保護區經營管理效能評量方法的比較 ─以宜蘭縣無尾港水鳥保護區的施行經驗為例

Abstract

本研究旨在比較以WCPA架構為基底發展的三種評量方法─RAPPAM、METT及EoH的評量過程與結果，藉由文獻回顧彙整出比較面向後，以訪談、焦點團體及工作坊的方式於無尾港水鳥保護區執行METT與EoH，並於2010年RAPPAM的執行結果比較，試圖了解同樣發展自WCPA架構，三種評量方法的結果會否有差異，並對未來臺灣在評量方法的運用提出建議。 研究結果顯示，同樣發展自WCPA架構，三種評量方法的結果大致相同，不過在設計學理與原則上的差異則的確會反應在評量經驗上。EoH需要投入較多時間，由價值定義到指標釐清，因此能夠得到比較細緻的評量結果；RAPPAM以比較為主，在題目設計上不利於單一個案的解讀；METT的題項少，不須投入太多時間，因此僅能提供對經營管理過程的快速總覽。 儘管研究結果大致上僅印証了文獻彙整的資訊，本研究於個案執行時仍發現，經過一些調整，能讓這些工具在台灣的運用有所不同。EoH的成本在國外執行時有很大一部分來自評量參與者在機票與住宿費的花費，但台灣的面積小、能夠當天來回，因此成本並未較RAPPAM多；RAPPAM經過訪談流程與會議資料格式的調整，能夠增加在個案評量上的適用性。METT若能將訪談資料收集齊全、有系統地彙整，也能夠提供較細緻的資訊。 由於每種評量法各有其設計學理與宗旨，沒有一種方法能夠符合所有的需求。對於未來在台灣的使用，本研究建議以搭配的方式，每三到五年採用METT作為期中評量，每十年則採用EoH進行較細緻的評量。若基礎資訊累積仍不充分，則可以調整過後的RAPPAM替代之。

Adopting Wu-wei-kang Wildlife Refuge as the study site, this study aimed to compare the process and results of three methodologies of protected area effectiveness evaluation─ RAPPAM, METT and EoH. RAPPAM was implemented in 2010, while METT and EoH were applied from late 2013 to 2014. Using literature review, interview, focus group and workshops, this study try to figure out the differences of the results and put forward the suggestions about the implementation of evaluation methodologies in Taiwan. The study showed that the three methods developed from WCPA framework generally have the similar results. However, the divergence in the principles indeed brought about some deviation in the end. For example, EoH needs more time input, and it produces more delicated results. RAPPAM developed to do the comparison works, therefore, its reslts are beneficial for decision-making level but more difficult to be used on site level. METT doesn’t need too much effort and it can only provide a scan of the management process toward conservation goals. Nevertheless, the study still revealed some differences from the case study. From other cases, the majority of EoH’ cost comes from the flght tickets and accommodation of the workshop participants. Since Taiwan’s protected areas usually close to the cities and settlement, the cost wasn’t that high as expected. By adjusting the process and format of management plan, the utility of RAPPAM in the case assessment could be improved. METT can provide more detailed information as long as the qualitative data are compiled completely and systematically. There is no evaluation method of protected area management effectiveness can suitable for all cases. The study made some advice to the future implmmentation in Taiwan. First, adopt METT as a way to do the mid-term review every 3-5 years. And every 10 years, have more comprehensive assessments, EoH might be a good way. If the data isn’t sufficient to do so, RAPPAM might be an alternative approach.