| 摘要: | 在全球關懷永續發展的潮流下，台北市已完成「台北市21世紀議程」，並提出台北市永續發展指標，但如何建構社區永續發展指標則未見系統性之研究。有鑑於此，本文藉由文獻評析，探討永續社區的意涵並建構台北市社區永續發展指標系統，分為生態、生活、生產、體制4個面向，其下再細分為10個指標群及38個指標項。本文透過抽樣調查，以台北市士林區名山里158位受訪里民為例，探討民眾對永續社區指標之看法。調查結果顯示，平均高達71%以上的受訪民眾認為所有15個生態面向指標均為適合的指標；生活面向指標雖有66%接受度，但持中性意見者亦不少；生產面向指標接受度在58%以上，而30%民眾持中性意見；體制面向指標的接受度達70.7%以上，此外，受訪者選出的核心指標有10項，其中6項為生態面向，3項為生活面向，1項為體制面向。具較高意順參與之民眾以中青年、中高學歷為主，在職業分布上沒有明顯差別；拒絕受訪者多為高齡退休者及工作中之就業人員；家管及中年人多重視社會福利，相對於年輕人則以環境生態為主，社會治安則為大家所共同重視的指標。
Taipei has issued the "Taipei Agenda 21" (TA 21) in view of global concerns with sustainable development. As a result, TA 21 will be adopted to guide future development for Taipei city. However, in TA 21, the focus is more on the city level than on the community level. Therefore, how communities move toward or away from sustainability is not examined. Hence, it is necessary and urgent to address sustainability issues in community levels. This study examines sustainable development concepts of residents living in Mingshan Community, Taipei and explores what is the appropriate set of sustainable community indicators for Taipei. From literature review and questionnaire analyses, this study first establishes a set of sustainable community indicators, which includes environmental, social, economic, and institutional dimensions and 10 indicator clusters with 38 indicators. Focus group discussions are adopted to evaluate these indicators. After establishing the sustainable community indicators, 158 individuals' attitudes toward these indicators are investigated. Over 71% of the respondents indicate that ecological indicators are appropriate for their community. For the social indicators, 66% respondents agree with these indicators. With regard to economic indicators, 58% agree yet 30% disagree. For the institutional indicators, 71% respondents think these indicators are appropriate. Furthermore, 10 key indicators are selected. Among these 10 key indicators, six are ecological dimension; three are social dimension, with one from the institutional dimension. Those who are more willing to participate with community development are young, middle-aged, and medium to high educational degree. Occupation has no significant influence. Those who refused to answer the questionnaires are retired and at work. Housekeepers and middle-aged groups put more emphasis on social welfare issues; where younger generations more focus on environmental issues. Most respondents emphasize the social security indicator. |
