Overall Principles:
Describe in brief sentances, connecting your research problem, based on your literature review, following with research methods.
Purpose of the Study
1. Use a word such as purpose, intent, or objective to begin the passage
2. identify the theory, model, or conceptual framework to be tested in the study (do not need to describe it in detail)
3. mention the specific type of method of inquiry being used in the study (survey, experiment)
4. state whether the independent and dependent variables will be related or whether two or more groups(as an independent variable) will be compared in terms of the dependent variable(s)
5. as a general principle, order the variables in the relationship or comparison sentence from independent to dependent
6. refer to the unit of analysis in the study (mention the subjects, population, or sample being studied, as well as the number of the individuals studied
7. provide a general definition for each key variable in the study and use established definition
Examples:
The purpose of this____(experimental? Survey?) study is (was? Will be?) to test the theory of ____that____(compares? Relates?) the____(independent variable) to____(dependent variable) for____(subjects? Sample?) at____(the research site). The independent variable(s) ____will be defined generally as____(provide a general definition). The dependent variable(s) will be defined generally as____(provide a general definition), and the intervening variable(s), ____(identify the intervening variables) will be statistically controlled in the study.
(Research Design, Creswell, 2006?)
The purpose of the present research was to develop rating scale measures of the four components postulated by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989). To develop such measures has at least two important motivations. First, by empirically showing that the hypothesized restorative components are separate constructs, an evaluation of Kaplan and Kaplan's (1989) theory is achieved. Second, it is necessary to be able to measure the restorative components to find out how they are related to different outcome measures. There is hardly any other way of doing this than requesting human observers to report how they experience different environments in these respects (Craik & Feimer, 1987).
......
The objective of the present research is to develop another set of rating scale measures of the four components of restorative environments, being away, extent, fascination, and compatibility. In doing this, an attempt is made to remedy some of the noted shortcomings of the PRS.
(Journal of Environmental Pshcyology (2001) 21, 31-44)
This article focuses on exploring the affective components of the wilderness place setting as they relate to spiritually beneficial outdoor recreation experiences; more specifically, what types of setting characteristics or attributes (i.e. biophysical and social) give rise to outdoor experiences that are considered spiritually inspirational. Historically, most research on recreation has focused primarily on specific activities rather than the recreational setting in and of itself. However, over the past two decades researchers have begun to recognize that the setting itself is largely influential in determining how satisfied the recreationist is with the activity. In effect, the parameters of recreation research have now broadened to include the environment as a primary point of inquiry. The thrust of this article is to more fully investigate a number of setting attributes that were ‘key’ in determining the spiritually inspirational qualities of two different outdoor recreation experiences for two separate groups of women.
(Journal of Environmental Psychology(1999)19, 21-39 )
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a relationship between the degree of naturalness in the view from university dormitory residents’ windows and their capacity to direct attention.
......
The specific objective of this study was to determine whether the degree of naturalness in the view from college dormitory windows was associated with residents’ levels of capacity to direct attention. It was hypothesized that students who had more natural views from their dormitory windows would show higher levels of performance on measures of directed attention than those who had less natural window views.
(Journal ofEnvimnmento1 Psychology (1995) 15,77-85 )
The aim of this study was to search for a link between the map-based land cover data typical for monitoring programs, and perceived aesthetic quality as quantified through a photography-based preference study. To achieve this we used the results from a landscape preference study for Norwegian agricultural landscapes (Tveit, 2000), linked to a number of 1 km2 squares included in the 3Q-monitoring programme. Based on the landscape represented in the images, we calculated a number of map-based landscape indicators, aiming to see whether any of these indicators were correlated to preference rankings.
(Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 465-474 )
The central aim of the present research was to gain more insight into people’s visual preferences for nature development landscapes. In the following paragraphs, we first discuss different strategies for nature development and their relation to the concept of wilderness. We then review prior research on individual differences in visual preferences for wild versus managed natural landscapes along with the potential relevance of place of residence, socio-economic variables, and recreational motives to explain these differences. Finally, we present the results of a survey among 500 residents from six nature development areas in The Netherlands.
(Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (2006) 362-372)
The emphasis of prior research on restoration has been on experiences in outdoor natural settings that range considerably in duration but are distinctly longer than the very brief interludes that characterize looking out the window (e.g., Hartig, Böök, Garvill, Olsson, & Gärling, 1996; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991). The emphasis of the present article, by contrast, is on people’s window views from home. More specifically, the focus is on the content of these views, the degree to which residents’ views are of preferred settings, and the association of view contents with well-being and residential satisfaction. Examination of the role of the view from home is hardly a trivial issue. For many individuals, extended restorative experiences may be few and far between. Micro-restorative experiences afforded by the view from home, however, may be far more attainable.
(Environmant and behavior, Vol. 33 No.4, July 2001 507-542)
Showing posts with label ~~cyc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ~~cyc. Show all posts
2/01/2009
Research Problem 1/12
Overall Principle:
0-1. Provide a narrative hook
0-2. lower the barrel
1. Describe a problem
1-1. write an opening sentence that stimulates interests as well as conveys an issue to which a broad readership can relate
1-2 specify the problem (dilemma, issue) leading to the study
1-3 indicate why the problem is important
1-4 focus the problem statement on the key concept being tested (the dependent variable)
1-5 as a general rule, refrain from using quotes in the leading sentence
1-6 stay away from idiomatic expressions or trite phrase
1-7 consider numeric information for impact
1-8 consider short sentence for impact
2. Describe the literature about the problem
2-1 discuss the literature that addresses the problem and set the problem within the ongoing dialogue in the literature
2-2 refer to the literature by summarizing groups of studies, not individual studies
Mention deficiencies in the literature
2-3 write about areas overlooked by past studies, including topics, special statistical treatments, and significant implications
2-4 discuss how the present study addresses these deficiencies and provides a unique contribution to the literature (what remains to be explored) (little empirical research) (very few studies)
3. Target an audience
3-1end the introduction by discussing the significance of the problem for a specific audience
3-2 to phrase a question that the audience likely would want to answer
Examples:
Will people drive less or recycle more only when they feel that they must do so to ward off the threat of ecological collapse? We see in environment-behavior research an emphasis on risks, damages, and moral obligations as the driving forces of ecological behavior (i.e., behaviors that contribute to environmental preservation and conservation) (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993). Although research on negative determinants such as personal threat (e.g., Baldassare & Katz, 1992), harm (e.g., Manzo &Weinstein, 1987), and guilt feelings (e.g., Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999) may help to ameliorate environmental problems, it represents a limited perspective on the motivational basis of ecological behavior. In this article, we apply a complementary perspective that encompasses positive motivations for ecological behavior.
(ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 4, July 2001 590-607)
In 1996, more than 13 million children in the United States were living below the poverty line. Among White children, 16% live in poverty, whereas nearly 40% of African American children live in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). Along with poverty often come substandard housing conditions-commonly characterized by overcrowding, infestation by rodents or insects, and lack of adequate heat or plumbing. According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a record 5.3 million low-income households are paying more than 50% of their income for rent or are living in severely substandard housing (“In Our Opinion,” 1998). Children living in poverty commonly face a host of environmental challenges such as poor housing, deteriorated neighborhoods, and overcrowded schools, not to mention the prevalence of social ills such as crime, violence, and racism. Within this context, it is likely that housing conditions can have a strong effect on young occupants. Yet the nature of this effect is unclear. The extant empirical literature provides little evidence regarding the housing characteristics that matter. Of particular interest in this article, the extent of the naturalness of children’s home environment has received virtually no research attention. Does the view from a child’s home affect his or her well-being? Do nearby trees make a difference in cognitive functioning? There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that these factors are generally important to human well-being, but there is little clarity regarding their significance to children within the home environment. Before considering the question of nature in the home, I will first review the literature regarding the effects of housing on children.
(ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 32 No. 6, November 2000 775-795)
People tend to prefer natural over built environments ability to provide restoration from stress or attentional (see reviews by Ulrich, 1983; Knopf, 1987; Kaplan & fatigue (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig & Evans, 1993; Kaplan, 1989; Hartig, 1993). For example, in samples of Staats, Kieviet, & Hartig, 2003). In particular, pre-European and North American adults, photographs of natural scenes consistently receive higher ratings of liking, scenic beauty, or pleasantness than photographs of urban scenes (e.g. Purcell, Lamb, Mainardi Peron, & Falchero, 1994; Stamps, 1996). Typically, levels of self-reported preference for natural scenes are so much higher than preference levels for urban scenes that the distributions of ratings for the two domains hardly overlap (e.g. Kaplan, Kaplan, & Wendt, 1972; see also Ulrich, 1983). People’s preference for natural over built environments can also be inferred from behavioral indicators, such as the higher prices paid for real estate in natural surroundings (e.g. Anderson & Cordell, 1988; Luttik, 2000).
Given that the empirical evidence for the preference for natural over built environments is strong and robust, it becomes important to ask why people have such a ubiquitous fondness for nature. According to several authors, at least part of the answer relates to nature’s ability to provide restoration from stress or attentional fatique (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig & Evans, 1993; Staats, Kieviet, & Hartig, 2003). In particular, preference for natural over built environments may be mediated by an implicit assessment of these environments’ potential for restoring or improving wellbeing (Appleton, 1975; Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan, 1987). Although this explanation is theoretically plausible, relatively little evidence has directly supported the mediating role of restoration in environmental preferences. The present research was designed to fill this void.
(Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 135-146)
Where rural arterial roads approach cities, they become magnets for urban commercial expansion. When approaching a city from the countryside, these roads too often present visually chaotic settings consisting of commercial development that represents the worst of urban sprawl-settings that are open, barren, monotonous, and overwhelmingly ugly. Designed for maximum visibility and convenience, commercial strips along the roads of the rural-urban fringe include enormous parking lots in front of superstores that are set a great distance from the road, with a striking openness and lack of spatial definition or trees that might block views to a store, its merchandise, or its advertisements. The result is a landscape that people dislike, but somehow tolerate. Should we relegate commercial strip development at the rural-urban fringe to the visual category of landscape that includes industrial sites and junkyards? Or are there inexpensive ways to improve the visual quality, and ultimately, the experience of the users of such settings? In this paper, we explore the extent to which typical commercial development in a Midwestern US agricultural landscape impacts the visual quality of the countryside. We also explore the reactions of nearby residents to alternative patterns of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe.We begin by examining commercial development at the rural-urban fringe and the resulting landscape that it too often creates. Next, we review recent research regarding preferences for various landscape settings, focusing on roadsides, scenic corridors, and central business districts. Finally, reporting the results of a new study, we examine the extent to which local citizens prefer various development patterns for a roadway corridor at the fringe of a medium-sized community and discuss the implications of the findings for planning commissions, designers, and businesses.
(Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152-166)
0-1. Provide a narrative hook
0-2. lower the barrel
1. Describe a problem
1-1. write an opening sentence that stimulates interests as well as conveys an issue to which a broad readership can relate
1-2 specify the problem (dilemma, issue) leading to the study
1-3 indicate why the problem is important
1-4 focus the problem statement on the key concept being tested (the dependent variable)
1-5 as a general rule, refrain from using quotes in the leading sentence
1-6 stay away from idiomatic expressions or trite phrase
1-7 consider numeric information for impact
1-8 consider short sentence for impact
2. Describe the literature about the problem
2-1 discuss the literature that addresses the problem and set the problem within the ongoing dialogue in the literature
2-2 refer to the literature by summarizing groups of studies, not individual studies
Mention deficiencies in the literature
2-3 write about areas overlooked by past studies, including topics, special statistical treatments, and significant implications
2-4 discuss how the present study addresses these deficiencies and provides a unique contribution to the literature (what remains to be explored) (little empirical research) (very few studies)
3. Target an audience
3-1end the introduction by discussing the significance of the problem for a specific audience
3-2 to phrase a question that the audience likely would want to answer
Examples:
Will people drive less or recycle more only when they feel that they must do so to ward off the threat of ecological collapse? We see in environment-behavior research an emphasis on risks, damages, and moral obligations as the driving forces of ecological behavior (i.e., behaviors that contribute to environmental preservation and conservation) (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993). Although research on negative determinants such as personal threat (e.g., Baldassare & Katz, 1992), harm (e.g., Manzo &Weinstein, 1987), and guilt feelings (e.g., Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999) may help to ameliorate environmental problems, it represents a limited perspective on the motivational basis of ecological behavior. In this article, we apply a complementary perspective that encompasses positive motivations for ecological behavior.
(ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 33 No. 4, July 2001 590-607)
In 1996, more than 13 million children in the United States were living below the poverty line. Among White children, 16% live in poverty, whereas nearly 40% of African American children live in poverty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998). Along with poverty often come substandard housing conditions-commonly characterized by overcrowding, infestation by rodents or insects, and lack of adequate heat or plumbing. According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a record 5.3 million low-income households are paying more than 50% of their income for rent or are living in severely substandard housing (“In Our Opinion,” 1998). Children living in poverty commonly face a host of environmental challenges such as poor housing, deteriorated neighborhoods, and overcrowded schools, not to mention the prevalence of social ills such as crime, violence, and racism. Within this context, it is likely that housing conditions can have a strong effect on young occupants. Yet the nature of this effect is unclear. The extant empirical literature provides little evidence regarding the housing characteristics that matter. Of particular interest in this article, the extent of the naturalness of children’s home environment has received virtually no research attention. Does the view from a child’s home affect his or her well-being? Do nearby trees make a difference in cognitive functioning? There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that these factors are generally important to human well-being, but there is little clarity regarding their significance to children within the home environment. Before considering the question of nature in the home, I will first review the literature regarding the effects of housing on children.
(ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 32 No. 6, November 2000 775-795)
People tend to prefer natural over built environments ability to provide restoration from stress or attentional (see reviews by Ulrich, 1983; Knopf, 1987; Kaplan & fatigue (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig & Evans, 1993; Kaplan, 1989; Hartig, 1993). For example, in samples of Staats, Kieviet, & Hartig, 2003). In particular, pre-European and North American adults, photographs of natural scenes consistently receive higher ratings of liking, scenic beauty, or pleasantness than photographs of urban scenes (e.g. Purcell, Lamb, Mainardi Peron, & Falchero, 1994; Stamps, 1996). Typically, levels of self-reported preference for natural scenes are so much higher than preference levels for urban scenes that the distributions of ratings for the two domains hardly overlap (e.g. Kaplan, Kaplan, & Wendt, 1972; see also Ulrich, 1983). People’s preference for natural over built environments can also be inferred from behavioral indicators, such as the higher prices paid for real estate in natural surroundings (e.g. Anderson & Cordell, 1988; Luttik, 2000).
Given that the empirical evidence for the preference for natural over built environments is strong and robust, it becomes important to ask why people have such a ubiquitous fondness for nature. According to several authors, at least part of the answer relates to nature’s ability to provide restoration from stress or attentional fatique (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig & Evans, 1993; Staats, Kieviet, & Hartig, 2003). In particular, preference for natural over built environments may be mediated by an implicit assessment of these environments’ potential for restoring or improving wellbeing (Appleton, 1975; Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan, 1987). Although this explanation is theoretically plausible, relatively little evidence has directly supported the mediating role of restoration in environmental preferences. The present research was designed to fill this void.
(Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 135-146)
Where rural arterial roads approach cities, they become magnets for urban commercial expansion. When approaching a city from the countryside, these roads too often present visually chaotic settings consisting of commercial development that represents the worst of urban sprawl-settings that are open, barren, monotonous, and overwhelmingly ugly. Designed for maximum visibility and convenience, commercial strips along the roads of the rural-urban fringe include enormous parking lots in front of superstores that are set a great distance from the road, with a striking openness and lack of spatial definition or trees that might block views to a store, its merchandise, or its advertisements. The result is a landscape that people dislike, but somehow tolerate. Should we relegate commercial strip development at the rural-urban fringe to the visual category of landscape that includes industrial sites and junkyards? Or are there inexpensive ways to improve the visual quality, and ultimately, the experience of the users of such settings? In this paper, we explore the extent to which typical commercial development in a Midwestern US agricultural landscape impacts the visual quality of the countryside. We also explore the reactions of nearby residents to alternative patterns of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe.We begin by examining commercial development at the rural-urban fringe and the resulting landscape that it too often creates. Next, we review recent research regarding preferences for various landscape settings, focusing on roadsides, scenic corridors, and central business districts. Finally, reporting the results of a new study, we examine the extent to which local citizens prefer various development patterns for a roadway corridor at the fringe of a medium-sized community and discuss the implications of the findings for planning commissions, designers, and businesses.
(Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152-166)
1/31/2009
Benefits of natural based recreation
Natural based recreation provides two main needs in contemporary society, the natural and health benefits. Many studies in the field of therapeutic landscape, healing garden, public health support the concept of a benefit based approach in outdoor recreation.
Moreover, various studies from environmental psychology, landscape research, horticulture therapy, and public health, have been done with different kinds of measurement to address this issue and prove its value. Psychological and physiological tests involving preferences, relaxation, attention restoration, social interaction, satisfaction, brainwave, muscle tension, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. have shown that all people, from children to elders, from general people to patients, can benefit in various ways from contact with natural environment.
However, in the field of outdoor recreation studies, the research on the benefits from recreational settings, activities, and experiences is limited. The benefits of the natural based recreation could be tested more based on the theories from outdoor recreation. Therefore, this session would like to provide a communication opportunity for scholars from different cultures to learn what we know about the benefits of natural based outdoor recreation. Further, we would like to invite scholars to join and start a cooperation team for future research collaborations.
Moreover, various studies from environmental psychology, landscape research, horticulture therapy, and public health, have been done with different kinds of measurement to address this issue and prove its value. Psychological and physiological tests involving preferences, relaxation, attention restoration, social interaction, satisfaction, brainwave, muscle tension, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. have shown that all people, from children to elders, from general people to patients, can benefit in various ways from contact with natural environment.
However, in the field of outdoor recreation studies, the research on the benefits from recreational settings, activities, and experiences is limited. The benefits of the natural based recreation could be tested more based on the theories from outdoor recreation. Therefore, this session would like to provide a communication opportunity for scholars from different cultures to learn what we know about the benefits of natural based outdoor recreation. Further, we would like to invite scholars to join and start a cooperation team for future research collaborations.
12/21/2008
The field of Landscape Architecture
The department of landscape architecture can be find in the names of college or school in the following codes or their cobinations:
Arts, Design, Architecture, Agriculture Science, Urban Design, Planning, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, Environment, Natural Resources, Humanities
These codes pointing our the cross-disciplinary nature of the profession of the landscape architecture and its extent. Therefore, the related field like Park and Recreation (Leisure Studies), Landscape Ecology, Environmental science, Natural Resources Management, Forestry, Geography, Tourism... are all work closely or played as the basis or as the second degree of the graduate level in the field of landscape architecture.
The working field of the landscape architecture includes the Environment Management, Regional Planning, Rural and Urban Landscape Planning and Design, Recreational Planning, Recreational Management, Landscape Ecology, Gardening, and Landscape Research related to the above topics. They can work in the institutes of Landscape Architecture Associations, Academic Institutes, Government Agencies, and NGO.
The related government agencies includes the Construction and Planning Agency, National Parks, Urban / Rural Parks and Greenway, Tourism Bureau, National Scenic Areas, Festival, Public Construction Commission, Council of Agriculture (Leisure Farm, Rural Landscape), Bureau of Forestry, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, Environmental Protection Administration, Council of Cultural Affairs, Council of Indigenous Peoples, Ministry of Education ...
Besides the descriptions of the field of landscape architecture. the relationship between landscape architecture and recreation mamagement seems to be a hot topic that we need to discuss. Especially in Taiwan, different from the geology and social needs with foreign countries, the linkage between these two field are strong from profession's development and practice needs. With a small piece of island and small city realms compare to the cities in the United States, the relationship of landscape architecture and architecture and urban planning or urban design seems limited. On they other way, the rural planning and design, natural resource planning, and planning for the recreational areas plays a big part in the practice of landscape architecture. Therefore, when we looking back to our education system and looking the codes of the colleges and school that the dept. of landscape architecture belongs. What will be an accurate development in regards to the situation of Taiwan?
Arts, Design, Architecture, Agriculture Science, Urban Design, Planning, Landscape Architecture, Engineering, Environment, Natural Resources, Humanities
These codes pointing our the cross-disciplinary nature of the profession of the landscape architecture and its extent. Therefore, the related field like Park and Recreation (Leisure Studies), Landscape Ecology, Environmental science, Natural Resources Management, Forestry, Geography, Tourism... are all work closely or played as the basis or as the second degree of the graduate level in the field of landscape architecture.
The working field of the landscape architecture includes the Environment Management, Regional Planning, Rural and Urban Landscape Planning and Design, Recreational Planning, Recreational Management, Landscape Ecology, Gardening, and Landscape Research related to the above topics. They can work in the institutes of Landscape Architecture Associations, Academic Institutes, Government Agencies, and NGO.
The related government agencies includes the Construction and Planning Agency, National Parks, Urban / Rural Parks and Greenway, Tourism Bureau, National Scenic Areas, Festival, Public Construction Commission, Council of Agriculture (Leisure Farm, Rural Landscape), Bureau of Forestry, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, Environmental Protection Administration, Council of Cultural Affairs, Council of Indigenous Peoples, Ministry of Education ...
Besides the descriptions of the field of landscape architecture. the relationship between landscape architecture and recreation mamagement seems to be a hot topic that we need to discuss. Especially in Taiwan, different from the geology and social needs with foreign countries, the linkage between these two field are strong from profession's development and practice needs. With a small piece of island and small city realms compare to the cities in the United States, the relationship of landscape architecture and architecture and urban planning or urban design seems limited. On they other way, the rural planning and design, natural resource planning, and planning for the recreational areas plays a big part in the practice of landscape architecture. Therefore, when we looking back to our education system and looking the codes of the colleges and school that the dept. of landscape architecture belongs. What will be an accurate development in regards to the situation of Taiwan?
About environment empathy
Environmental empathy, although still need more clear definition, seems already exsiting in somewhere of our environmental cognition. When people say I feel great when I see the trees grow strong and health, doesn't it a like of empathy? Although we do not really know the "happiness" of the trees, but seems the mirror in our mind feels the happiness. Can these feelings extent to a landscape, a region, even to the earth? If it does, how large of our mind mirror can cantain? Furthermore, can we apply this as an professional ethic of the profession of landacpe architecture? What is the professional ethic of a landscape architecture?
Restorative Environment and Landscape Architecture
From the perspecive of landscape architecture, how to design an environment which can achieve the benefits of restorative is an important issue. Especially in the environment like hospital, health care, learning, office... There is a lot of research articles depicted the relationship between natural environment and attention restoration, stress release. These articles even pointing out the attributes of the benefits on psychological indicators like recovery, reflection and physiological indicators like heart rate, blood pressure, and brainwaves. However, from the perspective of landscape architecture, the planners and designers needs to how how to apply the research results into their projects and can produce the restorative effect in their works. therefore, how to depict the "environment" seems to be an critical theme for further studies. We need more studies to work on the environment side. Past researches have told us the nenefits of natural environment in comparisons to the urban or artificial environments. However, this is not good enough for landscape planners and designers to use on their pratical projects. Kaplan and Kaplan (ref.)tries to categories the features of the natural environment of being away, fascination, extent, and compatibility. It does give practice landscape architectures a guideline to follow. Researchers need to give criteria to designers of how to link the landscape elements, their composition, and configurations to these features to unravel the environment variables in the restorative environment.
12/10/2008
About the "Categories" in the field of Landscape Architecture
Many student ask me questions about the field of Landscape Architecture. Expecially when they are planning to go abroad to pursue their degree in another country. I always has a lot to say but always feel the difficulty of how to express this complexity issue into a more clear framework. Maybe there is no clear framework in my mind yet.
In order to uncover this problem. I try to depict the field of Landscape Architecture from floowing approaches:
Q1. Who can join this field?
Q2. Types of research Insitute of Landscape Architecture
Q3. Future practices with a background from Landscape Architecture
Ans1: Of course, everyone can join this field once you are interesting in the field's work. However, how do I know am I interesting in the field of Landscape Architecture or not. Unfortunately, in order to get the answer of this question you have to know the answers of all the above 3 questions.
However, following are a long list with my knowledge of the "cases" of people from different field (after their Bachelor degree) continuing their degree in the research institute of Landscape Architecture and/or finally work in this field:
Architecture, Urban Planning, Civil Engineering, Water and Soil Conservation, Tourism, Leisure, Park and Recreation, Geology, Agriculture Extension, Horticulture, Agronomy, Forestry, Botany, Animal Science, Biology, Entomology, Mass Communication, Rural Planning, Applied Arts, Land Economics, Psychology, English and American Landguage and Literature, Ecology, Natural Resources Management, Public Health...
All the above cases cound be a reference for the ones that are interesting to the field of Landscape Architecture but not sure whether his background is ok or not.
Ans2: Basically, before I answer this question, I have to define my answer is appraoch from the aspect of Taiwan with my own experience. On the basis of helping bachelor and /or master students to develop their next step in the field of Landscape Architecture. Different people will have different extent in regard to the definition of field of Landscape Architecture.
The most common research institute is:
Professional Degree:
Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA)
Master of Design
Master of Environmental Design
Doctor of Design
Doctor of environmental Design
Scholarly Degree:
Master of Science
Doctor of Philosophy
Ans3: Planning and design projects can come from different instututes. Private or public owned agencies. Landscape researches, planning, design, management programs are all possible projects.
Landscape architecture associations (private) - planning and design projects
Academic associations - planning, research, and program projects
Academic institutes - planning, research, and program projects
SOHO - design
Government agencies - management, research, program, planning, and design
Construction and Planning Agency
- National Parks
- Urban and Rural Parks and Greenery
Tourism Bureau
- National Scenic Areas
- Festival
Council of Agriculture
- Leisure Farm
- Bureau of Forestry
- National Forest Recreational Areas
- National Forest Trails
- Narional Conservation Areas
Bureau of Water and Soil Conservation
- Rural Planning
I think this paragraph will need more fix and comments. Please give me you ideas.
In order to uncover this problem. I try to depict the field of Landscape Architecture from floowing approaches:
Q1. Who can join this field?
Q2. Types of research Insitute of Landscape Architecture
Q3. Future practices with a background from Landscape Architecture
Ans1: Of course, everyone can join this field once you are interesting in the field's work. However, how do I know am I interesting in the field of Landscape Architecture or not. Unfortunately, in order to get the answer of this question you have to know the answers of all the above 3 questions.
However, following are a long list with my knowledge of the "cases" of people from different field (after their Bachelor degree) continuing their degree in the research institute of Landscape Architecture and/or finally work in this field:
Architecture, Urban Planning, Civil Engineering, Water and Soil Conservation, Tourism, Leisure, Park and Recreation, Geology, Agriculture Extension, Horticulture, Agronomy, Forestry, Botany, Animal Science, Biology, Entomology, Mass Communication, Rural Planning, Applied Arts, Land Economics, Psychology, English and American Landguage and Literature, Ecology, Natural Resources Management, Public Health...
All the above cases cound be a reference for the ones that are interesting to the field of Landscape Architecture but not sure whether his background is ok or not.
Ans2: Basically, before I answer this question, I have to define my answer is appraoch from the aspect of Taiwan with my own experience. On the basis of helping bachelor and /or master students to develop their next step in the field of Landscape Architecture. Different people will have different extent in regard to the definition of field of Landscape Architecture.
The most common research institute is:
Professional Degree:
Master of Landscape Architecture (MLA)
Master of Design
Master of Environmental Design
Doctor of Design
Doctor of environmental Design
Scholarly Degree:
Master of Science
Doctor of Philosophy
Ans3: Planning and design projects can come from different instututes. Private or public owned agencies. Landscape researches, planning, design, management programs are all possible projects.
Landscape architecture associations (private) - planning and design projects
Academic associations - planning, research, and program projects
Academic institutes - planning, research, and program projects
SOHO - design
Government agencies - management, research, program, planning, and design
Construction and Planning Agency
- National Parks
- Urban and Rural Parks and Greenery
Tourism Bureau
- National Scenic Areas
- Festival
Council of Agriculture
- Leisure Farm
- Bureau of Forestry
- National Forest Recreational Areas
- National Forest Trails
- Narional Conservation Areas
Bureau of Water and Soil Conservation
- Rural Planning
I think this paragraph will need more fix and comments. Please give me you ideas.
11/02/2008
都市中的保護區和保護區中的人為改變
在會議中常會遇到自然生態學者和建設開發者爭得面紅耳赤, 自然生態學者希望在城鄉的人居空間中建立自然生態的棲地, 要人類讓出環境來保護野生物的生態環境不要受到干擾, 一旦生態受到干擾最後也會影響人類生存, 但居住區開發者則認為人類的生活空間不能有蚊蟲毒蛇, 環境的規劃設計當然還是以人類的生活方便為第一優先. 二方面都有理由都有合理的論述.
不過如果試著想一下, 假如我們的國土是有計畫的定位我們的環境, 都市是以人類的居住優先, 不但沒有過多人類不愛的害蟲, 也還有讓人類受益的自然生態綠地. 而保護區則是很嚴格的限制人類的開發, 不以任何其它理由改變, 以保護野生物為主, 並時時監測生態棲地品質. 這樣在不同的地區有不同的目標, 提供不同的主角來利用. 不但可以避免沒有結果的爭吵, 在土地及自然生態的管理上能更明確, 更能有力嚴格的禁止不當的開發.
在都市中建保護區, 建野生物的棲地, 是一種蓋植物園、動物園的想法, 必需耗費很多的人力及機具以維持棲地的品質, 在環境教育的目的之外, 這種作法是不環保不永續的, 而在保護區中不以自然的力量來維持棲地, 加入過多的人力干預, 建造成以人類方便使用的方式來改變環境, 或佔用土地不當開發, 對生態棲地一定是很大的衝擊. 如果各種土地使用分區能明確的劃分, 各自負擔不同的使用需求, 是否才是一種較有智慧的環境資源規劃?
不過如果試著想一下, 假如我們的國土是有計畫的定位我們的環境, 都市是以人類的居住優先, 不但沒有過多人類不愛的害蟲, 也還有讓人類受益的自然生態綠地. 而保護區則是很嚴格的限制人類的開發, 不以任何其它理由改變, 以保護野生物為主, 並時時監測生態棲地品質. 這樣在不同的地區有不同的目標, 提供不同的主角來利用. 不但可以避免沒有結果的爭吵, 在土地及自然生態的管理上能更明確, 更能有力嚴格的禁止不當的開發.
在都市中建保護區, 建野生物的棲地, 是一種蓋植物園、動物園的想法, 必需耗費很多的人力及機具以維持棲地的品質, 在環境教育的目的之外, 這種作法是不環保不永續的, 而在保護區中不以自然的力量來維持棲地, 加入過多的人力干預, 建造成以人類方便使用的方式來改變環境, 或佔用土地不當開發, 對生態棲地一定是很大的衝擊. 如果各種土地使用分區能明確的劃分, 各自負擔不同的使用需求, 是否才是一種較有智慧的環境資源規劃?
10/25/2008
scale (extent and grain)....................resolution
景觀生態研究中一個重要的觀念就是尺度(scale)問題, 景觀尺度問題包括了二個部份, 幅度(extent)及粒度(grain), 幅度是指所分析基地範圍的大小, 簡單的說就是你分析基地的範圍大小, 而粒度大小則是指所看到的景觀元素的細緻度, 也就是基地分類出來的景觀元素的細緻度. 由這二個概念說明景觀生態結構的尺度及物種分佈間的關係, 這二個觀念告訴研究者所討論基地的大小範圍, 以及分析景觀的細緻度所能夠代表的生物物種. 沒有能明確的說出這二個尺度的定位, 就沒有辦法就所分析的地景作出正確的景觀生態論述. 也就是說可能是以能代表松鼠(或同樣棲地需求)的活動範圍的幅度及影響它活動的環境結構(樹叢、草地...)粒度, 來說明老鷹(或同樣棲地需求)的分佈, 這樣就會產生很大的誤判.
至於解析度(resolution), 大家常與粒度(grain)相混淆, 其實他們常常代表同一件事, 解析度本身比較是工具性的名稱, 用來說明影像圖面或螢幕工具的細緻度, 但是如果這個地區的粒度本來就大, 如大面積的水田坵塊, 那用不同解析度相機拍出來的相片, 雖然有不同的解析度, 但是還是有相同的粒度, 從另一方面思考, 如果現在所要分析的粒度很小, 但所能獲得的影像圖面解析度很粗, 不能分出所要的粒度, 那也沒有辦法進一步的分析研究所要的景觀生態結構.
這凸顯了一個問題, 工具性的解析度其實是研究者所使用的工具的問題, 但真正景觀生態結構要討論的問題應是具概念意義的粒度. 沒有對粒度的瞭解或定位, 解析度的分析或變化的討論並沒有生態的意義, 只是空間工具的分析. 很多的景觀生態的研究著重分析的工具, 但分析的對象是什麼?
連帶思考: 塊區大小是不是就是粒度大小? 和MPS的問題有關.
至於解析度(resolution), 大家常與粒度(grain)相混淆, 其實他們常常代表同一件事, 解析度本身比較是工具性的名稱, 用來說明影像圖面或螢幕工具的細緻度, 但是如果這個地區的粒度本來就大, 如大面積的水田坵塊, 那用不同解析度相機拍出來的相片, 雖然有不同的解析度, 但是還是有相同的粒度, 從另一方面思考, 如果現在所要分析的粒度很小, 但所能獲得的影像圖面解析度很粗, 不能分出所要的粒度, 那也沒有辦法進一步的分析研究所要的景觀生態結構.
這凸顯了一個問題, 工具性的解析度其實是研究者所使用的工具的問題, 但真正景觀生態結構要討論的問題應是具概念意義的粒度. 沒有對粒度的瞭解或定位, 解析度的分析或變化的討論並沒有生態的意義, 只是空間工具的分析. 很多的景觀生態的研究著重分析的工具, 但分析的對象是什麼?
連帶思考: 塊區大小是不是就是粒度大小? 和MPS的問題有關.
10/21/2008
景觀生態中Resources的分類
景觀規劃中的資源和土地使用十分多樣, 自然及人文資源也都是景觀生態學關注的範疇, 而景觀生態資源(Resources)的分類, 明確好用的概念分類在研究操作上也就十分重要, 依據 Leitao et.al., 2006, 將資源分為非生物資源(Abiotic Resources)、生物資源(Biotic Resources)、文化資源(Cultural Resources)三大部份(Abiotic, Biotic, Cultural, ABC). 非生物資源作者主要是指水體, 生物資源主要是指植物, 動物, 及生物岐異度. 文化資源主要是指人類居住, 交通, 遊憩或文化活動. 在這三大類資源類型之下定位了各種不同的土地使用型態(LCTs), 如, 都市, 森林, 農地, 濕地, 道路, 及河流等.
而景觀生態指數(LE Matrics)所描述的就是不同Patch Level, Class Level, 及Landscape Levels的都市, 森林, 農地, 濕地, 道路, 及河流等土地使用型態(LCTs), 也就是描述了資源的分佈及使用情形.
而景觀生態指數(LE Matrics)所描述的就是不同Patch Level, Class Level, 及Landscape Levels的都市, 森林, 農地, 濕地, 道路, 及河流等土地使用型態(LCTs), 也就是描述了資源的分佈及使用情形.
景觀生態結構指數
以景觀規劃設計的角度而言, 因為主要是以改變的景觀生態結構(Structure)來看一個地景生態機能(Function)改變, 因此描述景觀結構的改變情形是一個重要的研究主題, 而描述景觀結構的改變就是去描述其中的"塊區", "廊道", "基質" 的組合(Composition)情形及他們的分佈(Configuration)情形, 而回到我們的規劃和設計基地, 我們需要描述景觀結構通常就是土地使用型態(Land Cover Types, LCTs).
我們以一些指數作為描述景觀生態結構的工具, 主要源自空間統計學(Spatial Statistical Methods), 目的是在以數學的指數公式來說明景觀生態結構的形狀或其間的關係. 常用來描述塊區, 廊道, 及其間的連結(Connectivity), 網絡(Network)等關係. 主要可以分為三個等級(Levels), 第一個是Patch Level, 主要描述單一個塊區的形狀、大小等. 第二個是Class(Group of Patches) Level, 主要描述"一組"同類塊區的平均大小, 連結、分散、聚集等分佈情形, 常用來代表景觀破碎化程度. 第三個是Landscape(Group of Classes or LCTs)Level, 主要說明一地景中所有不同塊區的組成如塊區類型的多少, 平均大小, 連結、分散、聚集等情形, 常用來代表景觀岐異度.
然而僅僅分析了景觀生態結構的改變, 其實只是依過去研究成果所累積的知識去"推測"基地的生態機能, 這樣的推測必需是"過去"的研究基地條件是和"現在"的基地對象相同或是類似的. 不過在台灣目前生態資訊未能完整有系統的建構之前, 僅以外國的研究知識來推測台灣一個地景的結構改變, 會有與外國相同的生態機能是極為不可靠的, 台灣的地景尺度, 生物物種, 地理屬性...都具有其獨特性. 因此我們認為台灣景觀生態的研究, 應能儘量進行本土物種資料的調查, 一方面能累積本土的物種資料, 一方向也能較準確的推測地景的結構改變會影響的生態機能.
我們以一些指數作為描述景觀生態結構的工具, 主要源自空間統計學(Spatial Statistical Methods), 目的是在以數學的指數公式來說明景觀生態結構的形狀或其間的關係. 常用來描述塊區, 廊道, 及其間的連結(Connectivity), 網絡(Network)等關係. 主要可以分為三個等級(Levels), 第一個是Patch Level, 主要描述單一個塊區的形狀、大小等. 第二個是Class(Group of Patches) Level, 主要描述"一組"同類塊區的平均大小, 連結、分散、聚集等分佈情形, 常用來代表景觀破碎化程度. 第三個是Landscape(Group of Classes or LCTs)Level, 主要說明一地景中所有不同塊區的組成如塊區類型的多少, 平均大小, 連結、分散、聚集等情形, 常用來代表景觀岐異度.
然而僅僅分析了景觀生態結構的改變, 其實只是依過去研究成果所累積的知識去"推測"基地的生態機能, 這樣的推測必需是"過去"的研究基地條件是和"現在"的基地對象相同或是類似的. 不過在台灣目前生態資訊未能完整有系統的建構之前, 僅以外國的研究知識來推測台灣一個地景的結構改變, 會有與外國相同的生態機能是極為不可靠的, 台灣的地景尺度, 生物物種, 地理屬性...都具有其獨特性. 因此我們認為台灣景觀生態的研究, 應能儘量進行本土物種資料的調查, 一方面能累積本土的物種資料, 一方向也能較準確的推測地景的結構改變會影響的生態機能.
10/19/2008
Label rule...
為了能加強以後在Blog中尋找文章的有效性, Labels請大家統一以英文命名(就像是寫摘要時的關鍵字), 並請儘量先尋找已有的Labels, 以避免同樣意義但有不同的Labels出現的情形, 另外為避免Labels過長及部份專有名詞用字易於與一般用字混淆, 提供幾個以下別人用過以及自用的Label命名方式, 也請大家提供及加入新Labels:
LA = Landscape Architecture
LE = Landscape Ecology
LE Structure = Landscape Ecological Structure
LE Function = Landscape Ecological Function
LE Change = Landscape Ecological Change
LE Pattern = Landscape Ecological Pattern
LE Indices = Landscape Ecological Indices
LE Matrics = Landscape Ecological Matrics
LCTs = Land Cover Types
ART = Attentional Restorative Theory
PRS = Perceived Restorative Scale
RestExp = Restorative Experience
RestEnv = Restorative Environment
LLA = Low Level Aerophotography
and more...
LA = Landscape Architecture
LE = Landscape Ecology
LE Structure = Landscape Ecological Structure
LE Function = Landscape Ecological Function
LE Change = Landscape Ecological Change
LE Pattern = Landscape Ecological Pattern
LE Indices = Landscape Ecological Indices
LE Matrics = Landscape Ecological Matrics
LCTs = Land Cover Types
ART = Attentional Restorative Theory
PRS = Perceived Restorative Scale
RestExp = Restorative Experience
RestEnv = Restorative Environment
LLA = Low Level Aerophotography
and more...
about Landscape Ecology
景觀生態學 (Landscape Ecology) 在近年來受到大家的重視, 環境規劃及設計者希望藉由這個學門的知識, 更準確的來達成永續環境規劃設計的目標. 景觀生態學是一個強調跨領域的學科, 當初在歐洲成立景觀生態學會時就是由許多不同領域的學者所共同發起, 包括了生物、地理、植物、動物、生態、地政、森林、建築、景觀、都市計畫、法律等等. 多年的發展可以發現景觀生態學重要的觀念建構主要是在闡明當我們改變土地使用型態 (Land Cover types, LCTs) 時, 我們同時也在改變環境中的生態機能, 並影響未來這個環境生態的演替方向. 在這樣的觀念之下者發展了景觀生態的重要架構 - 結構 (Structure)、功能 (Function)、變化 (Change) - 來分析討論環境改變時其生態機能及未來演替的關係. 另一個重要的規則是用來描述景觀生態結構的變化, 學者們以 -塊區 (Patch)、廊道 (Corridor)、基質 (Matrix) - 來探討不同景觀生態結構的特性及其潛在的生態機能 (Function). 而我們所生活的地球就是由這三種不同的景觀生態結構所構的環境. 再進一步的我們稱由這三種元素組成, 亦即是我們生活的景觀環境為嵌合體 (Mosaic). 塊區、廊道、基質、嵌合體就像是景觀生態研究者的共同語言, 目的是以生態的觀點來過濾及簡化我們所見的環境組成因子, 俾能準確的看出景觀結構中的生能機能及其變化. 更進一步藉由對環境生態機能和變化的瞭解, 希望可以有智慧的規劃設計永續的環境.
10/18/2008
A new measurement tool?
Most of the research that tries to measure respodents' attentional restorative effect were based on the Attention Restorative Theory (ART). Many researchers have developed the measuring tools to measure people's attention restorative effect. The scales were tested by exposure respondents to different environments, especially natural vs. urban settings. The 4 features of ART which includes being away, fascination, extent (coherence), and compatibility were adopted as the categories of the measuring scale items like the Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS). However, these items include several abstract descriptions that is hard to translate in to Chinese. The translation results come out ambiguous sentences which is hard to be understood by the respondents. Compare to the items in PRS, the attention restorative measurement scales developed by Staats 2003 are easier to translate. Instead of adopt the 4 features of the ART; the scale based its items on the recovery and reflection effect of the restorative environment. Although they carry different measuring items these items still measuring the restorative effect from the environment. Therefore, in our future studies that need to test in Chinese, the scale by Staats 2003 seems a better choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
