Residents’ Perception-Based Typology of Forest Landscape: A Case Study of Changsha, Central China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Study Area
2.2. Landscape Image Sketching Technique
2.3. Data Collection and Processing
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Basic Characteristic Analysis of Perceived Forest Landscape
3.2. Typology of Perceived-Based Forest Landscape
3.2.1. The Common Characters in the Typology of Forest Landscape
3.2.2. The Different Characteristics in the Typology of Forest Landscape
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions and Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jones, N.A.; Shaw, S.; Ross, H.; Witt, K.; Pinner, B. The study of human values in understanding and managing social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Onaindia, M.; Madariaga, I.; Verburg, P.H. Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1393–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, H.; Witt, K.; Jones, N.A. Stephen Kellert’s development and contribution of relational values in social-ecological systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 35, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Himes, A.; Muraca, B. Relational values: The key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 35, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cundill, G.; Bezerra, J.C.; De Vos, A.; Ntingana, N. Beyond benefit sharing: Place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muradian, R.; Pascual, U. A typology of elementary forms of human-nature relations: A contribution to the valuation debate. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 35, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jinping, X. Xi Jinping: The Governance of China; Foreign Languages Press: Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, F.; Li, X.; Wei, S. Literature review on public preference for forest structure attributes. J. Zhejiang A F Univ. 2019, 3, 133–140. [Google Scholar]
- Herzog, T.R.; Stark, J.L. Typicality and preference for positively and negatively valued environmental settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoderer, B.M.; Tasser, E.; Erb, K.-H.; Stanghellini, P.S.L.; Tappeiner, U. Identifying and mapping the tourists’ perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, I.Q.; Hughes, K.; Walters, G.; Mkono, M. Up close and personal: Using high engagement techniques to study Chinese visitors’ landscape perceptions. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 33, 100629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, F.; Moyle, D.B.; Bao, J.; Zhong, Y. The role of institutions in the production of space for tourism: National Forest Parks in China. Forest Policy and Economics 2016, 70, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bengston, D.N.; Xu, Z. Changing National Forest Values: A content analysis. In Changing National Forest Values: A content Analysis; USDA Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; Volume 323. [Google Scholar]
- Daniel, T.C.; Meitner, M.M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaplan, S. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environ. Behav. 1987, 19, 3–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carlier, J.; Doyle, M.; Finn, J.; ÓhUallacháin, D.; Moran, J. A landscape classification map of Ireland and its potential use in national land use monitoring. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Warnock, S.; Griffiths, G. Landscape characterisation: The living landscapes approach in the UK. Landsc. Res. 2015, 40, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Brabyn, L. The extrapolation of social landscape values to a national level in New Zealand using landscape character classification. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 35, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrväinen, L.; Silvennoinen, H.; Kolehmainen, O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 1, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swaffield, S.R.; Foster, R. Community perceptions of landscape values in the South Island high country: A literature review of current knowledge and evaluation of survey methods. Sci. Conserv. 2000, 159, 1–54. [Google Scholar]
- Simensen, T.; Halvorsen, R.; Erikstad, L. Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, M.; Howard, P.; Olwig, K.R.; Primdahl, J.R.; Sarlöv Herlin, I. Multiple interfaces of the European landscape convention. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Nor. J. Geogr. 2007, 61, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fulton, D.C.; Manfredo, M.J.; Lipscomb, J. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 1996, 1, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T.C. The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Econ. 1984, 60, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Ding, P.; Packer, J. Tourism research in China: Understanding the unique cultural contexts and complexities. Curr. Issues Tour. 2008, 11, 473–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fyhri, A.; Jacobsen, J.K.S.; Tømmervik, H. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishii, H.T.; Manabe, T.; Ito, K.; Fujita, N.; Imanishi, A.; Hashimoto, D.; Iwasaki, A. Integrating ecological and cultural values toward conservation and utilization of shrine/temple forests as urban green space in Japanese cities. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 6, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolston, H., III; Coufal, J. A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. J. For. 1991, 89, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.R. Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. J. Soc. Issues 1993, 49, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.R.; Heerwagen, J.; Mador, M. Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.R. Birthright: People and Nature in The Modern World; Yale University Press: Newhaven, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Manning, R.; Valliere, W.; Minteer, B. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12, 421–436. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, J.R.; Hobbs, R.J. Conservation where people live and work. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode, Å.; Fry, G.; Tveit, M.S.; Messager, P.; Miller, D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luo, F.; Becken, S.; Zhong, Y. Changing travel patterns in China and ‘carbon footprint’ implications for domestic tourist destinations. Tour. Manag. 2018, 65, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gundersen, V.; Skår, M.; O’Brien, L.; Wold, L.C.; Follo, G. Children and nearby nature: A nationwide parental survey from Norway. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 17, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppen, G.; Tveit, M.S.; Sang, Å.O.; Dramstad, W. The challenge of enhancing accessibility to recreational landscapes. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Nor. J. Geogr. 2014, 68, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roemmich, J.N.; Epstein, L.H.; Raja, S.; Yin, L.; Robinson, J.; Winiewicz, D. Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Prev. Med. 2006, 43, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikorska, D.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Krauze, K.; Sikorski, P. The role of informal green spaces in reducing inequalities in urban green space availability to children and seniors. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 108, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christie, M.; Hanley, N.; Hynes, S. Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J. For. Econ. 2007, 13, 75–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, L.; Nordlund, A.M.; Olsson, O.; Westin, K. Recreation in different forest settings: A scene preference study. Forests 2012, 3, 923–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nohl, W. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception–preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Herzele, A.; Wiedemann, T. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, J.; Watt, A.; Nowicki, P.; Alard, D.; Clitherow, J.; Henle, K.; Johnson, R.; Laczko, E.; McCracken, D.; Matouch, S. Towards sustainable land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 1641–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karjalainen, E.; Tyrväinen, L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: A Finnish perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, C.; Wang, C.; Kong, H. A Study on the Type Classification and Impact Mechanism of Forest Tourism Landscape in Zhangjiajie—Based on the Perspective of Landscape Image Sketch. For. Resour. Manag. 2021, 3, 120–128. [Google Scholar]
- Buttimer, A.; Seamon, D. The human experience of space and place. London: Croom Helm. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. NS 1980, 18, 460–480. [Google Scholar]
- Dewey, J. Experience and education. Educ. Forum 1986, 50, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerman, S. Constructivism, mathematics and mathematics education. Educ. Stud. Math. 1989, 20, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegetschweiler, K.T.; Plum, C.; Fischer, C.; Brändli, U.-B.; Ginzler, C.; Hunziker, M. Towards a comprehensive social and natural scientific forest-recreation monitoring instrument—A prototypical approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, A.B.; Heyman, E.; Richnau, G. Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: Relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 113, 456–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hull IV, R.B.; Stewart, W.P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1992, 12, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunziker, M.; Felber, P.; Gehring, K.; Buchecker, M.; Bauer, N.; Kienast, F. Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tyrväinen, L.; Gustavsson, R.; Konijnendijk, C.; Ode, Å. Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 8, 811–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beverly, J.L.; Uto, K.; Wilkes, J.; Bothwell, P. Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: An internet-based participatory mapping approach. Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Wal, R.; Miller, D.; Irvine, J.; Fiorini, S.; Amar, A.; Yearley, S.; Gill, R.; Dandy, N. The influence of information provision on people’s landscape preferences: A case study on understorey vegetation of deer-browsed woodlands. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 124, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tveit, M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2882–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Panagopoulos, T. Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2485–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ueda, H. A Study on Construction of Landscape Image Sketching Technique. J. City Plan. Inst. Jpn. 2009, 44, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ueda, H.; Nakajima, T.; Takayama, N.; Petrova, E.; Matsushima, H.; Furuya, K.; Aoki, Y. Landscape image sketches of forests in Japan and Russia. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 19, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.L.; Zhu, S.; Zhou, W. Quantitative study on forest culture of forest parks in Hunan. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. 2001, 31, 102–105. [Google Scholar]
- Moyle, B.D.; McLennan, C.-l.J.; Ruhanen, L.; Weiler, B. Tracking the concept of sustainability in Australian tourism policy and planning documents. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 1037–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sevenant, M.; Antrop, M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2889–2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2910–2920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Born, R.J.; Lenders, R.H.; De Groot, W.T.; Huijsman, E. The new biophilia: An exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environ. Conserv. 2001, 28, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gehring, K. Landscape Needs and Notions: Preferences, Expectations, Leisure Motivation, and the Concept of Landscape from a Cross-Cultural Perspective; Swiss Federal Research Institute, WSL: Zurich, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.; Kant, S. Personal and group forest values and perceptions of groups’ forest values in northwestern Ontario. For. Chron. 2006, 82, 512–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deng, J.; Andrada, R., II; Pierskalla, C. Visitors’ and residents’ perceptions of urban forests for leisure in Washington DC. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 28, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.E.; Elands, B.H.; Langers, F. No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howley, P.; Donoghue, C.O.; Hynes, S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Percentage |
---|---|
Linguistic knowledge | |
Herbaceous plants | 66.19% |
Terrain | 38.57% |
Creatures | 34.76% |
Water | 45.71% |
Brightness | 0.95% |
Sky | 59.05% |
Trails | 20.00% |
Artificial objects | 30.00% |
People | 7.14% |
Mixed forest | 19.52% |
Needleleaf forest | 13.33% |
Broadleaf forest | 61.90% |
Fallen trees | 0.95% |
Unknown | 6.67% |
Spatial view | |
Close up view | 4.29% |
Sideways view | 81.43% |
Bird’s-eye view | 16.19% |
Distant view | 39.05% |
Self-orientation | |
Single object | 1.43% |
Objective scene | 80.48% |
Surrounding place | 15.71% |
Scenic place | 1.90% |
Social meaning | |
Forest structure | 19.52% |
Ecological system | 20.00% |
Scenic view | 38.10% |
Recreational space | 16.19% |
Symbolic place | 1.43% |
Natural resources | 3.81% |
Forestry operation | 0.00% |
Lifeworld | 2.86% |
Mean Rank | Sig. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cluster 1 (a Recreational Space) | Cluster 2 (an Idealized Homeland) | Cluster 3 (an Untouched Forest) | Cluster 4 (a Utopian Forest) | ||
Herbaceous plants | 99.00 | 83.93 | 130.76 | 133.50 | 0.000 *** |
Sky | 106.50 | 106.27 | 97.28 | 111.00 | 0.673 |
Creatures | 99.00 | 92.97 | 69.00 | 174.00 | 0.000 *** |
Terrain | 68.00 | 156.30 | 65.00 | 65.00 | 0.000 *** |
Water | 84.50 | 151.09 | 57.50 | 70.00 | 0.000 *** |
Brightness | 107.50 | 105.64 | 104.50 | 104.50 | 0.542 |
Trails | 174.50 | 98.20 | 84.50 | 84.50 | 0.000 *** |
Artificial objects | 131.00 | 124.22 | 74.00 | 74.00 | 0.000 *** |
People | 128.00 | 103.71 | 98.00 | 98.00 | 0.000 *** |
Needleleaf forest | 100.50 | 110.90 | 106.87 | 96.50 | 0.139 |
Broadleaf forest | 112.50 | 113.54 | 94.28 | 93.00 | 0.060 |
Mixed forest | 94.00 | 91.85 | 120.85 | 130.00 | 0.000 *** |
Unknown | 113.50 | 106.49 | 101.06 | 101.00 | 0.122 |
Fallen trees | 104.50 | 104.50 | 107.06 | 107.00 | 0.380 |
Close up view | 107.00 | 103.28 | 103.56 | 111.00 | 0.230 |
Sideways view | 92.00 | 110.16 | 109.63 | 102.50 | 0.130 |
Bird’s-eye view | 127.50 | 102.20 | 98.74 | 101.00 | 0.003 ** |
Distant view | 67.50 | 155.80 | 64.50 | 67.00 | 0.000 *** |
Single object | 107.00 | 104.00 | 109.12 | 104.00 | 0.117 |
Objective scene | 21.00 | 122.58 | 118.32 | 126.00 | 0.000 *** |
Surrounding place | 188.00 | 89.00 | 89.00 | 89.00 | 0.000 *** |
Scenic place | 106.50 | 106.92 | 103.50 | 103.50 | 0.445 |
Forest structure | 85.00 | 85.00 | 190.00 | 85.00 | 0.000 *** |
Ecological system | 84.50 | 84.50 | 84.50 | 189.50 | 0.000 *** |
Scenic view | 65.50 | 156.80 | 65.50 | 65.50 | 0.000 *** |
Recreational space | 190.50 | 88.50 | 88.50 | 88.50 | 0.000 *** |
Symbolic place | 110.00 | 105.14 | 104.00 | 104.00 | 0.121 |
Natural resources | 101.50 | 107.21 | 109.18 | 101.50 | 0.167 |
Forestry operation | 105.50 | 105.50 | 105.50 | 105.50 | 1.000 |
Life world | 111.50 | 105.92 | 102.50 | 102.50 | 0.087 |
Clusters 1 and 2 (a Recreational Space and an Idealized Homeland) | Clusters 1 and 3 (a Recreational Space and an Untouched Forest) | Clusters 1 and 4 (a Recreational Space and a Utopian Forest) | Clusters 2 and 3 (an Idealized Homeland and an Untouched Forest) | Clusters 2 and 4 (an Idealized Homeland and a Utopian Forest) | Clusters 3 and 4 (an Untouched Forest and a Utopian Forest) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Std.Test Statistic | Adj.Sig. | Std.Test Statistic | Adj.Sig. | Std.Test Statistic | Adj.Sig. | Std.Test Statistic | Adj.Sig. | Std.Test Statistic | Adj.Sig. | Std.Test Statistic | Adj.Sig. | |
Herbaceous plants | 1.524 | 0.766 | −2.771 | 0.033 * | −3.028 | 0.015 * | −5.008 | 0.000 *** | −5.346 | 0.000 *** | −0.251 | 1.000 |
Sky | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Creatures | 0.606 | 1.000 | 2.601 | 0.056 | −6.538 | 0.000 *** | 2.547 | 0.065 | −8.682 | 0.000 *** | −9.542 | 0.000 *** |
Terrain | −8.679 | 0.000 *** | 0.254 | 1.000 | 0.256 | 1.000 | 9.491 | 0.000 *** | 9.570 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Water | −6.395 | 0.000 *** | 2.238 | 0.151 | 1.208 | 1.000 | 9.506 | 0.000 *** | 8.305 | 0.000 *** | −1.086 | 1.000 |
Brightness | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Trails | 9.126 | 0.000 *** | 9.289 | 0.000 *** | 9.340 | 0.000 *** | 1.732 | 0.499 | 1.747 | 0.484 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Artificial objects | 0.708 | 1.000 | 5.135 | 0.000 *** | 5.164 | 0.000 *** | 5.545 | 0.000 *** | 5.591 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 |
People | 4.513 | 0.000 *** | 4.809 | 0.000 *** | 4.836 | 0.000 *** | 1.121 | 1.000 | 1.130 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Needleleaf forest | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Broadleaf forest | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Mixed forest | 0.260 | 1.000 | −2.797 | 0.031 * | −3.770 | 0.001 ** | −3.703 | 0.001 ** | −4.911 | 0.000 *** | −0.999 | 1.000 |
Unknown | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Fallen trees | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Close up view | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Sideways view | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Bird’s-eye view | 3.286 | 0.006 ** | 3.223 | 0.008 ** | 2.986 | 0.017 * | 0.474 | 1.000 | 0.166 | 1.000 | −0.265 | 1.000 |
Distant view | −8.659 | 0.000 *** | 0.254 | 1.000 | 0.043 | 1.000 | 9.470 | 0.000 *** | 9.287 | 0.000 *** | −0.222 | 1.000 |
Single object | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Objective scene | −12.260 | 0.000 *** | −10.136 | 0.000 *** | −10.997 | 0.000 *** | 0.544 | 1.000 | −0.441 | 1.000 | −0.839 | 1.000 |
Surrounding place | 13.014 | 0.000 *** | 11.231 | 0.000 *** | 11.293 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Scenic place | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Forest structure | 0.000 | 1.000 | −10.936 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | −13.403 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | 11.464 | 0.000 *** |
Ecological system | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | −10.897 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | −13.393 | 0.000 *** | −11.360 | 0.000 *** |
Scenic view | −8.995 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 9.513 | 0.000 *** | 9.593 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Recreational space | 13.247 | 0.000 *** | 11.432 | 0.000 *** | 11.495 | 0.000 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Symbolic place | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Natural resources | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Forestry operation | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Life world | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Cluster 1 (a Recreational Space) | Cluster 2 (an Idealized Homeland) | Cluster 3 (an Untouched Forest) | Cluster 4 (a Utopian Forest) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Linguistic knowledge | Recreational facilities (‘trails,’ ‘artificial object’) Tourists (‘people’) | Hills (‘terrain’) Rivers or lakes (‘water’) A house with a jerkin-head roof or chimney (‘artificial object’) | Flowers and plants on the forest ground (‘herbaceous plants’) Various tree species (‘mixed forest’) | Fauna and flora (‘creatures’) Flowers and plants on the forest ground (‘herbaceous plants’) Various tree species (‘mixed forest’) |
Spatial view | The broadness of the forest was perceived from a medium distance (‘bird’s-eye view’). | Two sceneries combinations were perceived, including a ‘sideways view’ as foreground and a ‘distant view’ as background. | ||
Self-orientation | The forest was perceived as a subjective place (‘surrounding place’). | The forest was perceived as an objective scene (‘objective scene’). | ||
Social meaning | The forest was perceived as a recreational space (‘recreational space’). | The forest was perceived as an idealized homeland with an aesthetic appreciation for idyll scenery (‘scenic view’). | The forest was perceived as an untouched forest filled with lush vegetation (‘forest structure’). | The forest was perceived as an idealized (utopian) wildlife habitat (‘ecological system’). |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, C.; Luo, F. Residents’ Perception-Based Typology of Forest Landscape: A Case Study of Changsha, Central China. Forests 2022, 13, 1642. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101642
Wang C, Luo F. Residents’ Perception-Based Typology of Forest Landscape: A Case Study of Changsha, Central China. Forests. 2022; 13(10):1642. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101642
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Chen, and Fen Luo. 2022. "Residents’ Perception-Based Typology of Forest Landscape: A Case Study of Changsha, Central China" Forests 13, no. 10: 1642. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101642
APA StyleWang, C., & Luo, F. (2022). Residents’ Perception-Based Typology of Forest Landscape: A Case Study of Changsha, Central China. Forests, 13(10), 1642. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101642