Suitability Analysis of Water Cultural Heritage Structures in Beijing Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data Sources
3. Methodology
3.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process and Correlation Analysis
3.2. GIS Spatial Analysis
3.3. Minimum Cumulative Resistance Model
4. Results
4.1. Valuation of Heritage and Correlation of Attributes
4.2. Heritage Gathering Area
4.3. Minimum Cumulative Resistance
4.4. Suitability Zoning
5. Discussion
5.1. Cultural Characteristics and Policy Impact
5.2. Suitability for Heritage Development
5.3. Protection Framework and Strategy
5.4. Uncertainties and the Explanations of the Results
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sulas, F.; French, K.; Scarborough, V. Water and Ancient Cities: Urban Supply Systems. WIREs Water 2020, 7, e1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Water & Heritage. 2022. Available online: https://www.sidestone.com/books/water-heritage (accessed on 19 November 2022).
- Cotte, M.J. The Cultural Heritages of Water in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia. ICOMOS Themat. Study 2022, 1, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
- Kong Fanen, L.H. The Value Characteristics and Cognitive Development of “Water Cultural Heritage”. Landsc. Archit. 2022, 29, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
- Blanco, A.; de Bustamante, I.; Pascual-Aguilar, J.A. Using Old Cartography for the Inventory of a Forgotten Heritage: The Hydraulic Heritage of the Community of Madrid. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 665, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Changsong, W.; Shuhan, L.; Yanan, W. Study on the Time-Space Distribution of Water Cultural Heritage in Beijing. Urban Dev. Stud. 2016, 23, 129–132. [Google Scholar]
- Fanen, K.; Hailong, L. Research on Protection Course and Type Characteristics of Water Cultural Heritage from the Perspective of World Heritage. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2021, 37, 92–96. [Google Scholar]
- Barnes, S.J. Heritage Protection and Tourism Income: The Tourism Heritage Kuznets Curve. Tour. Rev. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nie, Z.; Li, N.; Pan, W.; Yang, Y.; Chen, W.; Hong, C. Quantitative Research on the Form of Traditional Villages Based on the Space Gene & Mdash; A Case Study of Shibadong Village in Western Hunan, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8965. [Google Scholar]
- Ang, L.; Sisi, W.; Wenhong, W.; Donghai, Y.; Haiyan, L. Water Cultural Heritage Protection Strategy in Sponge City Construction. Yangtze River 2018, 49, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
- Udeaja, C.; Trillo, C.; Awuah, K.G.B.; Makore, B.C.; Patel, D.A.; Mansuri, L.E.; Jha, K.N. Urban Heritage Conservation and Rapid Urbanization: Insights from Surat, India. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dongchun, M.; Tiankuo, G. Study on Water Culture and Urban Development in Beijing. Water Resour. Dev. Res. 2020, 20, 69–73. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, J.H.; Ma, D.C. Cultural Heritage of Beijing Water; Changjiang Press: Wuhan, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bojie, W.; Siyuan, H.; Qingwen, M.; Feng, C.U.; Bin, W.A.; Xianyang, L.I.; Yunxiao, B.A. Framework for Evaluating the Development Suitability of Tourism Resources in Agricultural Heritage Systems: A Case Study of Qingyuan County in Zhejiang Province. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2020, 28, 1382–1396. [Google Scholar]
- Morckel, V. Using Suitability Analysis to Select and Prioritize Naturalization Efforts in Legacy Cities: An Example from Flint, Michigan. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHarg, I.L. Design with Nature; Natural History Press: Garden City, NY, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, H.; Zhan, Q. Suitability Analysis of Heritage Corridor Based on Gis and Remote Sensing—Case Study of Region Along the Zhangzhou Ancient Post Road. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Cambrigde, MA, USA, 7–10 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Campisi, T.; Basbas, S.; Tesoriere, G.; Trouva, M.; Papas, T.; Mrak, I. How to Create Walking Friendly Cities. A Multi-Criteria Analysis of the Central Open Market Area of Rijeka. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, J.; Zhuang, D.F.; Xu, X.L.; Ying, L. Integrated Evaluation of Urban Development Suitability Based on Remote Sensing and Gis Techniques-A Case Study in Jingjinji Area, China. Sensors 2010, 8, 5975, Erratum in Sensors 2010, 10, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Youssef, A.M.; Pradhan, B.; Tarabees, E. Integrated Evaluation of Urban Development Suitability Based on Remote Sensing and Gis Techniques: Contribution from the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Arab. J. Geosci. 2011, 4, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Huang, X. The 30 m Annual Land Cover Dataset and Its Dynamics in China from 1990 to 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2021, 13, 3907–3925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taher Tolou Del, M.S.; Saleh Sedghpour, B.; Kamali Tabrizi, S. The Semantic Conservation of Architectural Heritage: The Missing Values. Herit. Sci. 2020, 8, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-Andreu, M. Heritage Values and the Public. J. Community Archaeol. Herit. 2017, 4, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DeSilvey, C.; Harrison, R. Anticipating Loss: Rethinking Endangerment in Heritage Futures. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2020, 26, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, Y.; Rollo, J.; Esteban, Y.; Tong, H.; Yin, X. Developing a Comprehensive Assessment Model of Social Value with Respect to Heritage Value for Sustainable Heritage Management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferretti, V.; Comino, E. An Integrated Framework to Assess Complex Cultural and Natural Heritage Systems with Multi-Attribute Value Theory. J. Cult. Herit. 2015, 16, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, W.; Lin, F. Assessing the Value of Cultural Heritage Resources: Limitations and Improvements of the Contingent Valuation Method. Resour. Sci. 2010, 10, 1993–1998. [Google Scholar]
- Sowińska-Wierkosz, B.N. Review of Cultural Heritage Indicators Related to Landscape: Types, Categorisation Schemes and Their Usefulness in Quality Assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 81, 526–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, S.B.; Ti, E.S.W. What Is the Value of Built Heritage Conservation? Assessing Spillover Effects of Conserving Historic Sites in Singapore. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrieri, F.; Oppio, A.; Rossitti, M. Cultural Heritage Social Value and Community Mapping; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Klaassen, R.K.W.M.; Creemers, J.G.M. Wooden Foundation Piles and Its Underestimated Relevance for Cultural Heritage. J. Cult. Herit. 2012, 13, S123–S128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jinlong, H.; Yaobao, T.; Yaming, F.; Liping, L. Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Traditional Villages in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. J. Guilin Univ. Technol. 2021, 41, 580–588. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.; Genovese, P.V.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Woldesemayat, E.M.; Zoure, A.N. Geographical Distribution Characteristics of Ethnic-Minority Villages in Fujian and Their Relationship with Topographic Factors. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, G.; Kreinin, H. A Review of Environmental Impact Indicators of Cultural Heritage Buildings: A Circular Economy Perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 043003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Yang, Z.; Han, F.; Shi, H.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X. Ecological Environment Assessment in World Natural Heritage Site Based on Remote-Sensing Data. A Case Study from the Bayinbuluke. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zheng, X.; Wu, J.; Deng, H. Spatial Distribution and Land Use of Traditional Villages in Southwest China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Jiao, J.; Qi, J.; Ma, Y. The Spatial and Temporal Differentiation Characteristics of Cultural Heritage in the Yellow River Basin. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0268921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lombardo, L.; Parvis, M.; Corbellini, S.; Posada, C.E.A.; Angelini, E.; Grassini, S. Environmental Monitoring in the Cultural Heritage Field. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2019, 134, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morillas, H.; Maguregui, M.; Gallego-Cartagena, E.; Marcaida, I.; Carral, N.; Madariaga, J.M. The Influence of Marine Environment on the Conservation State of Built Heritage: An Overview Study. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 745, 140899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saha, A.; Pal, S.C.; Santosh, M.; Janizadeh, S.; Chowdhuri, I.; Norouzi, A.; Roy, P.; Chakrabortty, R. Modelling Multi-Hazard Threats to Cultural Heritage Sites and Environmental Sustainability: The Present and Future Scenarios. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 320, 128713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.; Hou, X.; Li, H. An Improved Minimum Cumulative Resistance Model for Risk Assessment of Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 312, 120036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, H.; Yang, Z.; Xu, X. Ecological Corridors Analysis Based on Mspa and Mcr Model—A Case Study of the Tomur World Natural Heritage Region. Sustainability 2020, 12, 959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, K. Security Patterns and Surface Model in Landscape Ecological Planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 36, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, N.; Li, J.; Zhou, Z. Landscape Pattern Optimization Approach to Protect Rice Terrace Agroecosystem: Case of Giahs Site Jiache Valley, Guizhou, Southwest China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 129, 107958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jinlong, H.; Yingxue, W.; Yaobao, T. Xiaohe Ancient Road Heritage Corridor Construction Based on Minimum Cumulative Resistance Model. Planners 2020, 36, 66–70. [Google Scholar]
- Kongjian, Y.; Wei, L.; Dihua, L.; Chunbo, L.; Gang, H.U.; Hailong, L. Suitability Analysis of Heritage Corridor in Rapidly Urbanizing Region: A Case Study of Taizhou City. Geogr. Res. 2005, 1, 69–76. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, H.; Ziyu, W.; Haiyi, W. Construction of Jingdezhen Porcelain Heritage Corridor System Based on Mcr and Mca Models. Geogr. Geo-Inf. Sci. 2022, 38, 74–82. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, J.; Yang, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Su, K. Spatial Distribution Pattern of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Tourism Development in Chongqing. Econ. Geogr. 2019, 39, 205–213. [Google Scholar]
- Zaina, F.; Branduini, P.; Zavvari, F. Applying Icomos-Ifla Principles for the Conservation, Management and Reuse of a Historical Hydraulic System: The No-Ras Qanat in North-Western Iran. Heritage 2022, 5, 3165–3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yongqi, L.; Ruixia, Y.; Pu, W.; Anlin, Y.; Guolong, C. A Quantitative Description of the Spatial–Temporal Distribution and Evolution Pattern of World Cultural Heritage. Herit. Sci. 2021, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luo, X.L.; Yin, C.W.; Zhang, G.X.; Liu, Y.; Niu, C.W.; Han, F. Water Environment status and Comprehensive Management Measures of Watershed in Beijing. Water Resour. Prot. 2021, 37, 140–146. [Google Scholar]
- Litang, H.; Jianli, G.; Shouquan, Z.; Kangning, S.; Zhengqiu, Y. Response of Groundwater Regime to Ecological Water Replenishment of the Yongding River. Hydrogeol. Eng. Geol. 2020, 47, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
- Li, F.; Ye, Y.; Song, B.; Wang, R. Evaluation of Urban Suitable Ecological Land Based on the Minimum Cumulative Resistance Model: A Case Study from Changzhou, China. Ecol. Model. 2015, 318, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.D.; Yang, Z.P.; Wang, T.; Han, F. Landscape Ecological Risk and Ecological Security Pattern Construction in World Natural Heritage Sites: A Case Study of Bayinbuluke, Xinjiang, China. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kongjian, Y.; Xuesong, X. The Definition of the Grand Canal Heritage Corridor Based on the Genesis Perspectives. Prog. Geogr. 2010, 29, 975–986. [Google Scholar]
- Jianguo, W.; Junyan, Y. Basic Principles and Methods of Integrated Urban Design in Historical Corridor Area: A Case Study on Hangzhou Section of Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal. City Plan. Rev. 2017, 41, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
- The People’s Government of Beijing Municipality. Master Plan of Beijing (2016–2035). 2017. Available online: http://www.beijing.gov.cn/gongkai/guihua/wngh/cqgh/201907/t20190701_100008.html (accessed on 2 September 2022).
- Hui, S. Research on the Motivation and Strategy of Cultural Heritage Resources’ Activation. Resour. Dev. Mark. 2018, 34, 99–102. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Rodríguez, F.; Rojo-Alboreca, A. The Triangle Assessment Method: A New Procedure for Eliciting Expert Judgement. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 72, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Data | Format | Resolution | Time | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Digital elevation model (DEM) | Raster | 30 m | 2020 | Geospatial Data Cloud (http://www.gscloud.cn) (accessed on 16 August 2022). |
Administrative divisions | Shapefile | Line | 2019 | Geospatial Data Cloud (http://www.gscloud.cn) (accessed on 16 August 2022). |
Water systems | Shapefile | Line | 2019 | OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org) (accessed on 9 August 2022). |
Land-use | Raster | 30 m | 2019 | Geospatial Data Cloud (http://www.gscloud.cn) (accessed on 17 September 2022). |
Heritage points | Text | Point | 2022 | AMAP (https://www.amap.com/) (accessed on 23 September 2022). |
Score | Preservation | Function | Age | Material | Water Conservation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | Well-preserved | Continued today | Liao, Jin, and the previous dynasties | Concrete | Basically maintaining the status quo |
4 | Preserved | For other purposes | Yuan dynasty | Brick | Only 75% of the original |
3 | Partially remained | Landscape only | Ming dynasty | Stone | Only 50% of the original |
2 | Few remained | Relic exhibition only | Qing dynasty | Wood | Only 25% of the original |
1 | Basically non-existent | Completely lost | Modern times | Rammed earth | Complete drying up or disappearance |
Weight | 0.3534 | 0.2952 | 0.1323 | 0.1004 | 0.1187 |
Factor | Resistance Zone | Resistance Cost | Weight |
---|---|---|---|
Water environment | Within 200 m | 10 | 0.243 |
200~500 m | 30 | ||
500~1000 m | 70 | ||
Over 1000m | 150 | ||
Land use types | Water | 0 | 0.345 |
Wetlands | 20 | ||
Grassland | 40 | ||
Shrub | 50 | ||
Forest | 60 | ||
Cropland | 90 | ||
Built-up land | 120 | ||
Elevation (m) | −39~200 m | 10 | 0.211 |
201~500 m | 30 | ||
501~800 m | 60 | ||
801~1200 m | 100 | ||
>1200 m | 150 | ||
Slope (%) | 0~3 | 5 | 0.201 |
3~8 | 10 | ||
8~15 | 30 | ||
15~25 | 100 | ||
>25 | 300 |
Heritage Class | Final Score | Quantity |
---|---|---|
Core heritage | 4~5 | 61 |
Important heritage | 3~4 | 102 |
Common heritage | 2~3 | 104 |
Minor heritage | 1~2 | 65 |
Factors | Preservation | Function | Age | Material | Water Conservation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preservation | 1 | ||||
Function | 0.702 ** | 1 | |||
Age | −0.069 | −0.014 | 1 | ||
Material | 0.126 * | 0.245 ** | −0.149 ** | 1 | |
Water conservation | 0.517 ** | 0.503 ** | 0.179 | −0.067 | 1 |
Waterfront Distance (m) | Land Use Type | Elevation (m) | Slope (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Within 200 m | 39.93% | Water | 8.05% | −39~200 | 74.16% | 0~3 | 45.30% |
200~500 m | 22.15% | Grassland | 1.34% | 201~500 | 16.11% | 3~8 | 34.23% |
500~1000 m | 19.46% | Cropland | 14.77% | 501~800 | 8.72% | 8~15 | 10.40% |
Over 1000 m | 18.46% | Forest | 12.08% | 801~1200 | 1.01% | 15~25 | 5.37% |
Built-up land | 63.76% | >1200 | - | >25 | 4.70% |
Resistance Cost | Area Ratio | Suitability Zoning | Area Ratio |
---|---|---|---|
5.545~35.966 | 2.38% | High suitability | 21.70% |
35.967~66.387 | 53.04% | Middle-high suitability | 37.85% |
66.388~96.808 | 25.42% | Middle suitability | 21.72% |
96.809~127.229 | 17.97% | Low suitability | 15.11% |
127.230~154.650 | 1.19% | Unsuitable | 3.62% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Xue, F.; Zhou, K.; Wang, C.-C. Suitability Analysis of Water Cultural Heritage Structures in Beijing Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems. Buildings 2023, 13, 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030624
Li Y, Wang C, Xue F, Zhou K, Wang C-C. Suitability Analysis of Water Cultural Heritage Structures in Beijing Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems. Buildings. 2023; 13(3):624. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030624
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Yan, Changzheng Wang, Feiyang Xue, Kunpeng Zhou, and Chong-Chen Wang. 2023. "Suitability Analysis of Water Cultural Heritage Structures in Beijing Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Geographic Information Systems" Buildings 13, no. 3: 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13030624