近年來行人行走的權益在台灣逐漸受到重視，各縣市政府也希望提昇行人行走空間品質，打造適合行人行走的「步行城市」。而騎樓具有｢私有公用｣的特性，騎樓的土地及建物所有權人、行人、機車騎士等使用者在領域感知上有所不同，繼而造成空間使用上的混亂。對此，台南市政府於2012年展開「騎樓暢通計畫」，於騎樓留設 1.5 公尺寬的空間供行人及行動不便者使用，其餘部分則可供機車停放或商業買賣等活動使用，作為騎樓使用權利競爭的折衷辦法。
而騎樓暢通計畫是否需要根據不同路段的屬性特色而在施行上有所差異，思考該如何建置最適合的行人行走範圍，成為本研究的核心目的，因此本研究依據使用者對空間的領域感知及行為界定各自使用者能夠使用的範圍，進而提出調整政策的建議。
本研究考量地方政府與中央政府在政策施行上內容一致及騎樓空間內使用行為多樣性等因素，選定台南市騎樓暢通計畫優先示範區為研究範圍，並利用卡方檢定、Cramér's V檢定及Spearman等級相關性分析找出與騎樓使用相關的騎樓本身空間屬性及周邊環境設施，作為分類不同路段的依據，而後利用多元羅吉斯特迴歸分析使用者的領域感知與領域行為的關係，並進而利用Kruskal-Wallis檢定分析不同路段不同使用者間的領域行為差異，以了解各路段上使用者間的領域意識。
本研究成果發現業種與騎樓使用型態具有顯著相關性，也發現使用者的領域感知與領域行為具有部分相關性，進而發現使用者的領域感知受路段屬性影響大於個人屬性。另外，本研究也發現不同使用型態特色的路段上，店家在是否能擺放標誌物、鄰近馬路側是否能完全放滿及騎樓供店家任意使用，和機車族在保留給行人基本行走空間上，各路段看法並不一致。也發現在同一路段上，店家、行人及機車族會受到路段屬性的影響，而在店家是否能擺放物品在騎樓內及鄰近馬路側的騎樓是否能完全放滿上看法也不一致，進而影響應劃設的基本行人行走範圍寬度及人行空間通往馬路應留設的行人行走寬度。
隨著步行城市的概念在台灣逐漸受到重視，本研究所提出依據各路段使用者的領域意識差異及地方的屬性不同而建置不同的使用範圍的構想，期望能作為台南市騎樓暢通計畫政策的操作考量，以建置出適合行人行走的步行城市。

In recent years, pedestrian rights have increasingly garnered attention in Taiwan, with local governments aiming to enhance the quality of pedestrian spaces and create "walkable cities." Arcades, characterized by their "semi-public" nature, present challenges due to differing perceptions of space usage among property owners, pedestrians, and motorcyclists, leading to confusion and conflicts in space utilization. In response, the Tainan City Government launched the " Pedestrian-friendly Plan " in 2012, which designates a 1.5-meter wide space within the arcade for pedestrians and those with mobility issues, while allowing the remaining area for motorcycle parking or commercial activities as a compromise in the competition for arcade space usage rights.
Considering the consistency of policy implementation between local and central governments and the diverse usage behaviors within arcade spaces, this study selects the priority demonstration zones of Tainan City's Pedestrian-friendly Plan as the research scope. The study utilizes chi-square tests, Cramér's V tests, and Spearman rank correlation analysis to identify the relationship between arcade occupancy and the inherent spatial attributes and surrounding environmental facilities of arcades. This forms the basis for classifying different street segments. Multinomial logistic regression is then used to analyze the relationship between users' territorial perception and behavior, followed by Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine the differences in territorial behavior among users across different street segments, in order to understand territorial awareness among users on each street.
The findings reveal a significant correlation between business types and arcade encroachment patterns. Additionally, users' territorial perception is partially correlated with their behaviors and is more influenced by street segment attributes than by personal characteristics. The study also finds discrepancies in opinions about the placement of signage, the extent of space occupation near the street, and the allocation of arcade space for businesses versus pedestrian walking space across different street segments. Furthermore, within the same street segment, shopkeepers, pedestrians, and motorcyclists have varying opinions on streets attributes., which in turn affects the designated pedestrian walking width and the width of pedestrian space leading to the street.
As the concept of walkable cities gains increasing importance in Taiwan, the proposed idea of establishing varying usage zones based on differences in users' territorial awareness and street attributes aims to inform the operational considerations of Tainan City's Pedestrian-friendly Plan, with the goal of creating a more pedestrian-friendly urban environment.

外文
Ajmal, A., Tarar, A., & Nosheen, N. (2021). Exploring the Psychosocial and Political
Dimensions of Human Territoriality. 9, 191-203.
Akoglu, H. (2018). User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency
Medicine, 18(3), 91-93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
Altman, I. (1975). Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. Brooks/Cole.
Ardrey, R. (1966). The territorial imperative: A personal inquiry into the animal origins of property and nations. Atheneum.
Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum,A. (1996). Environmental psychology (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Bell, P. A., Green, T., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (1990). Environmental psychology. New Jersey.
Bhattacharyya, S., & Bandyopadhyay, G. (2014). Comparative analysis using multinomial logistic regression. 2014 2nd International Conference on Business and Information Management (ICBIM), 9-11, 119-124.
Bortoli, F. (2017). The place of the privately owned public space in the contemporary city. Revista Thésis, 2(4).
Brighenti, A. M. (2010). On Territorology:Towards a General Science of Territory. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(1), 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409350357
Brown, G. (2009). Claiming a corner at work: Measuring employee territoriality in their workspaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 44-52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.004
Brown, G., Crossley, C., & Robinson, S. L. (2014). Psychological Ownership, Territorial Behavior, and Being Perceived as a Team Contributor: The Critical Role of Trust in the Work Environment. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 463-485. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12048
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 577-594. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159145
Brown, G., & Zhu, H. (2016). ‘My workspace, not yours’: The impact of psychological ownership and territoriality in organizations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 54-64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.001
Cox, K. R. (2001). Territoriality, politics and the ‘urban’. Political Geography, 20(6), 745-762. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00030-0
De Magalhães, C. (2010). Public Space and the Contracting-out of Publicness: A Framework for Analysis. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 559-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502347
DeLong, A. J. (1973). Territorial Stability and Hierarchical Formation. Small Group Behavior, 4(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649647300400105
Edney, J. J. (1972). Property, Possession and Permanence: A Field Study in Human Territoriality1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2(3), 275-282. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1972.tb01279.x
Edney, J. J. (1976). Human territories: Comment on functional properties. Environment and Behavior, 8(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657600800103
Elden, S. (2019). Territory/Territoriality. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies (p. 1-11) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0339
Farkisch, H., Ahmadi, V., & Che-Ani, A. I. (2015). Evaluation of neighborhood center attributes on resident’s territoriality and sense of belonging a case study in Boshrooyeh, Iran. Habitat International, 49, 56-64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.012
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gold, J. R. (1982). Territoriality and human spatial behaviour. Progress in Human Geography, 6(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258200600102
Gottman, J. (1975). The evolution of the concept of territory. Social Science Information, 14 (3-4), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400302
Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.
Huang, J., Mori, S., & Nomura, R. (2019). Territorial Cognition, Behavior, and Space of Residents: A Comparative Study of Territoriality between Open and Gated Housing Blocks; a Case Study of Changchun, China. Sustainability, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082332
Jang, H.,& Lee, I. (2006). A Study on the Effect of Factors on the Use of Private-Owned Pocket Parks. Journal of Urban Design Institute of Korea, 7, 47-60.
Johnston, R. (1996). Territoriality. In A. J. Kuper (Ed.), The social science encyclopedia.London: Routledge.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark Iv. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115
Kärrholm, M. (2005). Territorial Compexity in Public Places - A Study of Three Squares in Lund. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 18, 99-114.
Kärrholm, M. (2007). The Materiality of Territorial Production A Conceptual Discussion of Territoriality, Materiality, and the Everyday Life of Public Space. Space and Culture, 10, 437-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331207304356
Koo, B. W., & Lee, Y. (2015). The Influence of Surrounding Ground Floor Facilities on the Use of Privately Owned Public Spaces in Seoul. Journal of Building Construction and Planning Research, 03, 95-106. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbcpr.2015.32010
Kumar, R., & Ramasamy, J. (2008). An application for ordinal logistic (proportional odds) regression model. The SPSS Analyst, Application from SPSS South Asia, 40-45.
Lee, D. (2022). Whose space is privately owned public space? Exclusion, underuse and the lack of knowledge and awareness. Urban Research & Practice, 15(3), 366-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2020.1815828
Lee, D. K. (2016). Alternatives to P value: confidence interval and effect size. Korean J Anesthesiol, 69(6), 555-562. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2016.69.6.555
Le Quéau, P., Labarthe F., & Zerbib, O. (2017). Analyse de données quantitatives en sciences humaines et sociales [Mooc]. France Université Numérique. https://www.fun-mooc.fr/fr/cours/analyse-de-donnees-quantitatives-en-sciences-humaines-et-sociales-adshs/
Lyman, S. M., & Scott, M. B. (1967). Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension. Social Problems, 15(2), 236-249. https://doi.org/10.2307/799516
Memlük Çobanoğlu, N. O., & Akkar Ercan, M. (2023). Residents’ territorial cognition and behavior patterns: An inquiry into Kavaklıdere and Çukurambar Districts of Ankara, Turkey. Habitat International, 131, 102732. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102732
Nindyasari, E., Gamal, A., & Asyera, E. (2019). Residential Land Use Change and Territorial Conflict. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 248(1), 012041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/248/1/012041
Ozcelik Guney, S. (2017). Grey matters: the ‘constructed’ and ‘unconstructed’ outdoor formation for young adults as an extension of the dwelling. MEGARON / Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Architecture E-Journal, 12. https://doi.org/10.5505/megaron.2017.68553
Peterson, M. (2016). Living with difference in hyper-diverse areas: how important are encounters in semi-public spaces? Social & Cultural Geography, 18, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1210667
Ramadhani, A. N. (2021). TERRITORIALITY IN TOURISM KAMPUNG ALLEY AS A SHARED PUBLIC SPACE. Jurnal Arsitektur ARCADE, 5(3), 215-221. https://doi.org/10.31848/arcade.v5i3.587
Sack, R. D. (1983). Human Territoriality: A Theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73(1), 55-74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2569346
Shils, E. (1975). Center and periphery. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sommer, R., & Becker, F. D. (1969). Territorial defense and the good neighbor. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11(2), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027046
Taylor, R., & Stough, R. (1978). Territorial cognition: Assessing Altman's typology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 418-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.418
Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning: An empirical, evolutionary perspective on individual and small group territorial cognitions, behaviors, and consequences. Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R. B., & Brooks, D. K. (1980). Temporary Territories?: Responses to Intrusions in a Public Setting. Population and Environment, 3(2), 135-145. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27502902
Vinsel, A., Brown, B. B., Altman, I., & Foss, C. (1980). Privacy regulation, territorial displays, and effectiveness of individual functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1104-1115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077718
Wang, F., Ruan, H., Chieh Wang, H., Zong, Y., & Zhen, F. (2017). Create, control and have territories or secret places: A comparative study of children's play territoriality in their daily outdoor environments between Beijing's urban villages and modern residential areas. Habitat International, 66, 125-134. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.05.012
Westin, A. F. (1968). Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review, 25(1), 166. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol25/iss1/20
Yeganeh, M., & Kamalizadeh, M. (2018). Territorial behaviors and integration between buildings and city in urban public spaces of Iran׳s metropolises. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 7(4), 588-599. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2018.06.004
Yilmaz, S. (2018). HUMAN TERRITORIALITY: A SPATIAL CONTROL STRATEGY. Alternatif Politika, 10(2), 131-155.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087414552457
中文
McAndrew, F. T. (2020) 。環境心理學（危芷芬譯）。台北：五南。
王怡青 (2017) 。從步行者觀點探討使用者對「臺南市騎樓暢通計畫」政策認知及滿意度-以北門路為例，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所。
王服清 (2017) 。論私人騎樓平整通行管理義務與賠償責任。興大法學，頁39-94。https://doi.org/10.3966/199516202017050021002
王珠環 (2017) 。影響政府推動騎樓暢通政策執行因素之研究：以台南市政府為例，國立中正大學政治學系政府與公共事務碩士在職專班。
王維綸 (2008) 。台灣騎樓空間權力問題之研究-以台中市太平路騎樓空間為例，朝陽科技大學建築及都市設計研究所。
王齊郁 (2012) 。斗六太平老街「騎樓」之生活空間使用，南華大學建築與景觀學系環境藝術碩士班。
王澤鑑 (2004) 。民法物權。臺北：自刊。
內政部營建署 (2013) 。城鎮風貌型塑整體計畫。
台中市政府都市發展局(2018) 。台中市騎樓推動整平專案計畫。
吳欽憲 (2008) 。騎樓的景觀與社會空間識覺—以台北市為例，國立臺灣師範大學地理學系。
卓立寰 (2005) 。攤販與路段：非正式經濟的空間與日常生活關係—以台北市為例，國立臺灣大學社會學研究所。
周俊 (2018) 。問卷資料分析—破解SPSS的六類分析思路。新北：博碩。
林成城 (2017) 。台南市東區商業區騎樓佔用類別及影響因子之研究，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所。
林昭媚 (1981) 。市街與騎樓的探討。臺灣文獻，32:2卷，頁123-141。
林勳赫 (2018) 。人行空間變項因子與使用者不當行為之相關性研究，中國文化大學景觀學系。
林騰鷂 (2001) 。公物概念之研究。東海大學法學研究，16卷，頁1-14。
邱英哲、洪德豪、吳恩勝 (2014) 。臺北市騎樓整平計畫執行成果。中華道路，頁17-24。
施宥毓 (2015) 。騎樓法制之研究，國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所。
胡宗雄、徐明福 (2003) 。日治時期臺南市街屋亭仔腳空間形式之研究。建築學報，44卷，頁97-115。http://dx.doi.org/10.6377/JA.200310.0007
高雄市政府(2021) 。110年度推動騎樓整平計畫。
夏鑄九 (1972) 。台北的老商店簡述。台北：鏡與象出版社。
徐磊青、楊公俠 (2005) 。環境心理學—環境、知覺和行為。台北：五南。
徐立言 (2000) 。法定騎樓≠騎樓—臺灣傳統人行空間的課題與建議。臺灣建築報導雜誌，54卷，頁62-64。
堀込憲二、郭中端、卞鳳奎 (1996) 。臺灣的亭仔脚文化。高市文獻，9:2卷，頁135-149。
張志源 (2021) 。臺灣建築物騎樓整平計畫之研究：內政部及臺北市政府騎樓整平計畫法令及執行之分析。建築學報，117期，頁1-24。http://dx.doi.org/10.53106/101632122021090117001
張依依 (2017) 。臺灣騎樓街區的興衰與保存芻議。人文社會學報. 世新大學，頁135-166。https://www.AiritiLibrary.com/Publication/Index/P20160418002-201707-201806010004-201806010004-135-165
張衛玲 (1979) 。騎樓淺談。逢甲建築，17卷，頁17-24。
郭寶貞、謝秉銓、陳宗鵠(2010) 。從使用者滿意度來探討騎樓整平計畫之研究－以臺北市南港區為例。物業管理學會論文集，4卷，頁427-440。http://dx.doi.org/10.29468/PMR.201009.0427
陳正昌 (2022) 。SPSS與統計分析。臺北：五南。
陳永奕 (2019) 。商圈機車停車位置選擇模式建構—以臺南市東寧路為例，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所。
陳飛燕. (2015) 。台南市騎樓暢通政策執行之研究，國立中山大學政治學研究所。
陳惠民 (1974) 。臺北市古老建築形態之演變。臺北文獻，29卷，頁103-108。
陳棖福 (2006) 。從財產權觀點分析騎樓管制問題，立德管理學院地區發展管理研究所。
喻韜 (2020) 。騎樓之法律地位及其衍生之法律問題，東吳大學法律學系。
黃明賢 (2012) 。騎樓爭占：都市治理與日常生活政治，國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所。
黃武達 (1999b) 。臺灣「亭仔腳」規制之歷史考察及其評價。都市計畫及建築法制研究論文集(1)，頁9-1 - 9-20。
黃俊銘 (1996) 。清末與日據時期亭仔腳相關法規的發展歷程：騎樓管理問題根源的探討。東海大學建築研究所建築理論與應用研討會論文集，2卷，頁141-148。
新北市政府養護工程處(2022) 。新北市騎樓整平計畫。
葉佳靈 (2011) 。都市商業路段之型態研究，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所。
蔡宜妏 (2020) 。騎樓空間使用分析-以臺南市東區騎樓暢通計畫示範區為例，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所。
賴裕鵬、聶志高 (2011) 。臺灣街屋與中國廣東騎樓之比較研究：以建築法規對傳統街屋騎樓影響為例。都市與計劃，頁73-98。http://dx.doi.org/10.6128/CP.38.1.73
台南市政府 (2019) 。台南市政府騎樓暢通計畫，用鼓勵代替處罰，還給行人優雅空間。取自https://web.tainan.gov.tw/nation/News_Content.aspx?n=933&s=27201
交通部(2023) 。配套措施完成前，上下客貨臨停及騎樓停車違規暫停記點新聞稿。取自https://www.motc.gov.tw/ch/app/news_list/view?module=news&id=14&serno=bbac39d1-e2a5-4945-9933-137d8ecba564
李乾朗 (2021) 。台灣街屋的亭仔腳與騎樓：騎樓，是街屋「侵入」還是「讓出」路段？取自https://kjmu.org.tw/%e5%8f%b0%e7%81%a3%e8%a1%97%e5%b1%8b%e4%ba%ad%e4%bb%94%e8%85%b3%e9%a8%8e%e6%a8%932/
桃園市政府養護工程處(2023) 。騎樓整平計畫。取自https://oram.tycg.gov.tw/home.jsp?id=264&parentpath=0,240,262
黃豐鑑 (2010) 。淺析使用騎樓問題。取自https://www.npf.org.tw/3/6949
新竹市政府工程處(2022) 。竹市24條騎樓整平完成還路於民，今年再改善6路段迎接棒球場啟用。取自https://www.hccg.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=48&parentpath=&mcustomize=municipalnews_view.jsp&toolsflag=Y&dataserno=202203280003&t=MunicipalNews&mserno=201601300022
嘉義市政府工程處(2021) 。市府推動騎樓整平計畫，打造有愛無礙的通行環境。取自https://work.chiayi.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=3918&s=622699