近年來，人類活動的多樣性隨科技發展日趨複雜，經濟與文明成長的同時，伴隨著海洋資源的消逝與海洋環境的破壞。為因應此挑戰 如何改善環境政策以及教學場域中教師的課程設計以培養公民具有環境負責任行為被視為為環境教育的核心目標。許多研究指出，行為意圖為預測海洋環境負責任行為的有效因子。而態度，知覺行為控制被視為行為意圖的潛在因子。然而，有研究指出，受試者表現出對海洋環境負責任行為的正向態度並未轉換為實際的行為，可見研究者對於海洋情境中的行為模型尚未釐清，尤其是態度與行為之關聯。此外，過去海洋環境負責任行為模型的相關研究中，知覺行為控制與態度間之關聯研究相對稀少，本研究考慮態度並不單作為一情感因子，而是多層次的心理構面，將進行其與知覺行為控制及海洋環境負責任行為之路徑分析 以建立行為模型作為政策及教育發展的參考。
本研究使用問卷測量大專生之態度與知覺行為控制。以及海洋環境負責任行為意圖，共 7 9 位大專生之資料進行統計分析。結果顯示，受試者之態度及知覺行為控制均與海洋環境負責任行為顯著相關，且知覺行為控制作為態度及海洋環境負責任行為間之中介變項。 根據本研究結果，環境政策及教育的制訂與執行方向應考慮知覺行為控制與態度之連結及發展歷程，主動創造學生及公民於環境負責任行為中的成功經驗，或是降低執行環境負責任相 任務時的困難度，以提升公民的對於海洋環境負責任行為的知覺行為控制，藉此建立公民之海洋環境負責任行為以維繫海洋資源之永續發展 。

The marine environment has plunged into crisis with the growth of human activities. The enhancement of responsible environmental behavior (REB) requires policy and education to cultivate social awareness and actions to sustain marine resources. Several studies revealed that the intention serves as an effective predictor of actual behaviors. Furthermore, researchers generally acknowledge that attitudes and perceived behavioral control are potential factors toward behavior intention. However, some research has found that a positive attitude toward the environment does not translate into responsible environmental behavior. Additionally, the model of behavior in the marine context, especially the relationships between attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and the intention of responsible environmental behavior, are still not clear. Students’ attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and intentions toward responsible marine environmental behavior (M-REB) were evaluated via questionnaires. The data from a total of 79 undergraduate students were analyzed. The results suggest that perceived behavioral control is the mediator between attitudes and intentions toward M-REB. This finding reveals the potential benefits of reconsidering the importance of perceived behavioral control in promoting M-REB and provides empirical evidence for future policy-makers in society and education.

1. Cowen, R.K.; Gawarkiewicz, G.; Pineda, J.; Thorrold, S.R.; Werner, F.E. Population connectivity in marine systems an overview. Oceanography 2007, 20, 14–21.
2. Baskett, M.L.; Barnett, L.A. The ecological and evolutionary consequences of marine reserves. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2015, 46, 49–73.
3. Guest, H.; Lotze, H.K.; Wallace, D. Youth and the sea: Ocean literacy in Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar. Policy 2015, 58, 98–107.
4. Sia, A.P.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Selected predictors of responsible environmental behavior: An analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1986, 17, 31–40.
5. Santoro, F.; Selvaggia, S.; Scowcroft, G.; Fauville, G.; Tuddenham, P. Ocean Literacy for All: A Toolkit; UNESCO Venice Office: Paris, France, 2017; Volume 80.
6. Cava, F.; Schoedinger, S.; Strang, C.; Tuddenham, P. Science content and standards for ocean literacy: A report on ocean literacy. Retrieved March 2005, 25, 2015.
7. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta- analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8.
8. Hungerford, H.R.; Volk, T.L. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J. Environ. Educ. 1990, 21, 8–21.
9. Wen, W.-C.; Lu, S.-Y. Marine environmental protection knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and curricular involvement of Taiwanese primary school students in senior grades. Environ. Educ. Res. 2013, 19, 600–619.
10. Columbia University. Percentage of Total Population Living in Coastal Areas; Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Avail- able online:
https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets/oceans_seas_coasts/p op_coastal_ areas.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2019).
11. Small, C.; Nicholls, R.J. A global analysis of human settlement in coastal zones. J. Coast. Res. 2003, 19, 584–599.
12. Stern, M.J.; Frensley, B.T.; Powell, R.B.; Ardoin, N.M. What difference do role models make? Investigating outcomes at a residential environmental education center. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 24, 818–830.
13. De Leeuw, A.; Valois, P.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro- environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 128–138.
14. Gkargkavouzi, A.; Halkos, G.; Matsiori, S. Environmental behavior in a private-sphere context: Integrating theories of planned behavior and value belief norm, self-identity and habit. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 145–156.
15.Cottrell, S.P. Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environ. Behav. 2003, 35, 347–375.
16. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1973, 27, 41.
17. Chen, C.-L.; Tsai, C.-H. Marine environmental awareness among university students in Taiwan: A potential signal for sustainability of the oceans. Environ. Educ. Res. 2016, 22, 958–977.
18. Heberlein, T.A.; Black, J.S. Attitudinal specificity and the prediction of behavior in a field setting. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1976, 33, 474.
19. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211.
20.Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173.
21. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683.
22. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134.
23.Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 14–25.
24. Han, H.; Hsu, L.-T.J.; Sheu, C. Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 325–334.
25. Wang, S.; Lin, S.; Li, J. Exploring the effects of non-cognitive and emotional factors on household electricity saving behavior. Energy Policy 2018, 115, 171–180.
26. Desombre, C.; Lamotte, M.; Jury, M. French teachers’ general attitude toward inclusion: The indirect effect of teacher efficacy. Educ. Psychol. 2019, 39, 38–50.
27. Hungerford, H.R.; Peyton, R.B. A paradigm for citizen responsibility: Environmental action. Curr. Issues Vl Yearb. Environ. Educ. Environ. Stud. 1980, 400, 169–170.
28. Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
29. Norman, R. Affective-cognitive consistency, attitudes, conformity, and behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1975, 32, 83.
30. Bandura, A.; Freeman, W.; Lightsey, R. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
31. Van Dinther, M.; Dochy, F.; Segers, M. Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educ. Res. Rev. 2011, 6, 95–108.
32. Bandura, A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ. Psychol. 1993, 28, 117–148.
33. MacKinnon, D.P.; Dwyer, J.H. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Eval. Rev. 1993, 17, 144–158.
34. Sobel, M.E. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Methodol. 1982, 13, 290–312.
35. Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 305–314.
36. Frazier, P.A.; Tix, A.P.; Barron, K.E. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. J. Couns. Psychol. 2004, 51, 115.
37. Boubonari, T.; Markos, A.; Kevrekidis, T. Greek pre-service teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and environmental behavior toward marine pollution. J. Environ. Educ. 2013, 44, 232–251.
38.Kim, B.S.; Omizo, M.M. Asian and European American Cultural Values, Collective Self-Esteem, Acculturative Stress, Cognitive Flexibility, and General Self-Efficacy Among Asian American College Students. J. Couns. Psychol. 2005, 52, 412.
39. Atkinson, D.R.; Morten, G.; Sue, D.W. Counseling American Minorities: A Cross-Cultural Perspective; Brown & Benchmark: Madison, WI, USA, 1979.
40. Fischer, A.R.; Moradi, B. Racial and Ethnic Identity: Recent Developments and Needed Directions; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
41.Constantine, M.G.; Okazaki, S.; Utsey, S.O. Self-concealment, social self-efficacy, acculturative stress, and depression in African, Asian, and Latin American international college students. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2004, 74, 230–241.
42. Lee, Y.-k.; Kim, S.; Kim, M.-s.; Choi, J.-g. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2097–2105.
43. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy. In The Corsini Encycl. Psychol; Weiner, I.B., Craighead, W.E., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
44. Palmer, D. Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Res. Sci. Educ. 2006, 36, 337–353.
45.Schunk, D.H. Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1989, 1, 173–208.
46. Ocean Affairs Council. National ocean policy white paper; Ocean Affairs Council: Taiwan, 2020.
47. Cortina, J. M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology. 1993, 78(1), 98.