Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/81867Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張俊彥 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | CHUN-YEN CHANG | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 洪詩涵 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Shih-Han Hung | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-11-25T03:05:24Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-10 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-02-17 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2002-01-01 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1.周宛俞、洪詩涵、張俊彥(2020)。傳統環境氣：以人體為「氣感應」 探討健康景觀特徵。戶外遊憩研究，33(4)，23 – 49。[Chou, W.-Y., Hung, S.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2020). Tradition Environmental Qi: Using Human as a Sensor to Capture the Healthy Landscape Attributes. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, 33(4), 23-49.]
2.洪詩涵、張俊彥(2020)。建構感知親生命性設計於環境體驗之概念架構。造園景觀學報24(4)，41 – 71。[Hung, S.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2020). Building Conceptual Framework of Perceived Biophilic Design on Environmental Experiences. Journal of Landscape, 24(4), 41-71.] 3.洪詩涵、余筱翎、張俊彥(2020)。每日生活環境與自然接觸時間劑量對情緒之研究。戶外遊憩研究，34(2)，111 – 135。[Hung, S.-H., Yu, H.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2021)c. Daily Life Environment and Impact of Nature on Emotion. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, 34(2), 111 - 135.] 4.張俊彥（2019）。農業療育場域規劃與實驗平台建置III科技計畫研究報告（108農科-7.5.5-輔-#1(1) ）。行政院農業委員會。[Chang, C. Y., 2019. Site Planning and Experimental Platform Establishment for Agricultural Therapy III, Science and Technology Project Research Report (108農科-7.5.5-輔-#1(1)). Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan.] 5.Abkar, M., Kamal, M., Maulan, S., & Davoodi, S. R. (2011). Determining the visual preference of urban landscapes. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(9), 1991-1997. 6.Alavi, M., Visentin, D. C., Thapa, D. K., Hunt, G. E., Watson, R., & Cleary, M. (2020). Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(9), 2209-2211. 7.Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London:Wiley. 8.Astell-Burt, T., & Feng, X. (2020). Urban green space, tree canopy and prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: a multilevel longitudinal study of 46 786 Australians. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(3), 926-933. 9.Bakker, I., van der Voordt, T., Vink, P., & de Boon, J. (2014). Pleasure, Arousal, Dominance: Mehrabian and Russell revisited. Current Psychology, 33(3), 405-421. 10.Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28. 11.Barbiero, G., & Berto, R. (2021). Biophilia as Evolutionary Adaptation: An Onto- and Phylogenetic Framework for Biophilic Design. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(2858). 12.Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2010). What is the Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise for Improving Mental Health? A Multi-Study Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(10), 3947-3955. 13.Baur, J. W. R. (2018). Urban green spaces, recreation and spiritual experiences. Leisure, 42(2), 205-229. 14.Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249-259. 15.Berto, R., Barbiero, G., Barbiero, P., & Senes, G. (2018). An Individual’s Connection to Nature Can Affect Perceived Restorativeness of Natural Environments. Some Observations about Biophilia. Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 34. 16.Berto, R., Barbiero, G., Pasini, M., & Pieter, U. (2015). Biophilic design triggers fascination and enhances psychological restoration in the urban environment. Journal of Biourbanism, 1, 27-34. 17.Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Oxford: Aldine. 18.Bratman, G. N., Anderson, C. B., Berman, M. G., Cochran, B., De Vries, S., Flanders, J., Folke, C., Frumkin, H., Gross, J. J., & Hartig, T. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7), eaax0903. 19.Bratman, G. N., Daily, G. C., Levy, B. J., & Gross, J. J. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41-50. 20.Britton, E., Kindermann, G., Domegan, C., & Carlin, C. (2018). Blue care: a systematic review of blue space interventions for health and wellbeing. Health Promotion International, 35(1), 50-69. 21.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. 22.Browning, W. D., Ryan, C. O., & Clancy, J. O. (2014). 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design: Improving Health and Well-Being in the Built Environment. New York, NY: Terrapin Bright Green LLC. 23.Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(976). 24.Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., Agrimi, M., Portoghesi, L., Semenzato, P., & Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 221-228. 25.Chang, C. Y., & Chou, W. Y. (2011). Assessment of environmental qi field: human as a sensor of qi field. The International Federation of Landscape Architects Asia Pacific Regional Congress 2011, Bangkok, Thailand. 26.Chang, K. G., Sullivan, W. C., Lin, Y.-H., Su, W., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). The Effect of Biodiversity on Green Space Users’ Wellbeing—An Empirical Investigation Using Physiological Evidence. Sustainability, 8(10), 1049. 27.Chen, N. N. (2003). Breathing spaces: Qigong, psychiatry, and healing in China. Columbia University Press. 28.Chou, W.-Y., & Hung, S.-H. (2021). Cumulative Frequency of Nature Dose: How Continuous and Regular Forest Walking Improves Nature Relatedness, Restorativeness, and Learning Engagement in College Students. Sustainability, 13(20), 11370. 29.Chou, W.-Y., Lee, C.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Relationships between urban open spaces and humans’ health benefits from an ecological perspective: a study in an urban campus. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 12(2), 255-267. 30.Chou, W. Y., Sullivan, W. C. & Chang, C. Y. (2011). Environmental qi field qualities of different landscape structures. The International Federation of Landscape Architects Asia Pacific Regional Congress 2011, Bangkok, Thailand. 31.Compton, W. C., & Hoffman, E. (2019). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and flourishing. Sage Publications. 32.Comrey, A., & Lee, H. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis, 2, 1992. 33.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. London:Rider. 34.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life. Basic Books. 35.Delavari-Edalat, F., & Abdi, M. R. (2010). Human-environment interactions based on biophilia values in an urban context: Case study. Journal of Urban Planning And Development, 136(2), 162-168. 36.DeMiglio, L. W., Allison. (2008). A sense of place, A sense of well-being (J. Eyles & A. Williams, Eds.). Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 37.Deng, L., Li, X., Luo, H., Fu, E.-K., Ma, J., Sun, L.-X., Huang, Z., Cai, S.-Z., & Jia, Y. (2020). Empirical study of landscape types, landscape elements and landscape components of the urban park promoting physiological and psychological restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 48, 126488. 38.Diener, E., Napa Scollon, C., & Lucas, R. E. (2009). The Evolving Concept of Subjective Well-Being: The Multifaceted Nature of Happiness. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener (p. 67-100). Springer Netherlands. 39.Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 119-143. 40.Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19. 41.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. 42.Fromm, E. (2010). The Heart of Man: Its Genius for Good and Evil. American Mental Health Foundation Books. 43.Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, Å., & Velarde, M. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9(5), 933-947. 44.Gascon, M., Zijlema, W., Vert, C., White, M. P., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017). Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220(8), 1207-1221. 45.Gillis, K., & Gatersleben, B. (2015). A Review of Psychological Literature on the Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Biophilic Design. Buildings, 5(3), 948-963. 46.Grinde, B., & Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6(9), 2332-2343. 47.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition, 7th Edition. Pearson. 48.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. 49.Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109-123. 50.Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1996). Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. University of Göteborg, Department of Psychology. 51.Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14(4), 175-194. 52.Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26. 53.Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., Vries, S. d., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35(1), 207-228. 54.Haybron, D. (2020). Happiness. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The {Stanford} Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. \url{https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/happiness/} 55.Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats, and aesthetics, In: Kellert S.R., Wilson E.O., eds. The biophilia hypothesis ( pp.138-172). Washington, DC: Island Press. 56.Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, C., Berto, R., & Peron, E. (2001). The role of familiarity on the restorative value of a place: Research on a Spanish sample. IAPS Bulletin, 18(22), e24. 57.Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(1), 27-43. 58.Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237-248. 59.Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(2), 165-170. 60.Herzog, T. R., & Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(2), 115-127. 61.Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. G. (2007). Mystery and preference in within-forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 39(6), 779-796. 62.Herzog, T. R., Colleen, Maguire, P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159-170. 63.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. 64.Hidalgo, M. C., Berto, R., Galindo, M. P., & Getrevi, A. (2006). Identifying attractive and unattractive urban places: categories, restorativeness and aesthetic attributes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 7(2), 115-133. 65.Hu, L. t., & 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. 66.Hůla, M., & Flegr, J. (2021). Habitat selection and human aesthetic responses to flowers. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 3, e5, Article e5. 67.Hung, S.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2021). Health benefits of evidence-based biophilic-designed environments: A review. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment, 24(1), 1-16. 68.Hung, S.-H., Chou, W.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2021)a. A Study on Practicing Qigong and Getting Better Health Benefits in Biophilic Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability, 13(4), 1692. 69.Hung, S.-H., Hwang, C.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2021)b. Is the Qi experience related to the flow experience? Practicing qigong in urban green spaces. PLOS ONE, 16(1), e0240180. 70.Hunter, M. R., & Askarinejad, A. (2015). Designer's approach for scene selection in tests of preference and restoration along a continuum of natural to manmade environments. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1228. 71.Huta, V., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Pursuing Pleasure or Virtue: The Differential and Overlapping Well-Being Benefits of Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(6), 735-762. 72.Hwang, Y. H., Yue, Z. E. J., Ling, S. K., & Tan, H. H. V. (2019). It’s ok to be wilder: Preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 165-176. 73.Isham, A., Gatersleben, B., & Jackson, T. (2018). Flow Activities as a Route to Living Well With Less. Environment and Behavior, 51(4), 431-461. 74.Jackson, S. A., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18(1), 17-35. 75.Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The flow state scale–2 and dispositional flow scale–2. Journal of Sport And Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 133-150. 76.Jackson, S. A., Martin, A. J., & Eklund, R. C. (2008). Long and short measures of flow: the construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. J Journal of Sport And Exercise Psychology, 30(5), 561-587. 77.Johansson, M., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2011). Psychological Benefits of Walking: Moderation by Company and Outdoor Environment. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(3), 261-280. 78.Joye, Y., & De Block, A. (2011). 'Nature and I are Two': A Critical Examination of the Biophilia Hypothesis. Environmental Values, 20(2), 189-215. 79.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. 80.Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington DC: Island press. 81.Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32. 82.Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. 83.Kellert, S. R. (1997). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press. 84.Kellert, S. R. (2018). Nature by design: The practice of biophilic design. Yale University Press. 85.Kellert, S. R., Heerwagen, J., Mador, M. (2008). Biophilic Design: the Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 86.Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press. 87.Klein, P., Picard, G., Baumgarden, J., & Schneider, R. (2017). Meditative Movement, Energetic, and Physical Analyses of Three Qigong Exercises: Unification of Eastern and Western Mechanistic Exercise Theory. Medicines (Basel, Switzerland), 4(4), 69 88.Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221-233. 89.Korpela, K. M., Ylén, M., Tyrväinen, L., & Silvennoinen, H. (2009). Stability of self-reported favourite places and place attachment over a 10-month period. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 95-100. 90.Kuper, R. (2018). Effects of Flowering, Foliation, and Autumn Colors on Preference and Restorative Potential for Designed Digital Landscape Models. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 544-576. 91.Lin, Y.-H., Tsai, C.-C., Sullivan, W. C., Chang, P.-J., & Chang, C.-Y. (2014). Does awareness effect the restorative function and perception of street trees?. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(906). 92.Lis, A., Pardela, Ł., & Iwankowski, P. (2019). Impact of vegetation on perceived safety and preference in city parks. Sustainability, 11(22), Article 6324. 93.Liu, K. N. (2009). The bizarre journey of Qi. Taipei: Dacombook. 94.Liu, L., Qu, H., Ma, Y., Wang, K., & Qu, H. (2022). Restorative benefits of urban green space: Physiological, psychological restoration and eye movement analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 113930. 95.Liu, M., & Schroth, O. (2019). Assessment of Aesthetic Preferences in Relation to Vegetation-Created Enclosure in Chinese Urban Parks: A Case Study of Shenzhen Litchi Park. Sustainability, 11(6). 96.Liu, Q., Wu, Y., Xiao, Y., Fu, W., Zhuo, Z., van den Bosch, C. C. K., Huang, Q., & Lan, S. (2020). More meaningful, more restorative? Linking local landscape characteristics and place attachment to restorative perceptions of urban park visitors. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197, 103763. 97.Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Jin, S. T., & Liu, Y. (2020). Spatial pattern of leisure activities among residents in Beijing, China: Exploring the impacts of urban environment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101806. 98.Lopes, S., Lima, M., & Silva, K. (2020). Nature can get it out of your mind: The rumination reducing effects of contact with nature and the mediating role of awe and mood. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101489. 99.Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 177-198. 100.Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0177186. 101.Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city (Vol. 11). MIT press. 102.Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A Measure of Subjective Happiness: Preliminary Reliability and Construct Validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137-155. 103.MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. 104.Martínez-Soto, J., de la Fuente Suárez, L. A., & Ruiz-Correa, S. (2021). Exploring the Links Between Biophilic and Restorative Qualities of Exterior and Interior Spaces in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(3238). 105.Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503-515. 106.McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psycological Methods, 7(1), 64-82. 107.McDonald, M. G., Wearing, S., & Ponting, J. (2009). The nature of peak experience in wilderness. The Humanistic Psychologist, 37(4), 370-385. 108.McMahan, E. A., & Estes, D. (2015). The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(6), 507-519. 109.Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). The basic emotional impact of environments. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38(1), 283-301. 110.Mitchell, R. (2013). Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Social Science & Medicine, 91, 130-134. 111.Negrín, F., Hernández-Fernaud, E., Hess, S., & Hernández, B. (2017). Discrimination of Urban Spaces with Different Level of Restorativeness Based on the Original and on a Shorter Version of Hartig et al.’s Perceived Restorativeness Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1735). 112.Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(2), 303-322. 113.Nisbet, E. L., Melissa. (2015). Prescribing a Dose of Nature. Alternatives Journal, 41(2), 36-39. 114.Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C. M., & Fry, G. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), 225-235. 115.Norton, W. (2006). Cultural Geography: Environments, Landscapes, Identities, Inequalities, third edition (2ed). New York: Oxford University Press. 116.Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375-383. 117.Ohly, H., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Bethel, A., Ukoumunne, O. C., Nikolaou, V., & Garside, R. (2016). Attention Restoration Theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 19(7), 305-343. 118.Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. (pp. 555-579). Oxford University Press. 119.Parackal, M. (2016). A Global Happiness Scale for Measuring Wellbeing: A Test of Immunity Against Hedonism. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1529-1545. 120.Pasanen, T., Johnson, K., Lee, K., & Korpela, K. (2018)a. Can Nature Walks With Psychological Tasks Improve Mood, Self-Reported Restoration, and Sustained Attention? Results From Two Experimental Field Studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2057). 121.Pasanen, T. P., Ojala, A., Tyrväinen, L., & Korpela, K. M. (2018)b. Restoration, well-being, and everyday physical activity in indoor, built outdoor and natural outdoor settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 85-93. 122.Pasini, M., Berto, R., Brondino, M., Hall, R., & Ortner, C. (2014). How to Measure the Restorative Quality of Environments: The PRS-11. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 293-297. 123.Pazhouhanfar, M., & M.S, M. K. (2014). Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 145-151. 124.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. 125.Polat, A. T., & Akay, A. (2015). Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 573-582. 126.Posadzki, P., Parekh, S., O'Driscoll, M.-L., & Mucha, D. (2010). Qi Gong's relationship to educational kinesiology: A qualitative approach. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 14(1), 73-79. 127.Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Eudaimonic Well-Being: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), 1145-1167. 128.Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do Preferences Differ between Scene Types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93-106. 129.Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness (Vol. 67). Pion London. 130.Richardson, M., McEwan, K., Maratos, F., & Sheffield, D. (2016). Joy and Calm: How an Evolutionary Functional Model of Affect Regulation Informs Positive Emotions in Nature. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(4), 308-320. 131.Riva, E. F. M., Riva, G., Talò, C., Boffi, M., Rainisio, N., Pola, L., Diana, B., Villani, D., Argenton, L., & Inghilleri, P. (2017). Measuring Dispositional Flow: Validity and reliability of the Dispositional Flow State Scale 2, Italian version. PLOS ONE, 12(9), e0182201-e0182201. 132.Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311. 133.Ryan, C. O., Browning, W. D., Clancy, J. O., Andrews, S. L., & Kallianpurkar, N. B. (2014). Biophilic design patterns: emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. International Journal of Architectural Research, 8(2), 62-76. 134.Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069. 135.Schebella, M. F., Weber, D., Lindsey, K., & Daniels, C. B. (2017). For the Love of Nature: Exploring the Importance of Species Diversity and Micro-Variables Associated with Favorite Outdoor Places. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(DEC), Article 2094. 136.Song, C., Ikei, H., Igarashi, M., Takagaki, M., & Miyazaki, Y. (2015). Physiological and psychological effects of a walk in urban parks in fall. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(11), 14216-14228. 137.Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 4th ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 138.Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Owen, N. (2008). Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? Journal f Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(5), e9. 139.Suppakittpaisarn, P., Larsen, L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2019). Preferences for green infrastructure and green stormwater infrastructure in urban landscapes: Differences between designers and laypeople. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 43, 126378. 140.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Boston, MA. 141.Tang, I.-C., Sullivan, W. C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Perceptual evaluation of natural landscapes: The role of the individual connection to nature. Environment and Behavior, 47(6), 595-617. 142.Tse, D. C. K., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2021). Living well by “flowing’ well: The indirect effect of autotelic personality on well-being through flow experience. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(3), 310-321. 143.Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., & Kagawa, T. (2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of environmental psychology Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 1-9. 144.Ulrich, R. (1981). Natural Versus Urban ScenesSome Psychophysiological Effects. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556. 145.Ulrich, R. (1984). View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. 146.Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 85-125). Springer US. 147.Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: Kellert S.R., Wilson E.O., eds. The biophilia hypothesis (pp.73-137).Washington, DC: Island Press. 148.Ulrich, R. S. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research. In Marcus C.C., Barnes M., eds. Healing gardens: therapeutic benefits and design recommendation (pp.27-86).Wiley. 149.Van den Berg, A. E., Jorgensen, A., & Wilson, E. R. (2014). Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference? Landscape and Urban Planning, 127, 173-181. 150.Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & Van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration:(How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135-146. 151.van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70(8), 1203-1210. 152.Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes–Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 199-212. 153.Waechter, R. L. (2002). Qi and bioelectromagnetic energy. York, England: York University. 154.Waechter, R. L., & Sergio, L. (2002). Manipulation of the Electromagnetic Spectrum via Fields Projected from Human Hands: A Qi Energy Connection? Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine Journal Archives, 13(3), 233-250. 155.Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M. J., Hu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41, 6-13. 156.Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. 157.Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 820. 158.Weber, A. M., & Trojan, J. (2018). The Restorative Value of the Urban Environment: A Systematic Review of the Existing Literature. Environmental Health Insights, 12, 1178630218812805. 159.Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental Concern: The Development of a Measure. Environment and Behavior, 10(1), 3-15. 160.White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., & Depledge, M. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 482-493. 161.White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., Bone, A., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 7730. 162.White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Gascon, M., Roberts, B., & Fleming, L. E. (2020). Blue space, health and well-being: A narrative overview and synthesis of potential benefits. Environmental Research, 191, 110169. 163.Wilkie, S., & Clouston, L. (2015). Environment preference and environment type congruence: Effects on perceived restoration potential and restoration outcomes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(2), 368-376. 164.Wilkie, S., & Stavridou, A. (2013). Influence of environmental preference and environment type congruence on judgments of restoration potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(2), 163-170. 165.Williams, K., & Harvey, D. (2001). Transcendent experience in forest environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 249-260. 166.Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press. 167.Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244. 168.Wöran, B., & Arnberger, A. (2012). Exploring Relationships Between Recreation Specialization, Restorative Environments and Mountain Hikers’ Flow Experience. Leisure Sciences, 34(2), 95-114. 169.Yang, G., Yu, Z., Zhang, J., & Søderkvist Kristensen, L. (2021). From preference to landscape sustainability: a bibliometric review of landscape preference research from 1968 to 2019. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 7(1), 1948355. 170.Yao, W., Chen, F., Wang, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Impact of Exposure to Natural and Built Environments on Positive and Negative Affect: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 9(1767). 171.Yao, W., Zhang, X., & Gong, Q. (2021). The effect of exposure to the natural environment on stress reduction: A meta-analysis. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 57, Article 126932. 172.Yoon, H. K. (2003). A preliminary attempt to give a bird's eye view on the nature of traditional Eastern (Asian) and Western (European) environmental ideas. In E. E. C. F. Gethmann (Ed.), Environment Across Cultures (pp. 123-142). Springer-Verlag: Berlin & Heidelberg. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/81867 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 與自然接觸的研究通常與人類的健康和福祉有關。西方有關環境心理學的理論與概念如注意力恢復理論、壓力削減理論、景觀偏好等與東方環境觀點具其相似之處。親生命性設計的理論中，解釋人與自然最初地聯結及從中影響健康的因素；東方環境觀中的「氣」存在於生物圈中，也會影響人們的健康。目前少有研究將親生命性的設計概念轉為可被實際使用的量表以探討一般人是否能感知到親生命設計及其產生的健康效益。因此，研究目的為建立感知的親生命設計量表並預測景觀偏好和情緒體驗；整合東西方感知環境觀與心理健康相關的理論與操作性概念，以全面性地衡量人類如何感知環境特徵與其互動產生的心理健康（如：心流體驗、情緒體驗、幸福感）。
本研究涉及三個子研究：第一項子研究透過網路線上資料收集方式（有效總數為477份），發展感知親生命性量表 (perceived biophilic design scale, PBDs)以驗證從Kellert等人(2008)的概念提取到專家內容分析中所提出之親生命性設計問項，是否能轉換成後續之研究工具。第二項子研究同樣採用網路線上資料收集方式（有效總數為516份），加以整合與驗證東西方感知環境觀，並提出感知人與環境體驗量表(perceived human-nature experience scale, PHNEs)；第三項子研究則進一步使用感知人與環境體驗量表驗證都市綠地環境中之特徵與心理健康的關係。 經過探索性因素分析與確認性因素分析，研究結果顯示親生命性設計包含七個構面與28個題項—(1) 進化中的人與自然關係 (evolved human-nature relationship, EHNR)、(2) 地方感(place-based relationship, PBR)、(3) 自然配置 (natural configuration, NC)、(4) 自然和變化過程 (nature and process of change, NPC)、(5)環境感知 (environmental perception, EP)、(6) 建築環境與自然的融合(sense of compatibility in built environment, SCBE) 和 (7) 空間和形式的自然設計 (natural design of spaces and forms, NDSF)—具良好收斂效度和判別效度，其累積解釋變異達64.348%，整體Cronbach's α值為 0.911。在感知人與環境體驗量表主要涵蓋兩個屬性—感知環境屬性包含六項因子，其平均累積解釋變異介於56.177%至66.832%與感知人與自然體驗包含四項因子，其平均累積解釋變異達介於55.703%至59.697%。此外，透過迴歸預測模型，感知人與環境體驗量表中的因子對景觀偏好 (R2=0.464)、熟悉度 (R2=0.218)、心流體 (R2=0.326)、愉悅 (R2=0.443)、喚醒 (R2=0.268)、和幸福感 (R2=0.262)等具有良好的解釋力。總體而言，本研究建構感知親生命性量表，並整合感知環境與人互動體驗之重要概念外，經統計檢定驗證都市綠地環境下之特徵能有效預測人與自然互動之心理健康感受。根據研究結果能作為解釋人與自然之間的動態關係以及提供設計替代方案的思維，並能從中建立未來設計之參考依據。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Research into contact with nature has often been linked to human health and well-being. Western views of related theories of environmental psychology, such as attention restoration theory, stress reduction theory, and landscape preference, entail similarities with Eastern views of how humans connect with nature (e.g., environmental Qi). These concepts and theories enrich our knowledge with natural design methods (i.e., biophilic design) of linking humans and nature via psychological and physical health. While research connecting and integrating these Western and Eastern views on landscape and health is scant, this research aims to connect and integrate the similarities and differences of each conceptual and related operational definition to measure how humans perceive urban nature with environmental characteristics and their health benefits.
This research involved a three-phase study designed to explore perceived environmental attributes and human-nature experiences and to predict psychological well-being. The first study developed the perceived biophilic design scale (PBDs) with an online survey (valid total n = 477) to validate the PBDs items extracted from the conceptual and content analysis of Kellert et al. (2008). Another online survey of 516 valid data profiles was collected for the second and third studies. The second study examined environmental attributes and perceptions of human-nature experiences regarding environmental Qi, biophilic design, restorativeness, and landscape preference to understand the conceptual and statistical similarities and differences. The third study comprised four main sets of questionnaires concerning the environmental attribute perceptions of individuals regarding the effect of human-nature experiences and natural-based activities on flow experiences, as well as overall psychological health outcomes (e.g., emotion, happiness). With the conceptual analysis supported by the second study, the third study indicates a holistic perceived human-nature experience scale (PHNEs) and the relationship between the perceived environmental attributes and the psychological variables. The results of the study demonstrate seven phenomena—evolved human-nature relationship (EHNR), place-based relationship (PBR), natural configuration (NC), nature and process of change (NPC), environmental perception (EP), sense of compatibility in the built environment (SCBE), and natural design of spaces and forms (NDSF)—that were confirmed through exploratory factor analysis, with 64.348% of the cumulative variance and confirmatory factor analysis having good convergent validity and discriminant validity. The PBDs with 28 items had a Cronbach’s α of 0.911. The PHNE scale included two main aspects: perceived environmental attributes, including six factors and the cumulative variance, were between 56.177% and 66.832%, while perception of human-nature experiences within four factors and the cumulative variance were between 55.703% and 59.697%. Furthermore, the regression model of the factors in the PHNE scale well explained landscape preference (R2 = 0.464), familiarity (R2 = 0.218), flow experience (R2 = 0.326), pleasure (R2 = 0.443), arousal (R2 = 0.268), and happiness (R2 = 0.262). These results indicate that this study could be important in explaining the dynamic relationship between humans and nature, as well as provide alternative design thinking and methods with a better understanding of how urban nature provides health benefits related to human perception. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2022-11-25T03:05:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1801202217145200.pdf: 12440279 bytes, checksum: 4dc00f844df01c68c2b2be286f5f70dd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND 1 1.2 RESEARCH PURPOSE 6 1.3 RESEARCH SCOPE 9 1.4 VALUE OF RESEARCH 11 1.5 OVERVIEW 13 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 14 2.1 EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES RELATED TO HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCES 15 2.1.1 LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE 17 2.1.2 ATTENTION RESTORATION THEORY (ART) 21 2.1.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE AND ART 23 2.2 PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES 29 2.2.1 BIOPHILIC DESIGN AND HEALTH BENEFITS 29 2.2.2 TRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL QI AND HEALTH BENEFITS 32 2.2.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN BIOPHILIC AND TEQ 34 2.2.4 LANDSCAPE ATTRIBUTES AND THE COMPARISON AMONG THEORIES 46 2.3 GREEN ACTIVITIES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING 52 2.3.1 GREEN ACTIVITIES IN URBAN GREEN SPACE 52 2.3.2 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLOW EXPERIENCE AND GREEN ACTIVITIES 54 2.3.3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HAPPINESS AND GREEN ACTIVITIES 57 2.3.4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMOTIONAL STATE AND ENVIRONMENT 59 2.4 SUMMARY AND COMMENTARY 63 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD 64 3.1 STUDY 1: BUILDING THE PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN SCALE 65 3.2 STUDY 2: BUILDING THE PERCEIVED HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCE SCALE 65 3.3 EVIDENCE-BASED ON PHNES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING 66 CHAPTER 4 PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN SCALE (PBDS) AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING 67 4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 67 4.2 PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE 67 4.3. PSYCHOLOGICAL QUESTIONNAIRES 70 4.3.1 PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN ITEMS (PBDI) 70 4.3.2 LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE 70 4.3.3 POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE (PANAS) 71 4.4 DATA ANALYSIS 71 4.5 EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF PBDS 72 4.6 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ON PBDS 73 4.7 VERIFYING HYPOTHESES OF PBDS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING 76 4.7.1 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP ON LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE? 77 4.7.2 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP ON EMOTIONAL WELLBEING? 78 4.8 DISCUSSION ON PBDS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING 78 4.8.1 DISCUSSION ON PBDI AND PBDS 80 4.8.2 DISCUSSION ON HOW PDBS INFLUENCE LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE 82 4.8.3 DISCUSSION ON HOW PDBS INFLUENCE EMOTION 83 CHAPTER 5 CONNECT AND INTEGRATE THE PERCEIVED HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCE SCALE (PHNES) 84 5.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 84 5.2. PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE 86 5.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALE 87 5.3.1 PREFERENCE MATRIX SCALES 87 5.3.2 PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATIVENESS SCALE (PRS) 88 5.3.3 PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN SCALE (PBDS) 89 5.3.4 TRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL QI SCALE (TEQS) 90 5.4 DATA ANALYSIS 91 5.5 THE CORRELATION AMONG EACH SCALES 92 5.6 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ON PHNES 93 5.7 DISCUSSION ON THE PHNES 102 CHAPTER 6 EVIDENCE-BASED ON PHNES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING 111 6.1 PARTICIPANTS 111 6.2 PSYCHOLOGICAL QUESTIONNAIRES 112 6.2.1 PERCEIVED HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCE SCALES (PHNES) 112 6.2.2 LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE 114 6.2.3 FAMILIARITY 114 6.2.4 DISPOSITIONAL FLOW SCALE (DFS) 115 6.2.5 HEDONIC: PLEASURE & AROUSAL 115 6.2.6 EUDAIMONIC: HAPPINESS 115 6.3 DATA ANALYSIS 116 6.4 RESULTS ON VERIFYING THE HYPOTHESES 116 6.4.1 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN HUMAN–NATURE EXPERIENCE EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP IN LANDSCAPE PREFERENCES? 118 6.4.2 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN HUMAN–NATURE EXPERIENCE EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH FAMILIARITY? 119 6.4.3 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN HUMAN–NATURE EXPERIENCE EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH FLOW EXPERIENCE? 120 6.4.4 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN HUMAN–NATURE EXPERIENCE EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH PLEASURE? 121 6.4.5 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN HUMAN–NATURE EXPERIENCE EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH AROUSAL? 122 6.4.6 TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE ATTRIBUTES IN HUMAN–NATURE EXPERIENCE EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP TO HAPPINESS? 123 6.5 DISCUSSION THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHNES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSES AND WELLBEING 124 CHAPTER 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 131 7.1 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS 131 7.2 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 137 7.3 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 138 7.4 APPLICATION 140 REFERENCE 143 FIGURES FIGURE 1 THE CONCEPTS OF HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCE WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING. 8 FIGURE 2. SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT CONCEPTS BETWEEN RESTORATIVENESS AND PREFERENCE. 24 FIGURE 3 TEQ AND THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG LANDSCAPE THEORIES. 34 FIGURE 4. SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT CONCEPTS BETWEEN THE BIOPHILIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL QI. 36 FIGURE 5. THE COMPARISON BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTIONS ON HUMAN EXPERIENCE NATURE. 51 FIGURE 6. THE COMPARION BETWEEN FLOW AND QI EXPERIENCE. 57 FIGURE 7. THE GRAY BLOCK REFERS TO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING OF HAPPINESS IN THIS STUDY. 62 FIGURE 8. THE FRAMEWORK OF THREE-PHASE STUDIES. 65 FIGURE 9. THE FRAMEWORK ON PBDS, PREFERENCE, AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING. 67 FIGURE 10. THE CFA MODEL FOR PBDS 75 FIGURE 11. THE SEVEN FACTORS OF THE PBDS AND THE RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL THEORIES. 82 FIGURE 12. THE RESEARCH FACTORS OF PHNE FRAMEWORK. 85 FIGURE 13. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AMONG PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL SCALES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING. 93 FIGURE 14. THECFA MODEL OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENT ATTRIBUTES. 100 FIGURE 15. THE CFA MODEL OF PERCEPTION OF HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCES. 101 FIGURE 16. THE FACTOR LOADING SCORES AMONG PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES. 107 FIGURE 17. THE RELATIONSHIP OF FACTOR LOADING SCORES AMONG PHNES. 110 FIGURE 18. THE RESEARCH DESIGN FRAMEWORK ON PHNES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSES AND WELLBEING. 111 FIGURE 19. AN EXAMPLE OF URBAN GREEN SPACE IMAGES ON EARTH WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING INDICATORS COLLECTED. 141 FIGURE 20. AN EXAMPLE OF QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYZED BY ATLAS.TI TO LINK BIOPHILIC DESIGN ATTRIBUTES WITH PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSES. 141 FIGURE 21. AN EXAMPLE OF GOOGLE VISION AI DETECTING POSSIBLE LABELS PROVIDES A SIGHT FOR DESIGNERS TO PAY ATTENTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS. 142 TABLES TABLE 1 THE COMPARISON MATRIX BETWEEN RESTORATIVENESS AND LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE 25 TABLE 2 THE COMPARISON MATRIX BETWEEN TRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL QI (TEQ) AND BIOPHILIC 37 TABLE 3 THE EXAMPLE OF FIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES AND THE HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCE 70 TABLE 4 COMPONENT AND THE PERCENTAGE VARIANCE OF PBDS 74 TABLE 5 COMPOSITE RELIABILITY (CR) AND AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED (AVE) FOR CONVERGENT VALIDITY ON THE PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN SCALE 76 TABLE 6 THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AMONG SEVEN FACTORS PF PBDS, LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE, AND EMOTIONAL WELLBEING 77 TABLE 7 THE CONVERGENCE PROCESS IN BIOPHILIC DESIGN 79 TABLE 8 COMPONENT AND THE PERCENTAGE VARIANCE OF PREFERENCE MATRIX SCALE 88 TABLE 9 COMPONENT AND THE PERCENTAGE VARIANCE OF PRS-11 89 TABLE 10 COMPOSITE RELIABILITY AND AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED ON THE PBDS 90 TABLE 11 COMPOSITE RELIABILITY AND AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED ON THE TEQS 91 TABLE 12 COMPONENT AND THE PERCENTAGE VARIANCE OF PHNES 98 TABLE 13 CR AND AVE OF CONVERGENT VALIDITY ON PHNES 99 TABLE 14 THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN THE FACTORS OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES 99 TABLE 15 THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN THE FACTORS OF PHNES 99 TABLE 16. THE CORRELATION AMONG THE FACTORS IN PHNES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSES AND WELLBEING 117 TABLE 17. THE EFFECT OF PHNES ON LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE 118 TABLE 18. THE EFFECT OF PHNES ON FAMILIARITY 119 TABLE 19. THE EFFECT OF PHNES ON FLOW EXPERIENCE 120 TABLE 20. THE EFFECT OF PHNES ON PLEASURE 121 TABLE 21. THE EFFECT OF PHNES ON AROUSAL 122 TABLE 22. THE EFFECT OF PHNES ON HAPPINESS 123 TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES AND HUMAN–NATURE EXPERIENCE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSES AND WELLBEING 124 TABLE 24. SUMMARY OF EIGHT ATTRIBUTES ABOUT PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES AND THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE OF NATURE IN URBAN GREEN SPACES 136 APPENDIX APPENDIX A I APPENDIX B THE ORIGINAL SEVENTY-TWO ITEMS EXTRACT TO BE FIFTY-NINE ITEMS AND NEW CATEGORIES II APPENDIX C ITEM ANALYSIS OF PBDS XI APPENDIX D ITEMS OF EACH RELATED SCALE XIII APPENDIX E PERCEIVED BIOPHILIC DESIGN SCALE (PBDS) XIX APPENDIX F THE PERCEIVED HUMAN-NATURE EXPERIENCE SCALE (PHNES) XXII APPENDIX G: STUDY1: ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRES XXVII APPENDIX G: STUDY2: ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRES XXXVII APPENDIX H SELECT TO EXTRACT THE ORIGINAL STATEMENTS FROM REFERENCE XLVIII | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 人與環境體驗 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 感知環境量表 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 親生命性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 心理健康 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 都市自然 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Biophilic | en |
| dc.subject | Human-Nature Experience | en |
| dc.subject | Perceived Environmental Scales | en |
| dc.subject | Psychological wellbeing | en |
| dc.subject | Urban Nature | en |
| dc.title | 理解都市綠地人與自然體驗及健康效益之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Comprehension of Perception of Human-Nature Experience and Health Benefits in Urban Green Space | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-orcid | 0000-0002-2937-4255 | |
| dc.contributor.advisor-orcid | 張俊彥(0000-0001-6244-1977) | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 歐聖榮;林晏州;William Sullivan;周宛俞;張伯茹;何立智 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | SHENG-JUNG OU;Yann-Jou Lin;William Sullivan;Wan-Yu Chou;Po-Ju Chang;Li-Chih Ho | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 親生命性,人與環境體驗,感知環境量表,心理健康,都市自然, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Biophilic,Human-Nature Experience,Perceived Environmental Scales,Psychological wellbeing,Urban Nature, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 207 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202200091 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-01-20 | - |
| 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 | 2024-01-31 | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 園藝暨景觀學系 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-110-1.pdf Restricted Access | 12.15 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.