都市綠地空間自然生態、景觀審美與地方依附之研究

The Study of the Natural Ecology, Landscape Aesthetics, and Place Attachment of Urban Green Spaces

10.6130/JORS.202309_36(3).0002

李彥希(Yen-Hsi Li )

景觀生態審美 ； 綠色空間 ； 地方依附 ； Landscape ecological aesthetics ； Green space ； Place attachment

戶外遊憩研究

36卷3期（2023 / 09 / 01）

37 - 70

繁體中文;英文

在都市化發展模式上，都市空間之分割及內容多趨於機能考量而忽略了人性情感上及自然生態上之需求。都市綠地空間的破碎化及幾何化漸與自然背道而馳，而專家與一般民眾對於都市綠地空間的設計，在整齊規則與自然生態間的審美認知是否一致，一般民眾對於都市綠地空間的自然生態審美認知為何，皆是本研究想要了解與分析的問題。因此，本研究從文獻回顧中，利用都市綠地空間景觀生態審美評價矩陣之方法，界定四種景觀生態審美的類型，然後利用Raymond等人（2010）具有信度與效度之地方依附構面與量表來檢測不同類型景觀生態審美都市綠地空間之地方依附與景觀審美及偏好之間的關係。另外，分析不同社經背景及個人特質在地方依附、景觀審美評價及偏好上具有何種的差異。研究結果發現不同類型綠地空間在景觀生態審美評價、偏好與地方依附無顯著差異，受訪者對於低生態中美學的公園之審美評價比學者認為高生態高美學的公園還要高，表示受測者與專家之間的認知仍是存在著差異，地方依附會正向影響景觀生態審美評價及偏好，個人社經背景及個人特質在景觀生態審美評價、偏好及地方依附具有部分顯著差異。研究結果希望可以提供公部門及景觀設計者在都市空間進行景觀規劃設計時如何在自然生態與景觀審美取得平衡之參考。

In the development model of urbanization, the division and content of urban spaces tend to be functional considerations while neglecting the needs of human emotion and natural ecology. The fragmentation and geometrization of urban green spaces have grown gradually and counteractively to nature. This research sought to understand and analyze whether experts and the public had the same aesthetic cognition of the formal style and the natural ecology in the design of urban green spaces. First, from the literature review, this study defined the four types of landscape ecological aesthetics of urban green spaces using the landscape ecological aesthetic evaluation matrix. It then examined the relationships among place attachment, landscape aesthetics, and preferences for urban green spaces . In addition, this study analyzed how differences in social and economic backgrounds and personal characteristics affected place attachment, landscape aesthetic evaluation, and preference. The results of the study showed that there were no significant differences in the landscape ecological aesthetic evaluation, preference, and place attachment for the different types of green spaces. Respondents' aesthetic evaluation of parks with low ecology and middle aesthetics was higher than that of parks with high ecology and high aesthetics, indicating that there were still differences in cognition between respondents and experts. Place attachment positively affected the aesthetic evaluation and preference of landscape ecology. Individual socioeconomic backgrounds and personal characteristics showed some significant influences on landscape ecological aesthetic evaluation, preference, and place attachment. The results of this study could be used by the public works department and landscape designers when considering how to balance natural ecology and landscape aesthetics in the planning and design of urban spaces.

1. 張伯茹, P. J.,陳上迪, S. T.(2019)。環境干擾對中高齡女性使用都市綠園道之戶外休閒、地方依附與幸福感之關係。戶外遊憩研究，32(2)，39-65。
   連結：
2. 許嘉恩, J. E.,洪立三, L. S.(2015)。社區依附、環境態度與居民對於保護區的看法：以關渡自然公園為例。地理研究，62，91-108。
   連結：
3. 郭蕙瑜, H. Y.,鄭佳昆, C. K.,沈立, L.(2013)。運用景觀元素探討生長經驗對延續地方連結之影響。建築學報，86，145-167。
   連結：
4. 曾永平, Y. P.,鄭佳昆, C. K.,徐瑋襄, W. H.(2014)。遊客對太魯閣國家公園環境屬性偏好與地方依附之關聯。大專體育學刊，16(3)，261-273。
   連結：
5. 劉馥瑤, F. Y.,陳朝圳, C. T.(2015)。遊客對國家自然公園之地方依附、政策傾向與環境認知。島嶼觀光研究，8(3)，47-62。
   連結：
6. Acar, C.,Acar, H.,Erog˘ lu, E.(2007).Evaluation of ornamental plant resources to urban biodiversity and cultural changing: A case study of residential landscapes in Trabzon city (Turkey).Building and Environment,42,218-229.
7. Boldonova, I.(2016).Environmental hermeneutics: Ethnic and ecological traditions in aesthetic dialogue with nature.Journal of Landscape Ecology,9(1),22-35.
8. Chen, Y.,Sun, B.,Liao, S. B.,Chen, L.,Luo, S. X.(2016).Landscape perception based on personal attributes in determining the scenic beauty of in-stand natural secondary forests.Annals of Forest Research,59(1),91-103.
9. Cheng, Z.,Richmond, D. S.,Salminen, S. O.,Grewal, P. S.(2008).Ecology of urban lawns under three common management programs.Urban Ecosystems,11,177-195.
10. Cooper, N.,Brady, E.,Steen, H.,Bryce, R.(2016).Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘Services’.Ecosystem Services,21,218-229.
11. De la Fuente De Val, G.,Atauri, J. A.,Lucio, J. V. De.(2006).Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning,77,393-407.
12. Frank, S.,Furst, C.,Koschke, L.,Witt, A.,Makeschin, F.(2013).Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty.Ecological Indicators,32,222-231.
13. Fry, G.,Tveit, M. S.,Ode, A.,Velarde, M. D.(2009).The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators.Ecological Indicators,9,993-947.
14. Gobster, P. H.,Nassaurer, J. I.,Daniel, T. C.,Fry, G.(2007).The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology.Landscape Ecology,22,959-972.
15. Havey, J.(Ed.)(1981).Cognition, social behavior, and the environment.Erlbaum.
16. Hladnik, D.,Pirnat, J.(2011).Urban forestry-Linking naturalness and amenity: The case of Ljubljana, Slovenia.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,10,105-112.
17. Hofmann, M.,Westermann, J. R.,Kowarik, I.,Meer, E.(2012).Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,11,303-312.
18. Idilfitri, S.,Mohamad, N. H. N.(2012).Role of ornamental vegetation for birds’ habitats in urban parks: Case study FRIM, Malaysia.Social and Behavioral Sciences,68,894-909.
19. Jankevica, M.(2013).Evaluation of landscape ecological aesthetics of green spaces in Latvian large cities.Mokslas - Lietuvos ateitis,5(3),208-215.
20. Jaśkiewicz, M.(2015).Place attachment, place identity and aesthetic appraisal of urban landscape.Polish Psychological Bulletin,46(4),573-578.
21. Jim, C. Y.(2004).Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities.Cities,21(4),311-320.
22. Jim, C. Y.,Chen, S. S.(2003).Comprehensive green space planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China.Landscape and Urban Planning,65,95-116.
23. Jorgensen, A.(2011).Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research.Landscape and Urban Planning,100,353-355.
24. Junker, J.,Buchecker, M.(2008).Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations.Landscape and Urban Planning,85,141-154.
25. Krebs, A.(2014).Why landscape beauty matters.Land,3,1251-1269.
26. Lindemann-Matthies, P.,Junge, X.,Matthies, D.(2010).The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation.Biological Conservation,143,195-202.
27. Machado, A.(2004).An index of naturalness.Journal for Nature Conservation,12,95-110.
28. Mansor, M.,Said, I.,Mohamad, I.(2012).Experiential contacts with green infrastructure’s diversity and well-being of urban community.Social and Behavioral Sciences,49,257-267.
29. Manuel, P. M.(2003).Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: Cases from the Halifax regional Municipality, Nova Scotia, Canada.Wetlands,23(4),921-940.
30. Massoni, E. S.,Varga, D.,Saez, M.,Pinto, J.(2016).Exploring aesthetic preferences in rural landscapes and the relationship with spatial pattern indices.Journal of Landscape Ecology,9(1),5-21.
31. Ode, A.,Fry, G.,Tveit, M. S.,Messager, P.,Miller, D.(2009).Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference.Journal of Environmental Management,90,375-383.
32. Özgüner, H.,Kendle, A. D.(2006).Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK).Landscape and Urban Planning,74,139-157.
33. Özgüner, H.,Kendle, A. D.,Bisgrove, B. J.(2007).Attitudes of landscape professionals towards naturalistic versus formal urban landscapes in the UK.Landscape and Urban Planning,81,34-45.
34. Peckham, S. C.,Duinker, P. N.,Ordo˜nez, C.(2013).Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,12,154-162.
35. Raymond, C. M.,Brown, C.,Weber, D.(2010).The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections.Journal of Environmental Psychology,30,422-434.
36. Saegert, S.(1989).Unlikely leaders, extreme circumstances: Older black women building community households.American Journal of Community Psychology,17(3),295-316.
37. Sevenant, M.,Antrop, M.(2009).Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes.Journal of Environmental Management,90,2889-2899.
38. Stedman, R. C.(2003).Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place.Society and Natural Resources,16(8),671-685.
39. Summerson, R.,Bishop, I. D.(2012).The impact of human activities on wilderness and aesthetic values in Antarctica.Polar Research,31,1-21.
40. Tveit, M.,Ode, Å.,Fry, G.(2006).Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character.Landscape Research,31,229-255.
41. Van der Windt, H. J.,Swart, Jac. A. A.,Keulartz, J.(2007).Nature and landscape planning: Exploring the dynamics of valuation, the case of the Netherlands.Landscape and Urban Planning,79,218-228.
42. Vukomanovic, J.,Orr, B. J.(2014).Landscape aesthetics and the scenic drivers of amenity migration in the new West: Naturalness, visual scale, and complexity.Land,3,390-413.
43. Walker, A. J.,Ryan, R. L.(2008).Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study.Landscape and Urban Planning,86(2),141-152.
44. Williams, D. R.,Roggensbuck, J. W.(1989).Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results.Abstracts of the 1989 Leisure Research Symposium
45. Yang, X. X.,Kang, X.,Du, Z.,Bao, Y. J.(2012).SBE method-based forest landscape aesthetic quality evaluation of Changbai Moutain.Journal of Northwest Agricultural and Forestry university (Nat. Sci. Ed.),40(6),86-90.
46. Zheng, B.,Zhang, Y.,Chen, J.(2011).Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness?.Landscape and Urban Planning,99,1-8.
47. 陳棟樑, T. L.,陳俐文, L. W.,張心怡, H. Y.(2020)。地方依附、休閒涉入、滿意度對負責任環境行為之研究-以宜蘭縣羅東運動公園為例。觀光與休閒管理期刊，8，1-15。
48. 陳寬裕, K. Y.,李仕琴, S. C.,林士豐, S. F.,林瓊芬, C. F.(2012)。遊憩涉入、地方依附與社會情境之關係：以登山健行者為例。休閒觀光與運動健康學報，3(1)，110-125。
49. 鄧宏如, H. R.,葉珮如, P. R.(2012)。休閒涉入與地方依附之研究－以新北市八里左岸自行車道為例。休閒保健期刊，7，9-18。