環(huán)境設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯--基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施促進(jìn)身體健康（節(jié)選自書籍）

1、<p>　　中文7200字,4100單詞，2.1萬英文字符</p><p>　　綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施景觀規(guī)劃</p><p>　　Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning</p><p>　　學(xué) 院（系）： 建筑與藝術(shù)學(xué)院 </p><p>　　專 業(yè)： 環(huán)境設(shè)計(jì)

2、 </p><p>　　學(xué) 生 姓 名： </p><p>　　學(xué) 號(hào)： </p><p>　　指 導(dǎo) 教 師： </p><p>　　完 成 日 期： </p><

3、p><b>　　外文原文：</b></p><p>　　Physical infrastructure for promotion of health</p><p><b>　　Parks</b></p><p>　　Naturalistic open space provides the urban dwelle

4、r with a broad range of services, including scenic, psychological, social, educational and scientific, as well as the opportunity to experience nature. Private development rarely provides public open spaces unless compel

5、led by government. This is because the services listed above are health and quality of life interests that are often beyond the economic calculation of development products and profits. This is to say that developers are

6、 not held a</p><p>　　Although poorly distributed, open space is provided by public agencies including municipalities, counties, park districts and state parks. These agencies maintain over 20 million acres o

7、f land in the US. The majority of this is managed as state parks, but over six million acres is provided by municipal agencies. Two million acres of the municipal land is managed as informal open space (51.8 percent), ha

8、bitat (34.3 percent) or preservation (4.9 percent).It is clear that there is a substantial com</p><p>　　Although open space is usually unplanned or an opportunistic provision, there are notable examples of d

9、eliberate open space systems that contain urban, as well as ecologically valuable, open space. These examples provide us with some of the most important demonstrations of the range and value of ecosystem services provide

10、d to urban residents.</p><p>　　Open space standards</p><p>　　Often open space in a city accumulates due to unplanned opportunities rather than deliberate physical planning that factors minimum s

11、ize, location, residential density, connectivity or type of space. More often there is a piecemeal approach with a focus on meeting standards. Although very simple, the disadvantages of this approach are that it doesn’t

12、respond to the characteristics of the community or the unique qualities of the undeveloped landscape. Standards fail to account for opportunities f</p><p>　　Open-space standards reflect park acreage compared

13、 to city population. This simple formula has evolved to include access or service areas, in addition to acreage. This begins to address the unequal provision of open space by cities. In the UK, the first accessibility st

14、andard for open space was introduced in the late 1500s and specified that residents should be within three miles of open space. Several more recent standards have been promoted, including the ANGSt recommendations adopte

15、d by Engli</p><p>　　Table 7.1 American and British open space recommendations.</p><p>　　In the US there are no national government requirements or guidelines for parks, open space, natural areas

16、 or trails, but the National Recreation and Park Association published guidelines in the early 1980s that set a standard of 6.25–10.5 acres per 1,000 population for urban areas and 15–20 acres for regional parks. The bas

17、is of this recommendation was subjective but widely adopted. These guidelines were revised in 1995 (Table 7.1). They suggest park types, sizes and service radii recommendatio</p><p>　　Cities meet the recomme

18、nded standards to varying degrees. Seattle, for example, provides 4.8 acres per 1,000 population of developed parkland and 5.6 acres of natural parkland per 1,000 residents. Philadelphia provides almost seven acres of pa

19、rkland per 1,000 people. Often, smaller cities provide more park space per resident than large cities. For example, Boulder, Colorado, with a population of 103,600, provides 19 acres of urban parkland per 1,000 residents

20、 and 15 miles of greenway trails. Jus</p><p>　　The Trust for Public Lands, a national non-profit organization in the US, developed a method to assess the 40 largest American cities according to the provision

21、 of parks. The organization combined several measures, which can serve as a guide for cities and towns that are planning park systems within their jurisdictions. As in the British method, both park acreage and access to

22、it are important considerations. The study measured total acres of parkland within the city, but also determined the acr</p><p>　　The Trust for Public Land also assessed the subject cities according to the p

23、ublic access to the parklands. They also distributed access according to economic stratification of the population. Access was defined as a ten-minute walk (0.5 miles) from the residence to the park entrance. The route n

24、eeded to be free of obstacles, such as interstate highways, rivers, etc. The percentage of the urban population with this access ranged from 26 percent (Charlotte) to 98 percent (San Francisco), with a m</p><p

25、>　　The last measure considered by the Trust for Public Land is the level of service and investment in parks provided by the cities. The service component used playgrounds as a proxy since they reliably predict the pro

26、vision of other park facilities. Playgrounds per 10,000 residents ranged between 1 and 5, with a median of 1.89. Public investment ranged from $31 (El Paso) to $303 (Washington, DC), with a median of $85 per resident.<

27、;/p><p>　　The cities ranked in the top ten for a combination of acreage, access and service and investment were San Francisco, Sacramento, Boston, New York, Washington, Portland, Virginia Beach, San Diego, Seat

28、tle and Philadelphia. Cities with higher population density generally scored better on access but not necessarily on the service and investment issue. Total population was also not a predictor of park score rank. Several

29、 cities with low population density provided very large total park acreage but d</p><p>　　Programming increases the value of existing park acreage, as demonstrated by the following research results. An analy

30、sis of 20 studies investigating the value of open space defined a forested land situation (forest size = 24,500 acres; population density = 87 people per square mile) and found that the open space value was $620 (2003) p

31、er acre per year. However, when the forest area increased above 24,500 acres, then the open space value per acre decreased, but total value did not decrease. If re</p><p>　　Systematic open space</p>&

32、lt;p>　　A reasoned approach to open-space planning balances open-space standards with an assessment of local and regional demand for various outdoor recreation pursuits, the presence of outstanding visual character and

33、 local habitat. Comparison of existing supply with demand and existing service levels in the municipality or county would focus attention on where parks of various types are needed. Park and recreation standards, as sugg

34、ested in Table 7.1, are a starting point for public participatory plan</p><p>　　Provision of open space at Stapleton</p><p>　　Large subdivision projects and planned unit developments in the US a

35、re often required to provide a percentage of the site as public open space. The amount is determined through direct negotiation of housing density, commercial space and public amenities. This requirement often arises fro

36、m a public participatory planning process that is absent from the consideration of small-parcel development. As the result of an extensive public planning process, the developer of Stapleton in Denver was require</p&g

37、t;<p>　　The citizen planning effort at Stapleton established a range of open-space types. The eight types are: (1) formal urban parks (about 175 acres); (2) nature parks (in this case Sandhills Prairie park at abo

38、ut 365 acres and the Sand Bluff Nature Area); (3) community parks (20–40 acres each); (4) neighborhood parks (up to ten acres each); (5) parkways or greenways (planted medians, vegetated street edges or landscape corrido

39、rs with multiple functions, including stormwater management); (6) sports co</p><p>　　Density and proximity</p><p>　　Figure 7.9 This newly restored stream corridor at Stapleton once flowed throug

40、h box culverts below airport runways. Today the corridor is valuable habitat connected to a regional preserve and other corridors. Note the new public recreation center building at the upper right.</p><p>　　

41、People value public open space more highly as population density increases. When the population density increases by 10 percent, the value of open space increases by 5 percent. Poorly used neighborhood parks (Figure 7.10

42、) are often located in single-family residential areas where ample private open space reduces the demand for public space except for neighborhood celebrations or events. Small urban lots within single family, row house o

43、r townhouse neighborhoods are more acceptable to residents i</p><p>　　When the open space is close to residences it increases their value. Studies demonstrate that when considering properties an average dist

44、ance (190 feet) from open space, compared to those 30 feet closer to open space, there is about 0.1 percent increase in price for the closer property. The price increase effect grows with each increment closer to the ope

45、n space.</p><p>　　Figure 7.10 This neighborhood park in a single-family residential neighborhood provides lawn, ornamental planting and a shade structure. All of these features are available in most of the p

46、rivate open space, which reduces park use except for neighborhood events.</p><p>　　Recreation facilities</p><p>　　In the US the National Recreation and Park Association recommends recreation fac

47、ility standards just as they do for types of park acreage. From the green infrastructure point of view these facilities need to be located where they can be linked to other network resources and the residential and emplo

48、yment centers that might contribute users. Again the proximity of the recreation opportunities will encourage public use.</p><p>　　Land-use mix and destinations</p><p>　　Greater use of public op

49、en space results when development types are varied. When retail, employment and civic opportunities and residential areas are adjacent to each other and connected by pedestrian-friendly streets, then people are encourage

50、d to walk between use areas (Figure 7.11). Some destinations are anchors within a network of pedestrian and bicycle routes and other uses. Schools, libraries, city administration, shopping districts, civic plazas, waterf

51、ronts and many other elements can fu</p><p>　　Figure 7.11 As residential and employment density increase, so does use of public plazas, promenades and formal parks.</p><p>　　Figure 7.12 This ima

52、ge shows the 29th Avenue promenade (right) leading to the Founders Park and urban plaza. The mixed-density neighborhood includes apartments, row houses, townhouses and multistory mixed-use buildings.</p><p>

53、　　Figure 7.13 This wide median is a wonderful place to walk and is anchored by a destination –the mixed-use neighborhood center and plaza on 29th Avenue. It is Stapleton’s version of the passeggiata.</p><p>

54、　　Residential density</p><p>　　Low residential density results in lower pedestrian and bicycle activity and use of public open space. Conversely, as residential density increases, privately owned open space

55、shrinks and the demand for public space and facilities increases. This is also true for the size of the residential living area. In Italy, for example, the evening stroll (passeggiata) is the opportunity to meet with fri

56、ends, bump into playmates or eat an ice cream or a meal. There is no reason not to window shop, discuss </p><p>　　Neighborhood civility and safety</p><p>　　There are often neighborhood disincent

57、ives for walking, bicycling or making other use of the public landscape. Planning and design can make public places safer, but other efforts must be brought to bear when fear of becoming a victim of crime or prejudice pr

58、events people from using the streets, parks and trails. Tackling the problems of poverty, limited education, racism, gangs or other examples of failing community health is as important as it is difficult.</p><

59、p>　　Walkability facilities and street connectivity</p><p>　　People walk or bicycle when the infrastructure encourages it. There is really a fundamental level of service and a more robust infrastructure th

60、at is necessary as the numbers of people walking and bicycling increase. Fundamental planning and design measures include supportive street widths, street patterns and environmental measures to reduce heat, glare and acc

61、idents, and to increase access. Streets need to connect to other streets in a legible pattern that allows direct routes to community des</p><p>　　When a fundamental and functional set of routes and surfaces

62、have been provided then planning and design should concentrate on quality improvements, as well as system expansion (Figure 7.14). Walkability is as much about the satisfaction of walking as the engineering aspects of ro

63、utes and surfaces. What will make walking a satisfying experience?</p><p>　　There are facilities and amenities that will better support a journey. Frequent places to stop for water, shade and seating improve

64、 the experience. Separation between motorized vehicles, bicycles and walkers is necessary as the density of each increase. The separation improves the experience and reduces conflicts and accidents. For bicyclists, more

65、frequent facilities to lock and store bicycles, and frequent stations where there is air or supplies for bicycle tire maintenance and repair lead to </p><p>　　Another group of pedestrian and bicycling amenit

66、ies are less tangible or functional. Walking and bicycle routes should be choreographed. They are, after all, spatial-temporal environments where the experience can be punctuated, focused and enriched by a variety of des

67、ign elements. Bringing the concepts of nodes, districts and thresholds to the recreation or transportation experiences of walking and bicycling offer many opportunities for creative design. Changes in color and texture o

68、f the paving</p><p>　　Figure 7.14 Special infrastructure is needed to support high levels of bicycle ridership. This applies to increased pedestrian density as well.</p><p>　　Cultural, education

69、al or interpretive signage, sculpture and other site art add meaning and place attachment. These elements distinguish one route, city or region from another and increase the satisfaction of moving through the landscape.

70、Cultural and natural history interpretation can be combined with local building and plant materials to create unique settings.</p><p><b>　　Traffic</b></p><p>　　High traffic speed and

71、 volume discourage use of urban sidewalks. Reducing these factors within central business districts improves the pedestrian experience and willingness to frequent local businesses. Increasing public transportation riders

72、hip and creating disincentives for driving a private vehicle has been successful in many US cities. Portland capped the number of parking lots and spaces within the city center. In fact, since this regulation was enacted

73、 the number of parking spaces has stea</p><p>　　Figure 7.15 As bicycle and pedestrian use increases, cities need to respond with additional support facilities, such as bike storage, signage, rest areas, dedi

74、cated routes and bicycle rental programs. Additional facilities foster greater citizen participation. </p><p>　　Figure 7.16 An autumn afternoon in Boulder, Colorado. This civic and commercial mall is a close

75、d street refurbished with new paving, seating, play areas, trees and outdoor cafes.</p><p>　　Slowing the speed of traffic on streets intended to serve pedestrians can be accomplished by narrowing travel lane

76、s slightly, by providing on-street parallel or angled parking and by including planted medians and parkway tree plantings.</p><p>　　Pedestrian and bicycle safety structures</p><p>　　Of course, c

77、rosswalks and traffic signals need to be provided wherever pedestrian or bicycle safety is a concern, but as pedestrians and bicyclists become a greater pro portion of the users of urban streets, additional safety measur

78、es can be implemented. Mid-block crosswalks are safer crossing locations for pedestrians than busy inter sections, since many accidents involve turning vehicles. When the street is wide, curb extensions and a median redu

79、ce the expanse of roadway the pedestrian must cr</p><p>　　Figure 7.17 Bicycle signaling to reduce conflicts with turning automobiles.</p><p>　　Copenhagen and other European cities have implement

80、ed traffic signals that allow bicycles to cross intersections before autos begin moving or turning operations (Figure 7.17). This practice and the provision of an extensive network of bicycle lanes and other amenities ha

81、ve dramatically increased commuting by bicycle. In addition to increased safety, bicycle traffic signals increase the speed of travel for cyclists, making them more competitive with private and public transit modes. Inci

82、dentally,</p><p>　　Figure 7.18 This comfortable park in Stapleton is the focus of enclosing office and retail buildings. Its appealing vegetation offers many benefits.</p><p>　　Vegetation</p&

83、gt;<p>　　Vegetation is an open-space element that can have many benefits. Elsewhere street tree amelioration of the urban heat island effect was noted, but street trees, hedges and flowers are part of an enjoyable

84、 urban environment that encourages walking and bicycling. The beauty, shade and rain protection all contribute to the pedestrian environment (Figure 7.18), as does the real and suggested protection from nearby motorized

85、vehicles. Capture of particulate air pollution is a more direct health benef</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的景觀規(guī)劃</p><p>　　基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施促進(jìn)身體健康</p><p><b>　　

86、公園</b></p><p>　　自然的開放空間為城市居民提供廣泛的服務(wù)，包括景區(qū)，心理，社會(huì)，教育和科學(xué)等服務(wù)，以及體驗(yàn)大自然的機(jī)會(huì)。除非政府強(qiáng)令，私人開發(fā)很少會(huì)提供公共開放空間。這是因?yàn)樯厦嫠械姆?wù)關(guān)乎生活樂趣的健康程度和質(zhì)量，這些服務(wù)往往超出開發(fā)產(chǎn)品和利潤的經(jīng)濟(jì)估算。這是說開發(fā)商并不負(fù)擔(dān)危險(xiǎn)或不利于健康的社區(qū)成本。然而，這些危害的影響由個(gè)人和社區(qū)承擔(dān)。由于自由市場未能成功提供公共開放空間，公共

87、部門出于公民的利益開始采取行動(dòng)。當(dāng)我們認(rèn)為健康的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)也屬于公民的利益，那么保護(hù)生物多樣性、防洪和其他服務(wù)，如開放空間，需要合理規(guī)劃和政府關(guān)注的。然而，開放空間一般遵循從城市到鄉(xiāng)村的漸變，與人員變動(dòng)的大小和程度有關(guān)。這反映了土地成本和系統(tǒng)規(guī)劃的缺失。</p><p>　　雖然分布不均，開放空間主要由公共機(jī)構(gòu)包括市、縣、區(qū)和國家公園提供。在美國，這些機(jī)構(gòu)維持著超過2000萬英畝的土地。多數(shù)土地作為國家公園管理，但

88、超過六百萬英畝的土地由城市機(jī)構(gòu)提供。200萬英畝的城市土地作為日常開放空間（51.8%）、棲居地（34.3%）或留存地（4.9%）管理。很明顯，對(duì)日常娛樂空間和更自然的開放空間兩者都有一個(gè)實(shí)質(zhì)性的保證。當(dāng)然，正式公用場地的數(shù)量不會(huì)減少，但如果城市生物多樣性是有價(jià)值的，自然公園用地的面積和比例在今后會(huì)增加。</p><p>　　雖然開放空間通常是計(jì)劃之外或者伺機(jī)提供的，但是有許多著名的城市開放空間系統(tǒng)案例，這些系統(tǒng)

89、包含有生態(tài)價(jià)值的開放空間。這些案例為我們展示了為城市居民提供的最重要的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)服務(wù)的價(jià)值和范圍。</p><p><b>　　開放空間的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)</b></p><p>　　通常，城市開放空間的積累是偶然的，而不是經(jīng)過精心的基礎(chǔ)規(guī)劃，要考慮最小尺寸，位置，居住密度，連通性或空間類型等因素。更多的是采取一個(gè)漸進(jìn)的方式，著重于滿足標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。雖然這種方法很簡單，但其弊端是與社區(qū)的特

90、點(diǎn)或未開發(fā)景觀的獨(dú)特品質(zhì)不對(duì)應(yīng)。這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)未考慮到場地營造、多種用途或?yàn)榫用駝?chuàng)造經(jīng)濟(jì)和其它效益。許多這些弊端是由開放空間的增長方式引起而不是策略方針。</p><p>　　開放空間的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)反映了相對(duì)于城市人口的園林面積。這一簡單的公式已發(fā)展到包括除了土地面積以外的通道或服務(wù)區(qū)域。城市內(nèi)開放空間不平等的問題開始得到解決。16世紀(jì)晚期，英國提出了第一條可達(dá)性開放空間的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，明確指出居民應(yīng)獲得三英里的開放空間。幾個(gè)更早的標(biāo)

91、準(zhǔn)被提出，包括被英國政府機(jī)構(gòu)英國自然協(xié)會(huì)的采納的建議標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。英國自然協(xié)會(huì)鼓勵(lì)所有城市和城鎮(zhèn)采納這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)定每個(gè)住宅的1000英尺（300米）內(nèi)至少有五英畝（2公頃）的綠地和1.25英里內(nèi)50英畝（20公頃）的空間。</p><p>　　表7.1 美國和英國開放空的建議標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。</p><p>　　在美國，沒有對(duì)公園、開放空間、自然區(qū)域和道路的國家官方要求或指導(dǎo)方針，但早在20世紀(jì)80

92、年代，國家休閑和園林協(xié)會(huì)就出版了一份指導(dǎo)方針，制定一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：城市區(qū)域，每1000人占6.25-10.5 英畝；地區(qū)公園，15-20英畝。這一建議標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的基礎(chǔ)是主觀的，但被廣泛采納。這些指導(dǎo)方針于1995年修訂(表7.1)。這些指導(dǎo)方針提出了公園類型，尺寸和服務(wù)半徑的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，已被許多社區(qū)采納。這些建議標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在方向上明確為城市規(guī)劃，并沒有考慮公園的網(wǎng)絡(luò)化系統(tǒng)。公園道路被此協(xié)會(huì)劃歸為單用途路，多用途路和自然小徑三種類型，但是每千人的英里數(shù)、網(wǎng)絡(luò)密度

93、或其他供給標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并未給出。同樣，多功能連接小路，有一個(gè)運(yùn)輸中心，是一個(gè)可識(shí)別的道路類型，同樣供給標(biāo)準(zhǔn)未給出。無論是英國的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)還是美國的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)都未意識(shí)到構(gòu)建城市成長和綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施網(wǎng)絡(luò)的潛力的機(jī)會(huì)。</p><p>　　城市不同程度地滿足建議的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。例如，西雅圖，提供4.8英畝/1000人口的已開發(fā)的公園用地和5.6英畝/1000居民的自然公園用地。費(fèi)城幾乎提供了7英畝/1000人的公園用地。通常，越小的城市能比大城市提

94、供更多的人均公園面積。例如，科羅拉多州的博爾德，有103600人口，提供了19英畝/1000居民的城市公園綠地和15英里的綠化道。這座城市超出了限制，提供了146英里的道路，并且擁有額外的45000英畝的自然開放空間和棲息地。</p><p>　　美國國家非營利組織提出了一種根據(jù)園林供給狀況來評(píng)估美國40個(gè)最大城市的方法。該組織結(jié)合幾種措施，這些措施可作為城市和城鎮(zhèn)在本轄區(qū)內(nèi)規(guī)劃公園系統(tǒng)的指導(dǎo)。而在英國的方法中，

95、公園面積和出入通道都是要重點(diǎn)考慮對(duì)象。此項(xiàng)研究測量城市內(nèi)公共場地的總英畝數(shù)，規(guī)定了此面積占城市總面積的比例。對(duì)于40個(gè)城市，園林用地占城市區(qū)域比例的范圍從2.1%（弗雷斯諾）到22.8%（圣地亞哥），平均為9.1%。中央公園的大小從0.6至19.9英畝，中值為4.9英畝。即使是表現(xiàn)最好的城市僅能達(dá)到低于本書中為健康的人類和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)實(shí)現(xiàn)30%的開放空間的建議標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。沒有一個(gè)美國大城市能像斯德哥爾摩（瑞典首都）那樣實(shí)現(xiàn)40%的土地面積園林化。

96、這些數(shù)據(jù)表明，美國城市未能提供建議的園林面積，開放空間占土地面積的比例遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于休閑和生態(tài)的必要量。</p><p>　　美國非盈利組織同樣根據(jù)公用場地的公共通道對(duì)主要城市進(jìn)行評(píng)估。他們也根據(jù)人口的經(jīng)濟(jì)分層分類通道。通道被定義為從住處到公園入口10分鐘的步行路程(0.5英里)。通道上無障礙物，如公路、河流等。擁有這種通道的城市人口比例從26%（夏洛特）到98%（舊金山）不等，平均為57%。這些數(shù)據(jù)顯示，超過40%的

97、美國人并擁有建議的園林通道。</p><p>　　美國非盈利組織考慮的最后一個(gè)衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是城市提供的園林投資和服務(wù)的水平。服務(wù)成分將運(yùn)動(dòng)場作為一個(gè)代表，它可以準(zhǔn)確地預(yù)測其他公園設(shè)施的供應(yīng)。每10000居民的運(yùn)動(dòng)場介于1和5之間，平均值為1.89。公共投資從31美元（埃爾帕所）到303美元（華盛頓特區(qū)）不等，人均85美元。</p><p>　　綜合面積、通道、服務(wù)和投資等方面，排名前十的城市是

98、舊金山，薩克拉門托，波士頓，紐約，華盛頓，弗吉尼亞海灘、圣地亞哥、西雅圖和波特蘭費(fèi)城。人口密度較大的城市普遍在通道方面取得較好分?jǐn)?shù)，而并非在必要的服務(wù)和投資方面?？?cè)丝诹坎⒉皇枪珗@分?jǐn)?shù)排名的預(yù)測因子。某些人口密度較低的城市提供的總公園面積很大，但因通道、服務(wù)和投資問題并未獲得最高名次。排名最靠前的舊金山在通道方面取得了突出的分?jǐn)?shù)，同樣在投資方面得分很高（每個(gè)居民291.66美元)，盡管其總公園面積不是最高，但遠(yuǎn)高于公園面積比例的中值 (