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

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 土地開發的產權僵局-以松山二期重劃區為例
The Gridlock of Ownership in Land Development- An Empirical Study of Xinyi Planning District
作者 曾禹瑄
貢獻者 林子欽
Lin, Tzu Chin
曾禹瑄
關鍵詞 土地開發
土地產權
land development
land ownership
日期 2014
上傳時間 3-Feb-2015 10:28:23 (UTC+8)
摘要 於臺灣之都市發展過程中，市場上時可觀察到已開發地區中存在空置或低度利用土地之不連續開發現象（Discontinuous Development），此情形於地狹人稠且土地資源稀少地區將可能產生資源浪費疑慮。何以土地於相同市場環境下呈現不一致之使用決策，其成因值得深入探討，針對此問題，個別土地開發時機決策差異可能為合理解釋之一。有別於以往相關研究由區位及實質選擇權之總體觀點或Evans（2004）所提出之投機及不確定因素等經濟觀點切入分析，本研究乃以個體觀點出發，由土地本身產權條件之非經濟因素為基礎，選定台北市松山二期重劃區商業區土地為研究範圍，觀察於區位、實質選擇權因素對開發之影響力因重劃機制而降低情況下，土地使用決策與土地供給面因素之關係，分別針對土地開發與否及已開發土地開發過程歷時長短、開發前之產權整合情形、未開發土地成因進行探討，進一步建立土地開發與土地產權條件之互動關係，將土地供給面之產權因素帶入土地開發行為分析中。
首先，配合我國之產權條件特徵，本研究以土地面積及所有權權屬狀態作為產權條件指標內容，定義土地面積越大、權屬越單純（所有權人越少、持分狀態越集中）之土地產權複雜度較低，對土地開發具正面效果，反之亦然。立基於以上命題，利用土地登記謄本標示部及所有權部、異動索引及異動清冊資料，整理1984年重劃分回至2013年底研究地區各筆土地之產權條件與歷年產權變動情形。並由敘述性統計、Januszewski Index、Simpson Index、吉尼係數（Gini Coefficient）及賀芬達指數（Herfindahl-Hirschman Index）呈現每筆土地之產權條件特徵。再配合建築執照存根之開發資料，透過Logistic迴歸模型將產權因素與開發行為進行連結。
由迴歸結果可觀察到土地開發與否與面積及權屬因素具顯著相關，當面積越大、權屬條件越單純則土地開發機率將上升，然而，由皮爾森係數計算結果發現土地開發過程歷時長短則似與產權條件無關聯。此外，土地開發前之土地產權整合行為以權屬整合為主，開發者之整合行為具兩階段論，其傾向優先處理權屬分散問題，次考慮最適開發面積之選擇。於未開發土地成因部分，藉由比較已開發土地與未開發土地之產權條件差異，可觀察到大部分未開發土地之面積確實較小、權屬條件較複雜，其土地空置之原因實可以反共有財困境（Anticommons Dilemma）進行解釋，當一資源之所有權分散於多個所有權人手中，則該資源易落入低度使用或空置之情形，產權分散將阻礙資源有效利用。由此觀之，則市場空置土地似可能受制於產權複雜之僵局而無法自主開發利用，於開發行為分析上若忽略此等因素將可能對未來開發趨勢產生過度樂觀之錯誤預期。
In the process of city growth in Taiwan, discontinuous development can be found in many markets. This condition, especially in the country with limited amount of land, will lead to the dispute over resource. Therefore, what makes development timing of individual land plots different may be the key issue that deserves further examination. Previous studies have found that option value, speculation, uncertainty are possible causes of discontinuous development. In addition to the macro and economic point of view, this study concentrates on land supply as the basis of research. The Songshan 2nd Land Readjustment Project, that is, Xinyi Planning District, where land is equipped with proper infrastructures is selected as the research area. This study takes advantage of this laboratory-like environment to investigate the interaction between land development and land supply.
In order to identify land supply, this study uses land ownership information including size, number of owners and respective land share documented in land registration book as the index, and defines land plots with a larger size and fewer owners to be under a simpler ownership. This study proposes that a simpler ownership condition will have positive impact on land development. The empirical study is arranged as follows. First, the descriptive statistics, Januszewski Index, Simpson Index, Gini Coefficient and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index are calculated to show the configuration of land ownership over time. And the development statuses are identified based on the construction permit. Second, the relationship of land development and land supply is constructed by logistic regression analysis.
The empirical results imply that the timing of developing land has a strong connection with land supply, and that land plots with a larger size and fewer owners tend to be developed sooner. However, the duration of development progress seems to be independent of these factors. Besides, there are two phases of the land assembly process. Developers tend to deal with fragmented land ownership first, followed by the consideration of development size. Last, the anticommons dilemma serves to be one possible explanation for the vacant or underused plots in the developed area. The anticommons dilemma indicates that if too many owners hold a resource jointly, the resource may tend to stay vacant or underused for the sake of fragmented ownership. The empirical evidence suggests that the vacant or underused plots appear to suffer from the gridlock of property right diffusion. In consequence, the expected development pace may be too optimistic if this gridlock is not taken into consideration.
參考文獻 中文參考文獻

1. 王濟川、郭志剛，2003「Logistic迴歸模型 : 方法及應用」，台北：五南。
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. 林怡妏，2006，「應用交易成本理論檢討台灣現行土地開發機制—舊市區與新開發區之比較」，成功大學都市計畫學系碩士論文：台南。
4. 金家禾，2011，「兩岸土地開發制度與城市競爭力關係之探討」，『台灣土地研究』，2：73-100。
5. 梁仁旭，2007，「不動產開發選擇權時間價值比之實證分析」，『都市與計劃』，34（1）：1-12。
6. 陳冠華、張金鶚、林秋瑾，1999，「不確定市場下建商投資及開發行為之研究」。頁137-151，收錄於中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會編，『1999 年中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會論文集』，台北：中華民國住宅學會。
7. 陳傳波、丁世軍，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。
8. 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：台北。
9. 趙岡，2005，『中國傳統農村的地權分配』，台北：聯經。
10. 劉佳侑，2006，「實質選擇權對土地開發時機及其價值影響之實證研究」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
11. 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」，台北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士論文：台北。






英文參考文獻

1. 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.
2. Adams, C. D. , Russell, L. and Taylor-Russell, C. S. , 1995,“Market Activity and Industrial Development”, Urban Studies, 32(3) : 471-489.
3. Adams, C.D. and May, H.G. , 1991,“Active and Passive Behaviour in Land Ownership”, Urban Studies, 28(5)：687-705.
4. Adams, D. , Disberry, A. , Hutchison, N. , Munjoma, T. , 2001, “Ownership constraints to brownfield redevelopment”, Environment and Planning A, 33：453-477.
6. 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.
7. Cadigan, J., Schmitt, P., Shupp, R., Swope, K. , 2011,“The holdout problem and urban sprawl: Experimental evidence”, Journal of Urban Economics, 69：72–81.
5. Capozza, D. R. and Li, Y.（1994）, “The Intensity and Timing of investment: The Case of Land”, The American Economic Review, 84(4)：889-904.
8. Cohen, L. , 1991,“ Holdouts and Free Riders”, Journal of Legal Studies, 20: 351-362.
9. 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.
10. Colwell, P. F. and Munneke, H. J., 1997,“The Structure of Urban Land Prices”, Journal of Urban Economics, 41(3) : 321-336.
11. Colwell, P. F. and Sirmans C. F. , 1993,“A Comment on Zoning, Returns to Scale, and the Value of Undeveloped Land”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(4) : 783-786.
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. Cunningham, C. R., 2006,“House price uncertainty, timing of development, and vacant land prices: Evidence for real options in Seattle”, Journal of Urban Economics, 59(1)：1-31.
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. Evans, A. W. ,2004, “Economics, Real Estate and the Supply of Land”,Blackwell Publishing.
17. Farris, J. T. , 2001,“The Barriers to Using Urban Infill Development to Achieve Smarter Growth”, Housing Policy Debate ,12 (1): 1–30.
18. Fennell, L. A. , 2004, “Common interest tragedies”,Northwestern University Law School Review, 98 (3): 907–90.
19. Goodchild, R. N. and Munton, R. J. C., 1985,“ Development and the landowner：An alanysis of the British experience”, London and Boston: G. Allen & Unwin.
20. Grenadier, S. R., 1996, “The strategic exercise of options: development cascades and overbuilding in real estate markets”, The Journal of Finance, 51(5)：1653-1679.
21. Heller, M. and Hills, R. , 2008,“Land Assembly Districts”, Harvard Law Review, 121(6)：1465-1527.
22. Heller, M., 2008, The Gridlock Economy, New York：Basic Books.
23. Lin, T. C. , 2005,“Land assembly in a fragmented land market through land readjustment”, Land Use Policy, 22：95–102.
24. Lin, T. C. and 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.
25. Menezes, F. and Pitchford, R. , 2001,“The Land Assembly Problem Revisited”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34：155– 162.
26. Miceli, T. J. and Sirmans, C. F. , 2007,“The Holdout Problem, Urban Sprawl, and Eminent Domain”, Journal of Housing Economics, 16(3–4)：309–319.
27. Nelson, A. C. and Lang, R. , 2007,“ The next 100 million”, American Planning Association.
28. Neutze, M. , 1987,“The Supply of Land for a Particular Use”, Urban Studies, 24：379-388.
29. Olson,M. , 1965,“The Logic of Collective Action：Public Goods and the Theory of Groups”,Cambridge,Harvard University Press.
30. Plassmann, F. and Tideman, T. , 2007,“ Efficient Urban Renewal Without Takings:Two Solutions to the Land Assembly Problem”, Journal of Economic Literature Classification,Codes: K11, R52.
31. Quigg, L., 1993, “Empirical testing of real option‐pricing models”, The Journal of Finance, 48(2)：621-640.
32. Sing, T. F. and Patel, K., 2001, “Empirical evaluation of the value of waiting to invest”, Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 19(6)：535-553.
33. Strange, W. C. , 1995,“Information, Holdouts, and Land Assembly”, Journal of Urban Economics, 38(3)：317–332.
34. Titman, S. , 1985,“Urban Land Prices Under Uncertainty”, The American Economic Review, 75(3)：505-514.
35. Wiltshaw, D. G. ,1985,“The supply of land”, Urban Studies, 22：49-56.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
101257004
103
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101257004
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林子欽zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Tzu Chinen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 曾禹瑄zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) 曾禹瑄zh_TW
dc.date (日期) 2014en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-Feb-2015 10:28:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Feb-2015 10:28:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Feb-2015 10:28:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101257004en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/73309-
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) 101257004zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 103zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 於臺灣之都市發展過程中，市場上時可觀察到已開發地區中存在空置或低度利用土地之不連續開發現象（Discontinuous Development），此情形於地狹人稠且土地資源稀少地區將可能產生資源浪費疑慮。何以土地於相同市場環境下呈現不一致之使用決策，其成因值得深入探討，針對此問題，個別土地開發時機決策差異可能為合理解釋之一。有別於以往相關研究由區位及實質選擇權之總體觀點或Evans（2004）所提出之投機及不確定因素等經濟觀點切入分析，本研究乃以個體觀點出發，由土地本身產權條件之非經濟因素為基礎，選定台北市松山二期重劃區商業區土地為研究範圍，觀察於區位、實質選擇權因素對開發之影響力因重劃機制而降低情況下，土地使用決策與土地供給面因素之關係，分別針對土地開發與否及已開發土地開發過程歷時長短、開發前之產權整合情形、未開發土地成因進行探討，進一步建立土地開發與土地產權條件之互動關係，將土地供給面之產權因素帶入土地開發行為分析中。
首先，配合我國之產權條件特徵，本研究以土地面積及所有權權屬狀態作為產權條件指標內容，定義土地面積越大、權屬越單純（所有權人越少、持分狀態越集中）之土地產權複雜度較低，對土地開發具正面效果，反之亦然。立基於以上命題，利用土地登記謄本標示部及所有權部、異動索引及異動清冊資料，整理1984年重劃分回至2013年底研究地區各筆土地之產權條件與歷年產權變動情形。並由敘述性統計、Januszewski Index、Simpson Index、吉尼係數（Gini Coefficient）及賀芬達指數（Herfindahl-Hirschman Index）呈現每筆土地之產權條件特徵。再配合建築執照存根之開發資料，透過Logistic迴歸模型將產權因素與開發行為進行連結。
由迴歸結果可觀察到土地開發與否與面積及權屬因素具顯著相關，當面積越大、權屬條件越單純則土地開發機率將上升，然而，由皮爾森係數計算結果發現土地開發過程歷時長短則似與產權條件無關聯。此外，土地開發前之土地產權整合行為以權屬整合為主，開發者之整合行為具兩階段論，其傾向優先處理權屬分散問題，次考慮最適開發面積之選擇。於未開發土地成因部分，藉由比較已開發土地與未開發土地之產權條件差異，可觀察到大部分未開發土地之面積確實較小、權屬條件較複雜，其土地空置之原因實可以反共有財困境（Anticommons Dilemma）進行解釋，當一資源之所有權分散於多個所有權人手中，則該資源易落入低度使用或空置之情形，產權分散將阻礙資源有效利用。由此觀之，則市場空置土地似可能受制於產權複雜之僵局而無法自主開發利用，於開發行為分析上若忽略此等因素將可能對未來開發趨勢產生過度樂觀之錯誤預期。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the process of city growth in Taiwan, discontinuous development can be found in many markets. This condition, especially in the country with limited amount of land, will lead to the dispute over resource. Therefore, what makes development timing of individual land plots different may be the key issue that deserves further examination. Previous studies have found that option value, speculation, uncertainty are possible causes of discontinuous development. In addition to the macro and economic point of view, this study concentrates on land supply as the basis of research. The Songshan 2nd Land Readjustment Project, that is, Xinyi Planning District, where land is equipped with proper infrastructures is selected as the research area. This study takes advantage of this laboratory-like environment to investigate the interaction between land development and land supply.
In order to identify land supply, this study uses land ownership information including size, number of owners and respective land share documented in land registration book as the index, and defines land plots with a larger size and fewer owners to be under a simpler ownership. This study proposes that a simpler ownership condition will have positive impact on land development. The empirical study is arranged as follows. First, the descriptive statistics, Januszewski Index, Simpson Index, Gini Coefficient and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index are calculated to show the configuration of land ownership over time. And the development statuses are identified based on the construction permit. Second, the relationship of land development and land supply is constructed by logistic regression analysis.
The empirical results imply that the timing of developing land has a strong connection with land supply, and that land plots with a larger size and fewer owners tend to be developed sooner. However, the duration of development progress seems to be independent of these factors. Besides, there are two phases of the land assembly process. Developers tend to deal with fragmented land ownership first, followed by the consideration of development size. Last, the anticommons dilemma serves to be one possible explanation for the vacant or underused plots in the developed area. The anticommons dilemma indicates that if too many owners hold a resource jointly, the resource may tend to stay vacant or underused for the sake of fragmented ownership. The empirical evidence suggests that the vacant or underused plots appear to suffer from the gridlock of property right diffusion. In consequence, the expected development pace may be too optimistic if this gridlock is not taken into consideration.		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 4
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 土地開發時機決策分析 7
第二節 土地供給面分析 9
第三章 研究設計-松山二期重劃區（信義計畫區）個案分析 17
第一節 研究範圍與研究期間 17
第二節 研究方法 19
第三節 資料說明與處理 28
第四章 實證結果與分析 31
第一節 研究地區產權複雜度指標之建立與開發現況 31
第二節 Logistic模型分析結果 46
第五章 結論與建議 55
第一節 結論 55
第二節 後續研究建議 60
參考文獻 61
附錄 65		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2143664 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101257004en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地開發zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地產權zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) land developmenten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) land ownershipen_US
dc.title (題名) 土地開發的產權僵局-以松山二期重劃區為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Gridlock of Ownership in Land Development- An Empirical Study of Xinyi Planning Districten_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文參考文獻

1. 王濟川、郭志剛，2003「Logistic迴歸模型 : 方法及應用」，台北：五南。
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. 林怡妏，2006，「應用交易成本理論檢討台灣現行土地開發機制—舊市區與新開發區之比較」，成功大學都市計畫學系碩士論文：台南。
4. 金家禾，2011，「兩岸土地開發制度與城市競爭力關係之探討」，『台灣土地研究』，2：73-100。
5. 梁仁旭，2007，「不動產開發選擇權時間價值比之實證分析」，『都市與計劃』，34（1）：1-12。
6. 陳冠華、張金鶚、林秋瑾，1999，「不確定市場下建商投資及開發行為之研究」。頁137-151，收錄於中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會編，『1999 年中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會論文集』，台北：中華民國住宅學會。
7. 陳傳波、丁世軍，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。
8. 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：台北。
9. 趙岡，2005，『中國傳統農村的地權分配』，台北：聯經。
10. 劉佳侑，2006，「實質選擇權對土地開發時機及其價值影響之實證研究」，政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
11. 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」，台北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士論文：台北。






英文參考文獻

1. 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.
2. Adams, C. D. , Russell, L. and Taylor-Russell, C. S. , 1995,“Market Activity and Industrial Development”, Urban Studies, 32(3) : 471-489.
3. Adams, C.D. and May, H.G. , 1991,“Active and Passive Behaviour in Land Ownership”, Urban Studies, 28(5)：687-705.
4. Adams, D. , Disberry, A. , Hutchison, N. , Munjoma, T. , 2001, “Ownership constraints to brownfield redevelopment”, Environment and Planning A, 33：453-477.
6. 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.
7. Cadigan, J., Schmitt, P., Shupp, R., Swope, K. , 2011,“The holdout problem and urban sprawl: Experimental evidence”, Journal of Urban Economics, 69：72–81.
5. Capozza, D. R. and Li, Y.（1994）, “The Intensity and Timing of investment: The Case of Land”, The American Economic Review, 84(4)：889-904.
8. Cohen, L. , 1991,“ Holdouts and Free Riders”, Journal of Legal Studies, 20: 351-362.
9. 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.
10. Colwell, P. F. and Munneke, H. J., 1997,“The Structure of Urban Land Prices”, Journal of Urban Economics, 41(3) : 321-336.
11. Colwell, P. F. and Sirmans C. F. , 1993,“A Comment on Zoning, Returns to Scale, and the Value of Undeveloped Land”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(4) : 783-786.
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. Cunningham, C. R., 2006,“House price uncertainty, timing of development, and vacant land prices: Evidence for real options in Seattle”, Journal of Urban Economics, 59(1)：1-31.
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. Evans, A. W. ,2004, “Economics, Real Estate and the Supply of Land”,Blackwell Publishing.
17. Farris, J. T. , 2001,“The Barriers to Using Urban Infill Development to Achieve Smarter Growth”, Housing Policy Debate ,12 (1): 1–30.
18. Fennell, L. A. , 2004, “Common interest tragedies”,Northwestern University Law School Review, 98 (3): 907–90.
19. Goodchild, R. N. and Munton, R. J. C., 1985,“ Development and the landowner：An alanysis of the British experience”, London and Boston: G. Allen & Unwin.
20. Grenadier, S. R., 1996, “The strategic exercise of options: development cascades and overbuilding in real estate markets”, The Journal of Finance, 51(5)：1653-1679.
21. Heller, M. and Hills, R. , 2008,“Land Assembly Districts”, Harvard Law Review, 121(6)：1465-1527.
22. Heller, M., 2008, The Gridlock Economy, New York：Basic Books.
23. Lin, T. C. , 2005,“Land assembly in a fragmented land market through land readjustment”, Land Use Policy, 22：95–102.
24. Lin, T. C. and 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.
25. Menezes, F. and Pitchford, R. , 2001,“The Land Assembly Problem Revisited”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34：155– 162.
26. Miceli, T. J. and Sirmans, C. F. , 2007,“The Holdout Problem, Urban Sprawl, and Eminent Domain”, Journal of Housing Economics, 16(3–4)：309–319.
27. Nelson, A. C. and Lang, R. , 2007,“ The next 100 million”, American Planning Association.
28. Neutze, M. , 1987,“The Supply of Land for a Particular Use”, Urban Studies, 24：379-388.
29. Olson,M. , 1965,“The Logic of Collective Action：Public Goods and the Theory of Groups”,Cambridge,Harvard University Press.
30. Plassmann, F. and Tideman, T. , 2007,“ Efficient Urban Renewal Without Takings:Two Solutions to the Land Assembly Problem”, Journal of Economic Literature Classification,Codes: K11, R52.
31. Quigg, L., 1993, “Empirical testing of real option‐pricing models”, The Journal of Finance, 48(2)：621-640.
32. Sing, T. F. and Patel, K., 2001, “Empirical evaluation of the value of waiting to invest”, Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 19(6)：535-553.
33. Strange, W. C. , 1995,“Information, Holdouts, and Land Assembly”, Journal of Urban Economics, 38(3)：317–332.
34. Titman, S. , 1985,“Urban Land Prices Under Uncertainty”, The American Economic Review, 75(3)：505-514.
35. Wiltshaw, D. G. ,1985,“The supply of land”, Urban Studies, 22：49-56.		zh_TW