新冠疫情爆發，全球對於韌性的意識逐漸提高。隨著後疫情時代的到來，除了如疫情般的突發性危機之外，還有許多長期正在發生的問題需要被關注。在台灣的經濟發展下，鄉鎮正面臨人口外移、少子化與人口老化等衝擊，每個鄉鎮內也存在著各自需要因應的課題，因此本研究從「鄉鎮韌性」的概念著手，定義鄉鎮韌性為「鄉鎮中的個人與群體在面對無論是突發性狀況還是長期性永續問題時，都能因應、適應和轉型的能力」，希望能藉由提升鄉鎮的韌性能耐進而促進鄉鎮永續發展。帶著這樣的概念，本研究走入新竹縣北埔鄉的場域，在服務主導邏輯的系統觀及價值共創理論下，探討在一個具有歷史人文縱深和產業演化脈絡的鄉鎮生態系統，面對短期危機與長期性永續問題時，內部行動者該如何保有韌性，及早發掘問題，並進一步因應、適應與轉型，進而達到鄉鎮永續發展的目標。
因此，本研究透過行動設計研究方法，與在地組織逐步形成行動者網絡，以「共創能讓在地人感知、供鄉鎮校準與評量韌性能耐，促進鄉鎮韌性的機制」為研究主軸，歷經14次不斷循環迭代的過程，與研究團隊逐步藉由在地組織訪談、世界咖啡館形式的圓桌會議等方式，將在地關注的永續議題轉化為教育與文化、文化與商業、社會共融、經濟與環境、治理等五大主題、11個向度30項指標的韌性鄉鎮指標架構。
在指標建構完成後，為了找出在地行動者填答指標的意義和意願的關鍵因素，本研究聚焦於在地組織填報指標的實際案例洞察，經歷多次的填報測試與優化，完成填報表單的設計、指標填答流程的文本指引與填報網站架。作為後續社會韌性研究計畫在韌性標章設計、認證作業和認證組織等工作的基礎。總體而言，本研究在學術上加深服務主導邏輯與行動設計研究於韌性研究的實踐應用，闡述鄉鎮韌性不同於城市韌性之核心價值，並在實務上提供鄉鎮組織以及地方創生工作者，強化韌性能耐，促進永續發展的指引。

With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the global awareness of resilience has been gradually increasing. With the arrival of the post-pandemic era, in addition to sudden crises such as epidemics, there are many long-term ongoing problems that need to be considered. Under the economic development, in Taiwan, townships are facing impacts, such as population declination, low birth rate, and aging population. Each township also has its own issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, this study starts with the concept of "township resilience" and defines township resilience as "the ability of individuals and groups in a township to respond, adapt, and transform in the face of both sudden crises and long-term sustainable problems." It is hoped that sustainable development can be promoted by enhancing the resilience of townships. With such a concept in mind, this study entered the field of Beipu Township in Hsinchu County. With the system view of Service-Dominant Logic and the theory of value co-creation, we explored a township ecosystem to understand how actors identified problems ahead, and responded, adapted, and transformed to achieve its sustainability while facing short-term crises or long-term sustainability problems.
With the Action Design Research (ADR) approach, this study gradually formed an actor network with local organizations, focusing on "jointly developing resilient township indicators that can be perceived by local people, providing townships to use as a guideline for calibrating action plans and evaluating resilience." Through 14 iterative cycles, the research team gradually converged local sustainability issues into five major themes, 11 dimensions, and 30 indicators of resilient township indicators, including education and culture, culture and business, social inclusion, economy and environment, and governance.
After the formation of indicators, in order to identify the key factors that determine the meaning and willingness of local actors to complete the indicators, this study focuses on the insights of local organizations engaging with the reporting process of resilience indicators. After multiple rounds of testing and optimization, the design of the survey form, the guidelines for reporting evidences according to corresponding indicators, and the structure of the website were completed. These works will serve as the basis for the follow-up social resilience research project in the work of resilience identifier design, the certification process, and the formation of certification agency. In conclusion, this research has deepened the practical application of Service-Dominant Logic and Action Design Research in resilience research, explained the core values of township resilience that differ from urban resilience in academia, and provided a guidance for township organizations and local revitalization workers to strengthen resilience and promote sustainable development.

一、中文文獻與參考資料

1. 王欣 (2019)。災害風險溝通在韌性社區工作坊之探討。國立台灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2x3t99
2. 吳學明 (2000)。金廣福墾隘研究 (上) 、 (下) 。新竹縣立文化中心。
3. 吳映嫺 (2019)。行動設計研究方法於場域服務創新之實作：以新竹縣大山背區域為例。國立清華大學服務科學研究所碩士論文，新竹市。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/kt3gf9
4. 李永展 (2015)。韌性城市的觀念與論點。余紀忠文教基金會。https://www.yucc.org.tw/info/3416
5. 國家發展委員會 (2018) 。地方創生國家戰略計畫 (108年1月3日核定本)。https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?icon=..pdf&n=MTA4MDEwM%2BmZouaguOWumi3lnLDmlrnlibXnlJ%2FlnIvlrrbmiLDnlaXoqIjnlaso5qC45a6a5pysKS5wZGY%3D&u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvMC8xMTUwMC9lOTkzMjYyOC1mNzY4LTQ5N2EtODE3OS1iMDA1MjU3MGEwNGYucGRm
6. 國家發展委員會 (n.d.)。核心目標11建構具包容、安全、韌性及永續特質的城市與鄉村。行政院國家永續發展委員會。 https://ncsd.ndc.gov.tw/Fore/SDG11
7. 新竹縣北埔鄉公所 (2019)。單位介紹：鄉村巡禮。新竹縣北埔鄉公所 (舊版網站) 。https://web.archive.org/web/20190502163031/http://www.beipu.gov.tw/beipu/home.jsp?mserno=200801160001&serno=200801170004&contlink=content%2Fintro4.jsp&menudata=BeipuMenu&level3=Y
8. 新竹縣政府行政處 (2023)。新竹縣13鄉鎮地方創生智庫分析報告。新竹縣政府行政處。https://gdd.hsinchu.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1381&sms=9543&s=248382
9. 廖家佳 (2017)。台灣慢城運動指標發展之研究-以苗栗三義鄉為例。國立中央大學客家語文暨社會科學學系客家研究碩士在職專班碩士論文，中壢市。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/pdehqp
10. 潘穆嫈、林貝珊、林元祥 (2016)。韌性研究之回顧與展望。防災科學(1)，53-78。https://dm.cpu.edu.tw/var/file/40/1040/img/737/123170876.pdf

二、英文文獻與參考資料

1. Community & Regional Resilience Institute. (2013). Definitions of community resilience: An analysis (A CARRI report) . Oak Ridge，TN: Author.
2. Copeland, S., Comes, T., Bach, S., Nagenborg, M., Schulte, Y., & Doorn, N. (2020). Measuring social resilience: Trade-offs, challenges and opportunities for indicator models in transforming societies. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, 101799.
3. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), 1-23.
4. Jun, H. J., & Conroy, M. M. (2014). Linking resilience and sustainability in Ohio township planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(6), 904-919.
5. Johnson, T. R., Henry, A. M., & Thompson, C. (2014). Qualitative indicators of social resilience in small-scale fishing communities: an emphasis on perceptions and practice. Human Ecology Review, 97-115.
6. Keck, M., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde, 5-19.
7. Mullarkey, M. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2015). Entering action design research. In New Horizons in Design Science: Broadening the Research Agenda: 10th International Conference, DESRIST 2015, Dublin, Ireland, May 20-22, 2015, Proceedings 10 (pp. 121-134). Springer International Publishing.
8. Maguire, B., & Hagan, P. (2007). Disasters and communities: understanding social resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, 22(2), 16-20.
9. Maclean, K., Cuthill, M., & Ross, H. (2014). Six attributes of social resilience. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(1), 144-156.
10. Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi‐layered social resilience: A new approach in mitigation research. Progress in development studies, 10(4), 283-293.
11. Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: some conceptual considerations. Journal of adolescent health.
12. Rockefeller Foundation. (2018). City Resilience Index. City Resilience Index.
https://www.cityresilienceindex.org/#/
13. Sharifi, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecological indicators, 69, 629-647.
14. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action design research. MIS quarterly, 37-56.
15. Spaans, M., & Waterhout, B. (2017). Building up resilience in cities worldwide–Rotterdam as participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme. Cities, 61, 109-116.
16. The Global Goals. (2022). Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities. The Global Goals. https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/11-sustainable-cities-and-communities/
17. Wardekker, A. (2023). Framing ‘resilient cities’: System versus community focused interpretations of urban climate resilience. In Urban Resilience: Methodologies, Tools and Evaluation: Theory and Practice (pp. 17-30). Cham: Springer International Publishing.