RESEARCH ADVANCES OF AESTHETIC SERVICE
ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM

doi:10.13776/j.cnki.resourcesindustries.20230908.001

Abstract

Abstract: Aesthetic service of ecosystem is one of cultural services between human and ecosystem, vital to human ‘s welfare, but its intangibility, subjectivity, data accessibility and lack of standard assessment process make quantitative assessment difficult. This paper, based on theoretical basis of aesthetic service of ecosystem, focusing on subjectivism and objectivism paradigms of aesthetic assessment, uses systematic method to summarize the major assessment ways of aesthetic service of ecosystem since the 21^st century. As attentions on aesthetic service are increasing, assessment methods show two directions, decentralization and centralization. Decentralization is more objective in objectivism, more subjective in subjectivism, while centralization serves as a joint paradigm. This paper discusses the methods ‘ application and limitation in ecosystem management, regional planning and industrial development, and presents suggestions for future research on comprehensive modelling, temporal-spatial dimension, supply-demand analysis and values assessment.

Key words:

cultural service of ecosystem, aesthetic service, assessment method; objectivism paradigm, subjectivism paradigm

摘要： 生态系统美学服务是人们与生态系统相互联系的最重要的文化服务之一，对人类福祉至关重要。美学服务的非物质性、主观性、数据可得性和标准化评估程序缺乏使得其定量评估十分困难。本文从生态系统美学服务的理论基础出发，聚焦于审美评价的客观主义和主观主义范式，采用系统化的方法，梳理了21世纪以来生态系统美学服务的主要评估方法。随着美学服务受到的关注日益增多，评估方法的发展呈现出分离化和集中化的趋势。分离化趋势体现在客观主义方法愈加客观，且主观主义方法愈加主观，而集中化趋势体现在集合了两种范式优点的折中范式，并发展出了联合评估方法。在此基础上，本文探讨了这些方法在生态系统管理、区域规划、产业发展等方面的应用和局限性，指出未来的研究工作应从综合模型建构、时间-空间尺度、供给-需求分析以及价值化评价四个方面展开。

关键词: 生态系统文化服务, 美学服务, 评估方法, 客观主义范式, 主观主义范式

CLC Number:

F207
F270.3

JIANG Wei.

RESEARCH ADVANCES OF AESTHETIC SERVICE ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM

[J]. Resources & Industries, 2023, 25(5): 96-106.

姜维. 生态系统美学服务评估方法研究进展[J]. 资源与产业, 2023, 25(5): 96-106.

References

方林 , 蔡俊, 刘艳晓, 等, 2022.1990—2020年霍山县生态系统服务价值空间格局及其动态演化[J]. 资源与产业, 24(2): 119-131.〔FANG L, CAI J, LIU Y X, et al, 2022. Spatial pattern and dynamic evolution of ecosystem services value of Huoshan county during 1990 to 2020[J]. Resources & Industries, 24(2): 119-131.〕

胡友峰, 2020. 中国生态美学的生成语境、理论形态与未来走向[J]. 社会科学, 11: 160-170.〔HU Y F, 2020. The generative context, theoretical form and theoretical expansion of Chinese ecological aesthetics[J]. Journal of Social Sciences, 11: 160-170.〕

胡友峰, 2022. 西方生态美学的缘起、发展与转型[J]. 社会科学辑刊（4）:156-167.〔HU Y F, 2022. The origin, development and transformation of Western ecological aesthetics[J]. Social Science Journal (4): 156-167.〕

李偲, 李晓东, 海米提·依米提, 2011. 基于LUCC的喀纳斯自然保护区生态系统服务价值评估研究[J]. 资源与产业, 13(6):122-127.〔LI C, LI X D, HYMIT Y, 2011. Evaluation of ecosystem service values of kanas natural reserve based on LUCC[J]. Resources & Industries, 13(6): 122-127.〕

李立华, 雷若然, 杜杰, 等, 2021. 生态文明视角的九寨沟景观资源美学认识[J]. 山地学报, 39(5): 745-755.〔LI L H, LEI R R, DU J, et al, 2021. Aesthetic understanding of landscape resources at Jiuzhaigou Valley, China from a perspective of ecological civilization[J]. Mountain Research, 39(5): 745-755.〕

刘小翠, 白中科, 马萧, 等, 2010. 露天开采及土地复垦对生态系统服务功能价值影响变化的对比研究: 以内蒙古胜利东二号露天煤矿为例[J]. 资源与产业, 12(4): 74-78.〔LIU X C, BAI Z K, MA X, et al, 2010. A case study on Dong-2 opencast coal mine in Inner Mongolia: opencast mining and land rehabilitation based on service function value of ecological system[J]. Resources & Industries, 12(4): 74-78.〕

潘健峰, 马月伟, 陈艳, 等, 2022. 中美国家公园生态系统服务社会价值对比研究: 以普达措国家公园和圣伊莎贝尔派克国家森林公园为例[J]. 世界地理研究, 32(5): 56-66 〔PAN J F, MA Y W, CHEN Y, et al, 2022. Comparing analysis on social values of ecosystem services in China and US National Park: a case study of the Pudacuo National Park and the Pike and San Isabel (PSI) National Forests[J]. World Regional Studies, 32(5): 56-66.〕

尚志海, 林培松, 李渊妮, 2012. 城市生态系统健康评价: 以梅州市梅江区为例[J]. 资源与产业, 14(3): 43-47.〔SHANG Z H, LIN P S, LI Y N, 2012. A case study on Meijiang district, Meizhou city: health evaluation of urban ecological system[J]. Resources & Industries, 14(3): 43-47.〕

孙明阳, 邹元春, 于晓菲, 等, 2018. 湿地景观生态美学感知与评估体系研究[J]. 湿地科学, 16(6): 700-706.〔SUN M Y, ZOU Y C, YU X F, et al, 2018. Ecological aesthetic perception and assessment system of wetland landscape[J]. Wetland Science, 16(6): 700-706.〕

王敏, 侯晓晖, 汪方心怡, 等, 2022. 城市河流生态修复的生态审美偏好影响机制研究:基于江苏省昆山市的实证研究[J]. 景观设计学, 10(1): 40-63.〔WANG M, HOU X H, WANG F X Y, et al, 2022. Influencing mechanism of ecological aesthetic preference on urban river ecological restoration: a case study of Kunshan, Jiangsu Province[J]. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 10(1): 40-63.〕

王玉婷, 王书建, 张洵赫, 等, 2022. 生态系统服务视角下的景观美学研究进展[J]. 生态科学, 41(1): 262-272.〔WANG Y T, WANG S J, ZHANG X H, et al, 2022. Research progress of landscape aesthetics from the perspective of ecosystem service[J]. Ecological Science, 41(1): 262-272.〕

徐琳琳, 虞虎, 2022. 国外国家公园景观评价与保护利用研究进展及对中国的启示[J]. 资源科学, 44(7): 1520-1532.〔XU L L, YU H, 2022. Research progress of international landscape evaluation, protection, and utilization of national parks and implications to China[J]. Resources Science, 44(7): 1520-1532.〕

严岩, 朱捷缘, 吴钢, 等, 2017. 生态系统服务需求、供给和消费研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 37(8): 2489-2496.〔YAN Y, ZHU J Y, WU G, et al, 2017. Review and prospective applications of demand, supply, and consumption of ecosystem services[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(8): 2489-2496.〕

张飞, 孔伟, 2010. 基于生态系统服务价值的扬州市农地非农化生态效应测评[J]. 资源与产业, 12(6):173-178.〔ZHANG F, KONG W, 2010. Ecological effect evaluation on farmland non-agricultural conversion based on ecosystem service values in Yangzhou City[J]. Resources & Industries, 12(6): 173-178.〕

张业臣, 张宏梅, 虞虎, 2020. 基于游客感知的生态系统服务社会价值评估: 以钱江源国家公园为例[J]. 旅游科学, 34(6): 66-85.〔ZHANG Y C, ZHANG H M, YU H, 2020. Evaluation of the social value of ecosystem services based on tourists ‘ perception: a case study of Qianjiangyuan National Park[J]. Tourism Science, 34(6): 66-85.〕

朱光潜, 2002. 西方美学史[M]. 北京:人民文学出版社.〔ZHU G Q, 2002. The history of Western aesthetics[M]. Beijing: People ‘s Literature Publishing House.〕

BAGSTAD K J, VILLA F, BATKER D, et al, 2014. From theoretical to actual ecosystem service mappg beneficiaries and spatial flows ecosystem service assessment [J]. Ecology and Society, 19(2): 64-78.

BERKEL D B V, VERBURG P H, 2014. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape [J]. Ecological Indicators, 37: 163-174.

CAI W, JIANG W, DU H, et al, 2021. Assessing ecosystem services supply-demand, mis-matches for differential city management the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration[J]. International Journal of Eenvironmental Research and Public Health, 18(15): 8130.

CASADO-ARZUAGA I, ONAINDIA M, MADARIAGA I, et al, 2014. Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain)mto support landscape planning [J]. Landscape Ecology, 29(8): 1393-1405.

CASALEGNO S, INGER R, DESILVEY C, et al, 2013. Spatial covariance between aesthetic value & other ecosystem service [J]. PLOS ONE, 8(6): 0068437.

CHENG X, DAMME S V, LI L Y, et al, 2019. Evaluation of cultural ecosystem service: a review of method [J]. Ecosystem Services, 37(1): 100925.

COOPER N, BRADY E, STEEN H, et al, 2016. Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystem recognizing the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’ [J]. Ecosystem Services, 21(1): 218-229.

COSTANZA R, GROOT R D, BRAAT L, et al, 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem service: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? [J] Ecosystem Services, 28(3): 1-16.

CURNOCK M I, MARSHALL N A, THIAULT L, et al, 2019. Shifts tourists ‘ sentiments and climate risk perceptions following mass coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef [J]. Nature Climate Change, 9(7): 535-541.

DANIEL T C, MUHAR A, ARNBERGER A, et al, 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(23): 8812-8819.

DANIEL T C, 2001. Whither scenic beauty?: visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1/2/3/4): 267-281.

DANIEL T C, BOSTER R S, 1976. Measuring landscape esthetic: the scenic beauty estimation method[R]. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

DING Y, LIU Z, JIAO Y, et al, 2022. A bi-scale assessing framework for aesthetic ecosystem services of villages in a world heritage site [J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 19(3): 874-891.

DO Y, 2019. Valuating aesthetic benefits of cultural ecosystem services using conservation culturomics [J]. Ecosystem Services, 36: 100894.

DOBBIE M F, 2013. Public aesthetic preferences to inform sustainable wetland management in Victoria, Australia [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120(1): 178-189.

DUPRAS J, LAURENT-LUCCHETTI J, REVÉRET J, et al, 2018. Using contingent valuation and choice experiment to value the impacts of agri-environmental practices on landscapes aesthetic [J]. Landscape Research, 43(5): 679-695.

FEIMER N R, SMARDON R C, CRAIK K H, 1981. Evaluating the effectiveness of observer based visual resource and impact assessment method[J]. Landscape Research, 6(1): 12-16.

FIGUEROA-ALFARO R W, TANG Z, 2017. Evaluating the aesthetic value of cultural ecosystem services by mapping geo-tagged photographs from social media data on Panoramio and Flickr [J]. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(2): 266-281.

FOREST SERVICE OF UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1995. Landscape aesthetic a handbook for scenery management [R]. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

FOX N, CHAMBERLA B, LDQUIST M, et al, 2022. Understanding landscape aesthetics using a novel viewshed assessment of social media locations within the Troodos UNESCO global geopark, Cyprus [J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10: 47-64.

FRANK S, FÜRST C, KOSCHKE L, et al, 2013. Assessment of landscape aesthetics: validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty [J]. Ecological Indicators, 32(3): 222-231.

GARCIA X, COROMAS L, PARGAMENT D, et al, 2016. Is river rehabilitation economically viable water-scarce basin? [J] Environmental Science and Policy, 61(2): 154-164.

GOSAL A S, ZIV G, 2020. Landscape aesthetic spatial modelling and mapping using social media images and machine learning [J]. Ecological Indicators, 117(3/4): 106638.

GRALA R K, TYNDALL J C, MIZE C W, 2012. Willingness to pay for aesthetics associated with field windbreaks in Iowa, United State [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 108(2/3/4): 71-78.

GROOT R S D, ALKEMADE R, BRAAT L, et al, 2010. Challenges integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making [J]. Ecological Complexity, 7(3): 260-272.

GÜLÇIN D, YALÇINKAYA N M, 2022. Correlating fluency theory-based visual aesthetic liking of landscape with landscape types and feature [J]. Geospatial Formation Science, 3(1): 1-20.

HA S, YANG Z, 2019. Evaluation for landscape aesthetic value of the Natural World Heritage Site [J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191(8): 483.

HATAN S, FLEISCHER A, TCHETCHIK A, 2021. Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service: the case of landscape aesthetics in the agritourism market [J]. Ecological Economics, 184: 107005.

HAVINGA I, MARCOS D, BOGAART P W, et al, 2021. Social media and deep learning capture the aesthetic quality of the landscape [J]. Scientific Reports, 11(1): 1-11.

HERMES J, ALBERT C, HAAREN C V, 2018. Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany[J]. Ecosystem Services, 31(1): 296-307.

HERNÁNDEZ-MORCILLO M, PLIENGER T, BIELG C, 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicator [J]. Ecological Indicators, 29(2): 434-444.

JAHANI A, SAFFARIHA M, BARZEGAR P, 2022. Landscape aesthetic quality assessment of forest lands: an application of machine learning approach[J]. Soft Computing, 8(4): 6671-6686.

JUNGE X, SCHÜPBACH B, WALTER T, et al, 2015. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133(6): 67-77.

KALINAUSKAS M, MIKŠA K, INÁCIO M, et al, 2021. Mapping and assessment of landscape aesthetic quality in Lithuania [J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 286: 112239.

KEREBEL A, GÉLAS N, DÉRY S, et al, 2019. Landscape aesthetic modelling using Bayesian network: conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 185(2): 258-271.

KLEIN L R, HENDRIX W G, LOHR V I, et al, 2015. Linking ecology and aesthetics in sustainable agricultural landscape: Lessons from the Palouse region of Washington, U. S. A. [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134(1/2/3/4):195-209.

LANGEMEYER J, CALCAGNI F, BARÓ F, 2018. Mapping the tangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics[J]. Land Use Policy, 77(8): 542-552.

LANGLOIS J, GUILHAUMON F, BOCKEL T, et al, 2021. An integrated approach to estimate aesthetic and ecological values of coralligenous reefs[J]. Ecological Indicators, 129(4): 107935.

LI K, FAN S X, LI Y L, et al, 2022. The COVID‐19 pandemic changes citizens ‘ visual aesthetic perceptions and attitudes toward restored landscape in the karst area in China [J]. Restoration Ecology, 31(4): 13804.

LI Q, DU Y, LIU Y, et al, 2021. Canopy Gaps improve landscape aesthetic service by promoting autumn color-leaved tree species diversity and color-leaved patch properties in subalpine forests of Southwestern China [J]. Forests, 12(2): 1-28.

LIESKOVSKY J, RUSNÁK T, KLIMANTOVÁ A, et al, 2017. Appreciation of landscape aesthetic values in Slovakia assessed by social media photograph [J]. Open Geosciences, 9(1): 593-599.

LINDEMANN-MATTHIES P, BRIEGER H, 2016. Does urban gardening crease aesthetic quality of urban areas?: a case study from Germany [J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 17: 33-41.

LINDEMANN-MATTHIES P, JUNGE X, MATTHIES D, 2010. The influence of plant diversity on people ‘s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation [J]. Biological Conservation, 143(1):195-202.

LOTHIAN A, 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetic: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? [J] Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4): 177-198.

MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT, 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis [R]. Washington, DC: Island Press.

MAMENO K, KUBO T, OGUMA H, et al, 2022. Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change [J]. Climatic Change, 170(3/4): 1-18.

MCCANN R K, MARCOT B G, ELLIS R, 2006. Bayesian belief network: applications in ecology and natural resource management[J]. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36(12): 3053-3062.

MILCU A I, HANSPACH J, ABSON D, et al, 2013. Cultural ecosystem service: a literature review and prospects for future research [J]. Ecology and Society, 18(3): 44-77.

OORT B V, BHATTA L D, BARAL H, et al, 2015. Assessing community values to support mapping of ecosystem services in the Koshi river basin, Nepal [J]. Ecosystem Services, 13(10): 70-80.

PALMER J F, 1997. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37

(1/2):109-113.

PALMER J F, HOFFMAN R E, 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1/2/3/4):149-161.

PEÑA L, CASADO-ARZUAGA I, ONADIA M, 2015. Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach [J]. Ecosystem Services, 13: 108-118.

PERT P L, THIAULT L, CURNOCK M I, et al, 2020. Beauty and the reef: evaluating the use of non-expert ratings for monitoring aesthetic values of coral reef[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 730: 139156.

RICHARDS D R, TUNÇER B, 2018. Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photograph [J]. Ecosystem Services, 31: 318-325.

SAEIDI S, MOHAMMADZADEH M, SALMANMAHY A, et al, 2017. Performance evaluation of multiple methods for landscape aesthetic suitability mapping: a comparative study between Multi-Criteria Evaluation, Logistic Regression and Multi-Layer Perceptron neural network [J]. Land Use Policy, 67(1): 1-12.

SCHIRPKE U, ALTZGER A, LEITGER G, et al, 2019a. Change from agricultural to touristic use. Effects on the aesthetic value of landscapes over the last 150 years [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187(2/3): 23-35.

SCHIRPKE U, TIMMERMANN F, TAPPEER U, et al, 2016. Cultural ecosystem services of mountain region: Modelling the aesthetic value [J]. Ecological Indicators, 69: 78-90.

SCHIRPKE U, TAPPEER G, TASSER E, et al, 2019b. Using conjoint analysis to gain deeper sights to aesthetic landscape preference [J]. Ecological indicators, 96(9): 202-212.

SCHIRPKE U, ZODERER B M, TAPPEER U, et al, 2021. Effects of past landscape changes on aesthetic landscape values in the European Alp [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 212(11): 104109.

SCOTT N, LE D, BECKEN S, et al, 2020. Measuring perceived beauty of the Great Barrier Reef using eye-tracking technology [J]. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(20): 2492-2502.

SOGA M, FUKANO Y, KOYANAGI T F, et al, 2021. Species abundance as a determinant of aesthetic values of flowering plant communities [J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 63: 127194.

SOUTHON G E, JORGENSEN A, DUNNETT N, et al, 2017. Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and crease residents ‘ perceptions of site quality urban green-space [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158: 105-118.

SUBIZA-PÉREZ M, HAURU K, KORPELA K, et al, 2019. Perceived environmental aesthetic qualities scale (PEAQS): a self-report tool for the evaluation of green-blue spaces [J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 43: 126383.

SUN F, XIANG J, TAO Y, et al, 2019. Mapping the social values for ecosystem services in urban green space integrating a visitor-employed photography method to SolVES [J]. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 38(7): 105-113.

TATTONI C, GRILLI G, ARAÑA J, et al, 2021. The landscape change in the Alps: what postcards have to say about aesthetic preference [J]. Sustainability, 13(13): 1-15.

TEEB, 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity：mainstreaming the economics of nature：a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB[R]. London and Washington: Earthscan.

TENERELLI P, PÜFFEL C, LUQUE S, 2017. Spatial assessment of aesthetic services in a complex mountain region: combining visual landscape properties with crowdsourced geographic formation[J]. Landscape Ecology, 32(5): 1097-1115.

TIESKENS K F, ZANTEN B T V, SCHULP C J E, et al, 2018. Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: an analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177(1/2):128-137.

TRIBOT A, CARABEUX Q, DETER J, et al, 2018. Confronting species aesthetics with ecological functions in coral reef fish [J]. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 11733.

TRIBOT A, DETER J, CLAVERIE T, et al, 2019. Species diversity and composition drive the aesthetic value of coral reef fish assemblage [J]. Biology Letters, 15(11): 21090703.

TRIBOT A, MOUQUET N, VILLGER S, et al, 2016. Taxonomic and functional diversity crease the aesthetic value of coralligenous reef [J]. Scientific Reports, 6: 34229.

ULRICH R S, 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes [J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13: 29-44.

UNGARO F, HÄFNER K, ZASADA I, et al, 2016. Mapping cultural ecosystem service: connecting visual landscape quality to cost estimations for enhanced services provision [J]. Land Use Policy, 54(3/4): 399-412.

URBIS A, POVILANSKAS R, JURKUS E, et al, 2021. GIS-based aesthetic appraisal of short-range viewsheds of coastal dune and forest landscape [J]. Forests, 12(11): 1534.

URBIS A, POVILANSKAS R, NEWTON A, 2019b. Valuation of aesthetic ecosystem services of protected coastal dunes and forests [J]. Ocean and Coastal Management, 179(1): 104832.

URBIS A, POVILANSKAS R, ŠIMANAUSKIEN R, et al, 2019a. Key aesthetic appeal concepts of coastal dunes and forests on the example of the Curonian Spit (Lithuania) [J]. Water, 11(6): 1193.

VALLÉS-PLANELLS M, GALIANA F, EETVELDE V V, 2014. A classification of landscape services to support local landscape planning [J]. Ecology and Society, 19(1): 44-54.

VERCELLONI J, CLIFFORD S, CALEY M J, et al, 2018. Using virtual reality to estimate aesthetic values of coral reef [J]. Royal Society Open Science, 5(4): 172226.

YANG D W, LUO T, LIN T, et al, 2014. Combining aesthetic with ecological values for landscape sustainability [J]. PLOS ONE, 9(7): 102437.

YOSHIMURA N, HIURA T, 2017. Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem service: use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido [J]. Ecosystem Services, 24: 68-78.

ZANTEN B T V, VERBURG P H, SCHOLTE S S K, et al, 2016a. Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale. Lessons from a Dutch case study [J]. Ecological Economics, 130(12): 221-231.

ZANTEN B T V, ZASADA I, KOETSE M J, et al, 2016b. A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes [J]. Ecosystem Services, 17: 87-98.

ZHANG N, ZHENG X, WANG X, 2022. Assessment of aesthetic quality of urban landscapes by integrating objective and subjective factor: a case study for riparian landscape [J]. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 274-297.

ZHAO Y, HUANG S, XIAO L, 2021. Analysis on ecological aesthetics based on landsenses ecology: an ancient case of China [J]. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 28(7): 661-668.

[1]	GUAN Wei, WANG Yong, XU Shuting. NETWORK STRUCTURE AND FACTORS OF CHINA’S INDUSTRIAL CARBON EMISSION [J]. Resources & Industries, 2023, 25(5): 40-49.
[2]	WANG Jigan, BAO Tingting, XING Zhencheng. MEASUREMENT OF HIGH-QUALITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN YANGTZE RIVER DELTA BASED ON INCLUSIVE TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY [J]. Resources & Industries, 2023, 25(3): 82-91.
[3]	YIN Qingmin, JIN Wanting. MPACTS OF TECHNICAL INNOVATION ON GREEN TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY BASED ON ADJUSTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AGGLOMERATION [J]. Resources & Industries, 2023, 25(2): 1-10.
[4]	SONG Min, TANG Rong, SHI Kaijie. IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURES AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT STAFF TURNOVER ON MANUFACTURING’S EXPORTING TECHNICAL COMPLEXITY [J]. Resources & Industries, 2023, 25(2): 76-87.
[5]	ZHAO Hongmei, ZHANG Yan. IMPACTS OF CITY GROUP ECONOMIC NETWORK EVOLUTION ON RESOURCES-BASED CITIES' INNOVATIVE CAPACITY [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(4): 9-20.
[6]	GAO Xinyu, DONG Huihe, GAO Lunian, et al. DYNAMIC SIMULATION OF CHANGCHUN‘’S ECONOMY-SOCIETY-LAND-USE SYSTEM BASED ON SD MODEL [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(4): 90-102.
[7]	WANG Ziyou, PAN Yuhong. URBAN SPATIAL NETWORK STRUCTURE FROM PERSPECTIVE OF “FLOW SPACE” IN CHENGDU-CHONGQING (CHENG-YU) DUAL CITY ECONOMIC CIRCLE [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(4): 103-112.
[8]	HOU Zhenmei, ZHANG Pengyan, ZHOU Yong. EVOLUTION OF XINJIANG'S REGIONAL ECONOMIC COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT FROM PERSPECTIVE OF SPATIAL CONVERGENCE [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(3): 53-62.
[9]	CHEN Xin, LIU Yuanhua, SHI Cuicui. RESEARCH ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENCES BY INTEGRATING OAXACA-BLINDER DECOMPOSITION METHOD FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENT REGULATION [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(3): 63-70.
[10]	YIN Qingmin, ZHU Qing. SIMULATED INDUSTRIAL OPTIMIZATION OF YELLOW RIVER BASIN BASED ON IMPROVED SIR MODEL [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(1): 46-54.
[11]	CHEN Cuifang, CHEN Xiaoli. WUHAN'S INDUSTRIAL SPATIAL PATTERN BASED ON POI DATA [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(1): 86-95.
[12]	CAO Ying, ZHOU Qin. REGIONAL INTEGRATION, INNOVATION CAPABILITY AND GREEN DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY ON YANGTZE RIVER ECONOMIC BELT [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(1): 96-106.
[13]	CHEN Chen. THE EVOLUTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SPATIAL LAYOUT OF CHINA'S REGIONAL ECONOMY AND INDUSTRY [J]. Resources & Industries, 2022, 24(1): 136-147.
[14]	ZHOU Baogang, YANG Bo, LI Ge. INTERACTION BETWEEN COASTAL PORTS AND REGIONAL ECONOMY IN LIAONING PROVINCE [J]. Resources & Industries, 2021, 23(6): 23-30.
[15]	WANG Qin, LIU Donghui, MENG Lingjie. CHANGES AND FACTORS OF TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY OF PROVINCIAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY ALONG “THE BELT AND ROAD”: ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL DATA FROM 2006 TO 2016 [J]. Resources & Industries, 2021, 23(4): 70-77.