土地使用分區管制（Zoning）之概念自引入以來，便作為臺灣都市計畫之核心精神運作至今，細部計畫為具有法定約束力之實質計畫，扮演落實空間發展重要角色。然而實際土地使用發展與土地使用計畫之種種落差，顯示出細部計畫的執行成效是讓人質疑的。在國內住宅區普遍混合使用之情形下，某些不相容土地使用已對於居住品質造成負面影響，顯然土地使用分區管制對於土地使用控管之效用亦已出現問題。本研究嘗試以一致性觀點建立掌握土地使用計畫與其產出之評估方法，以虎尾寮重劃區之住宅區土地使用為案例，藉由回顧計畫文本及訪談計畫相關規劃人員釐清其計畫發展沿革以及導致計畫變更之緣由，再運用空間自相關分析及空間迴歸分析方法，檢視土地使用計畫與現況發展落差之分佈情形以及造成落差現象之潛在影響因素，分析結果顯示落差現象空間分佈存在有聚集之特性，並且該聚集現象明顯與鄰近效應相關。本研究最後針對於計畫評估結果可能之應用進行討論，並提出改善規劃效用之建議。

Zoning has played the central role in urban planning in Taiwan since it was first introduced. Among different plans, Detailed Plans (細部計畫) are the land use plans with regulatory power to put spatial development ideas into practices. However, the huge gap between the zoning and on-the-ground land use entails the ineffectiveness of plan implementation in Taiwan. Mixed land uses in residential zoning are appeared everywhere and some incompatible uses could jeopardize the living quality and put the effectiveness of zoning in land use control in question. This research puts an effort on constructing an evaluation framework for assessing plan implementation and taking a conformance-based approach to the evaluation of the effect of zoning in a case study neighborhood Huweiliao. A mixed methods approach is taken, including archival research, document analyses, interviews, and spatial analyses. Qualitative analyses were taken to understand how plans work and what drives plans changed. GIS spatial analyses, including spatial autocorrelation and spatial regression analysis methods, are applied on the nonconformity of the land use in residential zoning and the factors on zoning and land use mismatched. The results show that the spatial distribution of nonconformity performs with a tendency of clusters and which is probably occurred mainly correlated with the proximity effect. This research also discusses possible applications of this evaluation results and offered some suggestions for improving planning effectiveness.

王炯堯（民101)。住商混合使用對居民生活品質之影響研究--以臺南市東區為例--（碩士論文）。國立成功大學。
呂宗盈、林建元（民91)。由制度面探討臺灣土地使用管理制度變遷之研究。建築與規劃學報，3(2)，136–159。
林森田、洪維廷（民93)。代理結構與制度執行：以臺灣土地使用分區制度執行為例。公共行政學報，11，77–107。
徐世勳、張靜貞、楊子江、李篤華、林幸君（民96）。臺灣SARS疫情經濟影響的事後分析。臺灣經濟預測與政策，38(1)，1–34。
張元杰、史欽泰、簡文強、蘇千豪（2009）。國家型研發計畫評估與政策管理：以研發國際化的觀點。管理與系統，16(1)，25–51。
張剛維（民97）。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（博士論文）。國立政治大學。
張曜麟（民94)。都市土地使用變遷之研究（博士論文）。國立成功大學。
許戎聰、黃健二（民91)。住宅區相容性土地混合使用評估指標之研就－以臺北市大安區與萬華區為例。技術學刊，16(1)，27-36。
許智宏（民95)。都市混合土地使用形態及其影響因素之研究 —以臺南市為例（碩士論文）。國立成功大學。
陳進昌（民100）。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仔寮重劃區為例（碩士論文）。國立成功大學。
彭若涵（民99)。土地的使用管制與形式管制比較研究（碩士論文）。國立成功大學。
彭錦鵬（民102）。我國中長程個案計畫評估審議機制之探討。公共治理季刊，1(2)，28–44。
黃南淵、何芳子（民76)。臺北市實施土地使用分區管制之檢討-對策及其影響。中日都市規劃研討會，107–142。
黃書偉（民97）。土地混合使用空間型態量測與其影響因素之研究（博士論文）。國立成功大學。
楊舒晶（民101)。臺南市住商混合使用特質之研究－以孔廟文化園區、竹篙厝重劃區、虎尾寮重劃區為例（碩士論文）。國立成功大學
劉勝勳（民91)。臺灣土地使用及開發系統回顧與檢討—都市計畫、都市設計、建築管理之定位與整合—（碩士論文）。國立成功大學。
蔡佩璇（民98)。土地使用分區管制對都市土地使用變遷之影響（碩士論文）。國立成功大學。
賴世剛、陳志閣（民95）。分區管制對台北都會區土地使用變遷的影響： 一電腦模擬。台灣土地研究，9(1)，1–31。

Alexander, E. R., Alterman, R., &Law-Yone, H. (1983). Evaluating plan implementation, national urban system in Israel. Progress in Planning, 20(April), 97–172.
Alexander, E. & Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and Plan Implementation: Notes on Evaluation Criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1068/b160127
Alexander, E. (2009). Dilemmas in Evaluating Planning, or Back to Basics: What is Planning For? Planning Theory & Practice, 10(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350902884177
Alterman, R., & Hill, M. (1978). Implementation of Urban Land Use Plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44(3), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367808976905
Anselin, L. (2005). Exploring Spatial Data with GeoDa: A Workbook. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science. https://doi.org/http://www.csiss.org/
Barrett, S., &Hill, M. (1984). Policy, Bargaining and Structure in Implementation Theory: Towards an Integrated Perspective. Policy & Politics, 12(3), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557384782628291
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. https://doi.org/10.1068/b31166
Brody, S. D., Highfield, W. E., & Thornton, S. (2006). Planning at the urban fringe : an examination of the factors influencing nonconforming development patterns in southern Florida. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1068/b31093
Burby, R. J., May, P. J., & Paterson, R. C. (1998). Improving compliance with regulations: Choices and outcomes for local government. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808975989
Cousins, J. B., Goh, S. C., Elliott, C., Aubry, T., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Government and voluntary sector differences in organizational capacity to do and use evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 44, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.12.001
Dalton, L. C., &Burby, R. J. (1994). Mandates, Plans, and Planners: Building Local Commitment to Development Management. Journal of the American Planning Association. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(4), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975604
Dalton, L. C., Conover, M., Rudholm, G., Tsuda, R., Baer, W. C., & Dalton, L. C. (1989). Implementation in California The Limits of Regulation Evidence from Local. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368908976015
Daniere, A. G. (1995). Transportation planning and implementation in cities of the Third World: the case of Bangkok. Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy, 13(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1068/c130025
Faludi, A. (2000). The Performance of Spatial Planning. Planning Practice & Research, 15(4), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/713691907
Faludi, A. (2006). Evaluating Plans : The Application of the European Spatial Development Perspective. In E. R. Alexander (Ed.), Evaluation in Planning: Evolution and Prospects (pp. 119–143). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation
Filion, P. (1996). Metropolitan planning objectives and implementation constraints: Planning in a post-Fordist and postmodern age. Environment and Planning A, 28(9), 1637–1660. https://doi.org/10.1068/a281637
Gilg, A. W., &Kelly, M. P. (1997). The delivery of planning policy in Great Britain: Explaining the implementation gap. New evidence from a case study in rural England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 15(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1068/c150019
Guyadeen, D., & Seasons, M. (2015). Plan Evaluation: Challenges and Directions for Future Research. Planning Practice & Research, 7459(April), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1081335
Healey, P., & Mcnamara, P. (1984). The limitations of development control data in planning research: A Comment on Ian Brotherton’s Recent Study. The Town Planning Review, 55(1), 91–101.
Laurian, L., Crawford, J., & Kouwenhoven, P. (2010). Evaluating the outcomes of plans : theory , practice , and methodology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1068/b35051
Laurian, L., Day, M., Backhurst, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., … Chapman, S. (2004). What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(4), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964056042000243230
Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2015). Local plan implementation: assessing conformance and influence of local plans in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(2), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515604071
Norton, R. K. (2005). More and Better Local Planning: State-Mandated Local Planning in Coastal North Carolina. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976405
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412210364589
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2011). Bridging the gap between planning evaluation and programme evaluation: The contribution of the PPR methodology. Evaluation, 17(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389011411686
Rohe, W. M. (2009). From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360902751077
Talen, E. (1996a). Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 10(3), 248–259.
Talen, E. (1996b). After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16, 79–91.
Talen, E., Anselin, L., Lee, S., & Koschinsky, J. (2016). Landscape and Urban Planning Looking for logic : The zoning — land use mismatch. Landscape and Urban Planning, 152, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.002
Talen, E. (1997). Success, failure, and conformance: an alternative approach to planning evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 573–587.
Talen, E. (2010). The Spatial Logic of Parks. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502335
Talen, E. (2012). City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form. Island Press.
Talen, E., Anselin, L., Lee, S., &Koschinsky, J. (2016). Landscape and Urban Planning Looking for logic : The zoning — land use mismatch. Landscape and Urban Planning, 152, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.002