隨著國人從事休閒活動之需求與日遽增，擁有豐富自然資源的風景地區經常面臨開發壓力。近兩年來，花蓮縣七星潭地區的開發即面臨非常大的市場壓力，為避免不當開發造成不可恢復的環境破壞，政府正在研擬七星潭海岸風景特定區之規劃，並重新檢討風景特定區之管制方式，風景區應如何管制較為適宜已成為當前亟待研析之課題。
　　現行我國風景區之四種管制方式，實可將之歸類為都市與非都市土地兩大管制體系。此二體系之管制精神與內涵事實上存在相當程度之差異，其差異之研析及風景地區適宜採用何種管制體系之問題，過去文獻少有著墨。是故，本研究擬由管制體系之規劃、開發與景觀塑造三個面向進行探討，在有效引導風景區永續發展、管控開發行為、及提昇風景區景觀品質之前提下，以文獻回顧與景觀效益條件估價方法，探討此二管制體系之優劣，從而提出管制策略之建議。
　　本研究綜合三面向之優劣分析及景觀效益之評估結果顯示，都市土地使用管制體系因為具備較為清晰的願景，能夠引導風景區做目標導向式之發展，並且能夠提供較為完善之公共設施、允許週期修正管制內容、具備較完整之永續發展自然資源與觀光產業機制，以及較佳之環境景觀管控能力，能透過因地制宜之管制規範塑造景觀風貌等要點，雖然有開發時程較久之缺點，仍為建議採行之長期管制策略。其次，於景觀管制面向之實證研究當中，以條件評估法進行景觀管制前後之效益評估，結果為每人每年願為建築高度、建築樣式與設計、廣告招牌、開放空間及停車空間五個景觀管制項目，付出279元、383元、269元、228元、195元進行景觀改善，亦說明維護風景區獨特景觀以及塑造反映地方特色之景觀管制之重要性。

　　With the ever increasing demand of domestic tourism activities, scenic areas with abundant natural resources have been often faced with market-driven pressure to open up. For example, the Chi-Shing-Tan Scenic Area in Hualien is currently faced with great pressure. In order to eliminate the damage to the environment, the government is studying and framing a special district plan for the Chi-Shing-Tan Scenic Area. And this, without doubt, leads to a pressing need to review the Land Use Regulation of the scenic area.
　　There are four types of land use regulations for the scenic area and they can be grouped into urban and non-urban land use systems. The two land use systems are very different in their spirits and contents and which system would be more appropriate to be adopted is still questionable. However, researches of this kind are seldom conducted. Therefore, this study is set up to compare the two land use systems in the perspectives of the planning process, developing process and the effectiveness of forming scenic beauties, and ultimately, to propose a strategy of an appropriate land use regulation system for the scenic area by literature review and Contingent Valuation Method.
　　The study shows that the Urban Land Use Regulation is the suggested regulation system for the scenic area based on the previously mentioned analytical methodology and the evaluation on the economic value of scenic beauty. Because it has a clear vision that leads the scenic area to be developed in an objective-oriented way, and it offers more faultless public facilities, the chances to correct the regulations periodically, a more complete mechanism for sustainable development on natural resources and tourist industries, and also a better control on the scene formulation through the Urban Design Regulation. Although it has defect on the time required for execution, it is still the suggested long term strategy to regulate the scenic area. Besides, the result of the empirical research indicates that the Willingness To Pay (WTP) per person per year of the five scenic regulations are NT$279, NT$383, NT$269, NT$228, NT$195. It also reveals the importance of those regulations that help to conserve the unique scenic beauty and to reflect local features of the scenic areas.

＜專書與政府報告書＞
1.　Richard C. Smardon, James F. Plamer, John P. Felleman，Foundations for Visual Project Analysis。李麗雪、洪得娟、顏家芝譯，「景觀視覺評估與分析」，台北：田園城市文化事業有限公司
2.　內政部營建署(1984)，「台灣地區風景區特定區計畫發展與實施成效檢討」，內政部營建署市鄉規劃局
3.　內政部營建署(2003)，「新國土規劃理念下土地使用分區管制之研究」，內政部營建署市鄉規劃局
4.　內政部營建署(2005)，「太魯閣國家公園的生態經濟效益分析」，內政部營建署太魯閣國家公園管理處
5.　交通部觀光局(1991)，「風景區主要計畫作業規範」，交通觀光局
6.　交通部觀光局(2005)，「2005年國人旅遊狀況調查」，交通觀光局
7.　交通部觀光局(2005)，「民國94年觀光統計年報」，交通觀光局
8.　行政院經建會都市及住宅發展處(1986)，「實施土地使用分區管制規則對都市景觀、都市發展、居住密度、市民心理之影響」，行政院經濟建設委員會都市及住宅發展處
9.　李欽漢(2004)，「土地利用法規新論」，台北市：文笙書局股份有限公司
10.　李鴻毅(1996)，「土地政策論」，台北市：中國地政研究所
11.　李素馨、蔡榮豐(1982)，景觀道路兩側土地開發之美質評估研究，中國民國造園學會、台灣大學園藝系主編，「規劃設計理論與景觀評估」，台北：田園城市文化事業有限公司
12.　吳珮瑛(1990)，國家公園資源經濟效益評估-以墾丁國家公園為例，台灣綜合研究院，內政部營建署國家公園組委託研究計畫
13.　曾梓峰(2006)，都市景觀綱要計畫基本內涵與操作模式之研究，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫
14.　陳麗紅(1991)，開發許可制應用於台灣風景區開發管制之研究，行政院國家科學委員會專題計畫成果報告
15.　韓乾(1998)，建蔽率與容積率對居住環境品質之影響，行政院國家科學委員會研究報告
16.　蕭代基、鄭蕙燕、吳珮瑛、錢玉蘭、溫麗琪(2002)，環境保護之成本效益分析：理論、方法與應用，台北：俊傑
＜期刊＞
1.　吳珮瑛、謝雯華(1995)，環境財需求函數之估計：封閉式條件評估模型之比較分析，農業經濟叢刊，第一卷第一期，頁1-46
2.　林元興、劉文棚(1998)，地下水資源價值之研究－條件評估法之應用，臺灣土地金融季刊，第35卷第3期，頁37
3.　曾國雄、曹勝雄、廖耀東(1992)，台北都會區土地使用型態與環境品質之研究，都市與計劃，第19卷第1期，頁33-52
4.　黃宗煌(1990)，台灣地區國家公園之保育效益評估，臺灣土地金融季刊，第43卷第3期
5.　謝潮儀(1979)，容積管制之研擬--台北市住宅區個案分析，都市與計劃，第五卷第一期，頁51
6.　顏家芝(1996)，自然環境中景觀美質之類型分析，都市環境綠化與景觀設計研討會─第一屆造園景觀與環境規劃設計研究成果研討會論文集，頁247-256頁。
7.　陸雲(1990)，環境資源估價之研究－非市場估價方法，經濟論文，中央研究院經濟研究所，第18卷第1期，頁93-135
8.　蕭代基、錢玉蘭、蔡麗雪(1998)，淡水河系水質與景觀改善效益之評估，經濟研究(Tiapei Economic Inquiry)，第35卷第1期，頁29-59
9.　闕雅文(2005)，自然資源之經濟效益評估及條件評估法：文獻回顧，區域人文社會學報，第8期，頁105-126
＜論文＞
1.　巫惠玲(2002)，福寶濕地發展生態旅遊經濟效益之研究，碩士論文，逢甲大學土地管理所
2.　李素馨(1982)，視覺景觀資源評估之研究--以台北縣坪林鄉為例，碩士論文，台灣大學園藝研究所
3.　陳恭鋑(1994)，關渡沼澤區的保護效益評估－假設性市場評估法之應用，碩士論文，台灣大學經濟學研究所
4.　楊欣薇(2003)，台南市歷史文化園區經濟效益評估之研究－WTP及WTW之比較應用，碩士論文，長榮大學土地管理與開發學系
5.　劉彥政(1996)，水泥業東移對花蓮地區環境景觀影響成本之研究－條件評估法之應用，碩士論文，中興大學資源管理研究所
6.　鍾英瑞(1998)，都市設計規範形成之研究－從預期成效到設計規範，碩士論文，成功大學都市計劃學系
＜英文部分＞
1.　Angileri, V., Toccolini, A. (1993), The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity, Landscape and Urban Planning, 24, 105-112.
2.　Arrow K., Solow R., Leamer E., Portney P., Randner R. and Schuman H. (1993), Report of the NOAA panel on Contingent Valuation, Federal Register, 58(10), 4610-4614.
3.　Bateman IJ, Turner RK. (1993), Valuation of environment, methods and techniques: The contingent valuation method. In: Kerry Turner R, editor. Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice, London: Belhaven Press; p.120–191.
4.　Brookshire D. S., Eubanks L. S. and Randall A. (1983), Estimating option price and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Economics, 59:1–15.
5.　Carson R.T., Flores N. E. and Meade N. F. (2001), Contingent Valuation: Controversies and evidence, Environmental and Resource Economics, 19: 173-210
6.　Choe K. A., Whittington D. and Lauria D. T. (1996), The economic benefits of surface water quality improvements in developing countries: A case study of Davao, Philippines. Land Economics, 72:107–26.
7.　Ciriacy-Wantrup SV. (1947), Capital returns from soil conservation practices, Journal of Farm Economics, 29:1181– 96.
8.　Cummings RG, Brookshire DS and Schulze WD, eds. (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of The Arts Assessment of The Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, New Jersey: Roweman and Allanheld
9.　Daniel, T.C., R.S. Boster.(1976), Measuring landscape aesthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. U.S.D.A. For. Ser. Research Paper RM-167, Rocky Moutain For. And Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colorado.
10.　Daniel, T.C. and Vining (1983), Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality, in Altman, I. and Wohlwill, J. eds. Behaviour and The Natural Environment Ch. 2, New York: Plenum press, 39-83
11.　Davis, R.K. (1963), The Value of Outdoor Recreation: An Economic study of the Maine Woods, PhD dissertation, Harvard University
12.　Desvousges WH, Johnson FR, Dunford RW, Boyle KJ, Hudson SP and Wilson N. (1993), Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability, In: Hausman JA, editor. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland, 91- 159.
13.　Hanemann W.M.(1994), Valuing the environment through contingent valuation, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8:19- 43.
14.　Hanemann W.M., J.B. and Loomis , B.J. Kanninen (1991) , Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4), 1255-1263.
15.　Hausman JA, editor. (1993), Contingent valuation: a critical assessment, Amsterdam: North Holland.
16.　Herzog, T. R.(1987), A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Natural Environments: Mountains, Canyons, and Deserts. Landscape Journal, 6(2), 140-152.
17.　Hutchinson, W. G., S. M. Chilton and J. Davis(1995), Measuring non-use value of environmental goods using the contingent valuation method: Problems of information and cognition and the application of cognitive questionnaire design methods, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46 (1), 97-112
18.　Kaplan, S.(1987), Aesthetics, affect and cognition; Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19, 3-32.
19.　Krutilla, J.V.(1967), Conservation Reconsidered, The American Economic Review, 57(Sep.): 777-786.
20.　Leopold, L. B. and Marchand, M. O. (b) (1968), On the quantitative inventory of the riverscape, Water Resoures, 4, 709-717.
21.　Loomis JB, duVair PH. (1993), Evaluating the effects of alternative risk communication devices on willingness to pay: results from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation experiment, Land Economics, 69:287– 98.
22.　McConnell, E. Kenneth (1983), Existence and Bequest Value: In Managing Air Quality and Scenic Resources at national Park and Wilderness Areas, Edited by Rovert, D.R. and G. C. Lauraine. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
23.　Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989), Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent aaluation method, Washington, D. C.: Resources for the Future
24.　Niklitschek M, Leon J.(1996), Combining intended demand and yes/no responses in the estimation of contingent valuation models, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31:387– 402.
25.　Portney PR.(1994), The contingent valuation debate: Why economists should care, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8:3– 17.
26.　Smith, V.K.(1993), Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: An interpretive appraisal, Land Economics, 69(1): 1-26.
27.　Walsh RG, Loomis JB, Gillman RA.(1984), Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics, 60:14 – 29.
28.　Weisbrod B. A.(1964), Collective consumption services of individual consumption goods. Quarterly, Journal of Economics, 78, 471-477
29.　Whitehead, J. C. and G. C Blomquist(1989), Substitute environmental goods and existence value, the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists/ASSA meetings in Atlanta, Georgia on December 27-30
30.　Willis K. G., Garrod G. D. and Saunders C. M.(1996), Benefits of environmentally sensitive area policy in England: A contingent valuation assessment, Journal of Environmental Management, 44(2), 105-125
31.　Varian, H.L.(1990), Intermediate Microeconomics, A Modern Approach, Second Edition, New York:W.W.Norton & Co.
32.　Zube, E. Sell, J. and Taylor, J.(1982), Landscape perception: Research, Application and Theory Landscape Planning, 9, 1-23

＜網頁部分＞
1.　雲嘉南濱海國家風景管理處。雲嘉南濱海風景特定區建築特色管制範圍及聚落建築。2007/02/13。取自http://www.swcoast-nsa.gov.tw/pda/NewsPagePDA.aspx?NewsID=118
2.　澳洲大堡礁公園管理局。大堡礁公園分區及範圍示意圖。2007/03/24。取自
http://www.reefed.edu.au/; http://www.reefed.edu.au/rap/maps.html
3.　City and County Honolulu, Department of Permitting and Planning (DPP), 歐胡島發展計畫圖。2007/02/13。取自http://www.honoluludpp.org/
4.　City and County Honolulu, Department of Permitting and Planning (DPP), EWA Development Plan, 歐胡島EWA地區土地使用計畫示意圖。2007/02/13。取自http://www.honoluludpp.org/Planning/DevSust_Ewa.asp
5.　City and County Honolulu, Department of Permitting and Planning (DPP), Waikiki Special District Design Guideline(2002), Waikiki特別地區都市設計規範示意圖。2007/02/13。取自http://www.honoluludpp.org/download/permits/permitlistings.asp?p_TypeID=2
6.　Schmidt K., Peirson J., and Lierman M.(2000), Waikiki Zoning: The Waikiki Special District (WSD) - Polishing Hawaii’s Jewel, 夏威夷Waikiki特別區之土地使用分區圖。2007/02/13。取自http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc98/PROCEED/TO750/PAP703/P703.HTM