進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200914271682
論文名稱(中文) 土地混合使用空間型態量測與其影響因素之研究
論文名稱(英文) The analysis of measurements and factors of the spatial pattern of mixed land use
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) 黃書偉
研究生(英文) Shu-wei Huang
學號 p2891104
學位類別 博士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 144頁
口試委員 指導教授-鄒克萬
召集委員-林峰田
口試委員-陳彥仲
口試委員-劉小蘭
口試委員-林享博
中文關鍵字 土地混合使用  階層線性模型  空間型構法則 
英文關鍵字 mixed land use  space syntax  hierarchical linear model 
學科別分類
中文摘要 過去許多研究顯示,土地混合使用是一種能夠增加使用強度、提升都市活力的土地使用發展型態,尤其對亞洲國家的都市而言,土地混合使用隨處可見,亦增加其對都市發展的重要性。然而,並非所有的土地混合使用情況對都市發展而言都是正面的,過於複雜以及不相容的土地混合使用往往造成環境品質的負面影響,也因此,如何規劃或引導一個良好的土地混合使用狀況,長久以來都是都市規劃者一個重要的課題,本研究則以此為出發點,藉由不同量測指標分析土地混合使用不同面向之空間分佈特性,並進一步研擬影響土地混合使用程度之因素,過程中運用空間型構法則,提供一個以路網概念為出發點的空間可及性量測,分析土地混合使用與交通系統間的相關性,可以用來檢視交通系統與土地混合使用之間是否具有適當性。未來規劃者能夠藉由本研究之設計程序與成果,調整與規劃交通系統及影響因素,將土地混合使用情況控制為較良好之狀態。
英文摘要 Mixed land use is a performance of land-use development that can increase the strength of land-use and arise the vitality of city in the past researches, especially in Asian city. But not all situations of mixed land use were positive for urban development, so how to plan and lead a good situation of mixed land use became an important topic for urban planners for a long time. In the other hand, new urbanism promoted mixed land use to be a land developmental type, in the meantime, the concept and importance of Transit-Oriented Development was emphasized. It was mean that mixed land use and transportation need to cooperate to achieve the goal of good urban development. The main objective of this dissertation is to provide an analyzable process of the interrelation between mixed land use and street network configuration for further research and hope that the results will be referred to the modification of urban land use plan and the improvement of street system.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1-1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1-1
一、研究動機 1-1
二、研究目的 1-6
第二節 研究內容與方法 1-7
一、研究內容 1-7
二、研究方法 1-8
第三節 研究流程 1-11
第二章 相關文獻整理與回顧 2-1
第一節 土地使用與交通運輸相關文獻之探討 2-1
一、土地使用發展與交通運輸之關係 2-2
二、土地混合使用與交通運輸之相關研究 2-3
三、交通可及性之量測 2-4
四、小結 2-4
第二節 土地混合使用相關文獻之探討 2-6
一、土地混合使用之發展背景與意涵 2-6
二、土地混合使用之定義與形態 2-10
三、小結 2-12
第三節 土地使用空間發展型態之探討 2-13
一、空間組織描述性模式 2-13
二、空間組織解釋性模式 2-15
三、空間型態發展相關方法與研究 2-17
四、空間尺度相關研究與探討 2-19
五、小結 2-24
第四節 土地混合使用型態之量測與影響因素之探討 2-25
一、土地混合使用之量測 2-25
二、影響土地混合使用之因素 2-26
三、小結 2-28
第五節 空間可及性分析方法 2-29
一、空間型構法則之理論基礎 2-29
二、軸線圖與連接圖的建立與概念 2-32
三、空間型構法則相關應用 2-35
四、小結 2-37
第六節 階層線性模型 2-39
一、階層線性模式之發展與概念 2-39
二、階層線性模式之特點 2-40
三、階層資料之特性 2-42
四、線性階層模式在土地發展相關研究之應用 2-42
五、小結 2-45
第三章 研究設計 3-1
第一節 土地使用資料庫之建立 3-1
一、土地使用資料庫之建置 3-1
二、土地使用之分類 3-3
三、分析單元之探討 3-4
第二節 土地混合使用空間特性之量測 3-7
一、住商混合比例之計算 3-7
二、土地混合使用之豐富度 3-8
三、土地混合使用之多樣性 3-8
第三節 空間可及性之量測 3-10
一、型構內涵之量化表達 3-10
二、Space Syntax量化指數 3-10
三、型構深層內涵之解析 3-15
四、空間可及性路網資料之處理 3-16
第四節 影響土地混合使用因素之探討 3-17
一、交通可及性因素 3-17
二、社經發展因素 3-18
三、法令政策因素 3-19
四、基地條件因素 3-20
第五節 階層線性模型之應用 3-22
一、階層線性模式之原理 3-22
二、固定與隨機效果模式 3-24
三、土地混合使用影響因素之階層關係 3-25
四、階層線性模式建立 3-27
第四章 實證分析 4-1
第一節 土地使用資料與分析尺度說明 4-1
一、土地使用現況分析 4-1
二、總體層次與個體層次之分析單元 4-2
三、總體層次與個體層次解釋變數之現況資料分析 4-3
第二節 土地混合使用空間型態之量測 4-5
一、土地混合使用之住商混合比例 4-5
二、土地混合使用之豐富度 4-6
三、土地混合使用之多樣性 4-6
第三節 路網空間可及性分析 4-8
一、整體路網空間結構特性分析 4-8
二、主要道路路網空間結構特性分析 4-9
第四節 交通可及性與土地混合使用之影響關係 4-12
一、可及性與住商混合比例之影響關係 4-13
二、可及性與混合使用豐富度之影響關係 4-21
三、可及性與混合使用多樣性之影響關係 4-29
第五節 土地混合使用影響因素之分析 4-39
一、影響住商混合比例之因素 4-39
二、影響混合使用豐富度之因素 4-43
三、影響混合使用多樣性之因素 4-48
第五章 結論與建議 5-1
第一節 結論 5-1
第二節 建議 5-3
參考文獻 1.宋良政(1986),「住商混合使用之研究」,文化大學實業計畫研究所碩士論文。
2.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」,國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
3.李家儂(2006),交通運輸與土地使用整合規劃之演變--大眾運輸導向發展的都市發展模式,「土地問題研究季刊」,第5卷,第3期,第70-83頁。
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.林楨家、蔡耀慶(2006),考量專程與順道購物旅次之社區與鄰里商業中心區位規劃模型,「都市與計劃」,第33卷,第3期,第205-229頁。
6.林楨家、蕭博正(2006),台北市土地混合使用特性對旅次發生之影響,「台灣土地研究」,第9卷,第1期,第89-115頁。
7.林峰田(1991),空間混合度之準碎形指標,「建築與城鄉研究學報」,第6期,第9-17頁。
8.林峰田(2002),從全球資訊網知識分佈探討城鄉規劃之資訊科技應用,「都市與計劃」,第29期,第2卷,第291-313頁。
9.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。
10.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。
11.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。
12.許戎聰(2000),「住宅區土地混合使用業種相容性分析之研究-以台北市大安區與萬華區為例」,國立政治大學地政學系中國地政研究所博士論文。
13.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」,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
14.陳亮全(1989),「台北市土地混合使用適宜尺度之研究」,台北市都市計畫處。
15.陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵(2007),「多變量分析方法-統計軟體應用」,五南圖書。
16.陳佳慧(2006),「多核心空間結構規劃模型之建立—以台灣北部地區為例」,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
17.黃任薇(2006),「GIS 網格解析度之研究」,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
18.黃書禮、蔡靜如(2000),台北盆地土地利用變遷趨勢之研究,「都市與計畫」,第27卷,第1期,第1-23頁。
19.黃勝雄(1996),「族群因素與地域空間發展之關係研究」,國立政治大學地政研究所博士論文。
20.鄔建國著(2003),「景觀生態學-格局、過程、尺度與等級」,五南出版社。
21.溫福星(2006),「階層線性模式:原理、方法與應用」,臺北市:雙葉書廊。
22.張曜麟(2005),「都市土地使用變遷之研究」,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所博士論文。
23.鄭凱仁(2001),「以新都市主義觀點進行住宅社區規劃之研究—以台南都會公園特定區為例」,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
24.鄒克萬(2000),區域人口分佈之時空分析,「臺灣土地科學學報 (現為臺灣土地研究)」,第1期,第33-50頁。
25.鄒克萬、郭幸福、林漢彬(2005),一個以GIS為基礎之城鄉發展區劃設方式,「規劃學報」,第32期,第45-58頁。
26.鄒克萬、黃書偉(2008),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。
27.楊立仁(1979),「本省店鋪住宅存在價值之研究」,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
28.蔡博文、張康聰、張長義、朱健銘(2001),Measuring spatial association--the case of aquacultural land use in Yunlin County, Taiwan,「地理學報」,第29期,第121-129頁。
29.劉士鴻(1993),「不同都市型態下交通運輸績效影響之研究」,國立交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文。
30.劉嘉年(2003),「以多層級模式分析門診醫師治療非特定上呼吸道感染與急性支氣管炎的抗生素處方行為」,國立臺灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所博士論文。
31.賴炳樹(2003),「板橋車站地區商業空間結構變遷之分析」,國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
32.賴進貴、葉高華、王韋力(2004),土地利用變遷與空間相依性之探討--以臺北盆地聚落變遷為例,「臺灣地理資訊學刊」,第1期,第29-40頁。
33.蕭博正(2003),「台北市土地混合使用特性對旅運需求之影響」,國立台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
34.蘇智鋒(1999),空間型態之內在組構邏輯SPACE SYNTAX 之介紹,「建築向度-設計與理論」,台北:田園城市文化事業有限公司。
35.Aaviksoo, K. (1993). Changes of plant cover and land use types(1950’s to 1980’s)in three mire reserves and their neighborhood in Estonia. Land space ecology, 8(5): 287-301.
36.Angotti, T., Hanhardt, E.(2001). Problems and prospects for healthy mixed-use communities in New York City. Planning Practice and Research, 16(2): 145-154.
37.Apparicio, P., Séguin, A.-M. (2006). Measuring the accessibility of services and facilities for residents of public housing in Montréal, Urban Studies, 43(1): 187-211.
38.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.
39.Bagley, M.N., Mokhtarian, P.L. (2002). The impact of residential neighborhood type on travel behavior: A structural equations modeling approach, The Annals of Regional Science, 36:279-297.
40.Bryk, A.S., Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. Burton, E. (2002). Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29: 219-250.
42. Cervero, R., Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3 Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Part D, 2(3): 199-219.
43. 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).
44. Chang, C.-R., Lee, P.-F., Bai, M.-L. and Lin, T.-T. (2006) Identifying the scale thresholds for field-data extrapolation via spatial analysis of landscape gradients, Ecosystems, 9 (2): 200-214.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. Coupland, A. (1997). Reclaiming the city; Mixed Use Development (London: E & FN SPON).
49. Crane,R. Crepeau, R. (1998). Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research, 3(4): 225-238.
50. Dark, S.J., Bram, D. (2007). The modifiable able areal unit problem (MAUP) in physical geography, Progress in Physical Geography, 31(5):471-479.
51. 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.
52. Deng, X., Huang, J., Rozelle, S., Uchida, E. (2006). Cultivated land conversion and potential agricultural productivity in China. Land Use Policy, 23(4): 372-384.
53. Desyllas, J. (1999). The relationship between urban street configuration and office rent patterns in Berlin, London: University College.
54. De Wilde, Th. S. (2002). Meervoudig ruimtegebruik en spoorinfrastructuur; Gebiedsontwikkeling en voorbeeldprojecten. Utrecht: Holland Railconsult.
55. Dieleman F.M., Dijst, M., Burghouwt, G.. (2000). Urban form and travel behaviour: micro-level household attributes and residential context, Urban Studies, 39(3): 507-527.
56. Duranton, G., Puga, D. (2001). Nursery cities: Urban diversity, process innovation, and the life cycle of products, American Economics Review, 91(5): 1454-1477.
57. 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.
58. Foltête, J.-C., Piombini, A. (2007). Urban layout, landscape featuresand pedestrian usage, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3):225-234.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Glaeser, E., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities, Journal of Political Economics, 100(6) :1127-1152.
62. Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1): 71-84.
63. Guo, J.Y., Bhat, C.R. (2007). Operationalizing the concept of neighborhood: application to residential location choice analysis, Journal of Transport Geography, 15: 31-45.
64. Hagerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional Science Association, 24: 7–21.
65. Handy, S. L., Clifton, K. J. (2001). Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation, 28: 317-346.
66. Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the Built Environment Affects Physical Activity—Views from Urban Planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23: 64-73.
67. Haq, S. (2003). Investigating the syntax line: configurationally properties and cognitive correlates. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30: 841-863.
68. Haynes, R., Daras, K., Reading, R., Jones, A. (2007). Modifiable neighbourhood units, zone design and residents’ perceptions, Health and Place, 13:812-825.
69. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
70. Hillier, B., Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71. 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.
72. Hillier, B., Vaughan, L. (2007). The spatial syntax of urban segregation. The city as one thing, Progress in Planning, 67:205–294.
73. Holl, A. (2007). Twenty years of accessibility improvements. The case of the Spanish motorway building programme, Transport Geography, 15:286–297.
74. Hoppenbrouwer, E., Louw, E. (2005). Mixed-use Development: Theory and Practice in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands. European Planning Studies, 13(7): 967-983.
75. Horner, M.W., Murray, A.T. (2004). Spatial representation and scale impacts in transit service assessment, Environment and Planning B, 31:785-797.
76. Hoshino, S., 2001, Multilevel modeling on farmland distribution in Japan. Land Use Policy, 18, pp.75-90.
77. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage Books, New York.
78. Jacobs, A., and Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal American Planning Assn., 53(1), 112–120.
79. Jarvis, F.D. (1993). Site planning and community design for great neighborhoods, Home Builder Press, Washington, D.C.
80. Jelinski, D.E., Wu, J. (1996). The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology, Landscape Ecology, 11(3):129-140.
81. Jiang, B., Claramunt, C., Klarqvist, B. (2000). Integration of Space Syntax into GIS for modeling urban spaces, JAG, 2(3-4): 161-171.
82. Jiang, B., Claramunt, C. (2002). Integration of Space Syntax into GIS: new perspectives for urban morphology, Transactions in GIS, 6(3): 295-309.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. Knox, P. L. (1987). The social production of the built environment: Architects, architecture and the post-Modern city. Progress in Human Geography, 11(3): 354-377.
86. 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.
87. Kwan, M.-P., & Weber, J. (2003). Individual accessibility revisited: Implications for geographical analysis in the twenty-first century, Geographical Analysis, 35: 341-353.
88. Kwan, M.-P., Weber, J. (2008). Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use–travel interaction, Applied Geography, 28:110–123.
89. Lagendijk, A. (2001). Regional Learning between Variation and Convergence: The Concept of ‘Mixed Land-Use’ in Regional Spatial Planning in The Netherlands. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 24: 135-154.
90. Lau, S.S.Y., Giridharan, R., Ganesan, S. (2005). Multiple and intensive land use: case studies in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 29: 527-546.
91. 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.
92. Lin, J.J., Hsiao, P.C. (2006). Strategy development of mixed land-use for restraining trip generation in Taipei City, Transportation Research Record, 1983: 167-174.
93. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
94. Marlon G.B. Sarmiento, S. (1997). Can land- use policy really affect travel behaviour? A study of the link between non-work travel and land-use characteristics. Urban Studies, 35(7): 1155-1169.
95. 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
96. Menard, A., Marceau, D.J. (2005). Exploration of spatial scale sensitivity in geographic cellular automata, Environment and Planning B, 32:693-714.
97. 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.
98. Murakami, A., Zain, A. M., Takeuchi, K., Tsunekawa,A., Yokota, S. (2005). Trends in urbanization and patterns of land use in the Asian mega cities Jakarta, Bangkok, and Metro Manila, Landscape and Urban Planning, 70:251-259.
99. Nijkamp, P., Rodenburg, C.A., Vreeker, R. (2003). The Economics of Multifunctional Land Use. Maastricht: Shaker Publishers.
100. 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.
101. Orford, S. (2002). Valuing locational externalities: a GIS and multilevel modeling approach, Environment and Planning B, 29:105-127.
102. 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.
103. 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.
104. Pearce, J., Witten, K., Bartie, P. (2006). Neighbourhoods and health: a GIS approach to measuring community resource accessibility, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60:389-395.
105. Penn, A., Hiller, B. (1998). Configurational modeling of urban movement networks, Environment and Planning B, 25(1):59-84.
106. Peponis, J., Ross, C., Rashid, M. (1997). The structure of urban space, movement and co-presence: the case of Atlanta. Geoforum, 28(4-3): 31-58.
107. Priemus, H., Nijkamp, P., Dieleman, F.(2000). Meervoudig ruimtegebruik; Stimulansen en belemmeringen. Delft: Delft University Press.
108. Qi, Y. and Wu, J. (2005) Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices, Landscape Ecology, 11 (1): 39-49.
109. 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.
110. 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.
111. Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use development: Ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking?. Planning Practice and Research, 11(1): 85-97.
112. Sarkissian, S. (1976). The idea of social mix in town planning: An historical overview, Urban Studies, 13(3): 231–246.
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. Song, Y., Knaap, G.J. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34: 663-680.
117. 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.
118. Skinner, C. N. (1995). Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath Mountain of northwestern California. USA. Landscape Ecology, 10(4): 219-228.
119. Steadn, D.(1999). Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors, and travel patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28: 499-528.
120. Steenbergen, M.R., Jones, B.S. (2002). Modeling Multilevel Data Structures, American Journal of Political Science, 46:218-237.
121. Straatemeier, T. (2007) How to plan for regional accessibility, Transport Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 26 November 2007.
122. 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.
123. Talen, E. (2003) Neighborhoods as service providers: a methodology for evaluating pedestrian access, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30: 181-200.
124. Talen, E. (2005). Land Use Zoning and Human Diversity : Exploring the Connection., Journal of Urban Planning and Development , 131(4): 214-232.
125. 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.
126. Urban Land Institute, 1987, Mixed-Use Development Handbook, Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, pp.1-46.
127. Van Rensburg, B. J., Chown, S. L. and Gaston, K. J. (2002) Species richness, environmental correlates, and spatial scale: a test using South African birds, The American Naturalist, 159: 566-577.
128. Vaughan, L., Penn, A. (2006). Jewish Immigrant Settlement Patterns in Manchester and Leeds 1881, Urban Studies, 43(3):653-671.
129. Verburg, P. H., Schot P. P., Dijst M. J., Veldkamp, A. (2004). Land use change modelling: Current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal, 61(4): 309-324.
130. 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.
131. Wu, J. (2004). Effects of change scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relation, Landscape Ecology, 19:125-138.
132. Zang, S., & Huang, X. (2006). An aggregated multivariate regression land-use model and its application to land-use change processes in the Daqing region (northeast China), Ecological Modelling, 193(3-4): 503-516.
133. Zhang, M. (2004). The role of land use in travel mode choice: evidence from Boston and Hong Kong, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3): 344-360.
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2009-08-12起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-08-12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