今日，無論東西方、全球南北方、城鄉、原漢人口，皆響應「永續發展」浪潮。此意義上，上述群體已不再被視為二分、互斥，提供反思本質論、二元論之基礎。即便如此，原住民族與都市居民仍被認定具迥異世界觀，此預設亦經常成為相關研究或政策之前提。本文採比較視野，聚焦香港及臺灣原住民族聚落，探索跨域連結可能性，並闡釋固化標籤外之彈性與動能。本文以人類學理論為基底，借鏡「發展研究」架構，研究方法則與「實踐人類學」對話。經驗資料來自於香港、臺灣分別進行一年以上之民族誌式田野調查。2研究發現，兩者共同受「人類世」、「永續發展」敘事影響，認為工業化、資本主義、現代化、殖民遺產引發自然災害、人道危機、社會困境，並共感文化、世代斷層，試圖找回「根」、「傳統」作為未來方向，故萌生生態保育及文化復振之類似論述、行動。本文是以提出，兩者於人地關係議題上非屬對立，反而多有共識。兩者想法與行為之樣貌、成因，須跨越族群、地理、城鄉邊界方能理解，顯示檢視既有分類框架之必要。

Today, the vision of "sustainable development" has engaged both "the East" and "the West", the "Global North" and the "Global South", and urban and rural populations. In this sense, the abovementioned categories are no longer regarded as dichotomous and mutually exclusive. The new view facilitates a continuous and deepened reflection on dualism and essentialism. Even so, the worldviews of indigenous peoples and urban residents are still considered incompatible, and this assumption often becomes the premise of research or policy. This study re-examines this assumption and discusses the flexibilities beyond the rigid and dualistic labels. This paper illustrates the connections between Hong Kong and indigenous settlements in Taiwan by taking a comparative perspective. This research is based on anthropological theory and draws inspiration from the "development studies" discipline. As for research methods, this study focuses on "engaged anthropology". The empirical data was derived from long-term ethnographic fieldwork in Hong Kong and Taiwan. This study finds that the discourses and practices of interlocutors in both places demonstrate similarities. They are both influenced by the global "Anthropocene" and sustainable development discourses and seem to reach a consensus: they believe that industrialisation, capitalism, modernisation and colonial legacy lead to environmental disasters, humanitarian crises, and social predicaments. Furthermore, they both experienced cultural gaps between generations. To cope with the circumstances, they wish to restore "tradition" and "root" to figure out the future. With such ideas, they become committed to cultural revitalisation and ecological conservation. Hence, this paper argues that the two cases are not contrary but share much in common when it comes to human-non-human relations. These ethnographic data won't be aptly understood unless analysed from a perspective transcending the boundary between ethnic groups, geographical areas, and rural-urban space. The findings of this research suggest the necessity of re-examining the taken-for-granted framework for classification.