政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/54687
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113303/144284 (79%)
Visitors : 50806436      Online Users : 775
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/140.119/54687


    Title: 台北捷運聯合開發住宅選擇行為與旅運行為之研究
    The research of Taipei MRT joint development of residential choice behavior and travel behavior
    Authors: 黃永漢
    Contributors: 白仁德
    黃永漢
    Keywords: 大眾運輸導向發展
    捷運聯合開發
    住宅區位選擇
    旅運行為
    二項羅吉特
    多項羅吉特
    word：Transit Oriented Development
    Transit Jointed Development
    Residential Location Choice
    Travel Behavior
    Binary Logit
    Multinomial Logit.
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-10-30 11:31:09 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來，國內有許多研究提倡大眾運輸導向發展 (Transit Oriented Development)的理念，政府也大力推動大眾運輸系統的建設，其中最為重要的是捷運的建設，在台北都會區，捷運路網的建設正逐步完成，與捷運建設息息相關的捷運聯合開發(Transit Jointed Development)也隨之蓬勃發展，同時，捷運聯合開發亦是我國推動大眾運輸導向發展普遍的作法之一。目前台北都會區目前共有82處聯合開發基地，已完工基地有35處，可容納6,317個家戶，以及755,773.69帄方公尺樓地板面積，對於減緩日益嚴重的都市住宅問題，有一定程度的幫助。但在規劃聯合開發住宅時，聯合開發住宅在不同類型、特性之捷運場站中，將面臨到許多問題，如：純住宅型態或住商混合型態較能符合民眾之需求？哪些家戶會選擇聯合開發住宅？又其家戶類型以及選擇原因為何？這些問題如何解決，係本研究欲探討之內容，因此，本研究以台北捷運聯合開發已完工且辦理租售作業之開發基地作為研究對象，並篩選出9處聯合開發基地進行實證研究，透過問卷調查的方式，瞭解民眾之聯合開發住宅選擇行為與旅運行為，並透過二項與多項羅吉特模型，探討影響民眾聯合開發住宅選擇行為之影響因素。
    實證結果發現，在旅運行為方面，聯合開發住宅住戶之大眾運輸使用率大幅增加，在通勤時間與花費方面，通勤時間與花費均減少。除此之外，聯合開發住宅住戶之汽車持有率與使用頻率均大幅減少。在家戶特性方面，捷運聯合開發住宅住戶之家戶規模普遍較小，且家計負責人之年紀普遍較為年輕，進一步形成其他特性，如：就學人口比例較低、家戶月收入較低等。在影響因素方面，家戶規模、住宅帄均單價、住宅規模對民眾選擇不同類型之聯合開發住宅有顯著影響。最後依據實證結果，建議未來聯合開發住宅之規劃應加入TOD的規劃原則，對於聯合開發住宅之坪數、商業面積，應依捷運場站之類型進行調整，使聯合開發住宅之效益達到最大。
    In recent years, there are many researches promote the idea of the transit-oriented development. The government also vigorously promotes this infrastructure projects. One of the most important projects is the development of the MRT system. In Taipei metropolitan area, while the construction of the MRT network is gradually completed, the transit jointed dvelopment is also flourishing. Moreover, transit jointed development is the most common way in order to promote TOD. Currently, there are 82 Transit Jointed Development bases in Taipei metropolitan area. 35 of the bases have already completed, which can accommodate 6,317 household with 75,577,369 square meters of floor area. It certainly will help to alleviate the problem of urban housing. However, in planning of the Jointed Residential Development, it will face many problems due to the different types of characteristics of the MRT station. For example, which households will choose a jointed development dewilling? What is the reason of choosing jointed development dewilling? How to solve these problems? These are the contents of the study. Therefore, in this study, we target the bases that have already been completed and applied for rental operations in transit jointed development as the research object, and select 9 of them for the empirical research. In order to understand people’s choice behavior in jointed development dewilling, we use survey as a method, and explore the factors that affect people’s choice behavior by applying Binary Logit and Multinomial Logit Models.
    The results of empirical research show that households in the jointed development dewilling increase their public transport usage and reduce their commuting time and costs. In addition, their car ownership rate and frequency of use are significantly reduced. In the aspect of household characteristics, the households in the jointed development in the household scale are generally small and relatively young age of the householder. Those characteristics are going to further the formation of the other features, such as: the lower the proportion of student population and lower income households. Impact factors, such as the size of the household, the average residential price, residential scale on the people choose different types of joint development dewilling have a significant effect. Finally, according to the empirical results, it is recommended that the TOD should be added to the planning principle of the future Joint Residential Development. For the Jointed Residential Development, the size of house and commercial area should be adjusted along with the MRT in order to maximize the efficiency.
    Reference: 參考文獻
    中文參考文獻
    台北市政府捷運工程局，2010，『捷運年刊』，臺北：台北市捷運工程局編印。
    台北市政府都市發展局，2001，「台北市綜合發展計畫－捷運網絡發展對台北市都市空間結構影響之規劃」，委託交大交通運輸研究所規劃。
    任雅淳、林楨家，2006，「大眾運輸導向發展與住宅區位選擇－台北捷運淡水線之實證研究」，臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：臺北。
    吳綱立，2009，〈高雄市區鐵路地下化站區新生地都市設計開發策略規劃案結案報告書〉，高雄：高雄市政府委託研究規劃報告。
    李家儂、賴宗裕，2007，「臺北都會區大眾運輸導向發展目標體系與策略之建構」，『地理學報』48：19-42。
    卓哲宇、謝定亞，2010，「 大眾捷運系統土地聯合開發評審項目之研究─以台北都會區捷運系統為例」，國立中央大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
    邱錦添，1995，「台北都會區捷運車站土地聯合開發之研究」，台北：文史哲出版社。
    洪得洋、林祖嘉，1999，「台北市捷運系統與道路寬度對房屋價格影響之研究」，〈1999 年中華民國住宅學會第八屆年會論文集〉，中華民國住宅學會。
    胡志平，2004，「高科技產業從業人員之住宅選擇-多項Logit模式之應用」，〈2004中華民國住宅學會論文集〉，35-50，中華民國住宅學會。
    常歧德，2007，「以捷運聯合開發帶動都會新風貌」，『捷運技術半年刊』，36：25-30。
    梁正芳、高文彥、邱靖棠，2007，「 捷運聯合開發位於都市更新地區運作實務之探討」『捷運技術半年刊』，36：61-72。
    連經宇，2003，「應用模糊語意方法與不連續選擇理論建立家戶購屋選擇行為模式之研究」，國立成功大學都市計畫研究所博士論文：臺南。
    陳建翰、林楨家，2011，「捷運站聯合開發屬性對捷運使用及不動產價格之影響-台北捷運系統之實證研究」，臺北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文：臺北。
    陳思翰，2007，「 捷運聯合開發對當地房地產市場之影響」，『捷運技術半年刊』，36：171-178。
    黃狄昌，2007，「從歷史步道中看見臺北捷運」，『捷運技術半年刊』，37：205-216。
    蔣文育、梁金樹、余坤東，2005，「應用Logit Model於航空市場之消費行為研究」，『東吳經濟商學學報』，48：52-72。
    鍾維力，1997，「聯合開發」，台北：台北市政府捷運工程局。
    外文參考文獻
    Alonso, W., 1964, Location and land use: toward a general theory of land rent,
    Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
    Berry, B., 2004, A Theoretical Model for Measuring the Influence of Accessibility in Residential Choice Behaviour.
    Boarnet, M. and Crane, R., 1998, L.A. Story: A Reality Check for Transit-Based Housing, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 2, p. 189-204.
    Börsch-Supan, A. 1987. Econometric Analysis of Discrete choice – with applications on the demand for housing in the U.S. and West-Germany. Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin.
    Calthorpe,P.1993.Next Amercian Metroplis:Ecology,Communityand the American Dream,Princeton Architectural Press.
    Cervero, R., Hall, P., and Landis, J. 1991. Transit Joint Development in the United
    States: A Review and Evaluation of Recent Experiences and an Assessment of Future
    Potential. Washington, D.C.: Urban Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Department of
    Transportation.
    Cervero, R. and Kockelman, K. 1997.“Travel Demand and 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design”, Transportation Research D, Vol. 2, No. 3, p.199-219.
    Cervero, R. 1998. The Transit Metropolis, Washington, D. C.: Island Press.
    Cervero R, Jennifer Day.2008.Suburbanization and transit-oriented development in China, Transport Policy, 15,p. 315–323
    Colombino, U. & M.L. Biey .2001. Modelling household choices of dwelling and local public services. Centre for household, income, labour and demographics, Italy.
    Hooimeijer, P,1990.Towards a special demography of housing. Emerging issues in demographic research, Elsevier Science Publishers p. 281-295.
    CTODRA , 2004, Capturing The Demand ForHousing Near Transit, Center for Transit Oriented Development and Reconnecting America,www.reconnectingamerica.org
    Cyril B. P., 1995, Designing the successful downtown, Urban Land Inst.
    Hosmer, D. W. & S. Lemeshow .2000.Applied logistic regression p.31-46.
    Hollie L,.2006.Reasons for living in a transit-oriented development, and associated transit use, American Planning Association p.357-366.
    Kain, J. & Quigley, J.M.1976.”Housing Market and Racial Discrimination：A Microeconomic Analysis”,The National Bureau of Economic Research.
    Keefer, L. 1984. Profit Implications of Joint Development: Three Institutional Approaches. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration.
    Lefaver, S. 1997. Private Land with Public Partnerships for Transit Based Development. San Jose, California: The Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University, Report 97-1.
    Lowry, I.S. 1964.A model of Metropolis, RM-4035-RC, Rand Corporation, Santa
    Monica, California, USA.
    MacFadden, D. 1972. ‘Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour’,
    Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, USA., p. 105-142.
    Molin, E.J.E., and H.J.P Timmermans .2003. Transport considerations in residential choice decisions: accumulated evidence from the Benelux, Proceedings of the 82-th Annual Meeting of the Transport Research Board, Washington, D.C..
    Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
    Priemus, H. 1984. Verhuistheorieën en de verdeling van de woningvoorraad, Delftse Universitaire Pers, Delft, Netherlands.
    Quade, Parsons Brinkerhiff and INC. Douglas.1996. "Transit and Urban Form," Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington: D. C , Report 16.
    Quigley, J.M. 1985. Consumer choice of dwelling, neighborhood and public services. Regional Science and Urban Economics 15, p. 41-63.
    Robson, B.T. 1975. Urban social areas, ser.: Theory and Practice in Geography,
    Oxford University Press, London, UK.
    Rosen, S. 1974. ‘Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition’. Journal of Political Economy, 82,34-55.
    Rouwendal, J. 1989. Choice and allocation models for the housing market, ser.: Studies in operational region sciences, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
    Salvesen, D. 1996. Promoting Transit- Oriented Development. Urban Land, 37,p. 31-35.
    Sedway Kotin Mouchly Group. 1996.Joint Development Entrepreneurial Study. Oakland: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
    Srour, I.A., K.M. Kockelman and T.P. Dunn 2002).Accessibility Indices: A Connection to Residential Land Prices and Location Choices, Presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington.
    Still, T. 2002.Transit-Oriented Development: Reshaping America’s Metropolitan Landscape. On Common Ground, Winter, p. 44-47.
    Tiwari, P. & Hasegawa, H. 2004. A discrete choice model of housing demand in Tokyo, Regional Studies 38 (1) p.27-42.
    White, S.M. and McDaniel, J.B. 1999. TCRP Legal Research Digest 12: The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, p. 1-50.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政研究所
    99257012
    100
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099257012
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Land Economics] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    701201.pdf123KbAdobe PDF2773View/Open
    701202.pdf2193KbAdobe PDF21022View/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