臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

國內對於住宅需求的相關研究，多偏向住宅價格、合理房價與購買力、消費量等研究，但是對於消費者住宅選擇行為的研究則較少見。住宅需求的主體以個體的家戶為單位，家戶在所得的限制之下，追求效用的最大化，做出遷移決策、區位選擇、增建決策等。
觀察台灣的都市現象，台北市的房價所得比高達8倍以上，不但居全台灣之冠，更遠超過歐美國家的水準，國內高房價的壓力會影響家戶的遷移成本與區位選擇。另外，在台北市的住宅類型八成以上為公寓大廈，只能從陽台或屋頂平台小幅增建，增加的住宅面積有限，未申請建照的增建多屬不合法的違建行為，無法自由調整，因此家戶採取增建方式調整住宅需求的行為會受到限制。而國內住、商、工混雜，土地相容使用，就業區位可能與住宅區位相距不遠，因此通勤成本可能較低，這些與國外迥異的都市背景，使得本研究想解構在台灣家戶的住宅調整決策與區位選擇行為。
此外，過去住宅需求及住宅區位選擇的文獻多以戶長屬性代表家戶屬性，少有人關心其他家戶成員或已婚女性的需求，以戶長為主的區位選擇模式可能不能反映家戶的需要。在傳統中國文化的影響下，女性的經濟資源少、在家中的地位與決策權力不如男性，性別角色在家戶的區位選擇中產生何種效果？本研究也分析女性家戶是否產生顯著的女性特殊的住宅區位需求？性別差異如何影響住宅區位的選擇等課題。
本研究將家戶的生命週期類型與住宅遷移、區位選擇、增建決策相連結，探討每個特殊的生命週期家戶，其住宅調整決策的差異，分析各生命週期家戶的區隔，其結果有助於了解住宅次市場區隔以及住宅下濾、換屋行為。進一步探討家戶的住宅區位選擇: 台北市女性就業，使家庭所得、通勤成本增加，其住宅區位選擇與通勤行為應與單薪家戶不同，並驗證是否受到房價與通勤成本的取捨、相關資源與夫妻決策權力、以及家庭責任義務的影響。最後，探討戶長及配偶對於區位選擇的影響，驗證戶長配偶模式是否比過去研究以戶長屬性代替家戶屬性的模式較佳，分析家戶屬性所引申的住宅需求如何影響家戶的住宅區位選擇，以及分析夫妻的資源與決策影響力的性別差異關係。女性身為戶長，其決策影響力的消長應與一般傳統家戶的成員不同，分析是否產生女性特殊的住宅區位需求，其結果可以作為住宅政策的參考。
本文回顧相關文獻，發現單從經濟學的模式不足以說明家戶的選擇行為，而社會學與性別方面的議題和假說也未深入探討家戶的住宅區位選擇，因此考量現實的背景，希望從實證主義，剖析不同生命週期家戶的住宅調整方式，以及從大幅改變住宅屬性的遷移方式中，進一步解構家戶的住宅區位選擇行為與通勤的決策，並討論家庭責任、性別差異等相關課題。實證資料係採1990年台閩地區戶口及住宅普查台北市的資料，探討家戶對於自有住宅的調整決策，將台北市各行政區中位置相鄰、性質相近者分為六區，作為住宅區位選擇的替選區位。本研究以效用理論為基礎，分析家戶的遷移決策、遷移選擇一個新的住宅區位、以及增建決策等，追求家戶住宅需求效用的最大化，以不連續選擇模型進行實證。
結果發現高所得家戶選擇遷移的機率較高，低所得、或小孩正在成長的家戶較傾向選擇增建，住宅區位選擇的結果，也可印證人口往新興發展的郊區移動，老舊的西區流動性較差，應用在都市發展的政策上，可以針對資源的流動與新興地區的住宅及公共設施建設、交通運輸建設等相關政策做出建議。
另外，藉由女性的決策權力與需求的結果，發現女性就業的特性與所得資源對於區位、通勤選擇的影響力較低，反而是照顧小孩的家庭責任是關鍵因素，女性同時在外工作與擔任母職的角色，非常需要工作地點與住宅區為方便的連結，工作與居住分離的都市形式或許不敷台灣社會的需要，方便的交通與大眾運輸工具、以及價格合理且鄰近社區的兒童扥育設施都是女性急需的公共服務。
同時考慮夫妻兩位家戶成員的戶長配偶模式比傳統的戶長模式較能解釋住宅區位選擇的決策，但是在1990年當時的已婚女性多是無酬的家屬工作者或未就業，因此較沒有顯著的經濟影響力，惟獨年輕、教育程度較高的女性展現較不同於傳統的決策行為，而且以女性為戶長的家戶的確有孑然不同的區位選擇影響力，與台北市全體家戶、以男性為戶長的家戶相比，女性的戶長影響力較大。

This dissertation consisted of four relative essays. Due to lack of housing adjustment decisions and location choice issues in Taiwan’s housing research, this study focus on some specific background in Taipei City, and reference to the existing studies. The relative resources and couple’s decision-making power effect is an important discussion point to which I drew attention. Using the discrete choice model and the data from “1990 Census of Population and Housing in Taipei”, the empirical studies are tested.
As we known, the housing price in Taipei is the highest in Taiwan, households choose moving decision would pay higher adjustment cost. The most popular housing types in Taipei are apartments, the addition behavior without government permission is normally illegal. But under the constraint of affordability, some families would choose home improvement instead of moving to satisfy their housing needs for saving adjusting cost. In the first paper, I examined different choices of moving decision, housing location choice, and addition decision, which every household made. Households in different life cycle stages, indicating different income level, number of members, marriage status or other specific characteristics, they how to adjust their housing demand and make their housing decisions. The results will provide housing market segmentation information and explain the housing filtering behaviors.
This second paper explores the effects on housing location choice in single and double income households in Taipei, and examines the relative hypotheses, such as relative resources and couple’s decision-making power, and household responsibility constrains. Households’ residential location choice are subjected to income constrains, facing the trade-off between housing price and commuting cost. Husbands who are usually the financial resources of a family economy get more decision- making power than wives. However, it would not play more significant role on location and commuting choices for wife to taking care of children. The results would suggest the government to provide convenient public transportation mode and children care service.
The last two papers examine the impact of aggregated needs of household members on the choice of housing location in Taipei. Especially the discussion of family decision- making issues was raised. The results indicate that the choice of housing location is significantly impacted by the age, family origin, past housing location, education and occupation status, and the location of workplaces of both spouses. We also find that this decision is more significantly influenced by the attributes of the male spousethan the female. However, among the households with a female household head, the female spousecharacteristics are more likely to be significant. Our results also offer a snapshot of todayTaiwanese culture that is dramatically different from the commonly understood male-dominance in the Chinese tradition.

　壹、研究動機
　貳、研究目的
　參、研究架構與流程
　壹、家戶生命週期與住宅需求決策
　貳、經濟學理論的都市模型和住宅消費行為理論
　參、社會學就業、通勤、住宅區位選擇有關性別差異的研究
　肆、女性與住宅需求的相關研究
　伍、小結
　壹、資料說明
　貳、住宅決策選擇模式
　壹、前言
　貳、生命週期類型的定義和住宅需求
　參、住宅調整決策結果分析
　肆、小結
　壹、前言
　貳、假說建構
　參、變數選取與資料說明
　肆、住宅區位與通勤選擇結果分析
　伍、小結
　壹、前言
　貳、臺北市各區位家戶特性的比較
　參、模式與變數選取
　肆、結果分析
　伍、小結
　壹、結論
　貳、後續研究

1. 伊慶春(1987)，夫妻權力與婚姻調適的初步分析，行政院國科會專題研究計畫。
2. 林芳玫等(1996)，女性主義理論與流派，女書出版社，179-214。
3. 林祖嘉(1990)，反向巢型多項羅吉特模型下的住屋需求與租買選擇，經濟論文，中央研究院經濟研究所，第十八卷，137-158。
4. 林祖嘉(1994)，台灣地區住宅需求與租買選擇之聯合估計，國立政治大學學報第六十八期。
5. 俞智敏等譯(1996)，女性主義觀點的社會學，巨流出版社，7-212.
6. 施鴻志、段良雄、凌瑞賢(1984)，都市交通計劃─理論、實務，國立編譯館，293-297。
7. 夏鑄九、王志弘編譯(1994)，空間的文化形式與社會理論讀本，明文書局。
8. 殷寶寧譯(1994)，城市中的女人，(空間的文化形式與社會理論讀本，565-592) ，明文書局。
9. 張金鶚(1994), 英國住宅天地，台北: 太聯文化出版社。
10. 張清溪(1993)，家庭選擇行為的經濟分析，行政院國科會專題研究計畫，1-11.。
11. 陳淑美、張金鶚(1997)，家戶屬性與住宅區位選擇之關係-聯合家戶成員需求之決策, 中華民國住宅學會第六屆年會論文研討會論文集。
12. 陳淑美、張金鶚(1997)，家戶屬性與住宅區位選擇之關係-聯合家戶成員需求之決策, 中華民國區域科學學會八十六年度論文研討會。
13. 陳彥仲(1997)，有關多項Logit模型對參數指定方式的議論及比較分析，中華民國區域科學學會八十六年度論文研討會。
14. 陳彥仲(1997)，住宅選擇的之程序性決策模式，住宅學報第五期，37-49。
15. 陳淑美, 張金鶚，(1998)，家戶就業型態與住宅區位選擇之關係，中華民國住宅學會第七屆年會暨論文研討會。
16. 陳淑美、張金鶚(1998)，家戶就業與住宅區位選擇之研究─女性配偶影響力之探討，發表於第一屆華人不動產學術研討會。
17. 陳淑美、張金鶚(1998)，家戶就業與住宅區位選擇之研究─女性配偶影響力之探討，發表於中央研究院第二屆家庭及資源分配學術研討會。
18. 陳淑美、張金鶚(1998)，戶長與配偶對住宅區位選擇的影響，住宅學報第七期，59-82。
19. 陳淑美、張金鶚(1999)，家戶生命週期與住宅需求調整決策之研究，中華民國住宅學會第八屆論文研討會。
20. 陳淑美、張金鶚(1999)，三代同堂家庭遷移決策之研究，台灣經濟學會1999年年會。
21. 傅美生(1984)，台北都會區住宅權屬與住宅類型選擇之研究-logit模式之研究，中興大學都市計畫研究所碩論。
22. 劉怡吟(1996)，台北市家戶住宅選擇變遷之研究，政大地政所碩論。
23. 薛立敏、陳琇里(1997)，〈台灣1980年代住宅自有率變化的探討〉，《住宅學報》6: 27-48。
24. 薛立敏(1996)，〈台灣地區合理房價之探討〉，行政院經濟建設委員會委託研究。
25. Alonso, William(1964), Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
26. Assadian, Afsaneh and Jan Ondrich (1993), Residential Location, Housing Demand and Labour Supply Decisions of One- and Two- Earner Household: The Case of Bogota, Colombia, Urban Studies, Vol.30, No.1, 73-86.
27. Baber, Kristine M. and Katherine R. Allen (1992)，Women and Family：Feminist Reconstructions，the Guilford Press, 218-237.
28. Beatty, Sharon E. and Salil Talpade (1994)，Adolescent Influence in Family Decision Making：A Replication with Extension，Journal of Consumer Research，Vol.21, September, 332-341.
29. Bielby, William T. and Denise D. Bielby (1992), I Will Follow Him-Family Ties, Gender- Role Beliefs, and Reluctance to Relocate for a Better Job, American Journal of Sociology , Vol.97, No.5, 1241-1267.
30. Blumen, Orna and Kellerman, Aharon(1990), “Gender Differences in Commuting Distance, Residence, and Employment Location: Metropolitan Haifa 1972 and 1983”, Professional Geographer, Vol.42,No.1: 54-71.
31. Boehm, T. P.(1982), A Hierarchical Model of Housing Choice, Urban Studies, Vol. 19, 17-31.
32. Camstra, Ronald (1996), Commuting and Gender in a Lifestyle Perspective, Urban Studies, Vol.33, No.2, 283-300.
33. Chen, Shu-Mei and Chin-Oh Chang (1997), “Aggregated Household Needs of Head and Spouse in the Housing Location Choice in Taipei, Taiwan--A Discussion from the Female Viewpoint”，Asain Real Estate Society，Second Conference，Hong-Kong.
34. Shu-Mei Chen and Chin- Oh Chang，(1998)，Household’s Employment and the Decision of Residential Location Choice — The Decision-marking Effect of Female Spouse，Asian Real Estate Society Third Annual Conference , Taipei.
35. Chang, Chin-Oh , Shu-Mei Chen, Shiawee X. Yang (1998), “Aggregated Household Needs and the Housing Location Choice in Taipei, Taiwan，Journal of Asain Real Estate Society，Vol.1, No.1, 81-100.
36. Chang, Chin-Oh and Shu-Mei Chen (1999), “Households Life Cycle and Housing Demand Decision Adjustment in Taipei, Taiwan”， AREUEA/ Asian Real Estate Society International Conference, Hawaii,Maui.
37. Clark, W. A. V. and J. L. Onaka (1983), Life Cycle and Housing Adjustment as Explanations of Residential Mobility, Urban Studies, Vol. 20, 47-57.
38. Cook, Christine C. and Nancy M. Rudd (1984)，Factors Influencing the Residential Location of Female Householders，Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol.20, No.1, September, 78-96.
39. Ford, R. G. and G. C. Smith (1990), Household Life-cycle Change in the Urban Council Housing Sector, 1971-81, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 22, 53-67.
40. Gilroy, Rose and Roberta Woods (1994), Housing Women, Routledge Press, 1-57;196-225;260-270.
41. Griffin- Wulff, M.(1982), The Two —income Household: Relative Contribution of Earners to Housing Costs, Urban Studies, Vol. 19, 343-350.
42. Hanson, Susan and Geraldine Pratt1995, Gender, Work, and Space: Routledge Press.
43. Harvey D.(1973), Social Justice and the City, : Johns Hopkins University Press.
44. Heenan, D. and A. M. Grey (1997)，Women, Public Housing and Inequality：A Northern Ireland Perspective，Housing Studies, Vol.12, No.2, 157-171.
45. Howell, Frank M. and Deborah Richey Bronson(1996), “The Journey to Work and Gender Inequality in Earnings: a Cross- Validation Study for the United States”, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol.37, No.3, 429-447.
46. Kendig, H. L.(1984),Housing Careers, Life Cycle and Residential Mobility: Implications for the Housing Market, Urban Studies, Vol.21, 271-283.
47. Kristensen, G. (1997), Women’s Economic Progress and the Demand for Housing: Theory, and Empirical Analyses Based on Danish Data, Urban Studies, Vol.34, No.3, 403-418.
48. Liao, Tim F. (1994), Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models, (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences,07-101), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Maddala, G. S.(1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press，13-78.
50. Madden, J. F.( 1981), Why Women Work Close to Home, Urban Study, 18, 191-194.
51. McLeod, P. B. and J. R. Ellis(1983), Alternative Approaches to the Family Life Cycle in the Analysis of Housing Consumption, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol.45, No.3, 699-708.
52. Michelson, R. S.(1977), Environmental Choice, Human Behavior and Residential Satisfaction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Montgomery, Claire(1992), Explaining Home Improvement in the Context of Household Investment in Residential Housing, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.32, 326-350.
54. Morrow-Jones, H. A.(1988), The Housing Life-cycle and the Transition from Renting to Owning a Home in the United States: a Multistate Analysis, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 20, 1165-1184.
55. Munro, Moira, and Susan J. Smith (1989), Gender and Housing：Broading the Debate, Housing Studies，Vol. 4，No.1, 3-17.
56. Murie, Alan (1974)，Household Movement and Housing Choice： A Study Based on the West Yorkshire Movers Survey，University of Birmingham, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies.
57. Seek, N. H.(1983), Adjusting Housing Consumption: Improve or Move, Urban Studies, Vol. 20, 455-469.
58. Shu-Mei Chen and Chin-Oh Chang(1998)，Household’s Employment and the Decision of Residential Location Choice — The Decision-marking Effect of Female Spouse, Asian Real Estate Society Third Annual Conference in Taipei。
59. Sidin, Samsinar MD.(1994), The Pattern of Role Structure in Family Decision Making in Malaysia, Journal of Asian Business, Vol.10 ,No.3, 31-48.
60. Singell, Larry D. and Jane H. Lillydahl1986, “An Empirical Analysis of the Commute to Work Patterns of Males and Females in Two Earner Households”, Urban Studies, 23(2): 119-129.
61. Skaburskis, A.(1997), Gender Differences in Housing Demand, Urban Studies, Vol.34, No.2, 275-320.
62. Smith, Susan J. (1990), Income, Housing Wealth and Gender Inequality, Urban Studies, Vol.27, No.1, 67-88.
63. Spain, Daphne (1990), The Effect of Residential Mobility and Household Composition on Housing Quality, Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol.25, No.4, 659-683.
64. Tu, Y. and J. Goldfinch (1996)，A Two- Stage Housing Choice Forecasting Model，Urban Studies，No.3，517-537.
65. White, Michelle J.(1977)，A Model of Residential Location Choice and Commuting by Men and Women Workers，Journal of Regional Science，Vol.17, No.1, 41-52.
66. William, Linda B. (1990), Development, Demography, and Family Decision-Making：the Status of Women in Rural Java，Westview Press，9-98.