题名

民眾價值與認知對於抗溫室效應行為之影響-台北都會區之實證

并列篇名

Values, Cognition and Con-greenhouse-effect Behaviors-Empirical Test of the Taipei Metropolitan Area

DOI

10.6128/CP.37.1.13

作者

楊重信(Chung-Hsin Yang);林映辰(Ying-Chen Lin)

关键词

價值 ; 認知 ; 溫室效應 ; 抗溫室效應行爲 ; Values ; Cognitions ; Greenhouse effects ; Con-greenhouse-effect behaviors

期刊名称

都市與計劃

卷期/出版年月

37卷1期(2010 / 03 / 01)

页次

13 - 45

内容语文

繁體中文

中文摘要

近年來民眾消費行爲或消費型態在抗溫室效應行動中之角色漸受重視,民眾直接能源消費以及對商品與勞務之消費間接産生之能源需求是溫室氣體排版乏主要來源,若能改變民眾之消費行爲此牛活形態,減少高能源歧向排放商品勞務之消費,則可收溫室氣體減量之效。在此消費而議題上,許多學者認爲民眾價值及環境認知是影響環境行爲之主要因子。瞭解民眾價值與環境認知對抗溫室效應行爲之關係,有助於制訂消費面之抗溫室效應政策。本文採用Schwartz(1992)之價值量表與量尺,量測台北都會區民眾之價值,調查民眾對溫室主效應之認知與抗溫室效應行爲,以及寶證民眾價值、溫室效應認知與抗溫室效應行爲之關係。主要發現包括:(1)大多數民眾認爲溫室主效應嚴重,但對溫室效應之因果認知混淆;(2)民眾價值並未清晰呈現Schwartz之自我提升(利已)-自我超越(利他),以及保守-開放之基本價值向度,所呈現之主要價值向度包括:複合價值、權力價值、以及自由平等價值;(3)年齡大、所得高、信仰佛教、複合價值高者其抗溫室效應行爲傾向較高;民眾之性別、戶量、以及房屋持有對於抗溫室效應之行爲無顯著之影響,民眾對溫室效應之認知與抗溫室效應之行爲無顯著關係;複合價值低、但重視權威、社會權力、刺激生活、財富、影響力、以及多樣生活之民眾其抗溫室效應行爲似向較低;(4)權力與享樂價值動機對於抗溫室應行爲有顯著之負面影響,遵從價值勤機對於抗溫室效應行爲有顯著之正面影響,共餘價值動機對於抗溫室應之行爲則無顯著之影響。

英文摘要

Recently the roles of individual consumption behaviors on controlling greenhouse gas emissions have received considerable attention. Previous studies have hypothesized that human values and environmental cognition predict environmental behaviors. Understanding the effects of human values and cognition on con-greenhouse-effect behaviors is enormously helpful in designing effective policies or measures. This study employs Schwartzs value instruments and scales to identify the basic value of adults in Taipei Metropolitan Area (TMA), and surveys their cognitions regarding greenhouse effects and their behaviors favoring to alleviate greenhouse-effect (which are defined as the con-greenhouse-effect behaviors hereafter). The primary focus is on identifying the dimensions of the values of the adults in TMA, as well as testing the influence of the human value and the greenhouse effect cognition on the con-greenhouse-effect behaviors. The main findings are as follows: (1). Most people report that the consequences of the greenhouse effect have been serious but confuse the greenhouse effects cause and effect. (2). Most people report adopting various energy-saving measures (3). The two clear-cut dimensions of values claimed by Schwartz do not exist. The basic value dimensions of the adults in TMA are: compound value, authority value, and freedom and equity value. (4). Age, income, religious beliefs,and compound value are the predictors of the con-greenhouse-effects behaviors, while gender, education, housing ownership, and cognition of greenhouse effects are not. (5). Motivations of power and hedonism have negative effects on the con-greenhouse-effects behaviors, while the conformity has positive effects and the other motivational types exert no effect

主题分类 工程學 > 土木與建築工程
工程學 > 市政與環境工程
参考文献
  1. Ajzen, I.,Fishbein, M.(1980).Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs.New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
  2. Albrecht, S. L.,Mauss, A. L.(ed.)(1975).Social Problem as Social Movements.Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott.
  3. Armstrong, T. R.(1972).Why Do We Still Have an Ecological Crisis? Englewood Cliffs.New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
  4. Dunlap, R. E.,Grieneeks, J. K.,Rokeach, M.,Conn, W. D.(ed.)(1983).Energy and Material Resources: Attitudes, Values, and Public Policy.Boulder:Westview.
  5. Dunlap, R. E.,Van Liere, K. D.,Mertig, A. G.,Jones, R. E.(2000).Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale.Journal of Social Issues,56(3),425-442.
  6. Gilg, A.,Barr, S.,Ford, N.(2005).Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer.Futures,37(6),481-504.
  7. Harblin, T. D.(1977).Mine or garden? Values and the environment-probable sources of change in the next hundred years.Zygon,12(2),134-150.
  8. Karp, D. G.(1996).Values and their effects on pro-environment and behavior.Environment and Behavior,28(1),111-133.
  9. Kuo, C. C.,Purcell A. T.(2006).The relationship of environmentally relevant values and behavior of architectural postgraduate students in Taiwanese culture.Proceedings of the Environment, Behavior and Society Symposium.
  10. Kuo, C. C.,Purcell, A. T.(2003).Values and environmental behavior of Taiwanese architects: Their structure and relationships.Proceedings of the 18th IAPS Conference: Evaluation in Progress,Vienna:
  11. Kuo, C. C.,Purcell, A. T.(2004).The values and behavior of Taiwanese architects: Their structure and relationships.The Journal of Applied Psychology,5(3-4),188-196.
  12. Maslow, A. H.(1970).Motivation and Personality.New York:Harper & Row.
  13. Maslow, A. H.(1971).The Farther Reaches of Human Nature.New York:Viking.
  14. Miles, J. C.(1978).The study of values in environmental education.Journal of Environmental Education,9,5-17.
  15. Pierce, J. C.(1979).Water resource preservation: Personal values and public support.Environment and Behavior,11(2),147-161.
  16. Pierce, J. C.(1977).The role of preservationist identification in the belief systems of water resource group leaders.Polity,9(4),538-550.
  17. Rokeach, M.(1968).Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory Organzation and Change.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
  18. Rokeach, M.(1967).Value Survey.Sunnyvale:Halgren.
  19. Rokeach, M.(1973).The Nature of Human Values.New York:Free.
  20. Rokeach, M.(1974).Change and stability in American value systems, 1968-1971.Public Opinion Quarterly,38(2),222-238.
  21. Schultz, P. W.,Zelezny, L.(1999).Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries.Journal of Environmental Psychology,19(3),255-265.
  22. Schwartz, S. H.,Bilsky, W.(1987).Toward a psychological structure of human values.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53,550-562.
  23. Schwartz, S. H.,Zanna, M.(ed.)(1992).Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.Orlando:Academic.
  24. Schwartz. S. H.,Bilsky, W.(1990).Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58,878-891.
  25. Stern, P. C.,Dietz, T.(1994).The value basis of environmental concern.Journal of Social Issues,50(3),65-84.
  26. Stern, P. C.,Dietz, T.,Kalof, L.(1993).Value orientation, gender and environmental concern.Environment and Behavior,25(3),322-348.
  27. Stokes, D.,Linsay, A.,Haritopoulos, J.,Treloar, A.,Wescott, G.(1994).Household carbon dioxide production in relation to the greenhouse effect.Journal of Environmental Management,40(3),197-211.
  28. Thøgersen, J.,Ölander, F.(2002).Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study.Journal of Economic Psychology,23(5),605-630.
  29. Thompson, S. C. G.,Barton, M. A.(1994).Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment.Journal of Environmental Psychology,14(2),149-157.
  30. Vringer, K.,Aalbers, T.,Blok, K.(2007).Household energy requirement and value patterns.Energy Policy,35(1),553-566.
  31. Wilhite, H.(1996).A cross-cultural analysis of household energy use behavior in Japan and Norway.Energy Policy,24(9),795-803.
  32. 台北市政府(2005)。台北市統計要覽。台北:台北市政府。
  33. 台北縣政府(2005)。台北縣統計要覽。台北:台北縣政府。
被引用次数
  1. 傅惠筠、洪榮昭(2012)。大專校院學生節能減碳行為意圖之研究。教育心理學報,44(2),373-388。
  2. 謝旭昇,陳葦丰(2022)。利己或者利他?整合品牌利益動機與利環境動機探討電動機車使用行為意圖。都市與計劃,49(4),421-462。