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 瑕疵不動產價值減損之評估
The Value Diminution of Defective Properties
作者 陳志豪
Chen, Chih Hao
貢獻者 林子欽
Lin, Tzu Chin
陳志豪
Chen, Chih Hao
關鍵詞 交易性貶值
技術性貶值
污名
瑕疵
價值減損
修復成本
diminution
defective properties
stigma
the cost to cure
litigation
日期 2012
上傳時間 2-Jan-2014 14:36:52 (UTC+8)
摘要 瑕疵不動產價值減損之評估，是不動產估價師在接受訴訟價值參考案件委託時，經常必須面對的難題。不動產估價師擔任鑑定人所出具的估價報告書，經常因為估價方法不受法院信賴，導致估價意見不被採信。法律先行，估價在後，估價師必須透過對估價理論的專業，解釋法律對價格的概念。因此，本研究將先確立法律對價值減損的概念，而後從估價理論分析瑕疵損害對價值的影響，並試圖建立一套評估瑕疵不動產價值減損的估價方法。
瑕疵不動產的價值減損，主要分為修復成本及污名價損；前者為技術性貶值，後者為交易性貶值。在估價理論中，亦有修復原則與價損原則；前者僅以修復成本為基準，後者則不僅包含修復成本，更包含污名價損。污名價損主要是因為勘估標的未來的收益性及市場性，受到瑕疵問題影響，導致風險及不確定增加，而承受的價值減損。不論是我國法院實務判決或是美國通用專業估價實施標準（USPAP），都傾向肯認修復成本及污名價損，皆為瑕疵價損的一部分。換言之，估價師在評估瑕疵價損時，具有理論上的基礎。
更進一步地，我們可以透過比較法、收益法及成本法，評估瑕疵價損的金額。在比較法中，透過個別因素調整的操作，反應瑕疵問題對價值的影響。在收益法中，透過租金收益損失、修復成本及折現率，反應直接成本及污名價損。在成本法中，透過功能性退化的概念，反應瑕疵價損，並可以扣除修復成本後，拆分污名價損。因此，估價師在評估瑕疵價損時，具有方法上的基礎。總之，瑕疵不動產價值爭議，從法律過渡到估價，可以達成一套完整的體系。
Determining the value diminution of defective properties poses problems for appraisers to undertake an assignment for litigation. Though appraisers act as an expert witness in litigation, their appraisal opinions are often rejected by the court, because the valuation methods are not reliable. Appraisers must value the defective properties is comply with the laws. Appraisers as a professional should be able to explain how to value the properties that fit the laws. Therefore, this study set out to explain the legal concepts of value diminution in defective properties, then analyze the impact of defect on value through the valuation theory, and finally attempt to develop valuation methods to determining the value diminution of defective properties.
The value diminution is mainly divided into “the cost to cure” and “the value diminution resulting from stigma”. In valuation theory, there are two relevant rules of “restoration rule” and “diminution in value rule”. The former contains only “the cost to sure”, but the latter contains both “the cost to cure” and “the value diminution resulting from stigma”. Stigma refers to an intangible psychological impact on value or marketability because of an increased risk or future uncertainty. Both the court decisions in Taiwan and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) in US tend to admit that the diminution of defective properties contains both “cost to cure” and “value diminution resulting from stigma”. Thus, when valuing defective properties, appraisers could refer to stigma-related valuation theories.
Furthermore, all of sales comparison approach, income approach and cost approach can be applied in valuing defective properties. In sales comparison approach, the impact of defect on price can be found through the process of individual factor adjustments. In income approach, the “cost to cure” and “value diminution resulting from stigma” are estimated through decreased of rent income, remediation cost and risk-adjusted discount rate. In cost approach, the concept of functional obsolescence can assist in reaching the value diminution, and in separating “the value diminution resulting from stigma” from “the cost to cure”. Therefore, the value diminution of defective properties can be estimated by traditional approaches. In conclusion, this study has proposed a systematic way to valuing the defective properties, which are in compliance with legal principles and appraisal methods.
參考文獻 1. 向明恩，2002，「不動產經紀業者對凶宅之告知和調查義務」，『台灣法學』，191：177-181。
2. 向明恩，2011，「物之瑕疵擔保責任之再探─以凶宅為例」，『月旦裁判時報』，12：93-104。
3. 吳從周，2011，「凶宅、物之瑕疵與侵權行為」，『月旦裁判時報』，12：106-113。
4. 吳從周，2011，「凶宅與物之瑕疵擔保」，『月旦法學教室』，99：14-15。
5. 林子欽，2009，「受污染工業土地之風險、污名與價值：美國經驗的啟示」，『住宅學報』，18(2)：23-44。
6. 邱琦，2011，「凶宅與純粹經濟上損失」，『月旦裁判時報』，11：20-28。
7. 馬維麟，1996，「交易性貶值在我國民法上之再審視」，『萬國法律雙月刊』，89：49-54。
8. 馬維麟，1996，「損害賠償之範圍-我國最高法院歷年來判決之檢討與分析」，『法學叢刊』，164：56-73。
9. 連世昌，2009，「凶宅與民法上物之瑕疵擔保責任之研究」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：53-62。
10. 郭致遠，2010，「論物之買賣瑕疵擔保責任及買受人之客觀選擇訴之合併─以輻射屋、海砂屋及地震後受損屋之買賣為中心」，『高大法學論叢』，6(1)：165-204。
11. 陳信行，2011，「司法正義與科學事實如何交會？從Daubert爭議看法律、科學與社會」，『公害、職災與科學：RCA事件專輯』，17-60。
12. 曾品傑，2009，「不動產消費關係救濟途徑之溢流─以契約審閱權為例」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：21-31。
13. 黃文典，2006，「瑕疵不動產鑑定評價模式之研究─以海砂屋為例」，國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士論文：台北。
14. 黃茂榮，1985，「技術性貶值與交易性貶值」。頁266-274，『民事法判解評釋』，台北：植根法學叢書編輯室。
15. 黃茂榮，2005，「營建損鄰之賠償責任」，『月旦法學雜誌』，122：198-211。
16. 黃淨愉，2009，「日本關於瑕疵住宅被害之救濟與律師之參與」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：8-15。
17. 賴宏嘉，2009，「由結構工程與不動產估價觀點論高氯離子建物之瑕疵與損害賠償」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：32-43。
18. 蔡志揚，2009，「律師界應關懷瑕疵住宅的預防與救濟！」，『全國律師月刊』，10月：2-7。
19. 梁仁旭; 陳奉瑤. (2009). 不動產估價. 台北市: 巨流政大書城.
20. 賴碧瑩. (2008). 現代不動產估價：理論與實務. 台北市: 智勝文化.
21. Alfert, R., Collison, H. W., & Tate, G. W. (2005). Recovering “Stigma” Damages in Mold-related Construction Defect Cases: Making the Property Owner Whole. The Florida Bar Journal, 79(6), pp. 78-82.
22. Marcus, A. , & Grant, A. (2001). The Role of Formal Survey Research Methods in the Appraisal Body of Knowledge. Appraisal Journal, 69(4), 頁 394-403.
23. Arens, B. S. (1997). The Valuation of Defective Properties: A Common Sense Approach. Appraisal Journal, 65(2), pp. 143-148.
24. Bell, R. (1998). The Impact Of Detrimental Conditions On Property Values. Appraisal Journal, 4, pp. 380-391.
25. Bill, M. (1992). Stigma and value. Appraisal Journal, 60(1), pp. 1-7.
26. Chalmers, J. A., & Roehr, S. A. (1993). Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated Property. Appraisal Journal, 61(1), pp. 28-41.
27. Chan, N. (2001). Stigma and its Assessment Methods. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 7(2), pp. 126-140.
28. Colwell , P. F., & Trefzger, J. W. (2005). Supply-Side Effects and Contingent Valuation Analysis. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 8(1), pp. 45-59.
29. Colwell, P. F., Heller, J. A., & Trefzger, J. W. (2009). Expert Testimony Regression Analysis and Other Systematic Methodologies. Appraisal Journal, 77(3), pp. 253-262.
30. Gluck, A. E., Nanney, D. C., & Lusvardi, W. C. (2000). Mitigating Factors in Appraisal & Valution of Contaminated Real Property. Real Estate Issues, 25(2), pp. 22-29.
31. Hartman, D., & Shapiro, M. (1983). Depreciation: Incurable Functional Obsolescence and Sequence of Deductions. Appraisal Journal, 3, pp. 408-414.
32. Heaton, H. B. (2005). On Valuing Negative Cash Flows Related to Contamination, Asset Removal, or Functional Obsolescence. Journal of Property Tax Assessment and Administration, 2(4), pp. 33-41.
33. Jackson, T. O. (2003). Methods and Techniques for Contaminated Property Valuation. Appraisal Journal, 71(4), pp. 311-320.
34. Jackson, T. O. (2004). Surveys, Market Interviews, and Environmental stigma. Appraisal Journal, 72, pp. 300-310.
35. Jackson, T. O. (2005). Evaluating Environmental Stigma with Multiple Regression Analysis. Appraisal Journal, 73(4), pp. 363-369.
36. Jackson, T. O., Pitts, J., & Norwood, S. (2012). Advisory Opinion 9 and Contingent Valuation. Environment and the Appraiser, Summer, pp. 205-209.
37. James, F., MacGregor, D. G., Hunsperger, W., Mertz, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2004). A Survey Approach for Demonstrating Stigma Effects in Property Value Litigation. Appraisal Journal, 72(1), pp. 35-44.
38. Kahneman, D. (2012). Think, Fast and Slow. UK: Penguin Group.
39. Kilpatrick, A. J. (2011). Construction Defects — Appraisal Challenges. Greenfield Advisors, pp. 1-4.
40. Laronge, J. A. (2000). Solving the Functional Obsolescence Calculation Question? Part I. Appraisal Journal, 68(3), pp. 327-339.
41. Laronge, J. A. (2001). Solving the Functional Obsolescence Calculation Question? Part II. Appraisal Journal, 69(2), pp. 152-160.
42. Lipscomb, A. C., Kummerow, M., Spiess, W., Kilpatrick, S., & Kilpatrick, J. A. (2011). Contingent Valuation and Real Estate Damage Estimation. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 19(2), pp. 283-305.
43. Lusht, K. M. (2001). Real Estate Valuation: Principles and Applications. State College, Pa: KML.
44. Lusvardi, W. C., & Warren, C. B. (2001). Three Rules for Forensic Real Estate Damage Valuation: Deductive, Adductive, or Reductive Rule? Real Estate Issues, 26(1), pp. 15-22.
45. Mansfield, J. R., & Pinder, J. A. (2008). "Economic" and "Functional" Obsolescence: Their Characteristics and Impacts on Valuation Practice. Property Management, 26(3), pp. 191 - 206.
46. Mitchell, P. S. (2000). Estimating Economic Damages to Real Property Due to Loss of Marketability, Rentability, and Stigma. Appraisal Journal, 68(2), pp. 162-170.
47. Mundy, B., & McLean, D. (1998). Using Contingent Value Approach for Natural Resource and Environmental Damage Applications. Appraisal Journal, 66(3), pp. 290-297.
48. Neustein, R. A. (1992). Estimating Value Diminution by the Income Approach. The Appraisal Journal, 60(2), pp. 283-287.
49. Roddewig, R. J. (1999). Junk Science, Environmental Stigma, Market Surveys, and Proper Appraisal Methodology: Recent Lessons from the Litigation Trenches. Appraisal Journal, 67(4), pp. 447-453.
50. Sanders, M. V. (1996). Post-Repair Diminution in Value from Geotechnical Problems. Appraisal Journal, 64(1), pp. 59-66.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
100257019
101
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100257019
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林子欽zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Tzu Chinen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳志豪zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Chih Haoen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳志豪zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Chih Haoen_US
dc.date (日期) 2012en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Jan-2014 14:36:52 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Jan-2014 14:36:52 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Jan-2014 14:36:52 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100257019en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/63231-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 地政研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100257019zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 瑕疵不動產價值減損之評估，是不動產估價師在接受訴訟價值參考案件委託時，經常必須面對的難題。不動產估價師擔任鑑定人所出具的估價報告書，經常因為估價方法不受法院信賴，導致估價意見不被採信。法律先行，估價在後，估價師必須透過對估價理論的專業，解釋法律對價格的概念。因此，本研究將先確立法律對價值減損的概念，而後從估價理論分析瑕疵損害對價值的影響，並試圖建立一套評估瑕疵不動產價值減損的估價方法。
瑕疵不動產的價值減損，主要分為修復成本及污名價損；前者為技術性貶值，後者為交易性貶值。在估價理論中，亦有修復原則與價損原則；前者僅以修復成本為基準，後者則不僅包含修復成本，更包含污名價損。污名價損主要是因為勘估標的未來的收益性及市場性，受到瑕疵問題影響，導致風險及不確定增加，而承受的價值減損。不論是我國法院實務判決或是美國通用專業估價實施標準（USPAP），都傾向肯認修復成本及污名價損，皆為瑕疵價損的一部分。換言之，估價師在評估瑕疵價損時，具有理論上的基礎。
更進一步地，我們可以透過比較法、收益法及成本法，評估瑕疵價損的金額。在比較法中，透過個別因素調整的操作，反應瑕疵問題對價值的影響。在收益法中，透過租金收益損失、修復成本及折現率，反應直接成本及污名價損。在成本法中，透過功能性退化的概念，反應瑕疵價損，並可以扣除修復成本後，拆分污名價損。因此，估價師在評估瑕疵價損時，具有方法上的基礎。總之，瑕疵不動產價值爭議，從法律過渡到估價，可以達成一套完整的體系。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Determining the value diminution of defective properties poses problems for appraisers to undertake an assignment for litigation. Though appraisers act as an expert witness in litigation, their appraisal opinions are often rejected by the court, because the valuation methods are not reliable. Appraisers must value the defective properties is comply with the laws. Appraisers as a professional should be able to explain how to value the properties that fit the laws. Therefore, this study set out to explain the legal concepts of value diminution in defective properties, then analyze the impact of defect on value through the valuation theory, and finally attempt to develop valuation methods to determining the value diminution of defective properties.
The value diminution is mainly divided into “the cost to cure” and “the value diminution resulting from stigma”. In valuation theory, there are two relevant rules of “restoration rule” and “diminution in value rule”. The former contains only “the cost to sure”, but the latter contains both “the cost to cure” and “the value diminution resulting from stigma”. Stigma refers to an intangible psychological impact on value or marketability because of an increased risk or future uncertainty. Both the court decisions in Taiwan and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) in US tend to admit that the diminution of defective properties contains both “cost to cure” and “value diminution resulting from stigma”. Thus, when valuing defective properties, appraisers could refer to stigma-related valuation theories.
Furthermore, all of sales comparison approach, income approach and cost approach can be applied in valuing defective properties. In sales comparison approach, the impact of defect on price can be found through the process of individual factor adjustments. In income approach, the “cost to cure” and “value diminution resulting from stigma” are estimated through decreased of rent income, remediation cost and risk-adjusted discount rate. In cost approach, the concept of functional obsolescence can assist in reaching the value diminution, and in separating “the value diminution resulting from stigma” from “the cost to cure”. Therefore, the value diminution of defective properties can be estimated by traditional approaches. In conclusion, this study has proposed a systematic way to valuing the defective properties, which are in compliance with legal principles and appraisal methods.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 緒論 5
第一節 研究背景與動機 5
第二節 研究目的 11
第三節 研究內容與流程 12
一、 研究架構 12
二、 研究流程 13
第貳章 價值減損之概念 15
第一節 價值減損之性質及定義 15
一、 使用價值與交換價值 16
二、 技術性貶值與交易性貶值 17
第二節 房地價值拆分 21
一、 房地價值拆分之實務見解 21
二、 房地價值拆分之處理 22
第三節 小結 23
第參章 評估價值減損之理論 25
第一節 價值損害之評估原則 25
第二節 污名 27
一、 污名之定義 27
二、 污名之成因 29
三、 污名之存續性 29
四、 污名與其他影響因素之關係 30
第三節 小結 32
第肆章 評估價值減損之方法 33
第一節 基本概念 33
第二節 比較法 36
一、 比較法本質上的限制 36
二、 操作方式 38
三、 直接成本與污名價損 39
四、 瑕疵條件之調整因素 40
五、 個別因素調整率之依據 40
第三節 收益法 47
一、 瑕疵發生前後的不動產價值評估 47
二、 直接成本與污名之關係 53
三、 瑕疵價損 55
第四節 成本法 57
一、 成本法之基本概念 57
二、 直接成本與污名之關係 63
三、 成本法在瑕疵不動產估價的應用 64
第伍章 結論 69
參考文獻 77		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2157215 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100257019en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 交易性貶值zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 技術性貶值zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 污名zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 瑕疵zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 價值減損zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 修復成本zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) diminutionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) defective propertiesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) stigmaen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) the cost to cureen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) litigationen_US
dc.title (題名) 瑕疵不動產價值減損之評估zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Value Diminution of Defective Propertiesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. 向明恩，2002，「不動產經紀業者對凶宅之告知和調查義務」，『台灣法學』，191：177-181。
2. 向明恩，2011，「物之瑕疵擔保責任之再探─以凶宅為例」，『月旦裁判時報』，12：93-104。
3. 吳從周，2011，「凶宅、物之瑕疵與侵權行為」，『月旦裁判時報』，12：106-113。
4. 吳從周，2011，「凶宅與物之瑕疵擔保」，『月旦法學教室』，99：14-15。
5. 林子欽，2009，「受污染工業土地之風險、污名與價值：美國經驗的啟示」，『住宅學報』，18(2)：23-44。
6. 邱琦，2011，「凶宅與純粹經濟上損失」，『月旦裁判時報』，11：20-28。
7. 馬維麟，1996，「交易性貶值在我國民法上之再審視」，『萬國法律雙月刊』，89：49-54。
8. 馬維麟，1996，「損害賠償之範圍-我國最高法院歷年來判決之檢討與分析」，『法學叢刊』，164：56-73。
9. 連世昌，2009，「凶宅與民法上物之瑕疵擔保責任之研究」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：53-62。
10. 郭致遠，2010，「論物之買賣瑕疵擔保責任及買受人之客觀選擇訴之合併─以輻射屋、海砂屋及地震後受損屋之買賣為中心」，『高大法學論叢』，6(1)：165-204。
11. 陳信行，2011，「司法正義與科學事實如何交會？從Daubert爭議看法律、科學與社會」，『公害、職災與科學：RCA事件專輯』，17-60。
12. 曾品傑，2009，「不動產消費關係救濟途徑之溢流─以契約審閱權為例」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：21-31。
13. 黃文典，2006，「瑕疵不動產鑑定評價模式之研究─以海砂屋為例」，國立臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士論文：台北。
14. 黃茂榮，1985，「技術性貶值與交易性貶值」。頁266-274，『民事法判解評釋』，台北：植根法學叢書編輯室。
15. 黃茂榮，2005，「營建損鄰之賠償責任」，『月旦法學雜誌』，122：198-211。
16. 黃淨愉，2009，「日本關於瑕疵住宅被害之救濟與律師之參與」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：8-15。
17. 賴宏嘉，2009，「由結構工程與不動產估價觀點論高氯離子建物之瑕疵與損害賠償」，『全國律師月刊』，10月號：32-43。
18. 蔡志揚，2009，「律師界應關懷瑕疵住宅的預防與救濟！」，『全國律師月刊』，10月：2-7。
19. 梁仁旭; 陳奉瑤. (2009). 不動產估價. 台北市: 巨流政大書城.
20. 賴碧瑩. (2008). 現代不動產估價：理論與實務. 台北市: 智勝文化.
21. Alfert, R., Collison, H. W., & Tate, G. W. (2005). Recovering “Stigma” Damages in Mold-related Construction Defect Cases: Making the Property Owner Whole. The Florida Bar Journal, 79(6), pp. 78-82.
22. Marcus, A. , & Grant, A. (2001). The Role of Formal Survey Research Methods in the Appraisal Body of Knowledge. Appraisal Journal, 69(4), 頁 394-403.
23. Arens, B. S. (1997). The Valuation of Defective Properties: A Common Sense Approach. Appraisal Journal, 65(2), pp. 143-148.
24. Bell, R. (1998). The Impact Of Detrimental Conditions On Property Values. Appraisal Journal, 4, pp. 380-391.
25. Bill, M. (1992). Stigma and value. Appraisal Journal, 60(1), pp. 1-7.
26. Chalmers, J. A., & Roehr, S. A. (1993). Issues in the Valuation of Contaminated Property. Appraisal Journal, 61(1), pp. 28-41.
27. Chan, N. (2001). Stigma and its Assessment Methods. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 7(2), pp. 126-140.
28. Colwell , P. F., & Trefzger, J. W. (2005). Supply-Side Effects and Contingent Valuation Analysis. Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education, 8(1), pp. 45-59.
29. Colwell, P. F., Heller, J. A., & Trefzger, J. W. (2009). Expert Testimony Regression Analysis and Other Systematic Methodologies. Appraisal Journal, 77(3), pp. 253-262.
30. Gluck, A. E., Nanney, D. C., & Lusvardi, W. C. (2000). Mitigating Factors in Appraisal & Valution of Contaminated Real Property. Real Estate Issues, 25(2), pp. 22-29.
31. Hartman, D., & Shapiro, M. (1983). Depreciation: Incurable Functional Obsolescence and Sequence of Deductions. Appraisal Journal, 3, pp. 408-414.
32. Heaton, H. B. (2005). On Valuing Negative Cash Flows Related to Contamination, Asset Removal, or Functional Obsolescence. Journal of Property Tax Assessment and Administration, 2(4), pp. 33-41.
33. Jackson, T. O. (2003). Methods and Techniques for Contaminated Property Valuation. Appraisal Journal, 71(4), pp. 311-320.
34. Jackson, T. O. (2004). Surveys, Market Interviews, and Environmental stigma. Appraisal Journal, 72, pp. 300-310.
35. Jackson, T. O. (2005). Evaluating Environmental Stigma with Multiple Regression Analysis. Appraisal Journal, 73(4), pp. 363-369.
36. Jackson, T. O., Pitts, J., & Norwood, S. (2012). Advisory Opinion 9 and Contingent Valuation. Environment and the Appraiser, Summer, pp. 205-209.
37. James, F., MacGregor, D. G., Hunsperger, W., Mertz, C., & Johnson, S. M. (2004). A Survey Approach for Demonstrating Stigma Effects in Property Value Litigation. Appraisal Journal, 72(1), pp. 35-44.
38. Kahneman, D. (2012). Think, Fast and Slow. UK: Penguin Group.
39. Kilpatrick, A. J. (2011). Construction Defects — Appraisal Challenges. Greenfield Advisors, pp. 1-4.
40. Laronge, J. A. (2000). Solving the Functional Obsolescence Calculation Question? Part I. Appraisal Journal, 68(3), pp. 327-339.
41. Laronge, J. A. (2001). Solving the Functional Obsolescence Calculation Question? Part II. Appraisal Journal, 69(2), pp. 152-160.
42. Lipscomb, A. C., Kummerow, M., Spiess, W., Kilpatrick, S., & Kilpatrick, J. A. (2011). Contingent Valuation and Real Estate Damage Estimation. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 19(2), pp. 283-305.
43. Lusht, K. M. (2001). Real Estate Valuation: Principles and Applications. State College, Pa: KML.
44. Lusvardi, W. C., & Warren, C. B. (2001). Three Rules for Forensic Real Estate Damage Valuation: Deductive, Adductive, or Reductive Rule? Real Estate Issues, 26(1), pp. 15-22.
45. Mansfield, J. R., & Pinder, J. A. (2008). "Economic" and "Functional" Obsolescence: Their Characteristics and Impacts on Valuation Practice. Property Management, 26(3), pp. 191 - 206.
46. Mitchell, P. S. (2000). Estimating Economic Damages to Real Property Due to Loss of Marketability, Rentability, and Stigma. Appraisal Journal, 68(2), pp. 162-170.
47. Mundy, B., & McLean, D. (1998). Using Contingent Value Approach for Natural Resource and Environmental Damage Applications. Appraisal Journal, 66(3), pp. 290-297.
48. Neustein, R. A. (1992). Estimating Value Diminution by the Income Approach. The Appraisal Journal, 60(2), pp. 283-287.
49. Roddewig, R. J. (1999). Junk Science, Environmental Stigma, Market Surveys, and Proper Appraisal Methodology: Recent Lessons from the Litigation Trenches. Appraisal Journal, 67(4), pp. 447-453.
50. Sanders, M. V. (1996). Post-Repair Diminution in Value from Geotechnical Problems. Appraisal Journal, 64(1), pp. 59-66.		zh_TW