论文

基于GIS的佛山城市文化遗产景观风险性的评估

展开
  • 1. 佛山科学技术学院旅游系, 广东 佛山 528000;
    2. 中山大学城市与区域研究中心, 广东 广州 510275;
    3. 中山大学遥感与地理信息工程系, 广东 广州 510275
李 凡(1968- ),男,广东梅县人,副教授,博士研究生,主要从事区域文化地理与地理信息系统的应用研究。E-mail: fslifan@163.com

收稿日期: 2007-08-13

  修回日期: 2008-01-17

  网络出版日期: 2008-05-20

基金资助

:广东省科技计划项目(2005B31001001)资助。

Risk Evaluation of Urban Culture Heritage Landscape in Foshan Based on GIS

Expand
  • 1. Tourism Department, Foshan University, Foshan, Guangdong 528000;
    2. Urban & Regional Research Center, SUN Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510275;
    3. Department of Remote Sensing and GIS Engineering, SUN Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou vulnerability 510275

Received date: 2007-08-13

  Revised date: 2008-01-17

  Online published: 2008-05-20

摘要

首先从城市文化遗产景观所处背景环境和存在状况的两个角度,构建城市文化遗产景观风险性评估体系和评估模型,应用GIS开发佛山历史文化地理信息系统,并实现城市文化遗产景观风险性的评估功能。通过对1994年和2005年佛山的城市文化遗产景观在环境风险、发展风险和遗产状况的分析表明:大气环境在环境风险中贡献较大,传统建城区的大气环境风险性呈下降趋势,而其周边地区增强;发展风险总体上增加,但随着缓冲区不同,其中土地利用变化带来的风险性最为显著;佛山城市文化遗产景观风险性随着缓冲半径有不同的变化趋势,分析认为应该建立适宜的文化缓冲区。

本文引用格式

李凡, 符国强, 齐志新 . 基于GIS的佛山城市文化遗产景观风险性的评估[J]. 地理科学, 2008 , 28(3) : 431 -438 . DOI: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2008.03.431

Abstract

Being a major research object of cultural geography, urban cultural heritage landscape goes together with urban environment, but its vulnerability and risk are increasing with urban development, population increasing and environment changing. However research on risk of urban cultural heritage landscape was lagged behind. Foshan City is chosen as the study area. As one of the famous historical cities in economically developed region, Foshan is changing greatly in natural and sociocultural environment. Thus it is most important to evaluate the risk of urban cultural heritage landscapes ought from change of environmental setting. Centering around the two points of the environment background and existing status of urban cultural heritage landscape, the paper sets up a system and a model of risk evaluation, and has designed and exploited FSHCGIS(Historical Cultural GIS of Foshan)based on VB.Net and MapObjects, simultaneously achieves evaluation function to the risk of urban cultural heritage landscape. By analyzing the risks of development, environment and heritage status on urban cultural heritage landscape from 1994 to 2005, the authors expound the characters of risk difference of urban culture heritage landscape in different blocks of Foshan. 1) Risk of atmosphere environment contributes more in environmental risk, and it shows downtrend in traditional urban blocks, but boosts up in the surrounding area of traditional urban blocks. If elaborating on the risk difference between various atmosphere pollution indexes, we find the risks from SO2 and NOx evidently increase, and acid rain has become the main risk of urban cultural heritage landscape here in Foshan. 2) Developmental risk increases totally, but in the different buffer area risk change of close distance is very little in the old urban area, that of middle and farther distance tones up, and the risk brought from change of land utilization is the more prominent among all developmental indexes. 3) The risk of urban cultural heritage landscape shows distinct change trend along with different buffer radiuses. The article considers that the radius of cultural buffer area lies commonly between 50m to 200m based on analyzing the trend curves of RC.

参考文献

[1] Vacher H. Extension planning and the historic city: Civic design strategies in the 1908-09 Copennhagen international competition[J]. Planning Perspectives, 2004, 19: 255-281.
[2] Noha N. Planning for urban heritage places: Reconciling conservation, tourism, and sustainable development[J]. Journal of Planning Literature, 2003,17(4): 467-470.
[3] Stubbs M. Heritage-sustainability: Developing a methodology for the sustainable appraisal of the historic environment[J]. Planning, Practice & Research, 2004, 19(3):285-305.
[4] Cowell B. Why heritage count: Researching the historic environment[J]. Cultural Trends. 2004,13(4):23-39.
[5] Lily K, Yeoh Brenda S A. Urban conservation in Singapore: A survey of state policies and popular attitudes[J]. Urban Studies, 1994, 31(2): 247-265.
[6] Evans G. Living in a World heritage city: Stakeholders in the dialectic of the universal and particular[J]. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2002, 8(2): 117-135.
[7] Townshend T, Pendlebury J. Public participation in the conservation of historic areas: Case-studies from north-east England[J]. Journal of Urban Design, 1999, 4(3): 313-331.
[8] Chang TC. Singapore’s little India: A tourist attraction as a contested landscape[J]. Urban Studies, 2000,37(2):343-366.
[9] Cohen-hattab K. Historical research and tourism analysis: The case of the tourist-historic city of Jerusalem[J]. Tourism Geographies, 2004, 6(3): 279-302.
[10] Yiping Li, Lap Bang Raymond Lo. Opportunities and constraints of heritage tourism in Hong Kong's changing cultural landscape[J]. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2005,5(4): 322-345.
[11] 阮仪三, 张艳华. 上海城市遗产保护观念的发展及对中国名城保护的思考[J]. 城市规划学刊,2005,1:68~71.
[12] 梁航琳, 杨昌鸣. 中国城市化进程中文化遗产保护对策研究[J]. 建筑师,2006,2:10~13.
[13] 宋振春,朱冠梅. 世界文化遗产旅游深度开发研究——以曲阜为例[J]. 旅游学刊, 2007,5:54~60.
[14] 保罗· 鲍克斯著. 胡明星, 董 卫译. 地理信息系统与文化资源管理[M]. 南京:东南大学出版社,2001.
[15] 胡明星,董 卫. 基于GIS的镇江西津渡历史街区保护管理信息系统[J]. 规划师,2002,18(3):71~73.
[16] 曾群华,郭 跃. 基于GIS与RS的三峡库区文物保护信息系统研究[J]. 地域研究与开发,2004,23(6):118~122.
[17] 陈述彭,黄 翀. 文化遗产保护与开发的思考[J]. 地理研究,2005,24(4):489~497.
[19] 陈同庆,徐 颂. 佛山市禅城区大气环境质量变化研究[J]. 佛山科学技术学院学报(自然科学版),2006,24(2):76~79.
文章导航

/