跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.94.177) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/21 17:29
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:廖惠曦
研究生(外文):Hui-Hsi Liao
論文名稱:療癒環境對生心理反應影響之跨文化比較
論文名稱(外文):Psychological and Physiological Responses to HealingEnvironments: A Comparison of Cultural Differences
指導教授:張俊彥
指導教授(外文):Chun-Yen Chang
口試委員:李美芬林晏州歐聖榮何立智
口試委員(外文):Mei-Fen LeeYann-Jou LinSheng-Jung OuLi-Chih Ho
口試日期:2018-06-18
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:園藝暨景觀學系
學門:農業科學學門
學類:園藝學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2018
畢業學年度:106
語文別:中文
論文頁數:76
中文關鍵詞:療癒環境情緒體驗景觀偏好注意力恢復力生理回饋
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:377
  • 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
接觸大自然能夠提升生活品質已是相當普遍的觀念,而多年來關於景觀偏好的許多研究皆指出人們對於自然景觀的偏好程度多過於都市景觀,且僅是觀看自然景觀的照片便能夠產生放鬆、注意力恢復等效果。近年來國內旅遊產業興盛,許多遊憩景點常常以西洋香草花園、歐風庭園等異國風情作為主要宣傳,但除了對於西方文化的憧憬與新奇感外,溫帶氣候的歐洲景觀是否比起熟悉的台灣亞熱帶景觀能提供較佳的生心理效益、以及在外國遊客來訪人數逐年增加的背景下,台灣與外國遊客對遊憩景點的喜好與反應是否有所差異,皆是相當值得探討的。
本研究比較台灣與瑞典受測者觀看不同景觀環境的照片時,在生理與心理方面是否會有不同的反應,且是否受文化背景的影響而有所差異。生理反應的測量利用生理回饋儀器,記錄受測者觀看照片後的腦波、肌電值與心跳速率等生理反應;心理測量項目則包括情緒體驗、注意力恢復力以及偏好。研究實驗流程包括注意力測驗前測、觀看景觀照片、注意力測驗後測,以及問卷填寫等四個部分。本研究於民國106年5月於瑞典農業科技大學收集歐洲受測者65名,台灣的部分於民國106年10月至12月收集100名受測者進行實驗。
本研究第一部份比較不同文化背景之受測者觀看都市或自然景觀在生心理反應之差異,分析結果發現不同文化背景之受測者在注意力恢復力、腦波與肌電值等方面有顯著差異,且受測者在情緒體驗的愉悅程度、注意力恢復力與偏好等心理指標皆以自然景觀高於都市景觀。第二部分比較不同文化背景之受測者觀看不同療癒環境的生心理反應變化,發現台灣受測者的注意力恢復力與偏好皆顯著高於瑞典受測者,且受測者觀看瑞典療癒花園的注意力恢復力顯著高於台灣休閒場域,生理反應方面,不同文化背景之受測者的腦波有顯著差異。
本研究結果顯示文化背景對景觀效益的影響大過於景觀環境的不同所造成的影響,根據這樣的結果,建議未來在規劃休閒場域時,應將來訪遊客的文化差異納入考慮,以期能夠提供最佳的景觀生心理效益。
It is a common belief that being in nature can improve the quality of life. Through the years many research have demonstrated the fact that people prefer natural landscapes over urban landscape, and even just viewing pictures of natural can bring positive results such as relaxation and attention recovery. With domestic travel rate increasing in the past few years, many of the recreational attractions have been using exotic sceneries such as western herb garden or European style landscape to attract tourists. Apart from the sense of novelty and curiosity to western culture, it is worth discussing whether western, temperate landscapes have higher environmental benefits than oriental, subtropical landscapes among tourists. According to the tourist bureau, inbound visitors have also increased in the last 10 years, it’s also important to understand if domestic and foreign tourists have different preference and reactions among recreational attractions.
This research was set to understand if people react differently on psychological as well as physiological level to different landscape types, and if cultural differences affect the reactions in any way. For psychological reactions, we used a short survey with questions concerning participants’ emotional experiences, attention restoration and preference to the landscape. For physiological measurements, we collected participants’ brainwave, EMG(forehead muscle tension) and heart rate reactions. The research procedure included 4 parts: attention pre-test, scenario viewing, attention post-test and short survey. We collected 65 samples from Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, SLU) in May of 2018 and 100 samples from National Taiwan University from October to December of 2018.
The first part of the research was to compare how participants with different cultural background react psychologically and physically to either urban or nature landscapes. The results show that Taiwanese participants have significantly higher level on attention restoration than Swedish participants. Participants with different cultural background showed significant difference on Alpha brainwave and EMG. Both group of participants showed higher level of pleasure, attention restoration and preference on natural landscapes comparing to urban landscapes. The second part of the research compares how participants with different cultural background react psychologically and physically to different healing environments. The results show that Taiwanese participants have significantly higher level on attention restoration and preference than Swedish participants. Participants with different cultural background showed significant difference on Alpha brainwave reactions. Comparing the reactions to different healing environments, only attention restoration shows significant difference with Swedish rehabilitation garden higher than Taiwan leisure farms.
The results show that cultural difference has more influence than landscape types. According to this result, we suggest that one should take the cultural differences of the visitors into consideration while designing and planning recreational attractions.
摘要 i
Abstract ii
圖目錄 III
表目錄 IV
第一章、 緒論 1
第一節、研究動機 1
第二節、研究目的 1
第三節、研究範圍與限制 2
第二章、 文獻回顧 3
第一節、療癒環境 3
一、 名詞定義 3
第二節、景觀相關理論 5
一、 情緒體驗 5
二、 景觀偏好理論 8
三、 注意力恢復理論 10
第三節、景觀效益與生理反應 13
一、 景觀與生理反應 13
二、 景觀生心理效益相關研究 15
第四節、文化差異與景觀 17
第五節、小結 18
第三章、 研究方法 19
第一節、 研究架構與假設 19
第二節、研究變項與測量內容 21
第三節、實驗操作與流程 27
第四節、資料收集與處理 30
第四章、 研究結果與分析 32
第一節、研究樣本分析 32
第二節、研究假設驗證 34
第五章、 結論與建議 53
第一節、結果與討論 53
第二節、後續研究建議 58
參考文獻 59
附錄 62
附錄一、 實驗用照片 62
一、 都市景觀 62
二、 自然景觀/台灣休閒場域 62
三、 瑞典療癒花園 63
附錄二、 反序數字廣度測驗內容 64
附錄三、 心理反應問卷(中、英文) 66
附錄四、 引用文獻原文 72
1.李素馨(1999)。都市視覺景觀偏好之研究。都市與計畫,26(1),19-40。
2.何彥慧(2011)。不同景觀類型對受測者生心理反應影響之跨文化研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣大學園藝學系,台北市。
3.洪佳君、張俊彥(2001)。高山、水體、森林、公園、都市景觀之生心理效益。興大園藝,27(3),79-86。
4.許瑜芸(2017)。景觀類型對情緒體驗與腦區反應的影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣大學園藝學系,台北市。
5.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(未出版碩士論文)。國立台灣大學園藝學系,台北市。
6.張俊彥(2010)。農村健康景觀設計。台北市:人與植物學會。
7.張俊彥、陳炳錕(2001)。以腦電波探討具恢復力之環境對生心理影響之研究。興大園藝,26(2),49-61。
8.張俊彥、張元毓、林穎萱(2012)。療癒景觀園藝治療之相關名詞釋義。造園景觀雜誌,73,4-13。
9.Bathula, R., Francis, D. P., Hughes, A., Chaturvedi, N. (2008). Ethnic differences in heart rate: can these be explained by conventional cardiovascular risk factors? Clinical Autonomic Research, 18, 90-95.
10.Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259.
11.Davitz, J. R., (2016). The Language of Emotion. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/e34oMq (Original work published 1969)
12.Fibit, Inc. (2018). Fitbit’s 100+ Billion Hours of Resting Heart Rate User Data Reveals Resting Heart Rate Decreases After Age 40. Fibit, Inc. press release.
13.Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effect of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26.
14.Hartig, T., Korpela, K. M., Evans, G. W., Gärling, T. (1996). Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Göteborg Psychological Reports, (26: 1-64). Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of Psychology.
15.Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., 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.
16.Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170.
17.Ittelson, W. (1973). Environment Perception and Contemporary Perceptual Theory. In W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Environment and Cognition (pp. 141-154). New York: Seminar.
18.James, W. (1920). Psychology: The briefer course. Retrieved from https://ia802607.us.archive.org/22/items/psychologybriefe00willuoft/psychologybriefe00willuoft.pdf (Original work published 1892)
19.Kaplan, R., & Herbert E., J., (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293.
20.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
22.Korpela, M. K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 249–258.
23.Lang, P. J. (1979). A bio ‐ informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology, 16(6), 495-512.
24.Laumann, K., Gärling, T., Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environment, Journal of environment psychology, 21, 31-44.
25.Laumann, K., Gärling, T., Stormark, K. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 125-134.
26.Marcus, C. & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1999). Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
27.Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
28.Parsons, R., Tassinary, L. G., Ulrich, R. S., Hebl, M. R., & Grossman-Alexander, M. (1998). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18,113-139.
29.Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161 -1178.
30.Russell, J. A. & Pratt G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311-322.
31.Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes–Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 199-212.
32.Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., Taylor, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory . Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊