請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86292完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陸怡蕙(Yir-Hueih Luh) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Zi-Han Chau | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 曹子翰 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:47:19Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-09-14 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-08-27 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 王小璘(1999)。都市公園綠量視覺評估之研究。設計學報,4(1),61-90。 王之蘭(2017)。臺北地區景觀綠地灌木與草本植物應用現況調查之探討。國立臺灣大學農藝學研究所碩士論文,台北市。 王正平(2015)。不同型態公園使用者對寵物狗接受度之研究。造園景觀學報,21(1),55-71。 王秀娟、蘇健凱(2014)。以無障礙觀點探討高齡化社會之公園通路規劃。健康與建築雜誌,1(2),33-40。 王雅蕙(2020)。鄰里公園使用者休閒遊憩滿意度之探討 —以新竹市中央公園為例。國立清華大學經營管理碩士在職專班碩士論文,新竹市。 王愛(2014)。台中市公園綠籬植物適用性之調查評估。東海大學景觀學系碩士論文,台中市。 行政院農業委員會林業試驗所(2022),全國各區樹種建議名單。檢自https://www.tfri.gov.tw/main/page_view.aspx?siteid=&ver=&usid=&mnuid=5504&modid=1423&mode=(2022) 何明錦、吳可久、陳圳卿、毛犖、廖慧燕(2011)。通用設計理念下之都市公園設計指引。建築學報,(76),105-128。 余政達(2009)。屏東縣、市運動公園使用者之滿意度研究。嘉大體育健康休閒期刊,8(1),91-101。 吳佳芬、林鼎盛、范峻豪、郭憲偉、張碩文、陳耀宏 (2008),臺南公園晨間運動休閒型態質性調查,臺南大學體育學報,頁110-123。 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。國立臺灣大學園藝暨景觀學系碩士論文,台北市。 吳緯杰(2012)。都市鄰里公園景觀偏好之研究。國立虎尾科技大學休閒遊憩研究所碩士論文,未出版,雲林縣。 吳緯杰(2012)。都市鄰里公園景觀偏好之研究。國立虎尾科技大學休閒遊憩研究所碩士論文,雲林縣。 呂欣玫(2016)。植栽色彩與花葉比率對生心理影響之研究。國立中興大學園藝學系所碩士論文,台中市。 呂雅婷(2011)。高雄市公園彩葉植物、行道樹配置應用及根害改善現況調查研究。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文,台北市。 李明純(2004)。嘉義市不同設計理念的鄰里公園對影響使用者滿意度因素之探討。國立嘉義大學園藝學系研究所碩士論文,嘉義市。 李素馨、何孟修(2020)。翻轉罐頭遊具-由社會運動行動網絡探討遊戲場制度分析與發展架構。戶外遊憩研究,33(4),51-82。 林佳蓉(2020)。兒童對特色遊戲場之遊具設施使用偏好研究。國立勤益科技大學景觀系碩士論文,未出版,台中市。 林亮君(2012)。民眾對台中都會公園植栽景觀偏好之研究。國立中興大學森林學系所碩士論文,台中市。 林庭如(2006)。影響兒童對遊戲設施使用行為因素之研究。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文,台北市。 林晏州、陳惠美、顏家芝(1998)。高雄都會公園遊客滿意度及相關因素之研究。戶外遊憩研究,11(4),59-71。 林憬鴻(2009)。績優鄰里公園社區自主參與管理維護之研究以台北市松山區民有一號、二號、三號公園為例。國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文,台北市。 侯錦雄(1999)。休閒生活態度與鄰里公園使用行為之不同層級城市比較-以台北、台中、彰化市居民為例。戶外遊憩研究,12(2),55-69。 侯錦雄、姚靜婉(1997)。市民休閒生活態度與公園使用滿意度之相關研究。戶外遊憩研究,10(3),1-17。 侯錦雄、郭彰仁、曾柏勳(2011)。生活型態與休閒智能、公園使用滿意度關係之研究-以台中市五十歲以上居民為例。造園景觀學報,17(1),21-39。 侯錦雄、程從沛、郭彰仁(2000)。遊戲設施與技術性遊戲行為之關係研究。戶外遊憩研究,13(3),71-100。 侯錦雄、程從沛、郭彰仁(2001)。兒童對遊具及技術性遊戲行為之遊戲安全與趣味認知。戶外遊憩研究,14(2),1-26。 洪慧敏(2009)。運動公園休閒設施滿意度之研究-以高雄都會公園為例。休閒保健期刊,(1),49-60。 凌德麟、洪得娟(1998)。使用者之都市公園綠覆地體驗影響因素之研究。戶外遊憩研究,11(1),43-64。 桂穎盈(2018)。公園兒童遊樂器具規劃與使用行為。國立宜蘭大學建築與永續規劃研究所碩士班碩士論文,宜蘭縣。 國家發展委員會(2022年3月30日),都市及區域發展統計彙編。檢自https://www.ndc.gov.tw/nc_77_4402 崔智超(2013)。公園對不動產交易價格影響之空間分析 -以原高雄市為例。長榮大學土地管理與開發學系碩士班碩士論文,台南市。 張家榮、林恩麒、康正男(2016)。如何營造高齡者運動環境。運動管理,(34),40-50。 張婉婷(2010)。社區公園設計準則研究。國立成功大學建築學系碩博士班碩士論文,台南市。 張習賓(2006)。鄰里公園綠化環境景觀偏好之研究-以台中市公園為例。逢甲大學都市計畫所碩士論文,台中市。 陳正霖(2005)。公園內兒童遊戲設施風險管理之探討。幼兒運動遊戲年刊,(1),60-68。 陳玉清、林晏州(2003)。公園綠地維護成本與植栽組合之關係。中國園藝,49(4),383-394。 陳俊宏(2010)。台北地區公園之綠籬、彩葉、耐陰植物應用現況調查研究。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文,台北市。 陳建蓉(2005)。人行道外側植栽型式影響景觀偏好之研究。東海大學景觀學系碩士論文,台中市。 陳彥霖(2014)。兒童對公園遊具偏好之研究。國立嘉義大學園藝學系研究所碩士論文,嘉義市。 陳映竹(2015)。戶外開放空間之不同樹形搭配對景觀偏好與停留位置選擇之影響。中原大學建築研究所碩士論文,桃園縣。 陳昭蓉、林晏州(1996)。鄰里公園使用者滿意度影響因素之探討。戶外遊憩研究,9(2&3),1-22。 陳惠美、林晏州(1997)。鄰里公園景觀美質預測模式之研究。中國園藝,43(3),225-236。 彭智傑(2007)。民眾對都市公園生態植栽配置偏好之研究。輔仁大學景觀設計學系碩士班碩士論文,新北市。 彭渰雯、林書伃、畢恆達(2013)。男女廁之外的「其他」-世新大學「無性別廁所」之經驗評估與省思。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,(32),43-96。 曾秀玫(2011)。大型都市公園的發展與規劃設計剖析。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文,台北市。 曾慈慧、董娟鳴、莊明霞(2017)。都市鄰里公園的友善兒童環境指標建構。建築學報,(99),55-77。 曾碩文、謝佳珊(2009)。影響鄰里公園民眾使用行為之因素-以台北市文山區景豐公園、萬有一號公園、興豐公園為例。嘉大農林學報,6(1),29-41。 黃双祿(2016)。鄰里公園周邊使用態樣與設施維護影響滿意度探討以新北市蘆洲區公園為例。國立臺北科技大學土木工程系土木與防災碩士班碩士論文,台北市。 黃啟洲(2014)。探討鄰里公園恢復性環境設計之模式語言 — 以中壢市莒光公園與中正公園為例 —。中原大學景觀學研究所碩士論文,桃園縣。 黃雋智(2010)。公園綠地對住宅價格的影響--以台中市南區為例。國立中興大學應用經濟學系所碩士論文,台中市。 解鴻年、胡太山、邵澤恩(2000)。鄰里公園對鄰近不動產影響之研究:以新竹市為例。建築與規劃學報,1(3),258-271。 廖庭顥(2019)。臺中市政府103 年度規劃研究設計報告獎助計畫,探討都市公園空間設計與使用者行為之關係-以臺中市文心森林公園為例(2019年04月17日)。 劉康立(2006)。鄰里公園環境屬性與情緒體驗關係之研究。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所學位論文,台北市。 蔡明達、候錦雄(1995)。鄰里公園中團體活動之特性與其參與者對場所特性之需求-以台中市西屯區的逢甲、福星、三信公園爲例。戶外遊憩研究,8(4),37-68。 蔡蕙憶(2018)。「友善不友善?」—以大學生觀點探究性別友善廁所的推動與困境。台南應用科技大學碩士論文,台南市。 鄭亦卉(2008)。利用聯合分析法評估使用者對公園及公園設施之願付價格。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文,台北市。 戴佳賢(2009)。公園景觀植物與休閒遊憩機能對休憩者的探討-以屏東市中山公園為例。亞洲大學生物資訊學系碩士在職專班碩士論文,台中市。 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(2),27-50。 顏家芝(1998)。公園認養對使用者滿意度影響之研究-以台北市鄰里公園爲例。戶外遊憩研究,11(3),59-73。 顏麥鈴(2012)。國小學童對遊戲場與設施偏好之研究-以彰化縣溪州國小為例。明道大學設計學院碩士班碩士論文,彰化縣。 Acar, C., & Sakıcı, Ç. (2008). Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environment, 43, 1153-1170. Adams, J., Veitch, J., & Barnett, L. (2018). Physical activity and fundamental motor skill performance of 5⁻10 year old children in three different playgrounds. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1896. Alves, S., Aspinall, P.A., Thompson, C.W., Sugiyama, T., Brice, R., & Vickers, A. (2008). Preferences of older people for environmental attributes of local parks: The use of choice-based conjoint analysis. Facilities, 26, 433-453. Anuar, A.N., & Muhamadan, N.H. (2018). The demand of recreational facilities in neighbourhood parks: Visitors' perspectives. Planning Malaysia Journal, 16, 197-207. Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2015). Are urban visitors’ general preferences for green-spaces similar to their preferences when seeking stress relief? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 872-882. Balai Kerishnan, P., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2021). Factors contributing to the usage of pocket parks―A review of the evidence. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126985. Balai Kerishnan, P., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2021). Factors contributing to the usage of pocket parks―A review of the evidence. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126985. Bjerke, T.K., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5, 35-44. Chow, H. W., Mowen, A. J., & Wu, G. L. (2017). Who is using outdoor fitness equipment and how? the case of Xihu park. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4), 448. Cohen, D.A., McKenzie, T.L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & Lurie, N. (2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97 3, 509-14 . DeLucio, J., & Múgica, M. (1994). Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors to spanish national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, 145-160. Elmendorf, W. F., Willits, F. K., Sasidharan, V., & Godbey, G. (2005). Urban park and forest participation and landscape preference: a comparison between blacks and whites in Philadelphia and Atlanta, U.S. Journal of Arboriculture, 31(6), 318-326. Gao, T., Liang, H., Chen, Y., & Qiu, L. (2019). Comparisons of landscape preferences through three different perceptual approaches. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4754. Gerstenberg, T., & Hofmann, M. (2016). Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 103-111. Goličnik, B., & Thompson, C.W. (2010). Emerging relationships between design and use of urban park spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, 38-53. Goodarzi, M., & Haghtalab, N. (2016). Providing empirical suggestions for rehabilitation of deficient urban parks based upon users' preferences. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 6, 65-72. Huai S, Van de Voorde T (2022). Which environmental features contribute to positive and negative perceptions of urban parks? a cross-cultural comparison using online reviews and natural language processing methods. Lands Urban Plan 218:104307 Huang, S.L. (2014). Park user preferences for establishing a sustainable forest park in Taipei, Taiwan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13, 839-845. Jansson, M., & Persson, B. (2010). Playground planning and management: an evaluation of standard-influenced provision through user needs. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 33-42. Jiang, B., Larsen, L., Deal, B., & Sullivan, W.C. (2015). A dose-response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 139, 16-25. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J.D., & Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 135-150. Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129-139. Kothencz, G., & Blaschke, T. (2017). Urban parks: Visitors’ perceptions versus spatial indicators. Land Use Policy, 64, 233-244. Lindberg, M.S., & Schipperijn, J. (2015). Active use of urban park facilities – Expectations versus reality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 909-918. Lis, A., & Iwankowski, P. (2021). Where do we want to see other people while relaxing in a city park? Visual relationships with park users and their impact on preferences, safety and privacy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 73, 101532. Lis, A., & Iwankowski, P. (2021). Why is dense vegetation in city parks unpopular? The mediative role of sense of privacy and safety. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 59, 126988. Liu, J., Xiong, Y., Wang, Y., & Luo, T. (2018). Soundscape effects on visiting experience in city park: A case study in Fuzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 31, 38-47. Liu, Y., Hu, J., Yang, W., & Luo, C. (2021). Effects of urban park environment on recreational jogging activity based on trajectory data: A case of Chongqing, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 67, 127443 Luximon, Y., Kwong, H.Y., & Tai, Y.L. (2015). User preferences of urban park seating pattern in Hong Kong. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 4273-4278. Mahidin, A.M., & Maulan, S.B. (2012). Understanding children preferences of natural environment as a start for environmental sustainability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 38, 324-333. Mak, B., & Jim, C. (2019). Linking park users' socio-demographic characteristics and visit-related preferences to improve urban parks. Cities. 92, 97-111. Märit Jansson. (2010). Attractive playgrounds: some factors affecting user interest and visiting patterns. Landscape Research, 35:1, 63-81, Marquet, O., Aaron Hipp, J., Alberico, C.O., Huang, J., Fry, D., Mazak, E., Lovasi, G.S., & Floyd, M.F. (2019). Park use preferences and physical activity among ethnic minority children in low-income neighborhoods in New York City. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 38, 346-353. McCormack, G.R., Rock, M.J., Toohey, A.M., & Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16 4, 712-26 . Naghibi, M., Faizi, M., & Ekhlassi, A. (2021). Design possibilities of leftover spaces as a pocket park in relation to planting enclosure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 64, 127273. Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people – A study of park design and use. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12, 12-17. Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., & Hartig, T. (2011). Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10, 95-103. Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C.M., & Fry, G.L. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 225-235. Ozer, B.K., & Bariş, M.E. (2013). Landscape design and park user's preferences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82, 604-607. Panduro, T.E., Jensen, C.U., Lundhede, T., von Graevenitz, K., & Thorsen, B.J. (2018). Eliciting preferences for urban parks. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 73, 127-142, Paul H. Gobster. (2002). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leisure Sciences, 24:2, 143-159, Payne, L.L., Mowen, A.J., & Orsega-Smith, E. (2002). An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: the role of residential location, race, and age. Leisure Sciences, 24, 181 - 198. Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., & Schipperrijn, J. (2016). Identifying features of pocket parks that may be related to health promoting use. Landscape Research, 41, 79 - 94. Polat, A.T., & Akay, A. (2015). Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 573-582. Rahnema, S., Sedaghathoor, S., Allahyari, M.S., Damalas, C.A., & Bilali, H.E. (2019). Preferences and emotion perceptions of ornamental plant species for green space designing among urban park users in Iran. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 39, 98-108. Refshauge, A.D., Stigsdotter, U.K., & Cosco, N.G. (2012). Adults’ motivation for bringing their children to park playgrounds. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11, 396-405. Saeedi, I., & Dabbagh, E. (2020). Modeling the relationships between hardscape color and user satisfaction in urban parks. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 6535-6552. Sever, I., & Verbič, M. (2019). Assessing recreational values of a peri-urban nature park by synthesizing perceptions and preferences of trail users. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 63, 101-108. Sreetheran, M. (2017). Exploring the urban park use, preference and behaviours among the residents of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 85-93. Stewart, O. T., Moudon, A. V., Littman, A. J., Seto, E., & Saelens, B. E. (2018). The association between park facilities and duration of physical activity during active park visits. Journal of Urban Health, 95(6), 869–880. Sundevall EP, Jansson M. (2020). Inclusive parks across ages: multifunction and urban open space management for children, adolescents, and the elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Dec 14;17(24):9357. Suppakittpaisarn, P., Larsen, L., & Sullivan, W.C. (2019). Preferences for green infrastructure and green stormwater infrastructure in urban landscapes: Differences between designers and laypeople. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 43, 126378 Tu, X., Huang, G., Wu, J., & Guo, X. (2020). How do travel distance and park size influence urban park visits? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 52, 126689. van Vliet E, Dane G, Weijs-Perrée M, van Leeuwen E, van Dinter M, van den Berg P, Borgers A, Chamilothori K. (2021). The influence of urban park attributes on user preferences: evaluation of virtual parks in an online stated-choice experiment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(1):212. Veitch J, Salmon J, Ball K. (2008). Children's active free play in local neighborhoods: a behavioral mapping study. Health Educ Res. 2008 Oct;23(5):870-9. Veitch, J., Ball, K., Rivera, E., Loh, V.H., Deforche, B., Best, K., & Timperio, A. (2022). What entices older adults to parks? Identification of park features that encourage park visitation, physical activity, and social interaction. Landscape and Urban Planning. 217, 104254. Wan, C.K., Shen, G.Q., & Choi, S. (2021). Eliciting users’ preferences and values in urban parks: Evidence from analyzing social media data from Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 62, 127172. Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M.J., Hu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41, 6-13 Wang, R.; Jiang, W.; Lu, T. (2021). Landscape characteristics of university campus in relation to aesthetic quality and recreational preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 66, 127389. Wang, X., Rodiek, S., Wu, C., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2016). Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 112-122. Wen, C., Albert, C., & Haaren, C.V. (2018). The elderly in green spaces: Exploring requirements and preferences concerning nature-based recreation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 582-593. Xie Q, Lee C, Lu Z, Yuan X. (2021). Interactions with artificial water features: a scoping review of health-related outcomes. Landsc Urban Plan 215:104191. Zhai Y, Li D, Wang D, Shi C. (2020). Seniors' physical activity in neighborhood parks and park design characteristics. Front Public Health. 2020 Jul 29;8:322. Zhang, T., & Gobster, P. H. (1998). Leisure preferences and open space needs in an urban Chinese American community. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 15(4), 338–355. Zhao, J., Xu, W., & Li, R. (2017). Visual preference of trees: The effects of tree attributes and seasons. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 19-25. Zhuang, J., Qiao, L., Zhang, X., Su, Y., & Xia, Y. (2021). Effects of visual attributes of flower borders in urban vegetation landscapes on aesthetic preference and emotional perception. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9318. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86292 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 公園的功能非常多元,不同的民眾對於公園有著不同的需求,但公園的空間有限,因此在公園的設施設計與植栽挑選時,往往需要面臨取捨與選擇。本研究的主要目的在於探討台灣成年民眾對於公園的整體設計、個別設施項目、植栽種類等的偏好及其優先選擇次序,以供公園設計者與維護者未來規劃及提供更符合民眾需求的公園之參考。 本研究以線上問卷方式進行調查,調查對象為全台灣各縣市的成年民眾,有效問卷樣本共383份,其中女性受訪者260人、男性受訪者123人,而受訪者之年齡主要介於20至50歲之間。根據本研究的調查顯示,台灣成年民眾的公園使用頻率相當高,前往公園的頻率中位數大約落在每周1次。民眾最重視的公園特徵為豐富的動植物種類,但同時擁有良好景觀以及活動設施的公園則最能吸引民眾前往使用。多數民眾對於公園的各項設施普遍認為具重要性,依照設施重要性(由高至低)排序如下:樹下活動區>大草坪>兒童遊戲場>環狀步道(慢跑道)>涼亭花架區>多功能廣場>體健設施區>灌木草花區>運動場>狗活動區>小山丘>水池>表演台(舞台)。本研究亦發現,受訪者對於各類設施的偏好在居住地區上的差異(城市相對鄉村、六個直轄市相對其餘縣市)多半未達統計顯著性,故上述公園設施重要性排序可適用於全台。 大草坪與環狀步道為受歡迎但較為少見的設施,因此更具備設置潛力。北部地區民眾對於公園的滿意程度較高。若將六都及非六都相比,新北市市民對於公園的滿意度較其他區域高,而桃園市民則較低。本研究進一步利用迴歸分析來檢視民眾各項設施重要程度或偏好與公園滿意度之間的關係,結果顯示,重視草坪、涼亭、水池的民眾對於公園較為滿意,而重視樹下活動區及體健設施區的民眾則對於公園較不滿意,因此目前而言仍有改善空間。此外,本研究發現,距離是影響民眾前往公園意願的重要因素,公園服務範圍約在步行10到20分鐘 (大約600至1200公尺),建議公園設置設施時應考慮服務範圍內的其餘公園,避免設置過多重複功能的設施。民眾對於主題遊具類型以大型組合遊具與土堤遊具較為偏好,而較不偏好大型攀爬網,遊具偏好排序為:獨立溜滑梯>平衡木組合>獨立沙坑>擺盪遊具>彈跳床>滑軌與溜索>互動遊具>立體攀爬架>搖擺遊具>旋轉遊具;地面緩衝材質偏好的排序則為:無縫橡膠地墊>人工草>方塊橡膠地墊>沙>小礫石>木片樹皮。樹下活動區較為民眾偏好的地面材質為:人工草與天然草地、高架木平台及木棧道、護草墊與護(植)草磚。較偏好的金屬機械體健設施為漫步器(滑雪器)、大轉輪、健騎機、上肢牽引器、雙人浪板、伸腰伸背器、肩關節康復器、扭腰器。較偏好的運動場以籃球場最高,網球、羽球、排球場次之。水池種類以生態池的偏好最高、動態水次之。民眾偏好同意設置公園入口的車阻、狗活動區、YouBike站、吸菸區、商店或攤販區,且偏好每一個公園都盡量要有廁所且相當同意公廁提供沖洗噴槍(馬桶噴槍、沖水器、沖洗器),而女性對於性別友善公廁的偏好低於普通公廁。 民眾最為偏好的植栽為七里香、金露花與羅漢松(觀葉);杜鵑與馬纓丹(賞花);花葉萬年青與虎尾蘭(耐陰);麥門冬、冷水花、蟛蜞菊(耐陰地被植物);紫藤、蒜香藤與九重葛(爬藤植物)。由前述結果可見,民眾對於植栽的偏好以淺色的觀葉植栽及具香氣或會開花等特殊優點的植栽較高。與設施偏好的結果類似,受訪者對於各類植栽的偏好在居住地區上的差異(城市相對鄉村、六個直轄市相對其餘縣市)多半未達統計顯著性,故上述植栽偏好排序可適用於全台。 綜上,進行公園綠地的施工設計時,本研究建議依序優先採用偏好高的設施,並依照當地環境與民眾需求調整,亦應避免公園內或附近同區域公園設置過多相同功能之設施。種植公共工程之植栽時,建議也應將民眾偏好納入考慮,優先採用偏好高的植栽。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Parks have many functions while people have different needs for parks. However, parks have limited space. Therefore, there are always choices to make and trade-offs to consider when designing facilities and selecting plants. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the priority of the overall design, individual facilities, and planting types of parks in Taiwan such that park designers and maintainers can provide better parks to meet the public needs in the future. This study uses online questionnaires to survey adult citizens in Taiwan. A valid sample of 383 responses is collected which comprises 260 females and 123 males. The age of the respondents ranged from 20 to 50 years old. The median frequency of people visiting the park is about once a week. It is found that people are most interested in abundant flora and fauna. The parks with good scenery and facilities are the most attractive to people. In descending order of importance, the following facilities are considered to be important: under-tree activity area > large lawn > children's playground > circular trail (jogging path) > pavilion and flower shelf area > multi-function plaza > physical fitness facility area > shrub and flower area > sports field > dog activity area > hill > pond > performance stage (stage). The urbanization (urban or rural) and regional differences (between the six municipalities and the rest of the counties) do not have much influence on the order of facility preference, so the above order of important park facilities can be applied to all of Taiwan. Large lawns and circular trails are less common but popular with the public, and thus have more potential for installation. People in northern Taiwan are more satisfied with parks. When comparing the six metropolitan areas to the non-six metropolitan areas, people in New Taipei City are more satisfied with parks than other areas, while people in Taoyuan are less satisfied. The results of this study also show that people who value lawns, pavilions, and pools are more satisfied with parks, while people who value under-tree activity areas and physical fitness facilities are less satisfied with parks. Therefore, there is still room for improvement. Distance is an important factor to affect people's desire to visit parks. The park's service area is about a 10 to 20-minute walk away (about 600 to 1200 meters). This study suggests installing facilities should consider park service area, and avoid setting up too many facilities the nearby parks have already installed. The public preference for themed play equipment is more in large combination play equipment and earthen berm play equipment, and less in large climbing nets; the order of play equipment preference is: independent slide > balance beam combination > independent sand pit > swing play equipment > bouncing bed > slide and zip line > interactive play equipment > three-dimensional climbing frame > swing play equipment > spinning play equipment. The order of ground cushioning material preference is seamless rubber mat > artificial grass > square rubber mat >Sand > gravel > wood bark. The preferred ground materials for under-tree activity areas are artificial grass and natural grass, elevated wooden platforms and wooden pallets, grass protection mat and grass protection (planting) tile. The preferred metal mechanical fitness facilities are elliptical trainers, big wheels, cycling machines, upper limb traction machines, double wave boards, back stretchers, shoulder joint rehabilitation machines, and waist twisters. Basketball courts are the most preferred sporting venues, followed by tennis, badminton and volleyball courts. Ecological pools were the most preferred, followed by dynamic water pools. The public prefers the installation of vehicle stops at park entrances, dog activity areas, YouBike stations, smoking areas, and store or vendor areas. People prefer more toilets in every park and strongly like public toilets with water spray guns. While women prefer gender-friendly public toilets less than regular public toilets. The public most preferred plantings are seven lilies, goldenrod and lohan pine (foliage); azaleas and lingzhi (flowering); foliage lilies and tiger orchids (shade tolerant); maidenhair, cold water flowers, wedelia (shade tolerant ground cover plants); wisteria, garlic vine, and kudzu (climbing plants). From the above results, it can be seen that people's preference for plants is light-colored foliage plants and plants with special advantages such as fragrance or flowering. The urbanization (urban or rural) and regional differences (six municipalities and other counties) do not have much influence on the order of planting preference, so the above planting preference order of importance can be applied to all of Taiwan. In summary, this study suggests that when designing the construction of green areas in parks, facilities with high preferences can be installed first and park facilities should be adjusted according to the local environment and the needs of the public. There is also a need to avoid too many facilities with the same function in nearby parks. When planting public project plants, it is also recommended that public preferences need to be considered. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:47:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2408202213434700.pdf: 10820737 bytes, checksum: 7d7561ad7745fca52d84b0448b64eec9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 ii 中文摘要 iii ABSTRACT v 目錄 vii 表目錄 ix 圖目錄 xi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究動機與目的 1 第三節 研究對象與範圍 5 第四節 研究內容與流程 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 公園的定義與價值 7 第二節 公園的滿意度 7 第三節 使用者的活動類型與公園設計偏好 8 第四節 公園的設施 9 第五節 公園的植栽 14 第六節 公園使用族群與習慣 15 第三章 研究設計 17 第一節 研究方式 17 第二節 問卷設計 17 第三節 調查與抽樣方式 26 第四章 結果與討論 27 第一節 受訪者分析 27 第二節 各問項統計分析 29 第五章 實務案例分析 69 第一節 公園設計成功案例分析-新莊區後港新公園 69 第二節 公園設計成功案例分析-新莊區萬安公園 72 第三節 公園設計不完全成功案例分析-新莊區台65橋下遊戲場 75 第六章 結論與建議 76 第一節 規劃設計結論與建議 76 第二節 研究限制 78 第三節 後續研究建議 79 參考文獻 81 附錄一:調查問卷 91 附錄二:調查問卷圖片參考來源 115 附錄三:林試所-全國各區樹種建議名單 117 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 公園設施偏好 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 公園使用滿意度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 公園設計偏好 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 公園植栽偏好 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 公園遊戲場偏好 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | park facility preference | en |
| dc.subject | park usage satisfaction | en |
| dc.subject | park design preference | en |
| dc.subject | park plants preference | en |
| dc.subject | park playground preference | en |
| dc.title | 成年民眾對公園設施、植栽偏好及區域差異之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study on Adults’ Preferences of Park Facilities, Plants and Regional Differences | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 方珍玲(Zhen-Ling Fang),邱敬仁(Jing-Ren Qiu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 公園設施偏好,公園遊戲場偏好,公園植栽偏好,公園設計偏好,公園使用滿意度, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | park facility preference,park playground preference,park plants preference,park design preference,park usage satisfaction, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 119 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202202753 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-08-29 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 農業經濟學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-09-14 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 農業經濟學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2408202213434700.pdf | 10.57 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。
