:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺北市社子島開發案探討:複雜適應系統觀點
作者:陳夢琨
作者(外文):CHEN, MENG-KWEN
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:公共行政暨政策學系
指導教授:張世賢
顧慕晴
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2021
主題關鍵詞:作用者社子島開發案複雜適應系統AgentsShezidao Development ProjectComplex Adaptation System
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:3
臺北市社子島以往遇豪雨、颱風,就會淹水,1970年在洪患治理考量下,評估社子島不宜開發,成為禁建區。2014年臺北市長柯文哲,為實現選舉政見,加速開發社子島,但當地居民未能接受拆遷補償安置計畫,環保團體及學者專家也質疑社子島開發計劃。
本論文從複雜適應系統(Complex Adaptive System,CAS)探討社子島開發案,了解作用者對開發案的態度,並分析其偏好差異,為期全面深入分析社子島開發案,本文運用文獻分析法、田野調查法、深度訪談法與問卷調查法,探討社子島之複雜適應系統(CAS) 演化過程。
本研究發現,複雜適應系統的觀點對本研究具有優異性。在質化部分獲得:1.阻礙社子島開發案關鍵原因:臺北市政府決策粗糙輕、i-Voting投票未具民意正當性、拆遷補償偏低與安置條件充滿疑慮、鄰近洲美里案例讓社子島居民失望。 2.社子島開發案的促進者:臺北市政府、社子島促進會、地產公司;其抵擋者為:社子島自救會、有房無地、中低收入戶者、環境保護、文化保存者。3.作用者實際作為:政府官員要加速開發、當地居民意見分歧、學者專家連署反對、政治人物透過議會質詢關切。4.社子島開發案進展的情況:政府通過開發法規、房地產熱絡、居民抗爭和對立增多、社子島開發遭監察院糾正。5. 社子島開發案要形成共識很難,很多居民是外地遷入,缺乏共同歷史記憶,臺北市政府經費困難,又缺乏有力人士居間謀合。
在量化部分,以因素分析發現社子島開發案的5個共同因素是,房地漲價、利益衝突、願景程度、搬遷意願與溝通獎勵,並對作用者互動過程與結果的質化訪談,予以完全證實。以集群分析發現:高配合度集群認為政府獎勵措施能有效化解利益衝突、中配合度集群關心搬遷與未來願景、低配合度集群認為開發案拖太久,對願景與房地漲價持負面觀點。
本論文提出社子島開發案政策建議:針對作用者個別情況處理社子島之開發;擴大公民參與,引導作用者良性互動;引導作用者從分裂與矛盾的自我利益,到公共利益之建構;都市計畫重新檢討;建立「多樣互賴誠摯對話」機制以及社子島開發案應分階段進行。
In the past, Shezidao in Taipei City would be flooded under heavy rains and typhoons. In 1970, under consideration of flood control, Shezidao was evaluated as unsuitable for development and became a prohibited construction area. In 2014, Taipei Mayor Ke Wenzhe speeded up the development of Shezidao in order to achieve his election platform, but local residents failed to accept the demolition compensation and resettlement project. Environmental groups, scholars and experts also questioned Shezidao development project.
The author discusses the Shezidao development case with the complex adaptive system (CAS) to understand the agents’ attitudes towards the development case, and analyze the differences in their preferences, for a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of Shezidao development case. This dissertation uses the literature analysis, field survey, in-depth interview and questionnaire survey to explore the evolution process of complex adaptive system (CAS) of Shezidao.
This study finds that the perspective of complex adaptive systems is suitable for this case study. Obtained with the qualitative method: 1. The key reasons for hindering the development of Shezidao: The Taipei City Government’s decision was rough and hasty, the i-Voting vote was not justified by public opinion, the compensation for demolition was low, and the resettlement conditions were full of doubts. The residents of Shezidao were disappointed. 2. The promoters of the Shezidao development project are Taipei City Government, Shezidao Promotion Association, and real estate companies; those who resist are Shezidao Self-Help Association, those with houses but no land, low- and middle-income households, environmental protection and cultural preservation organizations. 3. The actual actions of the agents: government officials want to accelerate development, local residents have different opinions, scholars and experts sign opposition, local politicians ask their concerns through the legislature. 4. The progress of the Shezidao development case: The government passed development regulations, real estate enthusiasm, residents' resistance and opposition increased, and the Shezidao development was corrected by the Control Yuan. 5. It is difficult to reach a consensus on the development of Shezidao, because of lacking a common historical memory among the residents due to many residents have moved in from other places, difficulties in funding by the Taipei City Government, and lacking of co-operation among super agents.
With the quantitative method, the five common factors of the Shezidao development case were found through factor analysis, including price increase of real estates, conflicts among residents, degree of vision, willingness to move, and communication rewards. In the result of interview, the evolution and emergence of agent interactions were completely confirmed with the qualitative method. Based on cluster analysis, it is found that high-level coordination clusters believe that conflicts of interest can be effectively resolved with government incentive measures, medium-level coordination clusters are concerned about whether they will be relocated and the future vision, and low-level coordination clusters believe that land price increases and shared vision will be more difficult while the delay of development of the project.
This dissertation proposes policy recommendations for the development of Shezidao: deal with the development of Shezidao according to the individual circumstances of the agents; expand citizen participation and guide the agents to benign interaction; guide the agents from the self-interest to the construction of public interests; the urban plan should be reviewed again; the establishment of a "multiple interdependence and sincere dialogue" mechanism and the development of Shezidao should be carried out in stages.
壹、中文部分
一、書籍
王寶璽,2003,《測繪學辭典》,臺北:國立編譯館主編。
吳明隆,涂金堂,2007,《SPSS與統計應用分析(修訂版)》,臺北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
李金泉,1995,《SPSS/PC實務與應用統計分析》,臺北:松岡電腦圖書資訊股份有限公司。
汪明生,2011,《互動管理與公民治理》,臺北:智勝文化。
孫本初,2001,《公共管理》,臺北:智勝文化。
張世賢,1982,《政策分析的導師:林布隆》,臺北:允晨文化。
張宇樑等譯述/John Creswell原著,2011,《研究設計:質化、量化及混和方法取向》,第六章,P.111-120,臺北:學富文化出版。
張芳全,2014,《問卷就是要這樣編(第二版)》,臺北:心理出版社。
張紹勳、林秀娟,2000,《SPSS For Windows統計分析-初等統計與高等統計(上冊)》,臺北:松岡電腦圖書資訊股份有限公司。
陳向明,2002,《社會科學質的研究》,臺北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
黃俊英,2007,《多變量分析(第七版》,臺北:翰蘆圖書。
楊世瑩,2020,《SPSS 26統計分析嚴選教材》,臺北:碁峯資訊。
楊政學,2005,《企業研究方法》,臺北:普林斯頓。
楊麗玲,2016,《社子島:因禁半世紀,被遺忘的孤島》,新北市:遠足文化。
詹中原,1999,《新公共管理:政府再造的理論與實務》,臺北:五南。
賴世剛,2006,《都市、複雜與規劃:理解並改善都市發展》,臺北:詹氏書局。
賴世剛譯述/Lewis D. Hopkins原著,2005,《都市發展制定計畫的邏輯》,臺北:五南。
羅清俊,2015,《公共政策:現象觀察與實務操作》,新北市:揚智公司。
羅清俊,2016,《社會科學研究方法:打開天窗說量化。第三版》,新北市:揚智公司。

二、專書論文
吳濟華,2001,〈第十三章-環境保護與土地利用規劃〉,袁中新主編,《公害防治與環境管理》,臺北:巨流圖書公司。
顧慕晴,2011,〈中華民國建國百年的行政體制發展〉,國立政治大學、聯經出版公司主編,《中華民國發展史政治與法制》上冊,臺北:國立政治大學、聯經出版公司,頁93-124。

三、期刊論文
王毓正,2008,〈環境資訊公開與風險溝通間之意涵與法制建構上之建議〉,《看守台灣季刊》,10 (4),16-38。
吳濟華、宋威穎,2018,〈大林蒲遷村對高雄城市永續發展之啟發與省思〉,《城市發展半年刊》,24:103-112。
汪明生、黃宗誠,2003,〈公共事務整合參考架構與兩岸大學MPA課程之結構分析〉,《公共事務評論》,4(1):1-68。
汪明生、潘昭榮、賴奕志,2017,〈城市管理複雜系統的治理結構〉,《都市與計劃》,44(2):149 - 169。
林文苑,2018,〈兩個專業的邂逅-「都市計畫」與「防災計畫」〉,《城與鄉:中華民國都市計劃學會文集》2:3-7。
柯義龍,2013,〈新公共管理的課責倫理及其問題〉,《中國行政評論》,19(3):23-46。
浦薛鳳,1937,〈政治學之出路:領域、因素與原理〉,《社會科學》,北京:清華大學。
張 寧,2005,〈互動管理之方法與應用〉,《公共事務評論》,6(2):1-24。
張世杰,2020,〈複雜性理論在公共行政之應用〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(2):1-13。
張世賢,2014,〈政策企業家之探討〉,《中國行政評論》,20(特刊):1-18。
張世賢,2015,〈城市發展的複雜性理論〉,《中國地方自治》,68(12):4-21。
張世賢,2016,〈太陽花學運的蝴蝶效應〉,《科際整合月刊》,1(6):5-52。
張世賢,2017,〈政策創新複雜性理論探討〉,《科際整合月刊》,2(10):21-33。
張世賢,2018,〈公共治理的創新發展理念:突現(emergce)觀點〉,《科際整合月刊》,3(5):27-39。
張世賢,2020a,〈溝通式規劃〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(10):1-6。
張世賢,2020b,〈誠摯對話:「觸龍說趙太后」分析〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(12):26-39。
張容瑜、李文勤、謝祖光,2017,〈土地利用影響社子島都市安全之探討〉,《華岡農科學報》, 40:29-44。
張耕維,2016,〈人類生存規則的演化〉,《科際整合月刊》,1(7):8-22。
章毅、林元興,2012,〈美國的都市更新〉,《土地問題研究季刊》,11(3):74-86。
莊睦雄、李姿儀,2019,〈防救災資訊管道來源分析之研究〉,《設計學年刊》,7:167-187。
陳世榮,2019,〈國土計畫相關法案的提案連署網絡分析〉,《台灣政治學刊》,23(2):87-143。
陳世閣、賴世剛,2020,〈從個體土地開發互動到總體都市空間結構之自我組織¬-財產權操弄的詮釋〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(3):6-23。
陳秉立,2018,〈日本都市再生安全確保計畫制度之初探〉,《臺灣災害管理研討會》,698-708。
陳夢琨,2005a,〈Rhodes「公共管理的複雜性與突現:愛爾蘭都市再生個案研究」評析〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(3):27-51。
陳夢琨,2005b,〈評析Rhodes與Murry「都市再生之協力決策:複雜適應系統觀點」〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(4):1-7。
陳夢琨,2019a,〈臺北市社子島開發案探討:複雜性理論作用者的觀點〉,《思與言》,即將出刊。
陳夢琨,2019b。〈市區發展的回顧與前瞻—以台北社子島發展為例〉,《「治國良規的回顧與前瞻」學術研討會論文集》,社團法人華夏科技整合聯合總會,6月23日,台北:台灣大學綜合教學館701教室,頁21-65。
陳夢琨,2019c,〈社子島開發案規則之初討:複雜性理論的觀點〉,《科際整合月刊》,4(7):23-36 。
陳夢琨,2019d,〈都市更新條例之探討:複雜性理論規則的觀點〉,《科際整合月刊》,4(8):23-37 。
陳夢琨,2019e,〈都市再生:英國與愛爾蘭實例探討〉,《科際整合月刊》,4(11):1-15。
陳夢琨,2019f,〈複雜適應系統的動態分析〉,《科際整合月刊》,4(12):1-12。
陳夢琨,2020a,〈複雜適應系統的研究:Rhodes研究團隊實例〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(1):27-39。
陳夢琨,2020b,〈Rhodes「公共管理的複雜性與突現:愛爾蘭都市再生個案研究」評析〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(3):27-51。
陳夢琨,2020c,〈評析Rhodes與Murray「都市再生之協力決策:複雜適應系統觀點」〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(4):1-7。
陳夢琨,2020d,〈評析Muir與Rhodes〈願景與實際:愛爾蘭都市再生案的社區投入〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(4):8-13。
陳夢琨,2020e,〈互動管理:複雜性科學的觀點〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(5):54-65。
陳夢琨,2020f,〈臺北市社子島開發案探討:複雜性理論作用者的觀點〉,《思與言》,58(2):105-166。
蕭新煌、許耿銘,2015,〈探析都市氣候風險的社會指標:回顧與芻議〉,《都市與計劃》,42(1):59-60。
賴世剛,2020,〈長尾理論與都市發展〉,《科際整合月刊》,5(3):24-26。
鍾麗娜、鄭明安,2016,〈大哉問-國土計畫法上路後國土就能「安」嗎?〉,《土地問題研究季刊》,15(2):37-51。
韓保中,2009,〈新治理的行政倫理意象:新公共服務論後設語言之分析〉,《哲學與文化》,36(1):121-142。
羅清俊、郭益政,2012,〈管制政策的分配政治特質:台灣環境保謢訴願決定的實證分析〉,《行政與政策學報》,54:1-40。

四、博碩士論文
宋威穎,2018,《環境治理之資訊不對稱及制度依賴相關性實證研究-社會實驗之應用》,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
李俊達,2013,《臺灣公務人員職場精神力之研究》,國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系博士論文。
李麗華,2018,《生態社子島開發案之權益關係人對開發案及拆遷補償安置計畫的意向探究:政治生態學的觀點》,臺北市立大學地球環境暨生物資源學系環境教育與資源碩士班碩士論文。
汪林玲,2017,《歐洲及亞洲監察制度的獨立性研究》,國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系博士論文。
林嘉銘,2006,《北市社子地區土地永續利用之分析研究》,中國文化大學地學研究所碩士論文。
紀 坪,2011,《社子島開發案之利害關係人態度研究》,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
張 寧,2004,〈社會判斷理論之集體決策程序對互動管理成果之驗證---兼論政策分析中集體決策方法之比較〉,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
陳夢琨,2008,《河川治理與地方永續發展之研究-以基隆河瑞芳段員山子分洪工程為例》,國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。
陳竑達,2011,《政府府際合作關係之研究-以臺北市社子島開發案為例》,中國文化大學社會科學院政治學研究所碩士論文。
謝梅華,2008,《都市政權、規劃政治與市民意識的萌發:社子島開發案的想像與真實例》,世新大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
謝佳姍,2007,《我國金融控股公司經營績效評估分析》,政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
蘇一志,1996,《恆春地區觀光遊憩空間之演化-社會作用者與空間生產的關係》,臺灣大學地理學系研究所博士論文。
林民凱,2016,《兩岸土地徵收制度之研究》,國立中山大學中國與亞太區域研究所博士論文。
鄭惠名,2015,《大眾捷運聯合開發安置拆遷戶課題之研究》,國立臺北科技大學建築系建築與都市設計碩士論文。

伍、政府出版品與文件
中華科際整合研究會,2003,《第五次理監事聯席會議記錄(11月15日)》,臺北:中華科際整合研究會。
中華科際整合研究會,2004a,《社子島地區社區環境改善暨產業發展計畫草案》,臺北:中華科際整合研究會。
中華科際整合研究會,2004b,〈聯合會診社子島─科際整合與文化建設〉,《會員大會暨野鴨頭展翼研討會》,臺北:中華科際整合研究會。
中華科際整合研究會,2004c,《第七次理監事聯席會議記錄(01月10日)》,臺北:中華科際整合研究會。
中華科際整合研究會,2004d,〈展翼計畫後續發展報告〉,《野鴨頭展翼計畫》,臺北:中華科際整合研究會。
周海娟,2007,《汐止鎮秀峰社區資源田野調查培訓》,臺北:汐止市秀峰社區發展協會。
陳夢琨,2021,<深度訪談稿>,《臺北市社子島開發案探討:複雜適應系統觀點》,頁1-222,臺北:國立台北大學公共行政暨政策研究所博士論文,未出版。
臺北市政府,2016a,《臺北市士林區社子島地區開發計畫環境影響說明書》,臺北:臺北市政府地政局土地開發總隊。
臺北市政府,2016a,《臺北市都市計畫書──變更臺北市士林社子島地區主要計畫案》。臺北:臺北市政府,未出版。
臺北市政府,2018b,《臺北市都市計畫書--變更臺北市士林社子島地區主要計畫案》,臺北:臺北市政府。
臺北市政府,2019c,《臺北市士林區社子島地區開發計畫環境影響評估報告書(初稿修正本)》,臺北:臺北市政府地政局土地開發總隊。
臺北市政府,2020d,《臺北市都市計畫書--擬定臺北市士林區社子島地區細部計畫案》,臺北:臺北市政府。
臺北市政府,2020e,《臺北市士林區社子島地區開發計畫環境影響評估報告書初稿(第2次修訂本)》,臺北:臺北市政府地政局土地開發總隊。
臺北市政府,2020f,《臺北市士林區社子島地區區段徵收問答集Vol.1》,臺北:臺北市政府地政局土地開發總隊。

六、網路等電子資料
YouTube 網站,2018,〈20180913 陳慈慧總質詢 社子島全面安置難解 12年承租資格是恩惠嗎?〉,YouTube 網站:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TEalxzzSUU,檢索日期於2019 年 4 月 7 日。
中央通訊社網站,2020,〈社子島開發案審議 北市都委會採投票表決通過〉,中央通訊社網站:https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aloc/202004230314.aspx,檢索日期於2020 年 10 月 24 日。
內政部地政司網站,2020,〈地政學堂:地政問答〉,內政部地政司網站:https://www.land.moi.gov.tw/chhtml/landQA/55?qphclass=&pagenum=7,檢索日期於2020 年 10 月 18日。
王寶璽,2003,〈測繪學辭典〉,國家教育研究院網站:http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1299005/,檢索日期於2020 年 10月 18 日。
明日社子島網站,2020,〈開發大事紀〉,明日社子島網站:https://shezidao.gov.taipei/cp.aspx?n=FD47D42193516722,檢索日期於2020 年 10月 24 日。
國家教育研究院網站,2002,〈環境科學大辭典〉,國家教育研究院網站:http://pedia.cloud.edu.tw/Entry/Detail/?title=%E5%8D%80%E6%AE%B5%E5%BE%B5%E6%94%B6 ,檢索日期於2020 年 10月 18 日。
廖桂賢,2016,〈為什麼社子島開發計劃引發質疑?〉,聯合報鳴人堂:https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/ 8048/1920658,檢索日期:2020年 1 月17 日。
漢語網站,2020,〈漢語詞典〉,漢語網站:https://www.google.com.tw/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02fZrB_DoOqMP9HpltyZ6mII6YMbA%3A1584242463828&source=hp&ei=H59tXrSUMIfa0gSLloDQBg&q=%E9%96%8B%E7%99%BC%E6%84%8F%E6%80%9D&oq=%E9%96%8B%E7%99%BC%E6%84%8F&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0.4485.17745..19637...6.0..0.180.428.4j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..0i131j35i362i39j35i39j0i333.bgJuyMTdTM4#spf=1584242486948,檢索日期於2020 年 3 月 15 日。
臺北市立圖書館網站,2020,〈台灣新聞智慧網—工商時報〉,臺北市立圖書館網站:http://isearch.tpml.edu.tw:2069/cgi-bin2/Libo.cgi?,檢索日期於2020 年 10 月 8 日。
臺北市立圖書館網站,2020,〈台灣新聞智慧網—中國時報〉,臺北市立圖書館網站:http://isearch.tpml.edu.tw:2069/cgi-bin2/Libo.cgi?,檢索日期於2020 年 1 月 26 日。
臺北市立圖書館網站,2020,〈台灣新聞智慧網—自由時報〉,臺北市立圖書館網站:http://isearch.tpml.edu.tw:2069/cgi-bin2/Libo.cgi?,檢索日期於2020 年12 月 6 日。
臺北市立圖書館網站,2020,〈台灣新聞智慧網—聯合報〉,臺北市立圖書館網站:http://isearch.tpml.edu.tw:2069/cgi-bin2/Libo.cgi?,檢索日期於2020 年 10 月 10 日。
臺北市士林區戶政事務所網站,2020,〈士林區各里戶數及人口數統計資訊〉,臺北市士林區戶政事務所網站:https://slhr.gov.taipei/News.aspx?n=9571B53A93548917&sms=94B80086DC54BEDE,檢索日期於2020 年 1 月 31日。
臺北市法規查詢系統網站網站,2021,〈臺北市舉辦公共工程拆遷補償自治條例,檢索日期於2020 年 12月 30 日。

貳、英文部分
(I) Books
Astill, Stuart, and Paul Cairney. 2015. Complexity Theory and Political Science: Do New Theories Methods?. In R. Geyer & P. Cairney (Eds.), Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy (pp.131-149). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Babbie, Earl. 2007. The Practice of Social Research(11nd). CA USA: Thomson.
Boomsma ,A. 1982.The robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation) against small sample size in factor analysis models.In H.Wold && K. Joreskog(Eds.), Systems under indirect observation(pp. 149-173). New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Boomsma, A. 1983. On the robustness of LISREL (maximum likelihood estimation)against small sample size and non-normality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen.
Börzel, T . 1997. Policy networks:A New Paradigm for European Governance? San Domenico, Italy: European University Institute.
Burt, R. S. 2009. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. MA: Harvard university press.
Chapman, J. 2002. System failure: Why governments must learn to think differently. London: Demos.
Chapman, Kelly. 2016. Complexity and Creative Capacity. UK : Routledge .
Dennard, Linda, Kurt Richardson, and Goktug Morcol. 2008. Complexity and Policy Analysis:Tools and Menthods for Designing Robust Policies in a Complex World.Goodyear,AZ: ISCE Publishing.
Denters, Bas, and Lawrence E. Rose. 2005. Comparing Local Governance Trends and Developments. UK: Red Globe Press.
Dillman, D. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Dunn ,William N. 2012. Public Policy Analysis. Fifth Edition. New York : Pearson Press.
Edmonds, Bruce, and Carlos Gershenson. 2015. Modelling complexity for Policy: opportunities and Challenges. In R. Geyer & P. Cairney (Eds.), Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy (pp.205-220). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.FL: AJAR Publishing Company.
Frederickson, G.H., and K.B.Smith. 2003. The Public Administration Theory Primer Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Geuss,R. 2008.Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton ,NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gigerenzer, G., and R. Selten. 2001. Bounded Rationalily-the Adaptive Toolbox. London: the MIT Press.
Givel, Michael. 2015.What's the big deal?: complexity versus traditional US policy approaches. In R. Geyer & P. Cairney (Eds.), Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy(pp. 65-77). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Ground Theory. Chicago, IL:Aldine.
Gorsuch,R.L. 1983. Factor analysis(2nd), Hillsdale,NJ:LEA.
Chapman, Kelly. 2016. Complexity and Creative Capacity. UK : Routledge .
Hadzikadic, Mirsad , Joseph Whitmeyer, and Ted Carmichael. 2015. “Using agent-based modeling to inform policy for complex domaims.” In R. Geyer & P. Cairney (Eds.), Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy (pp. 221-244). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J Babin, R. E Anderson, and R. L. Tatham.2006.Multivariate data analysis(6th ed.). New Jersey,Prentice-Hall.
Hanf, K., and Scharpf, F. W. (Eds.). 1978. Interorganizational Policy Making: Limits to Coordination and Central Control. London: Sage Publications.
Innes, J. E., and D. E. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. New York : Routledge .
Kettl, Donald F. 1993. Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kettl, Donald F. 2000. The Global Public Management Revolution:A Report on the Transformation of Governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Longman.
Kingdon, John. 2011. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. Boston: Longman.
Klijn, Erik Hans, and Joop Koppenjan. 2016. Governance Networks in the Public Sectors. New York: Routledge.
Koppenjan, Joop, and Erik Hans Klijn. 2004. Managing Uncertaintues in Networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. New York: Routledge.
Lai, Shih-Kung, and Haoying Han .2014. Urban Complexity and Planning:Theories and Computer Simulations .Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Lane, J-E. 1993. The Public Sector: Concepts, Models and Approaches. Lodon : Sage.
Lynn,L., C. Jr. Heinrich, and C. Hill 2001. Improving Governance: A New Logic for Empirical Research.Washington,D.C:Georgetown University Press.
Management. (2nd ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Marsh, D. , and R.A.W. Rhodes(eds.) 1992. Policy networks in British government . Oxford,GB: Clarendon Press.
Mitleton-Kelly, Eve. 2015. Effective policy making: addressing apparently intractable problems . In R. Geyer & P. Cairney (Eds.), Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy (pp.111-130). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Morçöl, Göktuğ. 2002. A new mind for policy analysis: Toward a post-Newtonian and postpositivist epistemology and methodology. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Morçöl, Göktuğ. 2012. A Complexity Theory for Public Policy. New York: Routledge.
North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Osborne, P. Stephen.2010. The New Public Governance?: Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance . UK: Routledge.
Pierre, J., and Peters, B.G. 2000. Governance,politics and the state, London: Macmillan. Public Sector Organizations. London: Routledge.
Rhodes, Mary Lee, and Elizabeth Anne Eppel.2019. Complexity Theory in Public Administraion. UK: Routledge.
Rhodes, Mary Lee, Joanne Murphy, Jenny Muir, and John A.Murray .2011. Public Management and Complexity Theory. UK: Routledge.
Rhodes, R.A.W. 1997. Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Philadelphia, US: Open University Press.
Salamon, Lester M. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stacey, Ralph., and D. Griffin (eds). 2006. Complexity and the Experience of Managing
in Stillman, R.J. 2000. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases.7th Ed.New
York,NY: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Sudman, Seymour. 1976. Applied Sampling . Ma Camdrige : Academic Press.
Tinsley,H.E.A., and D.J. Tinsley. 1987.Use of Factor Anlysis in Counseling Psychology Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34,414-424.
van Buuren, Arwin, Lasse Gerrits, and Peter Marks. 2009. “Public Policy-Making and the Management of Coevolution.” In Geert Teisman, Arwin van Buuren and Lasse Gerrits. eds, Managing Complex Governance Systems:Dynamics, Self-Organization and Coevolution in Public Investments (pp.154-171).UK: Routledge.
Warfield, John N. 1976. Societal Systems: Planning, Policy, and Complexity. New York: Wiley Interscience.
Warfield, John N. 2002. Understanding Complexity: Thought and Behavior. Palm Harbor, FL: AJAR Publishing Company.
Warfield, John N. and A. Roxana Cárdenas. 1994. A Handbook of Interactive
Warfield, John. N. 1990. A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity through Systems Design. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press 1994..
Warfield, John. N. 2003. The Mathematics of Structure. Palm Harbor. Palm Harbor,
Warfield, John. N. 2006. An Introduction to Systems Sciences. Singapore: World Scientific.
Wilson, J. Q. 2008. American Government. Brief Version. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

(II) Journal
Anderson, P.W. 1999. “Complexity theory and organizational science.”Organization Science,10(3):216-232.
Blackman,T. 2001. “Complexity and the new public management. ”Social Issues,1(2). Online Available< http://www.whb.co.uk/socialissues>.
Boston, Michael J. 2000. “ The challenge of evaluating systemic change: the case of public management reform. ” International Public Management Journal , 3 (1): 23-46.
Bolton, Michael J., and Gregory B. Stolcis. 2008. “Overcoming Failure of Imagination in Crisis Management: The Complex Adaptive System.” The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal , 13(3): 1-12.
Chang, C-M, H-D Yeh, and M-H Chuang. 2019. “Spectral analysis of temporal variability of nonlinear and nonstationary rainfall-runoff processes” Journal of Hydrology, 575 : 1301- 1307.
Cohen, M. D., J. G. March, and J. P. Olsen. 1972. “ A garbage can model of organizational choice. ” Administrative Science Quarterly ,17 (1): 1–25.
Delbecq, A. L., and A. H. VandeVen. 1971. “A Group Process Model for Problem
Identification and Program Planning. ” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4):466-492.
Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt . 2000. “The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering. ” Public Administration Review, 60(6):549 - 559.
Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, Owen M. Harney, and John O’Reilly. 2014.“Using interactive management to facilitate a student –centred conceptualization of critical thinking: a case study. ” Education Technology Research Development,62: 687-709.
Dwyer, Christopher P., Michael J. Hogan, Owen M. Harney and Caroline Kavanagh. 2017. “Facilitating a student –educator conceptual model of dispositions towards critical thinking through interactive management. ” Education Technology Research Development, 65: 47-73.
Entwistle, Tom, and Steve Martin. 2005. “From Competition to Collaboration in Public Service Delivery: A New Agenda for Research. ” Public Administration ,83(1): 233-242.
Frederickson, G.H . 1999. “The repositionong of American public administration . ” Political Science and Politics ,32 (4): 701-711.
Goldstein, Noah J., Robert B. Cialdini, and Vladas Griskevicius. 2008. “A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels. ” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (3): 472-482.
Hartigan, J. A., and M. A. Wong.1979. “ AK-Means Clustering Algorithm. ” Applied Statistics ,28: 100–108,USA.
Lindblom, Charles E.1979. “Still muddling, not yet through. ” Public Administration Review, 39: 517-526.
Innes, Judith .1995. “Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. ” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14 (3): 183–189.
Kickert, Walter J.M.1993. “Autopoiesis and the Science of (Public) Administration: Essence, Sense and Nonsense. ” Organization studies, 14 (2): 261-278.
Kooiman, Jan. 1999. “Social-Political Governance: Overview, Reflections and Design. ” Public Management Review 1 (1): 67–92.
Koppenjan, J., and E.H Klijn. 2000. “Public Management and Policy Networks:Foundations of a network approach to governance. ” Public Management Review, 2 (2).135-158.
Mary Lee Rhodes, and Geoffrey MacKechnie. 2003. “Understanding Public Service Systems: Is There a Role for Complex Adaptive Systems Theory? ” Emergence ,5 (4): 57-85 .
Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith Provan. 2003. “Managing the hollow state Collaboration and contracting.” Public Management Review, 5 (1): 1-18 .
Muir, J. , and M. L. Rhodes 2008. “Vision and Reality: Community Involvement in Irish Urban Regeneration” Policy & Politics, 36(4): 497-520.
ÖZER, Buğra, and Güven ŞEKER. 2013. “Complexcity Thoery and Public Ploicy: a New Way to Put New Public Management and Governace in Perspective.” Suleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 18(1):89-102.
Peters¸B.Guy. 2008. “The Civil Service and Governing: Reclaiming The Center. ” International Review of Public Administration , 13 (2).1-12.
Rhodes, M. L., and Geoffrey MacKechnie . 2003. “Understanding Public Service Systems: Is there a role for Complex Adaptive Systems Theory? ” Emergence, 5(4):57-85.
Rhodes, M. L. and J. Murray. 2007. “Collaborative Decision-Making in Urban Regeneration: A Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective. ” International Journa,. 10(1):79–101.
Rhodes, M. L. 2008. “ Complexity and Emergence in Public Management: The Case Of Urban regeneration in Ireland.” Public Management Review, 10(3): 361-379.
Rhodes, M. L. 2008. “ Complexity and Emergence in Public Management: The Case Of Urban regeneration in Ireland.” Public Management Review, 10(3): 361-379.
Runhaar, Hens, Casper Tigchelaar, and Walter J. V. Vermeulen. 2008. “Environmental leaders: making a difference. A typology of environmental leaders and recommendations for a differentiated policy approach.” Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(3): 160-178.
Teisman, Geert R., and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2008. “Complexity Theory and Public Management:An introduction. ” Public Management Rreview , 10 (3): 287-297.
Tuan, Nien-Tsu. 2010. “An Interactive Approach to Classification. ” Systemic Practice and Action Research, 23: 237-250.
Tuan, Nien-Tsu. 2018. “A Systemic Inquiry into the AIDS Epidemic in the Western Cape of South Africa through Interactive Management. ” Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31: 421-435.
Warfield, John N., and George H. Perino. 1999. “The Problematique: Evolution of an Idea. ” Systems Research and Behavior Science, 16: 221-226.
Warfield, John N. 2003. “A Proposal for Systems Science. ” Systemic Practice and
Action Research, 20: 507-520.
Weber,J.2005. “Introduction to chaos, complexity, uncertainty and public administration: A Symposium. ” Public Administration Quarterly, 29(3):262-267.
Wilson , Woodrow.1887. “The Study of Administration. ” Political Science Quarterly,2(2):197-222.

(Ⅲ) Internet
Boston University School of Public HealthWebsite. 2020. Introduction to Correlation and Regression Analysis. from: https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH/Modules/BS/BS704_Multivariable/BS704_Multivariable5.html . Retrieved November 14, 2020.
UCLA Statistics Consulting Website. 2020. Apractical Introduction of Factor Analysis:Exploratory Factor Analysis. from: https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/spss/seminars/introdution-to-factor-analysis/a-practical-introduction-to-factor-analysis. Retrieved November 11, 2020.
University of Californ Berkeley Website. 2020. Cluster Analysis. from: https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~s133/cluster2a.html. Retrieved November 13, 2020.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE