運用實景情境模擬影片探討都會區自行車道之衝突管理

On-site Video Simulation to Explore Conflict Management of Bike Trail in the Metropolitan Area

10.6128/CP.201903_46(1).0003

顏宏旭(Hung-Hsu Yen)；張峻豪(Chun-Hao Chang)

調適行為 ； 接受度 ； 遊憩替代 ； Coping behavior ； Acceptability ； Recreation displacement

都市與計劃

46卷1期（2019 / 03 / 31）

61 - 85

繁體中文

本研究目的為探討自行車騎士於都會區自行車道上對不同遊憩衝突情境的接受度，及其遭遇遊憩衝突後所採取之調適行為。實驗中將不同活動族群及人數組合於實景中拍攝17項不同衝突情境的實驗組合影片並搭配問卷進行施測，共獲389份有效樣本數並運用MANOVA進行分析。結果發現：（1）自行車騎士在並排騎乘時會產生遊憩衝突。（2）自行車與健行者混行中，在交互作用下產生非常嚴重遊憩衝突。（3）自行車騎士對於慢跑者所產生的遊憩衝突有較低的衝突程度。（4）在不同活動群組的遊憩衝突交互作用中，以健行者及二人以上之活動族群對自行車騎士所產生之遊憩衝突較為嚴重。研究結果對實務上之建議如下：（1）健行者建議不要於自行車道上活動且應嚴禁自行車並行。（2）強化教育活動之正確規範，軟性規勸不當行為活動的發生。在後續研究上的建議：（1）未來可比較不同活動在不同行進速度上之遊憩衝突程度。（2）實地情境模擬的效果相較於高技術門檻的3D動畫有較低製作成本的優勢，是未來相關研究可以採用的手法。

This study explored the acceptability of different conflicts and coping behavior of people who will participate activity on the bike trail in the metropolitan areas. Different combinations of different activities/ number of people were designed in the simulation video. Seventeen different scenarios were filmed for the questionnaire survey. The survey retrieved 389 valid questionnaires, and the results were analyzed by using MANOVA to test main effect and interaction of conflicts. The results showed that 1) conflicts were caused by bikers riding side by side; 2) conflicts were caused by bikers and hikers using the trail; 3) joggers were acceptable to bikers, and 4) hikers and activity with more than two people brought more conflicts on the bike trail. The findings suggested that 1) hiking and riding side by side on the bike trail should be prohibited because it caused many conflicts and recreation displacement; 2) educating people about the proper way to participate in each activity and reminding users to obey the proper regulation were better way to prevent the occurrence of conflicts. Further studies are suggested for (1) measuring the tolerance of conflicts under different activities and different speeds and (2) evaluating whether on-site video simulation is a good method to do a related research comparing to the 3D animation. The low cost and technology requirement were the advantages of this method for the future research.

1. 王正平(2004)。登山健行遊客與登山自行車使用者遊憩衝突之研究。戶外遊憩研究，17(4)，71-91。
   連結：
2. 王正平(2008)。探索陽明山花季賞花遊客之調適行為。戶外遊憩研究，21(1)，27-50。
   連結：
3. 王慶堂,葉時碩,陳玉玨,黃宗成(2009)。不同水域活動類型參與者之遊憩衝突、調適行為及忠誠度之關係研究。運動與遊憩研究，4(2)，1-19。
   連結：
4. 呂怡君,林晏州(2018)。認知調適對健行步道擁擠感受之影響。戶外遊憩研究，31(1)，1-21。
   連結：
5. 巫昌陽(2003)。海域休閒活動參與者遊憩衝突之探討。大專體育學刊，5(2)，51-63。
   連結：
6. 林俐吟,張軒瑄,高俊雄(2011)。陽明山登山自行車者的衝突敏感性、遊憩衝突與調適行為關係之研究。觀光休閒學報，17(3)，411-433。
   連結：
7. 葉怡矜,鄭雅汶(2016)。都會運動公園自行車活動參與者生活型態容忍度、遊憩衝突與遊憩滿意度之研究。臺灣體育運動管理學報，16(1)，27-51。
   連結：
8. 趙芝良,王羿婷(2011)。登山健行者之遊憩衝突經驗與因應行為之研究。島嶼觀光研究，4(1)，53-78。
   連結：
9. 鄧正忠(2005)。網球休閒活動參與者遊憩衝突之研究。體育學報，38(1)，117-130。
   連結：
10. 顏家芝,薛雅菁,徐慧蓉,趙又萱,廖梨棉(2002)。都會公園自行車活動與直排輪活動／散步者之遊憩衝突研究。戶外遊憩研究，15(1)，1-16。
    連結：
11. Arnberger, A.,Aikohm, T.,Eder, R.,Shoji, Y.,Mieno, T.(2010).How many people should be in the urban forest? A comparison of trail preferences of Vienna and Sapporo forest visitor segments.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,9(3),215-225.
12. Arnberger, A.,Haider, W.(2005).Social effects on crowding preferences of urban forest visitors.Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,3(3-4),125-136.
13. Carothers, P.,Vaske, J. J.,Donnelly, M. P.(2001).Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers.Leisure Sciences,23(1),47-61.
14. Cessford, G.(2003).Perception and reality of conflict: Walkers and mountain bikes on the Queen Charlotte Track in New Zealand.Journal for Nature Conservation,11(4),310-316.
15. Cole, D. N.,Daniel, T. C.(2003).The science of visitor management in parks and protected areas: From verbal reports to simulation models.Journal for Nature Conservation,11(4),269-277.
16. Foster, N.(2014).Portland,Portland State University of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering.
17. Gramann, J. H.(1982).Toward a behavior theory of crowding in outdoor recreation: A evaluation and synthesis of research.Leisure Sciences,5(2),109-126.
18. Hall, T.,Shelby, B.(2000).Temporal and spatial displacement: Evidence from a high-use reservoir and alternate sites.Journal of Leisure Research,32(4),435-456.
19. Hammitt, W.,Patterson, M. E.(1991).Coping behavior to avoid visitor encounters: Its relationship to wildland privacy.Journal of Leisure Research,23(3),225-237.
20. Ivy, M. I.,Stewart, W. P.,Lue, C.(1992).Exploring the role of tolerance in recreation conflict.Journal of Leisure Research,24(4),348-360.
21. Jacob, G. R.,Schreyer, R.(1980).Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective.Journal of Leisure Research,12(4),368-380.
22. Johnson, A. K.,Dawson, C. P.(2004).An exploratory study of the complexities of coping behavior in Adirondack Wilderness.Leisure Sciences,26(3),281-293.
23. Jubenville, A.,Twight, B.W.(1993).Outdoor Recreation Management: Theory and Application.State College:Venture Publishing.
24. Lazarus, R. S.,Folkman, S.(1984).Stress, Appraisal, and Coping.New York:Springer Press.
25. Manning, R.(1999).Studies in Outdoor Recreation.Corvallis:Oregon State University Press.
26. Manning, R. E.,Valliere, W. A.(2001).Coping in outdoor recreation: Causes and consequences of crowding and conflict among community residents.Journal of Leisure Research,33(4),410-426.
27. Manning, R.,Jacobi, C.,Marion, J. L.(2006).Recreation monitoring at Acadia National Park.The George Wright Forum,23(2),59-72.
28. Miller, T. A.,McCool, S. F.(2003).Coping with stress in outdoor recreational settings: An application of transactional stress theory.Leisure Sciences,25(2-3),257-275.
29. Pickering, C. M.,Rossi, S.(2016).Mountain biking in peri-urban parks: Social factors influencing perceptions of conflicts in three popular National Parks in Australia.Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism,15,71-81.
30. Ramthun, R.(1995).Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers.Leisure Sciences,17(3),159-169.
31. Reichhart, T.,Arnberger, A.(2010).Exploring the influence of speed, social, managerial and physical factors on shared trail preferences using a 3D computer animated choice experiment.Landscape and Urban Planning,96(1),1-11.
32. Schneider, I. E.,Hammitt, W. E.(1995).Visitor response to on-site recreation conflict.Journal of Applied Recreation Research,20(4),249-268.
33. Shao, W.,Terzopoulos, D.(2007).Autonomous pedestrians.Graphical Models,69(5-6),246-274.
34. Sharp, G. W.,Odegaard, C. H.,Sharp, W. F.(1994).A Comprehensive Introduction to Park Management.Champaign:Sagamore Publishing.
35. Shelby, B.,Bregenzer, N.,Johnson, R.(1988).Displacement and product shift: Empirical evidence from Oregon Rivers.Journal of Leisure Research,20(4),274-288.
36. Shindler, B.,Shelby, B.(1995).Product shift in recreation settings: Findings and implication from panel research.Leisure Sciences,17(2),91-107.
37. Zhou, M.,Dong, H.,Wang, F-Y.,Wang, Q.,Yang, X.(2016).Modeling and simulation of pedestrian dynamical behavior based on a fuzzy logic approach.Information Sciences,360,112-130.
38. 王小文,林晏州(1998)。大屯自然公園戶外遊憩者之遊憩衝突研究。戶外遊憩研究，11(1)，65-84。
39. 王升汎(2008)。彰化，大葉大學管理學院運動事業管理學系。
40. 交通部運輸所(2014).自行車道系統規劃設計參考手冊.臺北:交通部運輸所.
41. 吳崇旗,王偉琴(2009).戶外遊憩管理.臺北:華都文化.
42. 巫昌陽(2011)。墾丁地區動力與非動力海洋運動參與者遊憩衝突之研究。台灣水域運動學報，2，45-60。
43. 侯錦雄,郭彰仁(1998)。香客與戶外遊憩者之遊憩衝突探討以松柏嶺宗教觀光區為例。戶外遊憩研究，11(2)，1-18。
44. 張嘉宇(2004)。嘉義，南華大學旅遊事業管理研究所。
45. 盛文(2009)。臺北，國立臺灣師範大學運動與休閒管理研究所。
46. 蔡燿隆,蔡進士,卓佳旻(2012)。擁擠知覺影響因素與調適反應之影響研究－以台南安平老街遊客為例。休閒事業研究，10(3)，51-75。
47. 賴俊良(2011)。臺中，東海大學景觀學系研究所。
48. 鍾文玲,林晏州(1993)。釣魚者遊憩衝突認知之研究。戶外遊憩研究，6(1&2)，55-79。