| 摘要: | 我國農地政策隨著經濟有所變遷，早期農業發展為主時，農民依靠農地栽種糧食以自給自足方式生活，對農地依賴度極高，但隨著產業結構的轉變，改變了農民對農地的使用方式，農地政策在2000年農業發展條例修正後有了重大的轉變，從原先「管地又管人」到「管地不管人」放寬農民購買農地資格，期望在落實農地農用之理念下能解決農業用地價值低落及閒置等問題，但政策的開放導致農舍春筍般的出現。早期農舍不以人居住為主，而是提供農耕器具放置及飼養家禽畜生，在經濟結構轉變下農地價值已不復以往，因此農地轉用問題逐漸擴大，農舍除供土地所有權人居住外，近年來更將農舍做為民宿使用增加農地使用之強度，因農地為不可再生資源且不具回復性，因此本研究以累積性影響(Cumulative Impact Assessment, CIA）之觀點，探討宜蘭縣農舍除受到政策影響外，其他可能影響之因子。
本研究透過累積性理念及相關文獻回顧與農地及農舍發展歷程，了解環境影響評估(Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA)期望透過事前的評估，減少開發對環境所造成之傷害；而累積性影響評估與環境影響評估最大的差別在於其將時間及空間範圍擴大，考量過去、現在及未來可能對研究區域造成加成性的影響，不僅針對開發工程，更能探討此現象的發展，瞭解對該地區之影響。並運用修正式德爾菲法及階層分析法，建立農舍累積性影響指標，包含4大影響面向、9項影響因子及24項影響指標，依此分析長期影響宜蘭縣農舍發展之影響因子，並藉由地理資訊系統(Geographic Information System, GIS)套疊宜蘭縣各鄉鎮市自2000年至2015年農舍累積影響程度，分別從不同影響面向探討農舍累積性影響之情況，以釐清累積性之重要性並證實累積性之必要性，彙整本研究結果發現：
一、我國1994年制定環境影響評估相關規定，相較於環境影響評估，累積性影響評估較不被重視且較不被廣泛的討論及應用，但傳統導向型影響評估無法涵蓋累積性影響評估的範圍，表示環境影響評估可能忽略的因素，經長時間累積後對環境造成的衝擊可能不容小覷。
二、農地政策變革的速度儼然已跟不上現今農舍使用型態的轉變，原先政策的開放是為活化使用以避免農地閒置，但放寬農民購買農地資格並給予相關優惠賦稅制度，是造成農地問題的開端。
三、本研究正向關係之影響指標皆是有利於農舍興建之因子，反觀反向關係指標同時對農舍及環境造成傷害，若累積性持續不被重視，而農舍的問題遲遲無法改善，農舍的累積性只會持續的累積，最終造成農地不可挽回的傷害。
Taiwan’s agriculture land policy is changing accompanied with economic growth. In the early stage, the economic development relied on agriculture and farmers were self-sufficient depending on cultivating lands. Therefore, farmers’ livelihoods were heavily relied on lands. However, as economic development moved towards industrial development, the ways farmers used lands were changing. When the Agricultural Development Act was amended in 2000, the rationality of agriculture policy was changed from ‘regulating both farmlands and farmers’ to ‘regulating farmlands only’. In the past, only farmers could buy farmlands, but after the amendment, more people were qualified to purchase farmlands. The change wished to promote agricultural activities and resolved the underdeveloped issues. In early stage, farmhouses were meant to store farming tools and equipment, and some were used for animal husbandry purposes. Due to the industrial development, the value of farmlands was not as valuable as before, and, in consequence, more and more farmlands were being converted for other purposes. Apart from providing housing for land owners, there is a tendency to convert farmlands to guesthouses in recent years, which has sharply increased the usage intensities of farmlands. However, farmlands have the unique characters – they are irrecoverable and irreversible, such a conduct will result in losses in farmlands. As a consequence, this research intends to understand the extent to which the farmlands in Yilan County are affected by governmental policies, and identify other influential factors that also affect farmhouses in Yilan County through the lens of Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA).
This research reviewed CIA and the historical development of farmlands and farmhouses and understood that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) wishes to reduce environmental hazards and prevent environmental disasters by conducting pre-assessments in developments. However, what CIA does is to widen the time and spatial dimensions and consider the possible cumulative effects in the research areas from past, now and future. Moreover, the CIA also focuses on the development of the event and its impacts on the research locality. Through the use of Modified Delphi Method (MDM) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), this research established the indicators of CIA, including 4 influential dimensions, 9 factors and 24 indicators. Based on the 9 factors and map overlay in geographic information system, this research reviewed the degree of influences of CIA in Yilan County from year 2000 to 2015 from different angles and wishes to find out the importance and necessity of CIA. According to the analysis, this research has three findings as follow:
1. Although the regulations in relation to EIA has been established in 1994, CIA has been undervalued, neglected, and seldom discussed. However, traditional EIA cannot cover the areas of CIA, which means that some factors of CIA might be overlooked in EIA. As a consequence, the cumulated impact might be huge.
2. The policy reform of farmlands cannot catch the speed of converting farmlands to other purposes. The original rationale to loose the policy restraints was to reactivate farmlands. However, more and more people are qualified to purchase farmlands and convert these properties and tax reduction are the central issues of current farmland misuse.
3. The positive indicators in this research showed the encouragement for building farmhouses, and negative indicators represented harms on both farmhouses and farmlands. If CIA is continuously ignored and the negative impacts of farmhouses could not be solved, farmhouse CIA will continue to accumulate and eventually result in irreversible damages. |
