請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/30635完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 高淑貴(Shu-Kwei Kao) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ta-Fong Sung | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 宋大峯 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T02:10:48Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2007-07-03 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2007-07-03 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2007-06-26 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
王俊秀，2001，「環境社會學的想像」，台北：巨流出版社。 行政院環境保護署，http://www.epa.gov.tw/main/index.asp，2004 01 07，2005 08 21，2006 12 27擷取。 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。 希臘文教室 http://a2z.fhl.net/bible/greek/greek.html ，2002 01 03，2007 05 20擷取。 林清山，1984，「線性結構(LISREL)電腦程式的理論與應用」，測驗年刊（31）：149-164。 林新沛、蔡英媛，1997，「環境觀念與環境行為」，應用心理學報（6）：1-22。 林新沛、蔡英媛，1998，「價值觀與環境議題陳述方式對環境行為與意願之作用」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，國立中山大學公共事務研究所。 邱皓政，2003，結構方程式－LISREL 的理論、技術與應用，台北：雙葉出版社。 姚一葦，1991，「論知覺上篇」，藝術評論（3）：9-32。台北：國立藝術學院。 姚一葦，1992，「論知覺下篇」，藝術評論（4）：9-32。台北：國立藝術學院。 徐磊青、楊公俠，2002，環境心理學，頁16-23。上海：同濟大學出版社。 教育部，http://www.edu.tw/，2006 12 27擷取。 陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵，2004，多變量分析方法－統計軟體應用，台北：五南出版社。 陳來紅，1995，生活者主張（17）：1-2。台北：主婦聯盟。 章英華，2002，「台灣地區社會變遷基本調查第四期第二次調查計劃執行報告」，中央研究院社會研究所。（計劃編號：NSC90-2420-H-001-004-B1） 勞工保險局 http://www.bli.gov.tw/ 2005 03 25擷取。 彭克仲、李建霖、吳秀鳳、張安妮，1998，「高屏溪流域居民之環境態度與環保行為分析」，國立屏東科技大學學報（7）1：31-44。 賀照緹，1998，「土地是媽媽的肚皮－向農藥化肥說byebye 」，張老師月刊（242）：32-33。 黃芳銘，2004，社會科學統計方法學：結構方程模式，台北：五南出版社。 黃芳銘，2006，結構方程模式理論與應用，四版，台北：五南出版社。 黃芳銘、楊世安，2006，「家庭因素對國小學童環境行為影響模式之研究」，師大學報：教育類，51（1）：159-183。 黃政傑，1988，「台灣地區國小、高中、大學學生環境意識之調查研究」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，國立台灣師範大學教育研究所。 黃榮村，1990，「知覺記憶與知識結構-台灣地區認知心理學的研究現況與展望」，科學月刊（21）1：52-57。 劉俊昌，2002，「某師院新生的環境觀」，台中師院學報（16）：433-450。 劉清榕，1988，「屏東地區農業生產與加工製造者環境問題知覺與處理之分析」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃，國立台灣大學農業推廣學研究所。 劉清榕、陳元暉、張麗娟，1991，「屏東地區污染受害者與鄰近居民問題知覺與處理之分析」，台灣銀行季刊（42）1：307-341。 劉錦添，1992，「台灣地區民眾對風險的認知與面臨風險下的行為分析—台北及高雄地區」，行政院環境保護署。 劉錦添，1994，「環境風險的知覺--臺灣的實證研究」，台灣銀行季刊（45）3：216-231。 蔡宏進，1997，「城鄉關係的問題與展望」，台灣的都市社會，頁449 - 474，蔡勇美與章英華編，台北：三民書局。 蕭新煌，1986，「新環境範型與社會變遷：台灣民眾環境價值的初探」，國立台灣大學社會學刊（18）：81-134。 蕭新煌，2001，「台灣民眾環境意識的轉變：1986-1999」，華人社會的調查研究:方法與發現，頁 103-139。邊燕杰、涂肇慶與蘇耀昌編，Hong Kong：Oxford University Press。 蕭新煌，2002，台灣文化典範的轉移，頁19-22。台北：立緒文化事業有限公司。 環境品質文教基金會 http://www.envi.org.tw/ 2004 03 09擷取。 薛頌留編著，2004，新編中國辭典，台北：大中國圖書公司。 羅啟宏，1992，「台灣省鄉鎮發展類型之研究」，台灣經濟 190：41-67。 Ajzen, Icek and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. p.8. Ajzen, Icek. 1988. Attitudes personality and behavior. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press. p.133. Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “The theory of planned behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179-211. Ajzen, Icek. http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/ Retrieved 2005 04 05. Annika, M. Nordlund, and Jörgen, Garvill. 2002. “Value Structures behind Pro-environmental Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 34(6):740-756. Arbuthnot, Jack. 1977. “The Roles of Attitudinal and Personality Variables in the Prediction of Environmental Behavior and Knowledge.” Environment and Behavior 9(2):217-232. Bagozzi, Richard P. 1983. “A Holistic Methodology for Modeling Consumer Response to Innovation.' Operations Research (31):128-176. Bagozzi, Richard P. and Warshaw, P. R. 1992. “An Examination of the Etiology of the Attitude-Behavior Relation for Goal-Directed Behavior.” Multivariate Behavior Research 27(4):601-634. Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. 1998. “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models.” Academic of Marketing Science (16):76-94. Bagozzi, Richard P. http://jonesgsm.rice.edu/jonesgsm/Richard_P. Bagozzi.asp Retrieved 2005 04 05. Baldassare, M., and Katz, C. 1992. “The Personal Threat of Environmental Problems as Predictor of Environment Practices.” Environment and Behavior 24(6):602-616. Bamberg, Sebastian. 2003. “How does Environmental Concern Influence Specific Environmentally Related Behaviors? A New Answer to An Old Question.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(1):21-32. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society : Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications. pp.1-10. Beutel, Ann M., and Marini, Margaret M. 1995. “Gender and values.” American Sociological Review (60):436-448. Beyer, Peter. 1994. Religion and Globalization. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Blocker, T. Jean and Eckberg, Douglas Lee. 1997. “Gender and Environmentalism: Results from the 1993 General Social Survey.” Social Science Quarterly 78(4):841-858. Bohlen, Grey M., Schlegelmilch, Bodo B., and Diamantopoulos, Adamantios. 1993. “Measuring Ecological Concern: A Multi-Construct Perspective.” Journal of Marketing Management 9(4):415-430. Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equation modeling with latent variables. New York: John Wiley. Bryman, Alan. 1989. Research Methods and Organization Studies. London: Unwin Hyman. Bryman, Alan. l999. “The Debate about Qualitative Research.” In Bryman, A. and Robert G. Burgress Eds. Qualitative research Vol.1:35-69. London: Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Cottrel, S. P. 2003. “Influence of Socio-demographics and Environmental Attitude on General Responsible Environmental Behavior among Recreational Boaters.” Environment and Behavior 35(3):347-375. Cutter, S. L. 1993. Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards. London: Edward Arnold. Davidson, Debra J. and William R. Freudenburg. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research.” Environment and Behavior 28(3):302-339. Derksen, L., and Gartrell, J. 1993. “The social context of recycling.” American Sociological Review. 58(3): 434-442. Diekmann, A. and Preisendorfer, P. 1998. “Environmental Behavior-Discrepancies between Aspirations and Reality.” Rationality and Society 10(1):79-102. Dietz, Thomas, Paul C. Stern, and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1998. “Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 30(4):450-471. Dietz, Thomas, Linda Kalof, and Paul C. Stern. 2002. “Gender, Values and Environmentalism.” Social Science Quarterly 83(1):353-365. Dunlap, Riley E. and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal of Environmental Education 9:10-19. Dunlap, Riley E. and Angela G. Mertig. 1995. “Global Concern for the Environment: Is Affluence a Prerequisite?” Journal of Social Issues 51(4):121-37. Ebreo, A., Hershey J., and Vining, J. 1999. “Reducing Solid Waste: Linking Recycling to Environmentally Responsible Consumerism.” Environment and Behavior 31(31):107-135. Eckberg, Douglas Lee and T. Jean Blocker. 1989. “Varieties of Religious Involvement and Environmental Concerns: Testing the Lynn White Thesis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28(4):509-17. Eckberg, Douglas Lee and T. Jean Blocker. 1996. “Christianity, Environmentalism, and the Theoretical Problem of Fundamentalism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(4):343-55. Eckersley, R. 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory. Toward An Ecocentric Approach. London: UCL Press. Fatos, Göksen, Fkret Adaman, and E. Ünal Zengnobuz. 2002. “On Environmental Concern, Willingness To Pay, And Post-materialist Values: Evidence From Istanbul.” Environment and Behavior 34(5):616-633. Furnham, A., and Lovett, J. 2001. “Predicting the Use of Complementary Medicine: A Test of Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31(12):2588-2620. George, Cvetkovich and Patricia L. Winter. 2003 “Trust and Social Representations Of The Management Of Threatened And Endangered Species.” Environment and Behavior 35(2):286-307. Greeley, Andrew. 1993. “Religion and Attitudes toward the Environment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32(1):19-28. Guth, James L., Lyman A. Kellstedt, Dorwin E. Smidt and John C. Green. 1993. “Theological Perspectives and Environmentalism among Religious Activists.” Journal for the Scientific of Study Religion 32(4):373-382. Guth, James L., John C. Green, Lyman A. Kellstedt, and Corwin E. Smidt. 1995. “Faith and the Environment: Beliefs and Attitudes on Environmental Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 39(2):364-82. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham R. L., and Black, W. C. 1998. Multivariate data analysis 5th ed. London : Prentice Hall International. Hallin, P. O. 1995. “Environmental Concern and Environmental Behavior in Foley, A Small-Town in Minnesota.” Environment and Behavior 27(4):558-578. Hand, Carl M. and Kent D. Van Liere. 1984. “Religion, Mastery-Over-Nature, and Environmental Concern.” Social Forces 63(2):555-570. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomers, A. N. 1986-1987. “Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behavior: A meta-Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Education 18(2):1-8. Hsu, S. J. and Roth, R. E. 1998. “An Assessment of Environmental Literacy and Analysis of Predictors of Responsible Environmental Behavior Held by Secondary Teachers in the Hualien Area of Taiwan.” Environmental Education Research 4(3):229-249. Hsu, S. J. and Roth, R. E. 1999. “Predicting Taiwanese Secondary Teachers' Responsible Environmental Behavior Through Environmental Literacy Variables.” Journal of Environmental Education 30(4):11-18. Hungerford, H. R. and Volk, T. L. 1990. “Changing Learner Behavior through the Environmental Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 21(3):8-21. Hunter, Lori M.; Hatch, Alison; Johnson, Aaron. 2004. “Cross-National Gender Variation in Environmental Behaviors.” Social Science Quarterly 85(3):677-694. Hwang, Yeong-Hyeon, Kim, Seong-Il, and Jeng, Jiann-Min. 2000. “Examining the causal relationship among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behavior.” Journal of Environmental Education 31(4):19-26. Inglehart, Ronald 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 133-135. Inglehart, Ronald 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization, Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Jones R.E. and Dunlap R.E. 1992. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have They Changed over Time?” Rural Sociology 57(1):28-47. Jöreskog Karl G. and Sörbom, D. 2001. LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. IL: SSI. Jöreskog Karl G. http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/column5.htm Retrieved 2005 04 05. Kaiser Florian G. , Doka Gabor , Hofstetter Patrick , Ranney Michael A. 2003. “Ecological behavior and its environmental consequences: a life cycle assessment of a self-report measure” Journal of environmental psychology (23):11-20. Kanagy, Conrad and Fern K. Willits. 1993. “A ‘Greening’ of Religion? Some Evidence from a Pennsylvania Sample.” Social Science Quarterly 74(3):674-83. Kraus, S. J. 1995. “Attitude and Prediction of Behavior: A meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(1):58-75. Lin, Yin-Ren 1999. The Environmental Beliefs and Practices of Taiwanese Buddhists. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London. Marcinkowski, T. J. 1988. An Analysis of Correlates and Predictors of Responsible Environmental Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Maslow, A. H. 1987. Motivation and Personality. 3nd ed. New York: Harper Collins. McGuiness James, Jones Allan P., Cole Steven G. 1977. “Attitudinal correlates of recycling behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 62(4):376-384. McStay, Jan. R. and Riley E. Dunlap. 1983. “Male, Female Differences in Concern for Environmental Quality.” International Journal of Women’s Studies 6(4):291-301. Metzger, Tina and McEwen Douglas. 1999. “Measure of Environmental Sensitivity.” Journal of Environmental Education 30(4):38-39. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Mitchell R.C., and Carson R.T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: thecontingent valuation method. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future. p.463. Mohai, P. 1992. “Men, Women, and the Environment: An examination of the Gender Gap in Environmental Concern and Activism. Society and Natural Resources (5):1-19. Oliver, Richard L. and William O. Bearden 1985 “Crossover Effects in the Theory of Reasoned Action: A Moderating Influence Attempt”. Journal of Consumer Research 12(3):324-340. Olli, E. Grendstad and D. Wollebaek. 2001 “Correlates of Environmental Behaviors: Bringing Back Social Context.” Environment and Behavior 33(2):181-208. Orjan, Widegren. 1998. “The New Environmental Paradigm and Personal Norms.” Environment and Behavior 30(1):75-100. Petts, J. 1998. “Trust and Waste Management Information Expectation Verse Observation.” Journal of Risk Research 1:307-320. Poortinga, Wouter , Steg, Linda and Vlek, Charles. 2004 “Values, Environmental Concern, and Environmental Behavior: A Study into Household Energy Use” Environment and Behavior 36(1):70-93. Raine-Eudy, Ruth. 2000. “Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity：An empirical demonstration.” Structural Equation Modeling 7（1）:124-141. Ramsey, C.E. and R.E. Rickson. 1976. “Environmental knowledge and attitudes.” Journal of Environmental Education 8:10-18. Rohrschneider, R. 1990. “The Roots of Public Opinion toward New Social Movement: An Empirical Test of Competing Explanations.” American Journal of Political Science. 34:1-30. Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Value. New York: Press. Rotter, J. B. 1982. “The Development and Applications of Social Learning Theory.” New York: Praeger, Inc. Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. http://afs.wu-wien.ac.at/usr/imm/bschleg/ Retrieved 2005 04 05. Schultz, M., and Hatch, M. J. 1996. “Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies.” Academy of Management Review 21(2): 529-557. Schultz, P. Wesley and William F. Stone. 1994. “Authoritarianism and Attitudes toward the Environment.” Environment and Behavior 26(1):25-37. Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., and Mainieri, T. 1995. “Who recycles and when: A review of personal and situational factors”. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105-121. Schultz, P. Wesley and Oskamp, S. 1996. “Effort as A Moderator of the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: General Environmental Concern and Recycling.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59(4):375-383. Schwartz, S. H. 1977. “Normative Influences on Altruism.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10:221-279. Schwartz, S. H. 1992. “Universals Tests in Content of and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:1-65. Schwartz, S. H. 1994. “Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values?” Journal of Social Issues 50:19-45. Scott, David and Willits, Fern K. 1994. “Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A Pennsylvania Study.” Environment and Behavior 26(2):239-260. Scott, David.1999. “Equal opportunity, unequal results—Determinants of household recycling intensity.” Environment and Behavior 31(2):267-290. Shaiko, Ronald G. 1987. “Religion, Politics, and Environmental Concern: A Powerful Mix of Passions.” Social Science Quarterly 68(2):244-262. Shichao, Li 2003. “Recycling Behavior Under China's Social and Economic Transition: The Case of Metropolitan Wuhan” Environment and Behavior 35(6):784-801. Sia, A. P., Hungerford, H. R., and Tomera, A. N. 1985-1986. “Selected Predictors of Responsible Environmental Behavior: An Analysis.” The Journal of Environmental Education 17(2):31-40. Siegrist, M. 1999. “A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29:2093-2106. Simmons, Deborah and Ron Widmar. 1990. “Motivations and Barriers to Recycling: Toward a Strategy for Public Education.” Journal of Environmental Education 22 (1):13-18. Sivek, D. J., and Hungerford, H. 1989-1990. “Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three Wisconsin conservation organizations.” Journal of Environmental Education 21(2):35-40. Slovic, P. 1999. “Perceived risk, trust, and Democracy.” In G. T. Cvetkovich and R. E. Lofstedt(Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk pp.42-45. London: Earthscan Smith-Sebasto, N. J. 1992. “The Revised Environmental Control Measure: A Review and Analysis” Journal of Environmental Education 23(2):24-33. Steiger, J. H. 1990. “Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 25:173-180. Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Kalof L. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 25:322-348. Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1995. “The New Ecological Paradigm in Social-Psychological Context.” Environment and Behavior 27(6):723-743. Stern, Paul C. 1999. “Information, Incentives, and Pro-environmental Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Policy 22:461-478. Stern, Paul C. 2000. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issue 56(3):407-424. Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. 1999. “Grounded theory methodology: An overview.” In Bryman, A. and Robert G. Burgess. Eds. Qualitative research Vol.3:72-94. London: Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Taylor, S. E. and Todd, P. A. 1995. “An Integrated Model of Waste Management Behavior: A Test of Household Recycling and Composting Intentions.” Environment and Behavior 27(5):603-630. Tindall, D. B., Davies, S., and Mauboulès, C. 2003. “Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement: The contradictory effects of gender.” Society and Natural Resources 16: 909-932. Van Liere, Kent D. and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44(2): 181-197. Vaske, Jerry J. and Kobrin, Katherine C. 2001. “Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior.” Journal of Environmental Education 32(4):16-21. Vaughan, E. and B. Nordenstam. 1991. “The Perception of Environmental Risks among Ethnically Diverse Groups.” Journal of Cross–Culture psychology 22(1):29-60. Vogel, S. 1996. “Farmers’ environmental attitudes and behavior－A case study for Austria.” Environment and Behavior 28(5):591-613. White, Lynn Jr. 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Science 155( 3767) (March 10):1203-1207. Wilson, A. R. 1991. Environment Risk: Identification and Management. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. pp.440 Winter, P.L., Palucki, L.J., and Burkhardt, R.L. 1999. “Anticipated Responses to A Fee Program : The Key is Trust.” Journal of Leisure Research 31(3):207-226. Zelezny, Lynnette C., Chua, Poh-Pheng, and Aldrich, Christina. 2000. “Elaboration on gender difference in environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56(3):443-457. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/30635 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究同時使用量化與質化兩種研究取向探討個人的環保行為，策略上，前者使用大規模且有信度的調查報告，以結構方程模式探討變項間的關係，後者使用深入訪談與觀察法，應用扎根理論的概念與技巧，暸解環保行為的影響機制與發生歷程。有效調查問卷1664份，深入訪談人數20位。
量化資料發現：大部分的心理變項，男女間並無差異，但在「環保行為」方面，三個觀察指標皆以女性表現較積極。另外，教育程度高、經濟地位高以及都市居民，其「環保行為」較其他類屬的民眾頻繁。當模式加入人口變項後，一些心理變項對「環保行為」的影響從顯著變為不顯著，表示這些心理變項其實是虛假變項，反而是「性別」、「年齡」、「教育程度」、「經濟地位」、「都市化程度」等人口變項，對「環保行為」的影響是顯著的。無論模式是否加入人口變項，「付費意願」對「環保行為」的影響都是顯著的。 質化資料瞭解到民眾對於「環保行為」的一般概念，教育程度高者，環保概念較豐富，性別與居住地區的不同其環保概念也有差異。由於「環保政策不同」所帶來的「城鄉差異」，以及「環保行為」中的「性別效應」，是值得注意的。多數受訪者認為影響環保行為的主要因素是「品格」與「教育」。 根據受訪者「環保行為」的執行現況、動機與困難，發現影響個人環境保護行為的因素，可分成正面與負面兩種力量，這兩種力量都包括了「個人特質」以及「外在環境」兩部分，個人特質方面包括：「品格」與「能力」，外在環境方面包括：「環保政策」以及「社會期待與支持」。 以「個人」及「環境」兩個座標軸形成正正、正負、負負、負正四個不同的力量象限，個人環保行為的執行力會因處在不同象限，而有積極或消極的反應，同時也發現雖然有很高的環境關懷意識，但若缺乏足夠的執行力，仍然不會有積極的環保行為。 建議後續的研究，可以採用典範跨越的觀點，以多元研究方法的策略，同時考慮量化與質化兩種分析結果，使能更清楚暸解環保行為的影響機制。在研究模式上，則應將人口變項一併納入討論，以確知變項間真正的關係。質化部份則可增加觀察的次數與時間。實務的應用上，政府、學校與環保相關機構，應加強民眾的「環保知識」、「環保教育」、「品格教育」與「宗教教育」，政府也應在「環保政策」上配合民眾的需求。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Quantitative and qualitative research methods were utilized in this study of individual pro-environmental behavior. Quantitative analysis of census data and structure equation modeling was performed to investigate the relationship between variables. Qualitative research methods adopted the concepts and techniques of grounded theory. In-depth interviews and observations were conducted to examine mechanisms and processes of pro-environmental behavior. There were 1664 effective questionnaires and 20 interviewees in this study.
Quantitative analysis revealed that most psychological variables did not differ between male and female subjects. However, the three observed variables of pro-environmental behavior were more constructive in females than in males. Further, highly educated, high-economic state and urban residents were more active about pro-environmental behavior than other people. After including demographic variables in the model, it is revealed that some psychological factors influencing pro-environmental behavior change from obvious to unobvious; this indicated that these psychological variables were in fact spurious variables, on the contrary, demographic variables such as “gender”, “age”, “education level”, “economic status”, “degree of urbanization”, obviously influence pro-environmental behavior. Whether or not demographic variables were included in this model, the influence of “willing to pay” was on pro-environmental behavior. Qualitative analysis found what was the general concepts of pro-environmental behavior of people. Higher-educated people have more various pro-environmental concepts compared to lower-educated, and the concepts vary with gender and residential area difference. The “rural-urban differences” caused by the “pro-environmental policy dissimilarity” and the “gender effect” in “pro-environmental behavior” were noticeable. Most interviewees thought “character” and “education” as two main factors influencing pro-environmental behavior. According to current conditions, motivation and difficulty of the execution of pro-environmental behavior, the two factors influencing pro-environment behavior were categorized, one was positive the other was negative. The two “strengths” involved the components “personality” and “outside environmental condition”; “personality” involved “character” and “ability’; “outside environmental condition” involved “pro-environmental policy” and “society expectancy and support”. With “personal” and “environment” as two axis coordinates forming four different strength quadrants: positive-positive, positive-negative, negative-positive, and negative-negative, personal execution of pro-environmental behavior would be placed in different quadrant, and express positive or negative reaction. Despite having environmental concerns, lack of execution prevents active pro-environmental action. Further studies may consider paradigm crossing with multiform study strategy and consider applying quantitative and qualitative methods to clarify the mechanisms of pro-environmental behavior by introducing demographic variables into the model. Qualitative analysis would require increased frequency and duration of observation. Regarding actual application, the government, schools and the pro-environmental organizations should strengthen the people's 'pro-environmental knowledge', “pro-environmental education”, “character education” and “religion education”, and the government should also response to people's need on “pro-environmental policy”. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T02:10:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-D87630001-1.pdf: 1683977 bytes, checksum: 50d2b794e0b0fd6646d2e4b5f68ef087 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究緣起與研究重要性 1 第二節 研究問題與研究目的 3 第三節 論文結構與寫作原則 6 第二章 文獻探討 7 第一節 環境保護行為的內容與評量 7 第二節 環境保護行為之相關因素與理論 12 第三節 環境保護行為模式 20 第四節 環境付費意願 26 第五節 環境風險知覺與環境改善知覺 28 第三章 研究設計 31 第一節 研究方法與策略 31 第二節 量化資料的研究設計與分析方法 32 第三節 質化資料的研究設計與分析方法 46 第四章 量化資料分析結果與討論- 55 第一節 台灣民眾的環保行為與其相關因素之輪廓 55 第二節 模式評鑑 66 第三節 模式的比較 120 第四節 研究假設與研究結果的比較 127 第五章 質化資料之分析結果與討論 129 第一節 對「環境保護」與「環境保護行為」的一般概念 129 第二節 環境保護行為之相關變項的探討 136 第三節 「環境風險知覺」的訪談結果 164 第四節 「環境品質改善知覺」的訪談結果 175 第五節 「相對環境價值知覺」的訪談結果 178 第六節 「政府環保政策評價」的訪談結果 182 第七節 「環境改善付費意願」的訪談結果 186 第八節 環保行為的發生歷程 191 第六章 結論與建議 213 第一節 研究發現與研究貢獻 213 第二節 研究討論與結論 219 第三節 研究限制與研究建議 225 參考文獻 231 附錄一 台灣地區有關個人環境保護態度與行為的研究 239 附錄二 結構方程模式 240 附錄三 扎根理論 245 附錄四 統計程式語法（SIMPLIS） 248 附錄五 勞工保險局提供之台灣鄉鎮市區代碼一覽表 250 附錄六 勞工保險局提供之台灣鄉鎮市區都市化程度等級表 252 附錄七 本研究居住地區都市化程度之計分方式 253 附錄八 環境保護行為調查問卷 257 附錄九 深入訪談大綱 260 附錄十 社會問題調查問卷之設計與抽樣 263 附錄十一 焦點觀察之地點與時間 268 作者通訊處與E-mail 269 表目錄 表2.1 量化研究與質化研究的差異 9 表3.1 受訪者基本資料與訪談次數 51 表4-1 人口變項統計表 56 表4-2 不同人口變項在「環境風險知覺」變項下之ANOVA摘要表 57 表4-3 不同人口變項在「環境改善知覺」與「相對環境價值知覺」 變項下之ANOVA摘要表 59 表4-4 不同人口變項在「政府信任」與「付費意願」 變項下之ANOVA摘要表 62 表4-5 不同人口變項在「環保行為」變項下之ANOVA摘要表 64 表4-6 全樣本之觀察變項的平均數、標準差、偏態、峰度與VIF 67 表4-7 男性樣本與女性樣本之觀察變項的平均數、標準差、 偏態與峰度 67 表4-8 模式A-net外生潛在變項與內生潛在變項間的參數估計 68 表4-9 模式A-net潛在變項對觀察變項的參數估計 69 表4-10 模式A-net觀察變項測量誤與信度及潛在變項殘差與構念信度 69 表4-11 模式A-net整體適配度考驗指標 70 表4-12 模式A-net潛在變項之間的直接效果、間接效果與總效果 74 表4-13 模式A-net外生潛在變項之相關係數 75 表4-14 模式A-full外生潛在變項與內生潛在變項間的參數估計 76 表4-15 模式A-full潛在變項對觀察變項的參數估計 77 表4-16 模式A-full觀察變項測量誤與信度及潛在變項殘差與構念信度 78 表4-17 模式A-full之整體適配度考驗指標 79 表4-18 模式A-full潛在變項之間的直接效果、間接效果與總效果 84 表4-19 模式A-full外生潛在變項之相關係數 86 表4-20 模式B-net外生潛在變項與內生潛在變項間的參數估計 87 表4-21 模式B-net潛在變項對觀察變項的參數估計 88 表4-22 模式B-net觀察變項測量誤與信度及潛在變項殘差與構念信度 88 表4-23 模式B-net整體適配度考驗指標 89 表4-24 模式B-net潛在變項之間的直接效果、間接效果與總效果 93 表4-25 模式B-net外生潛在變項之相關係數 93 表4-26 模式B-full外生潛在變項與內生潛在變項間的參數估計 94 表4-27 模式B-full潛在變項對觀察變項的參數估計 95 表4-28 模式B-full觀察變項測量誤與信度及潛在變項殘差與構念信度 96 表4-29 模式B-full之整體適配度考驗指標 97 表4-30 模式B-full潛在變項之間的直接效果、間接效果與總效果 101 表4-31 模式B-full外生潛在變項之相關係數 103 表4-32 模式C-net外生潛在變項與內生潛在變項間的參數估計 104 表4-33 模式C-net潛在變項對觀察變項的參數估計 104 表4-34 模式C-net觀察變項測量誤與信度及潛在變項殘差與構念信度 105 表4-35 模式C-net之整體適配度考驗指標 106 表4-36 模式C-net潛在變項之間的直接效果、間接效果與總效果 109 表4-37 模式C-net外生潛在變項之相關係數 110 表4-38 模式C-full外生潛在變項與內生潛在變項間的參數估計 111 表4-39 模式C-full潛在變項對觀察變項的參數估計 112 表4-40 模式C-full觀察變項測量誤與信度及潛在變項殘差與構念信度 113 表4-41 模式C-full之整體適配度考驗指標 114 表4-42 模式C-full潛在變項之間的直接效果、間接效果與總效果 117 表4-43 模式C-full外生潛在變項之相關係數 119 表4-44 模式A-full、B-full與C-full之整體適配度考驗指標比較 122 表4-45 模式A-full、B-full與C-full之潛在變項 對觀察變項的參數估計比較 123 表4-46 模式A-full、B-full與C-full之觀察變項測量誤（δ，ε）與 潛在變項殘差（ζ）以及外生潛在變項對觀察變項的解釋力 124 表4-47 模式A-full、B-full與C-full之潛在變項的構念信度 124 表4-48 模式A-full、B-full與C-full之付費意願與 環保行為的預測指標比較 125 表4-49 外生潛在變項之間的相關 127 表4-50 研究假設與研究結果的關係 128 表5-1 受訪者背景與其「環境保護行為」概念 130 表5-2 買購物袋與自備購物袋者的性別與人數之關係（百分比） 142 表5-3 亂丟垃圾者的性別與人數 144 表5-4 受訪者對居住環境與工作環境之評估 174 表5-5 受訪者背景與「環境品質改善知覺」之關係 177 表5-6 受訪者背景與「相對環境價值知覺」之關係 180 表5-7 受訪者背景、「政府環保政策評價」與 「是否受政府評價影響」之關係 186 表5-8 受訪者屬性與「環境付費意願」之關係 190 表5-9 「相對環境價值知覺」與「環境付費意願」之關係 191 表5-10 受訪者環境保護行為的執行現況 197 表5-11 受訪家庭之垃圾分類與資源回收等觀察紀錄- 201 圖目錄 圖2.1 理性行為理論模式 21 圖2.2 計劃行為理論模式 22 圖2.3 Hines等的環境行為模式- 24 圖2.4 Hungerford等公民環境行為模式 25 圖3.1 研究架構圖 32 圖3.2 研究架構路徑圖 34 圖3.3 扎根法之抽樣流程 47 圖4-1 模式 A-net（全樣本）結構模式圖 73 圖4-2 模式A-Full（全樣本）結構模式圖 81 圖4-3 模式B-net（男性樣本）結構模式圖 91 圖4-4 模式B-Full（男性樣本）結構模式圖 97 圖4-5 模式C-net（女性樣本）結構模式圖 108 圖4-6 模式C-Full（女性樣本）結構模式圖 115 圖5-1 影響環保行為執行力的正面與負面力量 211 圖5-2 影響環保行為執行力的四個象限 212 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 結構方程模式 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 性別效應 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 環境改善知覺 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 環境風險知覺 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 相對環境價值知覺 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 城鄉差異 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 扎根理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 環境保護行為 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 付費意願 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | rural-urban differences | en |
| dc.subject | pro-environmental behavior | en |
| dc.subject | environmental risk perception | en |
| dc.subject | environmental improvement perception | en |
| dc.subject | relative environmental value perception | en |
| dc.subject | willing to pay | en |
| dc.subject | structure equation modeling | en |
| dc.subject | grounded theory | en |
| dc.subject | gender effect | en |
| dc.title | 環境保護行為的機制與路徑 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Mechanisms and Paths of the Pro-environmental Behavior | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 95-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 柴松林,孫志鴻,黃芳銘,蔡宏進,蕭崑杉,賴爾柔 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 環境保護行為,環境風險知覺,環境改善知覺,相對環境價值知覺,付費意願,結構方程模式,扎根理論,城鄉差異,性別效應, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | pro-environmental behavior,environmental risk perception,environmental improvement perception,relative environmental value perception,willing to pay,structure equation modeling,grounded theory,rural-urban differences,gender effect, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 269 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2007-06-26 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 農業推廣學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 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-96-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.64 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。