請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85869完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 謝雨生(Yeu-Sheng Hsieh) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chi-Fang Long | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 隆棋芳 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:27:04Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-10-21 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 謝雨生. (2015). 多層次分析. In 瞿海源、畢恆達、劉長萱、楊國樞 (Ed.), 社會及行為科學研究法:資料分析 (pp. 179–222). 臺北:臺灣東華. Arbuckle, M. B., & Konisky, D. M. (2015). The role of religion in environmental attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 96(5), 1244–1263. Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Polity Press. Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J. A., & Martin, R. (2005). Rural-urban differences in environ- mental concern, attitudes, and actions. European journal of psychological assessment, 21(2), 128–138. Bergh, A., & Nilsson, T. (2010). Do liberalization and globalization increase income inequality? European Journal of Political Economy, 26(4), 488–505. Bettendorf, L., & Dijkgraaf, E. (2010). Religion and income: Heterogeneity between countries. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 74(1-2), 12–29. Bires, Z., & Raj, S. (2019). Determinants of environmental conservation in lake tana biosphere reserve, ethiopia. Heliyon, 5(7), e01997. Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191. Buckingham, S. (2005). Gender and environment. Routledge. Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and vio- lence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241. Datar, A., & Nicosia, N. (2018). Assessing social contagion in body mass index, over- weight, and obesity using a natural experiment. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(3), 239–246. Diekmann, A., & Franzen, A. (1999). The wealth of nations and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 31(4), 540–549. Dunlap, R. E., Gallup Jr, G. H., & Gallup, A. M. (1993). Of global concern: Results of the health of the planet survey. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 35(9), 7–39. Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482–524). Westport, London: Greenwood Press. Dunlap, R. E., & Mertig, A. G. (1995). Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 121–137. Dunlap, R. E., & York, R. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the lim- its of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(3), 529–563. Eastin, J., & Prakash, A. (2013). Economic development and gender equality: Is there a gender kuznets curve? World Politics, 65(1), 156–186. Echavarren, J. M. (2017). From objective environmental problems to subjective envi- ronmental concern: A multilevel analysis using 30 indicators of environmental quality. Society & Natural Resources, 30(2), 145–159. Elliott, E., Seldon, B. J., & Regens, J. L. (1997). Political and economic determinants of individuals’ support for environmental spending. Journal of Environmental Manage- ment, 51(1), 15–27. Elwert, F. (2013). Graphical causal models. In Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 245–273). Springer. Fairbrother, M. (2013). Rich people, poor people, and environmental concern: Evidence across nations and time. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 910–922. Franzen, A. (2003). Environmental attitudes in international comparison: An analysis of the issp surveys 1993 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 297–308. 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. Franzen, A., & Vogl, D. (2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1001– 1008. Freudenburg, W. R. (1991). Rural-urban differences in environmental concern: A closer look. Sociological Inquiry, 61(2), 167–198. Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2006). Ranks and rivals: A theory of competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 970–982. Gelissen, J. (2007). Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multi- level analysis of 50 nations. Environment and Behavior, 39(3), 392–415. Gifford, R., & Sussman, R. (2012). Environmental attitudes. In S. Clayton (Ed.), Hand- book of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 65–80). Oxford University Press. Givens, J. E., & Jorgenson, A. K. (2011). The effects of affluence, economic develop- ment, and environmental degradation on environmental concern: A multilevel analysis. Organization & Environment, 24(1), 74–91. Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Race, class, and gender in education research: An argument for integrative analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 195–211. Gray, D. B., Borden, R. J., & Weigel, R. H. (1985). Ecological beliefs and behaviors : Assessment and change. Greenwood Press. Greenberg, M. R. (2005). Concern about environmental pollution: How much difference do race and ethnicity make? a new jersey case study. Environmental Health Perspec- tives, 113(4), 369–374. Guagnano, G. A., & Markee, N. (1995). Regional differences in the sociodemographic determinants of environmental concern. Population and Environment, 17(2), 135–149. Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., ... others (2020). World values survey: Round seven–country-pooled datafile. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. Haller, M., & Hadler, M. (2008). Dispositions to act in favor of the environment: Fatalism and readiness to make sacrifices in a cross-national perspective. In Sociological forum (Vol. 23, pp. 281–311). Hannibal, B., Liu, X., & Vedlitz, A. (2016). Personal characteristics, local environmental conditions, and individual environmental concern: A multilevel analysis. Environmen- tal Sociology, 2(3), 286–297. Hao, F., & Song, L. (2020). Environmental concern in china: A multilevel analysis. Chinese Sociological Review, 52(1), 1–26. Harring, N. (2013). Understanding the effects of corruption and political trust on will- ingness to make economic sacrifices for environmental protection in a cross-national perspective. Social Science Quarterly, 94(3), 660–671. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641. Hopwood, C. J., Schwaba, T., Milfont, T. L., Sibley, C. G., & Bleidorn, W. (2021). Personality change and sustainability attitudes and behaviors. European Journal of Personality, 1–21. doi: 10.1177/08902070211016260 Hunter, L. M. (2000). A comparison of the environmental attitudes, concern, and behav- iors of native-born and foreign-born us residents. Population and Environment, 21(6), 565–580. Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. American political science review, 75(4), 880–900. Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(1), 57–72. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization in 43 societies. Princeton university press. Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., ... others (2018). World values survey: Round five–country-pooled datafile. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute WVSA Secretariat.. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Value change and the persistence of cultural traditions. In Modernization, cultural change, and democracy the human development sequence (pp. 48–76). New York: Cambridge University Press. Jaumotte, F., Lall, S., & Papageorgiou, C. (2013). Rising income inequality: Technology, or trade and financial globalization? IMF Economic Review, 61(2), 271–309. Kahn, M. E., & Kotchen, M. J. (2010). Environmental concern and the business cycle: The chilling effect of recession (Tech. Rep.). National Bureau of Economic Research. Kemmelmeier, M., Król, G., & Kim, Y. H. (2002). Values, economics, and proenviron- mental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 36(3), 256–285. Knight, K. W., & Messer, B. L. (2012). Environmental concern in cross-national perspec- tive: The effects of affluence, environmental degradation, and world society. Social Science Quarterly, 93(2), 521–537. Lee, C., & Han, L. (2015). Recycling bodhisattva: The tzu-chi movement’s response to global climate change. Social Compass, 62(3), 311–325. Li, W., & Chen, N. (2018). Absolute income, relative income and environmental concern: Evidence from different regions in china. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 9–17. Lo, A. Y. (2014). Negative income effect on perception of long-term environmental risk. Ecological Economics, 107, 51–58. Lo, A. Y. (2016). National income and environmental concern: Observations from 35 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 25(7), 873–890. Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2008). Are there similar sources of environmental concern? com- paring industrialized countries. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1312–1335. Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2012a). Contextual influences on environmental concerns cross- nationally: A multilevel investigation. Social Science Research, 41(5), 1085–1099. Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2012b). Environmental concerns in cross-national context: How do mass publics in central and eastern europe compare with other regions of the world? Sociologickỳ časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 48(03), 441–446. Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2013). Environmental concern in international and cross-national context: Insights and challenges for future research. International Journal of Sociology, 43(4), 3–38. Mayer-Foulkes, D. (2002). Global divergence. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.335140 Mayerl, J., & Best, H. (2018). Two worlds of environmentalism?empirical analyses on the complex relationship between postmaterialism, national wealth, and environmental concern. Nature and Culture, 13(2), 208–231. McCright, A. M., & Sundström, A. (2013). Examining gender differences in environ- mental concern in the swedish general public, 1990-2011. International Journal of Sociology, 43(4), 63–86. Monk Jr, E. P., Esposito, M. H., & Lee, H. (2021). Beholding inequality: Race, gender, and returns to physical attractiveness in the united states. American Journal of Sociology, 127(1), 194–241. Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press. Nawrotzki, R. J. (2012). The politics of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Organization & Environment, 25(3), 286–307. Nawrotzki, R. J., & Pampel, F. C. (2013). Cohort change and the diffusion of environ- mental concern: A cross-national analysis. Population and Environment, 35(1), 1–25. Olofsson, A., & Susanna, Ö. (2006). General beliefs and environmental concern: Transat- lantic comparisons. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 768–790. Oreg, S., & Gerro, K. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behaviour cross-nationality. values the theory of planned behaviour and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behaviour, 38(4), 462–483. Pampel, F. C. (2014). The varied influence of ses on environmental concern. Social Science Quarterly, 95(1), 57–75. Pavcnik, N. (2011). Globalization and within-country income inequality. In Making globalization socially sustainable (pp. 233–259). WTO iLibrary. Post, D., & Meng, Y. (2018). Does schooling foster environmental values and action? a cross-national study of priorities and behaviors. International Journal of Educational Development, 60, 10–18. Rasool, F., & Ogunbode, C. A. (2015). Socio-demographic differences in environmental concern and willingness to pay for addressing global climate change in pakistan. Asian Journal of Social Science, 43(3), 273–298. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). sage. Rhead, R., Elliot, M., & Upham, P. (2018). Using latent class analysis to produce a typology of environmental concern in the uk. Social Science Research, 74, 210–222. Rizio, S. M., Harris, E., & Kashima, Y. (2017). The economy and environmental attitudes: A review of the current literature. Rosa, C. D., & Collado, S. (2019). Experiences in nature and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Setting the ground for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 763. Scruggs, L., & Benegal, S. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the greatrecession? Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 505–515. Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. Summers, N., & VanHeuvelen, T. (2017). Heterogeneity in the relationship between country-level affluence and environmental concern. Social Forces, 96(1), 329–360. Torche, F., & Abufhele, A. (2021). The normativity of marriage and the marriage premium for children’s outcomes. American Journal of Sociology, 126(4), 931–968. Torgler, B., & Garcia-Valiñas, M. A. (2007). The determinants of individuals’ attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 536–552. Turaga, R. M. R. (2015). Does economy matter for public support for environmental protection? evidence from india. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. VanHeuvelen, T., & Summers, N. (2019). Divergent roads: A cross-national intercohort analysis of affluence and environmental concern. Social Science Research, 82, 72–91. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2011). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Wilmoth, J., & Koso, G. (2002). Does marital history matter? marital status and wealth outcomes among preretirement adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 254– 268. Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2007). Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: A us-canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly, 88(2), 471–493. Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2012). Explaining gender differences in concern about environmental problems in the united states. Society & Natural Resources, 25(11), 1067–1084. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85869 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究有六個研究目的：（1）探討主觀經濟地位對環境態度的影響；（2）瞭解主觀經濟地位影響的次群體異質性；（3）探討次群體異質性的國家差異；（4）探索國家經濟水準、國家貧富不均、國家自我展現文化與國家教育水準對國家間次群體異質性差異的解釋性；（5）剖析主觀經濟地位對環境態度影響，以及影響關係之次群體異質性的時間變化；（6）了解各個影響效應的時間變化在國家之間的異同。本研究使用世界價值觀調查以及世界銀行公開資料庫作為資料來源，時間橫跨2005年至2021年，包含25個國家，共67,428個觀察體，並使用三階層的邏輯迴歸進行分析。透過反事實因果推論，本研究結果發現：主觀經濟地位對環境態度不存在影響效果。次群體之間在親環境態度比例不存在差異，不過在主觀經濟地位影響上則有異質性。主觀經濟地位影響及次群體間的親環境態度比例差異在國家之間有所不同。但是國家經濟水準、貧富不均、自我展現文化及平均教育水準對主觀經濟地位影響之國家間差異的解釋相當有限。另外，主觀經濟地位影響、次群體間親環境態度比例差異，以及主觀經濟地位影響在次群體間的異質性都存在跨時間的變化，且主觀經濟地位影響與次群體間親環境態度比例差異的跨時間變化在不同國家間並不相同。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study has six purposes: (1) to examine the effect of subjective economic status (SES) of individual on environmental attitude (EA); (2) to understand the heterogeneous effect of SES among education-sex subgroups; (3) to investigate the differences in subgroups heterogeneity of SES effect among countries; (4) to explore the effect of economic level, income inequality, self-expression culture, and educational level on the heterogeneity of subgroups among countries; (5) to analyze the change in the effect of SES on EA and the subgroups heterogeneity over time; (6) to realize the similarities and differences between countries in the change of time. Using data from World Values Survey and World Bank Open Data, this study employs three-level logistic regression. The time of this study spans from 2005 to 2021, including 25 countries and 67,428 observations in total. Using counterfactuals causal inference, the results show that SES does not affect EA. There are no differences in pro-environmental attitude proportion among subgroups, but there is a heterogeneous effect of SES on EA among subgroups. The SES effect and differences in the proportion of pro-environmental attitude among subgroups vary between countries. Country economic level, income inequality, self-expression culture, and educational level have limited explanations for the difference in SES effect among countries. The SES effect, the differences in the proportion of pro-environmental attitude among subgroups, and the heterogeneity of the SES effect among subgroups would vary across time. The change in the SES effect and the differences in the proportion of pro-environmental attitude among subgroups are not homogeneous across countries. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:27:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2209202211064300.pdf: 2431394 bytes, checksum: e12036a82887d561bcb06d5ecfa1697c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 前言 1 1.1 研究背景與目的............................... 1 1.2 研究重要性 ................................. 11 第二章 文獻回顧 13 2.1 環境態度與經濟地位 ............................ 13 2.1.1 環境態度的定義與建構....................... 13 2.1.2 經濟地位 .............................. 17 2.1.3 經濟地位對環境態度的影響 .................... 18 2.2 主觀經濟地位影響的雙層次異質性 ..................... 22 2.2.1 國家內次群體異質性 ........................ 25 2.2.2 次群體異質性的國家間差異 .................... 27 2.2.3 次群體異質性在國家間差異的詮釋................. 28 2.2.4 小結................................. 33 2.3 主觀經濟地位影響及其異質性的跨時間變化 ................ 34 2.4 次群體異質性跨時間變化在國家間的差異 ................. 37 2.5 主觀經濟地位影響的因果推論 ....................... 39 2.6 研究假設與研究架構 ............................ 40 第三章 研究設計 43 3.1 資料來源................................... 43 3.2 變項標準化處理與中心化.......................... 45 3.2.1 跨國家跨時間之變項標準化處理流程................ 45 3.2.2 變項中心化............................. 46 3.3 變項測量................................... 48 3.3.1 依變項 ............................... 48 3.3.2 自變項 ............................... 48 3.3.3 控制變項 .............................. 55 3.4 資料處理與樣本清理 ............................ 62 3.5 分析策略與程序............................... 64 3.5.1 主觀經濟地位對環境態度的影響 .................. 69 3.5.2 主觀個人經濟地位對環境態度影響的次群體異質性 . . . . . . . . 69 3.5.3 主觀經濟地位影響之次群體異質性的國家間的差異 . . . . . . . . 70 3.5.4 國家經濟水準、貧富不均、自我展現文化及教育水準的解釋 . . . 71 3.5.5 主觀經濟地位影響的異質性之跨時間變化 ............. 71 3.5.6 跨時間變化在國家間的差異 .................... 72 第四章 分析結果 73 4.1 樣本特性................................... 73 4.1.1 個人層次變項特性 ......................... 73 4.1.2 國家層次變項特性 ......................... 81 4.1.3 次群體特性............................. 82 4.2 各國及各次群體主觀經濟地位影響效應................... 85 4.3 主觀經濟地位影響.............................. 91 4.4 主觀經濟地位影響的次群體異質性 ..................... 95 4.5 主觀經濟地位影響的次群體異質性的國家間差異.............. 96 4.6 國家特性對主觀經濟地位影響及其異質性的解釋.............. 97 4.7 主觀經濟地位影響及其異質性跨時間變化 ................. 99 4.8 主觀經濟地位影響及其異質性跨時間變化的國家間差異 . . . . . . . . . . 100 4.9 控制變項的效果...............................100 4.10 小結 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 第五章 結論與建議 102 5.1 結論.....................................102 5.2 建議.....................................107 參考文獻 109 附錄 118 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 主觀經濟地位對環境態度影響之異質性及其變遷：次群體、跨國家與跨時間之探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Changes in the Heterogeneous Effect of Subjective Economic Status on Environmental Attitude: A Subgroup, Cross-Country and Cross-Time Study | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳玉華(Yu-Hua Chen),吳齊殷(Chyi-In Wu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 環境態度,主觀經濟地位,雙層次異質性,跨國研究,跨時間研究,多階層分析, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | environmental attitude,subjective economic status,double-layer heterogeneity,cross-country study,cross-time study,multilevel analysis, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 134 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202203796 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-25 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 生物產業傳播暨發展學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2023-10-01 | - |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2209202211064300.pdf | 2.37 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。