Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28780
標題: 自然環境體驗認知歷程之研究
Studies on Experience and Cognition Process of Natural Environment
作者: 李美芬
Lee, Mei-Fen
關鍵字: experience
體驗
cognition process
natural environment
visual quality
ecological quality
認知歷程
自然環境
視覺品質
生態品質
出版社: 園藝學系所
引用: 參考文獻 王保進,(2004),多變量分析:套裝程式與資料分析,台北,高等教育出版社。 王柏青,(1995),遊客之環境態度及其與生態旅遊經營管理關係之研究,台中,東海大學景觀設計學系,碩士論文。 王懋雯,(1997),師範學院學生環境行為影響因素之研究-以台北市立師範學院學生為例,台北,國立臺灣師範大學衛生教育研究所,博士論文。 吳鵬兆,(2001),偏遠與都市地區高級中學學生環境行為影響因素之研究,台北,國立台灣師範大學環境教育研究所,碩士論文。 李金鈴,(1998),筆劃數、偏旁、部首與結構對中文字單字字形相似程度的影響,台北,國立台灣大學心理研究所,碩士論文。 李思屏、林晏州,(2001),遊客對生態旅遊之環境態度與行為關係之研究─以關渡自然公園為例,戶外遊憩研究,14(3),15-36。 邱媚珍,(1998),花蓮林區管理處與太魯閣國家公園管理處人員之環境知識、環境意識及環境典範調查研究,花蓮,國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所,碩士論文。 邱皓政,(2006),量化研究與統計分析-SPSS 中文視窗版資料分析範例解析,台北,五南出版社。 侯錦雄、郭彰仁,(1998),公園遊客之環境態度與不當行為管理策略認同之關係,戶外遊憩研究,11(4),17-42。 張乃千,(2003),花蓮縣國小現職與職前教師環境素養評估與負責任環境行為預測變項之分析,花蓮,國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所,碩士論文。 張子超、楊冠政,(1997),學生環境知識概念結構發展的研究,師大學報:科學教育類,42,31-48。 戚永年、許慧苓,(2001),新環境典範內涵在環境態度分析上之應用,台灣林業,27(4),47-53。 陳敬中,(2003),花蓮縣政府人員之環境知識、環境典範及環境行為研究,花蓮,國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所,碩士論文。 葉素玲,(1999),視覺空間注意力,視覺與認知,李江山主編,(pp.291-323),台北:遠流。 歐聖榮、蕭芸殷,(1998), 生態旅遊遊客特質之研究,戶外遊憩研究,11(3),35-58。 蕭雅方,(1998),登山嚮導環境態度之研究,花蓮,國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所,碩士論文。 Abello, R. P. & Bernaldez, F.G. (1986). Landscape preference and personality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 19-28. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (eds) Action Control: From cognition to behavior. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 11-39. Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E. & Nowak, P. (1982). The environmental paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 13, 39-43. Amelang, M., Tepe, K., Vagt, G. & Wendt, W. (1977). Mitteilung uber einige Schritte der Entwicklung einer Skala zum Umweltbewusstsein. Report About Some Developmental Steps of An Environmental Concern Scale. Diagnostica, 23, 86-88. Angermeier, P.L. & Karr, J.R. (1994). Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience, 44, 690-697. Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London. Appleton, J. (1984). Prospects and refuges revisited. Landscape Journal, 8, 91-103. Arbuthnot, J. (1977). The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behaviour and knowledge. Environment and Behavior 9, 217-232. Balling, J.D. & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28. Bootzin, R.R., Bower, G.H., Crocker, J., & Hall, E. (1991). Psychology today: An introduction . New York: McGraw-Hill. Bormann, F.H. (1996). Ecology: A personal history. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 21, 1–29. Bourassa, S.C. (1988). Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 241-252. Bourassa, S.C. (1990). A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22, 87-812. Breckler, S.J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitudes. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191-1205. Burgess, J., Harrison, C.M. & Limb, M. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Study, 25, 455-473. Callicott, J.B. (1983). Leopold’s land aesthetic. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 38, 329-332. Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press. Canter, D., Brown, J. & Groat, L. (1985). A multiple sorting procedure for studying conceptual systems. In M. Brenner, J. Brown, & D. Canter, (eds.), The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches. London: Academic Press. Carlson, A. (1995). Nature, aesthetic appreciation, and knowledge. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53(4), 394-400. Carlson, A. (2001). Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscape: Seeing and knowing. In Sheppard, S.R.J. & H.W., Harshaw, (eds), Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics. (pp.31-41). New York: CABI. Carlson, A.A. (1977). On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty, Landscape Planning, 4, 131-171. Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M. & Bonnes, M. (2005). Environmental concern, regional identity, and support for protected areas in Italy. Environment and Behavior, 37(2), 137-257. Coley, R.L., Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 468–494. Daily, G. (ed.) (1997). Nature’s Service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem. Washington: Island Press. Dalsgaard, J.P.T., Lightfoot, C. & Christensen, V. (1995). Towards quantification of ecological sustainability in farming systems analysis. Ecological Engineering, 4, 181–189. Daniel, T.C. & Boster, R.S. (1976). Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, RM-167. Daniel, T.C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 267-281. Dearden, P. (1987). Consensus and a theoretical framework for landscape evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management, 24, 267-278. Dispoto, R.G. (1977). Interrelationships among measures of environmental activity, emotionality, and knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 451-459. Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (eds.), (1991). Benefits of Leisure. Venture Publishing, State College, PA. Dunlap, E.R. & Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19. Eaton, M.M. (1997). The beauty that requires health. In J.I. Nassauer, (ed.), Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, (pp. 85-106). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Evans, G.W. & Wood, K.W. (1980). Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environment and Behavior, 12(2), 255-273. Feimer, N.R. (1984). Environmental perception: the effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 61-80. Ferguson, B.K. (1994). The concept of landscape of landscape health. Journal of Environmental Management, 40, 129-137. Fredrickson, L.M. & Anderson, D.H. (1999). A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 21-39. Geller, M.J. & Lasley, P. (1985). The new environmental paradigm scale: A reexamination. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 9-22. Gimblett, H.R. (1990). Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7(3), 222–324. Givoni, B. (1991). Impact of planted areas on urban environmental quality: A review. Atmospheric Environment, 25(3), 289-299. Gobster, P.H. (1994). The urban savanna: Reuniting ecological preference and function. Restoration and Management Notes, 12, 64-71. Gobster, P.H. (1995). Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: Integrating esthetic and biodiverstiy values, Journal of Forestry, 93(2), 6-10. Gobster, P.H. (1999). An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal, 18(1), 54-64. Gold, S.M. (1986). User characteristics and response to vegetation in Neighborhood Park. Arboricultural Journal, 10, 275-287. Groat, L. (2002). Correlational research. In L. Groat, & D. Wang, (eds.), Architectural Research Methods, (pp.203-247), New York : Wiley & Sons. Gussow, A. (1995). Beauty in landscape. In G. F. Thompsion, (ed.), Landscape in America, (pp. 230-231). Austin: University of Texas Press. Hammersley, M. (1989). The dilemma of qualitative method: Herber Blumer and the Chicago Tradition. Lodon and New York: Routledge. Hands, D.E. & Brown, R.D. (2002). Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 57-70. Hartig, T.A., Mang, M. & Evans, G.W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26. Havitz, M.E. & Dimanche, F. (1990). Propositions for testing the involvement construct in recreational and tourism contexts, Leisure Sciences, 12, 179-195. Havitz, M.E. & Dimanche, F. (1997). Leisure involvement revisited : conceptual conundrums and measurement advances, Journal of Leisure Research, 29(3), 245-278. Havitz, M.E. & Howard, D.R. (1995). How enduring is enduring involvement? A seasonal examination of three recreational activities, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 225-276. Havitz, M.E., Dimanche, F. & Howard, D.R. (1993). A two-sample comparison of the personal involvement (PII) and involvement profile (IP) scales using selected recreation activities. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 17(4), 331-364. Healey, M.C. (1996). Paradigms, policies and prognostication about the management of watershed ecosystems. In R.J. Naiman & R. Bilby (eds.), Ecology and Management of Streams and Rivers in the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Herbert, E.D. & Brian, O. (1994). Viewer preference for spatial arrangement of park trees: An application of video-imaging technology, Environmental Management, 10, 219-237. Herzog, T. & Smith, G.A. (1988). Danger, mystery and environmental preference, Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-344. Herzog, T.R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225-241. Herzog, T.R., Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places, Environment and Behavior, 8(4), 627-645. Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. & Tomera, A.N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 1-8. Hull, R.B. & Buhyoff, G.J. (1983). Distance and scenic beauty: A non-monotonic relationship. Environment and Behavior, 15(1), 77-91. Hull, R.B. & Harvey, A. (1989). Explaining the emotion people feel in suburban parks. Environment and Behavior, 21 (3), 323–345. Hull, R.B. (1992). Brief encounters with urban forests produce moods that matter. Journal of Arboriculture, 18(6), 322–324. Isen, A. M., Johnson, M.M.S., Mertz, E. & Robinson, G.F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1-14. Isen, A.M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power, (eds.), The Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. (pp. 521-539). New York: Wiley. Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J. & Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 135-150. Kaiser, F., Wölfing, S. & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19. Kaplan, R. & Herbert, E. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparison in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. NY: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R. & Talbot, J.F. (1988). Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 107-117. Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5(2), 145-162. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective, Environment and behavior, 19, 3-32. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. & Wendt, J.S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perceptual Psychophysics, 12, 334-356. Karr, J. R. (1996). Ecological integrity and ecological health are not the same. In P.C. Schulze, (ed.), Engineering within Ecological Constraints, (pp. 97-109). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Knopf, R.C. (1983). Recreational needs and behavior in natural settings. In I. Altman & J.F. Wohlwill, (eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Behavior and the Natural Environment, (pp. 205-240, vol. VI). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Kuhn, G.R. & Jackson, E.L. (1989). Stability of factor structures in the measurement of public environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 27-32. Kweon, B., Sullivan, W.C. & Wiley, A.R. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 832–858. Laurent, G. & Kapferer, J. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41-53. Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Bealle, D. & Lawrence, C. (1998). Windows in the workplace: Sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environment and Behavior, 30, 739-762. Leopold, A. (1981). (originally published 1949). A sand county Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. Levenson, H. (1974). Ecological knowledge and perception of environmental modifiability. American Psychologist, 29, 274-275. Litton. R.B.Jr. (1974). Visual vulnerability of forest landscape. Journal of Forestry, 72, 392-397. Lutz, A.R., Simpson-Housley, P. & Man, A.F. (1999). Wilderness: Rural and urban attitudes and perceptions. Environmental and Behavior, 31(2), 259-266. Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behaviour, 15, 487-511. Madge, C. (1997). Public parks and the geography of fear. Economic and Social Geography, 88(3), 237-250. Mageau, M., Costanza, R. & Ulanowicz, R.E. (1995). The development and initial testing of a quantitative assessment of ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health, 1, 201-213. Maloney, M. P. & Ward, M.P. (1973). Ecology: Let’s hear from the people. An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 28, 583-586. Maloney, M.P., Ward, M.P. & Braucht, G.N. (1975). Psychology in action: A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 30, 787-790. Marcinkowski, T. J. (1988). An analysis of correlates and predictors of responsible environmental behavior. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(12), 3677-A. Mausner, C. (1996). A kaleidoscope model: Defining natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 335-348. McAndrew, F.T. (1993). Environmental Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole. McQuarrie, E.F. & Munson, J.M. (1987). The Zaichkowsky personal involvement inventory: Modification and extension, Advances in Consumer Research, 14, 36-40. Milbrath, L. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. Albany, State University of New York Press. Nasar, J.L., Julian. D., Buchman, S., Humphreys, D. & Morhaly, M. (1983). The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: A look at prospect and refuge. Landscape Planning, 10, 355-361. Nassauer, J.I. (1988). The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortScience, 23:6. Nassauer, J.I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161-170. Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social Research Methods-Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Niemeijer, D. (2002). Developing indicators for environmental policy: Data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by example. Environmental Science and Policy, 5, 91-103. Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception – preliminary reflection on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 223-237. Ohta, H. (2001). A phenomenological approach to natural landscape cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 387-403. Orians, G.H. & Heerwagen, J.H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes, In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby, (eds.) The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, (pp.555-579). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Oskamp, S., Harrington, M.J., Edwards, T.C., Sherwood, D. L., Okuda, S. M. & Swanson, D.C. (1991). Factors influencing household recycling behavior. Environment and Behavior, 23, 494-519. Parsons, R. & Daniel, T.C. (2002). Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 43-56. Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. Journal of Environment Psychology, 11, 1-23. Parsons, R. (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 227-244. Parsons, R., Tassinary, L.G., Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R. & Grossman-Alexander, M. (1998). The view from the road: Implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environment Psychology, 18, 113-139. Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, U.S.A.: Sage publications. Rapport, D.J. (1995). Ecosystem health: an emerging integrative science. In D.J. Rapport, C.L. Gaudet & P. Calow, (eds.), Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of Large-Scale Ecosystems, New York: Springer-Verlag. Rapport, D.J., Gaudet, C., Karr, J.R., Baron, J.S., Bohlen, C., Jackson. W., Jones, B., Naiman, R.J., Norton, B. & Pollock, M.M. (1998). Evaluating landscape health: Integrating societal goals and biophysical process. Journal of Environmental Management, 5, 1-15. Real, E., Arce, C. & Sabucedo, J.M. (2000). Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 355-373. Regan, C.L. & Horn, S.A. (2005). To nature or not to nature: Associations between environmental preferences, mood states and demographic factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 57-66. Ribe, R.G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management, 13(1), 55-74. Rolston, H. (1998). Aesthetic experience in forests. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 56(2), 157-166. Rosenberg, A.M. (1986). An emerging paradigm for Landscape Architecture. Landscape Journal, 5(2), 75-82. Schahn, J. & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767-786. Schroeder, H.W. (1991). Preferences and meaning of arboretum landscape: Combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 213-248. Schulhof, R. (1989). Public perceptions of native vegetation. Restoration and Management Notes, 7(2), 69-72. Scott, M.J. & Canter, D.V. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 355-373. Shafer, E.L. & Richards, T.A. (1974). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-302. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA. Shafer, E.L., & Tooby, M. (1973). Landscape preferences: an international replication. Leisure Research, 5, 60-65. Shear, H. (1996). The development and use of indicators to assess the state of ecosystem health in the Great Lakes. Ecosystem Health, 2, 241-258. Sheets, V.L. & Manzer, C.D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation: Some effects of adding tree along city streets. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 285-304. Sheppard, A.C.J. (1995). The black-while environmental concern gap: An examination of environmental paradigms. Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 24-35. Sia, A.P., Hungerford, H.R. & Tomera, A.N. (1985/1986). Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 31-40. Slama, M.E. & Tashchian, A. (1985). Selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement. Journal of Marketing, 49, 72-82. Smith-Sebasto, N.J. & Fortner, R.W. (1994). The environmental action internal control index. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 23-29. Smythe, P.C. & Brook, R.C. (1980). Environmental concerns and actions: A social-psychological investigation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 12, 175-186. Spirn, A.W. (1988). The poetics of city and nature: Towards a new aesthetic for urban design. Landscape Journal, 7(2), 108-126. Stafford, B.M. (1996). Good Looking: Essays on the Virtue of Images. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Stamps, A.E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual Motor Skills, 713, 907-913. Stamps, A.E. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115–132. Stamps, A.E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(2), 155–175. Stamps, A.E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16. Steinitz, C. (1990). Toward a sustainable landscape where visual preference and ecological integrity are congruent: The loop road in Acadia National Park. Landscape Planning, 19(1). Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research:Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publication, Inc. Newbury Park, California. 227pp. Stutzman, T.M. & Green, S.B. (1982). Factors affecting energy consumption: Two field tests of the Fishbein-Ajzen model. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 183-201. Taylor, A.F., Wiley, A.R., Kuo, F.E. & Sullivan, W.C. (1998). Growing up in the city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 3-27. Thayer, R.L. (1989). The experience of sustainable landscape. Landscape Journal, 8, 101-110. Tisdell, C.A. (1991). Economics of Environmental Conversation: Economics for Environment and Ecological Management, New York: Elsevier. Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains for present: emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 11, 375-424. Traylor, M.B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 21, 51-56. Tuan,Yi-Fu. (1989). Surface phenomena and aesthetic experience. Annals of the Association of American Georaphers, 79(2), 233-241. Turner, M.G. & Gardner, R.H. (eds.) (1991). Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogeneity. New York: Springer-Verlag. Ulrich, R.S. & Parsons, R. (1992). Influences of passive experiences with plants on individual well-bring and health, In D. Relf, (ed.), The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-being and Social Development, (pp.90-105). Portland, OR: Timber Press. Ulrich, R.S. (1977). Visual landscape preferences: a model and application. Man-Environment System, 7, 279-293. Ulrich, R.S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556. Ulrich, R.S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J.F. Wohlwill, (eds.) Behavior and natural environment. (pp.85-125). New York: Plenum Press. Unpubl. manuscript. Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. Ulrich, R.S. (1990). The role of trees in human well-being and health, In P.D. Rodbell, (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Urban Forestry Conference. (pp. 25-30). American Forestry Association, Washington, D.C. 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. Unger, L.S. & Kernan, J.B. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investigation of some determinants of the subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 381-392. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Williams, J.L. & Kim, S. (2000). Sustainable Landscape Construction- A Guide to Green Building Outdoors. California: Island press. Williams, K.J.L. & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 257-274. Wohlwill, J.F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist’s view. In I. Altman & J.F. Wohlwill, (eds.), Human Behavior and Environment: Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 5-37,vol. VI). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Woodley, S.J., Francis, G. & Kay, J. (eds.) (1993). Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Lewis. Yang, B. & Kaplan, R. (1990). The perception of landscape style: A cross-cultural comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 251-262. Yang, B., & Brown, Ti. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behaviour, 24, 471-507. Yeomans, W.C. (1986). Visual impact assessment: changes in natural and rural environment. In R.C. Smardon, J.F. Palmer & J.P. Felleman, (eds.), Foundations for Visual Project Analysis, (pp.201-222). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Yoshida, M. (1998). Questionnaires about environmental attitudes and behavior. vol. 33 (pp.55–80). Osaka, Japan: Department of Behavior metrics, Faculty of Human Sciences, Osaka University (in Japanese). Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 107-126. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352. Zube, E.H. & Mills Jr.L.V. (1976). Cross-cultural explorations in landscape perception. In E.H. Zube, (ed.), Studies in Landscape Perception. Institute for man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Zube, E.H. & Pitt, D.G. (1981). Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landscape Planning, 8, 69-87. Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G. & Anderson, T.W. (1975). Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In E.H. Zube, R. Brush, & J. Fabos, (eds.), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources, (pp. 151-167). Dowden, PA: Hutchinson & Ross. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L. & Taylor, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
摘要: 隨著環境永續經營的潮流及環境生態保護意識的抬頭,「維持生態多樣性」、「環境保育」已成為相關環境經營管理的基本指導原則,但亦引發視覺品質與生態品質間的衝突議題,造成景觀審美學派與生態體驗學派學者在知覺因子、體驗歷程及體驗效益等部分的爭辯。本研究針對環境經營不同面向之需求的衝突、以及不同支持學派學者辯論之立論基點模糊的問題,從現象研究、實驗及實證研究三個不同的研究取向針對個體之自然環境體驗及認知歷程進行探討,藉由一系列研究對相關研究議題的探索、解釋及驗證,對個體如何體驗自然環境、進行環境刺激的篩濾、訊息處理,並做出最終評估之歷程進行辨析。 第一階段的自然環境體驗歷程現象探索研究,乃針自然環境場域進行環境體驗現象之共同結構的建立,做為與其它景觀評估模式對話及執行後階段研究的立論依據。研究結果顯示,在行動者本身之「個體」領域部分,影響行動者體驗的主要概念類目包括「體驗前的心理思維狀況」、「個人相關經驗」及「個人特質背景」三大部分﹔在場域之「環境」領域部分,影響行動者體驗的主要概念類目包括「關注的環境元素或事件」、「關注的環境組合狀態」及「關注的環境生態及精神意涵」三個不同層級﹔在個體與環境之「互動」領域部分,影響行動者體驗的主要概念類目包括與個體、環境直接相關的「直接影響者」及其他的「間接影響者」等二部分之因素﹔而經整體之自然環境體驗及認知歷程後,產生之「結果及效益」則包括「獲得知識及體驗」、「影響態度及行為」、「產生心理效益」、「產生健康效益」及「產生環境評價」等部分。此外,將自然環境體驗認知歷程與傳統視覺風景式景觀美學的體驗知覺模式歷程進行比較後發現,個體在二歷程中關注的焦點元素並不相同。 第二階段的評估認知結構分析實驗,主要乃利用受測者執行自然環境的分類排序,揭露其於執行相關因子的評估時主要的認知因子。分析結果顯示,不同學習背景的受測者傾向使用本身熟悉的認知模式解構環境,進行體驗及評估﹔面對易理解之環境,觀測者以明確有效的認知結構體驗環境﹔而具特殊學習背景之觀測者,對環境因子之敏感度不同。另比較受測者進行景觀美質及偏好評估時同時回答的敘述資料所做之內容分析的結果顯示,進行一般偏好的評估時,有較多比例的受測者反應其評值會受環境或場景可提供的機能或功能所影響,與進行美學美質值估時使用之認知因子不同。 第三階段的研究乃以演繹的研究取向探討個體具有的背景特性,對訊息處理過程之認知評估因子及評估的影響情形﹔同時針對受測者對不同屬性之林木景觀環境的體驗評估情形,進行分析比較以了解受測者於不同環境中進行體驗及對環境產生評價時之訊息處理歷程重要因子間之關係。研究結果顯示,環境類型不同,受測者會知覺到及形成不同的認知因子﹔受測者進行不同評估時,受測者較敏感的環境因子及據以評估的因子並不相同﹔受測者的個人特質不同,亦會影響其進行體驗、認知及評估的情形。而於探討各評值間之相關性時亦發現,受測者在具不同特徵的環境中,其景觀美質與自然度、景觀美質與偏好之相關性亦不同。此部分研究驗證了前階段相關研究的結果。 本研究整合質性與量化思維,提供了一多面向檢視研究議題的研究設計模式。研究結果澄清了生態美學及景觀美學體驗立論基礎模糊的問題﹔另藉由比較不同屬性環境中評估歷程認知因子之異同及其間的關係,為相關理論注入不同思維觀點﹔而有關「環境生態品質需求」與「人類美學需求」間關係的探討,則可做為多元向度之「景觀健康」評估及經營模式發展之基礎。
With the trend of sustainable management and the increasing consciousness of ecological protection, ‘maintaining ecological diversity' and ‘conserving environment' have become basic guiding principles in environmental management. However, it induces issues about the conflict between visual quality and ecological quality and causes the arguments of perceptual factors, experience process, and experience benefit between the school of landscape aesthetics and the school of ecological experience. This study tries to clarify the conflicts and arguments by employing three different approaches, phenomenological research, experimental research, and positivistic research, to discuss experience and cognition process of natural environment. It is expected that the results could clarify the experience and cognition process, including how an individual subject experience the natural environment, how to filter the environmental stimuli, and how to process the information generated from the natural environment. For achieving this expectation, this study adopts a three-step approach to obtain the required data. The first step is related to the study of “Exploring the phenomenon of experience process in natural environment”. This step is qualitative oriented approach and focuses on finding the common structure of environment experience phenomenon when individuals proceed with their environment experience in a natural environment. The result of this step will play an important role in having a dialogue with other landscape evaluation paradigms and acting as the argumentation basis for implementing the further studies. In the part of individual subject, the results show that there are three major concepts influencing individual's experience, including ‘the psychological thinking condition before experiencing', ‘individual's related experiences', and ‘individual's socio-demographic background'. In the part of environment, the results indicate that there are also three major concepts influencing individual's experience, including ‘concerned environmental elements or events', ‘concerned environmental combination status', and ‘concerned ecology and meaning of an environment'. In the part of the interaction between individual subject and environment, the results show that there are two major concepts influencing individual's experience, including ‘direct influence factors related to individual subject and environment' and ‘indirect influence factors related to others'. Through the whole experience of natural environment and cognition process, five major outcomes and benefits are generated, such as ‘obtaining knowledge and experience', ‘influencing attitude and behavior', ‘generating psychological benefit', ‘generating health benefit', and ‘generating environment appraisal'. Furthermore, the study finds out that individual subjects concern different focused elements in two experiencing processes, experience cognition process of natural environment and traditional experience perception process. The second step is related to the study of “An experiment of evaluative cognition structure”. A sorting method is used in this step that respondents are asked to do sorting and ranking tasks in order to reveal the major cognitive factors while evaluating the related factors shown in different tested photos. The results show that respondents with different learning background will tend to use their own familiar cognitive model to deconstruct the environment while experiencing and evaluating the natural environment. Facing with the environment which is easily understood, respondents use the explicit and valid cognitive structure to experience the environment. In addition, respondents with specific learning background will have different sensitivity on environmental factors. Furthermore, the study uses content analysis to analyze the descriptive information replied by respondents while comparing scenic beauty and evaluating landscape preference. The results reveal that in proceeding general preference evaluation more respondents respond that their evaluation scores could be influenced by affordable functions provided by the environment. The results also show that the cognitive factors used in evaluating scenic beauty and landscape preference are different. The third step is related to the study of “Exploring the cognitive factors in information process and their influences”. This step is quantitative oriented approach and focuses on the discussions of how individuals with different characteristics deal with information provided by the environment. The study also compares respondents' reactions to the experience evaluation of woodland environment in order to realize the relationships of important factors in information process while experiencing and evaluation an environment. The results indicate that respondents will perceive and generate different cognitive factors when they are in different types of environment. While evaluating, the environmental factors respondents feeling more sensitive and factors used to do evaluation are different. Respondents with different characteristics will also influence their experience, cognition, and evaluation situation. When discussing the correlation between evaluation scores, the study finds out that the correlations between scenic beauty and naturalness of different environments are significant different. It is also true for the correlation between scenic beauty and preference. The results of this step also testify the results generated from the second step. Overall, this study integrates qualitative results with quantitative results and provides a multidimensional research design model to inspect research issues. The results clarify the argumentation basis for both ecological aesthetics and landscape aesthetics experience. In addition, the study infuses different perspectives into the related theories through comparing differences of cognitive factors used in evaluation process in different environments and the relationships between them. Moreover, the discussion about the relationship between ‘the demand of environmental ecological quality' and ‘the demand of human aesthetics' could serve as a basis for a multidimensional evaluation about ‘landscape health' and the development of management model.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28780
其他識別: U0005-2908200611472700
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-3001200716392900
Appears in Collections:園藝學系

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.