從社造到社運： 美里庄環境保育聯盟反118關西外環道事件研究

Abstract

位於新竹縣東北隅的關西鎮地形地貌多樣，是屬於「內山開發」的客家小鎮。新竹縣第二大河鳳山溪流經街區南邊，此區鳳山溪河谷沖積平原經客家先民蓽路藍縷辛勤拓墾，成為最肥沃大面積的美麗田園，並有豐富的客家文化地景。 新竹縣政府為改善交通，擬於鳳山溪沿岸河谷平原興建「118線關西外環道」。「美里庄環境保育聯盟」認為闢建外環道代價高效益低，且對關西鎮肥沃良田、美好景觀以及文化地景造成不可回復之負面影響；公開呼籲政府停建外環道並採取公民行動，經過二年的努力，118外環道工程計畫擱置。 作者以「行動主義者」精神，持續關心外環道工程四年，號召並參與組織行動二年。故本論文乃一個事件當事人回望反思為主，參酌中外社運理論檢視與分析為輔。 本研究提出三點結論：對於關西發展的願景鎮民意見分歧，反外環道事件只是凸顯分歧事實；「美里庄」的勝利，其實是政治人物審酌現實環境的策略考量而獲得；反對「發展性建設」，採取社會運動途徑代價高，難以獲得持一般「發展觀」鎮民認同，應循公民參與的途徑較務實。

Guanxi Township, which is located northeast of Hsinchu county has a variety of different landscapes, and is also a near-mountain developed small Hakka town. Feng-Shan Creek, the second-biggest river of Hsinchu County streams through the south side of Guanxi downtown, and had formed a rich alluvial plain. Over the years, the Hakka ancestors had worked very hard and build a large and beautiful rice field with abundant Hakka landscapes and views. The Hsinchu county government had planned to build the Guanxi No. 118 Bypass Routes on the Feng-Shan Creek alluvial plain in order to improve the traffic situation. Mei-Li-Zhuang Environmental Protection Union (MLZEPU) believed that this construction would cost a lot and benefit little, and would cause irreversible negative impacts on the high quality rice field, beautiful views and cultural landscapes in Guanxi. Therefore, the union had appealed to the government to stop the construction and taken civil action. After two years of protest, the No. 118 Bypass Routes construction had been shelved. The author had paid attention on the bypass routes construction case during the past four years and had called, organized and participated the movement during the past two years with spirit of an activist. Thus, this thesis is firstly an organization and reflection of the activist, and secondly an attempt to analyze and understand the movement with Taiwanese and Western social movement theories. This thesis proposes three arguments: (1) Guanxi citizens have very different opinions and visions on the direction of future development of this small town, and the protest has simply reflected the difference; (2) The seeming “victory” of MLZEPU was in fact gained by politicians’ strategic moves based on reality; (3) the movement would have been much easier if MLZEPU took the civil participation approach instead of social movement approach; the movement was against the developmental or constructive view and therefore was difficult for most citizens (who are usually all for development) to identify or support.