小型衛星城鎮兒童的通學獨立移動－以新北市泰山、義學國小為例

Children's Independent Mobility to School in Small Satellite Towns-An Empirical Study on the Taishan and Yishiue Elementary Schools, New Taipei City

10.6161/jgs.2014.74.02

董娟鳴(Chuan-Ming Tung)；徐歆怡(Hsn-I Hsu)

小型衛星城鎮 ； 兒童 ； 通學獨立移動 ； Small satellite town ； children ； independent mobility to school

地理學報

74期（2014 / 09 / 01）

31 - 61

繁體中文

近年因私人運具發達，導致生活在現代都市的兒童，在鄰里環境中各項活動，無論是移動力、被允許活動之種類與程度，均呈現縮小與下降的趨勢，然而，兒童活動中，影響最嚴重者，即為對兒童通學行為模式之影響；然而探討兒童通學行為之研究，多在探討通學時之運具選擇，對於兒童在其通學旅程中，不需成人陪伴，可獨立自由移動之程度與在空間上範圍則缺乏討論，故本研究擬以兒童「通學獨立移動」為探討議題，探討公共設施與人行系統較缺乏的小型衛星市鎮兒童，通學獨立移動之空間範圍、程度與影響因素。本研究以新北市泰山區泰山、義學國小為例，共調查了共522個參與家庭，根據實證結果顯示，兒童通學路徑中，僅63.04%有設置步行系統，兒童通學經過路口數平均約15.9個，家長感受鄰里步行環境不友善；在兒童通學獨立移動程度方面，兒童各項通學獨立移動平均值介於33.03%至40.33%間，若換算成單次通學旅程中自行通學平均距離，僅約148.72公尺至215.72公尺間，兒童通學模式仍以成人接送為主。影響兒童通學獨立移動之主要因素，則多以家長與兒童個人特徵因素為主，計有：兒童年齡、家長對兒童獨自通學之擔心程度、家長對鄰里環境親近之認同程度等因素；至於鄰里環境對兒童通學獨立移動之影響多為間接性影響，僅有「通學經過路口數」會直接反向影響兒童上學與通學獨立移動程度。此外，由於兒童放學後多需前往第三地停留（安親或課輔班），影響兒童返家旅程之特性，而兒童返家獨立移動之影響因素皆為兒童年齡、家長對安親之需求與信任、兒童教養與環境親近認同態度等因素，前述因素對兒童返家獨立移動程度之影響程度，則較上學與通學旅程為高。

Increases in private vehicle ownership in recent years have led to reductions in both children's mobility and permitted activities in their local neighborhood. The most serious impact has been on how children commute to school. However, most studies on commuting to school focus on the choice of transportation, and lack discussion on the extent to which and the range within which children are independently mobile and can commute to school without adult accompaniment. This study therefore addresses the issue of children's independent mobility when commuting to school, examining the degree and range of independent mobility in a small satellite town lacking in public facilities and pedestrian infrastructure. The study looks at the cases of the Taishan and Yishiue Elementary Schools in the Taishan District, New Taipei City, surveying a total of 522 families. The results show that only 63.04% of routes taken to school had pedestrian facilitates and children had to cross an average of 15.9 road intersections to reach school, revealing a far from ideal physical environment for commuting from parents viewpoint. Measures of average independent mobility to school ranged between 33.03% and 40.33%. At the same time, the average distance of independent journeys to school was in the range of 148.72 and 215.72 meters. These results confirm that the main pattern of children commuting to school is picked by adults. However, results also show that factors of personalities from parents and children are the most important determinants of children's mobility when commuting to school. These factors are child's age, parental anxiety about children travelling to school independently, and the level of intimacy with the neighborhood. The effect of the physical environment on children's independent mobility when commuting to school is mostly indirect. Only the ＂number of road intersections crossed when commuting to school＂ has a direct effect on children's independent mobility to school. In addition, because most children attend after-school classes following the end of the formal school day, the significant factors of children's school-home journey are factors of personalities from parents and children. The child's age, parental demands of daycare, parental upbringing, and intimacy with the neighborhood have a greater influence on a child's journey home at the end of the day than the journey to school at the start of the day. However, choice of transportation has less influence on the level of mobility on the journey home when compared to the journey to school.

1. 林禎家、張孝德(2008)。建成環境影響兒童通學方式與運具選擇之研究：臺北市文山區國小兒童之實證分析。運輸計畫季刊，37(3)，331-62。
   連結：
2. 董娟鳴(2011)。衛星市鎮鄰里環境特徵對兒童移動自由之影響。建築與規劃學報，12(3)，169-98。
   連結：
3. 行政院主計處 [Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (Taiwan) ] 2009。2009 社會指標統計年報 [2009 she huei jhih biao tong ji nian bao]。臺北 [Taipei]：行政院主計處 [Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (Taiwan) ]
4. Anderson, J.,Tindall, M.(1972).The concept of home-range. New data for the study of territorial behavior.Environmental design: Research and practice,Los Angeles:
5. Bagley, M. N.,Mokhtarian, P. L.(1999).The role of lifestyle and attitudinal characteristics in residential neighborhood choice.CA:The University of California Transportation Center, U.S.A..
6. Bradshaw, R.(1995).Why do parents drive their children to school.Traffic Engineering and Control,36(1),1121-41.
7. Bradshaw, R.,Jones, P.(2000).scoping report to the AA road safety research carried out by the transport studies groupsscoping report to the AA road safety research carried out by the transport studies groups,London:University of Westminster.
8. Cervero, R.(1996).Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American housing survey.Transportation Research A,30(5),361-77.
9. Cervero, R.(2002).Built environment and mode choice: Toward a normative framework.Transportation Research,D 2(3),199-219.
10. Cohen, A.(2003).Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Fyhri, A.,Hjorthol, R.(2009).Children's independent mobility to school, friends and leisure activities.Journal of Transport Geography,17,377-84.
12. Gaster, S.(1992).Historical changes in children's access to US cities: A critical review.Children Environment,9(2),23-36.
13. Gleeson, B.(ed.),Sipe, N.(ed.)(2006).Creating child friendly cities-reinstating kids in the city.Abingdon, UK:Routledge.
14. Handy, S.(1996).Urban form and pedestrian choice: Study of Austin neighborhoods.Transportation Research Record,1552,135-44.
15. Johansson, M.(2006).Environment and parental factors as determinants of mode for children's leisure travel.Journal of Environmental Psychology,26(2),156-69.
16. Kyttä, M.(1997).Children's independent mobility in urban, small town, and rural environments.Growing up in a changing urban landscape,Assen:
17. Kyttä, M.(2002).The affordances of children's environment.Journal of Environmental Psychology,22,109-23.
18. Kyttä, M.(2004).The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments.Journal of Environmental Psychology,24,179-98.
19. Lin, J. J.,Chang, H. T.(2010).Built environment effects on children's school travel in Taipei: Independence and travel mode.Urban Studies,47(4),867-89.
20. Long, D. A.,Perkins, D. D.(2003).Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sense of Community Index and development of a Brief SCI.Journal of Community Psychology,31(3),279-96.
21. McDonald, N. C.(2006).Children's travel patterns: Evidence from the 2001 national household travel survey.Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting,Washington, DC., USA:
22. McDonald, N. C.(2007).Active transportation to school: Trends among US school-children 1969-2001.American Journal of Preventive Medicine,32(6),509-16.
23. McMillan, T.(2007).The relative influence of urban form on a child's trip to school.Transportation Research A,41(1),69-79.
24. Noschis, K.(1992).Child development theory and planning for neighborhood play.Children's Environments,9(2),1-11.
25. Piaget, J.,Inhelder, B.(1956).The child's conception of space.London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
26. Prezza, M.(2007).Children's independent mobility: A review of recent Italian literature.Children, Youth and Environments,17(4),293-318.
27. Prezza, M.,Alparone, F. R.,Cristallo, C.,Luigi, S.(2005).Parental perception of social risk and positive potentiality of outdoor autonomy for children: The development of two instruments.Journal of Environmental Psychology,25,437-53.
28. Prezza, M.,Pilloni, S.,Morabito, C.,Serante, C.,Alparone, F. R.,Giuliani, M. V.(2001).The influence of psychosocial and environmental factors on children's independent mobility and relationship to peer frequentation.Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology,11,435-50.
29. Rhoulac, T.(2005).Bus or car: The classic choice in the context of school transportation.Transportation Research Record,1992,98-104.
30. Rissotto, A.,Tonucci, F.(2002).Freedom of movement and environmental knowledge in elementary school children.Journal of Environmental Psychology,22,65-77.
31. Van Vilet, W.(1983).Exploring the fourth environment: An examination of the home range of city and suburban teenagers.Environment and Behavior,15(5),567-88.
32. 王保鍵(2004)。論直轄市與縣市公投合併。行政暨政策學報，39，1-32。
33. 兒童福利文教基金會(2010)。,臺北=Taipei:兒童福利文教基金會=Child Welfare League Foundation。
34. 兒童福利文教基金會(2009)。,臺北=Taipei:兒童福利文教基金會=Child Welfare League Foundation。
35. 邱美珍(2008)。Shinchu，國立交通大學運輸與科技管理學系=Department of Transportation Technology and Management, National Chiao Tung University。
36. 凌游世傑(2001)。Taipei，淡江大學建築研究所= Department of Architecture, Tamkang University。
37. 張孝德(2007)。Taipei，國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所=Graduate Institute of Urban Planning, National Taipei University。
38. 陳文慧(2002)。Taipei，文化大學建築與都市設計研究所=Graduate Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning, Chinese Culture University。
39. 陳佩涓(2010)。Hualien，國立東華大學環境政策研究所=Graduate Institute of Environmental Policy, National Dong Hwa University。
40. 陳富雄(2011)。Kaohsiung，高苑科技大學經營管理研究所=Institute of Business and Management Kao Yan University。
41. 黃珮文(2000)。Taipei，淡江大學建築研究所=Department of Architecture, Tamkang University。
42. 蔡瓊如(2010)。Taipei，國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所=Graduate School of Curriculum and Institute, National Taipei University of Education。