A Study on the Type Classification and Impact Mechanism of Forest Tourism Landscape in Zhangjiajie —Based on the Perspective of Landscape Image Sketch

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lyzygl.2021.03.019

Abstract

Abstract:

The study interviewed a total of 210 college students from three universities,namely Central South University of Forestry Science and Technology,Central South University and Hunan Women's College,took landscape image sketch as the research method,and subdivided Zhangjiajie forest tourism landscape types from language knowledge,spatial dimension,self orientation and social significance,and analyzed its influence mechanism.The results showed that Zhangjiajie forest tourism landscape can be divided into four categories:typical peak forest landscape,high interactive recreational landscape,high vegetation coverage broad-leaved forest landscape and highly beautiful remote mountain landscape.Further research found that the main factors influencing the classification of forest tourism landscape types in Zhangjiajie were as follows:the main residential types before the age of 18,the landscape types around the main residence before the age of 18 and the number of visits to Zhangjiajie.On this basis,the paper developed the model of the influence mechanism of forest tourism landscape classification in Zhangjiajie,and put forward the development strategies of optimizing the supply of forest tourism products,strengthening the supply of natural education products,enriching the intrinsic value of forest tourism landscape,etc.

Key words: forest tourism landscape, landscape type classification, landscape image sketch method, Zhangjiajie

CLC Number:

S788.2

LU Chang, WANG Chen, LUO Fen, KONG Hui. A Study on the Type Classification and Impact Mechanism of Forest Tourism Landscape in Zhangjiajie —Based on the Perspective of Landscape Image Sketch[J]. FOREST RESOURCES WANAGEMENT, 2021, 0(3): 120-128.

Figures/Tables 5

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

The Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the forest tourism landscape type classfication in Zhangjiajie

变量		秩均数				显著性
变量		标志性的峰林景观 (n=42, 20%)	高互动性的游憩景观(n=76, 36%)	高植被覆盖度的阔叶林景观(n=39, 19%)	高美景度的远山景观(n=53, 25%)	显著性
语言知识	草本植物	93.50	108.70	104.27	111.33	7.746(0.052)
	生物	73.50	117.71	116.58	105.20	25.192(0.000^***)
	地形	120.00	95.13	98.46	114.06	17.302(0.001^**)
	水	64.50	100.42	110.27	141.76	54.294(0.000^***)
	天空	80.50	111.36	92.62	126.40	21.908(0.000^***)
	亮度	102.50	105.26	105.19	108.44	2.749(0.432)
	路	53.00	145.57	93.38	98.57	88.840(0.000^***)
	人造物体	62.50	138.49	78.65	112.03	71.198(0.000^***)
	人	81.00	134.88	86.38	96.85	55.022(0.000^***)
	针叶林	104.00	106.76	104.00	105.98	2.024(0.567)
	阔叶林	65.50	102.80	167.81	95.22	86.036(0.000^***)
	混交林	93.50	96.26	93.50	137.08	63.336(0.000^***)
	未知	141.00	101.99	78.50	102.27	39.153(0.000^***)
	倒木	105.50	105.50	105.50	105.50	0.000(1.000)
空间维度	近视图	98.50	115.08	98.50	102.46	16.585(0.001^**)
	侧视图	93.50	106.33	71.58	138.78	41.258(0.000^***)
	鸟瞰图	74.00	111.57	160.35	81.41	79.386(0.000^***)
	远视图	133.50	95.54	61.00	130.34	55.598(0.000^***)
自我定位	单一对象	189.50	84.50	84.50	84.50	209.000(0.000^***)
	客观景色	61.00	61.00	166.00	160.06	197.465(0.000^***)
	周围地方	68.00	171.62	68.00	68.00	204.722(0.000^***)
	风景好的地方	105.50	104.38	103.00	108.94	3.757(0.289)
社会意义	森林结构	92.50	92.50	159.81	94.48	117.665(0.000^***)
	生态系统	95.00	95.00	130.00	110.85	38.050(0.000^***)
	风景优美的视野	62.50	91.51	102.88	161.56	96.812(0.000^***)
	游憩空间	67.50	172.50	67.50	67.50	209.000(0.000^***)
	标志性地方	179.50	84.50	84.50	92.42	163.486(0.000^***)
	自然资源	104.50	105.88	104.50	106.48	1.369(0.713)
	生活世界	104.50	107.53	104.69	103.98	1.406(0.704)

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

References 28

[1]	罗芬, 李雪丽, 李书献, 等. 国外森林结构属性公众偏好的影响因素研究进展[J]. 林业资源管理, 2018(3):133-140.
[2]	Mikulec J, Antoušková M. Landscape and tourism potential in the protected landscape areas[J]. Agricultural Economics, 2011, 57(6):272-278.
[3]	Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M. The change of european landscapes:human-nature relationships,public attitudes towards rewilding,and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009, 90(9):2910-2920. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021
[4]	Zoderer B M, Tasser E, Erb K H, et al. Identifying and mapping the tourists perception of cultural ecosystem services:a case study from an Alpine region[J]. Land Use Policy, 2016, 56:251-261. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.004
[5]	Conrad E, Christie M, Fazey I. Understanding public perceptions of landscape:a case study from Gozo,Malta[J]. Applied Geography, 2011, 31(1):159-170. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.009
[6]	Fyhri A, Jacobsen J K S, Tommervik H. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2009, 91(4):202-211. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.01.002
[7]	Sevenant M, Antrop M. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference[J]. Land Use Policy, 2010, 27(3):827-842. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.11.002
[8]	Swaffield S R, Foster R J. Community perceptions of landscape values in the South Island high country:a literature review of current knowledge and evaluation of survey methods[J]. Science for Conservation, 2000, 159:1-54.
[9]	Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The experience of nature:a psychological perspective[M]. New York:Cambridge University press, 1989.
[10]	Nielsen A B, Heyman E, Richnau G. Liked,disliked and unseen forest attributes:relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012, 113:456-466. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.014 pmid: 23122619
[11]	Gao T, Zhu L, Zhang T, et al. Is an environment with high biodiversity the most attractive for human recreation? A case study in Baoji,China[J]. Sustainability, 2019, 11(15):4086. doi: 10.3390/su11154086
[12]	Herzog T R, Stark J L. Typicality and preference for positively and negatively valued environmental settings[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2004, 24(1):85-92. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00038-0
[13]	López-Martínez F. Visual landscape preferences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demographic influences[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2017, 104:205-215. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.036
[14]	Oku H, Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2006, 75(1-2):34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.008
[15]	Howley P, Donoghue C O, Hynes S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2012, 104(1):66-74. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006
[16]	Ueda H, Nakajima T, Takayama N, et al. Landscape image sketches of forests in Japan and Russia[J]. Forest Policy and Economics, 2012, 19:20-30. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.002
[17]	王琛, 罗芬, 邹丽娟. 学前儿童森林意象感知模型与特征[J]. 学前教育研究, 2020(11):29-42.
[18]	Ciesielski M, Stereńczak K. What do we expect from forests? The European view of public demands[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, 209:139-151. doi: S0301-4797(17)31210-0 pmid: 29289842
[19]	王长安. 论我国森林公园建设和森林旅游业在林业及国民经济中的地位与作用[J]. 林业资源管理, 1997(5):62-64.
[20]	Ueda H. A comparative study on forest image in Japan and German[J]. Journal of the Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture, 2006, 67(5):691-694.
[21]	Hunziker M. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands:perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1995, 31(1-3):399-410. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(95)93251-J
[22]	Cheng J C H, Monroe M C. Connection to nature:children's affective attitude toward nature[J]. Environment and Behavior, 2012, 44(1):31-49. doi: 10.1177/0013916510385082
[23]	Thompson C W, Aspinall P, Montarzino A. The childhood factor:adult visits to green places and the significance of childhood experience[J]. Environment and Behavior, 2007, 40(1):111-143. doi: 10.1177/0013916507300119
[24]	Adevi A A, Grahn P. Preferences for landscapes:a matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background?[J]. Landscape Research, 2012, 37(1):27-49. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2011.576884
[25]	Galani-Moutafi V. The self and the other:traveler,ethnographer,tourist[J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 2000, 27(1):203-224. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00066-3
[26]	Walliss J, Kok K. New interpretative strategies for geotourism:an exploration of two Australian mining sites[J]. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2014, 12(1):33-49. doi: 10.1080/14766825.2013.868902
[27]	Real E, Arce C, Sabucedo J M. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data,and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western spain[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2000, 20(4):355-373. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0184
[28]	邵隽. 中国游客出境游目的地选择与社交媒体营销[J]. 旅游学刊, 2011, 26(8):7-8.

个体特征		典型性的峰林景观		高互动性的游憩景观		高植被覆盖度的阔叶林景观		高美景度的远山景观		X²
性别/%										2.923(0.404)
男		9		20		8		11
女		11		16		10		15
年龄/%										2.013(0.570)
17—18		10		15		10		11
19—22		10		21		9		14
18岁前主要居住地类型/%										93.311(0.000^***)
城市		7		30		0		3
乡村		13		7		18		22
个体特征	典型性的峰林景观		高互动性的游憩景观		高植被覆盖度的阔叶林景观		高美景度的远山景观		X²
18岁前主要居住地周边的景观类型/%									162.441(0.000^***)
平原	5		16		1		2
山地\丘陵	11		4		3		15
海边	2		14		0		2
森林	0		0		13		4
其他	2		1		1		2
游览张家界次数/%									99.746(0.000^***)
0次	11		14		1		4
1次	7		20		3		5
≥2次	2		2		14		17

因素			参照组		典型性的峰林景观				高互动性的游憩景观				高植被覆盖度的阔叶林景观				高美景度的远山景观
因素			参照组		β		OR值		β		OR值		β		OR值		β		OR值
18岁前主要居住地	乡村	城市		0.996		2.708^*		-2.760		0.063^***		2.561		12.946^*		1.181		3.257^*
18岁前主要居住地的景观类型	平原	其他		-3.301		0.037^*		-1.067		0.344		1.359		3.893		0.244		1.277
	山地/丘陵			-2.130		0.119		-4.001		0.018^*		0.472		1.604		2.153		8.613^*
	海滨			-3.459		0.031^*		-0.680		0.507		-0.192		0.825		0.450		1.568
	森林			-22.094		0.000		-3.741		0.024^*		3.297		27.030^***		-0.232		0.793
游览张家界次数	1次	0次		-1.142		0.319^*		2.030		7.611^*		0.338		1.402		-0.278		0.757
游览张家界次数	2次以上			-4.142		0.016^***		-1.532		0.216		1.663		5.275^*		2.002		7.402^*