森林步道環境特性對心理評價反應之影響

Influences of Environmental Property of Forest Trail on Psychological Evaluation Responses

10.6130/JORS.2011.24(2)4

江彥政(Yen-Cheng Chiang)；張俊彥(Chun-Yen Chang)；歐聖榮(Sheng-Jung Ou)

環境資訊 ； 景觀偏好 ； 危險 ； 害怕 ； Environmental information ； Landscape preference ； Danger ； Fear

戶外遊憩研究

24卷2期（2011 / 06 / 01）

75 - 100

繁體中文

森林步道環境不僅帶給人舒適感，可能會因爲某些環境特性，而產生一些害怕之事物或情境，如迷路、落石、動植物威脅等。爲瞭解森林步道環境資訊、知覺、情境擔心對心理評價之影響，本研究以60張彩色森林步道照片作爲測試媒體，共獲得519位有效樣本。經典型相關分析後發現環境資訊之自然度與情境擔心（環境安全擔心、社會犯罪威脅、野生生物威脅和方向感）呈正相關，而開放度、視覺可及性和移動可及性與情境擔心均呈負相關；複雜性和神秘性與偏好間具正向相關；自然度和複雜性與危險和害怕間具正相關；視覺可及性和移動可及性與偏好具正相關，但與危險和害怕具負相關；而情境擔心與危險和害怕間達顯著正相關。從研究結果可得知，景觀的視覺穿透能力爲主要影響因子，尤其是林木間的視覺可及程度，因此未來在森林步道和公園植栽設計時建議需謹慎考量。

Forest trail not only provides a comfortable feeling for people, it also evokes specific fear of events or situations by certain environmental property for instance, getting lost, falling debris, and threatened by wild animal and plant. To understand influences of environmental information, perception, and situational concern on psychological evaluation in forest trails, there were sixty color slides to be collected as stimuli. Through convenient sampling, the study obtained 519 valid samples who took general courses in college. After performing canonical analysis, the results found that the naturalness of environmental information positively correlated with situational concerns (e.g., environmental safety concern, criminal threat, wildlife threat, and direction). However, openness, visual access, and locomotive access had negative correlations with situation concerns. Moreover, complexity and mystery were positively correlated with preference that was similar to the previous findings. Furthermore, the result indicated that the high level of naturalness and complexity had positively effects on the rise of danger and fear. Both access of visual and locomotive had positive correlations with preference, but negative correlations with danger and fear. As the results implied, visual penetration is a key factor in the given scene, particularly the level of visual access between trees. Therefore, considerations need to be sufficiently adopted when planting design of forest trail and park in the future.

1. Angyal, A. (1941). Disgust and related aversions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36(3), 393-412.
2. Agras, W. S.,Sylvester, D.,Oliveau, D.(1969).The epidemiology of common fears and phobias.Comprehensive Psychiatry,10(2),151-156.
3. Altman, I.(ed.),Wohlwill, J. F.(ed.)(1983).Behavior and the natural environment.New York:Plenum Press.
4. Appleton, J.(1975).The experience of landscape.New York:John Wiley & Sons Press.
5. Bixler, R. D.,Floyd, M. F.(1997).Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable.Environment and Behavior,29(4),443-467.
6. Bixler, R. D.,Floyd, M. F.,Hammitt, W. E.(1995).Feared stimuli are expected in specific situations: The use of situationalism and fear expectancy in a self-report measurement of fears.Journal of Clinical Psychology,51(4),544-547.
7. Fabos, J. G.(1979).Planning and landscape evaluation.Landscape Research,4(2),4-10.
8. Fisher, B. S.,Nasar, J. L.(1995).Fear spots in relation to microlevel physical cues: Exploring the overlooked.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,32(2),214-239.
9. Hair, J. F.,Black, W. C.,Babin, B. J.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.(2006).Multivariate date analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education Inc..
10. Hartig, T. A.,Mang, M.,Evans, G. W.(1991).Restorative effects of natural environment experiences.Environment and Behavior,23(1),3-26.
11. Hershberger, R. G.,Cass, R. C.(1973).The adequacy of various media as representations of the designed environment.Man-Environment Systems,3(5),371-372.
12. 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(2),165-170.
13. Herzog, T. R.,Bryce, A.(2007).Mystery and preference in within-forest settings.Environment and Behavior,39(6),779-796.
14. Herzog, T. R.,Chernick, K. K.(2000).Tranquility and danger in urban and natural settings.Journal of Environmental Psychology,20(1),29-39.
15. Herzog, T. R.,Gale, T. A.(1996).Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context.Environment and Behavior,28(1),44-72.
16. Herzog, T. R.,Kirk, K. M.(2005).Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings.Environment and Behavior,37(5),620-639.
17. Herzog, T. R.,Kropscott, L. S.(2004).Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways.Environment and Behavior,36(5),659-677.
18. Herzog, T. R.,Kutzli, G. E.(2002).Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings.Environment and Behavior,34(6),819-835.
19. Herzog, T. R.,Miller, E. J.(1998).The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference.Environment and Behavior,30(4),429-449.
20. Hull, R. B. IV,Stewart, W. P.(1992).Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments.Journal of Environmental Psychology,12(2),101-114.
21. Kaplan, S.,Kaplan, R.(1989).The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.New York:Cambridge University Press.
22. Kaplan, S.,Kaplan, R.(1982).Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world.New York:Praeger.
23. Kuo, F. E.,Bacaicoa, M.,Sullivan, W. C.(1998).Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference.Environment and Behavior,30(1),28-59.
24. McCathie, H.,Spence, S. H.(1991).What is the revised fear survey schedule for children measuring?.Behavior Research and Therapy,29(5),495-502.
25. Miller, G. A.(1956).The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review,63(2),81-97.
26. Ohman, A.,Mineka, S.(2003).The malicious serpent: Snakes as a prototypical stimulus for an evolved module of fear.Current Directions in Psychological Science,12(1),5-9.
27. Perkins, D. D.,Meeks, J. W.,Taylor, R. B.(1992).The physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement.Journal of Environmental Psychology,12(1),21-34.
28. Purcell, A. T.,Lamb, R. J.,Peron, E. M.,Falchero, S.(1994).Preference or preferences for landscape?.Journal of Environmental Psychology,14(3),195-205.
29. Schroeder, H. W.,Anderson, L. M.(1984).Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites.Journal of Leisure Research,16(2),178-194.
30. Seligman, M. E. P.(1971).Phobias and preparedness.Behavior Therapy,2(3),307-320.
31. Sommer, R.,Summit, J.,Clements, A.(1993).Slide ratings of street-tree attributes: Some methodological issues and answers.Landscape Journal,12(1),17-22.
32. Stamps, A. E.(2004).Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis.Journal of Environmental Psychology,24(1),1-16.
33. Stamps, A. E.(2005).Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure.Environment and Behavior,37(5),587-619.
34. Stamps, A. E.(1990).Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis.Perceptual and Motor Skills,71,907-913.
35. Talbot, J. F.,Kaplan, S.(1986).Perspectives on wilderness: Re-examining the value of extended wilderness experiences.Journal of Environmental Psychology,6(3),177-188.
36. Taylor, R. B.,Shumaker, S. A.,Gottfredson, S. D.(1985).Neighborhood-level links between physical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence.Journal of Architectural Planning and Research,2(4),261-275.
37. Tooby, J.,Cosmides, L.(1990).The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environment.Ethology and Sociobiology,11(4-5),375-424.
38. Ulrich, R. S.(1993).Biophilia, biophobia and natural landscapes.The biophilia hypothesis,Washington, DC:
39. van den Berg, A. E.,Ter Heijne, M.(2005).Fear versus fascination: An exploration of emotional responses to natural threats.Journal of Environmental Psychology,25(3),261-272.
40. Woodcock, D. M.(1984).A functionalist approach to landscape preference.Landscape Research,9(1),24-27.
41. Zajonc, R. B.(1980).Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.American Psychologist,35(2),151-175.
42. 交通部觀光局(2007)。中華民國96年國人旅遊狀況調查。台北:交通部觀光局。
43. 江彥政、歐聖榮、張俊彥、翁珮怡(2009)。自然環境資訊、情境擔心與偏好之關係研究。造園景觀學報，15(4)，1-21。
44. 李建民(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園，中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所。
45. 張俊彥、彭家麟(2000)。不同景觀型態刺激生心理反應差異之研究─一個案例研究。中國園藝，46(1)，93-102。
46. 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。
47. 陳惠美、林晏州(1997)。景觀知覺與景觀品質關係之研究。造園學報，4(1)，1-16。
48. 黃俊英(1998)。多變量分析。台北:中國經濟企業研究所。

1. Tsung-Cheng Huang(2019).Urban Parks: Satisfaction Evaluation Model of City Infrastructure Service.管理評論,38(3),109-125.
2. 黃宗誠(2019)。城市基礎建設服務滿意度評價模式之研究－以公園開放性空間為例。管理評論，38(3)，1-19。