台灣保護區經營管理效能評量 (RAPPAM) 之後設評量研究

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。

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.