請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60693完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 盧道杰(Dau-Jye Lu) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Shan Huang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 黃郁珊 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T10:26:20Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-08-28 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2013-08-28 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2013-08-15 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文文獻
方祥明 (2004),團隊成員個人知識轉換能力與外部關係資源對創造表現行為之影響─以網絡中心性為中介變數,國立雲林科技大學管理研究所博士論文。 王俊程 (2006),社區發展之知識管理研究-以社區林業計畫為基礎,國立屏東商業技術學院資訊管理系碩士論文。 方雅慧 (2008),偏鄉社區營造之啟動:宜蘭社區大學的課程案例,教育實踐與研究21(1):65-96。 尤國任、許富翔、陳宇軒 (2010),影響偏遠地區知識擴散之探討以阿里山太和社區為例,資訊、科技與社會學報17:51-66。 田畠真弓 (2006),網絡結構與跨國高科技知識的擴散:臺灣積體電路與面板的比較分析,東吳社會學報20:109-148。 史育禎 (2007),社區林業作為部落自然資源管理之應用─以新竹縣尖石鄉司馬庫斯為例,國立臺灣大學地理環境資源學系碩士論文。 行政院 (2005),臺灣健康社區六星計畫推動方案,社區發展季刊110:517-527。 吳克倫 (2011),知識擴散如何影響廠商的技術趨於深化,國立暨南國際大學國際企業學系碩士論文。 林務局 (2002),社區林業─居民參與保育共生計畫補助須知,行政院農委會林務局編印。 林務局 (2006),社區林業計畫作業規範,行政院農委會林務局編印。 林金頻 (2010),生態教育訓練課程之知識結構探討─以社區林業計畫為基礎,國立屏東商業技術學院資訊管理系碩士論文。 官有垣、李宜興、謝祿宜 (2006),社區型基金會的治理研究:以嘉義新港及宜蘭仰山兩家文教基金會為案例,公共行政學報18:21-50。 宗曉華 (2008),技術擴散與人力資本的空間結構,工業技術經濟27(6):85-87。 高迪理 (1991),社會支持體系概念之架構探討。社區發展季刊,54:24-32。 翁順裕、賴奎魁 (2009),從社會網絡分析觀點探討技術的趨同性─以保險商業方法專利為例。管理學報26(5):485-506。 莊勝雄 (2011),公私協力與治安─地理資訊系統應用於南投市區竊盜犯罪之空間分析,國立中正大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 陳慈仁 (2001),臺北市資訊軟體業與網際網路服務區位分佈之研究,國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所。 陳榮德 (2004),組織內部社會網絡的形成與影響:社會資本觀點。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所博士論文。 陳蓓倫 (2006),社區組織間資源網絡關係對社區發展影響─以高雄縣六龜鄉中興社區為例,國立東華大學環境政策研究所碩士論文。 陳美惠、李來錫、洪士惟 (2009a),社區林業組織發展的知識演化研究,中華林學季刊 42(1): 107-122。 陳美惠、李來錫、陳雯歆、溫永封 (2009b),以形式概念分析法探討社區課程關聯度之研究─以社區林業計畫為基礎,中華林學季刊42(3): 397-410。 陳馥蓉 (2011),圖書資訊領域2006-2010年跨機構知識擴散之研究,國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所碩士論文。 郭明生 (2003),非營利組織知識擴散之研究-以臺北市文山與南港兩所社區大學為例,世新大學行政管理學系碩士論文。 張慧嫻 (2005),第一階段社區林業計畫的建構與想像─2002-2004年,國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 黃毅志 (2002)。社會階層、社會網絡與心理幸福。社會階層、社會網絡與主觀意識,111-143。臺北:巨流。 黃昱虹 (2006),產業知識傳遞與空間外溢之研究─以臺灣地區生物科技產業為例,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文。 黃書娟 (2007),社區林業的政策與計畫執行之研究─以羅東林區管理處為例,國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 勞委會職訓局 (2005),多元就業開發方案提案參考手冊。 葉美智 (2007),社區林業之社會網絡分析─以南投縣國姓鄉猴洞坑為例,國立中興大學森林學系博士論文。 鄒克萬 (2000),區域人口分布之時空分析,臺灣土地科學學報1:33-50。 溫在弘、劉擇昌、林民浩(2010),犯罪地圖繪製與熱區分析方法及其應用:以1998-2007年臺北市住宅竊盜犯罪為例,地理研究52:43-63。 楊舒閔 (2007),組織團隊知識流通與新產品開發績效之實證研究─社會網絡理論與社會交換理論觀點,國立高雄第一科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 楊惠玲 (2010),以社會網絡觀點分析社區組織推動觀光發展之影響,世新大學觀光學系碩士論文。 熊瑞梅 (1995),〈社會網絡的資料蒐集、測量及分析〉,見章英華、傅仰止、瞿海源 (合編)《社會調查與分析:社會科學研究方法檢討與前瞻之一》,頁 313-356。臺北:中央研究院民族學研究所。 廖學誠、陳宛君、賴玉芳、鍾龍治 (2004),民眾參與社區林業第一階段後總體效益分析─以羅東林區管理處為例,國立臺灣師範大學地理系。 廖學誠、郭曉蓉 (2006),社區林業計畫的時空特性分析,台灣林業32(5):51-61。 蔡勇美、郭文雄 (1984),都市社會學。臺北:巨流。 劉軍 (2004),社會網絡分析導論。北京:社會科學文獻出版社。 蔡志明 (2005),知識擴散模式之於知識價值與企業利益之相關性研究,國立成功大學工業與資訊管理研究所博士論文。 盧道杰 (2002),社區林業的發展與願景─由社區保育的經驗談起,臺灣林業28(6):3-9。 盧道杰 (2003),他方之石可以攻錯─世界社區林業的發展概況,臺灣林業29(1):22-27。 盧道杰 (2004),臺灣社區保育的發展:近年來國內三個個案的分析,地理學報37:1-25。 盧道杰(2007),第二階段社區計畫「協同經營」模式之探討(2)體制的連結。行政院農業委員會林務局九十六年科技計畫研究報告。 薛益忠、郭士鳳 (2010),利用「空間自相關」探索1999年至2005年臺灣腸病毒病例之空間擴散,華岡地理學報25:37-52。 鍾龍治、廖學誠、陳宛君、劉瓊蓮、陳美惠 (2005),羅東林區民眾參與社區林業計畫之評估與分析。地理學報41:83-100。 嚴祥鸞 (1996),參與觀察法,收錄於《質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》,195-221,胡幼慧主編,臺北:巨流。 二、英文文獻 Alcácer, J. and Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774-779. Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association-LISA, Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93-115. Arnold, J. E. M. (1991). Community Forestry: ten years in review. Community Forestry Note 7, Published by FAO. Beckman, T. J. (1999). The current state of knowledge management. In: Liebowitz, J. (eds.) Knowledge management handbook, New York: CRC Press, 1.1-1.22. Berg, S., Duncan, J. and Friedman, P. (1982). Joint venture strategies and corporate innovation. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Börner, K., Penumarthy, S., Meiss, M. and Ke, W. (2006). Mapping the diffusion of scholarly knowledge among major U.S. research institutions. Scientometrics, 68(3), 415-426. Brass, D.J. and Burkhardt, M.E. (1992). Centrality and Power in Organization. In Nohria, N., & Eccles, R.G.(Eds) Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 191-215. Brian, P.H. (2001). Value development and learning organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 19-32. Brown, D., Malla, Y., Schreckenberg, K. and Springate-Baginski, O. (2002). From supervising ‘Subjects’ to supporting ‘citizen’ : Recent developments in community forestry in Asia and Afrcia. Overseas Development Institute, Natural Resource Perspective, 75, 1-4. Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Carlsson, B. (1997). Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Cliff, A.D., Ord, J.K., Haggett, P.and Versey, G.R. (1981). Spatial Diffusion: An Historical Geography of Epidemics in an Island Community, Cambridge University Press. Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., Asheim, B.T. and Jonsson, O. (2003). The Role of Proximities for Knowledge Dynamics in a Cross-border Region: Biotechnology in Øresund. DRUID Summer Conference 2003 on Creating, Sharing and Transferring Knowledge, Copenhagen, June, 12-14. Coleman, J.S.(1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology. 94, 95-120. Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P. and Parket, A.(2002). Making invisible work visible : Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L.(1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Donelson R.F.(1990). Group Formation. Group Dynamics. California: Pacific Grove. Emirbayer, M. and Goodwin, J. (1994).Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency.American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411-1454. Duinker, P. N., Matakala, P. W., Chege, F. and Bouthillier, L.(1994). Community forests in Canada: An overview. The Forestry Chronicle, 70(6): 711-720. Estall,RC. and Buchanan,RO.(1961).Industrial Activity and Economic Geography. Hutchinson, London. Forsyth, D.R.(1990). Group Dynamics(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Freeman, L.C.(1979). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Network, 1, 215-239. Gilmour, D.A and Fisher, R.J. (1998). Evolution in Community Forestry: Contesting Forest Resources, RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, Winter Special Issue, 109-122. Hall, R. and Andriani, P.(2003). Managing Knowledge Associated with Innovation. Journal of Business Research 56, 145-152. Hansen,M.T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82-111. Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471-501. Knoke, D. and Kuklinski, J. H. (1982). Network analysis. Newbury park, Calif: Sage. Kretser, H., Sullivan, P. and Knuth, B. (2008). Housing density as an indicator of spatial patterns of reported human–wildlife interactions in Northern New York. Landscape and urban planning, 84, 282-292. Kuby,M., Harner,J. and Gober,P.(2010), Human Geography in Action, 5th Edition, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Lin, N.(1982). Social resources and instrumental action. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin(Eds.), Social structure and network analysis. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage. Lin, N.(2001).Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. UK: Cambridge Uni. Press. Lotwick, H. W. and Silverman, B. W. (1982). Methods for Analysing Spatial Processes of Several Types of Points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 44(3), 406-413. Lundvall, B. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning., London: Pinter. Mallik, A.U. and Rahman, H. (1994). Community Forestry in Developed and Developing countries: A comparative Study. The forestry chronicle, 70(6), 731-735. Malmberg,A.and Maskell,P. (2002).The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34, 429-449. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations: Sources, Characteristics and Financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55-65. Mitchell, J. C. (1969).Social networks in urban situations. Manchester, England; Manchester University Press, Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H.(1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pfeffer, J. and Robert, I.S. (1999). Knowing “what” to do is not enough: turning knowledge into action. California Management Review, 42(1), 83-108. Polanyi, M.(1967). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor. Powell,W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336. Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook 2nd ed, Newberry Park, London: Sage Publications. Sorenson, O. and Fleming, L.(2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy, 33(10), 1615-1634. Spencer, J.W. (2003). Global gatekeeping, representation, and network structure:a longitudinal analysis of regional and global knowledge-diffusion network. Journal of International Studies, 34, 428-443. Tobler, W.R. (1970). A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region. Economic Geography, 46, 234-240. Uzzi, B. and Lancaster, R.( 2003). Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49, 383-399. Wakiyama, T. (2004). Community forestry in Nepal: a comparison of management systems between indigenous forestry and modern community forestry. Policy Trend Repor. , 1-20. Walker,K.N.,Macbride,A. and Vachon,M.L.S.(1977). Social Support Networks and the Crisis of Bereavement. Social Science and Medicine, 11(1), 35-41. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Wellman, B. and Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Social Structures: A Network Approach, New York: Cambridge University Press. Zaheer, A., R. Gozubuyuk and H. Milanov, (2010). It’s the connections: The network perspective in inter-organizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives February, 62-77. 三、網頁資料 水保局 (2013),農村再生歷程網,http://ep.swcb.gov.tw/ep/Default.aspx(2013/07/17) 羅東林區管理處 (2008),http://luodong.forest.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=360 (2013/08/08)。 Borgatti, S.P. (1998). What is social network analysis? http://www.analytictech.com/networks/whatis.htm(2012/11/28) ESRI(2012),ArcGIS Resource Center,Desktop 10,http://help.arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index.html#//000800000019000000(2012/12/31) Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C. and Wellman, B. (1997), “Studying Online Social Networks.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol.3, Issue1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00062.x/full?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4da62ce480237b90,0 (2013/01/27) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60693 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究以羅東林管處申請社區林業計畫的個案為對象,透過環域分析及社會網絡分析探討社區取得相關知識之途徑及影響知識擴散的重要行動者。結果發現,社區取得的知識多半來自鄰近已申請過該計畫之社區組織,也有來自工作站與NGO團體的知識;重要行動者方面,個人層次有工作站成員、無尾港文教促進會、更新社區、朝陽社區及林美社區之核心成員。組織層次有羅東林管處、工作站A、南興社區、朝陽社區等。此外,羅東林管處連結最多社區組織,其次為仰山文教基金會。如將北北基地區和宜蘭的網絡分開,則北北基各項網絡中心性高者皆為工作站A及台灣油杉社區,宜蘭網絡以羅東林管處、南興社區、朝陽社區等組織數值較高。
網絡中行動者的屬性主要以男性為主,年齡多集中在51至60歲之間,多數人的角色是一般會務幹部,但中心性高者多為參與決策之角色。社區組織內部關係組成以朋友和鄰居為主,對外則以公務關係佔多數;互動媒介不管在社區組織內部或對外皆以面對面為主。此媒介受距離影響,經計算網絡的空間距離,結果顯示社區與其互動對象的平均距離低於整體網絡的平均距離,顯示出社區較常與鄰近單位討論社區林業。但中心性高的行動者,其互動距離大於平均,顯示其互動範圍較廣。 關於中心性高者的特質,政府機關具符合社區需求之政策,願意與社區互動;社區組織則較活躍,有多年執行經驗,執行狀況良好且知識來源多元;NGO團體多從事社造相關活動,與許多社區互動頻繁,熟知政府的計畫及社區需求。這些特質有助於社區林業知識的擴散。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study applies buffer analysis and social network analysis on those cases applying community forestry projects in the Luodong Forestry District Office, in order to explore ways for these communities to collect relevant knowledge and actors to affect knowledge diffusion. The results show that most of the communities get knowledge from neighboring ones which have applied for community forestry projects, work stations and NGOs. About the important actors, key officers of work stations, Wu-Wei River Cultural & Educational Association, Geng-Sin community, Jhao-Yang community, and Lin-Mei community have high centralities in individual level, while the Luodong Forestry District Office, work station A, Nan-Sing community and Jhao-Yang community have higher centralities in organizational level. In addition, both Luodong Forestry District Office and Youngsun Culture and Education Foundation has most interactions with communities. The work station A and Taiwan Cow-tail Fir community have high centralities in Taipei and Keelung area, New Taipei City, and Keelung City while Luodong Forestry District Office, Nan-Sing community and Jhao-Yang community have high centralities in Yilang, as we analyzed the network by region respectively, .
For those of actors in network identified by this study, they are male mainly, of ages from fifty-one to sixty. Most of them get involved in community affairs, ones of high centrality do in decision-making. There mainly are friends and neighbors within community organizations while business being the major external connections of them. As for interactive media, both internal and external of community organizations adopt the face-to-face way affected by distance. Calculating the distances of networks, it shows that the distance between communities and their interactive objects is shorter than the average distance of the whole network, i.e., communities tend to interact with closer objects. The results also reveal a wider range for actors with high centralities. Regarding the characteristics of those with high centrality, which may contribute to diffusion of community forestry knowledge, the government agencies are keen to promote and disperse knowledge, and to interact with communities based on their responsibility; community organization are energetic, of experiences and with knowledge of multiple sources; NGOs mainly get involved in community empowerment activities, interact with communities frequently, are familiar with governmental policies and local demands. 【keywords】knowledge diffusion, spatial diffusion, buffer analysis, social network analysis, centrality | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T10:26:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R00625006-1.pdf: 11546484 bytes, checksum: 56f92df73f95825763a6535cd457be6a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝誌 I
中文摘要 II Abstract III 目錄 V 表目錄 VI 圖目錄 VII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節、研究動機 1 第二節、研究目的 3 第三節、研究流程 4 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節、社區林業 5 第二節、知識擴散 12 第三節、知識擴散相關的研究方法 18 第三章 研究方法與設計 26 第一節 研究對象與範圍 26 第二節 空間擴散分析方法 29 第三節 問卷設計與調查 33 第四節 社會網絡分析 35 第五節 參與觀察與深度訪談 39 第四章 結果與討論 40 第一節、空間擴散分析結果 40 第二節、社會網絡分析結果 50 第三節、網絡中心性高之單位特質 79 第五章 結論與建議 81 第一節、結論 81 第二節、後續研究建議 84 第三節、研究限制 85 第六章 參考文獻 86 附錄一 社會網絡問卷 94 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 知識擴散 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 空間擴散 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 環域分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 社會網絡分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 中心性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | knowledge diffusion | en |
| dc.subject | spatial diffusion | en |
| dc.subject | buffer analysis | en |
| dc.subject | social network analysis | en |
| dc.subject | centrality | en |
| dc.title | 社區林業計畫知識擴散之探討 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Knowledge Diffusion of Community Forestry Program | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 溫在弘,蔡炯民,葉美智 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 知識擴散,空間擴散,環域分析,社會網絡分析,中心性, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | knowledge diffusion,spatial diffusion,buffer analysis,social network analysis,centrality, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 97 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2013-08-15 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 森林環境暨資源學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 森林環境暨資源學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-102-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 11.28 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
