接觸自然環境對人的生理、心理有復癒效果且可促進人的心理健康。研究顯示不同景觀環境型態會產生不同的復癒、心理健康知覺，而與自然環境接觸多的人，擁有較多的環境復癒知覺與心理健康。台灣東西兩岸城鄉自然景觀有明顯差異，東岸擁有較多之自然資源，然而在跨區域環境復癒與心理健康變項之比較研究上，仍相當有限。本研究旨在探討台灣花東地區與其他地區遊客的環境復癒知覺、心理健康與社經背景之差異，並瞭解環境復癒知覺對心理健康之影響。研究採現地遊客問卷調查，資料綜合台灣西岸惠蓀國家森林遊樂區與台灣東岸的池南國家森林遊樂區及鯉魚潭3個場域。於2013年、2016年及2017年間進行調查，共發放936份，回收760份有效問卷，回收率為81.1％。依遊客問卷所填之郵遞區號為根據，分東西兩岸遊客，經由因素分析、信度分析、多變量變異數分析（MANOVA）、單因子共變數分析（ANCOVA）與迴歸分析進行數據判讀，分析結果顯示：(1)因素分析將環境復癒知覺分為自由自在、魅力吸引與遠離日常三個構面，心理健康分為身心規律、驅動效能、注意力恢復與心理舒適四個構面；(2)環境復癒知覺量表的構面信度範圍為0.76至0.85，尤其以魅力吸引最高，心理健康量表的構面信度範圍為0.72至0.91，尤其以身心規律最高，以上兩個量表運用在本研究具可接受之效度與信度；(3)社經背景統計變數之多變量變異數分析，發現年齡、婚姻、職業在環境復癒知覺達顯著差異；性別、年齡、婚姻、職業與居住地在心理健康達顯著差異。41歲以上、已婚、全職工作者與家管之遊客有較高之環境復癒知覺與心理健康。而性別與居住地差異僅在心理健康呈顯著，女性遊客在身心規律與注意力恢復高於男性遊客，西岸遊客在身心規律高於東岸遊客；(4)當控制婚姻、年齡與職業變項後，發現居住地的不同在環境復癒知覺沒有顯著。當控制婚姻、年齡與職業變項後，發現居住地的不同在心理健康之身心規律上有所不同且西岸遊客擁有較高的心理健康，控制性別變項後，發現居住地不同在驅動效能與身心規律上有所不同，且東岸遊客在驅動效能高於西岸遊客，反之，在身心規律上為西岸遊客高於東岸遊客；(5)以三個環境復癒知覺面向為自變項對心理健康面向之多元迴歸分析，結果顯示四個多元迴歸模式皆呈顯著，R2範圍為0.039至0.308。其中以三個環境復癒知覺面向對心理舒適面向之多元迴歸模式解釋力最強，三個環境復癒知覺面向皆呈顯著。本研究建議管理單位可針對不同社經背景遊客推廣自然環境所帶來的健康效益，其不僅有助於個人身心健康，同時也可以作為跨區域推廣觀光及休閒遊憩之參考。後續研究建議進一步瞭解影響跨區域遊客心理健康之因子，例如，可以加入個人社會經濟背景變項作為預測心理健康的迴歸模式。

Making contact with nature has a restorative effect on human both physically and psychologically and improves people’s mental health. Studies have shown that different types of landscapes and environments have different restorative effects and mental health perceptions. People who are frequently exposed to natural environment have better environmental restorative perception and mental health. There is a distinctive difference in the urban and rural settings between the east and west coasts of Taiwan, as there are obviously more natural resources on the east coast. However, there is only a small number of studies focusing on the comparison between cross-regional variables in terms of restorative effects and mental health. For this, it is the purpose of this study to investigate the difference between visitors to Hualien and Taitung county on the east coast and to the rest of Taiwan, and to shed some light on how environmental restorative perceptions have influence on the mental health in general. An in-side questionnaire survey was conducted on tourists and covered 3 areas, namely the Huisun National Forest Park on the west coast and the Chinan National Forest Recreation Area and Liyu Lake on the east coast. The survey was conducted in 2013, 2016 and 2017. 936 copies of questionnaire were distributed and 760 valid copies were retrieved with a retrieval rate of 81.1％. The tourists were grouped into those from the east coast and those from the west coast based on the zip code provided in the questionnaire. The data collected were analyzed using factor analysis, reliability analysis, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and regression analysis. The results are presented below: (1) the environmental restorative perception consisted of freedom from restraints, attractions and escape from daily chores for the factor analysis, whereas the mental health covered physical and psychological rhythms, driving performance, restoration of focus and psychological comfort; (2) the dimensional reliability ranged from 0.76 to 0.85 for the environmental restorative perception scale with the attraction at the highest. For the mental health scale, the dimensional reliability fell between 0.72 and 0.91 with the physical and psychological rhythms at the highest. Both of the scales above provided acceptable validity and reliability for the purpose of the study; (3) the MANOVA carried out on the statistical variables of the socioeconomic context revealed significant difference in environmental restorative perception in terms of age, marriage status and occupation, whereas gender, age, marriage status, occupation and residence exhibited significant difference in mental health. Visitors who are 41 years old or older, married, have a full-time job and homemakers had better environmental restorative perception and mental health; gender and age displayed significant difference only in mental health. Female visitors performed better than male ones in the categories of physical and psychological rhythms restoration of focus and those from west coast performed better than those from east coast in physical and psychological rhythms; (4) when the variables of marriage status, age and occupation remained stationery, it was found that residence had no significant effect on environmental restorative perception. When marriage status, age and occupation remained unchanged, the residence had different effect on physical and psychological rhythms for mental health and west coast visitors had better mental health. By controlling the gender variable, it was clear that the residence had different effect on driving performance and physical and psychological rhythms and east coast visitors did better than west coast ones in terms of the driving performance. On the other hand, the effect was more significant in west coast visitors that in east coast visitors in terms of physical and psychological rhythms; (5) by defining the three environmental restorative perception dimensions at independent variables, the multiple regression analysis for mental health indicated that all four multiple regression models used came out significant with R2 ranging from 0.039 to 0.308. The three environmental restorative perception dimensions had the greatest explanatory power of multiple regression models on psychological comfort, since all three environmental restorative perception dimensions were significant. It is suggested that the regulatory authority promote the health effects from the natural environment for visitors of various socioeconomic backgrounds as this is not only beneficial to human health both physically and psychologically, but also serves as a basis for cross-regional tourism promotion and leisure travels. A possible topic for future studies on cross-regional mental health research can be,for example, adding the variables of personal socioeconomic background into the multiple regression models to predict mental health. The finding may shed further insights on the research of this line.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 名詞釋義 4
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 跨區域比較 7
第二節 環境復癒知覺 9
第三節 心理健康 21
第三章 研究方法 27
第一節 研究架構與假設 27
第二節 研究區域概述 30
第三節 研究對象與抽樣 33
第四節 研究方法與工具 33
第五節 資料處理與分析方法 37
第四章 研究結果 41
第一節 描述性統計分析 41
第二節 因素分析 45
第三節 信度分析 48
第四節 相關分析 50
第五節 人口統計變項與環境復癒知覺與心理健康分析 51
第六節 環境復癒知覺與心理健康之因果關係 71
第五章 結論與建議 75
第一節 研究程序概述 75
第二節 研究發現 75
第三節 研究結論 79
第四節 管理意涵 81
第五節 研究限制與未來建議 83
參考文獻 85
中文文獻 85
英文文獻 88
附錄 93

內政部戶政司（2017）。人口政策資料彙集。取自
https://www.ris.gov.tw/zh_TW/web/guest/282
王升揚、張上鎮（2010）。森林裏的芳香維他命，臺灣林業，36(4)，29-33。
世界衛生組織（1948）。憲章。2017年07月18日。取自http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html
交通部觀光局（2014）。中華民國103年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。
交通部觀光局（2016）。中華民國105年國人旅遊狀況調查報告。
朱敬先（1992）。健康心理學。臺北市：五南。
何淑渟（2014）。銀髮族休閒參與、休閒效益及生活滿意度之研究－以臺灣抗衰老體操協會為例(未出版碩士論文)。大葉大學，彰化縣。
李世文（2002）。臺中市國民小學六年級學童休閒活動之調查研究(未出版碩士論文)。臺中師範學院，臺中市。
李素馨、郭彰仁、張肇翰、謝宗恒（2010）。國家森林遊樂區之遊憩體驗與知覺復癒關係研究─以內洞國家森林遊樂區為例。戶外遊憩研究，23(2)，1-24。
辛晚教（1986）。都市及區域計畫。臺北市：中國地政研究所。
周先捷（2005）。環境偏好與環境恢復性知覺關係之研究-以山景景觀為例(未出版碩士論文)。靜宜大學，臺中市。
周孟慈（2005）。自然旅遊環境之遊憩體驗與生心理效益之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立中興大學，臺中市。
林穎潔（2016）。探討臺東縣國立小學高年級學生休閒活動現況與自我效能(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺東大學，臺東縣。
邱皓政（2010）。量化研究與統計分析SPSS(PASW)資料分析範例。臺北市：五南。
洪千珍（2016）。臺北動物園教育中心之復癒性環境研究(未出版碩士論文)。南華大學，嘉義縣。
洪煌佳（2002）。突破休閒活動之休閒效益研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
洪筱梅（2009）。室內工作環境的植栽綠視率對心理復癒效益之研究(未出版碩士論文)。逢甲大學景，臺中市。
胡信吉（2003）。花蓮地區青少年休閒活動現況與休閒阻礙因素之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，台北市。
凌德麟、曾慈慧、楊芝婷（2001）。遊憩活動差異對身心健康之研究(計畫編號：NSC90-2415-H-002-013)。臺北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
翁珮怡（2003）。環境景觀生態結構對物種、使用者自然度感受及其生心理反應影響之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立中興大學，臺中市。
唐學斌（1984）。觀光學理論與實際。臺北：豪峰出版社。
張文禎（2002）。國小學生休閒態度與休閒參與研究─以屏東縣為例（未出版之碩士論文）。屏東師院，屏東縣。
張李淑女（2010）。健康與生活概論。新文京開發出版股份有限公司。
張宗昌、余智生（2008）。走路運動之休閒效益探討。嶺東體育暨休閒學刊，(6)， 137-148。
張俊彥（2000）。城鄉居民對休閒綠地需求之研究，觀光研究學報，5(2)，57-70。
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。
張俊彥、趙芝良（1999）。城鄉婦女休閒活動特性之研究，戶外遊憩研究 12(3)，21-41。
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(未出版碩士論文)。東海大學，台中市。
張淩綉（2007）。森林生態旅遊之健康效益探討(未出版碩士論文)。朝陽科技大學，臺中市。
梁恒華（2006）。新店市國小高年級學生生活型態與休閒參與關係之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台北教育大學，台北市。
陳儒賢（2015）。休閒涉入、環境復癒知覺與地方依戀之相關研究：以麻豆總爺藝文中心為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學，嘉義縣。
曾慈慧（2003）。景觀環境與福祉及復癒關係之研究(未出版博士論文)。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
曾慈慧（2004）。現地與非現地景觀體驗與健康復癒之探討。旅遊管理研究，4(2)，99-118。
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，3(2)，119-145。
黃韻璇（2009）。自然旅遊環境四項心理效益交互影響關係之探討-以南投縣惠蓀林場為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立中興大學。台中市。
楊胤甲（2006）。愛好自行車休閒運動者之流暢體驗、休閒效益與幸福感之研究(未出版碩士論文)。靜宜大學，臺中市。
楊勝博（1999）。隔週休二日與距離因素對遊樂區旅遊參與型態之影響-以九族文化村、劍湖山世界遊樂區遊客為例（未出版之碩士論文）。逢甲大學，台中市。
榮泰生（2006）。SPSS與研究方法。台北：五南。
劉文燦（2014）。療癒性薄層綠屋頂之熱效應研究(未出版碩士論文)。東海大學，臺中市。
劉孟芬（2004）。森林遊憩之健康效益(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺北護理學院，臺北市。
劉耿佑、李介祿（2012）。探討森林遊樂區遊客特性、遊憩行為及心理變項之跨區域差異。林業研究季刊，34(2)，109-119。
劉耿佑、洪偉翰、張淑君、陳永杰(2012)。探討跨區域民眾對戶外遊憩活動選擇之差異。運動與遊憩研究，6(4)，1-15。
盧碧純(2009)。從環境復癒理論討黑暗觀光地對旅客之心理效益(未出版碩士論文)。南華大學，嘉義縣。
蕭閎偉、林建元、白仁德(2012)。五直轄市升格後跨區域整合治理之新課題與願景：國土規劃觀點，公共行政學報，42，139-156。
顏家芝(1993)。旅遊空間演化模式之回顧。戶外遊憩研究，6(1&2)，31-53。
魏勝賢(2002)。影響休閒行為因素、活動傾向與市民農園經營關聯之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學，臺北市。
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(未出版碩士論文)。逢甲大學，台中市。
Buse, R. C. and N. Enosh. (1977) Youth experience: Effect on participation in recreational activities. Land Economics, 53(4) , 468-486.
Caldwell, L. L., & Smith, E. A. (1988). Leisure: an overlooked component of health promotion. Canadian journal of public health, 79(2) , 44-48.
Chick, G. (1998). Leisure and culture: Issues for an anthropology of leisure. Leisure Sciences, 20(2), 111-133.
Chick, G. (2000). Opportunities for cross-cultural comparative research on leisure. Leisure Sciences, 22(2), 79-91.
Cordell, H. K., McDonald, B. L., Teasley, R. J., Bergstrom, J. C., Martin, J., Bason, J., & Leeworthy, V. R. (1999). Outdoor recreation participation trends. In H. K. Cordell (ed.), Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends, 219-322.
Dustin, D. L., Bricker, K. S., & Schwab, K. A. (2009). People and nature: Toward an ecological model of health promotion. Leisure Sciences, 32(1), 3-14.
Han, K. T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(4), 209-232.
Hartig, T., & Evans, G. W. (1993). Psychological foundations of nature experience. Advances in psychology , 96, 427-457.
Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2003). Guest Editors introduction: Restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 2(23), 103-107.
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., & Bowler, P. A. (1997) Further development of a measure of perceived environment restorativeness. Gävel, Sweden: Uppsala University, Institute for Housing Research.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1996). Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. University of Göteborg, Department of Psychology.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3-26.
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.
Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159-170.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. American journal of public health, 98(8), 1451-1456.
Kaplan, R. (1973). Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5(2), 145-162.
Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 127-161). Springer, Boston, MA.
Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and urban planning, 26(1-4), 193-201.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. NY: Cambridge University Press. Nearby Nature.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169-182.
Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V., & Slakter, D. B. (1993). The museum as a restorative environment. Environment and Behavior, 25(6), 725-742.
Korpela, K. M. (1991). Are favorite places restorative environments. Healthy Environments. Oklahoma City, OK, Environmental Design Research Association, 371-377.
Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of environmental psychology, 16(3), 221-233.
Kuo, F. E. (2011). Parks and Other Green Environments:'Essential Components of a Healthy Human Habitat'. Australasian Parks and Leisure, 14(1), 10.
Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 31-44.
Li, C., Chick, G. E., Zinn, H. C., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2007). Ethnicity as a
variable in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3), 514-545.
Li, C., Absher, J. D., Graefe, A. R., & Hsu, Y. C. (2008). Services for culturally diverse customers in parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences, 30(1), 87-92.
Li, C.-, Zinn, H. C., Barro, S. C., & Manfredo, M. J. (2003). A cross-regional comparison of recreation patterns of older hunters. Leisure Sciences, 25(1), 1-16.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts. Longman.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (3ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oxford English Dictionary. (1994). Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, R. (1991) The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. Journal of Environment Psychology, 11(1), 1-23.
Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and behavior, 33(1), 93-106.
Paris, C. M. (2012). Flashpackers: An emerging sub-culture? Annals of Tourism Research,
39(2), 1094-1115.
Scott, D. & Willits, F. K. (1989) Adolescent and adult leisure patterns: A 37-year follow-up study. Leisure Sciences, 11(4) ,323-335.
Seligman,M.E.P.,&Csikszetmihalyi,M.(2000)Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Shi, W. , & Chen, J. (2004). Definition of the mental health by the management of system resources. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(4), 554-560.
Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well‐being. Landscape research, 4(1), 17-23.
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523-556.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983) Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment, 85-125.New York: Plenum.
Ulrich, R. S., & Addoms, D. L. (1981). Psychological and recreational benefits of a residential park. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1), 43.
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(3), 201-230.
WHO (World Health Organization) (1946). Constitution, WHO. New York.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2001). Strengthening mental health promotion. Geneva, World Health Organization.
Yang, B. E., & Brown, T. J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, 24(4), 471-507.
Yoesting, D. R., & Burkhead, D. L. (1973). Significance of childhood recreation experience on adult leisure behavior: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 5(1),25-36.
Zinn, H. C., & Pierce, C. L. (2002). Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 239-256.
Zinn, H. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Barro, S. C. (2002). Patterns of wildlife value orientations in hunters' families. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(3), 147-162.