Skip navigation

DSpace

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

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 生物資源暨農學院
  3. 園藝暨景觀學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/57867
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor張俊彥
dc.contributor.authorI-Chun Tangen
dc.contributor.author唐宜君zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-16T07:08:26Z-
dc.date.available2019-07-15
dc.date.copyright2014-07-15
dc.date.issued2014
dc.date.submitted2014-07-09
dc.identifier.citation1. 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.
2. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
3. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.
4. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207-1212.
5. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259.
6. Bixler, R. D., Carlisle, C. L., Hammitt, W. E., & Floyd, M. F. (1994). Observed fears and discomforts among urban students on school field trips to wildland areas. Journal of Environmental Education 26(1), 24-33.
7. Bixler, R. D., & Floyd, M. F. (1997). Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 443-467.
8. Björk, J., Albin, M., Grahn, P., Jacobsson, H., Ardö, J., Wadbro, J., Ostergren, P.-O., & Skarback, E. (2008). Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, e2.
9. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129-138.
10. Cimprich, B. (1993). Development of an intervention to restore attention in cancer patients. Cancer Nursing, 16, 83-92.
11. Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp.45-66). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
12. Clayton, S. & Opotow, S. (2003). Introduction: Identity and the natural environment. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp.1-24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Where does community grow? Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-494.
14. Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.
15. Chuang-tzu & Giles, H. A. (2005). Chuang Tzŭ: Taoist philosopher and Chinese mystic/ translated from the Chinese by Herbert A. Giles. London: Routledge.
16. Davis, J. L., Green, J. D., & Reed, A. (2009). Interdependence with the environment: Commitment, interconnectedness, and environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 173-180.
17. Devine-Wright, P., & Clayton, S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Place, identity and environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 267-270.
18. De Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural environments-healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A, 35, 1717–1731.
19. Duncan, M., & Mummery, K. (2005). Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with physical activity among city dwellers in regional Queensland. Preventive Medicine, 40, 363-372.
20. Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., & Johnson, J. B. (2007). Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environment and Behavior, 39, 474-493.
21. Fisher, A. (2002). Radical ecopsychology: Psychology in the service of life. New York: State University of New York Press.
22. Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features. Environment and Behavior 24(1), 35-65.
23. Gosling, E., & Williams, K. J. H. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 298-304.
24. Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry Urban Greening, 2, 1-18.
25. 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.
26. Hartig, T., Evans, G., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123.
27. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological restoration in nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 590-607.
28. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Strumse, E. (2007). Psychological restoration in nature as a source of motivation for ecological behaviour. Environmental Conservation, 34, 291-299.
29. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experience. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
30. Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(3), 215-226.
31. Hayward, D. G., & Weitzer, W. H. (1984). The public's image of urban parks: Past amenity, present ambivalance, uncertain future. Urban Ecology, 8(3), 243-268.
32. 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, 165-170.
33. Herzog, T. R., Chen, H. C., & Primeau, J. S. (2002). Perception of the restorative potential of natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 295-306.
34. Herzog, T. R., & Kirk, K. M. (2005). Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(5), 620-639.
35. 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.
36. Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/ forest settings. Environment and Behavior 34(6), 819-835.
37. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 109-120.
38. Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 166-171.
39. Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22, 188-199.
40. Hur, M., Nasar, J. L., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 52-59.
41. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning 60(3), 135-150.
42. Jorgensen, A., & Anthopoulou, A. (2007). Enjoyment and fear in urban woodlands – Does age make a difference? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 267-278.
43. Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178-202.
44. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
46. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
47. Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 480-506.
48. Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In P. H. Kahn Jr. & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117-151). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
49. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221-233.
50. Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac: With essays on conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine Books.
51. Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
52. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘Contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21, 45-54.
53. Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-expressive behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 227-236.
54. 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, 503-515.
55. Mayer, F. S., Frantz, C. M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2009). Why is nature beneficial? : The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607-643.
56. Muir, J. (1894). The mountains of California. New York: The Century.
57. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior 29(3), 291-323.
58. Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2011). Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science 22(9), 1101-1106.
59. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715-740.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Pooley, J. A., & O'Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32, 711-723.
63. Perkins, H. E. (2010). Measuring love and care for nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 455-463.
64. Perrin, J. L., & Benassi, V. A. (2009). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 434-440.
65. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 57-66.
66. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93-106.
67. R Development Core Team. (2012). The R project for statistical computing, Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/
68. Roszak, T. (1995). Where Psyche meet Gaia. In T. Roszak, M. E. Gomes, & A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind (pp.1-17). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
69. Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339.
70. Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In P. Schmuck & W. P. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp.61-78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
71. Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology. Sociological Theory, 21(4), 398-423.
72. 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 of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, e9.
73. Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & DePooter, S. F. (2004). The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior, 36, 678-700.
74. Tam, K.-P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34, 64-78.
75. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229-255.
76. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230.
77. 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.
78. 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 and Medicine, 70(8), 1203-1210.
79. Verbeke, G., & Molenberghs, G. (2000). Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: Springer-Verlag.
80. Weigert, A. J. (1997). Self, interaction, and natural environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
81. Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
82. Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp.31-41). Washington, DC: Island Press.
83. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/57867-
dc.description.abstract許多研究證實接觸自然環境能夠促進身心的健康狀態。接觸自然不但能幫助人們恢復注意力,減低壓力,養成健康的運動習慣,並且有助於自然環境中社會互動的產生。雖然接觸自然或是觀看自然的健康效益已受到肯定,但從現實情況中卻可發現,一些人對自然環境的恢復性或其他偏好相關品質的評價卻不高。對於自然環境過低的評價卻很可能影響了人們對自然環境的偏好,以及再次造訪自然環境的意願。
本研究嘗試從人與自然關係的觀點,尋找影響自然環境中正向知覺體驗的因素。在本研究中,吾人提出個人主觀的與自然連結的認知將可能是自然環境中偏好相關知覺體驗的一個穩定的預測因子。自然連結是個人對於與地球上其他生命體相連結的深層謝意及理解,而當自然連結特徵較高時,個人會覺得自然環境是吸引人且充滿魅力的。個人的自然連結特徵很可能可以在自然環境中促使人與自然之間的共鳴產生,而這個共鳴的產生將伴隨著個人在自然中正向環境資訊的知覺體驗。吾人認為,個人的自然連結特徵應能幫助個人在自然環境中維持一定程度的安全感受,並在所處的自然環境中主動且積極的尋找正向的環境資訊,促使個人從中知覺到更多的恢復性以及與環境偏好相關的自然品質。
研究分為兩個階段進行研究假設的驗證。第一階段的研究首先驗證自然林地環境中,個人自然連結特徵與自然景觀知覺的關係。受測者(n =77)針對三組不同景觀結構之自然林地環境進行環境知覺的評分,包括:安全感、一致性、複雜性、易讀性、神秘性、注意力恢復性、熟悉感及偏好。接著以Natural Relatedness (NR)量表測量受測者之自然連結,並最後請受測者提供個人的簡單背景資料。研究結果發現,在控制景觀結構及個人對於環境的熟悉感的情況之下,當個人的自然連結程度越高則在自然林地中的正向景觀知覺將越豐富,其中包括安全感、易讀性、神秘性及注意力恢復性等自然品質的知覺。綜合研究結果,吾人認為自然連結特徵增進了個人在自然林地環境中的知覺體驗。
研究二中延伸探討在不同知覺自然度環境中,個人自然連結與景觀知覺的關係。四組做為測試的環境分別為:都市、都市林地、鄉野林地、自然林地等四個不同知覺自然度的環境。受測者(n = 268) 先以Natural Relatedness (NR)量表測量自然連結,接著隨機的對其中一組環境照片進行景觀知覺變項的評分。最後請受測者提供個人的背景資料。研究結果發現,個人的自然連結特徵幫助個人在不同知覺自然程度的自然環境中,維持一定程度的安全感受,並增進了個人對於注意力恢復性及其他偏好相關自然品質的知覺。但在以人工構造物為主的都市環境中,個人的自然連結特徵則與都市環境品質的知覺無關。
本研究嘗試建構人與自然關係及自然景觀知覺兩個方向之理論間的關連性,透過兩個領域之結合,探討人與自然連結在自然景觀知覺促進上的作用,替雙邊理論之延伸及結合做出貢獻。經過兩階段的假設驗證發現,自然連結特徵能夠幫助個人在自然環境中維持一定程度的安全感受,並協助個人在所處的自然環境中知覺正向的環境資訊。自然連結特徵不僅能夠幫助人們在非常自然的環境中感受更為豐富的知覺體驗,更可以幫助人們在知覺自然度較低的綠地環境裡,感受自然環境所能夠帶來的知覺效益。這使得自然連結對自然景觀知覺的影響更為廣泛了。
吾人結論,個人的自然連結特徵標誌著個人與自然環境共鳴的潛力,而這個潛力的提升將提高個人在綠地環境中知覺各項環境品質的可能性。個人的自然連結特徵將使得人們在綠地環境中知覺到更豐富的正向環境資訊。研究的結果找出了一個對於自然景觀知覺穩定而有效的人為預測因子,而後續如何透過種種手段去提升個人的自然連結程度,會是增進景觀知覺的一個可行的方法。景觀品質的知覺將提升人們接觸自然環境的經驗,並進而促進自然環境中身心健康效益的獲得。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractExposure to natural environments can promote health and wellbeing. Individuals can restore their attentional capacities, reduce stress, develop healthy habits and have better social interaction in nature. Although contact with nature has been shown to promote health and wellbeing across the life-span, many people do not seem to perceive sufficient restorative and preference-related qualities while in contact with nature. The uninspiring perceptual experiences that they have had in nature may diminish their preference for, and willingness to, visit natural areas.
In order to identify potential antecedents of positive perceptual experiences in natural settings, we investigated the influential role of a personal connection with nature on perceptions of preference-related environmental information in varying natural settings. The concept of connection to nature describes a deep appreciation of, and affiliation with, natural environments; and individuals with higher levels of connection to nature are suspected to view natural landscapes as more attractive and fascinating. A sense of connection to nature should encourage individuals to resonate with the environment spontaneously and to find fascinating information in the encountered natural landscapes. We suggest that an individual’s connection to nature may help individuals to retain a sense of safety, to take an active role in seeking positive environmental information, and consequently, to perceive more restorative and preference-related qualities of natural settings.
In the current study, we investigated the research question by two steps. In the first part of the study, the participants (n = 77) rated three different types of natural forest landscapes in terms of perceived environmental information, including sense of safety, coherence, complexity, legibility, mystery, attentional restorativeness, familiarity and preference. Participants also reported their background and connection with nature through the use of the natural relatedness scale (NR). The results showed that deeper personal connections to nature are associated with greater perceptual evaluations of sense of safety, legibility, mystery, and attentional restorativeness after accounting for landscape type and familiarity. A personal connection to nature is likely to enhance a person’s perceptual experiences of natural landscapes.
In the second part of the study, we investigated the relationship between the participant’s personal connection to nature and their perceptual evaluations of landscapes by images with different levels of perceived naturalness. The four sets of images are photos of urban area, urban woods, rural woods and natural woods. Each participant (n = 268) rated one set of images in terms of perceived environmental information and provided their connection with nature by NR scale. The results showed that deeper personal connections to nature are associated with greater perceptual evaluations of urban woods, rural woods and natural woods. In contrast, this relationship does not exist in the urban area. It is concluded that a personal connection to nature is likely to enhance a person’s perceptual experiences in green areas, no matter how natural the green area is.
The study make the link between two different literatures in environmental psychology: a sense of personal relationship with nature, and landscape perceptions. This topic has not yet been addressed in the empirical literature, and the result extend the application of personal connectedness to nature from ecological behavior to perceptual experience of natural landscape.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T07:08:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-103-D97628011-1.pdf: 3217780 bytes, checksum: 78e14b172408504bd7e521d89b0bbcf3 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2014
en
dc.description.tableofcontents誌 謝 I
摘 要 III
ABSTRACT VII
目 錄 XI
圖目錄 XV
表目錄 XVII
第一章 研究背景及目的 2
第一節 研究背景 2
一、 自然景觀知覺的差異性 2
二、 自然連結與景觀知覺 4
第二節 研究主題發展 5
一、 研究領域的延伸 5
二、 研究主題發展 6
第三節 研究目的 7
一、 個人自然連結特徵在自然景觀知覺中的角色―以自然林地為例 8
二、 從自然到都市:不同知覺自然度環境中的自然連結與景觀知覺 8
第四節 研究流程 9
一、 擬定研究問題並進行文獻回顧 9
二、 研究主題、目的及研究架構確立 10
三、 相關研究理論及成果回顧 10
四、 兩階段研究設計與施測 10
五、 研究結果分析、綜合討論與建議 11
第二章 文獻回顧 12
第一節 自然環境的注意力恢復效益 12
一、 注意力恢復理論 12
二、 增進注意力恢復性知覺 13
三、 小結 14
第二節 自然連結 15
一、 自然環境 15
二、 人與自然關係之定義及類型 15
三、 自然連結理論發展 16
四、 自然連結內涵 19
五、 小結 21
第三節 自然景觀知覺 22
一、 安全感(Sense of Safety) 22
二、 偏好矩陣預測因子(Preference Matrix Predictors) 23
三、 注意力恢復性(Attentional Restorativeness) 25
四、 小結 26
第三章 個人自然連結特徵在自然景觀知覺中的角色―以自然林地為例 28
第一節 前言 28
一、 人與自然的共鳴 28
二、 自然連結與熟悉感之關係探討 29
第二節 自然林地研究方法 30
一、 研究問題:個人自然連結特徵在自然景觀知覺中的角色 30
二、 自然林地研究架構 30
三、 自然林地研究假設 31
四、 自然林地研究流程與地點 34
五、 自然林地研究景觀影像 36
六、 自然林地變項量測 40
七、 自然林地研究分析方法 46
八、 自然林地研究限制 47
第三節 自然林地研究結果 49
一、 自然林地研究樣本特性分析 49
二、 自然林地研究背景資料 49
三、 自然林地研究景觀知覺變項與偏好 50
四、 自然林地研究自然連結與安全感知覺 51
五、 自然林地研究自然連結與偏好矩陣因子 55
六、 自然林地研究自然連結與注意力恢復性知覺 60
第四節 自然林地研究討論 62
一、 自然林地研究成果 62
二、 自然林地研究後續建議 66
第四章 從自然到都市:不同知覺自然度環境中的自然連結與景觀知覺 68
第一節 不同自然度環境中的景觀知覺 68
第二節 自然度研究方法 69
一、 研究問題:知覺自然度、自然連結、景觀知覺 69
二、 自然度研究架構 69
三、 自然度研究假設 70
四、 自然度研究流程與地點 73
五、 自然度研究景觀影像 77
六、 自然度研究變項量測 80
七、 自然度研究分析方法 84
八、 自然度研究限制 85
第三節 自然度研究景觀影像前測結果 87
一、 自然度研究前測樣本特性分析 87
二、 自然度研究前測的比較 87
第四節 自然度研究正式測驗結果 91
一、 自然度研究樣本特性分析 91
二、 自然度研究偏好與景觀知覺變項 103
三、 不同自然度環境中的自然連結與景觀知覺 106
四、 自然度研究之自然連結與環境偏好 111
第五節 自然度研究討論 114
一、 知覺自然度、自然連結、景觀知覺 114
二、 可影響的景觀知覺因子 115
三、 自然連結與景觀偏好 116
第五章 結論與建議 118
第一節 總論 118
一、 個人自然連結特徵在自然景觀知覺中的角色―以自然林地為例 118
二、 從自然到都市:不同知覺自然度環境中的自然連結與景觀知覺 121
第二節 結論與建議 124
一、 自然連結作為自然景觀知覺穩定的預測因子 124
二、 自然連結與景觀知覺領域的跨越 125
三、 研究建議 126
引用文獻 128
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.subject偏好矩陣因子zh_TW
dc.subject注意力恢復性zh_TW
dc.subject景觀知覺zh_TW
dc.subject安全感zh_TW
dc.subject自然連結zh_TW
dc.subjectLandscape perceptionen
dc.subjectPreference matrix predictorsen
dc.subjectSense of safetyen
dc.subjectConnection to natureen
dc.subjectPsychological restorativenessen
dc.title個人自然連結對自然景觀知覺之影響zh_TW
dc.titleExploring the Effects of Individual Connection to Nature on Perceptual Evaluation of Natural Landscapeen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear102-2
dc.description.degree博士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee歐聖榮,鄭佳昆,William Sullivan(William Sullivan),侯錦雄,李素馨
dc.subject.keyword自然連結,景觀知覺,注意力恢復性,安全感,偏好矩陣因子,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordConnection to nature,Landscape perception,Psychological restorativeness,Sense of safety,Preference matrix predictors,en
dc.relation.page136
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2014-07-09
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-103-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
3.14 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

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