M 
S 
Fig.l0 Graphic of the calculation of SLA 
22 
4) Spatial Kuang-ao of Viewplace:RH/Sar 
RH = (DOR, - H;))/(N-1) (12) 
Hp is the height of viewer's position, 
Hi is the height of viewplace boundary, 
N is the number of the height of viewplace boun- 
dary. 
Sar is the area within viewplace boundary. 
4,3 The Calculation Results 
  
In the case study of assessment and planning 
of a national major scenic landscape area, the 
calculation results of the elements discussed 
above are shown in schedule 1 and schedule 2. 
Schedule 1 The Calculation Results 
  
No. Rh SLM SLA Ml M2 M3 
(30, 30) «8.8 +61 59 Q.73 1.00 0.45 
(30 , 35) «6,1 +85 348 0.73 0.96 0.34 
(30, 40) -32.9 +77 59 0.09 0.74 0.34 
(30 , 45) -15.8 +90 68 0.68 0.72 0.26 
(30 , 50) 22.7 . +103 90 0.70- 0.85 0,43 
(30,535) 433,3 +45 59 0.66 0.02. 0.28 
(30 , 60) +12.4 -39 0 0.69 0.74 0.27 
(30 , 65). —4,3 +7. 338 0.69 0.52 .0.22 
(30 , 70) -15.2 *54 0 0.68 0.44 0.13 
(30 , 75) 128.9 447 329 0.69 0.66" 0.31 
(30 , 80) +8.2 +35 — 314 0.70. 0.79 0.29 
(30. , 85) 25.3 +62 30 0.69 0.51 0.22 
(30 , 90) 124.2 +95 59 0.68 1.03 0.45 
(30 , 95). +6.2 +81. 314 0.68. 0.89 0.37 
(30 ,100) . 41.8 +45 . 338 0.72 0.81 0.37 
(35 , 30) -25.7 +55 0 0.69 0.72 0.28 
(35.,:.35).. 112.7 +75 0 0.67 0.53. 0,17 
(35 , 40) -19.1 4109 30 0.70 . 0.92 0.37 
(35., 45) .-11.4.  r103 59 0.71 ,-1.15 0.67 
(35 , 50) -14.2 +89 0 0.68 0.99 « 0.46 
(35 , 55) -0.4 +225 101 0.73 0.92 .0.43 
(35 , 60) =3.5 +36 348 0.67 0.39: 0.20 
3, 65) +3.7 +67 11 0.71 0.77 0.27 
(35 , 70) +53.5 +75 11 0.65 0.73 0.56 
(120; 90) *7.0 +44 0 0.66 0:56 0.16 
(120, 95) -33.6 +58 0 0.65 0.44 0.18 
(120,100) -10.3 *60 78 0.71: 0.70 0.25 
  
Note: In the above schedule. 
l. (1,J) stands for the NO. of studied point; 
2. Rhstands for the relative height; 
3. SLM of viewplace for the magnitude of Max. 
slope; 
4. SLM of viewplace for the aspect of Max. slope; 
5. MI,M2 & M3 stand for the density. In above 
study; 
6. at each studied point search extension R-300m; 
7. search point density: LD-50m? x lm; 
8. this schedule is stored in file A:LV0150.0.50. 
284 
Schedule 2 Analysis for Kuang-Ao Units 
  
No. RH(M) RH/L Sarea Area Max.  RH/Sarea 
(km?) (km?) slop 
.600 +14.34 -6.68 
(30 , 30) -66.3 -1.33 0.968 0.900 «46.07 -68.46 
(30 , 35) -211.3,-2.11 1.266 1.099 445.50  —166.91 
(30 , 40) -116.8 -2.34 0.114 0.113 «46.41 -1025.54 
(30 , 45) -116.8 -1.17 0.159 0.134 «49.43 -734.70 
(30 , 50) -97.4 —1.95 0.276. 0.223 440.33  —352.35 
(30 , 55) +18.4 +0.26 5.845 5.810 «14.17 +314 
(30 , 60) -—59.3 —1.19 1.928 1.853 429.15- —30.73 
(30 , 05) -130.0 -0,65 0.695 0.695 441.21 '-187.01 
(30 , : 70) -124.5 -1.76 0.249 0.224 +37.05° 500,31 
(30 , 75) -161.3 -0.46 4.669 4.666 «23.40  -34.53 
(30 , 80) -133.4 —2.07 1.823 1.705 436.30 —-73.18 
(30 , 85) -261.9 3,70 1.024 1,023 +39,21 -255.81 
(30 , 90) -99.4 —1.41 1.957 1.938 440.47 ":—50.79 
(30.,.95)..—71.8 -1.44 1.414 1.381 «38.07. 50.73 
(30 ,100) -211.3 -4.23 0.895 0.881 «45.00 -236.04 
(35., 30), -89.5.~1.79 0.098 0.063 «52.26 -910.57 
(35 , 35) ——-89.0 -1.78 0.819 0.754 +36.51: —108.71 
(35,40) -61.6 -1.23 0.999 0.920 454.35 — -61.71 
(35 , 45)  -1.1 -0.02 0.814 0.705 «67.12 -1.38 
(35 , 50) —11.8 0.24 0.999 0.861 455.35 . 411.76 
(35 , 55) -125.0 -2,50 5.757:5.705 448.14 -— —21.71 
(35 , 60) -131.3 -2.63 0.640 0.588 «42.35 -205.16 
(35, 65) —56.8 —0,80 0.809 0,771 438.18. —70.15 
(35 , 70) -30.9 -0.06 4.6019 4 
. 
* 
. 
(120: 90) -142.4 -2.85 0.683 0.668 434.13 -208.51 
(120, 95) -91.8 -1.30 0.425 0.395 451.13 -215.72 
(120,100) -80.5 -1.61 0.425 0.386 449.34  -189.40 
  
Note: In the above schedule, 
1. RH stands for the defference between the hight 
of point (I,J) and the average hight of its 
boundary points. (unit:m) 
2. RH/Lstands for RH divided by the minimun dis- 
tance between point (I,J) to its boundary 
points. 
3. Area stands for the area of elevation formed 
by boundary points. (unit:km?). 
4. Sarea stands for the area of the plane app- 
oached by boundary points. (unit:km?). 
5. Max. slope stande for the maximun angle from 
point (I,J) to its boundary points. (unit: 
deg,min). 
2 4 4 5 yÿ-8 1 5. 0:5 4. 616 0 5 
37414-0757. 7.70 "6 ^ 4 6 6 ? 6 
2 44 57 8 86 503-517 
1 4 3 6 7 87 7°6 4 > 3 6 7 7 
2. 4 39447 4.9 48 Bil 4. 4.3.5.7 9 
2 2 2 3 5 6 7 7 9 7 5 347 7 
1 2.253. 5 7 7.8 7.8.0 4.4 6 7 
2 2-2 3 4 0 8 7 &-9.7 6 4.06.60 
2-2 272 3 4-5 6 8,8 -/ 6;5 0 5 
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 6 7 7 6 5.6 5 5 
4 54.3 34 4.6 6.6 0 4.15 5 5 
4 0 5 à 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 5 A 
5 6. 8.3.2. 22.2 3. 4.6 7 6 7 6 5 
27 7.4 39.30 2.2 2 34 7 5 7 5 5 
6 A 6 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 5 5 7 4 4 
696.7. 7 4 352 2 3 3 3314 6 5 6 
4 8$ 5^6 5-9 3.2 5 3«3- 3 6.5 4 
434 95 5 6 à 3 4 39 ^ 3 3 0 6 4 
Fig.ll Distribution of landscape variety (M3) 
on the study area 
Not 
Note 
WN = 
~~ Bg oe 
4.4 
The 
take! 
test