臺灣園藝類型援外計畫對民眾蔬果攝食量之影響－以吉里巴斯為例

The effectiveness of Taiwan's Horticulture Aid Project and its impact on people's fruit and vegetable intake in Kiribati

10.6288/TJPH.201906_38(3).107130

鄭晏宗(Yan-Tzong Cheng)；曾筠凊(Yun-Ching Tseng)；楊文山(Wen-Shan Yang)

國合會 ； 計畫評核 ； 援外計畫 ； 反事實分析法 ； 傾向分數配對法 ； TaiwanICDF ； evaluation ； aid project ； counterfactual analysis ； propensity score matching

台灣公共衛生雜誌

38卷3期（2019 / 06 / 21）

265 - 279

繁體中文

目標：本文旨在探討臺灣的政府開發援助藉由園藝類型計畫介入之成效，亦以實證方式說明臺灣的援外計畫之具體效果。方法：本研究為橫斷式研究，採準實驗設計，並選取計畫參與家戶與非計畫參與家戶以符合實驗組與控制組之實驗設計。資料收集主要係以自編結構式問卷蒐集受訪者資料，資料分析則以受訪家戶之蔬果攝取量探討計畫介入成效，並運用反事實分析法控制受訪者社經背景，降低選樣誤差，以確認研究變項之因果關係。結果：本研究共計回收171份有效問卷，其中包括63計畫參與家戶與108非計畫參與家戶。受訪家戶平均每戶每日蔬果攝取量為2.42份（SD＝5.07、Median＝2），計畫參與家戶之「每戶每日蔬果攝取量」較非計畫參與家戶高出0.89份（p＜.05）。迴歸分析的結果亦顯示，「是否參與計畫」為每戶每日蔬果量之影響因素（p＜.05）。本研究以傾向分數配對法（Propensity Score Matching，PSM）執行反事實分析，結果顯示，即使控制了樣本的背景因素，是否參與計畫仍然對蔬果攝取存在積極作用。結論：受評計畫符合計畫改變理論，且確實影響吉國蔬果飲食行為。

Objectives: To explore the Taiwanese government's development aid and aid effectiveness of the horticulture project's intervention and use evidence-based approach to prove the effects of the Taiwanese aid project. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional study with a quasi-experimental design and mixed methods. In order to comply with the framework of quasi-experimental design, we selected and assigned participants (using household as a unit) of the projects to the experimental group and non-participants to the control group. As for data collection in the field, we collected data through a structured questionnaire. We used the vegetable and fruit intake of the interviewees to explore the effectiveness of the project's intervention. Also, we used counterfactual analysis to reduce the selection bias to confirm the causal relationship. Results: A total of 117 valid questionnaires were collected, including 63 participants and 108 nonparticipants. The average household consumption of vegetables and fruits is 2.42 units (SD=5.07, Median=2). Comparing project participants with non-participants, consumption of vegetables and fruits of the participants is 0.89 units higher than non-participants (p＜. 05). Results from regression analysis indicate that participation in the project significantly affects consumption of vegetables and fruits (p＜. 05). The counterfactual analysis shows that even when controlling the background factors, participation in the project still affects vegetable and fruit intake. Conclusions: The project is in line with the theory of change and there are statistically significant intervention effects on fruit and vegetable intake.

1. Becker, SO,Ichino, A(2002).Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores.Stata J,2,358-377.
2. Boutayeb, A,Boutayeb, S(2005).The burden of non communicable diseases in developing countries.Int J Equity Health,4,2.
3. Brouwers, C..Wageningen University.
4. Fallgren A. A food culture in transition. Perceptions of healthy eating and reasoning in food choices. A grounded theory study of young mothers in South Tarawa, Kiribati. Available at: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8923567&fileOId=8924376. Accessed November 27, 2018.
5. Gertler PJ, Martinez S, Premand P, Rawlings LB, Vermeersch CM. Impact evaluation in practice. Available at: https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTHDOFFICE/Resources/5485726-1295455628620/Impact_Evaluation_in_Practice.pdf. Accessed November 27, 2018.
6. Guo, S,Fraser, MW(2015).Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications.Thousand Oaks, California:SAGE Publications.
7. Habicht, JP,Victora, C,Vaughan, JP(1999).Evaluation designs for adequacy, plausibility and probability of public health programme performance and impact.Int J Epidemiol,28,10-18.
8. Hawley, NL,McGarvey, ST(2015).Obesity and diabetes in Pacific Islanders: the current burden and the need for urgent action.Curr Diab Rep,15,29.
9. Holland, PW(1986).Statistics and causal inference.J Am Stat Assoc,81,945-960.
10. Holmes, WM(2013).Using Propensity Scores in Quasi-Experimental Designs.Thousand Oaks, California:SAGE Publications.
11. Independent Evaluation Group=IEG.Results and performance of the World Bank Group 2016: an independent evaluation.
12. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Evaluations. Available at: https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluation/index.html. Accessed Feb 27, 2018.
13. JICA.JICA annual evaluation report 2017.
14. JICA. Oceania. Available at: https://www.jica.go.jp/english/countries/oceania/index.html. Accessed July 30, 2018.
15. Khandker, SR,Koolwal, GB,Samad, HA.Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices.
16. Kusters, CSL,Batjes, K,Wigboldus, S,Brouwers, J,Baguma, SD.,未出版
17. Minister of Finance & Economic Development/Government of Kiribati. Kiribati voluntary national review and KDP mid-term review 2018. Available at: http://www.mfed.gov.ki/sites/default/files/Kiribati%20Voluntary%20National%20Review%20and%20Kiribati%20Development%20Plan%20Mid-Term%20Review%202018_0.pdf. Accessed November 27, 2018.
18. Morgan, E,Vatucawaqa, P,Snowdon, W,Worsley, A,Dangour, A,Lock, K(2016).Factors influencing fruit and vegetable intake among urban Fijians: a qualitative study.Appetite,101,114-118.
19. OECD.DAC principles for effective aid.
20. OECD. Principles for evaluation of development assistance. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2755284.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2018.
21. Rosenbaum, PR,Rubin, DB(1983).The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.Biometrika,70,41-55.
22. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Net ODA. Available at: https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm. Accessed September 20, 2018.
23. The World Bank. The World Bank in Pacific Islands. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/pacificislands. Accessed July 30, 2018.
24. The World Bank. IEG methodology. Available at: http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/methodology. Accessed February 27, 2018.
25. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID evaluation policy. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2151/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2018.
26. USAID. Evaluation toolkit. Available at: https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/mergedpdfs/print-toolkit-all.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2018.
27. USAID. Pacific Islands. Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/pacific-islands. Accessed July 30, 2018.
28. USAID.Strengthening evidence-based development: five years of better evaluation practice at USAID 2011-2016.
29. White, H(2009).Theory-based impacte valuation: principles and practice.J Dev Effect,1,271-284.
30. WHO.The Asia-Pacific perspective: redefining obesity and its treatment.
31. WHO. Kiribati NCD risk factors STEPS report. Available at: http://www.who.int/ncds/surveillance/steps/kiribati_STEPS_report_2004-6.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2018.
32. WHO. Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption to reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Available at: http://www.who.int/elena/titles/fruit_vegetables_ncds/en/. Accessed March 30, 2018.
33. WHO. Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption around the world. Available at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/. Accessed March 28, 2018.
34. World Bank Group. Food imports (% of merchandise imports). Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.VAL.FOOD.ZS.UN. Accessed July 25, 2018.
35. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Kiribati-WHO country cooperation strategy 2018-2022: Kiribati. Available at: http://iris.wpro.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665.1/13945/WPRO-2017-DPM-011-kir-eng.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2018.
36. 財團法人國際合作發展基金會=International Cooperation and Development Fund=TaiwanICDF.2017財團法人國際合作發展基金會年報.
37. 曾筠凊, YC(2017)。齊心協力達成永續發展目標—國合會的策略作為。外交部通訊，35，32-37。
38. 賴冠全, KC(2014)。新竹=Hsinchu，國立清華大學人類學研究所=Institute of Anthropology, Tsing-Hua University。

1. 蘇昱璇(2022)。發展研究與反事實分析：以臺灣政府開發援助為例。問題與研究，61(4)，131-164。
2. 鄭晏宗,曾筠凊,曾晴婉(2021)。臺灣援外計畫影響之實證評估：以海地糧食安全計畫（2011～2013）為例。問題與研究，60(3)，115-159。