容積獎勵開放空間(Privately owned public space,簡稱 POPS)係以容積作為誘因，鼓勵人開放商於建築基地留設供公眾使用之開放空間，用以解決公部門財政資源有限、公共設施用地取得困難以及都市開放空間不足之窘境。容積獎勵開放空間以紐約1961年所頒佈之都市計劃獎勵分區為濫觴，為調和都市過度垂直發展導致之環境惡化問題，遂而訂定之，該制度不僅成功地為紐約市創造近35頃之開放空間，亦使各國紛紛引進容積獎勵制度效法之，我國亦於1983年引入，以土地使用分區管制及建築技術規則落實於台灣之都市計劃地區。

綜觀過去容積獎勵開放空間之相關文獻可發現容積獎勵開放空間其公益性往往由於其對空間之區位分布、阻礙設施之設置、控制行為等問題而備受質疑，各研究更陸續指出其公益性不彰之情形，於區位分布方面，相關研究發現容積獎勵開放空間多挹注於房地產熱區，無助於補足公共空間短缺之區域；而於空間設計方面，容積獎勵開放空間多為質量低落、妨礙公共使用之邊緣空間；於管理方面，其多利用警衛保全及監視控制其使用行為，其討論之公益性範疇多立足於空間之使用性及可及性層面，而就使用性上仍以阻礙設施及監控管理之討論為大宗，鮮少提及基地條件及建築布局配置對於容積獎勵開放空間之影響，而開放空間之使用乃基於可見之視野，建築之布局及空間配置所產生之視野為影響人們使用之決定性因素，故本研究欲了解不同基地條件及不同配置型態對於容積獎勵開放空間其可視性所造成之影響，並檢視其合乎法令預期之效益與否。

本研究立足於公益性之感知層面，以可視性作為公益性評估之標準，著眼於容積獎勵開放空間其視覺屬性，檢視容積獎勵開放空間基地條件及空間配置所產生之可視性，而可視性圖分析作為用以分析空間可視性之工具，主要以探討建築環境之視覺屬性及人們在可見空間內之移動與互動。本研究針對台南市20處容積獎勵空間進行實證，透過可視性圖分析進行實證之分析。經實證研究結果發現，影響容積獎勵開放空間其視覺可及性之主要因素為臨路條件，而建物型態則影響其視野好壞；相同臨路條件之基地其視覺可及性與視野優劣分布之位置有相似之特徵；而擁有較高獎勵係數之開放空間類型符合法規預期之效益，沿街步道式皆具有較佳之視覺可及性及視野

Privately owned public spaces were the open spaces that the government offered building bulk ratio as an incentive to encourage the private sectors to reserve the construction base for public. In recent years, some research has questioned the issues of privately owned public spaces for its distribution, obstructions and behavior restriction. However, most of the studies tended to focus on the obstructing facilities and the space management. The visibility was rarely been mentioned. Since the use of the spaces were influenced by visibility, it might be interfered by the site plan and the road condition of the spaces. Therefore, the topic for this study explained the influences of visibility that affect by the site plan and the road condition in privately owned public spaces.

To achieve this goal, the study applied the visibility graph analysis to discuss the publicness of POPS in Tainan. We selected 20 different types of the privately owned public spaces in Tainan and investigated the visibility of 20 cases through the mean depth and the clustering coefficient in visibility graph analysis. The result indicated that the road condition of the site was the main factor of affecting the visual accessibility. Moreover, the building types and the width of the roads were the primary factors of influencing the isovist. It also showed that the similar road condition of the site has the similar visibility distributions, and the different road condition of the site would affect the layout of POPS types. In addition, the type of privately owned public spaces with higher reward coefficients had higher publicness.

英文文獻
1.Bada, Y., &Farhi, A. (2009). Expriencing urban spaces: Isovist properties and spatial use of plazas. Courrier Du Savoir, 9, 101–112.
2.Benedikt, M. L. (1979). To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 6(1).
3.Brighenti, A. M. (2010). The Publicness of public space. On the public domain. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Trento: Trento University.
4.Campos, M. (1999). All That Meet The Eye: Overlapping isovists as a tool for understanding preferable location of static people in public squares. In. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Space Syntax, Brasilia: University of Brasilia.
5.Campos, M., & Golka, T. (2005). Public spaces revisted: a study of the relationship between patterns of stationary activity and visual fields. Proceedings 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, 545–553.
6.Carmona, M., Magalhães, C., Blum, R., & Hammond, L. (2004). Living Places: Caring for Quality. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
7.Carr, S.; Francis, M.; Rivlin, L.G.& Stone A.M.(1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.Dimmer, C. (2013). Standardised Diversity: Privately Produced Public Space in Japan. Sustainable Urban Regeneration, 25(1), 36–41.
9.Heft, H., &Nasar, J. L. (2000). Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays. Environment and Behavior, 32(3), 301–322.
10.Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.Hwang, H. H., Kim, Y. O., &Shin, H. W. (2009). The Efficient Use of Private on Open Space through a Correlation Analysis between Space Type and Street -Focusing on Local St . at Yoido Capital St . Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, 45.1-45.9.
12.Karacor, E. K. (2015). Public vs. Private: The Evaluation of Different Space Types in Terms of Publicness Dimension. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(3), 51–58.
13.Kayden, J. S. (2000). Privately owned public space: the New York City experience. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14.Kayden, J. S. (2006). Zoning incentives to create public spaces: Lessons from New York City. The Humane Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st-Century City, 240–260.
15.Langstraat, V. M. (2013). Challenging the ‘End of Public Space’: A Comparative Analysis of Publicness in British and Dutch Urban Spaces. Journal of Urban Design, 18(3), 429–448.
16.Lynch, K. (1972). What time is this place? Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.Madanipour, A. (1999). Why are the design and development of public spaces significant for cities? Environment and Planning B: Planningand Design, 26, 879–891.
18.Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating Public Space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53–88.
19.Moore, &Marans. (1997). Toward the Integration of Theory, Methods, Research, and Utilization. Springer US.
20.Németh, J. & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5–23.
21.Nemeth, J. &Schmidt, S. (2007). Toward a Methodology for Measuring the Security. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(3), 283–297.
22.Rigolon, A. & Németh, J. (2018). Privately owned parks in New Urbanist communities: A study of environmental privilege, equity, and inclusion. Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(4), 543–559.
23.Smithsimon. G. (2008). Dispersing the crowd: bonus plazas and the creation of public space. Urban Affairs Review, 43(3), 325–351.
24.Souhaila, B., Bada, Y. & Meziani, R. (2018). Open spaces: spatial configuration, visibility analysis and use. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development, 6(4), 93–109.
25.Turner, A. (2001). Depthmap: a program to perform visibility graph analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Space Syntax, 30(May), 7–11.
26.Turner, A. (2003). Analysing the visual dynamics of spatial morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(5), 657–676.
27.Turner, A., Doxa, M., O’Sullivan, D., &Penn, A. (2001). From isovists to visibility graphs: A methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(1), 103–121.
28.Varna, G., &Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the Publicness of Public Space:The Star Model of Publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575–598.
29.Watts, Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.
30.Yoon, H. & Srinivasan, S. (2015). Are they well situated? spatial analysis of privately owned public space, manhattan, new york city. Urban Affairs Review, 51(3), 358–380.

中文文獻
1.于洋 (2016)。 纽约市區劃條例的百年流變 (1916—2016)—以私有公共空間建設為例。国际城市规划, 31(2), 98-109。
2.呂昕潔. (2017)。實施容積獎勵建案之開放空間人行流動與公共性探討—以臺北市信義區、中山區為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所,台南市。
3.李琦華、林峰田(2007)。台灣聚落的空間型構法則分析。建築學報,60, 27-45。
4.林子欽(2016)。臺北市住宅基地面積之變動趨勢與決定因素。國科會研究計畫。
5.林筱菁(2016)。以開放空間系統的開放性探討私有公共空間（POPS）之環境品質 -以台北市萬華、松山區容積獎勵開放空間為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所,台南市。
6.夏鑄九(1983)。都市開放空間的概念及台北地區之相關問題。建築與城鄉研究學報,2,33-43。
7.張秀慈(2016)。台南市建築基地綜合設計審議執行效益改善之協同式行動研究。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告(計畫編號: MOST105-2410-H006-073 )。
8.張慧英. (2007)。中國傳統園林空間結構形式分析－以板橋林家花園為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所,台南市。
9.陳冠民(2015)。以調節理論觀點探討公共空間設置在私有財產的開發機制研究-以臺北市獎勵性都市政策為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立成功大學都市計劃學系,台南市。
10.黃玉芸(2015)。以公共性觀點探討綜合設計獎勵設置開放空間制度—以台北市萬 華區為例。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺北科技大學建築系建築與都市設計碩士班,台北市。
11.黃柏清(2017)。不同商業類型之開放空間與半開放空間特性研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所,台南市。
12.劉秉承(2016)。「風格量化」-以空間型構理論之視域分析方法探究空間組構形態視覺感知之量化詮釋 模型。設計與環境學報，17，51-68。