【Abstract】
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.
|