Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28834
標題: 景觀結構指數、環境偏好與環境品質關係之研究
A study on the Relationships among Landscape Structure Index, Environmental Preference and Environmental Quality
作者: 陳昀生
Chen, Yun-Sheng
關鍵字: Landscape structure index
景觀結構指數
Environmental quality
Environmental preference
Rural area
環境品質
環境偏好
農村地區
出版社: 園藝學系所
引用: 中文部分 【圖書】 1. 行政院環境保護署,(2004),探討植群結構與空氣品質之相關性,台北。 2. 行政院環境保護署,(1995),流域河川生態設計準則,台北。 3. 危芷芬譯,(1995),環境心理學,五南圖書出版公司,台北。 4. 李哖、張育森,(2002),地被植物之選擇與應用方式對改善空氣品質效益評估,行政院環境保護署。 5. 林信輝、張俊彥,(2005),景觀生態與植生工程規劃設,明文書局,pp:19-34。 6. 林憲德,(2001),城鄉生態,詹氏書局,pp:13-170。 7. 林俊寬、許添籌譯,新田伸三原著,(1985),植栽理論與技術,台北:詹氏書局。 8. 葉文虎、欒勝基,(1996),環境品質評估學,台北:科技圖書股份有限公司。 9. 鄔建國,(2003),景觀生態學-格局、過程、尺度與等級,五南圖書出版股份有限公司,pp:2-194。 【期刊論文】 1. 王裕文,(2000),草坪草之生態、分佈與利用,中華民國雜草學會會刊,21(1):1-16。 2. 朱健銘,(2001),土地利用空間型態之研究,國立台灣大學地理學研究所,台灣:台北。 3. 李英弘、梁文嘉,(2000),景觀評估之心理模式之研究,造園學報,7(1):67-87。 4. 何平、彭重華,(2001),城市綠地植物配置及其造景,中國林業,北京。 5. 邱攸園、林晏州,(2004),都市街道景觀設計元素之成本效能研究,中國園藝,50(4):501-514。 6. 施夙娟,(1995),景觀偏好知覺與景觀生態美質模式之探討,私立中華大學土木工程研究所碩士論文,新竹。 7. 高育芸,李英弘,葉源鎰,(2004),街道招牌元素與情緒體驗對景觀偏好之影響,造園學報,10(1):61-84。 8. 孫青雯,(1993),台中市生活環境品質評估之研究,私立逢甲大學土地管理研究所碩士論文,台中。 9. 黃偉銘、歐聖榮、張俊彥,(2007),以鳥類為指標物種評估台灣鄉村地區景觀生態研究尺度,造園景觀學報,12(4):1-21。 10. 郭桓志,(2001),新竹市生活環境品質滿意度調查分析,私立中華大學電機工程學研究所碩士論文,新竹。 11. 張俊彥,(2002),農村景觀生態之復育與創造,造園季刊,42:75-92 12. 鄧東波,(2001),從景觀生態學觀點探討都市綠地-以台北市信義計畫區為例,中國文化大學地學研究所地理組碩士論文,台北。 13. 曾國雄、曹勝雄、廖耀東,(1992),台北都會區土地使用形態與環境品質之研究,都市與計劃,19(1):33-52。 14. 歐陽嶠暉,(1997),環境問題與保護對策,應用倫理研究通訊,3:11-13。 15. 鍾政偉,(2002),景觀知覺偏好與地景結構指數關係之研究,朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系碩士論文,台中。 【網路資源】 1. 不願面對的真項中文官方網站 http://www.uip.com.tw/ait/ (2007/5/29) 2. 行政院環境保護署 http://www.epa.gov.tw/main/index.asp (2007/5/14) 3. 全國戶政網站 http://www.leadware.com/search/hrwebs.html (20075/20) 英文部分 【Books】 1. Beatley, T., (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, Washington, DC. 2. Forman, T. T. (1995). Land Mosaics:The Ecology of Landscape and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 3. Hietala-Koivu, R. & Peltonen, S. (1997). Diversity changes at the Agricultural landscape level in Finland. SP-Report 5 18: 130-132. 4. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5. Schell, L.M. & Ulijaszek, S.J. (1999). Urbanism, urbanisation, health and human biology: an introduction. In Urbanism, Health and Human Biology in Industrialised Countries (ed. L.M. Schell and S.J. Ulijaszek), pp. 3-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6. Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., & O''Neill, R. V. (2001). Landscape Ecology in Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, NY. 7. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic andaffective response to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum Press. 8. Wascher, D. M. (2000). The face of Europe-policy perspectives for European landscapes. ECNC Technical Report Series. European Centre for NatureConservation, Tilburg. 【Journal Articles】 1. Asakawa, S. Yoshida, K. & Yabe, K. (2004). Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68: 167-182. 2. Assefa, G., Glaumann, M., Malmqvist, T., Kindembe, B., Hult, M., Myhr, U. & Eriksson, O. (2007). Environmental assessment of building properties – where natural and social sciences meet: The case of EcoEffect. Building and Environment, 42: 1458–1464. 3. Attwell, K. (2000). Urban land resource and urban planting—case studies from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52: 145–163. 4. Austin, M. E. (2004). Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan. Landscape and urban planning, 69:245-253. 5. Carruthers, J. I. & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2002). Fragmentation and sprawl: evidence from interregional analysis. Growth Change, 33 (Summer): 312–340. 6. Cary, J. W. and Kathryn J. H. W. (2002). Landscape Preferences, Ecological Quality, and Biodiversity Protection. Environment and behavor, 34(2): 257-274. 7. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and urban planning, 68: 129-138. 8. Conine, A., Xiang,W.N., Young, J., Whitley, D., (2004). Planning for multi-purpose greenways in Concord, North Carolina. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68: 271–287. 9. Cook, E. A. (2002). Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and urban planning, 58: 269-280. 10. Correll, D. L. (2005). Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones. Ecological Engineering, 24: 433-439. 11. Crawford, D. (1994). Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment. Landscape and urban planning, 30: 71–81. 12. Daniel, T.C., Meitner, M. M. (2001). Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal Environmental psychology, 21: 61–72. 13. De Groot W. T.& Van den Born, R. J. G. (2003). Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and urban planning, 63: 127-138. 14. Dramstad, W. E., Sundli Tveit, M., Fjellstad, W. J. & Fry, G. L. A. (2006). Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and urban planning, 78: 465-474. 15. Franco, D., Mannino, I., Zanetto, G. (2003). The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape and urban planning, 62: 119–138. 16. Fu, B. & Chen, L. (2000). Agricultural landscape spatial pattern analysis in the semi-arid hill area of the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Arid Environments, 44: 291-303. 17. Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J. A. & Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscape. Landscape and urban planning, 77: 393-407. 18. Freeman, L. (2001). The effects of sprawl on neighborhood socialties. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 67 (1): 69–77. 19. Führer, E. (2000). Forest functions, ecosystem stability and management. Forest Ecology and Management, 132: 29-38. 20. Giles, J., R.H., Trani, M. K. (1999). Key elements of landscape pattern measures. Environment. Management, 23: 477–481. 21. Godefroid, S. (2001). Temporal analysis of the Brussels flora as indicator for changing environmental quality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52: 203–224. 22. Griffith, J. A., Martinko, E. A. & Price, K. P. (2000). Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scales. Landscape and urban planning, 52: 45-61. 23. Hartig, T. (1993). Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 25: 17–36. 24. Hietala-Koivu, R. (1999). Agricultural landscape change: a case study in Yläne, southwest Finland. Landscape and urban planning, 46: 103-108. 25. Hunziker, M. & Kienast, F. (1999). Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology, 14: 161-176. 26. Jim, C. Y. (2004). Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities, 21(4): 311-320. 27. Jim, C.Y., Chen, S.S. (2003). Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China, 65: 95–116. 28. Jose, A. A. & Jose, V. L. (2001). The role of landscape in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecology , 16: 147-159. 29. Kaltenborn, B. P. & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and urban planning, 59: 1-11. 30. Kamp, I. V., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G. & Hollander, A. D. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and urban planning, 65:5-18. 31. Karjalainen, E. & Tyrväinen, L. (2002). Visualization in forest lanscpae preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landscape and urban planning, 59: 13-28. 32. Kathryn, J. H. W. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and behavior, 34 (2): 257-274. 33. Kong, F. & Nakagoshi, N. (2006). Spatial-temporal gradient analysis of urban green spaces in Jinan, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78: 147–164. 34. Lausch, A., & Herzog, F. (2002). Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecological Indicators, 2: 3–15. 35. Lo, C. P. (1997). Application of Landsat TM data for quality of life assessment in an urban environment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 21(3): 259-276. 36. Lovaas, D. (2002). Growing up, growing out: some rust belt cities sprawl without population growth. E: The Environmental Magazine, 13(3): 14–15. 37. Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and urban planning, 65: 73-83. 38. Marquez, L. O. & Smith, N. C. (1999). A framework for linking urban form and air quality. Environmental Modelling & Software, 14: 541-548. 39. McGarigal, K. and Marks, B. J. (1995). Fragstats: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, U.S. Forest Technique Report. 40. Miyawaki, A. (1998). Restoration of urban green environments based on the theories of vegetation ecology. Ecological Engineering, 11: 157-165. 41. Morris, M. (1999). Chester County, Pennsylvania. Planning, 65 (4):8–9. 42. Múgica, M., & Vicente De Lucio, J. (1996). The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at Donana National Park. Journal of Environmental Management, 47: 229–239. 43. Nichol, J. & Wong, M. S. (2005). Modeling urban environmental quality in a tropical city. Landscape and urban planning, 73: 49-58. 44. Olsen, L. M., Dale, V. H. & Foster, T. (2006). Landscape patterns as indicators of ecological change at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Landscape and urban planning, 79: 137-149. 45. Palmer, J. F. (1997). Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change. Landscape and urban planning, 37: 109–113. 46. Palmer, J. F. (2004). Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and urban planning, 69: 201-218. 47. Parson, E. A. (1997). Informing gloal environmental policy-marking: a plea for new methods of assessment and synthesis. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2 (4): 267-280. 48. Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Mainardi Peron, E., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14: 195–209. 49. Ruda, G. (1998). Rural and environment. Landscape and urban planning, 41: 93-97. 50. Ruuska, R. & Helenius, J. (1996). GIS analysis of change in an agricultural landscape in central Finland. Agricultural Food Science Finland, 5: 567-576. 51. Stamps, A. E. (1996). People and places: Variance components of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82: 323–334. 52. Strumse, E. (1994). Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscape in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14: 293-303. 53. Terkenli, T.S. ( 2001). Towards a theory of the landscape: the Aegean landscape as a cultural image. Landscape and urban planning, 57: 197–208. 54. Türkoğlu, H. D. (1997). Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape and urban planning, 39: 55-67. 55. Tzeng, G. H., Tsaur, S. H., Laiw, Y. D. & Opricovic, S. (2002). Multicriteria analysis of environmental quality in Taipei public preferences and improvement strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 65:109-120. 56. Weber, C. & Hirsch, J. (1992). Some urban measurements from SPOT data: Urban life quality indices. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 13: 3251-3261.
摘要: 近幾年來「全球暖化」一直是全球人民最為重視的問題之一,人民在追求環境便利之於卻也造成整個環境急遽惡化,嚴重影響了整個環境品質,尤其是都市地區日益擴張,導致綠地空間及自然地區的流失,間接影響環境美質。本研究目的在驗證景觀結構指數、環境品質及環境偏好之相關性,應用景觀結構指數值去探討農村地區的土地結構,以瞭解當地環境品質與環境偏好的情形。本研究選取台中縣30處農村地區進行調查,每一研究樣點至少搜集30份問卷,共獲得920份有效問卷,並利用Arc Map之地理資訊系統軟體針對研究樣點進行數化,將每個研究樣點中的土地類型共分成5種類別(農田、水體、人工地盤、林地及草荒地)。接續利用描述性統計、獨立樣本t-檢定、單因子變異數分析及皮爾森積差相關進行分析檢定得到:(一) 草荒地塊區面積愈廣,愈有易於提高整體環境品質。(二) 草荒地的景觀百分比愈高,愈能增加居民對環境的偏好程度。(三) 環境品質愈高的環境,愈受到人們偏好。由以上結果得知,草荒地能有效地減緩水質的污染程度,也能降低空氣污染,因此應積極的推廣居民栽植,但應避免植被塊區破碎化,以增強植被塊區的完整性,及提升人們的偏好程度。
In recent years, “Global Warming” was one of the most important subjects of debate. People sought convenient environment, however, t made the environment more degreded. It affected environmental quality. Green areas were loss, and scenic beauty quality was affected. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among landscape structure index, environmental preference and environmental quality. Landscape structure index was applied to confer the land structure of rural area, and explored the environmental quality and environmental preference in the rural areas. This study chose 30 rural areas and collected 30 samples from every rural area. In total, the study obtained 920 valid samples. The study applied of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to digitize the aerial photography of every rural area and classify land use into five different types (e.g., farmland, waterbody, artificial land, forest land and grassland). Descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA and Pearson product-moment correlation were used to analyze data. The study concluded (1) The larger grassland the higher environmental quality. (2) The higher grassland's percentage of landscape the higher environmental preference of locals. (3) The higher environmental quality the higher environmental preference of locals. This study suggested to promote greening in order to strengthen the integrity of vegetation patch, and increase the preference level of locals.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28834
其他識別: U0005-1508200713465200
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1604200717105800
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.