本研究以「華人家庭動態資料庫」來探討台灣家戶之住宅權屬選擇。多數研究在探討家戶之權屬選擇時皆以靜態觀點為主，但結果所反應的將是家戶過去所做的決定。且本研究認為其決策不應是在某個時間點立即決定的，而應該是經過某段時間逐漸累積而成。因此，以動態觀點來探討住宅權屬選擇行為將較為合理。本研究以存活分析方法之Cox比例危險模型為理論模型，其實證結果顯示，若住宅價格愈高，則家戶將較傾向擁屋；而當借貸利率愈高，家戶便愈不傾向擁屋。另外，戶長恆常所得愈高者，擁屋的機率愈大；但當戶長為男性時，則較女性更不傾向擁屋。而受訪者結婚後較結婚前更傾向擁屋。若受訪者父親之教育程度愈低，則將較不利於擁屋；不過若受訪者父親之社經狀況屬於非勞力，將較屬於勞力類者更有利於擁屋。

In this study, we used the data of Taiwan “Panel Study of Family Dynamics” to analyze housing tenure choice. Previous studies in literature mostly set up the scheme of housing tenure choice based on static perspective, implying all decisions of housing related choice were made at the same time. However, considering the fact that decisions were made via an accumulated progressively by time, it would be more correct to use a dynamic approach in stead of a static one. Our study adopt Cox Proportional Hazard Model to analyze housing tenure choice. The empirical results indicate that, the higher the housing price, the much propensity toward owning. But higher mortgage rate would reduce the probability of owning. We also find that the probability of owning increases when the household head earns higher income. However, family with female head is concluded to have higher propensity to own the house comparing to male heads. Furthermore, the rate of owning after marriage is greater than before the marriage. Also, the lower the degree of education level of father of respondent may reduce the rate of owning.

第一章 緒論......................................1
第一節 研究緣起與目的..........................1
第二節 研究內容................................5
第三節 研究對象說明............................7
第四節 研究資料................................9
第五節 研究流程...............................11
第二章 相關文獻回顧.............................12
第一節 住宅權屬選擇影響因素...................12
第二節 住宅權屬選擇研究方法比較...............17
第三章 研究方法.................................21
第一節 存活理論介紹...........................21
第二節 存活分析模型...........................27
第三節 Cox比例危險模型........................33
第四節 相關變數設定...........................40
第五節 統計檢定...............................42
第四章 實證研究結果.............................43
第一節 樣本特性分析...........................43
第二節 實證結果分析...........................45
第五章 結論與後續研究建議.......................48
第一節 研究結論...............................48
第二節 對「華人家庭動態資料庫」及相關調查之建議.................................................49
第三節 後續研究建議...........................52

附錄一 以Logit模型建立住宅權屬選擇模型..........53
附錄二 輔助變數估計結果.........................60
參考文獻.........................................61

行政院主計處
2001，《家庭收支調查報告》。
行政院主計處普查局
2000，《台灣地區國富調查報告（民國89年）》。
黃迺毓、黃馨慧、蘇雪玉、唐先梅、李淑娟編著
1985，《家庭概論》，國立空中大學，台北縣。
靳燕玲
1994，《當前台灣住宅代間移轉之探討》，碩士論文，國立台灣大學。
薛立敏、陳□里
1996，「台灣高住宅自有率之探討」，《1996年中華民國住宅學會第五屆年會學術研討會論文集》，pp. 1-33。
薛立敏、陳□里
1997，「台灣一九八○年代住宅自有率變化之探討」，《住宅學報》，第六期，pp. 27-48。
謝文盛、林素菁
2000，「租稅效果對住宅租買選擇影響之分析」，《住宅學報》，第九卷第一期，pp. 1-17。
William J. Goode著 / 魏章玲譯
1988，《家庭社會學》，桂冠圖書，台北市。
Aaronson, D.
2000, “A Note on the Benefits of Homeownership,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 47, p.356-369.
Arimah, B. C.
1997, “The Determinants of Housing Tenure Choice in Ibadan, Nigeria,” Urban Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, p.105-124.
Bourassa, S. C.
1994, “Gender, Marital Status, and Homeownership in Australia,” Journal of Housing Economics, Vol.3, p.220-239.
Bourassa, S. C.
1995a, “The Impacts of Borrowing Constraints on Home-ownership in Australia,” Urban Studies, Vol. 32, No. 7, p. 1163-1173.
Bourassa, S. C.
1995b, “A Model of Housing Tenure Choice in Australia,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 37, p.161-175.
Bourassa, S. C.
2000, “Ethnicity, Endogeneity, and Housing Tenure Choice,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 20:3, p.323-341.
Clark, W. A. V., M. C. Deurloo, and F. M. Dieleman
1994, “Tenure Changes in the Context of Micro-level Family and Macro-level Economic Shifts,” Urban Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, p.137-154.
Clark, W. A. V., and Onaka J. L.
1983, “Life Cycle and Housing Adjustment as Explanations of Residential Mobility,” Urban Studies, Vol. 20, p.47-57.
Cox, D. R., and D. Oakes
1984, Analysis of Survival Data, Chapman and Hall, New York.
Elandt-Johnson, R. C., and Johnson, N. L.
1980, Survival Models and Data Analysis, Wiley, New York.
Goodman, A. C.
1988, “An Econometric Model of Housing Price, Permanent Income, Tenure Choice, and Housing Demand,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 23, p.327-353.
Green, R. K.
2001, “Homeowning, Social Outcomes, Tenure Choice, and U.S. Housing Policy,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, p.21-29.
Green, R. K., and M. J. White
1997, “Measuring the Benefits of Homeowning: Effects on Children,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 41, p. 441-461.
Haurin, D. R., P. H. Hendershott, and D. Kim
1994, “Housing Decisions of American Youth,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 35, p.28-45.
Haurin, D. R., P. H. Hendershott, and S. M. Wachter
1997, “Borrowing Constraints and the Tenure Choice of Young Households,” Journal of Housing Research, Vol. 8, p.137-154.
Haurin, D. R., S. M. Wachter, and P. H. Hendershott
1996, “Wealth Accumulation and Housing Choices of Young Households: An Exploratory Investigation,” Journal of Housing Research, Vol. 7, p.33-57.
Herdershott, P. H., and J. Slemrod
1983, “Taxes and the User Cost of Capital for Owner-Occupied Housing,” Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association 10, p.375-393.
Henderson, J. V., and Ioannides, Y. M.
1989, “Dynamic Aspects of Consumer Decisions in Housing Markets,” Journal of Urban Econoimics, Vol. 26, p.212-230.
Hosmer, D. W., and S. Lemeshow
1999, Applied Survival Analysis: Regression Modeling of Time to Event Data, Wiley, New York.
Ioannides, Y. M.
1987, “Residential Mobility and Housing Tenure Choice,” Regional Science and Urban Economics 17, p.265-287.
John, D. K., and L. P. Ross
1980, The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, Wiley, New York.
Jones, L. D.
1989, “Current Wealth and Tenure Choice,” Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association 18, p.17-40.
Kalbfleisch, J. D., and Prentice R. L.
1980, The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data, Wiley, New York.
Klein, J. P., and Moeschberger M. L.
1997, Survival Analysis: Techniques for Censored and Truncated Data, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Lee, E. T.
1992, Statistical Methods for Survival Data Analysis, Wiley, New York.
Liao, T. F.
1994, Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Linneman, P. and S. M. Wachter
1989, “The Impacts of Borrowing Constraints on Homeownership,” Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association 17, p.389-402.
Linneman, P., I. F. Megbolugbe, and M. Cho
1997, “Do Borrowing Constraints Change U.S. Homeownership Rate?” Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 6, p.318-333.
Long, J. S.
1997, Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maddala, G. S.
1983, Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge University Press, NY.
McFadden, D.
1974, “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, p.105-142, Academic Press: New York.
Megbolugbe, I. F., and P. D. Linneman
1993, “Home Ownership,” Urban Studies, Vol. 30, p.659-682.
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, p.1165-1184.
Plaut, S. E.
1987, “The Timing of Housing Tenure Transition,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 21, p.312-322.
Salvo, P. D., and J. Ermisch
1997, “Analysis of the Dynamics of Housing Tenure Choice in Britain,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 42, p.1-17.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
1995, “Homeownership and Its Benefits,” HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, Urban Policy Brief, No.2.
Zorn, P. M.
1988, “An Analysis of Household Mobility and Tenure Choice: An Empirical Study of Korea,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 24, p.113-128.