請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84570
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.advisor | 盧道杰(Dau-Jye Lu | djlu@ntu.edu.tw | ), | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-Hsuan Cheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭宇軒 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T22:16:01Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2022-09-29 | |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 李玲玲。(2011)。從2010生物多樣性目標到愛知目標。台灣林業 37(3): 38-42 陳冠文。(2017)。保護區經營管理效能評量方法在臺灣的應用–METT 與 RAPPAM 的比較與結果連結。國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 張琰、劉靜、朱春全。(2015)。自然保護地綠色名錄:內容、進展及為中國自然保護地帶來的機遇和挑戰.。生物多樣性 23(4): 437。 楊苡芃。(2015)。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。國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 羅欣怡。(2011)。臺灣海岸河口溼地型保護區經營管理效能評估。國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 劉真汝。(2017)。探討增進我們的襲產在挖子尾自然保留區的施作。國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 潘淑滿。(2003)。質性研究: 理論與應用。臺北市: 心理出版社。 盧道杰、趙芝良、闕河嘉、高千雯、張雅玲、張弘毅。(2011)。臺灣保護區經營管理效能評量五個個案的分析與解讀。地理學報 62: 73-105。 盧道杰、趙芝良、陳瑋苓、何立德、葉美智。(2021)。保護區經營管理的實務、政策及國際連結 (1/3)。行政院農業委員會林務局委託研究計畫。 羅欣怡。(2011)。臺灣海岸河口溼地型保護區經營管理效能評估。國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 Ayivor, J. S., Gordon, C., Tobin, G. A., & Ntiamoa-Baidu, Y. (2020). Evaluation of management effectiveness of protected areas in the Volta Basin, Ghana: perspectives on the methodology for evaluation, protected area financing and community participation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(2), 239-255. Butchart, S.H.M., et al., (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328, 1164–1168. Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010). Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 - COP 10, decision X/2. Convention on Biological Diversity. Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Borodin, O., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, M. T., Lacerda, L., & Stolton, S. (2004). Are protected areas working? An analysis of forest protected areas. WWF. Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, M., Stolton, S., & Burgess, N. D. (2007). Tracking progress in managing protected areas around the world-An analysis of two applications of the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. WWF and the World Bank. Gland: World Bank and WWF. Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M. D., Craigie, I. D., Woodley, S., Balmford, A., Brooks, T. M., Hockings, M., Knights, K., Mascia, M. B., McRae, L., & Burgess, N. D. (2018). A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conservation Letters, 11(3), e12434. Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M., Knights, K., Burgess, N. D. (2015). Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis. Biological Conservation, 191, 692–699. Geldmann, J., Joppa, L. N., & Burgess, N. D. (2014). Mapping change in human pressure globally on land and within protected areas. Conservation Biology, 28, 1604–1616. Gilbert, N. A. T. A. S. H. A. (2014). Green List promotes conservation hotspots. Nature, 515, 322. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Corrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas 2nd edition: International Union for the Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas, Gland, Switzerland. Hockings, M. (2003). Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected Areas. American Institute of Biological Sciences. Washington DC, USA. Hockings, M., James,R., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Mathur, V., Makombo, J., Courrau, J., & Parrish, J.(2008). Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit-Assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage. UNESCO World Heritage Center. Hockings, M., Hardcastle, J., Woodley, S., Sandwith, T., Wildson, J., Bammert, M., ... & Leverington, F. (2019). The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: Setting the standard for effective area-based conservation. Parks, 25(25.2), 57-66. Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2000). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas., Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N. and Corrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edition. Gland, Switzerland and Brisbane, Australia: IUCN WCPA and University of Queensland. IUCN Website (2022). IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas. Resource: https://www.iucn.org/resources/conservation-tool/iucn-green-list-protected-and-conserved-areas. Download date: 2022.08.22 IUCN and World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) (2017). IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: Standard, Version 1.1. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. IUCN, World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) and Assurance Services International (ASI) (2019). IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: User Manual, Version 1.2. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Leverington, F., Hockings, M., & Costa, K. L. (2008). Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas: a global study: World Commission on Protected Areas Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., & Hockings, M. (2010). A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental management, 46(5), 685-698. Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2010). Evaluation of management effectiveness in protected areas: Methodologies and results. Basic and Applied Ecology, 11(5), 377-382. Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2016). METT Handbook: A guide to using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). Woking: WWF-UK. Stolton, S. Dudley, N. and Hockings, M. (2021). METT 4 Handbook: A guide to using the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT). IUCN WCPA: In Press. Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., Mackinnon, K., Whitten, T., & Leverington, F. (2007). Management effectiveness tracking tool: reporting progress at protected area sites. World Bank and WWF Forest Alliance. Tittensor, D.P., et al., 2014. Amid-termanalysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science, 346, 241-244. Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H., Brooks, T. M., Langhammer, P. F., Marnewick, D., Vergara, S., Yanosky, A., & Watson, J. E. (2019). Protected area targets post-2020. Science, 364(6437), 239-241. Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515, 67-73. Wells, S., Addison, P. F., Bueno, P. A., Costantini, M., Fontaine, A., Germain, L., Lefebvre, T., Morgan, L., Staub, F., Wang, B., White, A., & Zorrilla, M. X. (2016). Using the IUCN green list of protected and conserved areas to promote conservation impact through marine protected areas. Aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems, 26, 24-44. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/84570 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 經營管理效能評量 (Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Evaluation,簡稱MEE) 為判斷保護區有無被良好經營管理的依據,而IUCN綠色名錄 (IUCN Green List) 是一個全球性的保護區典範。本研究旨在以鴛鴦湖自然保留區為例,實際模擬申列操作一次綠色名錄,於操作過程中比較METT-4與綠色名錄在目的、操作方法、指標架構、操作流程、資料對應及結果的差異,進而討論綠色名錄引進臺灣的適用性。 研究結果顯示,METT-4是以了解保護區的經營管理效能為依歸;綠色名錄旨在塑造國際保護區治理與經營管理的典範,除經營管理效能外,還包括「良好的治理」與「成功的保育成果」等要素。綠色名錄還強調治理、社區參與、生態系服務、性別平等、氣候變遷、保育成果等相關題項,指標涵蓋範圍較廣,且因綠色名錄要選拔的是國際保護區典範,要每項在各方面都要表現良好才算通過達成目標,因此綠色名錄指標涵蓋範圍較廣且細;為了達成每項目標,可能會花較多的資源,故其成本也較高。資料對應的結果顯示,以鴛鴦湖自然保留區現有的資料 (經營管理計畫與METT-4評量資料),尚不足以滿足與綠色名錄指標的需求,特別缺乏「良好的治理」與「成功的保育成果」的資料。個案評量結果顯示,除了因治理相關指標為綠色名錄新增的治理相關指標,導致達成較低外,最大差異在於成果,因需綠色名錄規定要建立閾值來以判斷價值保育成果,所以成果達成低;而METT-4只問價值狀況並未要求閾值。 研究結果顯示,缺乏較完整且較高品質的資料直接影響綠色名錄的評量結果,因此有較完整的經營管理計畫書,及選擇經營管理效能評量分數較佳高者,申請進入綠色名錄的選拔或較容易。以鴛鴦湖自然保留區個案來說,因其METT-4分數較高且資料較完整,雖有一些不足,但認為在5年期限內其或還可以達成綠色名錄要求。以臺灣林務局轄管的保護區較為熟悉METT的情況下,可選擇先操作一次METT-4,選擇分數較高者進入綠色名錄的申辦。另,臺灣亟需努力社區參與及氣候因應等,已被綠色名錄囊括的項目也顯示,國際保育社會已將臺灣較弱的社區參與及氣候變遷因應等,為國際保育社會視列為保護區典範的必要條件,這也提醒我們急需努力的主題。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) is the basis for judging whether a protected area is well managed, and the IUCN Green List is a global model of protected areas. The purpose of this study is to simulate the application process of the Green List by the case of the Yuanyang Lake Natural Reserve, to compare the differences between METT-4 and the Green List in terms of purpose, operating method, indicator structure, operation process, data and results, and then discuss the applicability the Green List in Taiwan. The research results show that METT-4 aims to understand the management effectiveness of a protected area; the Green List aims to create a model for international protected area governance and management. In addition to management effectiveness, it also includes 'Good Governance' and ' Successful Conservation Outcomes” elements. The Green List emphasizes topics related to governance, community participation, ecosystem services, gender equality, climate change, and conservation outcomes. Been recognized by the international model of the Green List, it must be performed well in all topics for a protected area. Therefore, while the IUCN Green List Standard covers a wider and more detailed range, more inputs may be made, so is the cost. The results of data comparison show that the existing data (management plan and evaluation information by METT-4) are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the IUCN Green List Standard, especially those of 'Good governance' and 'Successful Conservation Outcomes'. The case evaluation results show that because of the governance-related indicators are newly mentioned by the Green List, which leads to low achievement. And the biggest difference between the two evaluation results is the outcomes. As METT-4 only asks for the value status, Green List requires thresholds established to judge the outcomes of conservation value. It cannot gain a good score for information lacking. The research results show that the lack of comprehensive and high-quality data directly affects the application results of the Green List. Therefore, it might be easier to choose those with comprehensive management plan and higher score on management effectiveness evaluation to apply for the Green List. For this case, due to its high METT-4 score and relatively comprehensively data, although there still are some deficiencies, it is believed that it can achieve the criteria of the Green List within the 5-year period. Besides, the Green List project also shows that the international conservation community has put attention to community participation and climate change which are the weakness and gaps of Taiwanese protected areas to the model of protected areas. This reminds us that we should urgently make efforts to reach these topics. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T22:16:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2009202214330700.pdf: 3487228 bytes, checksum: 3a80e01f4750fba18b9fb11b4dfafd09 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄 口試委員會審定書 i 謝辭 ii 摘要 iii Abstract v 第一章 前言 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 4 第三節 研究問題與研究架構 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 保護區經營管理效能評量簡介及其發展 7 第二節 經營管理效能追蹤工具 (METT) 11 第三節 IUCN綠色名錄 (IUCN Green List) 16 第三章 研究方法與材料 23 第一節 研究方法 23 第二節 個案材料-鴛鴦湖自然保留區 26 第三節 研究流程與步驟 28 第四節 評量方法操作流程 30 第四章 綠色名錄與METT-4方法上的差異 36 第一節 目的比較 37 第二節 操作方法比較 38 第三節 指標架構比較 40 第四節 操作流程比較 42 第五章 綠色名錄與METT-4資料對應 44 第一節 對應結果 46 第二節 結果分析 51 第六章 評量結果及結果差異 53 第一節 METT-4評量結果 53 第二節 綠色名錄評量結果 59 第三節 綠色名錄與METT-4結果比較 65 第七章 綠色名錄施行的適用性 66 第一節 影響達成綠色名錄的因素 66 第二節 鴛鴦湖自然保留區申報綠色名錄的可能補強 68 第八章 結論 69 第一節 結論與建議 69 第二節 研究限制 73 參考文獻 75 附錄 80 附錄一 綠色名錄與METT4+經營管理計畫書資料對應表 80 附錄二 鴛鴦湖自然保留區綠色名錄評量表格 113 附錄三 鴛鴦湖自然保留區基礎資料表 127 附錄四 鴛鴦湖自然保留區量結果表 129 附錄五 報導人總表 132 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 以鴛鴦湖自然保留區為例討論綠色名錄在臺灣施行的適用性 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Applicability of implementing the IUCN Green List in Taiwan- A case of the Yuanyang Lake Nature Reserve | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 趙芝良(Chih-Liang Chao),葉美智(Mei-Chih Yeh),陳瑋苓(Wei-Lin Chen),王正平(Cheng-Ping Wang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 綠色名錄,保護區經營管理效能評量,METT,適用性,模擬操作,鴛鴦湖自然保留區, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | IUCN Green List,protected area management effectiveness evaluation,METT,applicability,simulate operation,Yuanyang Lake Nature Reserve, | en |
dc.relation.page | 140 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202203644 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-22 | |
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 |
dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-09-29 | - |
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 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-2009202214330700.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務) | 3.41 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。