前年婉甄學姐口試預講時我曾提出「維基百科」(wiki)不適合用於研究論文的參考文獻中，所持的理由是「它是一個每個人都可以上去進行編輯的網路圖文資料庫，可靠性與嚴謹度令人存疑」。然而當自己寫論文時才發現，有些資料實在查找不易，但是這個利用網路社群力量建構的資料庫卻常常意外地提供了我們所需要的資料，而且他的成立宗旨與運作介紹中也說到，他們有專人審查所有被上傳的條目，務必使資料正確、可靠而且客觀，並且藉由龐大的網路使用者來監督每一筆資料的正確性，因此我就想到，那這樣的一個資料庫是否可以合理的當作研究的參考文獻（網路資源）來使用。
我們知道研究文章引用參考文獻必須具有說服力，而這個說服力建立在被檢驗的基礎上。一個名滿天下的學者大師學有專精，所寫的文章或專書經得起世人的檢驗，所以可以參考引用；一篇被刊載於SCI、SSCI或TSSCI期刊的研究文章因為經得起多位審查委員的監督與檢驗，所以可以參考引用；一篇台灣的碩士論文，因為審查機制不良、受審程度不深，也許也是制度苟合的結果，所以經不起有心人士的檢驗，所以最好不要參考。
因此，如果參考文獻的說服力是建立在受檢程度的基礎邏輯上，維基百科是否具有被使用的合理性？而事實上，維基百科的內容大多是專有名詞解釋以及相關資料的介紹，這類型的資料相對於研究期刊中研究方法、研究結果等資料的引用，也比較不會有解讀得困難。
所以，維基百科這樣的網路資源，是否具有被引用的合理性？又或者將來有一個研究社群的網路系統如同維基百科的精神，建立一個資料庫，每個人都可以把自己的研究內容與結果上傳，也可以被人審查、質疑、修改，這樣的一個資料庫上的研究結果是否也可以引用？
2/07/2009
2/05/2009
瑋佳-好入門英文聽力
大推美國之音http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/index.cfm
雖然很多英美廣播公司都推出外國學生學英文專欄, 但我覺得美國之音是最有誠意的, 原因有3:
- 在LEARNING ENGLISH這個連結裡(會連到SPECIAL ENGLISH去), 播放的英文都講得特慢, 從建立自信心開始! 全是MP3格式的檔案, 可線上聽也可以下載!
- 備有 Agriculture Report(園藝系學生必聽), American Stories, Development Report, Economics Report, Education Report, Explorations(造園組學生必聽)及Health Report等多個主題, 極適合用來準備托福等考試
- 更有Foreign Student Series, 就算不打算出國念書也可以瞭解一下這個世界上其他競爭者在做什麼^^
2/01/2009
瑋佳-Schadule of research plans
Last month (last year?), CYC told me to make a schadule. It's not easy to post a table here. I've tried my best....
It's from Jan. to Jul.
Research Target Month
The benefit and application of J. Therapeutic Horticulture 1 2
the natural views to students’ (AHTA)
attention in classroom
Land use and fragmentation: (1)IALE_EU 2009 6 7 8 9 10
based on legal mechanism (2)LUP
Gaps and bridges: The public ISSRM 2009 2 3 4 5 7
and professional perspectives
on Taiwan's national parks
Dissertation proposal: (1) Seminar 3 4 5 6
The effect of land use (2) Proposal defense
regulations on landscape
structure and ecological quality
1: Keep working
2: Present or submit
It's from Jan. to Jul.
2009 Schadule of research plans
The benefit and application of J. Therapeutic Horticulture 1 2
the natural views to students’ (AHTA)
attention in classroom
Land use and fragmentation: (1)IALE_EU 2009 6 7 8 9 10
based on legal mechanism (2)LUP
Gaps and bridges: The public ISSRM 2009 2 3 4 5 7
and professional perspectives
on Taiwan's national parks
Dissertation proposal: (1) Seminar 3 4 5 6
The effect of land use (2) Proposal defense
regulations on landscape
structure and ecological quality
1: Keep working
2: Present or submit
Purpose of the Study 2/12
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)
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)
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
瑋佳-土地使用法規如何影響景觀結構和生物多樣性
大家還記得老師曾在某幾次瞇挺時提到1個有趣的研究主題嗎? 就是模擬1個農業區如果依法把可以蓋的農舍都蓋一蓋, 對景觀偏好和景觀結構的影響分別為何; 針對這個主題想了半個學期也看了一點paper, 主要想解決的問題是土地使用法規(=在真實世界中影響LCTs的關鍵之一)如何影響景觀結構和生物多樣性, 這個題目有2個方向可以進行 :
- 可以用單一農業區(比如南庄)的景觀結構指數或物種數量等常用的指標來作為變項, 計算這塊農地生態的成長曲線(growth curve), 例如收集1973年(農業發展條例公告實施)前, 1973至2000年, 以及2000年(農業發展條例修正, 放寬農地取得資格及農舍建築條件)後的資料, 除了瞭解LCTs的變化外, 也可以研究有哪些因子影響"LCTs對生態的影響".
- 但是啊, 因為農地生態是沒有標準答案的, 如果1973年迄今的變化都在可容許的範圍內, 那麼前述研究的貢獻似乎就不那麼大, 因為只考慮到農地本身的生態性, 所以我就有個沿伸思考, 是把"農業區是都市和荒野之間的緩衝區"這個觀點放進來, 類似gradient analysis, 也就是當我在都市和荒野中間拉1條線時, 這條線所穿越的農業區有沒有發揮應有的功能?
因為我對第2個方向比較有興趣, 所以繼續朝這方面去想; 之前讀過Wu(鄔建國)和Nakagoshi(中越信和)兩位老師gradient analysis的paper, 也是用景觀結構指數做分析, 但這種分析主要是用以判讀都市與荒野在時間及空間上的變遷(例如1900年時由a點到b點的景觀結構指數變異甚小, 但2000年時a點變成都市而b點維持原狀, 其景觀結構的梯度就變得很明顯), 和我想呈現的東西似乎有點小差異.
想了一陣子後, 如下圖的表現方式在筆記本上逐漸成形(也就是珮怡和宜婷先前看我在塗的鬼畫符), 雖然還沒想到urbanization或ecological quality分別要用什麼指標:
姑且名之為"生態光譜", 我的想像是同一條剖線(例如L1從台北火車站到福山植物園)在不同時間點的可以各畫出幾個生態光譜, 降子可以比較農業發展條例實施前後或修正前後的變化; 這同樣也可以套用成長曲線的概念, 找出影響因子及權重(比如說....是不是只要劃定保護區, 不管都市, 市郊和農村怎麼開發, 都不會影響保護區的LCTs? 但仍會影響物種多樣性?)
========牛轉乾坤分隔線====以下是過年期間才有的新想法========
找了一下gradient analysis可以使用哪些分析工具, 在某本書裡看到K. McGarigal和S. Cushman的文章在介紹gradient analysis, 提及fractal analysis和spectral and wavelet anlaysis兩種技術, 前者就是我們常用的(打格子啦, 計算景觀結構指數啦....), 所以主要是收集有關spectral analysis的東西來看.
稍微研究的結果發現spectral analysis是將時間序列的變化轉換成頻譜, 以利分析比較; 其中1種是應用傅立葉(Fourier)的正弦波解構來分析複雜的訊號, 例如鋼琴的do re mi和小提琴的do re mi頻率是一樣的, 何以人類可以分辨兩者的聲音呢? 這是因為鋼琴在琴弦受到敲擊發出do re mi的同時, 也產生其他聲音(材質震動or共鳴....), spectral analysis就是分別把這些聲音畫成個別的正弦波圖形, 哦, 正弦波就是我們熟悉的"波", 由波峰波谷組成的那種; 若要比較鋼琴和小提琴聲音的不同, 因鋼琴會有1組正弦波(包含所有的發聲因子), 而小提琴也會有1組, 要拿這2組來比較才會知道它們的不同.
well, 回到本研究關切的LCTs和生態性, 是不是可以用下列的比較來說明?
- 鋼琴vs.小提琴-->聲音頻率無法代表其音色-->須比較其他發聲因子
- L1(1900年) vs. L1(2000年)-->景觀結構指數無法代表其生態性-->須比較其他影響因子(例如建蔽率和景觀結構相關性較強, 但其實容積率影響也很大)
========牛轉乾坤分隔線====以下是綜合這段時間以來的想法========
既然如此, growth curve和spectral analysis的概念似乎變成一體兩面了, 也就是不同時間點中, 分別有哪些影響因子及其重要性, 其呈現方式可能是迴歸方程式, 也可能是用圖來表示, 這牽涉到研究基地的大小, 誠如先前和學長討論的, 如果基地小到可以細分哪塊地大於2.5ha可以蓋農舍哪塊不行, 那麼計算出各個因子的係數就很有貢獻, 也就是修法的依據; 但若大如整個北臺灣, 那麼具體的數字可能意義不大.
我比較有興趣的尺度大概是幾千公頃大小的國家公園範圍, 除了範圍不大不小之外, 也因為立法目的明確又有意義, 但在這個主題上實在找不到什麼直接相關的paper, 倒是有看到一些不同的gradient analysis做法, 例如用每公頃房屋數量作為urbanization的指標(而非景觀結構指數)等等, 之後再和大家討論唄.
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.
瑋佳-公眾態度之界定：輿論中的國家公園(I)~(IV)
[摘要]
就國家公園資源保育與經營管理的實務而言，雖然保育對象和目標與人類存續息息相關，但與社會大眾的日常生活卻相去甚遠，學者認為瞭解大眾對生態管理政策的看法，有助彌補公眾和專業立場的落差，因此，本研究以國家公園為研究範疇，界定社會大眾對此一資源保育制度的瞭解與期望，為了使研究更為明確，將以兼具「反映社會大眾觀點」與「引導社會大眾觀點」的輿論作為研究文本，包括部落格文章與網路新聞。取樣分為2階段，第1階段為2009年1月5日至7日，隨即進行第1次分析，共建立49個編碼，可建立出3個概念架構；2009年1月24日至26日進行第2次文本取樣分析，新增加編碼1個，但並未新增概念架構，因此初步認定已達理論飽和。
本研究發現具有輿論發聲能力的社會大眾對國家公園均有明確的態度，包括環境倫理、環境挑戰、環境教育、環境體驗等，其中環境教育又因為接觸管道的關係，與環境體驗有著密不可分的關係；無論在哪一個範疇中，現行國家公園體系多難以完全符合社會大眾的期待，例如環境倫理所期待的環境秩序、單一物種研究復育，或是環境體驗所期待的遊憩服務等，相較之下，環境挑戰所期待的良好活動環境和緊急救難系統既明確又單純，容易達成。
這是上學期修質性研究的期末報告
全文請參考http://papayasu.blogspot.com/，共分4篇，謝謝！並祝新春如意行大運^^
就國家公園資源保育與經營管理的實務而言，雖然保育對象和目標與人類存續息息相關，但與社會大眾的日常生活卻相去甚遠，學者認為瞭解大眾對生態管理政策的看法，有助彌補公眾和專業立場的落差，因此，本研究以國家公園為研究範疇，界定社會大眾對此一資源保育制度的瞭解與期望，為了使研究更為明確，將以兼具「反映社會大眾觀點」與「引導社會大眾觀點」的輿論作為研究文本，包括部落格文章與網路新聞。取樣分為2階段，第1階段為2009年1月5日至7日，隨即進行第1次分析，共建立49個編碼，可建立出3個概念架構；2009年1月24日至26日進行第2次文本取樣分析，新增加編碼1個，但並未新增概念架構，因此初步認定已達理論飽和。
本研究發現具有輿論發聲能力的社會大眾對國家公園均有明確的態度，包括環境倫理、環境挑戰、環境教育、環境體驗等，其中環境教育又因為接觸管道的關係，與環境體驗有著密不可分的關係；無論在哪一個範疇中，現行國家公園體系多難以完全符合社會大眾的期待，例如環境倫理所期待的環境秩序、單一物種研究復育，或是環境體驗所期待的遊憩服務等，相較之下，環境挑戰所期待的良好活動環境和緊急救難系統既明確又單純，容易達成。
這是上學期修質性研究的期末報告
全文請參考http://papayasu.blogspot.com/，共分4篇，謝謝！並祝新春如意行大運^^
1/21/2009
瑋佳-Stream communities across a rural-urban landscape gradient
Urban, MC, Skelly, DK, Burchsted, D, Price, W, Lowry, S (2006) Stream communities across a rural-urban landscape gradient, Diversity and Distributions, 12, 337-350.
研究目的
作者在5種不同的空間尺度上驗證環境品質與無脊椎動物群落組成的關係。
研究假設
1.無脊椎動物群落組成受溪流棲地和物化條件的影響
2.集水區土地使用和河濱植栽的變化可用以預測無脊椎動物群落的組成
3.河道之間的遷徙決定了無脊椎動物群落的變異
研究取樣
將West河、Mill河和Quinnipiac河60條1級和2級河川列表，選取其中地質組成和集水區面積都類似的18條作為研究地點。
研究變項
1.自變項
(1)都市化程度：計算18條河川的集水區中每公頃土地的戶數(households)，作為都市化的指標
(2)環境品質測值：在每條河川的集水區範圍內分別劃定4種不同的空間尺度：棲地單位(habitat unit)、河道(stream reach)、河濱廊道(riparian corridor)及集水區(watershed)，分別收集不同層次的環境品質測值，例如針對棲地單位計算淺灘比例或平均深度、針對河道測量pH值或溶氧量(DO)、針對河濱廊道計算喬木多樣性或外來種比例，以及針對集水區計算景觀結構(LCTs%)等
2.依變項：無脊椎動物歧異度和豐度
分析方法
1.都市化和物種相關性：迴歸分析
2.空間尺度對物種預測力：Redundancy analysis (RDA)
研究結果
1.單位戶數(取ln)和人為土地使用比例呈非線性正相關(p<0.01)
2.單位戶數(取ln)和無脊椎動物平均種數呈線性負相關(p<0.0001)
3.大尺度環境品質測值對無脊椎動物多樣性和豐度預測能力較佳，以河濱廊道的植栽結構預測能力最佳，其次為集水區的景觀結構，兩者均在30%左右
4.空間層次的網絡距離(network distance)對無脊椎動物多樣性和豐度有41%的預測能力
5.β-diversity(棲地間無脊椎動物群落組成差異性)與集水區都市化程度呈線性負相關(p<0.01)，但環境品質測值的變異和棲地並無統計上的顯著關係，可知此一結果並不是棲地差異的同質化所致
重要結論
大尺度環境因子對物種組成的影響大於小尺度，河川復育若以棲地復舊為主，成效非常有限，解決集水區之內與之間的分裂情況才是最重要的。
研究目的
作者在5種不同的空間尺度上驗證環境品質與無脊椎動物群落組成的關係。
研究假設
1.無脊椎動物群落組成受溪流棲地和物化條件的影響
2.集水區土地使用和河濱植栽的變化可用以預測無脊椎動物群落的組成
3.河道之間的遷徙決定了無脊椎動物群落的變異
研究取樣
將West河、Mill河和Quinnipiac河60條1級和2級河川列表，選取其中地質組成和集水區面積都類似的18條作為研究地點。
研究變項
1.自變項
(1)都市化程度：計算18條河川的集水區中每公頃土地的戶數(households)，作為都市化的指標
(2)環境品質測值：在每條河川的集水區範圍內分別劃定4種不同的空間尺度：棲地單位(habitat unit)、河道(stream reach)、河濱廊道(riparian corridor)及集水區(watershed)，分別收集不同層次的環境品質測值，例如針對棲地單位計算淺灘比例或平均深度、針對河道測量pH值或溶氧量(DO)、針對河濱廊道計算喬木多樣性或外來種比例，以及針對集水區計算景觀結構(LCTs%)等
2.依變項：無脊椎動物歧異度和豐度
分析方法
1.都市化和物種相關性：迴歸分析
2.空間尺度對物種預測力：Redundancy analysis (RDA)
研究結果
1.單位戶數(取ln)和人為土地使用比例呈非線性正相關(p<0.01)
2.單位戶數(取ln)和無脊椎動物平均種數呈線性負相關(p<0.0001)
3.大尺度環境品質測值對無脊椎動物多樣性和豐度預測能力較佳，以河濱廊道的植栽結構預測能力最佳，其次為集水區的景觀結構，兩者均在30%左右
4.空間層次的網絡距離(network distance)對無脊椎動物多樣性和豐度有41%的預測能力
5.β-diversity(棲地間無脊椎動物群落組成差異性)與集水區都市化程度呈線性負相關(p<0.01)，但環境品質測值的變異和棲地並無統計上的顯著關係，可知此一結果並不是棲地差異的同質化所致
重要結論
大尺度環境因子對物種組成的影響大於小尺度，河川復育若以棲地復舊為主，成效非常有限，解決集水區之內與之間的分裂情況才是最重要的。
1/20/2009
瑋佳-有關粒度和幅度
首先, 我是看到K. McGarigal和S.A. Cushman的一篇文章The gradient concept of landscape structure, 作者認為現在的研究過於重視grain和extent而忽略了觀察尺度的非空間層面(nonspatial aspect of observation scale), 收錄在J. Wiens和M. Moss (2005)合編的Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology這本書裡(Cambridge出的).
Accordingly, we believe that the recent attention to scale in ecology (Wiens 1989, Petersonand Parker 1998) has focused too much on ‘grain’ and ‘extent’ issues, and has ignored the nonspatial aspect of observation scale associated with the map legend, representating the rules that are followed in defining what is measured and the resolution at which it is measured.
為了在網路上找這篇文章, 所以在我最愛的google學術搜尋裡輸入文章篇名, 果然看到有一篇pdf檔可供下載(感謝麻州州大很愛把老師們的文章全文上網, 包括J. Ahern及K. McGarigal等人的文章都是), 載下來一看, 發現和書裡的段落雖相近, 文字上卻有很大的不同, 仔細看原來押了2002年的日期, 主要差異如下藍字:
Accordingly, we believe that the recent attention to scale in ecology (Wiens 1989, Petersonand Parker 1998) has focused too much on ‘grain’ and ‘extent’ issues, and has ignored a thirddimension of scale, which we call ‘intensity.’ We define intensity as the resolution inenvironmental variation discriminated by a given variable. Intensity is conceptually equivalent toradiometric resolution in remote sensing, which refers to how finely the spectral differencesamong locations are measured.
換句話說, 作者在2002年時認為除了grain和extent之外, 還應該重視intensity(強度, 飽和度), 但到了2005年, 作者卻改口稱之為nonspatial aspect of observation scale, 其實我沒有仔細看上下文, 但我覺得這點挺有趣的: 到底是什麼讓作者必須換一種說法? 原本的說法不正確或不準確嗎?
Accordingly, we believe that the recent attention to scale in ecology (Wiens 1989, Petersonand Parker 1998) has focused too much on ‘grain’ and ‘extent’ issues, and has ignored the nonspatial aspect of observation scale associated with the map legend, representating the rules that are followed in defining what is measured and the resolution at which it is measured.
為了在網路上找這篇文章, 所以在我最愛的google學術搜尋裡輸入文章篇名, 果然看到有一篇pdf檔可供下載(感謝麻州州大很愛把老師們的文章全文上網, 包括J. Ahern及K. McGarigal等人的文章都是), 載下來一看, 發現和書裡的段落雖相近, 文字上卻有很大的不同, 仔細看原來押了2002年的日期, 主要差異如下藍字:
Accordingly, we believe that the recent attention to scale in ecology (Wiens 1989, Petersonand Parker 1998) has focused too much on ‘grain’ and ‘extent’ issues, and has ignored a thirddimension of scale, which we call ‘intensity.’ We define intensity as the resolution inenvironmental variation discriminated by a given variable. Intensity is conceptually equivalent toradiometric resolution in remote sensing, which refers to how finely the spectral differencesamong locations are measured.
換句話說, 作者在2002年時認為除了grain和extent之外, 還應該重視intensity(強度, 飽和度), 但到了2005年, 作者卻改口稱之為nonspatial aspect of observation scale, 其實我沒有仔細看上下文, 但我覺得這點挺有趣的: 到底是什麼讓作者必須換一種說法? 原本的說法不正確或不準確嗎?
12項
我今天在整理12項(雖然目前可能連前幾項都還沒出來)
想寫出這些項目的內容，
以後可能會比較好跟著它走，不會讓研究的焦點散掉。
寫了之後才發現，
以前的專討根本沒有做到這些..也就是一點都不嚴謹的意思..
例如在取樣方法那邊，因為沒有想過，
所以現在也想不出來有甚麼內容及要注意的地方。
大家有在這些項目中卡住過嗎?或是遇到問題?
有興趣分享的請不吝嗇發表一下，
在甚麼項目遇到甚麼問題，還有解決問題的方法~
ps我把細項分出來，所以變成16項
1. 研究問題
現實世界發生的某些現象及問題。去解釋現象，或有甚麼方法能改善這些問題，對人類(或某些族群的人)有幫助。
2. 研究目的
要怎麼解決這個研究問題。
3. 理論基礎
應變項、自變項各個理論基礎，和兩者之間的相關研究。盡量focus，不要扯太多無關緊要的。
最好是找到第一手資料(原作者寫的)
4. 研究架構
文獻回顧之後，更能確定自變項和應變項之間的關係，是可行的研究。
用架構將研究圖解化。
箭頭的兩邊是可以量化的東西，而非概念。
5. 研究假設
跟著架構寫。
6. 刺激物
video, picture, on-site or not
甚麼影像才能正確反應研究問題，如何才能將效果放大。
7. 取樣方法
8. 研究基地
在我的研究問題中，是有代表性的基地嗎?
9. 操作流程
研究工具的信效度。
外在影響因子的控制。
10. 分析方法
樣本數不夠的分析(對於分析很沒有sense....)
11. 結果
在類似的研究中，最好的圖、表的表現方式。
12. 代表意義
假設證實所代表的意義。
13. 實驗檢討
可能導致有誤差的地方，架構概念的完整度，研究限制。
14. 如何應用
實務上，規畫設計上，研究範圍(?)
15. 參考文獻
16. 附錄
問卷問項
想寫出這些項目的內容，
以後可能會比較好跟著它走，不會讓研究的焦點散掉。
寫了之後才發現，
以前的專討根本沒有做到這些..也就是一點都不嚴謹的意思..
例如在取樣方法那邊，因為沒有想過，
所以現在也想不出來有甚麼內容及要注意的地方。
大家有在這些項目中卡住過嗎?或是遇到問題?
有興趣分享的請不吝嗇發表一下，
在甚麼項目遇到甚麼問題，還有解決問題的方法~
ps我把細項分出來，所以變成16項
1. 研究問題
現實世界發生的某些現象及問題。去解釋現象，或有甚麼方法能改善這些問題，對人類(或某些族群的人)有幫助。
2. 研究目的
要怎麼解決這個研究問題。
3. 理論基礎
應變項、自變項各個理論基礎，和兩者之間的相關研究。盡量focus，不要扯太多無關緊要的。
最好是找到第一手資料(原作者寫的)
4. 研究架構
文獻回顧之後，更能確定自變項和應變項之間的關係，是可行的研究。
用架構將研究圖解化。
箭頭的兩邊是可以量化的東西，而非概念。
5. 研究假設
跟著架構寫。
6. 刺激物
video, picture, on-site or not
甚麼影像才能正確反應研究問題，如何才能將效果放大。
7. 取樣方法
8. 研究基地
在我的研究問題中，是有代表性的基地嗎?
9. 操作流程
研究工具的信效度。
外在影響因子的控制。
10. 分析方法
樣本數不夠的分析(對於分析很沒有sense....)
11. 結果
在類似的研究中，最好的圖、表的表現方式。
12. 代表意義
假設證實所代表的意義。
13. 實驗檢討
可能導致有誤差的地方，架構概念的完整度，研究限制。
14. 如何應用
實務上，規畫設計上，研究範圍(?)
15. 參考文獻
16. 附錄
問卷問項
1/09/2009
瑋佳-微軟的作文小幫手
http://www.eslassistant.com/?mkt=zh-TW
這是微軟首頁(聽起來很陌生嗎? 就是MSN啦)提供的作文小幫手, 只要把英文文章貼上, 就會自動改作文唷!
因為我貼的東西是選過的, 所以沒被挑文法問題(我猜它也會才對), 主要是修改用字, 例如把ecological quality建議成environmental quality等等, 把這個網頁自己的說明文字Designed for learners of English 貼上的話, 它會改成Designed for students of English, 哈哈!
跟google翻譯一樣有使用者回饋機制, 相信會越來越厲害, 如果遇到不知用哪個字好的情況, 也許可以參考一下^^
1/08/2009
瑋佳-怎麼知道這本期刊是不是SCI?
最近連續被問了兩次這個問題, 大公開一下好了~
- 請上http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/JCR?RQ=HOME
- 會出現一個好像連結錯誤的畫面, 不要怕, 點establish a new session就對了*
- 左邊的欄位是點選SCI或SSCI的資料庫; 右邊的欄位是問要(1)依期刊類別查詢, (2)查詢個別期刊, 還是(3)查看所有期刊, 我通常都點第(2)個
- 勤勞好孩子請輸入期刊全名(例如Landscape and Urban Planning), 伶俐好孩子請在下拉式選單中選title word後用部分刊名查詢(例如Landscape)
- 查詢結果中的Impact Factor就是俗稱的期刊點數**
*不知這間公司在搞什麼神祕, 只要把網頁加入最愛, 下次再連就會告訴我沒這個東西; 對了, 要用學校的IP才能連進去唷
**怎樣的期刊算點數高? 在SCI裡查Nature或Cell等期刊就知道怎樣算高, 但在本研究室的領域中, 像Landscape Ecology的2.061算不錯高了; 點數計算係以引用率為基礎, 所以越熱門的領域就越容易出現高點數期刊
1/07/2009
Atlas.ti的新發現和問題
最近因為做質性研究的期末報告, 上網查了一些教質性的老師放的教材, 發現Altlas.ti有個功能叫family, 可以把code分組, 解決了我長久以來不知道怎麼在軟體中分範疇的問題.
但是我也快受不了我的Altlas.ti了, 每次關掉1個檔案(*.hu)再開, 就會跳出1個對話方塊告訴我該檔案正由papaya使用中, 問我要不要用唯讀模式開啟, 開了就只能另存新檔, 即使我關機重開也是一樣! 而且每次開檔案來做coding時, 這次開檔所新建的code都無法顯示在code list中, 這是我不得已必須常常關掉檔案重開的原因, 結果就一直在2個問題中無盡循環....
(唉呀, 好像不到500字!!)
12/29/2008
12/28/2008
南庄空照頻譜分析
下面這張圖是那天學科預試完，與老師討論要做看看的東西。
想法是希望看看用頻譜分析的方法來看看，地景的整體特性是否與物種豐富度或歧異度有關。
我抓了南庄航照圖的三個地方(開發程度或自然度不同)，由成果可初步看出在空間頻率的分佈上有明顯的不同(等高線的間距不同)，不過如何來檢定這樣的假設我還在找統計方法。
目前，在理論上我並沒有相關的知識來說明，就請有興趣的人發表一些看法囉!!
不過我倒是想到一些與整體空間頻率有關的指數。
1.塊區的形狀、大小、平均距離...應該會影響空間頻率。
2.破碎程度
3....
所以又想到那天林晏州老師在口試宜婷時說的"要把所有土地使用一起看"的想法，也就是說
如果我們先整體看(用這種整體性的分析)如果有差異，再來看個別指數的差異(或是個別土地使用的差異)...
不過這樣的邏輯我還不是想得很清楚???
想法是希望看看用頻譜分析的方法來看看，地景的整體特性是否與物種豐富度或歧異度有關。
我抓了南庄航照圖的三個地方(開發程度或自然度不同)，由成果可初步看出在空間頻率的分佈上有明顯的不同(等高線的間距不同)，不過如何來檢定這樣的假設我還在找統計方法。
目前，在理論上我並沒有相關的知識來說明，就請有興趣的人發表一些看法囉!!
不過我倒是想到一些與整體空間頻率有關的指數。
1.塊區的形狀、大小、平均距離...應該會影響空間頻率。
2.破碎程度
3....
所以又想到那天林晏州老師在口試宜婷時說的"要把所有土地使用一起看"的想法，也就是說
如果我們先整體看(用這種整體性的分析)如果有差異，再來看個別指數的差異(或是個別土地使用的差異)...
不過這樣的邏輯我還不是想得很清楚???
12/25/2008
ScienceDirect新服務
有關老師前兩天轉寄給大家的ScienceDirect (就是台大總圖網站中的SDOS電子期刊資料庫)新服務:
- 註冊加入會員的步驟還滿簡單的.
- 新功能"Related Articles"使跨期刊找文章的功能變強了, 有點像使用google scholar, 當然範圍僅限SDOS, 是優點也是缺點.
- 為了鼓勵使用者多多點閱, 增加了試吃...啊不是, 是免費預覽的功能, 以免使用者顧慮一開啟全文就要收費而不敢點.
- Alert的功能我沒有用, 猜想跟訂閱誠品電子報的後果是一樣的, paper這種東西還是要用再去找比較好
12/21/2008
國科會初擬架構_from Peiyi
之前跟老師討論後，目前的架構繪製如下：
第一年:H1. 景觀生態結構會影響物種指標。
第二年:H2. 景觀生態結構與物種指標會影響民眾對環境的認知。
第三年:H3. 景觀生態結構、物種指標與民眾對環境的認知會影響民眾的健康狀態。
不知各位有無更好內容建議與繪製的方式？
歡迎大家給予意見囉！
好像順很多～
第一年:H1. 景觀生態結構會影響物種指標。
第二年:H2. 景觀生態結構與物種指標會影響民眾對環境的認知。
第三年:H3. 景觀生態結構、物種指標與民眾對環境的認知會影響民眾的健康狀態。
不知各位有無更好內容建議與繪製的方式？
歡迎大家給予意見囉！
修改成這樣嗎?
好像順很多～
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
