Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0907110-162624 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0907110-162624
論文名稱
Title
公務人員環境素養及訓練需求之研究---以高雄市政府為例
A Study on the Environmental Literacy and Training Needs of Civil Servants: Based on the Example of Kaohsiung City Civil Servants
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
124
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2010-07-27
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2010-09-07
關鍵字
Keywords
公務人員、環境素養、環境教育訓練需求
civil servants, environmental education and training needs, environmental literacy
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5758 次,被下載 2111
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5758 times, has been downloaded 2111 times.
中文摘要
本研究主要目的是探討高雄市公務人員的環境素養、教育訓練需求及二者的相關性。以高雄市政府公務人員為研究對象,採量化研究方法收集資料,理論架構主要建立在Hungerford和Volk 的負責任環境行為模式,並參考林新沛整合的環境行為模式,進行研究分析。
本研究將環境關切度分為五個級別,一般環境態度分為四個,這二個變項不作素養優劣判斷,分類目的僅作為環境教育訓練的參考,但關切環境議題或重視環境價值,不如其他議題或公務價值者,則判定為不理想的素養表現。其他變項則依得分率分成A、B、C級等三個等級,以A級表現最佳為高等程度,B級表現次之為中等程度,C級表現為不理想;獲致結論如下:
1.在環境素養表現上,高雄市受測公務人員四分之三以上具備環境友善態度與中等以上程度的環境知識及技能,但在環境行動方面,除了生態管理行動外,其他行動表現並不理想,顯示受測者未能將環境知識、技能及正向的態度,成功轉化成積極環境行動。
2.在教育訓練需求方面,本研究提出強化環境教育訓練的基準如下:(1)環境知識、技能及行動得分率未達高等程度者。(2)關切或重視環境議題或價值,不如其他議題或公務價值者。測量結果高雄市受測公務人員有二成五在環境議題知識、有六成六行動策略知識及有七成八行動策略技能的得分率未達高等程度。而受測者自行評量的訓練需求,在知識層面有九成;在技能層面有八成五呈現高度需求,顯示受測者在認知及技能領域主觀評量的環境教育訓練需求,略高於實際需要的訓練需求,但僅有二成受測公務人員在三年內曾參加環境教育訓練課程,呈現高需求低參與率的矛盾的現象。
3.在不同背景受測者環境素養差異方面,三年內參加環境教育訓練課程的受測者,除了環境議題知識、行動策略知識、說服行動、一般環境態度及控制觀等五個變項外,其他素養表現均優於未參加訓練課程者;而其他不同背景的受測者在環境素養表現,則較無顯著性差異。
4.在不同背景受測者環境教育訓練需求差異方面,三年內參加環境教育訓練課程受測者的需求程度高於未參加訓練課程者。其他不同背景受測者的環境教育訓練需求,未達顯著差異。
5.在環境素養與環境教育訓練需求相關方面,環境教育訓練需求知識層面與環境關切度、環境態度、一般環境態度、特定環境態度、控制觀、行動策略技能等七個變項間,呈現顯著相關;技能層面除與一般環境態度變項呈現不相關外,其他與環境素養達顯著相關的變項,與知識層面訓練需求相同。
最後,本研究依據回顧文獻及研究結果提出未來公務人員環境教育訓練的建議,供公務人員主管機關及訓練機構參考。
Abstract
The main purposes of this study are to investigate the environmental literacy of the Kaohsiung City civil servants, their education and training needs, and the correlation between the two. The subjects of this study were civil servants of the Kaohsiung City Government, and data were collected by quantitative research methods. The study was built mainly on the theoretical framework of Hungerford and Volk’s responsible environmental behavior model, and an environmental behavior model consolidated by San-Pui Lam was also consulted, in order to carry out investigation and analysis.
Environmental concern was categorized into 5 levels, and general environmental attitude into 4 levels. These two variables were not used to decide the level of environmental literacy. The object of categorization was to provide a reference for environmental education and training. However, having less concern for environmental issues than other issues or placing less emphasis on environmental values than other civil values was considered as an indicator of poor literacy performance. Other variables were categorized into three levels (A, B and C) according to the scores, with A representing the highest level of performance, followed by B representing a medium level of performance, and C representing poor performance. The following conclusions were obtained:
1. In the performance of environmental literacy, more than 75% of the responding Kaohsiung City civil servants had an environmentally friendly attitude, with at least a medium level of environmental knowledge and skills. In the environmental behavior aspect, however, poor performance in behaviors other than ecomanagement was shown. It was evident that the respondents were unable to apply their environmental knowledge, skills and positive attitude, and transform them into active environmental behaviors.
2. With regard to the education and training needs, the study proposed the following benchmarks for strengthening environmental education and training: (1) those who had not achieved the high level in terms of the scores of environmental knowledge, skills and behaviors; (2) those who had less concern for, or placed less emphasis on, environmental issues or values than other issues or civil values. Test results showed that 25% of the responding Kaohsiung City civil servants had not reached the high level for their knowledge of issues, 66% had not reached the high level for their knowledge of action strategies, and 78% had not reached the high level for their skill in using action strategies. In terms of their self-assessed training needs, 90% of the respondents indicated a high level of need for knowledge, and 85% indicated a high level of need for skills. It showed that respondents’ subjectively-assessed needs for environmental education and training in terms of knowledge and skills were slightly higher than their actual needs for education and training. However, only 20% of the responding civil servants had participated in environmental education and training in the past three years, representing a paradox formed by a high level of needs and a low level of participation.
3. Regarding the difference in environmental literacy of respondents with different backgrounds, it was shown that respondents who had participated in environmental education and training in the past three years generally had better performance in literacy indicators than those who had not, except for these 5 variables: knowledge of issues, knowledge of action strategies, persuation, general environmental attitude, and locus of control. For other backgrounds, it showed no significant difference in the environmental literacy performance.
4. For the difference in environmental education and training needs of respondents with different backgrounds, those who had participated in environmental education and training in the past three years had a higher level of needs than those who had not. Other differences in respondents’ backgrounds made no significant difference in their environmental education and training needs.
5. On the correlation between environmental literacy and environmental education and training needs, 7 variables were shown to be significantly correlated: the knowledge aspect of environmental education and training needs, environmental concern, environmental attitude, general environmental attitude, specific environmental attitude, locus of control, as well as skill in using action strategies. In the aspect of skills, variables that showed significant correlation with environmental literacy were the same as those for the knowledge aspect of training needs, except for general environmental attitude.
Finally, recommendations on civil servants’ environmental education and training were made based on the literature review and the study results, to provide a reference for the competent authority of civil servants and the training organizations.
目次 Table of Contents
第1章 緒論 …………………………………………………………… 1-1
1.1 研究背景 ………………………………………………………… 1-1
1.2 研究動機 ………………………………………………………… 1-2
1.3 研究目的 ………………………………………………………… 1-4
1.4 名詞界定 ………………………………………………………… 1-4
1.5 研究對象 ………………………………………………………… 1-4
第2章 文獻回顧 ……………………………………………………… 2-1
2.1 環境素養 ………………………………………………………… 2-1
2.2 環境教育訓練 …………………………………………………… 2-10
第3章 研究方法 ……………………………………………………… 3-1
3.1 研究架構 ………………………………………………………… 3-1
3.2 研究工具 ………………………………………………………… 3-1
3.3 研究對象 ………………………………………………………… 3-8
3.4 預試問卷 ………………………………………………………… 3-10
3.5 統計分析方法 …………………………………………………… 3-15
第4章 研究結果 ……………………………………………………… 4-1
4.1 受測者背景資料 ………………………………………………… 4-1
4.2 受測者環境素養現況分析 ……………………………………… 4-2
4.3 受測者環境教育訓練需求現況分析 …………………………… 4-16
4.4 不同背景受測者環境素養得分差異 …………………………… 4-17
4.5 不同背景受測者環境教育訓練需求得分差異 ………………… 4-22
4.6 受測者環境素養與環境教育訓練需求相關分析 ……………… 4-22
第5章 研究結論與建議 ……………………………………………… 5-1
5.1 研究結論 ………………………………………………………… 5-1
5.2 建議 ……………………………………………………………… 5-6
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………… R-1
附錄一 正式問卷……………………………………………………… A-1
附錄二 受測者在環境素養各分量表得分之分布情形……………… A-8
附錄三 受測者環境關切度與特定環境態度(控制觀)交叉分析… A-19
附錄四 受測者在環境素養變項間之相關矩陣表…………………… A-25
附錄五 論文口試審查意見回覆表…………………………………… A-26
附錄六 統計語法……………………………………………………… A-31
參考文獻 References
王塗發(1999)。環境保護與經濟發展之關係。現代學術研究,9,51-84。
王鑫(1999)。地球環境教育與永續發展教育。環境教育季刊,37,87-103。
王懋雯(1996)。師範學院學生環境行為影響因素之研究-以台北市立師範學院學生為例。國立臺灣師範大學衛生教育研究所博士論文。
石鳯城(2004)。環境保護法規概論。台北:新文京開發。
行政院環境保護署(2010年05月18日)。立法院三讀通過環境教育法 開創我國環保新紀元。行政院環境保護署新聞專區。2010年07月28日取自http://ivy5.epa.gov.tw/enews/fact_Newsdetail.asp?inputtime=0990605112817
吳家凌(2003)。島嶼公民環境素養之探討-以金門島為例。國立台灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。
吳統雄 (1985)。態度與行為研究的信度與效度:理論、應用、反省,民意學術專刊,101,29-53。
呂育誠(2003)。「永續發展」觀點對地方政府管理意涵與影響之研究。公共行政學報,9,59-88。
周儒(1994)。推動環境教育策略之研討。行政院環保署計畫研究報告。
周儒、張子超(1995)。民間團體推動環境教育模式之研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號:NSC-84-2511-S-003-004Z)。台北:中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
於幼華(2006)。台灣環境議題特論。台北:五南出版社。
林新沛、鄭時宜、潘蓮如(2004)。整合環境行為模式對不同環境行為的預測力比較。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號:NSC92-2415-H-110-004-SSS)。台北:中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
邱媚珍(1990)。花蓮林區管理處與太魯閣國家公園管理處人員之環境知識、環境意識及環境典範調查研究。國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文。
邱詩揚(1990)。台北市國中教師環境教育現況調查研究。國立台灣師範大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。
晏涵文、馮嘉玉、劉潔心(2006)。我國學校環境教育指標之研究。師大學報:教育類,51(1),185-102。
高雄市氣候變遷全球資訊網(無日期)。高雄市溫室氣體盤查。2009年12月10日取自http://hsinjen-liu.myweb.hinet.net/
高翠霞(2002)。析論環境教育研究方法與議題趨勢。環境教育學刊,1,55-82。
張子超(2001)。九年一貫課程改革與環境教育融入。九十年度環境教育國際學術研討會,38-44。國立台灣師範大學環境教育研究所。
張子超(2004)。永續教育的意涵。教師天地,132,4-11。
張子超(2005)。九年一貫課程永續發展教學模組之研究--重要議題〈環境教育),行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號:NSC93-2511-S-003-014)。台北:中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
張子超(2007)。建構政府部門環境教育指標之研究。環境教育研究,37,1-21。
教育部學習資源網(無日期)。「環境變遷與永續發展-21世紀議程與公民素養」教育部數位學習示範課程。2009年12月02日取自http://environment.edu.tw/en970530/index.html
許世璋 (1999)。影響環保團體成員環境行動與行動意願之變項分析研究。八十八年度環境教育研討會論文彙編:12-16。國立台北師範學院。
許世璋(2001)。環境議題與行動導向的環境教育。90年度環境教育國際研討會論文彙編。國立台灣師範大學。
許世璋(2003)。大學環境教育課程對於環境行動與其它環境素養變項之成效分析。科學教育學刊,11(1),97-119 。
許世璋 (2006)。國立東華大學環境通識課群評估與師生環境素養評量(2/2)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告(報告編號:NSC94-2511-S-259-001)。台北:中華民國行政院國家科學委員會。
陳美智(2005)。整體思考:學習制定都市永續環境政策之鑰。2005年中華民國環境教育研討會,571-578。台北市立教育大學。
陳敬中(2004)。花蓮縣政府人員之環境知識、環境典範及環境行為研究。國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文。
湯京平(2002)。環境保護與地方政治:北高兩市環保官員對於影響執法因素的認知調查。台灣政治學刊,6,138-183。
黃英忠(1989)。現代人力資源管理。台北:華泰。
黃富順(2009)。我國屆齡退休人員及高齡者參與學習需求意向調查研究。成人及終身教育,24,23-34。
楊一晴(2005)。從美國環境管理政策看政府綠色管理之發展。科技管理透析,17(10),39-61。
楊冠政(1993a)。環境行為相關變項與類別與組織。環境教育,15,10-24。
楊冠政(1993b)。環境素養。環境教育季刊,19,2-14。
楊冠政(1994)。環境課程編製─理論與應用。台北:教育部環境保護小組。
楊冠政(1997)。環境教育。台北:明文書局。
楊冠政(1999)。永續發展的倫理。環境教育季刊,37,82-86。
靳知勤(1994)。環境知識、態度與行為之研究。環境教育季刊,21,47-59。
廖薏婕(2007)。高雄市青年環境素養與學習需求之相關研究。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所碩士論文。
劉兆漢、蕭新煌、葉俊榮、於幼華、余政達(2002)。永續臺灣的願景與策略。科學發展月刊,29(1),5-8。
潘瓊如(2003)。大學校院環境教育相關教師之環境教育專業知能及其影響因素。國立臺灣師範大學衛生教育研究所碩士論文。
蔡秉燁、鍾靜蓉(2002)。植基於成人學習特性之教育訓練模式,研習論壇19,41-49。
鄭郁馨(2007)。政府人員環境素養之研究-以污水下水道環境工程建設為例。臺北市立教育大學環境教育研所碩士論文。
蕭新煌、劉小如、朱雲鵬、蔣本基、紀駿傑、林俊全(2003)。永續台灣2011。台北:天下文化。
簡建忠。(2000)。人力資源發展,台北:五南。
Bamberg, S., (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21-32.
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 27(1), 14-25.
Constanza, R., d'Arge, R., deGroot R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., & Hannon, B., et al.(1997, May 15) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, 387, 253-260.
Disinger, J. F. & Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental Literacy Columbus, Ohio:ERIC/CSMEE Digest.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351201)
Dunlap, R. E, & Jones, R. E. (2002), Environmental concern: conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 482–524). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.
Hungerford, H. R., Litherland, R. A., Peyton, R. B., Ramsey, J.M., & Volk, T. L. (1996).Investigating and evaluating environmental issues and actions: Skill development program.Champaign, IL: Stipes Publinshing Co.
Iozzi, Louis A. (1989). What research says to the educator: Part one, environmental education and the affective domain. Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3), 3-9.
Marcinkowski, T. J. (2004). Using a logic model to review and analyze an environmental education program. Monograph No. 1.Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE).
Minnesota office of Environmental Assistance(2002). Environmental literacy Scope and Sequence, Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.moea.state.mn.us/publications/ScopeandSequence02.pdf
Morrone, M., Mancl, K., & Carr, K. (2001). Development of a metric to test group differences in ecological knowledge as one component of environmental literacy. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 33-42.
Nilsson, M., & Küller, R. (2000). Travel behavior and environmental concern. Transportation Research, Part D5, 211-234.
Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Pooley, J. A. (2000). Environmental Education and attitudes: Emotions and Beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711–723.
Reynolds, H. L., Brondizio, E. S. & Robinson J.M. (2010) Teaching Environmental Literacy: Across Campus and Across the Curriculum, Indiana University Press.
Rillo, T. J. (1974). Basic guideline for environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 6(1),52-55.
Roth C. E. (1992). Environmental Literacy: Its roots, evolution, and directions in the 1990s. columbus, Ohio:ERIC/CSMEE Digest.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348235.)
Sia, A. P. (1984) An investigation of selected predictors of overt responsible environmental behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois.
Volk, T. I., & McBeth, B. (1997). Environmental literacy in the United States: what should be what is getting from here to there. Rock Springs, GA: North American Association for Environmental Education.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內外都一年後公開 withheld
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code