本文係由法制觀點切入，探討空間規劃理論於台灣發展情形之研究，論述上，所採取的係理論、政策(理念與實踐)及個案之三階段論法，嗣後乃據以提出結論以及有關都市計畫法的修法方向建議。 申言之，撰者首先嘗試從「修法時代背景的演繹推論」、「規劃實務操作特性的研究歸納」以及「法制內容的釐析」等三個面向來作探討，認為都市計畫法內含的規劃理論範型即是60年代以前流行於歐美等工業先國的理性規劃論，並指出其於資本主義、民主制度的政經脈絡中的不適性，進而構築本文所強調的規劃理性基礎─溝通參與及其內含的「正當性」與「合理性」理由。其次，用以推論典範遞移的「異例」之所在，即係於解嚴後台灣政治權力再結構的特定歷史時勢中問世的「市民主義」，以及「台北市地區環境改造計畫」，也就是說將整個政策的論述出線過程及其實踐經驗本身，作為說明「規劃理論思潮係植基於社會主體的歷史性變遷」此一觀點中，正在歷史性浮現之新社會主體的現實考察，而這也就是規劃範型演替之所繫的社會基礎所在。最後，進一步以88年度地區環境改造計畫提案之一的剝皮寮個案，透過個案裡專業者和社區在保存運動中提出替代性發展方案的過程與共識性結論，來反襯出現行都市計畫在內容與規劃模式上的侷限性，並據以提出賦權機制等強化溝通參與作用之發揮的制度性建議。

自一九八Ο年代威權體制開始解體以來，臺灣的公民教育已然進入另一個新的蛻變階段，而其所賦予的積極意義，乃在於反映並凸顯出對以往整體公民教育的價值取向、概念論述、典範遞移、課程內涵、以及課程決定等有關問題面向所作的一種審視與反思，從而標舉一個能以「公民社會」理念作為建構總體教育目標時代的正式來臨。影響所及，值此一轉變關鍵的時刻，國人如何循由對「政治民主化、經濟自由化、社會多元化、文化本土化、以及意識主體化」等五大價值取向的認知與涵養，結合民主教育、法治教育、倫理道德教育、以及生活教育等四大核心課程內涵的深化與落實，並在致力於涵蘊「公民社會」為其學科典範遞移最高指標的同時，能進一步以強調「差異的（或多元的）公民資格觀」的概念論述及推動「公民參與」的課程決定方式，藉以充實及強化公民教育的運作機制和功能，業已成為今後公民教育責無旁貸的重要發展趨勢所在。 關鍵詞：公民教育、公民社會、價值取向、課程內涵、概念論述、典範遞移、 課程決定、公民資格、科際整合、顯著課程。 / Since the authoritarian system was began to fall apart during 1980’s in R.O.C.（Taiwan）, civic education at school has gone into an another new transformation stage and bestowed a progressive meaning too, it is so necessary as to make a review and self-examination that reflect or manifest the totality of problem dimensions about value orientation, conceptual discourse, paradigm shift, curriculum content, and curriculum decision-making for the past. Thus much to construct and mark a period of “civil society” concept of the macro educational goal is coming formally. Due to the impact, especially it happened just changing time, we need how to recognize and nourish the five value orientations of “democratization to politics, freedom to economics, plural to societies, localization to culture, and subjectivity to conscious”. Combine with the four codes of curriculum content about democracy of education, law-related education, ethics and moral education, and experiential education that must be deepened and practiced for the citizens. At the same time, it also devoted to cherish the conceptual of “civil society” to be the highest characteristic of a paradigm shift of the civic education course. Moreover, it is obliged to emphasize the “differential or plural citizenship” and push the curriculum decision-making model of the “civic participation” that its operational machinery and functions could be fulfilled and competent. In summary, there is no passing buck to these important developmental tendencies of civic education in the changing future. Key Words: civic education, civil society, value orientation, curriculum content,conceptual discourse, paradigm shift, curriculum decision-making,citizenship, interdisciplinary integration, evident curriculum.