Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28859
標題: 自然環境偏好之探索性研究
An Explorative Study on Natural Environmental Preference
作者: 葉怡欣
Yeh, Yi-Hsin
關鍵字: Natural Environment Preference;自然環境偏好;In-depth Interview;Grounded Theory;Information-processing Model;深度訪談;紮根理論;訊息處理模式
出版社: 園藝學系所
引用: 中文文獻 【書籍】 1. 王文科,(2000),質的教育研究法,台北:師大書苑。 2. 王文科、王智弘著,(2006),教育研究法,台北:五南。 3. 王雅各,(2004),質性研究,謝臥龍編,台北:心理。 4. 王甦、汪安聖,(2004),認知心理學,台北:五南。 5. 李玉琇、蔣文郝合譯,Sternberg R.J.,著,(2005),認知心理學,台北:雙葉。 6. 李政閒譯,Marshall C., Rossman G.B.,著,(2006),質性研究設計與計劃撰寫,台北:五南。 7. 莊明貞、陳怡如譯,Glesne C.,著,(2004),質性研究導論,台北:高等教育。 8. 陳向明,(2002),社會科學質的研究,台北:五南。 9. 鄭麗玉,(1993),認知心理學理論與應用,台北:五南。 10. 鍾聖校,(1990),認知心理學,台北:心理。 11. 聶筱秋、胡中凡、唐筱雯、葉冠伶譯,Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., Baum, A. 著,(2003),環境心理學,台北:桂冠。 【期刊論文】 1. 李厚強,(2002),人工光源之照度及色溫對視覺感知影響與照明方式調查研究,碩士論文,中原大學室內設計系,桃園。 2. 李美芬,(2006),自然環境體驗認知歷程之研究,博士論文,中興大學園藝學系,台中。 3. 李素馨,(2000),中山高公路土地使用景觀偏好探討,造園學報6(1/2): 19-34。 4. 李麗蘋,(2001),壓縮的童年─提早入學兒童自我概念之探究,碩士論文,台北師範學院教育研究所,台北。 5. 周先捷,(2005),環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺關係─以山景景觀為例,碩士論文,靜宜大學觀光事業學系,台中。 6. 邱建維,(2001),台中孔廟建築空間的情緒體驗及空間認知之研究,碩士論文,朝陽科技大學建築及都市設計研究所,台中。 7. 陳玠穎,(2003),中國園林景觀元素之視覺注意力、景觀認知及情緒體驗關係之研究,碩士論文,中興大學園藝學系,台中。 8. 陳惠美,(1999),觀賞序列對視覺景觀資源評估作用之研究─兼論視覺資源之永續經營管理,博士論文,台灣大學園藝學系,台北。 9. 張淳婷,(2004),大氣景觀與觀景設施色彩對視覺偏好及空間色彩意象之影響,碩士倫文,東海大學景觀學系,台中。 10. 廖汝文,(2006),視覺與嗅覺之關聯性研究-以香水包裝為例,碩士論文,中原大學商業設計學系,桃園。 11. 蔣明珊、盧台華,(2000),國小資優教材評鑑檢核表建構與試用之研究,特殊教育研究學刊,19: 347-370。 12. 鍾政偉,(2002),景觀知覺偏好與結構指數關係之研究,碩士論文,朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系,台中。 13. 羅婉媛,(2004),日月潭水景景觀偏好心理認知之研究,碩士論文,靜宜大學觀光事業學系,台中。 【網站】 1. 屏東教育大學中國語文學系碩士班,(2006),介紹三角校正檢測(Triangulation),下載日期:2007/4/11,取自:http://sctlog.sctnet.edu.tw/post/392/4748。 英文文獻 【Books】 1. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2. Knopf, R. C. (1987). Human behavior, cognition, and affect in the natural environment. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol. 1, (pp. 783–825). New York: Wiley. 3. McAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental Psychology, California: Wadsworth. 4. Nickerson, R. S. (2003). Psychology and environmental change, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 【Journal Article】 1. Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., & Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and behavior, 34, 795–818. 2. Carles, José Luis., Barrio, Isabel López., & de Lucio, José Vicente. (1999). Sound influence on landscape values, Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 191-200. 3. Clay, G. R., & Daniel, T. C. (2000). Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty, Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 1-13. 4. Farnum, J., Hall, T., & Kruger, L. E. (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation and assessment of research finding, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-660. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific northwest research station. p.59 5. Fredrickson, L., & Anderson, D. H. (1999). A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration, Journal of environmental psychology, 21, 21-39. 6. Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of environmental psychology, 12, 237-248. 7. Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for legibility, Environment and behavior, 35, 459-477 8. Johnson, C. Y. (1998). A consideration of collective memory in African American attachment to wildland recreation places, Human Ecology Review, 5(1), 5-15. 9. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective, Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32. 10. Kato, Y., & Takeuchi, Y. (2003). Individual differences in wayfinding strategies, Journal of environmental psychology, 23, 171–188. 11. Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207-218. 12. Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places, Environment and behavior, 33, 4, 572-589. 13. Krause, C. L. (2001). Our visual landscape managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects, Landscape and urban planning, 54, 239-254. 14. Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J., & Tattant, M. (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. 15. Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and urban planning, 44,177-198. 16. Múgica, M., & De Lucio, J. V. (1996). The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences-A case study at Doñana National Park (Spain), Journal of Environmental Management, 47, 229–239. 17. Mazumdar, S. (2005) Religious place attachment, squatting, and “qualitative” research: A commentary, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 87–95 18. Ng, C. F. (1998). Canada as a new place: The immigrant’s experience, Journal of environmental psychology, 18, 55-67. 19. Nikolopoulou, M., Baker, N., & Steemers, K. (2001). Thermal comfort in outdoor urban spaces: Understanding the human parameter. Solar Energy, 70, 227–235. 20. Ohta, H. (2001). A phenomenological approach to natural landscape cognition, Journal of environmental psychology, 21, 387-403. 21. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and behavior, 33, 1, 93-106. 22. 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. 23. Robertson, M., Walford, R., & Fox, A. (2003). Landscape meanings and personal identities: Some perspectives of East Anglian children, International research in geographical and environmental education, 12(1), 32-48. 24. Ryan, R. L. (2005). Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas, Environment and behavior, 37(1), 3-42. 25. Scott, M. J., & Canter, D. V. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape, Journal of environmental psychology, 17, 263–281. 26. Staats, H., Kieviet A., & Hartig T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of environmental psychology, 23, 147-157. 27. Stamps, A. E. (2004) Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1–16. 28. Strumse, E. (1994). Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of environmental psychology, 14, 293-303. 29. Tveit M., Ode A., & Fry G. (2007). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229- 255. 30. 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.
摘要: 
本研究旨在以質性方法脈絡性的建構方式,重新全面性的歸納環境偏好的涵構。同時,本研究也以國人的角度和以自然環境為客體來探索並建構環境偏好涵構。

本研究共抽樣13位受訪者進行深度訪談,訪談對象分為兩批次進行。其中一批以非景觀專業背景的學生為對象,而另一批則挑選具有景觀專業背景的學生為對象。訪談過程進行錄音,於訪談結束後轉成筆錄。並以ATLAS.ti 5.2套裝軟體協助分析。運用紮根理論(grounded theory),由開放譯碼(open coding)開始,而後進入主軸譯碼(axial coding)。研究結果顯示在基礎概念的部份,共可歸納出六大類的聚合類別,分別是:環境元素、整體環境類型、環境特性、情緒喚起、效益、以及氛圍此六類。若將文本中顯示的關係進行疊合,可串連起兩組關係,其中一組 序列為:環境元素、環境特性、情緒喚起以及效益之間的關係;另外一組序列為整體環境類型、情緒喚起及效益之間的關係。整合上述分析結果,獲得本研究之整體模式,此整體模式可以分為三個部份,第一部分為外部訊息(物),屬於實質的部份。第二部份為內部訊息(我),為人的心理反應的部份。第三部份則為外部訊息(物)與內部訊息(我)的交集,由物我之間所形成的互動即本研究的偏好部份。

本研究結果提供偏好環境涵構較為細部的特性(譯碼),可以提供後續研究者深入研究與檢驗。而有關各六大類聚合類別之間的關聯,則需要進一步的證實。另外,本研究也建議後續研究能夠擴大討論範圍,如將樣本擴大至範圍較年長的年齡層,預期會呈現更豐富的資料。或者,考慮抽樣的對象,都能夠提供更多不同觀點或背景中,受訪對象所建構出的偏好環境涵構。

There are many discussions on environment preference. One of them is Kaplan & Kaplan's Preference Matrix. This theory which established on information-processing model indicates four principles to predict environmental preference. Also, it causes a lot of responses on the later researches. However, we couldn't find out other qualitative researches on this topic. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore the context of natural environment preference by using qualitative method. Throughout the in-depth interviews of student-interviewees and the application of grounded theory, some results are revealed.

In the stage of opened-coding, there are six categories occurred. They are environmental elements, environmental characteristics, overall environmental types, aroused emotions, benefits, and atmospheres. Furthermore, in the stage of axial-coding, two sequences of these categories are presented. One of them is led by environmental elements, while another is led by overall environmental types. Summarily, this model could be viewed as an external perspective which refers to physical environment, an internal perspective which refers to the psychical activities of human psychology, and finally an interactive perspective which refers to the results of this study, which called preference. These concepts and relations of codes could be used as rules for landscape design and planning.

This study shows the explorative results of environmental preference which might contribute to later researches in detail. However, in terms of these sequences described above, they still need more explorations and improvements. Finally, it is suggested that later researches could extend the perspective of discussion and take other interviewees with different background.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28859
其他識別: U0005-1908200719552000
Appears in Collections:園藝學系

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


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