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 新推個案競爭程度分析
The analysis of the degree of the competition on residential projects
作者 彭竹君
貢獻者 張金鶚
彭竹君
關鍵詞 市場分析
相似度
競爭程度
日期 2009
上傳時間 3-Sep-2013 14:50:49 (UTC+8)
摘要 市場分析目的在於掌握顧客需求並了解競爭對手，知己知彼、百戰百勝。住宅市場中，新推個案供給者會參考競爭個案的產品類型，做出「跟隨者」與「區隔者」之選擇。過去市場分析致力於次市場範圍界定，試圖找出具有替代性之競爭個案。然而，針對競爭個案的選取，過去缺少量化分析，多依主觀經驗判斷，況且隨著推案策略之不同，競爭個案之選擇應具有彈性。
因此，本研究就供給者立場，利用2007年7月至2008年6月新推個案資料，從相似角度切入，針對產品屬性、價格、時間與空間等四個面向，根據ANP專家問卷結果為權重參考，衡量個案間彼此競爭程度，以0到1表示，並以台北都會區為例，探討市場範圍內推案競爭情況。
若一次市場內兩個案之產品屬性越相似、推案總價越相近、推案時間越接近、推案地點越近，則競爭程度數值越接近1，個案間彼此競爭程度越大。研究結果發現，空間距離為最重要之影響競爭因子，其次為產品屬性。就地區別觀察，台北市推案競爭程度高於台北縣，且郊區推案競爭程度較市中心大，嘗試打破過往以推案數或總銷金額等少數指標定義「一級戰區」之迷思。就個案而言，本研究之量化方法能協助判斷個案間之競爭程度，做為推案分析時競爭個案選取之依據；就市場分析整體而言，進一步了解次市場之推案競爭結構，作為新推個案供給者推案策略或產品定位之參考。
The aim of this real estate analysis is to know what home owners want and how the construction developers analyze their housing projects. This market analysis will help housing developers better understand current and future market trends. In residential markets, the housing developers closely follow leading development projects and then decide to either follow the market trends or take an alternative development path. In the past market analysts attempted to define housing submarket trends and then cross-reference these trends with current market developments. However, these developers have been questioned that it is too subjective to choose potentially attractive development projects by relying on what is more likely qualitative market analysis instead of more objective quantitative data.
This paper creates a model to analyze competitive development projects more objectively than what was previously available. The paper will follow a comparison study of cross-referencing multiple development projects based on dual parallel models. The research area is based on Northern Taiwan in the metropolitan areas of Taipei City and New Taipei (previously known as Taipei County). The model used will first sample data from four market sensitive developer criteria which include housing attributes, housing prices, listing time and distance between dual project development models. Next, we measure the degree of competition between the development projects and give then a value between 0 and 1.
To establish value, if the housing attributes and the housing price of the two development projects are similar, the listing time is in the same month, and they are located adjacently, the value of competitive degree is closer to 1 and therefore more competitive. From the research findings, the distance is the most important factor of the four criteria and the housing attributes are the second. The research established the degree of competition in Taipei City is greater than in New Taipei. This research demonstrates that if used it will increase a housing developer’s objective understanding of correctly choosing a competitive project, and therefore better understand the overall market environment.
keyword：market analysis、similarity、the degree of competition
參考文獻 一、 中文參考文獻
朱國明，2001，「線上分析系統運用於住宅產品模糊分類模式之研究」，『住宅學報』，10(2)：107-125。
林育聖、張金鶚，2004，「建商定價行為之研究－探討不同類型建商定價行為之差異」。頁251-263，收錄於『2004年中華民國住宅學會論文集』，台北：中華民國住宅學會。
紀凱婷、張金鶚、詹士樑，2008，「台北市新推個案空間相依性之研究－產品定位與定價之探討」。頁712-732，收錄於『2008年中華民國住宅學會第十七屆學術研討會論文集』，台北：中華民國住宅學會。
許淑媛，2008，「住宅個案價格分散之時空影響」，論文發表於<中華民國住宅學會第十八屆學術研討會>，中華民國住宅學會：台北，民國97年12月13日。
許碧芳、陳碧俞，2006，「探討基層中醫診所之資源分布、競爭程度與成長趨勢」，論文發表於<11th灰色系統理論與應用研討會>，新竹，民國95年10月28日。
陳心怡，2002，「台北都會區住宅次市場之界定及交互關係探討」，國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文：台南。
張金鶚，2003，『房地產投資與市場分析理論與實務』，台北：張金鶚。
張魁峯，2009，『Super Decision軟體操作手冊』，台北：鼎茂圖書出版股份有限公司。
游適銘，2009，「不動產估價方法權重關係之探討－以地價基準地為例」， 『土地經濟年刊』，18：67-109。
楊宗憲，2003，「住宅市場之產品定位分析－建商推案行為之研究」，『住宅學報』，12(2)：123-139。
鄧振源，2005，『計畫評估 : 方法與應用』，基隆市 : 國立臺灣海洋大學運籌規劃與管理硏究中心。
龔永香、江穎慧、張金鶚，2007，「客觀標準化不動產估價之可行性分析－市場比較法應用於大量估價」，『住宅學報』，16(2)：23-42.
二、 英文參考文獻
Bourassa, S. C., F. Hamelink, M. Hoesli, and B. D. MacGregor, 1999, “Defining Housing Submarkets”, Journal of Housing Economics, 8：160-183.
Bourassa, S. C., M. Hoesli, and V. S. Peng, 2003, “Do Housing Submarkets Really Matter？”, Journal of Housing Economics, 12(1)：12-28.
Cannaday, R., P. Colwell, and C. Wu, 1984, “weighting schemes for adjustment grid methods of appraisal”, Appraisal Review Journal, 7(1)：24-31.
Gower, J. C., 1971, “A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties”, Journal of the International Biometric Society, 27：857-874.
Isakson, 1986, “The Neighbors Appraisal Technique：An Alternative to the Adjustment Grid Methods ”, AREUEA Journal, 14(2)：274-286.
Kang, H.B. and A. K. Reichert, 1991, “An Empirical Analysis of Hedonic Regression and Grid-Adjustment Techniques in Real Estate Appraisal”, AREUEA Journal, 19：70-91.
Leishman, C., 2001, “Housing building and product differentiation：An hedonic price approach”, Journal of Housing of Political Economy, 32：34-55.
Lin, D., 1998, “An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity”, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, p. 296–304.
Myers, D., K. Beck, 1994, “A Four-Square Design for Relating the Two Essential Dimensions of Real Estate Market Studies” pp.307-324 in Appraisal, Market Analysis, and Public Policy, edited by James R. D. and Sa-Aadu：American Real Estate Society.
Pagourtzi, E., V. Assimakopoulos, T. Hatzichristos, and N. French, 2003, “Real Estate Appraisal：A Review of Valuation Methods”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 21(4)：383-401.
Saaty, T. L., 2001, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback : the Analytic Network Process , Pittsburgh : RWS Publication.
Takana, M., and Y. Asami, 2006, “Estimation of Housing Prices Using the Function of Similarity between Properties”, Paper presented at American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association International Conference, Vancouver, Canada, June 30 - July 3.
Tanaka, M., and Y. Asami, 2007, “Study on Comparison of the Housing Market Structure in Tokyo and Suburbs of Tokyo”, paper presented at AsRES, Macau, China, July 9-12.
Todora, J. and D. Whiterell, 2002, “Automating the Sales Comparison Approach”, Assessment Journal, 9(1)：25-33.
Tu, Y., H. Sun, S. M. Yu, 2007, “Spatail Autocorrelation and Urban Housing Market Segmentation”, Journal of Real Estate Financial Economics , 34：385-406.
Yu, Shin-Ming and Chin-Oh Chang, 2009, “weight regression model from the sales comparison approach”, Journal of Property Management, 27(5)：302-318.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
97257014
98
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097257014
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 張金鶚zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 彭竹君zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 彭竹君zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2009en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-Sep-2013 14:50:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Sep-2013 14:50:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Sep-2013 14:50:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097257014en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59815-
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) 97257014zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 98zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 市場分析目的在於掌握顧客需求並了解競爭對手，知己知彼、百戰百勝。住宅市場中，新推個案供給者會參考競爭個案的產品類型，做出「跟隨者」與「區隔者」之選擇。過去市場分析致力於次市場範圍界定，試圖找出具有替代性之競爭個案。然而，針對競爭個案的選取，過去缺少量化分析，多依主觀經驗判斷，況且隨著推案策略之不同，競爭個案之選擇應具有彈性。
因此，本研究就供給者立場，利用2007年7月至2008年6月新推個案資料，從相似角度切入，針對產品屬性、價格、時間與空間等四個面向，根據ANP專家問卷結果為權重參考，衡量個案間彼此競爭程度，以0到1表示，並以台北都會區為例，探討市場範圍內推案競爭情況。
若一次市場內兩個案之產品屬性越相似、推案總價越相近、推案時間越接近、推案地點越近，則競爭程度數值越接近1，個案間彼此競爭程度越大。研究結果發現，空間距離為最重要之影響競爭因子，其次為產品屬性。就地區別觀察，台北市推案競爭程度高於台北縣，且郊區推案競爭程度較市中心大，嘗試打破過往以推案數或總銷金額等少數指標定義「一級戰區」之迷思。就個案而言，本研究之量化方法能協助判斷個案間之競爭程度，做為推案分析時競爭個案選取之依據；就市場分析整體而言，進一步了解次市場之推案競爭結構，作為新推個案供給者推案策略或產品定位之參考。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The aim of this real estate analysis is to know what home owners want and how the construction developers analyze their housing projects. This market analysis will help housing developers better understand current and future market trends. In residential markets, the housing developers closely follow leading development projects and then decide to either follow the market trends or take an alternative development path. In the past market analysts attempted to define housing submarket trends and then cross-reference these trends with current market developments. However, these developers have been questioned that it is too subjective to choose potentially attractive development projects by relying on what is more likely qualitative market analysis instead of more objective quantitative data.
This paper creates a model to analyze competitive development projects more objectively than what was previously available. The paper will follow a comparison study of cross-referencing multiple development projects based on dual parallel models. The research area is based on Northern Taiwan in the metropolitan areas of Taipei City and New Taipei (previously known as Taipei County). The model used will first sample data from four market sensitive developer criteria which include housing attributes, housing prices, listing time and distance between dual project development models. Next, we measure the degree of competition between the development projects and give then a value between 0 and 1.
To establish value, if the housing attributes and the housing price of the two development projects are similar, the listing time is in the same month, and they are located adjacently, the value of competitive degree is closer to 1 and therefore more competitive. From the research findings, the distance is the most important factor of the four criteria and the housing attributes are the second. The research established the degree of competition in Taipei City is greater than in New Taipei. This research demonstrates that if used it will increase a housing developer’s objective understanding of correctly choosing a competitive project, and therefore better understand the overall market environment.
keyword：market analysis、similarity、the degree of competition		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與問題 1
第二節 研究方法與研究範圍 3
第三節 研究架構與流程 5
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 競爭分析相關文獻 7
第二節 相似性相關文獻與理論 10
第三節 權重估算相關文獻 13
第四節 小結 15
第三章 競爭程度衡量 16
第一節 衡量方法建立 16
第二節 權重衡量 21
第三節 競爭程度值 25
第四章 應用分析 29
第一節 資料來源與篩選 29
第二節 個案競爭程度分析 32
第三節 地區競爭程度分析 38
第五章 結論與建議 46
第一節 結論 46
第二節 建議 47		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1025985 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097257014en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 市場分析zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 相似度zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 競爭程度zh_TW
dc.title (題名) 新推個案競爭程度分析zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The analysis of the degree of the competition on residential projectsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文參考文獻
朱國明，2001，「線上分析系統運用於住宅產品模糊分類模式之研究」，『住宅學報』，10(2)：107-125。
林育聖、張金鶚，2004，「建商定價行為之研究－探討不同類型建商定價行為之差異」。頁251-263，收錄於『2004年中華民國住宅學會論文集』，台北：中華民國住宅學會。
紀凱婷、張金鶚、詹士樑，2008，「台北市新推個案空間相依性之研究－產品定位與定價之探討」。頁712-732，收錄於『2008年中華民國住宅學會第十七屆學術研討會論文集』，台北：中華民國住宅學會。
許淑媛，2008，「住宅個案價格分散之時空影響」，論文發表於<中華民國住宅學會第十八屆學術研討會>，中華民國住宅學會：台北，民國97年12月13日。
許碧芳、陳碧俞，2006，「探討基層中醫診所之資源分布、競爭程度與成長趨勢」，論文發表於<11th灰色系統理論與應用研討會>，新竹，民國95年10月28日。
陳心怡，2002，「台北都會區住宅次市場之界定及交互關係探討」，國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文：台南。
張金鶚，2003，『房地產投資與市場分析理論與實務』，台北：張金鶚。
張魁峯，2009，『Super Decision軟體操作手冊』，台北：鼎茂圖書出版股份有限公司。
游適銘，2009，「不動產估價方法權重關係之探討－以地價基準地為例」， 『土地經濟年刊』，18：67-109。
楊宗憲，2003，「住宅市場之產品定位分析－建商推案行為之研究」，『住宅學報』，12(2)：123-139。
鄧振源，2005，『計畫評估 : 方法與應用』，基隆市 : 國立臺灣海洋大學運籌規劃與管理硏究中心。
龔永香、江穎慧、張金鶚，2007，「客觀標準化不動產估價之可行性分析－市場比較法應用於大量估價」，『住宅學報』，16(2)：23-42.
二、 英文參考文獻
Bourassa, S. C., F. Hamelink, M. Hoesli, and B. D. MacGregor, 1999, “Defining Housing Submarkets”, Journal of Housing Economics, 8：160-183.
Bourassa, S. C., M. Hoesli, and V. S. Peng, 2003, “Do Housing Submarkets Really Matter？”, Journal of Housing Economics, 12(1)：12-28.
Cannaday, R., P. Colwell, and C. Wu, 1984, “weighting schemes for adjustment grid methods of appraisal”, Appraisal Review Journal, 7(1)：24-31.
Gower, J. C., 1971, “A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties”, Journal of the International Biometric Society, 27：857-874.
Isakson, 1986, “The Neighbors Appraisal Technique：An Alternative to the Adjustment Grid Methods ”, AREUEA Journal, 14(2)：274-286.
Kang, H.B. and A. K. Reichert, 1991, “An Empirical Analysis of Hedonic Regression and Grid-Adjustment Techniques in Real Estate Appraisal”, AREUEA Journal, 19：70-91.
Leishman, C., 2001, “Housing building and product differentiation：An hedonic price approach”, Journal of Housing of Political Economy, 32：34-55.
Lin, D., 1998, “An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity”, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, p. 296–304.
Myers, D., K. Beck, 1994, “A Four-Square Design for Relating the Two Essential Dimensions of Real Estate Market Studies” pp.307-324 in Appraisal, Market Analysis, and Public Policy, edited by James R. D. and Sa-Aadu：American Real Estate Society.
Pagourtzi, E., V. Assimakopoulos, T. Hatzichristos, and N. French, 2003, “Real Estate Appraisal：A Review of Valuation Methods”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 21(4)：383-401.
Saaty, T. L., 2001, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback : the Analytic Network Process , Pittsburgh : RWS Publication.
Takana, M., and Y. Asami, 2006, “Estimation of Housing Prices Using the Function of Similarity between Properties”, Paper presented at American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association International Conference, Vancouver, Canada, June 30 - July 3.
Tanaka, M., and Y. Asami, 2007, “Study on Comparison of the Housing Market Structure in Tokyo and Suburbs of Tokyo”, paper presented at AsRES, Macau, China, July 9-12.
Todora, J. and D. Whiterell, 2002, “Automating the Sales Comparison Approach”, Assessment Journal, 9(1)：25-33.
Tu, Y., H. Sun, S. M. Yu, 2007, “Spatail Autocorrelation and Urban Housing Market Segmentation”, Journal of Real Estate Financial Economics , 34：385-406.
Yu, Shin-Ming and Chin-Oh Chang, 2009, “weight regression model from the sales comparison approach”, Journal of Property Management, 27(5)：302-318.		zh_TW