(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/16 20:11
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:羅婉媛
研究生(外文):wan-yuan Lo
論文名稱:日月潭水景景觀偏好心理認知之研究
論文名稱(外文):A study on Sun-Moon Lake waterscape preferences from psychological perspective
指導教授:李英弘李英弘引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:靜宜大學
系所名稱:觀光事業學系研究所
學門:民生學門
學類:觀光休閒學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005/07/
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
論文頁數:90
中文關鍵詞:環境偏好矩陣 情緒體驗 景觀偏好
外文關鍵詞:environmental preference matrixemotional experiencelandscape preference
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:19
  • 點閱點閱:600
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
過去以心理學模式為基礎之景觀評估研究,大都以Kaplan和Kaplan的環境偏好矩陣與Ulrich所提出情緒體驗兩種理論為其最主要之理論基礎,強調瞭解環境偏好心理因子對景觀偏好的預測,以及何種情緒感受會對景觀環境產生正面或負面的評價。然許多研究者已批評以心理學模式為基礎之景觀評估,有其研究方法本質上之困難度,如心理學模式不及生心理學模式易於應用,或此模式所提出的心理層面因子上往往不夠具體、造成度量或評估景觀上之不一致。這些批評的本質,研究者認為乃缺乏一完整之景觀偏好心理層面理論基礎,因此本研究嘗試結合此二理論,建構一完整之景觀偏好心理過程模式,並探討環境偏好矩陣與情緒體驗間之關聯性、及其對景觀偏好的影響程度。
本研究對象為大學修業學生,於民國九十三年五月至六月間在取得課程授課老師與同學同意之前提下,採用便利抽樣法進行自填式的問卷調查,共獲得405份有效樣本。本研究以日月潭水景景觀為一景觀刺激物,研究結果顯示在同時考慮環境偏好矩陣、情緒體驗與景觀偏好三個概念下,環境偏好矩陣與情緒體驗皆會影響景觀偏好,且環境偏好矩陣顯著影響情緒體驗。在環境偏好矩陣因子中則以一致性度量效果為最佳,其次為神秘性與易讀性,而複雜性則顯得不重要;而在情緒體驗中則以「高喚起、高愉悅」度量效果為最佳,其次為「高喚起、低愉悅」,而「低喚起、高愉悅」、「低喚起、低愉悅」則顯得不重要。本研究建議景觀規劃設計從業人員應強化景觀對人心理感受變化之調查,尤其是環境影響評估或說明中之景觀分析,而不是一昧地進行專家模式之景觀元素實質面之規劃,如此才有助於提供良好的景觀環境。
Past research show that landscape preference evaluation from the perspective of psychological paradigm mostly adopted Kaplan and Kaplan’s model of environmental preference matrix and Ulrich’s model of emotional experience. Significantly, their research ideas are to emphasize the importance of understanding what indicators of environmental preference matrix have an impact on landscape preference and what kind of emotion attribute can be used to interpret the landscape meanings. However, some researchers had criticized how to apply the psychological model of evaluating landscape beauty and then to interpret the process of users’ cognition is not specific. The nature of criticism is that the evaluation of cognitive process of landscape is not completely understood. The purpose of study is to integrate these two landscape evaluation models and then to explore the relationship between environmental preference matrix and emotional experience as well as to identify the path coefficient of environmental preference matrix and emotional experience to landscape preference.
The study sample consists of college students from three universities. The convenient sampling method was adopted in this study. After having instructors and students’ consent, 405 samples were interviewed. Sun-Moon Lake waterscapes were selected as landscape stimulus . The results indicate that environmental preference matrix and emotional experience have significant influence on students’ landscape preferences. In addition, environmental preference matrix influences emotional experience. Furthermore, the findings reveal that coherence is the most important factor of environmental preference matrix, following by mystery and legible, however, complexity is not important. Regarding emotional experience, “high-evoked and high-pleased” indicator is the most important, following by “high-evoked and low-pleased” indicator. However, both “low-evoked and high-pleased”indicator and “low-evoked and low-pleased” indicator are not important. Overall, the findings suggest that users’ cognition of landscape is a complement to design and plan the environment for landscape architecturers.
目 錄

第一章 緒論
第一節 研究緣起………………………...……………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的………………………...……………………………… 2
第三節 研究名詞解釋………………………...………………………… 2
第四節 研究流程………………………...……………………………… 3

第二章 文獻回顧
第一節 景觀評估心理學模式與環境偏好……………………….…….. 6
第二節 環境偏好矩陣…………………………...……………………… 12
第三節 情緒體驗…………………………...…………………………… 15

第三章 研究方法
第一節 研究模式及假設……………………………...………………… 25
第二節 研究設計………………………...……………………………… 26
第三節 資料分析方法………………………...………………………… 35

第四章 研究結果
第一節 樣本描述……………………………………...………………… 49
第二節 環境偏好心理因子及景觀偏好分析…………………………... 50
第三節 研究模式驗證…………………………………………………... 57

第五章 結論與建議
第一節 研究結論……………………………………...………………… 73
第二節 建議……………………………………………………...……… 79

參考文獻…………………………..…………………………………………… 81
附錄………………………...…………………………………………………… 88

圖 目 錄

圖1-1 研究流程圖……………………………………………………….… 5
圖2-1 環境認知歷程圖………………………………………………….… 11
圖2-2 情緒體驗示意圖………………………………………………….… 17
圖2-3 刺激-情緒-行為關係圖……………………………………….… 18
圖2-4 自然環境情感喚起行為模式圖………………………………….… 19
圖2-5 環境情緒向度與詞彙圖………………………………………….… 20
圖3-1 研究架構圖……………………………………………………….… 25
圖3-2 本研究變數關係與路徑圖……………………………………….… 37
圖3-3 本研究測量模式圖………………………………………….……… 40
圖3-4 環境偏好矩陣一階驗證性因素分析圖………………………….… 41
圖3-5 情緒體驗一階驗證性因素分析圖……………………………….… 42
圖3-6 二階驗證性因素分析圖………………………………………….… 43
圖3-7 本研究結構模式圖………………………………………….……… 47
圖4-1 景觀類型之環境偏好矩陣分析結果圖……………………………. 53
圖4-2 景觀類型之情緒體驗分析結果圖…………………………………. 55
圖4-3 環境偏好矩陣一階驗證性因素分析結果圖………………………. 62
圖4-4 情緒體驗一階驗證性因素分析結果圖……………………………. 65
圖4-5 二階驗證性因素分析結果(模式修正前)圖……………………. 67
圖4-6 二階驗證性因素分析結果(模式修正後)圖……………………. 68
圖4-7 環境偏好矩陣、情緒體驗及景觀偏好之結構關係結果圖……. 71
圖5-1 景觀偏好心理層面運作模式結果圖……………….……………. 75

表 目 錄

表2-1 環境偏好矩陣表………………………………….………………… 13
表2-2 區別性情緒項目表……………………………….………………… 21
表2-3 語意差異情緒項目表…………………………….………………… 22
表2-4 景觀評估方法比較表…………………………….………………… 24
表3-1 依據遊憩機會序列環境之景觀型態分類表…….………………… 27
表3-2 環境偏好矩陣測度內容表…………………………………………. 32
表3-3 情緒體驗測度內容表………………………………………………. 33
表3-4 研究構念、觀測變數與項目摘要表…………….………………… 38
表3-5 研究參數摘要表………………………………….………………… 39
表4-1 樣本基本屬性次數分配表……………..…………………………… 50
表4-2 環境偏好矩陣分析表………………………………………………. 53
表4-3 情緒體驗分析表……………………………………………………. 56
表4-4 一階驗證性因素之測量模式適配度分析(模式修正前)表……. 57
表4-5 一階驗證性因素之測量模式信度分析(模式修正前)表………. 58
表4-6 環境偏好矩陣一階驗證性因素之測量模式適配度分析
(模式修正後)表…………………………………………………. 60
表4-7 環境偏好矩陣一階驗證性因素之測量模式信度分析
(模式修正後)表…………………………………………………. 61
表4-8 環境偏好矩陣一階驗證性因素之測量模式效度分析
(模式修正後)表…………………………………………………. 61
表4-9 情緒體驗一階驗證性因素之測量模式適配度分析
(模式修正後)表…………………………………………………. 62
表4-10 情緒體驗一階驗證性因素之測量模式信度分析
(模式修正後)表…………………………………………………. 63
表4-11 情緒體驗矩陣一階驗證性因素之測量模式效度分析
(模式修正後)表…………………………………………………. 64
表4-12 二階驗證性因素之測量模式適配度分析(模式修正前)表……. 65
表4-13 二階驗證性因素之測量模式信度分析(模式修正前)表………. 68
表4-14 二階驗證性因素之測量模式適配度分析(模式修正後)表……. 67
表4-15 二階驗證性因素之測量模式信度分析(模式修正後)表………. 68
表4-16 二階驗證性因素之測量模式效度分析(模式修正後)表………. 69
表4-17 結構模式適配度分析表……………………………………………. 70
表4-18 結構模式參數估計分析表…………………………………………. 71
表4-19 結構模式1(環境偏好矩陣→情緒體驗)效果分析表……………. 72
表4-20 結構模式2(情緒體驗→環境偏好矩陣)效果分析表……………. 72
表5-1 研究假設與實證結果對照表………………………………………... 77
參考文獻
一、中文
王小璘、吳靜宜,(1997),景觀道路意象之研究—以玉山國家公園新中橫景觀道路為例,造園學報,4,1,17-36。
王乃瑋,(1997),都市公園中照明設施之照度與色溫對使用者情緒體驗影響之研究,碩士論文,台北市:國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所。
王品元,(1997),公園步道之燈具高度與光源照度對情緒體驗影響之研究,台北市:國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所。
危芷芬譯,(1995), 環境心理學,台北市:五南圖書出版公司。
阮琴閔,(1996),不同常綠喬木造型組合之情緒體驗研,碩士論文,台中:中興大學園藝研究所。
李美芬,(1996),植栽空間序列對情緒體驗及偏好影響之研究,碩士論文,台中:中興大學園藝研究所。
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,(1999),都市視覺景觀偏好之研究,都市與計畫,26,1,19-40。
李素馨,(2000),中山高速公路土地使用景觀偏好探討,造園學報,6(1/2),19-34。
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,台北市:台灣大學園藝學研究所。
邱皓政,(2003),結構方程式—LISREL的理論、技術與應用,台北市:雙葉書廊有限公司。
高育芸,(2003),街道招牌景觀偏好之研究,碩士論文,台中:靜宜大學觀光事業研究所。
曾怡錦,(2000),草花色彩之情緒體驗及偏好研究,碩士論文,台中:國立中興大學園藝學研究所。
陳惠美、林晏州,(1998),景觀道路觀賞序列之研究,造園學報,5,1,79-88。
陳碧君、凌德麟、王小璘,(1997),都市人行道鋪面情緒體驗之研究,造園學報,4,2,101-115。
曹正、王澤種,(1995),道路景觀複雜性之研究,造園學報,2,1,83-102。
黃正綱,(1998),都市大樓前雕塑品空間之實質屬性與美學屬性對情緒體驗影響之研究,台北市:國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所。
黃正綱、林晏州,(1998),都市雕塑品空間美學屬性對情緒體驗影響之研究,造園學報,5,2,73-95。
黃芳銘,(2003),結構方程式模式理論與應用,台北市:五南書局。
黃茂容,(1989),溪頭森林遊樂區遊客對自然環境的情緒體驗,戶外遊憩研究,2,2,31-50。
游恆山譯,(2002),情緒心理學,台北市:五南書局。
游恆山、李素卿譯,(1999),心理學,台北市:五南書局。
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,5,1,39-61。
歐聖榮、林擎天,(1996),森林景觀美質評估模式之研究,造園學報,3,1,1-19。
賴明嘉,(1994),水景型態及聲音對情緒體驗影響之研究,碩士論文,台北市:國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所。
二、英文
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London: Wiley.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structure equation models. Academic of Marketing Science, 16, 1, 76-94.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78-117.
Boomsma, A., & Hoogland, J. J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. Psychometrika, 51, 313-325.
Brown, T. C., & Daniel, T. C. (1990). Scaling of ratings: Concepts and methods. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 1, 98-104.
Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape aesthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. U. S. D. A. Forest Service. Research paper RM-167.
Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of visual landscape quality. In I. Altman, & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment(pp. 39-84). New York: Plenum.
Ellsworth, J. C. (1982). Visual assessment of rivers and marshier: An examination of the relationship of visual units, perceptual variables, and preference. Unpublished master’s thesis, Utah State University, Logan.
Evan, G. W., & Wood, K. W. (1980). Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environment and Behavior, 12, 2, 255-273.
Fabos, J. G. (1979). Planning and landscape evaluation. Landscape Research, 4, 5-10
Forman, R. T. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Fornell, C., & Larcher, D. F. (1981). Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Foster, R. (1981). Factors associated with camping satisfaction in Alberta Provincial Park campgrounds. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 4, 292-306.
Gobster, P. H., & Chenoweth, R. E. (1989). The dimensions of aesthetic preference: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 29, 47-72.
Hair, Jr, F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Heinrich, R. W., & Cupchik, G. C. (1985). Individual difference as predictors of preference in visual art. Journal of Personality, 53, 3, 502-515.
Hershberger, S. (1994). The specification of equivalent models before the collection of data. In A. von Eye & C. C. Colgg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis (pp. 68-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive preference for forest-and-field environments. Landscape Research, 9, 10-16.
Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: Mountains, canyons, and desert. Landscape Journal, 6, 140-152.
Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.
Hull, R. B., & Harvey, A. (1989). Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban parks. Environment and Behavior, 21, 3, 323-345.
Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-124.
Izard, C. E. (1972). Patterns of emotions: A new analysis of anxiety and depression. New York: Academic Press.
Jackson, J. B. (1984). Discovering the vernacular landscape. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1984). Analysis of linear structural relationship by maximum likelihood. Chicago: Scientific Press.
Kaplan, R. (1975). Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161-176.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge.
Kaplan, S. (1976). Adaptation, Structure, and Knowledge. In G. T. Moore, & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods (pp. 32-45). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross, Inc.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3-32.
Kaplan, S. (1988). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 45-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. New York: Praeger.
Kiesler, C. A. (1982). Comments. In W. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Lazarus, R. S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124-129.
Litton, R. B. Jr. (1982). Visual assessment of natural landscapes. In B. Sadler, & A. Carlson (Eds.), Environmental aesthetics: Essays in interpretation. Victoria, B. C.: Dept. of Geography, University of Victoria.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meinig, D. W. (1979). The beholding eyes. In Meinig (Ed.), The interpretation of ordinary landscapes (pp. 33-48). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nassauer, J. L. (1982). Framing the landscape in photographic simulation. Journal of Environmental Management, 17, 1-16.
Osgood, C. E. (1969). On the whys and wherefores of E, P, and A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 194-199.
Punter, J. V. (1982). Landscape aesthetics, a synthesis and critique. In J. R. Gold, & J. Burgess (Eds.), Valued environments (pp. 100-123). London: George Allen and Unwin.
Ray, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2001). Can there be infinitely many models equivalent to a given covariance structural model? Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 142-149.
Raykov, T., & Penev, S. (1999). On structural equation model equivalence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 199-244.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 6, 1161-1178.
Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1978). Approach-avoidance and affiliation as functions of the emotion-eliciting quality of an environment. Environment and Behavior, 10, 3, 355-387.
Russell, J. A., & Pratt. G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 2, 311-322.
Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and the environment. In D. Stokol & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 245-280). New York: A Wiley-Interscience Publishing.
Sadler, B., & Carlson, A. (1982). Environmental aesthetics an interdisciplinary perspective. In B. Sadler, & A. Carlson (Eds.), Environmental aesthetics (pp. 1-25). Victoria, B. C.: University of Victoria.
Seddon, A. (1986). Landscape planning: A conceptual perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 335-347.
Sheets, V. L., & Manzer, C. D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation: Some effects of adding trees along city streets. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3, 285-304.
Shuttlesworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61-76.
Stewart, T. R., Middleton, P., Downton, M., & Ely, D. (1984). Judgments of photographs vs. field observation in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 283-302.
Taylor, J. G., Zube, E. H., & Sell, J. L. (1987). Landscape assessment and perception research methods. In R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Method in environmental and behavioral research (pp. 361-393). New York: Van Nostrand Relinhold Company.
Trent, R. B., Neumann, E., & Kvashny, A. (1987). Presentation mode and question format artifacts visual assessment research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 225-235.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Vol. 6 Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 88-125). New York: Plenum Press.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. (1982). Recreation Opportunity users guide. Washington, D. C.: Bureau of Land Management.
U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. (1980). Visual resource management program. Washington, D. C.: BLM Division of Recreation and Cultural Resources.
Uzzell, D. L. (1991). Environmental psychological perspectives on landscape. Landscape Research, 16, 1, 3-10.
Wohlwill. J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as an affect. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). New York: Plenum Press.
Woodcock, D.M. (1982). A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Harbor.
Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.
Zube, E. H. (1984). Themes in landscape assessment theory. Landscape Journal, 3, 104-110.
Zube, E. H., Brush, R. O., & Fabos, J. G (Eds.). (1975). Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 2, 88-97.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top