住」是基本人權之一，居住空間是在土地資源的延伸價值，是一項有限的環境資源；面對現今環境資源危機的時代，對於資源利用之公平、效率，將是人類生活環境能否永續發展十分重要的課題。
本研究冀望以永續發展理念之下，尋找適合台灣的公寓式集合住宅「最適居住空間規模」，採用實測的調查資料，了解家戶住宅空間之使用需求及永續發展認知，運用迴歸模型推估家戶的「理想居住規模」，建立家戶的居住空間規模參考基準；再藉由環境經濟學中「柏拉圖最適」理論之特性，驗證本研究之推論結果是否貼近「柏拉圖最適」境界，達到空間環境資源的「有效利用」及「資源均享」的永續發展目標。其結果可有效提供開發者、使用者及管理者，於落實永續居住環境及住宅改善階段時，具宏觀考量的「居住空間規模」參考基準。本研究以三主題進行探討：第一評析目前台灣居住空間規模之需求趨勢及使用狀況；第二建構具時間長期性考量下居住空間規模推估模型及檢定；第三以推估居住空間規模結果驗證公平及效率之最適性。

　　綜合研究結果歸納以下：
1.對居住空間規模具影響力因子，包括「家戶居住特性」、「使用行為」、「時間長期性認知」三主成份。其中經相關性分析後，家戶的「時間長期性認知」對居住空間規模具有影響力，且會使居住規模減小。推論原因適在時間長期性考量下，家戶會回歸到真正需要的之住宅空間規模。

2.本研究所推估之「永續發展理念下理想居住空間規模」，以「家戶戶量」所需之居住空間規模而言，戶量 (1人) 為 42.62㎡；戶量 (2人) 為 71.54㎡；戶量(3人) 為 94.47㎡；戶量(4人) 為112.95㎡；戶量 (5人) 為121.39㎡；戶量 (6人) 為129.28㎡。

3.推估的空間規模與現況相差了20㎡左右，可能由於對未來空間之需求預期過渡之故，有向下調整的空間。經由柏拉圖最適分析，本研究建議之理想與現況之居住空間規模的「規模調整率」(SAR)中皆為負值，表示戶量為1至6人之家戶，皆需降低「每人現況居住空間規模」，目前使用居住空間規模皆呈現為「弱永續性」狀態。

4.以現況得知「戶量為1人及2人」時，極少人數佔有大面積住宅的現象相當普遍。居住空間規模與「柏拉圖最適」境界明顯相當遙遠，代表現況中對於此類家戶所需居住空間規模之住宅缺乏，也同時造成過度使用的現象，形成居住環境空間資源利用的不經濟。一方面可能由於對未來空間需求之預期，另一方面可能因為市面上較難找到品質合適的小型居住單元，其皆對永續發展具有不利之影響。

5.本研究所推估之時間長期性考量下理想居住空間規模與現況間，平均各戶量之「邊際替代率」(MRS)為1.23，且於戶量4人時(MRS)為1.04，貼近「柏拉圖最適」境界(MRS=1)，為較適宜的居住空間規模基準。

　“Shelter” is one form of basic human right. Living space is an extension of land resources and is a kind of scarce environmental resource. Human beings are now in a crisis of environmental resources. Therefore, the fair and efficient use of such resources will be vital for the sustainable development of human living.

　This study is an attempt to find out the “Optimal Dimensional Scale” in apartment in Taiwan under the notion of sustainable development. Survey research is used in this study basing on which data on the needs for the use of space and the understanding of sustainable development of the households were gathered. These data are subject to the test of the theory of “Pareto Optimality” in economics for finding out if the inference from this study approximates “Pareto Optimality” whereby the environmental resource of space is “efficiently used” and the goal of sustainable development in “equal sharing of resources” is accomplished. The research findings from this study could be used as reference for the developer, the users and the managers in materializing a sustainable living environment and considering the “dimensional scale” in the process of home renovations. This study contains three topics: First of all, an analysis will be conducted on the trend of demand for dimensional scale in Taiwan and the status of consumption. Secondly, an assessment will be made on the models of dimensional scale under the concept of sustainable development and tests of the models. Finally, the result of the tests under the models on dimensional space will be used for verifying the fairness and efficient use of space.

　The research findings are:
1.There are three major factors affecting the dimensional scale of living. They are “housing living characteristics”, “user behavior” and “understanding of sustainability”. These factors are subject to correlation analysis. The result indicated that the “concept of sustainability” has an effect on the dimensional scale of living and tended to reduce the dimensional scale. This can be attributable to the concept of sustainability under which households tend to the dimensional scale of living they actually need.

2.The hypothesis of “Optimal Dimensional Scale under Sustainable Development” has the following criteria: For the scale of living space as needed by “ the collectivity of households”, the assumption is 42.62㎡ per person and 71.54㎡ for 2 persons, 94.47㎡ for 3 persons, 112.95㎡ for 4 persons, 121.39㎡ for 5 persons and 129.28㎡ for 6 persons.

3.There is a gap of approximately 20㎡ between the projected dimensional scale and the actual dimensional scale. This may be the result of the transition of demand for dimensional scale in the future which made it downward adjusted. Under the Pareto Optimality Analysis, the SAR of ideal dimensional scale as suggested in this study and the current situation is a negative value, indicating households will need to reduce the “current dimensional scale of living per person”. Currently, the dimensional scale in the use of space indicated a state of “weak sustainability”.

4.From the current situation, we see that when the “household is just 1 or 2 persons”, it is common that only a very few people have large size accomodation. The gap between “Pareto Optimality” and the actual dimensional scale of living is wide. This showed that this type of households lacks the accomodation of dimensional space. As such, the use of environmental resouces of space is inefficient. This may be the result of an anticipation of the demand for the use of space in the future and there is a scarcity of small size living flats with good quality in the market. These will pose negative effect on sustainable development.

5.Under the comparison between the “Optimal Dimensional Scale of Living Space under the Notion of Sustainable Development” and the reality, the MRS of average households is 1.23, and approaches 1.04 when the household contains 4 persons. This approaches the “Pareto Optimality” (MRS=1) and hence is the optimal living space standard.

中興都研所，1986，〈台灣地區居住空間水準及住宅需求之研究〉，委託單位：內政部營建署，研究單位：中興大學法商學院都市計畫研究所
內政部建築研究所，1993，〈最小空間標準〉
江哲銘，2004，〈永續建築導論〉，建築情報，pp.125-140
行政院主計處，2004，92年家庭收支調查報告，pp.37
行政院經建會住都處，1984，〈台灣地區綜合開發計畫住宅分析報告〉
行政院經建會住都處，1984，〈國民住宅空間標準化之研究〉
行政院經建會住都處，1985，〈台灣地區最低居住空間標準之擬議〉
行政院經濟建設委員會都市及住宅發展處，2004，〈都市及區域發展統計彙編〉，pp.12-13
何友鋒、王小璘，1993，”國民住宅空間標準之建立”，〈內政部建築研究所專題研究計畫成果報告〉，中華民國建築學會，ISBN：957-00-2463-1，PP.179-180
李永展，1995，”社區環境權與社區發展”，〈社區發展季刊〉，第96期，pp53-61
李永展、馬立文，1994，”由環境衝擊觀點論論土地開發應有之環境政策”，〈規劃學報〉，第21期，pp.77-88
李永展、張乃瑩，1994，〈從環境行為的觀點探討城市的發展〉，區域科學學會
汪銘生，1992，〈環境決策與管理〉，復文出版社
洪于婷，1999，〈都市發展永續性結構之研究〉，成功大學都市計畫系碩士論文
孫全文，1986，〈論後現代建築〉，詹氏書局
孫全文等，1993，”CIAM與現代建築”，〈近代建築理論專輯---IHTA研究報告〉，詹氏書局，pp. 1-40
馬信行，1988，〈簡介迴歸分析〉，教育研究，pp.61-69
張隆盛，2001，〈廿一世紀議程之挑戰〉，國政研究
張輝煌，1990，〈多變量分析及其應用—統計學上重要實用課題〉修訂版，臺北市:建興出版社。
陳彥仲、王健陽，1996，”高雄市不同住戶層級對住宅屬性需求之研究”，〈規劃學報〉，第二十三期，pp.27
陳淑美、張金鶚，2000，”三代同堂與核心家庭住宅需求決策調整之研究－台灣南北差異之比較”，〈2000年中華民國住宅學會第九屆年會學術研討會論文集〉，pp.369-380
陳淑美、張金鶚，2002，”家戶遷移決策與路徑選擇之研究－台北縣市的實證研究”，〈住宅學報〉，11(1): pp.1-22
陳淑美、張金鶚、陳建良，2003，”家戶遷移與居住品質變化關係之研究－台北縣市的實證分析，〈2003年中華民國住宅學會第十二屆年會學術研討會論文集〉，pp.217-242
陳順宇、鄭碧娥，1996，〈統計學〉，華泰書局，pp.102-145，pp.185-198。
陳耀茂，1999，〈多變量解析方法與應用〉，五南圖書出版公司，pp.32-106，pp.160-200，pp.202-260
黃書禮，1990，”永續發展與土地使用規劃”，〈生態土地使用規劃〉，詹氏書局
黃書禮，1994，「國土規劃與環境保育：資源評估、空間分析與環境計畫」，國土綜合開發研討會論文集。
黃書禮，1996.6，〈台北市都市永續發展指標與策略研擬之研究〉，台北市政府都市發展局委託，中興大學都市計畫研究所執行，pp.7-22。
黃清政，1972，〈台灣地區居住情形之檢討及居住水準之研擬〉，國立成功大學建築研究所碩士學位論文。
楊重信、陳益春，1987，〈台灣地區居住空間水準及住宅需求研究〉，委託單位：內政部營建署，研究單位：國立中興大學法商學院都市計畫研究所。 pp.3-123
楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢等人編，1987，〈社會及行為科學研究法（上）（下）〉，東華書局
楊國樞等，1975，「社會及行為科學研究法」上冊，東華書局。
鈴木成文 著，吉武泰水 編，1970，〈集合住宅住戶〉，建築計畫學6，pp.260-269
盧誌銘、黃啟峰，1995，〈全球永續發展的緣起與發展〉，工業技術研究院能源與資源研究所
薛立敏、曾喜鵬，2000，”台灣各都市內部遷移率與住宅市場關係之實證研究”，〈住宅學報〉，第九卷第二期，中華民國住宅學會，pp.79-97
Amanda Littlewood & Moira Munro, 1977, “Moving and Improving：Strategies for Attaining Housing Equilibrium”, 〈Urban Studies〉, Vol.34, No.11, pp.1771-1787
Arnold, F., Zimring, C., Zube E. E., 1978, 〈Environment Design Evalution〉, New York: Plenum Press.
Balkema, A. J., Preisig, H. A., Otterpohl, R., Lambert, F.J.D, 2002, “Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment system”, 〈Urban Water〉,Vol.4, pp.153-161
Barkin, D., 1996,” Ecotourism: A Tool for Sustainable Development”, Centro de Ecologia y Desarrollo. Mexico.
Bhatti, M. & Dixon, A., 2003, “ Special Focus：Housing, Environment and Sustainability ”, 〈Housing Studies〉, Vol.18 , No.4, pp.501-504
Billingsley, P., 1995, 〈Probability and Measure〉, Third Edition, Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistic, pp.22-25
Billingsley, P., 1995, 〈Probability Measure Theory〉, Third Edition, Willey-Interscience, pp.18-23
Braat, L., 1991,” The Predictive Meaning of Sustainability Indicator”, 〈In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development〉, Edited by O.Kuik and H.Verbruggen pp.57-70, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Brink,B.T., 1991, "The AMOEBA approach as a useful tool for establishing sustainable development?", 〈In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development〉, edited by Kuik,O. and Verbruggen,H., pp.71-87. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brown, B., Hanson, M. E., Liverman, D. M., and Merideth, R.W.J., 1987, 〈Gobal sustainability: toward definition. Enviornmental Management〉, 11(6), pp.713-719
Callan, S. J. & Thomas, J.M., 1996, 〈Environmental Economic and Management: Theory, Policy, and Applications〉, IRWIN, Chicago
Clark, W. A. V., Onaka, 1983, “Life Cycle and Housing Adjustment as Explanations of Residential Mobility”, 〈Urban Studies〉, Vol:20, pp.47-57
Costanza, R., Perrings, C. and Cleveland, C. J., 1997, ”Introducation,”〈The Development of ecological economics〉, London：Edward Elgar.
Daly, 1993, " The peril of free trade", Sci. Amer., 296(5), pp.24-29.
Daly, H. E., 1996, " Beyond Growth：The Economics of Sustainable Development, Bostob：Beacon Press
Dawson(1991) Reidenbach, R.E., D.P. Robin and L. Dawson, 1991,”An Application and Extension of a Multidimensional Ethics Scale to Selected Marketing Practices and Marketing Groups”,〈Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science〉, Vol.19, pp.83-92
Earl W. Morris & Mary Winter, 1975, “A Theory Of Family Housing Adjustment”, 〈Journal of Marriage and the Family〉, Vol.37, No.1 (Feb., 1975), pp79-88
Environment Council of Alberta, 1991, 〈The Environmental Effects of Forestry Operations in Alberta. Report and Recommendations〉, Edmonton：Environment Council of Alberta
Fordham R. et al., 1998, 〈Housing Need and The Need For Housing〉, Ashgate Publishing Company, IBSN1-84014-380-0, pp.5-10, pp.197-200
Forman R T T., 1990. Ecologycally sustainable landscape: The role of spatial configuration. In: Zonneveld I S, Forman R T T,ed. Changing Landscape: An Ecological Perspective, New York: Springer-Verlag. 261-278
Gilpin, A., 1995, Environmental Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, UK
Hartwick, J. M. , 1977, “Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources,” American Economic Review 67,pp.972-974
Hussen, A. M., 2000, 〈Principles of Environmental Economic〉 2nd edition, Routledge, pp.172-174
IUCN, UNEP and WWF, 1980, 〈World Conservation Strategy〉, Switzerland: IUCN
IUCN, UNEP and WWF, 1991,〈Caring for the Earth〉, London: Earthscan
Littlewood, A. & Munro, M., 1977, 'What Future for the Right to Buy?', Environment and Planning A, 30, pp. 647-664.
Markandva, A. & Pearce, D.W., 1988, Markandva Anil and David W. Pearce, Natural Environments and the Social Rate of Discount
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W.Ⅲ., 1974, “The Limits to Growth：A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind”, 2nd edn. , New York: Universe Books
Mitcham, C. 1995,”The Concept of Sustainable Development: It’s Origins and Ambivalence”, 〈Technology in Society〉, 17(3), pp.311-326
Morris, E. W., Winter M., 1975, “A Theory of Family Housing Adjustment”, 〈Journal of Marriage and The Family〉, Vol.67, No.1, pp.79-88
Noorman, K.J.& Uiterkamp, T. S., 1998, “Sustainable Development”，〈Green Households? —Domestic Consumers, Environment and Sustainability〉, Earthscan Publications Ltd., pp..25-31,pp.114-115
OECD, 1990, Environmental Policies for Cities in the 1990s, Paris: OECD
OECD, 1994, Environmental Indicators: OECD Core Set, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Papoulis, A., 1991,〈Probablity, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes〉, Third Edition, McGRAW-Hill International Editions, Electrical & Electronic Engineering Series, pp.20-22
Richard, F. et al., 1998, “Issues Affecting the Requirement: Sustainability ”, 〈Housing Need And The Need For Housing〉, Ashgate Publish Limited, pp.197-200
Rossi, P. H., 1955, “Why Families Move: A Study in the Social Psychology of Urban Residential Mobility”, Glencoe, Illinois: the Free Press.
Scitorsky, T., 1971, 〈Welfare and Competition〉, 2nd edition, Homewood：Richard D. Irwin, pp.284-286
Spath, J.G., 1989, http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com。
Tisdel, 1991,〈Economics of environmental conservation :economics for environmental & ecological management〉, Amsterdam ;Elsevier ;New York :Sole distributors for the USA & Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co.,New York, NY, USA : ISBN 0444890750
Tolba, M. K. 1987.〈Sustainable Development: Constraints and Opportunities〉, London: Butterworth.
WCED, 1983, 〈A Global Agenda for Change〉. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Wilde, Th. S. de & Dobbelsteen, A. v. den, 2002, ”Space Use Optimisation and Sustainability—environmental Comparison Of International Cases”, 〈Journal of Environmental Management〉, vol:73, pp.91-101
William, M. L. & Oluf, L., 1999, 〈Towards Sustainable Development： On the goals of Development —and the Conditions of Sustainability〉, Macmillan Press Ltd., New York, ISBN 0-312-21669-6, pp.1-13, 21-29
WRI, 1991, 〈Combining Local Knowledge and Expert Assistance in Natural Resource Management: Small-scale Irrigation in Kenya 〉 , World Resources Institute report
WRI, 1992, 〈Forging International Agreements: The Role of Institutions in Environment and Development〉, World Resources Institute report
WRI, 1994 , 〈Information Please Environment Almanac〉, World Resources Institute report
Yeh, J. R., 1996, “Institutional Capacity-building Towards Sustainable Development：Taiwan’s Environmental Protection in the Climate of Economic Development and Political Liberalization”, Vol.6 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, pp.229-272