Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141229
|
| Title: | 臺北市產權困境與都市更新規模容積獎勵政策之分析
The Analysis of The Dilemma of Property Rights and The Graduated Density Zoning of Urban Renewal in Taipei City |
| Authors: | 郭連益
Kuo, Lian-Yi |
| Contributors: | 林子欽
Lin, Tzu-Chin
郭連益
Kuo, Lian-Yi |
| Keywords: | 土地整合
反共有地悲劇
都市更新
規模容積獎勵
Graduated density zoning
Land assembly
Tragedy of the anticommons
Urban renewal |
| Date: | 2022 |
| Issue Date: | 2022-08-01 18:23:18 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 都市土地市場中，由於土地面積與地價之間呈現凸向下（convex）的非線性關係，因此整合土地進行開發是有利可圖的。然而市場中供給面的產權因素會阻礙都市土地開發，地主會基於自身產權行使拿翹行為，增加都市土地整合的困難度，造成土地無法最高最有效使用的反共有地之悲劇，形成市場失靈。為此，需要政府介入都市土地市場，以改善市場失靈，但是在新自由主義的浪潮下，政府逐漸扮演鼓勵與引導市場的角色，以提供誘因的方式吸引民間進行都市土地開發。因此制度面，政府藉由都市更新容積獎勵政策，鼓勵民間參與都市更新，其中與土地整合最直接相關的是規模容積獎勵，鼓勵民眾自發性地整合土地，使開發達到規模經濟，減少地主拿翹行為與反共有地之悲劇發生。
本研究首先透過地籍資料與使用執照資料，初步驗證臺北市是否正面臨產權困境，從地籍資料中得知臺北市每筆地塊之面積、持分、持有人數；從使用執照資料得知臺北市各案件開發基地面積。將兩資料相對照可觀察到，位於產權較複雜之行政區，其案件平均基地開發規模往往較小；而位於產權較單純之行政區，其平均案件基地開發規模往往較大，可見產權因素與臺北市土地開發似乎具有某些關聯性。
本研究進而透過量化方法，分析臺北市12個行政區，從2006至2021年，位於第三種住宅區且以權利變換作為實施方式之已核定都市更新事業計畫案件，使用多元線性迴歸分析模型實證供給面的產權因素，以及制度面的規模容積獎勵對都市更新案件基地開發規模之影響。實證結果顯示，產權因素顯著地降低基地開發規模，且隨著產權越複雜，基地開發規模越小；規模容積獎勵顯著地增加基地開發規模，且隨著獎勵越多，基地開發規模越大。由此可見，臺北市土地市場正面臨供給面的產權困境，導致土地整合開發窒礙難行，此外制度面的規模容積獎勵可以減輕土地整合開發的困難度。
In the urban land market, due to the convex relationship between plot size and land price, it is profitable to assemble land for development. However, the property rights factor in the supply side of the market will hinder urban land development. Landowners tend to hold out, and increase the difficulty of urban land assembly, thus resulting in the tragedy of anticommons and land not in the highest and the most efficient use. To overcome the problem, the government needs to intervene in the urban land market to correct the market failure. However, under the neoliberalism, the government gradually plays the role of encouraging and guiding the market, providing incentives to attract private sector to develop urban land. Therefore, the government encourages the private sector to participate in urban renewal through incentive zoning policies. Among them, the most directly land assembly related is the graduated density zoning, which encourages the private sector assemble land voluntarily. It is hoped that the development can therefore achieve economies of scale and reduce the action of hold out and the tragedy of anticommons.
At first, the study uses cadastral data and building license data to verify whether Taipei City is facing the dilemma of property rights. Cadastral data provides the information of size, landowners and ownership share of each plot in Taipei City. Building license data provides the information of size of each land development. Comparing the two sets of data, reveals that within the administrative districts with more complex property rights, the average development size tends to be smaller. In addition, within the administrative districts with relatively simple property rights, the average development size tends to be larger. There seems to be a relevance between property rights and land development.
Furthermore, the study uses quantitative methods to analyze the approvals of urban renewal which are located in Grade 3 residential zone in 12 administrative districts in Taipei City from 2006 to 2021. Multiple linear regression analysis is used to demonstrate that the complexity of land ownership and the graduated density zoning can influence the development scale of urban renewal. The empirical results show that the complex land ownership reduces the development scale significantly. As the extent of the land ownership becomes more complex, the development scale becomes smaller. The graduated density zoning increases the development scale significantly. As the floor bonus increases, the development scale becomes larger. The empirical findings as a whole clearly suggest that the land market in Taipei City is facing the dilemma of complex property rights in land, which makes it assemble and develop land difficult. On the other hand, the graduated density zoning reduces the difficulty of land assembly. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文參考文獻
丁秀吟, 林子欽, & 劉佳欣，2021，「農地重劃減緩土地產權細碎化成效之評估—以嘉義縣為例」，『應用經濟論叢』，(110)： 131-162。
行政院經建會，2006， 加速推動都市更新方案， Retrieved from 臺北。
吳志偉，1997，「台北市獎勵民間興辦都市更新之研究」，國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文：臺北。
李權益，2012，「台北市劃定更新地區容積獎勵對基地規模的效益-從交易成本觀點探討」，國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境研究所碩士論文：新北。
周昱賢，2016，「影響臺北市住宅供給之因素探討 -土地細碎與開發政策的觀點」， 國立政治大學地政學研究所碩士論文：臺北。
周素卿、吳幸玲、江尚書，2009，「後工業化臺北與新自由主義都市政治」，『中國地理學會會刊』，(43)：15-32。
林子欽、張正，2004，「地主和承租人如何面對土地徵收的風險?」，『臺灣土地研究』，7(1)：1-18。
林孝恩，2016，「臺北市住宅基地規模與開發強度之影響因素」， 國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文：臺北。
金家禾，2001，「兩岸土地開發制度與城市競爭力關係之探討」，『臺灣土地研究』，2：73-100。
柯于璋，2021，「我國都市更新之演進與後設治理」，『都市與計劃』，48(3)：265-281。
胡海豐，2015，「都市更新，建築容積移轉與獎勵的經濟效率性」，『建築學報』，(93)：105-124。
殷章甫，2004，『土地經濟學』，臺北：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
陳怡伶、黎德星，2010，「新自由主義化, 國家與住宅市場」，『地理學報』，59：105-131。
曾禹瑄，2014，「土地開發的產權僵局-以松山二期重劃區為例」，國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文：臺北。
馮正民、林楨家，2000，『都市及區域分析方法』，臺北：建都文化事業股份有限公司。
鍾紫筠，2018，「都市更新容積獎勵制度之公共利益與分配正義問題分析」， 國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境研究所碩士論文：新北。
藍逸之、李承嘉、林宜璇，2015，「從擴大租隙解析都市更新條例之新自由主義邏輯: 地產博奕或優質再生?」，『都市與計劃』，42(2)：109-152。
邊泰明，1993，「土地使用分區大規模土地開發效果分析」，『土地經濟年刊』，4：133-150。
貳、外文參考文獻
Adams, C., Baum, A., & MacGregor, B. (1988). The availability of land for inner city development: a case study of inner Manchester. Urban Studies, 25(1), 62-76.
Adams, D., & Watkins, C. (2014). The value of planning. Royal Town Planning Institute: London, UK.
Alexander, E. R. (2001). A transaction-cost theory of land use planning and development control: towards the institutional analysis of public planning. The Town Planning Review, 45-75.
Alonso, W. (2013). Location and land use: Harvard University Press.
Bell, A., & Parchomovsky, G. (2008). Reconfiguring property in three dimensions. U. Chi. L. Rev., 75, 1015.
Bird, P. (2007). Landownership and settlement change in south-west Cheshire from 1750 to 2000.
Bourne, L. S. (1969). Location factors in the redevelopment process: a model of residential change. Land economics, 45(2), 183-193.
Brooks, L., & Lutz, B. (2016). From today`s city to tomorrow`s city: An empirical investigation of urban land assembly. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(3), 69-105.
Buchanan, J. M., & Yoon, Y. J. (2000). Symmetric tragedies: Commons and anticommons. The Journal of Law and Economics, 43(1), 1-14.
Colwell, P., & Scheu, T. (1998). Public land use constraints: Lot and house configuration. Journal of Real Estate Research, 16(2), 201-218.
Colwell, P. F., & Munneke, H. J. (1999). Land prices and land assembly in the CBD. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18(2), 163-180.
Colwell, P. F., & Scheu, T. (1989). Optimal lot size and configuration. Journal of urban Economics, 26(1), 90-109.
Colwell, P. F., & Sirmans, C. F. (1978). Area, time, centrality and the value of urban land. Land economics, 54(4), 514-519.
Colwell, P. F., & Sirmans, C. F. (1980). Nonlinear urban land prices. Urban Geography, 1(2), 141-152.
D`Arcy, É., & Keogh, G. (1997). Towards a property market paradigm of urban change. Environment and Planning A, 29(4), 685-706.
Davis, O. A., & Whinston, A. B. (1961). The economics of urban renewal. Law & Contemp. Probs., 26, 105.
Dawkins, C. J. (2000). Transaction costs and the land use planning process. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(4), 507-518.
Eckart, W. (1985). On the land assembly problem. Journal of urban Economics, 18(3), 364-378.
Evans, A. W. (1983). The determination of the price of land. Urban Studies, 20(2), 119-129.
Evans, A. W. (1995). The property market: ninety per cent efficient? Urban Studies, 32(1), 5-29.
Evans, A. W. (2008). Economics, Real Estate and the Supply of Land: John Wiley & Sons.
Gaffikin, F., & Warf, B. (2002). Urban policy and the post-Keynesian state in the United Kingdom and the United States. The City: Land use, structure, and change in the Western city, 2(3), 238.
Heller, M. A. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard law review, 621-688.
Hill, R. C., Griffiths, W. E., & Lim, G. C. (2018). Principles of econometrics: John Wiley & Sons.
Januszewski, J. (1968). Index of land consolidation as a criterion of the degree of concentration. Geographia Polonica, 14, 291-296.
Kim, J. H. (2011). Linking land use planning and regulation to economic development: a literature review. Journal of Planning Literature, 26(1), 35-47.
Klosterman, R. E. (1985). Arguments for and against planning. The Town Planning Review, 5-20.
Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F., & Hill, M. (2007). Public policy analysis: Policy Press.
Lin, T.-C. (2005). Land assembly in a fragmented land market through land readjustment. Land Use Policy, 22(2), 95-102.
Lin, T.-C. (2014). Land Development and Urban Growth in a Booming Property Market: The Taipei Experience. In Globalization and New Intra-Urban Dynamics in Asian Cities (pp. 241-264): National Taiwan University Press.
Lin, T.-C., & Evans, A. W. (2000). The relationship between the price of land and size of plot when plots are small. Land economics, 386-394.
Lin, T.-C., Huang, F.-H., & Lin, S.-E. (2018). Land assembly for urban development in Taipei City with particular reference to old neighborhoods. Land Use Policy, 78, 555-561.
Lum, S. K., Sim, L. L., & Malone-Lee, L. C. (2004). Market-led policy measures for urban redevelopment in Singapore. Land Use Policy, 21(1), 1-19.
Menezes, F., & Pitchford, R. (2004). The land assembly problem revisited. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(2), 155-162.
Miceli, T. J. (2011). Free riders, holdouts, and public use: a tale of two externalities. Public Choice, 148(1), 105-117.
Moore, T. (1978). Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic theory. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44(4), 387-398.
Nelson, A. C., & Lang, R. (2007). The next 100 million. PLANNING-CHICAGO-, 73(1), 4.
O`Flaherty, B. (1994). Land assembly and urban renewal. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24(3), 287-300.
O`sullivan, A. (1996). Urban economics (Vol. 3): Irwin Chicago.
Portillo, J. E. (2019). Land-assembly and externalities: How do positive post-development externalities affect land aggregation outcomes? Regional Science and Urban Economics, 77, 104-124.
Schall, L. D. (1976). Urban renewal policy and economic efficiency. The American Economic Review, 66(4), 612-628.
Seyfried, W. R. (1991). Measuring the feasibility of a zoning bonus. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(3), 348-356.
Shoup, D. (2008). Graduated density zoning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2), 161-179.
Simmons, A. J. (1964). An index of farm structure with a Nottinghamshire example: Department of Geography university of Nottingham.
Sklenicka, P., Zouhar, J., Trpáková, I., & Vlasák, J. (2017). Trends in land ownership fragmentation during the last 230 years in Czechia, and a projection of future developments. Land Use Policy, 67, 640-651.
Smersh, G., Smith, M., & Schwartz Jr, A. (2003). Factors affecting residential property development patterns. Journal of Real Estate Research, 25(1), 61-76.
Spaans, M., Janssen-Jansen, L., & van der Veen, M. (2011). Market-oriented compensation instruments: lessons for Dutch urban redevelopment. The Town Planning Review, 425-440.
Stone, D. A. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making -3rd ed. p. cm.: Haper Collins Publishers.
Strange, W. C. (1995). Information, holdouts, and land assembly. Journal of urban Economics, 38(3), 317-332.
Tabuchi, T. (1996). Quantity premia in real property markets. Land economics, 206-217.
Tang, B.-s., & Tang, R. M. (1999). Development control, planning incentive and urban redevelopment: evaluation of a two-tier plot ratio system in Hong Kong. Land Use Policy, 16(1), 33-43.
Tasan-Kok, T. (2008). Changing interpretations of ‘flexibility’in the planning literature: From opportunism to creativity? International Planning Studies, 13(3), 183-195.
Turk, S. S., & Demircioglu, E. (2013). Use of market-led measures for land assembly in Turkey. Habitat International, 40, 201-210.
Van Dijk, T. (2003). Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy, 20(2), 149-158.
Zhu, J. (2012). Development of sustainable urban forms for high-density low-income Asian countries: The case of Vietnam: The institutional hindrance of the commons and anticommons. Cities, 29(2), 77-87. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
109257015 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109257015 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202200842 |
| Appears in Collections: | [地政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 701501.pdf | | 4200Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 22 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
