本研究以社會資本探討路殺社的經營公民科學計畫，透過問卷、觀察及訪談，評估路殺社員們在社會資本的關係層面中信任、認同、規範及互惠面向的程度，並也探討互動品質跟互動頻率對社會資本的影響，並了解這些面向與路殺社員之間的關聯性。

研究結果顯示，路殺社社會資本的信任、認同、規範及互惠等面向有高度的評價，在虛擬社群上的互動品質跟活動頻率，還有加強的空間。社員們對於路殺社成果給予肯定，路殺社運用社會資本除了進行公民科學計畫也增強社員對生態及環境教育的認識並有態度、行為上改變。路殺社結合路殺社員的社會資本，運用路殺社自身社會資本與社會網路的聯繫，從未與團體互動的孤立團體，變成團體間的領導新平台，並架起橋樑，變成團體間及政府單位間，對於道路改善、自然資源管理的領導新平台。

本研究針對社會資本方面，對於路殺社提出建議有:1.路殺社臉書社團以資訊交流分享為主，可增加其他生態、環境教育貼文2.開放路殺社公用冰箱點位3.增加網路或傳統媒體推廣或邀請資深路殺社員，擔任路殺社推廣教師 4.舉辦娛樂性或競賽性的路殺或道路調查比賽。希望藉本研究能夠提供路殺社行政團隊，經營管理虛擬社群的參考，提供給其他同屬虛擬社群的公民科學計畫參考。

關鍵字: 虛擬社群、路殺社、公民科學、社會資本、社會資本網路

The study aims to discuss the management of the Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network’s Social Capital Network. The Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network is originally a Facebook group. Its group members mostly are in the fields of ecology and environmental protection. Through this group, members work together to share relevant information on roadkill incidents in Taiwan as well as assist one another in the mission of roadkill observation, citizen science, and environmental education. Further, the study analyses the frequency and quality of group discussions based on this social media platform to understand the connection among the members of the Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network.

The results showed that through this type of social capital network, participants are encouraged to help one another for roadkill specimen for preservation although the quality and frequency in the virtual world may need further improvements such as more concrete and detailed comments for any roadkill incidents. More specifically, the Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network’s Social Capital Network sets up an eco-friendly path to mitigate roadkill challenges. Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network combines the social capital and isolated groups through links among these social links. It is a new platform of the leadership among these groups and bridges among them. This new platform takes the leadership in road improvement and natural resource management and is an important agent to communicate with a government for the relevant issues.

Based on the social capital communication, the current study offers some suggestions as follows: 1) The Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network may offer more posts related to other environmental issues and environmental education. 2) Regarding the specimen preservation, it is recommended to offer more public fridges to the group participants in order to ease the process of preservation of dead animals. 3) The more senior participants can voluntarily to work as trainers or tutors to promote citizen science and environmental education. 4) It is recommended to start out with some competitive activities on roadkill investigation in order to increase possible participants’ interests and provide more concrete programs and proposals to other similar social capital networks on roadkill observation.
 

摘要…………………………………………………………………………………… IV
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………Ⅴ

目錄…………………………………………………………………………………….Ⅵ
表錄…………………………………………………………………………………….Ⅸ
圖目錄………………………………………………………………………………….Ⅹ
一、緒論…………………………………………………………………………………1
(一) 研究動機……………………………………………………………………… …1
(二) 研究背景……………………………………………………………………… …3
1.本研究背景簡介………………………………………………………………………3
(三) 研究目的……………………………………………………………………… …4
二、文獻探討……………………………………………………………………………5
(一) 公民科學(Citizen science) ………………………………………………… 5
1.國內外公民科學計畫簡介……………………………………………………………5
(二) 公民科學計畫的成效評估……………………………………………………….9
1.參與公民科學計畫的科學態度、素養變化評量………………………………….10
2.公民科學計畫的監測物種的目標達成度………………………………………….11
3.參與公民科學計畫對民眾社會資本及社區能力的影響………………………….12
(三) 社會資本…………………………………………………………………………14
1.社會資本（Social Capital）…………………………………………………… 14
2.社會資本網路（Social Capital Network）…………………………………… 18
3. 社會資本對於自然資源管理的影響……………………………………………..22
三、研究方法……………………………………………………………………… …25
(一) 研究架構……………………………………………………………………… 25
(二) 研究對象……………………………………………………………………… 26
(三) 研究資料收集方法………………………………………………………………26
1.問卷調查法（Questionnaire Survey）………………………………………….26
2.參與觀察法（Participant Observation）…………………………………….28
3.半結構式的訪談（Semistructured Interviews）……………………........28
四、研究流程………………………………………………………………………….31
五、研究結果與討論………………………………………………………………… 32
(一)、路殺社(臺灣野生動物路死觀察網) 歷程……………………………......33
(二)、問卷調查分析………………………………………………………………… 40
1.問卷調查者基本資料……………………………………………………………… 41
2.問卷調查結果……………………………………………………………………… 42
(三)、訪談結果與討論……………………………………………………………….48
1.路殺社員之參與動機……………………………………………………………… 48
2.路殺社成員的關係維繫與運作方式……………………………………………… 49
(1) 從事路殺調查中常見挫折……………………………………………………… 49
(2)遇見挫折後仍持續路殺調查的原因…………………………………………… 50
(3)社會資本的認同面向………………………………………………………………51
(4)社會資本的規範面向………………………………………………………………52
(5)社會資本的信任面向………………………………………………………………53
(6)社會資本的互惠面向………………………………………………………………54
3.環境教育面向……………………………………………………………………… 56
五、綜合討論………………………………………………………………………….60
(一)、路殺社成員互動關係討論…………………………………………………… 60
(二)、路殺社社會資本網路建構的過程及變化…………………………………...64
(三)、公民科學實體社群跟虛擬社群比較………………………………………… 72
六、結論……………………………………………………………………………….77
(一)、參與路殺社動機及維繫運作過程…………………………………………….77
(二)、公民科學家的社會資本:信任、認同、規範、互惠…………………………78
(三)、路殺社的社會資本…………………………………………………………….79
(四)、路殺社經營…………………………………………………………………….80
七、建議……………………………………………………………………………… 81
(一) 對臉書社團的經營………………………………………………………….81
(二) 特殊物種的處理…………………………………………………………………81
(三) 增加推廣度………………………………………………………………….81
(四) 舉辦多元性調查比賽……………………………………………………….81
(五) 未來研究建議……………………………………………………………….81
八、引用文獻………………………………………………………………………….84
(一) 中文文獻…………………………………………………………………………84
(二) 英文文獻…………………………………………………………………………84
(三) 網路資源…………………………………………………………………………87

(一) 中文文獻
王中天 (2003)。社會資本 (Social Capital): 概念, 源起, 及現況。問題與研究，42(5)，139-163。
江明修、陳欽春 (2005)。充實社會資本之研究，新世紀第二期國家計畫研擬，專題研究系列III：社會法政篇。行政院經濟建設委員會，177-252。
肖冬平 (2011)。基于社会网络视角的知识网络研究。北京市:人民出版社。
吳明隆 (2011)。論文寫作與量化研究 (第3版)。台北市: 五南。
邱皓政 (2002)。量化研究與統計分析。台北市: 五南。
張震元、林冠吟 (2008)。影響使用者參與虛擬社群因素之研究。銘傳大學資訊管理研究所，真理大學會計資訊系。
彭姿文 (2013)。臉書使用者心流經驗、虛擬社群意識對社群互動影響關係之研究。(碩士)，國立中山大學，高雄市。
楊冠政 (1997)。環境教育。台北市:國立編譯館。
楊懿如、張志忞 (2012)。運用公民科學協助臺灣蛙類保育。國家公園學報，22(4)，55-62。
蔡家安、康贊清、洪新原(2011)。從社會資本的互惠規範觀點探討虛擬社群中知識品質的影響因素。電子商務學報，13(1)，217-239。


(二) 英文文獻
Armstrong, A. G. a. H. I., John. (1997). Net gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities(16th ed.). Harvard Business School Press, Boston,.
Blanchard, A. L. (2007). Developing a sense of virtual community measure. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 827-830.
Bodin, Ö., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective?. Ecology and Society, 11(2).
Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2008). Management of natural resources at the community level: exploring the role of social capital and leadership in a rural fishing community. World development, 36(12), 2763-2779.

Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?. Global environmental change, 19(3), 366-374.
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977-984.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, 248-249.
Braschler, B. (2009). Successfully implementing a citizen-scientist approach to insect monitoring in a resource-poor country. BioScience, 59(2), 103-104.
Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121.
Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192-197.
Coleman, J. (1988). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 302.
Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2006). What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and society, 11(2).
Droege, S. (2007). Just because you paid them doesn’t mean their data are better. Paper presented at the Proceedings, Citizen Science Toolkit Conference. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. www. birds. cornell. edu/citscitoolkit/ conference/ proceeding-pdfs.
Forman, R. T. T., & Deblinger, R. D. (2000). The Ecological Road-Effect Zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) Suburban Highway
Friedman, A. (2008). Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. Retrieved December, 8, 2008.
Fukuyama, F. (1998). Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity New Century Publishing.
Gallo, T., & Waitt, D. (2011). Creating a successful citizen science model to detect and report invasive species. BioScience, 61(6), 459-465.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference.
George, R., & Kaplan, D. (1998). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education, 82(1), 93-109.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 1-23.
Janssen, M. A., Bodin, Ö., Anderies, J. M., Elmqvist, T., Ernstson, H., McAllister, R. R., ... & Ryan, P. (2006). Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1).
Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703-710.
Johnson, M. F., Hannah, C., Acton, L., Popovici, R., Karanth, K. K., & Weinthal, E. (2014). Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for environmental advocacy. Global Environmental Change, 29, 235-245.
Jordan, R. C., Ballard, H. L., & Phillips, T. B. (2012). Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen-science learning outcomes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 307-309.
Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R., & Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2011). Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen‐science programs. Conservation Biology, 25(6), 1148-1154.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Understanding seeking from electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(11), 1156-1166.
Kettl, D. F. (2004). Environmental governance: a report on the next generation of environmental policy: Brookings Institution Press.
Kramer, A. D., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788-8790.
Kramer, B. (2015). Shareology: How sharing is powering the human economy: Morgan James Publishing.
Laverack, G. (2001). “An identification and interpretation of the organization alaspects of community empowerment.”. Community development, 36(2), 40-52.
Lewandowski, E. J., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2017). Butterfly citizen scientists in the United States increase their engagement in conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 106-112.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.
Lin, N. (1999). Social Structure and Actions. UK. Cambridge University Press.
McCaffrey, R. E. (2005). Using citizen science in urban bird studies. Urban habitats, 3(1), 70-86.
Messmore, A. B. (1996). Measuring the impact of grassroots outreach. Science Communication, 17(4), 430-442.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management 23, 243-266.
Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S., & Crowston, K. (2012). The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 298-304.
Overdevest, C., Orr, C. H., & Stepenuck, K. (2004). Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecology Review, 11(2), 177-185.
Pattengill-Semmens, C. V., & Semmens, B. X. (2003). Conservation and management applications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program Coastal Monitoring through Partnerships (pp. 43-50): Springer.
Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World development, 29(2), 209-227.
Pretty, J., & Smith, D. (2004). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation biology, 18(3), 631-638.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change: Springer Science & Business Media.
Phillips, T., Bonney, R., Shirk, J., Dickinson, J., & Bonney, R. (2012). What is our impact? Toward a unified framework for evaluating impacts of citizen science. Citizen Science: public participation in environmental research.
Putnam, R. (1995). "Tuning In, Turning Out: The Strange Disapperance
of Social Capital in America”. Political Science and Ploitics, 28, 664-683.
Savan, B., Morgan, A. J., & Gore, C. (2003). Volunteer environmental monitoring and the role of the universities: the case of Citizens' Environment Watch. Environmental management, 31(5), 0561-0568.
Simmel, G. (2004). The philosophy of money: Psychology Press.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.
Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10(1), 00-00.


(三) 網路資源
台灣野生動物路死觀察網Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network https://roadkill.tw/occurrence

California Roadkill Observation System
http://www.wildlifecrossing.net/california/

Cornell Lab of Ornithology - Cornell University
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/Page.aspx?pid=1478

Roadkill.at: Karte http://roadkill.at/en/

Roadkilltas.com www.roadkilltas.com/

Zooniverse http://www.zooniverse.org/project