自然解方（Nature-based Solution, NbS）是永續浪潮下的新興熱門詞彙，成為因應氣候變遷、降低災害風險等社會挑戰的重要策略之一，近年在臺灣討論度逐漸提升，被視為是氣候變遷調適的重要策略之一，而與自然解方相關的自然為本碳信用，隨著近年我國成立碳權交易所，未來政府要針對企業課徵碳費，討論度也有所提升。不過已有許多研究指出應瞭解自然解方的功能性與應用限制，避免過度依賴自然解方的效用，且亦有不少研究提出對碳抵換的質疑。過往的研究多無探討關於自然解方與碳抵換的迷思概念，本研究目的不僅是為了系統性的理解有關我國民眾對自然解方和碳抵換的知識、態度與行為的表現情形，也從批判角度的觀點檢視民眾對於兩項議題是否有所偏誤。
本研究透過文獻分析並結合KAB理論(Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior theory)建構問卷，並經由相關專家審查後，針對臺灣民眾進行調查，旨在瞭解民眾在自然解方與碳抵換的這些議題上的表現與差異。研究結果顯示，民眾對於自然解方與碳抵換議題的認知程度普遍偏低。碳抵換相關名詞相較於自然解方的聽聞度較高，但整體理解程度仍不足。特別是在自然解方的應用上，雖然多數民眾同意其能解決社會挑戰，但缺乏實際證據支持其效用，尤其在防洪等特定問題上的應用成效仍有爭議。
而本研究發現性別、年齡、學歷及參與永續活動經驗對民眾的自我認知、知識及行為表現具有部分顯著差異，但對態度表現無顯著影響。自我認知與行為表現成中度正相關，知識與行為成低度負相關，態度與行為成中度相關。本研究提供了臺灣民眾對自然解方與碳抵換議題的初步認識，並指出不同背景變項對議題認知和行為表現的影響，為未來政策制定與教育推廣提供了重要參考。

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have emerged as a popular concept within the sustainability movement, serving as crucial strategies for addressing climate change, reducing disaster risks, and tackling other societal challenges. In recent years, the discussion surrounding NbS has gained traction in Taiwan, where it is increasingly viewed as an essential climate adaptation strategy. Concurrently, nature-based carbon credits associated with NbS have garnered attention, especially with the establishment of a Taiwan Carbon Solution Exchange (TCX) and the government's plan to levy carbon fees on businesses. However, numerous studies emphasize the need to understand the functional and application limits of NbS to avoid over-reliance on its effectiveness, and many critiques have been raised regarding carbon offset mechanisms. Previous research rarely explores the myths surrounding NbS and carbon offsets. This study aims to systematically understand the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours (KAB) of Taiwanese citizens regarding NbS and carbon offsets and critically examine whether there are misconceptions among the public concerning these two issues.
This study employed literature review and KAB theory (Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior theory) to construct a questionnaire, which was reviewed by relevant experts. A survey was then conducted among Taiwanese citizens to assess their performance and differences in these topics. The findings reveal that the public's awareness of NbS and carbon offsets is generally low. Terms related to carbon offsets are more recognized than those related to NbS, but overall comprehension remains insufficient. Despite most people agreeing that NbS can address societal challenges, there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting its efficacy, particularly concerning specific applications like flood control.
The study finds that gender, age, education level, and experience in sustainability activities significantly affect self-awareness, knowledge, and behavior, but not attitudes. There is a moderate positive correlation between self-awareness and behavior, a slight negative correlation between knowledge and behavior, and a moderate correlation between attitudes and behavior. This study provides an initial understanding of Taiwanese public’s perceptions of NbS and carbon offsets, highlighting the impact of different background variables on these perceptions and behaviors, and offers important insights for future policy-making and educational promotion.

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational research methods, 16(2), 270-301.
Allen, D. (2009). From boundary concept to boundary object: the practice and politics of care pathway development. Social Science & Medicine, 69(3), 354-361.
Alva, A. (2022). A Critical Perspective on the European Commission’s publications ‘Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions’. Nature-Based Solutions, 100027.
Anderson, A. (2012). Climate change education for mitigation and adaptation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6(2), 191-206.
Anderson, V., & Gough, W. A. (2022). A Typology of Nature-Based Solutions for Sustainable Development: An Analysis of Form, Function, Nomenclature, and Associated Applications. Land, 11(7), 1072.
Angelo, H. (2017). From the city lens toward urbanisation as a way of seeing: Country/city binaries on an urbanising planet. Urban Studies, 54(1), 158-178.
Anguelovski, I., & Corbera, E. (2023). Integrating justice in Nature-Based Solutions to avoid nature-enabled dispossession. Ambio, 52(1), 45-53.
Armstrong, R. A. (2019). Should Pearson's correlation coefficient be avoided?. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 39(5), 316-327.
Bennett, B., & Kruger, F. (2015). 1965 to 1995: Fluctuating fortunes and final dividends. Forestry and water conservation in South Africa, history: Science and policy (pp. 219–242). ANU Press.
Bond, W. J. (2016). Ancient grasslands at risk. Science, 351, 120–122.
Broekhoff, D., Gillenwater, M., Colbert-Sangree, T., & Cage, P. (2019). Securing climate benefit: a guide to using carbon offsets. Stockholm Environment Institute & Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, 60.
Bulla, B. R., Craig, E. A., & Steelman, T. A. (2017). Climate change and adaptive decision making: Responses from North Carolina coastal officials. Ocean & Coastal Management, 135, 25-33.
Castellar, J. A., Popartan, L. A., Pueyo-Ros, J., Atanasova, N., Langergraber, G., Säumel, I., ... & Acuna, V. (2021). Nature-based solutions in the urban context: Terminology, classification and scoring for urban challenges and ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment, 779, 146237.
Chazdon, R. (2020). Not all forests are equal. Climate, 2020 UNA-UK.
Christiansen, J. (2021). Nature Based Solutions: A WOLF IN-SHEEP’S CLOTHING.
Climate Focus. (2024). VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET 2023 REVIEW. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://climatefocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/VCM-2023-Review-Report.pdf
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Dalton, J., Dudley, N., Jones, M., Kumar, C., ... & Walters, G. (2019). Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environmental Science & Policy, 98, 20-29.
Coleman, E., Tripathy, A., Sroka, S., Klein, L., Ferreira da Silva, A., Rakhlin, M., ... & Díez, J. (2023). Carbon Credits and Credibility: A Collaborative Endeavor.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches+ a crash course in statistics. Sage publications.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management science, 9(3), 458-467.
Denton, G., Chi, O. H., & Gursoy, D. (2020). An examination of the gap between carbon offsetting attitudes and behaviors: Role of knowledge, credibility and trust. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102608.
Denton, G., Chi, H., & Gursoy, D. (2021). An examination of critical determinants of carbon offsetting attitudes: The role of gender. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
Dumitru, A., & Wendling, L. (2021). Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: A handbook for practitioners. European Commission EC.
Ecosystem Marketplace (2022, December 5). The Rising Demand for Nature-based Climate Solutions. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-rising-demand-for-nature-based-climate-solutions/
Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J. M. N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., ... & Le Roux, X. (2015). Nature-based solutions new influence for environmental management and research in Europe. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24(4), 243-248.
Elmqvist, T., Setälä, H., Handel, S. N., Van Der Ploeg, S., Aronson J., Blignaut, J. N., ... & De Groot, R. (2015). Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 14, 101-108.
Enu, K. B., Zingraff-Hamed, A., Boafo, Y. A., Rahman, M. A., & Pauleit, S. (2024). Citizens’ acceptability and preferred nature-based solutions for mitigating hydro-meteorological risks in Ghana. Journal of Environmental Management, 352, 120089.
Fernandes, J. P., & Guiomar, N. (2018). Nature‐based solutions: The need to increase the knowledge on their potentialities and limits. Land degradation & development, 29(6), 1925-1939
Ferreira, V., Barreira, A. P., Loures, L., Antunes, D., & Panagopoulos, T. (2020). Stakeholders’ engagement on nature-based solutions: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(2), 640.
Ferreira, V., Barreira, A. P., Loures, L., Antunes, D., & Panagopoulos, T. (2021). Stakeholders’ perceptions of appropriate nature-based solutions in the urban context. Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113502.
Ferreira, V., Barreira, A. P., Pinto, P., & Panagopoulos, T. (2022). Understanding attitudes towards the adoption of nature-based solutions and policy priorities shaped by stakeholders’ awareness of climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 131, 149-159.
García-Palacios, P., Soliveres, S., Maestre, F. T., Escudero, A., Castillo-Monroy, A. P., & Valladares, F. (2010). Dominant plant species modulate responses to hydroseeding, irrigation and fertilization during the restoration of semiarid motorway slopes. Ecological Engineering, 36, 1290–1298.
Giachino, C., Pattanaro, G., Bertoldi, B., Bollani, L., & Bonadonna, A. (2021). Nature-based solutions and their potential to attract the young generations. Land Use Policy, 101, 105176.
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., ... & Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645-11650.
Heusinger, J., Sailor, D. J. & Weber, S. (2018). Modeling the reduction of urban excess heat by green roofs with respect to different irrigation scenarios. Building and Environment, 131, 174-183.
Holl, K. D., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2020). Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science, 368, 580–581.
IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press., 3056 pp.
IUCN.(2020). IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions : first edition
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., & Hansen, R. (2022). Principles for urban nature-based solutions. Ambio, 51(6), 1388-1401.change. One earth, 4(5), 730-741.
Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, I., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Sekulova, F., & JT Connolly, J. (2021). Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature’s neoliberalisation processes. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(2), 252-274.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The delphi method (pp. 3-12). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lu, J. L., & Wang, C. Y. (2018). Investigating the impacts of air travellers’ environmental knowledge on attitudes toward carbon offsetting and willingness to mitigate the environmental impacts of aviation. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 59, 96-107.
Lyytimäki, J., & Sipilä, M. (2009). Hopping on one leg–The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), 309-315.
Melanidis, M. S., & Hagerman, S. (2022). Competing narratives of nature-based solutions: Leveraging the power of nature or dangerous distraction?. Environmental Science & Policy, 132, 273-281.
Microsoft (2022). Microsoft carbon removal.
Mitincu, C. G., Niţă, M. R., Hossu, C. A., Iojă, I. C., & Nita, A. (2023). Stakeholders’ involvement in the planning of nature-based solutions: A network analysis approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 141, 69-79.
Murry Jr, J. W., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. The review of higher education, 18(4), 423-436.
NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS INITIATIVE. (2021).On the misuse of nature-based carbon offsets.
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., ... & Wittmer, H. (2017). The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the total environment, 579, 1215-1227.
Nestle (2023). Creating Shared Value and Sustainability Report 2022.
O‘Sullivan, F., Mell, I., & Clement, S. (2020). Novel solutions or rebranded approaches: evaluating the use of nature-based solutions (NBS) in Europe. Frontiers in sustainable cities, 2, 572527.
Paço, A., & Lavrador, T. (2017). Environmental knowledge and attitudes and behaviours towards energy consumption. Journal of environmental management, 197, 384-392.
Pallant, J., SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS, Open University Press/ Mc Graw-Hill, Maidenhead, 2010.
Palomo, I., Locatelli, B., Otero, I., Colloff, M., Crouzat, E., Cuni-Sanchez, A., ... & Lavorel, S. (2021). Assessing nature-based solutions for transformative change. One earth, 4(5), 730-741.
Pan, M., & Pan, W. (2020). Knowledge, attitude and practice towards zero carbon buildings: Hong Kong case. Journal of cleaner production, 274, 122819.
Paris Agreement, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1.
Pituch, K. A. and Stevens, J., Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS (6th ed.), Taylor & Francis, New York, 2016.
Polonsky, M. J., Garma, R., & Landreth Grau, S. (2011). Western consumers' understanding of carbon offsets and its relationship to behavior. Asia Pacific journal of marketing and logistics, 23(5), 583-603.
Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., & Möller, V. (2022). IPCC, 2022: Summary for policymakers.
Randrup, T. B., Buijs, A., Konijnendijk, C. C., & Wild, T. (2020). Moving beyond the nature-based solutions discourse: Introducing nature-based thinking. Urban Ecosystems, 23, 919-926.
Reguero, B. G., Beck, M. W., Bresch, D. N., Calil, J., & Meliane, I. (2018). Comparing the cost effectiveness of nature-based and coastal adaptation: A case study from the Gulf Coast of the United States. PloS one, 13(4), e0192132.
Riera-Spiegelhalder, M., Campos-Rodrigues, L., Enseñado, E. M., Dekker-Arlain, J. D., Papadopoulou, O., Arampatzis, S., & Vervoort, K. (2023). Socio-Economic Assessment of Ecosystem-Based and Other Adaptation Strategies in Coastal Areas: A Systematic Review. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(2), 319.
Salas-Zapata, W. A., Ríos-Osorio, L. A., & Cardona-Arias, J. A. (2018). Knowledge, attitudes and practices of sustainability: Systematic review 1990–2016. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(1), 46-63.
Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & analgesia, 126(5), 1763-1768.
Scott, N., Fitzgerald, S., & Keshav, S. (2021). Cambridge Zero Policy Forum Discussion Paper: Carbon Offsetting and Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change.
Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A., Smith, A., & Turner, B. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794), 20190120.
Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., ... & Turner, B. (2021). Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Global change biology, 27(8), 1518-1546.
Seddon, N. (2022). Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Science, 376(6600), 1410-1416.
Sekulova, F., & Anguelovski, I. (2017). The Governance and Politics of Nature-Based Solutions. Naturvation Deliverable, 1.
Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4-11.
Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., & García, J. (2022). What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification. Nature-Based Solutions, 2, 100009.
Stabinsky, D. (2020). Nature-based solutions or nature-based seductions? Unpacking the dangerous myth that nature-based solutions can sufficiently mitigate climate change.
TNFD (2023, March 28). TNFD releases fourth and final beta framework. https://tnfd.global/news/tnfd-releases-fourth-final-beta-framework-v0-4/
Turner, K. G., Anderson, S., Gonzales-Chang, M., Costanza, R., Courville, S., Dalgaard, T., ... & Wratten, S. (2016). A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecological Modelling, 319, 190-207.
TWN. (2022, March 3). IPCC: Controversy over ‘nature-based solutions’ term in assessment report. https://www.twn.my/title2/climate/info.service/2022/cc220301.htm
Veerkamp, C., Ramieri, E., Romanovska, L., Zandersen, M., Förster, J., Rogger, M., & Martinsen, L. (2021). Assessment frameworks of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. European Topic Centre on Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation (ETC/CCA): Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Venkataramanan, V., Lopez, D., McCuskey, D. J., Kiefus, D., McDonald, R. I., Miller, W. M., ... & Young, S. L. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behavior related to green infrastructure for flood management: A systematic literature review. Science of the Total Environment, 720, 137606.
WBCSD (2022). The role of Nature-based Solutions in strategies for Net Zero, Nature Positive and addressing Inequality.
White House Council on Environmental Quality, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House Domestic Climate Policy Office, 2022. Opportunities for Accelerating Nature-Based Solutions: A Roadmap for Climate Progress, Thriving Nature, Equity, and Prosperity. Report to the National Climate Task Force. Washington, D.C.
White, C., Collier, M. J., & Stout, J. C. (2021). Using ecosystem services to measure the degree to which a solution is nature-based. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101330.
WWF (2022) Living Planet Report 2022 – Building a nature- positive society. Almond, R.E.A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli,  D. & Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF,   Gland, Switzerland
Xu, C., Tang, T., Jia, H., Xu, M., Xu, T., Liu, Z., ... & Zhang, R. (2019). Benefits of coupled green and grey infrastructure systems: Evidence based on analytic hierarchy process and life cycle costing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, 104478.
Zhongming, Z., Linong, L., Xiaona, Y., Wangqiang, Z., & Wei, L. (2020). Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030.
Lecocq, F., Capoor, K., & Morgan Stanley. (2019). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019. World Bank Group.
王文科、王智弘（2009）。教育研究法（增訂第十三版）。臺北市：五南。
行政院國家永續發展委員會。（2022/07/29）。行政院國家永續發展委員會第34次委員會議紀錄，p. 4-5。
行政院國家永續發展委員會。（2022/11/04）。行政院國家永續發展委員會第54次工作會議紀錄，p. 7。
行政院國家永續發展委員會。（2023/08/15）。行政院國家永續發展委員會第35次委員會議紀錄，p. 9。
邱祈榮、林俊成（2016）。由京都議定書到巴黎協議—論森林在全球氣候變化議題中角色的轉變。台灣林業雙月刊。42(4)，3-11。行政院農業委員會林務局。
邱浩政（2019）。量化研究與統計分析：SPSS與R資料分析範例解析。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
徐台閣、李光武（2013）。如何決定調查研究適當的問卷樣本數。臺灣運動教育學報，8(1)，89-96。
蕭儒棠、曾建銘、吳慧珉、林世華、謝佩蓉、謝名娟（2014）。測驗之編製－命題技巧與測驗資料之分析（初版）。新北市：國家教育研究院。
環境部氣候變遷署。（2023/07/14）。易受氣候變遷國家氣候變遷調適行動方案公聽會南區場會議紀錄，p. 3。