如果在某些文化中，你不接受主流，

你就會被排擠，甚至可能消失。

但在這裡，那些擁抱樹木的人，還有那些想要砍掉樹木的人

他們卻能和平共處

-維克多·伊萬諾維奇·別連科

If certain culture, if you do not accept the mainstream,

You would be booted out or might disappear.

Here we have people-you know, wohe hug trees,

And people who want to cut them down-and they live side by side!

-Виктор Иванович Беленко

吸血鬼（陰涼）步行路徑規劃

資料來源:

中央研究院人社中心地理資訊科學研究專題中心

🌱 森林不是一步步變成熟：用「#適應循環」重新理解生態演替

🔶 我們以前怎麼學演替？

你可能學過這樣的過程：

一塊裸地先長出苔蘚、草，再來是灌木、陽性樹種，最後變成一片穩定的成熟森林。這樣有序的改變過程叫做#生態演替（succession），也常被畫成一條往上爬的「發展階梯」。

這套理論的假設是：自然界總是朝向一個穩定的「#極盛狀態」（climax community）邁進。

但，真的是這樣嗎？現實裡，火災、颱風、外來種、氣候變遷、人的干擾都會打亂這條路。自然的變化，可能是一場「重新洗牌」。

#自然與社會的生命循環：認識適應循環（Adaptive Cycle）

你是否曾注意到，森林在大火後會慢慢再生？或者，一個社會在經歷災難後，常常會出現新的制度與創新？這些看似混亂的變化，其實有一種規律。這就是我們今天要介紹的概念——適應循環（Adaptive Cycle）。

#什麼是適應循環？

生態學家 C.S. Holling 提出「適應循環 」的概念用來幫助我們理解生態系統如何在干擾與改變中生存與演化。

它建議演替不是單向的，而是四個互相交替的階段：

#成長階段（r）�在這個階段，資源豐富，系統快速發展。例如，一片森林在空曠地重新長出植物、樹木快速增長。

#保守階段（K）�系統達到穩定，資源被充分利用，但也變得僵化。例如森林裡的大樹壟斷了陽光，小樹難以生長，整體變得脆弱。

#釋放階段（Ω）�發生了災難或突變，例如大火或風災，原有的結構崩解，資源釋放出來。

#重組階段（α）�混亂中開始出現新機會。種子萌發，新物種競爭，一個新的循環開始。

在重組過程中，視有沒有原先的物種來源（土壤中留下的種子庫、隣近的物種移入⋯⋯ ），系統不一定回復到原來的狀態，可能轉型成為另一新的系統。

這個循環就像是一個自然界的「呼吸」，不斷地讓系統調整與進化。每次擾動，不一定是壞事，而是下一次變化的起點。

🏞️ 案例一：太魯閣大崩塌──不是破壞，而是開始

在太魯閣峽谷，岩層因地震或大雨崩落，瞬間讓原本的森林毀壞（Ω 釋放階段）。但幾年後，我們會看到：

岩屑堆中出現先驅植物

吸引昆蟲與鳥類

小灌木慢慢恢復土壤結構

這些是「r 階段」的生命爆發，也許幾十年後又長成不同樣貌的森林。崩塌不是結束，是重生的起點。

🌲 案例二：阿里山風倒林──森林怎麼面對擾動？

2001 年桃芝颱風重創阿里山地區，大片柳杉林倒下。原本的「K階段」森林結構在幾小時內崩解（Ω階段），但接下來的故事令人驚訝：

林隙讓陽光灑入，地被植物快速長出（r階段）

有些區域出現原本不常見的闊葉樹

動物遷入，物種組成改變

這是一種「重組（α）」，森林不是恢復原貌，而是創造了新的組合，這就是韌性的展現。

🐸 案例三：林內濕地的人工與自然演替

雲林林內曾是農田排水地，後來被規劃為濕地，並經社區、縣府與 NGO 合作復育：

初期用人工方式導入水源、種植濕地植物（r階段）

成功吸引水鳥與青蛙，進入穩定階段（K）

幾次乾旱或洪水，導致生態波動（Ω）

新種出現、生境變動（α）

這個濕地的歷程，就像一個多次繞行的適應循環，每一輪都不一樣，卻保有生態功能。對於我們而言，在意的不是回到原先的狀態，而是維持#生態系的服務。

#不只是自然，#社會也是如此

這個概念不只適用於森林、湖泊或珊瑚礁。人類社會也有類似的循環：

經濟繁榮 → 制度僵化 → 危機發生（如金融風暴）→ 創新與重建。

傳統社區 → 現代化衝擊 → 社會失序 → 在地文化重新凝聚。

理解這個循環，可以幫助我們更有智慧地應對改變、面對危機，並設計出更有#韌性（resilience）的系統。

為什麼重要？

我們的世界越來越複雜，環境變遷、氣候災害、經濟動盪層出不窮。適應循環讓我們看到：

危機並不是結束，而是轉機的開始。

創新往往來自破壞之後的空白。（經濟學家稱為#破壞性的創造）

真正的穩定，不是永遠不變，而是能夠持續學習、調整和多様性（自然系統的生物多樣性，社會、文化系統的多元）的潛力，也就是系統的韌性。

總結來說，適應循環提醒我們：世界總在變化中前進，懂得適應與再生，是我們與自然和諧共存的智慧。

#附註：

適應性循環並不是說演替理論不對，而是換一個角度來銓釋⋯⋯我們可能永遠也不會知道自然的規律。

Adaptive cycles 放到層級的概念中成為Panarchy是一個更有趣的想法。

想知道更多？

你可以從以下書籍與資源進一步了解這個概念：

Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems（Gunderson & Holling, 2002）

Resilience Alliance 網站：https://www.resalliance.org/

資料來源:

fb Yue-Joe Hsia

 校園榕樹倒塌壓死女騎士 南投敦和國小判賠288萬

2025/07/11 

南投縣草屯鎮敦和國小校園內一棵老榕樹，去年6月因強風倒塌，壓中路過的林姓女騎士，導致她傷重不治。家屬悲痛提告，南投地院審理後認定校方管理有疏失，判決校方需賠償死者女兒及母親共288萬餘元，全案可上訴。

這起不幸事件發生在去年6月29日中午，林女騎機車行經敦和國小旁的仁愛街時，校內一棵高大的榕樹突然連根拔起倒塌，壓中林女，送醫後仍因「肋骨骨折、氣血胸、缺氧性腦病變」等傷勢，2天後宣告不治。

家屬質疑校方長期未妥善維護樹木，憤而提告國賠。法院審理時，台大實驗林管理處鑑定發現，該榕樹並未感染褐根病，但根系被水泥封固，導致無法正常生長，加上樹冠過大，最終因無法承受重量而倒塌。

校方辯稱，每年都有修剪校樹，該榕樹最近一次修剪是在事故前半年，且校內樹木曾因颱風受損，已加強管理。但法官發現，校方修剪紀錄顯示，僅在108至113年間零星修剪，且110年就曾發生校內榕樹倒塌壓覆人行道的事件，卻未改善管理方式，認定校方明顯疏於維護。

此外，校方將部分校地出租給太陽能公司時，雖約定廠商需協助修剪樹木，但法官認為，這不能免除校方對公共設施的安全管理責任。

法院最終判決，校方應賠償死者女兒158萬餘元（含喪葬費28.3萬及精神撫慰金130萬），賠償死者母親130萬元精神撫慰金，合計288萬餘元。可上訴。

資料來源:

//www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20250711000018-260402?chdtv

倒樹地標   23.981670, 120.678342

2011年有斷頭過

2011~2017  綠籬式修剪

2020年危險構形

2020~2024 看起來沒什麼修剪，樹愈來愈高大

Disaster Named “Czech National Arboricultural Standards”

Politicization of Professional Standards – A Risk for Arboriculture

The field of tree care (arboriculture) is a relatively narrow specialization followed by only a small group of interested experts. However, when this purely practical and professional topic enters broader societal debate, there’s a genuine risk that politicians—and at worst, state officials—begin to take notice. This often leads to politicization of an issue that should remain purely professional and pragmatic. Unfortunately, the Czech National Standards (Standards of Nature and Landscape Care - SPPK) serve as a prime example of how state intervention can damage what began as a well-intentioned professional initiative.

SPPK was conceived as recommended practices establishing output parameters and technical descriptions for activities in nature and landscape care. Published by the state Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic (AOPK ČR), in collaboration with selected academic institutions and other expert authorities, the original concept was commendable—unifying terminology and practices across the field, improving practice quality, and ensuring clarity among designers, contractors, investors, and authorities. Had the standards remained strictly professional, they could have significantly benefited both trees and arborists.

Promising Beginnings of SPPK (2011–2016)

When I approached AOPK ČR in 2011 with a project for developing sector-specific standards, I naively believed that anchoring these standards within a state agency would lead to rapid practical implementation and wide adoption, particularly among landowners and those responsible for trees. Initially, this appeared promising. By 2016, the first twelve arboricultural standards (series A) had been created, quickly becoming the basis for pricing guides, specialized software for tree assessments, and educational programs ranging from certification courses to academia. For instance, AOPK ČR incorporated newly defined pruning methods into its official price lists for typical interventions, standardizing terminology nationwide.

Importantly, the initial development of these standards was transparent and open. Coordination was provided by an academic institution (the Arboricultural Laboratory at MENDELU at the time), and any representative interested in specific issues could join the development committee. Practically, experts of various perspectives gathered at the same table, refining terminology and clarifying priorities. These first published standards were positively received by public administration, the business sector, and professional associations. Arboriculture in the Czech Republic finally seemed to have clear and universally supported quality practices.

State Intervention and Expert Selection

However, this idyllic situation did not last long. Around 2016, the state directly intervened—AOPK ČR took over coordination, appointing a civil servant to lead the process. The consequences quickly followed: members not aligning with the new leader’s personal preferences were promptly excluded. Ironically, the current standards development team lacks representatives from major arboricultural education and certification institutions in the Czech Republic.

Even more serious were subsequent content changes. Standards that had successfully guided practice for nearly a decade began to undergo “innovation.” While occasional updates are legitimate due to evolving knowledge and technology, the manner and extent of these changes became problematic.

Consistency and Compatibility: Principles Ignored in Innovations

Updating professional standards must preserve certain boundaries and protocols. At least two key principles should be respected:

• Consistency: Established rules and principles codified after extensive agreement should not change merely because new team members have “their own opinion.” Established and practically verified rules cannot be arbitrarily rewritten—this has far-reaching consequences. Arboricultural practices solidified over the past decade cannot suddenly be annulled due to the whims of officials who might not fully comprehend the practical implications for arborists.
• Compatibility: Standards must represent a set of high-quality practice principles based on current knowledge and international experiences. The arboricultural community is international, sharing best practices across countries. Currently, the best expression of international expertise is the European Arboricultural Standards, developed by the European Arboricultural Council (EAC) with participation from numerous countries. These standards, funded by the EU since 2019, aim to produce unified technical standards by 2025 and are now gradually implemented in over 30 countries, viewed as authoritative in the field.

Unfortunately, recent SPPK developments have entirely disregarded these principles. Innovations proceeded without respect for rule continuity or alignment with internationally recognized practices.

Controversial Changes in SPPK Standards (Examples)

Key problematic changes include:

• Redefinition of core tree pruning definitions (SPPK A02 002): Updated versions altered fundamental technical categories, causing incompatibility with past projects. Millions of trees assessed or pruned between 2012–2024 would be incompatible with new definitions from 2025 onwards, causing chaos in practice.
• Legalizing deliberate damage to valuable trees (SPPK E02 005): Czech standards now permit intentional tree damage (“veteranization”), even for highly valuable or monumental trees, a practice internationally considered experimental and never codified as routine.
• Tolerance of poor-quality planting material (SPPK A02 001 and A02 002): Updated standards legitimize planting technologically flawed nursery stock, suggesting post-planting severe crown reduction, contrary to European standards advocating for quality initial material without drastic post-planting interventions.

Practical Implications: Arborists between State Hammer and Anvil

Due to this unfortunate politicization, the Czech Republic is increasingly isolated from mainstream professional arboriculture. Professionals now face an unpleasant dilemma:

• Conformity vs. Expertise: Either comply with state-approved yet problematic standards, ignoring current scientific insights and international best practices, or follow modern research privately while outwardly adhering to flawed standards to avoid bureaucratic repercussions.

This predicament places arborists in a challenging position—forced to practice professionally either covertly or compromise openly. Many tree owners, including major municipalities, who previously developed management plans based on the earlier standards, now face impossible expectations to update their practices according to incompatible new guidelines. This undermines the authority of the updated SPPK and creates confusion.

Let’s Not Be Discouraged: Lessons and Future Outlook

Despite painting a grim picture, I hope this isn’t seen as an ultimate defeat. History shows that professional correctness eventually prevails, albeit sometimes against state resistance. Around 2000, the same state agency recommended now-discredited practices, which professionals gradually abandoned despite official guidelines. Eventually, even authorities adapted to new insights.

Similarly, the Czech Republic will inevitably return to internationally recognized and proven practices, driven by the widespread acceptance of the European Arboricultural Standards. Hopefully, minimal damage occurs in the meantime.

Finally, a personal note and lesson: I apologize to the arboricultural community for my previous naivety in placing SPPK in state hands. This experience taught me that good intentions must be safeguarded carefully from political influences. I share this story particularly as a warning to colleagues in other countries currently implementing European standards: be cautious and avoid entrusting your developing standards entirely to state agencies. Official acceptance is sufficient—direct regulation can often cause more harm than good.

(The author is an experienced arborist who initiated the SPPK project and continues active professional and educational work in the field.)

資料來源:

Jaroslav Kolarik

Arborista konzultant ve společnosti Safe Trees, s.r.o.