臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：以生理及心理方法探討景觀對感知的影響
作者：蔡麗秋
作者(外文)：TSAI, LI-CHIU
校院名稱：中國文化大學
系所名稱：建築及都市設計學系
指導教授：邱英浩
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2019
主題關鍵詞：心理影響；認知；景觀類型；樹形；情緒體驗；生理影響；psychological effect；perception；landscape type；tree form；emotional experience；physiological effects
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:125
本研究首次以小林重順（1994）的環境語意圖，探討視覺景觀對感知的心理影響，研究結果發現人們的感知反應相當符合景觀（含樹形）本身的特性，重新確認了景觀分類和樹形在視覺心理影響的重要性。生動／枯燥乏味、有活力／病懨懨、優雅／滑稽可笑、粗野／浪漫等4項是影響景觀心理感知最重要的因子，並且越具生動感、活力感、優雅感、浪漫感的景觀類型和樹形越受歡迎，同時，人們較喜歡偏「暖」、「軟」體驗感的景觀和樹形。故推論生動感、有活力感、優雅感、浪漫感、暖感、軟感可以作為景觀類型和樹形偏好的評估指標。
兩性在景觀類型的心理感知上大部分呈現相同反應，在不同類型景觀的體驗和偏好上沒有明顯差異。在樹形方面，兩性對所有樹形的偏好成一致性反應，對多數樹形的情緒體驗也沒有明顯差異，或者在程度上有差異但方向具一致性，但兩性對樹形類別的心理體驗差異比景觀類型大，因此，在環境設計中，樹形的應用不可偏忽諮詢各性別意見。
不同專業訓練，即使是同為環境設計學門的市政、建築、景觀專業對景觀的心理感知都有些微差異，充分顯示出專業教育對於知覺和認知的影響。而大陸及台灣兩地景觀教育及文化背景應該也是造成景觀心理差異的原因。
在生理影響方面，本研究同時對近距離6種樹形的生理影響進行測試，發現受測者觀看各種樹形時腦波之個別指數並沒有顯著差異，但像傘形樹在短暫的視覺接觸（10秒）時會引起較激動的情緒。心跳變異率分析顯示冠形樹會使人興奮，圓塔形樹會使人放鬆。說明人們觀看不同樹形時仍有不同的生理反應。對照各樹形的心理感知，傘形樹給人可愛感、生動感、有活力感、刺激感，與在觀賞初期引起較激動之腦波反應一致。冠形樹在心跳變異率分析中反應出使人興奮感，也和心理反應的生動感、有活力感一致。生理測量分析顯示大部分的樹形都使人趨於安靜，尤其以圓塔形、橢圓形最明顯，其與在心理上明顯反應出枯燥無味、莊嚴、病懨懨的情緒體驗一致。說明樹形對的生心理影響具有一致性。
本研究結果具參考性，可應用在環境景觀設計上，例如老人社區需要營造容易親近的環境，也需要有活力、生動的體驗感，故可多配置卵形、傘形樹；運動場地需要營造有活力、具刺激感的環境，可多配置傘形、錐形樹；醫院除了需要平靜的環境，也需要給人活力感，可配置圓形、卵形、冠形樹。而給人枯燥無味、病懨懨感的棕櫚、圓塔、橢圓形樹，其應用則要慎重。
此外，本研究採用兩兩相對語意直接測量人對樹形的情緒體驗，與過去相關研究將諸多體驗形容詞加以歸納，試圖用一個概括性的形容詞來描述樹形給人的情緒體驗，所得結果有相當不同。並且使用概括性語意會忽略情緒體驗間的差異，如同本研究分析所得各樹形多種情緒體驗的偏向，以及因距離變化情緒體驗也有改變的現象，顯示樹形在環境設計中應更謹慎運用。
This study was the first to adopt the environment semantics diagram proposed by Shigenobu Kobayashi (1994) to explore the psychological effects of visual landscape on perception. The results indicated that human perceptions aligned with landscape (including tree forms). This reconfirmed the importance of landscape classification and tree forms to visual and psychological effects. Four pairs of adjectives, vivid/boring, active/listlessly, graceful/ludicrous, and barbaric/romantic, were determined to be the most prominent factors affecting the psychological perception of landscape. Specifically, landscape types or tree forms that were vivid, active, graceful, and romantic were highly preferred by study participants, who also enjoyed landscape types or tree forms that exhibited a sense of warmth and softness. Accordingly, vividness, activity, gracefulness, romanticism, warmth, and softness were adopted as indicators to evaluate preferences for landscape types or tree forms.
Participants of two genders demonstrated similar psychological perceptions regarding landscape types, and their perceptions and preferences for landscape types differed nonsignificantly. The participants of two genders also exhibited consistent preference toward different tree forms. Their emotional experiences of most tree forms either differed nonsignificantly, or differed significantly only in the degree of reaction but remained consistent in regard to their preferences. Nevertheless, comparing the psychological experiences of the two genders revealed that greater differences were observed in tree forms than in landscape types. Therefore, the application of tree forms should not overlook gender-related factors.
The difference in professional training produced slightly different psychological perceptions regarding landscape. This difference was observed even among participants from the domains of urban administration, architecture, and landscape design, despite these domains all being related to environmental design. This indicated the effect of education on perceptions and cognitions. Therefore, the difference in the psychological perception of landscape between individuals from Taiwan and Mainland China can probably be attributed to the two regions’ difference in landscape education and cultural background.
Regarding physiological effects, this study examined six tree forms observed from a close distance and revealed nonsignificant differences in the electroencephalographical indices of participants viewing these tree forms. However, a short visual contact (10 seconds) with the umbrella-shaped tree elicited a stronger emotion compared with other tree forms. Heart rate variability analysis showed that the crown-shaped tree form caused excitement in the participants, whereas the tower-shaped tree form caused them to relax. This indicated that different tree forms evoked different physiological reactions. Comparing with the psychological effects, the participants noted that the umbrella-shaped tree elicited a sense of loveliness, vividness, activity, and irritation, which were consistent with their electroencephalographical responses. Analyzing the heart rate variability of the participants showed that the crown-shaped tree evoked an excited emotion, which was consistent with their psychological reaction, causing them to experience a sense of vividness and activeness. Physiological analysis revealed that most of the tree forms caused the participants to demonstrate a pacified reaction, in particular the tower-shaped and elliptical tree forms, which evoked in the participants an emotional experience of feeling dull, solemn, or listlessly. This indicated that the different tree forms exerted a consistent physiological and psychological effect on the viewers.
The results of this study can serve a reference for environmental and landscape design. For example, a community mainly resided by older adults requires an amiable environment that can also evoke a sense of activity and vividness. Therefore, such a community can plant oval and umbrella-shaped trees. A sports ground requires an active, irritant environment; hence, umbrella-shaped and conical trees can be planted. A hospital requires a peaceful environment that need also evoke an active sense; hence, it can plant round, oval and crown-shaped tree. Palm, tower-shaped and elliptical trees should be applied with caution because they can elicit a sense of dull and listlessness.
This study employed pairs of adjectives with opposite semantic implications to directly measure people’s emotional experiences regarding different tree forms and obtain results differing from previous studies, which have mostly classified adjectives and attempted to use generalized adjectives to describe such experiences. Using generalized adjectives can overlook the differences between emotional experiences. The results of this study verified that each tree form was associated with multiple emotional experiences, and these experiences changed with the viewing distance. Therefore, tree forms must be applied with caution when creating environmental designs.
1.小林重順，1994，「景観の色とイメージ」，株式会社堀內印刷所。
2.日本小學館，1994，樹形じゅけい，「日本大百科全書」，https://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%A8%B9%E5%BD%A2-528355#E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E5.A4.A7.E7.99.BE.E7.A7.91.E5.85.A8.E6.9B.B8.28.E3.83.8B.E3.83.83.E3.83.9D.E3.83.8B.E3.82.AB.29，2018年5月20日擷取。
3.李囿運、謝淑蘭、翁嘉英、孫蒨如、梁庚辰，2012，情緒影片誘發的自律神經反應模式，「中華心理學刊」，54(4):527-560。
4.李美芬、歐聖榮，1996，植栽空間對情緒體驗影響之研究，「興大園藝」，21:151-167。
5.阮琴閔、歐聖榮，1997，五種常綠喬木造形之情緒體驗研究，「興大園藝」，22(1):123-136。
6.林三永，2011，何謂腦波？科學EasyLearn網路版，http://sa.ylib.com/MagArticle.aspx?Unit=easylearn&id=1820，2018年6月1日擷取。
7.林威志、邱安煒、徐建業、邱泓文，2005，聆聽音樂時腦波及心率變異性之變化，「醫療資訊雜誌」，14(2):27-36。
8.林晏州，2000，台北市鄰里公園之景觀美質評估，「造園學報」，6(1/2):91-115.
9.林嘉慶、黎俊彥，2008，規律運動訓練對心率變異性之影響，「中華體育季刊」， 22(4):13-22。
10.侯錦雄，2012，「城市景觀中自然度與情緒體驗關係之研究-台中市的自然體驗地圖」，行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫NSC99-2410-H-029-048-MY2.
11.洪偉肯、陳玲鈴，2010，如何量測產品的矛盾語意，「設計學報」，15(4):41-58。
12.徐磊青、楊公俠(編著)，2005，「環境心理學－環境、知覺和行為」，台北：五南圖書出版社.
13.翁根本、何慈育、歐善福、林竹川、謝凱生，2009，心律變動性分析，「臺灣醫界」，52(6):290-293。
14.張淑貞，2011，觀賞者對農村道路景觀之認知，「造園景觀學報」，17(2):1-22。
15.章錦瑜、朱俊璋，2006，優型樹的型態對景觀美質的影響，「東海學報」，47:117-126。
16.許媁鈞、林晏州，2014，風景區之色彩組成與調和對景觀偏好之影響，「造園景觀學報」，20(2):1-18。
17.陳惠美，1999，觀賞序列對視覺景觀資源評估作用之研究，兼論視覺資源之永續經營管理，博士論文，國立台灣大學園藝學研究所。
18.陳嬋，2010，不同 LED 照明情境對人的情緒體驗、行為反應及偏好影響之研究，碩士論文，中興大學園藝學系所。
19.游恆山譯，1993， Strongman, K. T.著，1991，「情緒心理學」，台北：五南書局，3-19。
20.黃艾可，2006，探討捷運公共藝術之視覺感知-以台北捷運站為例，碩士論文，中華大學建築與都市計畫學系。
21.黃茹蘭、林晏州，1998，行道樹視覺景觀偏好影響因素之探討，「中國園藝」，44(1):323-337。
22.新田伸三著，許添籌、林俊寬(譯)(1990)，植栽理論與技術，台北市：詹氏，11-30，
23.蔡麗秋、邱英浩，2018，樹形對心理感知之影響研究，建築與規劃學報，18（2/3）：已接受，出刊中。
24.賴明嘉、林晏州，1995，水景形態及聲音對情緖體驗影響之硏究，「造園學報」， 2(1):1-17。
25.賴淑芳、曹壽民，2006，市區幹道植栽配置偏好之研究，「運輸計劃季刊」，35(1):85-106。
26.鍾君佩、林晏州，1995，國立臺灣大學農學院研究報告，35(4):465-479.
27.鍾政偉，2009，旅客涉入程度、知覺價值、滿意度與購後行為意圖關係之研究-以台灣觀光列車為例，博士論文，中華大學科技管理學系(所)。
28.Andreassi, J. L., 2013, Psychophysiology: Human Behavior & Physiological Response (4th ed.), Taylor and Francis, Hoboken.
29.Aoki, Y., Rupprecht, C., & Takayama N., 2015, A trend of psychological landscape evaluation from view point of survey papers, Conference paper: Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2015, At Makuhari.
30.Appelhans, B.M., & Luecken, L.J., 2006, “Heart rate variability as an index of regulated emotional responding”, Review of General psychology, 10(3):229.
31.Bakker, B., van der Voordt, T., Vink, P., & de Boon, J., 2014, “Pleasure, Arousal, Dominance: Mehrabian and Russell revisited”, Current Psychology: 33(3): 405–421.
32.Bell, S., 1993, Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. London: E & FN SPON.
33.Booth, N. K., 1990. Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design, Waveland Press, Illinois.
34.Craik, K. H., 1971, “The assessment of places”, in P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 2), Science and Behavior Books, Palo Alto, Calif., 40-60.
35.Craik, K. H., 1972, “Psychological Factors in Landscape Appraisal”, Environment and Behavior, 4(3): 255-26.
36.Daniel, 2001, “Whither scenic beauty？ Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century”, Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 267-281
37.Davitz, L. J., 1969, “Nurse’ inferences of suffering”, Nursing Research, 18(2):100-106.
38.Evans, G. W., & Wood, K. W. (1980). “Assessment of environmental aesthetics in scenic highway corridors”, Environment and Behavior, 12:255-273.
39.Ekman, P., 1992, “Facial expressions of emotion: New findings, new questions”, Psychological Science, 3(1): 34-38.
40.Friedmann, R., & Zimmer, M. R., 1988. “The role of psychological meaning in advertising”, Journal of Advertising, 17(1): 31-40.
41.Galindo Galindo, M. P., & José Antonio Corraliza Rodríguez, J.A., 2000, “Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: relationships between preference judgement for urban landscape and other relevant affective response”, Psychology in Spain, 4(1): 13-27.
42.Gerstenberg, T., & Hofmann, M., 2016, “Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas”, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15:103-111.
43.Gruffydd J.St. B., 1994, Tree Form, Size and Colour, a guide to selection, planting and design, University Press, Cambridge, 3.
44.Hartig, T., & Evans, G. W., 1993, “Psychological foundations of nature experience”, In Gärling, T., & Golledge, R. G. (Eds.), Behavior and environment: Psychological and geographical approaches, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 427–457.
45.Hofmann, M., Westermann J.R., Kowarik, I., & van der Meer, E., 2012, “Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents”, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3):303–312.
46.Igarashi, M., Song, C., Ikei, H., & Miyazaki, Y., Ph D., 2015, “Effect of stimulation by foliage plant display images on prefrontal cortex activity: a comparison with stimulation using actual foliage plants”, Journal of Neuroimaging, 25(1):127-130.
47.Ittelson, W., Proshansky, H., Rivlin, L., & Winkel, G., 1974, “An Introduction to Environmental Psychology”, Cited by Barnes, M., Cooper Marcus, C. , 1999, in Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations. Wiley, 88
48.Izard, C.E., 1972, “An Empirical Analysis of Anxiety in Terms of Discrete Emotions”, in Patterns of Emotions：A New Analysis of Anxiety and Depression , 83-88, New York：Acadmic Press.
49.Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. 1989, The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.Kaymaz, I. C., 2012, “Landscape Perception”, Landscape Planning, Dr. Murat Ozyavuz (Ed.), 251-276, InTech, Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/landscape-planning/landscape-perception. 2018年6月12日擷取
51.Koga, K., & Iwasaki Y., 2013, “Psychological and physiological effect in humans of touching plant foliage - using the semantic differential method and cerebral activity as indicators”, Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 32(1): 7.
52.Litton, R.B. Jr., 1968, Forest landscape description and inventories: A basis for land planning and design. USDA, Forest Service, Res. Pap. PSM-49.
53.Lothian, A., 1999, “Landscape and the Philosophy of Aesthetics: Is Landscape Quality Inherent in the Landscape or in the Eye of the Beholder?” Landscape and Urban Planning, 44:177 - 198
54.Makivić, B., DjordjevićNikić, M., & Willis, M.S., 2013, “Heart rate variability (HRV) as a tool for diagnostic and monitoring performance in sport and physical activities”, Journal of Exercise Physiologyonline, 16(3):100-109.
55.Meinig, D.W., 1979, “The beholding eye: ten versions of the same scene”, In Meinig D.W. & Brinckerhoff J. (eds.), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, Oxford University Press, New York, 33-48.
56.Merrill, H.R., Hammons, K., Vincent, B.R., Reynolds, P.L., & Christensen, L.B. 1996, Computer in education (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: A Simon & Schuster Company.
57.Nassauer, J.I., 1983, “Framing the Landscape in Photographic Simulation”, Journal of Environmental Management, 16(4):1-16.
58.Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H., 1957, The measurement of meaning, Oxford, England: Univer. Illinois Press.
59.Palmer, J.F., & Lankhost, J. R., 1998, “Evaluating visible spatial diversity in the landscape”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 43:65~78.
60.Palmer, J. F., 2003, “Research Agenda for Landscape Perception, In Buhmann, E., & Ervin S. M., (Eds.) Trends in Landscape Modelling, Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences 2003, Wichmann, 163-172.
61.Parsons R., & Daneil, T.C., 2002, “Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(1):43-56
62.Peterson, G.L., 1967, “A model of preference: quantitative analysis of the perception of the visual appearance of residential neighborhoods”, Journal of Regional Science, 7(1): 19-31.
63.Rosenberg, S., & Park Kim, M., 1975, “The method of sorting as a data-gathering procedure in multivariate research”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10(4):489-502.
64.Russell, J. A., 1980, “A Circumplex Model of Affect”, Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(6):1161-1178.
65.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.
66.Russell, J.A., & J. Snodgrass., 1987, “Emotion and the Environment”, In Stokol, D. and Altman, I. Handbook of Environment Psychology, Vol.1, New York, A Wiley-Interscience Publishing, 245-280.
67.Russell, J.A., & Carroll, J.M., 1999, “On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect”, Psychological Bulletin, 125(1): 3-30
68.Reisenzein, R., 1994, “Pleasure-activation theory and the intensity of emotions”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67:525-539.
69.Sanei, S., & Chambers, J.A., 2013, EEG signal processing, John Wiley & Sons.
70.Scherer, K. R., 2005, “What are emotions? And how can they be measured?”, Social Science Information, 44(4): 693-727.
71.Skřivanová, Z., & Kalivoda, O., 2010, “Perception and assessment of landscape aesthetic values in the Czech Republic – a literature review”, Journal of Landscape Studies 3 (2010), 211 – 220.
72.Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C., 1985, “Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion”. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 48:813-838.
73.Smardon, R.C., Palmer, J.F., & Felleman, J.P., 1986, Foundation for Visual Project Analysis, New York: Wiley.
74.Sommer, R., & Summit, J., 1995, “An Exploratory Study of Preferred Tree Form”, Environment and Behavior, 27(4):540-557.
75.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.
76.Summit, J., & Sommer, R., 1999, “Further Studies of Preferred Tree Shapes”, Environment and Behavior 31(4):550-576.
77.Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology, the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, 1996, “Heart rate variability Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use”, European Heart Journal, 17: 354-381.
78.Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., & Aikoh, T., 2004, “Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4):403-416.
79.Ulrich, R. S., 1983, Aesthetic and affective response to nature environment. In Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J. F. (Eds.), Behavior and the nature environment, New York: Plenum Press: 85-125.
80.van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L., & Van der Wulp., 2003, “Environmental preference and restoration: How are they related”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23: 135–146.
81.Valenza, G., Lanata, A., & Scilingo, E.P., 2012, “The role of nonlinear dynamics in affective valence and arousal recognition”, IEEE transactions on affective computing, 3(2): 237-249.
82.Webster's Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landscape, 2018年6月5日下載。
83.Williams, D.P., Jarczok, M.N., Ellis, R.J., Hillecke, T.K., Thayer, J.F., & Koenig, J., 2017, “Two‐week test–retest reliability of the Polar®RS800CX™ to record heart rate variability”, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 37(6):776-781
84.Zhao.J, Xu W., & Li R., 2017, “Visual preference of trees: The effects of tree attributes and seasons”, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25:19-25.
85.Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., & Taylor, J.G., 1982, “Landscape perception: research, application and theory”, Landscape Planning, 9:1-33.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：359（臺灣：346，外國：13） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1498098 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67300917
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上