Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/29395
標題: 彰化縣社區居民地方依附與社區參與之相關性研究
The study of the relationships between residents'' place attachment and community participation in Chunhua County
作者: 林擎天
Lin, Ching-Tien
關鍵字: 社區依附
place attachment
社區參與
開放空間
彰化縣
community participation
open space
Chunhua County
出版社: 園藝學系所
引用: 1. 中華民國統計資訊網。2012。http://61.60.106.82/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp。2012.12.20。 2. 文化建設委員。2011。社區總體營造。http://www.cca.gov.tw/business.do?method=list&id=5,2011.07.19。 3. 文化建設委員會。2009。台灣社區。http://sixstar.cca.gov.tw/upfiles/dow01166667925.htm。2009.05。 4. 文化部。2012。社區營造。http://www.moc.gov.tw/business.do?method=list&id=5。2012.12.23。 5. 王保進。2004。多變量分析:套裝程式與資料分析。台北市:高等教育文化事業有限公司。 6. 王銘琪。1996。輔導民眾參與社區綠化--經驗談。造園季刊 22:48-53。 7. 丘昌泰。(2001) 。台北市社區參與制度之研究。台北市政府研究發展考核委員會市政專題研究報告第308輯。台北市:台北市政府研究發展考核委員會。 8. 江亮演。1987。社會工作概要。台北:幼獅。 9. 行政院。2002。國家發展重點計畫2002-2008:挑戰2008。臺北:行政院。 10. 吳明隆。2009。SPSS操作與應用—多變量分析實務,。台北:五南圖書出版公司。 11. 吳萬益。2008。企業研究方法。台北市:華泰圖書出版公司。 12. 李英弘、林朝欽。1997)。地方情感概念在戶外遊憩研究上之探討。休閒觀光研究成果研討會:休閑遊憩行為。台中:中華民國戶外遊憩學會。 13. 周業謙、周光淦譯。2005。社會學辭典。台北市:貓頭鷹出版社。(Jary & Jary原著) 14. 林暉月。2001。居民的社區意識與社區公共事務參與態度及方式關係之研究—以台南市為例。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。 15. 林嘉男、許毅濬。2007。人與環境關係之論述:釐清「地方感」、「地方依附」、「社區依附」在環境研究上的角色。環境教育研究 5(1),41-71。 16. 林擎天、曾懿芳、杜立宇、賴櫻文、陳怡彣。2009。彰化縣鄉村地區老人休閒需求之研究。第七屆造園景觀學術研討會﹕面對全球暖化的創意與永續性思維。台灣造園景觀學會、東海大學景觀學系。 17. 邱皓政。2008。量化研究與統計分析(三版)。台北市:五南。 18. 侯錦雄、游仁君。2000。北埔傳統聚落空間與觀光行為模式研究。戶外遊憩研究 13(4),69-91。 19. 施植明譯。1995。場所精神:邁向建築現象學。台北市:田園城市文化。(Norberg-Schulz原著)。 20. 夏鑄九、黃麗玲等譯。(2002)。認同的力量。台北市:唐山。(Castells,1997) 21. 徐依鈴。2011。社區議題與社區自主性關聯之探討。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。 22. 徐宗國。1996。紮根理論、原則、技術與涵義。胡幼慧(主編)質性研究:理論方法及本土女性研究實例。台北市:巨流。 23. 高晧翎、王鴻濬、蔣佩君、陳美惠。2011。影響居民參與社區林業因子之研究-以林美社區與湖本社區為例。中華林學季刊 (Quarterly Journal of Chinese Forestry) 44(1):87—102 24. 張宇樑、吳樎椒譯。2007。研究設計:質化、量化及混合方法取向。台北市:學富文化。(Creswell, John W.原著) 25. 陳蕙蓉。2005。遊客觀光意象與地方依附感關係之探討--以高雄縣美濃鎮為例。台中:靜宜大學觀光事業學系研究所碩士論文。 26. 彭連煥。2006。社區民眾參與社區成人教育活動及社區意識關係之研究。台東:台東大學教育研究所碩士論文。 27. 曾秉希。2003。地方居民對台中市梅川親水公園依附感之研究。台中:朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理學系碩士論文。 28. 黃俊英。2000。多變量分析(7版) 。台北:華泰圖書出版公司。 29. 黃舒瑋。2010。高齡人口住宅社區開放空間偏好與滿意度之研究—以台南市長榮集合住宅大樓社區為例。台南:成功大學都市計畫學系研究所碩士論文。 30. 黃煌雄、郭石吉、林時機。2003。社區總體營造總體檢調查報告書。台北:遠流。 31. 黃麗英。1998。社區建築合作特性與互動困境之研究-以台北市永康社區三階段地區環境改造為例。淡江大學建築學系研究所碩士論文。 32. 楊東震、高明瑞、郭聖民。2007。民眾參與森林生態系經營之行為意向研究-以高雄縣六龜試驗林為例。台灣林業科學 22(4): 381-98。 33. 農委會水土保持局。2012。再生計畫。http://www.swcb.gov.tw./。2012.12.20。 34. 彰化縣政府。2011。主計處網頁。(http://www.chcg.gov.tw/index.asp。2011.07.19 35. 維基百科。2013。http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BE%9D%E9%99%84%E7%90%86%E8%AB%96。2013.1.23。 36. 劉大任。2007。社區總體營造對社區休閒效益影響之研究以彰化縣A、B兩個社區為例。大葉大學休閒事業管理系未出版碩士論文。 37. 劉仲冬。1996。民族誌研究法及實例。胡幼慧(主編)質性研究:理論方法及本土女性研究實例,台北市:巨流。 38. 劉俊志。2004。居民與遊客對於鯉魚潭風景特定區之地方依附差異探討,花蓮:國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文。 39. 歐陽慧貞。2002。賞鳥者專門化程度與場所依戀關係之研究-以七股溼地為例。台中:東海大學景觀學系碩士論文。 40. 鄭讚源。2001。台灣非政府組織在國際社會所扮演的角色與功能—一個「策略定位」的觀點(第七章)。吳英明、宋學文(主編)非政府組織。亞太公共事務論壇文教基金會 - 亞太。 41. 謝慶達(譯)。1996。行動規劃如何運用技巧改善社區環境。台北:創興。(Wates, Nick, 1996)。 42. 謝慶達、林賢卿。2002。社區建築:人民如何創造自我的環境。台北:創興。 43. 聶筱秋、胡中凡(譯)。2003。環境心理學。台北:桂冠。(Bell, Paul A., 2003)。 44. 顏家芝。1998。公園認養對使用者滿意度影響之研究--以臺北市鄰里公園為例。戶外遊憩研 11(3): 59-73。 45. Ahrentzen, Sherry Boland. (1992). How as a workplace in the lives of women. Advances in theory and research. Volume 12: Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press. 46. Altman, Irwin, & Low, Setha. (1992). Human behavior and environments: Advances in theory and research. Volume 12: Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press. 47. Arnstein, Sherry. (2000). A ladder of citizen participation. In: LeGates, Richard T. & Stout, Frederic (Eds.), The City Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 240–252. Babbie, Earl. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. 48. Beckley, T. M., Stedman, R. C., Wallace, S. M., & Ambard, M. (2007). Snapshots of what matters most: Using resident-employed photography to articulate attachment to place. Society and Natural Resources, 20: 913-929. 49. Bishop, Brian, Colquhoun, Simon & Johnson, Gemma. (2005). Psychological sense of community: An Australian aboriginal experience. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1): 1–7. 50. Bricker, Kelly S. and Kerstetter, Deborah L. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of Whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22:233–257. 51. Brown, Barbara B. & Perkins, Douglas. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low, 279–304. New York: Plenum Press. 52. Brown, Barbara B., Perkins, Douglas & Brown, Graham. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23: 259–71. 53. Brown, Rebecca & Harris, Glenn. (2005). Comanagement of wildlife corridors: The case for citizen participation in the Algonquin to Adirondack proposal. Journal of Environmental Management, 74: 97–106. 54. Buckland, Erik and Williams, Daniel. (2003). A quantitative synthesis of place attachment research: Investigating past experience and place attachment. In Murdy, James (ed.) Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. GTR-NE-317. pp. 320-325. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Resaerch station. 55. Burholt, Vanessa & Naylor, Dawn. (2005). The relationship between rural community type and attachment tp plae for older people living in Norht Wales, UK. Eupean Joournal of Aging, 2: 109-119. 56. Burroughs, Susan M. & Eby, Lillian T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6): 509–532. 57. Carlsson, Lars, & Berkes, Fikret. (2005). Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75: 65–76. 58. Carr, Deborah S. & Halvorsen, Kathleen. (2001). Society and Natural Resources, 14: 107–126, 59. Chawla, Louise. (1992). Childhood place attachment. In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low, 63–86. New York: Plenum Press. 60. Cheng, A.S., Kruger, L.E. & Daniels, S.E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources, 16: 87–104. 61. Creswell, John W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design :choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 62. Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. M. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling, community and region. Sociological Quarterly, 34: 111–131. 63. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 64. Farnum, Jennifer, Hall, Troy & Kruger, Linda E. (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: An evaluation and assessment of research findings. U.S. Department of Agriculture Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-660. 65. Fetterman, David M. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice: Assessing level of commitment (Chapter3.). In Fetterman, D.M. and Wandersman, A. (Eds.). Empowerment evaluation: Principles in practice. New York: The Guildford Press. 66. Fraser, Heather. (2005). Four different approaches to community participation. Community Development Journal, 40(3): 286–300. 67. Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 463-496. 68. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 69. Green, Gary P. & Haines, Anna. (2002). Asset building & community development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 70. Greenberg, Michael R. (2001). Elements and test of a theory of neighborhood civic participation. Human Ecology Review, 8(2): 40-51. 71. Hair, Joseph F., Black, Bill, Babin, Barry, Anderson, Rolph E., & Tatham, Ronald L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. (6th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NL: Prentice-Hall. 72. Hammit, William E., Kyle, Gerard T. & Oh, Chi-Ok. (2009). Comparison of place bonding models in recreation resource management. Journal of Leisure Reasearch, 41(1): 57-72. 73. Hammitt, W. E., and Cole, D. N. (1998). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. (2nd ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons. 74. Hammitt, W.E., Backlund, E.A. & Bixler, R.D. (2004). Experience use history, place bonding and resource substitution of trout anglers during recreation engagements. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3): 356–378. 75. Hammitt, William E., Backlund, Erik A., & Bixler, Robert D. (2006). Place bonding for recreation places: Conceptual and empirical development. Leisure Studies, 25(1): 17–41. 76. Hart, Chris. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage Publications. 77. Hay, B. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18: 5–29. 78. Hidalgo, M. & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21: 273–281. 79. Home, Robert, Hunziker, Marcel, & Bauer, Nicole. (2012). Psychosocial outcomes as motivations for visiting nearby urban green spaces. Leisure Sciences, 34: 350–365. 80. Hummon, David. (1992). Community attachment: local sentiment and sense of place. In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low, 253–278. New York: Plenum Press. 81. Jacob, G.R.; Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation—a theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12: 368–380. 82. Johnson, Cassandra Y. (1998). A consideration of collective memory in African American attachment to wildland recreation places. Human Ecology Review, 5(1): 5-15. 83. Jones, C.D., Patterson, M.E. & Hammitt, W.E. (2000). Evaluating the construct validity of sense of belonging as a measure of landscape perception. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(4): 383–395. 84. Jorgensen, Bradley & Stedman, Richard. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248. 85. Kaltenborn, Bjorn P. & Williams, Daniel R. (2002). The meaning of place: Attachment of Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 56: 189-198. 86. Kaltenborn, Bjorn P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impact: a case study among residents in an Arctic community. Applied Geography. 18(2): 169–189. 87. Kim, Joongsub and Kaplan, Rachel. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community-- New urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior, 36(3): 313-340. 88. Kruger, L.E.; Jakes, P.J. (2003). The importance of place: Advances in science and application. Forest Science, 49(6): 819–821. 89. Kruger, Linda E., Hall, Troy E., and Stiefel, Maria C. (Technical editors) (2008). Understanding Concepts of Place in Recreation Research and Management. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-744, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland: University of Idaho. 90. Kyle, Gerard T. & Chick, Garry. (2007). The social construction of a sense of place. Leisure Sciences, 29: 209–225. 91. Kyle, Gerard T., Absher, James D. & Graefe, Alan R. (2003). The moderating role of place attachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees and spending preferences. Leisure Sciences, 25: 33–50. 92. Kyle, Gerard T., Bricker, K. Graefe, A.R. & Wickham, T. (2004). An examination of recreationists relationships with activities and settings. Leisure Sciences, 26: 125–242. 93. Kyle, Gerard T., Graefe, A.R. & Manning, R.E. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37: 153–177. 94. Kyle, Gerard T., Graefe, A.R., Manning, R.E. & Bacon, J. (2003). An examination of the relationship between leisure activity involvement and place attachment among hikers along the Appalachian Trail. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(3): 249–273. 95. Kyle, Gerard T., Graefe, A.R., Manning, R.E. & Bacon, J. (2004a). Effect of involvement and place attachment on recreationists’ perceptions of setting density. Journal of Leisure Research, 36: 209–231. 96. Kyle, Gerard T., Graefe, A.R.; Manning, R.E.; Bacon, J. (2004b). The effect of place attachment on users’ perception of social and environmental conditions encountered in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24: 213–225. 97. Kyle, Gerard T., Mowen, Andrew J. & Tarrant, Michael. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24: 439–454. 98. Lewicka, Maria. (2005). Ways to make people active: The role of place attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25: 381–395. 99. Lewicka, Maria. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31: 207-230. 100. Liepins, R. (2000). Exploring rurality through ‘community'': Discourses, practices and spaces shaping Australian and New Zealand rural ‘communities''. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 325-341. 101. Lin, Chin-Ten. (2005). Relationships between management and visitors’ satisfaction on leisure agriculture with case study on Chunghua County, Taiwan. The 11th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Organized by European Tourism Research Institute. Mid-Sweden University. Ostersund, Sweden. 102. Lin, Chin-Ten. (2009). The relationships between place attachment and citizen participation of Chunghwa rural communities, Taiwan. The 15th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. Organized by The University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences. Vienna, Austria. 103. Lincoln, & Guba, (1985). Naturalistiv inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 104. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press. 105. Manzo, Lynne C. & Perkins, Douglas D. (2006). Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4):335-350. 106. Manzo, Lynne C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23: 47–61. 107. Manzo, Lynne C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1): 67–86. 108. Marcus, Clare Copper. (1992). Environmental memories. In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low, 87–112. New York: Plenum Press. 109. Mattessich, Paul & Money, Barbara. (2001). Community building: What makes it work: A review of factors influencing successful community building. Saint Paul: The Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 110. McAndrew, Francis T. (1998). The measurement of “rootedness” and the prediction of attachment to home-towns in college students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18: 409-417. 111. McMillan, David W., & Chavis, David M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1): 6–23. 112. Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 113. Moor, Roger & Scott, David. (2003). Place attachement and context: Comparing a park and a trail within. Forest Science, 49(6): 1-8. 114. Norberg-Schult, Christian. (1979). Genius Loci: Towards a phenomenology of Architecture. Rizzoli. 115. Oakley, Peter. (1991). Project with people: The practice of participation in rural development. Geneva: International Labor Office. 116. Pattersona, Michael E. & Williams, Daniel R. (2005). Maintaining research traditions on place: Diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25: 361–380. 117. Plummer J., & Taylor, J. G. (2004). The characteristics of community participation in China. In Plummer J., & Taylor, J. G. (Eds.), Community participation in China: Issues and processes for capacity building. pp. 36-54. London: Earthscan. 118. Ponzetti Jr., James J. (2003). Growing old in rural communities: A visual methodology for studying place attachment. Journal of Rural Community Psychology, E6 (1). 119. Pretty, Grace H., Chipuer, Heather M. & Bramston, Paul. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23: 273–287. 120. Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A.K. & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3: 57–83. 121. Rapoport, Amos. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15:121–43. 122. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. 123. Riley, Robert. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low, 13–36. New York: Plenum Press. 124. Rogana, Ruth, O’Connorb, Moira & Horwitz, Pierre. (2005). No where to hide: Awareness and perceptions of environmental change, and their influence on relationships with place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25: 147–158. 125. Rubinstein, Robert & Parmelee, Patricia A. (1992). Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly. In Place Attachment, edited by I. Altman and S. Low, 139–164. New York: Plenum Press. 126. Ryan, Robert L. (2005). Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas. Environment and Behavior, 37(1): 3-42. 127. Selman, Paul. (2004). Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(3), 365–392. 128. Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22 (3), 347-358. 129. Smaldone, David, Harris, Charles & Sanyal, Nick. (2005). An exploration of place as a process: The case of Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25:397–414. 130. Stedman, Richard C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561–581. 131. Stedman, Richard C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16: 671–685. 132. Stedman, Richard, Beckley, Tom, Wallace, Sara and Ambard, Marke. (2004). A picture and 1000 words: Using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4): 580–606. 133. Stewart, William P., Liebert, Derek & Larkin, Kevin W. (2003). Community identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2–3): 315–334. 134. Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment (pp. 441—488). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 135. Stokowski, P.A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4): 368–382. 136. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and technique. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 137. Telep, V. G. (1986). The relationship of volunteer perception of organization climate to volunteer work satisfaction. PhD Dissertation of Virginia Commonwealth University 138. Trentelman, Carla Koons. (2009). Place attachment and community attachment: A primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Society and Natural Resources, 22(3): 191-210. 139. Tuan, Yi-Fu. (1974). Topophilia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 140. Tuan, Yi-Fu. (1977). Space and place: The perspectives of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 141. Twigger-Ross, Clare L. & Uzzell, David L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3): 205–220. 142. United Nations. 1981. Popular participation in public decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 143. Webler, Thomas & Tuler, Seth. (2001). Public participation in watershed management planning: Views on process from people in the field. Human Ecology Review, 8(2), 29-39. 144. Williams, Daniel R. & Patterson, M.E. (1999). Environmental psychology: mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management. In: Cordell, H.K.; Bergstron, J.C., eds. Integrating social sciences with ecosystem management: human dimensions in assessment, policy, and management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 141–160. 145. Williams, Daniel R. & Vaske, Jerry J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6): 830-840. 146. Williams, Daniel R. Patterson, M.E. Roggenbuck, J.W. & Watson, Alan, E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Science, 14: 29-46. 147. Williams, Daniel R., McDonald, C. D., Riden, C. M., & Uysal, M. (1995). Community attachment, regional identity and resident attitudes towards tourism. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Travel and Tourism Research Association Conference Proceedings (pp. 424e428). Wheat Ridge, CO: Travel and Tourism Research Association. 148. Williams, Daniel R., Roggenbuck, J.W. (1989). Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results. In: McAvoy, L.H.; Howard, D., (eds.) Abstracts: 1989 Leisure Research Symposium. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association: 32. 149. Yung, L., Freimund, W.A. & Belsky, J.M. (2003). The politics of place: understanding meaning, common ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain Front. Forest Science, 49(6): 855–866.
摘要: 自從文化建設委員會於民國93年提出「社區總體營造政策」,陸續推出「新故鄉社區營造計畫」(民國91年至96年)、新故鄉社區營造第二期計畫(民國97年至102年)以來,社區總體營造儼然成為台灣各地村里之重要議題,並因此列為重要之國家發展計畫。台灣各地社區居民對於所處的環境生活品質,景觀風貌的營造,以及休閒活動的環境也越加重視,除了公部門規劃執行建設外,社區自發性改造環境進行綠美化,或由民眾提供空地作為口袋公園實踐操作,進而對生活周遭的公園綠地實施認養維護也時有所聞。因此社區自主營造完成之環境空間深受在地居民的喜愛,不僅使用效率高且維護良好,相對的許多乏人問津的營建設施時常淪為大家戲稱之”蚊子館”。 研究目的主要為探索社區居民的地方依附之起源、影響、負面等不同面向內涵;此外透過研究建構社區居民地方依附之概念、釐清地方依附與社區參與之間關係;試圖了解影響社區居民的地方依附之因素與差異程度;提供公部門在社區環境改善與其他營造政策推動之參考。 研究採取質、量化混合設計取向,以彰化縣境內登記社區發展協會及其社區居民為研究對象。質化採取深度訪談方式進行,共計訪談5名涵蓋不同區位社區的個案,再依據研究主題對於逐字稿進行抽離、歸類、彙整。量化過程依據研究架構擬訂研究假設,並編制結構式問卷,包含五大部分:社區居住特性(9題類別問項)、開放空間使用狀況(18題次序問項)、地方依附(32題次序問項)、社區參與(24題次序問項)、個人基本資料(8題類別問項)。資料收集來自彰化縣山區、平原、海線三種不同區位,共10個社區,回收有效354份問卷,以SPSS軟體套裝進行假設驗證與統計分析。 研究結果顯示社區居民對於開放空間滿意度主要受使用因素、動機因素影響,地方認同、社會鍵結、地方依賴、地方根屬等變項對於地方依附感具有預測力,對於社區參與度則功用價值、資訊關懷、提議決策、參與阻礙等變項有影響力。整體而言,不同地理區位社區對開放空間滿意度、地方依附感、社區參與度等依變項都具有差異性,而三種不同開放空間使用集群也在開放空間滿意度、地方依附感、社區參與度等依變項呈現顯著差異。研究利用典型相關分析了解地方依附與社區參與之相關性,以地方依附構面做為自變項,社區參與構面做為依變項,成功獲得四組典型變量,累積解釋變易量為87.01%。質、量化混合研究,在開放空間、地方依附、社區參與個別構念呈現一致結果,但質化研究資料較不法顯示地方依附與社區參與之相關性。 社區居民對於開放空間依附的動機起源多元異樣,但是在持續的使用場所與依附產生過程,主要受其環境優美與否的影響較為重要。當社區居民對於所使用場所開始萌生情感認同後,地方依附感才形成,這個依附歷程會受到共同使用該場所的人際互動與行為內容所影響,當然個人也依賴該地方做為進行活動場所,但雖然負面依附或阻礙可能因為不喜歡的人、事而來,但對於整體地方依附感影響力小。建議公部門對於環境空間營造應考量不同需求,滿足使用實質內容,社區組織幹部應更加關注居民之情感認同,凝聚共識後行事。
Since “Policy of Community Building” being proposed followed by two stages of continued plan, community building has become important issue spreading in different corners of Taiwan. Amongst them environmental quality, landscape construction, and settings for leisure activity of community are emphasized both by public and private sectors. Self-constructed open spaces with well maintenance and management by community-based organizations also can be easily found. They present accessible settings for resident and efficiency compared to some closed buildings constructed by public agency. The purposes of study are to explore the sources, effect, and negative factor of place attachment, to clarify the construct of place attachment and the relationships between place attachment and community participation, to understand the factors, intensity, connection of place attachment, and to provide the interpretation to environmental enhancement of community based on the research findings. The mixed method of qualitative and quantitative approach was applied to this study. Chunhua County located on Central Taiwan is chosen as research site with residents of different communities as research unit. At qualitative stage, five cases from different communities of three locations were interviewed in order to understand their thoughts on usage and place attachment to open space and participation to community. At quantitative stage, structured questionnaire, including five major parts, was designed and used to collect data randomly from ten communities of three locations (mountain, plain, and coastal region). Totally the 354 valid samples were obtained for future hypothesis testing and analysis by using SPSS program. The results of research show that the main reasons effecting residents’ satisfaction to use open space are usage factor and motivation factor. The place identity, social bonding, place dependence, and place rootedness play as independent variables statistically to predict place attachment. Four variables of function/value, information/concern, propose/decision, and constraint have effects to community participation. There are significant differences between communities of different locations at three dependent variables of satisfaction to open space, attachment to open space, and community participation. There are four significant canonical correlations with total 87.01% explanation of variance between variable sets of place attachment and community participation. The results produced by qualitative and quantitative present their congruence on the individual construct of open space usage, attachment to open space, and community participation. However, the relationships and effects between various constructs show its difficulties to find by qualitative approach. The conclusions of research reveal that resident attachment to open space may be generated because of diverse motivations. Yet the very important influence during the growing attachment to open space is environmental amenity of open space. Since residents’ emotion and identity to a specific place initiate, their attachment to that place can be fostered by time. And the social interaction and their behavior in place continue to impact residents’ attachment to place. Of course the negative dimension and constraint are able to decline attachment to open space, but act least effect. Suggestions based on research findings are proposed that public sector should have much consideration to different demands of users and provide the substantial design and management to satisfy residents. The leaders and staff of community-based organization can put more concerns to resident emotion and identity to community and open space, and always find agreement before making decisions.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/29395
其他識別: U0005-0502201313411600
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-0502201313411600
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.