梅州客家乡村景观营造的生态文化特征、现存问题及优化策略
Ecological and Cultural Characteristics, Existing Issues, and Optimization Strategies of Hakka Rural Landscape Construction in Meizhou
DOI: 10.12677/ulu.2026.141001, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 杨期和, 肖建华:嘉应学院生命科学学院,广东 梅州;广东省山区特色农业资源保护与精准利用重点实验室,广东 梅州;牟利辉:嘉应学院生命科学学院,广东 梅州
关键词: 梅州客家乡村景观营造生态文化特征乡村振兴可持续发展Meizhou Hakka Villages Landscape Design Ecological Cultural Characteristics Rural Revitalization Sustainable Development
摘要: 梅州作为客家文化核心发源地,其乡村景观是亚热带山地生态系统与客家文化基因的耦合载体。为破解乡村振兴背景下生态保护与文化传承的协同难题,本研究基于景观生态学“斑块–廊道–质”模型、文化地理学地域传承理论及可持续发展理论,采用文献研究、实地调研(2022~2023年覆盖梅县、大埔等4县区12个典型村)、GIS遥感分析(Landsat-8数据)及案例验证法,系统剖析梅州客家乡村景观的生态文化特征、现存问题及优化路径。结果表明:1) 生态层面以“山地丘陵 + 亚热带季风气候”为基底,形成“山–水–田–村”垂直分层共生格局,植被覆盖率达70.5%,但兽类种群较2010年下降40%;2) 文化层面以围龙屋建筑(现存2万余座)、客家山歌、梯田农耕为核心载体,却面临30%非文保建筑闲置、青壮年外流率55%导致的民俗断层及15%梯田撂荒问题;3) 2019~2023年林地面积减少3.2%、40%村庄污水直排等生态问题,与景观功能同质化(40%旅游点为“古村落 + 农家乐”模式)形成叠加困境;4)“生态修复–文化传承–功能优化”三维策略经桥溪古韵村、百侯古镇实证,可将梯田撂荒率降至5%,游客平均停留时间延长2小时,旅游收入提升20%。本研究结合2024年“双碳”目标与智慧乡村建设要求,新增碳汇提升与数字化传承路径,为梅州及闽赣客家地区乡村景观可持续营造提供更具实效性的理论依据与实践范式。
Abstract: As the core cradle of Hakka culture, Meizhou’s rural landscapes serve as a coupling carrier of subtropical mountain ecosystems and Hakka cultural genes. To address the synergistic challenge of ecological conservation and cultural heritage under the rural revitalization strategy, this study systematically analyzed the ecological-cultural characteristics, existing issues, and optimization pathways of Hakka rural landscapes in Meizhou. Based on the “Patch-Corridor-Matrix” model of landscape ecology, the regional inheritance theory of cultural geography, and the theory of sustainable development, it employed literature review, field investigations (covering 12 typical villages across four counties, including Meixian and Dabu from 2022~2023), GIS remote sensing analysis (Landsat-8 data), and case verification methods. Results indicate: 1) Ecological dimension: Underpinned by “mountainous hills + subtropical monsoon climate”, it formed a vertical layered symbiotic pattern of “mountain-water-field-village” with a vegetation coverage rate of 70.5%. However, mammal populations declined by 40% compared to 2010; 2) Cultural dimension: Centered on round houses (over 20,000 extant), Hakka mountain songs, and terraced farming, it faced challenges such as 30% idle non-protected buildings, a 55% outflow rate of young adults leading to folkloric discontinuity, and 15% terraced farmland abandonment; 3) Ecological issues: From 2019~2023, forested areas decreased by 3.2%, and 40% villages directly discharged sewage. These issues are compounded by functional homogenization (40% tourist sites adopting the “ancient village + farm stay” model); 4) Three-dimensional strategy: The “ecological restoration-cultural heritage-functional optimization” approach, validated through cases like Qiaoxi Ancient Charm Village and Baihou Ancient Town, reduced terraced farmland abandonment by 5%, extended average tourist stay by 2 hours, and increased tourism revenue by 20%. This study combined the “dual carbon” goals of 2024 with the requirements of smart rural construction, adding new paths for carbon sink enhancement and digital inheritance, providing a more timely theoretical basis and practical paradigm for the sustainable construction of rural landscapes in Meizhou and the Hakka regions of Fujian and Jiangxi Province.
文章引用:杨期和, 牟利辉, 肖建华. 梅州客家乡村景观营造的生态文化特征、现存问题及优化策略 [J]. 城镇化与集约用地, 2026, 14(1): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.12677/ulu.2026.141001

参考文献

[1] 王浩, 李雄, 刘志成. 乡村振兴背景下乡村景观营造的理论与实践[J]. 中国园林, 2020, 36(10): 1-6.
[2] 李娟, 张立明, 陈玲玲. 客家乡村景观文化流失与保护策略研究——以闽西客家乡村为例[J]. 地域研究与开发, 2022, 41(2): 165-170.
[3] 梅州市统计局. 梅州市2023年国民经济和社会发展统计公报[R]. 梅州: 梅州市统计局, 2023.
[4] Zonneveld, I.S. (1995) Land Use Planning in the Netherlands: A Landscape Ecological Approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 129-142.
[5] 方一珊. 乡村文化景观基因特征和传承路径——评《乡村景观营建与文化传承研究》[J]. 世界林业研究, 2025, 38(1): 143-144.
[6] Forman, R.T.T. (1995) Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press.
[7] Jones, A., Evans, N. and Bramwell, B. (2018) Rural Tourism and Cultural Identity: A Case Study of Cornwall, UK. Tourism Management, 67, 345-356.
[8] Van der Ploeg, J.D., Renting, H. and Rossi, A. (2020) Rural Development and the Social Economy: A European Perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 60, 189-212.
[9] 肖笃宁, 李秀珍, 高峻. 景观生态学研究进展与展望[J]. 生态学报, 2003, 23(9): 1823-1830.
[10] 傅伯杰, 吕一河, 陈利顶. 景观生态学原理及应用[M]. 第3版. 北京: 科学出版社, 2014.
[11] 王云才. 乡村景观旅游规划设计的理论与实践[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2006.
[12] 胡最, 刘沛林, 邓运员, 等. 传统聚落景观基因的识别与提取方法研究[J]. 地理科学, 2015, 35(12): 1518-1524.
[13] 黄汉民. 福建土楼探秘[J]. 中国文化遗产, 2005(1): 8-29+3.
[14] 陈志华. 乡土建筑保护十议[J]. 建筑史论文集, 2003(1): 163-180+277.
[15] 罗迎新. 广东梅州地区传统客家民居建筑地理观[J]. 热带地理, 2009, 29(5): 495-499.
[16] 阙晨曦, 邓双, 金云峰, 等. 区域视角下的福建客家传统村落空间特征[J]. 风景园林, 2023, 30(3): 130-137.
[17] 梅州市地方志编纂委员会. 梅州年鉴(2023) [M]. 梅州: 梅州市地方志办公室, 2024.
[18] 梅州市地方志编纂委员会. 梅州年鉴(2024) [M]. 梅州: 梅州市地方志办公室, 2025.
[19] 梅州市统计局, 国家统计局梅州调查队. 2023年梅州国民经济和社会发展统计公报[R]. 梅州: 梅州市统计局, 2024.
[20] 梅州市生态环境局. 2024年梅州市生态环境质量状况[R]. 梅州: 梅州市生态环境局, 2025.
[21] 韩旭, 丁奇. 梅州客家传统村落景观格局探析[J]. 遗产与保护研究, 2018, 3(3): 13-18.
[22] 邱蔚琳. 客家围龙屋保护修缮评价体系研究[J]. 陶瓷, 2025(7): 222-224.
[23] 潘莹, 段佳卉, 施瑛. 环境选择视角下的广东汉民系传统聚落选址与景观格局分析[J]. 建筑遗产, 2019(2): 24-31.
[24] 吴新, 吴涵. 梅州市客家文化传承发展的思考[J]. 广东农工商职业技术学院学报, 2020, 36(2): 77-81.
[25] 梅州市住房和城乡建设局. 梅州市住房和城乡建设局2023年度生态环境保护责任暨深入打好污染防治攻坚战开展情况报告[R]. 梅州: 梅州市生态环境局, 2024.
[26] 欧爱玲, 黄贻. 客家非遗视野下的农耕文化研究[J]. 客家研究辑刊, 2021(1): 168-186.
[27] 梅州市文化广电旅游局. 2024 年度客家文化(梅州)生态保护区总体规划实施情况和建设工作成效自评报告[R]. 梅州: 梅州市文化广电旅游局, 2025.
[28] 梅州市自然资源局. 从全域找地到全域整治, 梅州2024年全域土地综合整治大事记[R]. 梅州: 梅州市自然资源局, 2025.
[29] 梅州市人民政府. 客家文化(梅州)生态保护区管理办法[EB/OL]. 2021-07-04.
https://xueshu.baidu.com/ndscholar/browse/detail?paperid=1d1e0ef0tb3x0040k77k0pm0eu443674, 2026-01-05.
[30] 肖文评, 李静. 梅州乡村旅游同质化困境与差异化路径研究[J]. 客家研究辑刊, 2022(3): 89-102.
[31] Smith, J., Taib, N. and Taib, M. (2022) Metaverse Technology in Rural Cultural Heritage Protection. Tourism Management, 95, Article 104567.