1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Social Science
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 新北市綠住宅標章與價格分析
Green Building Label and Price Analysis in New Taipei City
作者 任翔澤
Ren, Siang-Ze
貢獻者 胡偉民
任翔澤
Ren, Siang-Ze
關鍵詞 綠建築標章
特徵價格模型
溢價率
Green Building Label
Hedonic Price Model
Price Premium
日期 2021
上傳時間 4-Aug-2021 16:02:14 (UTC+8)
摘要 本文以新北市為例，探討台灣綠建築標章對住宅大樓交易價值的影響，更深入分析 標章等級與九大評分指標中溢價率與申請率存在落差的現象。本研究結合綠建築標章資 料、實價登錄交易資料及內政部地標圖資分析不動產市場的交易，並全面採用文獻中六 種常見之特徵價格模型。估計結果發現，六種特徵價格模型在線性型態以調整後的半對 數轉換模型解釋力最佳;非線性型態以平方 Box-Cox 轉換模型最佳。為了與國內文獻 對話，以半對數模型為例，本研究發現取得綠認證能為住宅大樓帶來 5.6%~7.6%溢價率; 以標章五等級來分析，結果顯示溢價率並未隨等級遞增，且溢價率最低者為銀級標章的 5.33%而同時是建商最傾向取得的等級。為解釋此一現象，本文另針對樣本數相對充裕 的銀級綠住宅樣本，以九大評分指標搭配各指標申請率與指標特徵(屬於外顯或內隱) 來分析，發現「基地保水」指標呈現低溢價率卻擁有高申請率的供需誘因分歧，推測是 該指標的外顯特徵關乎日常使用所需而導致。綜上，本研究認為此供需誘因分歧是導致 銀級標章溢價率低落的重要原因，如果要鼓勵建物提升綠建築等級，除了檢討容積獎勵 政策外，亦可從改變必備指標數量或評分權重分配來達到供需一致。
This study aims to explore the influence of Taiwan Green Building Label (EEWH) on the transaction value of residential buildings in New Taipei City, and further analyzes the difference between price premium rate and application rate of both rating level and evaluation indicators. Using abundant data to construct the real estate transaction market, including the green building label data, actual transaction price registration data, and the landmark location data. Estimations adopt six common hedonic price models from the literature. Result shows that the semi-log model performed the best in adjusted R2 of linear form; the quadratic Box- Cox model performed the best of non-linear forms. Take the semi-log model as an example, obtaining green certification appears 5.6% to 7.6% premium rate for residential buildings. Further analysis based on the five-rating level, result shows that the premium rate doesn’t increase with the rating level. The lowest premium rate is 5.33% of Silver level, while it’s also the level that builders are most inclined to obtain. To explain this phenomenon, this study estimates nine-evaluation indicators of Silver-level samples, interpreting the result by application rate of each indicator and characteristics of the indicator is either apparently or implicitly. Result shows that the Base-Water Retention indicator appears the split-incentive of supply and demand with a low premium rate but a high application rate. The split-incentive is speculated as a result of the apparent characteristic of this indicator is related to daily needs. In conclusion, this study considers the split-incentive is the main reason that led to the low premium rate of the silver label. Therefore, to encourage buildings to getting higher green building level, it is suggested to change the number of necessary indicators or the distribution of evaluation weights to achieve consistency.
參考文獻 王浩泉. (2017). 不動產交易資訊透明之研究—以實價登錄制度為中心. (碩士). 銘傳大學, 台北市.
王進祥. (2012). 實價登錄與稅制改革. 土地問題研究季刊, 11(3), 98-108.
林佩勳. (2014). 多重災害潛勢對房地產交易價格影響- 以台中都會區為例. (碩士). 國
立成功大學, 台南市.
林姿君. (2015). 實價登錄對營建相關類股股價之影響及成因分析. (碩士). 國立彰化師範大學, 彰化縣.
林純如. (2017). 資訊揭露對房價影響分析─以實價登錄制度為例. (碩士). 國立臺北大學, 新北市.
林睿信. (2016). 綠建築標章對辦公商業大樓租金之影響. (碩士). 國立政治大學, 台北市.
胡偉民. (2021). 綠建築與房屋交易價格-特徵價格法與離散選擇模型的應用. 國立政治大學,
曹家恩. (2016). 不動產需求的價格彈性分析:來自實價登錄大數據的新證據. 國立暨南國際大學,
梁家甄. (2015). 綠建築標章對於台灣住宿類不動產估價之影響. (碩士). 國立臺灣大學,台北市.
陳奉瑤, & 梁仁旭. (2018). 綠建築標章之溢價率分析—以新北市住宅大樓為例. Journal of Taiwan Land Research, 21(1), 61-85.
陳怡璇. (2011). 以國外經驗探討國內綠建築價格之估算. (碩士). 國立臺北大學, 新北市.
陳威宏. (2017). 購屋者於實價登錄實務操作之研究. (碩士). 國立屏東大學, 屏東縣.
彭逸瑋. (2012). 綠建築對不動產價格之影響. (碩士). 國立政治大學, 台北市.
黃姵嫙. (2018). 綠色招募活動對組織人才吸引力之影響: 以個人組織配適知覺為中介變數與個人環保態度為干擾變數.
楊雅婷. (2019). 綠認證對辦公大樓租金之影響–以台北市為例. (碩士). 國立政治大學,台北市.
廖士銘. (2009). 綠建築怎麼不「綠」了?初探台灣綠建築設計預期與使用經驗落差. (碩士). 國立臺灣大學, 台北市.
蔡淑悅. (2013). 實價登錄認知、稅收公平認知與購屋意願之 關聯性研究. 國立臺中科技大學.

Aroul, R. R., & Hansz, J. A. (2012). The Value of "Green:" Evidence from the First Mandatory Residential Green Building Program. The Journal of Real Estate Research, 34(1), 27-49.
Bird, S., & Hernández, D. (2012). Policy options for the split incentive: Increasing energy 48 efficiency for low-income renters. Energy Policy, 48, 506-514.
Brounen, D., & Kok, N. (2011). On the economics of energy labels in the housing market. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 166-179.
Brucato Jr, P. F., Murdoch, J. C., & Thayer, M. A. (1990). Urban air quality improvements: a comparison of aggregate health and welfare benefits to hedonic price differentials. Journal of Environmental Management, 30(3), 265-279.
Carroll, T. M., Clauretie, T. M., & Jensen, J. (1996). Living next to godliness: Residential property values and churches. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 12(3), 319-330.
Chau, K. W., & Chin, T. (2003). A critical review of literature on the hedonic price model. International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, 27(2), 145-165. Cropper, M. L., Deck, L. B., & McConnell, K. E. (1988). On the choice of funtional form for hedonic price functions. The review of economics and statistics, 668-675.
Deng, Y., Li, Z., & Quigley, J. M. (2012). Economic returns to energy-efficient investments in the housing market: Evidence from Singapore. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(3), 506-515.
Deng, Y., & Wu, J. (2014). Economic returns to residential green building investment: The developers` perspective. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 47, 35-44.
Dixon, T., Bright, S., Mallaburn, P., Gabe, J., & Rehm, M. (2014). Do tenants pay energy efficiency rent premiums? Journal of Property Investment & Finance.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. (2009). Why Companies Rent Green: CSR and the Role of Real Estate. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2009.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2492-2509.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2013). The economics of green building. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 50-63.
Fletcher, M., Gallimore, P., & Mangan, J. (2000). Heteroscedasticity in hedonic house price models. Journal of Property Research, 17(2), 93-108.
Forrest, D., Glen, J., & Ward, R. (1996). The impact of a light rail system on the structure of house prices: a hedonic longitudinal study. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 15-29.
Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. (2011). Eco-labeling in commercial office markets: Do LEED and Energy Star offices obtain multiple premiums? Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1220-1230.
Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. (2008). Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Price Effects of Environmental Certification in Commercial Buildings. Henley Business School, Reading University, Real Estate & Planning Working Papers.
Fuerst, F., McAllister, P., Nanda, A., & Wyatt, P. (2015). Does energy efficiency matter to 49 home-buyers? An investigation of EPC ratings and transaction prices in England. Energy Economics, 48, 145-156.
Garrod, G. D., & Willis, K. G. (1992). Valuing goods` characteristics: an application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. Journal of Environmental Management, 34(1), 59-76.
Hayes, K. J., & Taylor, L. L. (1996). Neighborhood school characteristics: what signals quality to homebuyers? Economic review (Dallas, Tex.), 2.
Huh, S., & Kwak, S.-J. (1997). The Choice of Functional Form and Variables in the Hedonic Price Model in Seoul. Urban Studies, 34(7), 989-998.
Johansson, O. (2012). The spatial diffusion of green building technologies: The case of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the United States. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 10,251-266.
Kain, J. F., & Quigley, J. M. (1970). Measuring the value of housing quality. Journal of the American statistical association, 65(330), 532-548.
Kok, N., & Jennen, M. (2012). The impact of energy labels and accessibility on office rents. Energy Policy, 46, 489-497.
Kok, N., McGraw, M., & Quigley, J. M. (2011). The Diffusion of Energy Efficiency in Building. American Economic Review, 101(3), 77-82.
Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
Li, M. M., & Brown, H. J. (1980). Micro-neighborhood externalities and hedonic housing prices. Land economics, 56(2), 125-141.
Linneman, P. (1980). Some empirical results on the nature of the hedonic price function for the urban housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, 8(1), 47-68.
Morris, E. W., Woods, M. E., & Jacobson, A. L. (1972). The measurement of housing quality. Land economics, 48(4), 383-387.
Palmquist, R. B. (1992). Valuing localized externalities. Journal of Urban Economics, 31(1),59-68.
Qiu, Y., Su, X., & Wang, Y. D. (2017). Factors influencing commercial buildings to obtain green certificates. Applied Economics, 49(20), 1937-1949.
Qiu, Y., Tiwari, A., & Wang, Y. D. (2015). The diffusion of voluntary green building
certification: a spatial approach. Energy Efficiency, 8(3), 449-471.
Raymond, Y., & Love, P. E. (2000). Measuring residential property values in Hong Kong.Property Management.
Ridker, R. G., & Henning, J. A. (1967). The Determinants of Residential Property Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution. The review of economics and statistics, 49(2), 246-257.50
Rodriguez, M., & Sirmans, C. (1994). Quantifying the value of a view in single-family housing markets. Appraisal Journal, 62, 600-600.
Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34-55.
Smith, B. A. (1978). Measuring the value of urban amenities. Journal of Urban Economics, 5(3), 370-387.
So, H. M., Tse, R. Y. C., & Ganesan, S. (1997). Estimating the influence of transport on house prices: evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 15(1), 40-47.
Thaler, R. (1978). A note on the value of crime control: evidence from the property market. Journal of Urban Economics, 5(1), 137-145.
Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 58(1), 267-288.
Williams, A. W. (1991). A guide to valuing transport externalities by hedonic means. Transport Reviews, 11(4), 311-324.
Yoshida, J., & Sugiura, A. (2015). The effects of multiple green factors on condominium prices. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 50(3), 412-437.
Yoshida, J., & Sugiura, A. (2010). Which “greenness” is valued? Evidence from green condominiums in Tokyo.
Zheng, S., Wu, J., Kahn, M. E., & Deng, Y. (2012). The nascent market for “green” real estate in Beijing. European Economic Review, 56(5), 974-984.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
財政學系
107255033
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107255033
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 胡偉民zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 任翔澤zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Ren, Siang-Zeen_US
dc.creator (作者) 任翔澤zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Ren, Siang-Zeen_US
dc.date (日期) 2021en_US
dc.date.accessioned 4-Aug-2021 16:02:14 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 4-Aug-2021 16:02:14 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-Aug-2021 16:02:14 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0107255033en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136575-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 財政學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 107255033zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文以新北市為例，探討台灣綠建築標章對住宅大樓交易價值的影響，更深入分析 標章等級與九大評分指標中溢價率與申請率存在落差的現象。本研究結合綠建築標章資 料、實價登錄交易資料及內政部地標圖資分析不動產市場的交易，並全面採用文獻中六 種常見之特徵價格模型。估計結果發現，六種特徵價格模型在線性型態以調整後的半對 數轉換模型解釋力最佳;非線性型態以平方 Box-Cox 轉換模型最佳。為了與國內文獻 對話，以半對數模型為例，本研究發現取得綠認證能為住宅大樓帶來 5.6%~7.6%溢價率; 以標章五等級來分析，結果顯示溢價率並未隨等級遞增，且溢價率最低者為銀級標章的 5.33%而同時是建商最傾向取得的等級。為解釋此一現象，本文另針對樣本數相對充裕 的銀級綠住宅樣本，以九大評分指標搭配各指標申請率與指標特徵(屬於外顯或內隱) 來分析，發現「基地保水」指標呈現低溢價率卻擁有高申請率的供需誘因分歧，推測是 該指標的外顯特徵關乎日常使用所需而導致。綜上，本研究認為此供需誘因分歧是導致 銀級標章溢價率低落的重要原因，如果要鼓勵建物提升綠建築等級，除了檢討容積獎勵 政策外，亦可從改變必備指標數量或評分權重分配來達到供需一致。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study aims to explore the influence of Taiwan Green Building Label (EEWH) on the transaction value of residential buildings in New Taipei City, and further analyzes the difference between price premium rate and application rate of both rating level and evaluation indicators. Using abundant data to construct the real estate transaction market, including the green building label data, actual transaction price registration data, and the landmark location data. Estimations adopt six common hedonic price models from the literature. Result shows that the semi-log model performed the best in adjusted R2 of linear form; the quadratic Box- Cox model performed the best of non-linear forms. Take the semi-log model as an example, obtaining green certification appears 5.6% to 7.6% premium rate for residential buildings. Further analysis based on the five-rating level, result shows that the premium rate doesn’t increase with the rating level. The lowest premium rate is 5.33% of Silver level, while it’s also the level that builders are most inclined to obtain. To explain this phenomenon, this study estimates nine-evaluation indicators of Silver-level samples, interpreting the result by application rate of each indicator and characteristics of the indicator is either apparently or implicitly. Result shows that the Base-Water Retention indicator appears the split-incentive of supply and demand with a low premium rate but a high application rate. The split-incentive is speculated as a result of the apparent characteristic of this indicator is related to daily needs. In conclusion, this study considers the split-incentive is the main reason that led to the low premium rate of the silver label. Therefore, to encourage buildings to getting higher green building level, it is suggested to change the number of necessary indicators or the distribution of evaluation weights to achieve consistency.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 各章節安排 3
第二章 文獻回顧 4
第一節 與房價相關之變數 4
第二節 綠建築與房價相關的研究 5
第三節 國內與綠建築相關的研究 7
第三章 研究方法 8
第一節 特徵價格理論說明 8
第二節 特徵價格模型設定 9
第三節 特徵價格法的問題 10
第四章 資料與變數 12
第一節 資料處理 12
第二節 變數說明與敘述統計 15
第五章 實證分析 22
第一節 有綠認證之估計 22
第二節 標章等級之估計 29
第三節 銀級綠住宅評分指標之估計 37
第六章 結論與建議 45
第一節 研究結論 45
第二節 研究限制與建議 46
參考文獻 48
附錄 52		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 4253503 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107255033en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 綠建築標章zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 特徵價格模型zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 溢價率zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Green Building Labelen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Hedonic Price Modelen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Price Premiumen_US
dc.title (題名) 新北市綠住宅標章與價格分析zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Green Building Label and Price Analysis in New Taipei Cityen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王浩泉. (2017). 不動產交易資訊透明之研究—以實價登錄制度為中心. (碩士). 銘傳大學, 台北市.
王進祥. (2012). 實價登錄與稅制改革. 土地問題研究季刊, 11(3), 98-108.
林佩勳. (2014). 多重災害潛勢對房地產交易價格影響- 以台中都會區為例. (碩士). 國
立成功大學, 台南市.
林姿君. (2015). 實價登錄對營建相關類股股價之影響及成因分析. (碩士). 國立彰化師範大學, 彰化縣.
林純如. (2017). 資訊揭露對房價影響分析─以實價登錄制度為例. (碩士). 國立臺北大學, 新北市.
林睿信. (2016). 綠建築標章對辦公商業大樓租金之影響. (碩士). 國立政治大學, 台北市.
胡偉民. (2021). 綠建築與房屋交易價格-特徵價格法與離散選擇模型的應用. 國立政治大學,
曹家恩. (2016). 不動產需求的價格彈性分析:來自實價登錄大數據的新證據. 國立暨南國際大學,
梁家甄. (2015). 綠建築標章對於台灣住宿類不動產估價之影響. (碩士). 國立臺灣大學,台北市.
陳奉瑤, & 梁仁旭. (2018). 綠建築標章之溢價率分析—以新北市住宅大樓為例. Journal of Taiwan Land Research, 21(1), 61-85.
陳怡璇. (2011). 以國外經驗探討國內綠建築價格之估算. (碩士). 國立臺北大學, 新北市.
陳威宏. (2017). 購屋者於實價登錄實務操作之研究. (碩士). 國立屏東大學, 屏東縣.
彭逸瑋. (2012). 綠建築對不動產價格之影響. (碩士). 國立政治大學, 台北市.
黃姵嫙. (2018). 綠色招募活動對組織人才吸引力之影響: 以個人組織配適知覺為中介變數與個人環保態度為干擾變數.
楊雅婷. (2019). 綠認證對辦公大樓租金之影響–以台北市為例. (碩士). 國立政治大學,台北市.
廖士銘. (2009). 綠建築怎麼不「綠」了?初探台灣綠建築設計預期與使用經驗落差. (碩士). 國立臺灣大學, 台北市.
蔡淑悅. (2013). 實價登錄認知、稅收公平認知與購屋意願之 關聯性研究. 國立臺中科技大學.

Aroul, R. R., & Hansz, J. A. (2012). The Value of "Green:" Evidence from the First Mandatory Residential Green Building Program. The Journal of Real Estate Research, 34(1), 27-49.
Bird, S., & Hernández, D. (2012). Policy options for the split incentive: Increasing energy 48 efficiency for low-income renters. Energy Policy, 48, 506-514.
Brounen, D., & Kok, N. (2011). On the economics of energy labels in the housing market. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 166-179.
Brucato Jr, P. F., Murdoch, J. C., & Thayer, M. A. (1990). Urban air quality improvements: a comparison of aggregate health and welfare benefits to hedonic price differentials. Journal of Environmental Management, 30(3), 265-279.
Carroll, T. M., Clauretie, T. M., & Jensen, J. (1996). Living next to godliness: Residential property values and churches. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 12(3), 319-330.
Chau, K. W., & Chin, T. (2003). A critical review of literature on the hedonic price model. International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, 27(2), 145-165. Cropper, M. L., Deck, L. B., & McConnell, K. E. (1988). On the choice of funtional form for hedonic price functions. The review of economics and statistics, 668-675.
Deng, Y., Li, Z., & Quigley, J. M. (2012). Economic returns to energy-efficient investments in the housing market: Evidence from Singapore. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(3), 506-515.
Deng, Y., & Wu, J. (2014). Economic returns to residential green building investment: The developers` perspective. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 47, 35-44.
Dixon, T., Bright, S., Mallaburn, P., Gabe, J., & Rehm, M. (2014). Do tenants pay energy efficiency rent premiums? Journal of Property Investment & Finance.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. (2009). Why Companies Rent Green: CSR and the Role of Real Estate. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2009.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2010). Doing Well by Doing Good? Green Office Buildings. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2492-2509.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., & Quigley, J. M. (2013). The economics of green building. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 50-63.
Fletcher, M., Gallimore, P., & Mangan, J. (2000). Heteroscedasticity in hedonic house price models. Journal of Property Research, 17(2), 93-108.
Forrest, D., Glen, J., & Ward, R. (1996). The impact of a light rail system on the structure of house prices: a hedonic longitudinal study. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 15-29.
Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. (2011). Eco-labeling in commercial office markets: Do LEED and Energy Star offices obtain multiple premiums? Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1220-1230.
Fuerst, F., & McAllister, P. (2008). Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Price Effects of Environmental Certification in Commercial Buildings. Henley Business School, Reading University, Real Estate & Planning Working Papers.
Fuerst, F., McAllister, P., Nanda, A., & Wyatt, P. (2015). Does energy efficiency matter to 49 home-buyers? An investigation of EPC ratings and transaction prices in England. Energy Economics, 48, 145-156.
Garrod, G. D., & Willis, K. G. (1992). Valuing goods` characteristics: an application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. Journal of Environmental Management, 34(1), 59-76.
Hayes, K. J., & Taylor, L. L. (1996). Neighborhood school characteristics: what signals quality to homebuyers? Economic review (Dallas, Tex.), 2.
Huh, S., & Kwak, S.-J. (1997). The Choice of Functional Form and Variables in the Hedonic Price Model in Seoul. Urban Studies, 34(7), 989-998.
Johansson, O. (2012). The spatial diffusion of green building technologies: The case of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the United States. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 10,251-266.
Kain, J. F., & Quigley, J. M. (1970). Measuring the value of housing quality. Journal of the American statistical association, 65(330), 532-548.
Kok, N., & Jennen, M. (2012). The impact of energy labels and accessibility on office rents. Energy Policy, 46, 489-497.
Kok, N., McGraw, M., & Quigley, J. M. (2011). The Diffusion of Energy Efficiency in Building. American Economic Review, 101(3), 77-82.
Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
Li, M. M., & Brown, H. J. (1980). Micro-neighborhood externalities and hedonic housing prices. Land economics, 56(2), 125-141.
Linneman, P. (1980). Some empirical results on the nature of the hedonic price function for the urban housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, 8(1), 47-68.
Morris, E. W., Woods, M. E., & Jacobson, A. L. (1972). The measurement of housing quality. Land economics, 48(4), 383-387.
Palmquist, R. B. (1992). Valuing localized externalities. Journal of Urban Economics, 31(1),59-68.
Qiu, Y., Su, X., & Wang, Y. D. (2017). Factors influencing commercial buildings to obtain green certificates. Applied Economics, 49(20), 1937-1949.
Qiu, Y., Tiwari, A., & Wang, Y. D. (2015). The diffusion of voluntary green building
certification: a spatial approach. Energy Efficiency, 8(3), 449-471.
Raymond, Y., & Love, P. E. (2000). Measuring residential property values in Hong Kong.Property Management.
Ridker, R. G., & Henning, J. A. (1967). The Determinants of Residential Property Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution. The review of economics and statistics, 49(2), 246-257.50
Rodriguez, M., & Sirmans, C. (1994). Quantifying the value of a view in single-family housing markets. Appraisal Journal, 62, 600-600.
Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34-55.
Smith, B. A. (1978). Measuring the value of urban amenities. Journal of Urban Economics, 5(3), 370-387.
So, H. M., Tse, R. Y. C., & Ganesan, S. (1997). Estimating the influence of transport on house prices: evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 15(1), 40-47.
Thaler, R. (1978). A note on the value of crime control: evidence from the property market. Journal of Urban Economics, 5(1), 137-145.
Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 58(1), 267-288.
Williams, A. W. (1991). A guide to valuing transport externalities by hedonic means. Transport Reviews, 11(4), 311-324.
Yoshida, J., & Sugiura, A. (2015). The effects of multiple green factors on condominium prices. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 50(3), 412-437.
Yoshida, J., & Sugiura, A. (2010). Which “greenness” is valued? Evidence from green condominiums in Tokyo.
Zheng, S., Wu, J., Kahn, M. E., & Deng, Y. (2012). The nascent market for “green” real estate in Beijing. European Economic Review, 56(5), 974-984.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202100853en_US