Analysis of Political Ecology for Aboriginal People Participating in Forest Management in Chilanshan Area

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 地理學系 === 105 === Chilansha Area are inhabited by Atayal Tribe and became the government-owned logging area in 1945. During 1945 to 1967, under the impact from the international situation and economical changes, Chilansha Area became the place for the government to resettle vetera...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Chou, Chia-Chi, 周佳琪
Other Authors: Liaw, Shyue-Cherng
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2017
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/18474641740543808033
Description
Summary:碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 地理學系 === 105 === Chilansha Area are inhabited by Atayal Tribe and became the government-owned logging area in 1945. During 1945 to 1967, under the impact from the international situation and economical changes, Chilansha Area became the place for the government to resettle veterans and a logging area to earn more foreign exchange. The living space for the aboriginal people there were, therefore, restricted. In 1976, the government announced “Taiwan Forestry Management Reformation Program” and started to limit the amount of logging. Under the pressure of NGO and international trend, the government prohibited logging in some areas in 1991, but Chilansha Area was still controlled by Forest Conservation and Management Administration. In 1999, NGO planned to establish Maqaw National Park in Chilansha Area but was objected by the local residents. Thus, the budget for the park was held in Legislative Yuen. As we can observe, in different times, there were different stakeholders who had different opinions and generated different influences in different scales. Among these, national policy held the most important impact. The members of NGO and community/locals had different identifications according to the transition of the policies, and therefore, took different actions. During the progress of the changes in forest eco-system, different stakeholders chose the discourse which benefits them more. Nowadays, the phrase “nature conservation” is still defined and interpreted variously by different stakeholders.