在氣候調適與城市韌性成為重要治理目標的背景下，都市公園逐漸被期待成為承載自然解方的重要場域。然而，多數公園並非可從零設計的空間，而是一個由既有配置、管理制度與使用慣習長時間堆疊而成的治理現實。當以科研計畫為主導的生態營造進入都市公園場域，其能否在計畫結束後持續發生，成為一個關鍵卻少被討論的問題。本研究以新北市中和四號公園「韌性都市林」行動為案例，聚焦一項由政府科研計畫啟動、但在期滿後仍持續進行的公園實作歷程。研究者於計畫結束後持續留在場域中，透過參與式行動研究與都市生活實驗室取徑，結合長期參與觀察、行動紀錄、訪談與文件分析，並與公園管理單位、社區大學、志工與專業者協作，追蹤生態營造行動在制度性資源撤出、協作關係鬆動與治理責任未明的情境下，如何被延續、調整或受限。
本研究顯示，韌性都市林在四號公園中的推進，不僅是單純的生態技術問題，而是一個深受既有治理結構影響的行動過程。計畫型治理的時間尺度，與都市公園生態累積與關係建立所需的長期尺度之間存在明顯錯位；當計畫結束、MOU到期且人員異動時，原先依附於計畫架構的協作關係迅速鬆動，形成「下放責任但未同步下放資源」的治理困境，使生態營造多半只能在既有使用秩序與管理邏輯的縫隙中推進。在科研計畫結束後，轉而透過社區大學體系持續行動的志工與專家成為連結專業知識、公園管理與日常使用實踐的重要中介者，透過多層次、多樣性植栽、落葉回歸、草地管理與灌叢營造等日常實作，逐步累積生態知識、行動經驗與社會學習，形成支撐行動持續的治理能量。然而，這類動能高度依賴少數核心行動者的投入，缺乏可被交接與承載的制度條件，使其延續性始終處於不穩定狀態。本研究指出，自然解方在一般都會公園中的實作，關鍵不在於技術是否正確，而在於是否能透過學習與知識累積，逐步轉化為可支撐行動延續的治理條件；四號公園的經驗因此提供了一個理解自然解方在都市公園尺度中實際運作限制與治理張力的關鍵經驗起點。

As climate adaptation and urban resilience have become central governance objectives, urban parks are increasingly expected to function as key sites for implementing Nature-based Solutions (NbS). Yet parks are not spaces that can be designed from scratch; they are governance realities shaped over time by existing spatial configurations, management regimes, and everyday use practices. When ecologically oriented, research-driven interventions are introduced into such settings, a critical but underexplored question emerges: can these interventions continue once the formal project period has ended?
This study examines the “Resilient Urban Forest” initiative at Zhonghe No. 4 Park in New Taipei City as a core case. Focusing on a park-based action that was initiated through a government-funded research program but continued beyond its formal completion, the research follows the period after project closure as a distinct analytical moment. Adopting a participatory action research and urban living lab approach, the researcher engaged in long-term fieldwork post-project, utilizing observation, interviews, and document analysis. Working in collaboration with park management authorities, a community university, volunteers, and professionals, the study traces how ecological practices were sustained, adjusted, or constrained under conditions of institutional withdrawal, weakened collaboration, and unclear governance responsibilities.
The findings show that the advancement of a resilient urban forest in Zhonghe No. 4 Park was not merely a technical ecological endeavor but a governance-dependent process shaped by existing institutional arrangements. A clear mismatch emerged between the short horizons of project-based governance and the long-term temporal requirements of ecological processes and social relationship-building. When the project concluded—marked by the expiration of formal cooperation agreements and personnel turnover—collaborative arrangements tied to the project framework quickly loosened, producing a situation in which responsibilities were devolved without corresponding resources. As a result, ecological interventions were largely pushed to proceed within the interstices of existing use patterns and managerial logics.
After the research program ended, volunteers and experts who continued their activities through the community university system became key intermediaries linking professional knowledge, park management, and everyday use practices. Through routine actions such as diversified planting, leaf-litter retention, grassland management, and shrub cultivation, they gradually accumulated ecological knowledge, practical experience, and processes of social learning, generating a form of governance capacity that supported continued action. However, this capacity remained highly dependent on a small number of core actors and lacked institutional arrangements that could carry or transfer these practices over time, rendering its continuity inherently fragile.
This study argues that the viability of NbS in ordinary urban parks depends less on the correctness of ecological techniques than on whether learning processes and locally accumulated knowledge can be translated into governance conditions capable of sustaining action. The experience of Zhonghe No. 4 Park thus provides a critical empirical entry point for understanding the operational limits and governance tensions of Nature-based Solutions at the urban park scale.

Abbott, A. （1995）. Things Of Boundairies. Social Research, 62（4）, 857–882.
Adib, M., Wu, H., & Flohr, T. （2023）. Professional perceptions of participatory practices in green stormwater infrastructure development. PLOS Water, 2（3）, e0000084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000084
Akram, M. T., Khan, M. M., Nabi, T., Qadri, R., Al-Maskri, A., & Khan, M. A. （2025）. Miyawaki technique for sustainable urban greening and ecological restoration: A review. CABI Reviews, 20（1）, 0028. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabireviews.2025.0028
Alamenciak, T. （2024）. Volunteer Participation in Ecological Restoration: Motivations, Organizations, and Conviviality. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/20371
Amin, A. （2014）. Lively Infrastructure. Theory, Culture & Society, 31（7–8）, 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414548490
Anand, N., Gupta, A., & Appel, H. （2018）. Promise of Infrastructure. https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478002031
Angelo, H. （2021）. How Green Became Good: Urbanized Nature and the Making of Cities and Citizens. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo61910401.html
Anguelovski, I., & Connolly, J. J. （2024）. Segregating by Greening: What do We Mean by Green Gentrification? Journal of Planning Literature, 39（3）, 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122241227804
Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Cole, H., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Baró, F., Martin, N., Conesa, D., Shokry, G., del Pulgar, C. P., Ramos, L. A., Matheney, A., Gallez, E., Oscilowicz, E., Máñez, J. L., Sarzo, B., Beltrán, M. A., & Minaya, J. M. （2022）. Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nature Communications, 13（1）, 3816. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. （2021）. Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. （1996）. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Diduck, A. P., Doubleday, N. C., Johnson, D. S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E. W., & Wollenberg, E. K. （2009）. Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7（2）, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089
Barron, S., Rugel, E., Cheng, Z., Nesbitt, L., Sheppard, S., Czekajlo, A., & Girling, C. （2023）. Achieving the Urban Tree Trifecta: Scenario Modelling for Salubrious, Resilient, and Diverse Urban Forests in Densifying Cities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, jauf.2023.022. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2023.022
Beatley, T. （2011）. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning. Island Press.
Belfield, A. （2025）. Co-learning in living labs: Nurturing civic agency and resilience. Buildings & Cities, 6（1）. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.631
Benedict, M. A., McMahon, E. T., & Fund, M. A. T. C. （2012）. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press.
Benedict, M., & McMahon, E. （2002）. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Green-infrastructure%3A-smart-conservation-for-the-Benedict-McMahon/d3ffd8fd69927b6f8bd9db05b6a539e550d5748d
Bosch, P. （1999）. Environmental indicators:Typology and overview—European Environment Agency [Publication]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25
Brand, R., & Karvonen, A. （2007）. The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary knowledges for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 3（1）, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2007.11907989
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. （2006）. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3（2）, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brink, E., & Wamsler, C. （2018）. Collaborative Governance for Climate Change Adaptation: Mapping citizen–municipality interactions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28（2）, 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1795
Bulkeley, H., & Broto, V. C. （2013）. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38（3）, 361–375.
Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Marvin, S., McCormick, K., van Steenbergen, F., & Voytenko Palgan, Y. （2016）. Urban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003
Caddy, I. （2001）. Orphan knowledge: The new challenge for knowledge management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2（3）, 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930110399987
Cárdenas, M. L., Wilde, V., Hagen-Zanker, A., Seifert-Dähnn, I., Hutchins, M. G., & Loiselle, S. （2021）. The Circular Benefits of Participation in Nature-Based Solutions. Sustainability, 13（8）, 4344. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084344
Carse, A. （2012）. Nature as infrastructure: Making and managing the Panama Canal watershed. Social Studies of Science, 42（4）, 539–563.
Cecchi, C. （2015）. Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities. https://doi.org/10.2777/479582
Ceseracciu, C., Branca, G., Deriu, R., & Roggero, P. P. （2023）. Using the right words or using the words right? Re-conceptualising living labs for systemic innovation in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 104, 103154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103154
Cho, I. S., & Ho, K. C. （2020）. Participatory Design to Co-create Community Spaces. In C.-H. Leong & L.-C. Malone-Lee （Eds.）, Building Resilient Neighbourhoods in Singapore: The Convergence of Policies, Research and Practice （pp. 81–99）. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7048-9_6
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. （2017）. Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12（3）, 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Cohen-Shacham, E. （2016）. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges [Resource]. https://iucn.org/resources/publication/nature-based-solutions-address-global-societal-challenges
Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O’Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D. J., Welz, A., & Wilhelm-Rechman, A. （2008）. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105（28）, 9483–9488. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706559105
Cranz, G. （1982）. The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America. The MIT Press. https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5052/The-Politics-of-Park-DesignA-History-of-Urban
Cranz, G., & Boland, M. （2004）. Defining the sustainable park: A fifth model for urban parks. Landscape Journal, 23（2）, 102–120.
Czekajlo, A., Alva, J., Szeto, J., Girling, C., & Kellett, R. （2023）. Impact of 2050 tree shading strategies on building cooling demands. Buildings and Cities, 4（1）, 817–837. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.353
Darch, P. T. （2018）. When Scientists Become Social Scientists: How Citizen Science Projects Learn About Volunteers. International Journal of Digital Curation, 12（2）, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v12i2.551
David, J., Cabral, P., & Campos, F. S. （2024）. Humans versus models: A comparative assessment of ecosystem services models and stakeholders’ perceptions. Scientific Reports, 14（1）, 25995. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76600-w
Denis, J., & Pontille, D. （2015）. Material Ordering and the Care of Things. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40（3）, 338–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914553129
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation （European Commission）, Davis, McKenna, Burgos Cuevas, Natalia, De Vreese, Rik, Lupp, Gerd, Maestre-Andrés, Sara, Xidous, Dimitra, & Zingraff-Hamed, Aude. （2025）. Co-creating nature-based solutions with commonly excluded stakeholders: Insights from practice and research. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/4288584
Dowling, E. （2026）. The boundary-work of volunteering and the value of unwaged work in the dual crisis of care. The Sociological Review, 74（1）, 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261241305259
Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J. M. N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., Fady, B., Grube, M., Keune, H., Lamarque, P., Reuter, K., Smith, M., van Ham, C., Weisser, W. W., & Le Roux, X. （2015）. Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 24（4）, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.9
Elliott, I. C., Bottom, K. A., Carmichael, P., Liddle, J., Martin, S., & Pyper, R. （2022）. The fragmentation of public administration: Differentiated and decentered governance in the （dis）United Kingdom. Public Administration, 100（1）, 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12803
Elliott, S., Tucker, N. I. J., Shannon, D. P., & Tiansawat, P. （2023）. The framework species method: Harnessing natural regeneration to restore tropical forest ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 378（1867）, 20210073. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0073
Enneking, G., Custers, G., & Engbersen, G. （2025）. The rapid rise of social infrastructure: Mapping the concept through a systematic scoping review. Cities, 158, 105608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105608
European Network of Living Labs,ENoLL. （2020）. Living Lab Handbook: For Urban Living Labs Developing Nature-Based Solutions. European Network of Living Labs（ENoLL）. https://issuu.com/enoll/docs/ull_handbook_online_version
Evans, J., & Karvonen, A. （2014）. ‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!’—Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38（2）, 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12077
Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., De Boissezon, B., & Vandewoestijne, S. （2017）. Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environmental Research, 159, 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.032
Ferreira, I., Caitana, B., & Nunes, N. （2022）. Innovating with urban governance: Municipal committees for inclusive, nature-based solutions. 26.
Finlayson, M., Cruz, R. D., Davidson, N., Alder, J., Cork, S., Groot, Lévêque, C., Milton, G. R., Peterson, G., Pritchard, D., Ratner, B., Reid, W., Revenga, C., Rivera, M., Schutyser, F., Siebentritt, M., Stuip, M., Tharme, R., Butchard, S., & Taylor, D. （2005）. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis.
Fisher, D., Svendsen, E., & Connolly, J. （2015）. Urban Environmental Stewardship and Civic Engagement: How planting trees strengthens the roots of democracy. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315857589
Frantzeskaki, N. （2019）. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033
Gearey, M. （2020）. The Challenges of Changing Governance: Curating New Civic Identities for Health and Wellbeing. In N. Dempsey & J. Dobson （Eds.）, Naturally Challenged: Contested Perceptions and Practices in Urban Green Spaces （pp. 117–142）. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44480-8_6
Geneletti, D., Cortinovis, C., Orta-Ortiz, M. S., Kato-Huerta, J., Longato, D., & Falco, E. （2022）. Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions in Cities Through Performance-Based Planning: A Case Study in Trento, Italy. In I. H. Mahmoud, E. Morello, F. Lemes de Oliveira, & D. Geneletti （Eds.）, Nature-based Solutions for Sustainable Urban Planning: Greening Cities, Shaping Cities （pp. 19–46）. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89525-9_2
Georgi, B., Cartalis, C., & Sitzoglou, M. （2022）. How are UIA projects contributing to building resilient cities, adapting to the climate emergency? Urban Innovative Actions （UIA）. https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/thematic-knowledge/building-resilient-cities-adapting-climate
Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. （2010）. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69（6）, 1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
Guo, R.-Z., Song, Y.-B., & Dong, M. （2022）. Progress and Prospects of Ecosystem Disservices: An Updated Literature Review. Sustainability, 14（16）, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610396
Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. （2015）. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14（4）, 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. （2018）. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services （CICES） V5.1 Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. （2007）. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. Taylor & Francis.
Hansen, R., Buizer, M., Buijs, A., Pauleit, S., Mattijssen, T., Fors, H., van der Jagt, A., Kabisch, N., Cook, M., Delshammar, T., Randrup, T. B., Erlwein, S., Vierikko, K., Nieminen, H., Langemeyer, J., Soson Texereau, C., Luz, A. C., Nastran, M., Olafsson, A. S., … Konijnendijk, C. （2023）. Transformative or piecemeal? Changes in green space planning and governance in eleven European cities. European Planning Studies, 31（12）, 2401–2424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2139594
He, Y., Jorgensen, A., Sun, Q., Corcoran, A., Alfaro-Simmonds, M. J., He, Y., Jorgensen, A., Sun, Q., Corcoran, A., & Alfaro-Simmonds, M. J. （2022）. Negotiating Complexity: Challenges to Implementing Community-Led Nature-Based Solutions in England Pre- and Post-COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19（22）. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214906
Hester Jr., R. T. （2010）. Design for Ecological Democracy. The MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262515009/design-for-ecological-democracy/
Heynen, N., Perkins, H. A., & Roy, P. （2006）. The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban Green Space: The Impact of Political Economy on Race and Ethnicity in Producing Environmental Inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review, 42（1）, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087406290729
Hong, J. H. （2025）. When does employee turnover matter? Analyzing the role of organizational memory in the federal IT workforce. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35（4）, 434–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf019
Hopkins, L. P., January-Bevers, D. J., Caton, E. K., & Campos, L. A. （2022）. A simple tree planting framework to improve climate, air pollution, health, and urban heat in vulnerable locations using non-traditional partners. PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET, 4（3）, 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10245
Huvila, I. （2011）. The politics of boundary objects: Hegemonic interventions and the making of a document—Huvila—2011—- Wiley Online Library. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62（12）, 2528–2539.
Ingold, T. （2011）. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change （IPCC）. （2014）. Climate Change 2014 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects: Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Volume 1: Global and Sectoral Aspects （Vol. 1）. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379
Janse, G., & Konijnendijk, C. C. （2007）. Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry—Experiences from the Neighbourwoods project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6（1）, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.005
Jasanoff, S. （2005）. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. In Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States （Vol. 25）. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400837311
Jerome, G., Mell, I., & Shaw, D. （2017）. Re-defining the characteristics of environmental volunteering: Creating a typology of community-scale green infrastructure. Environmental Research, 158, 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.037
Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., & Bonn, A. （Eds.）. （2017）. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5
Kareborn, B. B., & Stahlbrost, A. （2009）. Living Lab: An open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1（4）, 356. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. （2005）. Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed （pp. 559–603）. Sage Publications Ltd.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. （2014）. The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2
Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C. F., Takahashi, W., & Wamsler, C. （2022）. Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32（3）, 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1987
Kotsila, P., Hörschelmann, K., Anguelovski, I., Sekulova, F., & Lazova, Y. （2020）. Clashing temporalities of care and support as key determinants of transformatory and justice potentials in urban gardens. Cities, 106, 102865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102865
Krause, F. （2015）. Making a reservoir: Heterogeneous engineering on the Kemi River in Finnish Lapland. Geoforum, 66, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.09.002
Krinsky, J., & Simonet, M. （2017）. Who Cleans the Park?: Public Work and Urban Governance in New York City. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo25338739.html
Lafortezza, R., Chen, J., van den Bosch, C. K., & Randrup, T. B. （2018）. Nature-based solutions for resilient landscapes and cities. Environmental Research, 165, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.038
Lane, M. B. （2005）. Public Participation in Planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36（3）, 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180500325694
Larkin, B. （2013）. The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42（Volume 42, 2013）, 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522
Latham, A., & Layton, J. （2019）. Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Geography Compass, 13（7）, e12444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12444
Lehmann, S. （2011）. The Principles of Green Urbanism: Transforming the City for Sustainability. https://www.routledge.com/The-Principles-of-Green-Urbanism-Transforming-the-City-for-Sustainability/Lehmann/p/book/9781844078349
Lejtenyi, P. （2023, January 10）. A Concordia urban forest-mapping project wraps up with help from public and private data—Concordia University. https://www.concordia.ca/news/stories/2023/01/10/a-concordia-urban-forest-mapping-project-wraps-up-with-help-from-public-and-private-data.html
Levitz, D. （2014）. The Role of Parks in Shaping Successful Cities. American Planning Association. https://www.planning.org/publications/document/9148662/
Li, J.-F., Liu, Y.-H., Su, S.-H., Lin, C.-L., & Wang, H.-H. （2025）. Differences in Environment-related Comfort Levels across Three Microenvironments in Taipei Botanical Garden. 台灣林業科學, 40（2）, 169–199. https://doi.org/10.7075/TJFS.202506_40（2）.0003
Li, Y.-L., Chen, Y.-M., & Koh, C.-N. （2025）. Comparing Ant Communities in Urban Green Spaces and Suburban Secondary Forests. 台灣林業科學, 40（2）, 133–168. https://doi.org/10.7075/TJFS.202506_40（2）.0002
Littke, H., Locke, R., & Haas, T. （2016）. Taking the High Line: Elevated parks, transforming neighbourhoods, and the ever-changing relationship between the urban and nature. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17549175.2015.1063532
Lyytimäki, J., & Sipilä, M. （2009）. Hopping on one leg – The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8（4）, 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003
Maes, J., & Jacobs, S. （2017）. Nature-based solutions for Europe’s sustainable development. CONSERVATION LETTERS. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12216
Mahmoud, I. H., Morello, E., Ludlow, D., & Salvia, G. （2021）. Co-creation Pathways to Inform Shared Governance of Urban Living Labs in Practice: Lessons From Three European Projects. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, 690458. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.690458
Marvin, S., Bulkeley, H., Mai, L., McCormick, K., & Palgan, Y. V. （Eds.）. （2018）. Urban Living Labs: Experimenting with City Futures. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315230641
McElwee, P. （2016）. Forests are Gold: Trees, People and Environmental Rule in Vietnam. University of Washington Press.
Melon, M., Sikorski, P., Archiciński, P., Łaszkiewicz, E., Hoppa, A., Zaniewski, P., Zaniewska, E., Strużyński, W., Sudnik-Wójcikowska, B., & Sikorska, D. （2024）. Nature on our doorstep: How do residents perceive urban parks vs. biodiverse areas? Landscape and Urban Planning, 247, 105059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105059
Moniz, G. C., Andersson, I., Hilding-Hamann, K. E., Mateus, A., & Nunes, N. （2022）. Inclusive Urban Regeneration with Citizens and Stakeholders: From Living Labs to the URBiNAT CoP. In I. H. Mahmoud, E. Morello, F. Lemes de Oliveira, & D. Geneletti （Eds.）, Nature-based Solutions for Sustainable Urban Planning: Greening Cities, Shaping Cities （pp. 105–146）. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89525-9_5
Mora Alvarez, N. （2020）. Volunteers engagement in Nature Based Solutions （NBS） in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/56562
Moskell, C., Allred, S. B., & Ferenz, G. （2011）. Examining Volunteer Motivations and Recruitment Strategies For Engagement in Urban Forestry. Cities and the Environment （CATE）, 3（1）. https://doi.org/10.15365/1932-7048.1056
Mostafavi, M., & Doherty, G. （2011）. Ecological urbanism. Lars Müller Publishers.
Neal, J. W., Neal, Z. P., & Brutzman, B. （2022）. Defining Brokers, Intermediaries, and Boundary Spanners: A Systematic Review. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 18（1）, 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426420X16083745764324
Nelson, M. （2018）. Embodied ecology: The eco-somatics of permaculture. Choreographic Practices, 9, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1386/chor.9.1.17_1
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D., Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., Kovacs, E., Krauze, K., Külvik, M., Rey, F., van Dijk, J., Vistad, O. I., Wilkinson, M. E., & Wittmer, H. （2017）. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of The Total Environment, 579, 1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106
Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. （2017）. Resilient Cities, Second Edition: Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence. Island Press.
Nichols, C. P., Drewe, J. A., Gill, R., Goode, N., & Gregory, N. （2016）. A novel causal mechanism for grey squirrel bark stripping: The Calcium Hypothesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 367, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.021
Noblega Carriquiry, A. （2024）. A Political Ecology of Nature-based Solutions: Empirical cases in Spain and Germany [Http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona]. In A Political Ecology of Nature-based Solutions: Empirical cases in Spain and Germany. https://recerca.uoc.edu/documentos/67a11708710c171504039569?lang=en
Norgaard, R. B. （2010）. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69（6）, 1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
Organ, J. F. （2020）. The Harvestable Surplus Concept Revisited. Fair Chase. https://www.boone-crockett.org/harvestable-surplus-concept-revisited
Paltseva, A. A. （2025）. Participatory science in urban soil research: A framework for overcoming challenges and expanding public engagement. iScience, 28（5）, 112361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112361
Pauleit, S., Zölch, T., Hansen, R., Randrup, T. B., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. （2017）. Nature-Based Solutions and Climate Change – Four Shades of Green. In N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler, & A. Bonn （Eds.）, Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice （pp. 29–49）. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_3
Peckham, S. C., Duinker, P. N., & Ordóñez, C. （2013）. Urban forest values in Canada: Views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12（2）, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.01.001
Polletta, F. （2006）. It Was Like a Fever. University of Chicago Press.
Pouyat, R. V., Day, S. D., Brown, S., Schwarz, K., Shaw, R. E., Szlavecz, K., Trammell, T. L. E., & Yesilonis, I. D. （2020）. Urban Soils. In: Pouyat, Richard V.; Page-Dumroese, Deborah S.; Patel-Weynand, Toral; Geiser, Linda H., Editors. 2020. Forest and Rangeland Soils of the United States under Changing Conditions: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis. Springer, Cham., 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45216-2_7
Preston, S. （2020）. Examining the role of community engagement in nature-based solutions [Mphil, University of Liverpool]. https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3101445
Puskás, N., Abunnasr, Y., & Naalbandian, S. （2021）. Assessing deeper levels of participation in nature-based solutions in urban landscapes – A literature review of real-world cases. Landscape and Urban Planning, 210, 104065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104065
Rathwell, K., Armitage, D., & Berkes, F. （2015）. Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of the environmental commons: A typology of settings. International Journal of the Commons, 9. https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.584
Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., Geneletti, D., & Calfapietra, C. （2017）. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
Reason, P. （1994）. Three approaches to participative inquiry. In Handbook of qualitative research （pp. 324–339）. Sage Publications, Inc.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. （2013）. The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. SAGE.
Register, R. （2006）. EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. New Society Publishers.
Ribeiro, I., Silva Lopes, H., Remoaldo, P. C., Ribeiro, V., Alves, J. A., & Silva, L. （2026）. Contribution of nature-based solutions （NbS） to resilience—A review of European projects between 2014 and 2023. Environmental Development, 57, 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2025.101367
Rogers, E. B. （2018）. Saving Central Park: A History and a Memoir. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
Rousell, D., Lasczik, A., Irwin, R. L., Peisker, J., Ellis, D., & Hotko, K. （2020）. Site/Sight/Insight: Becoming a Socioecological Learner Through Collaborative Artmaking Practices. In A. Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. Lasczik, J. Wilks, M. Logan, A. Turner, & W. Boyd （Eds.）, Touchstones for Deterritorializing Socioecological Learning: The Anthropocene, Posthumanism and Common Worlds as Creative Milieux （pp. 163–187）. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12212-6_7
Sacco, P. L., Tartari, M., Ferilli, G., & Blessi, G. T. （2019）. Gentrification as space domestication. The High Line Art case. Urban Geography. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02723638.2018.1502515
Sadeghian, M. M., & Vardanyan, Z. （2015）. A Brief Review On Urban Park History, Classification And Function. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, 4（11）, 120–124.
Schliwa, G. （2013）. Exploring Living Labs through Transition Management—Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Urban Transitions.
Scholl, C., & Kemp, R. （2016）. City Labs as Vehicles for Innovation in Urban Planning Processes | Article | Urban Planning. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/749
Seiwert, A., & Rößler, S. （2020）. Understanding the term green infrastructure: Origins, rationales, semantic content and purposes as well as its relevance for application in spatial planning. Land Use Policy, 97, 104785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104785
Sheftell, J. （2010, June 3）. Central Park: The world’s greatest real estate engine. New York Daily News. https://www.nydailynews.com/2010/06/03/central-park-the-worlds-greatest-real-estate-engine/
Shokry, G., Connolly, J. J., & Anguelovski, I. （2020）. Understanding climate gentrification and shifting landscapes of protection and vulnerability in green resilient Philadelphia. Urban Climate, 31, 100539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100539
Sidónio Pardal Jardim Botânico Coimbra. （2018）. Autochtonous Urban Forest—Urbinat. https://urbinat.eu/nbs/autochtonous-urban-forest/
Star, S. L. （2010）. This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35（5）, 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. （1989）. Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19（3）, 387–420.
Tegan, G. （2022, January 27）. Semi-Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/semi-structured-interview/
Teixeira, C. P., Fernandes, C. O., & Ahern, J. （2022）. Adaptive planting design and management framework for urban climate change adaptation and mitigation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 70, 127548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127548
Thompson, S., Vehkaoja, M., Pellikka, J., & Nummi, P. （2021）. Ecosystem services provided by beavers Castor spp. Mammal Review, 51（1）, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12220
Tracy, S. J. （2020）. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact.
Ummeh, S., & Toshio, K. （2017）. Classification of Urban Parks and their Regional Characteristics in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering B, 6（1）. https://doi.org/10.17265/2162-5263/2017.01.005
van der Jagt, A. P. N., Buijs, A., Dobbs, C., van Lierop, M., Pauleit, S., Randrup, T. B., & Wild, T. （2023）. An action framework for the participatory assessment of nature-based solutions in cities. Ambio, 52（1）, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01772-6
Vierikko, K. H., & Niemelä, J. K. （2016）. Bottom-up thinking—Identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue–green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland. Land Use Policy, 50, 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.031
Vogt, J., Nordgren, A., Cortez, C., & Reu, A. D. （2024）. Why Be a TreeKeeper? Connecting Involvement to Volunteer Characteristics and Motivations. Cities and the Environment （CATE）, 17（2）. https://doi.org/10.15365/cate.2024.170202
Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. （2016）. Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053
Walker, C. （2004）. The Public Value of Urban Parks: （717452011-001）. Institution: American Psychological Association. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/e717452011-001
Wamsler, C., Alkan-Olsson, J., Björn, H., Falck, H., Hanson, H., Oskarsson, T., Simonsson, E., & Zelmerlow, F. （2020）. Beyond participation: When citizen engagement leads to undesirable outcomes for nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation. Climatic Change, 158（2）, 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02557-9
Whyte （Jr.）, W. H. （1980）. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Conservation Foundation.
Willems, J. J., Molenveld, A., Voorberg, W., & Brinkman, G. （2020）. Diverging Ambitions and Instruments for Citizen Participation across Different Stages in Green Infrastructure Projects | Article | Urban Planning. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/2613
Yi, H., & Cui, C. （2019）. Coping with functional collective action dilemma: Functional fragmentation and administrative integration. Public Management Review, 21（7）, 1052–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1544271
 
大安森林公園之友基金會（2024）。財團法人大安森林公園之友基金會113年度工作報告。大安森林公園之友基金會。
王志弘、劉睿（2025）。動物性的差異問題化：三重區公園的松鼠、浪貓與鳥類。地理研究，81，137–167。https://doi.org/10.6234/JGR.202505_（81）.0005
王志弘、高郁婷（2022）。連屬公共性－新北市三重區公園／廟宇複合體的領域調適。地理學報，101，3–32。https://doi.org/10.6161/jgs.202204_（101）.0002
王志弘、高郁婷（2024）。都市公園作為協商多樣性的場域：新北市轉型城市地景個案研究. 地理研究，79，29–56。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2021）。生態造林作業原則。No.林造字第1101740476號。
台灣萊雅股份有限公司、社團法人中華民國荒野保護協會台北分會（2024）。台北市公園生態綠皮書。
吳恆毅、王羽霓（編）（2009）。中和自然風情探索：中和地區自然生態研究調查計畫。社團法人臺北縣中和市中和庄文史研究協會。
成其琳（1991）。都市公園系統規劃設計準則之硏究。內政部營建署。
余衡（2025）。蔓生自然：臺北市東南郊山生態公園的營造與維護。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所。
李永展、林士堅、黃慶銘（2008）。台北市永續發展指數之建構及應用。建築學報，65，1–26。https://doi.org/10.6377/JA.200809.0001
李文玉（編）（2016）。河濱生態漫遊：臺北市河濱生態導覽手冊。臺北市政府工務局水利工程處。
李玉華（2019）。〔環境萌芽〕還我特色公園行動聯盟：在城市肌理中植入遊戲種籽。載於反造再起：城市共生ING（頁228-256）。左岸文化。
李俊佑、林冠穎、洪庭毅、黃群涵（2022）。氣候變遷下的韌性都市林樹種的選擇困難－從準則的回顧到樹木特性資料的蒐集。林業研究專訊,，29（3），47–52.
李彥希（2023）都市綠地空間自然生態、景觀審美與地方依附之研究。戶外遊憩研究，36（3），37–70。https://doi.org/10.6130/JORS.202309_36（3）.0002
李津甫、王相華、劉宇軒、施郁庭（2023）。兩座不同植生結構都市公園之熱舒適度改善效果差異。台灣林業科學，38（4），289–302。https://doi.org/10.7075/TJFS.202312_38（4）.0002
李素馨、何孟修（2020）。翻轉罐頭遊具－由社會運動行動網絡探討遊戲場制度分析與發展架構。戶外遊憩研究，33（4），51-82。https://doi.org/10.6130/JORS.202012_33（4）.0003
李隆恩、陳淯婷、唐盛林、謝漢欽、彭炳勳（2021）。新北市中和公園樹木風險評估研究。中華林學季刊，54（1），17–28。
李麗雪（1995）。現行都市公園相關法規探討。戶外遊憩研究,，8（3），91–101。https://doi.org/10.6130/JORS.1995.8（3）5
李麗雪、張喬安（2022）。公園環境高齡友善評估準則建立之探討。造園季刊，7，40–55。
李燿成、朱韵奇、王云才（2021）。城市綠地植物多樣性對市民精神復癒的影響。中國城市林業，19（6），28-34。http://www.airitibooks.com/Detail/Detail?PublicationID=P20190823019
李盈潔、蔡雅妃（2023）。綠基盤因應氣候變遷之綜效、權衡與共效益初探：以臺北都會區為例。都市與計劃，50（2），195–218. https://doi.org/10.6128/CP.202306_50（2）.0003
周宛俞、洪詩涵、張俊彥（2022）。都市環境之健康景觀循證設計原則。造園季刊，7，1–13。
周素卿、盧鏡臣、岑崇恩（2021）。都市公園生態化及其發展脈絡：台北市生態公園的自然鑲嵌與社會特徵分析，都市與計劃，48（1），49–81。 https://doi.org/10.6128/CP.202103_48（1）.0003
邱清安、林鴻志、廖敏君、曾彥學、歐辰雄、呂金誠、曾喜育（2008）。臺灣潛在植群形相分類方案。林業研究季刊，30（4），89–112。
邱清安、藍梁文、徐憲生、陳韋志（2021）。臺灣都市林種植原生樹種之現況與展望。林業研究季刊，43（2），97–112。
邱祈榮、林郁庭（2024）。都市樹木之固碳能力推估－以臺北市大安森林公園為例。造園景觀學報，27（2），37–62。
林振鵬（2006）。都市綠地系統景觀結構與鳥類群聚之相關性—以台北市公園綠地為例。臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所學位論文。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.02612
林文源（2014）。看不見的行動能力：從行動者網絡到位移理論。中央研究院。https://gpi.culture.tw/books/1010300039
林昭男（2004）。鄰里公園認養志工之探討。臺北市政府九十一年度員工自行研究報告提要表。臺北市政府萬華區公所。
林芬郁（2024）。臺北市都市公園的歷史與地理空間解析。地理研究，9，145–187。https://doi.org/10.6234/JGR.202405_（79）.0006
侯錦雄、楊曉婷、黃章展、謝宗恒（2021）。以生態系服務概念發展都市公園景觀服務檢核工具。造園景觀學報，25（3），1–28。
洪詩涵、鐘文翎、張俊彥（2021）。都市之肺－運用注意力恢復力理論、偏好矩陣及八種感官知覺探討大安森林公園環境設計與配置。造園季刊，3，28–39。
胡淑貞、蔡詩薏（2004）。WHO健康城市概念。健康城市學刊，1，1–7。
翁佳音（2006）。大臺北古地圖考釋.。稻鄉。https://twstudy.iis.sinica.edu.tw/OldMap/doc/Taipei/Taipei01.htm
徐羽飛（2017）。植物寓意與景觀美質於臺北市公園綠地應用之探討。國立臺灣大學園藝暨景觀學系學位論文。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201701404
徐聖凱（2019）。日治時期臺灣的公共休閒與休閒近代化。臺灣師範大學歷史學系學位論文。https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU201900617
徐聖凱（2020）。日治時期都市公園的設施組成、休閒機能和活動變化。臺灣史研究，27（2），1–9。
郭瓊瑩、葉佳宗（2011）。自景觀生態取向之綠色基盤系統建設探討氣候變遷回應之城市治理。城市學學刊，2（1），31–63。https://doi.org/10.29853/JU.201103.0002
國史館臺灣文獻館（編）（2013）。臺臺灣地名辭書（卷十六：臺北縣）。國史館臺灣文獻館。
張易鴻（2022）。打造防災韌性城市－以新北市為例。中國行政評論，28（1），22–42。https://doi.org/10.6635/cpar.202203_28（1）.0002
陳亭妤（2018）。從公民與里長提案看臺北市參與式預算之推行。國立臺灣大學政治學系學位論文。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201802692
陳永修（2023）。以負面表列談植栽綠化的維管作業。林業研究專訊,，30（1），13–17。
黃奕閤、林寶秀（2024）。綠地系統文化生態系統服務識別與評價：受益者觀點分析。都市與計劃，51（3），326–360。https://doi.org/10.6128/CP.202409_51（3）.0003
黃宗誠（2019）。城市基礎建設服務滿意度評價模式之研究－以公園開放性空間為例。管理評論，38（3），1–19。https://doi.org/10.6656/MR.201907_38（3）.CNI001
黃愷茹、葛兆年、王巧萍、張文誠（2022）。家鄉走讀-發現中和4號公園韌性都市林。農業部林業試驗所、29（3），68–73。
黃曜謀、葛兆年、劉俐君、黃愷茹（2023）。運用公民科學調查中和四號公園地被植物物候.。2023年都市林韌性建構與經營研討會論文集，59–66。
黃書禮（1996）。台北市都市永續發展指標與策略研擬之研究.。台北市都市發展局。
黃淑如、吳文慶、郭蘭香、吳穎涵（2022）。順應聯合國永續發展目標之臺北市公園綠地整建行動。造園季刊，7，25–39。
葛兆年（2013）。五色鳥育兒菜單裡的秘密。林業研究專訊，20（2），38–39。
葛兆年、楊平世、蔡岱樺、王李廉、徐士閔（2022）。鳳頭蒼鷹－城市的天然捕鼠器。林業研究專訊，29（4），47–49。
葛兆年、許詩涵、張靖、王相華（2018）。五色鳥在都市棲地的巢樹及巢位研究。台灣林業科學，33（2），97–108。https://doi.org/10.7075/TJFS.201806_33（2）.0002
鈕文英（2021）。質性研究方法與論文寫作（第三版）。雙葉書廊。http://www.yehyeh.com.tw/bookchi.aspx?mode=dbview&sysid=00107446
楊平世（2025）。教授的公園夢：打造都市之肺、復育螢火蟲，從零開始的第一本公園生態說明書。貓頭鷹。https://www.books.com.tw/products/0011022632
蔡厚男（1987）。評《公園設計的政治學：美國都市公園史》。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，3，209–216。https://doi.org/10.6154/JBP.1987.3.011
蔡厚男（1991）。台灣都市公園的建制歷程,1895-1987。國立臺灣大學土木工程研究所博士論文。
蔡厚男（1992）。都市公園與婦女。戶外遊憩研究，5（3 & 4），109–120。https://doi.org/10.6130/JORS.1992.5（3/4）6
蔡厚男、張育森（2010）。公園綠地系統規劃設計手冊暨操作案例研究成果技術報告。內政部營建署。
趙信甫（1983）。臺北縣雙和地區公園綠地規劃之研究。臺灣銀行季刊，34（1），283–333。
廖盈琪（1999）。昨日的明日花園城市: 永和都市計畫之移植與形構。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉硏究所碩士論文。
潘世佳（2018）。設計在公共政策應用之研究—以公園不再大眾臉計畫為例。政治大學公共行政學系學位論文。https://doi.org/10.6814/THE.NCCU.PA.014.2018.F09
劉睿、王志弘（2024）。不只是環境議題：臺北市樹木保護的都市政治。地理學報，07，91–128。https://doi.org/10.6161/jgs.202404_（107）.0009
蕭昌銅、盛清沂（1960）。中和鄉誌.。中和鄉誌編輯委員會。
蕭明堂、王李廉、蔡岱樺、謝漢欽、傅淑瑋、葛兆年（2022）。臺北市鳳頭蒼鷹之巢位選擇。台灣林業科學, 37（3）, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.7075/TJFS.202209_37（3）.0003
謝旭昇、林承毅（2025）。多元公共參與的途徑：決策權力、參與場域與關係網絡之互動分析。臺灣土地研究，27（2），129–168。https://doi.org/10.6677/JTLR.202503_27（2）.0003
賴明洲（2003）。綠色生態工程－生態造林法介紹。林業研究專訊，10（5），23–30。
 
網路電子化資料
Wikipedia。Pin-point method （ecology）。檢索日期2025年9月24日，取自https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin-point_method_（ecology）#:~:text=The%20pin-point%20method%20%28or%20point-intercept%20method%29%20is%20used,measurements%20of%20plant%20cover%20and%20plant%20biomass.%20%5B1%5D%5B2%5D
我們的島（2010）。來去公園玩｜居民自主打造想要的公園。檢索日期2025年9月24日，取自https://ourisland.pts.org.tw/content/618
張素真.（2023）。解除河流封印，親親瓦磘溝。永和社區大學。檢索日期2025年9月24日，取自https://community-univ.org/special-report/%e8%a7%a3%e9%99%a4%e6%b2%b3%e6%b5%81%e5%b0%81%e5%8d%b0%ef%bc%8c%e8%a6%aa%e8%a6%aa%e7%93%a6%e7%a3%98%e6%ba%9d/
農業部。農博萬象/農業小百科/團粒構造。農業知識入口網。檢索日期2025年9月23日，取自https://kmweb.moa.gov.tw/theme_data.php?theme=pedia&sub_theme=km&id=2704
維基百科（2025）眷村列表。檢索日期：2025年10月7日，取自https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%B7%E6%9D%91%E5%88%97%E8%A1%A8#%E5%A4%96%E9%83%A8%E9%80%A3%E7%B5%90
臺北市政府工務局（2024）公私協力 大安森林公園生態池生物共好。檢索日期2025年9月24日，取自https://pwd.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=6AE9B4DE5F957F40&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=5C80724FDD05EDC1
遠見雜誌.（2024）十年默默做 ESG，全聯認養大安森林公園 不只種樹、復育螢火蟲，還要打造生態廁所。檢索日期2026年1月10日，取自https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/113266
鄭珮宸（2019）爭議的「共融」公園：社會互動也需要設計。檢索日期2025年9月24日，取自 新作坊. https://hisp.ntu.edu.tw/news/epapers/73/articles/270
雙和護樹聯盟。拔樹撼山。檢索日期2024年10月18日，取自
http://library.taiwanschoolnet.org/cyberfair2012/lovegreen823/news.htm#%E9%9B%99%E5%92%8C%E8%AD%B7%E6%A8%B9%E8%81%AF%E7%9B%9F