請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101888完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 劉仲恩 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chung-En Liu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 徐梁育 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Liang-Yu Hsu | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-03-05T16:29:33Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-03-20 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-03-05 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-02-09 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 林宗弘、蕭新煌、許耿銘（2018)。邁向世界風險社會？台灣民眾的社會資本、風險感知與風險因應行為。調查研究-方法與應用，(40)，127-166。https://doi.org/10.7014/SRMA.2018090003
黃毅志（2003）。「臺灣地區新職業聲望與社經地位量表」之建構與評估：社會科學與教育社會學研究本土化。教育研究集刊，(49:4)，1-31。https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200312_(49-4).0001 吳柏賢（2020)。老舊石化工業設施的風險性與地方感知：以高雄市大社石化工業區為例。﹝碩士論文。國立政治大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/gbrafk。 張家芸（2024)。環境風險知覺對環境行為的影響。﹝碩士論文。逢甲大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/d5vp58。 李致穎（2022)。臺灣民眾對能源政策偏好因素之探討。﹝碩士論文。國立臺北大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5tv8ka。 呂芯柔（2022)。親自然經驗與利環境行為：城鄉差異〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/1.6342/NTU2230314 施奕任（2012)。全球暖化與台灣的氣候政治-以《溫室氣體減量法》為例。﹝博士論文。國立政治大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/r7k683。 楊欣諭（2013)。自我效能在台灣民眾環境關切與環境行為中扮演的角色。﹝碩士論文。國立臺灣大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/95wb9f。 郭芝宇（2013)。台灣人民對氣候變遷的認知與反應。﹝碩士論文。國立臺灣海洋大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u7ppt3。 左金蘭（2013)。環境風險認知與環境態度、環境行為之研究─以臺灣成年民眾為例。﹝碩士論文。元智大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/43ax4m。 陳郁安、謝雨生（2016)。臺灣民眾社經地位對環境行為的影響。調查研究-方法與應用，(35)，7-45。https://doi.org/1.714/SRMA.20164001 蔣亞庭（2014)。個人環境行為經濟與非經濟因素之分析。﹝碩士論文。國立中央大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/j4nv79。 丁太平. (2019). 环境治理结构与风险认知: 两岸民众环保行动的比较。台湾研究集刊, (1), 85-96. 盧宛如（2017)。誰在購買有機蔬果？經濟、文化資本與機會結構。﹝碩士論文。國立臺北大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/99e937。 柯文凱（2015)。環境行為的決定因素。﹝碩士論文。嶺東科技大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9y492p。 鄭雅方（2015)。天有不測風雨，誰能自求多福？天然災害風險知覺與防備行為之研究。﹝碩士論文。國立臺北大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4mukpm。 黃建勲、黃建勳 (2016)。瞭解等於行動？檢驗臺灣民眾環境知識、友善環境價值及節能減碳行為。社會研究學報，2:1 2016.4[民105.4]，59-79。 朱瑞玲、楊淑雯（2013)。臺灣民眾的利環境態度與行為：價值觀與罪感的影響。環境教育研究，9(2)，91-129。https://doi.org/1.6555/JEER.9.2.091 原承君、林翠芳. (2016). 我國民眾對環境公共財及環境政策偏好之探討。臺北大學財政學系學位論文，1-62。 林宗弘、許耿銘、蕭新煌（2024)。減碳社會學：台灣淨零轉型的民意與挑戰。巨流圖書。 Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/1.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self‐efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., & Jeffries, C. (2015). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 5(10), 891–896. Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and behavior, 24(5), 62–616. https://doi.org/1.1177/0013916592245002 Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Incentives, morality, or habit? Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environment and behavior, 35(2), 264–285. https://doi.org/1.1177/0013916502250134 Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local environment, 4(3), 257–278. https://doi.org/1.1080/13549839908725599 Bord, R. J., O’Connor, R. E., & Fisher, A. (1998). The attitude-behavior relationship: Contributions from environmental psychology. American Psychologist, 53(2), 122–13. Broomell, S. B., Kane, P. B., and Read, D. (2015). What message strategies motivate climate change mitigation? Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 491–54. Casaló, L. V., Escario, J. J., & Ibáñez, Z. V. (2019). Analyzing differences between different types of pro-environmental behaviors: Do attitude intensity and type of attitude matter? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 56–64. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.024 Chen, M. F., & Tung, P. J. (2014). Developing an extended theory of planned behavior model to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International journal of hospitality management, 36, 221–23. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006 Curtis, J., McCoy, D., & Aravena, C. (2018). Heating system upgrades: The role of knowledge, socio-demographics, building attributes, and energy infrastructure. Energy policy, 120, 183–196. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.036 Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–48. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7 Diekmann, A., & Preisendörfer, P. (2003). Green and greenback: The behavioral effects of environmental attitudes in low-cost and high-cost situations. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 441–472. https://doi.org/1.1177/1434631315402 Fairbrother, M. (2016). Trust and public support for environmental protection in diverse national contexts. Sociological Science, 3, 359–382. https://doi.org/1.15195/v3.a17 Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and behavior, 27(5), 699–718. https://doi.org/1.1177/0013916595275005 Hall, M. P., Lewis Jr, N. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2018). Believing in climate change, but not behaving sustainably: Evidence from a one-year longitudinal study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 55–62. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jenvp.2018.03.001 Helferich, M., Thøgersen, J., & Bergquist, M. (2023). Direct and mediated impacts of social norms on pro-environmental behavior. Global Environmental Change, 80, 1268. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102680 Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/1.1080/00958964.1987.9943482 Hollingshead, A. (1965). Two-factor index of social position. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/1.1038/nclimate2943 Hsu, L. Y. A., & Chang, J. H. (2025). How did pro-environmental attitude, culture, and trust influence climate policy through different actions? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Psychology (ICEP 2025): Addressing environmental crisis in the face of geopolitical challenges (pp. xx–xx). Environmental Psychology Research Center, Mykolas Romeris University. Hungerford, H. R., Peyton, R. B., & Wilke, R. J. (1985). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/1.1080/00958964.1983.9942655 Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (1996). Environmental problems and human behavior (pp. 25–252). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 29. https://doi.org/1.1037/a0023566 Gilligan, C. (1982). The contribution of women's thought to developmental theory: The elimination of sex bias in moral development research and education. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/1.1007/BF02291575 Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2003). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value–belief–norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2150–217. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value‐belief‐norm model in explaining conservation behavior 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 215–217. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally, and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–26. https://doi.org/1.1080/1354622214541 Kulin, J., & Johansson Sevä, I. (2021). Whom do you trust? How trust in partial and impartial government institutions influences climate policy attitudes. Climate Policy, 21(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/1.1080/14693062.202.1792822 Lange, F., & Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92–10. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping, Springer Publishing Company. Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C. Y., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 114–12. https://doi.org/1.1038/nclimate2728 Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2(2), 353–383. Lin, S. P. (2013). The gap between global issues and personal behaviors: Pro-environmental behaviors of citizens toward climate change in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 773–783. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11027-012-9387-1 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, 11323. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323 Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured? Development and validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS). Human Ecology, 41(6), 95–914. https://doi.org/1.1007/s10745-013-9614-8 Hadler, M., Fairbrother, M., González, R., Johansson Sevä, I., Liao, P. S., Méndez Lago, M., & Schweighart, M. (2024). Environmentalism around the globe. An introduction to the 2020 ISSP environment module and selected country-level findings. International Journal of Sociology, 54(5-6), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2024.2419695 McAdams, D. P. (2013). The positive psychology of adult generativity: Caring for the next generation and constructing a redemptive life. In Positive psychology (pp. 191–25). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/1.1007/978-1-4614-7282-7_13 McAndrew, F. T. (1993). Environmental Psychology. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. McDonald, R. I., Chai, H. Y., & Newell, B. R. (2015). Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 109–118. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jenvp.2015.1.003 Meyer, A. (2015). Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecological economics, 116, 108–121. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.018 Miller, L. B., & Rice, R. E. (2024). (Mis) matched direct and moderating relationships among pro-environmental attitudes, environmental efficacy, and pro-environmental behaviors across and within 11 countries. Plos one, 19(6), e34945. https://doi.org/1.1371/journal.pone.0304945 Mills, B., & Schleich, J. (2012). Residential energy-efficient technology adoption, energy conservation, knowledge, and attitudes: An analysis of European countries. Energy Policy, 49, 616–628. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.008 Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3 Monroe, A. D. (1979). Consistency between public preferences and national policy decisions. American Politics Quarterly, 7(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/1.1177/1532673X7900700101 Sarkis, J., González-Torre, P., & Adenso-Díaz, B. (2010). Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jom.2009.1.001 Setiawan, B., Afiff, A. Z., & Heruwasto, I. (2020). Integrating the theory of planned behavior with norm activation in a pro-environmental context. Social Marketing Quarterly, 26(3), 244–258. https://doi.org/1.1177/1524500420949220 Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5 Stern, P. C. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. American Psychologist, 47(10), 1224. https://doi.org/1.137/003-066X.47.1.1224 Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/1.1111/0022-4537.00175 Steg, L. (2018). Limiting climate change requires research on climate action. Nature Climate Change, 8(9), 759–761. https://doi.org/1.1038/s41558-018-0269-8 Steg, L., & Nordlund, A. (2018). Theories to explain environmental behaviour. Environmental Psychology: an introduction, 217–227. https://doi.org/1.1002/9781119241072.ch22 Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). Environmental-Schwartz Value Survey (E-SVS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/1.137/t78166-000 Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/1.116/j.jenvp.2008.1.04 Tien, Y., Huang, J. (2023). Gender Differences in Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions, Environmental Values, Tolerance of Environmental Protection Cost, and Confidence in Citizen Participation in Environmental Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Taiwan. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 32(5), 4813–4823. https://doi.org/1.15244/pjoes/168851 Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Addressing climate change: Determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to support policy measures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.001 Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 44. https://doi.org/1.1037/a0018963 Trotta, G. (2018). Factors affecting energy-saving behaviours and energy efficiency investments in British households. Energy policy, 114, 529–539. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.042 Tsai, C. C., Li, X., & Wu, W. N. (2021). Explaining citizens’ pro‐environmental behaviours in public and private spheres: The mediating role of willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 80(3), 510–538. https://doi.org/1.1111/1467-850.12504 United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Emissions gap report 2024: No more hot air... please! United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024 Watkins, M. W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/1.1177/0095798418771807 Wiernik, B. M., Dilchert, S., and Ones, D. S. (2016). Age and employee green behaviors: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 194. https://doi.org/1.3389/fpsyg.2016.00194 Wu, Chyi-In (2022). 2020 Taiwan Social Change Survey (Round 8, Year 1): Environment (C0369_2) [Data file]. Survey Research Data Archive, Academia Sinica. https://doi.org/1.6141/TW-SRDA-C0369_2-2 Yu, T. K., Lavallee, J. P., Di Giusto, B., Chang, I. C., & Yu, T. Y. (2020). Risk Perception and response toward climate change for higher education students in Taiwan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 24749–24759. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11356-019-07450-7 Zheng, D., Shen, J., Li, R., Jian, B., Zeng, J., Mao, Y., ... and Qu, M. (2022). Understanding the key factors determining rural domestic waste treatment behavior in China: A meta-analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(8), 1076–1109. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11356-021-17999-x Zulkepeli, L., Fauzi, M. A., Mohd Suki, N., Ahmad, M. H., Wider, W., & Rahamaddulla, S. R. (2024). Pro-environmental behavior and the theory of planned behavior: a state of the art science mapping. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(6), 1415–1433. https://doi.org/1.1108/MEQ-10-2023-0361 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101888 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在隨著全球氣候危機加劇，台灣及各國紛紛邁向 2050 淨零排放目標，公民的有效參與已成為民主國家推動永續轉型的重要基石。然而，過去環境心理學研究多將「親環境行為」（PEB）視為單一整體的概念，忽略了不同行動背後迥異的驅動機制，導致「環保意識」與「實際行動」之間長期存在落差。為打破這種單一論述，本研究主張不同類型的親環境行為是受不同動機驅動的獨立建構。
本研究透過實證分析，將台灣民眾的環境行動拆解為五大維度：日常習慣、政策支持、支付意願、社區行動與公共行動。並運用調整後的「計畫行為理論」（TPB）與「價值—信念—規範」（VBN）整合模型，深入探討社會人口背景、心理認知、社會規範及情境因素如何共同形塑行為選擇。研究發現，心理距離在環境參與中扮演決定性角色：台灣民眾對廢棄物處理等即時、具體的環境關懷，驅動力遠大於抽象的氣候風險。此外，本研究揭示了台灣公民社會中獨特的「信任悖論」：政府信任雖能有效促進政策支持與財務貢獻等體制內行為，但對政府的不信任並不導致政治冷漠，反而激發了以「警覺公民」為特徵的基層自發動員，呈現出一種繞過國家體制、強調地方能動性的參與路徑。最後，透過典型相關分析（CCA），本研究進一步歸納出四種台灣環境公民模式：覺醒公民（受規範驅動）、社區中心參與者（受地方感與不信任驅動）、公領域動員者（受資源與災害經驗驅動）與青年行動家（受教育與體制外抗爭驅動）。這些發現不僅在理論上拆分了親環境行為的單一面向，實務上有助於根據不同群體的心理與社會特徵，引導民眾採取更具成效的環境行動，加速社會整體的氣候轉型。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | As global climate crises intensify and nations—including Taiwan—strive toward ambitious 2050 Net Zero targets, mobilizing effective public action has become a cornerstone of sustainable development. The success of these democratic transitions depends on a nuanced understanding of how citizens engage with environmental issues; however, past research often treats pro-environmental behavior (PEB) as a monolithic concept, which contributes to a persistent gap between environmental awareness and actual action.
This study addresses this gap by disaggregating PEB in Taiwan into five empirically distinct constructs: Daily Habits, Policy Support, Willingness to Pay, Community Action, and Public Action. Using an adjusted TPB-VBN framework, we examine how socio-demographic, psychological, and contextual factors interact to influence these diverse modes of participation. Our analysis reveals that psychological distance plays a decisive role in engagement, with immediate concerns like waste management carrying significantly more weight than abstract climate risks. Furthermore, we identify a unique "Trust Paradox" in Taiwan’s civil society. While institutional trust fosters state-aligned support and financial sacrifice, distrust in government does not lead to apathy but instead fuels grassroots mobilization through the "Vigilant Citizen" pathway. Finally, by synthesizing these factors via Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA), this research establishes a typology of four environmental actor patterns: the Awakened Citizen, the Community-Centric Actor, the Public-Sphere Mobilizer, and the Youth Activist. These findings provide a targeted roadmap for policy interventions, guiding individuals toward more impactful environmental engagement based on their specific psychological and social characteristics. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-03-05T16:29:33Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-03-05T16:29:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 i
誌謝 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstracts iv Table of Contents vi List of Tables vii List of Figures vii Introduction 1 Literature Review 4 Theories of Pro-Environmental Behaviors 4 The Application of the Framework 7 The Heterogeneity of Pro-Environmental Behaviors 15 The Adoption of Different Pro-Environmental Behaviors 17 Research Questions 20 Data and Methods 21 Data Description 21 Statistical Methods 23 Findings 26 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 26 Reliability and Validity Analysis 28 Correlation Analysis 30 Lasso Regression 36 Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) 45 Discussion 51 The Multidimensional Construct of PEB in Taiwan 51 Key Drivers in Different Pro-environmental Behaviors 52 The Four Faces of Taiwanese Environmentalism 56 Limitations and Future Research 60 Conclusion 63 References 65 Appendix 74 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 親環境行為 | - |
| dc.subject | 價值-信念-規範理論 | - |
| dc.subject | 計畫行為理論 | - |
| dc.subject | 環境公民側寫 | - |
| dc.subject | Pro-Environmental Behavior | - |
| dc.subject | TPB-VBN Framework | - |
| dc.subject | Environmental Actor Profiles | - |
| dc.title | 影響多元環境行動的因素：基於台灣社會變遷調查的多變量分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Determinants of Plural Environmental Actions: A Multivariate Analysis Based on the Taiwan Social Change Survey | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林宗弘;廖昱凱 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Thung-Hong Lin ;Yu-Kai Liao | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 親環境行為,價值-信念-規範理論計畫行為理論環境公民側寫 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Pro-Environmental Behavior,TPB-VBN FrameworkEnvironmental Actor Profiles | en |
| dc.relation.page | 78 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600747 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-02-10 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 氣候變遷與永續發展國際學位學程 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2026-03-20 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 氣候變遷與永續發展國際學位學程(含碩士班、博士班) | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-1.pdf | 1.86 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。