政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/137043
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113324/144300 (79%)
Visitors : 51115714      Online Users : 900
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/137043


    Title: 不動產估價師與代銷人員對價格影響因素之認知分析─ 以都市更新權利變換個案為例
    The Cognition on Price Factor between Appraiser and Agent
    Authors: 張雅喬
    Chang, Ya-Chiao
    Contributors: 陳奉瑤
    Chen, Fong-Yao
    張雅喬
    Chang, Ya-Chiao
    Keywords: 不動產估價師
    代銷人員
    價格調整率
    權利變換
    appraisal
    agent
    factor adjustments
    Right Transfer of Urban Renewal
    Date: 2021
    Issue Date: 2021-09-02 17:34:17 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 進行權利變換估價評估時，運用市場比較法，應是不動產估價師考量價格當時情況去解釋該不動產於公開市場上價值反映的情形，具有市場特性。然而為建立都市更新權利變換估價基準，都市更新權利變換價格評估受到都市更新法律框架限制，權利變換估價可能被賦予公平性的觀點，在都市更新權利變換框架下公部門估價性質使都市更新權利變換估價結果與銷售階段代銷業者重新訂價的結果有落差。而都市更新權利變換中二者估值間的差異，是否即可屬依照差異估價基礎假說（Different-Base-of-Valuation Hypothesis）所生系統偏誤，尚有待釐清。
    本研究透過個案研究法與深度訪談法，了解同一權利變換個案中不動產估價師與代銷人員認知差異，並由訪談不動產估價師與代銷人員，了解個案分析結果背後主要原因。結果發現，不動產估價師與代銷人員間價格認知確有差異，不動產估價師習慣使用百分率法進行價格調整，代銷人員則習慣直接使用差額法進行調整，並且高價區域之價格認知差異較低價區域大。再者，發現鄰避設施與迎毗設施則會縮小二者間認知差異。自本研究結果顯示，代銷人員主要考量建案銷售率以及去化率為調整主要目的，而較具有銷售效率性；另一方面，估價師主要透過客觀建案圖面資料作為調整基礎，而較具公平性。
    When carrying out the appraisal of Right Transfer of Urban Renewal, using the market comparison method, the appraiser should consider the current situation of the price to explain the situation of the value reflected in the open market, which has market sense. However, in order to establish a benchmark for urban renewal right conversion valuation, the appraisal of Right Transfer of Urban Renewal is restricted by the urban renewal legal framework, and may be given a fair viewpoint. Under the urban renewal legal framework, the public sector viewpoint makes a discrepancy between appraiser and agent. Whether the difference between appraiser and agent in the Right Transfer of Urban Renewal can be attributed to a systematic bias based on the Different-Base-of-Valuation Hypothesis remains to be clarified.
    This study uses case study method and in-depth interview method to understand the cognitive differences between real estate appraisers and agents in the same Right Transfer of Urban Renewal case, and interviews appraisers and agents to understand the main reasons behind the results of the case analysis. The results found that there is indeed a difference in the cognition on price factor between real estate appraisers and agents . Appraisers are accustomed to using the percentage method, while agents are accustomed to directly using the difference method to make adjustments, and difference in the cognition on price factor in high-priced areas are larger than lower-price areas. . Furthermore, the discovery of adjacent avoidance facilities and adjoining facilities will narrow the cognitive difference between the two. According to the results of this study, agent mainly considers the main purpose of adjusting the project sales rate, and is more efficient. On the other hand, the appraiser mainly adjusts valuation base on the objective architectural drawing data, holding fair viewpoint.
    Reference: 中文部分
    王士鳴，2006，「不動產估價師信心判斷行為之研究」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文』，台北。
    王鴻源，2003，「都市更新權利變換估價方法之問題討探」，『國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文』，台北。
    吳柏棠，2014，「北高土地開發影響因素之研究」，『國立屏東科技大學不動產經營所碩士論文』，屏東。
    杜宇璇、宋豐荃、曾禹瑄、葛仲寧與陳奉瑤，2013，「台灣特徵價格模型之回顧分析」，『土地問題研究季刊』，12(2):44-57。
    卓輝華，2010，「都市更新權利變換合理估價程序之探討」，取自: http://newdoc.nccu.edu.tw/teasyllabus/207007207769/seminar3.pdf ，取用日期：2020年 12月10日。
    林子欽、林子雅，2008，「公部門不動產估價成效評估－公平性之觀點」，『住宅學報』，17（2）：63-80。
    洪承，2015，「房地產行銷策略研究－以代銷業銷售成功影響因素之探討」，『國立政治大學地政研究所碩士在職專班論文』，台北。
    張小楨、施光訓與蕭雅羚，2013，「都會區預售屋定價策略之研究_財務投資分析觀點」，『台灣管理學刊』，13(1):121-139。
    張能政，2018，「協助落實公平正義的不動產估價師產業」，取自：https://www.mygonews.com/news/detail?news_id=127352 ，取用日期：2020年 12月10日。
    梁仁旭、陳奉瑤，2006，『不動產估價』，台北市。
    卓輝華，2019，『不動產估價』，台北市。
    陳奉瑤，2002，「量價分離評估與現行公告土地現值評價方式之比較分析」，『國立政治大學學報』, 84, 95-118。
    陳祈潔，2019，「臺北市土地市價與公告地價調整幅度之研究」，『國立台灣大學社會科學院政治學系碩士論文』，台北。
    楊宗憲、蘇倖慧，2011，「迎毗設施與鄰避設施對住宅價格影響之研究」，『住宅學報』，20(2):61-80。
    賴明宏，1997，「影響房價因素之屬性特徵與總體變數分析」，『國立台灣工業技術學院管理技術研究所碩士論文』，台北。
    林祖嘉、林素菁，1993，「台灣地區環境品質與公共設施對房價與房租影響之分析」，『住宅學報』，1：21-45。
    吳怡雯，2020，「高級住宅樓層別價格之估算－以高雄市為例」，『國立高雄科技大學金融系研究所碩士論文』，高雄。
    洪德洋、林祖嘉，1999，「臺北市捷運系統與道路寬度對房屋價格影響之研究」，『住宅學報』，8：47-67。
    黃景昇，1998，「影響建商房屋銷售訂價因素之研究」，『國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文』，台北。

    英文部分
    Acharya, G., L. L. Bennett, 2001, “Valuing Open Space and Land-Use Patterns in Urban Watersheds”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 22: 221-237.
    Aluko, B. T., 2007, “Examining Valuer’S Judgement in Residential Property Valuations in Metropolitan Lagos, Nigeria”, Journal of Property Management, 25(1): 98-107.
    Adair, A., J. Berry and S. McGreal, 1996a, “Valuation of Residential Property: Analysis of Participant Behavior”, Journal of Property Valuation & Investment, 14(1): 20-35.
    Brown, G., Matysiak, G.A. and Shepherd, M., 1998, “Valuaton Uncertainty and the Millison Report”, Journal of Property Research, 15: 1-13.
    Clayton, J., D. Geltner, S.W. Hamilton, 2001, “Smoothing in Commercial Property Valuations: Evidence from Individual Appraisals”, Real Estate Economics, 29(3): 337-360.
    Diaz, J.III and M. L. Wolverton, 1998, “A Longitudinal Examination of the Appraisal Smoothing Hypothesis”, Real Estate Economics, 26(2):349-358.
    Diaz, J.III, 1999, “The First Decade of Behavioral Research in the Discipline of Property”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 17(4):326-332.
    Follain, J.R. & S. Malpezzi, 1980, Dissecting Housing Value and Rent ,Washington,DC: The Urban Institute.
    Greaves, M., 1985, “The Determinants of Residential Values: The Hierarchical and Statistical Approaches”, Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 3(1):5-23.
    Grissom, T. V. and J. Diaz III, 1991, “Valuation without Comparables”, The Appraisal Journal, 59(3):370-376.
    Guion, L.A., D.C. Diehl and D. Mcdonald,2011, “Conducting an In-depth Interview”, EDIS, 2011(8):1-3.
    Isakson, Hans R., 1997, “An Empirical Analysis of the Determinants of the Value of Vacant Land”, Journal of Real Estate Reasearch, 13(2):103-114.
    Kotler, P.,1997, Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    Lanzillotti, R., 1985, “Pricing Objectives in Large Companies: Comment”, American Economic Review , 49(4) :921-940.
    Mackmin, D., 1985, “Is there a Residential Valuer in the House?”, Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 3:384-390.
    Malpezzi, S., L. Ozanne and T. Thibodeau, Characteristic Prices of Housing in Fifty-Nine Metropolitan Areas, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, December 1980.
    McAllister, P., A. Baum, N. Crosby, P. Gallimore, G. Adelaide, 2003, “Appraiser Behaviour and Appraisal Smoothing: Some Qualitative and Quantitative”, Journal of Property Research, 20(3): 261-280.
    Millington, A.F., 1988, An introduction to Property Valuation, London: Estates Gazette.
    McCarthy, E. J.,1960, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, IL: Richard Irwin Inc.
    Quan, D.C., J.M. Quigley, 1991, “Price Formation and the Appraisal Function in Real Estate Markets”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 4: 127-146.
    Rodi, W. N. W., Z. Sedaralit, N. M. Mahamood,A. R. A. Rasam, M. I. Abdullah, N. H. Idris, 2013, “Residential Real Estate Pricing Decision Factors among Developers in Klang Valley, Malaysia”, Paper presented at 2013 IEEE Business Engineering and Industrial Applications Colloquium (BEIAC), Langkawi, Malaysia 7-9 April .
    Rosen, S., 1974, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition”, Journal of Political Economy, 82: 34-55.
    Sirmans, G. S., D. A. Macpherson and E. N. Zietz, 2005, “The Composition of Hedonic Pricing Models”, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13(1):3-41.
    Soderberg, 2002, “A Note on the Hedonic Model Specification for Income Properties”, Research Issues in Real Estate, 8: 157-180.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政學系
    108257025
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108257025
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202101094
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Land Economics] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    702501.pdf2887KbAdobe PDF249View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback