Expert Opinion Dimensions of Rural Landscape Quality in Xiangxi, Hunan, China: Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Methodology
2.1. Xiangxi Study Area and Photographic Images
2.2. Methodology
3. Results
(V18 × 0.742 × mean V18/(Variance V18)**0.5) +
(V19 × 0.692 × mean V19/(Variance V19)**0.5) +
(V9 × 0.684 × mean V9/(Variance V9)**0.5) +
(V20 × 0.670 × mean V20/(Variance V20**0.5)) +
(V10 × 0.633 × mean V10/(Variance V10)**0.5) +
(V8 × 0.624 × mean V8/(Variance V8)**0.5) +
(V13 × 0.619 × mean V13/(Variance V13)**0.5) +
(V17 × 0.613 × mean V17/(Variance V17)**0.5) +
(V15 × 0.508 × mean V15/(Variance V15)**0.5)
(V10 × 0.776 × mean V10/(Variance V10)**0.5) +
(V9 × 0.766 × mean V9/(Variance V9)**0.5) +
(V19 × 0.765 × mean V19/(Variance V19)**0.5) +
(V23 × 0.753 × mean V23/(Variance V23)**0.5) +
(V8 × 0.745 × mean V8/(Variance V8)**0.5) +
(V22 ×0.738 × mean V22/(Variance V22)**0.5) +
(V15 × 0.733 × mean V15/(Variance V15)**0.5) +
(V13 × 0.727 × mean V13/(Variance V13)**0.5) +
(V12 × 0.726 × mean V12/(Variance V12)**0.5) +
(V14 × 0.724 × mean V14/(Variance V14)**0.5) +
(V4 × 0.710 × mean V4/(Variance V4)**0.5)+
(V20 × 0.706 × mean V20/(Variance V20)**0.5) +
(V21 ×0.703 × mean V21/(Variance V21)**0.5) +
(V11 × 0.692 × mean V11/(Variance V11)**0.5) +
(V24 × 0.673 × mean V24/(Variance V24)**0.5) +
(V18 × 0.671 × mean V18/(Variance V18)**0.5)+
(V3 × 0.670 mean V3/(Variance V3)**0.5) +
(V17 × 0.663 mean V13/(Variance V13)**0.5) +
(V5 × 0.662 × mean V5/(Variance V5)**0.5) +
(V6 × 0.637 × mean V6/(Variance V6)**0.5) +
(V1 × 0.623 × mean V1/(Variance V1)**0.5) +
(V2 × 0.573 × mean V2/(Variance V2)**0.5) +
(V7 × 0.565 × mean V7/(Variance V7)**0.5) +
(V16 × 0.553 × mean V16/(Variance V16)**0.5)
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
The Evaluation Factors | Extended Adjective | Criteria | Score (Maximum = 5, Minimum = 1) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
V01 | The coverage area by forest vegetation | The percentage of forest cover in the total village area (%) | The coverage area of forest vegetation is more - less | |
V02 | The coverage area of farmland | The percentage of farmland coverage in total village area (%) | The coverage area of farmland is more - less | |
V03 | Unique natural scenery | Whether there has the unique landform, the scenery of lake and mountain and so on | Unique natural scenery is abundance - lack | |
V04 | The color, species of farmland/ orchard garden/ tea garden | Whether the colors and species of farmland/orchard garden/tea garden are diversity or not | Farmland/orchard/garden/tea garden in rich colors and varieties–monotonous | |
V05 | The richness form of waters | Whether there are wells, springs, linear rivers or channels of massive reservoirs | The richness form of waters is abundant–not abundant | |
V06 | Farmland texture level | Whether there are uneven crisscrossed lines, curved area size and other changes in farmland | The texture level of farmland is clear -fuzzy | |
V07 | Settlement scale | The number of people less than 100 = small village. 100~500 people = medium village. 500~1000 people = large village. Larger than 1000 people = large village | Settlement scale is large–small | |
V08 | Residential building technology level | Whether there has unique modeling language, fastidious construction, fine work, exquisite craft and so on | Technology level of residential building is good -not | |
V09 | Quantity of remaining historic buildings | The number of buildings of historical value reflecting historical features and local characteristics | Remaining historic buildings are more–less | |
V10 | Integrity of old settlement | Protection integrity of village dwellings, cultural relics, historical sites, cliff stone carving, ancestral halls, temples and others | Integrity of old settlement is high - low | |
V11 | Types of public gathering space | Types of village square, bridge, well, sun dried grain square and other outdoor venues | Types of public gathering space are abundance - lack | |
V12 | Types of landmark structures | Types of bell tower, drum tower, watchtower, shelter bridge, ancestral hall, waving hand hall and other landmark buildings | The types of landmark structures are abundant - inadequate | |
V13 | The features of construction material | The characteristic style of wood bamboo, rammed brick, thatched roof, stone and other local materials | Features of construction materials are local -modern | |
V14 | Transportation organization in village | The roadway in village is orderly or not | The traffic organization in village is orderly–disorderly | |
V15 | Cleanliness of village | Village is clean or not | The cleanliness of village appearance is good - not | |
V16 | Accessibility of external transport | The external traffic of township, county, provincial and other is convenience or not | External traffic accessibility is good - bad | |
V17 | Visual interference of surrounding environment | The intrusive of modern infrastructure across the village such as highway, railway and so on | The visual interference is small - big | |
V18 | Isolation from the outside world | Distance from the town | Isolation is good - not | |
V19 | Landscape vision or orientation | Whether the landscape views toward nature is great or not | Landscape vision is beautiful - not | |
V20 | Visibility of sights | The maximum distance at which the object can be clearly seen | Visibility is good–not | |
V21 | Folk customs | Whether there have many interesting folk customs. | Folk customs are strong - not | |
V22 | Activation and inheritance of folk art | The protection and utilization of Miao nationality silver ornaments, batik, embroidery, Miao drum and other folk arts | Activation and inheritance folk art is high - low | |
V23 | Aboriginal reservations | The continuation and inheritance of traditional production and lifestyle | Aboriginal reservations are high -low | |
V24 | Legends and stories | Stories and relics of national resistance of Miao King or figures of Anti-Japanese War | Legends and stories are rich -not |
Qixin Village | Lvdong Village | Hangsha Village | Yanpai Xi Village | Changsha City | Wuhan City | Wuchang City | Chongqing City | Guangzhou City | Zhuzhou City | Yueyang City | Jishou City | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V01 | 3.99 | 4.06 | 3.96 | 3.9 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 3 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 3.4 |
V02 | 3.41 | 3.63 | 3.71 | 4.04 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.08 |
V03 | 4 | 3.88 | 3.58 | 3.68 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1.3 |
V04 | 3.48 | 3.48 | 3.6 | 3.71 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
V05 | 3.58 | 3.32 | 3.5 | 3.57 | 3.52 | 4.52 | 2.56 | 4.84 | 4.62 | 4.22 | 4.86 | 3.84 |
V06 | 3.52 | 3.52 | 3.56 | 3.84 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.05 |
V07 | 3.49 | 3.57 | 3.6 | 3.59 | 4.23 | 4.34 | 4.43 | 4.12 | 4.34 | 4.43 | 4.15 | 4.18 |
V08 | 3.82 | 3.85 | 3.73 | 3.59 | 3 | 3.54 | 2.67 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 3.1 | 2.15 |
V09 | 3.84 | 3.72 | 3.73 | 3.65 | 1.23 | 0.23 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 1.45 | 0.21 | 0.34 | 0.12 |
V10 | 3.81 | 3.74 | 3.83 | 3.72 | 0.1 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.08 |
V11 | 3.29 | 3.35 | 3.6 | 3.61 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.6 | 4.8 | 4.1 | 4.44 | 3.51 |
V12 | 3.84 | 3.71 | 3.77 | 3.64 | 3.71 | 4.15 | 3.31 | 3.11 | 4.31 | 3.71 | 4.31 | 3.82 |
V13 | 3.66 | 3.65 | 3.53 | 3.59 | 1.1 | 1.34 | 1.23 | 1.45 | 1.11 | 1.07 | 1.45 | 1.43 |
V14 | 3.37 | 3.34 | 3.49 | 3.48 | 4.6 | 4.43 | 4.56 | 4.72 | 4.83 | 4.98 | 4.56 | 4.67 |
V15 | 3.59 | 3.58 | 3.71 | 3.73 | 4.66 | 4.73 | 4.86 | 4.92 | 4.68 | 4.48 | 4.59 | 4.77 |
V16 | 3.19 | 3.18 | 3.49 | 3.31 | 4.66 | 4.73 | 4.86 | 4.92 | 4.86 | 4.88 | 4.59 | 4.87 |
V17 | 3.62 | 3.6 | 3.63 | 3.62 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 1.66 | 1.77 | 1.34 | 1.52 | 1.34 | 1.67 |
V18 | 3.68 | 3.71 | 3.62 | 3.66 | 0.32 | 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.12 |
V19 | 3.88 | 3.98 | 3.78 | 3.79 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0.67 | 0.89 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.45 | 0.76 |
V20 | 4.01 | 3.97 | 3.94 | 3.77 | 0.4 | 0.87 | 0.31 | 0.78 | 0.32 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.53 |
V21 | 3.86 | 3.54 | 3.71 | 3.59 | 1.56 | 1.78 | 1.21 | 1.23 | 1.45 | 1.87 | 1.24 | 1.56 |
V22 | 3.66 | 3.46 | 3.73 | 3.56 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.45 | 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.32 | 0.12 |
V23 | 3.7 | 3.57 | 3.72 | 3.59 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
V24 | 3.39 | 3.34 | 3.48 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.23 | 3.32 | 3.33 | 3.45 | 3.56 | 3.76 | 3.76 |
References
- Zhu, Y. Research on Rural Land Transfer in China; Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 43–44. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, B.Y.; Wang, Y.C. Theoretical basis and index system of rural landscape evaluation in China. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2002, 18, 76–79. [Google Scholar]
- Bacon, W.R. The visual management system of forest service. In Proceedings of Our National Landscape; USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.J. Evaluation and Planning of Rural Landscape Characteristics; Tsinghua University: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Jean, W.; Girardin, P. Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: Use of a landscape indicator. Ecol. Model. 2000, 130, 95–109. [Google Scholar]
- Hendriks, K.; Stobbelar, D.J.; Mansvelt, J.D. An assessment of the quality of landscape of both organic and conventional horticultural farms in West Friesland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 77, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charron, L.M.; Joyner, H.R.; LaGro, J.; Walker, J.G. Research note: Development of a comprehensive plan scorecard for healthy, active rural communities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 190, 103582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, R.; Liu, C.Q.; Burley, J.B. A visual quality predication map for Michigan, USA: An approach to validate spatial content. In Land Use—Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future; Loures, L., Ed.; Intech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lothian, A. The Science of Scenery: How We See Scenic Beauty, What It Is, Why We Love It, and How to Measure and Map It; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: North Charleston, SC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, Y.; Burley, J.B.; Machemer, P.; Crawford, P.; Xu, H.; Wu, Z.; Loures, L. The Corbusier Dream and Frank Lloyd Wright Vision: Cliff Detritus vs. Urban Savanna; Urban Agglomeration; Ergen, M., Ed.; Intech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018; pp. 211–230. [Google Scholar]
- Swetnam, R.D.; Harrison-Curran, S.K.; Smith, G.R. Quantifying visual landscape quality in rural Wales: A GIS-enabled method for extensive monitoring of a valued cultural ecosystem service. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burley, J.B.; Machemer, T. From Eye to Heart: Exterior Spaces Explored and Explained, 1st ed.; Cognella Academic Publishing: San Diego, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Yilmaz, R. Visual quality preference: The Smyser index variables. Int. J. Energy Environ. 2014, 8, 147–153. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Burley, J.B. Variance and dispersed expectation in landscape evaluation criteria. Int. J. Energy Environ. 2014, 8, 118–126. [Google Scholar]
- Partin, S.; Burley, J.B.; Schutzki, R.; Crawford, P. Concordance between photographs and computer generated 3D models in a Michigan highway transportation setting. In Peer Reviewed Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture 2012 at Anhalt University of Applied Science; Buhmann, W., Ervin, S., Pietsch, M., Eds.; Wichmann: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 482–489. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Deyoung, G.; Partin, S.; Rokos, J. Reinventing Detroit: Grayfields—New metrics in evaluating urban environments. Challenges 2011, 2, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mo, F.; Le Cléach, G.; Sales, M.; Deyoung, G.; Burley, J.B. Visual and environmental quality perception and preference in the People’s Republic of China, France, and Portugal. Int. J. Energy Environ. 2011, 4, 549–556. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B. The science of design: Green vegetation and flowering plants do make a difference: Quantifying visual quality. Mich. Landsc. 2006, 49, 27–30. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B. A quantitative method to assess aesthetic/environmental quality for spatial surface mine planning and design. Wseas Trans. Environ. Dev. 2006, 5, 524–529. [Google Scholar]
- Arriaza, M.; Cañas-Ortega, J.F.; Cañas-Madueño, J.A.; Ruiz-Aviles, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez, J.G. Ascertaining Landscape Perceptions and Preferences with Pair-wise Photographs: Planning Rural Tourism in Extremadura. Landsc. Res. 2002, 27, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burley, J.B. Visual and ecological environmental quality model for transportation planning and design. Transp. Res. Rec. 1997, 1549, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dauvellier, P. Agriculture and landscape in the Netherlands: The fourth report on physical planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1990, 18, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones and Jones. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1981.
- Briggs, D.J.; France, J. Landscape evaluation: A comparative study. J. Environ. Manag. 1980, 10, 263–275. [Google Scholar]
- Jones and Jones. Esthetics and Visual Resource Management for Highways; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute and Office of Environmental Policy Seminar Notes: Washington, DC, USA, 1979.
- Arthur, L.M.; Daniel, T.C.; Boster, R.S. Scenic assessment: An overview. Landsc. Plan. 1977, 4, 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, T.; Zhao, Y.; Li, M. Landscape performance for coordinated development of rural communities & small-towns based on “ecological priority and all-area integrated development”: Six case studies in East China’s Zhejiang Province. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4096. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, Q. Investigation and Evaluation of Rural Landscape in Fuzhou Suburb Based on SBE Method; Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences: Beijing, China, 2012; pp. 27–30. [Google Scholar]
- McCoy, E.; Braco, M.; Mandel, L.A. Landscape Performance + Metrics Primer for Landscape Architects: Measuring Landscape Performance on the Ground; LATIS, Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series; American Society of Landscape Architects: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, M.; Burley, J.B.; Machemer, T.; Korkmaz, A.; Villanueva, M.R. Earthquake spatial mitigation: Wenchuan China and Los Banos, Philippines Case Studies. GSTF J. Eng. Technol. JET 2018, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Li, N.; Ying, J.; Tian, H.; Troost, S. Chapter 3: Metrics in master planning low impact development for Grand Rapids, Michigan. In Sustainable Urbanization; Egren, M., Ed.; Intech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 61–86. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, M.; Hyde, R.Q.; Burley, J.B.; Allen, A.; Machemer, T. Low-impact housing: River Rouge, Michigan. Hous. Soc. 2015, 42, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallsaxton, M.; Burley, J.B. Residential interior occupant health criteria review and assessment in Holland, Michigan. Int. J. Energy Environ. 2011, 5, 704–713. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Johnson, S.; Larson, P.; Pecka, B. Big Stone granite quarry habitat design: HSI reclamation application. In ASSMR Conference Proceedings; ASMR: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1988; pp. 161–169. [Google Scholar]
- Lehmann, W.J.; Burley, J.B.; Fleurant, C.; Loures, L.; MacDowell, A. Replicating species based fractal patterns for reclaiming northern Michigan waste rock piles. J. Am. Soc. Min. Reclam. 2013, 2, 175–194. [Google Scholar]
- Yue, Z.; Wei, S.; Burley, J.B. Non-Euclidian methods to replicate urban and garden patterns in P.R. of China. Int. J. Energy 2012, 6, 105–114. [Google Scholar]
- Songlin, W.; Fleurant, C.; Burley, J.B. Replicating fractal structures with the reverse box counting method—An urban South-east Asian example. In Digital Landscape Architecture 2012 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences; Wichmann: Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 364–370. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, K. Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 32, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Burley, J.B.; Crawford, P.; Wang, Y.; Yue, Z.; Schutzki, R. An ordination of western and Chinese burial sites. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2017, 13, 452–469. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, Y.; Burley, J.B.; Machemer, P.; Allen, A. A dimensional comparison between classical Chinese gardens and modern Chinese gardens. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2016, 12, 200–213. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, Y.; Chang, Q.; Guo, C.; Burley, J.B.; Partin, S. Neo-sol productivity models for disturbed lands in Wisconsin and Georgia, USA. Int. J. Energy Environ. 2016, 10, 52–60. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, L.B. Application of principal component analysis method in the evaluation of sustainable development of urban transportation. J. Xihua Univ. 2013, 32, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, Z.M.; Fang, L.; Zhang, J.; Ma, J.J. Application of principal component analysis in SPSS software and river water quality assessment. Environ. Res. Monit. 2012, 25, 68–73. [Google Scholar]
- Jia, Y.Y.; Pu, Y.J. Factor analysis of women’s evaluation of park landscape space. Chin. Gard. 2013, 29, 77–81. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.M. Statistical Analysis Method and Application; Shanghai Finance and Economics University Press: Shanghai, China, 2010; pp. 20–25. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Singhal, V.B.P.; Burley, C.J.; Fasser, D.; Churchward, C.; Hellekson, D.; Raharizafy, I. Citation analysis of transportation research literature: A multi-dimensional map of the roadside universe. Landsc. Res. 2009, 34, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Cleac’h, G.; Salles, M.; Burley, J.B. Vegetation Productivity Model for Grand Traverse County, Michigan; 21st National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation and the 25th West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force; ASMR: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2004; pp. 1176–1191. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Gray, D. Soil ordination: Implications for post-mining disturbance land-uses. In Land Reclamation—A Different Approach; Vincent, R., Burger, J.A., Marino, G.G., Olyphant, G.A., Wessman, S.C., Darmody, R.G., Richmond, T.C., Bengson, S.A., Nawrot, J.R., Eds.; American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2001; pp. 241–245. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Fowler, G.W.; Polakowski, K.; Brown, T.J. Soil based vegetation productivity model for the North Dakota coal mining region. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2001, 15, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burley, J.B. A vegetation productivity equation for reclaiming surface mines in Clay County, Minnesota. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 1991, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burley, J.B.; Thomsen, C.; Kenkel, N. Development of an agricultural productivity model to reclaim surface mines in Clay County, Minnesota. Environ. Manag. 1989, 13, 631–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, R.A.; Wichern, D.W. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Dunn, L.C. The effects of inbreeding on the bones of the fowl. Storrs Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1928, 52, 1–112. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, B.J.L.; Horton, F.E. (Eds.) Geographic Perspectives in Urban Places: With Integrated Readings; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Perle, S.M. Factor Analysis of American Cities: A Comparison. Master’s Thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, B.L.; Lil, Z.; Zhou, X. Exploratory factor analysis of landscape evaluation of traditional villages of Xiangxi in Hunan. J. Chin. Urban For. 2020. accepted for publication. [Google Scholar]
- Burley, J.B.; Li, X.; He, S. Metrics Evaluating Multivariate Design Alternatives: Application of the Friedman’s Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks: A Personal Reflection; Whitemud Academics: Perrinton, MI, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
ID | Variable |
---|---|
V1 | forest vegetation coverage area |
V2 | farmland coverage area |
V3 | unique natural scenery |
V4 | the color and species of farmland/orchard garden/tea garden |
V5 | water form |
V6 | farmland texture level |
V7 | settlement scale |
V8 | residential building technology level |
V9 | quantity of remaining historic buildings |
V10 | integrity of old settlements |
V11 | types of public gathering spaces |
V12 | number of landmark structures |
V13 | the features of construction materials |
V14 | traffic organization in villages |
V15 | cleanliness of villages |
V16 | accessibility of external traffic |
V17 | visual interference of surrounding environment |
V18 | isolation from the outside world |
V19 | landscape vision and orientation |
V20 | visibility of sights |
V21 | folk customs |
V22 | activation and inheritance of folk art |
V23 | aboriginal reservations |
V24 | legends and stories |
Dimension | Eigenvalue | Variance Contribution Rate (%) | Accumulative Variance Contribution Rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 11.513 | 47.969 | 47.969 |
2 | 1.355 | 5.647 | 53.616 |
3 | 1.171 | 4.881 | 58.497 |
4 | 0.893 | 3.723 | 62.220 |
5 | 0.780 | 3.624 | 65.843 |
6 | 0.779 | 3.247 | 69.091 |
7 | 0.676 | 2.815 | 71.906 |
8 | 0.642 | 2.674 | 74.579 |
9 | 0.587 | 2.444 | 77.023 |
10 | 0.548 | 2.281 | 79.305 |
11 | 0.519 | 2.161 | 81.465 |
12 | 0.498 | 2.073 | 83.539 |
13 | 0.471 | 1.962 | 85.501 |
14 | 0.423 | 1.762 | 87.263 |
15 | 0.396 | 1.650 | 88.913 |
16 | 0.382 | 1.592 | 90.505 |
17 | 0.358 | 1.491 | 91.995 |
18 | 0.336 | 1.402 | 93.397 |
19 | 0.304 | 1.268 | 94.665 |
20 | 0.298 | 1.241 | 95.906 |
21 | 0.276 | 1.151 | 97.057 |
22 | 0.267 | 1.113 | 98.170 |
23 | 0.228 | 0.951 | 99.121 |
24 | 0.211 | 0.879 | 100.00 |
Rotated-Latent Dimension Name | Variables | Factor Loading | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
Settlements and environmental factors | V18 Isolation | 0.742 | 0.129 | 0.126 | 0.205 |
V19 Landscape vision | 0.692 | 0.404 | 0.067 | 0.255 | |
V9 Remaining historic buildings | 0.684 | 0.264 | 0.28 | 0.203 | |
V20 Air quality/visibility | 0.67 | 0.462 | 0.074 | 0.231 | |
V10 Integrity of old settlement | 0.633 | 0.271 | 0.348 | 0.224 | |
V8 Technology level of residential building | 0.624 | 0.23 | 0.303 | 0.256 | |
V13 Features of construction materials are local | 0.619 | 0.207 | 0.294 | 0.256 | |
V17 The visual interference | 0.613 | 0.106 | 0.344 | 0.175 | |
V15 The cleanliness of village appearance | 0.508 | 0.196 | 0.479 | 0.253 | |
Intangible cultural factors | V21 Folk customs apparent | 0.329 | 0.722 | 0.205 | 0.144 |
V22 Activation inheritance folk art | 0.308 | 0.707 | 0.365 | 0.109 | |
V23 Aboriginal reservations | 0.423 | 0.675 | 0.267 | 0.113 | |
Transport and public space factors | V16 External traffic accessibility | 0.025 | 0.247 | 0.711 | 0.245 |
V11 Public gathering space is abundant | 0.348 | 0.16 | 0.689 | 0.214 | |
V14 The traffic organization in village | 0.376 | 0.211 | 0.644 | 0.239 | |
Productive landscape factors | V6 The texture level of farmland | 0.276 | 0.053 | 0.272 | 0.743 |
V2 The coverage area of farmland | 0.266 | 0.06 | 0.172 | 0.706 | |
V4 farmland/orchard garden/tea garden is colorful and diverse | 0.294 | 0.267 | 0.27 | 0.652 | |
V12 The landmark structures are abundant | 0.47 | 0.354 | 0.422 | 0.177 | |
V3 Unique natural scenery is abundant | 0.438 | 0.428 | 0.08 | 0.366 | |
V24 Legends and stories are rich | 0.179 | 0.523 | 0.541 | 0.169 | |
V5 The form of waters is abundant | 0.154 | 0.475 | 0.306 | 0.476 | |
V1 The coverage area of forest vegetation | 0.449 | 0.251 | 0.041 | 0.476 | |
V7 Settlements are large - small | 0.096 | 0.414 | 0.277 | 0.433 |
Rotation Sum of Squares and Loads | ||
---|---|---|
Eigenvalues | Variance Contribution Rate (%) | Accumulative Variance Contribution Rate (%) |
5.309 | 22.120 | 22.120 |
3.409 | 14.205 | 36.325 |
3.218 | 13.410 | 49.735 |
2.996 | 12.484 | 62.220 |
Variable | Coefficient Loading per PCA Dimension | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
V10 | 0.776 | 0.122 | 0.015 | 0.163 |
V9 | 0.766 | 0.209 | 0.021 | 0.160 |
V19 | 0.765 | 0.344 | 0.061 | 0.060 |
V23 | 0.753 | 0.014 | 0.361 | 0.143 |
V8 | 0.745 | 0.147 | 0.038 | 0.144 |
V22 | 0.738 | 0.137 | 0.393 | 0.150 |
V15 | 0.733 | 0.053 | 0.045 | 0.218 |
V13 | 0.727 | 0.153 | 0.054 | 0.151 |
V12 | 0.726 | 0.042 | 0.112 | 0.116 |
V14 | 0.724 | 0.259 | 0.013 | 0.256 |
V4 | 0.710 | 0.119 | 0.310 | 0.205 |
V20 | 0.706 | 0.426 | 0.109 | 0.168 |
V21 | 0.703 | 0.016 | 0.367 | 0.255 |
V11 | 0.692 | 0.301 | 0.024 | 0.312 |
V24 | 0.673 | 0.340 | 0.240 | 0.022 |
V18 | 0.671 | 0.371 | 0.077 | 0.175 |
V3 | 0.670 | 0.142 | 0.002 | 0.214 |
V17 | 0.663 | 0.135 | 0.055 | 0.273 |
V5 | 0.662 | 0.233 | 0.037 | 0.276 |
V6 | 0.637 | 0.125 | 0.517 | 0.128 |
V1 | 0.623 | 0.178 | 0.203 | 0.179 |
V2 | 0.573 | 0.057 | 0.491 | 0.173 |
V7 | 0.565 | 0.240 | 0.044 | 0.259 |
V16 | 0.553 | 0.550 | 0.016 | 0.138 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wen, B.; Burley, J.B. Expert Opinion Dimensions of Rural Landscape Quality in Xiangxi, Hunan, China: Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041316
Wen B, Burley JB. Expert Opinion Dimensions of Rural Landscape Quality in Xiangxi, Hunan, China: Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis. Sustainability. 2020; 12(4):1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041316
Chicago/Turabian StyleWen, Bin, and Jon Bryan Burley. 2020. "Expert Opinion Dimensions of Rural Landscape Quality in Xiangxi, Hunan, China: Principal Component Analysis and Factor Analysis" Sustainability 12, no. 4: 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041316