在因應產業結構轉型上，如何形塑鄉村新文化地景並創造其經濟與非經濟性 價值，成為是未來重要的發展方向。鄉村內的特殊文化地景與建築形式資源，隱 含當地的生活模式與地域文化，因此必須維護鄉村文化地景之保存以及集體生活 記憶之延續，加強農村民眾的自發性參與、環境覺醒、相互學習、建構與離鄉子 弟的網絡關係，藉此建構出對農村地景及文化的認同，並發展出一套從操作中學 習的鄉村社區參與機制及學習機制。
然而，鄉村紋理被視為是鄉村旅遊非常重要的命脈，不具備吸引力與充滿生 氣的鄉村，鄉村旅遊是無法運作的。與此同時，鄉村旅遊也被視為是保護鄉村資 源完整性的工具，以強化鄉村經濟及維持鄉村生活方式的運行。因此旅遊產業取 代農業成為許多鄉村社區的基石。然而，鄉村旅遊的另一個爭論點在於可能會引 發對於鄉村在地社區的「創造性破壞」(C. J. A. Mitchell, 1998)或文化與環境之衝 擊(Boo, 1990)10。是以，發展鄉村旅遊若過度偏重於經濟面向發展，可能破壞既有 之生態環境外，也喪失了在地性與鄉村性特色，造成鄉村旅遊的同質化而快速衰 敗。
台灣農村地區若能善加利用農村特殊的人文與地景資源，發揮其文化服務功 能，以加強觀光發展與文化產業及民俗文化活動規劃的整合，加強農林漁牧業與 休閒遊憩機能的結合、發展具深度及知性的遊憩活動型態(例如加強觀光與環境 教育的結合)，確認出其具發展潛力的觀光資源及其與自然及文化地景之關係，
並充分利用農村特殊的自然與人文地景資源，並予以整體規劃及行銷包裝。透過 強化農村的地景差異性及產業特色，來凸顯鄉村與核心都市的互補性及共存關 係，進而營造出能永續發展的鄉村地景生活空間。
10 Mitchell(1998)認為鄉村旅遊發展結果，將吸引大量外來的商業化投資行為，導致原有田園景 色的破壞，雖然其振興地方經濟，卻造成鄉村自然與人文環境的破壞，即稱為「創造性的破壞」。
參考文獻
Bascom, J. (2001a). Energizing Rural Space：The representation of countryside culture as an economic development strategy. Journal of Cultural Geography,
19(1), 53-73.
Bascom, J. (2001b). Losing place: Refugee Populations and Rural Transformations in
East Africa. NY: Berghahn Books.
Bealer, R. C., Fern, K. W., & William, P. K. (1965). The Meanings of Rurality in American Society: Implication of Alternative Definition. Rural Sociology, 30, 255-266.
Bergstrom, J. C. (2005). Postproductivism and changing rural land use values and perferences. In S. J. Goetz, J. S. Shortle & J. C. Bergstrom (Eds.), Land Use
Problems and Conflicts: Causes, Consequence and Solutions (pp. 64-76).
London: Routledge.
Blunden, J., & Curry, N. (Eds.). (1985). The Changing Countryside. Helm: Open University, Bromley.
Bohman, M., Cooper, J., Mullarkey, D., Normile, M. A., Skully, D., Vogel, S., et al.
(1999). The Use and Abuse of Multifunctionality. Retrieved from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/wto/PDF/multifunc1119.pdf
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls (Vols. I and II). Washington, D.C.: World Wildlife Fund Report.
Brandt, J., & Vejre, H. (2004). Multifunctional landscapes: motives, concepts and perspectives. In J. Brandt & H. Vejre (Eds.), Multifunctional Landscapes:
Theory, Values, and History (Vol. I, pp. 3-31). Southampton: WIT Press.
Bulter, R., Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (1998). Introduction. In R. Bulter, C. M. Hall
& J. M. Jenkins (Eds.), Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas (pp. 3-16).
Wiley: Chichester.
Cloke, P. (2005). The country. In P. Cloke, P. Crang & M. Goodwin (Eds.),
Introducing Human Geographies (2 ed., pp. 451-471). London: Hodder
Arnold.Cloke, P., & Park, C. (1984). Rural Resource Management. London: Croom Helm.
Cosgrove, D., & Dainels, S. (Eds.). (1988). The Iconography and Landscape: Essays
on the Symbolic Representation, Design and use of Past Environments.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Groot, R., & Hein, L. (2007). Concept and valuation of landscape functions at different scales. In Ü. Mander, H. Wiggering & K. Helming (Eds.),
Multifunctional Land Use: Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services (pp. 15-36). Berlin: Springer.
Evans, N., Morris, C., & Winter, M. (2002). Conceptualizing agriculture: a critique of post-productivism as the new orthodoxy. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 313–332.
Garrod, B., Wornell, R., & Youell, R. (2006). Re-conceptualising rural resources as countryside capital: The case of rural tourism. Journal of Rural Dtudies, 22(1), 117-128.
Growth, P. E., & Bressi, T. W. (Eds.). (1997). Understanding Ordinary Landscapes.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Halfacree, K. H. (1993). Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alternative definitions of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 9, 23-37.
Halfacree, K. H. (1995). Talking about rurality: Social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(1), 1-20.
Ilbery, B. (Ed.). (1998). The Geography of Rural Change. Longman: Harlow.
Ilbery, B., & Bowler, I. (1998). From agricultural productivism to postproductivism.
In B. Ilbery (Ed.), The Geography of Rural Change (pp. 57-83). Harlow:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Jongeneel, R., & Slangen, L. (2004). Multifunctionality in agriculture and the
contestable public domain in the Netherlands. In F. Brouwer (Ed.), Sustaining
agriculture and the rural environment –governance, policy and
multifunctionality (pp. 183-203). Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kim, K. K., Marcouiller, D. W., & Deller, S. C. (2005). Natural amenities and rural development: understanding spatial and distributional attributes. Growth and
Change, 36(2), 273-297.
Lankoski, J. (Ed.). (2000). Multifunctional Character of Agriculture. Helsinki:
Agricultural Economics Research Institute.
Li, K. T. (1988). The Evolution of Policy Behond Taiwan's Development Success. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Marsden, T. (1995). Beyond Agriculture? Regulating the New Rural Spaces. Journal
of Rural Studies, 11, 285-296.
Marsden, T. (1998a). Economic perspectives. In B. Ilbery (Ed.), The Geography of
Rural Change (pp. 187-202). Longman: Harlow.
Marsden, T. (1998b). New Rural Territories: Regulating the Differentiated Rural Spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 107-117.
McCarthy, J. (2005). Rural geography: multifunctional rural geographies: reactionary or radical? Progress in Human Geography, 29, 773-782.
Mitchell, C. J. A. (1998). Entrepreneurialism, commodification and creative destruction: a model of post-modern community development. Journal of
Rural Studies, 14(3), 273-286.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (Ed.). (1994). Landscape and Power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Montgomery, J. D., Hughes, R. B., & Davis, R. H. (1964). Rural Improvement and
Politics Development: The JCRR Model. Washington D. C.: Department of
State.Nash, C. (2005). Landscape. In P. Cloke, P. Crang & M. Goodwin (Eds.), Introducing
Human Geographies (pp. 156-167). London: Hodder Arnold.
Nelson, A. C. (1992). Preserving prime farmland in the face of urbanization.