研究生: |
謝怡倩 Hsieh, Yi-Chien |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
台灣地區眺望夜景餐廳之空間位置特性與觀賞者景觀偏好、復癒知覺關係之研究 The relationships of nightscape restaurant location, visitors' landscape preference, and restorative perception |
指導教授: |
李素馨
Lee, Su-Hsin |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
地理學系 Department of Geography |
論文出版年: | 2015 |
畢業學年度: | 103 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 132 |
中文關鍵詞: | 夜景 、景觀偏好 、復癒知覺 、空間分析 、現地/非現地 |
英文關鍵詞: | Nightscape, Landscape preference, Perceived Restoration, Spatial Analysis, Field / Non-field |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:137 下載:37 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
台灣近年夜景餐廳蓬勃發展,本文探討台灣地區夜景餐廳空間特性及觀賞者觀看夜景的景觀偏好及復癒性感受。研究分為兩階段:第一階段蒐集台灣75家夜景餐廳的空間資訊,發現以北部、中部台灣較多,皆位於丘陵台地與平原之交會處山坡。為了解觀賞者偏好何種空間位置特性之夜景,挑選台灣各地共20個夜景餐廳,蒐集其燈光來源聚落的人口數、最近燈光實際距離、相對高度、俯角、最遠視距等5項空間特性資料,請觀賞者觀看20個夜景的照片填寫景觀偏好及復癒性。結果發現復癒性及景觀偏好都有在中位數以上分數且兩者呈現高度相關(r=0.913)。而空間特性部分除了最近燈光實際距離之外,與燈光來源聚落的人口數、相對高度、俯角、最遠視距皆呈現正相關,顯示人們偏好燈光亮度高、非扁平狀夜景以及視野開放的夜景。建立迴歸方程式,發現以空間特性預測景觀偏好,主要的影響因子為人口規模和相對高度;以空間特性預測復癒性,主要的影響因子為人口規模。
第二階段進一步探討那些夜景元素是吸引人的?各項視覺認知因子、復癒因子對整體景觀偏好、復癒性的影響為何?以及現地與非現地觀看的差異。研究者挑選已有聚集經濟的五個夜景景點:陽明山、貓空、乳姑山、百果山、華山,請夜景餐廳造訪者觀看另外四個地點的夜景照片以及就現場看夜景感受填寫調查l表,每位受測者得到現地評值一份及非現地評值四份,共252人次;問卷題項包含環境偏好矩陣四項因子〈一致性、複雜性、易讀性、神秘性〉、開闊性、生動性、自明性、注意力恢復理論四大特徵〈遠離日常生活、魅力性、延伸感、相容性〉、整體復癒性、整體偏好值、前往意願、交通時間意願等共15項題目。
研究結果發現:一、到夜景餐廳的交通時間以30分鐘人數最多但都有跨縣市前往客群,陽明山的夜景評值在兩次階段問卷中都是最高。二、現地的各項評值都高於非現地,顯示現場看夜景的復癒感受及偏好感效果優於看照片,特別是城鎮夜景大多呈顯著差異。三、整體而言受測者看夜景最能感受到的依序為開闊性、復癒性、遠離。四、將夜景元素分為都市及城鎮、有無地標、動態與靜態、有無結合地方產業等四項,發現都市型聚落較具自明性、城鎮型聚落較具神祕性,動態夜景有神秘性且影響造訪意願和交通時間意願,有地標的夜景在自明性、易讀性、複雜性、整體景觀偏好、魅力等方面較高且影響造訪意願,結合地方產業發展的夜景則一致性較低且影響造訪意願。五、建立解釋型迴歸方程式,影響現地景觀偏好的因子為易讀性最高,接著依序為自明性、神秘性、開闊性,非現地則以開闊性、生動性、自明性最高,其他四項因子也有影響;影響現地復癒性的因子為相容性解釋力最高,其餘依序為魅力、遠離日常生活,影響非現地復癒性的因子同樣為相容性最高,其餘依序為延伸感、遠離日常生活、魅力。
前人研究證實夜景人們偏好開闊且明亮的近景,本研究印證夜間遠景亦同。實務建議上建議善用各地夜景資源促進夜間經濟,設置夜景餐廳的最佳點位為城鎮以上聚落周圍相對高度較高、視野開闊的丘陵台地區,交通時間30分鐘左右,有地標或動態夜景者更佳。後續研究建議非現地調查時需模擬黑暗情境。
關鍵字:夜景、景觀偏好、復癒知覺、空間分析、現地/非現地
This research is to investigate the spatial characteristics of nightscape restaurants, visitors' landscape preference, and perceived restoration in Taiwan. In the first phase of the study, 75 spatial data of the nightscape restaurants were collected, and the majority of restaurants are located in northern and central Taiwan. Most of them are located on slopes between hills and plains. Online surveys were conducted to understand restorative experience and preference of visitors to the restaurants. In the survey, the participants were asked to view 20 nightscape photos taken at different nightscape restaurants in Taiwan, and then to answer their landscape preference and restorative experiences. The spatial information of the restaurants were also collected, including population size of the surrounding area, distance between restaurants and nightscape lightings, the relative height, the angle of elevation, and the maximum sight distance. The results show, restorative experiences and preference are above the median, and are closely related (r=0.913). In terms of spatial analysis, the participants’ preference are highly related with the relative height, the size of the population, and the angle of elevation. According to the qualitative description, we found that participants prefer nightscapes with brighter lights, open-view nightscape, and non-flat nightscape. By regression equations, the principal factors of predicting landscape preference by spatial characters are the size of population and the relative location heights, and the principal factor of restorative perception by spatial character is the population size of the surrounding area.
The second phase of the study is to further explore the elements of nightscape that attract viewers, to understand how visual perception factors and perceived restoration affect the whole landscape preference and restorative benefit, and also to compare the difference between field and non-field surveys. Five nightscape locations with high economic values were selected: Yangmingshan, Mao-Kong, Zugushan, Paikuoshan, and Huashan. Customers at the nightscape restaurants were asked to look at nightscape photos from the other four restaurants and then to answer a questionnaire, including one field and four non-field evaluations of the nightscape. In total, 252 questionnaires were collected. The questionnaire includes 15 subjects, four factors in preference matrix (coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery), wideness, vividness, identity, four factors in ART (being away emotion , fascination, extension, compatibility), restorative benefit, landscape preference, visiting intenstion, and travel time intenstion.
The results from the questionnaire show: 1. The majority traveling time to the nightscape restaurants is 30 minutes, but there are also a high number of customer from other regions. Yangmingshan scored the highest nightscape preference in both surveys. 2. Field evaluations scored higher scores in all subjects than non-field nightscape photos, meaning both the restoration effects and landscape preference in field are higher than photographs, especially for town nightscapes. 3. Wideness, restorative benefit, and being away feelings are the most significant feelings for participants. 4. Urban cityscape have higher identity values, while suburban town nightscapes have more mystery. The dynamic motion nightscape also have more mystery and can increase the visiting intenstion. The nightscape with landmarks are high in identity, legibility, complexity, landscape preference, fascination scores, and can increase visiting intenstion. The landscapes which combines local industry have less coherence and have less visiting intenstion. 5. With regression equations, legibility is the most important factor affecting field landscape preference, followed by identity, mystery, and wideness. For restorative perception, compatibility is the most important factor, and then followed by fascination and being away feelings.
Previous researches confirmed that people prefer wide and bright foreground, and this research also shows same preferences for nightscapes. Nightscape resources can be utilized to promote the nightscape economy. This study suggests the best locations for a nightscape restaurant is on a wide terrace or a hill with high relative height to a town or urban cityscape with landmarks or dynamic motion lightings. A traveling time within 30 minutes travel time is also preferred. Emulation of the dark environments for non-field survey are required for future studies.
中文文獻
1. 于萍(2010),〈夜間旅游與夜經濟:城市發展的新動力〉,改革與戰略,2010年10期。
2. 王文誠,(2007),〈赫爾辛基:一個都市地理的分析嘗試〉,地理研究第46期,民國96年5月。
3. 王荃(2010),〈“中英城市夜景經濟”的對比、研究〉,天津大學建築學院論文
4. 王彥力(2007),〈眺望-藏匿性環境之 景觀認知與視覺注意力研究〉,逢甲大學
5. 王翌(2012),〈逢甲大學校園療癒性庭園的恢復性環境知覺與心理效益知覺之研究〉,逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所論文。
6. 朱念慈(1989),〈大氣因子影響視覺景觀偏好之研究─以陽明山國家公園為例〉,國立台灣大學園藝研究所碩士論文。
7. 李素馨(1999),〈都市視覺景觀偏好之研究〉,都市與計畫學報,26卷1期,19-40。
8. 李素馨、張淑貞、林妮瑱(2006),〈台中都會公園夜間遊客遊憩動機與安全認知〉,造園景觀學報,12(3),p.41-63。
9. 李樑堅、施美惠、康桓甄(2008),〈高雄市民對於夜間旅遊觀光遊憩資源認知與觀光行銷策略之研究〉,運動與遊憩研究,第三卷第二期。
10. 李麗文(2004),〈全台灣景觀餐廳—中部篇〉,臺北市:大輿出版社股份有限公司。
11. 吳紫宸、李英弘(2009),〈九族文化村擁擠感之研究〉,造園景觀學報,15(3),1-21。
12. 林志明(譯)(1997),《物體系》(Jean Baudrillard著),時報文化出版企業股份有限公司,台北市。
13. 林岡立(2002),咖啡連鎖店消費者行為、區位及建築屬性偏好之研究,逢甲大學建築與都市計畫所碩士論文。
14. 林明鋒(2005),〈以體驗行銷觀點探討景觀咖啡廳的商店氣氛因素及知覺價值之研究─以新社地區為例〉。私立朝陽科技大學企業管理系碩論。
15. 林展翔(2006),〈現地與非現地自然情境之偏好、注意力恢復力及心理生理反應之比較〉,國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文。
16. 林雯萱(2005),〈庭園咖啡館空間印象之研究-以台中縣新社鄉為例〉,大葉大學設計研究所碩士論文。
17. 林泰生(2000),1999台灣餐飲店發展現況,連鎖店情報,43,11-12。
18. 林穎萱、彭淑芳、張俊彥(2014),〈不只是綠:比較觀看山景或海景的效果〉,建築學報第87 期,175~186 頁,2014 年3 月,春季號。
19. 林雅萍(1998),〈都市天際線映像之研究─以台北市天際線為例〉,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
20. 周國忠(2002),〈消費者用餐需求與餐館選擇之研究〉,私立真理大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
21. 洪迺鈞(2005),〈咖啡樹變搖錢樹─以古坑咖啡產業觀光化形成為例〉,南華大學環境與藝術研究所碩士論文。
22. 紀芬蓮、歐聖榮、林建堯(2008),〈以大學生之觀點探索環境神祕性之特質〉,興大園藝,33(3):117-130。
23. 唐郁絜(2008),〈全景與標準照片對景觀偏好影響之研究〉,東海大學景觀學系碩士論文。
24. 高璐(2007),〈景觀性照明對城市夜間經濟的影響〉,天津大學建築技術科學碩論。
25. 胡書金、張英英(2012),〈如何推進城市夜經濟的發展〉,金融教學與研究,2012年04期,p76-77
26. 俞孔堅(1998),《景觀 文化、生態與感知》,田園城市文化有限公司
27. 柴彥威、尚嫣然(2005),〈深圳居民夜間消費活動的時空特徵〉,地理研究,第24卷第5期
28. 侯錦雄(1984),〈利用攝影媒體表達景觀空間之研究〉,中國園藝,30(2),135-147。
29. 莊輝煌(1981),〈從理論和實例探討都市景觀之調查評估輿發展〉,成功大學工程技術研究所設計技術學程建築設計組碩論。
30. 粘倍韶(2005),〈虛擬實際中使用者方位判別之研究─巷道空間為例〉,銘傳大學媒體空間設計研究所論文。
31. 張可昕(2007),〈宜蘭田園景觀餐廳之規劃與評估〉,宜蘭大學建築與永續規畫研究所碩士論文。
32. 張妮婭(2007),〈城市夜景照明在城市規劃中的影響〉,中南民族大學學報,人文社會科學版,第27卷第6期,p96-98。
33. 張效通(譯)(2002),《環境規劃設計導論─景觀建築:基地規劃設計手冊》(John Ormsbee Simonds著) (原著出版年:1998),六和出版社。
34. 張純婉(2011),〈醫療院所內益康花園的恢復性知覺與生心理效益之研究—以台中榮總為例〉,東海大學景觀所碩士論文。
35. 張俊彥、萬麗玲,(1999),〈鄉村與都市景觀對心理反應影響之研究〉,興大園藝,24(2): 95-108。
36. 張艷華、衛明(2001),〈城市夜間形象評價〉,規劃師,2001年第1期 68-71頁。
37. 陳柯旭(2013),〈夜景之景觀元素分析〉,文化大學地學研究所論文。
38. 陳玟璇(2013),〈找尋所在‧逃避角落?─論溫師康個性咖啡館〉,台灣師大地理學系研究所論文。
39. 陳婷芳(2012),〈景觀知覺與景觀偏好對餐廳消費者行為意圖之影響〉,戶外遊憩遊究25(2)1-24。
40. 陳澤融(2006),〈牆面開口對視覺分析空間封閉性的影響〉,銘傳大學媒體空間設計研究所論文。
41. 曹正(2007,《視覺景觀理論》,台北:太倉規劃顧問有限公司。
42. 曾慈慧(2003),〈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。
43. 曾慈慧、沈進成(2010),〈遊客的休閒涉入、地方感與環境復癒知覺關係之研究-以美國德州大彎國家公園為例〉,新竹教育大學人文社會學報,第三卷第二期。
44. 楊蕙如(2012),〈巒頭風水評值與景觀偏好、景觀復癒之研究〉,國立新竹教育大學/環境與文化資源學系碩士論文。
45. 劉允華(2004),〈魅影流光:從光的社會學取徑到夜間生活現代性〉,東海大學社會學系碩士論文。
46. 劉曉凡(譯)(2007),《夜景燈光的功能性延伸和探討》,(Sola著),中國建築工業出版社,P12。
47. 鄭翊偉(2007),〈台中市景觀餐廳風格之景觀偏好與消費意圖關係之研究〉,逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所論文。
48. 彭海英(2007),〈具有地域文化特色的城市夜景觀設計研究〉,西安建築科技大學。
49. 歐聖榮、劉曉琪(2002),〈民眾對園藝產業活動之動機與體驗研究〉。戶外遊憩研究,15(4),75-92。
50. 黃章展、黃芳銘、周先捷(2008),〈環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺關係之研究-以山景景觀爲例〉,戶外遊憩研究, 21 卷 1 期,P1 - 25。
51. 黃雅玫(2011),〈陽明山地區都市夜間遊憩行為之研究〉,台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所論文。
52. 黃富瑜(1998),〈淡水捷運線使用者對沿線景觀知覺與偏好之探討〉,台大園藝系研究所碩士論文。
53. 諾曼•福斯特,《漫談城市夜景燈光》(周未,劉洪譯):科學出版社,2006:
P33–P34
54. 鄭佳昆、沈立、全珍衡(2009),〈熟悉度於不同情境下對視覺景觀偏好之影響探討〉,戶外遊憩研究,22(4),1-21。
55. 詹智勝(2007),〈景觀空間涵構對景觀偏好與注意力恢復之影響〉,逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所碩士論文。
56. 鍾政偉(2002),〈景觀知覺偏好與地景結構指數關係之研究〉,朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系研究所碩士論文。
57. 蕭瑤友(2002),《景觀咖啡屋&茶坊完全指南》,戶外生活出版社。
58. 羅金華(2008),〈試論旅游山城夜景觀的作用及其設計原則〉,武夷學院學報,第27卷第4期,p50-53。
59. 羅淼文(2012),〈校園環境恢復性知覺與心理效益之研究-以逢甲大學為例〉,甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所論文。
外文文獻
1. Abello, R. P. &Bernaldez, F.G.(1986). Landscape preference and personality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 19-28.
2. Appleyard, D., Lynch, K. & Myer, J. R. (1964). The view from the road, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
3. Berto, R., (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attention capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249–259.
4. Boomsma, C. & Steg, L.(2012). Feeling safe in the dark: Examining the effect of entrapment, lighting levels, and gender on feelings of safety and lighting policy acceptability, Environment and Behavior, February, 2014, 46 , 241-263.
5. Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. T., & Blackwell, R. D. (1995). Customer Behavior(8th ed).Chicago, IL Dryden Press.
6. Laumann, K., Garling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 31-44.
7. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
8. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G.W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environmental experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26.
9. Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Garling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14(4), 175-194.
10. Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109-123.
11. Hartig, T., Staats, H. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction: restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 103–107.
12. Hartig, T., Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 215–226.
13. Han, K. T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 209–232.
14. Hardy, J., Behe, B.K., Barton, S.S., Page, T.J., Schutzki, R.E., Muzii, K., Fernandez, R.T., Haque, M.T., Brooker, J., Hall, C.R., Hinson, R., Knight, P., McNiel, R., Rowe D.R. & Safley., C. (2000).Consumers preferences for plant size, type of material and design sophistication in residential landscaping. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 18(4):224-229.
15. Nikunen, H., Korpela, K.M. (2012). The effects of scene contents and focus of light on perceived restorativeness, fear and preference in nightscapes., Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, May2012, 55 (4), 453-468
16. Hemker , A. (2007). How the creative economy is changing the city . Creativity and the City, P100–P101.
17. 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.
18. Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159-170.
19. Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. T. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest setting without pathway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
20. Herzog, T. R., & Kropscott, L. T. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest setting without pathway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
21. Ivarsson, C. T., & Hagerhall, C. M. (2008). The perceived restorativeness of gardens:
Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(2), 107-118.
22. Kaplan, R. (1975). Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In Landscape assessment. E.H. Zube, R.O. Brush & J.G. Fabos,(eds.) 118-129. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa.
23. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environment preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3-32.
24. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L.V. & Slakter, D.B.(1993). The museum as a restorative environment. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 725-742.
26. Kaplan, S.(1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Enviromental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
27. Kim, M., Kang, Y., Bakar, S. A. (2013). A nightscape preference study using eye movement analysis, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Tecnoscienza. Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 4(2), 93-124.
28. Korpela, K. & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
29. Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behavior in tourism. European Journal of
Marketing, 21(10), 3-44.
30. Nasar, J. L. (1988). Perception and exaluation of residential street scenes. Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge University Press.
31. Oldenburg, R. (2000). Celebrating the third place:Inspiring stories about the "great good places" at the heart of our communities. New York: Marlowe & Company.
32. Purcell, A. T., Lamb, R. J., Peron, E. M., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(3), 195-209.
33. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93-106.
34. Shafer, E. L., & Richards, T. A. (1974). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes snd photographs of those scenes. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Northeasten Forest Experiment Station. (USDA, No. NE-302)
35. 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.
36. Staats, H., Gemerden, E. V., & Hartig, T. (2010). Preference for restorative situations: Interactive effects of attentional state, activity-in-environment and social context. Leisure Sciences, 32, 401-417.
37. Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T. (2004). Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo. Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 403-416.
38. Ulrich,R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior 13, 523-556.
39. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., 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.
40. Ulrich, R. S., & Parsons, R. (1992). Influences of passive experiences with plants on individual well-being and health. In D. Relf (ed.), The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development: A national symposium, 93-105, Portland: Timber Press.
41. Stamps, A. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24, 1-16.
42. Timan, T. (2013). Surveillance in urban nightscapes a STS-informed perspective. Tecnoscienza - Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 4(2), 92-124.
43. Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L., & Van den Wulp, N.Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135-146.
44. Zube , E.H., Sell, J.L. & Tayolr, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.