探討高居住成本下學生租屋地點與運具選擇行為之潛在群體異質性分析

Abstract

雙北地區房租持續攀升且大多大專院校之校內宿舍供給不足，學生為尋求可負擔的居住空間，常需以長時間或高風險的通勤行為來換取更低廉的租屋成本。這種「以通勤成本換取租金可負擔性」的模式，反映了學生在租屋與通勤選擇上所面臨的不公平現象，也促使本研究欲探討在租金高漲與通勤負擔下學生族群的聯合決策行為。

本研究針對學生族群的「居住地點與通勤運具」聯合選擇行為，採用敘述性偏好調查並結合多項羅吉特（MNL）、巢式羅吉特（NL）與潛在類別模型（LCCM）之研究方法。相較傳統模型假設所有學生偏好一致，本研究期能透過潛在類別模型（LCCM），分析學生對於租屋與運具選擇時的偏好，亦納入學生之個人社經條件。模型結果顯示具有顯著差異的四類學生族群偏好，也證實不同社經背景的確會影響其租屋與通勤決策。包含偏好低租金且願容忍通勤不便者、低成本導向者、家庭資源有限但偏好高通勤效率者，以及家庭收入高但可支配所得較低的女性群體等，可以發現學生之家庭經濟條件與個人可支配資源、性別等均會影響了其居住與通勤抉擇，進一步呼應文獻中有關「高教育潛能－低經濟資本」學生族群所面對的交通與居住不平等問題，亦補足以往研究多侷限於購屋者與家庭單位，而忽略學生租屋行為之限制。

本研究遂根據研究成果提出相關建議，著重在減輕學生負擔並提升居住與通勤公平性上，建議政策可以從「租屋可負擔性」與「交通系統可及性與便利性」兩方面著手。本研究認為，未來若要實行相關政策，宜針對學生群體推行其專用的 TPASS 通勤月票或相關補貼方案，讓學生以更低成本使用公共運輸。此外，現行租屋補貼制度，也可以根據學生通勤模式差異採取分級補貼，例如：使用大眾運輸通學者可獲較高額度的租金補貼，以鼓勵其持續使用公共運輸；相對地，使用私人機動車輛者則降低補貼或不額外補貼，以將其外部成本內部化。總而言之，學生居住與通勤問題並非個人選擇所致，而是資源分配與政策架構下的產物，唯有從宿舍供給、運輸票證到租金補貼制度進行全盤檢討改革，方能實現學子應有的居住正義與交通公平。

In the Greater Taipei Metropolitan Area, rental prices have continued to rise while on-campus housing supply at most universities remains insufficient. As a result, students in search of affordable accommodations are often compelled to exchange lower rent for longer or higher-risk commuting. This pattern—trading commuting burdens for rental affordability—not only highlights the structural inequality faced by students in their housing and transport decisions, but also serves as the central motivation for this study, which aims to examine students’ joint decision-making behavior under the dual pressures of soaring rent and commuting burdens.

This research investigates university students’ joint choices of residential location and commuting mode through a stated preference survey and the application of three discrete choice modeling approaches: the Multinomial Logit (MNL), Nested Logit (NL), and Latent Class Choice Model (LCCM). Unlike conventional models that assume homogeneous preferences among individuals, the LCCM allows for the identification of latent heterogeneity in students' housing and transportation preferences while incorporating their socioeconomic characteristics. The model results reveal four distinct classes of students, each with significantly different preference structures. These include students who prefer lower rent and are willing to tolerate commuting inconveniences, those driven by cost-efficiency, students with limited family resources who prioritize commuting efficiency, and female students from high-income families but with low personal disposable income. These findings demonstrate that students’ housing and commuting decisions are shaped by a complex interplay between family economic background, personal financial capacity, and gender. The analysis thus echoes the literature that emphasizes the inequities experienced by students who possess high educational potential but limited economic capital, and also addresses the gap in existing research, which often focuses on homeowners and households while overlooking the unique constraints of student renters.

Based on these empirical findings, this study proposes several policy recommendations centered on reducing student burdens and promoting housing and transport equity. Policies should simultaneously address “rental affordability” and the “accessibility and convenience of transport systems.” It is recommended that student-specific commuting subsidies, such as a dedicated TPASS monthly pass, be introduced to enable students to use public transit at lower costs. Moreover, the current rental subsidy program could be redesigned to account for differences in commuting patterns—for instance, offering higher subsidies to students who commute via public transport to encourage continued transit use, while reducing or excluding subsidies for those who rely on private motor vehicles in order to internalize external costs. In sum, students' residential and commuting decisions are not merely a matter of individual choice, but rather the outcome of structural limitations in resource allocation and policy design. Only through comprehensive reform of dormitory supply, fare subsidy systems, and housing support mechanisms can true housing justice and transportation equity for students be achieved.