臺灣陸域生物多樣性指標之評估

Assessment of Terrestrial Biodiversity Indicators in Taiwan

10.6342/NTU201601484

郭悌懿

生物多樣性監測網絡 ； 陸域生物多樣性指標 ； 陸域生物多樣性議題 ； 指標二階段篩選機制 ； PSBR指標分類架構 ； 生物多樣性指標發展架構 ； biodiversity monitoring network ； terrestrial biodiversity indicators ； terrestrial biodiversity issues ； 2–tier indicator criteria ； PSBR indicator classification ； biodiversity indicator development framework

國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系學位論文

2016年

碩士

邱祈榮

繁體中文

2010年生物多樣性公約第十屆締約大會提出《愛知目標》，建議各締約國在設定國家目標與策略應採用一致的指標和監測機制，本研究在配合國際生物多樣性指標及監測系統趨勢發展下，進行臺灣陸域生物多樣性指標發展過程「指標面」以及陸域候選生物多樣性指標評估。 本研究根據BIP對理想的指標發展步驟，尤其是針對「指標面」作架構上評估；在32項陸域生物多樣性指標評估上，首先以第一階段—PSBR指標分類架構分出各議題下的候選生物多樣性指標，第二階段—實用性指標原則評估指標在回應議題、資料面、永續性及國際化的符合狀況，全數符合的便可進一步作為我國的陸域生物多樣性指標，如此形成二階段指標評估機制。 結果顯示陸域生物多樣性指標發展過程在「指標面」符合BIP理想型指標建置過程，且為議題導向可反覆修正或新增議題。第一階段PSBR分類下，各議題皆缺乏裨益(B)類的指標；第二階段實用性評估顯示所有指標皆符合「能否回應議題」評估，「資料面」大多資料信度與效度不足，各指標多有「永續性」維護單位，除了績效指標外，其餘指標多符合「國際化」。 未來除了可再持續發展生物多樣性議題以完整我國生物多樣性狀況，也建議發展資料庫的檢核機制，引進PARCC概念，透過聚焦資料蒐集方法，資料匯入指標後的計算不會被誤用。

Aichi Target was adopted at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). It recommended every parties to develop the biodiversity indicators and monitoring mechanism when setting the national biodiversity strategies. In accordance with the international trends on biodiversity indicators and monitoring mechanism, this study aims to assess the processes of development of terrestrial biodiversity indicators in Taiwan and terrestrial biodiversity indicators. Indicator aspects of ideal biodiversity indicator framework developed by BIP (Biodiversity Indicator Partnership) is established for the assessment of terrestrial biodiversity development. 2–tier indicator criteria are established for the assessment of terrestrial biodiversity indicators. The first tier contains the indicator framework. The second tier contains successful indicator principles including “responsive to the change in the issues of interest”, “data aspect”, “permanent aspect”, and ”international aspect”. Those meet the requirement of all aspects can be used as terrestrial biodiversity indicators in Taiwan. As a result, “indicator aspect” of terrestrial biodiversity indicator framework meet with the requirements from BIP. Besides, the development is issue-dependent. In the first tier assessment, according to the classification framework of PSBR (Pressure, State, Benefit, and Response), most topics are lack of indicators as “Benefit” type. In the second tier assessment, all of the terrestrial indicators are responsive to the change in the issues of interest. Most of the indicators are produced and maintained by specific institutions, however, some problems are on the insufficient data quality and data assurance. In the matter of internationalization, except for the indicators compiling from Taiwan’s Sustainable Development KPI (Key Performance Indicator), most of the indicators are satisfied with this criterion. In the future, since development of biodiversity indicators is issue-dependent, it can be modified or expanded to indicate biodiversity in Taiwan. Besides, an evaluation mechanism of data quality and data assurance is recommended. In order to assure the data are usable and won’t be misused for indicator calculation, the PARCC (Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Completeness, and Comparability) assessment is suggested.

1. David Niemeijer and Rudolf S. de Groot. (2008). A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecological Indicators, 8 (1), 14–25.
   連結：
2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1996). The Volunteer Monitor's Guide To Quality Assurance Project Plans. US EPA.
   連結：
3. Ma K P. (2015). Biodiversity monitoring in China: from CForBio to Sino BON. Biodiversity Science, 23 (1).
   連結：
4. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co–operation and
   連結：
5. Development). (1993). OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. Environment Monographs No. 83, OCDE/GD (93)179.
   連結：
6. Sparks T.H, Balmford A, Kapos V, Green R.E, Butchart S.H.M. (2011). Linked indicator sets for addressing biodiversity loss. Oryx, 45, 411–420.
   連結：
7. H.M.; Larigauderie, A.; Geller, G.; Scholes, R.J. (2012). Building a global observing system for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 139–146.
   連結：
8. 行政院國家永續發展委員會 (2014)2013永續發展指標系統評量結果報告。
   連結：
9. 盧道杰、趙芝良、闕河嘉、高千雯、張雅玲、張弘毅 (2011)臺灣保護區經營管理效能評量—五個個案的分析與解讀。地理學報 (62)：73–102。
   連結：
10. Biodiversity Indicator Partnership (BIP). (2011). Guidance for national biodiversity indicator development and use. UNEP world Conservation Monitoring Centre
11. BIP. (2013). Key Knowledge for successful Biodiversity Indicators. UNEP world Conservation Monitoring Centre
12. European Environment Agency (EEA). (2007). Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 : proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical report, 11/2007.
13. Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP). (2007). Invasive Alien Species and Protected areas: A Scoping Report Part I.
14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IUCN). (2000). IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention og Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
15. IUCN. (2005). Benefit Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. ix + 306pp.
16. R. J. Scholes, G. M. Mace, W.Turner, G. N. Geller, N. Jürgens, A. Larigauderie, D. Muchoney, B. A. Walther, H.A. Mooney. (2008). Ecology: toward a global biodiversity observing system. Science, 321, 1044–1045.
17. Smeets E, Weterings R. (1999). Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical Report 25, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen (http://reports.eea.eu.int:80/TEC25/en/ tech_25_text.pdf).
18. Walters, M.; Turak, E.; Saarenmaa, H.; Heip, C.H.R.; Tuama, E.O.; Faith, D.P.; Mooney, H.A.; Ferrier, S.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Harrison, I.J.; Yahara, T.; Pereira,
19. William Lee; Matt McGlone; Elaine F Wright. (2005). Biodiversity inventory and monitoring : a review of national and international systems and a proposed framework for future biodiversity monitoring by the Department of Conservation.
20. 丁宗蘇 (2014)氣候變遷之高山生態系指標物種研究—鳥類指標物種調查及脆弱度分析。玉山國家公園管理處。
21. 牛惠之 (2006)外來入侵種的規範難題與執行障礙。林業研究專訊 13 (3)：12–14。
22. 李玲玲 (2005)國家公園保育成效監測系統之建立。內政部營建署。
23. 李玲玲 (2006)國家生物多樣性現況與趨勢研析規劃。行政院農業委員會委託研究計畫。
24. 李玲玲 (2012)從2010生物多樣性目標到愛知目標。2012全國生物多樣性教育培訓班。
25. 袁孝維、林良恭、陳維立、盧道杰、趙芝良、何立德 (2011)檢討與改善現有保護區域與經營策略計畫 (3/3)。行政院農業委員會委託研究計畫。
26. 梁世雄、陳俊宏、侯平君、謝寶森、杜銘章 (2008)已入侵外來種動物處理順序評估系統之建立。臺北市：行政院農委會林務局。
27. 國立東華大學 (2009)兩棲類監測標準作業手冊。臺北市：行政院農業委員會林務局。
28. 湯曉虞 (2010)氣候變遷的衝擊與因應。科學發展 456：6–13。
29. 黃群修、林奐宇 (2009)第4次全國森林資源調查規劃與推動情形。農政與農情 205。
30. 廖鴻仁 (2002)標準與貿易發展基金會STDF)舉辦國際貿易與外來入侵種研討會簡介。農政與農情 244：46–50。
31. 臺灣昆蟲學會 (2009)蝴蝶監測標準作業手冊。臺北市：行政院農業委員會林務局。
32. 鄧國禎、林怡芳 (2012)臺灣全島綠覆蓋率調查成果簡介。農政與農情 246：89–91。
33. 盧道杰、張雅玲、趙芝良 (2009)保護區經營管理效能評估的方法及其應用。臺灣林業期刊 35 (1)：51¬¬–63。
34. 劉和義 (2013)GLORIA高海拔山區草原生態系動態複查。行政院農業委員會林務局。
35. 行政院環保署 (2014)2014年中華民國國家溫室氣體清冊報告。