Exploring the impact of urban development on mountain view visualization using a GIS-based landscape assessment model: a case study in Lishui, China

References

• Aben J, Pellikka P, Travis JM. 2018. A call for viewshed ecology: advancing our understanding of the ecology of information through viewshed analysis. Methods Ecol Evol. 9(3):624–633. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alberti M, Waddell P. 2000. An integrated urban development and ecological simulation model. Integ Assess. 1(3):215–227. doi: 10.1023/A:1019140101212.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson CC, Rex A. 2019. Preserving the scenic views from North Carolina’s Blue Ridge Parkway: a decision support system for strategic land conservation planning. Appl Geogr. 104:75–82. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.01.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacon Warren R. 1979. The visual management system of the Forest Service, USDA. USDA Forest Service general technical report PSW. United States. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
   Google Scholar
• Chamberlain BC, Meitner MJ. 2013. A route-based visibility analysis for landscape management. Landscape Urban Plann. 111:13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowe S. 1964. Shaping tomorrow’s landscape. Amsterdam, Holland: Djambatan.
   Google Scholar
• Dafna FG, Israel AW. 2006. The Spatial Openness Index: an automated model for Three-Dimensional visual analysis of urban environments. J Archit Plan Res. 23(1):77–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vries S, de Groot M, Boers J. 2012. Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 105(1–2):118–127. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean DJ, Lizarraga-Blackard AC. 2007. Modeling the magnitude and spatial distribution of aesthetic impacts. Environ Plann B. 34(1):121–138. doi: 10.1068/b30101.
   Google Scholar
• Depellegrin D. 2016. Assessing cumulative visual impacts in coastal areas of the Baltic Sea. Ocean Coast Manag. 119:184–198. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao Y, Cheng S, Wang Y, Zhang G, Su Z. 2023. The delicacy control of building height in consideration of mountain landscape and development capacity: a parctical exploration of One-Third height control rule in preserving the Mufu Mountain skyline in Nanjing. Archit J. 2:112–116.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia-Moreno A. 2013. To see or to be seen… is that the question? An evaluation of palaeolithic sites’ visual presence and their role in social organization. J Anthropol Archaeol. 32(4):647–658. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2013.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geng H, Yang S, Yang C, Zhou H, Han G. 2021. Research on “Mountain-City” view planning control: taking Ganzhou as a sample. City Plan Rev. 45(10):95–109.
   Google Scholar
• Han W, Dong L. 2013. Study on visual entropy of commercial walking streetscape and its correlation evaluation. Build Sci. 29(4):90–94.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks EH, Hanks JL. 1969. An environmental bill of rights: the citizen suit and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Rutgers L Rev. 24:230.
   Google Scholar
• He D, Hu P. 2020. Research on view protection and management system of historic cities: a case study of London, UK. Landscape Archit. 27(08):97–100.
   Google Scholar
• Heng L, Liang S. 2006. Introduction and comments on Japanese landscape law. Huazhong Archit. 10:159–161.
   Google Scholar
• Herbst H, Förster M, Kleinschmit B. 2009. Contribution of landscape metrics to the assessment of scenic quality – the example of the landscape structure plan Havelland/Gemany. Landsc Online. 10:1–17. doi: 10.3097/LO.200910.
   Google Scholar
• Inglis NC, Vukomanovic J. 2020. Climate change disproportionately affects visual quality of cultural ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecosyst Serv. 45:101190. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Integra. 2010. Visual assessment report: springdale to Blackwall 500 kV Transmission Line. Scarborough, Queensland, Australia: Parsons Brinckerhoffl.
   Google Scholar
• Jafarnejad J, Salmanmahiny AR, Sakieh Y. 2015. Subjectivity versus objectivity: comparative study between brute force method and genetic algorithm for calibrating the SLEUTH urban growth model. J Urban Plan D-ASCE. 142(3):126–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litton RB. 1968. Forest landscape description and inventories: a basis for land planning and design. No. 49. Albany, CA: Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Pacific Forest and Range Experiment Station.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Pan Y, Lai Y. 2019. View planning management between mountain and sea of coastal cities: the experience of Japan. UPI. 34(4):92–101. doi: 10.22217/upi.2016.416.
   Google Scholar
• Marks R, Müller MJ, Leser H, Klink HJ. 1989. Anleitung zur Bewertung des Leistungsvermögens des Landschaftshaushaltes. Forschungen zur deutschen Landeskunde. Band 229. Trier, Germany: Zentralausschuss für deutsche Landeskunde.
   Google Scholar
• Michael R, Dietwale G. 2018. Empirically-based Nation-wide modelling of scenic landscape quality. J Digit Landsc Archit. 3:129–137.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer JF. 2016. Assigning a fixed height to land cover screen for use in visibility analysis. J Digit Landsc Archit. 1:125–132.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer JF. 2019. The contribution of a GIS-based landscape assessment model to a scientifically rigorous approach to visual impact assessment. Landsc Urban Plann. 189:80–90. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rød JK, van der Meer D. 2009. Visibility and dominance analysis: assessing a high-rise building project in Trondheim. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 36(4):698–710. doi: 10.1068/b34118.
   Google Scholar
• Sepideh S, Mirkarimi SH, Marjan M, Abdolrassoul S, Colin A. 2019. Assessing the visual impacts of new urban features: coupling visibility analysis with 3D city modelling. Geocarto Int. 34(12):1315–1331. doi: 10.1080/10106049.2018.1478891.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smardon RC. 1982. An organizational analysis of federal agency visual resource management systems. Berkeley: University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Steffen N, Frank, VD, Hoeven. 2018. Exploring the skyline of Rotterdam and the Hague. Visibility analysis and its implications for tall building policy. Built Environ. 43:571–588.
   Google Scholar
• Tandy CRV. 1967. The isovist method of landscape survey. Methods Landsc Anal. 10:9–10.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, RM, Bocinsky RK, Windes TC, Robinson TJ. 2016. Great houses, shrines, and high places: intervisibility in the Chacoan world. Am Antiq. 81(2):205–230. doi: 10.7183/0002-7316.81.2.205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Chen X. 1999. Application of psychophysical method in evaluation of foreign forest landscapes. Sci Silvae Sin. 35(5):110–117.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Xiong L, Guo Z, Zhang W, Tang G. 2023. A view-tree method to compute viewsheds from digital elevation models. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 37(1):68–87. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2022.2094385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitkamp G. 2011. Mapping landscape openness with isovists. Res Urban Ser. 2(1):205–223.
   Google Scholar
• Wu K, Qin B, Wu J, Zhou H, Xia Y, Niu L, Yu T, Wang T. 2016. Variation trends of atmospheric visibility and its influence factors in Nanjing. Hubei Agric Sci. 55(18):4691–4698.
   Google Scholar
• Xi C, Guo Y, He R, Mu R, Zhang P, Li Y. 2022. The use of remote sensing to quantitatively assess the visual effect of urban landscape—a case study of Zhengzhou, China. Remote Sens. 14(1):203. doi: 10.3390/rs14010203.
   Google Scholar
• Xiang B, Yang Z, Gu W. 2000. Comparisons in protection, regeneration and creation of traditional urban prospects between China and Japan: with examples of Kyoto, Japan and Suzhou, China. Urban Res. 84:39–44.
   Google Scholar
• Xu L, Zhou F, Wu R. 2013. The preference and perception of the skyline of mountain-landscape city: the influence of building height and view corridor numbers. Chin Landsc Archit. 10:46–52.
   Google Scholar
• Xu M, Matsushima H. 2023. Establishing landscape networks based on visual quality and ecological resistance: a case study in Tianmeng Scenic Spot, China. Forests. 14(3):516. doi: 10.3390/f14030516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu B. 2003. On the norms and actions of urban design. City Plan Rev. 9:45–48.
   Google Scholar
• Yusoff N, Noor A, Ghazali R. 2014. City skyline conservation: sustaining the premier image of Kuala Lumpur. Proc Environ Sci. 20:583–592. doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2014.03.071.
   Google Scholar
• Zacharias J. 1999. Preferences for view corridors through the urban environment. Landsc Urban Plann. 43(4):217–225. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00104-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang G, Edward V, Wang X. 2021. Approach to map visibility in built environment from airborne LiDAR point clouds. IEEE Access. 9:44150–44161. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3066649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang G, Wang X. 2022. Visual analysis of urban mountains based on multi-precision detailed models: a case study of Mount Zijin, Nanjing. Chin Landsc Archit. 38(1):58–63.
   Google Scholar