請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10258
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Hsuan Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃昱瑄 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T21:14:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2013-02-20 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T21:14:46Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-02-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-02-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. 于正倫,(1991),城市環境藝術-景觀與設施,台北:博遠出版有限公司。
2. 于正倫,(2004),城市環境創造-景觀與環境設計,台北:田園城市文化事業有限公司。 3. 李美芬,(2006),自然環境體驗認知歷程之研究,博士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 4. 林益仁,(2004),「自然」的文化建構:爭議馬告國家公園預定地的「森林」,博物館學季刊,18(2),25-38。 5. 黃巧惠,(2006),《莊子》內七篇之生態審美觀,碩士論文,國立高雄師範大學美術研究所,高雄。 6. 黃國清,(2001),竺法護譯《正法華經》「自然」譯詞析論,中華佛學研究,5,105-122。 7. 張俊彥、曾慈慧(2000),醫院景觀環境差異對病人生心理反應之研究,中國園藝,46(2),231-246。 8. 鄭佳昆、林晏州(1996),以相片評估造園鋪面材料之可行性研究,台大農學院研究報告,36(1),1-15。 9. Anderson, J. E. (1991). A conceptual framework for evaluating and quantifying naturalness. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 347-352. 10. Angermeier, P. L. (2000). The natural imperative for biological conservation. Conservation Biology, 14(2), 373-381. 11. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115–125. 12. Bell, S. (1993). Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. London: E&FN Spon. 13. Bell, S. (2005). Nature for people: The importance of green spaces to communities in the east midlands of England. In I. Kowarik & S. Körner (Eds.), Wild Urban Woodlands, (p.81-94). Berlin, Hidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 14. Booth, N. K. (1983). Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 15. Born, R. J. G. V. D., Lenders, R. H. J., Groot, W. T. D., & Huijsman, E. (2001). The new biophilia: An exploration of visions of nature in western country. Environmental Conservation, 28(1), 65-75. 16. Buijs, A. E., & Volker, C. M. (1997). Publiek draagvlak voor natuur en natuurbeleid. (The Public Basis of Nature and Nature Policy.) Wageningen, the Netherlands: SC-DLO report no. 546. 17. Cilliers, S. S., Müller, N., & Drewes, E. (2004). Overview on urban nature conservation: Situation in the western-grassland biome of South Africa. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3(1), 49-62. 18. Comer, P. J. (1997). A ‘‘natural’’ benchmark for ecosystem function. Conservation Biology, 11(2), 300-307. 19. Crow, T., Brown, T., & Young, R. D. (2006). The Riverside and Berwyn experience: Contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people. Landscapes and sustainability, 75(3-4), 282–299. 20. Dearden, P. (1985). Philosophy, theory and method in landscape evaluation. The Canadian Geographer, 29(3), 263–265. 21. Garrod, B. (2007). A snapshot into the past: The utility of volunteer‐employed photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(1), 14‐35. 22. Garrod, B. (2008). Exploring place perception a photo‐based analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(2), 381-401. 23. Gobster, P. H. (2001). Visions of nature: Conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 56(1-2), 35-51. 24. Grumbine, R. E. (1997). Reflections on 'What is ecosystem management?' Conservation Biology, 11(1), 41-47. 25. Havitz, M. E. (1987). An experimental examination of sector bias in the context of selected organized recreation services. Unpublished Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX. 26. Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1986). Adaptations to windowlessness: A study of the use of visual decor in windowed and windowless offices. Environment and Behavior, 18(5), 623-639. 27. Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research, 9(1), 10-16. 28. Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(1), 27-43. 29. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population & Environment, 5(1), 43-59. 30. Hull, R. B., & Revell, G. R. B. (1989). Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: A case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(3), 177-191. 31. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Kendra, A. (2001). Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural Resources, 14(4), 325-340. 32. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., Richert, D., Seekamp, E., & Buhyoff, G. J. (2002). Assumptions about ecological scale and nature knowing best hiding in environmental decisions. Conservation Ecology, 6(2), 12. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art12 33. Hunter, M. (1996). Benchmarks for managing ecosystems: Are human activities natural? Conservation Biology, 10(3), 695-697. 34. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(1), 1-11. 35. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between landscape preferences and place attachment: A study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landscape Research, 27(4), 381-396. 36. Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26(1-4), 193-201. 37. Kaplan, R. (1984). Impact of urban nature: A theoretical analysis. Urban Ecology, 8(3), 189-197. 38. Kaplan, R., & Austin, M. E. (2003). Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3), 235-243. 39. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People in Mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press. 40. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356. 41. Karr, J. R. (1990). Biological integrity and the goal of environmental legislation: lessons for conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 4(3), 244-250. 42. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.), (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 43. Lamb, R. J., & Purcell, A. T. (1990). Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19(4), 333-352. 44. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press. 45. Machado, A. (2004). An index of naturalness. Journal for Nature Conservation, 12(2), 95-110. 46. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84(1), 7-19. 47. Mcintyre, N. E., Knowles-Yánez, K., & Hope, D. (2000). Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosystems, 4(1), 5-24. 48. Millard, A. (2004). Indigenous and spontaneous vegetation: Their relationship to urban development in the city of Leeds, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3(1), 39-47. 49. Morancho, A. B. (2003). A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66(1), 35-41. 50. Naderi, J. R., & Raman, B. (2005). Capturing impressions of pedestrian landscapes used for healing purposes with decision tree learning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(2-3), 155-166. 51. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 10(4), 229-237. 52. Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375-383. 53. Ode, Å., Tveit, M. S., & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1), 89-117. 54. Özgüner, H., & Kendle, A. D. (2006). Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planning, 74(2), 139-157. 55. Özgüner, H., Kendle, A. D., & Bisgrove, R. J. (2007). Attitudes of landscape professionals towards naturalistic versus formal urban landscapes in the UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(1-2), 34-45. 56. Parsons, R., Tassinary, L. G., Ulrich, R. S., Hebl, M. R., & Grossman-Alexander, M. (1998). The view from the road implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(2), 113-140. 57. Price, J. (1999). Flight Maps. New York: Basic Books. 58. Purcell, A. T. (1992). Abstract and specific physical attributes and the experience of landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 34(3), 159-177. 59. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and Naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 57-66. 60. Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Peron, E. M., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(3), 195-209. 61. Reif, A., & Walentowski, H. (2008). The assessment of naturalness and its role for nature conservation and forestry in Europe. Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz, 6, 63-76. 62. Relph, E. (1987). The Modern Urban Landscape. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 63. Robertson, D. P., & Hull, R. B. (2001). Which Nature? A case study of white top mountain. Landscape Journal, 20(2), 176-185. 64. Rolston, H. (1988). Environmental Ethics: Duties to and values in the natural world. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press. 65. Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 179-192. 66. Scenic America. (1999). O, Say, Can You See: A visual awareness tool kit for communities. Washington, DC: Scenic America. 67. Schroeder, H. W. (1991). Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 231-248. 68. Sullivan, W. C., & Lovell, S. T. (2006). Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1-2), 152-166. 69. Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 414-424. 70. Tuan, Y.-F. (1979). Thought and landscape. In D. W. Meinig & J. B. Jackson (Eds.), The interpretation of ordinary landscapes: Geographical essays. New York: Oxford University Press. 71. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44. 72. Weller, R. P. (2006). Discovering Nature: Globalization and environmental culture in China and Taiwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 73. Wohlwill, J. F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist's view. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment, (p.5-38). New York: Plenum Press. 74. Wright, D. H. (1990). Human impacts on energy flow through natural ecosystems, and implications for species endangerment. Ambio, 19(4), 189-194. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10258 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 近年來,大眾開始注意到自然環境的重要性,相關研究多使用客觀的實質視覺指標作為自然程度分野之依據。然而,受到不同文化、背景及各種條件等影響,對於環境主觀的認知自然度也不盡相同。本研究基於自然為社會建構的概念,主要目的為瞭解都市環境中影響人們主觀認知自然度的因子,除了一般常見的視覺元素之外,是否還有其他抽象意涵的影響因子。因此,本研究以三個不同的實驗來探索此一問題。
本研究第一階段為蒐集都市環境中的景觀組成元素與自然度之間的關係,使用主動式照相法及開放式問卷填答的方法,請受試者選擇相對自然的戶外空間拍攝照片,並將回收的照片作內容分析,歸納出一般大眾認為自然的元素。實驗結果得到兩個主要的影響類別為「視覺上實質的自然」及「抽象形式的自然」,各類別又可細分為多項元素。 第二階段進一步使用量化方式探討認知自然度之向度,參考第一階段研究結果,將這些可能的因素透過相片因素分析方法,抽取出影響都市環境中認知自然度之因素。結果顯示,在都市環境中得到三個影響自然度的向度為「建築立面及結構物」、「對整體環境的熟悉感受」和「環境中的天然元素」。 第三階段則是根據前面兩個階段的實驗結果,搜尋這些向度中可能影響認知自然度的特定因子,針對這些因子是否對人們認知自然度具有影響力作深入探討。首先,篩選出欲測試的因子,確立變項並建立研究假設,接著將篩選出的因子進行照片模擬,透過網路問卷調查進行資料蒐集。結果顯示,四項實質的環境因子(植被開花、田園景觀、老舊元素和塑膠火鶴)皆會影響人們主觀認知自然度。未來於都市環境設計中,若能控制此四項因子其背後的抽象意涵(健康、鄉村氣息、老舊感受及受人為影響),將可透過規劃或設計之手法,塑造出能讓使用者感覺自然的空間,進而改善都市生活的環境品質。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Many researchers have shown that visual elements have been widely used for evaluating naturalness. However, the perceived naturalness of the environments is cultural and social constructed. Based on the concept of cultured nature, the main purpose of this study is to identify elements that influence humans’ perceived naturalness in urban environments, and to understand the relationship between elements and humans’ perceived naturalness. Volunteer‐employed photography method and content analysis were used in study1. All participants were asked to take photos in several places where they though it is natural. After receiving the returns of photos, the contents of these photos were categorized. The findings indicated that there are two categories have effect on perceived naturalness. One is visual elements, and the other is non-visual elements. Based on the results of study1, an online survey was conducted to investigate the dimensions and meanings of perceived naturalness in study2. Factor analysis was used to categorize the photos with similar considerations of naturalness. The findings showed that there were three main factors. The first factor was the facet and volume of building, the second was the familiarity of the environments, and the environment with natural elements was the last factor. Study3 was to test the specific elements which have effect on perceived naturalness based on the results of study1 and study2. Through a photo-based online survey, all elements were manipulated and compared. The results revealed that there were four elements have positive effect on perceived naturalness, including flowers, farmland, old elements, and plastic pink flamingo. The current study suggests that people perceived environmental naturalness from different sources, including physical and abstract factors. The results will contribute to our understanding of natural environment. It will also improve the way we design and manage environment if we can control the meanings of these elements, such as healthy, rural, and old materials. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T21:14:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R97628316-1.pdf: 3249830 bytes, checksum: 51a5138162d05781ca918e8ec1110861 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的與範圍 3 一、 研究目的 3 二、 研究範圍 4 第三節 研究內容與流程 5 一、 緒論 5 二、 文獻回顧 5 三、 研究方法 5 四、 研究結果 5 五、 結論建議 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 自然與自然度 7 一、 自然的定義 7 二、 自然度的定義 10 三、 自然度的測量方式 12 四、 自然度之相關效益 18 五、 小結 24 第二節 都市景觀空間 27 一、 都市環境結構 27 二、 都市景觀組成元素 29 三、 都市環境中的自然 29 四、 小結 30 第三節 研究問題 31 一、 都市環境及其景觀組成元素與自然度之關係 32 二、 都市環境中認知自然度之向度 32 三、 都市環境中的特定因子與認知自然度之探討 32 第三章 都市環境及其景觀組成元素與自然度之關係 33 第一節 研究方法 33 一、 研究地點及參與對象 33 二、 資料蒐集工具及步驟 34 三、 資料處理及分析方法 35 第二節 實驗結果 37 一、 影響自然度之因素分類架構 37 二、 視覺上實質的自然類別 38 三、 抽象形式的自然類別 44 第三節 小結 49 第四章 都市環境中認知自然度之向度 50 第一節 研究方法 50 一、 環境照片及參與對象 50 二、 資料蒐集工具及步驟 52 三、 資料處理及分析方法 52 第二節 實驗結果 53 一、 受測者基本資料 53 二、 自然度之平均數 53 三、 自然度之向度 56 第三節 小結 60 第五章 都市環境中的特定因子與認知自然度之探討 61 第一節 研究方法 61 一、 研究架構 61 二、 研究假設 62 三、 實驗設計 67 第二節 實驗結果 79 一、 受試者基本資料 79 二、 結果分析與討論 81 第三節 小結 102 第六章 結論與建議 104 第一節 研究結論 104 一、 研究結果與前人研究結果之比較 105 二、 影響主觀認知自然度之因子討論 106 第二節 綜合討論 109 一、 「植被枯萎」因子 109 二、 「受到人為修整」因子 110 三、 「能夠被人進入」因子 110 四、 「壁畫含天然元素」因子 110 五、 「熟悉」因子 111 第三節 研究價值與應用 112 第四節 後續研究建議 113 參考文獻 114 附 錄 122 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 都市環境中認知自然度之影響因子探討 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Factors Affecting Perceived Naturalness in Urban Environments | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州,林寶秀,張俊彥,曾慈慧 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 自然的,人工的,建構式自然,認知自然度, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | natural,artificial,cultured nature,perceived naturalness, | en |
dc.relation.page | 127 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-02-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 園藝暨景觀學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf | 3.17 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。