Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/95762
標題: 民眾對平地造林政策認同度之分析—以臺灣中部地區為例
Public perceptions of acceptance toward afforestation policy in plain area—An illustration of central Taiwan
作者: 莊采蓁
Tsai-Jen Chuang
關鍵字: 平地造林政策;社會認同度;認知階層理論;afforestation policy in plain area;social acceptance;cognitive hierarchical theory
引用: 參考文獻 王培蓉、鄭欽龍(2002)台灣民眾對不同森林經營方式的認知與評價分析。臺大實驗林研究報告 16(2):135-144。 王謙(2012) Schwartz人類價值觀模式之驗證-以臺灣地區人民為例。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。174頁。 行政院農業委員會(2001)平地造林及綠美化方案(核定本)。台北:行政院農業委員會。 行政院農業委員會(2010)農業施政計畫專案查證報告。中華民國農民團體幹部聯合訓練協會。176頁。 行政院農業委員會林務局(2002a)推動平地造林實施策略參考手冊。台北:林務局編印。 行政院農業委員會林務局(2002b)林務局91年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001417) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2003)林務局92年年報(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001418) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2004)林務局93年年報(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001419) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2005)林務局94年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001420) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2006)林務局95年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001421) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2007)林務局96年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001422) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2008)林務局97年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001423) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2009a)造林、護土美臺灣。61頁。 行政院農業委員會林務局(2009b)林務局98年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001424) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2010)林務局99年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001425) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2011)林務局100年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001426) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2012)林務局101年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001427) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2014)林務局103年年報。(http://www.forest.gov.tw/0001429) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2015)林務局104年年報。(http://www.forest.gov.tw/0002282) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2016a)林務局局誌。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0001269) 行政院農業委員會林務局(2016b)林務局105年年報。(https://www.forest.gov.tw/0002610) 吳明隆、涂金堂(2005)SPSS與統計應用分析。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。965頁。 呂金河(譯)(2005)多變量分析(原作者:S. Sharma)。滄海書局。(原著出版年:1995)。512頁。 李國忠(1994)獎勵農地造林之經濟效果研究。台大實驗林研究報告8(1):35-68。 李達人(1992)獎勵農地造林計畫之經濟誘因及農民意願分析。國立台灣大學森林學研究所碩士論文。127頁。 周文賢(2002)多變量統計分析:SAS/STAT。智勝文化事業有限公司。965頁。 林怡諄(2007)農地地主參與造林獎勵政策之決策行為分析。臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所學位論文。158頁。 林明村(2010)平地造林在臺灣農地利用之成效探討。國立屏東科技大學熱帶農業暨國際合作系碩士在職專班碩士論文。109頁。 林國慶(2003)平地造林政策之分析。農業經濟叢刊8(2):111-140。 林國慶、林子喬、林信維(2015)臺灣非常時期糧食安全之分析。農業經濟叢刊20(2):1-51。 林國慶、柳婉郁(2007a)平地景觀造林政策之執行成果與實證分析。法制論叢40:175-211。 林國慶、柳婉郁(2007b)全民造林政策之執行成果與政策分析。農業與經濟 38: 31-65。 林國慶、柳婉郁(2011)私有地主參與造林獎勵政策之決策行為分析。農業經濟叢刊16(2):77-105。 邱皓政(2003)結構方程模式:LISREL的理論技術與應用。雙葉書廊有限公司。612頁。 張偉豪(2011)SEM論文寫作不求人。鼎茂圖書出版有限公司。302頁。 莊采蓁、顏添明(2015)遊客對平地造林政策目標的看法及其與個人價值關聯性之研究—以台中市公園綠地為例。林業研究季刊37(1):29-40。 莊采蓁、顏添明(2017)民眾的森林價值與社會信任度對平地造林政策認同度影響之探討—以惠蓀林場為例。農林學報(已接受) 許惠瑜(2003)平地景觀造林計畫之研究。中興大學森林學系研究所碩士論文。83頁。 陳巧瑋、顏添明(2014)遊客對平地森林價值及平地造林獎勵政策之看法-以鰲鼓溼地森林園區為例。林業研究季刊36(4):273-284。 陳仲賢、何湘梅(2008)推動平地景觀造林及綠美化計畫執行成果。農政與農情192:32-43。 陳阿興、陳麗美(2002)推動平地景觀造林--讓我們一起打造綠色新家園。臺灣林業28(1):18-21。 曾鈺惠(1993)台灣區農地造林政策與經濟效益分析。國立台灣大學森林學研究所碩士論文。101頁。 湯京平(2015) 2010 世界價值觀調查-台灣(E10034)【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。doi:10.6141/TW-SRDA-E10034-1 黃名媛、王培蓉(2013)林農參與平地造林之態度分析-以屏東縣及花蓮縣為例。中華林學季刊46(2):151-166。 黃裕星(1992)農地造林問題的商榷。現代育林8(1):11-13。 黃裕星(1994)轉變中的獎勵造林政策。豐年44(5):74-79。 黃裕星(2001)平地及海岸綠美化造林。臺灣林業27(2):3-6。 黃裕星(2010)臺灣綠色造林計畫之展望。林業研究專訊 17(6):1-4。 黃瀚輝、李介祿(2012)跨區域比較遊客之價值觀與遊憩行為意向。林業研究季刊34(2):121-132。 楊明憲(2008)國際穀物供需變化與台灣糧食生產之研析。農政與農情192:52-58。 楊明憲(2012)全球糧食現況與我國糧食安全策略之芻議。農政與農情246:79-85。 楊駿憲、楊秋震、廖國吟(2014)調整耕作制度活化農地經審認耕作困難地區造林作業規範簡介。臺灣林業40(3):77-78。 臺灣省林務局(1997)臺灣省林務局誌。臺灣省林務局編印。325頁。 臺灣省政府公報(1994)冬字第七期,14-20。 鄭隨和(2013)台灣糧食作物生產與糧食安全。新世紀智庫論壇64:34-37。 顏添明、李久先、許惠瑜、劉兆昌(2004)推廣人員對於平地景觀造林計畫相關問題看法之探討。林業研究季刊26(2):33-42。 蘇嘉全(2008)行政院農業委員會97年植樹節大會蘇主任委員致詞。臺灣林業34(2):7-10。 Alhakami, A. S. and P. Slovic (1994) A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. Risk Analysis 14(6):1085-1096. Anderson, N. M., K. J. H. Williams and R. M. Ford (2013) Community perceptions of plantation forestry: The association between place meanings and social representations of a contentious rural land use. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34:121-136. Ascher, T. J., R. S. Wilson and E. Toman (2012) The importance of affect, perceived risk and perceived benefit in understanding support for fuels management among wildland–urban interface residents. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22(3):267-276. Badarch, K. (2014) Integrating new values into Mongolian public management. 237 pp. Bearth, A. and M. Siegrist (2016) Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science and Technology 49:14-23. Bearth, A., M. E. Cousin and M. Siegrist (2014) The consumer’s perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Quality and Preference 38:14-23. Beatty, S. E., L. R. Kahle, P. Homer and S. Misra (1985) Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: The list of values and the rokeach value survey. Psychology and Marketing 2(3):181-200. Bengston, D. N. (1994) Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources 7(6):515-533. Brey, R., P. Riera and J. Mogas (2007) Estimation of forest values using choice modeling: An application to Spanish forests. Ecological Economics 64(2):305-312. Brown, G. and P. Reed (2000) Validation of forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 46(2):240-247. Brown, T. C. (1984) The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics 60(3):231-246. Brunson, M. W. (1996) A definition of “social acceptability’ in ecosystem management. In: Brunson, Mark W.; Kruger, Linda E.; Tyler, Catherine B.; Schroeder, Susan A., tech. eds. Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings; 1992 June 23-25; Kelso, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: pp. 7-16. Bruson, M. W. and B. A. Shindler (2004) Geographic variation in social acceptability of wildland fuels management in the western United States. Society and Natural Resources 17:661-678. Bull, G.Q., M. Bazett, O. Schwab, S. Nilsson, A. White and S. Maginnis (2006) Industrial forest plantation subsidies: impacts and implications. Forest Policy and Economics 9(1):13-31. Burrascano, S., M. Chytrý, T. Kuemmerle, E. Giarrizzo, S. Luyssaert, F. M. Sabatini and C. Blasi (2016) Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestrationand protect biodiversity. Biological Conservation 201:370-376. Byrne, B. M. (2006) Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). New York:Psychology Press. 440 pp. Carle, J and P. Holmgren (2008) Wood from planted forests: A global outlook 2005-2030. Forest Products Journal 58(12): 6-18. Chang, W.Y., V. A. Lantz and D. A. MacLean (2009) Public attitudes about forest pest outbreaks and control: Case studies in two Canadian provinces. Forest Ecology and Management 257(4):1333-1343. Chuang, T. J. and T. M. Yen (2017) Public views on the value of forests in relation to forestation projects—A case study in central Taiwan. Forest Policy and Economics 78:173-179. Clawson, M. (1975) Forest for whom and for what? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 175 pp. Clement, J.M. and A. S. Cheng (2011) Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Applied Geography 31:393-400. Connor, M. and M. Siegrist (2010) Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: The role of mnowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication 32(4):514-538. Cooper, D. R. and P.S. Schindler (2011) Business research methods (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 798 pp. Cvetkovich, G. T.and P. L. Winter (2002) Social trust and the management of threatened and endangered species: A study of communities of interest and communities of place. Res. Paper PSW-RP-247. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 65 pp. Cvetkovich, G. T.and P. L. Winter (2003) Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and Behavior 35(2):286-307. du Breil de Pontbriand, L. (2000) European experiences with Regulation 2080/92 and the new afforestation policy under Agenda 2000. N. Weber (Ed.), Proceedings of the NEWFOR – New Forests for Europe: Afforestation at the Turn of the Century, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp. 23-50. Duesberg, S., Á. N. Dhubháin and D. O’Connor (2014a) Assessing policy tools for encouraging farm afforestation in Ireland. Land Use Policy 38:194-202. Duesberg, S., V. Upton and D. O’Connor (2014b) Factors influencing Irish farmers'' afforestation intention. Forest Policy and Economics 39:13-20. Earle, T. C. and G. T. Cvetkovich (1995) Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger. Eriksson, L. (2012) Exploring underpinnings of forest conflicts: A study of forest values and beliefs in the general public and among private forest owners in Sweden. Society and Natural Resources 25(11):1102-1117. Eriksson, L., A. M. Nordlund and K. Westin (2013) The general public’s support for forest policy in Sweden: a value belief approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56(6):850-867. Eriksson, L., A. Nordlund, O. Olsson and K. Westin (2012) Beliefs about urban fringe forests among urban residents in Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 11(3):321-328. Eriksson, L., A. Nordlund, T. Schenk and K. Westin (2015) A study of forest values and management attitudes in the general public in Germany and Sweden: does context matter? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58(8):1412-1431. Eriksson, L., C. Björkman and M. J. Klapwijk (2017) General public acceptance of forest risk management strategies in Sweden: Comparing three approaches to acceptability. Environment and Behavior 50(2):159-186. Estévez, R. A., C. B. Anderson, J. C. Pizarro and M. A. Burgman (2015) Clarifying values, risk perceptions, and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management. Conservation Biology 29(1):19-30. European Commission (1992) Council Regulation (ECC) No 2080/92 of 30. June 1992 instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture. Official Journal L215:96-99. Firey, W. (1960) Man, mind and land: A theory of resource use. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Combs (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9(2):127-152. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Boston, MA. 573 pp. Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2016) Global forest resources assessment 2015. How are the world’s forests changing? Rome: FAO Second edition. Ford, R. M. (2006) Social acceptability of forest management systems. PhD thesis, School of Resource Management and Department of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne. Ford, R. M. and K. J. H. Williams (2015) How can social acceptability research in Australian forests inform social licence to operate? Forestry (Lond) 89(5): 512-524. Ford, R. M., K. J. H. Williams, E. L. Smith and I. D. Bishop (2014) Beauty, belief, and trust toward a model of psychological processes in public acceptance of forest management. Environment and Behavior 46(4):476-506. Ford, R. M., K. J. H. Williams, I. Bishop and T. Webb (2005) Social acceptability of forest management systems: Project overview. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Ford, R. M., K. J. H. Williams, I. D. Bishop and T. Webb (2009a) A value basis for the social acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Planning 90:196-206. Ford, R.M., K.J.H. Williams, I. D. Bishop and J. E. Hickey (2009b) Effects of information on the social acceptability of alternatives to clearfelling in Australian wet eucalypt forests. Environmental Management 44:1149–1162. Fraj, E. and E. Martinez (2006) Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23(3):133-144. Franklin, S. B., D. J. Gibson, P. A. Robertson, J. T. Pohlmann and J. S. Fralish (1995) Parallel analysis: a method for determining significant principal components. Journal of Vegetation Science 6(1):99-106. Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo and J. Lipscomb (1996) Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1(2):24-47. Hajjar R. and R. A. Kozak (2015) Exploring public perceptions of forest adaptation strategies in western Canada: Implications for policy-makers. Forest Policy and Economics 61:59-69. Hayton, J. C., D. G. Allen and V. Scarpello (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods 7(2):191-205. Hofstede, G. and M. H. Bond (1984) Hofstede''s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach''s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 15(4):417-433. Homer, P. M. and L. R. Kahle (1988) A structure equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4):638-646. Howe, G. T., B. Shindler, B. Cashore, E. Hanse, D. Lach and W. Armstrong. 2005. Public influences on plantation forestry. Journal of Forestry 103(2): 90-94. Jones, N., C. Gleridou, P. G. Dimitrakopoulos and K. I. Evangelinos (2012) Investigating social acceptability for public forest management policies as a function of social factors. Forest Policy and Economics 14(1):148-155. Kahle, L. R., S. E. Beatty and P. Homer (1986) Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: The list of values (LOV) and values and life style (VALS). Journal of Consumer Research 13(3):405-409. Karppinen H. and M. Korhonen (2013) Do forest owners share the public’s values? An application of Schwartz’s value theory. Silva Fennica 47(1) article id 894. 16 pp. Kassioumis, K., K. Papageorgiou, A. Christodoulou, V. Blioumis, N. Stamou and A. Karameris (2004) Rural development by afforestation in predominantly agricultural areas: issues and challenges from two areas in Greece. Forest Policy and Economics 6(5):438-496. Kim, T. and C. Langpap (2016) Agricultural landowners'' response to incentives for afforestation. Resource and Energy Economics 43:93-111. Kline, R. B. (2010) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.)New York: Guilford Press. 427 pp. Kotecký, V. (2015) Contribution of afforestation subsidies policy to climate change adaptation in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 47:112-120. Larson, K. L. (2010) An integrated theoretical approach to understanding the sociocultural basis of multidimensional environmental attitudes. Society and Natural Resources 23(9):898-907. Lee J. A., G. N. Soutar and J. Louviere (2007) Measuring values using best‐worst scaling: The LOV example. Psychology and Marketing 24(12): 1043-1058. Li, C. L., J. D. Absher, A. R. Graefe and Y. Hsu (2008) Services for culturally diverse customers in parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences 30(1): 87-92. Lienhoop, N. and R. Brouwer (2015) Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 42:568-577. Lin, J. C., C. S. Wu, W. Y. Liu and C. C. Lee (2012) Behavioral intentions toward afforestation and carbon reduction by the Taiwanese public. Forest Policy and Economics 14(1):119-126. Lindeman, M. and M. Verkasalo (2005) Measuring values with the short Schwartz''s value survey. Journal of Personality Assessment 85(2):170-178. Liu, W. Y. and J. C. Lin (2011) Landlord awareness of and willingness to participate in a green forestation plan: the case of Tainan County. Taiwan Journal of Forest Science 26(2):113-124. Lo, K. A. (2005) Agricultural Landowners’ participation in the plain landscape afforestation program (PLAP): A case study in Taitung county, Taiwan. Quarterly Journal of Forest Research 27(1):17-30. López-Mosquera, N. and M. Sánchez (2011) The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory. Tourism Management 32:875-889. Madsen, L. M. (2002) The Danish afforestation programme and spatial planning: new challenges. Landscape and Urban Planning 58(2-4):241-254. Madsen, L. M. (2003) New woodlands in Denmark: The role of private landowners. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1(3):185-195. Manfredo, M. J. (2008) Who cares about wildlife? In: Who Cares About Wildlife? Springer, New York, NY. Manning, R., W. Valliere and B. Minteer (1999) Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study. Society and Natural Resources 12(5):421-436. Mauchly, J. W. (1940) Significance test for Sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 11(2):204-209. Mbatu, R. S. (2016) REDD + research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. Forest Policy and Economics 73:140-152. McFarlane, B. L. and P. C. Boxall (1999) Forest values and management preferences of two stakeholder groups in the Foothills Model Forest. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Information Report NOR-X-364. McFarlane, B. L. and P. C. Boxall (2000a) Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: The case of the Foothills model forest, Alberta, Canada. Society and Natural Resources 13(7):649-661. McFarlane, B. L. and P. C. Boxall (2000b) Forest values and attitudes of the public, environmentalists, professional foresters, and members of public advisory groups in Alberta. Foothills Model Forest, Hinton, Alberta, and Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Information Report NOR-X-374. 17 pp. McFarlane, B. L. and P. C. Boxall (2003) The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: an example of the forest sector. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(1):79-87. McFarlane, B. L., J. R. Parkins and D. O.T. Watson (2012) Risk, knowledge, and trust in managing forest insect disturbance. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42: 710-719. McFarlane, B. L., T. M. Beckley, E. Huddart-Kennedy, S. Nadeau and S. Wyatt (2011) Public views on forest management: value orientation and forest dependency as indicators of diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41(4): 740-749. McFarlane, B.L., D.O.T.Watson and J. R. Parkins (2015) Views of the public and land managers on mountain pine beetle activity and management in western Alberta. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta. Information Report NOR-X-423. 48 pp. McFarlane, B.L., R. Craig, G. Stumpf-Allen and D. O. Watson (2006) Public perceptions of natural disturbance in Canada’s national parks: The case of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins). Biological Conservation 130(3):340-348. Mclntyre, N., J. Moore and M. Yuan (2008) A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Society and Natural Resources 21(8):657-670. Mercer, D. and A. Underwood (2002) Australian timber plantations: national vision, local response. Land Use Policy 19(2):107-122. Mylek, M. R. and J. Schirmer (2016) Social acceptability of fuel management in the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding region. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25(10):1093-1109. Nordlund, A. and K. Westin (2011) Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2(1):30-50. O’connor, B. P. (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer''s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods 32(3):396-402. Parkins, J. R. and B. L. McFarlane (2015) Trust and skepticism in dynamic tension: concepts and empirical refinements from research on the Mountain Pine beetle outbreak in Alberta, Canada. Human Ecology Review 21(1):133-153. Pithon, J. A., R. Moles and J. O’Halloran (2005) The influence of coniferous afforestation on lowland farmland bird communities in Ireland: different seasons and landscape contexts. Landscape and Urban Planning 71(2-4):91-103. Poortinga, W. and N. F. Pidgeon (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 23(5):961-972. Rawluk, A., R. M. Ford, F. L.Neolaka and K. J.Williams (2017) Public values for integration in natural disaster management and planning: A case study from Victoria, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 185(1):11-20. Rohan, M. J. (2000) A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4(3):255-277. Rokeach, M. (1973) The value of human nature. New York: Macmillan. 438 pp. Rolston, H. and J. Coufal (1991) A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry 89(1):35-40. Schwartz, S. H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25:1-65. Schwartz, S. H. (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50(4):19-45. Schwartz, S. H. (2012) An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116 Schwartz, S. H. and W. Bilsky (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(3):550-562. Schwartz, S. H., G. Melech, A. Lehmann, S. Burgess and M. Harris (2001) Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(5):519-542. Schwartz, S. H., J. Cieciuch, M. Vecchione, E. Davidov, R. Fischer, C. Beierlein, A. Ramos, M. Verkasalo, J. E. Lönnqvist, K. Demirutku, O. Dirilen-Gumus and M. Konty (2012) Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(4):663-688. Sheng, J., X. Han and H. Zhou (2017) Spatially varying patterns of afforestation/reforestation and socio-economic factors in China: a geographically weighted regression approach . Journal of Cleaner Production 153(1):362-371. Sherrouse, B. C., D. J. Semmens and J. M. Clement (2014) An application of social values for ecosystem services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Indicators 36:68-79. Shindler, B. A., M. W. Brunson and G. H. Stankey (2002) Social acceptability of forest conditions and management practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 pp. Siegrist, M. (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20(2):195-203. Siegrist, M. and G. Cvetkovich (2000) Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20(5):713-719. Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich and C. Roth (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20(3):353-362. Siegrist, M., H. Gutscher and T. C. Earle (2005) Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research 8(2):145-156. Siegrist, M., M. E. Cousin, H. Kastenholz and A. Wiek (2007) Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49(2):459-466. Silver, E., J. E. Leahy, C. L. Noblet and A. R. Weiskittel (2015) Maine woodland owner perceptions of long rotation woody biomass harvesting and bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy 76:69-78. Smith, J. W., J. E. Leahy, D. H. Anderson and M. A. Davenport (2013) Community/agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Society and Natural Resources 26(4):452–471. Sponarski, C. C., J. J. Vaske, A. J. Bath and M. M. Musiani (2014) Salient values, social trust, and attitudes toward wolf management in south-western Alberta, Canada. Environmental Censervation 41(4):303-310. Stankey, G. H. (1996) Defining the social acceptability of forest management practices and conditions: integrating science and social choice. In: Brunson, Mark W.; Kruger, Linda E.; Tyler, Catherine B.; Schroeder, Susan A., tech. eds. Defining social acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings; 1992 June 23-25; Kelso, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 99-111. Stankey, G.H. and B. Shindler (2006) Formation of social acceptability judgments and their implications for management of rare and little-known species. Conservation Biology 20(1):28–37. Steel, B. S., P. List and B. Shindler (1994) Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources 7(2):137-153. Stern, P. C. (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407-424. Stern, P. C., T. Dietz and G. A. Guagbnano (1998) A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement 58(6):984-1001. Tarrant, M. A. and H. K. Cordell (2002) Amenity values of public and private forests: examining the value–attitude relationship. Environmental Management 30(5):692-703. Tarrant, M. A., H. K. Cordell and G. T. Green (2003) PVF: A scale to measure public values of forests. Journal of Forestry 101(6):24-30. Tassone, V. C., Wesseler, J., Nesci, F. S. (2004) Diverging incentives for afforestation from carbon sequestration: an economic analysis of the EU afforestation program in the south of Italy. Forest Policy and Economics 6(6):567-578. Toman, E., B. Shindler, S. McCaffrey and J. Bennett (2014) Public acceptance of wildland fire and fuel management: Panel responses in seven locations. Environmental Management 54(3):557-570. United Nations (1992) Agenda 21 (United Nations, New York). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) (2016) The sustainable development goals report 2016. http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/. Vaske, J. J. and M. J. Manfredo (2012) Social psychological considerations in wildlife management. In book: Human dimensions of wildlife management, Chapter: Social psychological considerations in wildlife management, Publisher: Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, Editors: D. J. Decker, S. Riley, W. F. Siemer, pp.43-57. Vaske, J. J. and M. P. Donnelly (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources 12(6):523-537. Vaske, J. J., J. D. Absher and A. D. Bright (2007) Salient value similarity, social trust and attitudes toward wildland fire management strategies. Human Ecology Review 14(2):223-232. Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, D. R. Williams and S. A. Jonker (2001) Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources 14(9):761-776. Vedel, S. E., J. B. Jacobsen and B. J. Thorsen (2015) Contracts for afforestation and the role of monitoring for landowners’ willingness to accept. Forest Policy and Economics 51:29-37. Whitfield, S. C., E. A. Rosa, A. Dan and T. Dietz (2009) The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis 29(3): 425-437. Williams, K. J. H. (2014) Public acceptance of plantation forestry: Implications for policy and practice in Australian rural landscape. Land Use Policy 38:346-354. Williams, K. J. H., R. Nettle and R. J. Petheram (2003) Public response to plantation forestry on farms in south-western Victoria. Australian Forestry 66(2):93-99. Winter, C. (2007) The intrinsic, instrumental and spiritual values of natural area visitors and the general public: A comparative study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6):599-614. Winter, C. and M. Lockwood (2004) The natural area value scale: A new instrument for measuring natural area values. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 11(1):11-20. Winter, G., C. A. Vogt and S. McCaffrey (2004) Examining social trust in fuels management strategies. Journal of Forestry 102(6):8-15. Wynveen, C. J. and S. G. Sutton (2015) Engaging the public in climate change-related pro-environmental behaviors to protect coral reefs: The role of public trust in the management agency. Marine Policy 53:131-140. Xu, Z. and D. N. Bengston (1997) Trends in national forest values among forestry professionals, environmentalists, and the news media, 1982–1993. Society and Natural Resources 10(1):43-59. York, A.M., M. A. Janssen and L.A. Carlson (2006) Diversity of incentives for private forest landowners: an assessment of programs in Indiana, USA. Land Use Policy 23(4):542-550. Zucker, L. G. (1986) Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organizational Behavior 8:53-111.
摘要: 
為符合國際的趨勢以達到環境的永續,增加人工造林面積一直以來為全世界所努力的目標,臺灣在造林工作上不遺餘力,過去除了著重山坡地造林外,近年來也致力於推動平地造林。過去雖已有許多研究探討不同利害關係人對平地造林政策的看法,但較少以民眾的觀點進行研究,由於造林的效益與民眾具有密切的關係,所以採民眾的觀點探討平地造林政策有其必要性。本研究旨在探討民眾對平地造林政策的看法,由於平地造林政策包含不同造林區位,其在特性上具有差異性,為能獲得平地造林更完整的資訊,本研究依林務局所區分的4個造林區位,分別探討民眾對不同區位之造林目標的認同度,並比較相同造林目標認同度在4個造林區位的差異性。本研究採認知階層理論為研究架構之基礎,探討民眾評估造林目標認同度的影響因素,所採用的構面包含認知階層理論中的基本價值(個人價值)與價值傾向(森林價值),以及過去文獻中常用於解釋及預測政策認同度的社會信任度、政策效益與風險認知(不同造林區位之造林效益與風險認知)。研究對象為臺灣中部地區的民眾,採用現地問卷調查的方式於中部4個縣市的戶外地區進行發放,調查期間為2017年4月至10月,共發放問卷數量1,067份,其中有效問卷1,015份。主要分析內容包含民眾對不同造林區位之造林目標的認同度,及以結構方程模型預測造林目標認同度的影響因素。本研究採用重複量數分析民眾對相同造林區位不同造林目標認同度的差異性,以及相同造林目標不同造林區位認同度之差異性,所得結果指出相同造林區位中,民眾對各項造林目標看法具有顯著差異(p<0.001),分別對各區位造林目標認同度進行比較後,結果皆呈現以環境目標所得之分數最高(3.59-4.16),經濟目標為最低(3.36-3.86);而在相同造林目標上,各目標的認同度皆以廢棄檳榔果園區為最高(3.86-4.16),地層下陷區次之(3.54-3.91),重金屬汙染區(3.40-3.84)與農地(3.36-3.60)為最低。在探討民眾認同度的影響因素方面,4個造林區位搭配4個造林目標(3個造林目標與1個整體目標)所產生的16個模式,經結構方程模型驗證後皆有良好的配適結果,唯在影響路徑上略有差異。由各模式結果也驗證各解釋構面對造林目標認同度的直接與間接的影響關係,但各模式也會依不同的造林區位及不同造林目標在此關係上有所差異。其中農地與其他三個區位之間較具有明顯的差異,尤其是民眾對農地的造林目標認同度較其他造林區位易受到個人價值,與森林價值所影響,即當民眾越持有保守性的價值觀,或越重視森林的存在價值時,對農地以環境目標與整體目標的認同度會產生負面的看法。雖然不同區位的影響因素並不完全一致,但由所得結果可歸納出,當民眾認為各區位在造林後所帶來的經濟與社會效益越高時,也會越認同各區位的造林目標;而當民眾對各區位造林之社會風險顧慮越高時,則對造林目標認同度也會越低。另外,值得注意的是,社會信任度在本研究中為重要的中介變項,且對於造林效益與風險認知具有一定的影響力。整體而言,本研究發現民眾對平地造林政策在不同區位的看法不盡相同,且由結構方程模型驗證認知階層模式在平地造林不同區位之適用性,可用以預測並解釋民眾對政策目標的認同度。研究所得的結果可提供平地造林政策有關民眾對於政策認同度的參考。

Increasing plantation area is one of important goals for environmental sustainability and which is global trend. Taiwan government implements plantation policy for a long time. Recently, the government mainly promotes the implementation of afforestation policy in plain area in order to increase green spaces. Previous studies have examined different stakeholders’ opinions toward the policy while rare in the public. However, the benefits of the afforestation in plain area are highly relevant to the people; therefore, integrating public’s opinions toward the policy is very important to the policy-making. This study aimed to address public’s opinions toward afforestation policy in plain area. According to the classification of Taiwan Forestry Bureau (TFB), the afforestation policy contained four land-use types. In order to obtain more comprehensive information, this study compared public’s acceptance toward the targets of the policy for each land types and also compared the same policy target among the four land types. Cognitive hierarchical theory (CHT) was adopted to explore which factors affect public’s acceptance toward the afforestation targets. Public’s basic values (personal values), value orientations (forest values), social trust, benefit and risk perceptions (benefit and risk perceptions toward afforestation in different land types) were used as factors to establish the study framework. The former two were adopted from the CHT and the others referred from the previous studies. Data were collected from the general public of the four counties of central Taiwan. A total of 1,015 valid questionnaires were obtained from 1,067 questionnaires based on an on-site questionnaire survey during April to October in 2017. The results contained public’s acceptance toward the targets of the afforestation policy in different land types and using structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the factors in predicting public’s acceptance of the targets. Repeated measures analysis of variance was adopted to compare in two aspects, that is, public’s acceptance toward different afforestation targets under the same land-use type and the differences between the four land types within the same target. The difference of public’s acceptance was shown among the afforestation targets (p<0.001), regardless of land-use types. I also found a clear trend, that is, all of the scores higher in the environmental target (3.59-4.16) and lower in the economic target (3.36-3.86). Meanwhile, the rank of scores from high to low showed: abandoned orchards areas (3.86-4.16), the land subsidence areas (3.54-3.91), the heavy metal-polluted lands (3.40-3.84) and the farm lands (3.36-3.60). On the other hand, a total of 16 SEM models resulting from each land type with four were used to predict acceptance of targets. The well fitness showed in all models, whereas, the different pathways might appear among the models. Moreover, the models also verified the direct and indirect relationships between the factors and the acceptance of targets where these relationships might vary with land-use types and the targets. Because the pattern of farm land differed from others, it was carried out to display. Personal values and forest values have greater effect on the afforestation targets of farm land areas than that of the others. Particularly, the public embraced more conservation values or more existence values of forests; they would have lower acceptance toward the environmental target and lower overall acceptance of afforestation on farm lands. Although the factors affecting public’s acceptance toward the targets showed different patterns between the land-use types, the findings also observed that public’s perception of economic and social benefits of afforestation had strong positive effect on their acceptance toward each targets, regardless land-use types. On the contrast, the perception of social risks of afforestation has associated with lower acceptances of the targets. Noticeably, the variable of social trust linked the perceptions of benefit and risk that play a critical role in mediating factors. Overall, this finding implied that public might possess different opinions on the afforestation targets and the land-use types. The study framework based on CHT could verify following SEM model, implying that the result is suitable to my study and could be used to explain and predict public’s acceptance toward policy. These findings might provide concrete information concerning the public’s opinions toward the afforestation policy in different land types.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/95762
Rights: 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,2020-02-08起公開。
Appears in Collections:森林學系

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-107-8102033001-1.pdf5.32 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network    Request a copy
Show full item record
 
TAIR Related Article

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.