Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28947
標題: 自然環境資訊對心理評價反應影響之模式
Influences of Natural Environment Information on Psychological Evaluation Responses
作者: 江彥政
Chiang, Yen-Cheng
關鍵字: landscape preference
景觀偏好
situational concern
cross-cultural
fear
danger
情境關心
跨文化
害怕
危險
出版社: 園藝學系所
引用: 參考文獻 1. 中文部分 (1) 圖書 交通部觀光局,(2007),中華民國96年國人旅遊狀況調查,台北:交通部觀光局。 李建民,(2001),台灣地區國家公園遊客被害恐懼感形成因素之研究-以陽明山國家公園為例,碩士論文,中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所,桃園。 李美芬,(2006),自然環境體驗認知歷程之研究,博士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 邱皓政,(2006),量化研究與統計分析,台北:五南圖書出版有限公司。 洪佳君,(2001),高山、水體、森林、公園、都市景觀之生心理效益,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 紀芬蓮,(2008),以質性觀點探索環境神秘性涵構,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝學研究所,台中。 張春興,(1991),現代心理學,台北:東華書局。 黃俊英,(1998),多變量分析,台北:中國經濟企業研究所。 黃富瑜,(1998),淡水捷運線使用者對沿線景觀知覺與偏好之探討,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所,台北。 (2) 期刊論文 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。 李素馨、何英齊,(2000),應用瞳位追蹤方法建立景觀偏好模式之研究,造園學報,6(1-2),71-89。 侯錦雄,(1985),景觀知覺與景觀設計,東海學報,26(1),51-61。 洪佳君、張俊彥,(2002),高山、水體、森林、公園、都市景觀之生心理效益,興大園藝,27(3),79-86。 張俊彥、萬麗玲,(2000),景觀型態對肌電值及注意力恢復能力之研究,造園學報,7(1),1-22。 張俊彥、彭家麟,(2000),不同景觀型態刺激生心理反應差異之研究-一個案例研究,中國園藝,46(1),93-102。 陳惠美、林晏州,(1997),景觀知覺與景觀品質關係之研究,造園學報,4(1),1-16。 歐聖榮,(1998),不同植栽空間、坡度及視覺方向對情緒體驗及偏好之影響,造園學報,5(1),1-16。 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。 2. 西文部分 (1) Books Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Press. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Year book Australia 2007. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental Psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Press. Belsley, D. A. (1991). Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. New York, NY: John Wiley. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York, NY: John Wiley. Berlyne, D. E., Robbins, M. C., & Thompson, R. (1974). A cross-cultural study of exploratory and verbal responses to visual patterns varying in complexity. In D. E. Berlyne (Eds.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. (pp.259-278). New York, NY: Wiley Press. Brown, T. C., & Daniel, T. C. (1990). Scaling of ratings: Concepts and methods. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-293. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment, (pp.39-84). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Darwin, C. (1991). The origin of species. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. (Original work published 1859). Gerlach-Spriggs, N., Kaufman, R., & Warner, S. B. (1998). Restorative gardens: The healing landscape. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate date analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Hammitt, W. E. (1979). Measuring familiarity for natural environments through visual images. Proceedings of our national landscape conference. US. Forest Service, General technological report. PSW-35, pp. 217-226. Kahn, P. H., Jr. (1999). The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York, NY: Praeger. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research, (pp.163-204). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press. Marans, R. W., & Stokols, D. (1993). Environmental simulation: Research and policy issues. New York: Plenum Press. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Michael, S. N., & Hull, R. B. (1994). Effects of vegetation on crime in urban parks. Blacksburg: Department of Forestry, College of Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Örians, 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. Pitt, D. G., & Zube, E. H. (1987). Management of natural environments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, (pp.1009-1042) New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Press. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and the environment. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, (pp.245-280). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Press. Sonnenfeld, J. (1967). Environmental perception and adaptation level in the arctic. In D. Lowenthal (Eds.), Environmental perception and behavior, (pp.42-59). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York, NY: Brunner-Mazel Press. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment, (pp.88-125). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis, (pp.73-137). Washington, DC: Island press. Ulrich, R. S., & Parsons, R. (1992). Influences of passive experiences with plants on individual well-being and health. In D. Relf (Ed.), The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development, (pp.93-105). Portland, OR: Timber Press. Williamson, D., & Chalmers, J.A. (1982). Perceptions of forest scenic quality in northeast Victoria: A technical report of Phases I and II. Landscape Management Series, Forests Commission of Victoria. Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 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). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Woodcock, D. M. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Zube, E. H., & Mills Jr., L.V. (1976). Cross-cultural explorations in landscape perception. In E. H. Zube (Ed.), Studies in landscape perception. (pp.167-174). Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge Press. (2) Journal Articles Agras, W. S., Sylvester, D., & Oliveau, D. (1969). The epidemiology of common fears and phobias. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 10, 151-156. Angilieri, V., & Toccolini, A. (1993). The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24, 105-112. Angyal, A. (1941). Disgust and related aversions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36, 393-412. Appleton, J. (1984). Prospect and refuge re-visited. Landscape Journal, 3, 91-103. Arrindell, W. A. (2000). Phobic dimensions: IV. The structure of animal fears. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 509-530. Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28. Bernaldez, F. G., Abello, R. P., & Gallardo, D. (1989). Environmental challenge and environmental preference: Age and sex effects. Journal of Environmental Management, 28, 53-70. 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, 24-33. Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., & Hammitt, W. E. (1995). Feared stimuli are expected in specific situations: The use of situationalism and fear expectancy in a self-report measurement of fears. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 544-547. Bixler, R. D., & Floyd, M. F. (1997). Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior, 29, 443-467. Brush, R. O. (1981). Landform and scenic preference: a research note. Landscape Planning, 8, 301-306. Buhyoff, G. J., Wellman, J. D., Harvey, H., & Fraser, R. A. (1978). Landscape architects’ interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 6, 255-262. Chiang, Y. C., Chang, C. Y., & Ou, S. J. (2008). Exploring the relationship between natural settings and psychological restoration. Acta Horticulturae, 775, 123-130. Davey, G. C. L. (1995). Preparedness and phobias: Specific evolved associations or a generalized expectancy bias? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 289-325. Daniel, T. C., & Meitner, M. M. (2001). Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 61-72. Eisler, A. D., Eisler, H., & Yoshida, M. (2003). Perception of human ecology: cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 89-101. Evans, G. W., & Wood, K. W. (1980). Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environment and Behavior, 12, 255-273. Fabos, J. G. (1979). Planning and landscape evaluation. Landscape Research, 4, 4-10. 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, 35-65. Fisher, B. S., & Nasar, J. L. (1995). Fear spots in relation to microlevel physical cues: Exploring the overlooked. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 214-239. Fredrikson, M., Annas, P., Fischer, H., & Wik, G. (1996). Gender and age differences in the prevalence of specific fears and phobias. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 34, 33-39. Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 234-240. Ham, T. Y., Guerin, D. A., & Scott, S. C. (2004). A cross-cultural comparison of preference for visual attributes in interior environments: America and China. Journal of Interior Design, 30, 37-50. Han, K. T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 209-232. Hartig, T. (1993). Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 25, 17-36. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123. Hartig, T. A., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26. Hennig, J., Laschefski, U., & Opper, C. (1994). Biopsychological changes after bungee jumping: Beta-endorphin: Immunoreactivity as a mediator of euphoria? Neuropsychobiology, 29, 28-32. Hershberger, R. G., & Cass, R. C. (1973). The adequacy of various media as representations of the designed environment. Man-Environment Systems, 3, 371-372. Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research, 9, 10-16. Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape Journal, 6, 140-152. Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 237-248. 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. Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. (2007). Mystery and preference in within-forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 39, 779-796. Herzog, T. R., & Chernick, K. K. (2000). Tranquility and danger in urban and natural settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 29-39. Herzog, T. R., & Flynn-Smith, J. A. (2001). Preference and perceived danger as a function of the perceived curvature, length, and width of urban alleys. Environment and Behavior, 33, 653-666. Herzog, T. R., & Gale, T. A. (1996). Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context. Environment and Behavior, 28, 44-72. Herzog, T. R., Herbert, E. J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C. L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323-346. 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, 620-639. 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, 659-677. Herzog, T. R., & Kutzli, G. E. (2002). Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 819-835. Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35, 459-477. Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429-449. Herzog, T. R., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20, 320-344. Hull, R. B. IV., & Buyhoff, G. J. (1983). Distance and scenic beauty: a non-monotonic relationship. Environment and Behavior, 15, 77-91. Hull, R. B. IV, & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114. 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, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. Kaplan, R. (1977). Patterns of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 9, 195-215. Kaplan, R. (1984). Wilderness perception and psychological benefits: An analysis of a continuing program. Leisure Sciences, 6, 271-290. Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E. J., (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293. 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, S. (1987). Aesthetic, affect and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3-32. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2003). Health, supportive environments, and the reasonable person model. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1484-1489. Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354-356. Kennedy, L. W., & Silverman, R. A. (1985). Perception of social diversity and fear of crime. Environment and Behavior, 17, 275-295. Killeen, K., & Buyhoff, G. (1983). The relation of landscape preference to abstract topography. Journal of Environmental Management, 17, 381-392. Korpela, K. M., Klemettilä, T., & Hietanen, J. K. (2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34, 634-650. Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59. Kwok, K. (1979). Semantic evaluation of perceived environment: A cross-cultural replication. Man-Environment Systems, 9, 243-249. Lamb, R. J., & Purcell, A. T. (1990). Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 19, 333-352. Loewen, L. J., Steel, G. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1993). Perceived safety from crime in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 323-331. Lyons, N. P. (1983). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 125-145. McCathie, H., & Spence, S. H. (1991). What is the revised fear survey schedule for children measuring? Behavior Research and Therapy, 20, 495-502. Michael, S. N., Hull, R. B., & Zahm, D. L. (1999). Environmental factors influencing auto burglary: A case study. Manuscript submitted for publication. Miles, M. P., Good, D. J., McDonald, B., Schultz, R. J., & Capella, L. M. (1993). Parenthood and wildland recreation consumption: An unexplored phenomenon. Psychology and Marketing, 10, 131-149. Mugica, M., & Vicente, J. (1995). The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences: A case study at Donana National Park. Journal of Environmental Management, 47, 229-239. Nasar, J. L. (1982). A model relating visual attributes in the residential environment to fear of crime. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 247-255. Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preferences in urban street scenes: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 79-93. Nasar, J. L., & Fisher, B. S. (1993). ‘Hot spots’ of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187-206. Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B. S., & Grannis, M. (1993). Proximate cues to fear of crime. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 161-178. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior, 29, 291-323. Natori, Y., & Chenoweth, R. (2008). Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 250-267. Newell, P. B. (1997). A cross-cultural examination of favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 29, 495-514. Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 466-478. Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483-522. Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2003). The malicious serpent: Snakes as a prototypical stimulus for an evolved module of fear. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 5-9. Öhman, A., & Soares, J. J. F. (1993). On the automatic nature of phobic fear: conditioned electrodermal responses to masked fear-relevant stimuli. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 121-132. Ohta, H. (2001). A phenomenological approach to natural landscape cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 387-403. Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. Journal of Environment Psychology, 11, 1-23. Parsons, R., & Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 43-56. Patsfall, M. R., Feimer, N. R., Buyhoff, G. J., & Wellman, J. D. (1984). The prediction of scenic beauty from landscape context and composition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 7-26. Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J. W., & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The Physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21-34. Purcell, A. T. (1987). Landscape perception, preference, and schema discrepancy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 14, 67-92. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1984). Landscape perception: An examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. Journal of Environmental Management, 19, 31-63. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 57-66. Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Peron, E. M., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 195-205. 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. Roberti, J. W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 256-279. Russell, J. A., & Bullock, M. (1986). On the dimensions preschoolers use to interpret facial expressions of emotion. Developmental Psychology, 22, 97-102 Schroeder, H. W. (1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 8, 317-322. Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178-194. Seligman, M. E. P. (1970). On the generality of the laws of learning. Psychological Review, 77, 406-418. Seligman, M. E. P. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2, 307-320. Serpa, A., & Muhar, A. (1996). Effects of plant size, texture and colour on spatial perception in public green areas—a cross-cultural study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36, 19-25. Shafer, E. L., & Tooby, M. (1973). Landscape preferences: an international replication. Journal Leisure Research, 5, 60-65. Smardon, R. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 85-106. Sommer, R., Summit, J., & Clements, A. (1993). Slide ratings of street-tree attributes: Some methodological issues and answers. Landscape Journal, 12, 17-22. Spotts, O. M., & Stynes, O. J. (1985). Measuring the public’s familiarity with recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 253-265. Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913. Stamps, A. E., (2004). Environmental preference, coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16. Stamps, A. E. (2005a). Enclosure and safety in urbanscapes. Environment and Behavior, 37, 102-133. Stamps, A. E. (2005b). Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environment and Behavior, 37, 587-619. Stamps, A. E. (2007). Mystery of environmental mystery: Effects of light, occlusion, and depth of view. Environment and Behavior, 39, 165-197. Talbot, J. F., & Kaplan, S. (1986). Perspectives on wilderness: Re-examining the value of extended wilderness experiences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 177-188. Taylor, R. B., Shumaker, S. A., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1985). Neighborhood-level links between physical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 2, 261-275. Tips, W. E. J., & Savasdisara, T. (1986). The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 225-230. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environment. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375-424. Trent, R. B., Neumann, E., & Kvashny, A. (1987). Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 225-235. Ulrich, R. S. (1977). Visual landscape preference: a model and application. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 279-293. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44. Ulrich, R. S., & Addoms, D. L. (1981). Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13, 43-65. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R., 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. 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, 135-146. Van den Berg, A. E., & Ter Heijne, M. (2005). Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 261-272. Wang, K., & Taylor, R. B. (2006). Simulated walks through dangerous alleys: Impacts of features and progress on fear. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 269-283. Yang, B. E., & Brown, T. J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, 24, 471-507. Yang, B. E., & Kaplan, R. (1990). The perception of landscape style: A cross-cultural comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 251-262. Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 107-126. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175. Zube, E. H. (1984). Themes in landscape assessment theory. Landscape Journal, 3, 104-110. Zube, E. H., & Pitt, D. G. (1981). Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 8, 69-87. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33. Zube, E. H., Simcox, D. E., & Law, C. S. (1987). Perceptual landscape simulations: History and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6, 62-80. Zuckerman, M., Ulrich, R. S., & McLaughlin, J. (1993). Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 563-576.
摘要: Kaplan和Kaplan (1989)提出偏好矩陣模式的一致性、易讀性、複雜性和神秘性後,許多研究論證指出此四項因子與偏好間具有相關性;此外,研究也發現神秘性、危險和害怕間亦具有顯著相關性。相關文獻指出人類恐懼自然環境可能會因為某些環境特性,而產生一些害怕之事物或情境,如迷路、落石、動植物威脅等。為瞭解自然環境資訊對心理評價之影響,本研究透過兩階段問卷調查操作且探討環境資訊、知覺程度、情境與偏好、害怕、危險之關係。 第一階段為探討不同社經背景和文化差異對各變項之影響,並檢驗研究問卷之內容一致性,刪除不適當問項,計有110位臺灣人和90位澳洲人觀看六張彩色森林環境投影片並填寫問卷,信度分析結果顯示問卷項目內部一致性良好。情境部份問卷經因素分析之最大變異法(varimax)將因素轉軸後結果獲得四個因素:環境安全擔心、社會犯罪威脅、野生生物威脅和方向感等。結果亦指出不同文化在環境資訊、知覺、情境、偏好、害怕及行為均達到顯著差異。另外,不同居住環境、接觸自然環境頻率不同和過去曾在自然有不好經驗的次數等與各變項均獲得顯著性差異,但令人意外的是性別僅與自然度、神秘性、移動容易性、偏好及行為上達顯著差異,情境部份都未獲得顯著差異。此階段研究結果不但證實不同社經背景之影響,也支持不同文化間之差異,更加驗證東西方文化對自然環境之不同觀感,不僅是偏好而已,且包含危險和害怕感受,藉由此階段研究結果的呈現,便可提供第二階段研究之參考。 第二階段研究之目的為調查森林步道環境資訊對心理之影響,以建立景觀心理評價模式。以60張彩色森林步道投影片分成10套受測媒體,每套包含6張投影片,共計519位選修通識課程之大學生觀看6張彩色森林步道投影片並填寫問卷。經皮爾森相關分析及典型相關分析後發現環境資訊之自然度與情境(環境安全擔心、社會犯罪威脅、野生生物威脅和方向感)呈正相關,而開放度、視覺可及性和移動容易性與情境均呈負相關;複雜性和神秘性與偏好間具正向相關;自然度和複雜性與危險和害怕間具正相關;視覺可及性和移動容易性與偏好具正相關,但與危險和害怕具負相關;而情境與危險和害怕間達顯著正相關。多元迴歸結果顯示無論是預測偏好、危險或害怕,開放度、神秘性和移動容易性為最佳變項。偏好模式方面,情境之社會犯罪威脅、野生生物威脅和環境安全擔心都是預測偏好之重要變項,尤其以社會犯罪威脅為最優先考量因素。在危險和害怕模式方面,情境之四項因素都被納入模式中,尤以方向感為最重要影響因子。 本研究嘗試加入過去研究較少被提及之「情境」變項來探討景觀偏好之影響,以文化、生物演化及社會觀點解釋景觀美質評估之相關現象,對未來相關研究提出另一思維方向,以及在實質規劃設計上提供具體建議。
As preference matrix model consist of four characters: coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery that proposed by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989). Numerous research evidences verified that had significant correlation of the relationship between the four characteristics and preference. On the other hand, studies found mystery has correlation with danger and fear as well. Some relative literatures indicated human phobia that might caused by certain property of natural environment, there could evoke specific fear of events or situations, for instance, getting lost, falling debris, and wild animal and plant threat. To understand influences of natural environment information on psychological evaluation, this study contained two step procedures for questionnaire survey, furthermore, to explore relationship among the level of environmental information, perception, situational concern, preference, fear, and danger. The purpose of study 1 was to explore influences of different demographics and cultures on measure variables as well as to examine the items of questionnaire to provide a measure instrument for next step study. 110 Taiwanese and 90 Australian were watched six color slides then rated on the questionnaire. The results appear the internal consistency of items was well. We conducted varimax of factor analysis to reduce factor in situational concern after rotated then obtained four factor as label: environmental safety concern, criminal threat, wildlife threat, and direction. The findings showed culture difference had significant variance in environmental information, perception, situational concern, preference, and behavior. Furthermore, participants' difference of living environment, frequency of contact with nature, and bad experience in nature that resulted in all variables had significances, but gender only had significant with naturalness, mystery, movement ease, preference, and behavior. The base on literatures of situational concern that have obtain remarkable evidences in present study. In briefly, study 1 results verifying influences on demographical backgrounds and cultures that also established their different perspective vary with cultures, it not only including preference but also danger and fear. To provide study 2 procedure in way of study 1 results had been presented. Study 2 purpose was investigated influences of forest environmental information on psychology and built models for landscape psychological evaluation. There were consisted of sixty color forest slides to separate into ten different stimuli. Every stimulus including six slides. Totally 519 took general course of college students who rated on the questionnaire after they watched six slides. With regard to the results of correlation that had show naturalness of environmental information positively correlated among situational concerns (environmental safety concern, criminal threat, wildlife threat, and direction). On the contrary, openness, visual access, and locomotive ease had negative correlation with situation concerns. Complexity and mystery positive correlated with preference that as same as previous findings. Moreover, the high level of naturalness and complexity that had positively rise danger and fear. Visual access and locomotive ease had positive correlated with preference but negatively correlation with danger and fear. As the study expectation, the positively correlation among situation concerns, danger, and fear. In results of multiple regression model has been shown that predicted whether preference, danger, or fear. The proper predictors were openness, mystery, and locomotive ease. With regard to model for preference, criminal threat, wildlife threat, and environmental safety concern of situational concern that were significant variables especially in criminal threat. In model of danger and fear, all situational concern variables had been entered into models, particularly in direction. These studies brought up an idea-situation concern that has less mention by antecedent research to explore influence on landscape preference. From perspectives of culture, biological evolution, and social to explain relevant phenomena for landscape evaluation. To provide another thinking of future research as well as to offer concrete suggestion for planning and design.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28947
其他識別: U0005-1401200920331100
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1407200821375800
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.