請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10105
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳惠美(Hui-Mei Chen) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ting-Fang Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳婷芳 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T21:02:18Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2011-07-27 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T21:02:18Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-07-27 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-07-18 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1.主計處,(2010),臺灣外食族飲食調查,下載日期:2011/03/27,取自:http://www.dgbas.gov.tw。
2.吳明隆,(2008),結構方程式:AMOS的操作與應用,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 3.李青松、鐘侑玎、陳欣怡、車成緯,(2010),特色商圈意象、餐廳服務品質與關係品質之研究-以新竹北埔特色商圈之客家餐廳為例,運動休閒餐旅研究,5(2),1-19。 4.李素馨,(1999),都市視覺景觀偏好之研究,都市與計劃,26(1),19-40。 5.花草遊戲編輯部,(2009),花草遊戲NO.46居家變花園輕鬆,臺北:麥浩斯。 6.侯錦雄、林宗賢,(1996),日月潭風景區目標市場定位策略中之旅遊意象度量探討,戶外遊憩研究,9(1),57-77。 7.高秋英、林玥秀,(2008),餐飲管理-理論與實務,台北:揚智文化事業股份有限公司。 8.陳沛悌、江羽涵、裴蕾、陳甫鼎,(2009),溫泉餐廳消費行為之研究-以行義路溫泉餐廳消費者為例,休閒事業研究,7(3),63-84。 9.陳惠美、林晏州,(1997),景觀知覺與景觀品質關係之研究,造園學報,4(1),1-16。 10.博客來數位科技,(2011),博客來書目分類,下載日期:2011/02/10,取自:http://www.books.com.tw/。 11.楊桃文化,(2009),150家時尚茶館景觀餐廳,臺北:楊桃文化。 12.經濟部,(2000),餐飲業經營管理實務,臺北:中國生產力中心。 13.榮泰生,(2007),Amos與研究方法,臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。 14.臺北市交通局,(2011),臺北捷運各站旅運量,下載日期:2011/01/09,取自:http://www.dot.taipei.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode=29214&CtUnit=14610&BaseDSD= 7&mp=117001。 15.臺灣角川,(2007),Taipei Walker 3月號 119期,臺北:臺灣角川。 16.歐聖榮、劉曉琪,(2002),民眾對園藝產業活動之動機與體驗研究,戶外遊憩研究,15(4),75-92。 17.蔡雨勳、李明聰、劉修祥,(2010),服務品質、價值、滿意度及行為意圖關係之研究-以打狗英國領事官邸餐廳為例,休閒暨觀光產業研究,5(1),54-69。 18.鄭翊偉,(2006),台中市景觀餐廳風格之景觀偏好與消費意圖關係之研究,碩士論文,逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所,台中。 19.鐘文萍、吳秀雲,(2005),走進秘密庭園,臺北:宏碩文化行遍天下。 20.Almanza, A. B., Jaffe, W., & Lin, L. (1994). Use of the service attribute matrix to measure consumer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 17, 63-75. 21.Andreu, L., Bigné, E., Chumpitaz, R., & Swaen, V. (2006). How does the perceived retail environment influence consumers’ emotional experience? Evidence from two retail settings. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 16(5), 559-578. 22.Auty, S. (1992). Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The Service Industries Journal, 12(3), 324-339. 23.Berg, A. E. V., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 362-372. 24.Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259. 25.Berto, R., Baroni, M. R., Zainaghi, A., & Bettella, S. (2010). An exploratory study of the effect of high and low fascination environments on attentional fatigue. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 494-500. 26.Bitner, M. J. (1992). The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. The Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71. 27.Bourassa, S. C. (1988). Toward a theory of landscape aesthetic. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 241-252. 28.Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods-results of a cross national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23-61. 29.Caldwell, C., & Hibbert, S. A. (2002). The influence of music tempo and musical preference on restaurant patron’s behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 19(11), 895-917. 30.Chang, H. H., & Chen, S. W. (2008). The impact of online store environment cues on purchase intention. Online Information Review, 32(6), 818-841. 31.Clay, G. R., & Smidt, R. K. (2004). Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66, 239-255. 32.Daniel, T. C., Browm, T. C., King, D. A., Richards, M. T., & Stewart, W. P. (1989). Perceived scenic beauty and contingent valuation of forest campgrounds. Forest Science, 35(1), 76-90. 33.Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1), 34-57. 34.Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention restoration theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 160-167. 35.Gimblett, H. R., Itami, R. M., & Fitzgibbon, J. E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87-95. 36.Hampe, G. D., & Noe, F. P. (1983). A study in the aesthetics of boundaries: Fences along a National Parkway. Journal of Environment Management, 17, 239-248. 37.Hardy, J., Behe, B. K., Barton, S. S., Page, T. J., Schutzki, R. E., Muzii, K., Fernandez, R. T., Haque, M. T., Brooker, J., Hall, C. R., Hinson, R., Knight, P., McNiel, R., Rowe, D. B., & Safley, C. (2000). Consumers preferences for plant size, type of plant material and design sophistication in residential landscaping. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 18(4), 224-230. 38.Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Gävle, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research. 39.Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159-170. 40.Hudson, B. J. (1992). Hunting or a sheltered life: Prospects and refuges reviewed. Landscape and Urban Planning, 22, 53-57. 41.Hur, M., Nasar, J. L., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 52-59. 42.Ivarsson, C. T., & Hagerhall, C. M. (2008). The perceived restorativeness of gardens: Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 107-118. 43.Jacobs, R., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1985). A closer look at halo error in preference ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 201-212. 44.Jang, S., & Namkung, Y. (2009). Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian-Russell model to restaurants. Journal of Business Research, 62, 451-460. 45.Junker, B., & Buchecker, M. (2008). Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 141-154. 46.Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. 47.Korpela, K. M., & Ylen, M. (2007). Perceived health is associated with visiting natural favorite places in the vicinity. Health & Place, 13, 138-151. 48.Korpela, K., Kytta, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experience, self-regulation, and children’s place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22,387-398. 49.Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 31-44. 50.Lin, M. Q., & Chiang, Y. F. (2010). The influence of store environment on perceived experiential value and behavior intention. Asia Pacific Management Review, 15(2), 281-299. 51.Litton, R. B. Jr. (1968). Forest landscape description and inventories: A basis for land planning and desigh. USDA, for Serv, Res, Pap. PSW, 49-64. 52.Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 161-167. 53.McKechnie, G. (1974). The psychological structure of leisure: Past behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 7, 165-178. 54.Mealey, L., & Theis, P. (1995). The relationship between mood and preferences: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology & Sociobiology, 16, 247-256 55.Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 10(4), 229-237. 56.Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C. M., & Fry, G. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 225-235. 57.Peron, E., Berto, R., & Purcell, T. (2002). Restorativeness, Preference and the Perceived naturalness of places. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 3(1), 19-34. 58.Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 57-66. 59.Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Peron, E. M., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 195-209. 60.Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93-106. 61.Reynolds, F. D., & Wells, W. D. (1977). Consumer behavior. New York: McGrraw-Hill Book Company. p29-35 62.Rosenbaum, M. S. (2009). Restorative servicescapes: Restoring directed attention in third places. Journal of Service Management, 20(2), 173-191. 63.Ryu, K., & Jang, S. (2008). Influence of restaurant’s physical environments on emotion and behavioral intention. The Service Industries Journal, 28(8), 1151-1165. 64.Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2007). Consumer behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 65.Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2009). Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2889-2899. 66.Simonič, T. (2003). Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscape. University of Ljubljana, 82(2), 369-387. 67.Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., & Aikoh, T. (2004). Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 403-416. 68.Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49, 193-211. 69.Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229-255. 70.Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes some psycho physiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523-556. 71.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. 72.Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & Van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146. 73.Wansink, B. (2003) Response to “Measuring consumer response to food products”. Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 23-26. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10105 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 根據主計處的統計資料,臺灣民眾經常外出用餐,其預算高達年收入的三分之一,顯示出龐大的餐飲商機。再加上國人對休閒生活的重視,外出用餐也需兼顧休閒品質,於是業者為了招攬顧客上門,除了注重餐點與服務品質之外,也開始重視用餐的空間情境,營造可放鬆休憩的用餐空間。然而過去研究大多側重在室內環境屬性,探討其知覺與偏好如何影響消費者的行為意圖,並沒有針對戶外空間做深入的研究,但有少數學者認為戶外景觀是餐廳行銷相當重要的環節,是消費者最先接受的刺激。而過去文獻探討人受環境刺激的反應,諸多採用心理學的刺激-有機體-反應(S-O-R)架構,因此,本研究即根據SOR來檢視餐廳消費者接受到戶外景觀的刺激,所產生的反應。
餐廳的景觀結構可依照觀賞距離分成遠、中、近景,遠景類型牽涉餐廳的選址,中、近景則為餐廳的戶外庭園設計,相互組合成餐廳的整體景觀。雖然較少文獻分析餐廳景觀的知覺與偏好,但歸納過去探討一般景觀類型的結果,若將景觀的自然度一分為二,人們普遍偏好自然景觀,最不偏好人為景觀,可見自然度對景觀偏好扮演了重要的角色,但是將景觀的自然度進一步分成自然、混合、人工,則無法明確預測景觀偏好,反而有研究證實知覺自然度與偏好高度相關,表示採用大眾的知覺自然度預測偏好,其準確性優於僅將景觀的自然度粗略分類。另一方面,有學者認為人們嚮往自然,是因為自然環境較能感受到恢復性體驗,也證實了知覺恢復性與偏好之間的關連,甚至發現具恢復性的環境能直接影響消費者的行為意圖。於是本研究將探討餐廳景觀的知覺與偏好,並驗證餐廳景觀的知覺自然度、知覺恢復性、景觀偏好與行為意圖等一連串的反應過程。 本研究模擬餐廳景觀的遠、中、近景的圖片並配合問卷調查,選擇都會區的民眾做為抽樣對象,其生活環境缺少自然景觀,而郊外餐廳最大的吸引力就是自然景觀,兼具用餐與觀景的功用,所以都會民眾為此類餐廳的主要客群。抽樣地點則選擇台北都會區的捷運站-淡水站、新店站、動物園站與劍潭站,由於台北為台灣最具代表性的都市,而且捷運人潮流動率龐大,四處捷運站周邊皆為台北郊外風景秀麗的地點,以及前往風景區的轉乘站,最有可能抽到喜好風景的潛在消費者。問卷題目包含個人特性、知覺自然度、知覺恢復性、景觀偏好與行為意圖,最後回收有效問卷256份。 研究結果指出,餐廳遠景顯著影響知覺自然度、恢復性與景觀偏好,大致上以湖泊最能顯著提高景觀知覺與偏好,其次是山丘與海洋,最低是都市,而中、近景對景觀知覺與偏好則呈現不顯著。進一步探討餐廳景觀的知覺、偏好與行為意圖的機制過程,結果顯示餐廳景觀的知覺自然度透過知覺恢復性影響景觀偏好,再影響消費者的行為意圖。另外也發現知覺恢復性能直接影響行為意圖,表示餐廳景觀若具備恢復疲勞與放鬆身心的效益,則能直接提高消費者的行為意圖。 由研究結果可知,對餐廳景觀來說,「樹木」與「水」是相當重要的元素,當運用景觀類型或元素提高了知覺自然度,讓消費者處在自然環境中而體驗到恢復放鬆的感覺,則能增加對該餐廳的偏好,如此提高顧客的消費意願,亦或是延長停留時間,增加了消費的機會。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | According to statistical data of Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, people of Taiwan usually were eating-out. They prepared budget of eating-out over one third of annual revenues. Restaurant owners not only focus on food and service quality, but also improved physical environments for attracting more customers. The researcher considered outdoor landscape is important, because outdoor landscape is acceptable before the interior environments by consumers. However, most studies focused on how interior environment affect on restaurant customers’ behavioral intention. Few studies explored the link between external landscape and behavioral intention. Therefore, the main purpose of this research was to explore how outdoor landscape of restaurant influences consumers’ behavioral intention.
Structure of restaurant landscape divided into background, middle view, and foreground. Type of background is with relation to restaurant location, and type of middle view and foreground is with relation to design of restaurant garden. The back ground, medium view, and front ground combine with each other to form overall landscape. Although there has been little research conducted on perception and preference of restaurant landscape, several studies has examined natural scenes were highly preferred. It is thus clear the effect of perceived naturalness on preference. In addition, the researcher considered the preference for natural environments, are linked to the given environments’ potential to provide restoration from stress or fatigue. The literature indicated perceived restoration or preference both positively correlated with behavioral intention. Thus, the reaction process of perceived naturalness, perceived restoration, landscape preference, and behavioral intention was deeply examined. The data were collected using self-report questionnaires for evaluation of photomontage simulations of restaurant. The questionnaires include demographic information, perceived naturalness, perceived restoration, landscape preference, and behavioral intention. The survey was conducted in February 2011 at several major stations of the Mass Rapid Transit system in Taipei City, Taiwan. A total of 256 valid questionnaires were completed. The results showed that background of restaurant significantly effects on landscape perception and landscape preference, but middle and foreground don’t. The results also examined behavioral intention is influenced by landscape preference which is affected through perceived naturalness and restoration. In addition, this study even found behavioral intention is directly affected by perceived restoration. The results reveal restorative landscape can reduce impact of restaurant accessing, and attract customers to go restaurant where in remote place, such as mountains, seaside, and forest. For landscape of restaurant, the tree and water is very important attributes to increase level of perceived naturalness. The restaurant customers who experienced restoration and relaxation within natural environment induced preference and willingness to visit or spend time in the store. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T21:02:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R98628314-1.pdf: 47712097 bytes, checksum: 576284b6dd06c61ae26ebf50b7ec569f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審 ...................................... I
誌謝 .............................................. II 中文摘要 .......................................... III 英文摘要 .......................................... V 目錄 .............................................. VII 表目錄 ............................................ VIII 圖目錄 ............................................ IX 第一章 緒論 ................................ 1 第一節 研究緣起 .................................. 1 第二節 研究目的 .................................. 4 第二章 文獻回顧 .................................. 5 第一節 餐廳之消費 ................................ 5 第二節 餐廳消費者之景觀知覺與偏好 ................ 12 第三章 研究方法 .................................. 18 第一節 研究架構與假設 ............................ 18 第二節 研究工具 .................................. 21 第三節 調查方法 .................................. 27 第四節 分析方法 .................................. 29 第四章 結果分析 ............................ 30 第一節 餐廳景觀基本特性分析 ...................... 30 第二節 餐廳景觀屬性之影響分析 .................... 46 第三節 餐廳的景觀知覺、偏好與行為意圖關係檢定 .... 48 第五章 結論與建議 ................................ 53 第一節 結果討論 .................................. 53 第二節 結論建議 .................................. 58 參考文獻 .......................................... 61 附錄一-餐廳景觀照片 .............................. 67 附錄二-正式問卷 .................................. 71 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 景觀知覺與景觀偏好對餐廳消費者行為意圖影響之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Influence of Landscape Perception and Landscape Preference on Restaurant Customers' Behavioral Intention | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 歐聖榮(Sheng-Jung Ou),陸洛(Luo Lo),林晏州(Yann-Jou Lin),張俊彥(Chun-Yen Chang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 知覺自然度,知覺恢復性,消費意願,願意停留時間,餐廳景觀, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | perceived naturalness,perceived restoration,patronage intention,desire to remain,restaurant landscape, | en |
dc.relation.page | 78 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-07-19 | |
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 |
顯示於系所單位: | 園藝暨景觀學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf | 46.59 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。