近年來全球能源需求大幅上升，導致能源枯竭窘境，且台灣能源發展現況，由於自產能源相當有限，因此九成九是仰賴進口能源，屆時若是發生能源短缺問題，台灣必定是首當其衝；因此對於能源議題的關注早已滲透至各個領域，皆期望在各自領域上對於能源短缺等議題有所貢獻。而在都市計劃學界試圖由都市規劃即管理的角度，達到都市耗能最小化時，「緊湊都市」被認為不僅符合目前都市發展的趨勢，且對於都市節能的成效將會是最大的。
爰此，自從1989年有研究探討都市密度與能源之間如何相互影響之關係後，相關研究即陸陸續續出現，前期研究由於認為緊湊都市因為都市活動範圍的集中，有助於降低交通旅次數，因此皆提倡緊湊都市的發展；但後期部分學者認為，緊湊都市可能會造成都市過度擁擠、不良的鄰里效應、填鴨式的城鎮、剝削大量都市綠地以及健康問題等，因而開始從不同的角度來衡量緊湊都市之效益，進而發現，過度緊湊的都市發展，將造成其他都市問題的產生，不論是在空氣污染、時間成本，甚至是能源消耗量等等。
而本研究在探討緊湊都市特性對於都市耗能之影響時，特重於都市交通耗能部分，因此將深入解析各項都市緊湊特性如何影響都市旅運行為，再根據以往學者研究成果，以及本研究所額外加入的擁擠成本變數，繪製成緊湊都市特性耗、節能兩派理論分析圖，從中了解兩派理論衝突點以及尚未獲得證實的變數，對其提出研究假設後，蒐集現況旅次資料以及縣市緊湊都市特性資料，透過迴歸中的曲線估計模型，了解兩者間可能的影響趨勢。
實證結果發現，緊湊都市中的高密度特性，固然會減少總旅次長度，但同時過高的發展密度也會因引發交通擁擠現象，而導致行車速度下降、旅次時間以及尋車時間增加，反而增加都市耗能。而混合使用特性對於旅運特性上的影響，同樣主要在於旅次長度的減短上，其中，不論高密度或混合使用，對於大眾運輸比例影響皆不顯著，推測與台灣本身運具選擇偏好有關。
綜合以上，顯示當一都市要邁向真正緊湊且節能時，並不能只是一昧地增加緊湊度指標，更必須搭配交通型態的發展，因為當私人運具持有輛不變，都市卻變緊湊後，將會由於擁擠成本而導致交通耗能的增加，而都市之中又不能避免私人運具的存在，因此唯有在提倡大眾運具的情形下，維持最適之緊湊都市程度，使內部之私人運具，不致因塞車增加之耗能，超越了原先緊湊指標所發揮的節能作用，才能達到真正之「節能都市」。

Recently, because of the significant increase in global energy demand, causing the energy depletion predicament. And due to energy development and the status of Taiwan have limited indigenous energy, about 99% is dependent on foreign imports. If an energy shortage, Taiwan must bear the brunt. Concern for energy issues in various fields have already infiltrated. Hope for in their own respective fields to contribute to issues such as energy shortages. And in Urban Planning, they trying to use urban management policy to minimize the urban energy consumption.「Compact city」was recognized not only in line with current trends in urban development and the effectiveness of energy conservation for the city will be the largest.
Since 1989, a study of how the interaction between urban density and energy relationship pronounced, the related research that emerged one after another. As previous studies thought that the compact city can concentrate the urban activities to help reduce the times of the trip, so they promote compact city. But later scholars believe that compact city will result in overcrowding, poor neighborhood effects, the exploitation of a large number of urban green space and health problems.
This study investigated the characteristics of a compact city impact of energy consumption in the city, especially focus the traffic energy consumption. Therefore, it is important to figure out how the compact city influence on the urban trip features. Based on previous academic research and the additional cost of congestion variables, drawn the theoretical analysis chart. Collecting the urban trips data and its compact features, and using the curve estimation to know the relationship between them.
According to the result of the empirical analysis, we find that the high density will reduce the urban trip length. But high density development will also cause traffic congestion phenomenon, which led to decreased speed, trip time and the time that looking for car increases. Urban energy consumption actually increased. And the land mixed-use also can reduce the urban trip length. Whether high-density or mixed use, will not affect the proportion of public transport.
When a city that want to be compact and energy-saving, it can’tt just keep increasing the density or land mixed-use. We should also focus on the urban traffic pattern. We couldn’t avoid the existence of private vehicles, so we should promote public transportation. To maintain an appropriate level of compact, so we can achieve the true energy-saving city.

參考文獻
外文文獻
1.Balcombe, R. J. & York, I. O. (1993). The future of residential parking. London: Transport Research Laboratory.
2.BP.(2009). Statistical Review of World Energy 2009.UK：BP.
3.Breheny, M. (1994). The compact city and transport energy-consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20(1), p81-101.
4.Burton, E. (2000). The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11),p1969-2006.
5.Burton, E. (2002). Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. [Review]. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 29(2),p 219-250.
6.Burton, T. & Matson, L. (1996). Urban footprints:Making best use of urban land and resources-a rural perspective. In M. Jenks, E. Burton & K. Williams (Eds.), The compact city:a sustainable urban form?. London: E & FN Spon.
7. Barcelona :the urban evolution of a compact city Rovereto :Nicolodi Harvard University Graduate School of Design.
8.Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), p199-219.
9.Corbusier, L. (1933). The Radiant City. New York: Orion.
10.Dantzig, G. & Saaty, T. (1973). Compact city: a plan for a liveable urban environment: WH Freeman.
11.Division, O. U., Kilby, C. & Haughton, G. (1990). Environmental policies for cities in the 1990s. Paris: OECD.
12.Frank, L. D. & Pivo, G. (1994). Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation research record,1466 April, pp. 44–52.
13.Jenks, M., Burton, E. & Williams, K. (1996). The compact city：A sustainable urban form? London: E & FN Spon.
14.Levinson, D. M. & Gillen, D. (1998). The full cost of intercity highway transportation. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment, 3(4), p207-223.
15.Mindali, O., Raveh, A. & Salomon, I. (2004). Urban density and energy consumption: a new look at old statistics. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, 38(2),p143-162.
16.Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (1989). Cities and Automobile Dependence:An International Sourcebook. Aldershot, Hants., England: Avebury Technical .
17.Oke, T. R. (1973). City size and urban heat island. [Article]. Atmospheric Environment, 7(8),p 769-779.
18.Oke, T. R. (1982). The energetic basis of the urban heat-island. [Article]. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 108(455), p1-24.
19.Oke, T. R., Johnson, G. T., Steyn, D. G. & Watson, I. D. (1991). Simulation of surface urban heat islands under ideal conditions at night .2. diagnosis of causation. [Article]. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 56(4), p339-358.
20.Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Livada, I., Koronakis, I., Georgakis, C., Argiriou, A., et al. (2001). On the impact of urban climate on the energy consumption of buildings. [Article]. Solar Energy, 70(3), p201-216.
21.Shahmohamadi, P., Che-Ani, A. I., Ramly, A., Maulud, K. N. A. & Mohd-Nor, M. F. I. (2010). Reducing urban heat island effect : A systematic review to achieve energy consumption balance. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5(6), p626-636,.
22.Sharpe, R. (1982). Energy efficiency and equity of various urban land-use patterns. [Article]. Urban Ecology, 7(1), p1-18.
23.Stead, D. (2001). Relationships between land use, socioeconomic factors,and travel patterns in Britain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(4), p499-528.
24.Steemers, K. (2003). Energy and the city: density, buildings and transport. Energy and Buildings, 35(1),p 3-14.
25.Thinh, N. X., Arlt, G., Heber, B., Hennersdorf, J. & Lehmann, I. (2002). Evaluation of urban land-use structures with a view to sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22 (5), p475-492.
26.Thomas, L., & Cousins, W. (1996). The compact city:A successful, desirable and achievable urban form? In M. Jenks, E. Burton & K. Williams (Eds.), The compact city:A sustainable urban form? . London: E & FN Spon.
中文文獻
1.仇保興(2006)。緊湊度和多樣性--我國城市可持續發展的核心理念。城市規劃， 30卷11期，p18-24。
2.王敏順(2007)。摩天大樓對都市生態影響分析。第四屆台灣建築論壇-智慧化建築與生態城市，台北，p177-182。
3.李少甫(2002)。理想城市與緊湊城市：界線空間概念之評述。建築與規劃學報， 3卷2期，p74-89。
4.林彥光(2006)。都市型態與能源消費之關聯性研究-台灣地區實證分析。長榮大學土地管理與開發學系碩士班碩士論文。
5.林炯明(2010)。都市熱島效應之影響及其環境意涵。環境與生態學報，3卷1期，p1-15。
6.林國顯、蘇振維、鄭嘉盈、張瓊文、陳雅琴、王勤銓(2010)。行車成本調查分析與交通建設計畫經濟效益評估之推廣應用。臺北：交通部運輸研究所。
7.林楨家、楊恩捷(2006)。都市型態對旅運需求影響之結構化分析。運輸學刊，18卷4期，p391-416。
8.林憲德、張又升、歐文生、楊煦照、劉漢卿(2002)。台灣建材生產耗能與二氧化碳排放之解析。建築學報，40卷，p1-15。
9.凌瑞賢(2006)。運輸規劃原理與實務 (第二版)。臺北：鼎漢國際工程顧問股份有限公司。
10.財團法人工業技術研究院(2006)。車輛油耗指南-98年測試合格銷售車型。臺北：財團法人工業技術研究院。
11.張衛華、王煒、胡剛(2003)。基於低交通能源消耗的城市發展策略。公路交通科技，20卷1期。
12.郭子齊(2000)。都市土地使用型態對消費性旅次運具選擇行為之影響。國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士班碩士論文。
13.陳海燕、賈倍思(2006)。對中國城市在加速城市化進程中發展方向的思考。城市規劃，30卷5期，p61-69。
14.黃武昌(1980)。路邊停車對交通流量影響之模擬研究。新竹市：交通大學交研所。
15.黃國平、廖章鈞、洪慈佑(2005)。發展永續運具與不同層級高密精巧都市之動態關係分析。台南：國立成功大學交通管理科學系。
16.楊恩捷(2004)。緊密都市之永續性發展。臺北：國立台北大學都市計劃學系碩士班碩士論文。
17.葉光毅(2002)。高密精巧都市(Compact City)。都市地區地震防災交通系統之研究九十學年度期末研究成果研討會(附錄二)，p.281～284。
18.葉光毅，夏晧清，紀雲曜(2008)。交通延滯之學理類推與實際應用之簡介。全國災害危機處理學術研討會，台南。
19.葉光毅、夏晧清、謝旭昇(2010)。新世紀高密精巧都市（Compact City）的再考證-日本的實例介紹。2010聯合年會暨論文研討會，臺北。
20.葉光毅、黃幹忠、李泳龍(2003)。計畫方法論進階。台北：新文京開發。
21.鼎漢國際工程顧問股份有限公司(2003)。臺北都會區整體運輸規劃之研究（二）。臺北：鼎漢國際工程顧問股份有限公司。
22.蕭博正(2003)。台北市土地混合使用特性對旅運需求之影響。臺北：國立台北大學都市計劃學系碩士班碩士論文。