1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 財產權型態對土地開發之影響– 以台北市萬華車站附近地區為例
The Impacts of different types of property rights on land development- An empirical study in Wanhua district, Taipei City
作者 謝昀蓁
Hsieh, YUn-chen
貢獻者 林子欽
Lin, Tzu-chin
謝昀蓁
Hsieh, YUn-chen
關鍵詞 土地開發
土地整合
土地細碎
多重所有權
Land development
Land assembly
Land fragmentaiton
Multiple ownership
日期 2018
上傳時間 6-Aug-2018 18:15:07 (UTC+8)
摘要 土地開發與否，會受到面積、地主人數、持份狀態、地塊是否臨路、坐落區段等產權因素的影響，在面對土地開發時，土地面積影響方面，台北市的土地市場，由於單筆土地面積較小，未能達到開發效益的土地，常有需要進行土地整合，使土地達適合開發規模並產生最有效益土地使用情形出現。而在除了土地面積以外的產權條件，歸因於土地共有為台灣常見的土地所有權持有形式，土地開發與否，也會受到地主人數與持份狀態等產權條件影響土地整合成功以及開發與否。本研究以台北市萬華車站附近地區為研究範圍，由於萬華區屬於台北市開發較早的行政區之一，其土地開發與規劃的利與弊的以作為較晚開發行政區之參考，而因為開發早，建物老舊，在人口成長與安全疑慮之下，有土地重新開發之需求。
本文首先以Gini係數計算出本研究範圍的土地面積分配不均程度，發現本研究範圍土地面積分配，呈現分配不均且歷年土地分配不均程度差異不大的情形。再輔以t檢定檢視已開發土地以及未開發土地在面積與土地地主人數的差異，得出了已開發土地不論事土地面積或是地主人數皆高於未開發土地。最後，以logit回歸模型談討土地產權條件對土地開發的影響，發現地面積、地主人數以及所有權分散程度(HHI)都對土地開發與否有顯著影響的實證結果。
由實證結果發現，本研究範圍土地分配不均，並且可以有分配不均程度歷年的變動，觀察出本研究範圍土地開發前會出現土地整合的情形，同時也發現由於已開發土地平均單筆面積，以及地主人數皆高於未開發土地，而所有權分散程度(HHI)越低、持份越複雜的土地，開發機率越高。因此，在探討本研究範圍土地開發者對於產權條件的偏好，以及土地開發前的土地整合行為，本研究推論，雖然所有權分散程度(HHI)與地主人數對於土地開發皆有顯著影響，但在本研究範圍，開發者會偏向於花時間以及交易成本，遊說地主參與土地整合以利進行土地開發。
Development of land will be affected by the property rights factors , such as the size of land, the number of landowners, the allocation of land holdings, and whether the land is located by the road, as well as the location of land. When it comes to land development, in the land market of Taipei City, the average area of each parcel is small and is not qualified for the development scale to reach the development benefit. According to that, land assembly is an action which is often adopted to consolidate the parcels to the ideal size and to meet the best land use. In addition to the land size, multiple ownership is another common land holding situation in Taiwan. Whether the land is developed or not, the number of the owners and ownership status will affect the outcome of land consolidation and development. This study takes the area near Wanhua Train Station in Taipei City as its research area. Since Wanhua District is one of the earliest developed administrative districts in Taipei City, the advantages and disadvantages of its land development and planning pattern are references to the later developed administrative districts. With early development and old buildings, there is a need for land redevelopment under the expectation of population growth and safety of facilities and buildings. Since that, land assembly is predicted to happen in the research area.
In the empirical study, first, Gini coefficient is taken to measure if the distribution of parcel sizes is even or not in the study area. Second, t test is adopted to see whether the parcel size and owners condition are significant different between developed and undeveloped land. Last, the research uses Logistic Regression model to look into the impact of the conditions of land owners, parcel size and the distribution of holdings to land development.
The result of the empirical study reveals that land assembly does happen in the study area, and the conditions of parcel size, land owners and the distribution of holdings do have significant impact to the issue of land development. The result shows that a more complicated ownership leads to the higher possibility of land development. It can be demonstrated that the developers tend to engage time and transaction costs to convince the owners to take part in the land assembly process to meet the ideal scale of land development.
參考文獻 1. 王濟川、郭志剛，2001，『 Logistic 回歸模型: 方法與應用』，高等敎育出版社.
2. 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。
3. 邱皓政、林碧芳，2014，『統計學: 原理與應用 STATISTICS』，五南文化事業機構
4. 陳正倉、林惠玲、陳忠榮、莊春發，2007，『產業經濟學』，台北：雙葉書廊
5. 陳傳波、丁士軍，2001，「基尼係數的測算與分解–Excel算法與Stata程序」，『上海統計』，7:20-24
6. 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、私立中國地政研究所碩士論文
7. 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、私立中國地政研究所碩士論文
8. 趙岡，2005，『中國傳統農村的地權分配』，臺北市：聯經出版社

9. Adams, C. D., & May, H. G., 1991, “Active and passive behaviour in land ownership”, Urban Studies, 28(5): 687-705.
10. Adams, C. D., Baum, A. E., & MacGregor, B. D., 1988, “The availability of land for inner city development: a case study of inner Manchester”, Urban Studies, 25(1): 62-76.
11. Adams, D., & Hutchison, N., 2000, “The urban task force report: Reviewing land ownership constraints to brownfield redevelopment”, Riginal Studies, Volume 34 , Issue8: Pages 777-782.
12. Adams, D., 1994, “Urban Planning and the Development Process”, UCL Press
13. Berenson, M., Levine, D., Szabat, K. A., & Krehbiel, T. C., 2012, “Basic business statistics: Concepts and applications”, Pearson higher education AU.
14. Buchanan, J. M., & Yoon, Y. J., 2000, “Symmetric tragedies: Commons and anticommons”, The Journal of Law and Economics, 43(1): 1-14.
15. Cadigan, J., Schmitt, P., Shupp, R., & Swope, K., 2009, “An experimental study of the holdout problem in a multilateral bargaining game”, Southern Economic Journal, 76(2): 444-457.
16. Cohen, L., 1991, “Holdouts and free riders”, The Journal of Legal Studies, 20(2): 351-362.
17. Colwell, P. F., & Munneke, H. J., 1997, “The structure of urban land prices”, Journal of Urban Economics, 41(3): 321-336.
18. Colwell, P. F., & Munneke, H. J., 1999, “Land prices and land assembly in the CBD”, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18(2): 163-180.
19. Colwell, P. F., & Sirmans, C. F., 1978, “Area, time, centrality and the value of urban land”, Land Economics, 54(4): 514-519.
20. Demetriou, D., Stillwell, J., & See, L., 2013, “A new methodology for measuring land fragmentation. Computers”, Environment and Urban Systems, 39: 71-80.
21. Eckart, W., 1985, ”On the land assembly problem”, Journal of Urban Economics, 18(3): 364-378.
22. Gujarati, D. N., 2009, “Basic econometrics”, Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
23. Gujarati, D., 2014, “Econometrics by example”, Palgrave Macmillan.
24. Lee W., 1996, “Analysis of seasonal data using the Lorenz Curve and the associated Gini index”, International Journal of Epidemiology ,25: 426–434.
25. Lin, T. C., & Evans, A. W., 2000, “The relationship between the price of land and size of plot when plots are small”, Land Economics, 76(3): 386-394.
26. Lin, T. C., 2005, “Land assembly in a fragmented land market through land readjustment”, Land Use Policy, 22(2): 95-102.
27. Lindenthal, T., Eichholtz, P., & Geltner, D., 2017, “Land assembly in Amsterdam, 1832–2015”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 64: 57-67.
28. Louw, E., 2008, “Land assembly for urban transformation—The case of‘s-Hertogenbosch in The Netherlands”, Land Use Policy, 25(1): 69-80.
29. Miceli, T. J., & Sirmans, C. F., 2007, “The holdout problem, urban sprawl, and eminent domain”,Journal of Housing Economics, 16(3): 309-319.
30. Nguyen, T. B., Van de Krabben, E., & Samsura, D. A. A., 2017, “A curious case of property privatization: two examples of the tragedy of the anticommons in Ho Chi Minh City-Vietnam”, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 21(1): 72-90. Press, London.
31. Schere, F. M., & Ross, D., 1990, “Industrial market structure and economic performance (3rd ed.)”, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
32. Shoup, D., 2008, “Graduated density zoning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2): 161-179.
33. Sim, L. L., Lum, S. K., & Malone-Lee, L. C., 2002, “Property rights, collective sales and government intervention: averting a tragedy of the anticommons”, Habitat International, 26(4): 457-470.
34. Simion, G., 2008, “Geographical Analysis of the Land Fragmentation Process Based on Participatory Mapping and Satellite Images. Case Studies of Ciorogârla and Vănătorii Mici From the Bucharest Metropolitan Area”, Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, 2(1): 83-94.
35. Zhu, J., 2012, “Development of sustainable urban forms for high-density low-income Asian countries: The case of Vietnam: The institutional hindrance of the commons and anticommons”, Cities, 29(2): 77-87.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
105257013
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105257013
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林子欽zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Tzu-chinen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 謝昀蓁zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsieh, YUn-chenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 謝昀蓁zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Hsieh, YUn-chenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2018en_US
dc.date.accessioned 6-Aug-2018 18:15:07 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 6-Aug-2018 18:15:07 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-Aug-2018 18:15:07 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105257013en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119222-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 地政學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 105257013zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 土地開發與否，會受到面積、地主人數、持份狀態、地塊是否臨路、坐落區段等產權因素的影響，在面對土地開發時，土地面積影響方面，台北市的土地市場，由於單筆土地面積較小，未能達到開發效益的土地，常有需要進行土地整合，使土地達適合開發規模並產生最有效益土地使用情形出現。而在除了土地面積以外的產權條件，歸因於土地共有為台灣常見的土地所有權持有形式，土地開發與否，也會受到地主人數與持份狀態等產權條件影響土地整合成功以及開發與否。本研究以台北市萬華車站附近地區為研究範圍，由於萬華區屬於台北市開發較早的行政區之一，其土地開發與規劃的利與弊的以作為較晚開發行政區之參考，而因為開發早，建物老舊，在人口成長與安全疑慮之下，有土地重新開發之需求。
本文首先以Gini係數計算出本研究範圍的土地面積分配不均程度，發現本研究範圍土地面積分配，呈現分配不均且歷年土地分配不均程度差異不大的情形。再輔以t檢定檢視已開發土地以及未開發土地在面積與土地地主人數的差異，得出了已開發土地不論事土地面積或是地主人數皆高於未開發土地。最後，以logit回歸模型談討土地產權條件對土地開發的影響，發現地面積、地主人數以及所有權分散程度(HHI)都對土地開發與否有顯著影響的實證結果。
由實證結果發現，本研究範圍土地分配不均，並且可以有分配不均程度歷年的變動，觀察出本研究範圍土地開發前會出現土地整合的情形，同時也發現由於已開發土地平均單筆面積，以及地主人數皆高於未開發土地，而所有權分散程度(HHI)越低、持份越複雜的土地，開發機率越高。因此，在探討本研究範圍土地開發者對於產權條件的偏好，以及土地開發前的土地整合行為，本研究推論，雖然所有權分散程度(HHI)與地主人數對於土地開發皆有顯著影響，但在本研究範圍，開發者會偏向於花時間以及交易成本，遊說地主參與土地整合以利進行土地開發。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Development of land will be affected by the property rights factors , such as the size of land, the number of landowners, the allocation of land holdings, and whether the land is located by the road, as well as the location of land. When it comes to land development, in the land market of Taipei City, the average area of each parcel is small and is not qualified for the development scale to reach the development benefit. According to that, land assembly is an action which is often adopted to consolidate the parcels to the ideal size and to meet the best land use. In addition to the land size, multiple ownership is another common land holding situation in Taiwan. Whether the land is developed or not, the number of the owners and ownership status will affect the outcome of land consolidation and development. This study takes the area near Wanhua Train Station in Taipei City as its research area. Since Wanhua District is one of the earliest developed administrative districts in Taipei City, the advantages and disadvantages of its land development and planning pattern are references to the later developed administrative districts. With early development and old buildings, there is a need for land redevelopment under the expectation of population growth and safety of facilities and buildings. Since that, land assembly is predicted to happen in the research area.
In the empirical study, first, Gini coefficient is taken to measure if the distribution of parcel sizes is even or not in the study area. Second, t test is adopted to see whether the parcel size and owners condition are significant different between developed and undeveloped land. Last, the research uses Logistic Regression model to look into the impact of the conditions of land owners, parcel size and the distribution of holdings to land development.
The result of the empirical study reveals that land assembly does happen in the study area, and the conditions of parcel size, land owners and the distribution of holdings do have significant impact to the issue of land development. The result shows that a more complicated ownership leads to the higher possibility of land development. It can be demonstrated that the developers tend to engage time and transaction costs to convince the owners to take part in the land assembly process to meet the ideal scale of land development.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與研究目的 1
第二節 研究架構與流程 3
第二章 文獻回顧 5
第一節 地價非線性關係與土地整合之需求 5
第二節 產權條件對土地整合的影響 11
第三章 研究設計 18
第一節 研究範圍 18
第二節 研究方法 20
第三節 資料說明與資料處理 28
第四章 實證結果 32
第一節 土地分配均衡程度分析 32
第二節 開發與否分析 37
第五章 結論與建議 56
第一節 結論 56
第二節 後續研究建議 57
參考文獻 59		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 12315350 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105257013en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地開發zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地整合zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地細碎zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多重所有權zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Land developmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Land assemblyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Land fragmentaitonen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Multiple ownershipen_US
dc.title (題名) 財產權型態對土地開發之影響– 以台北市萬華車站附近地區為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Impacts of different types of property rights on land development- An empirical study in Wanhua district, Taipei Cityen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 王濟川、郭志剛，2001，『 Logistic 回歸模型: 方法與應用』，高等敎育出版社.
2. 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。
3. 邱皓政、林碧芳，2014，『統計學: 原理與應用 STATISTICS』，五南文化事業機構
4. 陳正倉、林惠玲、陳忠榮、莊春發，2007，『產業經濟學』，台北：雙葉書廊
5. 陳傳波、丁士軍，2001，「基尼係數的測算與分解–Excel算法與Stata程序」，『上海統計』，7:20-24
6. 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、私立中國地政研究所碩士論文
7. 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、私立中國地政研究所碩士論文
8. 趙岡，2005，『中國傳統農村的地權分配』，臺北市：聯經出版社

9. Adams, C. D., & May, H. G., 1991, “Active and passive behaviour in land ownership”, Urban Studies, 28(5): 687-705.
10. Adams, C. D., Baum, A. E., & MacGregor, B. D., 1988, “The availability of land for inner city development: a case study of inner Manchester”, Urban Studies, 25(1): 62-76.
11. Adams, D., & Hutchison, N., 2000, “The urban task force report: Reviewing land ownership constraints to brownfield redevelopment”, Riginal Studies, Volume 34 , Issue8: Pages 777-782.
12. Adams, D., 1994, “Urban Planning and the Development Process”, UCL Press
13. Berenson, M., Levine, D., Szabat, K. A., & Krehbiel, T. C., 2012, “Basic business statistics: Concepts and applications”, Pearson higher education AU.
14. Buchanan, J. M., & Yoon, Y. J., 2000, “Symmetric tragedies: Commons and anticommons”, The Journal of Law and Economics, 43(1): 1-14.
15. Cadigan, J., Schmitt, P., Shupp, R., & Swope, K., 2009, “An experimental study of the holdout problem in a multilateral bargaining game”, Southern Economic Journal, 76(2): 444-457.
16. Cohen, L., 1991, “Holdouts and free riders”, The Journal of Legal Studies, 20(2): 351-362.
17. Colwell, P. F., & Munneke, H. J., 1997, “The structure of urban land prices”, Journal of Urban Economics, 41(3): 321-336.
18. Colwell, P. F., & Munneke, H. J., 1999, “Land prices and land assembly in the CBD”, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18(2): 163-180.
19. Colwell, P. F., & Sirmans, C. F., 1978, “Area, time, centrality and the value of urban land”, Land Economics, 54(4): 514-519.
20. Demetriou, D., Stillwell, J., & See, L., 2013, “A new methodology for measuring land fragmentation. Computers”, Environment and Urban Systems, 39: 71-80.
21. Eckart, W., 1985, ”On the land assembly problem”, Journal of Urban Economics, 18(3): 364-378.
22. Gujarati, D. N., 2009, “Basic econometrics”, Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
23. Gujarati, D., 2014, “Econometrics by example”, Palgrave Macmillan.
24. Lee W., 1996, “Analysis of seasonal data using the Lorenz Curve and the associated Gini index”, International Journal of Epidemiology ,25: 426–434.
25. Lin, T. C., & Evans, A. W., 2000, “The relationship between the price of land and size of plot when plots are small”, Land Economics, 76(3): 386-394.
26. Lin, T. C., 2005, “Land assembly in a fragmented land market through land readjustment”, Land Use Policy, 22(2): 95-102.
27. Lindenthal, T., Eichholtz, P., & Geltner, D., 2017, “Land assembly in Amsterdam, 1832–2015”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 64: 57-67.
28. Louw, E., 2008, “Land assembly for urban transformation—The case of‘s-Hertogenbosch in The Netherlands”, Land Use Policy, 25(1): 69-80.
29. Miceli, T. J., & Sirmans, C. F., 2007, “The holdout problem, urban sprawl, and eminent domain”,Journal of Housing Economics, 16(3): 309-319.
30. Nguyen, T. B., Van de Krabben, E., & Samsura, D. A. A., 2017, “A curious case of property privatization: two examples of the tragedy of the anticommons in Ho Chi Minh City-Vietnam”, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 21(1): 72-90. Press, London.
31. Schere, F. M., & Ross, D., 1990, “Industrial market structure and economic performance (3rd ed.)”, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
32. Shoup, D., 2008, “Graduated density zoning”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2): 161-179.
33. Sim, L. L., Lum, S. K., & Malone-Lee, L. C., 2002, “Property rights, collective sales and government intervention: averting a tragedy of the anticommons”, Habitat International, 26(4): 457-470.
34. Simion, G., 2008, “Geographical Analysis of the Land Fragmentation Process Based on Participatory Mapping and Satellite Images. Case Studies of Ciorogârla and Vănătorii Mici From the Bucharest Metropolitan Area”, Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, 2(1): 83-94.
35. Zhu, J., 2012, “Development of sustainable urban forms for high-density low-income Asian countries: The case of Vietnam: The institutional hindrance of the commons and anticommons”, Cities, 29(2): 77-87.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LE.013.2018.A05-