Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136519
題名: 我國犬貓寵物認養推廣現況之探究— 社群媒體的應用
A Research on the Application of Social Media in Promoting Pet Adoption
作者: 張懷文
Chang, Huai-Wen
貢獻者: 朱斌妤
Chu, Pin-Yu
張懷文
Chang, Huai-Wen
關鍵詞: 犬貓寵物認養
混合研究法
社群媒體
動保組織
送養管道
Pet adoption
Mixed methods research
Social media
Animal welfare organization
Adoption channels
日期: 2021
上傳時間: 4-八月-2021
摘要: 我國於2017年實施收容動物零安樂死政策後,造成公立動物收容處所的超收問題,導致收容犬貓的福祉下降,為了解決該問題,提升犬貓的認養率是當務之急,而我國動保團體多年來為了提倡認養,發展出多元的認養管道,其中以社群媒體管道的應用最為廣泛。故此,本研究旨在了解我國犬貓寵物認養推廣的現況,以及分析社群媒體在其中的應用,以期為動保領域提供實務建議。\n為對認養人與送養人有更深入的理解,本研究採混合研究設計方法。以計畫行為理論為基礎設計網路問卷,分析影響認養人認養犬貓寵物的因素及人口特質,發現行為控制知覺是影響因素中分數最高的,自身的經濟能力和清楚的認養資訊影響最大,且填答者中以10歲到39歲的人有較高的認養意願;質化分析上,發現認養過程可分為:收容安置、送養、後續追蹤等三個階段,並且受訪者認為認養的資訊完整性、便利性、過程的複雜性會影響認養人的認養意願,且會透過增加組織的透明度、口碑,以及送養專業度來提升認養人對動保組織的信任。\n在社群媒體的應用部分,則可以發現社群媒體對於推廣犬貓認養有很大的幫助,社群媒體不僅是送養管道,也是行銷犬貓認養的媒介之一,其功能有傳播認養資訊、增加送養曝光度、塑造送養犬貓的正面形象以及提升組織知名度,然組織經營資源的局限、成員行銷知能的不足、目標群眾模糊,與行銷效益難以評估等因素,都使得社群媒體的應用成效不彰。\n本研究建議未來送養動保組織應進行人才的招募並培養成員能力,以解決人力與行銷能力不足之處;並對目標群眾進行調查,以助於和認養人進行溝通、了解需求,最大化行銷的效益。同時也建議政府未來應該持續加強遊蕩犬貓的源頭管理,並針對末端的動物收容場所進行優化、提升犬貓照護品質、持續發展多元送養管道、建立後續追蹤機制,並進行公私協力,善用民間資源。
The ban on stray animal euthanasia was enacted in 2017; however, lacking consideration to the actual circumstances, it has caused an overpopulation problem in public animal shelters and further led to a decline in the well-being of sheltered animals. In order to solve this problem, increasing the adoption rate of sheltered animals is the top priority. For decades, Taiwanese animal welfare organizations have developed various adoption channels to promote animal adoption, among all the channels, social media channel is the most widely used. Thus, this research aims to understand the current situation of animal adoption promotion in Taiwan, and the application of social media in it, with a view to providing practical advice in the field of animal protection.\nFor the purpose of having a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between adopters and shelters, this research adopted a mixed methods design. According to the theory of planned behavior, an online questionnaire was designed to analyze the factors and demographic characteristics that affected people’s behavior toward animal adoption. The result showed that perceived behavioral control had the highest score among influencing factors, indicating adopters’ economic conditions and clear adoption information had the greatest impact on their adoption behavior.\nMoreover, participants aged between10 to 39 years old had a higher willingness to adopt.\nIn qualitative analysis, findings indicated that the adoption process was divided into three phases: shelter and placement, adoption, and follow-up. Furthermore, the subjects stated that correct information and simple adoption process were likely to affect adopter’s willingness to adopt. As for the application of social media, according to the subjects, it was very useful in promoting pet adoption. Findings suggested that social media was not only a channel for adoption, but also a media for marketing. It was used to spread adoption information, increase the exposure of sheltered animals, shape the positive image of sheltered animals, and enhance the reputation of the organizations. However, findings also indicated limited resources of organizations, members’ lack of marketing capability, difficulty in defining target audience, and the dilemma of evaluating benefits, all hindered the application of social media.\nThis research suggested that animal welfare organizations should recruit more people, foster members’ capabilities, and investigate potential adopters. Besides, it also suggested that the government should continue to strengthen the management of stray animals, optimize the animal shelters, improve the living quality of sheltered animals, keep on developing diverse adoption channels, set up measures for following up on adopted pets, and establish public-private partnership with animal welfare organizations.
參考文獻: 中華民國保護動物協會(n.d.)。APA中華民國保護動物協會粉絲專頁,2021年7月3日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/APATW。\n中華民國流浪動物花園協會(n.d.)。中華民國流浪動物花園協會粉絲專頁,2021年7月3日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/doghome。\n巴克動物懷善救援協會(n.d.)。The PACK Sanctuary粉絲專頁,2021年7月3日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/thepacksanctuary。\n王淑卿、林雅容、嚴國慶、邱怡瑄(2018)。以大數據分析探討政府政策之推行—以台灣流浪動物零安樂死政策為例。資訊科技國際期刊,12(1),53-61。\n王凱弘、游耀華、黃鐸銘、范錚強(2020)。不信任對線上購物意圖之影響-兩岸消費者之比較研究。管理評論,39(3),29-57。\n王夢貞(2016)。以計劃行為理論探討消費者購買長期照顧保險意願之研究-以知覺風險為干擾變項(未出版之碩士論文)。樹德科技大學,高雄市。\n台灣收容動物關懷協會(n.d.)。貓狗同樂會(台灣收容動物關懷協會)粉絲專頁,2021年7月3日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/tsaca。\n台灣防止虐待動物協會(n.d.)。Taiwan SPCA 台灣防止虐待動物協會粉絲專頁,2021年7月3日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/taiwanspca。\n台灣諾亞方舟動物同樂協會(n.d.)。諾亞方舟動物同樂會粉絲專頁,2021年7月3日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/NAPA.NPO/。\n江義平、江孟璇、楊婉伶(2019)。社群媒體使用行為之構形探究。Electronic Commerce Studies,17(4),247-275。\n江義平、蔡坤宏、翁蕊、吳依柔(2018)。探索社群媒體行銷之品牌及社群效益:以知名品牌為例。行銷評論,15(4),417-461。\n江義平、蔡坤宏、黃琳涵、林楷傑(2017)。社群媒體行銷參與模式:成因與效益。創新與管理,13(1),55-95。\n自己的罐罐自己賺(n.d.)。自己的罐罐自己賺粉絲專頁,2021年6月22日,取自:https://www.instagram.com/earn_yourown_guanguan/?utm_medium=copy_link。\n行政院農委會動物保護資訊網(2020)。農委會督促地方政府落實收容動物管理 維護動物福利,2021年5月21日,取自:https:https://animal.coa.gov.tw/Frontend/News/Detail/N0000000000381。\n行政院農委會動物保護資訊網(n.d.)。108年度全國家犬貓數量調查結果統計表,2020年10月21日,取自:https://animal.coa.gov.tw/Frontend/Know/Detail/LT00000559?parentID=Tab0000004。\n行政院農業委員會(2017)。修正特定寵物業管理辦法 與時俱進加強源頭管理,2021年5月21日,取自:https://www.coa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=7099。\n行政院農業委員會(2019a)。動物福利白皮書。台北:行政院農業委員會。\n行政院農業委員會(2019b)。108年年報。台北:行政院農業委員會。\n行政院農業委員會全球資訊網(2016)。擴大犬隻絕育量能 動員全國獸醫師醫療資源投入重點區域,2021年5月21日,取自:https://www.coa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=6621&RWD_mode=Y&print=Y。\n吳立偉、王崇昱、江欣茹(2014)你今天 Facebook 了嗎? 影響社群媒體持續使用意圖之探索。東海管理評論,16(1),35-71。\n吳宗憲(2015)。「道」不同不相為謀?-「道德」影響動物保護政策委外可行性之研究。民主與治理,2(2),1-34。\n吳宗憲(2016)。【動物當代思潮】殞落了一位年輕獸醫師之後。天下雜誌獨立評論,2020年10月21日,取自:https://opinion.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/383/article/4306。\n吳宗憲(2018)。公民的支持,是政府管理私人動物收容所的最後一哩路。鳴人堂,2020年10月21日,取自:https://opinion.udn.com/opinion/story/10673/3365673。\n吳琬華(2016)。動物保護議題的社會行銷策略(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺南大學行政管理學系碩士班碩士論文,台南市。\n宋曜廷、潘佩妤(2010)。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊,55(4),97-130。\n李宜龍(2020)。爭議中的流浪動物管理條例,強制實施 TNVR 幫了誰又害了誰?泛科學網,2020年9月4日,取自:https://pansci.asia/archives/190992。\n李修慧(2017)。沒有你我配合的「零安樂死」,只會讓收容所的牠們更生不如死」。關鍵評論網,2020年10月21日,取自:https://www.thenewslens.com/article/60694。\n汪盈利(2015)。50年間消逝的生命:台灣流浪動物議題簡史。思想,29,99-115。\n周秀蓉、林思妤、蘇純儀、石達潔、陳姿岑、鄭伊珊(2012)。探討資訊品質、訊息來源可信度與網路口碑之相關性研究-以微網誌為例。商業現代化學刊,6(4),207-227。\n林哲寬(2018)。社群媒體魅力何在?探討社群媒體涉入的動機與個人幸福感(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北大學,新北市。\n林新沛、吳明峰(2008)。高雄市民飼棄養外來種寵物的認知與行為之研究。特有生物研究,10,41-52。\n林新沛、吳明峰(2010)。寵物認養網站會員認養寵物意向之研究。戶外遊憩研究,23(3),39-60。\n林銘輝(2002)。高雄市飼主帶家犬絕育之行為意向模式(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中山大學,高雄市。\n施伯燁(2014)。社群媒體—使用者研究之概念、方法與方法論初探。傳播研究與實踐,4(2),207-227。\n旅行養分(2015)。全台灣犬犬領養/認養 網路資訊大統整-領養代替購買,愛是不離不棄,2020年10月21日,取自:https://twtravelnutrients.blogspot.com/2014/11/blog-post_27.html。\n財團法人台灣網路資訊中心(2019)。2019台灣網路報告,2020年10月16日,取自:https://report.twnic.tw/2019/assets/download/TWNIC_TaiwanInternetReport_2019_CH.pdf。\n高浩剛、鄭秀芬、江長唐、楊銘賢(2014)。社群網站上訊息轉載意願影響因素之研究。Management,21(4),365-390。\n國立教育廣播電台(2014)。動物認領養平台上線 鼓勵認養代替購買,2020年10月21日,取自:https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%8B%95%E7%89%A9%E8%AA%8D%E9%A0%98%E9%A4%8A%E5%B9%B3%E5%8F%B0%E4%B8%8A%E7%B7%9A-%E9%BC%93%E5%8B%B5%E8%AA%8D%E9%A4%8A%E4%BB%A3%E6%9B%BF%E8%B3%BC%E8%B2%B7-073733854.html。\n張藝耀(2015)。流浪動物可持續管理之模式探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立交通大學,新竹市。\n許丹薰(2006)。流浪犬領養者行為意向研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中山大學,高雄市。\n陳民峰(2017)。談流浪犬隻對人、環境與野生動物的影響與衝突面面觀,2020年10月6日,取自:https://wuo-wuo.com/report/57-comment/706-on-the-influence-of-stray-dogs-on-people-environment-and-wild-animals-and-conflict。\n陳尊鈺(2011)。非營利組織社群媒體行銷運用之研究-以Facebook為例(未出版之碩士論文)。中臺科技大學,台中市。\n陳照森(2012)。社群網站信任與科技接受模式之實證研究。全球商業經營管理學報,4,53-66。\n陳筠凡(2018)。工作犬計畫執行成效及關鍵因素分析:以 A 市為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。\n陳穎芃(2010)。影響民眾到公立動物收容所認養犬隻之因素探討(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中山大學,高雄市。\n馮天昱、陳玉華(2015)。社群行銷之網路互動性與訊息論點品質對購買意願的影響效應。資訊傳播研究,5(2),47-71。\n黃麗鈴(2019)。從社會科學研究典範質量之辯探析混合研究。臺灣教育評論月刊,8(6),163-177。\n楊雅婷、唐功培、李啟仁、吳潔人、蘇維文、許怡欣(2018)。非營利組織社群媒體的健康資訊傳播:以某醫學大學醫療體系健康公益粉絲團經營為例。醫務管理期刊,19(3),175-191。\n楊銘賢、吳濟聰、高慈薏(2013)。社會行銷與社群媒體之研究:認同突顯觀點。輔仁管理評論,20(1),41-61。\n楊銘賢、吳濟聰、高慈薏(2013)。社會行銷與社群媒體之研究:認同突顯觀點。輔仁管理評論,20(1),41-61。\n萬文隆(2004)。深度訪談在質性研究中的應用。生活科技教育月刊,37(4),17-23。\n葉力森(2000)。良好的公立動物收容所,2020年10月21日,取自:https://www.east.org.tw/action/1147。\n監察院(2011)。流浪犬調查報告,2020年10月30日,取自:https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBoxContent.aspx?s=1086。\n遠東百貨高雄大遠百(2021)。遠百愛的串連!浪愛有家公益認養會活動專頁,2021年6月22日,取自:https://fb.me/e/3F29NmNHW。\n劉仲矩、林宜慧(2015)。臉書使用者價值與忠誠度關聯研究:網路信任的干擾效果。企業管理學報,(104),43-72。\n劉珈延(2004)。動物保護法立法前後公私協力關係之研究-以棄犬問題處理為個案分析(未出版之碩士論文)。國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,花蓮縣。\n劉韻容(2018)。民營動物收容所之法制建置:以《動物保護法》第14條為中心(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,台北市。\n蔡岳庭(2009)。台灣民眾寵物飼養行為之研究:計畫行為理論之應用(未出版之碩士論文)。世新大學,台北市。\n衛生福利部疾病管制署(2018)。狂犬病疾病介紹,2020年10月21日,取自:https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/iHUOIaLSAbQowJjnNGH2uQ。\n鄭雲珊、許秉瑜、劉育津(2014)。社群網站使用者個人價值與需求之探究。Electronic Commerce Studies,12(1),51-72。\n鄭靜婷(2008)。以計劃行為理論探討寵物飼養之持續意圖(未出版之碩士論文)。東吳大學,台北市。\n賴佳吟、梁定澎、謝乙丞(2016)。社群網站使用者動機和資訊特性對於使用者資訊推薦意圖影響之研究。商略學報,8(3),135-158。\n賴曉嫻(2019)。難解的保育議題:遊蕩犬貓與原生物種的生存拉鋸戰。關鍵評論網,2019年6月12日,取自https://www.thenewslens.com/article/120566。\n謝志偉(2007)。教育研究典範的未來趨勢混合方法論介紹。屏東教育大學學報,26,175-194。\n魏淑惠、石振國(2017)。政府推動認養代替購買寵物之政策行銷分析。中華行政學報,20,151-168。\n#領養代替購買(n.d.)。#領養代替購買主題標籤,2021年6月22日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/%E9%A0%98%E9%A4%8A%E4%BB%A3%E6%9B%BF%E8%B3%BC%E8%B2%B7。\nAji, A. P. (2019). The role of social media in shaping the animal protection movement in indonesia. Jurnal Studi Komunikasi, 3(3), 389-401.\nAjzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg, DE: Springer.\nAjzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20(pp. 1-63). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.\nAllison, H. (2019). #PawnderAdoption Creating a Public Relations Campaign to Increase Adoption Rates Among Shelters in the United States. Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects.\nASPCA (n.d.). 5 Social Media Tips to Promote Animals for Shelters or Rescues. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://www.aspcapro.org/resource/5-social-media-tips-promote-animals.\nBalcom, S., & Arluke, A. (2001). Animal adoption as negotiated order: A comparison of open versus traditional shelter approaches. Anthrozoös, 14(3), 135-150.\nBauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking”, In R. S. Hancock( Ed.). Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World. Chicago, IL: America Marketing Association, pp.389-398.\nBowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative ResearchJournal, 9(2), 27-40.\nBoyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Retrived October, 21, 2020, from http://www2.pathfinder.org/site/DocServer/m_e_tool_series_indepth_interviews.pdf.\nCheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H. (2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth: Informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13(4), 9-38.\nCreswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research: Developments, debates, and dilemmas. Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry, 315-326.\nDeLeeuw, J. L. (2010). Animal shelter dogs: Factors predicting adoption versus euthanasia. Wichita, KS: Wichita State University.\nDuggan, M., Ellison, N. B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2015). Social media update 2014. Pew Research Center, 19, 1-2.\nEdge Research (2018). Effectiveness of Social Media Use on Impact of Animals Shelters and Rescue Organizations. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://aspca.app.box.com/s/eu6xvozxrlzytjdhkox9hg0ski6fgklh.\nGarrison, L., & Weiss, E. (2015). What do people want? Factors people consider when acquiring dogs, the complexity of the choices they make, and implications for nonhuman animal relocation programs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 18(1), 57-73.\nGefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) . Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90.\nGhotbabadi, A. R., Feiz, S., & Baharun, R. (2016). The relationship of customer perceived risk and customer satisfaction. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1 S1), 161.\nGreen, D. O., Creswell, J. W., Shope, R. J., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Grounded theory and racial/ethnic diversity. The Sage handbook of grounded theory, (Part V), 472-92.\nHope For Paws - Official Rescue Channel (2015). Hope For Paws: A severely matted poodle gets rescued and then makes a transformation of a lifetime! Retrieved July, second, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBqTNuMhWEA.\nJensen, J. B., Sandøe, P., & Nielsen, S. S. (2020). Owner-Related Reasons Matter more than Behavioural Problems— A Study of Why Owners Relinquished Dogs and Cats to a Danish Animal Shelter from 1996 to 2017. Animals, 10(6), 1064.\nJohnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.\nKaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.\nLampe, R., & Witte, T. H. (2015). Speed of dog adoption: Impact of online photo traits. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 18(4), 343-354.\nLepper, M., Kass, P. H., & Hart, L. A. (2002). Prediction of adoption versus euthanasia amongdogs and cats in a California animal shelter. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5(1), 29-42.\nMenon, V., & Muraleedharan, A. (2020). Internet-based surveys: relevance, methodological considerations and troubleshooting strategies. General Psychiatry, 33(5).\nMiller, D. (2010). Nonprofit organizations and the emerging potential of social media and internet resources. SPNHA Review, 6(1), 4.\nSaravanakumar, M., & SuganthaLakshmi, T. (2012). Social media marketing. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 4444-4451.\nSpiegelhoff, J. M. (2016). A social marketing plan for the Lester C. Howick Animal Shelter. Retrieved October 29, 2020, from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1631.\nTashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 61-77.\nTashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2009). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods, 2, 283-317.\nWeiss, E., Miller, K., Mohan-Gibbons, H., & Vela, C. (2012). Why did you choose this pet?: Adopters and pet selection preferences in five animal shelters in the United States. Animals, 2(2), 144-159.\nYen, S. C., Ju, Y. T., Shaner, P. J. L., & Chen, H. L. (2019). Spatial and temporal relationship between native mammals and free-roaming dogs in a protected area surrounded by a metropolis. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-9.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
107256015
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107256015
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
601501.pdf6.43 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.