自民國八十九年農業發展條例將農地開放自由買賣，並在農舍興建制度中增加了獎勵集村方式興建農舍的相關措施，藉使農民興建農舍時能捨棄在自有農地上興建農舍而共同參與集村方式以興建其所需之農舍，使消弭個別農舍對農業環境景觀等負面影響，並能夠達到維護農業、農民、環境等多重目標，此為集村興建農舍之緣起。 在本研究以親自探訪集村興建農舍已完工及正在籌備個案，同時對照農地政策之核心意涵是否達成之，期能給予未來法規修訂參考及建議。 然而，在針對全省集村興建農舍個案研究後發現以下問題與結果：因一般民眾難以整合協調以及理解相關法規，目前集村興建農舍多由建商開發、召集、銷售。而在農地政策管地不管人之保護傘下，反而成為建商營利目標以及一般民眾達到入住花園別墅之夢想；既然落為建商營利目標，再加上法規規定可以鄰近鄉鎮之農地為配套地，與興建集村農舍使用基地，合併計算加總面積之因素。故造成建商購入偏遠且低價配套地，搭配農舍基地湊足法規所需農地總面積，而該配套地因與農舍距離甚遠又毫無耕作環境與價值，實難達到農地農用之目標。 針對以上問題與結果，本研究並提出以下之建議： 一、農民應重新定義，農舍起造人應嚴格限制。 二、集村方式興建農舍應與個別興建農舍審核標準相同。 三、集村個案之農用農地應於適當距離範圍內，以利農業使用，並應嚴格禁止再分割情形，以防農地細分。 四、興建農舍應以農業經營需求為必要者。 五、集村興建農舍應成立社區管理委員會。 六、政府應結合農村社區土地重劃，提供適當之集村農舍建用農地。 / When agricultural development regulations lifted the ban and authorized the sales of farmland freely in 2000, it also supplemented related measures with incentives for farmers to build collective farmhouses so that farmers will give up constructing individual farmhouses on own their land, and jointly build collective farmhouses. This could help to eliminate the negative impact individual farmhouses have on the natural landscape of agricultural environments, and also achieve multiple objectives in upholding agriculture, farmers, environment, etc. And this is how collective farmhouses came about. Site visits were made to completed farmhouses; cases that were being prepared were also visited. At the same time, the research study also refers to the core meaning of policies related to farmlands in the hope that it can act as a reference and also offer suggestions to future legal revision and modification. However, the following problems and results were found after research was done in a province: as most people find it hard to integrate, coordinate, and understand the relevant legal provisions, current collective farmhouses are mostly carried out by construction companies who take on the tasks of development, gathering, and sales. However, as agricultural policies deals with land only and not individuals, such policy has, on the contrary, caused construction companies to view this as a profit target and the general public to see it as a grand dream. Given with the policy that it has helped construction company to make profit as well as the fact that the laws regulate farmland proximal to neighboring township taken as the supporting land, the site used for the construction of collective farmhouses can combine that of the supporting land to become the aggregate size of construction land. Therefore, it has encouraged companies to purchase remote and inexpensive support to work with the site of farmland in order to make up the aggregate size of the needed farmland as regulated by law. Furthermore, since the supporting land is far from the farmhouse and found without farming environment and value, it is, in fact, hard to achieve any objective of farmland solely for agricultural purpose. As such, this study has put forth following suggestions: 1. redefine the definition of a farmer, and the conditions of builder of a farmhouse should be strictly confined. 2. the construction of collective farmhouses should be given the same severe screening standards as those of individual farmhouses. 3. farmland for agricultural purposes should be limited to a suitable distance to be used for agricultural purposes, and legal provisions should strictly prohibit further partitioning and avoidsub-partitioning. 4. construction of farmhouse should be authorized to those which are found necessary for agricultural operation. 5. community management committees should be established for collective farmhouses. 6. the government should integrate village communities for land re-zoning in order to provide suitable farmland for collective farmhouses.

自民國89年起政府將農地政策明訂為「落實農地農用」之方向，為配合此一目標而建立「集村農舍制度」，農舍議題遂成為各方矚目之焦點。由於農舍興建與「農地利用」、「農村景觀」與「農民生活」等議題關係密切，且實際的集村農舍制度規則與執行因涉及制度參與者互動情形，而影響制度執行與最後目標之實現。惟既有的集村農舍研究多以個別觀點，從管制與被管制者的政策、法律保留原則或住宅管制等面向切入，就制度實際運作情形甚少著墨，對於整體制度問 題亦無深入探討，而研究結果多僅表示贊同或反對意見，無法針對集村興建農舍制度獲得較完整的分析。爰此，本研究透過新制度經濟之觀點，探討集村興建農舍之主要制度理念、正式規則之制度環境、及主管農舍業務組織間制度安排問題，並以「新竹湖口」與「雲林斗六」兩個集村案例，進行案例分析與實地訪查，利用與相關承辦人員深度訪談等研究方法，檢驗目前制度之執行與其保護優良農地落實性。再者應用具動態性之制度變遷理論分析，探討我國加入WTO之調整與民國89年總統大選等重要政經因素對於集村農舍制度之影響。最後依據研究結論，對目前集村農舍制度問題提出對策與政策建議，希冀未來集村興建農舍之規則與執行更能落實保護優良農地之理念。本研究之主要結論與建議如下： 一、研究結論 （一） 集村農舍制度因加入WTO之調整與總統大選等政經因素影響，減弱保護優良農地之制度理念的落實性，呈現不合理的制度變遷趨勢。 （二） 規則欠缺農地利用面與引導農舍區位面之管制等制度環境問題，以及農地與農舍管理組織間業務重疊與職權模糊等制度安排問題，產生制度無效執行，甚至出現耗損優良農地資源之情形。 （三） 以「湖口」與「斗六」兩集村案例歸納其共同現象，目前集村興建農舍制度並未實質照顧農民，亦未能達到保護優良農地之制度目標，須加以研議調整。 二、政策建議 （一） 「落實制度理念」－降低建商介入炒作影響制度理念落實的可能、增加落實制度理念之依據、檢討「專案分割」對制度理念落實之影響。 （二） 「合理的制度環境」－使務農者成為制度主體、提升誘因機制之質量。 （三） 「有效的制度執行」－地方政府組成集村申請案審查小組、農地利用計畫報請農委會審查列管、加強地方審查人員對於集村制度理念之宣達與執行審查業務教育。 （四） 近程與中長程措施 1. 近程建議－明確釐清農舍之定位與推動「示範集村農舍」計畫 2. 中長程建議－調整制度方向為「以集村方式興建為主」 / Central government has defined the enforcement of farmland for agricultural use as the national farmland policy since 2000. In order to fit the objective of the policy, the central government adopts the institution of cluster farmhouse. The problems of farmhouse cause public attention because it raises other issues, such as ' utilization of farmland ', ' rural landscape ' and ' farmer's life. The enforcement of cluster farmhouse institution involves the interaction of the actors, which subsequently influence the realization of the ultimate goal. The existing studies on cluster farmhouse focus mainly on the viewpoints of the owners and regulators of farmland, the principal of law reservation or housing control. In contrast to existing studies, this study, based on the concept of Institutional Economics and deep interviews with the relevant officers who take charge of the cluster farmhouse, investigate the institutional environment; institutional arrangement and enforcement of cluster farmhouse. The political and economy factors that influence the institution will be explained. Finally, a prospective promise of improvement for cluster farmhouse will be provided. The main conclusions and policy suggestions are as follows: 1. The institutional change of cluster farmhouse is deeply influenced by the political economic factors such as to join WTO and to run presidential election which subsequently affects the implementation of the institution. 2. The institutional environment of cluster farmhouse which lacks the consideration of farmland use, location of farmhouses and its institutional arrangement results in its enforcement deviated from the original concept. 3. In essence, cluster farmhouse, from the two cases in this study, has not really looked after farmers. The institution also unable to reach its goal of protecting good farmland at present. 4. Policy recommendations: （1）To reduce the possibility for building traders becoming as a leading role in the process of cluster farmhouse . （2）To make the people who engage in farming become the subject of the institution, and enhance the quality of the incentive mechanism . （3） To promote the concept of cluster farmhouse more rigorously, and thoroughly educate people more on the regulation of enforcement and examination . （4）To clarify the role of farmhouse and to give an good example of cluster farmhouse, and then to modify the regulation for building the cluster farmhouse instead of individual farmhouse .