Policy Implementation Analysis of the Designated Soil and Water Conservation Area
| Autor: | Yung-Chuan Ko, 柯勇全 |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2007 |
| Druh dokumentu: | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Popis: | 95 Policy of “Designated Soil and Water Conservation Area, (DSWC Area)” Management has been carried out over 10 years since 1996. Today the authority has approved 2 “DSWC Area” for reservoir, 44 sites for debris flow, and 22 sites for landslide. However, due to the strict regulation on development activities in the “DSWC Area”, there are tremendous obstacles to the policy implementation. According to the experiences of other countries, the mitigation project along with the land-use regulation is the trend of the natural hazard mitigation. Coincidently policy of “DSWC Area” management is one of the very few policies which have the concept of the risk management. This paper reviewed the policy of “DSWC Area” management via viewpoint of policy implementation. Firstly, based on the analytic approach of first generation policy implementation, we developed the analytic model for policy of “DSWC Area” management. We found 8 variables might affect the implementation of policy including the “policy target or activities can be categorized”, “clear goal”, “adequate causal theory”, “Hierarchical integration within and among implementating institutions”, ‘’social-economic conditions”, “public support”, “target group attitude and resources”, and “commitment and skills of the implementing officials”. We also referred the experience of the hazard zone management in Austria and Japan, together with the theory of the natural hazard risk management, and developed the concept model of land-use management for natural hazard. The results showed the boundary of “DSWC Area” simultaneously covers the “natural hazard sensitive area” and “hazard zone” in spatial aspect. This would lead to the confusion in policy goal, risk responsibility and share. We suggested the authority should modify the spatial misuse via delimiting approach in short-term and amendment in long-term. We also illustrated that the lack of the inducement and sanctions in the implementing process couldn’t diminish the zero-action and incomplete action. Therefore, the policy output might differ from the policy purpose. However, our survey showed agencies outside the implementing institutions demand the boundary of “DSWC Area” than the institutions which carried out the policy. The field survey illustrated the general public believe that land-use regulation for natural hazard mitigation, but the target group who were regulated by policy showed the lower support on the same topic. This result was similar to the current social conditions. Moreover, public opinion believed that government should manage all the natural hazard mitigation issues. We also carried out the field investigation in 41 “DSWC Area” which were not approved. According to the investigation, we developed the method for checking the protected targets, possibility of hazard, and tractability of control measures. Finally, we believed that the proper definition of “DSWC Area” management is “the area may cause the hazard due to human or nature factors and harm to the public safety; and need mitigation project urgently” which is the concept similar to the natural hazard sensitive area. Because of the regulatory taking of the private property, the policy has to compensate to the loss of the property. However, we suggested amendment to “Soil and Water Conservation Act” should focus on a clear goal of “DSWC Area”. Nevertheless, we also indicated that the policy must request certain mitigation responsibility from beneficiary via the way of insurance or sharing the cost of mitigation project to avoid the “moral risk” in hazard zone. |
| Databáze: | Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations |
| Externí odkaz: |
|