請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94759完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 盧道杰 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Dau-Jye Lu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李芳菱 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Fang-Ling Li | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-08-19T16:09:11Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-08-20 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2024-08-19 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2024-08-05 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 日婉琦 (2003)。族群接觸與族群認同：以S族T氏族K派下為例 (碩士論文)。 國立政治大學民族學系。
宋秉明等 (1995)。玉山國家公園與其原住民之衝突分析。國家公園學報，11 (1)，96-114。 林修澈 (2003)。N事件百年紀念史料調查整理. M縣：M縣文化局。 官大偉 (2014)。空間秩序、地理再現與生態政治：臺灣山地資源利用/保育的歷史地理回顧。臺灣原住民族研究季刊，7(1)，159-197。 胡家瑜、林欣宜 (2003)。N地區開發與S族群邊界問題的再檢視。臺大文史哲學報，59，177-214。 施正鋒 (2008)。原住民族與自然資源的共管。台灣原住民族研究季，1(1)，1-38。 范振乾 (2010)。客裔族群聚落生態之變遷：從P村及N鄉客裔聚落之邊界說起。臺北：三民。 紀駿傑 (2002)。原住民與國家公園/保護區共同管理之發展歷史、現況與個案之探討 (內政部營建署太魯閣國家公園管理處委託研究報告，091-301020400G-003)。 2024-03-18取自 https://ws.moi.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvT2xkRmlsZV9UQVJPS08vV2ViRmlsZXMvRWNvbG9naWNhbFJlc2VhcmNoRmlsZXMvMzg4OC9maWxlMTM0Nzg1MzI5MDk0NDAucGRm&n=ZmlsZTEzNDc4NTMyOTA5NDQwLnBkZg%3d%3d 張峻嘉 (2007)。N地方產業與區域特性 (博士論文)。 國立臺灣大學地理所。 張誌聲 (1997)。太魯閣國家公園設立對當地原住民土地資源利用衝突之研究 (碩士論文)。逢甲大學建築及都市計畫研究所。 畢恆達 (2020)。教授為什麼沒告訴我2020進化版。新北：小畢空間出版社。 陳向明 (2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北：五南圖書出版。 曾冠球 (2011)。為什麼淪為不情願夥伴關係？—公司夥伴關係失靈個案的制度解釋。臺灣民主季刊，8(4)，83-133。 曾華璧 (1999)。臺灣國家公園的設立與政策 (I) (行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告: NSC 89-2621-Z-009-003)。2024-03-18，取自https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjHlP7C5oCFAxW0bPUHHQFwDvUQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fir.lib.nycu.edu.tw%2Fbitstream%2F11536%2F93816%2F1%2F892621Z009003.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0XpouKD7uULozmdr5GqOGC&opi=89978449 衛惠林 (1956)。S族的氏族組織與地域社會。臺灣文獻，7(3/4)，1-6。 鄭依憶 (2004)。儀式、社會與族群 : CTH S族的兩個研究。臺北：允晨文化。 賴盈秀 (2003)。誰是「S族」？S族族群識別與認同界線之研究 (碩士論文)。慈濟大學人類學系。 臺灣總督府警務局 (1918)。理蕃誌稿第1-2編。2023-11-20，取自國家圖書館臺灣記憶系統 https://tm.ncl.edu.tw/article?u=008_001_0000345731 盧道杰、陳律伶、台邦‧撒沙勒、闕河嘉、裴家騏、蔡博文、王進發 (2010)。自然保護區發展共管機制的挑戰與機會。臺灣原住民族研究季刊，3(2)，91-130。 盧道杰、葉美智主編 (2014)。保護區經營管理技術手冊─基礎篇。行政院農業委員會林務局、國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學系。 行政院農業委員會林務局 (2020)。森林永續經營及產業振興計畫核定本 (110-113)。2024-06-24，取自林業及自然保育署https://www.forest.gov.tw/0002636 社區林業計畫申辦網 (2021)。2021年社區林業計畫特優社區得獎事蹟。2023-5-24，取自https://communityforestry.forest.gov.tw M縣戶政服務網 (2024)。N鄉戶數、人口數詳細資料表。取自https://mlhr.miaoli.gov.tw/tables2.php?unit=36 M縣N鄉公所 (2009)。N鄉志 上。國家圖書館2024-04-24，取自國家圖書館臺灣記憶系統 https://tm.ncl.edu.tw/article?u=006_103_000009 SC01 (2018)。N鄉S族P村社區林業計畫「蜜蜂養殖延伸生態旅遊」S族步道民俗植物調查。行政院農業委員會林務局H林區管理處108年度第1梯次起步型「社區林業計畫」進階型第一階段計畫補助經費申請表。 Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society, 10(2). Agrawal, A., Smith, R. C., & Li, T. (1997). Community in conservation: beyond enchantment and disenchantment. Allen Rubin, E. R. B. (2007). Research Methods for Social Work (陳若平、張祐綾等, Trans. 5th ed.). 臺北市: 湯姆生出版：五南發行. Bank, W. (2021). Collaborative Management Partnership Toolkit: World Bank. Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B., & Pretty, J. (1995). Participation in strategies for sustainable development: IIED London. Begum, F., de Bruyn, L. L., Kristiansen, P., & Islam, M. A. (2021). Institutionalising co-management activities for conservation of forest resources: Evidence from the Sundarban mangrove forest management of Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113504. Berkes, F. (1989). Common property resources. Ecology and community-based sustainable development. Belhaven Press. Berkes, F. (2002). Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. Understanding Transformation in Human and Natural Systems. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692-1702. Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F., George, P., & Preston, R. J. (1991). Co-management: the evolution in theory and practice of the joint administration of living resources. Alternatives, 12-18. Borrini, G. (1996). Collaborative management of protected areas: Tailoring the approach to the context. Borrini, G., Kothari, A., & Oviedo, G. (2004). Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: Towards equity and enhanced conservation: Guidance on policy and practice for co-managed protected areas and community conserved areas: IUCN. Brown, Jessica, Mitchell, Nora and Beresford, Michael (Eds.) (2004). The Protected Landscape Approach: Linking Nature, Culture and Community. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Brown, Steve (2010). Cultural landscape: A practical guide for park management. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. Butler, M., & Current, D. (2021). Relationship between community capitals and governance: The perspective of local actors in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. World Development Perspectives, 21, 100294. Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 65-76. Cox, Taylor H. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (2000). Doing qualitative research: Sage publications. Cundill, G., Thondhlana, G., Sisitka, L., Shackleton, S., & Blore, M. (2013). Land claims and the pursuit of co-management on four protected areas in South Africa. Land Use Policy, 35, 171-178. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.016 De Pourcq, K., Thomas, E., Arts, B., Vranckx, A., León-Sicard, T., & Van Damme, P. (2015). Conflict in protected areas: who says co-management does not work? PLoS One, 10(12), e0144943. Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M. (1990). The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Human ecology, 18, 1-19. Gibson, C. C., McKean, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2000). People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. MIT Press. Górriz-Mifsud, E., Secco, L., & Pisani, E. (2016). Exploring the interlinkages between governance and social capital: A dynamic model for forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 65, 25-36. Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. W. (2003). Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century: Institute on Governance, Governance Principles for Protected Areas Ottawa. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems: Island press. Hardin, G. (1968). “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, 162: 1243–1248. IUCN. (1993). Parks and Progress. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation o Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Jentoft, S., McCay, B. J., & Wilson, D. C. (1998). Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 22(4-5), 423-436. Jepson, P. & Canney, S. (2003). Values-led conservation. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 12(4), pp. 271- 274. Kooiman, J. (2002). Governing as governance. Governing as governance, 1-264. Lam, W. F. (1998). Governing Irrigation Systems in Nepal: Institutions, Infrastructure, and Collective Action. ICS Press. Li, T. M. (1996). Images of community: discourse and strategy in property relations. Development and change, 27(3), 501-527. McGinnis, M. (2011, 02/01). An Introduction to IAD and the Language of the Ostrom Workshop: A Simple Guide to a Complex Framework. Policy studies journal, 39, 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x Manolache, S., Nita, A., Ciocanea, C. M., Popescu, V. D., & Rozylowicz, L. (2018). Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania. Journal of Environmental Management, 212, 54-64. McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2). Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon: UBC press. Natcher, D. C., Davis, S., & Hickey, C. G. (2005). Co-management: managing relationships, not resources. Human Organization, 64(3), 240-250. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., & Schultz, L. (2007). Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society, 12(1). Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4). Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action: Cambridge university press. Ostrom, E. (2007). A Diagnostic Approach for Going Beyond Panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181-15187. Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Paul A. Sabatier(ed.), Theories of policy process (pp.21-64), Westview Press. Ostrom, E., Roy, G. & James, W. (1994). Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: sage. Peluso, N. L. (1992). The political ecology of extraction and extractive reserves in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Development and change, 23(4), 49-74. Petursson, J. G., & Kristofersson, D. M. (2021). Co-management of protected areas: a governance system analysis of vatnajökull national park, Iceland. Land, 10(7), 681. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2020). Governance, politics and the state: Bloomsbury Publishing. Pinkerton, E. (1989). Co-operative management of local fisheries: new directions for improved management and community development: UBC Press. Plummer, R. (2009). The Adaptive Co-Management Process: an Initial Synthesis of Representative Models and Influential Variables. Ecology and Society, 14(2). Rissman, A. R., & Gillon, S. (2017). Where are ecology and biodiversity in social–ecological systems research? A review of research methods and applied recommendations. Conservation Letters, 10(1), 86-93. Rusnak, G. (1997). Co-management of natural resources in Canada: A review of concepts and case studies. Minga working paper; no. 2. Scott, J. C. (2020). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed: yale university Press. Singleton, S. G. (1998). Constructing cooperation: the evolution of institutions of comanagement: University of Michigan press. Spaeder, J. J., & Feit, H. A. (2005). Co-management and indigenous communities: barriers and bridges to decentralized resource management: introduction. Anthropologica, 47(2), 147-154. Swerdfager, T., & Armitage, D. (2023). Co-management at a crossroads in Canada: issues, opportunities, and emerging challenges in fisheries and marine contexts. Facets, 8, 1-10. Tuda, A. O., & Machumu, M. E. (2019). Institutions and adaptive capacity for marine biodiversity conservation. Environmental Science & Policy, 100, 238-246. Vaughan, M. B., Thompson, B., & Ayers, A. L. (2017). Pāwehe Ke Kai a ‘o Hā ‘ena: creating state law based on customary indigenous norms of coastal management. Society & Natural Resources, 30(1), 31-46. Verschuuren, B. (2007). Seeing is Believing, Integrating cultural and spiritual values in conservation management. Foundation for Sustainable Development. The Netherlands and IUCN, Gland Switzerland. Ward, C. et al. (2018). Changing governance, changing inqualities: protected area co-management and access to forest ecosystem services: a Madagascar case study. Ecosystem Services, 30: 137-148. Western, D. (1994). The background to community-based conservation. Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation, 1-12. Yoder, R. (1994). Locally Managed Irrigation Systems: Essential Tasks and Implications for Assistance, Management Transfer, and Turnover Programs. Colombo: International Irrigation Management Institute. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/94759 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 隨著臺灣社會及政府對原住民族權利的重視，涵括式自然資源治理勢在必行。本研究以2021年至2023年執行林務機關委託與原住民共管保護區建構行動計畫為基礎，聚焦於M縣N鄉S族的保護區制度規劃。研究方法包括參與觀察及深度訪談。
研究目的透過行動歷程的撰寫，反思研究團隊作為政策促進者之操作，二來理解各行動者的行為動機與態度轉變。並透過制度分析發展框架 (Institutional Analysis and Development Framework)，比較既有夥伴關係互動模式及共管保護區治理模式間的異同，與各行動者偏好背後對制度之期望。發現制度變革對部落行動者之成本高於效益，導致參與意願低落，致使了保護區劃設不如預期。研究顯示，研究團隊企圖透過描繪文化生活地景，建構與地方族群共管保護區的正當性，但在社會經濟變遷下，呈現出多元價值觀的複雜人地關係。促成並展現多元價值觀的認同共識，應是文化生活地景建構過程中的關鍵。共管保護區作為涵括式自然資源管理，應將多元權益關係人的治理期待納入目標，如提供經濟誘因即為在地社區的重要考量。本研究期望能藉此行動經驗，提供推動共管保護區之政策制定者與促進者參考，促進參與式自然資源治理的發展。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | As Taiwanese society and government increasingly prioritize the rights of indigenous peoples, inclusive natural resource management has become imperative. This study is based on the 2021-2023 Forest Bureau commissioned action plan for the construction of co-managed protected area with indigenous community, focusing on the institutional planning of the protected area in ‘S’ community, N Township, M County. The research methods include participant observation and in-depth interviews.
The study aims to reflect on the research group’s role as policy facilitator through the documentation of the action process and to understand the behavioral motivations and attitude changes of various actors. Using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, it compares the differences between existing partnership interaction model and co-management governance model, as well as the expectations of each actor's preferences for the system. The findings reveal that institutional changes impose higher costs than benefits on community actors, leading to low participation willingness and thus resulting in the protected area designation falling short of expectations. The research indicates that the team attempted to establish the legitimacy of co-managed protected areas with local communities by depicting cultural landscapes. However, under socio-economic changes, this resulted in complex human-land relationships reflecting diverse values. The key lies in fostering and showcasing consensus on diverse values during the construction of cultural landscapes. As inclusive natural resource management, co-managed protected areas should incorporate the governance expectations of multiple stakeholders, such as providing economic incentives, which are crucial considerations for local communities. This study hopes to provide policy makers and facilitators of co-managed protected areas with actionable insights to promote the development of participatory natural resource governance through these experiential learnings. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-08-19T16:09:11Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-08-19T16:09:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 論文口試委員審定書 i
謝辭 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstract iv 第一章 前言 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究背景與問題陳述 1 第二章 文獻回顧 6 第一節 從自然資源的中心管理到涵括式取徑 6 第二節 共管作為推動原住民族權利的政策工具 10 第三節 共管保護區的制度研究 11 第四節 制度分析發展架構 14 第三章 研究方法 16 第一節 研究材料說明 16 第二節 資料蒐集 19 一、 參與式觀察法 19 二、 深度訪談 22 第三節 制度分析發展取徑 25 第四章 研究地點 27 第一節 P村背景簡述 27 一、 N鄉P村產業發展 28 二、 P村地方組織 30 第二節 N鄉S族群空間分佈 31 一、 S族群空間歷史爬梳 31 二、 當代N鄉S族聚落 32 第三節 S族社會制度 33 一、 S族姓氏長老制度 34 二、 S族傳統祭儀 35 三、 S族社會人群與空間範疇 36 第五章 個案發展概況 38 第一節 衝突歷史 38 第二節 合作的開始 39 第三節 合作計畫培力 39 第四節 S族與林務機關互動機制 45 第五節 小結 46 第六章 共管保護區操作邏輯與過程 47 第一節 保護區設置法源依據 47 一、 行政工具使用的選擇 47 二、 自然保護區的劃設流程 47 第二節 自然保護區設置與原住民族相關法律 48 一、 非屬原住民族基本法21條規定之資源利用或生態保育之過程 48 二、 若判定需經過諮商取得原住民族部落同意參與之流程 49 第三節 共管保護區取徑 50 一、 澳洲共管保護區現況與原則 51 二、 文化生活地景的精神與採用 52 三、 行政文件的調整與準則 53 第四節 共管保護區推展過程 55 一、 文化地景共同生產 57 二、 報導人擴大 60 三、 制度框架形塑 61 四、 行政程序與法規盤點 67 第七章 以制度分析發展看制度轉變 70 第一節 外部變數 70 一、 生物物理條件 70 二、 社區屬性 71 三、 使用規則 72 第二節 既有互動模式行動場域 74 一、 行動情境 74 二、 行動者 75 三、 互動模式 76 四、 行動結果與評量標準 78 第三節 制度變革 80 一、 使用規則的差異 80 二、 行動情境與行動者 81 三、 互動模式 82 四、 行動結果與評量標準：制度化的成本 82 第八章 兩個影響計畫進行的命題 84 第一節 試論文化生活地景 84 第二節 制度成本 86 第九章 結論 88 參考文獻 90 附錄 96 附錄一 報導者參與研究知情同意書 96 附錄二 計畫分階段訪綱 100 附錄三 P村人口統計圖 101 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 原住民(族) | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 制度分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 保護區 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 共管 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 治理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | indigenous people | en |
| dc.subject | governance | en |
| dc.subject | protected area | en |
| dc.subject | co-management | en |
| dc.subject | institutional analysis | en |
| dc.title | 與原住民(族)共管保護區的建構與挑戰 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Construction and Challenges of Co-managed Protected Area with the Indigenous Communities | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 112-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 趙芝良;葉美智;台邦‧撒沙勒 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chih-Liang Chao;Mei-Chih Yeh;Sasala Taiban | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 原住民(族),共管,保護區,治理,制度分析, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | indigenous people,co-management,protected area,governance,institutional analysis, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 101 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202403322 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2024-08-08 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 森林環境暨資源學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2029-08-05 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 森林環境暨資源學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-112-2.pdf 此日期後於網路公開 2029-08-05 | 4.72 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。