Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/36635
標題: 自然旅遊環境四項心理效益交互影響關係之探討-以南投縣惠蓀林場為例
The Interaction Model Between Psychological Benefits in Natural Environment - A Cast Study at Huisun Forest Station in Nantou County
作者: 黃韻璇
Huang, Yun-Shuan
關鍵字: nature-based tourism setting;自然旅遊環境;comfort level;landscape preference;attention restoration;health level;舒適度;景觀偏好;注意力恢復;健康度
出版社: 農村規劃研究所
引用: 中文文獻-期刊 1. 王小璘,(1999),都市公園綠量視覺評估之研究,設計學報,4(1),61-89。 2. 林盛隆、陳銘雄、詹朝光,(2005),大學普通教室熱舒適度探討,朝陽設計學報,6,87-101。 3. 吳兌、鄧雪嬌,(2001),環境氣象與特種氣象預報,北京:氣象出版社,4,146-189。 4. 李素馨,(1999),都市視覺景觀偏好之研究,都市與計劃,26(1),19-40。 5. 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。 6. 李素馨,1995,環境知覺和環境評估,規劃設計學報,1(4),53-74。 7. 李麗雪,(2000),台灣傳統庭園的情緒體驗與景觀偏好之研究,朝陽設計學報,1,33-51。 8. 侯錦雄、郭彰仁、辛珮甄、張筱雲,(2003),台中市民眾對天橋造型改善之偏好研究,造園學報,9(1),53-72。 9. 陳錫琦,(1997),坐禪與健康促進,華梵學報,4(1), 45-54。 10. 陳瑞意,(2006),如果地球上沒有森林,台灣林業,32(3),73-78。 11. 陳昭明,(1976),森林經營計劃中之森林遊樂經營計劃,中華林業季刊,9(3),1-29。 12. 馬振基,(2007),負離子的原理與應用,科學發展,413,54-56 13. 曾慈慧、凌德麟、毛慧芬,(2002),景觀環境的偏好、心理效益認知與生心理反應之研究,造園學報,8(2),25-44。 14. 黃章展、黃芳銘、周先捷,(2008),環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺關係之研究-以山景景觀為例,戶外遊憩研究,21(1):1-25。 15. 郭英之、張紅,(2003),中國西部地區國家級旅遊資源評價,陝西師範大學學報(自然科學版),31(2), 110-114。 16. 楊宏志,(1991),視覺景觀評估方法論:以森林遊樂區為例,戶外遊憩研究,4(4),35。 17. 郭瓊瑩,(1995),景觀專業之特性與發展前瞻,造園季刊,18,16-21。 18. 廖振華,(2007),空氣負離子與空氣質量,化學教學,11,中國:浙江杭州。 19. 何友鋒、陳惠玲,(2007),都市健康住宅評估指標體系之研究,中華民國建築學會「建築學報」,60,115-136。 20. 韓可宗,(2002),療癒型環境理論評介,中華心理衛生學刊,15(1),47- 41。 21. 張俊彥、曾慈慧 (2000),醫院景觀環境差異對病人生心理反應之研究-以消化性潰瘍與膽結石病患為例,中國園藝,46(2),231-246。 中文文獻-書籍 22. 王鑫,(1990),花東海岸山脈地景調查(一),行政院農業委員會,台北。 23. 王鑫,(1997),地景保育,台北:明文。 24. 田中郁夫,(2005),負離子的全方位功效,台北:安立。 25. 林文鎮,(1988),森林遊樂與國民健康,行政院農業委員會,台北。 26. 林憲德、賴榮平、周家鵬,(1991),建築物理環境,台北:六和。 27. 林師模、陳苑欽,(2003),多變量分析:管理上的應用,台北:雙葉。 28. 林清山,(1998),多變量分析統計法,台北:東華。 29. 吳章文,(2002),旅遊氣候學,(pp.30-31、40-53),北京:氣象出版社。 30. 李麗雪、洪得娟、顏家芝譯,Richard C. Smardon, James F. Palmer, John P. Felleman 原著(1996),景觀視覺評估與分析,台北:田園城市。 31. 陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵,(2003),多變量分析方法:統計軟體應用,台北:五南。 32. 張劭燻、林秀娟,(1998),SPSS for Windows統計分析-初等統計與高等統計,台北:松岡。 33. 張健邦,(1993),應用多變量分析,台北:文富。 34. 楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園,(1990),社會及行為科學研究法(上)、(下),台北:東華。 35. 飯野節夫,(1993),負離子健康法,台北:青春。 36. 孫安迪,(1998),身心靈養生的醫學觀,台北:金菠蘿。 37. 孫安迪,(1999),孫安迪再造免疫力,台北:自然風。 38. 榮泰生,(2007),Amos與研究方法,台北:五南。 39. 謝靜芳、秦元明,(2004),氣象環境與舒適度及健康,(pp.9-38),北京:氣象。 中文文獻-研究報告 40. 鄭明仁,(2008),校園戶外熱舒適環境之研究,行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告(報告編號:NSC 96-2221-E-035-101-),未出版。 41. 江哲銘、王文安(1999)建築室內環境保健控制綜合指標之研究,內政部建築研究所。 中文文獻-學位論文 42. 尤俊雄,(1993),視覺景觀影響之研究-以垃圾焚化場模擬為例,碩士論文,私立東海大學景觀學系碩士班,台中。 43. 辛珮甄,(2003),景觀偏好與複雜度關係之研究,碩士論文,私立東海大學景觀學系,台中。 44. 林擎天,(1992),森林景觀美質評估模式之研究,碩士論文,國立中興大學園藝研究所,台中。 45. 林雅萍,(1998),都市天際線映像之研究-以台北市天際線為例,碩士論文,國立成功大學建築研究所,台南。 46. 李麗雪,(1998),台灣傳統庭園的情緒體驗及景觀偏好之研究-以板橋林家花園為例,博士論文,國立台灣大學園藝研究所,台北。 47. 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,國立中興大學園藝研究所,台中。 48. 邱裕瑄,(1996),陽明山國家公園視覺景觀偏好影響因素之探討,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝學系研究所,台北。 49. 陳惠美,(1999),觀賞序列對景觀視覺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,國立臺灣大學園藝研究所,台北。 50. 高珮詩,(2007),天氣造成遊客壓力與調適行為之研究-以阿里山國家森林遊樂區為例,碩士論文,國立中興大學森林學系,台中。 51. 高惠貞,(2007),遊客對奧萬大國家森林遊樂區景觀偏好之研究,碩士論文,國立嘉義大學農學院林業暨自然資源研究所,嘉義 52. 施夙娟,(1995),景觀偏好知覺與景觀生態美質模式之探討,碩士論文,私立中華大學土木工程研究所,新竹。 53. 莊家梅,(2008),夏季戶外空間熱舒適性之研究-以台南縣市、高雄市戶外空間為研究對象,碩士論文,國立成功大學建築學系,台南。 54. 黃柔嫚,(1999),台北都市氣候特徵及其熱舒適度評估-以士林萬華、古亭、松山為例,碩士論文,國立台灣大學園藝學研究所,台北。 55. 黃孝璋,(2007),景觀偏好、注意力恢復力及心理生理反應之相關性研究,碩士論文,國立台灣大學生物資源暨農學院園藝學研究所,台北。 56. 黃棍琮,(1996),溪頭森林步道景觀美質評估模式之研究,碩士論文,東海大學景觀學系研究所,台中。 57. 脩文琴,(2005),雪霸國家公園雪見地區景觀道路遊客美質偏好與生態工法應用之研究,碩士論文,中華大學營建管理研究所,新竹。 58. 曾慈慧,(2002),景觀環境與福祉及復癒關係之探討,博士論文,國立台灣大學園藝研究所,台北。 59. 詹世光,(2001),樹群天際線對景觀美質影響之研究-以小葉南洋杉為例,碩士論文,私立東海大學景觀學系碩士班,台中。 60. 廖瑞金,(2006),遊客舒適度、感受價值與忠誠度之關係-以清靜農場地區民宿業者為例,碩士論文,嘉義大學林業暨自然資源研究所,嘉義。 61. 張守剛,(1997),以景觀美質評估方法分析都市水岸景觀之研究-以高雄港灣為例,碩士論文,國立成功大學都巿計畫學系,台灣,台南。 62. 劉孟芬,(2004),森林遊憩之健康效益,碩士論文,國立台北護理學院旅遊健康研究所,台北。 63. 蘇炯龍,(2002),陽明山附近環境風場舒適度之模擬,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學生物環境系統工程學系暨研究所,台北。 64. 蘇俊榮,(2008),熱舒適度之探討-以南投縣鹿谷鄉廣興國小教室為例,碩士論文,朝陽科技大學環境工程與管理系,台中。 65. 鍾政偉,(2002),景觀知覺偏好與地景結構指數關係之研究,碩士論文,私立朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系研究所,台中。 66. 魏士閔,(2007),室內熱舒適度之調查與分析-以焚化場簡報室為例,碩士論文,朝陽科技大學環境工程與管理系,台中。 67. 蔡岡廷,(2002),台南地區都市綠色音環境之研究,博士論文,國立成功大學建築研究所,台南。 中文文獻-研討會論文 68. 李素馨,(1997),台中市都市景觀認知與偏好之研究,第十屆建築研究成果發表會論文集,(525-528),台北:中華民國建築學會。 69. 彭美玲、李英弘,(1999),應用心理學模式於校園景觀評估之研究-以逢甲大學榕樹大道為例,1999休閒、遊憩、觀光研究成果研討會,南投:戶外遊憩學會。 70. 蕭登元、郭乃文、吳聲燿,(2004),森林遊憩區負離子特性之探討,2004年休閒遊憩與健康效益研討會,(299-315),台北:景文技術學院觀光事業系。 英文文獻 1. Ahmed, K.S. (2003). Comfort in urban spaces: Defining the boundaries of outdoor thermal comfort for the tropical urban environments. Energy and Buildings, 35, 103-110. 2. ASHRAE (1966). Thermal comfort conditions. ASHRAE standard 55.66, New York. 3. Blocken, B., & Carmeliet, J. (2004). Pedestrian wind environment around buildings: literature review and practical examples. Journal of Thermal Environment and Building Science, 28, 107-159. 4. Brown, T.C. and T. C. Daniel, (1986), Predicting scenic beauty of timber Stands. Forest Science. 2(2), 471-487. 5. Caplan, T and H. Thomas,(1995). Safety and Comfort Content and Process:Facilitating Open Group Work With Men Who Batter .Social Work with Group., 18(2-3) , 33-51 6. Coomber , N.H. and Biswas A.K, (1972).Evaluation of environmental intangibles review of techniques. Poling , Planning and research service , environmental Cnada , 74 7. Gaitani, N., Mihalakakou, G. & Santamouris, M. (2007). On the use of bioclimatic architecture principles in order to improve thermal comfort conditions in outdoor spaces. Building and Environment, 42, 317-324. 8. Givoni, B., & Noguchi, M. (2000). Issues and problems in outdoor comfort 9. Givoni, B., Noguchi, M., Saaroni, H., Pochter, O., Yaacov, Y., Feller, N., & Becker, S. (2003). Outdoor comfort research issues. Energy Build, 35, 77-86. 10. Givoni, B., Noguchi, M., Saaroni, H., Pochter, O., Yaacov, Y., Feller, N., & Becker, S. (2002). Outdoor comfort research issues. Energy and Buildings, 1462, 1-10. 11. Gulyas, A., Unger, J. & Matzarakis, A. (2006). Assessment of the microclimatic and human comfort conditions in a complex urban environment: Modelling and measurements. Building and Environment, 41, 1713-1722. 12. Hartig, T. A., Book, A., Garvill, J., Olsson, T., & Garling, T.,(1996). Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37, 378-393. 13. Hartig, T. A., Kaiser, F., & Bowler, P. A.,(1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environment restorativeness (Working Paper No.5). Gavel, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research. 14. Hartig, T. A., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W.,(1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26. 15. Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 225-241 16. Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: mountains, canyons and deserts. Landscape Journal, 6, 140-152 17. Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43 18. Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J.,(1997). Reflection and attention recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170. 19. Herzog, T. R., Chen, H. C., Primeau, J. S. (2002). Perception of the restorative potential of natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 295–306. 20. Herzog, T. R., Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for Legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 459-447. 21. Inbar, O., Rotstein, A., Dlin, R., Dotan, R. & Sulman, F. G.,(1982). The effect of negative air ions on various physiological functions during work in a hot environment. International Journal of Biometeorology, 26(2),153-163. 22. Johansson, E. (2006). Influence of urban geometry on outdoor thermal comfort in a hot dry climate: A study in Fez, Morocco. Building and Environment, 41, 1326-1338. 23. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. NY: Cambridge University Press. Nearby Nature. 24. Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R.,(1978).Humanscape: Environments for People. AnnArbor, MI: Ulrich’s. 25. Kaplan, S.,(1987). Aesthetic, Affect and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32. 26. Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V. and Slakter, D. B.,(1993). The museum as a restorative environment. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 725-742. 27. Kaplan, S.,(1995).The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. 28. Kaplan, R. (1977). Patterns of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 9 , 195-215. 29. Kellogg, E. W.,(1984). Air ions: Their possible biological significance and effects. Journal of Bioelectricity, 3(1&2), 119-136. 30. Knes, I., & Thorsson, S. (2006). Influences of culture and environmental attitude on thermal, emotional and perceptual evaluations of a public square. International Journal of Biometeorol, 50,258-268. 31. Kornblueh, I. H., Piersol, G. M. & Speicher, F. P.,(1958). Relief from pollinosis in negatively ionised rooms. American Journal of Physiology Medicine, 37, 18-27. 32. Kreuger, A. P. & Reed, E. J.,(1976). Biological impact of small air ions. Science, 193, 1209-1213. 33. Laumann, K., Garling, T., & Stormark, K. M.,(2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environment. Journal of environment psychology, 21, 31-44. 34. Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference, Environment and Behavior, 15, 487-511. 35. Matzarakis, A., Mayer, H., & Iziomon, E. (1999). Applications of a universal thermal index: physiological equivalent temperature. International Journal of Biometeorol, 43, 76-84. 36. 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. 37. Nikolopoulou, M., & Lykoudis, S. (2006).Thermal comfort in outdoor urban spaces: Analysis across different European countries. Building and Environments, 41, 1455-1470. 38. Nikolopoulou, M., & Steemers, K. (2003). Thermal comfort and psychological adaptation as a guide for designing urban spaces. Energy and Building, 35, 95-101. 39. Noguch, M., & Givoni, B.(1997). Outdoor comfort as a factor in sustainable towns. in: Proceedings of the Second International Conference for Teachers in Architecture. Paper 3.01. Florence, Italy. 40. Oliveira., S. & Andrade, H. (2007). An initial assessment of the bioclimatic comfort in an outdoor public space in Lisbon. International Journal of Biometeorol, 52, 69-84. 41. Ryushi, T., Kita, I., Sakurai, T., Yasumatsu, M., Isokawa, M., Aihara, Y. & Hama, K. ,(1998). The effect of exposure to negative air ions on the recovery of physiological responses after moderate endurance exercise. International Journal of Biometeorology, 41(3), 132-136. 42. Schiller, G. (2001). Biometeorology and recreation in east Mediterranean forests. Landscape and urban planning, 57, 1-12. 43. Schroeder, H. W. (1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 8, 317-322. 44. Scitovsky,T.,(1992). The Psychology of Human Satisfaction.Reved. The Joyless Economy , New York, Oxford Uninversity Press. 45. Simmons, R. G,(2001). Comfort with the Self, Extending SelfEsteem Theory and Research: Sociological and Psychological Currents. Timothy J. Owens, Sheldon Stryker, and Norman Goodman, eds. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, 198-222. 46. Slater, K.,(1985). Human Comfort. Springfield, IL:Charles C Thomas. 47. Stathopoulos, T., Wu, H., & Zacharias, J. (2004). Outdoor human comfort in an urban climate. Building Environment, 39, 297-305. 48. Thorsson, S., Lindqvist, M., & Lindqvist, S. (2004). Thermal bioclimatic conditions and patterns of behaviour in an urban park in Goteborg. Sweden. International Journal of Biometeorol, 48, 149-156. 49. Ulrich, R. S.,(1979).Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research, 4, 17-23. 50. Ulrich, R. S. & Addoms, D. L. (1981). Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13, 43-65. 51. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. 52. Velarde, M.D., Fry, G., Tveit, M., (2007). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6 , 199–212. 53. Wilson, L.M. (1972). The effects of outside deprivation on a windowless intensive care unit. Archives of Internal Medical, 130, 225-226. 54. Yang, B. E., & Brown, T. J. (1992).A cross-cultural comparison of preference for landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, 24, 471-507. 55. Zube , E.H. , Shell , J.L. , & Taylor , J.G. , (1982). Landscape perception:Research , application and theory . Landscape Planning , 9 , 1-33。
摘要: 
自然環境對人的心理產生各種效益,近年來許多學者分別指出,四項主要心理效益,包含舒適度、景觀偏好、注意力恢復與健康度,另外學者亦指出景觀偏好與注意力恢復彼此之間具有高度的關連性,且自然環境給人的舒適感受並對人類健康的幫助,由此可知這四項心理反應間的關係是密不可分的,但觀看過去之研究,僅有針對景觀偏好與注意力恢復之關係有較多的闡述與探討,對於四項心理效益之交互關係,缺乏深入的研究。因此,本研究目的在於探討自然旅遊環境四項心理效益(舒適度、景觀偏好、注意力恢復、健康度)之交互影響關係。

本研究以南投縣惠蓀林場作為研究區,實地問卷調查遊客心理感受,共獲得470份有效問卷,以描述性統計進行問卷基礎分析,並進行信度驗證,運用單因子變異數分析討個人社經條件對於四項心理效益之感受差異,以相關性分析探討四項心理效益之交互影響程度,再以SEM驗證四項心理效益交互影響模式架構,並深入比較性別、年齡於四項心理效益之交互影響程度之差異性。

研究結果顯示在環境舒適度方面,遊客對於自然旅遊環境之溫度舒適感受是影響整體舒適度最重要因子,其次為風速感受、音量感受、濕度感受、光照度感受;環境景觀偏好方面,遊客對於自然旅遊環境之神秘性感受是影響整體景觀偏好的最重要原因,其次為複雜性、一致性、易讀性;環境注意力恢復方面,遊客對於自然旅遊環境之相容性感受最為顯著,其次為魅力性、延展性、遠離;然在環境健康度方面,遊客對於自然旅遊環境之消除疲勞、恢復活力之感受最為顯著,其次為注意力集中、鎮定情緒。

本研究所提出之舒適度、景觀偏好、注意力恢復與健康度之交互影響模式,經過分析驗證後,此模式成立且四項整體心理效益之關係皆為正向的相互關係;模式中景觀偏好與注意力恢復之交互影響程度最大,其次為注意力恢復與健康度,而景觀偏好與健康度之交互影響程度最小。本研究進一步探討性別與年齡之四項心理效益交互影響程度差異比較,結果發現男性於舒適度與景觀偏好、景觀偏好與健康度之心理互動模式遠高於女性;此外,30歲以上遊客的舒適度與健康度、舒適度與注意力恢復之心理互相影響程度遠佳於0~29歲之受訪者。綜合言之,本研究結果驗證出心理效益交互影響關係,且發現性別與年齡的差異,四項心理效益交互影響亦有所不同。

A natural environment has a variety of benefits on human psychology. In recent years, many scholars have pointed out that there are four major psychological benefits, including comfort, landscape preferences, attention restoration and health. Scholars have also pointed out a strong link between landscape preference and attention restoration, and that a natural environment makes people feel comfortable and is beneficial to human health. We can infer from the above-mentioned statements that the four psychological responses are closely related to one another. A literature review, however, indicates that the correlation between landscape preference and attention restoration has been explained and discussed much more than that between the other aspects. On the other hand, in-depth studies on the interactions among the four psychological benefits are lacking. Consequently, this study aims to explore the interactive relationships among the four psychological benefits (comfort level, landscape preference, attention restoration and health level) of a nature-based tourism setting.

In this study the researcher personally visited Hui-sun Forest Park in Nantou County to conduct a questionnaire survey on tourists' perceptions. A total of 470 valid questionnaires were obtained. A basic analysis of the questionnaires was done with descriptive statistics, followed by reliability analysis. Then One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the perceptional differences each individual's socioeconomic status made on the four psychological benefits. A correlation analysis was conducted to examine the interactive relationships among the four psychological benefits. Furthermore, SEM was used to confirm the interactive model of the four psychological benefits and compare in depth the differences that genders and ages had on the four benefits.

The findings revealed that with regard to levels of environmental comfort, the most important factor of the overall comfort level was tourists' perception of temperatures in the natural tourist area, followed by perception of wind speed, sound volume, humidity and intensity of illumination. With regard to landscape preference, the mysterious perception of the natural tourist area is the most important factor that affected the overall landscape preference, followed by complexity, coherence and legibility. As for attention restoration, the compatibility of the natural environment is the most intensely perceived variable for the tourists, followed by fascination, extent and being away. Lastly, concerning levels of environmental health, the most perceived benefits were fatigue reduction and vitalization of the natural environment, followed by concentration enhancement and pacification of the mind.

The interactive model of comfort level, landscape preference, attention restoration and health level mentioned in this study was verified after analyses and confirmation were conducted. The correlations among the four overall psychological benefits were all positive. In the model, the interactive relationship between landscape preference and attention restoration was the strongest, followed by that between attention restoration and health level. Meanwhile, the relationship was the weakest between landscape preference and health level. The study further compared the differences varied age groups of both genders made on the interactive relationships among the four benefits. The findings suggested that male tourists had a higher interactive model of comfort level vs. landscape preference, and of landscape preference vs. health level than female tourists. Moreover, tourists over the age of 30 experienced better interactive relationships between comfort level and health, comfort level and attention restoration than those aged from 0 to 29. To sum up, the findings of this study have demonstrated the interactive relationships among the four psychological benefits and revealed that depending on the gender and age, the relationships can vary among the four benefits.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/36635
Appears in Collections:農村規劃研究所

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


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