高级检索

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

城市建成区水景观建设综合效益评价方法及应用

吴桐 王列升 孙一豪 张子玉 刘煜 姚朋

吴桐, 王列升, 孙一豪, 张子玉, 刘煜, 姚朋. 城市建成区水景观建设综合效益评价方法及应用——以潍坊市建成区为例[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2020, 42(11): 105-117. doi: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20200167
引用本文: 吴桐, 王列升, 孙一豪, 张子玉, 刘煜, 姚朋. 城市建成区水景观建设综合效益评价方法及应用——以潍坊市建成区为例[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2020, 42(11): 105-117. doi: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20200167
Wu Tong, Wang Liesheng, Sun Yihao, Zhang Ziyu, Liu Yu, Yao Peng. Comprehensive benefit evaluation method and application of water landscape construction in urban built-up area: a case study of Weifang City, Shandong Province of eastern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2020, 42(11): 105-117. doi: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20200167
Citation: Wu Tong, Wang Liesheng, Sun Yihao, Zhang Ziyu, Liu Yu, Yao Peng. Comprehensive benefit evaluation method and application of water landscape construction in urban built-up area: a case study of Weifang City, Shandong Province of eastern China[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2020, 42(11): 105-117. doi: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20200167

城市建成区水景观建设综合效益评价方法及应用

——以潍坊市建成区为例

doi: 10.12171/j.1000-1522.20200167
基金项目: 北京林业大学“杰出青年人才”培育计划项目(2019JQ03010)
详细信息
    作者简介:

    吴桐。主要研究方向:风景园林规划与设计。Email:tongwu_2020@163.com 地址:100083北京市海淀区清华东路35号北京林业大学园林学院

    责任作者:

    姚朋,教授,博士生导师。主要研究方向:风景园林规划与设计。Email:chinayp815@163.com 地址:同上

  • 中图分类号: TU986

Comprehensive benefit evaluation method and application of water landscape construction in urban built-up area: a case study of Weifang City, Shandong Province of eastern China

  • 摘要:   目的  城市建成区的水景观建设是与城镇发展和人民生活关系最为密切、功效发挥最为明显的重要生态工程,在新时代城市生态建设从高速增长向高质量发展迈进的背景下,以多学科综合的视角对其构建一套综合效益评价方法具有重要的理论与实践意义。  方法  本文在分析水景观建设内涵的基础上,将城市建成区的水景观作为研究范围,提出将生态建设、生活游憩和生产发展作为综合效益评价的准则层,并确定了相关要素层;应用频度统计法、理论分析法和专家咨询法筛选出典型指标,构建了城市建成区水景观建设综合效益的评价指标体系;在此基础上通过层次分析法计算权重,进行单指标定量评价和多指标综合评价,对多准则集成获得的综合效益评价结果进行分级,形成了一套系统的综合效益评价方法;最后以潍坊市为例进行了应用研究。  结果  (1)2004年,潍坊市建成区水景观建设的综合效益得分为17.11,提供了极少效益,3个子效益均处于极少效益等级。(2)2004—2012年,综合效益得分增长较快,子效益中生活游憩效益得分增长最为显著。2012年的综合效益得分达到53.46,提供了中等效益,3个子效益均达到中等效益等级。(3)2012—2018年,综合效益及子效益得分的增长速度减缓,2018年的综合效益得分为76.54,提供了较多效益,子效益中生活游憩效益和生态建设效益得分提高较快,生活游憩效益得分最高,3个子效益均达到较多效益等级。(4)2004—2018年,生态建设效益中的环境改善得分增长显著,生活游憩效益中的文化承载和活动支持得分增长较为显著,生产发展效益中的经济效益得分增长最为显著,是推动对应子效益增长的主要因素。  结论  本研究评价方法的提出能够将城市建成区水景观建设的综合效益进行科学量化与比较,发现当前建设所存在的问题并明确未来建设方向,为我国城市水生态建设提供必要的评价标准和技术参考。

     

  • 图  1  国内外城市水景观建设的相关评价体系

    Figure  1.  Relevant evaluation system of urban water landscape construction at home and abroad

    图  2  2004、2012和2018年潍坊市建成区水景观建设情况

    Figure  2.  Situation of water landscape construction in the built-up area of Weifang City in 2004, 2012 and 2018

    图  3  2004、2012和2018年子效益得分变化趋势

    Figure  3.  Changing trend in the scores of sub-benefits in 2004, 2012 and 2018

    图  4  2004、2012和2018年生态建设效益要素层得分变化趋势

    Figure  4.  Changing trend in the scores of ecological construction benefitelement layers in 2004, 2012 and 2018

    图  5  2004、2012和2018年生活游憩效益要素层得分变化趋势

    Figure  5.  Changing trend in the scores of life recreation benefitelement layers in 2004, 2012 and 2018

    图  6  2004、2012和2018年生产发展效益要素层得分变化趋势

    Figure  6.  Changing trend in the scores of production development benefitelement layers in 2004, 2012 and 2018

    表  1  城市建成区水景观建设综合效益评价指标体系

    Table  1.   Evaluation index system of comprehensive benefit for water landscape construction in urban built-up area

    目标层
    Target layer (O)
    准则层
    Criterion layer (A)
    (本级权重
    weight at this level)
    要素层
    Element layer (B)
    (本级权重
    weight at this level)
    指标层
    Indicator layer (C)
    城市建成区水景观建设综合效益评价
    Comprehensive benefit evaluation for water landscape construction in urban built-up area
    A1 生态建设
    A1 Ecological construction
    (0.41)
    B1 生态修复
    B1 Ecological restoration (0.44)
    C1 水系生态治理比例 Ecological control proportion of water system (%)
    C2 水体生态护岸比例 Proportion of water ecological revetment (%)
    C3 城市水域空间率 Urban water space ratio (%)
    C4 河流生态基流满足程度 Satisfaction degree of river ecological base flow (%)
    C5 水生生物完整性指数 Aquatic organism integrity index (%)
    C6 生物多样性指数 Biodiversity index
    B2 环境改善
    B2 Environmental improvement (0.39)
    C7 滨水植被碳汇增长率 Carbon sink growth rate of waterfront vegetation (%)
    C8 温度改变率 Temperature change rate (%)
    C9 水面蒸发调节量增长率 Growth rate of water surface evaporation regulation (%)
    C10 水体滞尘量增长率 Growth rate of dust retention in water (%)
    C11 滨水环境噪音值 Noise value of waterfront environment(dB)
    C12 滨水空间透水铺装率 Permeable pavement rate of waterfront space (%)
    B3 水质净化
    B3 Water quality purification (0.17)
    C13 景观水体水质达标率 Standard-reaching rate of landscape water quality (%)
    C14 城市径流净化率 Purification rate of urban runoff (%)
    A2 生活游憩
    A2 Life recreation
    (0.33)
    B4风景营建
    B4 Landscape construction (0.56)
    C15 城市水景观辐射率 Radiation rate of urban water landscape (%)
    C16 城市滨水绿地率 Urban waterfront green space rate (%)
    C17 水景可见度 Visibility of waterscape (%)
    C18 滨水景观视觉质量 Visual quality of waterfront landscape
    C19 滨水景观满意度 Satisfaction of waterfront landscape (%)
    B5 活动支持
    B5 Activity
    support (0.32)
    C20 滨水出游率 Waterfront travel rate (%)
    C21 人均滨水绿地面积满足率 Satisfaction rate of per capita waterfront green space area (%)
    C22 城市滨水绿道连通率 Connectivity rate of urban waterfront greenway (%)
    C23 滨水步行交通占比 Proportion of waterfront pedestrian traffic (%)
    C24 提供活动设施的滨水空间占比 Proportion of waterfront space providing activity facilities (%)
    C25 滨水景观设施完善程度 Perfection degree of waterfront landscape facilities
    C26 滨水游憩活动类型多样性 Diversity of types of waterfront recreation activities
    C27 亲水景观舒适度 Comfort of hydrophilic landscape
    B6 文化承载
    B6 Cultural
    load (0.12)
    C28 滨水空间文化承载率 Cultural carrying rate of waterfront space (%)
    C29 城市水景观建设认知度 Awareness of urban water landscape construction
    C30 滨水宣传教育载体个数 Number of waterfront publicity and education carriers
    A3 生产发展
    A3 Production development
    (0.26)
    B7 成本节约
    B7 Cost saving (0.33)
    C31 城市再生水利用率 Utilization rate of urban reclaimed water (%)
    C32 雨水资源利用率 Utilization rate of rainwater resources (%)
    C33 节水灌溉使用率 Utilization rate of water-saving irrigation (%)
    C34 废弃材料利用率 Utilization rate of waste materials (%)
    C35 节能型服务设施应用率 Application rate of energy-saving service facilities (%)
    C36 单位面积的人工成本(元/m2) Labor cost per unit area(CNY/m2)
    B8 经济效益
    B8 Economic benefit (0.34)
    C37 滨水绿地营业收入增长率 Operating income growth rate of waterfront green space (%)
    C38 滨水景观创造就业岗位增长率 Employment growth rate created by waterfront landscape (%)
    C39 滨水旅游总收入增长率 Growth rate of total revenue for waterfront tourism (%)
    C40 滨水土地开发率 Waterfront land development rate (%)
    C41 滨水房产价值增长率 Growth rate of waterfront real estate value (%)
    C42 滨水业态营业收入增长率 Growth rate of operating income for waterfront formats (%)
    C43 滨水业态数量、类型增长率 Growth rate of quantity and types for waterfront formats (%)
    B9 安全保障
    B9 Safety
    security (0.33)
    C44 滨水空间的社会安全提升度 Social safety improvement degree of waterfront space (%)
    C45 河道防洪达标率 Standard-reaching rate of flood control for river (%)
    C46 城市径流削减比例 Proportion of urban runoff reduction (%)
    C47 降雨滞蓄率 Rainfall retention rate (%)
    注:表中的C18、C25、C26、C27和C29为定性指标;其余为定量指标,涉及增长率、改变率和提升度的指标均需设定基准年份进行计算。生产发展准则层中单位面积的人工成本、滨水绿地营业收入增长率、滨水旅游总收入增长率、滨水房产价值增长率和滨水业态营业收入增长率指标在计算时需排除通货膨胀的影响。Notes: C18, C25, C26, C27 and C29 in the table are qualitative indicators; the rest are quantitative indicators, and indicators related to growth rate, change rate and improvement degree need to be calculated by setting the base year. Indicators including labor cost per unit area, operating income growth rate of waterfront green space, growth rate of total revenue for waterfront tourism, growth rate of waterfront real estate value and growth rate of operating income for waterfront formats in the criterion layer of production development need to exclude the influence of inflation in the calculation.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2  各指标层属性及权重

    Table  2.   Attribute and weight of each indicator layer

    指标层
    Indicator layer
    指标属性
    Indicator attribute
    本级权重
    Weight at
    this level
    综合权重
    Comprehensive weight
    水系生态治理比例 Ecological control proportion of water system 正向 Positive 0.22 0.04
    水体生态护岸比例 Proportion of water ecological revetment 正向 Positive 0.08 0.01
    城市水域空间率 Urban water space ratio 正向 Positive 0.16 0.03
    河流生态基流满足程度 Satisfaction degree of river ecological base flow 正向 Positive 0.26 0.05
    水生生物完整性指数 Aquatic organism integrity index 正向 Positive 0.12 0.02
    生物多样性指数 Biodiversity index 正向 Positive 0.16 0.03
    滨水植被碳汇增长率 Carbon sink growth rate of waterfront vegetation 正向 Positive 0.16 0.03
    温度改变率 Temperature change rate 正向 Positive 0.16 0.03
    水面蒸发调节量增长率 Growth rate of water surface evaporation regulation 正向 Positive 0.15 0.02
    水体滞尘量增长率 Growth rate of dust retention in water 正向 Positive 0.15 0.02
    滨水环境噪音值 Noise value of waterfront environment 逆向 Reverse 0.19 0.03
    滨水空间透水铺装率 Permeable pavement rate of waterfront space 正向 Positive 0.19 0.03
    景观水体水质达标率 Standard-reaching rate of landscape water quality 正向 Positive 0.67 0.05
    城市径流净化率 Purification rate of urban runoff 正向 Positive 0.33 0.02
    城市水景观辐射率 Radiation rate of urban water landscape 正向 Positive 0.28 0.05
    城市滨水绿地率 Urban waterfront green space rate 正向 Positive 0.17 0.03
    水景可见度 Visibility of waterscape 正向 Positive 0.13 0.02
    滨水景观视觉质量 Visual quality of waterfront landscape 正向 Positive 0.17 0.03
    滨水景观满意度 Satisfaction of waterfront landscape 正向 Positive 0.25 0.05
    滨水出游率 Waterfront travel rate 正向 Positive 0.12 0.01
    人均滨水绿地面积满足率 Satisfaction rate of per capita waterfront green space area 正向 Positive 0.20 0.02
    城市滨水绿道连通率 Connectivity rate of urban waterfront greenway 正向 Positive 0.09 0.01
    滨水步行交通占比 Proportion of waterfront pedestrian traffic 正向 Positive 0.08 0.01
    提供活动设施的滨水空间占比 Proportion of waterfront space providing activity facilities 正向 Positive 0.21 0.02
    滨水景观设施完善程度 Perfection degree of waterfront landscape facilities 正向 Positive 0.14 0.01
    滨水游憩活动类型多样性 Diversity of types of waterfront recreation activities 正向 Positive 0.10 0.01
    亲水景观舒适度 Comfort of hydrophilic landscape 正向 Positive 0.06 0.01
    滨水空间文化承载率 Cultural carrying rate of waterfront space 正向 Positive 0.40 0.02
    城市水景观建设认知度 Awareness of urban water landscape construction 正向 Positive 0.20 0.01
    滨水宣传教育载体个数 Number of waterfront publicity and education carriers 正向 Positive 0.40 0.02
    城市再生水利用率 Utilization rate of urban reclaimed water 正向 Positive 0.26 0.02
    雨水资源利用率 Utilization rate of rainwater resources 正向 Positive 0.25 0.02
    节水灌溉使用率 Utilization rate of water-saving irrigation 正向 Positive 0.15 0.01
    废弃材料利用率 Utilization rate of waste materials 正向 Positive 0.10 0.01
    节能型服务设施应用率 Application rate of energy-saving service facilities 正向 Positive 0.15 0.01
    单位面积的人工成本 Labor cost per unit area 逆向 Reverse 0.09 0.01
    滨水绿地营业收入增长率 Operating income growth rate of waterfront green space 正向 Positive 0.07 0.01
    滨水景观创造就业岗位增长率 Employment growth rate created by waterfront landscape 正向 Positive 0.08 0.01
    滨水旅游总收入增长率 Growth rate of total revenue for waterfront tourism 正向 Positive 0.26 0.02
    滨水土地开发率 Waterfront land development rate 正向 Positive 0.16 0.01
    滨水房产价值增长率 Growth rate of waterfront real estate value 正向 Positive 0.22 0.02
    滨水业态营业收入增长率 Growth rate of operating income for waterfront formats 正向 Positive 0.10 0.01
    滨水业态数量、类型增长率 Growth rate of quantity and types for waterfront formats 正向 Positive 0.11 0.01
    滨水空间的社会安全提升度 Social safety improvement degree of waterfront space 正向 Positive 0.25 0.02
    河道防洪达标率 Standard-reaching rate of flood control for river 正向 Positive 0.35 0.03
    城市径流削减比例 Proportion of urban runoff reduction 正向 Positive 0.20 0.02
    降雨滞蓄率 Rainfall retention rate 正向 Positive 0.20 0.02
    注:表中权重通过层次分析法(AHP)计算获得。Note: weights in the table are calculated by AHP.
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3  综合效益等级划分

    Table  3.   Classification of the comprehensive benefit grade

    综合效益等级
    Level of the comprehensive benefit
    极少效益
    Rare benefit
    较少效益
    Minor benefit
    中等效益
    Moderate benefit
    较多效益
    Major benefit
    极多效益
    Numerous benefit
    ${U_{{\rm{CBE}}}}$的取值范围 Value range of ${U_{{\rm{CBE}}}}$$0 \leqslant {U}_{\rm{CBE} } < 20$$20 \leqslant {U}_{\rm{CBE} } < 40$$ 40 \leqslant {U}_{\rm{CBE}} < 60$$60 \leqslant {U}_{\rm{CBE} } < 80$$80 \leqslant {U}_{\rm{CBE} } \leqslant 100$
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  4  2004、2012和2018年潍坊市建成区水景观建设相关指标

    Table  4.   Related indicators of water landscape construction in the built-up area of Weifang City in 2004, 2012 and 2018

    指标 Indicator200420122018
    城市建成区面积/hm2 Area of the urban built-up area/ha11 50015 70017 985
    已治理河道长度 Length of renovated river/km53560
    已完成景观水面面积/hm2 Area of completed landscape water surface/ha33218333
    已建成滨水绿地面积/hm2 Area of built waterfront green space/ha34321633
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  5  潍坊市建成区水景观建设综合效益得分计算结果

    Table  5.   Calculation results for the scores of comprehensive benefit of waterlandscape construction in the built-up area of Weifang City

    评价项
    Evaluation item
    2004 2012 2018
    要素层 Element layer得分 Score要素层 Element layer得分 Score要素层 Element layer得分 Score
    生态建设效益
    Ecological construction benefit
    生态修复
    Ecological restoration
    14.64 (18.72) 生态修复
    Ecological restoration
    46.65 (51.04) 生态修复
    Ecological restoration
    69.34 (74.78)
    环境改善
    Environmental improvement
    22.09 环境改善
    Environmental improvement
    58.70 环境改善
    Environmental improvement
    83.15
    水质净化
    Water quality purification
    21.53 水质净化
    Water quality purification
    44.85 水质净化
    Water quality purification
    68.25
    生活游憩效益
    Life recreation benefit
    风景营建
    Landscape construction
    14.94 (14.53) 风景营建
    Landscape construction
    52.11 (54.34) 风景营建
    Landscape construction
    77.68 (78.41)
    活动支持
    Activity support
    15.54 活动支持
    Activity support
    57.11 活动支持
    Activity support
    80.69
    文化承载
    Cultural load
    9.87 文化承载
    Cultural load
    57.32 文化承载
    Cultural load
    75.72
    生产发展效益
    Production development benefit
    成本节约
    Cost saving
    12.30 (17.87) 成本节约
    Cost saving
    41.58 (56.15) 成本节约
    Cost saving
    65.29 (76.95)
    经济效益
    Economic benefit
    25.71 经济效益
    Economic benefit
    67.70 经济效益
    Economic benefit
    89.30
    安全保障
    Safety security
    15.36 安全保障
    Safety security
    58.81 安全保障
    Safety security
    75.88
    综合效益得分
    Score of comprehensive benefit
    17.11 53.46 76.54
    注:括号内数字分别是生态建设效益、生活游憩效益和生产发展效益在2004、2012和2018年的得分。Notes: figures in brackets are the scores of ecological construction benefit, life recreation benefit, and production development benefit in 2004, 2012 and 2018, respectively.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 吴梦媛. 北方干旱地区小城市水景观规划方法研究[D]. 西安: 西安建筑科技大学, 2012.

    Wu M Y. Research on small city water landscape of arid region of North China[D]. Xi’an: Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, 2012.
    [2] Everard M, Moggridge H L. Rediscovering the value of urban rivers[J]. Urban Ecosystems, 2012, 15(2): 293−314. doi: 10.1007/s11252-011-0174-7.
    [3] 胡凯富, 郑曦. 基于CiteSpace计量分析的景观绩效研究重点领域和前沿趋势的文献述评[J]. 风景园林, 2018, 25(11):84−89.

    Hu K F, Zheng X. Literature review of key areas and frontier trends in landscape performance research based on citespace bibliometric analysis[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2018, 25(11): 84−89.
    [4] 中华人民共和国水利部. 水资源司石秋池副司长解读《水生态文明城市建设评价导则》[EB/OL]. (2016–07–22) [2020–04–02]. http://www.mwr.gov.cn/zw/zcjd/201806/t20180608_1039391.html.

    Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. The deputy director of the department of water resources Shi Qiuchi interprets the “guidelines for the evaluation of the construction of a water ecological civilized city”[EB/OL]. (2016–07 –22) [2020 –04 –02]. http://www.mwr.gov.cn/zw/zcjd/201806/t20180608_1039391.html.
    [5] 左其亭, 罗增良. 水生态文明定量评价方法及应用[J]. 水利水电技术, 2016, 47(5):94−100.

    Zuo Q T, Luo Z L. Quantified evaluation method of water eco-civilization and its application[J]. Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, 2016, 47(5): 94−100.
    [6] 郭巧玲, 杨云松, 韩瑶瑶. 人水和谐视角下的水生态文明城市评价:以焦作市为例[J]. 河南理工大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 38(4):82−89.

    Guo Q L, Yang Y S, Han Y Y. Evaluation of water ecological civilization city from the perspective of harmony between human and water: a case study of Jiaozuo City[J]. Journal of Henan Polytechnic University (Natural Science), 2019, 38(4): 82−89.
    [7] 刘姝芳, 毛豪林, 张丹, 等. 西安市水生态文明城市试点建设成效评价[J]. 人民黄河, 2019, 41(5):82−85. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1379.2019.05.018.

    Liu S F, Mao H L, Zhang D, et al. Effectiveness evaluation for pilot city of water ecological civilization in Xi’an City[J]. Yellow River, 2019, 41(5): 82−85. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1379.2019.05.018.
    [8] 王富强, 刘沛衡, 魏怀斌. 郑州市水生态文明城市建设成效评价[J]. 华北水利水电大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 40(5):58−63.

    Wang F Q, Liu P H, Wei H B. Evaluation on the construction effect of water ecological civilization city in Zhengzhou[J]. Journal of North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 40(5): 58−63.
    [9] 虞未江, 贾超, 袁涵, 等. 基于改进AHP和物元可拓法的水生态文明建设评价[J]. 水科学与工程技术, 2018(1):1−6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9900.2018.01.001.

    Yu W J, Jia C, Yuan H, et al. The evaluation of construction of aquatic ecological civilization based on improved AHP and matter-element extension method[J]. Water Sciences and Engineering Technology, 2018(1): 1−6. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9900.2018.01.001.
    [10] 刘海娇, 黄继文, 仕玉治, 等. 黄河下游典型城市水生态文明评价[J]. 人民黄河, 2013, 35(12):64−67.

    Liu H J, Huang J W, Shi Y Z, et al. Water ecological civilization evaluation on the typical urban of the lower Yellow River[J]. Yellow River, 2013, 35(12): 64−67.
    [11] 左其亭, 张云, 林平. 人水和谐评价指标及量化方法研究[J]. 水利学报, 2008, 39(4):440−447. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0559-9350.2008.04.008.

    Zuo Q T, Zhang Y, Lin P. Index system and quantification method for human-water harmony[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2008, 39(4): 440−447. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0559-9350.2008.04.008.
    [12] 中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 住房城乡建设部办公厅关于印发海绵城市建设绩效评价与考核办法(试行)的通知[EB/OL]. (2015 –07–10) [2020 –05 –04]. http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201507/t20150715_222947.html.

    Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. The notice of the general office of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development on printing and distributing the measures for performance evaluation and assessment of sponge city construction (trial)[EB/OL]. (2015–07–10) [2020–05–04]. http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201507/t20150715_222947.html.
    [13] 王亚丽. 固原市海绵城市建设综合绩效评价体系的构建[J]. 宁夏师范学院学报, 2019, 40(2):101−103. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1331.2019.02.019.

    Wang Y L. Construction of comprehensive performance evaluation system for the construction of sponge city in Guyuan City[J]. Journal of Ningxia Normal University, 2019, 40(2): 101−103. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1331.2019.02.019.
    [14] 沈洁, 龙若愚, 陈静. 美国LEED-ND/SITES/LPS雨水管理评价标准对中国海绵城市绩效评价的启示[J]. 风景园林, 2019, 26(3):81−86.

    Shen J, Long R Y, Chen J. The enlightenment of American stormwater management evaluation criteria (LEED-ND, SITES, LPS) on performance assessment of sponge cities in China[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2019, 26(3): 81−86.
    [15] 吴杰超. 杭州城市河道综合整治成效评价体系构建研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江工业大学, 2019.

    Wu J C. Hangzhou City river comprehensive improvement effect evaluation system[D]. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University of Technology, 2019.
    [16] 罗毅, 李明翰, 段诗乐, 等. 已建成项目的景观绩效:美国风景园林基金会公布的指标及方法对比[J]. 风景园林, 2015, 22(1):52−69.

    Luo Y, Li M H, Duan S L, et al. Landscape performance of built projects: comparing landscape architecture foundation’s published metrics and methods[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015, 22(1): 52−69.
    [17] M ·艾伦·戴明, 税梦. 社会及文化的度量:景观设计中无形效益的测衡[J]. 风景园林, 2015, 22(1):99−109.

    Deming M E, Shui M. Social & cultural metrics: measuring the intangible benefits of designed landscapes[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015, 22(1): 99−109.
    [18] 塔纳尔·奥兹迪尔, 迪伦·斯图瓦特, 冯艺佳, 等. 风景园林设计项目的经济绩效评估 德克萨斯州案例研究的经验与教训[J]. 风景园林, 2015, 22(1):70−86.

    Ozdil T R, Stewart D M, Feng Y J, et al. Assessing economic performance of landscape architecture projects: lessons learned from Texas case studies[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015, 22(1): 70−86.
    [19] 克里斯托弗·D·埃利斯, 权炳淑, 莎拉·阿尔瓦德, 等. 景观绩效 多功能景观的度量和评估[J]. 风景园林, 2015, 22(1):32−39.

    Ellis C D, Kweon B S, Alward S, et al. Landscape performance: measurement and assessment of multifunctional landscapes[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015, 22(1): 32−39.
    [20] 戴代新, 李明翰. 美国景观绩效评价研究进展[J]. 风景园林, 2015, 22(1):25−31.

    Dai D X, Li M H. Research development of landscape performance assessment in America[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2015, 22(1): 25−31.
    [21] 吴忠军, 曹宏丽, 侯玉霞. 景观旅游绩效评价指标体系研究[J]. 桂林理工大学学报, 2019, 39(1):225−232.

    Wu Z J, Cao H L, Hou Y X. Evaluation index system of landscape tourism performance[J]. Journal of Guilin University of Technology, 2019, 39(1): 225−232.
    [22] 罗毅, 李明翰, 孙一鹤. 景观绩效研究:社会、经济和环境效益是否总是相得益彰?[J]. 景观设计学, 2014, 2(1):42−56.

    Luo Y, Li M H, Sun Y H. A study of landscape performance: do social, economic and environmental benefits always complement each other?[J]. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 2014, 2(1): 42−56.
    [23] 李春晖, 刘颂, 周腾, 等. 美国景观绩效系列(LPS)工具应用进展[C]//中国风景园林学会2016年会论文集. 北京: 中国风景园林学会, 2016: 22−27.

    Li C H, Liu S, Zhou T, et al. Review on landscape performance series’ benefit tooklit in America[C]//Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Conference of Chinese Society of Landscape Architecture. Beijing: Chinese Society of Landscape Architecture, 2016: 22−27.
    [24] 汪洁琼, 李心蕊, 王敏. 城市滨水空间生态系统服务供需匹配的空间智慧[J]. 风景园林, 2019, 26(6):47−52.

    Wang J Q, Li X R, Wang M. Spatial wisdom of matching ecosystem services supply and demand in urban waterfront areas[J]. Landscape Architecture, 2019, 26(6): 47−52.
    [25] Palmer M A, Bernhardt E S, Allan J D, et al. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration[J]. Journal of applied ecology, 2005, 42(2): 208−217. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x.
    [26] Logar I, Brouwer R, Paillex A. Do the societal benefits of river restoration outweigh their costs? A cost-benefit analysis[J]. Journal of environmental management, 2019, 232: 1075−1085. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.098.
    [27] Sakici C. Assessing landscape perceptions of urban waterscapes[J]. The Anthropologist, 2015, 21(1−2): 182−196. doi: 10.1080/09720073.2015.11891807.
    [28] Åberg E U, Tapsell S. Revisiting the river skerne: the long-term social benefits of river rehabilitation[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2013, 113: 94−103. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.009.
    [29] Vermaat J E, Wagtendonk A J, Brouwer R, et al. Assessing the societal benefits of river restoration using the ecosystem services approach[J]. Hydrobiologia, 2016, 769(1): 121−135. doi: 10.1007/s10750-015-2482-z.
    [30] Özgüner H, Eraslan Ş, Yilmaz S. Public perception of landscape restoration along a degraded urban streamside[J]. Land Degradation & Development, 2012, 23(1): 24−33.
    [31] Garcia X, Benages-Albert M, Pavón D, et al. Public participation GIS for assessing landscape values and improvement preferences in urban stream corridors[J]. Applied Geography, 2017, 87: 184−196. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.08.009.
    [32] Bulut Z, Yilmaz H. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2009, 154(1−4): 459−468. doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0412-5.
    [33] Bulut Z, Karahan F, Sezen I. Determining visual beauties of natural waterscapes: a case study for Tortum Valley (Erzurum/Turkey)[J]. Scientific Research and Essay, 2010, 5(2): 170−182.
    [34] Daud S Z, Sipan I, Ali H M, et al. Economic sustainability assessment for urban riverfront development: a concept paper on development of spatial-based model[J]. Advanced Science Letters, 2018, 24(6): 4245−4249. doi: 10.1166/asl.2018.11581.
    [35] Lee H S. A study on analysis of importance weights of riverfront assessment items using analytic hierarchy process-focused on the Gyeong: an stream in Gyeonggi Province[J]. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning, 2014, 20(1): 27−36. doi: 10.7851/ksrp.2014.20.1.027.
    [36] 李后强. 公园城市美丽河网体系构建研究:以成都市为例[J]. 中国西部, 2019(3):1−9.

    Li H Q. Research on the construction of park city beautiful river network system: take Chengdu City as an example[J]. Western China, 2019(3): 1−9.
    [37] 胡其昌. 生态水利定量评价研究:以浙江省为例[J]. 中国农村水利水电, 2014(10):19−23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-2284.2014.10.005.

    Hu Q C. Quantitative evaluation research on eco-hydrology: taking Zhejiang Province for example[J]. China Rural Water and Hydropower, 2014(10): 19−23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-2284.2014.10.005.
    [38] 徐鹏, 林永红, 栾胜基. 低碳生态城市建设效应评估方法构建及在深圳市的应用[J]. 环境科学学报, 2016, 36(4):1457−1467.

    Xu P, Lin Y H, Luan S J. Establishment of approach to assess the effects of low-carbon eco-city development and its application in Shenzhen City[J]. Acta Scientiae Circumstantiae, 2016, 36(4): 1457−1467.
    [39] 段瑜, 黄川壑, 罗捷. 水润天府 活水成都: 以水战略为导向的公园城市规划与建设模式[J]. 城市道桥与防洪, 2018(9):54−57, 75.

    Duan Y, Huang C H, Luo J. Elementary discussion on planning and construction of garden city oriented by water strategy[J]. Urban Roads Bridges & Flood Control, 2018(9): 54−57, 75.
    [40] Hua J, Chen W Y. Prioritizing urban rivers’ ecosystem services: an importance-performance analysis[J]. Cities, 2019, 94: 11−23. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.014.
  • 加载中
图(6) / 表(5)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  645
  • HTML全文浏览量:  200
  • PDF下载量:  38
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2020-06-01
  • 修回日期:  2020-10-11
  • 网络出版日期:  2020-11-06
  • 刊出日期:  2020-12-14

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回