| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中山大學 === 海洋事務研究所 === 101 === The purpose of conducting this qualitative research is fourfold: first to explore the applying scale about marine indicators; secondly to study the environmental, economic and social outcomes of overall plan of applying construction funds and regulations in Matsu area; thirdly to suggest the feasibility of adopting the RDEC marine development indicators to assess Matsu area; fourthly to analyze the assessment of Olsen’s ICM policy cycle about action and integrated indicators in Matsu area. The goal is to understand if the applying scale about marine indicators from a national level is suitable to a local area to administer the sustainable development in Matsu through the comparison between our country and other places.
According to the research, Mainland China is to blame for marine pollution and fishery decline in Matsu. Matsu’s economy relies heavily on tourism. However, the lack of human resources and the unreliability of air transportation increase the difficulties of future development in Matsu. Currently, the government put most of emphasis on sea transportation. Due to the lack of financial aid, casino has become one of the hopes to boost up the future economy development in Matsu. Matsu society is now facing several challenges: gender imbalance, difficulty of finding spouses, population aging, declining birth rate and lack of medical care. It’s beneficial to add up ‘Welfare economics’ issue while applying Matsu for UNESCO World Heritage site. Besides, small women-running shops can also rebuild the look of military base to attract more women to settle down in Matsu.
How workable an indicator will be is usually based on information transparency and integrated document processing. No indicator is universal. Overall evaluation and careful calculation need to be considered before applying different ocean indicators to measure a national level and local level areas simultaneously. It has bee a packing comparing ICM through RDEC marine development indicators between our country and others, similar to EU’s (European Unit) investigation. It seems that no formal indicator has been adopted to the analysis at both local and national levels. The indicator selection process may need to be taken part by stakeholder widely, be clearly defined, and be weighted according to the interaction among the different indicators. Assessing data from public websites will increase the reliability and transparency of policies. A large scale of indicators can show the trend about development of nations; meanwhile, a small scale of indicators can measure key-point issues. Changing sustainability indicators annually conform to the actual situations within assigning an authority. In recent years, sustainability indicators from human-centered have converted to ecological-centric.
|
|---|
