再現「原」型：泰雅族公共空間之識覺意象建構

（Re）presenting Indigenous Archetype: The Construction of Atayal Environmental Perception on Public Space

10.6234/JGR.2016.65.01

陳英任(Yin-Jen Chen)；李素馨(Su-Hsin Lee)

泰雅原住民公共空間 ； 文化景觀 ； 多元尺度法 ； 照片引談法 ； 地方依附 ； Atayal Public Space ； Cultural Landscape ； Multidimensional Scaling ； Photo-Elicitation Technique ； Place Attachment

地理研究

65期（2016 / 11 / 01）

1 - 29

繁體中文

原住民族自有其空間使用、宗教信仰與文化組織等生活方式，其識覺建構來自領域性、空間性知識、經驗及價值觀，產生對環境的情感和意志等精神意涵，而在原住民的空間架構中，公共空間提供了交誼活動與地方依附，成為日常生活中最重要的文化景觀之一。本研究以量化分析及照片引談之質性研究探討歸納泰雅族原住民公共空間類型與景觀空間之隱含（隱喻）之文化、社會及生成的環境背景及意涵，包括領域性（territoriality）/空間性知識、經驗及價值觀、地方依賴與社會連結等內涵，以建構泰雅族公共空間之識覺意象。擇取發展程度不同之烏來區泰雅（新北市）、復興區泰雅（桃園市）與南澳鄉泰雅（宜蘭縣）為研究地區與夥伴，獲致六類公共空間文化景觀群組，依受訪者對類型之描述語意交集收斂命名為：「部落（宗教）凝聚景觀」、「文化傳承景觀」、「傳統技藝景觀」、「交誼活動景觀」、「經濟生活景觀」及「公共造景景觀」，續以照片引談討論泰雅對公共景觀相異之需求。開發最早之烏來泰雅較嚮往傳統之生活方式對「部落 (宗教)凝聚」、「傳統技藝」與「文化傳承」景觀之需求甚殷；而發展最晚的南澳泰雅則較為渴望建設性之公共設施及景觀；開發居間之桃園復興區泰雅則呈現「經濟生計」、「文化傳承」及「傳統技藝」等文化景觀兼而有之的需求。透過量化分類公共空間「共同識覺」，可集中與普同泰雅族對公共空間的文化景觀意象，並藉由照片引談之質性研究以理解公共空間內涵。本研究提出具整合性原住民公共空間識覺意象原型與意涵，可做為政府在部落環境規劃、學術理論方面之參考基礎。

Indigenous people have their own lifestyles, which include distinct forms space utilization, religious belief and culture. The constructions of indigenous perceptions form the basis of their territorial, spatial, experiential and indigenous values. ＂Public Space＂ becomes the most important landscape connecting indigenous interactive activities and public relationships within their daily life. Currently there is a lack of systematic and holistic discussion of indigenous perceptions of images in public space. Most previous studies have measured perceptions using traditional questionnaire survey methods that do not deal with the fruitful affection of their own place or space. In this study, we first interviewed local people to understand the preliminary perceptions of the residents of the Wulai region, Fuxing Township and Au-huar Village in regard to the changes of their own living environment. We next applied Perceived Projective Mapping to confirm the authenticity of local cultural sight photos, and then classified these photos using the multiple sorting and Q-sort methods. The quantitative and categorical data were obtained through multiple sorting, plus multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, to summarize the residents' perceptions of their environment. Q-sort, on the other hand, was used to assess whether the situations in these photos were suitable or not for local development and to sequence and categorize photos based on their characteristics. With multidimensional scaling analysis, six significant types of cultural landscape groups were found: （1）community cohesion（religion） landscapes, （2） cultural heritage landscapes, （3）traditional crafts landscapes, （4）social and activity landscapes, （5）economic life landscapes, and （6）public artistic landscapes. Different perceptions of such landscapes were also based on three aspects: （a）level of demand, （b）traditional and modern facilities, and （c）daily and nondaily life. The photo-elicitation technique was used to realize the deep meaning and place attachment of indigenous public space. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods can help identify and assess indigenous perceptions. These results can serve as a reference for government authorities attempting enhance indigenous perceptions of public space to facilitate communication and to set up an indigenous archetypal image analysis mode.

1. 高德義(2009)。解構與重建－原住民族人權與自治。花蓮=Hualien:國立東華大學原住民民族學院=College of Indigenous Studies, National Dong Hwa University。
   連結：
2. Exel, V. J., and Graaf, D. G. (2005). Q-Methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved March, 8, 2009 from www.jobvanexel.nl
3. Williams D. R. (2000). Notes on Measuring Recreational Place Attachment Measurement. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/research-place.html. (accessed 2014/03/18)
4. Antrop, M.(2005).Why landscapes of the past are important for the future.Landscape and Urban Planning,70,21-34.
5. Appleton, J.(1980).Landscape in the Arts and the Sciences.UK:University of Hull.
6. Baloglu, S.,McCleary, K. W.(1999).A Model of Destination Image Formation.Annals of Tourism Research,26(4),868-897.
7. Banerjee, T.(2001).The Future of Public Space: Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places.Journal of the American Planning Associatior,67,9-24.
8. Berkes, F.(1999).Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management.Philadelphia:Taylorand Francis.
9. Boulding, K. E.(1961).The image: Knowledge in life and society.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
10. Boulding, K. E.(1965).The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
11. Bricker, K. S.,Kerstetter, D. L.(2000).Level of specialization and place attachment: An exploratory study of whitewater recreationists.Leisure Sciences,22(4),233-257.
12. Brouwer, M.(1999).Q is accounting for tastes.Journal of Advertising Research,39(2),35-39.
13. Brown, G.,Raymond, C.(2007).The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment.Applied Geography,27,89-111.
14. Cai, L.(2002).Cooperative branding for rural destinations.Annals of Tourism research,29(3),720-742.
15. Cosgrove, D.,Daniels. S.(1988).The iconography of landscape: essays on the symbolic representation, design and use of past environments.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
16. Crompton, J. L.(1979).An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and influence of geographical location upon that image.Journal of Travel research,17,18-23.
17. Dobni, D.,Zinkhan, G. M.(1990).In search of brand image: a foundation analysis.Advances in Consumer Research,17(1),10-19.
18. Downs, R.M.(1970).Geographic Space Perception: Past Approaches and Future Prospects.Progress in Human Geography,2,68-81.
19. English, P. W.,Mayfield, R. C.(1972).Man, Space, and Environment: Concepts in Contemporary Human Geography.Oxford:Oxford University.
20. Fincher, S.,Tenenberg, J.(2005).Making sense of card sorting data.Expert Systems,22(3),89-93.
21. Gold, J. R.(1980).An introduction to behavioral geography.Oxford:Oxford University.
22. Greider, T.,Garkovich, L.(1994).Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment.Rural Sociology,59(1),1-24.
23. Guiliani, M. V.,Feldman, R.(1993).Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context.Journal of Environmental Psychology,13,267-274.
24. Hay, R.(1998).Sense of place in developmental context.Journal of Environmental Psychology,18,5-29.
25. Hidalgo, M. C.,Hernaèndez, B.(2001).Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions.Journal of Environmental Psychology,21,273-281.
26. Hodge, D.,Gatrell, A.(1976).Spatial constraint and the location of urban public facilities.Environment and Planning A,8(2),215-230.
27. Johnston, R. J.(2000).The Dictionary of Human Geography.Oxford:Blackwell.
28. Johnston, R. J.,Gregory, D.,Smith, D. M.(2000).The Dictionary of Human Geography.Oxford:Blackwell Punlishers Ltd.
29. Kaltenborn, B. P.(1997).Nature of place attachment: A study among recreation homeowners in southern Norway.Leisure Sciences,19,175-189.
30. Kerlinger, F. N.(1986).Foundations of behavioral research.New York:CBS college publishing.
31. Kyle, G.,Graefe, A.,Manning, R.(2005).Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational setting.Environment and Behavior,37(2),153-177.
32. Kyle, G.,Graefe, A.,Manning, R.,Bacon, J.(2004).Effect of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists' perception of setting density.Journal of Leisure Research,36(2),209-231.
33. Lefebvre, H.,Smith, Donald Nicholson(trans.)(1991).The Production of space.Oxford:Blackwell.
34. Lynch, K.(1960).The image of the city.Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT press.
35. McAndrew, T. F.(1993).Environmental Psychology.Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/ Cole.
36. Moore, R. L.,Graefe, A. R.(1994).Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail- trail users.Leisure Sciences,17,17-31.
37. Prentice, R.(2004).Tourist familiarity and imagery.Annals of Tourism Research,31(4),923-945.
38. Pretty, G. H.,Chipuer, H. M.,Bramston, P.(2003).Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity.Journal of Environmental Psychology,23,273-287.
39. Rice, G.,Urban, M. A.(2006).Where is river city, USA? Measuring community attachment to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers.Journal of Cultural Geography,24(1),1-35.
40. Ryan, C.,Cave, J.(2005).Structuring destination image: a qualitative approach.Journal of Travel Research,44,143-150.
41. Schlinger, M. J.(1969).Cues on Q-Technique.Journal of Advertising Research,9,53-60.
42. Shumaker, S. A.,Taylor, R. B.(1983).Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: A model of attachment to place.Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives,219-251.
43. Smith, L. R.(2001).Six Sigma and the Evolution of Quality in Product Development.Six Sigma Forum Magazine,1(1),28-35.
44. Stedman, R. C.(2006).Understanding place attachment among second home owners.American Behavioral Scientist,50(2),187-205.
45. Stevenson, P. F.(1998).Brandon University.
46. Stilgoe, J. R.(2005).Landscape and images.Charlottesville:University of Virginia Press.
47. Terkenli, T. S.(2002).Landscapes of tourism: Towards a global cultural economy of space.Tourism Geographies an International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment,4(3),227-254.
48. Terkenli, T. S.(2001).Towards a theory of the landscape: The Aegean landscape as a cultural image.Landscape and Urban Planning,57,197-208.
49. Tuan, Y-F.(1977).Space and place: the perspective of experience.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
50. Williams, D. R.,Patterson, M. E.(1999).Environmental psychology: Mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management.Integrating Social Sciences and Ecosystem Management: Human Dimensionsin Assessment, Policy and Management,Champaign, IL:
51. Williams, D. R.,Patterson, M. E.,Roggenbuck, J. W.(1992).Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place.Leisure Sciences,14,29-46.
52. Williams, D. R.,Vaske, J. J.(2003).The measurement of place attachment: Validity and Generalizability of a psychometric approach.Forest Science,49(6),830-840.
53. Zube, E. H.,Sell, J. L.,Taylor, J. G.(1982).Landscape perception: research, application and theory.Landscape planning,9(1),1-33.
54. 王志弘譯、Crang, M.(2003)。文化地理學。台北市=Taipei:巨流圖書公司=Chuliu。
55. 伍怡真(2006)。高雄，高雄師範大學地理學系=Graduate Institute of Geography, National Kaohsiung Normal University。
56. 余友良(2008)。台北市，國立臺北教育大學臺灣文化研究所=Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture, National Taipei University of Education。
57. 李卉婷(2006)。桃園市，國立中央大學藝術學研究所=Graduate Institute of Art Studies, National Central University。
58. 李亦園(1982)。臺灣土著民族的社會與文化。臺北=Taipei City:聯經出版公司=Linking。
59. 李亦園、石磊、瞿海源、蕭新煌、余光弘(1983)。山地行政政策之研究評估報告書。台北市=Taipei City:中央研究院民族學研究所=Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica。
60. 李亦園、徐人仁、宋龍生、吳燕和(1963)。南澳的泰雅人（上）。臺北=Taipei City:中央研究院民族學研究所=Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica。
61. 李佃來(2006)。公共領域與生活世界。北京=Beijing:人民=People。
62. 李英弘、林朝欽(1997)。地方情感概念在戶外遊憩研究上之探討。休閒與遊憩行為論文集，台北=Taipei:
63. 李英弘、梁文嘉(2000)。景觀評估中之心理學模式之研究。造園學報，7(1)，67-87。
64. 李素馨(1997)。都市女性休閒類型和休閒阻礙。戶外遊憩研究，10(1)，43-68。
65. 李素馨、王銘山、蘇群超(1997)。都市意象認知之研究：以臺中市為例。1997 休閒、遊憩、觀光研究成果研討會論文集，台北=Taipei:
66. 汪明輝(2003)。台灣原住民族運動的回顧與展望，兩岸社會運動分析。台北市=Taipei:新自然主義=New naturalism。
67. 汪明輝(2003)。鄒族GIS 與史地教育中心設置芻議：原住民族知識與教育的解殖與建構策略工作坊。第九屆台灣地理國際學術研討會
68. 林玉芬(2003)。臺北，國立臺灣大學地理環境資源學研究所=Graduate Institute of Geography, National Taiwan University。
69. 林妙霏(2005)。新竹，中華大學營建管理研究所=Graduate Institute of Construction Management, Chung Hua University。
70. 施添福(1980)。地理學中的人地傳統及其主要的研究主題。地理研究報告，6，203-242。
71. 倪進誠(1992)。臺北，國立台灣大學地理學研究所=Graduate Institute of Geography, National Taiwan University。
72. 孫大川(2010)。山海世界：臺灣原住民心靈世界的摹寫。臺北=Taipei City:聯合文學出版社=Unitas Udngroup。
73. 徐美玲、王秋原(1990)。影響基隆河流域居民對其住家環境之識覺及因應行為因子之研究。中國地理學會會刊，18，23-39。
74. 張長義(1984)。環境變遷認知之空間差異：一個台灣農村社區之研究。中國地理學會會刊，12，22-29。
75. 張建中(1998)。嘉義縣，國立中正大學社會福利學系=Department of Social Walfare, National Chung Cheng University。
76. 陳丁祥、蘇淑娟(2004)。國家發展大計下的原住民移住部落：屏東縣三和村拼湊的地區內涵。地理學報，37(2)，99-122。
77. 陳坤宏(2001)。空間結構：理論與方法論。臺北=Taipei City:明文書局股份有限公司=Ming Wen Book Co, Ltd.。
78. 陳英任(2010)。臺北，國立臺灣師範大學地理學系=Department of Geography, National Taiwan Normal University。
79. 復興鄉公所(2000)。復興鄉志。桃園市=Taoyuan City:
80. 黃小玲(1998)。臺北，國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所=Graduate Institute of building and planning, National Taiwan University。
81. 葉志誠(1997)。銳變的社會－社會變遷的理論與現況。臺北=Taipei:洪葉文化事業有限公司=Hungyeh。
82. 廖文生(1984)。臺北，台灣大學社會學研究所=Department & Graduate Institute of Sociology, National Taiwan University。
83. 劉俊志(2003)。花蓮，國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所=Graduate Institute of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University。
84. 蔣玉蟬(2004)。地方文化產業營造與社區發展。社區發展季刊，107，241-252。
85. 蔡秀玲(1998)。依附理論在諮商中的應用。輔導季刊，36(1)，25-31。
86. 蔡淑真(2006)。台中市，東海大學景觀學研究所=Department of Landscape Architectire, Tunghai University。
87. 盧道杰(2004)。社區林業在原住民部落之發酵。二十一世紀山林論壇研討會
88. 謝世忠(1992)。觀光活動，文化傳統的塑模，與族群意識：烏來泰雅族Daiyan 認同研究。國立臺灣大學考古人類學刊，48，113-129。
89. 顏雪櫻(2011)。高雄市，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所=Institute of Public Affairs Management, National Sun Yat-sen University。
90. 顏愛靜、楊國柱(2004)。原住民土地制度與經濟發展。臺北=Taipei:稻香出版社=Dawshiang。