سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات161
تعداد شماره‌ها6,532
تعداد مقالات70,501
تعداد مشاهده مقاله124,110,379
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله97,214,079
دارابی, حسن, باژدار, یاسر, احسانی, امیرهوشنگ. (1401). طراحی اکوپارک کوهستانی مبتنی بر خدمات منظر (نمونة موردی شاداب‏ کوه طرهان). , 54(1), 173-192. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.310101.1008170
حسن دارابی; یاسر باژدار; امیرهوشنگ احسانی. "طراحی اکوپارک کوهستانی مبتنی بر خدمات منظر (نمونة موردی شاداب‏ کوه طرهان)". , 54, 1, 1401, 173-192. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.310101.1008170
دارابی, حسن, باژدار, یاسر, احسانی, امیرهوشنگ. (1401). 'طراحی اکوپارک کوهستانی مبتنی بر خدمات منظر (نمونة موردی شاداب‏ کوه طرهان)', , 54(1), pp. 173-192. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.310101.1008170
دارابی, حسن, باژدار, یاسر, احسانی, امیرهوشنگ. طراحی اکوپارک کوهستانی مبتنی بر خدمات منظر (نمونة موردی شاداب‏ کوه طرهان). , 1401; 54(1): 173-192. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.310101.1008170

طراحی اکوپارک کوهستانی مبتنی بر خدمات منظر (نمونة موردی شاداب‏ کوه طرهان)

پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی
دوره 54، شماره 1، فروردین 1401، صفحه 173-192    اصل مقاله (614.18 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2020.310101.1008170
نویسندگان
حسن دارابی* 1؛ یاسر باژدار2؛ امیرهوشنگ احسانی3
1استادیار گروه مهندسی طراحی محیط زیست، دانشکدة محیط زیست، پردیس دانشکده‏ های فنی دانشگاه تهران
2دانش ‏آموختة کارشناسی ارشد مهندسی طراحی محیط زیست، دانشکدة محیط زیست، پردیس دانشکده ‏های فنی دانشگاه تهران
3دانشیار گروه مهندسی طراحی محیط زیست، دانشکدة محیط زیست، پردیس دانشکده‏ های فنی دانشگاه تهران
چکیده
تمرکز و ورود بیش از حد مردم به نواحی پیراشهرها، به‏ خصوص کوهستان‏ ها، زمینة تخریب محیط ‏‏زیست کوهستان را فراهم می ‏کند. بر این اساس، برنامه‏ ریزی و طراحی فضاهای کوهستانی اجتناب‏ ناپذیر است. هدف از پژو‏هش حاضر سامان‏دهی و طراحی یک اکوپارک کوهستانی در چارچوب خدمات منظر است تا بتواند بستر مناسبی برای گذراندن اوقات فراغت، توأم با ارتقای دانش‏ محیطی کاربران، در کنار حفاظت و بالا‏بردن کیفیت اکولوژیک منظر فراهم سازد. به این منظور، از چارچوب خدمات منظر برای طراحی اکوپارک کوهستانی در شاداب‏ کوه شهر گراب (لرستان) استفاده شده است. از این رو، بر اساس شاخص ‏های خدمات منظر، نخست به ارزیابی و تحلیل محدوده اقدام شده است. برای تحقق این امر، نقشة محدوده بر اساس عکس‏ های ماهواره‏ ای تهیه شد و سپس  اطلاعات میدانی در پارسل ‏های 30*30 متر جمع‏ آوری شد. نتیجة حاصل، با توجه به اصول طراحی اکولوژیک، در راستای اکوپارک تجزیه و تحلیل شده است. ماهیت مداخله در محدوده بر اساس تفاوت بین سطح خدمات ارائه‏ شده و کیفیت قابل ارائة خدمات مشخص شده است. درنهایت، با درنظرگرفتن چالش ‏ها و امکانات محدوده برنامة لازم تدوین و به طراحی اکوپارک اقدام شده است. بررسی میدانی نشان می‏ دهد که ماهیت استفاده از فضا متناسب نیست. این موضوع به افزایش آسیب ‏پذیری در بخش ‏هایی از سایت منجر شده است. طراحی اکوپارک می ‏تواند بارگذاری موجود را در تناسب با محیط سامان‏دهی کند و تعادل نسبی در رابطه با محیط را بر‏قرار سازد که، ضمن حفاظت از ارزش‏ های محیطی کوهستان، به نیازهای تفرجی بر اساس اصول طراحی اکولوژیک پاسخ می‏ دهد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
اکوپارک؛ خدمات منظر؛ طراحی اکولوژیک؛ کوهستان؛ منظر
عنوان مقاله [English]
Design of a mountain eco-park based on landscape services (Case study: Shadab Mountain of Tarhan)
نویسندگان [English]
Hassan Darabi1؛ Yaser Bajdar2؛ Amir Hoshang Ehsani3
2Department of Environmental design, School of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran
3Dr. H. Darabi, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental design, School of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran
چکیده [English]
Design of mountain eco-park based on landscape services
(Case study: Shadab Mountain, Tarhan)

Introduction
Mountains are one of the most interesting features of the earth (Prigo, 315,2019; Fugin, 2016) which act as a source and bridge for species. As result, they are crucial for the survival and stability of many human societies (Prigo, 315,2019). Therefore, management of natural and environmental resources of mountains (Bonadona, 2017), should be considered cautious (Nepal et al., 314, 2005) without undermining sustainability (Darabi et al., 597,2019). Therefore, designing mountain eco-parks which all resources are interdependent (Gauss, 2006), and interaction and coordination between all activities can be a response to these challenges. Ecological design is one of the options to respond to these concerns while providing the ecosystem and landscape services.
Landscape services are defined as goods and services provided by landscapes to meet human needs, directly or indirectly (Fabrizio, 368,2014; Galix, 273,2014). It seems that the benefits of landscape services that overlap with the characteristics of the Eco-park can provide a suitable basis for design of the eco-park by linking the design with the pattern and natural process (Galix, 273,2014). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to use landscape services as a basis of designing a mountain Eco-park.
Materials and Method:
A: Materials:
The area of study is Grab mountain Eco-park which is located in Grab City. It is a part of Lorestan province in western Iran. This City is the center of Tarhan district of Kuhdasht and part of the Zagros Mountains. The area located 33.4739° N, 47.2374° E in term of geographical location (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Location of the area of study
B: Method:
The research is done on base of following processes (Figure 2). Accordingly, this process consists of 6 steps. At first, landscape service indicators were selected according to the thematic literature and field study. Then, field surveys are done in 30 * 30 m parcels and basic maps were produced for each index in two categories: evaluation of quality of services and the context potential. After preparation of the potential and services maps, the indicators were weighted based on the AHP hierarchical evaluation process and overlaid separately by provision-production, regulation and socio-cultural services on the basis of following equation. They were re-overlayed and the final zoning was obtained.
EVl=∑_(i-1)^n▒〖(wi×EVli)〗

Then, after analyzing the limitations and facilities of the site in line with the design of the Eco-park, which ultimately leads to the design of the Eco-park in the framework of ecological design.

Results
Based on the first stage, potential and utility maps were produced. The outcomes are presented in the utility and potential maps. In continue, the maps were combined based on the research method, and finally, three zoning maps of provision-production, regulatory and socio-cultural services were obtained. The combination of three groups of landscape services together provides the final status of landscape services in the study area. The overlay is lead to the four main zones: weak zone, zone with the capability of provision-production services, zone with the capability of regulatory services and zone with the capability of socio-cultural services (Fig. 3).

Figure 2. Final zoning of landscape services

Discussion
The important subject is:1- which sectors of target area is able to provide services and 2- what is the current state of service delivery. Therefore, the difference between the potential and the quality of the services in the area determines the intensity of the intervention.
The result of the analysis identified four zones: 1) Weak zone: This zone is the weakest zone in terms of providing landscape services in all dimensions. Slope above 80% and being rocky are the main reasons for poor service delivery. Due to the high fragility of this area, any intervention in this area should be avoided.
2) Zone with the capability of provision-production services: This zone consists of agricultural and barren lands. The zone for providing provision-production services is of relatively favorable condition and in relative proportion to the potential of the area. Therefore, efforts should be made to prevent the development of existing disturbances as much as possible and reduce them.

3) Zone with the ability of regulatory services: This zone located in the mountain slope that mainly includes a set of regulatory services. Providing appropriate solutions to reduce environmental challenges and disturbances in the area is essential.
4) Zone with the capability of cultural-social services: This zone which facing north, has very poor vegetation. The behavioral pattern of the people indicates a higher probability of the presence of users in this area. This area has the ability to provide good services, but, the poor services are provided. Therefore, intervention in this area seems necessary.

Figure 3. Master plan of designed area
Based on spatial analysis and the principles of ecological design, the strategic plan of Eco-park has been presented. The proposed plan follows the natural structure. Moreover, an effort has been made to be adapted as possible to the spatial conditions. The access structure is a function of the morphology and topography of the site. The design of the spaces is based on the capacity and potential of the zones. Efforts have been made to respect nature, to provide a reasonable and identifying link between the environment and humans within an Eco-park (Fig. 3).
Conclusion:
Mountains are extremely vulnerable despite their ability to provide many services. Therefore, sustainability of mountain landscape requires recognizing the context and origin for vulnerability along with benefiting from. Therefore, after the studies carried out in the framework of landscape services, a basis has been provided for intervention in the form of Eco-park design. By zoning the disintegrated areas and focus on landscape integration, an Eco-park designed which will provide landscape services with emphasis on educational, recreational and environmental issues. Obviously, the work done covers only part of the whole, evaluating the feasibility, or evaluating and participatory design of such spaces and examining the limitations of the implementation are among the studies that can be done in the continuation of this work.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Eco-Park, Landscape services, Mountain, Ecological design, Landscape
مراجع
  1. ایرانی بهبهانی، هما و رازی مفتخر، نرمین، 1386، طراحی پایدار توسعه پارک جنگلی شیخ تپه ارومیه، محیط‏شناسی ، دورة 33، شمارة 31، صص 89-104.
  2. ایرانی بهبهانی، هما و شفیعی، بنفشه، 1386، منظرسازی کوهستان با استفاده از گیاهان بومی (نمونة موردی: درة جمشیدیه)، محیط‏شناسی ، دورة 33، شمارة 42، صص 124-129.
  3. قربانی، رسول و ابراهیم‏پور لنبران، احد، 1389، مدل‏سازی انگیزشی در توسعة تفرجگاه‏های پیرامون شهری: راهبردی جهت ارتقای کیفیت زندگی (نمونة موردی: پارک جنگلی عون ابن علی تبریز)، علوم محیطی، دورة 8 ، شمارة 1، صص 51-67 .
  4. مخزومی‏، جلا، 1394، اکولوژی، منظر، و طراحی اکولوژیک منظر،مجلة علمی- ترویجی منظر، دورة 7، شمارة 32، صص 52-59.
  5. موحد، سپیده؛ لقایی، حسن‏علی و فرح، حبیب، 1395، طراحی پارک اکولوژیک؛ گامی در راستای پایداری زیست‏محیطی شهرها (مطالعة موردی: ارتفاعات جنوب غربی مشهد)،فصل‏نامة علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، دورة 18، شمارة 3، صص 202-221.
  6. مفیدی شمیرانی، سیدمجید؛ مهدوی‏نژاد، محمدجواد و علوی‏زاده، الهام، 1388، پارک اکولوژیک، بوم‏شناسی طبیعی- فرهنگی، دورة 2، شمارة 3، صص 78-89.
  7. یاوری، احمدرضا، 1381، سال جهانی کوه‏ها و وضعیت زیست‏بوم‏های کوهستانی در ایران، محیط‏شناسی،‏ دورة 28، شمارة 30، صص 87-96.
  8. Apul, D., 2010, Ecological design principles and their implications on water infrastructure engineering. Journal of Green Building,Vol. 5, No. 3, PP. 147-164.
  9. Ahern, J., 2006, Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning, Dordrecht: Springer.
  10. Bastian, O.; Grunewald, K.; Syrbe, R.U.; Walz, U. and Wende, W., 2014, Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape ecology, Vol. 29, No. 9, PP.1463-1479.
  11. Bell, S.; Blom, D.; Rautamäki, M.; Castel-Branco, C.; Simson, A. and Olsen, I. A., 2005, Design of urban forests. In Urban forests and trees, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  12. Bonadonna, A.; Giachino, C. and Truant, E., 2017, Sustainability and mountain tourism: The millennial’s perspective. Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 7, PP. 12-
  13. Behbahani Irani, H. and Shafiei, B., 2007, Mountain Landscaping Using Native Plants (Case Study: Jamshidiyeh Valley), Environmental Science in the Thirty-Third Year, Vol. 33, No. 42, PP. 129-124.
  14. Barral, M.P.; Rey Benayas, J.M.; Meli, P. and Maceira, N.O., 2015, Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,Vol. 202, PP. 223-231.
  15. Beck, T., 2013, Principles of Ecological Landscape Design, Island Press.
  16. Bergen, S.D.; Bolton, S.M. and L. Fridley, J., 2001, Design principles for ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, PP. 201-210.
  17. Darabi, H.; Islami Farsani, S. and Irani Behbahani, H., 2019, Evaluation of Ecological Vulnerability in Chelgard Mountainous Landscape. Pollution, Vol. 5, No. 3, PP. 597-610.
  18. Darabi, H.; Jafari, A.; and Akhavan, K.; 2017, Analysis trend of climat changes in Qom province and its consequences. Journal of Environmental Science Studies.1; No. 2; PP. 25-40.
  19. Darabi, H.; Zafari, H.; and Milani Nia, S.; 2013, Participation in natural disaster reconstruction, lessons from Iran. In Natural disasters: Multifaceted aspects in management and impact assessment. Edited: Petrucci Croatia, IntechOpen,
  20. De Smith, M.J.; et al.; 2020. Geospatial analysis. 6th ed. The Winchelsea Press. Available from: https://www.spatialanalysisonline.com/extractv6.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2020]
  21. Dyson, K. and Yocom, K., 2015, Ecological design for urban waterfronts. Urban ecosystems, Vol.18, No. 1, PP.189-208.
  22. Drius, M.; Sams, K.T.; Knopper, F.; Hainz-Renetzeder, C.; Brandenburg, C. and Wrbka, T., 2020, Assessing landscape services as foundation for Green Infrastructure functionality: the case of the Wienerwald Biosphere Reserve. Landscape Online, Vol. 84, PP.1-39.
  23. Duarte, G.T.; Mitchell, M.; Martello, F.; Gregr, E.J.; Paglia, A.P.; Chan, K.M.A. and Ribeiro, M.C., 2020, A user-inspired framework and tool for restoring multifunctional landscapes: putting into practice stakeholder and scientific knowledge of landscape services. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 35, No. 11, PP. 2535-2548.
  24. Duarte, G.T.; Santos, P.M.; Cornelissen, T.G.; Ribeiro, M.C. and Paglia, A.P., 2018, The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 33, No. 8, PP. 1247-1257.
  25. Egoh, B.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Richardson, D.M.; Le Maitre, D.C. and van Jaarsveld, A.S., 2008, Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,Vol. 127, No. 1, PP. 135-140.
  26. Fagerholm, N.; Eilola, S.; Kisanga, D.; Arki, V. and Käyhkö, N., 2019, Place-based landscape services and potential of participatory spatial planning in multifunctional rural landscapes in Southern highlands, Tanzania. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 34, No. 7, PP.1769-1787.
  27. Foggin, J.M., 2016, Conservation issues: Mountain ecosystems. Reference module in earth systems and environmental sciences.
  28. Fang, X.; Zhao, W.; Fu, B. and Ding, J., 2015, Landscape service capability, landscape service flow and landscape service demand: A new framework for landscape services and its use for landscape sustainability assessment. Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 39, No. 6, PP. 817-836.
  29. Fry, G.L., 2001, Multifunctional landscapes—towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and urban planning, Vol. 57, No. 3-4, PP. 159-168.
  30. Fagerholm, N.; Käyhkö, N.; Ndumbaro, F. and Khamis, M., 2012, Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments–Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 18, PP. 421-433.
  31. Ghorbanzadeh, M. and Hasan Taghvaei, S., 2015, A Pattern for Eco-park design in Beshghardash landscape. Ciência e Natura, Vol. 37, PP. 225-236.
  32. Gulickx, M.M.C.; Verburg, P.H.; Stoorvogel, J.J.; Kok, K. and Veldkamp, A., 2013, Mapping landscape services: a case study in a multifunctional rural landscape in The Netherlands. Indic, Vol. 24, PP. 273-283.
  33. Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C. and Fry, G., 2007, The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape ecology, Vol. 22, No. 7, PP. 959-972.
  34. Goss, S.; Kane, G. and Street, G., 2006, The Eco-Park: Green Nirvana or White Elephant. Retrieved January, Vol. 14, PP. 1-14.
  35. Ghorbani, R. and Ebrahim Pourlenbaran, A., 2010, Motivational modeling in the development of resorts around a strategic city to improve the quality of life (Case study: Aoun Ibn Ali Forest Park, Tabriz), Environmental Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 1, PP. 51-67.
  36. Hester, R.T., 2010, Design for ecological democracy. MIT press.
  37. Holmes, J., 2006, Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the research agenda. Journal of rural studies,Vol. 22, No. 2, PP.142-160.
  38. Hermann, A.; Kuttner, M.; Hainz-Renetzeder, C.; Konkoly-Gyuró, É.; Tirászi, Á.; Brandenburg, C.; Allex, B.; Ziener, K. and Wrbka, T., 2014, Assessment framework for landscape services in European cultural landscapes: An Austrian Hungarian case study. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 37, PP. 229-240.
  39. Hou, Y.; Zhao, W.; Liu, Y.; Yang, S.; Hu, X. and Cherubini, F., 2020, Relationships of multiple landscape services and their influencing factors on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Landscape Ecology, PP.1-19.
  40. Keller, R. and Backhaus, N., 2020, Integrating landscape services into policy and practice – a case study from Switzerland. Landscape Research, Vol. 45, No. 1, PP. 111-121.
  41. Kongjian, Y. ; 2019, On services of landscapes. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, Vol.7; No.1; PP 1-7.
  42. Makhzumiyeh, J., 2015, Ecology, Landscape and Ecological Landscape Design, Scientific-Extension Journal of Landscape, Vol. 7, No. 32, PP. 52-59.
  43. Mofidi Shemirani, S. M.; Mahdavinejad, M. and Alavizadeh, Elham, 2010, Urban Park in Transition, Manzar Monthly, Vol. 2, No. 3, PP. 78-89.
  44. Movahed, S.; Laghaei, H. Ali. and Farah, H., 2016, Ecological Park Design; A step towards the environmental sustainability of cities (Case study: Southwest heights of Mashhad). Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 3, PP. 202-221.
  45. Nepal, S.K. and Chipeniuk, R., 2005, Mountain tourism: Toward a conceptual framework. Tourism Geographies,Vol. 7, No. 3, PP. 313-333.
  46. Nguyen, A.K.; Liou, Y.A.; Li, M.H. and Tran, T.A., 2016, Zoning eco-environmental vulnerability for environmental management and protection. Ecological Indicators,Vol. 69, PP. 100-117.
  47. Opdam, P., 2020, Implementing human health as a landscape service in collaborative landscape approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning,Vol. 199, PP. 1-7.
  48. Opdam, P., 2019, Information about landscape services affects social network interactions in collaborative landscape adaptation. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, PP. 139-148.
  49. Perrigo, A.; Hoorn, C. and Antonelli, A., 2020, Why mountains matter for biodiversity. Journal of Biogeography, Vol. 47, No. 2, PP. 315-325.
  50. Paunović, I. and Jovanović, V., 2019, Sustainable mountain tourism in word and deed: A comparative analysis in the macro regions of the Alps and the Dinarides. Acta Geographica Slovenica, Vol. 59, No. 2, PP. 59-69.
  51. Power, A.M., 2006, Designing for ecology: the ecological park (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
  52. Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C.; Ohnesorge, B.; Schaich, H.; Schleyer, C. and Wolff, F., 2013, Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecology and Society, Vol. 18, No. 3, PP. 1-16.
  53. Plieninger, T.; Van der Horst, D.; Schleyer, C. and Bieling, C., 2014, Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecology and Society, Vol. 19, No. 2, PP. 1-5.
  54. Refaat, M.H., 2014, Sustainable landscapes; the use of eco parks as a tool for sustaining the living landscape. International Journal of Education and Research, Vol. 2, No. 7, PP. 571-586.
  55. Scott, D., 2003, April. Climate change and tourism in the mountain regions of North America. In 1st International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism, PP. 1-9
  56. Sun, J.; Liu, L.; Müller, K.; Zander, P.; Ren, G.; Yin, G. and Hu, Y., 2018, Surplus or Deficit? Spatiotemporal Variations of the Supply, Demand, and Budget of Landscape Services and Landscape Multifunctionality in Suburban Shanghai, China. Sustainability, Vol. 10, No. 10, PP. 1-21.
  57. Syrbe, R.-U. and Walz, U., 2012, Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological indicators, Vol. 21, PP. 80-88.
  58. Shu-Yang, F.; Freedman, B. and Cote, R., 2004, Principles and practice of ecological design. Environmental Reviews,Vol. 12, No. 2, PP. 97-112.
  59. Thiele, J.; von Haaren, C. and Albert, C., 2019, Are river landscapes outstanding in providing cultural ecosystem services? An indicator-based exploration in Germany. Ecological indicators, Vol. 101, PP. 31-34.
  60. Termorshuizen, J. W. and Opdam, P., 2009, Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology,Vol. 24, No. 8, PP. 1037-1052.
  61. Tudorie, C.A.-M.; Vallés-Planells, M.; Gielen, E.; Arroyo, R. and Galiana, F., 2020, Towards a Greener University: Perceptions of Landscape Services in Campus Open Space. Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 15, PP.1-26.
  62. Van der Ryn, S. and Cowan, S., 2013, Ecological design. Island press.
  63. Vallés-Planells, M.; Galiana, F. and Van Eetvelde, V., 2014, A classification of landscape services to support local landscape planning. Ecology and Society, Vol. 19, No. 1, PP. 1-11.
  64. Van der Sluis, T.; Pedroli, B.; Frederiksen, P.; Kristensen, S.B.; Busck, A.G.; Pavlis, V. and Cosor, G.L., 2019, The impact of European landscape transitions on the provision of landscape services: an explorative study using six cases of rural land change. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 34, No. 2, PP. 307-323.
  65. Ungaro, F.; Zasada, I. and Piorr, A., 2014, Mapping landscape services, spatial synergies and trade-offs. A case study using variogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian landscape in North-East Germany. Ecological indicators,Vol. 46, PP. 367-378.
  66. Westerink, J.; P. Opdam; S. Van Rooij and E. Steingröver, 2017, "Landscape services as boundary concept in landscape governance: Building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape." Land Use Policy60, PP 408-418.
  67. Wu, J.; Feng, Z.; Gao, Y. and Peng, J., 2013, Hotspot and relationship identification in multiple landscape services: A case study on an area with intensive human activities. Ecological Indicators, Vol. 29, PP. 529-537.
  68. Xie, M.; Li, M.; Li, Z.; Xu, M.; Chen, Y.; Wo, R. and Tong, D., 2020, Whom Do Urban Agriculture Parks Provide Landscape Services to and How? A Case Study of Beijing, China. Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 12, PP. 1-21.
  69. Hua, X.; Yang, Y.; & Luo, Y. 2011, Plant planning of eco-park in mountainous regions. Journal of Landscape Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, PP 44-48.
  70. Yavari, A. R., 2002, World Year of Mountains and the Status of Mountain Ecosystems in Iran, Environmental Studies, Vol. 28, No. 30, PP. 87-96.
  71. Yang, B.; Li, M.H. and Li, S., 2013, Design-with-nature for multifunctional landscapes: Environmental benefits and social barriers in community development. International journal of environmental research and public health, Vol. 10, No. 11, PP. 5433-5458.
  72. Yu, K., 2019, On Services of Landscapes. Landscape Architecture Frontiers,Vol. 7, No. 1, PP. 4-7.
  73. Zhou, T.; Kennedy, E.; Koomen, E. and van Leeuwen, E. S., 2020, Valuing the effect of land use change on landscape services on the urban–rural fringe. Journal of environmental planning and management, Vol. 63, No. 13, PP. 1-21.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,224
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 406


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب