請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85631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 | Wei-Chen Hung | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 洪維辰 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:20:08Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-07-07 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-06-28 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 內政部 (2018)。無尾港重要濕地（國家級）保育利用計畫。內政部。 吳采諭、林瑞興 (2020)。臺灣生物多樣性監測體系之現況與展望。自然保育季刊，(110)，4-17。 呂郁玟 (2013)。宜蘭縣無尾港文教促進會的運作與地方角色。國立臺灣大學森林暨環境資源學系碩士論文。 杜文苓 (2017)。科技民主與社區培力── Ottinger 空污監測公民科學。(「環境正義、社區培力與公民科學」Gwen Ottinger 教授訪台行前工作坊手冊)。 杜文苓、施佳良 (2019)。挑戰空汙：初探社區行動科學的在地實踐。傳播研究與實踐，9(1)，1-32。https://doi.org/10.6123/JCRP.2019.01_9(1).0001。 何瑞暘 (2018)。臺灣繁殖鳥類大調查志工參與現況調查。國立東華大學自然資源與環境學系碩士論文。 宜蘭縣政府 (2015)。無尾港水鳥保護區保育計畫。宜蘭縣政府。 林大利 (2016)。如何於生物多樣性監測中提升公民科學資料的品質。自然保育季刊，95:54-63。 林政道 (2018a)。iNaturalist使用指南大公開！人人都可成為自然觀察家： iNaturalist的使用介紹及其應用 (上)。民國111年6月17日，取自環境資訊中心：https://e-info.org.tw/node/215237。 林政道 (2018b)。庶民觀察也能成為科學基礎 iNaturalist的應用：iNaturalist的使用介紹及其應用 (下)。民國111年6月17日，取自環境資訊中心：https://e-info.org.tw/node/215240。 林雅 (2010)。運用空間資訊技術在社區監測 ─ 以宜蘭縣無尾港鳥類調查為例。國立臺灣大學地理環境資源學系碩士論文。 林沛晨 (2018)。以社會資本探討路殺社的經營。國立東華大學自然資源與環境學系碩士論文。 林德恩 (2018)。系統化路死動物大調查。自然保育季刊，101:76-77。 林德恩, 李政璋, 姚正得, 陳志耘, 陳昱凱, 許正欣, ...與鄧東波 (2015)。路殺社 臺灣野生動物路死觀察網。自然保育季刊, (90), 26-33。 林淑馨 (2010)。質性研究：理論與實務。高雄市：巨流圖書股份有限公司。 胡林志、林國棟、魏昭文 (1997)。無尾港的鳥類資源。無尾港文教促進會螺訊，(2)，13-16。 胡幼慧 (1996)。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北市：巨流圖書股份有限公司。 陳郁恆 (2008)。非正式學習對非營利組織教育訓練影響之研究—以荒野保護協會解說員課程為例。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系碩士論文。 無尾港文教促進會 (2022)。第13屆第一次會員大會大會手冊。無尾港文教促進會。 彭安琪 (2011)。宜蘭縣無尾港水鳥保護區社區監測的施行與研究。國立臺灣大學森林暨環境資源學系碩士論文。 楊懿如、張志忞 (2012)。運用公民科學協助臺灣蛙類保育。國家公園學報，22 (4) : 55-62。 張志忞 (2013)。公民科學家參與蛙類調查計畫之動機與持續意願研究。國立東華大學自然資源與環境學系碩士論文。 張春興 (2017)。教育心理學: 三化取向的理論與實踐 (重修二版)。台北市:臺灣東華。 廖靜蕙 (2018)。野外觀察不怕沒人鑑定 iNaturalist 中文化自然觀察更容易：串聯在地和國際全球基礎生態資訊公民科學家貢獻有方。民國111年6月17日，取自環境資訊中心：https://e-info.org.tw/node/212398。 葛兆年、盧勇仁 (2017)。小小公民科學家養成-與國語實小合作五色鳥繁殖調查紀實。林業研究專訊, 24(2), 68-70。 衛冠竹 (2018)。以二階段模型分析埤塘鳥調公民科學計畫參與者之行為。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。 劉俊甫 (2017)。以公民科學進行校園環頸雉監測。國立東華大學自然資源與環境學系碩士論文。 劉奇璋 (2019)。探討臺灣公民科學參與者之動機、學習影響與實踐社群 (第2年)。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告期末報告。 蘇美如、林瑞興、陳宛均、王振芳、鍾金豔 (2012)。土豆鳥大集合2012雲林小辮鴴普查－一個實驗性的公民科學案例。自然保育季刊，79:16-24。https://doi.org/10.29738/NCQ.201209.0002。 藍世榮 (2015)。基於公民科學的賞鳥記錄資料分析及呈現。長榮大學資訊管理學系碩士班碩士論文。 趙容 (2015)。以玉山重複調查及公民科學資料探討臺灣繁殖鳥類海拔分佈變遷。國立臺灣大學森林暨環境資源學系碩士論文。 鄭采玉（2008）。國小學生社會領域學習動機與學習滿意度關係之研究。國立屏東教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班碩士論文。 盧道杰 (2004)。臺灣社區保育的發展：近年來國內三個個案的分析。地理學報, 37:1-25。 盧道杰、闕河嘉、高千雯、裴家騏、顏家芝劉子銘 ... 與趙芝良 (2011)。臺灣保護區共管的情勢分析與挑戰。臺灣原住民族研究季刊，4(2), 1-37. Anderson, S. (2018). iNaturalist: understanding biodiversity through a digital medium (Master's thesis, University of Waterloo). Andrachuk, M., Marschke, M., Hings, C., & Armitage, D. (2019). Smartphone technologies supporting community-based environmental monitoring and implementation: a systematic scoping review. Biological Conservation, 237, 430-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.026 Antoniou, V., & Potsiou, C. (2021). Design and development of geographic citizen science: technological perspectives and considerations. In: Skarlatidou, A. and Haklay, M. (eds.). Geographic Citizen Science Design: No One Left Behind. London: UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787356122 Bliss, J., G. Aplet, Hartzell C., Jahnige P., Kittredge D., Lewandowski S., & Soscia M. (2001). Community-Based Ecosystem Monitoring. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 12(3): 143 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1300/J091v12n03_07 Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Online submission. Bonney, R., Cooper, C., & Ballard, H. (2016). The theory and practice of citizen science: launching a new journal. Citizen science: Theory and practice, 1(1). Bonter, D. N., & Cooper, C. B. (2012). Data validation in citizen science: A case study from Project FeederWatch. Ecology and the Environment,10(6), 305–307, https://doi.org/10.1890/110273 Chase, S. K., & Levine, A. (2016). A framework for evaluating and designing citizen science programs for natural resources monitoring. Conservation Biology,30 (3),456–466. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12697 Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., & Armitage, D. (2020). Community science: A typology and its implications for governance of social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 106, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.019. Chiaravalloti, R. M. (2021). Representing a fish for fishers: geographic citizen science in the Pantanal wetland, Brazil. Geographic Citizen Science Design: No one Left Behind, eds A. Skarlatidou and M. Haklay (London: UCLPress). Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00037 Chyn, K., Lin, T. E., Chen, Y. K., Chen, C. Y., Fitzgeralda, L. A. (2019). The magnitude of roadkill in Taiwan: Patterns and consequences revealed by citizen science. Biological Conservation, 237: 317-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.014. Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? BioScience ,58 (3), 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580303 Conrad, C. T., & Daoust, T. (2008). Community-Based Monitoring Frameworks: Increasing the Effectiveness of Environmental Stewardship. Environmental Management, 41:358–366, doi:10.1007/s00267-007-9042-x Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1), 273-291. Danielsen, F., Enghoff, M., Poulsen, M. K., Funder, M., Jensen, P. M., & Burgess, N. D. (2021). The concept, practice, application, and results of locally based monitoring of the environment. BioScience, 71(5), 484-502. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab021 Domroese, M. C., & Johnson, E. A. (2017). Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great Pollinator Project. Biological Conservation, 208, 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.020 Finkelstien, M.A., (2009). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientations and the volunteer process. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(5–6): 653–58. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.010 Follett, R., & Strezov, V. (2015). An analysis of citizen science based research: usage and publication patterns. PloS One, 10(11), e0143687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687 Golumbic, Y. N., Orr, D., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Fishbain, B. (2017) Between Vision and Reality: A Study of Scientists’ Views on Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1): 6,1–13, https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.53 Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge, 105-122. Haywood, B. K. (2014). A “sense of place” in public participation in scientific research. Science Education, 98(1), 64-83. Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., & Bonn, A. (2018). Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press. Retrieved from www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-press Hollow, B., Roetman, P. E., Walter, M., & Daniels, C. B. (2015). Citizen science for policy development: The case of koala management in South Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 47, 126-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.007 Hudson, M.-A. R., Francis, C. M., Campbell, K. J., Downes, C. M., Smith, A. C., & Pardieck, K. L. (2017). The role of the North American Breeding Bird Survey in conservation, The Condor: Ornithological Applications, 119(3), 526-545. doi: 10.1650/CONDOR-17-62.1 Hyder, K., Townhill, B., Anderson, L. G., Delany, J., & Pinnegar, J. K. (2015). Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Marine Policy, 59, 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.022. iNaturalist Website: https://www.inaturalist.org/ Johnson, N., Druckenmiller, M. L., Danielsen, F., & Pulsifer, P. L. (2021). The use of digital platforms for community-based monitoring. BioScience, 71(5), 452-466. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa162 Jordan, R., Gray, S., Sorensen, A., Newman, G., Mellor, D., Newman, G., Hmelo-Silver, C., LaDeau, S., Biehler, D., & Crall, A. (2016). Studying citizen science through adaptive management and learning feedbacks as mechanisms for improving conservation. Conservation Biology, 30 (3), 487–495 Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PloS One, 11(1), e0147152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152 Lee, A. T. K., & Nel, H. (2020). BirdLasser: The influence of a mobile app on a citizen science project. African Zoology, 55(2), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15627020.2020.1717376 Mazumdar, S., Ceccaroni, L., Piera, J., Hölker, F., Berre, A., Arlinghaus, R., & Bowser, A. (2018). Citizen science technologies and new opportunities for participation. In: Hecker et al., 2018. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. UCL Press, London. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339 McKinley, D. C., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Evans, D. M., ... & Soukup, M. A. (2015). Investing in citizen science can improve natural resource management and environmental protection. Issues in Ecology, 2015(19), 1-27. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.17226/25183 Newman, G., Graham, J., Crall, A., & Laituri, M. (2011). The art and science of multi-scale citizen science support. Ecological Informatics, 6(3-4), 217-227. Ottinger, G. (2016). Social movement-based citizen science. The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science, 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2011.03.002 Panchariya, N. S., DeStefano, A. J., Nimbagal, V., Ragupathy, R., Yavuz, S., Herbert, K. G., ... & Fails, J. A. (2015, March). Current developments in big data and sustainability sciences in mobile citizen science applications. In 2015 IEEE First International Conference on Big Data Computing Service and Applications (pp. 202-212). IEEE. Peters, C. B., Zhan, Y., Schwartz, M. W., Godoy, L., & Ballard, H. L. (2017). Trusting land to volunteers: How and why land trusts involve volunteers in ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation, 208, 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.029 Phillips, T., Porticella, N., Constas, M., & Bonney, R. (2018). A Framework for Articulating and Measuring Individual Learning Outcomes from Participation in Citizen Science. Citizen Science:Theory and Practice, 3(2): 3, 1–19. doi: 10.1109/BigDataService.2015.64. Roger, E., Turak, E., & Tegart, P. (2019). Adopting Citizen Science as a Tool to Enhance Monitoring for an Environment Agency. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1): 35, 1-9. Rowley, J. J., Callaghan, C. T., Cutajar, T., Portway, C., Potter, K., Mahony, S., D.F. Trembath & Woods, A. (2019). FrogID: Citizen scientists provide validated biodiversity data on frogs of Australia. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 14(1), 155-170. Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., ... & Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and society, 17(2). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229 Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 467-471 Skarlatidou, A., Hamilton, A., Vitos, M., & Haklay, M. (2019). What do volunteers want from citizen science technologies? A systematic literature review and best practice guidelines. JCOM: Journal of Science Communication, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18010202. Skarlatidou, A., & Haklay, M. (eds.). 2021. Geographic Citizen Science Design: No one left behind. London: UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787356122 Suomela, T., & Johns, E. (2012). Citizen Participation in the Biological Sciences: A Literature Review of Citizen Science. College of Communication and Information, University of Tennessee Annual Research Symposium. Tredick, C. A., Lewison, R. L., Deutschman, D. H., Hunt, T. A., Gordon, K. L., & Von Hendy, P. (2017). A rubric to evaluate citizen-science programs for long-term ecological monitoring. BioScience, 67(9), 834-844. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix090 Vann-Sander, S., Clifton, J., & Harvey, E. (2016). Can citizen science work? Perceptions of the role and utility of citizen science in a marine policy and management context. Marine Policy, 72, 82–93 West, S. E., & Pateman, R. M. (2016). Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: what can be learned from the volunteering literature?. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.8 Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011). From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Williams, J., Chapman, C., Leibovici, D., Los, G., Matheus, A., Oggioni, A., ... & van Genuchten, P. (2018). Maximising the impact and reuse of citizen science data. In: Hecker et al., 2018. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. UCL Press, London. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339 Wittmann, J., Girman, D., & Crocker, D. (2019). Using iNaturalist in a Coverboard Protocol to Measure Data Quality: Suggestions for Project Design. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1): 21, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.131 Wright, D. R., Underhill, L. G., Keene, M., & Knight, A. T. (2015). Understanding the motivations and satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Society & Natural Resources, 28(9), 1013-1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054976 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85631 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 數位平台是公民科學計畫處理與管理資料、及招募與維繫志工參與的重要工具，近年網際網路與智慧型手機等3C產品蓬勃發展與普遍使用，其角色扮演益形重要。本研究以無尾港文教促進會長期於無尾港水鳥保護區與鄰近濕地、農田進行的鳥類調查，作為公民科學的個案，探討其引進 iNaturalist 為數位平台，以充實本身處理與儲存資訊能力的過程與影響。 研究顯示，符合促進會的調查與資料處理需求與志工能力為公民科學計畫選擇使用數位平台的考量因子。數位平台能夠吸引新志工，並維繫舊志工的參與，創造志工間的共同話題與互動機會，增進促進會組織與志工的連結。此外，iNaturalist支援了空間定位、彙整分析及彈性呈現的功能，也能儲存與透明公開相關的資訊，讓促進會能依據組織或志工的需求，自主且即時選擇、製作其欲呈現之鳥類分布地圖，跳脫對學術團隊的倚賴，且增進在保護區經營管理與治理上的話語權。 不過，原先期待的辨識功能，由於需要清晰的影像，結果不如預期。也是由於登錄記錄較現前以紙本地圖目視筆記耗時，尚無法完全取代成為主要的鳥類調查記錄工具。最後，基於本研究個案經驗發現，環境資源治理機關也在公民科學計畫中，與科學家及公眾交互作用，或可將環境資源治理機關加入「公眾參與科學研究 (PPSR) 的設計框架」成為關鍵權益關係人，亦可彈性增加權益關係人的數量，以呈現多元權益關係人與公民科學計畫運作、成果的關聯性。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Digital platforms are useful tools for citizen science projects to manage data, recruit volunteers and facilitate volunteers’ participation. Recently, the vigorous development of 3C products, such as the internet and mobile phones, it plays a more important role in the digital platforms in the citizen science projects. This study adopted the case of the Wu-Wei-harbor culture and education association (WCEA), which has implemented bird surveys in and around the Wu-Wei-Kang wildlife refuge for many years, to explore its considerations and processes, and effects on introducing iNaturalist as a digital platform. The results revealed that WCEA considered mainly its needs and capability of volunteers to choose iNaturalist as the digital platform. iNaturalist helped record location-based information, archive, analyze, and open data, as well as demonstrate outcomes. By iNaturalist, WCEA can make and demonstrate bird distribution by itself according to the requirements of organizations and volunteers, which improved its voices on management and governance of the Wu-Wei-Kang wildlife refuge. In addition, iNaturalist brought new topics and created interactions for volunteers, which made WCEA more attractive to new members, facilitated the participation of senior volunteers, and strengthened the connection between WCEA and its volunteers. However, the function of species identification originally expected didn’t work for unable to take clear photos of birds on mobile phones. Also, it took a longer time to key in data by iNaturalist than map sheets. As a result, WCEA could only use iNaturalist as an auxiliary tool of the map sheets. Further, we found that authorities of natural resources targeted by the citizen science projects interact with scientists and the public in the projects, who might be included in the framework of PPSR. This could increase the applicability of the framework | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:20:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2406202219374700.pdf: 3964873 bytes, checksum: 277d8e0ff91b820ef7b19aa71c0548c6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 i 謝辭 ii 摘要 iii Abstract iv 目錄 v 圖目錄 vi 表目錄 vi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究背景與目的 2 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 公民科學 5 第二節 臺灣的公民科學計畫 28 第三節 數位平台iNaturalist 33 第三章 研究方法 35 第一節 研究架構 35 第二節 研究方法 37 第三節 研究個案-無尾港文教促進會 43 第四章 無尾港目前的鳥類調查 48 第一節 第一階段 : 單純數量累積時期 (1997年到2008年) 48 第二節 紙本地圖的引進過程與操作 50 第三節 紙本地圖鳥類調查的成果展現 55 第四節 紙本地圖鳥類調查的挑戰 59 第五章 數位平台的引進 63 第一節 引進數位平台的原因與選擇因子 63 第二節 促進會引進數位平台iNaturalist過程 67 第三節 iNaturalist於鳥類調查的操作 78 第四節 引進數位平台的成果與在資料處理上的轉變 82 第五節 與公眾參與科學研究的比較 91 第六章 結論 94 參考文獻 96 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 地理公民科學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 資料品質 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 數位平台 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 草根保育團體 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 草根保育團體 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 資料品質 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 數位平台 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 地理公民科學 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 志工培力 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 志工培力 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | grass-roots conservation organization | en |
| dc.subject | volunteer empowerment | en |
| dc.subject | data quality | en |
| dc.subject | digital platform | en |
| dc.subject | grass-roots conservation organization | en |
| dc.subject | Geographic Citizen Science | en |
| dc.subject | volunteer empowerment | en |
| dc.subject | data quality | en |
| dc.subject | digital platform | en |
| dc.subject | Geographic Citizen Science | en |
| dc.title | 公民科學計畫引進數位平台的過程與影響-以無尾港溼地鳥類調查為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Process and Influence of Introducing the Digital Platform for a Citizen Science Project- a Case Study of Bird Survey in the Wu- Wei-Kang Wetland, Yilan, TAIWAN | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 趙芝良(Chih-Liang Chao),林政道(Cheng-Tao Lin),楊懿如(Yi-Ju Yang),劉康慧(Helen K. Liu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 地理公民科學,草根保育團體,數位平台,資料品質,志工培力, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Geographic Citizen Science,grass-roots conservation organization,digital platform,data quality,volunteer empowerment, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 107 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202201105 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-06-30 | |
| 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 | 2025-06-24 | - |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2406202219374700.pdf | 3.87 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。