:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:台灣舊都心再結構為宜居生活街區之指標評估系統研究
作者:林肇志
作者(外文):Chao-ChihLin
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:都市計劃學系碩博士班
指導教授:曾憲嫻
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2010
主題關鍵詞:專家評估系統使用者評估系統多準則宜居性指標系統架構都市村Users’evaluation systemMulti-criteria liveabilityExperts’evaluation systemA framework of indicator systemUrban village
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:38
本研究擬探索台灣之舊都心發展在保存(Urban Conservation)與更新(Urban Renewal)之兩難下所面臨之困境。研究者從田野調查與現況發展議題中萃取出四項發展困境下的主要因素:傳統混合使用模式、小街廓與歷史紋理、都市景觀、及建築實質環境等因素。針對這些因素,研究者擬提出以指標系統架構(A Framework of Indicator System)為舊都心之街區實質環境再結構的理想模型。
本研究首先進行兩階段之文獻回顧。第一階段從20世紀初開始的台灣主要都市之舊都心的發展歷程中分析出與都市街區形態相關的都市計畫法令與建築規範(Form-based code);其次,檢視台灣自1998年都市更新條例發佈之後的舊都心之保存與更新政策之推動狀況。第二階段的文獻回顧則分析以英、美為主的舊都心再生(Urban regeneration)之經驗與技術(Weaver, 1985; Rogers, 1999; Rhodes et al., 2003),並參考「都市村」(Urban Village)概念及相關之規劃理論譬如:「智慧型成長」(Smart Growth)、「永續社區」(Sustainable Community)及「新都市主義」(New Urbanism)等都市舊街區的更新與設計準則。
在清楚界定台灣舊都心的發展困境之主要因素與兩階段之文獻回顧後,本研究參考西方學者關於宜居都市(Liveable city)之研究成果,及其度量宜居性(liveability)的方法,初步建立起「宜居生活街區」(A Liveable Urban District)模型,以四大構面(constructs)、21項指標(general indicators)及62項評估因子(policy-making indicators)做為評估宜居性的指標系統架構;其中,四大構面包括:「土地使用永續性」(Land use sustainability)、「大眾運輸導向模式」(TOD pattern)、「街區構成」(District composition)、及「建築形態與產權」(Architectural typology and estate)等。在經由模糊德爾菲法與層級分析法兩階段之專家問卷操作之後,「宜居生活街區」指標評估系統修正為四大構面、15項指標及33項評估因子,ALUD(Assessment of a Liveable Urban District)之展開式如下:ALUD=0344L+0.188T+0.330D+0.138A,其中,L、T、D、A分別為四大構面之簡稱。
本研究建構使用者評估系統之主要目的乃基於溝通式規劃(Communicative planning)之理念,採取問卷調查並運用多變量分析(Multivariate Analysis)的方法,有效運算使用者對於街區生活的感受度(Degree of perception)。舊都心居民之街區生活感受度因素中,以因素一歷史街區的魅力(10.814)及因素二適合老中青的綜合型鄰里社區(10.201)具有較高之解釋量;此外,舊都心居民對於地方政府之相關保存與更新政策亦多半表示支持;舊都心訪客之趨向則透過集群分析,以歷史文化園區之三項關鍵構成因素—美食文化、步行街道系統及大眾運輸系統,將訪客之趨向差異最大化。
本研究以台南市舊都心做為「宜居生活街區」之研究基地,進行專家評估系統與使用者評估系統之操作,以對目前在更新與保存趨勢並進下的台南舊都心提出再結構為宜居生活街區之建議。
This research intends to explore the dilemma between urban conservation and urban renewal of Taiwanese old urban centres. The researcher crystallize four factors under the dilemma from field survey and current development issues, which are: land mixed use, small block and historic fabric, urban landscape and architectural environment. Concerning these factors, the researcher proposes a framework of indicator system to restructure the built environment of an old urban centre.
The researcher starts from two phases literature review. The first phase concerns the related form-based code practiced in Taiwan since early 20th century until nowadays, such as urban planning act and building code which regulate the pattern of a city or a district; as for the current performance of urban conservation and urban renewal, the related legislation and renewal projects after 1998 is probed. The second phase starts from urban regeneration experiences of inner cities in UK and USA (Weaver, 1985; Rogers, 1999; Rhodes et al., 2003), and refer to the “Urban Village” concept and its related planning theories such as: Smart Growth, Sustainable Community and New Urbanism for planning and design doctrines applied in old urban districts.
Based on the four factors of the dilemma of old urban centre and two phases literature review, the researcher refer to the research achievements about liveable cities from some western scholars, and how liveability can be measured. The researcher then build his own model—a liveable urban district, to measure the liveability. This initial framework is composed of four constructs, 21 general indicators and 62 policy making indicators. The four constructs include: Land Use Sustainability, Transit Oriented Development, District Composition, and Architectural Typology and estate. After the operation of fuzzy delphi method and AHP method about the experts’ questionnaire, the indicator system for a liveable urban district has been revised as four constructs, 15 general indicators and 33 policy-making indicators. The formula of ALUD(Assessment of a Liveable Urban District) can be demonstrated as follow:ALUD=0344L+0.188T+0.330D+0.138A. In the formula, L、T、D、A means the coefficient of the four constructs.
The purpose to build a user evaluation system is to practice the ideal communicative planning. By applying the multivariate analysis method on users’ questionnaire, this research calculate the degree of perception on district life. In the factor analysis result of residents’ perception of district life, factor one – fascination of historic district and factor two – a neighbourhood for all ages of people, has higher explanation. Furthermore, residents in old urban centre express their supportive attitude about governmental policy on renewal and conservation issues. Tourists’ favour in historic districts are grouped according to cluster analysis, which is based on three factors of historic district – gourmet, pedestrian friendly network, and public transit system. This analysis is to maximize the variance of tourist’ favours.
The researcher selects Tainan old urban centre as a study site for a liveable urban district, and proceeds experts’ evaluation system and users’ evaluation system, in order to propose a regeneration model of a liveable urban district for Tainan old urban centre under current renewal and conservation trend.
國內文獻
1.內政部建築研究所(2007),綠建築解說與評估手冊(2007年更新版)。
2.台南市政府(2006),「變更台南市中西區都市計畫(主要計畫)通盤檢討案說明書」,台南市政府。
3.台南市政府(2006),「擬定台南市舊街區軸線(中正路、中山路)都市更新計畫案計畫說明書」,台南市政府。
4.台南市政府(2008),「台南市統計要覽第67期」,台南市政府。
5.台南市古都再生基金會(2006),「府城歷史文化風貌保存計畫整體規劃期末報告」,台南:台南市古都再生基金會。
6.台灣大學經濟學系(2005),「永續台灣的願景與策略-永續台灣的評量系統」,?政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,計畫編號:NSC92-2621-Z-002-034。
7.行政院國家永續發展委員會(2008),「2007台灣永續發展指標」,行政院國家永續發展委員會。
8.住宅及都市發展處,都市及區域發展統計彙編(2007),行政院經濟建設委員會。
9.何芳子,丁致成(2006),日本都市再生密碼,都市更新的案例與制度,臺北:財團法人都市更新研究發展基金會。
10.何友鋒,李融昇(2009),都市設計永續價值評估指標體系之研究,建築學報第68期,201~222頁。new window
11.李永展 (1983),相容的土地混合使用管制辦法之研究—以高雄市為例,國立台灣大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文。
12.李正暘 (2004),台南市歷史性都心區建物改建量體管制研究—以五條港地區為例,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
13.李乾朗(2005),19世紀台灣建築,臺北:玉山社出版。
14.林思玲(2006),日本殖民臺灣建築氣候環境調適的經驗,國立成功大學建築研究所博士論文。
15.林欽榮(1995),「都市設計在台灣」,臺北:創興出版社。
16.洪于婷(2006),地方永續發展時空變遷之研究,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所博士論文。
17.莊德樑等(2006),「台南市都市更新白皮書」,台南市都發局。
18.曾旭正(2007),台灣的社區營造,臺北:遠足文化。
19.曾憲嫻(2003),台??????筋??????構築技術?地域的特??形成????史的研究,東京大學博士論文。
20.曾憲嫻,陳世明(2007-2009),台灣舊街區之再生,國立成功大學頂尖大學標竿計畫。
21.財團法人都市更新研究發展基金會(1999),「浴火重生,美國都市更新的奮鬥故事」,臺北:財團法人都市更新研究發展基金會。
22.財團法人都市更新研究發展基金會(2002),「都市更新法規經緯」,臺北:財團法人都市更新研究發展基金會。
23.財團法人都市更新研究發展基金會(2002),「都市更新魔法書」,臺北:財團法人都市更新研究發展基金會。
24.陳奇正(2005),「機車停車收費管理策略實施成果與擴大辦理計畫」,台北市停車管理處。
25.陳明筑(1982),「都市設計」,臺北:創興出版社。
26.陳星皓(2007),台灣國民小學永續校園實質環境評估之研究,國立成功大學建築研究所博士論文。
27.陳星皓,江哲銘,黃貞燕(2008),班群教室室內物?環境綜合評估之研究-以高雄市國民小學為?,「建築學報」,第63期,pp.25~46。new window
28.陳重仁(2006),永續建築白皮書,台北:積木文化出版社。
29.陳湘琴(2005),日治至戰後時期台灣都市細部規劃法制的功能與特性之變遷歷程(1895-1976),「都市與計畫」,第32卷,第3期,pp.253-275。
30.張文懋(1991),都市住宅之系統設計:以台南市街廓為例,國立成功大學都市建築研究所碩士論文。
31.張嘉玲(2004),台中市都市空間體系的建構與擴展,國立成功大學都市建築研究所碩士論文。
32.張曜麟(2005),都市土地使用變遷之研究,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所博士論文。
33.黃世孟(1992),「台灣都市計畫講習錄」,台北:胡氏圖書。
34.黃武達(1999),「都市計畫及建築法制研究論文集(1)」,臺北縣:都市及建築法制研究室。
35.黃武達(2000),「日治時代(1895-1945)台灣都市計劃歷程之建構」,臺北縣:臺灣都市史研究室。
36.黃書偉,周倚臣,郭馨筠(2006),運用模糊與多準則評估方法探討居住空間區位之滿意度,「第十一屆國土規劃論壇」。
37.黃書禮(1996),「台北市都市永續發展指標與策略研擬之研究」,臺北:臺北市政府市發展局。
38.黃書禮(2004),「台灣永續發展指標現況分析與研提策略期末報告」,臺北:行政院研究發展考核委員會。
39.黃建勳(2003),都會區邊緣開發大眾運輸村評估模式之研究,朝陽科技大學建築及都市設計研究所碩士論文。
40.傅朝卿(1999),日治時期台灣建築 :1895-1945,臺北:大地地理。
41.詹伯望(2006),半月沉江話府城,臺南:臺灣建築與文化資產出版社。
42.鄒克萬,黃書偉(2007),都市土地混合使用形態之探討,第十一屆國土規劃論壇。
43.蕭博正(2003),台北市土地混合使用特性對旅運之影響,國立台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
44.蔡勳雄等,「都市發展與都市更新」,永續(研)090-015號,中華民國九十年六月二十日。
45.羅文琍(2004),以使用者觀點探討歷史性都心區建物量體管制之研究—以台南市孔廟文化園區永華宮街廓為例,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。

國外文獻
1.Alexander, C. (1979), The timeless way of building, New York :Oxford University Press.
2.Alexander, C. et al. (1977), A Pattern Language: Towns, buildings, Construction, New York :Oxford University Press.
3.Alexander, C. et al. (1977), A New Theory of Urban Design, New York :Oxford University Press.
4.American Planning Association (2006), Planning and Urban Design Standards, Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons.
5.Appleyard, D. (1981), Livable Streets, Berkeley: University of California Press.
6.ASTM E1765 - 07 Standard Practice for Applying Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Multiattribute Decision Analysis of Investments Related to Buildings and Building Systems。
7.Babcock, R. F. (1966), The Zoning Game, Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.
8.Ball, Michael and Maginn, Paul J. (2005), Urban change and conflict: evaluating the role of partnerships in urban regeneration in the UK, Housing Studies, 20(1):9–28.
9.Barnett J. (1982), An Introduction to Urban Design, New York : Harper and Row Publishers Inc.
10.Barton, Hugh et al. (2003), Shaping Neighborhoods: A Guide for Health, Sustainability and Vitality, London : Spon Press.
11.Beatley, T. (2000), Green Urbanism, Learning from European Cities, Washington, D.C.:Island Press.
12.Bender, A., Din, A., Favarger, P., Hoesli, M. and Laakso, J.(1997), An Analysis of Perceptions Concerning the Environmental Quality of Housing in Geneva, Urban Studies, Vol. 34, No. 3, 503- 513.
13.Bernick, M., Cervero, R. (1997), Transit Villages in the 21st Century, New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
14.Brouwer, J., Cuperus, Y. (1992), Capacity to change, OBOM Research Group, University of technology Delft.
15.Burton, E. (2002), Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 29, pages 219-250.
16.Burton, E., Weich, S., Blanchard, M., Prince, M. (2005), Measuring physical characteristics of housing: the Built Environment Site Survey Checklist (BESSC), Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 32, pages 265-280.
17.Calthorpe, Peter (1993), The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream, New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
18.Campbell, S. and Fainstein, S. S. (2003), Readings in planning theory, Malden, MA :Blackwell Publishers.
19.Carruthers, J.I. & Ulfarsson, G.F. (2003), Urban sprawl and the cost of public services, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 30, pages 503-522.
20.Cervero, R. and Duncan M. (2006), Balance growth, travel demand and physical activity, University of California Transportation Center.
21.Cervero, R. (1996), Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American Housing Survey, Trunspn Res.-A, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 361-377.
22.Charles, Prince of Wales (1989), A Vision of Britain: a personal view of architecture /HRH the Prince of Wales, London: Doubleday.
23.Choo, K. K. (1988), Urban renewal planning for city states: A case study of Singapore, Department of Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington.
24.Cohen, Nahoum (2001), Urban Planning Conservation and Preservation, New York : Mcgraw-Hill.
25.Colean, M. L. (1953), Renewing Our Cities, New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
26.Collins, G. R., Collins, C.C. (1986), Camillo Sitte: The Birth of Modern City Planning, New York: Rizzoli.
27.Conzen, M.R.G. (1981), The Urban Landscape: Historical Development and Management, Dept. of Geography, University of Birmingham.
28.Coupland, A. (1997), Reclaiming the City, Mixed use Development, London: E & FN Spon.
29.Cullen, G. (1961), The Concise Township, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
30.Cullingworth, B. & Nadin, V. (2001), Town and Country Planning in the UK, 13th edn., London : Routledge.
31.Delafons, J. (1969), Land-Use Controls in the United States, Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.
32.Department of the Environment (1992), Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment, Case Study Notes, London : HMSO.
33.Department of the Environment (DOE) (1997), PPG1: General Policies and Proposals, London: DOE.
34.Douglas, R., et al. (1988), Flexible Zoning, How it works, Washington, D.C. :Urban Land Institute.
35.Duany, A. (2002), Introduction to the Special Issue: The Transect, Journal of Urban Design, 7(3):251-260.
36.Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E.(1992), Towns and Town-making Principles, Harvard University, Graduate School of Design, New York : Rizzoli.
37.Ebenezer, H. (1898), Garden Cities of Tomorrow, London : Attic Books.
38.Edwards, B. (1992), London Docklands, Urban Design in an age of deregulation, Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
39.Emerine, D., Shenot, C., Bailey, M.K., Sobel, L., and Susman, M.(2006), This is Smart Growth, Smart Growth Network.
40.Filion, P. & Hammond, K. (2003), Neighbourhood land use and performance: the evolution of neighbourhood morphology over the 20th century, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 30, pages 271 – 296.
41.Fisher, I.D. (1990), Frederic Law Olmsted and the city planning movement in the United States, Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.
42.Fishman, R.(2005), New Urbanism, Michigan Debates on Urbanism: volume II, Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
43.Florida R. (2002), The rise of the creative class. And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life, New York : Basic Books.
44.Florida R. (2005), Cities and the creative class, New York : Routledge.
45.Frampton, K. (1992), Modern Architecture, a Critical History, New York: Thames and Hudson.
46.Freeman, L. and Braconi F. (2004), Gentrification and Displacement, New York City in the 1990s, Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2004, Vol. 70. No. 1, 39-52.
47.Gans, H.J.(1962), The urban villagers:group and class in the life of Italian-Americans, New York : Free Press of Glencoe.
48.Geddes, P. (1915), Cities in Evolution, London: Williams & Norgate.
49.Habraken, N. J. & Teicher, J (1998) The structure of the ordinary :form and control in the built environment, Cambridge : MIT Press.
50.Hair, J. F. et al. (2006), Multivariate data analysis, New Jersey : Pearson Prentice Hall.
51.Hall, P.(1996), Cities of tomorrow :an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
52.Hemphill, L. A., Berry, J. N. and Mcgreal, W.S. (2002) An aggregated weighting system for evaluating sustainable urban regeneration, Journal of Property Research, 19(4), pp. 353–373.
53.Hemphill, L., Mcgreal, S. and Berry, J. (2004), An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance:Part 1, Conceptual Foundations and Methodological Framework, Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4, 725–755.
54.Hemphill, L., Mcgreal, S. and Berry, J. (2004), An Indicator-based Approach to Measuring Sustainable Urban Regeneration Performance:Part 2, Empirical Evaluation and Case-study Analysis, Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4, 757–772.
55.Heung, V. C.S., Qu, H., Chu, R. (2001), The relationship between vacation factors and socio-demographic and travelling characteristics:the case of Japanese leisure travellers, Tourism Management, 22, 259-269.
56.Hoppenbrouwer, E. and Louw. E. (2005), Mixed-use Development: Theory and Practice in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands, European Planning Studies, 13(7): 967-983.
57.Hunt, K. S., Scott, D., Richardson, S.(2003), Positioning Public Recreation and Park Offerings Using Importance-Performance Analysis, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Volume 21, Number 3 pp. 1-21.
58.Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M. (1993), “The Max-Min Delphi Method and Fuzzy Delphi Method via Fuzzy Integration, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol.5, pp.241-253.
59.Jacobs, J. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York : The Modern Library.
60.Jacobs, A.B., Appleyard, D. (1987) Toward an urban design manifesto, American Planning Association Journal 53(1), pp. 113-120.
61.Joye, Y.(2006), An interdisciplinary argument for natural morphologies in architectural design, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 33, pages 239-252.
62.Kees M., Paul D. V. (2006) “The influence of the residential neighborhood environment on living satisfaction:testing the compensation hypothesis, Environment and Planning A, volume 38, pages 2111 – 2127.
63.Krier, R. (1979), Urban Space, New York: Rizzoli International Publications.
64.Klir G. J., Yuan B., (1995), Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic—Theory and Application, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
65.Lai S-K, Hopkins L. D., 1995, Can decisionmakers express multiattribute preferences using AHP and MUT? An experiment, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 22(1) 21–34。
66.Landis, J.D. (2006), Growth management revisited – Efficacy, Price Effects and Displacement, Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4):411-430.
67.Larsen, K. (2005), New Urbanism’s Role in Inner-city Neighborhood Revitalization, Housing Studies, Vol. 20, No. 5, 795–813.
68.Lees, L. (2003), Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City, Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 12, 2487-2509.
69.LeGates, R.T., Stout, F. (2000), The city reader, London : Routledge.
70.Lepani, B. et al. (1995), Ryde Urban Villages Feasibility Study, Final Report, Australian Center for Innovation and International Competitiveness Limited, University of Sydney.
71.Lin, C.C., Cheng, H.H.(2007), The Prospect of New Urbanism in Taiwan Cities: Take
Taichung as an Example, Secession D5, ICPD 2007, NCKU, Tainan, Taiwan.
72.Lin, C.C., Cheng, H.H.(2008), Renaissance of the Old Town District in Tainan: Research on Aesthetic Zoning in Historic Districts, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, Vol. 7 No.2, pp. 317-324.
73.Lin, C.C., Cheng, H.H.(2009), The research on a livable urban district: restructure of the built environment for inner cities in taiwan, Bollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione, Vol. No. 9, 2009.
74.Lin, J.J., Yang, A. T. (2006), Does the compact-city paradigm foster sustainability? An empirical study in Taiwan, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2006, volume 33, p.365-380.
75.Luigi, B., Pasquale, D. T., and Daniele C. (2008), Integrated assessment for mobility management: an application of the ahp multi-criteria method for the traffic urban plan of battipaglia (Italy), Sustainable City and Creativity: Promoting Creative Urban Initiatives, Naples, 24-26 September 2008.
76.Lynch, K. (1960), The Image of the City, Cambridge : MIT Press.
77.Lynch, K. (1987), Good City Form, Cambridge : MIT Press.
78.Maat, K. & Vries, P. D. (2006) “The influence of the residential neighborhood environment on living satisfaction:testing the compensation hypothesis, Environment and Planning A, volume 38, pages 2111 – 2127.
79.Magnaghi, A. (2005), The urban village :a charter for democracy and local self-sustainable development, London: Zed Books.
80.Mandelker, D. R., Cunningham, R. A. (1985), Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and Materials, 2nd ed. Charlottesville, Virginia :The Michie Company.
81.Mohney, D., Easterling, K.(1991), Seaside :making a town in America, New York : Princeton Architectural Press.
82.Maria C., Maria C. F. (2008), The integrated valorization of the altilia-sepino archaeological site:an ex ante evaluation of complex alternati, Sustainable City and Creativity: Promoting Creative Urban Initiatives, Naples, 24-26 September 2008.
83.Marichela, S. (2008), Place-identity, integration and sustainability: exploring the creative city concept, Sustainable City and Creativity: Promoting Creative Urban Initiatives, Naples, 24-26 September 2008.
84.Miles L. C. (1953), “Renewing Our Cities, New York : The Twentieth Century Fund.
85.Mitchell, W. J. (1995), City of Bits, Space, Place and the infobahn, Cambridge : MIT Press.
86.Mitchell, W.J.(1994), The Logic of Architecture, Cambridge : MIT Press.
87.Mynors, C.(2006), Listed buildings, conservation areas and monuments, London : Sweet & Maxwell.
88.Neal, Peter (2003), Urban Villages and the Making of Communities, London : Spon Press.
89.ODPM (2003), Housing Statistics 1992–2002, London : ODPM.
90.Partners for Livable Communities (2000), The Livable City, Revitalizing Urban Communities, New York : Mcgraw-Hill.
91.Pollard, J. S. (2003), From Industrial District to ‘Urban Village’? Manufacturing, Money and Consumption in Birmingham’s Jewellery Quarter, Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, 173–193.
92.Punter, J. (1990), The Ten Commandments of Architectural and Urban Design, The Planner, 76(39): 10-14.
93.Ramanathan, R. (2001), A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment, Journal of Environmental Management(2001) 63, pp27-35.
94.Ratcliff, R. U. (1949), Urban Land Economics, New York : McGraw Hill.
95.Ravetz, J. (2000), City Region 2020, Integrated Planning for a Sustainable Environment, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
96.Raymond, K.S., Chu, T. C.(2000), An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison of business and leisure travellers, Tourism Management, 21, 363-377.
97.Rhodes, J., Tyler, P., Brennan, A. (2003), New Developments in Area-based Initiatives in England: The Experience of the Single Regeneration Budget, Urban Studies, 40(8): 1399–1426.
98.Roberts, P., Sykes, Hugh (2000), Urban Regeneration, A Handbook, London: SAGE Publications.
99.Rogers, R. (1999), Towards an urban renaissance, Final report of the Urban Task Force, London: Spon Press.
100.Rossi, A. (1982), The Architecture of the City, Cambridge : MIT Press.
101.Ryan, B.D. & Weber, R. (2007), Valuing New Development in Distressed Urban Neighborhoods - Does Design Matter? Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1):100-111.
102.Saaty, T., Erdener E. (1979), “A new approach to performance measurement the analytic hierarchy process, Design Methods and Theories, No13(2): pp62-68.
103.Saaty, T. L. (1996), Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, PA : RWS publications.
104.Saaty, T. L. (1990) Decision making for leaders :the analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world, Pittsburgh, PA :RWS Publications.
105.Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburg: RWS Publications.
106.Schurch, T.W. (1999), Recondisering Urban Design: Thoughts about its definition and status as a field or profession, Journal of Urban Design, vol. 4, No. 1, 1999, 5-28.
107.Southworth, M. & Ben-Joseph, E.(1997), Streets and the shaping of towns and cities, New York : McGraw-Hill.
108.Stein, J. M.(2004), Classic readings in urban planning, Chicago :APA Planners Press.
109.Talen, E. (2002), Help for Urban Planning: The Transect Strategy, Journal of Urban Design, 7(3):293-312.
110.Talen, E. (2003), Measuring Urbanism: Issues in Smart Growth Research, Journal of Urban Design, 8(3):195-215.
111.Talen, E. (2005), New Urbanism and American Planning, The Conflict of Cultures, New York: Routledge.
112.Talen, E. (2006), Design for Diversity: Evaluating the Context of Socially Mixed Neighbourhoods, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 11. No. 1, 1–32.
113.Tibbalds, F. (1984) Urban design—who needs it? Places, 1(3), p. 22-25.
114.The Landscape Institute (2002), Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, London: spon Press.
115.Thomas, R. (2003), Sustainable Urban Design, An Environmental Approach, London: spon Press.
116.Trancik, R. (1986), Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
117.ULI (2001), Urban Infill Housing - Myth and Fact, Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
118.Urban Redevelopment Authority (2006), Conservation Guidelines, Singapore : Urban Redevelopment Authority.
119.Verburg, P. H. et al. (2004), Determinants of land-use change patterns in the Netherlands, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, volume 31, pages 125-150.
120.Waldheim, C. (2006), The Landscape Urbanism Reader, New York : Princeton Architectural Press.
121.Wansborough, M., Maggean, A. (2000), The Role of Urban Design in Cultural Regeneration, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 5, No. 2, 181-197.
122.Weaver, R.C. (1985), The First Twenty Years of HUD, Journal of the American Planning Association, 51(4).
123.While, A. (2006), Modernism vs Urban Renaissance: Negotiating Post-war Heritage in English City Centres, Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 13, 2399–2419.
124.Whitehand, J.W.R. (1992), The Making of the Urban Landscape, Oxford : Blackwell.
125.World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
126.Yeh, A. Gar-On, Ng. M.K. (2000), Planning for a Better Urban Living Environment in Asia, Ashgate.

官方網頁
1.Department of Environment in UK.
http://www.doeni.gov.uk/ (June 4, 2008).
2.DPZ & Company (2008), SmartCode v9 and Manual.
http://smartcodecentral.org/ (June 4, 2008).
3.English Partnership.
http://www.englishpartnerships.co.uk/gmv.htm. (June 4, 2008).
4.Indicators of Sustainable Community, Sustainable Seattle-ecology, economy and community. http://www.sustainableseattle.org/Programs/RegionalIndicators/ (June 2, 2008).
5.Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, Urban Village Element.
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/static/Urban%20Village%20element_LatestReleased_DPDP016169.pdf (June 2, 2008).
6.Smart Growth Network (2006), This is Smart Growth. http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/default.asp (June 3, 2008).
7.Smart Growth Policy in Austin, Texas.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/news/smartgrowthmap.htm (June 3, 2008).
8.The London Docklands Development Corporation History Pages. http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/index.html. (June 4, 2008).
9.The City of Miami (2008), Final Draft Code, Miami21, your city, your plan. (June 4, 2008) http://www.miami21.org/index.asp (June 4, 2008).
10.The City of San Diego (1992), Final City Heights Redevelopment plan.
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/cityhts.shtml (May 23, 2008).
11.The City of San Diego General Plan—ME-E.6, Mobility Element. http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/adoptedmobilityelemfv.pdf (May 23, 2008).
12.The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/ (June 4, 2008)
13.Urban Design Forum in Australia.http://www.udf.org.au/
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top