台灣四面環海，位於東亞航道上，港埠城市扮演著對外連結的樞紐。在南台灣，高雄港市不僅為區域產業重鎮，更維繫著台灣整體經濟的生命線。港埠城市的發展脈絡受國際航運技術與內陸交通主導，港、市逐漸分離下在實質空間中形成「港口都市交界帶」。近年來，港口都市交界帶的大量釋出空地成為都市規劃重點；在台灣有限的腹地條件下，如何更有效利用既有結構並提供新的港、市需求是為重要課題。爰此，本研究奠基在都市形態學與港埠城市理論上，解構高雄港、市交界關係轉變下的巨觀空間構成與中尺度港口都市交界帶的形態特性。
研究方法以都市平面分析法與空間度量方法進行高雄港市都市平面之計算，並以集群分析法輔助指認內陸都市核心、港區、工業區、都市邊緣帶等巨觀空間構成。接著，依照港、市的排列關係判斷港口都市交界帶的實質範圍，並在中尺度上歸納其內部組成與高雄港市發展脈絡的對應關係。研究成果發現，高雄港市歷經港市合一、分離、重新合一等六階段的過程中，港口逐漸向南擴建，而都市在多次遷移後形成主要都市核心與數個次核心。兩者之間則形成「港口都市交界帶」，不同於其他空間構成而具有高度異質性與易受擾動。巨觀上由舊市中心與小型市區、工業區、內層邊緣帶、非建成地區所組成；中尺度上由18個形態區域與6個大面積空地組成，分別生成於高雄港市的六個發展階段。近年來，前鎮的港口相關工業土地釋出帶來水岸更新的契機，重塑港、市關係的同時亦提升城際間競爭力。本研究對於高雄港口都市交界帶空間構成之解構則可用於理解港、市關係轉變對實質環境的影響，作為研擬港市整體空間策略之參考。

Port cities stand out from inland cities for their distinct development process i.e. the double influence of global shipping technologies and inland transportation, bringing to the separation of the port and the city and the forming of „Port-City Interface“. Recently, port cities sought large-scale waterfront renewal as treatment for upgrading urban spaces. Kaohsiung, as one of the largest port cities in Taiwan and regional economic center, is facing similar redevelopment forces. Accordingly, the research aims to deconstruct the macro spatial composition of Kaohsiung and the Port-City Interface in the meso scale in order to reveal the influence of port-city evolution on physical environments.
Based on the theories of port-city evolutions and Urban Morphology, Plan Analysis combined with spatial metrics and clustering is adopted to quantify the ground plan of Kaohsiung in grid cells. Results show that Kaohsiung has been through six phases of different port-city relationships, resulting in the containerized port in the southern coast and a large main core and several subcores forming the inland multi-nucleus structure. In between lies the Port-City Interface as the transition area. In macro scale, it consists of the old towns, industrial areas, parts of the inner fringe belt, and large un-built land. In meso scale, it is made up of eleven dwelling groups, one transport and six port-industrial areas, and six large vacant areas, which are closely related to the six development phases. The research may serve as the basis for reviewing the spatial structure and land use regulations in Kaohsiung.

1. Adler, M. J. & Van Doren, C. (1972). How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading. New York: Simon and Schuster.
2. Aldstadt, J. (2010). Spatial Clustering. In Fischer, M. M. & Getis, A. (eds.), Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis: Software Tools, Methods and Applications (pp. 279-300). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-03647-7_15.
3. Alexander, C. et al. (1977). A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Batty, M. (2005). Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based Models, and Fractals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
5. Berghauser Pont, M. & Haupt, P. (2005). Spacemate: Density and the Typomorphology of the Urban Fabric. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 4, 55–68.
6. Berghauser Pont, M. & Haupt, P. (2007). The relation between urban form and density. Urban Morphology, 11(1), 142-145.
7. Bibby, P. & Shepherd, J. (2005) Developing a New Classification of Urban and Rural Areas for Policy Purposes – the Methodology. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
8. Bird, J. (1963). The major seaports of the United Kingdom. London: Hutchinson of London.
9. Brocard, M. (1994). Deux villes frontiéres portuaires: Le Havre et Southampton. La Revue d’lci, n° 11, pp. 8-12.
10. Caniggia G. & Maffei, G.L. (2001). Interpreting Basic Building: Architectural composition and building typology. Firenze: ALINEA.
11. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.
12. Charlier, J. (1992). Structural change in the Belgian port system. Maritime Policy and Management, 15, 315-326.
13. Conzen, M. R. G. (1932). The Havel Towns: Townscapes of the Havel Region, Exemplified by Rathenow, in M. P. Conzen (eds.), (2004) Thinking about Urban Form (pp. 83-100). Bern: Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers.
14. Conzen, M. R. G. (1960). Alnwick, Northumberland: A Study in Town-Plan Analysis, 2nd edition (1969). London: Institute of British Geographers.
15. Conzen, M. R. G. (1962). The Plan Analysis of an English City Centre (Newcastle upon Tyne), in Norborg, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Geographical Union Symposium in Urban Geography, Lund 1960.Lund, Sweden: C. W. Gleerup, Lund Studies in Geography.
16. Conzen, M. R. G. (1964a). Town Plan and Building Types as Systematic Aspects of Urban Morphology, exemplified by Alnwick, in M. P. Conzen (eds.), (2004) Thinking about Urban Form (pp. 101-107). Bern: Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers.
17. Conzen, M. R. G. (1964b). The Urban Morphology of Central Newcastle, in M. P. Conzen (eds.), (2004) Thinking about Urban Form (pp. 108-115). Bern: Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers.
18. Conzen, M. R. G. (1977). Urban Morphology: A Geographical Approach, in M. P. Conzen (eds.), (2004) Thinking about Urban Form (pp. 47-59). Bern: Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers.
19. Conzen, M. R. G. (1985). Morphogenesis and Structure of the Historic Townscape in Britain, in Conzen, M. P. (eds.), (2004) Thinking about Urban Form (pp. 60-77). Bern: Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers.
20. Conzen, M. R. G. (1988). Morphogenesis, Morphological Regions, and Secular Human Agency in the Historic Townscape, as Exemplified by Ludlow, in M. P. Conzen (eds.), (2004) Thinking about Urban Form (pp. 116-143). Bern: Peter Lang AG, European Academic Publishers.
21. Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th edition (2018). California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
22. Cullen, G. (1961). The Concise Townscape. New York: Routledge.
23. Daamen, T. A. & Vries, I. (2013). Governing the European port-city interface: institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 4-13.
24. Daduna, J. R. (2011). Importance of Hinterland Transport Networks for Operational Efficiency in Seaport Container Terminals, in Böse, J. W. (ed.), (2011) Handbook of Terminal Planning, Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series, 49, New York: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8408-1_19.
25. Doxiadis, C. A. (1968a). Ekistics: an introduction to the science of human settlements. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Doxiadis, C. A. (1968b). Man’s Movement and His City. Science, 162, 326-334.
27. Doxiadis, C. A. (1970). Ekistics, the science of human settlements. Science, 170, 393-404.
28. Ducruet, C. (2011) The port city in multidisciplinary analysis. Joan Alemany and Rinio Bruttomesso. The port city in the XXIst century: New challenges in the relationship between port and city. RETE, pp.32-48, 2011. <halshs-00551208>.
29. Everitt, B. (2011). Cluster analysis. Chichester. West Sussex, U.K: Wiley.
30. Fleming, D. K. (1987). The port community: an American view. Maritime Policy Management, 14(4), 321-336.
31. Fritz, J. (1894). Deutsche Stadtanlagen. Beilage Programm 520 des Lyzeums Strassburg. Strassburg: Heitz-Mündel.
32. Geisler, W. (1918). Danzig: Ein siedlungsgeographischer Versuch. Danzig: Kafemann.
33. Harris, C. D. & Ullman, E. L. (1945). The Nature of Cities. The Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 242, 7-17.
34. Hayuth, B. S. (1982). The port-urban interface: an area in transition. area, 14, 219-224.
35. Hebbert, M. (2016). Figure-ground: history and practice of a planning technique. Town Planning Review, 87(6), 705-728.
36. Herold, M., Couclelis, H. & Clarke, K. C. (2005). The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29, 369–399.
37. Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
38. Hilling, D. & Hoyle, B. S. (1984). Spatial approaches to port development, in B. S. Hoyle & D. Hilling (eds.), (1984) Seaport Systems and Spatial Change. (pp. 1-19). Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
39. Holye, B. S. (1989). The Port-City Interface: Trends, Problems and Examples. Geoforum, 20(4), 429-435.
40. Hoyle, B. S. (2000). Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront. Geographical Review, 90(3), 395-417.
41. Hoyle, B. S. (2001). Fields of Tension: Development Dynamics at the Port-City Interface. Jewish Culture and History, 4(2), 12-30, DOI: 10.1080/1462169X.2001.10512227.
42. Hoyt, H. (1939). The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities. Washington: Federal Housing Administration.
43. Kenyon, J. B. (1968). Land Use Admixture in the Built-Up Urban Waterfront: Extent and Implications. Economic Geography, 44(2), 152-177.
44. Kenyon, J. B. (1970). Elements in inter-port competition in the United States. Economic Geography, 46(1), 1-24.
45. Kostof, S. & Castillo, G. (2005). The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History. New York: Thames & Hudson.
46. Kropf, K. (2009). Aspects of urban form. Urban Morphology, 13(2), 105-120.
47. Landis, J. & Zhang, M. (1998). The second generation of the California urban futures model. Part 1: Model logic and theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30, 657-666.
48. Lee, S. W. & Ducruet, C. (2009). Spatial Glocalization in Asia-Pacific Hub Port Cities: A Comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore, Urban Geography, 30(2), 162-184.
49. Louis, H. (1936). Die geographische Gliederung von Gross-Berlin [The geographical structure of Greater Berlin], in H. Louis, W Panzer (eds.) Länderkundliche Forschung: Krebs-Festschrift (pp. 146-171). Stuttgart: Engelhorn.
50. Meyer, H. (2003). City and Port: The Transformation of Port Cities: London, Barcelona, New York and Rotterdam. Utrecht: International Books.
51. Morgen, J. R. (1988). Ports and Harbours, in Walker, H. J. (eds.), Artificial Structures and Shorelines (pp. 9-14.), Springer Netherlands.
52. Moudon, A. V. (1994). ‚Getting to know the built landscape: typomorphology’, in K. A. Franck & L. H. Schneekloth (eds.), Ordering space: types in architecture and design (pp. 289-311). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
53. Mueller-Haagen, I., Simonsen, J. & Többen, L. (2014). Die DNA der Stadt.: Ein Atlas urbaner Strukturen in Deutschland. Mainz: HermannSchmidt.
54. Norcliffe, G. (1981). Process affecting industrial development in port areas in Canada, In B. S. Hoyle And D. A. Pinder (eds.), Cityport Industrialization and Regional Development: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategies (pp. 151-165). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
55. Norcliffe, G., Bassett, K., Hoare, T. (1996). The emergence of postmodernism on the urban waterfront. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(2), 123-134.
56. Oliveira, V. (2012). Morpho: a methodology for assessing urban form, Urban Morphology, 17, 21-33.
57. Olivier, D. & Slack, B. (2006). Rethinking The Port. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1409-1427.
58. Pearson, M. N. (1998). Port cities and intruders. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.
59. Piccinato, L. (1943). Urbanistica medioevale, in Giovannoni, G., Lugli, G., Mariani, V., Paribeni, R., Petrucci, C., Piccinato, L. and Salvi, A. L’urbanistica dall’Antichità ad oggi. Firenze: Sansoni.
60. Raith, E. (2000). Stadtmorpologie. Annährungen, Umsetzungen, Aussichten. Wien: Springer-Verlag.
61. Rimmer, P. J. (1967). The search for spatial regularities in the development of Australian seaports 1861-1961/2. Geografiska Annaler, 49B, 42-54.
62. Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm, Maritime Policy and Management, 29, 241-255.
63. Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C., Slack, B. (2017). The Geography of Transport Systems. London and New York: Routledge.
64. Rowe, C. & Koetter, F. (1978). Collage City. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: The MIT Press.
65. Scheer, B. C. (2016). The epistemology of urban morphology. Urban Morphology 20(1), 5-17.
66. Schirmer, P. M. & Axhausen, K. W. (2015). A multiscale classification of urban morphology. The Journal of Transportation and Land Use, 9(1), 101-130.
67. Schlüter, O. (1899) Über den Grundriß der Städte. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erkunde zu Berlin, 34, 446-462.
68. Schneider, A, Friedl, M. A. & Potere, D. (2010). Mapping global urban areas using MODIS 500-m data: New methods and datasets based on ‘urban ecoregions‘. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114, 1733–1746.
69. Sitte, C. (1889). Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen. Auflage: Reprint der 4. Auflage, Wien 1909 (1. September 2007). Wien: Birkhäuser.
70. Slack, B. (1993). Pawns in the game: ports in a global transportation system. Growth and Change, 24, 579-588.
71. Slater, T.R. (1981). The analysis of burgage patterns in medieval towns, Area, 13, 211-216.
72. Slater, T.R. (1992). Morphological Regions in English Medieval Towns, in J. W. R. Whitehand & P. J. Larkham (eds.), (1992) Ubran Landscapes: International Perspectives (pp. 43-68). London: Routledge.
73. Taaffe, E. J., Morrill, R. L. & Gould, P. R. (1963). Transport expansion in underdeveloped countries: a comparative analysis. Geographical Review, 53, 502-529.
74. Tian, Y. S. (田銀生) (2016, July 10). Urban management units and metabolism urban regeneration. Keynote Speech presented at the The 23rd International Seminar on Urban Form (ISUF 2016), Nanjing, China.
75. Trancik, R. (1986). Finding Lost Space: Theories of Urban Design. New York: John Willy& Sons, Inc.
76. Unwin, R. (1912). Nothing Gained by Overcrowding. London: P. S. King & Son.
77. van Oers, R. & Haraguchi, S. (eds.) (2010). Managing Historic Cities. UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
78. Vigarié, A. (1979). Ports de Commerce et Vie Littorale. Paris: Hachette Université.
79. Weigend, G. G. (1956). The Problem of Hinterland and Foreland as Illustrated by the Port of Hamburg. Economic Geography, 32(1), 1-16.
80. Weigend, G. G. (1958). Some elements in the study of port geography. Geographical Review, 48, 185-200.
81. Whitehand, J. W. R. & Morton, N. J. (2003). Fringe belts and the recycling of urban land: an academic concept and planning practice. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30, 819-839.
82. Whitehand, J. W. R. (2001). British urban morphology: the Conzenian tradition. Urban Morphology, 5(2), 103-109.
83. Whitehand, J. W. R. (2007). Conzenian Urban Morphology and Urban Landscapes, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul.
84. Whitehand, J. W. R. (2010). Urban morphology and historic urban landscapes, in Ron van Oers and Sachiko Haraguchi (eds.), (2010) Managing Historic Cities. UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
85. Wong, D. W. S. & Lee, J. (2005) Statistical Analysis of Geographic Information with ArcView GIS and ArcGIS. New Jersey: Wiley.
86. Wright, F. L. (1932). The Disappearing City. New York: William Farquhar Payson.
87. Wu, J. H. (吳濟華) (2002). Industries in Kaohsiung – From Agriculture, Heavy Chemistry to High Technology Industries. (kcgrdec-9601). Kaohsiung: Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Kaohsiung City Government.
88. Xie, P. F. & Gu, K. (2014). The changing urban morphology: Waterfront redevelopment and event tourism in New Zealand. Tourism Management Perspectives, 15, 105-114.
89. Ye, Y., & van Nes, A. (2014). Quantitative tools in urban morphology: combining space syntax, spacematrix, and mixed-used index in a GIS framework. Urban Morphology, 18(2), 97-118.
90. 江樹生(譯)(民88)。熱蘭遮城日誌(第一冊)(原作者：Blusse, J. L., M. E. van Opstall, Yung-ho Ts'ao, Shu-sheng Chiang, & W. Milde)。台南市：台南市政府(原著作出版年：1986)。
91. 吳連賞(民94)。高雄市港埠發展史。高雄市：高市文獻會。
92. 李文環(民102)，高雄歷史研究回顧及其相關空間論述的疑惑與討論，二十年來臺灣區域史的研究回顧學術研討會，中央研究院台史所。
93. 李永展(民84)，百年來高雄都市發展之變遷及未來展望，都市與計劃，22(1)，123-137。
94. 唐佩瑾、吳美美(民102)。從文獻回顧探究碩士論文創新書寫現象。圖書資訊學刊，39(2)，4-25。
95. 高雄市文獻委員會(民47)。高雄市志，港灣篇。高雄市：高雄市文獻委員會。
96. 高雄市政府(民74)。重修高雄市志。高雄市：高雄市文獻委員會。
97. 高雄市發展史編攥小組(民84)。高雄市發展史。高雄市：高雄市文獻委員會。
98. 高雄港務局(民64)。高雄港三十年志。高雄市：高雄港務局。
99. 張家菁(民85)。一個城市的誕生－花蓮市街的形成與發展。花蓮市：花蓮縣立文化中心。
100. 許淑娟(民94)。日治時代「新興高雄」的市街地發展。高市文獻，18(4)，1-28。
101. 陳文樟(民92)。港務局組織變革之探討—以高雄港為例，中國地方自治，56(9)，26-37。
102. 陳志宏(民105)。台灣離島永續都市形態之研究(I)。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告(編號：MOST 103-2621-M-006-012-)，未出版。
103. 黃耀能(民85)。續修高雄市志：工務志，都市計畫篇，國宅篇，卷六。高雄市：高雄市文獻委員會。
104. 葉振輝(民92)。高雄市的歷史與文化 – 從打狗到高雄。高雄市政府研究發展考核委員會委託研究計畫。(編號：kcgrdec-9110)。高雄市：高雄市政府研究發展考核委員會。
105. 劉碧珠(民105)。日治時期鐵道與港口開發對高雄市區規劃的影響。國史館館刊，47，1-46。
106. 潘慧玲(民92)。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊，11(1)，115-143。
107. 鄭春發(民101)。高雄港、市發展及互動模式之回顧與展望。高應科大人文社會科學學報，9(1)，139-173。
108. 鄭春發、鄭國泰(民97)。高雄海洋城市的發展機制之研究，臺北市立教育大學學報，39(1)，1-44。
109. 錢志純(民99)。理則學。新北市：輔仁大學出版社。
110. 謝濬澤(民100)。從打狗到高雄：日治時期高雄港的興築與管理(1895—1945)，臺灣文獻，62(2)，211-244。
111. 林宛萱(2015)。巨觀形態觀點之台灣都市邊緣帶類型研究。國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文，臺南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9qxr3k
112. 曾璟樺(2017)。以微觀形態觀點探討台灣港埠城市歷史成層之現象研究─以高雄舊港區為例。國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文，臺南市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/92w6xt
113. 黃士瑜(2006)。高雄市中洲地區的聚落空間構成分析。國立成功大學建築學系碩士論文，臺南市。取自http://hdl.handle.net/11296/c7c87f
114. 劉俊男(2007)。高雄旗津舊庄落之歷史變遷。國立台南大學台灣文化研究所碩士論文，臺南市。取自http://hdl.handle.net/11296/q3w385
115. 劉碧珠(2017)。日治時期高雄的港埠開發與市區規劃。國立成功大學建築學系博士論文，臺南市。取自http://hdl.handle.net/11296/8m2583
116. 蔡佳樺(2015)。戰後台灣都市型態演化現象之研究–以永和為例。國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文，臺南市。取自http://hdl.handle.net/11296/64pdx7
117. urbed (n.d.). Organic Cities. Retrieved April 2, 2018, from http://urbed.coop/projects/organic-cities.
118. 中央研究院人社中心地理資訊科學研究專題中心(1898)。日治兩萬五千分之一地形圖【地圖】。取自http://gissrv4.sinica.edu.tw/gis/kaohsiung.aspx#
119. 中央研究院人社中心地理資訊科學研究專題中心(1917)。打狗圖【地圖】。取自http://gissrv4.sinica.edu.tw/gis/kaohsiung.aspx#
120. 中央研究院人社中心地理資訊科學研究專題中心(1945)。日治修測二萬五千分之一地形圖【地圖】。取自http://gissrv4.sinica.edu.tw/gis/kaohsiung.aspx#
121. 中央研究院人社中心地理資訊科學研究專題中心(1970)。高雄市一千二百分之一都市計畫航測地形圖【地圖】。取自http://gissrv4.sinica.edu.tw/gis/kaohsiung.aspx#
122. 中央研究院人社中心地理資訊科學研究專題中心(1999)。高雄市一千二百分之一都市計畫航測地形圖【地圖】。取自http://gissrv4.sinica.edu.tw/gis/kaohsiung.aspx#
123. 內政部國土測繪中心(製圖者)(2014)。103年度國土利用調查成果【地圖】。取自https://whgis.nlsc.gov.tw/GisMap/NLSCGisMap.aspx
124. 內政部國土測繪中心(製圖者)(2016)。二千五百分之一通用版電子地圖【地圖】。取自http://easymap.land.moi.
125. 台灣港務股份有限公司(2018)。高雄港港區總圖。取自https://kh.twport.com.tw/chinese/cp.aspx?n=117813148B91AD20