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 土地違規使用成因與解決策略之探討- 以台北市師大商圈與基隆河截彎取直地區為例
Study of Causes and Solving Strategies of Illegal Land Use--The Case Studies of Shida Business District and Kee-Lung River Short Cut District
作者 林亭均
Lin, Ting Chun
貢獻者 劉小蘭
林亭均
Lin, Ting Chun
關鍵詞 土地使用分區管制
違規使用
制度制定
制度本身
制度執行
對策
Zoning
Illegal land use
Institution making
Institution
Institution performing
Strategy
日期 2014
上傳時間 3-Feb-2015 10:28:49 (UTC+8)
摘要 我國都市土地採用土地使用分區管制制度，然而於此制度下，卻出現許多違規使用情形。而違規使用將可能破壞土地使用分區管制對社會財產權之配置，故考量整體社會福利，違規使用之問題實有必要妥善處理。
但面對違規使用，過去文獻與實務多就問題直接提出解決方式，而未討論問題肇因於制度的哪一個階段、或是制度階段之間是否存在矛盾，才進而導致違規使用，如此之解決方式將可能無法有效對症下藥，甚至產生新的問題。

又，隨著都市人口增加、商業活動趨於頻繁，住宅與商業使用在有限的土地競爭下，住宅區與商業區土地違規使用問題趨於明顯，有其必要加以重視。

因此，本研究利用住商違規使用代表個案—住宅區作不當商業違規使用之師大商圈，以及特定商業區作住宅違規使用之基隆河截彎取直地區，運用文獻歸納法，以及制度經濟之制度層次理論為基礎，將案例問題分為三階段，包含(1)制度制定：政府有限理性與機會主義之公共選擇問題、(2)制度本身：不完全制度之闕漏、(3)制度執行：政府內部與對外資訊不對稱、目標不一致之代理問題，將案例就各階段進行分析，找出問題根源；在釐清違規使用問題根源後，利用文獻之歸納找出可能解決方式，並對過去提出解決方式之應用限制加以改善，嘗試研擬個案問題之對策，並對類似之通案建立完整策略。

本研究分析結果發現 (1)師大商圈：制度本身、制度執行存在問題，而本研究針對制度本身問題提出重疊分區管制與投票式分區管制互相配合加以解決；至於制度執行問題短期應對地方政府給予監督及誘因，並可建立民眾檢舉違規使用資訊揭露之平台，改善制度環境，長期則應從改革政治機制做起。(2)基隆河截彎取直地區：制度制定、制度本身、制度執行三階段皆存在問題；由於制度制定問題既已產生，則短期內應從制度本身與制度制定階段改善，彌補制度制定之缺陷；至於制度本身問題，當前作法可採用浮動式規劃允許修改制度之限制；制度執行問題解決方式則同師大商圈。此外，本研究亦利用上述案例結果對未來通案建立完整解決對策，而本研究發現，在擬定完整對策前，必須先釐清制度之立法本意(即初始財產權賦予對象)，才能擬定一套完整對策，令不同階段制度之解決對策在應用上能相互串連、呼應。

本研究冀利用制度階段分析與解決對策之整合，嘗試建構住商違規使用問題之完整對策，以期未來能預防違規使用問題產生，或於問題產生時能有效處理，減少違規使用對財產權之損害。
The land institution of urban land in Taiwan is “Zoning”. Even with the strict rules of zoning to control land use, there are still a lot of illegal land use cases. These illegal land uses may break the arrangements of social property rights and the entire social welfare.

While most of the studies focus on finding the solution to the illegal land use problems, the causes of those problems are rarely discussed., which may not solve the illegal land use problems efficiently, or lead to more problems.

Also, due to the increase of population in the cities and the business activities in the limited land, the illegal land use problems between housing and business land become more serious and need more attention.

This research analyzes typical cases of illegal land use between housing and business in Taiwan. One of the cases is “Shida Business District”, where the business activities over used the land in the mixed residential commercial district. The other case is “Kee-Lung River Short Cut District”, which is low used as housing in the special business district.

The research method is literature induction. On the basis of Institutional Economics (IE), this research divides the illegal land use problems into three levels: the institution making, the institution, and the institution performing. This research tries to analyze each level, find the source of the problems, and improve the restriction of past proposed solutions as well as build comprehensive strategies to these typical type cases.

The results of the research show in the case of “Shida Business District”, the reasons of illegal land use problems exist in the level of the institution making and institution. The overlying zone and voting zone can solve the problems in the level of the institution making. The public oversight and intensive are the strategies to the institution performing problems in the short term. But in the long run, the political system needs improving.

In the case of “Kee-Lung River Short Cut District”, the reasons of illegal land use problems exist in all three levels. In the short term, the institution correction by floating zone can modify the institution making and the institution problems. The solution of the institution performing problems is the same with the case of “Shida Business District”. Moreover, the analysis process of this research indicates that, before making any strategy, the most important thing is to clarify the original intention of the institution. It will be used to decide that who should won the initial property rights and develop complete strategies.

This research analyzes the institution levels and integrates the solutions of illegal land use between housing and business to develop the strategies. We hope that in the future, this research can prevent the causes of illegal land use, or deal with illegal land use problems effectively to cut down the damages of property rights.
參考文獻 道格拉斯‧諾斯，1990，「制度、制度變遷與經濟成就」，時報文化1994出版，
劉瑞華 譯。

陳昌顯，1994，「混合土地使用之都市活動、運輸、與停車需求整合模式之研究」，國立台灣大學土木工程學系博士論文：台北。

徐仁輝，1995，「新制度經濟學與公共行政」，世新學報：台北，5：273-288。

賴宗裕，1998，「國土開發與成長管理之研究」，經建會。

謝哲勝，2001，「土地使用管制法律之研究」，國立中正大學法學期刊第五期：嘉義。

莊琮博，2001，「從維護居住環境品質觀點探討台北市住宅區混合使用管制實施策略－ 以大安區車層里與龍雲里為例」，國立臺灣科技大學建築學系碩士論文：台北。

劉勝勳，2002，「台灣土地使用及開發系統回顧與檢討—都市計畫、都市設計、建築管理之定位與整合」，國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文：台南。

邊泰明，2003，「土地使用規劃與財產權-理論與實務」，詹氏書局出版。

陳博雅，2003，「新國土規劃理念下土地使用分區管制之研究」，委託單位：內政部營建署市鄉規劃局。

蕭博正，2003，「台北市土地混合使用特性對旅運需求之影響」，國立台北大學都市計劃學系碩士論文：台北。

陳銘偉，2004，「土地使用分區管制制度在台灣實施得失之研究—以台北市為例」，私立中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩士論文：台北。

鄭竹雅，2006，「浮動分區開發模式之研究」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
賴彥伶，2006，「由住宅混合空間尺度探討居住偏好與居住選擇之關係」，私立逢甲大學都市計畫與空間資訊學系碩士論文：台中。

蔡侑妤，2007，「現行土地使用分區管制規則之探討-以台北市為例」，私立逢甲大學都市計畫學系：台中。

鐘 純、喬琳琳，2008，「新公共管理理論內部缺陷的探討」，中國湖南大學政治與公共管理學院，中華論文網。

林森田，2008，「土地經濟學」，巨流政大書城總經銷。

許文昌，2008，「土地經濟學(圖形分析)」，高點出版。
張剛維、林森田，2008，「尋租行為與土地使用分區管制—財產權觀點之分析」，台灣土地研究，11(2)：127-153。
張剛維，2008，「土地使用分區管制制度之執行與制度變遷—財產權觀點之分析」，國立政治大學地政學系博士論文：台北。

楊珮欣，2008，「住商混合使用對住宅房價之影響:台北市經驗」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。

林森田、洪維庭，2009，「農地違規使用管理簽約外包之研究」，台灣土地研究，12(1)：1-29。

洪維庭、林森田、丁秀吟，2009，「農地管理制度執行結構與環境之研究」，台灣土地研究，12(2)：51-75。

財團法人都市發展與環境教育基金會，2012，「新北市工業區做住宅使用之變更策略規劃案期末報告書」，新北市政府城鄉發展局委託規劃案。

Alchian, A., Demsetz, H., 1972, “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization ”, American Economic Review, Vol. 62, pp.777-95.

Alatas, S. H., 1990, “Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Function”, Aldershot, Avebury, Ashgate, , pp. 213
Black, D., 1948, “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.56, pp.23–34.

Buchanan, J. M., 1969, “Cost and Choice”, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 3, No. 4, pp.305-360.

Buchanan, J. M., Faith, R. L., 1981, “Entrepreneurship and the Internalization of Externalities”, Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 95-111.

Coase R. H., 1960, “The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics”, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 3, pp. 1-44.

Cao, T.V., Cory, D.C., 1981, “Mixed Land Uses, Land-use Externalities, and Residential Property Values: A Re-evaluation”, Annals of Regional Science, Vol.16, pp.1-24.

Coase R. H., 1988, “ The Problem of Social Cost in The Firm The Market and The Law”, The University of Chicago Press.

Castells, M., 1996, “ The Informational Mode of Development and The Restructuring of Capitalism, pp.90-91, in Fainstein, S. S and Campbell, S. Readings in Urban Theory, Malden”, MA : Blackwell.

Cervero, R., Wu, K., 1997, “Polycentrism, Commuting, and Residential Location in the San Francisco Bay”, Environment and Planning A, Vol.29, pp.865-886.

Dewatripont et al., 2000, “Planning, Shortage, and Transformation: Essays in Honor of Janos Kornai”, MIT Press.

Forte, F., Peacock, A., 1985, “Public Expenditure and Government Growth”, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Frank L., Pivo, G., 1994, “Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking”, Transportation Research Record, pp.44-52.

Fischel, W. A., 1978,“A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning”, Land
Economics, Vol.54, No.1, pp.64-81.

Fischel, W. A., 1987, “The Economics of Zoning Laws”, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L.A., Bockstael, N.E., 1997, “Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework, an Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS”, Ecological Economics, Vol.23, pp.251-264.

Hood, C., 1991, “A Public Management for All Seasons”, Public Administration, Vol.69, No.1, pp.3- 9.
Holmstrom B and Milgrom P., 1991, “Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design”, Journal of Law and Economics, pp.24-52.

Hart, O.,1995, “Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure”, London: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, M., Meckling, W., 1976, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.3, pp.305-360.

Knott, J., 1993, “Comparing Public and Private Management: Basic Management Functions and External constraints”, Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research, Vol. 3, pp.93-119.

Kickert, W. J. M., 1997, “Public management in the United States and Europe”, Public management and administrative reforms in Western Europe, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 15–39.

Li, M.M., Brown, H.J, 1980, “Micro-neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices”, Land Economics, Vol.56, No.2, pp.125-141.

Lai, L.W.C., 1998, “The Leasehold System as a Means of Planning by Contract: The Case of Hong Kong”, Town Planning Review, Vol. 69, No.3, pp.249-275.

Moe, T., 1984, “The New Economics of Organization”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.28, pp.739-777.

Niskanen, W. A., 1971, “Bureaucracy and Representative Government”, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton Inc.

Nelson, R.H., 1989, “Zoning Myth and Practice—From Euclid Into The Future, In Zoning and American Dream：Promise Still To Keep”, Ed. Charles M. Haar and Jerola S. Kayden, Chicago：Planners Press, pp.299-318.

North, D. C., 1990, “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E., 1986, “An Agenda for the Study of Institutions”, Public Choice, Vol. 48, pp. 3-25.

Pigou, L., 1920, “The Economics of Welfare”, London: MacMillan.

Polinsky, A. M., 1979, “Controlling Externalities and Protecting Entitlements: Property Right, Liability Rule, and Tax-Subsidy Approaches”, Journal of Legal Study, Vol.8, No.1, pp.1-48.

Siegan, B. H., 1972, “Land Use Without Zoning”, Lexington, MA：Health- Lexington Books.

Skaburskis, A., 1990, “The Burden of Development Impact Fees”, Land Development Studies, 7, pp.173-185.

Sorensen, T., 1994, “Further Thoughts on Coasian Approaches to Zoning: A Response to Lai Wai Chung”, Town Planning Review Vol. 65, pp.197-203.

Song Y., Knaap, G.-J., 2003, “New Urbanism and Housing Values: a Disaggregate Assessment”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.54, pp.218–238.

Song Y., Knaap G.-J., 2004, “Measuring the Effects of Mixed Land Uses on Housing Values”, Regional Science&Urban Economics, Vol.34, pp.663-680.

Sorensen, A., 2011, “Uneven Processes of Institutional Change: Path Dependence, Scale and the Contested Regulation of Urban Development in Japan”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.35, No.4, pp.712-734.

Tullock, G., 1989, “The Economics of Special Privilege and Rent Seeking”, Boston and Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tullock, G., 1993, “Rent Seeking, UK and Brookfield”, US: Edward Elgar.

Tirole J., 1994, “On the Internal Organization of Government”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.46, pp. 1–29.

Wilson, J. Q., 1989, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do And Why They. Do It, New York: Basic Books.

Williamson, O.E., 1991, “Transaction cost economics and organization theory”, Industrial and Corporate change 22.

Webster, C. J., 1998, “Sustainability and Public Choice: a Theoretical Essay on Urban Performance Indicators”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol.25, No.5, pp.709 -729.

台北市政府都市發展局網站，http://www.planning.taipei.gov.tw/

中華民國統計資訊網「縣市重要統計指標查詢系統」，http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/statfile9.asp

汪禮國，2014，「以土地使用觀點探討臺北市商圈治理」，網路簡報文件。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
101257017
103
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101257017
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 劉小蘭zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 林亭均zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lin, Ting Chunen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林亭均zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Ting Chunen_US
dc.date (日期) 2014en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-Feb-2015 10:28:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Feb-2015 10:28:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Feb-2015 10:28:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101257017en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/73311-
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) 101257017zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 103zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 我國都市土地採用土地使用分區管制制度，然而於此制度下，卻出現許多違規使用情形。而違規使用將可能破壞土地使用分區管制對社會財產權之配置，故考量整體社會福利，違規使用之問題實有必要妥善處理。
但面對違規使用，過去文獻與實務多就問題直接提出解決方式，而未討論問題肇因於制度的哪一個階段、或是制度階段之間是否存在矛盾，才進而導致違規使用，如此之解決方式將可能無法有效對症下藥，甚至產生新的問題。

又，隨著都市人口增加、商業活動趨於頻繁，住宅與商業使用在有限的土地競爭下，住宅區與商業區土地違規使用問題趨於明顯，有其必要加以重視。

因此，本研究利用住商違規使用代表個案—住宅區作不當商業違規使用之師大商圈，以及特定商業區作住宅違規使用之基隆河截彎取直地區，運用文獻歸納法，以及制度經濟之制度層次理論為基礎，將案例問題分為三階段，包含(1)制度制定：政府有限理性與機會主義之公共選擇問題、(2)制度本身：不完全制度之闕漏、(3)制度執行：政府內部與對外資訊不對稱、目標不一致之代理問題，將案例就各階段進行分析，找出問題根源；在釐清違規使用問題根源後，利用文獻之歸納找出可能解決方式，並對過去提出解決方式之應用限制加以改善，嘗試研擬個案問題之對策，並對類似之通案建立完整策略。

本研究分析結果發現 (1)師大商圈：制度本身、制度執行存在問題，而本研究針對制度本身問題提出重疊分區管制與投票式分區管制互相配合加以解決；至於制度執行問題短期應對地方政府給予監督及誘因，並可建立民眾檢舉違規使用資訊揭露之平台，改善制度環境，長期則應從改革政治機制做起。(2)基隆河截彎取直地區：制度制定、制度本身、制度執行三階段皆存在問題；由於制度制定問題既已產生，則短期內應從制度本身與制度制定階段改善，彌補制度制定之缺陷；至於制度本身問題，當前作法可採用浮動式規劃允許修改制度之限制；制度執行問題解決方式則同師大商圈。此外，本研究亦利用上述案例結果對未來通案建立完整解決對策，而本研究發現，在擬定完整對策前，必須先釐清制度之立法本意(即初始財產權賦予對象)，才能擬定一套完整對策，令不同階段制度之解決對策在應用上能相互串連、呼應。

本研究冀利用制度階段分析與解決對策之整合，嘗試建構住商違規使用問題之完整對策，以期未來能預防違規使用問題產生，或於問題產生時能有效處理，減少違規使用對財產權之損害。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The land institution of urban land in Taiwan is “Zoning”. Even with the strict rules of zoning to control land use, there are still a lot of illegal land use cases. These illegal land uses may break the arrangements of social property rights and the entire social welfare.

While most of the studies focus on finding the solution to the illegal land use problems, the causes of those problems are rarely discussed., which may not solve the illegal land use problems efficiently, or lead to more problems.

Also, due to the increase of population in the cities and the business activities in the limited land, the illegal land use problems between housing and business land become more serious and need more attention.

This research analyzes typical cases of illegal land use between housing and business in Taiwan. One of the cases is “Shida Business District”, where the business activities over used the land in the mixed residential commercial district. The other case is “Kee-Lung River Short Cut District”, which is low used as housing in the special business district.

The research method is literature induction. On the basis of Institutional Economics (IE), this research divides the illegal land use problems into three levels: the institution making, the institution, and the institution performing. This research tries to analyze each level, find the source of the problems, and improve the restriction of past proposed solutions as well as build comprehensive strategies to these typical type cases.

The results of the research show in the case of “Shida Business District”, the reasons of illegal land use problems exist in the level of the institution making and institution. The overlying zone and voting zone can solve the problems in the level of the institution making. The public oversight and intensive are the strategies to the institution performing problems in the short term. But in the long run, the political system needs improving.

In the case of “Kee-Lung River Short Cut District”, the reasons of illegal land use problems exist in all three levels. In the short term, the institution correction by floating zone can modify the institution making and the institution problems. The solution of the institution performing problems is the same with the case of “Shida Business District”. Moreover, the analysis process of this research indicates that, before making any strategy, the most important thing is to clarify the original intention of the institution. It will be used to decide that who should won the initial property rights and develop complete strategies.

This research analyzes the institution levels and integrates the solutions of illegal land use between housing and business to develop the strategies. We hope that in the future, this research can prevent the causes of illegal land use, or deal with illegal land use problems effectively to cut down the damages of property rights.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究範圍及研究方法 4
第三節 研究流程 5
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 土地使用分區管制制度功能與問題 9
第二節 政府治理問題 14
第三節 可能解決方式與應用限制 20
第三章 研究資料與研究方法 31
第一節 研究資料說明 31
第二節 分析方法 39
第四章 案例問題分析與對策研擬 41
第一節 師大商圈 42
第二節 基隆河截彎取直地區 60
第五章 通案對策研擬 71
第六章 研究結論與後續研究建議 77
第一節 研究結論 77
第二節 後續研究建議 82
參考文獻 85		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1260994 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101257017en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 土地使用分區管制zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 違規使用zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 制度制定zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 制度本身zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 制度執行zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 對策zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Zoningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Illegal land useen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institution makingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institutionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Institution performingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Strategyen_US
dc.title (題名) 土地違規使用成因與解決策略之探討- 以台北市師大商圈與基隆河截彎取直地區為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Study of Causes and Solving Strategies of Illegal Land Use--The Case Studies of Shida Business District and Kee-Lung River Short Cut Districten_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 道格拉斯‧諾斯，1990，「制度、制度變遷與經濟成就」，時報文化1994出版，
劉瑞華 譯。

陳昌顯，1994，「混合土地使用之都市活動、運輸、與停車需求整合模式之研究」，國立台灣大學土木工程學系博士論文：台北。

徐仁輝，1995，「新制度經濟學與公共行政」，世新學報：台北，5：273-288。

賴宗裕，1998，「國土開發與成長管理之研究」，經建會。

謝哲勝，2001，「土地使用管制法律之研究」，國立中正大學法學期刊第五期：嘉義。

莊琮博，2001，「從維護居住環境品質觀點探討台北市住宅區混合使用管制實施策略－ 以大安區車層里與龍雲里為例」，國立臺灣科技大學建築學系碩士論文：台北。

劉勝勳，2002，「台灣土地使用及開發系統回顧與檢討—都市計畫、都市設計、建築管理之定位與整合」，國立成功大學都市計劃學系碩士論文：台南。

邊泰明，2003，「土地使用規劃與財產權-理論與實務」，詹氏書局出版。

陳博雅，2003，「新國土規劃理念下土地使用分區管制之研究」，委託單位：內政部營建署市鄉規劃局。

蕭博正，2003，「台北市土地混合使用特性對旅運需求之影響」，國立台北大學都市計劃學系碩士論文：台北。

陳銘偉，2004，「土地使用分區管制制度在台灣實施得失之研究—以台北市為例」，私立中國文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩士論文：台北。

鄭竹雅，2006，「浮動分區開發模式之研究」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。
賴彥伶，2006，「由住宅混合空間尺度探討居住偏好與居住選擇之關係」，私立逢甲大學都市計畫與空間資訊學系碩士論文：台中。

蔡侑妤，2007，「現行土地使用分區管制規則之探討-以台北市為例」，私立逢甲大學都市計畫學系：台中。

鐘 純、喬琳琳，2008，「新公共管理理論內部缺陷的探討」，中國湖南大學政治與公共管理學院，中華論文網。

林森田，2008，「土地經濟學」，巨流政大書城總經銷。

許文昌，2008，「土地經濟學(圖形分析)」，高點出版。
張剛維、林森田，2008，「尋租行為與土地使用分區管制—財產權觀點之分析」，台灣土地研究，11(2)：127-153。
張剛維，2008，「土地使用分區管制制度之執行與制度變遷—財產權觀點之分析」，國立政治大學地政學系博士論文：台北。

楊珮欣，2008，「住商混合使用對住宅房價之影響:台北市經驗」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：台北。

林森田、洪維庭，2009，「農地違規使用管理簽約外包之研究」，台灣土地研究，12(1)：1-29。

洪維庭、林森田、丁秀吟，2009，「農地管理制度執行結構與環境之研究」，台灣土地研究，12(2)：51-75。

財團法人都市發展與環境教育基金會，2012，「新北市工業區做住宅使用之變更策略規劃案期末報告書」，新北市政府城鄉發展局委託規劃案。

Alchian, A., Demsetz, H., 1972, “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization ”, American Economic Review, Vol. 62, pp.777-95.

Alatas, S. H., 1990, “Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Function”, Aldershot, Avebury, Ashgate, , pp. 213
Black, D., 1948, “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.56, pp.23–34.

Buchanan, J. M., 1969, “Cost and Choice”, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol 3, No. 4, pp.305-360.

Buchanan, J. M., Faith, R. L., 1981, “Entrepreneurship and the Internalization of Externalities”, Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 95-111.

Coase R. H., 1960, “The Problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics”, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 3, pp. 1-44.

Cao, T.V., Cory, D.C., 1981, “Mixed Land Uses, Land-use Externalities, and Residential Property Values: A Re-evaluation”, Annals of Regional Science, Vol.16, pp.1-24.

Coase R. H., 1988, “ The Problem of Social Cost in The Firm The Market and The Law”, The University of Chicago Press.

Castells, M., 1996, “ The Informational Mode of Development and The Restructuring of Capitalism, pp.90-91, in Fainstein, S. S and Campbell, S. Readings in Urban Theory, Malden”, MA : Blackwell.

Cervero, R., Wu, K., 1997, “Polycentrism, Commuting, and Residential Location in the San Francisco Bay”, Environment and Planning A, Vol.29, pp.865-886.

Dewatripont et al., 2000, “Planning, Shortage, and Transformation: Essays in Honor of Janos Kornai”, MIT Press.

Forte, F., Peacock, A., 1985, “Public Expenditure and Government Growth”, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Frank L., Pivo, G., 1994, “Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking”, Transportation Research Record, pp.44-52.

Fischel, W. A., 1978,“A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning”, Land
Economics, Vol.54, No.1, pp.64-81.

Fischel, W. A., 1987, “The Economics of Zoning Laws”, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L.A., Bockstael, N.E., 1997, “Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework, an Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS”, Ecological Economics, Vol.23, pp.251-264.

Hood, C., 1991, “A Public Management for All Seasons”, Public Administration, Vol.69, No.1, pp.3- 9.
Holmstrom B and Milgrom P., 1991, “Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design”, Journal of Law and Economics, pp.24-52.

Hart, O.,1995, “Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure”, London: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, M., Meckling, W., 1976, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.3, pp.305-360.

Knott, J., 1993, “Comparing Public and Private Management: Basic Management Functions and External constraints”, Journal of Public Administration Theory and Research, Vol. 3, pp.93-119.

Kickert, W. J. M., 1997, “Public management in the United States and Europe”, Public management and administrative reforms in Western Europe, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 15–39.

Li, M.M., Brown, H.J, 1980, “Micro-neighborhood Externalities and Hedonic Housing Prices”, Land Economics, Vol.56, No.2, pp.125-141.

Lai, L.W.C., 1998, “The Leasehold System as a Means of Planning by Contract: The Case of Hong Kong”, Town Planning Review, Vol. 69, No.3, pp.249-275.

Moe, T., 1984, “The New Economics of Organization”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.28, pp.739-777.

Niskanen, W. A., 1971, “Bureaucracy and Representative Government”, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton Inc.

Nelson, R.H., 1989, “Zoning Myth and Practice—From Euclid Into The Future, In Zoning and American Dream：Promise Still To Keep”, Ed. Charles M. Haar and Jerola S. Kayden, Chicago：Planners Press, pp.299-318.

North, D. C., 1990, “Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E., 1986, “An Agenda for the Study of Institutions”, Public Choice, Vol. 48, pp. 3-25.

Pigou, L., 1920, “The Economics of Welfare”, London: MacMillan.

Polinsky, A. M., 1979, “Controlling Externalities and Protecting Entitlements: Property Right, Liability Rule, and Tax-Subsidy Approaches”, Journal of Legal Study, Vol.8, No.1, pp.1-48.

Siegan, B. H., 1972, “Land Use Without Zoning”, Lexington, MA：Health- Lexington Books.

Skaburskis, A., 1990, “The Burden of Development Impact Fees”, Land Development Studies, 7, pp.173-185.

Sorensen, T., 1994, “Further Thoughts on Coasian Approaches to Zoning: A Response to Lai Wai Chung”, Town Planning Review Vol. 65, pp.197-203.

Song Y., Knaap, G.-J., 2003, “New Urbanism and Housing Values: a Disaggregate Assessment”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.54, pp.218–238.

Song Y., Knaap G.-J., 2004, “Measuring the Effects of Mixed Land Uses on Housing Values”, Regional Science&Urban Economics, Vol.34, pp.663-680.

Sorensen, A., 2011, “Uneven Processes of Institutional Change: Path Dependence, Scale and the Contested Regulation of Urban Development in Japan”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.35, No.4, pp.712-734.

Tullock, G., 1989, “The Economics of Special Privilege and Rent Seeking”, Boston and Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tullock, G., 1993, “Rent Seeking, UK and Brookfield”, US: Edward Elgar.

Tirole J., 1994, “On the Internal Organization of Government”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.46, pp. 1–29.

Wilson, J. Q., 1989, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do And Why They. Do It, New York: Basic Books.

Williamson, O.E., 1991, “Transaction cost economics and organization theory”, Industrial and Corporate change 22.

Webster, C. J., 1998, “Sustainability and Public Choice: a Theoretical Essay on Urban Performance Indicators”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol.25, No.5, pp.709 -729.

台北市政府都市發展局網站，http://www.planning.taipei.gov.tw/

中華民國統計資訊網「縣市重要統計指標查詢系統」，http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/statfile9.asp

汪禮國，2014，「以土地使用觀點探討臺北市商圈治理」，網路簡報文件。		zh_TW