個案「治理結構」之跨部門分析

第五章研究分析與討論

第三節個案「治理結構」之跨部門分析

網路問卷的第一部分乃是個案的制度性安排與參與（ Institutional Arrangements & Problems），為瞭解 Publicness、Accountability、Public Participation 等三項治理原則在研究個案規劃過程的落實狀況。於下採用次數分配及交叉分析方法進行比較與說明。

一、Publicness in the process of LARRMP

就公共性在洛杉磯河整治計畫過程的落實狀況而言，經過預試與前測的修正後，正式問卷內透過 Q1、Q2、Q16、Q20、Q22、Q23 等六道題目，搭配五分法選項（1=Not really; 2=A little; 3=Some; 4=A lot; 5=Completely），蒐集受訪者對於公共性原則在洛杉磯河整治計畫的落實狀況。於下首先分述各道題目的答案分析：

（一）就「保障弱勢」而言

在治理原則部分所得之答覆，除了僅 10 位受訪者（17.2％）表示「有時，

要視情況而定」的答覆之外，基本上並沒有任何一位受訪者直接否定保障弱勢的重要。但相對於此，受訪者就其自身的觀察所做出的表示，確有 4 位（6.9％）

認為在洛杉磯河整治計畫的規劃過程中，弱勢團體的利益並未獲得（Not really）

討論，有 7 位（12.1％）表示僅有些許（A little）的討論，有 21 位受訪者（36.2

％）表示僅有部分（Some）的討論（詳見附錄 39 中，Q1 之次數分配資料）。

在經過與「部門歸屬」的交叉分析（Q1*Q74）後，發現無論政府部門、營利部門或非營利部門，都有受訪者表示僅有些許、部分的討論，甚或政府部門當中仍有一位表示未獲得討論。再者，對照社區座談會的觀察，發現社會公平、弱勢保障等議題反倒成為懸而未決的問題。例如：

People have intense concerns about matters related to community well-being (e.g., safety, policing, homelessness, crime),………..( 20060927_CW_3)

All concerns must be rooted out and resolved. Ultimately, the people will be the ones to use it, so they should get the best results money can buy. (20060627_CW_2)

Q2 * Q74. Which sector are you most closely affiliated with? Crosstabulation Count

Sector. None of the above.

Q74. Which sector are you most closely affiliated with?

Total 洛杉磯河團隊（the LA river team）在都市規劃方面的傑出表現，但同時也指出與會者提出若干社會關懷的議題，例如暴力問題、流浪漢問題、仕紳化（gentrification）

等問題，但卻無法獲得正面的回應，以消除與會者的疑慮。換言之，各類的公共需求與利益似未能妥善地被呈現，反倒是被試圖引導至計畫的焦點乃是「河流整

治」。例如田野觀察筆記中亦曾提及一段描述：

And just like the previous meeting, people kept to propose the question which not included in the official agenda. (20060927_CW_8)

The issue of flood-control was raised numerous times only to be placated by the consultants with a “We won’t worsen the condition as it stands.” This didn’t seem to satisfy a few attendees, who needed concrete evidence in a world following Katrina. It was the “trust me, I’m the professional” attitude that perhaps led the question to continually surface. (20060627_CW_2)

I still observed the difference between the technical expertise and citizen knowledge……… we can tell something else important which the community really concerns are different from the project team. (20060927_CW_8)

然而對於社區居民或投資者而言，洛杉磯河沿岸地區本來就是暴力犯罪、毒品交易的溫床，如果僅是考量如何整治河流，規劃更多的水岸開放空間，而忽略其他現實環境的阻礙，哪麼將浪費更多公帑。

具體而言，針對流浪漢問題的討論，在45位填答者中，有高達35.6％的與會者表示完全沒有進行相關討論，有31.1％的答覆表示僅有些許的討論；此外，就如何解決河岸地區的暴力問題，有高達46.7％的受訪者表示完全沒有相關的討論，有20％表示僅有些許的討論，有26.7表示僅有部分的討論；沒有任何一個場次的社區座談會與會者表示有完全的討論（詳見附錄39中，Q22、Q23之次數分配資料）。

二、Accountability in the process of LARRMP

就課責在洛杉磯河整治計畫過程的落實狀況而言，經過預試與前測的修正後，正式問卷內透過 Q3、Q4、Q13、Q17、Q18、Q19 等六道題目，搭配五分法選項（1=Not really; 2=A little; 3=Some; 4=A lot; 5=Completely），蒐集受訪者對於課責原則在洛杉磯河整治計畫的落實狀況。於下首先分述各道題目的答案分析：

（一）就「責任歸屬、課責結構」而言

在治理原則部分，有高達90％以上的受訪意見認同責任歸屬與課責結構的重要性。但相較於對前述原則有著一致性的認同，受訪者之於洛杉磯河整治計畫的參與經驗卻指出，累計有51.1％的受訪意見認為未清楚向民眾解釋顧問團隊的責任為何（詳見附錄39中，Q19之次數分配資料）；雖然同時間有42.2％的受訪意見指出已有充分解說，但經「部門歸屬」（Q19*Q74）交叉分析比較後，發現13 位自詡為政府部門的受訪意見中，累計有6位表示對於顧問團隊的責任僅有部分的解釋。

Q19 * Q74. Which sector are you most closely affiliated with? Crosstabulation Count

1 0 1 0 2

1 2 4 2 9

4 1 5 2 12

5 4 8 2 19

2 0 1 0 3

13 7 19 6 45

Not really A little Some A lot Completely Q19

Total

Governmental

Sector. For-Profit

Sector. Non-Profit

Sector. None of the above.

Q74. Which sector are you most closely affiliated with?

Total

對於洛杉磯河整治計畫過程是否有明確的課責結構，則有高達63.8％的受訪意見，表示僅有部分的課責結構，其中更有15.5％的受訪意見表示完全沒有明確的課責結構。這將會是洛杉磯河整治計畫是否符合社會中心途徑主張的主要分析論點之一（詳見附錄39中，Q13之次數分配資料）。

此外，觀察筆記的一段描述，也道出洛杉磯河整治計畫，在課責結構與責任歸屬可能遭遇的問題。

They skip those details, but important parts, like where the budget comes from, who will pay for this, gentrification problem, the relationship between government and business within this plan etc. (20060628_CW_2)

There are 32 miles long river area are included in this plan, they select "20 opportunities sites" took as the plan targets. But, they didn’t explain the sampling criteria very well. (20060628_CW_2)

I think most of the resident was just listening to the table leader’s presentation.

(20060926_CW_4)

（二）就「透明度」而言

與課責議題相關的另一個概念乃是透明度。在治理原則部分，受訪意見高度認同透明度乃是獲得公共支持的關鍵因素；但針對洛杉磯河整治計畫之規劃過程是否透明而言，累計受訪意見當中確仍有 43.1％表示僅保有部分的透明（詳見附錄 39 中，Q3 之次數分配資料）。此外，與「受訪者參與時間」進行交叉分析

（Q3*Q80_re）後，發現在洛杉磯河整治計畫開始之前便參與相關活動的受訪者，

對於洛杉磯河整治計畫的透明度，有著較高的質疑。

另外，分析觀察筆記後，也發現若干描述指出對整治規劃過程透明度的質疑。例如：

就洛杉磯河整治計畫草案部分，參與者提出的問題包括

...

要求資訊透明化，提供其他相關會議的資料

…………

質疑所謂「利害關係人會議」存在的問題；

強調跨部門合作之於計畫成功的重要性

……….（20070228_CW_1）

Q3 * Q80_re. When did you first get involved in the LARRMP planning process? (For example: May 2006)

Crosstabulation Count

1 1 2

7 1 8

9 1 10

12 8 20

2 8 10

31 19 50

Not really A little Some A lot Completely Q3

Total

before

Aug. 2005 after Aug. 2005 Q80_re. When did you first get

involved in the LARRMP planning process? (For

example: May 2006)

Total

（三）就「回應性」而言

在洛杉磯河整治計畫的規劃過程，有關五大機會區的選定，首先是選出二十個機會區，在搭配三項主要遴選標準，以尋求最符合整治計畫目標的五大首選地區。但仍有許多與會者質疑其選擇過程，更因為自己所偏好或居住的地區未入選五大機會區，而感到失望或不滿；甚或僅是因為自己曾經提出的建議未被採納。

上述缺乏回應性的現象，同樣在觀察筆記當中，可發現對類似狀況的描述。例如：

During the interactive exercise, I noticed attendees who were pleased with the process and attendees who were disappointed that their previous suggestions had not yet been taken into account. (20060624_CW_1)

Presenters seemed to have problems while reacting to specific detailed questions.

Their answers remained vague and open for debate. I think people were not satisfied after hearing the answers given to them. Citizens did pose some intelligent questions, answers for which were not thought of by the presenters in detail. (20060930_CW_3)

以 20 個入選的會區為例，累計有 57.8％的受訪意見指出，洛杉磯河整治團隊僅提出部分的解釋，說明為何前述機會區得以入選；再者，對於為何部分機會區最後被剔除於五大機會區之外，在 58 位受訪者中，有 13 位（22.4％）表示洛杉磯河整治團隊僅向參與者提出部分解釋，有 11 位（19％）表示僅提出些許解釋，有 13 位（22.4％）表示完全沒有提出解釋。可見參與者對於主導機關的回應性，仍持有高度的質疑（依序詳見附錄 39 中，Q18、Q4 之次數分配資料）。

此外，仕紳化（gentrification）的問題則是另一個在會議上被忽視的議題；有 22.4％的受訪意見指出，在會議上許多與會者提出了gentrification的問題，但反觀洛杉磯河團隊及其建議草案似未能給予適當的回應（詳見附錄39中，Q17之次數分配資料）。

規劃者與利害關係人之間的期待或關切重點似乎存在部分的落差，因為類似的狀況在觀察筆記當中也發現相干的描述。例如：

During this participation, I found that technical expertise and citizen knowledge have a major difference. Those expertise perspectives focus on an ideal design without enough understanding of the existing situation of each revitalization area.

Local residents, in addition, evaluate the feasibility of the design with their real living experience. And due to their different knowledge base, the dialogue between them seems lack something in common. (20060926_CW_4)

發言基本尚可區分為兩類，傾向支持者多數發言內容觀乎計畫的具體內容，

例如景觀設計、綠地、河岸美化等；質疑者多數針對程序、參與等層面的問題提出挑戰。

（20070227_CW_1）

三、Public Participation in the process of LARRMP

就公共參與在洛杉磯河整治計畫過程的落實狀況而言，經過預試與前測的修正後，正式問卷內透過 Q5、Q6、Q7、Q8、Q9、Q10、Q11、Q12、Q21、Q24 等 10 道題目，搭配五分法選項（1=Not really; 2=A little; 3=Some; 4=A lot;

5=Completely），蒐集受訪者對於公共參與原則在洛杉磯河整治計畫的落實狀況。於下首先分述各道題目的答案分析：

（一）就「保持互動、雙向溝通、蒐集資訊」而言

受訪者在回覆治理原則時，對於保持互動、雙向溝通、蒐集資訊等主張皆表達幾近百分之百的高度認同。但就洛杉磯河整治計畫之規劃過程而言，累計只有 43.1％的受訪意見表示該計畫規劃過程具有雙向溝通的的特性；其次，有 44.8％

的受訪意見認為洛杉磯河團隊在政策規劃過程，與受影響人口之間保有充足互動；其三，則有 48.9％的受訪意見認為社區座談會中所運用的桌上演練（table exercise），相當有助於蒐集利害關係人的意見；此外，就社區座談會進行期間，

規劃團隊與參與者之間是否有足夠的對話時間，則有 46.7％的受訪意見表示時間充裕（依序詳見附錄 39 中，Q8、Q5、Q21、Q24 之次數分配資料）。對應觀察筆記的記載，亦發現相干的描述：

The format and setting was very effective in eliciting participation. Attendees were able to engage the consultants in one-on-one conversation and receive a significant block of time to do so. (20060627_CW_2)

但除此之外，仍有部分觀察筆記描述著社區座談會進行過程中，仍存在的若干有待改進的空間。例如：

There are no deliberative interactions in the workshop. Most of the time spent on powerpoint introduction…………(20060628_CW_2)

You can see all the plan team members sit in group and separate with participant.

(20060628_CW_2)

But the moderator…… was trying to re-emphasize the content of agenda and only give questioners ambiguous answer. This situation probably becomes a hurdle of sequential communication with stakeholders. And I also noticed that Gary answered most of the questions. (20060926_CW_4)

That means the topic in the workshop is controlled or limited. I doubt that people probably didn’t make sense what their role should be played in that moment.

I mean as a stakeholder, people should not act like a “customer” in shopping.

Because few people will say “NO” to those wonderful alternatives and the great vision! (20060628_CW_2)

Dissemination of information about river meetings is very low and mostly targeted to interested individuals and groups already involved in the process. It is not getting through to many lay residents. (20060927_CW_3)

（二）就「代表性」而言

雖然多數受訪者認為代表性乃是公共參與的重要元素之一。但實際上，洛杉磯河整治計畫的出席狀況卻不甚理想，無論是從種族、居住地、部門歸屬等人口統計變項的次數分配或是研究者的田野筆記來看，洛杉磯河整治計畫之規劃過程，在代表性方面仍有相當大的改善空間。誠如觀察筆記當中記載著（詳見附錄 52）：

People who attended appeared to represent a variety of interests in the River, ranging from local Neighborhood Council leaders to families who live along the River or in adjacent neighborhoods. Recognizable community activists and City officials were present. (20051022_CW_1)

Those in attendance seemed to be either elderly or crazy environmentalist, both of which I ended up working with. (20060128_CW_2)

I feel that very limited segment of population or users is represented in these meetings. The difference between numbers of people that will be affected versus number of people who actually come to these meetings is large. (20060930_CW_3)

此外，分析社區座談會的記錄資料發現，多數的與會者皆有持續出席的狀態。這一方面象徵著利害關係人的參與意願，但卻同時指出參與、代表性不足的可能性。誠如：

He asked the audience how many people have attended other meetings and

approximately two-thirds of the audience raised their hands, which demonstrates a

strong level of involvement. (20060624_CW_1)

由於會議地點鄰近中國城，加上中國城乃是該草案選定之五大發展機會區之一，爰此對於幾乎沒有華人出席者的現象，似乎說明參與者代表性存在一定程度的爭議。

（20070228_CW_1）

綜言之，就洛杉磯河整治規劃過程中，利害關係人是否皆被妥善代表而言，

僅有 37.9％的受訪意見屬於正面肯定。當直接詢問規劃過程是否出席狀況良好時，亦僅有 37.9％的受訪意見表示出席狀況良好。當詢問政府機關對規劃草案內容是否有預設立場時，則有 75.9％的受訪意見表示政府的確有其預設立場，其中高達 27.6％的受訪意見認為政府機關絕對有預設立場；質言之，參與過程可能徒

在文檔中跨部門治理機制之制度性安排與參與：以「洛杉磯河整治計畫」為例 (頁 181-189)

第五章 研究分析與討論

第三節 個案「治理結構」之跨部門分析

People have intense concerns about matters related to community well-being (e.g., safety, policing, homelessness, crime),………..( 20060927_CW_3)

All concerns must be rooted out and resolved. Ultimately, the people will be the ones to use it, so they should get the best results money can buy. (20060627_CW_2)

And just like the previous meeting, people kept to propose the question which not included in the official agenda. (20060927_CW_8)

I still observed the difference between the technical expertise and citizen knowledge……… we can tell something else important which the community really concerns are different from the project team. (20060927_CW_8)

They skip those details, but important parts, like where the budget comes from, who will pay for this, gentrification problem, the relationship between government and business within this plan etc. (20060628_CW_2)

There are 32 miles long river area are included in this plan, they select "20 opportunities sites" took as the plan targets. But, they didn’t explain the sampling criteria very well. (20060628_CW_2)

I think most of the resident was just listening to the table leader’s presentation.

就洛杉磯河整治計畫草案部分，參與者提出的問題包括

要求資訊透明 化，提供其他相關會議的資料

質疑所謂「利害關係人會議」存在的問題；

強調跨部門合作之於計畫成功的重要性

During the interactive exercise, I noticed attendees who were pleased with the process and attendees who were disappointed that their previous suggestions had not yet been taken into account. (20060624_CW_1)

Presenters seemed to have problems while reacting to specific detailed questions.

Their answers remained vague and open for debate. I think people were not satisfied after hearing the answers given to them. Citizens did pose some intelligent questions, answers for which were not thought of by the presenters in detail. (20060930_CW_3)

During this participation, I found that technical expertise and citizen knowledge have a major difference. Those expertise perspectives focus on an ideal design without enough understanding of the existing situation of each revitalization area.

Local residents, in addition, evaluate the feasibility of the design with their real living experience. And due to their different knowledge base, the dialogue between them seems lack something in common. (20060926_CW_4)

發言基本尚可區分為兩類，傾向支持者多數發言內容觀乎計畫的具體內容，

例如景觀設計、綠地、河岸美化等；質疑者多數針對程序、參與等層面的問題提 出挑戰。

The format and setting was very effective in eliciting participation. Attendees were able to engage the consultants in one-on-one conversation and receive a significant block of time to do so. (20060627_CW_2)

There are no deliberative interactions in the workshop. Most of the time spent on powerpoint introduction…………(20060628_CW_2)

You can see all the plan team members sit in group and separate with participant.

But the moderator…… was trying to re-emphasize the content of agenda and only give questioners ambiguous answer. This situation probably becomes a hurdle of sequential communication with stakeholders. And I also noticed that Gary answered most of the questions. (20060926_CW_4)

That means the topic in the workshop is controlled or limited. I doubt that people probably didn’t make sense what their role should be played in that moment.

I mean as a stakeholder, people should not act like a “customer” in shopping.

Because few people will say “NO” to those wonderful alternatives and the great vision! (20060628_CW_2)

Dissemination of information about river meetings is very low and mostly targeted to interested individuals and groups already involved in the process. It is not getting through to many lay residents. (20060927_CW_3)

People who attended appeared to represent a variety of interests in the River, ranging from local Neighborhood Council leaders to families who live along the River or in adjacent neighborhoods. Recognizable community activists and City officials were present. (20051022_CW_1)

Those in attendance seemed to be either elderly or crazy environmentalist, both of which I ended up working with. (20060128_CW_2)

I feel that very limited segment of population or users is represented in these meetings. The difference between numbers of people that will be affected versus number of people who actually come to these meetings is large. (20060930_CW_3)

He asked the audience how many people have attended other meetings and

approximately two-thirds of the audience raised their hands, which demonstrates a

strong level of involvement. (20060624_CW_1)

由於會議地點鄰近中國城，加上中國城乃是該草案選定之五大發展機會區之 一，爰此對於幾乎沒有華人出席者的現象，似乎說明參與者代表性存在一定程度 的爭議。

第五章研究分析與討論

第三節個案「治理結構」之跨部門分析

要求資訊透明化，提供其他相關會議的資料

例如景觀設計、綠地、河岸美化等；質疑者多數針對程序、參與等層面的問題提出挑戰。

由於會議地點鄰近中國城，加上中國城乃是該草案選定之五大發展機會區之一，爰此對於幾乎沒有華人出席者的現象，似乎說明參與者代表性存在一定程度的爭議。