臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　基於永續發展目標，鼓勵都市民眾步行、騎乘自行車或使用大眾運輸工具的綠色運輸(green transportation)發展觀念，使得自行車漸漸成為都市民眾重視的交通工具。騎乘自行車時的舒適程度，會影響都市民眾的自行車使用意願，而受到各種因素影響的自行車騎乘適宜程度就稱為「自行車適騎性(bikeability)」。此外，在都市內運用自行車來達成通勤需求與滿足生活需求的使用者為運輸型自行車使用者，過去評估運輸型自行車適騎性的方法中缺乏不同面向評估指標，因此有需要設計一個包含綜合性面向的評估方法，以改正過去評估方法的缺失，並可用以輔佐交通單位規劃都市內各地區的運輸型自行車適騎性改善策略。
　　評估方法採用分析網路程序法(analytic network process, ANP)，並結合質化與量化多準則評估(multicriteria evaluations with qualitative and quantitative data, MEQQD)與灰色理論(grey theory)之特性，可融合多種不同類型的評估準則，並進一步轉換成各評估面向與評估準則之自行車適騎性分數，更可產生出該地區整體自行車適騎性的總分數，以反映出當地的自行車適騎性狀態，藉由此方法能評估出符合現實狀態的綜合性都市運輸型自行車適騎性程度。本研究運用此評估方法分析台北市大安區內各里的運輸型自行車適騎性，分析結果顯示出大安區內為中央高自行車適騎性、外圍低自行車適騎性的分布，此分布主要受到當地自然環境、建成環境、政策計畫與評估方法特性所影響。而後續政策分析也提出數項改善運輸型自行車適騎性的政策建議供大安區得分最高與得分最低的兩里做為參考，並運用此評估方法對台北市政府擬定之自行車路網建置計畫進行檢視，分析結果顯示出此種大範圍尺度的交通建設計畫成效並不優於各地區逐步檢討改善區內自行車環境後串聯在一起的整體成效。
　　本研究成果之學術貢獻為改正過去評估方法缺乏綜合性面向指標問題，並加入新類型之指標，針對都市內運輸型自行車使用目的設計可同時採用量性指標與質性指標的自行車適騎性評估方法。實務貢獻為評估方法可輔佐交通單位規劃都市內各地區的自行車適騎性改善策略與政策分析。

Based on sustainable development goals, biking, a green transportation mode, is becoming more important and popular in urban areas. The ease of bike riding, which is called “bikeability”, would influence people’s inclination for biking. The bikeability is associated with numerous factors. Utility bikers are bikers who bike for specific purposes. The previous bikeability studies ignored multiple dimensions of evaluation criteria. Thus, this research filled the ignorance and developed a new bikeability evaluation model considering comprehensive criteria.
The proposed bikeability evaluation model integrates the Analytic Network Process (ANP), the Multicriteria Evaluation with Qualitative and Quantitative Data (MEQQD) and grey numbers. The model can deal with qualitative and quantitative criteria simultaneously and provide not only different dimension scores but also a general score of bikeability. Furthermore, the model can evaluate bikeability scores for an area in an effective and realistic way. In the case study, we adopted this bikeability evaluation model to evaluate bikeability scores in Daan district, Taipei City. The result shows that the distribution of bikeability scores in Daan district is affected by four reasons, including the natural environment, the built environment, policies, and the characteristic of the bikeability evaluation model. Moreover, the outcome of the policy analysis provided many planning suggestions for the top and the last bikeability score Lis and indicated the deficiencies of the future bikeway construction plan in Daan district.
This study reaches the following two contributions. The academic contribution is that the proposed model improves the previous bikeability evaluation methods by considering comprehensive dimensions of criteria and focusing on the users of utility biking. As for the practical contribution, the model can assist transportation agencies to evaluate and improve biking environments for urban areas.

目錄
中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究動機與目的 1
第二節、研究對象與範疇 5
第三節、研究流程與內容 11
第四節、研究方法 14
第二章、文獻回顧 17
第一節、自行車適騎性評估方法 17
第二節、運輸型自行車使用者在意因素 32
第三節、綜合評析 35
第三章、評估方法構想 39
第一節、問題定義 40
第二節、問題分析 44
第三節、評估方法構想 90
第四章、評估方法建構 100
第一節、評估體系建立 101
第二節、評估方法設計 116
第三節、評估方法驗證 129
第五章、實例分析 140
第一節、空間背景說明與準則資料調查 141
第二節、評估結果與討論 167
第三節、政策分析 179
第六章、結論與建議 202
第一節、結論 202
第二節、後續研究與建議 206
參考文獻 208
附錄 212
附錄一：重要關係人訪談紀錄表 213
附錄二：重要關係人訪談紀錄 223
附錄三：ANP專家問卷 246
附錄四：台北市大安區各里原始表現值 273
附錄五：質性評估準則調查問卷 288

交通部運輸研究所（2013）。自行車道系統規劃設計參考手冊。交通部運輸研究所，台北。
行政院體育委員會（2002）。自行車道設施設計準則彙編。行政院體育委員會，台北。
許修豪、曾志煌、許書耕（2009年12月）。交通部推動自行車道系統政策之研究。中華民國運輸學會學術論文研討會，台北。
張乃斌（2002）。環境系統分析原理。茂昌圖書有限公司，台北。
張勝雄、鄭晃二、陶治中、陳恆鈞、林麗香（2008）。臺北市自行車政策之研究。臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會委託市政專題研究報告。台北：台北市政府。
馮正民、江俊良（1988）。質化與量化多準則評估方法之改進與應用。都市與計劃，15(1)，31-47。
馮正民、林楨家（2008）。都市及區域分析方法。建都文化事業股份有限公司，新竹。
蔡龍保（2008）。日治時期臺灣道路改良事業之展開（1926-1936）。國史館學術集刊，17，37-83。
鄧聚龍（2005）。灰色系統基本方法。華中科技大學出版社，中國武漢。
Botma, H. (1995). Method to Determine Level of Service for Bicycle Paths and Pedestrian-Bicycle Paths. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1502, 38-44.
Dixon, L. B. (1996). Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1538, 1-9.
Dill, J. (2009). Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure. Journal of Public Health Policy, 30, 95-110.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R.C., Clemente, O., and Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, 223-240.
Hansen, W. (1959). How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 25(2), 73-76.
Horacek, T.M., White, A.A., Greene, G.W., Reznar, M.M., Quick, V.M., Morrell, J.S., Colby, S.M., Kattelmann, K.K., Herrick, M.S., Shelnutt, K.P., Mathews, A., Phillips, B.W., and Byrd-Bredbenner, C. (2012). Sneakers and Spokes: An Assessment of the Walkability and Bikeability of U.S. Postsecondary Institutions. Journal of Environmental Health, 74, 8-15.
Jensen, S. (2007). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Level of Service on Roadway Segments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2031, 43-51.
Krizek, K.J., El-Geneidy, A., and Thompson, K. (2007). A Detailed Analysis of How an Urban Trail System Affects Cyclists’ Travel. Transportation, 34, 611–624.
Larsen, J., and El-Geneidy, A. (2011). A Travel Behavior Analysis of Urban Cycling Facilities in Montréal, Canada. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16, 172-177.
Lowry, M.B., Callister, D., Gresham, M., and Moore, B. (2012). Assessment of Communitywide Bikeability with Bicycle Level of Service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2314, 41-48.
Mcneil, N. (2011). Bikeability and the 20-min Neighborhood. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2247, 53-63.
Petritsch, T. A., Landis, B. W., Huang, H. F., McLeod, P. S., Lamb, D.R., Farah, W., and Guttenplan, M. (2007). Bicycle Level of Service for Arterials. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2031, 34-42.
Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., and Donovan, R. (2003). Developing a Framework for Assessment of the Environmental Determinants of Walking and Cycling. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1693-1703.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). The Analytic Network Process. Iranian Journal of Operations Research, 1, 1-27.
Saaty, T. L., and Vargas, L. G. (2006). Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process. USA: Springer.
Wahlgren, L., and Schantz, P. (2011). Bikeability and Methodological Issues Using the Active Commuting Route Environment Scale (ACRES) in a Metropolitan Setting. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 6-26.
Wahlgren, L., and Schantz, P. (2012). Exploring Bikeability in a Metropolitan Setting: Stimulating and Hindering Factors in Commuting Route Environments. BMC Public Health, 12, 168-183.
Wahlgren, L., Stigell, E., and Schantz, P. (2010). The Active Commuting Route Environment Scale (ACRES): Development and Evaluation. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 58-72.
Winters, M., Brauer, M., Setton, E.M., and Teschke, K. (2013). Mapping Bikeability: a Spatial Tool to Support Sustainable Travel. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 40, 865-883.
Winters, M., Davidson, G., Kao, D., and Teschke, K. (2011). Motivators and Deterrents of Bicycling: Comparing Influences on Decisions to Ride. Transportation, 38, 153-168.
Xing, Y., Handy, S.L., and Mokhtarian, P.L. (2010). Factors Associated with Proportions and Miles of Bicycling for Transportation and Recreation in Six Small US Cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15, 73-81.

網路資料
行政院（2014）。江揆：積極建構全臺自行車路網，吸引國外旅客行銷臺灣。新聞。2014年5月15日下載。取自http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=F8BAEBE9491FC830&s=C0EE81FBA24855BD
League of American Bicyclists. (2015). Bicycle Friendly America. Downloaded on May 30, 2015. http://bikeleague.org/bfa/quick-assessment/community