透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.83.81.42
  • 學位論文

臺灣陸域生物多樣性指標之評估

Assessment of Terrestrial Biodiversity Indicators in Taiwan

指導教授 : 邱祈榮

摘要


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。

並列摘要


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.

參考文獻


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。
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。
David Niemeijer and Rudolf S. de Groot. (2008). A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecological Indicators, 8 (1), 14–25.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1996). The Volunteer Monitor's Guide To Quality Assurance Project Plans. US EPA.
Ma K P. (2015). Biodiversity monitoring in China: from CForBio to Sino BON. Biodiversity Science, 23 (1).

延伸閱讀