請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2556
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 | Kuan-Wen Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳冠文 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-13T06:42:00Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-06-12 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-13T06:42:00Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2017-06-12 | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2017-05-11 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., et al. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328(5982), 1164-1168. doi: 10.1126/science.1187512
Coad, L., Burgess, N. D., Bomhard, B., & Besançon, C. (2009). Progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2010 and 2012 targets for protected area coverage. Parks: The International Journal for Protected Area Managers, 17, 35-72. Coad, L., Leverington, F., Knights, K., Geldmann, J., Eassom, A., Kapos, V., et al. (2015). Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 370(1681). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0281 Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research - Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria. Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427. Craigie, I. D., Baillie, J. E. M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C., Collen, B., Green, R. E., et al. (2010). Large mammal population declines in Africa's protected areas. Biological Conservation, 143(9), 2221-2228. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.007 Dudley, N. (2004). Protected areas and certification. In J. Scanlon & F. Burhenne-Guilmin (Eds.), International Environmental Governance: A international regime for protected areas: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Dudley, N., Belokurov, A., Borodin, O., Higgins-Zogib, L., Hockings, M., Lacerda, L., et al. (2004). Are protected areas working? An analysis of forest protected areas by WWF. Dudley, N., & Stolton, S. (1999). Threats to Forest Protected Areas: Summary of a survey of 10 countries. Gland, Switzerland: WWF/World Bank Alliance and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Ervin, J. (2003). WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritizationof Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology: WWF Forests for Life Programme, Gland, Switzerland. Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M., & Burgess, N. D. (2013). Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation, 161, 230-238. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.018 Geldmann, J., Joppa, L. N., & Burgess, N. D. (2014). Mapping Change in Human Pressure Globally on Land and within Protected Areas. Conservation Biology, 28(6), 1604-1616. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12332 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. doi: Doi 10.1016/S0308-521x(97)00006-1 Hockings, M. (2003). Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Bioscience, 53(9), 823-832. doi: Doi 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0823:Sfateo]2.0.Co;2 Hockings, M., Stolton, S., & Dudley, N. (2000). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. 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. Keene, M., & Pullin, A. S. (2011). Realizing an effectiveness revolution in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(9), 2130-2135. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.035 Klein, A. M., Vaissiere, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., et al. (2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 303-313. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 Laurance, W. F., Useche, D. C., Rendeiro, J., Kalka, M., Bradshaw, C. J. A., Sloan, S. P., et al. (2012). Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature, 489(7415), 290-+. doi: 10.1038/nature11318 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. doi: 10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5 Leverington, F., Hockings, M., & Costa, K. L. (2008). Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas: a global study: World Commission on Protected Areas. Loikkanen, T., Simojoki, T., Wallenius, P., & Metsaehallitus, V. (1999). Participatory approach to natural resource management: a guide book. Mackinnon, K., & Higgins-Zogib, L. (2006). World Bank/WWF Alliance Tracking Tool: Reporting conservation progress at protected area sites. In M. Hockings, S. Stolton, N. Dudley, F. Leverington, & J. Courrau (Eds.), Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas 2nd edition: IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., & Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(12), 681-687. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.003 Nolte, C., Leverington, F., Kettner, A., Marr, M., Nielsen, G., Bomhard, B., et al. (2010). Protected area management effectiveness assessments in Europe. A review of application, methods and results, BfN-Skripten, Bonn, 69. Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Are global conservation efforts successful? Science, 313(5790), 1051-1052. doi: 10.1126/science.1131302 Saterson, K. A., Christensen, N. L., Jackson, R. B., Kramer, R. A., Pimm, S. L., Smith, M. D., et al. (2004). Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 597-599. doi: DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.01831.x Scharlemann, J. P. W., Kapos, V., Campbell, A., Lysenko, I., Burgess, N. D., Hansen, M. C., et al. (2010). Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx, 44(3), 352-357. doi: 10.1017/S0030605310000542 Stankey, G. H., Bormann, B. T., Ryan, C., Shindler, B., Sturtevant, V., Clark, R. N., et al. (2003). Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan - Rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry, 101(1), 40-46. 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/WWF Alliance by WWF International, Gland. Symes, J., & Jasser, S. E. (2000). Growing from the grassroots: Building participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation methods in PARC. Learning from change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation, 137-149. Worboys, G. L., Lockwood, M., & Delacy, T. (2005). Protected Area Management: Principles and Practice 2nd edition: Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Worboys, G. L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., & Pulsford, I. (2015). Protected area governance and management: ANU Press. 王牧寧 (2007) 宜蘭縣無尾港野生動物保護區經營管理效能評估。臺灣大學國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 陳瑩慈 (2011) RAPPAM在臺灣於個案評估之適用性探討。臺灣大學國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 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。臺灣大學國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 盧道杰、王牧寧、闕河嘉 (2008) 無尾港野生動物保護區經營管理效能評估-RAPPAM的引進與適用。地理學報 54:51-78。 盧道杰、趙芝良 (2008) 自然保護區效能評估與生態指標機制的建立 (一)。行政院農業委員會林務局。 盧道杰、趙芝良、何立德 (2009) 保護區經營管理效能評估-北東區、中區、南區 (1/3) 。行政院農業委員會林務局補助計畫報告。 盧道杰、趙芝良、羅柳墀 (2010) 保護區經營管理效能評估-北東區、中區、南區 (2/3) 。行政院農業委員會林務局補助計畫報告。 盧道杰、趙芝良、何立德 (2011) 保護區經營管理效能評估-北東區、中區、南區 (3/3) 。行政院農業委員會林務局補助計畫報告。 盧道杰、趙芝良、何立德、葉美智、羅柳墀、陳維立、裴家騏、陳瑋苓、賴欣欣 (2014) 保護區經營管理技術手冊─個案篇。行政院農業委員會林務局。 網路資料 行政院農業委員會林務局自然保育網 http://conservation.forest.gov.tw/ | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2556 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究目的為探討經營管理效能追蹤工具 (Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, METT) 的在地化過程,並與先前使用過的保護區經營管理快速評量與優先設定法 (The Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management Methodology, RAPPAM) 做比較。以哈盆自然保留區2011年的RAPPAM評量和2016年的METT評量,詮釋與連結兩者所得的結果。
在地化過程修改METT的保護區資料表、壓力量表及經營管理評量表,將不適於臺灣的內容刪除、對題目做更詳盡的說明,並訂定執行的流程。研究發現,RAPPAM著重於保護區脈絡、對經營管理內容的評量較完整;METT的評量問卷題目則多集中在規劃、投入和過程中,題目常緊扣執行狀況,類似期中階段評量。由於兩者皆以壓力量表和評量表來評量保護區的經營管理效能,可藉此進行比較。壓力表可用來呈現脈絡,比對前次評量結果,展現經營管理成果,在累積多次評量結果後還能清楚呈現壓力的趨勢。此外,本研究以Leverington等人 (2010) 的重點指標 (headline indicators) 連結兩個方法的評量表,比較經營管理過程的效能。詳細填答這兩份表單,便可以完整的檢視經營管理循環,給予後續經營管理建議。 哈盆自然保留區的評量結果顯示,「氣候變化與惡劣天氣」和「生物資源的使用」是較嚴重的壓力類型。保護區需加強的重點則在於保護區範圍修正、林試所和林務局間的溝通以及原住民議題。從兩次的評量可以看到,經營管理動作使人為影響造成的壓力有下降的趨勢,而園區邊界的標記、基礎設備設施、財務管理、員工訓練與技能以及執法能力是有大幅進步的經營管理項目。 本研究討論METT在臺灣執行上所遭遇的問題,並試圖修改操作流程和方法,提高其在臺灣的適用性。後續若能對METT和RAPPAM兩者的問卷做更仔細的修改,並增加其與重點指標連結的正確性,相信可以使評量進行得更順暢、結果更準確,進一步提升經營管理效能評量的效用。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The aims of this study are to explore the localization process of Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), and compare it with the Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management Methodology (RAPPAM). The results of RAPPAM and METT were interpreted and linked by the RAPPAM assessment in 2011 and the METT assessment in 2016 of Hapen Nature Reserve.
In the localization of METT, the datasheets of reporting progress at protected area sites, threats and management assessment form were revised to suit the situation in Taiwan, give a more detailed description of the questionnaire, and set the operation process of METT. The study found that RAPPAM focused on the context of a protected area, and the management evaluations were more comprehensive; while METT was similar to the mid-stage assessment, which was mostly focused on planning, input and process, and often linked to the implementation of the situation. However, the datasheet of protected areas threats in METT and RAPPAM both can be used to show the context. Comparing with the threats of previous assessment can be used as the outcomes of management. Accumulating the results of multiple assessments can find the trend of threats. Besides, the study used headline indicators (Leverington et al., 2010) to connect two methods and compare the effectiveness of the management process. The results show that 'Climate change and severe weather' and 'Biological resource use' are the strongest pressures of the Hapen Nature Reserve. The most important needs of protected areas are the corrections to scope of a protected area, communication between Taiwan Forestry Research Institute and the Forestry Bureau, and indigenous issues. It also found that the threats caused by human could be ignored because of the management action between two assessments. The management projects which have significant improvements are 'Marking and security/ fencing of park boundaries', 'Adequacy of infrastructure, equipment and facilities', 'Effectiveness of administration including financial management', 'Adequacy of staff training', 'Staff/ other management partners skill level', and 'Adequacy of law enforcement capacity'. This study discusses the issues encountered in the implementation of METT in Taiwan, and attempts to modify operational processes and methods to improve its applicability in Taiwan. If the questionnaire of METT and RAPPAM can be modified more detailedly, and the link to the headline indicators be improved correctly, then the evaluation can be carried out more smoothly, the results will be more accurate, and enhance the effectiveness of protected area management effectiveness evaluation further. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-13T06:42:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R02625020-1.pdf: 4120705 bytes, checksum: cc842676037fb75184e5bae48de80deb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 國立臺灣大學碩士學位論文口試委員會審定書 i
誌謝 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 第二章 文獻回顧 6 第一節 保護區經營管理效能評量 6 第二節 保護區經營管理快速評量與優先設定法 (RAPPAM) 11 第三節 經營管理效能追蹤工具 (METT) 18 第四節 重點指標 (headline indicator) 23 第三章 研究方法與材料 28 第一節 研究方法 28 第二節 研究個案 31 第三節 研究流程 36 第四章 METT的在地化與適用性 38 第一節 在地化流程 38 第二節 問卷修正 39 第三節 METT的適用性 48 第五章 經營管理效能評量的結果與分析 51 第一節 經營管理效能評量流程 51 第二節 哈盆自然保留區評量結果與分析 53 第六章 METT與RAPPAM的連結 69 第一節 壓力表的連結 69 第二節 重點指標的轉換 72 第三節 評量表的連結 86 第七章 結論與建議 89 第一節 結果與討論 89 第二節 研究限制與後續建議 91 參考文獻 94 附錄 100 附錄一、保護區資料表 100 附錄二、壓力量表 102 附錄三、經營管理評量表 112 附錄四、報導人總表 125 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 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 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Application of Protected Area Management Effectiveness Evaluation Methods in Taiwan–Measurement Comparison between METT and RAPPAM | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 何立德,趙芝良,原友蘭 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 保護區經營管理效能評量,IUCN-WCPA架構,IUCN-CMP壓力分析,權益關係人,重點指標, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | protected area management effectiveness evaluation,IUCN-WCPA framework,IUCN-CMP Unified Classification of Direct Threats,stakeholder,headline indicator, | en |
dc.relation.page | 130 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201603530 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2017-05-11 | |
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-106-1.pdf | 4.02 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。