民眾居住環境影響因素之研究－居住滿意度、社宅興建贊成度、社宅弱勢保障比率_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	民眾居住環境影響因素之研究－居住滿意度、社宅興建贊成度、社宅弱勢保障比率
作者：	陳冠儒
作者(外文)：	CHEN,KUAN-JU
校院名稱：	國立臺北大學
系所名稱：	不動產與城鄉環境學系
指導教授：	彭建文
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2021
主題關鍵詞：	居住環境評價；居住滿意度；社會住宅態度；次序邏輯斯模型；社區意識；Residential environment evaluations；Residential satisfaction；Attitude towards social housing；Ordered logistic regression；Community awareness
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:0

提供民眾“可負擔且好品質的居住環境”應是一個國家住宅政策最重要的目標，國內在整體居住環境面臨高房價、建築物及設備老舊、住宅無障礙環境不佳等狀況，而在弱勢居住環境上，弱勢家戶面臨不易在住宅市場租賃到合適居住空間，亟需由政府協助民眾居住在可負擔的住宅、創造公平的租、購屋機會及協助提供合適、便利的居住環境。
本研究透過回顧環境心理學，建構居住環境評價轉換環境認知與行為模式。首先，考量民眾對於居住環境在個人或公共領域的次序偏好相異，對於整體居住環境或弱勢居住環境的認知亦不相同，以環境心理學理論基礎，探討民眾居住經驗與居住環境彼此間的關係。其次，透過環境評價將環境態度轉變個人自身因素，運用「104年住宅狀況抽樣調查」資料，針對住宅使用人中的家計負責人，以次序邏輯斯模型、邊際效應進行分析，探討民眾居住經驗與居住環境間的關係與環境評價。再者，透過環境使用者評估對住宅環境的需求、生活的品質與滿意度，以及對社會住宅態度，瞭解民眾對於居住環境的認知與反應，以及民眾如何解讀所居住的環境。最後，提出健全住宅環境與社會網絡建議，使民眾產生毗鄰認同感，以及建立社區意識，透過良性的回饋，改善並健全整體居住環境。
第四章「民眾居住滿意度之影響因素」，該篇文章將居住滿意度區分為住宅滿意度與鄰里環境滿意度兩部分，實證顯示鄰里環境特徵對於居住滿意度的影響會大於住宅本身特徵，其中環境美化與管理維護滿意度、視野景觀滿意度是最重要的鄰里環境特徵。其次，建物是否為住宅專用、住宅類型、以及屋齡對居住滿意度有重要影響。第三、每人使用面積、房數、廳數、衛浴數、有冷氣空調、以及節能設施的種類數愈多會提高住宅滿意度。第四、住宅為自有、主要家計負責人的年齡愈大、平均每月經常性總收入愈高、以及近五年內有搬遷會提高住宅滿意度，但家庭屬性對於鄰里環境滿意度均無顯著影響。最後，無論是住宅或是鄰里環境滿意度，六直轄市均較非六直轄市為低，且鄰里環境滿意度較住宅滿意度更低，未來政府要提升民眾的居住滿意度應充分考量上述影響因素與地區差異。
第五章「民眾對社會住宅興建態度之影響因素」，實證發現，房屋所有權和有一個未滿18歲的孩子的家庭是兩個最有影響力的變項，它們對興辦社會住宅產生重大負面影響。無自有住宅家戶、家中有身心障礙者更支持社會住宅。其次，當社區屬於發展強度較強的住宅大樓時，居民對社會住宅的興建表示更高的認同度。第三，人們對居住環境的滿意對社會住宅的興建產生積極影響。最後，都市化程度較高的城市，民眾對於社會住宅的贊成度會較高，但是，位於都會區周邊城市的居民對於社會住宅的支持度較低。研究結果顯示民眾對於社會住宅興建態度有明顯的地區差異。
第六章「民眾對社會住宅弱勢保障比率之影響因素」，實證發現，擁有自用住宅、教育程度較高、年紀較長對社宅弱勢保障比率有顯著負向影響，無自有住宅家戶、家中有身心障礙者較支持提高比率。其次，家戶5年內有搬遷、民眾贊成興建及有意願申請社宅時有顯著正向影響。第三，附近環境美化與管理維護滿意度對提高比率亦顯著正向影響，但鄰里環境中不同設施有不同影響效果。最後，都市化較高城市居民支持提高比率但周邊城市居民支持度較低，顯示亦存在明顯地區差異。
本研究成果有助於瞭解民眾對整體居住環境及弱勢居住環境的關係，作為住宅及衛生福利單位制定住宅或社會福利政策參考。為讓民眾更關心自己的居住環境並願意讓弱勢居住環境獲得改善，建議政策制定應考量民眾居住滿意度、住宅政策與社會住宅推動關聯性等，並使房價回歸合理與健全租賃市場，以有效解決高房價、弱勢居住環境等社會問題。

以文找文

Providing people with an “affordable and good-quality living environment” should be the most important goal of a country’s housing policy. In terms of the overall living environment, Taiwan faces many problems including high housing prices, outdated buildings and equipment, and poor barrier-free residential environments, etc. As for the living environment of disadvantaged families, they face the problem that it is not easy to rent suitable living space in the residential market. The government urgently needs to assist the people to live in affordable houses, create fair opportunities for renting and purchasing houses, and assist in providing suitable and convenient living environment.
This study used literature reviews Environmental Psychology, to construct a model for cognition and behavior patterns regarding residential environment evaluations and transforms.First, it considered that people had different preferences for the order of the living environment in personal or public realms, and their perceptions of the general living environment or that of the disadvantaged people were also different. On the basis of the theory of environmental psychology, it explored the relationship between the people's living experience and their living environments.Secondly, through environmental assessment, it transformed the environmental attitude into personal factors, and the data in the “104 Residential Status Sampling Survey” regarding the bread earners of households who were among users of residences was used to explore the relationship between living experiences and living environment and environmental evaluation using the order logistic model and marginal effects.Furthermore, through users of the environment, the study assessed the demand for the residential environment, the quality of life and satisfaction, and the attitude towards social housing to gain insight into people's perception and response to the living environment, and how the public interprets the environment in which they live.Finally, it put forth suggestions for improving the residential environment and social networking so that people may have a sense of identity and form community awareness and for, through constructive feedback, improving the living environment of all people.
Chapter 4 "Influencing Factors of People’s Residential Satisfaction". This article divides residential satisfaction into Residential satisfaction and neighborhood environmental satisfaction are two parts. The empirical results reveal several interesting findings. Firstly, neighborhood characteristics had a larger influence compared to housing characteristics. Landscape of neighborhood and environmental decoration and management are the most two important variables affecting the residential satisfaction. Secondly, housing characteristics, such as usage for housing only, housing types, and age of structure significantly affect residential satisfaction. Thirdly, increases in living area per person, the number of rooms, the number of halls, the number of toilets, air conditioner, and the number of energy-efficient facility will increase housing satisfaction. Fourthly, housing ownership, age of the main family financial supporter, average regular monthly income of household, and recent relocation significantly affect housing satisfaction. However, the influences of family characteristics on neighborhood satisfaction are limited. Finally, housing satisfaction and neighborhood satisfaction are both lower in six municipalities comparing with the other non-municipalities, and the degree of neighborhood satisfaction is lower than housing satisfaction. To improve residential satisfaction, the government should consider the above influencing factors and regional differences in the future.
Chapter 5"The Influencing Factors of the People's Attitudes to Social Housing Construction". The results have shown some interesting findings. Firstly, home ownership and being a family with a child under 18 are two of the most influential variables that have significant negative influences on the approval of social housing construction. Renters and people with physical and mental disabilities are more supportive of social housing. Secondly, when the community belongs to a residential building with high development intensity, the residents have a high degree of approval for the construction of social housing. Thirdly, people being satisfied with their neighborhood environment have a positive impact on the construction of social housing approval. Finally, for residents that live in dense cities, approval for the construction of social housing is higher. However, residents that live in satellite cities of a metropolitan region are less supportive of social housing construction. The results of the study reveal a regional difference in residents’ approval in terms of the construction of social housing.
Chapter 6 "The Influencing Factors of the Social Housing Vulnerability Coverage Ratio of the People". Empirical results found first that variables such as home ownership, higher levels of education, and old age have more significantly negative influences on attitudes toward the ratio reserved to disadvantaged people in social housing, but renters and families with disabilities are more supportive of increasing the ratio reserved to the disadvantaged in social housing. Second, when there are families that have moved within the past 5 years and the public are willing to approve and register for social housing, they highly approve of the ratio reserved to disadvantaged in social housing. Third, the satisfaction level of the public towards their neighborhood environment has a significantly positive effect on the ratio reserved to disadvantaged in social housing, but the effect of different facilities varies. Finally, citizens in cities with a higher degree of urbanization are more likely to approve of the ratio reserved to disadvantaged in social housing, while citizens around the peripheral areas of cities are less supportive. The results of the study show that there is a geographical difference in the public’s attitude towards mixed living social housing.
The results of this research are conducive in understanding the relationship between people’s attitudes towards the overall living environment and the living environment of the disadvantaged families. The findings can serve as a reference for housing and health welfare departments to formulate housing or social welfare policies. In order to make people more concerned about their living environment and be willing to improve the living environment of the disadvantaged families, it is recommended that people’s residential satisfaction, as well as the relationship between residential policies and social housing promotion, should be considered when formulating policies, and the housing prices should be returned to reasonable and sound rental market, effectively resolving such social issues as high home prices and the living environment for the disadvantaged group.

以文找文

1.內政部不動產資訊平台（2021），〈全國社會住宅興辦進度統計表〉，http://pip.moi.gov.tw/。
2.內政部統計處（2011），《社會住宅需求調查》，臺北：內政部。
3.內政部營建署（2015），《104年住宅狀況抽樣調查》，臺北：內政部營建署。
4.內政部營建署(2017)，〈都市危險及老舊建築物加速重建條例立法總說明〉，https://www.cpami.gov.tw/。
5.內政部營建署(2019)，〈全國建築物耐震安檢暨輔導重建補強計畫〉，https://www.cpami.gov.tw/。
6.王秋元（2015），〈歐洲的社會住宅—給台灣的啟示〉《城市與設計學報》7(23)︰185－204。
7.王增勇（2011，〈住宅「社會化」對抗貧窮「汙名化」〉《台灣社會研究》81：491－499。
8.司法院（2006），臺灣臺北地方法院95年度重訴字第542號民事判決，https://law.judicial.gov.tw/。
9.司法院（2007），臺灣高等法院 95 年上易字第 1012 號民事判決，https://law.judicial.gov.tw/。
10.司法院（2019），臺灣臺北地方法院 107 年國字第 5 號民事裁定，https://law.judicial.gov.tw/。
11.江慧玲（2014），〈桃園縣南崁地區居民的居住滿意度與地方認同之研究〉《北市教大社教學報》，13：81－114。
12.江尚書（2011），〈以社會住宅的實踐凝聚城市的進步性〉《中華民國建築學會會刊雜誌》63：31－34。
13.危正芬譯（2020）《環境心理學》Frank T. McAndrew原著，臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
14.李佳燕（2014），〈臺北市萬芳社區居民遷移動機與其居住滿意度之研究〉《北市教大社教學報》13：60－80。
15.金佳禾（2011），〈住宅政策與市場房價調整〉《中華民國建築學會會刊雜誌》63：19–20。
16.花敬群（2011），〈從房子到服務輸送平臺--社會住宅的現代合宜觀點〉《中華民國建築學會會刊雜誌》63：35－37。
17.林育如（2017），〈以「居住穩定」做為社會住宅建構居住安全網的開始〉《社區發展》158：25－32。
18.林偉如（2017），〈社會福利設施之鄰避紛爭處理方法—兼介紹日本鄰避設施之居民合意形成程序〉《法令月刊》68（2）：90－115。
19.林萬億（2011），〈社會住宅如何興建〉《中華民國建築學會會刊雜誌》63：6－9。
20.林毓英（2006），《台北市內湖區居民居住環境滿意度與再遷移傾向之研究》，臺北：臺北市立教育大學社會科教育研究所碩士論文。
21.故鄉市場調查股份有限公司（2017），《中華民國104年住宅狀況抽樣調查報告》，內政部營建署委託研究。
22.胡勝正（2015），〈從房價所得比看臺灣的社會不公〉《臺灣經濟預測與政策》45(2)：23－43。
23.洪幸妙、張金鶚（1993），〈住宅管理維護對住宅品質之影響研究〉《都市與計劃》20：1－22。
24.徐進鈺（2011），〈社會住宅導言〉《台灣社會研究》81：463－467。
25.徐磊青、楊公俠（2005）《環境心理學―環境、知覺與行為》，臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
26.高秉毅、謝博明（2018），〈社會住宅物業經營管理型態與策略之初探性研究─以臺北市為例〉《物業管理學報》9(1)：71－87。
27.孫一信（2011），〈為什麼臺灣需要社會住宅？臺灣需要什麼樣的社會住宅〉《中華民國建築學會會刊雜誌》63：25－30。
28.張金鶚（2011），〈當前社會住宅的期待〉《中華民國建築學會會刊雜誌》63：31-33。
29.張金鶚、曾善霞(1991)，〈臺北市住宅品質研究指標之研究〉《都市與計劃》18(1)︰83－124。
30.張雅鳳（1993），《住商綜合大樓居住環境品質滿意度調查》桃園：中原大學建築學系碩士論文。
31.張珩、邢志航（2004），〈住宅特性與居住機能滿意程度關聯之研究－以公寓大廈式集合住宅為例〉《建築學報》47：89－106。
32.張景盛、陳素月、藍宜亭（2013），〈高雄地區住宅特徵與住宅環境的重視程度對居住滿意度之影響〉《建築與規劃學報》14（1）：33－45。
33.畢恆達（1989），〈環境心理學研究資料引介〉《國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報》4（1）：115－136。
34.陳玫秀、林晏州（2007），〈都市居住環境品質對居住滿意度之影響〉《造園景觀學報》12（4）：57－77。
35.陳金田（2016），〈從共用資源治理觀點探討臺北市公共住宅政策〉《土地問題研究季刊》15（3）：74－87。
36.陳怡瑞（2012），《居住滿意度與遷移意願關係之研究》臺南：崑山科技大學房地產開發與管理研究所碩士論文。
37.陳冠儒（2021），〈民眾對社會住宅弱勢保障比率態度之影響因素分析〉《住宅學報》，30（1）：1－26。。
38.陳思穎（2017），〈荷蘭社會住宅經驗〉《新社會政策雙月刊》51：56－58。
39.陳美雪、張美美、張芯平（2019），〈青銀共居不孤單〉《國土及公共治理》7（1）：102－107。
40.黃麗玲（2011），〈社會住宅政策與社會轉型的新視野〉《新社會政策雙月刊》14：13－16。
41.黃怡潔、江穎慧、張金鶚（2017），〈臺北市公共住宅對周圍住宅價格之影響〉《都市與計劃》44(3)：277－302。
42.彭建文（2018），〈興建社會住宅、活絡租賃住宅市場之政策方向〉《高齡少子化現象對醫療體系與住宅市場之影響》10：171－181。
43.彭建文、李美杏、陳冠儒（2020），〈台灣地區居住滿意度影響因素之實證分析〉《都市與計劃》47（3）：243－270。
44.鄒喻合、杜功仁（2017），〈台北市公共住宅物業管理模式之探討〉《物業管理學報》8（2）：57－70。
45.楊宗憲、蘇倖慧(2011)，〈迎毗設施與鄰避設施對住宅價格影響之研究〉《「住宅學報》20(2)：61－80。
46.監察院（2018），〈社會住宅睦鄰戶情形調查報告〉（https://www.cy.gov.tw/），107內調0068字號。
47.臺北市政府（2016a），2016年2月26日大同區明倫國小基地公共住宅第一場公聽會會議紀錄，臺北市公共住宅計畫公聽會暨說明會網頁，http://www.udd.gov.taipei/phhearing/，最後瀏覽時間：2018年12月10日。
48.臺北市政府（2016b），2016年10月7日信義區六張犁營區AB街廓基地第一場公聽會會議紀錄，臺北市公共住宅計畫公聽會暨說明會網頁，http://www.udd.gov.taipei/phhearing/，最後瀏覽時間：2018年12月11日。
49.臺北市政府（2017a），2017年4月8日中山區培英基地第一場說明會會議紀錄，臺北市公共住宅計畫公聽會暨說明會網頁，http://www.udd.gov.taipei/phhearing/，最後瀏覽日期：2018年12月11日。
50.錢學陶、許禎彬（1998），〈從美國「平價住宅」制度論社會階級差異問題〉《人與地》179（12）：51－54。
51.薛立敏、張日清（2013），〈老人是否持有不動產與獨居之聯合決策分析－並由居住滿意度分析老人獨居之性質〉《住宅學報》22(2)，87－117。
52.聶筱秋、胡中凡、唐筱雯、葉冠伶譯（2003）《環境心理學》Paul. B., Thomas c., Jeffrey D. & Fisher, A. B.原著，新北市：桂冠出版社。
53.鄭安志（2012），〈公營出租住宅之承租戶使用現況調查─以大龍峒公營出租住宅為例〉《物業管理學報》4（2）：61－68。
54.鄭洲楠（2005），〈社區環境對居住滿意度影響之研究〉臺南：國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班。
55.Ray Forrest，黎德星（2012），〈社會住宅：過去、現在和未來〉《住宅學報》21（2）：91－99。
56.Adetokunbo O. I. (2010) , “Post-occupancy evaluation and residents ’ satisfaction with public housing in Lagos, Nigeria, ” Journal of Building Appraisal. 6（2）:153–169.
57.Alnsour J. A. & A. S. Hyasat（2016）, “Residential Satisfaction with Low Income Housing in Jordan: Salt City as a Case Study, ” Journal of Economic Sciences. 3（1）:31–44.
58.Amérigo, M. & Aragonés, J. I. （1990）, “Residential satisfaction in council housing, ” Journal of Environmental Psychology,10（4）,313–325.
59.Ame´rigo, M. & Aragone´s, J. I. （1997）, “A theoretical & methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. ” Journal of Environmental Psychology,17,47–57.
60.Baillie, S. T. & Peart, V. （1992）. “Determinants of housing satisfaction for older married and unmarried women in Florida, ” Housing and Society,19（2）:101–116.
61.Barrett, E. J.（2003）, “The Needs of Elders in Public Housing: Policy Considerations in the Era of Mixed-Income Redevelopment,” Journal of Aging & Social Policy. 25:218–233.
62.Basolo, V. & Strong, D.（2002）, “ Understanding the neighborhood: from residents’ perceptions and needs to action, ” Housing Policy Debate, 13（1）:83–105.
63.Bonnes, M., Bonaiuto, M., & Ercolani, A.（1991）. “ Crowding and residential satisfaction in the urban environment: A contextual approach,” Nvironment and Behavior, 23（5）:531–552.
64.Byrne, M. & M. Norris（2017）, “Procyclical Social Housing and the Crisis of Irish Housing Policy: Marketization, Social Housing, and the Property Boom and Bust, ” Housing Policy Debate.28（1）: 50–63.
65.Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W.（1976）, “ The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions. ”New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
66.Carp, F. M., Zawadski, R. T. & Shokrkon, H.（1976）, “Dimensions of Urban Environmental Quality,”Environment and Behavior, 8（2）: 239–264。
67.Chau, K. W. & Chin, T. L.（2003）, “ A Critical Review of Literature on the Hedonic Price Model, ” International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, 27（2）, 145–165.
68.Chen, K. J., C. W. Pemg, & M. H. Lee,（2021）, “Determinants of the Public's Attitude Towards Social Housing Construction Under High Home Ownership Rate,” International Real Estate Review, 24 （1）,875–112.
69.Construction & Planning Agency （2015）, “ 2015 Residential Status Survey, ” Ministry of the Interior, ” Taiwan. R.O.C.
70.Costarelli, I., Kleinhans, R. & Mugnano, S.（2019）, “ Reframing Social Mix in Affordable Housing Initiatives in Italy and in the Netherlands. Closing the Gap between Discourses and Practices? ” Cities, 90: 131–140.
71.Currie, J. & A. Yelowitz（2000）, “Are Public Housing Projects Good for Kids, ”Journal of Public Economics. 75（1）: 99–124.
72.Crull, S. R., Bode, M. E. & Morris, E. W.（1991）, “Two tests of the housing adjustment model of residential mobility, ” Housing and Society, 18（3）:53–64.
73.Dahmann, D. C.（1985）,“Assessments of neighborhood quality in metropolitan America,” Urban Affairs Quarterly, 20（4）: 511–535.
74.Darley, J. M. & Latane, B.,（1968）, ”Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies, ”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3) : 215–221.
75.Dekker, K., de Vos, S., Musterd, S. & van Kempen, R.（2011）, “ Residential satisfaction in housing estates in European cities: a multi-level research approach,” Housing Studies, 26（4）, 479–499.
76.Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S.（1993）, “ The psychology of attitudes. ” New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Janovich, pp.794
77.Fabiana, F. & Yvonne, R. (2017), “Evaluation of User Satisfaction in Public Residential Housing - A Case Study in the Outskirts of Naples, Italy, ” , Materials Science and Engineering ,245 (5) , 1–8.
78.Fang, Y.（2006）, “Residential satisfaction, moving intention and moving behaviours: a study of redeveloped neighbourhoods in inner-city Beijing,” Housing Studies, 21（5）, 671–694.
79.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.（1975）Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
80.Fitzpatrick, S. & B. Watts（2017）, “Competing Visions: Security of Tenure and the Welfarisation of English Social Housing, ”Housing Studies. 32（8）: 1021–1038.
81.Forrest, R. & Yip, N. M.（2014）, “The Future for Reluctant Intervention: The Prospects for Hong Kong’s Public Rental Sector,” Housing Studies, 29（4）: 551–565.
82.Forte, F. & Y. Russo（2017）, “Evaluation of User Satisfaction in Public Residential Housing - A Case Study in the Outskirts of Naples, Italy, ” IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 245（1）:1–8.
83.Fraser, J. C. & E. L. Kick（2007）, “ The Role of Public, Private, Non-proﬁt and Community Sectors in Shaping Mixed-income Housing Outcomes in the US,”Urban Studies. 44（12）:2357–2377.
84.Fraser, J. C., R. J. Chaskin & J. T. Bazuin（2013）, “Making Mixed-Income Neighborhoods Work for Low-Income Households ,” Cityscape.15（2）:83–100.
85.Galster, G. C. （1985）, “Evaluating indicators for housing policy: residential satisfaction vs marginal improvement priorities,” Social Indicators Research, 16:415–448.
86.Galster, G. C.（1987）, “ Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: an empirical critique,” Environment and Behavior, 19（5）, 539–568.
87.Galster, G. C. & Hesser, G. W. （1981）, “ Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates,” Environment and Behavior, 13（6）, 735–758.
88.Gamble, A. & Ga¨rling, T.（2012）, “The relationships between life satisfaction, happiness, and current mood, ” Journal of Happiness Studies, 13（1）, 31–45.
89.Greenbaum, P. E., & Greenbaum, S. D.（1981）,“ Territorial personalization: Group identity and social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood,” Environment and Behavior, 13（5）： 574–589.
90.Ha, M. & Weber, M. J.（1991）, “ The determinants of residential environmental qualities and satisfaction: Effects of financing, housing programs and housing regulations,” Housing and Society, 18（3）: 65–76.
91.Hezzrin M. P. , Siti H. A. B. A. and Lukman Z.M.(2017) , “ The Evaluation of Neighborhood Facilities and Services of Low Cost Housing (LCH) in Kuala Terengganu: Residential Satisfaction Perspective, ” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences,7（3）: 704–712.
92.Hipp, J. （2010）, “ What is the “neighborhood” in neighbourhood satisfaction? Comparing the effects of structural characteristics measured at the micro-neighbourhood and tract levels,” Urban Studies, 47（12）, 2517–2536.
93.Hirsch, B. J. (1987). A. Wanderman & R. Hess(Eds.), “Beyond the Individual: Environmental Approaches and Prevention,”The Community Psychologist, 20(2)：29.
94.Huang, I. C., Chiang, Y. H., & Chang, C. O.（2017）, “Impact of Public Housing on Nearby Property Value in Taipei City, City and Planning, 44（3）: 277–302. （in Chinese with English Abstract）
95.Hyra, D.（2013）, “ Mixed-Income Housing: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go From Here?,” Cityscape. 15（2） : 123–134.
96.Ittlson,W.H. (1976) , “Some issues facing a theory of environment and behavior,” Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt.
97.Ittelson, W. H. (1978),“Environmental perception and urban experience.”Environment and Behavior, 10(2) :193–213.
98.Janet, C. and Aaron, Y. （2000）, Are Public Housing Projects Good for Kids, Journal of Public Economics, 75（1）: 99–124.
99.Korsu, E.（2016）, “Building Social Mix by Building Social Housing? An Evaluation in the Paris, Lyon and Marseille Metropolitan Areas,” Housing Studies, 31（5）: 598–623.
100.Lau, M.（2017）, “Framing Processes in Planning Disputes: Analysing Dynamics of Contention in a Housing Project in Hong Kong,” Housing Studies, 33（5）: 667–683.
101.Levy, D., McDade, Z. & Bertumen, K.（2013）, “Mixed-Income Living: Anticipated and Realized Benefits for Low-Income Households,” Cityscape, 15（2）:15–28.
102.Leung, M. Y., J. Yu &H. Chow（2015）, “ Impact of Indoor Facilities Management on the Quality of Life of the Elderly in Public Housing,” Facilities. 34（9）: 564–579.
103.Li, S. & Song, Y.（2009）, “Redevelopment, displacement, housing conditions, and residential satisfaction: a study of Shanghai,” Environment and Planning A, 41（5）, 1090–1108.
104.Li, Z. & Wu, F. （2013）, “Residential satisfaction in china’s informal settlements: a case study of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou,” Urban Geography, 34（7）, 923–949.
105.Livingston, M., Kearns, A. & Bailey, N.（2013）, “Delivering Mixed Communities: The Relationship between Housing Tenure Mix and Social Mix in England's Neighbourhoods,” Housing Studies, 28（7）: 1056–1080.
106.Long, J. S.（1997）, “ Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. ” Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, ISBN: 9780803973749.
107.Long, J. S. & Freese, J.（2006）“Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station,” TX: Stata Press, ISBN: 978-1597180115.
108.Lu, M.（1998）, “Analyzing migration decision making: relationships between residential satisfaction, mobility intentions, and moving behaviour,” Environment and Planning A, 30, 1473–1495.
109.Lu, M.（1999）, “Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs. regression models,” Growth and Change, 30（2）, 264–287.
110.Lucio, J.（2010）, Exploring Homeowner Opposition to Public Housing Developments, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 37（1）:49–74
111.Lucio, J., L. Hand & F. Marsiglia（2014）, “ Designing Hope：Rationales of Mixed-Income Housing Policy,” Journal of Urnal of Urban Affairs. 36（5）:891–904.
112.Matthews, P., Bramley, G., & Hastings, A.（2015）, “ Homo Economicus in a Big Society: Understanding Middle-class Activism and NIMBYism towards New Housing Developments,” Housing, Theory and Society, 32（1）, 54–72.
113.McCormick, N. J., Joseph, M. L. & Chaskin, R. J.（2012）, “The New Stigma of Relocated Public Housing Residents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed-Income Developments,” City and Community, 11（3）:285–308.
114.Mckechnie, G. E. （1974） , “Manual for the Environmental Response Inventory. ” Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
115.Miller, F. D., Tsemberis, S., Malia, G. P. & Grega, D.（1980）, “ Neighborhood satisfaction among urban dwellers,” Journal of Social Issues, 36（3）, 101–117.
116.Mohan, J. & Twigg, L.（2007）, “ Sense of place, quality of life and local socioeconomic context: evidence from the survey of English housing,” Urban Studies, 44（10）, 2029–2045
117.Mohammad A. M. & Mohammad. A. (2012) , “ Assessment of Residential Satisfaction with Public Housing in Hulhumale’, Maldives, Procedia” Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50 ( 2012 ) 756 – 770.
118.Mohit M. A. & M. Azim（2012）, “ Assessment of Residential Satisfaction with Public Housing in Hulhumale’, Maldives, ” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 50:756–770.
119.Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M. & Rashid, Y. R.（2010）, “ Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ” Habitat International, 34（1）, 18–27.
120.Morris, E. W., Crull, S. R. & Winter, M.（1976）, “Housing norms, housing satisfaction and the propensity to move,” Journal of Marriage and Family, 38（2）, 309–320.
121.Nguyen, M., Basolo, V., & Tiwari, A.（2013）, “Opposition to Affordable Housing in the USA: Debate Framing and the Responses of Local Actors, Housing,” Theory and Society, 30（2）: 107–130.
122.Norris, M. & Byrne, M.（2018）, “Housing Market (In)stability and Social Rented Housing: Comparing Austria and Ireland during the Global Financial Crisis,” Journal of Housing and Built Environment, 33（2）: 227–245.
123.Oakley, D. A. & Fraser, J. S.（2016）, “U.S. Public-Housing Transformations and the Housing Publics Lost in Transition,” City and Community, 15（4）: 349–366.
124.OECD（2018）, “Social Rental Housing Stock, OECD Affordable Housing Database,” http://oe.cd/ahd.
125.Onatu, G. O.（2010）, “Mixed-income housing development strategy Perspective on Cosmo City, Johannesburg, South Africa,” International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysi.（3）:203–215.
126.Pareja-Eastaway, M. & Sánchez-Martínez, T.（2017）, “More Social Housing? A Critical Analysis of Social Housing Provision in Spain,” Critical Housing Analysis.4:124–131.
127.Parkes, A. & Kearns, A. D. E.（2003）, “ Residential perceptions and housing mobility in Scotland: An analysis of the longitudinal Scottish house condition survey 1991-96,” Housing Studies, 18（5）:673–701.
128.Parkes, A., Kearns, A. & Atkinson, R.（2002）, “What makes people dissatisﬁed with their neighbourhoods? ” Urban Studies, 39（13）:2413–2438.
129.Palmer, G. L.（2016）, “Examining the Effects of Scattered Site Supportive Housing on the Social and Economic Integration of Men Who Are Formerly Homeless and Primarily Black/African American,” Journal of Black Studies. 47（8）:848–868.
130.Pareja-Eastaway, M. & T. Sánchez-Martínez（2017）, “More Social Housing? A Critical Analysis of Social Housing Provision in Spain,” Critical Housing Analysis. 4:124–131.
131.Permentier, M., Bolt, G. & van Ham, M.（2011）, “Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of neighbourhood reputation,” Urban Studies, 48（5）:977–996.
132.Proshansky H.M. (1990) The Pursuit of Understanding. In: Altman I., Christensen K. (eds) Environment and Behavior Studies. Human Behavior and Environment (Advances in Theory and Research), vol 11. Springer, Boston, MA.
133.Rivlin, L. G. (1982) , “Group Membership and Place Meanings in an Urban Neighborhood ,” Journal of Social Issues, 38:75–93.
134.Russell, J. A., & Lanius, U. F. (1984). “Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments. ” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(2), 119–135.
135.Saegert, S.（1985）, “The Role of Housing in the Experience of Dwelling, In I. Altman & C. M. Werner（eds.）, ”Home Environments,New York:Plenum Press.
136.Scally, C. P. & J. R. Tighe（2015）, “Democracy in Action? NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting,” Housing Studies. 30（5）:749–769.
137.Sirmans, G. S., Macpherson, D. A. & Zietz, E. N.（2005）, “The composition of hedonic pricing models,” Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13（1）:3–43.
138.Shumaker, S. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1983) , “Toward a Clarification of People-Place Relationships: A Model of Attachment to Place. In N. R. Feimer, & E. S. Geller (Eds.), ”Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives ,” New York: Praeger.
139.Speare, A.（1974）, “Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility,” Demography, 11（2）:173–188.
140.Taylor, R.B. (1988) ,“ Human Territorial Functioning: An Empirical, Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions, Behaviours and Consequences. ” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
141.Taylor, R. B., & Ferguson（1980）,“ Solitude and itimacy: Linking territoriality and privacy experiences. ” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 4：227–145.
142.Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A.（1983）,“ Neighboring and its role in block organizations: An exploratory report. ” American Journal of Community Psychology, 11(3) :291–300
143.Verdugo, G. & Toma, S.（2018）, “Can Public Housing Decrease Segregation? Lessons and Challenges from Non-European Immigration in France: Can Public Housing Decrease Segregation?” Demography, 55（5）:1803–1828.
144.Wandersman, A.（1981）, “ A framework of participation in community organizations. ”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science ,17(1), 27–58.
145.Wang, D. & Li, S.（2004）, “Housing preferences in a transitional housing system: The case of Beijing, China,” Environment and Planning A, 36（1）:69–87.
146.Wang, D. & Li, S.（2006）,“Socio-economic differentials and stated housing preferences in Guangzhou, China,” Habitat International, 30（2）:305–326.
147.Wang, D. G. & F. L. Wang（2016）, “ Contributions of the usage and affective experience of the residential environment to residential satisfaction,” housing Studies. 31（1）:42–60.
148.Weeing, M., Schmidt, T. & Midden, C.（1990）, “ Social dimensions of neighborhoods and the effectiveness of information programs,”Environment and Behavior, 22（1）：27–54.
149.Weidemann, S., & Anderson, J. R.（1985）, “ A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In I. Altman & C. H. Werner （Eds.）,”Home environments. New York: Plenum Press.
150.Wong, H. & Chan, S.M. （2019）, “The Impacts of Housing Factors on Deprivation in a World City: The Case of Hong Kong,” Social Policy and Administration, 53（6）:1–17.
151.Yang, Y.（2008）, “A tale of two cities: physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in metropolitan Portland and Charlotte,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 74（3）:307–323.
152.Yuan, J.F., X.D. Zheng, J. You, J. & M.J. Skibniewski（2017）, “Identifying Critical Factors Influencing the Rents of Public Rental Housing Delivery by PPPs: The Case of Nanjing , ” Sustainability. 9（3）:1–22.
153.Zehner, R. B. (1972). “ Neighborhood and community satisfaction: A report on new towns and less planned suburbs. In J. F. Wohlwill & D. H. Carson (Eds.), ” Environment and the social sciences: Perspectives and applications (pp. 169–183). American Psychological Association.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	新來義部落永久屋居住滿意度之研究

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫