Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46664Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張俊彥 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ching-Hsien Lee | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李京憲 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T05:21:51Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2016-08-22 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2011-08-22 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-17 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 朱健銘，（2000），土地利用空間型態之研究，國立臺灣大學地理學研究所，碩士論文，臺北。
2. 江彥政，(2004)，以景觀生態及景觀生心理探討永續環境之研究，碩士論文，國立中興大學園藝學系，臺中。 3. 林憲德，(1999)，城鄉生態，臺北：詹氏書局。 4. 翁珮怡，（2003），環境景觀生態結構對物種、使用者自然度感受及其生心理反應影響之研究，碩士論文，國立中興大學園藝學系，臺中。 5. 廖亞禎，(2002) ，校園土地利用之地景變遷-以中興大學台中校區為例，碩士論文，國立中興大學園藝學系，臺中。 6. 黃孝璋，（2007），景觀偏好、注意力恢復力及心理反應之相關性研究，碩士論文，國立台灣大學園藝學系，臺北。 7. 陳昀生，（2007），景觀結構指數、環境偏好與環境品質關係之研究，碩士論文，國立中興大學園藝學系，臺中。 8. 鄔建國，（2003）。景觀生態學：格局、過程、尺度與等級，臺北：五南。 9. 欒婉玉，（2007），不同景觀型態對注意力之影響，碩士論文，國立台灣大學園藝學系，臺北。 10. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115-125. 11. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259. 12. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207-1212. 13. De la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J. A., & de Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 393-407. 14. Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Elmehed, K. (2000). Unconcious facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Psychological Science, 11, 86-89. 15. Doxey, J. S., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2009). The impact of interior plants in university classrooms on student course performance and on student perceptions of the course and instructor. Hortscience, 44(2), 384-391. 16. Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J., & Fry, G. L. A. (2006). Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 465-474. 17. Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science, 221, 1208-1210. 18. Forman, T. T. (1995). Land mosaics:The ecology of landscape and regions. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. 19. Franco, D., Franco, D., Mannino, I., & Zanetto, G. (2003). The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, 119-138. 20. Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, Å., & Velarde, M. D.(2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9(5), 933-947. 21. Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 22. Giles, R. H., & Trani, M. K. (1999). Key elements of landscape pattern measures. Environment Management, 23, 477-481. 23. Griffith, J. A., Martinko, E. A. & Price, K. P. (2000). Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scales. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52, 45-61. 24. Gustafson, E. J. (1998). Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art?. Ecosystems , 1, 143-156. 25. Han, K. T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning , 64, 209-232. 26. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003).Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23,109-123. 27. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., & Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environment restorativeness (Working Paper No.5). Gävel, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research. 28. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of environment experiences, Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26. 29. Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2006) The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 215-226. 30. Herzog, T. R., Colleen, P., Maguire, C. P.. & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159-170. 31. Herzog, T. R,. Chen, H. C., & Primeau, J. S. (2002). Perception on the restorative potential of natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 22, 295-306. 32. Henriques, G., Keffer, S., Abrahamson, C., & Horst, S. J. (2011). Exploring the effectiveness of a computer-based heart rate variability biofeedback program in reducing anxiety in college students. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 36(2), 101-112. 33. Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (1999). Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology, 14, 161-176. 34. Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning. 26(1-4), 193-201. 35. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. 36. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. 37. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233. 38. Korpela, K., Klemettilä, T., & Hietanen, J. K. (2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 634-650. 39. Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 125-134. 40. Lausch, A., & Herzog, F. (2002). Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecological Indicators, 2, 3-15. 41. Leitão, A. B., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(2), 65-93. 42. Leitão, A. B., Miller, J., Ahern, J., & McGarigal, K (Eds.). (2005). Measuring Landscapes. Washington: Island Press. 43. Matsuoka, R. H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 273-282. 44. Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 7-19. 45. McGarigal, K., & Marks, B. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service-General. Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. 46. Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B., & Grannis, M.(1993). Proximate physical cues to fear of crime. Landscape and Urban Planning. 26, 161-118. 47. Ode, Å., Tveit, M. S., & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1), 89-117. 48. Olson, R. P. (1995) Definitions of Biofeedback and Applied Psychophysiology. In Schwartz, M. S. (Ed.), Biofeedback a Practitioner’s Guide, (pp.27-31). New York : Guilford Press . 49. Palmer, J. F. (2004). Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 201-218. 50. Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 149-161. 51. Parsons, R., Tassinary, L. G., Ulrich, R. S., Hebl, M. R., & Grossman-Alexander, M. (1998). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(2), 113-140. 52. Pluess, M., Conrad, A., & Wilhelm, F. H. (2009). Muscle tension in generalized anxiety disorder: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23, 1-11. 53. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 57-66. 54. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93-106. 55. Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157. 56. Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155-175. 57. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key visual concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character, Landscape Research, 31, 229 - 255. 58. Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & Van der Wulp, N. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146. 59. Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556. 60. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. 61. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230. 62. With, K. A. (1994). Using fractal analysis to assess how species perceive landscape structure. Landscape Ecology , 9, 25-36. 63. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape and Urban Planning, 9, 1-33. 【網路資料】 1. Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback [AAPB]網頁http://www.aapb.org/(2011/06/14) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46664 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 現代人特別是生活在都市環境中的人們常感到壓力，而這些壓力、焦慮狀態會對人們的生理及心理健康產生負面的影響，而自然環境可以讓我們獲得恢復的效益，但在都市當中自然環境相對來說較少，因此校園環境在此就扮演很重要的角色。本研究目的在於檢視校園環境的景觀結構指數對於受測者的生心理反應的影響，本研究選取台灣大學校總區20處校園環境進行調查，並利用Arc Map地理資訊系統軟體對研究樣點進行數化，將校園環境的土地覆蓋類型(LCT)分為草荒地、人工地盤、林地及水體四類，並計算各項景觀結構指數，所採用的指數包含塊區數目(NP)、平均塊區大小(MPS)、平均形狀指標(MSI)、面積百分比(PERCLAND)。並在現地收集資料，利用注意力恢復量表(PRS)、景觀偏好做為心理測量工具以及收集受測者的肌電值(EMG)與心跳(HR)做為生理反應的指標。研究結果指出越大面積且自然形式的草荒地的偏好及PRS評值越高，水體塊區大小越大，心跳速率越低，而人工地盤會對心理反應造成負面的影響，在校園環境較適合破碎的林地組成方式，而林地的面積越大，越能使肌電值下降，讓人感到放鬆，藉由本研究結果希望未來能應用在校園規劃設計上，能帶來更健康的環境。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | People who live in urban are often stress on job and society. Because these all kind of stress and anxiety, many people have been shown negative impact on both physical and psychological. The natural environment has physical and psychological effects on the recovery, but the people who live in the city have seldom chances to close the natural environment. Therefore, school plays a very important role to people live in urban. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among different landscape structure index and respondents’ attention level, landscape preference and their physiological responses. This study chose 20 campus settings in National Taiwan University and collected samples from every settings. The study applied of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to digitize the aerial photography of every campus settings and classify land cover type into four different types -grassland, artificial land, forest land and waterbody. Then we calculate the landscape structure indices of each setting. In this study we chose four Landscape structure indices including Number of Patches(NP), Mean Patch Size(MPS), Mean Shape Index(MSI), and Percentage of Landscape (PERCLAND).We collected research data on-site. The Perceived restorativeness scale (PRS) and landscape preference were applied as the index of respondents' psychological responses. The physical response includes Electromyography (EMG) and Heart rate (HR). Large areas of grass, waterbody and more natural shape of the grass land, waterbody were more preferred and better for attention restoration. And the higher waterbody’s mean patch size the lower heart rate. Artificial land would have a negative impact on landscape quality. The campus environment is more suitable for spread the planting of trees. And the higher forest land’s percentage the lower EMG activity. This means that people feel relaxed. The information can help the site plan make the environment become a healthy place. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T05:21:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R97628314-1.pdf: 6137134 bytes, checksum: 0b2145826a7a47bcf34c355bd70627a5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 i
謝誌 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstract iv 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究限制 3 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 景觀生態相關理論 5 第二節 景觀心理效益 13 第三節 景觀生理效益 19 第三章 研究方法 23 第一節 研究架構與假設 23 第二節 研究設計 27 第三節 資料分析方法 38 第四章 研究結果與討論 39 第一節 研究結果分析 39 第二節 假設驗證 46 第五章 結論與建議 59 第一節 結論 59 第二節 實證研究建議 60 第三節 後續研究建議 62 參考文獻 63 附錄一 研究樣點資料 70 附錄二 景觀結構數化結果 80 附錄三 樣點景觀結構指數資料表 88 附錄四 研究問卷 96 附錄五 原文摘錄 98 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 校園環境之景觀生態結構對使用者生心理影響之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Effect of Landscape Ecological Structure on the Psychological and Physiological Responses in School Environment | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州,歐聖榮,鄭佳昆,陳惠美 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 注意力恢復,景觀結構指數,景觀偏好,校園,生心理效益, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | attention restoration,landscape structure index,landscape preference campus,psycho-physiological benefits, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 107 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-18 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝學研究所 | zh_TW |
| Appears in Collections: | 園藝暨景觀學系 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf Restricted Access | 5.99 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.