本論文旨在探究政策與生產活動的變遷對 Peyanan 社會的影響,並試圖瞭解 Peyanan在此一變遷過程中如何去轉換其社會關係,以因應外在社會的轉變;與 Peyanan 在此一轉變上,又會如何去調整其在自然資源上的使用方式。本論文以文獻分析法、深度訪談、參與觀察與焦點團體法進行田野資料的收集,最後將本研究從2006年7月到2007年5月所收集的研究資料,採以紮根理論的概念進行資料的分析。 研究結果發現,引起 Peyanan 土地利用方式與主要生產活動變遷的主要原因為-國家體制與經濟活動交相作用的結果。此外,研究中亦顯示 Peyanan 裡存在著好幾個基本的社會運作單元(communities),這樣的社會運作單元在面對社會變遷的過程裡具有一調適機制,然而此一基本社會運作單元的整合功能卻也在社會變遷的過程中呈現削弱的現象。 重新回顧本研究一開始的提問,本研究發現研究結果呈現的只是Peyanan 內一個基本社會運作單元在因應社會變遷的過程,並非 Peyanan整體在社會變遷過程中的因應。此外,本研究結果也無法呈現回應 Peyanan 內的各個基本社會運作單元在因應社會變遷的過程時,如何改變其使用自然資源的方式。我認為這是因為本研究錯將 Peyanan 視為一整體,而忽略 Peyanan 內各基本社會運作單元可能才是延續其資源使用方式的知識載體。 Peyanan 的個案突顯基層行政管理單位與社會運作單元的不必然相等,這提醒我們援引應用社區保育(community-based conservation)概念時,應該先了解社區裡的基本社會運作單元與周遭資源間的互動關係,而不能單純就以區域做為探討社區保育的操作單元。
This study aims to explore the change of the main production activities and the influences by the policies on them at Peyanan, a Tayal tribe in Ilan. Then it likes to see the way for Peyanan to response to these changes, the transformation for the social organizations, and the possible change for the ways to use natural resources in the adjusting processess. This study adopts literature review, deep interview, participant observation and focus group to collect information in the fields mainly from July 2006 to May 2007, and follows the approach of grounded theory to analyze them. The research shows that the results of interactions of national institutions and economic activities were the main driving force for the change of land use and major production activities in Peyanan. There were some basic social units (communities) operating at tribe which were internal mechanisms to adapt to the social change. This study finds that the integrated function of these basic social units has degraded in the processes of social change. Regarding to those research questions for this study in the very beginning, this study only shows the processes for the basic social unit in Peyanan but not the Peyanan as a whole to response to the social change. Also the results of this study can not reveal the way to use natural resources for each basic social unit as it adjusting the social change. This is because that this study treats Peyanan as an operation body and neglects that it might be the carrier of the knowledge to continue resource use for the basic social unit at Peyaynan. The case of Peyanan shows that the bottom administration unit may not be equal to the social unit in operation. This reminds that the risk to define a community by sole geographical dimension, and it is necessary to realize the interactions between basic social units and surrounding resources, while adopting approach of community-based conservation.