都會區原住民族河岸聚落治理之研究，以新北市三鶯大橋原住民河岸聚落遷居至「隆恩埔國宅｣及新北市溪洲原住民河岸聚落轉型為「溪洲園區｣為研究個案，透過文獻探討與深度訪談的方式，探討都會區原住民族河岸聚落在歷經「萌芽發展期｣、「困頓黑暗期」、「安置轉型期｣及「協力穩定期」等四個重要歷程後，發展出「國宅｣與「園區｣兩類型治理模式之內涵與差異。本研究按國家與公民社會互動觀點研究結果顯示，在1960年至2010年間，政府分別採「權利上移」、「權力外移」之運作模式，均無法解決都會區原住民族河岸聚落族人想就地集體居住的難題。2011年至2020年間政府以「權力下移」的治理模式運作，並透過公私組織之間的協商機制與資源分享共同推動河岸聚落讓治理產生變革與創新，展現原住民族族群的主體性與呈現族群文化在於居住需求上的實踐。
本研究結果也顯示，兩類型之治理模式在公私組織間之決策互動關係、運作機制及對原住民族居住權保障的程度上有明顯的差異。隆恩埔國宅以科層化層級節制管理模式運作，由政府行政主導權取代部落原有內部自發性的自治組織，權利保障主體為家戶而非部落，而維繫部落生活秩序和文化傳承的集體力量消失，使三鶯聚落的族人成為名符其實的經濟弱勢戶。溪洲園區以網絡化平行協力關係運作，保障主體為部落集體，在政策形塑時期，公私組織運作各擁有自主性，並能在平等互惠與協力合作的基礎上連結，形成一個開放、自律及有效的網絡，以持續直接對話的方式追求共同目標，有別於過去「上下關係」的互動。此模式所形塑的「互賴網絡」有利於資源的流動，同時也調和國家規範與部落規範之間的衝突。
本研究透過新北市原住民族河岸聚落治理模式進行研究的過程發現，政府可以和原住民族以平等互惠的夥伴關係，共同建構具族群文化價值的住宅政策來創造國家的最佳利益。對原住民族行政而言，河岸聚落的治理由「地方政府」轉換到「地方治理」，並藉由「政策網絡」與「多層次治理」的模式相互並行，象徵中央與地方已進入公民社會的連結進程，這些治理過程的改變，對臺灣地方政府自治與原住民族自治發展具有一定的啟發與意涵。

This research focuses on the governance of riverside settlements of indigenous peoples in urban area and studies cases in New Taipei City: the relocation from Sanying Bridge settlement to Longenpu public housing and settlement transformation to living cultural park in Xizhou. Through literature review and in-depth interview, the research explores how waterfront urban indigenous settlement undergoes “Sprouting Period”, “Difficulty and Dark Period”, “Relocating and Transition Period” to “Collaborative and Stabilizing Period” then develops into two governance model of different nature – public housing and cultural park. Based on interaction perspective between government and civil society, the result indicates, from 1960 to 2010, operating with """"upward-shifting power"""" and """"outward-shifting power"""" principles, the government could not solve the conundrum of the appeal of metropolis indigenous peoples – to continue living collectively in-situ of their settlement along the river. Hence, since 2011 to 2021, the government down-shifted its power and implemented the governance of riverbank settlement with transformation and innovation through negotiation mechanism and resource sharing between public-private-partnership; furthermore, it demonstrated the subjectivity of indigenous peoples and practically expressing ethnic culture on housing needs.
Findings of the research also observed the obvious differences between the two governance models in decision-making interaction between public and private organizations, operating mechanisms, and protecting the right to housing of indigenous peoples. Longenpu public housing adopted bureaucratic and hierarchy management model, which the leading government administration replaces the spontaneous self-governing group within the tribe, in that case the main subject of right protects each household rather than the whole community, and the collective unity that maintains order of living and passing down cultural tradition disappears, causing the member of Sanying community became economically underprivileged. In comparison, Xizhou cultural park has been working as a collaboration network to ensure that the rights of the entire community are protected. During the period of policy shaping, public and private organizations have their own autonomy, both party can be linked on the basis of equality and mutual benefits, thus forming an open, self-disciplined and effective network that can pursue a common goal through continuous direct communication, which is different from the interaction between """"higher and lower relationship"""" in the past. The """"interdependent network"""" formed by this model helps to circulate resources as well as contributes to reconcile the conflicts between government regulations and traditions of the tribe.
By studying the governance model of riverside settlements of indigenous peoples in New Taipei City, this research shows that government and indigenous peoples can build up an equal and reciprocal partnership to jointly construct housing policies with ethnic cultural values to create the best interests of the country. For indigenous administration, the riverside settlements governance has transformed from """"local government"""" to """"local governance"""" and operating with """"policy network"""" and """"multi-level governance"""", this transformation symbolizes that the central and local authority have entered the stage of connecting with civil society, moreover, these changes in governance enlightens the development of Taiwan’s local government autonomy and the autonomy of indigenous peoples.