從「故鄉變異鄉」到「新故鄉」—東北角漁村外澳的旅遊休閒空間生產、在地回應與意義折衝

From the ‘Homeland Turned into a Strange-land’to a ‘New Homeland’: The Productions of Tourism Space of Northern-east Coastal Village Wai’ao,Local Responses and the Negotiated Meanings

郭博勝(Po-Sheng Kuo)

指導教授 ： 劉可強

國立臺灣大學/工學院/建築與城鄉研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.02194

摘要

研究者透過旅遊的空間生產與其相關的社會文化理論之閱讀，視其為生產空間與文化的力量。即，旅遊休閒具有創生性的角色、它創造社會現實（牽涉到不同事物的安排方式，如「觀光客的凝視」、人們的世界觀、對它地的想像與認識），是地方改變與轉化的力量；然而，這個角色當中蘊含著權力的作用，需看到是誰的知識所創造，產生了什麼樣的作用。
論文的田野坐落於台灣東北角一背山面海的漁村外澳。研究者從2005到2010年間，紀錄了它的空間與社會文化變遷。透過參與觀察與訪談，試圖從本地居民的立場出發，去了解在過程中，人們怎麼看待、如何回應旅遊發展的力量。
一開始，旅遊發展傾向以一種外生的、具主導性的力量發生在地方。民宿業者、中央以及地方政府的旅遊部門，透過旅遊文字、節慶活動與建設旅遊設施，使的環境被賦予了旅遊意象。原本的漁村逐漸成為吸引人們前來衝浪、渡假的觀光休閒地點。然而，旅遊發展亦夾帶著衝擊與衝突，地方環境成了一塊塊與地方脈絡脫離、封閉與排外的「觀光客的領域」；伴隨著外來移入者者購買面海處土地、本地人移往他地的現象。在這樣的惡性循環下，地方帶給地方人們「故鄉變異鄉」的感嘆。
但是，旅遊還意味著不同的事物在空間中之「相遇」，外來者與本地人、不同的知識與觀點在空間中互動。因而促使了在地人們在過程中產生反思。
逐漸地，在地元素被有意識的選擇、改編與組織，用於新的觀光脈絡中，人們生產出以下的實踐：以對於自身環境資源的認識、向遊客進行生態解說；為自己命名、建構地方的旅遊休閒意象；以竹子為材料聯繫周圍社區居民、重新在海灘上搭建提供「主-客」共同使用的「觀光場景」；並且，將傳統魚法「牽鮕」轉化（re-vitalize），一方面維繫漁民身份、一方面提供遊客體驗的觀光活動。
從「故鄉變異鄉」到「新故鄉」所指的是，旅遊內-外力量互動下、空間與社會關係轉變過程中，地方意義的折衝與浮現。在地的旅遊實踐吸吶了旅遊進入地方脈絡，過程裡，地方轉化了自己，生成了所謂「新故鄉」之意義。它意味著新的地方經驗、新的地方詮釋邏輯，以及朝向新的「主-客」關係為基礎、具開放性的旅遊空間。

關鍵字

內生發展 ； 在地回應 ； 觀光客凝視 ； 觀光發展 ； 旅遊休閒空間的生產

並列摘要

Through the readings of the production of tourism space and the socio-cultural theories of tourism, the researcher treats it as forces for producing space and culture. That is the creative role of tourism and leisure to change and transform places. It implicates the capacity of tourism to produce social reality: it involves the ways of organization of different things, such as ‘the tourist gaze’, the world view, and the imagination and understanding of other place. However, such a role involves the operation of power relationship. We have to notice whose knowledge to create tourism/space, and what kind of effects it produces.
The fieldwork located in a northern-east coastal village Wai’ao. During 2005~2010, the researcher recorded its spatial and socio-cultural changes. By participatory observation and interview, he attempts to understand that what people thought of and how they have done to respond to tourism in the process.
In the beginnings, the tourism development tends to be triggered by a kind of dominant exogenous forces. The B&B owner together with the tourism bureau both in the central and the local governments, through the tourism texts, holding festival and the construction of facilities, which inscribe the new image above the ordinary environment. Therefore, the village turns to be a leisure and tourism destination of attraction. However, it brings the impacts and conflicts; the environment becomes several ‘tourist territories’, kind of de-context, closed and excluded space, more or less for the locals in the Wai’ao; moreover, increasing immigration of outsiders buying the seaside lands accompanied with the emigration of insiders. These vicious cycle make Wai’ao a place that the ‘Homeland Turned into a Strange-land’ for most local people.
However, Tourism also means the ‘encounter’ that different knowledge and opinions between insiders and outsiders meet in the space. The local people seem to become self-conscious and got reflection from that.
Gradually the local elements have been actively chosen, organized and adapted in a new tourism context, people start to produce these practices: conducting ecological explanation to visitors based on their understanding of environment resources; self-naming and constructing the local tourism image; building a ‘tourist setting’ for ‘host-and-guest’ common uses by the bamboo materials that linked up the community around Wai’ao; and some old man revitalize an old fishing method to maintain their fisherman identity and to let the visitors experiencing it.
From the ‘Homeland Turned into a Strange-land’ to a ‘New Homeland’, this means the negotiated place meanings emergent from the spatial and cultural transformations interacted between the inside and outside forces. Through the local practices responding to tourism, the place of Wai’ao transforms itself. That is the so-called ‘New Homeland’, which implies the new experience and interpretation logic of place and towards a ‘host-and-guest’ tourist space with more openness.

並列關鍵字

tourist gaze ； local response to tourism ； tourism development ； endogenous rural development ； the production of tourism space

參考文獻

王志弘. (2009). 多重的辯證列斐伏爾空間生產概念三元組演繹與引申. 地理學報, 55, 1-24.

Amin, A. (2004). Regions Unbound: Towards a New Politics of Place. Geografiska Annaler B, 86, 33-44.

Boissevain, J. (Ed.). (1992). Revitalizing European Rituals. London: Routledge.

Boissevain, J. (1996). Introduction. In J. Boissevain (Ed.), Coping with Tourists: European Reactions to Mass Tourism. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books.

Boissevain, J., & Selwyn, T. (2004). Introduction. In J. Boissevain & T. Selwyn (Eds.), Contesting the foreshore : tourism, society and politics on the coast. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University.