(44.192.66.171) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/18 00:20
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:畢蒂雅
研究生(外文):Pitiya Kumsakun
論文名稱:國立嘉義大學新民校區景觀設計元素之偏好與認知
論文名稱(外文):Preferences and Perceptions of Design Elements of Sinmin Campus at National Chiayi University
指導教授:蔡榮哲蔡榮哲引用關係劉耀中劉耀中引用關係
指導教授(外文):Jung-Jer TsaiYao-Chung Liu
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立嘉義大學
系所名稱:園藝學系研究所
學門:農業科學學門
學類:園藝學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:英文
中文關鍵詞:偏好認知設計元素開放空間
外文關鍵詞:PreferencePerceptionDesign ElementOpen space
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:370
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  當提及各國校園的規劃與設計,西方設計為其設計主流。不論設計模式與地點為何,校園規劃上常以建築配置為主軸,而空間則是被建築物所劃分出來。然而在整體規劃中,戶外開放空間所需要的動線、學習、休閒與美感等機能卻經常被忽略。因此在景觀設計上,必須要尋求新的觀念,針對不同的開放空間進行設計,而使用者需求則是一個成功設計的重要關鍵。本研究主要目的在於評估開放空間的景觀元素設計中,使用者之行為與其喜好。
  本研究以國立嘉義大學新民校區之三處廣場為研究對象。本校區位於嘉義市中心,佔地14.91公頃。本研究進行兩次實驗,實驗一使用三張廣場的全景照片,受測者則針對其使用頻率與對與廣場的建議給予1-5的評分,廣場使用情形則根據這些使用者行為與建議,例如從事何種活動、為何來到廣場,與其對廣場的改善建議等之評分來進行分析。實驗二針對各廣場進行多種元素設計之模擬,調查使用者之景觀偏好。48張彩色元素設計模擬圖中使用不同樹形之樹木,如傘形、柱形與金字塔形樹,以及不同色彩的草花,包括黃色、紅色與藍色草花來進行配置。為了防止受測者對背景的偏好影響實驗結果,相同的廣場皆使用相同背景照片進行合成。
  實驗一結果顯示,三處廣場中,位於大樓間的廣場的使用頻率最高。在這個廣場中,「走路」與「四處看看」是最常從事的活動,其中「走路」是所有活動中顯著最高的,其p < 0.05。所有廣場中,「經過」是來到這些廣場最主要的原因,其次分別為「打發時間 / 坐著」與「出來戶外 / 空氣新鮮」。多數受測者希望廣場能增加綠化。實驗二結果則顯示,黃色草花與傘形樹的搭配是使用者偏好最高的組合。
Talking about campus plans or design in several countries, the Western design have became main pattern. Whatever the model selected and whatever the site, a campus plan will almost always be the arrangement of buildings with spaces created between them. However, in the master plan, the outdoor open spaces necessary for circulation, study, relaxation and aesthetic pleasure was frequently ignored. It is necessary to find different designs of open spaces with the aim to have some new perceptions for the landscaping. User requirements are the key to get a successful design. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the user activities and preferences in element design of open spaces.
Three plazas at Sinmin campus of National Chiayi University were studied. The campus has an area of 14.91 hectares and is located at the central of Chiayi city, Taiwan. Two studies were presented, study A and B. In the study A, three plazas panoramic photographs were used and the respondents were asked to give rating scales of 1-5 based on the frequency of usage of the plaza and their suggestions for plaza improvement. Plaza usage were analyzed according to user simple activities and requirements in the plazas such as what they usually do there, their reasons to visit those areas, and what are their suggestions to modified the plaza by giving scale to options given.
Study B, on the other hand investigated the user scenic preferences of various simulated element designs of plazas. 48 color pictures of element designs were simulated using various kind of tree model consisted of umbrella form, columnar form, and pyramidal form. Also flower colors consisted of yellow, red and blue, were used. To prevent the bias from the background influence, all pictures of each plaza was taken with the same background.
In the study A, result showed that there is significant difference between each plaza which plaza one (located among school building) was the most used compared with the other plaza. The most frequent activities in three plazas were walking and watching and walking was significantly highest among all activities at p < 0.05. In all plazas, “pass through” were the main reason they use the plaza, the second and third were come to sit and outdoors/fresh air, respectively. Most of respondents preferred “more greenery” for plazas improvement.
Study B, showed that yellow flower and umbrella tree form were the most preferred and their combination had the highest preference than the other combinations.
Abstract viii
1. Introduction 1
 1.1 Research Background 1
 1.2 Research Purposes 3
 1.3 Research Design 4
  1.3.1 Overall experimental design 4
  1.3.2 Experimental design for study B 5
2. Literature Review 7
 2.1 The definition of outdoor open spaces “Plazas” 7
 2.2 The description of landscape preference and perception of forms, and colors of design elements 9
 2.3 The investigation of uses and activities of plazas 12
 2.4 Visual preference techniques 15
 2.5 Photo-questionnaires 18
3. Research Method 20
 3.1 A Study area 20
  3.1.1 Description of three plazas in the study 21
 3.2 Research Hypotheses 22
 3.3 Field photographs 22
  3.3.1 Study A 22
  3.3.2 Study B 23
 3.4 Questionnaires design 23
 3.5 Analysis Method 26
4. Research Analysis and Discussion 27
 4.1 The usages of an open space (activities) 27
  4.1.1 Participants’ characteristics (Study A) 27
  4.1.2 Finding 28
  4.1.3 The gender’s influences to plaza’s usages (Study A) 37
 4.2 The influences of elements design to respondent’s preferences 42
  4.2.1 Characteristics of the sample (Study B) 42
  4.2.2 The different of flower colors and tree forms with original 43
  4.2.3 The preferences of male and female to flower colors and tree forms 49
  4.2.4 The influence of students’ major to flower colors and tree forms preferences 54
5. Conclusion and Discussions 59
 5.1 Discussions 59
 5.2 Conclusions 64
References 66
Appendix I 71
Appendix II 74
Austin, L. R. 1998. Designing with Plants: Cold and Warm Color. Mexico.
Banejee, T. and A. L. Sideris. 1992. Private production of downtown public open spaces: Experiences of Los Angeles and San Fracisco. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, School of Urban and Reginal Planning.
Bell, S. 2004. Elements of visual design in the landscape. 2nd ed. Landscape design. London. 196 p.
Berris, C. and P. Bekker. 1989. Logging in Kootenay Landscape: The public Response. British Columbia.
Butterfield, B. and D. Relf. 1992. National survey of attitudes towards plants and gardening. The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development. A national symposium (proceedings). Timber Press, OR, pp. 211-212.
Coley, R. L., F. E. Kuo and W. C. Sullivan. 1997. Where dose community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environ. Behav. 29: 468-494.
Marcus, C. C. and T. Wischemann. 1983. Campus open space: An Underutilized potential. Mimeo. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of California.
Marcus, C. C. and T. Wischemann. 1987. Outdoor spaces for living and learning. In Landscape Architecture. March-April. 54-61.
Marcus, C. C. and C. Francis. 1998. People Places 2nd edition: Urban plazas. Canada. pp. 13-88.
Dandekar, H. C. 2003. Planner’s use of information, 2nd ed. Chicago: Planners Press.
Daniel, T. C. and R. S. Boster. 1976. Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Depooter, S. 1997. Nature and Neighbors: Green Spaces and Social Interactions in the Inner City. Master Thesis. Landscape Architecture, The University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.
Fisher, J. D., P. A. Bell and A. Baum. 1984. Environmental psychology. 2nd ed. NY, USA.
Fleming, R., A. Baum and J. E. Singer. 1985. Social support and the physical environment. In: Cohen, S., Syme, S.L. (Eds.), Social Support and Health. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 327-345.
Francis, M. 2003. Urban open space: designing for user needs. Landscape Architecture. Washington. DC. 85 p.
Frumkin, H. 2001. Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. AM. J. Prev. Med. 20 (3): 234-240.
Gray, L. 2003. “About Response Rate: Some Unresolved Questions.” Public Perspective, May/June, 16-18.
Holtzschue, L. 2006. Understanding color: an introduction for designers. 3rd ed. Mexico.
Huang, S. C. L. 2006. A study of outdoor interaction spaces in high-rise housing. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78:193-204.
Jackson, J. B. 1985. Vernacular space. Texas Architect. 35(2): 58-61.
Jensen, R. 1979. Dreaming of urban plazas. In Urban open spaces, ed. L. Taylor, 52-53. New York: Rizzoli.
Joardar, S. D. and J. W. Neill. 1978. The subtle differences in configuration of small public spaces. Landscape Architecture.68 (11): 487-491.
Kaplan, R. 1979. A methodology for simultaneously obtaining and sharing information. In Assession amenity resource values. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv., Fort Collins, Col., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-68. p.58-66.
Kaufman, A. J. 2004. Does plant Color Affect Emotional and Physiological Responses to Landscapes. Acta Hort. ISHS 693.
Kuo, F. E., W. C. Sullivan., R. L. Coley and L. Brunson. 1998. Fertile ground for community: inner city neighborhood common spaces. Am. J. Commun Psychol. 26: 823-85.
Kweon, B. S., W. C. Sullivan and A. R. Wiley. 1998. Green common spaces and the social integration of inner- city older adults. Environ. Behav. 30: 832-858.
Lynch, K. 1981. A theory of good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Mahnke, F. H. and R. H. Mahnke. 1987. Color and light in man-made Environment. New York.
Muderrisoglu, H. E. Eroglu., S. Ozkan and K. Ak. 2006. Visual perception of tree forms. Building and environment. 41: 796-806.
Nasar, J. L. and B. S. Fischer. 1992. Design for vulnerability: Cues and reactions to fear of crime. Sociology and Social Research. 76: 48-58.
Schroeder, H. W. 1986. Psychological value of urban trees: measurement, meaning and imagination. In: Proceedings of the Third National Urban Forestry Conference. American Forestry Association, Washington. DC. pp. 55-60.
Schroeder, H. W. and Jr. W. N. Cannon. 1998. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential street in Ohio towns. J. Arboric. 9 (9), 237-243.
Serpa, A. and A. Muhar. 1999. Effect of plant size, texture and color on spatial perception in public green areas-a cross-cultural study. Landsc. Urban Plan.36: 19-25.
Shafer, E. L. and T. A. Richards. 1974. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. USDA For. Ser. Res. Paper NE-302. NE For. Exp. Station, Upper Darby, PA.
Skjaeveland, O. and T. Garling. 1997. Effects of interaction space on neighbouring. J. Environ. Psychol. 17: 181-198.
Snyder, K. and J. Herman. 2003. “Visualization tools to improve community decision making.” PAS Memo. Chicago: American Planning Association. pp. 338-343.
Sommer, R., H. Guenther and Ph. A. Barker. 1990. Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape J. 9, 79-85.
Sommer, R., H. Guenther and Ch. L. Cecchettini. 1992. A user-based method for rating street trees. Landscape Res. 17 (3), 100-107.
Strumse, E. 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscape in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 16: 17-31.
Summit J. and R. Sommer. 1999. Further studies of preferred three shapes. Environ.Behav. 31: 550-76.
Todorova, A., S. Asakawa and T. Aikoh. 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 96: 403-416.
Ulrich, R. S. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes. Environ. Behavior 13: 523-556.
Whyte, W. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C. Conservation Foundation.
Wiley, J. and Sons. 2007. Planning and Urban Design Standards. New Jersey. Canada. pp. 37-343.
Wolf, K. 2003. Freeway roadside management: the urban forest beyond the white line. J. Arboric. 29 (3), 127-135.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊