請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63477完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ying-Chieh Lee | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李盈婕 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T16:44:21Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2017-08-28 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2012-08-28 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2012-08-21 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 于正倫,(2004),景觀與環境設施設計,台北:田園城市文化。
2. 王珮琪,(1998),風景區設施色彩適合度影響因子之探討,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝系研究所,台北。 3. 交通部觀光局,(1987),風景區公共設施設計準則及參考圖集,台北:交通部觀光局。 4. 吳明隆, (2008),SPSS操作與應用多變量分析實務,台北:五南。 5. 吳啟宏,(2007),文字/背景色彩組合之語意差別分析,碩士論文,國立台灣科技大學工業管理系,台北。 6. 卓子瑾,(2006),國家公園設施與景觀相融合之研究,碩士論文,國立台北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所,台北。 7. 林昆範,(2008),色彩原論,台北:全華圖書股份有限公司。 8. 林書堯,(1991),色彩認識論,台北:三民書局。 9. 胡文青,(2007),台灣的公園,台北:遠足文化。 10. 梁家嘉,(1995),環境開發程度與步道舖面適合度之研究,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝系研究所,台北。 11. 莊明振、高清漢,(1997),台灣產品形象定位之探討,設計學報,2(2),37-54。 12. 陳傳興,(1992), 建築物造形及色彩所引起之視覺改變與視覺偏好,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝系研究所,台北。 13. 曾國雄、聶志高、王惠靜、賴裕鵬,(2010),以「語意差異法」評價建築立面之風格意象-以台中市七期重劃區「第一種住宅區」住宅為例,建築學報,71,27-48。 14. 黃瑞育,(1992),遊憩區開發程度與遊憩設施色彩選擇之研究—以涼亭為例,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝系研究所,台北。 15. 廖逸村,(2007),色彩意象與審美度在建築色彩計畫上的應用研究,碩士論文,國立成功大學工業設計學系,台南。 16. 劉吉川,(1984),人為措施對環境美質衝擊之研究,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝系研究所,台北。 17. 鄭佳昆,(1995),相片評估造園材料之可行性研究:以舖面為例,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝系研究所,台北。 18. 賴瓊琦,(1997),設計的色彩心理:色彩的意象與色彩文化,台北:視傳文化出版社。 19. Anderson, L. M. (1981). Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest Science, 27, 392-400. 20. Biederman, I. (1972). Perceiving real-world scenes. Science, 177, 77-80. 21. Brief, A. P., Butcher, A.H., George, J.M., & Link, K.E. (1993). Integrating vottom-up and top-dwon of subjective well-being: The caase of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 646-653. 22. Brunson, M. (1994). Effects of Ecological Information on Judgments about Scenic Impacts of Timber Harvest. Journal of environmental Management, (46), 31-41. 23. Buhyoff, G. J., Wellman, J. D., & Daniel, T. C. (1982). Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science, 28, 827-838. 24. Burchett, K. E. (2002). Color harmony. Color Research and Application, 27, 28-31. 25. Chuang, M. C., & Ou, L. C. (2001). Influence of holistic color interval on color harmony. Color Research and Application, 26(29-39). 26. Creswell, T. (1996). In place/out of place: Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 27. Cubukcu, E. (2008). Hue, Saturation, Lightness, and Building Exterior Preference: An Empirical Study in Turkey Comparing Architects’ and Nonarchitects’ Evaluative and Cognitive Judgments. COLOR research and application, 33, 395-405. 28. David, J. P., Green, P.J., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). Differential roles of neuroticism, extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An integrative model of top-down and bottom-up influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 149-159. 29. Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concept of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge. 30. Feisner, E. A. (2000). Color. London: Laurence King. 31. Gage, J. (1995). Colour and culture. London: Thames and Hudson. 32. Garcia, L. (2003). Analysis of the exterior colour of agroindustrial buildings: a computer aided approach to landscape integration. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 93-104. 33. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. 34. Groat, L. (1984). Public opinions of contextual fit. Architecture, November, 72-75. 35. Hard, A., & Sivik, L. (2001a). A theory of colors in combination: A desceiptive model related to the NCS color-order system. Color research and application, 26(1), 4-28. 36. Hard, A., & Sivik, L. (2001b). A theory of colors in combination: A descriptive model related to the NCS color-order system. Color Research and Application, 26(1), 4-28. 37. Heise, D. R. (1970). The Semantic Differential and Attitude Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. 38. Hodgson, R. W., & Thayer, R. L. J. (1980). Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landcape Planning, 7, 18-21. 39. Iijima, S. (1997). Cross-cultural color differences of commercial facility between Great Britain and Japan. Bulletin of Okayama Marketing University, 33(2), 39-51. 40. Inui, M. (1966). Pratical analysis of interior color environment. Tokyo: Building Research Institute. 41. Ittelson, W. H. (1973). Environment and cognition. New York: Seminar Press. 42. Itten, J. (1961). The art of color. New York: John Wiley. 43. Janssens, J. (2001). Facade colours, not just a matter of personal taste. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 14, 11-16. 44. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect and cogmition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. . Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32. 45. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger. 46. Kaya, N., & Crosby, M. (2006). Color Associations with Different Building Types: An Experimental Study on American College Students. COLOR research and application, 31(1), 67-71. 47. Klaaren, K. J., Hodges, S. D., & Wilson, T. D. (1994). The role of affective expectations in subjective experience and decisionmaking. Social Cognition, 12, 77-101. 48. Lenclos, J.-P. (1976). Living in color. London: Studio Vista. 49. Manav, B. (2007). Color-emotion associations and color preferences: A case study for residences. Color Research and Application, 32(2), 144-150. 50. Marcus, G., & Matell, H. (1979). Colors on the exterior walls of the buildings of the apartment complex at Vastra Flemingsberg, Huddinge, Sweden. Leonardo, 12(2), 89-93. 51. McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K.S., Montague, L.M., &, & Montague, P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44(379-387). 52. Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meaning of house meaning. Environment and Behavior, 21(3), 235-257. 53. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative exteriors. Environment and Behaviour, 26(3), 377-401. 54. O'Connor, Z. (2008). Facade colour and aesthetic response: Examining patterns of response within the context of urban design and planning policy in Sydney. Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Sydney, Sydney. 55. Osgood, C. E., Tannenbaum, P. H., & Suci, G. J. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 56. Palmer, S. E. (1975). The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Memory & Cognition, 3, 519-526. 57. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form – towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. Oxford: Pergamon. 58. Rapoport, A. (1990). The Meaning of the Built Environment. 59. Sivik, L. (1974). Color meaning and perceptual color cimensions: study of exterior colors. Goteborg Psychological Reports, 4(11). 60. Slatter, P. E., & Whitfield, T. W. A. (1977). Room Function and Appropriateness Judgments of Color. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 1068-1070. 61. Sorte, G. J. (1973). Significance of components in environmental settings. Architectural psychology: Proceedings of the Lund conference, 198-210. 62. Stamps, A. E. (1993). A Study in Scale and Character: Contextual Effects on Environmental Preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 42, 223-245. 63. Stamps, A. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Boston: Kluwer. 64. Ulrich, R. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 85-125. 65. Unver, R., & Ozturk, L. D. (2002). An example of facade color design of mass housing. Color Research and Application, 27(4), 291-299. 66. Wardle, J., & Solomons, W. (1994). Naughty but nice: A laboratory study of health information and food preferences in a community sample. Health Psychology, 13, 180-183. 67. Wohlwill, J. (1978). What belongs where: research on the fittingness of man-made structures in natural settings. landscape Research,, 3(3), 3-5. 68. Yatmo, Y. A. (2009). Perception of street vendors as ‘out of place’ urban elements at day time and night time. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 467–476. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63477 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 人為設施物於環境中的適合度一直是景觀設計與環境管理規劃等相關研究的重要議題。近年關於設施物於特定環境中適合度評估的研究,以設施物的色彩、材質或建築屬性用以量測與背景環境之適合程度,所談及的適合度僅多屬於視覺上的協調感受,然而環境刺激的知覺過程除了視覺層面的感受,還包含整體環境所隱含之意義層面的認知。許多文獻已證實景觀偏好會受到不同的環境資訊和意義所影響,而人為設施物的用途或功能,也被認為是影響環境相容性感知的因子之一。過去針對環境適合度之研究多未進一步討論實質環境中隱含的意義對受測者造成的其他知覺影響。因此,本研究主要目的為藉由給予色彩涼亭照片不同的地點標籤,探討景觀設施於自然環境背景中的適用色彩,是否受到地點意義的影響而改變色彩適合程度的評估,並以環境脈絡相容性的角度,重新檢驗過去景觀色彩研究中所建議之適合色彩。
本研究分為三個階段進行,第一階段調查不同戶外遊憩地點在語意上的差異,第二階段調查不同戶外遊憩地點的色彩聯想與設施物適合色彩,第三階段探討地點標籤對涼亭色彩適合度的影響。主要研究結果顯示在相同背景之14種涼亭配色中,有三種涼亭配色在不同地點標籤處理下其適合度評估有顯著差異。褐屋頂白柱子的適合度在古蹟遺址或國家公園的標籤下最高,在主題樂園的標籤下最低;黃屋頂白柱子的適合度在主題樂園的標籤下最高,標籤為國家公園時最低;黃屋頂黃柱子的適合度在主題樂園的標籤下最高,在標籤為古蹟遺址或無標籤時最低。本研究結果可作為未來環境規劃及景觀設計之參考。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Recent Studies on specific environmental fittingness of landscape facilities had emphasized on the congruence of facilities’ color, texture, or architectural attributes with their surroundings. These studies stressed on the visual perception of the physical environment, however, perceptive processes from environmental stimulus also encompass other senses and cognitions. Environmental psychologists had pointed out that preferences of landscape could be varied by denotative and connotative meanings evoked from places. Furthermore, function of man-made objects has been suggested to be a factor attributes to the sense of contextual fittingness. Accordingly, the main purpose of this study is to figure out whether the evaluations of color fittingness of gazebo would vary among different place meanings. There first step of this study investigated semantic differential on recreational places, second step investigated associational colors and suitable colors of landscape facilities of recreational places, the third step examined the effects of gazebo color fittingness by place labels. The main results of this study indicated that the gazebo with brown roof and white pillar was the most fittingness one when it labeled as historical site or national park, the least fittingness in theme park label. The gazebo with yellow roof and white pillar was considered the most fittingness when it labeled as theme park, and the least fittingness when it labeled as national park. The yellow roof and yellow pillar was considered the most fittingness when it labeled as theme park, and the least fittingness when it labeled as historical site or without label. The present study suggests and supplies an appropriate planning policy of environmental design. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T16:44:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R97628308-1.pdf: 10549578 bytes, checksum: 85c5c4bcd32b27a878af3de38bc2bcbd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書i
中文摘要 iii Abstract iv 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究內容及流程 4 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 環境行為相關理論 5 一、環境知覺與環境評估 5 二、環境美學 6 三、資訊對景觀評估的影響 6 四、地方與意義 7 第二節 色彩相關理論及研究 8 一、色彩學理論 8 二、色彩適合度相關研究 11 第三節 適合度的概念及相關研究 12 一、適合的概念 12 二、相關實證研究 13 第四節 小結 15 第三章 研究設計 18 第一節 戶外遊憩地點之語意差異 18 一、研究工具 18 二、資料處理與分析方法 21 三、實驗結果 22 四、小結 34 第二節 不同戶外遊憩地點之色彩聯想與設施適合色彩 35 一、研究工具 35 二、資料處理與分析方法 37 三、實驗結果 38 四、小結 46 第三節 地點意義對涼亭色彩適合度之影響探討 47 一、研究工具 47 第四章 研究結果 53 第一節 研究樣本 53 第二節 地點標籤對涼亭色彩調和感受之影響 53 第三節 不同地點標籤對涼亭色彩景觀偏好之影響 56 第四節 不同地點標籤對涼亭色彩適合度之影響 67 第五章 結論與建議 79 第一節 研究結論與討論 79 一、戶外遊憩地點之語意義異 79 二、不同戶外地點之色彩聯想與設施適合色彩 81 三、地點標籤對涼亭色彩適合度之影響 82 第二節 研究限制與後續研究建議 84 第三節 研究應用 84 參考文獻 85 附錄一 92 附錄二 104 附錄三 117 附錄四 120 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 色彩適合度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 景觀設施 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 地點意義 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Place Meaning | en |
| dc.subject | Landscape Facilities | en |
| dc.subject | Color Fittingness | en |
| dc.title | 地點意義對景觀設施色彩適合度之影響探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Examining the Effects of Place Meaning on Environmental Fittingness of Color of Landscape Facilities | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州,張俊彥,歐聖榮,顏宏旭 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 地點意義,景觀設施,色彩適合度, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Place Meaning,Landscape Facilities,Color Fittingness, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 130 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2012-08-21 | |
| 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-101-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 10.3 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。
