探索臺灣水資源管理韌性之策略偏好：以Q方法論之研究

Abstract

當前臺灣面臨日益加劇的環境變遷，極端降雨與乾旱現象頻繁交錯，對社會造成重大衝擊，使得如何提升社會的應對能力，成為治理上的重要課題。其中，「韌性」被學界廣泛討論，是一項重要的應對策略。儘管學界關注韌性概念已久，但多數研究傾向採取客觀的定義與測量方式，較少探索個體對韌性的主觀認知與策略偏好。因此，本研究主張韌性具有主觀特質，應從人的視角出發，理解不同社群對於提升水資源管理韌性的多元看法。為此，本研究運用Q方法（Q-methodology），蒐集報章期刊中常見的水資源管理策略語句，並邀訪水利相關的專家、決策者與公務人員等不同類型之政策行動者，依其主觀經驗與偏好進行策略排序。研究結果顯示，受訪者不僅可細分出三種偏好取向，分別為重視權責劃分與事前規劃、崇尚基於自然的解決方案（Nature-based Solution, NbS）、以及傾向調節用水需求與市場機制運作等，更具備「有備無患」的共識。此外，參考政策倡導聯盟架構（Advocacy Coalition Framework, ACF），研究成果揭示不同政策信念與支持群體的分布，證明Q方法作為觀察政策偏好形成的有效工具；不僅補足過去研究對主觀面向的忽略，也為未來水資源治理與其他公共政策議題的策略設計，提供更具包容性與多元性的決策依據。

Taiwan is currently facing increasingly severe environmental changes, with increasing frequency between extreme rainfall and drought, causing significant impacts on society. As a result, enhancing “resilience” has become a critical governance issue and has been widely discussed as a key strategic approach. Although academia has begun to pay attention to the application of the resilience concept, most studies tend to adopt objective definitions and measurement methods, with relatively few exploring individuals’ subjective understandings and strategic preferences regarding resilience. This study argues that resilience possesses a subjective dimension and should be understood from a human-centered perspective to capture the diverse views of different communities on enhancing resilience in water resource management. To this end, this study employs Q-methodology, collecting commonly discussed water management strategy statements from newspapers, policy statements, and academic journals. Various types of policy actors—including water governance decision-makers, civil servants, and water experts—were invited to rank these strategies based on their personal experiences and preferences. The results reveal a general consensus on the importance of "Better Safe than Sorry," yet respondents can still be categorized into three distinct preference types based on their selections and interpretations: (1) Enhancing Organizational Accountability and Pre-Disaster Planning, (2) Nature-based Solutions (NbS), and (3) Regulating Water Demand and Market Mechanisms. Furthermore, drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the findings demonstrate the distribution of different policy beliefs and advocacy groups, validating Q-methodology as an effective tool for observing various policy preferences. Not only does this study address the lack of attention to subjective dimensions in previous resilience research, but it also provides a more inclusive and diverse foundation for future strategy design in water governance and other public policy domains.