請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62865完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆(Chia-Kuen Cheng) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ling-Yu Su | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 蘇玲玉 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T16:12:57Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2013-12-01 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2013-03-15 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2013-02-10 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 江彥政，（1998），自然環境資訊對心理評價反應影響之模式，博士論文，國立中興大學，臺中。
2. 江昱仁，楊平安，汪大雄，吳俊賢，謝漢欽，（2010），森林景觀偏好與認知因子關係之研究，智慧科技與應用統計學報，8（1），41-52。 3. 吳珮竹，（2011），性格特質對地方連結之影響，碩士論文，國立臺灣大學，臺北。 4. 林美珍，黃世琤，柯華葳，（2007），人類發展：心理出版社。 5. 林嘉男，許毅璿，（2007），人與環境關係之論述：釐清「地方感」、「地方依附」與「社區依附」在環境研究上的角色，環境教育研究，5（1），41-71。 6. 郭蕙瑜，鄭佳昆，(2012)，景觀元素對延續地方連結之影響，碩士論文，國立臺灣大學，臺北。 7. 邱皓政，（2005），結構方程模式 LISREL的理論、技術與應用，臺北市：雙葉書廊有限公司。 8. 涌井良幸，涌井貞美，陳耀茂，（2007），圖解AMOS共變異數構造分析方法與應：SEM、線性結構方程式輕鬆上手，臺北市：鼎茂圖書。 9. 張春興，（1989），張氏心理學辭典，臺北市：臺灣東華。 10. 張紹勳，（2001），研究方法：滄海書局。 11. 鄭佳昆，沈立，全珍衡，（2009），熟悉度於不同情境下對視覺景觀偏好之影響探討，戶外遊憩研究，22（4），1-21。 12. 鍾聖校，（1990），認知心理學，臺北市：心理。 13. 韓可宗，（2005），「稀樹草原假說」就景觀美質、偏好及復癒反應的再次驗證，地理學報，41，25-44。 14. Altman, I, & Low M., S. (1992). Place attachment (Vol. 12). New York: Plennum Press. 15. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588. 16. Bourassa, S. C. (1990). A Paradigm for Landscape Aesthetics. Environmental and Behavior 22(6), 787. 17. Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (2002). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 18. Bricker S. K., Kerste, D. L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22(4), 233-257. 19. Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(2), 89-111. 20. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of Attachment: The Guilford press. 21. Costonis, J. J. (1982). Law and aesthetics. A critique and reformulation of the dilemmas. JSTOR, 80(3), 355-461. 22. Chiara R., De Piccoli, N. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (2), 198–205 23. Davis, D., Allen, J., & Cosenza, R.M. (1988). Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests, and opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 27(2), 2-8. 24. Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult Attachment: SAGE Punlisher. 25. Fornell, C. (1982). A second generation of multivariate Analysis: Measurement and evaluation (Vol. 2): Praeger Publishers. 26. Fornell, C, & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. 27. Fried, M. (1966). Grieving for a lost home: psychological costs of relocation. 28. Kyle ,G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimentionality of place attachment in recreationla settings. Environment and Behavior, 37, 153-177. 29. Gilpin, A. (1995). Environmental impact assessment (EIA) : cutting edge for the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. 30. Goldstein, E. B. (2006). Sensation and Perception (7 ed.). Belmont, CA, USA Wadsworth Publishing. 31. Guest, A. M., & Lee, B. A. (1983). Sentiment and evaluation as ecological variables. Sociological Perspectives, 159-184. 32. Hammitt, W. E., & McDonald, C. D. (1983). Notes: Past on-site experience and Its relationship to managing river recreation resources. Forest Science, 29(2), 262-266. 33. Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2003). Past use history and place nonding among avid trout anglers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. 34. Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A, & Bixler, R. D. (2004). Experience use history place bonding and resource substitution of Trout anglers during recreation engagement. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3), 356-378. 35. Hammitt, W. E., Backlund, E. A., & Bixler, R. D. (2006). Place bonding for recreation places: Conceptual and empirical development. Leisure Studies, 25(1), 17-41. 36. Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-281. 37. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. 10RH. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: 158-176: Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. 38. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. 39. Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 12, 253-278. 40. Ibitayo, O.O., & Virden, R.J. (1996). Visitor and manager perceptions of depreciative behaviours in urban park settings. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(4), 36-51. 41. Jacob, R. G., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation a theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Science 12(4), 368-380. 42. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002a). Associations between landscape preferences and place attachment: A study in Roros, southern Norway. Landscape Research, 27(4), 381-396. 43. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002b). Associations between environmental value orientation and landscape preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1-11. 44. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: Cambridge University Press. 45. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Resorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233. 46. Kwallek, N. W., Lewis, H., C. M., & Sales, C. (1997). Impact of three interior color schemes on worker mood and performance relative to individual environmental sensitivity. Color Research & Application 22(2). 47. Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of the invlovement place attachment relation among hikers along Appalachian trail. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(4), 249-273. 48. Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 213-225. 49. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207-230. 50. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Reinhold, B., Schupbach, B., & Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 99-109. 51. Lokocz, E, Ryan, R. L., & Sadler, A. J. (2011). Motivations for land protection and stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(2), 65-76. 52. Matsumura, Y., & Rylander, R. (1991). Noise sensitivity and road traffic annoyance in a population sample. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 151(3), 415-419. 53. McDonald, R.P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64. 54. Mesch, G.S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30(4), 504-519. 55. Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail‐trail users. Leisure Sciences, 16(1), 17-31. 56. Morewedge, C. K., Kassam, K. S., Hsee, C.K., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Duration sensitivity depends on stimulus familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 177-186. 57. Nasar, J. L. (1988). Environmental aesthetics : theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 58. Ohta, H. (2001). A Phenomenological approach to natural landscape cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 387-403. 59. Peron, E., Purcell, A. T., Staats, H., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes. Environmental and Behavior, May, 283-305. 60. Pretty, G. H., Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 273-287. 61. Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10(2), 147-170. 62. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity physical world socialization of the self. Journal of environmental Psychology 3, 57-83. 63. Punter, J. V., (1994). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman and Hall. 64. Ringel, N. B., & Finkelstein, J. C. (1991). Differentiating neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood attachment amnog urban residents. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), 177-193. 65. Roggenbuck, J.W., Williams, D. R., & Watson, A. E. (1993). Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management, 17(2), 187-197. 66. Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 198-205. 67. Ryan, R. L. (1997). Attachment to urban natural areas: effects of environmental experience: University of Michigan. 68. Schreyer, R. (1984). Characterizing the influence of past experience on recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(1), 34-50. 69. Schroeder, H. W. (1988). Visaul impact of hillside development: Comparasion of measurements derived from aerial and ground-level photographs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 119-126. 70. Shang, H., & Bishop, I. D. (2000). Visual threshold for detection, recognition and visual impact in landscape settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(2), 125-140. 71. Sheldon, P. J., & Var, T. (1984). Resident attitude to tourism in North Wales. Tourism Management, 5(1), 40-47. 72. Stamps III, A. E. (1997). A paradigm for distinguishing significant from nonsignificant visual impacts: Theory, implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 17(4), 249-293. 73. Steinberg, R. J. (2008). Cognitive Psychology (5 ed.). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Publishing. 74. Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). Cognition, social behavior and the environment. In J. Harvey (Ed.), People in places. A transactional view of settings (pp. 441-488). New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 75. Su, L. Y, & Cheng, C. K. (2011). Examing the Halo Effect between Place Bonding and Landscape Preference. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Madison, Wisscosin, USA. 76. Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (2011). A general coefficient of determination for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42(2), 233-239. 77. Tomczyk, A. M. (2011). A GIS assessment and modelling of environmental sensitivity of recreational trails: The case of Gorce National Park, Poland. Applied Geography, 31(1), 339-351. 78. Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220. 79. Ulrich, R. (1989). The role of trees in human well-being and health. 80. Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1987). Measuring resident's attachment levels in a host community. Journal of Travel Research, 26(1), 27-29. 81. White, D. D., Virden, R. J., & Riper, C. J. (2008). Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environmental Management, 42(4), 647-657. 82. White, D. D., Hall, T. E., & Farrell, T.A. (2001). Influence of ecological impacts and other campsite characteristics on wilderness visitors' campsite choices. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(2), 83-97. 83. Wiener, E. L., & Nagel, D. C. (1988). Human factors in aviation. San Diego: Academic Press. 84. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment. Forest Science 49(6), 830-840. 85. Williams, D. R. & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some prelimiminary results. Paper presented at the Outdoor Planning and Management, San Antonio, Texas. 86. Wohlwill, J. F. (1982). The visual impact of development in coastal zone areas. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 9(3-4), 225-248. 87. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preference need no inference. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. 88. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Plannig, 9, 1-33. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/62865 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 過去的研究已指出，地方依附是一種長時間人與地方互動而形成的親密情感因此縱使在依附對象離去後，亦較不容易隨之波動；景觀偏好則是在刺激出現之後，瞬間做出的快速判斷。因此在環境產生變化後，偏好程度亦會隨之改變。過去有不少探討景觀偏好與地方情感兩者關係之研究，但至今仍無法以因果關係解決。許多學者皆指出，受試者對於環境的偏好會受到自身對該環境過去的造訪次數、停留時間等過去使用經驗所影響，並且呈正向關係。同時，過去使用經驗亦能使受試者對於環境中的變化更加敏感地察覺到。因此本研究參考此一論點，將過去使用經驗加入研究架構，以進一步探討依附及偏好之間關係。
過去對於景觀偏好之探討多半著墨於直觀的偏好程度，少有對此有更進一步偏好變化之分析。本研究藉由Shang與Bishop (2000)所提出之測量環境敏感度之方式，將環境敏感度以及個體所感知到的視覺衝擊─即偏好、分別測量，並加入過去使用經驗做為影響地方依附以及景觀偏好之獨立變項，探討四者之間關係。實驗以五個不同地點之照片做為實驗刺激，以模擬方式對實驗照片進行等量程度破壞，以測量受試者之環境敏感度、地方依附程度以及環境破壞前後之環境偏好。研究結果顯示，當受試者的過去經驗愈高時，依附程度以及對於環境的變化會愈加敏感。研究結果可幫助大眾了解過去使用經驗對景觀偏好、地方依附及環境敏感度之影響，並提供未來環境的規劃及管理之具體方向，使經營管理者能藉由調整概念與方向，建構出更適合於人之生活環境。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | It is known that place attachment is the relationship between human beings and places. It is not easy to be changed even when object attached to disappear while landscape preference does due to it is an immediately evaluation when seeing the stimuli, the environment namely. There have been studies which focus on the relationship between landscape preference and place attachment, however, there is still no any conclusion of their causal relation for certain. It is assumed that the decrease of preference will be minor with the effect of place attachment. Previous studies indicate that experience use history has positive affect on preference making. Also, subjects will be more sensitive to changes in environment due to experience use history. In terms of this statement, experience use history is added to complete the research structure.
Referred to Shang and Bishop, environment sensitivity is separated from visual impact, landscape preference in other words while having experience use history as independent variable at the same time to discuss the relationship between these three concepts and place attachment. Photo simulation was used to make up 5 set of photos with different amount of litters. Respondents’ place attachment, experience of use history, sensitivity toward litters, and visual preference changed were measured and compared. Results indicated that experience use history, place attachment and sensitivity are in direct proportion. The results help the masses to realize the effect of experience use history toward landscape preference, sensitivity to environment and, most important, offer a concrete direction for future environmental management. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T16:12:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R99628310-1.pdf: 2666770 bytes, checksum: a60791d8dc490cf551d0bcf496f9d808 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 I
Abstract II 目錄 III 圖目錄 V 表目錄 VI 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起 1 第二節 研究目的與內容 3 第三節 研究方法與流程 4 第二章 文獻回顧 6 第一節 地方依附(place attachment)相關理論 6 一、 地方依附之起源 6 二、 地方依附之定義 6 三、 地方依附之面向 7 第二節 景觀偏好(landscape preference)相關理論 10 第三節 視覺衝擊(visual impact)相關理論 13 第四節 環境敏感度(sensitivity)及閾值(threshold)測量方式 16 第五節 過去使用經驗(experience-use history, EUH) 19 第六節 小結 20 第三章 研究方法與結果 22 第一節 研究方法 22 一、 研究假設 22 二、 研究對象及實驗刺激 23 三、 實驗刺激處理 24 四、 研究工具 25 五、 實驗流程 30 六、 資料處理及分析方式 32 第二節 研究結果 34 一、 受試者基本資料分析 34 二、 資料分析 35 三、 小結 44 第四章 討論與建議 45 第一節 結論與討論 46 第二節 研究限制與後續研究建議 49 參考文獻 51 附錄一 60 附錄二 67 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 地方依附對視覺景觀衝擊之影響-以景觀偏好及環境敏感度為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Is your love persistent?-The effect of place attachment on visual impact-landscape preference and sensitivity for instances | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 101-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州,張俊彥,原友蘭,林建堯 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 地方依附,景觀偏好,過去使用經驗,環境敏感度, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | place attachment,landscape preference,experience sue history,environment sensitivity, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 68 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2013-02-18 | |
| 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 |
| 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-101-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.6 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。