[1]曾铮,黄启堂*.基于SBE-SD的城市公园景观视觉环境质量评价——以福州西湖公园为例[J].江苏林业科技,2025,52(01):31-38.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-7380.2025.01.006]
　Zeng Zheng,Huang Qitang*.Evaluation of urban park landscape visual environmental quality based on the SBE-SD method: A case study of West Lake Park， Fuzhou[J].Journal of Jiangsu Forestry Science &Technology,2025,52(01):31-38.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-7380.2025.01.006]
点击复制

基于SBE-SD的城市公园景观视觉环境质量评价——以福州西湖公园为例()
分享到：

《江苏林业科技》[ISSN:1001-7380/CN:32-1236/S]

卷:
第52卷
期数:
2025年01期
页码:
31-38
栏目:
试验研究
出版日期:
2025-03-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Evaluation of urban park landscape visual environmental quality based on the SBE-SD method: A case study of West Lake Park， Fuzhou
文章编号:
1001-7380（2025）01-0031-08
作者:
曾铮; 黄启堂*
福建农林大学园林学院,福建 福州 350002
Author(s):
Zeng Zheng;  Huang Qitang*
College of Landscape Architecture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University,Fuzhou 350002,China
关键词:
视觉环境; 质量评价; 美景度; 语义差异; 福州西湖公园
Keywords:
Visual environmental;  Quality evaluation;  Scenic beauty estimation;  Semantic differential;  West Lake Park;  Fuzhou
分类号:
Q143+4；Q948.12+3
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1001-7380.2025.01.006
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
当前对于城市公园视觉环境质量评价的研究仍处于探索阶段，该研究采用结合美景度评价法（SBE）和语义差异法（SD）的评价体系，分层选取福州西湖公园的植被景观、水体空间、广场及道路、构筑物节点4种典型景观空间，共40个研究样本，对其视觉环境质量和景观特征定量分析，并构建视觉环境质量评价模型。结果表明：（1）4种样本照片类型中，视觉环境质量从高到低为植被景观、广场及道路、构筑物节点、水体空间，人工设施是影响视觉感受的重要负向影响因素；（2）景观特征中，要素丰富度、色彩丰富度、植被显著度、美感及愉悦感的平均得分高于1.0，野趣性、生命力及立体感的得分低于0.8；（3）构建视觉环境评价模型，R2为0.834，模型具有较好的解释能力。模型中贡献率最高的5个主要因子分别为愉悦感（30.9%）、色彩丰富度（27.7%）、美感（25.1%）、要素丰富度（21.2%）、植被显著度（14.5%）。视觉环境质量受到多种景观特征的综合影响，未来城市公园的建设与优化应注重关键的影响因素，以创造更为宜人的公园环境。
Abstract:
Current research on the visual environmental quality evaluation of urban parks is still in the exploratory stage. This study adopts an evaluation system that combines the Scenic Beauty Estimation (SBE) method and the Semantic Differential (SD) method. A stratified sampling approach was employed to select four typical landscape spaces within Fuzhou West Lake Park, encompassing vegetation landscapes, aquatic spaces, plaza and pathway areas, and structural nodes, totaling 40 research samples. A quantitative analysis was conducted on their visual environmental quality and landscape characteristics, further constructing an evaluative model for visual environmental quality. The results indicated that: (1) Among the four types of sample photographs, the visual environmental quality ranks from high to low as vegetation landscapes, plazas and roads, architectural nodes, and water spaces. Artificial facilities are important negative factors affecting visual perception; (2) In the landscape characteristics, the average scores for element richness, color richness, vegetation prominence, aesthetic appeal, and pleasure are above 1.0, while the scores for wildness, vitality, and three-dimensionality are below 0.8; (3) The evaluation model was constructed with an R-squared value of 0.834, indicating good explanatory power of the model. The five main factors with the highest contribution rates in the model are pleasure (30.9%), color richness (27.7%), aesthetic appeal (25.1%), element richness (21.2%), and vegetation prominence (14.5%). The visual environmental quality is comprehensively influenced by various landscape characteristics. The construction and optimization of future urban parks should focus on key influencing factors to create a more pleasant park environment.

参考文献/References:

[1]DANIEL T C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001,54(1):267-281.

[2]DANIEL T C， BOSTER R S. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method[Z]. Research Paper RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1976.
[3]罗茂婵, 苏德荣, 韩烈保, 等. 居住区园林植物美景度评价研究[J]. 林业科技开发, 2005,19(6):84-86.
[4]吴文, 吴德雯, 李月辉. 美景度评价在森林景观美学评估中的应用[J]. 北方园艺, 2018(9):121-126.
[5]姚玉敏, 常佳, 杨海燕, 等. 景观视觉环境质量评价研究现状与发展趋势[J]. 皖西学院学报, 2021,37(5):110-119.
[6]OSGOOD C E, SUCI G J, TANNENBAUM P H. The measurement of meaning[M]. Springfield: University of Illinois Press,1967.
[7]韦璐, 黄清俊. 基于SBE法和SD法的上海6个城市公园春季景观质量评价[J]. 园林, 2022,39(6):125-134.
[8]胡洁思, 张建国. 基于SBE和SD法的乡村滨水景观带美景度影响因素研究——以衢州庙源溪为例[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022,38(22):69-78.
[9]张安华, 王淑贤, 吕少卿, 等. 基于SBE-SD法的江苏园博园城市展园景观美学评价[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2024,39(4):250-260.
[10]许大为, 李羽佳. 基于SD-SBE法的专家与公众审美差异研究[J]. 中国园林, 2014,30(7):52-56.
[11]孙丽, 孙迎坤, 徐萌, 等. 基于SD和SBE法的北京市公园景观质量评价[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2023,51(8):128-132.
[12]朱家帅, 王新杰, 张佳曦, 等. 基于SBE-SD法的北京市城区公园冬季植物景观评价[J]. 中国林业产业, 2024(7):22-23.
[13]杨泽森, 曾祥慧, 杨程旭, 等. 基于SD-SBE法的柳州市龙潭公园植物景观美景度评价[J]. 南方农业, 2024,18(21):180-185.
[14]张慧莹, 肖华斌. 基于SD法的城市公园植物景观评价研究——以泰安市东湖公园为例[C]. 2019中国城市规划年会, 2019.
[15]王冰, 宋力. 景观美学评价中心理物理学方法的理论及其应用[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2007，35(12):3531-3532.
[16]王亚娟. 基于SBE和SD法的北京市郊野公园视觉景观质量研究[D]. 北京：首都师范大学, 2013.
[17]ULRICH R S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment[M]. ALTMAN I, WOHLWILL J F. Human behavior & environment: Advances in theory & research,Boston, MA: Springer, 1983: 85-125.
[18]高洁宇.城市景观视觉环境评价实践[D].武汉：中国地质大学,2014.
[19]KAPLAN R, KAPLAN S. The Experience of nature: a psychological perspective[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press，1989.
[20]GOBSTER P H. Urban park restoration and the “museumification” of nature[J]. Nature and Culture, 2007,2(2), 95-114.
[21]TVEIT M, ODE , FRY G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character[J]. Landscape Research, 2006, 31(3), 229-255.
[22]NASAR J L. Environmental aesthetics: theory, research, and applications[M]. New York: Combridge University Press, 1988.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期：2024-12-09;修回日期：2025-01-13
作者简介：曾铮（1994- ），女，福建福州人，硕士研究生。主要从事园林与景观设计研究。
*通信作者：黄启堂（1963- ），男，福建尤溪人，教授，硕士生导师。主要从事风景园林规划与设计研究。
更新日期/Last Update: 2025-04-23