Preprint
Article
Research on Teaching Evaluation of Landscape Bridge Aesthetics Creation Ability Based on Sustainable Development Concept
Altmetrics
Downloads
35
Views
17
Comments
0
This version is not peer-reviewed
Submitted:
03 December 2024
Posted:
03 December 2024
You are already at the latest version
Alerts
Abstract
This study explores the application of output - oriented interval reliability theory in eval-8 uating the landscape bridge design ability of students in bridge aesthetics courses. With the contin-9 uous improvement in the aesthetic requirements for bridges and the increasing emphasis on sus-10 tainable development, accurate evaluation of students' landscape bridge design ability is crucial. 11 The output - oriented concept emphasizes guiding students' learning outcomes. Interval reliability 12 theory provides a scientific and quantitative evaluation method. The evaluation index system for 13 landscape bridge design capability now includes design creativity, structural rationality, aesthetic 14 expression, coordination with the environment, and sustainable features such as material recycla-15 bility and energy - efficiency. Using the output - oriented principle, students' design works are the 16 core basis, focusing on their quality and how well they meet sustainable goals. Interval reliability 17 theory analyzes the uncertainty of design ability. By considering the range of indicators and factors 18 like the durability of sustainable materials, the reliability of designs in different situations can be 19 evaluated. This comprehensive approach reflects the true design ability better. In practical applica-20 tions, the multidimensional evaluation of students' works combined with interval reliability analy-21 sis considering sustainability provides teaching feedback. Teachers can adjust content and methods 22 based on results to improve quality and better cultivate students' landscape bridge design abilities 23 with a sustainable vision. Overall, output - oriented interval reliability theory with sustainability 24 offers an effective evaluation approach.
Keywords:
Subject: Arts and Humanities - Architecture
1. Introduction
In today's society, bridges are not only transportation infrastructures but also important components of urban landscapes. With the continuous improvement in people's quality-of-life requirements, the importance of the aesthetic landscape design of bridges has become increasingly prominent [1,2,3,4,5]. In this context, the evaluation of students' ability in the aesthetic landscape design of bridges is of crucial importance in teaching. On the one hand, a good evaluation system can accurately measure students' knowledge mastery and practical ability in the aesthetic landscape design of bridges, providing a basis for teachers to adjust their teaching strategies. On the other hand, through scientific evaluation, students' learning enthusiasm and creativity can be stimulated, prompting them to pay more attention to the combination of aesthetics and engineering and cultivating bridge design talent with both solid professional knowledge and innovative design capabilities to meet society's demand for high-quality bridge landscapes and add beautiful scenery to urban construction and development [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. The output-oriented evaluation method has gradually gained attention in this field and has achieved relevant research results.
The concept of output-oriented education has been widely applied in the field of engineering education [14,15,16,17]. In bridge aesthetics courses, many universities focus on cultivating students' practical abilities and innovative thinking by using actual project outputs as an important basis for evaluating their design abilities. Foreign scholars emphasize the integration of real engineering projects into curriculum design, allowing students to exercise their landscape bridge design skills in practical situations. By collaborating with enterprises and participating in actual project bidding, students can be exposed to the latest design concepts and technologies and improve their design skills. In the evaluation process, we not only focus on the aesthetic value and engineering feasibility of the design scheme but also pay attention to students' teamwork, communication skills, and problem-solving abilities in the project. We are constantly exploring new evaluation methods and tools. For example, some scholars have used multi-index evaluation methods, such as fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and the analytic hierarchy process, to comprehensively evaluate students' landscape bridge design. At the same time, use of digital technologies, such as 3D modeling and virtual reality, allows students to present design proposals more intuitively, improving the accuracy and objectivity of evaluations.
Some universities have begun to introduce the concept of output-oriented education to bridge aesthetics courses, emphasizing student learning outcomes as the guide and focusing on cultivating students' practical design abilities. In the teaching process, practical design tasks are set, guiding students to combine theoretical knowledge with practice and improving their design level. In terms of evaluation, scholars are also actively exploring suitable evaluation methods. Some universities adopt a combination of teacher evaluation, student peer evaluation, and self-evaluation to achieve more objective and comprehensive evaluation results. At the same time, some scholars have attempted to establish a scientific and reasonable evaluation index system, including design creativity, aesthetic value, engineering feasibility, environmental coordination and other aspects, to comprehensively evaluate students' design ability. In addition, some studies have focused on the feedback effect of evaluation. When timely feedback on evaluation results is provided to students, they can understand their strengths and weaknesses and make targeted improvements and enhancements. Moreover, teachers can adjust teaching content and methods on the basis of the evaluation results to improve teaching quality.
In summary, active exploration and practice have been carried out in the evaluation of students' landscape bridge design abilities in output-oriented bridge aesthetics courses. However, there are still some shortcomings in the current research. For example, the scientific validity and rationality of the evaluation index system need to be further improved, and the operability and universality of the evaluation methods need to be strengthened. In addition, how to better leverage the feedback role of evaluation and promote students' sustainable development is a problem that needs to be addressed in future research. The evaluation of students' landscape bridge design ability in bridge aesthetics courses on the basis of output orientation is a research field with important theoretical and practical significance. In the future, it will be necessary to further strengthen communication and cooperation at home and abroad, constantly explore innovation, improve evaluation systems and methods, and provide strong support for the cultivation of high-quality bridge aesthetics professionals. This study aims to comprehensively evaluate students’ landscape design ability in bridge aesthetics course, using the output-oriented approach of landscape design ability and the principles of a comprehensive radar chart and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process.
The main structural framework of this article is as follows. First, the main content of the Bridge Aesthetics course and the logical relationship between each piece of con - tent are introduced. In this process, the significance of sustainable development in bridge design is emphasized, such as the use of environmentally friendly materials and energy - efficient designs that blend harmoniously with the surrounding environment. Second, corresponding output - oriented training objectives for landscape bridge design abilities are developed on the basis of the learning content of the course. These objectives include not only traditional design aspects but also the integration of sustainable principles, like minimizing the ecological footprint during construction and operation. Next, on the basis of the learning content and training objectives, an evaluation system for students' landscape bridge design abilities is constructed. Sustainable factors are incorporated into the evaluation criteria, for example, the recyclability of materials and the long - term durability that reduces the need for frequent replacements. Interval re - liability theory was subsequently used to construct an ability evaluation system for students in the process of landscape bridge creation. Finally, practical cases are used to illustrate the applicability of the method proposed in this article. These cases showcase how students' designs that embrace sustainable development concepts can achieve better overall performance in the evaluation system, highlighting the importance of integrating sustainability into bridge aesthetics education.
2. Bridge Aesthetics Course Content
The Bridge Aesthetics course covers a wide range of content, including the following aspects.
2.1. Theoretical Basis
Principles of Aesthetics: Introduce the basic concepts, categories, and development history of aesthetics, enabling students to understand the essence of beauty and the rules of formal beauty, and lay a theoretical foundation for understanding bridge aesthetics.
Introduction to Bridge Engineering: An overview of the types, structural forms, and development history of bridges, providing students with a preliminary understanding of bridge engineering.
Art History and Design History: Through the study of art history and design history, students learn to understand the art styles and design concepts of different periods and gain inspiration and references for bridge aesthetic design.
2.2. Design Elements
Form and proportion: Study the formal beauty of bridges, including lines, shapes, and proportions, and explore how to achieve visual harmony and beauty through reasonable design.
Color and Material: Analyze the impact of bridge color and material selection on aesthetic effects and learn how to use color and material to enhance the expressiveness of bridges.
Landscape and Environment: Emphasize the coordination between bridges and surrounding landscapes and environments, including natural landscapes and urban landscapes. Explore how to integrate bridges into the environment and create a beautiful scenic line.
2.3. Design Method
Creativity and conceptualization: Cultivate students' innovative thinking and design creativity and guide them to propose unique bridge aesthetic design solutions from different perspectives.
Hand drawing and model making: Using hand drawing and model making, teach students to intuitively express their design concepts and improve their design expression ability.
Computer-aided design: Introduce commonly used computer software in bridge aesthetic design, such as CAD and 3DMAX, to enable students to master digital design methods.
The specific content of the Bridge Aesthetics course is shown in Table 1.
3. Goal of Cultivating Output-Oriented Ability
The cultivation goals of output-oriented ability in bridge aesthetics mainly include the following aspects.
3.1. Professional Knowledge and Skills
The basic theories and methods of bridge aesthetics, including the principles of formal beauty, the use of color and material, and the coordination between landscape and environment, should be mastered. Students should be able to accurately analyze and evaluate the aesthetic value of bridges and possess a solid foundation in aesthetic theory.
Students should be familiar with the design and construction process of bridge engineering and understand the structural characteristics and technical requirements of different types of bridges. They should be able to combine aesthetic concepts with engineering practice while ensuring the safety and functionality of bridge structures, to achieve the maximization of aesthetic effects.
Students should be proficient in drawing and model making and able to accurately express their design concepts. They should have mastered computer-aided design software, such as CAD and 3DMAX, to improve design efficiency and quality.
3.2. Innovative Thinking and Design Ability
Students' innovative consciousness and ability should be cultivated, and they should be encouraged to boldly try new forms, materials, and technologies in bridge aesthetic design. They also should be capable of proposing unique design solutions to meet the needs of different clients and environments.
Students' design thinking ability should be improved, and comprehensive analysis and design should be conducted from multiple perspectives, such as user needs, environmental factors, and cultural backgrounds. They should be able to take into account various factors, such as aesthetics, engineering, and society, to achieve sustainable development in design.
Students' teamwork and communication skills should be strengthened, and their ability to collaborate with professionals from different fields should be cultivated during the design process. They must be able to effectively express their design intentions, listen to others' opinions and suggestions, and jointly complete high-quality design work.
3.3. Practical Ability and Professional Ethics
Through practical teaching and curriculum design, students' practical operation ability and problem-solving ability can be improved. They should be capable of independently completing bridge aesthetic design tasks in practical projects and dealing with various complex situations and challenges.
Students' professional ethics and sense of responsibility should be cultivated so they are able to understand the importance and social impact of bridge engineering. A rigorous work attitude, good professional ethics, and team spirit lay a solid foundation for future career development.
Students' social adaptability and competitiveness should be enhanced, and they should be equipped with the ability to engage in bridge aesthetic design work in different fields and industries. They should be able to continuously learn and update knowledge and adapt to developments and changes of society.
4. Evaluation System for Landscape Bridge Design Capability
The evaluation system for landscape bridge design capability can be constructed on the basis of the following aspects.
4.1. Design Creativity
Innovation: Whether the design has unique, creative, and innovative ideas and whether it can break through traditional design patterns.
Cultural integration: Whether local cultural characteristics, historical elements, etc., can be integrated into the design to reflect the regional cultural environment.
Function expansion: Whether the design has expanded other functions, such as leisure, sightseeing, etc., on the basis of meeting the transportation function.
4.2. Structural Rationality
Mechanical performance: Whether the structural design is reasonable and meets the mechanical requirements, such as those related to the bearing capacity and stability of the bridge.
Material selection: Whether the selected materials are suitable, have good durability, workability, etc.
Construction feasibility: Whether the design scheme is convenient for construction and whether the construction difficulty level and cost are within a reasonable range.
4.3. Aesthetic Expression
Formal beauty: Whether the shape of the bridge is beautiful, the lines are smooth, and the proportions are coordinated.
Color matching: Whether the selection of colors is in harmony with the surrounding environment and can create a good visual effect.
Landscape integration: Whether the bridge can blend with the surrounding natural and cultural landscapes to become a beautiful scenic line.
4.4. Environmental Coordination
Ecological and Environmental Protection: Whether the design considers the impact on the ecological environment and takes corresponding environmental protection measures.
Coordination with surrounding buildings: Whether the bridge and surrounding buildings are coordinated and together can form a harmonious whole.
Transportation convenience: Whether the design considers the rationality of traffic flow and can facilitate the passage of pedestrians and vehicles.
4.5. Plan Expression
Drawing quality: Whether the design drawings are standardized, clear, and accurate and whether they can fully express the design intent.
Scheme Explanation: Whether the explanation of the design scheme is clear and organized and can enable others to fully understand the design concept.
In the evaluation process, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to set corresponding weights and scoring criteria for each evaluation indicator. Objective and accurate evaluation results can be obtained through a comprehensive evaluation of students' design work. At the same time, the evaluation system should also have a certain degree of flexibility and operability and be able to adjust and improve according to different teaching requirements and design tasks. Table 2 provides information about the landscape bridge design capability evaluation system.
5. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Based on Interval Reliability Theory
5.1. Establishment of the Evaluation Index System
This study uses the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to construct a hierarchical structure model for evaluating students’ aesthetic creation ability as it relates to landscape bridges [18]. The landscape creation capability evaluation (A) is targeted as the objective layer. The key factors for (B) evaluating the aesthetic creation ability of landscape bridges form the criterion layer, such as design creativity, structural rationality, aesthetic expression, and environmental coordination. The sub-element (C) of the criterion layer indicators, such as cultural integration, mechanical stability, and clarity of the plan, etc., is used as the indicator layer.
Figure 1.
Evaluation System for Landscape Bridge Creation Ability.
5.2. Indicator Weight
The evaluation system involves many indicators, and determining the role of each indicator in the evaluation is the key to the accuracy of the evaluation. This article uses the methods of the fuzzy judgment matrix and fuzzy consistency matrix to determine the indicator weights [19].
The recognition of the importance of each indicator is presented using a fuzzy judgment matrix, such as the fuzzy judgment matrix composed of each indicator under criterion layer B1, as follows.
This study uses three scales: 0, 0.5, and 1. Zero indicates that indicator i is more important than indicator i, 0.5 indicates that indicator j is as important as indicator i, and 1 indicates that indicator i is more important than indicator j. In the formula, bij represents the evaluation results of experts on the indicators in the i-th row and j-th column. Further transformation yields the fuzzy consistent matrix R as follows.
In the formula, ri and rj represent the sum of the indicators in the i-th and j-th rows of judgment matrix B1, and n is the number of indicators in B.
From this, the weights of each indicator in criterion layer B1 can be obtained, W1=[w1, w2..., wn]. The same method can be used to obtain W2, W3, Wn, and the weights W of each criterion layer in engineering geological suitability A.
5.3. Determination of the Single-Factor Evaluation Matrix
The individual indicators in the landscape bridge indicator layer will not be the same in specific projects but instead will vary. If we generalize the binary thinking of "good" and "poor", it will cause information loss and inaccurate evaluation. Therefore, this article uses interval numbers to express the ambiguity of each indicator [20]. The evaluation matrix for the interval numbers of each indicator in criterion layer B is shown in Table 3.
Among them, lij represents the membership interval [Xij, Yij] of indicator Ci to scheme Fi, and the single factor evaluation matrix Ln is
5.4. Calculation of the Evaluation and Ranking Results
The evaluation result Dn of each criterion layer is obtained by multiplying the evaluation matrix Ln of each criterion by the weight Wn of each indicator of that criterion.
The final evaluation result E is obtained by multiplying the set of evaluation results D of each criterion layer item by the weight W of each criterion layer item in the overall evaluation.
where pi(i=1,2,…,m) is the final evaluation result for the i-th plan. The evaluation results can be divided into 4 levels on the basis of the rating: 0.75–1 is level 1, indicating good suitability; 0.5–0.75 is level 2, indicating moderate suitability; 0.25–0.5 is level 3, indicating moderate suitability; and 0–0.25 is level 4, indicating poor suitability.
Because of the interval form of P, the sorting of each interval adopts the ideal point method, which ranks indicators by comparing the evaluation results with the closeness of the optimal and worst solutions.
6. Evaluation Process for Landscape Bridge Design Ability
The specific process of evaluating students' landscape bridge design ability in the bridge aesthetics course using the output-oriented interval number fuzzy analytic hierarchy process is as follows.
6.1. Determine the Evaluation Index System
Analyze the teaching objectives of the Bridge Aesthetics course and the requirements for students' landscape bridge design abilities, and determine the main dimensions of evaluation, such as design creativity, structural rationality, aesthetic expression, environmental coordination, etc.
Further subdivide each major dimension and determine specific evaluation indicators. For example, design creativity can include indicators such as innovation and cultural integration; structural rationality can include indicators such as mechanical stability and material selection rationality.
6.2. Build a Hierarchical Structure Model
Set the evaluation objective (the student’s landscape bridge design ability evaluation) as the highest level.
Use the determined evaluation indicators as the middle and bottom layers, and construct a hierarchical structure model according to different hierarchical relationships.
6.3. Determine the Interval Number Fuzzy Judgment Matrix
Invite relevant experts (such as bridge designers, aesthetic experts, and teachers) to assess the relative importance of each evaluation indicator.
Because of the uncertainty and ambiguity of the evaluation process, expert judgments are represented in the form of interval numbers and fuzzy numbers. For example, for two indicators, A and B, experts may judge that "A is much more important than B", represented by interval fuzzy numbers [7,9].
On the basis of expert judgment, a fuzzy judgment matrix for interval numbers is constructed.
6.4. Calculate the of Indicator Weights
Using the calculation method of the interval number fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, process the interval number fuzzy judgment matrix and calculate the weights of each evaluation indicator.
Consistency checks are required during the calculation process to ensure the rationality of the judgment matrix. If the consistency check fails, it is necessary to invite experts to make a new judgment or adjust the judgment matrix.
6.5. Student Work Evaluation
Collect students' landscape bridge design works, including design drawings, scheme explanations, etc.
According to the evaluation index system, score each student's work. The scoring also adopts the form of interval fuzzy numbers to represent the uncertainty of the evaluation.
Weigh and sum the scores of various indicators for each student's work to obtain a comprehensive score of their work.
6.6. Result Analysis and Feedback
Analyze the comprehensive scores of students' works to understand their performance in different aspects.
On the basis of the evaluation results, provide specific feedback to students, highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the work, and provide guidance for further learning and improvement.
Teachers can also adjust teaching content and methods on the basis of evaluation results to improve teaching quality.
7. Application
7.1. Design Cases
Case background: Taking the actual creation of four landscape bridges as examples, evaluate their aesthetic creation ability. The description of each landscape bridge creation plan is as follows.
Plan A (see Figure 2): This plan is a concrete beam–style landscape bridge with a courtyard-like structure that spans a 10-m river.
Scheme B (see Figure 3): This scheme involves a wooden truss beam landscape bridge spanning a 300 m river.
Scheme C (see Figure 4): This scheme is a cable-stayed landscape bridge connecting three small islands in the center of a lake.
Scheme D (see Figure 5): This scheme is a cable-stayed landscape bridge connecting five intersections.
7.2. Construct a Judgment Matrix
1. Judgment matrix of the criterion layer on the target layer (landscape bridge creation ability)
Invite experts to make pairwise comparisons of the five elements of the criterion layer and provide interval number judgments. The obtained judgment matrix is as follows:
2. Judgment matrix between the indicator layer and the criterion layer
The judgment matrix for design creativity (B1) based on innovation (C11) and cultural integration (C12) is as follows:
The judgment matrix for the structural rationality (B2) based on the mechanical stability (C21) and material rationality (C22) is as follows:
The judgment matrix for aesthetic expression (B3) based on formal aesthetics (C31) and color coordination (C32) is as follows:
The natural environment (C41) and human environment (C42) have an impact on environmental coordination (B4), and the judgment matrix is as follows:
The judgment matrix for the standardization of drawings (C51) and clarity of schemes (C52) in relation to the expression of schemes (B5) is as follows:
7.3. Calculate the Weight Vector
(1) For the criterion layer judgment matrix
First, the root of the product of each row of elements is calculated.
First line:
where .
In addition, other rows are calculated.
(2) For the indicator layer judgment matrix
The judgment matrix of innovation (C11) and cultural integration (C12) on design creativity (A) is taken as an example. The root of the product of each row of elements is calculated.
First line:
where .
Second line:
where the calculated
Normalize processing: Assuming that the sum of weights under this criterion layer is 1, the weight interval of innovation (A11) in design creativity (A) obtained after normalization is
The weight range of cultural integration (A12) in design creativity (A) is
7.4. Perform a Consistency Check
The consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) are calculated. After calculation, the CI interval of the criterion layer judgment matrix is . When the CR is calculated, the CR interval is .
If the CR interval value is less than 0.1, the judgment matrix has satisfactory consistency.
For the indicator layer judgment matrix, the above steps are also performed for consistency testing.
7.5. Evaluate the Results of Landscape Creation Ability
The interval reliability theory proposed in this article is used to evaluate the aesthetic landscape design capability of bridges. For the four schemes in this case, the corresponding detailed evaluation results are as follows.
The weights between the four aesthetic design schemes for landscape bridges are as follows. The settlement results indicate that the order of the four creative schemes is as follows: the first is Plan D, the second is Plan B, the third is Plan C, and the fourth is Plan A.
The results between the five elements of the criterion layer corresponding to each design scheme are as follows. From the calculation results, one can see that for Plan A, the first ranking is structural rationality, the second ranking is aesthetic expression, the third ranking is scheme expression, the fourth ranking is environmental coordination, and the fifth ranking is design creativity. For Plan B, the first priority is aesthetic expression, the second priority is structural rationality, the third priority is environmental coordination, the fourth priority is scheme expression, and the fifth priority is design creativity. In terms of Plan C, the first priority is aesthetic expression, the second priority is environmental coordination, the third priority is design creativity, the fourth priority is scheme expression, and the fifth priority is structural rationality. For Plan D, the first priority is aesthetic expression, the second priority is structural rationality, the third priority is environmental coordination, the fourth priority is scheme expression, and the fifth priority is design creativity.
On the basis of the above calculation and analysis results, the interval analytic hierarchy process is highly important for evaluating the creative ability of landscape bridges. First, it can make the evaluation more scientific, comprehensively consider multiple factors that affect creative ability, and determine reasonable weights to avoid subjective one-sidedness. Second, by quantifying the results it is possible to clearly compare the advantages and disadvantages of different creators or design schemes in various aspects. For example, its contribution to overall creative ability in terms of structural innovation and integration with the surrounding landscape can be accurately measured. These results provide a basis for selecting outstanding creators, optimizing design schemes, and promoting a better balance and development of landscape bridges in terms of art and function.
7.6. Discussion
By combining the interval reliability theory proposed in this article with the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the aesthetic landscape creation ability of bridges, and analyzing and discussing them in relation to the traditional analytic hierarchy process, the following three aspects are considered: scientific and accurate evaluation, risk and reliability assessment, and multi-scheme comparison and decision optimization.
(1) Improving the scientific basis and accuracy of evaluation
The weight determination of the general analytic hierarchy process in evaluating students’ ability to create landscape bridges often relies on the subjective judgment of experts. Although it has some rationality, there is uncertainty. The analytic hierarchy process for interval reliability introduces interval numbers and considers more fuzzy and uncertain factors.
For the evaluation of landscape bridge creation ability, the results of the interval reliability analytic hierarchy process have more advantages in terms of scientific accuracy. It can more finely depict the range of evaluation indicators; for example, when evaluating the aesthetic value of bridges, it not only considers the traditional aesthetic appearance but also reflects the fuzzy influence of cultural elements through interval numbers. This method can more accurately reflect the complex interrelationships between different factors in landscape bridge creation, avoid errors caused by single-value evaluation, and make the evaluation results closer to the actual level of creative ability.
(2) Improvement of risk and reliability assessment
The general analytic hierarchy process rarely involves risk- and reliability-related content in the evaluation process. The interval reliability analytic hierarchy process can provide a risk-and-reliability perspective for evaluating students’ ability to create landscape bridges through calculation results.
There are many risk factors in the design and creation of landscape bridges, such as the reliability of structural safety under different environmental conditions and the uncertainty of material durability. By using the interval reliability analytic hierarchy process, these risk factors can be included in the evaluation system, and the impact of risk on creative ability can be quantified through calculated results. For example, if a landscape bridge has a low level of reliability in its ability to withstand natural disasters such as floods, during its design, the student’s overall creative ability evaluation will be affected accordingly, prompting them to pay attention to potential risks during the design phase and improving the reliability of their work.
(3) Multi-scheme comparison and decision support optimization
When faced with multiple landscape bridge creation schemes, the general analytic hierarchy process can make basic comparisons, but its ability to handle complex conditions and uncertain information is limited. The results of the interval reliability analytic hierarchy process can better support multi-scheme comparisons and decisions.
Different landscape bridge creation schemes may have their own advantages and disadvantages in terms of functional implementation, cost control, and environmental adaptability. The calculation results of this method can clearly present the interval range of each scheme on various evaluation indicators, which can help decision-makers gain a more comprehensive understanding of the potential and risks of each scheme. For example, a scheme that excels in artistic innovation but has low reliability in the construction cost range can be compared with other schemes under a unified standard. Decision-makers can weigh the pros and cons of different solutions on the basis of the calculation results, choose the optimal solution in terms of comprehensive evaluation of creative ability, and improve the quality and efficiency of landscape bridge construction.
Compared with the general analytic hierarchy process, the interval reliability analytic hierarchy process has outstanding advantages and significant importance in evaluating students’ ability to create landscape bridges. In terms of advantages, the general analytic hierarchy process relies more on determined values and subjective judgments, whereas the interval reliability analytic hierarchy process introduces the concept of interval numbers, which can better cope with complex fuzzy information, such as vague aesthetic standards and uncertain environmental impacts in landscape bridge creation, making the evaluation results more realistic. At the same time, it can also calculate the reliability interval and effectively evaluate potential risks, such as bridge structure safety and durability, which is lacking in general methods. In terms of significance, this method provides a more scientific and comprehensive perspective for evaluating students’ ability to create landscape bridges. The results can provide a strong basis for the selection and optimization of design schemes, help decision-makers consider both artistic beauty and functional implementation as well as risk factors such as structural reliability, thereby promoting the development of landscape bridge design toward higher quality, safety, and innovation and enhancing the overall creative level.
8. Conclusion
This study applies output - oriented interval reliability theory to evaluate the landscape bridge design ability of Chinese students in bridge aesthetics courses. In line with sustainable development, it also considers ecological and environmental factors during the evaluation. It aims to overcome the limitations of traditional evaluation methods and more accurately measure students' performance in complex and uncertain landscape bridge design contexts. Traditional evaluation methods often overlook fuzzy factors in the design process, while this study's theoretical application provides a new way to comprehensively and scientifically evaluate students' abilities including their integration of sustainable concepts. This ensures the results better reflect their true level and guide teaching improvement and student development.The conclusions drawn from the practical application of the four landscape bridge creation cases are as follows.
(1) Interval reliability theory effectively addresses uncertainty problems by considering the interval range of parameters. This study, used output orientation to focus on the quality and reliability of student design outcomes. Output orientation emphasizes the final design output as the evaluation core, combined with interval reliability theory, which can quantitatively evaluate multiple aspects, including the structural safety, aesthetic value, and functional implementation of landscape bridges designed by students. For example, the indicator of structural safety is no longer a simple judgment of whether it is qualified or not but rather an analysis of safety under different environmental conditions based on reliability intervals, making the evaluation align more closely with actual design needs.
(2) In the case application of Chinese students, we collected landscape bridge design works from multiple groups of students. This theory is applied to evaluate multiple dimensions. In the aesthetic dimension, the interval reliability of the design's line fluency, color matching harmony, and other aspects were analyzed. In terms of functionality, the reliable range considers factors such as traffic capacity and integration with the surrounding environment. For example, a student's design has high reliability in color matching and good aesthetic literacy but has low reliability in terms of functional integration with the surrounding landscape, indicating insufficient consideration of environmental factors in the design. This detailed evaluation provides a targeted analysis of each student's design ability.
(3) Through in-depth analysis of the evaluation results, several interesting phenomena were discovered. On the one hand, some students have outstanding abilities in aesthetic performance, but there are shortcomings in combining aesthetics with structural reliability, reflecting a lack of knowledge integration ability. On the other hand, some students excessively pursue functional implementation in their designs while neglecting the reliable range of aesthetic values, resulting in an overall design imbalance. Moreover, from the overall data perspective, students generally perform poorly in considering the reliability of multiple factors when dealing with complex design requirements. These findings provide an important basis for adjusting curriculum teaching content and methods and suggest that teachers need to strengthen the cultivation of students' comprehensive design ability and multifactor balancing ability.
The results of this study have important implications for the teaching of bridge aesthetics courses. Teachers should pay attention to cultivating students' ability to combine aesthetics with reliability theory in the teaching process. Through various methods, such as case analysis and practical projects, students should be guided to comprehensively consider the interval reliability of various factors when designing. In the future, the evaluation index system can be further optimized to make it more refined and accurate. Moreover, this evaluation method can be extended to more related courses, laying the foundation for comprehensively improving students' landscape bridge design abilities, cultivating high-quality professional talent, and promoting the development and improvement of bridge aesthetics education.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declare(s) that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.52378244) and the 2024 Jiangsu Province Higher Education Special Project (Project No. 2024JCSZ17).
References
- Xu Fengyun, Zhao Yong, Chen Qixin, et al. Introduction to Bridge Landscape [J]. Bridge Construction, 2003(4):4. DOI:CNKI:SUN:QLJS.0.
- Ding Hao. Reflection and Practice on Landscape Aesthetics of Urban Bridges [D]. Zhejiang University,2007.
- Xu Liping. Discussing Urban Landscape Bridges [C]// Proceedings of the 21st National Bridge Academic Conference (Volume One). Chinese Society of Civil Engineering, 2014. DOI:ConferenceArticle/ 5af16f66c095d71bc8c 2473a.
- Liang Yan, He Wei, Tang Maolin. Research Progress on Bridge Aesthetics in 2019 [J]. Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2021, 43(S01):8. [CrossRef]
- Jiang Yu, Sun Jun. The Inspiration of Traditional Chinese Aesthetic Thought on Bridge Landscape Aesthetics [J]. Highway, 2020, 65(3):5.
- Zhang Zhenxue. Theoretical analysis and research on a new type of thrust free space steel mesh arch bridge [D]. Hebei University of Technology, 2013. [CrossRef]
- Jiang Yu, Sun Jun. Reflection on Bridge Landscape Aesthetics Based on Ecological Aesthetics Principles [J]. Highway, 2017, 62(11):4. DOI:CNKI:SUN:GLGL. 0.2017-11-040.
- Yan Xu, Wang Jiangbo. A Brief Discussion on the Reasonable Aesthetic Design and Economy of Bridges [J]. Journal of Anhui University of Architecture and Technology: Natural Science Edition, 2012, 20(5):5. [CrossRef]
- Chen Xia. Research on Aesthetics and Landscape Design of Mountain Environment Bridges [D]. Southwest Jiaotong University,2022.
- Wang Yijuan, Guo Yanping. Research on Modern Bridge Aesthetics and Landscape Design [J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2004, 20(3):4. [CrossRef]
- Jiang Chengjie, Ding Hao, Lin Zhenpao. Aesthetic Design of Composite Landscape for Canal Bridges [J]. Technology Innovation Report, 2009(24):2. [CrossRef]
- Li Yan. Exploration of Ecological Aesthetics of Bridges in Mountainous Cities [M]. Chongqing University Press,2020.
- Sun Yu, Wang Yitong, Zhang Yanhong. Research on the Coordination between Bridge Aesthetics and Environment [J]. Technology Innovation Report, 2020, 17(17):2. [CrossRef]
- Sheng Yong. Research on Landscape Design and Evaluation in Bridge Aesthetics [D]. Chang'an University,2001. [CrossRef]
- Sun Rui. Research on Landscape Design and Evaluation Method of Cable stayed Suspension Cooperation System Bridge [D]. Chang'an University,2007. [CrossRef]
- Wang Hui, Mu Jiyuan. Aesthetic evaluation of bridge landscape in the Old Town of Lijiang based on beauty evaluation method and semantic analysis method [J]. Journal of Southwest Forestry University: Social Sciences Edition, 2022, 6(1):70-77.
- Cheng Shengjie. Research on Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Pedestrian Landscape Bridge Based on Uncertain AHP [D]. Taiyuan University of Science and Technology,2020.
- Liu Zhanliang, Hao Jianjun, Liu Shuxia, et al. Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Evaluating and Diagnosing Curriculum Teaching Ability [J]. Journal of Hebei Agricultural University: Agriculture and Forestry Education Edition, 2003, 5(1):2. [CrossRef]
- Zhang Lei. Comprehensive Evaluation of Innovation Ability of Engineering Students Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process [J]. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education, 2010, 1(5):3. [CrossRef]
- Yang Hua, Wang Ning, He Yunfeng, et al. Research on Innovation Ability of College Students Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [J]. Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University: Education Science Edition, 2018, 31(3):4. [CrossRef]
Figure 2.
Landscape Bridge Creation Plan A.
Figure 3.
Landscape Bridge Creation Plan B.
Figure 4.
Landscape Bridge Creation Plan C.
Figure 5.
Landscape Bridge Creation Plan D.
Table 1.
Content of the Bridge Aesthetics Course.
| Course Modules | Content |
|---|---|
| Theoretical basis | Principles of Aesthetics (Essence of Beauty, Laws of Formal Beauty, etc.), Introduction to Bridge Engineering (Bridge Types, Structural Forms, Development History), Art history and design history (referencing art styles and design concepts from different periods). |
| Design elements | Form and proportion (the influence of lines, shapes, and proportions on aesthetics); Color and Material (the impact of color and material selection on aesthetic effects); Landscape and environment (coordination with surrounding landscape and environment). |
| Design Method | Creativity and ideation (cultivating innovative thinking and design creativity); Hand drawing and model making (improving design expression ability); Computer aided design (mastering relevant software such as CAD, 3DMAX, etc.). |
| Cases analysis | Classic cases at home and abroad (analyzing successful experiences of famous bridge aesthetic design cases); Failure case analysis (summarizing lessons learned to avoid similar problems). |
| Practical teaching | Field investigation (observing the aesthetic characteristics of actual bridges and their relationship with the environment); Course design (applying theoretical knowledge to practical design to enhance practical skills). |
Table 2.
Evaluation of the Landscape Bridge Scheme.
| Evaluation Dimension | Evaluating Indicator | Weight | Scoring Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Creativity | Innovative nature | 20% | Highly innovative and uniquely designed (81–100 points), Has a certain degree of innovation (61–80 points), Lack of innovation (41–60 points), Lack of innovation (0–40 points) |
| Cultural integration degree | 15% | Perfectly integrates regional culture and rich connotations (81–100 points), Good integration (61–80 points), The fusion degree is average (41–60 points), Poor fusion (0–40 points) | |
| Structural rationality | Mechanical stability | 20% | Stable structure, accurate calculation, fully compliant with requirements (81–100 points); Relatively stable, basically in line with (61–80 points); There are certain stability issues (41–60 points); Unstable structure (0–40 points) |
| Reasonable material selection | 10% | Scientific and reasonable material selection, high cost-effectiveness (81–100 points); Relatively reasonable (61–80 points); Reasonable (41–60 points); Unreasonable (0–40 points) | |
| Aesthetic expression | Formal Aesthetics | 15% | The form is highly aesthetically pleasing and has a strong visual impact (81–100 points), Has a certain level of aesthetic appeal (61–80 points), Lack of aesthetic appeal (41–60 points), Lack of aesthetic appeal (0–40 points) |
| Color coordination | 10% | Color coordination and high integration with the environment (81–100 points), Relatively coordinated (61–80 points), Coordination is average (41–60 points), Inconsistent (0–40 points) | |
| Environmental coordination | Coordination with the surrounding natural environment | 15% | Perfect integration with the natural environment (81–100 points), Good integration (61–80 points), The fusion degree is average (41–60 points), Poor fusion (0–40 points) |
| Coordination with the surrounding cultural environment | 15% | Highly coordinated with the cultural environment to enhance the regional cultural atmosphere (81–100 points), Good coordination (61–80 points), The coordination level is average (41–60 points), Poor coordination (0–40 points) | |
| Design expression | Standardization of drawings | 10% | The drawings are standardized, clear, accurate, and the annotations are complete (81–100 points); More standardized (61–80 points); Normative average (41–60 points); Not standardized (0–40 points) |
| Clarity of scheme explanation | 10% | The plan is clearly explained, logically rigorous, and expressed fluently (81–100 points); Clear (61–80 points); Average clarity (41–60 points); Unclear (0–40 points) |
Table 3.
Matrix form of interval number evaluation.
| Factor set | Scheme set | |||
| f1 | f2 | …… | fm | |
| C1 | l11 | l12 | …… | l1m |
| C2 | l21 | l21 | …… | L2m |
| … | … | … | … | … |
| Cn | Ln1 | Ln2 | …… | Lnm |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated