本研究的目的在檢視台灣土地管制與都市環境的現況與問題，以及土地的使用管制與形式管制的特性，並據此對台灣目前的土地管制提出建議。
台灣的土地管制習自美國的土地使用分區管制，然而台灣與美國的社會、環境背景差別很大。由於台灣地狹人稠且長期以來高度的住商混合已成難以更易的事實，無法像美國以使用分離來排除使用妨害與維護環境品質。此外，面對當代社會、科技與產業快速變遷的壓力，涵容變化的能力被規劃界普遍視為當代都市規劃必備的要件。
本文研究美國使用管制的歷史發展與轉變，分析使用管制的特性與限制，以及使用管制所面臨當代都市規劃的挑戰與應變能力。繼而分析美國近來逐漸受到重視的形式管制，藉由開放建築理論與目前形式管制實踐的文獻回顧，以探討形式管制的特性以及因應變化的能力。
本研究發現，美國的使用管制確實有助於維護安全與健康等狹義的公共福祉。但是即使經歷長時間的演變，並且被迫往多元混合使用的情況發展，使用管制仍難以同時兼顧環境品質與因應變化所需要的彈性。因此近年來土地管制的發展趨勢是減少使用管制的強度，而增加形式管制的內涵與技術。本研究認為形式管制較能因應混合使用環境以及社會變動的的理由是：形式管制能較明確的規範建成環境，且可就建築物所在位置與周邊環境形式輔以較寬鬆的使用管制，以跳脫傳統使用管制的同質性框架，同時為內部的用途保留較大的彈性。因此以形式管制為主之土地管制較有助於規範環境形式以保護環境品質，又可輔以使用管制來排除較無爭議的使用妨害，而不失去其因應變化的彈性，所以是較適合台灣都市環境需要的管制制度。
基於以上研究結果，本文最後建議台灣應該開始積極而審慎地研議形式管制在台灣試行的可能性，以及研究發展過程中值得注意的事項。

This study has two purposes: first, to examine and characterize distinctive features of land use control and form control in the U.S. history of land control; second, to examine and make appropriate suggestions to the land control system in Taiwan.
Taiwan adopted its land control system from the U.S. traditional zoning. However, these two countries are very different. Cities in Taiwan are much more densely populated with a long history of mixed-use. Attempts in “separation of use” have failed again and again, though it is central to the U.S. zoning. Besides, as a small island depending on international trading, Taiwan is subject to rapid changes in social and economical changes, as well as in technology and industry. Hence the capability to accommodate changes is fundamental and more crucial than the U. S. society where use control emerges. It is therefore vital to inquire whether the current use control suits the need of Taiwan.
This study first analyze the characteristics and the limitations of use control in the history of the U.S., especially in regard of its adaptability to changes. The same process will then be applied to form control. To arrive at solid conclusions, this study will rely on open building theory and literature survey.
As part of the conclusions, this study ascertains that use control in the U.S. indeed assists to safeguard the welfare such as safety, health and morality. Yet, use control finds it hard to simultaneously preserve environmental quality and adaptability to changes. Therefore, recent trends in land control tend to relax the intensity and extent of use control, and, at the same time, to rely more on regulations of building form. Many reasons exist to support ‘form first’. Among them, form control can clearly prescribe preferred build environment so that mild use control becomes sufficient to exclude nuisances in a less disputed manner. In this way, a land control system has a better ability to accommodate changes.
Based on the above findings, this study suggests that Taiwan should seriously consider how to adopt form control into its land control system, while maintain cautious about its possible side effects.

中文參考文獻：
王旭斌（2001）《類型管制之都市設計方法--以台北市內湖二期重劃
區為例。國立成功大學建築研究所碩論。
余憶雯（1998）《日治時代台灣都市計畫史料調查與計畫建立之研
究》。 中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩論。
沈元琪（2000）建城地區之建築類型管制—以臺南市大天后宮周邊地
區為例。國立成功大學建築研究所碩論。
張金鶚（2000）《土地使用分區規劃之研究兼論分區管制規則之探
討》，行政院研究發展考核委員會中部辦公室編輯。
張剛維（2007）《土地使用分區管制制度之執行與制度變遷--財產權
觀點之分析》，國立政治大學地政研究所博論。
張景森（1993）《台灣的都市計畫（1895-1988）》，台北：業強。
許戎聰（2000）《住宅區土地混合使用業種相容性分析之研究－以台
北市大安區與萬華區為例－》，國立政治大學地政學系博論。
陳秉立（2000）《台北市住宅區使用組別管制演變之研究》，國立成
功大學都市計劃學系碩論。
陳銘偉（2003）《土地使用分區管制制度在台灣實施得失之研究─以
台北市為例》，中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩論。
黃世孟（1987）《日據時期台灣都市計畫範型之研究》，台北：台大
土研所都市計畫研究室。
黃世孟（1993）《臺灣都市計畫講習錄》，詹式出版社。
黃武達（1998）《日治時代臺灣近代都市計畫之研究》，臺灣都市史
研究室。
黃武達（2000）《日治時代臺灣都市計畫歷程之建構》，臺灣都市史
研究室。
黃南淵與何芳子（1988）「台北市實施土地使用分區管制之檢討一對
策及其影響」，《都市與計劃第15卷》，第107-142頁。
蔡之豪（2000）《日治時代台灣都市計畫法制歷程之研究》。 中國
文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩論。
蔡志宏（2005）「論都市計畫之法體系建立 :以臺北市土地使用分區
管制規則與細部計畫之衝突為中心」，《司法研究年報第25輯》
第21篇，第1-158頁。臺北市 :司法院。
賴建良（1999）《臺灣都市計畫建立歷程之研究（1945-1976）》。
中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩論。
蘇明俊（2000）《街區動態規劃方式試探》。國立成功大學建築研究
所碩論。

英文參考文獻：
Ahrens, C. H. (1970). Planned unit development. Missouri Law Review,
35, 27-42.
Allan, J. & Donald, A. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 53(4), 112-120.
Anderson, R. M. (1958). The nonconforming use--a product of Euclidian
zoning. Syracuse Law Review, 10, 214-240.
Berke, P. R. (2002). Does sustainable development offer a new direction
for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first century. Journal of
planning literature, 17(1), 21-36.
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Blanco, H., Alberti, M., Olshansky, R., Chang, S., Wheeler, S. M.,
Randolph, J., London, J. B., Hollander, J. B., Pallagst, K. M.,
Schwarz, T., Popper, F. J., Parnell, S., Pieterse, E., & Watson, V.
(2009). Shaken, shrinking, hot, impoverished and informal: Emerging
research agendas in planning. Progress in Planning, 72, 195-250.
Bohl, C. C. (2000). New urbanism and the city: Potential applications and
implications for distressed inner-city neighborhoods. Housing Policy
Debate, 11(4), 761-801.
Braun, E. M. (1999). Growth management and New urbanism: Legal
implications. The Urban Lawyer, 31 (4), 817-821.
Bressi., T. W. (Ed.). (1993). Planning and zoning New York city: Yesterday,
today, and tomorrow. N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Burdette, J. T. (2004). Form-based codes: A cure for the cancer called
Euclidean zoning? Master Thesis.
City of Boston, Massachusetts. (2010). Boston zoning code and enabling
act. Retrieved May 29, 2010, from http://
www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/zoning/downloadZone.asp
City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (2010). Zoning ordinance. Retrieved
May 29, 2010, from http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/cp/zng/zord/
index.html
City of Houston, Texas. (2010). Code of ordinances. Retrieved May 29,
2010, from http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?
clientId=10123&stateId=43&stateName=Texas
Coon, L. (2001). Sign restrictions in residential communities: Does the
First Amendment stop at the gate? Communications Lawyer, 21,
24-27.
Cullingworth, J. B., & Caves, R. W. (2003). Planning in the USA: policies,
issues and processes. London: Routledge.
District of Columbia. (2010). Chapter 11-24, D. C. municipal regulations
and D. C. register. Retrieved from http://dcoz.dc.gov/info/reg.shtm
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The
rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York:
North Point Press.
Dukeminier, J. Jr., & Stapleton, C. L. (1961). Zoning board of adjustment:
a case study in misrule. Kentucky Law Journal, 50, 273-350.
Durchslag, M. R. (2001). Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., Seventyfive
years later: This is not your father's zoning ordinance. Case
Western Reserve Law Review, 51(4), 645-660.
Eggers, W. D. (1990). Land use reform through performance zoning.
Policy Insight, 120, 1-28.
Elliott, D. H., & Marcus, N. (1973). From Euclid to Ramapo: New
directions in land development controls. Hofstra Law Review, 1,
56-91.
Emerson, C. D. (2006). Making main street legal again: The SmartCode
solution to sprawl. Missouri Law Review, 71, 637-642.
European Council of Town Planners. (2003). The new charter of Athens
2003: the European Council of Town Planners' vision for cities in the
21st century. Retrieved from http://www.ceu-ectp.eu/images/files/
Athens_Charters/charter2003.pdf
Ford, L. R. (1999). Lynch revisited: New urbanism and theories of good
city form. Cities, 16(4), 247-257.
Franzese, P. A. (2005). Privatization and its discontents: Common interest
communities and the rise of government for the nice. The Urban
Lawyer, 37(3), 335-357.
Freilich, R. H. (1998). The land-use implications of transit-oriented
development: Controlling the demand side of transportation
congestion and urban sprawl. The Urban Lawyer, 30(3), 547-572.
Furuseth, O. J. (1997). Neotraditional planning: a new strategy for building
neighborhoods? Land Use Policy, 14(3), 201-213.
Goldston, E., & Scheuer, J. H. (1959). Zoning of planned residential
developments. Harvard Law Review, 73(2), 241-267.
Haar, C. M., & Hering, B. (1960). The Lower Gwynedd township case:
Too flexible zoning or an inflexible judiciary. Harvard Law Review,
74, 1552-1579.
Habraken, N. J. (2000). The structure of the ordinary: form and control in
the built environment. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Habraken, N. J. (2002). The uses of levels. Open House International, 27
(2), 9-20.
Hanke, B. R. (1965). Planned unit development and land use intensity.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114, 15-46.
Hikichi, L. (2003). New urbanism and transportation. Retrieved March 25,
2010 from http://www4.uwm.edu/cuts/2050/urbanism.pdf
HOPE VI. (2010). Park DuValle. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://
www.lmha1.org/hopevi/index.htm ＆ http://
www.morethanhouses.com/villagesofparkduvalle/index.php
Jezer, M. (1982). The dark ages: Life in the United States 1945-1960.
Boston: South End Press.
Katz, P. (2004). Form first: The new urbanist alternative to conventional
zoning. Planning Magazine, 70(10), 16-21.
Katz, P., & Ferrell, G. (2003). Introduction to Form-based codes. The Town
Paper, Council Report IV: On Codes, 48-61.
Kendall, S. & Teicher, J. (1999). Residential open building. London:
E&FN Spon.
Kendig, L. (1989). Performance zoning: An update on Euclid. In The best
of planning :Two decades of articles from the magazine of the
American Planning Association (pp.120-124). Chicago, Ill. :Planners
Press.
Kintish, B., & Shapiro, J. (1993). The zoning of today in the city of
tomorrow. In T. W. Bressi. (Ed.), Planning and zoning New York city:
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow (pp. 119-164). N.J.: Center for Urban
Policy Research.
Krasnowiecki, J. Z. (1965-1966). Planned unit development: A challenge
to established theory and practice of land use control. University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 114, 47-97.
Krasnowiecki, J. Z. (1980). Abolish zoning. Syracuse Law Review, 31,
719-753.
Krier, L. (1984). Urban spaces. London: Academy Editions.
Krohe, J., Jr. (1996). `Types' replace `uses'. Planning, 62(11), 11.
Kwartler, M. (1993). Planning and zoning for a mature city. In T. W.
Bressi. (Ed.), Planning and zoning New York city: Yesterday, today,
and tomorrow (pp. 185-205). N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Lai, R. T.-y. (1988). Law in urban design and planning: The invisible web.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Langdon, P. (1988). A good place to live. The Atlantic Monthly, 261(3),
39-60.
Lewyn, M. (2007). New urbanist zoning for dummies. Alabama Law
Review, 58(2), 257-297.
Lloyd, G. D. (1965). A developer looks at planned unit development.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 114(1), 3-14.
Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mandelker, D. R. (1963). Delegation of power and function in zoning
administration. Washington University Law Quarterly, 60, 60-69.
Mandelker, D. R. (1976). The role of the local comprehensive plan in land
use regulation. Michigan Law Review, 76, 899-973.
Marcus, N. (1993). New York city zoning - 1961-1991: Turning back the
clock - But with an up-to-the-minute social agenda. In T. W. Bressi.
(Ed.), Planning and zoning New York City: Yesterday, today, and
tomorrow (pp. 61-102). N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Meredith, J. R. (2003). Sprawl and the new urbanist solution. Virginia Law
Review, 89, 447-503.
Moore, C. G. & Siskin, C.(1985). PUDs in practice. Washington, D.C.:
Urban Land Institute.
Muschamp, H. (1996). Can new urbanism find room for the old? The New
York Times, 2 June 1996, 27.
Note. (1969). Administrative Discretion in Zoning. Harvard Law Review,
82, 668-69.
Ohm, B. W. (1999). Guide to community planning in Wisconsin. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
Ohm, B. W., & Sitkowski, R. J. (2003). The influence of new urbanism on
local ordinances: the twilight of zoining? Urban Lawyer, 35(4),
783-794.
U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). The postwar economy: 1945-1960.
Retrieved March 17, 2010, from http://countrystudies.us/united-states/
history-114.htm
Parolek, D. G., Parolek, K. & Crawford, P. C. (2008). Form-based codes:
A guide for planners, urban designers, municipalities, and developers.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Patterson, L. A. II. (1972-1973). Planned unit development and North
Carolina enabling legislation. North Carolina Law Review, 51,
1455-1478.
Popper, F. J. (1989). Siting LULUs. In The best of planning :Two decades
of articles from the magazine of the American Planning Association
(pp.221-225). Chicago, Ill. :Planners Press.
Porter, D. R., Phillips, P. L., & Lassar, T. J. (1988). Introduction to flexible
zoning. In D. R. Porter, P. L. Phillips & T. J. Lassar. (Eds.), Flexible
zoning and how it works (pp. 3-14). Washington, D.C.: Urban Land
Institute.
Purdy, J. R. (2007). Form-based Codes. Smart Growth Tactics magazine,
28, 2-3.
Reps, T. W. (1955). Discretionary powers of the board of zoning appeals.
Law and Contemporary Problems, 20(2), 280-297.
Rohe, W. A. (2009). From local to global: One hundred years of
neighborhood planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 75(2), 209-230.
Salins, P. D. (1993). Zoning for growth and change. In T. W. Bressi. (Eds.),
Planning and zoning New York City : yesterday, today, and tomorrow
(pp.165-184), New Brunswick, N.J. : Center for Urban Policy
Research.
Saltzman, J. D. (1994). Houston says no to zoning. The Freeman, 44(8),
431-435.
Siegan, B. H. (1972). Land use without zoning. Lexington, D.C: Heath and
Company.
Southworth, M. (1989). Theory and practice of contemporary urban
design: A review of urban design plans in the United States. The Town
Planning Review, 60(4), 369-402.
Sproul, C. (1994). The many faces of community associations under
California law. In S. E. Barton & C. J. Silverman. (Eds.), Common
interest communities: Private governments and their public interest
(pp. 45-51). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies.
Starr, R. (1998). How to fix New York's heavy-handed zoning laws.
Retrieved March 17, 2009, from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/
html/cb_12.htm
Sternberg, E. (2000). An integrative theory of urban design. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 66(3), 265-278.
Strickland, R. (1993). The 1961 zoning revision and the template of the
ideal city. In T. W. Bressi. (Ed.), Planning and Zoning New York City:
Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow (pp. 48-60). N.J.: Center for Urban
Policy Research.
Susman, T. M. (1966). Municipal enforcement of private restrictive
covenants: An innovation in land-use control. Texas Law Review, 44,
741-768.
Symons, L. P. (1988). Property right and local land use regulation: The
implications of 1st english and Nollan. The Journal of Federalism, 18,
81-95.
Talen, E. (1999). Sense of community and neighbourhood form: An
assessment of the social doctrine of New urbanism. Urban Studies, 36
(8), 1361-1379.
Talen, E. (2002). Help for urban planning: The transect strategy. Journal of
Urban Design, 7(3), 293-312.
Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and American planning: the conflict of
cultures. New York: Routledge.
Tu, C. C., & Eppli, M. J. (1999). Valuing new urbanism: The case of
Kentlands. Real Estate Economics, 27(3), 425-451.
Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)