1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 臺北市明星國中學區房價分析-兼論十二年國教之影響
A Study of Housing Price of Popular Junior High School Districts in Taipei-Impact of 12-year Compulsory Education
作者 張晏瑞
Chang, Yen Jui
貢獻者 陳奉瑤
張晏瑞
Chang, Yen Jui
關鍵詞 十二年國教
明星學區
明星學校
房價
差異中之差異法
12-year Compulsory Education
Popular school districts
Popular school
Housing price
Difference-in-Differences
日期 2017
上傳時間 28-Aug-2017 11:48:32 (UTC+8)
摘要 過去已有諸多研究證實位於明星國中學區之住宅相較於普通學區之住宅擁有較高的價格。然而，我國於103 年(2014 年)起實施十二年國教政策，其最大變革即是提供免試入學，則該政策是否會動搖明星國中之優勢，進而衝擊明星國中學區的房價應有探討之必要。本文取自實價登錄資料庫之資料，並以2012年8月至2016年底台北市明星學區及其周遭普通學區為地理範圍，建立特徵價格理論之傳統迴歸模型、空間迴歸模型與分量迴歸模型，探討以額滿學校與高升學率之不同定義下明星國中學區對房價之影響，再結合差異中之差異法，觀察十二年國教實施後是否會打破臺北市明星學區的溢價迷思。
根據實證結果顯示，額滿學校與高升學率學校將分別使學區住宅每坪價格上升1.9%-5.3%與5.3%-14.2%，顯示消費者對於高升學率學校有較高之偏好。然而，隨著住宅價格上升，明星學區的溢價卻隨之下降。而十二年國教實施後，僅對位於明星學區2 的住宅產生顯著負面影響，每坪價格下跌1.6%-2.4%；而對明星學區1 之住宅價格則未有顯著影響。本研究推測原因應為十二年國教對於高中職入學篩選標準之改變對高升學率學校有較大之影響，而額滿學校因多數為完全中學國中部，有特殊之直升管道，故受政策影響不大。此外，本研究也發現使用升學率高低作為明星學校之標準比是否為額滿學校更符合消費者之認知且與國外定義較相近。
In the past, many studies have confirmed that the house in the popular school district has a higher price than the ordinary school district. However, since the implementation of the 12-Year Compulsory Education Policy in 2014, it provided the exam-free admission, and whether the policy will impact the housing prices of the popular schools districts should be discussed. In this paper, we use the full-school and the high enrolment rate school as the popular school, and analysis the popular school district of housing price by using hedonic price theory OLS, spatial and quantile regression as model, and selecting the sale price of real estate in Taipei city from August 2012 to December 2016 as sample. Besides, we also applied Difference-in-Differences method with spatial regression to analyze whether the 12-Year Compulsory Education Policy will reduce the Popular School premium of Taipei.
According to the empirical results, housing price in the full-school district has 1.9%-5.3% premium per floor, and high enrolment rate school has 5.3% -14.2% premium per floor, showing that consumers prefer high enrolment rate school. However, with the rise in housing prices, the premium of the popular school district has fallen. In addition, after the implementation of the 12-Year Compulsory Education, only a significant negative impact on the housing price in the school district of high enrolment rate school, the price fell 1.6% -2.4% per floor; and the housing prices of full-school district were not significantly affected. We speculate that the reason should be 12-Year Compulsory Education of entrance examination of high school changes, resulting high enrolment rate schools have a greater impact. On the contrary, the majority of the full-school is affiliated junior high school, it has a special way to enter a higher school, so little impact on the policy.
參考文獻 一、 中文參考文獻
毛治文、吳文傑，2016，「以差異中差異配對分析法檢驗雙元所得稅制度對經濟成長的影響」，『經濟研究』，52(2)：169-205。
王佳煌、李俊豪，2013，「臺北都會區居住模式之研究 (1980-2010): 隔離, 分殊, 群聚或階層? 」，『都市與計劃』，40(4)，325-354。
宋豐荃，2013，「鄰近公園有助提升房價嗎？-大小公園對高低房價影響程度之研究」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文』，台北市。
林秋瑾，1996，「穩健性住宅租金模式之探討---異常點之分析」，『住宅學報』，4：51-72。
林素菁，2004，「臺北市國中小明星學區邊際願意支付之估計」，『住宅學報』，13(1)：15-34。
林森田，2010，「土地經濟學」初版，台北：巨流政大書城總經銷。
洪志明，2011，「空間次市場中明星學區之不動產價格分析--以台北市為例」，『國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士學位論文』，新北市。
紀凱婷，2007，「台北市新推個案訂價之時間與空間相依性分析」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士學位論文』，台北市。
胡婉暘、鄭思齊、王銳，2014，「學區房的溢價究竟有多大：利用『租買不同權』和配對迴歸的實證估計」，『經濟學』，13(3)：1195–1214。
張文菘，2013，「桃園地區土地利用變遷與影響因素之空間分析」，『國立臺灣師範大學地理學系碩士學位論文』，台北市。
張金鶚、高國峰、林秋瑾，2001，「台北市合理房價-需求面分析」，『住宅學報』，10(1)：51-66。
黃芳玫、吳齊殷，2010，「台灣國中學生個人特質, 家庭背景與學業成績-追蹤調查資料之研究」，『經濟論文叢刊』，38(1)：65-97。
黃美娟，2007，「土地面積與價格關係之研究」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文』，台北市。
廖倪妮，2005，「臺北市國小教育資源分配情形之研究—以額滿學校與非額滿學校為例」，『國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士學位論文』，台北市。
劉君雅、鄧志松、唐代彪，2009，「臺灣低生育率之空間分析」，『人口學刊』，39：119-155。
駱明慶，2016，「誰是台大學生?(2001--2014)---多元入學的影響」，『經濟論文叢刊』。
戴國正，2011，「大眾捷運系統對房價影響效果之再檢視」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文』，台北市。
謝博明，2015，「住宅次市場界定及價格空間分析：以新升格之台南市為例」，『住宅學報』，24(1)：29-54。
二、 外文參考文獻
Allison, P. D., 1999, Multiple regression: A primer: Pine Forge Press.
Anselin, L., 1988, Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models, Dorddrecht :Kluwer Academic.
Anselin, L., 1995, “Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA” ,Geographical Analysis, 27(2):93-115.
Anselin, L., 2005, Exploring spatial data with GeoDaTM: a workbook., Urbana..
Anselin, L., K. Bera, R. Florax, and M. Yoon, 1996, “Simple Diagnostic Tests for Spatial Dependence,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26:77-104.
Barrow, L., 2002, “School choice through relocation: evidence from the Washington, D.C. area” , Journal of Public Economics 86:155-189.
Bayer, P., F. Ferreira, and R. McMillan, 2007, “A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods” , Journal of Political Economy, 115(4): 588-638.
Black, S. E., 1999, “Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Valuation of Elementary Education” , The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2): 577-599.
Brasington, D. M. and Haurin, D. R., 2006, “Educational Outcomes and House Values: A Test of the Value Added Approach” , Journal of Regional Science, 46(2), 245–268.
Brasington, D. M., 1999, “Which Measures of School Quality Does the Housing Market Value” , Journal of Real Estate Research, 18(3), 395-413.
Burridge, P., 1980, “On the Cliff-Ord Test for Spatial Correlation,” Journal of the Royal Statistical, Society B, 42:107-108.
Cheshire, P. and S. Sheppard, 1998, “Estimating the demand for housing, land, and neighbourhood characteristics” , Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 60(3):357-382.
Cliff, A. and J. K. Ord, 1973, Spatial Autocorrelation, London: Pion.
Davidoff, I., and A. Leigh, 2008, “How Much do Public Schools Really Cost? Estimating the Relationship between House Prices and School Quality” , The Economic Record, 84: 193–206.
Dhar, P. and S. L. Ross, 2012, “School district quality and property values: Examining differences along school district boundaries” ,Journal of Urban Economics,71(1):18-25.
Downes T. A. and J. E. Zabel, 2002, “The impact of school characteristics on house prices: Chicago 1987-1991” , Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 1-25.
Figlio, D. N., and M. E. Lucas, 2004, “What`s in a Grade? School Report Cards and the Housing Market” , American Economic Review,94(3):591-604.
Getis, A., and J. K. Ord, 1992, “The Analysis of Spatial Association by the Use of Distance Statistic” , Geographical Analysis, 24, 189-206.
Gibbons, B., 2003, “Paying for Good Neighbours: Estimating the Value of an Implied Educated Community” , Urban Studies, 40(4), 809–833.
Gibbons, S. and S. Machin, 2006, “Paying for Primary Schools Admission Constraints, School Popularity or Congestion” , The Economic Journal, 116:77-92.
Gibbons, S., and S. Machin, 2008, “Valuing school quality, better transport, and lower crime: evidence from house prices” , Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24 (1):99–199.
Gibbons, S., and S. Machin, O. Silva, 2013, “Valuing school quality using boundary discontinuities” , Journal of Urban Economics,75:15-28.
Haurin, D., R., and D. Brasington, 1996,” School Quality and Real House Prices:Inter- and Intrametropolitan Effects” . Journal of Housing Economics, 5: 351–368.
Hsu, C. I. and S. P. Guo, 2006, “oriented commuters’ mode and residential location choices in an urban area with surface streets and rail transit lines“, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132(4): 235-246.
Kane, T. J., S. K. Riegg, and D. O. Staiger, 2006, “School Quality, Neighborhoods and Housing Prices” , American Law and Economics Review.
Koenker, R., and G. Bassett Jr. 1982, "Robust tests for heteroscedasticity based on regression quantiles", Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society: 43-61.
Koenker, R., and K. Hallock. 2001, "Quantile regression: An introduction", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4): 43-56.
Oates, W. E., 1969, “The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis”, Journal of Political Economy, 77:957-971.
Rosen, S., 1974, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition＂, Journal of political economy, 82(1): 34-55.
Rothstein, J. M., 2006, “Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Incentive Effects of Competition among Jurisdictions” , American Economic Review, 96(4):1333-1350.
Sedgley, N. H., N. A. Williams, and F. W. Derrick, 2008, “The effect of educational test scores on house prices in a model with spatial dependence” , Journal of Housing Economics, 17(2):191-200.
Sirmans, S., S. Macpherson. and E. Zietz, 2005, “The Composition of Hedonic Pricing Models＂, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13(1): 1-44.
Smith, J. A., and P. E. Todd, 2005, “Does matching overcome LaLonde`s critique of nonexperimental estimators?”, Journal of econometrics, 125(1), 305-353.
Söderberg, B., 2002, “A note on the hedonic model specification for income properties Real Estate Valuation Theory” ,Springer, 157-180.
Tiebout, C., 1956, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures” , The Journal of Political Economy, 64(5):416-424.
Tobler, W. R., 1970, “A computer model simulation of urban growth in the Detroit region” , Economic Geography, 46(2), 234-240.
Weimer, D. L., and M. J. Wolkoff, “School performance and housing values Using non-contiguous district and incorporation boundaries to identify school effects” , National Tax Journal, 54(2):231-254.
Wooldridge, J. M., 2015, Introductory econometrics: A modern approach, South Western College Publications, 5th ed.
Yinger, J., 2015, “Hedonic markets and sorting equilibria: Bid-function envelopes for public services and neighborhood amenities” , Journal of Urban Economics 86:9-25.
Yinger, J., H. S. Bloom, A. Boersch-Supan, and H. F. Ladd, 1988, “Property Taxes and House Values: The Theory and Estimation of Intra jurisdictional Property Tax Capitalization” , Academic Press.
Zahirovic-Herbert, V. and G. K. Turnbull, 2009, “Public school reform, expectations, and capitalization: what signals quality to homebuyers” , Southern Economic Journal, 75(4): 1094-1113.
Zheng, S., W. Hu, and R. Wang, 2016, ” How Much Is a Good School Worth in Beijing? Identifying Price Premium with Paired Resale and Rental Data” , Real Estate Finan Econ 53:184–199.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
104257017
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104257017
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳奉瑤zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張晏瑞zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Yen Juien_US
dc.creator (作者) 張晏瑞zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chang, Yen Juien_US
dc.date (日期) 2017en_US
dc.date.accessioned 28-Aug-2017 11:48:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 28-Aug-2017 11:48:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 28-Aug-2017 11:48:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104257017en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112225-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 地政學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 104257017zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 過去已有諸多研究證實位於明星國中學區之住宅相較於普通學區之住宅擁有較高的價格。然而，我國於103 年(2014 年)起實施十二年國教政策，其最大變革即是提供免試入學，則該政策是否會動搖明星國中之優勢，進而衝擊明星國中學區的房價應有探討之必要。本文取自實價登錄資料庫之資料，並以2012年8月至2016年底台北市明星學區及其周遭普通學區為地理範圍，建立特徵價格理論之傳統迴歸模型、空間迴歸模型與分量迴歸模型，探討以額滿學校與高升學率之不同定義下明星國中學區對房價之影響，再結合差異中之差異法，觀察十二年國教實施後是否會打破臺北市明星學區的溢價迷思。
根據實證結果顯示，額滿學校與高升學率學校將分別使學區住宅每坪價格上升1.9%-5.3%與5.3%-14.2%，顯示消費者對於高升學率學校有較高之偏好。然而，隨著住宅價格上升，明星學區的溢價卻隨之下降。而十二年國教實施後，僅對位於明星學區2 的住宅產生顯著負面影響，每坪價格下跌1.6%-2.4%；而對明星學區1 之住宅價格則未有顯著影響。本研究推測原因應為十二年國教對於高中職入學篩選標準之改變對高升學率學校有較大之影響，而額滿學校因多數為完全中學國中部，有特殊之直升管道，故受政策影響不大。此外，本研究也發現使用升學率高低作為明星學校之標準比是否為額滿學校更符合消費者之認知且與國外定義較相近。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the past, many studies have confirmed that the house in the popular school district has a higher price than the ordinary school district. However, since the implementation of the 12-Year Compulsory Education Policy in 2014, it provided the exam-free admission, and whether the policy will impact the housing prices of the popular schools districts should be discussed. In this paper, we use the full-school and the high enrolment rate school as the popular school, and analysis the popular school district of housing price by using hedonic price theory OLS, spatial and quantile regression as model, and selecting the sale price of real estate in Taipei city from August 2012 to December 2016 as sample. Besides, we also applied Difference-in-Differences method with spatial regression to analyze whether the 12-Year Compulsory Education Policy will reduce the Popular School premium of Taipei.
According to the empirical results, housing price in the full-school district has 1.9%-5.3% premium per floor, and high enrolment rate school has 5.3% -14.2% premium per floor, showing that consumers prefer high enrolment rate school. However, with the rise in housing prices, the premium of the popular school district has fallen. In addition, after the implementation of the 12-Year Compulsory Education, only a significant negative impact on the housing price in the school district of high enrolment rate school, the price fell 1.6% -2.4% per floor; and the housing prices of full-school district were not significantly affected. We speculate that the reason should be 12-Year Compulsory Education of entrance examination of high school changes, resulting high enrolment rate schools have a greater impact. On the contrary, the majority of the full-school is affiliated junior high school, it has a special way to enter a higher school, so little impact on the policy.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究方法與範圍 5
第三節 研究架構與流程 7
第二章 文獻回顧 9
第一節 學校品質衡量依據 9
第二節 學校品質與房價之關係 13
第三節 空間統計相關研究 20
第四節 小結 23
第三章 研究設計 25
第一節 實證模型之建構 25
第二節 資料處理與分析 34
第四章 實證分析 47
第一節 明星國中學區對房價之影響 47
第二節 明星國中學區對高低房價住宅之影響 52
第三節 十二年國教對明星國中學區房價之影響 57
第四節 小結 62
第五章 結論與建議 65
第一節 結論 65
第二節 建議 68
參考文獻 71		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 7586120 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104257017en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 十二年國教zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 明星學區zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 明星學校zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 房價zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 差異中之差異法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 12-year Compulsory Educationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Popular school districtsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Popular schoolen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Housing priceen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Difference-in-Differencesen_US
dc.title (題名) 臺北市明星國中學區房價分析-兼論十二年國教之影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Study of Housing Price of Popular Junior High School Districts in Taipei-Impact of 12-year Compulsory Educationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、 中文參考文獻
毛治文、吳文傑，2016，「以差異中差異配對分析法檢驗雙元所得稅制度對經濟成長的影響」，『經濟研究』，52(2)：169-205。
王佳煌、李俊豪，2013，「臺北都會區居住模式之研究 (1980-2010): 隔離, 分殊, 群聚或階層? 」，『都市與計劃』，40(4)，325-354。
宋豐荃，2013，「鄰近公園有助提升房價嗎？-大小公園對高低房價影響程度之研究」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文』，台北市。
林秋瑾，1996，「穩健性住宅租金模式之探討---異常點之分析」，『住宅學報』，4：51-72。
林素菁，2004，「臺北市國中小明星學區邊際願意支付之估計」，『住宅學報』，13(1)：15-34。
林森田，2010，「土地經濟學」初版，台北：巨流政大書城總經銷。
洪志明，2011，「空間次市場中明星學區之不動產價格分析--以台北市為例」，『國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士學位論文』，新北市。
紀凱婷，2007，「台北市新推個案訂價之時間與空間相依性分析」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士學位論文』，台北市。
胡婉暘、鄭思齊、王銳，2014，「學區房的溢價究竟有多大：利用『租買不同權』和配對迴歸的實證估計」，『經濟學』，13(3)：1195–1214。
張文菘，2013，「桃園地區土地利用變遷與影響因素之空間分析」，『國立臺灣師範大學地理學系碩士學位論文』，台北市。
張金鶚、高國峰、林秋瑾，2001，「台北市合理房價-需求面分析」，『住宅學報』，10(1)：51-66。
黃芳玫、吳齊殷，2010，「台灣國中學生個人特質, 家庭背景與學業成績-追蹤調查資料之研究」，『經濟論文叢刊』，38(1)：65-97。
黃美娟，2007，「土地面積與價格關係之研究」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文』，台北市。
廖倪妮，2005，「臺北市國小教育資源分配情形之研究—以額滿學校與非額滿學校為例」，『國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士學位論文』，台北市。
劉君雅、鄧志松、唐代彪，2009，「臺灣低生育率之空間分析」，『人口學刊』，39：119-155。
駱明慶，2016，「誰是台大學生?(2001--2014)---多元入學的影響」，『經濟論文叢刊』。
戴國正，2011，「大眾捷運系統對房價影響效果之再檢視」，『國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文』，台北市。
謝博明，2015，「住宅次市場界定及價格空間分析：以新升格之台南市為例」，『住宅學報』，24(1)：29-54。
二、 外文參考文獻
Allison, P. D., 1999, Multiple regression: A primer: Pine Forge Press.
Anselin, L., 1988, Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models, Dorddrecht :Kluwer Academic.
Anselin, L., 1995, “Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA” ,Geographical Analysis, 27(2):93-115.
Anselin, L., 2005, Exploring spatial data with GeoDaTM: a workbook., Urbana..
Anselin, L., K. Bera, R. Florax, and M. Yoon, 1996, “Simple Diagnostic Tests for Spatial Dependence,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26:77-104.
Barrow, L., 2002, “School choice through relocation: evidence from the Washington, D.C. area” , Journal of Public Economics 86:155-189.
Bayer, P., F. Ferreira, and R. McMillan, 2007, “A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods” , Journal of Political Economy, 115(4): 588-638.
Black, S. E., 1999, “Do Better Schools Matter? Parental Valuation of Elementary Education” , The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(2): 577-599.
Brasington, D. M. and Haurin, D. R., 2006, “Educational Outcomes and House Values: A Test of the Value Added Approach” , Journal of Regional Science, 46(2), 245–268.
Brasington, D. M., 1999, “Which Measures of School Quality Does the Housing Market Value” , Journal of Real Estate Research, 18(3), 395-413.
Burridge, P., 1980, “On the Cliff-Ord Test for Spatial Correlation,” Journal of the Royal Statistical, Society B, 42:107-108.
Cheshire, P. and S. Sheppard, 1998, “Estimating the demand for housing, land, and neighbourhood characteristics” , Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 60(3):357-382.
Cliff, A. and J. K. Ord, 1973, Spatial Autocorrelation, London: Pion.
Davidoff, I., and A. Leigh, 2008, “How Much do Public Schools Really Cost? Estimating the Relationship between House Prices and School Quality” , The Economic Record, 84: 193–206.
Dhar, P. and S. L. Ross, 2012, “School district quality and property values: Examining differences along school district boundaries” ,Journal of Urban Economics,71(1):18-25.
Downes T. A. and J. E. Zabel, 2002, “The impact of school characteristics on house prices: Chicago 1987-1991” , Journal of Urban Economics, 52, 1-25.
Figlio, D. N., and M. E. Lucas, 2004, “What`s in a Grade? School Report Cards and the Housing Market” , American Economic Review,94(3):591-604.
Getis, A., and J. K. Ord, 1992, “The Analysis of Spatial Association by the Use of Distance Statistic” , Geographical Analysis, 24, 189-206.
Gibbons, B., 2003, “Paying for Good Neighbours: Estimating the Value of an Implied Educated Community” , Urban Studies, 40(4), 809–833.
Gibbons, S. and S. Machin, 2006, “Paying for Primary Schools Admission Constraints, School Popularity or Congestion” , The Economic Journal, 116:77-92.
Gibbons, S., and S. Machin, 2008, “Valuing school quality, better transport, and lower crime: evidence from house prices” , Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24 (1):99–199.
Gibbons, S., and S. Machin, O. Silva, 2013, “Valuing school quality using boundary discontinuities” , Journal of Urban Economics,75:15-28.
Haurin, D., R., and D. Brasington, 1996,” School Quality and Real House Prices:Inter- and Intrametropolitan Effects” . Journal of Housing Economics, 5: 351–368.
Hsu, C. I. and S. P. Guo, 2006, “oriented commuters’ mode and residential location choices in an urban area with surface streets and rail transit lines“, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132(4): 235-246.
Kane, T. J., S. K. Riegg, and D. O. Staiger, 2006, “School Quality, Neighborhoods and Housing Prices” , American Law and Economics Review.
Koenker, R., and G. Bassett Jr. 1982, "Robust tests for heteroscedasticity based on regression quantiles", Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society: 43-61.
Koenker, R., and K. Hallock. 2001, "Quantile regression: An introduction", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4): 43-56.
Oates, W. E., 1969, “The Effects of Property Taxes and Local Public Spending on Property Values: An Empirical Study of Tax Capitalization and the Tiebout Hypothesis”, Journal of Political Economy, 77:957-971.
Rosen, S., 1974, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition＂, Journal of political economy, 82(1): 34-55.
Rothstein, J. M., 2006, “Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Incentive Effects of Competition among Jurisdictions” , American Economic Review, 96(4):1333-1350.
Sedgley, N. H., N. A. Williams, and F. W. Derrick, 2008, “The effect of educational test scores on house prices in a model with spatial dependence” , Journal of Housing Economics, 17(2):191-200.
Sirmans, S., S. Macpherson. and E. Zietz, 2005, “The Composition of Hedonic Pricing Models＂, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13(1): 1-44.
Smith, J. A., and P. E. Todd, 2005, “Does matching overcome LaLonde`s critique of nonexperimental estimators?”, Journal of econometrics, 125(1), 305-353.
Söderberg, B., 2002, “A note on the hedonic model specification for income properties Real Estate Valuation Theory” ,Springer, 157-180.
Tiebout, C., 1956, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures” , The Journal of Political Economy, 64(5):416-424.
Tobler, W. R., 1970, “A computer model simulation of urban growth in the Detroit region” , Economic Geography, 46(2), 234-240.
Weimer, D. L., and M. J. Wolkoff, “School performance and housing values Using non-contiguous district and incorporation boundaries to identify school effects” , National Tax Journal, 54(2):231-254.
Wooldridge, J. M., 2015, Introductory econometrics: A modern approach, South Western College Publications, 5th ed.
Yinger, J., 2015, “Hedonic markets and sorting equilibria: Bid-function envelopes for public services and neighborhood amenities” , Journal of Urban Economics 86:9-25.
Yinger, J., H. S. Bloom, A. Boersch-Supan, and H. F. Ladd, 1988, “Property Taxes and House Values: The Theory and Estimation of Intra jurisdictional Property Tax Capitalization” , Academic Press.
Zahirovic-Herbert, V. and G. K. Turnbull, 2009, “Public school reform, expectations, and capitalization: what signals quality to homebuyers” , Southern Economic Journal, 75(4): 1094-1113.
Zheng, S., W. Hu, and R. Wang, 2016, ” How Much Is a Good School Worth in Beijing? Identifying Price Premium with Paired Resale and Rental Data” , Real Estate Finan Econ 53:184–199.		zh_TW