¶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.22, no.2, 1994³â, pp.1-12
°æ°ü¼±È£¿Í Æò°¡¿¡ À־ °³ÀÎÀû Â÷ÀÌ ¹× À¯»ç¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÌÇØ¿Í ±× Á߿伺¿¡ °üÇÑ °íÂû
( Review on Individual Differences and Similarities in Landscape Preference and Evaluation )
ÀÌ¿µ°æ; µ¿±¹´ëÇб³ Á¶°æÇаú;
 
ÃÊ ·Ï
This paper reviews and examines the empirical results of past research concerning individual differences and similarities in landscape preference and evaluation. The conflicting results (differences and similarities) found in the review are attributed to the variety of methodology adopted by the past research and to the lack of comprehensive theoretical base in the field of landscape research. Two suggestions are derived from the review. First, both the landscape type to be evaluated and the measurement context to be used by research subjects have critical importance in results. Thus, it is suggested that researchers should be careful in selecting landscape type and measurement tool. Second, more scholartic endeavours should be put into a development of comprehensive theory of landscape experience that could explain both differences and similarities in people's landscape preference and evaluation. Once developed, the theory would not only provide us more valid and specific research methodology, but also allow us to design more healthy and valued landscape.
 
Ű¿öµå
 
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸÁö / v.22, no.2, 1994³â, pp.1-12
Çѱ¹Á¶°æÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1225-1755
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO199411920416064)
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¿