:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:不同都市階層之地方公共財組合對地價的影響
書刊名:臺灣土地研究
作者:鄭明書林享博
作者(外文):Cheng, Ming-shuLin, Hsiang-po
出版日期:2011
卷期:14:2
頁次:頁99-120
主題關鍵詞:地方公共財組合偏好集群地價The basket of local public goodsPreference groupsLand prices
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:30
地方公共財組合不僅可反映當地的生活與居住環境,在這方面的經費支出與投入也會反映到當地的地價。為驗證此等組合對地價的影響,本文以民國93至95年國內全部358個行政區為研究對象,選取教育、交通、環保等三項經費,及公園綠地面積做為衡量地方公共財組合的四項指標,經由集群分析,將全部的行政區歸為5個偏好集群。同一偏好集群內的行政區具有相近的地方公共財組合。其次,以所得、人口密度及偏好集群為解釋變數,各行政區的地價為應變數,進行迴歸分析,模型結果顯示,各偏好集群的公共財組合對地價有顯著影響。同時,各行政區的所得與人口密度變數,對地價亦存在正向影響。
The baskets of local public goods represent the quality of local living and residential environment. The expenditure and physical inputs of the baskets will be capitalized in local land prices. To find out the effect of the baskets on land prices, we choose all 358 jurisdictions in Taiwan as the study subject. The three expenditures on education, transportation, and environmental protection and the land area of parks and greenery consist of the basket and are used to do a clustered analysis on the jurisdictions which are classified into 5 preference groups by that analysis. Jurisdictions in the same preference groups have very similar baskets of local public goods. Then we use income, population density, and preference groups as explanatory variables, and land prices as independent variables, to build a regression model for the jurisdictions. The model shows that the baskets of each preference group contribute significant positive effects on land prices. The influence of the income level, and population density of jurisdictions are positive too.
期刊論文
1.Barrow, Lisa(2002)。School Choice Through Relocation: Evidence from the Washington, D.C. Area。Journal of Public Economics,86,155-189。  new window
2.Oates, W. E.(1969)。The Effect of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis。Journal of Political Economy,77(6),957-971。  new window
3.Dowding, Keith、John, Peter、Biggs, Stephen D.(1994)。Tiebout: A survey of the empirical literature。Urban Studies,31(4/5),767-797。  new window
4.Bolitzer, B.、Netusil, N. R.(2000)。The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon。Journal of Environmental Management,59(3),185-193。  new window
5.林森田、陳荔芬(19931000)。地方公共設施效益與土地稅負擔資本化之研究。國立政治大學學報,67(下),423-457。  延伸查詢new window
6.鄧瑞兆、蔡吉源(1995)。地方財政、資本化與居所選擇之經濟分析。臺灣土地金融季刊,32(4),75-97。  延伸查詢new window
7.Bickers, K. N.、Stein, R. M.(1998)。The Microfoundations of the Tiebout Model。Urban Affairs Review,34(1),76-93。  new window
8.Bickers, K. N.、Salucci, L.、Stein, R. M.(2006)。Assessing the Micro-Foundations of the Tiebout Model。Urban Affairs Review,42(1),57-80。  new window
9.John, P.、Dowding, K.、Biggs, S.(1995)。Residential Mobility in London: A Micro-Level Test of the Behavioural Assumptions of the Tiebout Model。British Journal of Political Science,25,379-397。  new window
10.Kelleher, C.、Lowery, D.(2002)。Tiebout Sorting and Selective Satisfaction with Urban Public Services: Testing the Variance Hypothesis。Urban Affairs Review,37(3),420-431。  new window
11.Margulis, H.(2001)。Household Mobility, Housing Traits, Public Goods, and School Quality in Cleveland’s Metropolitan Statistical Area。Urban Affairs Review,36(5),646-677。  new window
12.Sakashita, N.、Hirao, M.(1999)。On the Applicability of the Tiebout Model to Japanese Cities。Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies,11(3),206-215。  new window
13.Teske, P.、Schneider, M.、Mintrom, M.、Best, S.(1993)。Establishing the Micro Foundations of a Macro Theory: Information, Movers, and the Competitive Local Market for Public Goods。American Political Science Review,87(3),702-713。  new window
14.Tyrvainen, L.(1997)。The Amenity Value of the Urban Forest: An Application of the Hedonic Pricing Method。Landscape and Urban Planning,37,211-222。  new window
15.Urquiola, M.(2005)。Does School Choice Lead to Sorting? Evidence from Tiebout Variation。American Economics Review,95(4),1310-1326。  new window
16.Hilber, C. A. L.、Mayer, C. J.(2004)。School Funding Equalization and Residential Location for the Young and the Elderly。Urban Affairs,42,107-148。  new window
17.Hoyt, W. H.、Rosenthal, S. S.(1997)。Household Location and Tiebout: Do Families Sort According to Preferences for Location Amenities。Journal or Urban Economics,42,159-178。  new window
會議論文
1.謝文盛(2001)。公共支出、租稅收入與住宅價格關係之研究。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.陳相如(2005)。都市林特徵價格之研究--以台南市東區為例(碩士論文)。國立成功大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.李泳龍(1988)。地價稅與地方公共設施對住宅區位選擇影響之研究--TIEBOUT假說在台北都會區之實證研究(碩士論文)。國立政治大學。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE