請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/39256完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 李國忠(Kouchung John Lee) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Chen Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林育正 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T17:24:56Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2005-02-02 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2005-02-02 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2005 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2005-01-25 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 王培蓉、楊吉雄、邱志明，(1995)，自然教育區設置理念與規劃構想──以扇平自然教育區為例，台灣林業21(9): 37-40。
2. 王培蓉，(1995)，扇平自然教育區步道解說手冊，林業叢刊第65號，台灣省林業試驗所。 3. 王培蓉，(1997)，扇平自然教育區遊客問卷設計之信度分析，臺灣林業科學，12(2):217-222。 4. 王培蓉，(2000)，南台灣知性之旅─訪幽賞鳥登扇平，林業研究專訊，34:9。 5. 朱柔若 譯，2002，社會科學研究方法與資料分析，揚智文化事業有限公司。 6. 汪大雄、王培蓉、林振榮，(1999)，扇平自然教育區遊憩效益之經濟評估。臺灣林業科學。14(4):457-468。 7. 宋秉明，(1983)，遊樂容納量理論的研究，國立台灣大學森林學系未出版碩士論文。 8. 吳孟娟，(2002)，步道衝擊預測模式與遊憩容許量評定之研究。國立台灣大學園藝學研究所未出版碩士論文。 9. 吳萬益、林清河，(2002)，行銷研究，華泰文化事業股份有限公司。 10. 吳義隆，(1987)，玉山國家公園登山宿營地點遊憩容許量評定之研究，國立中興大學法商學院都市計畫研究所未出版碩士論文。 11. 吳瑞瑜，(2003)，森林遊樂區遊客擁擠知覺之研究─以東勢林場為例，國立中興大學森林學系未出版碩士論文。 12. 林晏州，(2003)，玉山國家步道遊憩承載量及經營管理策略之研究，國家公園學報，13(2):27-48。 13. 林晏州、吳義隆，(1989)，玉山國家公園宿營地點之實質生態遊憩容許量之評定。東海學報。30:539-558。 14. 林師模、陳苑欽，2003，多變量分析 管理上的應用，雙葉書廊有限公司。 15. 林振榮、汪大雄、朱榮三，(1999)，扇平森林生態科學園遊客資料之調查分析。臺灣林業科學。14(2):197-210。 16. 林振榮、邱志明，(1998)，誰來扇平自然教育區，林業研究專訊，24:6-8。 17. 林國銓，(1999)，森林遊樂之研究，臺灣省林業試驗所八十八年度年報。 18. 林朝欽 等，(2001)，植物園遊客行為及其活動對生態之影響(1/3)，行政院農業委員會林業試驗所九十年度林業科技計畫研究報告，90 農科-1.3.2-森-G1(03)。 19. 林業試驗所，(1997)，臺灣省林業試驗所八十六年度年報。 20. 林業試驗所，(1998)，臺灣省林業試驗所八十七年度年報。 21. 林業試驗所，(2003)a，扇平森林生態科學園推廣摺頁。 22. 林業試驗所，(2003)b，行政院農業委員會林業試驗所六龜研究中心扇平森林生態科學園入園管理及解說服務要點，下載處：http://www.tfri.gov.tw/tfri_editor/file/departments/Q_tfri_20020226173258/Q_tfri_20020226173258_r15.doc。 23. 洪怡萍，(2003)，合歡山地區步道衝擊及其影響因子之研究。東海大學景觀學系未出版碩士論文。 24. 孫仲卿，(1997)，中國式庭園中擬定社會容納量之研究─以板橋林家花園為例，國立台灣大學園藝學研究所未出版碩士論文。 25. 馬惠達，(2003)，龜山島生態旅遊遊憩承載量之研究，世新大學觀光學系未出版碩士學位論文。 26. 高雄縣政府 擬定，(1996)，高雄縣綜合發展計畫，高雄縣政府。 27. 陳水源，(1992)，遊憩機會序列研究專論選集（一）∼ROS與LAC之探討，淑馨出版社。 28. 陳昭明、蘇鴻傑、胡弘道，(1989)，風景區遊客容納量之調查與研究，交通部觀光局，國立台灣大學森林學研究所。 29. 陳景堂，(2004)，統計分析 SPSS for Windows 入門與應用5th 版，儒林圖書公司。 30. 黃文卿，(2001)，台灣地區國家公園永續經營管理指標之研究-以玉山國家公園為例，國立台灣大學園藝學研究所未出版博士論文。 31. 黃志堅，(2000)，不同遊憩機會步道可接受限度指標因子建立之研究-以藤枝森林遊樂區為例。國立中興大學森林學系未出版碩士論文。 32. 張素梅，(1997)，統計學（上），三民圖書股份有限公司。 33. 莊怡凱，(2003)，台中都會公園遊憩容許量之評定─遊客管理策略探討。東海大學景觀學系未出版碩士論文。 34. 莊炯文，(1984)，遊憩承載量測定方法之研究，私立淡江大學建築研究所未出版碩士論文。 35. 曹勝雄 等，(2000)，陽明山國家公園容許遊憩承載量推估模式之建立，內政部營建署 陽明山國家公園八十九年度研究報告，陽明山國家公園管理處。 36. 塗三賢、汪大雄、林振榮，(2000)，扇平森林生態科學園遊憩滿意度分析—LISREL模型之應用。臺灣林業科學。15(2):189-200。 37. 楊宏志、林澔貞，(1992)，遊憩容納量：觀念與發展，臺灣林業18(11):24-34。 38. 楊武承，(1991)，保護區遊憩衝擊與實質生態承載量之研究─以台北市四獸山植群為例─，國立中興大學法商學院都市計劃研究所未出版碩士論文。 39. 鄭祈全，(1995)，地理資訊系統在林地分級上之應用，林業試驗所研究報告季刊，10(2): 241-254。 40. 鄧振源、曾國雄，(1989)，層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用（上），中國統計學報27(6):13707-13724。 41. 鄧振源、曾國雄，(1989)，層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用（下），中國統計學報27(7):13767-13786。 42. 謝孟君，(2002)，以生態旅遊觀點探討承載量影響因素─以日月潭國家風景區為例，私立朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系未出版碩士論文。 43. 謝金青，(1998)，國民小學學校效能評鑑指標與權重體系之建構，新竹師院學報11:449-486。 44. 羅國瑜，(2002)，社會心理承載量與情緒體驗關係之研究。朝陽科技大學建築及都市設計研究所未出版碩士論文。 45. Alldredge, R. ,(1973), Some capacity theory for parks and recreation areas. Trends, 10, 20-29. 46. Benjamin Wang, Robert E. Manning, (1999), Computer simulation modeling for recreation management: a study on Carriage Road Use in Acadia National Park, Maine, USA, Environmental Management, 23(2): 193-203. 47. Brown, P.J., (1977), Information Needs for River Recreation Planning and Management, In Proceedings: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium, pp. 193-201., USDA Forest Service. North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-28. St. Paul, Minnesota. 48. Brown, P.J., B.L. Driver, and C. McConnell, (1978), The Opportunity Spectrum Concept and Behavioral Information in Outdoor Recreation Resource Supply Inventories: Background and Application. Paper presented at the National Workshop in Integrated Inventories of Renewable Natural Resources. January 8-12. Tucson, Arizona. 49. Buckley, R. (1999). An ecological perspective on carrying capacity. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 705-708. 50. BumYong Ahn, BongKoo Lee, C. Scott Shafer, (2002), Operationalizing sustainability in regional tourism planning: an application of the limits of acceptable change framework, Tourism Management 23(1): 1-15. 51. Burch. W.R., Jr. ,(1981), The ecology of metaphors-spacing regularities for humans and other primates in urban and wildland habitats. Leisure Sciences 4(3):213-230. 52. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. (1977). Guidelines for Understanding and Determining Optimum Recreation Carrying Capacity. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. 53. Caughley, G. , (1976), Wildlife management and the dynamics of ungulate populations., pages 183-246 in T.H. Coaker (ed.), Applied Biology, vol. 1. London: Academic Press. 54. Chilman, K., Marnell, L., & Foster, D. (1981). Putting river research to work: A carrying capacity strategy. In Some Recent Products of River Recreation Research (Gen. Tech. Report NC-63) (pp. 56-61). USDA Forest Service. 55. Chilman, K., D. Foster, and A. Everson, (1990), Updating the recreation carrying capacity process: Recent refinements. Pages 234–238 in D. W. Lime (ed.), Managing America’s enduring wilderness resource. University of Minnesota, St. Paul. 56. Chilman, K., Foster, D., & Aley, T. (1996). River management at Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Science and Ecosystem Management in the National Parks (pp. 295-317). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 57. Chilman, (2000), Evolving Concepts of Recreational Carrying Capacity, TRENDS 2000: 5th Outdoor Recreation & Tourism Trends Symposium- Shaping the Future. September 17-20, 2000 at Lansing Michigan. 58. Cole, D. N., (1989), Recreation ecology: What we know, what geographers can contribute. Professional Geographer 41:143–148. 59. Dasmann, R.F., (1964), Wildlife Biology, New York: John Wiley and Sons. 60. Farquharson, M., (1992), Ecotourism: a dream diluted: Environmental theory turns to commercial ploy. Business Mexico June: 8–11. 61. Fisher, A.C, and J.V. Krutilla., (1972), Determination of optimal capacity of resource based facilities. Natural Resoures Journal 12(3): 417-444. 62. Fernando J., Garrigós Simón, Yeamduan Narangajavana, Daniel Palacios Marqués, (2004), Carrying capacity in the tourism industry: a case study of Hengistbury Head, Tourism Management 25(2): 275-283. 63. Gale, R. (1992). Living with “agency ulcers.” Journal of Forestry, 91(9), 37-42. 64. Graefe, A.R., J.J. Vaske, and A.B. Dempster, (1983), Perceived environmental quality models for wilderness recreation. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Southeastern Recreation Researchers’ Conference. February 1983. Asheville, North Carolina. 65. Graefe, A., Vaske, J., and Kuss, F., (1984), Resolved issues and remaining questions about social carrying capacity. Leisure Science, 6, 497-507. 66. Graefe, A., Vaske, J., and Kuss, F., (1984), Social carrying capacity: An integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Science, 6, 395-431. Graefe, A., Vaske, J., and Kuss, F., 1984, 67. Graefe, A. R., F. R. Kuss, and J. J. Vaske. (1990), Visitor impact management: The planning framework. National Parks and Conservation Association, Washington, DC. 68. Guiford, J.P., (1954), Phychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. 69. Hammon, G. A., (1974), Capacity of Water-based Recreation Systems Part I: The State of the art a literature review, Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina. 70. Heberlein, T.A., (1977), Density, Crowding and Satisfaction: Sociological Studies for Determining Carrying Capacities. In Proceedings: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium, 1977 January 24-27, Minneapolis, MN., pp. 67-76. USDA Forest Service. North Central Forest Experiment Station. Technical Report NC-28. St. Paul, Minnesota. 71. Hendee, J.C., G.H. Stankey, and R.C. Lucas, (1978), Wilderness Management. USDA Forest Service. Miscellaneous Publication No. 14-10-9-990-40. Ft. Collins, Colorado. 72. Jeffrey A. McNeely, James W. Thorsell, Héctor Ceballos-Lascuráin (1992) Guidelines: development of national parks and protected areas for tourism, Tourism and the environment publication no. 13, WTO/UNEP joint publication. 73. Jinyang Deng, Brian King, Thomas Bauer, (2002), Evaluating natural attractions for tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2):422-438. 74. John J. Pigram, John M. Jenkins, (1999), Outdoor Recreation Management, Routledge New York; London. 75. Kuss, F.R. and J.M. Morgan, (1980), Estimating the Physical Carrying Capacity of Recreation Area: A Rational for Application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35(2):87-89. 76. Kuss, F.R. and J.M. Morgan, (1984), Using the USLE to Estimate the Physical Carrying Capacity of Natural Areas for Outdoor Recreation Planning. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 39(6):383-387. 77. Kuss, F.R. and J.M. Morgan, (1986), A First Alternative for Estimating the Carrying Capacities of Natural Areas for Recreation. Environmental Management, 10(2):255-262. 78. Kuss, F.R., A.R. Graefe and J.J. Vaske, (1990), Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association. 79. Lee, D. N. B. and D. J. Snepenger., (1992), An ecotourism assessment of Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research 19:367–370. 80. Lemky, K., (1992), The Amazon rainforest ecotourism industry of Napo, Ecuador. Unpublished MA thesis. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 81. Liddle, M.J., (1975), A Theoretical Relationship Between the Primary Productivity of Vegetation and its Ability to Tolerate Trampling. Biological Conservation 8(4):251-255. 82. Lucas, R.C. and M. Shechter, (1977), A Recreation Visitor Travel Simulation Model as an Aid to Management Planning. Simulation and Games 8(3):375-384. 83. Manning, R. E. 1986. Studies in outdoor recreation. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 166 pp. 84. Manning R., D. Lime, W. Freimund & D. Pitt, (1996), Crowding Norms at Frontcountry Sites: A Visual Approach to Setting Standards of Quality, Leisure Science, 18, 39-59. 85. Manning R., Lime, D., and Hof, M. (1996), Social carrying capacity of natural areas: theory and application in the U. S. National Parks. Natural Areas Journal, 16, 118-127. 86. Manning R. E., (1999), Studies in outdoor recreation 2nd edition, Oregon State University Press. 87. Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. New York: Longman. 88. Morgan, J.M. and Fred R. Kuss, (1986), Soil Loss as a Measure of Carrying Capacity in Recreation Environments. Environmental Management 10(2):263-270. 89. National Park Service., (1993), Visitor experience and resource protection process. US National Park Service Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 90. National Park Service, (1997), VERP: The Visitor Experience and Resource Protection (VERP) Framework - A Handbook for Planners and Managers. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center. 91. Nilsen, P., and Tayler, G. (1997), A Comparative analysis of protected area planning and management frameworks. Proceeding-Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-371, 49-57. 92. Nunnally, J., (1967), Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. 93. Othmar Griess, Horst Kurth, Gunther Unterthiner, (2000), Forsteinrichtung as against forest management: sifficulties with the compilation of a multilingual terminology.，IUFRO Occasional Paper No.14. 94. Parsons, D.J., (1986), Campsite Impact Data as a Basis for Determining Wilderness Use Capacities. In Proceedings, National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research, pp. 449-455. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-212. Ogden, Utah. 95. Paul F. J. Eagles, Stephen F. McCool, Christopher D. Haynes. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xv + 183pp. 96. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P., (1991), Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 97. Pfister. R.E., and R. Frenkel, (1974), Field Investigation of River Use Within the Wild River Area of the Rogue River, Oregon. Interim Report to the Oregon State Marine Board. Salem, 112pp. 98. Place, S. E. (1991). Nature tourism and rural development in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research 18:186–201. 99. Posavac, E. J., and R. G. Carey, (1989), Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. 100. Prato T., (2001), Modeling carrying capacity for national parks, Ecological Economics 39(3):321-331. 101. Saaty Thomas L., (1977), A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15: 234-281. 102. Saaty Thomas L., Luis G. Vargas (1990) Prediction, projection and forecasting, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 103. Saaty T.L., (1990a), Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting , resource allocation, RWS Publications. 104. Saaty Thomas L, (2001), Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, D.L. Schmoldt et al. (eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making, 15-35, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 105. Sanford, G., (1966), The Experience Level Concept. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report. Washington, D.C. 106. Shelby Bo, (1980), Crowding Models for Backcountry Recreation, Land Economics, 56(1): 43-55. 107. Shelby B., Thomas A. Heberlein, (1986), Carrying capacity in recreation settings, Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. 108. Stankey. G.H., (1980), Wilderness Carrying Capacity: Management and Research Progress in the United States. Landscape Research 5(3):6-11. 109. Stankey, G.H., McCool, S.F., (1984), Carrying capacity in recreational settings: Evolution, appraisal, and application, Leisure science, 6(4):453-474. 110. Stankey, G. H. & McCool, S. F. (1989). Beyond social carrying capacity, In E. L. Jackson, & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding Leisure and Recreation (pp. 497-516). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. 111. Stankey, G.; McCool, S. (1990). Managing for appropriate wilderness conditions: the carrying capacity issue. In: Hendee, J.C.; Stankey, G.H.; Lucas, R.C. Wilderness Management(2d ed.) Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press: 215-239. 112. Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Petersen, S. S. Frissell, and R. F. Washburne. (1985). The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-176. 113. Stefan Gössling, Carina Borgström Hansson, Oliver Hörstmeier, Stefan Saggel, (2002), Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability, Ecological Economics 43(2-3): 199-211. 114. Sumner, E., (1936), Special Report on a Wildlife Study in the High Sierra in Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks and Adjacent Territory. Washington, DC: U.S. National Park Service Records, National Archives. 115. Tivy, J., (1972), The concept and determination of carrying capacity of recreational land in the U.S.A., Occasional Paper, No.3, Country Side Commission For Scotland, Battleby, Redgorton, Perth. 116. Theobald, W. F., (1987), Historical Antecedents of Evaluation in Leisure Programs and Services. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration 5:1–9. 117. Vaske. J.J. and M.P. Donnelly, (1983), Hypothetical versus actual substitute choices, Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Southeastern Recreation Researcher Conference, February 18-19, Asheville, North Carolina. 118. Van Wagtendonk, J., (1983), Carrying Capacity Determinations for the Yosemite Backcountry, Unpublished manuscript, Yosemite National Park, California. 119. Wagar. J.A. , (1964), The Carrying capacity of Wildlands for Recreation. Forest Service Monograph 2. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC, 23pp. 120. Wall, G., (1982), Cycles and capacity: Incipient theory or conceptual contradiction? Tourism Management 3:188–192. 121. Wall, G., & Wright, C. (1977). The environmental impact of outdoor recreation. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Department of Geography. 122. Geoffrey wall, (1997), Is ecotourism sustainable, Environmental management, 21(4): 483-491. 123. Wischmeier, W.H. , (1958), A Rainfall Erosion Index for a Universal Soil-Loss Equation. Soil Science Society of America. Division VI. Indian Journal Series Paper No. 1306, pp. 246-249. 124. Zaltman, G, and P. C. Burger, (1985), Marketing Research：Fundmentals and Dynamics, NY: John and Yiely Co. 125. Jim Lester, (1999), Think Globally, Act Locally, The environmental institute of Houston 1999 annual report, http://www.eih.uh.edu/publications/99annrep/99-director.pdf. 126. 林業試驗所扇平網頁，http://www.tfri.gov.tw/tfri_web/index.php。 127. 電子地圖網，http://gis.nat.gov.tw/index.jsp。 128. 警政署網路申辦案件─入山申辦案件登錄畫面，http://www.npa.gov.tw/nv/NV07A01A.ASP。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/39256 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究主要目的在探討容納量評估模式在區域間的應用，並選擇高雄縣扇平森林生態科學園為實證研究的地點。使用層級分析法(AHP)加上改進的戶外遊憩局(BOR)法與Boullón (1985)的公式來評估實質、生態容納量。而社會容納量則使用擁擠模式來評估遊客的擁擠感知。
在實質、生態容納量的資料蒐集部份使用AHP的成對比較問卷。填答問卷的為相關的專家或熟悉此議題的人士，且回答他們對實質、生態容納量因子的偏好，與在實質、生態環境上可接受的最大遊客密度。由這個問卷可用成對比較矩陣估算出專家們對各因子的平均權重，以這權重為基礎再以改進的BOR法來估算最適的遊客密度，而最適容納量與每日准許的遊客量則使用Boullón (1985)的公式來估算。 在社會容納量方面，本研究以Shelby (1980)綜合的擁擠模式與Manning (1999)擴充的擁擠模式為基礎設計本研究的擁擠模式來評估扇平遊客的擁擠感知。並根據擁擠模式做了13個關於擁擠與滿意度的假設。資料蒐集自167位遊客，調查時間為2004年3月13~14日、5月08~09日、11月13~14日三次。 最後並使用遊憩機會序列(ROS)來定義扇平的遊憩機會，以及使用遊客衝擊管理程序(VIM)來找出某些可用的策略， AHP問卷結果為遊憩對實質、生態因子的影響以「生態與生物多樣性」的影響最大(權重為0.249)，其次依序為對「自然環境(權重為0.201)」、「自然環境教育(權重為0.152)」、「環境管理(權重為0.145)」、「人文(權重為0.132)」，與「經營管理(權重為0.121)」的影響，上述各因子權重加總為1。而最適容納量為0.0351 （人�㎡）與瞬間的351人。每日最大遊客量為1376人。 社會容納量的調查結果顯示遊客感知擁擠的情形並不明顯，大部分的遊客均不感到擁擠。影響扇平森林生態科學園的擁擠因子為遊客的「職業」、遊客「偏好原始型風景的程度」、以及遊客受到「同質遊客影響的程度」。 本研究將扇平定義為「自然路徑」的遊憩機會。而VIM法的替選方案本研究提出(1)規劃新的景點；(2)增加巡邏；(3)提高票價；(4)規劃解說服務的行程；(5)限制容納量；(6)臨時關閉；(7)永久關閉。經過與衝擊參數間比對優劣得失，發現並沒有完全最佳的經營方案。其中「規劃新的景點」與「規劃解說服務的行程」可以在目前先作，其他管理方案可在扇平得到較大的衝擊時考慮進行。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study was discussed the application of “recreational carrying capacity evaluate models” to local areas. The study was carried out in Shan-Ping Forest Ecological Garden in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. This study used the “Analytic Hierarchy Process” (AHP) with Modified “Bureau of Outdoor Recreation method” and a formula developed by Boullón (1985) to evaluate the “physical-ecological carrying capacity”. Social carrying capacity, on the other hand, used the “crowding model” to evaluate visitors’ perception.
The “physical-ecological carrying capacity”, data were collected through the AHP pairwise comparison questionnaires. The related experts or people who are familiar with this issue were filled out the questionnaires. They pointed out what they believe the important factors are affecting the “physical-ecological capacity” and maximum density of visitors that can be accommodated (by the park) based on this capacity. Based on the questionnaires, the pairwise comparison matrix was be used to calculate the average weight of all questionnaires. Then using this weight with modified BOR method to calculate the optimal visitors’ density, and using Boullón’s (1985) formula to calculate optimal carrying capacity and total numbers of visitors allowed daily. As for the “social carrying capacity”, the crowding model of this study was developed based on two models, the comprehensive crowding model of Shelby (1980), and the expended crowding model of Manning (1999). Following the crowding model, 13 hypothesis about feeling crowded and level of satisfaction were be made. The data were collected from 167 forest visitors during three times: March 13~14, 2004, May 08~09 , 2004, and November 13~14, 2004. Lastly, this study used the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) approach to define the recreational opportunity of Shan-Ping, and used Visitor Impact Management Process (VIM) to find out some alternative strategies. Based on the AHP survey, the biggest impact form recreation has on the “Ecological and Biodiversity (the weight is 0.249)” is the most important factor about recreation’s effect. Others are “Natural Environment (the weight is 0.201)”, “Visitor Education (the weight is 0.152)”, “Environment Management (the weight is 0.145)”, “human culture(the weight is 0.132)”, “management (the weight is 0.121)”. The sum of the weight of all the above factors is one. The optimal capacity is 0.0351 people/m2, and 351 PAOTs, and 1376 visitors per day. The results of the social carrying capacity survey showed that there was not an apparent perception of crowding by the visitors. Most people didn’t perceive crowding. The factors affecting the perception of crowding at Shan-Ping are visitor’s occupation, the level of preference to natural scenery, and the degree of influence they received from other visitors. This study defines Shan-Ping as a “Roaded Natural” class of land. The alternatives of the VIM method proposed by this study are: (1)planning new sites in Shan-Ping; (2)increasing maintenance patrols; (3)raising the entrance fee; (4)planning the schedule of guided tours; (5)limiting the carrying capacity; (6)closing temporarily; and (7)closing permanent. After comparing the pros and cons between “impact factors”, there is not a perfect management policy. As for the above proposed alternatives, (1) and (4) can be carried out now. The other alternatives can be considered for implementation when Shan-Ping faces greater impact. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T17:24:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-94-R90625023-1.pdf: 2256627 bytes, checksum: 2d0b5b9520356f11f1a2219a56e95470 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第1章 緒論 1
第1節 研究動機與目的 1 第2節 研究範圍與內容 3 第3節 研究方法與步驟 4 第2章 文獻回顧 6 第1節 名詞界定 6 第2節 容納量相關文獻回顧 7 第3節 容納量評估法的回顧 14 第4節 AHP法回顧 19 第5節 遊憩擁擠知覺理論回顧 29 第6節 觀光衝擊相關文獻回顧 36 第7節 相關前人研究 41 第3章 當代容納量評估架構的回顧 48 第1節 以公式為基礎的容納量評估程序 48 第2節 以標準為基礎的容納量評估程序 54 第3節 常用的容納量評估架構 68 第4節 容納量評估架構分析與探討 69 第4章 實證研究 71 第1節 研究基地概述 71 第2節 實質、生態容納量的研究方法 78 第3節 社會容納量的研究方法 83 第4節 容納量評估架構 91 第5章 分析結果與討論 93 第1節 實質、生態容納量的評定 93 第2節 社會容納量實證資料分析 109 第3節 容納量估算 152 第6章 結論與建議 165 第1節 研究結論 165 第2節 建議 166 參考文獻 168 附錄一 AHP專家問卷 176 附錄二 遊客問卷 184 附錄三 遊客問卷編碼及轉碼表 187 附錄三 遊客問卷編碼及轉碼表 188 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 遊憩容納量 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 扇平森林生態科學園 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 可接受改變限度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 擁擠模式 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 層級分析法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Limits of Acceptable Change | en |
| dc.subject | crowding model | en |
| dc.subject | recreational carrying capacity | en |
| dc.subject | Analytic Hierarchy Process | en |
| dc.subject | Shan-Ping Forest Ecological Garden | en |
| dc.title | 遊憩容納量的研究─以扇平森林生態科學園為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study of Recreational Carrying Capacity in Shan-Ping Forest Ecological Garden. | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 93-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 賴建興,吳俊賢,盧道杰,林俊成 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 扇平森林生態科學園,可接受改變限度,擁擠模式,層級分析法,遊憩容納量, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Shan-Ping Forest Ecological Garden,Limits of Acceptable Change,crowding model,recreational carrying capacity,Analytic Hierarchy Process, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 193 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2005-01-26 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 森林學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 森林環境暨資源學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-94-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.2 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。