從工業革命以來科技逐漸進步，然而隨著人們與自然互動的時間減少，產生“經驗的消失”(Extinction of experience)的現象。許多研究皆發現自然體驗有助於改善此現象，而自然體驗中之阻礙與促進因素更是一個值得探討的關鍵，但大多數研究皆在西方國家進行，且研究對象多以兒童為主。
青少年的行為是成人的基礎，也是兒童階段的延伸，調查青少年的自然體驗參與可以預知未來成年人的行為。再者，多數研究偏向單一自然體驗活動或者鄰近環境自然接觸的探討，然而人們從事自然體驗的層級是多樣的。此外質化的深入訪談也可以補充量化問卷的僅考慮問題的現象，無法深究其原因的缺點。
因此，本研究採用混合方法研究法。先透過質性訪談法，針對台灣的五十位大學部同學進行半結構式訪談，透過三種自然環境暴露(住家鄰里、學校和郊區森林)的訪談，瞭解青少年從事這三種自然環境暴露的經驗，以及分別有那些阻礙與促進因素影響其參與。本研究並結合了休閒促進與休閒阻礙的相關理論，以及觀光行為學的推拉理論與日本Soga等人(2018)提出的機會與傾向促進因素，將訪談的文字稿進行編碼，在以此文字稿內容作為量表發展的基礎，最後以量化問卷來進行施測。
正式的實證研究以線上問卷調查526名在校大學生、研究生及博士生。有效樣本人數為515，並結合了自然連結量表與健康量表進行實證研究。本研究透過了解青少年接觸自然的促進與阻礙因素，以作為後續研究發展的基礎。

以下為本次研究結果:
1.台灣青少年從事自然體驗類型分三層次如下:在住家鄰里層面以「觀賞風景 /望遠
凝視」為最高；在學校方面，以「參與相關社團(登山社、天文社…等)」位居最
高；在郊區森林部分，則是「風景區遊玩/野餐」最高。
2.台灣青少年從事自然體驗促進與阻礙因素中，皆共同以個人內在之「推力」
及「反推力」構面為主要影響，其代表因素分別為「個性(宅在家)」及「轉換心
情」。
3.「自然體驗促進」分別對住家鄰里、學校和郊區森林等三層面之「自然體驗」皆
有正向顯著的影響；而不同層次之「自然體驗阻礙」分別對住家鄰里、學校和郊
區森林等三層面之「自然體驗」皆有負向顯著的影響。
4.在住家鄰里及學校方面，「自然體驗參與」皆沒有對「身心健康」有顯著之
影響，唯獨在郊區森林方面，有顯著且正向影響。
5.住家鄰里、學校和郊區森林等三層面之自然體驗皆對「自然連結」有顯著且正向
的影響，而「我總是尊重自然」分數最高，在「每天花時間在大自然中對我來說
非常重要」中分數最低。
6.「自然連結」對「身心健康」具有顯著且正向影響。
7.「自然連結」是「自然參與」和「身心健康」的主要中介變項。

本研究結果得出，目前整體台灣青少年自然體驗遇到之挑戰，是整體社會價
值觀及一種世代無動力氛圍所造成的影響，此部分研究者在最後提出相關建議，希望能讓政府單位、教育單位有所參考。

關鍵字: 自然體驗、自然體驗促進、自然體驗阻礙
 

Since the industrial revolution, science and technology have gradually improved. However, as the time of interaction with nature has decreased, the phenomenon of "Extinction of experience" has indirectly affected people's attitude of preservation of nature. Many studies have found that natural experiences help to improve this phenomenon, and the constraints and facilitators factors in natural experience are more important to explore, but most of the research is carried out in Western countries and the research subjects are mainly children.
The behavior of adolescents is the foundation of adults and an extension of the child stage. Investigating the natural exposure of adolescents can predict the behavior of adults in the future. Moreover, most studies tend to focus on a single natural experience activity or only explore the natural exposure in a nearby environment. However, the level of natural experience is diverse and has different preferences for different natural experiences. The qualitative method, in-depth interviews can also supplement the results of quantitate methodology, the questionnaire only considering the problem, and can’t deeply understand the cause.
Therefore, this study used the Mix-Method research. First, this study conducted a semi-structured interview, 50 university students in Taiwan through qualitative interviews, and to explore the types of natural exposure through three level natural environments (home/neighborhoods, schools, and suburbs). As well as engaging in different types of natural experiences, what are the constraint and facilitating factors that influence their participation. This study combines the relevant theories of Leisure Facilitator and Leisure constraints, as well as the Push-Pull theory of tourism behavior and the Opportunity and Orientation promotion factors proposed by Soga et al. (2018) Then we tried encode the texts of the interviews as the basis for the development of the measurement scale and a quantitative questionnaire was used for testing. .
A formal empirical study is expected to conduct an online survey of 526 college students ,graduate students and doctoral students. The number of valid samples was 515, and using the Natural Connected Scale with the SF-12 Health Scale for empirical research. This study wants to understand the facilitators and constraints of adolescent exposure to nature as a basis for subsequent quantitative research.

The following are the results of this study:

1.The types of Taiwanese teenagers engaged in natural experience are
divided into three levels as follows: at the neighborhood aspact,
the highest is “viewing the scenery / long-distance gaze”; in
terms of schools, “participating in related organizations
(climbing club, astronomy club, etc.)” ranks highest; in the
suburban forest part, the “forest recreation area/picnic" is the
highest.
2.The representative factors among the "push out" and the "push
back" aspects of the induvidule are "personality (indoorsy)" and
"change mood" in Taiwanese teenagers' facilitators and constraints
of natural experience.
3."Natural Experience Promotion " has a positive and significant
impact on the "Natural Experience' at three levels: home
neighborhood, school and suburban forest. And different levels of
"natural experience obstruction" have negative and significant
impacts on the three levels of "natural experience" in the
neighborhood, school and suburban forest.
4.In terms of home neighborhoods and schools, "Natural Experience
Participation" has no significant effect on "physical and mental
health".
The impact is only significant in the suburban forests.
5.The three levels of natural experience have a significant and
positive impact on "Natural Connections", and "I always respect
nature" has the highest score, and "Spending time every day in
nature is very important to me" The lowest score.
6."Natural Connection" has a significant and positive impact on the
dependent item "Physical and Mental Health".
7."Natural Connection" is the main intermediary variable of "Natural
Experience Participation" and "Physical and Mental Health".

The results of this study show that the current challenges faced by Taiwanese teenagers as a whole are the impact of overall social values and the atmosphere of the unmotivated generation. The
results will be discussed in the end of this research so as to
give some reference to government agencies and education agencies.

Keywords: natural experience；facilitators of natural experience；constraints of natural experience

目 錄
第壹章 緒論..............................................1
第一節、研究背景與動機....................................1
第二節、研究目的與問題 ...................................4
第三節、研究流程 ........................................5
第四節、名詞與解釋.......................................7
第貳章、文獻回顧.........................................8
第一節、自然體驗定義與類型................................8
第二節、自然體驗與休閒阻礙之相關研究......................14
第三節、自然體驗與休閒促進之相關研究......................21
第四節、自然體驗與自然連結之相關研究......................26
第五節、自然體驗與健康之相關研究..........................32
第叁章 研究方法.........................................38
第一節、研究架構.........................................38
第二節、研究假設.........................................39
第三節、研究對象.........................................39
第四節、研究工具.........................................41
第五節、正式問卷調查.....................................57
第六節、資料分析方法.....................................58
第肆章 研究結果與分析...................................61
第一節、質性編碼與分析...................................61
第二節、描述性統計分析..................................162
第三節、信度與因素分析..................................178
第四節、迴歸分析........................................188
第五節、線性結構關係模式.................................199
第六節、假設與質量化統整 ...............................204
第伍章 結論與建議......................................209
第一節、結論............................................209
第二節、建議............................................214
參考文獻 ...............................................216
附錄....................................................225
【附錄一】自然連結指數表..................................225
【附錄二】訪談大綱.......................................226
【附錄三】專家效度評定卷..................................228
【附錄四】專家審查意見彙整................................235
【附錄五】正式問卷.......................................237
【附錄六】正式電子問卷...................................244

參考文獻
一、 中文文獻
大英百科公司(主編)(2004)。大英簡明百科。臺北市：遠流。
方潔玫(譯)(2005)。共享自然的喜悅(原作者：Joseph Bharat Cornell)。臺北市：張
老師文化。(原著出版年：1989)
王家祥、張美惠(譯)(2005)。與孩子分享自然(原作者：Joseph Bharat Cornell)。
布魯格編著、項退結編譯：《西洋哲學辭典》，(台北：華香出版社，2004.10.增訂二版三刷)。
行政院(2005)。青少年政策白皮書。台北市：行政院。
何永彬(2012)。臺灣教師休閒參與與休閒阻礙之探討，屏東科大體育學刊，1，77-95。
余建志(1998)。國民中學校外教學推行環境教育之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
吳明燁 (1999)。青少年初期學校同儕團體之形成與影響: 生態系統理論的觀點. 台北: 行政院國科會 (行政院國科會計畫專題研究成果報告)。
吳岸芳(2007)。自然體驗融入幼兒生命教育之教學行動研究-以復興鄉泰雅族幼兒為例。國立臺北教育大學幼兒教育學系碩士班碩士論文，台北市。
李佳容(2018)。登山健行活動者人格特質、休閒動機、休閒阻礙與休閒效益之研究。南華大學旅遊管理學系旅遊管理碩士班碩士論文，嘉義縣。
李美珠(2008)。自然體驗方案對國中生正向情緒之影響。國立臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文，台北市。
李素馨(1997)。都市女性休閒類型和休閒阻礙。戶外遊憩研究，10(1)，43-68。
李銘徵(2013)。登山健行活動之參與動機、阻礙因素對幸福感關係之研究—以陽明山國家公園為探討。世新大學資訊傳播學研究所(含碩專班)碩士論文，臺北市。
沈振中(1999)。老鷹觀想錄。基隆市：基隆市野鳥學會。
周慶和(2007)。臺北市公立學校人事人員休閒參與及休閒阻礙之研究。國立臺灣師範大學運動與休閒管理研究所在職碩士班碩士論文，台北市。
孟祥森(譯)(1982)。湖濱散記:華爾騰(原作者：Henry David Thoreau)。新北市：遠景。(原著出版年：1854)
林秀卿 (2010)。 大台北地區公立中等學校兼任行政教師休閒參與及其影響因素之研究. 臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系在職進修碩士班學位論文, 1-157。
林佳蓉(2002)。台灣地區老人休閒參與和休閒阻礙之研究。國立體育學院論叢，12(2)，59-76。
林延杰(2018)。休閒活動的休閒涉入、休閒效益及休閒阻礙之研究-以溯溪活動為例。臺北城市科技大學休閒事業系碩士班碩士論文，台北市。
林紀玲 (2013)。 不同文化族群生活形態, 運動型態, 運動參與與參與動機及阻礙因素之調查研究-以屏南地區中高齡者為例. 休閒運動保健學報, (4), 1-16。
林裕強和何嘉琦 (2013)。家庭參與生態旅遊之動機與阻礙-不同家庭生命週期之探討. 戶外遊憩研究, 26(4), 1-30。
林祐鋐、吳海助 (2010)。 台中縣青少年休閒參與現況與休閒阻礙因素之研究. 弘光學報, (59), 42-59。
林綺秋(2013)。親師生一起進行自然體驗之行動研究。國立東華大學幼兒教育學系碩士論文，花蓮縣。
林燕琴(2015)。國中生自然經驗與情緒智力之相關研究。中國文化大學生活應用科學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，台北市。
邱文勝(2006)。國小實施環境覺知教學初探--以五年級為例。國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
邱皓政（2012）。量化研究法（三）—測驗原理與量表發展技術。臺北市：雙 葉書廊有限公司。
洪瑞霞(2007)。休閒阻礙與促進關係之研究。逢甲大學土地管理所碩士論文，台中市。
胡信吉（2003）。花蓮地區青少年休閒活動現況與休閒阻礙因素之研究。國立臺灣師範大學體育學系在職進修碩士班碩士論文，台北市。
凌德麒、洪得娟(1998)。使用者之都市公園綠覆地體驗影響因素之研究。戶外遊憩研究，1，43-64。
徐茂洲、涂佩伶(2017)。以多群組比較分析員原住民與漢族學生休閒阻礙之測量衡等性研究。休閒產業管理學刊，10(1)，1-16。
高明、閻振興(1985)。當代國語大辭典。臺北：百科文化。
康文萍(2012)。大鵬灣環灣自行車道騎乘者之休閒動機、休閒阻礙與休閒促進關係之研究。亞洲大學休閒與遊憩管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，台中市。
張少熙(1994)。青少年自我概念與休閒活動傾向及其阻礙因素之研究。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
張玉鈴 (1998)。 大學生休閒內在動機, 休閒阻礙與休閒無聊感及自我統合之關係研究. 國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文 (未出版)。
張佑慈（2014）。大學生休閒阻礙和休閒參與之研究。東吳大學社會學系碩士論文，台北市。
張春興(2007)。教育心理學：三化傾向的理論與實踐(修訂二版)。台北市：東華。
張維國(2002)。一顆自然體驗教育的種子-從「寫作自然」與「自然教學」的對話中萌芽(未出版之碩士論文)。國立新竹師範學院，新竹市。
張博鈞（2014）。臺北市社區大學自行車社團成員的自然連結與休閒涉入之初探。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
陳妍安（2013）。探索教育方案對中高齡者靈性健康影響之研究。佛光大學樂活生命文化學系碩士論文，宜蘭縣。
陳俊甫（2001）。自然體驗的理念與思維─返照初心見自然。國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文，花蓮縣。
陳思倫（1993）。休閒遊憩參與阻礙區隔之研究。戶外遊憩研究，6(3)，25-52。
陳春敏（2003）。體驗自然活動對兒童欣賞自然的影響之研究。國立臺南大學，
臺南市。
陳皆榮（1995）。不同教育程度青年參與休閒活動態度之影響。台北技術學院學報，28，413-440。
陳鈺雯（2011）。自然體驗融入國小視覺藝術教育：「親自然‧玩藝術」暑期輔導活動之個案研究(未出版之碩士論文)國立彰化師範大學，彰化市。
陳葵庭（2019）。赴韓國旅遊者的旅遊動機與目的地意象及重遊意願之研究。真理大學休閒遊憩事業學系碩士班碩士論文，新北市。
陳曉、王博與張豹 （2016）。遠離“城囂”:自然對人的積極作用,理論及其應用. 心理科學進展 , (2), 270-281。
陳藝文（2000）。休閒阻礙量表之建構─以北部大學生為例。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文，台北。
曾鈺琪（2014）。自然連結、美感體驗與環境敏感性發展：十位都市青少年的自然經驗之紮根理論研究。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所博士論文，台北市。
曾慈慧 、 沈進成（2016）。 自然環境接觸對兒童身體活動量與健康之影響. 造園景觀學報, 21(3), 45-67。
曾慈慧（2003）。景觀環境與福祉及復癒關係之研究。國立臺灣大學園藝學研究所博士論文，台北市。
曾譓升（2018）。國中生課餘時間使用分配之調查與分析。國立虎尾科技大學休閒遊憩系碩士在職專班碩士論文，雲林縣。
黃玉琳（1989）。國家公園學童環境教育活動設計之研究－以陽明山國家公園為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中興大學，臺中市。
詹尹廷 （2014）。 休閒阻礙, 休閒涉入及休閒效益關係之研究—以大雪山森林遊樂區賞鳥活動參與者為例. 朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系學位論文, 1-83。
榮泰生（2009）。SPSS 與研究方法第二版。台北：五南圖書出版有限公司。
鄒東明（2002）。中山大學學生環境行為之研究--以生科系和企管系為例。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文，高雄市。臺北市：張老師文化。(原著出版年：1984)
劉坤儒（2019）。新北市三峽區國民小學高年級學生校園綠地涉入度、自然連結經驗、環境態度與環境行為意向影響之研究。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
劉家佑（2014）。綠自然照護的心理健康促進方案對社區成人心理健康及幸福感的影響-以台中某社區園藝益康活動為例。亞洲大學心理學系碩士論文，台中市。
賴家馨（2002）。休閒阻礙量表之編製－以台北市大學生為例。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
蔡佩勳（2018）。探究關渡自然公園志工自然連結感與心理幸福感之關係。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
鄭雅庭（2017）。學生課餘時間在學校的空間使用狀況與需求之量化分析-以中國文化大學為例。中國文化大學景觀學系碩士論文，台北市。
謝智謀，王怡婷(譯) （2003）。體驗教育：帶領內省指導手冊。臺北：帅獅出版
社。
鍾偉志（2006）。認真性休閒與參與動機、休閒阻礙關係之研究－以網球活動為例。南華大學旅遊事業管理學研究所碩士論文，嘉義縣。
羅幸惠（2001）。筆記大自然(原作者：Clare Walker Leslie & Charles E. Roth)。臺中市：鄉宇文化。(原著出版年：2000)
 
二、 英文文獻
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11-39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., & Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and behavior, 34(6), 795-818.
Cheng, J. C. H., & Monroe, M. C. (2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44(1), 31-49.
Child, D. (1970). The essentials of factor analysis. New York: Holt.
Clayton, S., and G. Myers (2009). Conservation psychology: understanding and facilitator human care for nature. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Cleary, A., Fielding, K. S., Bell, S. L., Murray, Z., & Roiko, A. (2017). Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape and urban planning, 158, 119-128.
Collado, S., Corraliza, J. A., Staats, H., & Ruiz, M. (2015). Effect of frequency and Mode of contact with nature on children's self-reported ecological behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 65-73.
Collado, S., Staats, H., & Corraliza, J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children's summer camps: Affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 37-44.
Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizingconstraint to family leisure. Leisure sciences, 9(2), 119-127.
Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure sciences, 13(4), 309-320.
Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., ... & Jerrett, M. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(26), 7937-7942.
Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, eenhancement and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4: 184-194.
De Vries S, van Dillen SME, Groenewegen PP, Spreeuwenberg P. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Sci. Med. 94:26–33
Ding, D., Sallis, J. F., Kerr, J., Lee, S., & Rosenberg, D. E. (2011). Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: a review. American journal of preventive medicine, 41(4), 442-455.
Ellis, G., & Rademacher, C. (1986).constraint to recreation participation. A literature review: President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Erikson, E. H., & Erikson, J. M. (1998). The life cycle completed (extended version). WW Norton & Company.
Faber Taylor, A., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of attention disorders, 12(5), 402-409.
Francken, D. A., & Van Raaij, W. F. (1981). Satisfaction with leisure time activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(4), 337-352.
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology letters, 3(4), 390-394.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., ... & Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?. American journal of preventive medicine, 28(2), 169-176.
Gundersen, V., Skår, M., O'Brien, L., Wold, L. C., & Follo, G. (2016). Children and Nearby nature: A nationwide parental survey from Norway. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 17, 116-125.
Gürbüz, B., & Henderson, K. A. (2014). Leisure activity preferences and constraints: Perspectives from Turkey. World Leisure Journal, 56(4), 300-316.
Hartig T, Johansson G, Kylin C. (2003). Residence in the social ecology of stress and restoration. J. Soc. Iss. 59: 611–36
Holbrook, M. B. (1980). Representing patterns of association among leisure activities: A comparison of two techniques. Journal of leisure research, 12（3）, 242-256.
Hoyman, H. S. (1975). Rethinking an ecologic‐system model of man's health, disease, aging, death. Journal of school health, 45(9), 509-518.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Mannell, R. C. (1985). Social and psychological constraints on leisure. Social and psychological constraints on leisure., 111-151.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure: Conceptualization, reliability and validity of the leisure boredom scale. Journal of leisure Research, 22(1), 1-17.
Jackson, E. L. (1988). Leisure constraints: A survey of past research. Leisure Sciences, 10, 203-215.
Jackson, E. L., & Dunn, E. (1991). Is constrained leisure an internally homogeneous concept?. Leisure Sciences, 13(3), 167-184.
Jackson, E. L., & Searle, M. S. (1985). Recreation non-participation andconstraint to participation: Concepts, and models. Loisir et Societe/Society and Leisure, 8(2), 693-707.
Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (1999). Risk anxiety and the social construction of childhood. Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives, 86-107.
Jackson,E.L.(1993).Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints：Results from alternative analyses. Journal of Leisure Research, 25,129-149.
Kahn, W. A. (2001). Holding environments at work. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(3), 260-279.
Kals E, Schumacher D, and Montada L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environ Behav 31: 178–202.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (2002). Adolescents and the natural environment: A time out. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, 227-257.
Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, 117151.
Keniger, L., Gaston, K., Irvine, K., & Fuller, R. (2013). What are the benefits of interacting with nature?. International journal of environmental research and public health, 10(3), 913-935.
Krettenauer, T. (2017). Pro‐Environmental Behavior and Adolescent Moral Development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(3), 581-593.
Lachowycz, K., & Jones, A. P. (2011). Greenspace and obesity: a systematic review of the evidence. Obesity reviews, 12(5), e183-e189.
Lekies, K. S., & Brensinger, J. D. (2017). Childhood nature experiences across residential settings: Rural, suburban, and urban. Risk, Protection, Provision and Policy, 67-86.
Leopold, A. (1970). A Sand County almanac: With other essays on conservation from Round River. Outdoor Essays & Reflections.
Mackay, C. M., & Schmitt, M. T. (2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101323.
Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (1997). A social psychology of leisure. Venture Publishing Inc..
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(4), 503-515.
McGuire, F. A. (1984). A factor analytic study of leisure constraints in advanced adulthood. Leisure Sciences, 6, 313-326.
Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in ecology & evolution, 20(8), 430-434.
Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660.
Nations, U. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision, highlights. department of economic and social affairs. Population Division, United Nations, 32.
Nilsson ME, Berglund B. (2006). Soundscape quality in suburban green areas and city parks. Acta Acustica United Acustica 92: 903–11
O’Brien, L., & Murray, R. (2007). Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 249-265.
Orr, D. W. (2002). Political economy and the ecology of childhood. Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 279-304.
Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., & Griffin, M. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International journal of environmental health research, 15(5), 319-337.
Pyle, R. M. (1993). The thunder tree. Armbrecht-Forbes, A., Forbes, P., &.
Pyle, R. M. (2002). Eden in a vacant lot: Special places, species, and kids in the neighborhood of life. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, 305-327.
Raymore, L. A. (2002). Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Leisure research, 34(1), 37- 51.
Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & von Eye, A. (1993). Nature and process of leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15(2), 99-113.
Richardson, M., Hunt, A., Hinds, J., Bragg, R., Fido, D., Petronzi, D., Barbett, L., Clitherow, T., White, M., (2019). A measure of nature connectedness for children and adults: Validation, performance, and insights. Sustainability, 11(12).
Robison, K. K., & Ridenour, D. (2012). Whither the love of hunting? Explaining the decline of a major form of rural recreation as a consequence of the rise of virtual entertainment and urbanism. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17(6), 418-436.
Rutherford, K. M. (1995). Mobilizing the healing emotions: Nature experience in theory and practice. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 33(4), 146-156.
Samdahl, D.M., & Jeckubovich, N.J. (1997). A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings. Journal of Leisure Research, vol.29,430-452.
Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. Journal of marketing management, 15(1-3), 53-67.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit Connections with nature. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(1), 31-42.
Shanahan, D. F., Bush, R., Gaston, K. J., Lin, B. B., Dean, J., Barber, E., & Fuller, R. A. (2016). Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Scientific reports, 6, 28551.
Shanahan, D. F., Fuller, R. A., Bush, R., Lin, B. B., & Gaston, K. J.(2015). The health benefits of urban nature: how much do we need?. BioScience, 65(5), 476-485.
Shepard, P. (2002). Man in the landscape: A historic view of the esthetics of nature. University of Georgia Press.
Skar, M., Wold, L. C., Gundersen, V., & O’Brien, L. (2016). Why do children not play in nearby nature? Results from a Norwegian survey. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 16(3), 239-255.
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94-101.
Soga, M., Yamanoi, T., Tsuchiya, K., Koyanagi, T. F., & Kanai, T. (2018). What are the drivers of andconstraint to children’s direct experiences of nature? Landscape and urban planning, 180, 114-120.
Soga, M., Yamaura, Y., Aikoh, T., Shoji, Y., Kubo, T., & Gaston, K. J. (2015). Reducing the extinction of experience: association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 69-75.
Stokes, D. L. (2006). Conservators of experience. BioScience, 56(1), 6-7.
Sweatman, M., & Warner, A. (2009). Integrating Nature Experiences into Early Childhood Education. Canadian Children, 34(2).
Szagun, G., & Mesenholl, E. (1993). Environmental ethics: An empirical study of West German adolescents. The journal of environmental education, 25(1), 37-44.
Tseng, Y. C. (2016). Promotion of sense of nature connection and the development of environmental affect: Comparative multiple case studies of four outdoor environmental education programs in America and Taiwan. Report of Overseas Project for Postgraduate Research, Unpublished report. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tseng, T. A., & Shen, C. C. (2016). The Health Benefits of Children by Different Natural Landscape Contacting Level. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 1(3), 168-179.
Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery. Science, 224(4647), 224-225.
Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., & Nicholson, K. S. (1997). Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos, 247-258.
Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1-24.
Wilson, E. O. (2002). The future of life. Vintage.
Zelenski, J. M., Dopko, R. L., & Capaldi, C. A. (2015). Cooperation is in our nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. Journal of environmental psychology, 42, 24-31.
Zhang, W., Goodale, E., & Chen, J. (2014). How contact with nature affects children’s biophilia, biophobia and conservation attitude in China. Biological Conservation, 177, 10.