請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72207完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭佳昆 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fang-Sin Chiu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 邱方歆 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:28:58Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2021-08-18 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2018-08-18 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2018-08-16 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 史麗珠、林莉華(編譯)(2006)。基礎生物統計學。臺北市:學富文化。(Kuzma, J. W., & Bohnenblust, S. E., 1992)
2. 李英弘、梁文嘉(2000)。景觀評估中之心理學模式之研究。造園學報,7(1),67-87。 3. 吳珮竹(2011)。性格特質對地方連結之影響(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北。 4. 施景堯(2013)。恐懼的性質:從視覺注意力到眺匿理論(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北。 5. 施景堯、周紓帆、鄭佳昆(2015)。恐懼的變數:日夜變化對眺匿平衡的影響。戶外遊憩研究,28(3),93-120。 6. 郭蕙瑜、鄭佳昆、沈立(2013)。運用景觀元素探討生長經驗對延續地方連結之影響。建築學報,86,145-167。 7. 黃昱瑄(2011)。都市環境中認知自然度之影響因子探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北。 8. 黃雪菡(2016)。景觀元素轉移地方情感之影響因素探討(未出版之碩士論文)。 國立臺灣大學,臺北。 9. 廖婉婷(2012)。不同公園情境對自然度感受及偏好影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北。 10. 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。 11. 鄭佳昆、沈立、全珍衡(2009)。熟悉度於不同情境下對視覺景觀偏好之影響探討。戶外遊憩研究,22(4),1-21。 12. 鄭佳昆、郭蕙瑜(2014)。與未造訪過地點之地方連結發展探討。地理學報,73,29-52。 13. 鄭佳昆、蘇玲玉、周紓帆(2014)。地方依附、使用經驗與環境敏感度對環境衝擊之影響。戶外遊憩研究,27(2),93-118。 14. 韓可宗(2005)。「稀樹草原假說」就景觀美質、偏好與復癒反應的再次驗證。 地理學報,41,25-44。 15. 謝孟倫、林晏州(2011)。景觀色彩對自然景觀偏好之影響。戶外遊憩研究,24(2),27-50。 16. Adevi, A. A., & Grahn, P. (2012). Preferences for landscapes: A matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background?. Landscape Research, 37(1), 27-49. 17. Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2011). Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: An image-based latent class approach. Landscape Research, 36(1), 19-40. 18. Andrews, P. J. (1989). Palaeoecology of Laetoli. Journal of Human Evolution, 18(2), 173-181. 19. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York: Wiley. 20. Appleton, J. (1984). Prospects and refuges re-visited. Landscape Journal, 3(2), 91-103. 21. Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5-28. 22. Beery, T., Jönsson, K. I., & Elmberg, J. (2015). From environmental connectedness to sustainable futures: Topophilia and human affiliation with Nature. Sustainability, 7(7), 8837-8854. 23. Brown, G., Raymond, C. M., & Corcoran, J. (2015). Mapping and measuring place attachment. Applied Geography, 57, 42-53. 24. Budruk, M., & Stanis, S. A. W. (2013). Place attachment and recreation experience preference: A further exploration of the relationship. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 1, 51-61. 25. Cheng, C. K., & Kuo, H. Y. (2015). Bonding to a new place never visited: Exploring the relationship between landscape elements and place bonding. Tourism Management, 46, 546-560. 26. Clamp, P., & Powell, M. (1982). Prospect‐refuge theory under test. Landscape Research, 7(3), 7-8. 27. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station. 66 p., 167. 28. Easterlin, N. (2016). Ecocriticism, place studies, and colm tóibín’s “a long winter”: A biocultural perspective. In H. Zapf. (Ed), Handbook of Ecocriticism and Cultural Ecology (pp. 226-248). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. 29. Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (2010). Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 479-493. 30. Farnum, J., Hall, T., & Kruger, L. E. (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research findings. Portland: General Technical Report-Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, (PNW-GTR-660). 31. Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 35-65. 32. Fischer, M. A., & Shrout, P. E. (2006). Children's liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge, and hazard. Environment and Behavior, 38(3), 373-393. 33. Gimblett, H. R., Itami, R. M., & Fitzgibbon, J. E. (1985). Mystery in an information processing model of landscape preference. Landscape Journal, 4(2), 87-95. 34. 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. 35. Hammitt, W. E., & Cole, D. N. (1998). Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons. 36. Hammitt, W. E., Kyle, G. T., & Oh, C. O. (2009). Comparison of place bonding models in recreation resource management. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1), 57-72. 37. Han, K. T. (2007). Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 529-556. 38. Hay, B. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5-29. 39. Herzog, T. R., & Gale, T. A. (1996). Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context. Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 44-72. 40. Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 459-477. 41. Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5(1), 43-59. 42. Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M., & Hartig, T. (2007). Space and place–two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. In F. Kienast, O. Wildi, & S. Ghosh. (Eds.), A changing world (pp. 47-62). Dordrecht: Springer. 43. Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impact: A case study among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic. Applied Geography, 18(2), 169–189. 44. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between landscape preferences and place attachment: a study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landscape Research, 27(4), 381-396. 45. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The prediction of preference. In R. Kaplan & S. Kaplan (Eds.), The Experience of Nature: A psychological perspective (pp. 40-71). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 46. Kellert, S. R. (1997). Values. In S. R. Kellert. (Ed.), The value of life: Biological diversity and human society (pp. 9-34). Washington: Island Press. 47. Korpela, K. M. (2012). Place attachment. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (pp. 148-163). New York: Oxford University Press. 48. Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 439-454. 49. Larson, R., & Delespaul, P. a. E. G. (1992). Analyzing experience sampling data: A guidebook for the perplexed. In M. W. deVries (Ed.), The experience of psychopathology: Investigating mental disorders in their natural settings (pp. 58-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 50. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207-230. 51. Lin, C. C., & Lockwood, M. (2014). Forms and sources of place attachment: Evidence from two protected areas. Geoforum, 53, 74-81. 52. Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior, 38(5), 667-688. 53. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1-12). New York & London: Plenum Press. 54. Lowenthal, D. (1978). Finding valued landscapes. Progress in Geography, 2(3), 373-418. 55. Maulan, S., Shariff, M. K., & Miller, P. (2006). Landscape preference and human survival well-being. Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice, 1, 24-31. 56. Morgan, P. (2010). Towards a developmental theory of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 11-22. 57. Mumcu, S., Düzenli, T., & Özbilen, A. (2010). Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preferences for seating areas. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(11), 1223-1233. 58. Nasar, J. L., Julian, D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D., & Mrohaly, M. (1983). The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: A look at prospect and refuge. Landscape Planning, 10(4), 355-361. 59. Ode, Å., Tveit, M. S., & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1), 89-117. 60. Parsons, R., & Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(1), 43-56. 61. 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. 62. Potts, R. (1998). Environmental hypotheses of hominin evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 107(S27), 93-136. 63. Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-169. 64. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: The physical world and socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83. 65. Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 422-434. 66. Riley, R. B. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In I. Altman & S. M. Low. (Eds.), Place Attachment (pp. 13-35). New York & London: Plenum Press. 67. Ruso, B., Renninger, L., & Atzwanger, K. (2003). Human habitat preferences: A generative territory for evolutionary aesthetics research. In E. Voland & K. Grammer. (Eds.), Evolutionary aesthetics (pp. 279-294). New York: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 68. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 289-297. 69. Snell, T. L., Simmonds, J. G., & Greenway, A. P. (2015). Ecopsychology and evolutionary psychology: Implications and limitations of habitat selection theory. Ecopsychology, 7(2), 96-103. 70. Sommer, R., & Summit, J. (1996). Cross-national rankings of tree shape. Ecological Psychology, 8(4), 327-341. 71. Stamps III, A. E. (2008a). Some findings on prospect and refuge theory: II. Perceptual and motor skills, 107(1), 141-158. 72. Stamps III, A. E. (2008b). Some findings on prospect and refuge: I. Perceptual and motor skills, 106(1), 147-162. 73. Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), 671-685. 74. Summit, J., & Sommer, R. (1999). Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment and Behavior, 31(4), 550-576. 75. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. U of Minnesota Press. 76. Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3-8. 77. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape research, 31(3), 229-255. 78. Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 205-220 79. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and urban planning, 13, 29-44. 80. Williams, D. R. & Patterson, M. E. (1996). Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography, Society and Natural Resources, 9(5), 507–521. 81. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure sciences, 14(1), 29-46. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/72207 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 地方情感連結描述了人與地方之間的情感關係,為地方特性與人的特性共同演進發展而成的情感連結。這樣的現象在我們日常生活中都可以見到,如不願搬離居所、經常造訪固定的遊憩地點及對於維護自然環境的承諾。那麼地方情感連結是如何發生的呢?關於地方情感連結的發展機制一直是一個錯綜複雜而尚待釐清的議題。
從過去文獻可知地方情感連結的發生主要源自個人心理發展、社會文化過程以及生物演化傾向這三個因素,其中生物演化傾向描述了因為演化過程的需求,人可能會對特定環境景觀類型有本能的情感連結。雖過去一些學者皆認為地方情感連結的發生可能具有生物演化基礎,目前卻沒有直接的實證研究可以支持這樣的論點,然而其為人地連結最基礎且影響最廣泛之形式,有其重要價值,故本篇論文便試圖以實證研究來探討地方情感連結的發生是否具有生物演化的基礎。 該從何著手去探討這樣人類無法直接體驗與意識的地方情感連結形式呢?Lewicka於回顧地方連結議題的文獻中便指出了一個可行的契機:藉由景觀美學領域中完整成熟的理論來探討地方情感連結中尚未清晰之理論。除此之外,景觀美學與地方情感連結在某方面具有一定程度的相似性,不僅在解釋其成因的架構上十分相似外,過去也有學者認為這兩者之間會相互牽連、無法獨立存在,故本文以景觀美學中涉及生物演化之理論與觀點來解答研究問題。 本篇透過景觀美學中常見且重要之演化理論與觀點進行探討,並分為兩個研究逐一檢驗、多方確認研究結果之可信度。第一個研究以眺匿理論進行,而第二個研究則包含了資訊處理理論、大草原假說、森林假說、親生命假說還有植栽與水兩個元素。以上演化理論與觀點談及的特定環境類型與元素均與演化生存需求有關。 兩個研究皆以平板網路問卷的形式在台灣大學校園中進行現場便利抽樣調查,受測者以學生為主。研究一給予受測者觀看具不同眺匿程度之陌生景觀照片,並讓其填寫眺匿特性感知問項(直接眺望、間接眺望、直接藏匿與間接藏匿)以及地方連結短版量表。結果顯示四種眺匿感知特性皆與地方連結呈正相關,說明了具有演化基礎特性之陌生環境也能夠誘發地方情感連結。 在研究二中給予受測者觀看不同環境類型與元素模擬之景觀照片,並填寫偏好矩陣感知特性問項(一致性、複雜性、神祕性和易讀性)、知覺自然度問項、地方依附短版量表以及偏好問項。研究結果顯示四個感知特性及知覺自然度皆與地方依附呈正相關,而自然環境之地方依附評值皆顯著高於都市環境,其中以森林環境顯著最高。有水之沙漠環境有較高之地方依附,而植栽的結果則較不穩定。 兩個研究的研究結果大部分皆支持了與演化有關之特定景觀類型或元素能誘發出地方情感連結,因此地方情感連結的發生亦具有演化的基礎。本文除了以實證研究支持地方情感連結生物演化傾向的觀點外,在實務應用上,亦更加強調了將演化理論與觀點應用於景觀設計規劃之重要性,除了能使人產生偏好外,更能誘發出情感連結。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:28:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-R05628310-1.pdf: 4923337 bytes, checksum: c888aad8f28e67fce2a98777bdafb1dc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝誌 I
摘要 III Abstract V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究流程 2 第二章 文獻回顧 3 第一節 地方情感連結 3 一、 地方連結五構面 4 二、 地方情感連結的起源 7 三、 地方情感連結形式 10 第二節 景觀美學與地方情感連結 12 第三節 演化理論與觀點 14 一、 眺匿理論 14 二、 大草原假說 15 三、 森林假說 16 四、 親生命假說 16 五、 資訊處理理論 17 六、 其他演化觀點 19 第四節 小結 21 第三章 研究問題與研究架構 22 第一節 研究問題 22 第二節 研究架構與研究內容 22 第四章 以眺匿理論探討自然環境與地方連結之關係 23 第一節 研究背景 23 第二節 研究方法 25 一、 研究流程 25 二、 研究工具 27 三、 資料處理與分析方法 29 第三節 研究結果 31 一、 受測者背景 31 二、 描述性統計與量表信度分析 32 三、 眺望藏匿特性感知與地方連結之關係 33 第四節 小結 34 第五章 以演化觀點探討物理環境對地方依附之影響 37 第一節 研究背景 37 第二節 研究方法 39 一、 研究流程 39 二、 研究工具 41 三、 資料處理與分析方法 44 第三節 研究結果 45 一、 受測者背景 45 二、 描述性統計與量表信度分析 46 三、 偏好矩陣特性與偏好以及地方依附之關係 47 四、 自然度感知與偏好以及地方依附之關係 47 五、 環境類型對偏好及地方依附之影響 47 六、 環境元素對偏好及地方依附之影響 49 第四節 小結 52 第六章 結論與建議 55 第一節 結論與討論 55 第二節 未來研究建議與應用 59 一、 研究限制與未來研究建議 59 二、 研究應用 60 引用文獻 62 附錄一:研究一之研究問卷 70 附錄二:研究一之研究照片評值 73 附錄三:照片來源網址 78 附錄四:研究二之研究問卷 80 附錄五:研究二之研究照片評值 83 附錄六:照片來源網址 88 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 演化理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 資訊處理理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 眺匿理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 景觀美學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 地方情感連結 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 生物演化傾向 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | evolutionary theories | en |
| dc.subject | prospect-refuge theory | en |
| dc.subject | information processing theory | en |
| dc.subject | emotional place bonding | en |
| dc.subject | biologically evolutionary propensities | en |
| dc.subject | landscape aesthetics | en |
| dc.title | 以演化觀點探討物理環境對地方情感連結之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Exploring the Influence of Physical Environments on Emotional Place Bonding with Evolutionary Perspectives | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林晏州,張俊彥,林建堯,張伯茹 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 地方情感連結,生物演化傾向,景觀美學,演化理論,眺匿理論,資訊處理理論, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | emotional place bonding,biologically evolutionary propensities,landscape aesthetics,evolutionary theories,prospect-refuge theory,information processing theory, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 88 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803773 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2018-08-17 | |
| 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-107-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 4.81 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。
