English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 94487/125002 (76%)
Visitors : 29715975      Online Users : 217
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/99629


    Title: 臺北市住宅基地規模與開發強度 之影響因素
    The Determinants of The Site Size and Density of Buildings in Taipei
    Authors: 林孝恩
    Lin, Siao En
    Contributors: 林子欽
    Lin, Tzu Chin
    林孝恩
    Lin, Siao En
    Keywords: 土地整合
    產權型態
    基地規模
    開發強度
    Land Assembly
    Property Right
    Site Size
    Building Density
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-08-03 10:21:36 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 住宅開發型態之決定,除考量住宅市場的需求外,尚需考量土地市場的供給。在臺北市單筆土地面積偏小之情況下,開發者若欲進行開發,整合土地之能力將成為影響開發規模之重要因素。然而,土地之產權型態、地主行為及偏好等因素,將影響開發者的整合成本。開發者往往因基地面積之限制而變更設計,甚或放棄開發。再者,影響住宅供給之重要因素除基地面積外,亦與開發強度息息相關。因此,在土地稀少、產權複雜或地價較高之地區,開發者應會增加單位土地的資本投入量以實現規模經濟。此外,在現行法規下,開發案若符合特定標準,即可申請政策性容積獎勵,使開發強度得以超過法定容積率之限制,進而影響最終之住宅開發型態與供給數量。為印證以上之推論,本研究以臺北市民國83年至104年第三種住宅區新建住宅之使用執造為基礎,建立開發個案之資料庫。先以敘述統計及地域型空間自相關分析開發型態,結果顯示:臺北市各行政區住宅開發型態各異,且產生空間聚集之情況。整體來看,市區主要為小基地、高容積之開發型態;而郊區開發量體較大,且偏向大基地、低容積之開發型態。
    再者,本研究以多元線性迴歸模型探討影響基地面積與實際容積率之因素。實證結果顯示:影響住宅基地規模之關鍵為產權條件與整合因素,且市場中的確出現土地與資本替代的情形;而政策性容積獎勵增加了替代之彈性,亦可能降低土地整合之需要。此外,為了更深入了解產權條件與開發型態間之關聯,本研究進一步將臺北市十二個行政區劃分為原單筆土地面積較小之「產權複雜區」及原單筆土地面積較大之「產權單純區」,與實際開發案之土地筆數、面積及實際容積率進行交叉分析。結果指出:相對於產權單純之地區,產權複雜地區的開發土地面積較小,且開發者將更加強土地利用之強度,使建案呈現小基地、高容積之垂直發展型態。本研究之實證結果可以印證:產權複雜增加土地整合之成本,因此開發者需透過加強土地利用,增加經濟樓高,以達土地使用之規模經濟。而若欲擴大資本開發規模,與其進行成本較高之土地整合,開發者將傾向申請政策性容積獎勵。
    The pattern of housing development is decided by the needs of the housing market, as well as the supply of land. The plots in Taipei are overall small in size. Thus for developers, land assembly is an important factor that affects the development scale. Property rights, landlord behavior and preferences will affect the cost of land assembly, and force the developers to change design or even give up development due to the constraint of building sites size. Furthermore, important factors of the housing supply not only include the size of building sites, but also the building density. In areas where the land supply is inelastic, land prices tend to be high or property rights are complex, developers will therefore need to increase the amount of capital investment per unit of land in order to achieve economies of scale. In addition, if development projects meet certain requirements, developers can apply for floor area bonus that enable the building density to exceed the original legal limit of the floor-to-site ratio, thereby affecting the development patterns and the amount of housing supply. To verify these arguments, this study established a database of housing projects based on residential usage licenses from 1994 to 2015, and then used descriptive statistics and local spatial autocorrelation statistics to analyze housing development patterns. Results showed that development patterns varied from district to district and presented spatial clustering. On the whole, the site size was small and the building density was high in downtown area. In contrast the site size in the suburbs was relatively big, the building density was comparatively low and the amount of development was large.
    Furthermore, this study used regression models to explore factors affecting the size of building sites and the building density. The results showed that the key factors affecting the size of building sites were property rights and land assembly. Moreover, substitution between land and capital does occur. Nevertheless, floor area bonus increased the elasticity of substitution, and sometimes also reduced the incentive for land assembly. In order to better understand the correlation between property rights and development patterns, this study divided the twelve administrative districts of Taipei into "complex property areas" where individual plots were small, and "simple property areas" where individual plots were big, then analyzed the site size, number of land parcels and building density. The results pointed out that compared with the "simple property area", the site size was relatively small in the "complex property area", and developers would raise the intensity of land use. In consequence, buildings in "complex property area" tended to be on small sites with high density. The empirical results of this study suggested that complex property rights increased the cost of land assembly, and that led developers to increase the building density in order to achieve economies of scale of land use. However, if developers wish to create more floor areas, they tended to apply for floor area bonus rather than choose the costly land assembly.
    Reference: 中文參考文獻
    1.行政院主計總處,2015,「國民幸福指數年報」。
    2.林森田,2013,「土地經濟學」,臺北:巨流政大書城。
    3.林左裕,2010,「不動產投資管理」,臺北:智勝文化。
    4.林祖嘉,2000,「住宅生產函數與要素替代彈性:CES與VES之比較」,『住宅學報』,9(1):49-60。
    5.金家禾,2001,「兩岸土地開發制度與城市競爭力關係之探討」,『臺灣土地研究』,2:73-100。
    6.吳佳儒,2015,「鳥籠高樓–由土地供給角度論臺北市住宅開發型態變化」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    7.財團法人國土規劃及不動產資訊中心,2007,「臺北市容積檢討與容積調整機制之建立案」,臺北市政府委託研究。
    8.財團法人國土規劃及不動產資訊中心,2010,「容積移轉制度─容積銀行操作機制可行性研究」,臺北市政府委託研究。
    9.許佩漩,2007,「台灣都市蔓延之影響因素分析」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    10.翁維泰,2010,「捷運系統開發對土地使用與價值之影響:以可及性分析為基礎」,國立臺北大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文:台北。
    11.溫在弘,2015,「空間分析:方法與應用」,臺北:雙葉書廊。
    12.黃克明,2015,「以效用理論評比住宅投資案之研究」,『營建管理季刊』,102:33-50。
    13.黃鈺雯,2011,「以區位可及性與區位的市場需求訂定容積率」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    14.黃方欣,2013,「反共有財是悲劇嗎?—土地產權的實證結果」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    15.曾禹瑄,2015,「土地開發的產權僵局─以松山二期重劃區為例」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    16.鄒克萬、張曜麟,2000,「一個機率性土地發展分析模式」,『台灣土地科學學報』,1:51-66。
    17.劉小蘭、高平洲,2000,「容積獎勵對都市發展影響之研究─以臺北市為例」,『2000年中華民國住宅學會第九屆學會論文集』。
    18.蔡友翔,2011,「都市內部建築物重開發之影響因素-以臺北市為例」,國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    19.邊泰明,1993,「土地使用分區大規模土地開發效果分析」,『土地經濟年刊』,4:131-150。
    20.羅浚杰,2008,「以賽局理論探討民間土地整合開發之地主拿翹行為」,國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士論文:台北。
    外文參考文獻
    1.Adams, D. C., Hutchison, N., 2000, “The Urban Task Force Report: Reviewing Land Ownership Constraints to Brownfield Redevelopment”, Regional Studies, 34(8):777-792.
    2.Alonso, W., 1964, Location and Land Use, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    3.Anselin, L. ,1995, “Local Indicator of Spatial Association-LISA”, Geographical Analysis, 27(2): 93-115.
    4.Asami, Y, 1987, “A Game-theoretic Approach to the Division of Profits from Economic Land Development”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 18(2):233-46.
    5.Asami, Y.and Gao, X, 2002, “Mini Detached Houses on Small Lots In Metropolitan Areas In Japan ”, Forum on Urbanizing World and UN Human Habitat II:179-200.
    6.Ball, M., 2003,“Markets and the Structure of the Housebuilding Industry: An International Perspective” , Urban Studies, 40:897–916.
    7.Barlowe, R., 1986, Land Resource Economics: The Economics of Real Estate, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    8.Bertaud, A., 2010, Land Markets, Government Interventions, and Housing Affordability, Wolfensohn Center for Development at Brookings.
    9.Brownstone, D., and De Vany, A., 1991,“Zoning, Returns to Scale, and the Value of Undeveloped land”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 699-704.
    10.Buchanan, J. M., 1972,“Politics, Property, and the Law: An Alternative Interpretation of Miller et al. v. Schoene”, Journal of Law and Economics, 15(2):439-452.
    11.Chau, K. W., Wong, S. K., Yau, Y., and Yeung, A. K. C., 2007, “Determining Optimal Building Height”, Urban Studies, 44(3): 591-607.
    12.Colwell,P. F.and Sirmans, C. F., 1978,“Area, Time, Centrality and the Value of Urban Land”, Land Economics, 54(4): 514-519.
    13.Colwell, P. F.and Scheu, T., 1989, “Optimal Lot Size and Configuration”. Journal of Urban Economics, 26(1):90-109.
    14.Colwell, P. F.and Munneke, H. J., 1997,“The Structure of Urban Land Prices”, Journal of Urban Economics, 41(3):321-336.
    15.Eckart, W., 1985, “On the Land Assembly Problm”, Journal of Urban Economics, 18: 364-78.
    16.Gao, X.and Asami, Y., 2007, “Influence of Lot Size and Shape on Redevelopment Projects”, Land Use Policy, 24(1):212-222.
    17.Getis, A.and Ord, J. K., 1992, “The Analysis of Spatial Association by the Use of Distance Statistic”, Geographical Analysis, 24:189-206.
    18.Heller, M. A.,1998, “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx toMarkets”, Harvard Law Review, 111(3):621-688.
    19.Heller, M.and Hills, R., 2008, “Land Assembly Districts”, Harvard Law Review, 121(6):1465-1527.
    20.Imrie, R.and Thomas, H., 1993, “The Limits of Property-led Regeneration”, Environment and Planning C, 11: 87-102.
    21.Lin, T. C.and Evans, A., 2000, “The Relationship Between the Price of Land and Size of Plot When Plots Are Small”, Land Economics,76(3):386-394.
    22.Louw, E., 2008, “Land Assembly for Urban Transformation: The Case of‘s-Hertogenbosch in The Netherlands”, Land Use Policy, 25(1):69-80.
    23.Meen, G. P., 1995, “Cycles in Trends in UK Housing.” Discussion Papers in Urban and Regional Econonics, 114, University of Reading, Department of Economics.
    24.Muth R, 1969, Cities and Housing, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    25.Nelson, A. C.and Lang, R. , 2007, “The Next 100 Million”, American Planning Association.
    26.Shoup, D.C., 2008, “Graduated Density Zoning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2):161-179.
    27.Tabuchi, Takatoshi., 1996, “Quantity Premia in Real Property Markets”, Land Economics,72(2) : 206-217.
    28.Tobler, W. R., 1970, “A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region”, Economics Geography, 46:234-240.
    29.Upton, G. J. G.and Fingleton B., 1985, “Spatial Data Analysis by Example. Vol.1: Point Pattern and Quantitative Data”, New York Chichester: Wiley.
    30.White, H., 1980, “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and A Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity”. Econometrica , 48:817-838.
    31.Wider, M.G., 1985, “Site and Situation Determinants of Land Use Change: an Empirical Example”, EconomicGeography, 61(4):332-44.
    32.Wong, D. W. S.and Lee. J, 2005, Spatial Analysis of Geographic Information With ArcView GIS and ArcGIS, UK: John Wiley &Sons, INC.
    33.Żelazowski, Konrad, 2015, “Optimal Height Of Land Development–An Economic Perspective. ”, Real Estate Management and Valuation, 23(1): 15-23.
    網頁參考文獻
    1.陳宥臻,2014年09月05日,「小基地鳥籠建案北市增多」,中時電子報,2015年8月30日。
    http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20140905000565-260110
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政學系
    102257021
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1022570211
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[地政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    021101.pdf3066KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback