憲法第十五條規定：「人民之生存權、工作權及財產權，應予保障。」揭示了對於人民財產權的保障。憲法對於財產權之保障係透過對於財產權之承認並透過立法者建立財產權之法律制度，即所謂財產權之「制度保障」。而憲法以財產權為人民之基本權利，並予以保障則為財產權之「個別保障」。個別保障使人民產生一積極權力以抵抗公權力對財產之侵害亦是對於財產權法律地位之保障。 然財產權保障並非絕對之保障，財產權於社會中尚須考慮其於眾人間之相互性及普遍性。因此，財產權之實行須受社會環境之限制；換言之，財產權除供「私人利用外」亦應配合公共福祉而負有「社會義務」。憲法第二十三條規定：「國家為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序，或增進公共利益之必要，得以法律限制財產權及其他自由權利」即蘊有此意涵。此外，憲法第一百四十五條第一項規定：「國家對於私人財富及私營事業，認為有妨害國計民生之平衡發展者，應以法律限制之。」，故立法者藉由法律訂定財產權之內容及界限時，亦由憲法第二十三條及第一百四十五條取得財產權之限制依據。因此，法律對於財產權之限制，如屬財產權之內容及界限之事項，原則上權利人應予容忍而不生補償之問題。但若對於財產權之限制，使權利人與他人相較受有特別不利益時甚或侵害財產權之內涵時，則須予補償，以與憲法對於財產權保障之意旨及平等原則相符。 土地為財產權之一部，當然依法受有保障。但因土地具數量、位置固定之特性，且為人們生活所不可或缺之資源，為調和土地上各種不同使用之需求、競爭並考量社會整體利益，需透過法律或土地利用計畫對於土地使用施以干涉、管制。然土地使用限制可能基於維護公共利益之目的，對土地施以不同強度之限制。甚至許多土地使用管制法令中，政府並無意以徵收程序取得人民之所有權，但這些法管制卻大幅限縮人民使用財產之權利，造成土地權利人相較下承受更多或更嚴苛限制之不公平情形。因此，土地使用規定對財產權之干涉，如為公共利益之目的，而使受干涉之權利人與他人相較受有特別不利益時，應由國家予以合理補償以符憲法保障財產權之意旨及平等原則。但究土地使用管制規定於何種情況無須補償？於何時須予補償？而其間之辨別基準為何？此等問題實為一複雜且不易具體化之重要課題。 有關土地使用限制之界限及補償問題，於我國之法制下並未見出具體之判斷標準。而「特別犧牲」之概念雖已經由大法官解釋引入並作為財產權限制是否須予補償之判斷基準，但關於財產權受限制至何種程度或何種情況始構成「特別犧牲」，解釋中則未進一步闡釋及說明。國內文獻對美國法「準徵收」觀點討論財產權限制之相關問題雖不如「特別犧牲」常見，但美國法有關準徵收之討論自1922年之Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon案以來已有相當之發展，由其文獻及案例之彙整可整理出較為具體的準徵收判斷基準，甚或於國會中提出之財產權利提案已明確指出管制措施對於財產價值造成ㄧ定比例之減損時須予補償。因此，本研究除對於現行土地使用限制之相關問題加以討論，並希冀藉由美國法關於準徵收案例之蒐集及分析，釐出準徵收之判斷標準，並應用其觀點對我國之土地使用法制中有關土地使用限制之規定加以檢視分析，釐清土地使用限制規定中有關管制限度及補償之問題，俾助於土地使用法制與憲法對於財產權保障之意旨更相符合。

由於經濟快速發展及國際化、自由化的趨勢，導致城鄉發展的重新結構，也面臨愈來愈多非都市土地開發及農地變更的外來壓力及需求。農地除具有保障糧食安全功能外，尚具有保護自然生態環境、維持生態體系平衡、調和整體土地利用等「外部效益」，世界各國包括美國各洲、德國、日本等，均積極致力於農地保育，嚴格管制農地不得任意轉用；反觀我國土地使用管制及變更制度，自1930年土地法立法至1976年訂定非都市土地使用管制規則，農地係採取積極保護政策；然自1980年代起，由於積極發展工商業，致農業在國民經濟中之重要性日見下降，1995年宣佈實施「農地釋出方案」後，是為農地由分區管制之保護方式走向自由化之起步。2000年修正農業發展條例，放寬農地自由買賣，更將農地進一步推向自由化，然農地自由化仍有其限制，且應建立在嚴格的土地使用管制基礎上。 農地管制政策的放寬，讓許多標準農業區優良農田間，充斥著工廠及加油站、廢棄物處理廠等特定目的事業用地，形成環境污染的隱憂；雖為配合工商業及經濟發展所需，得釋出部份農地，然農業用地劃定或變更為非農業使用，仍應以「不影響農業生產環境之完整」為前提，基於「農地保護」觀點，為確保優良農田不受產業變更或經濟發展所帶來的衝擊或破壞，並維持完整之農業生產環境，確保糧食生產及農業之永續經營，對現行農牧用地變更使用問題，及其規範對現有農業生產環境之影響，實有探究之必要。 目前相關研究多就都市計畫農業區或整體農地資源（包括都市計畫內及非都市土地）之變更法制、管理制度面及回饋機制進行探討，惟就非都市土地農牧用地變更審議相關法令規範及各種型態包括不同面積、不同區位之變更審議規定之差異、後續管制方式及其對於農地資源保育、農業生產環境之影響並未有完整的「實證分析」，當前不同型態農牧用地變更規範，是否合理性？是否均能在「不影響農業生產環境」之前提下進行變更？對周邊農業生產環境之影響有何不同？亦未深入探討，本研究藉由桃園縣個案的實證分析、相關課題的探討及對公私部門及專家學者的深入訪談，以探析我國非都市土地農牧用地變更使用制度及農地保護措施；並以國外之農地保護政策為借鏡，進一步提出農牧用地變更使用制度及農地保護措施之建議改善策略，以別於其他研究。 / Due to fast economic development and the trends of globalization and liberalization, urban and rural development has been completely restructured, and there is a growing need for development of non-urban lands and conversion of farmlands. In addition to maintenance of food sufficiency, farmlands also have other “external benefits”, including preservation of the natural ecological environment, maintenance of an ecological balance, and balancing of overall use of lands. Many nations around the world, including the US, Germany, and Japan, have been devoted to preservation of farmlands through strict control of conversion of farmlands. In an overview of the domestic regulations on land use control and conversion, it can be found that since legislation of the Land Act in 1930 and Regulations on Non-Urban Land Use Control in 1976, our government had been engaged in protection of farmlands. After 1980, the importance of agriculture for the national economy gradually decreased due to promotion of industrial and commercial industries. In 1995, the “Farmland Release Policy” was implemented, ushering in liberalization of farmlands. In 2000, the Agricultural Development Act was amended to lift the ban on free trading of farmlands. The amendment of this act further liberalized the use of farmlands. However, liberalization of farmlands was bound to certain limitation and should be based on strict control of land use. The relaxation of the farmland control policy has made many standard agricultural zones filled with lands used for specific businesses, such as factories, gas stations, and waste processing plants, and caused public worries over environmental pollution. Although release of a portion of farmlands is necessary for commercial and economic development, planning of farmlands or conversion of farmlands for non-agricultural use should be carried out on the condition that “completeness of the agricultural production environment is unaffected”. Based on “farmland protection”, the impact or harm of agricultural changes and economic development on farmlands should be avoided, and the completeness of the agricultural production environment should be maintained, so as to ensure sustainable development of food production and agriculture. Therefore, investigation of issues concerning conversion of farming and grazing lands and regulations governing the impact of such conversion on the agricultural production environment is indeed necessary. In the present, most studies of related issues are focused on regulations on conversion, management, and feedback mechanisms of agricultural zones in urban plan or holistic farmland resources (including non-urban lands in urban plans). However, there is no comprehensive “empirical analysis” of regulations on review of conversion of non-urban farming and grazing lands, difference in regulations for various types of lands (including lands of different sizes and in different regions), subsequent control mechanisms, and the impact of the conversion on preservation of farmland resources or the agricultural production environment. Besides, issues such as whether the regulations on conversion of different types of farming and grazing lands is feasible, whether these lands can be converted on the condition that “the agricultural production environment is unaffected”, and whether conversion of these types of lands causes different effects on their surrounding agricultural production environments, have not been thoroughly investigated so far. Therefore, through an empirical analysis of cases in Taoyuan County, investigation of related issues, and interview with experts and public/private departments, this study aimed to explore the domestic regulations on conversion of use of non-urban farming and grazing lands and protective measures for farmlands. Further, based on farmland protection policies adopted in foreign nations, this study further proposed strategies for improving the current system and protective measures to distinguish itself from other existing studies.

驅逐黑暗、迎來光明，是變電所最重要的任務，但它往往被歸類為鄰避設施，不為使用者所接受。變電所引發的風險疑慮，無論是環境、健康等，儘管尚無法以科學實證其因果關係，卻深深烙印人心；加上不甚透明且缺乏參與機制的規劃方式，致使變電所選址過程抗爭不斷。 現代社會可說是充滿風險的社會，也就是德國學者貝克所謂的「風險社會」。風險不分階級、貧富，充斥在我們身旁，引發無聲且無形的恐懼。高科技雖然帶來生活便利，但也帶來前所未有的新風險—科技風險。既然風險是現代社會非常重要且切身的課題，如何以風險的視角來解構變電所選址過程，便成為本文的論述主軸。 現行變電所用地之規劃方式，主要是依據都市計畫(土地使用管制)及電力負載預測結果來選擇變電所設置地點；變電所用地的使用項目與內容，則取決於是否辦理多目標使用。然而，土地使用管制之僵固性及電力負載預測結果的不確定性卻造成變電所選址過程必須面臨規劃方式、民眾抗爭、風險分配等三方面困境，使得變電所選址困難重重。 規劃部門、電力公司與民眾能否「共同面對」變電所選址在規劃方式、民眾抗爭、風險分配等三方面的困境，尋求變電所土地使用管制內容再定位並融合民眾參與機制（儘管民眾參與並非萬能），使變電所選址過程掙脫規劃方式的枷鎖，將是降低變電所選址抗爭且形成風險分配共識的必要方向，也才是風險社會中變電所選址的最佳出路。 / The primary function of a substation is to expel the darkness and usher in light. However, it is usually classified as NIMBY facilities and not welcomed by public. People are constantly worried and even feared by nearby substations, although there is neither scientific evidence to prove that substations are harmful nor directly caused any disease. Moreover, substation siting procedure is less transparent and lack of participatory mechanisms during the planning stage, resulting in protests against substation during the siting process. Modern society is full of risks as described by German sociologist Dr. Ulrich Beck in “Risk society.” Risks are around us all the times, regardless of class or wealth. It creates silent and invisible fears. Modern high-tech life style provides convenience but technology also brings unprecedented new risks - technological risks. Since technological risk is an important issue and it can affect anyone in modern society, this article will discuss the risks involved by deconstructing the substation siting procedure. The existing substation siting models are based on the designation of urban plan and the results of power load forecast; the land-use projects of substation are depended on the content of multi-objective land-use. The rigidity of zoning and the uncertainty of power load forecast results plight in substation siting procedure at three situations: approach to planning, public protests and risk allocation, also makes substation siting much difficult. Although public participation is not the magic bullet, substation siting zoning restriction can be unlocked by combining public participation with land use re-position. The best approach to prevent protest against substation siting process and reach consensus in risk distribution is to have planning departments, power companies and the community seeking solution together.

第一章結論，說明研究動機，研究的範圍，與研究的方法。監於我國都市普遍存有的 情形，為融合外國分區管制精神於我國都市土地使用，使用組相容分析為其關鍵所在 ，因而論文架構，以活動系統及混合使用為出發點，以確立使用組的相容性為依歸。 並選定台北市為研究實際地區。在研究方法上，係以因子分析及歸納，演繹分析為主 。 第二章論述都市活動體系的有關理論及其分類。依都市的機能，將活動分為生產、公 共福利、居住及交通活動等四類並論及台北市內此四大活動的轉變趨向。 第三章主述土地使用已漸朝向合理的混合土地使用，分區管制不亦宜配合此項發展。 第四章係對台北市的混合使用作一分析，並探討在混合使用情形下，各研究分區的實 質環境水準。 第五章依據活動的分類，將各都市活動內的使用，劃歸成使用組進行相容分析，並對 不相容使用加以處理。 第六章根據分析結果，提出土地使用有關相容使用的建議，與未來繼續研究的事項。

摘 要 臺大實驗林因其特殊歷史背景，與契約林農訂立之三種契約，歷經社會與經濟變遷後，漸生契約林農基於經濟因素而違規利用契約林地、林管處無法具體落實造林管理政策、契約林地利用契約規範與實際利用現況不甚相符等諸多問題。按非都市土地使用管制規則予以檢視，臺大實驗林契約林地係編定為林業用地，惟依臺大實驗林「被墾地合作造林辦法」、合作造林契約書規定，造林地可於單筆總面積的三成內從事森林特產物或果樹之種植，此與上開規則規定林業用地容許使用項目不得作農業使用之規範有所牴觸，除人為的利用，以保存自然資源?還是兼顧人們需要和環境保育，得積極介入以亟待研析解決辦法。 從自然資源利用的歷史角度以觀，除天然災害影響之外，人為干擾似乎是造成土地健康受損的根源。然而，究竟要完全排負責保育自然資源?凡此引發激烈的辯論。若從林地利用究屬保存與保育觀點檢視，林管處秉持林地林用的概念，是希望避免林地農用與干擾，以達成完全造林的目標，近乎保存的概念；而林農希望契約林地做混農利用，並希望透過在地知識以人為方式主動管理，且在不破壞林地健康的前提下，以提升經濟收入與環境健康，似屬保育的概念。然為落實維護林地資源，採取何種觀念為宜？ 本研究從臺大實驗林契約林地土地使用管制機制，藉由混農林業理論、保存與保育理論、土地使用管制等文獻評析，並透過深度訪談，分析臺大實驗林契約林地土地利用相關問題，最後得到以下結論：(1)臺大實驗林契約林地租地造林契約應予修正；（2）修正非都市土地使用管制規則之林業用地容許使用項目；（3）臺大實驗林繼續辦理國土復育計畫及獎勵造林計畫。本研究對於臺大實驗林契約林地土地利用，提出以下之建議:(1)修正臺大實驗林契約林地三種租地造林契約內容不適宜之規範，以符合現今法令規範；(2)重新查定臺大實驗林契約林地可利用限度並編定合適用地類別，以符土地使用管制規範；(3)修正非都市土地使用管制規則之林業用地容許使用項目，以利林地保育並導正使用；(4)臺大實驗林繼續辦理國土復育計畫及持續宣導獎勵造林計畫，以維護國土保育安全。最後，從導正土地使用管制機制，以利有效管理臺大實驗林契約林地，最終達成森林資源永續發展的目標。 關鍵詞：臺大實驗林契約林地、土地使用管制、保育與保存、混農林業、林業用地、違規使用 / Abstract Due to the unique historical background of the experimental forest of National Taiwan University (NTU), three types of contracts were signed with users of leased forest land. Many issues have now arisen after several social and economic changes. Such issues include the illegal use of the forest land, failure of the Forest District Offices to fully implement the relevant forestation management policies, and the inconsistency between the provisions of forest land use contracts and the conditions of actual use. According to the Regulations on Non-Urban Land Use Control, the NTU experimental forest is defined as forest land. On the other hand, however, according to the “Cooperation Guideline for Reclaimed Land Forestation” and the “Forestation Contract,” 30% of the total area of a parcel of forestation land may be used for the plantation of special forest products or fruit trees, which is inconsistent with the rule under the Regulations on Non-Urban Land Use Control prohibiting any agricultural use of forest land. As a result, a solution was to be analyzed and discussed to see whether the natural resources shall be preserved either without human use or with active intervention to balance human needs with environmental conservation. From the historical perspectives on natural resource use, human interference seems to be the main cause of damage to land. Heated discussions have been had regarding how to conserve natural resources. This issue might be viewed from the two points of view, i.e. preservation and conservation. The Forest District Office holds the view that forest land shall be used for the purpose of forestry to avoid agricultural use or interference and to achieve the goal of complete forestation. This is more of a concept of preservation. On the other hand, users of forest land would prefer agroforestry use of forest land and manage the land through local knowledge to improve economic returns and environmental health without destroying the forest land. This is more of a concept of conservation. Which concept is more ideal in terms of protection of forest land? In this study, we referred to publications in connection with agroforestry, preservation and conservation, and use control of land, along with in-depth interviews conducted to analyze the relevant issues regarding the use of the leased forest land at NTU experimental forest and concluded that: (1) the forestation contracts regarding the leased forest land at NTU experimental forest shall be amended; (2) the allowed use of forest land under the non-urban land use control regulations shall be revised; and (3) NTU experimental forest shall continue to participate in the national land recovery plan and encouraging plan for forestation. The possible measures for the use of leased forest land at NTU experimental forest as suggested by this study include: (1) amending the three types of forestation contracts regarding the leased forest land at NTU experimental forest for the purpose of legal compliance; (2) reinvestigating the scope of use of the leased forest land at NTU experimental forest and stipulating appropriate use types to be in conformance to the land use control regulations; (3) revising the allowed use of forest land under the non-urban land use control regulations for the purposes of forest land conservation and corrective use; and (4) the continuous participation of NTU experimental forest in the national land recovery plan and encouraging plan for forestation to maintain national land conservation. Finally, by correcting the mechanism of land use control, the leased forest land at NTU experimental forest will be effectively managed and the goal of perpetual development of forest resources achieved. Key words：Experimental forest leased forest land of National Taiwan University, Land use control, Conservation and preservation, Agroforestry, Forest land, Illegal use