Participatory evaluation of indicators of relisience in the socio-ecological production landscapes: A case stuy of the Cihalaay Cultural Landscape of Fon-nan village, Hualien

• Main Authors: Shao-Yu Yen, 顏佋伃
• Other Authors: Kung-Chung Lee
• Format: Others
• Published: 2017
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/nx3dh7

碩士 === 國立東華大學 === 自然資源與環境學系 === 105 === ABSTRACT From 2011 to 2013, The National Dong-Hwa University worked with the Hualien County Cultural Affairs Bureau and conducted a two-year project on conservation of a rice paddy production landscape in the indigenous Fengnan village. In the end, stakeholders jointly designated the site as a legal Cihalaay Cultural Landscape, drew up a mid-term Cultural Landscape Conservation Plan in line with the ‘three-fold approach’ to Satoyama Initiative and set up a Local Committee for implementation of the Plan. In order to help local stakeholders to monitor the progress of the implementation of the Plan, the research team worked with the indigenous community again from 2015 to 2016 on participatory evaluation of indicators of resilience and strategic planning of the Cihalaay Cultural Landscape. The research team adopted the indicator system and evaluative procedure from UNU-IAS’s “toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS).” For the first stage, from June to August 2015, the research team recruited an indicator development working group comprising six key local people. In total, six working group meetings were conducted to review the suitability of UNU-IAS’s 20 indicators of resilience and to evaluate the indicators for the current situation of the Cihalaay Cultural Landscape. Second, the research team invited all 25 households in the Cihalaay Cultural Landscape to participate in a village meeting. The outcome of the evaluation of the resilience indicators for the Cihalaay Cultural Landscape was explained and discussed at the village meeting. For the second stage, from October 2015 to January 2016, five working group meetings and the second village meeting were held by the research team. The meetings were designed to help residents come to strategies to enhance each indicator, based on the outcomes acquired during the first stage. In total, 36 enhancement strategies were worked out by the working group members, and then explained to and discussed with all of the villagers at the village meeting. Keywords: Socio-ecological production landscape; Satoyama Initiative; indicators of resilience