Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28603
標題: 台灣地區景觀美感因素結構之研究— 以台灣國家公園為例
Studies on the Factor Structure of Landscape Aesthetic Affects for National Parks in Taiwan
作者: 李彥希
Li, Yen-Hsi
關鍵字: landscape aesthetic
景觀審美
landscape aesthetic affects
subject
object
composition
景觀美感
主體
客體
構圖
出版社: 園藝學系所
引用: 參考文獻 1.中文部分 (1)圖書 大山 正,(2000),色彩心理學—追尋牛頓和歌德的腳步,台北:牧村圖書有限公司,191-224。 李伯黍等譯,Arthur S. Reber 著,(2003),心理學辭典,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 李澤厚,(1996a),批判哲學的批判—康德述評,台北市:三民書局,401-430。 李澤厚,(1996b),美學四講:台北市:三民書局。 李醒塵,(1996),西方美學史教程,台北市:淑馨出版社。 武珊珊、王慧姬 /等譯,Jacques Maquet /著,(2003),美感經驗—一位人類學者眼中的視覺藝術,台北:雄師美術。 邱皓政,(2003),結構方程模式,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 邱皓政,(2005),社會與行為科學的量化研究與統計分析,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 侯錦雄,(1995),遊憩區規劃,台北:地景企業股份有限公司。 陳向明,(2002),社會科學質的研究,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 黃芳銘,(2002),結構方程模式理論與應用,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 黃書倩 譯,山中俊夫 著,(2003),色彩學的基礎,台北市:六合出版社。 鄭日昌、周軍/合譯,Paul Rookes & Jane Willson /著,(2003),知覺—理論、發展與組織,台北:五南圖書山版股份有限公司。 (2)期刊論文 甘煒,(2000),地貌旅遊資源的美感特徵分析,中學地理教學參考,第6期,10。 江毅,(1999),美感的生理基礎,湖南醫學高等專科學校學報(社科部),1(4),68-69。 李長學,(1994),論美感的社會根源,昭乌达蒙族师专學報(論文哲學社會科學版),15(2),52-56。 李素馨、李繼勉,(2005),景觀構圖類型之視覺評估研究,造園學報,10(2),37-59。 李素馨、詹智勝,(2005),不同水體景觀型態對視覺反應及注意力恢復能力影響之研究,第七屆休閒、遊憩、觀光學術研討會論文—景觀體驗與偏好篇,170-184。 阮琴閔,(1996),不同常綠喬木造形組合之情緒體驗與偏好研究,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 周承芳,(1994),審美主體諸因素對審美認識的影響作用,藍边大學學報(社會科學版),第1期,72-73。 周淑華,(1998),都市公園植栽密度與植栽類型對景觀偏好影響之研究—以台中市健康公園為例,碩士論文,東海大學景觀學研究所,台中。 林晏州,(2000),台北市鄰里公園之景觀美質評估,造園學報,6(1-2),91-115。 林斌,(1996),關於繪畫構圖的色調與線條的審美要素,西北民族學院學報(哲學社會科學版),第1期,115-120。 施文萍,(2000),喬木之象徵性、造型與栽植場所之關係研究,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 施瑞萍,(2002),試談美感形成的原因,黑龍江教育學院學報,21(3),63-64。 洪佳君,(2001),高山、水體、森林、公園、都市景觀之生心理效益,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 胡文烽,(2001),美感:審美直接性與間接性的辨證統一—兼評當前對美感問題的某些看法,江西財經大學學報,第6期,64-66。 苗茵,(2001),審美情感與非審美情感,廊坊師範學院學報,17(3),105-107。 孫營,(2000),審美—情感語言意義表達的多向追求,上饒師院學報,20(4),70-72。 馬國柱,(1996),以符號學看審美主體與符號客體的價值關係,中國人民大學學報,第3期,71-77。 高育芸,(2003),街道招牌景觀偏好之研究,碩士論文,靜宜大學觀光事業研究所,台中。 張天曦,(2000),積淀—李澤厚美感論的基石,人文杂志,第2期,98-102。 陳玠穎,(2003),中國園林景觀元素之視覺注意力、景觀認知及情緒體驗關係之研究,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 陳惠美、林晏州,(1997a),鄰里公園景觀美質預測模式研究,中國園藝,43(3),225-236。 陳惠美、林晏州,(1997b),景觀知覺與景觀品質關係之研究,造園學報,4(1),1-16。 陶陶楚翰,(2001),藝術接受中主體美感產生諸由再探,培訓與研究—湖北教育學院學報,18(4),5-10。 曾怡錦,(1999),草花色彩之情緒體驗及偏好研究,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 曾耀農、肖紅佛,(1999),淺論審美情感,沧州師範专科學校學報,15(1),28-32。 黃江平,(2000),論審美創造中情與景的互動關係—從四時遞嬗看詩人審美情感的變易,社會科學,第5期,74-78。 楊方,(1997),伯克的美感根源論體系述評,湖南師範大學社會科學學報,26(4),26-30。 葛启进,(1995),客體、對象、美和美感辨析—審美場研究系列論文之一,四川師範學院學報(哲學社會科學版),第2期,22-29。 趙惠霞,(1997),論美感的產生過程,陝西師範大學學報(哲學社會科學版),26(3),135-140。 劉正國,(2000),情感的複合顯示,中南民族學院學報,20(2),93-96。 劉偉,(2000),論馬克思的審美主體意識理論,大連理工大學學報(社會科學版),21(2),8-12 。 劉曉英,(1995),審美心理結構與審美主體的情感建構,理論探討,第2期,90-94。 劉興東,(2001),審美信息溝通與美感生長,廣西大學學報(哲學社會科學版),第23卷增刊12月,18-20。 蔡麗秋、林晏州,(2004),陽明山國家公園景觀類型與美質認知之相闗性研究,第六屆休閒、遊憩、觀光學術研討會論文集—景觀認知與偏好,1-19。 鄭廷坤,(2000),淺論想象在美感中的作用,許昌師專學報,19(3),92-93。 賴宇紅,(2002),旅遊景觀的審美要素解析,昆明大學學報(綜合版),1:30-33。 孙全治,(2001),自然景觀的審美感受層次分析,新乡師範高等专科學校學報,15(2):21-23。 (3)網路資源 http://tiscsvr.tbroc.gov.tw/ http://www.tol.com.tw/CT_NS/ctsearch.aspx http://udndata.com/ book914129@yahoo.com.tw mslin1222@yahoo.com.tw snp@pingtung.org 2.西文部分 (1)Books Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perceptive, Cambridge University Press. (2)Journal Articles Alland Jr., A. (1989). Affect and Aesthetics in Human Evolution. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 47(1), 1-14. Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1998). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. Arnheim, R. (1998). The expression and composition of color. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56(4), 349-352. Ataov, A. (1998). Environmental aesthetics. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(2), 239-257. Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structure equation models. Journal of the Academic of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94. Bender, J.W. (2001). Sensitivity, Sensibility, and aesthetic Realism. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 59(1), 73-83. Biaggio, M.K. & Supplee, K.A. (1983). Dimensions of Aesthetic Perception. The Journal of Psychology, 114, 29-35. Biswas, M.K., Ghose, T., Guha, S. & Biswas, P.K. (1998). Fractal dimension estimation for texture images: A parallel approach. Pattern Recognition Letters, 19, 309-313. Bourassa, S.C. (1988). Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 241-252. Brady, E. (1998). Imagination and the aesthetic appreciation of nature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56(2),139-147. Budd, M.(1996).The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. British Journal of Aesthetics,36(3),207-222. Carlson, A. (1995). Nature, Aesthetic Appreciation, and Knowledge. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53(4), 393-400. Carroll, N. (2002). Aesthetic Experience Revisited. British Journal of Aesthetics, 42(2), 145-168. Coeterier, J.F. (1995). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34, 27-44. Cox, F. (1995). Three steps to better compositions. Photographic Society of America, 61(7), 28-29. Cupchik, G.C. (1994). Emotion in aesthetics: Reactive and reflective models. Poetics, 23, 177-188. Davis, S.T. & Jahnke, J.C. (1991). Unity and the golden section: Rules for aesthetic choice? American Journal of Psychology, 104(2), 257-277. Duffy, R.A. (1979). An Analysis of Aesthetic Sensitivity and Creativity with Other Variables in Grades Four, Six, Eight, and Ten. Journal of Educational Research, 73(1), 26-30. Eaton, M.M. (1995). The social construction of aesthetic response. British Journal of Aesthetics, 35(2), 95-107. Egoz,S.,Bowring,J. & Perkins H.C. (2001). Tastes in tension: form, function, and meaning in New Zealand’s farmed landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57,177-196. Eysenck, H.J. & Saburo, I. (1975). The Determination of Aesthetic Judgment by Race and Sex. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 11-20. Frois, J.P. & Eysenck, H.J. (1995). The visual aesthetic sensitivity test applied to portuguese children and fine arts students. Creativity Research Journal, (3), 277-284. Fudge, R.S. (2001). Imagination and the Science-Based Aesthetic Appreciation of Unscenic Nature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 59(3), 275-285. Furnham, A. & Rao, S. (2002). Personality and the Aesthetics of Composition: A Study of Mondrian & Hint. North American Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 233-242. Garcia, L., Hernandez, J. & Ayuga, F. (2003). Analysis of the exterior colour of agroindustrial buildings: a computer aided approach to landscape integration. Journal of Environmental Management, 69(1), 93-104. Goosen, M. & Langers, F. (2000). Assessing quality of rural areas in the Netherlands: finding the most important indicators for recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 241-251. Grinde, B. (1996). The Biology of Visual Aesthetics. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 19(1), 31-40. Hagerhall, C.M. (2001). Consensus in Landscape Preference Judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 83-92. Herzog, T.R. & Smith, G.A. (1988). Danger, Mystery, and Environmental preference. Environment & Behavior, 20(3), 320-344. Herzog, T.R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43. Herzog, T.R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 237-248. Herzog, T.R., Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1976). The Prediction of Preference for Familiar Urban Places. Environment and Behavior, 8(4), 627-645. Horayangkura, V. (1978). Semantic Dimensional Structures- A Methodological Approach. Environment and Behavior, 10(4), 555-584. Howarth, J.M. (1995). Nature’s moods. British Journal of Aesthetics, 35(2), 108-120. Jin, X.C., Ong, S.H. & Jayasooriah (1995). A practical method for estimating fractal dimension. Pattern Recognition Letters, 16, 457-464. Kaltenborn, B.P. & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1-11. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. Keltner, D. & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297-314. Kuiper, J. (1998). Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity-Landscape planning at different planning-levels in the River area of The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 91-104. Lazarus, R.S. (1984). On the Primacy of Cognition. American Psychologist, 39(2), 124-129. Lin, S.F. & Thomas, G..V. (2002). Development of understanding of popular graphic art: A study of everyday aesthetics in children, adolescents, and young adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(3), 278-287. Lind, R.W. (1980). Attention and the Aesthetic Object. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 39(2), 131-142. Lipovetsky, S. & Lootsma, FA. (2000). Generalized golden sections, repeated bisections and aesthetic pleasure. European Journal of Operational Research, 121, 213-216. Locher, P.L. (2003). An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114, 147-164. Locher, P.L., Gray, S. & Nodine C. (1996). The structural framework of pictorial balance. Perception, 25, 1419-1436. Locher, P.L., Stappers, P.J. & Overbeeke, K. (1999). An empirical evaluation of the visual rightness theory of pictorial composition. Acta Psychologica, 103, 261-280. Lopes, D.M.M. (1999). Pictorial color: aesthetics and cognitive science. Philosophical Psychology, 12(4), 415-428. Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and The Philosophy of Aesthetics: Is Landscape Quality Inherent in The Landscape or in The Eye of The Beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44, 177-198. Maclagan, D. (1999). Getting the Feel: Problems of Research in the Fields of Psychological Aesthetics and Art Therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 26(5), 303–311. Mao, X. , Chen, B. & Muta, I. (2003). Affective property of image and fractal dimension. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 15, 905-910. Matravers, D.(1996).Aesthetic concepts and aesthetic experiences. British Journal of Aesthetics,36(3),265-277. Matthews, P. (2002). Scientific Knowledge and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 60(1), 37-48. McManus, I.C., Edmondson, D. & Rodger, J. (1985). Balance in picture. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 311-324. McManus, L.C. & Kitson, C.M. (1995). Compositional geometry in pictures. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13(1), 73-94. McManus, L.C., Cheema, B. & Stoker, J. (1993). The aesthetics of composition: a Study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 11(2), 83-94. Mealey, L. & Theis, P. (1995). The Relationship Between Mood and Preferences Among Natural Landscapes: An Evolutionary Perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 247-256. Mendel, L.C. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. (1999). Assessing temporal changes in the reservation of the natural aesthetic resource using pictorial content analysis and a grid-based scoring system-the example of Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 181-190. Misgav, A. (2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 143-159. Nasar, J. L. (1983). Adult viewers’ preferences in residential scenes--A study of the Relationship of Environmental Attributes to preference. Environment and Behavior, 15(5), 589-614. Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception—preliminary reflection on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 223-237. Ohta, H. (2001). A Phenomenological Approach to Natural Landscape Cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 387-403. Olen, J. (1977). Theories, Interpretations, and Aesthetic Qualities. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35(4), 425-431. Parsons, G. (2002). Nature Appreciation, Science, and Positive Aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 42(3), 279-295. Parsons, R. & Daniel T.C. (2002). Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetic. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 43-56. Pouivet, R. (2000). On the Cognitive Functioning of Aesthetic Emotions. Leonardo, 33(1), 49-53. Real E., Arce, C. & Sabucedo, J.M. (2000). Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 355-373. Ritterfeld, U. (2002). Social Heuristics in Interior Design Preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 369-386. Rollins, M. (1999). Pictorial representation: when cognitive science meets aesthetics. Philosophical Psychology, 12(4), 387-413. Russell, J.A., Ward, L.M. & Pratt, G.. (1981). Affective Quality Attributed to Environments—A Factor Analytic Study. Environment and Behavior, 13(3), 259-288. Schenkman BO. N.& Jonsson, F.U. (2000). Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behavior & Information Technology, 19(5), 367-377. Serpa, A. & Muhar, A. (1996). Effects of plant size, texture and color on spatial perception in public green areas—a cross-cultural study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36, 19-25. Sheet, V.L. & Manzer, C.D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation-some effects of adding trees along city streets. Environment and Behavior, 23, 283-304. Sherrard, C. (1995). Social identity and aesthetics taste. Philosophical Psychology, 8(2), 139-153. Sommer, R. & Summit, J. (1995). An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment and Behavior, 27(4), 540-577. Speer, A. (2000). Beyond Art and Beauty—In Search of the Object of Philosophical Aesthetics. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 8(1), 73-88. Stamps Ⅲ, Authur E.(1999). Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 156-172. Tanaka, S., Kurumizawa, J., Inokuchi, S. & Iwadate, Y. (2000). Composition Analyzer: support tool for composition analysis on painting masterpieces. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13, 459-470. Trafimow, D. & Sheeran, P. (1998). Some Tests of the Distinction between Cognitive and Affective Beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 378-397. Ulrich, R.S. (1981). Natural Versus Urban Scenes-Some Psychophysiological Effects. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523-556. Vaida, I.C. (1998). The quest for objectivity: Secondary qualities and aesthetic qualities. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56(3), 283-297. Walliams, M.A. (1996). Aesthetics and the explication of surprise. Languages of Design, 3, 145-157. Willard, C. (2004). Simply Exciting Compositions. American Artist, 68(746), 12-16. Yang, B.E. & Brown, T.J. (1992). A Cross-Cultural Comparison Preferences for Landscape Styles and Landscape Elements. Environment and Behavior, 24(4), 471-507. Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking-Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. Zangwill, N. (1998). Aesthetic/Sensory Dependence. British Journal of Aesthetics, 38(1), 66-81.
摘要: 目前對於景觀審美之研究多以偏好、愉悅或滿意度等情感因子來代表具有良好景觀品質之環境,但是景觀審美所可能產生之美感並非如此單純,其是一種多元複合之情感結構。為了解複雜多變的景觀美感因素結構,本研究首先從文獻回顧了解美學哲學、景觀評估與審美研究等相關之文獻,建構景觀美感因素之結構關係;其次,針對台灣地區景觀美感的組成因素,以質性研究與量化研究方式,蒐集台灣地區景觀美感之形容詞彙,透過因素分析將因素縮減為:放鬆愉悅、滄涼孤愁、雄偉崇高、理性統一、平靜安詳、鄉土懷古、朦朧虛渺、瞬間速度、異國奇幻、華麗的、脫俗的及充實的12項台灣地區景觀美感因素構面;接著以台灣地區六個國家公園為例,分析台灣國家公園之美感組成,分析結果顯示不同的國家公園在12項美感上皆具有顯著的差異,陽明山及墾丁國家公園之主要美感皆為放鬆愉悅;雪霸國家公園主要為放鬆愉悅、平靜安詳、充實及雄偉崇高之美感;玉山及太魯閣國家公園則皆以雄偉崇高的美感最為強烈,其次依序為放鬆愉悅、平靜安詳及充實之美感;金門國家公園的主要美感則為鄉土懷古。在主體因素與景觀美感之分析,受訪者的記憶、聯想、知識、經驗、情緒、年齡等特質皆會影響景觀美感,且多數是正向的關係,僅有在教育程度方面呈現負面效果,研究中並建構記憶、聯想、知識、經驗、情緒及社經背景六項景觀審美的主體結構因素構面;而在客體因素與景觀美感之分析,不同的照片構圖類型在12項美感上皆具有顯著的差異,但是將照片元素抽離後之個別影響上,分析結果顯示在照片內容物比例、色彩複雜度與12項美感間多數為關係微弱或幾無相關,故在以照片工具來研究景觀美感時,構圖類型是可列入考量之客體因素,而個別特徵元素之則較影響微弱,可暫不予考量。 本研究最後建構了景觀美感因素結構之研究架構,其涵括了:主體結構因素、客體結構因素、美感認知因素、美感感受因素四個部分,且從景觀美感因素結構參數估計路徑圖中可知,主體結構因素會直接影響景觀美感感受,亦會直接影響景觀美感認知,且會透過景觀美感認知之間接效果影響景觀美感感受,且多為中至高度的影響效果。
With regard to the relationship between landscape aesthetic subject and object, researchers often used the affective factors of preference, pleasure or satisfaction to substitute environment with good landscape quality. Nevertheless aesthetic affects may result in different landscape aesthetic that is not simple and includes diverse and compound affective structure. The study firstly reviewed the literature of philosophic aesthetic, landscape aesthetic evaluation and study and then to construct the structural relationship of landscape aesthetic factors in order to understand the complex factor structure of landscape aesthetic. Secondly, the study used both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect the adjective words of landscape aesthetic affects in Taiwan and extract 12 factors of aesthetic affects: relaxation-pleasure, blue-solitary, grandeur-sublime, rationality-unity, quiet-calm, indigenousness- remembrance, hazy-illusionary, blink-speed, foreign-surreal, gorgeous, fairytale, abundance. After analyzing the composite of aesthetic affects for the National Parks in Taiwan, the results showed that there were significant differences in each factor of landscape aesthetic affects among different National Parks. The major aesthetic affect for Yangmingshan National Park and Kenting National Park was relaxation-pleasure. For Shei-Pa National Park, the major aesthetic affect was relaxation-pleasure, quiet-calm, abundance, and grandeur-sublime. The major aesthetic affect for both Yushan National Park and Taroko National Park was grandeur-sublime, followed by relaxation-pleasure, quiet-calm, and abundance. For Kinmen National Park, the major aesthetic affect was indigenousness-remembrance. By performing statistical analyses between subject factors and aesthetic affects, the study also found out that several visitor's characteristics, such as memory, association, knowledge, experience, mood and age, were significant positive correlated to all of the aesthetic affects except for education level that was negative affection. Finally, the study constructed 6 subject structure factors for memory, association, knowledge, experience, mood and demography. In addition, the study analyzed the statistical correlation between object factors and aesthetic affects and found that different composition styles had significant difference in each aesthetic affects. Furthermore the study analyzed the correlations between the single element of photos and aesthetic affects, the results showed that 12 aesthetic affects were almost not correlated with contents proportion and color's complexity level. According to the above-mentioned results, the composition style is a considerable object factor when we studied on aesthetic affects with photos. Finally, the study constructed a research framework for landscape aesthetic factors structure including subject structural factors, object structural factors, cognitive factors of aesthetic affects and feeling factors of aesthetic affects. We found that subject structural factors directly influenced feelings and cognition of landscape aesthetic affects and indirectly influenced feelings of landscape aesthetic affects through cognition from estimating structural parameter of structural model. Both the direct and indirect effects were mid-high level.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28603
其他識別: U0005-0708200622405800
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1007200616541400
Appears in Collections:園藝學系

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.