請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63317完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 盧道杰 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Hsuan Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳佑瑄 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T16:34:33Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2014-11-22 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2012-11-22 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2012-11-15 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 林天祐 (2004)。教育評鑑實施過程與方法的專業化。教育資料集刊 29:27-52
邱皓政 (2008)。量化研究法與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析基礎版。台北市：五南出版社。 胡幼慧 (1996)。焦點團體法。刊於胡幼慧編，質性研究—理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，223-238頁。臺北市：巨流。 張魁峯 (2009)。「Super Decisions 軟體操作手冊」。台北市：鼎茂圖書出版股份有限公司。 陳玉瑩 (2011)。澎湖縣國民中小學校務評鑑之後設評量研究。國立台北教育大學教育經營與管理學系碩士論文。 陳虹遐 (2004)。應用分析網路程序法於液晶電是之生態效益評估。國立成功大學工業設計研究所碩士論文。 陳瑩慈 (2011)。RAPPAM在台灣於個案評估之適用性探討。國立台灣大學森林環境暨資源學系碩士論文。 游家政 (2009)。國民中小學教科書評鑑之後設評鑑。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫報告。 游家政，曾祥榕 (2004)。教育評鑑的後設評鑑。教育資料集刊 29:53-94 鈕文英 (2006)。教育研究方法與論文寫作。台北市：雙葉書廊。 鄧振源 (2005)。計畫評估－方法與應用。基隆是：海洋大學運籌規劃與管理研究中心。 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。地理學報 54:51-78。 盧道杰、張雅玲、趙芝良 (2009)。保護區經營管理效能評估的方法及其應用。臺灣林業 35(1): 51-63。 盧道杰、趙芝良、葉美智、羅柳墀、何立德、裴家騏 (2009)。保護區經營管理效能評估—北東區、中區、南區。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、裴家騏、葉美智、陳維立、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、裴家騏、葉美智、羅柳墀 (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。 嚴中健 (2010)。桃園航空城發展之關鍵成功因素及優先順序之探討。國立中央大學土木工程系碩士論文。 Brisolara, S. (1998) The History of Participatory Evaluation and Current Debates in the Field, New Directions for Evaluation, 80 (4):25-41. Burke, B. (1998) Evaluation for a Change: Reflections on Participatory Methodology, New Directions for Evaluation, 80 (4):43-56. CBD (2004). Programme of Work on Protected Areas, Retrieved July 20, 2011, from: http://www.cbd.int/convention/results/?id=7765&l0=PA Cook, T. D. (1974). The potential and limitations of secondary evaluation. In M. W. Apple, M. J. Subkoviak & H. S. Lufler (Eds.). Educational evaluation: Analysis and responsibility (pp.155-235). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Pub. Cook, T. D. & Gruder, C. (1978). Metaevaluation research. Evaluation Quarterly, 2(1), 5-51. Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Dudley, N, S Stolton, A Belokurov, L Krueger, N Lopoukhine, K MacKinnon, T Sandwith and N Sekhran (2010) Natural Solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate change. (IUCN-WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and WWF,: Gland, Switzerland, Washington DC and New York, USA) ERS Standards Committee. (1982). Evaluation Research Society standards for program evaluation. In P. H. Rossi (Ed.). Standards for Evaluation Practice, pp.7-20. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ervin, J. (2003a). WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. Ervin, J. (2003b). Protected area assessments in perspective. Bioscience, 53(9): 819-822. Hockings, M., Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (2000) Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 6. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. Hockings, M., (2003) systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas, Bioscience, 53(9), 823-832. Hockings, M. (2004) Maintaining protected areas for now and future: evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas. In: Biodiversity Issues for Consideration in the Planning, Establishment and Management of Protected Area Sites and Networks, Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Conservation, 119-127. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas, Best Practice Guideline Series No. 14. second ed. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. IUCN (1999) International Workshop on Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas, In WWF Central America Regional Office: Proceedings of the workshop in CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, June 14-16. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed). CA: Sage. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2011). The program evaluation standards (3rd ed). CA: Sage. Leverington, F., Hockings, M., Pavese, H., Lemos Costa, K., & Courrau, J. (2008). Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas-a Global Study. Supplementary Report No 1: Overview of Approaches and Methodologies, 145. Leverington, F., Lemos Costa, K., Courrau, J., Pavese, H., Nolte, C., Marr, M., Coad, L., Burgess, N., Bomhard, B & Hockings, M. (2010). Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas-a Global Study, 2nd ed., 87 pp. Li, D., Zhou, J., Dong, K., Wu, B., & Zhu, C. (2003). China Case Study: An Assessment of the Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas in the Forests of the Upper Yangtze Ecoregion of China. Gland (Switzerland): World Wide Fund for Nature. Murray, C. and D. Marmorek. (2003). Adaptive Management and Ecological Restoration.Chapter 24, in: Freiderici, P. (ed). (2003). Ecological restoration of Sourthwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest. Washington: Island Press, 417-428. Parrish, J. D., Braun, D. P. and Unnasch, R. S. (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas, BioScience, 53(9), 851-860. Portney & Watkins. (2000). Foundations of clinical research: Application to practice, 2nd ed., Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Saaty, T. L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, NewYork. Saaty, T. L., (1996). The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, Expert Choice, Inc. Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A. J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S. H. M., et al. (2008). A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology, 22(4), 897-911. Stanciu, E. & Steinlegger, G. (2006). RAPPAM Methodology Implementation in ROMANIA. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund. 61 pp. Stankey, G. H., Bormann, B. T., Ryan, C.,Shindler, B., Sturtevant, V. Clark, R. N., Philpot, C. (2003). Adaptive Management and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric and Reality. Journal of Forestry, 10(1), 40-46 Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N. and Marcia, B. (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches, Conservation Biology, 19 (2): 295-309. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P.N. (1999). 焦點團體：理論與實務 (歐素汝譯)。臺北市：揚智總經銷。 Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten, T., & Leverington, F. (2007). Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: A Site-level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, Second Edition. World Bank/WWF Forest Alliance published by WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Stufflebeam, D. L., (2000a). Professional standards and principals for evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoint on educational and human services evaluation, (Chapter 24) Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Stufflebeam, D. L., (2000b). The Methodology of metaevaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoint on educational and human services evaluation,(Chapter 25) Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tshering, K.(2003) Bhutan: management effectiveness assessment of four protected areas using WWF's RAPPAM methodology. World Wildlife Fund. 27pp. Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R. ( 1987). Educational evaluation: A lternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York : Longman Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program effectiveness. NJ: Prentice-Hall. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/63317 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究引用文獻回顧、焦點團體、問卷調查與分析網絡程序法 (Analytic network process) 等方法，建立評量的專業標準、判斷所建立標準各項目的優先性、釐清評量的強項與弱項，並調查評量參與者對保護區經營管理效能評量的整體滿意度，以探討台灣在2009至2011年應用RAPPAM進行保護區經營管理效能評量的品質。
田野資料收集係以基於所建立之後設評量標準所編製的「保護區經營管理效能評量之後設評量調查問卷」為主，於2012年4月至6月間，針對過去三年曾參加評量工作坊的權益關係人，共寄出282份問卷，回收有效問卷計101份，有效回收率約35.8%。所得結果採用敘述性統計、單因子變異數分析、無母數Wilcoxon配對組別符號等級檢定、獨立樣本T檢定與迴歸分析，進行樣本背景統計、分析評量結果與假設驗證。 根據問卷結果建立了包含六大準則共35個項目的保護區經營管理效能評量之專業標準，各準則及其權重依序為：可行性 (26.53%)、準確性 (23.65%)、效用性 (20.88%)、問卷適合度 (9.97%)、適切性 (9.74%) 與評量責信度 (9.30%)。以五點量表呈現過去三年保護區的整體評量品質，顯現偏滿意 (3.68)，六大準則品質依序為準確性 (Accuracy)(3.84)、適切性 (Propriety)(3.76)、評量責信度 (Evaluation accountability)(3.76)、效用性 (Utility)(3.64)、可行性 (Feasibility)(3.63) 達偏滿意程度；問卷適合度 (Questionnaire fitness) (3.48) 則屬偏尚可程度。 檢視外部環境因素與內部權益關係人是否影響對評量品質的認知，發現管理機關與學者專家對整體評量品質認同程度顯著高於在地社群�NGO；學者專家在準確性上的認同程度顯著高於在地社群�NGO。研究結果顯示評量品質不受保護區區位與經營管理狀況 (RAPPAM評量結果) 等外部環境因素之影響。以整體評量品質與保護區經營管理狀況為自變數，可顯著預測權益關係人對採用RAPPAM評量保護區經營管理效能的整體滿意度。 根據研究結果，本研究建議檢討以RAPPAM評量保護區經營管理效能評量的效用性、可行性與問卷適合度。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Aiming to study the quality of management effectiveness evaluation by RAPPAM in Taiwan during 2009 to 2011, this study adopted literature review, focus group, questionnaire and Analytic Network Process (ANP) to build up and prioritize standards of protected area management effectiveness evaluation, and to analyze its advantages, weaknesses and general satisfaction by stakeholders,
It used mainly the questionnaire based on the standards above to collect opinions of RAPPAM participants through April to June, 2012. There were 101 valid returned questionnaire which equal to 35.8% of 282 ones distributed. The data collected were then tested by descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, independent t-test and linear regression. According to results of questionnaire, we had the professional standards of effectiveness evaluation with 6 criteria and totally 35 standards. The priorities and weights of each criterion are Feasibility (26.53%), Accuracy (23.65%), Utility (20.88%), Questionnaire fitness (9.97%), Propriety (9.74%) and Evaluation accountability (9.30%). It showed highly approved (3.68 by 5-point Likert Scale) while applying these standards on mata-evaluating the general quality of RAPPAM assessment during 2009 to 2011. So did ones of the criteria of Accuracy (3.84), Propriety (3.76), Evaluation accountability, (3.76), Utility (3.64) and Feasibility (3.63), while Questionnaire fitness (3.48) is moderately approved. Regarding the influence of external environmental factors and stakeholders, it showed that both management authorities and academic scholars collected significantly higher degree of approval than local communitiesNGOs on general evaluation quality. Academic scholars collected significantly higher degree of approval than local communitiesNGOs on accuracy. There wasn’t any significant difference for the cognition on evaluation quality by RAPPAM evaluators with different location. So was those from sites categorized by evaluating scores of RAPPAM. The results of regression analysis showed that general satisfaction of management effectiveness evaluation by RAPPAM was significantly related to general evaluation quality and evaluating scores of RAPPAM. Based on the results, this study suggested that it is necessary to review and amend the utility, feasibility and questionnaire fitness for the assessment of protected area management effectiveness by RAPPAM in order to promote its evaluation quality. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T16:34:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R99625020-1.pdf: 1723396 bytes, checksum: 7553ec325373f14b485a2fbafcba3819 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
謝誌 I 摘要 III 目錄 VII 圖目錄 VIII 表目錄 VIII 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 4 第三節 研究限制 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估與設定優先法 10 第三節 保護區經營管理效能評量的品質標準 19 第四節 後設評量 24 第三章 研究材料與方法 36 第四節 研究架構 36 第五節 研究對象 38 第六節 研究方法與工具 40 第七節 研究分析方法 61 第四章 研究結果與分析 64 第一節 保護區經營管理效能評量之專業標準適合度調查結果 64 第二節 保護區經營管理效能評量之後設評量調查結果 80 第三節 研究假設驗證分析 95 第四節 問卷開放欄位意見整理 116 第五章 結論與建議 119 第一節 研究結果與討論 119 第二節 研究建議 128 參考文獻 131 附錄 137 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 台灣保護區經營管理效能評量 (RAPPAM) 之後設評量研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study on Metaevaluation of Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Protected Areas in Taiwan (RAPPAM) | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 101-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 裴家騏,王正平,趙芝良,林宜靜 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 保護區經營管理快速評估與設定優先法,後設評量,分析網絡程序法,經營管理效能評量,評量品質, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | RAPPAM,Metaevaluation,Analytic Network Process (ANP),management effectiveness evaluation,evaluation quality, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 151 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2012-11-15 | |
| 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-101-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.68 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。