Comparing the Effects of Environmental Attributes for Living and Recreation

• Main Authors: SIHAN HUANG, 黃思涵
• Other Authors: 林晏州
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2017
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/34039679304062076409

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 園藝暨景觀學系 === 105 === Abstract The main purpose of this study is to determine whether there is difference between preference as a place to live and preference as a place for recreation. And also, to discuss whether this two types of preference judgement are influenced by environmental attributes-legibility, well-maintenance, identifiability, utility, beautiful, impressive, mystery, complexity, solitude, freedom. The objectives of our research is to figure out the effect of environmental attributes for living and recreation. The research method was to invite respondents to evaluate the 10 environmental attributes and preference of 90 stimulis within everyday life and outdoor recreation scenarios. The respondents were asked to rate from 1 to 10, and 90 stimulis include 45 urban photos and 45 nature photos. The results showed that the ratings of environmental attributes are different between two scenario respectively. And also, there is different environmental attributes ratings between urban and nature. The living preference of urban is higher than nature. On the contrary，the result of recreation preference is opposite. With regard to the relationship between 10 environmental attributes and two types of preference, there are two different relationships. Within the living scenario, identification, beautiful, well-maintenance, freedom value are higher, the living preference value continues increase. The regression model showed that the former variables could explain 87.9% the later one. Considering the outdoor recreation scenario, the recreation preference value increases as beautiful, well-maintenance and freedom value increasing. The regression model showed the explanatory ability of prediction model is 90.8%. And there are different variables’ scores among participants who has different demographic characteristics. Keywords: Environmental attributes, living needs, recreation needs, environmental preference