流域集水區人類與環境系統脆弱性分析架構之建立： 台灣新竹縣尖石鄉大漢溪上游石門水庫集水區泰雅族部落為例

Abstract

Gilbert F. White (1942)在發表的論文「人類對洪患的調適」(Human Adjustment to Floods)提出人類對環境災害具有調適能力，開啟了1960年代以來災害識覺與行為研究的蓬勃發展，使災害研究從自然工程面向轉到人文社會面向的典範移轉，是二十世紀以來地理學災害研究的重要里程。在此典範基礎上，近二十年來災害研究融合衝擊評估、災害調適與災難(特別是饑荒)的政治經濟學思潮，逐漸發展出脆弱性(vulnerability)的研究領域，並回應當代氣候變遷與永續發展的問題。由於思想體系上的多元性，脆弱性領域形成廣泛的研究論述與方法論以探討不同面向的脆弱性問題。政治生態與批判學者著重探討造成當代地方脆弱性的歷史結構性因素，包含發展歷程所造成的權力結構與社會過程所形成之因果鍊；在氣候變遷與永續發展的框架下，傾向於實證主義與實用主義的學者，透過建立脆弱性的評估指標，以分析脆弱性的分布狀態，試圖找出在所欲探究的研究尺度(個體、家戶、社區、鄉鎮、縣市或國家等尺度)上，人與環境系統互動下最為脆弱的地區或社群；人類生態與發展研究學者則透過分析人們的發展型態與生計活動內容，梳理特別是第三世界或發展中國家所面對的每日災害風險(everyday risks)、貧窮及脆弱性間的鏈鎖關係與問題。 本研究從梳理上述理論觀點出發，以探討邊陲性社會在長期發展過程中所呈現的脆弱性問題，有兩個基本的研究論點： 1.一個地方的系統包含人類系統與環境系統具有耦合(coupled)與共同演化(co-evolutionary)的特性，人與環境系統在歷史發展過程中透過外來系統的施為 (社會面向如殖民、國家機器與制度、市場經濟等，自然面向如災害等)，而干擾、擾動或破壞地方原有的人類與環境系統，推動系統不斷進行回饋(feedback)與重組(reorganize)，以因應環境的變化。因此演化的過程不僅具有歷史作用之鑲嵌性(historical embeddedness)，且形成當代地方人與環境系統基本樣態，影響地方系統的彈性(resilience)或脆弱性(vulnerability)。 2.歷史演育過程形塑各地方人類與環境系統特性，形成地方之資源(在生計活動取徑中用資本一詞來闡述資源之內涵)架構，影響當代人們組織其日常生活與生計活動的方式，並在災害的風險下形聚其特徵化的地方脆弱性。 災害的發生固然源自於自然系統作用，(雖然部分地理與人類學者宣稱災害也是一種社會建構，例如伐林加深水土災害)，然面對災害所造成之影響與衝擊，在地社會之組織、日常生活與生計活動往往受到最直接、深刻的影響，且對地方與社會形成蔓延性且持久性的間接衝擊。這些風險由於較為複雜且估算困難而被許多評估報告忽略。例如颱風與土石災害的衝擊與脆弱性評估模式，往往採用直接災害衝擊評估法，即估算土石災害的強度、影響範圍、影響範圍內的房舍數量、人命損失、經濟損失，以及影響範圍內的特殊人口數，如獨居老人、殘障人士、婦女與小孩等。此類分析模型的缺失一者為對災害衝擊的想像設定在表層分析，而忽略造成脆弱性現象的社會生產過程；再者也缺乏深入探究這些災害如何透過影響日常生活與生計活動，而對脆弱性社群或地區造成持久性的間接影響。例如重複不斷發生的颱風與土石災害影響農作物生成，造成把持在主流社會的銷售通路更加不穩定，農戶收入減少且對農作收成信心下降，影響農耕意願，且收入減少增加了家庭暴力、酗酒、健康、教育與社會衝突等問題，擴大的社會經濟問題威脅了當地社會系統的穩定性，也增加整體之社會外部成本。因此建構一套能解析地方脆弱性發展結構與因素的分析架構，並據此發展符合地方特性的脆弱性評估模式成為當前所需。 本研究以大漢溪上游石門水庫集水區之台灣泰雅族基那吉群(Mknazi)及馬里克灣群(Mrqwang)群作為研究對象。此群族人從清領、日治到國民政府時期，在外來系統的干擾與破壞下，歷經長期的社會變遷與環境變化。無數次的人類與環境系統的變化更迭，造就了部落當前的樣貌。在颱風與土石威脅的影響下，部落面對更高的災害風險，加深生計活動的困難，並衍生許多家庭與社會問題。 本研究自2005年後透過長期對研究區相關文史與影像資料的蒐集與居民的口述歷史，梳理研究區自清領及日治時期以來的發展歷程；並透過多年的田野調查、參與觀察與深入訪談，利用所獲得之一手資料綜合分析各部落當前的人口結構、社會組織與生計活動及其環境災害特性，從而建立各部落生計脆弱性之脈絡文本(community livelihood vulnerability narratives)與因果架構。從文本中選取能反映地方生計脆弱性之指標建立脆弱性分析模型，以了解脆弱性在各部落間的分布狀態。研究結果顯示： 1.發展歷程中地方不斷被消融在外來國家體制與大環境政策中，而被剝離的地方人類與環境系統的相依性；對資本主義貨幣市場的依賴，與地方權力矮化無法調節人類與環境系統失衡問題，是造成脆弱性的首要與根源因素。 2.當代生計脆弱性評估結果顯示位在道路前端的部落如馬美、玉峰、下文光、控溪等部落，因各項生計資本(livelihood capitals)的低落，具有較高的脆弱性；易達性較低的深山部落如司馬庫斯、新光與鎮西堡部落的脆弱性最低。馬里克灣群易達性較高部落的脆弱性特別顯著。 3.生計脆弱性的分布具有社會與空間辯證性：發展歷程中因交通因素所創造的距離及發展的空間關係，影響部落的發展狀態，形成各族群或部落間不一致的脆弱性演育條件。馬里克灣群在日治以來和外界較密切的往來與市場化的生產關係，加速國家與市場對其人地干擾與崩解。基那吉群則在1970年代後因道路開通，具有密切的人口流動與市場機制。深山部落擁有較豐沛的人類與環境系統條件，以組織生計資本，發展適應機制。 4.當代政府制度與非政府的社會資源多集中於少數脆弱性較低的部落，而擴大脆弱性極化(vulnerability polarization)的風險。 面對台灣所面臨山坡地環境退化災害頻仍，與山坡地原住民族社會崩解窮困所共同塑造的結構性脆弱性問題，在社會思潮與政策擬定中，最關鍵性的思維應朝向如何再現「地方」，並應用地方人類與環境系統間所具有的調節機制，於減災防治或環境保育上。山林有山林的主體，原住民族文化存在的意義也不應該被抹滅，而原住民族存在意義的社會性價值，或可作為連結人類社會與生態環境的橋梁，也把環境治理思維中失落的人找回來。

In 1942, Gilbert F. White published a book presenting his idea on human adjustment to floods. The book was a remarkable milestone in the twentieth century’s hazard studies that opened a vigorous trend to study human behavior and perception, instead of biophysical or engineering approach, for understanding basically the relationship between human and hazard. Led by Gilbert F. White and his colleagues, hazard studies in the geography discipline went through an important paradigm shift in the age of 1960s through 1970s. Following the paradigm shift over past twenty years, the concept of vulnerability grows. By incorporating impact assessment, hazard analysis and famine’s political economy in Africa, vulnerability studies develop a diverse research domain that also responds to the contemporary climate change and sustainability problems. This research takes vulnerability as analytical framework to investigate marginal society’s vulnerability formulation process in the historical development and in the present everyday livelihood practices. There are two research arguments: 1.Local human and environment system has coupled and co-evolutionary characteristics. Drivers from outside society or within local society can create disturbance, perturbation, or impact on local system that push sub-system feedback each other or go through reorganization for responding to or adapting to changes. The evolutionary process has historical embeddedness that accumulates and (re)shape the local human and environmental system conditions, influencing local system’s resilience or vulnerability. 2.Local human and environmental system conditions (re)shaped by historical embeddedness constitute livelihood capitals as resources, that influence human’s ways to organize everyday lives and livelihood activities in present time, and characterize local vulnerability under hazards and the risks. Hazard and vulnerability are not a purly physical or natural construct. Observing why vulnerability tended to focus on the certain societies also reveals a contextual force that deeply influences the social, political, economic, cultural and environmental dimensions of the locality to form its human-environment specificity that shapes vulnerability. Rather most vulnerability assessment models tend to evaluate vulnerability performance by using broad concepts and generalizing social processes on larger spatial scales. They neglect inner discrepancies and uneven vulnerabilities within or between smaller scale unit such as household or community, and also overlook the indirect socio-economic impact from the hazards or the enduring livelihood impacts. Therefore constructing a vulnerability analysis framework that base on the local development process and can reflect local human and environment specificity for livelihood vulnerability assessment is in urgent need. This research takes Tayal Mknai and Maliqwan indigenous communities of Shihman reservoir in Ta-Han river upper stream, Jian-Shih Township, Hsin-Chu County, Taiwan as study area. Taiwan was ranked as having the highest disaster risks from cyclones (typhoons), earthquakes, floods and landslides hazards in the UNISDR’s 2009 global assessment report. And since the beginning of the twentieth century Taiwan has gone through rapid social transition and environmental change. Indigenous societies were consequently marginalized in the colonization, civilization, modernization, and capitalist market economy process, and also bore high disaster risks. Based on literature and historical aero or satellite images collection and analysis, multi-year field survey (2005-2010) and the usage of first-hand survey data, this study builds livelihood vulnerability causality. A community livelihood vulnerability assessment framework is developed accordingly to evaluate local human and environmental conditions that derive daily livelihood and are impacted by hazards. Research findings reveal that: 1.The division of interdependent relationship between human and environment system due to the melting of ‘local” meaning in national institution and big environmental policy, the reliance on capitalist monetary economy, and the depowering of human rights are main and root causes of vulnerability. 2.Livelihood vulnerability assessment result indicates that communities in front part of road system, such as Mami, Llyung, Hbungon, have higher vulnerability. Remote communities such as Smangus, Cinsbu, Smangus na cinsbu have least vulnerability. Mrqwang communities’ vulnerability is especially obvious. 3.Livelihood vulnerability has social and spatial dialectics. Distance and the development’s spatial relations in development processes create different conditions for communities to develop vulnerabilities. Mrqwang communities had frequent connections and goods exchanges since Japanese era that stimulated the division and marketization of local human and environmental system. Mknazi communities had frequent connections mainly after 1970s, the construction of road infrastructure. 4.Present livelihood vulnerability has polarization risk because of institutional resources allocation and social protection policy accumulating mostly in certain less vulnerable communities.