請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/103169完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chia-Kuen Cheng | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 張逸華 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yi-Hua Chang | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-08-05T16:39:11Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-08-06 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-08-05 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-07-27 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 中華民國運動部(無日期)。中華民國國民體適能常模。運動部學生體適能網站。https://www.fitness.org.tw/fitness-norms#male-jump-tab-pane
2. 常懷生(1995)。建築環境心理學。田園城市文化事業有限公司。 3. 康聿萱(2022)。照明方式、阻礙物類型與空間因子對空間感知及擁擠感之影響[未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺灣大學。 4. 張秉裕、周映均、林以婷、余虹、林珈羽(2020)。運用空間語法於公共空間動線設計與分析之研究——以臺北市立動物園為例。休憩管理研究,7(1),1–25。 5. 張淑貞、李素馨、何曉萍(2014)。由空間型構法則評估國小校園潛在危險角落。建築學報,(88),155–174。https://doi.org/10.3966/101632122014060088010 6. 許智新(2000)。植栽空間封閉度及私密性之研究[未出版之碩士論文]。國立中興大學。 7. 陳映均、林晏州(2014)。都市街道景觀封閉感之研究。都市與計劃,41(1),99–115。https://doi.org/10.6128/cp.41.1.99 8. 陳映均、鄭佳昆、林晏州(2012)。戶外景觀空間組成對封閉度之影響。戶外遊憩研究,25(4),1–23。 9. 黃博洵、邱上嘉、李文英(2022)。基於空間句法和景觀格局的城市綠地碎片化與城市化分析。建築學報,(122),89–110。https://doi.org/10.53106/101632122022120122005 10. 黃寶瑜(1975)。建築、造景、計畫:宿園論學集 1949–73。大陸書局。 11. 葉書昀(2023)。運用空間型構法則探討街道步行空間特徵之研究[碩士論文,國立成功大學]。 12. 劉東奇(1995)。登山步道空間封閉度量化模式之研究[碩士論文,東海大學]。 13. 歐聖榮(2001)。景觀空間封閉感及擁擠感之研究(計畫編號 NSC 89-2313-B-005-202)。行政院國家科學委員會。 14. 歐聖榮、李美芬(1998)。應用虛擬實境於植栽空間對情緒影響之研究。中國園藝,44(4),449–462。https://doi.org/10.6964/jcshs.199812.0449 15. 歐聖榮、李美芬(2001)。景觀空間封閉感及偏好知覺之研究[研討會論文發表]。2001 休閒、遊憩、觀光研究成果研討會 III。 16. 衛生福利部國民健康署(2022)。國民營養健康狀況變遷調查(106–109 年)成果報告。 17. Alkhresheh, M. M. (2007). Enclosure as a function of height-to-width ratio and scale: Its influence on users’ sense of comfort and safety in urban street space [Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida]. 18. Asgarzadeh, M., Koga, T., Hirate, K., Farvid, M., & Lusk, A. (2014). Investigating oppressiveness and spaciousness in relation to building, trees, sky and ground surface: A study in Tokyo. Landscape and Urban Planning, 131, 36-41. 19. Baran, P. K., Rodríguez, D. A., & Khattak, A. J. (2008). Space syntax and walking in a new urbanist and suburban neighbourhoods. Journal of Urban Design, 13(1), 5-28. 20. Baran, P. K., Tabrizian, P., Zhai, Y., Smith, J. W., & Floyd, M. F. (2018). An exploratory study of perceived safety in a neighborhood park using immersive virtual environments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 35, 72-81. 21. Bemáldez, F., Ruiz, J., Benayas, J., & Abello, R. (1988). Real landscapes versus photographed landscapes: preference dimensions. Landscape Research, 13(1), 10-11. 22. Browning, M. H., Saeidi-Rizi, F., McAnirlin, O., Yoon, H., & Pei, Y. (2021). The role of methodological choices in the effects of experimental exposure to simulated natural landscapes on human health and cognitive performance: A systematic review. Environment and Behavior, 53(7), 687–731. 23. Bruseberg, A., & McDonagh-Philp, D. (2001). New product development by eliciting user experience and aspirations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55(4), 435-452. 24. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261–304. 25. Cha, S. H., Koo, C., Kim, T. W., & Hong, T. (2019). Spatial perception of ceiling height and type variation in immersive virtual environments. Building and Environment, 163, 106285. 26. Chiang, Y.-C., Nasar, J. L., & Ko, C.-C. (2014). Influence of visibility and situational threats on forest trail evaluations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 166-173. 27. Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 107-112. 28. Darwin, C. (1993). The autobiography of Charles Darwin. W. W. Norton. 29. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106 30. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage. 31. Dosen, A. S., & Ostwald, M. J. (2016). Evidence for prospect-refuge theory: A meta-analysis of the findings of environmental preference research. City, Territory and Architecture, 3, 1–14. 32. El Samaty, H. S., Feidi, J. Z., & Refaat, A. M. (2023). The impact of glazed barriers on the visual and functional performance of transition spaces in college buildings using space syntax. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(9), 102119. 33. Epstein, R., & Kanwisher, N. (1998). A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature, 392(6676), 598-601. 34. Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-84. 35. Feria, C. S., Braunstein, M. L., & Andersen, G. J. (2003). Judging distance across texture discontinuities. Perception, 32(12), 1423-1440. 36. Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 35-65. 37. Gatersleben, B., & Andrews, M. (2013). When walking in nature is not restorative—The role of prospect and refuge. Health & Place, 20, 91-101. 38. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press. 39. Gärling, T. (1969). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms: II. Judgments of open and closed space by category rating and magnitude estimation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 257–268. 40. Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3-4), 264-275. 41. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday. 42. Havitz, M. E. (1987). An experimental examination of sector bias in the context of selected organized recreation services [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University]. 43. Hayward, S. C., & Franklin, S. S. (1974). Perceived openness-enclosure of architectural space. Environment and Behavior, 6(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657400600102 44. Hediger, H. (1964). Wild animals in captivity: An outline of the biology of zoological gardens (Reprint ed.). Dover Publications. 45. Henshel, R. L. (1980). The purposes of laboratory experimentation and the virtues of deliberate artificiality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(5), 466-478. 46. Herzog, T. R., & Chernick, K. K. (2000). Tranquility and danger in urban and natural settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 29–39. 47. Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 659-677. 48. Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 819-835. 49. Higuchi, T. (1983). The visual and spatial structure of landscapes (C. S. Terry, Trans.). MIT Press. 50. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press. 51. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., & Penn, A. (1986). Creating life: or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture & Comportement/Architecture & Behaviour, 3(3), 233-250. 52. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press. 53. Hofmann, M., Westermann, J. R., Kowarik, I., & van der Meer, E. (2012). Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3), 303–312. 54. Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge. 55. Hussein, A. Y., & Mustafa, F. A. (2024). A quality learning environment: an assessment of spaciousness of architectural design studios of Iraqi Kurdistan region universities using fuzzy logic. Open House International, 49(1), 181-204. 56. Kanizsa, G. (1979). Organization in vision: Essays on Gestalt Perception. Praeger Publishers. 57. Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12(2), 161-176. 58. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press. 59. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island Press. 60. Kay, C., Roberts, J., Samuels, M., & Wotherspoon, I. (2009). Historical thesaurus of the Oxford English dictionary. Oxford University Press. 61. Kisker, J., Gruber, T., & Schöne, B. (2021). Experiences in virtual reality entail different processes of retrieval as opposed to conventional laboratory settings: A study on human memory. Current Psychology, 40, 3190-3197. 62. Li, B., Zhang, C., Cao, L., Chen, P., Liu, T., Gao, H., Wang, L., Yan, B., & Tong, L. (2023). Brain functional representation of highly occluded object recognition. Brain Sciences, 13(10), 1387. 63. Lindal, P. J., & Hartig, T. (2013). Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 26-36. 64. Lis, A., Pardela, Ł., & Iwankowski, P. (2019). Impact of vegetation on perceived safety and preference in city parks. Sustainability, 11(22), 6324. 65. Lis, A., Zalewska, K., Iwankowski, P., Betkier, K., Bilska, P., Dudar, V., & Łągiewka, A. (2024). Evaluation of sense of safety and privacy in parks in relation to the topography, the presence of dense vegetation and other people in the area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 242, 104948. 66. Martin, M. W., & Sell, J. (1979). The role of the experiment in the social sciences. The Sociological Quarterly, 20(4), 581-590. 67. McFerran, B., Dahl, D. W., Gorn, G. J., & Honea, H. (2010). Motivational determinants of transportation into marketing narratives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 306-316. 68. Michotte, A., & Burke, L. (1951). Une nouvelle énigme dans la psychologie de la perception: Le « donné amodal » dans l’expérience sensorielle. Actes du XIIIe Congrès International de Psychologie, 179–180. 69. Michotte, A., Thines, G., & Crabbe, G. (1991). Amodal completion of perceptual structures. Routledge. 70. Michotte, A., Thinès, G., & Crabbé, G. (1964). Les complements amodaux des structures perceptives. 71. Motloch, J. L. (2000). Introduction to landscape design. John Wiley & Sons. 72. Mugge, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). Seeking the ideal level of design newness: Consumer response to radical and incremental product design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 34-47. 73. Nasar, J. L., & Bokharaei, S. (2017). Impressions of lighting in public squares after dark. Environment and Behavior, 49(3), 227-254. 74. Noda, N., & Yoshioka, Y. (2025). Effects of opaque patterns on desk partitions on sense of enclosure in the work environment. Human Factors in Architecture, Sustainable Urban Planning and Infrastructure, 191, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1006606 75. Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people–A study of park design and use. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 12-17. 76. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill. 77. Olonetzky, N. (2017). Inspirations: A time travel through garden history. Birkhäuser. 78. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424 79. Paes, D., Arantes, E., & Irizarry, J. (2017). Immersive environment for improving the understanding of architectural 3D models: Comparing user spatial perception between immersive and traditional virtual reality systems. Automation in Construction, 84, 292–303. 80. Pardela, Łukasz, Beck, J., & Lis, A. (2025). Perception of urban parks: the influence of topography, vegetation density and park attributes on perceived safety, mystery and preference. Landscape Online, 100, 1133. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.2025.1133 81. Robinette, G. O. (1972). Plants, people, and environmental quality: A study of plants and their environmental functions. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 82. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Academic Press. 83. Sadalla, E. K., & Oxley, D. (1984). The perception of room size: The rectangularity illusion. Environment and Behavior, 16(3), 394-405. 84. Savavibool, N., & Moorapun, C. (2017). Effects of colour, area, and height on space perception. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 2(6), 351-359. 85. Sezavar, N., Pazhouhanfar, M., Van Dongen, R. P., & Grahn, P. (2023). The importance of designing the spatial distribution and density of vegetation in urban parks for increased experience of safety. Journal of Cleaner Production, 403, 136768. 86. Sharmin, S., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationships between space syntax measures and pedestrian movement. Transport Reviews, 38(4), 524-550. 87. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 88. Simonds, J. O.(1999)。建築譯叢 IV:景園建築學(王濟昌譯)。臺隆書店。 89. Sinai, M. J., Ooi, T. L., & He, Z. J. (1998). Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance. Nature, 395(6701), 497-500. 90. Spears, N., & Yazdanparast, A. (2014). Revealing obstacles to the consumer imagination. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 363-372. 91. Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155-175. 92. Stamps, A. E. (2001). Evaluating enclosure in urban sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57(1), 25-42. 93. Stamps, A. E. (2003). Permeability and environmental enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(3, Suppl.), 1305–1310. 94. Stamps, A. E. (2005a). Elongation and enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101(1), 303-308. 95. Stamps, A. E. (2005b). Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environment and Behavior, 37(1), 102-133. 96. Stamps, A. E. (2005c). Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environment and Behavior, 37(5), 587-619. 97. Stamps, A. E. (2006). Surface location and enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102(2), 517-528. 98. Stamps, A. E. (2007a). Evaluating spaciousness in static and dynamic media. Design Studies, 28(5), 535-557. 99. Stamps, A. E. (2007b). Mystery of environmental mystery. Environment and Behavior, 39(2), 165-197. 100. Stamps, A. E. (2008a). Some findings on prospect and refuge theory: II. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 107(1), 141-158. 101. Stamps, A. E. (2008b). Some findings on prospect and refuge: I. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(1), 147-162. 102. Stamps, A. E. (2009). On shape and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 41(4), 526-548. 103. Stamps, A. E. (2010). Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 42(6), 864-886. 104. Stamps, A. E. (2011a). Effects of area, height, elongation, and color on perceived spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 43(2), 252-273. 105. Stamps, A. E. (2011b). Effects of boundary height and horizontal size within boundary on perceived enclosure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 113(3), 995-998. 106. Stamps, A. E. (2012). Atmospheric permeability and perceived enclosure. Environment and Behavior, 44(3), 427-446. 107. Stamps, A. E. (2013a). Effects of multiple boundaries on perceived spaciousness and enclosure. Environment and Behavior, 45(7), 851-875. 108. Stamps, A. E. (2013b). Surf & turf: Effects of ground substrate on perceived threat, enclosure, and perceived walkability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 117(2), 511-527. 109. Stamps, A. E. (2015). Threat, permeability and environmental enclosure. Inst. Environ. Qual. 110. Stamps, A. E., & Krishnan, V. (2004). Perceived enclosure of space, angle above observer, and distance to boundary. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99(3, Suppl.), 1187–1192. 111. Stamps, A. E., & Krishnan, V. (2006). Spaciousness and boundary roughness. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 841-872. 112. Stamps, A. E., & Smith, S. (2002). Environmental enclosure in urban settings. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 781-794. 113. Stigsdotter, U. K., & Grahn, P. (2011). Stressed individuals’ preferences for activities and environmental characteristics in green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(4), 295-304. 114. Tabrizian, P., Baran, P. K., Smith, W. R., & Meentemeyer, R. K. (2018). Exploring perceived restoration potential of urban green enclosure through immersive virtual environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 99-109. 115. Thiel, P., Harrison, E. D., & Alden, R. S. (1986). The perception of spatial enclosure as a function of the position of architectural surfaces. Environment and Behavior, 18(2), 227-245. 116. Turner, A., Doxa, M., O'sullivan, D., & Penn, A. (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 28(1), 103-121. 117. Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L. B., Gonzalez-Mora, J. L., Leder, H., Modroño, C., Nadal, M., Rostrup, N., & Skov, M. (2015). Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 10-18. 118. Vaske, J. J., & Shelby, L. B. (2008). Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an evaluative standard: Results from 30 years of research. Leisure Sciences, 30(2), 111-126. 119. Viglia, G., & Dolnicar, S. (2020). A review of experiments in tourism and hospitality. Annals of Tourism Research, 80, 102858. 120. Wang, F., & Munakata, J. (2024). Exploring perceived oppressiveness of high-rise window views: A virtual reality assessment of planning measures and visual elements' influence. Journal of Building Engineering, 96, 110476. 121. Wang, Y., Cheng, Y., Zlatanova, S., & Palazzo, E. (2020). Identification of physical and visual enclosure of landscape space units with the help of point clouds. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 20(3), 257-279. 122. Wänström Lindh, U. (2012). Light shapes spaces: Experience of distribution of light and visual spatial boundaries [Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg]. GUPEA: Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/items/0a973c76-f0c6-4e98-a8d1-ff1b7dc81946 123. Wänström Lindh, U., Billger, M., & Aries, M. (2020). Experience of spaciousness and enclosure: Distribution of light in spatial complexity. SDAR* Journal of Sustainable Design & Applied Research, 8(1), 5. 124. Yilmaz, N. G., Lee, P.-J., Imran, M., & Jeong, J.-H. (2023). Role of sounds in perception of enclosure in urban street canyons. Sustainable Cities and Society, 90, 104394. 125. Zhai, Y., & Baran, P. K. (2016). Do configurational attributes matter in context of urban parks? Park pathway configurational attributes and senior walking. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 188-202. 126. Zhai, Y., & Baran, P. K. (2017). Urban park pathway design characteristics and senior walking behavior. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 21, 60-73. 127. Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Zauberman, G. (2011). Mental simulation and product evaluation: The affective and cognitive dimensions of process versus outcome simulation. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 827-839. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/103169 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 空間感知是景觀與戶外遊憩領域長期關注的核心議題,亦是衡量環境規劃與設計的重要指標。Stamps的滲透性理論(Permeability Theory)將封閉、寬敞等抽象空間感受轉化為個體在環境中感知與移動的能力,即視覺可及性與物理可及性。然而,過去文獻多採用遮蔽物間隙或地面面積等視覺因素作為物理可及性操控變項,導致兩種可及性長期處於高度共變狀態,也忽略了個體對可移動性的判斷亦包含對環境中非視覺的認知因素。此外,空間的垂直與水平界面對個體在視覺與移動上的限制也存在本質上的差異,垂直界面中多為空間中的阻礙或邊界,通常同步限制視線與移動,水平界面則構成支撐移動的表面,通常僅改變移動的難易程度,但過去研究尚未系統性區分垂直與水平兩類空間維度在感知機制上的影響差異。
為填補以上研究缺口,本研究以沉浸式虛擬實境(IVR)技術做為研究工具,並透過虛擬實驗場景的設計將視覺可及性與物理可及性分離,同時納入非視覺的認知因素,藉此探討兩種可及性不一致時個體的空間感知變化。本研究依空間維度分為兩個子研究,共包含四個實驗,藉此釐清垂直與水平維度下的空間感知影響機制。研究一聚焦於空間垂直遮蔽物的討論,並以視覺滲透性、遮蔽物間距以及材料形變資訊做為操控變項;研究二則針對水平地面特性進行探討,透過壕溝與水池建立不遮擋視線的空間邊界,同時以地面面積、地面材質、邊界寬度以及深度資訊做為操控變項。 透過四個實驗的結果本研究獲得以下研究發現。首先,在控制視覺刺激的條件下,環境中的認知因素能顯著影響個體對物理可及性的主觀判斷,進而改變空間封閉與寬敞感知,且此影響力受到視覺因素的調節。在空間垂直界面,當遮蔽物間距處於中等大小時,個體無法單純仰賴視覺判斷穿越邊界的可能性,因此材料是否具備可形變的物理特性便成為評估物理可及性的關鍵;在空間水平界面,水池深度亦受到寬度的調節,只有當水池寬度在視覺上看起來不可跨越時,深度的認知因素才會顯著影響物理可及性判斷。此發現進一步證實了由認知因素所引發的心理預期與經驗投射,能打破單純依賴視覺特徵評估空間的限制。 其次,本研究釐清了空間垂直與水平界面在兩種可及性影響機制上的差異。在垂直界面,研究證實視覺與物理可及性對空間感知具有顯著的加乘作用,推測其原因在於空間垂直界面具備實體遮蔽的特性,多半會同步造成視覺的遮擋與移動的限制,使得個體傾向將兩者資訊進行整合並形塑最終空間感知;相較之下,水平界面本質上允許視線穿透,因此個體會將視覺通透感與移動可能性視為兩套獨立的評估系統,兩者在水平情境中無顯著交互作用。 最後,針對視覺與物理可及性的關係探討,本研究證實即便在兩者不一致的情境下在統計上仍呈正相關,符合視覺通透暗示移動便利的直覺慣性。然而,透過多因子模型分析後則發現,當環境趨於極端或納入認知因素時,個體的視覺慣性便會被打破,進而導致兩種可及性的共變關係產生分離。 綜上所述,本研究進一步探討兩種可及性不一致下的空間感知變化,並深入比較垂直與水平維度的影響機制差異,亦證實心理認知對空間感知的影響力,為未來相關研究與空間設計應用提供了更完整的理論基礎。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Spatial perception is a long-standing core issue in the fields of landscape and outdoor recreation, serving as a critical metric for environmental planning and design. Stamps’ permeability theory operationalizes abstract spatial feelings, such as enclosure and spaciousness, into an individual's capacity to perceive and move through an environment, categorized as visual accessibility and physical accessibility. However, previous literature has heavily relied on visual cues—such as obstacle gaps or ground area—as proxies to manipulate physical accessibility. This has left the two types of accessibility highly positively correlated while overlooking the fact that judgments of environmental traversability also involve cognitive information. Furthermore, previous studies have failed to systematically distinguish between vertical and horizontal dimensions in perceptual mechanisms. Vertical elements act as spatial barriers that restrict both vision and movement simultaneously, whereas horizontal elements form the supporting surfaces where alterations merely affect the ease of locomotion.
To bridge these research gaps, this study utilizes Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) to decouple visual and physical accessibility within virtual experimental scenes while incorporating cognitive environmental information. This setup enables investigation of changes in spatial perception when visual and physical accessibility are inconsistent. Comprising two sub-studies with four experiments grouped by spatial dimensions, this research clarifies the underlying perceptual mechanisms. Study 1 focuses on vertical obstacles, manipulating visual permeability, obstacle spacing, and material deformability. Study 2 shifts to horizontal ground characteristics, utilizing trenches and pools to establish spatial boundaries that do not block the line of sight, while manipulating ground area, surface material, boundary width, and depth information. The findings across the four experiments yield three key insights. First, under controlled visual stimuli, cognitiveinformation significantly influences subjective judgments of physical accessibility, thereby altering perceptions of spatial enclosure and spaciousness; notably, this effect is moderated by visual factors. Regarding vertical elements, when obstacle spacing is intermediate, individuals cannot rely solely on visual cues to judge traversability, making material deformability the critical factor for assessing physical accessibility. Regarding horizontal elements, pool depth is moderated by width; depth information significantly impacts physical accessibility judgments only when the pool width appears visually uncrossable. These findings further demonstrate that psychological expectations and experience-based projections elicited by cognitive information can overcome the limitations of relying solely on visual cues when evaluating space. Second, this study elucidates the distinct perceptual mechanisms driven by vertical versus horizontal spatial factors. For vertical elements, visual and physical accessibility exert a significant multiplicative effect on spatial perception. Because vertical elements function as physical barriers that simultaneously obstruct vision and restrict movement, they typically obstruct vision and restrict movement concurrently, leading individuals to integrate both channels of information into a unified spatial perception. Conversely, horizontal elements naturally allow for visual penetration; individuals thus treat visual openness and locomotion potential as two independent evaluation systems, showing no significant interaction effect in horizontal contexts. Finally, regarding the relationship between visual and physical accessibility, this study confirms that they remain statistically positively correlated even in inconsistent scenarios, aligning with the intuitive inertia that visual openness implies ease of movement. However, multi-variable model analysis reveals that when environments become extreme or when cognitiveinformation is introduced, this visual inertia is disrupted, causing the covariant relationship between the two accessibilities to decouple. In conclusion, this study further explored how spatial perception changes when visual and physical accessibility are inconsistent, compared the underlying mechanisms across vertical and horizontal dimensions, and confirmed the influence of psychological cognition on spatial perception. These findings provide a more comprehensive theoretical foundation for future research and spatial design applications. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-08-05T16:39:11Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-08-05T16:39:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i
摘要 iii Abstract v 目 次 vii 圖 次 x 表 次 xi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究流程 3 第二章 文獻回顧 4 第一節 空間感知 4 一、空間感知的重要性 4 二、空間感知的定義(封閉感、寬敞感) 5 第二節 可及性 7 一、可及性的定義與相關概念 7 二、可及性的操控變項與評估方式 9 第三節 小結 20 第三章 探討空間垂直邊界特性對可及性與空間感知的影響 22 第一節 研究背景與研究問題 22 第二節 實驗1-1:邊界視覺特徵與材料特性對可及性與空間感知影響之初探 23 一、研究方法 23 二、研究結果 30 三、討論 39 第三節 實驗1-2:材料特性、遮蔽分佈均勻度及邊界視覺特徵對可及性與空間感知之影響 41 一、前言 41 二、研究方法 42 三、研究結果 45 第四節 小結 56 第四章 探討空間水平地面特性對可及性與空間感知的影響 60 第一節 研究背景與研究問題 60 第二節 實驗2-1:地面面積、地面材質及深度資訊對可及性與空間感知影響之初探 61 一、研究方法 61 二、研究結果 65 三、討論 75 第三節 實驗2-2:地面面積、邊界寬度及深度資訊對可及性與空間感知之影響 76 一、前言 76 二、研究方法 77 三、研究結果 82 第四節 小結 92 第五章 結論與建議 96 第一節 結論 96 一、視覺與物理可及性不一致情境下的空間感知變化 97 二、認知因素對物理可及性與空間感知的影響 97 三、空間垂直與水平界面的影響機制差異 99 第二節 研究建議與應用 101 一、研究限制與未來研究建議 101 二、研究應用與貢獻 103 參考文獻 105 附錄一 實驗1-1之場景圖片 114 附錄二 實驗1-2之場景圖片與問項評估畫面 115 附錄三 實驗2-1之場景圖片與情境及問項評估畫面 116 附錄四 實驗2-2之情境及問項評估畫面 117 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 視覺可及性 | - |
| dc.subject | 物理可及性 | - |
| dc.subject | 封閉感 | - |
| dc.subject | 寬敞感 | - |
| dc.subject | Visual Accessibility | - |
| dc.subject | Physical Accessibility | - |
| dc.subject | Enclosure | - |
| dc.subject | Spaciousness | - |
| dc.title | 不一致的視覺與物理可及性對空間感知之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Influence of Inconsistent Visual and Physical Accessibility on Spatial Perception | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州;林建堯;顏宏旭;蘇愛媜 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yann-Jou Lin;Chien-Yau Lin;Hung-Hsu Yen;Ai-Tsen Su | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 視覺可及性; 物理可及性; 封閉感; 寬敞感 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Visual Accessibility; Physical Accessibility; Enclosure; Spaciousness | en |
| dc.relation.page | 117 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202602391 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-07-28 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 園藝暨景觀學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2031-07-26 | - |
| 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-114-2.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 5.53 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。
