都會河岸部落之生態知識的生活實踐：以阿美族崁津部落為例

臺灣在民國七十年代進入都市化加速階段，都市原住民的人口也漸增，在新北市和桃園市的大漢溪畔有多個阿美族人的聚落，這群人經歷與主流社會（含政府）的抗爭，共同經歷維護居住權益的過程強化了主體性，且形塑出類似於部落組織型態，這些聚落被稱為河岸部落。多位學者提到阿美族人在都市河岸地依賴河岸資源，仍進行農耕、漁獵、採集等日常行為（李慧慧，2010，2018；林易蓉，2009；張德永，2014；陳永龍，2010；盧建銘、許淑真、張進財頭目，2010）。這群阿美族人在都會生活與工作的壓力之下，是如何善用河岸有限土地的空間場域，讓生態知識在內部發生、交流與傳承？從原住民族生態知識管理的角度來看，未來可能如何發展？都是值得探究的課題。為此，本研究與桃園市大溪區崁津部落合作，採用的方法包括參與觀察、部落採集地圖繪製與團體訪談、深度訪談等。參考Berkes（1999）的原住民族傳統生態知識架構，本研究歸納崁津部落生態知識的實踐樣貌為：(1)多數族人最為日常的實踐行為集中在部落方圓2公里內，主要為野菜採集、河岸漁獵、原民作物農耕；（2）部落目前沒有明確的資源管理辦法，但個人條件限制與傳統資源共享觀念，仍影響族人的資源利用行為；（3）部落目前沒有明確的資源管理社會組織，而且宗教信仰多元，但很可能為了追求「就地合法居住」的共同目標，發展出「共享的精神」或「共享文化」價值觀。根據Nonaka與Takeuchi（1995）之SECI知識創造歷程模型，崁津部落生態知識也多以隱性知識方式傳遞，且在面對面的實體環境中共享。然而因著「就地合法居住」共同信念，營造出特殊的知識共享氛圍，並成為生態知識「外化」的核心動力之一。顯性知識較有助於知識保存，目前崁津部落生態知識的「外化」多透過刻意創造的情境，但建議持續推動，而河岸部落實體空間提供的「場」，正是知識創造歷程動態循環中不可獲缺的要素。

關鍵字

河岸部落；崁津部落；生態知識的實踐；阿美族；部落採集地圖

並列摘要

Taiwan's indigenous population in urban areas increased as Taiwan's urbanization accelerated in the 1980s. Many Amis communities emerged along the riversides of the Dahan River, across New Taipei City and Taoyuan City. These communities intensified their subjectivity during the fight against mainstream society (including the government) for their legal residence. They also developed social organizations similar to those of indigenous communities. These communities are called riverside indigenous communities. Many scholars mentioned that Amis people rely on riverside resources to carry out daily activities such as farming, fishing, and collecting in urban riversides (Li H. H., 2010,2018; Lin Y. R., 2009; Zhang D. Y., 2014; Chen Y. L., 2010; Lu J. M., Xu S. Z., Zhang J. C., 2010). How the Amis people of Pamatangan Community internally create, transfer, and pass on ecological knowledge in the limited land along the urban riversides under the pressure of urban living and work? What are the possible future developments from the perspective of indigenous ecological knowledge management? These all are worth exploring. Therefore, this study co-operated with one of the riverside indigenous communities, Pamatangan Community, in Daxi District, Taoyuan City, using methods including participant observation, making community collection maps, group interviews, and in-depth interviews. This study referred to the framework of indigenous traditional ecological knowledge by Berkes (1999). In this study, the ecological knowledge practice of Pamatangan Community was summarized as follows: (1) Most Amis people's daily practices happened within 2 kilo-meters from the community, mainly wild vegetables collecting, river fishing, and indigenous crops farming; (2) There was no clear resource management rules in the community. Personal limitations and traditional resource-sharing mindsets still dominated how the community utilized resources; (3) The community had no clear social organization for resource management, neither a unified religious belief. But the values of "spirit of sharing" or " culture of sharing" might have been developed in order to pursue the common goal of "legal on-site residence". According to the SECI model proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), The ecological knowledge of Pamatangan Community was also conveyed implicitly in face-to-face physical environments. However, because of the common pursuit of "legal on-site residence", a special atmosphere of knowledge sharing has been created, which had become one of the core driving forces for the "explicitization" of ecological knowledge. Explicit knowledge is more preferred in terms of knowledge preservation. The "explicitization" of ecological knowledge of Pamatangan Community was mainly prearranged. But it is suggest-ed to keep on prearranging it, because the “field” of physical spaces in riverside communities was an indispensable element in the dynamic cycle of knowledge creation.