An Investigation on the Workability of Leisure Agriculture within the Restricted Development Area from the Viewpoint of the Compensation for Loss

• Main Authors: Fu-Mei Lin, 林富美
• Other Authors: 段兆麟
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2005
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/07877572223064345088

碩士 === 國立屏東科技大學 === 高階經營管理碩士在職專班 === 93 === In response to the changes in the needs for leisure patterns in Taiwan, in order to alleviate the impacts on Taiwan’s agriculture of Taiwan’s accession to the WTO, and to get along with the new trend that Taiwanese people attach importance to eco-leisure tours after the two-day weekend policy went into effect, Taiwan government has combined agriculture with natural ecological resources to develop leisure agriculture. However, the development of leisure agriculture has been circumscribed by the “restricted development area” policy that limits the exploitation and use of land, which has led to the fact that there are only a few legal leisure farms even though the policy of leisure agriculture has been in effect for a long time. In addition to the “restrict development area” as stipulated in Article of the Regulation for the Guidance and Management of Leisure Agriculture, there are also the statutory reservation area and protection area, and the “restricted development area” which is established in “Comprehensive Development Plan for National Land.” The Rules and Laws have not combined or unified the definitions of these three types of “restricted development area”. At the same time, these three types of “restricted development area” simultaneously affect the exploitation and use of the leisure agriculture. How to integrate the laws and regulations governing the above-mentioned “restricted development area” will affect the development of leisure agriculture. Moreover, the exploitation and use of leisure agriculture are limited by the laws governing the “restricted development area”. Do such limitations on the exploitation and use conform to the “necessity” restriction that is done in line with “public interests” as stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution? Do such limitations on the exploitation and use incur “special sacrifice” on the people having rights to leisure agriculture? Should such people having rights to leisure agriculture be compensated for their loss in the wake of the “necessity” restriction that is done in line with “public interests?” How should they be compensated? Such are problems that arise in the process of developing the leisure agriculture. However, no legislators have tried to integrate the laws governing the “restricted development area,” nor have they tried to revise such laws. It is the purpose of this study to come up with the findings that can provide references to the legislators, leisure agriculture experts and scholars.