不同的環境可提供多樣化的遊憩活動，人們在從事戶外遊憩活動的過程中，會對其所身處的環境產生知覺，而其中又以景觀是最容易也是最直接能被人們所知覺到的。優美的自然景觀可使得觀賞者有愉悅的感覺，並因此對該景觀環境產生偏好（preference），Kaplan與Kaplan（1989）提出環境偏好矩陣的四個因子：一致性（coherence）、複雜性（complexity）、易讀性（legibility）、神秘性（mystery）。認為若是環境當中具有此四項特質，則其偏好程度會較高。此外，Kaplan與Kaplan（1989）在注意力恢復理論（Attention Restoration Theory, ART）中提出了四項具有使注意力恢復之特徵─遠離（being away）、延展性（extent）、魅力性（fascination）與相容性（compatibility）。若環境中具有這四項特徵，且其強度均足夠，便可稱之為恢復性環境（restorative environment），而在恢復性環境中所產生的體驗稱之為恢復性體驗。過去研究顯示偏好愈高的環境則其恢復性也愈高，然而過去針對偏好與恢復之研究大多並未將Kaplan與Kaplan（1989）的環境偏好矩陣與注意力恢復理論加以結合，比較其間之關係，因此本研究目的將探討此關係，藉由偏好與恢復的關係進一步探討環境偏好與恢復性環境各項特質間之關係。
　　本研究運用相片評估配合問卷調查以蒐集資料，在環境偏好的測量上採用李英弘、梁文嘉（2000）基於Kaplan與Kaplan（1989）的環境偏好矩陣四項因素概念所設計之偏好量表；此外，將Hartig等人（1997）所發展的知覺恢復性量表（Perceived Restorativeness Scale, PRS）適度修正後作為測量環境恢復性知覺之測量工具。樣本選擇曾經修習過觀光資源規劃的靜宜大學大二及大三學生，共回收248份有效問卷。測量結果先以驗證性因素（confirmatory factor analysis, CFA）分析找出量表的最佳模式，再以結構方程模式（structural equation modeling, SEM）的路徑分析建構出環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺之關係模型。
　　驗證性因素分析分析結果顯示，一致性與易讀性在環境偏好中的測量模式由於構念信度與聚合效度不足而遭刪除，此外，延展性在環境恢復性知覺中的測量模式由於聚合效度不足而遭刪除。由此結果可以看出，修正後環境偏好模式之潛在構念僅包含有複雜性及神秘性；而修正後環境恢復性知覺模式之潛在構念則包有遠離、魅力性及相容性。運用此結果進行SEM路徑分析結果發現，環境偏好對環境恢復性知覺之影響其標準化係數值達.86，是相當顯著且正向之影響，此結果符合Kaplan與Kaplan（1989）的論述以及Korpela（2001）的實證研究結果，即偏好的環境較有成為恢復性環境的可能。進一步探討Kaplan與Kaplan（1989）所提出之環境偏好矩陣各特質與恢復性環境各特質間關係時發現，其特質間並無顯著地正向影響，若從Kaplan與Kaplan（1989）對於環境偏好矩陣的論述來看，一個能使人產生偏好的環境必須一致性與複雜性同時存在且均高，若以此結果推論至其他特質，則可看出環境偏好之四項特質亦必須同時考量才有形成偏好之可能，也因此才可帶來恢復性效果。依此推論，本研究之結果和Kaplan與Kaplan的論述在概念上是契合的。
　　本研究結果對於觀光資源規劃者及後續研究方向可歸納出下列二點建議。首先，觀光資源規劃及經營者可以運用具有探索向度的複雜性與神祕性塑造一個可使人偏好的環境，舉例來說，在近景部份可以清晰的手法設計；中景部分景觀可運用豐富且有組織的方式呈現；遠景部分較重要的景觀可以運用若隱若現的方式呈現，例如河流或道路可以在某些遮蔽物後面而並非立即可見。其次，延展性並無法反映出環境恢復性知覺，且一致性與易讀性亦無法反映環境偏好，因此為了能夠測量出更佳的環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺之關係，必須發展更具信、效度的量表以作為測量工具。

Certain outdoor recreation activities are supported by certain environments. While people are participating in outdoor recreation activities, they have various perceptions of environment, among which perceptions of landscape are the most direct and the easiest to be evoked. A beautiful landscape makes viewers feel delightful and evokes their preference to that landscape. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) proposed an environmental preference matrix in which four factor are yielded to affect environmental preference: coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery. They found that an environment with higher degrees of the four factors is more preferred by people. Besides, Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) proposed an attention restoration theory in which four properties are thought to be able to recover people’s attention: being away, extent, fascination, and compatibility. The theory emphasizes that if an environment has the four properties and each of them is strong enough, it can be called a restorative environment. The experience that people have in a restorative environment is called “restorative experience.” Most studies revealed that the higher the people’s preference of an environment, the stronger the people’s restorative perception of the environment. However, those studies did not integrate Kaplan and Kaplan’s environmental preference matrix with attention restoration theory. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis was to investigate the relationship between environmental preferences and the restorative perception of the environment based on Kaplan and Kaplan’s environmental preference matrix and attention restoration theory.
A photograph assessment technique was used in combination with a self-administered questionnaire to collect data. The environmental preference was measured by a 14-item scale which was developed from Kaplan and Kaplan’s preference matrix by Ying-Hung Li and Wen-Chia Liang (2000). The restorative perception of the environment was measured by a scale revised form the Perceived Restorativeness Scale developed by Hartig, et al. (1997). Data were collected from a convenient sample which was drawn from the sophomores and juniors who had studied tourism planning in Providence University. A total of 248 valid questionnaires were obtained. Several confirmatory factor analysis procedures were conducted first to identify the best model of the two measurement scales, respectively, and then a path analysis of the structural equation modeling was employed to build the relation model of the environment preference and the restorative perception of the environment.
The results of the confirmatory factor analyses revealed that two indicators, coherence and legibility, in the measurement model of the environmental preference should be deleted due to insufficient construct reliability and convergent validity. Besides, one indicator, extent, in the measurement model of the restorative perceptions of environment should also be deleted due to insufficient convergent validity. As a result, 2 indicators, complexity and mystery, were included in the modified measurement model for the environmental preference and 3 indicators, being away, fascination, and compatibility, were included in the modified measurement model for the restorative perceptions of environment. The results were then used to test the structural model of the causal relationship from the environmental preference to the restorative perception of environment. The standard coefficient resulted from the path analysis of the structural equation modeling were .86 which supports Hypothesis 1 that the environmental preference positively influences the restorative perceptions of environment. The result fits Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) theory and also corresponds to the result of Korpela’s et al. (2001) empirical study. Furthermore, the result of the second path analysis reveals that the four factors of the environmental preference do not positively affect the four properties of the restorative perception of environment. Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) posited that people’s environmental preference was evoked only on condition that the environment is characterized by both high coherence and high complexity. According to their position, it is reasonable to argue that the four factors should be all high and should be taken into consideration altogether in order to evoke people’s environmental preference. Thus, the result of the second path analysis fits the inference of the issues from Kaplan and Kaplan.
Two recommendations for tourism resource planning and future studies were proposed based on the conclusions of this study. First, tourism resource planners and managers can use exploration domain which includes complexity and mystery factors to create a preferred environment. For example, at the foreground of the environment, the landscape should be designed to be clearly seen; at the middle ground, the landscape should include rich and organized elements; at the background, “an important part of the landscape know to be present is nevertheless concealed, as where a river or road winds out of sight behind some intervening barriers.” Second, the factor, extent, cannot reflect the restorative perception of environment, and the factors, coherence and legibility, cannot reflect environmental preference. More reliable and valid measurement instruments should be developed in order to better measure the environmental preference and the restorative perception of environment and test the relationship between them.

目錄
第一章　緒論............................................................................................1
第一節　研究動機.................................................................................................1
第二節 研究目的.................................................................................................4
第三節 研究變相名詞定義.................................................................................4
第四節 研究限制.................................................................................................5
第二章 文獻回顧....................................................................................6
第一節 景觀之意涵…………………………………………………………….6
第二節 景觀偏好……………………………………………………………...12
第三節 注意力與精神疲勞…………………………………………………...22
第四節 注意力恢復理論……………………………………………………...24
第三章 研究方法..................................................................................40
第一節 研究架構與假設……………………………………………………...40
第二節 研究對象……………………………………………………………...43
第三節 測量工具……………………………………………………………...43
第四節 資料分析方法………………………………………………………...49
第五節 SEM模式評鑑………………………………………………………..50
第四章 資料分析結果..........................................................................56
第一節 樣本背景描述………………………………………………………...56
第二節 研究變項測量結果…………………………………………………...56
第三節 研究變項構面驗證分析……………………………………………...64
第四節 SEM路徑分析與假設檢定………………………………………….100
第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………………110
第一節 結論......................................................................................................110
第二節 討論…………………………………………………………………..115
第三節 建議………………………………………………………………….117
參考文獻……………………………………………………………....120
附錄一　知覺恢復量表（1996）………………………………………………...124
附錄二　知覺恢復量表（1997）………………………………………………...126
附錄三　偏好與景觀特質之衡量量表（2000）………………………………...128
附錄四　環境恢復性知覺測量問卷……………………………………………...129
附錄五　環境偏好測量問卷……………………………………………………...131

表目錄
表2-2-1　環境偏好矩陣…………………………………………………………...13
表2-2-2　Herzog（1984）田野與森林偏好之研究統計分析表………………....16
表2-2-3　平均偏好、心理指標、土地使用與土地覆蓋物之皮爾森
相關係數統計分析表………………………………………………........19
表2-2-4　景觀特質與景觀偏好關係相關實證研究彙整………………………....20
表2-2-5　一致性與複雜性之關係………………………………………………....21
表2-4-1　知覺恢復量表（perceived restoration scales, PRS）…………………....31
表2-4-2　Hartig等人（1997）修正後之PRS………………………………………..32
表2-4-3　在注意力恢復理論上喜愛與不喜愛地方的評值…………………….....38
表3-3-1　環境偏好之潛在變項因子與觀察變項之測量………………………….45
表3-3-2　環境恢復性知覺之潛在變項因子與觀察變項之測量………………….46
表3-3-3　本研究所選取之相片…………………………………………………….47
表4-2-1　環境偏好各特質感受平均數統計表…………………………………….57
表4-2-2　五張相片其環境偏好差異之單因子變異數分析……………………….59
表4-2-3　環境恢復性知覺平均數統計分析表…………………………………….60
表4-2-4　五張相片其環境恢復性知覺差異之單因子變異數分析……………….63
表4-3-1　環境偏好矩陣驗證性因素分析之模式變項參數估計表……………….65
表4-3-2　修正後之環境偏好矩陣驗證性因素分析模式變項參數估計表……….67
表4-3-3　修正後之環境偏好矩陣CFA模式整體適配度檢驗結果整理表………70
表4-3-4　環境偏好矩陣驗證性因素分析之構念信度與平均變異抽取量……….75
表4-3-5　環境偏好CFA區別效度檢定表…………………………………………76
表4-3-6　延展性構念驗證性因素分析之模式變項參數估計表………………….77
表4-3-7　修正後之延展性構念驗證性因素分析模式變項參數估計表………….78
表4-3-8　延展性構念驗證性因素分析之構念信度與平均變異抽取量………….79
表4-3-9　環境恢復性知覺驗證性因素分析之模式變項參數估計表…………….80
表4-3-10　環境恢復性知覺初始模式整體適配指標表…………………………...82
表4-3-11　修正指標（modification index, MI）參照表……………………….……83
表4-3-12　修正後之環境恢復性知覺驗證性因素分析模式變項參數估計表…..84
表4-3-13　修正後之環境恢復性知覺CFA模式整體適配度檢驗結果整理表….86
表4-3-14　環境恢復性知覺CFA之潛在變項信度與平均變異抽取量………….90
表4-3-15　環境恢復性知覺CFA區別效度檢定表……………………………….91
表4-3-16　環境偏好矩陣與環境恢復性知覺CFA之模式變項參數估計表…….93
表4-3-17　環境偏好矩陣與環境恢復性知覺結合之CFA整體適配指標表…….95
表4-3-18　環境偏好矩陣與環境恢復性知覺結合CFA模式構念信度
與平均變異抽取量…………………………………………………….98
表4-3-19　環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺CFA區別效度檢定表………………….99
表4-4-1　環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺特質之因素負荷量統計表……………..101
表4-4-2　結構參數迴歸係數……………………………………………………..101
表4-4-3　模式違犯估計檢查表…………………………………………………..103
表4-4-4　環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺整體適配度評鑑結果整理表…………..103
表4-4-5　內在結構適配評鑑結果檢查表………………………………………..106
表4-4-6　結構模式路徑分析參數估計表………………………………………..108
表5-2-1　環境偏好矩陣…………………………………………………………..115


圖目錄
圖2-1-1　人類知覺與環境關係之交換模式圖……………………………………10
圖2-1-2　Brunswik’s Lens Model…………………………………………………..10
圖2-4-1　延展性的範圍與景觀特質之關係………………………………………36
圖3-3-1　研究架構圖一……………………………………………………………41
圖3-3-2　研究架構圖二……………………………………………………………42
圖4-3-1　環境偏好矩陣一階CFA各參數估計路徑圖…………………………...66
圖4-3-2　修正後之環境偏好矩陣一階CFA參數估計路徑圖……………………68
圖4-3-3　環境偏好CFA最終模式圖………………………………………………76
圖4-3-4　延展性CFA模式參數估計路徑圖………………………………………78
圖4-3-5　修正後之延展性構念CFA模式路徑圖…………………………………79
圖4-3-6　環境恢復性知覺之一階CFA模式參數估計路徑圖……………………81
圖4-3-7　修正後之環境恢復性知覺一階CFA模式路徑圖……………………....85
圖4-3-8　變項簡化之二階CFA模式概念圖………………………………………93
圖4-3-9　環境偏好矩陣與環境恢復性知覺CFA模式參數估計路徑圖…………94
圖4-4-1　環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺路徑分析假設模式概念圖……………...100
圖4-4-2　環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺之SEM分析路徑參數估計圖…………..102
圖4-4-3　環境偏好矩陣特質與恢復性環境特質之SEM假設路徑分析概念圖..107

參考文獻
一、中文部分
王昭正（譯）（2001）。Kelly, J. R.著。休閒導論。台北：品度。
朱念慈（1989）。大氣因子影響視覺景觀偏好之研究─以陽明山國家公園為例。國立台灣大學園藝研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
李英弘（1998）。景觀資源評估之心理學模式探討。台中：靜宜大學補助新進專任教師研究計畫。
李英弘、梁文嘉（2000）。景觀評估中之心理學模式研究。造園學報，7(1)，67-87。
李素馨（1995）。環境知覺和環境美質評估。規劃與設計學報，1(4)，53-74。
李素馨（2000）。中山高速公路土地使用景觀偏好之探討。造園學報，6(1/2)，19-34。
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。
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。國立台灣大學園藝研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
李麗雪、洪得娟、顏家芝（譯）（1996）。Richard, C. S., James, F. P. and John, P. F.著。景觀視覺評估與分析。台北：田園城市。
邵郊（1993）。生理心理學。台北：五南。
邱皓政（2004）。結構方程模式─LISREL的理論、技術與應用。台北：雙葉。
侯錦雄（1985）。景觀知覺與景觀設計。東海學報，857-866。
俞孔堅（1998）。景觀、文化、生態與感知。台北：田園城市。
洪佳君（2001）。高山、水體、森林、公園、都市景觀之生心理效益。國立中興大學園藝研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中。
張俊彦、萬麗玲（2000）。景觀型態對肌電值及注意力恢復能力之研究。造園學報，7(1)，1-22。
張春興（1990）。現代心理學─上冊。台北：東華。
張春興、楊國樞（1984）。心理學。台北：三民。
陳惠美、林晏州（1997）。景觀知覺與景觀品質之研究。造園學報，4(1)，1-16。
曾慈慧（2002）。景觀環境與福祉及復癒關係之探討。國立台灣大學園藝研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
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。
黃芳銘（2003）。結構方程模式─理論與應用。台北：五南。
黃芳銘（2004）。社會科學統計方法學─結構方程模式。台北：五南。
黃富瑜、林晏州（1998，8月）。淡水捷運使用者對沿線景觀知覺與偏好之探討。載於中華民國造園學會舉辦之第二屆造園景觀與環境規劃設計研究成果研討會─規劃設計理論與景觀評估論文集（頁1-17）。
楊世安（2004）。家庭因素對國小學童環境行為影響模式之研究。國立嘉義大學教育科學研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
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)，3-51。
韓可宗（2002）。療癒型環境理論評介。中華心理衛生學刊，15(1)，47-71。


二、英文部分
Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D., Baum, A., and Greene, T. C. (1990). Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
Gerlach-Spriggs, N., Kaufman, R. E., and Warner, S. B. (1998). Restorative gardens-The healing landscape. London: Yale University Press.
Evans, G. W. and Wood, K. W. (1980). Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors. Environment and Behavior, 12, 255-273.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E. Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. (5th edn). Prentice Hall International: UK.
Hartig, T., and Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effect of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S. and Garling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in nature and urban field settings, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123.
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. and Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environment restorativeness (Working Paper No.5). Gävel, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K. M., Evans, G. W. and Gärling, T. (1996). Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. (Göteborg Psychological Reports, 26: 1-64). Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of Psychology.
Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field and forest environment. Landscape Research, 9, 10-16.
Herzog, T. R. and Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 320-344.
Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A. and Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170.
Kaplan, R., and Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. NY: Cambridge University Press. Nearby Nature.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 507-542.
Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V. and Slakter, D. B. (1993). The museum as a restorative environment. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 725-742.
Kelly, J. R., and Godbey, G. (1992). The sociology of leisure. PA: State College Press.
Kent, R. L. (1993). Determining scenic quality along highways: A cognitive approach. Landscape and Urban Planning. 27, 29-45.
Korpela, K., and Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
Korpola, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. and Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite place. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 573-589.
Laumann, K., Garling, T. and Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environment, Journal of environment psychology, 21, 31-44.
Zube, E. H. (1987). Perceived land use patterns and landscape values, Landscape ecology, 1(1), 37-45.