宜居城市治理績效評估之研究

2 

 

The Evaluation of Livable City Governance Performance

 

Ching-Chia Yeh

1

Ming-Shu Cheng

2

1

Assistant Professor, Department of Cultural and Creative Industries, National

Pingtung University of Education, No.4-18 Minsheng Rd, Pingtung City, Pingtung

County 90003, Taiwan, R.O.C., +886-988-113378,

scorpio.ball@msa.hinet.net

2

Ph. D. Candidate, Department of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University,

No.1, University Road, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan, R.O.C. +886-970-101728,

mingsue@seed.net.tw

Abstract

This paper integrated permanent sustainable environmental development to construct an assessment

indicator system of livable environment for five major cities in Taiwan. Then specialists and experts

determined the importance of which expressed by the assessment indicators. Finally, the livability analysis

was adopted to display the livable effect of sustainability for five major cities in Taiwan. The result shows

that Taipei city has better governance performance in aspects of education, urban living infrastructure, and

finance. New Taipei city has better governance performance in aspects of citizen living. Taichung city has

better governance performance in aspects of social security. Kaohsiung city has better governance

performance in aspects of social welfare, environmental ecology and quality.

態與居住品質等面向具有優勢。 台北市未來在推動宜居城市過程中，應加強社會治安與公共安全、市民經濟力與生存力及環境生 態與居住品質等三個面向；新北市則須加強社會治安與公共安全、社會福利與健康照護、教育文化與 休閒遊憩、環境生態與居住品質等四面向；台中都則須加強社會治安與公共安全、社會福利與健康照 護、環境生態與居住品質等三面向；台南都則須加強社會治安與公共安全、財政自主與負擔、都市生 活與服務設施、教育文化與休閒遊憩等四面向；高雄都則須加強市民經濟力與生存力、財政自主與負 擔、都市生活與服務設施、教育文化與休閒遊憩等四面向。

五、結論與建議

宜居城市治理績效評估結果顯示，各城市具備不同的宜居城市發展樣式與內涵，在七的評估面向 下，台北市在教育文化與休閒遊憩、都市生活與服務設施及財政自主與負擔等面向具有優勢；新北市 在市民經濟力與生存力面向具有優勢；台中都在社會治安與公共安全面向具有優勢；高雄都在社會福 利與健康照護、環境生態與居住品質等面向具有優勢。未來為形塑宜居城市，可從社會治安與公共安 全、社會福利與健康照護、教育文化與休閒遊憩、環境生態與居住品質、都市生活與服務設施、財政 自主與財政負擔、市民經濟力與生存力等7個面向切入，針對各面向所列舉的各項重要評估指標，結 合都市治理理念，建置宜居城市策略地圖。依據策略地圖中各層面之評估指標間的相互影響關係研提 發展策略，並結合發展時程，劃分為短、中、長期，從生態資源、歷史文化、經濟產業、交通運輸、 社會人文、土地使用與公共安全等層面擬定相關配套措施，以期能具體推動宜居城市。

參考文獻

游志遠、董曉峰、王莉（2007）。宜居城市的構成要素與發展模式分析。城市，2007 卷 12 期，42-46。 黃麗玲（2007）。宜居城市新議程與海峽兩岸城市發展。北京規劃建設，2007 卷 1 期，21-24。 Basiago, A. D. (1998). Economic, Social, And Environmental Sustainability In Development Theory And

Urban Planning Practice. Journal of the Environmentalist, 19(2), 145-161.

Casellati, A. (1997). The Nature of Livability” in Lennard, S. H., S von Ungern-Sternberg, H. L. Lennard,

eds. Making Cities Livable. International Making Cities Livable Conferences. California, USA:

Gondolier Press.

Evans, P, ed. (2002). Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability. California, USA:

University of California Press Ltd.

Hahlweg, D. (1997). The City as a Family. In Lennard, S. H., S von Ungern-Sternberg, H. L. Lennard, eds.

Making Cities Livable. International Making Cities Livable Conferences. California, USA: Gondolier Press.

Lennard, H. L. (1997). “Principles for the Livable City” in Lennard, S. H., S von Ungern-Sternberg, H. L.

Lennard, eds. Making Cities Livable. International Making Cities Livable Conferences. Gondolier Press:

California, USA.

Michel Southworth (2004). Measuring the livable city. Journal of Built Environment, 29(4), 343-354.

Salzano, E. (1997). Seven aims for the livable city. in Lennard, S. H., S von Ungern Sternberg, H. L.

16