Ecological Integrity Evaluation of Organically Evolved Cultural Landscape

When the traditional method is used to evaluate the cultural landscape as a whole, due to the lack of historical and cultural factors, the impact of the ecological environment on the landscape change is not considered.erefore, it cannot objectively reect the law of landscape change. erefore, from the perspective of the combination of cultural landscape composition characteristics and cultural ecological characteristics, this paper puts forward the concept of cultural ecological integrity based on the existing concept of cultural heritage integrity, aiming at the organic evolution of cultural landscape in cultural landscape heritage, and expounded the dynamic sustainability and eectiveness of natural environment and social environment on the process of cultural landscape. Considering the relevant characteristics and dierent forms of cultural landscape and cultural ecological integrity, according to the concept of cultural ecological integrity, this paper gave the principles and standards of cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation and put forward the evaluation method of cultural ecological integrity. At the same time, each index in the ecological integrity evaluation model was decomposed and explained. Finally, taking the cultural heritage of Long-men Grottoes as an example, the paper used the cultural and ecological integrity evaluation model proposed in this paper to evaluate the material cultural landscape, intangible cultural landscape, and local traditional dwellings of Long-men Grottoes and made a comparative analysis between the control group and the observation group. e results showed that the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation model proposed in this paper can not only objectively evaluate the cultural landscape but also provide a certain theoretical and practical reference for the eective classication, protection and sustainable development, and utilization of the subsequent cultural landscape.


Introduction
Cultural landscape usually has the characteristics that nature and culture complement each other, and material and spirit promote each other. It is known from the existing research that the organically evolved cultural landscape comes from the basic needs of society, economy, administration and religion [1]. e research shows that due to the mutual integration and adaptation of landscape and natural environment, various existing cultural landscapes have been formed. For the dynamic cultural landscape existing in the region or widely distributed, for example, the type of cultural landscape with organic evolution, its value lies in the sustainability of the landscape [2]. It has always maintained a positive social role in today's natural and social environment related to tradition, and is the material evidence of its historical evolution and development.
e cultural ecological integrity of cultural landscape is a reference system and classi cation reference standard for the evaluation and protection of cultural landscape based on the registration standard of cultural landscape heritage and the evaluation of world cultural heritage issued by the World Heritage Committee (WHC) from the basic standpoint of cultural ecology [3]. In view of the complexity of cultural landscape, cultural ecological integrity e ectively considers the natural environment, cultural environment and cultural landscape architecture, which can provide a more comprehensive and dynamic unique perspective for the protection and evaluation of world cultural landscape. e 2005 edition of the operational guidelines for the implementation of the convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (hereinafter referred to as the operational guidelines) clearly points out that the authenticity and integrity of the landscape has become an organic part of the outstanding universal value of the world heritage [4,5]. e analysis of the integrity assessment of relevant cultural landscape heritage shows that people's classification and analysis of the integrity of general cultural heritage can be applied to cultural landscape [6]. However, for the dynamic cultural landscape existing in the region or widely distributed, for example, for the type of cultural landscape with organic evolution, its integrity is more important. Because the existing landscape integrity evaluation is not comprehensive or targeted, this paper proposed to establish a cultural ecological integrity evaluation system of cultural landscape on the basis of ensuring the authenticity of cultural landscape from the perspective of cultural ecology.

Related Concepts of Cultural Ecological
Integrity of Cultural Landscape

Characteristics of Cultural Ecological
Integrity. e research shows that the cultural ecological integrity of cultural landscape is a landscape attribute formed through continuous evolution and continuation on the basis of the existing operation guidelines on integrity [7]. It reflects the dynamic sustainability and effectiveness of the natural and social environment on the evolution of cultural landscape. Since 1992, experts in cultural landscape and architecture related fields have begun to pay attention to the integrity, emphasizing the integrity, paying attention to the integrity of function, structure and vision, and paying attention to the current situation of static cultural landscape [8,9]. erefore, the cultural ecological integrity of cultural landscape should have the following characteristics: (1) Cultural ecological integrity belongs to the cultural landscape of organic evolution: the organic evolution process of cultural landscape is generally closely related to traditional living habits, and is constantly changing with the changes of modern society. Among many cultural landscapes, some cultural landscapes with relevance are called composite landscapes. eir cultural meaning is determined by the relationship between natural factors and human religion, art, history and culture. Most of these complex landscapes are natural scenic spots protected by human beings, such as scenic spots and religious shrines, which have certain characteristics of ecological integrity.
(2) e cultural ecological integrity of cultural landscape has a certain linear change law of cultural landscape: International Society for Landscape Ecology (ISLE) and American National Geographic Society (ANGS) have conducted in-depth research on cultural landscape on the basis of landscape natural ecology, emphasizing the necessity of integrating cultural landscape and cultural ecology [10]. Some scholars put forward the theory of cultural continuity from the perspective of anthropology and sociology, holding that different cultures have certain continuity in their own development process. Landscape culture itself has more social culture. It not only involves social ethics, religion, customs and other concepts, but also contains a lot of artistic and cultural content [11,12]. erefore, with the continuous change of cultural landscape and environmental conditions, the cultural ecological integrity of cultural landscape can make the landscape culture show a certain linear change law. (3) Cultural landscape has certain communication, and the landscape culture of the same culture has regional differences: From the perspective of the development of cultural ecology, cultural ecology mainly studies the interaction and correlation between natural geographical environment and human culture. Cultural ecosystem is a complex of nature, culture and economy [13]. Due to the interaction between culture and ecological environment, within a certain regional scope, the complex natural and social environment usually makes the development of different landscape cultures present a certain diversity, and thus forms regional differences.
As shown in Figure 1, it is the schematic diagram of the discipline relationship of cultural landscape.

Main Manifestations of Cultural Ecological Integrity.
From the perspective of integrity operation guide, the ecological integrity of organic evolutionary cultural landscape is mainly reflected in the following four points: (1) Cultural landscape can adapt to the existence of integrity and constantly evolve with the changes of natural or social environment. (2) Cultural landscape can provide a certain use function and social value for related fields, can coexist harmoniously with today's social environment and natural environment, and has a certain cultural value. (3) In the historical process of the coexistence of single or multiple cultural landscapes of the same type, the changes and development of cultural landscapes can be effectively observed and identified. For example, various forms of relevant historical data can be used for recording and archiving. (4) For the cultural heritage to which the cultural landscape belongs, various forms and styles of cultural landscapes that meet the above three characteristics and have the same subordinate cultural types can coexist, thus forming a relatively clear geographical space and reflecting a representative cultural transmission path.
As shown in Figure 2, it is the basic composition of cultural landscape.

Research Value of Cultural Ecological Integrity.
According to the landscape integrity theory put forward by predecessors, through the improvement of the concept of cultural landscape, it is known that the current cultural landscape is still related to history in terms of function and survival characteristics. At present, the integrity of cultural landscape seen from the visual point of view is only a result and fragment of the historical process. erefore, in order to accurately understand the changes and authenticity of the heritage, it is crucial to analyze the authenticity of its function and historical structure [14].
Cultural landscape cultural ecological integrity has the significance of single and overall layout in terms of landscape scale and spatial characteristics. e cultural ecological integrity of cultural landscape mainly emphasizes the dynamic change process of the form, field environment and function, land use, life and spiritual belief of cultural landscape. e significance of studying cultural landscape ecological integrity from the perspective of cultural ecology is to fully reflect the social and historical value of cultural landscape integrity [15]. e cultural landscape with good cultural ecological integrity can provide more complete social exchange information for people in the historical process. From the utilization of natural resources to the progress of architectural technology, from the migration of cultural communicators and the spread of culture to the changes of society and the persistence of cultural beliefs are important historical materials.

Standards to be Followed for Cultural Ecological Integrity
Evaluation. Cultural ecological integrity based on cultural landscape is a concept put forward from the perspective of cultural ecology, which can reflect the ecological characteristics of cultural landscape. erefore, according to the integrity of traditional cultural landscape heritage and modern cultural ecology, the evaluation criteria of modern cultural ecological integrity can be obtained, as shown in Table 1.
According to the evaluation requirements in Table 1, after a certain historical period, the traditional cultural landscape heritage evaluation mainly focuses on the evaluation criteria of relative static and existing status. On this basis, a new evaluation standard can be formed from the perspective of modern cultural ecology, that is, pay more attention to the relationship between modern culture, landscape and architecture in the evaluation process. For example, landscape culture plays an important role in modern cultural ecology [16]. erefore, from the perspective of traditional cultural landscape and modern cultural ecology, we can put forward the ecological evaluation standards of cultural landscape.
(1) Reference of evaluation criteria: due to the lack of research on the existing evaluation methods or systems for the ecological integrity of cultural landscapes at home and abroad, on the basis of the existing concept of cultural heritage integrity, we can refer to the existing evaluation systems for the integrity and authenticity of cultural landscapes, which mainly include empirical evaluation, single factor evaluation and comprehensive factor grading and quantification from the theoretical basis and technical means. en, combined with the existing views and research methods of cultural ecology, further improve the evaluation criteria of cultural landscape ecological integrity. (2) e scientificity of the evaluation criteria: in the process of evaluating the ecological integrity of cultural landscape, the established evaluation index system should not only fully reflect the internal mechanism of the ecological integrity of   Mobile Information Systems the research object, but also systematically describe the connotation and target expectation of the evaluation object and its resources on the basis of relevant cultural landscape system theories.
(3) e dominance of evaluation indicators: the selected evaluation indicators should be representative and typical. When designing the cultural landscape integrity evaluation system, we should not only carefully screen and demonstrate the relevant indicators, but also reflect the importance of different indicators through weighted processing. In addition, the structure of the evaluation index system should be clear and concise. (4) Guidance of evaluation criteria: the purpose of evaluating the ecological integrity of cultural landscape is to better protect the existing cultural landscape and achieve its sustainable development. erefore, the establishment of corresponding index points in the evaluation index system can not only provide guidance for the relevant government departments to manage cultural landscape, but also provide scientific reference for the protection, development and utilization of cultural landscape resources.

Main Methods of Cultural Ecological Integrity
Evaluation.
e main methods of cultural ecological integrity evaluation include the comprehensive analysis method of qualitative and quantitative treatment for multifactor, multilevel and multi-index problems [17]. In order to make the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation model accurately and objectively reflect the evolution law of landscape objects, this paper fully draws on the experience of domestic and foreign scholars in the integrity and authenticity evaluation of cultural landscape heritage, and the proposed landscape evaluation method can not only describe the evolution characteristics of cultural landscape, but also reflect the value of cultural landscape. At the same time, based on the existing evaluation methods of predecessors, the evaluation system of cultural landscape and cultural ecological integrity is established by using sampling survey method, fuzzy evaluation method, principal component analysis method and analytic hierarchy process [18]. As shown in Figure 3, it is a schematic diagram of the research process of cultural landscape ecological integrity.

Construction of Cultural Ecological Integrity Evaluation
Index System. When constructing the evaluation index system of cultural ecological integrity, this paper mainly analyzes the structure and constituent factors of cultural landscape according to the existing cultural ecological integrity standards of cultural landscape and the requirements of future protection and sustainable development, so as to make it related to the cultural ecology of cultural landscape [19]. In this paper, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is mainly used to construct the evaluation index system of cultural ecological integrity, as shown in Figure 4.
In the cultural ecological integrity evaluation index system, the determination of each index weight is mainly based on analytic hierarchy process, including the construction of hierarchical structure model and the establishment of pairwise comparison matrix [20]. Using the paired comparison method, the paired comparison matrix is established from 1 to 9 comparison scales to the lowest level. e meaning of pairwise comparison matrix is shown in Table 2.
For the calculation of the weight vector, if the maximum eigenvalue of matrix A is λ max , the corresponding eigenvector is w � w 1 w 2 · · · w n T , then a ij � (w i /w j ), where i, j � 1, 2, · · · , n, as follows For consistency inspection, calculate the consistency index CI first, shown as follows: en, the average random consistency index RI is searched correspondingly. For n � 1, 2, · · · , 9, the consistency ratio CR can be calculated by the ratio of CI to RI. When CR < 0.1, it is considered that the consistency of the judgment matrix is acceptable, otherwise the judgment matrix should be properly modified.As shown in Table 3, it is the average random consistency index RI value.
Finally, calculate the combination weight vector and check the consistency of the combination results, as shown in Table 4. e combination consistency test is similar to the above method, and the calculation formula is When CR < 0.1, it is considered that the consistency of the judgment matrix is acceptable; otherwise, the judgment matrix should be properly modified.

Cultural Ecological Integrity Evaluation Model and Index Description
In the target layer of the evaluation index system, it mainly reflects the comprehensive index of cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation by integrating different evaluation factors, which is expressed by the comprehensive index A of cultural landscape ecological integrity, and its evaluation index is expressed by LEI. It consists of four indicators, among which, the landscape history and cultural participation are represented by B 1 , the indicator is named LH, the sustainability of surrounding sites is represented by B 2 , the indicator is named LF, the landscape structure value is represented by B 3 , the indicator is named LV, and the landscape architectural integrity is represented by B 4 , the indicator is named LI. For the cultural ecological integrity evaluation of cultural landscape, descriptive indicators and evaluation indicators are selected to reflect the ecological integrity of the landscape in time and space respectively. e ratio of standard layer and factor layer represents the evaluation weight of each index, which is marked as p h i , p f i , p v i and p i i respectively. e standard value can be comprehensively determined and recorded as f according to the evaluation and scoring of experts in relevant research and cultural landscape related fields [21,22]. Each index evaluation model of the ecological integrity evaluation standard layer can be expressed as follows: Using the participation of landscape culture, regional sustainability, and the integrity of landscape architecture structure and value, we can build a comprehensive evaluation system of cultural ecological integrity of cultural   landscape. rough the organic integration of the above four landscape cultural attributes, the comprehensive evaluation of cultural ecological integrity can be realized. Because these cultural attributes are independent of each other and have the same status for the comprehensive evaluation of cultural ecological integrity, the weights of these four factors are equal [23]. e relationship between the comprehensive evaluation index of cultural landscape ecological integrity and each evaluation index can be expressed as follows: In each index classification of the evaluation index system, landscape architecture, ecological environment, and cultural environment are the three subsystems of cultural landscape, which integrate the dynamic and open ideas of cultural landscape. In the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation system, the standard layer B 1 means to evaluate the historical and cultural participation, so as to dynamically describe the integrity of the cultural environment from the time dimension, as shown in Table 5.
After experts in the field of urban and rural planning and landscape ecology assess the ecological integrity of cultural landscape, the average value of relevant indicators of urban and rural planning and landscape design is determined [24]. e research goal of this paper is to evaluate the cultural ecological integrity on the basis of analyzing the organic evolutionary characteristics of cultural ecological integrity. erefore, this paper mainly establishes the cultural ecological When the two factors are compared, they are of the same importance 3 When two factors are compared, the former is slightly more important than the latter 5 When two factors are compared, the former is obviously more important than the latter 7 When two factors are compared, the former is more important than the latter 9 When two factors are compared, the former is much more important than the latter 2, 4, 6, 8 Represents the intermediate value of the above judgment    Table 6. It can describe the spatial open regulation of ecological environment integrity from five aspects, namely accessibility, number of residents, ecological vulnerability, forest coverage, and natural disasters. B 3 is mainly used to evaluate the integrity of landscape structure and cultural value, as shown in Table 7. Among them, functionality refers to the functional value of human settlements, which mainly evaluates the ecological integrity  Taking the occurrence frequency of earthquakes with magnitude greater than 4 as the characteristic of dominant disasters, the lower the frequency, the higher the corresponding index value. Similar evaluation methods shall be adopted for other related natural disasters Ecological vulnerability 0.15 e ecological stability of cultural landscape is evaluated from the five ecosystems of cold and drought, grassland, agriculture and animal husbandry, farming and forest, so as to ensure the ecological integrity of the whole cultural landscape Accessibility 0.38 e evaluation standard of accessibility index is mainly based on the sustainable impact of traffic on cultural landscape, taking it as a reference, taking advanced modern traffic as the highest level, simple modern traffic as the second level, human and animal power buffer as the third level, and human and animal power as the fourth level directly Forest cover 0.1 Based on forest coverage Number of residents 0.19 Determined according to the size and amount of landscape influence e landscape structure materials are evaluated according to the sensitivity. e stone has the lowest sensitivity, the highest relative integrity, the soil is in the middle, the wood is the lowest, and the stone soil mixture and stone wood mixture take the middle value in turn Visual integrity 0.24 Rating based on visual effects of existing landscape structures Structural integrity 0.2 e evaluation shall be conducted according to the following conditions: no major renovation, multiple improvements, complete reconstruction, remains of the site and the site of the site  Mobile Information Systems from the aspects of heating, insulation, storage, and sanitation. e other two items need to be qualitatively assessed according to relevant experts. B 4 is mainly used to evaluate the integrity of the landscape structure itself, as shown in Table 8.
To evaluate the cultural ecological integrity of cultural landscape from the perspective of cultural ecology, because it involves the natural field, cultural ecological characteristics and cultural factors of cultural landscape, it is necessary to consider the comprehensive evaluation of time, space and perceptual activities. Referring to the cultural landscape evaluation index system, the index adopts a five-level standard combining qualitative and quantitative.

Application and Analysis of Evaluation Model
In order to verify the scientificity and effectiveness of the cultural landscape and cultural ecological integrity evaluation system proposed in this paper, this paper takes the Long-men Grottoes landscape in Luo-yang City, Henan Province as an example for investigation and analysis. Longmen Grottoes are located in the southern suburbs of Luoyang, Henan Province, China. Here, the two mountains stand against each other, the Yi-river flows in the middle, and the scenery is beautiful. As shown in Figure 5, it is the landscape of some Long-men Grottoes.
In order to evaluate the application effect of the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation model proposed in this paper, taking the material cultural landscape, intangible cultural landscape and local traditional dwellings of Longmen Grottoes as samples, 10 places were randomly selected as the control group and the observation group. Among them, the control group used the traditional empirical evaluation method, and the observation group used the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation model proposed in this paper.
For the physical cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage, the evaluation is mainly conducted from the quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Quantitative indicators account for 60%, mainly including historical time (10%), scarcity (10%), landscape scale (30%), and landscape richness (10%). Qualitative indicators account for 40%, mainly including artistic value (25%) and scientific value (15%). As shown in Table 10, the evaluation results of the ecological integrity of the physical cultural heritage are shown, and Table 11 is the evaluation results of the ecological integrity of the intangible cultural heritage.
In addition, this paper uses the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation model to evaluate the damage of traditional dwellings around Long-men Grottoes, as shown in Table 12.
In order to analyze the evaluation effect of the cultural landscape and cultural ecological integrity evaluation system proposed in this paper on the Long-men Grottoes site, the two groups of experimental objects were compared from three aspects: the material cultural landscape of Long-men Grottoes: the intangible cultural landscape and the local traditional dwellings. As shown in Figure 6, from the score results of the two groups, the total score of the observation group is higher than that of the control group, and the scores of various indicators of the observation group are also higher than that of the control group. rough comparative experiments, we know that the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation model proposed in this paper can objectively reflect the evolution process of cultural heritage.

Conclusion
In view of the fact that the existing cultural landscape integrity evaluation system was not perfect enough to objectively reflect the evolution law of cultural landscape, this paper proposed a cultural ecological integrity evaluation model of cultural landscape based on the organic evolution characteristics of cultural landscape in cultural landscape heritage. rough the elaboration of ecological integrity and ecological integrity evaluation methods, the evaluation system and methods of cultural landscape ecological integrity were given theoretically. e cultural ecological integrity evaluation system not only fully considered the characteristics of the organic evolutionary cultural landscape but also objectively reflected the particularity and complexity of the cultural landscape. rough the application and analysis of examples, the results showed that the cultural landscape ecological integrity evaluation system proposed in this paper had important research significance for the protection, sustainable utilization, and development of organic evolutionary cultural landscape. In addition, this study can not only provide some theoretical reference and practical guidance for the effective classification of different organic evolutionary cultural landscapes but also provide a basis for the retrospective study of organic evolutionary cultural landscapes.

Data Availability
e labeled dataset used to support the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest
e author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.  10 Mobile Information Systems