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
  • 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/123456789/88646
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor鄭佳昆zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorChia-Kuen Chengen
dc.contributor.author李彥儒zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorYen-Ju Leeen
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-15T17:12:19Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-09-
dc.date.copyright2023-08-15-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.date.submitted2023-08-05-
dc.identifier.citation1. 于正倫(2004)。城市環境創造─景觀與環境設施設計。台北:田園城市。
2. 王彥力(2008)。眺望-藏匿性環境之景觀認知與視覺注意力研究(未出版之碩士論文)。私立逢甲大學景觀與遊憩碩士學位課程,臺中市
3. 李素馨(1999)。都市視覺景觀偏好之研究。都市與計劃,26(1),19-40。
4. 李素馨、何英齊(2000)。應用瞳位追蹤方法建立景觀偏好模式之研究。造園景觀學報,71-89。
5. 李素馨、謝怡倩、黃宣霈(2020)。城市夜未眠-眺望夜景空間特性與景觀偏好、療癒知覺關係研究。造園景觀學報,24(3),13-36。
6. 李麗雪(1998)。臺灣傳統庭園的情緒體驗及景觀偏好之研究-以板橋林家花園為例(未出版之博士論文)。國立臺灣大學園藝學系研究所,臺北市。
7. 施景堯、周紓帆、鄭佳昆(2015)。恐懼的變數:日夜變化對眺匿平衡的影響。戶外遊憩研究,28(3),93-120。
8. 侯錦雄(1984)。利用攝影媒體表達景觀空間之研究。中國園藝,30(2),135-147。
9. 張淑貞(2019)。大學校園不同時段的空間安全感知:空間特質和個人因素之影響。建築學報,109,93-110。
10. 黃昱瑄(2011)。都市環境中知覺自然度之影響因子探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所,臺北市。
11. 許媁鈞、林晏州(2014)。風景區之色彩組成與調和對景觀偏好之影響。造園景觀學報,20(2),19-36。
12. 廖婉婷、鄭佳昆、林晏州(2013)。不同地點標籤對自然度感受及偏好影響之研究。戶外遊憩研究,26(4),31-56。
13. 鄭佳昆、沈立、全珍衡(2009)。熟悉度於不同情境下對視覺景觀偏好之影響探討。戶外遊憩研究,22(4),1-21。
14. 謝孟倫、林晏州(2011)。景觀複雜度對自然景觀偏好之影響。都市與計畫,38(4),427-447。
15. Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. London: Wiley.
16. 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.
17. Assessment, M. E. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World resources institute. Washington, DC, 5.
18. Batool, A., Rutherford, P., McGraw, P., Ledgeway, T., & Altomonte, S. (2021). View preference in urban environments. Lighting Research & Technology, 53(7), 613-636.
19. Bell, S. (2005). Nature for people: the importance of green spaces to communities in the East Midlands of England. Wild Urban Woodlands: New Perspectives for Urban Forestry, 81-94.
20. Beute, F., & de Kort, Y. A. (2013). Let the sun shine! Measuring explicit and implicit preference for environments differing in naturalness, weather type and brightness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 162-178.
21. Bishop, I. D., & Rohrmann, B. (2003). Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison. Landscape and urban planning, 65(4), 261-277.
22. Bixler, R. D., & Floyd, M. F. (1997). Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and behavior, 29(4), 443-467.
23. Blöbaum, A., & Hunecke, M. (2005). Perceived danger in urban public space: The impacts of physical features and personal factors. Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 465-486.
24. Boffi, M., Colleoni, M., & Del Greco, M. (2015). Night-time Hours and Activities of the Italians. Articulo-Journal of Urban Research, (11).
25. Boyce, P. R. (2019). The benefits of light at night. Building and Environment, 151, 356-367.
26. Boyd, F. (2022). University students noticing nature: the unpleasant, the threatening and the unfamiliar. In Unfamiliar Landscapes: Young People and Diverse Outdoor Experiences (pp. 415-439). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
27. Brush, R. O. (1979). The attractiveness of woodlands: Perceptions of forest landowners in massachusetts. Forest Science, 25(3), 495-506.
28. Chiang, Y. C., Nasar, J. L., & Ko, C. C. (2014). Influence of visibility and situational threats on forest trail evaluations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 166-173.
29. Dearden, P. (1984). Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation. Landscape planning, 11(4), 293-306.
30. Denissen, J. J., Butalid, L., Penke, L., & Van Aken, M. A. (2008). The effects of weather on daily mood: a multilevel approach. Emotion, 8(5), 662.
31. Dravitzki, V., Cleland, B. S., Walton, D., & Laing, J. N. (2003). Measuring commuting pedestrians’ concerns for personal safety and the influence of lighting on these concerns. In 26th Australasian transport research forum (pp. 1-14).
32. Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Prospect, refuge and fear of crime on the college campus: Looking cleser at building design. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35-65.
33. Fotios, S., Unwin, J., & Farrall, S. (2015). Road lighting and pedestrian reassurance after dark: A review. Lighting Research & Technology, 47(4), 449-469.
34. Gaston, K. J., Gaston, S., Bennie, J., & Hopkins, J. (2015). Benefits and costs of artificial nighttime lighting of the environment. Environmental Reviews, 23(1), 14-23.
35. Gerson, K., Stueve, C. A., Fischer, C. S., & Fischer, C. S. (1977). Attachment to place, Networks and Places.
36. Gobster, P. H. (1994). The urban savanna: Reuniting ecological preference and function. Restoration and Management Notes, 12(1), 64-71.
37. Hanyu, K. (1997). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(4), 301-315.
38. Hanyu, K. (2000). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(3), 273-284.
39. Havitz ME (1987). An experimental examination of sector bias in the context of selected organized recreation services. Unpublished Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
40. Hernández-Santiago, A. A., Peña-Suárez, E., & Giraldez, M. J. (2017). Development of a visual scale for assessing the scenic quality of rural roads in the Spanish region of Galicia. Journal of Environmental Management, 204, 495-503.
41. Herzog, T., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 320-344.
42. Hill, D., & Daniel, T. C. (2007). Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: Can information alter landscape preferences? Society & Natural Resources, 21(1), 34-49.
43. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Kendra, A. (2001). Public understandings of nature: A case study of local knowledge about" natural" forest conditions. Society & Natural Resources, 14(4), 325-340.
44. 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).
45. Kaida, K., Takahashi, M., & Otsuka, Y. (2007). A short nap and natural bright light exposure improve positive mood status. Industrial health, 45(2), 301-308.
46. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
47. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and behavior, 21(5), 509-530.
49. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island press.
50. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.
51. Kellert, S. R. (1997). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island press.
52. Kenner, B., & McCool, S. F. (1985). Thinning and scenic attractiveness in second-growth forests: A preliminary assessment. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station.
53. Korpela, K. M., Klemettilä, T., Hietanen, J. K., & Nummi, T. (2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 634-650.
54. Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and behavior, 30(1), 28-59.
55. 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.
56. Leppämäki, S., Partonen, T., & Lönnqvist, J. (2002). Bright-light exposure combined with physical exercise elevates mood. Journal of affective disorders, 72(2), 139-144.
57. Lis, A., Pardela, Ł., & Iwankowski, P. (2019). Impact of vegetation on perceived safety and preference in city parks. Sustainability, 11(22), 6324.
58. Liu, Q., Zhu, Z., Zhuo, Z., Huang, S., Zhang, C., Shen, X., ... & Lan, S. (2021). Relationships between residents’ ratings of place attachment and the restorative potential of natural and urban park settings. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 62, 127188.
59. Loewen, L. J., Steel, G. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1993). Perceived safety from crime in the urban environment. Journal of environmental psychology, 13(4), 323-331.
60. Mace, B. L., Bell, P. A., & Loomis, R. J. (1999). Aesthetic, affective, and cognitive effects of noise on natural landscape assessment. Society & Natural Resources, 12(3), 225-242.
61. M. Górczewska (2011). Some Aspects Of Architectural Lighting Of Historical Buildings. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 121, 107-116.
62. Mander, Ü., & Palang, H. (2002). Landscape ecology in Estonia: theory and practice. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(4), 231-243.
63. Martin, M. W., & Sell, J. (1979). The role of the experiment in the social sciences. The Sociological Quarterly, 20(4), 581-590.
64. Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B., & Grannis, M. (1993). Proximate physical cues to fear of crime. Landscape and urban planning, 26(1-4), 161-178.
65. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323.
66. Nasar, J. L., & Terzano, K. (2010). The desirability of views of city skylines after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 215-225.
67. Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preferences in urban streetscapes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Environment and Behavior, 16(5), 5-34.
68. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 10(4), 229-237.
69. Nassauer, J. I. (1988). The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortScience, 23(6), 973-977.
70. Nikunen, H., & Korpela, K. M. (2012). The effects of scene contents and focus of light on perceived restorativeness, fear and preference in nightscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(4), 453-468.
71. Nikunen, H., Puolakka, M., Rantakallio, A., Korpela, K., & Halonen, L. (2014). Perceived restorativeness and walkway lighting in near-home environments. Lighting Research & Technology, 46(3), 308-328.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Orland, B. (1988). Aesthetic preference for rural landscapes: Some resident and visitordifferences. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications, (pp. 364-379). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
75. 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.
76. Partonen, T., & Lönnqvist, J. (2000). Bright light improves vitality and alleviates distress in healthy people. Journal of Affective disorders, 57(1-3), 55-61.
77. Peron, E., Purcell, A. T., Staats, H., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes: Some experimental evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30(3), 282-305.
78. 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.
79. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and urban planning, 42(1), 57-66.
80. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and behavior, 33(1), 93-106.
81. Rahm, J., Sternudd, C., & Johansson, M. (2021). “In the evening, I don’t walk in the park”: The interplay between street lighting and greenery in perceived safety. Urban design international, 26, 42-52.
82. Ren, X. (2019). Consensus in factors affecting landscape preference: A case study based on a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of environmental management, 252, 109622.
83. 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.
84. Rosenthal, N. E., Sack, D. A., Gillin, J. C., Lewy, A. J., Goodwin, F. K., Davenport, Y. & Wehr, T. A. (1984). Seasonal affective disorder: a description of the syndrome and preliminary findings with light therapy. Archives of general psychiatry, 41(1), 72-80.
85. Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the Dark: Interactive Effects of Beliefs About Danger and Ambient Darkness on Ethnic Stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 637-649.
86. Schroeder, H. W. (1986). Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape esthetics. Journal of Environmental Management, 23(4), 325-333.
87. Senda, M. (1992). Japan's traditional view of nature and interpretation of landscape. GeoJournal, 26, 129-134.
88. Shi, Y., & Chung, J. H. (2021). A case study of modern urban night-lighting. Journal of Digital Convergence, 19(2), 365-371.
89. Sreetheran, M., & Van Den Bosch, C. C. K. (2014). A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces–A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 1-18.
90. Stamps III, A. E. (2005). Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environment and behavior, 37(5), 587-619.
91. Talbot, J. F., & Kaplan, R. (1984). Needs and fears: The response to trees and nature in the inner city. Journal of Arboriculture, 10(8), 222-228.
92. Tveit, M. S. (2009). Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of environmental management, 90(9), 2882-2888.
93. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape research, 31(3), 229-255.
94. Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The biophilia hypothesis, 7, 73-137.
95. Ulrich, R. S. (2008). Biophilic theory and research for healthcare design. Biophilic design: The theory, science, and practice of bringing buildings to life, 1, 87-106.
96. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and urban planning, 13, 29-44.
97. Ulrich, R. S. (1977). Visual landscape preference: a model and application. Man-environment systems.
98. Ulusoy, N., & Onur, Z. (2023). Visual Signs at Sociable Place Entrances: User Perceptions and Preferences. SAGE Open, 13(2), 21582440231174418.
99. Van den Berg, A. E., & Ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 261-272.
100. Van der Jagt, A. P., Craig, T., Anable, J., Brewer, M. J., & Pearson, D. G. (2014). Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 1-13.
101. Van Liempt, I., & Van Aalst, I. (2012). Urban surveillance and the struggle between safe and exciting nightlife districts. Surveillance & Society, 9(3), 280-292.
102. Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes–Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban forestry & urban greening, 6(4), 199-212.
103. Weller, R. P. (2006). Discovering nature: Globalization and environmental culture in China and Taiwan. Cambridge University Press.
104. Wilkie, S., & Clouston, L. (2015). Environment preference and environment type congruence: Effects on perceived restoration potential and restoration outcomes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(2), 368-376.
105. Williams, R. (2008). Night Spaces:Darkness, Deterritorialization, and Social Control. Space and Culture, 11(4), 514-532.
106. Wright, D. H. (1990). Human impacts on energy flow through natural ecosystems, and implications for species endangerment. Ambio, 189-194.
107. Yeoh, B. S., & Yeow, P. L. (1997). Where women fear to tread: Images of danger and the effects of fear of crime in Singapore. GeoJournal, 43, 273-286.
108. Zhao, J., Liu, G., & Li, X. (2023). Comparison of the restorative quality of green spaces between the evening and daytime. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 1-12.
109. Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2011). Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness?. Landscape and Urban planning, 99(1), 1-8.
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88646-
dc.description.abstract景觀偏好在環境心理學相關研究中,一直以來都備受重視,許多研究中已提出影響景觀偏好的因子,如日夜變化、自然度、整潔、熟悉度等,其中以白天情況下評估環境中景觀偏好的文獻居多。然而,現代人因生活型態的改變,可進行休閒娛樂的時間通常都在夜晚,夜晚的景觀偏好也漸顯其重要性。
回顧相關研究發現,人們普遍偏好較為明亮、而非較暗的環境,夜間則因能見度降低,導致安全感降低而暗示潛在的危險和風險,使夜間景觀更可能對偏好產生負面影響。可見,不論白天或夜晚環境,均會對景觀偏好造成影響,並且夜晚環境較白天環境不被人們所偏好。然而,目前研究中多針對「日間」景觀偏好進行探討,少有「夜間」景觀的偏好研究,而針對「日夜變化」對景觀偏好之影響探討的文獻則更為缺乏。
前述提及,影響景觀偏好的因子中,除日夜外,許多研究已指出自然、整潔、熟悉等因子對於景觀偏好的影響效果;其中,愈熟悉環境、或環境的整潔度愈高,偏好就會隨之提升;然而,自然度與偏好的關係卻非絕對之正向關係。相關研究中更提到影響景觀偏好的因子:自然度、整潔度,可能會受到日、夜的不同所影響。在自然度的相關研究指出,自然元素的存在可以增加日間環境中的偏好;相反地,夜晚自然環境之照明不足,可能會將白天吸引人的環境轉變成天黑後令人生畏之處,顯示日夜變化可能會改變自然度與偏好的關係。
整潔度相關研究則常於都市中進行,日夜與整潔度相關研究指出,日間明亮的環境會突顯都市中雜亂的市容;反之,夜晚本身會降低環境的能見度,此時燈光的存在可以改善都市形象,同時還可以降低雜亂感,顯示日夜變化可能會改變整潔度與偏好的關係,而都市中功能不同的燈光亦可能對整潔度與景觀偏好產生不同的影響,尚待進一步的實證與確認。
因此,本論文將透過兩個研究檢視日夜變化對於自然度及整潔度此二知覺與偏好的影響。根據研究一之目的,設計兩個實驗,採用照片問卷調查法探討不同環境背景下,日夜變化對自然度與景觀偏好的影響,並且最後將對自然環境具重要影響的熟悉度納入討論。研究二亦使用照片問卷調查法探討都市環境中,日夜變化對整潔度與景觀偏好的影響,並且將夜晚中不同的燈光類型納入討論。
研究一之結果顯示,在校園環境中,不論日夜,知覺自然度越高偏好越高;另外,在市郊環境中,同樣是知覺自然度越高偏好越高,但日夜變化與知覺自然度對景觀偏好有交互作用存在,使得自然度對偏好的正向影響在白天比夜晚更為明顯。研究二的結果發現,夜間都市環境中,除有路燈的環境之外,建築物外觀裝飾照明和廣告招牌燈的環境更受偏好,且受測者認為廣告招牌燈的夜間景觀較路燈環境更為整潔、不雜亂。由此可知,相對於白天,夜晚可能削弱自然的正向作用;而夜晚則可能削弱都市對偏好的負向作用。最後,本研究中針對日夜變化對景觀之知覺及偏好的影響進行比較,證實人們於日、夜不同情況下對自然環境之知覺自然度、都市環境之整潔度及偏好感受亦有所不同,結論將可供未來景觀設計、規劃及實務上之參考。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe preference of landscapes has long been a focal point in the field of environmental psychology, garnering significant attention. Numerous studies have elucidated factors influencing landscape preference, such as diurnal variations, naturalness, neatness, familiarity, and more.
However, the existing literature predominantly examines landscape preference in daytime settings. Nevertheless, with the changing lifestyles of modern individuals, leisure and recreational activities often take place during the nighttime, underscoring the growing significance of nocturnal landscape preference. Upon reviewing the relevant studies, it is evident that people generally prefer brighter environments over darker ones. During nighttime, reduced visibility can diminish the sense of safety, implying potential dangers and risks, thereby potentially negatively influencing nocturnal landscape preferences. This suggests that both daytime and nighttime environments have an impact on landscape preference, with nocturnal settings being less preferred compared to daytime settings. However, current research predominantly focuses on daytime landscape preferences, with limited investigations into nocturnal landscape preferences. Moreover, there is a notable lack of literature exploring the influence of diurnal variations on landscape preference.
As mentioned above, among the factors affecting landscape preference, in addition to day and night, many studies have pointed out the effects of nature, neatness, and familiarity on landscape preference. It has been found that higher levels of familiarity with the environment or greater neatness positively correlate with increased preference. However, the relationship between naturalness and preference is not absolutely positive. Relevant studies have also indicated that factors such as naturalness and neatness, which affect landscape preferences, may be influenced by the differences between day and night. Studies on naturalness suggest that the presence of natural elements may increase preference in daytime environments; conversely, the lightless natural environments during the nighttime may transform an attractive daytime environments into intimidating places after dark, indicating that diurnal variations may alter the relationship between naturalness and preference.
Studies related to neatness are often conducted in urban settings. Research on the relationship between day and night and cleanliness indicates that bright daytime environments accentuate the disorderliness of urban surroundings. Conversely, during the nighttime, when visibility is reduced, the presence of lighting can improve the city's image and reduce the sense of disorder. This suggests that the relationship between neatness and preference may be changed by day and night. Furthermore, different types of lighting in urban areas may have varying effects on neatness and landscape preferences, but further empirical evidence is needed to confirm these effects.
Therefore, this paper aims to examine the effects of diurnal variations on the perception of naturalness and cleanliness, as well as the impact on preference. To achieve the objectives of Study 1, two experiments will be conducted using a photo questionnaire method to investigate the influence of diurnal variations on naturalness and landscape preference under different environmental backgrounds. Study 2 will also employ a photo questionnaire method to explore the effects of diurnal variations on neatness and landscape preference in urban environments, taking into account different types of lighting during the nighttime.
The results of Study 1 indicate that in campus environments, the higher the perceived naturalness, the higher the preference, regardless of day and night. Additionally, in suburban environments, the same pattern emerges, with higher perceived naturalness corresponding to higher preference, and there is an interaction effect between diurnal variations and perceived naturalness on landscape preference, indicating that the positive effect of naturalness on preference is significantly greater at day than at night.
The results of Study 2 show that in nighttime urban environments, except for the environment with streetlights, environments with decorative architectural lighting and advertising sign lights are more preferred by people. Participants perceive the nighttime landscape with advertising sign lights are more neatness and less cluttered compared to environments illuminated solely by streetlights. These findings suggest that in comparison to day, night may weaken the positive effect. Furthermore, night may weaken the negative effect of urban features on preference.
In conclusion, this study compares the effects of day and night changes on the perception and preference of the landscape, confirming that people's perceptions of the natural environment, the neatness of the urban environment, and their preferences differ under different conditions of day and night. These findings provide valuable insights for future landscape design, planning, and practical applications.
en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-08-15T17:12:19Z
No. of bitstreams: 0
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2023-08-15T17:12:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.tableofcontents誌謝 I
中文摘要 III
Abstract V
目錄 VIII
圖目錄 X
表目錄 XI
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 研究流程 4
第二章 文獻回顧 6
第一節 景觀偏好 6
第二節 日夜與景觀偏好的關係 10
第三節 日夜變化、自然度與景觀偏好之關係 12
第四節 日夜變化、整潔度與景觀偏好之關係 19
第三章 日夜對於自然景觀偏好之影響探討 24
第一節 研究背景 24
第二節 實驗一 24
第三節 實驗二 31
第四節 小結 36
第四章 日夜對於都市環境偏好之影響探討 38
第一節 研究背景與研究問題 38
第二節 研究方法 39
第三節 實驗結果 43
第四節 小結 48
第五章 結論與建議 51
第一節 結論與討論 51
第二節 未來研究建議 55
參考文獻 57
附錄一 日夜對於景觀偏好之影響照片篩選問卷-實驗一 68
附錄二 日夜對於景觀偏好之影響照片篩選問卷-實驗二 72
附錄三 日夜對於景觀偏好之影響實驗圖片 76
實驗一實驗圖片 76
實驗二實驗圖片 84
附錄四 日夜對於都市環境偏好之影響探討照片篩選問卷 90
附錄五 日夜變化於都市環境對偏好之影響探討之實驗圖片 94
-
dc.language.isozh_TW-
dc.title比較日夜變化對於景觀偏好之影響zh_TW
dc.titleComparing the Effects of Light Changes during Day and Night on Landscape Preferenceen
dc.typeThesis-
dc.date.schoolyear111-2-
dc.description.degree碩士-
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee林晏州;李彥希;林建堯;凃宏明zh_TW
dc.contributor.oralexamcommitteeYann-Jou Lin;Yen-Hsi Li;Chien-Yau Lin;Hung-Ming Tuen
dc.subject.keyword景觀偏好,知覺自然度,整潔度,燈光類型,日夜變化,日間,夜間,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordlandscape preference,naturalness,neatness,lighting types,diurnal variation,day,night,en
dc.relation.page99-
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU202302996-
dc.rights.note同意授權(限校園內公開)-
dc.date.accepted2023-08-08-
dc.contributor.author-college生物資源暨農學院-
dc.contributor.author-dept園藝暨景觀學系-
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-111-2.pdf
授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務)
6.79 MBAdobe PDF檢視/開啟
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