陽明山國家公園遊憩服務之供需評估

本研究透過分析相關數據及問卷調查，以製圖法空間量化陽明山國家公園 遊憩服務之供應需求圖，其中遊憩供應指標包含了自然度、水體、山峰數量、

景觀多樣性、保護程度、道路密度、與都市距離，遊憩需求指標則包含了遊憩 參與傾向、遊憩實際使用。計算分析後獲得的供需評估數值透過自然分類法 (Natural Breaks (Jenks))由高至低分為三級。研究結果顯示，遊憩供應高的區域 佔了 64.15%，參與傾向高的區域佔了 75.28%，實際使用度高的區域佔了 35.32%。

研究將遊憩供應分別與遊憩參與傾向、遊憩實際使用進行疊圖分析。遊憩 參與傾向高於遊憩供應(Dp>S)的區域約佔 32.58%，遊憩參與傾向與遊憩供應 為平衡(Dp=S)的區域約 46.48%，遊憩供應高於遊憩參與傾向(Dp<S)的區域約 佔20.94%；遊憩實際使用高於遊憩供應(Dv>S)的區域約佔 10.93%，遊憩實際 使用與遊憩供應為平衡(Dv=S)的區域約 44.55%，遊憩供應高於遊憩實際使用 (Dv<S)的區域約佔 44.52%。以整區來看，人們對於陽明山國家公園遊憩參與 傾向普遍偏高，又以遊憩需求高於遊憩供應的區域比例偏高，但在管制之下，

大多數區域維持著遊憩供應高、實際使用低的情況，僅有少部分地區遊憩供應

將遊憩供應、參與傾向、實際使用進行疊圖分析後，其中遊憩參與傾向高、

實際使用高但遊憩供應能力低的區域約佔2.39%，顯示為民眾認為重要但其遊 憩供應狀況不佳，需關注與改善的區域；遊憩供應高、參與傾向高，但實際使 用低的區域約佔 10.57%，顯示為民眾認為重要且經營管理上亦有其保育價值 而管制使用之區域；達到遊憩供應、參與傾向、實際使用平衡的區域約佔 16.53%，顯示此區在經營管理之下民眾認為重要且遊憩供應能力亦良好，其遊 憩品質應可繼續維持。

二、供需評估與管理應用

（一）反映決策的評估指標

國家公園成立兼具維護棲息地、生物多樣性及環教育樂之使命，經營 策略又以維護棲息地更優先於遊憩服務，因此有必要了解管理後的實際 使用情況是否滿足決策目標。有別於其他多數研究僅以民眾的環境偏好 為需求指標，本研究透過調查民眾的遊憩參與傾向及實際使用情況來進 行評估。

問卷調查結果顯示人們偏好較自然的生態系統，受訪者對森林、草生 地、溪流、火山裸地、溼地環境的遊憩參與傾向高於公園、農地、人工建 地、水圳等人工環境，研究結果與過去研究一致，證明自然度是人們前往 該環境從事遊憩活動的重要考量因素。由於民眾對於較為自然的環境具 有較高的遊憩參與傾向，在空間分布上多位於陽明山國家公園的北側，但 因管制區劃設、可及性等影響，實際使用情況多集中在陽明山國家公園的 南側空間。儘管遊憩服務在空間使用上受到限制，但是否使部分區域供不 應求仍待進一步比對，因為參與傾向包含了已使用服務的實際需求以及

經營管理往往出現在生產（供應）與使用（需求）的交流之時，扮演協調 與權衡的角色，因此供需之間的不匹配應是評估的重點，透過評估結果了 解是否有達成決策目標，或藉以分析生態與社會互動之間複雜的驅動性 或影響因素。

本研究將實際使用高但遊憩供應低(Dv>S)的供需評估結果與陽明山 國家公園第三次通盤檢討計畫分級圖進行比對，結果顯示橫跨的分級區 包含了一般管制區、遊憩區及特別景觀區。其中遊憩區的部分，除了雙溪 遊憩區是處於高供應中度實際使用(Dv<S)情況外，大多數遊憩區皆為高供 應高需求(S=D)的平衡狀態，僅在二子坪遊憩區有部分區域為高需求低供 應(D>S)的情況；比對供應指標得知此區域具良好的自然度及保護情況，

但其他指標評級普遍偏低，也因此遊憩供應能力較低。

由於不同分區各具其經營管理之考量，因此本研究就不同分區及其供 需關係提出討論與建議。針對供需關係屬於遊憩需求高但遊憩供應低的 情況，若區域分級為嚴格保護之特別景觀區，建議可透過宣導或規畫限制 等方式，將人流引導至其他遊憩供應高但使用度較低的區域；若區域分級 為遊憩區及一般管制區，建議可由數值偏低且可人為改善的供應指標著 手，以提升遊憩供應能力；惟須注意的是，欲改善的指標與其他指標的關 係可能存在互斥關係，例如透過道路增設可以提升可及性，卻可能導致區 域的自然度降低。

此外，針對中度或較低程度遊憩需求之區域，建議可與其他重要服務 進行權衡，例如以天然林地取代自然度較低的環境，改善其生態質量、維 護生態系統，提供其他有價值的服務（如調節與維護服務等）。

（三）生態系統服務的協同作用和權衡

本研究目前僅就遊憩服務進行供應需求評估示範，若要擬定較全面的 規劃策略，仍需與其他重要的生態系統服務一併考量，因為服務之間可能

產）、固碳、控制土壤侵蝕等服務都會產生正向的影響，但可能因為保護 上的限制銳減了作物生產面積，或因造訪限制阻礙人們使用遊憩服務。大 多數服務之間的影響是正相關的，透過生態系統服務之評估，理解服務之 間的共同環境驅動因素(Birkhofer et al., 2015)，分析因果關係，若要提升 生態系統的穩定性並確保人類福祉，同時將最大數量的生態系統服務綑 綁行銷才是最理想的經營目標(Braat & de Groot, 2012)。

參考文獻

4. Asah, Stanley T., Blahna, Dale J., & Ryan, Clare M. (2012). Involving Forest Communities in Identifying and Constructing Ecosystem Services: Millennium Assessment and Place Specificity. Journal of Forestry, 110(3), 149-156.

5. Baró, F., Palomo, I., Zulian, G., Vizcaino, P., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E.

(2016). Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: a case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy, 57, 405–417.

6. Beier, C.M., Caputo, J., Groffman, P.M. (2015). Measuring ecosystem capacity to provide regulating services: forest removal and recovery at Hubbard Brook (USA).

Ecological Applications, 25 (7), 2011-2021

7. Birkhofer, K., Diehl, E., Andersson, J., Ekroos, J., Fru¨h-Mu¨ller, A., Machnikowski, F., Mader, V.L., Nilsson, L., Sasaki, K., Rundlof, M., Wolters, V., Smith, H.G., (2015). Ecosystem services—current challenges and opportunities for ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2, 1–12.

8. Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616‐626.

9. Braat, C.L. and de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1, 4-15.

10. Breeze, T.D., Vaissiere, B.E., Bommarco, R., Petanidou, T., Seraphides, N., Kozak, L., Scheper, J., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kleijn, D., Gyldenkaerne, S., Moretti, M., Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stout, J.C., Partel, M., Zobel, M., Potts, S.G.

(2014). Agricultural policies exacerbate honeybee pollination service supply-demand mismatches across Europe. PLoS One, 9, e82996.

woodlands visiting in Wallonia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 83–91.

14. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, S. Naeem, K. Limburg, J. Paruelo, R.V. O'Neill, R. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. van den Belt. (1997).

The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.

15. Daily, G.C. (1997). Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

16. de Groot, R.S., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L.C., Haines-Young, R., Gowdy, J., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R., Ring, I., (2010).

Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valu- ation. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), TEEB Foundations 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earth scan, Lon-don, 9–40.

17. Depietri, Y., Renaud, F.G., and Kallis, G. (2012) Heat waves and floods in urban areas: a policy oriented review of ecosystem services. Sustainability Science, 7, 95–107.

18. Edwards, D.M., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., Peace, A., Weiss, G. (2012). Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecology and Society, 17, 27.

19. Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H. (1981). Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York.

20. Faggi, A., Breuste, J., Madanes, N., Gropper, C., Perelman, P. (2011). Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: a comparison of residents’ and visitors’

preferences in Buenos Aires. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, 1–6.

21. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling, P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola, J., Strassburg, B., Yu, D., Balmford, A. (2008). Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications, 18(8), 2050–2067.

22. Geijzendorffer, I.R., Martín-López, B., Roche, P.K. (2015). Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments. Ecological Indicators, 52, 320–331.

23. Gül, A., Orücü, M.K., Karaca, O. (2006). An approach for recreation suitability analysis to recreation planning in Gölcük Nature Park. Environmental Management, 37, 606–625.

24. Gursoy, D., Chen, B.T., 2012. Factors influencing camping behavior: the case of Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21, 659–678.

25. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2010a). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem

A New Systhsis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

26. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2010b). Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (V1). EEA Framework Contract, No EEA/BSS/07/007.

27. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2013). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4. European Environmental Agency, Kopenhagen, Denmark.

28. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2018): Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available from www.cices.eu.

29. Jujnovsky, J., Almeida-Leñero, L., Bojorge-García, M,. Monges, Y. L., Cantoral-Uriza, E., & Mazari-Hiriart, M., (2010). Hydrologic ecosystem services: water quality and quantity in the Magdalena River, Mexico City. Hidrobiológica, 20 (2), 113-126.

30. Kienast, F., Degenhardt, B., Weilenmann, B., Wäger, Y., & Buchecker, M. (2012). A GIS-assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105, 385-399.

31. Kim, Gunwoo, Miller, Patrick A., & Nowak, David J. (2015). Assessing urban vacant land ecosystem services: Urban vacant land as green infrastructure in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 519-526.

32. Kiss, K., Malinen, J., Tokola, T., (2015). Forest road quality control usingALS data. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45(11), 1636–1642.

33. Maes, J., Braat, L., Jax, K.,Hutchins, M., Furman, E., Termansen, M., Luque, S., Paracchini, M.S., Chauvin, C., Williams, R., Volk, M., Lautenbach, S., Kopperoinen, L., Schelhaas, M.J., Weinert, J., Goossen, M., Dumont, E., Strauch, M., Görg, C., Dormann, C., Katwinkel, M., Zulian, G., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Hauck, J., Forsius, M., Hengeveld, G., Perez-Soba, M., Bouraoui, F., Scholz, M., SchulzZunkel, C., Lepistö, A., Polishchuk, Y., Bidoglio, G., (2011). A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe: methods, case studies and policy analysis: phase 1.

PEER Report No 3. Partnership for European Environmental Research, Ispra.

34. Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M.B., Alkemade, R., (2012).

Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat

perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environmental Management, 90 (1), 375–383.

38. Paetzold, A., Warren, P.H., Maltby, L.L. (2010). A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity, 7, 273-281.

39. Pagella, T.F. and Sinclair, F.L. (2014). Development and use of a typology of mapping tools to assess their fitness for supporting management of ecosystem service provision. Landscape Ecology, 29(3), 383–399.

40. Parachini, M.L., Zuliana, G., Kopperoinen M., Maes, J., Schägner, J.P. Termansen, M., Zandersen, M., Perez-Sobra, M., Scholefield, P.A. (2014). Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators, 45, 371–385.

41. Peña, L., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Onaindia, M., (2015). Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and social evaluation approach. Ecosystem Services, 13, 108–118.

42. Peng, J., Liu, Y., Wu, J., Lv, H., & Hu, X. (2015). Linking ecosystem services and landscape patterns to assess urban ecosystem health: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning. 143, 56-68.

43. Raudsepp-Hearne, C. and Peterson, G.D. (2016). Scale and ecosystem services: how do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale—lessons from Québec.

Ecology and Society, 21(3):16.

44. Richards, R. G., A. T. Davidson, J.-O. Meynecke, K. Beattie, V. Hernaman, T. Lynam, and I. E. van Putten, (2015). Effects and mitigations of ocean acidification on wild and aquaculture scallop and prawn fisheries in Queensland, Australia. Fisheries Research, 161, 42-56.

45. Roovers, P., Hermy, M., Hubert, G. (2002). Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 129–145.

46. Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U. K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., & Randrup, T. B. (2010). Factors influencing the use of green space:Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130–137.

47. Scholes, R.J., Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Spierenburg, M.J., Duriappah, A. (2013). Multi-scale and cross-Multi-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 16-25.

48. Schröter, M., Barton, D.N., Remme, R.P., Hein, L. (2014). Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: a conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators, 36, 539–551.

49. Schulp, C.J.E., Lautenbach, S., Verburg, P.H. (2014). Quantifying and mapping

Ecological Indicators, 36, 131–141.

50. Stępniewska, M. (2016). Ecosystem Service Mapping and Assessment as a Support for Policy and Decision Making. Clean–Soil, Air, Water, 44, 1414-1422.

51. Syrbe R-U, Walz U. (2012). Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics.

Ecological Indicators, 21, 80–88.

52. Villamagna, A.M., Angermeier, P.L., Bennett, E.M. (2013). Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 15, 114–121.

53. Wallace, K.J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions.

Biological Conservation, 139, 235-246.

54. Wei, H., Fan, W., Wang, X., Lu, N., Dong, X., Zhao, Y.N., Ya, X., Zhao, Y.F. (2017).

Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review.

Ecosystem Services, 25, 15-27.

55. Westman, W.E. (1977). How much are nature's services worth? Science, 197, 960-964.

56. Weyland, F. and Laterra, P. (2014). Recreation potential assessment at large spatial scales: A method based in the ecosystem services approach and landscape metrics.

Ecological Indicators, 39, 34-43.

57. Wilson, C.M. and W.H. Matthews (eds.). (1970). Man's impact on the global environment: report of the study of critical environmental problems (SCEP).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

58. Wolff, S., Schulp, C.J.E., Verburg, P.H. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services demand:

A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators, 55, 159-171.

附錄一、陽明山國家公園已知生態系統服務之文獻列表

編

編

編

編

號 年度 研究/計畫名稱 研究團隊/計畫主持/研究員 文獻來源 環境資源 生態系統服務

47 1998 陽明山國家公園遊憩區經營效益評估--龍鳳谷硫磺谷、

大屯、冷水坑遊憩區及擎天崗景觀區

陳育賢 陽明山國家公園研究報告 火山裸地 自然體驗、美學、教育

48 1997 陽明山國家公園竹子湖地區休閒農園遊憩型態之規劃研 究

林晏州 陽明山國家公園研究報告 農地 糧食

林晏州 陽明山國家公園研究報告 農地 糧食