1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 台北捷運聯合開發住宅選擇行為與旅運行為之研究
The research of Taipei MRT joint development of residential choice behavior and travel behavior
作者 黃永漢
貢獻者 白仁德
黃永漢
關鍵詞 大眾運輸導向發展
捷運聯合開發
住宅區位選擇
旅運行為
二項羅吉特
多項羅吉特
word：Transit Oriented Development
Transit Jointed Development
Residential Location Choice
Travel Behavior
Binary Logit
Multinomial Logit.
日期 2011
上傳時間 30-Oct-2012 11:31:09 (UTC+8)
摘要 近年來，國內有許多研究提倡大眾運輸導向發展 (Transit Oriented Development)的理念，政府也大力推動大眾運輸系統的建設，其中最為重要的是捷運的建設，在台北都會區，捷運路網的建設正逐步完成，與捷運建設息息相關的捷運聯合開發(Transit Jointed Development)也隨之蓬勃發展，同時，捷運聯合開發亦是我國推動大眾運輸導向發展普遍的作法之一。目前台北都會區目前共有82處聯合開發基地，已完工基地有35處，可容納6,317個家戶，以及755,773.69帄方公尺樓地板面積，對於減緩日益嚴重的都市住宅問題，有一定程度的幫助。但在規劃聯合開發住宅時，聯合開發住宅在不同類型、特性之捷運場站中，將面臨到許多問題，如：純住宅型態或住商混合型態較能符合民眾之需求？哪些家戶會選擇聯合開發住宅？又其家戶類型以及選擇原因為何？這些問題如何解決，係本研究欲探討之內容，因此，本研究以台北捷運聯合開發已完工且辦理租售作業之開發基地作為研究對象，並篩選出9處聯合開發基地進行實證研究，透過問卷調查的方式，瞭解民眾之聯合開發住宅選擇行為與旅運行為，並透過二項與多項羅吉特模型，探討影響民眾聯合開發住宅選擇行為之影響因素。
實證結果發現，在旅運行為方面，聯合開發住宅住戶之大眾運輸使用率大幅增加，在通勤時間與花費方面，通勤時間與花費均減少。除此之外，聯合開發住宅住戶之汽車持有率與使用頻率均大幅減少。在家戶特性方面，捷運聯合開發住宅住戶之家戶規模普遍較小，且家計負責人之年紀普遍較為年輕，進一步形成其他特性，如：就學人口比例較低、家戶月收入較低等。在影響因素方面，家戶規模、住宅帄均單價、住宅規模對民眾選擇不同類型之聯合開發住宅有顯著影響。最後依據實證結果，建議未來聯合開發住宅之規劃應加入TOD的規劃原則，對於聯合開發住宅之坪數、商業面積，應依捷運場站之類型進行調整，使聯合開發住宅之效益達到最大。
In recent years, there are many researches promote the idea of the transit-oriented development. The government also vigorously promotes this infrastructure projects. One of the most important projects is the development of the MRT system. In Taipei metropolitan area, while the construction of the MRT network is gradually completed, the transit jointed dvelopment is also flourishing. Moreover, transit jointed development is the most common way in order to promote TOD. Currently, there are 82 Transit Jointed Development bases in Taipei metropolitan area. 35 of the bases have already completed, which can accommodate 6,317 household with 75,577,369 square meters of floor area. It certainly will help to alleviate the problem of urban housing. However, in planning of the Jointed Residential Development, it will face many problems due to the different types of characteristics of the MRT station. For example, which households will choose a jointed development dewilling? What is the reason of choosing jointed development dewilling? How to solve these problems? These are the contents of the study. Therefore, in this study, we target the bases that have already been completed and applied for rental operations in transit jointed development as the research object, and select 9 of them for the empirical research. In order to understand people’s choice behavior in jointed development dewilling, we use survey as a method, and explore the factors that affect people’s choice behavior by applying Binary Logit and Multinomial Logit Models.
The results of empirical research show that households in the jointed development dewilling increase their public transport usage and reduce their commuting time and costs. In addition, their car ownership rate and frequency of use are significantly reduced. In the aspect of household characteristics, the households in the jointed development in the household scale are generally small and relatively young age of the householder. Those characteristics are going to further the formation of the other features, such as: the lower the proportion of student population and lower income households. Impact factors, such as the size of the household, the average residential price, residential scale on the people choose different types of joint development dewilling have a significant effect. Finally, according to the empirical results, it is recommended that the TOD should be added to the planning principle of the future Joint Residential Development. For the Jointed Residential Development, the size of house and commercial area should be adjusted along with the MRT in order to maximize the efficiency.
參考文獻 參考文獻
中文參考文獻
台北市政府捷運工程局，2010，『捷運年刊』，臺北：台北市捷運工程局編印。
台北市政府都市發展局，2001，「台北市綜合發展計畫－捷運網絡發展對台北市都市空間結構影響之規劃」，委託交大交通運輸研究所規劃。
任雅淳、林楨家，2006，「大眾運輸導向發展與住宅區位選擇－台北捷運淡水線之實證研究」，臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：臺北。
吳綱立，2009，〈高雄市區鐵路地下化站區新生地都市設計開發策略規劃案結案報告書〉，高雄：高雄市政府委託研究規劃報告。
李家儂、賴宗裕，2007，「臺北都會區大眾運輸導向發展目標體系與策略之建構」，『地理學報』48：19-42。
卓哲宇、謝定亞，2010，「 大眾捷運系統土地聯合開發評審項目之研究─以台北都會區捷運系統為例」，國立中央大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
邱錦添，1995，「台北都會區捷運車站土地聯合開發之研究」，台北：文史哲出版社。
洪得洋、林祖嘉，1999，「台北市捷運系統與道路寬度對房屋價格影響之研究」，〈1999 年中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會論文集〉，中華民國住宅學會。
胡志平，2004，「高科技產業從業人員之住宅選擇-多項Logit模式之應用」，〈2004中華民國住宅學會論文集〉，35-50，中華民國住宅學會。
常歧德，2007，「以捷運聯合開發帶動都會新風貌」，『捷運技術半年刊』，36：25-30。
梁正芳、高文彥、邱靖棠，2007，「 捷運聯合開發位於都市更新地區運作實務之探討」『捷運技術半年刊』，36：61-72。
連經宇，2003，「應用模糊語意方法與不連續選擇理論建立家戶購屋選擇行為模式之研究」，國立成功大學都市計畫研究所博士論文：臺南。
陳建翰、林楨家，2011，「捷運站聯合開發屬性對捷運使用及不動產價格之影響-台北捷運系統之實證研究」，臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：臺北。
陳思翰，2007，「 捷運聯合開發對當地房地產市場之影響」，『捷運技術半年刊』，36：171-178。
黃狄昌，2007，「從歷史步道中看見臺北捷運」，『捷運技術半年刊』，37：205-216。
蔣文育、梁金樹、余坤東，2005，「應用Logit Model於航空市場之消費行為研究」，『東吳經濟商學學報』，48：52-72。
鍾維力，1997，「聯合開發」，台北：台北市政府捷運工程局。
外文參考文獻
Alonso, W., 1964, Location and land use: toward a general theory of land rent,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Berry, B., 2004, A Theoretical Model for Measuring the Influence of Accessibility in Residential Choice Behaviour.
Boarnet, M. and Crane, R., 1998, L.A. Story: A Reality Check for Transit-Based Housing, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 2, p. 189-204.
Börsch-Supan, A. 1987. Econometric Analysis of Discrete choice – with applications on the demand for housing in the U.S. and West-Germany. Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin.
Calthorpe,P.1993.Next Amercian Metroplis:Ecology,Communityand the American Dream,Princeton Architectural Press.
Cervero, R., Hall, P., and Landis, J. 1991. Transit Joint Development in the United
States: A Review and Evaluation of Recent Experiences and an Assessment of Future
Potential. Washington, D.C.: Urban Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. 1997.“Travel Demand and 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design”, Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 3, p.199-219.
Cervero, R. 1998. The Transit Metropolis, Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
Cervero R, Jennifer Day.2008.Suburbanization and transit-oriented development in China, Transport Policy, 15,p. 315–323
Colombino, U. & M.L. Biey .2001. Modelling household choices of dwelling and local public services. Centre for household, income, labour and demographics, Italy.
Hooimeijer, P,1990.Towards a special demography of housing. Emerging issues in demographic research, Elsevier Science Publishers p. 281-295.
CTODRA , 2004, Capturing The Demand ForHousing Near Transit, Center for Transit Oriented Development and Reconnecting America,www.reconnectingamerica.org
Cyril B. P., 1995, Designing the successful downtown, Urban Land Inst.
Hosmer, D. W. & S. Lemeshow .2000.Applied logistic regression p.31-46.
Hollie L,.2006.Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated transit use, American Planning Association p.357-366.
Kain, J. & Quigley, J.M.1976.”Housing Market and Racial Discrimination：A Microeconomic Analysis”,The National Bureau of Economic Research.
Keefer, L. 1984. Profit Implications of Joint Development: Three Institutional Approaches. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration.
Lefaver, S. 1997. Private Land with Public Partnerships for Transit Based Development. San Jose, California: The Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University, Report 97-1.
Lowry, I.S. 1964.A model of Metropolis, RM-4035-RC, Rand Corporation, Santa
Monica, California, USA.
MacFadden, D. 1972. ‘Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour’,
Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, USA., p. 105-142.
Molin, E.J.E., and H.J.P Timmermans .2003. Transport considerations in residential choice decisions: accumulated evidence from the Benelux, Proceedings of the 82-th Annual Meeting of the Transport Research Board, Washington, D.C..
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Priemus, H. 1984. Verhuistheorieën en de verdeling van de woningvoorraad, Delftse Universitaire Pers, Delft, Netherlands.
Quade, Parsons Brinkerhiff and INC. Douglas.1996. "Transit and Urban Form," Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington: D. C , Report 16.
Quigley, J.M. 1985. Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services. Regional Science and Urban Economics 15, p. 41-63.
Robson, B.T. 1975. Urban social areas, ser.: Theory and Practice in Geography,
Oxford University Press, London, UK.
Rosen, S. 1974. ‘Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition’. Journal of Political Economy, 82,34-55.
Rouwendal, J. 1989. Choice and allocation models for the housing market, ser.: Studies in operational region sciences, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Salvesen, D. 1996. Promoting Transit- Oriented Development. Urban Land, 37,p. 31-35.
Sedway Kotin Mouchly Group. 1996.Joint Development Entrepreneurial Study. Oakland: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
Srour, I.A., K.M. Kockelman and T.P. Dunn 2002).Accessibility Indices: A Connection to Residential Land Prices and Location Choices, Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington.
Still, T. 2002.Transit-Oriented Development: Reshaping America’s Metropolitan Landscape. On Common Ground, Winter, p. 44-47.
Tiwari, P. & Hasegawa, H. 2004. A discrete choice model of housing demand in Tokyo, Regional Studies 38 (1) p.27-42.
White, S.M. and McDaniel, J.B. 1999. TCRP Legal Research Digest 12: The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, p. 1-50.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
99257012
100
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099257012
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 白仁德zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃永漢zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 黃永漢zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned 30-Oct-2012 11:31:09 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 30-Oct-2012 11:31:09 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 30-Oct-2012 11:31:09 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0099257012en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54687-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 地政研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 99257012zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 近年來，國內有許多研究提倡大眾運輸導向發展 (Transit Oriented Development)的理念，政府也大力推動大眾運輸系統的建設，其中最為重要的是捷運的建設，在台北都會區，捷運路網的建設正逐步完成，與捷運建設息息相關的捷運聯合開發(Transit Jointed Development)也隨之蓬勃發展，同時，捷運聯合開發亦是我國推動大眾運輸導向發展普遍的作法之一。目前台北都會區目前共有82處聯合開發基地，已完工基地有35處，可容納6,317個家戶，以及755,773.69帄方公尺樓地板面積，對於減緩日益嚴重的都市住宅問題，有一定程度的幫助。但在規劃聯合開發住宅時，聯合開發住宅在不同類型、特性之捷運場站中，將面臨到許多問題，如：純住宅型態或住商混合型態較能符合民眾之需求？哪些家戶會選擇聯合開發住宅？又其家戶類型以及選擇原因為何？這些問題如何解決，係本研究欲探討之內容，因此，本研究以台北捷運聯合開發已完工且辦理租售作業之開發基地作為研究對象，並篩選出9處聯合開發基地進行實證研究，透過問卷調查的方式，瞭解民眾之聯合開發住宅選擇行為與旅運行為，並透過二項與多項羅吉特模型，探討影響民眾聯合開發住宅選擇行為之影響因素。
實證結果發現，在旅運行為方面，聯合開發住宅住戶之大眾運輸使用率大幅增加，在通勤時間與花費方面，通勤時間與花費均減少。除此之外，聯合開發住宅住戶之汽車持有率與使用頻率均大幅減少。在家戶特性方面，捷運聯合開發住宅住戶之家戶規模普遍較小，且家計負責人之年紀普遍較為年輕，進一步形成其他特性，如：就學人口比例較低、家戶月收入較低等。在影響因素方面，家戶規模、住宅帄均單價、住宅規模對民眾選擇不同類型之聯合開發住宅有顯著影響。最後依據實證結果，建議未來聯合開發住宅之規劃應加入TOD的規劃原則，對於聯合開發住宅之坪數、商業面積，應依捷運場站之類型進行調整，使聯合開發住宅之效益達到最大。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In recent years, there are many researches promote the idea of the transit-oriented development. The government also vigorously promotes this infrastructure projects. One of the most important projects is the development of the MRT system. In Taipei metropolitan area, while the construction of the MRT network is gradually completed, the transit jointed dvelopment is also flourishing. Moreover, transit jointed development is the most common way in order to promote TOD. Currently, there are 82 Transit Jointed Development bases in Taipei metropolitan area. 35 of the bases have already completed, which can accommodate 6,317 household with 75,577,369 square meters of floor area. It certainly will help to alleviate the problem of urban housing. However, in planning of the Jointed Residential Development, it will face many problems due to the different types of characteristics of the MRT station. For example, which households will choose a jointed development dewilling? What is the reason of choosing jointed development dewilling? How to solve these problems? These are the contents of the study. Therefore, in this study, we target the bases that have already been completed and applied for rental operations in transit jointed development as the research object, and select 9 of them for the empirical research. In order to understand people’s choice behavior in jointed development dewilling, we use survey as a method, and explore the factors that affect people’s choice behavior by applying Binary Logit and Multinomial Logit Models.
The results of empirical research show that households in the jointed development dewilling increase their public transport usage and reduce their commuting time and costs. In addition, their car ownership rate and frequency of use are significantly reduced. In the aspect of household characteristics, the households in the jointed development in the household scale are generally small and relatively young age of the householder. Those characteristics are going to further the formation of the other features, such as: the lower the proportion of student population and lower income households. Impact factors, such as the size of the household, the average residential price, residential scale on the people choose different types of joint development dewilling have a significant effect. Finally, according to the empirical results, it is recommended that the TOD should be added to the planning principle of the future Joint Residential Development. For the Jointed Residential Development, the size of house and commercial area should be adjusted along with the MRT in order to maximize the efficiency.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1-1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1-1
第二節 研究範圍與對象 1-2
第三節 研究方法 1-2
第四節 研究內容與流程 1-4
第二章 文獻與理論回顧 2-1
第一節 大眾運輸導向發展 2-1
第二節 聯合開發 2-7
第三節 住宅區位選擇理論 2-9
第三章 台北捷運聯合開發發展現況與研究設計 3-1
第一節 台北捷運聯合開發發展歷程 3-1
第二節 台北捷運聯合開發發展現況 3-6
第三節 研究設計 3-9
第四章 調查結果分析 4-1
第一節 問卷回收與基本敘述統計分析 4-1
第二節 家戶社會經濟特性 4-3
第三節 旅運行為特性 4-14
第四節 住宅選擇行為特性 4-29
第五節 小結 4-39
第五章 聯合開發住宅選擇行為實證分析 5-1
第一節 住宅類型實證模型 5-1
第二節 捷運類型實證模型 5-9
第三節 小結 5-20
第六章 結論與建議 6-1
第一節 結論 6-1
第二節 建議 6-4
參考文獻 文-1
中文參考文獻 文-1
外文參考文獻 文-2
附件一：捷運共構宅家戶運具選擇行為調查問卷 附-1

表目錄
表2-1 TOD定義表 2-1
表2-2聯合開發定義表 2-7
表2-3住宅區位選擇影響因素分類表 2-12
表3-1 捷運聯合開發大樓發展歷程表 3-
表3-2 已完工之捷運聯合開發基地基本資料 3-5
表3-3捷運場站類別屬性交叉表 3-8
表3-4選取場站之基本資料 3-10
表4-1 CRONBACH’S Α值效果表 4-1
表4-2性別與大樓特性交叉表 4-4
表4-3樣本性別與捷運站別交叉表 4-5
表4-4年齡與大樓特性交叉表 4-5
表4-5樣本年齡與捷運站別交叉表 4-6
表4-6家戶規模與大樓特性交叉表 4-8
表4-7家戶規模與捷運站別交叉表 4-9
表4-8樣本家戶收入與大樓特性交叉表 4-10
表4-9樣本家戶收入與捷運站別交叉表 4-10
表4-10就業人數與大樓特性交叉表 4-12
表4-11就業人數與捷運站別交叉表 4-12
表4-12就學人數與大樓特性交叉表 4-13
表4-13就學人數與捷運站別交叉表 4-13
表4-14樣本駕照持有與大樓特性交叉表 4-15
表4-15樣本駕照持有與捷運站別交叉表 4-15
表4-16樣本持有汽車數與大樓特性交叉表 4-16
表4-17樣本持有汽車數與捷運站別交叉表 4-17
表4-18樣本持有機車數與大樓特性交叉表 4-18
表4-19樣本持有機車數與捷運站別交叉表 4-19
表4-20持有自行車數與大樓特性交叉表 4-20
表4-21持有自行車數與大樓特性交叉表 4-20
表4-22樣本搬遷前後使用運具比較表 4-21
表4-23台北都會區運具使用比較表 4-21
表4-24通勤交通工具與大樓特性交叉表 4-22
表4-25通勤交通工具與捷運站別 4-23
表4-26使用汽車通勤頻率與大樓特性交叉表 4-25
表4-27使用汽車通勤頻率與捷運站別交叉表 4-25
表4-28使用捷運通勤頻率與大樓特性交叉表 4-26
表4-29使用捷運通勤頻率與捷運站別交叉表 4-27
表4-30樣本通勤花費改變次數分配表 4-28
表4-31樣本通勤時間改變次數分配表 4-28
表4-32住宅權屬與大樓特性交叉表 4-30
表4-33住宅權屬與捷運站別交叉表 4-30
表4-34樣本住宅規模與大樓特性交叉表 4-31
表4-35樣本住宅規模與捷運站別交叉表 4-32
表4-36樣本平均單價與大樓特性交叉表 4-33
表4-37樣本平均單價與捷運站別交叉表 4-34
表4-38樣本居住因素次數分配表 4-34
表4-39搬遷前住業距離與大樓特性交叉表 4-36
表4-40搬遷後住業距離與大樓特性交叉表 4-36
表4-41搬遷前住業距離與捷運站別交叉表 4-37
表4-42搬遷後住業距離與捷運站別交叉表 4-37
表5-1變數定義表 5-1
表5-2住宅類型實證模型估計結果 5-4
表5-3住宅類型實證模型預測正確率 5-4
表5-4住宅類型實證模型因素影響程度歸納表 5-7
表5-5捷運類型實證模型適合度資訊 5-9
表5-6捷運類型實證模型配適度與效果值 5-10
表5-7捷運類型實證模型概似比檢定 5-10
表5-8多項羅吉特模型估計結果一 5-11
表5-9捷運類型實證模型估計結果二 5-12
表5-10捷運類型實證模型預測正確率 5-13
表5-11多項羅吉特模型因素影響程度歸納表 520
圖目錄
圖1-1研究流程圖 1-6
圖2-1 TOD發展地區示意圖 2-2
圖2-2 TOD理念圖 2-4
圖2-3分構建物示意圖 2-8
圖2-4共構建物示意圖 2-8
圖2-5家戶遷徙的循環過程 2-11
圖3-1科技大樓站聯開基地建物拆遷前之現場照片（左）、聯合開發大樓完工照片（右） 3-1
圖3-2捷運七張站現況圖 3-5
圖3-3捷運大坪林站現況圖 3-5
圖3-4聯合開發基地執行概況 3-7
圖3-5捷運聯合開發住宅選擇行為架構圖 3-13
圖3-6捷運聯合開發住宅選擇行為內部因素圖 3-13
圖3-7調查計畫時程圖 3-15
圖4-1大樓特性比例圖 4-2
圖4-2捷運站別比例圖 4-3
圖4-2樣本性別比例圖 4-3
圖4-3樣本年齡比例圖 4-4
圖4-4樣本家戶人數比例圖 4-7
圖4-5樣本家戶月收入比例圖 4-7
圖4-6樣本家戶規模比例圖 4-8
圖4-7樣本家戶收入比例圖 4-9
圖4-8樣本家戶就業人口比例圖 4-11
圖4-9樣本家戶就學人口比例圖 4-11
圖4-10樣本持有駕照比例圖 4-14
圖4-11搬遷前後樣本汽車持有比較圖 4-16
圖4-12樣本持有機車比例圖 4-18
圖4-13自行車持有比例圖 4-19
圖4-14樣本搬遷前後使用運具比較圖 4-21
圖4-15樣本搬遷前後汽車使用頻率比較圖 4-24
圖4-16樣本搬遷前後捷運使用頻率比較圖 4-24
圖4-17樣本住宅權屬分配比例圖 4-29
圖4-18樣本住宅規模分配比例圖 4-31
圖4-19樣本平均單價比例圖 4-33
圖4-20樣本搬遷前後住業距離比較圖 4-35
圖5-1住宅類型實證模型架構圖 5-3
圖5-2捷運類型實證模型架構圖 5-9		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099257012en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 大眾運輸導向發展zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 捷運聯合開發zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 住宅區位選擇zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 旅運行為zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 二項羅吉特zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多項羅吉特zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) word：Transit Oriented Developmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Transit Jointed Developmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Residential Location Choiceen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Travel Behavioren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Binary Logiten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Multinomial Logit.en_US
dc.title (題名) 台北捷運聯合開發住宅選擇行為與旅運行為之研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The research of Taipei MRT joint development of residential choice behavior and travel behavioren_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 參考文獻
中文參考文獻
台北市政府捷運工程局，2010，『捷運年刊』，臺北：台北市捷運工程局編印。
台北市政府都市發展局，2001，「台北市綜合發展計畫－捷運網絡發展對台北市都市空間結構影響之規劃」，委託交大交通運輸研究所規劃。
任雅淳、林楨家，2006，「大眾運輸導向發展與住宅區位選擇－台北捷運淡水線之實證研究」，臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：臺北。
吳綱立，2009，〈高雄市區鐵路地下化站區新生地都市設計開發策略規劃案結案報告書〉，高雄：高雄市政府委託研究規劃報告。
李家儂、賴宗裕，2007，「臺北都會區大眾運輸導向發展目標體系與策略之建構」，『地理學報』48：19-42。
卓哲宇、謝定亞，2010，「 大眾捷運系統土地聯合開發評審項目之研究─以台北都會區捷運系統為例」，國立中央大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
邱錦添，1995，「台北都會區捷運車站土地聯合開發之研究」，台北：文史哲出版社。
洪得洋、林祖嘉，1999，「台北市捷運系統與道路寬度對房屋價格影響之研究」，〈1999 年中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會論文集〉，中華民國住宅學會。
胡志平，2004，「高科技產業從業人員之住宅選擇-多項Logit模式之應用」，〈2004中華民國住宅學會論文集〉，35-50，中華民國住宅學會。
常歧德，2007，「以捷運聯合開發帶動都會新風貌」，『捷運技術半年刊』，36：25-30。
梁正芳、高文彥、邱靖棠，2007，「 捷運聯合開發位於都市更新地區運作實務之探討」『捷運技術半年刊』，36：61-72。
連經宇，2003，「應用模糊語意方法與不連續選擇理論建立家戶購屋選擇行為模式之研究」，國立成功大學都市計畫研究所博士論文：臺南。
陳建翰、林楨家，2011，「捷運站聯合開發屬性對捷運使用及不動產價格之影響-台北捷運系統之實證研究」，臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：臺北。
陳思翰，2007，「 捷運聯合開發對當地房地產市場之影響」，『捷運技術半年刊』，36：171-178。
黃狄昌，2007，「從歷史步道中看見臺北捷運」，『捷運技術半年刊』，37：205-216。
蔣文育、梁金樹、余坤東，2005，「應用Logit Model於航空市場之消費行為研究」，『東吳經濟商學學報』，48：52-72。
鍾維力，1997，「聯合開發」，台北：台北市政府捷運工程局。
外文參考文獻
Alonso, W., 1964, Location and land use: toward a general theory of land rent,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Berry, B., 2004, A Theoretical Model for Measuring the Influence of Accessibility in Residential Choice Behaviour.
Boarnet, M. and Crane, R., 1998, L.A. Story: A Reality Check for Transit-Based Housing, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 2, p. 189-204.
Börsch-Supan, A. 1987. Econometric Analysis of Discrete choice – with applications on the demand for housing in the U.S. and West-Germany. Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin.
Calthorpe,P.1993.Next Amercian Metroplis:Ecology,Communityand the American Dream,Princeton Architectural Press.
Cervero, R., Hall, P., and Landis, J. 1991. Transit Joint Development in the United
States: A Review and Evaluation of Recent Experiences and an Assessment of Future
Potential. Washington, D.C.: Urban Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. 1997.“Travel Demand and 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design”, Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 3, p.199-219.
Cervero, R. 1998. The Transit Metropolis, Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
Cervero R, Jennifer Day.2008.Suburbanization and transit-oriented development in China, Transport Policy, 15,p. 315–323
Colombino, U. & M.L. Biey .2001. Modelling household choices of dwelling and local public services. Centre for household, income, labour and demographics, Italy.
Hooimeijer, P,1990.Towards a special demography of housing. Emerging issues in demographic research, Elsevier Science Publishers p. 281-295.
CTODRA , 2004, Capturing The Demand ForHousing Near Transit, Center for Transit Oriented Development and Reconnecting America,www.reconnectingamerica.org
Cyril B. P., 1995, Designing the successful downtown, Urban Land Inst.
Hosmer, D. W. & S. Lemeshow .2000.Applied logistic regression p.31-46.
Hollie L,.2006.Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated transit use, American Planning Association p.357-366.
Kain, J. & Quigley, J.M.1976.”Housing Market and Racial Discrimination：A Microeconomic Analysis”,The National Bureau of Economic Research.
Keefer, L. 1984. Profit Implications of Joint Development: Three Institutional Approaches. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration.
Lefaver, S. 1997. Private Land with Public Partnerships for Transit Based Development. San Jose, California: The Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University, Report 97-1.
Lowry, I.S. 1964.A model of Metropolis, RM-4035-RC, Rand Corporation, Santa
Monica, California, USA.
MacFadden, D. 1972. ‘Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour’,
Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, USA., p. 105-142.
Molin, E.J.E., and H.J.P Timmermans .2003. Transport considerations in residential choice decisions: accumulated evidence from the Benelux, Proceedings of the 82-th Annual Meeting of the Transport Research Board, Washington, D.C..
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Priemus, H. 1984. Verhuistheorieën en de verdeling van de woningvoorraad, Delftse Universitaire Pers, Delft, Netherlands.
Quade, Parsons Brinkerhiff and INC. Douglas.1996. "Transit and Urban Form," Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington: D. C , Report 16.
Quigley, J.M. 1985. Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services. Regional Science and Urban Economics 15, p. 41-63.
Robson, B.T. 1975. Urban social areas, ser.: Theory and Practice in Geography,
Oxford University Press, London, UK.
Rosen, S. 1974. ‘Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition’. Journal of Political Economy, 82,34-55.
Rouwendal, J. 1989. Choice and allocation models for the housing market, ser.: Studies in operational region sciences, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Salvesen, D. 1996. Promoting Transit- Oriented Development. Urban Land, 37,p. 31-35.
Sedway Kotin Mouchly Group. 1996.Joint Development Entrepreneurial Study. Oakland: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
Srour, I.A., K.M. Kockelman and T.P. Dunn 2002).Accessibility Indices: A Connection to Residential Land Prices and Location Choices, Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington.
Still, T. 2002.Transit-Oriented Development: Reshaping America’s Metropolitan Landscape. On Common Ground, Winter, p. 44-47.
Tiwari, P. & Hasegawa, H. 2004. A discrete choice model of housing demand in Tokyo, Regional Studies 38 (1) p.27-42.
White, S.M. and McDaniel, J.B. 1999. TCRP Legal Research Digest 12: The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, p. 1-50.		zh_TW