請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73902
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 | Bo-Yun Zheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭博云 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T08:13:16Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-08-20 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-08-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-08-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 江彥政,(2009),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,台中。
李永展,(1990),認知圖與偏好矩陣-環境心理學研究方法之介紹,國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報,(5),33-140。 李素馨,(1999),都市視覺景觀偏好之研究,都市與計劃,26(1),19-40。 李英弘、梁文嘉 (2000),景觀評估中之心理學模式之研究, 造園景觀學報,7(1), 67-87。 李素馨、王彥力,(2009),邊緣環境之眺匿性心理反應研究,造園景觀學報,15(2),19-36。 林晏州,(2002),行道樹景觀美質評估方法之研究。造園學報,8(2),67-93。 周先捷,(2005),環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺關係─以山景景觀為例,碩士論文,靜宜大學觀光事業學系,台中。 邱方歆,(2018),以演化觀點探討物理環境對地方情感連結之影響,碩士論文,國立台灣大學,台北。 侯錦雄,(1985),景觀知覺與景觀設計,東海學報,26,857-867。 紀芬蓮,(2008),以質性觀點探索環境神秘性涵構,碩士論文,中興大學園藝學系,台中。 施景堯,(2013),恐懼的性質:從視覺注意力到眺匿理論,碩士論文,國立台灣大學,台北。 施景堯、周紓帆、鄭佳昆,(2015),恐懼的變數:日夜變化對眺匿平衡的影響, 戶外遊憩研究, 28(3),93-120。 陳膺淳,(2011),不同景觀空間型態視覺反應與心理認知之研究,碩士論文,逢甲大學,台中。 陳惠美、林晏州(1997a),鄰里公園景觀美質預測模式之研究,中國園藝,43(3),225-236。 許媁鈞、林晏州,(2015),環境色彩組成與調和對情緒體驗與景觀偏好之影響,戶外遊憩研究,28(3),37-60。 黃茹蘭、林晏州,(1998),行道樹視覺景觀偏好影響因素之探討, 中國園藝, 44(3),323-337。 黃宣瑄,(2016),地點與設施意義對景觀適合色之影響,碩士論文,國立台灣大學,台北。 詹智勝,(2007),景觀空間涵構對景觀偏好與注意力恢復之影響,碩士論文,逢甲大學,台中。 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。 謝孟倫、林晏州,(2011),景觀複雜度對自然景觀偏好之影響,都市與計劃, 38(4),427-447。 Appleton, H., & Higgins, P. G. (1975). Viruses and gastroenteritis in infants. The Lancet, 305(7919), 1297. Anderson, L. M., & Schroeder, H. W. (1983). Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape. Landscape Planning, 10(3), 219-237. Andrews, M., & Gatersleben, B. (2010). Variations in perceptions of danger, fear and preference in a simulated natural environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 473-481. Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2011). Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: an image-based latent class approach. Landscape Research, 36(1), 19-40. Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Balomenou, N., & Garrod, B. (2014). Using volunteer-employed photography to inform tourism planning decisions: A study of St David's Peninsula, Wales. Tourism Management, 44, 126-139. Cherem, G. J., & Driver, B. L. (1983). Visitor employed photography: A technique to measure common perceptions of natural environments. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(1), 65-83. 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. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. Res. Pap. RM-RP-167. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station. 66 p., 167. Fischer, M. A., & Shrout, P. E. (2006). Children's liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge, and hazard. Environment and Behavior, 38(3), 373-393. Garrod, B. (2007). A snapshot into the past: The utility of volunteer-employed photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2(1), 14-35. 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. Hammitt, W. E. (1980). Outdoor recreation: Is it a multi-phase experience?. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(2), 107-115. Hagerhall, C. M. (2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscape: prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of environmental psychology, 20(1), 83-90. Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), 819-835. 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. Hunziker, M., Felber, P., Gehring, K., Buchecker, M., Bauer, N., & Kienast, F. (2008). Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mountain research and development, 28(2), 140-148. Haans, A., & De Kort, Y. A. (2012). Light distribution in dynamic street lighting: Two experimental studies on its effects on perceived safety, prospect, concealment, and escape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 342-352. Hanyu, K. (2000). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 273-284. Herzog, T.R. & Bryce, A.G. (2007).Mystery and preference in within-forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 39(6), 779-796. Ikemi, M. (2005). The effects of mystery on preference for residential facades. Journal of Environmental psychology, 25(2), 167-173. Lynch, K. (1995). City sense and city design: writings and projects of Kevin Lynch. MIT press. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5), 509-530. Kellert, S. and E.O. Wilson, eds. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kent, R. L. (1993). A cognitive approach to visual quality assessment and scenic designation for Connecticut highways. Ann Arborl: University of Michigan. Knez, I. (2001).Effects of colour of light on nonvisual psychological processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(2), 201-208. Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, 117-151. Kashdan, T. B., Afram, A., Brown, K. W., Birnbeck, M., & Drvoshanov, M. (2011). Curiosity enhances the role of mindfulness in reducing defensive responses to existential threat. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(8), 1227-1232. Nasar, J.L. & Cubukcu, E. (2011). Evaluative appraisals of environmental mystery and surprise. Environment and Behavior, 43, 387-414. Larson, R., & Delespaul, P. A. E. G. (1992). Analyzing experience sampling data: A guidebook for the perplexed. The experience of psychopathology: Investigating mental disorders in their natural settings, 58-78. Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of personality assessment, 80(1), 75-86. Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of personality assessment, 82(2), 147-157. Litman, J., Hutchins, T., & Russon, R. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling-of-knowing, and exploratory behaviour. Cognition & Emotion, 19(4), 559-582. Litman, J. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I-and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 397-402. MacKay, K. J., & Couldwell, C. M. (2004). Using visitor-employed photography to investigate destination image. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 390-396. Nikunen, H. & Korpela, K.M., (2012).The effects of scene contents and focus of light on perceived restorativeness, fear and preference in nightscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(4), 453-486. Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B., & Grannis, M. (1993). Proximate physical cues to fear of crime. Landscape and urban planning, 26(1-4), 161-178. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and behavior, 29(3), 291-323. Nasar, J. L., & Cubukcu, E. (2011). Evaluative appraisals of environmental mystery and surprise. Environment and Behavior, 43(3), 387-414. Nasar, J. L. & Terzano, K. (2010).The desirability of views of city skylines after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 215-225. Peron, E., Purcell, A. T., Staats, H., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes: Some experimental evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30(3), 282-305. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and behavior, 33(1), 93-106. Peña-García, A., Hurtado, A., & Aguilar-Luzón, M. C. (2015). Impact of public lighting on pedestrians’ perception of safety and well-being. Safety science, 78, 142-148. Parsons, R., & Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(1), 43-56. Ruddell, E. J., & Hammitt, W. E. (1987). Prospect refuge theory: A psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(4), 249-260. Ruddell, E. J., Gramann, J. H., Rudis, V. A., & Westphal, J. M. (1989). The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behavior, 21(4), 393-412. Shafer Jr, E. L., Hamilton Jr, J. F., & Schmidt, E. A. (1969). Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1(1), 1-19. Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B. W., & Winter, C. (2014). Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions and information search. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3), 307-322. Stamps, A. E. (2004b). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16. Stamps, A. E. (2007). Entropy and environmental mystery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104 (3), 691-701. Stamps, A. E. (2007). Mystery of environmental mystery: Effects of light, depth, and occlusion. Environment and Behavior, 39(2), 165-197. Ulrich, R. S. (1977). Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems. Van den Berg, A. E., & Ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 261-272. van Rijswijk, L., Rooks, G., & Haans, A. (2016). Safety in the eye of the beholder: Individual susceptibility to safety-related characteristics of nocturnal urban scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 103-115. Woodcock, D. M. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michign. Unpublished. Woodcock, D. M. (1984). A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Landscape Research, 9 , 24-27. Zube, E.H.; Sell, J.L. & Taylor, J.G.,(1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory, Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73902 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 景觀偏好是一個在景觀評估中最常被使用的方法,眾多相關研究多以Kaplan & Kaplan(1989)提出的偏好模式為基礎,四個處理環境資訊的預測因子為:一致性、易讀性、複雜性與神祕性,且文獻多認為四項預測因子應與偏好為正相關,但部份研究卻發現在特定的場景裡神祕性與偏好之間出現負相關,整體顯示神祕性並非穩定正向預測偏好的因子,故本次研究分成三個部份來檢測神秘性與偏好之關係。
研究一根據Herzog & Bryce(2007)實驗,欲探討神秘性在日夜情境下是否會造成偏好關係之反轉,或者如何去影響偏好,並且討論驚訝在關係中扮演的角色。受測者觀看不同程度神祕性之日夜校園景觀照片後會填寫偏好、神祕性與驚訝的感知問項。結果可發現神祕對偏好的關係在日夜情境下是有差異的,而神秘性對偏好的主效果為正向影響,驚訝對偏好是負向影響,但將變項同時討論便會發現神秘性會與驚訝共變,導致驚訝在日間與夜間對偏好仍是正相關。 研究二採自主式攝影法來討論神祕與驚訝的空間異同,以台大校總區為研究地點,受測者在理解神祕性、驚訝的定義後,會被要求於校園中拍攝其景觀空間的照片,並簡述拍攝理由。研究結果會透過內容分析法整理兩類環境之異同。特殊的研究結果發現路徑並不一定要彎曲迂迴,仍可具有神秘性,而驚訝場景則多因光線、雜亂、老舊的人造物等造成無法推論的不安與恐懼。並且透過研究二發現「驚訝」需再細分為未探索階段與已探索階段,前者才能與神祕性空間做比較,這也是先前眾多研究中未闡明的部分。 研究三發現神秘性定義初步可區分為強調環境是「推論性」的廣義神秘性,以及語意上已「涵蓋正向喜好」前提的狹義神祕性,本研究推論這些正向的問句導致偏好的影響力已出現在神秘性之前,則無庸置疑結果會出現偏好與神秘性正相關,若是如此便無法將神秘性視為預測偏好的因子,而研究結果與推論相符。整體研究結果可對於神祕性與偏好不穩定之關係有更進一步的了解,除了證實了驚訝之於神祕與偏好關係中的影響,也發現神祕性與偏好的因果關係。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Landscape preferences have been one of the important environment management tools for over four decades. Many research on landscape preferences were based on the Information Processing Theory, which also known as the Preference Matrix (Kaplan & Kaplan ,1989). Studies have shown the four informational variables (i.e., coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery) have positive effect on preferences. However, some studies have found that the relationships between mystery and preference might not be stable and negative correlations could be found in certain circumstance.
The first study explored whether mystery would cause a reversal of preference in day and night situations, also observed how mystery and surprise affected preference. The results suggested that the effects of mystery and surprise on preference were highly overlapped but with different effect on preference. In low lighting situations (i.e., night time), mystery’s positive effects on preference are less than during the day time. However, such day-night differences were not observed in the case of surprise. The second study focused on comparing the physical attributes of mystery and surprise. Volunteer-employed photography method and content analysis were used to collect and understand the attributes. The results showed that the path didn’t have to be curved or fulled of twists and turns, it could still have mystery. The surprise’s environment were mostly obstructed to be related to dim light, messy environment or old artifacts etc, which often caused the feelings of fear. In addition, some special finding is that surprise situation could be distinguished as before/after exploration. While the before-exploration surprise still implied the inferential meaning, the after-exploration surprises considered mainly the differences between results and expetation. By sorting out mystery’s definitions in existing studies, we found that the measurments of mystery could be divided into “preference premise” and “neutral”. For ease of generalization, we classify “preference premise” as “narrow mystery” and “neutral” will be called “general mystery”. It was the purpose of the third study to understand the differences between the two mystries. The finding showed that the premise of preference will effect narrow mystery, but it won't happen to general mystery. And narrow mystery will act as a mediator between general mystery and preference. All the results could contribute to the future design and planning tasks. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T08:13:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R06628308-1.pdf: 5141301 bytes, checksum: 13091ccc1f17ee82911e1c01bdfad89c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 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---------------2 第二章 文獻回顧---------------5 第一節 視覺景觀偏好---------------5 一、 景觀評估---------------5 二、 知覺偏好相關理論---------------6 第二節 神秘性---------------11 一、 相關研究與定義---------------11 二、 影響神秘性與偏好關係之因子---------------15 第三節 小結---------------21 第三章 神秘性、驚訝與景觀偏好關係之探討---------------23 第一節 研究背景---------------23 一、 研究問題---------------24 二、 研究架構---------------24 三、 名詞定義---------------25 第二節 研究方法---------------26 一、 實驗流程---------------26 二、 研究工具---------------28 三、 資料處理與分析方法---------------29 第三節 研究結果---------------30 一、 受測者背景---------------30 二、 描述性統計與量表信度分析---------------31 三、 日夜情境下的偏好、神秘性與驚訝之關係---------------32 第四節 小結---------------34 第四章 神秘性與驚訝環境組成之探討---------------37 第一節 研究背景---------------37 一、 研究問題---------------37 二、 研究流程---------------38 三、 研究範圍與限制---------------38 第二節 研究方法---------------39 一、 研究地點及參與對象---------------39 二、 資料蒐集工具及步驟---------------39 三、 資料處理與分析方法---------------42 第三節 研究結果---------------44 一、 受測者背景說明---------------44 二、 神秘性場景---------------44 三、 驚訝場景---------------49 第四節 小結---------------53 第五章 廣義、狹義神秘性與偏好關係之探討---------------57 第一節 研究背景---------------57 一、 研究問題---------------59 二、 研究架構---------------59 三、 名詞定義---------------60 第二節 研究方法---------------61 一、 實驗流程---------------61 二、 研究工具---------------63 三、 資料處理與分析方法---------------67 第三節 研究結果---------------67 一、 受測者背景---------------68 二、 描述性統計分析---------------68 三、 推論機會對神秘性之影響---------------69 四、 情境對神秘性之影響---------------70 五、 狹義神秘性、廣義神秘性與偏好之關係---------------71 第四節 小結---------------73 第六章 結論與建議---------------75 第一節 結論與討論---------------75 第二節 未來研究建議與應用---------------79 一、 研究限制與未來研究建議---------------79 二、 研究應用---------------80 引用文獻 ---------------83 附錄一:實驗一之研究問卷---------------90 附錄二:實驗一之研究照片評值---------------93 附錄三:實驗二之研究問卷---------------96 附錄四:實驗三之研究問卷---------------98 附錄五:實驗三之研究照片評值---------------101 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 神秘性與偏好關係之再探討 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Re-examining the relationships between mystery and landscape preference. | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州(Yann-Jou Lin),歐聖榮(Sheng-Jung Ou),林建堯(Jan-Yau Lin),張俊彥(Chun-Yen Chang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 景觀偏好,神秘性,驚訝,日夜環境,空間型態,情境, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Landscape Preference,Mystery,Surprise,Day-Night situation,Spatial pattern,Scenario, | en |
dc.relation.page | 103 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201903739 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-08-15 | |
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-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.02 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。