IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i8p1133-d870319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis Model of the Relationship between Public Spatial Forms in Traditional Villages and Scenic Beauty Preference Based on LiDAR Point Cloud Data

Author

Listed:
  • Guodong Chen

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, 159 Longpan Rd., Nanjing 210037, China)

  • Xinyu Sun

    (College of Forestry, Nanjing Forestry University, 159 Longpan Rd., Nanjing 210037, China)

  • Wenbo Yu

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, 159 Longpan Rd., Nanjing 210037, China)

  • Hao Wang

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Nanjing Forestry University, 159 Longpan Rd., Nanjing 210037, China)

Abstract

Traditional villages are historically, culturally, scientifically and aesthetically valuable, and a beautiful landscape is the primary embodiment of a traditional village environment. Urbanization and modernization have had a great impact on village landscapes. As an important aspect of traditional village landscapes, creating beautiful public spaces is an effective way to attract tourists and improve the well-being of residents. Landscape aesthetic activities are the result of the interaction between landscape objects and aesthetic subjects. Research on the relationship between the form of traditional village public spaces and subjective aesthetic preferences has long been neglected. This research examined 31 public spaces in traditional villages in the Dongshan and Xishan areas in Lake Taihu, Suzhou. An index system of public spatial forms in traditional villages was created, basic data of spatial forms were collected using a hand-held 3D laser scanner, and the value of the spatial forms index was calculated using R language. The scenic beauty estimation (SBE) method was improved, with the estimation of the beauty of the scenic environment based on VR panorama rather than traditional photo media. Parameter screening was performed using correlation analysis and full subset regression analysis, and four models were used to fit the SBE scores and grades. The results show that the majority of public spaces had lower than average SBE scores, and the four key indicators of average contour upper height, solid-space ratio, vegetation cover, and comprehensive closure predicted SBE. In addition, the linear model (R 2 = 0.332, RMSE = 64.774) had the most accurate SBE level prediction and the stochastic forest model (R 2 = 0.405, RMSE = 63.311) was better at predicting specific SBE scores. The model provides managers, designers, and researchers with a method for the quantitative evaluation of visual landscape preferences and quantitative landscape spatial forms and provides a reference for the protection and renewal of traditional village landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Guodong Chen & Xinyu Sun & Wenbo Yu & Hao Wang, 2022. "Analysis Model of the Relationship between Public Spatial Forms in Traditional Villages and Scenic Beauty Preference Based on LiDAR Point Cloud Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1133-:d:870319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1133/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/8/1133/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hermes, Johannes & Van Berkel, Derek & Burkhard, Benjamin & Plieninger, Tobias & Fagerholm, Nora & von Haaren, Christina & Albert, Christian, 2018. "Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 289-295.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Irina Iulia Năstase & Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Felix Kienast, 2019. "Landscape Preferences and Distance Decay Analysis for Mapping the Recreational Potential of an Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Weixuan Wei & Yiqi Wang & Qi Yan & Guanpeng Liu & Nannan Dong, 2024. "Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-33, November.
    4. Lavorel, Sandra & Rey, Pierre-Louis & Grigulis, Karl & Zawada, Mégane & Byczek, Coline, 2020. "Interactions between outdoor recreation and iconic terrestrial vertebrates in two French alpine national parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Dick, Jan & Andrews, Chris & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Teff-Seker, Yael & Zulian, Grazia, 2022. "A mixed-methods approach to analyse recreational values and implications for management of protected areas: A case study of Cairngorms National Park, UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. Seweryn Zielinski & Celene B. Milanés & Elena Cambon & Ofelia Perez Montero & Lourdes Rizo & Andres Suarez & Benjamin Cuker & Giorgio Anfuso, 2021. "An Integrated Method for Landscape Assessment: Application to Santiago de Cuba Bay, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-30, April.
    7. Cetin, Nuket Ipek & Bourget, Gulhan & Tezer, Azime, 2021. "Travel-cost method for assessing the monetary value of recreational services in the Ömerli Catchment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Rosa, Josianne Claudia Sales & Geneletti, Davide & Morrison-Saunders, Angus & Sánchez, Luis Enrique & Hughes, Michael, 2020. "To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in southwest Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Goretti Silva & Alexandra Correia & Susana Rachão & Alcina Nunes & Elvira Vieira & Sónia Santos & Luís Soares & Manuel Fonseca & Fernanda A. Ferreira & Cláudia Miranda Veloso & Paulo Carrança & Paula , 2021. "A Methodology for the Identification and Assessment of the Conditions for the Practice of Outdoor and Sport Tourism-Related Activities: The Case of Northern Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Meng, Shiting & Huang, Qingxu & Zhang, Ling & He, Chunyang & Inostroza, Luis & Bai, Yansong & Yin, Dan, 2020. "Matches and mismatches between the supply of and demand for cultural ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: A case study in the Guanting Reservoir basin, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    11. Oleksandr Karasov & Stien Heremans & Mart Külvik & Artem Domnich & Igor Chervanyov, 2020. "On How Crowdsourced Data and Landscape Organisation Metrics Can Facilitate the Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: An Estonian Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Sinclair, Michael & Mayer, Marius & Woltering, Manuel & Ghermandi, Andrea, 2020. "Valuing nature-based recreation using a crowdsourced travel cost method: A comparison to onsite survey data and value transfer," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    13. Semmens, Darius J. & Sherrouse, Benson C. & Ancona, Zach H., 2019. "Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Sterner, Robert W. & Keeler, Bonnie & Polasky, Stephen & Poudel, Rajendra & Rhude, Kirsten & Rogers, Maggie, 2020. "Ecosystem services of Earth’s largest freshwater lakes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    15. Szymon Chmielewski, 2020. "Chaos in Motion: Measuring Visual Pollution with Tangential View Landscape Metrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    17. Balázsi, Ágnes & Riechers, Maraja & Hartel, Tibor & Leventon, Julia & Fischer, Joern, 2019. "The impacts of social-ecological system change on human-nature connectedness: A case study from Transylvania, Romania," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    18. William L. Rice & Sarah Y. Michels & Miranda Foster & Jon Graham & Peter Whitney & Jennifer M. Thomsen, 2023. "Exploring the Impacts of Protected Areas’ Attributes on Pediatric Health: The Case for Additional Research beyond Greenspace," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    20. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:8:p:1133-:d:870319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.