參與性政策分析（participatory policy analysis）本質上是一個政策利害關係人（policy stakeholders）在不同政策偏好（preferences）之間衝突分析與調解（conflict analysis and resolution）的過程。據此觀點，本文建議一個結合判斷分析（judgment analysis）與系統動力學（system dynamics）政策模擬的衝突分析方法，並利用一實際的政策個案加以驗證此方法。此衝突分析方法先將政策偏好解構為政策方案（policy alternatives; policy means）與其導致的政策產出（policy outcomes; policy ends），並利用判斷分析的問卷設計，粹取（extract）各政策利害關係人在政策目標與政策方案中所有評估面向的相對權重（relative weights），隨後並應用系統動力學模擬推薦的政策方案，將判斷分析與政策模擬的產出結合，使個別政策利害關係人在政策方案與政策出的總效用（total utility）對比，藉以輔助衝突中介與調解的進行。本先導研究發現所建議的衝突分析方法足以有效輔助衝突調解過程，並且如預期地可以明確化（explicate）傳統衝突分析方法無從顯示的衝突調解可能，進一步的驗證與發展則有賴對於實際政策個案的持續研究。 Participatory policy analysis, in essence, aims for an effective process in which the policy preferences and conflict among policy stakeholders may be analyzed and resolved. The present study proposes an approach of conflict analysis combining Judgment Analysis and System Dynamics modeling. It is further empirically examined by a policy case. The proposed procedure firstly differentiates policy preferences between policy means (policy alternatives) and policy ends (policy outcomes). The policy-capturing questionnaire of Judgment Analysis is then used to extract the stakeholders’ preferences on both regards. Then the System Dynamics policy model simulated the recommended policy alternatives and produce simulated policy outcome. They form the bases for estimating the total utilities on recommended policy means and policy ends. The parallel is expected to be constructive for analyzing and mediating mutual conflicts among policy stakeholders. The results has confirmed that the proposed procedure of conflict analysis can effectively serve its purpose, and further explicate the possibilities for conflict resolution that can not be foreseen by the traditional methods of conflict analysis. Subsequent studies should build on the policy model of the interested policy issues.