請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8131完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張育森(Yu-Sen Chang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tsz-Wai So | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 蘇梓維 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T00:49:08Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-08-24 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T00:49:08Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2020-08-24 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2020-08-19 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 小黑晃. 2009. 自然香草園. 楓書坊文化出版社. 臺北. 王小璘. 1999. 都市公園綠量視覺評估之研究. 設計學報 4:61-90. 王行健. 1993. 國家植物園入口區與臺灣植物園區之設計. 東海大學景觀設計學系碩士論文. 任栩辉、刘青林. 2015. 可食景观的功能与发展. 农业科技与信息: 现代园林. 12.10:737-746. 吳奕萱. 2016. 臺北市大安森林公園之植栽生長表現與景觀美質評估. 臺灣大學園藝暨景觀學系學位論文. 张振贤、艾希珍、张福墁. 2001. 蔬菜作物光合作用研究进展. 园艺学报:627-632. 李育全. 2002. 浅谈城市环境与植物的配置. 中山大学学报论丛第22卷 第3期. 李宥杉、胡湘郇、林宗賢. 2013. 台中市秋紅谷廣場使用後評估之研究. 年休閒運動學術研討會論文集. 李英弘、梁文嘉. 2000. 景觀評估中之心理學模式之研究. 造園景觀學報 7:67-87. 李雅君. 2016. 都市導入可食地景策略與現況探索-以新北市為例. 逢甲大學景觀與遊憩碩士學位學程學位論文. 李霞. 2012. 园林植物色彩对人的生理和心理的影响. 北京林业大学博士论文. 周晨毅. 2007. 园林设计中简约风格的研究. 南京林业大学硕士论文. 林于晴. 2009. 乾旱及淹水對普通種與 ‘Santa Barbara’迷迭香 (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) 之生長與葉片揮發性香氣成分之影響. 臺灣大學園藝暨景觀學系碩士論文. 林炯明. 2010. 都市熱島效應之影響及其環境意涵. 環境與生態學報 3:1-15. 邱攸園. 2004. 都市街道景觀設計元素之成本效能研究. 臺灣大學園藝學研究所學位論文. 陈开森. 2005. 浅析园林绿地硬质景观设计. 閩西職業技術學院學報 7:125-127. 赵艺源. 2012. 硬质景观材料在景观设计中的应用研究. 西安建筑科技大学硕士论文. 徐原田、劉新裕. 1995. 甜菊 (Stevia vebaudiana Bertoni) 之育種與栽培. 技術服務 23:16-19. 徐振淳. 2019. 新竹市公園綠籬植栽應用之調查與評估. 東海大學景觀學系所碩士論文. 張互華. 2019. 以可食地景角度探討宜蘭農村社區綠地. 宜蘭大學建築與永續規劃研究所學位論文. 張定霖、吳倩芳、邱燕欣、楊佐琦、蕭吉雄. 2005. 香藥草之永續利用. 種苗科技專訊 51:8-13. 張東港. 2013. 台中地區公園地被植物之調查評估. 東海大學景觀學系所碩士論文. 張采依. 2012. 薄層屋頂綠化植物選擇與應用之研究. 臺灣大學園藝學研究所學位論文. 張惠娟. 2016. 屋頂可食地景之降溫研究. 東海大學景觀學系所碩士論文. 章錦瑜、黃惠詩. 2013. 國小學童對香草香味偏好之研究. 林業研究季刊 35:47-58. 陳永春. 2001a. 地被植物之調查, 蒐集與種類篩選試驗. 臺東區農業改良場研究彙報:37-45. 陳永春. 2001b. 國內香草 (氣) 植物介紹. 臺東區農業專訊:17-20. 陳昱心. 2012. 介質特性與栽培管理對綠屋頂植物生育之影響. 國立中興大學園藝學系碩士論文. 陳惠美. 2015. 可食地景 社區/屋頂農場規劃管理. 臺北產經. 曾瓊萱. 2009. 藥用植物園規劃之研究-以屏東科技大學藥用植物園為例. 屏東科技大學景觀暨遊憩管理研究所學位論文:1-142. 谢思远. 2018. 珠三角城市体育中心环境景观优化研究. 仲恺农业工程学院硕士论文. 黃雅玲. 2003. 甜菊. 高雄區農情月刊67:4. 黃雅玲. 2006. 香草植物適應性評估. 高雄區農業改良場年報:91-91. 楊昆翰. 2008. 都市公園綠地喬木維護管理之研究. 中國文化大學景觀研究所碩士論文. 廖艳红. 1999. 试论城市硬质景观的设计与建设. 中外建筑 2. 廖祯妮. 2014. 不同地区薰衣草引种与耐湿热研究. 湖南农业大学硕士学位论文. 臺北市政府. 2013. 臺北市田園城市推廣實施計畫. 臺北. 臺北市政府工務局. 2016. 行道樹樹種選擇原則. 蔡瑩儒. 2017. 閒置公有空間發展都市農業可行性分析—以新北市五股區 [德音休閒廣場] 為例. 臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所學位論文. 薛銘童. 2012. 氣候變遷下蔬菜栽培的新思維-原生蔬菜. 臺東區農業專訊:8-11. 薛銘童. 2014. 栽培管理容易的原生蔬菜-紅鳳菜. 臺東區農情月刊 176. 謝志楷. 2009. 香草植物在造園景觀應用上之研究. 屏東科技大學景觀暨遊憩管理研究所學位論文. 謝孟倫、林晏州. 2011. 景觀色彩對自然景觀偏好之影響. 戶外遊憩研究 24:27-50. 魏晉興. 2014. 屋頂薄層綠化採用低維護植物之降溫評估. 東海大學景觀學系所碩士論文. Amarawardana, L., P. Bandara, V. Kumar, J. Pettersson, V. Ninkovic, and R. Glinwood. 2007. Olfactory response of Myzus persicae (Homoptera: Aphididae) to volatiles from leek and chive: potential for intercropping with sweet pepper. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science 57:87-91. Berke, P. and D. Godschalk. 2009. Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature 23:227-240. Çelik, F. 2017. The importance of edible landscape in the cities. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science Technology 5:118-124. De Kimpe, C.R. and J.-L. Morel. 2000. Urban soil management: a growing concern. Soil Science 165:31-40. Ellis, L. and C. Ficek. 2001. Color preferences according to gender and sexual orientation. Personality Individual Differences 31:1375-1379. Finch, S. and R. Collier. 2000. Host‐plant selection by insects–a theory based on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects of cruciferous plants. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 96:91-102. Forman, R.T. 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 10:133-142. Gage, M.T. and M. Vandenberg. 1975. Hard landscape in concrete. Architectural Press. Jim, C.Y. 2000. The urban forestry programme in the heavily built-up milieu of Hong Kong. Cities 17:271-283. Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. Toward a synthesis: The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. UK: Cambridge University Press. Katz, S. and F. Breed. 1922. The color preferences of children. Journal of Applied Psychology 6:255. Kowarik, I. 2008. On the role of alien species in urban flora and vegetation, p. 321-338.). Urban ecology. Springer. Levitt, J. 1980. Responses of plants to environmental stress, Volume 1: Chilling, freezing, and high temperature stresses. Academic Press. Likert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology 22: 55. Loidl, H. and S. Bernard. 2014. Open (ing) spaces: Design as landscape architecture. Walter de Gruyter. Mogk, J.E., S. Wiatkowski, and M.J. Weindorf. 2010. Promoting urban agriculture as an alternative land use for vacant properties in the city of Detroit: Benefits, problems and proposals for a regulatory framework for successful land use integration. Wayne L. Rev. 56:1521. Ochoa, O. and C. Quiros. 1989. Apium wild species: novel sources for resistance to late blight in celery. Plant breeding 102:317-321. Park, S.A., A.Y. Lee, K.C. Son, W.L. Lee, and D.S. Kim. 2016. Gardening intervention for physical and psychological health benefits in elderly women at community centers. HortTechnology 26:474-483. Philbrick, H. and R.B. Gregg. 2012. Companion plants and how to use them. SteinerBooks. Pyšek, P. 1998. Alien and native species in Central European urban floras: a quantitative comparison. Journal of Biogeography 25:155-163. Riordan, R.J., C.S. Williams, and Aging. 1988. Gardening therapeutics for the elderly. Activities, Adaptation 12:103-111. Silver, N.C. and R.A. Ferrante. 1995. Sex differences in color preferences among an elderly sample. Perceptual motor skills 80:920-922. Trowbridge, P.J. and N.L. Bassuk. 2004. Trees in the urban landscape: site assessment, design, and installation. John Wiley Sons. Yung, H.E., K.W. Ho, and H.E. Chan. 2017. Elderly satisfaction with planning and design of public parks in high density old districts: An ordered logit model. Landscape Urban Planning 165:39-53. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8131 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 可食地景有著提供食物與美化環境兩大功能,城市中設置可食地景除了可以提供居民健康的食物,對社區凝聚力、社區環境都有改善作用。台灣近年興建了大量的可食地景區,部分興建之可食地景區常因疏於管理、植栽選擇不當等導致植栽枯萎或顔色單一等問題,影響到可食地景之美觀性和實用性。另外,在臺北地區的可食地景,常在設置時偏重於食物種植的功能、而缺乏美觀設計概念,未能完全發揮出可食地景的全盤功能。「快樂農園」為臺北地區重要的可食地景種類之一,是民眾日常接觸的可食地景。因此本研究希望透過一系列之調查與記錄,了解可食地景在植物栽種上和設計規劃上所遇到的難題已提出解決之道。
研究選擇了臺北地區設置一到三年,共35處可食地景調查其植物種類、生長狀況、物種變化及顔色構成。依據植物生長狀況及覆蓋率,為每一種植物作出評分;分為優異(80分以上)、中等(80-60分)及差(60分以下)。結果顯示,35處可食地景中共使用了93種不同植物物種,分別為7種可食觀花植物、15種可食觀葉植物、9種可食觀果植物、41種其他可食植物及21種景觀植物。其中,72種可食用植物中最常用的可食植物有:芳香萬壽菊(Tagetes lemmonii)、迷迭香(Rosmarinus officinalis)、紫蘇(Perilla frutescens)、薄荷(Mentha spicata)、九層塔(Ocimum basilicum)、甘薯(Ipomoea batatas)、香蘭葉(Pandanus amaryllifolius)、到手香(Plectranthus amboinicus)、甜菊(Stevia rebaudiana)及紅鳳菜(Gynura bicolor)。當中芳香萬壽菊、甘薯、到手香及香蘭葉生長勢力及覆蓋率優良、甚少病蟲害,為優異的可食植物;紫蘇、紅鳳菜、九層塔及甜菊生長勢在不同可食地景中不一,需每年更換、或需要較多維護管理,為中等的可食植物;迷迭香及薄荷生長勢覆蓋率不佳、多處被移除,為在臺北市表現較差的可食植物。72種可食植物之生長變化調查結果顯示,可食地景在建造一年後、二年後、三年後顔色比例與物種數雖無顯著差異,但存在物種更替之現象。而在建造一年後、二年後、三年後,最初所使用的植物種類數分別減少21.42%、39.99%、63.13%,可見經常維護之重要性。 實地記錄臺北市大安區大學里中現有之可食地景「快樂農園」中,對整體景觀美質構成影響的因素,並針對每項問題提出對策處理,可歸類成三大類型:景觀規劃、軟景觀(植栽佈置)及硬景觀(設施佈置)。且對民眾發放問卷,以評估民眾對前部分所提出之景觀元素喜好程度,為隨後之實地改造提供景觀元素之應用依據。基地調查結果顯示,大學里快樂農園中存在規劃不當、整體彩度不足、空窗期裸土、植栽盆器雜亂、不良景觀等各種問題。在提出解決方案後,透過對民眾發放問卷了解一般大眾對解決方案中提出之景觀元素之偏好。在設計意念方面,調查結果顯示民眾偏好有機曲線規劃(80%)、受遮蓋的結構(66%)、地景前排造景(77%);在硬件設計方面民眾偏好以碎石作為地景中走道鋪面(56%)、使用白色碎石(88%)及陶色的植栽盆(52%);在植栽設計方面,非食用的前排造景大部分受訪者認為具彩色(91%)較好、而食用部分則以50%紅50%綠的顔色比例較多(49%)。 為了改善大學里現有可食地景「快樂農園」之景觀美質問題、提升景觀價值,問卷在分析過後即對該可食地景進行景觀改造,並在改造後以問卷的方式確認改造的成效。同時為了解在現有之可食地景「快樂農園」的改造中所選用之長期及短期可食植物於栽種後之生長表現,以及社區農園使用者對替換死亡植物、採收等日常維護管理行為,進行為期4個月的改造後追蹤,記錄了植物更換或收成的時間,以及色彩變化。結果顯示,「快樂農園」中三受測區域(入口區、AB區及C區)之喜愛度均有增長,入口區、AB區及C區的喜好度分別增加29.5%、59.4%及71.2%,當中C區之增長最多。另外雖然喜好度的增幅可能被不同背景所影響,但在不同可食地景的使用頻度及性別中,三處受測區域喜好度的增幅無明顯差異存在。在改造後維持度調查方面,調查結果顯示在開始種植一周後已有植物死亡,而在三周後植物存活數則急速下降。在綠色蔬菜中,存活率最高依次為鹿角萵苣(Lactuca sativa L.)、西洋芹(Apium graveolens var. dulce) 、紅葱頭(Allium ascalonicum)、甘藍(Brassica oleracea)及茼蒿(Glebionis coronaria)。在紅色蔬菜中,存活率最高依次為紫甘藍(Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. rubra)、根甜菜(Beta vulgaris)、紅九層塔(Ocimum basilicum var. thyrsiflora)、紅拔葉萵苣(Lactuca sativa L.)及紅卷萵苣(Lactuca sativa L.);另外為了增加「快樂農園」景觀價值而栽種之14種框景植物中,美女櫻(Verbena Hybrida)、斑葉到手香(Plectranthus amboinicus 'Variegata')、馬齒莧(Portulaca oleracea)、迷迭香(Rosmarinus officinalis)、三爪金龍(Euodia ridleyi)、斑葉春不老(Ardisia squamulosa 'Variegata')、火鶴花(Anthurium andraeanum)、黛粉葉(Dieffenbachia seguine)、粗肋草“斑馬”(Aglaonema spp.)、星點木(Dracaena surculosa)、斑葉鳳梨薄荷(Mentha suaveolens 'Variegata')生長勢良好;小黃菊(Chrysanthemum indicum L.)及“紅龍”粗肋草(Aglaonema spp.)部分枝葉枯萎,生長勢一般;斑葉辣薄荷(Mentha × piperita L. ‘Variegata’)過半葉子掉落,生長勢差。而A區、B區及C區所栽種之植物顔色比例亦由75%、25%及50%下降至14%、6%及25%,可見沒有適當維護管理之下短期可食地景很快就喪失彩度。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Edible landscape has two functions: providing food and beautifying the environment. Setting up the edible landscape in the city can not only provide healthy food for residents, but also improve the cohesion of the community and the community environment. Taiwan has constructed a large number of edible landscapes in recent years, and some of the edible landscapes have poorly performed plants. Often, due to negligence of management and improper plant selection, plant wilting or single color problems affect the edible landscape. The beauty and practicality of the scene. In addition, the edible landscapes in the Taipei area are often set with emphasis on the function of food planting, but lack the aesthetic design concept, and fail to fully exert the important functions of the edible landscapes. Community farm is one of the most important types of edible landscapes in the Taipei area. It is the edible landscapes that people are exposed to everyday. Therefore, this study hopes to understand the difficulties encountered in planting and design planning of edible landscape through a series of investigations and records.
The study selected 35 edible landscapes in the Taipei area for one to three years to investigate the plant species, growth status, species changes and color composition. According to the plant growth status and coverage, each plant is scored, divided into excellent (above 80 points), moderate (80-60 points) and poor (60 points or less). The results showed that a total of 93 different plant species were used in the 35 edible landscapes, namely 7 edible ornamental plants, 15 edible ornamental plants, 9 edible ornamental plants, 41 edible plants and 21 kinds of landscape plants. Among the most commonly used edible plants are: Tagetes lemmonii, Rosmarinus officinalis, Perilla frutescens, Mentha spicata, Ocimum basilicum, Ipomoea batatas, Pandanus amaryllifolius, Plectranthus amboinicus, Stevia rebaudiana and Gynura bicolor. The results of the species change survey show that although there is no significant difference between the three groups in the color ratio and the number of species, there is a phenomenon of species replacement. The edible landscape is used in the first year, two years, three years after the construction of the original plant species The numbers were reduced by 21.42%, 39.99%, and 63.13% respectively, showing the importance of frequent maintenance. Through field visits, the experiment recorded the factors that affect the overall landscape beauty in the existing Happy Farm in the university, and proposed countermeasures for each problem, which can be categorized into three major types: landscape planning, soft landscape and hard landscape elements. Questionnaires are distributed to the public to assess the public's preference for the landscape elements mentioned in the previous section, and to provide a basis for the application of landscape elements for subsequent field transformation. The survey results of the base show that there are various problems in the Happy Farm in the university, such as improper planning, insufficient overall chroma, bare soil in the window period, messy planting pots, and bad landscape. After proposing a solution, understand the general public's preference for the landscape elements proposed in the solution by issuing a questionnaire to the public. In terms of design ideas, the survey results show that people prefer organic curve planning (80%), covered structures (66%), landscape front-row landscaping (77%); in terms of hardware design, people prefer gravel as the landscape Middle walkway paving (56%), white gravel (88%) and potted plant pots (52%); in terms of planting design, the majority of respondents in non-edible front-line landscaping considered it to be colored ( 91%) is better, while the edible portion is more colored in 50% red and 50% green (49%). In order to improve the existing landscape beauty problems of the community farm in the university and enhance the landscape value, the questionnaire will carry out landscape transformation on the edible landscape after analysis, and after the transformation, the questionnaire will be used to confirm the effectiveness of the transformation. At the same time, in order to understand the growth performance of the long-term and short-term edible plants selected after the planting in the reconstruction of the happy farm in the university, and the daily maintenance and management actions of the community farm users on the replacement of dead plants, harvesting, etc., for a period of 4 months Tracking after the transformation, recording the time of plant replacement or harvest, and color changes. The survey results show that the three test areas have increased in popularity, with the entrance area, AB area, and C area showing an increase of 29.5%, 59.4%, and 71.2%, respectively, with the largest increase in area C. In terms of the maintenance survey after the transformation, the survey results showed that the plants died within one week after the planting started, and the number of plant survival declined rapidly after three weeks. The color ratio of plants planted in Zones A, B, and C has also dropped from 75%, 25%, and 50% to 14%, 6%, and 25%. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T00:49:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1808202015301300.pdf: 6591173 bytes, checksum: 321d1b34bcfafc04cc2efb3f8af5c227 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 # 摘要 iv ABSTRACT vii 目錄 x 圖目錄 xii 表目錄 xiii 第一章 前言 1 第二章 前人研究 3 第三章 臺北台北市可食地景植物維護現況之調查 7 一、 前言(Introduction) 8 二、 材料與方法(Materials and Methods) 8 三、 結果(Results) 11 四、 討論(Discussion) 19 五、 結論(Conclusion) 27 第四章 現地規劃與改造-以大學里快樂農園為例 48 一、 前言(Introduction) 49 二、 材料與方法(Materials and Methods) 50 三、 結果(Results) 52 四、 討論(Discussion) 56 五、 結論(Conclusion) 58 第五章 大學里快樂農園改造後滿意度與維持度調查 73 一、 前言(Introduction) 74 二、 材料與方法(Materials and Methods) 75 三、 結果(Results) 77 四、 討論(Discussion) 81 五、 結論(Conclusion) 85 第六章 結論 100 參考文獻(Reference) 104 附錄(Appendix) 108 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 大學里可食地景適用植物與配置方式之改進 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Plant Selection and Arrangement Improvement of Edible Landscape in Daxue Village Community | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳右人(Iou-Zen Chen),許榮輝(Jung-hue Hsu),葉美秀(Mei-Hsiu Yeh) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 城市綠化,可食地景,植物耐候篩選,景觀元素,景觀美質, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Urban Greening,Edible Landscape,Plant Selection,Landscape Design,SBD, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 122 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202003984 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2020-08-20 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝暨景觀學系 | 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-1808202015301300.pdf | 6.44 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。
