PPGIS與傳統民眾參與方式在社區議題討論與居民參與程度上之比較研究：以宜蘭縣龜山島社區為例

Abstract

隨著近年民主觀念高漲，民眾參與社區規劃與發展之比例逐年提升，而公眾參與地理資訊系統（public participation geographic information systems, PPGIS）因可結合民眾參與精神與地理資訊技術，且能做為權益關係人與公共事務參與者之溝通論述平台，故在國內外被廣泛使用。然而PPGIS 由於技術門檻與電腦硬體建置資本頗高，故相對於其他傳統民眾參與方式之實質效用並不清楚。有鑑於此，本研究以宜蘭縣頭城鎮龜山島社區為例，以社區規劃為主要議題，比較傳統民眾參與方式與PPGIS 之議題生成與居民參與效果。研究中利用：(1)口頭參與；(2)參與式紙本製圖（抽象繪製）；(3)參與式紙本製圖（參考地圖與相關文獻繪製）等三種不需使用網路與電腦技術之傳統民眾參與方式；以及(4)配合照片展示之網際網路PPGIS 平台進行參與等操作方法進行逐戶個別訪談與群體討論。結果顯示個別訪談與群體討論在居民參與程度上，因社區型態與人為因素影響而各有優劣。而以PPGIS 平台搭配地圖、向量圖層與照片進行討論之方式，相對於口頭討論或搭配地圖進行討論等傳統參與方式更能引發參與者之聯想力，並能增加討論之深度與廣度。然而由於不同參與者對四種討論方式之適應性不同，故本研究建議在操作方式選用上應保持彈性，除同時交叉使用多種操作方式進行訪談，並將結果整合於PPGIS 平台上，以增加受訪者對環境之感受與對回答問題之敏銳度以外，亦可檢核不同方式所產生之效果差異，此均有助於居民意識之完整呈現。而此研究結果，將可提供政府機關與社區發展相關單位，在未來欲採用PPGIS 與其他不同類型方式為意見溝通平台時作為參考之用。

Following the substantial raising of modern democracy consciousness in the last two decades, people’s participation in public affairs has become the mainstream of community development, especially by widely using Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS). However, due to barriers of PPGIS technique and high cost of computer hardware deployment, so many communities in Taiwan could not get good efforts by applying this tool. In order to compare the real benefits of PPGIS-based approach and traditional public participation approaches and to clearly identify the appropriate real-time platform in different stage of participatory planning process, this study introduced four different approaches: (1) direct oral participation ; (2) handy-drawing participation (without maps); (3) handy-drawing participation (with reference maps); (4) PPGIS platform with photographs into community planning issues of Gueshan Island Community in Yilan County. The results showed that individual interviews and group discussions will lead to completely different conclusions because of the complex human factors. Different approaches were also suitable to encourage maximum public participation during different phases of the planning process. In the very beginning stage, traditional approaches (e.g., direct oral interview and handy-drawing interview) are suitable to present the most realistic viewpoints of residents. Otherwise, PPGIS platform with active maps, interactive visualization, vector layers and photos will bring more imagination and greater depth of discussion. However, due to different participant’s adaptability of four approaches, this study recommended that communities should keep flexibility when choosing approaches for discussion. Besides, integrating the results on PPGIS platform would be a better way to negotiate with government and specialist.