由於既有居住滿意度之「認知觀點」研究領域缺乏亞洲都市居民之認知模型研究成果，因此我們無從了解亞洲都市居民之居住環境品質評估架構有何特殊性。本研究目的在建立台北市居民於高密度與住商混合居住環境之品質認知模型。首先，本研究訪談16位住在高密度與住商混合居住環境的住戶關於他（她）們對居住環境品質的看法，並將訪談逐字稿進行內容分析，確立45個居住環境品質的關鍵概念。其次，本研究將此45個項目發展組成調查問卷，並經由分層比例抽樣隨機抽取出台北市80棟位在住商混合區的住宅建築；針對每一棟住宅建築隨機抽取3位住戶進行問卷調查，總計240位。最後，本研究問卷回收獲得的資料數據，以因素分析法（Factor Analysis, FA）擷取出住戶對評估其居住環境品質的主要量表尺與因子。分析結果顯示台北市居民的居住品質認知模型是多維度的，共由6個評估量尺（如都市計畫與設計、安全與社會關係、交通與商業設施、居住氣氛、環境健康、設施與管理）與其下共11個因子組成；此研究成果可供政府部門用以發展客觀量測台北市居住環境品質之評估指標。此外，相較於既有西方都市居民之居住環境品質認知模型，本研究發現台北市與其他五個歐美都市居民的居住環境品質認知模型在「構面」層級是相似的，皆包含空間、社會、機能與涵構等四個構面；惟台北市居民之認知模型在此四個構面下的部分「量尺」或「因子」有所差異，如「交通與商業設施」量尺，及「地面層通行」、「互助」、「不安感與壓迫感」等因子。本研究推測這些差異有可能是台北市獨特的高密度與住商混合的都市環境所致。

The objective of this study is to identify the internal evaluative structure with which Taipei City’s residents assess the quality of their residential environment in high-density and mixed-use settings. 16 residents were first interviewed and content analysis performed on interview typescripts to identify 45 key concepts of perceived residential environment quality. A questionnaire consisting of 45 corresponding items was further developed and the questionnaire survey administered to 240 residents randomly selected from 80 residential buildings in residential-commercial mixed-use zones. Factor Analysis (FA) was then conducted on the collected data sets to extract the major scales and factors of residents’ evaluative structure. The FA result reveals a multidimensional evaluative structure of residential environment quality perceived by Taipei City’s residents, which consists of six evaluation scales (i.e. Urban Planning and Design, Security and Social Relationship, Transportation and Commercial Services, Residential Atmosphere, Environmental Health, and Facility Management) with eleven underlying factors. Comparative analysis of this study and previous empirical studies shows that the evaluative structure of Taipei City’s residents is similar to those of other citizens at the ‘aspect’ level, consisting of spatial, human, functional, and contextual aspects; however, the evaluative structure is rather different in ‘scales or factors’ such as ground floor access, nnnmutual help, transportation and commercial services, sense of insecurity and pressure, possibly attributable to Taipei City’s unique high-density and mixed-use urban settings.

Amérigo, M. 2002. A psychological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. In: Aragones, J.I., Francescato, G., Gärling, T. (Eds.), Residential Environments: Choice Satisfaction and Behavior (pp.81-100). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey .
Amérigo, M., Aragones, J.I. 1997. A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol., 17, 47-57.
Amérigo, M., Aragones, J.I. 1990. Residential satisfaction in council housing. J. Environ. Psychol., 10, 313-325.
Aragones, J. I., Amérigo, M., Sukhwani, S. 1992. Las Influencias des Diseno de la Vivienda en la Conducta. Un Estudio de Viviendas Adjudicadas. Madrid: Universidad Complutense. (Report not published)
Bardo, J.W., Hughey, J.B. 1984. The structure of community satisfaction in a British and an American Community. J. Soc. Psychol., 124, 151-157.
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Bonnes, M. 2006. Perceived residential environment quality in middle- and low-extension Italian cities. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol., 56, 23-34.
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Bonnes, M. 2003. Index of perceived residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in urban environments: a confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landsc. Urban Plan., 65, 41-52.
Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., Ercolani, A.P. 1999. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment. J. Environ. Psychol., 19, 331-352.
Bonnes, M., Bonaiuto, M., Ercolani, A.P. 1991. Crowding and residential satisfaction in the urban environment: A contextual approach. Environ. Behav., 23, 531-552.
Canter, D. 1983. The purposive evaluation of places. Environ. Behav., 15, 659-698.
Canter, D. 1977. The Psychology of Place. London: Architectural Press.
Carp, F.M., Carp, A. 1982. Perceived environmental quality of neighborhood: development of assessment scales and their relation to age and gender. J. Environ. Psychol., 2, 245-312.
Crabtree, B.F., Miller, W.L. 1999. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Christensen, D.L., Carp, F.M. 1987. PEQI-based environmental predictors of the residential satisfaction of older women. J. Environ. Psychol., 7, 45-64.
Davis, E., Fine-Davis, M. 1980. Predictors of satisfaction with housing and neighborhood: A nationwide study in the Republic of Ireland. Soc. Indic. Res., 9, 477-494.
Filion, P., Mcspurren, K., and Huether, N. 2000. Synergy and movement within suburban mixed-use centers: the Toronto experience. J. Urban Aff., 22, 419-438.
Fransson, N., Gärling, T. 1999. Environmental concern: conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. J. Environ. Psychol., 19, 369-382.
Galster, G. 1987. Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: An empirical critique. Environ. Behav., 19, 539-568.
Galster, G., Hesser, G. 1981. Residential satisfaction: Compositional and contextual correlates. Environ. Behav., 13, 735-758.
Gomez-Jacinto, L. and Homebrados-Mendieta, I. 2002. Multiple effects of community and household crowding. J. Environ. Psychol., 22, 233-246.
Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of Great American cities. New York: Random House.
Leftridge, A., James, R.K. 1980. A study of perceptions of environmental issues of urban and rural high school students. J. Environ. Educ., 12, 3-7.
Liu, A.M. 1999. Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective. Autom. Constr., 8, 511-524.
Newman, S.J., Duncan, G.J. 1979. Residential problems, dissatisfaction and mobility. J. Am. Plan. Assoc., 45, 154-166.
Parkes, A., Kearns, A., Atkinson, R. 2002. What makes people dissatisfied with their neighborhoods? Urban Stud., 39, 2413-2438.
Potter, J., Cantarero, R. 2006. How does increasing population and diversity affect resident satisfaction? A small community case study. Environ. Behav., 38, 605-625.
Ricardo, G.M., Arce, C., Sabucedo, J.M. 1997. Perceived quality of neighborhoods in a city in northwest Spain: an individual differences scaling approach. J. Environ. Psychol., 17, 243-252.
Riesman, D. Some observations on the interviewing in the teacher apprehension study. In Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Wagner Jr, T. (eds) .1958. The Academic Mind: Social Scientists in a Time of Crisis. Free Press, Glencoe, IL
Savasdisara, T. 1988. Residents’ satisfaction and neighbourhood characteristics in Japanese urban communities. Landsc. Urban Plan., 15, 201-210.
Stokols, D. 1976. The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environ. Behav., 8, 49-86.
The WHOQOL Group 1998. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment: Development and general psychometric properties. Soc. Sci. Medicat., 46, 1569-1585.
Türkoğlu, H.D. 1997. Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landsc. Urban Plan., 39, 55-67.
United Nations 2005. World Population Prospect. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/unup/
van Poll, R. 1997. The perceived quality of the urban residential environment: A multi-attribute evaluation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Groningen, Netherlands. Retrieved April 10, 2005, from http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/science/1997/h.f.p.m.van.poll/.
Western, J.S., Weldon, P.D., Haung, T.T. 1974. Housing and satisfaction with environment in Singapore. J. Am. Inst. Plan., 40, 201-208.
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Zube, E.H., Vining, J., Law, C.S., Bechtel, R.B. 1985. Perceived urban residential quality: A cross-cultural bimodal study. Environ. Behav., 17, 327-350.