長期以來關懷使用者的環境心理學與環境行為學，在社區配置類型、公共空間分佈、道路系統或尺寸等較功能性類型的研究上已有許多豐碩的成果。然而對於一直為他人創造美感經驗的建築師、都市規劃師、景觀規劃師等等，從事設計工作業者最為關注的美學議題，在國內的相關研究多為室內環境、戶外環境則偏重於都市意象或街道景觀研究或是單一的行道樹偏好研究，對於住宅環境卻極少有相關的研究，因此本研究希望能研究不同居住環境中各個景觀元素的美學體驗差異，同時探討居民美學體驗與地方情感之關係。

　　本研究藉由行為與社會科學中的樣本調查研究方法，使用問卷來測量不同基地內居民對社區的環境美學是否有不同的感覺，採用因素分析、獨立樣本Ｔ檢定、單因子變異數分析和典型相關等分析方法檢定。

　　研究結果顯示配置型式和建築高層等兩種規畫手法不同，居民對於視覺美學元素認知、地方依附感也都有不同的認知差異；｢中庭型｣或是｢大廈｣此兩種型式的居民反應相較於｢巷弄型｣或是｢連棟透天｣皆為正向反應。藉由典型相關得知，地方依附感與視覺美學元素認知有三種關係：｢認同感｣與｢外部空間｣、｢熟悉感｣與｢視覺特徵」以及「使用經驗」與「設施」。地方依附感與景觀知覺有兩種關係：「連結感」和「正面情緒」以及「社區熟悉」與「放鬆感」。視覺美學元素認知與景觀知覺有三種關係：「空間環境」和「愉悅感」、「人為元素」和「刺激感」以及「設計與造形」和「趣味感」。

There has been fruitful achievements in the research of environmental psychology and environmental behavior regarding functional spatial types like layouts of community types, public spaces, access systems and scales. But for architects, urban designers, and landscape architects whose duties are creating aesthetic experiences, they have much more aesthetic data on interior environment, outdoor environment overemphasize city images or streetscapes, or preferences of shads tree than on the residential environments. Therefore my research aim at investigating different aesthetical experiences of various environmental factors among different residential environments, and the relation between aesthetical experiences and place emotions.

In my research I adopt questionnaire survey in behavioral science, using questionaries to measure the feeling hold for environmental aesthetics among residents of different sites. The tools are listed below: Factor Analysis, Independent -Samples T Tests, One-Way ANOVA, and Canonical Correlation.

The research reveals different cognition of visual elements and different place bonding in the plannings of different layout types and building heights. There are positive responses to ‘atrium’ and ‘mansion’ than to ‘alley’ and ‘Town houses’. Canonical correlation reveals three relationships between place bonding and cognition of visual elements: ‘identity’ and ‘outdoor space’, ‘familiarity’ and ‘visual characteristics’, and ‘use experience’ and ‘facility’. There are two relationships between place bonding and landscape perception: ‘bonding’ and ‘positive emotion’, ‘community familiarity’ and ‘relaxation’. There are three relationships between cognition of visual elements and landscape perception: ‘spatial environment’ and ‘pleasure’, ‘artificial elements’ and ‘irritation’, and ‘design and form’ and ‘interest’.

參考文獻
期刊

1.Hammitt, William E., Erik A. Backlund, and Robert D. Bixler. "Experience Use History, Place Bonding and Resource Substitution of Trout Anglers During Recreation Engagements." Journal of Leisure Research 36, no. 3 (2004): 356-78.
2.Hanyu, K. "Visual Properties and Affective Appraisals in Residential Areas in Daylight." Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, no. 3 (2000): 273-84.
3.Kyle, Gerard T., Andrew J. Mowen, and Michael Tarrant. "Linking Place Preferences with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship between Place Motivation and Place Attachment." Environmental Psychology 24 (2004): 439-54.
4.Nanistova, E. "The Dimensions of the Attachment to Birthplace and Their Verification after the 40 Years Following the Forced Relocation." Sociologia 30, no. 4 (1998): 377-94.
5.Nasar, Jack L. "Adult Viewers' Preferences in Residential Scenes. A Study of the Relationship of Environmental Attributes to Preference." Environment and Behavior 12, no. 5 (1983): 589-614.
6.Tveit, M., A. Ode, and G. Fry. "Key Concepts in a Framework for Analysing Visual Landscape Character." Landscape Research 31, no. 3 (2006): 229-55.
7.Vorkinn, Marit, and Hanne Riese. "Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment." Environment and Behavior 33, no. 2 (2001): 249-63.
8.Wiiliams, Daniel R. "Notes on Measuring Recreational Plcae Attachment." (2000).
9.Williams, Daniel R., and Joseph W. Roggenbuck. "Measuring Place Attachment : Somepreliminary Results." 1989
10.Williams, Daniel R., and Jerry J. Vaske. "The Measurement of Place Attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a Psychometric Approach." Forest Science 49, no. 6 (2003): 830-40.
11.李素馨. "都市視覺景觀偏好研究." 都市與計劃 26, no. 1 (1999): 19-40.
12.李素馨. "環境知覺和環境美質評估." 規劃與設計學報 1, no. 4 (1995): 53-74.

書籍

1.Arnheim and Rudolf，李長俊譯，藝術與視覺心理學，雄獅圖書公司，1976.
2. Kaplan, S.，The dimensions of the visual environment: methodological considerations, in Environmental Design: Research and Practice. Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference, W.J. Mitchell, Editor，1972: Los Angeles.
3. Lynch and Hack，成其琳譯，敷地計畫，詹氏書局，1984
4. Nasar, J.L. (Ed.)，Environmental aesthetics : Theory, research, applications，Cambridge University press，1988
5. Williams and Raymond，劉建基譯，關鍵詞，三聯書店，1983.
6. Wohlwill, J.F.，Environmental aesthetics: the environment as source of affect, in Human Behavior and Environment, I.A.a.J.F. Wohlwill, Editor.，1976: New York.
7.內政部營建署，國宅社區規劃設計參考圖集，內政部營建署，1996
8.吳明隆and涂金堂，Spss與統計應用分析，五南圖書出版股份有限公司, 2007
9.席汝楫，社會與行為科學研究方法，五南出版社，1997
10.酒井隆著，賴虹燕譯，問卷設計市場調查與統計分析實務入門，博誌文化，2004
11.黃南淵，新社區之規劃，銀來圖書出版有限公司，1972

論文
1.朱俊璋，優型樹的型態影響景觀美質之研究，東海大學，2003
2.林擎天，森林景觀美質評估模式之研究，中興大學，1992
3.高育芸，在地居民對景觀意象評估之研究－以澎湖縣馬公市為例，逢甲大學，2005
4.張曉平，室內環境之美學因素與美感反應關係之研究—以住宅客廳為例—，中原大學，2004
5.陳育文，廣告招牌及植栽對視覺認知與街道景觀偏好之影響，逢甲大學，2004
6.曾秉希，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，2002
7.黃郁然，住宅社區外部空間規劃設計與使用者地方依附之關係研究，成功大學，2006
8.陳惠蓉，遊客觀光意象與地方依附感關係之探討，靜宜大學，2006