推動花蓮的合作經濟體系政府花很多錢在推動地方創生，並且希望發展地方亮點。然而，如何才能真正的治本而非只有治標，就得回到「經濟模式」來看。...
難的並非規劃設計的過程，而是過程中「人」與「人」之間的問題…………像划龍舟，慢慢來或許比較快「一開始聽到都更後坪數要砍半、裝潢費用好幾百萬全部打水漂，我就問誰願意？」于先生說，「但那時候因為很多專業者的陪伴，在長久的耐心溝通下，我才終於把視野從數字上慢慢移開，看見其他價值。」……我們該注重的是『最後想要什麼效果』……這是每個人的心境轉變，一部分是緣分，一部分則是能不能把視野放到更遠、更大的未來……真誠與不懈的溝通，才終於影響了鄰居們，產生共識……對生活最了解的就是社區本身……「社區意識到自己能夠發聲」……怎麼讓社區可以去思考，『也許我們可以討論、發聲』，就是我們社區營造的角色應該傾聽、引導
「台北都更解壓說概念館」源自大直北安段公辦都更案捐贈之公益設施，「112年度台北都更解壓說概念館空間...
通常社區住戶不是沒有意願，而是內部之間存在不同的看法意見，造成認知差異而無法整合，所以問題是社區內部的意見整合過程中，需要什麼樣專業的協助讓大家能充分溝通討論後再形成共識決策呢?
0403花蓮地震後持續引發大家對都市更新推動的種種看法……其提到｢靠市民的意願與配合了｣這個因素，我認為這就是目前都市更新推動困難緩慢的關鍵所在
為什麼都停滯在問題的反應而缺乏新的突破性作為呢?……大家很想得到解決方法，但很少人願意投入研究，連公部門都只想為短期可行的方式進行個案KPI的政策績效的話，那只是治標不治本的心態作法，如果一方面好像想把社區營造帶入都市更新的社區培力嘗試，但另一方面公辦都更還是延續市場機制想快速完成個案績效，這樣是無助於根本解決都更這個社會議題的本質問題
這次0403花蓮地震發生大規模的災情……自然又引發社會輿論討論都市更新重建應該要快速推動的反應與聲音，但我對這些反應覺得還是聚焦在建物重建的“事”上打轉……問題的核心在於推動過程中社區住戶情緒感受、促發參與動機……等“人”的因素沒有更細膩和論述的引導觀念，都更議題應該將“人”需求因素要先被關照
若只是因為地震的恐懼所引發的更新推動，還是會侷限在市場開發機制，高房價地區開發誘因的“天龍國”式的更新推動，其他地區若僅靠公部門杯水車薪的有限資源是無法普遍性推動
需要相關利害關係人一起參與，尤其是社區住戶自己的自發性動機(而不是被動期待等待著專業者來協助解決自己社區的更新問題)
一個家戶跟建商談，還是一整個社區一起跟建商談，哪個會比較有利呢？(合作是不是力量更大呢！) 我建議社區住戶需要將自己當作經營者來思考都更推動事宜
向企業經營觀念取經-面對問題要主動、且用跳脫慣性框架的創新思考或許會有不同的視角和行動方式來面對都更議題
目前社區在面對都更問題常常會處於是被動等待和依賴公、私部門的專業資源協助期待……
揪伴共同編製｢社區自主更新實作指引手冊｣的行動計畫從社區住戶的視角來廣徵大家面臨的痛點問題(由下而上)集思廣益的思考並嘗試討論更多可能的解決方向
這樣的編制手冊發想概念也將朝向類似維基百科編制的精神(共同創作)廣納各方看法見解來增加對都更議題推動的廣度與深度
領導人堅定信念貫徹始終與重視傳承，團隊的經營與群策群力才能走得長久
我們常遇到一開始很多人表達有興趣參與，但能夠堅持到底的人是少數，有時讓人感到孤單，甚至還要面對生態旅遊發展太慢、經濟上無法立竿見影的質疑。當滿懷理想想要協助社區走向永續的旅遊發展，但又是快不得，雖是居民的信心危機，但也在考驗著團隊的信念與決心
人事的問題最磨心，而一個社區總是需要一些「石磨仔心」。磨到現在，即便彼此曾經有過多次意見不合，甚至爭吵，至今還是很重視珍惜著彼此。「 十六年前，因為觀念不合，幾乎吵了快一整年」……曲折磨合
「社區的工作很磨人，更磨心。」「沒有傻子般的傻勁與執著，大概就做不了地方的工作。」
人事關係複雜，既勞心又勞力……很多次都想直接放棄了……除了與地方一起打拚的決心毅力之外，社區工作者有一定的的人格特質，視野高遠，也還需要有柔軟身段，才能低下身段、捲起袖子
高EQ，以及柔軟的身段
社區工作首先必須與地方做溝通，這是一個很大的挑戰。「如果想要將理念實踐，必得要透過溝通，有這一層功夫，概念方能轉譯成價值。」 但也唯有取得信任（信任是一種社會資本），居民聽得懂，社區才動得起來，否則美意到了地方，反而變成爭奪資源的戰場，更遑論還有因為工作分配不均、頭銜、意見不合等其他問題……
「社區工作，太笨或太聰明的人都做不起來的。」
做好社區工作可以養活自己，但是肯定不會賺大錢
現在的社會氛圍仍很『速食化』
「很多社區工作最後會『走鐘』”，主要是因為初衷的改變，如果志工的初衷從『為人民服務』，之後傾斜成『為人民幣服務』，最後自然不會有好的合作結果。」
可貴之處是在計畫形成初期，社區和公務同仁一起溝通討論形成共識的過程。另一個值得一提的是，社區林業計畫非常重視人才培育…巡護……長期下來累積社區的社會資本與環境資本
「夜間遊程是社頂部落生態旅遊一個很關鍵的里程碑，給了鄉親很大的信心，讓居民看到了希望與目標，從過去開會時的三三兩兩，轉變成大夥兒積極參與投入，凝聚了當時幾乎要瓦散掉的團隊。」陳美惠回憶道。
過程中的磨合，有時候因爲價值觀念不同，或有意氣之爭，反而形成小團體或甚至造成分裂
生態旅遊操作方式（總量管制、單一窗口、環境教育、培力造人、生態資源監測與保育、社區回饋 ）
社會面，制度面，文化面，環境面&經濟面
Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape
社會—生態的生產地景與海景
社經地位不高、人民剽悍，曾經是……一個化外之地
為什麼台灣政府相關單位仍故步自封？……政府在口頭上鼓勵山村發展微型經濟之餘，是否也能在法規上實際給予支持…協調，修訂出跟得上民間[小型創新企業]腳步的合理政策……？
地方創生最重要的在『人』，這個『人』代表的也是政府官員的思維
社區解說員很多原本可能生活沒有目標，但在接受訓練後整個人都變得有自信
臺灣最缺願意做事的人，談到做事，大家都會說好，「好、好、好！」「你去做就好！」但多年的社區經驗讓他發現，只要參與者覺得透過這樣的工作自己會有所成長，大多數的人還是會繼續再來參與。
「生態旅遊只能當副業，不能當主業。」林晏州直接卻中肯的闡述生態旅遊的意涵…… 經營者或周遭居民也絕不能有靠著旅遊致富的不當憧憬，要懂得把握細水長流的原則，那才是永續經營的不變法則。「慢慢吃，不會太撐，但絕不會餓死；吃太快，只會噎著，更因而讓子孫斷糧。」
the site managers and local residents must never have such an illusion that ecotourism can bring instant wealth
陳美惠覺得最難是觀念的轉變，「過去滿腦子都是拼經濟，會影響到當地環境，甚至人與人的關係」
「這些鄉村走過台灣大開發年代，但當居民看到有野生動物，有那麼美的山村、溪流，有那麼好的人情味，就要呵護她，不再殺雞取卵。」屏東科技大學森林系教授陳美惠，人稱「本土生態旅遊教母」，過去20年，她陪伴幾十個社區尋找與山林永續共存的經濟模式——從養蜂、種菇、養山雞，到開展深度生態旅遊。這些故事集結成書《里山根經濟︰社區林業的知和行20年》，記錄社區轉型的一步一腳印。 山村綠色經濟碰上疫情，也是生態旅遊的一次壓力測試。當外國人來台灣已不只是要看夜市、逛名勝，疫後的生態觀光產業如何永續下去？陳美惠和開辦生態團的旅行社業者，提到改革法規、培訓人力、改善交通配套、推廣企業員工旅遊等，都是未來機遇。 屏東科技大學森林系教授陳美惠（右）及經典雜誌副總編潘美玲（左），撰寫《里山根經濟︰社區林業的知和行20年》並舉行新書發布會。攝影︰袁慧妍 「最難是觀念的轉變」 14日，農業部林業及自然保育署與陳美惠、經典雜誌副總編輯潘美玲，舉行《里山根經濟︰社區林業的知和行20年》新書發布會。林業保育署長林華慶稱，全國很多社區都開始探索在地資源，推動社區生態旅遊，「應該讓她展現原來的美麗」。 而這個過程中，陳美惠覺得最難是觀念的轉變，「過去滿腦子都是拼經濟，會影響到當地環境，甚至人與人的關係」。 2002年，陳美惠在當時的林務局工作，研擬社區林業計畫；2004年她轉任屏科大教授，並成立台灣首間社區林業研究室。她首個輔導的生態旅遊案例，是墾丁社頂部落——1984年墾丁國家公園成立時，不少部落被劃入國家公園範圍，禁止狩獵漁撈，官民起了劇烈衝突。至2006年，陳美惠走入社頂部落，每週一兩晚與居民開會幾小時，再開兩小時夜車趕回屏東市，隔天一早回校上課，這樣的生活她過了三年，慢慢打開居民的心。 在社頂部落，陳美惠規劃了梅花鹿尋蹤和日夜生態體驗等行程，也是南台灣首個以自主營運和生態旅遊獲利的部落，2015年獲第三屆國家環境教育獎團體組首獎。 早期屏東社頂部落進行第一批的夜間觀察導覽。圖片來源︰國立屏東科技大學社區林業中心提供 這些保育與生計之間的拉扯，在輔導其他社區或部落時也同樣發生，陳美惠提了好幾次「要化解不信任感」。她利用人際網絡影響更多居民，「不要只講保育，居民沒感受，我們的主張是保全跟活用」。 這20年間，台灣除生產既有的龍眼蜜、荔枝花蜜外，社區小農也開發出花蜜、草蜜、樹蜜等森林蜜；從段木香菇菌種弱化，到打造出社區型菌種中心；在恆春里德社區，獵鷹者變成護鷹者，開拓了生態觀光的商機。這些不同的社區，從一級農業生產，二級加工，做到三級旅遊行銷。 花蓮鹽寮社區發展林下養蜂。圖片來源︰國立屏東科技大學社區林業中心提供 林華慶稱，20年來社區林業推展過程中，已執行了3371項計畫。以最近五年為例，共計970項計畫中，與林下經濟相關的「樹木與生活篇」共92件（9.5%），與生態旅遊相關的「森林育樂篇」則有226件（23.3%）。林業保育署正研擬國際認定的有效保育地（OECM）認證標準，預計明年下半年推出指引，推估有五成以上社區林業有潛力可被納入。 林下養雞。圖片來源︰國立屏東科技大學社區林業中心提供 「不願意負擔對等的價格，去反映地方的價值」 20年奠下的基礎得來不易，推展社區生態旅遊仍會面對什麼困難？又如何在疫後報復式的出國潮中走出一條路？ 風尚旅行社總經理游智維12年前開始開辦部落或環境相關旅遊，他說，民眾認為城市團的價格高，以為社區旅遊的成本最低，「但這是錯的」，因為社區的材料、人力都稀少，提供服務和產品的成本更大，「可是大家不願意負擔對等的價格去反映地方的價值，這是台灣很大的問題。」 政府不同部門都有推出生態、部落、農村、文化旅遊等，但游智維覺得這些只是為了「滿足KPI」，既沒有有效投放資源，又沒法提供深度的旅遊設計；台灣大部分傳統旅行社，仍然以辦護照、買機票、報團、訂房間為主要業務，「台灣有幾千家旅行社，如果都能成為政府連接社區資源的地方，旅行社不只是中介者，未來能否成為供應者？」 農民在新書發布會上介紹產品和社區林業發展。攝影︰袁慧妍 另一家提供生態旅遊服務的原森旅行社副執行長黃俊翰則指，疫情期間成了生態旅遊的壓力測試，當人潮過多，就考驗當地居民導覽的能力。但優質的社區，還需要有資源爭取曝光，吸引旅行社注意，「例如可成立推廣協會、聯盟，參與政府單位的觀光活動」。 黃俊翰認為，一般散客會認為自行開車也可四處遊覽，散客市場較難推進，未來可考慮開拓企業團體員工旅遊市場。他也建議政府可提供交通接駁，讓不開車的民眾也可較容易接觸到社區。 「時機到了，國家應該要重視這一塊」 除一般政策改善、人力培訓、資源和預算投放外，陳美惠提議要改革法規。她指，受《發展觀光條例》第27條所限，只有旅行社可以帶團做生態旅遊，社區自行做串連型旅遊則不被允許。不過，「大部分旅行社都忙著帶出國團，沒幾多旅行社會專心經營這種產品」，故不能只靠旅行社與少數社區合作；當政府希望社區自立自強時，「有沒有法規讓社區在合法情況下，呈現地區優質的產品？」 2019年，她曾成立「社區小旅行合法化推動平台」和發起連署，倡議將社區特色小旅行、生態旅遊、農事或部落文化體驗等，以特定區域內的深度體驗為特色的地方產業，統稱為「特定地區小旅行」，並修訂發展觀光條例，新增特定地區小旅行專章，或由支持輔導特定地區小旅行的部會，如有法源依據者應修法納管（如《農村再生條例》），如無法源依據者（如文化部），應立專法或管理條例。 「外國人來台灣已不只是要看夜市、逛名勝。台灣的生態旅遊、里山，都可以為台灣觀光助力，這是一般觀光業者做不出來的。時機到了，國家應該要重視這一塊。」陳美惠說。
「要化解不信任感」
It’s impossible to reform our economic system without altering the allocation of political power that prevents such reform
What we must do
They hypothesized that even though the voices of individual Americans counted for little, most people belonged to a variety of interest groups and membership organizations — clubs, associations, political parties, and trade unions. “Interest-group pluralism,” as they called it, was responsive to the needs and aspirations of most citizens
Small retailers were protected against retail chains through state “fair trade” laws requiring wholesalers to charge all retailers the same price and preventing chains from undercutting prices. At the same time, the retail chains were allowed to combine into national organizations to counter the significant market power of large manufacturers.Small investors gained protection under the Securities and Exchange Acts against the power of big investors and top corporate executives.Small banks were protected against Wall Street by regulations that barred interstate banking and separated commercial from investment banking
Because wages stagnated, most people had to devote more time to work in order to makes ends meet. As sociologist Robert Putnam has documented, Americans stopped being a nation of “joiners.” By the 1980s, the expansive mosaic of local organizations that had given meaning to American pluralism was being replaced by national advocacy organizations headquartered in Washington.“Membership” no longer meant activism at the local and state levels. It meant sending money in response to mass solicitations
Many small retailers went under due to repeals of state “fair trade” laws and court decisions finding that resale price maintenance violated antitrust laws. Large chains that spearheaded such moves argued that consumers would get better deals as a result. But the moves also opened the way to giant big-box retailers, such as Walmart, that siphoned away so much business from the Main Streets of America that many became ghost towns.These changes also led to the closings of millions of locally owned businesses that had provided communities with diverse products and services, some produced locally or regionally, and many jobs
In the 2012 elections, the Koch brothers’ political network alone spent more than double on politics than the 10 largest labor unions put together. Corporations spent $56 on lobbying for every $1 spent by labor unions
The loss of American workers’ collective economic power compounded their loss of political power, which in turn accelerated their loss of economic power
Half of all daily newspapers in the U.S. are now controlled by financial firms
The deregulation of finance — demanded by Wall Street — allowed the Street’s biggest banks to become far bigger, taking over markets that state and local banks had previously served and thereby cutting off financing for many small local and regional enterprises
In the 1990s, Democrats voted against Bill Clinton’s health care plan because their corporate sponsors opposed it
In his first two years in office, Clinton pushed for two items of central importance to big business. He got Congress to enact the North American Free Trade Agreement, followed by the establishment of the World Trade Organization. And he committed to reducing the federal budget deficit.Clinton and his allies in Congress also deregulated Wall Street. In 1993, Democrats supported the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which ended restrictions on interstate banking. In 1999, Clinton pushed for repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that had separated commercial from investment banking. In 2000, he supported the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps
Barack Obama presided over one of the most pro-business administrations in American history. He pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into Wall Street in order to save the Street (and the U.S. economy) from imploding after the crash of 2008
The career paths of Democratic officials in the Clinton and Obama administrations confirmed their close ties to business and Wall Street
The major fault line in American politics has shifted from Democrats versus Republicans to anti-establishment versus establishment.The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites — including the current power structure of America
Trump is a fake populist, of course. Many big corporations and wealthy individuals are solidly behind him. After they bankrolled his 2016 election, he rewarded them with a giant tax cut
Trump’s 2024 campaign has nothing to do with conservative orthodoxy emphasizing small government. To the contrary, Trump is proposing to centralize government power under his authority and extend it over a range of issues now outside the scope of federal control
But Biden has not taken direct aim at the growing political power of giant corporations, Wall Street, and the ultra-wealthy. He has not explained how they have abused their wealth and power to alter the economy to their advantage — and the disadvantage of most other Americans... He has not fought to get big money out of politics.Yet polls show strong public support for getting big money out of politics. For cutting the biggest Wall Street banks down to a size where they are no longer too big to fail. For resurrecting the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated commercial and investment banking until its repeal in 1999
a strong coalition — trade unions, working men and women, local political organizations, small businesses, young people, and others. In other words, a new countervailing power
movement... to unite the poor, working and middle class, people of color and white people — everyone who has barely had a raise in 30 years and who now feels cynical, powerless, and disenfranchised
starting in July 2021, 36 million American families began receiving pandemic payments of up to $3,000 per child ($3,600 for each child under six).The result? Child poverty dropped by at least a third, and the typical family gained some breathing space.This hugely successful experiment ended abruptly in December 2021 when Senator Joe Manchin joined 50 Republican senators in rejecting President Biden’s Build Back Better Act, which would have continued it.They cited concerns over the experiment’s cost — an estimated $100 billion per year, or $1.6 trillion over 10 years. But that’s less than big corporations and the rich will have saved on taxes from the Trump Republican tax cut of 2018. Repeal it, and there would be enough money. The cost is also less than the increase in the wealth of America’s 745 billionaires during the pandemic. Why not a wealth tax?The experiment died because, put simply, the oligarchy didn’t want to pay for it
Capitalism is consistent with democracy when democracy is in the driver’s seat — reducing the inequalities, insecurities, joblessness, and poverty that accompany unbridled profit-seeking
human domination and destruction of nature follows from social domination between humans
Murray Bookchin (January 14, 1921 – July 30, 2006[2]) was an American social theorist, author, orator, historian, and political philosopher. A pioneer in the environmental movement,[3] Bookchin formulated and developed the theory of social ecology and urban planning within anarchist, libertarian socialist, and ecological thought. He was the...
Bookchin's vision of an ecological society is based on highly participatory, grassroots politics, in which municipal communities democratically plan and manage their affairs through popular assembly, a program he called Communalism. This democratic deliberation purposefully promotes autonomy and self-reliance, as opposed to centralized state politics. While this program retains elements of anarchism, it emphasizes a higher degree of organization (community planning, voting, and institutions) than general anarchism. In Bookchin's Communalism, these autonomous, municipal communities connect with each other via confederations
The best arena to do that is the municipality—the city, town, and village—where we have an opportunity to create a face-to-face democracy
an ecological social society that maintains a balance between its parts and whose communities can organize their lives independently
Democratic confederalism[1][2] (Kurdish: Konfederalîzma demokratîk), also known as Kurdish communalism or Apoism,[nb 1] is a political concept theorized by Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan about a system of democratic self-organization[4] with the features of a confederation based on the principles of autonomy, direct...
凡是國內各族都該一視同仁，社會底層處境比原住民還不堪的，大有人在
封路封山為何事 司馬昭之心乎？山不該成為禁臠？※ 我坐在山上默默不語的看著腳下風景，我和北得拉曼山域間說是隔著一場夢，不如說是隔著一重柵欄。有誰能解夢、有誰能撤除柵欄？是山、是雲、是人？我們替被
潛臺詞其實是：爲什麼華人社會要被迫弱肉強食而原住民可以受保護？无怪優惠少數弱勢又因歷史結構有滅絕危機文化的政策在美國台灣爭議不斷，這兩個弱肉強食的社會。要麼原住民也要弱肉強食、文化滅絕就是競爭力不夠，要麼社會轉型成沒太強調各家競爭，合作、整合(integration)
Acculturation is a process of social, psychological, and cultural change that stems from the balancing of two cultures while adapting to the prevailing culture of the society. Acculturation is a process in which an individual adopts, acquires and adjusts to a new cultural environment as a result of being placed into a new culture, or when another...
Social trust is a belief in the honesty, integrity and reliability of others - a "faith in people." It's a simple enough concept to describe. But it's never been easy to figure out who trusts, or why.
Sorry for the hiatus. I keep doing podcasts and articles on other sites for Trust in a Polarized Age, and I don’t want to irritate my readers on social media with too much content. When I get done talking about the book so often, I’ll return to my regularly scheduled blogging. Lots of people talk […]
Read the report > The UK public are among the most trusting globally, with internationally high levels of trust in people of different nationalities, people they meet for the first time, and people they know personally.Of the nations included, the UK ranks second for trust in foreigners, with such trust now at a record high following a rise over...
Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative, with little hope of improvement on the horizon. 65% of Americans say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics. By contrast, just 10% say they always or often feel hopeful about politics.
Public trust in government remains low, as it has for much of the 21st century. Only two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (2%) or “most of the time” (19%).
A median of 62% of adults across the 14 countries surveyed this summer generally believe most people can be trusted.
Trust is essential for community, wellbeing, and effective cooperation. How does trust vary between different societies and locations and what matters for levels of trust?
美國的起源是清教徒尋找自由土地，其個人主義的「個人」，有信仰約束，自有分寸。現在，信仰淡薄，個人主義淪於自私。
獨立精神也顯示了個人主義代表的自由觀念，及其過度發揮後，因而出現的人情冷漠，與趨利忘義的嚴重弊端
大量資金已經用來炒作非生產事業
中產階層和他們原本是雇主群的富豪們之間，原本關係相當密切，現在由於富豪遷移他處……富豪們與他們中產階層僱員之間，也彼此脫了節
新出現的社會階層化，在這二十年來，遂與過去不同了。過去的富人、中產、貧寒三級區隔，其間生活方式與意識形態的差異，沒有今天各階層之間的距離，如此遙遠……
貧富差異的程度加大，各階層之間彼此異化，已經無法逆轉
一旦情況改變，整個地區，全部遭災……已經衰敗無法重振
中年人，也就常常是沒有可以傾訴自己情緒，分享成敗的伴侶
當人與人之間，只能以「利」相處時，人間不會再有人類情感
「我可以爲所欲爲，因爲我是勝者。」這個現象
