增進我們的襲產 (EoH) 之後設評量研究－以陽明山國家公園鹿角坑生態保護區為例

近年，當保護區經營管理效能評量受到國際保育社會的普遍重視，也發展出許多不同的評量方法，但卻少有後設評量的個案經驗。本研究旨在對個案的評量方法EoH，以其2017年在陽明山國家公園鹿角坑生態保護區的應用為材料，採質性方法，進行後設評量。首先，利用文獻回顧、評量專家的焦點團體及編碼，選出並從Leverington 等 (2008) 的「優良評量方法應符合的原則」、Greene (1986) 提出的參與式評量原則、及Bornmann等 (2006) 後設評量的原則中，爬梳建立後設評量原則。焦點團體係以評量專家為主。結果得出以評量設計、評量過程、評量結果、及評量有效性為主要項目的後設評量架構。以其為訪談大綱，訪談參與過鹿角坑生態保護區計畫者，與曾操作做過EoH評量者，共計有10位報導人，再加參與觀察2場次，輔以文獻回顧法，對EoH進行後設評量。結果顯示，在評量設計中，除了難以快速執行外，其餘皆符合標準；評量過程能容納多元意見；評量結果的報告及經營管理機關的反應皆為正面，雖然評量耗時，但能產出有價值的資訊，也能回饋參與者及組織。綜合來講，EoH為有效的評量方法，能達成經營管理效能評量的目的。以鹿角坑案為例，本研究建議未來在操作上，應讓參與者事先看過或是填過EoH表單，以利後續的討論；應重新審視EoH表單的文字翻譯、文意敘述，依當地情形適當修改表單；應邀請與保護區相關的權益關係人與專家學者一起參與評量；EoH應搭配修訂經營管理計畫，或擬定監測機制來進行，較符合成本效益。針對後設評量方法，本研究建議，後設評量文獻稍嫌不足，應適予增加；擬定後設評量原則，宜增辦焦點團體，以完善後設評量原則；多深度訪談曾參與原級評量與後設評量的權益關係人，或能更全面改善原級評量。

關鍵字

保護區經營管理效能評量；參與式評量；質性評量；有效性；評量過程；評量設計；評量結果；權益關係人參與

並列摘要

While Protected Area Management Effectiveness Evaluation (PA MEE) have been widely and highly valued by the international conservation society, and many evaluation methods have been developed in the world, there were very few cases of meta-evaluation. This study aimed to meta-evaluate EoH, a highly case-based evaluation method, based on the case it applied to the Lujiaokeng Ecological Protected Area in the Yangmingshan National Park in 2017. Firstly, it adopted literature review, focus group of evaluating experts and coding, to select and induce principles of meta-evaluation from the checklist for good evaluation methodologies by Leverington et al. (2008), participatory evaluation principles raised by Greene (1986), and principles of meta-evaluation by Bornmann et al. (2006). Those focus groups were mainly composed of evaluation experts. The results showed a meta-evaluation framework with themes of evaluation design, evaluation process, evaluation result, and effectiveness. Using this framework as the outline of interview, there were totally ten informants to do meta-evaluation, including those involved in the Lujiaokeng case or having experiences to implement EoH. We also attended 2 occasions for participant observation and conducted literature to collect information in the fields. The results showed that it matched all standard for EoH except not able to be executed rapidly; it could include diversified comments in the process; though taking time, it could generate valuable information and send feedback to participants and organizations, while the evaluation report and responses of management authority were both positive. All in all, EoH was an effective evaluation method which could satisfy objectives of management effectiveness evaluation. Taking Lujiaokeng case as an example, it addressed the necessity to let participants read or practice sheets of EoH beforehand for the following discussions, to review the sheets of Chinese version for EoH and to amend it according to local situations; to invite experts and stakeholders of this PA to do evaluation together; to conduct EoH and amend the management plan or develop the monitoring scheme at the same time for low costs. Regarding the methodology of meta-evaluation, it should strengthen literature review, more focus groups needed for developing principles of meta-evaluation and to make them well. More interviews with stakeholders who participating in primary evaluation and meta-evaluation, might provide more information to make primary evaluation better.

並列關鍵字

protected area management effectiveness evaluation ； participatory evaluation ； qualitative evaluation ； effectiveness ； evaluation process ； evaluation design ； evaluation output ； stakeholders’ participation