生態社區形塑歷程權益關係人分析— 桃園縣龍潭鄉三林社區之個案

A Stakeholders Analysis of Ecological Community— A Case of Sanlin Community in Long-Tan Township , Tao-Yuan County

陳嬿竹(Yen-Chu Chen)

指導教授 ： 張長義

國立臺灣大學/理學院/地理環境資源學研究所/碩士(2007年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2007.00622

摘要

摘要
本研究乃是以國內進行中「社區總體營造」之生態社區為主要研究對象，選擇有成熟運作機制之桃園縣龍潭鄉三林社區為研究個案，探討發展生態社區時，相關權益關係人的想法、協調機制與規劃。具體研究目的主要在探討：透過生態社區相關文獻來探討生態社區形塑歷程，透過相關研究瞭解生態社區權益關係人協調機制，並以三林社區為例，探討其發展為生態社區的歷程，希望提出未來地方發展生態社區之參考。
本研究的權益關係人可分為公部門（縣政府、農會等）、私部門（社區規劃師、居民等）與專家學者們。經質性訪談及量化問卷調查研究結果顯示：
1.公部門：因體系混亂，未有較完整的系統計劃，導致無法構成系統而零星規劃，管制績效不彰。
2.私部門：(1)民眾：因社區凝聚力、社區意識尚未養成，及環境教育不夠落實下，社區居民對社區事務之冷漠可想而知。
(2)社區規劃師：因有熱誠無實權，無法確保最後施工項目、品質。
3.專家學者：也因沒有相當於公部門的權力地位，對後續施作無權過問，無法建設出真正具有生態意涵之社區。
生態社區發展過程中，相關權益關係人的加入一定會較以前公部門由上而下權威式操作來得複雜且耗時，因此易造成一些衝突或緊張情形；即便如此，在許多公共事務參與相關經驗中我們可以看到，民眾的聲音能愈早被聽到愈好，這樣可避免某些權益關係人的獨大而忽略在地社區民眾的權利而引起反彈，生態社區發展必須獲得當地居民的認同，否則有再崇高的理想、考量，亦不受居民重視的。
因此本研究對地方發展生態社區之建議如下：
1.公部門：須流程重組、再造，並在所有環節納入生態社區理念。
2.私部門：(1)民眾：愈早開始參與愈好，另提出監工過程仍是要融入民眾的。
(2)社區規劃師：賦予實質的監工權力，並應得到公部門的獎勵及協助。
3.專家學者：應將過程標準化，將社區參與的架構完整規劃。

關鍵字

生態社區 ； 形塑歷程 ； 權益關係人 ； 三林社區

並列摘要

ABSTRACT
Sanlin community discussed in the paper is a government-supported community based on “Tao-Yuan County Community Development Plan”, attempting to develop an ecological community. This paper aims to analyze related stakeholders and then discuss the thought and the process of negotiation among stakeholders when Sanlin community is becoming an ecological community. The purposes of this study are as follows: Discuss the developed-process of ecological community via relative literatures of ecological community. Analyzing the negotiation mechanism among stakeholders in this study, discuss the development process for being an ecological community Sanlin community, and hope those experience can help other emerging ecological community.
In this research, stakeholders are divided into three groups. The first group is the public sector, relating to county government, farmers' association, etc. The second group is the private sector, relating to community designer, residents in Sanlin community. The third group is the experts and scholar. The results of quality interview and the quantifications show:
1. Public sector: Less management performance results from lack of complete system plan.
2. Private sectors: (1)Resident: They do not care about the community affairs due to the fact that less community cohesion and community sense of residents and eco-environmental education do not fulfill.
(2)Community designer: They cannot guarantee what are the last constructions and their quality due to no real power they have.
3. Experts and scholar: public sector must recombine the process, and involve ecological ideas in every segment. One of the private sectors is residents who are involved the earlier, the better, and they have to take part in the supervising-work. The other is the community designer who should have real power to supervise work, and they should be helped and be reward by public sector.
Since stakeholders are involved in the decision process, the decision-making process will be very complicated and time-consuming while sometimes some conflictions and tension will even occur. Thus, it is better that public opinions can be adopted earlier before public policy decided. Local residents could not pay much attention to the public policy without their involvement, although the public policy is an excellent one which can assist both local environment protection and economic development.
The research suggestions that making a local ecological community in this paper are as follows：
1. The public sector must recombine the process, and involve ecological ideas in every segment.
2. One of the private sectors is residents who are involved the earlier, the better, and they have to take part in the supervising-work. The other is the community designer who should have real power to supervise work, and they should be helped and be reward by public sector.
3. The experts and scholar should standardize the process, and completely plan the framework of community participation.

並列關鍵字

Ecological community ； forming process ； stakeholders ； Sanlin community

參考文獻

方瓊瑤 (2006) 社區總體營造政策的政治經濟分析，國立台灣大學

325-346。1998年6月6、7日，台大、師大，中華民國野鳥學會。

林尤麗 (2005) 台北市芝山岩生態社區形構歷程之研究，國立台灣

倪進誠、林冠慧、張長義 (2004) 生態社區之理念探究與城鄉新風

彭國棟 (2006) 永續發展與生態社區營造，自然保育季刊，53(5)：