Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 生物資源暨農學院
  3. 園藝暨景觀學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6104
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor林晏州(Yann-Jou Lin)
dc.contributor.authorYi-Chun Luen
dc.contributor.author呂怡君zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-16T16:20:58Z-
dc.date.available2013-08-06
dc.date.available2021-05-16T16:20:58Z-
dc.date.copyright2013-08-06
dc.date.issued2013
dc.date.submitted2013-07-31
dc.identifier.citation1. Gehl, Jan著、陳秋伶譯,(1996),戶外空間的場所行為:公共空間使用之硏究,臺北:田園城市文化。
2. 王皖麟、林晏州、黃文卿,(2006),太魯閣國家公園合歡山地區雪季遊憩容許量之研究,國家公園學報,16(2),1-20。
3. 林晏州,(1998),運用視覺評估法評定遊憩容許量之研究,臺北:行政院國家科學委員會。
4. 林晏州,(2000),社會遊憩容許量評估方法之比較,戶外遊憩研究,13(1),1-20。
5. 林雲燦、張良漢,(2010),登山健行者擁擠感受:從休閒涉入及心理承諾之觀點,休閒事業研究,8(3),96-108。
6. 陳沛悌、林晏州(1997),秀姑巒溪泛舟活動社會心理容許量之探討,戶外遊憩研究,10(3),19-36。
7. 黃章展、李維貞、黃芳銘,(2009),高密度與低密度水準之遊憩情境中擁擠知覺之研究,第11屆休閒、遊憩、觀光學術研討會暨國際論壇論文集第IV篇,(pp. 98-114),臺北:中華民國戶外遊憩學會。
8. Absher, J. D., & Lee, R. G. (1981). Density as an incomplete cause of crowding in backcountry settings. Leisure Sciences, 4(3), 231-247.
9. Adelman, B. J. E., Heberlein, T. A., & Bonnicksen, T. M. (1982). Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the boundary waters canoe area. Leisure Sciences, 5(1), 45-61.
10. Anderson, D. H., & Brown, P. J. (1984). The displacement process in recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(1), 61-73.
11. Arnberger, A., & Brandenburg, C. (2007) Past on-site experience, crowding perceptions, and use displacement of visitor groups to a Peri-Urban National Park. Environment Management, 40, 34-45.
12. Arnberger, A., & Haider, W. (2005). Social effects on crowding preferences of urban forest visitors. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 3, 125-136.
13. Baron, R. M., & Rodin, J. (1978). Perceived control as a mediator of crowding. In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Valins (eds.), Environmental Psychology Vol I, Hillsdale, (pp. 145-190). NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Booth, K. L., Cessford, G. R., McCool, S. F., & Espiner, S. R. (2011). Exploring visitor experiences, crowding perceptions and coping strategies on the Milford Track. Wellington: New Zealand Science for Conservation.
15. Budruk, M., Manning, R. E., Valliere, W. A., & Wang, B. (2002). Perceived Crowding at Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-289.
16. Budruk, M., Schneider I. E., Andreck, K. L., & Virden, R. J. (2002). Crowding and satisfaction among visitors to a built desert attraction. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 20(3), 1-17.
17. Bultena, G., Field, D., Womble, P., & Albrecht, D. (1981). Closing the gates: A study of backcountry use limitation at Mount McKinley National Park. Leisure Sciences, 4(3), 249-267.
18. Carothers, P., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 23, 47-61.
19. Cole, D. N., & Hall, T. E. (2008). The ' adaptable human ' phenomenon: Implications for recreation management in high-use wilderness. In S. Weber, & D. Harmon (eds.), Rethinking protected areas in a changing world, (pp. 126-131). Proceedings of the 2007 George Wright Society Conference.
20. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. Fort Collins, Co: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station.
21. Ditton, R. B., Fedler, A. J., & Graefe, A. R. (1983). Factors contributing to perceptions of recreational crowding. Leisure Sciences, 5(4), 273-287.
22. Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23. Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745-774.
24. Graefe, A. R., Confer, J. J., Drogin, E. B., & Titre, J. P. (1994). Re-examining the Crowding Model: A Comparative Analysis. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.
25. Graefe, A. R., Vaske, J. J., & Kuss, F. R. (1984). Social carrying capacity: An integration and synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences, 6(4), 395-431.
26. Gramann, J. H., & Burdge, R. J. (1984). Crowding perception determinants at intensively developed outdoor recreation sites. Leisure Sciences, 6(2), 167-186.
27. Hall, T. E., & Cole, D. N. (2000). An expanded perspective on displacement: A longitudinal study of visitors to two wildernesses in the Cascade Mountains of Oregon. In D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, & J. O’Loughlin (eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management, (pp. 113-121). Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
28. Hall, T. E., & Cole, D. N. (2007). Changes in the Motivations, Perceptions, and Behaviors of Recreation Users: Displacement and Coping in Wilderness. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
29. Hall, T. E., & Shelby, B. (2000). Temporal and spatial displacement: Evidence from a high-use reservoir and alternate sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(4), 435-456.
30. Hammitt, W. E., & Patterson, M. E. (1991). Coping behavior to avoid visitor encounters: Its relationship to wildland privacy. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(3), 225-237.
31. Hammitt, W. E., Knauf, L. R., & Noe, F. P. (1989). A comparison of user vs researcher determined level of past experience on recreation preference. Journal of Leisure Research, 21(3), 202-213.
32. Hammitt, W. E., McDonald, C. D., & Noe, F. (1984). Use level and encounters: Important variables of perceived crowding among non-specialized recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(1), 1-9.
33. Heberlein, T. A., & Kuentzel, W. F. (2002). Too many hunters or not enough deer? Human and biological determinants of hunter satisfaction and quality. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(4), 229-250.
34. Heberlein, T. A., & Proudman, S. C. (1986). Declining Canoe Use and Social Carrying Capacity: A 1975–1985 comparison of a northwoods river. Corvallis, OR: First National Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management, Oregon State University.
35. Heberlein, T. A., & Vaske, J. J. (1977). Crowding and visitor conflict on the Bois Brule River. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Water Resources Center.
36. Heberlein, T. A., & Vaske, J. J. (1979). The Apostle Island Visitor in 1975. Madison, WI: Center for Resource Policy Studies, The University of Wisconsin - Madison.
37. Hoss, A. F., & Brunson, M. W. (2000). Meanings and implications of acceptability judgements for wilderness use impacts. In D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin (eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change, (pp. 129-133). Ogden, UT: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
38. Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (1990). Organizational Behavior and Management (9th edition). Homewood, IL: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
39. Iwasaki, Y., & Schneider, I. E. (2003). Leisure, stress and coping: An evolving area of inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 25, 107-113.
40. Johnson, A. K., & Dawson, C. P. (2004). An exploratory study of the complexities of coping Behavior in Adirondack Wilderness. Leisure Sciences, 26, 281-293.
41. Kuentzel, W. F., & Heberlein, T. A. (1992). Cognitive and behavioral adaptations to perceived crowding: A panel study of coping and displacement. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(4), 377-393.
42. Laven, D. N., Manning, R. E., & Krymkowski, D. H. (2005). The relationship between visitor-based standards of quality and existing conditions in parks and outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 27(2), 157-173.
43. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
44. Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Corvallis, Or. : Oregon State University Press.
45. Manning, R. E. (2007). Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons Without Tragedy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
46. Manning, R. E., & Ciali, C. P. (1980). Recreation density and user satisfaction: A further exploration of the satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 29-45.
47. Manning, R. E., & Valliere, W. A. (2001). Coping in outdoor recreation: Causes and consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(4), 410-426.
48. Manning, R. E., Lawson, S., Newman, P., Laven, D. N., & Valliere, W. A. (2002). Methodological issues in measuring crowding - related norms in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 24(3-4), 339-348.
49. Manning, R. E., Lime, D. W., & Friemund, W. A. (2004). Use of visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 552-579.
50. Manning, R. E., Lime, D. W., Friemund, W. A., & Pitt, D. G. (1996). Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: A visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leisure Sciences, 18, 39-59.
51. Manning, R. E., Valliere, W. A., & Wang, B. (1999). Crowding norms: Alternative measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences, 21(2), 97-115.
52. Matheny, K., & McCarthy, C. J. (2000).Write Your Own Prescription for Stress. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
53. Miller, T., & McCool, S. (2003). Coping with stress in outdoor recreational settings: An application of transactional stress theory. Leisure Sciences, 25(2-3), 257-275.
54. Needham, M. D., Rollins, R. B., & Wood, C. J. B. (2004). Site-specific encounters, norms and crowding of summer visitors at Alpine Ski Areas. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 421-437.
55. Nielsen, J. M., Shelby, B., & Haas, J. E. (1977). Sociological carrying capacity and the last-settler syndrome. Pacific Sociological Review, 20(4), 568-581.
56. Peden, J. G., & Schuster, R. M. (2004). Stress and coping in the High Peaks Wilderness: an exploratory assessment of visitor experiences. In USDA , Forest Service (eds.), 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, (pp. 29-38). Newtown Square, Pennsylvannia: United States Department of Agriculture/ Forest Service, North Eastern Research Station.
57. Schneider, I. E. (2000). Responses to conflict in urban-proximate areas. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18, 37-53.
58. Schneider, I. E., & Hammitt, W. (1995). Visitor response to outdoor recreation conflict: A conceptual approach. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 223-234.
59. Schreyer, R., Roggenbuck, J., McCool, S., Royer, L., & Miller, J. (1976). The Dinosaur National Monument Whitewater River recreation study. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.
60. Schroeder, S. A., & Fulton, D. C. (2010). Land of 10,000 lakes and 2.3 million anglers: problems and coping response among Minnesota Anglers. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(2), 291-315.
61. Schuster, R. M., & Hammitt, W. E. (2000). Effective coping strategies in stressful outdoor recreation situations: Conflict on the Ocoee River. In D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, & J. O’Loughlin (eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change conference-Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management, (pp. 167-174). Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
62. Schuster, R. M., Hammitt, W. E., & Moore, D. (2003). A theoretical model to measure the appraisal and coping response to hassles in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Science, 25(2-3), 277-299.
63. Schuster, R. M., Hammitt, W. E., & Moore, D. (2006). Stress appraisal and coping response to hassles experienced in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Sciences, 28, 97-113.
64. Shelby, B. (1981). Encounter norms in backcountry settings: Studies of three rivers. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(2), 129-138.
65. Shelby, B., & Heberlein , T. A. (1986). Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis, Or. : Oregon State University Press.
66. Shelby, B., Bregenzer, N., & Johnson, R. (1988). Displacement and product shift: Empirical evidence from Oregon rivers. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(4), 274-288.
67. Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., & Heberlein, T. A. (1989). Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: Results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences, 11(4), 269-291.
68. Shindler, B., & Shelby, B. (1995). Product shift in recreation settings - findings and implications from panel research. Leisure Sciences, 17(2), 91-107.
69. Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.
70. Stewart, W. P., & Cole, D. N. (2001). Number of encounters and experience quality in Grand Canyon Backcountry: Consistently negative and weak relationships. Journal of Leisure Sciences, 33(1), 106-120.
71. Tarrant, M. A., Cordell, H. K., & Kibler, T. L. (1997). Measuring perceived crowding for high density river recreation: The effects of situational conditions and personal factors. Leisure Sciences, 19(2), 97-112.
72. Titre, J. P., & Mills, A. S. (1982). Effect of encounters on perceived crowding and satisfaction. In Forest and river recreation, (eds.), Research update, (pp 146-153). St. Paul, Minnesota: Miscellaneous Publication No. 18, University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.
73. van Riper, C. J., Manning, R. E., Monz, C. A., & Goonan, K. A. (2011). Tradeoffs among resource, social, and managerial conditions on mountain summits of the northern forest. Leisure Sciences, 33(3), 228-249.
74. 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, 111-126.
75. Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1997). Monitoring Social Carrying Capacity at the Columbia Icefield. Collins, CO: Colorado State University.
76. Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2002). Generalizing the encounter - norm - crowding relationship. Leisure Sciences, 24, 255-269.
77. Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P. & Heberlein, T. A. (1980). Perceptions of crowding and resource quality by early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences, 3(4), 367-381.
78. Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., & Lehto, X. (2002). Visitor Crowding and Normative Tolerances at Congested Areas of Rocky Mountain National Park. Collins, CO: Colorado State University.
79. Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Heberlein, T. A., & Shelby, B. (1982). Differences in reported satisfaction ratings by consumptive and nonconsumptive recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 14(3), 195-206.
80. Vaske, J. J., Graefe, A. R., & Dempster, A. B. (1982). Social and environmental influences on perceived crowding. In F. E. Boteler (eds.), Wilderness Psychology Group-3rd annual conference proceedings, (pp. 211-227). College Park, MD: Department of Recreation, Maryland University.
81. Vaske, J. J., Graefe, A. R., Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Backcountry encounter norms - theory, method and empirical - evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18(3), 137-153.
82. Westover, T. N., & Collins Jr., J. R. (1987). Perceived crowding in recreation settings: An urban case study. Leisure Sciences, 9(2), 87-99.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6104-
dc.description.abstract社會容許量議題經過長期探討,以協助遊憩管理者評估區內應容納的遊客量,其中認為擁擠感受為良好的社會容許量測量因子。但部分研究也發現,遊客於遊憩使用程度明顯增加時,產生的擁擠感受仍偏低或是不如研究假設預期的敏感(Heberlein & Vaske, 1977; Heberlein & Vaske, 1979; Heberlein & Proudman, 1986; Heberlein & Kuentzel, 2002)。這樣的現象其原因可能在於遊客會在遊憩區環境不佳的情況下改變他們的評估標準,調整對遊憩區的認知,也就是他們採用了心理調適策略以緩解遊憩區產生的壓力源(Manning, 1999; Laven, Manning & Krymkowski, 2005)。此外,調適的過程於每次接觸情形發生時皆有可能觸發(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984),長期下來可能改變遊客對擁擠的判斷標準。雖然根據理論認為心理調適可能會影響到遊客對擁擠的判斷,但少有研究成功的以量化方式驗證此關連性,本研究因此回顧過去相關文獻,釐清遊客面對擁擠時產生的調適行為和認知改變的過程,並以此擬出驗證心理調適影響擁擠感受的量化方法。本研究地點為陽明山國家公園二子坪遊憩區,研究方法部分,為了讓受測者專注於擁擠課題、排除其它擁擠感受的影響因素和讓擁擠程度足以產生調適反應,採用視覺評估法,以148張不同景深的人數變化之步道相片進行填答,心理調適程度因受限過程中無法判別遊客產生調適的時間點,以現地詢問9題合理化和產品轉移問項進行評估。研究成果可分為三部分:其一為遊客的擁擠感受評值受到相片內容的影響,人數越多、距離越近皆越容易感受到擁擠,結果具有顯著差異;其二為遊客對於人數的擁擠感受會受到個人特質的影響,初次來訪者的擁擠感受顯著較高,且以運動社交為遊憩目的者擁擠感受顯著較低;其三為心理調適行為顯著影響擁擠感受評值,表示心理調適程度越高者,越不容易感受到擁擠。研究結果呼應了過去研究成果,認為除了現地環境之外,遊客的擁擠感受可能受到個人的因素所影響,本研究驗證了其中心理調適行為會影響到遊客的擁擠感受,如此未來遊憩管理者在遊客對於使用量的變化不敏感時,可深入瞭解遊客的調適行為所造成的影響。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractSocial capacity issues have been long-term discussed by researchers in order to help recreation managers evaluate the number of tourists in the area. Researchers have also concluded that crowding perception is a suitable measurement of social capacity. However, some studies have found that when use level increased significantly in recreational area, tourists remain low crowding perception or not as sensitive as we expect in hypotheses (Heberlein & Vaske, 1977; Heberlein & Vaske, 1979; Heberlein & Proudman, 1986; Heberlein & Kuentzel, 2002). One passible explanation is that tourists change their evaluation criteria and adjusted the cognition of this area when facing the poor environmental quality, in the words and they use cognitive coping strategy to eliminate the stressors of environment (Manning, 1999; Laven, Manning & Krymkowski, 2005). In addition, the process of coping possibly triggers at each contact situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). So the long-term use of coping may cause tourists’ cognitive dissonance to crowding perception. According to the stress-coping theory, cognitive coping will influence the judgment of crowding, but few studies have successfully verified this relationship. Therefore, our research reviews past literatures in order to understand the process of tourists change their cognitive thinking when facing crowding conditions, so we could figure out a quantitative method to proof the relationship of cognitive coping to crowding perception. Study area is in Erzihping Recreation Area of Yangmingshan National Park. And we use visual approach method to measure crowding perception so that tourists could focus on crowding issue, exclusive other influence factors of crowded feelings, and create a crowded enough situation to trigger coping responses. Totally 148 photos are evaluated, and due to limitation of judging the timing of cognitive coping happened, we develop 9 questions of rationalize and product shift to evaluate the degree of cognitive coping. Research findings can be divided into three parts: first, photo content influences crowding perception, the more people and the closer they are on the photo, participants have significantly higher crowding perception; second, personal characteristics influences crowding perception, first-time tourists and the group who came here purposes for exercise and social activities have significantly higher crowding perception; third, cognitive coping behavior has significant influence on crowding perception, the higher degree of cognitive coping, the lower crowding they feel. Research findings show that except for environment, tourists crowding perception may be influenced by personal factors, and this study validated cognitive coping behavior influence crowding perception. The results verify previous studies, and provide recommendations for recreation managers to depth the influence of cognitive coping to understand why people are not sensitive to use level.en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-05-16T16:20:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-102-R00628307-1.pdf: 5279930 bytes, checksum: 464e4c63e934a39728c0e7e841a6913d (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2013
en
dc.description.tableofcontents口試委員會審定書 I
Abstract VII
目錄 IX
圖目錄 XIII
表目錄 XV
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 5
第三節 研究內容 7
第二章 文獻回顧 9
第一節 擁擠感受 9
第二節 調適理論 20
第三章 研究方法 43
第一節 研究架構與假設 43
第二節 研究設計 47
第三節 資料處理與分析計劃 65
第四章 研究結果與討論 69
第一節 受測者背景資料分析 69
第二節 相片擁擠感受評值分析 74
第三節 遊客個人特質對擁擠感受的影響分析 89
第四節 心理調適對擁擠感受的影響 95
第五節 小結 107
第五章 結果與建議 109
第一節 結論 109
第二節 後續研究建議 118
參考文獻 121
附錄一 相片基本數值與擁擠感受評值分析 129
附錄二 調查問卷 145
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.title心理調適行為對擁擠感受之影響zh_TW
dc.titleEffects of the Cognitive Coping on Crowding Perceptionen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear101-2
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee歐聖榮,張俊彥,鄭佳昆,陳惠美
dc.subject.keyword社會容許量,擁擠感受,視覺評估法,心理調適行為,合理化,產品轉移,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordsocial capacity,crowding,visual approach,cognitive coping strategy,rationalize,product shift,en
dc.relation.page146
dc.rights.note同意授權(全球公開)
dc.date.accepted2013-07-31
dc.contributor.author-college生物資源暨農學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept園藝暨景觀學系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-102-1.pdf5.16 MBAdobe PDF檢視/開啟
顯示文件簡單紀錄


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。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved