居民為都市生活之主體，因此，居住環境品質之衡量除必需以居民之主觀感受為出發點外，居住環境之客觀綜合評估亦是必需納入考量方是一完整之架構。過去相關研究之實證分析受限於技術之層面多未能將空間資訊納入整合考量，例如公共設施可及性，因此，評估結果實不甚完整，而地理資訊系統結合空間與屬性資料之綜合性分析，正是解決此類問題之強有力工具。 　　因此，本研究從居住者之角度出發，以主計處「台灣地區住宅狀況調查報告」中對住宅狀況之抽樣調查為主，結合地理資訊系統對鄰里環境之評估，涵蓋主客觀因素建立居住環境品質指標，進行台北市居住實質環境之評估工作，期使評估結果能作為政府住宅政策之擬訂及住宅資源分配之參考；並以評估結果與房價及居民居住滿意度做交叉分析，以作為改善或提昇居住環境品質之方向。 　　居住環境品質評估之結果，各樣本里之品質分數差距不大。整體而言，以松山區及中山區樣本里居住環境品質較佳，而以南港區樣本里居住環境品質較差。 　　居住環境品質、房價與居民居住滿意度之交叉分析結果：在高房價地區，居住環境品質與居民居住滿意度兩者間有較高之一致性；在低房價地區，居住環境品質與居民居住滿意度兩者間之關係則較不明顯。

在都市發展環境當中，居住環境品質取決於居住者本身之感受程度，可分為內部環境及外部空間結構，內部環境係指針對居住者本身所在的生活圈裡，外部空間結構則多半為公共設施的鄰近程度、交通便利性及嫌惡設施等因素，世界衛生組織曾於1961年世界衛生報告中提出理想居住環境為安全性、健康性、便利性、舒適性等基本理念，經由探索性、驗證性因素，分析彙整出解釋社區居民對居住環境品質之衡量著力點在於實體性、社區服務與管理、現代化等三大方面，因此居民感受度是與前開四種基本理念相呼應的。 在針對居住環境品質與社區滿意度相關文獻探討後發現，居住環境品質多與社區滿意度有關聯，顯示在建構生活品質模式應先將領域分群，透過客觀、認知及評估因子，即可呈現各領域的滿意度。 為解決公共設施保留地取得、歷史建築物保存及公共開放空間之提供等議題，我國開始實施容積移轉制度，主要目的為追求環境寧適、健全實質建設、保留彈性立法規則及民眾參與，惟接受基地在注入原基準容積後，其鄰近居民之居住環境品質是否受到影響及衝擊，為本研究所關注之重點；本研究係探討容積移轉制度實行迄今，接受基地容積移轉案件在興建完成後，對週邊土地所帶來之影響。 本研究以容積移轉接受基地興建前後對居住環境品質之問卷調查，以新北市中和地區之接受基地周邊住民作為受訪對象，以因素分析、結構方程模式為分析方法，以五大變數－接受基地興建前既有環境滿意度、接受基地興建後正面環境改善、接受基地興建後負面改變影響、容積移轉政策修正建議及其政策滿意度進行模式驗證；研究結果發現既有環境滿意度對負面改變影響、政策修正建議呈正向影響，對正面環境改善、政策滿意度呈負向影響，另負面改變影響、政策修正建議則具有著之中介效果，該研究可作為未來推動容積移轉制度辦理之修正建議。 / In the urban development environment, living environment quality depends on how residents feel. It can be divided into internal and external spatial structure environments. The internal environment refers to living areas where the residents themselves reside; the external spatial structures are mostly the proximity, accessibility and distaste factors of public facilities. The World Health Organization’s 1961 World Health Report proposed the basic concept of the ideal living environment for safety, health, convenience, comfort, etc. They compiled an analysis of the environmental community to explain the measure of the quality of living through exploratory, confirmatory factors. The analysis compiled an explanation of the way community residents measure environmental quality. The focal point lies in the three aspects of modernization: physical properties, community service and management. Therefore residents' susceptibility echoes the former four basic philosophies. In regards to the quality of living environment and community satisfaction, after disscussing relevant literature, we found that the quality of living environment correlate with community satisfaction interaction. This shows that during the construction of life quality models, domain clustering should first take place, then go through the analysis of objective factors, perceived factors, evaluated factors before presenting various domains of satisfaction. However, to address topics on land reserved for the public infrastructure, topics on historical building preservation and public open space topics, Taiwan began to implement transferable development rights control. The main goal of this system was to pursue environmental quality, improve substantive construction, maintain the flexibility of legislative rules and promote public participation. However, the main concern of this study is whether or not the environmental living quality of nearby residents' was affected after the development rights of the receiving area received incremental development rights and built high-rise buildings. This study mainly dicusses ways to implement the so far accepted transferable development rights case after construction is complete, and the effects brought on by the surrounding land. This study looks at environmental quality before and after transferable development rights acceptance and construction. A questionnaire was designed for this study and was administered to local residents of the Zhong-he, New Taipei City development rights receiving area as target respondents. This study was conducted by way of factor analysis and structural equation modeling analysis. Five variables were proposed, which are variables of nearby residents of the development rights receiving area regarding environmental satisfaction before construction; variables of nearby residents having positive evaluation after construction; variables of nearby residents having negative evaluation after construction; variables of nearby residents regarding transferable development rights policy amendment; variables of nearby residents regarding transferable development rights policy satisfaction, to conduct a model confirmatory. The results show that environmental satisfaction variables have a positive impact on negative evaluation variables and policy amendment variables, but have a negative impact on positive evaluation variables and policy satisfaction. In addition, negative evaluation variables have indirect effects on policy amendments. This study can be used as a reference for the implementation of the transferable development rights system in handling amendments in the future.