請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/97454完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 黃建實 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chien-Shih Huang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 羅堉宸 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Chen Lo | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-06-18T16:12:52Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-06-19 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-06-18 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-05-17 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 王瑞庚、周桂田（2018）。臺灣PM_(2.5)跨界風險知識觀點下決策與治理困境。第十屆發展研究年會台灣經驗2.0：在地與全球的發展研究與實踐。社團法人臺灣發展研究學會。https://doi.org/10.6392/ACDS.201810.0036
丘昌泰（2008）。公共政策: 基礎篇。巨流。 丘昌泰、余致力、羅清俊、張四明（2001）。政策分析。國立空中大學。 李長晏（2012）。治理導向政策工具之建構：理論演進與趨勢變遷。中國地方自治，65(5)，3-23。https://doi.org/10.6581/lsgc.2012.65(5).02 施佳良、杜文苓（2019）。台灣空污治理的挑戰：反空污行動凸顯的未竟知識。國家發展研究，19(1)，1-41。https://doi.org/10.6164/JNDS.201912_19(1).0001 原承君（2016）。我國民眾對環境公共財及環境政策偏好之探討〔碩士論文，國立臺北大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0023-1303201714250276 徐幸瑜（2022）。臺灣空氣污染防制重大政策變遷之分析—結合多元流與斷續均衡理論〔博士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202201372 張四明（2020）。臺灣2020年新冠肺炎防疫大作戰之啟示：政策工具觀點分析。文官制度，12(4)，1-32。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20210507001-202010-202105070009-202105070009-1-32 張效通、陳清茂（2023）。建築能效標示制度認知與政策工具運用關聯性分析。建築學報，(125_S)，19-36。https://doi.org/10.53106/101632122023120125008 許耿銘（2014）。台灣都市氣候治理模式比較之初探：五都個案之分析。空大行政學報，(27)，47-97。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20240621001-N202411090002-00002 陳伯瑋（2022）。殯葬政策採行之政策工具分析。中國行政評論，28(4)，1-37。https://doi.org/10.6635/cpar.202212_28(4).0001 陳均豪、陳思先（2018）。地方政府節能誘因採用之研究─以政治市場觀點切入之實證調查。中國行政評論，24(3)，82-127。https://doi.org/10.6635/cpar.201809_24(3).03 陳亮宇、徐俊明（2023）。環境法案如何進入政策議程？如何獲得立法通過？《溫室氣體減量及管理法》的個案分析（2006～2015）。政治學報，(76)，111-144。https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.202312_(76).0004 陳思先（2023）。城市永續環境與行動參與者。智勝文化。 陳恒鈞（2015）。台灣積體電路產業政策工具變遷之分析：政策系絡觀點。政策與人力管理，6(1)，1-30。https://doi.org/10.29944/PPM.201506_6(1).0001 陳瑞芬（2018）。由多元流程觀點談婚姻平權議題發展。國家與社會，(20)，165-210。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=19945736-201806-201809190004-201809190004-165-210 陳義彥（2001）。民意調查。五南。 陳夢琨（2016）。地方經濟永續發展－新北市提升財政自主能力之政策工具。政策與人力管理，7(1)，31-54。https://doi.org/10.29944/PPM.201606_7(1).0002 湯汶瑜、洪俊瑋、王俊元（2023）。警察總是權威式的領導嗎？從QCA方法析探改變警察領導風格之影響因素。文官制度，15(1)，107-145。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20210507001-N202306200009-00004 劉哲良、楊筠（2014）。新設電廠碳排放標準發展現況與衝擊評析。經濟前瞻，(155)，97-100。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=10190376-201409-201411120016-201411120016-97-100 潘慧玲、劉青雯（2019）。青年教育與就業儲蓄帳戶方案之形成及實施成效之初探。教育研究與發展期刊，15(4)，67-96。https://doi.org/10.3966/181665042019121504003 魯炳炎（2009）。從多元流程觀點談蘇花高興建決策之議程設定與政策選擇。東吳政治學報，27(4)，171-240。https://doi.org/10.6418/SJPS.200912.0171 黎寶文（2022）。中國對美衝突與合作之探討：一個質性比較分析的途徑。遠景基金會季刊，23(3)，55-115。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=15601696-202207-202209270013-202209270013-55-115 謝儲鍵（2022）。從協力創新析探社區空氣污染治理之發展。人文社會科學研究，16(2)，97-127。https://doi.org/10.6284/NPUSTHSSR.202206_16(2).4 邁克爾．豪利特(Howlett Michael)、拉米什(M. Ramesh)（2006）。公共政策研究: 政策循環與政策子系統。生活.讀書.新知三聯書店。 顏君聿（2010）。應對氣候變遷之能源策略「溫室氣體減量法」與永續能源政策。臺灣經濟研究月刊，33(6)，20-27。https://doi.org/10.29656/TERM.201006.0004 曠永銓、羅鈞、郭子豪（2014）。溫室氣體總量管制政策工具應用於能源技術服務之法規機制可行性評估，中興工程，122：112-115。https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/NclService/JournalContentDetail?SysId=A14015136 羅清俊（2015）。公共政策—現象觀察與實務操作。揚智。 蘇偉業（2008）。公共政策入門。五南。 Acciai, C., & Capano, G. (2020). Policy Instruments at work: A meta‐analysis of their applications. Public Administration, 99(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12673 Ackrill, R., & Kay, A. (2011). Multiple streams in EU policy-making: The case of the 2005 sugar reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.520879 Anderson, B., Böhmelt, T., & Ward, H. (2017). Public opinion and environmental policy output: A cross-national analysis of energy policies in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11), 114011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8f80 Angervil, G. (2021). A comprehensive application of Kingdon’s multiple streams framework: An analysis of the Obama administration’s No Child Left Behind Waiver Policy. Politics and Policy, 49(5), 980–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12432 Anisin, A. (2023). The perfect storm? political instability and background checks during COVID-19. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 12, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2023.12.02 Bakaki, Z., Böhmelt, T., & Ward, H. (2019). The triangular relationship between public concern for environmental issues, policy output, and media attention. Environmental Politics, 29(7), 1157–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1655188 Berg-Schlosser D., De Meur G. 2009. Comparative research design: Case and variable selection. In Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp.19-32). London: SAGE Publications. Bolognesi, T., Metz, F., & Nahrath, S. (2021). Institutional complexity traps in Policy Integration Processes: A long-term perspective on Swiss flood risk management. Policy Sciences, 54(4), 911–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09443-1 Boscarino, J. E. (2009). Surfing for problems: Advocacy Group Strategy in U.S. forestry policy. Policy Studies Journal, 37(3), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00321.x Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2015). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111 Capano, G., Howlett, M., Jarvis, D. S., Ramesh, M., & Goyal, N. (2020). Mobilizing policy (in)capacity to fight covid-19: Understanding variations in state responses. Policy & Society, 39(3), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1787628 Carley, S., & Miller, C. J. (2012). Regulatory stringency & policy drivers: A reassessment of renewable portfolio standards. Policy Studies Journal, 40(4), 730–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00471.x Cejudo, G. M., & Michel, C. L. (2021). Instruments for policy integration: How policy mixes work together. Sage Open, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211032161 Chai, S., Zhang, Z., & Ge, J. (2020). Evolution of environmental policy for China’s Rare earths: Comparing central and local government policies. Resources Policy, 68, 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101786 Chen, D., Li, Y., & Wu, J. (2022). Policy stringency, political conditions, and public performances of pandemic control: An international comparison. Public Performance and Management Review, 45(4), 916–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2040548 Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of Organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088 Curley, C., Feiock, R., & Xu, K. (2020). Policy Analysis of Instrument Design: How Policy Design Affects Policy Constituency. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), 536–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1749517 Daugbjerg, C., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2011). Environmental policy performance revisited: Designing effective policies for green markets. Political Studies, 60(2), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00910.x Dolan, D. A. (2019). Multiple partial couplings in the multiple streams framework: The case of Extreme Weather and climate change adaptation. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 164–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12341 Duşa, A. (2018). QCA with R: A comprehensive resource. Springer. Dye, T. R. (2013). Understanding public policy: Pearson New International Edition. Pearson. Easton, D. (1957). An approach to the analysis of Political Systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2008920 Engeli, I., & Allison, C. R. (2014). Conceptual and methodological challenges in comparative public policy. Comparative Policy Studies, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314154_1 Engler, F., & Herweg, N. (2019). Of barriers to entry for medium and large n multiple streams applications: Methodological and conceptual considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 905–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12235 Fainshmidt, S., Witt, M. A., Aguilera, R. V., & Verbeke, A. (2020). The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to International Business Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(4), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00313-1 Finnegan, J. J. (2022). Institutions, climate change, and the foundations of long-term policymaking. Comparative Political Studies, 55(7), 1198–1235. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211047416 Fischer, M., & Maggetti, M. (2016). Qualitative comparative analysis and the study of Policy Processes. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 19(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2016.1149281 Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in Organization Research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 Freeman, L. C., Roeder, D., & Mulholland, R. R. (1979). Centrality in social networks: II. experimental results. Social Networks, 2(2), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(79)90002-9 Gacitua, L., Gallegos, P., Henriquez-Auba, R., Lorca, Negrete-Pincetic, M., Olivares, D., Valenzuela, A., & Wenzel, G. (2018). A comprehensive review on expansion planning: Models and tools for energy policy analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 98, 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.043 Givoni, M. (2014). Addressing transport policy challenges through policy-packaging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 60, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.10.012 Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469 Haelg, L., Sewerin, S., & Schmidt, T. S. (2019). The role of actors in the policy design process: Introducing design coalitions to explain policy output. Policy Sciences, 53(2), 309–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-019-09365-z Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246 Herweg, N., Huß, C., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2015). Straightening the three streams: Theorising extensions of the multiple streams framework. European Journal of Political Research, 54(3), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12089 Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2023). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 29-64). Routledge. Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Sommerer, T. (2011). Is there convergence of national environmental policies? an analysis of policy outputs in 24 OECD countries. Environmental Politics, 20(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2011.538163 Hood, C. C., & Margetts, H. Z. (2007). The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. Bloomsbury Publishing. Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of Policy Instrument Choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1 Howlett, M. (2019). Designing Public Policies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315232003 Howlett, M., & Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980802648144 Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: Assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v1i2.95 Howlett, M., Perl, A., & Ramesh, M. (2009). Studying public policy : policy cycles & policy subsystems. Oxford University Press. Hughes, L., & Urpelainen, J. (2015). Interests, institutions, and climate policy: Explaining the choice of policy instruments for the Energy Sector. Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.014 Ingold, K. (2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x Ji, H., & Darnall, N. (2020). How do external conditions affect the design of local governments’ sustainability strategies? Regulation and Governance, 16(3), 910–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12334 Ji, H., & Darnall, N. (2021). All are not created equal: Assessing Local Governments’ strategic approaches towards Sustainability. Sustainable Public Management, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003202479-9 Jones, M. D., Peterson, H. L., Pierce, J. J., Herweg, N., Bernal, A., Lamberta Raney, H., & Zahariadis, N. (2015). A river runs through it: A multiple streams Meta‐review. Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12115 Jordan, E., Gross, M. E., Javernick-Will, A. N., & Garvin, M. J. (2011). Use and misuse of qualitative comparative analysis. Construction Management and Economics, 29(11), 1159–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.640339 Kammermann, L. (2017). Factors driving the promotion of hydroelectricity: A qualitative comparative analysis. Review of Policy Research, 35(2), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12274 Kingdon, J. W., & Stano, E. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown. Kirsop-Taylor, N., Russel, D., & Jensen, A. (2021). Urban governance and policy mixes for nature-based solutions and Integrated Water Policy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 24(5), 498–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2021.1956309 Knill, C., Schulze, K., & Tosun, J. (2012). Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship. Regulation and Governance, 6(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2012.01150.x Krause, R. M., Hawkins, C. V., Park, A. Y., & Feiock, R. C. (2019). Drivers of Policy Instrument Selection for environmental management by local governments. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13025 Kwon, T. (2020). Policy mix of renewable portfolio standards, feed-in tariffs, and auctions in South Korea: Are Three better than one? Utilities Policy, 64, 101056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101056 Liefferink, D., Arts, B., Kamstra, J., & Ooijevaar, J. (2009). Leaders and laggards in environmental policy: A quantitative analysis of domestic policy outputs. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 677–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760902983283 Liu, L., Jiang, J., Bian, J., Liu, Y., Lin, G., & Yin, Y. (2021). Are Environmental Regulations Holding Back Industrial Growth? evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 306, 127007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127007 Lovell, H. (2016). The role of international policy transfer within the multiple streams approach: The case of Smart Electricity Metering in Australia. Public Administration, 94(3), 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12259 March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 Mavrot, C., Hadorn, S., & Sager, F. (2019). Mapping the mix: Linking instruments, settings and target groups in the study of Policy Mixes. Research Policy, 48(10), 103614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.012 McGregor, S. L. (2004). Modeling the evolution of a policy network using network analysis. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32(4), 382–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077727x04263840 Mei, C. (2020). Policy style, consistency and the effectiveness of the policy mix in China’s fight against COVID-19. Policy and Society, 39(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1787627 Möck, M., Vogeler, C. S., Bandelow, N. C., & Hornung, J. (2022). Relational coupling of multiple streams: The case of COVID‐19 infections in German abattoirs. Policy Studies Journal, 51(2), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12459 Novotný, V., Satoh, K., & Nagel, M. (2020). Refining the multiple streams framework’s integration concept: Renewable energy policy and ecological modernization in Germany and Japan in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1770089 Potoski, M., & Talbert, J. (2000). The dimensional structure of policy outputs: Distributive policy and roll call voting. Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300401 Prindle, D. F. (2012). Importing concepts from biology into political science: The case of punctuated equilibrium. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00432.x Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press. Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, 87–122. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569.n5 Reardon, L. (2018). Networks and problem recognition: Advancing the multiple streams approach. Policy Sciences, 51(4), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9330-8 Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569 Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037081 Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for Sustainability Transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004 Roig-Tierno, N., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F., & Llopis-Martinez, J. (2017). An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 2(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.002 Salamon, L. M. (1989). Beyond privatization: The tools of government action. The Urban Insitute. Schaffrin, A., Sewerin, S., & Seubert, S. (2015). Toward a comparative measure of climate policy output. Policy Studies Journal, 43(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12095 Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of Policy Tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131904 Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press. Siddiki, S., & Curley, C. (2022). Conceptualising policy design in the policy process. Policy and Politics, 50(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16346727541396 Stead, D. (2017). Policy preferences and the diversity of instrument choice for mitigating climate change impacts in the transport sector. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(14), 2445–2467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1397505 Steinebach, Y. (2019). Instrument choice, implementation structures, and the effectiveness of environmental policies: A cross‐national analysis. Regulation and Governance, 16(1), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12297 Storch, S., & Winkel, G. (2013). Coupling climate change and forest policy: A multiple streams analysis of two German case studies. Forest Policy and Economics, 36, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.009 Weiss, G. (2000). Evaluation of policy instruments for protective forest management in Austria. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(3–4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-9341(00)00017-4 Wynes, S., Kotcher, J., & Donner, S. D. (2021). Can citizen pressure influence politicians’ communication about climate change? results from a field experiment. Climatic Change, 168(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03215-9 Yi, M., Fang, X., Wen, L., Guang, F., & Zhang, Y. (2019). The heterogeneous effects of different environmental policy instruments on Green Technology Innovation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4660. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234660 Zahariadis, N. (2008). Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(4), 514–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760801996717 Zahariadis, N. (2014). Ambiguity and multiple streams. In Theories of the policy process(pp. 25-58). CO: Westview Press. Zahariadis, N., & Allen, C. S. (1995). Ideas, networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany. Review of Policy Research, 14(1–2), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1995.tb00622.x Zohlnhöfer, R., Herweg, N., & Zahariadis, N. (2022). How to conduct a multiple streams study. In Methods of the policy process (pp. 23-50). Routledge. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/97454 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 在臺灣地方政府，防制空氣污染政策工具的選擇，相關影響因素有哪些？現有研究在討論臺灣空氣污染時，多數採用質化研究方法，並側重在公民社會以及中央政府的角色，相對忽略了地方政府的決策過程。本研究試圖結合多元流理論和社會網絡分析法，針對環境部《空氣品質改善維護資訊網》提供的22個縣市的空氣污染防制計畫書（109年至112年）進行分析。多元流理論主張，政策形成過程中有問題流、政策流和政治流，如能成功耦合，政策變遷的成功機會將大大提高。而利用社會網絡分析，則有助於捕捉在政策流中政策社群的互動，據此能分析不同政策行動者之間的互動模式，以及如何影響政策工具的採用，以補充既有多元流理論的不足。
研究結果修正了三流完全耦合的傳統觀點，「部分耦合」更能解釋穩定情境下的政策制定邏輯。例如，污染改善幅度差的縣市，若有多元的參與者且發生政黨輪替時，能促進工具多樣性的提升。此外，除了政策窗開啟外，行動者資源與網絡互動同樣是影響政策工具選擇的關鍵因素。社會網絡分析顯示，高網絡密度與高協同性的縣市在政策工具密度與執行效能上表現更佳，支持政策社群整合程度對政策選擇影響的假設。最後，質性比較分析法揭示地方政府在多元條件組合下能達成類似政策效果的彈性，並強調臺灣空氣污染治理中，志工的參與與政策行動者多樣性是影響政策工具選擇的核心條件，並能發揮穩定影響力。最後，本研究為地方政府在政策設計與執行層面提供了具體建議，包括靈活運用行動者資源、促進協作與跨域合作，以改善空氣污染治理成效。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | What are the factors influencing the selection of air pollution control policy tools by local governments in Taiwan? Existing research on air pollution in Taiwan often adopts qualitative methods and focuses on the roles of civil society and the central government, while relatively neglecting the decision-making processes of local governments. This study seeks to address this gap by integrating the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) and Social Network Analysis (SNA) to analyze air pollution control plans from 22 local governments, as provided by the Ministry of Environment's Air Pollution Control Program (2020–2023). The MSF emphasizes that successful coupling of the problem, policy, and political streams greatly increases the likelihood of policy change. SNA complements this by capturing interactions within policy communities in the policy stream, enabling the analysis of interaction patterns among different policy actors and their influence on the adoption of policy tools, thereby addressing the limitations of the MSF.
The study modifies the traditional view of complete coupling across the three streams, showing that "partial coupling" better explains the logic of policy formulation in stable contexts. For instance, in counties with limited improvements in air pollution reduction, the presence of diverse participants combined with a change in ruling party can enhance the diversity of policy tools. Furthermore, beyond the opening of policy windows, the resources of policy actors and network interactions are equally critical factors in determining the selection of policy tools. The SNA results indicate that municipalities with high network density and cohesion perform better in terms of policy tool density and implementation effectiveness, supporting the hypothesis that the integration of policy communities significantly influences policy choices. Finally, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) reveals the flexibility and equifinality of achieving similar policy outcomes under diverse combinations of conditions. It underscores the importance of volunteer participation and the diversity of policy actors as core and stable conditions affecting the choice of policy tools in Taiwan's air pollution governance. This study provides specific recommendations for local governments to enhance policy design and implementation, including the flexible use of actor resources, promoting collaboration, and fostering cross-regional cooperation to improve the effectiveness of air pollution control policies. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-06-18T16:12:52Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-06-18T16:12:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 I
誌 謝 II 摘 要 III ABSTRACT IV 圖次 VIII 表次 IX 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的與問題 5 第二章 文獻回顧 7 第一節 政策產出與政策工具 7 壹、 政策產出的定義與重要性 7 貳、 政策工具的定義與重要性 8 參、 政策工具採用研究之缺口 24 肆、 小結 28 第二節 多元流理論 29 壹、 多元流的基本主張 30 貳、 多元流的近期發展與挑戰 36 參、 小結 43 第三節 社會網絡分析與政策產出 45 第三章 研究設計 49 第一節 研究架構與研究假設 49 壹、 研究架構 49 貳、 研究假設 50 第二節 變數操作與資料來源 51 壹、 結果變數 52 貳、 條件變數 54 第三節 分析工具 63 壹、 質性比較分析法的基本假設 63 貳、 變數賦值與校準 64 參、 充分性分析與布林邏輯簡化 71 第四章 資料處理與分析 77 第一節 描述性統計 77 第二節 質性比較方法 87 第五章 結果與討論 105 第一節 研究發現與討論 105 第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向 109 第三節 政策建議 110 參考文獻 113 壹、 中文 113 貳、 英文 116 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 空氣污染 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 質性比較方法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 社會網絡分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 多元流 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 政策工具 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | air pollution | en |
| dc.subject | Multiple Streams Framework | en |
| dc.subject | policy tools | en |
| dc.subject | Social Network Analysis | en |
| dc.subject | Qualitative Comparative Analysis | en |
| dc.title | 影響臺灣地方政府選擇空氣污染防制政策工具的條件因素 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Factors Influencing Air Pollution Policy Tools Adoption by Local Governments in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳思先;王慧敏 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Ssu-Hsien Chen;Hui-Min Wang | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 空氣污染,政策工具,多元流,社會網絡分析,質性比較方法, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | air pollution,policy tools,Multiple Streams Framework,Social Network Analysis,Qualitative Comparative Analysis, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 124 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202500943 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-05-19 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 國家發展研究所 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2025-06-19 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 國家發展研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-113-2.pdf | 5.37 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。