Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28650
標題: 不同景觀空間類型之眺匿涵構比較研究
Comparative Study of Prospect-Refuge Context on Different Landscape Spaces
作者: 柯嘉鈞
Ko, Chia-Chun
關鍵字: Prospect-Refuge theory
眺望藏匿理論
landscape preference
natural environment
Chinese garden
visitor employed photography
景觀偏好
自然環境
中國式庭園
遊客自主性拍攝
出版社: 園藝學系所
引用: 中文部分 徐樹勛,(1989),園林美與園林藝術,台北:地景企業股份有限公司。 江彥政,(2009),自然環境資訊對心理評價反應影響之模式,國立中興大學園藝系博士論文,台灣:台中。 陳玉清,(1997),中國式庭園特質感受影響因素之探討-以至善園為例,國立台灣大學園藝系碩士論文,台灣:台北。 西文部分 Books Appleton, J.A. (1987). The visual elements of landscape. USA: The University of Massachusetts press. Appleton, J. (1996). The Experience of Landscape. 2nd ed . London: Wiley. Bell, S. (1999). Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process. London: E & FN Spon. Bourassa, S.C. (1991) The Aesthetics of Landscape. London & New York: Belhaven Press. Brownlow, T. (1983). John Clare and the Picturesque Landscape. Oxford: OUP. Carlson, A. (2000). Aesthetics and Environment: The appreciation of nature, art, and architecture. London: Routledge. Cherem, C. J. & Traweek, D.E. (1977). Vistor employed photography: A tool for interpretive planning on river environments. In Proceedings of River Recreation Management and Research. USDA Forest Service GTR NC-28. St. Paul, MN. pp.236-244. Gear, J. (1989). Perception and the Evolution of Style: a New Model of Mind. London: Routledge. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gobster, P.H. (1992). Forest vegetation in urban parks: Perceptions of inner city children. In: Vander Stoep, G.A. (Ed.), Proceedings, 1991 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp. 209-214. Heerwagen, J.H., & Orians, G.D. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In: Kellert, S.R. & Wilson, E.O. (Eds.). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington: Island Press, pp.138-172. Herzog TR (1988). A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Field and Forest Environments. In: Nasar, J.L. (Ed). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, Research, & Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 343-356. Hildebrand, G. (1991) The Wright Space: Pattern and Meaning in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Houses, Seattle: University of Washington Press. Kaplan, S. (1992). Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp.581-600. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kreisman, L. (1988). The Bloedel Reserve: Gardens in the forest. Seattle: The Arbor Fund. Luymes D (1992). An analysis of human use patterns in urban parks: A cognitive approach, Master Thesis. Ontario Canada: The University of Guelph. Mla, P. R. (2006). Prospect-refuge theory revisited: A search for safety in dynamic public spaces with a reference to design. Degree of master in landscape architecture. Arlington: University of Texas. Nasar, J.L., Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., & Mrohaly, M. (1988). The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: a look at prospect and refuge. In: Nasar, J.L. (Ed). Environmental aesthetics: Theory, Research, & Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.357-363. Orians, G.H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In: Lockard, J.S. (Ed). The Evolution of Human Social Behavior. New York: Elsevier. Orians, G.H. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In: Lockard, J.S. (Ed). Landscape Meanings and Values. New York : Elsevier. Orians, G.H., & Heerwagen, J.H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscape. In: Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Toobu, J. (Eds). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and Generation of Culture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Ou, Sheng-Jung & Ko, Chia-Chun,(2010), Examining Prospect-Refuge theory in an geometrical garden “16th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management Conference (ISSRM)”, Post, Texas, USA Reid, G. W. (1993).From concept to form in landscape design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. California: Sage Publication, Inc. Newbury Park. Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In; Altman, 1., & Wohlwill. J. (Eds.). Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 85-125. Ulrich, R.S. (1993). Biophilia. biophobia. and natural landscapes. In: Kellert, S.R. & Wilson, E.O. (Eds.). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp.73-137. Wilson, E.O.(1993).Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In: Kellert, S.R. & Wilson, E.O. (Eds.). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp.31-41. Woodcock, D.M. (1982). A Functionalist Approach to Environmental Preference, PhD dissertation. Ann Arbor Michigan: University of Michigan. Journal Articles Appleton, J. (1984). Prospect and refuge re-visited. Landscape Journal, 3(2):91-102. Ataov, A. (1998). Environmental aesthetics. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(2): 239-257. Balling, J.D., & Falk, J.H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(5): 5-28. Cherem, C. J. & Driver, B. L. (1983) Visitor employed photography: A technique to measure common perceptions of natural environments. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(1): 65-83. Chenoweth, R. (1984) Visitor employed photography: A potential tool for landscapes architecture. Landscape Journal, 3(2): 136-143. Clamp, P., & Powell, M. (1982). Prospect-refuge theory under test. Landscape Research, 7: 7-8. Daniel, T.C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54:267-281. Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (2010). Evolutionary Influence on Human Landscape Preference. Environment and Behavior, 42(4): 479-493. Fisher, B.S., & Nasar, J.L. (1992). Fear of crime In relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24(1): 35-65. Fischer, M.A., & Shrout, P.E. (2006). Children’s liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge, and hazard. Environment and Behavior, 38(3): 373-393. de la Fuente de Val, G.; Atauri, J.A.; & de Lucio, J.V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean- climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77: 393-407. Galindo P, Hidalgo C (2005). Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. International Journal of Psychology, 40 (1): 19-26. Galindo, M.P.G., & Rodrỉguez, J.A.C. (2000). Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain, 4(1):13-27. Gobster, P.H. (1994). The Urban savanna: Reuniting ecological preference and function. Ecological Restoration, 12: 64-71. Hagerhall, C.M. (2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of environmental Psychology, 20: 83-90. Hayward, S. C., & Franklin, S. S. (1974). Perceived openness-enclosure of architectural space. Environment and Behavior, 6(1): 37-52. Herzog, T.R., & Bryce, A.G. (2007). Mystery and Preference in Within‐Forest Settings. Environment and Behavior, 39(6): 779‐796. Herzog, T. R. & Kirk, K. M. (2005). Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(5): 620-639. Herzog, T. R. & Kropscott L. S. (2004) Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36(5): 659-677. Herzog, T. R. & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in fields/forest settings. Environment and Behavior. 34(6): 819- 835. Herzog, T.R., & Miller, E.J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30:429-449. Herzog, T.R., & Leverich, O.L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 33(4): 459-477. Heyligers, P.C. (1981). Prospect-refuge symbolism of dune landscapes. Landscape Research, 6: 7-11. Jacobsen, J.K.S.(2007). Use of landscape perception methods in tourism studies: a review of photo-based research approaches. Tourism Geographies, 9(3):234-253. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T., (1989). Environment preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5): 509-530. 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. Mackay, K. J. & Couldwell, C. M. (2004) Using visitor-employed photography to investigate destination image. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 390-396. Mealey, L., & Theis, P. (1995). The relationship between mood and preference among natural landscape: an evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16: 247-256 Mumcu, S., Düzenli, T., & Özbilen, A. (2010). Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preference for seating areas. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(11): 1123-1233. Nasar, J.L., & Fisher, B.S.(1993). Proximate physical cues to fear of crime. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26: 161-78. Nasar, J.L., & Jones, K.M. (1997). Landscape of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 25(3):291-323. Natori, Y., & Chenoweth, R. (2008). Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28: 250‐267. Ode, A., Tveit, M.S., & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1): 89-117. Oku, H. & Fukamachi, K. (2006) The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75: 34-42. Ribe, R. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference taught us? Environmental Management, 13(1): 55-74. Ruddell, E.J., & Hammitt, W.E. (1987). Prospect refuge theory: A psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments. Journal of leisure Research, 19(4): 249-260. Ruddell, E.J., Gramann, J.H., Rudis, V.A., & Westphal, J.M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21: 393-412. Rogge, E., Nevens, F., & Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82: 159‐174. Simonič, T. (2003). Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscapes. Zb. Bioteh. fak. Univ. Ljubl., Kmet, 81(2): 369-387 Stamps Ⅲ, A.E.(1999). Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 156-172. Stamps Ⅲ, A.E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24: 1-16. Stamps Ⅲ, A. E. (2005a) Visual permeability, Locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environment and Behavior, 37(5): 587-619. Stamps Ⅲ, A. E. (2005b) Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environment and Behavior, 37(1): 102-133. Stamps Ⅲ, A. E. & Kirk, K. M. (2005) Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and dander in forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(5): 620-639. Stamps Ⅲ, A.E. & Smith, S. (2002). Environmental enclosure in urban settings. Environment and Behavior, 34(6): 781-794. Strumse, E. (1994). Environmental attributes and the prediction of preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of environmental psychology, 14: 293–303. Taylor,J.G., Czarnowski,K.J., Sexton, N.R., and Flicl,S. (1995). The importance of water to rocky mountain national park visitors: a adaptation of visitor-employed photography to natural resources management. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 20(1): 61-85. Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G. (2006). Key visual concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3): 229–255. Trent, R. B., Neumann, E. & Kvashny, A. (1987). Presentation mode and Question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14: 225-235. Ulrich, R.S. (1986). Human response to vegetation and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13:29-44. Van den Berg, A. E., Vlek, C. A. J., & Coeterier, J. F. (1998). Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18: 141-157. Zube, E.H., Sell, G.L., & Taylor, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9: 1-33.
摘要: 以「能夠看而不被看見」這樣的概念為基礎,Appleton於1975年時提出了眺望-藏匿理論(眺匿理論)。該理論提出後,廣泛的被研究者用來解釋為什麼人們偏好某幾種類型的景觀,或者利用眺望與藏匿作為預測偏好的訊息變項。對於眺匿理論,雖然有相關的應用性研究,但更深入探討其在景觀設計上的合理性的研究仍然不足,且當中也無法進行有效的眺望與藏匿的定義。因此本研究欲重新檢視眺望藏匿理論的真正意涵,並以體驗的角度,探索並比較自然場域以及中國式庭園場域此兩種不同景觀空間類型的眺望與藏匿的涵構。 為了達成上述研究目標,本研究運用質性研究的方法與遊客自主性拍攝(visitor employed photography (VEP))的技術,探討觀賞者在自然環境以及人造環境(中國式庭園景觀)中的偏好及偏好的原因。在受測者依其意願自行拍攝喜歡的場景後,進行深度的訪談。利用質性分析軟體Altlas.ti來進行資料的歸納與分析。 研究結果除了重新確認了理論提出者Appleton所指的眺望與藏匿的架構外,亦從受測者拍攝的照片與描述的語句中確立了觀賞者偏好的場景確實具有眺望與藏匿的屬性。在自然場域,眺望為主的佈局以狹長的景致(vista)為多,在這樣的場景中觀賞者覺得有延伸感;間接的眺望屬性佈局會增加觀賞者的探索慾望;另外觀賞者會注意到象徵性的藏匿元素如建築、凹地、陰影等處。在中國式庭園所偏好的場景中,具有較多讓觀賞者感受到延伸的眺望佈局;在藏匿的佈局方面,觀賞者偏好具有頂棚遮蔽或前景遮擋的場景,讓其有被保護的感覺。 本研究利用VEP與質性訪談的操作方式,探究並比較了不同景觀空間中的眺望與藏匿的涵構,提出了數個偏好的眺匿場景,可作為觀光遊憩據點的調查與規劃以及景觀設計的參考外,未來更可依此發展量化研究,以進行更明確的眺望藏匿佈局比例上的推論。
Based upon the concept of “seeing without being seen”, Appleton (1975) proposed the prospect-refuge theory (P-R theory) which was extensively used as an explanation why people prefer certain types of landscape or an information variable to predict preference by landscape researchers. Although there are some applied researches related to the P-R theory, there still needs further examination about the rationality of P-R theory to assist in validly defining the degree of prospect and refuge in landscape design. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to review the P-R theory as well as to reexamine and compare the P-R context on different landscape spaces, a natural setting and a Chinese garden, in the viewpoint of experience. To achieve the study purpose, the study adopted a qualitative oriented research method. The study used the technique of visitor employed photography (VEP) to obtain the required data (e.g., preference, the reasons why he/she prefers, experience in the setting,…etc.) from observers both in a natural environment and a Chinese garden. In-depth interviews were implemented after observers had taken all the preferred photos in his/her own will. The qualitative software of Altlas.ti was used to analyze the data. The study redefined the prospect and refuge frameworks which Appleton proposed. Moreover the results indicated that in both settings, the qualitative data from the in-depth interviews and the photos that observers shot brought up several points regarding the relationship between preference of scenes and prospect and refuge properties. In natural environment, the scenes belong to the property of vista reflected a high preference frequency and hold an extended feature. The scenes with secondary prospect configurations aroused observers' explorative thought as well as the scenes with secondary refuge symbolism hold attractions for observers such as the buildings, shadow, or cave. In Chinese garden setting, the extended scenes belong to the prospect property reflected a high preference frequency. Furthermore, observers preferred the scenes with properties of shelters or hides belonged to refuge concept and felt to be protected. Overall to say, the study employed VEP technique and qualitative method to explore and compare the prospect and refuge context on different landscape spaces. The results of the study act as the foundation to form a practical guidance in creating a preferred environment with prospect and refuge properties which can be provided for landscape design and tourism and recreation resource investigation and planning. According to the results of the study, moreover, quantitative study can be undertaken to find out the preference of certain settings with different P-R ration in the future.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28650
其他識別: U0005-1908201102055500
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1908201102055500
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.