都市型態係居民於都市空間活動之過程中逐漸形成，是政治、經濟、社會、環境與文化等多方面因素於土地與交通路網交互作用下的結果。隨著永續發展指標漸受注重，近年來都市型態之議題備受注目，探討如何塑造完善且永續之都市型態為相當重要之課題。回顧全球各大都市之發展歷程，人類活動與都市集居過程皆與交通運輸有著密不可分的關係，道路系統至古至今就被認為是影響都市的重要實質要素，健全之運輸網路結構，可以促使各種經濟產業活動在區域空間中得到較佳之配置，亦深深地影響到土地使用型態及其成長率，不僅可決定都市區位及規模，亦會影響都市的形狀、結構以及型態。
都市型態的形塑是建構在交通運輸的網絡，交通路網結構隨著人類行為模式改變日趨複雜，間接影響都市型態之發展，因此，本研究針對兩者間空間特性之相互關係進行探討，以南台灣為例，先定義與解釋都市型態的範疇，透過形態學之觀點，利用GIS技術、空間自相關分析方法（LISA）劃定都市發展範圍，再以碎形理論中之盒計法(BCM)進行都市型態之量測；並以拓樸學之概念，運用空間型構法則計算路網結構之空間特性，提供都市整體性路網空間結構特性之量測方法，最後分析路網空間特性與都市型態間之影響關係，希望藉由本研究探討路網結構特性與都市型態影響關係之結果，提供未來規劃者於都市空間利用與交通運輸規劃等策略研擬時參考。

As the concept of sustainable development having been gradually emphasized, the planning for urban environment development was respected also that how to create the complete and sustainable development of urban forms is the very important topics. A good urban development environment has relation with an urban development form, and effect the plan of urban land use. Some researches explained the influence of the development of urban land use and transportation, but lacked to discuss the relationship of urban form and road network.
This research focused on the relationship between transportation and urban form, first of all it grid the data of built-up area by Geographic information system (GIS), and defined the boundary of urban area by Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) and then used the Fractal Dimension of Box Counting Method (BCM) to measure the urban form. After that the Space Syntax approach was used to calculate the value of spatial characteristics of road network. Finally, urban forms in southern Taiwan were surveyed, to analyze the relationship between road configuration and the spatial distribution of urban form. The results showed that the road configuration had influence on the form of urban area.

中文文獻
1.王國材(1995)，運輸網路佈置對都市發展型態影響之研究，國立交通大學交通運輸研究所博士論文。
2.白仁德、岳裕智(2005)，應用地理資訊系統網格化資料建立重大交通建設之空間發展影響模型─ 以北二高沿線為例，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果。
3.朱建銘(2000)，土地利用空間型態之研究，國立台灣大學地理學研究所碩士論文。
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.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。
6.李家儂、賴宗裕(2005)，台灣地區大眾運輸導向發展之落實—借鏡美國的實施經驗，「都市交通季刊」，第20卷第3期，1-16 頁。
7.李佳儂、羅健文(2006)，大眾運輸導向發展設計概念中步行可及性與大眾捷運系統旅次關係之初探，「都市交通」，第20卷，第4期，第1-14頁。
8.李介中、蔡博文(2005)，應用碎形理論於臺灣建地空間型態與地形關係之研究，「台灣地理資訊學刊」，第3期，第43-55頁。
9.吳彩珠、林峰田、林森田、許元綸(2013)，宜蘭農地宅舍分布型態之變遷與其影響因素之探討，「都市與計劃」，第40卷第1期，第31-57頁。
10.周倚臣(2008)，碎形理論應用於台南市土地混合使用特性分析之研究，國立臺東大學區域政策與發展研究所碩士論文。
11.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。
12.林晴如(2003)，台灣地區永續性空間發展模式之分析，國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所碩士論文。
13.林家瑩(2003)，從路網觀點探討都市發展過程中中心商業區所面臨之課題與對策，國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所碩士論文。
14.林楨家、楊恩捷(2006)，都市型態對旅運需求影響之結構化分析，「運輸學刊」，第18卷第4期，391-416 頁。
15.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。
16.許銘峰(2008)，台灣地區都市型態特徵之比較研究，國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所碩士論文。
17.許瑞堯(2003)，都市發展型態對製造業廠商產值影響之研究，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
18.陳慈仁 (2001)，台北市資訊軟體業與網際網路服務業區位分布之研究，國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文。
19.陳尚佑(2003)，以空間型構理論探索台中市都市發展型態，逢甲大學建築與都市計畫所碩士論文。
20.陳正德(2004)，空間結構與行人移動之模擬-以西門徒步區為例，國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文
21.陳冠名(2005)，都市發展空間結構指標之分析，國立交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文。
22.陳嘉茹(2008)，以空間型構法則與階層線性模式探討交通路網結構對都市商業型態影響之研究，國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所碩士論文。
23.張志三 (1993)，漫談分形，湖南：湖南教育出版社。
24.張益三(2002)，從台灣地區發展經驗探討交通建設對區域發展之影響，金廈大橋方案與影響學術研討會論文集。
25.張淑貞、李素馨(2012)，都市街頭搶奪犯罪熱點分析: 日常活動理論之觀點，「都市與計劃」，第39卷第1期，第71-94頁。
26.莊健源(2005)，以碎形與景觀指標探討河川棲地特性，國立中央大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
27.黃書偉(2008)，土地混合使用空間型態量測與其影響因素之研究，國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所博士論文。
28.黃國慶、詹士樑(2009)，台北都會區土地使用／覆蓋變遷驅動力之空間近鄰效果探討，「都市與計劃」，第36卷第4期，第415–443頁。
29.曾傅宜(2011)，公路路網結構與地方產業發展關聯之探討，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
30.曾健瑋(2010)，以空間形構法則探討台南市街道路網結構變遷之研究，國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所碩士論文。
31.鄒克萬、黃書偉(2009)，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」，第36卷第1期，第81-99頁。
32.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。
33.雷祖強、葉惠中、楊玫萍、葉吉雄(2012)，路口犯罪監視器設置策略之研究：以台中市水湳派出所管轄範圍為例，「都市與計劃」，第39卷第3期，第267-296頁。
34.蔡珮雯(2003)，都市發展型態對都市公共成本及經濟效益之影響，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
35.蔡博文、李介中(2005)，台灣聚落型態的碎形研究，「台灣地理資訊學刊」，第2期，第1-10頁。
36.賴宗裕(1998)，都會區實施聯合成長管理計畫必要性之探討，「國立政治大學學報」，第76期，第231-259頁。
37.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環境研究所碩士論文。
38.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，「台灣地理資訊學刊」，第1期 ，第29-40頁。
39.顏澤賢 (1993)，現在系統理論，臺北：遠流。
40.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」，第1期，第43-53頁。
 
西文文獻
1.Allen, J., Browne, M., Cherrett, T. (2012). Investigating relationships between road freight transport, facility location, logistics management and urban form, Journal of Transport Geography, 24: 45-57.
2.Anderson, W. P., Kanaroglou, P. S., Miller, E. J. (1996). Urban form, Energy, and the Environment: A Review of Issues, Evidence and Policy, Urban Studies, 33(1): 7-35.
3.Asami, Y., Kubat, A. S., Kitagawa, K., Iida, S. (2002). Introducing the third dimension on Space Syntax: Application on the historical Istanbul, CSIS Discussion Paper, No.44.
4.Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century, Routledge, London.
5.Batty, M., Longley, P. A. (1995). Morphology from imagery: detecting and measuring the density of urban land use, Environment and Planning A, 27: 759-780.
6.Batty, M., Longley, P. A. (1994). Fractal Cities : A Geometry of Form and Function, Academic Press : San Diego.
7.Batty, M., Longley, P. A. (1988). The morphology of urban land use , Environment and Planning B: planning and design, 15: 461-488.
8.Batty, M., Longley, P. A. (1987). Fractal-based description of urban form, Environment and planning B: planning and design, 14: 123-134.
9.Beatley, T. (2000). Green urbanism: learning from european cities. Island Press, Washington, DC.
10.Bovill, C. (1996). Fractal Geometry in Architecture and Design, Boston: Birkhauser.
11.Breheny, M. (1992). Sustainable development and urban form. Pion, London.
12.Chen Y. (2013A). Fractal analytical approach of urban form based on spatial correlation function, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 49: 47-60.
13.Chen Y. (2013B). A set of formulae on fractal dimension relations and its application to urban form Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 54: 150-158.
14.Chen Y. (2011). Derivation of the functional relations between fractal dimension of and shape indices of urban form, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 35: 442-451.
15.Chen, H., Jia, B., Lau, S.S.Y. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy, Habitat International, 32: 28-40.
16.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).
17.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.
18.Cliff, A.D., Ord J.K. (1973). Spatial Autocorrelation. London :Pion.
19.Conzen, M.P. (2001). The study of urban form in the United States, Urban Morphol, 5(1): 3-14.
20.De Keersmaecker, M. L., Frankhauser, P., Thomas, I. (2003). Using fractal dimensions for characterizing intra-urban diversity: the example of Brussels, Geographical Analysis, 35: 310-328.
21.Desyllas, J. (1999). The relationship between urban street configuration and office rent patterns in Berlin, London: University College.
22.De Roo, G., Miller, D. (2000). Compact Cities and Sustainable Urban Development: A Critical Assessment of Policies and Plans from an International Perspective. Ashgate, Hampshire, England.
23.Dieleman, F.,Wegener,M. (2004). Compact city and urban sprawl, Built Environ, 30(4): 308-323.
24.Echenique, M. H., Hargreaves, A. J., Mitchell, G., Namdeo, A. (2012). Growing cities sustainably: does urban form really matter?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2): 121-137.
25.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.
26.Ewing, R., Pendall, R., Chen, D. (2002). Measuring Sprawl and its Impact. Smart Growth America, Washington, DC.
27.Fabio G., Jeroen C.J.M., Jos N. (2008). An Empirical Analysis of Urban Form, Transport, and Global Warming, The Energy Journal, 29(4): 97-122.
28.Fernández-Martínez, M., Sánchez-Granero, M. A. (2014). Fractal dimension for fractal structures, Topology and its Applications, 163: 93-111.
29.Frankhauser, P. (2000). GIS and the fractal formalization of urban patterns: toward a new paradigm for spatial analysis?, Spatial Models and GIS: New Potential and New Models: 121-142.
30.Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M.R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., Freihage, J. (2001). Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept, Hous. Pol. Debate, 12(4): 681-717.
31.Gilliland, J., Gauthier, P. (2006). The study of urban form in Canada, Urban Morphology, 10(1): 51-66.
32.Goodchild, M. F. (1992). Geographical information science, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 6(1): 31-45.
33.Griffith, D. A. (1988). Advanced spatial statistics: special topics in the exploration of quantitative spatial data series, springer.
34.Haggett, P., Cliff, A. D., Frey, A. (1977). Locational analysis in human geography, Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale eografie, 68(6).
35.Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine: A configurationally theory of architecture. London, the UK. Cambridge University Press.
36.Hillier, B., Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T., Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement-or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement, Environ Plann B, 20(1): 29-66.
38.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.
39.Hillier, B., Vaughan, L. (2007). The spatial syntax of urban segregation. The city as one thing, Progress in Planning, 67: 205-294.
40.Holl, A. (2007). Twenty years of accessibility improvements. The case of the Spanish motorway building programme, Transport Geography, 15: 286-297.
41.Huang, J., Lu, X. X., Sellers, J. M. (2007). A global comparative analysis of urban form: Applying spatial metrics and remote sensing, Landscape and Urban Planning, 82: 184-197.
42.Jiang, B., Claramunt, C. (2002). Integration of Space Syntax into GIS: new perspectives for urban morphology, Transactions in GIS, 6(3): 295-309.
43.Jun, M. J. (2004). The effects of Portland's urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting, Urban Studies, 41(7): 1333-1348.
44.Kenkel, N. C., Walker, D. J. (1996). Fractals in the biological sciences, Coenoses, 11: 77-100.
45.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.
46.King, M. L. (1981). A Small Sample Property of the Cliff-Ord Test for Spatial Correlation, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Ser. B, 43: 263-264.
47.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.
48.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.
49.Liu, Y., Song, Y., Arp, H. P. (2012). Examination of the relationship between urban form and urban eco-efficiency in china, Habitat International, 36: 171-177.
50.Lynch, K. (1981). The Good City Form. The MIT Press.
51.Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. The MIT Press.
52.Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature, San Francisco: WH Freeman and Company press.
53.Marshall, S. (2005). Urban Pattern Specification, Solutions, London.
54.Newman P. W. G., Kenworthy, J. R. (1988). The transport energy trade-off: Fuel-efficient traffic versus fuel-efficient cities, Transportation Research Part A: General, 22(3): 163-174.
55.Penn, A. (2003). Space syntax and spatial cognition or why the axial line?, Environment and Behavior, 35(1): 30-65.
56.Penn, A., Hiller, B. (1998). Configurational modeling of urban movement networks, Environment and Planning B, 25(1): 59-84.
57.Posadas, N. D., Giménez, D., Bittelli, M., Vazb, C. M. P., Flury M. (2001). Multifractal characterization of soil particle-size distributions, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65(5): 1361 -1367.
58.Qi, Y., 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.
59.Ribeiro, A., Antunes, A. P., Páez, A. (2010). Road accessibility and cohesion in lagging regions: empirical evidence from Portugal based on spatial econometric models, Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1): 125-132.
60.Schwarz, N. (2010). Urban form revisited—Selecting indicators for characterising European cities, Landscape and Urban Planning, 96: 29-47.
61.Shen, G. (2002). Fractal dimension and fractal growth of urbanized areas, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(5): 419-437.
62.Sokal, R. R., Oden, N. L. (1978). Spatial autocorrelation in biology,- Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 10: 199-228.
63.Song, Y., Knaap, G. J. (2004). Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2): 210-225.
64.Song, Y., Knaap, G. J. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34: 663-680.
65.Stead, D., Marshall, S. (2001). The relationships between urban form and travel patterns: an international review and evaluation. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 1(2): 113-141.
66.Talen, E. (2003). Neighborhoods as service providers: a methodology for evaluating pedestrian access, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(2): 181-200.
67.Talen, E. (2005). Land Use Zoning and Human Diversity: Exploring the Connection., Journal of Urban Planning and Development , 131(4): 214-232.
68.Tang, U. W., Wang, Z. S. (2007). Influences of urban forms on traffic-induced noise and air pollution: results from a modeling system, Environmental Modeling and Software, 22: 1750-1764.
69.Tannier, C., Thomas, I. (2013). Defining and characterizing urban boundaries: A fractal analysis of theoretical cities and Belgian cities, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41: 234-248.
70.Taylor, I., Sloman, L. (2008). Master planning Checklist for Sustainable Transport in New Developments, Campaign for Better Transport, London.
71.Thomas, I., Tannier, C., Frankhauser, P. (2008). Is there a link between fractal dimension and residential environment at a regional level?, Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, 413: 24.
72.Torrens, P.M., Marina, A. (2000). Measuring Sprawl. Centre for Advanced Spatial, London.
73.Tratalos, J., Fuller R. A., Warren, P. H., Davies R. G., Gaston, K. J. (2007). Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(4): 308-317.
74.Tsai, Y. H. (2005). Quantifying Urban Form: Compactness versus ‘Sprawl’, Urban Studies, 42(1): 141-161.
75.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.
76.Wassmer, R. W. (2000). Urban Sprawl in a U.S. Metropolitan Area: Ways to Measure and a Comparison of the Sacramento Area to Similar Metropolitan Areas in California and the U.S. Project Paper.
77.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: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(2): 277-297.
78.Zhu, J. (2012). Development of sustainable urban forms for high-density low-income Asian countries: The case of Vietnam. The institutional hindrance of the commons and anticommons, Cities, 29: 77-87.