本研究聚焦於歷史街區中閒置特色老屋轉用為終身學習空間的選址評估關鍵影響因子，透過質量混合方式建構適用於歷史街區的選址評估模型。在城市永續發展下，終身學習對於提升城市競爭力與城市永續極為重要，學習空間的營造應將高齡者的需求作為學習者的最基本考量，確保空間的友善性與可及性，並不侷限於特定族群使用，而是致力於打造一個具包容性與開放性的多元學習場域。老屋作為歷史文化的重要載體，不僅能回應社區實際的學習需求，也具有作為在地文化教育資源的潛力，是連結歷史記憶與當代表達的關鍵節點。
本研究以歷史街區為主要探討範疇，考量其在歷史脈絡下所形成的街巷系統，與其他城市區域相比具有獨特的空間紋理與發展脈絡，為選址評估帶來更深入的探討可能性。研究初期透過文獻回顧彙整相關選址指標，並透過半結構式專家訪談，在環境條件、社會支持與建築需求三大構面下納入實務與專業觀點，以修正並建構適用於歷史街區之在地性指標架構。
在分析方法上，本研究採用多準則決策分析法（MCDA），以層級分析法（AHP）與理想解相似度排序法（TOPSIS），透過專家問卷歸納各構面下的重要因子之相對重要性。在實證分析上以田野調查修正2013-2017年曾憲嫻教授研究室所盤查之特色歷史老屋資料，進一步檢視截至2024年12月份特色歷史老屋閒置狀況，最終進行75筆老屋選址排序與模擬分析。並以府城歷史街區為實證場域，結合田野觀察與空間資料分析，辨識並分類出綜合型潛力點、環境導向潛力點、社會導向潛力點及建築導向潛力點，據此針對各導向的關鍵因子提出具體之轉用建議與政策修正方向。
根據研究結果發現，專家們所關注適用於歷史街區的選址條件與過去交通環境層面不同，相較於一般所關注的可及性不同，更重視於使用者步行前往學習空間的安全性與舒適性，反映出城市以人為本的步行環境趨勢更符合歷史街區的永續發展。其次，在歷史街區中相對於物理環境，專家們也更關注於街區的認同與參與度，具有良好的社會支持條件，更能夠讓特色老屋轉用成學習空間後得以永續經營。透過本研究為歷史街區內老屋轉用提供公平、在地且具文化連結性的政策參考依據，突破現行以觀光或商業導向為主的再生策略侷限，推動更具社會效益與文化價值的空間轉型實踐。

This study investigates key factors for selecting sites to convert vacant distinctive historic buildings in historic districts into lifelong learning spaces. Employing a mixed-methods approach, it develops a location evaluation model tailored to the spatial context of historic urban areas. Recognizing lifelong learning as vital to urban resilience and sustainability, the study emphasizes inclusive, age-friendly learning environments that prioritize accessibility and community engagement.
Historic districts, characterized by their unique alleyway systems and spatial textures, offer complex conditions for site selection. Relevant indicators were first compiled through a literature review and refined through semi-structured interviews with experts. These indicators—categorized into environmental conditions, social support, and building-related requirements—form a localized evaluation framework.
Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), the study assesses the relative importance of each factor through expert questionnaires. Field surveys updated data from Professor Hsien-Hsien Tseng’s 2013–2017 inventory of historic houses, identifying 75 vacant sites by December 2024 for ranking and simulation.
Through spatial analysis and fieldwork, four categories of potential sites were identified: comprehensive, environment-oriented, society-oriented, and building-oriented. Based on these, the study proposes reuse strategies and policy recommendations.
Findings show that experts prioritize pedestrian safety and comfort over traditional accessibility metrics, signaling a shift toward people-centered planning in historic district development. They also emphasize local identity and community participation, noting that strong social support sustains repurposed learning spaces. The study offers a culturally grounded policy reference, challenging tourism-driven regeneration in favor of socially meaningful spatial transformation.

外文文獻
1. Abulibdeh, A., Al-Ali, M., Al-Quraishi, D., Al-Suwaidi, W., Al-Yafei, B., & Al-Mazawdah, S. (2024). Assessing the spatial distribution and accessibility of public and private schools in Qatar: A GIS-based analysis. Geomatica, 76(2), 100015. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomat.2024.100015
2. Abulibdeh, A., Al-Ali, M., Al-Quraishi, D., Al-Suwaidi, W., Al-Yafei, B., & Al-Mazawdah, S. (2024). Assessing the spatial distribution and accessibility of public and private schools in Qatar: A GIS-based analysis. Geomatica, 76(2), 100015. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomat.2024.100015
3. Aldo Arranz-López, J. A. S.-L., Ángel Pueyo-Campos. (2019). Social and spatial equity effects of non-motorised accessibility to retail. Cities, 86, 71-82.
4. Alfonzo, M. A. (2005). To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environment and behavior, 37(6), 808-836.
5. Åstedt‐Kurki, P., & Heikkinen, R. L. (1994). Two approaches to the study of experiences of health and old age: the thematic interview and the narrative method. Journal of advanced nursing, 20(3), 418-421.
6. Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription, 19(2), 328-335.
7. Buitelaar, E., Moroni, S., & De Franco, A. (2021). Building obsolescence in the evolving city. Reframing property vacancy and abandonment in the light of urban dynamics and complexity. Cities, 108, 102964. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102964
8. Bullen, P. A., & Love, P. E. (2011). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings. Structural survey, 29(5), 411-421.
9. Carlos Moreno, Z. A., Didier Chabaud, Catherine Gall and Florent Pratlong. (2021). Introducing the “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities, 4, 93-111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
10. Chenhui Wu, G. L., Yutong Li, Yuan Pu, Yuzheng Zhang. (2022). A Review of Research on Strategies and Methods for the Revitalization of Urban Historic Districts. World Building Congress, 1101. https://doi.org/doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1101/5/052021
11. Clark, K., & Lennox, R. (2019). Public value and cultural heritage. In Public Value (pp. 287-298). Routledge.
12. Consolidated Results of the Implementation of the 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (D. D. Jyoti Hosagrahar, World Heritage Centre., Ed.). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.58337/CFZO9650
13. Demirci, F. (2012). Socrates: the Prophet of Life-Long Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4481-4486. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.281
14. Dennemann, C. C. a. A. (2000). Urban regeneration and sustainable development in Britain The example of the Liverpool Ropewalks Partnership. Cities, 17, 137-147.
15. Ergler, C., & Smith, M. (2023). Connecting Schools with Local Communities Through Walkable Urban Design. In B. Cleveland, S. Backhouse, P. Chandler, I. McShane, J. M. Clinton, & C. Newton (Eds.), Schools as Community Hubs: Building ‘More than a School’ for Community Benefit (pp. 131-145). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9972-7_9
16. Fang Zhang, Q. L. a. X. Z. (2022). Vitality Evaluation of Public Spaces in Historical and Cultural Blocks Based on Multi-Source Data, a Case Study of Suzhou Changmen. Sustainability, 14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114040
17. Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108(1), 165-169.
18. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82.
19. Gunasagaran, S., Shiowee, B., Mari, T., Srirangam, S., & Ng, V. F. (2022). Revisiting the courtyard as lived heritage and social space. J. Eng. Sci. Technol, 17, 74-89.
20. Hamnett, C., & Whitelegg, D. (2007). Loft conversion and gentrification in London: from industrial to postindustrial land use. Environment and planning A, 39(1), 106-124.
21. Helmy, M. (2018). The Role of Architectural Education in Promoting Urban Heritage: Opportunities and Challenges. ARCHive-SR, 2(3), 196 - 208. https://doi.org/10.21625/archive.v2i3.359
22. Hong, N., & and Jung, S. (2025). Integrating schools as community hubs: planning strategies and implementation challenges in South Korean new towns. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2025.2455033
23. Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K., Hwang, C., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey, 58-191. doi, 10, 978-973.
24. Iamtrakul, P., Chayphong, S., & Crizzle, A. M. (2023). Impact of Spatial Configuration on Promoting Lifelong Learning Development in Pathum Thani, Thailand. Sustainability, 15(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410791
25. Ikeda, E., Mavoa, S., Hinckson, E., Witten, K., Donnellan, N., & Smith, M. (2018). Differences in child-drawn and GIS-modelled routes to school: Impact on space and exposure to the built environment in Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of transport geography, 71, 103-115.
26. Jing Luo, G. C., Chang Li, Bingyan Xia, Xuan Sun and Siyun Chen (2018). Use of an E2SFCA Method to Measure and Analyse Spatial Accessibility to Medical Services for Elderly People in Wuhan, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071503
27. Jingyu Zhang, J. Z., Shaolu Yu and Jiaying Zhou (2018). The Sustainable Development of Street Texture of Historic and Cultural Districts—A Case Study in Shichahai District, Beijing. Sustainability, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072343
28. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
29. Kariminejad, S. (2023). The Lively, Healing, and Intergenerational Semi-Open Spaces in Older Adults Care Homes’ Courtyard: Joyful Older Adults and Children Concordia University].
30. Kearns, P. (2015). Learning cities on the move. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 55, 151-165.
31. Kevin K. Chui, P., PhD, GCS, OCS; Michelle M. Lusardi, PT, DPT, PhD. (2010). Spatial and Temporal Parameters of Self-Selected and Fast Walking Speeds in Healthy Community-Living Adults Aged 72-98 Years. GERIATRIC Physical Therapy, 33.
32. Keyes, M. C., & Gregg, S. (2001). School-Community Connections: A Literature Review.
33. Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 6(1), 138-169.
34. Lichfield, N. (1988). Economics in urban conservation. Cambridge Books.
35. Martin, D. (2018). Teaching, learning, and understanding of public history in schools as challenge for students and teachers. Public history and School, 84.
36. Michael A. Niedzielski, E. E. B. (2014). Travel Time and Distance as Relative Accessibility in the Journey to Work. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(6), 1156-1182. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.958398
37. Natalie EL HABER, B. E., Keith D. HILL, John D. WARK. (2008). Relationship between age and measures of balance, strength and gait: linear and non-linear analyses. Clinical Science, 114, 719-727. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20070301
38. Parma, B. C. S. R. M. C. U. d. (2021). From urban planning techniques to 15-minute neighbourhoods. A theoretical framework and GIS-based analysis of pedestrian accessibility to public services.
39. Pavlovskis, M., Migilinskas, D., Antucheviciene, J., & Kutut, V. (2019). Ranking of heritage building conversion alternatives by applying BIM and MCDM: A case of Sapieha Palace in Vilnius. Symmetry, 11(8), 973.
40. Perry, C. A. (1998). The neighbourhood unit: from the Regional survey of New York and its environs, volume VII, Neighbourhood and community planning. (No Title).
41. Przemysław ´Sleszy´nski , P. O., Tomasz Dybicz , Katarzyna Goch , Michał A. Niedzielski (2023). The ideal isochrone: Assessing the efficiency of transport systems Transportation Business & Management 46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100779
42. Ribeiro, R. A. (1996). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making : A review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 78, 155-181.
43. Rothman, L., Macpherson, A. K., Ross, T., & Buliung, R. N. (2018). The decline in active school transportation (AST): A systematic review of the factors related to AST and changes in school transport over time in North America. Preventive medicine, 111, 314-322.
44. Ruben Talavera-Garcia, J. A. S.-L. (2015). Q-PLOS, developing an alternative walking index. A method based on urban design quality. Cities, 45, 7-17. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.03.003
45. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(11), 1073-1076.
46. Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS publications.
47. Samy Abdeen, N. (2021). ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR REGENERATING URBAN IDENTITY AS A SUSTAINABLE CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDMARK IN EGYPT, CASE STUDY: EGYPTIAN MUSEUM (GEM). Engineering Research Journal, 169, 66-91.
48. Sariyatun, S., & Marpelina, L. (2024). Strengthening Identity Through the Integration of Local History in the Learning Curriculum. HISTORIA: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Sejarah, 12, 297. https://doi.org/10.24127/hj.v12i1.9382
49. Shehada, Z. M., Ahmad, Y. B., Yaacob, N. M., & Keumala, N. I. (2015). DEVELOPING METHODOLOGY FOR ADAPTIVE RE-USE: CASE STUDY OF HERITAGE BUILDINGS IN PALESTINE. ArchNet-IJAR, 9(2).
50. Sindhu, S., Nehra, V., & Luthra, S. (2017). Investigation of feasibility study of solar farms deployment using hybrid AHP-TOPSIS analysis: Case study of India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, 496-511.
51. Smith, M., Zhang, Y., McGlashan Fainu, H., Cavadino, A., Zhao, J., Morton, S., Hopkins, D., Carr, H., & Clark, T. (2024). Socio-environmental factors associated with active school travel in children at ages 6 and 8 years. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 23, 101026. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101026
52. Sun, P., & Wang, K. (2022). Urban shrinkage: Connotation-sinicization-framework of analysis. Prog. Geogr, 41(8), 1478-1491.
53. Szilassi, R. A. K. P. (2018). Assessing accessibility of urban green spaces based on isochrone maps and street resolution population data through the example of Zalaegerszeg, Hungary. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences.
54. The United Nations Educational, S. a. C. O. U. (2023). Urban Heritage for Resilience
55. Trancik, R. (1991). Finding lost space: theories of urban design. John Wiley & Sons.
56. TRANSFORMING INTO DAILY CARE CENTERS FOR THE AGED. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 25, 34-49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2020.13800
57. Tsung-Han Chang, T.-C. W. (2008). Using the fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for measuring the possibility of successful knowledge management. Information Sciences, 179, 355-370.
58. UNESCO. (2015). UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities Guiding Documents.
59. UNESCO. (2021). Enactment guide of the Yeonsu Declaration for Learning Cities.
60. Wang, D., & MacMillan, T. (2013). The benefits of gardening for older adults: a systematic review of the literature. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 37(2), 153-181.
61. WANG, H. L. a. X. (2024). Map and Network Urban Analysis: A Case Study on Guangzhou Nanhuaxi Street Historic District's Urban Form. Design Studies and Intelligence Engineering. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA231473
62. Wei Luo, Y. Q. (2009). An Enhanced Two-Step Floating Catchment Area (E2SFCA) Method for Measuring Spatial Accessibility to Primary Care Physicians. Health & Place, 06. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace
63. WHO. (2007). Global Age-friendly Cities:A Guide. World Health Organization.
64. Wu, Y., Zheng, X., Sheng, L., & You, H. (2020). Exploring the equity and spatial evidence of educational facilities in Hangzhou, China. Social Indicators Research, 151(3), 1075-1096.
65. Yi-Kai JUAN, Y.-C. H., Yen-Ping CHANG. (2021). SITE SELECTION ASSESSMENT OF VACANT CAMPUS SPACE
66. Yimin Song, C. H. a. Y. Z. (2024). A Study on Tourist Satisfaction Based on the Conservation and Reuse of Alleyway Spaces in Urban Historic Neighborhoods. Buildings, 14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/
67. Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Yu, S., & Zhou, J. (2018). The Sustainable Development of Street Texture of Historic and Cultural Districts―A Case Study in Shichahai District, Beijing. Sustainability, 10(7), 2343. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2343
68. Zhang, R., Martí Casanovas, M., Bosch González, M., Li, H., & Zhang, Z. (2024). The guidance of public value in China’s historic environment: Research on regeneration strategies using Taiyuan’s Bell Tower Street as an example. Land, 13(8, article 1189).
69. 山村崇. (2020). 医学を基礎とするまちづくり（MBT）の理念と実践. 健康を主題としたまちづくりの理論と実践Ⅱ, Ⅱ, 80-92.
70. 中園眞人, 三島幸子, 瀬戸口佳奈美,牛島朗. (2020). 萩市における医療法人による高齢者福祉施設の整備運営に関する事例研究 その１： 木造民家を活用した高齢者通所介護施設と介護予防施設の一体的整備運営. 日本建築学会計画系論文集, 第85卷 第770號.
71. 王兵, 劉朋帥, 鄧凱磊. (2021). 基於模糊多準則決策模型的廢棄礦井抽水蓄能電站選址研究. 礦業科學學報, 第6卷第6期.
72. 王揚, 松本邦彦, 澤木昌典. (2018). 歴史的市街地における保全・活性化事業によるコンバージョン店舗の誘発に関する研究
73. 白木里恵子, 久保勝裕, 大垣直明. (2008). 歴史的建造物の転用とまちづくりへの波及に関する研究. 日本建築学会計画系論文集, 73(625), 601-609. https://doi.org/10.3130/aija.73.601
74. 矢吹剣一, 西村幸夫, 窪田亜矢 (2014). 歴史的市街地における空き家再生活動に関する研究 - 長野市善光寺門前町地区を対象として 公益社団法人日本都市計画学会 都市計画論文集, Vol.49 No.1.
75. 竹鼻紫, 大村謙二郎, 有田智一,藤井さやか. (2010). 伝建地区とその周辺における空き家実態とその利活用可能性に関する研究,函館市西部地区を対象として. 都市計画論文集, 45.3, 25-30. https://doi.org/10.11361/journalcpij.45.3.25
76. 西野辰哉, 茅田大輝 (2024). 廃校舎の立地特性に着目した利活用可能性判別式の構築. 日本建築学会計画系論文集, 第89巻 第815号, 42-51.
77. 佐藤考一, 松村秀一, 西瑠衣子 (2005). コンバージョンの実施可能性評価に関する研究 : オフィスビルから集合住宅への用途変更. 日本建築学会計画系論文集, 第597号, 31-36.
78. 金森唯, 室田昌子 (2008). 都心5区のコンバージョンの政策と建築物の周辺環境に関する研究. 日本都市計画学会 都市計画報告集, 6, 152-155.
79. 後藤基 (2012). 鳥羽市坂手町における空き家対策に関する調査研究. 日本經濟新聞朝刊.
80. 巽和夫, 柏原士郎, 古阪秀三. (2002). 進化する建築保全: LCCからFMまで. 学芸出版社. https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=OFMDPQAACAAJ
81. 宮田靖志. (2014). 地域医療学序論. 日本內科學會雜誌, 103：466～474.
82. 森正夫. (2014). 地域社會論的核心、背景、理解和課題. 人文研究期刊, 第十二期.
83. 齊藤哲也, 八木幸二 (1999). 転用された歴史的建造物の用途分類と地区別特性 : ミラノ市における歴史的建造物の転用に関する研究 その1. 日本建築学会計画系論文集, 64(526), 147-152. https://doi.org/10.3130/aija.64.147_6
84. 藤井梓, 田中瑛子, 米澤美貴. (2010). 歴史的市街地における空き家の管理と保存・活用に関する研究-重伝建地区におけるケーススタディ. 住宅総合研究財団研究論文集, No.37.
中文文獻
1. 石暘睢 (1951). 臺南市街小志.
2. 任嶸嶸, 閰明鳳, 楊幫興. (2019). 基於模糊多準則群決策的可持續項目選擇模型. 技術經濟, 第38卷,第9期.
3. 朱嘉年, 邹凯, 向尚, & 高凯. (2023). 疫情視角下基于 FAHP-FTOPSIS 的社區安全風險評估指標體系研究——以某市各社區為例. 运筹与管理, 32(2), 147.
4. 行政院 (2013). 長期照護服務網計畫 (第一期)-2013 至 2016 年 (核定本). 台北: 行政院, 2013. Executive Yuan, ROC (Taiwan). Long-Term Care Service Network Plan (Phase I), 2016.
5. 吳淑瓊, 莊坤洋 (2001). 在地老化：台灣二十一世紀長期照護的政策方向. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.6288/TJPH2001-20-03-05
6. 吳筱涵 (2011). 公共性空間經營與歷史區域再生—以台南市五條港發展協會的在地經營為例
7. 吳嘉文, 孟曉蘭, 鄧大光, 陳美靜, 張瓋云, 江明穎, 黃文宏, 蔡明宜, 楊敏嘉, & 姚立瑾. (2018). 都市人本交通道路規劃設計手冊. In.
8. 吳綱立, 郭幸萍, 趙又嬋 (2007). 歷史街區環境改善綜合性評估架構之研究－以台南市府中街歷史街區爲例 [Developing a Comprehensive Evaluation Framework for the Environmental Regeneration of Historical Street Districts: The Experience of the Fu-Chung Street District]. 建築學報(62), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.6377/ja.200712.0001
9. 林美吟 (2010). 歷史街區與聚落的保存活化方法.
10. 林穎鴻 (2019). 社區式日間照顧資源空間分布可及性與 區位選址之探討-以臺北市為例. 建築系建築與都市設計碩士班 碩士學位論.
11. 邵甬 (2002). 澳門世界遺產的保護與歷史性城市景觀管理—澳門申遺成功十週年之際的思考. Cultural Institute.
12. 柯俊成 (1998). 台南府城大街空間變遷之研究 (1624-1945). In 第十一屆建築研究成果發表會論文集.
13. 柯明賢, & 曾憲嫻. (2021). 近代化改造下臺南都市軸線的變遷. 建築學報(116), 81-103.
14. 胡宗雄, 徐明福 (2003). 日治時期台南市街屋亭仔腳空間形式之研究. 建築學報(44), 97-115.
15. 殷寶寧 (2018). 後博物館、街區活化與老屋再生：臺北市大稻埕街區個案研究. 現代美術學報, 36.
16. 高盟智 (2007). 歷史環境規劃與建物改建之研究-以台南市五條港區域老古石街街區為例
17. 崔莹, 过., 邓一凌,马巧英. (2015). 历史文化街区步行性分析方法研究. 交通运输工程与信息学报, 第13卷.
18. 張耘書 (2017). 臺南府城舊街新路. 臺南市政府文化局.
19. 許君強，廖文婷，周星宇，黃資富. (2019). 巷弄長照站之挑戰與對策-兼論健康促進扎根社區之芻議. 健康促進暨衛生教育雜誌, 43, 105-132.
20. 陳清美 (2001). 高齡者對學習環境的偏好. 成人教育, 64, 43-51.
21. 曾憲嫻, 陳廣武, 楊少瑜. (2006). 歷史保存區景觀管制之研究－從英國的城鎮景觀思潮及制度發展來探討. 規劃學報(33), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.6404/jp.200612.0061
22. 曾憲嫻 (2008). 日本景觀維護的觀念與制度應用於區域性保存之研究. 文資學報(4), 95-117.
23. 曾憲嫻 (2009). 東京的建築轉用—以非住宅系轉住宅系者為例. 建築師, 86-89.
24. 廖興中 (2013). 臺灣小兒科醫療資源空間可接近性分析. 公共行政學報, 第四十四期(1-39).
25. 廖興中 (2022). 照護資源可近性評估：多重剝奪現象的探索. 主計月刊, 第803期.
26. 劉為光 (2016). 臺南市舊城歷史區域街廓與巷弄紋理保存再生之探討. 都市與計畫, 43(2), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.6128/cp.43.2.143
27. 蔡侑樺. (2024). 府城住宅400年 (Vol. 第十三輯). 臺南市政府文化局.
28. 鄭安佑, 徐明福, 吳秉聲. (2013). 日治時期臺南市 (1920-1941)[都市空間-社會經濟] 變遷-指向經濟的都市現代化過程. 建築學報(85), 17-37.
29. 盧紀邦. (2005). 從生活環境博物館觀點與地區組織運作探討台南市五條港歷史區域之再生-以台南市五條港發展協會為例
30. 簡君翰, 何明錦, 吳玫芳,楊文慧. (2020). 結合社區鄰里休憩設施與長照服務據點 之高齡友善地圖應用研. 內政部建築研究所委託研究報告.
31. 臺灣省文獻委員會採集組。(1999)。臺灣地名辭書(卷廿一)臺南市。國家圖書館臺灣記憶系統， 取自 https://tm.ncl.edu.tw/article?u=022_004_00003165（資料來源：國家圖書館 臺灣記憶 https://tm.ncl.edu.tw/
32. 鄭建良. (2003). 批判理論對教育行政領導的新意涵.
碩博士論文
1. 吳秉聲（1997）。一個港道變遷下的空間研究-以台灣(台南)府城五條港區為例。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/uwd3u8。
2. 李昀（2024）。歷史街區可步行性評估架構之研究-以赤嵌樓周邊地區為例。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6y3v5w。
3. 林宏哲（2012）。傳統街巷建築空間轉用評估架構之研究 — 以台南市總趕宮街區為例。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9y83tk。
4. 林穎鴻（2019）。社區式日間照顧資源空間分布可及性與區位選址之探討-以臺北市為例。﹝碩士論文。國立臺北科技大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/47ym8v。
5. 胡語真（2016）。文化創意導向之街區振興策略研究—以臺南市鹽水區歷史街區為例。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/w986mj。
6. 陳文苑（2004）。台灣歷史建築永續發展策略之研究─以地震災區歷史建築為例。﹝碩士論文。國立彰化師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hnjn8q。
7. 楊秀蘭（2004）。清代台南府城五條港區的經濟與社會。﹝碩士論文。國立臺灣師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9v4rnc。
8. 劉唯亭（2010）。以「轉用」角度探討歷史街區空間再發展之可能性研究—以台南市民生綠園文化園區為例。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/p72jzx。
9. 蔡夙涵（2016）。以創意群聚觀點探討歷史老屋轉用之研究-以臺南市新美街與民權路周邊為例。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/vvk9p7。
10. 謝佳琳（2015）。台灣藝術群聚之研究:以台南市神農街發展經驗為例。﹝碩士論文。國立高雄應用科技大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9n68cy。
11. 鍾佩樺（2006）。從柱仔行街到府中街：一個台南都市歷史街道空間變遷之研究。﹝碩士論文。國立成功大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3m6m4n。
12. 顏邑橖（2020）。臺南市府城歷史街區改造與保存。﹝碩士論文。國立高雄師範大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/58ckx4。