本研究利用質性訪談,從大學生觀點探討台灣代表性景觀為何意象,並從為何具有代表性來探討景觀代表性的意義,更深入大學生對於台灣環境與景觀的看法,討論環境認知與意象形成的脈絡。本研究共訪談十一位台灣大學與四位逢甲大學的大學生,透過質性研究方法中的紮根理論研究法進行文本的分析與討論。 研究結果得出十一項台灣代表性景觀:台北101、太魯閣、夜市、鄉村農田景觀、日月潭、阿里山、台灣高山景觀、廟宇、歷史古蹟、故宮、城市夜景。並將其歸納成四種類型的景觀:「具有高知名度或特殊意義的建築」、「知名風景區或觀光景點」、「與生活相關具有文化意義的場景」、「展現自然特性的地理景觀」。透過分析文本中對於代表性認知的描述,結果顯示景觀的代表性是由六項構面特性所組成,分別為「知名度」、「獨特性」、「文化意義」、「熟悉感」、「展示性」、「認同感」。 在認知脈絡方面,本研究發現影響最大的是經驗,經驗又可分成「直接經驗」與「間接經驗」,而且因為「間接經驗」比「直接經驗」包含更多知識性的訊息與被形塑的形象,所以「間接經驗」對於代表性認知的影響較大。遷移經驗與成長環境則對於景觀代表性的影響較不顯著,但是卻影響受訪者對於其他環境與景觀的認知。偏好在本研究中,與景觀代表性並沒有呈現明顯的關係,因為偏好與代表性認知的途徑並不相同。
The interview method in qualitative research was used here in order to explore what is the representative landscape of Taiwan from the viewpoints of college students, and to discuss the landscape representativity by finding out the representative reasons. In addition, the environmental cognition and the composing context of landscape images would be discussed by analyzing the college students’ notions of Taiwan. There were fifteen college students participated in the interviews. The texts of response from college students were analyzed and discussed by using “Grounded Theory”. The results of this study showed that there is a very divergent difference between respondents. The representative landscape included “Taipei 101”, “Taroko”, “farmland in rural area”, “night markets”, “Alishan scenic area”, “Sun Moon Lake scenic area”, “mountain landscape in high altitude area”, “temples”, “historic monuments”, “National Palace Museum”, and “night scenes in cities”. These landscapes can be categorized in four types, (a) well-known or important buildings, (b) well- known scenic area, (c) places or environments relating with living and culture, and (d) landscapes show the natural characteristic. Except the four representative landscape types, there are six dimensions attributed to construct the landscape representability, “speciality”, “famousness”, “cultural meaning”, “identification”, “familiarity”, and “exhibition”. “Experience” was the main factor of landscape cognition, and it can be differentiated between “direct experience” and “indirect experience”. In this study, indirect experience was more effective because of abundant knowledgeable information and constructed image. The environmental and migrated experiences in childhood/teenage didn’t have significant influence, but affected environmental cognition in other aspects. In this study, there was no significant relationship between preference and representativity because they were different concepts.