Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/62620
標題: 策略空間規劃理論與實務之差異性研究─以農地資源空間規劃為對象
A study on the difference between theory of Strategic spatial planning and practice: Spatial planning of agricultural resources as object
作者: 吳芷綺
Wu, Chin-Chi
關鍵字: Spatial planning of agricultural resources;農地資源空間規劃;Strategic spatial planning;Practice of planning;策略空間規劃理論;規劃實務
出版社: 景觀與遊憩碩士學位學程
引用: 一、中文部分 內政部營建署,2009,「國土計劃法(草案)」。 何秋欣,2006,「都市交通轉運地區在發展之策略式空間規劃思考─以高鐵左營站為例」,國立成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。 柯志明、翁志杰,1991,「台灣農民的分類與分化」,中央研究院民族學研究所集刊,第72集,頁107-頁150。 夏鑄九,1994,「建構公共空間─理論的反省」,台灣社會研究季刊,頁21-頁54。 徐進鈺,1991,「領域取向規劃論述之檢討─傅里曼的新民粹主義」,台灣社會研究季刊,頁151-頁175。 財團法人國土規劃及不動產資訊中心,2006,「國土規劃前置作業辦理計畫─子計畫7.農地釋出土地未來發展利用之研究」,內政部營建署市鄉規劃局委託研究報告。 國立台北大學,2008,「農地資源空間規劃工作之作業程序規範─操作手冊」,行政院農業委員會委託。 陳永甡,2002,「策略規劃之探索」,品質月刊,頁37-頁40。 陳炳森,2008,農村社區土地重劃之研究─溝通理論之實踐,國立中興大學農村規劃研究所碩士論文。 黃振德、莊淑芳、廖耀宗,2001,「推動農業策略與聯盟提升農業競爭力」,農正與農情,第107期,頁6-頁8。 黃書禮,2005,「生態土地使用規劃」,詹氏書局,台北市。 黃朝盟,2005,「公共組織策略規劃之研究:理論、執行與評估」,韋伯文化國際,台北縣永和市。 董建宏,2010,「當國家與農民相遇在市場:台灣戰後農村發展政策與農地商品化」,農村再生網路論壇。 詹士樑、賴宗裕、李建佑,2005,「國土計畫法架構下農地分級劃設與管制之研究」,2005不動產與城鄉學術研討會,台北大學不動產成鄉環境學系。 農地資源空間規劃交流平台(99年),取自:http://www.ntpu.edu.tw/~clep/clep.html 蕭瑞麟,2007,「不用數字的研究:鍛鍊深度思考力的質性研究」,台灣培生教育,台北市。 賴宗裕、陳立夫、詹士梁,2005,「國土計畫功能分區劃定與土地使用管制機制結合」,中國土地經濟學會,內政部營建署。 賴宗裕、詹士樑,2005,「農業發展地區劃設調整作業模式及模擬」,中國土地經濟學會,行政院農業委員會。 戴伯芬,2006,「評介歐門汀格爾的《規劃理論》:現代主義到後現代主義的跨界對話」,國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報,頁107-頁116。 簡俊發,2005,「國土規劃下之農地管理策略研析」,土地問題研究季刊,頁2-頁15。 簡俊發、陳明燦,2008,「我國農地使用規劃與管理相關法律重點與問題分析」,財產法暨經濟法,第14期,頁1-頁33。 羅明哲,1982,「農地流動與農業發展之研究」,農業金融論叢,中國農民銀行調查研究處,頁39-頁67。 二、英文部分 Albrechts, L. 2001. In pursuit of new approaches to strategic spatial planning- a Euro- pean Perspective. International Planning Studies, 6(3): 293 – 310. Allen, J. Scott, 1982. The meaning and social origins of discourse on the spatial foundations of society. A Search for Common Ground London: Pion Limited, 141-156. Douglas C. Eadie, 1983. Putting a powerful tool to practical use: the application of strategic planning in the public sector. Public Administration Review 43, 447-452. Faludi, A. 2002. Positioning European Spatial Planning. European Planning Studies, 10(7), 897-909. FAO, 1976. A Framework for Land Evaluation. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization. Fischler, R. 1995. Strategy and History in Professional Practice: planning as world-making.∕Liggett H. and Perry D. Spatial Practices. Thousand Oaks. Francesca, S. Sartorio, 2005. Strategic Spatial Planning: A Historical Review of Approaches, its Recent Revival, and an Overview of the State of the Art in Italy. disP [162- 3 (2005), 26-40]. Furst, D. and Kneilung J. 2002. Regional Governance: new modes of self-government in the European Community. Hannover: ARL, University of Hannover. Healey, P. 2004. The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), 45-67. Healey, P., A. Khakee, A. Motte, and B. Needham (eds.) 1997. Making strategic spatial plans: innovation in Europe. UCL Press, London. Henry Higgs, 2001. The Physiocrats: Six Lectures on the French Economistes of 18th century, The Macmillan Company. Knapp, W. Kunzmann, K.R, and Schmitt, P. 2004. A Cooperative Spatial Future for RheinRuhr. European Planning Studies, 12,323-349. Mastop, H. and Faludi, A. 1997. Evaluation of strategic plans: the performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(6), 815-832. McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press. Taylor, N. 1998. Urban Planning Theory since 1945, London: Sage. Van Lier, H. N. 1994. Land use planning in perspective of suitability: an introduction, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1-11.
摘要: 
自民國92年起行政院農委會執行之一系列農業經營管理補助計畫,並以策略空間規劃作為農地資源空間規劃之主要方式,中央政府以原則性的政策引導模式,經由規劃團隊與在地政府代表以及農民團體組織進行溝通協商,共同決策擬定符合當地想像之農業發展需求,但在規劃過程中經常是「理想是美好的,現實是殘酷的」,理論上總有許多美好想像,但一旦要落實於真正的環境空間中,於執行層面上難免會遭遇困境與阻礙,以致於規劃者與使用者雙方皆須退一步,以妥協的方式完成規劃藍圖。本文以農地資源空間規劃為研究基礎範圍,經由應用策略空間規劃之手法施行於農地規劃之過程,透過實際案例之深入探討,進而分析策略空間規劃理論與實務操作過程中之差異性結果,並尋求導致其落差之因素為何。

藉由研究規劃理論與實務間之差異性,探討其規劃過程可能被某種因素影響產生變化,而導致實務操作之結果與最初設定之規劃目標產生不同結果之落差,本研究以農地資源空間規劃作為基礎調查資料,並以策略空間規劃理論之方式進行比較該理論與實務之間的差異性,而農地資源空間規劃主要是應用策略空間規劃理論之「由下而上」規劃模式,理論中提及之主要概念為「權利關係人」參與規劃過程,故本研究以「人為條件」作為主要影響因子,分別探討由政府機關、專業產業組織以及規劃團隊之立場與認知,進而作為規劃者進行決策之主要參酌依據,以及影響實務規劃過程,經由研究結果發現,其主要影響其理論與實務兩者間之差異性因素有3項,其分別為:實務過程受地方影響因子而產生之差異、農業產銷之認知差異、權利關係人之權力關係。

A series of subsidy plans for agriculture management was launched by the Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan in 2003, aiming to adopt Strategic spatial planning as the main measure for spatial planning of agricultural resources. Under guidance pattern as the principle policy of the central government, planning teams, representatives of local government, and farmer organizations can communicate and negotiate with others in order to jointly make policies which meet the presumed demand of local agriculture development. However during the planning process, as the saying goes, “the idea is good but the reality is cruel;” as overly optimistic theories failed to materialize in the process of implementation. Thus it is suggested that both planners and users make compromises in drawing up blueprints. The basic scope of this study was in spatial planning of agricultural resources, focusing on farm plans that underwent the process of applied strategic spatial planning. Through the discussion of actual cases, this study further analyzes the results and differences between strategic spatial planning theory and practice, while figuring out the factors that cause such differences.

By studying differences between theory and practice, reasons for causing the gap between goal set at beginning and result produced after implementation would be discovered. The basic scope of this study was spatial planning of agricultural resources, and strategic spatial planning theory was applied to compare the differences between theory and practice. The main strategy applied in farm plans was the pattern of “bottom-up” in applied strategic spatial planning theory in which proposed that stakeholders should join the process of planning as the main concept. Therefore, “human factor” was the main impact factor of this study to investigate the standpoints and cognitions of government, professional organization in the industry, and planning teams. These were references for planners whiling decision-making, and also influenced the process of practical planning. As this study found, there were three factors causing the gap between practice and theory: the differences from the local factors affect in the practical process, the cognitive differences on agricultural production and marketing, and rights of stakeholder.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/62620
其他識別: U0005-1008201115084500
Appears in Collections:景觀與遊憩學士學位學程

Show full item record
 
TAIR Related Article

Google ScholarTM

Check


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