景觀複雜度對自然景觀偏好之影響

The Effect of Landscape Complexity on Natural Landscape Preference

10.6128/CP.38.4.427

謝孟倫(Meng-Lun Hsieh)；林晏州(Yann-Jou Lin)

景觀複雜度 ； 碎形維度 ； 景觀偏好 ； Landscape complexity ； Fractal dimension ； Landscape preference

都市與計劃

38卷4期（2011 / 12 / 01）

427 - 447

繁體中文

在景觀偏好相關研究中，景觀複雜度與景觀偏好之間的關係一直都是許多學者致力研究的方向。然而，在較早期的研究中，皆缺乏較客觀測量景觀複雜度之方式，研究之成果亦有所不同。碎形維度為近年來新興的概念，具有自我相似之特性及描述景觀中複雜特徵之能力，因此本研究嘗試利用碎形維度作為景觀複雜度的測量指標，探討景觀複雜度與景觀偏好之關係，並嘗試透過實證研究驗證複雜度與景觀偏好之關係曲線。本研究以自然景觀照片作為刺激物，測量受測者對一系列自然景觀照片之景觀偏好，同時利用軟體分析每張照片之碎形維度值。研究結果顯示自然景觀偏好與碎形維度值兩者之間呈一倒U字形二次曲線關係，當碎形維度值約為1.333時，景觀偏好值最高，表示人們偏好複雜度中間偏低之自然景觀。透過碎形維度作為測量指標，本研究確實驗證前人對景觀複雜度與景觀偏好倒U曲線關係之假設，在景觀複雜度相關研究中極具貢獻。

The effect of landscape complexity on landscape preference has long been discussed. However, previous studies had difficulty objectively measuring landscape complexity, thus have obtained varied results. This study attempts to evaluate the effect of landscape complexity on individual preferences for natural landscapes, and to verify the relationship between them. Fractal dimension, a newly emerged concept, is applied as the index of landscape complexity in this study because of its self-similarity identity and ability to describe the complexity of landscape characteristics. This study uses a series of natural landscape pictures as stimuli, where the preferences of each picture are evaluated by the participants, and the fractal dimension (Db) is measured by software. The analytical results show the existence of an inverted U-shape curve between the fractal dimension and landscape preference, 1.333 is the most strongly preferred Db value. According to the result, people preferred lower-middle landscape complexity most, which confirms the hypothesis proposed by previous researchers. The application of fractal dimension and the results presented in this study are valuable in related fields and can contribute to the future research

1. 陳俊銘、林晏州(2001)。民眾對都市天際線景觀知覺與偏好之研究。都市與計劃，28(3)，367-386。
   連結：
2. 鄭佳昆、沈立、金珍衡(2009)。熟悉度於不同情境下對視覺景觀偏好之影響探討。戶外遊憩研究，22(4)，1-21。
   連結：
3. Altman, I.(ed.),Wohlwill, J. F.(ed.)(1976).Human Behavior and Environment.New York:Plenum Press.
4. Anderson, L. M.,Schroeder, H. W.(1983).Application of wildland scenic assessment method to the urban landscape.Landscape and Urban Planning,10(3),219-237.
5. Berlyne, D. E.(1963).Complexity and incongruity variables as determinants of exploratory choice and evaluative ratings.Canadian Journal of Psychology,17(3),274-290.
6. Berube, D.,Jebrak, M.(1999).High precision boundary fractal analysis for shape characterization.Computer and Geosciences,25(9),1059-1071.
7. Camgoz, N.,Yener, C.,Guvenc, D.(2001).Effects of hue, saturation, and brightness on preference.Color Research and Application,27(3),199-207.
8. Cooper, J.(2003).Fractal assessment of street level skylines: A possible means of assessing and comparing character.Urban Morphology,7(2),73-82.
9. Cooper, J.(2005).Assessing urban character: The use of fractal analysis of street edges.Urban Morphology,9(2),96-107.
10. Cooper, J.,Oskrochi, R.(2008).Fractal analysis of street vistas: A potential tool for assessing levels of visual variety in everyday street scenes.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,35(2),349-363.
11. Cubukcu, E.,Kahraman, I.(2008).Hue, saturation, lightness, and building exterior preference: An empirical study in Turkey comparing architects' and nonarchitects' evaluative and cognitive judgments.Color Research and Application,33(5),395-405.
12. Daniel, T. C.(2001).Whether scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century.Landscape and Urban Planning,54(1-4),267-281.
13. Daniel, T. C.,Boster, R. S.(1976).Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method.Fort Collins:Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
14. Garcia, L.,Hernandez, J.,Ayuga, F.(2003).Analysis of the exterior colour of agroindustrial buildings: A computer aided approach to landscape integration.Journal of Environmental Management,69(1),93-104.
15. Hagerhall, C. M.,Purcell, T.,Taylor, R.(2004).Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference.Journal of Environmental Psychology,24(2),247-255.
16. Hanyu, K.(2000).Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight.Journal of Environmental Psychology,20(3),273-284.
17. Heath, T.,Smith, S. G.,Lim, B.(2000).Tall buildings and the urban skyline: The effect of visual complexity on preferences.Environment and Behavior,32(4),541-556.
18. Herzog, T. R.,Shier, R. L.(2000).Complexity, age, and building preference.Environment and Behavior,32(4),557-575.
19. Kaplan, R.,Kaplan, S.(1989).The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
20. Kaplan, S.,Kaplan, R.,Wendt, J. S.(1972).Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material.Perception and Psychophysics,12(4),354-356.
21. Kenkel, N. C.,Walker, D. J.(1996).Fractals in the biological sciences.Coenoses,11(2),77-100.
22. Litton, R. B.(1968).Forest Landscape Description and Inventories: A Basis for Landplaning and Design.Fort Collins:Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
23. Longley, P. A.,Batty, M.(1989).On the fractal measurement of geographical boundaries.Geographical Analysis,21(1),47-67.
24. Mandelbrot, B. B.(1977).The Fractal Geometry of Hature.New York:W. H. Freeman and Company.
25. Nasar, J. L.(1983).Adult viewer's preferences in residential scenes: A study of the relationship of environmental attributes to preference.Environment and Behavior,15(5),589-614.
26. Sommer, R.,Summit, J.,Clements, A.(1993).Slide ratings of street tree attributes: Some methodological issues and answers.Landscape Journal,12(1),17-22.
27. Spehar, B.,Clifford, C. W.,Newell, B. R.,Taylor, R. P.(2003).Chaos and graphics: Universal aesthetic of fractals.Computers & Graphics,27(5),813-820.
28. Stamps, A. E.(2002).Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty.Landscape and Urban Planning,60(3),163-184.
29. Taylor, R.(2001).Architects' reaches for the clouds: How fractals may figure in our appreciation of a proposed new building.Nature,410,18.
30. Thayer, R. L.,Atwood, B. G.(1978).Plants, complexity and pleasure in urban and suburban environments.Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior,3(2),67-76.
31. Wohlwill, J. F.(1968).Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity.Perception and Psychophysics,4(5),307-312.
32. Xu, T.,Moore, I. D.,Gallant, J. C.(1993).Fractals, fractal dimensions and landscapes a review.Geomorphology,8(4),245-262.
33. Zmeskal, O.(ed.),Vesely, N.(ed.),Nezadal, M.(ed.),Buchnicek, M.(ed.)(2004).Harmonic and Fractal Image Analysis.Purkynova:Institutes of Physical and Applied Chemistry.
34. Zube, E. H.,Sell, J. L.,Taylor, J. G.(1982).Landscape perception: Research, application and theory.Landscape and Urban Planning,9(1),1-34.
35. 王珮琪、林晏州(1998)。景觀規劃中色彩計畫流程之探討。造園景觀學報，5(2)，1-19。
36. 吳鼎武‧瓦歷斯(2003)。飆碎形：電腦繪圖碎形設計與創作。台北:田園城市文化。
37. 林晏州(2002)。行道樹景觀美質評估方法之研究。造園景觀學報，8(2)，67-93。
38. 徐思琦、林晏州(2001)。影響捷運系統高架路軌結構體色彩偏好因素之研究。中國園藝，47(4)，419-430。
39. 曹正、王澤種(1995)。道路景觀視覺複雜性之研究。造園景觀學報，2(1)，83-102。
40. 陳品雯(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立中興大學園藝學系。
41. 黃照婷、林晏州(2009)。草花色彩配色之偏好與色知覺關係之研究。造園景觀學報，14(4)，19-34。
42. 黃瑞育(1993)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣大學園藝學系。
43. 歐聖榮、曾怡錦(2001)。不同草花色彩配置環境之偏好研究。造園景觀學報，7(2)，121-135。
44. 蔡厚男、呂慧穎(2003)。都市化對景觀碎裂影響之碎形分析。中國園藝，49(2)，233-248。
45. 謝孟倫、林晏州(2010)。色彩及碎形維度對自然景觀偏好之影響。2010第8屆造園景觀學術研討會論文集，台北:

1. 黃詩涵、林晏州(2017)。應用馬可夫鏈於瞳位凝視移轉分析。戶外遊憩研究，30(1)，1-26。
2. 張俊彥,洪詩涵(2020)。建構感知親生命性設計於環境體驗之概念架構。造園景觀學報，24(4)，41-71。
3. 鄭佳昆,郭怡君,姜雲(2021)。愈愛愈複雜？複雜性與景觀視覺偏好之因果關係再檢視。造園景觀學報，25(1)，29-45。