:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:城市綠地空間可及性及其公平性研究
作者:黃博洵
作者(外文):HUANG, BO-XUN
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:設計學研究所
指導教授:邱上嘉
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2023
主題關鍵詞:綠地空間可及性公平性景觀格局遙測空間句法地理資訊系統Green SpaceAccessibilityEquityLandscape PatternRemote SensingSpace SyntaxGeographic Information System (GIS)
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(0) 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:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
城市綠地空間(Urban Green Space)是城市重要的綠色基礎設施,是實現城市可持續發展的重要空間保障,具有重要的生態、社會文化功能。執行著「吐故納新」的負反饋調節作用,是城市現代化和文明程度的重要標誌。然而,隨著城市的發展,但「城市病」也日益嚴重,城市綠地減少、不透水面積增加、城市熱島加劇、城市宜居性下降。又過去許多研究證實,缺乏具體引導城市綠地空間分佈的指標,較少關注城市綠地服務功能的公平性問題。也因為每人持有公園面積不足、系統密集度與區位分佈不均,而無法有效改善都市生活環境品質,未能發揮應有的生態功能。
因此,本研究借助地理資訊系統(GIS)技術,融合景觀生態學(Landscape Ecology)和空間句法(space syntax)的理論與方法,以福州市城區和臺中市為研究對象,構建基於遙測影像、景觀指數的綠地空間可及性(accessibility)綜合模型,並加入人口統計學變數,探討城市綠地空間在街道/里尺度上公平性分佈特徵。
研究結果顯示,在綠地空間可及性上,福州市城區和臺中市的綠地可及性都是由中心向城市邊沿遞減。福州市城區從北到南,呈現「低-高-低」的趨勢;而臺中市從西到東呈現「低-高-低」的趨勢。臺中市綠地可及性高的區域比福州市更大,更集中。福州市城區北部地區最低,其次是東南部地區,然後是西部地區;而臺中市東部地區基本都是低值區域,高可及性集中在市中心區域;而在綠地公平性中,福州市城區的綠地供給盈餘,不管是在街道數量或者面積都佔有大部份的比重,由此說明福州市城區的綠地供給盈餘大於供給赤字,空間分佈較為公平。臺中市的分佈情況有些不同,臺中市的綠地分佈從里面積的佔比上看,供給盈餘佔有的面積比重遠大於供給赤字。但是從里數上的分佈是較為不均衡,供給赤字的里多於供給盈餘里,而且供給赤字較為集中,大部份分佈在市中心區域,從整個臺中市區的空間分佈來看,綠地在空間上的分佈較為集中,分佈上是不公平的。因此,期望本研究不僅有助於人們深入認知綠地空間,更能為合理規劃和管理綠地空間提供參考,進而提高和改善城市綠地空間的可及性和公平性,以及綠地的品質與配置。透過本研究希冀為城市綠地空間生態功能和永續發展提供有價值的參考理論和技術支援。
Urban green space is an important green infrastructure for the city, an important spatial guarantee for sustainable urban development, and an important ecological, social and cultural function. It is an important symbol of the modernization and civilization of a city, as it performs the role of a negative feedback regulator. However, with the development of cities, the “urban disease” has become increasingly serious, with a reduction in urban green spaces, an increase in impermeable areas, a worsening of urban heat islands and a decline in urban livability. Many studies have confirmed that there is a lack of specific indicators to guide the distribution of green space in cities, and less attention has been paid to the equity of green space services in cities. The lack of park space per person and the uneven distribution of the system in terms of density and location have resulted in a failure to effectively improve the quality of the urban living environment and to fulfil the ecological functions. Therefore, this study integrates the theories and methods of landscape ecology and space syntax with Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to construct a comprehensive model of spatial accessibility of green spaces based on remote sensing images and landscape indices, and incorporates demographic variables to explore the spatial accessibility of urban green spaces. This study investigates the characteristics of equitable distribution of urban green space at the street/mile scale by adding demographic variables.
The results of the study show that the accessibility of green space in the urban areas of Fuzhou and Taichung decreases from the center to the urban fringe. The urban area of Fuzhou City shows a “low-high-low” trend from north to south, while Taichung City shows a “low-high-low” trend from west to east. The areas with high green space accessibility are larger and more concentrated in Taichung than in Fuzhou. The northern part of Fuzhou City is the lowest, followed by the southeastern part and then the western part, while the eastern part of Taichung City is basically a low value area, with high accessibility concentrated in the city center. The distribution of space is more equitable. The distribution of green space in Taichung is somewhat different, in that in terms of the area of green space in Taichung, the surplus supply accounts for a much larger proportion of the area than the deficit supply. However, the distribution of green space in terms of the number of miles is more uneven, with more miles in deficit than in surplus, and the deficit is more concentrated, mostly in the city center. It is therefore hoped that this study will not only help people to gain a deeper understanding of green space, but also provide reference for the rational planning and management of green space, thereby enhancing and improving the accessibility and equity of urban green space, as well as the quality and configuration of green space. This study is expected to provide valuable theoretical and technical support for the ecological functions and sustainable development of urban green space.
1.Alexis, C., Chris, B., & Edmund, G. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban green space accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 103-114.
2.Armando, A.A., Steven, R.R., & Mark, S.P. (2002). Mapping and analysis of changes in the riparian landscape structure of the Lockyer Valley catchrnent, Queensland, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning,59(1),43-57.
3.Asakawa C.S., Yoshida, K., & Yabe, K. (2004). Perception of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68,167-182.
4.Banzhaf, H.S., & Eleanor, M.C. (2006). Moving Beyond Cleanup: Identifying the Crucibles of Environmental Gentrification. Banzhaf, H.S. (eds.), The Political Economy of Environmental Justice (296-300). Washington: U.S.
5.Batty, M. (2013). The New Science of Cities. The MIT Press.
6.Bickers, R.A., & Wasserstrom, J.N. (1995). Shanghai’s “Dogs and Chinese Not Admitted” Sign: Legend, History and Contemporary Symb01.China Quarterly, 142(142), 444-466.
7.Bu, R.C., Hu, Y.M., & Chang, Y. (2005). A correlation analysis on landscape metrics. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 25(10),2764-2775.
8.Byrne, J., & Wolch, J. (2009). Nature race and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography,33(6),743-765.
9.Byrne, J., Wolch, J., & Jin, Z. (2009). Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park. Journal of Environmental Planning &Management, 52(3),365-392.
10.Chen, L.D., Fu, B.J., & Xu, J.Y. (2003). Location-weighted landscape contrast index: a scale independent approach for landscape pattern evaluation based on “Source-Sink” ecological processes. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 23 (11), 2406-2413.
11.Chen, L.D., Fu, B.J., & Zhao, W.W. (2006). Source-sink landscape theory and 'its ecological significance. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 26(5), 1444-1449.
12.Chen, W.B., Xian, D.N., & Li, X.Z. (2002). Classification, application, and creation of landscape indices. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 13(1), 121-125.
13.Chen, W.Y., & Hu, F.Z.Y. (2015). Producing nature for public: Land-based urbanization and provision of public green spaces in China. Applied Geography, 58, 32-40.
14.Chen, W.Y., Hu, F.Y., & Xun, L. (2017). Strategic interaction in municipal governments' provision of public green spaces: A dynamic spatial panel data analysis in transitional China. Cities, 71, 1–10.
15.Cherdlu, E. (2007, July14-15). “OSM and the art of bicycle maintenance” [Conference presentation], paper presented at the State of the Map 2007, Manchester.
16.Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(l), 129-138.
17.Chin, H.C., & Foong, K.W. (2014). Influence of school accessibility on housing values. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132,120-129.
18.Cho, C.M., & Choi, Y. S. (2005). The Effect of Resident-Perceived Neighborhood Boundary on the Equity of Public Parks Distribution: Using GIS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3833, 296-307.
19.Choumert, J., & Cormier, L. (2010). The provision of urban parks: an empirical test of spatial spillovers in an urban area using geographic information systems. The Annals of Regional Science,47,437-450.
20.Dahmann, N., Reynolds, K., & Jerrett, M. (2010). The active city? Disparities in provision of urban public recreation resources. Health & Place, 16(3), 431-445.
21.Dai, D. (2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landscape and Urban Planning, 102, 234-244.
22.Dennis, H. (2001). Regaining Paradise: Englishness and the Early Garden City Movement. Journal of Historical Geography, 27(4), 605-606.
23.Dooling, S. (2009). Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 621–639.
24.Ernstson, H. (2013). he social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109, 7-17.
for Local Parks and Recreation in the Los Angeles Region. Environment and
25.Forman, R.T.T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons Press.
26.Giovagnorio, I., Usai. D., Palmas, A., & Chiri, G.M. (2017). The environmental elements of foundations in Roman cities: A theory of the architect Gaetano Vinaccia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 32, 42–55.
27.Haase, D. (2004). Development and perspectives of landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 19, 567-569.
28.Haklay, M. (2010). How good is OpenStreetMap information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey. Environment & Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 682-703.
29.Hansen, W.G. (1959). “How Accessibility Shapes Land Use”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 25, 73-76.
30.He, H.S., De, Z.B., & Mladenoff, D.J. (2000). An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 15(7), 591-601.
31.Herzog, F., & Lausch, A. (2001). Supplementing land-sue statistics with landscape metrics: some methodological considerations. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 72, 37-50.
32.Hillier, B. (1973). In defense of Space. Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, 539-544.
33.Hillier, B. (1983). Space Syntax: A Different Urban Perspective. Architects' Journal, 178(48), 47-63.
34.Hillier, B. (1996). Cities as Movement Economies. Urban Design International. 1(1), 41-60.
35.Hillier, B. (1996). Cities as Movement Economies. Urban Design International, 1(1), 41-60.
36.Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine. Cambridge University Press.
37.Hillier, B. (1999). Centrality as a Process: Accounting for Attraction Inequalities in Deformed Grids. Urban Design International, 3(4), 107-127.
38.Hillier, B. (1999). The Hidden Geometry of Deformed Grids: or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn't. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 169-191.
39.Hillier, B. (2001). A Theory of the City as Object; or How the Social Construction of Space is Mediated by Spatial Laws [Conference presentation]. 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium. Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
40.Hillier, B. (2009). Spatial Sustainability in Cities: Organic Patterns and Sustainable Forms [Conference presentation]. Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.
41.Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University Press.
42.Hillier, B., (1999). Centrality as a process: accounting for attraction inequalities in deformed grids. Urban Design International, 4, 107-127.
43.Hillier, B., Iida, S. (2005). Network and Psychological Effects in Urban Movement [Conference presentation]. In: Cohn, A.G., Mark, D.M. (eds) Spatial Information Theory. COSIT 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3693. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11556114_30
44.Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P., & Bedford, M. (1976). Space Syntax. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 3(2), 147-185.
45.Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural Movement: or, Configuration and Attraction in Urban Pedestrian Movement. Environment Planning B, 20(1), 29-66.
46.Hillier, B., Turner, A., Yang, T., & Park, H.T. (2010). Metric and topo-geometric properties of urban street networks: some convergencies, divergencies and new results. The Journal of Space Syntax, V (1) 2, 258-279.
47.Hillier, W., Yang, T., & Turner, A. (2012). Advancing Depth Map to advance our understanding of cities: comparing streets and cities, and streets to cities. history.
http://www.slideshare.net/nickb/openstreetmap-and-the-art-of-bicycle-maintenance-state-of-the-map-2007/
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1029/
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/18538/
48.Hughey, S.M., Walsemann, K.M., & Child, S. (2016). Using an environmental justice approach to examine the relationships between park availability and quality indicators, neighborhood disadvantage, and racial/ethnic composition. Landscape & Urban Planning, 148, 159-169.
49.Hulshoff, R.M. (1995). Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape. Landscape Ecology, 10(2), 101-111.
50.Jayasinghe, D.B.C., Hemakumara, G., & Hewage, P. (2018).GIS-Based Assessment of the Green Space Per Capita in the City of Galle, Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Advanced Social Studies, 7 (2), 3–24.
51.Joassart, M. P. (2010). Leveling the Playing Field? Urban Disparities in Funding
52.Joassart, M. P., Wolch, J., & Salim, Z. (2011). Building the Healthy City: The Role of Nonprofits in Creating Active Urban Parks. Urban Geography, 32(5), 682-711.
53.Jonglnan, R.H.G., KtilVik, M., &Kristiansen, I. (2004). European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 305-319.
54.Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape & Urban Planning, 122(2): 129-139.
55.Katherine, B.V., Andrew, T.K., Sonja, A.W.S., Gina, M.B., Ryan, B., &Katie, M.H. (2013). Exploring the Distribution of Park Availability, Features, and Quality Across Kansas City, Missouri by Income and Race/Ethnicity: An Environmental Justice Investigation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(1), 28-38.
56.Lausch, A., & Herzog, F. (2002). Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecological Indicators, 2, 3-15.
57.Lawrence, H. W. (1993). The Greening of the Squares of London: Transformation of Urban landscapes and Ideals. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83(1), 90–118.
58.Li H., & Wu, J. (2004). Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology, 19, 389-399.
59.Li, X.Z., Bu, R.C., & Chang, Y. (2004). The response of landscape metrics against patten scenarios. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 24(1),12-134.
60.Lucy, B., Chris, D.T. (1999). The distribution of plant species in urban vegetation fragments. Landscape Ecology, 14, 493-507.
61.Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Vries, S.d., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(7), 587–592.
62.McHarg, I.L. (1971). Design with Nature. Natural History Press.
63.Mullick, A. (1993). Accessibility issues in park design: The national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26(4), 25-33.
64.Noss, R. (2002). Landscape connectivity: different function at different scales. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryID=42191. (Accessed on 6 September 2021)
65.Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., & Stevens, J.C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry &Urban Greening, 4(3), 11 5123.
66.Oh, K.S. & Jeong, S.H. (2007). Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(1-2), 25-32.
67.Pincetl, S. (2003). Nonprofits and Park Provision in Los Angeles: An Exploration of the Rise of Governance Approaches to the Provision of Local Services. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 979-1001.
Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(5), 1174-1192.
68.Quan, R.X. (2002). Establishing China’s Environmental Justice Study Models. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 14(3), 461-487.
69.Read, S. (1999). Space Syntax and the Dutch City. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 251-264.
70.Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape & Urban Planning, 153, 160-169.
71.Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2021). What Shapes Uneven Access to Urban Amenities? Thick Injustice and the Legacy of Racial Discrimination in Denver's Parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 41(3), 312-325.
72.Rigolon, A., Browning, M., & Jennings, V. (2018). Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landscape & Urban Planning, 178, 156-169.
73.Riiters, K.H., O'Neill, R.V., Hunsacker, C.T. (1995). A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology, 10, 23-39.
74.Rosero, B. L. (2004). Spatial access to health care in Costa Rica and its equity: A GIS-based study. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1271-1284.
75.Roy, S., Byme, J., &Picketing, C. (2012). A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban Forestry& Urban Greening, 11(4), 35 1-363.
76.Schreiber, K.F. (1987). Connectivity in landscape ecology: proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar of the International Association for Landscape Ecology [Conference presentation], International Association of Landscape Ecology. Münster, Germany.
77.Schumaker, N.H. (1996). Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology, 7, 1210-1225.
78.Shaw, J.A. (1997). Urban forest landscapes: integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 159-160.
79.Shishegar, N. (2013).The Impact of Green Areas on Mitigating Urban Heat Island Effect: A Review. The International Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 9 (1), 119-130.
80.Sieg, H., Smith, V., Banzhaf, K., Spencer H., & Walsh, R. (2004). Estimating the general equilibrium benefits of large changes in spatially delineated public goods. International Economic Review, 45 (4), 1047–77.
81.Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (2010). Got green? addressing environmental justice in park provision. Geo journal, 75(3), 229-248.
82.Sustainability Defined (2020). Urban Greening with Sandra Albro (Holden Forests & Gardens). Retrieved from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210430001808/https:/sustainabilitydefined.com/urbangreening. (Accessed on 5 August 2021)
83.Talen, E. (1997). The social equity of urban service distribution: an exploration of park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography, 18, 521-541.
84.Talen, E. (1998). Visualizing fairness equity maps for planners. Journal of the American planning Association, 64, 22-38.
85.Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playground. Environment and Planning A, 30, 595-613.
86.Tischendorf, L. (2001). Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently. Landscape Ecology, 16, 235-254.
87.Turner, M.G. (1989). Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on processes. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20, 171-197.
88.Turner, M.G. (2005). Landscape ecology in North America; past, present, and future. Eeology, 86(8), 1967-1974.
89.United Nations (2021). Sustainable Development Goals-THE 17 GOALS. (8.9.11).
Retrieved from: https://sdgs.un.org/goals#icons. (Accessed on 20 September 2021)
90.United States Environmental Protection Agency (2021). What is Open Space/Green Space? Retrieved from: https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/openspace.html. (Accessed on 10 September 2021)
91.Urban Rambles (2018), A brief history of urban green spaces. Retrieved from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210501043338/http:/urbanrambles.org/background/a-brief-history-of-rus-in-urbe-1307. (Accessed on 10 August 2022)
92.Vintrou, E., Desbrosse, A., Begue, A., Traore, S., Baron, c., & seen, D.L. (2012). Crop area mapping in West Africa using landscape stratification of MODIS time series and comparison with existing global land products. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation & Geoinformation, 14(1), 83-93.
93.Ward, T. C. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 59-72.
94.Weiss, M.G., & Ramakrishna, J. (2006). Stigma interventions and research for international health. The LANCET, 367(9509), 536-538.
95.Wendel, H. E. W., Zarger, R. K., & Mihelcic, J.R. (2012). Accessibility and usability: green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landscape & Urban Planning, 107(3), 272-282.
96.Wiens, J.A. (1999). Landscape ecology: The science and the action. Landscape Ecology, 14, 103.
97.Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J.P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244.
98.Wolch, J.R., Wilson, J.P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2013). Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity-Mapping Analysis. Urban Geography, 26(1), 4-35.
99.Wong, N.H., & Steve, K.J. (2008). GIS-based greenery evaluation on campus masterplant. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 166-182.
100.World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe (‎2017)‎. Urban green spaces: a brief for action. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/344116 (Accessed on 18 August 2021)
101.You, H. (2016). Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, 56, 176-180.
102.Zhang, Q.J., Fu, B.J., & Chen, L.D. (2003). Several problems about landscape pattern change research. Scientia Geographical Sinica, 23 (3), 264-270.
103.Zhang, Y. j., Murray, A.T., &Turner, B.L. (2017). Optimizing green space locations to reduce daytime and nighttime urban heat island effects in Phoenix, Arizona. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 162–171.
104.尹海偉、孔繁花、宗躍光(2008)。城市綠地可達性與公平性評價。生態學報,28(7),3376-3383。
105.文寧(2019)。空間句法中軸線模型與線段模型在城市設計應用中的區別。城市建築,16(4),9-12。
106.木皓可、高宇、王子堯(2019)。供需平衡視角下城市綠地服務水準與公平性測度研究—基於大資料的實證分析。城市發展研究,26(11),10-15。
107.王大立、廖尉植(2004),臺中市鄰里公園可及性與服務水準之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。逢甲大學,臺中市。
108.王小璘、曾詠宜(2003)。都市公園綠地區位景觀生態評估之研究。設計學報。8(3),53-74。
109.王忙忙、王雲才(2020)。生態智慧引導下的城市公園綠地韌性測度體系構建。中國園林,36(6),23-27。
110.王敏、王茜(2016)。基於Q方法的城市公園生態服務使用者感知研究:以上海黃興公園為例。中國園林,32(12),97-102。
111.王敏、梁爽、王雲才(2019)。城市雙修背景下綠地生態網路構建的情景比較與綜合:基於「社會-生態」功能複合的視角。南方建築,2019(3),1-8。
112.王勝男、閆衛陽(2009)。基於Voronoi圖的洛陽城市綠地系統分析與設計。河南大學學報(自然科學版),39(1),42-46。
113.王遠飛(2006)。GIS與Voronoi多邊形在醫療服務設施地理可達性分析中的應用。測繪與空間地理資訊,29(3),77-80。
114.王靜文、雷芸、梁釗(2013)。基於空間句法的多尺度城市公園可達性之探討。華中建築,31(12),74-77。
115.王鵬飛、栗燕、楊秋生(2009)。鄭州市公園綠地木本植物物種多樣性研究。中國園林,1(5),84-87。
116.付益帆、楊凡、包志毅(2021)。基於空間句法和LBS大資料的杭州市綜合公園可達性研究。風景園林,2021,28(2),69-75。
117.田國行(2006)。城市綠地生態系統規劃的理論分析。中國園林,1(9),88-91。
118.伍敏、楊一帆、肖禮軍(2014)。空間句法在大尺度城市設計中的運用。城市規劃學刊。1(2),94-104。
119.江海燕、周春山、肖榮波(2010)。廣州綠地的空間差異及社會公平研究。城市規劃,34(04),43-48。
120.行政院主計總處,新聞稿(2017年05月30日)。檢自:https://www.dgbas.gov.tw/public/Attachment/853016178USMXRNUA.pdf.
(搜索日期:2022年8月24日)
121.何鵬、張會儒(2009)。常用景觀指數的因素分析和篩選方法研究。林業科學研 究,22(4),470-474。
122.吳良鏞(2001)。人居環境科學導論。北京:中國建築工業出版社。
123.吳見、彭道黎(2012)。基於空間資訊的高光譜遙測植被分類技術。農業工程學報。28(5),150-153。
124.吳見、劉民士、李偉濤(2013)。京津風沙源區生態環境品質遙測評價模型。水土保持通報。33(4),233-236。
125.吳宗瓊、莊庭禎 、何秉燦(2005)。 臺北市都市公園之使用與效益分析。造閻學報。11(4), 57-76。
126.吳健生、司夢林、李衛鋒(2016)。供需平衡視角下的城市綠地空間公平性分析—以深圳市福田區為例。應用生態學報。27(9),2831-2838。
127.李小馬、劉長富(2009)。基於網路分析的瀋陽城市公園可達性和服務。生態學報,29(3),1554-1562。
128.李秀珍、布仁倉、常禹、胡遠滿、問青春、王緒高、賀紅仕 (2004)。景觀格局指標對不同景觀格局的反應。生態學報,24(1),123-134。
129.李秀珍、胡遠滿、賀紅士(2007)。從第七屆國際景觀生態學大會看當前景觀生態學研究的特點。應用生態學報,18(12),2915-2916。
130.李金昌(2007)。應用抽樣技術。北京:科學出版社。
131.李貞、王麗榮、管東生(2002)。廣州城市綠地系統景觀異質性分析。應用生態學報,11(1),127-130。
132.李倩、劉興詔、連欣欣(2021)。基於空間句法的福州南台島公園綠地可達性研究。廣西師範大學學報(自然科學版),39(4),181-195。
133.李敏(2002)。論城市綠地系統規劃理論與方法的與時俱進。中國園林。 (5):17-20。
134.李鑫、歐名豪、馬賢磊(2011)。基於景觀指數的細碎化對耕地利用效率影響研究—以揚州市里下河區域為例。自然資源學報,26(10),1758-1767。
135.杜子芳(2005)。抽樣技術及其應用。北京:清華大學出版社。
136.杜培軍、夏俊士、薛朝輝、譚琨、蘇紅軍、鮑蕊(2016)。高光譜遙測影像分類研究進展。遙測學報,20(2),236-256。
137.汪菊淵(1988)。園林學,中國大百科全書—建築、園林、城市規劃卷。北京:中國大百科全書出版社。
138.肖揚、Alain Chiaradia、宋小冬(2014)。空間句法在城市規劃中應用的侷限性及改善和擴展途徑。城市規劃學刊,1(05),32-38。
139.肖篤甯、高峻、石鐵矛(2001)。景觀生態學在城市規劃和管理中的應用。地球科學進展,16(6),813-820。
140.肖篤寧(1999)。景觀生態學研究進展。長沙:湖南科學技術出版社。
141.谷康、梁冰(2020)。基於空間句法的南京明城牆沿線公園綠地可達性研究。現代城市研究,2 (8),11-17。
142.車聲泉(2000)。上海城市綠地的景觀生態學研究。上海:華東師範大學出版社。
143.車聲泉(2001)。上海城市綠地景觀異質性分析。上海環境科學,20(11),511-514。
144.車聲泉(2003)。城市綠地景觀結構分析與生態規劃。南京:東南大學出版社。
145.周廷剛、郭達志(2004)。基於GIS的城市綠地景觀引力場研究—以寧波市為例。生態學報,24(6),1157-1163。
146.周志翔、邵天一、唐萬鵬(2004)。城市綠地空間格局及其環境效應—以宜昌市中心城區為例。生態學報,4(2),186-192。
147.周春玲、張啟翔、孫迎坤(2005)。居住區綠地的美景度評價。中國園林,1 (1),62-67。
148.周詳、張曉剛、何龍斌、曾輝(2013)。 面向行為尺度的城市綠地格局公平性評價及其優化策略—以深圳市為例。北京大學學報(自然科學版),49(5),892-898。
149.岳峰、戴菲、賈行飛(2014)。中國風景園林規劃設計領域 GIS 的應用研究進展。風景園林,1(4),47-52。
150.金勇進、杜子芳、蔣妍(2015)。抽樣技術。北京:中國人民大學出版社。
151.金遠(2006)。對城市綠地指標的分析。中國園林, 22(8),56-60。
152.俞孔堅、李迪華、吉慶萍(2001)。景觀與城市的生態設計:概念與原理。中國園林,1(6),3-9。
153.俞孔堅、李迪華、李偉(2004)。論大運河區域生態基礎設施戰略和實施途徑。地理科學進展,23(1),1-12 。
154.俞孔堅、李迪華、劉海龍(2005)。基於生態基礎設施的城市空間發展格局—「反規劃」之台州案例。城市規劃,29(9),76-80。
155.俞孔堅、李迪華、潮洛蒙(2001)。城市生態基礎設施建設的十大景觀戰略。規劃師,17(6),9-17。
156.俞孔堅、段鐵武、李迪華(1999)。景觀可達性作為衡量城市綠地系統功能指標的評價方法與案例。城市規劃,(8),8-11。
157.俞孔堅、葉正、李迪華(1998)。論城市景觀生態過程與格局的連續性。城市規劃,22(4),2-37。
158.俞孔堅、韓西麗、朱強(2007)。解決城市生態環境問題的生態基礎設施途徑。自然資源學報, 22(5),808-816。
159.段良雄(1979)。遊憩設施區位之選定—極大熵法之應用(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中興大學,臺中市。
160.段進、Hillier B.、邵潤青(2007)。空間句法與城市規劃。南京:東南大學出版社。
161.胡志斌、何興元、陸慶軒、陳瑋、李月輝、劉常富(2005)。基於GIS的綠地景觀可達性研究—以瀋陽市為例。瀋陽建築大學學報, 6, 671-675。
162.唐子來、顧姝(2016)。再議上海市中心城區公共綠地分佈的社會績效評價:從社會公平到社會正義。城市規劃學刊,(1),15-21。
163.唐功爽(2007)。基於SPSS的主成分分析與因數分析的辨析。統計教育,1(2),12-14。
164.唐東芹、楊學軍、許東新(2001)。園林植物景觀評價方法及其應用。浙江林學院學報,18(4),394-397。
165.孫雲曉(2018)。基於路徑距離的城市綠地空間可達性度量及其公平性研究(未出版之碩士論文)。中國科學院大學,北京市。
166.席珺琳、吳志峰、張會(2020)。中心城區公園綠地服務能力綜合評價:模型與案例。生態環境學報,29(5),1044-1053。
167.桂昆鵬、徐建剛、張翔(2013)。基於供需分析的城市綠地空間佈局優化—以南京市為例。應用生態學報, 24(05),1215-1223。
168.祝寧、李敏、柴一新(2002)。哈爾濱市綠地系統生態功能分析。應用生態學報,13(9),1117-1120。
169.秦耀民、劉康、王永軍(2006)。西安城市綠地生態功能研究。生態學雜誌, 25 (2),135-139。
170.翁殊斐、陳錫沐、黃少偉(2002)。用SBE法進行廣州市公園植物配置研究。中國園林。1(5),84-86。
171.高曉惠(2013)。高光譜資料處理技術研究(未出版之博士論文)。中國科學院大學,北京市。
172.高鬱婷(2019)。應用可及性指標與公共設施空間公平性之研究—以原臺中市都市公園為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立成功大學,臺南市。
173.張友水、馮學智、周成虎(2006)。多時相TM影像相對輻射校正研究。測繪學報,35(2),122-127。
174.張玉洋、孫雅婷、姚崇懷(2019)。空間句法在城市公園可達性研究中的應用—以武漢三環線內城市公園為例。中國園林,35(11),92-96。
175.張利權、甄彧(2005)。上海市景觀格局的人工神經網路(ANN)模型。生態學報,25(5),959-964。
176.張明陽、王克林、劉會玉(2005)。白洋澱流域景觀空間格局隨高程分異研究。乾旱區資源與環境,19(4),75-81。
177.張英輝、張水準、張風琴、王蓉(2013)。基於OpenStreetMap最短路徑演算法的分析與實現。電腦技術與發展,1(11),37-41。
178.張效通、陳志豪(2009)。應用遙測與GIS評估都市地區綠覆程度之研究—以臺北市為例。社會與區域發展學報,12(2)。
179.張婷婷 (2011)。黃河三角洲土地鹽漬化格局的遙測監測及鹽漬化過程的空間分析與評價(未發表之博士論文)。復旦大學,上海市。
180.張煥雪(2017)。農田景觀模型及其對農作物遙測識別與面積估算的影響 研究(未發表之博士論文)。中國科學院大學,北京市。
181.張鵬強、余旭初、劉智、李建勝、萬剛(2006)。多時相遙測圖像相對輻射校正。 遙測學報,1 0(3),339-344。
182.盛強、龐天宇、尹雪靜(2021)。社區綠地空間使用效率綜合影響因素研究。風景園林, 28(6),82-87。
183.章俊華(2003)。規劃設計學中調查分析法(12)—AHP法。中國園林,(4),37-40。
184.章俊華(2004)。規劃設計學中調查分析法(15)—因素分析。中國園林,(9),73-78。
185.章俊華(2004)。規劃設計學中調查分析法(16)—SD法。中國園林,(10),54-58。
186.章俊華(2004)。規劃設計學中調查分析法(17)—判別分析。中國園林,(11), 75-78。
187.章俊華(2005)。規劃設計學中調查分析法與實踐。北京:中國建築工業出版社。
188.連乾文(1986)。都市區政中心區位之研究—以臺北市為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中興大學,臺中市。
189.陳文波、肖篤甯、李秀珍(2002)。景觀空間分析的特徵和主要內容。生態學報,22(7),1135-1142。
190.陳君穎、田慶久(2007)。高解析度遙測植被分類研究。遙測學報,11(2),221-227。
191.陳舒燕(2010)。基於OpenStreetMap的出行可達性分析與實現(未出版之碩士論文)。上海師範大學,上海市。
192.陳雯、王遠飛(2009)。城市公園區位分配公平性評價研究—以上海市外環線以內區域為例。安徽師範大學學報:自然科學版,4,373-377。
193.鳥日汗、宋麗萍、溫小榮(2008)。深圳特區城市公園綠地景觀格局分析。林業科技開發。22(4),130-132。
194.傅伯傑(1991)。景觀生態學的物件和任務。北京:中國林業出版社。
195.傅伯傑、陳利頂、馬克明(2001)。景觀生態學原理及應用。北京:科學出版社。
196.傅舜華、彭光輝(2014)。以景觀連接度指標探討都市綠地生熊規劃―臺北市北投奇岩新社區及大彎北段地區之案例比較分析(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺北科技大學,臺北市。
197.傅禮銘(2005)。錢學森山水城市思想及其研究。西安交通大學學報(社會科學版), 25(3),65-75。
198.陽小瓊、朱文泉、潘耀忠、賈斌(2007)。作物種植面積空間對地抽樣方法設計。農業工程學報,23(12),150-155。
199.馮子業、楊涵(2019)。 GIS 在風景園林規劃設計上的應用。現代園藝,42(17),205。
200.黃妙芬、劉素紅、朱啟疆 (2004)。應用遙測方法估算區域蒸散量的制約因數分 析。乾旱區地理,27(1),100-105。
201.黃基傳、趙紅紅(2019)。基於空間句法的城市公園空間結構分析研究。華中建築,37(8),62-65。
202.黃淑姿(1982)。都市鄰里公園區位之研究—以臺北市大安區為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中興大學,臺中市。
203.楊振山、張慧、丁悅(2015)。城市綠色空間研究內容與展望。地理科學進展, 34(01),18-29。
204.楊瑞卿、薛建輝(2006)。城市綠地景觀格局研究—以徐州市為例。人文地理,20(3),14-19。
205.鄒亞榮、鄒斌、梁超、崔松雪、曾韜(2012)。多元指標的海上溢油資訊提取。地 球資訊科學學報,14(2),265-269。
206.鄒波、邵丹娜、張利華(2013)。城市綠地生態綜合評價體系構建及實證分析。中國人口資源與環境,23(7),49-54。
207.鄔建國(2000)。景觀生態學—概念與理論。生態學雜誌。19(1),42-52。
208.廖建軍、姜小文、聶紹芳(2002)。論風景資源的定量評價。江西農業大學學報,24(1),90-93。
209.福州市人民政府,福州市園林中心2021年工作總結暨2022年工作思路(2021年12月31日)。檢自:http://www.fuzhou.gov.cn/zwgk/ghjh/ndjh/202201/t20220114_4291602.htm
(搜索日期:2022年3月5日)
210.維基百科,福州市。檢自:https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A6%8F%E5%B7%9E%E5%B8%82
(搜索日期:2022年6月20日)
211.維基百科,臺中市。檢自:https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%87%BA%E4%B8%AD%E5%B8%82
(搜索日期:2022年6月20日)
212.翟天林、王靜、金志豐(2019)。長江經濟帶生態系統服務供需格局變化與關聯性分析。生態學報,39(15),5414-5424。
213.臺中市政府,臺中市政府民政局人口管理統計平臺(2022年06月01至06月30日)。檢自:https://demographics.taichung.gov.tw/Demographic/index.html?s=16362531
(搜索日期:2022年9月20日)
214.臺中市政府,臺中市政府建設局2018年專案報告(2018)。檢自:https://taichung2050.pixnet.net/blog/post/352744037-%E5%85%AC%E5%9C%92%E7%B6%A0%E5%9C%B0%E8%88%87%E5%85%AC%E5%85%B1%E5%BB%BA%E8%A8%AD
(搜索日期:2022年9月15日)
215.劉建國(1992)。當代生態學博論。北京:中國科學技術出版社。
216.劉頌、楊瑩(2018)。生態系統服務供需平衡視角下的城市綠地系統規劃策略探討。中國城市林業,16(02),1-4。
217.劉儀(2017)。基於GIS和目標層次分析法的地質災害評價研究(未出版之碩士論文)。安徽理工大學,淮南市。
218.劉濱誼、張國忠(2005)。近十年中國城市綠地系統研究進展。中國園林,3(6),25-28。
219.劉璐(2017)。基於空間句法及景觀格局的洛陽中心城區公園綠地佈局研究(未出版之碩士論文)。河南農業大學,鄭州市。
220.樊亞明、田麗瑩、鄭文俊(2022)。基於空間句法的桂林市公園綠地可達性評價與優化。桂林理工大學學報,1(12)。
221.歐定華、夏建國、張莉(2015)。RS和GIS 技術在中尺度景觀類型劃分與製圖中的應用:以成都市龍泉驛區為例。生態學雜誌,34(10),2971-2982。
222.潘雲新(2016)。基於空間句法理論的高校校園綠化景觀格局研究—以江西理工大學為例。中外建築,1(9),126-128。
223.蔡嬋靜、周志翔、陳芳(2006)。武漢市綠色廊道景觀格局。生態學報,26(9), 2997-3004。
224.蔣麗明、張春英、呂梁(2019)。基於空間句法的福州市濱江公園可達性研究。長春師範大學學報,38(4),94-99。
225.鄧雪、李家銘、曾浩健、陳俊羊、趙俊峰(2012)。層次分析法權重計算方法分析及其應用研究。數學的實踐與認識,42(7),93-100。
226.鄭淑穎、管東生、馬靈芳(2003)。廣州城市綠地斑塊的密集度分析。中山大學學報 (自然科學版),39(2),109-113。
227.鄭盛、趙祥、張顥、何祺勝、曹春香、陳良富(2011)。HJ-1衛星CCD資料的大氣校正及其效果分析。遙測學報,15(4),709-721。
228.蕭景楷 (編)(2008)。《臺中市志·經濟志》。臺中市政府。
229.羅胡陽(2021)。基於空間句法與GIS的城市公園體育運動空間可達性分析。體育科技文獻通報,29(8),32-137。
230.關文彬、謝春華、馬克明(2003)。景觀生態恢復與重建是區域生態安全格局構建的關鍵途徑。塵態學報, 23(1),64-73。
231.鐘麗玲、范偉程、林忠友(2021)。基於空間句法的城市防災公園尋路行為研究—以福州市溫泉公園為例。南方園藝,32(2),31-37。
232.饒磊、郭熙、葉英聰、許婷、孫凱(2016)。萬年縣耕地景觀破碎度變化及原因分析。江西農業學報,28(10),82-87。
233.顧孟潮(2000)。論錢學森與山水城市和建築科學。建築學報,3(7),12-14。

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE