English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 97106/127750 (76%)
Visitors : 33224295      Online Users : 165
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/140.119/101170


    Title: 影響臺北市住宅供給之因素探討 -土地細碎與開發政策的觀點
    A Study of the Factors that Influence Housing Supply in Taipei –The Perspectives of Land Fragmentation and Land Development Policy
    Authors: 周昱賢
    Chou, Yu Hsien
    Contributors: 林子欽
    林士淵

    Lin, Tzu Chin
    Lin, Shih Yuan

    周昱賢
    Chou, Yu Hsien
    Keywords: 住宅供給
    不動產僵局
    土地面積
    土地產權
    空間迴歸模型
    Housing supply
    Gridlock of real estate
    Lot size
    Land property
    Spatial regression
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-09-02 00:51:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 過去一般認為,土地供給是固定不變,故價格彈性為零。這樣的思考方式背後隱含需求面才是不動產市場的主導力量,因此土地供給面往往被忽略。不動產僵局的議題近年來不斷出現在世界各國,臺灣社會也不例外。由此觀之,都市住宅供給過程中,似乎不完全由市場需求面主導,尤其都市進入成熟發展階段後,土地供給面的重要程度更應該被突顯。故本研究從供給角度出發,並認為土地面積和產權在都市住宅供給過程中,可能扮演關鍵的角色。透過本研究提出之二維向度分析,也確實發現開發難度和住宅區開發量間存在一定的負向關係,為後續迴歸分析的立論基礎。市場力量或政府力量是否能克服基地面積過小和產權複雜問題,亦是本研究關注之重點。
    利用臺北市民國94年到103年的使用執照和拆除執照,以里為分析單元,計算臺北市各里住宅區的樓地板面積淨增加率,並觀察其在空間上之高低分布。影響樓地板面積淨增加率的因素除包含土地面積和產權因素,亦應包括總體因素,區位與政策因素。一般迴歸模型和空間迴歸模型之實證結果顯示:各里中住宅供給多寡主要受到總體因素影響。此外,劃定都市更新地區之政策亦具有吸引建築投資之效果。然而土地面積並非是影響住宅供給之關鍵因素。但本研究進一步發現,在相同條件之下,產權單純對於住宅開發供給多寡的差異,因臺北市區位而有不同,住宅開發供給量由多至少依序為早期發展區、郊區和市中心。且在早期發展地區,產權越複雜的里比起產權較單純的里,住宅供給確實有較少的趨勢,顯示土地產權仍然在臺北市部分地區,造成開發上的問題。
    It is understood that land supply is fixed and the price elasticity is zero, which implies that the side of demand is the dominant force in the real estate market. Because of this the supply side of land is often ignored. The issues of gridlock of real estate development are emerging in recent years worldwide, and Taiwan is no exception. In these instances the market does not seem entirely dominated by demand in the process of housing supply. Especially in cities which have entered a mature stage of development, the importance of land supply should be highlighted. This study is taking the perspective of supply and considering that lot size and land property key roles in the process of housing supply. Throughout this study, we proposed a two-dimensional analysis and indeed found that there was a negative relationship between development difficulty and the amount of residential development, which was the theoretical basis for the subsequent regression analysis. Whether market force or government force can overcome the problems of small lot size and complex land property was also a focus of attention in this study.
    We used Building Use Permit and Demolition Permit from the year2005 to2014 in Taipei and the analysis units were individual neighborhoods. We calculate net increasing rate of floor area in residential sections of Taipei and observe its distribution in space. Factors affecting net increasing rate of floor area in residential sections include lot size and ownership factors, as well as general factors, region and policy factors. According to ordinary least squares (OLS) and spatial regression, the empirical results show that housing supply in each neighborhood in Taipei is dominated by general factors. In addition, the policy of the delineated renewal areas has the effect of attracting construction investment. However, the lot size was not a key factor in the process of housing supply. Furthermore, the study found that under simple land property conditions, housing supply discrepancies over location in Taipei and supplied quantity in order was the old core, periphery and center. And in the old core, compared to the neighborhoods of simple land property, the housing supply in neighborhoods of complex land property has a decreasing trend which reveals that land property is still causing development problems in parts of Taipei.
    Reference: 壹、專書
    1.Heller, M.著、許瑞宋 (譯),2010,『僵局經濟』,新北:繁星。
    2.殷章甫,2004,『土地經濟學』,臺北:五南。
    3.陳正昌、陳新豐、程炳林、劉子鍵,2005,『多變量分析方法-統計軟體應用』,臺北:五南。
    4.溫在弘,2015,『空間分析-方法與應用』,臺北:雙葉。
    5.Ansenlin, L. , 1999, Spatial Econometrics, Bruton Center School of Social Science University of Texas at Dallas Richardson..
    6.Ansenlin, L. , 2005, Exploring spatial data with GeoDa: a workbook, Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science.
    7.Gliffth Daniel., 1991, Statistical analysis for geographers, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
    8.Lin,Tzu-Chin.,2014,“Land Development and Urban Growth in a Booming Property Market: The Taipei Experience”pp.241-264 in Globalization and New Intra-Urban Dynamics in Asian Cities, edited by Natacha Aveline Dubach, Sue Ching Jou, Hsin Huang Michael Hsiao, Taipei: NTU PRESS.
    9.Wong,D.W.S.,J,Lee, 2005, Spatial Analysis of Geographic Information With ArcView GIS and ArcGIS, UK :John Wiley & Sons, INC.
    貳、中文參考文獻
    1.李瑞陽、陳勝義,2010,「台中市搶奪犯罪熱點與犯罪區位之空間分析」,『地理研究』,53,23-48。
    2.邱德隆,2011,「空間分析應用於族群政黨投票之研究」,臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文:臺北。
    3.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之變化」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    4.林子欽、許明芳,2003,「個別土地開發前的產權調整─市地重劃區個案觀察」,『台灣土地研究』,6(2) ,1-16。
    5.林子欽,2004,「土地市場研究的回顧與想法」,『土地問題研究季刊』,20,1-30。
    6.張雅華,2007,「台中市老年人口與醫療資源空間相關性研究」,逢甲大學土地管理學系碩士論文:臺中。
    7.胡立諄,2007,「台灣癌症的空間分析」,台灣大學地理環境資源學系碩士論文:臺北。
    8.陳培勇、陳風波,2011,「土地細碎化起因及其影響的研究綜述」,『中國土地科學』,25(9),91-96。
    9.黃禹嘉,2012,「台北市都市更新空間分布與特性之研究」,臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士論文:臺北。
    10.黃方欣,2013,「反共有財是悲劇嗎?—土地產權的實證結果」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    11.曾禹瑄,2014,「土地開發的產權僵局-以松山二期重劃區為例」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    12.趙岡,2008,「中國傳統社會的地權分配」,『漢學研究』,26(4),311-320。
    13.蔡友翔,2012,「都市內部建築物重開發之影響因素-以臺北市為例」,政治大學地政學系碩士論文:臺北。
    14.蘇旭霞、王秀清,2002,「農用地細碎化與農戶糧食安全」,『中國農村經濟』,4,22-28。
    參、外文參考文獻
    1.Adams,C.,Russell,L.and Taylor-Russell,C., 1993,“Development Constraints, Market Processes and the Supply of Industrial Land”,Journal of Property Research ,10: 49-61.
    2.Adams, C. D. , Baum, A. E. and MacGregor, B. D. , 1988, “The Availability of Land for Inner City Development : A Case Study of Inner Manchester”,Urban Studies , 25 : 62-76.
    3.Adams, D., Hutchison, N. , 2000, “The Urban Task Force Report: Reviewing Land Ownership Constraints to Brownfield Redevelopment”, Regional Studies, 34(8) :777-782.
    4.Adams, D. , Disberry, A. , Hutchison, N. , Munjoma, T. , 2001, “Ownership constraints to brownfield redevelopment”,Environment and Planning A, 33 :453-477.
    5.Barlev, B.,May, J. , 1976,“The Effects of Property Taxes on the Construction and Demolition of Houses in Urban Areas, Economic Geography, 52(4) :304-310.
    6.Bentley, W. , 1987,“Economic and ecological approaches to land fragmentation: In defence of a much-maligned phenomenon”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 16:31–67.
    7.Bellon, M.R. , 1996,“Landholding fragmentation: are folk soil taxonomy and equity important? A case study from Mexico”,Human Ecology, 24(3) : 373-393.
    8.Blarel, B., Hazell, P., Place,F.,& Guiggin ,J. , 1992,“The economics of farm fragmentation–Evidence from Ghana and Rwanda”,World Bank Economic Review,6(2) :233–254.
    9.Bourne, L.S. , 1969,“Location Factors in the Redevelopment Process :A Model of Residential”, Land Economics, 45(2) :183-193.
    10.Bourne, L.S. , 1971,“Adjustment Processes and Land Use Succession: A Conceptual Review and Central City Example”,Economic Geography, 47(1) :1-15.
    11.Bourne, L.S. , 1976,“Urban Structure and Land Use Decisions”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 66(4) :531-547.
    12.Burton, S., & King, R. , 1982,“Land fragmentation and consolidation in Cyprus: A descriptive evaluation”, Agricultural Administration, 11(3) : 183–200.
    13.Colwell, P. F. and Munneke, H. J. , 1999,“ Land Prices and Land Assembly in the CBD”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18:163-80.
    14.Demetriou, D., Stillwell, J. and See, L., 2013,“A New Methodology for Measuring Land Fragmentation”,Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 39: 71–80.
    15.Eckart, W. , 1985,“On the Land Assembly Problem”,Journal of Urban Economics, 18 : 364-78.
    16.Falco, S. D., Penov, I. , Aleksi, A., Rensburg,T. V. , 2010, “Agrobiodiversity, farm profits and land fragmentation: Evidence from Bulgaria”, Land Use Policy, 27(3): 763-771.
    17.Grigg, D., 1983, “Agricultural geography”, Progress Human Geography, 7(2) :255-260.
    18.Igbozurike, M. U. , 1974,“Land tenure, social relations and the analysis of spatial discontinuity”, Area, 6(2):132–135.
    19.Januszewski, J. , 1968,“Index of land consolidation as a criterion of the degree of concentration”, Geographia Polonica, 14: 291–296.
    20.Kawasaki, K. , 2010, “The costs and benefits of land fragmentation of rice farms in Japan”, Australian journal of agricultural and resource economics, 54(4) : 509-526.
    21.Lin,Tzu-Chin, 2005,“Land Assembly in a Fragmented Land Market through Land Readjustment”, Land Use Policy, 22(2) :95-102.
    22.Natalia,B., 2013,“Land Fragmentation in Bulgaria: Reconsidering Its Measurement and Extent”, Review of European Studies, 5(1) : 99-109.
    23.Rahman, S., Rahman, M., 2008,“Impact of land fragmentation and resource ownership on productivity and efficiency: The case of rice producers in Bangladesh”, Land Use Policy, 26(1) :95-103.
    24.Smersh, Greg and Smith, Marc T. and Schwartz, Jr., Arthur L. , 2003, “Factors Affecting Residential Property Development Patterns”,The journal of real estate research, 25(1) :61-75.
    25.Simmons, A. J., 1964,.“An index of farm structure, with a Nottinghamshire example”, East Midlands Geographer, 3: 255–261.
    26.Tan, S., Heerink, N., & Qu, F., 2006,“Land fragmentation and its driving forces in China”, Land Use Policy, 23(3):272–285.
    27.Tobler, W. R., 1970,“A computer model simulation of urban growth in the Detroit region”, Economic Geography, 46(2) :234-240.
    28.Van Hung, P., MacAulay, G., & Marsh, S., 2007,“The economics of land fragmentation in the North Vietnam”,The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 51(2) :195–211.
    29.Whitehand, J. W. R., 1978,“Long-Term Changes in the Form of the City Centre :the Case of Redevelopment”, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 60(2) :79-96.
    30.Whitehand, J. W. R., Whitehand, S. M., 1983,“The Study of Physical Change in Town Centres Research Procedures and Types of Change”,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 8(4) :483-507.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政學系
    103257021
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103257021
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[地政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    702101.pdf10537KbAdobe PDF447View/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