سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,230
تعداد مقالات67,765
تعداد مشاهده مقاله115,205,161
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله89,953,498
عطار صحراگرد, فرنوش, دانه کار, افشین, جهانی, علی. (1401). اولویت بندی واحدهای همگن مناظر طبیعی به روش آنتروپی شانون-ویکور (مطالعه منطقه حفاظت شده البرز مرکزی تحت مدیریت استان البرز). , 48(4), 555-575. doi: 10.22059/jes.2023.348672.1008359
فرنوش عطار صحراگرد; افشین دانه کار; علی جهانی. "اولویت بندی واحدهای همگن مناظر طبیعی به روش آنتروپی شانون-ویکور (مطالعه منطقه حفاظت شده البرز مرکزی تحت مدیریت استان البرز)". , 48, 4, 1401, 555-575. doi: 10.22059/jes.2023.348672.1008359
عطار صحراگرد, فرنوش, دانه کار, افشین, جهانی, علی. (1401). 'اولویت بندی واحدهای همگن مناظر طبیعی به روش آنتروپی شانون-ویکور (مطالعه منطقه حفاظت شده البرز مرکزی تحت مدیریت استان البرز)', , 48(4), pp. 555-575. doi: 10.22059/jes.2023.348672.1008359
عطار صحراگرد, فرنوش, دانه کار, افشین, جهانی, علی. اولویت بندی واحدهای همگن مناظر طبیعی به روش آنتروپی شانون-ویکور (مطالعه منطقه حفاظت شده البرز مرکزی تحت مدیریت استان البرز). , 1401; 48(4): 555-575. doi: 10.22059/jes.2023.348672.1008359

اولویت بندی واحدهای همگن مناظر طبیعی به روش آنتروپی شانون-ویکور (مطالعه منطقه حفاظت شده البرز مرکزی تحت مدیریت استان البرز)

محیط شناسی
دوره 48، شماره 4، بهمن 1401، صفحه 555-575    اصل مقاله (1.61 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jes.2023.348672.1008359
نویسندگان
فرنوش عطار صحراگرد1؛ افشین دانه کار* 1؛ علی جهانی2
1گروه محیط زیست، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران.
2پژوهشکده محیط زیست و توسعه پایدار، سازمان حفاظت محیط زیست، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
شناسایی واحدهای همگن، یکی از فرازهای مهم در برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت سرزمین است. از این‌ رو در این پژوهش جهت تعیین واحدهای همگن منظر که پایه مطالعات ارزیابی و زیباشناسی مناظر را تشکیل می‌دهد؛ ابتدا از طریق مرور منابع، معیارها و شاخص‌های مورد استفاده تشخیص واحد همگن شناسایی شد. سپس بر این اساس و با توجه به مقیاس مطالعه و شرایط منطقه مورد مطالعه، شاخص‌های مورد استفاده برای تشخیص واحد همگن و نقشه‌سازی با هدف ارزیابی منظر انتخاب شد. پس از آن به تهیه نقشه هر یک از آن‌ها پرداخته شد و از طریق همپوشانی آن‌ها نقشه واحد همگن منظر تهیه شد. در نهایت اولویت‌بندی واحدهای همگن منظر براساس سه معیار فاصله تا شبکه دسترسی، فاصله تا سکونتگاه‌های روستایی و فاصله از محدوده‌های غیر قابل دسترسی به منظر با استفاده از روش آنتروپی شانون – ویکور صورت گرفت. شاخص‌های تشخیص واحد همگن شامل ارتفاع، شیب، منظر گیاهی، قابلیت دید روستا، قابلیت دید رودها اصلی و فصلی، ریختار زمین و خاک، تیپ و تراکم پوشش گیاهی بود. تلفیق مکانی نقشه شاخص‌ها منجر به شناسایی913 واحد همگن منظر در قالب 147 ترکیب مختلف شد. نتایج نشان داد 18 درصد مساحت منطقه، برای ارزیابی زیباشناختی با هدف گردشگری مناسب است. اولویت‌بندی با روش آنتروپی-ویکور نشان داد، حدود 10 درصد واحدهای همگن شناسایی شده بالاترین اولویت برای ارزیابی زیباشناختی با هدف گردشگری دارد. یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان داد، با کاربرد شاخص‌های مکانی مرتبط با ارزیابی منظر، می‌توان واحد ارزیابی مستقلی برای بررسی‌های منظرشناسی در برنامه‌ریزی سرزمین بویژه برای اهداف طبیعت گردی، شناسایی نمود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
سیمای سرزمین؛ ارزیابی منظر؛ زیباشناسی منظر طبیعی؛ آنتروپی-ویکور؛ منطقه حفاظت شده البرز مرکزی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Ranking Homogeneous Natural Landscape Units by Shannon Entropy -Vikor Method (Case Study: Central Alborz Protected Area under the Management of Alborz Province)
نویسندگان [English]
Farnoush Attar Sahragard1؛ Afshin Danehkar1؛ ali jahani2
1Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
2Research Center of Environment and Sustainable Development, Department of Environment, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
Identification of homogeneous units is one of the important steps in land planning and management. Therefore, this study aims to characterize the homogeneous landscape units (HLUs) that form the basis of landscape assessment and aesthetics studies. At first, by literature review, some criteria and indicators have been chosen to identify the homogeneous unit. Then, on this basis and according to the study's scale and the study area's conditions, the indicators used to characterize the homogeneous unit and mapping with the aim of landscape assessment were selected. Then, maps of each of them were made, and by overlaying these maps, a HLU map was created. Finally, the HLUs were ranked based on three criteria i.e., distance to the road network, distance to rural settlements, and distance from inaccessible areas. We used the Shannon entropy-Vikor method for alternatives' priority. Homogeneous unit Characterization indicators included elevation, slope, vegetation landscape, village visibility, permanent and seasonal rivers visibility, landform and soil type, and vegetation type and density. The spatial integration of the indicators' maps led to the characterization of 913 HLUs in the form of 147 different compositions (homogeneous landscape units). The results showed that 18% of the study area is suitable for aesthetic assessment for tourism. The ranking with the Shannon entropy -Vikor method showed that about 10 percent of the characterized homogeneous units have the highest priority for aesthetic assessment with the purpose of tourism. The results of this study showed that by using spatial indicators related to landscape assessment, it is possible to identify an independent assessment unit for landscape assessments in geospatial land planning, especially for nature-based tourism purposes.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Landscape, Landscape Assessment, natural landscape Aesthetics, Shannon entropy-Vikor, Central Alborz protected area
مراجع
  1. Ahmadi Mirghaed, F., Mohammadzadeh, M., Salman Mahini, A. R., & Mirkarimi, S. H. (2016). Integrating visual and environmental elements using fuzzy and multi criteria evaluation methods for aesthetic quality assessment of Gharahsoo watershed, Golestan province. Journal of RS and GIS for Natural Resources, 7(3), 46-60.
  2. Ahmadi Mirghaed, F., Mohammadzadeh, M., Salmanmahiny, A., & Mirkarimi, S. H. (2020). Assessing the interactions between landscape aesthetic quality and spatial indices in Gharasoo watershed, North of Iran. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 17(1), 231-242.
  3. Alborz Department of Environment. (2020 a). Introduction of Central Alborz Protected Area. https://alborz.doe.ir/.
  4. Alborz Department of Environment. (2020 b). The physiognomy of the natural environment of the central (southern) Alborz protected area. https://alborz.doe.ir/.
  5. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and urban planning, 69(1), 115-125.
  6. Bairam Komaki, C., Asadikia, R., & Niknahad Gharmakhar, H. (2019). Estimation of vegetation cover percentage and biomass using remote sensing indices (Case study: protected areas of Southern Alborz, Karaj). Journal of RS and GIS for Natural Resources, 10(1), 1-16.
  7. Bishop, I. D., & Hulse, D. W. (1994). Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landscape and urban planning, 30(1-2), 59-70.
  8. Brabyn, L. (2009). Classifying landscape character. Landscape research, 34(3), 299-321.
  9. Castillo-Rodríguez, M., López-Blanco, J., & Muñoz-Salinas, E. (2010). A geomorphologic GIS-multivariate analysis approach to delineate environmental units, a case study of La Malinche volcano (central México). Applied Geography, 30(4), 629-638.
  10. Chhetri, P., & Arrowsmith, C. (2003, August). Mapping the potential of scenic views for the Grampians National Park. In Proceeding of 21 International Cartographic Conference (ICC). Durban, South Africa.
  11. Clay, G. R., & Daniel, T. C. (2000). Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and urban planning, 49(1-2), 1-13.
  12. Danehkar, A., Mahmoudi, B., & Torabi, A. (2016). Designing and Management of Forest Parks. Agricultural Research, Education & Extension Organization: Agricultural Education and Extension Institute.
  13. De Val, G. D. L. F., & Mühlhauser, H. (2014). Visual quality: An examination of a South American Mediterranean landscape, Andean foothills east of Santiago (Chile). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(2), 261-271.
  14. De Val, G. D. L. F., Atauri, J. A., & de Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and urban planning, 77(4), 393-407.
  15. (2010). On map scale and raster resolution. https://www.esri.com/. Accessed 11 September 2021.
  16. Forbes, T. R., Rossiter, D., & Van Wambeke, A. (1987). Guidelines for evaluating the adequacy of soil resource inventories (Vol. 4). Cornell University, Department of Agronomy.
  17. Harmon, D. (2004, June). Intangible values of protected areas: what are they? Why do they matter? In The George Wright Forum(Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 9-22). George Wright Society.
  18. Hengl, T. (2006). Finding the right pixel size. Computers & geosciences, 32(9), 1283-1298.
  19. Hoseini Bay, M. S. (2016). LandScape Aesthetic Quality Evaluation Case Study: Golestan National Park (M.Sc. Thesis). College of Environment.
  20. Hoseini Bay, M. S., Jahani, A. & Mohamadzade, M. (2015, February 25-26). Landscape Aesthetic Quality Evaluation: Approaches and Criteria. The 12th National Conference on Environmental Impact Assessment of Iran, Tehran, Iran. https://civilica.com/doc/410499/.
  21. Jahani, A. (2017). Aesthetic quality evaluation modeling of forest landscape using artificial neural network. Journal of Wood and Forest Science and Technology, 24(3),17-34.
  22. Jahani, A., Makhdoum, M., Feghhi, J., & Eetamad, V. (2012). Landscape quality appraisal from look outs for ecotourism land use (Case Study: Patom District of Kheyrud Forest). Environmental researches, 2(3), 13-20.
  23. Jahani, A., Saffariha, M., & Ghiyasi, S. (2019). Evaluating the aesthetic quality of the landscape in the environment: A Review of the Concepts and Scientific Developments in the World. Environmental Science and Bioengineering, 8(1), 35-44.
  24. Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skřivanová, Z., & Zahradník, D. (2014). Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. Journal of environmental management, 137, 36-44.
  25. Kane, P. S. (1981). Assessing landscape attractiveness: a comparative test of two new methods. Applied geography, 1(2), 77-96.
  26. Khourshidi, S., Rostami, N., & Salehpourjam, A. (2021). Prioritizing flood producing potential in ungauged watersheds using the AHP-VIKOR method (Case study: Haji-Bakhtiar Watershed, Ilam). Environmental Erosion Research Journal, 11(2), 66-92.
  27. Lioubimtseva, E., & Defourny, P. (1999). GIS-based landscape classification and mapping of European Russia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(2-3), 63-75.
  28. Makhdoum, M., Darvishsefat, A. A., Jafarzadeh, H., & Makhdoum, A. R. (2013). Environmental Evaluation and Planning by Geographic Information System (7th edition). University of Tehran Press.
  29. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World Resources Institute.
  30. Mirkarimi, S. H., Saeidi, S., Mohammadzadeh, M., & Salmanmahini, A. (2014). PCA Method in Landscape Visual Quality Assessment, Case study: Ziarat Watershed of Golestan Province. Journal of Environmental Studies, 40(2), 451-462.
  31. Moghadasi, Z. (2017). Impact assessment of development on landscape visual quality of Ziarat village (Sc. Thesis). Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.
  32. Mohammadi, A., Shojaee, P., Akbari, Z., & Kayedan, B. (2016). Comparative Analysis Multi Criteria Decision Making Approach In Prioritizing Provinces Based on civil projects. Quarterly Journal of The Macro and Strategic Policies, 3(12), 27-50.
  33. Moshari, M., Sepehri, A., Barani, H., & Danehkar, A. (2020). Formulating the Criteria and Indexes for Valuation of Cultural Services of Natural Ecosystems on the Basis of Endemic Characteristics of Iran. Naqshejahan-Basic studies and New Technologies of Architecture and Planning, 9(4), 305-312.
  34. Nogué, J., Sala, P., & Grau, J. (2016). The Landscape Catalogues of Catalonia Methodology. Olot: Landscape Observatory of Catalonia.
  35. Office of Deputy for Strategic Supervision Bureau of Technical Execution System. (2009). Guidelines for Soil Survey No. 466. Jihad-e- Agriculture Ministry Water & Soil Research Institute. Islamic Republic of Iran Vice Presidency for Planning and Supervision.
  36. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European journal of operational research, 178(2), 514-529.
  37. Othman, N., Mohamed, N., Ariffin, M. H., & Razak, M. A. W. A. (2015). Landscape visual studies in urban setting and its relationship in motivational theory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 442-451.
  38. Perko, D., Hrvatin, M., & Ciglič, R. (2015). A METHODOLOGY FOR NATURAL LANDSCAPE TYPIFICATION OF SLOVENIA. Acta geographica Slovenica, 55(2).
  39. Pflüger, Y., Rackham, A., & Larned, S. (2010). The aesthetic value of river flows: An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(1-2), 68-78.
  40. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and behavior, 33(1), 93-106.
  41. Purkarimi, P., Hajizadeh, K., Rezaloo, R., & Afkhami, B. (2019). Evaluation and ranking of natural factors affecting the distribution of castle settlements in Ardabil province using the VIKOR model. Geography (Regional Planning), 9(3), 261-273.
  42. Saeidi, S. (2013). Visual Quality Assessment and Modeling of Aesthetic Values along Walking Tracks in the Ziarat Watershed (Sc. Thesis). Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.
  43. Sayre, R., Dangermond, J., Frye, C., Vaughan, R., Aniello, P., Breyer, S., ... & Comer, P. (2014). A new map of global ecological land units—an ecophysiographic stratification approach. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers, 46.
  44. Schirpke, U., Tasser, E., & Tappeiner, U. (2013). Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 111, 1-12.
  45. Shafie, B., Irani Behbahani, H., Makhdoum, M., Yavari, A.R. & Karimi, K. (2003). Presenting Design and Restoration Patterns in Riparian Zones, Following the Ecological Principles of the Landscape. Journal of Environmental Studies, 29(32), 1-14.
  46. Simensen, T., Erikstad, L., & Halvorsen, R. (2021). Diversity and distribution of landscape types in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 1-22.
  47. Smith, M., & Ram, Y. (2017). Tourism, landscapes and cultural ecosystem services: a new research tool. Tourism Recreation Research, 42(1), 113-119.
  48. Soto, S., & Pintó, J. (2010). Delineation of natural landscape units for Puerto Rico. Applied Geography, 30(4), 720-730.
  49. Sung, D. G., Lim, S. H., Ko, J. W., & Cho, G. S. (2001). Scenic evaluation of landscape for urban design purposes using GIS and ANN. Landscape and Urban Planning, 56(1-2), 75-85.
  50. Tobler, W. (1987, May). Measuring spatial resolution. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Geographic Information Systems(Vol. 48, pp. 12-16). International Geographic Union, Commission on Geographical Information Sensing and Processing.
  51. Van Eetvelde, V., & Antrop, M. (2009). A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landscape and urban planning, 91(3), 160-170.
  52. Wascher, D. M. (2005). European landscape character areas: typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes(No. 1254). Landscape Europe.
  53. Worboys, G. L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., & Pulsford, I. (Eds.). (2015). Protected area governance and management. Anu Press.
  54. Wu, Y., Bishop, I., Hossain, H. & Sposito, V (2007). Using GIS in landscape visual quality assessment. In Applied Gis 2 (3).
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 241
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 211


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب