透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.145.12.28
  • 學位論文

建築投資業土地開發評估:層級分析法及模糊層級分析法之比較研究

A Comparison Study Between Analysis Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Analysis Hierarchy Process for Valuation of Land Development on Development Company.

指導教授 : 劉立倫
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


建築投資業營運之生命週期起於土地之取得,而且因為土地之不可移動性與獨特性,所以取得土地時已大致決定了其營運績效。土地成本占營運成本之比重非常高,土地成本近似於沉沒成本,一旦投入就必須全部興建銷售完成方能獲利,因此土地取得為建築投投資業經營之最重大課題。建築投資業在歷經多年的不景氣後,已經不再是高報酬、低風險的行業,反而因為環境的變化迅速,成為高風險、低風險的行業,面對這前所未有的衝擊,建築投資業者不能再完全憑直覺與經驗,必須有更完整周延之評估與分,才能使得投資獲得合理的報酬,並降低投資的風險,以增加公司的競爭優勢。 層級分析法(AHP)及模糊層級分析法(Fuzzy AHP)均屬於多評準決策方法(MCDM)中之多準則評估法(MCE)。本研究係以層級分析法,建立土地開發評估的層級結構,並求出各評估準則之權重。並以三個實際個案,分別利用層級分析法及模糊層級分析法,分別求出其績效值,並以之排定其開發之優先順序。本研究之主要結論有以下幾點: 一、 土地開發評估可用「財務」、「市場」、「總體環境」、「個案特質」四個構面來評估,「財務」構面之評估準則有「投資報酬率、自有資金需求、自有資金報酬率」,「市場」構面之評估準則有「供需狀況、市場競爭力、價格競爭力」,「總體環境」構面之評估準則有「景氣趨勢、地區經濟、政治情勢」,「個案特質」構面之評估準則有「工程技術、交通系統、公共設施、基地環境、整合難易」。 二、 經由層級分析法的權重分析,可得知業界專家認為土地開發評估構面之重要性分別如下:「財務」、「市場」、「個案特質」、「總體環境」。 三、 經由層級分析法的權重分析,可得知業界專家認為土地開發評估準則最重要的五項如下:「自有資金報酬率」、「投資報酬率」、「供需狀況」、「基地環境」、「價格競爭力」。最不重要的三項如下:「政治情勢」、「整合難易」、「工程技術」。 四、 本研究以三個案例對五家業者共二十六人進行之實證研究,結果發現層級分析法及模糊層級分析法無論是各家業者群體或全體業者所選出之最優先個案均相同。

並列摘要


The business operation life cycle of the development industry, which is start from land acquisition. Since land’s un-moveable and special characteristics, usually the timing of land acquisition will generate major impact into the business operation of development. The cost of land is the major part of the business operation of development, which is also similar to the sinking cost. As long as the developer starts to acquire a piece of land, he has to go through entire construction and sales cycle and then he may earn his profit. Therefore, the land acquisition becomes the major business operation issue of the development. Due to long-term recession impact in Taiwan, the development industry becomes from high profit and low risk business into low profit and high risk business. Facing all of the environmental and economic impacts, the developers can’t decide their investment by sense and experience. In order to lower business operation risk, increase competition and gain reasonable profit, the developer shall apply more comprehensive evaluation and analysis tools. Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process(Fuzzy AHP)methods are all belong to the Multiple Criteria Evaluation (MCE) of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)method. This study is apply the AHP method to establish the hierarchy structure for land development evaluation, and then to find out the decision weight of the evaluation criteria. Three development cases are introduced in this study, they all analyze with AHP and Fuzzy AHP methods separately. Through these analysis will come up their effects, and then will be able to establish overall priority ranking for development preferences. The major conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. The land development evaluation, may consider financial, market, social environment, and project characteristics’ factors. The criteria of financial factor, including investment return rate, self own initial capital, and self own initial capital return rate. The criteria of market factor, including demand and supply, capacity of market competition, and capacity of price competition. The criteria of social environment factor, including economy boom cycle, local economic situation, and political status. The criteria of project characteristics factor, including engineering technology, transportation system, public utilities, site environment, and the difficulty of project integration. 2. To analyze the decision weight of the criteria Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)method, the development experts are all recognize the priority ranking of land development factors are as follows: financial, market, project characteristics, and social environment. 3. To analyze the decision weight of the criteria Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)method, the building development experts are all recognize the most important five major land development criteria are as follows: self own initial capital return rate, investment return rate, capacity of demand and supply, site environment, and capacity of price competition. The least three un-important land development criteria are as follows: political status, difficulty of project integration, engineering technology. 4. This study focus on three cases, which involve twenty six experts of five different building development companies. The results of this study indicate that no matter apply the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)method, or Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process(Fuzzy AHP)method all five companies and individuals are come up with same priority ranking for development preferences.

參考文獻


11. 李政道(1999),「台灣不動產景氣與政府政策之研究」,成功大學政治經濟研究所碩士論文。
5. 行政院主計處(1990),台灣地區住宅狀況調查報告。
39. 粘淑惠(1995),「模糊AHP法應用在交通運輸計畫評估之研究」,義守大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
17. 林大侯(1989),「論投資環境的分析」,台灣經濟研究月刊,第12卷第4 期P88-92。
1. Applebaum, W. and S. B. Cohen (1960),「Evaluation Store Sites and Determining Store Rents」, Economic Geography, January 1。

被引用紀錄


王煌榮(2014)。購屋者對新北市自用住宅環境設施需求之研究〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2014.01124
楊華龍(2013)。桃園地區不動產投資決策之關鍵成功因素〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840%2fcycu201300380
賴嘉駿(2013)。室內設計之溝通工具與程序:以大學設計課教學為例〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840%2fCYCU.2013.00100
林家旭(2010)。台灣營建業者赴大陸投資因素之研究〔碩士論文,長榮大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6833%2fCJCU.2010.00177
方穩淑(2009)。農田水利會閒置空間再利用之評估研究〔碩士論文,長榮大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6833%2fCJCU.2009.00026

延伸閱讀