跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.205.192.201) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 10:41
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:張孝德
研究生(外文):Chang Hsiao-Te
論文名稱:建成環境對兒童通學方式與運具選擇之影響-臺北市文山區國小學童之實證分析
論文名稱(外文):The Influences of Built Environment on Children's School Travel:Empirical Analysis of Elementary School Students in Taipei Wenshan District
指導教授:林楨家林楨家引用關係
指導教授(外文):Lin Jen-Jia
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:都市計劃研究所
學門:建築及都市規劃學門
學類:都市規劃學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:182
中文關鍵詞:建成環境兒童通學方式運具選擇巢式羅吉特模式
外文關鍵詞:Built environmentChildrenSchool Travel PatternMode choiceNested logit model
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:505
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:6
建成環境與運具選擇之間的影響關係,雖然已有許多理論與實證研究的發現,但是以往的研究與規劃,通常忽略如兒童等弱勢族群的旅運需求,而在兒童的生活當中,又以學校為最常往返的目的地,也因此兒童在住家和學校之間的通學方式與運具選擇,在兒童旅運行為的研究中顯得相形重要。根據過去文獻指出,日漸增加的兒童通學汽車旅次,不僅容易造成學校附近嚴重的交通問題,對於家長的旅運決策,以及兒童本身的身心發展,也會產生一定程度的影響,是故如何藉由建成環境的改善,導引兒童採取永續性的通學方式與運具選擇,將成為本研究著重探討的課題。
本研究的目的在於實證分析各項建成環境條件,對兒童通學方式與運具選擇的影響,並根據實證結果的發現,以鼓勵兒童獨自通學並且使用非機動運具為目標,研提可行的都市建成環境規劃策略。研究首先進行相關文獻的回顧與彙整,繼而提出研究假說。為了驗證本研究對於兒童通學旅運行為與建成環境之間影響關係的推論,是否為實際資料所支持,因此選擇臺北市文山區指南、景美、興華等三所國小進行實證研究。透過對於國小學生的問卷調查,進一步瞭解實際兒童通學的旅運行為,並將問卷調查的資料,利用巢式羅吉特模式進行分析。其中,將只有控制變數的基本模式,以及加入建成環境變數後的延伸模式加以比較,藉以明確瞭解各項建成環境條件是否會對兒童通學方式與運具選擇造成影響。
研究結果發現,在兒童的上學旅次中,道路車輛密度、土地使用混合程度、運具多樣性指標、植栽比例以及人行道比例,對於兒童獨自上學或步行上學均為正向影響,而街廓規模、車道寬度與交叉路口數則是呈現負向影響關係;另外,在兒童的放學旅次中,正向影響兒童獨自放學或步行放學的建成環境因素為及業密度、建物密度、道路車輛密度與運具多樣性指標,而負向影響的因素則是僅有街廓規模和車道寬度。透過實證分析之影響關係,研擬出四項都市發展之規劃與設計策略,提供未來相關單位之參考,分別為:(一)增加住宅區內允許使用組別,並提高容積率管制上限規定;(二)增加行經學校之公車路線或班次;(三)提高兩公尺以上人行道比例,並且增加行道樹的種植;(四)在大型街廓內,劃設僅供步行使用的公共通道系統。
There were numerous theoretical and empirical studies about the relationships between built environment and mode choice, but the previous studies and planning usually ignored the travel demands of disadvantaged including children. Since school travel is the most essential activity for children’s daily life, the travel pattern and mode choice between home and school make it being important in the study of children’s travel behavior. According to the previous studies, increasing car use of school travel not only results in traffic jam around school, but also affects parent’s travel behavior, and mental and physical development of children. Therefore, the key point of this study is how to guide children toward sustainable school travel pattern and mode choice through built environment developing.
The purpose of this study is to empirically analyze the influences of built environment on children’s school travel. Based on the empirical findings, urban planning strategies to encourage children walking to school alone are addressed. The study began with literature review and proposing research hypotheses. In order to empirically examine the proposed hypothetical relationships between built environment and children’s school travel, this study chose three elementary schools Chinan, Jingmei and Xinhwa in Taipei Wenshan District. Through questionnaire surveys on the elementary school students, the sample data was obtained and analyzed by nested logit model. The base models, which only consider control variables, with extend models which consider both control variables and built environment variables were compared to verify the impacts of built environment on children’s school travel.
The results of this study indicate that vehicle density, mixed land use, mode diversity, proportion of tree and proportion of sidewalk encourage children to walk to school alone, while block size, road width and intersection number discourage children from walking to school alone. Furthermore, employment density, building density, vehicle density and mode diversity encourage children to leave school by walking alone, but block size and road width discourage children from leaving school by walking alone.
Based on the empirical evidences, this study recommends the following strategies for achieving sustainable school transportation: (1) increasing permitted land uses in residential zone; and raising the upper limit of regulated floor space; (2) increasing the route or the frequency of bus services between residential areas and schools; (3) increasing the proportion of sidewalks, whose widths are no less than two meters, and planting shade trees along sidewalks; and (4) providing walkway system in large blocks.
第一章 緒論 1-1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1-1
第二節 研究範疇 1-4
第三節 研究流程 1-10
第四節 研究內容 1-11
第五節 研究方法 1-13

第二章 文獻回顧 2-1
第一節 兒童通學之旅運行為 2-1
第二節 建成環境對於運具選擇之影響 2-22
第三節 綜合評述 2-44

第三章 研究設計 3-1
第一節 課題研析 3-1
第二節 假說研提 3-13
第三節 分析方法 3-24

第四章 資料調查與分析 4-1
第一節 問卷調查與樣本資料蒐集 4-1
第二節 敘述統計分析 4-11
第三節 相關分析 4-21

第五章 實證分析 5-1
第一節 巢式羅吉特模式校估 5-1
第二節 假說驗證 5-14
第三節 討論與應用 5-24

第六章 結論與建議 6-1
第一節 結論 6-1
第二節 建議 6-7
《附錄》問卷調查設計內容 附錄-1
《參考資料》 參考-1
中文部分:
1.王慶瑞 (2001),「運輸系統規劃」,正揚出版社。
2.李瑞麟 (1997),「都市土地使用規劃」,興樺圖書文具有限公司。
3.周文欽 (2000),「研究方法概論」,國立空中大學。
4.周明翰 (1996),「學童上下學旅次特性與安全維護作業之研究」,國立台灣大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文。
5.施鴻志 (1988),「都市交通計畫的理論與實務」,茂昌圖書有限公司。
6.洪玉蕙 (2004),「台北市國小通學步道規劃制度之研究-以北投國民小學為例」,國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
7.凌游世傑 (2001),「都市社區通學路規劃與設計之研究」,淡江大學建築學研究所碩士論文。
8.郭子齊 (2000),「都市土地使用型態對消費性旅次運具選擇行為之影響」,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
9.陳文慧 (2001),「鄰里通學道路設施與學童步行活動環境之調查研究-以台北市為例」,中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
10.馮正民、林楨家 (2000),「都市及區域分析方法」,建都文化事業股份有限公司。
11.蕭博正 (2003),「台北市土地混合使用特性對旅運需求之影響」,國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
12.鍾起岱 (2003),「計畫方法學」,五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
13.蘇昭銘、陳雅慧 (1999),「國小學童上下學交通安全管理措施之研究」,中華民國第六屆運輸安全研討會論文集,第129-139頁。
14.亞聯工程顧問股份有限公司 (2001),「臺北都會區整體運輸規劃基本資料之調查與驗校(二)」,台北市政府交通局。
15.張瓊玲、詹火生、薛承泰、林慧芬 (2001),「兒童安全與權益調查與政策建議」,財團法人國家政策研究基金會。

英文部分:
1.Bradshaw, R. (1995), “Why do parents drive their children to school,” Traffic Engineering and Control, 36 (1): 16-19.
2.Bradshaw, R. and Jones, P. (2000), The Family and the School Run: What would make a real difference, Scoping Report to the AA Foundation for Road Safety Research carried out by the Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster.
3.Cervero, R. (1996), “Mixed land-uses and commuting: evidence from the American housing survey,” Transportation Research A, 30 (5): 361-377.
4.Cervero, R. (2002), “Built environment and mode choice: toward a normative framework,” Transportation Research D, 7 (4): 265-284.
5.Cervero, R. and Duncan, M. (2003), “Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area,” Working Paper, University of California Transportation Center.
6.Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. (1997), ”Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design,” Transportation Research D, 2 (3): 199-219.
7.Chatman, D. (2003), “The influence of workplace land use and commute mode choice on mileage traveled for personal commercial purposes,” Transportation Research Board 2003 Annual Meeting.
8.Edward, K., David, G., and Stuart, C. (1995), Urban Land Use Planning, University of Illinois.
9.Ewing, R. (1995), “Beyond density, mode choice, and single-purpose trips,” Transportation Research Board 74th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
10.Frank, L. and Pivo, G. (1994), “Impacts of mixed land use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking,” Transportation Research Record, 1466: 44-52.
11.Granville, S., Larid, A. , Barber, M. , and Fiona, R. (2002), Why Do Parents Drive Their Children to School? , Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.
12.Greenwald, M. and Boarnet, M. (2001), The Built Environment as a Determinant of Walking Behavior: Analysis Non-work Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California, Irvine.
13.Handy, S. (1996), “Urban form and pedestrian choice: study of Austin neighborhoods,” Transportation Research Record, 1552: 135-144.
14.Isebrands, H., Hallmark, S., and Liu, X. (2006), “School transportation modes for urban and suburban elementary school in Iowa,” Transportation Research Board 2006 Annual Meeting.
15.Joo, J. (2002), Local Transit Access: The Relevance of The Local Environment in Predicting Travel Mode Choice, A master project of the University of North Carolina.
16.Kockelman, K. (1995), “Which matters more in mode choice: density or income?” Institute of Transportation Engineers 65th Annual Meeting.

17.Mackett, R. (2001), Are We Making Our Children Car Dependent? , A Lecture at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
18.Mackett, R. (2002), “Increasing car dependency of children: should we be worried?” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer, 151 (1): 29-38.
19.McDonald, N. (2006), “Children's travel patterns: evidence from the 2001 national household travel survey,” Transportation Research Board 2006 Annual Meeting.
20.McFadden, D. and Train, K. (2000), “Mixed MNL models for discrete response,” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15: 447-470.
21.McMillan, T. (2005), “Urban form and a child's trip to school: the current literature and a framework for future research,” Journal of Planning Literature, 19 (4): 440-456.
22.McMillan, T. (2007), “The relative influence of urban form on a child's travel mode to school,” Transportation Research A, 41 (1):69-79.
23.Morris, J., Wang, F. and Lilja, L. (2001), “School children’s travel patterns: A look back and a way forward”, 4th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Melbourne.
24.Rajamani, J. ,Bhat, C. ,Handy, S. ,Knaap, G. and Song, Y. (2002), “Assessing the impact of urban form measures in nonwork trip mode choice after controlling for demographic and level-of-service effects,” Transportation Research Board 2003 Annual Meeting.
25.Reilly, M. and Landis, J. (2002), “The influence of built-form and land use on mode choice: evidence from the 1996 Bay Area travel survey,” Research paper, University of California Transportation Center.
26.Rhoulac, T. (2005), “Bus or car: the classic choice in the context of school transportation”, Transportation Research Record, 1922: 98-104.
27.Schwanen, T. and Mokhtarian, P. (2005), “What affects commute mode choice - neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhood,” Journal of Transport Geography, 13 (1):83-99.
28.Stefan, K. and Hunt, J. (2006), “Age-based analysis of travel by children in Calgary, Canada,” Transportation Research Board 2006 Annual Meeting.
29.Zhang, M. (2004), “The role of land use in travel mode choice,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (3): 344-360.
30.Zwerts, E. and Wets, G. (2006), “Children’s travel behavior: a world of difference,” Transportation Research Board 2006 Annual Meetin.


網站資料:
1.臺北市政府教育局統計室 (2006),http://www.edunet.taipei.gov.tw/public/public.asp?SEL=52,2006年7月12日下載。
2.衛生署衛生統計資訊網 (2006),http://www.doh.gov.tw/statistic/index.htm,2006年7月12日下載。
3.臺北市文山區公所 (2006),http://www.ws.gov.tw/a/a1.asp,2006年7月16日下載。
4.教育部統計處 (2006),http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/Web/STATISTICS/index.php,2006年7月28日下載。
5.交通部統計處 (2006),http://www.motc.gov.tw/hypage.cgi?HYPAGE=stat.asp,2006年7月28日下載。
6.指南國小 (2006),http://www.cnps.tp.edu.tw,2006年7月28日下載。
7.景美國小 (2006),http://www.cmes.tp.edu.tw,2006年7月28日下載。
8.興華國小 (2006),http://www.hhps.tp.edu.tw,2006年7月28日下載。
9.臺北市地理資訊e點通 (2006),http://addr.taipei.gov.tw/index_new.asp,2006年8月12日下載。
10.臺北市大眾運輸公車路線查詢系統 (2006),http://www.taipeibus.taipei.gov.tw,2006年9月21日下載。
11.臺北市政府主計處 (2006),http://w2.dbas.taipei.gov.tw/news_weekly/S4_2/95377.htm,2006年12月27日下載。
12.臺北市文山區第二戶政事務所網站 (2006),http://www.ws2hr.taipei.gov.tw/,2007年1月9日下載。
13.臺北市文山區第一戶政事務所網站 (2006),http://www.ws1hr.taipei.gov.tw/windex.htm,2007年1月9日下載。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top