「現實」與「理想」之間：臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究發展基金會宜蘭工作室的參與式規劃設計實踐

Abstract

摘 要 由於參與式規劃設計的概念同時兼有「參與」的「政治價值性」，與「規劃設計」的「操作實踐性」，因此長期以來，對其並沒有一個明確的界定，也沒有一套標準化的操作模式。尤其，當「參與」逐漸成為主流價值時，一方面，它被各自詮釋，甚至被視為專業市場化運作的工具、獲得政治正當性的籌碼；另一方面，它反而遭到追求經濟理性與效率理性的組織「摒棄」。而關於「參與式規劃設計」以往的研究與論辯，多圍繞「政策研究」與「經驗研究」展開，且大都停留在價值論辯而難於回應具體實踐，或以一個參與個案的發展為背景探討相關經驗、意涵、方法、行動者的角色反思等，而難以回應整體。 因此，本研究選擇駐地宜蘭、實踐參與式規劃設計廿年的臺大建築與城鄉研究發展基金會宜蘭工作室為研究主體，探討支持參與式規劃設計得以持續實踐的內、外部因素，以及長期實踐的參與式規劃設計對地方之影響；最後，透過「為何參與」的設問，來解開「何謂參與」的疑惑。筆者試圖結合「轉譯」與「權力關係」的分析理論，提出「參與式轉譯」作為理解參與式規劃設計的解釋模型；即包括「知識」、「公共性想像」的相互轉譯，與「權力與責任共享」的過程，建構共識樞紐，並以螺旋循環式的方式漸進。瞭解專業者與不同結構位置的行動者參與式轉譯之過程，即是在回應研究之議題。 本研究認為，宜蘭工作室參與式規劃設計之所以可以持續實踐廿年，其原因是：首先，除了基金會屬性與體制內漸進改革的專業目標外，宜蘭工作室參與式轉譯的核心是關注「人」與面對「衝突矛盾」，這不僅塑造了各方的專業信任與需求，也建構了支持專業實踐的社群網絡。其次，宜蘭工作室與政權聯盟保持「介入其中又抽離其外」的關係，通過「介入其中」擁有公共資源分配的協議式權力與進入社區的先發性權力；通過「抽離其外」保持專業公共價值的主體性，免於成為政府背書的專業工具。然而，支持專業「抽離其外」的，正是工作室與地方社區「主客分明又互為主體」的參與式轉譯；工作室長期的地方參與，不僅累積了專業的地方知識和社會信譽，更累積了自身的專業實力。再次，地方社群網絡的養成，使工作室可以發揮「裡應外合」的多重角色，根據議題發展進程，將體制內資源與社會力量進行跨時空連接整合；進一步支持工作室「專業治理」的權力翻轉，即便政黨輪替也不會受到影響。最後，工作室透過「做中學」傳遞參與的默會知識；雖然員工會承受各種疏離，但在「類教育」的內部參與式轉譯下，留住人才不是組織永續的目標，而是透過轉譯促進個人思辨與專業反省，建構多元參與的網絡，以不同的角度推進參與合作。宜蘭工作室的參與實踐不僅對宜蘭地方社會的發展產生了重要影響；更重要的是透過參與價值的傳播與社群網絡的建構，影響人在日常生活中參與公共事務的意識。簡言之，宜蘭工作室的參與式規劃設計是以參與「轉譯」，回應社會「轉型」的日常社會運動。

Abstract The concept of participatory planning comprises two parts, namely the ""political value"" during ""participation"", and the practicability during the planning process. The definition of participatory planning has been controversial and is regarded as an idea of complexity over the past few decades, and there is no standardized mode of operation, either. This idea has been interpreted differently as it begins to be widely accepted as a tool (with the exception of the organization pursuing economic and efficient rationality). Previous researches regarding participatory planning usually discuss its policy aim and focus on particular empirical studies. They explore the pros and cons of such method during application or try to profile it by unveiling the experiences in one case. They fail to shed light on the political and economic framework which is so deeply related to participatory planning. This paper therefore selects not one particular case, but the organization practicing and dedicating to the method of, and embracing the value in participatory planning as its subject of investigation. The Yilan studio affiliated with the NTUBP foundation will be the core of discussion. This paper will first explore the factors supporting the durability of Yilan studio’s practicing participatory planning for more than twenty years. Second, it analyzes the participatory planning`s influence on local society. Finally, it tries to answer the question ""why participate"". To this end, the author combines the theory of ""Translation"", ""Urban Regime"" and ""Organizational Sociology"" to propose ""Participatory Translation"", as an interpretation model for participatory planning. This model is formed by the translation of ""knowledge"" and ""public imagination"", and a process called ""power and shared responsibility "". The common core supports to sustain translation, and together they move forward in a spiral progress. Several reasons contribute to the long-lasting practice of Yilan studio’s participatory planning method. Firstly, Yilan studio pays close attention to people and is willing to face conflicts. It is from this process that the studio shapes its professionality and develops its sources of demand among the public, and hence establishes its own supportive ""social network"". Secondly, Yilan studio has been maintaining a ""half involved and half detached"" relationship with the regime of the local government. Its involvement enables it to own bargaining power on the allocation of public resource, and to be endowed with the preemptive position when intervening in the community. Meanwhile, by remaining somewhat detached, the studio upholds its subjectivity when carrying out pubic value. Thirdly, the indigenous knowledge and professional strengths accumulated over a long period of time enables the studio to integrate resources from multiple social components and governmental institutions. Lastly, the ""learning by doing"" pattern in participatory planning constructs a pluralistic participant network from within, since the planning method requires the studio staff to be highly saturated with the social net work of the studio. In sum, the participatory planning method of Yilan studio has witnessed its impact in the development f local society, as it plays the role of mediator or translator. It has affected people’s sense of participation in public affairs in their everyday lives. As embodied by the Yilan studio, it can be said that the participatory planning is in itself a daily social activity.