بهره‌برداری‌های اقتصادی و گردشگری از رودخانه‌های استان کرمانشاه و تأثیر آن در ویژگی‌های زیبایی‌شناختی

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار ژئومورفولوژی دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه

2 دانش‌آموخته کارشناسی‌ارشد ژئوموفولوژی، دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه

چکیده

ویژگی های زیبایی شناختی رودخانه ها دلیل اصلی جذب گردشگران می باشد. ولی حضور پیش بینی نشدة آن ها به اضافة فعالیتهای اقتصادی ساکنین بومی کیفیت زیبایی شناختی رودخانه های کرمانشاه را تنزل داده است. برای اهداف برنامه ریزی کیفیت زیبایی شناختی 19 مکان گردشگری این استان بررسی و رتبه بندی گردید. بدین منظور از روش لئوپولد استفاده شد که بر اساس آن 46 عامل مؤثر به سه دسته عوامل فیزیکی، زیست شناختی و انسانی تقسیم شد و به صورت میدانی به هر عامل بین 1 تا 5 امتیاز داده شد. نتایجی که از مقایسة جداول و نمودارهای به دست آمده حاصل شد، نشان داد که از عوامل فیزیکی پهنا، عمق و الگوی رودخانه و از عوامل زیست شناختی زلالی آب، بی رنگی آن و وجود درختان در اطرف رودخانه مهم‌ترین عوامل زیبایی شناختی رودخانه‌های این منطقه می باشند، در حالی که از میان این دو گروه از عوامل تنها در بعضی مکان ها گل آلودی بالا و رنگ کدر آب باعث تقلیل کیفیت آن ها شده است. برخلاف این عوامل، عامل انسانی در تقلیل کیفیت رودخانه های این منطقه بیشترین تأثیر را داشته است. بعضی مناطق مانند روستای گلین که دور از دسترس قرار داشته اند، توانسته اند زیبایی خود را حفظ کنند. ولی، درجة بالای شهرنشینی و ساخت و سازها و فعالیتهای اقتصادی در بستر رودخانه مانند احداث حوضچه‌های پرورش ماهی نه تنها کیفیت چشم اندازها را به‌شدت تحت تأثیر قرار داده بلکه ویژگی های فیزیکی و زیست شناختی آنها را نیز متأثر ساخته است. با گسترش فعالیتهای انسانی مانند ساخت سد چشم انداز بعضی از مناطق به کلی دگرگون شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Economic and tourism uses from rivers of Kermanshah and its impact on the aesthetic characteristics

نویسندگان [English]

  • iraj jabari 1
  • Shekoofe Abdoli 2
2 Razi university
چکیده [English]

Aesthetic characteristics of rivers is the main reason of attracting tourists. But the unexpected presence as well as economic activities by local residents has reduced aesthetic quality of the rivers of Kermanshah. For planning purposes, it was study and ranked the aesthetic quality of 19 tourist sites. Therefore the leopold’s method was used in which 46 effective factors divided to three types of factors, physical, biological and human interest factors, and then the factors was measured or scored from 1 to 5 in the field. The results of the comparison charts and tables showed that width, depth and pattern of river through of physical factors , and the clear and discoloration of water and presence of trees around the rivers through biological factors are the most important aesthetic factors. While between these two groups of factors, only in some places muddy and dull color of the water has reduced the quality of them. Despite these factors, human interest factors have had the greatest impact in quality of rivers in this region . Some areas, such as the village of Galin which have been out of reach, have been able to maintain its beauty. However, the high degree of urbanization and construction and economic activities on the river’s valleys and river’s beds such as the construction of fish ponds not only has been influenced the quality of landscapes strongly but also affected their physical and biological characteristics. The expansion of human activities such as building dams has transformed the landscape of some areas.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tourism
  • River
  • Kermanshah
  • the aesthetic
  • Leopold
  1. بنت، م.یو. آر، دویل، پ. 1380. زمین شناسی زیست محیطی،  ترجمه: احمد هرمزی، چاپ اول، 1380،  مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، تهران.
  2. پورتئوس، جی.دا. 1389. زیبایی شناسی زیست محیطی (نظریه‌ها، سیاست‌ها و برنامه ریزی)، ترجمه: محمد رضا مثنوی، چاپ اول، انشارات جهاد دانشگاهی.
  3. کوک. آر.یو؛ دورکمپ. جی.سی. 1377. ژئومورفولوژی و مدیریت محیط، ترجمه: شاپور گودرزی ن‍ژاد، جلد اول، چاپ اول‌، انتشارات سمت.
    1. Bernaldez, F.G., Gallardo, D., and Abello, R.P. 1987. Children's landscape preferences: from rejection to attraction. J. Environ. Psychol. 7: 169-176.
    2. Bernaldez, F.G., and Parra, F. 1979. Dimensions of landscape preferences from pairwise comparisons. In: Elsner, G.H., Smardon, R.C. (Eds.), Our National Landscape: Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual esource, Rep. PSW-35, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, pp. 256-262.
    3. Beza, B.B. 2010. The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek, Landscape and Urban Planning, 97: 306–317.
    4. Boon, P.J., Davies, B.R., Petts, G.E. 2000. Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK.
    5. Brown, T.C., and Daniel, T.C. 1990. Scaling of Ratings: Concepts and Methods. RM-293. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture.
    6. Buhyoff, G.J., and Leuschner, W.A. 1978.Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Sci. 24: 424-432.
    7. Daniel, T.C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Land. Urban Plan. 54: 267–281.
    8. Daniel, T.C., Anderson, L.M., Schroeder, H.W., and Wheeler III, L. 1978. Mapping the scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Leisure Sci. 1(1): 35-52.
    9. Daniel, T.C., and Boster, R.S. 1976. Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167.
    10. Daniel, T.C., and Vining, J. 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman, I., Wohlwill, J. (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment, Vol. VI. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 39-38.
    11. Daniel, T.C., Wheeler, L., Boster, R.S., and Best, P.R. 1973. Quantitative evaluation of landscapes: an application of signal detection analysis to forest management alternatives. Man-Environ. Syst. 35: 330-344.
    12. European Union, 2000. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive).
    13. Frank, S.,  Fürst, Ch.,  Koschke, L., Witt, A., and Makeschin, F. 2013. Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty, Ecological Indicators 32: 222– 231.
    14. Hull, R.B., and McCarthy, M.M. 1988. Change in the landscape. Land. Urban Plan. 15: 265-278.
    15. Iverson, W.D. 1975. Assessing landscape resources: a proposed model. In: Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.G. (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 274-288.
    16. Junker, B., and Buchecker, M. 2008. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations, Landscape and Urban Planning, 85: 141–154.
    17. Kaplan, R. 1975. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In: Zube, E., Brush, R., Fabos, J. (Eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 118-119.
    18. Leopold, L.B. 1969. Landscape esthetics: How to quantify the scenic of a river valley. In: Natural History, 454-467.
    19. Linton, D.L. 1968. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scottish Geographical magazine 84: 218-38.
    20. Litton, R.B., Jr. 1968. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories. Berkeley, USDA, Forest Service, Pacific South West Forest and Range Experimental Station Research Paper PSW-49.
    21. Litton, R.B., Jr. 1972. Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In: Krutilla, J.V. (Ed.), Natural Environments, Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. Resources for the Future, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 262-291.
    22. Litton, R.B., Jr. 1982. Visual assessment of natural landscapes. In: Sadler, B., Carlson, A. (Eds.), Environmental Aesthetics: Essays in Interpretation. Western Geographical Series, Vol. 20, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, pp. 95-115.
    23. Lothian, A. 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?, Landscape and Urban Planning 44 , 177-198.
    24. Meitner M.J. 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to locations, Landscape and Urban Planning, 68: 3-13.
    25. Palmer, T. 1993. The Wild and Scenic Rivers of America. Island Press.
    26. Pflüger, Y., Rackam, R., and Larned, S. 2010. The aesthic value of river flows: An assessment of flow preferences for large and small rivers, Landscape and Urban Planning, 95: 68-76.
    27. Purcell, A.T., and Lamb, R.J. 1998. Preferences and naturalness: ecological approach. Land. Urban Plan. 42(1): 57-66.
    28. Ramos, A.F., Ramos, P., Cifuentes, M., Fernandez-CanÄadas, 1976. Visual landscape evaluation, a grid technique. Land. Plan. 3: 67-88.
    29. Scatena, F.N., and Varrin, R.D. 2010. Fluvial processes in geomorphology and environmental management: The 2006 Benjamin Franklin Medal in Earth and Environmental Science awarded to Luna B. Leopold and M. Gordon Wolman  , Journal of the Franklin Institute, 347: 688–697.
    30. Schroeder, H.W., and Brown, T.C. 1983. Alternative functional forms for an inventory-based landscape perception model. J. Leisure Res. 15(2), 156-163.
    31. Shafer, E.L., and Tooby, M. 1973. Landscape preferences: an international replication. J. Leisure Res. 5: 60-65.
    32. Shafer, E.L., and Brush, R.O. 1977. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Land. Plan. 4, 237-256.
    33. Shannon S., Smardon R., and Knudson, M. 1995. Using visual assessment as a foundation for greenway planning in the St. Lawrence River Valley, Landscape and Urban Planning, 33: 357-371.
    34. Ulrich, R.S. 1977. Visual landscape Preference: a model and application. Man-Environ. Syst. 7: 279-293.
    35. US Department of Agriculture Forst Service, 1974. National Forest Landscape Management System, Agricultural Handbook 462. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (Chapter 1).
    36. US Department of Agriculture: A Handbbook for Scenery Management, Agri Forest Service, 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Nandbook No. 701. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
    37. US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1980. Visual Resource Management Program. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
    38. US Department of Transportation, 1981. Visual impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.