Perspective
Driving forces of landscape change –current and new directions
Matthias Bürgi *,Anna M.Hersperger and Nina Schneeberger
Swiss Federal Institute of Forest,Snow and Landscape Research (WSL),CH-8903Birmensdorf,Switzerland;*Author for correspondence (e-mail:matthias.buergi@wsl.ch)
Received 8April 2003;Accepted in revised form 5March 2004
Key words:Land-use planning,Land-use and land-cover change,Landscape history,Persistence,Precursors of change,Standard procedure
Abstract
The concept of driving forces is gaining increasing attention in landscape-change research.We summarize the state of the art of this ?eld and present new conceptual and methodological directions for the study of driving forces of landscape changes.These new directions address four major challenges faced by landscape-change studies,i.e.,studying processes and not merely spatial patterns,extrapolating results in space and time,linking data of different qualities,and considering culture as a driver of landscape change.The proposed research direc-tions include:studying landscape change across borders and transects,focusing on persistence as well as change,investigating rates of change,considering attractors of landscape change,targeting correlation and causality,and searching for precursors of landscape change.Based on established knowledge and the new approaches we out-line a standard procedure to study driving forces of landscape change.We anticipate that our analytical and sys-tematic approach increases the relevance of studies of landscape change for science as well as for the solution of real world problems.
Introduction
Landscape is the prime sphere,where the combined effects of society and nature become visible.As soci-eties and nature are dynamic,change is an inherent characteristic of landscapes.Indeed,Forman and Go-dron ?1986?offered a scienti?c framework of landscape ecology based on the three qualities struc-ture ?spatial relationship ?,function ??ow ?,and change ?dynamics ?.Interest in models of landscape change started early ?Baker 1989?and such models became widespread with the recognition that land-use change is one of the major factors affecting global environ-mental change ?Dale et al.1993;McDonnell and Pickett 1993;Meyer and Turner 1994?.
Landscape change has primarily been studied in cases where it leads to severe environmental prob-lems.There is for example a long tradition of inter-disciplinary work about the causes of land degrada-tion and soil erosion ?Blaikie 1985;Blaikie and Brook?eld 1987;Adams 1990?.Today,the study of causes,processes,and consequences of land-use and land-cover change is one of the main research topics of landscape ecology ?Wu and Hobbs 2002?,and is also relevant for ecology ?Dale et al.2000?.As today’s landscapes are the result of many layers of past natural processes and human interventions,a historical perspective is needed ?Russell 1997?.Such a landscape history provides valuable information for managing cultural landscapes ?Blaikie and Brook?eld 1987;Cronon 2000;Russell 1994;Tress et al.2001?,for land-use planning ?Berger 1987;Hersperger 1994;Marcucci 2000?,and for restoration ecology ?Egan and Howell 2001?.
We identify four serious challenges to landscape-change studies:
?a ?studying processes and not merely spatial pat-terns:Landscape-change studies have so far
mainly
Landscape Ecology 19:857–868,2004.
?2004Kluwer Academic Publishers.Printed in the Netherlands.
857
focussed on the documentation and analysis of spa-tial patterns and have paid considerably less attention to landscape function and therewith processes.This bias is common to the entire?eld of landscape ecol-ogy?Wiens1995;Hobbs1997?.Understanding land-scape changes,however,requires a sound understand-ing of the underlying processes.A historical approach bears the potential to analyse processes,since processes clearly have a temporal component.But convincing examples of integrative studies of pro-cesses of landscape change are still missing.
?b?extrapolating results in time and space:The re-sults of landscape studies are always speci?c in con-texts,actors,main processes,scale,and resolution.As every landscape is unique,it is problematic to trans-fer results gained in one landscape to another,and it is similarly difficult to extrapolate results in time ?Veldkam and Lambin2001?.Although some insights about landscape change are of more general charac-ter,such as the importance of topography on settle-ment patterns,the prerequisites for their extrapolation to other landscapes are often unclear.
?c?linking data of different qualities:Studies of landscape change often face problems handling data of different qualities,especially if they combine data from social sciences with data from natural sciences. Three main issues can be discerned:First,most so-cial science studies are conducted at other scales than natural science studies?V ogt et al.2002?.Second, whereas natural sciences often collect geo-referenced data,difficulties may arise if we try to relate social science data to a speci?c geographic place.Third, natural scientists usually give more credibility to quantitative data than to qualitative data,which makes it difficult for the social and natural scientists to interact and to integrate their studies?Bürgi and Russell2001;V ogt et al.2002?.Historical records, which are especially relevant for landscape-change studies,often simply do not meet the rigorous ecolo-gist’s demand for quanti?cation?Whitney1994?.
?d?considering culture as a driver of landscape change:The in?uence of culture on landscape change has recently gained increased attention?Rockwell 1994;Nassauer1995,1997;Naveh2001?.When comparing changing landscapes across continents,the in?uence of culture seems obvious.However,con-vincing approaches to integrate the cultural dimen-sion into studies of landscape change are missing. Culture is one of the most complex dimensions of environmental change and usually remains a vague concept.There is even serious disagreement whether culture is a narrow concept focusing on attitudes,be-
liefs,norms,and knowledge?Rockwell1994?or if
culture encompasses aspects such as population de-
velopment,economy,technology,and political pro-
cesses.In the later case,it is impossible to assign
culture an independent direct effect on the environ-
ment?Proctor1998?.
We propose the study of driving forces as a very
promising approach to address these four challenges
to landscape-change studies.In this paper we?a?dis-
cuss the state of the art of the concept of driving
forces,?b?present new directions for the study of
driving forces which address the above discussed
challenges to landscape-change studies,and?c?pro-
pose a standard procedure to study driving forces of
landscape change.Even though we focus on land-
scape changes,many aspects can easily be applied to
the study of changes in smaller or larger areas.
The concept of‘driving forces’–state of the art De?nitions
Driving forces are the forces that cause observed
landscape changes,i.e.,they are in?uential processes
in the evolutionary trajectory of the landscape.These
forces have also been called keystone processes ?Marcucci2000?or drivers?Wood and Handley 2001?.The study of driving forces of landscape
change has a long tradition in geography and land-
scape research?Wood and Handley2001?.For
example,Wirth?1969?asked for a‘general cultural-
geographic theory of forces’and distinguished be-
tween economic forces,social forces,and public
forces.More than10years ago,Kates,Turner and
Clark?1990?concluded from the papers collected in
the volume‘The earth as transformed by human ac-
tion’?Turner et al.1990?that a general theory of hu-
man-environment relationships would have to con-
ceptualize the relations among?1?the driving forces
of human-induced change,?2?the processes and ac-
tivities among them,and?3?human behaviour and
organization.The driving forces form a complex sys-
tem of dependencies,interactions,and feedback loops
and they affect several temporal and spatial levels.It
is therefore difficult to analyze and represent them
adequately?e.g.,Blaikie1985?.
Landscape-change studies document and interpret
the change of the landscape over time.A distinction
can be made between studies interpreting human im-
858
pacts as one of many in?uences and studies speci?-
cally focussing on the interrelationship between
humans and nature.Treating human impacts like
natural disturbances or site factors might be appropri-
ate for analysing a single habitat?e.g.,Christensen
1989;Magnuson1990?.However,understanding
landscapes and regions often require the study of the
connections between people and their environment.
Such an integrative perspective is also needed if one
is interested in changing societal demands due to an
altered natural environment.
Types of driving forces
Five major types of driving forces can be identi?ed:
socioeconomic,political,technological,natural,and
cultural driving forces?Brandt,Primdahl and Reen-
berg1999?.The socioeconomic driving forces are
primarily rooted in the economy.Today,the market
economy,globalisation,and the effects of WTO ?World Trade Organization?Agreements are espe-cially strong drivers.Since socioeconomic needs are
expressed in political programs,laws and policy,the
socioeconomic and political driving forces are
strongly interlinked.But also technology has shaped
the landscape enormously.Striking examples are the
distinct impacts of railroads and highways on settle-
ment patterns.In the near future,information
technology is likely to become an important driving
force of landscape change?Kienast,Bürgi and Wildi
in press?.For the natural driving forces we distinguish
between site factors,such as climate,topography,and
soil characteristics,and natural disturbances.Natural
disturbances can be slow-or fast-acting and site fac-
tors are short-range stable but long-term variable.To-
day,the major slow-acting natural disturbance is
global change.Fast-acting natural disturbances,such
as avalanches,mudslides,and hurricanes,can pro-
foundly affect landscapes and regions.Culture un-
questionably leaves a deep imprint on landscapes as
culture structures landscapes,while in turn landscapes
inoculate culture?Nassauer1995?.For example,the
landscape of any American’s home is immediately
interpreted for what it says about the owner.In turn,
people make landscapes according to what they be-
lieve their neighbours will think?Nassauer1995?.
However,as argued above,culture is one of the most
complex dimensions of environmental change and
usually remains a vague concept.Characteristics of driving forces
What is identi?ed as a driving force of landscape change is determined by the spatial,temporal,and in-stitutional scale of the system under study.It is im-portant to?nd a sound balance between generaliza-tion and speci?cation.Very general statements,such as‘Peoples’responses to economic opportunities,as mediated by institutional factors,drive land-cover changes’?Lambin et al.2001?or‘The main force be-hind change is the reorganisation of the existing structures to optimise their functioning’?Antrop 1998?,greatly reduce the complexity of the system under study.Some simpli?cation is necessary as it is impossible to comprehend all aspects in?uencing landscape changes.Thus,every study requires an ap-propriate scale of https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ually,the relevant levels are on the time axis months,years,and decades,on the institutional axis groups of actors, communities,and states,and on the spatial axis they extend from units of production to states?Figure1?. This does not mean,however,that the other levels can be ignored.
There are always factors behind the ones directly causing a certain change.It is therefore often appro-priate to distinguish between primary,secondary,and tertiary driving forces,as driving forces characteristi-cally have to be interpreted in nested scales of expla-nations?sensu Blaikie and Brook?eld1987?.In some cases,we can limit our analysis to the effect of a single driving force,such as a speci?c policy subject and its effect on landscapes over time?e.g.,Baur 2002;Bürgi and Schuler2003?.
To explain changes in a speci?c landscape,the dis-tinction between intrinsic and extrinsic driving forces is helpful.For example,if the system includes an en-tire municipality,the community-level regulations are intrinsic driving forces,whereas legislation and regu-lation on the state and international level are extrinsic driving forces,i.e.,they are part of the context. Landscape change is not always a result of planned and intentional actions.It also can‘happen’as an un-expected side effect.Thus,it is advisable to distin-guish between intentional and accidental landscape changes and their respective driving forces. Methods to study driving forces
The study of driving forces is problem oriented and in practice not restricted to a speci?c method or framework.However,the methodological approach
859
of most studies roots in general systems theory.Clearly,de?ning the system under study,its bound-aries,and components is essential.The systems ap-proach allows us to describe the state of the landscape,the processes within the landscape,and the reactions of the landscape over time ?Leser 1991;Naveh and Liebermann 1994?.According to hierarchy theory ?Allen and Starr 1982;Urban,O’Neill and Shugart 1987?,landscape systems can be decomposed into functional components,which can then be stud-ied.Since landscapes are enormously complex systems,the system ?especially the extent and the level of hierarchy ?is best described in the light of the question.Often,a graphic depiction of the relevant landscape aspects and elements,main group of actors,and most important socio-economical,political,tech-nological,natural,and cultural driving forces is suf-?cient to start the analysis.For example,Brandt,Primdahl and Reenberg ?1999?use a simple frame-work focusing on farm size,farm type,and driving forces to analyze the rural land-use structure and its change in Denmark.The authors found that public regulation together with economics explains most of the changes in rural areas near cities.
Widely used,especially in Europe,is the DPSIR ?Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Responses ?concept,described on the webpage of the European Environ-mental Agency ?EEA ?as ‘The causal framework for describing the interactions between society and the environment adopted by the European Environment Agency:driving forces,pressures,states,impacts,re-sponses ?extension of the PSR model developed by OECD ?’?http://glossary.eea.eu.int/EEAGlossary/D/DPSIR ?.Clearly,the DPSIR concept is not restricted to landscape change,as it includes all spheres of the environment.Since responses are included,their im-pact can be assessed.This is especially valuable for the evaluation of planning processes.
Regarding responses as essential part of the con-cept stresses the temporal aspect of system studies.Unquestionably,all elements of the system under study have a historical dimension:Not only land-scapes are subjects of change,but so are actors and driving forces.Speci?c periods for the respective rel-evant group of actors ?Bürgi 1999?or driving forces ?Bürgi and Schuler 2003?must be de?ned.Selecting the appropriate periods is challenging,however.The periods should re?ect major changes in the system under study,be it changes in the landscape ?e.g.,con-struction of a highway connecting a region to a city centre ?,or changes on the level of potential driving forces or actors ?e.g.,a new legislation or the rise of a new group of actors ?.For example,based on dis-tinct combinations of economical,ecological,politi-
Figure 1.Spatial,temporal and organizational scale of the system under study.In bold,the most important scalar levels are
highlighted.
860
cal,and managerial driving forces three periods were recognized in an analysis of the arti?cial tree regen-eration practices in Swiss forests during the19th and 20th century?Bürgi and Schuler2003?.
The relations between the elements,actors,and driving forces must be established and tested in the course of the analysis.Whereas statistical approaches are useful to detect correlations,they do not allow detecting causal relationships.The identi?cation of causal relationships,however,is a prerequisite for modelling land-use and land-cover changes and for predictive studies?e.g.,Serneels and Lambin2001; Irwin and Geogheagan2001;Verburg et al.2002; Veldkamp and Lambin2001;Agarwal et al.2002?. After this short summary of the state of the art we propose seven approaches to tackle the challenges to landscape-change studies.
New directions
Landscape change across borders and along transects
Comparative studies across administrative borders or along transects are promising for studying landscape changes relating to speci?c driving forces.Studies across boundaries between neighbouring administra-tive units are especially useful for studying the effects of regulations,subsidies,and political systems.In a current project we analyze4–80.25-km2plots each in?ve towns of the Limmat-Valley near Zurich?Fig-ure2?.Two towns are located in the Canton Aargau, three in the Canton Zurich.The?ve towns were se-lected because their natural environment is compara-ble.The plots within the towns were selected randomly.In order to reduce variability among plots and towns,plots with?50%woodland cover were excluded and for all towns the plots covering the his-torical centre of each town was included.We compare historical maps of the plots from the years1930, 1956,1976and2000to determine major changes and persistence in landscape elements?woods,creeks,or-chards,buildings,roads,etc.?.We then analyse the relevant laws,zoning documents and political pro-cesses by archival research and interviews to deter-mine the chain of actions which lead to the observed landscape changes and persistency.The‘story’of each landscape change and persistency will be ana-lyzed to identify the primary and secondary driving forces,the relevant levels of hierarchies and the main actors.Since the plots are located in different cantons and municipalities,but in a comparable natural set-ting,we expect to uncover speci?cally the driving forces related to administrative units.
In another project we study landscape change along a transect from alpine to lowland areas in the St. Gallen-Alpstein region,located in north-eastern Swit-zerland?Figure3?.Using a similar procedure as de-scribed above,we focus on landscape change and its driving forces in three different types of communities occurring along the transect,which are predominantly urban/periurban,rural,and tourist destinations.This approach enables us in the?rst place to test hypoth-eses about the impact of speci?c driving forces, which change along the transect,i.e.,topography, distance to centres of economic life,and accessibil-ity.
Landscape change and persistence
In many parts of the world,landscapes are being transformed at an unprecedented high rate.In these regions,land management often attempts to reduce the rate of landscape change and to direct it in more desirable directions.Therefore,information about impeding and stabilizing factors is crucial.Clearly, studying landscape persistence,limiting factors,and constraints to change deserves the same attention as analyzing landscape change.The existence of persis-tence does not imply that driving forces are absent. Speci?cally,if appropriate driving forces such as regulations and subsidies,counter the forces of change,landscapes can exhibit temporal stability,i.e., persistence.
Inherently dynamic landscapes
Driving forces affect landscape elements and land uses which results in landscape change.However, landscapes are inherently dynamic and they can change even without being subject to extrinsic driv-ing forces.The most obvious example of inherent dy-namics is the natural succession where pioneer vegetation evolves over time to shrubland and subse-quently into forest vegetation.Vegetation science of-ten focuses on changes due to inherent dynamics of the system under study,such as succession,without considering the effects of extrinsic driving forces.In contrast,landscape history often focuses on the effects of extrinsic driving forces on landscapes and neglects the importance of inherent developments of
861
the system.Bridging this fundamental gap between vegetation science and landscape history could stim-ulate both approaches ?see for example Wilson and King 1995;Foster,Motzkin and Slater 1998?.Rates of change
When landscapes change,humans,?ora,and fauna adapt.The more time they are given for this process and the smoother the change is,the more likely they can cope well with the change.Thus,it is important to ?nd out how fast the landscape has changed,i.e.,to study the rate of change ?Antrop 2000?.If landscape change is analysed with a high temporal resolution,different rates of change and temporal tra-jectories can be distinguished ?Figure 4?,such as ?a ?constantly slow and ?b ?constantly rapid change,?c ?accelerating change and ?d ?decelerating change,?e ?isolated rapid change in the distant past,and ?f ?iso-lated rapid change in the near past.
Flora and fauna have their speci?c limitation to adapt to changing landscapes,given by habitat requirements and migration potential.The way how humans cope with landscape changes is best studied with appropriate methods from social sciences.Slow landscape changes for example might only get
Figure 2.Studying landscape change across borders enables one to analyse the impact of driving forces related to neighbouring administra-tive units.GIS Data:BFS GEOSTAT /Bundesamt für
Landestopographie.
862
noticed by the sporadic visitor but not by the local population.Fast,abrupt changes might result in a loss of sense of place and a decline in people’s identi?ca-tion with the landscape.Attractors of landscape change
If we consider a landscape exposed to a ?eld of driv-ing forces,we realize that not every place is equally likely to change.Some places change much more rapidly than others,since the potential for change dif-fers from place to place.In order to understand how driving forces actually alter the landscape we there-fore introduce the concept of ‘attractors’of change.In general terms,an attractor of change is a site char-acteristic which attracts a driving force likely to in-duce change.A classic attractor is,for example,a highway exit.It attracts development,such as indus-try,housing,and new road construction.Two groups of attractors can be distinguished:site conditions and adjacency or neighbourhood relationships.The anal-ysis of potential attractors of landscape change also provides insight into causalities of landscape changes.Precursors of landscape change
If general patterns of landscape change exist,an ex-trapolation in time and place would be possible and we might be able to predict future developments.If
Figure 3.Studying landscape change along a transect provides insight into driving forces related to factors such as topography,distance from the centre and accessibility.GIS Data:BFS GEOSTAT /Bundesamt für
Landestopographie.
Figure 4.Rates of change.The x-coordinate shows time,the y-co-ordinate the investigated landscape structure.For the description of the different rates of change see
text.
863
we limit our prediction to speci?c cause and effect
relationships,the term‘precursor of landscape
change’is appropriate.Some precursors of landscape
change are visible in the landscape.For example,im-
provement of accessibility?e.g.,Fr?hlich and Ax-
hausen2002?is a major trigger of landscape changes
by increasing export options for agriculture and
industry.Thus,the construction of roads can be a
precursor of landscape change.Other precursors of
landscape change are not visible in the landscape:The
land price can serve as a precursor for the construc-
tion of new houses,changes in agricultural subsidies
can cause foreseeable changes in land use and land
cover,and technical innovations can change the range
of soils which can be cultivated.
Looking for precursors of landscape change based
on speci?c cause and effect relationships might be a
?rst step towards prediction of limited aspects of
landscape change.Precursors might be especially
powerful in conjunction with the scenario approach.
For example,Steinitz et al.?1996,2003?take popu-
lation forecasts as a precursor in a range of scenarios
of land-use change.
Correlation and causality
In all studies of land-use change,it is pivotal to dis-
tinguish between correlation and causality.Even
though the aim is to increase knowledge about cau-
salities,one is often limited to study correlations.To
reach a more mechanistic understanding of landscape
change,hypothesized causalities between driving
forces and landscape changes can be tested with in-
dependent data.In a study on land-cover changes
along the Wisconsin River,USA,major processes of
land-use change were de?ned?e.g.,farm abandon-
ment?to explain the detected land-cover transition ?e.g.,shift from agricultural land to forest??Bürgi and Turner2002?.Then,hypotheses were formulated re-
garding the conditions which would make the de?ned
processes a plausible cause for the observed land-
cover changes.Independent data for soil characteris-
tics,population density,and farm economic status
were used to test the hypothesized causalities.
Generally,studying cause and effect relation
requires an integrative approach,in which quantita-
tive data is used together with qualitative information
and narrative elements.For example,testing hypoth-
esized impacts of driving forces can be improved by
incorporating circumstantial evidence and inferential
reasoning?Bürgi and Russell2001?.Sometimes,a narrative explanation based on circumstantial evi-dence and inferential reasoning can result in a suffi-ciently well grounded explanation of how driving forces caused landscape changes.A good story about the driving forces of landscape change is more than just a meagre alternative to quanti?cation,but might well be appropriate as well as sufficient?e.g.,Bicík, Jelecek and?tepanek2001?.
Conclusions and Outlook
New directions put into perspective
How do the new approaches relate to the challenges identi?ed earlier in this paper?Most of the new ap-proaches aim at improving our ability to study pro-cesses and not merely spatial patterns?challenge a?, i.e.,by testing hypothesized causalities,by taking into account the inherent dynamic of a landscape,and by studying landscape persistence,transformation rates, and attractors of landscape change.
One of the main motivations for studying the driv-ing forces of landscape change is to?nd general pat-terns of landscape change,valid beyond the speci?c situation under study.The existence of general patterns of landscape change is also a prerequisite for ?nding precursors of landscape change and for the extrapolation in time and space?challenge b?.The search for these general patterns might bene?t greatly from the reconstruction of rates of change and the in-vestigation of the appending accelerating and imped-ing forces.The range and the limits for extrapolating the general patterns in time and space can be deter-mined by studying landscape change across borders and along transects.
Meeting the challenge to link data with different qualities?challenge c?will always be inherent to studies of landscape change.The concept of driving forces helps to conceptualize some of the core prob-lems of data comparability in an interdisciplinary ap-proach,as for an advanced understanding of driving forces the whole system has to be studied over sev-eral scales.Thus,chances are good that social and natural phenomenon will be studied at partly compa-rable scales.Some obstacles remain:Whereas natural scientists will have to question their maxim of spatial explicitness?as the exact spatial reference of a driv-ing force is not always determinable?,social scientists will have to re?ect on the spatial dimension of the in-vestigated force?as spatial coherences can be decisive
864
for the system ?.To de?ne and evaluate a system of driving forces,it is crucial to ?nd ways to combine qualitative and quantitative data.
None of the approaches and directions presented in this paper directly addresses the challenge to analyse culture as a driving force of landscape change ?chal-lenge d ?.However,we consider the study of driving forces as a means to foster the integration of culture and cultural change in landscape studies.The fact that we included culture as a core dimension in our framework for the study of driving forces of landscape change stresses the need to consider cultural aspects.Proctor ?1998?promotes to conceive culture not as a noun but as an adjective,since cul-tural processes are implicated in all relevant human practices.In his understanding,culture can be seen as a means of making sense of reality.With these thoughts,we as ecologists venture out in unsafe in-terdisciplinary territory ?e.g.,Naveh 2001?.The mo-tivation to do so derives from our conviction that culture leaves a deep imprint on ?cultural!?landscapes throughout the world ?Nassauer 1995,1997?.A dis-tinction between different spheres and topics where culture becomes relevant in the interaction between societies and their environment,as proposed by Nas-sauer ?1995?,facilitates the integration of culture in studies of landscape https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,parative studies of landscape change across borders and along transects,
are another approach to investigate cultural impacts on landscapes.
A standard procedure to study the driving forces of landscape change
Based on the established methods described and the new directions presented we propose a systematic procedure for studies of driving forces of landscape change.Rooted in general system theory,the proce-dure includes three major steps,i.e.,system de?ni-tion,system analysis,and system synthesis ?Figure 5?.A similar system-based,three-step framework has been proposed for ecological risk assessment ?Ser-geant 2002?.
?a ?System de?nition:Given the complexity of landscapes and landscape related processes,a clear concept regarding the aim of the study is especially vital and should be re?ected in the system de?nition which includes de?ning the study area ?extent ?and the grain of the study,the study period and the tem-poral resolution,and the landscape elements of inter-est ?Figure 5?.Depending on the question,a series of study areas along a transect or across borders might be appropriate.Regarding the study period,it might make sense to choose a temporally nested approach,where certain aspects are analysed further back than others ?e.g.,Silbernagel et al.1997?.If one splits up
Figure 5.Standard procedure to study the driving forces of landscape
change.
865
the study period into several shorter periods,then the boundaries of the periods have to be based,as described above,on a?rst rough hypothesis about the main driving forces of landscape change.While de-?ning the system under study,data availability and quality has to be considered,bearing in mind that ret-rospective studies are often limited by the character-istics of historical sources.
?b?System analysis:The system analysis focuses on three subsystems,i.e.,the change and persistency of physical landscape elements,the actors and insti-tutions,and the driving forces.First,change and per-sistency over time are determined.If several time-slices or even continuous data are included,time-lines can be established and rates of change can be studied ?Figure4?.Before starting to collect data about po-tential driving forces,the system has to be de?ned in its organizational scale?Figure1?.The relevant actors and institutions are selected based on their demands, interests,and potential impacts on the landscape un-der study.They can be located within or outside the spatial boundaries of the system.As the relevant in-stitutions might have changed over time,every insti-tution has to be characterized by its period of in?uence.
Based on general information about the study area and the major landscape changes,the potential driv-ing forces from the?ve major groups of driving forces?socioeconomic,political,technological,natu-ral,and cultural?are named.Most landscapes are af-fected by driving forces from all?ve groups.Often, however,it is appropriate to limit a study to a subset of driving forces which are thought to be most im-portant for understanding the landscape changes of interest.Clearly,it is important to give a rational why a study is limited to a speci?c set of driving forces.?c?System synthesis:In the?nal synthesis,the ac-tors,institutions,and driving forces are linked in causal relationships and their impact on the landscape elements under study is determined.The system syn-thesis is a challenging but crucial part in studies of driving forces.This?nal step stresses the fact that a landscape is always more than the sum of its elements;it is a whole?Naveh and Lieberman1994?.
Outlook
Studies of landscape change–especially studies about the change of spatial patterns–have a long tra-dition in landscape ecology.For a more systematic understanding of landscape change we promote to study the driving forces of change based on the new approaches and the procedure described above?Fig-ure5?.Scientists working on this topic clearly need to be interested in interdisciplinary and integrative work to fully grasp the complexity of the system un-der study.Our efforts to study landscape changes in a more analytical and systematic manner are expected to improving the acceptance of interdisciplinary land-scape studies in academia.As,because of its empha-sis on people and their environment,landscape ecology has many management and planning applica-tions?Hersperger1995?,we expect that the study of drivers of landscape change could greatly improve the current contribution of landscape ecology towards solving real world problems. Acknowledgements
We thank Felix Kienast for helpful discussions and commentaries on this manuscript.The comments of two anonymous helped to improve the manuscript. This paper is a contribution to the WSL-Research fo-cus‘Land Resources Management in Peri-Urban En-vironments’?www.wsl.ch/programme/periurban?. References
Adams W.M.1990.Green development.Routledge,London,UK. Agarwal C.,Green G.M.,Grove J.M.,Evans T.P.and Schweik C.M.2002.A review and assessment of land-use change mod-els:dynamics of space,time and human https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,DA Forest Service,Gen.Tech.Rep.NE-297.
Allen T.F.H.and Starr T.B.1982.Hierarchy:Perspectives for eco-logical complexity.University of Chicago Press,Chicago,Illi-nois,USA.
Antrop https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape change:plan or https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape and Urban Planning41:155–161.
Antrop M.2000.Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape Ecology15:257–270.
Baker W.L.1989.A review of models of landscape https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,nd-scape Ecology2:111–133.
Baur B.2002.Preconditions and driving factors in?non-?develop-ing?nancial instruments in Swiss forest policy–a tentative po-litico-economic analysis.In:Ottisch A.,Tikkanen I.and Riera P.?eds?,Financial instruments of forest policy.EFI Proceedings No.42.
Berger J.1987.Guidelines for landscape synthesis:Some directions–old and https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape and Urban Planning14: 295–311.
Bicík I.,Jelecek L.and?tepanek https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,nd-use changes and their social driving forces in Czechia in the19th and20th https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,nd Use Policy18:65–73.
866
Blaikie P.1985.The political economy of soil erosion.Longman, London,UK.
Blaikie P.and Brook?eld https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,nd degradation and society. Methuen,London,UK.
Brandt J.,Primdahl J.and Reenberg A.1999.Rural land-use and dynamic forces–analysis of‘driving forces’in space and time. In:Kr?nert R.,Baudry J.,Bowler I.R.and Reenberg A.?eds?, Land-use changes and their environmental impact in rural areas in Europe.UNESCO,Paris,France,pp.81–102.
Bürgi M.1999.A case study of forest change in the Swiss https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape Ecology14:567–575.
Bürgi M.and Russel E.W.B.2001.Integrative methods to study landscape https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,nd Use Policy18:9–16.
Bürgi M.and Schuler A.2003.Driving forces of forest manage-ment–an analysis of regeneration practices in the forests of the Swiss Central Plateau during the19th and20th century.Forest Ecology and Management176:173–183.
Bürgi M.and Turner M.G.2002.Factors and processes shaping land cover and land cover changes along the Wisconsin River. Ecosystems5:184–201.
Christensen https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape history and ecological change. Journal of Forest History33:116–125.
Cronon W.2000.Resisting monoliths and tabulae rasae.Ecologi-cal Applications10:673–675.
Dale V.H.,Brown S.,Haeuber R.A.,Hobbs N.T.,Huntly N., Naiman R.J.,Riebsame W.E.,Turner M.G.and Valone T.J.2000. ESA Report:Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land.Ecological Application.10:639–670.
Dale V.H.,O’Neill R.V.,Pedlowski M.and Southworth F.1993. Causes and effects of land-use change in Central Rondonia,Bra-zil.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing59:997–1005.
Egan D.and Howell E.A.2001.The historical ecology handbook. Island Press,Washington DC,USA.
Forman R.T.T.and Godron https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape ecology.John Wiley and Sons,New York,New York,USA.
Foster D.R.,Motzkin G.and Slater https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,nd-use history as long-term broad-scale disturbance:Regional forest dynamics in Central New England.Ecosystems1:96–119.
Fr?hlich P.and Axhausen K.W.2002.Development of car-based accessibility in Switzerland from1950through2000.Proceed-ings2nd STRC Conference,Ascona,March20-22
?http://www.strc.ch/2002.html?.
Hersperger https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape ecology and its potential appli-cation to planning.Journal of Planning Literature9:15–29. Hersperger A.M.1995.?kologische Planung und Landschafts?kol-ogie.DISP Oktober:10–19.
Hobbs R.1997.Future landscapes and the future of landscape https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape and Urban Planning37:1–9.
Irwin E.G.and Geoghegan J.2001.Theory,data,methods:devel-oping spatially explicit economic models of land use change. Agriculture,Ecoystems&Environment85:7–24.
Kates R.W.,Turner B.L.and Clark W.C.1990.The great transfor-mation.In:Turner B.L.,Clark W.C.,Kates R.W.,Richards J.F., Mathews J.T.and Meyer W.B.?eds?,The earth as transformed by human action.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,UK, pp.1–17.
Kienast F.,Bürgi M.and Wildi O.in https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape research in Switzerland:exploring space and place of a multi-ethnic society. https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,mbin E.F.,Turner B.L.,Geist H.J.,Agbola S.B.,Angelsen A., Bruce J.W.,Coomes O.T.,Dirzo R.,Fischer G.,Folke C.,George P.S.,Homewood K.,Imbernon J.,Leemans R.,Li X.,Moran E.F.,Mortimore M.,Ramakrishnan P.S.,Richards J.F.,Skanes H.,Steffen W.,Stone G.D.,Svedin U.,Veldkamp T.A.,V ogel C. and Xu J.2001.The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths.Global Environmental Change11: 261–269.
Leser https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndschafts?kologie:Ansatz,Modelle,Methodik, Anwendungen.Ulmer,Stuttgart,Germany.
Magnuson J.J.1990.Long-term ecological research and the invis-ible present.BioScience40:495–501.
Marcucci https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape history as a planning https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,nd-scape and Urban Planning49:67–81.
McDonnell M.J.and Pickett S.T.A.1993.Humans as components of ecosystems–the ecology of subtle human effects and popu-lated areas.Springer,New York,New York,USA.
Meyer W.B.and Turner B.L.1994.Changes in land use and land cover:a global perspective.University Press,Cambridge,UK. Nassauer J.I.1995.Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology10:229–237.
Nassauer J.I.1997.Placing nature.Culture and landscape ecology. Island Press,Washington DC,USA.
Naveh Z.2001.Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape and Urban Planning57: 269–284.
Naveh Z.and Lieberman https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape ecology:theory and application.Springer,New York,USA.
Proctor J.D.1998.The meaning of global environmental change: retheorizing culture in human dimensions research.Global En-vironmental Change8:227–248.
Rockwell R.C.1994.Culture and cultural change.In:Meyer W.B. and Turner B.L.?eds?,Changes in land use and land cover:a global perspective.Cambridge University Press,Cambirdge, UK,pp.357–382.
Russell E.W.B.1994.The use of theory in land management deci-sions–the New-Jersey pine barrens.Biological Conservation 68:263–268.
Russell E.W.B.1997.People and the land through time:linking ecology and history.Yale University Press,New Haven,USA. Sergeant A.2002.Ecological risk assessment:history and funda-mentals.In:Paustenbach D.J.?ed.?,Human and ecological risk assessment.John Wiley and Sons,New York,New York,USA, pp.369–442.
Serneels S.and Lambin E.F.2001.Proximate causes of land-use change in Narok District,Kenya:a spatial statistical model.Ag-riculture,Ecoystems&Environment85:65–81.
Silbernagel J.,Martin S.R.,Gale M.R.and Chen J.1997.Prehis-toric,historic,and present settlement patterns related to ecologi-cal hierarchy in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan,USA. Landscape Ecology12:223–240.
Steinitz C.,Arias H.,Basset S.,Flaxman M.,Goode T.,Maddock T.,Mouat D.,Peiser R.and Shaerer A.2003.Alternative futures for changing landscapes:The upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora.Island Press,Washington DC,USA. Steinitz C.,Binford M.,Cote P.,Edwards T.,Ervin S.,Forman R.T.T.,Johnson C.,Kiester R.,Mouat D.,Olson D.,Shearer A., Toth R.and Wills R.1996.Biodiversity and landscape planning: alternative futures for the region of Camp Pendleton,California. Harvard University,Graduate School of Design,Cambridge, Massachusetts,USA.
867
Tress B.,Tress G.,Décamps H.and d’Hauteserre A.-M.2001. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning57:137–141.
Turner B.L.,Clark W.C.,Kates R.W.,Richards J.F.,Mathews J.T. and Meyer W.B.?eds?,1990.The earth as transformed by hu-man action:Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past300years.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,UK. Urban D.L.,ONeill R.V.and Shugart https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape ecology:a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns.BioScience37:119–127.
Veldkamp A.and Lambin E.F.2001.Predicting land-use change. Agriculture,Ecoystems&Environment85:1–6.
Verburg P.H.,Soepboer W.,Veldkamp A.,Limpiada R.,Espaldon V.and Mastura S.S.A.2002.Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use:The CLUE-S model.Environmental Manage-ment30:391–405.
V ogt K.A.,Grove M.,Asbjornsen H.,Maxwell K.B.,V ogt D.J., Sigurdardotter R.,Larson B.C.,Schibli L.and Dove M.2002. Linking ecological and social scales for natural resource man-agement.In:Lui J.and Taylor W.W.?eds?,Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management,University Press, Cambridge,UK,pp.143-175.Whitney G.G.1994.From coastal wilderness to fruited plain.A history of environmental change in temperate North America from1500to the present.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK.
Wiens https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape mosaics and ecological theory.In: Hansson L.,Fahrig L.and Merriam G.?eds?,Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes.Chapman and Hall,London,UK,pp. 1–26.
Wilson J.B.and King W.M.G.1995.Human-mediated vegetation switches as processes in landscape https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape Ecology 10:191–196.
Wirth E.1969.Zum Problem einer allgemeinen Kulturgeographie: Raummodelle–kulturgeographische Kr?ftelehre–raumrele-vante Prozesse–Kategorien.Die Erde2-4:155–193.
Wood R.and Handley https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape dynamics and the man-agement of https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape Research26:45–54.
Wu J.and Hobbs R.2002.Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology:an idiosyncratic https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,ndscape Ecol-ogy17:355–365.
868
2020年健身行业现状及 前景趋势 2020年
目录 1.健身行业现状 (4) 1.1健身行业定义及产业链分析 (4) 1.2健身市场规模分析 (5) 1.3健身市场运营情况分析 (6) 2.健身行业存在的问题 (9) 2.1缺乏市场和行业标准、运作规范和职业资质准入 (9) 2.2专业化程度低 (9) 2.3市场短期和投机行为普遍 (9) 2.4管理水平较低 (9) 2.5供应链整合度低 (10) 3.健身行业前景趋势 (10) 3.1中国运动健身行业迎来新突破 (10) 3.2需求释放，健身群体规模整体保持增长，健身文化逐渐成为主流11 3.3互联网入局，突破时间、空间限制，带来全新健身体验 (11) 3.4健身行业经历洗牌阶段，建立新格局 (11) 3.5行业协同整合成为趋势 (11) 3.6生态化建设进一步开放 (12) 3.7细分化产品将会最具优势 (12) 3.8需求开拓 (13) 4.健身行业政策环境分析 (13)
4.1健身行业政策环境分析 (13) 4.2健身行业经济环境分析 (14) 4.3健身行业社会环境分析 (14) 4.4健身行业技术环境分析 (14) 5.健身行业竞争分析 (16) 5.1健身行业竞争分析 (16) 5.1.1对上游议价能力分析 (16) 5.1.2对下游议价能力分析 (16) 5.1.3潜在进入者分析 (17) 5.1.4替代品或替代服务分析 (17) 5.2中国健身行业品牌竞争格局分析 (17) 5.3中国健身行业竞争强度分析 (18) 6.健身产业投资分析 (18) 6.1中国健身技术投资趋势分析 (19) 6.2中国健身行业投资风险 (19) 6.3中国健身行业投资收益 (20)
中国健身行业的现状以及新发展 健身俱乐部落户海内不外短短几年，却发展得异常红火。 作为该行业核心支柱的健身教练在公家心目中究竟印象如何呢？近日，中国青年报社调查中央、智联招聘和新浪招聘联合进行的一项职业吸引力调查发现，30％的公家觉得“现在做健身教练这行的鱼龙混杂，高素质健身教练却未几”。调查中，28％的公家以为“随着健身热兴起，教练市场肯定需求火爆”。 据08年8月，劳动和社会保障部宣布的“北京市二季度职业排行榜”显示，健身、娱乐场所服务职员作为“新生气力”首次入榜，跻身北京市二季度最轻易就业的20个职业。 现在的健身教练培训机构如雨后春笋般的涌入健身事业大潮，培训项目也五花八门。由此可见健身行业的发展正以惊人的速度从我们身边崛起。而现如今我们需要的是具备健身教练专业培训体系和专业培训技能的培训机构。目的清楚，落到实处——“信誉是教育的本质，质量是教育的核心。”集团操课类着名的培训机构主要集中在北京、武汉、上海等几个城市。而从健身教练的收入水平上来看，排在前面的是深圳、广东、北京、上海等大中型的城市，在这几个城市从业的教练月薪过万是很正常的事情。所以，根据自己的需求，找对地方，才是成为专业操课教练的条件。 健身教练行业目前存在的问题： 1.公家以为健身教练是吃青春饭的 a)很多人以为教练职业是个青春饭，这种认识是不准确 的。能把动作做得好看、有力度好像是教练能立足于领操台
的基本条件，但跟着会员对健身熟悉的不断深化，教练的专业知识是否过硬会成为更重要的评判尺度。此外，经验和服务意识也是赢得顾客的枢纽。国外也有岁数很大的人仍旧在做健身教练。现在从事教练这个职业的人大多是年青人，但是跟着健身行业的发展，以后很可能会泛起四五十岁的资深教练，他们不仅具有很高的理论知识，同时还能够在一线对会员健身做出很全面正确的指导。 b)健身教练的基本素质：1丰硕的理论知识；2亲身的健 身体会；3为人师表的立场。三者缺一不可，而理论知识和健身体会若非长时间参与是很难获得的，为人师表的立场则是一个成功运动员转型做教练的意识形态，很多优秀运动员退役后做不了教练就是因为他平时不留意观察和总结的结果，很多优秀运动员也从来没想过转型做教练。所以可以看出：长时间的积累是一个真正优秀教练的铺路石。 2.健身教练三大来源 a)记者在采访中了解到，目前健身教练的来源主要有三部分组成，或者是健身俱乐部会员，由于成绩凸起，被升格为教练；或者是相关体育专业毕业生毕业后直接进入健身俱乐部；再有就是通过参加培训班，考到有关健身教练资格。 b)据了解，教练中的相当一部门是兼职。科班出身的有扎实的理论功底，但往往会显得缺少个性，而培训班出身的健身教练可能由于培训班的良莠不齐以及缺少同一的尺度而导致水准得不到保障。 c)某健身会所的工作职员说：“我们聘用的教练是需要证书的，什么证书无所谓，口试合格的就可以录用任教。”
健身行业的概况 一、健身行业发展： 中国健身行业起源于上世纪80年代，随着改革开放人们生活水平的提高及全民健身计划的倡导，人们的健身意识得到了很大的提高，此外，由于城市生活节奏加快，工作压力加大，更多年轻白领也加入到了健身的行列，现阶段在写字楼，居民区附近俱乐部星罗棋布，给人们提供更便捷的健身服务。 图表（1）中国健身俱乐部发展历程表---增长幅度（%） 图表（1）显示自2000年开始，中国健身俱乐部以每年37%--41%的速度在飞速发展。 二、健身行业发展现状： 中国的健身行业处于发展阶段，行业的发展现状与国际健身发达的国家相比，还有很长一段距离。1、中国人口基数大，现有俱乐部数量并不能满足需求。2、从业人员数量和素质，专业技术急需增加和提升。3、俱乐部的类型以连锁俱乐部和单店为主，发展还相对比较单一。 图表（2）全国部分城市健身俱乐部品牌数量 图表（2）显示了全国部分城市知名健身俱乐部品牌的数量，其中绝大多数为连锁俱乐部，这些连锁俱乐部在一个城市至少拥有2-50家店。 三、健身行业发展前景： 在国内健身行业是一个正在蓬勃发展中的新兴行业，是世界健身市场最光明的地区。健身企业的数量，质量及规模都将不断提升。就健身俱乐部来说，更多俱乐部实现规模式经营，局部地区发展演变成全国甚至全球连锁发展；俱乐部的类型也将更加多元化；从业人员素质不断提高，经营者从之前的教练转变为职业经理人；俱乐部的器械，设施和项目，服务水平也将大幅度提升。 图表（3）与2009年同期相比，2010年健身俱乐部整体盈利状况（当前问题参与总数量639个） 图表（3）显示了国内大部分俱乐部经营状况以盈利为主。 图表（4）2011年有扩大经营或者开新店的健身俱乐部比例（当前问题参与总数量633个） 图表（5）健身俱乐部新店主要开设地区（当前问题参与总数量633个） 图表（5）显示了国内俱乐部在未来将扩大在二线城市发展的比例，健身也更多渗入到国内各个地区城市。 四、健身行业的主体： 健身教练行业的主体是教练与会员，同时也配备了相关的管理者，销售人员，服务人员。
2018年健身行业分析 报告 2018年1月
目录 一、2018健身热持续，新机遇带来增长重启 (3) 1、健身行业概况：2020年预期登上千亿元大关 (3) 2、健身产业链：综合布局健身培训较多，互联网企业还需努力 (4) 二、“传统”健身业：和国际相比仍旧略慢一步 (4) 1、以美国为例：市场竞争激烈，商业模式由“大”变“小” (4) 2、国内线下健身房：仍以大型为主，收入结构还未优化 (6) 三、互联网新机遇：提前实现高阶需求，“小”也可以很“美” (7) 1、“颠覆”健身产业，互联网都对健身做了什么 (9) （1）纯线上企业：领先公司已经崭露头角 (10) （2）线上线下结合：不再是互联网企业单方努力，传统健身业正在谋取合作 (11) 2、行业风向：互联网与新技术牵头，重点在于挖掘产业深度价值 (12) 四、互联网是一个好去处，但还称不上“颠覆” (16) 1、市场空间测算：群众的力量总是巨大，互联网覆盖广泛有其优点 (16) 2、风险犹存：前浪已死在沙滩，后浪扑打之方需要再三考虑 (17)
一、2018健身热持续，新机遇带来增长重启 1、健身行业概况：2020年预期登上千亿元大关 2015年健身热情升温、公共健身设施、新型健身俱乐部等的出现使得商业健身行业重启快速增长。而2017年，热词“A4腰”、“马甲线”持续“霸屏”社交网络，健身这一大众运动不仅是各路明星圈粉的手段，更是年轻人群争相参与的活动之一。根据智研咨询发布的《2017-2022年中国健身房行业市场需求预测及投资前景分析报告》预计，未来五年有望保持12%的年复合增长率，到2020年将达到1230亿元。 2014年以来体育产业以超出政府预期的状态呈跨越式发展和政 策的利好不无关系：2014年“46号文”《国务院关于加快发展体育产业促进体育消费的若干意见》发布。2016年，更是有《“健康中国2030”规划纲要》和《关于加快发展健身休闲产业的指导意见》两条政策相继发布，强调重点发展全民健身及业余体育，引导社会资本参与健身休闲产业，到2025年健身休闲产业规模达到3万亿元。
健身行业市场研究报告 （内部资料稿） 泰实医疗 2019年12月
目录 第一部分健身产业概况 (4) 1.1 健身产业定义及产业链 (4) 1.2 健身产业主要政策汇总 (4) 第二部分全球健身市场现状 (5) 2.1 全球健身产业市场规模 (5) 2.2 全球主要国家健身产业情况 (5) 2.3 主要国家健身俱乐部数量 (6) 第三部分国内健身市场现状 (8) 3.1 中国健身产业发展特点 (8) 3.2 健身俱乐部数量 (8) 3.3 健身俱乐部会员数 (9) 3.4 健身器材收入规模 (9) 3.5 中国健身产业规模 (10) 第四部分国内企业竞争格局 (11) 4.1 信隆健康 (11) 4.2 舒华体育 (12) 4.3 威尔仕 (12) 4.4 一兆韦德 (12) 4.5 浩沙健身 (12) 第五部分未来发展趋势 (14) 5.1 健身产业规模预测 (14)
5.2 龙头企业市场份额提高 (14) 5.3 智能化健身趋势兴起 (14)
一、健身产业概况 随着我国人民健身意识的进一步提升和健身房商业模式的进一步成熟，我国健身产业发展迅速。2016年体育总局与国务院分别颁布《体育发展十三五规划》、《全民健身计划（2016-2020）》，提出到2020年，每周参加1次及以上体育锻炼的人数达7亿，经常参加体育锻炼的人数达4.35亿，体育消费总规模达1.5万亿元等，目标是把全民健身打造成国家名片。 （一）健身产业定义及产业链 健身除了体育含括的项目之外，还有很多内容，例如，写字、唱歌、做家务、瑜伽等。健身大致分为器械锻炼和非器械锻炼。狭义的健身是指以健身俱乐部/工作室为主要场所，并且通常借助体育器械进行锻炼的活动。 健身产业上游涉及健身器械、教练培训等，中游主要是各类健身服务，下游则是各类健身服装/装备等。 （二）健身产业主要政策汇总 随着我国经济社会的快速发展，越来越多的人注重运动健身。同时我国政府高度重视体育活动在增强体质、提高健康水平中的重要作用。 1995年，国务院颁布实施《全民健身计划纲要》； 2007年，国务院下发《关于加强青少年体育增强青少年体质的意见》； 2014年，国务院下发《关于加快发展体育产业促进体育消费的若干意见》； 2016年6月，为促进健身产业发展、增强全民身体素质，国务院印发《全民健身计划（2016—2020年）》。对发展群众体育活动、倡导全民健身新时尚、推进健康中国建设做出了明确部署； 2017年8月11日，针对中国居民参加体育健身活动状况实际，国家体育总局发布了《全民健身指南》。
我国健身器材行业发展概况 （一）行业概述 1、市场容量与增长趋势 （1）体育产业迎来市场化发展的历史机遇 伴随我国经济发展进入新常态以及产业结构转型，体育产业作为新的经济增长动力之一对于国民经济的拉动作用得以凸显。国家也密集出台一系列的产业支持政策，推动体育产业的快速健康发展。 国家统计局数据显示，2012 -2015 年，我国体育产业总规模分别为9,500 亿元、11000 亿元、13575 亿元和17,107 亿元，各年实现增加值3,136 亿元、3,563 亿元、4,041 亿元和5,494 亿元，占当年GDP 比例分别为0.60%、0.63%、0.64% 和0.8%，体育产业规模年均增长率达到了22%。 从全球体育产业占GDP 的比重看，以美国、法国等为代表的体育强国，其体育产业占GDP 的比重均达到2.5%以上，全球平均水平亦达到了 2.1%，而我国该比例仅为0.8%左右，仍然具有较大的发展空间。 根据《体育发展“十三五”规划》、《体育产业发展“十三五”规划》以及国务院发布的《国务院关于加快发展体育产业促进体育消费的若干意见》，预计到2020 年，我国体育产业总规模将超过3 万亿元，产业增加值占GDP 的比重将达到 1.0%。2025 年，体育产业总规模将超过 5 万亿元，成为推动经济社会持续发展的重要力量。在国家产业政策的引导和支持下，我国体育产业迎来市场化发展的历史机遇。 （2）体育用品行业规模占体育产业整体规模一半以上 根据46 号文以及《国家体育产业统计分类》（2015 年）的界定，我国的体育产业主要包括产品制造和服务提供两大类，前者包括健身器材、运动服装、运动鞋等体育用品的制造，后者包括竞赛表演、健身休闲活动、场馆服务、中介培训、体育培训等。其中，体育用品行业是我国体育产业中发展较早，也是目前发展较为成熟的细分行业之一。
一、运动健身器材行业的概况 运动健身器材是竞技体育比赛和健身锻炼所使用的各种器械、装备及用品的总称。 运动健身器材主要有3种分类方法：依据体育运动的项目分类这是将所有与同一运动项目有关的器材和装备等归为一类的方法，如田径器材、举重器材、冰雪器材等。依据体育器材的性质分类一般可分为指定器材、自备器材、场地器材和其他器材等4类。依据体育器材的用途分类分为竞技体育器材、国防军事体育器材、中国民间体育器材、健身健美体疗康复器材、儿童体育游艺器材、伤残人竞技器材、辅助性器材等。 随着生活水平的提高，人们越来越注意身体健康和体型的美丽，为此在健美方面的投资也日益增加。未来欧洲、亚洲和拉丁美洲将是市场的主要增长点，逐渐富裕的人群将会提高自己对健康生活方式的追求，并将成为健身器材的主要消费者。 城市居民对体育用品的消费已经从低档为主向中高档方向发展，农村居民尤其是已经进入小康生活标准的农村地区，对中低档体育用品的消费也将逐步形成新的需求。随着农村地区收入的增加将使健身市场的潜力变成现实，中国健身器材市场的年销售额逐年增长，中国人对健康的关注正在形成个黄金市场。 二、运动健身器材所处生命周期位置 根据生命周期理论的销售增长率划分法：销售增长率大于
10％为成长期，0.1％-10％为投入期或成熟期，小于0则为衰退期，根据该理论我们对运动健身器材产业行业的发展做出如下推断： 行业处于成长期时，顾客成群增加，消费者开始注重产品质量和可靠性，企业开始竞争前扩张，准备积极应对竞争。已进入行业的企业拥有较高获利能力，但由于行业竞争者的进入，产品价格开始下降。运动健身行业正处于行业生命周期的成长阶段，是已进入企业扩张市场、抢占市场份额的最好时机。 三、运动健身器材行业的SWOT分析 S（竞争优势）：中国有广大的市场，便宜的人力资源和原材料市场，及政府的各种优惠政策，中国处于高速发展的
2016-2022年中国健身房行业现状分析与发 展趋势研究报告 报告编号：1612601
行业市场研究属于企业战略研究范畴，作为当前应用最为广泛的咨询服务，其研究成果以报告形式呈现，通常包含以下内容： 一份专业的行业研究报告，注重指导企业或投资者了解该行业整体发展态势及经济运行状况，旨在为企业或投资者提供方向性的思路和参考。 一份有价值的行业研究报告，可以完成对行业系统、完整的调研分析工作，使决策者在阅读完行业研究报告后，能够清楚地了解该行业市场现状和发展前景趋势，确保了决策方向的正确性和科学性。 中国产业调研网https://www.doczj.com/doc/644306204.html,基于多年来对客户需求的深入了解，全面系统地研究了该行业市场现状及发展前景，注重信息的时效性，从而更好地把握市场变化和行业发展趋势。
一、基本信息 报告名称：2016-2022年中国健身房行业现状分析与发展趋势研究报告 报告编号：1612601←咨询时，请说明此编号。 优惠价：￥6750 元可开具增值税专用发票 Email： 网上阅读： 温馨提示：如需英文、日文等其他语言版本，请与我们联系。 二、内容介绍 健身房是城市里用来健身的场所。一般而言，都有齐全的器械设备，有较全的健身及娱乐项目，有专业的教练进行指导，有良好的健身氛围。 2016-2022年中国健身房行业现状分析与发展趋势研究报告对我国健身房行业现状、发展变化、竞争格局等情况进行深入的调研分析，并对未来健身房市场发展动向作了详尽阐述，还根据健身房行业的发展轨迹对健身房行业未来发展前景作了审慎的判断，为健身房产业投资者寻找新的投资亮点。 2016-2022年中国健身房行业现状分析与发展趋势研究报告最后阐明健身房行业的投资空间，指明投资方向，提出研究者的战略建议，以供投资决策者参考。 中国产业调研网发布的《2016-2022年中国健身房行业现状分析与发展趋势研究报告》是相关健身房企业、研究单位、政府等准确、全面、迅速了解健身房行业发展动向、制定发展战略不可或缺的专业性报告。 正文目录 第一部分产业发展分析 第一章产业发展现状与趋势 第一节国际健身房产业发展现状与趋势 一、国际健身房产业发展现状 二、国际健身房产业发展趋势 三、国外健身俱乐部入驻中国的优势
大学生健身房现状调查 与分析 Document serial number【UU89WT-UU98YT-UU8CB-UUUT-UUT108】
苏州大学文正学院健身房现状调查与分析 背景： 现代社会对健康的理解发生了改变。联合国世界卫生组织明确指出：“健康不但是没有身体缺陷和疾病，还要有完整的生理、心理状态和社会适应能力。”也就是说，人的健康不仅包括生理健康，同时包括心理健康。国内外心理学家、医学家对心理健康问题有不少精辟见解。心理学家麦灵格说：“心理健康，是指人们对于环境以及人们相互之间具有最高效率及快乐的适应情况。不只是要有效率，也不只是要能有满足之感，或是能愉快地接受生活的变故，而要三者都具备。心理健康的人应能保持平静的情绪，有敏锐的智能，适合于社会环境的行为和愉快的气质。”健身不仅可以强健体格，也可以帮助人们释放压力，缓解紧张情绪，保持心情舒畅，有利于身心健康。这也使健身越来越受到大众的喜爱。 随着科技进步以及互联网的普及，大大改变了信息的传播方式及速度，有效提高了学习工作的效率，使人们的生活节奏越来越快，再加上高密度的学习和高压力的工作，使大学生普遍运动不足，导致健康状况下降。大学生的健康问题已成为一个社会问题，越来越多的大学生意识到健身的重要，这使得大学生对健身房的需求逐年增大。 根据最新的健康调查报告显示，我们越来越多的大学生处于亚健康状态。 现状调查与分析：
从高中步入了大学，很多学生的空余时间变得多了起来，其中有不少大学生选择了课外锻炼。课外锻炼主要有室内和室外之分，室内则以在健身房锻炼为主。然而文正学院在健身房这一方面做的有所欠缺，甚至几近于不合格！ 首先有一点我们都得承认的是，文正学院起码有了健身房了，这比起有的大学连健身房都没有要好的多了(不过没有健身房的大学好像也没有几所)！同时，在调查健身房的问题是，也调查了一下大学生去健身房的目的，也无外乎以下几种：强身健体、减肥、保持体形、扩大社交、缓减压力、提高运动技能等等。不过很多大学生只有在大量的空闲时间时才会去健身房锻炼！ 下面来简单的介绍一下文正学院健身房的具体情况，文正学院健身房大约有三个宿舍那么大的面积，主要是在学校操场看台的右侧位置，紧邻乒乓球馆。由于场地的限制，学校健身房内的设施以小型健身器械为主，主要有、、曲柄杠铃、弹簧拉力器、健身盘、弹力棒、等。 其实在健身房设施器材方面，同学们并不是要求太严格，毕竟虽然大家相较于中学来说空余时间比较多，但是有相当一部分人还是以学业为重，健身为辅；当然，还有一部分同学则痴迷于网络游戏，对于健身这一方面不太重视。所以说，很多学生对于健身器材方面还是比较满意的，毕竟大家并不是长时间泡在健身房内，仅仅还是快餐式的健身，并没有系统的健身计划。不过，在调查中也发现了一个不小的问题，那就是学校里有相当一部分同学几乎还没有去过甚至不知道健身房，而能够