民國101年是台南市的低碳元年，台南市政府提出了10項主要計畫，其中以打造低碳社區的項目中，新興重劃區九份子被列為主要發展重點。九份子重劃區原本是大面積漁塭，由於整體開發規定之限制，導致開發停滯。因應低碳都市政策，九份子重劃區在規劃方面結合都市設計手法進行開發，試圖解決大量填土工程成本。在細部計畫中，強調公共開放空間及步行空間等相關都市設計規定，並以既有在地資源為前提，致力於打造結合藍綠帶的生態人文社區。

然而，台灣現行都市計畫多以土地管制為主，缺乏從人的尺度進行細部設計。在實際操作層面，歷次通盤檢討並無明確的日期和規律性，多以回應開發中面臨的課題為主，對於計畫與現況落差則以調整規範的方式處理，對於背離計畫的開發行為缺乏糾正，導致計畫與現況的落差日益增加。

本研究採用一致性評估方法，評估「計畫與計畫」以及「計畫與現況」兩者的落差現象、空間分佈及其相關影響因子。研究方法上，首先透過文件分析探討計畫歷年修訂情況，並利用ArcGIS系統分析落差的空間群聚現象，以揭示落差空間分佈的不規則性。接著，透過羅吉斯回歸分析探討落差產生的可能影響因子，並輔以歷年都市設計審議紀錄，以補足量化分析無法解釋的因素。藉由本研究，探討計畫發展至今所產生的落差，並提供後續改善建議。

In response to Tainan City's low-carbon policy in 2012, the Tainan City Government introduced ten major initiatives. Among these, the development of low-carbon communities was a key focus, with the Jiufenzi readjustment area being designated as a primary area of development. The Jiufenzi readjustment area, once a vast expanse of fish ponds, faced development challenges due to restrictive regulations. To address this, urban design methods were employed to mitigate the high costs of extensive land filling, prioritizing public open spaces and pedestrian areas to create an ecological and cultural community integrating blue and green belts.
Urban planning in Taiwan currently prioritizes land control over human-scale design. Comprehensive reviews are conducted sporadically, primarily in response to development issues, resulting in growing disparities between plans and actual outcomes. These disparities are usually addressed by modifying regulations, which lack effective oversight and problem-solving mechanisms.
This study employs a conformance-based evaluation method to assess disparities between "plans implementation" and "plans and current situation," examining their spatial distribution and influencing factors. The research involves document analysis to examine the revisions made to the plan over the years, utilizing ArcGIS to study spatial clustering of disparities, and conduct multinomial logistic regression to identify influencing factors. Additionally, a review of urban design deliberation records from previous years is undertaken to address aspects that quantitative analysis may not elucidate. The aim of this study is to investigate the disparities that have emerged during the plan's development and to provide recommendations for future improvements.

Alexander, E. R., & Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and planning B: Planning and Design, 16(2), 127-140.
Alexander, E. R. (2016). Evolution and status: where is planning-evaluation today and how did it get here?. In Evaluation in planning (pp. 3-16). Routledge.
Arts, B., & Goverde, H. (2006). The governance capacity of (new) policy arrangements: a reflexive approach. In Institutional dynamics in environmental governance (pp. 69-92). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Birch, E. L. (1987). Design, Process and Institutions. American Urbanism: A Historical Review.
Ali Toudert, Fazia & Ji, Limei & Fährmann, Linda & Czempik, Sina. (2019). Comprehensive Assessment Method for Sustainable Urban Development (CAMSUD) - A New Multi-Criteria System for Planning, Evaluation and Decision-Making. Progress in Planning. 100430. 10.1016/j.progress.2019.03.001.
Bryson, J. M. (1991). There is no substitute for an empirical defense of planning and planners. Journal of planning education and research, 10(2), 164-168.
Burby, R. J., & Dalton, L. C. (1994). Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting the development of hazardous areas. Public administration review, 229-238.
Berke, P. R., & French, S. P. (1994). The influence of state planning mandates on local plan quality. Journal of planning education and research, 13(4), 237-250.
Bertuglia, C. S., & Rabino, G. A. (1990). The use of mathematical models in the evaluation of actions in urban planning: conceptual premises and operative problems. Sistemi urbani, 12(2), 121-132.
Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. E. (2005). Does planning work?: Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 159-175.
Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2006). What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(4), 581-600.
Ball, P. (2017). Complexity: Decoding deep similarities.
Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. MIT press.
Boeing, G. (2021). Spatial information and the legibility of urban form: Big data in urban morphology. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102013.
Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). Alnwick, Northumberland: a study in town-plan analysis. Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), (27), iii-122.
Calkins, H. W. (1979). The planning monitor: an accountability theory of plan evaluation. Environment and planning A, 11(7), 745-758.
Connerly, C., & Muller, N. A. (1993). Evaluating housing elements in growth management comprehensive plans. In Growth management: the planning challenge of the 1990's (pp. 185-199).
Canesi, R., & D’Alpaos, C. (2024). The Evaluation of Sustainable Development Projects in Marginal Areas: An A’WOT Approach. Land, 13(5), 601.
Dai, J., Jia, S., & Lv, F. (2019). Evaluation of the Front Square of Harbin West Railway Station Based on POE Method. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 234, No. 1, p. 012003). IOP Publishing.
Faludi, A. (1985). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Landscape Planning, 12(3), 239-256.
Goggin, M. L. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation.
Guyadeen, D., & Seasons, M. (2016). Plan evaluation: Challenges and directions for future research. Planning Practice & Research, 31(2), 215-228.
Hogwood, B. W. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World.
Howard, E. (1965). Garden Cities of To-Morrow, The MIT Press (originally published in 1898 in England), Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hassan, A. M., & Lee, H. (2015). Toward the sustainable development of urban areas: An overview of global trends in trials and policies. Land use policy, 48, 199-212..
Hossu, C. A., Iojă, I. C., Mitincu, C. G., Artmann, M., & Hersperger, A. M. (2021). Assessing planning implementation using the conformance and performance approach: The case of Romania's local environmental action plans. Journal of Environmental Management, 299, 113680.
Kartez, J. D., & Lindell, M. K. (1987). Planning for uncertainty: The case of local disaster planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(4), 487-498.
Kiessling, N., & Pütz, M. (2021). Assessing spatial planning outcomes–A novel framework based on conformance and governance capacities. Planning Theory & Practice, 22(3), 414-432.
Kropf, K. (2014). Ambiguity in the definition of built form. Urban morphology, 18(1), 41-57.
Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Backhurst, M., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2004). Evaluating plan implementation: A conformance-based methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 471-480.
Le Corbusier, (1925), Urbanisme, Garden City Publishing Ltd, Paris.
Levy, A. (1999). Urban morphology and the problem of the modern urban fabric: some questions for research. Urban morphology, 3(2), 79-85.
Madanipour, A. (2006). Roles and challenges of urban design. Journal of urban design, 11(2), 173-193.
Mehaffy, M. W. (2008). Generative methods in urban design: a progress assessment. Journal of Urbanism, 1(1), 57-75.
Moudon, A. V. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphology, 1, 3-10.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1979). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture.
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and prospects. Journal of planning literature, 24(4), 343-361.
Pelorosso, R. (2020). Modeling and urban planning: A systematic review of performance-based approaches. Sustainable cities and society, 52, 101867.
Punter, J. (2007). Developing urban design as public policy: Best practice principles for design review and development management. Journal of Urban design, 12(2), 167-202.
Punter, J. (2010). Centenary paper: Planning and good design: indivisible or invisible?: A century of design regulation in English town and country planning. Town Planning Review, 81(4), 343-380.
Talen, E. (1996a). After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(2), 79-91.
Talen, E. (1996b). Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of planning literature, 10(3), 248-259.
Talen, E. (1997). Success, failure, and conformance: An alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(4), 573-587.
Talen, E., Anselin, L., Lee, S., & Koschinsky, J. (2016). Looking for logic: the zoning—land use mismatch. Landscape and Urban Planning, 152, 27-38.
Tett, A., & Wolfe, J. M. (1991). Discourse analysis and city plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 10(3), 195-200.
Wolman, H. L., Cook Ford, C., & Hill, E. (1994). Evaluating the success of urban success stories. Urban Studies, 31(6), 835-850.
Whelan, J. (1994). Assessing urban planning schemes by means of multi-criteria evaluation techniques: The case of pedestrianisation. Urban Studies, 31(2), 309-328.
Whitehand, J. W. (2007, June). Conzenian urban morphology and urban landscapes. In 6th International Space Syntax Symposium (Vol. 6, pp. 12-15).
Younis, L. T., Aguirre, F., Byers, S., Dowell, S., Barth, G., Walker, H., ... & Chaitman, B. R. (1990). Perioperative and long-term prognostic value of intravenous dipyridamole thallium scintigraphy in patients with peripheral vascular disease. American heart journal, 119(6), 1287-1292.
台南市政府（2005）。變更台南市安南區(海佃路一段西側地區)細部計畫(九份子市地重劃範圍專案通盤檢討)案計畫說明書。Retrieved from 台南市: https://ud.tainan.gov.tw/UPBUD_sys/Areas/Map/map?type=upbm&ver=public
台南市政府（2006）。變更台南市安南區(海佃路一段西側地區)細部計畫(九份子市地重劃範圍專案通盤檢討)案。Retrieved from 台南市: https://ud.tainan.gov.tw/UPBUD_sys/Areas/Map/map?type=upbm&ver=public
台南市政府（2007）。變更台南市安南區(海佃路一段西側地區)細部計畫(九份子市地重劃範圍專案通盤檢討)案（依台南市都市計畫委員第252次會議紀錄涉及變更主要計畫另案辦理部分）計畫說明書。Retrieved from 台南市: https://ud.tainan.gov.tw/UPBUD_sys/Areas/Map/map?type=upbm&ver=public
台南市政府（2010）。變更台南市都市計畫(土地使用分區管制要點暨都市設計審議規定－斜屋頂獎勵)部分專案通盤檢討案計畫書。Retrieved from https://ud.tainan.gov.tw/UPBUD_sys/Areas/Map/map?type=upbm&ver=public
台南市政府（2013）變更臺南市安南區都市計畫（細部計畫）通盤檢討案。 Retrieved from台南市: https://ud.tainan.gov.tw/UPBUD_sys/Areas/Map/map?type=upbm&ver=public
台南市政府（2014）。變更臺南市安南區細部計畫(海佃路一段西側地區) (九份子市地重劃範圍) (土地使用分區管制要點與都市設計規範專案通盤檢討)案計畫書。Retrieved from 台南市: https://ud.tainan.gov.tw/UPBUD_sys/Areas/Map/map?type=upbm&ver=public
台南市政府（2015）。變更臺南市安南區細部計畫(海佃路一段西側地區)(九份子市地重劃範圍)(土地使用分區管制要點與都市設計規範專案通盤檢討)案。Retrieved from 台南市: https://ud.tainan.gov.tw/UPBUD_sys/Areas/Map/map?type=upbm&ver=public
台南市政府（2014）台南低碳都市推動成果報告書。
江衍志（2016）以特定區計畫型塑大學城風貌之計畫評估研究。(碩士論文)。國立成功大學，台南市.
吳欣修（2011）。低碳城市之都市發展策略。Retrieved from https://www.napcu.org.tw/album/task/4ffd402fbb178.pdf
吳建德（2005）。台南市都市設計審議制度之研究。（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/p4vp3g
范君慈（2018）。以一致性評估觀點探討計畫與現況之落差－以臺南市虎尾寮重劃區住宅區土地使用為例。（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
孫千智（2000）。市中心再發展理念與執行機制演變之研究（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
張逸民（2009）。計畫管制與實際開發的都市形態差異—從高雄市內惟埤文化園區特定區內住宅開發商運作邏輯的角度。（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
陳進昌（2011）。住宅區實施都市設計建築退縮之研究-以台南市虎尾寮重劃區及鄭子寮重劃區為例（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
謝晏巧（2020）。都市大型地塊形態分析與演變之研究-以台南舊城區為例（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
魏心怡（2006）醫院附設屋頂療癒庭園使用後評估之研究-以臺大醫院與慈濟新店分院為例（碩士論文）。國立台灣大學，台北市。
賴垣智（2021）。應用資料探索分析法歸納住宅開發建案之基地形態特徵—以高雄市為例（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
吳綱立（2006）。從西方近代都市設計思潮的發展看台灣都市設計專業的定位。建築學報(55), 111-146.
林成城（2017）。台南市東區商業區騎樓占用類別及影響因子之研究（碩士論文）。國立成功大學，台南市。
济川和郭志剛（2004）。Logistic 回歸模型: 方法及應用。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
陳明竺（1996）。都市設計，創興出版社，台北市。
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities (黃淑真 Ed. 2 ed.): 林載爵.