林业科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (3): 9-17.doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20210302
朱玉洁,翁羽西,傅伟聪,董建文,王敏华*
收稿日期:
2020-09-04
出版日期:
2021-03-25
发布日期:
2021-04-07
通讯作者:
王敏华
基金资助:
Yujie Zhu,Yuxi Weng,Weicong Fu,Jianwen Dong,Minhua Wang*
Received:
2020-09-04
Online:
2021-03-25
Published:
2021-04-07
Contact:
Minhua Wang
摘要:
目的: 探究森林公园环境能否缓解压力、不同森林公园环境的健康效益差异以及声景感知对森林公园健康效益的影响,并深入研究哪些声景是恢复性(正效益)声景的重要要素,为森林公园恢复性声景观设计提供参考。方法: 以福州国家森林公园为研究地点,以20个森林公园环境视听视频(10个有声视频和10个无声视频)为研究材料,邀请35名大学生进行视听试验,借助Ergo LAB数据平台采集受试者的生理指标,采用声景感知评价问卷评估样地声景感知程度;运用中位数检验分析不同森林公园环境的健康效益差异,Wilcoxon检验分析森林公园环境对压力恢复的效果和声景对健康效益的影响,并通过最优尺度回归确定恢复性声景的重要要素。结果: 不同森林公园环境均可有效降低皮肤电导水平反应率、心率和心率变异性;不同森林公园环境的健康效益存在差异,绿色空间样地S7、S9和蓝色空间样地S8、S10的健康效益较好;不同森林公园环境皮肤电导水平反映率存在显著差异,而心率和心率变异性未见统计学差异;声景加入会改变森林公园环境的健康效益,除谈话声和儿童嬉戏声较突出的样地S5外,其他视听组合刺激均比单一视觉刺激更具健康效益;鸟鸣声、流水声、蝉鸣声和脚步声对皮肤电导水平反映率的影响较大,鸟鸣声、流水声、蝉鸣声和风声对心率变异性的影响较大;鸟鸣声、流水声、蝉鸣声和风声等自然声对正效益(皮肤电导水平反映率下降,心率下降,心率变异性下降)的贡献较大,脚步声等人工声则相反。结论: 森林公园环境可在一定程度上缓解压力,但不同森林公园环境的健康效益存在差异,蓝色和绿色空间对提升健康效益具有重要作用。森林公园声景是恢复性环境设计的关键,鸟鸣声和流水声等自然声是恢复性(正效益)声景的重要要素。未来设计恢复性环境应从多维度出发,充分发掘和利用多种恢复性环境要素。
中图分类号:
朱玉洁,翁羽西,傅伟聪,董建文,王敏华. 声景感知对森林公园健康效益的影响——以福州国家森林公园为例[J]. 林业科学, 2021, 57(3): 9-17.
Yujie Zhu,Yuxi Weng,Weicong Fu,Jianwen Dong,Minhua Wang. Effects of Soundscape Perception on Health Benefits of Forest Parks: A Case Study of Fuzhou National Forest Park[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2021, 57(3): 9-17.
表1
样地环境特征"
样地编号 Sample plot No. | 位置 Location | 环境特征 Environment characteristic | 等效连续A声级 LeqA dB |
S1 | 荫生植物园 Shade-tolerate type botanical garden | 林下景观,植被丰富 Forest landscape, rich vegetation | 36 |
S2 | 竹类观赏园 Bamboo garden | 竹林,游憩小径 Bamboo forest, recreation path | 42 |
S3 | 竹类观赏园 Bamboo garden | 硬质铺装较多,人工化程度高 Hard pavement more, high degree of artificialization | 41 |
S4 | 千年古榕 Banyan for thousands of years | 有开阔的草坪和千年古榕树 There are open lawns and thousands of years old banyan trees | 34 |
S5 | 千年古榕 Banyan for thousands of years | 水畔游憩地,有开阔的平静水面和千年古榕树 Riverside recreation, open calm water and thousands of years old banyan trees | 51 |
S6 | 桃花园Peach garden | 地形有略微的起伏,旁有正心寺 Terrain has a slight undulation, there is the heart temple | 42 |
S7 | 紫薇园Myrtle park | 以不同品种的紫薇为主,部分有开花 Crape myrtle of different breed is given priority to, part has blossom | 36 |
S8 | 漫水桥Submersible bridge | 跌水景观,视野开阔 Drop water landscape, pantoscopic | 53 |
S9 | 樱花园Cherry garden | 樱花、木质小径、林中景观 Cherry blossom, wooden path, forest landscape | 45 |
S10 | 听泉亭 Listen to the spring pavilion | 较为自然的溪流景观 Natural stream landscape | 56 |
表2
各样地的声景感知程度"
声景Soundscape | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 |
流水声Running water sound | 1.200 | 1.067 | 1.167 | 1.167 | 5.700 | 1.100 | 3.000 | 6.500 | 1.200 | 6.800 |
鸟鸣声Chirm | 5.033 | 4.633 | 4.633 | 5.967 | 5.000 | 5.533 | 6.067 | 3.067 | 4.533 | 2.933 |
虫鸣声Chirping | 5.400 | 5.800 | 5.000 | 4.033 | 3.600 | 5.000 | 4.967 | 2.767 | 5.833 | 4.033 |
蝉鸣声Cicadas chirp | 4.900 | 6.167 | 5.500 | 3.533 | 2.933 | 4.533 | 4.733 | 2.233 | 4.700 | 3.767 |
风吹树叶声Wind rustling in the leaves | 2.500 | 2.900 | 2.933 | 2.033 | 2.300 | 2.267 | 3.500 | 2.033 | 2.767 | 2.267 |
风声Wind sound | 2.100 | 2.667 | 2.500 | 1.900 | 2.033 | 2.033 | 3.267 | 1.700 | 2.233 | 1.933 |
脚步声Footsteps | 1.567 | 1.067 | 1.367 | 1.400 | 1.933 | 1.100 | 1.500 | 1.067 | 1.167 | 1.033 |
谈话声Conversation | 1.033 | 1.133 | 1.300 | 1.467 | 3.467 | 1.200 | 1.033 | 1.133 | 1.100 | 1.033 |
儿童嬉戏声Children’s frolicking | 1.033 | 1.133 | 1.033 | 1.767 | 3.233 | 1.067 | 1.033 | 1.033 | 1.100 | 1.033 |
交通声Traffic noise | 1.233 | 1.133 | 1.533 | 1.433 | 1.067 | 1.300 | 1.033 | 1.133 | 1.300 | 1.033 |
钟声Temple bells | 1.033 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.200 | 1.033 | 4.867 | 1.000 | 1.033 | 1.033 | 1.000 |
表3
压力阶段与恢复阶段生理指标的差异①"
样地 Sample plot | 生理指标 Physiological index | 压力阶段Pressure stage | 恢复阶段Recovery stage | 均值差 Mean difference | Z | |||
均值Mean | 标准差SD | 均值Mean | 标准差SD | |||||
S1 | SCLr | 0.091 | 0.315 | 0.072 | 0.324 | -0.019 | -0.562 | |
HR | 84.767 | 5.788 | 84.200 | 6.354 | -0.567 | -0.629 | ||
LF/HF | 0.523 | 0.225 | 0.465 | 0.229 | -0.057 | -2.407* | ||
S2 | SCLr | 0.214 | 0.338 | 0.190 | 0.333 | -0.024 | -2.016* | |
HR | 86.100 | 5.991 | 85.467 | 5.367 | -0.633 | -0.638 | ||
LF/HF | 0.470 | 0.252 | 0.407 | 0.188 | -0.063 | -1.594 | ||
S3 | SCLr | 0.092 | 0.310 | 0.084 | 0.314 | -0.008 | -0.453 | |
HR | 86.333 | 4.978 | 86.000 | 6.253 | -0.333 | -0.038 | ||
LF/HF | 0.581 | 0.325 | 0.558 | 0.257 | -0.023 | -0.854 | ||
S4 | SCLr | 0.106 | 0.384 | 0.066 | 0.364 | -0.040 | -2.715** | |
HR | 86.033 | 6.311 | 85.133 | 6.394 | -0.900 | -1.107 | ||
LF/HF | 0.603 | 0.395 | 0.530 | 0.348 | -0.073 | -2.458* | ||
S5 | SCLr | 0.084 | 0.346 | 0.063 | 0.364 | -0.021 | -0.984 | |
HR | 85.033 | 6.212 | 84.300 | 4.735 | -0.733 | -0.820 | ||
LF/HF | 0.498 | 0.262 | 0.439 | 0.204 | -0.059 | -1.491 | ||
S6 | SCLr | 0.133 | 0.314 | 0.078 | 0.306 | -0.055 | -1.224 | |
HR | 86.233 | 5.097 | 85.267 | 5.681 | -0.967 | -1.110 | ||
LF/HF | 0.636 | 0.374 | 0.544 | 0.290 | -0.092 | -2.047* | ||
S7 | SCLr | 0.163 | 0.330 | 0.054 | 0.363 | -0.109 | -2.808** | |
HR | 87.133 | 5.204 | 84.233 | 5.056 | -2.900 | -2.340* | ||
LF/HF | 0.513 | 0.227 | 0.372 | 0.178 | -0.141 | -4.268*** | ||
S8 | SCLr | 0.195 | 0.322 | 0.123 | 0.345 | -0.072 | -1.707 | |
HR | 85.633 | 4.414 | 84.233 | 5.335 | -1.400 | -1.686 | ||
LF/HF | 0.595 | 0.321 | 0.477 | 0.252 | -0.118 | -2.480* | ||
S9 | SCLr | 0.155 | 0.322 | 0.089 | 0.391 | -0.066 | -1.502 | |
HR | 85.767 | 5.494 | 84.733 | 6.438 | -1.033 | -1.292 | ||
LF/HF | 0.572 | 0.338 | 0.443 | 0.237 | -0.128 | -2.057* | ||
S10 | SCLr | 0.235 | 0.392 | 0.111 | 0.395 | -0.124 | -2.822** | |
HR | 85.933 | 5.285 | 84.300 | 4.872 | -1.633 | -2.194* | ||
LF/HF | 0.524 | 0.251 | 0.422 | 0.229 | -0.103 | -2.973** |
表4
无声视频与有声视频的健康效益差异"
样地 Sample plot | 生理指标 Physiological index | 有声视频Audio video | 无声视频Silenv video | 均值差 Mean difference | Z | |||
均值Mean | 标准差SD | 均值Mean | 标准差SD | |||||
S1 | SCLr | -0.019 | 0.089 | -0.010 | 0.110 | -0.009 | -0.401 | |
HR | -0.567 | 4.681 | -0.400 | 4.446 | -0.167 | -0.342 | ||
LF/HF | -0.057 | 0.166 | -0.022 | 0.091 | -0.035 | -1.018 | ||
S2 | SCLr | -0.024 | 0.070 | -0.005 | 0.088 | -0.019 | -0.360 | |
HR | -0.633 | 6.133 | -0.133 | 4.953 | -0.500 | -0.082 | ||
LF/HF | -0.063 | 0.219 | -0.031 | 0.314 | -0.032 | -0.998 | ||
S3 | SCLr | -0.008 | 0.065 | -0.001 | 0.224 | -0.007 | -0.381 | |
HR | -0.333 | 6.194 | -0.133 | 5.104 | -0.200 | -0.455 | ||
LF/HF | -0.024 | 0.239 | -0.011 | 0.251 | -0.013 | -0.072 | ||
S4 | SCLr | -0.040 | 0.081 | -0.035 | 0.064 | -0.005 | -0.051 | |
HR | -0.900 | 3.546 | -0.500 | 3.093 | -0.400 | -0.310 | ||
LF/HF | -0.073 | 0.204 | -0.049 | 0.408 | -0.024 | -0.154 | ||
S5 | SCLr | -0.021 | 0.082 | -0.034 | 0.132 | 0.013 | -0.956 | |
HR | -0.733 | 5.179 | -1.000 | 3.572 | 0.267 | -0.057 | ||
LF/HF | -0.059 | 0.311 | -0.085 | 0.124 | 0.026 | -0.195 | ||
S6 | SCLr | -0.055 | 0.296 | -0.053 | 0.212 | -0.002 | -0.720 | |
HR | -0.967 | 4.476 | -0.133 | 5.686 | -0.833 | -0.707 | ||
LF/HF | -0.092 | 0.252 | -0.054 | 0.239 | -0.038 | -0.710 | ||
S7 | SCLr | -0.109 | 0.187 | -0.054 | 0.186 | -0.055 | -1.162 | |
HR | -2.900 | 6.483 | -0.300 | 6.670 | -2.600 | -2.068* | ||
LF/HF | -0.141 | 0.132 | -0.027 | 0.168 | -0.114 | -2.664** | ||
S8 | SCLr | -0.072 | 0.383 | -0.008 | 0.341 | -0.064 | -2.643** | |
HR | -1.400 | 4.854 | -0.333 | 6.583 | -1.067 | -0.779 | ||
LF/HF | -0.118 | 0.253 | -0.069 | 0.313 | -0.049 | -1.059 | ||
S9 | SCLr | -0.066 | 0.290 | -0.036 | 0.204 | -0.030 | -0.627 | |
HR | -1.033 | 5.933 | -0.467 | 5.008 | -0.567 | -0.331 | ||
LF/HF | -0.128 | 0.352 | -0.071 | 0.227 | -0.057 | -1.018 | ||
S10 | SCLr | -0.124 | 0.247 | -0.068 | 0.249 | -0.056 | -2.993** | |
HR | -1.633 | 3.605 | -0.467 | 5.476 | -1.167 | -1.141 | ||
LF/HF | -0.103 | 0.160 | -0.054 | 0.111 | -0.048 | -0.833 |
表5
声景感知与健康效益最优尺度回归分析"
因变量 Dependent variable | 自变量(感知程度) Independent variable(Perception degree) | 自变量标准化系数 Standardized coefficient of independent variable | df | F | 显著性 Sig. | 重要性 Significance | |
β | 标准误差 Standard error | ||||||
ΔSCLr | 流水声Running water sound | -0.489 | 0.055 | 3 | 77.806 | 0.000 | 0.301 |
鸟鸣声Chirm | -0.499 | 0.054 | 3 | 86.780 | 0.000 | 0.482 | |
虫鸣声Chirping | -0.097 | 0.108 | 3 | 0.818 | 0.485 | 0.048 | |
蝉鸣声Cicadas chirp | -0.216 | 0.102 | 3 | 4.490 | 0.004 | 0.095 | |
风吹树叶声Wind rustling in the leaves | 0.075 | 0.129 | 2 | 0.334 | 0.716 | 0.003 | |
风声Wind sound | 0.035 | 0.120 | 1 | 0.084 | 0.772 | 0.002 | |
脚步声Footsteps | 0.081 | 0.053 | 4 | 2.383 | 0.052 | 0.019 | |
谈话声Conversation | 0.042 | 0.110 | 2 | 0.144 | 0.866 | 0.000 | |
儿童嬉戏声Children’s frolicking | 0.107 | 0.090 | 2 | 1.403 | 0.248 | 0.026 | |
交通声Traffic noise | -0.044 | 0.085 | 1 | 0.270 | 0.603 | 0.003 | |
钟声Temple bells | -0.079 | 0.093 | 3 | 0.729 | 0.535 | 0.023 | |
ΔLF/HF | 流水声Running water sound | -0.289 | 0.108 | 2 | 7.215 | 0.001 | 0.154 |
鸟鸣声Chirm | -0.355 | 0.145 | 3 | 5.996 | 0.001 | 0.362 | |
虫鸣声Chirping | 0.094 | 0.101 | 2 | 0.868 | 0.421 | 0.012 | |
蝉鸣声Cicadas chirp | -0.342 | 0.163 | 4 | 4.405 | 0.002 | 0.306 | |
风吹树叶声Wind rustling in the leaves | 0.157 | 0.111 | 3 | 2.010 | 0.113 | 0.002 | |
风声Wind sound | -0.187 | 0.119 | 4 | 2.460 | 0.046 | 0.052 | |
脚步声Footsteps | 0.052 | 0.099 | 2 | 0.272 | 0.762 | 0.002 | |
谈话声Conversation | 0.131 | 0.111 | 4 | 1.407 | 0.232 | 0.018 | |
儿童嬉戏声Children’s frolicking | -0.180 | 0.139 | 2 | 1.691 | 0.186 | 0.077 | |
交通声Traffic noise | -0.051 | 0.111 | 1 | 0.211 | 0.646 | 0.014 | |
钟声Temple bells | 0.036 | 0.106 | 2 | 0.119 | 0.888 | 0.001 |
李华, 王雨晴, 陈飞平. 梅岭国家森林公园声景观的游客调查评价. 林业科学, 2018, 54 (6): 9- 15. | |
Li H , Wang Y Q , Chen F P . Evaluation of tourist survey of soundscape in Meiling national forest park. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2018, 54 (6): 9- 15. | |
王雁, 陈鑫峰. 心理物理学方法在国外森林景观评价中的应用. 林业科学, 1999, 35 (5): 110- 117.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.1999.05.020 |
|
Wang Y , Chen X F . Application of psychophysical method in evaluation of foreign forest landscapes. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 1999, 35 (5): 110- 117.
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-7488.1999.05.020 |
|
钟乐, 邱文, 钟鹏, 等. 防御传染病的风景园林应对策略设想: 基于打破传染链的视角. 中国园林, 2020, 36 (7): 37- 42. | |
Zhong L , Qiu W , Zhong P , et al. Landscape architecture strategic plan for infectious diseases defense: based on transmission chain prevention. Chinese Garden, 2020, 36 (7): 37- 42. | |
Aletta F , Oberman T , Kang J . Associations between positive health-related effects and soundscapes perceptual constructs: a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, 15 (11): 2392.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph15112392 |
|
Alvarsson J J , Wiens S , Nilsson M E . Stress recovery during exposure to nature sound and environmental noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2010, 7 (3): 1036- 1046.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph7031036 |
|
Anna C , Tony C . A methodological approach to understanding the wellbeing and restorative benefits associated with greenspace. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2016, 19 (1): 103- 109. | |
Annerstedt M , J nsson P , Wallergård M , et al. Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest——results from a pilot study. Physiology & Behavior, 2013, 118 (11): 240- 250. | |
Deng L , Luo H , Ma J , et al. Effects of integration between visual stimuli and auditory stimuli on restorative potential and aesthetic preference in urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2020, 53, 126702. | |
Hedblom M , Gunnarsson B , Iravani B , et al. Reduction of physiological stress by urban green space in a multisensory virtual experiment. Scientific Reports, 2019, 9 (1): 10113.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46099-7 |
|
Jeon J Y , Lee P J , You J , et al. Acoustical characteristics of water sounds for soundscape enhancement in urban open spaces. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2012, 131 (3): 2101- 2109.
doi: 10.1121/1.3681938 |
|
Jo H , Song C , Ikei H , et al. Physiological and psychological effects of forest and urban sounds using high-resolution sound sources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16 (15): 2649.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16152649 |
|
Karjalainen E , Sarjala T , Raitio H . Promoting human health through forests: overview and major challenges. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 2010, 15 (1): 1- 8.
doi: 10.1007/s12199-008-0069-2 |
|
Lin W , Chen Q , Zhang X , et al. Effects of different bamboo forest spaces on psychophysiological stress and spatial scale evaluation. Forests, 2020, 11 (6): 616.
doi: 10.3390/f11060616 |
|
Li Z Z , Kang J . Sensitivity analysis of changes in human physiological indicators observed in soundscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2019, 190, 103593.
doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103593 |
|
Medvedev O , Shepherd D , Hautus M J . The restorative potential of soundscapes: a physiological investigation. Applied Acoustics, 2015, 96, 20- 26.
doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.03.004 |
|
Ratcliffe E , Gatersleben B , Sowden P T . Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2013, 36 (4): 221- 228. | |
Ratcliffe E , Gatersleben B , Sowden P T . Associations with bird sounds: how do they relate to perceived restorative potential?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2016, 47, 136- 144.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.009 |
|
Song C , Ikei H , Miyazaki Y . Physiological effects of forest-related visual, olfactory, and combined stimuli on humans: an additive combined effect. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2019, 44, 126437. | |
Stamps A E . Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 1999, 14 (2): 155- 175.
doi: 10.1177/08854129922092630 |
|
Suko Y , Saito K , Takayama N , et al. Effect of faint road traffic noise mixed in birdsong on the perceived restorativeness and listeners' physiological response: an exploratory study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16 (24): 4985.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16244985 |
|
Tedja Y W , Tsaih L . Water soundscape and listening impression. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2015, 138 (3): 1750. | |
Tsunetsugu Y , Lee J , Park B J , et al. Physiological and psychological effects of viewing urban forest landscapes assessed by multiple measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2013, 113, 90- 93.
doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.014 |
|
Ulrich R S , Simons R F , Losito B D , et al. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1991, 11 (3): 201- 230.
doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7 |
|
Vescio B , Salsone M , Gambardella A . Comparison between electrocardiographic and earlobe pulse photoplethysmographic detection for evaluating heart rate variability in healthy subjects in short- and long-term recordings. Sensors (Basel), 2018, 18 (3): 844.
doi: 10.3390/s18030844 |
|
Wang X B , Shi Y X , Zhang B , et al. The influence of forest resting environments on stress using virtual reality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16 (18): 3263.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16183263 |
|
Watts G R , Pheasant R J , Horoshenkov K V , et al. Measurement and subjective assessment of water generated sounds. Acta Acustica United with Acustica, 2009, 95 (6): 1032- 1039.
doi: 10.3813/AAA.918235 |
|
White M , Smith A , Humphryes K , et al. Blue space: the importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2010, 30 (4): 482- 493.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004 |
|
White M P , Pahl S , Ashbullby K , et al. Feelings of restoration from recent nature visits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2013, 35, 40- 51.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.04.002 |
|
Yu C P , Lin C M , Tsai M J , et al. Effects of short forest bathing program on autonomic nervous system activity and mood states in middle-aged and elderly individuals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017, 14 (8): 897.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080897 |
|
Yu C P , Lee H Y , Luo X Y . The effect of virtual reality forest and urban environments on physiological and psychological responses. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2018, 35 (1): 106- 114. |
[1] | 董楠,张红,张春晖. 陕西省国家森林公园游客满意度——以太白山、太平和王顺山森林公园为例[J]. 林业科学, 2020, 56(3): 156-163. |
[2] | 周彬, 雷凤瑶, 虞虎, 张亦弛. 四明山国家森林公园游客游憩动机[J]. 林业科学, 2019, 55(5): 163-168. |
[3] | 李华, 王雨晴, 陈飞平. 梅岭国家森林公园声景观的游客调查评价[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(6): 9-15. |
[4] | 傅伟聪, 朱志鹏, 陈梓茹, 黄淑萍, 王敏华, 丁国昌, 董建文. 千岛湖国家森林公园大气能见度变化特征及其影响因素[J]. 林业科学, 2018, 54(1): 22-31. |
[5] | 秦仲, 李湛东, 成仿云, 沙海峰. 北京园林绿地5种植物群落夏季降温增湿作用[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(1): 37-47. |
[6] | 赵敏燕, 陈鑫峰. 中国森林公园的发展与管理[J]. 林业科学, 2016, 52(1): 118-127. |
[7] | 杨建明, 余雅玲, 游丽兰. 福州国家森林公园的游客市场细分--基于游憩动机的因子-聚类分析[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(9): 106-116. |
[8] | 黄秀娟, 林秀治. 我国森林公园旅游效率及其影响因素[J]. 林业科学, 2015, 51(2): 137-146. |
[9] | 王立海;潘明旭;段铁成;王秋实;胡斌. 不同坡度及作用力对伐木作业者心率及伐木锯切周期的影响[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(5): 173-179. |
[10] | 陈飞平;廖为明. 森林声景观评价指标体系构建的探讨[J]. 林业科学, 2012, 48(4): 56-60. |
[11] | 向延平. 国家森林公园旅游竞争评价:一种生态位方法 ——以张家界、天门山国家森林公园为例[J]. 林业科学, 2011, 47(4): 152-158. |
[12] | 黄秀娟. 中国森林公园旅游发展效率的比较与分析[J]. 林业科学, 2011, 47(12): 22-27. |
[13] | 米锋黄莉莉;孙丰军. 北京鹫峰国家森林公园生态安全评价[J]. 林业科学, 2010, 46(11): 52-58. |
[14] | 黄秀娟 刘伟平 兰思仁. 森林公园旅游产品开发的评价模型与应用——基于旅游产品开发的适宜性角度评价[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 12(7): 111-118. |
[15] | 文益君 周根苗 张晓蕾 吕 勇. 基于粗糙集的风景林景观美学评价[J]. 林业科学, 2009, 12(1): 1-7. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||