制度間隙中的權利角逐—— 臺北市關渡平原農業地景的土地使用政治

Abstract

本研究旨在探究臺北市關渡平原農業地景的土地使用政治如何形成，其中的制度與政策如何中介人與土地的關係，而不同類型的務農者與社群又如何在不斷被邊緣化的過程中持續調整實作、實踐農業的多元價值。 研究方法包括文獻蒐集、參與式觀察與深度訪談，著重分析土地使用中所涉及的治權、產權、使用權與身分界定等權力關係，以及在這些權力關係中形塑的人地關係複合體。首先，本文爬梳關渡平原於歷年規劃中的空間定位，辨識治理趨勢與侷限。其次，聚焦於較難於規劃過程中發聲的務農群體，區分其經營模式，進一步理解其動機與實踐。最後，總結這些土地使用政治涉及的權力關係，如何影響各類務農群體持續經營。 關渡平原位於台北市邊陲，長期成為政策規劃的「許願之地」，未來開發或保留常有衝突。地價高漲、產權分散與生產條件惡化，致使當地農業發展受限。當前，市府仍以保留未來規劃彈性為由，將此區劃入城鄉發展地區第一類。短期雖仍維持農業使用，但雙重治理體制未能回應地方需求。中央農業體制的福利政策優先排除都市農業區與公共設施保留地；台北綠色治理又偏重特定功能，可能加重務農者負擔，並形塑新的篩選機制。 儘管面對治權支持有限、產權與使用權分離的狀況，各類務農者與社群仍積極應對。部分群體掌握鄰近都市的優勢，將農地場地化。親子社群與都市農業經營者將農地轉化為五感體驗與環境教育場域，形成引介都市居民認識農業的重要角色。試驗型務農者嘗試高經濟作物栽培，拓展關渡農業發展面向。然而，他們多面臨難以進入關渡、土地取得成本高昂及土地使用管制等挑戰。另一群維繫都市農業區糧食供給的生產型務農者，他們在既有生產條件難以改善的狀況下，仍展現高度適應力，透過「借力使力」運用重型農機或「自力改善」來克服移動限制與物質性。他們精進自身田間管理技巧、串連後勤與銷售網絡，才得以在關渡平原營生。然而，他們雖契合地主需求取得耕作權，但其經營自主性備受限制。 總而言之，務農群體雖缺乏參與土地規劃的話語權，但仍在制度間隙中積極發揮關渡平原都市與城郊農業的價值，讓此區並不只是等待開發的消極狀態。本研究描繪了關渡平原務農者在複雜、僵化的土地政治中的韌性與價值實踐，包括糧食供應、教育傳承與生態保育等等，亦揭示現行制度與政策如何異化人地關係，加深農業經營困境。呼籲政府應正視在地需求，提供具脈絡性的支持。

This study explores how the land use politics of the agricultural landscape in the Guandu Plain of Taipei City have taken shape. It investigates how institutional structures and policy frameworks mediate relationships between people and land, and how diverse types of farmers and communities continually adapt their practices and enact multiple agricultural values in the face of ongoing marginalization. Drawing on document analysis, participant observation, and in-depth interviews, this research focuses on the power relations embedded in jurisdictional authority, property rights, land use rights, and identity classification. These dynamics constitute the assemblage of human–land relations. First, the study traces the spatial designations of the Guandu Plain across successive planning frameworks to identify governance trends and limitations. Second, it centers on farming groups whose voices are often excluded from planning processes, distinguishing between their operational models to better understand their motivations and everyday practices. Finally, it analyzes how land use politics and related power structures shape the sustainability of different farming groups’ operations. Situated at the urban fringe of Taipei City, the Guandu Plain has long been a “site of projection” for policy imagination, caught between conflicting agendas of development and preservation. Soaring land prices, fragmented property rights, and deteriorating production conditions have severely restricted agricultural development. At present, the Taipei City Government continues to classify the area as Type I Urban-Rural Development Land, citing the need to preserve future planning flexibility. Although agricultural use is permitted in the short term, the dual governance regime has failed to address local needs. National agricultural welfare policies largely exclude urban agricultural zones and lands reserved for public facilities, while the city’s green governance framework emphasizes narrowly defined functions that may intensify burdens on farmers and create new mechanisms of exclusion. Despite limited jurisdictional support and the disconnect between land ownership and land use rights, farmers and communities have actively responded. Some actors leverage their proximity to the city to place-make agricultural land. Parent–child communities and urban agriculture operators, for instance, have transformed farmland into multi-sensory and environmental learning spaces, playing a key role in reconnecting urban residents with agriculture. Experimental farmers cultivate high-value crops in an effort to expand the developmental potential of Guandu’s agriculture, yet face persistent challenges such as limited access to land, high acquisition costs, and stringent land use regulations. Another group—production-oriented farmers who sustain the area’s food supply—demonstrate a high degree of adaptability despite unfavorable production conditions. By “borrowing strength” through the use of heavy machinery or engaging in “self-reliant improvements,” they overcome material and mobility constraints. They enhance field management skills and establish logistics and sales networks to sustain their livelihoods in Guandu. However, despite aligning with landowners to secure farming rights, their autonomy remains significantly constrained. In conclusion, although farming communities lack a voice in formal land use planning, they actively assert the value of urban and peri-urban agriculture within the institutional interstices, preventing the Guandu Plain from becoming a passive space merely awaiting development. This study highlights the resilience and situated value-making practices of farmers under a rigid and fragmented land regime—including food provision, knowledge transmission, and ecological stewardship—and reveals how existing institutional and policy arrangements alienate human–land relations and deepen the precarity of agricultural livelihoods. The study calls for greater governmental attention to local needs and the development of context-sensitive support mechanisms.