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 U0026-2801201916282800
論文名稱(中文) 由跨部門協作角度探討廈門市「多規合一」之實踐
論文名稱(英文) Exploring the practice of ‘Multiple-plan Coordination’ in Xiamen City from a ‘Cross-Sector collaboration’ perspective
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 都市計劃學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Urban Planning
學年度 107
學期 1
出版年 108
研究生(中文) 張溫彬
研究生(英文) Wen Bin Zhang
學號 P26053032
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 93頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃偉茹
口試委員-孔憲法
口試委員-張學聖
口試委員-胡太山
中文關鍵字 跨部門協作  邊界組織  城市規劃  多規合一  規劃制度  廈門 
英文關鍵字 Cross-Sector collaboration  Boundary organization  Urban Planning  Multiple-plan Coordination  Planning Policy  Xiamen 
學科別分類
中文摘要 從1989年,中國政府頒布了第一部城市規劃法「中華人民共和國城市規劃法」至今,中國城市規劃體系仍存在諸多矛盾和不足。特別是多個計劃之間和各個規劃部門之間的矛盾。因此,2001年中國學者提出將多個規劃整合在一起,以消除規劃間的差異和衝突,這就是「多規合一」的概念。然而,各規劃的立足點不同、主管部門之間缺乏協調以及城市空間認知的差異化等,使得「多規合一」工作面臨著諸多問題。
目前,大多數中國大陸的學者對於「多規合一」的研究主要集中在技術操作層面、法律層面和城市空間治理層面等。而涉及到「多規合一」過程中各部門的協調或跨部門協作這方面的研究卻很少。近年來,廈門的「多規合一」取得了良好的進展,從2014年開始,基於廣州、雲浮等城市的經驗教訓,通過技術整合和規劃體制改革的方式實現了更為完善的城市治理。
如今,越來越多的規劃部門參與到了協調工作當中,這些規劃部門之間逐漸實現了更高層次的資訊共享,同時在空間規劃體系的重新構建、審批的效率提升等諸多方面都達到了顯著的成效。本研究以廈門為例,在Bryson等人(2006)提出的跨部門協作理論框架下,針對個案進行了部分調整,藉此研究「多規合一」中各部門的協作過程,討論地方政府部門在協作的過程中面臨到哪些矛盾和困難,以及他們為解決這些困難所做的努力。並且由於「多規合一」是一項技術性比較強的政策工作。不僅僅是在規劃技術方面,更多的涉及到管理方面的技術。因而本研究也在Graham和Mitchell(2016)提出的邊界組織理論框架下進行了部分修改,藉由該框架對促進協作進行的「中介機構」加以分析。以瞭解這些邊界組織在協作中如何運作並對協作的過程產生影響。而這些對於未來分析和解決跨部門協作方面的問題具有重要意義,同時,對於促進廈門市及其他縣未來「多規合一」的有效實施也具有非常重要的參考價值。最後,通過個案的驗證本研究也將為跨部門協作以及邊界組織的理論和研究方法進行討論並提出一定的建議。
英文摘要 In order to solve the spatial contradictions and conflicts of various planning-related departments, the Chinese government proposed a “multiple-plan coordination” policy in 2014. This study explores the practice of “multiple-plan coordination” in Xiamen from the perspective of cross-sector collaboration. Using the cross-sector collaboration framework proposed by Bryson et al (2006,2015) and boundary organization theory based on Graham and Mitchell(2016). Conduct qualitative research methods such as participation observation, in-depth interviews and documents analysis. The study found that Xiamen's “multiple-plan coordination” has gone through four stages. The leadership convening role, the transformation of collaborative structures, the establishment of management structures, the establishment of legality, and the use of technology have all played an important role. The boundary organizations in the collaboration, such as Xiamen Planning Institute and Information Center promote collaboration by coordinating and communicating, acquiring and translating knowledge technology, and creating and using boundary projects to enhance the enthusiasm of member collaboration. The research contribution lies in the improvement and suggestion of cross-sector collaboration theory and boundary organization theory, as well as the reference for the implementation of “multiple-plan coordination” in other counties and cities.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與研究目的 2
壹、研究動機 2
貳、研究目的 2
參、研究提問 2
第三節 名詞釋義 3
第四節 研究流程 4
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 中國大陸空間規劃體系現狀與問題分析 5
壹、中國大陸空間規劃體系現狀 5
貳、四個主要規劃的概念與內涵 6
參、小結 8
第二節「多規合一」相關研究 9
壹、「多規合一」的定義 9
貳、「多規合一」的發展歷程 10
參、實施「多規合一」的必要性 12
肆、「多規合一」的研究重點與面臨的問題 15
伍、小結 21
第三節 跨部門協作相關理論 22
壹、跨部門協作發展背景與內涵 22
貳、Bryson的跨部門協作理論及其相關研究 29
參、邊界組織及其相關理論在跨部門協作中的作用 37
肆、小結 44
第三章 研究設計 45
第一節 研究架構 45
第二節 研究方法 46
壹、個案研究法(case study) 46
貳、參與式觀察法(participant observation) 46
參、深入訪談法(in-depth interviews) 48
肆、文獻分析法(document analysis) 49
第四章 廈門多規合一的實踐 51
第一節 廈門多規合一的發展情況概述 51
第二節 跨部門協作框架下的廈門多規合一 56
壹、初始環境 56
貳、結構與管理 57
參、協作的過程 59
肆、突發事件與限制 60
伍、成果與課責 62
第三節 廈門多規合一過程中的邊界組織 68
壹、可信性表現 68
貳、合法性表現 69
參、顯著性表現 71
肆、行動導向 74
第五章 研究發現與建議 77
第一節 研究發現與結果 77
第二節 討論與建議 81
參考文獻 84
附錄1.訪談大綱 89
附錄2:訪談同意書 91
附錄3:中國大陸政府機構概況 92
參考文獻 1. 陳恆鈞、張國偉(2006)。組織協力與組織績效之研究:以雲林縣蔬菜產銷班為例。公共行政學報,19,1-54。
2. 陳雯、孫偉、李平星(2015)。「多規合一」中生態管製作用與任務。環境保護,43(z1),20-22。
3. 陳光金(1987)。參與觀察——人類學研究方法。國外社會科學,5,47-48。
4. 蔡家麒(1994)。試論田野作業中的參與觀察法。雲南民族大學學報(哲學社會科學版),1,52-56。
5. 鄧凌雲、曾山山、張楠(2016)。基於政府事權視角的空間規劃體系創新研究。城鄉規劃,05,24–36。
6. 第十屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會(2007)。「中華人民共和國城鄉規劃法」,北京。
7. 第十屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會(2008)。「中華人民共和國土地管理法」,北京。
8. 第十二屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會(2015)。「中華人民共和國環境保護法」,北京。
9. 第十三屆全國人民代表大會一次會議(2018)。「中華人民共和國土地憲法」,北京。
10. 高小慧. (2011). 對我國「城鄉規劃法」實施障礙的探討. 法制與社會(34), 219-219.
11. 郭曉芳. (2016). 「多規合一」法律探討——以《廈門經濟特區多規合一管理若干規定》為視角. 人大研究(11), 38-42.
12. 何子張(2015)。「多規合一」之「一」探析—基於廈門實踐的思考。「區域與城市」,06,52-88。
13. 洪明、邵波(2014)。浙江縣市域「多規合一」探索研究。中國城市規劃年會,北京。
14. 蔣躍進(2014)。我國「多規合一」的實踐與探索。浙江經濟,21,44-47。
15. 賴曉霞(2017)。面向城市治理的廈門市空間規劃編制體系建構研究。廈門大學,廈門。
16. 賴壽華,黃慧明,陳嘉平,陳曉明(2013)。從技術創新到制度創新:河源、雲浮、廣州「三規合一」實踐與思考。城市規劃學刊,5。
17. 劉和濤(2015)。縣域村鎮體系規劃統籌下「多規合一」研究—以商城縣為例。華中師苑大學城市與環境科學學院,武漢市。
18. 劉建秋(2007)。環境規劃。中國環境科學出版社,北京。
19. 劉旭濤(2013)。中國政府組織結構圖。國家行政學院。https://wenku.baidu.com/view/98b8b99d51e79b89680226d7.html
20. 劉妍(2015)。「多規合一」下的小城鎮總體規劃改進—以莒南縣大店鎮為例。山東建築大學,濟南。
21. 林堅、陳詩弘(2015)。空間規劃的博弈分析。城市規劃學刊,01,10-14。
22. 李依錇.(2009).客家與非客家特色學校跨部門合作之研究;國立中央大學圖書館。
23. 呂維娟、楊璐銘、李延新(2004)。試析城市總體規劃與土地利用總體規劃的協調。城市規劃學刊,04,58-61。
24. 呂志奎、盂慶國(2010)。公共管理轉型:協作性公共管理的興起。學術研究,12,31-58。
25. 吳景海(2015)。關於「多規合一」的思考。城市建設理論研究(電子版),25。
26. 王晨浩(2009)。關於濱海新區實施「多規合一」的探討。港口經濟,8,8-12。
27. 蕭昌東(1998)。兩規關係探討。城市規劃學刊,01,29-33。
28. 孫金(2015)。「多規合一」思路下的城鄉建設用地擴展邊界劃定方法研究。浙江大學杭州。
29. 沈遲、徐景權(2015)。「多規合一」的目標體系與接口設計研究-從「三標脫節」到「三標銜接」的創新探索。規劃師,2,12-16。
30. 唐燕秋, 劉德紹, 李劍, & 蔣洪強. (2015). 關於環境規劃在「多規合一」中定位的思考. 環境保護, 43(7).
31. 王蒙徽. (2015). 推動政府職能轉變,實現城鄉區域資源環境統籌發展——廈門市開展「多規合一」改革的思考與實踐. 城市規劃, 39(6), 9-13.
32. 王唯山、魏立軍(2015)。廈門市「多規合一」實踐的探索與思考。規劃師,2,46-51。
33. 汪錦軍(2012)。走向合作治理:政府與非營利組織合作的條件、模式和路徑。浙江大學出版社,杭州。
34. 廈門市第十四屆人民代表大會常務委員會(2016)。廈門經濟特區「多規合一」管理若干規定,廈門。
35. 謝英挺、王偉(2015)。從「多規合一」到空間體系重構。城市規劃學刊,03,15-21。
36. 謝雨生、黃國光(2014)。研究方法入門與實務。雙葉書廊有限公司出版,台北。
37. 徐晶(2017)。對「多規合一」的成效評價與思考——以湖北省武漢市為例。中國土地,07,41-44。
38. 姚凱(2010)。「資源緊約束」條件下兩規的有序銜接——基於上海「兩規合一」工作的探索和實踐。城市規劃學刊,3,26-31。
39. 尹立霞(2016)。環境法視角下的「多規合一」研究。中國地質大學(北京),北京。
40. 朱才斌(1999)。城市總體規劃與土地利用總體規劃的協調機制。城市規劃學刊,4,10-13。
41. 詹國彬.(2017). 「多規合一」改革的成效、挑戰與路徑選擇——以嘉興市為例.中國行政管理(11).
42. 中華人民共和國國務院辦公廳(2010)。「全國主體功能區劃」,北京。
43. 張泉(2006)。城鄉規劃制度的變革和規劃主管部門的應對。城市規劃,12。
44. 張賢明、田玉麒(2016)。論協同治理的內涵、價值及發展趨勢。湖北社會科學,01,30-37。
45. 朱兆麗. (2015). 對地市級層面「多規合一」的思考. 江蘇城市規劃(1), 32-36.
46. Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Georgetown University Press.
47. Agranoff, Robert (2012). Collaborating to Manage: A Primer For The Public Sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
48. Amundsen, H., Berglund, F., & Westskog, H. (2010). Overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation—a question of multilevel governance? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(2), 276-289.
49. Andrew Green, Ann Matthias(1997). Non-Governmental Organizations and Health In Developing Countries. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.1997, P.182.
50. Anne L. Schneider (2009). Why Do Some Boundary Organizations Result In New Ideas And Practices And Others Only Meet Resistance? The American Review Of Public Administration. Vol 39, Issue 1.
51. Ansell, Chris, And Alison Gash (2008). Collaborative Governance In Theory And Practice. Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory 18(4): 543–71.
52. Armitage, D., de Loë, R. C., Morris, M., Edwards, T. W., Gerlak, A. K., Hall, R. I., ... & Mirumachi, N. (2015). Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio, 44(5), 353-366.
53. A.S. Schneider (2009). Why Do Some Boundary Organizations Result In New Ideas And Practices And Others Only Meet Resistance? Examples from Juvenile Justice. American Review Of Public Administration, 39 (1), Pp. 60-79.
54. Barbara Dicicco-Bloom, Benjamin F Crabtree (2006). The Qualitative Research Interview. Medical Education. Volume 40, Issue 4 April 2006 Pages 314–321.
55. Bardach, E. (2009). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
56. Bauler, T. (2012). An analytical framework to discuss the usability of (environmental) indicators for policy. Ecological Indicators, 17, 38-45.
57. Carlile, P. (2002). A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects In New Product Development. Organization Science, 13, 442-455.
58. Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., Ja ̈ger, J., Mitchell, R., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100, 8086–8091.
59. Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., ... & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and society, 11(2).
60. Caulfield, J. L. (2006). Local government reform in China: A rational actor perspective. International review of administrative Sciences, 72(2), 253-267.
61. Caulley, D. N. (1983). Document analysis in program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 6(1), 19-29.
62. Christie, N. V. (2016). Understanding the Role of Cross-Sector Collaborations on the Success of Florida’s Drug Courts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(2), 119-137.
63. Corfee-Morlot, J., Cochran, I., Hallegatte, S., & Teasdale, P. J. (2011). Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy. Climatic change, 104(1), 169-197.
64. C. Alter, J. Hage (1993). Organizations Working Together. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, Calif.
65. C. Huxham, S. Vangen (2005). Managing To Collaborate: The Theory And Practice Of Collaborative Advantage. Routledge, New York.
66. Dannevig, H., & Aall, C. (2015). The regional level as boundary organization? An analysis of climate change adaptation governance in Norway. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 168-175.
67. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction.
68. Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., And Economy, P. (2002). Strategic Tools for Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing The Performance Of Your Enterprising Nonprofit. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
69. Donahue, John D. (2004). On Collaborative Governance. Working paper, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Center for Business and Government.
70. Eugene Bardach(2000).Getting Agencies To Work Together : The Practice And Theory Of Managerial Craftsmanship.Journal Of Politics. 28 (6) :830-833.
71. Graham, A., & Mitchell, C. L. (2016). The role of boundary organizations in climate change adaptation from the perspective of municipal practitioners. Climatic change, 139(3-4), 381-395.
72. Gray, Barbara (2000). Assessing Inter-Organizational Collaboration: Multiple Conceptions and Multiple Methods. In Perspectives on Collaboration, Edited By David Faulkner And Mark De Rond, 243–60. New York: Oxford University Press.
73. Gustafsson, K. M., & Lidskog, R. (2017). Boundary organizations and environmental governance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development. Climate Risk Management.
74. Hanssen, G. S., Mydske, P. K., & Dahle, E. (2013). Multi-level coordination of climate change adaptation: by national hierarchical steering or by regional network governance? Local Environment, 18(8), 869-887.
75. H. Aldrich (1979). Organizations and Their Environments. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
76. Helen Simons (2014). Case Study Research: In-Depth Understanding In Context. He Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press, Pages 455-470.
77. Hoppe, R., & Wesselink, A. (2014). Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states. Environmental science & policy, 44, 73-85.
78. Humphreys, D. (2009). Working across boundaries: science–policy interfaces and international forest politics. Environmental Sciences, 6(3), 163-174.
79. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of Cross‐Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public administration review, 66, 44-55.
80. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647-663.
81. J.S. Luke Catalytic (1998). Leadership: Strategies for An Interconnected World. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
82. Kamensky, J. M., & Burlin, T. J. (Eds.). (2004). Collaboration: Using networks and partnerships. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
83. Kathryn S. Quick, Martha S. Feldman (2014). Boundaries as Junctures: Collaborative Boundary Work for Building Efficient Resilience. Advance Access Publication January 28. Jpart 24:673–695.
84. Kearnes, M., & Wienroth, M. (2011). Tools of the trade: UK research intermediaries and the politics of impacts. Minerva, 49(2), 153-174.
85. Kirchhoff, C. J., Esselman, R., & Brown, D. (2015). Boundary organizations to boundary chains: prospects for advancing climate science application. Climate Risk Management, 9, 20-29.
86. Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology (ed.).
87. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1), 1-29.
88. Kislov, R. (2014). Boundary discontinuity in a constellation of interconnected practices. Public Administration, 92(2), 307-323.
89. Knapp, C. N., & Trainor, S. F. (2015). Alaskan stakeholder-defined research needs in the context of climate change. Polar Geography, 38(1), 42-69.
90. Koschmann, Matthew A., Timothy R. Kuhn, And Michael D. Pfarrer (2012). A Communicative Framework of Value in Cross-Sector Partnerships. Academy of Management Review 37(2): 332–54.
91. Lorraine Slater (2005). Leadership for Collaboration: An Affective Process. International Journal Of Leadership In Education Theory And Practice. Volume 8, - Issue 4.
92. Perkmann, M., & Schildt, H. (2015). Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations. Research Policy, 44(5), 1133-1143.
93. Ma, L., Chung, J., & Thorson, S. (2005). E-government in China: Bringing economic development through administrative reform. Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 20–37.
94. Michaels, S. (2009). Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 994-1011.
95. Morin, J. F., Louafi, S., Orsini, A., & Oubenal, M. (2017). Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES. Journal of International Relations and Development, 20(3), 543-577.
96. Morse, R. S. (2010). Integrative public leadership: Catalyzing collaboration to create public value. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 231-245.
97. M.S. Feldman, A.M. Khademian, H. Ingram, A.S.Schneider (2006).Ways Of Knowing And Inclusive Management Practices. Public Administration Review, 66, Pp. 89-99
98. Niederberger, A. A. (2005). Science for Climate change policy-making: applying theory to practice to enhance effectiveness. Science and Public Policy, 32(1), 2-16.
99. Page, Stephen. (2004). Measuring Accountability for Results in Interagency Collaboratives. Public Administration Review 64(5): 591–606.
100. Perri 6(2004). Joined-Up Government In The Western Worldin Comparative Perspective: Apreliminary Literature Review And Exploration[J]. Journal Of Public Administration Researchand Theory,14(1)
101. Provan, Keith G., And Patrick Kenis (2008). Modes Of Network Governance: Structure, Management, And Effectiveness. Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory 18(2): 229–52.
102. P. Williams (2002). The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration, 80 , Pp. 103-124
103. Ring, Peter Smith, And Andrew H. Van De Ven (1994). Development Processes Of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. Academy Of Management Review 19(1): 90–118.
104. Sally Coleman Selden,Jessica E. Sowa ,Jodi Sandfort(2002).Strategic Tools For Social Entrepreneurs: Enhancing The Performance Of Your Enterprising Nonprofit. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
105. Sanne F. Akkerman And Arthur Bakker (2011). Boundary Crossing And Boundary Objects. Review Of Educational Research, Vol. 81, No. 2, Pp. 132–169.
106. Schramm, W. (1971). Notes On Case Studies For Instructional Media Projects. Working Paper For Academy Of Educational Development, Washington
107. Selin, S., and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 19:189–95.
108. Siobhán O'mahony, Beth A. Bechky (2008). Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration Among Unexpected Allies. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol 53, Issue 3.
109. Sonia Ospina ,Erica Foldy (2010).Building Bridges From The Margins: The Work Of Leadership In Social Change Organizations.The Leadership Quarterly Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 292-307.
110. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social studies of science, 19(3), 387-420.
111. Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601-617.
112. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic And Institutional Approaches. Academy Of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.
113. Svend Brinkmann (2014). Unstructured And Semi-Structured Interviewing. The Oxford Handbook Of Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press, Pages 277-300.
114. Thomson, Ann Marie, And James L. Perry (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside The Black Box. Special Issue, Public Administration Review 66: 20–32.
115. Pham, T. T., Campbell, B. M., Garnett, S., Aslin, H., & Hoang, M. H. (2010). Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 64-72.
116. Ling, T. (2002). Delivering joined–up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and problems. Public administration, 80(4), 615-642.
117. Tribbia, J., & Moser, S. C. (2008). More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental science & policy, 11(4), 315-328.
118. White, D.D., Wutich, A., Larson, K.L., Gober, P., Lant, T., Senneville, C.(2010). Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Science and Public Policy 37, 219–232.
119. Wood, Donna, And Barbara Gray (1991). Toward A Comprehensive Eory Of Collaboration. Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2): 139–62.
120. Yanow, D. (2007). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer, G. Miller & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods (pp. 405-416). Boca Raton, FL: CRC/Taylor & Francis.
121. Yin, R.K., (1984). Case Study Research: Design And Methods. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
122. Zehr, S. (2005). Comparative boundary work: US acid rain and global climate change policy deliberations. Science and Public Policy, 32(6), 445-456.
123. Zhang, N., Lu, Z., & Shou, Y. (2017). The dominant role of governing structure in cross-sector collaboration in developing China: two case studies of information integration in local government one-stop services. Information Technology for Development, 23(3), 554-578.
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2021-01-01起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2021-01-01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