請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/99710完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張伯茹 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Po-Ju Chang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳育碩 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Shuo Chen | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-09-17T16:26:54Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-09-18 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-09-17 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-08-04 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 江柏煒（2024）〈臺灣海峽的關鍵島嶼：金門及其現代史的啟示〉，《展望與探索月刊》，22(5)，45–60。
2. 江柏煒（2024）。〈臺灣海峽的關鍵島嶼：金門及其現代史的啟示〉。《展望與探索》，22(5)，45–60。 3. 宋怡明（2016）。《前線島嶼：冷戰下的金門》。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。 4. 金門縣政府（1992）。《金門縣志》。金門：金門縣政府出版。 5. 金門縣政府（2018）。戰地政務制度的實施與轉型。取自 6. 金門日報（2021年6月）。〈金門戰地文化資產的保存與觀光化之爭議〉。《金門日報》。 7. 畢恆達（1993）。〈物的意義－一個交互論的觀點〉。《建築與規劃學報》，3，29–38。 8. 畢恆達（2001）。《空間就是權力》。心靈工坊。 9. 張可婷（譯）（2013）。質性研究分析方法。韋伯文化。台北市。Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE. 10. Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachment. Springer. 11. Ashworth, G. J. (2008). The memorialization of violence and tragedy: Human trauma as heritage. In B. Graham & P. Howard (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity (pp. 231–244). Ashgate. 12. Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource in conflict. John Wiley & Sons. 13. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press. 14. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental psychology (5th ed.). Harcourt College Publishers. 15. Biran, A., Poria, Y., & Reichel, A. (2011). Tourism and dark heritage: Tourist experience at heritage sites with death-related themes. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 820–841. 16. Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21. 17. Casey, E. S. (2000). Remembering: A phenomenological study (2nd ed.). Indiana University Press. 18. Charlesworth, A. (2004). A corner of a foreign field that is forever Spielberg’s: Understanding the moral landscapes of the western front. Cultural Geographies, 11(2), 139–157. 19. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE Publications. 20. Clark-Ibáñez, M. (2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(12), 1507–1527. 21. Collier, J. (1967). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 22. Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambridge University Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 23. Farmaki, A. (2021). Memory, emotion and dark heritage: The case of EOKA hideouts in Cyprus. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 16(4), 378–393. 24. Foote, K. E. (2003). Shadowed ground: America’s landscapes of violence and tragedy (2nd ed.). University of Texas Press. 25. Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (4th ed.). Optimal Books. 26. Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463–496. 27. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine. 28. Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1950) 29. Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26. 30. Hartmann, R. (2014). Dark heritage, thanatourism and dissonant heritage: Multiple meanings of sites of death and disaster. In R. Hartmann (Ed.), Dark tourism and place identity: Managing and interpreting dark places (pp. 1–6). Routledge. 36. Hayden, D. (1995). The power of place: Urban landscapes as public history. MIT Press. 31. Huyssen, A. (2003). Present pasts: Urban palimpsests and the politics of memory. Stanford University Press. 32. Johnson, N. C. (2017). The contours of memory: Reflections on place and landscape in war commemoration. GeoJournal, 82, 785–800. 33. Kaplan, R. (1987). The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 14, 161–176. 34. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. 35. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press. 36. Lennon, J., & Foley, M. (2000). Dark tourism: The attraction of death and disaster. Continuum. 37. Light, D. (2017). Progress in dark tourism and thanatourism research: An uneasy relationship with heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 61, 275–301. 38. Logan, W., & Reeves, K. (Eds.). (2009). Places of pain and shame: Dealing with “difficult heritage”. Routledge. 39. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge University Press. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press. 40. Macdonald, S. (2009). Difficult heritage: Negotiating the Nazi past in Nuremberg and beyond. Routledge. 41. Macdonald, S. (2013). Memorylands: Heritage and identity in Europe today. Routledge. 42. Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 67–86. 43. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Polity Press. 44. Meskell, L. (2002). Negative heritage and the construction of nation: Apartheid architecture in South Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 5(1–2), 1–16. 45. Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167(3924), 1461–1468. 46. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29(3), 291–323. 47. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts. 48. Poria, Y., Biran, A., & Reichel, A. (2009). Visitors’ preferences for interpretation at heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 92–105. 49. Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Sage Publications. 50. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion Limited. 51. Russell, J. A., & Lanius, U. F. (1984). Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 119–135. 52. Schacter, D. L. (1996). Searching for memory: The brain, the mind, and the past. Basic Books. 53. Seamon, D. (2012). Place, place identity, and phenomenology. In H. Casakin & F. Bernardo (Eds.), The role of place identity in the perception, understanding, and design of built environments (pp. 3–21). Bentham Science Publishers. 60. Seaton, A. V. (1996). Guided by the dark: From thanatopsis to thanatourism. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 2(4), 234–244. 54. Sharpley, R., & Stone, P. R. (Eds.). (2009). The darker side of travel: The theory and practice of dark tourism. Channel View Publications. 55. 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. 56. Stone, P. R. (2012). Dark tourism and significant other death: Towards a model of mortality mediation. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3), 1565–1587. 57. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE Publications. 58. Till, K. E. (2005). The new Berlin: Memory, politics, place. University of Minnesota Press. 59. Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Columbia University Press. 60. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press. 61. Tumarkin, M. (2005). Traumascapes: The power and fate of places transformed by tragedy. Melbourne University Publishing. 62. Tucker, H. (2016). Empathy and tourism: Limits and possibilities. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 31–43. 63. 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. 64. Uzzell, D., & Ballantyne, R. (1998). Heritage that hurts: Interpretation in a post-modern world. In D. Uzzell & R. Ballantyne (Eds.), Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation (pp. 152–171). The Stationery Office. 65. Whelan, Y. (2002). The construction and destruction of a colonial landscape: Monuments to British monarchs in Dublin before and after independence. Journal of Historical Geography, 28(4), 508–533. 66. Winter, C. (2010). Battlefield tourism and commemorative practices: A case study of the Gallipoli and Western Front campaigns. In S. G. Dann & P. Lester (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in tourism and hospitality (pp. 269–283). Goodfellow Publishers. 67. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 1, pp. 37–86). Springer. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/99710 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在探討金門戰爭地景對在地居民與到訪遊客所具有的多重意義與未來期許，並進一步比較兩者之間的異同與交集。金門作為台灣戰爭歷史的重要場域，其特殊的軍事地景長期以來深深影響居民的日常生活，也成為遊客認識戰爭記憶與歷史文化的重要媒介。本研究以質性研究為基礎，結合到訪者自主性拍攝、半結構式訪談與扎根理論分析三種方法，建構一套由下而上的研究流程。研究對象包含7位在地居民與6位遊客，透過由參與者主動拍攝之影像進行訪談，提升敘事的具體性與情感厚度，有助於探尋其個人經驗背後的文化脈絡與情感脈絡。
研究結果歸納出五大主範疇：「記憶」、「感知」、「認知」、「情緒」與「期許」，其中前四者共同構成了金門戰爭地景在居民與遊客心中的多重層面意義，涵蓋對歷史的追憶、空間的感受、價值的理解與情感的流動，展現出戰爭地景作為文化載體的深層結構；「記憶」、「感知」、「認知」和「情緒」，並進一步揭示五者之間相互交織的關係。居民普遍展現出與生活緊密交織的空間記憶與情感淡化特徵，並伴隨歷史斷裂與壓抑情緒的潛在表現；相對地，遊客則多以情感喚起、歷史共感與反思性觀看作為主要的體驗路徑。期許方面，居民傾向將戰爭地景視為生活日常或潛在轉型資產，關注在地需求、公共功能與實用整合；而遊客則多以其為歷史教育與地方文化的象徵。 結果呈現戰爭地景不僅承載個體與群體的歷史記憶與情感反應，更是連結文化認同、歷史詮釋與空間再生的重要平台。透過居民與遊客多元視角的深入剖析，提供理解戰爭地景社會意涵的新觀點，有助於未來保存展示策略的設計、文化資產再利用的實踐，以及公共空間與集體記憶之間關係的再思考，亦可作為相關政策與教育推廣之參考依據。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study investigates the contemporary interpretations and expectations of war landscapes in Kinmen from the perspectives of local residents and visiting tourists. Kinmen, as a former military front, presents a unique wartime landscape that intertwines everyday life with historical memory. Using a qualitative research framework, the study integrates visitor-employed photography, semi-structured interviews, and grounded theory to explore how different groups assign meaning to these landscapes.
The research includes 7 residents and 6 tourists, with data collected through images taken by participants and follow-up interviews. Findings are categorized into five main dimensions: memory, perception, cognition, emotion, and expectation. The first four together shape the multifaceted meanings of war landscapes, while the expectation dimension reflects participants’ visions for the future. Residents tend to view the war landscapes as familiar spaces or potential resources for transformation, with emphasis on practical needs and local functions. Tourists, in contrast, associate these spaces with historical education and cultural tourism. The study highlights how war landscapes serve not only as carriers of memory and emotion but also as platforms for cultural identity and spatial reinterpretation. These insights contribute to future strategies in heritage preservation, cultural planning, and educational engagement. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-09-17T16:26:54Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-09-17T16:26:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 致謝 I
摘要 II Abstract III 目次 IV 圖次 VI 表次 VI 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 4 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 金門戰爭地景的歷史脈絡 5 第二節 戰爭地景的分類與詮釋理論 7 第三節 環境心理學視角下的地景意義建構 11 第四節 地景詮釋與心理期許 14 第三章 研究方法 16 第一節 研究架構 16 第二節 研究流程 16 第三節 到訪者自主性拍攝 17 第四節 質性訪談 18 第五節 訪談問項 18 第六節 扎根理論 20 第四章 資料分析 21 第一節 逐字稿建立 22 第二節 開放編碼 24 第三節 焦點編碼 30 第四節 選擇性編碼 42 第五章 結果與討論 57 第一節 金門戰爭地景多層次意義 57 第二節 對金門戰爭地景呈現的期許 76 第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議 80 參考文獻 81 附錄 85 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 戰爭地景 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 金門 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 到訪者自主性拍攝 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 扎根理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 負面遺產 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Dissonant heritage | en |
| dc.subject | War landscapes | en |
| dc.subject | Kinmen | en |
| dc.subject | visitor-employed photography | en |
| dc.subject | grounded theory | en |
| dc.title | 在地居民與到訪遊客對戰爭地景之當代詮釋與期待之探析:以金門為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | An Analysis of Contemporary Interpretations and Expectations of War Landscapes by Local Residents and Visiting Tourists: The Case of Kinmen | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃信穎;林晏州;張俊彥 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Hsin-Ying Huang;Yann-Jou Lin;Chun-Yen Chang | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 戰爭地景,金門,到訪者自主性拍攝,扎根理論,負面遺產, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | War landscapes,Kinmen,visitor-employed photography,grounded theory,Dissonant heritage, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 99 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202503369 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-08-08 | - |
| 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 | N/A | - |
| 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-113-2.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 13.11 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。