環(huán)境與行為外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　環(huán)境與行為</b></p><p>　　參加者是對校園室外空間感興趣的人?？偣灿?40名參與者（包括來自各高校的10名成員）被選定。每個樣本組包括1名研究生和本科生6人，教職工2人，并從行政人員1名員工。年齡，性別，和居住地的選擇需要符合樣本人口調(diào)查的標準，參與的研究成員完全是自愿的，參與的成員年齡從18到62歲。</p><p>　　參

2、加者同樣分為男性和女性之間。本研究試圖平衡參與者的性別在所有條件相同下研究。它也考慮到過去有經(jīng)驗的重要參與者，包括他們在戶外開放空間和灰色空間停留的地方。一份調(diào)查問卷被用來收集信息。百分之七十的參與者選擇居住在城市地區(qū)。一般來說，在喬丹的城市地區(qū)具有小的開放空間，只有少量植被植物數(shù)量有限。在喬丹生活的65%的城市居民居住在公寓樓，他們沒有獲得私人的戶外空間。百分之三十的人生活在農(nóng)村地區(qū)，他們有自己的戶外空間。在喬丹的農(nóng)村地區(qū)的特點是植物

3、多戶外空間充足，有大片的私人戶外空間，大片農(nóng)田，私營領(lǐng)域。</p><p>　　在這種方式中，樣本的參與者提出自己在不同室外空間和植被中的感受。關(guān)于戶外校園設(shè)置記錄，研究者設(shè)計了一個解決問題的活動。參與者提出了一系列關(guān)于他們將訪問的室外空間的選擇。選擇集中在網(wǎng)站描述之間的決定。本研究開發(fā)從大學校園實地調(diào)查的10個網(wǎng)站的描述。每個描述都包含了一個示意圖，對該地區(qū)的兩個彩色照片，和文字描述的活動和網(wǎng)站的體育文化特征描

4、述。這是最好使用的照片，有人為了引發(fā)參與者圖片中的空間的響應。以及熟悉圖片中的空間，他們甚至稱這是他們所知道的真實的地方。</p><p>　　作為現(xiàn)場觀測的代理人在使用照片時，通常知覺和視覺的環(huán)境研究是常見的判斷方法。一些研究人員（安德森，zube，&麥康奈爾，1976；Coughlin &德斯坦，1970；zube，1974b）已經(jīng)證明，人們判斷的開放空間：例如，對自然景觀有偏好的（例如，球&

5、amp;法爾克，1982；buhyoff，威爾曼，科赫，英國，和赫爾特曼，1983；普羅普斯特和buhyoff，1980），對城市景觀有偏好的（例如，彼得森，1967；彼得森和紐曼，1969），和基于城市場景的推論（Craik &阿普爾亞德，1980）。丹尼爾（1976）觀察到的有效性和使用性研究。</p><p>　　照片是實地觀察人對環(huán)境感興趣的能力體現(xiàn)，參與人員提供拍攝室外空間的使用說明。這是建立在

6、1995的夏天，一個為期4周的觀察中確定的。在校園空間進行檢查中，在 10點到3點這段時間中觀察。本研究者負責拍攝參與者在每一個空間中的活動行為。這是寫關(guān)于人和他們在環(huán)境中的行為的有力說服條件。兩次拍照和隨機寫作是為了以免打擾或引起室外空間的用戶的行為。</p><p>　　內(nèi)容和照片的質(zhì)量是很重要的。為了努力做得最好，代表校園室外空間環(huán)境性能的照片，約90%的照片，是在水平角度下拍攝的，表明是在人們遇到他們正常

7、的經(jīng)驗與環(huán)境中的看法和風景（見，例如，數(shù)字4到6和8到12）。</p><p>　　如表1所示，該網(wǎng)站的描述提供了設(shè)計等特點，與附近的建筑選址的各種組合，土地¬景觀，周邊地區(qū)的看法，與陽光和陰影。</p><p>　　一個配對比較，對10幅照片都可能對貼在硬木板。參與者被要求選擇一個網(wǎng)站從每對他們會去和他們的首選就在照片的外表和空間。他們叫那個決定的原因。他們不可能，例如，說他們

8、喜歡的原因卻不同。這是可能的，與會者認識到兩個地方，一個會議，一個隱私，為每個不同的標準，為了使合乎邏輯的選擇，他們被鼓勵去與標準一致。</p><p>　　與會者還提到的戶外校園空間，他們常常訪問。所有的參與者被要求列出成分或特性的基本¬照片中顯示出他們喜歡的空間。他們要求“自言自語”到桌面的錄音機（后來的轉(zhuǎn)錄和表達¬），所有的思想和情感在決策制定過程中所發(fā)生的¬。受試者參加了五屆

9、，歷時1小時，每一¬馬克西媽媽?？陬^報告的錄音帶（即，協(xié)議）</p><p>　　提供的信息，記錄事件，情感，在決策過程中所經(jīng)歷的參與者。從兩個決策活動和一個簡短的訪談相結(jié)合的形式，這項研究的數(shù)據(jù)集。在一個活動，參與者的評價和選擇的10個站點之間的所有可能的對。這種方法生產(chǎn)數(shù)據(jù)庫的信息（例如，蔓生的魚燈芯，1988）為這項研究。第二個活動涉及一組層次的選擇中，參加者提高¬ING相似網(wǎng)站描述對。

10、這創(chuàng)造了選擇的難度增加，產(chǎn)生了30個小時的磁帶記錄的數(shù)據(jù)（例如，蔓生，沃克，meistrell，及還，1989）。最后，28人（占總數(shù)的參與者，N = 140，20%）被采訪者在會議結(jié)束。匯報¬ING面試包括開放式的問題，側(cè)重于決策¬戰(zhàn)略制定和選擇什么因素的影響。每個受訪者也被問到他或她多長時間從事表2中四個最參觀校園活動空間。</p><p>　　每個受訪者被要求列出五個活動，他或她最想做的

11、空間，在那里他或她來自到達的空間，和他或她最喜歡的和最少的空間。</p><p>　　以下的采訪，本研究考察報告10最頻繁的開放空間和記錄，發(fā)現(xiàn)是一個使用的空間，包括位置以建立¬，校園和/或主要的行人交通道路，綠化相關(guān)的物理特征，¬能舒適座椅，存在陰影，視覺通路，和隱私（參見奧特曼，1973；1973；阿普爾亞德，赫塞爾格倫，公園和節(jié)儉，1975；1980；zube，1974b）。</p

12、><p>　　數(shù)據(jù)分析的第一步是將錄音帶到學員制作戶外空間決策¬，逐字逐句的敘述。這些帳戶是由本研究審查的意圖”，透過資料發(fā)現(xiàn)什么是必要的”（例如，理想的典型）的校園室外空間的元素。記錄進行審查，獲得實驗的總體結(jié)構(gòu)和模式。這些分析是通過將所有的轉(zhuǎn)錄成文本的文本數(shù)據(jù)¬基地和標記段根據(jù)網(wǎng)站，選擇對了，和數(shù)量的參與者。該數(shù)據(jù)庫允許研究者操縱的轉(zhuǎn)錄分析多組或文本的觀點，強調(diào)了SPE¬特異模式，揭

13、示人的空間關(guān)系維度。例如，參與者之間進行抉擇的1號和4號網(wǎng)站網(wǎng)站（見表1）是相同的觀點的分析。以這種方式，本研究確定特定地點的基本要素的參與確定¬褲子。同樣地，所有的選擇涉及每個參與者一起被放置在相同的觀點來確定的基本要素（如土地，吸引¬花葶）發(fā)生在他們的決定。</p><p>　　在下一階段的分析，本研究試圖識別參與者的意圖走向戶外校園空間，通過檢查每個描述了他們的決定意義展開。¬

14、重建的“世界”，每個參與者都在試圖揭示戶外校園空間的苯丙氨酸¬現(xiàn)象，它們的含義和解釋，以及探討其行為與實驗，每個參與者的選擇空間結(jié)構(gòu)的影響。</p><p>　　討論本研究及其對校園的設(shè)計和研究結(jié)果，提出以下問題：在何種程度上是戶外空間的校園設(shè)計相關(guān)的用途嗎？有什么發(fā)現(xiàn)？在何種程度上觀測結(jié)果符合既定的環(huán)境行為和環(huán)境¬心理感知的研究結(jié)果？</p><p>　　在作出有關(guān)決

15、定訪問的網(wǎng)站，與會者介紹了他們對不同類型的環(huán)境中的感覺。最初，他們描述了校園室外空間，他們將繼續(xù)和他們的決定是比較突然的活動。他們探索，他們曾被提出，影響他們的決定的各種因素進行了較詳細的記錄¬反應選擇方面給予。所有的參與者都能夠表達自己的感情，在室外設(shè)置有一個地方的感覺。</p><p>　　研究者要求參與者到底是什么吸引他們到特定的地方。一個壓倒一切的模式是一個吸引到室外的社會互動和/或景觀。在許多

16、情況下，參與者相關(guān)的活動，如參加社交活動，坐，民眾觀察，研究土地¬存在景觀。選擇是在活動和風景可以在各個網(wǎng)站的各種理由。</p><p>　　每個受訪者被問，“你就用三個字來形容牛奶酒吧街？“（在校園中最活躍的地方）。對牛奶酒吧街不同的圖像舉行，參與者之間的這個問題揭示對策；80%的學生認為這是一個有吸引力的，令人興奮的，娛樂場所，而只有37.5%的教師和行政人員的認同這個觀點。雖然大部分學生（85%）

17、被吸引到擁擠的步行空間的校園，少數(shù)（20%）的教師和工作人員喜歡這樣的空間。例如，80%的教師和工作人員的人¬起，位置適當坐的地方沿牛奶酒吧街數(shù)量有限（見圖2），在商業(yè)中心前，隨著一些學生想坐在建筑物的臺階和暴露的位置沿人行道的路緣石的人看（見，例如，數(shù)字8，10，11，和15的[B]），阻礙了使用諸如通過空間通過行人的流通。</p><p>　　Environment and Behavior<

18、/p><p>　　Participants were recruited by placing notices around campus asking for individuals interested in outdoor space use. A total of 140 participants (including a </p><p>　　sample group of 10

19、participants from each college) were selected. Each sample group included 1 graduate and 6 undergraduate stu¬dents, 2 faculty members, and </p><p>　　1 employee from the administrative staff Age.gender,

20、 and place of residence were the criterion for choosing the sample population, and participation in the </p><p>　　study was entirely voluntary. The partici¬pants ranged in age from 18 to 62. </p>

21、<p>　　Participants were about equally divided between males and females. This researcher attempted to balance the gender of participants across all condi¬tions </p><p>　　within the study. It was

22、 also important to consider the past experience of the participants, including their use of outdoor open spaces and place of </p><p>　　resi¬dence. A questionnaire was used to collect participant inform

23、ation on age, gender, and place of residence before joining the University. Seventy percent </p><p>　　(n = 98) of the selected participants lived in urban areas. Generally, urban areas in Jordan are charact

24、erized with a limited number of small open spaces </p><p>　　containing little vegetation. The majority of 65% of urban dwellers in Jordan live in apartment buildings. They have no access to private outdoor

25、spaces. </p><p>　　Thirty percent (n = 42) of the participants lived in rural areas prior to their enrollment at the University. Rural areas in Jordan are characterized by </p><p>　　resi¬d

26、ential units that are often surrounded by private outdoor spaces, stretches of farmland, and privately owned fields. In this way, the sample </p><p>　　participants dif¬fered in their exposure to outdoo

27、r spaces and vegetation. </p><p>　　To obtain detailed transcripts concerning outdoor campus settings, this researcher devised a problem-solving activity. Participants made a series of choices </p>&l

28、t;p>　　concerning outdoor spaces that they would visit. The choices focused on decisions between pairs of site descriptions. This researcher developed a set of 10 </p><p>　　site descriptions from a field

29、survey of the University campus. Each description included a sketch map, two color photographs of the area, and text </p><p>　　describing the activities and the physical and cultural characteristics of the

30、site. It was preferable to use photographs that included people in order to </p><p>　　trigger the responses of participants to the spaces shown in the pictures. Sub¬jects were familiar with the spaces

31、shown in the pictures, and they referred </p><p>　　to what they knew about the real places. </p><p>　　The use of photographs as surrogates for field observations is common in</p><p&g

32、t;　　The use of photographs as surrogates for field observations is common in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. Several studies </p><p>　　(Anderson, Zube, & MacConnell, 1976;

33、Coughlin & Goldstein, 1970; Zube, 1974b) have demonstrated that people judge open spaces that they have vis¬ited in much </p><p>　　the same way that they rate surrogate photographs of those set

34、2;tings. Photographic representations of views have been used, for example, in studies of </p><p>　　natural landscape preferences (e.g., Balling & Falk, 1982; Buhyoff, Wellman, Koch, Gauthier, & Hul

35、tman, 1983; Propst & Buhyoff, 1980), urban landscape </p><p>　　preferences (e.g., Peterson, 1967; Peterson & Newmann, 1969), and inferences based on urban scenes (Craik & Appleyard, 1980). Danie

36、l (1976) observed that the </p><p>　　validity and generalizability of studies that use </p><p>　　photographs as surrogates for field observations depend on the ability of pho¬tographs to r

37、epresent the environmental properties of interest (see also </p><p>　　Brower, 1988). </p><p>　　Subjects were provided with descriptions of the use of the photographed outdoor spaces. This was d

38、etermined based on direct observation during a 4-week </p><p>　　period in the summer of 1995. Campus spaces were checked at ran¬dom intervals between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. During each of these checks, thi

39、s researcher </p><p>　　photographed the people and their activities in each space. This was supported by writing notes about the people and their behavior. Both picture-taking and </p><p>　　no

40、te-writing were done briefly and unobtrusively so as not to disturb or change the behavior of the outdoor space users. Notes from repeated observations of </p><p>　　a space were synchronized to provide a si

41、ngle account of typical use. </p><p>　　A substantial portion of the information that was provided to participants concerning the physical characteristics and landscape of outdoor areas was based </p>

42、<p>　　on photographs of the environment (cf. Collier, 1967; Davis & Ayers, 1975). The content and quality of the photographs was important. Every effort was made </p><p>　　to take photographs that

43、 best represented environmental properties of the campus outdoor spaces. The majority of photographs, about 90%, were taken at eye </p><p>　　level to show the views and landscapes that people encountered du

44、ring their normal experiences with the environment (see, e.g., Figures 4 through 6 and 8 </p><p>　　through 12). </p><p>　　As shown in Table 1, the site descriptions offered various combinations

45、 of design characteristics such as location in relation to nearby buildings, </p><p>　　land¬scape, views of surrounding areas, and sun and shade. </p><p>　　For a paired comparison, all pos

46、sible pairs of the photographs of the 10 sites were pasted on hard boards. The participants were asked to select one site </p><p>　　from each pair that they would visit and which they preferred with respect

47、 to physical appearance and space in the photographs. They were asked to give </p><p>　　reasons for that choice. They could not, for example, say that they liked both but for different reasons. It was possi

48、ble that participants recognized two </p><p>　　kinds of places, one for meeting and one for privacy, with different criteria for each, and in order to make logical choices they were encouraged to go with &

49、lt;/p><p>　　one consistent set of criteria. </p><p>　　Participants were also asked to mention which outdoor campus spaces they visited often. All participants were asked to list components or chara

50、c¬teristics of </p><p>　　the spaces shown in the photographs that they liked. They were instructed to “think aloud” into a desktop tape recorder (for later transcrip¬tion), </p><p>　

51、　expressing all thoughts and feelings that occurred during the decision¬making process. Subjects attended five sessions, which each lasted a maxi¬mum of 1 </p><p>　　hour. Tape recordings of the ve

52、rbal reports (i.e., protocols) </p><p>　　provided a record of the information, contingencies, feelings, and percep¬tions that the participants experienced during the decision-making process. </p>

53、<p>　　Transcripts from two decision-making activities and a brief interview were combined to form the data set for this study. In one activity, participants </p><p>　　evaluated and made choices betwee

54、n all possible pairs of the 10 site descrip¬tions. This method produced the database information (e.g., Vining & Fish¬wick, </p><p>　　1988) for this study. The second activity involved a set o

55、f hierarchical choices in which participants were given pairs of site descriptions of increas¬ing </p><p>　　similarity. This created increased levels of choice difficulty and yielded 30 hours of tape-r

56、ecorded data (e.g., Vining, Walker, Meistrell, & Fishwick, </p><p>　　1989). Finally, 28 participants (20% of the total participants, n = 140) were interviewed by this researcher at the completion of the

57、 sessions. The </p><p>　　debrief¬ing interview consisted of open-ended questions focusing on decision¬making strategy and what factors influenced choices. Each interviewee was also </p>&l

58、t;p>　　asked how often he or she engaged in the activities listed in Table 2 at each of the four spaces most visited on campus. </p><p>　　Each interviewee was also asked to list five activities that he or

59、she would most like to do in the space, where he or she came from to arrive at the space, </p><p>　　and what he or she liked most and least about the space. </p><p>　　Following the interviews,

60、this researcher inspected the reported 10 most frequented open spaces and recorded the physical features that were noticed to be </p><p>　　related to one’s use of the space including location with respect t

61、o build¬ings on campus and/or major pedestrian traffic ways, landscaping, comfort¬able </p><p>　　seating, presence of shade, visual access ,and privacy (cf. Altman, 1973; Appleyard, 1973; Hesselgr

62、en, 1975; Parks & Thrift, 1980; Zube, 1974b). </p><p>　　The first step of the data analysis was to transcribe the tape recordings into verbatim descriptive accounts of participants making outdoor space d

63、eci¬sions. </p><p>　　These accounts were reviewed by this researcher with the intention of “seeing through the particulars to discover what were essential” (e.g., ideal </p><p>　　typical)

64、 elements of the campus outdoor spaces. The transcripts were then reviewed to derive the general experimental structures and patterns. These analyses </p><p>　　were facilitated by transferring all of the tr

65、anscripts into a text data¬base and labeling segments of the text according to the sites, choice pairs, and </p><p>　　number of participants. The database allowed this researcher to manipulate the tran

66、scripts to analyze numerous sets or views of the text, highlighting </p><p>　　spe¬cific patterns, and revealed dimensions of the person-space relationship. For example, participants making the choice b

67、etween Site No. 1 and Site No. 4 </p><p>　　(see Table 1) were analyzed within the same view. In this way, this researcher ascertained the essential elements of specific sites as identified by the </p>

68、;<p>　　partici¬pants. Similarly, all choices involving each participant were placed together in the same view to identify the essential elements (e.g., attraction </p><p>　　to land¬scape) t

69、hat occurred throughout their decisions. </p><p>　　In the next phase of analysis, this researcher attempted to recognize the participants’ intention toward outdoor campus spaces by examining how each </p

70、><p>　　described and gave meaning to their unfolding decisions. Reconstruct¬ing the “world” of each participant was done in an attempt to disclose the phe¬nomenon </p><p>　　of outdoor ca

71、mpus spaces, their meanings and interpretations, as well as to explore the underlying behavioral and experimental structures of spaces that </p><p>　　influenced each participant’s choice.</p><p&g

72、t;　　To discuss the results of this study and their implications for campus design and research, the following questions were posed: To what extent were the uses </p><p>　　of outdoor spaces related to the ca

73、mpus design? What did the findings reveal? To what extent do the observations and findings conform with findings of </p><p>　　established research in environmental-behavior and environ¬mental perceptio

74、n? </p><p>　　In making decisions concerning which site to visit, the participants described their feeling toward different types of environments. Initially, they </p><p>　　described the campus

75、outdoor spaces in terms of activities that they would pursue and their decisions were relatively abrupt. They probed aspects of </p><p>　　rec¬reation choices that they had previously taken for granted

76、by outlining the various factors that influenced their decisions in detail. All of the </p><p>　　participants were able to articulate their feelings and had a sense of place in the outdoor settings. </p&

77、gt;<p>　　This researcher asked participants exactly what attracted them to specific places. An overriding pattern was an attraction to outdoor social interaction </p><p>　　and/or landscape. In many i

78、nstances, participants associated activities such as socializing, sitting, people-watching, and studying to the presence of </p><p>　　land¬scape. The choice was justified in terms of the greater variet

79、y of activities and scenery available at the various sites. </p><p>　　There are a greater number of people, along Milk Bar street which may be the reason that I go to group gathering places. I prefer site nu

80、mber 5 [the wooded </p><p>　　area, see Table 1] because it has dense trees; I feel as if I am in the woods. </p><p>　　Each interviewee was asked, “What three words would you use to describe Mil

81、k Bar Street?” (the most active place on campus). Responses to this question </p><p>　　shed light on the different images of Milk Bar Street held among the participants; 80% of the students saw it as an att

82、ractive, exciting, and entertaining </p><p>　　place, whereas only 37.5% of faculty and administrative staff shared this view. Although the majority of students (85%) were attracted to crowded pedestrian &l

83、t;/p><p>　　spaces on campus, a small minority (20%) of faculty and staff members liked such spaces. For example, 80% of faculty and staff men¬tioned that the limited </p><p>　　number of prope

84、rly located sitting places along Milk Bar Street (see Figure 2) and in front of the Commercial Center, along with the desire of some students </p><p>　　to sit on the steps of buildings and along the curb st

85、ones of the sidewalks in exposed positions for people-watching (see, e.g., Figures 8, 10, 11, and 15</p><p>　　[b]), hindered the circulation of pedestrians using such areas as a pass-through space.</p>