مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد تصویر برداری از راه دور در مقابل عکاسی چشمی – الزویر ۲۰۱۷

elsevier

 

مشخصات مقاله
انتشار مقاله سال ۲۰۱۷
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۱۲ صفحه
هزینه دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.
منتشر شده در نشریه الزویر
نوع مقاله ISI
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله Remotely-sensed imagery vs. eye-level photography: Evaluating associations among measurements of tree cover density
ترجمه عنوان مقاله تصویر برداری از راه دور در مقابل عکاسی چشمی: ارزیابی روابط میان معیار های تراکمی روکش درخت
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی  PDF
رشته های مرتبط معماری، شهرسازی، منابع طبیعی، مهندسی عمران
گرایش های مرتبط طراحی شهری، جنگلداری، سنجش از راه دور
مجله دونما و برنامه ریزی شهری – Landscape and Urban Planning
دانشگاه Faculty of Architecture – The University of Hong Kong – China
کلمات کلیدی جنگلداری شهری، تراکم پوشش درخت، تصاویر دورسنجی، عکاسی چشمی، اتحادیه
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی Urban forestry, Tree cover density, Remotely-sensed imagery, Eye-level photography, Association
کد محصول E7636
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله  ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.
دانلود رایگان مقاله دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله سفارش ترجمه این مقاله

 

بخشی از متن مقاله:
۱٫ Introduction

A primary goal of urban forestry planning and management is reaching at least minimum levels of tree cover density (Nowak et al., 2010). Accurate measures of tree cover density are needed so planners know where to plant trees and how many trees to plant. Tree cover density is most often measured using remotely-sensed imagery (e.g., rectified satellite imagery). Google Earth produces high-quality remotely-sensed images of most places on earth that can be used to objectively calculate tree cover density at little or no cost to the user. This combination of no cost and easy access has made the use of remotely-sensed images for measuring tree cover density and for procuring information about a site ubiquitous in design and planning circles (Janssen & Rosu, 2012; Sheppard & Cizek, 2009). Given the advantages provided by remotely-sensed images, it is likely that many designers and planners feel that they can assess a site and make rational decisions about it by relying on Google Earth imagery rather than on visiting a site and using other eyelevel methods (Power, Neville, Devereux, Haynes, & Barnes, 2013). In recent years, tree cover density measurements derived from remotely-sensed images have been widely adopted to evaluate and compare tree cover density at the scale of states (Nowak & Greenfield, 2012a), cities (McPherson, Simpson, Xiao, & Wu, 2011; Nowak & Greenfield, 2012b), and communities (Kardan et al., 2015; Klemm, Heusinkveld, Lenzholzer, & van Hove, 2015). Eye-level tree cover density measurements are used much less often. Eye-level measures include calculating tree coverdensity fromeye-levelphotography (Jiang, Chang, & Sullivan, 2014) and asking landscape experts or ordinary people to subjectively rate tree cover density from eye-level photographs of actual landscape scenes (Jiang, Larsen, Deal, & Sullivan, 2015; Nordh, Hartig, Hagerhall, & Fry, 2009). It is plausible, however, that eye-level photography, especially panoramic photography that has a similar visual scope to human vision, may better represent people’s perceptions of landscapes than remotely-sensed imagery, and may be a better tool than remotely-sensed imagery in efforts to understand the impact of urban forestry on human health and well-being. Many studies have reported strong, positive associations between the density of vegetation in urban landscapes and the health and wellbeing of individuals (Li & Sullivan, 2016; Parsons, Tassinary, Ulrich, Hebl, & Grossman-Alexander, 1998; Ulrich, 1984; van den Berg, Koole, & van der Wulp, 2003). Previous studies suggest, moreover, that eye-level photographs are more accurate at measuring tree cover density and procuring information about a site than remotely sensed imagery (Kweon, Ellis, Lee, & Rogers, 2006; Leslie, Sugiyama, Ierodiaconou, & Kremer, 2010). To our best knowledge, no empirical studies have examined the extent of agreement among remotely-sensed and eye-level methods of measuring tree cover density at the site scale. In addition, it is unclear whether remotely-sensed or eye-level methods would be better in certain circumstances (such as when tree cover density is low or high). To what extent can designers and planners eschew traditional forms of procuring information about a site (e.g., by measuring tree cover density from eye-level photographs or walking the site) and rely instead on information conveyed by remotely-sensed images? Should municipal officials establish standards of tree cover density in cities by relying on information conveyed solely by remotely-sensed images?

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *