從工業革命起，普遍認為城市的競爭力是由工業所驅動。1980年代開始，知識型產業的推動導致臺灣科學園區，臺灣從工業時代(傳統產業)到後工業時代(高科技產業)的轉變。在過去的二十年裡，臺灣高科技產業的發展速度加快，知識型產業的推廣導致臺灣科學園區的總面積在過去十年中增加了20%，主要是在新竹、台中和台南市。透過縣市幸福指數大調查發現台南市客觀生活品質近10年來是下降的(51.4-46.3)。產業的快速擴展所帶來的問題，包括房價的飆升和紳士化現象的出現。因此，以台南市的個案研究，這裡理解到這是一個快速發展的地方，不像一般的都市計畫地區，成長入速度相對快速，有資源與目標的快速投入，對應到的生活型態跟所重視的機能，並試著用規劃工具去做一些彈性的對應，降低環境開發的衝擊(例如:浮動分區、總量管制)。
本研究以台南科學園區周邊地區為例，透過問卷調查和分析政府統計資料，比較和分析工業用地的增加對居民主觀與客觀生活品質於不同面相對南科周邊地區(新市、安定、善化)可能產生的影響。
研究結果顯示，臺南科學園區對周邊居民生活品質產生複雜的影響。正面影響方面，園區發展顯著促進當地經濟增長，創造就業機會並改善公共基礎設施，85%的受訪者認為科學園區大大促進該地區的整體發展，且多數居民認為園區的存在提升當地的公共服務和教育資源。然而，與科學園區相關的快速工業化也加劇社會和環境問題，87%的受訪者將房價上漲歸因於園區的發展，這可能導致社會不平等的加劇，特別是對非科技產業從業者而言，他們面臨著更高的生活成本壓力。環境問題如污染和交通擁堵顯現，62%的居民認為園區交通量增加而對在地居民生活環境產生負面影響 。
這些結果與新產業都市主義的原則一致，該理論強調工業活動與城市生活的融合、創新驅動的基礎設施的重要性，以及經濟與社會發展之間的平衡，儘管科學園區推動經濟轉型，但也帶來新挑戰，需要採取措施來確保可持續的都市增長。

This study explores the impact of the Tainan Science Park (TSP) on the subjective quality of life (QoL) of nearby residents, in the context of rapid industrialization and urbanization. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the research combines quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews to assess both the positive and negative effects of TSP's development. Findings indicate that while the park has driven significant economic growth, created jobs, and improved public infrastructure, it has also exacerbated social inequalities, notably through rising housing prices and environmental degradation. The study highlights the tensions between economic development and social well-being, with 87% of respondents attributing increased living costs to the park's expansion. The results align with the principles of New Industrial Urbanism, which emphasizes the integration of industrial activity with urban living, the importance of innovation-driven infrastructure, and the balance between economic and social development. The research concludes that urban planning must adopt a more comprehensive approach to mitigate the negative impacts of high-tech industrial zones like STSP. Future studies should focus on developing specific policy recommendations to enhance residents' QoL while supporting sustainable economic growth.

一、 中文
(一) 期刊雜誌
1. 田維良. (2022). 城市規劃管理對城市規劃設計的影響探討. 園林建設與城市規劃, 4(4), 145–147
2. 杜文苓. (2010). 環評決策中公民參與的省思：以中科三期開發爭議為例. 公共行政學報, 35, 29–60.
3. 杜文苓, 陳致中. (2007). 民眾參與公共決策的反思－以竹科宜蘭基地設置為例. 台灣民主季刊, 4(3), 33–62.
4. 李文勤, 謝祖光. (2018). 內湖科學園區影響住宅房價與空間分析探討. 華岡農科學報, 42, 13–31.
5. 林季蓉. (2009). 台灣科學園區產業群聚之研究. 創新研發學刊, 5(2), 48–60.
6. 柳雯馨, 胡太山, 潘思錡. (2021). 迎向創新時代：科學園區的蛻變. 台灣土地研究, 24(2), 139–169.
7. 吳挺鋒. (2020). 新自由主義都市化: 一個批判性的檢視-台灣社會學刊, 41, 149–188.
8. 陳建軍, 楊書林, 黃潔. (2019). 城市群驅動產業整合與全球價值鏈攀升研究—以長三角地區為例. 華東師範大學學報 (哲學社會科學版), 51(5), 90.
9. 陳俊合. (2020). 台灣縣市永續競爭力及其關鍵影響因素評估－熵權法應用. 規劃學報, 38(1), 15–43.
10. 馬蘭 郭勝偉. (2004). 英國矽沼—劍橋科技園的發展與啟示. 科技進步與對策, 21(4), 46–48.
11. 胡太山, 解鴻年, 王俊堯. (2002). 新竹科學園區周邊地區社經發展變遷之調查研究. 都市與計劃, 29(1), 37–65.
12. 馮汝狀, 沈靜, 魏成. (2022). 後福特方式下城市產業空間格局和結構的演變—以廣州服裝產業為例. 人文地理, 37(1), 71–80.
13. 黃旭男 唐思佳. (2012). 論生活品質指標之建構. 環境與管理研究, 12(2), 67–91.
14. 楊俊煌, 郭昱瑩. (2010). 台南科學園區與地方經濟發展之關聯性分析. 中國行政評論, 18(1), 127–174.
15. 楊友仁, 蘇一志. (2005). 地方成長聯盟轉化與空間治理策略：以台南科學城為例. 都市與計劃, 32(1), 1–23.
16. 廖培珊. (2015) 社會發展指標與生活品質.國土及公共治理季刊, 3(1), 20–31.
17. 葉秀珍. (2014). 生活品質研究的測量、理論與分析. 國家與社會, 16, 1–40.
18. 鍾麗娜, 徐世榮. (2013). 都市政治與都市計畫之政經結構分析－以南科樹谷園區為例. 台灣土地研究, 16(2), 63–87.

(二) 專書
1. 陳寬裕. (2023). 結構方程模型: 運用 AMOS 分析. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.

(三) 技術及研究報告
1. 臺南市政府(2022)擬定臺南科學工業園區特定區計畫(不含科學園區部分)(新市區建設地區開發區塊A、B、C、D、E、N、O)細部計畫配合變更主要計畫書

(四) 碩士論文
1. 王建鈞. (2007). 差異地點：新竹科學工業園區的規劃論述. 收入 國立臺北大學都市計劃研究所學位論文.
2. 王蔓瑜. (2018). 工業區設置對農地利用變遷之影響─土地變遷、環境與社會衝擊之研究. 收入 國立臺灣大學園藝暨景觀學系研究所學位論文.
3. 方禎. (2020). 高科技產業園區建置對於周邊地區住宅價格之影響─以中科臺中園區為例. 政治大學地政學系研究所學位論文.
4. 高至煒. (2017). 南科高雄園區設立對鄰近地方發展的影響. 收入 國立高雄師範大學地理學系研究所學位論文.
5. 郭俊麟. (2001). 科學園區與地方發展：台南科學工業園區量產前台南地區之區域變遷. 收入 國立臺灣大學地理環境資源學系研究所學位論文.
6. 呂清松. (1997). 科學園區對地方發展之論爭與臺灣實證:新竹科學園區個案研究. 收入 國立成功大學都市計劃學系博士學位論文.
7. 林建亨. (2008). 南科對房地產價格之影響-特徵價格法之應用. 收入 國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所學位論文.
8. 林慧宜. (2007). 「企業型大學」介入高科技地域發展的嶄新經驗： 以國立交通大學推動「臺灣知識經濟旗艦園區」為例. 收入 臺灣大學地理環境資源學系研究所學位論文.
9. 廖皇傑. (2013). 產業地域演化與路徑依賴 －以臺北科技走廊為例收入 國立政治大學地政學系研究所學位論文.
10. 沈鈺翔. (2020). 社區發展對生活品質的影響與策略－探討社區發展、環境設計元素、地方依附及生活品質之關聯性. 收入 國立成功大學建築學系研究所學位論文.
11. 吳念庭. (2011). 都市建成環境之生活品質研究─以新北市發展為例. 收入 國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系學位論文.
12. 邱宜芬. (2021). 科學園區發展歷程影響周邊不同地區房價成長差異性之研究-以台南科學園區為例. 收入 國立高雄科技大學金融資訊系研究所學位論文 .
13. 周諺鴻. (1999). 以投入產出分析論台南科學園區設置對於區域經濟影響之研究. 收入 國立成功大學都市計劃學系研究所學位論文.
14. 蔡琬瑛. (2004). 台灣地區社會指標建構之研究. 收入 國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所學位論文 .
15. 曹伃君. (2021). 農業到科技的脈動：論1990年後竹科中心水利秩序. 收入 國立陽明交通大學社會與文化研究所學位論文.
16. 蘇耿義. (2012). 臺南科學園區鄰近居民之生活及居住環境滿意度研究. 收入 康寧大學 資產管理與城市規劃學系研究所學位論文 .
17. 孫瑜貞. (2012). 臺灣各縣市生活品質的探討. 收入 國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系學位論文.
18. 翁昇宏. (2023). 台積電南科兩次擴廠對台南市新市區、善化區和安定區房價變動之影響. 收入 國立屏東大學不動產經營學系碩士在職專班學位論文.
19. 許晋誠. (2009). 新市鄉地方發展之研究.收入國立嘉義大學史地學系研究所學位論文.
20. 許舒惠. (2013). 南科台南園區及其周緣的土地開發與歷史變遷. 收入 國立臺南大學台灣文化研究所學位論文.
21. 葉怡君. (2006). 南部科學園區之中央政府、地方政府與高科技企業投資三邊關係分析. 收入 國立台灣大學國家發展研究所碩士學位論文.
22. 顏純純. (2006). 勞工流動對台南科學園區周圍勞動市場之影響分析. 收入 國立中正大學勞工研究所學位論文.
23. 游靜秋. (1997). 台灣地區環境品質指標建構之研究. 收入 國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所學位論文.
24. 鄭竹雅. (2006). 浮動分區開發模式之研究. 收入 政治大學地政研究所學位論文.
25. 莊重遠. (2021). 落腳新竹：科學園區的都市生活支持系統轉型. 收入 臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所學位論文.

二、 英文
(一) 期刊雜誌
1. Al-Qawasmi, J. (2020). Measuring quality of life in urban areas: Toward an integrated approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour., 25, 67–74.
2. Amado, C. A. F., Barreira, A. P., Santos, S. P., & Guimarães, M. H. (2019). Comparing the quality of life of cities that gained and lost population: An assessment with DEA and the Malmquist index. Papers in Regional Science, 98(5), 2075–2097.
3. Bansal, B. (2021). Intra-urban inequalities during rapid development: Space egalitarianism in Tokyo between 1955-1975. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 13(2), 368–382.
4. Barreira, A. P., Amado, C., Santos, S., Andraz, J., & Guimarães, M. H. (2021). Assessment and Determinants of the Quality of Life in Portuguese Cities. International Regional Science Review, 44(6), 647–683.
5. Brosz, M., Dymnicka, M., Sagan, I., & Załęcki, J. (2023). The Environmental Dimension of City Dwellers’ Quality of Life and the City’s Social and Spatial Variability. Miscellanea Geographica, 27.
6. Chapple, K., & Jeon, J. S. (2021). Big Tech on the Block: Examining the Impact of Tech Campuses on Local Housing Markets in the San Francisco Bay Area. Economic Development Quarterly, 35(4), 351–369.
7. Chaudhary, N., & Potter, J. (2019). Evaluation of the local employment impacts of enterprise zones: A critique. Urban Studies, 56(10), 2112–2159.
8. Chiarini, B., D’Agostino, A., Marzano, E., & Regoli, A. (2021). Air quality in urban areas: Comparing objective and subjective indicators in European countries. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107144.
9. Chiu, H. (2014). Le mouvement contre l’expansion des parcs scientifiques et les dangers de l’industrie électronique à Taiwan (C. Richou, 翻譯員). Perspectives chinoises, 2014(3), Article 3.
10. Chordá, I. M. (1996). Towards the maturity stage: An insight into the performance of French technopoles. Technovation, 16(3), 143–152.
11. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Objective and Subjective Quality of Life: An Interactive Model. Social Indicators Research, 52(1), 55–72.
12. Davis, J., & Renski, H. (2020). Do Industrial Preservation Policies Protect and Promote Urban Industrial Activity? Journal of the American Planning Association, 86(4), 431–442.
13. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(4), Article 4.
14. Diez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017). The effect of science and technology parks on a firm’s performance: A dynamic approach over time. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27(3), 413–434.
15. Faka, A., Kalogeropoulos, K., Maloutas, T., & Chalkias, C. (2021). Urban Quality of Life: Spatial Modeling and Indexing in Athens Metropolitan Area, Greece. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(5), Article 5.
16. Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.
17. Graham, J. (1985). Regions in Question: Space, Development Theory and Regional Policy.
18. Grasso, M., & Canova, L. (2007). An Assessment of the Quality of Life in the European Union Based on the Social Indicators Approach. Social Indicators Research, 87.
19. Harpe, S. E. (2015). How to analyze Likert and other rating scale data. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(6), 836–850.
20. Hatuka, T., Ben-Joseph, E., & Peterson, S. M. (2017). Facing Forward: Trends and Challenges in the Development of Industry in Cities. Built Environment (1978-), 43(1), 145–155.
21. Helmers, C. (2019). Choose the Neighbor before the House: Agglomeration Externalities in a UK Science Park. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(1), 31–55.
22. Hudson, R. (2007). Local and Regional DevelopmentA. Pike, A. Rodriguez-Pose and J. Tomaney. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 217–219.
23. Jones, A. (1989). Science Parks and The Growth of High Technology Firms by C.S.P. Monck R.B. Porter, P.R. Quintas, D.J. Storey, P. Wynarczyk. (Croom Helm, London, 1988), pp. 270. ISBN 0-7099-5441-7 £35. Prometheus, 7(1), 170–171.
24. Jurlina Alibegović, D., & Kordej De Villa, Ž. (2008). The role of urban indicators in city management: A proposal for Croatian cities. Transition Studies Review, 15(1), 63–80.
25. Kang, W. (2011). Housing price dynamics and convergence in high-tech metropolitan economies. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 51(3), 283–291.
26. Kao, C. H. C., & Liu, B. (1984). Socioeconomic Advance in the Republic of China (Taiwan): An Intertemporal Analysis of Its Quality of Life Indicators. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 43(4), 399–412.
27. Keeble, D. E. (1989). High-Technology Industry and Regional Development in Britain: The Case of the Cambridge Phenomenon. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 7(2), 153–172.
28. Kemeny, T., & Osman, T. (2018). The wider impacts of high-technology employment: Evidence from U.S. cities. Research Policy, 47(9), 1729–1740.
29. Krishnamurthy, R., & Desouza, K. C. (2015). Chennai, India. Cities, 42, 118–129.
30. Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of Science Parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 158–183.
31. Lee, N., & Clarke, S. (2019). Do low-skilled workers gain from high-tech employment growth? High-technology multipliers, employment and wages in Britain. Research Policy, 48(9), 103803.
32. Leigh, N., & Hoelzel, N. (2012). Smart Growth’s Blind Side. Journal of The American Planning Association - J AMER PLANN ASSN, 78, 87–103.
33. Li, X., & Liu, H. (2021). The Influence of Subjective and Objective Characteristics of Urban Human Settlements on Residents’ Life Satisfaction in China. Land, 10(12), 1400.
34. Liao, P.-S. (2009). Parallels Between Objective Indicators and Subjective Perceptions of Quality of Life: A Study of Metropolitan and County Areas in Taiwan. Social Indicators Research, 91, 99–114.
35. Lim, S. S., Nguyen, H. N., & Lin, C.-L. (2022). Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach. Sustainability, 14(7), Article 7.
36. Liu, B.-C. (1980). Economic Growth and Quality of Life: A Comparative Indicator Analysis Between China (Taiwan), U.S.A. and Other Developed Countries. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 39(1), 1–21.
37. Marans, R. W. (2012). Quality of urban life studies: An overview and implications for environment-behaviour research. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 9–22.
38. Max-Neef, M. (1995). Economic growth and quality of life: A threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 15(2), 115–118.
39. Morisson, A., & Bevilacqua, C. (2019). Balancing gentrification in the knowledge economy: The case of Chattanooga’s innovation district. Urban research & practice, 12(4), 472–492.
40. Mouratidis, K. (2021). Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities, 115, 103229.
41. Nutakor, J. A., Zhou, L., Larnyo, E., Addai-Danso, S., & Tripura, D. (2023). Socioeconomic Status and Quality of Life: An Assessment of the Mediating Effect of Social Capital. Healthcare, 11(5), 749.
42. Papachristou, I. A., & Rosas-Casals, M. (2019). Cities and quality of life. Quantitative modeling of the emergence of the happiness field in urban studies. Cities, 88, 191–208.
43. Petrikovičová, L., Kurilenko, V., Akimjak, A., Akimjaková, B., Majda, P., Ďatelinka, A., Biryukova, Y., Hlad, Ľ., Kondrla, P., Maryanovich, D., Ippolitova, L., Roubalová, M., & Petrikovič, J. (2022). Is the Size of the City Important for the Quality of Urban Life? Comparison of a Small and a Large City. Sustainability, 14(23), Article 23.
44. Petrovič, F., & Murgaš, F. (2021). Description Relationship between Urban Space and Quality of Urban Life. A Geographical Approach. Land, 10(12), Article 12.
45. Rantisi, N. M. (2002). The Competitive Foundations of Localized Learning and Innovation: The Case of Women’s Garment Production in New York City. Economic Geography, 78(4), 441–462.
46. Rojas-Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Gascon, M., Perez-Leon, D., & Mudu, P. (2019). Green spaces and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. The Lancet Planetary Health, 3(11), e469–e477.
47. Schuessler, K. F., & Fisher, G. A. (1985). Quality of Life Research and Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 129–149.
48. Simonen, J., Svento, R., & Juutinen, A. (2015). Specialization and diversity as drivers of economic growth: Evidence from High-Tech industries. Papers in Regional Science, 94(2), 229–247.
49. Sultana, R., Suhi, K. F. F., & Mahboob, M. (2022). A Multivariate Statistical Study of Dhaka’s Quality of Life Based on Residents’ Perception. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 10(2), 256–273.
50. Szemik, S., Kowalska, M., & Kulik, H. (2019). Quality of Life and Health among People Living in an Industrial Area of Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), Article 7.
51. Van Praag, B. M. S., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00140-3
52. Zandiatashbar, A., & Kayanan, C. M. (2020). Negative consequences of innovation-igniting urban developments: Empirical evidence from three US cities. Urban Planning, 5(3), 378.

(二)專書
1. Berger, S., & Sharp, P. (2013). A Preview of the MIT Production in the Innovation Economy Report.
2. Douthwaite, R. J. (1992). The Growth Illusion: How Economic Growth Has Enriched the Few, Impoverished the Many, and Endangered the Planet. Green Books.
3. Florida, R. (2017). The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class—and What We Can Do About It. Hachette UK.
4. Hatuka, T., & Ben-Joseph, E. (2022). New Industrial Urbanism: Designing Places for Production. Routledge.
5. Malecki, E. J. (1991). Technology and Economic Development: The Dynamics of Local, Regional, and National Change. Longman Scientific & Technical New York.
6. Rappaport, R. N. L., Nina (Ed.). (2020). The Design of Urban Manufacturing. Routledge.
7. Sirgy, M. J. (2021). The Psychology of Quality of Life: Wellbeing and Positive Mental Health (Vol. 83). Springer International Publishing.
8. Veenhoven, R. (2007). Subjective Measures of Well-being. In M. McGillivray (Ed.), Human Well-Being (pp. 214–239). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
9. Walker, R. A. (2018). Pictures of a Gone City: Tech and the Dark Side of Prosperity in the San Francisco Bay Area. PM Press.

(三)會議專刊或專題研討會論文：
1. Chao, C.E., Chao, T.Y. (2022). The change of Quality of Life in the rapidly developing industrial city：A case study of Tainan City, Taiwan.’, 18th International Conference on Urban Health
2. Chen, J. K. C., Sun, B. S. S., & Batchuluun, A. (2016). Exploring the influence factors for creation one Knowledge hub of Science Park: Comparison between Silicon Valley and Hsinchu Science Park. 2016 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 1156–1171.