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.