Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 貢寮水梯田實踐里山倡議之研究
Facilitating Practice of the Satoyama Initiative at Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields, Taiwan作者 陳佩佳
Chen, Pei-Jia貢獻者 顏愛靜
Yen, Ai-Ching
陳佩佳
Chen, Pei-Jia關鍵詞 貢寮水梯田
生物多樣性
集體行動
里山倡議
生態服務給付
Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields
Biological Diversity
Collective Action
Satoyama Initiative
Payment for Ecosystem Service日期 2021 上傳時間 2-Sep-2021 17:29:08 (UTC+8) 摘要 水梯田除經濟與糧食生產功能外，尚具農業多功能性，其中涵蓋濕地、生態與文化景觀的永續性價值，並擁有極高的生物多樣性。其濕地利益被視為一種公共財，因其不具市場性，為政府提供了干預的理由。為恢復水梯田的特殊棲地與生態系服務，行政院農業委員會林務局自2011年起即補助人禾環境倫理發展基金會推動「貢寮水梯田暨濕地生態系統復育及保育計畫」，並將里山倡議精神融入本計畫。本研究以貢寮水梯田為樣區，透過文獻分析法、參與式觀察法、深度訪談法等研究方法為之，採OECD集體行動理論分析貢寮水梯田實踐里山倡議之關鍵要素，以及探究貢寮水梯田實踐里山倡議之困境，並進一步驗證里山倡議與集體行動之關連性。最後，提出實踐里山倡議之策略以供其他案例之參考。研究結果顯示，貢寮水梯田之復育確有達到里山倡議之精神，集體行動是實踐里山倡議之重要方法。然因地方與中央政府推動水梯田復育之理念不同，未能持續合作，致影響政策的成效與資源的分配。而保育合夥人制度代表消費者對土地利用方式轉變的支持，且合夥人師徒制、換工學習等方式提供了公眾共同參與之管道，是一種新型態的合作關係。又，生態服務給付（PES）確實提供了誘因，驅動農民持續維持友善耕作。本研究認為中央與地方政府應共同合作，方能促進政策的整合與資源的有效分配。且以保育為前提之下，如何兼顧農田生產功能，以維持農民生計問題是重要的議題。再者，水梯田地景係屬文化景觀之一，為無形的文化資產，若能將之登錄於受列管之文化資產中，予以保存與活化，應有利水梯田環境的永續發展；此外，應邀請在地居民參與本計畫，並徵召有志者參與體驗產業活動，以思考從中培育導覽人員作為田間老師之可能，彌補具解說導覽能力有限之農戶問題，從而建立新的協同合作體系，更能落實里山倡議精神。
In addition to economic and food production functions, terraced paddy fields contain sustainable values on wetland, ecological and cultural landscape conservation, and rich in biodiversity. Wetland benefit is considered as a public good without marketability, so that there are reasons for government intervention. To restore the special habitat and ecosystem services of the terraced paddy fields, the Forestry Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan subsidizes the "Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields and Wetland Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Program" which incorporates with the spirit of Satoyama Initiative, that proposed by the Environmental Ethics Foundation of Taiwan since 2011.Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields is regarded as a sample area in this study. This study applies literature analysis, participatory observation methods, in-depth interviews etc. This study adopts collective action theory as a tool to analyze the key elements of how community members in Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields practice Satoyama Initiative, the dilemma of practice, and relevance between the Initiative and collective action. Finally, the strategy of practicing the Satoyama Initiative is proposed for reference.The results of this study show that the restoration of Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields has indeed reached the spirit of the Satoyama Initiative and collective action is an important method for practicing the Satoyama Initiative. However, because the local and central governments have different ideas in promoting the restoration of terraced-paddy fields and cooperation leads to an end so that it affects the effectiveness of policy and resources allocation. The conservation partnership system represents consumers’ support for the transformation of land use. Besides, maser- apprentice system, au pair learning, etc. provide opportunity for public participation which develops a new cooperation relationship. In addition, the Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) does provide an incentive to drive farmers maintaining environmentally friendly farming continuously.This study believes that the central and local governments should work together to promote the integration of policies and the effective allocation of resources. Under the premise of conservation, how the Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields consider farmland production functions to maintain farmers` livelihoods is an important issue. Moreover, the terraced paddy fields landscape is one of the cultural landscapes as intangible cultural asset. This study suggests that if Terraced-Paddy-Fields can be recorded and traced in the list of National Cultural Heritage for preserving and activating, it should be helpful to the sustainable development of Terraced-Paddy-Fields. Furthermore, local residents should be invited to participate in this grogram and the program should summon volunteers to participate in industry activities to think the possibility of being field teachers which may make up for the farmers’ limited field guide capabilities. Thus, people can establish a new collaborative system which will be practicable to the spirit of Satoyama Initiative.參考文獻 一、中文參考文獻專書人禾X狸和禾，2015，『水梯田！貢寮山村的故事』，新北市：無限出版社。世界農業遺產Book編輯製作委員會，2018，『世界農業遺產－傳承給下個世代的美好農業風景』，臺灣：行政院農業委員會林務局、社團法人臺灣環境教育協會。古碧玲，2020，『請問里山怎麼走？：走讀從森林到海岸的四季生活』，臺灣：行政院農業委員會林務局、社團法人臺灣環境教育協會。李明仁、江志宏，1995，『東北角漁村的聚落和生活』，臺北縣：臺北縣立文化中心。邱瑞杰，2000，『清末關西地區的散村的安全與防禦』，新竹縣：新竹縣政府文化局。唐宇，2004，『貢寮鄉誌〈上冊〉』，臺北縣：貢寮鄉公所。財團法人慈心有機農業發展基金會，2020，『我們的友善，他們的家：綠色保育農業故事』，臺灣：行政院農業委員會林務局、財團法人慈心有機農業發展基金會。釋惠敏、黃信勳，2018，『心靈環保講座選輯（三）：四生和合之鄉村社區營造』，臺灣：法鼓學校財團法人法鼓文理學院。期刊方韻如，2011，「貢寮水梯田對里山倡議的實踐嘗試」，『林業研究專訊』，18(3)：32-37。方韻如、薛博聞，2014，「田水串起山海生命線貢寮水梯田的老智慧與新關係」，『自然保育季刊』，86：27-39。方韻如、薛博聞，2015，「貢寮和禾水梯田，把生態系服務種回來」，『臺灣林業』，41(1)：62-70。行政院農業委員會，2021，「瀕危物種及重要棲地生態服務給付推動方案元旦上路－生態服務給付再升級，物種棲地保育兼顧經濟」，『農政與農情』，343：108-111。李光中，2011，「鄉村地景保育的新思維─里山倡議」，『臺灣林業』，37(3)：59-64。李光中，2014，「農業濕地保育與里山倡議」，『國科會科學發展月刊』，497：28-35。李光中，2016，「地景尺度著眼的里山倡議與生態農業」，『地景保育通訊』，42：12-18。李光中、王鑫，2015，「借鏡國際里山倡議經驗」，『臺灣林業』，41(1)：24-37。李光中、范美玲，2016，「因應氣候變遷強化農業生態系統回復力與社區調適能力」，『臺灣林業』，42(2)：50-60。林家玉、賴瑞聲、張素貞，2019，「農業生態系統服務之功能－以苗栗苑裡地區水稻為例」，『苗栗區農業專訊』，86：1-2。姚敏、崔保山，2006，「哈尼梯田溼地生態系統的垂直特徵」，『生態學報』，26(7)：2115-2124。洪鴻智、李承嘉、詹士樑、林華慶、蕭婷允、文嬿翔，2013，「水梯田濕地生態與景觀之保育與價值評估」，『臺灣土地研究』，16(2)：1-22。張桂肇、李妍儀，2020，「初探社會生態系統永續管理模式的實踐：里山里海地方創生」，『農業推廣文彙』，63輯：197-203。趙榮台，2010，「CBD-COP10生物多樣性公約第十屆締約方大會特輯－里山倡議」，『大自然』，110：64-67。劉芝君，2020，「越林壑深處，朝向淺山隴畝-國土生態綠網，串起臺灣森、川、里、海」，『豐年雜誌』，70(2)：20-28。謝佳倫、方韻如、謝傳鎧、鍾國芳，2015，「濕地植物保育新思維：由貢寮水梯田的植物多樣性談其保育價值的生態學基礎」，『國立臺灣大學生物資源暨農學院實驗林研究報告』，29(4)：279-291。顏愛靜，2021，「歐盟RETHINK（反思）大型研究計畫的考察及其啟示」，『土地問題研究季刊』，20(1)：2-22。顏愛靜、季美珍，2019，「原住民部落推展農村再生計畫的集體行動—以花蓮縣光復鄉阿美族南富社區為例」，『臺灣土地研究』，22(2)：135-169。顏愛靜、孫稚堤、陳亭伊，2016，「有機農業多功能性之研究-以新竹縣尖石鄉石磊部落為例」，『地理學報』，82：1-28。學位論文張瓊文，2016，「宜蘭縣三星鄉行健村以集體行動促進有機農業發展之研究」，國立政治大學地政學系研究所碩士論文：臺北。陳秉宏，2011，「社區發展集體行動與誘因導入-以宜蘭縣冬山鄉珍珠社區為例」，國立政治大學地政學系研究所碩士論文：臺北。廖國柱，2018，「永續農業經營組職之研究-以領導人特質為論述中心」，國立政治大學地政學系研究所碩士論文：臺北。謝傳鎧，2017，「貢寮水梯田耕作社群之傳統生態知識變遷：以灌溉水管理為例」，國立臺灣大學生命科學院生態學與演化生物學研究所碩士論文：臺北。其他人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2012，「田寮洋濕地周邊水梯田生態保育計畫結案報告」，行政院農業委員會林務局101年結案報告（計畫編號：101林發-07.2-保06）人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2017，「貢寮水梯田棲地保育合作暨產業推動」，行政院農業委員會林務局106年結案報告（計畫編號：106農再-2.2.6-1.1-林001-001-009）。人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2018，「貢寮水梯田棲地保育合作暨產業推動」，行政院農業委員會林務局107年結案報告（計畫編號：107農再-2.2.6-1.1-林001-001-009）。人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2019，「貢寮水梯田棲地保育合作暨產業推動」，行政院農業委員會林務局108年結案報告（計畫編號：108農再-2.2.6-1.1-林001-001-004）人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2020，「貢寮水梯田國土生態綠網保育計畫成果報告」，行政院農業委員會林務局109年結案報告（計畫編號：109林發-09.1-保-16）方韻如、薛博聞、林紋翠、張嘉云、林秀麗，2012，「貢寮水梯田案例－保育需求評估、公眾環境溝通、與產業模式的初探」。論文發表於<2012互惠互助的自然資源經營-里山倡議精神的實踐研討會>，行政院農業委員會林務局、台北大學土地與環境規劃研究中心：臺北，民國101年11月15日。行政院農業委員會林務局，2014，「臺灣里山倡議夥伴關係網絡推動計畫之先期規劃(2-1)成果報告」，行政院農業委員會林務局。行政院農業委員會林務局，2020，「生態服務給付記者會簡報」，行政院農業委員會林務局。洪鴻智、李承嘉、詹士樑，2010，「水梯田濕地生態保存及復育補貼政策之研究」，行政院農業委員會林務局補助計畫（計畫編號：99 林發-08.2- 保-5）。洪鴻智、李承嘉、詹士樑，2012，「水梯田濕地生態保存及保育補貼政策研究計畫（三）」，行政院農業委員會林務局補助計畫 （計畫編號：101 林發-08-保11）。二、外文參考文獻專書Anatoly, Z., Christiane, H., 2016, Leadership with Synercube A dynamic leadership culture for excellence, Place of Publication: Publisher.Bordieu, P., 1986, ‘The forms of capital’in trust: Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, edited by Richardson, J., Greenwood Press.Daily, G., Postel, S., Bawa, K., Kaufma, L., 1997, Nature`s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Washington, D.C.：Island PressJSSA (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment) (Ed.), 2010, Satoyama–Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes of Japan：UNU Press.Lomolino, M.V., Riddle, B.R., and Brown, J.H., 2006, Biogeography. 3rd Edition, Sunderland, Sinauer Associates, Inc.Marshall, G., 1998, A Dictionary of Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press.OECD, 2013, Providing Agri-Environmental Public Goods through Collection Action, Paris: OECD Publilishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264197213-en.Olson, M., 1971, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Havard University Press. http://outsidethetext.com/archive/Olson.pdfOstrom, E., 1990, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge new York: Cambridge University Press.Paul, B., 2010, Leadership in Democracy Second edition, Palgrave MacmillanPutnam, R.D., 2000, Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, London：Simon & Schuster.Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R.Y., 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton：Princeton University Press.Takeuchi, K., et al. eds., 2002, Satoyama: the traditional rural landscape of Japan, Tokyo：Springer.Vanni, F., 2014, Agriculture and public goods: The role of collective action, Place.Wade, R., 1988, Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in South India, Oakland: ICS Press.期刊Agrawal, A., 2001, “Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources”, World development, 29(10):1649-1672.Ayer H., 1997, “Grass Roots Collective Action:Agricultural Opportunities”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 22(1).Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., Stone, M.M., 2006,“The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations:Propositions from the Literature”, Public Administration Review, 66(s1):44-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x.Chang, K. and Y. Ying, 2005, “External Benefits of Preserving Agricultural Land: Taiwan`s Rice Fields”, Social Science Journal, 42(2):285-293.Coleman, J.S., 1988,“Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement):95-120.Costanza, R. et al., 1997, “The value of the world`s ecosystem services and natural capital”, Nature, 387(15):253-260.Curry, N., 2001, “Community participation and rural policy: representativeness in the development of millennium greens”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(4):561-576.Davies, B., Blackstock, K., Brown, K., Shannon P., 2004,“Challenges in creating local agrienvironmental cooperation action amongst farmers and other stakeholders”, Aberdeen: The Macaulay Institute.Dwyer, J., 2011,“UK land use futures: policy influence and challenges for the coming decades”, Land Use Policy, 28(4):674-683.Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S., 2012,“An integrative framework for collaborative governance”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1):1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011.Fukamachi, K., et al., 2001, “The change of a satoyama landscape and its causality in Kamiseya, Kyoto Prefecture, Japan between 1970 and 1995”, Landscape Ecology, 16(8):703-717.Hodge, I., McNally, S., 2000, “Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management institutions”, Ecological Economics, 35(1):107-118.Ichikawa, K., Okubo, N., Okubo, S., and Takeuchi, K., 2006, “Transition of the satoyama landscape in the urban fringeof the Tokyo metropolitan area from 1880 to 2001”, Landscapse and Urban Planning, 78(4),398–410.Iiyama, N., Kamada, M., and Nakagoshi, N., 2005, “ Ecological and social evaluation of landscape in a rural area with terraced paddies in southwestern Japan”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 70(3-4):301-313.Indrawan, Ｍ., Yabe, M., Nomura, Ｈ. and Harrison, R., 2014, “Deconstructing satoyama – The socio-ecological landscape in Japan”, Ecological Engineering, 64:77-84.Kazuhiko Takeuchi, 2010,”Rebuilding the relationship between people and nature: the Satoyama Initiative”,Ecological Research, 25(5):891-897.Kobori, H. and Primack, R.B., 2003b, “Conservation for satoyama, the Traditional landscape of Japan”, Arnoldia, 62:2-10.Koopmans, M. E., Rogge, E., Mettepenningen, E., Knickel, K., Sūmane, S., 2018,“The role of multi-actor governance in aligning farm modernization and sustainable rural development”, Journal of Rural Studies, 59:252-262.Loft, L., Mann, C., Hansjurgens, B., 2015, “Challenges in ecosystem services governance:Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities”,Ecosystem Services, 16:150-157.Matsuno, Y., Nakamura, K., Masumoto, T., Matsui, H., Kato, T., and Sato, Y., 2006, “Prospects for multifunctionality of paddy rice cultivation in Japan and other countries in monsoon Asia”, Paddy and Water Environment, 4:189-197.Meinzen-Dick, R., Di Gregorio, M., & McCarthy, n., 2004, “Methods for studying collective action in rural development”, Agricultural Systems, 82(3):197-214.Morimoto, J., Kondo, T., and Miyauchi, T., 2009, “Satoyama–satoumi sub-global assessment in Japan and involvement of the Hokkaido Cluster”, Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 5(1):91-96.Morimoto, Y., 2011, “What is Satoyama? Points for discussion on its future direction”, Landscape Ecol Eng, 7:163–171.Nekola, C., 1999,“Paleorefugia and neorefugia:the influcence of colonization history on community pattern and process”, Ecology 80(8):2459–2473.Kieninger, P.R., Penker, M., and Yamaji, E., 2012, “Esthetic and spiritual values motivating collective action for the conservation of cultural landscape—A case study of rice terraces in Japan”,Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 28(4):364-379.Pretty, J., 2003, “Social capital and the collective management of resources”, Science, 302:1912–1914.Shidei T., 2000, “Miscellaneous notes of farm forest”, Bull Kansai Organ Nat Conserv, 22(1):71–77 (in Japanese)Sumane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I., Rivera, M., Chebach, T. and Ashkenazy, A., 2018, “Local and farmers` knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture”,Journal of Rural Studies(59):232-241.Takeuchi, K., 2001, “Nature conservation strategies for the SATOYAMA and SATOCHI,habitats for secondary nature in Japan”, Glob. Environ. Resour, 5(2):191–198.Wiggering, H., C. Dalchow, M. Glemnitz, K. Helming, K. Müller, A. Schultz, U. Stachow, and P. Zander, 2006, “Indicators for multifunctional land use—Linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials”, Ecological Indicators（6）:238-249。Wilson, G. A., 2001, “From Productivism to Post-Productivism... and Back Again? Exploring the (Un)changed Natural and Mental Landscapes of European Agriculture”, Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 26(1):77-101.Woolcock, M., 1998, "Social capital and economic development:Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework", Theory and Society, 27(2):151-208.會議論文Mills, J., Gibbon, D., Ingram, J., Reed, M., Short, C., and Dwyer, J., 2010, “Collective Action for Effective Environmental Management and Social Learning in Wales”,Paper presented at the Workshop 1.1 Innovation and Change Facilitation for Rural Development, 9th European IFSA, Building Sustainable Futures, Vienna Austria, 4-7 July 2010. Ostrom, E., 2009. “Beyond markets and states： polycentric governance of complex economic systems”, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009, Prize Lecture, December 8. https：//www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/ostrom_lecture.pdf, Accessed date: 26 octubre 2018.Uetake, T., 2013, “Managing Agri-environmental Commons through Collective Action: Lessons from OECD Countries”, Paper presented at the 14th, Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons, Mt. Fuji, June其他UNU-IAS, 2010a, “Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes of Japan – Summary for Decision Makers.” Institute of Advanced Studies of the United Nations University.UNU-IAS, 2015, “IPSI： The International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative”https：//satoyama-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/20151007_ID- PDF_UNU-DL-flyer-EN-with-new-diargam.pdf (Date visited： March 17, 2020)三、網頁參考文獻人禾環境倫理發展基金會，https：//eeft.org.tw/，取用日期：2020年2月5日。行政院農業委員會林務局自然保育網，https：//conservation.forest.gov.tw/0002047，取用日期：2020年2月5日。狸和禾小穀倉，2020，http：//monghoho.blogspot.com/，取用日期：2020年1月4日。貢寮．水．梯田，2020，http：//kongaliao-waterterrace.blogspot.com/p/2012.htm，取用日期：2020年1月4日。教育部臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典，https://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/，取用日期：2021年3月14日。眼底城市，抓好距離 準備降落：貢寮和禾水梯田，https://eyesonplace.net/2019/03/10/11083/，取用日期：2021年3月9日。福壽螺，維基百科，https://zh.wikipedia.org/zhtw/%E7%A6%8F%E5%AF%BF%E8%9E%BA，取用日期：2021年3月9日。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系碩士在職專班
107923006資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107923006 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 顏愛靜 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Yen, Ai-Ching en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳佩佳 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Pei-Jia en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳佩佳 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, Pei-Jia en_US dc.date (日期) 2021 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2021 17:29:08 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2021 17:29:08 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2021 17:29:08 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107923006 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/137031 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 地政學系碩士在職專班 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 107923006 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 水梯田除經濟與糧食生產功能外，尚具農業多功能性，其中涵蓋濕地、生態與文化景觀的永續性價值，並擁有極高的生物多樣性。其濕地利益被視為一種公共財，因其不具市場性，為政府提供了干預的理由。為恢復水梯田的特殊棲地與生態系服務，行政院農業委員會林務局自2011年起即補助人禾環境倫理發展基金會推動「貢寮水梯田暨濕地生態系統復育及保育計畫」，並將里山倡議精神融入本計畫。本研究以貢寮水梯田為樣區，透過文獻分析法、參與式觀察法、深度訪談法等研究方法為之，採OECD集體行動理論分析貢寮水梯田實踐里山倡議之關鍵要素，以及探究貢寮水梯田實踐里山倡議之困境，並進一步驗證里山倡議與集體行動之關連性。最後，提出實踐里山倡議之策略以供其他案例之參考。研究結果顯示，貢寮水梯田之復育確有達到里山倡議之精神，集體行動是實踐里山倡議之重要方法。然因地方與中央政府推動水梯田復育之理念不同，未能持續合作，致影響政策的成效與資源的分配。而保育合夥人制度代表消費者對土地利用方式轉變的支持，且合夥人師徒制、換工學習等方式提供了公眾共同參與之管道，是一種新型態的合作關係。又，生態服務給付（PES）確實提供了誘因，驅動農民持續維持友善耕作。本研究認為中央與地方政府應共同合作，方能促進政策的整合與資源的有效分配。且以保育為前提之下，如何兼顧農田生產功能，以維持農民生計問題是重要的議題。再者，水梯田地景係屬文化景觀之一，為無形的文化資產，若能將之登錄於受列管之文化資產中，予以保存與活化，應有利水梯田環境的永續發展；此外，應邀請在地居民參與本計畫，並徵召有志者參與體驗產業活動，以思考從中培育導覽人員作為田間老師之可能，彌補具解說導覽能力有限之農戶問題，從而建立新的協同合作體系，更能落實里山倡議精神。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In addition to economic and food production functions, terraced paddy fields contain sustainable values on wetland, ecological and cultural landscape conservation, and rich in biodiversity. Wetland benefit is considered as a public good without marketability, so that there are reasons for government intervention. To restore the special habitat and ecosystem services of the terraced paddy fields, the Forestry Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan subsidizes the "Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields and Wetland Ecosystem Restoration and Conservation Program" which incorporates with the spirit of Satoyama Initiative, that proposed by the Environmental Ethics Foundation of Taiwan since 2011.Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields is regarded as a sample area in this study. This study applies literature analysis, participatory observation methods, in-depth interviews etc. This study adopts collective action theory as a tool to analyze the key elements of how community members in Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields practice Satoyama Initiative, the dilemma of practice, and relevance between the Initiative and collective action. Finally, the strategy of practicing the Satoyama Initiative is proposed for reference.The results of this study show that the restoration of Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields has indeed reached the spirit of the Satoyama Initiative and collective action is an important method for practicing the Satoyama Initiative. However, because the local and central governments have different ideas in promoting the restoration of terraced-paddy fields and cooperation leads to an end so that it affects the effectiveness of policy and resources allocation. The conservation partnership system represents consumers’ support for the transformation of land use. Besides, maser- apprentice system, au pair learning, etc. provide opportunity for public participation which develops a new cooperation relationship. In addition, the Payment for Ecosystem Service (PES) does provide an incentive to drive farmers maintaining environmentally friendly farming continuously.This study believes that the central and local governments should work together to promote the integration of policies and the effective allocation of resources. Under the premise of conservation, how the Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields consider farmland production functions to maintain farmers` livelihoods is an important issue. Moreover, the terraced paddy fields landscape is one of the cultural landscapes as intangible cultural asset. This study suggests that if Terraced-Paddy-Fields can be recorded and traced in the list of National Cultural Heritage for preserving and activating, it should be helpful to the sustainable development of Terraced-Paddy-Fields. Furthermore, local residents should be invited to participate in this grogram and the program should summon volunteers to participate in industry activities to think the possibility of being field teachers which may make up for the farmers’ limited field guide capabilities. Thus, people can establish a new collaborative system which will be practicable to the spirit of Satoyama Initiative. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機 1第二節 研究目的 6第三節 研究範圍 7第四節 研究方法與流程 9第二章 文獻回顧與理論基礎 11第一節 里山倡議相關文獻與研究 11第二節 集體行動理論 20第三節 小結 28第三章 研究個案背景與現況及訪談設計 31第一節 貢寮水梯田背景 31第二節 復育過程與成果 42第三節 訪談內容設計 57第四章 運用集體行動理論實踐里山倡議之分析 65第一節 影響復育貢寮水梯田之關鍵要素分析 65第二節 復育過程所遭遇之困境與挑戰 93第三節 貢寮水梯田實踐里山倡議之分析 99第四節 綜合分析 111第五章 結論與建議 121第一節 結論 121第二節 建議 124參考文獻 126附錄1：歷年計畫名稱及重點工作項目 136附錄2：受訪者名冊 143 zh_TW dc.format.extent 5446062 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107923006 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 貢寮水梯田 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 生物多樣性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 集體行動 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 里山倡議 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 生態服務給付 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Biological Diversity en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collective Action en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Satoyama Initiative en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Payment for Ecosystem Service en_US dc.title (題名) 貢寮水梯田實踐里山倡議之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Facilitating Practice of the Satoyama Initiative at Gongliao-Terraced-Paddy-Fields, Taiwan en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文參考文獻專書人禾X狸和禾，2015，『水梯田！貢寮山村的故事』，新北市：無限出版社。世界農業遺產Book編輯製作委員會，2018，『世界農業遺產－傳承給下個世代的美好農業風景』，臺灣：行政院農業委員會林務局、社團法人臺灣環境教育協會。古碧玲，2020，『請問里山怎麼走？：走讀從森林到海岸的四季生活』，臺灣：行政院農業委員會林務局、社團法人臺灣環境教育協會。李明仁、江志宏，1995，『東北角漁村的聚落和生活』，臺北縣：臺北縣立文化中心。邱瑞杰，2000，『清末關西地區的散村的安全與防禦』，新竹縣：新竹縣政府文化局。唐宇，2004，『貢寮鄉誌〈上冊〉』，臺北縣：貢寮鄉公所。財團法人慈心有機農業發展基金會，2020，『我們的友善，他們的家：綠色保育農業故事』，臺灣：行政院農業委員會林務局、財團法人慈心有機農業發展基金會。釋惠敏、黃信勳，2018，『心靈環保講座選輯（三）：四生和合之鄉村社區營造』，臺灣：法鼓學校財團法人法鼓文理學院。期刊方韻如，2011，「貢寮水梯田對里山倡議的實踐嘗試」，『林業研究專訊』，18(3)：32-37。方韻如、薛博聞，2014，「田水串起山海生命線貢寮水梯田的老智慧與新關係」，『自然保育季刊』，86：27-39。方韻如、薛博聞，2015，「貢寮和禾水梯田，把生態系服務種回來」，『臺灣林業』，41(1)：62-70。行政院農業委員會，2021，「瀕危物種及重要棲地生態服務給付推動方案元旦上路－生態服務給付再升級，物種棲地保育兼顧經濟」，『農政與農情』，343：108-111。李光中，2011，「鄉村地景保育的新思維─里山倡議」，『臺灣林業』，37(3)：59-64。李光中，2014，「農業濕地保育與里山倡議」，『國科會科學發展月刊』，497：28-35。李光中，2016，「地景尺度著眼的里山倡議與生態農業」，『地景保育通訊』，42：12-18。李光中、王鑫，2015，「借鏡國際里山倡議經驗」，『臺灣林業』，41(1)：24-37。李光中、范美玲，2016，「因應氣候變遷強化農業生態系統回復力與社區調適能力」，『臺灣林業』，42(2)：50-60。林家玉、賴瑞聲、張素貞，2019，「農業生態系統服務之功能－以苗栗苑裡地區水稻為例」，『苗栗區農業專訊』，86：1-2。姚敏、崔保山，2006，「哈尼梯田溼地生態系統的垂直特徵」，『生態學報』，26(7)：2115-2124。洪鴻智、李承嘉、詹士樑、林華慶、蕭婷允、文嬿翔，2013，「水梯田濕地生態與景觀之保育與價值評估」，『臺灣土地研究』，16(2)：1-22。張桂肇、李妍儀，2020，「初探社會生態系統永續管理模式的實踐：里山里海地方創生」，『農業推廣文彙』，63輯：197-203。趙榮台，2010，「CBD-COP10生物多樣性公約第十屆締約方大會特輯－里山倡議」，『大自然』，110：64-67。劉芝君，2020，「越林壑深處，朝向淺山隴畝-國土生態綠網，串起臺灣森、川、里、海」，『豐年雜誌』，70(2)：20-28。謝佳倫、方韻如、謝傳鎧、鍾國芳，2015，「濕地植物保育新思維：由貢寮水梯田的植物多樣性談其保育價值的生態學基礎」，『國立臺灣大學生物資源暨農學院實驗林研究報告』，29(4)：279-291。顏愛靜，2021，「歐盟RETHINK（反思）大型研究計畫的考察及其啟示」，『土地問題研究季刊』，20(1)：2-22。顏愛靜、季美珍，2019，「原住民部落推展農村再生計畫的集體行動—以花蓮縣光復鄉阿美族南富社區為例」，『臺灣土地研究』，22(2)：135-169。顏愛靜、孫稚堤、陳亭伊，2016，「有機農業多功能性之研究-以新竹縣尖石鄉石磊部落為例」，『地理學報』，82：1-28。學位論文張瓊文，2016，「宜蘭縣三星鄉行健村以集體行動促進有機農業發展之研究」，國立政治大學地政學系研究所碩士論文：臺北。陳秉宏，2011，「社區發展集體行動與誘因導入-以宜蘭縣冬山鄉珍珠社區為例」，國立政治大學地政學系研究所碩士論文：臺北。廖國柱，2018，「永續農業經營組職之研究-以領導人特質為論述中心」，國立政治大學地政學系研究所碩士論文：臺北。謝傳鎧，2017，「貢寮水梯田耕作社群之傳統生態知識變遷：以灌溉水管理為例」，國立臺灣大學生命科學院生態學與演化生物學研究所碩士論文：臺北。其他人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2012，「田寮洋濕地周邊水梯田生態保育計畫結案報告」，行政院農業委員會林務局101年結案報告（計畫編號：101林發-07.2-保06）人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2017，「貢寮水梯田棲地保育合作暨產業推動」，行政院農業委員會林務局106年結案報告（計畫編號：106農再-2.2.6-1.1-林001-001-009）。人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2018，「貢寮水梯田棲地保育合作暨產業推動」，行政院農業委員會林務局107年結案報告（計畫編號：107農再-2.2.6-1.1-林001-001-009）。人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2019，「貢寮水梯田棲地保育合作暨產業推動」，行政院農業委員會林務局108年結案報告（計畫編號：108農再-2.2.6-1.1-林001-001-004）人禾環境倫理發展基金會，2020，「貢寮水梯田國土生態綠網保育計畫成果報告」，行政院農業委員會林務局109年結案報告（計畫編號：109林發-09.1-保-16）方韻如、薛博聞、林紋翠、張嘉云、林秀麗，2012，「貢寮水梯田案例－保育需求評估、公眾環境溝通、與產業模式的初探」。論文發表於<2012互惠互助的自然資源經營-里山倡議精神的實踐研討會>，行政院農業委員會林務局、台北大學土地與環境規劃研究中心：臺北，民國101年11月15日。行政院農業委員會林務局，2014，「臺灣里山倡議夥伴關係網絡推動計畫之先期規劃(2-1)成果報告」，行政院農業委員會林務局。行政院農業委員會林務局，2020，「生態服務給付記者會簡報」，行政院農業委員會林務局。洪鴻智、李承嘉、詹士樑，2010，「水梯田濕地生態保存及復育補貼政策之研究」，行政院農業委員會林務局補助計畫（計畫編號：99 林發-08.2- 保-5）。洪鴻智、李承嘉、詹士樑，2012，「水梯田濕地生態保存及保育補貼政策研究計畫（三）」，行政院農業委員會林務局補助計畫 （計畫編號：101 林發-08-保11）。二、外文參考文獻專書Anatoly, Z., Christiane, H., 2016, Leadership with Synercube A dynamic leadership culture for excellence, Place of Publication: Publisher.Bordieu, P., 1986, ‘The forms of capital’in trust: Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, edited by Richardson, J., Greenwood Press.Daily, G., Postel, S., Bawa, K., Kaufma, L., 1997, Nature`s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Washington, D.C.：Island PressJSSA (Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment) (Ed.), 2010, Satoyama–Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes of Japan：UNU Press.Lomolino, M.V., Riddle, B.R., and Brown, J.H., 2006, Biogeography. 3rd Edition, Sunderland, Sinauer Associates, Inc.Marshall, G., 1998, A Dictionary of Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press.OECD, 2013, Providing Agri-Environmental Public Goods through Collection Action, Paris: OECD Publilishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264197213-en.Olson, M., 1971, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Havard University Press. http://outsidethetext.com/archive/Olson.pdfOstrom, E., 1990, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge new York: Cambridge University Press.Paul, B., 2010, Leadership in Democracy Second edition, Palgrave MacmillanPutnam, R.D., 2000, Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, London：Simon & Schuster.Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R.Y., 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton：Princeton University Press.Takeuchi, K., et al. eds., 2002, Satoyama: the traditional rural landscape of Japan, Tokyo：Springer.Vanni, F., 2014, Agriculture and public goods: The role of collective action, Place.Wade, R., 1988, Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in South India, Oakland: ICS Press.期刊Agrawal, A., 2001, “Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources”, World development, 29(10):1649-1672.Ayer H., 1997, “Grass Roots Collective Action:Agricultural Opportunities”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 22(1).Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., Stone, M.M., 2006,“The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations:Propositions from the Literature”, Public Administration Review, 66(s1):44-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x.Chang, K. and Y. Ying, 2005, “External Benefits of Preserving Agricultural Land: Taiwan`s Rice Fields”, Social Science Journal, 42(2):285-293.Coleman, J.S., 1988,“Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement):95-120.Costanza, R. et al., 1997, “The value of the world`s ecosystem services and natural capital”, Nature, 387(15):253-260.Curry, N., 2001, “Community participation and rural policy: representativeness in the development of millennium greens”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(4):561-576.Davies, B., Blackstock, K., Brown, K., Shannon P., 2004,“Challenges in creating local agrienvironmental cooperation action amongst farmers and other stakeholders”, Aberdeen: The Macaulay Institute.Dwyer, J., 2011,“UK land use futures: policy influence and challenges for the coming decades”, Land Use Policy, 28(4):674-683.Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S., 2012,“An integrative framework for collaborative governance”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1):1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011.Fukamachi, K., et al., 2001, “The change of a satoyama landscape and its causality in Kamiseya, Kyoto Prefecture, Japan between 1970 and 1995”, Landscape Ecology, 16(8):703-717.Hodge, I., McNally, S., 2000, “Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management institutions”, Ecological Economics, 35(1):107-118.Ichikawa, K., Okubo, N., Okubo, S., and Takeuchi, K., 2006, “Transition of the satoyama landscape in the urban fringeof the Tokyo metropolitan area from 1880 to 2001”, Landscapse and Urban Planning, 78(4),398–410.Iiyama, N., Kamada, M., and Nakagoshi, N., 2005, “ Ecological and social evaluation of landscape in a rural area with terraced paddies in southwestern Japan”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 70(3-4):301-313.Indrawan, Ｍ., Yabe, M., Nomura, Ｈ. and Harrison, R., 2014, “Deconstructing satoyama – The socio-ecological landscape in Japan”, Ecological Engineering, 64:77-84.Kazuhiko Takeuchi, 2010,”Rebuilding the relationship between people and nature: the Satoyama Initiative”,Ecological Research, 25(5):891-897.Kobori, H. and Primack, R.B., 2003b, “Conservation for satoyama, the Traditional landscape of Japan”, Arnoldia, 62:2-10.Koopmans, M. E., Rogge, E., Mettepenningen, E., Knickel, K., Sūmane, S., 2018,“The role of multi-actor governance in aligning farm modernization and sustainable rural development”, Journal of Rural Studies, 59:252-262.Loft, L., Mann, C., Hansjurgens, B., 2015, “Challenges in ecosystem services governance:Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities”,Ecosystem Services, 16:150-157.Matsuno, Y., Nakamura, K., Masumoto, T., Matsui, H., Kato, T., and Sato, Y., 2006, “Prospects for multifunctionality of paddy rice cultivation in Japan and other countries in monsoon Asia”, Paddy and Water Environment, 4:189-197.Meinzen-Dick, R., Di Gregorio, M., & McCarthy, n., 2004, “Methods for studying collective action in rural development”, Agricultural Systems, 82(3):197-214.Morimoto, J., Kondo, T., and Miyauchi, T., 2009, “Satoyama–satoumi sub-global assessment in Japan and involvement of the Hokkaido Cluster”, Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 5(1):91-96.Morimoto, Y., 2011, “What is Satoyama? Points for discussion on its future direction”, Landscape Ecol Eng, 7:163–171.Nekola, C., 1999,“Paleorefugia and neorefugia:the influcence of colonization history on community pattern and process”, Ecology 80(8):2459–2473.Kieninger, P.R., Penker, M., and Yamaji, E., 2012, “Esthetic and spiritual values motivating collective action for the conservation of cultural landscape—A case study of rice terraces in Japan”,Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 28(4):364-379.Pretty, J., 2003, “Social capital and the collective management of resources”, Science, 302:1912–1914.Shidei T., 2000, “Miscellaneous notes of farm forest”, Bull Kansai Organ Nat Conserv, 22(1):71–77 (in Japanese)Sumane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I., Rivera, M., Chebach, T. and Ashkenazy, A., 2018, “Local and farmers` knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture”,Journal of Rural Studies(59):232-241.Takeuchi, K., 2001, “Nature conservation strategies for the SATOYAMA and SATOCHI,habitats for secondary nature in Japan”, Glob. Environ. Resour, 5(2):191–198.Wiggering, H., C. Dalchow, M. Glemnitz, K. Helming, K. Müller, A. Schultz, U. Stachow, and P. Zander, 2006, “Indicators for multifunctional land use—Linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials”, Ecological Indicators（6）:238-249。Wilson, G. A., 2001, “From Productivism to Post-Productivism... and Back Again? Exploring the (Un)changed Natural and Mental Landscapes of European Agriculture”, Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 26(1):77-101.Woolcock, M., 1998, "Social capital and economic development:Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework", Theory and Society, 27(2):151-208.會議論文Mills, J., Gibbon, D., Ingram, J., Reed, M., Short, C., and Dwyer, J., 2010, “Collective Action for Effective Environmental Management and Social Learning in Wales”,Paper presented at the Workshop 1.1 Innovation and Change Facilitation for Rural Development, 9th European IFSA, Building Sustainable Futures, Vienna Austria, 4-7 July 2010. Ostrom, E., 2009. “Beyond markets and states： polycentric governance of complex economic systems”, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009, Prize Lecture, December 8. https：//www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/ostrom_lecture.pdf, Accessed date: 26 octubre 2018.Uetake, T., 2013, “Managing Agri-environmental Commons through Collective Action: Lessons from OECD Countries”, Paper presented at the 14th, Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons, Mt. Fuji, June其他UNU-IAS, 2010a, “Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Socio-ecological Production Landscapes of Japan – Summary for Decision Makers.” Institute of Advanced Studies of the United Nations University.UNU-IAS, 2015, “IPSI： The International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative”https：//satoyama-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/20151007_ID- PDF_UNU-DL-flyer-EN-with-new-diargam.pdf (Date visited： March 17, 2020)三、網頁參考文獻人禾環境倫理發展基金會，https：//eeft.org.tw/，取用日期：2020年2月5日。行政院農業委員會林務局自然保育網，https：//conservation.forest.gov.tw/0002047，取用日期：2020年2月5日。狸和禾小穀倉，2020，http：//monghoho.blogspot.com/，取用日期：2020年1月4日。貢寮．水．梯田，2020，http：//kongaliao-waterterrace.blogspot.com/p/2012.htm，取用日期：2020年1月4日。教育部臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典，https://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/，取用日期：2021年3月14日。眼底城市，抓好距離 準備降落：貢寮和禾水梯田，https://eyesonplace.net/2019/03/10/11083/，取用日期：2021年3月9日。福壽螺，維基百科，https://zh.wikipedia.org/zhtw/%E7%A6%8F%E5%AF%BF%E8%9E%BA，取用日期：2021年3月9日。 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202101364 en_US
