近年來由於經濟發展與生活型態轉變，農村景觀受到現代化建設衝擊，致使目前農村景觀雜亂而失去特色，造成了視覺的負面影響，連帶影響了居民對於地方的情感依附。藉由景觀評估可得解決景觀問題、提升景觀品質，對於農村規劃設計甚為重要。
景觀感知應用甚廣，用於評估人類對景觀的感官知覺，經由文獻回顧後發現「景觀喜好」與「情感評價」對於景觀感知為重要的議題與面向，代表人類對景觀的喜好程度與詮釋評價。而「地方依附」為人類對於地方的認同與依賴之情感，目前研究對於景觀與情感之間的關聯性較少討論，因此本研究藉由討論「景觀喜好」、「情感評價」、「地方依附」三者間的關係，分析影響居民景觀感知之因素，探討對於農村景觀之觀點。
本研究以臺南縣後壁鄉安溪寮為研究範圍，進行景觀調查後，以問卷調查居民觀點，以18歲以上居民為研究對象，共回收266份有效問卷，統計方法採取項目分析、因素分析、獨立樣本T檢定、多元迴歸、多變量變異數分析等分析方法檢定。
研究結果顯示：農村之景觀喜好分為四個因子「慶典與傳統景觀」、「交通與生活設施」、「產業景觀」、「歷史建物」。情感評價分為二個因子「喚起感」、「放鬆感」。地方依附分為四個因子「社區認同」、「社區依賴」、「生根感」、「社區參與」。三項主研究主題之間關係與與背景屬性關聯性結果分述如下：
1. 「景觀喜好」對「地方依附」確實有影響：對於「產業景觀」、「慶典與傳統景觀」、「交通與生活設施」、「歷史建物」的喜好感可預測「地方依附」。
2. 「景觀喜好」對「情感評價」確實有影響：對於「產業景觀」、「慶典與傳統景觀」、「交通與生活設施」、「歷史建物」的喜好感可預測「情感評價」。
3. 「地方依附」對「情感評價」確實有影響：地方依附構面中之「社區依賴」、「社區參與」、「社區認同」可以預測「情感評價」。
4. 居民「背景屬性」與「景觀喜好」、「情感評價」、「地方依附」確實有顯著關係：背景屬性中「年齡」與「景觀喜好」、「情感評價」、「地方依附」有關聯性。「是否參加社區組織」與「情感評價」、「地方依附」有關聯性。

In recent years, due to the economic development and the life style changes, the rural landscapes are impacted by the modernization construction. It has made the rural landscapes messy and without any special characteristics, resulting in the visual negative influence. Moreover, it affects the affective attachment of the residents to the place. The landscape appraisal can solve these problems and improve the landscape quality, which is quite important to the rural planning and design.
Landscape perception has been widely applied to evaluate the human senses and perceptions to the landscapes. It can be found after literature review that landscape likeability and affective appraisal are important subjects and perspectives of landscape perception, indicating the human likeability and interpretative appraisal to the landscapes. Besides, place attachment refers to the human identification and dependence to the place. The correlation between the landscape and affection is seldom researched currently. Thus, this research analyzes the factors that influence the landscape perception of the residents and discusses the viewpoints towards the rural landscapes through the discussion of the landscape likeability, affective appraisal and place attachment.
This research takes Ansi Village, Houbi Township, Tainan County as the research scope. After the landscape investigation, it takes the residents over 18 years old as the research objects based on the residents’ viewpoints written on the questionnaire survey, which gets 266 valid pieces in total. The statistic methods adopt Item Analysis, Factor Analysis, Independent-Sample T Test, Multiple Regression Analysis, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), and other analysis methods for testing.
The research results show that the rural landscape likeability is divided into four factors, including “ceremonial and traditional landscape”, “transportation and life facilities”, “industrial landscapes” and “historical building”. Affective appraisal is divided into two factors, namely “arousal” and “relaxing”. Place attachment is divided into four factors, including “community identification”, “community dependence”, “rootedness”, and “community involvement”. The relationship between the three primary research subjects and the relevance of the background properties get the following results:
1. Landscape likeability does have effects on the place attachment: the likeability towards the “industrial landscapes”, “ceremonial and traditional landscape”, “transportation and life facilities”, and “historical building” can predict the “place attachment”.
2. Landscape likeability does have effects on the affective appraisal: the likeability towards the “industrial landscapes”, “ceremonial and traditional landscape”, “transportation and life facilities”, and “historical building” can predict the “affective appraisal”.
3. Place attachment does have effect on the affective appraisal: such perspectives in the place attachment as “community dependence”, “community involvement” and “community identification” can predict the affective appraisal.
4. Significant relationship does exist between the “background properties” and “landscape likeability”, “affective appraisal”, as well as “place attachment”: “age” of the residents’ “background properties” has the relevance with the “landscape likeability”, “affective appraisal” and “place attachment”. “Whether to join in the community organizations” has the relevance with the “affective appraisal” and “place attachment”.

一、外文文獻
Altman, L. (1992). Place and Attachment. New York，USA：Plenum Press.
Amanda J.Walker, R. L. R. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86 (2008) 141–152.
Appleyard, D. (1976). Planning a Pluralist City: Conflicting Realities in Ciudad Guayana. Cambridge.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York, U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychology. New York, U.S.A.: Meredith.
Berlyne, D. E. M., K. B. (1973). Pleasure, Reward,Preference. New York, U.S.A.: Academic Press.
Bjerke, K. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol：59 (2002) 1–11.
Bricker, K. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22, 233-257.
Brown, G. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27 (2007) 89–111.
Brown, P. (1992). Disruptions in palce attachment. Place attachment. Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research Vol. 12, 279-304.
Davtiz. (1969). The Language of Emotion. Academic Press, New York and London.
Davtiz. (1969). The language of emotion，Academic press. New York and London.
Famil Russell, J. A. (1988). Affective appraisals of environments. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics Theorem Research and Applications,, 120–129.
Fry. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. e c o lo g i c a l in d i c a to r s, 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 9 3 3 – 9 4 7.
Fry, G. N. D. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol, 22:959–972.
Fry, P. H. G. J. I. N. T. C. D. G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol, 22, 959–972.
Hammitt, C. (1998). Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. 2nd edition. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Hammitt, S. (1996). Sense of place: A call for construct clarity and management. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Society and Resource Management.
Hanyu, K. (1997). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after dark. Environmental Psychology, 17, 301–315.
Hanyu, K. (2000). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight. Environmental Psychology, 20, 273-284.
Hay. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Environmental Psychology, 18, 5-29.
Herzog, S. (1988). Danger, mystery,and environmental preference. Environment & Behavior, 20, 320–344.
Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research,, 9, 10–16.
Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for knowurban spaces. Environmental Psychology, 12, 237–248.
Hidalgo. (2001). Place attachment:conceptual and empirical questions. Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.
Hummon. (1992). Community attachment. in I. Altman & SM Low (Eds.), Placeattachment, New York, Plenum Press, 253-278.
Ittelson. (1973). Environment perception and contemporary perceptual theory. In W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Environment and cognition, 1-19.
Jakle, J. A. (1987). The visual elements of landscape. The university of Massachusetts press.Massachusetts. ppxii.
Jones, J. (1977). Visual Resource Management for Highways,Department of Transportation Federal Highways Administration. National Highway Inst itute and Off ice of Envir. Policy. , Seatt le,Washington.
Kaltenborn. (2002). Associations between Landscape Preferences and Place Attachment: a study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landscape Research,, Vol. 27, No. 4, 381–396,.
Kaplan. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environment preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3-32.
Kaplan, K. (1989). The experience of nature:A psychological perspective. New York:Cambridge University Press.Chapter 2:The restorative environment.
Kaplan, R. K., S. (1989). The Experience of Nature:A Psychological Perspective. New York, U.S.A.: Cambridge University Press.
Korpela. (1989). Place identity as a product of environmental self regulation. Environmental Psychology, 9, 241-256.
Korpela, H. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572–589.
Kyle. (2004). Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (2004) 213–225.
Kyle. (2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (2004) 439–454.
Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (2010) 35–51.
Lyons. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 15(487-511).
Manzer, S. V. L. a. C. D. (1991). Affect，cognition and urban vegetation. some effects of adding tress along city streets.Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 285-304.
McCool, M. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. Travel Research, Winter, 29-34.
Milligan. (1998). Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 1-33.
Moore, G. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences, 16, 17-31.
Moore, S. (2003). Place attachment and context : Comparing a park and a trail within. Forest Science, 49 (6), 1-8.
Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluation image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 41, 41–53.
Nasar, J. L. (1994 ). Urban Design Aesthetics The Evaluative Qualities of Building Exteriors. Environment and Behavior vol. 26 no. 3 377-401.
Nasar, J. L. (1998). The Evaluative Image of the City. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing Perceptions of Environments for Active Living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,, Volume 34, Number 4.
Palmer, J. F. (2004). Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (2004) 201–218.
Perkins, B. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In Altman, I., & Low, S. M.(eds), Place attachment, New York: Plenum Press, 279-304.
Proshansky H. M., F., A. K. & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83.
Rapoport. (1977). Human Aspect of Urban Form.
Relph. (1976). Place and placelessness. London.Pion Press.
Roberts. (1996). Place and spirit in public land management. Nature and the human spirit, 61–80.
Roggenbuck, D. R. W. a. J. W. (1989). Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results.
Rollero. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Russell J A, S. J. (1989). Emotion and environment'. in Handbook of Environmental Psychology.
Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M. & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor analysis study. Environment and Behavior, 13, 259–288.
Russell, J. A. P., G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environment. Personality and Social Psychology, 38(313–322).
Ryan. (2002). Preserving rural character in New England: local residents’perceptions of alternative residential development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 61 (2002) 19–35.
Ryan. (2006). Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75 (2006) 5–22.
Sevenant, M. (2009). Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management.
Sevenant, M. (2010). The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy.
Sheet, V. L. a. C. D. M. (1991). Affect, Cognition, and Urban Vegetation: Some Effects of Adding Tress Along City Streets. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 285-304.
Smith, H. (1988). Danger, mystery,and environmental preference. Environment & residenBehavior, 20, 320–344.
Stokols, S. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. Cognition, social behavior, and the environment, 441-488.
Tilt, J. H. (2007). Understanding rural character: Cognitive and visual perceptions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81 (2007) 14–26.
Tveit. (2006). Key Concepts in a Framework for Analysing Visual Landscape Character. Landscape Research,, Vol. 31, No. 3, 229 – 255.
Ulrich. (1983). Natural versus Urban scenes：some psychological Effects. Environment and Behavior, Vol.12.No5, 523-556.
Vaske, K. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Environmental Education, 32(4), 16-21.
Walker, R. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England:A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 141–152.
Ward L, R. J. A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar environments. Experimental Psychology, General 110, 121 - 152.
Williams. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14, 29-46.
Williams, R. (1998). Measuring Place Attachment: Some Preliminary Results. Outdoor Planning and Management NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research.
Williams, V. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49 (6), 830-840.
Wong, K.-k. (2005). The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park,Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning B, volume 32, 第617 - 632.
二、中文文獻
王小璘、黃世孟. (1995). 基地規劃導論. 中華民國建築學會.
王之昀. (2007). 居民之社區依附及對觀光發展之知覺的研究~以高雄縣美濃鎮為例. 國立高雄應用科技大學/觀光與餐旅管理研究所.
王銘山. (1997). 臺中市市民的都市環境態度與都市景觀偏好關係之研究. 逢甲大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩士論文.
台南縣政府. (2005). 台南縣城鄉風貌整體發展綱要計畫. 計劃結案報告書.
危芷芬譯, F. T. (1995). 環境心理學. (五南出版).
江彥政. (2008). 自然環境資訊對心理評價反應影響之模式. 國立中興大學園藝學系所博士論文.
江彥政、張俊彥. (2009). 鄉村環境景觀生態結構對生心理反應之影響. 建築學報, 第67期, 第131-148頁.
江昱仁. (2009). 居民生活型態與地方依附之研究. 休閒事業研究, 第七卷 第四期, 135~156頁.
行政院文化建設委員會. (2006). 文化資產保存法施行細則.
吳明隆、涂金堂. (2009). SPSS與統計應用分析. (五南出版).
吳綱立. (2002). 建構全球在地化的永續城鄉地景. 高雄城市行銷2002-城鄉風貌在高雄研討會論文集, pp. 181-197.
吳綱立. (2007). 永續社區理念之社區營造評估體系建構之研究：以台南縣市社區營造為例. 住宅學報, 第16 卷，第1 期, 第21-55 頁.
吳綱立. (2007). 歷史街區環境改善綜合性評估架構之研究-以台南市府中街歷史街區為例. 建築學報, 第1-22 頁.
李英弘. (2009). 都市中聽覺與視覺對景觀偏好與情緒體驗之影響. 逢甲大學景觀與遊憩所碩士論文.
李英弘、梁文嘉. (2000). 景觀評估中之心理學模式之研究. 造園學報, 第7卷第1期, 67~87.
李素馨. (1999). 都市視覺景觀偏好之研究. 都市與計畫, 第26卷第1其, 第19-40頁.
周淑華. (1998). 都市公園植栽密度與植栽類型對景觀偏好影響之研究－以台中市健康公園為例. 國立中興大學園藝系碩士論文.
林幸怡. (1995). 農村景觀資源評估模式之研究. 國立中興大學園藝學系所碩士論文.
邱建雄. (2002). 台中孔廟建築空間的情緒體驗及空間認知之研究. 朝陽科技大學建築與都市所碩士論文.
施夙娟. (1995). 景觀偏好知覺與景觀生態美質模式之探討. 中華工學院土木工程研究所碩士論文.
洪佳君. (2002). 高山、水體、森林、公園、都市景觀之生心理效益. 中興大學園藝學系碩士論文.
洪飛碩. (2005). 觀賞者對台灣農村景觀元素認知之研究. 第二屆農村規劃學術研討會.
高育芸. (2005). 在地居民對於景觀意象評估之研究. 逢甲景觀與遊憩研究所碩士論文.
張伯茹. (2007). 以鄉村居民之環境特色認知程度建構環境風貌評估因子之研究. 國立中興大學農村規劃研究所碩士論文.
張俊彥、洪佳君. (2003). 景觀空間元素與生理反應之研究. 造園學報, 第九期，第二卷, 107-120.
曹勝雄、孫君儀. (2009). 建構地方依附因果關係模式. 地理學報, No.55, 43-63.
陳文淵. (2007). 傳統聚落居民在觀光發展下之環境知覺與景觀偏好-以北埔傳統聚落為例. 中華大學建築與都市計劃學所碩士.
陳怡婷. (2007). 音景對民眾環境偏好及情緒體驗之影響. 國立台灣大學園藝學研究所碩士論文.
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.
陳資雲. (2002). 從城鄉景觀之特色探討台灣地區城鄉風貌改造之方向－以嘉義地區為例. 雲林科技大學營建工程系碩士論文.
陳慧蓉. (2006). 遊客觀光意象與地方依附感關係研究之探討. 靜宜大學觀光事業學所碩士論文.
曾秉希. (2003). 地方居民對台中市梅川親水公園依附感之研究. 朝陽科技大學/休閒事業管理系碩士.
黃郁然. (2006). 住宅外部空間規劃設計與使用者地方依附關係研究. 國立成功大學建築所碩士論文.
黃富瑜、林晏州. (1999). 淡水捷運線使用者對沿線景觀知覺與偏好之探討. 中國園藝, Vol.45 No.1, 101-116.
葉怡欣. (2006). 自然環境偏好之探索性研究. 國立中興大學園藝學系所碩士論文.
葉奕成. (2008). 台南市孔廟與忠義國小使用者知覺偏好與使用滿意度之研究. 國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文.
劉怡雯. (2007). 地方依附.環境屬性頓社區景點意象塑造之研究. 世新大學觀光學系碩士論文.
劉俊志. (2003). 居民與遊客對於鯉魚潭風景特定區之地方依附差異探討. 國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文.
劉建哲. (2004). 農村建築對聚落景觀形塑之探討. 第一屆農村規劃學術研討會.
歐聖榮. (1994). 鄉村景觀評估系統之研究. 兩岸農村發展規劃學術研討會論文集.
歐聖榮. (2004). 鄉村遊憩環境之塑造. 2004鄉村風貌研習會.
蔡淑美. (2008). 台灣鄉村景觀類型與意象之研究. 國立中興大學園藝學所博士論文.
蔡惠任. (2008). 居民社區意識與環境改善計畫推行滿意度關係之研究. 國立成功大學建築所碩士論文.
蔡樂瑄. (2008). 萬華居民對艋舺地區歷史街道景觀感知之研究. 國立成功大學都市計劃學所碩士論文.
黎欣潔. (2010). 居民生活型態與住宅空間設計需求關聯性之研究. 國立成功大學建築所碩士論文.
賴玉梅. (2006). 苗栗縣通霄鎮福興社區居民之鄉村意象研究. 國立中興大學園藝學系所碩士論文.
謝燕芬. (2008). 都市中聽覺與視覺對景觀偏好與情緒體驗之影響. 逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所碩士論文.
羅梅君. (2007). 社區規劃中視覺美學元素與地方依附感之關係研究. 國立成功大學建築所碩士論文.
蘇育南. (2003). 社區營造中民眾參與空間營造角色課題之初探─以台南縣三個社區為例. 國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文.
三、網路檢索
http://163.26.122.9/np3/ 安溪國小 2010/12/9檢索
http://blog.xuite.net/hp200936/nc 在地情 安溪寮 2010/12/9檢索
http://www.ases.tnc.edu.tw/country/index.htm 採在每一寸土地上 2010/12/9檢索
http://163.26.122.1/lake/index.html 當童年的水塘再清澈~芙蓉生態園區的蛻變2010/12/9檢索
http://tn.village.tnn.tw/class2type.html?type=city1&id=1&page=1 台南村里通 2010/12/13檢索
http://www.houpi-house.gov.tw/ 後壁鄉戶政事務所 2010/12/13檢索