跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.208.126.232) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/12 01:53
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:DavidM.Smith
研究生(外文):David M. Smith
論文名稱:透過參與式規劃落實農村社區發展之研究
論文名稱(外文):Rural Community Empowerment through Participatory Planning Strategies
指導教授:毛冠貴毛冠貴引用關係邱宗治邱宗治引用關係
指導教授(外文):Mao, Guan-GuayChiou, Tzong-Chiz
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立屏東科技大學
系所名稱:熱帶農業研究所
學門:農業科學學門
學類:一般農業學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:200
中文關鍵詞:參與式規劃授權社區參與業主方法策略地方分權執行
外文關鍵詞:participatory planningempowermentstakeholdersCommunity participationapproachimplementationstrategiesdecentralization
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1142
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:384
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:6
農村社區居民與計畫發展方案的互動關係,會影響農村計畫的實施成效。以往採用由上而下的規劃方法,而發生失敗案例,引發我探討如何透過參與式規劃,以落實農村社區之健全發展。
本文研究範圍包括社區授權、公共參與及業主分析等。社區需要居民積極的參與,讓受益者或團體發揮影響力,促進農村社區計畫的健全發展與順利推動。參與本身就是授權的過程,它是要透過公平的參與,權力的分享及責任的分擔,以解決社區發展所面對的問題。
參與的定義和觀念可追溯到1950至1960年代期間,當時由非政府組織所提出的社區和公共參與,例如聯合國農糧組織、國際勞工組織、聯合國社會發展研究所開始推動發展方案和計畫的公共參與。現今最成功的參與式規劃策略,大概是需要居民有活力及漸進的公共參與,以促進由下而上規劃模式的實現。
本研究使用量化與質化的分析方法,包括使用現場調查及觀察、問卷調查、面對面訪談,以瞭解研究地區的環境及社會條件,社區發展方案和計畫的參與情形,和收集農村社區規劃的相關資訊。
問卷調查的結果顯示47.1%受訪者同意全社區居民共同開會,可激勵社區參與。有32.8%受訪者非常同意資金不足,是推動社區發展計畫的重要限制因素。
業主分析是達成永續發展的重要途徑之一,但永續發展的目標並不一定會實現,除非保證受益者有能力作決策並承擔風險,例如屏東縣萬巒鄉四溝村鐵橋的興建,是利用業主分析的一個很好的案例。有37%受訪者非常同意參與式的規劃方法,可引導參與者吸收新知,增廣見聞,追求進步,並強化社區的活力。變異數分析的結果顯示,台中縣新社鄉協成村的受訪者對於農村社區計畫的規劃與執行的滿意度最高,因為他們能重視由下而上的規劃方法。迴歸分析的結果說明農村居民在農村計畫的規劃階段及檢討階段,其參與的程度愈高,對於達成計畫目標的滿意度亦愈高。
本文訪問調查的結果顯示,社區領導者在推動居民參與社區發展,扮演重要的角色,此外,業主分析和參與技巧亦是促進社區健全發展的有效途徑之一。總而言之,不論政策計畫、部門發展計畫或空間發展計畫,大多數的受訪者認為透過參與式規劃,是落實計畫健全發展或順利執行的重要因素。
The effectiveness of planning and development processes are affected by the ways communities’ people are able to interact with these processes. This paper is designed to examine the effectiveness of community-based approaches to community empowerment through participatory planning strategies in both preparation and implementation of development projects and programs, for both public and private proposals. The failure of many development projects using the top-down approach has motivated me to investigate the empowerment of rural communities through participatory planning strategies.
The scope of this study includes: community empowerment, popular participation, stakeholder/actor, stakeholder analysis, and need for participation and empowerment. Community participation is an active process by which beneficiary or client groups influence the direction and execution of a development project. Participation is the process of empowering the community to be able to solve their own problems through equal partnerships, power-sharing, shared responsibility and cooperation.
The definitions and concepts of participation in development can be traced back to community and popular participation, promoted mainly by (NGOs) in the1950s and 1960s. Multilateral agencies such as UNFAO, ILO, and UNRISD, also began to promote popular participation in development projects and programs. The most successful strategies today seem to be the process that demand active and increased public participation, thereby creating an illusion of popular control and bottom-up policy, and decision-making.
The study has used both quantitative and qualitative methods for analysis. The field survey and observation, questionnaire survey, and face-to-face survey were employed to understand the study areas’ environmental and social conditions, to identify community organizations and the current process of community participation in development projects and programs and to collect related data and information.
The results of questionnaire survey showed that 47.1% of the respondents agree that mass meeting can be used to encourage community participation in development project and programs. 32.8% of the respondents very agree that inadequate funding was the major constraints to community participation in the projects and programs. The broad sample of the community groups’ participation in projects and programs throughout the three counties provided a useful assessment of group progress and failure in each area.
Stakeholders participation is crucial for achieving sustainable development, but it will not occur unless a conscious effort is made to ensure that the intended beneficiaries are empowered to make their own decisions and allow to take risks as in the case of Sigou Village. 37% of the respondents very agree that they gained knowledge and skills as a result of their participation in the project and program.
Our ANOVA results show significant difference between xiechen village and the other four villages. Thus, indicating that the people of xiechen village are very satisfied with the planning and implementation effectiveness of their village. Our regression analysis results also show high level of (DEGREE and EVALUATE) which results to high level satisfaction with the implementation effectiveness of the village communities.
The interview results indicated that neighbor leadership is an important factor in community involvement and participation. According to our survey, the stakeholder analysis and the technology of participation were the most effective approaches in community empowerment through participatory planning. In summary, community empowerment through participatory planning was considered by most of our interviewees to be relevant for almost any form of development programs regardless of policy context, development sector, or spatial setting.
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………
CHINESE ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………
LIST OF TABLES. ………………………………………………………………
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………
I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………..
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………….
1.2 Research motivation……………………………………………………………
1.3 Research objectives ……………………………………………………………
1.4 The scope of the study…………………………………………………………
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………
2.1 The planning process. …………………………………………………………
2.1.1 Purpose of plans……………………………………………………………...
2.2 Key issues to address. …………………………………………………………
2.2.1 Range of approach………………….………………………………………..
2.2.2 One-way methods………………………………………….………………...
2.2.3 Interactive methods …………………………………………………………
2.2.4 Criteria for effectiveness. ……………………………………………………
2.3 Participation (Top-down vs. Bottom-up approach)……………………………
2.4 Importance of community participation……………………………………….
2.4.1 Participation and empowerment……………………………………………...
2.4.2 Concept of participation……………………………….……………………..
2.4.3 Principles of participation …………………………………………………...
2.4.4 Some benefits of popular participation ……………………………………...
2.5 The history of community empowerment. ……………………………………
2.5.1 The democratization movement……………………………………………..
2.5.2 The consumer movement ……………………………………………………
2.5.3 The self-help movement……………………………………………………..
2.6 The theory of empowerment…………………………………………………...
2.6.1 The process of community empowerment…………………………………...
2.6.2 Rural community empowerment approach. …………………………………
2.6.3 Indicators for community empowerment…………………………………….
2.7 The present situation of participation and empowerment……………………...
2.8 Problems analysis and solving strategies………………………………………
2.8.1 Example of problems analysis……………….………………………………
2.8.2 Solving strategies ……………………………………………………………
III. METHODOLOGY. …………………………………………………………
3.1 Questionnaire designed………………………………………………………...
3.2 Survey designed ……………………………………………………………….
3.3 Questionnaire administration ………………………………………………….
3.4 Data analysis methods …………………………………………………………
3.5 Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………..
3.6 Sampling………………………………………………………………………
3.6.1 Face-to-face discussions with local authorities method……………………..
3.7 Analysis of findings and objectives …………………………………………..
3.7.1 Detailed case studies…………………………………………………………
3.7.2 Case methods ………………………………………………………………..
3.8 Research focus, surveys and methodology…………………………………….
3.9.Sample local authorities……………………………………………………….
3.9.1 Final meeting with local chiefs ……………………………………………...
3.10 Description of the study area…………………………………………………
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………...
4.1.Steps to encourage community participation…………………………………..
4.2 Indicators of empowered community groups as result of the project………….
4.3 Strategies that worked well in involving the target community in the project and program……………………………………………………………………
4. 4 Project intervention and achievement of development desire goals…………..
4.5 Change of objectives during the course of the project…………………………
4.6 Existed constraints in involving the community in the project………………..
4.7 Additional knowledge requirement to work and participate in the project effectively………………………………………………………………………
4.8 Indicators of increased public participation as a result of the project………….
4.9 Views of the stakeholders on planning, implementation, and evaluation……...
4.10 Community participation in term of stages…………………………………...
4.11 Lessons learned ………………………………………………………………
V. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….
5.1. Range of approaches available………………………………………………..
5.2. Research limitation …………………………………………………………...
5.3 Recommendation………………………………………………………………
5.4 Future study suggestions……………………………………………………….
VI. REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX 1 …………………………………………………………………….
APPENDIX 2……………………………………………………………………..
AUTHOR BIOSKETCH………………………………………………………..
1. ACE Group, 1992. Thinking Globally, Enabling Locally, World Wide Fund for Nature UK: Surrey, pp. 12-17.
2. Acland, A., 1992. Consensus Building: How to Reach Agreement by Consent, The Environment Council, London, pp. 35-45.
3. Albert, H., 2000. Agriculture Policy Systems: A Changing Paradigm for German Technical Cooperation. Available: http://www.gtz.de/agriservice/areas/topics/topic6/
4. Anandajayasekeram, P., 1996. Farming System Research: Concepts, Procedures and Challenges, Keynote Address Presented at the Fourth Regional Conference of SAA-FSRE, Harare, Zimbabwe.
5. Armstrong, H., and J. Taylor, 2000. Regional Economics and Policy 3rd. Blackwell Publishers, pp. 7-8, 79.
6. Arnstein, S., 1969. A Ladder of Participation in the USA, Journal of the America Institute of Planner 35:216-24.
7. Asian Productivity Organization (APO), 2001. Planning with People: A Participatory Project Cycle Management. Hirakawa-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan. pp. 16-23.
8. Baily, K. D., 1994. Methods of Social Research Fourth edition, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc. pp. 12-14, 83-86, 107-110.
9. BDOR, 1995, ''Community Involvement in Planning and Development Processes: Design in the Countryside Experiments: Structures for Community Ownership of the Renewable Energy Projects,'' BDOR, 12 St Thomas St., Bristol BS1 6JJ.
10. Bhatnagar, B., and A. C. Williams (ed.), 1992. Participatory Development and the World Bank: Potential Directions for Change, World Bank Discussion Paper 183, Washington D.C.: The World Bank. pp. 2-3.
11. Bonggartz, H. and D. R. Dahal, 1996. Development Studies: Self-Help Organization, NGOs and Civil Society, Kathmandu, Nepal Foundation for Advanced Studies, pp.10-11.
12. Breheny, M., T. Gent and D. Lock, 1993. Alternative Development Patterns: New Settlement, University of Reading and David Lock Associates. pp.1-3.
13. Bryant, C. and L. G. White, 1984. Managing Rural Development with Small Farmer participation, Kumarian Press, Inc., pp. 23-31
14. Burns, B.R., 2000. Introduction to Research Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications Ltd. 6 Bonhill street, London EC2A 4PU, pp. 15-25.
15. Burns, D., 1992. Ladder of Participation: Going Local, SAUS, Bristol. pp. 14-16.
16. Carely, M., 1996. Policy Management for Sustainable Agriculture Rural development (World Wide Web). Available http://www.fao.org
17. Carpenter, S., 1992. Solving by Community Consensus: Management Information Service Report 21:10.
18. Cernea, M. M., (ed.), 1991. Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 2-5.
19. Chamber, R., 1992. “Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory”, IDS Discussion Paper No 311. pp.2-3.
20. Chiangmai, C.N., 1999. Options for Administration of Rural Development at the Local Level. Bankok, National Institute of Development Administration, pp. 5-11.
21. Chiou, T. C., and G. G. Mao, 2000. “An Evaluation and Development Strategy on Rural Community Improvement projects in Taiwan,” Paper Presented at Multi-Country Study Mission on Integrated Community Development (ICD), International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training, Taoyuan, Taiwan. pp. 2-5.
22. Clayton, A., P. Oakely, and B. Pratt, 1998. Empowering people: A guide to Participation, New York: UNDP. pp. 3-7.
23. Clok, P., 1988. Policies and Plans for rural people: An International Perspective. Academic Division of Unwin Hyman Ltd, London. pp. 3-9
24. Clok, P., 2000. “Participatory Approaches to Rural Development”, Journal of Rural Studies, pp. 488-489.
25. Daily, H. E., and J. B., Cob Jr., 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and Sustainable Future, Beacon Press, Boston, pp.35-40.
26. DeJong, G., 1979. “Independent Living: From Social Movement to Analytic Paradigm,”Achives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.acils.com/ .
27. Department for International Development (DFID), 1995. Technical Note on Enhancing Stakeholder Participation in AID Activities, London: DFID. pp. 5-6.
28. Department for International Development (DFID) (no date). PG- Community Empowerment. (World Wide Wed). Available: http:www.deliveri.org/
29. Doe, 1992. General Policy and Principles: Planning Policy Guidance Note 1. London, HSMO, pp. 10-12.
30. Field, A., 2000. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, SAGE Publications. pp. 103-111, 243-253, 376-391.
31. Foster, J., 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice. State University of New York Press. pp. 3-6.
32. Foster, J.J., 2001. Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows: A Beginner’s Guide, SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. 5-10, 22-36, 43-52.
33. Gajanayake, S. and J. Gajanayake, 1993. Community Empowerment: A Participatory Training Manual on Community Project development, PACT Publications, New York, pp. 2-10.
34. Gergis, A., 1996. Citizen Economic Empowerment in Botswana: Concepts and Principles, BIDPA, pp. 2-3.
35. Hamdi, N., and R. Goethert, 1997. Action Planning for Cities. John Wiley and Son Ltd.,England, pp. 53-55.
36. Harding, P., 1991. Qualitative Indicators and the Project Framework. Community Development Journal, 26: 293-306.
37. Hart, L., 1994. Creating Involvement, Local Government Management Board, Luton, pp 12-18.
38. HMSO, 1994. Community Involvement in Planning and Development Process. London, pp. 3-6.
39. Holcombe, S., 1995. Managing to Empower: The Grameen Bank’s Experience of Poverty Alleviation. London: Zed Books. pp. 21-23.
40. Homan, Mark S., 1994. Promoting Community Change: Making It Happen in the Real World. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California, pp.16-17.
41. Institute of Development Studies (IDS) 1998. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Learning from Change, IDS Policy Briefing Paper Issue 12, Brighton: IDS.
42. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (no date) Resource Book on Participation, Washington D.C.:IDB, pp. 4-5.
43. Iowa Community Empowerment, 2001. WWW Home Page (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.empowerment.state.
44. Jackson, S., (n.d.). Community Empowerment Program: Nurturing Public Involvement in the Transportation Process (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.fla.dot.gov.
45. Jones, A. M.E., 1995. Community, Control and Change. Avebury, Ashgate publishing Ltd, England, pp.57-59.
46. Jones, O., 1995. “Lay Discourses of the Rural Development and Implications for Rural Studies”, Journal of Rural Studies. 11:35-49.
47. Jones, P., Ed. 1989. Community Development: The Local Authority Role, Association of Metropolitan Authorities, London. pp. 52-58.
48. Jong-Ha, B., 2000. Rural Saemaul Undong and Development Strategy of Korea Agriculture. World Wide Web. Available: http://www.maf.go.kr/
49. Kaiser, Godschalk, and Chapin, 1995. Urban Land Use Planning. University of Illinios Press, Urbana and Chicago, pp. 251, 38-39.
50. Karl, M., 2000. Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.fao.org/
51. Kean, J., 1992. Organization and Operational Structure to Enable Community Participation in the Built Environment, Newcastle Architecture Workshop, Newcastle, pp. 45-50.
52. Korten, F. F. and R.Y. Siy, Jr., 1998. Transforming a Bureaucracy: Experience of the Philippine National Irrigation Administration. West Hartford, Kumain Press Inc., pp.10-23.
53. Kuik, O., and H. Verburggen, 1993. In Search of Sustainable Indicators, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp.20-26.
54. Lassey, W. R., 1997. Planning in Rural Environment. McGraw-Hill, Inc., pp.122-127.
55. Lichfield, N., 1996. Community Impact Evaluation. UCL Press, pp. 193-197.
56. Longworth, J. W., 1989. China’s Rural Development Miracle with International Comparisons. University of Queenland Press, Australia, pp. 162-165.
57. Martinussen, J. D., 1999. Reducing Disparities: Rural and Regional Development. World Wide Web. Available: http://www.unescap.org/.
58. McAllister, K., 1999. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and Evaluating Process, Outputs and Outcomes. Ottawa: IDRC. pp. 3-6.
59. McCarthy, P., 1995. Research, Prism and Harrison, Tony, UWE., Attitude to Town and Country Planning. HMSO Copyright Unit, pp. 3─5.
60. Mei-Jung, L., 2000. The Constraints and Potential of Building Sustainable Local Communities in Taiwan, Shaping the Sustainable Millennium-Collaborative Approaches, July 5-7, 2000, Brisbane, Australia, pp.10-22.
61. Morss, E. R. and D. Gow, 1985. Implementing Rural Development Projects: Lesson from AID and World Bank Experience, Westview Press/Boulder and London, pp.107─117.
62. Oakey, P. and D. Marsden, 1984. Approaches to participation in Rural Development. International Labour Organization, Switzerland, pp.6-8.
63. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, (OCED), 1986. Rural Public Management, A Publication Service, OECD, France, pp. 40-43.
64. Owen, H., 1992. Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide. Abbott Publishing: Maryland, pp. 12-23.
65. Peace, D. W., E. B. Barhier, and A. Markanda, 1990. Sustainable Development, Earthscan, London. pp. 51-53.
66. Panday, D. R., 1998. Transparency in the Context of Good Governance in Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal Administrative Staff College. pp. 4-6.
67. Quddus, A. Md., “1996. Rural Development in Bangladesh: Strategies and Experiences,” Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development, (BARD), pp. 22-26.
68. Rani, U., and H. S. Shylendra, 2001. “Seasonal Migration and Rural-Urban Interface in Semi-Arid Tropics of Gujarat: Study of a Trible Village,” Journal of Rural Development. 20:187-217.
69. Readon, T. and A.S.Vosti, 1995. Links between Rural poverty and the Environment in Developing Countries: Asset Categories and Investment Poverty, World Development. 9:1495-1506.
70. Rev.Walter, F., 1995. Developmenting Community: A Case Study, pp.5-12.
71. Rondinelli, D.A. and K. Ruddle, 1978. “Political Commitment and Administrative Support: Preconditions for growth with Equity Policy,” Journal of Administration Overseas. 17: 42─50.
72. Rondinelli, D., 1989. “Reforming U.S. Foreign AID Policy: Constraints on Development Assistance,” Policy Studies Journal. 18:4.
73. Rouse, J., 1996. Empowering Zambian Women through Small Farmer Groups Development. World Wide Web. Available: http://www.fao.org/.
74. Rouse, J., 1996. Organizing for Extension: FAO Experiences in Small Farmer Group. (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.fao.org/.
75. Rubin, A. and E. Babbie 1997. Research Methods for Social Work. 3rd ed., Brook/Cole Publishing Company, pp. 92-116.
76. Rudqvist, A., 1992. "The Swedish International Development Authority: Experience with Popular Participation” in Bhatnagar, Bhuvan and Aubrey C. Williams (eds.), 1992, Participatory Development and the World Bank: Potential Directions for Change, World Bank Discussion Paper 183, Washington D.C. The World Bank. pp. 5-6.
77. Rudqvist, A. and P. Woodford-Berger, 1996. Evaluation and Participation-Some Lessons, SIDA Studies in Evaluation 96/1, Stockholm: SIDA, pp.4-7.
78. Santhanam, M. L., 1993. “Community Participation in Sustainable Development,” The Indian Journal of Public Administration. 39: 56-75.
79. Schneider, H., 1999. Participatory Governance: The Missing Link for Poverty Reduction, Policy Brief No. 17, Paris, OECD Development Centre. pp. 15-17.
80. Schwerin, E. A. 1993. Mediation, Citizen Empowerment and Transformational Politics praeger, New York, pp.10-20.
81. Simmie, J., 1994. Planning London. London: UCL Press, pp. 34-45.
82. Singh, S. P., 2001. “Management of People by Gram Panchayats for Rural Development,” Journal of Rural Development. 20: 219-252.
83. Singh, B., 1997. The Participatory Assessment and Planning (PAP) Exercise, Farm info Note 5, FAO/RAP, pp. 5-10.
84. Sobhan, R., 1998. How Bad government Impedes Poverty Alleviation in Bangladesh. Paris OECD Development Centre, pp. 10-13.
85. Spencer, L. J., 1989. Winning through Participation: Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change with the Technology of Participation. (World Wide Web) Available: http://www. iadb.org.
86. Storey, D., 1999. Issues of Integration, Participation and Empowerment in Rural Development: The Case of Leader in the Republic of Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies. 15: 307-315
87. Stewart, M., and M. Taylor, 1995. Empowerment in Estate Regeneration Report to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The Policy Press. Bristol, pp.3-6.
88. United Nations (UN), 1980. Local Level Planning and Rural Development: Alternative Strategies, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, pp. 20-35.
89. United Nations Development Programme (1999, September 3). Indicators of Sustainable Livelihoods: A Preliminary Workshop Report (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.undp.org /.
90. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), 2001. Reducing Disparities, (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.unescap.org/.
91. United Nations Development Programme, 1999. Human Development Report. New York, Oxord University Press.
92. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (November 2000). SD:People: Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture and rural Development Projects (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.fao.org/.
93. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), 1990. Participation in Practice: Lesson from the FAO People’s participation Program, Rome, FAO, pp. 6-9.
94. US Department of Energy (DOE) 1992. General Policy and Principles: Planning Policy Guidance Note 1. London: HMSO. pp. 4-5.
95. Urban Villages, 1992. Urban Villages: Public Involvement, The Urban Village Group, London. pp. 36-45.
96. Warburton, D., 1998. Community & Sustainable Development. Earthscan publications Ltd, London, pp. 53-5, 139-40.
97. Warren, P., 1998. Developing Participatory and Integrated Watershed Management, Community Forestry Case Study Series 13, Rome: FAO, pp. 5-8.
98. Wei, X., and K. C. Tan, 2001. “Reform and Process of Economic Restructuring in Rural China: A Case Study of Yuhang, Zhejiang,” Journal of Rural Studies. 17 (2): 165-175.
99. Wilcox, D., 1994. Guide to Effective Community Participation, Rowntree Foundation. York, pp. 38 -49.
100. Whyte, M. K., 1995. The Social Roots of China’s Economic Development. The China Quarterly 144: 999-1019.
101. Wolfensbergger, W., 1972. The Principles of Normalization in Human Services. National Institute of Mental Retardation, Toronto (World Wide Web). Available: http://www.acils.com.
102. World Bank, 1998. Assessing Aid. What Works. What Does not, and Why, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 6-7.
103. World Bank, 1996. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, Washington D.C.: The World Bank, pp. 8-12.
104. Zaman, W. A., 1984. Public Participation in Development and Health Programs, University Press of America, Inc., pp. 3-5.
105. Zandstra, H., K. Swanberg, C. Zulberti, and B. Nestel, 1979. Caqueza: Living Rural Development. Ottawa, Ont, pp. 21-23.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 52.劉祥熹,1995,匯率變動對台灣水果產業衝擊之計量分析,農業金融論叢,第33輯,頁107-137。
2. 50.廖坤靜、方信雄,1992,輸日臺蕉腐損偏高原因之探討,果農合作,9月刊,頁64-71。
3. 55.蔡月香,1994,台灣香蕉產業之概況,果農合作,七月刊,頁21-30。
4. 53.蔣世超,1998,蕉園肥培管理要點及合理化施肥推薦,農業世界雜誌,頁61-66。
5. 47.萬鍾汶,1995,日本香蕉消費需求之特性,果農合作,頁15-19。
6. 60.蕭清仁,1997,早期台灣香蕉產業及對經濟發展的貢獻,歷史月刊,頁45-50。
7. 42.黃新川,1995,香蕉產業之研究與發展,果農合作,十月刊頁4-17。
8. 56.蔡平里,1997,從傳入至興盛台灣芭蕉種植簡史,歷史月刊,台北市頁33-44。
9. 38.傅慶隆,1998,台灣香蕉產銷現況與問題以青果運銷合作社為中心,合作經濟,第59期,頁9-14。
10. 34.陳建斌,1999,推行國產水果建立品牌的現況及展望,台灣現代農產運銷與政策研討會論文集,國立台灣大學農業經濟系,頁245-257。
11. 31.許文富,1997,台灣青果運銷合作社與台蕉產業,歷史月刊,頁51-57。
12. 22.官俊榮,2000,農業發展條例之修訂與農地農用,自由中國之工業,9月刊,頁51-58。
13. 61.戴旭如,1992,台灣香蕉出口制度之沿革與探討,農業金融論叢,頁127-149。
14. 68.謝俊雄、吳功顯,1996,台灣香蕉集團栽培可行性之研究,農業經濟半年刊,第60期,頁195-225。
15. 69.謝俊雄、唐雪萍,1994,外銷香蕉按場計價方式之可行性分析,果農合作,九月刊,頁8-18。