: 35−65.
    [28]
    HAN Li, MEI Qiang, LU Yumei, et al. Analysis and study on AHP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2004, 14(7): 89 − 92, 3.
    [29]
    XU Jian, WU Wei, HUANG Tianyin, et al. Application of improved fuzzy comprehensive evaluation to water quality evaluation in Tongli Town [J]. Journal of Hohai University (Natural Sciences), 2014, 42(2): 143 − 149.
    [30]
    Zhejiang Provincial Forestry Bureau. Announcement of Forest Resources and Its Ecological Function Value of Zhejiang Province in 2020[EB/OL]. 2021-01-28[2023-01-24]. http://lyj.zj.gov.cn/art/2021/1/28/art_1275964_59003933.htm.
  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Tables(5)

Article views(180) PDF downloads(24) Cited by()

Related
Proportional views

Landscape performance assessment of Tianhuangping Forest Town, Anji County

doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20230327

Abstract:   Objective  Build a landscape performance evaluation system in line with the characteristics of the coordinated development of forest characteristic towns to provide a basis for the scientific evaluation of their construction benefits and development level.   Method  Taking Tianhuangping Forest Town in Anji County as the research object, through the questionnaire survey and field research, and the corresponding evaluation index system are used to construct the hierarchical analysis method and Delphi method, and its landscape performance is comprehensively evaluated.   Result  (1) Tianhuangping Forest Town with an forest ecological service value of 716 million yuan in 2022, its ecosystem service value per unit area is 76 000 yuan·hm−2·a−1, higher than the provincial average. Among them, the value of carbon fixation and oxygen release and water conservation accounts for a relatively large proportion, for 46% and 41%, respectively. (2) Good small town livable environment indicators, but the forest phase landscape is relatively single, and characteristic landscape construction needs to be improved. (3) The linkage of the three industries has achieved remarkable results, industrial structure has been effectively adjusted. The gross domestic product of forestry industry, per capita disposable income and other indicators are higher than the provincial average. (4) The ecological culture represented by the “Two Mountains” culture has been fully explored and carried forward.   Conclusion  The landscape performance evaluation of Tianhuangping Forest Town is “excellent”. Its planning and construction consider both ecological protection and economic development, realizing the effective transformation from clear water and green mountains to golden mountains and silver mountains, and can provide reference for the planning and construction of the same type of forest characteristic town. [Ch, 5 tab. 30 ref.]

TAO Yizhou, LI Zhaohui, YAN Shaojun. Landscape performance assessment of Tianhuangping Forest Town, Anji County[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2023, 40(4): 883-891. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20230327
Citation: TAO Yizhou, LI Zhaohui, YAN Shaojun. Landscape performance assessment of Tianhuangping Forest Town, Anji County[J]. Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2023, 40(4): 883-891. doi: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20230327
  • 森林特色小镇作为中国特色小镇建设的一种重要类型和特殊形式,以森林生态作为产业特色及发展优势,旨在实现林业供给侧结构性改革、促进农民增收致富等发展目标。各地森林特色小镇建设实践为小镇发展路径做了出有益探索[12],但在政策导向型的规划模式下,森林特色小镇大规模的快速建设导致了无序发展、规划失误等问题。当前亟需科学评价森林特色小镇建设的后期效益,总结前期规划经验,以促进森林特色小镇可持续发展。目前,针对森林特色小镇建成后效益的评价研究较少,现有研究[34]主要定性分析实证案例,归纳建设过程中出现的问题,分析原因并提出相应建议。此外,也有学者通过定量方法分析了森林特色小镇空间分布特征及其影响因素[5],构建森林特色小镇生态福利的评价体系[6],但未对已建成的森林特色小镇建设效益进行系统的评价与分析。

    美国风景园林基金会最早在2010年的“景观绩效系列研究计划”(landscape performance series,LPS) [7]中就提出了景观绩效的定义,即度量景观解决方案在实现其预设目标的同时满足可持续发展的效率,并指出景观绩效评价的核心是对项目在环境、经济、社会效益的量化研究,进而验证设计策略实现其目标的有效程度[8]。景观绩效评价在多类型的景观项目中得到了广泛应用,但多集中于公园尺度的风景园林建成项目中[9],较少关注大尺度项目,且评价结果以沿用LPS的罗列形式为主[1011]。随着研究深入,学者运用层次分析法[1213]、模糊数学[13]、熵权法[14]等得出景观绩效的综合评价结果。鉴于此,本研究借助景观绩效评价方法,评估安吉天荒坪森林特色小镇的综合建设效益,分析森林特色小镇规划设计中存在的不足,以期为森林特色小镇的规划建设提供参考依据。

    • 天荒坪镇位于浙江省湖州市安吉县南部,行政区域总面积为110 km²,辖11个行政村,总人口2.21万人。天荒坪“两山”示范森林特色小镇创建于2016年,是浙江省第1批创建并命名的森林特色小镇之一,小镇围绕“美丽宜居、产业支撑、文化引领”三位一体的创建目标,通过产业重构、功能植入、空间重塑、环境提升、文化再生等建设策略[15],矿山、竹林等生态环境得到有效修复;产业结构进一步优化,新型业态不断涌现,村民和集体收入持续增长;建设了“两山”展示馆等一批文化场馆。天荒坪镇2016年成为浙江省生态文明基地,2020年成功创建省4A级景区镇、省级森林康养名镇,2021年获评全国森林康养基地试点建设单位。2022年全镇财政总收入2.29亿元,同比增长14.42%;全镇村集体经营性收入总额达2806.27万元,同比增长34.8%;农村居民人均可支配收入超过4.5万元,旅游接待810万人次。

    • 本研究数据主要包括3类:①土地覆被数据。来源于Esri公司Sentinel-2卫星影像,使用深度学习方法制作的全球土地覆盖数据(https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/landcover/),分辨率为10 m,通过ArcGIS 10.2与Fragstats 4.2计算获得景观格局指数。②森林生态系统服务价值评估数据。森林资源调查数据来源于安吉县林业局,通过ArcGIS 10.2提取林分信息。计算参数数据来源于前人研究成果[1620]。③统计数据。来自浙江省统计局公报、浙江省林业局统计数据、安吉县天荒坪镇政府工作报告及相关网站。以上数据均为2022年数据。

    • 由于评价对象所处的地理区位和社会经济存在差异,因此不存在一种分析所有项目景观绩效的通用指标及评价方法[21]。为实现客观、准确的评价,本研究首先在总结借鉴景观绩效评价指标体系的基础上[2223],根据森林特色小镇应遵循产业、文化、旅游“三位一体”的建设目标,依托当地的森林资源和生态优势,以林业特色产业为基础,重点发展森林休闲养生业,兼顾涉林历史经典产业,实施三产融合发展空间平台的建设要求[15]。并参考前人研究成果[2428],初选评价指标;其次通过问卷形式征询风景园林、城乡规划、旅游管理等领域专家的意见,修改完善,最终构建涵盖目标层、准则层、子准则层、指标层4个层次森林特色小镇景观绩效评价指标体系(表1)。其中,指标层包含定性指标与定量指标。定性指标由专家根据评价标准进行评价,邀请包括8名风景园林、林业、城乡规划、旅游管理领域的专家、7名小镇相关管理人员以及100名游客、居民进行5分制评分。定量指标采用调查统计进行评价,研究参照GB/T 38582—2020《森林生态系统服务功能评估规范》、GB 3838—2002《地表水环境质量标准》、LY/T 2586—2016《空气负离子浓度观测技术规范》,通过实地调研或统计数据获取相应指标的评价数据。

      目标层准则层子准则层指标层评价数据来源/测算方法
      森林特色小镇
      景观绩效A
      生态绩效B1(0.303) 森林生态保护C1(0.593) 森林覆盖率D1(0.425)
      景观多样性指数D2(0.299) 遥感数据
      景观破碎度指数D3(0.276)
      生态服务价值C2(0.407) 土壤保育价值D4(0.172) 参照GB/T 38582—2020《森林生态系统服务功能评估规范》,计算单位面积相应生态系统服务价值
      固碳释氧价值D5(0.313)
      水源涵养价值D6(0.196)
      净化大气价值D7(0.318)
      环境绩效B2(0.243) 宜居环境建设C3(0.555) 空气环境质量D8(0.375)
      水环境质量D9(0.309) 生态环境状况公报
      空气负氧离子浓度D10(0.315)
      特色景观营建C4(0.445) 景观风貌原真度D11(0.441) 实地调研,专家打分
      林相景观丰富度D12(0.560)
      经济绩效B3(0.281) 林业经济建设C5(0.421) 林业产业生产总值D13(0.399) 资料查询,政府提供
      旅游产业生产总值占比D14(0.601)
      林农增收致富C6(0.237) 地区人均可支配收入D15(0.624) 资料查询,政府提供
      特色产业新增岗位数量D16(0.376)
      产业多元发展C7(0.341) 森林旅游产品丰度D17(0.244) 实地调研,获取数据
      森林旅游产品结构D18(0.756)
      社会绩效B4(0.172) 文化保护传承C8(0.562) 科普教育场所丰富度D19(0.206) 实地调研,获取数据
      特色文化传承度D20(0.331) 实地调研,获取数据
      古树名木保护度D21(0.461) 实地调研,专家打分
      公共服务提升C9(0.439) 基础设施完善度D22(0.407) 实地调研,专家打分
      地区交通通达度D23(0.203) 实地调研,专家打分
      公众满意度D24(0.390) 实地调研,问卷调查
        说明:括号内数值表示该指标权重。

      Table 1.  Performance evaluation index system of forest town

    • ① 确定评价因素集(U)与评语集(V)。从已创建的森林特色小镇景观绩效评价指标体系中确定U,采用集合形式表示下层评价因素对上层因素的构成。例如:U={$ {U}_{{B}_{1}} $, $ {U}_{{B}_{2}} $, $ {U}_{{B}_{3}} $, $ {U}_{{B}_{4}} $};$ {U}_{{B}_{1}} $={$ {U}_{{C}_{1}} $, $ {U}_{{C}_{2}} $};$ {U}_{{C}_{1}} $={$ {U}_{{D}_{1}} $, $ {U}_{{D}_{2}} $, $ {U}_{{D}_{3}} $}。其中U表示森林特色小镇景观绩效$ {U}_{{B}_{1}} $、UB2UB3UB4分别表示“生态绩效”“环境绩效”“经济绩效”“社会绩效”,$ {U}_{{C}_{1}} $、$ {U}_{{C}_{2}} $分别表示“森林生态保护”“生态服务价值”,$ {U}_{{D}_{1}} $、$ {U}_{{D}_{2}} $、$ {U}_{{D}_{3}} $分别表示“森林覆盖率”“景观多样性指数”“景观破碎度指数”。 V是评价对象可能出现的各评价结果组成的集合,将每个指标的评价结果划分为5个等级,构建5级评语集V={V5, V4, V3, V2, V1}={优秀, 较好, 一般, 较差, 极差}。

      ② 确定指标权重。使用德尔菲法与层次分析法确定森林特色小镇景观绩效评价指标体系中的各指标权重。首先以问卷形式邀请风景园林、城乡规划、林业等领域20名专家对各层次评价指标重要性进行两两比较,依据问卷的九分制评分结果,构建判断矩阵。其次,通过Yaahp软件进行数据处理,并在所有计算结果通过一致性检验后,将所有权重值进行算数平均,最终确定所有评价指标的权重值。

      ③ 确定子准则层隶属度矩阵(R)。定性指标隶属度采用作出评价人数占总人数的比值表示,定量指标隶属度根据指标评价标准(表2),采用梯形分布函数进行计算[30]。最终得到子准则层隶属度矩阵$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{1}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{2}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{3}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{4}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{5}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{6}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{7}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{8}} $、$ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{9}} $。

      指标层评语集划分依据
      优秀较好一般较差较差
      森林覆盖率/% 85 75 65 55 45 浙江省森林康养小镇建设标准
      景观多样性指数 0.90 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.10 等比划分
      景观破碎度指数 100 80 60 40 20
      土壤保育价值/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0 取浙江省2019年林地森林生态服务功能价值每公顷
       平均值为“一般”等级值[30]
      固碳释氧价值/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 2.60 1.95 1.30 0.65 0
      水源涵养价值/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 5.40 4.05 2.70 1.35 0
      净化大气价值/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0
      空气环境质量/d 340 320 300 280 260 全国最美森林小镇评价指标体系[27]
      水环境质量 GB 3838—2002《地表水环境质量标准》
      空气负氧离子浓度/(个·cm−3) 3 000 1 200 500 300 100 LY/T 2586—2016《空气负离子浓度观测技术规范》
      林业产业生产总值/亿元 15 10 5 2 1 取浙江省森林特色小镇年林业生产总值平均值为
       5 亿元为“一般”等级值
      旅游产业生产总值占比/% 50 40 30 20 10 全国最美森林小镇评价指标体系[27]
      地区人均可支配收入/万元 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 取浙江省2022年农村居民人均可支配收入平均值
       为“一般”等级值
      特色产业新增岗位数量/个 5 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 500 全国特色小镇规范健康发展导则
      森林旅游产品丰度/个 15 10 5 3 1 浙江省森林旅游区质量评价指标体系和标准研究[25]
      森林旅游产品结构/种 6 5 3 1 0
      科普教育场所丰富度/个 10 8 5 2 1 专家小组讨论
      特色文化传承度/次 15 12 9 6 3

      Table 2.  Scoring standard for quantitative index landscape performance evaluation data of forest town

      ④ 多层次模糊综合评价。从子准则层开始,分别对各层次进行模糊综合评价。第1步,对子准则层权重向量($ {W}_{{C}_{i}} $)和子准则层隶属度矩阵($ {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}} $)进行一级模糊矩阵复合运算,得出子准则层模糊综合评价结果向量($ C_i $):$ C_i $=$ {W}_{{C}_{i}}\times {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{C}}_{\boldsymbol{i}}} $(i=1, 2, 3$, \cdots , $ 9)。第2步,对准则层权重向量(WBj)和准则层隶属度矩阵(RBj)进行二级模糊矩阵复合运算,得到准则层模糊综合评价结果向量($B_j $):$ B_j $=$ {W}_{{B}_{j}}\times {\boldsymbol{R}}_{{\boldsymbol{B}}_{\boldsymbol{j}}} $(j=1, 2, 3, 4)。第3步,对目标层权重向量(WU)和进行三级模糊矩阵复合运算,最终得出目标层模糊综合评价结果向量($A $):$ {A} = {W}_{U}\times {R}_{U} $。

      ⑤ 模糊综合评价法得出的模糊结果向量无法对小镇评价等级进行直观划分。因此引入评分向量对各指标评价结果的模糊结果向量进行去模糊运算,使结果以分数的形式呈现。各项评价指标等级分数标准见表3

      评价结
      果分值
      评价
      等级
      综合评价等级
      [4.0, 5.0] 优秀 生态保护与经济建设协同发展,其规划路径对其他森林特色小镇建设具有一定的示范作用
      [3.0. 4.0) 较好 发展基本兼顾生态保护与经济建设的关系
      [2.0, 3.0) 一般
      [1.0, 2.0) 较差 片面追求经济发展而破坏生态环境,规划定位存在偏差,需要重新规划调整
      [0, 1.0) 极差

      Table 3.  Landscape performance evaluation criteria of forest town

    • 通过收集指标层评价数据及确定隶属度(表4),对各层级评价指标进行模糊综合评价,得出评价结果分值(表5)。“森林生态保护C1”评分为4.04,属于“优秀”。其中,“森林覆盖率D1”评分为4.76,天荒坪镇森林植被覆盖率达82.60%,水平较高。“景观多样性D2”与“景观破碎度D3”评分分别为3.32、3.72,属于“较好”水平,景观格局评价数据显示,多样性指数、均匀度指数均较低,分别为0.58和0.36,说明天荒坪镇森林景观以林地为主体,且林地斑块集中连片分布;蔓延度指数、分散指数分别达到74.37、44.00,连通度指数高达99.47,表明天荒坪镇景观异质性程度较低,景观格局主要由大面积林地斑块组成,且斑块间自然连通度高,联系紧密。一定程度上说明天荒坪镇森林景观破碎化程度较低,森林生态保护程度较好,森林景观斑块并未因为小镇建设活动的干扰而遭到分割破坏。

      评价指标评价数据隶属度及评价分值
      优秀较好一般较差极差评分
      森林覆盖率D1/% 82.60 0.760 0 0.240 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 4.76
      景观多样性指数D2 0.58 0.000 0 0.320 0 0.680 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 3.32
      景观破碎度指数D3 74.37 0.000 0 0.718 5 0.281 5 0.000 0 0.000 0 3.72
      土壤保育价值D4/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 0.52 0.000 0 0.080 0 0.920 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 3.08
      固碳释氧价值D5/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 3.49 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 5.00
      水源涵养价值D6/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 3.09 0.000 0 0.288 9 0.711 1 0.000 0 0.000 0 3.29
      净化大气价值D7/(万元·hm−2·a−1) 0.49 0.266 7 0.733 3 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 4.27
      空气环境质量D8/d 357 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 5.00
      水环境质量D9 0.000 0 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 4.00
      空气负氧离子浓度D10/(个·cm−3) 2 300 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 4.61
      景观风貌原真度D11 优秀2人,较好8人,一般4人,较差1人 0.133 3 0.533 3 0.266 7 0.066 7 0.000 0 3.73
      林相景观丰富度D12 优秀1人,较好4人,一般8人,较差2人 0.066 7 0.266 7 0.533 3 0.133 3 0.000 0 3.27
      林业产业生产总值D13/亿元 15.88 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 5.00
      旅游产业生产总值占比D14/% 64 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 5.00
      地区人均可支配收入D15/元 45 571 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 5.00
      特色产业新增岗位数量D16/个 3 415 0.207 5 0.792 5 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 4.21
      森林旅游产品丰度D17/个 12 0.400 0 0.600 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 4.40
      森林旅游产品结构D18/种 7 1.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 5.00
      科普教育场所丰富度D19/个 7 0.000 0 0.666 7 0.333 3 0.000 0 0.000 0 3.67
      特色文化传承度D20/次 11 0.000 0 0.666 7 0.333 3 0.000 0 0.000 0 3.67
      古树名木保护度D21 优秀6人,较好9人 0.400 0 0.600 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 4.60
      基础设施完善度D22 优秀5人,较好4人,一般4人,较差2人 0.333 3 0.266 7 0.266 7 0.133 3 0.000 0 4.07
      地区交通通达度D23 优秀2人,较好4人,一般7人,较差2人 0.133 3 0.266 7 0.466 7 0.133 3 0.000 0 3.40
      公众满意度D24 优秀27人,较好46人,一般18人,较差9人 0.270 0 0.460 0 0.180 0 0.090 0 0.000 0 3.91
        说明:D9具体指标数据为氨氮0.040 mg·L−1,总磷0.053 mg·L−1,高锰酸盐2.210 mg·L−1D11D12D21D22D23由15位专家及当地管理人员评价打分,D24由100位当地村民及游客评价打分。

      Table 4.  Membership degree and score of index layer of landscape performance evaluation of Tianhuangping forest town

      准则层
      指标
      准则层
      评分
      子准则层
      指标
      子准则层
      指标评分
      综合
      评分
      生态绩效B14.07森林生态保护C14.044.29
      生态服务价值C24.10
      环境绩效B24.08宜居环境建设C34.57
      特色景观营建C43.47
      经济绩效B34.88林业经济建设C55.00
      林农增收致富C64.70
      产业多元发展C74.85
      社会绩效B44.00文化保护传承C84.10
      公共服务提升C93.87

      Table 5.  Each criterion level and comprehensive score of landscape performance evaluation of Tianhuangping Forest Town

      “生态服务价值C2”评分4.10,属于“优秀”。经计算,天荒坪镇2022年森林生态服务价值为7.16亿元,占全年林业生产总值的16.8%,单位面积生态服务价值7.60万元·hm−2·a−1,超过全省平均水平[30],说明小镇对“绿水青山”的自然生态保护效果显著,生态资源具有较高的潜在经济效益,其中毛竹Phyllostachys edulis林、乔木林、灌木林生态服务价值分别为5.94、1.13、0.09亿元。毛竹作为小镇的优势植物,生态服务价值贡献显著。“固碳释氧价值D5”“净化大气价值D7”评分较高,“土壤保育价值D4”“水源涵养价值D6”评分较低,主要原因是毛竹林作为天荒坪镇的主要林分类型,其固碳释氧及净化大气的直接效果突出,但与混交林相比,土壤保育及水源涵养功能较为一般。

    • “宜居环境建设C3”评分为4.57,属于“优秀”。其中,“空气环境质量D8”“空气负氧离子D10”评分较高,均达4.50以上,说明天荒坪镇空气清新,环境宜居。“水环境质量D9”评分为4.00,据调研结果,天荒坪镇河道水质常年保持在二类标准以上,景观及生活用水均达到一类标准。

      “特色景观营造C4”评分为3.47,属于“一般”。“景观风貌原真度D11”评分为3.73,“林相景观丰富度D12”评分为3.27。据调研结果,天荒坪镇森林植被以竹林为主,虽具有当地竹乡特色,但过于单一的林分导致森林季相景观单调、季相色彩变化不够明显,观赏效果一般。小镇风貌整体良好,但各地区之间建设水平不够均衡,以余村为核心的片区由于政策的倾斜得到大力发展,形成了全国闻名的现代乡村建设模范样板,但大溪、港口、白水湾等片区景观风貌仍存在缺少景观层次、建筑风格不一等问题,风貌质量仍有待加强。

    • “林业经济建设C5”评分为5.00,“产业多元发展C6”评分为4.85,“林农增收致富C7”评分为4.70,均达4.50以上。小镇通过三产联动的规划策略,将传统林业与工业旅游、森林康养、电子商务等新兴业态相结合,盘活森林资源,延长林业产业链条。与此同时,通过策划丰富的森林旅游产品,带动民宿经济发展,拓宽林农创收渠道,摆脱传统竹产业的发展困境,成功发挥当地的生态优势,实现绿水青山向金山银山的转变。从2016至2022年,三产比例由4∶65∶31调整为5∶55∶40,森林旅游产值由9.20亿元增长到17.00亿元,农村居民人均可支配收入从29 768元增加到45 571元。但从“特色产业新增数量D16”“森林旅游产品丰度D17”的评分分析,小镇通过民宿、农家乐等形式带动居民就业,但数量趋于饱和,且服务业态单一,无法满足多元的市场需求。森林旅游产品以观光形式为主,且空间分布较为分散,导致旅游收益季节性明显,通常只在旺季才有较高收入,难以产生持续收益。

    • 社会绩效评分为4.00,相对于生态、环境、经济3个方面绩效表现欠佳。“文化保护传承C8”评分为4.10,属于“优秀”。其中“古树名木保护度D21”评分为4.60,小镇通过规划古树名木公园等管护措施,基本实现对古树名木文化的保护传承。“科普教育场所丰富度D19”“特色文化传承度D20”均低于4,据调研情况,小镇包含种类丰富的科普文化场所,但科普内容亟待更新,与此同时,传统民俗文化的活化利用形式仍存在提升空间。

      “公共服务提升C9”评分为3.87,属于“较好”,其中“基础设施完善度D22”>“公众满意度D24”>“地区交通通达度D23”。从现场调研及居民访谈的结果来看,小镇具有地理区位优势,基础设施完善,但地区间建设水平不均衡,大溪村、港口村等由于早期建设规划原因,仍存在村道狭窄、交通服务设施不完善等问题。

    • 天荒坪森林特色小镇景观绩效评价综合评分为4.29,在森林特色小镇景观绩效评价等级中属于“优秀”,说明天荒坪森林特色小镇的建设兼顾生态保护与经济发展,将生态优势转化为经济优势。

    • 本研究通过构建的森林特色小镇景观绩效评价方法,认为安吉县天荒坪森林特色小镇的景观绩效处于“优秀”水平,说明小镇可持续发展状况良好,基本实现规划目标,其规划路径可为同类型其他小镇建设提供参考依据。小镇森林生态保护成效显著,通过宜居环境建设,重点发挥森林旅游产业作用,实现三产融合,成功实现了生态保护与经济建设的协同发展,但仍存在生态服务价值的转化效率不足、旅游产品相似、景观风貌有待提升等问题。基于本研究结果,提出3个建议。

      ① 营造生态化景观风貌。本研究评价结果显示:“景观风貌原真度”“林相景观丰富度”处于“一般”水平。因此,需要从“建筑风貌导控”“林相景观优化”两方面入手,营造小镇整体的生态化景观风貌。一方面挖掘自然、人文特色,提炼具有竹乡特征的景观色彩、元素符号,对建筑风格的主体色调、立面选材、景观界面进行统一导控,协调整体景观风貌。另一方面,从“点线面”切入进行林相改造,对于以点状林相景观为主的景点,如安吉白茶谷,利用梅Prunus mume、樱花Cerasus serrulata等观花树种打造花海、花带景观,或通过种植麻栎Quercus acutissima、枫香Liquidambar formosana等秋色叶树种打造秋叶林道。对于以线型林相景观为主的景点,如天下银坑景区等以竹林景观为主的区域,通过提高花毛竹Ph. edulis ‘Pubescens’、紫竹Ph. nigra、金镶玉竹Ph. aureosulcata ‘Spectabilis’等高品质竹类品种的种植比例,同时结合多花黄精Polygonatum cyrtonema、紫金牛Ardisia japonica、玉簪Hosta plantaginea、紫萼H. ventricosa等花卉地被和槭树属Acer植物进一步丰富竹林景观。针对景观开阔的面状区域,特别是主要交通道路周边,营造生态景观色叶林,补植观花、观叶树种如枫香、银杏Ginkgo biloba、乌桕Sapium sebiferum等,丰富道路两侧的植被景观。

      ② 推进旅游产业整合优化。整合各村旅游发展资源,优化现有旅游产业空间布局,开发户外徒步、露营等新型旅游产品,结合“地摊经济”“咖啡文化”“露营文化”升级旅游服务设施,吸引游客,释放近郊旅游休闲度假市场潜力。深入挖掘生态文化内涵,开展以“竹林碳汇”为主题的研学旅游产品,增加竹雕、非遗竹编、笋干制作等互动体验项目,实现由观光游向体验游的模式转变。与此同时,规划户外徒步旅行线路,打造滨水步道、登山林道,布置步行驿站,有效串联各景区景点及旅游集散点,更新旅游交通服务设施,形成完整、系统的旅游交通网络。

      ③ 构建生态价值实现路径。因地制宜确定生态发展模式,合理开发森林生态资源,在满足经济需求与维持生态系统稳定性之间寻找平衡点,提升森林生态产品价值转换效率。依据林分现状及各村域生态服务价值分布,划定保护性发展、生态性发展、开发性发展等3个等级的生态发展分区。在南部保护性发展区实行生态资源的严格保护,严禁新建旅游接待设施,实现生态间接价值最大化;在中部生态性发展区内适当开展森林旅游、竹林碳汇、林下经济等生态化产业,实现文化服务价值最大化,且新建旅游设施采用“点状供地”的土地利用模式以及“架空型”建筑构筑形式,对现有存量设施进行改造升级,节约用地指标,减少生态破坏;在北部开发性发展区发展以竹木加工、电子商务等代表的传统业态,提升生态直接价值的转化效率,增加森林生态产品的附加价值。

Reference (30)

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return