進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0709201400171400
論文名稱(中文) 以生活文化觀點檢視歷史區之公私部門協力合作-以安平港歷史風貌園區之公私合作為例
論文名稱(英文) From the Perspective of Life Culture on Historical Regions to Examine Public and Private Partnerships – Cases of Public and Private Partnerships in Anping
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 創意產業設計研究所
系所名稱(英) Institute of Creative Industry Design
學年度 102
學期 2
出版年 103
研究生(中文) 李怡璇
研究生(英文) Yi-Hsuan Lee
學號 pa6001091
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 130頁
口試委員 指導教授-劉世南
口試委員-陳世明
口試委員-楊佳翰
中文關鍵字 生活文化  公共性  公私協力  社區行動研究 
英文關鍵字 Life Culture  Publicness  Public and Private Partnership  Community Action Research 
學科別分類
中文摘要 公私協力合作(Public-private partnership, PPP)現為許多各國政府部門常用來推動城市更新(city regeneration)或城市再造(city revitalization)之方式,為了提供更好的公共服務(Public services)並能同時減低政府預算支出等等之益處。

經本研究文獻探討分析認為,公私協力合作不僅只為了讓政府部門以更有效率方式提供公共服務或進行城市更新等,其意義應該要達到其具備「公共性」的服務。因為城市議題亦應是公民議題,但本研究發現現階段的公私合作過程中,僅單純淪為公部門與私部門兩方的合作,並未將其周遭環境社區考慮進去經營規劃中,且多以經濟面向為考量,失去其「公共性」應為民服務的意義。

研究以「居民生活文化」、「古蹟之公共性」之觀點切入,了解公私部門協力合作下的古蹟再造或舊城區區域再造,若以居民生活文化之發展與延續,從社區角度出發,思考可以透過什麼樣的方式讓公私合作更臻完善,讓公共古蹟的經營計畫不僅是服務遊客,也以服務居民為考量。

本研究以安平港歷史風貌園區內之「夕遊出張所」、「安平樹屋」及「安平老街」三處古蹟修復再利用及區域發展進程為例,透過「社區行動研究」理論來理解現今公私協力過程,若要將居民之參與,現階段之做法與理論提出之社區行動過程之準則比較,發現不足之處,並提出可能之未來建議。

本研究發現現階段之公、私部門及社區社區居民在面對古蹟經營及歷史區域再造,皆無與彼此溝通之能力,並且三方皆未能理解公私合作計畫下(古蹟經營/歷史區域再造)帶來的區域發展對當地居民的影響,以及居民於過程中可扮演的角色定位。藉由本研究之深度訪談及文獻探討之質化研究希望能提出古蹟再造或舊城區區域發展的公私協力過程以民眾觀點出發的另一思考,期望本研究調查結果能貢獻於未來不同公私協力計畫的完整性及周延性。
英文摘要 Public-private partnership (PPP) has been one of the strategic tools for governments and policy makers around the world for city regeneration and city revitalizations. It is a way for public sectors to provide better public services and, at the same time, could lead to many advantages like cutting down public budget costs and allocating risks, among others.

Drawing on previous research on PPP, we found out that the current processes for PPP projects are conducted mainly between the public and the private sectors only, neglecting considerations of the surrounding environments and community life right next to collaborative projects (heritage reuse, operation, or historical region management projects, for example). Moreover, the planning and design of the PPP projects are mostly economically-oriented and tourism-oriented, thus losing the meaning and value of “publicness,” inferring that provided services should cater not only tourists but also to residents. In this study, we argue that the purpose of PPPs is not only to provide better services or to conduct city renovations, but, on the other hand, PPPs should also achieve the function of “publicness,” since city issues such as regeneration and revitalization are also citizen-related issues.

To this end, in this study, we examine heritage reuse and historical region renovation PPP projects from the perspectives of resident life culture and the publicness of heritages, with the goal of constructing a model that reconstructs and continues the life culture of residents. We fill the gap in which a consideration of the role of community members is missing in order to suggest to policy makers ways of developing more comprehensive PPPs that are dedicated to the area of public affairs.

We explored this idea using three cases, which include the Sio-House, the Anping Tree House, and the Anping Old Street in the Anping harbor historical and cultural park region, as our case studies using experiences related to these three heritage and regional renovation and operational examples. We adopted Community Action Research to analyze the current situations and to determine how the community members are treated. We conducted in-depth interviews and literature reviews to analyze the partnership issues and hope to bring up an innovative perspective on this issue, aiming toward contributing to the comprehensiveness of PPPs. We interview four residents and five public-private partners as well as two experts in order to explore and analyze possible future tactics and also to come up with suggestions for developing a new PPP model.

The research findings indicated that there are lack of capabilities on public, private and also community members to interact with each other, to confront with life culture impacts and issues to the local community, and to find the roles of residents in the PPP processes over the heritage and regional renovation projects. The implications of application and future research for a residence-based PPP are discussed.
論文目次 Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1-1 Background Study 1
1-1-1 Human-Centered Studies 1
1-1-2 Global PPP Applications 2
1-1-3 Reuse and Renovation of Historical Heritages 3
1-2 Research Motivation 4
Chapter 2 Literature Reviews 5
2-1 Residents within a Historical Region 5
2-1-1 Importance of Residents/Inhabitants to a City 5
2-1-2 Residents within Partnership Issues 6
2-2 Life Culture in Historical Regions 7
2-2-1 City Characteristics and Life Culture 7
2-2-2 Reconstructing Relationships between Residents and Heritages 8
2-2-3 Regional Tourism and the Life of the Inhabitants 9
2-2-4 The Important Roles of the Community Members/ Residents. 11
2-3 Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) 12
2-3-1 The Definition of PPPs 14
2-3-2 PPP Models and PPP critical success factors 16
2-3-3 Partnership Quality/Effectiveness 18
2-4 Publicness of Public Facilities, Spaces and Activities 20
2-4-1 Public Spaces and Activities 20
2-4-2 Public Facilities 20
2-4-3 Public Activities and Cultural Activities 21
2-5 Chapter Summary: cultural creative industries issues 23
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 24
3-1 Research Questions 24
3-2 Research Objectives 25
3-3 Research Methodologies 26
3-3-1 Literature Review 26
3-3-2 Case analyses 26
3-3-3 In-depth interviews 26
3-4 Research scope and limitations 26
3-5 Research contributions 27
3-6 Research Framework 28
Chapter 4 History and Development of Anping Historical Region 29
4-1 Regional Development of Anping District, Tainan 29
4-2 Anping District Residency Development 31
4-3 Image of Anping District: City Branding theory 32
4-4 Life Culture in the Anping Historical Region 36
4-5 Three Partnership Cases in Anping 37
4-5-1 Current PPP projects in Anping 37
4-5-2 Investigation on development: Sio-House, Tree House and Old Street 40
Chapter 5 Research Design and Analysis 45
5-1 Research Design 45
5-1-1 Community-based Action Research 45
5-1-2 Interview Protocol Schemas 48
5-2 Research Results and Findings 51
5-2-1 Interview with Residents 51
5-2-2 Interview with Public and Private Sectors 58
5-3 Research Findings 65
5-3-1 Interview Findings 65
5-3-2 Research Findings 68
5-3-3 Theoretical Framing Findings Using Community Action Research Model 69
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Contributions 75
6-1 Conclusion and Contributions 76
6-2 Research Suggestions and Implications 78
References 80
Appendixes 85
參考文獻 于雷. (2005). 空间公共性研究: Research on the publicity of space: 东南大学出版社.
內政部統計處. (2005). 臺閩地區社區建設與活動調查報告.
古宜靈. (2000). 都市藝文活動參與選擇行為之研究. 國立台北大學都市計畫研究所博士論文.
吳英明, & 張其祿. (2006). 全球化下的公共管理: 商鼎文化.
吳筱涵. (2011). 公共性空間經營與歷史區域再生—以台南市五條港發展協會的在地經營為例.
吳綱立, 郭幸萍, & 趙又嬋. (2007). 歷史街區環境改善綜合性評估架構之研究-以台南市府中街歷史街區爲例. 建築學報(62), 1-22.
吳慶烜. (2003). 影響民眾參與古蹟文化空間活動因素之研究-以台南安平古堡為例: 嘉南學報.
吳濟華. (2001). 公私協力策略推動都市建設之法制化研究: 公共事務評論.
李昀蓁. (2013). 歷史區域再生研究-台南孔廟文化園區生活聚點建構與連結. 成功大學建築學系學位論文, 1-150.
林富男. (2005a). 高雄打狗英國領事館的風華再造. Paper presented at the 文化資產保存與觀光國際研討會.
林富男. (2005b). 高雄打狗英國領事館的風華再造。文化資產保存與觀光國際研討會會議論文集. Paper presented at the 文化資產保存與觀光國際研討會, 臺南市.
夏鑄九. (1997). 再理論公共空間.
徐明福. (1998). 台南市孔廟文化園區之規劃:台南市舊街區保存與再生之契機. 城鄉生活雜誌, 56, 54-61.
國立臺灣歷史博物館. (2008). 安平港歷史風貌園區-97年度作業計畫. 行政院文化建設委員會.
郭幸萍, & 吳綱立. (2013). 公私合夥觀點之古蹟再利用委外經營決策影響因素之研究: 多群體分析. 建築學報(84), 141-161 %@ 1016-3212.
郭昇勳. (2000). 公私合夥理論與應用之研究. 碩士論文, 國立政治大學公共行政學研究所, 高雄.
郭瑞坤, & 徐家楓. (2008). 社區文化資產保存之影響因素研究: 從社會資本觀點探討. 都市與計劃, 35(3), 253-268.
郭肇立. (2009). 戰後台灣的城市建築保存與公共領域. 建築學報(67), 81-96.
陳世明. (2009). 府城舊城歷史區域保存與再生現階段的推動策略,舊城新談. Paper presented at the 2009府城舊城保存與再生論壇.
陳世明, & 盧紀邦. (2011). 安平與舊城歷史區域的社區營造與生活文化發展. Paper presented at the 臺南文化首都生活文化營造研討會, 臺南市.
陳佩君. (1999). 公私部門協力理論與應用之研究. 碩士論文, 國立政治大學公共行政研究所, 台北.
陳坤宏. (2005). 社區居民對都市觀光衝擊之態度反應-台南市安平區之個案研究. 建築與規劃學報, 6(2), 109-127.
陳明燦, & 張蔚宏. (2005). 我國促參法下 BOT 之法制分析: 以公私協力觀點為基礎.
陳國慈. (2005). 故事裡的故事:再生古蹟台北故事館. 天下雜誌.
陳敦源, & 張世杰. (2010). 公私協力夥伴關係的弔詭. 文 官制度季刊, 2(3), 17-71.
傅朝卿. (2005). 從國際文化觀光談台南市孔廟文化園區之經營管理。文化資產保存與觀光國際研討會會議論文集. Paper presented at the 文化資產保存與觀光國際研討會, 台南市.
傅朝卿 (2011). [建築保存理論].
黃一中. (2010). 地區組織參與歷史環境再生規劃之研究-以台南市舊城區域的學校為例. 成功大學建築學系學位論文, 1-230.
黃湘庭. (2013). 台南市舊城沿線學校參與舊城空間再生經營之研究.
廖世璋, & 錢學陶. (2002). 古蹟保存的文化認同之探討-以台北市為例. 都市與計劃, 29(3), 471-489.
臺南市政府. (2012). 變更臺南市安平港歷史風貌園區-特定區計畫(細部計畫)第一次通盤檢討案-計畫書. 臺南市政府.
臺南市政府文化局. (2014a). 102年度臺南市政府文化局古蹟委外經營管理情形考核成績一覽表. 台南市: 臺南市政府文化局.
臺南市政府文化局. (2014b). 委外經營管理考核辦法. Retrieved 20, May, 2014, from http://culture.tainan.gov.tw/historic/content/index.php?m2=174
劉乃瑄. (2006). 大稻埕歷史街區復甦研究-對公共空間經營之省思. (碩士), 台北大學.
劉世南. (2011). 高齡社會的來臨: 為 2025 年的台灣社會規劃之整合研究-高齡者工作動機與工作生活: 以社區為基礎的行動研究.
劉明君. (2013). 安平港國家歷史風景區之文化推廣策略研究. (Master), 國立高雄應用科技大學.
劉為光, 盧紀邦, & 陳世明. (2013). 台南市舊城邊緣帶空間型態在當代都市生活中的文化意涵. 建築學報(85), 227-244.
劉國光. (1991). 中外城市知識辭典. 北京: 中國城市出版社.
蔡佩錞. (2012). 大稻埕變大藝埕: 文化創業者的中介與拼湊作為.
蕭仙妮. (2007). 從民眾參與觀點探討歷史保存區經營管理之研究-以安平歷史聚落為例.
Act, P. P. P. (2011). PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP. BACKGROUNDER.
Barlow, J., Roehrich, J., & Wright, S. (2013). Europe sees mixed results from public-private partnerships for building and managing health care facilities and services. Health Affairs, 32(1), 146-154 %@ 0278-2715.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O'Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public administration review, 65(5), 547-558.
Colantonio, A., & Dixon, T. (2011). Urban regeneration and social sustainability: Best practice from European cities: John Wiley & Sons.
Dinnie, K. (2010). City Branding: Theory and Cases: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferlie, E., & Andresani, G. (2006). Roundtable: understanding current developments in public-sector management–new public management, governance or other theoretical perspectives? Public management review, 8(3), 389-394.
Gehl, J., & Gemzøe, L. (1996). ‘Public spaces and public life’: Danish Architectural Press, Copenhagen.
Guhathakurta, S., & Stimson, R. J. (2007). What is driving the growth of new “sunbelt” metropolises? Quality of life and urban regimes in Greater Phoenix and Brisbane-South East Queensland Region. International planning studies, 12(2), 129-152.
Heymans, C., & Plummer, J. (2002). Focusing partnerships: a sourcebook for municipal capacity building in public-private partnerships: Earthscan.
Hilvert, C., & Swindell, D. (2013). Collaborative Service Delivery What Every Local Government Manager Should Know. State and Local Government Review, 45(4), 240-254 %@ 0160-0323X.
Insch, A. (2010). Managing residents' satisfaction with city life: Application of Importance–Satisfaction analysis. Journal of Town and City Management, 1(2), 164-174.
Insch, A., & Florek, M. (2008). A great place to live, work and play: conceptualising place satisfaction in the case of a city's residents. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(2), 138-149.
JournalistsResource.org. (2014). Local government services and contracts: Best practices and key issues to watch. Retrieved Febuary 25, 2014, from http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/municipal/local-government-service-contracts-best-practices-issues#
Kavaratzis, M. (2004). From city marketing to city branding: towards a theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Branding, 1(1), 58-73.
Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., Haider, D. H., & Times, F. (1999). Marketing places Europe: how to attract investments, industries, residents and visitors to cities, communities, regions and nations in Europe: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
LaGory, M. (1982). TOWARD A SOCIOLOGY OF SPACE: THE CONSTRAINED CHOICE MODEL*. Symbolic Interaction, 5(1), 65-78.
Lefebvre, H. (1979). Space: social product and use value. Critical sociology: European perspectives, 285, 295.
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., & Hardcastle, C. (2005). Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry. Construction management and economics, 23(5), 459-471.
Massey, D. B. (1994). Space, place, and gender: U of Minnesota Press.
Michelson, W. (1976). Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach: Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
Moilanen, T., & Rainisto, S. (2008). How to brand nations, cities and destinations: A planning book for place branding: Palgrave Macmillan.
NCPPP. (2013). NCPPP (National Council for Public-Private Partnerships). Retrieved 25 May, 2014, from http://www.ncppp.org
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture: Rizzoli.
Radcliffe, J., & Dent, M. (2005). Introduction: from New Public Management to the new governance? Policy & Politics, 33(4), 617-622.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice: Sage.
Rosenbaum, A. (2006). Cooperative service delivery: the dynamics of public sector-private sector-civil society collaboration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(1), 43-56.
Rubinstein, R. I., & Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly Place attachment (pp. 139-163): Springer.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance: Oxford University Press.
Senge, P. M., & Scharmer, C. O. (2006). Community action research: learning as a community of practitioners, consultants and researchers. Handbook of Action Research: Concise Paperback Edition, 195-206.
Shafer, C. S., Lee, B. K., & Turner, S. (2000). A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49(3), 163-178.
Waddock, S. A. (1989). Understanding Social Partnerships An Evolutionary Model of Partnership Organizations. Administration & Society, 21(1), 78-100.
Wong, C. (2013). Indicators for urban and regional planning: the interplay of policy and methods: Routledge.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2019-09-11起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw