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

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 資訊透明化對房市的影響: 以台灣實價登錄1.0與2.0政策為例
The Impact of Information Transparency on the Real Estate Market: Evidence from Taiwan’s Actual Price Registration 1.0 and 2.0 Policies
作者 何冠融
Ho, Kuan-Jung
貢獻者 陳明吉
Chen, Ming-Chi
何冠融
Ho, Kuan-Jung
關鍵詞 資訊透明化
房市
不動產實價登錄制度
市場效率
迴歸不連續設計
Information Transparency
Real Estate Market
Actual Price Registration (APR)
Market Efficiency
Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD)
日期 2025
上傳時間 1-Jul-2025 14:51:49 (UTC+8)
摘要 台灣長期以來因不動產資訊不透明，導致市場參與者難以取得真實價格資訊，進而影響資產定價與市場效率。為改善資訊不對稱，政府自2012年起推動實價登錄1.0政策，首次揭露不動產交易價格；2021年再推出實價登錄2.0，進一步強化門牌、地號與預售屋等資訊的揭露內容，以提升市場透明度。本研究以資訊透明化政策為理論基礎，探討兩階段實價登錄政策對房價、讓價空間（成交價與開價之差距）與銷售天數等市場效率指標之影響，並採用迴歸不連續設計（RDD）分析政策實施前後的市場反應。實證結果顯示，實價登錄1.0政策實施後房價反而上升、讓價空間僅顯著縮小約1%；市場銷售天數則未見顯著改善，顯示揭露內容侷限與執行力不足可能降低政策效果；相對地，實價登錄2.0政策具備更完整的資訊揭露與法律強制力，實施後房價顯著下跌約7.5%、銷售天數平均縮短約96天，雖讓價空間的效果變得不那麼顯著，但這可能是因為賣方在政策上路前已預期資訊透明度將提高，因而調整開價策略，提前反映未來市場條件，導致成交價與開價之間的差距未再進一步縮小。整體而言，本研究顯示高品質且具強制力的資訊揭露政策有助於提升市場透明度、促進理性交易與價格發現，研究成果除提供資訊透明化政策效果之實證驗證，亦可作為未來政策優化之參考。
The Taiwanese real estate market has long suffered from information asymmetry, making it difficult for market participants to access accurate price data and weakening pricing efficiency. To address this, the government launched the Actual Price Registration (APR) 1.0 policy in 2012, introducing the first public disclosure of transaction prices. In 2021, the APR 2.0 policy was implemented, further enhancing transparency by requiring the disclosure of detailed addresses, parcel numbers, and presale information. This study examines the effects of both policies on market efficiency, focusing on transaction prices, concession, and days on market, using a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD). Results show that following APR 1.0, housing prices increased unexpectedly, while concession decreased slightly by 1%, and days on market showed no significant improvement, indicating limited policy effectiveness due to weak enforcement and narrow disclosure scope. Under APR 2.0, housing prices fell by 7.5% and days on market declined by about 96 days, suggesting stronger transparency and market response. Although the reduction in concession became statistically weaker, this may be due to sellers adjusting their listing price strategies in anticipation of greater price disclosure, leading to a smaller visible price gap. These results show that high-quality information disclosure enhances market transparency, supports rational transactions, and facilitates price discovery. The findings provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness of transparency policies and offer guidance for future policy improvements.
參考文獻 Abdulai, R., & Owusu-Ansah, A. (2011). House price determinants in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 22(1), 1–26. Agarwal, S., Chen, Y., Li, J., & Tan, Y. J. (2021). Hedonic price of housing space. Real Estate Economics, 49(2), 574–609. Bian, X., Contat, C. J., Waller, D. B., & Wentland, A. S. (2023). Why Disclose Less Information? Toward Resolving a Disclosure Puzzle in the Housing Market. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 66, 443–486. Boone, A. L., & White, J. T. (2015). The effect of institutional ownership on firm transparency and information environment. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(3), 508–533. Brasington, D., & Parent, O. (2024). Fire protection services and house prices: A regression discontinuity investigation. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 105, 103984. Cattaneo, M. D., Jansson, M., & Ma, X. (2019). Lpdensity: Local polynomial density estimation and inference (arXiv Working Paper No. 1906.06529). Cattaneo, M. D., Jansson, M., & Ma, X. (2018). Manipulation testing based on density discontinuity. The Stata Journal, 18(1), 234–261. Cellini, S. R., Ferreira, F., & Rothstein, J. (2010). The Value of School Facility Investments: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 215–261. Chen, W. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2010). Amenities and disamenities: A hedonic analysis of the heterogeneous urban landscape in Shenzhen, China. The Geographical Journal, 176(3), 227–240. Cirman, A., Pahor, M., & Verbic, M. (2015). Determinants of time on the market in a thin real estate market. Economic of engineering decisions, 26(1), 4–11. Crane, A. D., Michenaud, S., & Weston, J. P. (2016). The Effect of Institutional Ownership on Payout Policy: Evidence from Index Thresholds. Review of Financial Studies, 29(6), 1377–1408. De Blasio, G., De Mitri, S., D’Ignazio, A., Salomone, S., & Zazzaro, A. (2018). Public guarantees to SME borrowing: A RDD evaluation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 96, 73–86. De Genaro, A., Salvador, P. I. C. A., & Fernandes, I. F. (2021). Market power and banking regulations: Evidence from RDD application to the Brazilian banking market. Economics Letters, 202, 109821. Duan, J., Tian, G., Yang, L., & Zhou, T. (2021). Addressing the macroeconomic and hedonic determinants of housing prices in Beijing metropolitan area, China. Habitat International, 113, 102374. Eerola, E., & Lyytikäinen, T. (2021). Housing Allowance and Rents: Evidence from a Stepwise Subsidy Scheme. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 123(1), 84–109. Fürstenau, E., Gohl, N., Haan, P., & Weinhardt, F. (2023). Working life and human capital investment: Causal evidence from a pension reform. Labour Economics, 84, 102426. Glebkin, S. (2019). “Liquidity versus Information Efficiency”, INSEAD, 1-55. Goldstein, I., & Yang, L. (2017). Information Disclosure in Financial Markets. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 9, 101–125. Goldstein, I., & Yang, L. (2019). Good Disclosure, Bad Disclosure. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(1), 118–138. Khan, M., Srinivasan, S., & Tan, L. (2017). Institutional ownership and corporate tax avoidance: New evidence. Accounting Review, 92(2), 101–122. Kiel, K. A., & Zabel, J. E. (1996). House price differentials in US cities: Household and neighborhood racial effects. Journal of Housing Economics, 5(2), 143-165. Koski, L. J., & Michaely, R. (2000). Prices, Liquidity, and the Information Content of Trades. Review of Financial Studies, 13(3), 659–696. Koster, H. R., Van Ommeren, J., & Volkhausen, N. (2021). Short-term rentals and the housing market: Quasi-experimental evidence from Airbnb in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Economics, 124, 103356. Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. T. (2024). The Effects of Mandatory ESG Disclosure Around the World. Journal of Accounting Research, 62(5), 1795–1847. Lester, B., Postlewaite, A., & Wright, R. (2011). Information and Liquidity. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 43(S2), 355–377. Liu, L., & Tian, G. (2021). Mandatory CSR disclosure, monitoring and investment efficiency: evidence from China. Accounting & Finance, 61(1), 595–644. Lo, C. P., Luo, Y., & Yang, Z. (2022). Information transparency and pricing strategy in the Scottish housing market. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 15(2), 429–450. Liao, W., Luo, Y., & Sun, Y. (2022). Information shock of disaster and hazard: Impact of Kaohsiung gas explosions and risk disclosure on the equalizing difference in the housing market. Real Estate Economics, 50(6), 1492–1531. Miles, W. (2014). The housing bubble: how much blame does the fed really deserve? Journal of Real Estate Research, 36(1), 41–58. Nanda, A., & Ross, L. S. (2012). The impact of property condition disclosure laws on housing prices: Evidence from an event study using propensity scores. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45, 99–109. Pope, C.J. (2008), “Buyer information and the hedonic: The impact of a seller disclosure on the implicit price for airport noise”, Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 498–516. Schmidheiny, K., & Slotwinski, M. (2018). Tax-induced mobility: Evidence from a foreigners' tax scheme in Switzerland. Journal of Public Economics, 167, 293–324. Selim, S. (2008). Determinants of house prices in Turkey: A hedonic regression model. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(1), 65–76. Shang, H., Fan, J., Fan, B., & Su, F. (2022). Economic effects of ecological compensation policy in Shiyang River Basin: Empirical research based on DID and RDD models. Sustainability, 14(5), 2999. Sirmans, G. S., Macpherson, D. A., & Zietz, E. N. (2006). The value of housing characteristics: A meta analysis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 33(3), 215–240. Sun, W., Zheng, S., Geltner, D. M., & Wang, R. (2017). The housing market effects of local home purchase restrictions: Evidence from Beijing. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 55, 288-312. Tandel, V., Gandhi, S., & Chatterji, S. (2023). Do mandatory disclosures squeeze the lemons? The case of housing markets in India. Journal of Public Economics, 247, 105395. Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(6), 309. Wilhelmsson, M. (2022). What is the impact of macroprudential regulations on the Swedish housing market? Journal of Housing Economics, 57, 101840. Yinger, J. (1977). Prejudice and Discrimination in the Urban Housing Market. Discussion Paper D77-9. Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., & Seiler, M. (2015). Impact of Information Disclosure on Prices, Volume, and Market Volatility: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 16(1), 12–19. Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., & Seiler, M. (2016). The Impact of Information Disclosure on Price Fluctuations and Housing Bubbles: An Experimental Study. Journal of Housing Research, 25(2), 171–193. 胡志平 (2005)，新竹科學園區設置之環境風險認知分析與價值評估。建築與規劃學報，6(1)，63-80。 彭建文、張金鶚、林恩從 (1998)，地產景氣對生產時間落差之影響。台大經濟論文叢刊，26(4)，409-429。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
財務管理學系
112357025
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112357025
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳明吉zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Ming-Chien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 何冠融zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Ho, Kuan-Jungen_US
dc.creator (作者) 何冠融zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Ho, Kuan-Jungen_US
dc.date (日期) 2025en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2025 14:51:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Jul-2025 14:51:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2025 14:51:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0112357025en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/157781-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 財務管理學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 112357025zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 台灣長期以來因不動產資訊不透明，導致市場參與者難以取得真實價格資訊，進而影響資產定價與市場效率。為改善資訊不對稱，政府自2012年起推動實價登錄1.0政策，首次揭露不動產交易價格；2021年再推出實價登錄2.0，進一步強化門牌、地號與預售屋等資訊的揭露內容，以提升市場透明度。本研究以資訊透明化政策為理論基礎，探討兩階段實價登錄政策對房價、讓價空間（成交價與開價之差距）與銷售天數等市場效率指標之影響，並採用迴歸不連續設計（RDD）分析政策實施前後的市場反應。實證結果顯示，實價登錄1.0政策實施後房價反而上升、讓價空間僅顯著縮小約1%；市場銷售天數則未見顯著改善，顯示揭露內容侷限與執行力不足可能降低政策效果；相對地，實價登錄2.0政策具備更完整的資訊揭露與法律強制力，實施後房價顯著下跌約7.5%、銷售天數平均縮短約96天，雖讓價空間的效果變得不那麼顯著，但這可能是因為賣方在政策上路前已預期資訊透明度將提高，因而調整開價策略，提前反映未來市場條件，導致成交價與開價之間的差距未再進一步縮小。整體而言，本研究顯示高品質且具強制力的資訊揭露政策有助於提升市場透明度、促進理性交易與價格發現，研究成果除提供資訊透明化政策效果之實證驗證，亦可作為未來政策優化之參考。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The Taiwanese real estate market has long suffered from information asymmetry, making it difficult for market participants to access accurate price data and weakening pricing efficiency. To address this, the government launched the Actual Price Registration (APR) 1.0 policy in 2012, introducing the first public disclosure of transaction prices. In 2021, the APR 2.0 policy was implemented, further enhancing transparency by requiring the disclosure of detailed addresses, parcel numbers, and presale information. This study examines the effects of both policies on market efficiency, focusing on transaction prices, concession, and days on market, using a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD). Results show that following APR 1.0, housing prices increased unexpectedly, while concession decreased slightly by 1%, and days on market showed no significant improvement, indicating limited policy effectiveness due to weak enforcement and narrow disclosure scope. Under APR 2.0, housing prices fell by 7.5% and days on market declined by about 96 days, suggesting stronger transparency and market response. Although the reduction in concession became statistically weaker, this may be due to sellers adjusting their listing price strategies in anticipation of greater price disclosure, leading to a smaller visible price gap. These results show that high-quality information disclosure enhances market transparency, supports rational transactions, and facilitates price discovery. The findings provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness of transparency policies and offer guidance for future policy improvements.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Research Objectives 3 1.3 Research Frameworks 7 2. Literature Review 8 2.1 The Impact of Information Disclosure on Capital Market 8 2.2 Effects of Information Disclosure on the Real Estate Market 12 2.3 Application of Regression Discontinuity Design on the Real Estate market 17 3. Research Methodology 20 3.1 Research Design 20 3.2 Model and Data 25 4. Empirical Results 29 4.1 Descriptive Statistics 29 4.2 Policy Impact on Housing Prices 34 4.2.1 Graphical Analysis of Housing Prices 34 4.2.2 Empirical Results of Housing Prices 36 4.3 Policy Impact on Days-on-Market 39 4.3.1 Graphical Analysis of Days-on-Market 39 4.3.2 Empirical Results of Days-on-Market 40 4.4 Policy Impact on Concession 41 4.4.1 Graphical Analysis of Concession 41 4.4.2 Empirical Results of Concession 42 4.5 Summary and Discussion 44 4.6 RDD Model Specification and Robustness Checks 47 4.6.1 Specification Tests of the RDD Model 47 4.6.2 Robustness Tests of the RDD Model 50 5. Conclusion and Recommendations 52 5.1 Conclusion 52 5.2 Limitations and Recommendations 54 Reference 57zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1417089 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112357025en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊透明化zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 房市zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 不動產實價登錄制度zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 市場效率zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 迴歸不連續設計zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information Transparencyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Real Estate Marketen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Actual Price Registration (APR)en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Market Efficiencyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD)en_US
dc.title (題名) 資訊透明化對房市的影響: 以台灣實價登錄1.0與2.0政策為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Impact of Information Transparency on the Real Estate Market: Evidence from Taiwan’s Actual Price Registration 1.0 and 2.0 Policiesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Abdulai, R., & Owusu-Ansah, A. (2011). House price determinants in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 22(1), 1–26. Agarwal, S., Chen, Y., Li, J., & Tan, Y. J. (2021). Hedonic price of housing space. Real Estate Economics, 49(2), 574–609. Bian, X., Contat, C. J., Waller, D. B., & Wentland, A. S. (2023). Why Disclose Less Information? Toward Resolving a Disclosure Puzzle in the Housing Market. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 66, 443–486. Boone, A. L., & White, J. T. (2015). The effect of institutional ownership on firm transparency and information environment. Journal of Financial Economics, 117(3), 508–533. Brasington, D., & Parent, O. (2024). Fire protection services and house prices: A regression discontinuity investigation. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 105, 103984. Cattaneo, M. D., Jansson, M., & Ma, X. (2019). Lpdensity: Local polynomial density estimation and inference (arXiv Working Paper No. 1906.06529). Cattaneo, M. D., Jansson, M., & Ma, X. (2018). Manipulation testing based on density discontinuity. The Stata Journal, 18(1), 234–261. Cellini, S. R., Ferreira, F., & Rothstein, J. (2010). The Value of School Facility Investments: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 215–261. Chen, W. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2010). Amenities and disamenities: A hedonic analysis of the heterogeneous urban landscape in Shenzhen, China. The Geographical Journal, 176(3), 227–240. Cirman, A., Pahor, M., & Verbic, M. (2015). Determinants of time on the market in a thin real estate market. Economic of engineering decisions, 26(1), 4–11. Crane, A. D., Michenaud, S., & Weston, J. P. (2016). The Effect of Institutional Ownership on Payout Policy: Evidence from Index Thresholds. Review of Financial Studies, 29(6), 1377–1408. De Blasio, G., De Mitri, S., D’Ignazio, A., Salomone, S., & Zazzaro, A. (2018). Public guarantees to SME borrowing: A RDD evaluation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 96, 73–86. De Genaro, A., Salvador, P. I. C. A., & Fernandes, I. F. (2021). Market power and banking regulations: Evidence from RDD application to the Brazilian banking market. Economics Letters, 202, 109821. Duan, J., Tian, G., Yang, L., & Zhou, T. (2021). Addressing the macroeconomic and hedonic determinants of housing prices in Beijing metropolitan area, China. Habitat International, 113, 102374. Eerola, E., & Lyytikäinen, T. (2021). Housing Allowance and Rents: Evidence from a Stepwise Subsidy Scheme. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 123(1), 84–109. Fürstenau, E., Gohl, N., Haan, P., & Weinhardt, F. (2023). Working life and human capital investment: Causal evidence from a pension reform. Labour Economics, 84, 102426. Glebkin, S. (2019). “Liquidity versus Information Efficiency”, INSEAD, 1-55. Goldstein, I., & Yang, L. (2017). Information Disclosure in Financial Markets. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 9, 101–125. Goldstein, I., & Yang, L. (2019). Good Disclosure, Bad Disclosure. Journal of Financial Economics, 131(1), 118–138. Khan, M., Srinivasan, S., & Tan, L. (2017). Institutional ownership and corporate tax avoidance: New evidence. Accounting Review, 92(2), 101–122. Kiel, K. A., & Zabel, J. E. (1996). House price differentials in US cities: Household and neighborhood racial effects. Journal of Housing Economics, 5(2), 143-165. Koski, L. J., & Michaely, R. (2000). Prices, Liquidity, and the Information Content of Trades. Review of Financial Studies, 13(3), 659–696. Koster, H. R., Van Ommeren, J., & Volkhausen, N. (2021). Short-term rentals and the housing market: Quasi-experimental evidence from Airbnb in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Economics, 124, 103356. Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. T. (2024). The Effects of Mandatory ESG Disclosure Around the World. Journal of Accounting Research, 62(5), 1795–1847. Lester, B., Postlewaite, A., & Wright, R. (2011). Information and Liquidity. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 43(S2), 355–377. Liu, L., & Tian, G. (2021). Mandatory CSR disclosure, monitoring and investment efficiency: evidence from China. Accounting & Finance, 61(1), 595–644. Lo, C. P., Luo, Y., & Yang, Z. (2022). Information transparency and pricing strategy in the Scottish housing market. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 15(2), 429–450. Liao, W., Luo, Y., & Sun, Y. (2022). Information shock of disaster and hazard: Impact of Kaohsiung gas explosions and risk disclosure on the equalizing difference in the housing market. Real Estate Economics, 50(6), 1492–1531. Miles, W. (2014). The housing bubble: how much blame does the fed really deserve? Journal of Real Estate Research, 36(1), 41–58. Nanda, A., & Ross, L. S. (2012). The impact of property condition disclosure laws on housing prices: Evidence from an event study using propensity scores. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45, 99–109. Pope, C.J. (2008), “Buyer information and the hedonic: The impact of a seller disclosure on the implicit price for airport noise”, Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 498–516. Schmidheiny, K., & Slotwinski, M. (2018). Tax-induced mobility: Evidence from a foreigners' tax scheme in Switzerland. Journal of Public Economics, 167, 293–324. Selim, S. (2008). Determinants of house prices in Turkey: A hedonic regression model. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 9(1), 65–76. Shang, H., Fan, J., Fan, B., & Su, F. (2022). Economic effects of ecological compensation policy in Shiyang River Basin: Empirical research based on DID and RDD models. Sustainability, 14(5), 2999. Sirmans, G. S., Macpherson, D. A., & Zietz, E. N. (2006). The value of housing characteristics: A meta analysis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 33(3), 215–240. Sun, W., Zheng, S., Geltner, D. M., & Wang, R. (2017). The housing market effects of local home purchase restrictions: Evidence from Beijing. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 55, 288-312. Tandel, V., Gandhi, S., & Chatterji, S. (2023). Do mandatory disclosures squeeze the lemons? The case of housing markets in India. Journal of Public Economics, 247, 105395. Thistlethwaite, D. L., & Campbell, D. T. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(6), 309. Wilhelmsson, M. (2022). What is the impact of macroprudential regulations on the Swedish housing market? Journal of Housing Economics, 57, 101840. Yinger, J. (1977). Prejudice and Discrimination in the Urban Housing Market. Discussion Paper D77-9. Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., & Seiler, M. (2015). Impact of Information Disclosure on Prices, Volume, and Market Volatility: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 16(1), 12–19. Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., & Seiler, M. (2016). The Impact of Information Disclosure on Price Fluctuations and Housing Bubbles: An Experimental Study. Journal of Housing Research, 25(2), 171–193. 胡志平 (2005)，新竹科學園區設置之環境風險認知分析與價值評估。建築與規劃學報，6(1)，63-80。 彭建文、張金鶚、林恩從 (1998)，地產景氣對生產時間落差之影響。台大經濟論文叢刊，26(4)，409-429。zh_TW