文化路徑是文化資產保存從社會參與活化，轉變成賦權地方建構協作網絡，以持續性促進區域性文化資產整合再利用的國際趨勢。而國內在近年關注文化路徑相關推動事務的推動上，亦不同領域的學者，從產業文化資產、文化景觀，以及歐洲文化路徑發展等觀點，強調文化路徑協作網絡建置重要性，例如能促進文化路徑可持續性發展、能處理過去缺乏關注的零散文化資產，或是在深入城鄉地區開發多元文化觀光景點上扮演關鍵角色。然而，文化路徑相關研究上，大多探討路徑文化資產的辨識原則、路徑文化資產保存的工具、文化路徑的市場競爭力、路徑經營管理模式等。對於不同權益關係人間，如何合作或協作來建立協作網絡，鮮少有研究討論。
在前述研究缺口上，研究者於文化部選定國家五條試行路徑之一的「湯姆生、馬雅各與臺灣多元族群文化路徑」中，發現了適合用來探討如何合作或協作來建立協作網絡的可能性。該個案在尚未被納入國家試行文化路徑之前，地方便以湯姆生與馬雅各之路這條國外旅人行走的古道，自下而上開展了許多跨區域的交流與關係建立，具備自下而上發起社區或跨區域協作的特性。因此，本研究將以個案研究法選取「湯姆生、馬雅各與臺灣多元族群文化路徑」，透過文件分析、深度訪談與參與觀察搜集資料，並以Healey (1998)提出的制度能力觀點，以及De Magalhães 等人(2017)在制度能力的知識資源、關係資源與動員能力三構面下延伸的分析項目作為研究架構。
本研究在梳理臺灣多元族群文化路徑的推動歷程後，發現地方會自下而上開展湯姆生馬雅各之路相關活動，是因為前期有不同的權益關係人因為各自的動機開展場域相關營造與發展的工作，而這些場域工作則成為了後續湯姆生馬雅各之路相關工作推動的基礎。其次，臺灣多元族群文化路徑由地方協作發起，到後續與公部門推動團隊協作上，不但發現制度能力架構具備相當程度的解釋力，也發現了文化路徑協作網絡發展上，給予制度能力的啟發性。除此之外，建立在制度能力所梳理的協作發展動態的成果上，本研究透過不同階段制度能力變化，歸納臺灣多元族群文化路徑協作網絡得以發展，為個案無形文化資產路徑主題的核心價值在於可以承載多元權益關係人的特殊性；同時，也透過制度能力架構，引導臺灣多元族群文化路徑於後續協作網絡發展方向的建議。

The cultural routes is an international trend where the preservation of cultural heritage evolves into an empowered local collaborative network through the revitalization of social participation. This aims to continually promote the integration and reutilization of regional cultural resources. In recent years, scholars in various fields in Taiwan have shown interest in promoting initiatives related to cultural routes. They emphasize the importance of establishing collaborative networks for cultural routes, taking into account perspectives such as industrial cultural assets, cultural landscapes, and the development of European cultural routes. Such networks are considered crucial for promoting sustainable development, addressing overlooked scattered cultural assets, and playing a key role in developing diverse cultural tourism attractions in urban and rural areas. However, most research on cultural routes focuses on identifying the principles of preserving cultural assets, tools for preserving cultural assets, market competitiveness of cultural routes, and management and operation models for cultural routes. There is a lack of discussion on how various stakeholders can cooperate or collaborate to establish collaborative networks.
Addressing this research gap, the study focuses on one of the five trial routes designated by the Ministry of Culture, namely, the " Thomson, Maxwell, and Taiwan's Multi-Ethnic Cultural Route." It explores the potential for cooperation and collaboration in constructing collaborative networks. Before being included in the national trial cultural routes, this case, involving the ancient route traveled by foreign travelers Tomson and Maxwell, initiated numerous cross-regional exchanges and relationship-building activities from the bottom up. It demonstrated characteristics of initiating community or cross-regional collaboration at the grassroots level. Therefore, this study selects the " Thomson, Maxwell, and Taiwan's Multi-Ethnic Cultural Route " as a case study. Data is collected through text analysis, in-depth interviews, and participant observation. The research framework is based on Healey's (1998) concept of institutional capacity and an expanded analysis of knowledge resources, relationship resources, and mobilization capacity within the institutional capacity by De Magalhães et al. (2017).
After examining the promotion process of Taiwan's Multi-Ethnic Cultural Route, the study found that local initiatives to organize activities related to the Tomson-Maxwell routes from the bottom up were driven by different stakeholders with their respective motivations for developing related work in the earlier stages. These initiatives formed the basis for future endeavors related to the Tomson-Maxwell routes. Furthermore, the launch of the Taiwan's Multi-Ethnic Cultural Route through local collaboration and subsequent engagement with public sector promotion teams demonstrated the significant impact of institutional capacity and offered valuable insights into its utilization in the establishment of collaborative cultural route networks. Furthermore, expanding on the collaborative development dynamics described by institutional capacity, the study examines how the collaborative network of the Taiwan's Multi-Ethnic Cultural Route evolved through various stages of institutional capacity changes. The route emphasizes the core value of intangible cultural assets and is capable of accommodating the uniqueness of diverse stakeholders as its theme. Furthermore, guided by the institutional capacity framework, provides recommendations for the future development of the collaborative network of the Taiwan's Multi-Ethnic Cultural Route.

王怡蘋(2020)。制度能力觀點下的公私協力─ 以信義鄉望鄉部落為例。
成功大學(2018)。與心靈及土地的對話-馬雅各之路。成大課程地圖。 取自 https://class-qry.acad.ncku.edu.tw/crm/course_map/course.php?dept=A9&cono=A939400
李光中、王鑫、蔡嘉玲 (2012)。邁向協同治理? 權益關係人參與自然地景保育的機會和限制. 地理學報(65), 27-52.
李長晏, 陳嫈郁, & 曾淑娟. (2021)。邁向後新公共管理時代之政策整合理論初探，文官制度，13(1)，1-34。
林淑馨(2018)。公共管理概論，巨流圖書公司。
林語玥(2014)。花蓮縣豐南村 Pakalongay 解說中階訓課程發展歷程的制度力分析。
林曉薇(2023)。由臺灣文化路徑推動規劃思考產業文化資源整合運用與新願景，《臺灣建築史學會通訊第四號 2023.09》。取自 https://www.saht.org.tw/?p=1729
林曉薇、黃俊銘. (2021)。臺灣產業文化路徑建構之研究，文化資產保存學刊(57)，26-48。
唐韻甯(2016)。臺北市國民小學推動食農教育之制度能力研究。
張秀慈(2023)。文化路徑的社會參與及實踐契機，文化路徑整合性文化保存的理念與實踐，40-51。
陳柏良、黃士娟(2023)。文化景觀與文化路徑的異同與合作，文化路徑整合性文化保存的理念與實踐，52-63。
游永福(2010)。湯姆生的南臺灣內山風景照片─兼談禁向生活之美，痞客邦。取自 https://puumen2727.pixnet.net/blog/post/37370391 游永福(2012)。【大武壠族原住民文化側記】大地的恩賜，新小林人的野菜園(中)，痞客邦。取自 https://puumen2727.pixnet.net/blog/post/37370619
游永福(2015a)。踏查臺灣的線性文化遺產 ──迷人的 1871 年湯姆生南臺灣 國際文化路徑，痞客邦。取自 https://puumen2727.pixnet.net/blog/post/42083920
游永福(2015b)。就是要看見臺灣之美──英國攝影家湯姆生 1871 臺灣線性文化遺產特展，痞客邦。取自 https://puumen2727.pixnet.net/blog/post/42105958
游永福(2021)。〈湯姆生馬雅各之路〉大事記，痞客邦。取自 https://puumen2727.pixnet.net/blog/post/48007732
游永福(2019)。尋找湯姆生:1871 臺灣文化遺產大發現，遠足文化。
黃可欣(2007)。促進鄉村學校與社區之夥伴關係以邁向永續發展之行動研究: 以臺 東縣利吉和富源社區為例
黃光雄、高淑清、鄭瑞隆、林麗菊、吳芝儀 ... & 蔡清田(2001)。質性教育研究-理 論與方法，嘉義: 濤石。
黃建實 (2020)。協力治理如何使得公部門創新?，公共行政學報(58)，149-156。 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。
董皇志 (2018)。設計研究方法，第二章 個案研究法，全華, 25~43。 趙之為(2022)。【活動紀錄】與湯姆生、馬雅各的夏日惡地大冒險—左鎮國小西拉雅文化暑期營，Collaborative Badlands 惡地協作。取自 https://cobadlands.blogspot.com/2022/08/blog-post.html
蔡明月、李旻嬑 (2013)。臺灣社會科學引用文獻分析研究，教育資料與圖書館學，50(3)，293-317。
Andrei, A., Mototolea, A., & Nopcea, C. (2019). Efficiency of Cultural Routes: Between Wish and Reality. Caring and Sharing: The Cultural Heritage Environment as an Agent for Change: 2016 ALECTOR Conference, Istanbul, Turkey,
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
Babbie, E. (2021). The Practice of Social Research(林秀雲譯). 雙葉書廊.
Bogacz-Wojtanowska, E., & Góral, A. (2018). Networks or structures? Organizing cultural routes around heritage values. Case studies from Poland. Humanistic Management Journal, 3(2), 253-277.
Bogacz-Wojtanowska, E., Góral, A., & Bugdol, M. (2019). The role of trust in sustainable heritage management networks. case study of selected cultural routes in Poland. Sustainability, 11(10), 2844.
Booher, D. E., & Innes, J. E. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 221-236.
Boukouvalas, L., Grigorakakis, G., & Tsatsaris, A. (2018). Cultural Routes in Kynouria of Arcadia: Geospatial Database Design and Software Development for Web Mapping of the Spatio-Historical Information. Heritage, 1(1), 142-162.
Božić, S., & Tomić, N. (2016). Developing the cultural route evaluation model (CREM) and its application on the Trail of Roman Emperors, Serbia. Tourism Management Perspectives, 17, 26-35.
Breukers, S., & Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: Institutional capacity-building for ecological modernisation. Environmental Politics, 16(1), 92- 112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010601073838
Chen, J. (2021). Governing collaborations: the case of a pioneering settlement services partnership in Australia. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1295-1316.
Čolić, R., Milić, Đ., Petrić, J., & Čolić, N. (2022). Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views [Article]. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211002188
De Magalhães, C., Healey, P., & Madanipour, A. (2017). Assessing institutional capacity for city centre regeneration: Newcastle's Grainger Town. In Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux (pp. 45-62). Routledge.
Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D. R., May, P. H., Brockhaus, M., Sari, I. M., & Kusumadewi, S. D. (2019). Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Global Environmental Change, 54, 64-77.
Draganov, R. (2021). Innovative Perspectives to Apply Blockchain Model for the Saints Cyril and Methodius and Saint Sophronius of Vratsa Historical Sights in the Context of European Cultural Routes. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 9(1), 53-63.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.
Finkbeiner, P. (2017). Qualitative Research: Participant Observation. In Social Media for Knowledge Sharing in Automotive Repair (pp. 105-139). Springer.
Gaillard, M. (2015). De la construction à la diffusion du patrimoine européen dans les réseaux transnationaux: processus d'appropriation, de médiation et de transmission dans les itinéraires culturels du Conseil de l'Europe.
Gaillard, M. (2019). Les itinéraires culturels du Conseil de l’Europe: mises en récits du patrimoine. Culture & Musées. Muséologie et recherches sur la culture(33), 203- 214.
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observation, Social Forces, 36, 217-213
Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and planning A, 30(9), 1531-1546.
Healey, P., Madanipour, A., & Pendlebury, J. (2002). Shaping city centre futures: conservation, regeneration and institutional capacity. CREUE Occasional Paper.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123.
Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies.
ICOMOS. (2008). The ICOMOS Charter On Cultural Routes. Retrieved November 6, 2019. from https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/culturalroutes_e.pdf
Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2009). Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 169-189.
Koop, S., Koetsier, L., Doornhof, A., Reinstra, O., Van Leeuwen, C., Brouwer, S., Dieperink, C., & Driessen, P. (2017). Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste, and climate change. Water Resources Management, 31(11), 3427-3443.
Kullapat, R., & Alonso-Cambrón, M. (2018). Pachit-Oraphim: From the Local Legend to the International Cultural Routes.
Lasczik, A., Hotko, K., McGahey, T., & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2019). Walking A/r/tography [artwork] in Mapping A/r/tography: Transnational storytelling across historical and cultural routes of significance, curated exhibition.
Margherita Sani, Bernadette Lynch, Jasper Visser, & Gariboldi, A. (2015). Mapping of practices in the EU Member States on Participatory governance of cultural heritage to support the OMC working group under the same name (Work Plan for Culture 2015-2018). EENC Short Analytical Report.
Marzo, C. D. (2016). Study report on ETIS implementation within 7 pilot cultural routes of the Council of Europe. European Institute of Cultural Routes.
Meneghello, S., & Mingotto, E. (2020). Local active engagement as an effective tool for sustainable tourism development: first considerations from the European cultural routes case. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 248, 1-12.
Nagy, K. (2016). Specialities of Tourism Innovations–a Literature Review with Conclusions for Cultural Routes. Available at SSRN 3639491.
Orlandic, M., & Jaksic-Stojanovic, A. (2021). Implementation of new technologies in the promotion of the cultural routes-practices and challenges. International Conference “New Technologies, Development and Applications”,
Paiva, O., Seabra, C., & Abrantes, J. L. (2019). Cultural routes crossing Portugal: History and traditions. International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage, 7(4), 17-33.
Peng, L.-P., Kuki, Y., Hashimoto, S., & Hsieh, Y.-S. (2014). Institutional capacity and rural community planning in Japan: an event history analysis. Paddy and Water Environment, 12(1), 55-69.
Poloz, I. (2021). Cultural routes in the historic city of Lisbon with uneven terrain using ArcGIS. International Conference of Young Professionals «GeoTerrace-2021»,
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252.
Scott, M. (2004). Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00042-1
Terzić, A., Angelkova, T., & Petrović, M. (2018). Cvijić’s civilization zones, longitudinal and transversal roads as a base of contemporary cultural routes.
Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(11), 1975-1989.
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66, 20-32.
Trygg, K., & Wenander, H. (2022). Strategic spatial planning for sustainable development– Swedish planners’ institutional capacity. European Planning Studies, 30(10),1985-2001. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.2001792
Unterhitzenberger, C., Müller, R., Vaagaasar, A. L., Ke, Y., Alonderiene, R., Minelgaite, I., Pilkiene, M., Wang, L., Zhu, F., & Drouin, N. (2023). A Multilevel Governance Model for Interorganizational Project Networks. Project Management Journal, 54(1), 88-105.
UNWTO. (2015). World Conference on Tourism and Culture Building a New Partnership Siem Reap, Cambodia, 4 – 6,
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (1994).Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/archive/routes94.htm
Üstündağ, K., & Özer, E. (2021). Kültürel mirasa katkı sağlayan kültür rotalarında yerelin katılımı ve sosyo-ekonomik kalkınması üzerine bir yaklaşım. Planlama, 31(3), 428- 447.
van Popering-Verkerk, J., Molenveld, A., Duijn, M., van Leeuwen, C., & van Buuren, A. (2022). A Framework for Governance Capacity: A Broad Perspective on Steering Efforts in Society. Administration & Society, 00953997211069932.
Vlizos, S., & Kosta, E. (2019). Designing Cultural Routes in the region of Sparta, Peloponnese: A Methodological approach. Proceedings of the 6th UNESCO UNITWIN Conference,
Waardenburg, M., Groenleer, M., de Jong, J., & Keijser, B. (2020). Paradoxes of collaborative governance: investigating the real-life dynamics of multi-agency collaborations using a quasi-experimental action-research approach. Public Management Review, 22(3), 386-407.
Wang, H., & Ran, B. (2022). Network governance and collaborative governance: A thematic analysis on their similarities, differences, and entanglements. Public Management Review, 1-25.
Zouridaki, M., Apostolakis, A., João Paulo da Conceição, S. J., & Kourgiantakis, M. (2022). Local Sustainable Development and Cultural Tourist Routes. In Planning and Managing Sustainability in Tourism: Empirical Studies, Best-practice Cases and Theoretical Insights , 149-167.