臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

不同流動形式的水體景觀位於自然環境與人造環境中是否令人產生不同的認知?本研究從視覺生心理來探討觀看不同環境屬性(自然/人工)及流動形式(水平/垂直)的水景，是否會影響觀賞者所產生偏好程度及注意力恢復？本研究採用心理問卷和瞳位追蹤系統紀錄視覺反應。多數的景觀偏好和瞳位追蹤實驗都採用單張刺激圖來做施測，比較數據之差異，而基於人們對偏好之景觀會多看幾眼之假說，本研究除給予單一水體景觀圖片測試外，亦試圖給予觀賞者同時觀看不同類型的水體景觀，檢視視覺反應之差別？
本研究以自然/人工環境屬性與水平/垂直流動形式為水體景觀之依據，包含自然/水平、人工/水平、自然/垂直、人工/垂直，每組類型4張，共16張，實驗受測者共60人。本研究問卷以Kaplan & Kaplan所提出的景觀偏好矩陣中之偏好因子(一致性、複雜性、易讀性、神秘性)、Kaplan & Kaplan的注意力恢復理論中的四大特徵(遠離日常生活環境、延展性、魅力性、相容性)及對環境的景觀偏好與注意力回復性等十個因子作為問項。所觀察的瞳位訊息指標以凝視時間、凝視次數、凝視順序。
本研究結果如下：（1）利用瞳位追蹤定性分析其結果顯示，觀賞單一刺激圖與同時觀看4張合成刺激圖，搜尋的模式相同，但在4張合成刺激圖中，可以發現在自然/水平水體景觀中，觀看時的間較久；（2）整體景觀偏好值中，複雜性、神秘性以自然/水平的水體景觀為最高；一致性、易讀性中以人工/水平流動形式為最高；（3）利用重複量數變異數檢定分析結果顯示，環境屬性、流動形式二因子交互作用下對整體景觀偏好值、複雜性、易讀性、神秘性、注意力恢復、遠離日常生活、延伸性、魅力性及相容性，都具有顯著的影響；（4）在整體水體景觀的典型相關性中，以神秘性為主要影響整體景觀偏好，而以延伸性及魅力性為影響注意力恢復;（5）自然/水平水體景觀及人工/垂直水體景觀的凝視時間、凝視次數、整體景觀偏好及整體注意恢復，呈現顯著相關，其它因子間均無顯著差異。

Do different forms of water flow in the natural and urban environment have different cognition? From the view point of visual psycho physiological approach, this study explored the influence of environment (natural/ artificial) and mobile form of water (horizontal / vertical) to the preference and perceived attention restoration. This study utilized psychological questionnaires and eye-tracking equipment to records data. In addition, most of the landscape preferences and eye- tracking experiment examined stimulate effect one by one. Based on the assumption of looking more frequently on the preferred landscape than un-preferred, this study compared the visual reaction difference between watching single picture and by the same time watching four pictures of water landscape.
This research takes basis of the selection stimulation images from the environment and water flow forms, including four types: natural / horizontal, artificial / horizontal, natural / vertical, artificial / vertical. Each type has four images, for a total of 16 images of waterscape. There are 60 participants in this experiment. The questionnaire design adopted from Kaplan & Kaplan landscape preferences in the matrix of preference factors (coherence, complexity, and legibility, mystery), and Kaplan & Kaplan’s restorative theory, which include 4 factors (being away, extend, fascination and compatibility) and the general environmental preferences and general restorative perception made it total of ten items. Eye tracking indicators include fixation duration, fixation count and fixation Sequence. The results showed as followed:
(1) Using the eye tracking qualitative analysis of the results showed that viewing a single stimulated image and at the same time observed four kinds of stimulated images, participants had similar searching pattern, which showed in the natural / water horizontal image having longer fixation duration. (2) In the landscape preferences model, the highest values in complexity and mystery showed in the natural / horizontal; the highest values in stimulation images of coherence and legibility were in the artificial / horizontal waterscapes. (3) Using repeated measure analysis the results showed that environment and flow form had interaction in overall landscape preference, complexity, legibility, mystery, attention restoration, being away, fascination, and compatibility factors. (4) From canonical analysis, mystery had strongest effect in landscape preference factors, while extent and fascination were the main factors affecting restoration. (5) Natural / horizontal and artificial / vertical water landscape showed that fixation duration, fixation counts, overall landscape preferences, and perceived attention restoration had significant correlations. The other factors showed no significant differences.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究問題陳述 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究變項定義 4
第四節 研究限制 5
第五節 研究內容與研究流程 6
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 水體景觀與環境屬性 7
第二節 景觀偏好與注意力恢復理論 9
第三節 視覺相關理論與瞳位追蹤方法 15
第四節 景觀偏好與注意力恢復之關係 17
第五節 心理與生理反應的關係 19
第三章 研究方法 21
第一節 研究架構與研究假設 21
第二節 測量工具 25
第三節 資料分析方法 32
第四章 研究成果 35
第一節 樣本特性分析 35
第二節 瞳位追蹤之定性分析 38
第三節 水體景觀類型中不同的環境屬性、流動形式對觀賞者瞳位訊息之影響.49
第四節 水體景觀類型中不同的環境屬性、流動形式對觀賞者景觀偏好之影響.52
第五節 水體景觀類型中不同的環境屬性、流動形式對觀賞者注意力恢復性之影響 59
第六節 觀賞者的景觀偏好與注意力恢復性之相關性 67
第七節 視覺生理反應之凝視順序與整體景觀偏好與整體注意力恢復性之關係 75
第五章 結論與建議 77
第一節 結果與討論 77
第二節 後續研究建議 81
參考文獻 82
附錄A 景觀偏好與注意力恢復調查表 A1

中文部分：
1.王鑫，(1990)。景觀欣賞與保護教育，環境教育季刊，7，44-53。
2.朱瀅，（2002）。實驗心理學，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，台北。
3.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，6，71-89。
4.李素馨、李繼勉，(2004)。景觀構圖類型之視覺評估研究，造園學報，10(2)，37-60。
5.李素馨、陳育文，(2006)。廣告招牌與植栽形式對視覺認知及偏好之影響，戶外遊憩研究,19(3),45-68
6.李麗雪、洪得娟、顏家芝譯，Smaardon, R. C., Palmer, J. F. & Felleman, J. P.原著，(1996)。景觀視覺評估與分析，台北：田園城巿文化事業有限公司。
7.林晏州，（1994）。人工公園水景設計之研究，國科會專題研究計畫成果報告 (報告編號：NSC 83-0409-B-002-043）。
8.侯錦雄、李素馨譯，Norman, K. B.原著，(1997)。景觀設計元素（第二版），田園城市文化事業有限公司。
9.唐大崙、李天任、蔡政旻，(2006)。以色彩喜好作業探索偏好與視線軌跡的關係，廣告學研究，25，55-79。
10.張俊彥、洪佳君，(2001)。景觀元素與生心理反應之研究，造園學報，9(2)，107-120。
11.張俊彥、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。
12.梁耘瑭譯，Robert L.Solso 原著，（2004）。視覺藝術認知，台北：全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
13.曾慈慧，（2002）。景觀環境與福祉及恢復關係之探討，博士論文，國立台灣大學園藝研究所，台北。
14.曾慈慧、凌德麟、毛慧芬，(2002)。景觀環境的偏好、心理反應與生理反應之研究，造園學報，8(2)，45-66。
15.游菀瑋、林晏州 (1998)。植栽對焦慮情緒減緩效果之研究，植栽、生態與保育，台北：田園城市文化事業。
16.詹永舟，（1999）。瞳位追蹤應用於眼控系統及眼球動態量測遺棄之製作與分析，逢甲大學自動控制工程學系研究所碩士論文，台中。
17.詹智勝，(2006)。景觀空間涵構對景觀偏好與注意力恢復之影響，碩士論文，逢甲大學研究所，台中。
18.詹智勝、李素馨，(2005)。不同水體景觀型態對視覺反應及注意力恢復能力影響之研究，第七屆休閒、遊憩、觀光學術研討會，中華民國戶外遊憩學會。
19.葉素玲，（1999）。視覺空間注意力，李江山編，視覺與認知，遠流出版社（219-324）。
20.蔡政旻，（2004）。以眼動追蹤法探討色彩喜好之研究，碩士論文，文化大學資訊傳播研究所，台北。
21.翁珮怡，（2002）。環境景觀生態結構對物種、使用者自然度感受及其生心理反應影響之研究，碩士論文，中興大學園藝學系，台中。
22.陳玠穎、歐聖榮，（2003）。中國園林景觀元素之視覺注意力與景觀偏好關係之研究，「第五屆休閒、遊憩、觀光學術研討會(2003)」景觀認知與偏好篇 pp.117-129。
23.黃郁琇、歐聖榮、林建堯，（2004）。庭園風格與熟悉度對視覺專注程序影響之研究。興大園藝29(1)：85-97。
24.韓可宗，（2001）。自然環境對人們身心健康的益處。造園季刊，41，13-18。
25.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
26.羅德望譯，R. L. Gregory原著，(1987)。視覺心理學，台北：五洲出版社。
外文部分：
1.Adams, R. J. (1987). An evaluation of color preference in early infancy. Infant Behavior & Development, 10(2), 143-150.
2.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic andstatistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
3.Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D., Baum, A., & Greene, T. C. (1990). Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TX : Dryden Press.
4.Booth, N. (1983). Basic elements of landscape architecture design (New York, Elsevier Science).
5.Daniel. T.C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman, I., & Wohlwill, J.(Eds), Human behavior and environment, Vol. VI. PlenumPress, New York, pp. 39-84.
6.De Lucio, J. V., Mohamadian, M., Ruiz, J. P., Banayas, J., & Bernaldez, F. G. (1996). Visual landscape exploration as revealed by eye movement tracking. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34:135-142.
7.Fredrickson, B. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 191–220.
8.Gerlach-Spriggs, N., Kaufman, R. E., & Warner, S. B. (1998). Restorative gardens-The healing landscape. London : Yale University Press.
9.Hartig, T. A., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experience. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
10.Hartig, T. A. (1993). Testing restorative environments theory. Doctoral dissertation. University of California-Irvine.
11.Hartig, T., & Evans, G. W. (1993). Psychological foundations of nature experience. In Garling, T. & Golledge, R. G. (Eds.), Behavior and environment: Psychological and geographical approaches (pp. 427–457). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
12.Hartig, T. A., Book, A., Garvill, J., Olsson, T., & Garling, T. (1996). Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychologt, 37, 378-393.
13.Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., & Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environment restorativeness (Working Paper No.5). Gavle, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research.
14.Hartig, T., Maris, E., & Staats, H. (1998). On relations between environmental preference and well-being. Paper presented at the 15th IAPS conference, 14–17 July, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
15.Herzog, T. R., & Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquillity and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Environmental Psychology, 12, 115-127.
16.Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and sttention recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170.
17.Han, Ke-Tsung. (2001). A review: Theories of restorative environments. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture Volume XII, 30-43.
18.James, W. (1982). Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Holt
19.Loftus, G. R. & Mackworth, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location suring picture viewing. Journal of Experimental psychology, 4(4), 565-572.
20.Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Bealle, D., & Lawrence, C. (1998). Windows in the workplace: Sunlight, view, and occupational stress. Environment and Behavior, 30, 739-762.
21.Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5(2), 145-162.
22.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1982). Cognition and environment : Function in an uncertain world. New York : Praeger.
23.Kaplan, S. & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In: Altman, I. & Wohlwill, J. F. (Eds). Behavior and the natural environment. New YorK: Plenum. Pp. 163-203.
24.Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environment preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3-32.
25.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. NY: Cambridge University Press. Nearby Nature.
26.Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V., & 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(3), 169-182.
28.Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
29.Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507–542.
30.Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 480–506.
31.Knopf, R. C. (1987). Human behavior, cognition, andaffect in the natural environment. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 783–825). New York: John Wiley.
32.Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221–33.
33.Nasar, Jack & Lin, Yi-Hsuan (2003). Evaluative Response to five kinds of water features, Landscape Research, Vol. 28, N0. 4, 441-450, October 2003.
34.Orians, Gordon H. & Heerwagen, Judith H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes, In: Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda, Tooby John (Eds) The adapted mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, pp.555-579, Oxford University Press, New York.
35.Pitt, D. G. (1989). The attractiveness and use of aquatic environments as outdoor recreation places, In: Altman, I. & Zube, E. H. (Eds) Public places and spaces: Human behavior and environment, Volume 10, pp. 217-254, Plenum Press, New York.
37.Purcell, A. T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33, 93–106.
38.Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research, Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422
39.Shafer.E. L., Jr., J.F. Hamilton., & E.A. Schnmidt.（1969）. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research 1(1): 1-19.
40.Schroeder, H. W. (1982). Preferred features of urban parks and forests. Journal of Arboriculture, 8, 317-322.
41.Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C., (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6(12), 1317-1323
42.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.
43.Thomas, C. B. (1986). Water gardens add serenity to the landscape. American Nurseryman (May), 130-132.
Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research, 4, 17-23.
44.Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes some psycho physiological effect. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556.
45.Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective responses to natural environments, In: Altman, I. & Wohlill, J. F. (Eds) Human behavior and environment: Volume 6, pp.85-125, Plenum Press, New York.
46.Ulrich, R. S. (1984).View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. 224, 420-421.
47.Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscape, Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.
48.Ulrich, R. S., Dimberg, U., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Psycho physiological indicators of leisure benefits. In Driver, B. L., Brown, P. L. & Peterson, C. L. (eds)., Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Ventura.
49.Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230
50.Ulrich, R. S. (1993) Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: Kellert, S. R. & Wilsons, E. O. (eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, D.C.: Island/Shearwater Press, 73-137.
51.Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L.,& Van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference andrestoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology ,23, 135–146
52.Yang, B. E.,& Brown, T.J.(1992). A cross-cultural comparison of preference for landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, 24, 471-507.