請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71573
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林建元(Chien-Yuan Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yin-Ling Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃映翎 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:03:36Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-01-28 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 方昱(2009)。反思性社會工作:「漂流社工」的社區實踐與社工教育,東吳社工作學報,21,83-99。
王本壯(2005)。公眾參與社區總體營造相關計畫執行之行動研究-以苗栗縣推動社區規劃師運作模式為例,公共行政學報,17,1-35。 王志弘、高郁婷(2017) 。都市領域化的動物皺摺:開放空間中人與動物關係的紋理,地理研究,67:1-32。 石計生、黃映翎(2017)。當代Q地理資訊系統:從人文社會到大數據,台北市:雙葉書廊。 吳作樂、吳秉翰(2016)。圖解統計與大數據,台北市:五南出版社。 吳宗憲(2014)。「流浪犬管理政策公民審議會議政策評估」研究報告。行政院農業委員會103年度動物保護公共政策研析專業服務計畫。 李承嘉(2005)。行動者網絡理論應用於鄉村發展之研究-以九份聚落1895~1945 年發展為例,地理學報39: 1-30。 李易駿(2012)。提昇社區能力的輔導:一個短期的行動研究,台灣社區工作與社區研究學刊,2(2),81 -122。 范麗娟(2004)。深度訪談, 謝臥龍主編,質性研究,台北:心理。 周天穎(2008)。地理資訊系統理論與實務,台北市:儒林圖書公司。 孟祥森、錢永祥譯,Singer, Peter著(1996)。動物解放(Animal Liberation)。臺北市:關懷生命協會。(原書出版於1975年) 林沁雄(2007)。近二十年來我國對外投資之起因-批判實在主義之研究取徑,國家發展研究,6(2),67-98。 胡純綾(2017)。論流浪動物零安樂死政策評估:以桃園市流浪狗為例,元智大學社會暨政策科學學系碩士論文,桃園市。 倪志琳(2009)。行動研究在早期療育的運用,長庚科技學刊,10,37-44。 孫瑋霞(2017)。新北市板橋區執行流浪犬TNVR計畫之研究,臺北市立大學歷史與地理學系碩士論文,台北市。 高懿伶(2016)。不可被治理?擺盪在公衛與關懷框架中的流浪動物,國立清華大學社會學研究所碩士論文,新竹市。 莊永忠、廖學誠(2011)。PPGIS與傳統民眾參與方式在社區議題討論與居民參與程度上之比較研究:以宜蘭縣龜山島社區為例,地理研究,55:89-120。 郭雨函(2016)。「零安樂死」然後呢?以政策利害關係人觀點評估臺南市府流浪動物保護政策,國立中正大學政治學系政府與公共事務碩士在職專班碩士論文,嘉義縣。 郭璇(2009)。TNR 密技大公開——Animals Taiwan 志工訓練實錄,臺灣動物之聲,48:16-19。 陳正益(2007)。走學術研究的象牙塔:論行動研究的社會工作領域的運用,社區發展季刊,117,143-162。 陳家豪(2011)。社區工作的挑戰與困境:以一個望成社區行動研究為例,國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作研究所,碩士論文,南投縣。 黃宗慧(2017)。化人新世紀?以《愛麗絲》為鏡/徑重省人-動物組配論,中外文學,46(3):113-154。 黃宗潔(2017)。牠鄉何處?城市·動物與文學,臺北:新學林。 監察院 (2017a)。監察院公報,3027:4-11。 監察院 (2017b)。監察院公報,3028:28-37。 劉惠媛譯,Berger,John著(2017)。影像的閱讀(About Looking)。臺北市:麥田。(原書出版於1980年) 蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究,台北:五南。 蕭嘉棋(2017)。我國執行TNR之可行性研究:以宜蘭及臺南試點經驗為鑑,國立台南大學行政管理學系碩士班碩士論文,台南市。 賴爾柔、洪貴真(2005)。社區培力行動研究之實踐,農業推廣文彙,50,45-60。 謝志偉、王慧玉譯,Creswell, J.W. and Plano, V.L.著(2010)。混合方法研究導論(Designing and conducting mixed methods research)。台北:心理。(原著出版年:2007) 羅秀華(2001)。社區充權的行動研究:以木新永安組織經驗為例,台大社會工作學刊,5,151-195。 羅秀華(2004)。文山社區由充權到治理的發展歷程,國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所博士論文,台北市。 Aggarwal, S. & Nayak , A. (2016). Mobile big data: a new frontier of innovation. In: Geospatial Research: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications. p.1801, Information Resources Management Association, Vol. III, IGI global press, USA. Aronoff ,Stan (1989). Geographic information systems: A management perspective, Geocarto International, 4:4, 58 Bhaskar, R.(1975) . A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds : Leeds Books. Black, D., & Henderson, V. (1999). A theory of urban growth. Journal of Political Economy, 107(2), 252-284. Buller, H. (2014). Animal geographies I. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2): 308-318. Byrne,D. and Pickard, A.J.(2016) . Neogeography and the democratization of GIS: a metasynthesis of qualitative research,Information, Communication & Society ,19. Carter, D. (2012). Urban Regeneration, Digital Development Strategies and the Knowledge Economy: Manchester Case Study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,April 2012, http://www.springerlink.com/content/1l8568n024328355/ Connors, J. P., Lei, S., & Kelly, M. (2012). Citizen science in the age of NeoGeography: utilizing volunteered geographic information for environmental monitoring. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(6), 1267-1289. De Silva,G. and Obeyesekere, N.(2014). Sterilizing more than 80% of female dog population: Is it enough to keep the population under control?2nd International Conference on Dog Population Management. Elwood, S. (2008). Volunteered geographic information: future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal, 72(3-4), 173-183. Evans-Cowley, J. (2010). Planning in the Real-Time City: The Future of Mobile Technology. Journal of Planning Literature, 25(2), 136. Fudge, Erica. Renaissance Animal Things. Gorgeous Beasts: Animal Bodies in Historical Perspective. Ed. Joan B. Landes, Paula Young Lee, and Paul Youngquist. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2012. 41-56. Geertman, S. (2002). Participatory planning and GIS: APSS to bridge the gap, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29, 21-35. Giffinger, R., Fertner,C., Kramar,H., Kalasek,R., Pichler-Milanovic,N., & Meijers,E. (2007) . Smart cities – Ranking of European medium-sized cities.Vienna: Centre of Regional Science. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211-221. Goodchild, M. F. (2009). NeoGeography and the nature of geographic expertise.Journal of Location Based Services, 3(2), 82-96. Goodchild, M. F., & Glennon, J. A. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: a research frontier. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3),231-241. Gregory, I.N. and Cooper, D. (2011). GIS, Texts and Images: New Approaches. Poetess Archive Journal, 2(1). Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 55(2), 173-193. Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 55(2), 173-193. Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J., Paraszczak, J., et al. (2010). Foundations for Smarter Cities. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(4), 1-16. Hart, Elizabeth and Bond, M. (1995). Action Research for Health and Social Care,Buckingham. Open University Press Hassan, M. M.(2005): Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh: spatial mitigation planning with GIS andpublic participation, Health Policy, 74:247–260. Ivanova,M. and Gechev,Y.(2016).Counting of stray animals on the territory of Sofia municipality. Four Paws Foundation report. Johnston, C. (2008). Beyond the clearing: Towards a dwelt animal geography. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5): 633-649. Jordan, G.(2002). GIS for community forestry user groups in Nepal: Putting people before thetechnology. In: Craig, W. J., Harris, T. M. & Weiner, D.(eds), Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems, 232-245. Kiesler, S. & S. Lee (1992). Group decision making and communication technology.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(1), 96-123. Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., & Turton, I.( 2000). Web-based public participation geographicalinformation systems: An aid to local environmental decision-making?Computers, Environmentand Urban Systems. 24:109-125. Kyem, P. (2002). Promoting Local Community Participation in Forest Management through a PPGIS Application in Southern Ghana, Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems, New York: Taylor & Francis, 213-231. Latour, Bruno. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford UP. Lepczyk, C. A., Dauphin´e, N., Bird, D. M., Conant, S., Cooper, R. J., Duffy, C., Hatley, P. J., Marra, P. Stone, E., & Temple, S. A. (2010). What conservation biologists can do to counter trap-neuter response to Longcore et al. Conservation Biology, 24 (2), 627 -629. Leszczynski ,A. and Crampton, J. (2016). Introduction: Spatial Big Data and Everyday Life. Big Data and Society. July-December:1-6, Sage. Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E. & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successivestages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171-193. Lloyd,C. D. (2010). Exploring population spatial concentrations in Northern Ireland by community background and other characteristics: an application of geographically weighted spatial statistics, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24:8,1193-1221 Longcore T., Rich C., & Sullivan L. M. (2009). Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology, 23 (4), 887 -894. Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25: 911-932. McNiff, J and Whitehead, J. (2003). Action Research: Principle and Practice,London and New York: Routledge. McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. (2006). All You Need to Know About Action Research. London: SAGE Publications. Mitchell ,William J. (1999). E-topia pp.64-68.MIT Press. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J.,(1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts, The Academy of Management Review, 22(4):853-886. Mooney, P. & Corcoran, P. (2014). Has OpenStreetMap a role in Digital Earth applications? International Journal of Digital Earth, 7(7), 534-553. Narchal, R. M., Kittappa, K. & Bhattacharya,P. (1987). An environmental scanning system for business planning. Long Range Planning, 20(6), 96-105. Nemati, H. R., Steiger, D. M., Iyer, L. S. & Herschel, R. T. (2002). Knowledge warehouse:An architectural integration of knowledge management, decision support,artificial intelligence and data warehousing. Decision Support Systems, 33(2),143-161. Openshaw, S. (1991) “A view on the GIS crisis in geography or using GIS to putHumpty -Dumpty back together again”, Environment and Planning A, 23:621-628. Openshaw, S. (1998). “Some Trends and Future Perspectives for Spatial Analysisin GIS”, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 4(1) : 5 -13. Panelli, R. (2010). More-than-human social geographies: Posthuman and other possibilities. Progress in Human Geography, 34(1): 79-87. Park, S., G. E. Bolton, L. Rothrock, & J. Brosig (2010). Towards an interdisciplinaryperspective of training intervention for negotiations: Developing strategicnegotiation support contents. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 213-221. Philo, C. (1995). Animals, geography, and the city: Notes on inclusions and exclusions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13: 655-681. Philo, C. and Chris Wilbert,C.(2000). Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations. London: Routledge. Prelipcean,A.C., Gidofalvi,G &Susilo,Y.O. (2016). Measures of transport mode segmentation of trajectories. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 30(9), 1763-1784. Regan, Tom(2004)The Case for Animal Rights, California. University of California Press. Saunders,J. (1994) Cluster Analysis, Journal of Marketing Management. 10:1-3, 13-28. Sayer, A. Postmodernist thought in geography : a realist view. Antipode , 1993 ,24 :320~441. Sieber ,R.(2006) Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96:3, 491-507. SOS dogs.(2014).Proposals for a national neuter, vaccinate and return program for Romania. Stenhouse, L (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heinemann. Stringer, Ernest T. (1996). Action Research (3rd. ). London: Sage. Tsoukias, A. (2008). From decision theory to decision aiding methodology. EuropeanJournal of Operational Research, 187(1), 138-161. Weiner, D. & Harris, T. M. (2003). Community-integrated GIS for land reform in South Africa, URISA Journal, 15:61-73. Whatmore, Sarah.( 2002). Hybrid Geographies: Natures Cultures Spaces. London: Sage Publications. Wolch, J., Emel, J., & Wilbert, C. (2003). Reanimating cultural geography. In Anderson, K., Domosh,M., Pile, S., & Thrift, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Geography (pp. 184-206). London: Sage. Zhong, T., Young, R. K., Lowry, M., & Rutherford, G. S.(2008). A model for public involvement intransportation improvement programming using participatory Geographic Information Systems,Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32:123–133. 網路資料: 1.BCCN. (2018, Mar. 8). Bristol wins global Smart City Award. Retrieved from Bristol City Council Newsroom: http://news.bristol.gov.uk/bristol_wins_global_smart_city_award 2.GEOFABRIK:http://www.geofabrik.de/ 3.geojson.io:http://geojson.io 4.International Companion Animal Management Coalition (2010) Humane Dog Population Management Guidane.。http://www.icam-coalition.org/downloads/Humane_Dog_Population_Manageme nt_Guidance_English.pdf 5.IBM, 'The Four V’s of Big Data,' 2015. [Online]. http://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/infographic/four-vs-bigdata. 6.ICAM(2007)人道狗口管理指南http://animal.coa.gov.tw/download/resources/d/09_resources_d0302.doc 7.Kyem, P. A. K(2000)Promoting local community participation in forest management through theapplication of a geographic information system: APPGIS experience from Southern Ghana,http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/kyem.html. 8.WAP(2010)Surveying roaming dog populations: guidelines on methodology.http://www.icam-coalition.org/downloads/Surveying%20roaming%20dog%20populations%20-%20guidelines%20on%20methodology.pdf 9.UoB. (2017, Oct. 23). Bristol named as UK’s smartest city. Retrieved from University of Bristol: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2017/october/smart-city.html 10.交通部Gis-T交通網路地理資訊倉儲系統:https://gist.motc.gov.tw/ 11.全國法規資料庫:https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=M0060027 12.社會經濟資料庫:http://210.65.89.57/STAT/Web/Portal/STAT_PortalHome.aspx 13.芝加哥大學GIS中心:http://gis.uchicago.edu/framenum1.htm 14.英國倫敦學院大學(University College London)的「高等空間分析中心」(The Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, CASA):http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/ 15.農委會動物保護資訊網-公立收容所統計https://animal.coa.gov.tw/html/index_06_2.aspx 16.農委會動物保護資訊網-關於流浪犬管理政策與公民審議會議https://animal.coa.gov.tw/html/index_06_5_1.html 17.農委會畜牧處新聞公報:農業部組織編制已充分提升動物保護管理資源https://www.coa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=4108 18.農委會(2014)。農委會啟動流浪犬管理政策公民審議會議招募公民參與。農委會新聞與公報。取自:https://www.coa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=4926。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71573 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 台灣於2015年修正通過動物保護法,正式廢除收容動物安樂死規定。相應而來的,並不是流浪犬數量的減少,更未見動物境遇的改善。未有系統性、大型絕育計畫的施行,又難以遏止遊蕩犬增加的態勢,形成都市管理難題。流浪犬隻絕育工作的執行,在不同區域,因不同環境變項,有難度落差。以台北都會區(新北市、台北市及基隆市)為例,雖同為都市地區,還是可以由市中心到邊陲、地域或人文景觀態樣單純到複雜,歸納出流浪犬數量多寡和誘捕期程長短,與初步需投入的人力資源多寡。
本研究從質性研究取向開展,藉由文獻回顧、環境踏查、參與式觀察、深入訪談及行動研究等方法獲取資訊;接續以著重環境特性、地理分區乃至空間聚集關係的空間分析與空間決策支援等量化研究方法分析資料,探究近年來台北都會區流浪犬管理課題。 研究發現,藉參與式空間決策支援(PSDS)的提出,除了納入空間思考與地理資訊工具應用,促進事件利害關係人參與、協作外;還可以協助動保人員,建立合理的規劃分析方法,並提供適當的決策輔助資訊。讓流浪犬源頭管理策略,更能彈性適應具有活動力的流浪犬與當前迅速變化的社會經濟環境。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The Animal Protection Act was amended in Taiwan in 2015, which officially abolished the rule of animal euthanasia. However, what followed as a result of the abolition was not a reduction in the number of stray dogs, but the worsening of animal situations in urban area. Although the sterilization strategy was implemented to replace animal euthanasia, the lack of systematic and large-scale execution has rendered more issues for stray-dog management. The challenge behind systematic execution of sterilization lies within the complexity and variance in environmental factors within the urban context. Take Taipei Metropolitan Area (New Taipei City, Taipei City and Keelung City) as an example, the variance in spatial complexity between urban center and borders highly affects stray-dog population, time estimated for trapping, and the amount of human resources it takes to alleviate the stray-dog management issues.
This research is qualitative-research oriented and provides information through literature review, environmental survey, participatory observation, in-depth interviews, and action research. Quantitative research follows, using methods such as spatial analysis and spatial decision support, which focus on environmental characteristics, geographical division and spatial aggregation, to analyze the data and explore the management of stray dogs in the Taipei metropolitan area in recent years. Results of this study indicate that the use of participatory spatial decision support (PSDS), with an addition of spatial thinking and geographic information tools, can help facilitate the participation and collaboration of event stakeholders. This improvement also assists the animal protectors to establish a reasonable planning analysis method, and provide appropriate decision support information. The stray-dog management strategies, consequently, could flexibly adapt to the active stray dogs and the rapidly changing socio-economic environment of today. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:03:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-D99544005-1.pdf: 7036401 bytes, checksum: 4ca2686aad7f05a4a77f055e8e902b70 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii 目錄 iii 圖目錄 vi 表目錄 ix 第一章、緒論 1 第一節、研究動機 1 第二節、研究問題 5 第三節、研究目的 8 第四節、研究流程 10 第二章、文獻回顧 12 第一節、流浪動物的都市治理 12 第二節、行動研究方法 28 第三節、空間決策分析 32 第三章、研究設計 41 第一節、研究內容與範圍 41 第二節、研究概念與架構 47 第三節、研究方法 49 第四章、流浪動物管理與利害關係人分析 52 第一節、大規模流浪犬TNVR之利害關係人分析 52 第二節、行動者網絡視角之解讀 59 第五章、地理分區與遊蕩犬族群調查 62 第一節、遊蕩犬族群調查前置作業 62 第二節、地理分區 65 第三節、資源盤點 80 第六章、參與式空間決策支援與大規模犬隻TNVR 83 第一節、區域內遊蕩犬搜尋 83 第二節、流浪犬誘捕工作 94 第三節、TNVR成效評估 100 第四節、空間資料庫建置 111 第七章、結論與建議 117 第一節、結論 117 第二節、後續研究與建議 119 參考文獻 123 附錄 133 附錄1嘉義縣家畜所動保案糾正案文 134 附錄2桃園市動保案糾正條文 135 附錄3動物保護法歷次修法重點 136 附錄4各國動物福利業務中央主管機關層級 141 附錄5 訪談對象資料 143 圖目錄 圖1研究流程圖 11 圖2全國公立動物收容所收容處理情形統計 (2008-2017) 14 圖3動保法修訂歷程與動保光譜轉變 15 圖4本研究參考流浪犬管理的都市位置 19 圖5可倫坡TNVR計畫成效 20 圖6 TNVR計畫後索菲亞犬隻數量下降趨勢明顯 22 圖7TNVR計畫後通報流浪犬數量下降趨勢明顯 23 圖8奧拉迪亞的犬隻數量下降幅度 25 圖9行動研究循環 29 圖10北北基地區位置圖 44 圖11研究架構 48 圖12 MAW利害關係人模型 56 圖13 流浪犬源頭管理利害關係人模型 57 圖14 WAP以區塊抽樣法選取埃及開羅犬隻族群調查分區 63 圖15 完成最終調查區選擇 64 圖16由新北市全區航照可知地理態樣複雜多元 65 圖17村里地理特性的差異(左:烏來區福山里;右:新店區直潭里) 66 圖18新北市道路密度分析圖 67 圖19依照土地使用分區將新北市劃分為三大分區 68 圖20 QGIS下載開放街圖工具 70 圖21 OSM資料轉換成向量圖檔 70 圖22 選擇OSM資料導出類型 71 圖23 OSM資料成功導出道路線圖層 71 圖24 三大分區疊合道路路網資料 72 圖25 三大分區疊合道路路網與村里界資料 73 圖26 三大區總共劃分出441個調查分區 74 圖27 隨機挑選32分區為最終調查範圍 75 圖28 TNVR計畫任務編組架構圖(以相信動物協會為例) 80 圖29 新北市三峽區訪調軌跡 84 圖30 新北市坪林區訪調軌跡 85 圖31 家訪流程 86 圖32 家訪員手機操作介面 87 圖33 新北市坪林全區家訪紀錄 88 圖34 2017-2018家戶訪調軌跡總圖 89 圖35 相信動物協會網路通報管道 91 圖36 圍片誘捕示意照 96 圖37 以捕犬網抓捕流浪狗 97 圖38 對戒心較重的流浪犬實施吹箭麻醉 98 圖39 基隆全市的流浪犬分布資訊地圖 100 圖40 台北市2014-2017犬隻入所和通報數量 102 圖41 台北市內湖區遊蕩犬結紮比例 105 圖42 新北市溪州部落周邊遊蕩犬結紮比例 106 圖43基隆防疫所各行政區的結紮總數交叉比對(2015與2016比較) 109 圖44基隆市遊蕩犬結紮比例 110 圖45 可累次擴充欄位的空間資料庫 112 圖46 家訪資料—犬隻與餵養人分布 113 圖47 三芝區工廠與籠鍊養家戶熱區分析 115 表目錄 表1保加利亞首都-索菲亞2013-2015犬隻絕育數量 21 表2相信動物協會執行大台北地區TNVR工作計畫類別 42 表3北北基48行政區人口統計 44 表4北北基108年度動保歲出預算金額與計畫內容 46 表5隨機選取32個調查分區結果 75 表6新北市尚須絕育之母犬總數估算表 77 表7各行政區預計結紮狀況表 78 表8流浪犬區域絕育計畫應備物資 82 表9犬隻誘捕方式與使用時機 95 表10 流浪犬分布資訊統整表 101 表11 台北市社子地區公部門捕捉犬隻比較(2015-2016) 103 表12 台北市內湖地區公部門捕捉犬隻比較(2014-2016) 104 表13 2017-2018執行台北都會區犬隻調查行政區與清查據點數 111 表14空間資訊與決策支援系統比較表 119 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 都市地區流浪犬源頭管理之參與式空間決策支援:以台北都會區為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | PSDS for the Source Management of Stray Dogs in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Taipei Metropolitan Area. | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 賴進貴,彭光輝,白仁德,林長郁 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 流浪犬,源頭管理,行動研究,利害關係人,自願性地理資訊,參與式空間決策支援, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | stray dogs,source management,action research,stakeholders,volunteered geographic information(VGI),participatory spatial decision support(PSDS), | en |
dc.relation.page | 143 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900248 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-01-28 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 建築與城鄉研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 建築與城鄉研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 6.87 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。