Title

宜蘭縣農地價格分析

Translated Titles

The Analysis of Agricultural Land Prices in Yilan County

DOI

10.6342/NTU201700429

Authors

蔣榮華

Key Words

農地價格 ; 農地區位 ; 宜蘭縣 ; agricultural land prices ; the location of agricultural land ; Yilan County

PublicationName

臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2017年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

林國慶

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

臺灣地狹人稠,土地資源有限。以土地作為生產要素的本質而言,農地價格反映其農業生產收益,而都市邊緣農地受到都市成長的影響,價格尚包含預期未來轉用後的潛在價值,以致市場價格高於其作為農地的收益價格。農地價格高漲不利農業發展,農地亦不能僅限農業部門使用,瞭解農地價格有助於整體政策規劃,促進資源有效運用。 宜蘭縣位於臺灣東北角,地形以高山地區較多,農地主要分佈於蘭陽平原,宜蘭縣鄰近人口密度最高的臺北都會區,農業發展條例修訂及國道5號通車後,使得宜蘭縣農地受到非農業因素的影響更為顯著,各鄉鎮市區間的農地價格差異逐漸擴大,都市化程度較高或有重大交通建設之鄉鎮,農地價格明顯高於以農業為主的地區。近三年宜蘭縣都市土地價格增長高於全國,對農地轉用後之預期潛在增值帶動宜蘭縣農地價格持續提升,也造成農業生產力及產值下降。為瞭解宜蘭縣農地價格,本研究採用宜蘭縣農地交易實價登錄資料,分析宜蘭縣農地交易情況,探討宜蘭縣農地價格之影響因素及區位特性對農地價格影響。 宜蘭縣農地交易頻繁,交易面積佔該縣市農地面積比率為全國各縣市第二高者,僅次於桃園市,交易標的含登記建物之比率更為各縣市中最高者。2013年至2015年宜蘭縣農地交易價格逐年遞增,平均交易價格約為每公頃3,687萬元,遠高於農業生產收益所得,農地價格除農業地租,尚包含土地轉用後的預期增值。宜蘭縣12個鄉鎮市區農地價格有顯著差異,羅東鎮和宜蘭市二大主要都會區農地價格最高,每公頃超過6,000萬元。 實證分析區位可及性對農地價格之影響,分別衡量個別土地坵塊與區域中心(宜蘭火車站和羅東火車站)、國道5號交流道、鄉鎮市區地方行政中心之距離,與區域中心、高速公路交流道、地方行政中心之距離愈近,農地價格遞增,且隨著與區域中心、高速公路交流道、地方行政中心之距離愈近,農地價格增加的幅度愈大,受到來自市場轉用的壓力較大。與十年前的研究資料相比較,地價曲線顯得更為陡峭,隨著與區域中心及高速公路交流道之距離愈近,價格增加比率愈高,區位可及性對農地價格之影響更形重要。 除區位可及性,移轉面積、非都市土地使用分區、都市化程度、交易年度等因素均會影響宜蘭縣農地價格。移轉面積愈大,農地價格愈低,惟因法令規範申請興建農舍之面積需大於0.25公頃,當移轉面積大於0.25公頃,農地價格趨勢出現轉折,農地價格顯著上升;非都市土地使用分區之特定農業區和一般農業區農地價格較山坡地保育區為高,而特定農業區的農地價格又高於一般農業區;都市化程度也會影響農地價格,當人口密度愈高,農地價格愈高,另大同鄉和南澳鄉多為山地地形,發展相對受限,農地價格顯著低於宜蘭縣其他鄉鎮市區;從交易年度來看,2013年至2015年之農地價格逐年遞增。 來自非農業使用需求增加,農地難以僅限農業生產使用,政府應綜合考量經濟發展及糧食安全等因素,對土地政策提出完整規劃,適度且有規劃地釋出農地,增加都會區及其周遭土地供給,及在以農業為主之地區劃設農業發展專區,確保農地完整性,維護良好之生產環境,以促進整體土地資源之有效使用,並配合適當之土地利用管理策略,防止土地被不當使用,以維護農業生產力及提升整體社會福祉。

English Abstract

Taiwan is a densely populated country with limited land resources. As land is by nature a factor of production, prices of agricultural land reflect the returns from its agricultural use. Farmland at urban fringe is, however, affected by urban development. Thus, its prices include the potential value of expected future conversion. Therefore, the market prices are higher than the returns from agricultural use. The soaring farmland prices have adverse effects on agricultural development. Moreover, agricultural land should not be restricted to be used by agricultural sectors. Understanding of agricultural land prices facilitates overall policy planning and promotes effective utilization of resources. Yilan County is located at northeastern Taiwan. Its landforms are dominated by mountains with farmland mainly spreads across the Lanyang Plain. Yilan County is close to the greater Taipei region which has the highest population density in Taiwan. Since the amendments to the Agricultural Development Act and the opening of Freeway No. 5, impacts of non-agricultural factors on farmland in Yilan County become more significant and the price difference of agricultural land between townships gradually increases. The prices of farmland in townships with higher degree of urbanization or major transport infrastructure are significantly higher than those in agriculture-based areas. During the past three years, urban land of Yilan County has the highest price increments in the nation. The expected potential increments from the conversion of agricultural land drive the continuous increase of farmland prices in the County. It also results in diminishing agricultural productivity and production value. To understand the agricultural land prices of Yilan County, the study uses data from the actual price registration for farmland in Yilan County to analyze those transactions and to inquire into the influencing factors on the prices of agricultural land in Yilan County and the impacts of site specificity on prices. Farmland in Yilan County is traded frequently. The County has the second-highest ratio of area of transacted land to that of overall agricultural land, following Taoyuan City; and the highest ratio of traded objects with registered buildings in the nation. From 2013 to 2015, the trading prices of agricultural land in Yilan County increase each year. The average transaction price is roughly NT$ 36.87 million per hectare, much higher than revenues generated from agricultural use. In addition to rents, agricultural land prices include the expected value increments after land conversion. Significant difference in agricultural land prices is noted between different townships within Yilan County. Luodong Township and Yilan City, the two major metropolises, have the highest agricultural land prices, i.e. each hectare exceeds NT$ 60 million. The empirical study analyses the impact of location accessibility on agricultural land prices. It separately measures the distance between individual land lot and reginal centers (Yilan Train Station and Luodong Train Station), interchanges of Freeway No. 5, and administrative centers. As the distance between the land lot and reginal centers, freeway interchanges, and administrative centers decreases, agricultural land prices increase. Moreover, as the distance between the land lot and reginal centers, freeway interchanges, and administrative centers decreases, the agricultural land price increments increase and the pressure for conversion grows larger. Comparing to studies conducted a decade ago, the price curve of land becomes steeper. The changes in distance to reginal centers and freeway interchanges correlate with larger price rate of change. Hence, a more profound impact of location accessibility on agricultural land prices is identified. In addition to location accessibility, area transferred, non-urban land zoning, degree of urbanization, and year of transaction are all factors affecting the agricultural land prices in Yilan County. The greater the area transferred, the lower the agricultural land price. However, as the laws stipulate that farmhouses are allowed only on land with area greater than 0.25 hectare, a turning point is noted on the price trend for agricultural land when the transferred area is greater than 0.25 hectare, i.e. there is a significant increase in the agricultural land prices. The prices of agricultural land within special and common agricultural zones under non-urban land are higher than the one in the hillside conservation zones and the prices of agricultural land within special agricultural zones are higher than the one in common agricultural zones. The degree of urbanization also affects the agricultural land prices. The prices rise as the population density increases. In addition, Datong and Nanao Townships are located at mountainous regions. Thus, their developments are relatively limited. The agricultural land prices within those areas are significantly lower than other townships within Yilan County. By transaction years, the prices of agricultural land increase each year from 2013 to 2015. As the demands for non-agricultural use increase, it is difficult to utilize farmland solely for agricultural production. The government should take into account factors such as economic development and food security when formulating comprehensive plans for land policies. Agricultural land should be released in an appropriate and orderly manner to increase the supply of land for metropolitan area and its surroundings. Also, agricultural development zone should be established in agriculture-based areas to ensure the integrity of agricultural land and maintain a sound production environment in order to facilitate the effective use of overall land resources. Appropriate management strategies for land use should be implemented to prevent improper exploitation and thus retain agricultural productivity and enhance overall social well-being.

Topic Category 生物資源暨農學院 > 農業經濟學研究所
生物農學 > 農業
Reference
  1. 行政院農業委員會,2016。『農業統計年報』。臺北市:行政院農業委員會。
    連結:
  2. 行政院農業委員會,2016。『農業統計要覽』。臺北市:行政院農業委員會。
    連結:
  3. 吳功顯,2007。「農地價格之組成及其影響因素之探討」。『華岡農科學報』,第20期,1-29。
    連結:
  4. 吳彩珠、林峰田、林森田、許元綸,2014。「宜蘭農地宅舍分布型態之變遷與其影響因素之探討」。『都市與計劃』,第40卷,第1期,31-56。
    連結:
  5. 李元拓,2009。『以時間面向探討新建交通建設對房地產價格之影響-以國道五號及宜蘭地區為例』,未出版碩士論文,成功大學都市計劃學系。
    連結:
  6. 李承嘉,2011。「台灣當前農地政策評議」。『土地問題研究季刊』,第10卷,第4期,12-27。
    連結:
  7. 李素馨、林敬妤、吳治達,2012。「都市邊緣農村地景破碎化研究」。『台灣土地研究』,第15卷,第2期,59-85。
    連結:
  8. 林子欽,2007。『農地移轉價格對農地所有權流通與農地利用影響之研究』。臺北市:行政院農業委員會。
    連結:
  9. 林子欽,2008。『農地交易與農舍興建趨勢對農地利用之影響研究』。臺北市:行政院農業委員會。
    連結:
  10. 林森田,1993。『都會地區農地使用變更制度之研究』。臺北市:行政院農業委員會。
    連結:
  11. 林敬妤、吳治達、莊永忠,2012。「宜蘭農村地景變遷時空分析 - 以三星鄉尾塹村、大洲村與大義村為例」。『地理學報』,第64期,1-20。
    連結:
  12. 張學聖、陳姿伶、陳柏君,2013。「台灣農地轉用與農地交易空間關聯性之研究」。『建築與規劃學報』,第37卷,第2&3期,167-182。
    連結:
  13. 陳碧琳,2016。「等待農地正義!初探《國土計畫法》面對農地商品化的挑戰」。『臺灣博物館季刊』,第35卷,第2期,14-25。
    連結:
  14. 黃威翔,2008。『農地轉用壓力下之農地價格-以宜蘭縣為個案』,未出版碩士論文,台北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系。
    連結:
  15. 劉小蘭、許佩漩、蔡育新,2010。「臺灣都市蔓延之影響因素分析」。『地理學報』,第58期,49-63。
    連結:
  16. Anderson, J. E., 2012. “Agricultural Use-Value Property Tax Assessment: Estimation and Policy Issues”, Public Budgeting and Finance. 32(4): 71-94.
    連結:
  17. Anderson, J. E., and Griffing, M.F., 2000. “Use-Value Assessment Tax Expenditures in Urban Areas”, Journal of Urban Economics. 48(3): 443-452.
    連結:
  18. Capozza, D. R., and Helsley, R. W., 1989. “The Fundamentals of Land Prices and Urban Growth”, Journal of Urban Economics. 26(3): 295-306.
    連結:
  19. Capozza, D. R., and Helsley, R. W., 1990. “The Stochastic City”, Journal of Urban Economics, 28(2): 187-203.
    連結:
  20. Capozza, D. R., and Li, Y. M., 1994. “The Intensity and Timing of Investment: The Case of Land”, The American Economic Review, 84(4), 889-904.
    連結:
  21. Capozza, D. R., and Sick, G. A., 1994, “The Risk Structure of Land Markets”, Journal of Urban Economics, 35(3): 297-319.
    連結:
  22. Case, K. E., and Shiller, R. J., 1989. “The Efficiency of the Market for Single-Family Homes”, American Economic Review, 79(1): 125-137.
    連結:
  23. Cavailhès, J., and Wavresky, P., 2003. “Urban Influences on Periurban Farmland Prices”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 30 (3): 333-357.
    連結:
  24. Chicoine, D. L., 1981. “Farmland Values at the Urban Fringe: An Analysis of Sale Prices”, Land Economics. 57(3): 353-362.
    連結:
  25. Delbecq, B. A., Kuethe, T. H., and Borchers, A. M., 2014. “Identifying the Extent of the Urban Fringe and Its Impact on Agricultural Land Values”, Land Economics. 90(4): 587-600.
    連結:
  26. Flood, R. P., and Hodrick, R. J., 1990. “On Testing for Speculative Bubbles”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(2): 85-101.
    連結:
  27. Livanis, G., Moss, C. B., Breneman, V. E., and Nehring, R. F., 2006. “Urban Sprawl and Farmland Prices”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 88(4): 915-929.
    連結:
  28. Plantinga, A. J., Lubowski, R. N., and Stavins, R. N., 2002. “The Effects of Potential Land Development on Agricultural Land Prices”, Journal of Urban Economics. 52(3): 561-581.
    連結:
  29. Renwick, A., Jansson, T., Verburg, P. H., Revoredo-Giha, C., Britz, W., Gocht, A., and McCracken, A., 2013. “Policy Reform and Agricultural Land Abandonment in the EU”, Land Use Policy. 30(1): 446-457.
    連結:
  30. Tsoodle, L. J., Featherstone, A. M., and Golden, B. B. 2007. “Combining Hedonic and Negative Exponential Techniques to Estimate the Market Value of Land”, Agricultural Finance Review. 67(2): 225-239.
    連結:
  31. Tsoodle, L. J., Golden, B. B., and Featherstone, A. M. 2006. “Factors Influencing Kansas Agricultural Farm Land Values”, Land Economics. 82(1): 124-139.
    連結:
  32. 內政部地政司,2016。『農都市地價指數』。臺北市:中華民國內政部。
  33. 王親仁、賴玲慧,2011。「影響臺灣農地利用因素之實證分析」。『臺灣土地金融季刊』,第62卷,第2期,255-274。
  34. 石計生、紀建良,2008。「Desakotasi依然在? 宜蘭都市化型態的社會空間研究(1996-2007)」,臺北市,中央研究院。
  35. 行政院主計總處,2016。『104年家庭收支調查報告』。臺北市:行政院主計總處。
  36. 何金銘,1991。「高雄都會區的入口密度分布模型-人口密度函數理論的再驗證」。『人口學刊』,第14期,69-82。
  37. 宜蘭縣政府主計處,2016。『宜蘭縣統計年報』。宜蘭縣:宜蘭縣政府主計處。
  38. 林子欽,2014。「由政府統計觀察臺灣農地市場」。『台灣環境與土地法學雜誌』,第10期,99-120。
  39. 林茂雄,2000。「農業發展條例及相關法案修正重點」。『農政與農情』,第92期,1-9。
  40. 林國慶,1993。『台灣農地價格之研究』。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告(NSC82-0301-H002-015)。
  41. 林國慶,1994。「臺灣農地政策分析與政策建議」。『經社法制論叢』,第13期,15-40。
  42. 林國慶、趙蕙萍,1992。「分析臺灣農地價格與農地市場之效率-解開農業結構僵化之迷」。『中國經濟學會年會論文集』,345-371。
  43. 林國慶、趙蕙萍,1994。「農地區位地價之研究-雲林縣崙背鄉」。『土地經濟年刊』,第5期,73-104。
  44. 林國慶、趙蕙萍,1994。「臺灣三大都會區農地價格之動態分析」。『臺灣土地金融季刊』,第31卷,第2期,1-50。
  45. 林國慶、趙蕙萍,1994。「臺灣農地價格時間序列資料之編製與分析」。『臺灣土地金融季刊』,第31卷,第1期,75-104。
  46. 殷章甫,2004。『土地經濟學』。臺北市,五南圖書出版公司。
  47. 張基湛,1986。「臺灣農地價格變動之研究」。『臺灣銀行季刊』,第37卷,第4期,305-343。
  48. 陳力維,2000。『台灣房地產價格變動因素之研究』,未出版碩士論文,淡江大學財務金融學系。
  49. 陳明燦,1997。「純農業型農業區農地價格之實證研究-以雲林縣大埤鄉為例」。『興大法商學院法商學報』,第33期,266-270。
  50. 陳明燦,1998。「農地價格,選擇價值與農地政策-不同類型農業區之實證分析」。『興大法商學院法商學報』,第34期,259-290。
  51. 黃祥銨,2010。『雪山隧道對宜蘭房地產影響之分析』,未出版碩士論文,中華大學建築與都市計畫學系。
  52. 黃樹仁,2002。『心牢-農地農用意識形態與台灣城鄉發展』。臺北市:巨流圖書公司。
  53. 葉美容,2011。『以混合多評準決策探討臺灣農地價格之影響因素』,未出版碩士論文,逢甲大學土地管理所。
  54. 趙蕙萍,1992。『臺灣農地價格之研究』,未出版碩士論文,臺灣大學農業經濟研究所。
  55. 劉昆霈,2015。『農地成交價格與收益價格差距之研究』,未出版碩士論文,政治大學地政研究所。
  56. 蘇志超,1975。「台灣農地價值之分析」。『台灣農業發展論文集』。臺北市:聯經。
  57. Huang, H., Miller, G. Y., Sherrick, B. J., and Gómez, M. I., 2006. “Factors Influencing Illinois Farmland Values”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 88(2): 458-470.
  58. Kuethe, T. H., Ifft, J., and Morehart, M. J., 2011. “The Influence of Urban Areas on Farmland Values”, Choices 26 (2nd quarter).