臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

為了因應都市快速成長所造成的外部性效果，智慧型成長(Smart Growth)常做為都市內新開發地區之重要策略，產生緊密且連續之土地使用型態，提升土地使用與公共設施配置之效率，以降低無秩序的蔓延式發展。近年來隨著台中市人口增長快速，地方政府積極對於都市土地進行開發，使得整體都市型態產生改變，並以智慧型成長策略作為未來都市發展走向，企圖引導都市朝向更佳的型態發展。

都市型態學的研究早期研究多在單純闡述都市空間結構的表現類型，而後發展以指標的方式，量測都市發展型態，其中又以土地使用面向的指標最為重要，都市亟需一套簡易指標來衡量智慧型成長政策的實行，是否可確實引導都市朝向更佳的型態發展。

因此本研究將以台中市為實證地區，利用94年交通部運輸研究所路網數值圖、93年台灣不動產資料庫與84年度、95年度的國土利用調查資料，分析都市的現況發展情形，並進行兩年度的土地使用變遷，並建構合智慧型成長目標之指標，以具體量測都市發展型態是否朝向智慧型成長目標前進。爰此，本研究目的有三：(1)藉由相關文獻回顧歸納建置符合智慧型成長理念之指標；(2)比較台中市各地區的都市智慧型成長型態；(3)檢視台中市都市智慧成長型態之變遷。

根據研究之成果，在不同衡量指標之下，會產生不一樣的智慧型成長型態。台中市的各里根據發展歷程的不同，也會形成不一樣的智慧型成長型態。台中市雖然歷經四種不同發展階段，但可發覺舊市區都市計畫地區與擴大都市計畫地區的發展模式相近；第一次通盤檢討與第二次通盤檢討地區的發展相近，因此在各個不同的都市智慧型成長指標衡量之下，兩種地區的智慧型成長程度也呈現不同的趨勢。在街道設計與環狀系統指標下，舊地區的發展較不智慧；新地區發展較智慧。在土地使用密度指標上，舊地區的發展較智慧；新地區的發展較不智慧。在土地混合指標上，舊地區的發展較不智慧；新地區發展較智慧。在綠地擁有率指標上，舊地區的發展較智慧；新地區的發展較不智慧。

In order to respond to the external effects caused by rapid development in urban area, Smart Growth has been considered as an important strategy in using land on-in fill sites, making more compact and increasing the efficiency of land use and settlements of public utilities, which to limit outward extension of new development. In recent years, the population of Taichung City increases rapidly. The city government engages in land development which making the overall change in urban form. Smart growth strategies for future urban development trends, in an attempt to guide the city toward a better pattern of development.

Urban morphology study of the early research in simple to elaborate the performance of urban spatial structure type, then the development of indicators of the way, the measurement of urban development patterns, especially land-use indicators for the most important urban urgent need for asimple indicators to measure the implementation of smart growth policies can indeed guide the city towards a better pattern of development.

In view of this, this study employs Taichung City as an empirical case setting and attempts, using the data of Land Use Investigation of Taiwan in 1995 and 2006. For the reason, this study has three purposes. Firstly, by the literature review summarized build in line with the concept of smart growth indicators. Second, compare various areas in Taichung City, urban smart growth patterns. Last, View of Taichung City, urban smart growth pattern changes.

According to research results, not the same smart growth patterns under different metrics. Taichung's all inside, depending on the course of development, will not as smart growth pattern. Although Taichung City after four different stages of development, but can be found in old urban areas of urban planning region with the expansion of the urban planning development model is similar; the first comprehensive review close to the second overall review of the development of the region, so in all under different urban smart growth indicators to measure the degree of two smart growth also showed different trends. In street design and the ring system indicators, the development of the old areas less wisdom; the development of new areas compared with wisdom. Indicators of land use density, the old areas is the development of more wisdom; the development of new areas of less wisdom. Mixed indicators of the land, the development of the old areas of less wisdom; the development of new areas compared with wisdom. Green space has a target rate of the old region compared with wisdom; the development of the new area is less wise

目錄

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究範疇 3
第三節 研究內容 5
第四節 研究流程 7

第二章 文獻回顧 8
第一節 智慧型成長理論 8
第二節 都市型態理論 17
第三節 智慧型成長型態 26

第三章 研究設計與方法 29
第一節 研究架構 29
第二節 台中市都市發展的轉變 34
第三節 都市智慧型成長指標 41

第四章 實證分析 46
第一節 都市智慧型成長型態之現況分析 46
第二節 都市智慧型成長型態之變遷分析 58

第五章 結論與建議 64

參考文獻 67

附錄 71

 
表目錄

表2-1-1 智慧型成長原則表 11
表2-2-1 都市型態意涵表 18
表2-2-2 都市型態之衡量尺度與對象整理表 24
表2-3-1 評估智慧型成長指標項目表 28
表3-1-1 84與95土地利用分類系統第Ⅰ級分類比較 33
表3-1-2 土地利用分類表 34
表3-2-1 台中市實施智慧型成長策略相關內容表 41
表3-3-1 施行智慧型成長政策考量項目表 43
表3-3-2 都市智慧型成長型態現況比較之指標 45
表3-3-3 都市智慧型成長型態變遷分析之指標 47
表4-1-1 街道設計與環狀系統層面現況比較表 49
表4-1-2 土地使用密度層面比較表 53
表4-1-3 土地混合使用層面比較表 56
表4-1-4 設施可及性比較表 57
表4-2-1 街道設計與環狀系統層面變遷表 61
表4-2-2 土地使用密度層面變遷表 63
表4-2-3 土地混合使用層面表 64
表4-2-4 綠地擁有率層面表 65
表4-2-5 台中市智慧型成長型態一覽表 66



 
圖目錄

圖1-2-1 現況比較實證分析圖 3
圖1-2-2 變遷分析實證基地圖 4
圖1-2-3 研究時間示意圖 4
圖1-4-1 研究流程圖 7
圖3-1-1 台中市區界圖 32
圖3-1-2 台中市細部計畫範圍圖 32
圖3-1-3 家戶數計算範圍圖 35
圖3-2-1 單核心時期都市發展圖 37
圖3-2-2 擴大都市計畫發展圖 38
圖3-2-3 第一次通盤檢討之都市發展圖 39
圖3-2-4 第二次通盤檢討之都市發展圖 40
圖4-1-1 Int_Connectivity空間比較圖 51
圖4-1-2 Blocks_peri空間比較圖 52
圖4-1-3 Blocks空間比較圖 52
圖4-1-4 Street_miles空間比較圖 53
圖4-1-5 Lot_Size空間比較圖 55
圖4-1-6 Floor Space空間比較圖 55
圖4-1-7 SFRDU_Density空間比較圖 56
圖4-1-8 Mix空間比較圖 57
圖4-1-9 Comids空間比較圖 59
圖4-1-10 Busdis空間比較圖 59
圖4-1-11 Parkdis空間比較圖 60
圖4-2-1 街道設計與環狀系統層面變遷圖 62
圖4-2-2 土地使用密度層面變遷圖 63
圖4-2-3 土地混合使用層面圖 64
圖4-2-4 綠地擁有率層面圖 66

壹、中文文獻


1.台中市政府. (1999). 修訂台中市綜合發展計畫. 台中市政府.
2.王國材.(1994). 運輸網路佈置對都市發展型態影響之研究. 交通大學交通運輸研究所博士論文.
3.江家溢. (2007). 建構生態分區的都市空間結構-以台中市整體開發區為例. 逢甲大學都市計畫學系碩士論文.
4.洪于婷. (2006). 地方永續發展時空變遷之研究. 成功大學都市計劃學系博士論文.
5.姜瑞菁. (2007). 應用智慧型成長概念檢視台北都會區改善空間分散發展機制之研究. 逢甲大學都市計畫學系碩士論文.
6.徐國城. (2006). 緊密都市形態之正負面效益論述－兼論對台灣城鄉空間發展之參 考觀點，土地問題季刊
7.許銘峰. (2008). 台灣地區都市型態特徵之比較研究, 成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文.
8.許澤仁. (2009). 智慧型成長管理政策對於都市發展影響之情境模擬研究-以嘉義市為例. 成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文.
9.高佩菁. (2002). 都市蔓延發展之研究. 台北大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文
10.張嘉玲. (2004). 台中市都市空間體系的建構與擴展. 成功大學建築學系碩士論文.
11.簡龍鳳，賴宗裕. (2007). 捷連場站毗鄰地區空間結構理論模型之建立. 中興工程.
12.簡培如 (2006). 二戰後台中市都市空間發展模式的探討. 成功大學建築學系碩士論文.
13.賴宗裕. (2003). 從成長管理到智慧型成長-理念與應用的發展. 第一屆土地研究學術研討會.



貳、英文文獻


1.Alonso, W., 1964. Location and land use. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA.
2.Anderson, W. P., Kanaroglou, P. S. and Miller, E. J. 1996. Urban form, Energy, and the Environment: A Review of Issues, Evidence and Policy, Urban Studies, 33(1), 7–35.
3.Atkinson-Palombo, C. (2010). New housing construction in Phoenix: Evidence of new suburbanism? Cities, 27(2), 77-86. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2009.10.001
4.Aurand, A. (2010). Density, Housing Types and Mixed Land Use: Smart Tools for Affordable Housing? Urban Studies, 47(5), 1015-1036. doi: 10.1177/0042098009353076
5.Bartlett, R. (2003). Testing the 'popsicle test': Realities of retail shopping in new 'traditional neighbourhood developments'. Urban Studies, 40(8), 1471-1485. doi: 10.1080/0042098032000094397
6.Batisani, N., ＆ Yarnal, B. (2011). Elasticity of capital-land substitution in housing construction, Gaborone, Botswana: Implications for smart growth policy and affordable housing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(2), 77-82. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.016
7.Beatley, T., 2000. Green urbanism: learning from european cities. Island Press, Washington, DC.
8.Benfield, F., Kaid, Matthew., D. Raimi., and Donald, D. T. Chen., 1999. Once there were greenfield: how urban sprawl is undermining America’s environment, Economy and Social Fabric, New York: Natural Resources Denfense Council.
9.Bento, A. M., Cropper, M. L., Mobarak, A. M., ＆ Vinha, K. (2005). The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 466-478. doi: 10.1162/0034653054638292
10.Boarnet, M. G., Joh, K., Siembab, W., Fulton, W., ＆ Mai, T. N. (2011). Retrofitting the Suburbs to Increase Walking: Evidence from a Land-use-Travel Study. Urban Studies, 48(1), 129-159. doi: 10.1177/0042098010364859
11.Boyle, R., ＆ Mohamed, R. (2007). State growth management, smart growth and urban containment: A review of the US and a study of the heartland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(5), 677-697. doi: 10.1080/09640560701475337
12.Brody, S. D., ＆ Highfield, W. E. (2005). Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 159-175. doi: 10.1080/01944360508976690
13.Breheny, M., 1992. Sustainable development and urban form. Pion, London.
14.Brueckner, J.K., 2000. Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 23 (2), 160–171.
15.Burgess, E.W., 1925. In: Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W., McKenzie, R. (Eds.), The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project. The City, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 47–62.
16.Carruthers, J. I. (2007). Planning policy and politics: Smart growth and the states. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 120-120.
17.Cervero, R., Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design, Transportation Research D, 2(3), 199–219.
18.Christaller, W., 1933. Central Places in Southern Germany. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
19.DeGrove, J. M. (2005). Planning policy and politics. Cambridge, Mess, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
20.De Roo, G., Miller, D., 2000. Compact Cities and Sustainable Urban Development: A Critical Assessment of Policies and Plans from an International Perspective. Ashgate, Hampshire, England.
21.Diamond, H. L., P. F. Noonon., 1996. Land Use in America, Washington, DC: Island Press, 85.
22.Dieleman, F.,Wegener,M., 2004. Compact city and urban sprawl. Built Environ. 30 (4), 308–323.
23.Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth - why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378. doi: 10.1080/01944360508976707
24.Duany, A., Plater‐Zyberk, E., Speck, J., 2000. Suburban Nation. North Point Press, New York, NY.
25.Ewing, R., Pendall, R., Chen, D. (2002). Measuring Sprawl and its Impact. Smart Growth America, Washington, DC.
26.Filion, P. (2009). The mixed success of nodes as a smart growth planning policy. Environment and Planning B-Planning ＆ Design, 36(3), 505-521. doi: 10.1068/b33145
27.Fleissig, W., ＆ Jacobsen, V. (2002). Smart score card for development projects. . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
28.Friedman, J., 1966. Regional Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. The MIT Press.
29.Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M. R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., ＆ Freihage, J. (2001). Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate.
30.Gillham, O., Maclean, A., 2001. The Limitless City. Island Press, Washington, DC.
31.Gilliland, J., Pierre, G., 2006. The study of urban form in Canada. Urban Morphology. 10(1), 51‐66
32.Harris, C. D., and Ullman, E. L., 1945. The Nature of Cities, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. So. Sci, 242, 7–17.
33.Howell-Moroney, M. (2008). A description and exploration of recent state-led smart-growth efforts. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy.
34.Hoyt, H., 1939. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities, Federal Housing Administration, Washington, DC.
35.Johnson, M.P., 2001. Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed research agenda. Environ. Plann. A(33), 717–735.
36.Knox, P., 1987. Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
37.Langlois, P. (2010). Municipal visions, market realities: does planning guide residential development? Environment and Planning B-Planning ＆ Design, 37(3), 449-462. doi: 10.1068/b34103
38.Leccese, M., McCormick, K., 2000. Charter of the New Urbanism. McGraw‐Hill, New York.
39.Levy, J. M. (1994). Contemporary Urban Planning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.：Prentice Hall.
40.Lynch, K., 1981. The Good City Form. The MIT Press.
41.Litman, T. (2007). Evaluating criticism of Smart Growth. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, British Columbia.
42.Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 2001. Smart Growth, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cambridge, MA.
43.Marshall, S., 2005. Urban Pattern Specification, Solutions, London.
44.McGovern, P. S. (1999). Growth management for a sustainable future: Ecological sustainability as the new growth management focus for the 21st century. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(2), 238-238.
45.Millward, H. (2006). Urban containment strategies: A case-study appraisal of plans and policies in Japanese, British, and Canadian cities. Land Use Policy, 23(4), 473-485. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.02.004
46.Perroux, F., 1955. La notion de pole de croissance, Economie appliqué.
47.Song, Y., ＆ Knaap, G. J. (2004). Measuring urban form - Is Portland winning the war on sprawl? Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 210-225. doi: 10.1080/01944360408976371
48.Tsai, Y. H. (2005). Quantifying urban form: Compactness versus 'Sprawl'. Urban Studies, 42(1), 141-161. doi: 10.1080/0042098042000309748
49.Wassmer, R. W. (2000). Urban sprawl in a U.S. metropolitan area: ways to measure and a comparison of the sacramento area to similar metropolitan areas in California and the U.S. project paper.
50.Zovanyi, G. (1999). Sustainable futures? Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 327-327.