城鎮風貌型塑整體計畫之可評估性衡量及執行評估

An Evaluability Assessment and Implementation Evaluation of the Rural Landscape Reformation Comprehensive Project

10.30409/JPA.201903_(56).0002

莊麗蘭(Li-Lan Juang)；趙永茂(Yung-Mau Chao)；王宏文(Hong-Wung Wang)

城鎮風貌 ； 可評估性衡量 ； 方案理論 ； 邏輯模型 ； 執行評估 ； rural landscape ； evaluability assessment ； implementation evaluation ； program theory ； logic model

公共行政學報

56期（2019 / 03 / 01）

41 - 82

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。

This study conducted an evaluability assessment and implementation evaluation of the 'Rural Landscape Reformation Comprehensive Project＂ in Taiwan, mainly because the project was behind schedule, had undergone a transformation period, and had introduced new elements, such as cross-border integration and financial self-liquidation at that time. This paper aims to explore possible problems in policy design and implementation through secondary data analysis, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions. The results include the logic model of the project, which shows the important components of the project and describes the causal relationships between them. The results also reveal some problems, such as the poor operation of the cross-border integration platform of the central government and local governments. In addition, the environmental landscape consultants of the county and city did not have the capacity to deal effectively with the planning of cross-border integration and financial self-liquidation. This study also evaluates the impact theory of the project. The results show that the short-term goals could have been achieved reasonably by the project. However, the time period of local governments' implementation was too short. So the quality of the project outputs decreased. The medium- and long-term goals were not expected to be achieved because the scope and scale of the plan were insufficient. In sum, evaluability assessment can be used to examine whether the causal relationships between the project's input, activities, output, and goals are reasonable, and then can provide policy recommendations to improve the project. As a result, it is recommended that practitioners and scholars use evaluability assessment in Taiwan.

1. 趙永茂, Yung-Mau(2003)。台灣府際關係與跨域管理：文獻回顧與策略途徑初探。政治科學論叢，18，53-70。
   連結：
2. Bickman, L.(Ed.)(1987).Using program theory in evaluation.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
3. Chen, H. T.(1990).Theory-driven evaluation.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
4. Davies, R.(2013).Report of a study commissioned by the Department for International DevelopmentReport of a study commissioned by the Department for International Development,London, UK Cambridge:.
5. Hatry, H.,Van Houten, T.,Plantz, M. C.,Greenway, M. T.(1996).Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach.Alexandria, Va:United Way of America.
6. Knowlton, L. W.,Cynthia, C. P.(2012).The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results.Los Angeles, CA:Sage Publications.
7. Langbein, L.,Claire, L. F.(2006).Public program evaluation: A statistical guide.London, UK:M. E. Sharpe.
8. Patton, M.(2001).Qualitative research and evaluation methods.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
9. Rogers, P. J.,Petrosino, A.,Huebvers, T. A.,Hacsi, T. A.(2000).Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems.New Directions Evaluation,87,5-13.
10. Rossi, P. H.,Freeman, H. E.,Lipsey, M. W.(1999).Evaluation: A systematic approach.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
11. Rossi, P. H.,Lipsey, M. W.,Freeman, H. E.(2004).Evaluation-A systematic approach.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
12. Ruben, R. (2012). Evaluablitiy assessment: Preparatory steps before starting an evaluation. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/development/ evaluationofdevelopmentprogrammes/dcdndep/46436210.ppt.
13. Saunders, R. P.,Evans, M. H.,Joshi, P.(2005).Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: A how-to guide.Health Promotion Practice,6(2),134-147.
14. Sechrest, L.(Ed.),Scott, A.(Ed.)(1993).Understanding causes and generalizing about them.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
15. Smith, M. F.(1989).Evaluability assessment: A practical approach.Clemson, SC:Kluwer Academic.
16. Trevisan, M. S.,Walser, T. M.(2014).Evaluability assessment: Improving evaluation quality and use.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
17. Wholey, J. S.(1979).Evaluation: Promise and performance.Washington, DC:Urban Institute.
18. Wholey, J. S.(1987).Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory.New Directions for Program Evaluation,33,77-92.
19. Wholey, J. S.,Hatry, H. P.,Newcomer, K. E.(2004).The handbook of practical program evaluation.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
20. 內政部營建署（2013）。推動城鄉風貌計畫，創造魅力好臺灣，2013 年 2 月 7日，取自：http://www.cpami.gov.tw/。Construction and Planning Agency Ministry of the Interior (CPAMI), R.O.C. (Taiwan) (2013), Tui dong cheng xiang feng mao ji hua, chuang zao mei li hao tai wan [Promote townscape renaissance project and create fascinating Formosa]. Retrieved February 7, 2013, from http://www.cpami.gov.tw/.
21. 天下雜誌（2013）。幸福城市「城市競爭力」調查出爐，2018 年 04 月 27 日，取自：http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5052286。CommonWealth Magazine (2013). Xing fu cheng shi cheng shi jing zheng li diao cha chu lu [Happiness city “urban competitiveness” survey released]. Retrived April, 4, 2018, from http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5052286.
22. 02 行政院政府計畫管理資訊網（n.d.）。城鎮風貌型塑整體計畫年度作業計畫，2018年 04 月 27 日，取自：https://gpmnet.nat.gov.tw/gpmnet20/Untitled-1.aspx?act=02。Government Project Management Network (n.d.). Cheng zhen feng mao xing su zheng ti ji hua nian du zuo ye ji hua [Townscape renaissance annual operation project]. Retrieved April, 27, 2018, from https://gpmnet.nat. gov.tw/gpmnet20/Untitled-1.aspx?act=02.
23. 吳鴻強, Hung-Chiang(2012)。桃園=Taoyuan，中原大學建築研究所=Department of Architecture, Chung Yuan Christian University。
24. 李欣怡, Hsin-I(2006)。台北=Taipei，中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所=Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Chinese Culture University。
25. 林明哲, Ming-Che(2008)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立高雄大學都市發展與建築研究所=Graduate Institute of Urban Development and Architecture, National Kaohsiung University。
26. 邱吉鶴, Chi-Ho,莊麗蘭, Li-Lan(2005)。施政計畫執行力之探討。研考雙月刊，29(2)，50-60。
27. 國家發展委員會=National Development Council=NDC(2014)。,台北=Taipei:國家發展委員會=NDC。
28. 梁思玉, Szu-Yu(2007)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立高雄大學都市發展與建築研究所=Graduate Institute of Urban Development and Architecture, National Kaohsiung University。
29. 許珮娟, Pei-Hsuan(2011)。台北=Taipei，淡江大學建築系=Department of Architecture, Tamkang University。
30. 陳企業, Khee-Giap,胡永泰, Wing-Thye,陳光炎, Kong-Yam,劉琳達, Lin-Da,歐怡伶, Yi-Ling(2014).全球主要城市宜居性排名：全球宜居城市指數.新加坡=Singapore:八方文化創作室=Global Publishing.
31. 陳信木, Hsin-Mu(2016).社會發展計畫審議及評估制度之調整規劃研究—社會福利類.台北市=Taipei:國家發展委員會=NDC.
32. 陳姵綸, Pei-Lun(2007)。台北=Taipei，國立臺灣大學園藝研究所=Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, National Taiwan University。
33. 陳淑芬, Shu-Fen(2006)。桃園=Taoyuan，中原大學建築研究所=Department of Architecture, Chung Yuan Christian University。
34. 陳欽煒, Chin-Wei(2009)。台北=Taipei，國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所=Graguate Inistitute of Architecture and Urban Design, National Taipei University of Technology。
35. 彭錦鵬, Ching-Peng,江瑞祥, Ri-Sharng,林子倫, Tze-Luen,王宏文, Hong-Wung(2012).我國中長程個案計畫評估機制整合之研究.台北市=Taipei:行政院研考會 =Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC).
36. 游鎔潞, Jung-Lu(2006)。台北=Taipei，國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所=Graduate Institute of Architecture and Urban Design, National Taipei University of Technology。
37. 馮天君, Tien-Chun(2008)。台北 Tainan，國立成功大學建築學系=Department of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University。
38. 黃俊英, Jun-Ying(1983).政策規劃的理論與實務.台北=Taipei:行政院研考會=Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC).
39. 黃偉晉, Wei-Chin(1999)。高雄=Kaohsiung，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所=Institute of Public Affairs Management, National Sun Yat-sen University。
40. 黃德生, Te-Sheng(2005)。台南=Tainan，國立成功大學建築學系=Department of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University。
41. 雷蒙‧凱瑞, R. G.,埃米爾•波薩瓦茨, E. J.,羅國英（譯）, Guo-Ying(trans.),張紉（譯）, Ren (trans.)(2007).方案評估：方法及案例討論.台北=Taipei:天下文化=Bookzone Publications.
42. 趙永茂, Yung-Mau,孫同文, Tung-Wen,江大樹, Ta-Shu(2001).府際關係 Fu ji guan xi.台北=Taipei:元照=Angle Publishing.
43. 劉居立, Chu-Li(2005)。台南=Tainan，國立成功大學都市計劃學系=Department of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University。
44. 劉昌文, Chung-Wen(1999)。台中= Taichung，逢甲大學建築及都市計畫研究所=Graduate Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning, Feng Chia University。
45. 藍秀琪, Hsiu-Chi(2002)。台北=Taipei，國立臺灣科技大學建築系研究所=Department of Architecture, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology。