Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/34898
標題: 木製擋土設施視覺偏好之研究
A Study on the Visual Preference of Wooden Retaining Structures
作者: 方玉蘭
Fang, Yu-Lan
關鍵字: wooden structures
木構造物
disaster prevention and mitigation structures
Visual Preference
ecology cognition
path analysis
治山防災工程
視覺偏好
生態工程認知
徑路分析
出版社: 水土保持學系所
引用: 1. 王小璘,1999,都市公園綠量視覺評估之研究,設計學報4(1)p.61-89。 2. 王松永,2005,疏伐木材在生態工法擋土牆之建造,台灣林業,31(4),第15~28頁 3. 王松永,2005,森林與木材對二氧化碳涵存之貢獻,台灣林業,31(3),第20~28頁 4. 方玉蘭、胡田田、林信輝,2009,疏伐材木構造物應用於治山防災工程之個案分析,2009第二屆水保技術研討會,第37~42頁 5. 中華民國造園學會、台灣大學園藝系,田園城市文化事業有限公司,1998,規劃設計理論與景觀評估 6. 台灣的自然資源與生態資料庫III農林漁牧,第八章森林生產與效益,第106~117頁 7. 李英弘、梁文嘉,(2000),景觀評估中之心理學模式之探討,造園學報, 8. 7(1),67-87。 9. 李素馨,(1983),視覺景觀資源評估之研究,國立台灣大學園藝學研究所,台北。 10. 李素馨,1995,環境知覺和環境評估,規劃設計學報1(4):53-74。 11. 李素馨,1999,都市視覺景觀偏好之研究,都市與計劃,26(1),第19-40頁。 12. 李素馨,1998,景觀道路兩側土地開發之美質評估之研究, 13. 李麗雪、洪得娟、顏家芝譯,1996,Foundations for Visual Project Analysis, Richard C. Smardon / F. Palmer / John P. Felleman,田園城市文化事業有限公司。 14. 吳明隆,2009,SPSS操作與應用,五南圖書出版股份有限公司 15. 林俊成,2007,世界森林資源碳匯估算結果分析,台灣林業,33(4),第67~71頁。 16. 林信輝、劉儀如、黃秋萍,2006,生態工法應用護岸與植栽類型景觀偏好之研究,水土保持學報,38(1)第31~54頁 17. 林信輝、張俊彥,2004,治山防災構造物應用自然生態工法之認知分析,中華水土保持學報,35(1),第79~88頁 18. 林烈輝,2004,水土保持工程構造物之美質評估,國立中興大學水土保持學系碩士論文 19. 林松村,1997,遊客對溪頭森林遊樂區不同人工林景觀偏好之研究,國立嘉義大學農學院林業暨自然資源研究所碩士論文 20. 林擎天,1990,森林景觀美質評估模式之研究,國立中興大學園藝研究所碩士論文 21. 林震岩,2007,多變量分析SPSS的操作與應用,智勝文化事業有限公司 22. 林務局94年度科技計畫,2005,木材在生態工法應用時之設計與維護 23. 林務局95年度科技計畫,2006,木材生態工法施工設計與維護手冊 24. 林務局95年度科技計畫,2006,國有林生態工程個案彙編 25. 林務局98年度科技計畫,2009,以木構造辦理國有林地治理工程之研究 26. 林務局南投林區管理處,2009,八卦山保安林地水患治理第一期整治工程規劃報告 27. 邱裕瑄,1996,陽明山國家公園視覺景觀偏好影響因素之探討,國立台灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文 28. 周文賢,1999,統計學,智勝文化事業有限公司 29. 周文賢,2001,多變量統計分析-SAS/STAR之應用,智勝文化事業有限公司 30. 俞孔堅,1998,景觀:文化,生態與感知,田園城市文化 31. 侯錦雄,1997,遊憩區規劃,地景企業股份有限公司 32. 侯錦雄,1990,遊憩區遊憩動機與遊憩認知關係之研究,國立台灣大學園藝學研究所博士論文 33. 高惠真,2006,遊客對奧萬大國家森林遊樂區景觀偏好之研究,國立嘉義大學森林暨自然資源研究所碩士論文 34. 張慈,2006,以生態美學觀點探討都市河川視覺偏好之研究,東海大學景觀學系碩士論文 35. 脩文琴,2005,雪霸國家公園雪見地區景觀道路遊客美質偏好與生態工法應用之研究,中華大學營建管理研究所碩士論文 36. 華鈺菁,1996,都市堤防與河灘地美化型式對視覺景觀偏好之影響,國立台灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文 37. 國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,2008,台灣地區木質材料應用與生態工法之效益評估與監測 38. 黃富瑜,1996,淡水捷運線使用者對沿線景觀知覺與偏好之探討,國立台灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文 39. 黃秋萍,2004,自然生態工法應用護岸與植栽類型景觀偏好之研究,國立中興大學水土保持學系碩士論文 40. 曾緯民,2004,野溪生態工法護岸與護岸草本植栽密度對視覺景觀偏好之影響,輔仁大學景觀設計學系碩士論文 41. 楊文玲,2009,河溪生態工法護岸型態比較之研究,逢甲大學建築學系碩士碩士論文 42. 詹智勝,2007,景觀空間涵構對景觀偏好與注意力恢復之影響,逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所碩士碩士論文 43. 賴純絃,1999,市區道路路幅與中央分隔島植栽栽植型式認知之研究,逢甲大學,建築及都市計畫研究所碩士論文 44. 韓乾,2009,研究方法原理,五南圖書出版股份有限公司 45. 鍾政偉,2001,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 46. 顏家芝,(1995),景觀偏好形成過程之探討,造園學報,2(1),19-38 47. Balling, J. E., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-18. 48. Daniel, T. C., and Vinning, J.(1984). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds). Human Behavior and Environment. New York:Plenum Press. 49. Daniel, T. C., and R.S. Boster.(1976).Measuring landscape aesthetics:the scenic Beauty estimation method. U.S.D.A For.Serv. Research Paper RM-167,Rocky Mountion For. And Range Exp.Stn.,Fort Collins,Colorado. 50. Dearden, P., (1984). Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation.Landscape Planning ,11,209-306 51. Hampe, G. D. and F. P. Noe.(1979). Hightway attitudes and levels of roadside maintenancc. In Our National Landscape, compiled by G. Elsner and R. Smardon,373-377 52. Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field and forest environments. Landscape Research, 9, 10-16. 53. Herzog, T. R., and Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger Mystery and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-344. 54. Jones, E., and Jones. R. (1977). Visual resource management for highway. Washington D. C., USDT, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute and Office of Environmental Policy. 55. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., and Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perceptual Psychophysics, 12, 354-356. 56. Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening . Environment and Behavior, 5(2) , 145-162. 57. Kaplan, R. (1977). Patterns of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 9 , 195-215. 58. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., and Brown. T. J. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21, 509-530. 59. Kent, R. L. (1993). Determining scenic quality along higntway: a cognitive approach. Landscape and urban Planning, 27, 29-45 60. Litton R. B. Jr. (1968). Forest landscape description and inventories: A basis for land planning and desigh. USDA, for Serv, Res, Pap. PSW, 49-64. 61. Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference, Environment and Behavior, 15, 487-511. 62. Mugica, M., and Vicente, J. (1995). The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences: A case study at Donana National Park, Journal of Environmental Management, 47, 229-239. 63. Nasar, J. L.,(1984) Visual preferences in urban street scenes: A cross-cultural comparision between Japan and United Sates. Journal of Cross-Culture Pesychology, 15(1), 79-93. 64. Pitt, D.G. and E.H. Zube. (1979) The Q-sort method: use in landscape assessment research and landscape planning. In Our National Landscape, compiled by G. Elsner and Smardon,227-234. 65. Richard C. Smardon , F. Palmer and John P. Felleman,(1986),Foundations for Visual Project Analysis 66. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspect of urban form. N.Y, Pergmon. 67. Smardon, R. C. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 85-106. 68. Torgerson,W.S.1958.Theroy and methods of scaling.New Yark: Wiley. 69. Zube, E. H.(1974). Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description of evalution of landscape resources . Landscape Behavior, 6, 69-89. 70. Zube, E. H., and Pitt, D. G. (1981).Cross-cultural perception of scenic and heritage landscape. Landscape Planning, 8, 69-87. 71. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., and Taylor, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception:Research, application and theory . Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
摘要: 治山防災構造物單獨運用於高度自然環境中,常成為環境視覺的主體,對於一處景觀影響不言而喻。而木構造治理工程設施適用無保全對象、臨時性或景觀遊憩地點,若工程於推廣應用之初,除考量安全性外,重視其景觀效益,將有利於未來規劃設計作業之參考應用,亦在環境教育推廣上更有效率。本研究應用群眾偏好模式,探討受測者個人屬性、及對生態工程認知態度在木構造治山防災設施之偏好影響。於研究第一部分,瞭解環境組成之景觀元素所造成的偏好差異,討論擋土牆型式、植栽型式、擋土牆與植栽組合型式、擋土牆量體等4項;第二部分瞭解個人屬性的偏好差異,討論個人的性別、年齡、教育程度、職業、及是否受過專業訓練等5項;第三部分,以徑路分析方法瞭解個人(對生態工程)的認知態度與造成擋土牆型式偏好差異之關係。 研究結果顯示:6種木構造擋土牆型式中,以校倉式擋土牆最受偏好;其他6種材質以預鑄植栽槽擋土牆最偏好,而木質材料相較於混擬土或石材,有一致性之偏好。無論組合式或校倉式擋土牆搭配6種植栽配置組合,都以喬木、灌木及草花之複層栽植方式最受偏好,尤以女性偏高,研究顯示不同的栽植方式,因受測者的性別、年齡、教育程度、職業、是否受過專業訓練等屬性而有偏好差異。在量體及材質方面,其擋土牆量體越大時,對人的視覺感受越強烈,偏好亦趨向極端。若材質運用上為親自然之木材時,其視覺景觀上將帶來正面評值,顯示木構材料比混凝土材料有顯著之偏好。 在個人屬性及生態工程認知態度對於擋土牆偏好之影響研究顯示:性別僅對於生態認知有顯著之影響,且女性比男性支持治山防災構造物的生態性。教育對安全及遊憩認知有顯著影響,且教育程度越高對於治山防災構造物的遊憩認知態度明顯偏低。受測者是否受過專業訓練僅對遊憩認知有顯著影響,沒有接受過專業訓練之受測者對於治山防災構造物的遊憩態度較支持。個人屬性對受測者的景觀認知無顯著影響。個人性別、教育、專業訓練屬性,透過安全、生態、遊憩的認知態度間接影響擋土牆之偏好;同時,個人屬性亦有直接影響擋土牆偏好之顯著性存在,尤以是否接受過專業訓練及教育程度因子較大。景觀及遊憩認知對於擋土牆的偏好有顯著之效果,景觀認知態度高偏好木構造擋土牆,反之景觀認知態度低偏好混凝土擋土牆。
An erosion and sediment control engineering structure is often seen as a principle object in visual environment when solo used in high natural ambiance that is critical in visual effect. Wooden structures for slopeland management are usually applied to the situations of without secured objects, temporary or leisure use. Beside consideration for safety, to take account of visual efficiency is also available to enhancing acceptance of public and value of environment education in the beginning of planning and design. The public preference model is used in this study to explore difference in individual attributes and cognition attitudes about ecological engineering of preference for slopeland management and disaster prevention. The first part of this study is aiming at preference difference caused by four items of environment composition landscape elements, including types of retaining walls, planting types, composition patterns of retaining wall and planting and masses of retaining wall. The second part is focus on the preference difference of individual attributes, including five items of sex distinction, age, education level, occupation and profession training level. The third part is to explore the relation between cognition attitude to ecological engineering and preference for type of retaining wall via path analysis method. The study has indicated that Shaw-Chan type retaining wall and pre-cast planting trough earn the highest preference out of six types of retaining wall in aspects of form type and material respectively. While wood material, compare with concrete or stone, shows consistent preference of the public. Regardless of type difference of composition style or Shaw-Chan style retaining wall, the multilayer planting style which collocate tree, shrub and grass possess highest preference, especially in female group. The study also shows that variation in planting types has leading to different preference caused by sex distinction, age, education level, occupation and profession training level. In mass and material aspects, volume of retaining wall makes positive relationship both on visual impact and preference tendency. while introducing natural wood as construction material will leading to positive evaluation, it also indicated that natural wood possess high priority than concrete material. As regarding preference to retaining wall in both individual attribute and in cognition of ecological engineering aspects, the study has indicated that sex distinction carry significant effect only in ecological cognition; in addition, female shows higher appreciation in ecological measures of slopeland management and disaster prevention structures. Education level carry significant effect in safety concern and leisure cognition, while the higher the education level is, the lower the leisure cognition to slopeland management and disaster prevention structures. Professional training carries significant effect only in leisure cognition, individuals who without professional training show higher support to leisure attitude of slopeland management and disaster prevention structures. Individual attribute carry relatively lower effect to visual cognition. According to safety, ecology, leisure cognition, individual sex distinction, education level, professional training characteristic has indirectly affect preference to retaining wall. Further, individual characteristic also shows significant effect to the preference to retaining wall, especially in professional trained and educated groups. Visual and leisure cognition has illustrated significant effects on the preference to retaining wall, the higher visual cognition attitude group show preference to wooden structures, while the lower group prefers concrete ones.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/34898
其他識別: U0005-1208201018094100
Appears in Collections:水土保持學系

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.