公園遊戲場改造之制度分析與發展架構（IAD）研究

Abstract

公園遊戲場自2015年以來，在特公盟、相關團體、公部門、廠商、學者與使用者等行動者的努力下而展現全新面貌，特色公園儼然成為一股熱潮。在這樣的背景脈絡下，這場公園遊戲場改造行動的發展情形、特公盟與其他參與者的互動、目前的成果與成效、帶給社會的影響與轉變是這場社會運動中值得探討的議題。本研究旨在應用制度分析與發展架構（IAD架構）探討公園遊戲場改造行動的源起與過程，並應用行動者網絡理論之思考概念，目的為了解(1)公園遊戲場改造行動之現況、其造成的公園遊戲空間型態轉變；(2)行動者互動樣態與其影響的公園設計制度轉變。(3)行動成果與產生之社會性影響。本研究以質性方式蒐集資料，分別對臺北市各地區已進行改造的8項案例（共13座公園遊戲場）進行現況及改造背景之調查，並有較深入之行為觀察，同時參與觀察改造行動的相關活動，如共學課程、參與式工作坊、學術研討會與鄰里宣導講座等；另外對行動者組成之焦點團體進行半結構式訪談，包含相關團體、廠商、公部門與學者，藉此了解行動者參與改造行動的過程與遭遇之困難、行動者之間的互動狀態以及各機制的實際操作方式與成效。 研究結果發現，(1)公園改造行動是一個持續轉變的過程，透過不同案例的實驗操作，目前已建立起一套在事前選址、中期規劃設計、事後的驗收使用都能夠有公民參與的設計流程；(2)扭轉傳統的常規、慣例與思維，如推行最有利標、設計師與使用者參與、兒童遊戲權意識抬頭等，也產生了具有多元特色的遊戲場；(3)行動的目標與訴求也因參與過程的經驗積累，在不斷地發散與收斂之後轉變，從一開始對特色公園的呼籲及罐頭遊具的反對，而後倡議公園遊戲場的共融性與多元性，最近則逐漸轉向倡議兒童參與、應有挑戰性與分齡分區之規畫；(4)雖有越來越多的各界人士加入行動，卻也因為社會性結構問題、現有招標與審查制度的缺陷、民眾對參與及認同的差異、權力自主性衝突等問題，導致在行動的推廣上遭遇困難，仍待突破。根據研究結果，提出以下建議，供後續政策之擬定與行動方向參考：(1)政策規劃上需考量可及性與公平性；(2)花博公園美術園區的蹲點研究，且其可作為辦理推廣活動基地；(3)應超越遊具、遊戲場層級，營造遊戲空間；(4)遊戲場改造需要有更專業化的分工；(5)現行機制與相關知識仍需一段時間的社會共學與練習，以內化共融精神於日常生活之中。Since 2015, the playground in parks has changed by the action which has been leading by Characteristic Park Union (CPU), other organizations, government, manufacturers, academics and users. In this context, the development situation of this playground renovation action (PRA), the interactions among CPU and other participants, the current achievements and the outcomes of PRA, and the impact and transformation on society in this action are worth a discussion. This study aims to apply the institutional analysis and development framework (IAD framework) to explore the origin and the process of PRA, and also apply the concept of actor-network theory to think over. The purpose of this study is to understand: (1) The current situation of PRA and the change of playscape. (2) The patterns of interactions among actors and the transformation of playground design institution advanced by them. (3) The outcomes and the social influence of PRA. This study was carried out by qualitative methods, investigating the current situation and renovation background of 8 cases which include 13 playgrounds of parks in Taipei, and also observing the childern’s play behavior. And participating the activities related to PRA, such as co-education course, several participatory workshops, academic symposium, and neighborhood lectures, etc. Moreover, the semi-structured interview with focus group consisted of actors was to understand their participating process, difficulties, interactions, experiences, and effects. The results are: (1) PRA is a dynamic process, through the experimental operation of different cases, a playground design institution of civic participation in the phases of site selection, planning, design, and final acceptance has been established. (2) PRA reverses some traditional routines, practices and thought, such as the promotion of the most advantageous tender, the participation of designers and users, the awareness of children’s play rights, etc., also brings about the appearance of multiple-characteristic playgrounds. (3) Because of the experience accumulation of participatory process, the goals and the appeals have also been transformed. In the beginning, they promoted characteristic parks and opposed canned play structures, and then advocated inclusiveness and diversity of playgrounds, recently, their goals gradually turn to children’s participation, adventure and challenging playgrounds, and age-based planning. (4) Although more and more people have joined this action, they have some predicaments in the promotion of action because of the social structure problems, the defects of tendering and deliberative institution nowadays, the differences in participation and cognition of the public, and the conflicts in authority autonomy. According to the results, there are some suggestions for the follow-up policy formulation and action development: (1) The formulation and planning of the policy need to be considered about accessibility and fairness. (2) A long stay research of Fine Arts Park Area of Taipei Expo Park, and it can be a base for the follow-up promotion action. (3) The action not just focuses on play equipment, play structures, and playgrounds, but should build and develop playscape. (4) The playground renovation requires a division of labor based on specialization. (5) The public still need a period of time to learn and practice about current institutions and relevant knowledge to internalize the spirit of inclusiveness in daily life.