臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

生態系統服務為人類從自然中直接或間接獲得的各種效益，包含供應、調節、支持與文化生態系統服務，其中文化生態系統服務為人類透過生態系統所獲得的非物質效益，能緩解生活壓力並促進身心健康，因此識別並量化文化生態系統服務的提供變得日益重要。綠地為提供生態系統服務的重要結構，各綠地層級提供的文化生態系統服務會因其空間屬性及層級大小而有所不同。本研究目的為瞭解綠地層級和文化生態系統服務之關係，並進行文化生態系統服務重要度及表現度分析，以瞭解文化生態系統服務在各綠地層級中認知重要度與表現度之差異情形。
研究首先統整並歸納出11項綠地層級，再根據過去文獻所提出之文化生態系統服務，對其進行定義及問項擬定，包含遊憩、知識系統、教育、文化遺產、美學、靈感啟發、象徵意義、精神信仰、娛樂、存在、贈遺、社會關係、地方感，以及文化多樣性，共計14項文化生態系統服務。研究透過網路問卷進行調查，研究結果發現不同綠地層級所提供的文化生態系統服務項目不同，且隨著綠地層級越高，其所具備的文化生態系統服務數量越多，而綠地層級與個人背景對部分文化生態系統服務的識別與認知重要度呈現顯著關係。透過重要度及表現度分析，發現整體而言文化生態系統服務的重要度顯著大於表現度，代表各綠地層級在經營管理上皆有進步的空間，而在IPA分析上發現而多數綠地層級皆重視遊憩、美學、遺贈服務，且多半表現良好，表示應持續保持維護，而存在、教育、文化遺產服務在部分綠地層級則需要優先進行改善。

Ecosystem services are the various benefits that humans obtain directly or indirectly from nature. These include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. Cultural ecosystem services are non-material benefits that humans obtain through ecosystems, which can relieve pressure and promote physical and mental health. Therefore, it is important to identify and quantify the provision of cultural ecosystem services. Green space is an important structure that provides ecosystem services. The cultural ecosystem services provided by green land system are different depending on the spatial attributes and levels. The purpose of this research is to understand the relationship between green land system and cultural ecosystem services. To conduct an analysis of importance-performance analysis (IPA) of cultural ecosystem services, and understand the differences in the importance and performance of cultural ecosystem services in green land system.
The research summarizes 11 green lands, and then defines cultural ecosystem services and formulates based on the service structure proposed in the past literature, including recreation, knowledge systems, education, cultural heritage, aesthetics, inspiration, symbol, religion, entertainment, existence, bequest, social relationship, sense of place, and cultural diversity. The study adopted web surveys. The results of the study found that there are differences in cultural ecosystem services provided by green lands, and the higher green land system can provide more cultural ecosystem services. The importance of cultural ecosystem services by the green land system and personal background are both significantly different. Through IPA analysis, it is found that the importance of cultural ecosystem services is greater than performance, which means that each green land has room for improvement in operation and management. According to IPA analysis, it is found that interviewees attach importance to recreation, aesthetics, and bequest services. These cultural ecosystem services mostly performed well, and should be maintained. Existence, education, and cultural heritage services need to be prioritized for improvement at some green lands.

致 謝 I
摘 要 III
Abstract V
圖 目 錄 IX
表 目 錄 X
第一章、 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究流程 4
第二章、 文獻回顧 7
第一節 生態系統服務 7
一、 生態系統服務之緣起定義 7
二、 生態系統服務之分類架構 8
第二節 文化服務 14
一、 文化服務定義與項目 14
二、 文化服務之相關研究與評估方式 16
第三節 綠地系統定義分類 18
一、 綠地定義 18
二、 各國綠地系統案例分析 18
三、 綠地系統層級架構建立 23
第四節 個人背景與文化服務感知相關研究 25
第三章、研究方法 29
第一節 研究架構及假設 29
一、 研究架構 29
二、 研究假設 29
第二節 研究變項及操作型定義 32
一、 綠地層級項目 32
二、 受訪者個人背景項目 34
三、 文化服務項目 34
第三節 問卷調查設計 38
第四節 資料處理與分析方法 40
一、 受訪者個人背景分析 40
二、 文化服務調查分析 40
三、 研究假設檢定 40
四、 綠地層級文化服務重要度-表現度評分 42
五、 研究限制 43
第四章、研究結果 45
第一節 受訪者個人背景資料分析 45
第二節 各綠地層級之文化服務項目分析 48
一、 調查信度與效度分析 48
二、 綠地層級之文化服務平均數量分析 48
三、 各項綠地層級之文化服務敘述性統計 50
第三節 綠地層級與個人背景對文化服務關係之檢定 58
一、 綠地層級所提供的文化服務有差異之檢定 58
二、 不同個人背景對文化服務的識別有差異之檢定 59
第四節 綠地層級與個人背景對文化服務重要度關係之檢定 62
一、 不同綠地層級對人們認知文化服務重要度有差異之檢定 62
二、 不同個人背景對文化服務重要度有差異之檢定 77
第五節 各綠地層級之文化服務重要度-表現度分析 83
一、 認知重要與表現度的差距分析 83
二、 IPA分析 83
第五章、結論與建議 95
第一節 結論 95
一、 受訪者對綠地層級的文化服務識別情形 95
二、 綠地層級與個人背景對文化服務類型之關係 95
三、 綠地層級與個人背景對文化服務重要度之關係 96
四、 綠地層級文化服務重要度-表現度評分 97
第二節 後續研究建議 99
參考文獻 101
附錄一 調查問卷 107

1. 中華民國景觀學會 (2010)。公園綠地系統規劃設計手冊暨操作案例。台北市：內政部營建署。
2. 內政部營建署 (1999)。公園綠地管理及設施維護手冊。台北市：內政部營建署。
3. 王小璘、何友鋒 (1999)。公園綠地規劃設計準則研究。台北市：內政部營建署。
4. 王秀娟、王希智 (2000)。 都市地區公園綠地基礎調查與系統建立之研究-以台北市士林地區為例。環境與藝術學刊1，51-70。
5. 王麗娟、 謝文豐 (2000)。生態保育。台北市：揚智文化。
6. 成其琳 (1991)。都市公園系統規劃設計準則之研究。台北市：中央營建技術顧問研究社。
7. 柯勇全、陳樹群 (2004)。特定水土保持區於國土規劃之定位。Journal of Chinese Soil and Water Conservation，35(4)，309-322.。
8. 胡子陵、王芳玫 (2013)。臺南市國小教師環境議題關心程度與環境保護行為結構方程式模式之探討。環境教育學刊，2013，第十三期：73-98。
9. 郭政鑫、郭一羽 (2006)。河濱公園開發之保育評估系統建立。Doctoral dissertation。
10. 陳湘琴 (2011)。日本景觀與公園綠地建構之策略研究--以京都市為例。環境與藝術學刊，10，91-106。
11. 陳肇琦 (1991)。都市公園系統規劃設計準則之探討。營建季刊，2(3)：33-40。
12. 陳麗玉 (2010)。保安林經營管理與效益。農政與農情，216(78-82)。
13. 曾沛晴 (2002)。美國、日本、台灣國家公園經營管理制度之分析研究。國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文。
14. 游登良 (1994)。國家公園: 全人類的自然襲產。太魯閣國家公園管理處。
15. 楊宏志、黃博淵 (1994)。森林遊樂區管理體系之研究。戶外遊憩研究， 7(1)，35-48。
16. 蔡巧蓮 (2013)。國家自然保護區管理制度調整之研究-以國家公園為例。國立臺灣大學生物產業傳播暨發展學研究所學位論文。
17. 李政忠 (2003) 從抽樣與統計方法探討網路問卷調查的可行性：比較電話訪談與網路問卷樣本的實質差異性。廣播與電視, (21), 55-94。
18. 鄭宇廷 (2009)。以生態經濟觀點探討都市綠地系統之研究-以台中市為例。東海大學景觀學系所學位論文。
19. 薛凱峯、盧智暐、周博淵、陳沛妗 (2009)。運動都會公園形象屬性之調查。運動健康與休閒學刊。 (11)，166-182。
20. Ala-Hulkko, T., Kotavaara, O., Alahuhta, J., Helle, P., & Hjort, J. (2016). Introducing accessibility analysis in mapping cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 66, 416-427.
21. Andersson, E., Tengo, M., McPhearson, T., & Kremer, P. (2015). Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 12, 165-168.26, 152-158.
22. Assandri, G., Bogliani, G., Pedrini, P., & Brambilla, M. (2018). Beautiful agricultural landscapes promote cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 256, 200-210.
23. Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J. A., Armsworth, P. R., Davies, R. G., Fuller, R. A., Johnson, P., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban planning, 83(2-3), 187-195.
24. Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services, 12, 187-199.
25. Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecological Economics, 120, 139-152.
26. Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological economics, 63(2-3), 616-626.
27. Brown, G., & Brabyn, L. (2012). An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landscape and urban planning, 107(3), 317-331.
28. Browning, M. H., & Rigolon, A. (2019). School green space and its impact on academic performance: A systematic literature review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(3), 429.
29. Buchel, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services, 12, 169-177.
30. Cheng, X., Van Damme, S., Li, L., & Uyttenhove, P. (2019). Evaluation of cultural ecosystem services: A review of methods. Ecosystem services, 37, 100925.
31. Colding, J. (2013). Local assessment of Stockholm: revisiting the Stockholm urban assessment. In Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities (pp. 313-335). Springer, Dordrecht.
32. Costanza R., de Groot R., Sutton P., van der Ploeg S., Anderson S., Kubiszewski I., Farber S., Kerry Turner R.(2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change,
33. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... & Raskin, R. G. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. nature, 387(6630), 253-260.
34. Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O'Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., ... & Wilhelm-Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9483-9488.
35. Cromley, E. (1984). Riverside park and issues of historic preservation. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 43(3), 238-249.
36. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M., ... & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812-8819.
37. Dickinson, D. C., & Hobbs, R. J. (2017). Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosystem Services, 25, 179-194.
38. Donahue, M. L., Keeler, B. L., Wood, S. A., Fisher, D. M., Hamstead, Z. A., & McPhearson, T. (2018). Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175, 1-10.
39. Faehnle, M., Bäcklund, P., Tyrväinen, L., Niemelä, J., & Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2014). How can residents’ experiences inform planning of urban green infrastructure? Case Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, 171-183.
40. Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological economics, 41(3), 375-392.
41. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological economics, 68(3), 643-653.
42. Frumkin, H. (2013). The evidence of nature and the nature of evidence. American journal of preventive medicine, 44(2), 196-197.
43. Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology letters, 3(4), 390-394.
44. Guo, Z., Zhang, L., & Li, Y. (2010). Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PloS one, 5(10).
45. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis, 1, 110-139.
46. Henneberger, J. (2000). State Park Beginnings. George Wright Society, 17(3), 9-20.
47. Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological indicators, 29, 434-444.
48. Iojă, C. I., Grădinaru, S. R., Onose, D. A., Vânău, G. O., & Tudor, A. C. (2014). The potential of school green areas to improve urban green connectivity and multifunctionality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4), 704-713.
49. Jaligot, R., Kemajou, A., & Chenal, J. (2018). Cultural ecosystem services provision in response to urbanization in Cameroon. Land use policy, 79, 641-649.
50. Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green space: Cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. International Journal of environmental research and public health, 13(2), 196.
51. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental management, 38(3), 338-349.
52. Johansson, M., Pedersen, E., & Weisner, S. (2019). Assessing cultural ecosystem services as individuals’ place-based appraisals. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 39, 79-88.
53. Kaczynski, A. T., Potwarka, L. R., & Saelens, B. E. (2008). Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks. American journal of public health, 98(8), 1451-1456.
54. Keith, S. J., Larson, L. R., Shafer, C. S., Hallo, J. C., & Fernandez, M. (2018). Greenway use and preferences in diverse urban communities: Implications for trail design and management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172, 47-59.
55. Kemp, D. D. (1998). The environment dictionary. Psychology Press.
56. Ko, H., & Son, Y. (2018). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: A case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecological indicators, 91, 299-306.
57. Kremen, C. (2005). Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology?. Ecology letters, 8(5), 468-479.
58. Lagbas, A. J. (2019). Social valuation of regulating and cultural ecosystem services of Arroceros Forest Park: A man-made forest in the city of Manila, Philippines. Journal of Urban Management, 8(1), 159-177.
59. Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., De Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(7), 587-592.
60. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155-194.
61. Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., & Fischer, J. (2013). Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecology and society, 18(3).
62. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press.
63. Miller, S. M., & Montalto, F. A. (2019). Stakeholder perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by Green Infrastructure in New York City. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100928.
64. Odell, E. W. (2017). Cawson's essentials of oral pathology and oral medicine e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences.
65. Pickett, S. T., & Grove, J. M. (2009). Urban ecosystems: What would Tansley do?. Urban Ecosystems, 12(1), 1-8.
66. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land use policy, 33, 118-129.
67. Rall, E., Bieling, C., Zytynska, S., & Haase, D. (2017). Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecological Indicators, 77, 80-95.
68. Rewitzer, S., Huber, R., Grêt-Regamey, A., & Barkmann, J. (2017). Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps. Ecosystem services, 26, 197-208.
69. Ridding, L. E., Redhead, J. W., Oliver, T. H., Schmucki, R., McGinlay, J., Graves, A. R., ... & Bullock, J. M. (2018). The importance of landscape characteristics for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services. Journal of environmental management, 206, 1145-1154.
70. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2016). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services, 17, 33-39.
71. Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke. T. (2018). Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green. Landscape and Urban Planning, 175, 161-168.
72. Ring, I., Hansjürgens, B., Elmqvist, T., Wittmer, H., & Sukhdev, P. (2010). Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1-2), 15-26.
73. Shafer, C. S., Scott, D., & Mixon, J. (2000). A Greenway Classification System: Defining the Function and Character of Greenways in Urban Areas. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 18(2).
74. Sophie B., & Niki F., (2015) Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services.12, 169-177.
75. Stanik, N., Aalders, I., & Miller, D. (2018). Towards an indicator-based assessment of cultural heritage as a cultural ecosystem service–A case study of Scottish landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 95, 288-297.
76. Tan, P. Y., & Samsudin, R. (2017). Effects of spatial scale on assessment of spatial equity of urban park provision. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 139-154.
77. Taylor, L., Hochuli, D. F. (2017). Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 25-38.
78. Wright, H. (2011). Understanding green infrastructure: the development of a contested concept in England. Local Environment, 16(10), 1003-1019.
79. Zhu, N., Li, M., & Chai, Y. (2002). Ecological functions of green land system in Harbin. Ying yong sheng tai xue bao= The journal of applied ecology, 13(9), 1117-1120.
80. Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., & Mizgajski, A. (2018). Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 84-97.