Thelen, K. 1999. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. Annual Review of
Political Science 2:369-404.
Tien, C.-Y. 2001. Taiwan de yuanzhumin: taiyazu (Taiwan's Aborigine: Atayal). Taipei:
Tai-Yuan Publisher. (in Chinese)
Tien, C.-Y. 2002. Taiwan de yuanzhumin: dawuzu (Taiwan's Aborigine: Tao). Taipei:
Tai-Yuan Publisher. (in Chinese)
Wei, H.-L., and P.-H. Liu. 1962. Lanyu yameizu de shehui zuzhi (Social Structure of The
Yami, Botel Tobago). Taipei: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. (in Chinese)
Wong, S.-H. 1986. Fei danxi shehui zhi yanjiu: yi taiwan taiyazu yu yameizu wei li (OnNon-unilineal Society: The Cases of Atayal and Yam in Taiwan). In Taiwan tuzhu
shehui wenhua yanjiu lunwenji (Symposium on the Socio-Cu l t ur e of Tai wan’ s Aborigines), ed. Y.-K. Huang. 1998. Taipei: Linkingbooks. (in Chinese)
Wong, S.-S. 2001. Taiwan yuanzhumin de shehui yu wenhua (The Society and Culture of
Tai wan’ s Nat i v e Tr i be s )
. Taipei: Linkingbooks. (in Chinese)Yang, N.-C. 2005. Taiwan bainian shuguang (
The Fi r s t Li ght of Tai wan’ s Re c e nt One
Hundred Years). Taipei: Nantian shuju. (in Chinese)
Review Opinions
27-Jun-2008 Dear Dr Tang:
Your manuscript entitled "Institutional Adaptation and Community-Based Conservation of Natural Resources: The Cases of Tao and Atayal in Taiwan"
which you resubmitted to Society & Natural Resources, has been reviewed. The reviewer comments are included at the bottom of this letter. The three reviewers who read the initial submission all requested major revisions. Unfortunately, only one of these reviewers was able to comment on the revised submission, and we had to enlist new reviewers. These reviewers noted several concerns about the revised paper and request that it undergo another major revision. Many of the issues I raised during the first round have not been adequately addressed, as you will see in my attached comments.
I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript.
Please be aware that this invitation is not a guarantee that the manuscript will ultimately be accepted. Please include a point-by-point discussion of how you have (or why you have not) responded to all of the reviewers' comments and
suggestions as described below.
When revising your manuscript, please keep in mind our recommended length limit for the type of article you are submitting. These limits include text, references, tables, and figures (figures are valued at 300 words each). Please refer to the attached guidelines for more information.
To submit the revision, log into
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/usnr
and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under"Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.
Please enter your responses to the comments made by the reviewers in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you made to the original manuscript. Please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewers.
IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Society & Natural Resources, your revised manuscript should be uploaded within eight weeks, if possible. Please contact us if you need more time. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Society & Natural Resources and I look forward to receiving your revision.
Sincerely, Troy Hall
Editor in Chief, Society & Natural Resources snr@cahnrs.wsu.edu
Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
The strong point of this paper is its descriptive comparison of Tao and Atayal communities within the context of the changing sociocultural environment of Taiwan. Its weak point is the author's attack on the "straw man" of cultural
materialism. There is much more to cultural materialism that the author's view of it, which is seemingly based on secondary sources.
If he/she wants to take on cultural materialism, it is only fitting to use the original and complete source -- Marvin Harris' Cultural Materialism.
Frankly, I don't think this paper is the place to attack this research strategy. I would recommend that he or she should delete the slap at materialism, and begin the paper with the second paragraph on page two:
...In this paper we explore...and focus on the descriptive comparison of the two communities.
If the author favors an ideological focus (values and beliefs), that's ok, but don't try
to get the readers to accept this point of view with a weak and incorrect attack on cultural materialism. A nice tight conclusion can be used to emphasize the author's point of view. However, it's kind of ironic that in spite of the emphasis on values and beliefs in the theoretical part of the paper, there is much emphasis on ecological variables in the discussion -- access, mobile resources, well-defined boundaries, etc.
On balance, if presented as a mainly descriptive case study of two Taiwanese communities adapting to change, this could be a welcome contribution.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
Please see the following comments:
Comments to author(s)
Definitely it is a very interesting paper. Its present formation is difficult to
understand as each section is very long. Please you consider following revisions to make it more interesting to the readers.
1. Structure of the paper:
You can revise it as follows:
Introduction, Background (Aboriginal communities and natural resource
conservation), Study area and the ethnic communities, Study methods, Empirical findings, Discussion and Conclusion.
2. Page 6: Please consider following queries:
What were the purposes of field research? What kinds of information did the author(s) collect during field research and interview? How did the author(s) select the informants? How did the author(s) analyze the field data?
3. Page 7:
Long (pages 7-17), descriptive presentation of findings under two main headings is really difficult to understand for the readers. If the author(s) analyze the findings based on three research problems identified in page-2 by combining two studied communities, then it will be easier to grasp the answers to the research problems.
4. Page 9, line 51:
?Discard all unconsumed flying fish?- can you quantify it? It indicates that the Tao people catch large amount of flying fish than their consumption capacity. If so how the Stop-Dieting-Flying-Fish Ceremony can be an incentive favourable to the conservation of flying fish as you mentioned in line (5-6) of page 10?
4. Page 10, line 10:
Christianity was introduced to the island- how and why Christianity was introduced
and who supported to intrude into the island?
5. Page 12, lines 8-16:
Christianity did not bring about a ?tragedy of commons?. Did they do anything to conserve the fish resources in the region?
6. Page 17, lines (3-13):
?Its achievement can be compared with its two neighboring villages, Cinsbu and Smagus, which are also engaged in a similar type of ethno-eco-tourism. While the latter two tribal communities suffered serious mudslides during the typhoon
seasons (Su 2006), the same typhoons caused almost no damage in Smangus.?
Who are the latter two tribes? Why there was no damage in Smagus?
7. Discussion and Conclusion
It is also long. Please separate it into Discussion and Conclusion sections, and make some sub-section under Discussion section.
Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
It looks better and has more holistic thinking on the theories and discussions for the second version of this article. Somehow, I find that there are several points need to be clarified, particularly for the case of the Tao:
1. Since the different scales of both cases, the author(s) might present their background by different approaches. As a case of the whole ethnic tribe of 6 different communities, it seems not enough to only mention that the researchers have reviewed a lot of relevant literature. The authors shall say something about the legitimacy to describe the cases of Tao by less than 2 dozens informants (township-level officer and residents). If it can address that some of the key informants are familiar with culture issues, especially the big boat and flying fish, and traditional social organizations, then it will look more solid for the source of information. And it is a good idea to mention the positions of the references it cites for the background of the Tao and the Atayal. Regarding to the case of the
Smangus, the situation is different. I would suggest that it is better to address the characteristics of this unique community in the Atayal tribe.
2. The flying fish actually is listed on the Annual Report of Fishery by the Taiwan Government. This means that the declining stock of the flying fishes for the Tao to catch at the sea around the Orchid Island may mainly (or at least partially) caused by commercial fishery of non-Tao people. Furthermore, the Government actually
has the power and right to regulate the fishery activities according to the Fishery Act. Then, I am afraid that it is more complicated for the case of the flying fish.
3. One thing the author(s) also mention (note 5) that many young Tao persons left the Orchid Island to go to the main island (Taiwan) for better education, jobs, health case, social welfare, and so on. This may also raise a question that there may be less and less local fisherpersons and needs for the flying fishes. So while there are more motor boats than before, it may decrease for the total number of the fishing boats including the traditional and the motor ones.
4. From my personal viewpoint, the value and belief are only two key components of the traditional culture of big boat and flying fish for the Tao in the Orchid Island.
So does the evil spirits to the Tao culture.While many Tao people don’t believe the existence of the EvilSpirits,itdoesn’tmean thatTao people won’t be appreciated with their culture (and/or traditions). The point is that though there is not the
constraint of Evil Spirits any more, and the motor boats are more popular, I am still not sure if the Tao fisherpersons will catch the flying fishes as many as possible, or there is a ceiling of catch in their mind no matter what technology they adopt. It is necessary to have more detailed information and descriptions to response to this point.
5. As the Tao already has strong links with outside world, it might be some change for their foods, including flying fish. So it might be necessary to have some
descriptions on the change of the position and the volume of consumption for the flying fish in the Tao communities of the Orchid Island.
Generally speaking, I recommend that the author(s) shall describe the situations and clarify the role of Evil Spirits. Maybe we shall be more appreciated with the culture of the Tao for it builds up some local resilience to avoid the mass extraction (or serious depletion, or even extinction) of flying fish by commercial fishery.
附錄二 本篇出處： 政治學報 40 民 95.06 頁 1-39
篇名： 取用者自治與水資源管理：比較我國嘉南地區與美國加州雷蒙集水
區之地下水治理
作者： 湯京平(Tang, Ching-ping) ; 黃建勳(Huang, Chien-hsun) ---
本摘要內容錄自原文---中文摘要： 在水資源開發日益困難之際，如何有效管理有限的水資源是全
球必須共同面對的重要議題。水資源的分佈往往跨越地方疆界，因 此依照以往的思維，若要進行有 效的管理似乎必須依賴省或中央層 級的直接干預。然而，這些層級的政府往往遠離基層的資源使用者，
而難以制訂出具備有效誘因結構的管理機制。近年水資源管理 的研 究多將水視為一種共享資源（common-pool resources），鑑於這類資 源的特性，有效的管理須結合國家與市場機制，以強化使用者網絡 為主體的自我管理體系。相較於我國的中央集權管理體系，美 國南 加州雷蒙地下水集水區的水資源管理就呈現非常多樣而成功的風 貌，足以開拓國人的政策視野。雖然臺灣的灌溉水利系統一向被國 際學術界譽為非常成功的經 驗，但是在地下水的管理方面卻乏善可 陳，近年的超抽更造成了地層下陷的嚴重後果。造成此一治理成效 上差異的因素很多，固然可能因為地下水的性質不同於地面 灌溉水 所致，但更可能是中央集權的治理體系與自治體系所創造出來的誘 因結構迥異，所需的管理成本也相差甚鉅。本研究把討論延伸到國 外的案例，檢視其地下水 使用者自治的成功經驗，並透過比較，分 析自治制度構成元素與影響其運作的主要因素為何。
英文摘要： As the supply of flesh water becomes a global crisis, effective
management of available water is considered as an essential and challenging task. Accumulated researches indicate that self-governance by the resource users could be the most efficient way to manage such common-pool resources as surface and groundwater. This study compares two groundwater management systems, in Taiwan and the United States of America, to analyze why such self-governance has evolved and how such self-governance system has actually worked to conserve groundwater.