本研究主要在探討臺中縣縣議員休閒參與、休閒阻礙與個人背景變項間的關係,針對臺中縣縣議員以「休閒參與問卷與休閒阻礙因素量表」進行問卷調查。正式問卷總計發出57份問卷,回收57份,有效問卷56份,有效率高達98%。回收資料以描述性統計、t 檢定、單因子變異數分析、Pearson積差相關分析、Scheffé 事後比較檢定等統計方法進行處理,研究發現不同個人背景變項之休閒參與與休閒阻礙因素有顯著差異如下:一、除了發現個人背景變項與休閒參與有顯著性的差異之外,亦發現臺中縣縣議員不論何種個人背景變項,其休閒參與的次數均偏低,且參與的類型多以室內或靜態的活動為主。二、研究顯示臺中縣縣議員的休閒阻礙較高;另發現「婚姻狀況」及「宗教信仰」皆與休閒阻礙三個構面有顯著性差異,「子女情形」則只與「人際間阻礙」有顯著性差異。三、在休閒阻礙、壓力源與家屬支持的相關分析中發現,休閒阻礙與壓力源呈現正相關,與家屬支持呈現負相關。希望透過本研究結果,能提供縣議員本身及後續研究等方面之參考,達增進縣議員休閒參與、減少休閒阻礙的具體效益。
The purpose of the study was to investigate councilors’ leisure participation and to analyze factors that may influence their leisure constraints in Taichung County. Leisure participation inventory and leisure constraint scales were used as survey instruments. The study population was 57 councilors of Taichung County. A total of 57 questionnaires were distributed, and 56 valid ones were retrieved. The retrieve rate of valid samples was 98%. The data were analyzed by using descriptive analysis, t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficient methods and Scheffé multiple comparisons. The results of statistical findings revealed that the respondents’ leisure participation and leisure constraints were significantly different because of individual backgrounds. Three conclusions were drawn:(1) There were significant differences in leisure activities participation with different factors. Meanwhile, participate in frequency on the low side in recreation of all kinds of councilors. The most popular leisure activities for councilors are indoor activities.(2) The factors of the marriage and religious belief reveal the significant differences in personal constraints. The factors of those who with/without children revealed the significant difference in interpersonal constraints.(3)In the analysis of leisure constraints, the source of stressors, and their family support, the relationship between the leisure constraints and the source of stressors was positive. But, the relationship between the leisure constraints and their family support was not positive.Based on the conclusions, few recommendations and suggestions were offered for future research and practice in councilors.