台南市民生活品質滿意度之研究

A Study on the Satisfaction of Quality of Life in Tainan City

10.6377/JA.200706.0001

陳冠位(Kuan-Wei Chen)；李永展(Yung-Jaan Lee)

生活品質 ； 滿意度 ； 結構方程模式 ； 台南市 ； Quality of Life ； Satisfaction ； LISREL ； Tainan

建築學報

60期（2007 / 06 / 01）

1 - 26

繁體中文

城市如何從環伺的競爭對手中脫穎而出已成為城市研究的重要議題，而透過生活品質的衡量可為城市進行生活環境診斷並檢討過去的施政策略，以提供相關部門做為未來決策依據。本研究以美國「底特律地區研究」為基礎，根據相關文獻及台灣社經背景進行檢討修正後，調查台南市民生活品質滿意度，並使用結構方程模式中的LISREL分析台南市生活品質關係模式。本研究發現區別、婚姻、年齡、學歷、收入的個人特質會影響各領域的滿意程度，使用LISREL分析台南市生活品質關係模式，其驗證結果模式適合度良好，但鄰里環境評價和鄰里認同這兩個因素不管是對鄰里滿意或者是地區滿意，其影響力非常小。而其他因素對鄰里滿意和地區滿意都為正相關影響，但在鄰里關係上對地區滿意卻為負相關影響。在研究模式中，鄰里滿意和地區滿意會進一步影響城市生活品質，而鄰里滿意對地區滿意有正相關影響，但地區滿意對鄰里滿意卻為負相關影響。

How a city finds its advantageous niche in the competitive world becomes an important issue. Therefore, the quality of urban life has played an important role in light of global city competition. Using the quality of life to evaluate the living environment of a certain area can therefore be adopted as an appropriate policy strategy and can be used as the basis for increasing the competitiveness of that area. This work acquires permission from the Detroit Area Study (DAS) team to include Tainan City as one of the global comparison samples. Therefore, using the DAS as the basis to examine the quality of life in Tainan City can provide a monitoring mechanism for evaluating the quality of urban life. Targeting on the attitudes and feelings toward the quality of life, this study uses the Linear Structure Relation (LISREL) model to analyze Tainan's quality of life.Results show that district, marriage, age, education, and income affect the degree of satisfaction in all aspects. Using LISREL to analyze the quality of life in Tainan City, the result shows that the fitness of goodness is acceptable. However, the influence of the evaluation and the identity of neighborhood is very small. Other factors affecting the satisfaction of both neighborhood and area are all positive, except the relationship between satisfaction of neighborhood relationship and satisfaction toward local areas. In the research model, neighborhood satisfaction and local area satisfaction further affect the quality of life. Neighborhood satisfaction has positive causal relationship, while local area satisfaction has negative effect on the neighborhood satisfaction.

1. Andrews, F.M.(1979).Social Indicators of Perceived Life Quality.Journal of Social Indicators Research,1,279-299.
2. Camagni, R.,R. Capello,P. Nijkamp(1997).Towards Sustainable City Policy: an Economy-environment Technology Nexus.Ecological Economics,24(1),103-118.
3. Campbell, A.(1981).The Sense of Well-being in America.NY:McGraw-Hill.
4. Campbell, A.,P. Converse,W. Rodgers(1976).The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions.New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
5. Cheung, C.(1997).Toward a Theoretically Based Measurement Model of the Good Life.Journal of General Psychology,158(2),200-215.
6. de Hollander, A.E.M.,B.A.M. Staatsen(2003).Health, Environment and Quality of Life: An Epidemiological Perspective on Urban Development.Landscape and Urban Planning,65,53-62.
7. Foo, T.S.(2000).Subjective Assessment of Urban Quality of Life in Singapore (1997-1998).Habitat International,24,31-49.
8. Friedmann, J.,P. L. Knox (Eds.),P. J. Taylor (Eds.)(1995).World Cities in a World System.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
9. Hart, S.,D. Denison,D.A. Henderson(1989).A Contingency Approach to Firm Location: the Influence of Industrial Sector and Level of Technology.Policy Studies Journal,13,599-629.
10. Healey, B.(1993).European Real Estate Monitor.London:Healey and Baker.
11. Marans, R.W.(2003).Understanding Environmental Quality through Quality of Life Studies: the 2001 DAS and its Use of Subjective and Objective Indicators.Landscape and Urban Planning,65,73-83.
12. Marans, R.W.,M. Couper(2000).Measuring the quality of community life: a program for longitudinal and comparative international research.Proceedings of the second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities
13. Marans, R.W.,W. Rodgers,Hawley, A. (Eds.),V. Rock (Eds.)(1975).Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective.New York:Halsted Press.
14. Mitchell, G.,A. Namdeo,D. Kay(2000).A New Disease-burden Method for Estimating the Impact of Outdoor Air Quality on Human Health.The Science of the Total Environment,246(2-3),153-163.
15. Rogerson, R. J.(1999).Quality of Life and City Competitiveness.Urban Studies,36(5-6),969-985.
16. Shafer, C. S.,B. K. Lee,S. Turner(2000).A Tale of Three Greenway Trails: User Perceptions Related to Quality of Life.Landscape and Urban Planning,49,163-178.
17. Ülengin, B.,F. Ülengin,Ü. Güvenç(2001).A Multidimensional Approach to Urban Quality of Life: the Case of Istanbul.European Journal of Operational Research,130,361-374.
18. van Kamp, I.,K. Leidelmeijer,G. Marsman,A. de Hollander(2003).Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-being: towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts, a Literature Study.Landscape and Urban Planning,65,5-18.
19. Wong, C.(2001).The Relationship between Quality of Life and local Economic Development: an Empirical Study of Local Authority Areas in England.Cities,18(1),25-32.
20. 吳佳珍、林秋菊(1997)。生活品質的概念分析。榮總護理，14(1)，102-106。
21. 卓輝星(1992)。台灣大學農業經濟研究所。
22. 孫明爲(1997)。成功大學都市計劃研究所。
23. 孫青雯(1994)。逢甲大學土地管理研究所。
24. 張紹勳(2001)。研究方法。台中:滄海書局。
25. 張麗娟(1988)。台灣大學。
26. 陳宜音(2002)。彰化師範大學商業教育學系。
27. 陳冠位(2002)。成功大學都市計劃系。
28. 陳柏熹、王文中(1999)。生活品質量表的發展。中國測驗學會測驗年刊，1，57-74。
29. 陳清賢(1984)。中興大學都市計畫研究所。
30. 陸玓玲(1998)。台灣地區生活品質研究概況。中華衛誌，17(6)，442-457。
31. 曾錦堂(1984)。中國文化大學政治學研究所。
32. 黃芳銘(2002)。結構方程模式理論與應用。台北:五南圖書。
33. 董娟鳴(2005)。政治大學地政學系。
34. 鄧弼文(2001)。輔仁大學應用統計研究所。
35. 薛立敏、錢玉蘭(1996)。生活品質與國家競爭力。經濟前瞻，11(6)，20-63。
36. 羅浩杰(1996)。中山大學公共事務管理研究所。

1. (2012)。綠地結構與居住環境品質對生活滿意度之影響。造園景觀學報，18(3)，21-41。