都市視覺景觀偏好之研究

Visual Preference of Urban Landscape

李素馨(Su-Hsin Lee)

景觀認知 ； 視覺偏好 ； 環境態度 ； Landscape cognition ； visual preference ； environmental attitude

都市與計劃

26卷1期（1999 / 06 / 01）

19 - 40

繁體中文

視覺景觀偏好的研究乃經由觀賞者的視覺經驗對景觀資源偏好的評價，鑑於以往都市景觀規畫缺乏對居民景觀偏好的了解，而導致都市建設未能適切地符合居民之需求，本文探討居民環境態度與都市景觀偏好之關係。都市景觀樣本地點之選擇，首先經由相關文獻調查台中市都市發展演變過程，並透過專業者認知圖之疊圖過程，分析台中市都市空間架構，蒐集具有代表性及可意象性之都市景觀地點，遴選出20個都市景觀地點作為實證研究之樣本點。居民環境態度經由因素分析得到七個因素，分別命名為「都市適應因素」、「田園休閒因素」、「歷史懷舊因素」、「社交群居因素」、「機械科技因素」、「自我隱私因素」、及「環境信任因素」，再将標準化因素得點進行群落分析，可得四種不同環境態度類群的居民，分別命名為「自我保守型」、「傳統念舊型」、「環境關懷型」和「現代生活型」，獲得主要結論有：(1)居民基本屬性不同，其景觀偏好僅在部份景觀地點會因性別及職業屬性而有所差異，但不受年齡、居住時間、收入、教育程度、居住地等社經因子所影響。(2)不同都市環境態度類群之居民對都市景觀地點有不同程度的偏好。自我保守型與其他三群間差異最多，且居民環境態度較居民基本屬性對景觀偏好之解釋力強。(3)景觀認知因子在現代性、自然性、親切性及易識別性與景觀評價因子偏好成正相關，且親切性與易識別性之相關值大於現代性與自然性因子。

Since Taiwan urban planning did not concern residents' preference for urban landscape, the development of urban could not reflect residents' needs. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between residents' environmental attitudes and their preference of the city landscape. This study firstly general reviewed the history of Taichung city and then had a research on the structure of urban spaces according to the procedure of analyzing various professional maps. Twenty places were selected to be the cases for studying. Factor analysis was used to derive seven residents' environmental attitude dimensions. They were urban adaptation, pastoral leisure, nostalgic antiquarian, social communality, mechanical orientation, self-privacy, and environmental trust seven dimensions. According to the factor score, four groups of environmental attitude type: urbanism, conservation, antiquarianism and modernism were classified by cluster analysis. The main findings were: (1) The relationships of socio-demographic variable and cityscape preference showed that gender and occupations were partly related to the preference, while age, income, resident place had no significant correlation to cityscape preference. (2) The different groups of environmental attitude residents had different levels of preference toward the cityscape. The residents of generalist style had the most difference with the other groups. (3) The preference of cityscape showed significantly associated by landscape cognitive components. Friendliness and legibility had stronger association than naturalness and modernization to preference of cityscape.

1. Chalmers, D. J., Knight, R. G.(1985).The reliability of ratings of the familiarity of Environmental stimuli: A generalizability analysis.Environment and Behavior,17
2. Dearden, P.(1984).Factors influencing landscape preferences: An empirical investigation.Landscape Planning,11
3. Herbert, W. S., Brian, O.(1994).Viewer preference for spatial arrangement of park trees: An application of video-imaging technology.Environmental Management,10
4. Herzog, T. R.(1984).A cognitive analysis of preference for field and forest environments.Landscape Research,9(1)
5. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R.(1976).The prediction of preference for familiar urban places.Environment and Behavior,8
6. Herzog, T., Smith, G. A.(1988).Danger, mystery and environmental preference.Environment and Behavior,20
7. Kaplan, S.(1987).Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective.Environment and Behavior,19
8. Kent, R. L.(1993).Determining scenic quality along highways: A cognitive approach.Landscape and Urban Planning,27
9. Kongjian, Y.(1995).Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese subgroups and Western design experts.Landscape and Urban Planning,32
10. Lyons, E.(1983).Demographic correlates of landscape preference.Environment and Behavior,15
11. Mckechnie, G. E.(1977).The environmental response inventory in application.Environment and Behavior,9
12. Mugica, M., Vicente, J.(1995).The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences: A case study at Donana National Park.Journal of Environmental Management,47
13. Nasar, J. L.(1983).Adult viewers' preferences in residential Scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference.Environment and Behavior,15(5)
14. Nasar, J. L.(1987).Environmental correlates of evaluative appraisals of central business district scenes.Landscape and Urban Planning,14
15. Rapoport, A.(1977).Human aspects of urban form.Oxford:Pergamon Press.
16. Schroeder, H. W.(1987).Estimating park tree densities to maximize landscape esthetics.Journal of Environment Management,23
17. Sheets, V. L., Manzer, C. D.(1991).Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation: Some effects of adding trees along city streets.Environment and Behavior,23
18. Smardon, R. C.(1988).Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation.Landscape and Urban Planning,15
19. Yang, B. E., Brown, T. J.(1992).A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements.Environment and Behavior,24
20. 于正倫(1991)。城市環境藝術－景觀與設施。台北:博遠。
21. 王澤種(1993)。台中，東海大學景觀建築研究所。
22. 王錦堂 Wang, Jin-Town(1987)。環境心理學。臺北:茂榮圖書公司。
23. 李素馨 Lee, Su-Hsin(1995)。環境知覺和環境美質評估。規劃與設計學報 Journal of Planning and Design，1(4)
24. 張樞 Chang, Shu(1994)。解讀現代「雙城記」－臺中老市區和重劃區的辯證哲學。建築師 Taiwan Architect，20(4)
25. 陳文榮(1989)。台中，東海大學建築研究所。
26. 湯國榮(1996)。台中，逢甲大學建築及都市計畫研究所。
27. 楊國樞 Yang, Kuo-Shu、 文崇一 Wen, Chung-I、 吳聰賢 、 李亦園 Li, Yih-Yuan(1988)。社會及行為科學研究法（下）。台北:東華書局。
28. 楊國樞 Yang, Kuo-Shu、 文崇一 Wen, Chung-I、 吳聰賢 、 李亦園 Li, Yih-Yuan(1988)。社會及行為科學研究法（上）。台北:東華書局。
29. 臺中市政府(1995)。台中市都會區發展策略研究。台中:台灣區發展研究院。
30. 臺中市政府(1989)。台中市發展史。台中:

1. 徐羽飛(2017)。植物寓意與景觀美質於臺北市公園綠地應用之探討。國立臺灣大學園藝暨景觀學系學位論文。2017。1-199。