進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200915222406
論文名稱(中文) 從空間公平角度探討公共設施分派評估架構之研究
論文名稱(英文) An assessment process of public facility allocation based on spatial equity viewpoint
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 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生(中文) 廖晉賢
研究生(英文) Chin-Hsien Liao
電子信箱 P2696409@mail.ncku.edu.tw
學號 p2696409
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 133頁
口試委員 口試委員-謝俊民
口試委員-趙子元
口試委員-張學聖
指導教授-鄒克萬
中文關鍵字 空間分析  空間公平  公共設施  可及性 
英文關鍵字 Spatial analysis  Public Facility  Accessibility  Spatial Equity 
學科別分類
中文摘要 公共設施之分派乃為維護都市生活品質,滿足都市居民生活所需之服務。而整體生活品質的提升有賴於設施資源的分派能夠達到空間公平的目標為當前重要的課題之ㄧ,然而過去在公平之概念應較難操作與落實,因此規劃師在進行設施資源分派時總是忽略此一議題。雖然近年來已有不少研究對於公共設施分派的公平性進行探討,然而其衡量方式由於受限於『公平』本身除了包含社會、經濟、環境與空間等面向公平的探討外,其議題本身也容易因各領域在層次及角度上產生不同的論述,而造成衡量方式多以總體性之經濟指標進行公平性分析,而大空間尺度的空間公平分析可能無法有效掌控都市各空間中在享受都市公共效益層面上其互動薄弱且真正需要補強之地區,而造成在都市設施資源分派過程中無法有效達成機會公平的遺憾。
爰此,本研究主要目的以可及性指標發展空間公平量測方法,整合設施服務特性與不同群體使用特性,探討各層級設施的空間公平程度,並分別展現空間公平性量測值的空間分佈情形,以掌握公共設施的空間公平性。
根據研究結果顯示台南市鄰里與區域層級設施空間公平程度分析發現,1.各層級設施均有空間不公平之現象。2.在各層級設施使用機會上與社經程度的空間關聯程度分析中,台南市經濟狀況好的居民可能會自動選擇有良好鄰里層級設施機會可及性之區位居住。社會弱勢程度高之地區除了無法住在鄰里基礎設施完備之區位其在享受區域層級設施可能因住宅條件的排擠,而可能需要更增加生活成本,因此較不符合空間公平。3.透過本研究所建立之空間公平評估程序,可進一步找出接受服務較為弱勢的地區,可建議未來予以重視與優先改善。
英文摘要 The allocation of public facility is in order to preserve the quality of urban environment and provide the services of urban life that residents needed.The issues of spatial equity in the allocation of resource should be respected and arrived in the plans. It is very difficult to operate and implement the concept of spatial equity, so planer always ignore this argument while they apportion the resource. Therefore,this research aim at the approach to construct measures to evaluate the spatial equity of public facility allocation.There were many research probed into the equity of public resource dispersal in the recent years, but the measures always relied on non-spatial socialities,economics,environment indicators in the mass to access the equity of large scales.There were short of spatial outlooks on smaller scales. There were short of spatial outlooks on smaller scales to analysis the in equality that might exist in space. There were some defects in this basis of analysis such as the unsuitable analysis unit, failing to consider the benefit loss from spatial separation, the only-viewpoint of analysis that was unable to access the integral benefit of every facility with equity concept.
Hence this research is based on accessibility indicators and integrates the services characteristic and different colony uses characteristic with the spatial analysis, processing and visualizing to construct the measures of spatial equity.
The research then proceeds an empirical study on the neighborhood and regional level facility in Tainan city. First the neighborhood and regional level facility have the phenomenon of the spatial unequity.Second the correlation analysis of the use opportunity of the different level facilities and socialities and economics degree that owned the good circumstances can choice live in the good neighborhood and the disadvantage resident can’t live in the good neighborhood. Third the method allow users easily to understand the characteristics of spatial equity and find significant differences between urban facilities in Tainan.It is also noticed that there are some remarkable spatial inequalities that exist in space,and these spatial units should be respected and improved in precedence.This research also criticizes the measure of spatial equity and make some suggestions.
論文目次 第一章 緒論12
第一節 研究動機與目的 12
壹、 研究動機 12
貳、 研究目的 14
第二節 研究範疇界定 15
壹、 名詞定義 15
貳、 研究範圍界定 16
參、 研究對象 17
第三節 研究內容與研究方法 19
壹、 研究緣起 19
貳、 文獻回顧與評析 19
參、 研究設計 20
肆、 實證分析 22
第四節 研究流程 23
第二章 相關理論與文獻回顧20
第一節 空間公平意涵與相關理論 24
壹、 公平的意涵 24
貳、 公平的類型 25
參、 衡量公平的分類與目標 31
第二節 公共設施類型與相關理論 34
壹、 公共設施之功能與類型 34
貳、 公共財理論之回顧 38
參、 公共設施服務供給與需求特性 41
第三節 可及性為基礎的空間公平理論 49
壹、 空間尺度的選定 49
貳、 空間公平性衡量指標 55
參、 公平之相關空間分析方法 60
第三章 研究方法與設計64
第一節 空間公平性量測方法 68
壹、 設施效益量測模式建立 68
貳、 機會可及性量測模式建立 69
參、 以空間自相關理論為基礎的空間公平性分析方法 70
第二節 公共設施效益量測指標建立 73
壹、 各層級設施分類與服務距離 74
貳、 公共設施效益衡量 75
參、 空間阻抗與運具持有之推估 75
肆、 社經程度指標之建立 77
第三節 公共設施空間公平評估程序 78
壹、 基本資料收集與資料庫建置 78
貳、 公共設施效益衡量 78
參、 各層級設施的空間公平性分析 79
肆、 空間關聯程度分析 79
伍、 整體分析流程圖 80
第四章 實證地區範圍與現況分析 77
第一節 實證地區範圍與現況分析 81
第二節 台南市都市計劃區發展現況 82
壹、 台南市都市計畫區之土地現況發展 83
貳、 台南市都市計畫區人口與公共設施現況 83
第三節 實證地區範圍與分區社經背景 85
第五章 公共設施空間公平性實證分析 84
第一節 公共設施效益分析 88
壹、 各層級設施效益空間分析 89
貳、 各層級設施效益公平分析 90
第二節 公共設施空間公平程度分析 91
壹、 各層級設施機會可及性敘述統計分析 91
貳、 各層級設施機會可及性空間分析 92
參、 各層級設施機會可及性空間公平程度分析 97
第三節 公共設施機會可及性與社經程度空間關聯度分析 108
壹、 相關分析 108
貳、 空間關聯程度分析 109
第六章 結論與建議106
壹、 結論 113
貳、 方法檢討 115
參、 後續研究與建議 116
參考文獻 1.何東波,1986,台灣地區公共設施提供長程策略探討,都市與計劃,13:61-78。
2.謝智源、陳智華、楊智育、鐘鼎昊,2008,政府支出與經濟成長:擁擠外部性與不完全競爭,經濟研究,44(1):1-29。
3.張學聖、黃輝林,2007,都市人為災害空間特性及救災設施區位檢討之研究─以台南市為例,中央警察大學災害防救學報,8:99-112。
4.劉康立、林晏州,2007,鄰里公園實質環境屬性與情緒體驗,台灣園藝,53(1):127-138。
5.衛萬明、林千琪,2004,應用動態區位模式於國民中學校區位選擇之研究,都市與計劃31(2):113-142。
6.紀雲曜、李上妤、葉光毅,2004,公共設施最適服務/影響距離之評估模式,5(2):150-177。
7.蔡明達、侯錦雄,1995,鄰里公園團體活動之特性與其參與者對場所特性之需求--以台中市西囤區的逢甲、福星、三信公園為例,戶外遊憩研究 8(4):37-68。
8.林峰田,1997,公共設施檢討空間分析方法,都市與計劃,24(8):171-192。
9.洪小文,2005,公共財的擁擠外部性與罪是租稅政策,華岡經濟論叢5(1):87-101。
10.林漢良,2005,土地使用圖之點資料空間分析研究. 規劃學報32:1-45.
11.翁仁甫,2007,政府當局公共財或提供時點的延遲與社會福利-供給面的分析.經濟研究,43(2):129-148。
12.葉光毅,1990,都市公共設施服務距離之研究-台南市之實例探討,建築學報,1:125-135。
13.許亞儒,1991,由最大效用原理探討都市公共設施需求行為,國立成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
14.許亞儒,1991,由最大效用原理探討都市公共設施需求行為,國立成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
15.李國正,2000,公共設施區位之合理配置,國立交通大學碩士論文。
16.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,國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文
17.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,台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
18.林寶秀、林晏州,2001,都市公園分布型態與居民遊憩品質關係之研究,國立台灣大學園藝學研究所碩論文。
19.何紀芳,1994,都市服務設施鄰避效果之研究,國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文。
20.黃任薇,2006,GIS網格解析度之研究,成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
21.陳嘉茹,2008,以空間型構法則與階層線性模型探討交通路網結構對都市商業型態影響之研究,成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
22.鄔建國,2003,景觀生態學—格局、過程、尺度與等級(Landscape ecology: Pattern, Process, Scale and Hierarchy),五南圖書出版股份有限公司,台北市 。
23.錢學陶,1987,都市計劃導論,台北:茂榮。
24.李永展,1997,台北市鄰避設型公共設施更新之研究,台北:台北市政府研究發展考核委員會。
25. Anderton, D. L., 1996. Methodological issues in the spatiotemporal analysis of environmental equity. Social Science Quarterly, 77 (3): 508 – 515.
26. Arentze, T. A., Borgers, A. W. J., Timmermans, H. J. P., 1994a. Geographical information systems and the measurement of accessibility in the context of multipurpose travel: a new approach. Geographical Systems 1: 87 -102.
27. Arentze, T. A., Borgers, A. W. J., Timmermans, H. J. P., 1994b. Multistop-based measurements of accessibility in a gis environment. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 8: 343-356.
28. Angie, L., Graham, A., et al, 2005.Playground safety and access in boston neighborhoods. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(4):357–363.
29. Alesina, A., Enrico, S., 1997. On the Number and Size of Nation, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4):1027-1056.
30. Alesina, A., Reza B., William E., 1999. Public goods and ethnic divisions, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4):1243-1284.
31. Annett, A., 2001. Social fractionalization, Political Instability, and the Size of Government, IMF Staff papers, 48(3).
32. Alesina, A., Eliana L F., 2004. Ethnic diversity and economic performance, NBER Working Paper, 103-113.
33. Bridgman, B., 2004. Multiethnic democracy, department of economics working paper, Louisiana State University, March.
34. Bryant, Bunyan, 1995. Environmental justice - -Issues, Policies, and Solutions, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
35. Boyne, G., Powell, M., 1991. Territorial justice, a review of theory and evidence" Political Geography Quarterly, 10: 263 -281.
36. Bach, L., 1980. Locational models for systems of private and public facilities
based on concepts of accessibility and access opportunity. Environ. Planning A, 12:301–320.
37. Bolund, P., S., Hunhammar, 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas, Ecological Economics, 29: 293-301.
38. Borjas, J.G., 1999. Immigration and welfare magnets”, Journal of Labor
Economics, 17:607-637.
39. Burgess, J., C. M. Harrison and M. Limb 1988. People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city, Urban Studies, 25: 455-473.
40. Brett, M., B., Douglas, S., N., Rama, M., R., 2007. Scales of justice: is there a geographic bias in environmental equity analysis? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2):163-185.
41. Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J. A., Armsworth, P. R., Davies, R. G., Fuller, R. A., Johnson P., Gaston, K. J., 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from sheffield, UK. Landscape and urban planning, 83(2-3):187-195.
42. Cervero, R., Rood, T., Appleyard, B., 1999. Tracking accessibility: employment and housing opportunities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Environment and Planning A, 31:1259–1278.
43. Chris, J. B., 1999. Cities in Competition: equity Issues. , Urban Studies, 36(5-6):865-891.
44. C.Y.Jim, Wendy, Y. C., 2006. Recreation-amenity use contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in guangzhou, China. Landscape and urban planning 75:81-96.
45. Clarke, G. R.G., 1993. More evident income distribution and growth, Journal of development economics, 47:403-427.
46. Cebula, R. J. and R. M. Kohn, 1975. Public policies and migration patterns
in the Untied States, Public Finance 30:186-196.
47. Conway, K. S. and J. H. Andrew, 1998. Do the elderly ‘vote with their
feet?, Public Choice, 97:663-685.
48. Cingranelli, D. L., 1981. Race, politics and elites: testing alternative models of municipal service distribution. American Journal of Political Science 25:665-692.
49. Chan, K. S., Godby, R., Mestelman, S., Muller, R. A., 1997. Equity theory and the voluntary provision of public goods. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 32: 349–364.
50. Davies, B. P., 1968. Social needs and resources in local services (Michael Joseph, London).
51. Dodson, M. E. Ⅲ, 2001. Welfare generosity and location choices among new united states immigrants”, International Review of Law and Economics, 21:47-67.
52. Dark, S.J., Bram, D. 2007. The modifiable able areal problem(MAUP) in Physical geography, Progress in Physical Geography, 31(5):471-479.
53. Erkip, F., 1997. The distribution of urban public services: the case of parks and Recreational services in Ankara. Cities, 14(6):353-361.
54. Easterly, W., Ross, L., 1997. Africa’s growth tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions , The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4):1203-1250.
55. Esteban, J. M., Debraj R., 1994. On the measurement of polarization, econometrica, 62(4):819-851.
56. Frank T.,Brice G. and Kobus H.,2006,Modelling and understanding primary health care accessibility and utilization in rural South Africa: An exploration using a geographical information system, Social Science & Medicine, 63:691-705.
57. Gandy, M., 2002. Between boirinquen and barrio: environmental justice and New York City’s Puerto Rican Community, 1969-1972. Antipode 34(4):730-761.
58. Gregor y.and D., 1986. Accessibility, in: R.J.Johnston,D. Gregor y. and D. R.Stoddart (eds) TheDictionary of human geography, second edition,Oxford,
England,Blackwell,p2.
59. Gilbert, N., Specht, H., 1986.Dimensions of social welfare police. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice-Hall.
60. Goodmann, W., 1968. Principles and practice of urban planning, International City Manager’s Association,Washington.
61. Griffith, D. A., Wong, D. W. S., & Whitfield, T. 2003. Exploring relationships between the global and regional measures of spatial autocorrelation. Journal of Regional Science, 43(4):683–710.
62. Hay, A. M., 1995. Concepts of equity, fairness and justice in geographical studies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer, 20:500–508.
63. Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, nature, and the geography of difference. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
64. Heywood, I., S. Cornelius, and S. Carver, 1998. An Introduction to geographical information system, Longman.
65. Helling, A., 1998. Changing intra-metropolitan accessibility in U.S.: evidence from Atlanta, Progress in Planning, 49(2):55-107.
66. Heynen, N., Perkins, H. A., Roy, P., 2006. The political ecology of uneven urban green space: the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in milwaukee. Affairs Quarterly, 42: 3–25.
67. John, C., Samuel R., 1996. A Model to assess risk, equity and efficiency in facility location and transportation of hazardous, Location Science, 3(3):187-201.
68. Jamie, P., Karen, W. Phil,B.,2009. Neighbourhoods and health: a GIS approach to measuring community resource accessibility. J Epidemiol Community Health, 60:389-395
69. Ko-Wan Tsou, Yu-Ting Hung and Yao-Lin Chang 2005. An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities, Cities.22:424-435.
70. Kaestner, R., N. Kaushal and G. V. Ryzin,2003. Migration Consequences of Welfare Reform, Journal of Urban Economics, 53:357-376.
71. Kuchelmeister, G. and S. Braatz, 1993.Urban forestry revisited, Unasylva, 173(44): 3-12.
72. Karen, E. S.-T., Jared, N. H., M. John, H., 2004. Spatial accessibility and equity of playprounds Edmonton, Canada. The Canadian Geographer, 48(3):287–302.
73. Knox, P. L, 1978. The intraurban ecology of primary medical care: patterns of accessibility and their policy implications. Environment and Planning A, 10: 415-435.
74. Kyushik, O., Seunghyun, J., 2007. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Planning, 82:25-32.
75. Lau, J. C. Y., Chiu,C. C. H. ,2003,Accessibility of low-income workers in Hong Kong.Cities, 20(3):197-204.
76. Lucy,W.H.,1981. Equity and planning for local services. J. Am. Planning Assoc,
47:447–451.
77. Levy, A. and Chowdhury, K., 1995. A geographical decomposition of intercountry income inequality, Comparotive Economic Studies, 37(4):1-17.
78. Latetia V., Moore, Ana V., Diez Roux, Kelly R. Evenson, Aileen P.,McGinn, Shannon J., Brines, MEng, 2008. Availability of recreational resources in minority and low socioeconomic Status Areas, American Journal
Of Preventive Medicine, 34(1):16–22.
79. Levinson, D. M., 1998. Accessibility and the journey to work, Journal of Transport Geography, 6 (1):11-21.
80. Le Grand, J. & Robinson R., The Economics of social roblems, on Macmillan.
81. Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., Kuan, S., 2001.Access, equity, and urban greenways: An exploratory investigation. The Professional Geographer, 53(3):332-346.
82. L Wei, C C Lang, F M Sullivan, et al, 2009. Impact on mortality following first acute myocardial infarction of distance between home and hospital: cohort study. Heart, 94:1141-1146.
83. Marc S., Jessica G., Page P., et al. 2006. School Trips: effects of urban form and distance on travel mMode. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3):337-346
84. McMaster, R. B., Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., 1997. GIS-based environmental equity and risk assessment: methodological problems and prospects. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 24(3): 172 – 189.
85. McLafferty, S.1982. Urban structure and geographical access to public services. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72(3):347-354
86. Mohai, P., 1995. The demographics of dumping revisited: examining the impact of alternate methodologies in environmental justice research, Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 14: 615–653.
87. Mayhew, L. D. and Leonardi, G., 1984. Resource allocation in multilevel spatial health care systems. London Papers in Regional Science 13: Planning and Analysis in Health Care Systems, ed. M. Clarke. Pion, London,
88. Mayhew, L. D., 1986.Urban hospital location. allen and unwin, Winchester, MA.
89. Morrill, R.L., Symons, J., 1977. Efficiency and equity aspects of optimum location. Geographical Analysis, 9:215-225.
90. McAllister, D.M., 1976. Equity and efficiency in public facility location. Geograph. Anal, 8:47–63.
91. Marsh, M. T., Schilling, D., A., 1994. Equity measurement in facility location analysis: a review and framework, European Journal of Operational Reasearch, 74:1-17.
92. Manley, D., R. Flowerdew, and D. Steel, 2006. Scales, levels and processes: studying spatial patterns of British census variables, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30: 143–160
93. Marceau D.J. and Hay G.J., 1999. Remote sensing contributions to the scale issue, Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(4): 357-366
94. Mladenka, K. R., 1989. The distribution of an urban public service: the changing role of race and politics. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 24: 556-583.
95. Maureen. L., A., and Carol. T., K., 1999. Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the 1990s. Journal of management, 25(3): 231-292.
96. Hillsdona M., J. Panter, C. Foster, A. Jones, 2006. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public health, 120:1127-1132.
97. Nil P., D., 2004. Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta.Cities, 21(3): 225-232.
98. Nicholls, S., 2001. Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A Case Study Using GIS, Managing Leisure, 6:201-219.
99. Noreen, C., Mcdonald, 2008. Critical factors for active transportation to school among Low-Income and Minority Students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(4):341-344.
100. Ogryczak, W., 2000. Inequality measures and equitable approach to location problems.European, Journal of Operational Research, 122: 374–391.
101. Omer, I., 2006. Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: A spatial equity perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30: 254-274.
102. Ottensmann, J.R., 1994. Evaluating equity in service delivery in library branches. Journal of Urban Affairs, 16:109-123.
103. Openshaw, S. 1984. The modifiable aerial unit problem. Concepts and techniques in modern geography, 38.Norwich: Geo Books.
104. Openshaw, S., & Rao, L. 1995. Algorithms for re-engineering 1991 census geography. Environment and Planning A, 27, 425–446.
105. Pacione, M., 1989. Access to urban services—the case of secondary schools in Glasgow. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 105: 12-18.
106. Potchter, O., and Cohen, P., and Bitan, A., 2006. Climatic behavior of various urban parks during hot and humid summer in the Mediterranean city of Tel Aviv, Israel, International Journal of Climatology, 26(12):1695-1711.
107. Pred, A., 1977. City Systems in Advanced Economies,London, England, Hutchinson.
108. Pinch, S., 1984. Inequality in Pre-School provision :a geographical perspective, in public service provision and urban development Eds A Kirby. London, 1984.
109. P’aez, A., & Scott, D. M. 2004. Spatial statistics for urban analysis: a review of techniques with examples. GeoJournal, 61, 53–67.
110. Smith, D. M., 1994. Geography and social justice. Blackwell, Oxford.
111. Savas, E. S., 1978. On Equity in Providing Public Service. Mgmt. Sci, 24:800-808.
112. Sacit, H. A., Jinyoung, H., Emre, C., 2008. Cultural Diversity Domestic Political Violence And Public Expenditures, Defence and Peace Economics, 19(3):235-247.
113. Shevky E., Bell W., 1972. Social area analysis: Theory, Illustrative Application,and computational procedures, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
114. Shevky E., Williams, M., 1949. The Social areas of Los Angeles, Berkely.
115. Spronken-Smith, R. A. S. and T. R. Oke, 1998. The thermal regime of urban parks in two cities with different summer climates, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19(11): 2085-2104.
116. Shen Q. and Thomas W., 2005. Residential Location, Transportation, and Welfare-to-Work in the United States: A Case Study of Milwaukee, Housing Policy Debate, 16:393-431.
117. Ringquist, E. J. 2005. Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: a meta-analysis, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2): 223-247.
118. Thomas C. Buchmueller, Mireille Jacobson, Cheryl Wold, 2006. How far to the hospital? The effect of hospital closures on access to care. Journal of Health Economics, 25:740–761.
119. Talen, E., 1997. The social equity of urban service distribution: an exploration of
park access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography, 18: 521–541.
120. Talen, E., 1998. Visualizing fairness: equity maps for planners. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 64: 22–39.
121. Talen, E., 2005. Land use zoning and human diversity: exploring the connection.
Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4): 214-232.
122. Talen, E., 2008. New urbanism, social equity, and the challenge of post-Katrina rebuilding in Mississippi, Journal of planning education and research, 27(3):277-293.
123. Talen, E., Anselin, L., 1998. Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds.Environment and Planning, A 30: 595–613.
124. Timko, J., Satterfield, T., 2008. Criteria and indicators for evaluating social equity and ecological integrity in national parks and protected areas, Natural areas Journal, 28(3):307-319.
125. Truelove, M., 1993. Measurement of spatial equity. Environment and Planning C, 11: 19-34.
126. Taylor, C., Gorard, S., & Fitz, J. 2003. The modifiable areal unit problem: segregation between schools and levels of analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 41–60.
127. Towers, G. 2000. Applying the political geography of scale: grassroots strategies and environmental justice. Professional Geographer, 52(1), 23–26.
128. Wood, A., W., 1987. Marx on Right and Justice: A Reply to Husami, in Cohen, op. Cit.
129. Werna, E., 1998. Urban management, the provision of public services and intra-urban differentials in Nairobi. Habitat International, 22(1): 15-26.
130. Wlodzimierz, O., 2000. Inequality measures and equitable approaches to location Problems, European Journal of Operational Research, 122:374-391.
131. Wong, D. W. S. 2003. Spatial decomposition of segregation indices: a framework toward measuring segregation at multiple levels. Geographical Analysis, 35(3), 179–184.
132. Wu, J. and H. Li, 2006. “Concepts of scale and scaling”, pp. 4-15 in Scaling and Uncertainty Analysis in Ecology: Methods and Applications, edited by J. Wu, K.B.
133. Yan S. and Jungyul S. , 2007,Valuing spatial accessibility to retailing: A case study of the single family housing market in Hillsboro, Oregon ,Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 14:279–288.
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2010-07-27起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-07-27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