請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87281完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 郭蕙如 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Hui-Ju Kuo | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 呂芯柔 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Hsin-Jou Lu | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-05-18T16:48:53Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2023-05-11 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2023-02-17 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 文化部（2022）。社區營造及村落文化發展計畫(111-116年)。檢自：https://www.moc.gov.tw/content_268.html
內政部戶政司（2020）。內政統計通報。檢自：https://ws.moi.gov.tw/001/Upload/OldFile/news_file/109%E5%B9%B4%E7%AC%AC26%E9%80%B1%E5%85%A7%E6%94%BF%E7%B5%B1%E8%A8%88%E9%80%9A%E5%A0%B1_%E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%A3%E9%81%B7%E5%BE%99%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E5%A2%9E%E5%8A%A0.pdf 內政部營建署（2020）。山林開放政策與5大政策主軸。檢自：https://www.cpami.gov.tw/%E4%B8%BB%E9%A1%8C%E5%A0%B1%E5%B0%8E/%E5%B0%88%E9%A1%8C%E5%A0%B1%E5%B0%8E/183-%E5%B0%88%E9%A1%8C%E5%A0%B1%E5%B0%8E/35440-%E5%B1%B1%E6%9E%97%E9%96%8B%E6%94%BE%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96%E6%8E%A8%E5%8B%95%E7%8F%BE%E6%B3%81%E8%88%87%E5%B1%95%E6%9C%9B.html 內政部營建署（2021）。國家公園及國家自然公園之經營管理。檢自：https://www.cpami.gov.tw/filesys/file/EMMA/03-109.pdf 行政院莫拉克風災重建委員會（2014）。統計概覽。檢自：https://morakotdatabase.nstm.gov.tw/88flood.www.gov.tw/work.html 行政院環保署（2009）。社區環保行動網。檢自：https://www.epa.gov.tw/communitybetter/1DEA5DC70FA6A1FD 行政院環保署（2022）。一次性產品源頭減量宣傳網。檢自：https://hwms.epa.gov.tw/dispPageBox/onceOff/onceOffList.aspx?ddsPageID=EPATWH1 行政院經濟建設委員會（2004）。台灣二十一世紀議程國家永續發展願景與策略綱領。檢自：https://research.ncnu.edu.tw/proj5/%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99%E5%BA%AB/%E4%BA%8C%E3%80%81%E7%9B%B8%E9%97%9C%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8A/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E4%BA%8C%E5%8D%81%E4%B8%80%E4%B8%96%E7%B4%80%E8%AD%B0%E7%A8%8B%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E6%B0%B8%E7%BA%8C%E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E9%A1%98%E6%99%AF%E8%88%87%E7%AD%96%E7%95%A5%E7%B6%B1%E9%A0%98.pdf 全國法規資料庫（2022）。都市計畫法。檢自：https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0070001 科技部、中央研究院環境變遷研究中心、交通部中央氣象局、臺灣師範大學地球科學系、國家災害防救科技中心（2021）。IPCC氣候變遷第六次評估報告之科學重點摘錄與臺灣氣候變遷評析更新報告。檢自：https://tccip.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/km_abstract_one.aspx?kid=20210810134743 臺北市政府工務局（2019）。美麗台北 綠化生活。檢自：https://pwd.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=CA1A400257B97384&sms=122B365AA0766534&s=EF8257B98D14ACD1 經濟部水利署（2010）。水利統計簡訊。檢自：https://www-ws.wra.gov.tw/001/Upload/oldFile/media/15960/f-temp-attachment-042810192671.pdf 吳以健、陳裕星（2022）。氣候變遷下的水稻災害與因應策略。檢自：https://www.agriharvest.tw/archives/73860 曾怡陵（2022）。乾旱、高溫的氣候下 米還好嗎？檢自：https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/167370/ 報導者（2018）。六輕營運20年：科學戰爭下的環境難民。檢自：https://www.twreporter.org/topics/fpc-sixth-naphtha-cracker-20-years 王維菁、馬綺韓、陳釗偉（2013）。網際網路時代的社會運動：以台灣環境運動組織為例。資訊社會研究， 25，1-22。 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。 李丁讚、林文源(2003)。社會力的轉化: 台灣環保抗爭的組織技術。台灣社會研究季刊。(52)，57-119。 吳崇旗、王偉琴、邱馨凰（2010）。登山健行者早期戶外經驗與環境態度之關係。大專體育學刊，12(1)， 21-29。 許世璋（2005）。影響環境行動者養成的重要生命經驗研究-著重於城鄉間與世代間之比較。科學教育學刊，13(4)，441-463。 侯佩君，杜素豪，廖培珊，洪永泰、章英華（2008）。臺灣鄉鎮市區類型之研究：「臺灣社會變遷基本調查」第五期計畫之抽樣分層效果分析。調查研究-方法與應用，23， 7-32。 夏鑄九（2007）做為社會動力的社區與城市：全球化下對社區營造的一點理論上的思考，臺灣社會研究季刊，65，227-247。 蔣志軒（2021）。探討臺灣中南部高中生自然經驗，社會規範及自然連結對環境行為影響。國立臺中教育科技大學科學教育與應用學系研究所學位論文，1-105。 董貞吟、黃乾全、何文雀、伍連女＆張桂禎（1998）。國小學童環境觀與環境經驗之調查研究-臺灣地區城鄉之比較。師大學報：科學教育類，43(2)，55-73。 何明修（2001）。台灣環境運動的開端：專家學者、黨外、草根 (1980-1986)。台灣社會學，2，97-162。 郭彰仁、郭瑞坤、侯錦雄、林建堯（2010）。都市與非都市計畫區社區居民參與環境改造行為模式之比較研究-以台灣南部為例。都市與計劃，37(4)，393-431。 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 (2016)：7-45。 游書豪、蔡執仲、鄭蕙玲（2016）。國中生選購瓶裝水所展現親環境行為之研究。環境教育研究，12(2)：7-33。 Anderson, D. J., & Krettenauer, T. (2021). Connectedness to nature and pro-environmental behaviour from early adolescence to adulthood: A comparison of urban and rural canada. Sustainability, 13(7), 3655. Agresti, A. (1996) An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey. Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and behavior, 24(5), 602-616. Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011). Citizens, consumers and sustainability:(Re) Framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1224-1233. Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of environmental education, 29(3), 11-21. Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C. P., Ruff, A., Vinke, K., Liu, Z., ... & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability, 3(4), 269-276. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. De Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and planning A, 35(10), 1717-1731. Diekmann, A., & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and behavior, 31(4), 540-549. Fang, S. C. (2021). The Pro-Environmental Behavior Patterns of College Students Adapting to Climate Change. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(5), 700-715. Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European sociological review, 26(2), 219-234. Fiorino, D. J. (2010). Sustainability as a conceptual focus for public administration. Public administration review, 70, s78-s88. Harman, H.H. (1976) Modern Factor Analysis. 3rd Edition, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Hendee, J. C. (1969). Rural-urban differences reflected in outdoor recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 1(4), 333-341. Hungerford, H. R., & Peyton, R. B. (1977). A Paradigm of Environmental Action. IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Kuo, H. J., & Fu, Y. C. (2020). Global Convergence and National Disparities in the Structure of Environmental Attitudes and Their Linkage to Pro-Environmental Behaviours. Environmental Values, 29(3), 261-291. 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), 239-260. Lee, J., Park, B. J., Tsunetsugu, Y., Ohira, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2011). Effect of forest bathing on physiological and psychological responses in young Japanese male subjects. Public health, 125(2), 93-100. 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(6), 773-783. Lu, H., Zhang, W., Diao, B., Liu, Y., Chen, H., Long, R., & Cai, S. (2021). The progress and trend of pro-environmental behavior research: a bibliometrics-based visualization analysis. Current Psychology, 1-21. Maggiolino, A., Landi, V., Bartolomeo, N., Bernabucci, U., Santus, E., Bragaglio, A., & De Palo, P. (2022). Effect of Heat Waves on Some Italian Brown Swiss Dairy Cows' Production Patterns. Frontiers in Animal Science. Moore (2022, March 12). Death toll from floods reaches 22 as nationwide clean-up continues. Brisbane Times. Petkevitšjus, I. (2014). Designing nature-based landscape services for optimum wellness. Qing, W., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Han, J., & Li, C. (2022). How Does Urbanization Affect Citizens’ Pro-Environment Behavior? A Hierarchical Analysis of the Chinese General Social Survey. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 623. Russ, A., Peters, S. J., E. Krasny, M., & Stedman, R. C. (2015). Development of ecological place meaning in New York City. The Journal of Environmental Education, 46(2), 73-93. Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(1), 31-42. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 65-84. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 407-424. Suki, N. M. (2013). Young consumer ecological behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, healthy food, and healthy way of life with the moderation of gender and age. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. Situmorang, R. O. P., Liang, T. C., & Chang, S. C. (2020). The difference of knowledge and behavior of college students on plastic waste problems. Sustainability, 12(19), 7851. Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4), 20-24. Teisl, M. F., & O'Brien, K. (2003). Who cares and who acts? Outdoor recreationists exhibit different levels of environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 506-522. Larson, L. R., Cooper, C. B., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., & Gagnon, R. J. (2018). Place-based pathways to proenvironmental behavior: Empirical evidence for a conservation–recreation model. Society & Natural Resources, 31(8), 871-891. Lee, T. H., & Jan, F. H. (2015). The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based tourists. Environmental Management, 56(1), 193-208. Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers. Marketing intelligence & planning. Li, D., & Chen, J. (2015). Significant life experiences on the formation of environmental action among Chinese college students. Environmental Education Research, 21(4), 612-630. OCHA. (2022). KZN flood victims to get temporary accommodation by weekend. Palmer, M., Larkin, M., De Visser, R., & Fadden, G. (2010). Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative research in psychology, 7(2), 99-121. Wang, C. M., & Woods, M. (2013). The role of Guanxi in rural social movements: Two case studies from Taiwan. Journal of Agrarian Change, 13(2), 197-212. Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Yu, T. K., Lavallee, J. P., Di Giusto, B., Chang, I., & Yu, T. Y. (2020). Risk perception and response toward climate change for higher education students in Taiwan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(20), 24749-24759. Yu, T. Y., Yu, T. K., & Chao, C. M. (2017). Understanding Taiwanese undergraduate students’ pro-environmental behavioral intention towards green products in the fight against climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 390-402. Zhang, J. L., Zhang, C. N., Li, E. C., Jin, M. M., Huang, M. X., Cui, W., ... & Shi, Y. J. (2019). Triphenyltin exposure affects mating behaviors and attractiveness to females during mating in male guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 169, 76-84. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87281 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 極端氣候帶來的環境變化一再地提醒我們必須正視人類與自然環境失衡的互動關係。有別於過往研究大多探討. 民眾的人口特徵、環境態度及價值觀如何影響個人從事利環境行為，本研究試圖了解臺灣民眾的親自然經驗是否與利環境行為有正向關聯，以回應近年來國際社會對於維護自然生態系統的重視。運用2020年「臺灣社會變遷基本調查計畫」第八期第一次環境組的問卷資料，本研究首先描繪臺灣民眾的利環境行為類型，接著探討民眾的親自然經驗頻率與利環境行為的關聯，最後進一步釐清民眾居住地的都市化程度與城鄉差異是否對其關聯造成影響而呈現不同的利環境行為樣貌。
藉由因素分析，本研究建置臺灣民眾在「社區維護」、「飲食減塑」、「社會運動」、「資源友善」等四種利環境行為量表，並透過集群分析將臺灣民眾的利環境區分為「個人環保」（43%）、「社區環保」（11%）、「環保運動」（14%）、「不回收自利」（14%）與「不減塑自利」（18%）等五種行為類型。隨後考量民眾的人口特徵、環境態度、價值觀、城鄉居住地差異進行多類別邏輯迴歸，結果發現，民眾的親自然經驗確實與其利環境行為有關。與「不回收自利型」的民眾相比，親自然經驗的頻率越高，分別有高於50%、40%和25%的機率分別屬於「環保運動型」、「社區環保型」及「個人環保型」。由居住地的差異可發現，居住於都市化程度較低的民眾有較高機率屬於「社區環保型」的民眾，反之則為「環保運動型」。綜言之，無論居住於城市或鄉村，臺灣民眾擁有越高頻率的親自然經驗，從事利環境行為的機率也越高，而本研究更近一步發現這兩者間的關係仍有城鄉差異，不同都市化程度的民眾，則可能表現出不同面貌的利環境行為。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In recent times, more and more extreme weather events have occurred. Therefore, individual pro-environmental behavior plays a key role in reducing vulnerability to climate change. Most of the studies about pro-environmental behavior focus on individual demography characteristics, environmental attitudes and values. In order to respond to the concern of the ecosystem degradation, this study draws on data from the Survey of Taiwan Social Change in 2020 by Survey Research Center of Academia Sinica investigating the relationship between individual natural experience and pro-environmental behavior.
First, an exploratory factor analysis helps explore four latent factors of Taiwanese pro-environmental behaviors: social movement, waste reduction, disposable-utensils reduction and community-based environmental protection. Further cluster analyses on factor indexes identifies the typology of pro-environmental behaviors includes: individual pro-environmental behavior (43%), community-based pro-environmental behavior (11%), public pro-environmental behavior (14%), environmental behavior of non-recycling (14%) and environmental behavior of disposable-utensils using (18%). Last, take the individual demography characteristics, environmental attitudes and values in consideration, regression analyses reveal that the association between individual pro-environmental behaviors and natural experiences. Compared with the people who have environmental behavior of non-recycling, the more natural experiences the people own, the more chances the people belong to the type of public pro-environmental behavior (50%), community-based pro-environmental behavior (40%) and individual pro-environmental behavior (25%). That is to say, urban and rural residents’ natural experience are both associated with their pro-environmental behavior. In terms of urban-rural differences in pro-environmental behavior, this study reveals that urban residents tend to belong to the type of public pro-environmental behavior. Most of the members in the type of community-based pro-environmental behavior are consisted of rural residents. In general, people’s pro-environmental behavior is associated with their natural experiences. There is an urban-rural difference in the residents’ pro-environmental behavior. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-05-18T16:48:53Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-05-18T16:48:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 i
謝 誌 ii 摘 要 iii Abstract iv 目 錄 vi 圖目錄 vii 表目錄 vii 第一章、緒論 1 第一節、研究背景與動機 1 第二節、研究目的與問題 3 第二章、文獻回顧 6 第一節、多元的利環境行為 6 第二節、親自然經驗與利環境行為 9 第三節、利環境行為與人口特徵 13 第三章、資料與方法 16 第一節、資料來源與測量變項 16 第二節、分析方法與策略 21 第四章、研究結果 25 第一節、樣本特徵描述性統計 25 第二節、臺灣民眾的利環境行為類型 28 第三節、親自然經驗與利環境行為的關係 39 第五章、結論與建議 52 第一節、臺灣民眾的利環境行為類型 52 第二節、親自然經驗與臺灣民眾的利環境行為 57 第三節、未來研究與建議 59 參考文獻 61 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.title | 親自然經驗與利環境行為：城鄉差異 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Association between Natural Experience and Pro-Environmental Behavior : Rural–Urban Differences | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 111-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 石曜合;郭士筠 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Yau-Huo Shr;Shih-Yun Kuo | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 利環境行為,親自然經驗,城鄉差異,探索性因素分析,集群分析,多類別邏輯迴歸, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | pro-environmental behavior,natural experience,urban-rural difference,exploratory factor analysis,cluster analysis,multinomial logistic regression, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 66 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202300314 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2023-02-18 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-111-1.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用（校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務） | 1.63 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。