Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/34679
標題: 水土保持計畫審查意見爭議之探討
The Issue of the Review Comments for the Soil and Water Conservation Plan
作者: 林俐婷
Lin, Li-Ting
關鍵字: soil and water conservation plan;水土保持計畫;the review of the soil and water conservation plan;水土保持計畫審查
出版社: 水土保持學系所
引用: 王敏順(1991),山坡地開發建築型態發展歷程回顧與探討,現代營建。 吳清輝(1997),山坡地的管理與開發-與山坡地和平共處,法律與你,第48期。 吳嘉俊(2005),水土保持計畫與技術規範之實務分析,行政院農業委員會編號SWCB-94-117。 吳輝龍(2004),水土保持法制之研析,中華水土保持學報,第35卷,第4期,p.287~p.294。 李咸亨(1998),台灣的坡地管制法規、災害與對策,摘自林肯論壇網站 http://lincoln.tacocity.com.tw/topic7-10.html 林昭南、黃宏斌(2004), 水土保持計畫審核與監督實務,中華水土保持學報,第35卷,第4期,p.331~p.338。 林昭遠(2006),山坡地管理作業參考手冊,行政院農業委員會編號SWCB-95-052。 翁曉玲(2007),從水土保持觀點檢討我國坡地管理法律政策與違規處罰實務,中原財經法學,第19期。 張四明(2001),從府際關係運作的觀點探討我國山坡地開發管制政策之執行,行政暨政策學報,第33期。 許桂端(2007),水土保持計畫審查之研究,中興大學水土保持學系碩士班論文。 連榮寬(1993),非都市土地山坡地住宅社區開發之探討,台灣土地金融季,第30卷,第2期。 陳重光(2006),水土保持治理與管理介面之初步探討,坡地防災學報,第5卷,第1期。 陳重光(2008),水土保持法規管理實務之研究,中興大學水土保持學系博士班論文。 謝維哲(2006),台灣山坡地開發與政府政策,暨南國際大學經濟學系碩士班論文。 行政院農業委員會水土保持局(2006),水土保持相關法規彙編。 水土保持技術規範修正條文(草案),行政院農業委員會編號SWCB-96-154。
摘要: 
「水土保持計畫」為山坡地開發利用申請之重要書件,水土保持計畫審查之目的在於透過事前之審查機制,並結合專業技師之設計理念及經驗,促進土地合理利用及開發之安全。
本研究搜集水土保持計畫審查案60件,整理水土保持計畫審查意見,歸納分析審查常見問題。根據資料統整結果,審查意見發生於水土保持設施佔最大多數,基本資料調查次之。進而以歸納出之審查常見意見較有爭議之處設計一份問卷,予各專家、學者、技師填寫,針對問題點作探討,如水土保持處理因子(P值)之選定、泥砂生產量之估算是否應涵蓋計畫總面積、開挖整地是否需挖填平衡…等,並提出建議。
藉由所得之常見審查意見與爭議問題之討論,希望可提供審查者與設計者之參考,藉以縮小雙方意見之差異,進而縮短審查期程,以提升行政效率及確保水土保持計畫品質。

Soil and water conservation plans are the crucial reports one must submit when applying to develop and utilize slopland. Through the review mechanism in advance of the development and utilization of slopland and revision under the suggestions and design ideas provided by experienced professional engineers, we can promote safe and proper use of land.
From the reviews of 60 soil and water conservation plans, this study generalized and analyzed all comments. According to my analysis, the facilities of those plans are the part being questioned the most by investigators. And the basic information provided in reports is second on the list. Therefore, I asked some experts, scholars and professional engineers to fill out a questionnaire I designed concerning the disputable parts of those review comments. Subsequently, I focus on the discussions of problems such as the selection of the soil and water conservation treatment factor (the P value), whether the total area of plans should be covered in the silt productivity estimation, and whether to balance the volume of soil being excavated and filled when conducting activities of excavation and soil preparation. Accompanying the discussions, my suggestions and possible solutions to those problems are also covered in this report.
I sincerely hope the discussions and analyses made in my report can serve as a great reference for investigators and designers of plans, so that conflicts and disagreements may be reduced and the time invested in reviews may be shortened. Consequently, we can enhance administrative efficiency and assure the high quality of soil and water conservation plans.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/34679
其他識別: U0005-2107200819032400
Appears in Collections:水土保持學系

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.