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 公共運輸定期票對住宅市場之影響
The Impact of Discounted Transit Passes on the Housing Market
作者 陳品睿
Chen, Pin-Jui
貢獻者 林左裕
Lin, Tso-Yu
陳品睿
Chen, Pin-Jui
關鍵詞 公共運輸定期票
房價
差異中之差異法
分量迴歸
傾向分數配對法
Transit Passes
Housing prices
Difference-in-differences
Quantile regression
Propensity Score Matching
日期 2025
上傳時間 1-Sep-2025 14:35:32 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究在檢驗雙北「1280公共運輸定期票」於2018年4月16日上路後，透過降低交通成本是否改變住宅市場價格結構與空間分布。資料取自內政部實價登錄個體交易資料，期間涵蓋2017年1月1日至2019年12月31日。以臺北市與新北市為實驗組、桃園市為控制組；經傾向分數配對後，可控制樣本選擇偏誤。研究方法先以半對數差異中之差異法（DID）結合住宅特徵、行政區與時間固定效果等估計整體政策效果，再延伸至分量迴歸 DID 及加入區域虛擬變數交乘項等，以分析價格分量與空間異質性。 實證結果顯示，政策實施後實驗組房價相對控制組平均下降2.15%。在價格結構方面，0.1分位低價住宅呈正向且具顯著，0.75 與 0.9 分位高價住宅跌幅分別為 1.94% 與 3.10%，且均達 1% 顯著，顯示政策對高價市場抑制作用較強，對低價市場則具提升效果。區域分析進一步發現，夜間居住之「通勤區」房價上升 2.36%，而核心就業之「流入區」則下跌 2.96%，反映交通成本降低引導居住需求向都市外圍移動並舒緩市中心價格壓力。最後再加入政策實施期間時顯示，該項政策在實施後六個月開始改變居住區位選擇，顯示政策具有時間延遲性，人們需要時間對於政策進行反應。 總結，定期票政策確實透過交通價格機制改變居住誘因，促成住宅市場「由核心向郊區外圍」的再平衡；對政府而言，後續推動 TPASS 或擴大優惠範圍時，宜同步評估住宅價格外部效應，以強化都市可負擔性與區域均衡發展。
This study evaluates whether the “NT$1,280 Transit Monthly Passes,” launched on 16 April 2018 in the Taipei metropolitan area, altered the structure and spatial distribution of housing prices by lowering commuting costs. Transaction-level data were retrieved from Taiwan’s Actual Price Registration System for the period 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2019. After propensity-score matching to mitigate sample-selection bias, Taipei City and New Taipei City constitute the treatment group, while Taoyuan City serves as the control. A semi-logarithmic difference-in-differences (DID) model incorporating dwelling attributes, district fixed effects, and time fixed effects estimates the average treatment effect; the analysis then extends to DID quantile regressions and interaction terms with regional dummies to capture price-segment and spatial heterogeneity. The pass reduced mean housing prices in the treatment group by2.15 percent relative to the control. Quantile results reveal a positive and significant effect at the 10th percentile, whereas prices at the 75th and 90th percentiles declined by 1.94 percent and 3.10 percent, respectively, both at the 1 percent significance level—indicating stronger suppression of the high-end market and a mild boost to lower-priced segments. Spatially, prices in “commuting areas” where residents live at night rose by 2.36 percent, while prices in core “inflow areas” where they work fell by 2.96 percent, confirming a shift of housing demand toward the urban periphery. Segmenting the post-policy period shows that these spatial adjustments emerged only after about six months, suggesting a policy response lag. Overall, the monthly pass reshaped residential location incentives through reduced transport costs, driving a “core-to-suburb” rebalancing of the housing market. Policymakers considering the subsequent TPASS expansion or similar fare subsidies should concurrently assess housing-price externalities to enhance urban affordability and balanced regional development.
參考文獻 一、中文文獻 1.吳招億. (2019). 公共運輸定期票購買意願之影響因素分析. 交通大學管理學院運輸物流學程學位論文, 2019, 1-77. 2.吳森田. (1994). 所得, 貨幣與房價-近二十年台北地區的觀察. 住宅學報(2), 49-65. 3.李春長, 俞錚, & 梁志民. (2020). 公佈降雨淹水模擬地圖對淹水區與其鄰近地區住宅價格之影響. 住宅學報, 29(1), 63-89. 4.林祖嘉, & 林素菁. (1993). 台灣地區環境品質與公共設施對房價與房租影響之分析. 住宅學報(1), 21-45. 5.徐國城. (2006). 緊密都市形態之正負面效益論述~ 兼論對台灣城鄉空間發展之參考觀點. 土地問題研究季刊, 5(4), 32-45. 6.梁仁旭. (2012). 不動產價值逆折舊之探討. 住宅學報, 21(2), 71-89. 7.陳冠穎. (2023). 都市公共運輸使用者之跨運具定期票票價政策分析—以臺北都會區為例 國立陽明交通大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 8.陳彥仲, & 楊青桓. (1999). 交通與住宅政策對不動產短期均衡價格之影響-以高雄市為例. 運輸學刊, 11(3), 95-108. 9.陳柏如. (2018). 總體審慎政策工具與臺灣房價的關係-特定目標信用工具與房市相關租稅工具的影響. 經濟研究 (Taipei Economic Inquiry), 54(2), 287-330. 10.陳淑美, & 張金鶚. (2000). 家戶住宅區位與通勤選擇之研究——1990 年臺北市單薪與雙薪家戶之比較. 臺灣社會學刊　24, 89-125. 11.陳淑美, & 張金鶚. (2004). 家戶就業結構與通勤選擇之變遷分析-論 1990 年和 2000 年間台北市的變化. 都市與計劃, 31(4), 295-312. 12.彭建文, 楊宗憲, & 楊詩韻. (2009). 捷運系統對不同區位房價影響分析－以營運階段為例. 運輸計劃季刊, 38(3), 275-296. 13.楊宗憲, & 蘇倖慧. (2011). 迎毗設施與鄰避設施對住宅價格影響之研究. 住宅學報, 20(2), 61-80. 14.蔡吉源. (1998). 大臺北地區空間所得分配的實證分析. 人文及社會科學集刊, 10(4), 687-700. 15.薛立敏, 李中文, & 曾喜鵬. (2003). 台灣區域人口遷移及其與就業市場, 住宅市場關係之實證研究. 都市與計劃, 30(1), 37-62. 16.交通部運輸研究所.(2020). 影響公共運輸定期票選擇行為因素之探討(編號: 109-092-4324).臺北. 陳其華、吳招億. 二、英文文獻 1.Alonso, W. (1964). Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Harvard University Press. 2.Badoe, D., & Yendeti, M. (2007). Impact of Transit-Pass Ownership on Daily Number of Trips Made by Urban Public Transit. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 133(4), 242-249. 3.Benassi, F., & De Falco, A. (2025). Residential Segregation and Accessibility: Exploring Inequalities in Urban Resources Access Among Social Groups. Land, 14(2), 429. 4.Benjamin, J., & Sirmans, G. S. (1996). Mass Transportation, Apartment Rent and Property Values. Journal of Real Estate Research, 12(1), 1-8. 5.Bly, P., Webster, F., & Pounds, S. (1980). Effects of Subsidies on Urban Public Transport. Transportation, 9(4), 311-331. 6.Borck, R., & Wrede, M. (2008). Commuting Subsidies with Two Transport Modes. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(3), 841-848. 7.Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., & Rubensson, I. (2020). Distributional Effects of Public Transport Subsidies. Journal of Transport Geography, 84. 8.Brueckner, J. K. (2005). Transport Subsidies, System Choice, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35(6), 715-733. 9.Cai, Q., Wang, Z., & Xiao, L. (2018). The Effect of Transportation and Housing Subsidies on Urban Sprawl. Journal of Systems Science and Information, 6(3), 237-248. 10.Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31-72. 11.Coulson, N. E., & Engle, R. F. (1987). Transportation Costs and the Rent Gradient. Journal of Urban Economics, 21(3), 287-297. 12.Dewita, Y., Yen, B. T., & Burke, M. (2018). The Effect of Transport Cost on Housing Affordability: Experiences from the Bandung Metropolitan Area, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 79, 507-519. 13.Doxsey, L. B. (1984). Demand for Unlimited Use Transit Passes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 7-22. 14.Efthymiou, D., & Antoniou, C. (2013). How do Transport Infrastructure and Policies Affect House Prices and Rents? Evidence from Athens, Greece. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 52, 1-22. 15.Erath, A., & Axhausen, K. W. (2009). Mobility Costs and Residence Location Choice. 9th Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC 2009), 16.FitzRoy, F., & Smith, I. (1998). Public Transport Demand in Freiburg: Why did Patronage Double in a Decade? Transport Policy, 5(3), 163-173. 17.Follain, J. R., & Malpezzi, S. (1980). Dissecting Housing Value and Rent: Estimates of Hedonic Indexes for Thirty-Nine Large SMSAs (Vol. 249). Urban Institute Press. 18.Greenlee, A. J., & Wilson, B. K. (2016). Where does Location Affordability Drive Residential Mobility? An Analysis of Origin and Destination Communities. Housing Policy Debate, 26(4-5), 583-606. 19.Guerra, E., Caudillo, C., Goytia, C., Quiros, T. P., & Rodriguez, C. (2018). Residential Location, Urban Form, and Household Transportation Spending in Greater Buenos Aires. Journal of Transport Geography, 72, 76-85. 20.Gujarati, D. N. (2009). Basic Econometrics. In: McGraw-Hill. 21.Habib, K. N., & Hasnine, S. (2019). An Econometric Investigation of the Influence of Transit Passes on Transit Users’ Behavior in Toronto. Public Transport, 11(1), 111-133. 22.Jin, J., & Lee, H.-Y. (2017). Understanding Residential Location Choices: an Application of the UrbanSim Residential Location Model on Suwon, Korea. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 22(2), 216-235. 23.Kim, J.-H., Pagliara, F., & Preston, J. (2004). Transport Policy Impact on Residential Location. International Review of Public Administration, 9(1), 71-87. 24.Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression Quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 33-50. 25.Koo, K. M. (2019). Transport Fare Removal and House Price. Available at SSRN 3354257. 26.Kuminoff, N. V., Parmeter, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2010). Which Hedonic Models Can We Trust to Recover the Marginal Willingness to Pay for Environmental Amenities? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 60(3), 145-160. 27.Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157. 28.Li, T., Dodson, J., & Sipe, N. (2018). Examining Household Relocation Pressures from Rising Transport and Housing Costs – An Australian Case Study. Transport Policy, 65, 106-113. 29.Liu, D., Kwan, M. P., Kan, Z., & Song, Y. (2021). An Integrated Analysis of Housing and Transit Affordability in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. The Geographical Journal, 187(2), 110-126. 30.Matas, A. (2004). Demand and Revenue Implications of an Integrated Public Transport Policy: the Case of Madrid. Transport Reviews, 24(2), 195-217. 31.Mills, E. S. (1972). Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. 32.Muth, R. F. (1969). Cities and Housing : the Spatial Pattern of Urban Residential Land Use. 33.Palm, M., Gregor, B., Wang, H., & McMullen, B. S. (2014). The Trade-Offs between Population Density and Households׳ Transportation-Housing Costs. Transport Policy, 36, 160-172. 34.Reichert, A. K. (1990). The Impact of Interest Rates, Income, and Employment upon Regional Housing Prices. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 3, 373-391. 35.Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of political economy, 82(1), 34-55. 36.Saberi, M., Wu, H., Amoh-Gyimah, R., Smith, J., & Arunachalam, D. (2017). Measuring Housing and Transportation Affordability: A Case Study of Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 134-146. 37.Sasaki, K. (1990). Income Class, Modal Choice, and Urban Spatial Structure. Journal of Urban Economics, 27(3), 322-343. 38.Schirmer, P. M., Van Eggermond, M. A. B., & Axhausen, K. W. (2014). The Role of Location in Residential Location Choice Models: a Review of Literature. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(2), 3-21. 39.Seo, W., & Nam, H. K. (2019). Trade-Off Relationship between Public Transportation Accessibility and Household Economy: Analysis of Subway Access Values by Housing Size. Cities, 87, 247-258. 40.Serebrisky, T., Gómez‐Lobo, A., Estupiñán, N., & Muñoz‐Raskin, R. (2009). Affordability and Subsidies in Public Urban Transport: What Do We Mean, What Can Be Done? Transport Reviews, 29(6), 715-739. 41.So, K. S., Orazem, P. F., & Otto, D. M. (2001). The Effects of Housing Prices, Wages, and Commuting Time on Joint Residential and Job Location Choices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(4), 1036-1048. 42.Su, Q., & DeSalvo, J. S. (2008). The Effect of Transportation Subsidies on Urban Sprawl*. Journal of Regional Science, 48(3), 567-594. 43.Tsai, F. M., Chien, S. I. J., & Spasovic, L. N. (2008). Optimizing Distance-Based Fares and Headway of an Intercity Transportation System with Elastic Demand and Trip Length Differentiation. Transportation Research Record(2089), 101-109. 44.Van Goeverden, C., Rietveld, P., Koelemeijer, J., & Peeters, P. (2006). Subsidies in Public Transport. European Transport, 32, 5-25. 45.Verbich, D., & El-Geneidy, A. (2017). Public Transit Fare Structure and Social Vulnerability in Montreal, Canada. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 96, 43-53. 46.Waltl, S. R. (2018). Estimating Quantile-Specific Rental Yields for Residential Housing in Sydney. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 68, 204-225. 47.Weisbrod, G., Lerman, S. R., & Ben-Akiva, M. (1980). Tradeoffs in Residential Location Decisions: Transportation Versus Other Factors. Transport Policy and Decision Making, 1(1), 13-26. 48.White, P. R. (1981). " Travelcard" Tickets in Urban Public Transport. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 17-34. 49.XU, N., YIN, L., & HU, J. (2014). Identifying Home-Work Locations from Short-Term, Large-Scale, and Regularly Sampled Mobile Phone Tracking Data. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 39(6), 750-756. 50.Xu, P., Wang, W., & Wei, C. (2018). Economic and Environmental Effects of Public Transport Subsidy Policies: a Spatial CGE Model of Beijing. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018, 1-12. 51.Yang, S., Hu, S., Wang, S., & Zou, L. (2020). Effects of Rapid Urban Land Expansion on the Spatial Direction of Residential Land Prices: Evidence from Wuhan, China. Habitat International, 101. 52.Yu, H., Zhu, S., Li, J. V., & Wang, L. (2024). Dynamics of Urban Sprawl: Deciphering the Role of Land Prices and Transportation Costs in Government-led Urbanization. Journal of Urban Management. 53.Zondag, B., & Pieters, M. (2005). Influence of Accessibility on Residential Location Choice. Transportation Research Record, 1902(1), 63-70.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
112257021
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112257021
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林左裕zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Tso-Yuen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳品睿zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Pin-Juien_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳品睿zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Pin-Juien_US
dc.date (日期) 2025en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2025 14:35:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Sep-2025 14:35:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2025 14:35:32 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0112257021en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158980-
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) 112257021zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究在檢驗雙北「1280公共運輸定期票」於2018年4月16日上路後，透過降低交通成本是否改變住宅市場價格結構與空間分布。資料取自內政部實價登錄個體交易資料，期間涵蓋2017年1月1日至2019年12月31日。以臺北市與新北市為實驗組、桃園市為控制組；經傾向分數配對後，可控制樣本選擇偏誤。研究方法先以半對數差異中之差異法（DID）結合住宅特徵、行政區與時間固定效果等估計整體政策效果，再延伸至分量迴歸 DID 及加入區域虛擬變數交乘項等，以分析價格分量與空間異質性。 實證結果顯示，政策實施後實驗組房價相對控制組平均下降2.15%。在價格結構方面，0.1分位低價住宅呈正向且具顯著，0.75 與 0.9 分位高價住宅跌幅分別為 1.94% 與 3.10%，且均達 1% 顯著，顯示政策對高價市場抑制作用較強，對低價市場則具提升效果。區域分析進一步發現，夜間居住之「通勤區」房價上升 2.36%，而核心就業之「流入區」則下跌 2.96%，反映交通成本降低引導居住需求向都市外圍移動並舒緩市中心價格壓力。最後再加入政策實施期間時顯示，該項政策在實施後六個月開始改變居住區位選擇，顯示政策具有時間延遲性，人們需要時間對於政策進行反應。 總結，定期票政策確實透過交通價格機制改變居住誘因，促成住宅市場「由核心向郊區外圍」的再平衡；對政府而言，後續推動 TPASS 或擴大優惠範圍時，宜同步評估住宅價格外部效應，以強化都市可負擔性與區域均衡發展。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study evaluates whether the “NT$1,280 Transit Monthly Passes,” launched on 16 April 2018 in the Taipei metropolitan area, altered the structure and spatial distribution of housing prices by lowering commuting costs. Transaction-level data were retrieved from Taiwan’s Actual Price Registration System for the period 1 January 2017 – 31 December 2019. After propensity-score matching to mitigate sample-selection bias, Taipei City and New Taipei City constitute the treatment group, while Taoyuan City serves as the control. A semi-logarithmic difference-in-differences (DID) model incorporating dwelling attributes, district fixed effects, and time fixed effects estimates the average treatment effect; the analysis then extends to DID quantile regressions and interaction terms with regional dummies to capture price-segment and spatial heterogeneity. The pass reduced mean housing prices in the treatment group by2.15 percent relative to the control. Quantile results reveal a positive and significant effect at the 10th percentile, whereas prices at the 75th and 90th percentiles declined by 1.94 percent and 3.10 percent, respectively, both at the 1 percent significance level—indicating stronger suppression of the high-end market and a mild boost to lower-priced segments. Spatially, prices in “commuting areas” where residents live at night rose by 2.36 percent, while prices in core “inflow areas” where they work fell by 2.96 percent, confirming a shift of housing demand toward the urban periphery. Segmenting the post-policy period shows that these spatial adjustments emerged only after about six months, suggesting a policy response lag. Overall, the monthly pass reshaped residential location incentives through reduced transport costs, driving a “core-to-suburb” rebalancing of the housing market. Policymakers considering the subsequent TPASS expansion or similar fare subsidies should concurrently assess housing-price externalities to enhance urban affordability and balanced regional development.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 一、 研究動機 1 二、 研究目的 3 第二節 研究範圍與內容 4 一、 研究範圍 4 二、 研究方法 5 第三節 研究架構與流程 6 一、 研究架構 6 二、 研究流程 7 第二章 相關理論與文獻回顧 9 第一節 居住區位選擇 9 一、 居住區位選擇之理論 9 二、 交通成本以及其他因素對於居住區位之影響 10 三、 臺灣區位選擇研究 12 第二節 公共運輸補貼、定期月票之效果與目的 14 一、 公共運輸補貼原因 14 二、 公共運輸補貼效果 15 三、 公共運輸定期票之定義及益處 16 四、 公共運輸定期票相關文獻 17 第三節 公共運輸定期票與住宅市場關聯 20 一、 交通成本對住宅市場之影響 20 二、 交通補貼對住宅市場影響 22 第四節 小結 25 第三章 研究設計背景與資料處理 27 第一節 制度背景 27 第二節 研究設計 28 第三節 實證模型之建立 29 一、 特徵價格理論 29 二、 傾向分數配對法(PSM) 30 三、 差異中之差異法 32 第四節 資料說明與處理 40 一、 資料說明 40 二、 資料處理 40 第五節 變數選取 42 第六節 敘述性統計 48 第四章 實證分析 59 第一節 傾向分數配對法 59 第二節 計量模型分析 63 一、 基礎DID模型 63 二、 分量迴歸DID模型分析 68 三、 DID模型異質性分析 73 第三節 平行趨勢驗證 78 第五章 結論與建議 81 第一節 結論 81 一、 政策整體效果 81 二、 異質性之影響效果 81 三、 政策效果時間延遲 83 第二節 建議 84 一、 政策建議 84 二、 後續研究建議 84 參考文獻 87 一、 中文文獻 87 二、 英文文獻 88 附錄 傾向分數配對前結果 92zh_TW
dc.format.extent 3545221 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112257021en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公共運輸定期票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) 分量迴歸zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 傾向分數配對法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Transit Passesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Housing pricesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Difference-in-differencesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Quantile regressionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Propensity Score Matchingen_US
dc.title (題名) 公共運輸定期票對住宅市場之影響zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Impact of Discounted Transit Passes on the Housing Marketen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 一、中文文獻 1.吳招億. (2019). 公共運輸定期票購買意願之影響因素分析. 交通大學管理學院運輸物流學程學位論文, 2019, 1-77. 2.吳森田. (1994). 所得, 貨幣與房價-近二十年台北地區的觀察. 住宅學報(2), 49-65. 3.李春長, 俞錚, & 梁志民. (2020). 公佈降雨淹水模擬地圖對淹水區與其鄰近地區住宅價格之影響. 住宅學報, 29(1), 63-89. 4.林祖嘉, & 林素菁. (1993). 台灣地區環境品質與公共設施對房價與房租影響之分析. 住宅學報(1), 21-45. 5.徐國城. (2006). 緊密都市形態之正負面效益論述~ 兼論對台灣城鄉空間發展之參考觀點. 土地問題研究季刊, 5(4), 32-45. 6.梁仁旭. (2012). 不動產價值逆折舊之探討. 住宅學報, 21(2), 71-89. 7.陳冠穎. (2023). 都市公共運輸使用者之跨運具定期票票價政策分析—以臺北都會區為例 國立陽明交通大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 8.陳彥仲, & 楊青桓. (1999). 交通與住宅政策對不動產短期均衡價格之影響-以高雄市為例. 運輸學刊, 11(3), 95-108. 9.陳柏如. (2018). 總體審慎政策工具與臺灣房價的關係-特定目標信用工具與房市相關租稅工具的影響. 經濟研究 (Taipei Economic Inquiry), 54(2), 287-330. 10.陳淑美, & 張金鶚. (2000). 家戶住宅區位與通勤選擇之研究——1990 年臺北市單薪與雙薪家戶之比較. 臺灣社會學刊　24, 89-125. 11.陳淑美, & 張金鶚. (2004). 家戶就業結構與通勤選擇之變遷分析-論 1990 年和 2000 年間台北市的變化. 都市與計劃, 31(4), 295-312. 12.彭建文, 楊宗憲, & 楊詩韻. (2009). 捷運系統對不同區位房價影響分析－以營運階段為例. 運輸計劃季刊, 38(3), 275-296. 13.楊宗憲, & 蘇倖慧. (2011). 迎毗設施與鄰避設施對住宅價格影響之研究. 住宅學報, 20(2), 61-80. 14.蔡吉源. (1998). 大臺北地區空間所得分配的實證分析. 人文及社會科學集刊, 10(4), 687-700. 15.薛立敏, 李中文, & 曾喜鵬. (2003). 台灣區域人口遷移及其與就業市場, 住宅市場關係之實證研究. 都市與計劃, 30(1), 37-62. 16.交通部運輸研究所.(2020). 影響公共運輸定期票選擇行為因素之探討(編號: 109-092-4324).臺北. 陳其華、吳招億. 二、英文文獻 1.Alonso, W. (1964). Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent. Harvard University Press. 2.Badoe, D., & Yendeti, M. (2007). Impact of Transit-Pass Ownership on Daily Number of Trips Made by Urban Public Transit. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 133(4), 242-249. 3.Benassi, F., & De Falco, A. (2025). Residential Segregation and Accessibility: Exploring Inequalities in Urban Resources Access Among Social Groups. Land, 14(2), 429. 4.Benjamin, J., & Sirmans, G. S. (1996). Mass Transportation, Apartment Rent and Property Values. Journal of Real Estate Research, 12(1), 1-8. 5.Bly, P., Webster, F., & Pounds, S. (1980). Effects of Subsidies on Urban Public Transport. Transportation, 9(4), 311-331. 6.Borck, R., & Wrede, M. (2008). Commuting Subsidies with Two Transport Modes. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(3), 841-848. 7.Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., & Rubensson, I. (2020). Distributional Effects of Public Transport Subsidies. Journal of Transport Geography, 84. 8.Brueckner, J. K. (2005). Transport Subsidies, System Choice, and Urban Sprawl. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35(6), 715-733. 9.Cai, Q., Wang, Z., & Xiao, L. (2018). The Effect of Transportation and Housing Subsidies on Urban Sprawl. Journal of Systems Science and Information, 6(3), 237-248. 10.Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31-72. 11.Coulson, N. E., & Engle, R. F. (1987). Transportation Costs and the Rent Gradient. Journal of Urban Economics, 21(3), 287-297. 12.Dewita, Y., Yen, B. T., & Burke, M. (2018). The Effect of Transport Cost on Housing Affordability: Experiences from the Bandung Metropolitan Area, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 79, 507-519. 13.Doxsey, L. B. (1984). Demand for Unlimited Use Transit Passes. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 7-22. 14.Efthymiou, D., & Antoniou, C. (2013). How do Transport Infrastructure and Policies Affect House Prices and Rents? Evidence from Athens, Greece. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 52, 1-22. 15.Erath, A., & Axhausen, K. W. (2009). Mobility Costs and Residence Location Choice. 9th Swiss Transport Research Conference (STRC 2009), 16.FitzRoy, F., & Smith, I. (1998). Public Transport Demand in Freiburg: Why did Patronage Double in a Decade? Transport Policy, 5(3), 163-173. 17.Follain, J. R., & Malpezzi, S. (1980). Dissecting Housing Value and Rent: Estimates of Hedonic Indexes for Thirty-Nine Large SMSAs (Vol. 249). Urban Institute Press. 18.Greenlee, A. J., & Wilson, B. K. (2016). Where does Location Affordability Drive Residential Mobility? An Analysis of Origin and Destination Communities. Housing Policy Debate, 26(4-5), 583-606. 19.Guerra, E., Caudillo, C., Goytia, C., Quiros, T. P., & Rodriguez, C. (2018). Residential Location, Urban Form, and Household Transportation Spending in Greater Buenos Aires. Journal of Transport Geography, 72, 76-85. 20.Gujarati, D. N. (2009). Basic Econometrics. In: McGraw-Hill. 21.Habib, K. N., & Hasnine, S. (2019). An Econometric Investigation of the Influence of Transit Passes on Transit Users’ Behavior in Toronto. Public Transport, 11(1), 111-133. 22.Jin, J., & Lee, H.-Y. (2017). Understanding Residential Location Choices: an Application of the UrbanSim Residential Location Model on Suwon, Korea. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 22(2), 216-235. 23.Kim, J.-H., Pagliara, F., & Preston, J. (2004). Transport Policy Impact on Residential Location. International Review of Public Administration, 9(1), 71-87. 24.Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression Quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 33-50. 25.Koo, K. M. (2019). Transport Fare Removal and House Price. Available at SSRN 3354257. 26.Kuminoff, N. V., Parmeter, C. F., & Pope, J. C. (2010). Which Hedonic Models Can We Trust to Recover the Marginal Willingness to Pay for Environmental Amenities? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 60(3), 145-160. 27.Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157. 28.Li, T., Dodson, J., & Sipe, N. (2018). Examining Household Relocation Pressures from Rising Transport and Housing Costs – An Australian Case Study. Transport Policy, 65, 106-113. 29.Liu, D., Kwan, M. P., Kan, Z., & Song, Y. (2021). An Integrated Analysis of Housing and Transit Affordability in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. The Geographical Journal, 187(2), 110-126. 30.Matas, A. (2004). Demand and Revenue Implications of an Integrated Public Transport Policy: the Case of Madrid. Transport Reviews, 24(2), 195-217. 31.Mills, E. S. (1972). Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. 32.Muth, R. F. (1969). Cities and Housing : the Spatial Pattern of Urban Residential Land Use. 33.Palm, M., Gregor, B., Wang, H., & McMullen, B. S. (2014). The Trade-Offs between Population Density and Households׳ Transportation-Housing Costs. Transport Policy, 36, 160-172. 34.Reichert, A. K. (1990). The Impact of Interest Rates, Income, and Employment upon Regional Housing Prices. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 3, 373-391. 35.Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition. Journal of political economy, 82(1), 34-55. 36.Saberi, M., Wu, H., Amoh-Gyimah, R., Smith, J., & Arunachalam, D. (2017). Measuring Housing and Transportation Affordability: A Case Study of Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 134-146. 37.Sasaki, K. (1990). Income Class, Modal Choice, and Urban Spatial Structure. Journal of Urban Economics, 27(3), 322-343. 38.Schirmer, P. M., Van Eggermond, M. A. B., & Axhausen, K. W. (2014). The Role of Location in Residential Location Choice Models: a Review of Literature. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 7(2), 3-21. 39.Seo, W., & Nam, H. K. (2019). Trade-Off Relationship between Public Transportation Accessibility and Household Economy: Analysis of Subway Access Values by Housing Size. Cities, 87, 247-258. 40.Serebrisky, T., Gómez‐Lobo, A., Estupiñán, N., & Muñoz‐Raskin, R. (2009). Affordability and Subsidies in Public Urban Transport: What Do We Mean, What Can Be Done? Transport Reviews, 29(6), 715-739. 41.So, K. S., Orazem, P. F., & Otto, D. M. (2001). The Effects of Housing Prices, Wages, and Commuting Time on Joint Residential and Job Location Choices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(4), 1036-1048. 42.Su, Q., & DeSalvo, J. S. (2008). The Effect of Transportation Subsidies on Urban Sprawl*. Journal of Regional Science, 48(3), 567-594. 43.Tsai, F. M., Chien, S. I. J., & Spasovic, L. N. (2008). Optimizing Distance-Based Fares and Headway of an Intercity Transportation System with Elastic Demand and Trip Length Differentiation. Transportation Research Record(2089), 101-109. 44.Van Goeverden, C., Rietveld, P., Koelemeijer, J., & Peeters, P. (2006). Subsidies in Public Transport. European Transport, 32, 5-25. 45.Verbich, D., & El-Geneidy, A. (2017). Public Transit Fare Structure and Social Vulnerability in Montreal, Canada. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 96, 43-53. 46.Waltl, S. R. (2018). Estimating Quantile-Specific Rental Yields for Residential Housing in Sydney. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 68, 204-225. 47.Weisbrod, G., Lerman, S. R., & Ben-Akiva, M. (1980). Tradeoffs in Residential Location Decisions: Transportation Versus Other Factors. Transport Policy and Decision Making, 1(1), 13-26. 48.White, P. R. (1981). " Travelcard" Tickets in Urban Public Transport. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 17-34. 49.XU, N., YIN, L., & HU, J. (2014). Identifying Home-Work Locations from Short-Term, Large-Scale, and Regularly Sampled Mobile Phone Tracking Data. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 39(6), 750-756. 50.Xu, P., Wang, W., & Wei, C. (2018). Economic and Environmental Effects of Public Transport Subsidy Policies: a Spatial CGE Model of Beijing. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2018, 1-12. 51.Yang, S., Hu, S., Wang, S., & Zou, L. (2020). Effects of Rapid Urban Land Expansion on the Spatial Direction of Residential Land Prices: Evidence from Wuhan, China. Habitat International, 101. 52.Yu, H., Zhu, S., Li, J. V., & Wang, L. (2024). Dynamics of Urban Sprawl: Deciphering the Role of Land Prices and Transportation Costs in Government-led Urbanization. Journal of Urban Management. 53.Zondag, B., & Pieters, M. (2005). Influence of Accessibility on Residential Location Choice. Transportation Research Record, 1902(1), 63-70.zh_TW