:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:邁向生態城市規劃與治理之比較研究
作者:李得全
作者(外文):Li, Te-Chuan
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:都市計劃研究所
指導教授:周志龍
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2015
主題關鍵詞:生態城市都市治理比較研究Eco-cityUrban GovernanceComparative Study
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(2) 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:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:70
邁向生態城市規劃與治理之比較研究
城市占地球的面積不及2%,卻排放2/3以上的溫室氣體以及超過70%的二氧化碳,城市是解決全球暖化與環境變遷的關鍵。自2005年以來,生態城市已逐漸成為全世界城市規劃與發展的主流,目前也已有相當多生態城市實踐的國際案例介紹與比較,然而目前仍缺乏一個具解釋性的分析比較架構,來解開為什麼有些城市在邁向生態城市過程中能比其他城市更成功?
本研究提出邁向生態城市的「研究假說」:認為邁向生態城市的成效是從生態城市的觀念開始,透過行動者規劃與治理的實踐過程,來持續累積其成效以及反饋其觀念、規劃與治理,形成一種社會網絡動態循環的互動過程;也提出一個整合程序性治理邏輯與參與式治理途徑的治理網絡之「分析架構」,並透過國內外多重個案之交叉檢證的實證比較研究與跨尺度網絡治理的分析歸納與推論,來探究生態城市治理成功的關鍵。
本研究從瑞典首都斯德哥爾摩與台北的跨國比較與國內台北、新北、基隆與高雄四市生態城市規劃與治理的比較研究發現:管理主義之治理模式最能呈現治理成效,但民粹主義之治理模式則有成效欠佳之情形。此外,透過實證結果證實本「研究假說」大致成立,而「分析架構」也確實有助於理解治理成效、治理邏輯與治理途徑三者之間的互動關係,以及邁向生態城市「善治」的特色與原因。再者,此「分析架構」也對於如何促成更好的城市治理實務,提供一個更全面的自我學習途徑,因為這個“分析架構”是一個互動的網絡,一種收納、分析和學習外部資源的開放系統,它不僅可以被用來作為加速凝聚生態城市治理的集體共識,如同一種社會創新的“學習架構”,同時它也可以作為實踐生態城市治理策略的“規劃架構”,也可被用於其他面向的治理,成為一種邁向善治的“治理架構”。
本研究結果認為:「生態城市應該是一種人類與環境共生的群聚,一種環境文明引領物質文明的轉變,一種邁向經濟活絡、社會和諧、環境永續、具有在地特色、健康的都市生態系統與生活方式」;而「邁向生態城市治理則是從全球在地化的生態城市觀念到實踐極具艱困挑戰的整體過程,是藉由行動者在複雜的政治經濟社會脈絡中彼此交互作用的過程,是鑲嵌於特定且動態變遷的時空環境中」。
本論文的貢獻在於從實證研究的基礎得以驗證生態城市治理實務的研究假說與分析架構,並提出「邁向成功的生態城市治理之理論架構」,首先,須建構整合程序性治理邏輯與參與式治理途徑的治理架構;其次,應從垂直與水平治理角度研擬跨尺度與網絡的治理策略;第三,治理策略應強化治理計畫(事)與治理網絡(人)與社會實踐聯結的強度;最後透過持續反饋檢討機制及動態調整治理觀念、治理架構與治理策略來提升治理成效形塑適宜的治理模式。
最後從政策意涵之研究發現,也分別從台灣國家尺度、台北都會尺度以及台北都市尺度邁向生態城市規劃與治理的主要課題與對策提出共計17項之建議,並總結指出台灣邁向生態城市之“規劃”應特別增強規劃與社會實踐的聯結強度,而邁向生態城市之“治理”則建議應採全方為的途徑來邁向經濟活絡、社會和諧、環境永續、具有在地特色的健康都市生態系統及生活方式。
TOWARD ECO-CITY PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE:A MULTI-SCALAR EMPIRICAL COMPARATIVE STUDY
Urban areas account for less than 2 percent of the surface of the Earth, but more than two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions and more than 70% of carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, the city is the key to solving the problems of global warming and environmental change. Since 2005, the eco-city has gradually become a mainstream feature of the world's urban planning and development, and a considerable number of eco-cities around the world have been compared. However, a comparative analysis within an interpretive framework that reveals why some eco-cities are more successful than others is still lacking.
This study puts forth a "research hypothesis" that the move toward an effective eco-cities proceeds from the concept of an ecological city, through planning and governance practices within a dynamic process of social actors’ interactive networks; and an "analytical framework" of governance network which integrates ‘itinerant governance logic’ and ‘participatory governance approach’. This comparative study explores the key factors of successful eco-city governance by comparing domestic and international cases with empirical investigation and by analyzing inductive inferences within cross-scales (from global to local) networks governance.
These comparative cases of Stockholm city in Sweden and Taipei city, New Taipei city, Keelung city and Kaohsiung city in Taiwan reveal that the managerial governance model that best captures the effectiveness of governance but the populist governance model that worst captures the effectiveness of governance. Additionally, this study verifies the "research hypothesis" empirically and the "analytical framework" helps to elucidate the interactions among the governance logic, governance approach and governance effectiveness, as well as the characteristics and causes of "good governance" of an eco-city. Furthermore, the "analytical framework" provides a more comprehensive approach for actors self-learning to improve urban governance practices, because the "analytical framework" is an interactive network and an open system that help actors absorb, analyze and learn external resources. This "analytical framework" can be used to accelerate collective consensus of eco-city governance as a "learning framework" of social innovation, and act as a "planning framework" for the implementation of the strategy of eco-city governance. Moreover, it can be used as a "governance framework" to facilitate good governance in terms of other aspects.
The results of the study are summarized as follows. An eco-city should be the basic cluster in which humans coexist with the environment leading by environmental civilization to transform material civilization in pursuit of economic activation, social harmony and environmental sustainability with local characteristics, urban ecosystem and healthy lifestyle. Toward eco-city governance is a complete process with desperate challenges from the concept to the practice of glocalization, which is embedded in a specific, dynamic and spatio-temporal environment by actors’ interactive process within a complex political, economic and social context.
This dissertation contributes empirical research that confirms a research hypotheses and analytical framework for realizing in practices of eco-city governance. This study proposes a theoretical framework for the successful eco-city governance and argues that first, an integrated governance framework of itinerant logic and participatory approaches of governance must be constructed; secondly, the vertical and horizontal governance strategies across scales and networks must be developed; thirdly, governance strategies should strengthen the connections of governance plans (things) and governance networks (actors) with social practices; finally, it should build up a continuously review mechanism of dynamic adjustment and feedback concepts, framework and strategies of eco-city governance in order to enhance the effectiveness of governance as a fit model.
Finally, the policy implications of the research findings include a total of 17 recommendations concerning the main issues that must be considered in eco-city planning and governance in Taiwan and in Taipei based on the national, metropolitan and city scales in Taiwan. The conclusions of this study indicate that the "planning" of an eco-city must focus on strengthening ties between planning and social practice, and the "governance" of an eco-city should take a holistic approach toward economic activation, social harmony and environmental sustainability with local characteristics within a healthy urban ecosystem and lifestyle.
參考文獻
1.中華民國都市計劃學會(2010),「建立台北市永續發展評量機制規劃」,台北市政府都市發展局。
2.马道明(2008),「城市的理性-生态城市调控」,南京:东南大学出版社。
3.王志宏、徐苔玲譯(2007),「遇見都市理論與經驗」,台北:學群出版。
4.王如松(1991),走向生態城---城市生態學及其發展策略,「都市與計劃」,第18卷第1期。
5.王如松等(2004),「城市生態服務」,北京:氣象出版社。
6.王劭方譯(1993),「美國都市建築--都市設計的觸媒」,台北:創興出版社。
7.王振寰(1996),「誰統治台灣?轉型中的國家機器與權力結構」,台北:巨流。
8.王瑞香譯(2000),「生態學:科學與社會之間的橋樑」,台北:國立編譯館。
9.王鴻楷(1999),「台北市主要計畫通盤檢討綠色生態城市規劃」,台北市政府都市發展局。
10.王鴻楷(2003),「台灣都會區治理體制之可行性研究」,內政部營建署市鄉規劃局。
11.生物多样性公约秘书处(2010),「全球生物多样性展望」,第三版,蒙特利尔。
12.禾拓規劃設計顧問有限公司(2010),「台北都會區綠色基盤綱要計畫」,台北市政府都市發展局。
13.禾拓規劃設計顧問有限公司(2012),「因應全球暖化及氣候異常研擬淡水河流域都市發展與流域防災整合」,台北市政府都市發展局。
14.台灣省建設廳(1965),「台北基隆都會區計劃」。
15.呂育誠(2007),「地方政府治理概念與落實途徑之研究」,台北:元照出版公司。
16.呂育誠(2010),建構與營造新北市的組織治理體制,「新北市發展願景學術研討會論文集」,台北縣政府,第21-35頁。
17.何友鋒(2009),「生態都市規劃技術及實例比較研究」,內政部建築研究所。
18.何榮幸等(2014a),2014《天下》縣市安全大調查,「天下雜誌」,第555期,第82-92頁。
19.何榮幸等(2014b),2014 《天下》縣市長施政滿意度排行,「天下雜誌」,第555期,第94-102頁。
20.李玉生、何友鋒(2008),「都市設計結合生態城市概念之研究」,內政部建築研究所。
21.李玉生、王小璘(2009),「生態城市都市設計準則應用之研究」,內政部建築研究所。
22.李永展(2000),「都市指標系統對衡量台北市永續發展之適用性及評估手冊研擬」,台北市政府都市發展局。
23.李永展、藍逸之、莊翰華(2005),全球經濟變遷、發展型國家與台灣城鄉規劃之重探:都市企業主義適用性的地理探查及其治理危機,「地理學報」,第40期,第1-29頁。new window
24.李長晏(2009),「台灣都會治理之研究」,行政院研究發展考核委員會。
25.李長晏(2011),「區域發展與跨域治理先期規劃」,行政院研究發展考核委員會。
26.李彥頤(2009),「高雄市永續城市綠建築社區改造暨環境退燒技術研究」,高雄市政府都市發展局。
27.李彥頤(2011),「生態城市綠建築推動方案執行程效評估研究」,內政部建築研究所。
28.李得全(2010),生態從城市做起:論都市規劃設計與環境控制,「城鄉季刊」,第7期,第18-27頁。
29.李得全、周志龍(2012),全球化、後現代之都市設計與空間再結構:台北市信義計畫30年之回顧與展望,「建築學報」第81期,125~150頁。new window
30.吳英明、張琪祿(2005),「全球化下的公共管理」,台北:商鼎文化。
31.吳挺鋒(2013),2013《天下》幸福城市大調查,「天下雜誌」,第531期,第70-76頁。
32.吳珮瑛(2012) 氣候變遷對城市的經濟影響--對台灣城市的啟示,「台灣國際研究季刊」,第8卷,第4期,第131-160。
33.吳剛立(2009),「永續生態社區規劃設計的理論與實踐」,台北:詹氏書局。
34.吳德賢(2010),「基隆市生態城市整體發展綱要計畫」,基隆市政府。
35.吳德賢(2011),「100年度基隆市環境景觀總顧問暨生態城市推動計畫」,基隆市政府。
36.宋興洲(2007),地方治理的迷思,收錄於陳陽德、紀俊臣主編,「地方民主與治理:陳陽德教授榮退紀念論文集」。台北:時英。
37.沈宗瑞等譯(2001),「全球化大轉變:全球化對政治、經濟與文化的衝擊」Held, D. et al.著 (Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture),台北:韋伯文化出版。
38.沈春木(2010),「老子環境倫理思想」,林慶彰主編,「中國學術思想研究輯刊」,十篇第六冊,台北:花木蘭文化出版社。
39.林水波、李長晏(2005),「跨域治理」,台北:五南。new window
40.林玉華(2008),永續發展所需的制度改革-以歐盟治理改革為例,「人文與社會學報」,第2卷,第1期, 第35-65頁。。
41.林建元(2011),「三大城市區域與七大發展區域生活圈跨域合作」,內政部營建署城鄉分署。
42.林浚懋(2010),「我國地方政府治理的困境與挑戰:批判性的思考」,東海大學政治系碩士論文。
43.林倖妃(2014),暗夜過後 城市治理的必要,「天下雜誌」,第553期,第88-92頁。
44.林憲德等(2010),「生態社區解說與評估手冊」,內政部建築研究所。
45.金家禾(2003),臺北產業結構變遷與其世界城市功能發展之限制,「地理學報」,第34期:19-39。
46.金經元譯(2000),「明日的田園城市」,北京:商務印書館。
47.周志龍(2003a),後工業臺北多核心的空間結構化及其治理政治學,「地理學報」,第34期:1-18。
48.周志龍(2003b),「全球化、台灣國土再結構與制度」,台北:詹氏書局。
49.周志龍(2004),台灣新都市主義與都市規劃的挑戰,「都市與計劃」,第31卷,第3期,第195-213頁。
50.周志龍(2014),大都會城市區域崛起與全球化台灣的多尺度治理挑戰,「人文與社會科學簡訊」,第15卷,第2期,第67-77。
51.周素卿、吳幸玲、江尚書(2009),後工業化台北與新自由主義都市政治,「中國地理學會會刊」,第43期:15-32。new window
52.尚榮安譯(2001),「個案研究法」,台北:弘智文化。
53.施植明譯(1996),「雅典憲章」,台北:田園城市文化公司。
54.施鴻志(2001),「環境規劃」,新竹市:建都文化事業股份有限公司。
55.施鴻志(2009) ,「生態城市都市設計操作手冊之研究」,內政部營建署。
56.施鴻志(2010a),「高雄市生態都會綱要計畫」,高雄市政府都市發展局。
57.施鴻志(2010b) ,「生態城鄉規劃與更新策略工作坊」,內政部營建署。
58.施鴻志(2012),「研擬台灣生態城市規劃及治理策略」,行政院經濟建設委員會。
59.柳中明(2004),「研擬台北市永續發展策略計畫」,台北市政府都市發展局。
60.胡家綺(2008),「以共生觀點探討台北市生態都市發展原則」,國立台北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文。
61.胡幼慧主編(1996),「質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例」,台北:巨流。
62.胡寶林(1998),「都市生活的希望」,台北市:台灣書店。
63.孫同文、張力亞(2008),臺灣地方制度變遷下地方發展趨勢:創能型治理的觀點,《研習論壇》,第91期, 第15-27頁。
64.孫智綺譯(2002),「防火牆:抵擋新自由主義的入侵」,台北:麥田出版城邦文化。
65.徐仁輝、鄭敏惠(2011),新六都時代地方財政的挑戰與展望,「研考月刊」,第35卷,第6期,第57-70頁。
66.原成國際工程規劃有限公司(2009),「台北市未來30年都市發展願景綱要計畫-生態都市發展策略與行動方案」,台北市政府都市發展局。
67.高敬文(2002),「質化研究方法論」,台北市:師大書苑。
68.高淑清、連雅慧、林月琴譯(2004),探究生活經驗-建立敏思行動教育學的人文科學,嘉義:濤石。
69.高雄市政府研考會(2007) ,「高高屏區域治理機制建構之研究-都會發展憲章之探討」。
70.夏鑄九(1990),都市過程,都市政策和參與性的都市設計制度,「建築學報」,第1期:137-152。
71.夏鑄九(2004),「區域合作—以台北縣市為例」,台北市政府研究發展考核委員會。
72.夏鑄九(2007),「北台跨域合作機制規劃之研究」,台北市政府研究發展考核委員會。
73.夏鑄九(2009),中興新村,昨日的明日之城的明天何在?(本文刪節為一千字後,發表在《聯合報》,2009年10月26日)http://ntubpmagazine.blogspot.tw/2009/12/1.html (2014年7月31日)
74.夏鑄九(2011),都會治理區域合作機制的急迫性,台灣經濟論衡,第9卷,第7期:34-37。
75.財團法人國土規劃及不動產資訊中心(2011),「北北基生活圈跨域空間發展整體策略規劃」,台北市政府都市發展局。
76.麻匡復、邊泰明(2006),無須政府的產業群聚?內湖科技園區發展的公共領域與制度變遷,「公共行政學報」,第20期:1-32。new window
77.許家豪譯(2002),「第三條路及其批評」,台北:聯經出版。
78.黃光宇、陳勇(2002),「生態城市理念與規劃設計方法」,科學出版社。
79.黃昭勇(2010) ,我要的不是漂亮的經濟成長率:二十五縣市幸福城市大調查,「天下雜誌」,第454期,第138-144頁。
80.黃書禮(1996),「台北市都市永續發展指標與策略研擬之研究」,台北市政府都市發展局。
81.黃書禮(2004),「都市生態經濟與能量」,台北:詹氏圖書。
82.黃書禮(2012),「台北市氣候變遷調適示範計畫」,行政院經建會。
83.黃崇哲(2014),「地方財政評比指標建置計畫」,393公民平台。https://393citizen.com/local-financial-report/ (2014年9月26日)。
84.黃靖(2014),「縱橫政治學」,台北:志光出版社。
85.黃榮源(2009),英國文官制度改革的彈性化策略:一個歷史制度途徑的分析,文官制度季刊,第1卷,第2期:57-90。
86.開新工程顧問公司(2012),「新北市生態城綜合規劃」,新北市政府環境保護局。 
87.張可婷譯(2010),「焦點團體研究法」,台北:韋伯文化。
88.張亞中主編(2007),「國際關係總論」,台北:楊智出版社。
89.張美惠譯(2014),「城市的未來,應該要是什麼樣子?」,台北:臉譜,城邦文化出版。
90.張隆盛(2002),我國永續發展的問題與挑戰,財團法人國家政策研究基金會。http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION/SD/091/SD-R-091-026.htm (2014年8月17日)。
91.郭肇立(1985),從包浩斯回到我們的家鄉,「從包浩斯到我們的房子-現代建築的來龍去脈」,祝仲華(譯),台北:尚林出版。
92.郭瓊瑩(2003) ,「台北市生態環境都市設計規劃與生態設計準則之研究」,台北市政府都市發展局。
93.郭瓊瑩(2004) 生態城鄉的規劃與設計,「生態工法案例編選集」,行政院公共工程委員會。http://eem.pcc.gov.tw/eemadm/files/product_2/th_15/2.pdf (2014年7月31日)
94.陳東升(1995),「金權城市:地方派系、財團與台北都會發展的社會學分析」,台北:巨流。
95.陳信宏譯(2008),「66億人的共同繁榮—破解擁擠地球的經濟難題」,台北:天下雜誌。
96.陳朝建、張文彥(2007),地方民代配合款的預算政治之研究,「地方自治論述專輯(第三輯)」,第143-163頁,內政部。
97.陳瑞鈴、王小璘(2008),「都市計畫通盤檢討結合生態城市概念之研究」,內政部建築研究所。
98.陳錦賜(2003),四生環境共生規畫法建立與應用模擬研究-以城鄉環境規劃為例,第七屆國土規劃論壇,台南:國立成功大學。
99.馮滬祥(1991),「環境倫理學:中西環保哲學比較研究」,台北:台灣學生書局。
100.彭杏珠(2013),2013《遠見》縣市總體競爭力大調查,「遠見雜誌」,第325期,第176-188頁。
101.彭杏珠(2014),2014《遠見》縣市總體競爭力大調查,「遠見雜誌」,第337期,第80-89頁。
102.彭國翔(2003)《西銘》的萬物一體觀發微——兼論儒家人文主義的基本特徵,「清華哲學年鑒2002」,保定:河北大學出版社北,第164-184頁。www.ncu.edu.tw/~phi/confucian/docs/2003_July_Dec/yc29.doc (2014年8月1日)
103.皓宇工程顧問公司(2011),「落實生態城市理念於新市鎮建設與經營管理策略-以高雄、淡海兩新市鎮為例」,內政部營建署。
104.華昌琳(1998),生態都市之實踐,「永續國土發展講座彙編」,中國文化大學。
105.廖桂賢(2010),生態城市在哪裡?綠雜誌http://blog.yam.com/kueihsienl/article/27094185 ( 2012年3月17日)
106.葉重新(2001),「教育研究法」,台北:心理出版社。
107.葉晉嘉(2008),「台灣城鄉價值變遷及其對都市治理之意涵」,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
108.杨沛儒(2010),「生态城市主义-尺度、流动与设计」,北京:中国建筑工业出版社。
109.楊國樞等(1981),「社會行為科學研究法-上冊」,台北:東華書局。
110.楊慧傑(1978),「朱熹倫理學」,台北:牧童出版社。
111.趙永茂(2004a),臺灣都會治理之建構─地方政府與政治改造之分析,國立臺灣大學政治學系政府與公共事務研究中心,『議題與視野』公共事務論壇Ⅱ:都會區治理,93 年5 月21 日於台大社會科學院第四會議室。
112.趙永茂(2004b),地方議會的角色與轉變─地方政治與政府幾個發展趨勢的因應與調整,「慶祝高雄改制院轄市二十五週年,「民主化‧全球化‧議會角色」學術研討會」,高雄:中山大學政治學研究所與高雄市議會。
113.趙永茂(2007a),台灣地方治理的發展策略與方向,「研習論壇」,第74期,第7-14頁。
114.趙永茂(2007b),台灣都會區治理模式之建構與問題:台北都會區與舊金山、波特蘭都會區之比較分析,「地方自治論述專輯(第三輯)」,第273-309頁,內政部。
115.趙永茂(2007c),從地方治理論臺灣地方政治發展的基本問題,「政治科學論叢」,第31期,第1-18頁。
116.趙永茂、王浩平(2011),提升我國直轄市治理能力之策略:以當前六都治理困局因應為例,「研考雙月刊」,第36卷,第6期,第9-18頁。
117.趙永茂、陳明顯、王浩平(2011),建構都會多元中心治理:反思都師發展不對稱與民主赤字問題,「政治科學論叢」,第49期,第1-32頁。
118.劉光瑩(2014),2014《天下》幸福城市大調查,「天下雜誌」,第555期,第105-110頁。
119.劉坤億(2003),地方治理與地方政府角色職能的轉變,空大行政學報,第13期,第236-268頁。
120.劉坤億(2006),臺灣地方政府間發展夥伴關係之制度障礙與機會,「臺灣民主季刊」,第3卷,第3期:1-34。
121.劉鶴群、林秀雲等譯(2010),「社會科學研究方法」,台北:新加坡商聖智學習。
122.賴世剛譯(2005),「都市發展:制訂計畫的邏輯」,台北:五南圖書公司。
123.賴美蓉(2002),台灣地區建構永續性都市計畫機制之挑戰,「都市計劃的新典範」,林建元(編),台北:詹氏書局。
124.賴明洲、薛怡珍(2005),「台南市生態城市規劃」,台南市政府都市發展局
125.賴奕錚(2003),「以生態城市觀點檢視台灣城市發展之環境課題」,台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
126.賴慈芸譯(1997),「未來城」,台北:時報出版。
127.鄧民生(2002),「台北市垃圾費隨袋徵收政策之研究」,銘傳大學公共管理與社區發展研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文。
128.歐素如譯(1999),「焦點團體:理論與實務」,台北:弘智文化。
129.魏惠娟(2004), 第七章 焦點團體,「質性研究」謝臥龍主編,台北:心理出版社,pp.273-316.
130.顏愛靜等譯(2009),「制度與經濟理論」,台北:五南圖書出版。
131.顧大維(2004),「台灣地區因應生態城市發展之對策架構的探討」,淡江大學建築學系碩士論文。
132.蘇美麗(2005), 從後現代主義論質化研究,「國民教育研究學報」,第14期:57-78。
133.6, P. et al. (2002). Towards holistic governance: the new reform agenda, New York: Palgrave.
134.Ahrend, R. and Schumann A. (2014). Approaches to Metropolitan Area Governance: A Country Overview, OECD Publishing.
135.Ahrend, R. et al. (2014a). The OECD Metropolitan Governance Survey: A Quantitative Description of Governance Structures in large Urban Agglomerations, OECD Publishing.
136.Ahrend, R. et al. (2014b). What Makes Cities More Productive Evidence on the Role of Urban Governance from Five OECD Countries, OECD Publishing.
137.Albrechts, L. (1992). New challenges for urban policy under a flexible regime of accumulation, Landscape and Urban Planning, 22: 189-203.
138.Albrechts, L., (2010). “More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead?” in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37:1115-1127.
139.Armitage, D. (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-level world, International Journal of the Commons, 2: 7–32.
140.Ancien, D. (2010). Global City Theory and the New Urban Politics Twenty Years On: The Case for a Geohistorical Materialist Approach to the (New) Urban Politics of Global Cities, Urban Politics of Global Cities, Urban Studies, 48(12):2473–2493.
141.Beal, V. (2012). Urban governance, sustainability and environmental movements post-democracy in French and British cities, European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(4): 404-419.
142.Beck, U. (1992). From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment, Theory, Culture & Society, 9: 97-123.
143.Beck, U. (1996). World risk society as cosmopolitan society? : Ecological questions in a framework of manufactured uncertainties, Theory, Culture & Society, 13(4): 1-32.
144.Berger, S. and Dore, R. eds. (1996). National Diversity and Global Capitalism, Cornell University Press.
145.Berrini, M. and Bono, L. (2011). Measuring Urban Sustainability Analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 Application Round, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ europeangreencapital/docs/cities/egc_analysis2010-2011.pdf. ( Mar. 9, 2014)
146.BioRegional Development Group and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2008). What makes an eco-town?
147.Boelens, L. (2009). The Urban Connection An actor-relational approach to urban planning, OIO Publishers, Rotterdam.
148.Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
149.Brande, K., (2008). The role of subnational level of government in decision-making for sustainable development A multi-level governance perspective, K.U. Leuven.
150.Brenner, N. (1999a). Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalisation studies, Theory and Society, 28: 39-78.
151.Brenner, N. (1999b). Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union, Urban Studies, 36(3) : 431-451.
152.Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of "actually existing neoliberalism", Antipode, 34 (3): 349-379.
153.Brenner, N. (2003a). Metropolitan Institutional Reform and the Rescaling of Space in Contemporary Western Europe, European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4):297-324.
154.Brenner, N. (2003b). Glocalization as a State Spatial Strategy. In Peck, J. & Yeung, H. W. C. (Eds) Remaking the Global Economy: Economic-Geographical Perspectives, pp. 197-219. SAGE.
155.Brenner, N. (2004a). New State Spaces:Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, New York: Oxford University Press.
156.Brenner, N. (2004b). Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in Western Europe, 1960-2000, Review of International Political Economy, 11(3):447-488.
157.Brenner, N. et al. (2009). Cities for people, not for profit, City, Analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 13 (2-3):176-184.
158.Bromley, D. (1997). Constitutional Political Economy: Property Claims in a Dynamic World in Contemporary Economic Policy, 15(4): 43-54.
159.Büchs, M. (2009). Examining the interaction between vertical and horizontal dimensions of state transformation, Cambridge Journal of Regions and Economy and Society, (2): 35-49.
160.Bulkeley, H. and V. Castán Broto (2012). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3): 361–75.
161.Cairney, P. (2009). Implementation and the Governance Problem: A Pressure Participant Perspective, Public Policy and Administration, 24(4):355- 377.
162.Campbell, E. K. (1983). Beyond anthropocentrism, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 19:54-67.
163.Campbell, S. (1996). Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62:3, 296-312, DOI: 10.1080/01944369608975696
164.Caprotti, F. (2014). Critical research on eco-cities? A walk through the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, China, Cities, 36: 10–17.
165.Castells, M., (1989). The Informational City, Basil Blackwell Ltd.
166.Castells, M. (1977). State, Class and Power, London: MacMillan.
167.Castells, M. (2010). Globalisation, networking, urbanization: reflections on the spatial dynamics of the information age, Urban Studies, 47(13): 2737-2745.
168.Chapin, F. S. et al. (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity, Nature, 405(6783): 234-242.
169.Chien, S. S. (2013). Chinese eco-cities: A perspective of land-speculation-oriented local entrepreneurialism, China Information, 27(2): 173-196
170.Chinese Society for Urban Studies (2011). China low-carbon eco-city development report. China Building Industry Press.
171.Chhotray, V. and Stoker, G. (2009). Governance Theory and Practice, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
172.Christmann, A. et al. (2014). New Regionalism−−Not Too Complex for the Media Watchdog: Media Reporting and Citizens' Perception of Democratic Legitimacy in Four European Metropolitan Areas, Urban Affairs Review, DOI: 10.1177/1078087414549549 http://uar.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/09/25/1078087414549549
173.City of Stockholm (2008). The Stockholm Environment Programme.
174.City of Stockholm (2009). The City of Stockholm’s Climate Initiatives.
175.City of Stockholm (2010). The Walkable City: Stockholm City Plan.
176.City of Stockholm (2012). The Stockholm Environment Programme 2012-2015.
177.Commission of the European Communities (1998). Sustainable urban development in the European Union: a framework for action, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels.
178.Cooke, P. and Wells, P. (1992). Globalization and Its Management in Computing and Communications, In Towards Global Localization: The Computing and Telecommunications Industries in Britain and France, Philip Cooke et al., eds., pp. 61-78. London: UCL Press.
179.Corfee-Morlot, J. et al. (2009). Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance. OECD.
180.Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design, SAGE Publication.
181.Cruz, R.V. et al., (2007). Asia. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 469-506.
182.Cuthbert, A. (1994). Under The Volcano: Postmodern Space in Hong Kong in Postmodern Cities and Spaces (ed.) Wataon S. & Gibson K. Blackwell.
183.Cuthbert, A. (2006). The Form of Cities: political economy and urban design, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
184.Davoudi, S. (2001). Planning and the Twin Discourses of Sustainability, In: Planning for a Sustainable Future, Layard, A., Davoudi, S. and Batty S. (ed.), London: Spon Press.
185.Dear, M. (2000). The postmodern urban condition, Blackwell Publishers.
186.Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), (2007-a). Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change – Supplement to Planning Policy 1.
187.Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), (2007-b). Eco-towns Prospectus
188.Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), (2009). Planning Policy Statement: eco-towns. A supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1.
189.DiGaetano A. and Strom E. (2003). Comparative Urban Governance: An Integrated Approach, Urban Affairs Review. 38(3): 356-396.
190.Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories, Environment and Urbanization 21(1): 185-201.
191.Downton, P. F. (2009). Ecopolis: Architecture and cities for a Changing Climate, Springer.
192.Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2009). European Green City Index: Assessing the Environmental Impact of Europe’s Major Cities, Munich: Siemens.
193.Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) (2011). Asian Green City Index: Assessing the Environmental Performance of Asia’s Major Cities, Munich: Siemens.
194.European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) (2007). Energy [r]evolution-A sustainable world energy outlook.
195.Evans, J. and Karvonen, A. (2014). Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!-Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low‐Carbon Futures, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2): 413–30.
196.Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the Environment, Duke University Press.
197.Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in The Public Domain: From Knowledge To Action, Princeton University Press.
198.Friedman, J. (2003). Governance Discourse in Western Democraies: the case of City-Regions, 吳比娜譯,西方民主國家的治理論述:城市-區域案例,「都市與設計學報」,第15/16期,第21-30頁。new window
199.Friedmann, J. (2005). “Planning cultures in transition”. in Sanyal, B.,Comparative Planning Cultures, New York: Routledge, 29-44.
200.Gaffron, F. et al. (2005). Ecocity Book 1:A better place to live, Vienna: Facultas Verlage-und Buchhandels AG.
201.Gaffron, F. et al. (2008). Ecocity Book 2:How To Make It Happen, Vienna: Facultas Verlage-und Buchhandels AG.
202.Gaffney, A. et al. (2007). Hammarby Sjostad Stockholm, Sweden: A Case Study. CP 249 Urban Design in Planning, University of California Berkeley.
203.Galland, D. (2012). Is regional planning dead or just coping? The transformation of a state socio-spatial project into growth-oriented strategies, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), pp. 536–552.
204.Glaeser, E. (2011). TRIUMPH OF THE CITY, Macmillan Publishers Limited.
205.Global Environment Centre Foundation (GEC) (2005). Eco-Towns in Japan.
206.Gissendanner, S. (2004). Mayors, Goveernance Coalitions, and Strategic Capacity: Drawing Lessons from Germany for Theories of Urban Goovernance, Urban Affairs Review 40(1):44-77.
207.Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78(63):1360-1380.
208.Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91(3):481-510.
209.Grimm, N., et al. (2008). Global Change and the Ecology of Cities, Science 319: 756-760.
210.Grubler, A., (1994). Technology. In: Meyer, W.B., Turner, B.L. II (Eds.), Changes in Land Use and Land Cover: A Global Perspective (pp. 287-328) Cambridge: Univ. of Cambridge Press.
211.Hall, P. (2001). Global City-Regions in the Twenty-first Century, In: Global City-Regions Trends, Theory, Policy, Scott, A. J.(eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 59-77.
212.Hall, P. (2002). Planning: millennial retrospect and prospect, Progress in Planning, 57: 263-284.
213.Hall, P. (2009). Looking Backward, Looking Forward: The City Region of the Mid-21st Century, Regional Studies, 43(6), pp.803- 817.
214.Hall, P. and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2011). Urban and Regional Planning, Abingdon, Routledge.
215.Happaerts, S., (2009). “The Use of Comparative Analyses for Sustainable Development”, Institute for International and European Policy, K.U.Leunen.
216.Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons, Science, 162:1243-1248.
217.Harvey, D. (1985). The Urbanisation of Capital. London: Gage Bors.
218.Harvey, D. (1989-a). The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
219.Harvey, D. (1989-b). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism, Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 71 (1): 3-17.
220.Harvey D. (1992). The Condition of Postmodernity in The Post-Modern Reader Jencks C. (ed.), pp.299-316, Academy Editions, London.
221.Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., Counsell, D., & Vigar, G. (2010). The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management With Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries, Oxon: Routledge.
222.Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective, Planning Theory, 2(2): 101-123.
223.Heinrich, C. J. et al. (2004). Governance as an Organizing Theme for Empirical Research, In: The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration, Ingraham, P. W. et al. (ed.), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 3-19.
224.Hendriks, F. (2013). Understanding Good Urban Governance Essentials, Shifts, and Values. Urban Affairs Review, 1-24.
225.Hezri, A. A. and Dovers, S. R. (2006). Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics, Ecological Economics, 60: 96-99.
226.Hodson, M. and Marvin, S. (2009). ‘Urban Ecological Security’ : A New Urban Paradigm? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Vol. 33.1:193-215
227.Homes & Communities Academy (2009). Eco-Town Report Learning from Europe on eco-towns.
228.Innes, J. and Booher, D. (2000). Public Participation in Planning: New Strategies for the 21st Century. University of California, Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.
229.ISO 14001 (2004). Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31807 (Jul. 27, 2013).
230.Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities, London: Penguin Books
231.Jencks, C. (1984). The language of post-modern architecture, Academy Editions, London.
232.Jencks, C. (1987). What is Post-Modernism?. London, UK: Academy Editions.
233.Jessop, B. (1997). A neo-Gramscian approach to the regulation of urban regimes: accumulation strategies, hegemonic projects, and governance In Edited by Lauria, M. Reconstructing Regime Theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy. London: Sage.
234.Jessop B. (1998). The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: the Case of Economic Development International Social Science Journal 50(155):29-45
235.Jessop, B. (2000). The crisis of the national spatiotemporal fix and the ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies, 24(2):323-360.
236.Jessop, B. and Sum, N-L. (2000). An entrepreneurial city in action: Hong Kong’s emerging strategies in and for (inter) urban competition, Urban Studies 37(12) : 2287-2313.
237.Joss, S., (2010a). Eco-cities - a global survey 2009, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 129: 239-250.
238.Joss, S., (2010b). Accountable governance, accountable sustainability: A case study of accountability in Governance for sustainability, Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(6): 408–421.
239.Joss, S. (2011a). Eco-cities: The mainstreaming of urban sustainability - key characteristics and driving, International Journal of Sustainable Development Planning, 6(3): 268-285.
240.Joss, S. (2011b). Eco-City Governance: A Case Study of Treasure Island and Sonoma Mountain Village, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 134, 331-348.
241.Joss, S. et al. (2013a). From The Guest Editors, Special Issue: Eco-Cities in Pan-Asia: International Discourses, Local Practices, Journal of Urban Technology, 20(1): 1-5.
242.Joss, S. et al. (2013b). Towards the ‘ubiquitous eco-city’: An analysis of the internationalization of eco-city policy and practice, Urban Research & Practice, 6(1): 54-74.
243.Judith Innes and David Booher (2002). Metroplitan development as a complex system: a new approach to sustainability In Madanipour A., et al. (Eds.), The Governance of Place (pp.239-264) England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
244.Kenworthy, J. (2006). The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development, Environment and Urbanization, 18(1): 67-85.
245.Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
246.Kokx, A. and Kempen, R., (2010). “Dutch urban governance: Multi-level or multi-scarlar?” European Urban and Regional Studies:17(4) 355-369.
247.Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal Governance: Levels, Modes and Orders of Social-Political Interaction, In Pierre, J. (Eds.), Debating Governance (pp.136-164), New York: Oxford University Press.
248.Lachapelle, P. R., McCool, S. F. and Patterson, M. E. (2003). Barriers to Effective Natural Resource Planning in a Messy World, Society and Natural Resources, 16: 473-490.
249.Leferbvre H. (1990). The production of space. London, Blackwell.
250.Le Gales, P. (1998). Regulations and governance in European cities, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22: 482-506.
251.Lehmann, S. (2010). the principles of green urbanism. London: Earthscan.
252.Le Treut, H. et al. (2007). Historical Overview of Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report.
253.Liu, H. et al. (2014). Analysis of sustainable urban development approaches in China, Habitat International, 41: 24-32.
254.Lye, L. F. and Chen, G. (2010). Towards a livable and sustainable urban environment: Eco-cities in East Asia, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
255.Martindale, D. and Neuwirth, G. (Trans. And Ed.) (1958). The City by Max Weber, New York: The Free Press.
256.Moore, S. and Bunce, S. (2009). Delivering sustainable buildings and communities: eclipsing social concerns through private sector-led urban regeneration and development, Local Environment, Vol. 14, No. 7, 601-606.
257.Nan, S. and Gossop, C. (2012). Fast Forward: City Planning in a Hyper Dynamic Age. ISOCARP Review 08.
258.Næss, P. (2001). Urban Planning and Sustainable Development, European Planning Studies, 9(4):503--524.
259.Neuman, M., (1998-a). Does Planning Need the Plan? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64:208-220.
260.Neuman, M., (1998-b). “Planning, Governing, and the Image of the City”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18:61-71.
261.Neuman, M. (2005). Multi-scalar Large Institutional Networks in Regional Planning, Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning Texas A&M University.
262.Newig, J. & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental Governance, Multi-Level -- and Effective? Environmental Policy and Governance vol. 19: 197-214
263.Odum, E. P. (1997). Ecology: A bridge between Science and Society. Sinauer Associates Publishers, Sunderland, Mass., USA.
264.Ohmae, K. (1990). Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. London: Collins.
265.O’Leary, Z. (2004). Developing Your Research Question, The Essential Guide To Doing Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp.28-41.
266.Osborn, F. J. (ed.) (1946). Garden Cities of To-morrow, Oxford: Alden Press.
267.O'Sullivan, B. et al. (2014). Scale, Governance, Urban Form and Landscape: Exploring the Scope for an Integrated Approach to Metropolitan Spatial Planning, Planning Practice & Research, 29(3), 302-316.
268.Paasi, A. (2010). “Commentary: regions are social constructs, but who or what ‘constructs’ them? Agency in question.” Environment and Planning A 42: 2296-2301.
269.Pavey, J. L., Muth, A. B., Ostermeier, D. & Davis, M. L. E. (2007). “Building Capacity for Local Governance: An Application of Interactional Theory to Developing a Community of Interest”, Rural Sociology, 72(1), pp.90- 110.
270.Peters B. G. (2002). Governance: A Garbage Can Perspective, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna.
271.Peters, G. & Pierre, J. (2006). Governance, Government and the State, in C. Hay, M. Lister, & D. Marsh, eds., The State: Theories and Issues, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
272.Pierre, J. (1999). Models of Urban Governance : The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics, Urban Affairs Review 34: 372-396.
273.Pierre, J. (2011). The Politics of Urban Governance, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
274.Pow, C. P. & Neo, H. (2013). Seeing Red Over Green Contesting Urban Sustainabilities in China, Urban Studies, 50(11): 2256–2274.
275.PRP Architects Ltd (2008). Beyond Eco-towns Applying the Lessons from Europe Report and Conclusions.
276.Raco, M. (2007). Building sustainable communities. Bristol: Policy
277.Rainey, H. G. and Ryu, J. E. (2004). Framing High Performance and Innovativeness in Governance, In: The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration, Ingraham and Lynn, L. E. (ed.), Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 20-45.
278.Reed, M. G. and Bruyneel, S. (2010). Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: A three-dimensional review, Progress in Human Geography, 24(5): 646-653.
279.Register, R. (1987). Ecocity Berkeley: building cities for a healthy future, Berkeley, Calif. :North Atlantic Books
280.Relph, E. (1987). The modern urban landscape. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
281.Renn, O. and Klinke, A. (2014). Risk governance Application to urban planning, ITU A|Z, 11(1): 5-19.
282.Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political studies 44: 652-667.
283.Richardson, T. et al. (2010). Changing Frames of Mobility through Radical Policy Interventions The Stockholm Congestion Tax, International Planning Studies, 15(1):53-67.
284.Rosa, F.J.U. (2011). Trans-African identity: Cultural globalization and the role of the symbolic-aesthetic dimension in the present identity construction processes, African Journal of History and Culture, 3(8):128–134.
285.Roseland, M., (1997). “Dimensions of the eco-city”, Cities, 14(4), pp.197-202.
286.Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
287.Sathaye, J. et. al. (2007). Sustainable Development and Mitigation. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 691-743.
288.Satterthwaite, D. et al. (2009). Chapter 1: Adapting to climate change in urban areas: the possibilities and constraints in low- and middle-income nations, in Adapting Cities to Climate Change: Understanding and Addressing the Development Challenges. London: Cromwell Press Group.
289.Satterthwaite, D. (2010). The contribution of cities to global warming and their potential contributions to solutions, Environment and Urbanization ASIA 1(1): 1-12.
290.Seto, K. C. et. al. (2010). The new geography of urbanization and the environment, Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 4.1-4.28.
291.Seymoar N. et. al. (2010). Empowering residents and improving governance in low income communities through urban greening. International journal of agricultural sustainability, 8(1&2), 26-39.
292.Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy, Antipode, 34 (3): 427-450.
293.Spillemaeckers, S. and Bachus, K., (2010). Governance models for sustainable development: comparative analysis, K.U. Leuven
294.Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions, UNESCO, Blackwell.
295.Storper, M. (1997). The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy, New York: Guilford Press.
296.Svane, Örjan et. al. (2011). Compromise and learning when negotiating sustainabilities the brownfield development of Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 3(2):141-155.
297.Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F. and Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large-scale urban development projects and the New Urban Policy, Antipode, 34 (3): 547-582.
298.TCG (2008). The Omnibus Achievement of Taipei City Government's Sustainable Development.
299.TCG (2012). Taipei City Long-term Development Guideline.
300.The World Bank (2010). Eco2 Cities Ecological Cities as Economic Cities.
301.Tickell, A. and Peck, J. (2003). Making global rules: globalisation or neoliberalisation? In: Peck, J. and Yeung, H.(eds.) Remaking the Global Economy, London: Sage, 163-182.
302.Tomozeiu, D. and Joss, S. (2014). Adapting adaptation: the English eco-town initiative as governance process, Ecology and Society 19(2): 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06411-190220, (Mar. 17, 2014)
303.United Nations (1987). Our Common Future.
304.UN-Habitat, (2009a). Good Urban Governance: Towards an Effective Private Sector Engagement.
305.UN-Habitat, (2009b). Planning Sustainable Cities, Earthscan.
306.Voß, J. P., Bauknecht, D. and Kemp, R. (2006). Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
307.Ward, N. & Brown, D. L.(2009). “ Placing the Rural in Regional Development”, Regional Studies, 43(10), pp.1237- 1244.
308.Wheeler, S. M. (2004). Planning for Sustainability, Abingdon: Routledge.
309.Wilbanks, T.J. et. al., (2007). Industry, settlement and society. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 357-390.
310.Williams, K., Burton, E. & Jenks, M. (Eds) (2000). Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, London: Spon Press.
311.Wong, T. C. & Yuen, B. (2011). Eco-city Planning Policies Practice and Design, Springer.
312.Zeij-Rozema A. van, et al. (2008). Governance for Sustainable:A Framework, Sustainable Development 16:410-421
313.Zhou, N. and Williams, C. (2013). An International Review of Eco-City Theory, Indicators, and Case Studies. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE