集體行動觀點下的跨域合作、行動支持度感知及行動成果－以地方政府節能減碳為例

Collective Action Perspectives on Interlocal Collaboration, Perception of Action Support and Action Outcomes: A Study of Local Government Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction Movement

10.30409/JPA.201903_(56).0001

陳思先(Ssu-Hsien Chen)

地方政府 ； 集體行動 ； 節能減碳 ； 跨域合作 ； 行動支持度感知 ； local governments ； collective actions ； energy saving and carbon reduction ； interlocal collaboration ； perception of action support

公共行政學報

56期（2019 / 03 / 01）

1 - 39

繁體中文

本研究以地方政府為分析單位，探討集體行動樣態在跨域合作機制的實踐及其對節能減碳行動成果的影響，並以地方政府對行動支持度的感知為調節變項，探討支持度感知對跨域合作與行動成果之間的干擾效果。變項數據資料蒐集來源有二種，其一以政府公開次級資料蒐集整理地方政府相關客觀資訊（包括行政院環保署低碳永續家園資訊網及各個跨域平台網站），其二以公文發送方式，請地方政府依據實況填答問卷，問卷量表工具除已進行專家效度之外，並均通過信度與效度檢定；直轄市及縣市回覆率100%（有效樣本數＝22），鄉鎮市及具公法人地位的自治區（直轄市山地原住民自治區）回覆率66.67%（有效樣本數＝136）；本研究以描述性統計、相關分析及迴歸分析進行變項之統計分析。研究結果發現，在鄉鎮市及原住民自治區層級的地方政府中，跨域合作機制的涉入，對其減碳通勤行動與降低碳足跡誘因行動的落實有顯著幫助，而其所在轄區已進行環保議題合作（於跨域平台運作）的時間（資歷／年），亦對其低碳永續家園銀級評等的得獎狀況有正向影響效果。在直轄市與縣市層級的地方政府中，跨域合作機制僅對於縣市落實降低碳足跡誘因行動有正向影響，卻對實務上低碳永續家園得獎率沒有顯著效果。至於行動支持度的感知方面，無論是在鄉鎮市／自治區層級，或是直轄市／縣市層級，都對節能減碳政策行動有幫助，亦顯現出在跨域合作與節能減碳政策行動之間的增強性調節效果。本研究歸結，我國地方政府集體行動在跨域合作機制的實踐，對節能減碳行動有幫助，尤其，當地方政府感受到民眾與團體支持態度時，其影響效果愈正面。

Using local governments as analytic units, this research defined interlocal collaboration as a pattern of collective actions among local governments, and tried to detect the impact of the collective actions on local policy movement on energy saving and carbon reduction. Local government perception of the action support was treated as an intervening variable. Data collection was derived based on two approaches: one was from the government open data systems and websites to establish the secondary data set in this research; the other was from a general questionnaire survey to measure local government perception and identification of relevant concepts of the policy actions. The operational instruments of the measurement had already been confirmed by the reliability and validity tests. The questionnaires were delivered to local governments through the bureaucratic-official document system, and the respondents were requested to answer the questions corresponding to the empirical situation or conditions. The responsive rates were 100% of the special-city/county/city samples (with total observation=22), and 66.67% of the country/township/county-administrative-city/special-district samples (with total observations=136). The methods of descriptive statistics, pair correlations and ordinal least square regression were employed in this research. Research findings indicate that, regarding the country/township/county-administrative-city/special-district observations, the participation in interlocal collaboration could generate a positive and significant effect to carry the low-carbon commuting actions and the low-carbon footprint incentive actions. With a longer time participating in the collaboration networks, local governments experienced a better chance to win the designation of national champion among low-carbon sustainability communities. Regarding the special-city/county/city observations, though interlocal collaboration could help facilitate low-carbon footprint incentive actions, it has an insignificant effect on the ability to gain the status and awards of national champion. Perception of action support enhanced local government actions toward energy saving and environmental sustainability on each of the two levels of municipalities. Moreover, action support perception could extend the effect of interlocal collaboration on the action outcomes. To conclude, the collective actions among local governments emerge as a useful mechanism toward local actions on energy saving and carbon reduction. In particular, when local governments perceive a positive image on action support from the public, the effect of interlocal collaboration is enhanced and the action outcome is promoted.

1. Chen, S. H.(2013).U.S. interlocal energy collaboration on energy efficiency, sustainability and climate protection.EurAmerica,44(3),455-536.
   連結：
2. Ahn, T. K.,Ostrom, E.(2002).Social capital and the second-generation theories of collective action: An analytical approach to the forms of social capital.The 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Boston:
3. Andrew, S. A.(2009).Regional integration through contracting networks.Urban Affairs Review,44(3),378-402.
4. Asheim, G. B.,Froyn, C. B.,Hovi, J.,Menz, F. C.(2006).Regional versus global cooperation for climate control.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,51(1),93-109.
5. Barbour, E.,Teitz, M. B.(2009).Blueprint planning in California: An experiment in regional planning for sustainable development.Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy,Cambridge, MA:
6. Barltee, D.,Steele, J.(1998).Corporate welfare.Time,152(19),36-54.
7. Barrett, S.(2003).Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
8. Bouckaert, B.(Ed.),De Geest, G.(Ed.)(2000).Encyclopedia of law and economics: Vol. 5. The history and methodology of law and economics.Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar.
9. Chen, S. H.(2011).Tallahassee, FL,Department of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University.
10. Chen, S. H.,Feiock, R. C. ,Hsieh, J. Y.(2016).Regional partnerships and metropolitan economic development.Journal of Urban Affairs,38(2),196-213.
11. Dubnick, M. J.(Ed.),Bearfield, D.(Ed.)(2016).Encyclopedia of public administration and public policy.New York, NY:Taylor & Francis.
12. Feiock, R. C.(2009).Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action.Urban Affairs Review,44(3),356-377.
13. Feiock, R. C.(2007).Rational choice and regional governance.Journal of Urban Affairs,29(1),47-63.
14. Feiock, R. C.(Ed.)(2004).Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation.Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
15. Feiock, R. C.(Ed.),Scholz, J. T.(Ed.)(2010).Self-organizing governance of institutional collective action dilemmas Self- organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
16. Feiock, R. C.(Ed.),Scholz, J. T.(Ed.)(2010).The political market for intergovernmental cooperation Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
17. Feiock, R. C.,Audirac, Z. I.(2009).Energy sustainable Florida communities: A state wide survey.Tallahassee, FL:Institute for Energy Systems Economics and Sustainability.
18. Feiock, R. C.,Kassekert, A.(2009).ARRA and local energy and climate protection innovation.The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Workshop on Infrastructure and Economic Development,Claremont, CA:
19. Feiock, R. C., A. Kassekert, F. S. Berry, & H. T., Yi (2009). Institutional incentives and early adoption of sustainable energy innovations. Retrieved December 29, 2010, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1450809.
20. Feiock, R. C.,Tavares, A.,Lubell, M.(2008).Policy instrument choices for growth management and land use regulation.Policy Studies Journal,36(3),461-480.
21. Fitzgerald, J.(2010).Emerald cities: Urban sustainability and economic development.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
22. Gronbjerg, K.(1993).Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in social service and community development organizations.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
23. Inman, R. P.,Rubinfeld, D. L.(1997).Rethinking federalism.Journal of Economic Perspectives,11,43-64.
24. Keohane, N. O.,Revesz, R.,Stavins, R. N.(1997).,未出版
25. Key, V. O.(1967).Public opinion and American democracy.New York, NY:Alfred A. Knopf.
26. Kraft, M. E.(2009).Cleaning Wisconsin's waters: From command and control to collaborative decision making.Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy,Cambridge, MA:
27. Krause, R. M.(2010).Policy innovation, intergovernmental relations, and the adoption of climate protection initiatives by U.S. cities.Journal of Urban Affairs,32,1-16.
28. Lubell, M.,Feiock, R. C.,Handy, S.(2009).City adoption of environmentally sustainable policies in California's Central Valley.Journal of the American Planning Association,75(3),293-308.
29. Marvin, S.,Guy, S.(1998).Creating myths rather than sustainability: The transition fallacies of the new localism.Local Environment,2(3),311-318.
30. Maser, S. M.(2007).Constitutions as relational contracts: Explaining procedural safeguards in municipal charters.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,8(4),527-564.
31. Mayors Climate Protection Center (2008). U.S. conference of mayors climate protection agreement. Retrieved January 22, 2011, from http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm.
32. Mazmanian, D. A.(2009).Los Angeles’ clean air saga—Spanning the three epochs.pochsToward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy,Cambridge, MA:
33. Mazmanian, D. A.,Kraft, M. E.(2009).Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy.Cambridge, MA:The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
34. National Association of State Energy Officials (2010). NASEO: About. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://www. naseo.org/about/index.html.
35. North, D. C.(1990).Institutions, institutional change and economic performance.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
36. O’Toole, L. J., Jr.(Ed.)(2000).American intergovernmental relations: Foundations, perspectives and issues.Washington, DC:CQ Press.
37. Ostrom, E.(2005).Understanding institutional diversity.Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
38. Ostrom, E.(1990).Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
39. Park, H. J.,Feiock, R. C.(2007).Institutional collective action, social capital and regional development partnerships.International Review of Public Administration,11(2),57-69.
40. Portney, K. E.(2003).Taking sustainable cities seriously: Economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities.Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.
41. Rabe, B. G.,Gaden, M.(2009).Sustainability in a regional context: The case of the Great Lake Basin.Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy,Cambridge, MA:
42. Radnitzky, G.(Ed.),Bernholz, P.(Ed.)(1987).Economic imperialism: The economic approach applied outside the field of economics.New York, NY:Paragon House.
43. Rees, W. E.(1997).Is “sustainable city” an oxymoron?.Local Environment,2(3),303-310.
44. Richardson, N.(1996).What is a “sustainable city.Plan Canada,36,34-38.
45. Sabatier, P. A.(Ed.)(2007).Theories of the policy process.Cambridge, MA:Westview Press.
46. Selman, P.(1996).Local sustainability: Managing and planning ecologically sound places.New York, NY:St. Martin's Press.
47. Thompson, A.(2006).Management under anarchy: The international politics of climate change.Climatic Change,78(1),7-29.
48. 官有垣, You-Yuan,李宜興, Yi-Xing(2002)。地方民間組織與政府在社區營造的夥伴關係：以嘉義新港文教基金會推動淨港計畫為例。研考雙月刊，26(3)，87-99。
49. 林逸舒, Yi-Shu(2005)。談新地方主義下的志工社會。T&D 飛訊，36，1-8。
50. 柯志昌, Zhi-Chang(2016)。學界與政府之合作與協力—區域治理與府際關係。2016年台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會年會暨國際學術研討會，新北=New Taipei City:
51. 紀俊臣, Jun-Chen,席代麟, Dai-Lin,陳欽春, Qin-Chun(2012)。新北市政府環境保護局委託之專題研究成果報告新北市政府環境保護局委託之專題研究成果報告,New Taipei City:新北市政府環境保護局=Department of Environmental Protection。
52. 財團法人台灣建築中心=Taiwan Architecture & Building Center(2012)。行政院環境保護署委託之專題研究成果報告行政院環境保護署委託之專題研究成果報告,Taipei:行政院環境保護署=Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan。
53. 黃冠華, Guan-Hua,白仁德, Ren-De(2013)。因應氣候變遷，打造低碳城市調適策略之研究。土地問題研究季刊，12(1)，2-11。

1. Ssu-Hsien Chen,Natalie W. M. Wong,Ming-Feng Kuo(2023)。Citizen-right Awareness and Environmental-related Factors on Pro-environmental Behavior: Some Evidence from China。行政暨政策學報，77，97-133。
2. (2023)。國防資訊來源對國防支持度與再傳播行為之影響。東吳政治學報，41(2)，189-235。
3. (2023)。中型城市建築物火災空間資料分析－以彰化市為例。規劃學報，41(2)，35-59。
4. (2024)。新冠肺炎（COVID-19）疫情防疫期間之警察人員公共服務勤務感知度探究－以臺北市政府警察人員為例。發展與前瞻學報，43，1-33。