請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94282完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chia-Kuen Cheng | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 卓沛璟 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Pei-Ching Cho | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-15T16:36:26Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-16 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-08-15 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-08-06 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1.朱玉琛、鄭佳昆（2021）。熱鬧情境對擁擠知覺與滿意度間關係之影響。戶外遊憩研究，34(4)，67-98。
2.吳婉瑄（2019）。使用者的分佈模式對於擁擠感的影響。國立臺灣大學園藝暨景觀學系學位論文，1-92。 3.吳紫宸、李英弘（2009）。九族文化村擁擠感之研究。造園景觀學報，15(3)，1-21。 4.呂怡君、林晏州（2018）。認知調適對健行步道擁擠感受之影響。戶外遊憩研究，31(1)，1-21。 5.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。 6.范惟翔、王晨宇、莊世杰、游蓓怡（2018）。台灣跨年晚會吸引力、滿意度對再遊意願之影響-以擁擠知覺為干擾變項。經營管理論叢。 7.陳怡君、林俊全（2010）。野柳地質公園社會遊憩承載量之研究。地理學報(60)，23-44。 8.程勵、趙晨月（2021）。新冠肺炎疫情背景下遊客户外景區心理承載力影響研究-基于可視化行為實驗的實證。Tourism Tribune/Lvyou Xuekan，36(8)。 9.黃章展、黃芳銘、周先捷（2008）。環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺關係之研究-以山景景觀爲例。戶外遊憩研究，21(1)，1-25。 10.廖婉婷、鄭佳昆、林晏州（2013）。不同地點標籤對自然度感受及偏好影響之研究。戶外遊憩研究， 26(4)，31-56。 11.歐聖榮、柯嘉鈞、許哲瑜（2012）。景觀設計中眺望藏匿理論模式之應用. 建築學報(80)，111-129。 12.蔡厚男（1985）。環境模擬在規劃及設計上應用。造園季刊，1(1)，73-80。 13.顏宏旭、吳家穎（2018）。應用藍幕技術探討溪頭自然教育公園中步道之動態擁擠知覺。戶外遊憩研究，31(4)，95-12。 14.Aiello, J. R. (1987). Human spatial behavior. Handbook of environmental psychology., 1(1987), 389-504. 15.Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. 16.Andereck, K. L., & Becker, R. H. (1993). Perceptions of carry‐over crowding in recreation environments. Leisure Sciences, 15(1), 25-35. 17.Armougum, A., Orriols, E., Gaston-Bellegarde, A., Joie-La Marle, C., & Piolino, P. (2019). Virtual reality: A new method to investigate cognitive load during navigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101338. 18.Bamodu, O., & Ye, X. M. (2013). Virtual reality and virtual reality system components. Advanced materials research, 765, 1169-1172. 19.Baran, P. K., Tabrizian, P., Zhai, Y., Smith, J. W., & Floyd, M. F. (2018). An exploratory study of perceived safety in a neighborhood park using immersive virtual environments. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 35, 72-81. 20.Baum, A., & Valins, S. (1977). Architecture and social behavior: Psychological studies of social density. 21.Bell, P. A., Fischer, J., Baum, A., & Greene, T. C. (1990). High density and crowding. Environmental psychology: New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. 22.Birenboim, A., Dijst, M., Ettema, D., De Kruijf, J., De Leeuw, G., & Dogterom, N. (2019). The utilization of immersive virtual environments for the investigation of environmental preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 129-138. 23.Bonnes, M., Bonaiuto, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1991). Crowding and residential satisfaction in the urban environment: A contextual approach. Environment and behavior, 23(5), 531-552. 24.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. 25.Cha, S. H., Koo, C., Kim, T. W., & Hong, T. (2019). Spatial perception of ceiling height and type variation in immersive virtual environments. Building and Environment, 163, 106285. 26.Cha, S. H., Zhang, S., & Kim, T. W. (2020). Effects of interior color schemes on emotion, task performance, and heart rate in immersive virtual environments. Journal of Interior Design, 45(4), 51-65. 27.Chamilothori, K., Chinazzo, G., Rodrigues, J., Dan-Glauser, E., Wienold, J., & Andersen, M. (2019a). Subjective and physiological responses to façade and sunlight pattern geometry in virtual reality. Building and Environment, 150, 144-155. 28.Chamilothori, K., Wienold, J., & Andersen, M. (2019b). Adequacy of immersive virtual reality for the perception of daylit spaces: Comparison of real and virtual environments. Leukos, 15(2-3), 203-226. 29.Chan, S. H. M., Qiu, L., Esposito, G., Mai, K. P., Tam, K. P., & Cui, J. (2021). Nature in virtual reality improves mood and reduces stress: Evidence from young adults and senior citizens. Virtual Reality. 30.Chen, Y., Cui, Z., & Hao, L. (2019). Virtual reality in lighting research: Comparing physical and virtual lighting environments. Lighting Research & Technology, 51(6), 820-837. 31.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. 32.Choi, S. C., Mirjafari, A., & Weaver, H. B. (1976). The concept of crowding: A critical review and proposal of an alternative approach. Environment and Behavior, 8(3), 345-362. 33.Colton, C. W. (1987). Leisure, recreation, tourism: A symbolic interactionism view. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 345-360. 34.Cooper, W. H. (1981). Ubiquitous halo. Psychological bulletin, 90(2), 218. 35.Daniel, T., & Boster, R. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. 36.Desor, J. A. (1972). Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 21(1), 79. 37.Dickinson, P., Gerling, K., Hicks, K., Murray, J., Shearer, J., & Greenwood, J. (2019). Virtual reality crowd simulation: Effects of agent density on user experience and behaviour. Virtual Reality, 23(1), 19-32. 38.Ditton, R. B., Fedler, A. J., & Graefe, A. R. (1983). Factors contributing to perceptions of recreational crowding. Leisure Sciences, 5(4), 273-288. 39.Dosey, M. A., & Meisels, M. (1969). Personal space and self-protection. Journal of personality and social psychology, 11(2), 93. 40.Enseñat-Soberanis, F., & Blanco-Gregory, R. (2022). Crowding perception at the archaeological site of tulum, mexico: A key indicator for sustainable cultural tourism. Land, 11(10), 1651. 41.Evans, G. W. (1979). Behavioral and physiological consequences of crowding in humans 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 9(1), 27-46. 42.Evans, G. W., & Wener, R. E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: Please don’t make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 90-94. 43.Gibson, J. J. (1978). The ecological approach to the visual perception of pictures. Leonardo, 11(3), 227-235. 44.Gorini, A., Capideville, C. S., De Leo, G., Mantovani, F., & Riva, G. (2011). The role of immersion and narrative in mediated presence: The virtual hospital experience. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 14(3), 99-105. 45.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. 46.Gramann, J. H. (1982). Toward a behavioral theory of crowding in outdoor recreation: An evaluation and synthesis of research. Leisure sciences, 5(2), 109-126. 47.Gutiérrez, M., Vexo, F., & Thalmann, D. (2008). Stepping into virtual reality: Springer. 48.Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tourism management, 31(5), 637-651. 49.Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. 50.Hallo, J. C., & Manning, R. E. (2009). Transportation and recreation: A case study of visitors driving for pleasure at acadia national park. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(6), 491-499. 51.Hammitt, W. E. (1983). Toward an ecological approach to perceived crowding in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 5(4), 309-320. 52.Hammitt, W. E., Mcdonald, C. D., & Noe, F. P. (1984). Use level and encounters: Important variables of perceived crowding among nonspecialized recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(1), 1-8. 53.Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Personal space: An evaluative and orienting overview. Psychological bulletin, 85(1), 117. 54.Heberlein, T. A., & Vaske, J. (1977). Crowding and visitor conflict on the bois brule river. 55.Heft, H., & Nasar, J. L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32(3), 301-322. 56.Ittelson, W. H., Proshansky, H. M., Rivlin, L. G., & Winkel, G. H. (1974). An introduction to environmental psychology: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 57.Kaya, N., & Erkip, F. (1999). Invasion of personal space under the condition of short-term crowding: A case study on an automatic teller machine. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(2), 183-189. 58.Kim, D., Lee, C.-K., & Sirgy, M. J. (2016). Examining the differential impact of human crowding versus spatial crowding on visitor satisfaction at a festival. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(3), 293-312. 59.Kim, S.-O., & Shelby, B. (2011). Effects of soundscapes on perceived crowding and encounter norms. Environmental Management, 48, 89-97. 60.Kisker, J., Gruber, T., & Schöne, B. (2021). Behavioral realism and lifelike psychophysiological responses in virtual reality by the example of a height exposure. Psychological research, 85, 68-81. 61.Kuş, B. (2019). A comparative study on spatial perception in real and virtual office environments under different lighting conditions. Bilkent Universitesi (Turkey). 62.Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Effect of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists' perceptions of setting density. Journal of leisure Research, 36(2), 209-231. 63.Lawson, S., Manning, R., Valliere, W., Wang, B., & Budruk, M. (2002). Using simulation modeling to facilitate proactive monitoring and adaptive management of social carrying capacity in arches national park, utah, USA. Paper presented at the Monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. Proceedings of the conference held at Bodenkultur University Vienna, Austria. 64.Lawson, S. R., Manning, R. E., Valliere, W. A., & Wang, B. (2003). Proactive monitoring and adaptive management of social carrying capacity in arches national park: An application of computer simulation modeling. Journal of Environmental Management, 68(3), 305-313. 65.Lee, H., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). Crowding at an arts festival: Extending crowding models to the frontcountry. Tourism Management, 24(1), 1-11. 66.Llobera, J., Spanlang, B., Ruffini, G., & Slater, M. (2010). Proxemics with multiple dynamic characters in an immersive virtual environment. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 8(1), 1-12. 67.Mahudin, N. D. M., Cox, T., & Griffiths, A. (2012). Measuring rail passenger crowding: Scale development and psychometric properties. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 15(1), 38-51. 68.Ma, J. H., Lee, J. K., & Cha, S. H. (2022). Effects of lighting cct and illuminance on visual perception and task performance in immersive virtual environments. Building and Environment, 209, 108678. 69.Mahmoudzadeh, P., Afacan, Y., & Adi, M. N. (2021). Analyzing occupants' control over lighting systems in office settings using immersive virtual environments. Building and Environment, 196, 107823. 70.Manning, R., Valliere, W., Minteer, B., Wang, B., & Jacobi, C. (2000). Crowding in parks and outdoor recreation: A theoretical, empirical, and managerial analysis. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 18(4). 71.Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction: Oregon State University Press. 72.Manning, R. E. (2007). Parks and carrying capacity: Commons without tragedy: Island Press. 73.Manning, R. E. (2011). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction: Oregon State University Press. 74.Manning, R. E., & Ciali, C. P. (1980). Recreation density and user satisfaction: A further exploration of the satisfaction model. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(4), 329-345. 75.Manning, R. E., & Freimund, W. A. (2004). Use of visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. Journal of leisure research, 36(4), 557-579. 76.Manning, R. E., Freimund, W. A., Lime, D. W., & Pitt, D. G. (1996). Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: A visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leisure Sciences, 18(1), 39-59. 77.Manning, R. E., Valliere, W. A., & Wang, B. (1999). Crowding norms: Alternative measurement approaches. Leisure sciences, 21(2), 97-115. 78.Mcnaughton, N., & Corr, P. J. (2004). A two-dimensional neuropsychology of defense: Fear/anxiety and defensive distance. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3), 285-305. 79.Mehta, R. (2013). Understanding perceived retail crowding: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 642-649. 80.Mowen, A. J., Vogelsong, H. G., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). Perceived crowding and its relationship to crowd management practices at park and recreation events. Event Management, 8(2), 63-72. 81.Mujber, T. S., Szecsi, T., & Hashmi, M. S. (2004). Virtual reality applications in manufacturing process simulation. Journal of materials processing technology, 155, 1834-1838. 82.Neuts, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Tourist crowding perception and acceptability in cities: An applied modelling study on bruges. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(4), 2133-2153. 83.Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for uncon-scious alteration of judgments, 35 j. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL, 250. 84.Novelli, D., Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2010). Come together: Two studies concerning the impact of group relations on personal space. Br J Soc Psychol, 49(Pt 2), 223-236. doi: 10.1348/014466609x449377 85.Paes, D., Arantes, E., & Irizarry, J. (2017). Immersive environment for improving the understanding of architectural 3d models: Comparing user spatial perception between immersive and traditional virtual reality systems. automation in Construction, 84, 292-303. 86.Pelechano, N., & Allbecky, J. M. (2016). Feeling crowded yet?: Crowd simulations for vr. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE virtual humans and crowds for immersive environments (VHCIE). 87.Pons, F., Laroche, M., & Mourali, M. (2006). Consumer reactions to crowded retail settings: Cross‐cultural differences between north america and the middle east. Psychology & Marketing, 23(7), 555-572. 88.Ross, M., Layton, B., Erickson, B., & Schopler, J. (1973). Affect, facial regard, and reactions to crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 69. 89.Saegert, S. (1978). High density environments: Their personal and social consequences. Human response to crowding, 257-281. 90.Schmidt, D. E., & Keating, J. P. (1979). Human crowding and personal control: An integration of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 86(4), 680. 91.Schultz-Gambard, J. (1977). Social determinants of crowding Human consequences of crowding (pp. 161-167): Springer. 92.Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2011). Landscape representation validity: A comparison between on-site observations and photographs with different angles of view. Landscape Research, 36(3), 363-385. 93.Shelby, B. (1980). Crowding models for backcountry recreation. Land Economics, 56(1), 43-55. 94.Shelby, B. (1981). Encounter norms in backcountry settings: Studies of three rivers. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(2), 129-138. 95.Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). A conceptual framework for carrying capacity determination. Leisure sciences, 6(4), 433-451. 96.Shelby, B., Heberlein, T. A., Vaske, J. J., & Alfano, G. (1983). Expectations, preferences, and feeling crowded in recreation activities. Leisure Sciences, 6(1), 1-14. 97.Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1996). Norms, standards, and natural resources. Leisure Sciences, 18(2), 103-123. 98.Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. The behavioral basis of design. 99.Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155-175. 100.Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor perception of wilderness recreation carrying capacity (Vol. 142): Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US. 101.Stokols, D. (1972). A social-psychological model of human crowding phenomena. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38(2), 72-83. 102.Stokols, D. (1973). Physical, social, and personal determinants of the perception of crowding. Environment and Behavior, 5(1). 103.Stokols, D. (1976). The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environment and behavior, 8(1), 49-86. 104.Sumner, E. L. (1942). The biology of wilderness protection. Sierra Club Bulletin, 27(8), 14-22. 105.Sundstrom, E. (1975). An experimental study of crowding: Effects of room size, intrusion, and goal blocking on nonverbal behavior, self-disclosure, and self-reported stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(4), 645. 106.Tabrizian, P., Baran, P. K., Smith, W. R., & Meentemeyer, R. K. (2018). Exploring perceived restoration potential of urban green enclosure through immersive virtual environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 55, 99-109. 107.Teneggi, C., Canzoneri, E., Di Pellegrino, G., & Serino, A. (2013). Social modulation of peripersonal space boundaries. Current biology, 23(5), 406-411. 108.Tuena, C., Pedroli, E., Trimarchi, P. D., Gallucci, A., Chiappini, M., Goulene, K., Giunco, F. (2020). Usability issues of clinical and research applications of virtual reality in older people: A systematic review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 93. 109.Vaske, J. J., Graefe, A. R., & Dempster, A. (1983). Social and environmental influences on perceived crowding. 110.Vaske, J. J., Shelby, B., Graefe, A. R., & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of leisure research, 18(3), 137-153. 111.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(2), 111-126. 112.Vine, I. (1982). Crowding and stress: 2. A personal space approach. Current Psychological Reviews, 2(1), 1-18. 113.Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation: Wiley. 114.Wang, T.-H., Wu, W.-H., Shen, L., & Cheng, C.-K. (2021). Exploring the validity of using immersive virtual reality technique on perceived crowding of recreational environment. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 17, 299-308. 115.Worchel, S., & Teddie, C. (1976). The experience of crowding: A two-factor theory. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 34(1), 30. 116.Yeo, N. L., White, M. P., Alcock, I., Garside, R., Dean, S. G., Smalley, A. J., & Gatersleben, B. (2020). What is the best way of delivering virtual nature for improving mood? An experimental comparison of high definition tv, 360 video, and computer generated virtual reality. Journal of environmental psychology, 72, 101500. 117.Yu, C.-P., Lee, H.-Y., & Luo, X.-Y. (2018). The effect of virtual reality forest and urban environments on physiological and psychological responses. Urban forestry & urban greening, 35, 106-114. 118.Ziegler, J. A., Dearden, P., & Rollins, R. (2016). Participant crowding and physical contact rates of whale shark tours on isla holbox, mexico. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(4), 616-636. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94282 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在戶外遊憩相關領域中，擁擠感知 (crowding) 通常被定義為個體對環境中人類密度的主觀評估和反應，這種感知不僅涉及物理空間的擁擠程度，還包括個人的心理感受和行為反應。然而，戶外遊憩研究中對擁擠的定義往往包括了可接受度 (acceptability) 的概念，使得兩者之間難以明確區分。可接受度反映了遊客對特定人數和擁擠程度的容忍度和滿意度，表示遊客是否願意接受或容忍某種程度的人數狀況。環境心理學的研究則強調，擁擠感知主要取決於個人空間是否受到侵入。擁擠感知和可接受度這兩個概念之間的界線模糊，為了更清楚地區分這兩者，本研究使用沉浸式虛擬實境 (IVR) 技術，模擬不同地點、距離和動靜態情境，研究上述因子對擁擠感知及可接受度的影響。研究設計包含四個實驗，分別探討地點情境、人物距離、評估方式及人物動靜態變化對擁擠感知和可接受度的影響。實驗一探討不同地點情境對擁擠感知及可接受度的影響；實驗二研究人物距離如何影響擁擠感知及可接受度；實驗三分析想像動態評估方式下地點情境和人數對擁擠感知和可接受度的影響；實驗四探討不同地點情境下人物動靜態變化對擁擠感知及可接受度的影響。
結果顯示，人數顯著影響擁擠感知及可接受度；地點情境會顯著影響可接受度而不會影響擁擠感知；人物距離影響擁擠感知及可接受度，但人數與距離的交互作用只會影響擁擠感知；想像周邊人物動態方式對擁擠感知及可接受度的影響與靜態評估方式沒有差異，可能並非適合的研究動靜態環境狀況的方法；但周邊人物的動靜態對擁擠感知有顯著影響，但同樣不會影響可接受度。擁擠感知及可接受度分別受到多種因素的影響，研究結果可補充有關於不同地點情境、人物距離、評估方式及人物動靜態變化對於擁擠感知及可接受度影響的相關機制，提供環境心理學和戶外遊憩相關管理之參考。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In the field of outdoor recreation, crowding is often defined as an individual's subjective assessment of and reaction to the human density in the environment. This definition not only involves the degree of crowding in the physical space but also includes the individual's psychological feelings and behavioral responses. However, the definition of crowding in outdoor recreation research often includes the concept of acceptability, making it difficult to clearly distinguish between the two. Acceptability reflects visitors' tolerance and satisfaction with a particular number of people and level of crowding, representing whether visitors are willing to accept or tolerate a certain level of crowding. Research in environmental psychology emphasizes that crowding is mainly dependent on whether there is intrusion into one's personal space and is less likely to be affected by environmental contexts and dynamic changes. However, the factors affecting crowding and acceptability, and whether crowding and acceptability can be clearly differentiated, have not yet been described and confirmed by research.
This study uses immersive virtual reality (IVR) to investigate the effects of location, distance, and dynamics on crowding and acceptability, addressing gaps in previous research. The design of the study included four experiments, which investigated the effects of location, distance, assessment method, and changes in character dynamics on crowding and acceptability. Experiment 1 investigates the effects of different location contexts on crowding and acceptability. Experiment 2 examines how the distance between characters affects crowding and acceptability. Experiment 3 analyzes the effects of context and number of people on crowding and acceptability using the imaginative dynamic assessment method. Experiment 4 investigates the effects of dynamic and static changes in characters on crowding and acceptability under different location contexts. The results showed that the number of people significantly affects both crowding and acceptability; location context significantly affects acceptability but not crowding; the distance between people affects both crowding and acceptability, but the interaction between number and distance only affects crowding. The effects of the imagined dynamic approach on crowding and acceptability were not different from those of the static assessment approach, suggesting that it may not be a suitable method for studying static and dynamic environmental conditions. Static and dynamic conditions had a significant effect on crowding, but not on acceptability. Crowding and acceptability are affected by a variety of factors, and the results of this study can enhance our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the effects of different location contexts, character distances, assessment methods, and changes in character dynamics on crowding and acceptability. These findings can provide valuable references for environmental psychology and outdoor recreation management. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-08-15T16:36:26Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-08-15T16:36:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii 目次 iv 圖次 vi 表次 viii 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 研究目的 2 1.3 研究流程 3 第二章 文獻回顧 5 2.1 擁擠感知與可接受度 5 2.2 擁擠的影響因子及發生機制 7 2.3 擁擠研究方法與評估方式 12 2.4 個體距離及人物動態變化 17 2.5 虛擬實境技術與在擁擠感知研究上的應用 20 2.6 小結 21 第三章 情境對擁擠感知與可接受度的影響 23 3.1 研究背景 23 3.2 研究目的及研究問題 23 3.3 研究方法 23 3.4 研究結果 29 第四章 人物距離對擁擠與可接受度的影響 33 4.1 研究背景 33 4.2 研究目的及研究問題 33 4.3 研究方法 33 4.4 研究結果 39 第五章 人物動靜態變化及地點情境對擁擠與可接受度的影響 43 5.1 研究背景 43 5.2 研究目的及研究問題 43 5.3 實驗三：想像動態評估方式及地點情境對擁擠與可接受度的影響 44 5.4 實驗四：人物動靜態變化及地點情境對擁擠與可接受度的影響 52 第六章 結論與建議 63 6.1 結論與討論 63 6.2 研究建議與應用 68 參考文獻 73 附件一 81 附件二 87 附件三 93 附件四 99 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.title | 不同因子對擁擠感知與可接受度的影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Effects of Different Factors on Crowding and Acceptability | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州;歐聖榮;顏宏旭;李彥希 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yann-Jou Lin;Sheng-Jung Ou;Hungh-Hsu Yen;Yen-Hsi Li | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 擁擠感知,可接受度,地點情境,人物距離,人物動靜態變化, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Crowding,Acceptability,Location Contexts,Interpersonal Distance,Dynamic/Static Changes in People, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 105 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202403702 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-08-10 | - |
| 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 | 2026-08-14 | - |
| 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-112-2.pdf 此日期後於網路公開 2026-08-14 | 8.31 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。