Visual sensitivity versus ecological sensitivity: An application of GIS in urban forest park planning

Abstract Planning and management of forest parks have been contentious and challenging, as multiple and sometimes conflicting uses must be accommodated, especially in urban and peri-urban areas. Methodologies are thus needed to explore and evaluate development and conservation initiatives as a crucial part of sustainable planning and management process. In China, urban forest parks have been increasingly established aiming at satisfying the recreational demand of citizens in tandem with preserving diverse natural resources to safeguard the ecological resilience and adaptability of urban ecosystems. The transition from the traditional focus on recreational use (emphasizing the improvement of visitors’ visual quality and landscape aesthetics) to multiple uses including ecological and biological preservation (highlighting the minimization of ecological vulnerability) poses an urgent challenge for the planning and management of urban forest parks worldwide. In this study, a geographic information system (GIS) combined with Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach is explored to objectively quantify and integrate the visual sensitivity and ecological sensitivity of the Tianzhu Mountain National Forest Park, Fujian province, South China. The visual sensitivity is evaluated based on three dimensions: slope, distance and visibility. And the ecological sensitivity is measured with regard to elevation, slope, aspect, forest type, and distance to river. By overlapping of the visual sensitivity and ecological sensitivity maps for the study site, three functional zones are pinpointed, including nature restoration/conservation zone (with high ecological sensitivity and low visual sensitivity or invisible), level 1 development zone (with high visual sensitivity and low/very low ecological sensitivity), as well as level 2 development zone (with moderate visual and ecological sensitivities). Compared with the existing long-term development plan, obvious discrepancies can be identified. Our results can provide scientific decision support for multiple use planning of the study site, and also demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed methodology, which is comprehensive yet convenient, for the sustainable planning of urban and peri-urban forest parks.

[1]  A. Lovett,et al.  Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal , 2011 .

[2]  C. Ordóñez,et al.  Ecological integrity in urban forests , 2012, Urban Ecosystems.

[3]  John L. Innes,et al.  National Park Development in China: Conservation or Commercialization? , 2012, AMBIO.

[4]  G. Weiss,et al.  Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective , 2012 .

[5]  P. Corona,et al.  Restorative urban forests: Exploring the relationships between forest stand structure, perceived restorativeness and benefits gained by visitors to coastal Pinus pinea forests , 2018, Ecological Indicators.

[6]  Franck Bourrier,et al.  Three-dimensional modelling of slope stability in heterogeneous montane forest ecosystems , 2014 .

[7]  Jintun Zhang,et al.  Integrative ecological sensitivity (IES) applied to assessment of eco-tourism impact on forest vegetation landscape: A case from the Baihua Mountain Reserve of Beijing, China , 2012 .

[8]  M. Nagy-Reis,et al.  Urban parks can maintain minimal resilience for Neotropical bird communities , 2017 .

[9]  Deepika Mann,et al.  Spatio-temporal forest cover dynamics along road networks in the Central Himalaya , 2019, Ecological Engineering.

[10]  Edward B. Duffy,et al.  High-throughput computing provides substantial time savings for landscape and conservation planning , 2014 .

[11]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Multifunctional forest management in Northern Portugal: Moving from scenarios to governance for sustainable development , 2010 .

[12]  G. Fry,et al.  The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  Leonie K. Fischer,et al.  Unexploited opportunities in understanding liveable and biodiverse cities. A review on urban biodiversity perception and valuation , 2016 .

[14]  A. García-Martín,et al.  Evaluation of forest cover change using remote sensing techniques and landscape metrics in Moncayo Natural Park (Spain) , 2015 .

[15]  T. Rosenstiel,et al.  Urban forested parks and tall tree canopies contribute to macrolichen epiphyte biodiversity in urban landscapes , 2018 .

[16]  Luigi La Riccia.  Landscape Planning at the Local Level , 2017 .

[17]  Pekka Leskinen,et al.  Producing a sensitivity assessment method for visual forest landscapes , 2015 .

[18]  Simon Bell,et al.  Designing sustainable forest landscapes , 2007 .

[19]  Anping Chen,et al.  Early post-fire regeneration of a fire-prone subtropical mixed Yunnan pine forest in Southwest China: Effects of pre-fire vegetation, fire severity and topographic factors , 2015 .

[20]  S. K. S. O. Thani,et al.  Biodiversity by Design: The attributes of ornamental plants in urban forest parks , 2013 .

[21]  O. Bastian,et al.  Landscape management and landscape changes towards more naturalness and wilderness: Effects on scenic qualities—The case of the Müritz National Park in Germany , 2013 .

[22]  Perver K. Baran,et al.  Spatial distributions and use patterns of user groups in urban forest parks: An examination utilizing GPS tracker , 2018, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening.

[23]  János Rakonczai,et al.  Multi-indicator sensitivity analysis of climate change effects on landscapes in the Kiskunság National Park, Hungary , 2015 .

[24]  R. Mercurio,et al.  Assessing visual impacts of forest operations on a landscape in the Serre Regional Park of southern Italy , 2011, Landscape and Ecological Engineering.

[25]  Robert D. Brown,et al.  Visual preference and ecological assessments for designed alternative brownfield rehabilitations. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[26]  M. E. Patterson,et al.  Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas , 1994 .

[27]  T. Daniel,et al.  Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics , 2002 .

[28]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information , 2001 .

[29]  A. O. Varghese,et al.  Remote Sensing and GIS in Agriculture and Forest Resource Monitoring , 2018 .

[30]  Daniel Joly,et al.  Integrated GIS software for computing landscape visibility metrics , 2018, Trans. GIS.

[31]  Nicole Porter,et al.  A feeling for what's best: Landscape aesthetics and notions of appropriate residential architecture in Dartmoor National Park, England , 2017 .

[32]  S. Fan,et al.  Diversity and influencing factors on spontaneous plant distribution in Beijing Olympic Forest Park , 2019, Landscape and Urban Planning.

[33]  Yi-Chung Wang,et al.  Investigation of visitors’ motivation, satisfaction and cognition on urban forest parks in Taiwan , 2016, Journal of Forest Research.

[34]  Frieke Van Coillie,et al.  Nature conservation versus scenic quality: A GIS approach towards optimized tourist tracks in a protected area of Northwest Yunnan, China , 2014, Journal of Mountain Science.

[35]  Cecil C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch,et al.  A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces – A systematic review , 2014 .

[36]  Noriah Othman,et al.  Landscape Aesthetic Values and Visiting Performance in Natural Outdoor Environment , 2015 .

[37]  R. Primack,et al.  A Chinese approach to protected areas: A case study comparison with the United States , 2017 .

[38]  J. Jenkins.  A ‘deep’ aesthetics of contested landscapes: Visions of land use as competing temporalities , 2018, Geoforum.

[39]  Jack L. Nasar,et al.  Influence of visibility and situational threats on forest trail evaluations , 2014 .

[40]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World , 1982 .

[41]  Pekka Leskinen,et al.  Analyzing uncertainties and estimating priorities of landscape sensitivity based on expert opinions , 2017 .

[42]  T. Daniel,et al.  Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality , 1983 .

[43]  O. Vistad,et al.  Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information , 2017 .

[44]  Dale W. Johnson,et al.  Simulated effects of temperature and precipitation change in several forest ecosystems , 2000 .

[45]  S. Huang.  Park user preferences for establishing a sustainable forest park in Taipei, Taiwan , 2014 .

[46]  A. Arnberger,et al.  How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparison of trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments , 2010 .

[47]  Gary Fry,et al.  Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory , 2008 .

[48]  P. Jeffrey,et al.  Landscape Sensitivity, Resilience and Sustainable Watershed Management , 2008 .

[49]  Andrew D. Kliskey,et al.  Linking the Wilderness Perception Mapping Concept to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum , 1998, Environmental management.

[50]  R. Hobbs,et al.  Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[51]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A. , 1990 .

[52]  M. A. Hamadouche,et al.  GIS-based multicriteria analysis: an approach to select priority areas for preservation in the Ahaggar National Park, Algeria , 2014, Arabian Journal of Geosciences.

[53]  R. Gardner,et al.  Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology , 1991 .

[54]  Jingwei Zhao,et al.  Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types , 2016 .

[55]  Frank Nevens,et al.  Reducing the visual impact of 'greenhouse parks' in rural landscapes , 2008 .

[56]  P. Gobster,et al.  Emerald ash borer impacts on visual preferences for urban forest recreation settings , 2017 .

[57]  T. Hiura,et al.  Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido , 2017 .

[58]  Bixia Chen,et al.  Protest response and contingent valuation of an urban forest park in Fuzhou City, China , 2018 .

[59]  Feng Li,et al.  Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: a case study in Beijing, China , 2005 .