Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 生物資源暨農學院
  3. 園藝暨景觀學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/41075
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor張俊彥
dc.contributor.authorChun-Yuan Hsiaoen
dc.contributor.author蕭淳元zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-14T17:15:23Z-
dc.date.available2011-08-17
dc.date.copyright2011-08-17
dc.date.issued2011
dc.date.submitted2011-08-12
dc.identifier.citation1.黃偉銘、歐聖榮、張俊彥,(2006),以鳥類為指標物種評估台灣鄉村地區景觀生態研究尺度,造園景觀學報,12(4),1-21。
2.Andrews, M., & Gatersleben, B. (2010). Variations in perceptions of danger, fear and preference in a simulated natural environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 473-481.
3.Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape. (London: Wiley).
4.Burel, F., & Baudry, J. (1995). Species biodiversity in changing agricultural landscapes: A case study in the Pays d'Auge, France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 55(3), 193-200.
5.Cackowski, J. M., & Nasar, J. L. (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation - Implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 736-751.
6.Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. C. (1976). Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method, 167, Fort Collins, Colorado, USDA Forest Service.
7.Diamond, A. W., Schreiber, E. A., 劉小如, & 陳奇祿 (1987). 救救我們-從鳥類存亡看人類未來. 台北: 中華民國自然生態保育協會.
8.Farina, A. (1998). Principles and methods in landscape ecology. Chapman and Hall, London.
9.Forman, R. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
10.Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. New York.
11.Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, a., & Velarde, M. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9(5), 933-947.
12.Gontier, M., Balfors, B., & Mortberg, U. (2006). Biodiversity in environmental assessment--current practice and tools for prediction. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(3), 268-286.
13.Hartig, T. (1993). Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 25, 17–36
14.Hartig, T., Book, A., Garvill, J., Olsson, T., & Garling, T. (1996). Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37, 378-393.
15.Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Garling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14, 175–194.
16.Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(3), 215-226.
17.Haines-Young, R. (2009). Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy, 26(Supplement 1), S178-S186.
18.Han, K. T. (2007). Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 529-556.
19.Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-344.
20.Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(2), 165-170.
21.Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J., (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449.
22.Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 819-835.
23.Herzog, T. R., Colleen, Maguire, P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159-170.
24.Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659-677.
25.Johnson, D. H. (1980). The Comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology, 61(1), 65-71.
26.Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(3), 135-150.
27.Kahn, P. H., Jr. (1999). The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J., (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354-356.
29.Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research, 6, 163-203.
30.Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.Kaplan, S. (1993). The role of natural environment aesthetics in the restorative experience. In: Gobster, P.H., Editor, Managing Urban and High-use Recreation Settings General Technical Report NC-163, Forest Service, USDA, St. Paul, MN, 46-49.
32.Laumann, K., Garling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 31-44.
33.Leitao, A., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 65-93.
34.Leitao, J., Miller, J., Ahern, & McGarigal, K. (2006). Measuring landscapes: A planner's handbook, Island Press, Washington, DC.
35.Lohr, V. I. (2007). Benefits of nature: What we are learning about why people respond to nature. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 26, 83-85.
36.Mortberg, U. M., Balfors, B., & Knol, W. C. (2007). Landscape ecological assessment: A tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment and planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 82(4), 457-470.
37.Ode, a., 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.
38.Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. 555-579. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.Opdam, P., Steingroer, E., & Rooij, S. v. (2006). Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3-4), 322-332.
40.Parsons, R., & Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(1), 43-56.
41.Pino, J., Rod, F., Ribas, J., & Pons, X. (2000). Landscape structure and bird species richness: implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 35-48.
42.Proenca, V. M., Pereira, H. M., & Jerome, O. N. (2011). Ecosystem changes, biodiversity loss and human well-being. Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, 215-224. Burlington: Elsevier.
43.Purcell, A.T., & Lamb, R.J. (1984). Landscape perception: An examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. Journal of Environmental Management, 19, 31–63
44.Purcell, A.T. (1987). Landscape perception, preference, and schema discrepancy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 14, 67-92.
45.Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Mainardi Peron, E., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(3), 195-209.
46.Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 57-66.
47.Savard, J.-P. L., Clergeau, P., & Mennechez, G. (2000). Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4), 131-142.
48.Smardon, R. C. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(1-2), 85-106.
49.Sorrell, J. (1997). Using geographic information systems to evaluate forest fragmentation and identify wildlife corridor opportunities in the Cataraqui Watershed. Online paper. Ontario, Canada: Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University.
50.Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 1-16.
51.Steinitz, C. (1990). Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19(3), 213-250.
52.Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present : Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(4-5), 375-424.
53.Tveit, M., Ode, a., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229-255.
54.Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects, Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556.
55.Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In: I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill, Editors, Human Behavior and Environment, 6, 85-125, New York: Plenum.
56.Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421.
57.Ulrich, S. R. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert, & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island press.
58.van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135-146.
59.Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
60.Williams, K. J. H., & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 257-274.
61.Woodcock, D. M. (1984). A functionalist approach to landscape preference. Landscape Research, 9(2), 24-27.
62.Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 1-33.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/41075-
dc.description.abstract本研究目的主要是藉由景觀生態的觀點,透過不同區位環境及生物多樣性兩種角度,來表示環境的生態性,在此概念下將環境分為不同的生態性類型,來探討其對人知覺感受的影響。本研究在第一部份區位環境研究中,以Forman(1995)的生態策略點與邊緣效應理論為基礎,依照理論論述的概念,選擇景觀結構模型中三個代表性位置,分別為森林內、森林邊緣及森林外,來作為三種不同生態性之環境類型代表,並以照片來呈現人在該位置活動所看到的環境景觀。在第二部份生物多樣性環境研究中,選擇台灣大學梅峰山地農場做為研究基地,以鳥類多樣性來代表不同程度的環境生態性,並依其高低分類為高生物多樣性、中生物多樣性及低生物多樣性等三種環境類型,而後依照各類型之環境特性,以現地拍照方式來做為受測者在這三種環境類型中活動時所見到之景觀。
本研究欲探討受測者感受方面是以Kaplan和Kaplan (1989)提出預測影響偏好之四項環境訊息因子:一致性、複雜性、神秘性與易讀性,以及受測者對自然與安全兩項知覺感受因子。兩部份實驗皆以相片評估法來測量評估受測者的知覺感受。透過實驗假設之驗證,結果發現,以不同區位來將環境作生態性的分類時,人們對於森林內的環境類型偏好大於在森林外及森林邊緣的環境類型。在環境訊息因子的知覺感受部份,除了易讀性與安全感受評分最低外,一致性、神秘性、複雜性及自然感受評分皆以在森林內所看見的環境景觀評分最高;而在以生物多樣性作為不同環境之生態性分類時,人們對於中生物多樣性的環境類型最為偏好,其次是高生物多樣性環境,低生物多樣性之環境類型則最不被偏好,在環境訊息因子部份,一致性、神祕性、易讀性與安全感受皆以中生物多樣性環境類型最高,複雜性與自然感受則是在高生物多樣性環境類型中評分最高。
從兩部份研究結果顯示,無論從區位環境或是生物多樣性的角度定義下,人對於環境類型的知覺與偏好感受會因環境的生態性不同而有所不同。而研究結果將可應用於自然環境地區對於物種、資源保護及環境開發,並提供人類遊憩空間規劃及活動使用安排之原則參考。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe main purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of different ecological environment on people’s preference, perceived naturalness and safety for natural landscape. Through the viewpoint of landscape ecology, we use two ways to define the concept of ecological environment: (1) regional environment and (2) biodiversity. In regional environment study, according to the concepts of strategic point and edge effect theory, we define ecological environment as three landscape types: landscape in the forest (F), landscape on the edge of forest (E) and landscape out of forest (O). The photo evaluation method were adopted in this study, 101 respondents’ responses were collected. The result showed that landscape in the forest was the most preferred one and had the highest rating of coherence, mystery and complexity. But they also felt unsafe the most in the forest. In biodiversity environment study, the biodiversity were used to define different ecological environments. Bird diversity was used as environmental indicators in this study and we collected 32 sites’ bird data of numbers and species. Three landscape types: high (H), medium (M) and low (L) was classified according to bird diversity. Onsite photo of the landscape that represented the three different landscape types of ecological environments were showed to the 313 participants to collect their response. The result showed that people prefer landscape of medium biodiversity the most. Comparing to high and low biodiversity landscape, people would have higher sense of coherence, mystery, legibility and safety. The most natural environment was not the most favorite one. From the verification of two studies, we could understand that people have different perception for different ecological environments. When the environment has the features of coherence and mystery, people would get higher preference. It could be used as reference in land development and environmental protection in the future.en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-14T17:15:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-100-R98628302-1.pdf: 5933412 bytes, checksum: 438f62443d6beec7bcf059918c8148f8 (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 3
第三節 研究範圍限制與重要性 4
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 景觀生態學 5
第二節 景觀知覺 12
第三節 小結 20
第四節 研究概念 21
第三章 區位環境研究 23
第一節 研究方法 23
第二節 實驗結果 28
第四章 生物多樣性環境研究 37
第一節 研究方法 37
第二節 實驗結果 49
第五章 結論與建議 59
第一節 研究結論 59
第二節 研究建議 63
參考文獻 65
附錄一:區位環境研究問卷 73
附錄二:生物多樣性環境研究之梅峰地區鳥類資料整理表 77
附錄三:生物多樣性環境研究之不同生態性環境樣點空照圖 79
附錄四:生物多樣性環境研究問卷 83
附錄五:原文摘錄 91
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.subject安全感受zh_TW
dc.subject自然感受zh_TW
dc.subject景觀偏好zh_TW
dc.subject生態性zh_TW
dc.subjectsafetyen
dc.subjectEcologicalen
dc.subjectnaturalnessen
dc.subjectpreferenceen
dc.title以景觀生態觀點探討受測者景觀知覺感受研究zh_TW
dc.titleFrom the Viewpoint of Landscape Ecology to Explore Landscape Perceptionen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear99-2
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee歐聖榮,林晏州,葉德銘,鄭佳昆
dc.subject.keyword生態性,景觀偏好,自然感受,安全感受,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordEcological,preference,naturalness,safety,en
dc.relation.page104
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2011-08-12
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
  未授權公開取用
5.79 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


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。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved