摘要
游憩地理环境,特别是中小尺度游憩地理环境的认知及其空间行为问题是旅游地理学与环境心理学的重要研究内容。以往中小尺度游憩地理环境中人们的认知与空间行为的交互机制的相关研究较少。本文的主要研究问题是相同社群在中小尺度游憩地理环境中的认知与空间行为交互作用机制,文中以大一新生为研究被试、校园环境和旅游景区为实证案例地,研究日常生活游憩环境和典型旅游游憩环境中人们的环境认知特征及其与空间行为的交互作用机制。
本文论述的游憩地理环境按照活动者与环境的关系、活动者的熟悉程度与活动便利程度及频率可以分为两种类型：日常生活游憩环境和旅游游憩环境。前者活动者与环境关系为居住者与惯常生活环境关系,后者为旅游者与旅游目的地环境关系。校园环境是日常生活游憩环境的典型类型,本文以南京大学浦口校区作为案例,主要研究校园游憩环境认知与游憩活动及其交互作用,游憩过程中的空间定位与探路的交互作用,以及地形认知对这些交互作用的影响。文章采用地理环境认知编码、草图与言语描述方法处理数据,研究发现：(1)校园游憩环境认知与活动状况具有相互影响,校园游憩环境认知中校园地物的空间位置、功能及承载的活动性质是影响游憩环境中地物认知的主要因素,游憩活动中地物的功能与承载的活动类型是影响其到访率的主要因素：游憩活动虽然促进了游憩地理环境的认知,但因必要性活动结果被强化,降低了一些游憩环境被认知的可能；反之游憩环境认知对游憩活动的影响,受当前活动动机的调控,同时也受游憩场所的空间位置与功能的影响。(2)游憩过程中的空间定位与探路交互作用明显,同时地理环境认知对探路过程具有明显的影响。校园环境中视觉通达性良好、可相互参照且固定的教学建筑、生活设施、道路与人被优先存储与提取,作为重要参照地物使用,并以此为基础形成了关系参照构架,以引导探路；迷路后的空间再定位方面,由多层联体建筑的空间布局、道路弯曲度及视觉可达性因素都可能减少被试对方向判断的正确程度,从而导致其迷路,而当被试迷路时,除借助他人指示外,更多采用了原路返回方式,并在原路返回过程中进行了模式匹配,或者凭直觉或借助互相参照的地物完成了空间再定位。(3)游憩环境中的中小尺度地形认知与游憩活动同样存在交互作用。中小尺度地形认知是游憩活动的主要影响因素,决定了哪些地形被优先认知,反之游憩活动是影响地形认知的主要因素。
旅游景区是旅游游憩环境的典型类型,不同于日常生活游憩环境。本文通过设计多种调查方法(草图法、言语描述、录音统计、问卷法、摄影体验等)研究了被试对夫子庙地区的的游憩环境空间知觉和认知特征,游憩地理环境的知觉维度和认知单元、游憩地理环境认知与活动状况及其交互作用、游憩地空间定位、探路及其交互作用与影响因素等系列问题。文中采用修正的地理环境认知编码方法获取游憩地理环境图式变化状况,采用评分标准评估了被试的认知水平状况,并运用了GIS空间分析技术对游憩环境要素知觉和游憩活动迷路地点的空间分布特征。研究表明：(1)游憩环境知觉维度和认知单元调查方法和调查方面,首先表明综合多方法的研究可以获取更多的信息和空间认知的特征及其过程。同时,通过夫子庙的游憩环境案例研究表明,游憩环境知觉维度和认知单元,以点状要素为主,其次为面状要素,再次为线状要素。旅游游憩设施的属性同样影响到知觉频数；(2)游憩环境认知与活动状况及交互作用方面：游憩环境认知活动的从时间过程角度可以看出其中一些规律。本文分别从游憩前、游憩中和游憩后三个阶段过程进行调查并进行研究。游憩前被试在入游前已形成了整体性的游憩地理环境图式,部分被试的游憩前信息获取与预期游憩空间行为有相关性。游憩过程中,在游憩地理环境认知方面,被试实地知觉的游憩地理环境要素类型较全面,并·以视觉要素为主体,辅以嗅觉和听觉等要素。在视觉游憩地理环境知觉要素中,较主要的是景点与景观及设施。在空间行为方面,被试的游憩活动路径直线性特征显著,限制了他们的景观注视范围。另外,光线也影响了被试的景观认知加工模式,继而影响了他们的游憩活动时间分配。游憩后,与游览活动密切相关的旅游环境综合人文部分及人、景点与景观、设施、道路要素作为游憩环境表征的图形部分被存储,并被用于指导其重游或指示他人旅游；而水体、商品、旅游活动及广场表征则作为游憩环境表征的背景部分被存储,为其旅游活动提供了背景环境。另外旅游活动显著促进了被试的游憩地认知水平的提高；(3)游憩地空间认知与探路的交互影响方面：边界认知与探路具有交互影响作用。具体体现在,地标(牌坊)既是游憩地重要的边界认知要素,限制了被试的游憩活动范围主观选择,同时它(特别是位于入口处的形式相同的地标)也是重要的空间再定位标志,有助被试的探路或组织游憩活动。同时被试在产生迷路感之后,通过将迷路区域环境特征与已形成的景区模板进行匹配之后,强化了边界要素知觉。迷路后的空间定向策略与探路的同样具有交互作用。游憩地空间结构与导向系统也可能影响了被试的空间定向；而被试在迷失方向时,通常采取原路返回或借助他人指示策略,却较少借助导向系统和直觉。
本文最后通过比较以上不同案例地的研究结果,总结了一些异同点,并提出了本研究的创新点及对未来研究的展望。
Although the recreational geographical environment,especially the median and small -scale of those plays an important role in people's daily life, few studies have explored interactive relationship between cognition and spatial behavior in such environment. In view of this, the study choose freshman as the subjects, campus environment and tourist scenic spots as study area. While the questionnaire and interview, verbal description, photography experience etc. are involved to collect rich qualitative and quantitative data.
As campus environment is a typical daily recreational environment, the Pukou campus in campus in Nanjing University is selected, and cognition of campus recreation and recreation activities and their interaction, the interaction between spatial positioning and wayfinding during the recreation, effects of terrain cognition on this interaction are mainly discussed in this part. Accordingly methods of the geographical environment cognitive coding, sketches and verbal description are employed to analyze the data, it is found as below:(1)There is interactive relationship between the cognition of campus recreational environment and activities, while recreation activities, position, function and type of activities are the main factors deciding the cognition of campus recreational environment. Meanwhile the function of recreational landmark and the type of activities which they supported are the main factors influencing their visit rate. Although recreational activities enhance cognition of recreational environment, perception of recreational environment likely to be reduced as the result of reinforced necessary activities. On the other side, the influence of cognition of recreational environment on recreation activities is regulated not only by the motivation of current activities, but also influenced by the position and function of recreational site. (2)There is significantly interactive relationship between the orientation and wayfinding during recreation, while the wayfinding is significantly influenced by the cognition of geographical environment. the teaching and learning architecture and living entertainment and road which have the high quality visual accessibility are being coded priority and being used as important landmark. On basis of such landmark, the relational framework then comes into being and is used to lead wayfinding. (3) Direction judging by the subjects will be deteriorated in campus by the complex spatial arrangement in the multi-building ensemble and curve rate and visual accessibility of landmark. Meanwhile subjects will depend on other person's direction giving or go back through the original route after getting lost and the pattern matching strategies will be used on the way back. But some subjects completed the reorientation depends on their intuition and inter-referenced architecture. (3)There is interactive relationship between cognition of small-scale terrain cognition and recreational activities, and the terrain cognition is the dominant influential factor in subject's recreational activities, vice versa.
Alike the recreational environment of daily life, scenic zone is typical tourism environment. So the characteristics of perceived and cognitive of recreational environment, perceived and cognitive units of recreational environment, cognition of recreational environment and recreational activities and their interaction, orientation and wayfinding and their interaction are explored by using different methods such as sketch mapping, verbal description, recording statistics, questionnaire, photo-experience etc. to select data, and revised coding method of geographical environment are used to analyze the changeable schemata of recreational environment, the scale of tourism knowledge are used to rate the level of cognition of subjects, methods of spatial analysis (GIS) are used to analyze the spatial character of elements of recreational environment and lost position. It is concluded as:(1)The points is primarily elements of perceived and cognitive units of recreational environment. The second is elements of polygon, while the elements of line is the third. (2)The integral schemata of recreational environment have been formed by subjects before recreation, and there is correlation between the information which part of tourists have got and intention of recreation.(3)During the recreation Subjects have perceived almost overall type of recreational environment elements, of which dominantly is visual mode, with tiny auditory or olfactive mode. Scenic spots and landscapes are dominantly type of elements in visual mode of recreational environment elements. While the scope of fixing of landscape is restricted by the remarkable straight recreational route. On the other hand, intensity of light will influence the subjects' cognitive processing mode of landscape and then their time schedule of recreational activities.(4) In close relation with the recreational activities, Cultural part of tourism environment, person,scenic spots and landscape, facilities and road are coded as figure part of representation of the recreational environment. And it is used to guide another person's travel or themselves revisiting. While the representation of water, goods,tourism activities and square are background of cognition of the tourism destination. They provides the background for all kinds of recreational activities.(5) The improvement in level of cognition of the scenic zone are significantly benefit from the tourism activity.(6)There is cognition of edge and wayfinding. And landmark,especially monumental archway, is important elements of edge in recreational destination. They restrict the selection of subjects' scope of recreational activities. Moreover they are important landmark used as reorientation, and contribute to subjects' wayfinding and recreational activities.(7) The subjects' perception of edge are intensified after the shaped pattern of scenic zone match with the environmental character of lost area when they feel getting lost.(8)There is interactive relationship between the strategies of reorientation and wayfinding after they get lost. While subjects' orientation may be influenced by the spatial character and signpost system,such as the curve rate of unit of environment(for example the river and street etc.)And the original way back and other person's direction giving,not the signpost system and intuition,are usually employed when they get lost.
After compared above two cases, some difference and same characteristics are found, and all of such findings are believed to be useful in theory generalization and practice.
引文
1李双成,蔡运龙.地理尺度转换若干问题的初步探讨.地理研究,2005,24(1)：11-18.
2李小建.经济地理学研究中的尺度问题.经济地理,2005,25(4)：434-436.
3 Kitchin R M, Blades M. The Cognition of Geographic Space. London:I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2002.
4宋家泰,金其铭.人文地理学.武汉：湖北教育出版社.1990.
5谭见安.地理辞典.北京：化学工业出版社.2008.
6彭聃龄.普通心理学.北京：北京师范大学出版社.2004.
7张文奎.行为地理学的基本理论问题.地理科学,1990,10(2)：159-167.
8保继刚.旅游地理学.(第二版)北京：高等教育出版社.1993.
9郭秀艳,杨治良.实验心理学.北京：人民教育出版社,2007.
10郭来喜.当代中国人文地理学研究进展述要.当代中国人文地理学研究.北京：商务印书馆.2009.
11柴彦威,颜亚宁,冈本耕平.西方行为地理学的研究历程及最新进展.人文地理,2006,23(6)：49-55.
12 Martin G J. All possible world:a history of geographical ideas. (Fourth Edition)Oxford Univer-sity Press.2005(成一农,王雪梅译.所有可能的世界：地理学思想史.上海：上海世纪出版集团.2008.)
13高觉敷.西方心理学史论.合肥：安徽教育出版社.1995.
14彭建,周尚意.公众环境感知与建立环境意识：以北京市南沙河环境感知调查为例.人文地理,2001,16(3)：21-25.
15 Panelli R, Robertson G. Catchment contrasts:comparing young people's experiences and knowledge of a river environment. Geoforum.2006, (37):455-472.
16 Molennaar J W, SANTEN J C M V. Perceptions of water in a changing hydrological and eco-logical context:the case of the Logone flood plains in Cameroon. The Geographical Journal.2006, 172(4):331-347.
17 Wong T, Delang C O, Schmidt-Vogt D.What is a forest?:competing meanings and the politics of forest classification in Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand. Geoforum.2007,38 ():643-654.
18贺娟,舒晓波,于秀波.鄱阳湖区农户对湿地生态系统服务认知的调查与分析.资源科学.2010,,32(4)：776-781.
19冯维波,黄光宇.基于重庆主城区居民感知的城市意象元素分析评价.地理研究.2006,25(5)：803-813.
20周旗,郁耀闯.关中地区公众气候变化感知的时空变异.地理研究.2009,28(1)：45-54.
21 Kempton W. How the public views climate change. Environment,1997,39(9):12-21.
22 Berk R, Fovell R. Public perceptions of climate change:a willingness t o Pay assessment. Climatic Change.1999,413-446.
23 Dennis R P, Bhalla M, Gossweile R, Midgett J. Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,1995,2(4):409-428.
24 Garling T, Book A, Lindberg E, Arce C. Is elevation encoding in cognitive maps? Journal of Environmental Psychology,1990(10):341-351.
25 Binh D K N T, Phuong L V, Douglas I. Local knowledge and economic realities affecting soil erosion in the Rach Rat catchment, Vietnam.Geographical Research.2008,46(1):17-26.
26张捷等,九寨沟自然保护区喀斯特研究的旅游业意义.中国岩溶.1997,16(4)：386-392.
27 Pasquini M W, Alexander M J.Soil fertility management strategies on the Jos Plateau:the need for integrating 'empirical' and 'scientific' knowledge in agricultural development.The Geo-graphical Journal.2005,171(2):112-124.
28孙莉莉,陈爱莲,张红莉.台风灾害避灾行为及影响因素的信效度分析.自然灾害学报.2009,18(5)：127-130.
29孔祥斌,刘灵伟,秦静.基于农户土地利用行为的北京大兴区耕地质量评价.地理学报.2008,63(8)：856-868.
30张纯,柴彦威,李昌霞.北京城市老年人的口常活动路径及其时空特征.地域研究与开发.2007,26(4)：116-120.
31 Hugo G J. Immigration responses to global change in Asia:a review. Geographical Research. 2006,44(2):155-172.
32伍麟.当代环境心理学研究的任务与走向.西北师大学报(社会科学版),2006,43(3)：37-42.
33柴彦威,沈洁.基于活动分析法的人类空间行为研究.地理科学,2008,28(5)：594-600.
34 Bell P A, Fisher J D, Baum A. Environmental Psychology. (Fifth edition) London, Thomoson Learning.2001.(朱建军,吴建平译.环境心理学.北京.中国人民大学出版社.2009.)
35 Rinner C, Bird M. Evaluating community engagement through argumentation maps a public participation GIS case study. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design.2009,36(3): 588-601.
36陈铭.行为心理与组团绿地布局.城市规划,91,4：14-17.
37 Foltete J C, Piombini A. Deviations in pedestrian itineraries in urban areas:a method to assess the role of environmental factors. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design..2010, 37(4):723-739.
38 Cascetta E, Russo F, Viola F A, Vitetta A, "A model of route perception in urban road net-works". Transportation Research B.2002,36:577-592.
39龙韬,柴彦威.北京市民郊区大型购物中心的利用特征：以北京金源时代购物中心为例.人文地理.2006,21(5)：117-123.
40王德,张照,蔡嘉璐.北京王府井大街消费行为的空间特征分析.人文地理.2009,24(3)：27-31.
41王茂军,张学霞,吴骏毅,高宜程.社区尺度认知地图扭曲的空间分析：基于首师大和北林大的个案研究.2009,24(3)：54-60.
42 Jenkins J M. Mental maps of tourists:a study of Coffs Harbour, NewSouth Wales. GeoJournal, 1993,29(3):233-241.
43蒋志杰,吴国清.旅游地空间意象分析：以江南水乡古镇为例.旅游学刊,2004,(2)：32-36.
44柴彦威.西方行为地理学的研究历程及最新进展.人文地理,2008,23(6)：1-6.
45王珊珊.国外环境心理学研究新进展.社会心理科学,2008,23(5),434-437.
46 Lee J.A Three-dimensional navigable data model to support emergency response in microspa-tial built-environments Annals of the Association of American Geographers.2007, 97(3),512- 529.
47孙峰华.关于行为地理学的几个基本问题.山东师大学报(自然科学版).1990,5(4)：94-96.
48王兴中.对城市社会-生活空间的本体解构.当代中国人文地理学研究.北京：商务印书馆.2009.
49张捷等.书法展厅观赏行为与作品评价的关系研究.中国书法.2007,12：108-112.
50柴彦威,赵莹.时间地理学研究最新进展.地理科学,2009,29(4)：594-600.
51朱玮,王德,Timmermans H多代理人系统在商业街消费者行为模拟中的应用：以上海南京东路为例.地理学报.2009,64(4)：445-455.
52罗玲玲,任巧华.环境心理学研究的国际进展与理论突破的方法论分析.建筑学报,2009,7,13-16.
53柴彦威,王茂军.日本消费者行为地理学研究进展.地理学报,2004,59：167-174.
54 Holahan C J, Dobrowolny M B. Cognitive and behavioral correlates of the spatial environment: an international analysis. Environment and Behavior.1978,10(3):317-335.
55 Nolan J M. An inconvenient truth" increases knowledge, concern, and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases. Environment and Behavior.2010,42(5):643-658.
36 Meinhold J L, Malkus A J. Adolescent environmental behaviors:can knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment and Behavior..2005,37(4):511-532.
57 Erilcsen C, Gill N. Bushfire and everyday life:Examining the awareness-action 'gap' in changing rural landscapes. Geoforum.2010,41 (2):814-825.
58 Jianhong Xia, Arrowsmitha C, Jackson M. The wayfinding process relationships between deci-sion making and landmark utility. Tourism Management.2008,29(3):445-457.
59 Austin J, Rohn D, Miller J A. Teaching pedestrian safety skills to children. Environment and Behavior.2009,36(3):365-385.
60柴彦威.行为地理学研究的方法论问题.地域研究与开发.2005,24(2)：1-5.
61廖仁静,李倩,张捷.都市历史街区真实性的游憩者感知研究：以南京夫子庙为例.旅游学刊,2009,24(1)：55-60.
62张宏梅,陆林,章锦河,感知距离对旅游目的地之形象影响的分析：以五大旅游客源城市游客对苏州周庄旅游形象的感知为例。人文地理,2008,23(6)：1-6.
63刘俊,陈丽坤.海滩管理制度对游客行为及态度的影响：以深圳大小梅沙为例.地理研究.2010,29(1)：68-78.
64梁旺兵.西安市外国游客旅游交往行为及交往效应研究.人文地理.2009,24(3)：93-96.
65唐晓云,闵庆文,吴忠军.社区型农业文化遗产旅游地居民感知及其影响：以广西桂林龙脊平安寨为例资源科学.2010,32(6)：1035-1041.
66汤茂林.我国人文地理学研究方法多样化问题.地理研究,2009,28(4)：865-882.
67张旺锋,尤凤.居住区意象空间研究及应用.西北师范大学学报(自然科学版).2010,46(3)：99-104.
68王爱平,周尚意,张姝明.关于社区地标景观感知和认同的研究.人文地理,2006,21(6)：124-128.
69云雅如,方修琦,田青.黑龙江省漠河县乡村人群对气候变化的感知方式与认知结果.地理科学.2009,29(5)：745-749.
70黎洁,李树茁.基于态度和认知的西部水源地农村居民类型与生态补偿接受意愿：以西安市周至县为例.资源科学.2010,32(8)：1505-1512.
71田谆君,张捷,史春云.城市广场休闲者空间行为特征研究：以无锡市太湖广场为例.人文地理.2009,24(3)：49-53.
72尹朝晖,吴硕贤,张红虎.家庭居住生活方式影响要素调查及分析：以珠三角地区为例.建筑学报.2007,(4)：10-13.
73李伯华,李星明,曾菊新.武汉市新洲区农户消费活动的空间特征研究.人文地理.2010,25(1)：89-93.
74郑群明,贺小荣,陈耿.农村居民闲暇生活特征研究：以湖南省为例.人文地理.2004,19(1)：17-21.
75 杨海龙,吕耀,焦雯裙.传统农业地区土地利用方式变化的驱动因子分析：基于贵州省从江县农户行为的实证研究.资源科学.2010,32(6)：1050-1056.
76王江萍.城市老年人居住方式研究.城市规划.2002,26(3)：53-55.
77郑春霞,陶伟.高校女性教职工日常休闲行为探析：以广州高校为例.人文地理.2007,22(3)：65-68.
78周晓红,龙婷.上海市低收入住房困难家庭居住生活行为的研究.建筑学报,2009,8：10-13.
79文强.从拄杖者行为探讨铁路客站的无障碍设计：拄杖者在北京南站的行为实验.建筑学报.2010,(10)：92-95.
80龙韬,柴彦威,忻俊.新型城市化地区居民城市公共空间认知与利用研究：以天津经济技术开发区为例.人文地理.2008,23(4)：17-22.
81张衍毓,王静,史衍玺.基于农户的耕地质量认识及其响应机制研究.资源科学.2006,28(2)：74-81.
82马骏驰,周锡元,李杰.计算机仿真方法在人群疏散影响参数研究中的应用.自然灾害学报.2009,18(6)：154-159.
83王德,朱玮,黄万枢.基于人流分析的上海世博会规划方案评价与调整.城市规划,2009,33(8)：26-32.
84黄潇婷.基于时间地理学的景区旅游者时空行为模式研究：以北京颐和园为例.旅游学刊.2009,24(6)：82-87.
85 Phelps A.Holiday Destination Image- The Problems of Assessment:An Example Developed in Menorca. Tourism Management,1986,7(3):168-180.
86 Seddighi H R.A L Tbeucbarous:A Model of Tourism Choice:a theoretical and empirical anal-ysis.Tourism Management,2002,23(2):475-487.
87 Nicolau J L, Francisco J M. The influence of distance and prices on the choice of tourist desti-nations:The moderating role of motivations. Tourism Management,2006,27(5):982-996.
88 Babin B J, Chebat J, Michon R. Perceived appropriateness and its effect on quality, affect and behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,2004,11:287-898.
89 Zube E H, Sell J L, Taylor J G. Landscape perception research:application and theory. Landscape Planning,1982,9:1-33.
90 Sevenant M, Antrop M. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the im-portance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy,2010 (27):827-842.
91 Tveit M, Ode A, Fry G,. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research.2006,31:229-255.
92 Tveit M.. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison be-tween groups:environmental and landscape change:addressing an interdisciplinary agen-da.Journal of Environmental Management.2009,90 (9):2882-2888.
93 Zhang Jie, Li X.HUANG ZM:An empirical approach to the relationships among aesthetic dimensions on Chinese calligraphy-with case stone inscriptions of Han Dynasty(206BC-220AD). In Gottesdiener H & Vilatte JC (ed):Culture and Communication-Proceedings of XIX Interna-tional Congress of International Association for Empirical Aesthetics. University of Avignon, France.2006.700-703
94 Walmsley D J, Jenkins J M. Tourism cognitive mapping of unfamiliar environments. Annals of Tourism Research.1992,19 (4):268-286.
95 MacKay K J, Couldwell C M. Using visitor-employed photography to investigate destination image. Journal of Travel Research.2004,42():390-396.
96 Nadeau J, Heslop L, O'Reilly N. Destination in a country image context. Annals of Tourism Research,2008,35(1):84-106.
97 O'Connor A, Zerger A, Itami, B. Geo-temporal tracking and analysis of tourist movement. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation,2005,69(1-2):135-150.
98 Mings R C, McHugh K E. The spatial configuration of travel to Yellowstone national park. Journal of Travel Research,1992,30(4):38-46.
99 Mings R C, McHugh K E. The spatial configuration of travel to Yellowstone national park. Journal of Travel Research,1992,30(4):38-46.
100 Lau G, McKercher B. Understanding tourist movement patterns in a destination:a GIS ap-proach. Tourism and Hospitality Research,2007,7(1):39-49.
101 Arentze T A, Timmermans H J P. Deriving Performance:Indicators from Models of Mul-tipurpose Shopping Behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,2001,8:325-334.
102 Boivin D J. Montreal's underground network:a study of the downtown Pedestrian System Tunnelling and Underground Space Techno logy.1991,6(1):83-91.
103 Arthur P, Passini R. Wayfinding:people, signs and architecture.New York:McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1992.
104 Talen E, Shah S. Neighborhood evaluation:using GIS-an exploratory study. Environment and Behavior.2007,39(5):583-615.
105朱建军,吴建平.生态环境心理学.北京：中央编译出版社.2009.
106林玉莲,胡正凡.环境心理学(第一版).北京：中国建筑工业出版社.2000.
107蒋志杰,张捷,韩国圣.旅游者认知地图综述.旅游学刊.2009,24(1)：77-85.
108 Lynch k. The image of the city. Cambridge:M.I.T Press.1960.
109Matthews M H. Cognitive Maps:A Comparison of Graphic and Iconic Techniques. Area,1984 .16(1):33-40.
110 Magafia, J Z. An empirical and interdisciplinary test of a theory of urban perception. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of California,1978.
111顾朝林,宋国臣.北京城市意象空间及构成要素研究.地理学报,2001,56(1)：64-74.
112 Solso R L. Cognitive psychology.(sixth edition) Pearson Education Inc.2001(何华译.认知心理学.南京：江苏教育出版社.2006)
113柴彦威,刘志林,李峥嵘.中国城市的时空间结构.北京：北京大学出版社.2002.
114宋泽方,周逸湖.大学校园规划与建筑设计.北京：中国建筑工业出版社.2006.
115王海蒙.山水园林环境.人文校园-南京大学浦口校区规划.华中建筑,2002,20(2)：76-78.
116黄学明.南京大学浦口校区规划与教学楼学生宿舍楼设计.建筑学报,1996,8：34-37.
117 Gravetter F J. Research methods for behavioral science. London. Thomason Learning(邓铸等译.行为科学研究方法.西安.陕西师范大学出版社.2005)
118 Stevens Q. The shape of urban experience:a reevaluation of Lynch's five elements. Environ- ment and Planning B:Planning and Design,2006,33(4):803-823.
119 Pocock D C D. Environmental perception. Tijdschrift voor Econ. en Soc. Geogra-fie.1973,64(4):251-257.
120 Pearce P L. Route maps:a study of travelers'perceptions of a section of countryside. Journal of Environmental Psychology,1981,(1):141-155.
121罗长海,杜思赞.高校户外活动场所规划中的女性主义视角.中国园林,2010,4：37-41.
1222祁黄雄,陈立章.杭州下沙高教东区学生行为时空特征研究.地理研究,2010,29(7)1281-1290.
123申思,薛露露,刘瑜.基于手绘草图的北京居民认知地图变形及因素分析.地理学报,2008,63(6)：625-634.
124 Kweon B S, Ellis C D, Lee S W.Large-Scale Environmental Knowledge:Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Reported and Objectively Measured Physical Environments. Environ-ment and Behavior.2006,38(1):72-91.
125 Golledge R G. Recent advances in human wayfinding and spatial cognition. Transactions of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communications Engineers (A) (Japan).2004, J87-A (1):3-12.
126 Holscher C,Buchner S J,Meilinger T.Adaptivity of wayfinding strategies in a multi-building ensemble:The effects of spatial structure, task requirements, and metric information. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2009,29 (2):208-219.
127 Blades M. The reliability of data collected from sketch maps. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology.1990,10(4):327-339.
128 Linden M, Sheehy N. Comparison of a verbal questionnaire and map in eliciting environ-mental perceptions Environment and Behavior.2004,36(1):32-40.
129 Billinghurst M, Weghorst S.The use of sketch maps to measure cognitive maps of virtual en-vironments. In:Proceedings of virtual reality annual international syposium (VRAIS '95).1995,40-47.
130 Coluccia E, Iosue G, Brandimonte M A.The relationship between map drawing and spatial orientation abilities:A study of gender differences.Journal of Environmental Psychology.2007,27 (4):135-144.
131王保进.英文视窗版spss与行为科学研究.北京：北京大学出版社.2007.
132赵鹏,刘捷,付玥.北京五类人群体闲方式的比较与分析.旅游学刊.2006,21(12)：17-21.
133南京市夫子庙地区管理委员会.夫子庙秦淮风光带建设与发展的回顾和展望.夫子庙秦淮风光带建设与发展论坛论文集(未发表).
134郭玉林.略论夫子庙地区旅游资源的整合.夫子庙秦淮风光带建设与发展论坛论文集(未发表).
135廖仁静,李倩,张捷.都市历史街区真实性的游憩者感知研究：以南京夫子庙为例.旅游学刊,2009,24(1)：55-60.
136王珉.南京湖南路与夫子庙商业街的商业模式比较及对策研究.现代城市研究.2008,4：53-60.
137国家质量技术监督局,中华人民共和国建设部.风景名胜区规划规范.北京：中国建筑工业出版社.1999.
138金平斌,郎富平.大学生旅游行为特征分析：以杭州市高校为例.旅游学刊.2004,19(4)：19-22.
139王艳,张捷,史春云.基于公众媒介信息的水乡古镇景观意象研究.北京的外国语大学学报(旅游版).2007,9：1-8.