Title

景觀設計中眺望藏匿理論模式之應用

Translated Titles

The Application of Prospect-Refuge Theory in Landscape Design

DOI

10.6377/JA.201206.0006

Authors

歐聖榮(Sheng-Jung Ou);柯嘉鈞(Chia-Chun Ko);許哲瑜(Che-Yu Hsu)

Key Words

景觀偏好 ; 開闊感 ; 安全感 ; 動態模擬 ; Landscape Preference ; Openness ; Safety ; Dynamic Simulation

PublicationName

建築學報

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

80期(2012 / 06 / 01)

Page #

111 - 129

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

以「能夠看而不被看見」這樣的概念為基礎,Appleton於1975年時提出了眺望-藏匿理論(眺匿理論)。對於眺匿理論,雖然有相關的應用性研究,但更深入應用於景觀設計上的研究則較為缺乏,本研究期望能將該理論具體應用,界定出眺望與藏匿之間的可能比值,讓景觀設計者能有所參酌。為了達成上述研究目標,本研究採用量化研究的方式,利用電腦模擬技術模擬不同眺望與藏匿程度的景觀場景,透過問卷調查的方式,找出受測者所偏好的眺望-藏匿的比例關係。研究結果顯示,不同的環境下,觀賞者偏好的眺望與藏匿的分佈比例各不相同;無論幾何式庭園或自然山林環境,視覺延伸性顯著與偏好相關;安全感與偏好顯著相關,並非單純的僅為藏匿環境的知覺感受。本研究成果可提供給景觀設計者應用,實際有效地創造出人們所偏好的環境。

English Abstract

Based upon the concept of ”seeing without being seen”, Appleton proposed the prospect-refuge theory (P-R theory) in 1975. Although there are some applied researches related to the P-R theory, there still needs further examination about the rationality of P-R theory in landscape design. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to propose the possible ratios between prospect and refuge for landscape designers.To achieve the study purpose, the study adopted a quantitative method. The study used the technique of computer simulation to generate landscape scenes that have different degrees of prospect and refuge. Followed by questionnaire survey, the study tried to find out the preference of each setting with different P-R ration. The results showed that three settings of the study have different P-R ration that observers prefer. No matter in which setting (geometrical garden or natural environment), the visual extension and sense of safety are significantly related to preference. The sense of safety does not only represent the perception of refuge. Based upon the results, a practical guidance in creating a preferred environment can be provided for landscape designers.

Topic Category 工程學 > 土木與建築工程
Reference
  1. Altman, I.(ed.),Wohlwill, J. F.(ed.)(1983).Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research.NY, USA:Plenum Press.
  2. Appleton, J.(1996).The Experience of Landscape.London, UK:Wiley.
  3. Appleton, J.(1984).Prospect and refuge re-visited.Landscape Journal,3(2),91-103.
  4. Barkow, J. H.(ed.),Cosmides, L.(ed.),Tooby, J.(ed.)(1992).The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
  5. Clamp, P.,Powell, M.(1982).Prospect-refuge theory Under test.Landscape Research,7(3),7-8.
  6. Daniel, T. C.(2001).Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21 st century.Landscape and Urban Planning,54(1-4),267-281.
  7. Fischer, M. A.,Shrout, P. E.(2006).Children's liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge, and hazard.Environment and Behavior,38(3),373-393.
  8. Galindo, P.,Hidalgo, C.(2005).Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes.International Journal of Psychology,40(1),19-26.
  9. Hagerhall, C. M.(2000).Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management.Journal of Environmental Psychology,20(1),83-90.
  10. Herzog, T. R.,Bryce, A. G.(2007).Mystery and preference in within-forest settings.Environment and Behavior,39(6),779-796.
  11. Herzog, T. R.,Kirk, K. M.(2005).Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings.Environment and Behavior,37(5),620-639.
  12. Herzog, T. R.,Kropscott, L. S.(2004).Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways.Environment and Behavior,36(5),659-677.
  13. Herzog, T. R.,Kutzli, G. E.(2002).Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings.Environment and Behavior,34(6),819-835.
  14. Heyligers, P. C.(1981).Prospect/refuge symbolism of dune landscapes.Landscape Research,6(1),7-11.
  15. Kaplan, R.,Kaplan, S.(1989).The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.NY, USA:Cambridge University Press.
  16. Kaplan, S.,Kaplan, R.(1982).Competition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World.NY, USA:Praeger Press.
  17. Kellert, S. R.(ed.),Wilson, E. O.(ed.)(1993).The Biophilia Hypothesis.Washington, DC:Island Press.
  18. Ko, C. C.,Ou, S. J.(2009).Exploring the preference framework of Prospect-Refuge theory in natural environment.Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management Conference,PA, USA:
  19. Luymes, D.(1992).Ontario, Canada,University of Guelph.
  20. Mealey, L.,Theis, P.(1995).The relationship between mood and preference among natural landscape: An evolutionary perspective.Ethology and Sociobiology,16(3),247-256.
  21. Mumcu, S.,Düzenli, T.,Özbilen, A.(2010).Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preference for seating areas.Scientific Research and Essays,5(11),1223-1233.
  22. Nasar, J. L.(ed.)(1992).Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, & Applications.NY, USA:Cambridge University Press.
  23. Natori, Y.,Chenoweth, R.(2008).Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists.Journal of Environmental Psychology,28(3),250-267.
  24. Ou, S. J.,Ko, C. C.(2010).Examining prospect-refuge theory in an geometrical garden.Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management Conference,PA, USA:
  25. Ribe, R.(1989).The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us?.Environmental Management,13(1),55-74.
  26. Rogge, E.,Nevens, F.,Gulinck, H.(2007).Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics.Landscape and Urban Planning,82(4),159-174.
  27. Ruddell, E. J.,Hammitt, W. E.(1987).Prospect refuge theory: A psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments.Journal of leisure Research,19(4),249-260.
  28. Scott, S. C.(1993).Complexity and mystery as predictors of interior preferences.Journal of Interior Design,19(1),25-33.
  29. Stamps, A. E.(2004).Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis.Journal of Environmental Psychology,24(1),1-16.
  30. Stamps, A. E.(2005).Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure.Environment and Behavior,37(5),587-619.
  31. Strumse, E.(1994).Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway.Journal of Environmental Psychology,14(4),293-303.
  32. Woodcock, D. M.(1982).MI, USA,University of Michigan.
  33. Zube, E. H.(ed.),Brush, R. O.(ed.),Fabos, J. G.(ed.)(1975).Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions And Resources.PA. USA:Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Times Cited
  1. 侯錦雄、邱薇之、林宗賢、李安娜(2014)。情緒棲地:東海大學校園使用者環境偏好之空間群聚研究。建築學報,88,141-154。
  2. 鄭佳昆、施景堯、周紓帆(2016)。校園空間中的恐懼因子:恐懼程度與視覺注意力。建築學報,96,37-51。
  3. 陳清山(2015)。規劃設計階段考量耐震性及經濟性之中小學校舍規劃效率評估。建築學報,91,1-20。