Next Article in Journal
Does the Digital Economy Promote Domestic Non-Tradable Sectors?: Evidence from China
Previous Article in Journal
Competitive Sustainability of Saudi Companies through Digitalization and the Circular Carbon Economy Model: A Bold Contribution to the Vision 2030 Agenda in Saudi Arabia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15032615
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identifying Landscape Character for Large Linear Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall in Ji-Town, China

by
Shuang Zhao
1,
Diechuan Yang
2 and
Chi Gao
2,*
1
Ecological Landscape Construction & Research Institute, China Architecture Design & Research Group, Beijing 100044, China
2
Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Horticulture & Forestry Sciences, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 2615; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032615
Submission received: 20 December 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 30 January 2023 / Published: 1 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Tourism, Culture, and Heritage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Ming Great Wall (M-GW) is the most representative large linear heritage in China, and faces the problem of landscape fragmentation caused by traditional monument-based protection and disorderly tourism development. We propose to utilise character-based approach for managing landscape change and preserving its integrity. This paper presents a hierarchical characterisation method for the M-GW landscape in Ji-Town in two steps: definition and delimitation of landscape area, and zoning of landscape characters. The landscape area was identified based on the landscape relevance of the space from natural, cultural, and visual aspects. The landscape character types and areas were identified by two dominant attributes using a layout method at Level I (general zoning), and by eight specific attributes using a synthetic method that combines digital and manual approaches at Level II (detailed zoning). According to the analysis results, a wide belt landscape area of about 8650.7 km2 was delimited. A total of eight landscape character types, 15 sub-types, 47 landscape character areas and 359 sub-areas were obtained. Additionally, the results highlighted the key landscape characteristics that could be used for the planning and construction of the National Cultural Park. Finally, this research provides further direction for the theoretical and technical basis of future research on landscape characterization and sustainable management of the whole M-GW and other linear heritage landscapes.

1. Introduction

The M-GW of China is the product of a long period of interaction between humans and nature, and it is significant for its variety of landscapes as well as unique history [1,2]. Large linear heritages represented by the M-GW play an important role in world heritage conservation. They are geographically linear, have a considerable length and limited width [3,4,5] and are widely influenced by the surrounding area [6,7]. Due to their morphology as line-shape objects, they are commonly faced with issues related to defining the boundaries of length and width, and integrating protection and management policies across administrative boundaries. As a result, the natural and cultural systems of the surrounding area of large linear heritages are inevitably changing, and urbanisation and the development of disorderly tourism have also put them under increasing pressure and threat [8,9]. Therefore, it is important to protect and manage linear heritage with a holistic perspective to balance possible changes and to ensure its sustainable development in the future.
Linear heritage includes linear defence works, canals, railways, and roads [10,11,12]. It faces common problems such as landscape fragmentation, low scenic quality, disorderly construction and tourism development of its surroundings [8,12]. In the framework of world cultural heritage management, monument-based or buffer-zone-based protection are usually used. However, this kind of traditional protection method is not enough to adapt to the complex geographical environment of large linear landscapes. Concepts such as cultural routes [12,13,14], heritage corridors [15] and historic trails [16] receive more attention. Recently, China has promoted the construction of the National Cultural Park [17], and the country’s representative linear cultural heritages, i.e., the Great Wall, Grand Canal and Yellow River, were selected as the first pilot areas [18,19,20]. This involves the protection of the cultural landscape and ecological environments directly associated with heritage [21,22,23]. Although the idea is clear, methods and tools for the practice of holistic landscape management are still lacking [24,25,26]. This is also a worldwide problem. The European Landscape Convention (ELC) recommends that the concept of landscape be incorporated into national policies, which influence the management of cultural resources to some extent [12,27]. For example, Hadrian’ s Wall is also a linear heritage, and approaches to interpreting its World Heritage Site (WHS) and landscape in a coherent manner have been developed in the light of ELC that will enhance its visitor experience [28,29,30]. Interdisciplinary work from a landscape perspective is a relatively integrated cognitive and practical approach that encourages the critical review of ideas and behaviours regarding how a heritage resource is explored, interpreted and utilised. Such flexibility may extend the range of traditional methods and promote the full exploitation of heritage values [31]. Therefore, the management of heritage should better take into account integration with landscape [32,33], and it is more effective when utilise a character-based approach to integrate heritage and landscape values and provide targeted strategies.
The landscape character assessment (LCA) method is a management tool for heritage that provides a dynamic form of sustainable management instead of traditional methods of protecting fabric [31,33]. England first began to interpret landscape from the perspective of “character”, which is defined as “a distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse” [34]. LCA provides a special framework for implementing and developing ELC by integrating natural and cultural landscapes, as well as people’s perceptions [35,36,37]. Characterisation is the process of identifying, mapping, classifying, and describing the landscape character, which is comparatively value-free and usually the primary step in LCA [38]. We can better understand the complex, changeable and continuous landscape through the classification into types and spatial units [37,39]. Thus, it is rational to utilise LCA as the basis of the research, protection, management and planning of the M-GW and other heritage landscapes. On the one hand, the scope of the “wall” can be expanded cognitively. Compared with the traditional methods of cultural heritage protection that overly concentrate on “high value” regions, using value-free landscape character identification that is not only concerned with the heritage ontology, fringes related to the M-GW can also be taken into account. On the other hand, the identification results in a zoning map, which make up for the deficiency of the current resource survey in the form of points and lines, and can better connect the planning work.
LCA studies have been carried out on different scales and objects and in different countries [34,37]. Research and practice on national parks and on the national scale have been carried out successively in the UK, forming a territorial zoning pattern with the National Character Areas (NCAs) as the basic planning units [40,41]. Mediterranean countries put forward a methodological framework of LCA in an island context, which attach importance to cultural and visual aspects [42,43]. The integration of LCA with practical planning and design is an important research topic in Denmark, and the use of digital technology is emphasised in practice [44]. At present, line-shape heritages and corridors are very important research objects, but there are few studies using LCA. Carlier, J. and Moran, J. [45] determined the character types of greenway corridor landscapes using dividing tiles of the same size. Martin, B. et al. evaluated the visual character of the landscapes seen from motorways using GIS [46]. Zhang et al. [47] determined landscape types by dividing sections along a railway heritage into equal distances. The California National Historic Trail is divided into six distinct natural landscape areas and five cultural areas according to similar geographic and dominant cultural features along the trail [16]. For Hadrian’s Wall, the NCAs map of England is a fundamental tool in the development of its interpretation framework [48]. It defines the natural and cultural landscape of Hadrian’s Wall, which includes the WHS and its buffer zones, the Hadrian’s Wall Country and the Hadrian’s Wall landscape based upon a visual reference [48]. Many scholars point out that landscape characterisation should be developed within a certain cultural and historical background [42,49,50]. In China, scholars have carried out innovative explorations on national parks [51]. However, there is no official landscape character map on a national scale in China [52], which has resulted in a lack of a top-down design of the M-GW from a landscape perspective. In conclusion, the current landscape characterisation method is not suitable for the national conditions or the scale of this research object. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore a more critical characterisation approach for the M-GW landscape and further adapt it to the natural and cultural context of China.
Concerning the M-GW, “Town” means a military zone, and it is pronounced “Zhen” in Mandarin, meaning garrison or defence. The defence area of a town contains fortifications such as passes, walls, forts, watch towers and settlements, as well as a general area under military influence. Ji-Town is representative of the M-GW and it is characterised by the rhythmical beauty of the combination of architecture and topography [53] (Figure 1). To date, the study of Ji-Town has dominated in the archaeological survey [54,55,56], the protection and utilisation of the M-GW and its heritage sites [57,58,59], as well as the distribution of its defence system and military settlements [60,61]. Moreover, spatial information technology is increasingly used in research [62]. Due to it being inscribed on the list of World Cultural Heritage Sites in 1978, for a long time, UNESCO has given priority to its military, cultural and historical heritage [3,60,63], which can marginalise the natural heritage of the area. While the heritage itself is relatively well protected, a large number of M-GW settlements have sustained considerable damage [63], and the areas it crosses have faced ecological risks [64]. In addition, the multiple landscape values cannot be fully recognised [3,65]. It is necessary to comprehensively characterise the M-GW landscape and integrate it with the interpretation of cultural resources to jointly promote the protection and management of the landscape in order to contribute to the construction of national cultural parks. Although the M-GW in Ji-Town occupies a small area, it has a wide length-to-width ratio. Compared with a nonlinear identification object with the same area, it should be considered as a landscape covering a large scale across regions. Therefore, multi-scale and multi-level identification is very important.
This paper describes a refined characterisation framework for the M-GW in China with a comprehensive consideration of the heritage and landscape value. We take the M-GW in Ji-Town as a case study, defining and delimiting the landscape area and adopting various data sources to zone the landscape characters at two levels. The purpose of this research is to identify the character of the M-GW as a unified natural and cultural landscape system, and comprehensively record the historical landscape information in its complex environment on a visual map. The research results will help guide the sustainable protection, management and planning of the M-GW landscape in Ji-Town and promote the study of other sections of the M-GW, as well as guide the identification of other large linear heritage landscapes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The M-GW defence system consists of nine military zones (also called “nine Towns”) in the east–west direction, each overseen by a Town city (similar to a provincial capital) [60,66]. In order to improve the pertinence, each zone was further delineated into four classes, comprising Town city level, at the highest level, Lu city level, Pass city level and Fort city level, at the lowest level. According to the advantages of the natural environment and geographical location, the defence area overseen by Ji-Town established the military system of the 12 Lu cities’ layouts. It was formed from the 30th year of Emperor Jia Jing’s reign (1551) to the 46th year of Emperor Wan Li’s reign (1618) in the Ming Dynasty. Thus, from Shanhaiguan in the east to Mutianyu in the west, the M-GW in Ji-Town (Figure 2) stretches across approximately 880 km, crossing at least 15 administrative county divisions (cities/districts).
The organic integration of the natural and cultural environment is fully demonstrated in the M-GW in Ji-Town, as well as the military defence characteristics. First, the natural environment is the base of landscape construction. The M-GW in the Ji-Town area is mountainous, with steep landforms, circulations of rivers and lakes, and the coexistence of natural and artificial vegetation and cultivated land. From west to east, it transitions from the Bashang Grassland, Taihang Mountains and Yanshan Mountains to the Hebei Plain. To the south of the M-GW are the agricultural plains in a semi-arid area, and to the north are arid mountains and basins. Second, the war between nomads and the northern farming people is the cultural context. The Ji-Town area has always been active with human activities, including production, living activities and military interaction within and between different ethnic groups, folk activities, landscape tours and poetry and lyricism by the literati of all dynasties. With the passing of time, it has become a scenic spot that contains regional political culture and an aesthetic inheritance. However, many scenic areas have complex boundaries and cannot be effectively managed. For example, as the key construction section of the M-GW National Cultural Park in Ji-Town, the heritage protection scope of the Huangyaguan Great Wall in Ji-Town, is within 50 m of the buffer zone of the wall and the pass city according to “the Master Plan for the Protection of the Great Wall (2019–2035)” [1]. The construction control zone is designed to extend the protection scope to no less than 500 m, and the scope of the scenic area is delimited by the administrative boundary of the district and village [67] (Figure 3).
The landscape of the M-GW in Ji-Town refers to the landscape system associated with the Great Wall, which is based on the spatio-temporal division of Ji-Town in the Ming Dynasty and has been developing until to now. It is mapped in the geographical space as a landscape area rather than a heritage noumenon. This study adopted characterisation on two scales. The larger scale is the administrative area connected to the M-GW in Ji-Town with an area of approximately 33,000 km2. The smaller scale is the defined scope of the M-GW landscape area in Ji-Town, which is delimited by the result at the larger scale.

2.2. Landscape Character Identification

2.2.1. Methodological Approach

Two main steps were involved in the identification of the M-GW landscape in Ji-Town (Figure 4): (1) The definition and delimitation of the landscape area; and (2) The zoning of landscape characters. In the first step, the boundary of the M-GW landscape was defined to provide a clear range and suitable scale for zoning. We used the combination of the overlay method based on the GIS platform and manual adjustment based on remote sensing images. In the second step, the landscape character was identified at two levels: general zoning and detailed zoning. At Level I, landscape character types and areas were identified according to the dominant factors by using the overlay method, from a more macro perspective. At Level II, subtypes and subareas were identified according to specific impact factors by using a synthetic method that combines digital and manual approaches, which were more detailed and in-depth. In addition, the variable selection at the two levels is based on different purposes: preliminary general identification or further detailed identification. Therefore, the dominant and controlling natural and cultural factors were collected at the first level, while the higher-resolution natural and cultural factors were collected at the second level. Additionally, since the Great Wall had the advantages of military observation in ancient times and sightseeing with modern tourism, visual perception factors were added into the variables at the second level.

2.2.2. Definition and Delimitation of Landscape Area

The landscape area of the M-GW in Ji-Town was identified based on the landscape relevance of the space from natural, cultural, and visual aspects. Through the overlay method based on the GIS platform, the visualisation results were formed as the base map for the identification of landscape characters.
The landscape area consists of three levels. The first level corresponds to the areas related to the World Heritage Site, including: (1) A heritage buffer zone, i.e., a 500-m-wide area along the M-GW as defined by the “Master Plan of the Great Wall (2018–2035)”; (2) An area with a heritage density greater than 0.5 (the number of every 0.5 km2); and (3) Santunying, i.e., the important military garrison of Ji-Town, which is in Qianxi County, Tangshan today. The second level corresponds to the military influence area, which was obtained by visualising the defence range of passes and forts of the M-GW in Ji-Town according to the description of the military geography in Records of Four Towns and Three Passes. The third level corresponds to the visual perception area. This comprises the landscape that is seen from the M-GW and, conversely, those points from where the M-GW or its key features can be seen. Therefore, according to the influence of distance on human visual perception in a mountain landscape, the visual distance zone [68] is divided in this study. The 10 km view range is considered a reasonable distance zone that can distinguish the single elements merge [69], which is preliminarily identified as the landscape area.
The landscape area of the M-GW in Ji-Town is a wide belt area located along the M-GW, and its specific boundary still needs to be determined according to geographical markers or natural boundaries. Therefore, based on the comprehensive analysis of remote sensing images and field survey records, we identified the geomorphic units most closely associated with the M-GW landscape on a watershed map.

2.2.3. Zoning of Landscape Characters

Selection of Variables

Available sufficient quality data sources for the landscape of the M-GW in Ji-Town included raster and vector datasets. There were four types of raster datasets: a 12.5 m DEM, land cover (2015), soil types, and vegetation types. Vector datasets contained mainly the distribution of the body and heritage points of the M-GW in Ji Town, provided by “the Great Wall Station” forum (http://www.ilovegreatwall.cn, accessed on 2 March 2021). In addition, we also collected some basic data in the form of pictures or text that needed to be digitised. All geographic database and spatial analyses were carried out using the ArcGIS 10.4 software.
At Level I, we delimited the landscape typologies using two datasets: landform type and military defence regionalisation. Twenty variables were represented by acronyms with capital letters, and are listed in Table 1. The Landform type restricted subordinate elements such as soil, vegetation, and land use type [47,70], and was also the dominant factor that best reflected the natural features of Ji-Town. Due to the limited sources of data, we could only obtain the picture formats of the landform regionalisation of China and the landform types of China, which were obtained from the Geographic Data Sharing Infrastructure, Peking University (http://geodata.pku.edu.cn, accessed on 5 March 2021) and the OSGeo China Center (https://www.osgeo.cn, accessed on 5 March 2021). The basic landform types are composed of elevation levels and geomorphologic forms determined by relief [71]. In order to contain more information, we overlayed the two data within the landscape boundary and digitised them with GIS. The military regionalisation, referring to the 12-Lu Cities in Ji-Town, contains 12 secondary defensive zones at the Town scale, as well as 12 complete cultural units. It was the dominant factor that reflected the regional cultural features of the M-GW in Ji-Town. It was reclassified by inputting text data into the heritage point attribute in the GIS.
At Level II, we delimited the landscape typologies using eight datasets: elevation, slope, soil, vegetation, land cover, viewshed type, natural and cultural resources, and the M-GW heritage. The first six factors are listed in Table 2, including forty-seven variables, which are represented by acronyms combining uppercase and lowercase letters. We collected the DEM data from the ALOS PALSAR (Advanced Land Observing Satellite Phased Array type L-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar) (https://asf.alaska.edu/data-sets/sar-data-sets/alos-palsar, accessed on 7 March 2021), which were used to calculate elevation and slope. In addition, by using the tool “Visibility” in the GIS platform and taking the wall as an observer, the viewshed type was obtained by calculation and comprehensive classification based on elevation. The data of soil and vegetation were obtained from the Resource and Environment Data Cloud Platform of China at a scale of 1:1,000,000 (http://www.resdc.cn, accessed on 2 March 2021). The land cover data were collected from Land Cover (2017), provided by the European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative and led by UCLouvain (http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download.php, accessed on 7 March 2021). The nearest neighbour method of resampling in the GIS was used to unify the different resolutions. The natural and cultural resources included national cultural conservation units (NCCUs), national nature reserves (NNRs) and National AAAAA level tourist attractions (AAAAA Scenic Areas), which were derived from the National Cultural Heritage Administration and the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Peoples’ Republic of China. Finally, they were transformed into vector data in the GIS, along with the M-GW heritage data.

General Zoning at Level I

At the first level, the goal was to gain a quick and comprehensive understanding of the M-GW landscape in Ji-Town. The boundary of landscape character areas was based on landform-type data, and the landscape character types were determined by all twenty variables.
In this study, landform type reflects the main formation rule of the surface configuration in Ji-Town. The cultural factor, i.e., military regionalisation, reflects different strategic layouts and settlement patterns, which is a significant reflection of the military culture within the unique topography and social environment of Ji-Town. We superimposed the two elements, and analysed and summarised the characteristics, similar to the interpretation. The process was simple and intuitive, but it unavoidably relied on the manual classification of data from experts that have a certain subjectivity.

Detailed Zoning at Level II

At the second level, the goal was to accurately record the information relating to the M-GW landscape in Ji-Town. The landscape character subtypes were identified via K-means cluster analysis as a parametric method, and the landscape character subareas were identified using a holistic approach adopting semi-automatic and manual delineation [51]. The semi-automatic delineation was carried out in the eCognition 8.7 software using the multi-resolution segmentation tool.
Firstly, all data sources were unified into the same coordinate system and the following analyses were performed using the grid cells. Based on the main resolution of the datasets and the range of the target area, 1 km × 1 km grid cells were determined and all variables in Table 2 were assigned to them and overlaid in the GIS. After that, a geographic database integrating the attribute data of the variables was built.
Secondly, we set up a matrix that connected the variables and grid cells. Since all the data are raster data, there were two forms for the variables to be filled in the matrix: existent (1) or non-existent (0) [37]. After removing invalid values, a total of 8256 valid landscape samples were divided. The new variables were statistically analysed via the K-means cluster analysis in IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0. In order to determine the cluster solution better, different K values of 10, 15, 20, and 25 were set for comparison. K = 15 was selected as the clustering criterion when the obvious landscape character types, such as the Miyun Reservoir, could be better identified and the resulting map was in harmony with the types in Level I, and the Gestalt method was used to judge the accuracy of the result by experts. The landscape character subtypes were visualised by assigning cluster numbers to grid cells. We analysed each subtype of the elements by establishing the matrix that connected the subtype and original variables (Appendix A, Table A1). The subtypes were assigned by codes depending on the range of constituent X, i.e., higher than 60% is X, 30% to 60% is {X}, 10% to 30% is (X), and less than 10% does not count.
Thirdly, we delimited the landscape character subareas according to the visualisation result. ECognition is an image-processing technique based on objects. It can be used to segment one image into multi-pixel objects of various sizes [72]. The multi-resolution segmentation tool was adopted to conduct several comparative experiments by setting the parameters of scale, shape, and compactness. Through the comparison studies, we took 20, 0.1 and 0.4, respectively, as the proper values of the three parameters, where the segmentation can clearly divide the areas with large differences from the surrounding landscapes, such as the Miyun Reservoir compared with satellite images. The eCognition result was always over-segmented, resulting in boundaries that could only be right-angle lines.
Lastly, for the zoning of the final landscape character subareas, we adjusted the results through manual delineation according to a satellite image and the boundary of landscape character areas in Level I. Manual delineation is a holistic classification method based on the landscape-Gestalt theory and is similar to photo-interpretation, which can balance the deviation between the results of automatic delineation and objective entities [73]. The landscape characteristics of each subarea were described through the database information and field investigation.

3. Results

3.1. Landscape Area of the M-GW in Ji-Town

The results showed that the landscape area is about 8650.7 km2, which is a wide belt area along the M-GW in Ji-Town, located between 39°56′~40°51′ north latitude and 116°28′~119°57′ east longitude. For the convenience of identification, a colour landscape bloom map was created using DEM data with an elevation accuracy of 12.5 m from the ALOS PALSAR as the base map (Figure 5).

3.2. Landscape Character Types and Areas

At the first level, the landform type was polygon data with boundaries, while the military regionalisation was vector point and line data, which could only be added as a descriptive element. Eight basic landscape character types were identified, which are represented by the combinations of acronyms and colours. A total of 47 landscape character areas were identified, which are represented by military regionalisation names and a combination of basic landscape character types and numbers, while the boundary division was based on the landform type. The results showed the overall landscape difference of the M-GW in Ji-Town (Figure 6). Specifically, the Yanshan Mountains are the main character of this region. The undulation degree and altitude of the M-GW differ greatly from north to south; they are higher in the northwest and lower in the southeast; meanwhile, the layout of the M-GW in each defence area depends on the terrain. As the focus segment, the two landscape areas relevant to the Huangyaguan Great Wall, i.e., E3 and G5, are described in Table 3.
At the second level, 15 landscape character subtypes were identified (Figure 7). The largest, Subtype 2, covered about 1183.78 km2 (13.68%), and the second largest, Subtype 1, covered about 904.32 km2 (10.45%). Other subtypes accounted for less than 10%, and the smallest was Subtype 7, covering 140.25 km2 (1.62%). The landscape character of subtypes was interpretated through the code names. For example, Subtype 1 was named Al3. Sl4(Sl2 Sl5). So3. Ve7(Ve2 Ve5). (Gc5 Gc8 Gc12). Vi4(Vi1), meaning that the elevation of this subtype was 500–1000 m, and there were mainly steep slopes and a few gentle slops and sharp slopes. The soil type was semi-luvisols. The main vegetation was crops and deciduous orchards, and some temperate coniferous forest and grass-forb communities. Grassland was the main land cover; others were mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover) (>50%)/cropland (<50%), and tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous and closed (>40%). This subtype was mainly located in the blind area of the M-GW and contained a small part of the visually sensitive area.
A total of 359 landscape character subareas were divided through the segmentation in eCognition (Figure 8a). Then, according to further manual adjustments, 193 landscape character subareas were finally identified (Figure 8b). After the overlay of cultural elements, the four landscape subareas relevant to the Huangyaguan Great Wall, i.e., 74, 75, 76 and 77, were identified, as described in Table 3.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Spatial Distribution Features and Rules of the M-GW Landscape Character in Ji-Town

As a linear heritage, the M-GW military system features a subdivision of sections in an east–west direction and a subdivision of hierarchies in a north–south direction. The M-GW landscape character also presents certain spatial rules due to its association with regional nature and culture.
In the north–south direction, the landscape character is influenced by the relationship between the location of the M-GW heritage and landscape area. Firstly, in terms of natural conditions, the landscape types and areas in the north of the M-GW are highly heterogeneous, with a high altitude, variable terrain and rich vegetation coverage (Figure 9a). However, landscape types and areas are highly integrated in the south of the M-GW, where the landforms are mostly plain hills and vegetation, and land cover is mainly farmland, fruit trees, and open waters (Figure 9b). The two parts above constitute the ecological background. The main section that the M-GW passes through is in between (Figure 9c), with a relatively large slope and medium elevation. Secondly, in terms of cultural and visual conditions, this area is dense with heritage, and a large part is visually sensitive with a unique and complete visual scene, apart from the area affected by mountain contours. The remaining areas (Figure 9d) have a lower density of heritage, but there are traces of regional culture, such as military settlements, farming, and ethnic customs.
In the east–west direction, the landscape characters are influenced by the distribution of defence areas. Firstly, the longest defensive line and the steepest terrain belongs to the West-Lu Cities, namely Shitang Lu, Gubei Lu, Caojia Lu and Qiangzi Lu. Among them, the walls all pass through landscape character Subtypes 8 and 9. Second, the central defence pressure is relatively small and the overall terrain is gentler than in the West-Lu Cities, this area includes Malan Lu, Songpeng Lu, Xifeng Lu and Taiping Lu. Further, the walls all pass through landscape character Subtypes 1 and 5. Third, the walls and defensive line that belong to the East-Lu Cities are generally short, and the mountain and ridge lines run parallel to the farming areas in the south, eventually extending to the piedmont alluvial plain. This part includes Yanhe Lu, Taitou Lu, Shimen Lu and Shanhai Lu, among which Shanhai Lu is the only section where the wall passes through Subtype 3.

4.2. Optimisation of Landscape Characterisation Method

As mentioned in the introduction, the common characterisation methods are not well-adapted to large linear heritage landscapes and tend to ignore their linear geographical features and the cross-regional integrity of nature and culture. Our study is the first unified method to be applied to the M-GW, and the approach could be widely used for other linear heritages.
First, we defined the landscape area of a linear heritage, which can expand its limited width and provide a clear boundary for identification without being constrained by administrative boundaries. Hadrian’s Wall provides a reference concept of the natural and cultural landscape of linear heritage, on the basis of which specific methods for delineating boundaries are developed in this paper. Secondly, we learned from the management methods by dividing zones or sections of greenways, railways, and historical trails, and promoting them at multiple scales and levels for large linear heritage. In order to effectively accommodate complex landscape information and integrate natural and cultural elements, we applied characterisation at two levels. On the one hand, multi-level zoning is an adaptive improvement of the traditional landscape characterisation method for large linear heritage. The two levels of zoning are complementary to each other and a progressive relationship was formed, from general to detailed, and from intuitive to integrated in terms of the process, selected variables, and results. On the other hand, graded zoning can better respond to land planning and management policies. For example, the general zoning result can provide a basis for the theme positioning and overall planning of the Great Wall National Cultural Park from a more macro perspective, while the subtypes and subareas at Level II can provide the basis for detailed zoning and boundary demarcation. Thus, through this method, we can have an overall understanding of the M-GW landscape in Ji-Town, and provide guidance for the boundary identification, spatial partitioning and information extraction of cross-scale landscape types.

4.3. Protection and Management of the M-GW Landscape Based on Landscape Characterisation

Compared with the current situation in linear heritage conservation, where the heritage ontology is separated from the surrounding environment and the boundary is blurred, this method based on characteristics has three advantages, which can provide guidance for the planning, design, and protection of linear heritage.
Firstly, the identification of the landscape area restores the historical landscape space through the connection of culture, nature, and vision. It brings the surrounding environment and military settlements of the M-GW into the scope of research and management, rather than being restricted by scenic or administrative boundaries. As shown in Figure 5, the management and protection scope of the Huangyaguan Great Wall landscape radiates north to the valley area within sight of Phoenix Tower, and south to the Xiaying fort-type settlement and Huanxiu Lake National Wetland Park. This takes into account both the protected area and the ordinary landscape. At the same time, the military settlements associated with the Huangyaguan Great Wall can also be restrained, rather than creating disorderly development.
Secondly, we have a holistic view of how the landscape system is organised, which can be applied to the theme or positioning of different sections of the whole line of the M-GW to avoid monotonous sightseeing. For example, the natural ecological character of the Huangyaguan Great Wall landscape is based on the pattern of the denuded mountain of Yanshan in the north and Juhe Valley in the south. Its historical heritage characteristics include exquisite architectural art and a defensive status as a barrier to Thistle Town. Furthermore, it shows a unique combination of geology, geomorphology, and artificial engineering.
In addition, the boundary, spatial scale, and key characteristics of different landscape areas are identified. This helps to delineate the functional areas of the Great Wall National Cultural Park and strengthen their connection, and we can use adaptive strategies for different landscape characteristics.

4.4. Shortcomings and Future Work

The method used for Hadrian’s Wall is well connected with other plans for the country and uses landscape characteristic tools to promote landscape management and heritage preservation. However, in China, our discussion based on the landscape perspective is not well connected with current land policies, such as territorial spatial planning, which means that it faces management problems, such as multiple boundaries and a lack of discourse power. With more and more scholars committed to LCA research, a national landscape character map is likely to be a legally required tool, which will facilitate the conservation and planning of the M-GW landscapes.
The limitation of this paper is that only a viewshed is used as the perception variable. Further research with more focus on expanding the dimensions of perceptual variables is suggested. For example, colour, texture, form, aesthetics, and other aspects can be added, and interviews with the public can also be conducted. In China, the perception of landscape is often associated with “Shan-Shui”, a term used in Mandarin to express Chinese aesthetic advantages [74]. Moreover, the philosophy of “Shan-Shui topographical advantages” is of great significance to the scenic construction of the M-GW. Zhao et al. [33] explored the “Shan-Shui characterisation” approach, which proposes the viability of the implementation of landscape characterisation in the cultural context of China. Our future work will explore how local knowledge can be linked to the landscape characterisation of linear heritage. Finally, the manual delineation method in this study has its limitations in detailed zoning, so future studies should carry out comparative experiments with multiple experts to balance the influence of subjective judgment [51].

5. Conclusions

The protection of large linear heritage should not be narrowed to the limited buffer zone of the ontology on both sides, but should also pay attention to the protection and management of its related landscape from a holistic perspective. Taking as an example the most representative linear heritage in China, the landscape of the M-GW in Ji-Town, which was characterised in two steps in this paper. In Step 1, the landscape area was defined on the basis of administrative boundaries through the correlation analysis of nature, culture, and vision. In Step 2, the zoning of the landscape characters was implemented at two levels according to the use purpose and the variable hierarchy. In terms of methods, overlay analysis was used at Level I, and an approach that combines cluster analysis, automatic segmentation and manual delineation was used at Level II. In terms of the variable selection, due to the outstanding military geographical and cultural advantages of the M-GW, we selected the corresponding dominant factor and other variables. When applied to other linear heritage landscapes, they should be further optimised in accordance with the study of the natural and cultural context. Notably, multiscale and multilevel zoning of large linear heritage landscapes would be necessary and could be further supplemented on a smaller scale in the future and the interpretation of historical texts and historical maps can be added. This systematic approach facilitates the efficient decomposition, coalescence, and visualisation of complex landscape information. In addition, this research increases the recognition of the complexity and value of the M-GW landscape, and promotes integral and sustainable protection. With the addition of more data sources for the M-GW, as well as the integration of local knowledge, a more in-depth landscape classification will be conducted in the future. Finally, the idea of protecting and managing the M-GW landscape from the perspective of character will also contribute to the construction of the Great Wall National Cultural Park in China and the research and practices of other large linear heritage landscapes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Z., D.Y. and C.G.; methodology, S.Z. and D.Y.; software, S.Z.; validation, S.Z.; formal analysis, S.Z.; investigation, S.Z.; resources, S.Z.; data curation, S.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.Z. and D.Y.; visualization, S.Z.; supervision, C.G.; project administration, C.G.; funding acquisition, D.Y. and C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, grant number 2662021YLQD002 and 2662021JC002.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank “the Great Wall Station” team for their support with the data collection. Special thanks are offered to the reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Percentage composition of landscape character subtypes.
Table A1. Percentage composition of landscape character subtypes.
123456789101112131415
Al 10.000.000.770.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.000.000.00
Al 20.041.000.150.980.440.020.950.010.010.020.010.030.130.020.04
Al 30.950.000.080.000.530.960.050.000.440.130.040.870.800.940.70
Al 40.010.000.000.020.030.000.000.950.490.250.760.060.050.020.12
Al 50.000.000.000.000.000.020.000.040.060.330.140.020.020.010.10
Al 60.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.230.050.010.000.010.04
Al 70.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.050.000.000.000.000.00
Sl 10.020.190.320.120.000.010.780.000.000.000.000.020.010.010.00
Sl 20.120.570.650.440.000.070.060.010.010.010.010.090.060.080.01
Sl 30.000.150.030.341.000.270.100.120.030.090.120.310.250.300.03
Sl 40.720.080.000.080.000.390.040.620.000.180.200.370.460.490.89
Sl 50.140.010.000.020.000.240.010.220.950.660.640.210.210.110.06
Sl 60.010.000.000.000.000.020.010.030.010.060.030.000.010.010.01
So 10.000.000.040.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
So 20.000.000.260.930.000.000.000.070.090.960.961.000.000.010.98
So 30.940.950.010.000.920.960.210.840.780.020.020.000.000.920.00
So 40.050.010.690.010.060.030.010.010.020.010.000.000.000.060.01
So 50.000.040.000.060.020.000.210.080.090.010.020.001.000.000.00
So 60.010.000.000.000.000.010.570.000.020.000.000.000.000.010.01
Ve 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.060.000.000.000.000.00
Ve 20.160.010.000.020.090.020.050.060.080.230.160.180.160.070.18
Ve 30.020.010.000.010.010.000.020.080.060.260.560.110.030.020.11
Ve 40.000.010.010.040.010.960.030.710.550.310.140.170.180.250.29
Ve 50.150.030.040.200.120.020.160.050.080.030.030.180.200.100.14
Ve 60.000.000.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Ve 70.660.900.490.660.760.000.120.100.210.110.100.320.400.540.24
Ve 80.000.030.440.080.000.000.020.000.010.000.010.040.020.020.04
Ve 90.010.010.000.000.010.000.600.000.010.000.000.000.010.010.01
Gc 10.050.120.230.190.090.030.020.020.010.020.030.280.220.050.10
Gc 20.000.000.000.010.010.000.010.000.000.000.000.010.020.000.00
Gc 30.040.080.070.090.110.020.010.000.000.000.000.040.050.040.01
Gc 40.030.530.400.490.150.010.020.000.010.000.000.040.030.050.01
Gc 50.140.060.070.040.140.140.030.040.020.020.020.030.050.130.02
Gc 60.080.010.000.010.040.030.020.010.020.030.010.030.020.070.02
Gc 70.020.000.000.000.010.030.000.040.040.050.020.010.020.030.03
Gc 80.290.080.030.060.310.160.030.080.050.030.040.340.220.270.11
Gc 90.060.010.000.010.010.120.050.190.140.770.040.030.050.060.02
Gc 100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.010.010.030.010.010.000.00
Gc 110.020.000.000.000.010.010.050.000.010.010.040.040.020.010.02
Gc 120.270.020.000.010.100.450.020.620.690.060.770.140.280.290.66
Gc 130.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Gc 140.000.000.000.010.010.000.730.000.000.000.000.000.010.000.00
Gc 150.000.090.200.080.010.000.010.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Vi 10.160.040.090.040.130.160.170.140.570.130.080.070.160.000.23
Vi 20.000.500.230.170.010.000.380.180.300.490.240.060.151.000.40
Vi 30.100.200.370.310.100.100.110.060.130.080.110.030.110.000.13
Vi 40.740.260.310.480.760.740.340.620.000.300.570.840.580.000.24

References

  1. National Culture Heritage Administration. The Great Wall Protection Master Plan (2019–2035); National Culture Heritage Administration: Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. UNESCO the Great Wall. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/438/ (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  3. Chen, T.; Wang, L.; Ren, J. Study on the cultural heritage value of the Great Wall. China Cult. Herit. 2018, 3, 4–14. [Google Scholar]
  4. UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2005; p. 151. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2023).
  5. Linear Inscriptions for UNESCO World Heritage Travelers. Available online: https://www.worldheritagesite.org/connection/Linear+inscriptions (accessed on 9 January 2023).
  6. Li, L.; Feng, R.; Xi, J. Ecological risk assessment and protection zone identification for linear cultural heritage: A case study of the Ming Great Wall. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 11605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, F.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhu, X. Belt or network? The spatial structure and shaping mechanism of the Great Wall cultural belt in Beijing. J. Mt. Sci. 2018, 15, 2027–2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, D.; Yang, R. Problems and suggestions for the conservation and tourism development of World Heritage Site: The Great Wall of China. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2008, 5, 60–64. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yu, B. Holistic conservation management of the Great Wall of China: Challenges and exploration. China Cult. Herit. 2018, 3, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cao, W.; Yu, W.; Xu, J. City vs. Town residents’ place attachment, perceptions and support for tourism development in a linear World Cultural Heritage Site. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jiang, P.; Shao, L.; Baas, C. Interpretation of Value Advantage and Sustainable Tourism Development for Railway Heritage in China Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, H.; Plieninger, T.; Primdahl, J. A Systematic Comparison of Cultural and Ecological Landscape Corridors in Europe. Land 2019, 8, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, J.; An, Y. Cultural Route as a Type of World Heritage: An Interpretation to the ICOMOS Charter on Cultural Routes. Urban Plan. Forum 2009, 4, 86–92. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zabbini, E. Cultural Routes and Intangible Heritage. Almatourism 2012, 3, 59–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. National Historic Trails—National Trails System (U.S. National Park Service). Available online: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationaltrailssystem/national-historic-trails.htm (accessed on 8 January 2023).
  16. He, S.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, X.; Wang, H. Exploring the protection and development strategy of large-scale linear heritage space: Based on the planning and management research of California National Historic Trail. Zhuangshi 2021, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xinhua. Plans were issued for the construction and protection of the Great Wall, the Grand Canal, and the Long March National Cultural Park. People’s Daily, 9 August 2021; p. 001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zou, T.; Qiu, Z.; Huang, X. The Origin and Vision of National Cultural Park Management Policy in China. J. Resour. Ecol. 2022, 13, 720–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dong, Y. Thoughts on the construction of Great Wall National Park. In Proceedings of the 2019 Symposium on Great Wall Culture of China: Beijing, China, 2019; The Great Wall Society of China, Civilization Magazine, Publicity Department of Beijing Yanqing District Committee: Beijing, China, 2019; pp. 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, Q.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Lin, L.; Wang, J.; Li, F. Discussion: The concept orientation, value exploration, inheritance, display and realization approach of national cultural park. China Cult. Herit. 2021, 5, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhang, M.; Tang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Yuan, L. The Great Wall National Cultural Park: Reinventing the relationship between built environment and public health. Beijing Plan. Rev. 2020, 4, 54–57. [Google Scholar]
  22. National Cultural Heritage Administration of China. Report on the State of Conservation of the Great Wall (China) (2019–2020); National Cultural Heritage Administration of China: Beijing, China, 2020; Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/document/185233 (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  23. Xinhua Leaders of Relevant Departments of the Central Government Answer Reporters’ Questions on the Construction Plan of the Great Wall, the Grand Canal and the Long March National Cultural Park. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2019-12/05/content_5458886.htm (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  24. Liu, L.; Guo, Q.; Wu, Q. Based on the new era, explore a new path—Summary of the symposium on “National Cultural Park Construction and Heritage Activation”. Tour. Trib. 2022, 37, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Cai, C. Important role of large-scale cultural heritage special plan viewed from three special plan of the Great Wall in Beijing. J. Beijing Univ. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2022, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zou, T.; Lv, M. How does the Great Wall transform from national cultural protection unit to National Cultural Park. China Tourism News, 17 December 2019; 003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mikusiński, G.; Blicharska, M.; Antonson, H.; Henningsson, M.; Göransson, G.; Angelstam, P.; Seiler, A. Integrating Ecological, Social and Cultural Dimensions in the Implementation of the Landscape Convention. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Adkins, G.; Mills, N. Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site: Hadrian’s Wall Interpretation Framework (Overview and Summary); Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Limited: Brampton, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Collins, M.; Oakey, M.; Owen-John, H.; Wilmott, T.; Pyrah, C. Wall to Wall: Historic England work on Hadrian’s Wall over the last decade. China Cult. Herit. 2018, 3, 62–70. [Google Scholar]
  30. Welfare, H. Conservation and strategic management on Hadrian’s Wall. China Cult. Herit. 2018, 3, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fairclough, G. A New Landscape for Cultural Heritage Management: Characterisation as a Management Tool. In Landscapes Under Pressure; Lozny, L.R., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2006; pp. 55–74. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-387-28461-3_4 (accessed on 5 September 2022)ISBN 978-0-387-75720-9.
  32. UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2013; p. 177. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide13-en.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  33. Zhao, Y.; Harvey, D.C.; Gao, C. Identifying Shan-Shui characteristics for national landscape heritage: Reconciling western and Chinese landscape characterisation from a trans-cultural perspective. Geogr. J. 2020, 186, 300–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Swanwick, C. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland; Countryside Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage: Inverness, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  35. Butler, A. Dynamics of integrating landscape values in landscape character assessment: The hidden dominance of the objective outsider. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fairclough, G.; Sarlöv Herlin, I.; Swanwick, C. Landscape character approaches in global, disciplinary and policy context: An introduction. In Routledge Handbook of Landscape Character Assessment: Current Approaches to Characterisation and Assessment; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Simensen, T.; Halvorsen, R.; Erikstad, L. Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Terkenli, T.; Gkoltsiou, A.; Kavroudakis, D. The Interplay of Objectivity and Subjectivity in Landscape Character Assessment: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Challenges. Land 2021, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. The Holistic Nature of Landscape—Landscape as an Integrating Concept. In Landscape Perspectives: The Holistic Nature of Landscape; Landscape Series; Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 1–9. ISBN 978-94-024-1183-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Landscape Character Assessment Technical Information Note | Landscape Institute. Available online: https://www.landscapeinstitute.org/publication/landscape-character-assessment-tin/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  41. Warnock, S.; Griffiths, G. Landscape Characterisation: The Living Landscapes Approach in the UK. Landsc. Res. 2015, 40, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Griffiths, G. Transferring Landscape Character Assessment from the UK to the Eastern Mediterranean: Challenges and Perspectives. Land 2018, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vogiatzakis, I.N.; Zomeni, M.; Mannion, A.M. Characterizing islandscapes: Conceptual and methodological challenges exemplified in the Mediterranean. Land 2017, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stahlschmidt, P.; Swaffield, S.; Primdahl, J.; Nellemann, V. Landscape Analysis: Investigating the Potentials of Space and Place; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-138-92715-5. [Google Scholar]
  45. Carlier, J.; Moran, J. Landscape typology and ecological connectivity assessment to inform Greenway design. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 3241–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Martín, B.; Ortega, E.; Otero, I.; Arce, R.M. Landscape character assessment with GIS using map-based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 180, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, L.; Shao, L.; Feng, S. Classification of natural landscape along the linear heritage: A case study of Chinese Eastern Railway. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2016, 32, 84–88. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hulse, M.; Scott, B.; Scott, J.; Smith, H. Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site: Hadrian’s Wall Interpretation Framework (Secondary Theme: The Natural and Cultural Landscape of Hadrian’s Wall); Hadrian’s Wall Heritage Limited: Brampton, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Howard, P.; Thompson, I.; Waterton, E.; Atha, M. (Eds.) Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sarlöv Herlin, I. Exploring the national contexts and cultural ideas that preceded the Landscape Character Assessment method in England. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yang, D.; Gao, C.; Li, L.; Van Eetvelde, V. Multi-scaled identification of landscape character types and areas in Lushan National Park and its fringes, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 201, 103844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pan, Y.; Wu, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhang, B.; Li, W. Identifying terrestrial landscape character types in China. Land 2022, 11, 1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, H.; Dong, Y. (Eds.) Chronicles of the Great Wall of China; Phoenix Science Press: Nanjing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  54. Li, Z.; Tuo, X.; Jing, Y.; Li, Y.; Yao, W. The investigation of distribution, category and usage of Hidden Doors: Along the Jizhen defensive district of the Ming Great Wall. Archit. J. 2020, S1, 141–146. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wang, L.; Guo, Y. The textual research on the founded time of Ji-Town the Great Wall of Ming Dynasty. J. Hum. Settl. West China 2013, 6, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zheng, S.; Han, L.; Zheng, L. (Eds.) The Ming Great Wall in Ji-Town: Archaeological Report from 1981 to 1987; Cultural Relics Press: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  57. Huo, P.; Hou, Q.; Zhou, Q.; Li, B.; Hou, M. Research on 3D reconstruction based on multiple data sources: A case study of Ming Dynasty Great Wall in Beijing. Bull. Surv. Mapp. 2020, S1, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Su, Y.; Ma, Y.; Chen, M.; Wang, S. Research on the construction of Gubeikou Great Wall heritage corridor based on ecological suitability assessment. Beijing Plan. Rev. 2022, 1, 125–129. [Google Scholar]
  59. Tang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, M. Construction of the Great Wall Culture Presentation Belt in Beijing under the Framework of Regional Synergetic Development. J. Beijing Univ. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2016, 32, 1–5+15. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhang, Y.; Li, S.; Tan, L.; Zhou, J. Distribution and integration of military settlements’ cultural heritage in the large pass city of the Great Wall in the Ming Dynasty: A case study of Juyong Pass defense area. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Xiao, L. The defense of Qing Shan Guan and Ji Zhen in the Ming Dynasty. Shanxi Arch. 2013, 4, 80–83. [Google Scholar]
  62. Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z. A Holistic study and digital practice of the Great Wall. World Archit. 2022, 8, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cao, Y.; Zhang, Y. The fractal structure of the Ming Great Wall Military Defense System: A revised horizon over the relationship between the Great Wall and the military defense settlements. J. Cult. Herit. 2018, 33, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tang, Y.; Gao, C.; Wu, X. Urban Ecological Corridor Network Construction: An Integration of the Least Cost Path Model and the InVEST Model. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhou, X.; Zhang, C. Value measure development and dimensional structure of the Great Wall cultural heritage. China Cult. Herit. 2020, 6, 4–14. [Google Scholar]
  66. Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z. A study of the defense system and military settlements of the Ming Great Wall. Archit. J. 2018, 5, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  67. Jinwanbao. Huangyaguan Great Wall Scenic Area Master Plan Unveiled. Available online: https://k.sina.cn/article_1960785875_74df37d3019014irq.html?from=movie (accessed on 27 October 2022).
  68. Bishop, I. Assessment of Visual Qualities, Impacts, and Behaviours, in the Landscape, by Using Measures of Visibility. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2003, 30, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schirpke, U.; Tasser, E.; Tappeiner, U. Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 111, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ni, S.; Jiang, J.; Zha, Y.; Chu, W.; Yang, Z.; Yang, G. Classification and mapping of the natural landscape of the Huazhong (Midland China) region based on interpretation of satellite imagery. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Val. 1995, 4, 337–343. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhou, C.; Cheng, W.; Qian, J.; Li, B.; Zhang, B. Research on the classification system of digital Land Geomorphology of 1: 1 000,000 in China. J. Geo-Inf. Sci. 2009, 11, 707–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Flanders, D.; Hall-Beyer, M.; Pereverzoff, J. Preliminary evaluation of eCognition object-based software for cut block delineation and feature extraction. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 29, 441–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Van Eetvelde, V.; Antrop, M. A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Liu, H. The integration of knowledge and practice in Chinese traditional landscape architecture. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2021, 37, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 02615 g001 550
Figure 1. The location of the M-GW in Ji-Town.
Figure 1. The location of the M-GW in Ji-Town.
Sustainability 15 02615 g001
Sustainability 15 02615 g002 550
Figure 2. The research area, and the distribution of side walls, passes, forts, settlements and watch towers.
Figure 2. The research area, and the distribution of side walls, passes, forts, settlements and watch towers.
Sustainability 15 02615 g002
Sustainability 15 02615 g003 550
Figure 3. The multiple boundaries of Huangyaguan Great Wall and photos of the surrounding landscape.
Figure 3. The multiple boundaries of Huangyaguan Great Wall and photos of the surrounding landscape.
Sustainability 15 02615 g003
Sustainability 15 02615 g004 550
Figure 4. Flowchart for the landscape character identification of the M-GW in Ji-Town.
Figure 4. Flowchart for the landscape character identification of the M-GW in Ji-Town.
Sustainability 15 02615 g004
Sustainability 15 02615 g005 550
Figure 5. The landscape area of the M-GW in Ji-Town.
Figure 5. The landscape area of the M-GW in Ji-Town.
Sustainability 15 02615 g005
Sustainability 15 02615 g006 550
Figure 6. Landscape character types and areas at the first level and photos of typical landscape characters.
Figure 6. Landscape character types and areas at the first level and photos of typical landscape characters.
Sustainability 15 02615 g006
Sustainability 15 02615 g007 550
Figure 7. Landscape character subtypes at Level II.
Figure 7. Landscape character subtypes at Level II.
Sustainability 15 02615 g007
Sustainability 15 02615 g008 550
Figure 8. Landscape character subareas at Level II: (a) Delineation in eCognition; and (b) Delineation by manual adjustment.
Figure 8. Landscape character subareas at Level II: (a) Delineation in eCognition; and (b) Delineation by manual adjustment.
Sustainability 15 02615 g008
Sustainability 15 02615 g009 550
Figure 9. Photos of the most characteristic and representative landscapes around the M-GW: (a) Mountain landscape on the north side; (b) Plain hills and farmland landscape on the south side; (c) Side walls and watch tower of the M-GW, as well as the steep mountain landscape; (d) Military settlement of the M-GW.
Figure 9. Photos of the most characteristic and representative landscapes around the M-GW: (a) Mountain landscape on the north side; (b) Plain hills and farmland landscape on the south side; (c) Side walls and watch tower of the M-GW, as well as the steep mountain landscape; (d) Military settlement of the M-GW.
Sustainability 15 02615 g009
Table
Table 1. Variables used for general zoning at the first level.
Table 1. Variables used for general zoning at the first level.
VariablesAcronymVariablesAcronym
Landform type *Shimen LuM2
Medium topographic relief and middle mountains in DaxinganlingL1Taitou LuM3
Piedmont plain in Taihang-to-Dabie Mountain RidgeL2Yanhe LuM4
Great topographic relief and middle mountains in Yanshan Mountain RidgeL3Taiping LuM5
Medium topographic relief and middle mountains in Yanshan Mountain RidgeL4Xifeng LuM6
Medium topographic relief and low mountains in Yanshan Mountain RidgeL5Songpeng LuM7
Small topographic relief and middle-low mountains in Yanshan Mountain RidgeL6Malan LuM8
Hills and plains of lower altitudes in Yanshan Mountain Ridge L7Qiangzi LuM9
Hilly tableland in QianxiL8Caojia LuM10
Military regionalisation in Ji-TownGubei LuM11
Shanhai LuM1Shitang LuM12
* Relief is the index for dividing geomorphologic forms: plain (<30 m), tableland (>30 m), hill (<200 m), small topographic relief (200–500 m), medium topographic relief (500–1000 m), great topographic relief (1000–2500 m). In elevation, the low mountains are less than 1000 m, and the middle mountains are 1000–3500 m.
Table
Table 2. Variables used for detailed zoning at the second level.
Table 2. Variables used for detailed zoning at the second level.
VariablesAcronymVariablesAcronym
elevationTemperate grass and forb holophytic meadow Ve 6
<200Al 1One crop annually, cold-resistant economic crops and deciduous orchardsVe 7
200–500Al 2Three crops, two years and two crops annually, non-irrigation, deciduous orchardsVe 8
500–1000Al 3OthersVe 9
1000–1500Al 4Land cover
1500–2000Al 5Cropland, rainfedGc 1
>2000Al 6Cropland, irrigated or post-floodingGc 2
slopeMosaic cropland (>50%)/natural vegetation (tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover) (<50%)Gc 3
0–2 flat slopSl 1Herbaceous coverGc 4
2–6 gentle slopSl 2GrasslandGc 5
6–14 medium slopSl 3Mosaic herbaceous cover (>50%)/tree and shrub (<50%)Gc 6
14–26 steep slopeSl 4Mosaic tree and shrub (>50%)/herbaceous cover (<50%)Gc 7
26–45 sharp steep slopeSl 5Mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover) (>50%)/cropland (<50%)Gc 8
>45 scarp slopeSl 6Tree cover, needle-leaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)Gc 9
soilTree cover, broadleaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)Gc 10
Saline soilSo 1Tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed to open (>15%)Gc 11
LuvisolsSo 2Tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed (>40%)Gc 12
Semi-LuvisolsSo 3Shrub or herbaceous cover, flooded, fresh/saline/brackish waterGc 13
Semi-hydromorphic soilsSo 4Tree cover, flooded, saline waterGc 14
Primary soilSo 5Water bodiesGc 15
WaterSo 6Urban areasGc 16
VegetationViewshed type
Cold-temperate and temperate Mountains needleleaf forestVe 1Visual sensitive areaVi 1
Temperate coniferous forest Ve 2Strong perception areaVi 2
Temperate broadleaf deciduous forest Ve 3Weak perception areaVi 3
Temperate deciduous shrubVe 4Blind areaVi 4
Temperate grass-forb communityVe 5
Table
Table 3. Archiving, analysing, and interpreting the identification results at two levels.
Table 3. Archiving, analysing, and interpreting the identification results at two levels.
Level Landscape Character AreaLandscape Character TypeKey Natural CharacteristicsKey Cultural CharacteristicsKey Perceptual Characteristics
Level I Area: E3Type E of Malan LuMedium topographic relief and low mountains in Yanshan Mountain RidgeBelongs to Malan Lu, the Central District in Ji-Town, and Huangyaguan Great Wall passes through–
Area: G5Type G of Malan LuHills and plains of lower altitudes in Yanshan Mountain Ridge Belongs to Malan Lu, the Central District in Ji-Town, and is in the south of Huangyaguan Great Wall–
Level IISubarea: 74Main subtype: 1, 2
others: 5, 6		Elevation: 200–1000 m
Slope: 2–26
Soil: Semi-luvisols
Vegetation: crop, cold-resistant economic crops, and deciduous orchards; temperate coniferous forest, grass-forb communities and deciduous shrubs
Land cover: Herbaceous cover; mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover) (>50%)/cropland (<50%); tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed (>40%); cropland, rainfed; tree cover, needle-leaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)		(1) Baguaguan City, Huangya Entrance Pass, Huangya water gate, side walls on Wangmao mountain in the west, Phoenix tower, Qingshanling fort-type settlement, and other heritage of the Great Wall
(2) White Snake Cave scenic resort, the cave paradise named Eight-immortal Ancient Cave, the national geological relics of the Jixian-type Middle-Upper Proterozoic stratigraphic section, one of the Ten Views of Jinmen “The Martial Barrier in the Northern Jizhou” and other landscape resources		Visual sensitive area and perception area
Subarea: 75Main subtype: 14Elevation: 500–1000 m
Slope: 6–26
Soil: Semi-luvisols
Vegetation: crop, cold-resistant economic crops and deciduous orchards; temperate deciduous shrub
Land cover: grassland; mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, herbaceous cover) (>50%)/cropland (<50%); tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed (>40%)		Daping’an fort-type settlement, Zhongying fort-type settlement, Xiaying fort-type settlement, an ancient well, a stone roller, a horse trough and other heritage of the Great WallStrong perception area
Subarea: 76Main subtype: 7, 1, 2Elevation: 200–1000 m
Slope: 0–6, 14–26
Soil: Semi-luvisols and primary soil
Vegetation: temperate grass-forb Community; crop, cold-resistant economic crops and deciduous orchards; temperate coniferous forest
Land cover: water bodies; tree cover, flooded, saline water; grassland; mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, and herbaceous cover) (>50%)/cropland (<50%); tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed (>40%); herbaceous cover; cropland, and rainfed		Huanxiu Lake National Wetland Park, Qishan mountain and Lanshui water cave and other landscape resourcesStrong perception area
Subarea: 77Main subtype: 14, 8
others: 5, 12		Elevation: 200–1500 m
Slope: 6–26
Soil: Semi-luvisols and luvisols
Vegetation: crop, cold-resistant economic crops and deciduous orchards; temperate deciduous shrub, coniferous forest, broadleaf and grass-forb community
Land cover: grassland, mosaic natural vegetation (tree, shrub, herbaceous cover) (>50%)/cropland (<50%); tree cover, broadleaved, deciduous, closed (>40%); tree cover, needle-leaved, evergreen, closed to open (>15%)		(1) Taipingzhai walls of the eastern Huangyaguan Great Wall, Widow tower, the ruin of abutment beacon tower in Ming Dynasty, Qingshanling fort-type settlement, Xiaoping’an fort-type settlement and other heritage of the Great Wall
(2) The scenic spot of “Sunset Glow of Huangya”		Strong perception area and blind area
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, S.; Yang, D.; Gao, C. Identifying Landscape Character for Large Linear Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall in Ji-Town, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032615

AMA Style

Zhao S, Yang D, Gao C. Identifying Landscape Character for Large Linear Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall in Ji-Town, China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032615

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Shuang, Diechuan Yang, and Chi Gao. 2023. "Identifying Landscape Character for Large Linear Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall in Ji-Town, China" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032615

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop