進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200914173884
論文名稱(中文) 以空間型構法則與階層線性模式探討交通路網結構對都市商業型態影響之研究
論文名稱(英文) The Influence of Urban Street Configuration on the Distribution Patterns of Commerce Based on Space Syntax Analysis and Hierarchical Linear Models
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 都市計劃學系碩博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Urban Planning
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生(中文) 陳嘉茹
研究生(英文) Chia-ju Chen
電子信箱 f2491666@nckualumni.org.tw
學號 p2695406
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 142頁
口試委員 口試委員-陳冠位
口試委員-張學聖
口試委員-張曜麟
指導教授-鄒克萬
中文關鍵字 階層線性模式  可及性  空間型構法則  都市商業型態 
英文關鍵字 Hierarchical Linear Models  Space Syntax  patterns of commerce  accessibility 
學科別分類
中文摘要 都市空間是由不同的土地使用與其連接的道路所組成的(Kim and Sohn, 2002)。在各種土地使用類型中,商業使用之強度常被作為衡量都市發展程度之指標,其主導了整個都市的走向,直接反應了都市的空間結構特性,並與整體社會、經濟活動的興衰息息相關,是相當值得探討之議題。
而長久以來,道路與其路網可及性即被認定為影響商業型態之重要元素之一 (Galster et al.,2001; Song and Knaap,2004; Chirapiwat,2005; Tsai,2005)。在交通路網與土地使用之間,可及性又為兩者之間最基本的連接(Chirapiwat,2005)。故本研究從可及性之概念著手,以臺南市為實證地區,運用空間型構法則(Space Syntax)與階層線性模式(Hierarchical Linear Models),企圖解釋交通路網結構對都市商業型態之影響,並對臺南市未來交通與土地使用計畫進行計畫之評估。
爰此,本研究有三個主要目的:其一,探討以拓樸學概念為基礎之空間型構法則是否足以解釋並預測商業使用在空間上之分布型態。同時,在考量人於不同空間尺度下有不同之交通行為模式下(Snellen et al., 2002; Kwan and Weber, 2008; Straatemeier, 2008; Swift et al., 2008),將路網系統區分為「鄰里性」與「全市性」道路,分別進行空間型構法則分析,期以對於可及性之概念提供新的思考面向;其二,利用階層線性模式深入探討在不同層級下,各空間型構法則量測變數對商業型態之直接、間接亦或交互作用之影響關係與其影響程度;其三,利用本研究建立之都市商業型態解釋模式,探討未來交通計畫道路開闢完成後,對整體都市結構之影響,藉此預測未來具商業發展潛力之地區,以作為計畫評估與政策擬定之參考。
根據研究結果顯示,空間型構法則能有效證明交通路網結構對都市商業型態具高度影響:商業活動會聚集在其量測變數較高之軸線上,尤以全區便捷值(Global)為最,整體迴歸模式之解釋能力達46.8%。另一方面,經迴歸分析之比較證實,路網經分層後之空間型構法則量測變數對商業型態之解釋能力較未分層的佳。此外,經由階層線性模式進一步剖析影響因子,得知對臺南市發展影響較大者為「鄰里」、「地區」尺度之交通建設,故在規劃時以「鄰里」之角度較能提升計畫之效率。最後,以本研究建構之模式進行交通與土地使用計畫之評估,發現臺南市要以交通建設帶動未發展地區之商業活絡在目前計畫中似乎較顯困難,未來因交通建設實行而具有發展潛力之地區,在土地使用計畫方面並無完整性之規劃,也無受到應有之重視。
英文摘要 Urban space is comprised of real estate and the streets that connect them. These components, land use and transportation, dynamically influence each other; particularly in the case of commercial land uses. The utilization rate is one criterion to evaluate land value. If the most significant of these factors affecting land value can be identified for a given area and their temporal trends determined, then more realistic planning scenarios can be developed, tested, and offered to decision-makers for consideration in policy analysis and the selection of alternatives.
It should be noted that the transportation and land-use interaction develops in cycles. One is affected, which, in turn, affects the other. By treating the commercial land uses in the study area as dependent variables and network configuration measures as independent variables, this study focuses on a stage of the development cycle where the causality runs predominantly from transportation to land use.
In the past, the way to approach the question of the patterns of activities would be to examine the economic and social processes and hope to find the form of the city in their spatial output. Inevitably, models based on such assumptions will be highly abstract, and at one remove from the physical city. Most formal studies of accessibility have taken the spatialising of economics though distance as their starting point.
However, it is very difficult to measure the accessibility of the street configuration of the medium and large cities, where using an index measuring only the distance is much too simple. Thus, this article uses the Space Syntax based on GIS that generate some useful indices representing the accessibility, to see whether or not it is related to the distribution patterns of commerce.
This study has these major purposes: to evaluate the efficacy of the topological configurational model referred to as "Space Syntax" by determining whether topological measures of street configuration are sufficient to predict the spatial pattern of land uses, and application of Hierarchical Linear Models as a methodology for generating alternative land planning scenarios. At least extent, this study provides some potential suggestions for future plans.
This study examines the relationship between the urban street configuration and the pattern of commercial land uses in Tainan city. The result repeals that there exist significant relation between the street configuration and the urban land uses, by using Space Syntax as an indices-measuring tool.
The study's main findings are as follows: 1) dividing the street network system into “ neighborhood ” and “ city ” road to a regression model with the Space Syntax measures as base independent variables does improve the models' predictive capability, 2) whereas the locations of commercial developments in the study area are statistically strongly associated with the street network configuration, 3) having a great influence on Tainan is ” neighborhood” of traffic construction, and 4) by the estimates that this research’s models proceed transportation and territorial usage planning, we find each do in their own way about traffic planning and territorial usage in Tainan. In the future, owing to carrying out the traffic construction the area has developing potential. It doesn’t plan completely in territorial usage and doesn’t respect.
論文目次 目錄
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
壹、研究動機 1
貳、研究目的 3
第二節 研究範疇 3
壹、研究對象 3
貳、時間面向 4
參、空間面向 4
第三節 研究內容與方法 5
壹、研究緣起 6
貳、文獻回顧與評析 6
參、研究設計 6
肆、實證分析 7
第四節 研究流程 8
第二章 文獻回顧與評析 9
第一節 都市型態與都市商業型態 9
壹、都市型態 9
貳、都市型態與都市商業型態 9
參、都市商業型態 12
肆、小結 17
第二節 交通與土地使用 19
壹、交通與土地使用 19
貳、可及性 21
參、小結 25
第三節 空間型構法則(Space Syntax) 26
壹、空間與空間型構法則 26
貳、空間型構法則之起源與概念 27
參、空間型構法則之原則 29
肆、空間型構法則與地理資訊系統 37
伍、空間型構法則之相關應用 38
陸、小結 43
第四節 可調整地區單元問題(MAUP) 44
壹、MAUP之理論與概念 44
貳、MAUP之相關應用 48
參、MAUP之解決方法 51
肆、小結 55
第五節 階層線性模式(Hierarchical Linear Models) 57
壹、階層線性模式之起源、發展與應用 57
貳、分析層級之概念與土地使用研究 60
參、階層線性模式之原理與分析邏輯 60
肆、階層線性模式之五大次模式 67
伍、小結 70
第三章 研究設計 71
第一節 研究架構 71
壹、操作架構與概念 71
貳、研究範疇 72
參、路網系統分層 73
肆、基礎資料庫之建置 76
第二節 迴歸分析模式之建立與研究變數選取 78
壹、迴歸分析模式之建立 78
貳、依變項 78
參、自變項 78
第三節 階層線性模式建立 81
壹、分析尺度與變數選取 81
貳、模式選取 82
第四章 實證研究 85
第一節 土地使用空間型態分析 85
壹、土地使用型態分析 85
貳、商業型態分析 86
參、小結 88
第二節 交通路網結構分析 89
壹、交通路網系統現況 89
貳、空間型構法則分析 90
參、路網系統分層之空間型構法則分析 94
第三節 模型比對與評估 101
壹、路網系統分層之空間型構法則分析 101
貳、模型比對與評估 103
參、小結 106
第四節 階層線性模式分析 107
壹、基本資料概述 107
貳、零模式 109
參、隨機係數迴歸模式 110
肆、截距模式 113
伍、完整模式 115
陸、小結 118
第五節 計畫評估應用 120
第五章 結論與建議 123
第一節 結論 123
壹、交通路網結構對都市商業型態之影響 123
貳、階層線性模式分析 124
參、計畫評估 125
第二節 後續研究 125
壹、探討交通路網結構對其它土地使用類型之影響 125
貳、進行變遷之探討 126
參、進行跨都市、跨區域之比較 126
肆、進行更多階層之階層線性模式分析 126
參考文獻 127
中文文獻部分 127
英文文獻部分 130
附錄 141
附表一 土地使用類型及其定義 141
附表二 臺灣不動產資料庫與國土利用調查分類系統類型對照表 142

表目錄
表1-3-1研究主題與操作軟體 7
表2-1-1重要的理論流派發展脈絡一覽表 10
表2-2-1可及性量測方式 23
表2-3-1空間型構法則指標說明 34
表2-3-2空間型構法則相關研究與應用 41
表2-3-3國內相關論文研究 42
表2-4-1處理MAUP之基礎理論方法整理 54
表2-4-2處理MAUP之相關研究 55
表2-5-1分析單位與欲推論母體單位不一致的推論謬誤 61
表2-5-2遺漏重要解釋變項的迴歸分析結果 62
表2-5-3五種次模式彙整表 69
表3-1-1操作步驟說明 72
表3-1-2交通部運研所96 年路網數值圖道路分級一覽表 74
表3-1-3路網系統分層 74
表3-1-4鄰里性可及性量測操作步驟說明 74
表3-1-5空間型構法則量測變數 76
表3-2-1迴歸分析模式說明 80
表3-2-2空間型構法則量測變數 80
表3-3-1個體層與總體層變數與代號說明 82
表3-3-2操作模式彙整表 83
表4-1-1臺南市土地使用現況面積統計資料一覽表 86
表4-1-2各類土地使用分區商業機能度統計資料一覽表 87
表4-2-1空間型構法則量測變數統計資料一覽表 91
表4-2-2鄰里性路網空間特性指標統計資料一覽表 94
表4-2-3全市性路網空間特性指標統計資料一覽表 95
表4-3-1路網系統分層空間型構法則模式係數表 101
表4-3-2空間型構法則模式係數表 104
表4-3-3路網系統分層空間型構法則模式係數表(2) 105
表4-3-4迴歸結果比較 106
表4-4-1個體層與總體從敘述性統計 107
表4-4-2各交通分區商業機能度敘述性統計資料一覽表 108
表4-4-3零模式結果摘要表 109
表4-4-4隨機係數迴歸模式結果摘要表 110
表4-4-5截距模式結果摘要表 113
表4-4-6完整模式結果摘要表 115
表4-4-7跨層級解釋變項交互作用的調節效果分析表 117
表4-4-8模式比較分析表 118
表5-2-1交通路網結構與土地使用關係之假設 125

圖目錄
圖1-2-1實證研究範圍示意圖 5
圖1-2-2最小分析單元示意圖(街廓) 5
圖1-2-3最小分析單元與分析尺度示意圖(交通分區) 5
圖1-2-4分析尺度示意圖(市) 5
圖1-4-1研究流程圖 8
圖2-2-1交通運輸與土地使用關係圖 19
圖2-3-1空間幾何性示意圖 27
圖2-3-2相對深度圖(justified graphs, or j-graphs) 28
圖2-3-3建築及都市相對深度圖(justified graphs, or j-graphs) 29
圖2-3-4視覺上顯示空間整合度之關係示意圖 29
圖2-3-5幾個房間的分布(上)與相應的連接圖(下) 30
圖2-3-6空間分割方法示意圖 31
圖2-3-7都市系統、軸線地圖與連接圖之轉換示意圖 32
圖2-3-8最大不對稱性及最小不對稱性 33
圖2-3-9鑽石圖形 33
圖2-3-10智能值示意圖 36
圖2-3-11軸線圖分析範圍之選擇 37
圖2-4-1尺度問題與劃區問題示意圖 45
圖2-4-2尺度問題與劃區問題示意圖(2) 46
圖2-4-3尺度問題與劃區問題之統計問題 47
圖2-5-1二階層階層線性模式的階層結構變項型態與關係圖 63
圖3-1-1鄰里性分析單元與分析尺度示意圖 73
圖3-1-2全市性分析單元與分析尺度示意圖 73
圖3-1-3鄰里性路網系統 75
圖3-1-4全市性路網系統 76
圖3-1-5臺南市都市道路系統軸線圖 77
圖3-1-6臺南市都市道路系統連接圖 77
圖3-1-7空間型構法則量測變數匯整於街廓 77
圖3-1-8空間型構法則量測變數匯整於街廓 77
圖3-1-9地理資訊系統資料建置流程圖 78
圖3-3-1個體層與總體層自變項對依變項之影響示意圖 82
圖4-1-1臺南市土地使用現況圖 85
圖4-1-2街廓空間分布情形示意圖 85
圖4-1-3臺南市商業使用現況圖 87
圖4-2-1臺南市道路路網層級示意圖 90
圖4-2-2全區便捷值 92
圖4-2-3地區便捷值 92
圖4-2-4連接值 93
圖4-2-5控制值 93
圖4-2-6深度 94
圖4-2-7鄰里性全區便捷值 96
圖4-2-8鄰里性地區便捷值 96
圖4-2-9鄰里性連接值 97
圖4-2-10鄰里性控制值 97
圖4-2-11鄰里性深度 98
圖4-2-12全市性深度 98
圖4-2-13全市性全區便捷值 99
圖4-2-14全市性地區便捷值 99
圖4-2-15全市性連接值 100
圖4-2-16全市性控制值 100
圖4-3-1鄰里性全區便捷值與商業機能度 102
圖4-3-2鄰里性地區便捷值與商業機能度 102
圖4-3-3鄰里性連接值與商業機能度 102
圖4-3-4鄰里性控制值與商業機能度 102
圖4-3-5全市性全區便捷值與商業機能度 103
圖4-3-6全市性地區便捷值與商業機能度 103
圖4-3-7全市性連接值與商業機能度 103
圖4-3-8全市性控制值與商業機能度 103
圖4-3-9全區便捷值與商業機能度 104
圖4-3-10地區便捷值與商業機能度 104
圖4-3-11連接值與商業機能度 104
圖4-3-12控制值與商業機能度 104
圖4-4-1各交通分區商業機能度盒鬚圖 109
圖4-4-2各交通分區商業機能度雷達圖 109
圖4-4-3隨機係數模型所估計出來的各交通分區迴歸線 111
圖4-4-4各交通分區迴歸線截距項貝氏估計結果 112
圖4-4-5各交通分區迴歸線斜率項的貝氏估計法結果 112
圖4-4-6第一層迴歸模式殘差盒型圖 112
圖4-4-7 36個交通分區第二層迴歸模式截距項貝氏估計值 114
圖4-4-8 36個交通分區第一層迴歸模式殘差項盒型圖 114
圖4-4-9因素交互作用關係圖 116
圖4-5-1未來商業潛力地區 121
圖4-5-2商業機能度增加地區 121
參考文獻 中文文獻部分
1. 王子熙(2004),「都市住宅區空間組構型態與竊盜犯罪傾向之研究—以台灣某城市為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
2. 王文錤(2003),「博物館空間組構邏輯探討—以國立自然科學博物館與國立科學工藝博物館為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
3. 李明儒(2008),「不同空間尺度下網格式土地使用變遷模型之敏感性分析」,臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
4. 李琦華、林峰田(2007),台灣聚落的空間型構法則分析,「建築學報」,第60期,第27-45頁。
5. 李萬凱、林建元、 孫志鴻、榮峻德(2007),工商及戶口普查資料空間分派模式之建立及運用,「建築學報」,第59 期,第127-144 頁。
6. 卓孟佑(2005),「教會建築整體空間組構之歷史演變與使用行為研究—以中部柳原、豐原及彰化基督長老教會為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
7. 林妮瑱(2003),「台中都會公園夜間遊客安全感認知之研究」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
8. 林哲正(2006),「都市商業區之街道空間型態與汽車犯罪機率之研究-以台灣某都市為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
9. 林凱偉(2004),「大學校園公共開放空間系統與活動行為之分析檢測模式研究—以逢甲、中興大學校園開放空間系統為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
10. 林漢良(2005),土地使用圖之點資料空間分析研究,「規劃學報」,第32卷,第31-45頁。
11. 邱淑華(2000),「由台灣地區都市體系變遷探討商業空間結構變化趨勢與特性」,成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
12. 邱皓政、溫福星(2007),脈絡效果的階層線性模型分析:以學校組織創新氣氛與教師創意表現為例,「教育與心理研究」,第30卷,第1期,第1-35頁。
13. 高新建、吳幼吾(1997),階層線性模式在內屬結構教育資料上的應用,「教育研究資訊」,第5卷,第2期,第31-50頁。
14. 交通部運輸研究所運輸計畫組(1999),「第三期台灣地區整體運輸系統規劃」,交通部運輸研究所。
15. 陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2003),「多變量分析方法—統計軟體應用」,臺北市:五南圖書出版公司。
16. 陳志榮(2003),「以空間型構理論應用於大學校園安全空間規劃之研究—以逢甲大學、靜宜大學為例」,逢甲大學建築與都市計畫所碩士論文。
17. 陳坤宏(2001),「空間結構—理論與方法論」,臺北市:明文書局股份有限公司。
18. 陳坤宏(2006),商店街消費者的社經屬性、消費型態與商業設施關係之比較研究—以臺灣本島與澎湖、金門離島為例,「建築與規劃學報」,第7卷,第2期,第91-112頁。
19. 陳尚佑(2002),「以空間型構理論探索台中市都市發展型態」,逢甲大學建築與都市計畫所碩士論文。
20. 陳俊宏(2002),「台灣傳統住居空間組構型態研究─以外埔農宅與大溪、淡水街屋為例」,逢甲大學建築與都市計畫所碩士論文。
21. 張紘聞(2004),「以型態分析理論解讀日本傳統數寄屋與現代民宅之空間組構特徵」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
22. 張媛婷(2008),「都市土地使用管制對土地價格之影響—階層線性模式之應用」,成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
23. 張慧英(2006),「中國傳統園林空間結構形式分析—以板橋林家花園為例」,成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
24. 張曜麟(2005),「都市土地使用變遷之研究」,成功大學都市計劃研究所博士論文。
25. 許智宏(2006),「都市混合土地使用形態及其影響因素之研究—以台南市為例」,成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
26. 黃乃弘(2001),「空間型構與住宅竊盜之關聯性研究—以台灣某都市為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
27. 黃任薇(2006),「GIS網格解析度之研究」,成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
28. 楊子廣(2006),「都市公園系統可及性水準之研究-以台南市計畫都市公園為例」,成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
29. 楊夢樵(2006),「老人照護機構公共空間使用影響因子之分析」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
30. 鄒克萬、黃書偉(2007),路網結構對都市商業發展空間分佈關係之研究—空間型構法則之應用,「都市與計劃」,已接受。
31. 鄔建國(2003),「景觀生態學—格局、過程、尺度與等級」,臺北市:五南出版社。
32. 溫福星(2006),「階層線性模式:原理、方法與應用」,臺北市:雙葉書廊。
33. 潘雪玲(2007),「應用空間型構理論於都市空間變遷之研究—以埔里鎮為例」,逢甲大學建築與都市計畫所碩士論文。
34. 劉子鍵、林原宏(1997),階層線性模式之理論與應用:以影響自然科成績之因素的研究為分析實例,「教育與心理研究」,第20卷,第1-21頁。
35. 龍宗彥(2003),「以型構與行為分析觀點探討都市公共開放空間系統之設計議題—以台北市信義計畫區為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
36. 賴銘昌(2005),「空間型構與汽車竊盜之關聯性研究-以台灣某都市為例」,逢甲大學建築所碩士論文。
37. 謝子良(1997),「以Space Syntax理論分析國內三大美術館空間組織之研究」,東海大學建築研究所碩士論文。

英文文獻部分
1. Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use: Toward a general theory of land rent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Asami, Y., Kubat, A.S., Kitagawa, K., Iida, S. (2003). Introducing the third dimension on Space Syntax: Application on the historical Istanbul, Proceedings 4th International space syntax Symposium London.
3. Badoe, D.A., Miller, E.J. (2000). Transportation-land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and implications for modeling, Transportation Research D, 5(4):235–263.
4. Bandyopadhyay, A., Merchant, A.N. (2006). Space syntax analysis of colonial houses in India, Environment and Planning B, 33:923-942.
5. Banister, D., (2002). Transport Planning. Spon, London.
6. Banister, D., (2005). Unsustainable Transport. Spon, London and New York.
7. Banister, D., Berechman, J. (2000). Transport Investment and Economic Development. UCL Press, London.
8. Baran, P.K., Rodriguez, D.A., Khattak, A.J. (2008). Space Syntax and Walking in a New Urbanist and Suburban Neighbourhoods, Journal of Urban Design, 13(1) : 5–28.
9. Bartik, T. J. (1984). Business location decisions in the United States: Estimates of the effects of unionization, taxes, and other characteristics of States. Working Paper No. 84-WO5, Dept. of Economics and Business Administration, Vanderbiltt Univ., Nashville, Tenn.
10. Berkoz, L. (2005). Locational determinants of foreign investors in Istanbul, Urban Plann. Dev., 131(3):140–146.
11. Bertolini, L. (2007). Evolutionary urban transportation planning? An exploration. Environment and Planning A, 39(8):1998–2019.
12. Bliese, P.D. (2000). Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K.J., Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Bookout, L.W. (1992). Neotraditional town planning: A new vision for the suburbs? Urban Land, 51:20-26.
14. Bowes, D.R. (2001). Identifying the impacts of rail transit stations on residential property values. Journal of Urban Economics, 50:1–25.
15. Brouwer, A.E., Mariotti, I., Ommeren, J. N. (2004). The firm relocation decision: An empirical investigation, J. Regional Sci., 38: 335–347.
16. Bryk, A.S., Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Burgess, E.W. (1927). The determination of gradients in the growth of the city. Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, 21(December):84-178.
18. Chang, K., Khatib, Z., Ou, Y. (2002). Effects of zoning structure and network detail on traffic demand modeling, Environment and Planning B, 29:37-52.
19. Chang, J.S. (2006). Models of the relationship between transport and land-use: a review. Transport Reviews, 26 (3):325–350.
20. Chirapiwat, T. (2005). Street configurations and commercial and mixed-use land-use patterns: a morphological study of the northeastern region of Bangkok to evaluate recent transportation and land-use plans. Michigan: University of Michigan (unpublished PhD thesis).
21. Choi, A.S., Kim, Y.O., Oh, E.S., Kim, Y.S. (2006). Application of the space syntax theory to quantitative street lighting design, Building and Environment, 41:355-366.
22. Choi, A.S., Jang, S.J., Park, B.C., Kim, Y.O., Kim, Y.S. (2007). Rational-design process and evaluation of street-lighting design for apartment complexes, Building and Environment, 42: 3001–3013.
23. Christaller, W. (1933). Central Places in Southern Germany. Translated in 1966 by Baskin, C.W. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
24. Dark, S.J., Bram, D. (2007). The modifiable able areal unit problem (MAUP) in physical geography, Progress in Physical Geography, 31(5):471–479.
25. Dawson, P.C. (2003). Analyzing the effect of spatial configuration on human movement and social interaction in Canadian Artic communities, Proceedings of 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London.
26. DeMers, M.N. (1997). Fundamentals of geographic information systems. New York: Wiley.
27. Desyllas, J. (1999). The relationship between urban street configuration and office rent patterns in Berlin. London: University College.
28. Downs, A. (2004). Why traffic congestion is here to stay and will get worse, Access, 25:19–25.
29. Downs, R.M., Stea, D. (1973). Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. London: Edward Arnold.
30. Dumedah, G., Schuurman, N., Yang, W. (2007). Minimizing effects of scale distortion for spatially grouped census data using rough sets. Geograph Syst, 6 November.
31. Ellison, G., Glaeser, E.L. (1997). Geographic concentration in US manufacturing industries: a dartboard approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 105(5):889-927.
32. Enström, R., Netzell, O. (2008). Can Space Syntax Help Us in Understanding the Intraurban Office Rent Pattern? Accessibility and Rents in Downtown Stockholm, Real Estate Finan Econ, 36:289–305.
33. Ewing, R., Cervero, R. (2001). Travel and the built environment. Transportation Research Record, 1780:87-114.
34. Figueiredo, O., Guimarães, P., Woodward, D. (2002). Home-field advantage: Location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs, J. Urban Econ., 52:341–361.
35. Foltête, J.C., Piombini, A. (2007). Urban layout, landscape featuresand pedestrian usage, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3):225-234.
36. Fotheringham, A.S. (1989). Scale-independent spatial analysis. In Goodchild, M.F. and Gopal, S., editors, Accuracy of Spatial Databases, London: Taylor and Francis, 221–228.
37. Fotheringham, A.S., Brunsdon, C., Charlton, M. (2000). Quantitative Geography: Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis. Sage Publications, London.
38. Fotheringham, A.S., Brunsdon, C., Charlton, M. (2002). Geographically weighted regression: The analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley.
39. Fotheringham, A.S., Wong, D.W.S. (1991). The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis, Environment and Planning A, 23:1025-1044.
40. Fujita, M., Krugman, P., Venables, A.J. (1999). The Spatial Economy. Cities, Regions and International Trade. MIT Press, Cambridge,MA
41. Gallion, A. B., Eisner, S. (1983). Urban pattern: City planning and design (4th ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
42. 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, 12:681–717.
43. Gehlke, C.E., Biehl, K. (1934). Certain effects of grouping upon the size of the correlationco efficient in census tract material, Journal of the American Statistical Association Supplement, 29:169-170.
44. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75:107-116.
45. Gifford, J.L. (2003). Flexible Urban Transportation. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
46. Giuliano, G. (1995). Land use impact of transportation investments: highway and transit. In S. Hanson (Ed.), Geography of urban transportation (pp. 305-342). New York: Guilford Press.
47. Hadjri, K. (2006). An analysis of the spatial structure of a new desert town:Al Ain, United Arab Emirates, Urban Design International, 11:3–19.
48. Ha¨ gerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24:7–21.
49. Halden, D. (2002). Using accessibility measures to integrate land use and transport policy in Edinburgh and the Lothians, Transport Policy, 9(4):313–324.
50. Handy, S. (1993). A cycle of dependence: Automobiles, accessibility, and the evolution of the transportation and retail hierarchies, Berkeley Planning Journal, 8: 21–43.
51. Haq, S. (2003). Investigating the syntax line: configurationally properties and cognitive correlates, Environment and Planning B, 30(6):841-863.
52. Hay, G.J., Marceau, D.J., Dube, P., Bouchard, A. (2001). A multiscale framework for landscape analysis:Object-specific analysis and upscaling, Landscape Ecology, 16:471-490.
53. Haynes, R., Daras, K., Reading, R., Jones, A. (2007). Modifiable neighbourhood units, zone design and residents’ perceptions, Health and Place, 13:812–825.
54. Helling, A. (1998). Changing intrametropolitan accessibility in the US: evidence from Atlanta, Progress in Planning, 49:55–108.
55. Heywood, I., Cornelius, S., Carver, S. (1998). An Introduction to Geographical Information System. Longman.
56. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Hillier, B. (1999). The hidden geometry of deformed grids: Or, why space syntax works, when it looks as though it shouldn't, Environmental and Planning, 26(2):169-191.
58. Hillier, B., Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B, 20(1):29-66.
60. Hillier, B., Shu, C.F. (2000). Crime and urban layout: the need for evidence. Secure foundations: Key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety, M. Vic, S. Ballintyne, and P. Ken, eds., London, 224-248.
61. Hillier, B., Vaughan, L. (2007). The spatial syntax of urban segregation. The city as one thing, Progress in Planning, 67:205–294.
62. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
63. Holl, A. (2004). Manufacturing location and impacts of road transport infrastructure: empirical evidence form Spain, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34 (3): 341–363.
64. Holl, A. (2007). Twenty years of accessibility improvements. The case of the Spanish motorway building programme, Transport Geography, 15:286–297.
65. Horner, M.W., Murray, A.T. (2004). Spatial representation and scale impacts in transit service assessment, Environment and Planning B, 31:785-797.
66. Hoshino, S. (2001). Multilevel modeling on farmland distribution in Japan, Land Use Policy, 18:75-90.
67. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
68. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books, New York.
69. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within group interrater reliability with and without response bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.
70. Jelinski, D.E., Wu, J. (1996). The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology, Landscape Ecology, 11(3):129-140.
71. Jiang, B., Claramunt, C. (2002). Integration of Space Syntax into GIS: new perspectives for urban morphology, Transactions in GIS, 6(3):295-309.
72. Jiang, B., Claramunt, C., Klarqvist, B. (2000). Integration of Space Syntax into GIS for modeling urban spaces, JAG, 2(3/4):161-171.
73. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1996). Space to think. Language and space. Cambridge: MIT Press .
74. Kawamura, K. (2001). Empirical examination of relationship between firm location and transport facilities, Transportation Research Record, 1747:97–103.
75. Klein, K. J., Kozlowski, S. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research, Organizational Research methods, 3(3):211-236.
76. Kim, H.K., Sohn, D.W. (2002). An analysis of the relationship between land use density of office buildings and urban street configuration-Case studies of two areas in Seoul by space syntax analysis, Cities, 19:409-418.
77. Kim, O.Y., Peen, A. (2004). Linking the spatial syntax of cognitive maps to the spatial syntax of the environment, Environment and behavior, 36(4): 483-504.
78. Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York : Liveright.
79. Krizek, K.J. (2003). Operationalize neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22:270-287.
80. Kruger, M.J.T. (1989). On node and axial grid maps: distance measures and related topics. Other. Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, UCL, London, UK.
81. Kwan, M.P., Weber, J. (2008). Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use–travel interaction, Applied Geography, 28:110–123.
82. Lau, J.C.Y., Chiu,C.C.H. (2003). Accessibility of low-income workers in Hong Kong, Cities, 20(3):197-204.
83. Lembo, Jr., A.J., Lew, M.Y., Laba, M., Baveye, P. (2006). Use of spatial SQL to assess the practical significance of the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem, Computers and Geosciences, 32:270–274.
84. Levinson, D.M. (1998). Accessibility and the journey to work, Journal of Transport Geography, 6(1):11-21.
85. Limanond, T., Niemeier, D.A. (2003). Accessibility and mode-destination choice decisions: Exploring travel in three neighborhoods in Puget Sound, WA, Environment and Planning B, 30:219–228.
86. Lin, H. (2002). A Cluster Approach to Detecting Urban Spatial Structure. PhD thesis, School of Geography, Leeds University.
87. Lin, J. J., Feng, C. M., Hu, Y.Y. (2006). Shifts in activity centers along the corridor of the Blue Subway Line in Taipei, J. Urban Plann. Dev., 132(1):22–28.
88. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
89. Marceau, D.J., Hay, G.J. (1999). Remote sensing contributions to the scale issue, Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(4):357-366.
90. Matthews, J.W., Turnbull, G.K. (2007). Neighborhood street layout and property value: the interaction of accessibility and land use mix, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 35:111-141.
91. McCarthy, H.H., Hook, J.C., Knos, D.S. (1956). The Measurement of Association in IndustrialGeography. Department of Geography, State University of Iowa, Iowa City.
92. McDermid, G.J., Franklin, S.E. LeDrew, E.F. (2005). Remote sensing for large-area habitat mapping, Progress in Physical Geography, 29(4):449–474.
93. McGraw, K. O., Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients, Psychological Methods, 1:30–46.
94. McQuaid, R.W., Greig, M., Smyth, A., Cooper, J. (2004). The importance of transport in business’ location decisions-scoping study. Department for Transport, Research Project, Reference No. UG494.
95. Menard, A., Marceau, D.J. (2005). Exploration of spatial scale sensitivity in geographic cellular automata, Environment and Planning B, 32:693-714.
96. Miller, E.J., Hunt, J.D., Abraham, J.E., Salvini, P.A. (2004). Microsimulating urban systems, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(1):9–44.
97. Miller, J.S., Demetsky, M.J. (1998). Using historical data to measure transportation infrastructure constraints on land use. (Report No. FHWA/VTRC 98-R32). Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA.
98. Monda, K.L., Gordon-Larsen, P., Stevens, J., Popkin, B.M. (2007). China’s transition: The effect of rapid urbanization on adult occupational physical activity, Social Science and Medicine, 64:858–870.
99. Moudon, A.V. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field, Urban Morphology, 1:3-10.
100. Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the Accessibility and Equity of Public Parks: A Case Study Using GIS, Managing Leisure, 6:201-219.
101. Odoi, A., Martin, W., Michel, P., Holt, J., Middleton, D., Wilson, J. (2003). Geographical and temporal distribution of human giardiasis in Ontario Canada, International Journal of Health Geographics, 2(5).
102. O’Keefe, J., Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
103. Openshaw, S. (1984). The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Geo Books, Norwich, United Kingdom.
104. Openshaw, S., Taylor, P.J. (1979). A million of so correlation coefficients: Three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem. Statistical Applications in the Spatial Sciences, ed. N. Wrigley, Pion, London.
105. Openshaw, S., Taylor, P.J. (1981). The modifiable areal unit problem. Quantitative Geography, A British View, Routledge press.
106. Orford, S. (2002). Valuing locational externalities: a GIS and multilevel modelling approach, Environment and Planning B, 29:105-127.
107. Overmars, K.P., Verburg, P.H. (2006). Multilevel modelling of land use from field to village level in the Philippines, Agricultural Systems, 89:435-456.
108. Ozmen-Ertekin, D., Ozbay, K., Holguin-Veras, J. (2007). Role of Transportation Accessibility in Attracting New Businesses to New Jersey, Journal of Urban Planning and development, 133(2):138-149.
109. Pan, W., Bilsborrow, R.E. (2005). The use of a multilevel statistical model to analyze factors influencing land use: a study of the Ecuadorian Amazon, Global and Planetary Change, 47:232-252.
110. Penn, A., Hiller, B. (1998). Configurational modeling of urban movement networks, Environment and Planning B, 25(1):59-84.
111. Peponis, J., Ross, C., Rashid, M. (1997). The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: the case of Atlanta, Geoforum, 28(3):341-358.
112. Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic Epistemology . New York:W.W.Norton and Company.
113. Raford, N. (2003). Looking Both ways: space syntax for pedestrian exposure forecasting and collision risk analysis, Proceedings of 4th International Space Syntax Symposium, London.
114. Raford, N., Chiaradia, A., Gil, J. (2007). Space Syntax: The Role of Urban Form in Cyclist Route Choice in Central London. Institute of Transportation Studies UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center.
115. Read, S. (2001). Thick Urban Space: shape, scale and the articulation of the urban in and inner-cityneighborhood of Amsterdam, Proceedings of 3th International Space Syntax Symposium, GIT at Atlanta.
116. Robinson, W.S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals, American Sociological Review, 15:351–357.
117. Scupelli, P., Kiesler, S., Fussell, S.R. (2007). Using Isovist Views to Study Placement of Large Displays in Natural Settings, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Work-in-progress:2645 – 2650.
118. Shao, J., Xu, C., Wei, C., Xie, D. (2007). Explanation of land use in mountainous area, China: from field to village level, GeoJournal, 68:357–368.
119. Snellen, D., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H. (2002). Urban form, road network type, and mode choice for frequently conducted activities: a multilevel analysis using quasi-experimental design data, Environment and Planning A, 34:1207-1220.
120. Song, K., Li, M., Shao, Y., Liu, Y. (2007). Research of the relationship between space accessiblity and urban land price by point-based space syntax, Geoinformatics, 6754.
121. Song, Y., Gee, G.C., Fan, Y., Takeuchi, D.T. (2007). Do physical neighborhood characteristics matter in predicting traffic stress and health outcomes? Transportation Research Part F, 10:164–176.
122. Song, Y., Knapp, G.J. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34:663–680.
123. Soobader, M., Cubbin, C., Gee, G.C., Rosenbaum, A., Laurenson, J. (2006). Levels of analysis for the study of environmental health disparities, Environmental Research, 102:172–180.
124. Steenbergen, M.R., Jones, B.S. (2002). Modeling Multilevel Data Structures, American Journal of Political Science, 46:218-237.
125. Stonor, T., Dalton, T. (1990). In: Space Syntax Software Manuals, Space Syntax Mailbase. http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/spacesyntax.html
126. Straatemeier, T. (2008) . How to plan for regional accessibility, Transport Policy, 15:127-137.
127. Swift, A., Liu, L., Uber, J. (2008). Reducing MAUP bias of correlation statistics between water quality and GI illness, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32:134–148.
128. Tagashira, N., Okabe, A. (2002). The modifiable areal unit problem in a regression model whose independent variables is a distance from a predetermined point, Geographical Analysis, 34(1):1-20.
129. Talen, E. (2000). Measuring the public realm: a preliminary assessment of the link between public space and sense of community, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(4):344-359.
130. Talen, E. (2003). Neighborhoods as service providers: a methodology for evaluating pedestrian access, Environment and Planning B, 30:181-200.
131. Talen, E. (2005). Land use zoning and human diversity: exploring the connection, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4):214-232.
132. Theriault, M., Rosiers, D.F. (2004). Modelling perceived accessibility to urban amenities using fuzzy logic,transportation GIS and origin-destination surveys, in Toppen, F, Prastacos, P.(Eds), Proceedings of AGILE 2004 7th Conference on Geographic Information Science, Crete University Press, Heraklion, p475-485.
133. Thorndike, E.L. (1939). On the fallacy of imputing the correlations found for groups to the individuals or smaller groups composing them, American Journal of Psycology, 52:122-124.
134. Tobler, W. (1989). Frame independent spatial analysis. In M. Goodchild and S. Gopal (Eds.), Accuracy of spatial databases (pp. 115–122). London: Taylor and Francis.
135. Tsai, Y.H. (2005). Quantifying Urban Form: Compactness versus ‘Sprawl’, Urban Studies, 42(1):141–161.
136. Turner, A. (2007). From axial to road-centre lines: a new representation for space syntax and a new model of route choice for transport network analysis, Environment and Planning B, 34:539- 555.
137. Vaughan, L., Penn, A. (2006). Jewish Immigrant Settlement Patterns in Manchester and Leeds 1881, Urban Studies, 43(3):653–671.
138. Volchenkov, D., Blanchard, Ph. (2008). Scaling and universality in city space syntax: Between Zipf and Matthew, Physica A, 387:2353–2364.
139. Wang, F. (2000). Modeling commuting patterns in Chicago in a GIS environment: a job accessibility perspective, Professional Geographer, 52(1):120–133.
140. Western, B. (1998). Causal Heterogeneity in Comparative Research: A Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling Approach, American Journal of Political Science, 42:1233-1259.
141. Whitehand, J.W.R. (1992). Recent advances in urban morphology. Urban Studies, 29(3¬4):619-636.
142. Wiens, J.A. (1989). Spatial scaling in ecology, Functional Ecology, 3(4):385-397.
143. Wilson, A. (2000). Complex Spatial Systems: The Modelling Foundations of Urban and Regional Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Harlow, UK.
144. Wolfram, S. (2002). A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media Inc.
145. Woudsma, C., Jensen, J.F., Kanaroglou, P., Maoh, H. (2008). Logistics land use and the city: a spatial–temporal modeling approach, Transportation Research Part E, 44:277–297.
146. Wu, J. (2004). Effects of change scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relation, Landscape Ecology, 19:125-138.
147. Zandbergen, P., Chakraborty, J. (2006). Improving environmental exposure analysis using cumulative distribution functions and individual geocoding, International Journal of Health Geographics, 5(23):1–15.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-07-18起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-07-18起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw