All Issue

2021 Vol.10, Issue 2 Preview Page
Exploring Applicability of Deep Learning for Restorative Urban Forest Landscape Evaluation: Focused on Related Literature and Methodology Review

도시림의 경관 회복 기능 평가를 위한 딥러닝 적용 가능성 모색: 문헌 및 방법론 리뷰를 중심으로

김유진, 강영은
2021. pp. 277~291
PDF Citation
Abstract
Sorry, not available.
Click the PDF button.
References
  1. 강영옥･조나혜･박소연･김지연, 2021, “합성곱신경망을 활용한 SNS 사진 분류 및 관광객과 거주자의 관광활동 특성 분석,” 대한지리학회지, 56(3), 247-264.
  2. 권헌교･신원섭･김재준, 2004, “도시림의 유형에 따른 이용편익 비교,” 한국산림휴양학회지, 8(2), 37-46.
  3. 길대영･전가현･이강, 2017, “딥러닝 알고리즘을 활용한 건설현장사진의 공종별 분류에 대한 기초 연구,” 대한건축학회 학술발표대회 논문집, 32(2), 785-786.
  4. 김동하･백규승･김용대, 2017, “딥러닝 모형의 복잡도에 관한 연구,” 한국데이터정보과학회지, 28(6), 1217-1227.
  5. 김지원･표현아･하정우･이찬규･김정희, 2015, “다양한 딥러닝 알고리즘과 활용,” 정보과학회지, 33(8), 25-31.
  6. 김충열･문현식･김태운･조민기･강미영･안기완･임효인, 2016, “이용객 모니터링을 통한 울산 대왕암 도시숲의 관리방안,” 한국도서연구, 28(4), 139-154.
  7. 박선아･이명우, 2016, “숲 공간유형별 특성에 따른 치유효과 분석: 심리적 회복감과 만족도를 중심으로,” 한국조경학회지, 44(4), 75-85.
  8. 박제강･박용규･온한익･강동중, 2015, “딥러닝을 이용한 영상내 물체 인식 기법,” 제어･로봇･시스템학회 논문지, 21(4), 21-26.
  9. 유윤희･연평식･신원섭, 2013, “도시림의 유형에 따른 회복환경지각척도의 비교,” 한국산림휴양학회지, 17(1), 33-45.
  10. 이승훈, 2011, “심리적 지표 평가에 의한 도시와 옥상정원, 숲의 경관 비교,” 서울도시연구, 12(3), 53-65.
  11. 이승훈, 2012, “녹시율과 회복환경 간의 정적 관계에 대한 배경스트레스원의 가법적 영향 검증,” 서울도시연구, 13(2), 187-205.
  12. 이승훈･현명호, 2003, “한국판 회복환경지각척도의 요인구조,” 한국심리학회지, 8(2), 229-241.
  13. 임승빈, 2009, ｢경관분석론｣, 서울: 서울대학교 출판부.
  14. 정성철･이민하･구교상･조은경･한상열･허태철･주성현, 2010, “도시림 조성･관리 방안에 관한 시민-공무원 인식조사,” 한국산림휴양학회지, 14(3), 39-45.
  15. 홍은빈･전준호･이승용, 2016, “사진 구도 개선을 위한 딥러닝 기반 반복적 크롭핑,” 정보과학회논문지, 43(12), 1356-1364.
  16. 황주연･임동섭･백두원, 2009, “직선 성분을 이용하는 구도가 유사한 사진 검색 방법,” 한국멀티미디어학회논문지, 12(11), 1539-1546.
  17. Barona, C.O., 2015, Adopting public values and climate change adaptation strategies in urban forest management: A review and analysis of the relevant literature, Journal of Environmental Management, 164, 215-221.
  18. Bell, S.L., Foley, R., Houghton, F., Maddrell, A., and Williams, A.M., 2018, From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: A scoping review, Social Science & Medicine, 196, 123-130.
  19. Buscombe, D. and Ritchie, A.C., 2018, Landscape classification with deep neural networks, Geosciences, 8(7), 244.
  20. Carvalho-Ribeiro, S.M. and Lovett, A., 2011, Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal, Forest Policy and Economics, 13(1), 46-54.
  21. Chen, W.Y. and Jim, C.Y., 2010, Resident motivations and willingness-to-pay for urban biodiversity conservation in Guangzhou (China), Environmental Management, 45, 1052-1165.
  22. Chen, B. and Nakama, Y., 2015, Residents’ preference and willingness to conserve homestead woodlands Coastal villages in Okinawa Prefecture, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 919-931.
  23. Collado, S., Staats, H., and Sorrel, M.A., 2016, A relational model of perceived restorativeness: Intertwined effects of obligations, familiarity, security and parental supervision, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 24-32.
  24. Daniel, T.C. and Vining, J., 1983, Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality, Human Behavior and Environment, 6, 39-84.
  25. Deng, J., Andrada, R., and Pierskalla, C., 2017, Visitors’ and residents’ perceptions of urban forests for leisure in Washington D.C., Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 28, 1-11.
  26. Donovan, G.H. and Butry, D.T., 2010, Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon, Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(2), 77-83.
  27. Dupont, L., Antrop, M., and Van Eetvelde, V., 2015, Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management, Landscape and Urban Planning, 141, 68-77.
  28. Eggers, J., Lindhagen, A., Lind, T., Lamas, T., and Ohman, K., 2018, Balancing landscape-level forest management between recreation and wood production, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 33, 1-11.
  29. Endreny, T., Santagata, R., Perna, A., Stefano, C.D., Rallo, R.F., and Ulgiati, S., 2017, Implementing and managing urban forests: A much needed conservation strategy to increase ecosystem services and urban wellbeing, Ecological Modelling, 360, 328-335.
  30. Feimer, N.R., 1979, Personality and environment perception: Alternative predictive systems and implications for evaluative judgements, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
  31. Fyhri, A., Jacobsen, J.K.S., and Tømmervik, H., 2009, Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region, Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(4), 202-211.
  32. Gerrish, E. and Watkins, S.L., 2018, The relationship between urban forests and income: A meta-analysis, Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, 293-308.
  33. Guo, Z., Shao, X., Xu, Y., Miyazaki, H., Ohira, W., and Shibasaki, R., 2016, Identification of village building via Google Earth images and supervised machine learning methods, Remote Sensing, 8(4), 271.
  34. Hagerhall, C.M., 2001, Consensus in landscape preference judgements, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 83-92.
  35. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F.G., and Bowler, P.A., 1997, Further development of a measure of perceived envrionmental restorativeness (Working paper no 5), Gävle, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research.
  36. Hauru, K., Lehvavirta, S., Korpela, K., and Kotze, D.J., 2012, Closure of view to the urban matrix has positive effects on perceived restorativeness in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland, Landscape and Urban Planning, 107, 361-369.
  37. Herzog, T.R. and Stark, J.L., 2004, Typicality and preference for positively and negatively valued environmental settings, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 85-92.
  38. Hoyle, H., Hitchmough, J., and Jorgensen, A., 2017, All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationship between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting, Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 109-123.
  39. Hu, S., Yue, H., and Zhou, Z., 2019, Preferences for urban stream landscapes: Opportunities to promote unmanaged riparian vegetation, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 114-123.
  40. Kang, Y., Cho, N., Yoon, J., Park, S., and Kim, J., 2021, Transfer learning of a deep learning for exploring tourists’ urban image using geotagged photos, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3), 137.
  41. Kaplan, R., 2004, The social values of forests and trees in urbanized societies, IUFRO World Series, 14, 167-178.
  42. Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S., 1989, The experience of nature: A psychological perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Kaplan, S., 1995, The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182.
  44. Korpela, K. and Hartig, T., 1996, Restorative qualities of favorite places, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
  45. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G.E., 2017, ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks, Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 84-90.
  46. López-Martínez, F., 2017, Visual landscape preferences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demographic influences, Ecological Engineering, 104, 205-215.
  47. MA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current States and Trends, Washington D.C.: Island Press.
  48. Mattila, O., Korhonen, A., Poyry, E., Hauru, K., Holopainen, J., and Parvinen, P., 2020, Restoration in a virtual reality forest environment, Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106295.
  49. Merry, K., Bettinger, P., Siry, J., and Bowker, J.M., 2020, Preferences of motorcyclists to views of managed, rural southern United States landscapes, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 29, 100259.
  50. Middel, A., Lukasczyk, J., Zakrzewski, S., Arnold, M., and Maciejewski, R., 2019, Urban form and composition of street canyons: A human-centric big data and deep learning approach, Landscape and Urban Planning, 183, 122-132.
  51. Nielsen, A.B., Gundersen, V.S., and Jensen, F.S., 2018, The impact of field layer characteristics on forest preference in Southern Scandinavia, Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, 221-230.
  52. Pasini, M., Berto, R., Brondino, M., Hall, R., and Ortner, C., 2014, How to measure the restorative quality of environments: The PRS-11, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 293-297.
  53. Pazhouhanfar, M. and Kamal, M., 2014, Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13, 145-151.
  54. Peckham, S.C., Duinker, P.N., and Ordonez, C., 2013, Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 154-162.
  55. Peschardt, K.K. and Stigsdotter, U.K., 2013, Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces, Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 26-39.
  56. Sang, Å.O. and Tveit, M.S., 2013, Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes, Land Use Policy, 31, 557-564.
  57. Sevenant, M. and Antrop, M., 2010, The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference, Land Use Policy, 27(3), 827-842.
  58. Simkin, J., Ojala, A., and Tyrvainer, L., 2020, Restorative effects of mature and young commercial forest, pristine old-growth forest and urban recreation forest: A field experiment, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 48, 126567.
  59. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B. and Soszyński, D., 2019, The index of the Prognosis Rural Landscape Preferences (IPRLP) as a tool of generalizing peoples’ preferences on rural landscape, Journal of Environmental Management, 248, 109272.
  60. Stigsdotter, U.K., Corazon, S.S., Sidenius, U., Refshauge, A.D., and Grahn, P., 2017, Forest design for mental health promotion: Using perceived sensory dimensions to elicit restorative responses, Landscape and Urban Planning, 160, 1-15.
  61. Strumse, E., 1996, Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(1), 17-31.
  62. Tomao, A., Secondi, L., Carrus, G., Corona, P., Portoghesi, L., and Agrimi, M., 2018, Restorative urban forests: Exploring the relationship between forest stand structure, perceived restorativeness and benefits gained by visitors to coastal Pinus pinea forests, Ecological Indicators, 90, 594-605.
  63. Townsend, J.B. and Barton, S., 2018, The impact of ancient tree form on modern landscape preferences, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 34, 205-216.
  64. Ulrich, R.S., 1983, Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment, Behavior and the Natural Environment, 85-125.
  65. Ulrich, R.S., 1984, View through a window may influence recovery from surgery, Science, 224(4647), 420-421.
  66. Van den Berg, A.E. and Koole, S.L., 2006, New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 362-372.
  67. Wang, R. and Zhao, J., 2017, Demographic groups’ differences in visual preference for vegetated landscapes in urban green space, Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 350-357.
  68. Wang, R., Zhao, J., and Liu, Z., 2016, Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 210-217.
  69. Wang, W., Zhao, M., Wang, L., Huang, J., Cai, C., and Xu, X., 2016, A multi-scene deep learning model for image aesthetic evaluation, Signal Processing: Image Communication, 47, 511-518.
  70. Wilde, E.N. and Maxwell, J.T., 2018, Comparing climate-growth responses of urban and non-urban forests using L. tulipifera tree-rings in southern Indiana, USA, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 31, 103-108.
  71. Ye, Y., Zeng, W., Shen, Q., Zhang, X., and Lu, Y., 2019, The visual quality of streets: A human-centered continuous measurement based on machine learning algorithms and street view images, Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(8), 1439-1457.
  72. Yu, C.P., Lee, H.Y., Lu, W.H., Huang, Y.C., and Browning, M.H.E.M., 2020, Restorative effects of virtual natural settings on middle-aged and elderly adults, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 56, 126863.
  73. Yu, C.P. and Hsieh, H., 2020, Beyond restorative benefits: Evaluating the effect of forest therapy on creativity, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 51, 126670.
  74. Yuan, J., Deng, J., Pierskalla, C., and King, B., 2018, Urban tourism attributes and overall satisfaction: An asymmetric impact-performance analysis, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 169-181.
  75. Zhang, F., Zhou, B., Liu, L., Liu, Y., Fung, H.H., Lin, H., and Ratti, C., 2018, Measuring human perceptions of a large-scale urban region using machine learning, Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 148-160.
  76. Zhou, H., He, S., Cai, Y., Wang, M., and Su, S., 2019, Social inequalities in neighborhood visual walkability: Using Street View imagery and deep learning technologies to facilitate healthy city planning, Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101605.
  77. Zhou, T., Koomen, E., and van Leeuwen, E.S., 2018, Residents’ preferences for cultural services of the landscape along the urban-rural gradient, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 29, 131-141.
  78. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., and Taylor, J.G., 1982, Landscape perception: Research, application and theory, Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
Information
  • Publisher :The Association of Korean Geographers
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국지리학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of the Association of Korean Geographers
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국지리학회지
  • Volume : 10
  • No :2
  • Pages :277~291
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.25202/JAKG.10.2.6
Journal Informaiton Journal of the Association of Korean Geographers Journal of the Association of Korean Geographers
Online Submission
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close