臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究之目的是以能高越嶺國家步道為例，透過高山步道登山者之擁擠知覺來衡量其「社會心理承載量」，並探討影響登山擁擠知覺之因子。研究採用Jackson（1965）的「可能反應模型」（The return-potential Model）來偵測登山擁擠常模（crowding norms），其中測量常模的方法包含：（1）請登山者對於各等距之登山總人數、團體數、團體大小、帳位距離等圈選出其可接受程度，並依此求出可接受的範圍；（2）請登山者寫出當日所遭遇到的登山總人數、團體數，並圈選出其擁擠知覺的程度，依此求出擁擠常模。研究亦探討登山者個人特性、遭遇者特性、以及遭遇情境等對擁擠知覺之影響。
有關資料的蒐集是透過現地問卷調查之方式，於能高越嶺道之天池山莊採便利抽樣方式進行問卷調查，共調查256份問卷，比較兩種不同測量登山總人數、團體數之接受度與擁擠感，可得到的研究結果如下：
（一）採用一天中所遭遇到各等距之人數，在41~50人以上則無法接受；採用填寫一天中所遭遇到的人數，再圈選出其擁擠程度，若超過48人即感受到擁擠感。
（二）採用ㄧ天中所遭遇到各等距之團體數，在11~15個以上之團體數則無法接受；採用填寫一天中所遭遇到的團體數，再圈選其擁擠程度，若超過5個團體即感受到擁擠感。
（三）採用ㄧ天中所遭遇到的各等距之團體大小，在21~25人以上則無法接受。
（四）登山者對於帳位之距離，若低於1~2公尺即感受到擁擠感。
（五）主要影響登山擁擠知覺的因子包含了「登山總人數」、「成員人數」及社經背景中的「教育程度」。
因此根據調查結果，本研究建議經營管理者在考量承載量時，應綜合考量登山活動過程中不同型態的擁擠知覺模式，並透過管理者對步道實質環境的了解及相關法令之配合，方能落實降低因使用人數過多而造成登山者的擁擠知覺。

The purposes of this study were to identify the social-psychology carrying capacity of the National Nengao Cross-Ridge Historic Trail through surveying the perceived crowding of the backpackers and to study the factors affecting the perceived crowding. This study applied “The Return-Potential Model” (Jackson, 1965) to identify the backpackers’ crowding norms. The crowding norms were surveyed through two methods, including: (1) the backpackers were asked to choose an acceptable level for each proposed number of encounters, the number of groups encountered, the size of groups encountered, and the distance between camps; (2) the backpackers were asked to report the number of encounters and the number of groups they met on the trail, and report their perceived crowdings for each number above. In addition, this study also proposed the potential factors affecting the perceived crowding of the backpackers, including personal attribute, encounters’ attribute, and the situation factors.

With the convenient sampling method in Tien-Chih, a cabin on the trail, 256 copies of questionnaires were collected and all available. The two sets of the crowding norms from the two different survey methods were compared. The study results indicated:
1.The respondents would be unacceptable when they met more than 41-50 people based on the first method, and would feel crowded when they met more than 48 people based on the second method.
2.The respondents would be unacceptable when they met more than 11-15 groups on the trail based on the first method, and would feel crowded when they met more than 5 groups based on the second method.
3.The respondents would be unacceptable when the group size was more than 21-25 people in a group.
4.The respondents would feel corwded when the distance between camps was less than 1~2 metters.
5.“The total number of ecounters”, “the number of company”, and “education” were three factors that significantly affected the respondents’ perceived corwding.

Based on the study results, it was suggested that the resource managers should integrate various types of encounter norms, physical settings, and regulations when considering the social-psychology carrying capacity to prevent the overuse of the trail.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究內容與流程 4
第二章 文獻回顧 6
第一節 遊憩承載量之發展與定義 7
第三節 社會心理承載量之探討 12
第四節 擁擠知覺之探討 17
第五節 常模之探討 28
第三章 研究方法 36
第一節 研究架構與假設 36
第二節 研究變數定義 38
第三節 問卷設計 39
第四節 研究基地概況分析 42
第六節 統計分析方法 46
第四章 研究結果與分析 47
第一節 問卷回收情形與資料處理 47
第二節 基本資料分析 47
第三節 動機項目之因素分析 57
第四節 影響擁擠知覺因子之分析 60
第五節 社會心理承載量之推估 67
第五章 結論與建議 78
第一節 結論 78
第二節 建議 83
參考文獻 88
附錄ㄧ 國內外學者對遊憩承載量之定義與其發展 101
附錄二 擁擠知覺影響因素 103
附錄三 常模之測量變項 105
附錄四 問卷 106

一、中文部分：
1.王小璘（1989），利用數學模式探討遊憩資源之合理經營方法（一），行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。
2.王心惠（1997），相片評估都市公園社會容許量之探討—以青年公園為例，台灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文。
3.吳坤銘（1988），遊客行為架構之探討，台灣林業，14（9）：29-35。
4.吳瑞瑜（2003），森林遊樂區擁擠知覺之研究－以東勢林場為例，中興大學森林研究所碩士論文。
5.吳義隆（1987），玉山國家公園登山宿營地點遊憩容許量評定之研究。國立中興大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
6.宋秉明（1983），遊憩容納量理論的研究，國立臺灣大學森林研究所碩士論文。
7.周業謙、周興淦 譯（2005），Jary,J., and Jary, D. 著，社會學辭典，「The HarperCollins dictionary of sociology」，台北：貓頭鷹出版社。
8.林彥州（1988），社會心理遊憩容許量之研究，東海學報，29（2）：819-846。
9.林晏州（1989），太魯閣國家公園遊憩資源分析與遊憩承載量研究，內政部營建署太魯閣國家公園管理處委託研究報告，共269頁。
10.林晏州（1998），運用視覺評估法評定遊憩容許量之研究，國科會專題研究計畫成果報告，共249頁。
11.林晏州（2000），社會遊憩容許量評估方法之研究，戶外遊憩研究，13（1）：1-20。
12.林晏州（2003），步道生態與遊憩承載量研究，2003國家公園登山研討會論文集，280－293。
13.林務局（1993），森林遊樂區遊憩容納量及經營策略，行政院農委會森林育樂叢刊。
14.林務局（2003），能高越嶺道人文史蹟調查報告，台北：農委會林務局。
15.林務局（2004），能高越嶺道自然資源調查研究計畫，台北：農委會林務局。。
16.林國銓．董世良（1996），自然資源永續利用的實例－福山植物園的遊客管制，戶外遊憩研究，9（4）：41-50頁。
17.邱茲容（1977），景觀規劃中遊憩承載量之評定，國立臺灣大學農藝研究所碩士論文。
18.范盛楨（2005），國家公園社會心理承載量之研究－以玉山國家公園為例，朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系碩士論文。
19.高儷嘉（2006），奇萊宿營地登山客接觸規範之研究，東華大學觀光暨遊憩管理研究所碩士論文。
20.張俊彥（1986），遊憩規劃中遊客擁擠知覺之分析，台灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文。
21.曹勝雄（2000），陽明山國家公園遊憩承載量推估模式之建立，陽明山國家公園管理處研究報告。
22.許義忠、方志鵬（2003），泛舟遊客接觸規範之研究，戶外遊憩研究，16（3）：41-62。
23.陳水源（1988），擁擠與戶外遊憩體驗關係之研究—社會心理層面之探討，國立台灣大學森林學研究所博士論文。.
24.陳沛悌（1992），秀姑巒溪泛舟活動社會心理容許量之探討，國立台灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文。
25.陳沛悌、林晏州（1997a），社會常模之探討-以秀姑巒溪泛舟活動遇見船數的常模為例，戶外遊憩研究，10（2）：1-18。
26.陳沛悌、林晏州（1997b），秀姑巒溪泛舟活動社會心裡容許量之探討，戶外遊憩研究，10（3）：19-36。
27.黃志成（2004），玉山國家公園遊憩區承載量及管理策略之研究，內政部營建署玉山國家公園管理處委託研究報告。
28.葉重新（2000），心理學，台北：心理出版社，p.83。
29.觀光局（2005），中華民國94年國人旅遊狀況調查，台北：交通部觀光局。


二、英文部分：
1.Absher, J.D. & Lee, R.G. (1981). Density as an incomplete cause of crowding in backcountry settigs. Leisure Sciences, (4), 231-247.
2.Altman, I.　(1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey, CA：Brooks / Cole Publishing Company, 146-167.
3.Andereck, K. L. (1989). Perceived crowding among visitors in a built recreation environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University.
4.Andereck, K. L., & Becker, R. H. (1993). Perceptions of carry-over crowding in recreation environments. Leisure Sciences, 15, 25–35.
5.Baron, R. M., & Rodin, J. (1978). Personal control and crowding stress: processes mediating the impact of spatial and social density. In A. Baum, Singer, J. E., & Valins, S. (Eds.). Human response to crowding (pp. 145–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.Baum, A., & Paulus, P. (1987). Crowding handbook of environmental psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
7.Basman, C.M., Manfredo, M.J., Barro, S.C., Vaske, J.J., & Watson, A. (1996). Norm accessibility: An explorarory study of backcountry and frontcountry recreational norms. Leisure Sciences, 18, 177-191.
8.Becker, R.H. (1978）. Social carrying capacity and user satisfaction：An experimental function, Leisure Sciences, 1(3), 241-258。
9.Bruch,　W. R.(1984). Much ado about nothing-some reflections on the wider and wider implications of social carrying capacity, Leisure Sciences, 6(4), 487-496.
10.Cessford, G., (2003). Perception and reality of conflict: walkers and mountain bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand. Journal for Nature Conservation, 11(4), 310–316.
11.Choi, S. C., Mirjafari, A., Weaver, H. B. (1976). The Concept of Crowding: A Critical Review and Proposal of an Alternative Approach. Environment and Behavior, 8(3), 345-362.
12.Ditton, R.B., Fedler, A.J., & Graefe, A.R. (1983). Factors Contributing to Perceptions of Recreational Crowding. Leisure Sciences, 5:273-288.
13.Driver, B., & Toucher, R.(1970). Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational engagements, with implications for planning. Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 9-31.
14.Desor, J. A. (1972). Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 79–83.
15.Donnelly, M. P., Vaske, J., & Shelby, B. (1992). Establishing management standards: Selected examples of the normative approach. In B. Shelby, G. Stankey, & B. Shindler (Eds.), Defining wilderness quality: The role of standards in wilderness management . A workshop proceedings , 38–52. (USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-305) .
16.Donnelly, M. P., Vaske, J. J., Whittaker, D., & Shelby, B. (2000). Toward an understanding of norm prevalence: A comparative-analysis. Environmental Management, 25, 403–414.
17.Durkhiem, E. (1949). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
18.Fisher, A. C. & Krutilla, J. V. (1972). Determination of optimal capacity of resource-based recreation facilities, Nature Resource Journal, 12(3), 417-444.
19.Freedman, J., Levansky, S., & Ehrlich, P.(1971). The effect of crowding on human task performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1, 7-25.
20.Freimund, W.A., Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P., & Miller, T.A. (2002). Using video surveys to access dispersed backcountry visitors’ norms. Leisure Sciences, 24, 349-362.
21.Graefe, A. R.,. Vaske, J. J., & Kuss, F. R. (1984). Social carrying capacity: an integration and synthesis of twenty years of research, Leisure Sciences, 6(4), 395-431.
22.Gramann, J.H. (1982). Toward a behavioral theory of crowding in outdoor recreation: An evaluation and synthesis of research. Leisure Sciences, 5, 109-126.
23.Gramann, J., Burdge, R., (1981). The effect of recreation goals on conflict perception: the case of water skiers and fishermen. Journal for Leisure Research, 13 (1), 15–27.
24.Griffitt, W., and Veitch, R. (1971). Hot and crowd: Influence of population density and temperature on interpersonal affective behavior. Journal of Environmental Systems, 7, 59-98.
25.Heberlein, T. A. & B. Shelby. (1977). Carrying capacity, values, and the satisfaction model: a reply to Greist. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 142-148.
26.Heberlein, T,, and Dunwiddie, P. (1979). Systematic observation of use levels, campsite selection and visitor characteristics at a high mountain lake. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 307-316.
27.Heberlein, T. A., & Vaske, J. J. (1977). Crowding and visitor conflict on the Bois Brule　river. (Report　WISC WRC 77-04). University of Wisconsin: Water Resources Center.
28.Hammitt, W. E.；C. D. McDonald ＆ F. P. Noe. (1984). Use level and encounter:　Important variables of perceived crowding among nonspecialized　recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research , 16(1), 1-8.
29.Heywood, J. L. (1993). Game theory: A basis for analyzing emerging norms and conventions in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 15, 37-48.
30.Heywood, J. L. (1996). Social regularities in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 18, 23-37.
31.Heywood, J.L. (2002). The cognitive and emotional components of behavior norms in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 24, 271-281.
32.Heywood, J.L., & Murdock, W.E. (2002). Social norms in outdoor recreation: Searching for the behavior-condition link. Leisure Sciences, 24, 283-295.
33.Heywood, J.L., & Oystein Aas. (1999). Social norms and encounter preferences for cross country skiing with dogs in Norway. Leisure Sciences, 21, 133-144.
34.Jackson, J. (1965). Structural characteristics of norms. In: Steiner, I. D. & Fishbein, M. (Eds.), Current　studies in social　psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc., 301-309.
35.Knopf, R., Driver, B., and Bassett, J.(1973). Motivations for fishing. Human Dimensions in Wildlife Programs. Washington, DC: The Wildlife Management Institute, 28-41.
36.Kim S.O., & Shelby, B. (2005). Developing standards for trail conditions using image capture technology. Leisure Sciences, 27, 279-295.
37.LaPage, W. (1963), Some sociological Aspect of Forest Recreation. Journal of Forestry, 61, 32-36.
38.Lee, Hoon & A. R. Graefe, (2003). Crowding at an arts festival: extending crowding models to the frontcountry. Tourism Management, 24, 1-11.
39.Lime, D. W. & Stankey, G. H. (1971). Carrying capacity: Maintaining outdoor recreation quality. Recreation Symposium Proceedings, USDA Forest Service, pp. 174-184.
40.Lime, D.W. (1972). Large groups in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area–their numbers, characteristics and impacts. USDA Forest Service Research Note NC- 142. 4 pp.
41.Lime, D. W. (1972). Behavioral research in outdoor recreation management: An example of how visitors select campgrounds. Environment and the Social Sciences: Perspectives and Applications. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association, 198-206.
42.Lawler, E. E.(1973). Motivations in Work Organization. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. California.
43.Lewis, M. S., Lime, D. W., & Anderson, D. H. (1996). Paddle canoeists’ encounter norms in Minnesota’ s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Leisure Sciences, 18, 143-160.
44.Lucas, R. C. & Stankey, G. H. (1974), Social Carrying Capacity for Backcountry Recreation, USDA Forest Service Research Paper, NC-9, 14-23.
45.Manning, R.,(1999).Study in Outdoor Recreation, Search and Research for Satisfaction（2nd ed.）, 80-99.
46.Manning, R. (1986). Studies in Outdoor Recreation，Search and Research for Satisfaction, Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon, 109-118.
47.Manning, R., Lime, D., Freimund, W., & Pitt, D. (1996). Crowding norms at　frontcountry sites: A visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leisure　Sciences, 18, 39-59.
48.Manning, R., Valliere, W. Wang, B., & Jacobi, C. (1999). Crowding norms: Alternative measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences, 21, 97-115.
49.Manning, R., Lawson S., Newman P., Laven D., & Valliere, W. (2002). Methodgological Issue in Measuring Crowding-Related Norms in Outdoor Recreation. Leisure Sciences, 24, 339-348.
50.McClelland, L. & Auslander, N. (1978). Perceptions of crowding and pleasantness in public settings. Environment and Behavior, 10, 535-553.
51.Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461-68.
52.Murray, J. (1974). Appalachian Trail Users in the Southern National Forests: Their Characteristics, Attitudes, and Management Preferences. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE-116.
53.Noe, F.P. (1992). Further questions about the measurement and conceptualization of backcountry encounter norms. Journal of Leisure Research, 24 (1), 86-92
54.Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. New York: Free Press.
55.Price, C.　&　Chambers, T. W. M., (1999). Hypotheses about recreational congestion: tests in　the Forest of Dean (England) and wider management implications. In: Font,　X., Tribe, J. (Eds.), Forest Tourismand Recreation. CABI,　Wallingford, pp. 55–74.
56.Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 159-169.
57.Roggenbuck, J.W., & Schrtyer, R. (1977). Relations between river trip motives and perception of crowding, management preference, and experience satisfaction. Proceedings: River Recreation Management and Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-28, 359-364.
58.Roggenbuck, J.W., Williams, D.R., Watson, A.E., (1993). Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management , 17, 187–197.
59.Roggenbuck, J.W., Williams, D.R., Bange, S.P., & Dean, D.J. (1991). River float trip encounter norms: Questioning the use of the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research, 23 (2), 133-153.
60.Rodin, J. (1976). Density, perceived choice, and response to controllable and uncontrollable outcomes. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 12, 564–578.
61.Rodin, J., & Baum, A. (1978). Crowding and helplessness: Potential consequences of density and loss of control. In A. Baum, & Y. M. Epstein (Eds.), Human Response to Crowding (pp. 389–401). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62.Ruddell, E.J. & Gramann, J.H. (1994). Goal orientation, norms, and noise-induced conflict among recreation area users. Leisure Sciences, 16, 93–104.
63.Saegert, S. (1978). High-densityenvironments: their personal and social consequences. In A. Baum, & Y. M. Epstein (Eds.), Human response to crowding (pp. 257–281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
64.Schopler, J., & Stockdale, J. E. (1977). An interference analysis of crowding. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1, 81–88.
65.Schreyer, R. & Roggenbuck, J.W. (1978), The Influence of Experience Expectations on Crowding Perceptions and Social psychological Carrying Capacities, Leisure Sciences, 1(3), pp.373-394。
66.Schmidt, D., & Keating, J. (1979). Human crowding and personal control: an integration of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 680–700.
67.Shelby, B. (1980), Crowding Models for Backcountry Recreation, Land Economics, 56(1), 43-55.
68.Shelby, B., Heberlein, T., Vaske, J., & Alfano, G. (1983). Expectation, preferences, and feeling crowded in recreation activities. Leisure Sciences, 6, 1-14.
69.Shelby, B. & Heberlein, T. A. (1984). A conceptual framework for carrying capacity determination. Leisure Sciences, 6, 433-451.
70.Shelby, B & Heberlein, T. A. (1986), Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings, Corallis, Oregon：Oregon State University.
71.Shelby, B., & Vaske, J. J. (1991). Using normative date to develop evaluative standards for resource management: A comment on three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(2), 173-187.
72.Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., & Heberlein, T. A. (1989). Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences, 11, 269–291.
73.Shelby, B., & Vaske, J.J. (1991). Using normative data to develop evaluative standards for resource management: A comment on three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research, 23 (2), 173-187.
74.Smith, S. & Haythorn, W. (1972). The effects of compatibility, crowding, group size, and leadership seniority on stress, anxiety, hostility, and annoyance in isolated groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 67-69.
75.Stankey, G. H. (1973). Visitor Perception of Wildness Recreation Carrying Capacity，USDA Forest Service，Research Paper INT-142.
76.Stankey, G. H. (1980). Acomparison of carrying capacity perceptions among visitors to two wildernesses. Research Paper. INT-242. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 34 p.
77.Stokols, D. (1972a), On the distinction between density and crowding: some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79（3）：275-277.
78.Stokols, D. (1972b). A social–psychological model of human crowding phenomena. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38, 77–83.
79.Stockdale, J. E. (1978). Crowding: Determinants and effects. Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, 11, 197-245.
80.Shelby, B., Vaske, J.J., & Donnelly, M.P. (1996). Norms, standards and natural resources. Leisure Sciences, 18, 103-123.
81.Stewart, W. P. ＆ D. N. Cole 2001 Number of Encounters and Experience Quality in Grand Canyon Backcountry：Consistently Negative and Weak Relationships. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 106-120.
82.Tarrant, M. A., Cordell, H. K. & Kibler, T. L. (1997). Measuring Perceived　Crowding for　High-Density River Recreation: The Effects of Situational　Conditions and Personal Factors. Leisure Sciences, 19：97-112
83.Towler, W. (1977). Hiker perception of wilderness: A study of the social carrying capacity of Grand Canyon. Arizona Review, 26, 1-10.
84.Valins, S. & Baum, A. (1973). Residential group size, social interaction and crowding. Environment and Behavior, 5, 421-440.
85.Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (2002). Generalizing the encounter norm-crowding　relationship. Leisure Sciences, 24, 255-269.
86.Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M.P. & Heberlein, T. A. (1980). Perceptions of Crowding and Resource Quality by Early and More Recent Visitors. Leisure Sciences, 3(4), 367-381.
87.Vaske, J. J., Shelby, B., Graefe, A.R., & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Backcountry encounter norms: Theory, method and empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18 (3), 137-153.
88.Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., & Petruzzi, J. P. (1996). Country of　origin, encounter norms, and crowding in a frontcountrysetting.　Leisure Sciences, 18, 161–176.
89.Vaske, J.J. & Donnelly, M.P. (2002). Generalizing the Encounter─Norm─Crowding Relationship. Leisure Sciences, 24, 255-269
90.Wagar, J.A. (1964). The Carrying Capacity of wild Lands for Recreation. Forest Science Montage, 7, 1-24.
91.Westover, T. N. & Collins, J. R. (1987). Perceived crowding in recreation settings: An urban case study. Leisure Sciences 9:87-99.
92.Westover, T. N. (1989). Perceived crowding in recreational settings: an environment-behavior model. Environment and Behavior , 21, 258-276.
93.West, P., 1982. Effects of user behavior on the perception of crowding in backcountry forest recreation. Forest Science, 28, 95–105.
94.Worchel, S., & Teddlie, C. (1976). Factors affecting the experience of crowding: a two factor theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 30–40.
95.Whittaker, D., & Shelby, B. (1988). Types of norms for recreation impacts: Extending the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research, 20 (4), 261-273.

三、網站
1. 林務局網站，http://trail.forest.gov.tw/NationalTrailSystem/TR_H_02.htm，下載時間：2006/8/8