過去數十年來，科技的進步帶來人類的福祉，卻也帶來日益嚴重的環境汙染、生態破壞、資源枯竭。因此過去「人定勝天」的信念開始動搖逐漸轉成變成「人是自然的一部分，人類必須與自然和諧相處」，永續發展遂成為新典範的核心概念。1978年Dunlap & Van Liere認為當時的主流社會典範是呈現出反生態的意象，是只考慮社會本身的需求，而將人類排除於自然界之外，漠視環境對社會的影響，所以稱此種觀點為「人類除外典範」（Human Exceptionalism Paradigm, HEP）。Dunlap & Van Liere基於「人類除外典範」(HEP）所造成的環境破壞，提出一種「新環境典範」（New Environmental Paradigm, NEP），他們所以稱之為「新環境典範」是因為與當時人類為中心的主流社會典範大為不同。NEP的出現主要是希望能藉由信念、態度與價值觀的改變，使人類能去反省人與自然真正的關係，改變人類對於自然需求無度的態度。因此當環境永續發展深受到國際間重視的同時，台灣的環境規劃專業者，身處在環境規劃工作的最前線，在面對新環境典範時代的到來，對於環境永續概念有多深入的了解？
受到整體外部環境快速變化的衝擊，規劃典範（planning paradigm）亦在發生革命性的轉移，都市規劃的專業人員們處在適應的過程中。近百年來規劃理論上的爭辯一直延續不斷，而規劃典範也不斷地替換，所以連帶的也影響到規劃者對於公共利益的認知與處理方法。面對知識經濟時代的來臨，都市處於日益競爭的全球經濟與日益成熟的民主政治，規劃亟需邁向新的典範。因此面對規劃典範與思潮的轉變，台灣環境規劃專業者是否做好應有的調整？
長久以來，台灣的都市在面臨成長與型塑的過程中，山坡地濫墾、濫伐、濫建、濫葬的問題一而再，再而三的發生，造成致命的土石流；都市內外隨機式的蛙躍發展，造成公共設施無法適切提供；開發商所產生的外部成本無法內部化等都市成長議題不勝枚舉。如果說，學習是一種生活經驗之累積和調整的過程，那麼，這個社會為什麼不能從這些一再重複的都市事件中累積出新的經驗，並進而發展出新的實踐模式？到底是哪些因素阻礙了這個社會有關經驗型塑的可能性？
傳統的規劃，偏重於人類空間和需求的滿足，以致經常忽略了生態環境的承載能力，以及整體社會人文思維的啟發和再造。目前先進國家強調的「環境規劃」，其理念是反過來的；環境的規劃，是一種新的觀念，強調從生態環境的承載力，或是供給面的潛力、機會或限制條件，優先進行適宜性分析，而非一味地滿足人類的需求。亦即規劃師首先須尊重資源與環境供給面的條件，再「因地制宜」，調和人類的需求。這種規劃，才能在開發與保育之間取得平衡。換言之，這種正確的規劃理念，才是「兼顧人類需求、順應自然條件」的永續發展模式。
因此本研究期藉由了解環境規劃專業者面對新環境典範的浮現、規劃思潮與公共利益的轉變等新環境規劃論述下，面對台灣社會學習經驗的缺乏、台灣都市規劃的實踐危機、環境規劃問題的層出不窮，是否進一步影響其認知與行為？對於目前國內的環境規劃專業教育訓練上，是否足以應付環境如此之變遷？專業者實踐社群產生的可能性？專業者實應積極進行行動實踐反思。因此本研究藉此從中探究：
1.規劃者個人基本屬性的不同與其環境觀念（新環境典範）、環境行為（負責任的環境行為）與學習風格之間的關係為何？
2.規劃者面對環境（環境觀念、行動取向、實踐危機）、個人（自律行為、自我效能）以及與行為（環境行為、實踐社群的產生）之間的相互影響關係為何？
透過上述問題關係之釐清，達到以下之研究目的：
1.探究台灣環境規劃者是否出現環境典範移轉。
2.探究新環境規劃論述下對規劃者的社會認知模式。
3.探究台灣環境規劃專業教育的可能變革及其意涵。
本研究主要是透過Bandura所提之社會學習(social learning)與社會認知(social cognition)理論的觀點，作為本研究之核心架構，該理論認為行為是經由個人與環境的交互(reciprocal)作用所產生，而不是由其中的任何一個構面來決定。該觀點是將環境（E）、個人（P）及其行為（B）形成相互關聯的三個構面而有所作用，亦即藉由Bandura的「社會學習理論」與「社會認知理論」－探究個人認知、行為與環境之間的自我調節系統。
本文經由相關理論文獻的回顧，整理出在社會認知理論底下，環境規劃專業者在「環境、個人、行為」三者之間的影響模式，以及規劃者個人的學習風格模式建立。藉由新環境典範觀念、規劃的行動取向、整體的規劃實踐危機、規劃者個人的自我效能與自律行為、負責任的環境行為、以及規劃實踐社群產生的相關變數影響下，進而建構出一套環境規劃者社會認知理論的完整模型，再藉由Jöreskog & Sörbom所發展之線性結構關係模式（LISREL）分析方法來驗證此理論模型。
過去的研究鮮少從規劃者的角度來探討在新環境規劃典範移轉相關論述下規劃者的認知與行為意向，本文從理論文獻的回顧，試圖建立一套規劃者之社會認知理論模式，提供學校、公私部門在進行環境規劃教育、規劃學習風格探討、規劃行動反思、在實踐社群的型塑中知識與行動的連結等議題上做參考。本文研究結果在政策意涵上可歸納如下：
1.社會認知理論之實證－於環境規劃專業者身上驗證了社會認知理論中「環境、個人、行為」三者交相影響之關係，環境影響個人；個人影響行為；行為影響環境。
2.於專業者身上指認與驗證新環境規劃典範時代的來臨－因此不管是在學校、公部門或是私人顧問公司，日後在規劃教育課程設計與安排、環境政策的擬定、規劃工作的推行等，都應有所因應，並以朝向實踐社群的型塑為目標。
3.規劃專業者角色的認定與學習風格的引進－本研究認為國內之環境規劃教育專業，在專業訓練之課程安排與設計上，實應做相關之調整與規劃，讓專業養成之訓練過程能夠有均衡學習之機會，多重視「具體經驗」與「主動驗證」之規劃。

These decades in the past, the progress of science and technology brought the human happiness; it is exhausted to also bring the serious environmental pollution, ecological disruption, resource day by day. So go over the faith that ' man is the master of his own fate ' begin to shake changing into and becoming gradually ' people are a natural part, mankind must with getting along naturally ', sustainable development become key concept of new paradigm. In 1978 Dunlap & Van Liere thought that the dominant social paradigm at that time was to demonstrate the inside out ecological image, only consider the social one's own demand, and get rid of the mankind outside the nature, ignore the environmental impact on society, so call this kind of view ' Human Exceptionalism Paradigm, HEP ' . Dunlap & Van Liere propose a kind of ' New Environmental Paradigm, NEP ‘, the reason why they call that ' New Environmental Paradigm ' because with mankind at that time for to model very different dominant social paradigm. It can be with the change of faith , attitude and values that the appearance of NEP mainly hopes, enable mankind to make a thorough review on people and naturally real relation, change mankind's attitude immoderate to the natural demand. Environmental sustainable planning deeply international while paying attention to , Taiwan environmental planning professional person, body in environmental front most of planning, in the face of new environmental paradigm arrival of times, how much deep understanding about the concept of the environmental sustainable ?
The impact that is changed fast by the whole external environment condition, plan also the revolutionary transformation is taking place in the planning paradigm, the professional personnel of urban planning get along with during the process of adapting to. Has planned the contention in theory to extend all the time constantly in the last hundred years, and planning paradigm to replace constantly, so the related one influences planners to public interests cognition and treatment method . In the face of the arrival of the era of knowledge-driven economy, the city is in global economy and ripe democratic politics day by day competed for day by day, plan to need marching toward the new model badly. So face the transitions of the paradigm of planning and ideological trend, does the environmental planning professional person in Taiwan do a good job of due adjustment?
Over a long period of time, the urban growth and renovation in Taiwan have been spinning out of control and falling into disorder. The same problems have arisen time and again. For instance, deforestation and overexploitation of hillside lead to landslide; urban sprawl resulted in the shortage of public facilities; the developers were unable to internalize the externalities. If learning is deemed as a process of accumulating and readjusting life experience, then what’s the problem with our society, which has failed to learn from the repeated urban issues and create new models for practice. What are the factors impeding this society’s potential to remold the past experience?
Traditional planning, overweight the human space and satisfaction of the demand, so that often neglect the carrying capacity of the ecological environment , and the inspiration that the whole social people's train of thought link and giving a new lease of life to. ' the Environmental planning ' which the advanced country emphasizes at present, its idea is conversely; The planning of the environment, is a kind of new idea, the ones that emphasized from ecological environment carrying capacity, or the potentiality , chance or limiting conditions of the supply, have priority to suitability analysis, but not meet the human demand simply . Namely the planner must respect the resource and environmental supply, mediate the human demand. This kind of planning could make the balance between development and preserve.
So this research one is in the face of new environmental paradigm appears, such as transition of ideological trend and public interests, etc. to describing of person who understands environmental planning professional, practice crisis of urban planning of Taiwan , the emerging in an endless stream of environmental planning problem of Taiwan, influence its to be cognitive with the behavior further? To present domestic environmental planning professional education and training is enough to deal with the changes like this of the environment? Possibility which the professional person practice community produces? So this research is probed into from it by this:
1. Planner personal basic attribute with and its environmental view (new environmental paradigm), environmental behavior (responsible environmental behavior) and what is relation to learning style?
2. Planners face the environment (Environmental view, action approach, practice crisis), person (self-regulatory, self-efficacy) and with to influence each other what is relation to behavior (environmental behavior, production of practice community)?
Through the distinguishing of above-mentioned problems relation, achieve the following research purposes:
1. Probe into environmental planners of Taiwan and present the environmental paradigm shift.
2. Probe into the social cognition model of planners under the new environmental planning discussion.
3. Probe into the possible change and meaning of environmental planning specialized education of Taiwan.
This research is mainly studying social learning and cognitive social cognition view of the theory of society of society proposed through Bandura, as the key structure of this research, this theory thinks that the behavior is to emerge via the reciprocal function of person and environment, instead of be determined by any dimensions among them. This view transform environment (E ) , person (P ) and behavior (B ) into three interrelated dimensions and acts on to some extent, namely ' the social learning theory ' and ' the social cognitive theory ' with Bandura - Probe into the self- regulation system among the person cognition, behavior and environment.
Retrospect via relevant theory documents of this study, put it in order out under the social cognitive theory, professional person's influence way of environmental program among the three of ' the environment ,person , behavior ', and planner's personal learning style way is set up. With the new environmental paradigm concept, action approach of planning , planning practice crisis of the whole , planner personal self-efficiency and self-regulatory, responsible environmental behavior, and plan practice relevant parameter that community produce influence, and then build the intact model which construct out a environmental planner's social cognitive theory, and then concern the analytical method of the way (LISREL ) to verify this theory model with Joreskog & Sorbom linear structure of development.
This study attempts to set up a planner's social cognitive theory way from the retrospect of theory documents, offer the school, the department is carrying on environmental planning education public and private, knowledge and action are being linked etc. The result of study of this study can be summed up as follows on policy implications:
1. To test and verify of the social cognitive theory - Have proved on one's to the environmental planning professional person that among the three of ' the environment , person , behavior ' hand in the relation influenced in social cognitive theory, environmental influences person; Individual influences the behavior; The behavior influences the environment.
2. To indicate and verify the new arrival of times of environmental planning paradigm - So no matter in the school, public department or private consultant firm is in the future in planning educational course design and arrange, environmental draft, implementation of planning of policy, etc., should change to some extent.
3. To Assert and introduce of the learning style of the persons who plan the professional roles - The educational professional of environmental planning that this research is thought to be domestic, arrange with the design in course of professional training, real should make relevant adjustment and plan, there can be chance of balanced study in the training course of letting the profession form, pay attention to ' concrete experience ' and 'active experimentation ' more with the planning.

第一章 緒論…....................................................................................................1- 1
第一節 研究背景與動機..................................................................................1- 1
第二節 研究問題與目的................................................................................1- 11
第三節 研究方法與流程.................................................................................1-13
第四節 名詞釋義.............................................................................................1-17
第二章 文獻回顧..............................................................................................2- 1
第一節 新環境典範浮現..................................................................................2- 1
第二節 規劃思潮演變.....................................................................................2-16
第三節 行動科學.............................................................................................2-29
第四節 社會學習與社會認知理論.................................................................2-42
第五節 經驗性學習理論.................................................................................2-55
第三章 研究設計..............................................................................................3- 1
第一節 研究架構與研究變項..........................................................................3- 1
第二節 問卷調查設計......................................................................................3- 3
第三節 研究工具..............................................................................................3- 8
第四節 資料分析.............................................................................................3-21
第四章 研究成果分析......................................................................................4-1
第一節 樣本結構分析…...................................................................................4-1
第二節 推論統計分析.............................................................................……4-16
第三節 結構方程式結果分析與理論驗證.....................................…………4-21
第五章 結論與建議...........................................................................................5-1
第一節 研究結論...........................................................................................…5-1
第二節 研究貢獻.......................................................................................……5-7
第三節 研究限制與後續研究建議...................................................................5-9
參考文獻
附錄 問卷

丁致成(1997)，城市多贏策略－都市計畫與公共利益，創興出版社。
王秋絨(譯)(2002)，學習的弔詭－社會中的個人蛻變，學富文化事業有限公司。
王俊秀(1999)，全球變遷與變遷全球－環境社會學的視野，巨流圖書公司。
王俊秀(2001)，環境社會學的想像，巨流圖書公司。
王保進(2004)，多變量分析：套裝程式與資料分析，高等教育文化事業有限公司。
王鴻楷(1994)，規劃專業者的社會實踐（一）：建城所的工作經驗，空間雜誌，61，47-53。
王鴻楷(1999)，理性或理想性？現階段台灣規劃專業的歷史任務，都市計劃學會年會專題演講，(1999/09/18)。
中華民國都市計畫學會(2000)，土地使用規劃及開發業者（規劃顧問公司）評鑑之研究，內政部營建署。
中國土木水利工程學會（編著）(2005)，土木與環境，科技圖書股份有限公司。
江明修、劉梅君(譯)(1995)，面對權力的規劃，五南圖書出版有限公司。
任凱（譯）(2005)，團體動力理論與技巧，學富文化事業有限公司。
行政院研究發展考核委員會（編印）(2003)，2010年社會發展策略－環境空間研究報告，行政院研究發展考核委員會。
成令方等（譯）(2002)，見樹又見林－社會學作為一種生活、實踐與承諾，群學出版有限公司。
李永展(1999)，永續環境規劃之新思維，環境教育季刊，37，25-34。
李永展(2000)，永續發展－大地反撲的省思，巨流圖書公司。
李永展(2001)，地方建築與環境整合－國家公園原住民建築之營造模式初探， http://bc.zo.ntu.edu.tw/conf_200109/07.htm。
李永展(2002)，跨世紀環境備忘錄，建都文化事業股份有限公司。
李郁文(1999)，團體動力學－群體動力的理論與實務，桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
余民寧(2003)，有意義的學習－概念構圖之研究，商鼎文化出版社。
邱文彥(1997)，我家住在福爾摩沙 : 環保與發展的雙贏思考，胡氏圖書。
邱文彥(2005/04/15)，環境規劃－理論與實務，東海大學師資培育網， http://edu.thu.edu.tw/subject/01-4.htm。
邱皓政(1997)，態度測量與心理測驗發展與檢驗的新趨勢－結構方程模式(Structural Equation Modeling)的應用，世新大學學報，7，61-95。
邱浩政(2003)，結構方程模式：LISREL的理論技術與應用，台北：雙葉書廊有限公司。
宋鎮照(2000)，團體動力學，五南圖書出版有限公司。
林水波、李長晏(2005)，跨域治理，五南圖書出版有限公司。
林官民、楊愛民（譯）(2002)，環境倫理學－環境哲學導論，北京大學出版社。
林進田(1993)，抽樣調查法，華泰書局。
林昆輝(1999)，小團體動力學，揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
林建元(2002)，知識經濟與規劃新典範，收錄於都市計畫的新典範，11-23，中華民國都市計畫學會出版，詹氏書局。
林穎、王小明、胡誼、龐維國等(譯)，思想和行動的社會基礎－社會認知論（上）（下），華東師範大學出版社。
吳文雄(1999)，在電腦技能訓練中學習者自律之研究－社會認知理論的應用，國立中山大學資訊管理研究所博士論文。
吳百薰(1998) ，學習風格理論探究，國教輔導，37(5)，47-64 。
吳美連（審定），Osland, Kolb & Rubin（原著）(2004)，組織行為，智勝文化事業有限公司。
吳齊殷（譯）(1999)，量表發展：理論與應用，弘智文化事業有限公司。
吳綱立(1998)，規劃思潮與公共利益概念的演變：建構一個新的規劃典範來尋找公共利益，人與地，179(180)，74-86。
吳濟華、屠世亮(譯)(1992)，環境規劃與決策，金名圖書有限公司。
吳鄭重(1999)，工業資本主義與永續發展：環境問題的社會根源，台灣社會問題題研究學術研討會，中央研究院社會問題研究推動委員會。
吳瓊恩、陳秋杏、張世杰(譯)(1993)，公共行政的行動理論，五南圖書出版有限公司。
周志龍(1997)，英國現代城鄉規劃思潮與專業教育的再結構，歐美研究，27(3)，179-228。
周志龍(1998)，英國政治經濟發展與都市規劃制度，建都文化事業股份有限公司。
周志龍（2004），台灣新都市主義與都市規劃的挑戰，都市與計劃，31(3)，195-213。
周曉虹（譯），阿爾伯特．班德拉（著）(1995)，社會學習理論，桂冠圖書公司。
周曉虹（譯），威廉．薩哈金（著）(1991)，社會心理學的歷史與體系，貴州人民出版社。
周儒、張子超、黃淑芬(譯)(2003)，環境教育課程規劃，五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
施良方(1996)，學習理論，麗文文化公司。
高申春(2001)，人性輝煌之路－班杜拉的社會學習理論，貓頭鷹出版社。
高明瑞(1994)，自然資源保育與管理，淑馨出版社。
徐世榮(2000)，如何規劃一個永續發展的社會？，經社法制論叢，第二十五期。
徐進鈺(1990)，領域取向規劃論述之檢討－傅里曼(John Friedmann)的新民粹主義，台灣社會研究季刊，3(1)，151-175。
高孟定、鄭建凱(1996)，台灣現行的都市計畫，懋榮工商專業書店。
夏林清(1993)，由實務取向到社會實踐－有關台灣勞工生活的調查報告(1987~1992)，張老師出版社。
夏林清(譯)(1999)，行動研究方法導論--教師動手作研究，遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
夏林清(譯)(2000)，行動科學，遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
夏林清(譯)(2004)，反應的實踐者－專業工作者如何在行動中思考，遠流出版事業股份有限公司。
馬士元(1999)，台灣永續發展的困境與出路，台灣社會問題題研究學術研討會，中央研究院社會問題研究推動委員會。
張子超(1995)，環保教師對新環境典範的態度分析，環境教育季刊，26，37-45。
張恆輔、徐芳菁、張曉玲(譯)(1999)，都市行動規劃--社區實務指引，六合出版社。
張紹勳(2004)，研究方法，滄海書局。
郭重吉(1987) ，評介學習風格有關之研究，資優教育季刊，23，7-16 。
郭進隆(譯)，彼得．聖吉(著)(1996)，第五項修練—學習形組織的藝術與實務，天下文化出版有限公司。
許舒翔等（譯）(2005)，環境政治學，五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
許晉福等（譯），彼得．杜拉克（著）(2005)，運作健全的社會，寶鼎出版社有限公司。
黃玉枝(1993)，國中資優學生與普通學生學習風格及學校適應之比較研究，特殊教育研究學刊，9，249-276 。
黃明月(1998)，學習社會的心理學基礎，收錄於學習社會，中華民國成人教育學會主編，師大書苑有限公司。
黃維(譯)(2003)，實踐社群－推動學習型組織之輪，天下文化出版有限公司。
陳玉琨(1997)，環境教育原理與實務，淑馨出版社。
陳玉峰(1998)，台灣生態悲歌，前衛出版社。
陳亮全(1997)，參與及實踐:政令的規範及專業與社會的角色功能及互動，空間雜誌，92，49-56。
陳順宇(2005)，多變量分析（四版），華泰書局。
陳穎峰（譯）(2001)，環境與政治，韋伯文化事業出版社。
渡邊俊一(2002)，人口縮減時代的都市規劃：二十一世紀日本的規劃典範轉變，收錄於都市計畫的新典範，25-36，中華民國都市計畫學會出版，詹氏書局。
程樹德等（譯）(1989)，Thomas Kuhn, (1972). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.，科學革命的結構，遠流出版。
馮施鈺珩、陳壟（譯），學習與知識，香港公開大學出版社。
曾華壁(2001)，人與環境，正中書局。
葉啟政(2000)，進出「結構－行動」的困境，三民書局。
楊冠政（1993），環境素養，環境教育季刊，19，2-14。
楊冠政、張子超(1997)，中小學教師對新環境典範態度的研究，中華民國第十三屆科學教育學術研討會。
楊冠政(2002)，環境教育，明文書局。
楊孝濚(1995)，社會研究實務，正中書局。
楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園(編)(1993)，社會及行為科學研究法(上冊)，台灣東華書局股份有限公司。
劉俊昌、陳曉菁（2001），師院生的環境態度與日常生活興趣之研究。九十年度環境教育研討會論文集。
蔡美華（譯）(2003)，行動研究法，學富文化事業有限公司。
蔡清田等（譯）(2004)，課程行動研究－反思實務工作者的方法與資源手冊，麗文文化事業股份有限公司。
蔡慧敏（2000），永續減災的的環境教育，環境教育季刊，41，63-70。
齊若蘭(譯)，彼得．聖吉(著)(1996)，第五項修練實踐篇(上)—思考、演練與超越，天下文化出版有限公司。
齊若蘭(譯)，彼得．聖吉(著)(1996)，第五項修練實踐篇(下)—共創學習新經驗，天下文化出版有限公司。
賴美蓉(2003)，國內外各大學都市計畫系所課程提供現況分析，都市計畫教育改革起步走－2003都市計畫教育論壇實錄，中華民國都市計畫學會。
賴秀芬、郭淑珍 (1996)，行動研究，收錄於胡幼慧 (編) 質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，239-248，台北，台灣：巨流出版社。
鄭曉時譯(1994)：不再寂靜的春天，台北：天下文化。
廖克玲譯著(1982)，社會學習理論巨匠－A. Bandura，允晨文化圖書公司
鍾毅平(1999)，社會行為研究－現代社會認知理論及實踐，湖南教育出版社。
韓家瑩(1993)，重建官僚能力：社會學習理論的觀點，東海大學公共行政碩士論文。
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，臺灣大學社會學刊，18，81-134。
蕭新煌(2002)，台灣社會文化典範的移轉，立緒文化事業有限公司。
蕭新煌等(2003)，永續台灣2011，天下遠見出版股份有限公司。
譚鴻仁(2002)，從理性選擇理論看溝通式規劃：兩個公共參與模式的比較，收錄於都市計畫的新典範，197-211，中華民國都市計畫學會出版，詹氏書局。

Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E. and Nowak, P. (1982). The new environmental paradigm scale. Journal of Environmental Education, 13(3), 39-43
Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Smoekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. London and New York: Rourledge.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action. San Fracisco: Jossey-Boss.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. & Smith D. M. (1985). 夏林清譯，行動科學，遠流。
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
Bandura, A. (2001a). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2001b). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(2), 269-290.
Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92-113.
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self- efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 258-269.
Bandura, A., and Simon, K.M. (1977). The role of proximal intentions in self-regulation of refractory behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 177-193.
Baum, A., Bell, P. A., and Fisher, J. D. (1996). Environmental Psychology. Fort Worth : Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Benevolo , L. (1971). The origins of modern town planning. The M.I.T. Press.
Bolan, R.S. (1967). Emerging Views of Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 33(4), 233-245.
Bolan, R.S. (1969). Community Decision Behavior: The Culture of Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(5), 301-310.
Bolan, R.S. (1971). The Social Relations of the Planner, Journal of the American Planning Association, 37(6), 387-396.
Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L. & Sein, M. K. (1988). End user computing: A framework to investigate the training / learning process. Human Factors in Management Information Systems, H.M. Carey (ED.), Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 221-250.
Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L. & Sein, M. K. (1990). The importance of learning style on end-user training. MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 101-119.
Braybrooke, D. & Lindblom, C. E. (1963).　A strategy of decision.　New York: Free Press.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40-57.
Brown, R. (1988). Group processes: dynamics within and between groups. Oxford, UK; Cambridge, Mass., USA: B. Blackwell.
Campbell, D.J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy Management Review, 13, 40-52.
Campion, M.A., & Medsker, G.J.,& Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relationships between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
Canfield, A.A. (1988). Canfield Learning Style Inventory Manual, Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Carter, Genevieve W. (1959). Action research. In Harper, E.B. & A. Duncan Community Organization in action: basic literature and critical comments, N. Y.: Association Press, 194-200.
Catanese A.J., McClendon B.W. (1996). Planners on planning : leading planners offer real-life lessons on what works, what doesn't, and why. editors: foreword by Eugenie Ladner Birch ; afterword by Ted Gaebler. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
Catton , W. & Dunlap R. (1978). Environment Sociology：A New Paradigm. The American Sociology , 13(Feb.), 41-49.
Catton , W. & Dunlap R. (1980). A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-exuberant Sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(Sep./Oct.), 15-47.
Collins, J. L. (1982). Self-efficacy and ability in achievement behavior. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, NY.
Compearu, D.R., and Higgins, C. A. (1995a). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research. 6(2), 118-143.
Compearu, D.R., and Higgins, C. A. (1995b). Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly. 19 (2), 189-211.
Cotgrove, S. F.(1982). Catastrophe of cornucopia: the environment, politics and the future. NY: Wiley.
Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4); edited in: Reading in Planning Theory, 305-321.
Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80(2), 97-125.
Drummond, R.J. (2000). Appraisal procedures for counselors and helping professionals (4th ed). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice-hall, Inc.
Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
Dunn, R. & Dunn K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1994). Teaching young children through their individual learning styles—practical approaches for grades K-2. Massachusetts: Simon & Schuster.
Dunn, R. S. & Price, G.E. (1980). The learning style characteristics of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(1), 33-36.
Earley, P.C. (1993). East meets west meets mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319-348.
Earley, P.C., Connelly, T., and Ekegren,G. (1989). Goals, strategy development, and task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 24-33.
Eastman, C. and Marzillier, J. S. (1984). Theoretical and methodological difficulties in Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 213-229.
Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (1998). Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 557-564.
Fernandes, B. A. (1987). Negotiated approaches to planning. Ph.D. of urban design and planning, University of Washington, Unpub.
Forester, F. (1996). Rick Assessment and Environmental Crisis: Toward an Integration of Science and Participation. In Reading in planning Theory. Eds., Scott Campbell and Susan S. Fainstein, Cambridge: Blachwell Publishers Inc.
Forest, J. (1980). Critical theory and planning practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 46(3), 275-300.
Forest, J. (1982). Planning in the face of power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(2), 67-80.
Forester, J. (1985). Critical theory and public life. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Forest, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Forest, J. (1993). Critical theory pubic policy, and planning practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Forest, J. (1996). Learning from practice stories: The priority of practical judgment. In Readings in Planning Theory. Eds. S. Campbell and S. S. Fainstein, Cambridge: Blackwell.
Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale Press.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedmann, J. (1996). The core curriculum in planning revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, 89-104.
George, T. R., & Feltz, D. L. (1995). Motivation in sport from a collective perspective. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(1), 98-116.
Gibson, C.B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 138-152.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211.
Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C. and Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 884-891.
Gooch, G.D. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic states. Environment and Behavior, 27, 513-539.
Greenwood, Davydd J., & Morten L. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. London: SAGE.
Habermas, J.E. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Translated by T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harris, B. (1960). Plan or Projection: An Examination of the Use of Models in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planning, 26: 265-272.
Hart, Elizabeth, & Meg B. (1995). Action research for health and social care. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Healey, P. (1992). A planner's day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58: 9-20.
Healey, P. (1996a). Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. In Readings in Planning Theory, Edited by S. Campbell and S. Fainstein. London: Blackwell.
Healey, P. (1996b). The communicative turn in planning theory and its implication for spatial strategy-making. Environment and Planning B, 23, 217-234.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shopping places in fragmented societies. Hong Kong: Macmillan Press.
Healey, P., McDougall, G., and Thomas, M.J. (1981). Planning theory: prospects for the 1980s, selected papers from a conference held in Oxford, 2-4 April.
Healey, P., and Barrett, S. (1985). Land policy: problems and alternatives. Aldershot, Hants., England: Gower.
Henderson, R.D., Deane, F.P., and Ward, M.J. (1995). Occupational differences in computer-related anxiety: Implications for the implementation of a computerized patient management information system. Behavior and Information Technology, 14(1), 23-31.
Henry, J.W. and Stone, R.W. (1994). A structural equation model of end-user satisfaction with a computer-based medical information system. Information Resources Management Journal, 7(3), 21-33.
Hill, T., Smith, N.D., and Mann, M.F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 307-313.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. (1986). Analysis and synthesis on responsible environmental behavior: A metaanalysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.
Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23(1), 48-59.
Hollenbeck, J.R. and Brief, A.P. (1987). The effects on individual differences and goal origin on goal setting and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 392-414.
Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 81-115.
Innes, J.E. (1992). Group process and the social construction of growth management-Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(4), 440-453.
Innes, J.E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183-189.
Innes, J.E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning idea. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-475.
Innes, J.E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52-63.
Innes, J.E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1), 9-26.
Jorde-Bloom, P. and Ford M. (1989). Factors influencing early childhood administrators: Decisions regarding the adoption of computer technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(1), 31-47.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom D. (1989). LISREL 7 user’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least square method. Mooresville, In: Scientific Software, Inc.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Julian, D.A. (1994). Planning for collaborative neighborhood problem-solving: A review of the literature. Journal of the Planning Literature, 9(1), 3-11.
Kanfer, D.J. and Ackerman, P.L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-689.
Karloy, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23-51.
Kavanagh, D. and Bower, G.H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507-525.
Keefe, J.W. (1982). Assessing student learning style: An overview. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior, Reston VA: NASSP.
Ketterer, R.F., Richard H.P. & Peter E.P. (1980). The action research paradigm. In Richard H. Price & Peter E. Politser (eds.) Evaluation and Action in the Social Environment, pp.1-15. New York: Academic Press.
Kinzie, M.B., Delcourt, A.B., and Power, S.M. (1994). Computer technologies: attitudes and self-efficacy across undergraduate disciplines. Research Higher Education, 35(6), 745-768.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style technical manual. Boston: Mcber and Company.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D.A. (1985). Learning style inventory: Self-scoring inventory and interpretation booklet. Boston: Mcber and Company.
Kolb, D.A. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang F., Perspectives on thinking, learning, and congnitive styles (pp.227-247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kolb, D.A., & Wolfe, D.M. (1981). Professional education and career development: A cross sectional study of adaptive competencies in experimental learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED209493).
Kolb, A., & Kolb, D.A. (1999). Bibliography of research on experiential learning theory and the Learning Style Inventory. Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Kozub, S. A., & McDonnell, J. F. (2000). Exploring the relationship between cohesion and collective efficacy in rugby teams. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23(2), 120-129.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, R. G. & Jackson E. L. (1989). Stability of factor structure in the measurement of public environmental attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(20), 27-32.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991).　Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.　Cambridge University Press.
Lazarus, A. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. springer, New York.
Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1984). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 364-369.
Levine, H.G. and Rossmoore, D. (1993). Diagnosing the human threats to information technology implementation: A missing factor in systems analysis illustrated in a case study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), 55-73.
Lewin, K.(1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 34-46.
Lewin, K.(1952). Group decision and social change. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Little, B.L., & Madigan, R.L. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28(4), 517-534.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Margerum, R.D. & Born, S.M. (1995). Intergated environmental management: Moving from theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(3), 371-391.
Marks, M.A. (1999). A test of the impact of collective efficacy in routine and novel performance environments. Human Performance, 12(3-4), 295-309.
Martocchio, J.J. and Dulebohn, J. (1994). Performance feedback effects in training: The role of perceived controllability. Personnel Psychology, 47(2), 357-373.
McTaggart R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research. State University of New Press.
Milbrath, L.W. (1984). Environmentalists: vanguard for a new society. Albany: SUNY Press.
Miura, I.T. (1987). The relationship between self-efficacy expectations to computer interest and course enrollment in college. Sex Roles, 16(5-6), 303-311.
Mone, M.A. (1994). Comparative validity of two measures of self-efficacy in predicting academic goals and performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(2), 516-529.
Nonaka. I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University press.
Noe, F.P., & Snow, R. (1990). The new environmental paradigm and further scale analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 20-26.
Pajares, F. and Miller, M.D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.
Parson, R. (1997). Ways of learning on the world wide web. http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu /org/ tcc_conf97/pres/waysof.htm.
Poxon, J. (2001). Shaping the planning profession of the future: The role of planning education, Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 563-580.
Rooney, R. and Osipow, S.H. (1992). Task-specific occupational self-efficacy scale: The development and validation of a prototype. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 14-32.
Salaway, G. (1987). An organizational learning approach to information systems development. MIS Quarterly, June, 245-264.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, USA: Doubleday. 中譯版：郭進隆譯(1993)，第五項修練：學習型組織的藝術與實務，天下文化。
Schön, D.A. (1982). Some of What a Planner Knows: A Case Study of Knowing-in-Practice, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(3), 351-364.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, USA: Basic Book.
Schunk, D.H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173-208.
Schunk, D.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.
Selin, Steve, & Deborah Chavez. (1995). Development a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management, 19(2), 189-195.
Shea, G.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1987). Groups as human resources. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Greenwich, CT: JAI, 5, 323-356.
Smith, D.M., & Kolb, D.A. (1986). User’s guide for learning style inventory. Boston: McBer.
Spink, K.S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 301-311.
Taggar, S., & Seijts, G.H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of collective-efficacy and team performance. Human Performance, 16, 131-156.
Teitz, M. B. (1996). American planning in the 1990s: Evolution, debate and challenge. Urban Studies, 33(4-5), 649-671.
Titus, T.G., Bergandi, T. A., & Shryock, M. (1990). Adolescent learning styles. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, 165-171.
Webster, J. and Martocchio, J.J. (1993). Turning work into play: Implications for microcomputer software training. Journal of Management, 19(1), 127-146.
Wenger, E.C. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Wheelan S.A. (1994). Group processes: a developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wood, R.E. (1986). Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60-8.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self- regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407-415.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. and Bailey. (1990). Mechanism governing organizational performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181-201.
Zaccaro, S.J., Blair, J., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment, New York: Plenum, pp. 305-328.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: An overview. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 173-201.