Have library access?
IP:100.26.179.41

Abstracts


本文採用Berkes等(2007)適應性共管成熟度的量表,以無尾港水鳥保護區及其周遭社區、墾丁國家公園與社頂部落、太魯閣國家公園與大同大禮部落、崙埤部落與林務單位的林地資源共管醞釀等為個案,分析台灣在地居民與自然資源經營管理機關,共同經營管理保護區的狀況與未來的展望。結果顯示:無尾港水鳥保護區案以參與式工作坊遂行的保護區經營管理有高度的適應性共管成熟度;墾丁國家公園的社頂部落雖少指涉經營管理決策,能充分發展生態旅遊也約可達中度成熟度;太魯閣國家公園與大同大禮部落因政策不確定、部落組織運作未臻成熟尚屬初期;崙埤部落案因部落組織自主性高、運作成熟、對外網絡連結良好,雖尚在醞釀共管事宜,部分項目也有中度的表現。綜整四個個案,在現今法規未具強制執行共管的情況下,只要政策架構清楚、不直接指涉經營管理決策,或在主管機關可接受而社區又能發揮的範圍內,如發展生態旅遊,也可有施行共管的機會。

Parallel abstracts


This study adopts the criterion of maturity for adaptive co-management raised by Berkes et al. (2007), to analyze case studies of the Wu-wei-kang Wildlife Refuge and its surrounding communities, Kending National Park and Shir-ding tribe, Taroko National Park and Da-Tung and Da-Li tribes, and Lunpi Tribe and forestry agencies on developing co-management on forest lands, for the status and future visions of co-managing protected areas between local residents and management authorities of natural resources in Taiwan. The results show that there is high maturity of adaptive co-management for the Wu-wei-kang Wildlife Refuge to use the participatory workshop in its management; it can achieve middle agree for the She-Ding tribe to develop the ecotourism program in Kending National Park though involved little in policy-making on park management; the co-management mechanism between the Taroko National Park and Da-Tung and Da-Li tribes belongs to preliminary stage since there isn't clear policy and the tribe organization cannot work well; there are some items achieving middle maturity for the case of Lun-pi tribe since its high self-organization, smooth operation and good connections with outsides no matter still on negotiation processes. Learning from these four case studies, it is possible to implement co-management with the local communities to some degree under the circumstances which are not directly involved in policy-making on management, and that the authorities can accept and the local communities can develop, such as ecotourism development, while there isn’t any compulsion by current legislations in Taiwan.

References


太魯閣國家公園管理處(2001)。把人找回來。花蓮:內政部營建署太魯閣國家公園管理處。
劉小如編、黃勉編(1998)。新世紀的自然保育行動綱領。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
甘明翰(2006)。太魯閣同禮部落生態旅遊活動之規劃與實施過程研究(碩士論文)。國立花蓮教育大學生態與環境教育研究所。
吳旬枝(2005)。原住民族參與國家公園生態旅遊發展過程中雙邊互動關係—同禮部落 vs 太魯閣國家公園(碩士論文)。國立東華大學觀光暨遊憩管理研究所。
宋秉明、葉美慧(2010)。國家公園與原住民溝通平台建置過程之法治觀點:以太魯閣國家公園為例。國家公園學報。20(2),10-14。

Cited by


謝欣儒(2017)。探討以社區為基礎的自然資源經營管理之社區能動量〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700598
張聿蓁(2016)。探討國家公園與社區夥伴關係發展─以社頂部落生態旅遊為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201603531
吳昀蓉(2015)。誰來參與共管─巴壟部落、都歷部落和望鄉部落的共管經驗〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.02066
呂翊齊、戴興盛、陳毅峰、張惠東(2023)。調適、批判與拼裝:從三種環境治理的視野重新檢視臺灣原住民族狩獵自主管理政策地理學報(105),65-102。https://doi.org/10.6161/jgs.202308_(105).0003
鍾明光、盧道杰、蔡博文、周桂田、婁安琪、徐健銘(2020)。利用公眾參與地理資訊系統協助環境資源經理中的風險溝通:以宜蘭縣無尾港水鳥保護區之社區監測為例地理學報(97),77-113。https://doi.org/10.6161/jgs.202012_(97).0003

Read-around