Translated Titles

Impact of Mixed Use on Housing Prices: Disentangling Mixed Use, Density, and Accessibility




蔡育新(Yu-Hsin Tsai);王大立(Dan-Lih Wang);劉小蘭(Hsiao-Lan Liu)

Key Words

TOD ; 土地混合使用 ; 特徵價格模型 ; 空間分析 ; Transit-oriented development ; Mixed use ; Hedonic price model ; Spatial analysis



Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

38卷2期(2011 / 06 / 30)

Page #

119 - 146

Content Language


Chinese Abstract

TOD(transit-oriented development)站區的住宅價格,若因土地混合使用的實施而提高,則可能影響TOD提高大眾運輸使用目標的達成;然而,混合使用對房價影響的文獻仍然有限。本文研究目的有二:解析混合使用、密度與可及性;探討混合使用是否影響房價。研究假設爲:空間衡量尺度的「區位差異假設」、土地使用種類的「種類越多越好假設」、與土地使用量體的「量體充足假設」或「越多越好假設」。本研究應用特徵價格模型(hedonic price model)建立台北市住宅價格模型。實證結果顯示:較佳的混合空間尺度爲對面街廓混合,亦即「近,但不要太近」;住家日常生活直接需求土地使用種類,則越多越理想;但量體大小則並無影響,呈現「夠了就好」的關係模式。然而此較佳的土地混合型態的代價爲高房價,形成TOD實施工具-混合使用-與TOD目標的衝突。但搭配TOD的高密度(高容積)政策,可緩和房價的上漲、並提高TOD站區的住宅供給,且可同時保有理想的土地混合使用型態。

English Abstract

One objective of transit-oriented development (TOD) is to provide affordable housing in station areas, allowing transit dependents to fulfill their residential self-selection and hence to take transit. However, this objective could be adversely affected by high housing prices in TOD station areas. Nonetheless, previous research sheds little light on the impact of mixed land use on housing prices. This study analyzes the relationship between mixed use, density, and accessibility on the one hand, and to evaluate the impact of mixed use on housing prices on the other hand. To accomplish this empirical research, the hedonic price model is applied to the case of Taipei City, Taiwan. Research findings suggest compatible residential-needs uses in neighboring blocks increase housing prices. Additionally, this research reveals that high-quantity land use does not significantly improve level of accessibility. A community designed with neighboring mixed-use blocks and diverse land uses increases accessibility, but also results in increased housing prices. Hence this research suggests raising floor area ratio cap, together with the suggested mixed use type, which on the one hand, is likely to lower housing price per unit floor area, and on the other hand, to increase housing supply in TOD station areas.

Topic Category 工程學 > 土木與建築工程
工程學 > 市政與環境工程
  1. 林楨家、蕭博正(2006)。台北市土地混合使用屬性對旅次發生之影響。臺灣土地研究,9(1),89-115。
  2. 台北市政府地政處(2001),住宅交易價格與基本資料,「台北市不動產數位資料庫」,http://www.tred.tw/2008TPWS/Default.aspx,(2006年3月8日)。http://www.tred.tw/2008TPWS/Default.aspx
  3. Bernick, M.,Cervero, R.(1997).Transit Villages in the 21st Century.New York:McGraw-Hill.
  4. Boaden, G. B.(1977).Choosing the optimal land use mix: A LP/DCF Model.Urban Studies,14(2),207-210.
  5. Calthorpe, P.(1993).The Next American Metropolis.New York:Princeton Architectural Press.
  6. Cao, T. V.,Cory, D. C.(1981).Mixed land uses, land-use externalities, and residential property values: A re-evaluation.The Annals of Regional Science,16(1),1-24.
  7. Cervero, R.(2002).Built environments and mode choice: Toward a normative framework.Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,7(4),265-284.
  8. Cervero, R.(1988).Land-use mixing and suburban mobility.Transportation Quarterly,42(3),429-446.
  9. Cervero, R.,Duncan, M.(2004).Neighbourhood composition and residential land prices: Does exclusion raise or lower values?.Urban Studies,41(2),299-315.
  10. Cervero, R.,Kockelman, K.(1997).Travel demand and 3Ds : Density, diversity, and design.Transportation Research,2(3),199-219.
  11. Chin, H. C.,Foong, K. W.(2006).Influence of school accessibility on housing values.Journal of Urban Planning and Development,132(3),120-129.
  12. Ewing R.,Deanna, M.,Li, S. C.(1996).Land use impacts on trip generation rates.Transportation Research Record,1518,1-6.
  13. Ewing, R.(1996).Best Development Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time.Chicago:APA Planners Press.
  14. Frank, L. D.,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,1466,44-52.
  15. Geoghegan, J.,Wainger, L.A.,Bockstael, N.E.(1997).Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework, an ecological economics analysis using GIS.Ecological Economics,23(3),251-264.
  16. Grant, J.(2002).Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle.Journal of the American Planning Association,68(1),71-85.
  17. Irwin, E.G.(2002).The effects of open space on residential property values.Land Economics,78(4),465-480.
  18. Kockelman, K.(1997).Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance: Evidence from San Francisco area.Transportation Research Record,1607,116-125.
  19. Lees, L.(2008).Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance?.Urban Studies,45(12),2449-2470.
  20. Levine, J.(2006).Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land-Use.Washington, DC:Resources for the Future.
  21. Levine, J.,Inam, A.,Torng, G. W.(2005).A choice-based rationale for land use and transportation alternatives: Evidence from Boston and Atlanta.Journal of Planning Education and Research,24(3),317-330.
  22. Lin, J. J.,Hsiao, P. C.(2006).Strategy development of mixed land-use for restraining trip generation in Taipei City.Transportation Research Record,1983,167-174.
  23. O''Neill, D. J.(2000).The Smart Growth Tool Kit.Washington, DC:Urban Land Institute.
  24. Rosen, S.(1974).Hedonic price and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition.Journal of Political Economy,82(1),34-55.
  25. Schwanen, T.,Mokhtarian, P. L.(2004).The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type.Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,31(5),759-784.
  26. Schwanen, T.,Mokhtarian, P. L.(2005).What if you live in the wrong neighborhood? The impact of residential neighborhood type dissonance on distance traveled.Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,10(2),127-151.
  27. Song, Y.(2005).Smart growth and urban development pattern: A comparative study.International Regional Science Review,28(2),239-265.
  28. Song, Y.,Knaap, G. J.(2004).Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values.Regional Science and Urban Economics,34(6),663-680.
  29. Tsai, Y. H.(2009).Impacts of self-selection and transit proximity on commute mode choice: Evidence from Taipei Rapid Transit System.The Annals of Regional Science,43(4),1073-1094.
  30. Tsai, Y. H.,Lai, Y. L.,Wang, D. L.,Liu, Y. H.(2006).Mismatch between preferred and actual mixed-use neighborhood types: Evidence from an extremely mixed-use city-Taipei.The 2006 Joint AsRES - AREUEA International Conference,Vancouver:
  31. Urban Land Institute(1987).Mixed-Use Development Handbook.Washington, DC:Urban Land Institue.
  32. 宋良政(1986)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中國文化大學工學院實業計劃研究所。
  33. 李永展(1983)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學土木工程學系。
  34. 洪軍爝(1994)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立台灣大學土木工程學系。
  35. 徐瑞梅(1985)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學地政學系。
  36. 莊琮博(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺灣科技大學建築系。
  37. 許弘忠(1993)。逢甲大學都市計畫系。
  38. 許戎聰、黃健二(2001)。住宅區相容性土地混合使用評估指標之研究─以台北市為例。技術學刊,16(1),27-36。
  39. 陳昌顯(1994)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立台灣大學土木工程學系。
  40. 陳亮全(1989)。台北市土地混合使用適宜度之研究。台北:台北市政府工務局都市計畫處。
  41. 陳惠珠(1989)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。淡江大學建築學系。
  42. 曾慧真(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。中華大學建築與都市計畫學系。
  43. 黃書偉(2008)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立成功大學都市計劃學系。
  44. 賴彥伶(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。逢甲大學都市計畫學系。
  45. 賴春綢(1990)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學地政學系。
Times Cited
  1. 林孟璇(2016)。住商混合對居住環境品質影響之研究以逢甲大學社區為例。逢甲大學都市計畫與空間資訊學系學位論文。2016。1-97。 
  2. 蕭淳瑄(2013)。應用動態網路程序法探討TOD下行人步行及自行車空間環境設計策略之研究。臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系學位論文。2013。1-147。
  3. 林強(2013)。TOD居住環境特徵對於居住滿意度影響之研究。臺北大學都市計劃研究所學位論文。2013。1-158。