文化研究方法對農地的文化生態系統服務共同創造價值與估價

A Cultural Studies Approach to Cultural Ecosystem Service Value Co-Creation and Valuation of Agricultural Land

畢小樂(Joy R. Petway)

指導教授 ： 林裕彬

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/生物環境系統工程學研究所/博士(2020年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202001121

摘要

自1990年代以來，生態系統服務(ES)領域的研究，核心研究重點多在ES價值的評估上。也就是說，如何量化自然進程和由此產生的社會效益，及評估消費生態系統的極限，以便制定相應的政策，以及減小與科學政策的差距，實現邁向永續發展的目標。關於ES評估也出現了不同學派思想，涵蓋了多種學科觀點，使評估方法難以普遍化和標準化。換句話說，這也凸顯了生態系統(ES)文化服務非物質方面的效益，就相對較少去研究。原因在於「文化」的非物質本質、以及研究ES文化服務具有跨學科屬性及其複雜性。本研究採用兼併生態學科和文化研究論系統，相互融合的方法，來瞭解臺灣傳統農場和有機農場(ES)文化服務的價值。具體來說，我結合三個文化研究的視角，即：農民的「生活體驗」；通過社交媒體網路所建構和傳播得出的「文本和對話」；以及在當今“社會和政治背景”框架之下，參照有歷史性的相關主題敘述的內容，探索ES文化服務，人們如何”增長”對ES給農地貢獻的價值感。本研究宗旨爲：1）調查農民知識水準和農場位置，對有機耕作法效果的意見； 2）研究實際施作有機耕作法的農地，ES文化服務的評價；3）鑒定ES文化服務對農地“魅力化”的效能，農地的ES價值； 4）推定農業用地是否是多元ES文化服務的來源；5）審查社交媒體平台上對ES評估所收集的數據； 6） 探究對農業用地的ES價值，一般有正面影響的其他技術。這樣進行時，以下是努力挖掘所得出六項中的每一項成果。

目標1: 農民作為ES評估的前身，他們對有機耕作方式的意見。由學校教學對環境概念的認知，學習分析主要成分組成，顯示出農民生活中的親身體驗，是具有更大影響力。農民的意見也因研究範圍的地理類別和社會影響類別而有所差異。

目標2、3和4:使用K-平均演算法，通過主要成分分析來驗證對應分析，對兩組臺灣農民的ES文化服務估值做比較。生態系統服務的地圖繪製是應用Maxent 模式(Maxent modeling)得出結果，這兩組也使用谷歌地圖指定地方值進行了比較。研究人群的ES文化服務評價，結果顯示，關於環境變數他們無法充分銓釋。既是經驗豐富的資深農民通過身體力行的經驗學習了環保概念，卻比受過高等教育的年輕農民對他們的土地有更高的評價。結果也顯示農地是生態系統文化服務價值中是多樣次要類別的來源。

目標5：審查”社交媒體”上所蒐集和創建的ES評估數據，我展示出Twitter語料庫可用來追踪各方決策者表達對ES價值的不同陳述，跨越“身份等級”（即如個人帳號vs.官方帳號vs.機構帳號），偵查對環境有不協調的言論訊息，運用社交網絡分析，建構議題模版和情感語境分析等方法。發現決策者們，要塑造爭取公眾對ES的效益和對保護工作的理解與支持，也會利用社交網絡平台加入公眾對話。我也介紹了在 Instagram 使用者中，讓公眾合作製作ES知識的一種新方法，這可能影響了他們對農地與相關ES的評估（以“按讚”衡量）。另外，我討論了使用 YouTube 視頻社交媒體數據，探知使用數位的表述大自然所獲得的雙重收益，在於ES 估值的研究以及獲取大自然(數位化)的途徑民主化。

目標6：我提出一個共同信任評價工具方案，在技術與社會兩者訴求之下，建立一個具有區塊鏈(blockchain)基礎設施的新系統和通信技術的電子農業系統(ICT e-agriculture)，雙併系統應用的新評價工具，是可期待應用上革新的未來前景。區塊鏈技術應用在農業上，增加公眾的信任，經濟效率，食物安全，降低影響農地生態系統服務(ES)評估的不確定(因素)風險。我也討論了使用(AI)智能技術的潛能，在土地利用上增加社會信任與社會責任，在資源管理流程上，加強地方的附件鏈接，透過智能技術(AI)訓練，對廣泛的數據能有強力的處理能力，對有偏差的模擬物件，不被轉送到數字地圖ES環境裡，確保我們的農業土地和福祉中的ES價值。

與其他ES文化服務評估研究不同之處，本研究謀求將生態系統(ES)文化服務價值，理解為像是個文化活動，因此採用文化研究學科中方法論的研究系統來進行。附帶說明，這項研究通過示範表明社交媒體數據不僅可以用於評估，為生態系統服務科學(ES science)做出了貢獻，還可以共同創建和分析社交媒體數據，增加了公眾對生態系統服務(ES)的知識和價值。

關鍵字

文化研究 ； 農業生態系統服務 ； 社交媒體 ； 電子農業 ； 農民知識 ； 公眾信任

並列摘要

A core research concern in the ecosystem services (ES) field since its emergence in the 1990s remains the matter of valuation. That is, how to quantify natural processes and the social benefits derived so as to assess consumption limits for policy making purposes, narrowing of the science-policy divide, and attaining sustainable development goals. Different schools of thought on ES valuation have emerged that span a range of disciplinary perspectives and that make valuation methods difficult to universalize and standardize. This in turn results in research issues that are more pronounced when measuring the intangible benefits derived from the relatively lesser studied cultural ES. Due to the very nature of ‘culture’, the non-material intangible qualities of cultural ES, as well as the necessary complexities of studying culture, this study uses a cultural studies combined methodological approach to understand cultural ES value of Taiwan conventional and organic farms. Specifically, I combine three cultural studies lenses namely: the ‘lived experiences’ of farmers; the ‘texts and dialogues’ created and disseminated with social media networks; and the contextual historicity of technology as it relates to ES value within the current ‘social and political contextual landscape’ to explore how cultural ES may help to “grow” in others a sense of agricultural land’s ES value. This study sets out to: 1) investigate the effects of farmer knowledge levels and farm locations on opinions toward organic farming practices; 2) study the effects of organic farming practices on cultural ES valuation; 3) determine the “charasmaticizing” effects of cultural ES on agricultural land ES valuation; 4) determine if agricultural land could be a source of multiple cultural ES; 5) examine ES valuation data collection and creation with social media platforms; and 6) explore technologies that may positively influence the ES value of agricultural land in general. In doing so, the following are outcomes of each of the six lines of effort pursued.

Aim 1: As the antecedents of ES valuations, farmer opinions toward organic farming practices were shown to be more influenced by their life experiences than by school-taught environmental concepts based on principal component analysis. Farmers opinions also differed by geographic category within the study area, and by social influence category.

Aims 2, 3, and 4: Using k-means clustering with correspondence analysis verified by principal component analysis, two groups of Taiwan farmers’ cultural ES valuations were compared. ES value mapping results using Maxent modeling for the two groups were also compared with Google Maps results for places of assigned value. Results show that for the study population’s cultural ES valuations, environmental variables are not explanatory enough, while older-more experienced farmers who learned environmental concepts experientially assigned more value to their land than younger-more educated farmers. Further, results show that agricultural land is a source of multiple sub-categories of cultural ES value.

Aim 5: While examining ES valuation data collection and creation with social media platforms, I showed that Twitter corpora can be used to trace different representations of ES value across “identity scales” (i.e., personal vs. official vs. institutional accounts) of decision makers to detect messaging dissonance when they are trying to garner public support for conservation efforts using social network analysis, structured topic modeling, and sentiment analysis. Environmental decision makers’ public engagement using social media communication like Twitter, can shape public perceptions and understanding of ES benefits and public support for conservation efforts. I also presented a novel approach to the public co-production of ES knowledge in Instagram users which may affect their ES valuations related to agricultural land as measured in ‘likes’. I additionally discuss using YouTube video social media data to look into the dual benefits of using digital representations of nature for both ES valuation studies, and to democratize access to (digitized) nature.

Aim 6: I proposed an evaluation tool for a dual-assessment of technical and social requirements for blockchain-enabled trust, and an ICT e-agriculture with a blockchain infrastructure model system in anticipation of the evolution of ICT e-agriculture. Blockchain technology applied to e-agriculture can increase public trust, economic efficiencies, food safety, and reduce uncertainty risk which influences the ES value of agricultural land. I also discussed the potential for using AI technology to enhance trust and social responsibility in land use and resource management processes by strengthening place attachment and ensuring that analog biases are not transferred to our digitally mapped ES landscapes by training AI with inclusive data to increase ES value in agricultural land and well-being.

Unlike other cultural ES valuation studies, this study sought to understand cultural ES valuation as a cultural activity and has therefore used methodologies from the cultural studies discipline to do so. Additionally, this study has contributed to the ES science by demonstrating that not only can social media data be used for valuation, but social media data can be co-created and analyzed to increase public knowledge and valuation of ES.

並列關鍵字

cultural studies ； agroecosystem service ； social media ； e-agriculture ； farmer knowledge ； public trust

參考文獻

1. Abdi, H.; Williams, L. (2010).Principal Component Analysis. In Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics; Wiley Periodicals, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 433–459.

2. Alessa, L. N., Kliskey, A. A., Brown, G. (2008). Social–ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(1), 27-39.

3. Allen, K. (2015). Trade-offs in nature tourism: Contrasting parcel-level decisions with landscape conservation planning. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07058-200121

4. Allen, K.E.; Quinn, C.E.; English, C.; Quinn, J.E. (2018). Relational values in agroecosystem governance. Curr Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026

5. Agunga, R.; Igodan, C. (2007).Organic farmers need and attitude towards extension. J. Ext. 2007, 45. Available online: https://www.joe.org/joe/2007december/a6.php (accessed on 5 June 2019).