台灣城鄉風貌改造計畫發展與專案執行的經驗分析

Empirical Analysis of the Development and Project Implementation of the Urban and Rural Landscape Improvement Plan in Taiwan

陳姵綸(Pei-Lun Chen)

指導教授 ： 蔡厚男

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/園藝學研究所/碩士(2007年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2007.02915

摘要

過去十年來台灣城鄉風貌改造計畫政策的形成與推動，可說是以景觀計畫策略實踐都市再生觀念的縮影。政策的形成從最早的整合性方案「創造城鄉新風貌行動方案」、「擴大國內需求方案」之策略計畫、到成為國家中長程計畫，具有固定預算的國家發展重點計畫之一；計畫的推動則從早期「由上而下強力主導」到「由下而上、提案競爭」、從政策引導補助轉型到競爭型提案爭取經費、以激發在地創意與競爭力、鼓勵跨部門的夥伴關係，新地方主義的興起與中央-地方契約文化的形成等。這十年間，台灣城鄉風貌改造運動究竟如何面對和回應全球化的經濟過程？推動實施城鄉風貌改造計畫的成效又是如何？本研究擬透過二十世紀九十年代英國都市政策、德國北魯爾工業區再生計畫、德國與日本景觀法制化先例與歐洲景觀公約等文獻回顧，以及檢視台灣第一屆全國景觀風貌改造大獎優選案例，重新詮釋台灣推動城鎮地貌改造運動，同時檢討計畫實施成效。
進行四個案例的跨個案分析後發現，其實不論是單一計畫或是整合計畫，應該要能看到普羅大眾如何在政府的支持下，創造城鄉生態系統以重整他們的社區。因此，它需要一個擴大制度量能的持續性社會政治革新以引導社會學習途徑，而城鄉風貌改造計畫的補助申請機制，則使地方政府各局處之間在良性競爭下排序優良提案，利用爭取提案補助資源以解決環境實質問題，也促使地方重新建構生活地景的意義，奠定新的普世價值。本研究認為，多年來城鎮地貌改造專案計畫雖已有明顯成效，但礙於中央部會之本位主義而未能有效合作，導致資源流於分散；選舉樁腳文化也不時干擾政策的延續性與補助的公平競爭，環境景觀總顧問之功用也大受侷限；各地方政府應彈性調整傳統官僚體系與培養在地專業團隊以因應需求。再者，在景觀法草案未能三讀通過、景觀綱要計畫缺乏實際執行工具之際，景觀資源的管理與保護將無法落實。因此整體而言，雖然城鎮地貌改造專案計畫已有完善的誘導提案、受理審理機制與優良案例，然而，在現行台灣政治、經濟、文化、社會等複雜脈絡交錯下，是否能夠具體回應結構性危機－政治、經濟及意識型態？又或者退而求其次，至少達到對整體景觀保護、規劃與管理？以上問題仍有漫長的路要走。

關鍵字

城鄉風貌改造計畫 ； 景觀計畫 ； 都市再生 ； 新地方主義 ； 全球化

並列摘要

The policy formulation and implementation of “Urban and Rural Landscape Improvement Plan” in the past decade provides a lens observing the radical transformation of urban regeneration policy in Taiwan. At the initial stage, local identity and community development was operated to build consensus for reasons of political legitimacy. From project as“Creating Urban- Rural New landscape Action Plan”, "Extension of Domestic Demand Program" to “Challenge 2008-National Development Plan” with its own expenditure, urban and landscape plan had has become a strategic project. The shift away from formula-driven funding mechanisms towards controversial competitive bidding, explicit encouragement of a new form of multi-sector partnerships, and new localism and emergence of a contract culture among local-central governments could be seen as modes of regulation responding globalizing evolving economic. In the last decade, what chaos has “Urban and Rural Landscape Improvement Plan” managed? In the world-wide globalizing competition, nations have been keen on systemic framework construction, adoption and devoted to instigate innovative financial management strategy to survive; can “Urban and Rural Landscape Improvement Plan” work as an effective policy tool? Competitiveness, local governance and ecological construction are the main core value of the landscape project, but can those become action plan? By researching literature such as urban policy in England, European Landscape Convention, International Building Exhibition, and case analysis of awarded landscape transformation plan and following empirical studies, the paper tries to re-interpret the formulation and implementation of the “Urban and Rural Landscape Improvement Plan”.
After 4 case studies, we realized that whether a single plan or integrated program, it is important to show how ordinary citizens in the support of government are restoring their communities by creating sustainable urban-rural ecosystems. Environmentally beneficial solutions can cost less and contribute to growth rather impede it. Therefore, it needs a continuously socio-political reform of enhancing institutional capacity to guide the social learning tour. The challenge competitive funding mechanism has facilitated local governments and agencies to adopt excellent initiatives to compete for funding and solve the empirical physical problems at the same time. This paper suggests that the dis-integrated corporation among governments and authorities has contributed inefficient resources usage；political imbroglio has diminished the related policies and fair competition；function of general consultant has also been limited. Further, the draft of Landscape Law failed to be adopted and so far the Landscape Master Plan has no empirical tool and law support to be carried out. Landscape protection and management would be threatened. Despite that the Urban and Rural Landscape Improvement Plan has facilitated with good-enough measures, mechanisms and excellent examples to guide local governments and authorities, this paper doubt that there is still a long way to go especially in the complicated political, economical, cultural and social context.

並列關鍵字

urban- rural landscape improvement plan ； landscape plan ； urban regeneration ； new localism ； globalization

參考文獻

徐吉志、周蕙蘋（2005）都市治理之基本意涵與發展－治理網絡的觀點，紀俊臣編，都市及區域治理，台北：五南

李永展（2006c）第五章城鄉風貌改造運動-調節理論觀點，永續城鄉及生態社區理論與實務，台北：文笙書局

Phillips, A., & Clarke R. (2004). Our Landscape from a Wider Perspective, Countryside planning: New approaches to Management and Conservation. Edited by Kevin Bishop and Adrian Phillips. London: Eathscan.

Fischler, R. (2000). Case Studies of Planners at Work. Journal of Planning Literature .15 (2): 184 – 195

Hambleton, R. (1990). Future Directions for Urban Government in Britain and America. The City Reader. Edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout. London: Routledge.