政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/154206
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113303/144284 (79%)
Visitors : 50812699      Online Users : 842
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/154206


    Title: 私有古蹟保存的「被古蹟」現象：審議民主系統取向中的行政視角
    The “Forced Historic Site” Phenomenon in Preservation of Private Historic Sites: An Administrative Perspective within the Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy
    Authors: 謝孟樺
    Hsieh, Meng-Hua
    Contributors: 黃東益
    Huang, Tong-Yi
    謝孟樺
    Hsieh, Meng-Hua
    Keywords: 文化資產治理與協力
    私有古蹟保存
    被古蹟
    文化資產審議
    審議系統
    governance and collaboration in cultural heritage
    private historic sites
    forced historic site
    cultural heritage review
    Deliberative Systems
    Date: 2024
    Issue Date: 2024-11-01 11:05:53 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在我國的私有古蹟保存議題上，長年存在著名為「被古蹟」的現象——私所有人伴隨著「資訊的不對等」，以及私所有人之間的「意見整合困難」，私有的民宅或古厝最終在無法獲得應有補償的情況下「被迫成為古蹟」。然而歷經了近三十年的調整，在制度已然合理化的當今，私有古蹟為何仍無法「有效保存」？藉此，本研究藉由對於私有古蹟保存制度變遷之歷史研究，結合基隆市定古蹟「修竹居」之個案研究，進而發現私有古蹟保存的「被古蹟」現象是由「歷史造成的古蹟容積移轉不易達成」，再加上「私有古蹟保存決策場的失靈與修補」，如此交織而形成的。基於前述發現，本研究提出幾項建議：透過「文化教育的改善」以促進公民社會的文化意識提升；容積移轉相關法規與機制的全面性檢討並拓展其他文化資產保存施政財務來源；設置「後設審議機制」的獨立查核小組或委員會以提升審議品質；辦理「文化資產保存創新公共審議活動」與設立「文化資產保存中介組織」，進而促進公民社會的溝通；研議「被古蹟」案例解除「古蹟身份」的新機制。藉此，透過本研究的五項建議，冀盼未來能使得「被古蹟」現象消除，並促進私有古蹟的「有效保存」。
    In the issue of preserving private historic sites in our country, there has long been a phenomenon known as "forced historic site"—where private owners, facing "information asymmetry" and "difficulty in reaching consensus" among owners, ultimately find their private houses or ancient residences "forced into becoming historic sites" without adequate compensation. Despite nearly thirty years of adjustments and the rationalization of the current system, why is it that private historic sites still cannot be "effectively preserved"? To explore this, the study conducts historical research on the institutional changes in the preservation of private historic sites, complemented by a case study of the designated historic site "Xiuzhuju" in Keelung City. The study finds that the "forced historic site" phenomenon in private historic sites preservation arises from "Transferable Development Rights for historic sites, difficult to implement due to historical factors" combined with "failures and repairs in the decision-making field of private historic sites preservation," creating a complex situation. Based on these findings, the study presents several recommendations: enhancing "cultural education" to improve cultural awareness within civil society; comprehensive review of the regulations and mechanisms relating to Transferable Development Rights and expanding other financial sources of governance for the preservation of cultural heritage; forming independent audit teams or committees as part of a "meta-deliberation mechanism" to elevate the quality of deliberations; organizing "innovative public deliberation activities for cultural heritage preservation" and establishing "intermediary organizations for cultural heritage preservation" to foster communication within civil society; and discussing a new mechanism for removing "historic sites status" from cases of "forced historic site." Through these five recommendations, it is anticipated that the phenomenon of "forced historic site" can be eradicated in the future, thereby promoting the "effective preservation" of private historic sites.
    Reference: 中文部分
    文化部（未註明）。成立沿革。檢索於2024年2月29日。https://www.moc.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=102
    文化資產局臺灣世界遺產潛力點（未註明）。公約宣言－威尼斯憲章 1964。檢索於2024年2月29日。https://twh.boch.gov.tw/taiwan/learn_detail.aspx?id=38
    王志弘（2010）。文化如何治理？一個分析架構的概念性探討。世新人文社會學報，11，1-38。
    王俐容（2006）。文化公民權的建構：文化政策的發展與公民權的落實。公共行政學報，（20），129-159。
    司法院（2021）。大法官解釋釋字第813號。2021年12月24日。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/ExContent.aspx?media=print&ty=C&CC=D&CNO=813
    行政院（2019）。《文化基本法》—再造文化治理，落實文化公民權。行政院，2019年7月5日。https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/1b2f62e3-34dc-45f5-881c-8d6cec9de090
    吳泰焜（2011）。公私協力與私有古蹟維護管理之研究~以桃園縣國定二級古蹟李騰芳古宅為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
    吳澤玫（2021）。多元社會的政治統合－審議民主系統取向的觀點。政治與社會哲學評論，75，129-187。
    吳澤玫（2022）。論審議的多元溝通模式。政治大學哲學學報，47，153-200。
    李宗勳（2009）。公民社會與社區參與－從心態期待到空間讓渡。公共行政學報，（30），131-148。
    沈舒琳（2020）。私有古蹟指定法律爭議及指定後保存之法制研究－以臺中市立古蹟瑞成堂為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中正大學。
    阮怡婷、謝宜臻、薛惟中、劉蘭辰（2018）。老屋留下了，然後呢？居住權與文史保存的拔河，2018年3月21日。https://unews.nccu.edu.tw/unews/老屋留下了，然後呢？居住權與文史保存的拔河/
    周睦怡、吳勁毅（2015）。公民參與和地方治理。新作坊，2015年4月。https://www.hisp.ntu.edu.tw/news/epapers/28/articles/85
    林仁傑（2006）。解釋過去／瞭解現在／預測未來──論歷史研究的典範轉移及對教育史研究的啟示。教育研究集刊，52（3），73–101。
    林智勝（2015）。析論行政院組織法修正的偏差動員影響。國會月刊，43（8），19-34。
    林會承（2023）。台灣文化資產保存史綱【增訂版】。台北：遠流。
    邱慧珠（2019）。公民參與文化資產保存審議之研究-以民主立方體為分析取徑〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學。
    施佳良、杜文苓（2017）。環境管制行政的科學技術框架與決策僵局：六輕工安事件環評過程析論。公共行政學報，（52），81-111。
    柯于璋（2019）。我國都市更新利益與分配正義之研究。都市與計劃，46（3），221-247。
    洪一珍（2022）。私有古蹟保存過程與再利用之研究--以「傳統宅第」苗栗苑裡山腳蔡氏濟陽堂為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立聯合大學。
    洪進東（2014）。歷史街區活化之研究-以大稻埕迪化街為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北科技大學。
    胡秀燕（2021）。文化資產保護與衝突之調和－以指定古蹟及歷史建築為研究範圍〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。
    范玫芳（2023）。公共行政與治理的共同演變：審議的轉向與價值共創。載於吳重禮、吳文欽、張廖年仲（編），政治學的現況與展望（頁343-363）。台北：五南。
    范玫芳、張簡妙琳（2021）。從審議系統觀點探討臺灣邵族傳統領域治理與公民行動。臺灣民主季刊，18（2），37-77。
    郁良溎（2018）。民主治理之制度變動如何可能？以台北市文化資產審議委員會為例〔論文發表〕。第十屆發展研究年會台灣經驗2.0: 在地與全球的發展研究與實踐，252-263。
    夏鑄九（1998）。臺灣的古蹟保存：一個批判性回顧。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，（9），1-9。
    徐明莉、莊文忠（2018）。台灣民眾的公民意識與公民參與〔論文發表〕。2018年「政治變遷與公民意識」學術研討會，5月31日至6月1日，台北。
    財團法人蘆洲李宅古蹟維護文教基金會（未註明）。基金會介紹。檢索於2024年4月20日。https://www.luchoulee.org.tw/page/index/基金會介紹.html
    國家文化資產網（未註明）。修竹居。檢索於2024年2月29日。https://nchdb.boch.gov.tw/assets/overview/monument/20210330000001
    張國暉（2019）。從政府治理到轉型研究及風險治理：來自系統、科技與頑強問題的新刺激。思與言：人文與社會科學期刊，57（3），233-285。
    張鐙文（2021）。網絡觀點下的跨地方服務協議：檢視影響地方行動者之網絡連結的關鍵因素〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立政治大學。
    許育典、李惠圓（2006）。多元文化國下建築文化資產保存的建構。臺灣土地研究，9（2），75-96。
    許育典、凌赫（2015）。古蹟審議與判斷餘地。東海大學法學研究，（46），115-150。
    許政明（2017）。臺灣文化資產保存管理維護相關之研究-以私有古蹟為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄大學。
    郭立偉（2018）。搶救暫定古蹟相關問題之研究－從法規及制度反省出發。台北海洋科技大學學報，9（2），70-88。
    郭淳瑜（2021）。從系統觀點探討文資保存的政策與策略〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立暨南國際大學。
    陳金貴（2013）。治理之理論與發展。公共治理季刊，1（1），25-36。
    陳凱俐、林亞立（2002）。文化資產之價值評估－以臺北市古蹟為例。宜蘭技術學報，（9），131-146。
    陳敦源（2004）。人民、專家與公共政策：民主理論下的“參與式知識管理”。國家政策季刊，3（1），99-133。
    陳敦源（2019）。民主治理：公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和（3版）。台北：五南。
    傅凱若（2019）。民主創新與公共價值創造的實踐—以臺灣都會區參與式預算為例。臺灣民主季刊，16（4），93-141。
    鈕文英（2023）。質性研究方法與論文寫作（四版）。台北：雙葉書廊。
    黃東益、李翰林、施佳良（2007）。“搏感情”或“講道理”？公共審議中參與者自我轉化機制之探討。東吳政治學報，25（1），39-71。
    楊方婷（2009）。積極公民概念架構的建構〔論文發表〕。2009年南台灣社會發展學術研討會，10月16日，屏東。
    楊佳燕（2012）。古蹟指定及歷史建築登錄之法律性質。臺灣博物季刊，31（3），36-43。
    楊明華（2009）。有關文化的100個素養 (Vol. 2)。新北：驛站文化事業有限公司。
    劉俊裕（2011）。歐洲文化治理的脈絡與網絡：一種治理的文化轉向與批判。Intergrams，11（2），1-15。
    蔡宏政（2009）。公共政策中的專家政治與民主參與：以高雄「跨港纜車」公民共識會議為例。臺灣社會學刊，43，1-42。
    謝孟樺（2023）。「被古蹟」過程的公私價值衝突與協商：基隆市定古蹟「修竹居」為例〔論文發表〕。2023臺灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會年會暨「一甲子公共行政學發展的回顧與延伸－持續催化臺灣公共治理的實務與研究」國際研討會，9月15-16日，台北。
    謝儲鍵、張鐙文、陳敦源（2018）。臺灣公共行政領域智識流動的研究：治理概念擴散與連接之初探。行政暨政策學報，（66），39-83。
    譚雅晴（2022）。文化資產保存法下的建物保存決策〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立政治大學。

    外文部分
    Ahlfeldt, G. M., & Maennig, W. (2010). Substitutability and complementarity of urban amenities: External effects of built heritage in Berlin. Real Estate Economics, 38(2), 285-323.
    Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities. London, England: Verso.
    Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.
    Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.
    Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952.
    Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J., Mansbridge, J., Mansbridge, J., & Warren, M. (2018). Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction. In, A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 1-32). Oxford University Press.
    Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.
    Bennett, T. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In Grossberg, L., Nelson, C, & Treicher, P. (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 22-37). London: Routledge.
    Bennett, T. (1995). The birth of museum: History, theory, politics. London and New York: Routledge.
    Bimber, B. (1996). The politics of expertise in congress: The rise and fall of the office of technology assessment. Stanford University Press.
    Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
    Boswell, J., Hendriks, C. M., & Ercan, S. A. (2018). Message received? Examining transmission in deliberative systems. In J. Boswell, C. M. Hendriks, & S. A. Ercan (Eds), Deliberative systems in theory and practice (pp. 263-283). London: Routledge.
    Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.
    Boyd, D. (2014). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
    Brown, G. W., McLean, I., & McMillan, A. (2018). The concise Oxford dictionary of politics and international relations. Oxford University Press.
    Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53.
    Byrne, J. P. (2014). Precipice Regulations and Perverse Incentives: Comparing Historic Preservation Designation and Endangered Species Listing. Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev., 27, 343.
    Chwalisz, C. (2019). A new wave of deliberative democracy. Carnegie Europe, 26, 1-6.
    Cicero, M. T. (1927). Tusculan disputations (Vol. 18). W. Heinemann.
    Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.
    Coulson, N. E., & Lahr, M. L. (2005). Gracing the land of Elvis and Beale Street: historic designation and property values in Memphis. Real Estate Economics, 33(3), 487-507.
    Coulson, N. E., & Leichenko, R. M. (2004). Historic preservation and neighbourhood change. Urban Studies, 41(8), 1587-1600.
    Curato, N., Marit, H., & John, B. M. (2019). Power in deliberative democracy: Norms, forums and systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Dotson, K. (2014). Conceptualizing epistemic oppression. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 115-138.
    Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press.
    Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance (online ed.). Oxford University Press.
    Dryzek, J. S. (2012). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford University Press.
    Dryzek, J. S., Bowman, Q., Kuyper, J., Pickering, J., Sass, J., & Stevenson, H. (2019). Deliberative global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Elstub, S., Ercan, S. A., & Mendonça, R. F. (2019). The fourth generation of deliberative democracy. In Deliberative systems in theory and practice (pp. 1-13). Routledge.
    Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Sage Publications.
    Fan, M. F. (2024). Reclaiming energy justice in Taiwan? Insights on deliberation democracy from the Thao Tribe's renewable energy initiative. Energy Research & Social Science, 111, 103485.
    Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Sage Publications.
    Flew, T. (1998). Government, citizenship and cultural policy: expertise and participation in Australian media policy, European Journal of Cultural Policy, 4(2), 311-327.
    Frederickson, H.G., Smith, K.B., Larimer, C., & Licari, M.J. (2016). The public administration theory primer (3rd ed.). Routledge.
    Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66-75.
    Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41.
    Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications.
    Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)
    Habermas, J. (2022). Reflections and Hypotheses on a Further Structural Transformation of the Political Public Sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 145-171.
    Hahn, C. (2008). Doing qualitative research using your computer: A practical guide. Sage Publications.
    Henwood, K. (2004). Reinventing validity: Reflections on principles and practices from beyond the quality-quantity. In Z. Todd, B. Nerich, S. Mckeown, & D. D. Clarke (Eds.), Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice (pp. 37-57). Routledge.
    Hester, R. (2018). Historical research: Theory and methods. ED-Tech Press.
    Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science. London, England: Routledge.
    Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223-244.
    Kaestle, C. E. (1997). Recent methodological developments in the history of American education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 119–132). American Educational Research Association.
    Karpowitz, C. F., & Mansbridge, J. (2005). Disagreement and consensus: The need for dynamic updating in public deliberation. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 1(1), 348-364.
    Kaul, I., Grunberg, I., & Stern, M. A. (1999). Global public goods: International cooperation in the 21st century. Oxford University Press.
    King, N., Brooks, J., & Tabari, S. (2018). Template Analysis in Business and Management Research. In M. Ciesielska, & D. Jemielniak (Eds.), Qualitative methodologies in organization studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
    King, N., Horrocks, C., & Brooks, J. (2018). Interviews in qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
    Kjaer, A. M. (2004). Governance: Key concepts. Polity.
    Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: a critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum Papers Volume, 47(1), 1-247.
    Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. United States: The University of Chicago Press.
    Leach, M., & Scoones. I. (2005). Science and Citizenship in a Global Context. In M. Leach, I. Scoones & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 15-38). London: Zed Books.
    Leichenko, R. M., Coulson, N. E., & Listokin, D. (2001). Historic preservation and residential property values: an analysis of Texas cities. Urban Studies, 38(11), 1973-1987.
    Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
    MacMillan, M. (2010). The uses and abuses of history. Profile Books.
    Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., Thompson, D. F., & Warren, M. E. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson, & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research in education, history and the social sciences. Routledge.
    McGuigan, J. (1996). Culture and the public sphere. London: Routledge.
    Meredyth, D., & Minson, J. (2001). Citizenship and cultural policy. London, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
    Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. F. (1999). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
    Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
    Noonan, D. S. (2007). Finding an impact of preservation policies: price effects of historic landmarks on attached homes in Chicago, 1990-1999. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(1), 17-33.
    OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
    Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
    Parker, C., Scott, S., & Geddes, A., (2019). Snowball Sampling, In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J.W. Sakshaug, & R.A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations. Sage Publications.
    Quirk, P., Bendix, W., & Bächtiger, A. (2018). Institutional Deliberation. In, A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 273-299). Oxford University Press.
    Renn, O., Klinke, A., & van Asselt, M. (2011). Coping with Complexity, Uncertainty and Ambiguity in Risk Governance: A Synthesis. Ambio, 40, 231–246.
    Robinson, D. (2021). Explainer: What is the ‘tragedy of the commons’? Earth.Org, September 5. https://earth.org/what-is-tragedy-of-the-commons/
    Saldana, J., & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage Publications.
    Schutt, R. K. (2012). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (7th ed.). Pine Forge Press.
    Setälä, M., & Smith, G. (2018). Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. In, A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 300-314). Oxford University Press.
    Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1988). Understanding and conducting qualitative research. Kendall/Hunt.
    Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
    Stevenson, H., & Dryzek, J. S. (2014). Democratizing global climate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Turner, S. (2003). Liberal democracy 3.0: Civil society in an age of experts. Sage Publications.
    Vierra, A., Pollock, J., & Golez, F. (1998). Reading educational research (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
    Waters, J. (2015). Snowball sampling: a cautionary tale involving a study of older drug users. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18, 367-380.
    White, H. R. (2019). How to study history when seeking truthfulness and understanding: Lessons learned from outside of academia. Amazon Publishing.
    Wilson, J. Q. (1986). American Government: Institutions and Policies. (3rd ed.). Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company.
    Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Sage Publications.
    Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
    Young, I. -M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
    Yüksel, P., & Yildirim, S. (2015). Theoretical frameworks, methods, and procedures for conducting phenomenological studies in educational settings. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1), 1–20.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政學系
    110256008
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110256008
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Public Administration] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    600801.pdf6275KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback