¶óÆæÆ®¦¢Ä«Æä¦¢ºí·Î±×¦¢´õº¸±â
¾ÆÄ«µ¥¹Ì Ȩ ¸í»çƯ°­ ´ëÇבּ¸½Ç޹æ Á¶°æ½Ç¹« µ¿¿µ»ó°­ÀÇ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ÀüÅëÁ¤¿ø ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®
ÇÐȸº° ³í¹®

Çѱ¹°Ç¼³°ü¸®ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹°ÇÃà½Ã°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹µµ·ÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ý¹°È¯°æÁ¶ÀýÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹»ýÅÂÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹½Ç³»µðÀÚÀÎÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀÚ¿ø½Ä¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÀܵðÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹Áö¹Ý°øÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹ÇÏõȣ¼öÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ý¹°ÇÐȸ
Çѱ¹È¯°æ»ýÅÂÇÐȸ

Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ / v.23, no.3, 1995³â, pp.155-166
³ìÁö°ø°£ÀÇ À̹ÌÁö ºñ±³ºÐ¼®¿¡ °üÇÑ ¿¬±¸
( A comparative analysis of images for green spaces )
¾Èµæ¼ö; ÀüºÏ´ë Á¶°æÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
The aim of this paper was to investigate images of neighborhood parks and pergola facilities. 280 individuals responded to the 19 semantic differential pollar terms for all four parks. A 7-point semantic differential scale was used. Results from the data analysis suggest several important findings; 1. Mean scores were significantly different in most of S.D.scales according to park and pergola facilities types. As compared with park, S.D.scales values of pergola varied with its visual identity in the spatial composition of park. 2. Data from the factor analysis revealed that four dimensions appeared for all park and pergola types : "Evaluation ", "Potentiality", "Variety", and "Familiarity". 3. In terms of the "Familiarity" dimension, Omok park and its pergola were viewed a ssignificantly more familiar than any of the other three areas. 4. Parks were perceived more positive than pergolas images in the dimensions of "Evaluation ", "Variety", and "Familiarity". 5. Regression analysis showed that "Evaluation "and "Variety" dimensions were mainly related to visual preference.
 
Ű¿öµå
 
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸÁö / v.23, no.3, 1995³â, pp.155-166
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1225-1755
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO199511920418185)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î
³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø
¸ñ·Ïº¸±â
ȸ»ç¼Ò°³ ±¤°í¾È³» ÀÌ¿ë¾à°ü °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸Ãë±Þ¹æÄ§ Ã¥ÀÓÀÇ ÇѰè¿Í ¹ýÀû°íÁö À̸ÞÀÏÁÖ¼Ò ¹«´Ü¼öÁý °ÅºÎ °í°´¼¾ÅÍ
   

ÇÏÀ§¹è³ÊÀ̵¿