本研究探討總體經濟與社會人口結構、房屋特徵品質、各階段學區對每平方英呎房價與總房價的關係，並分析學區特徵如何影響房屋品質特徵對每平方英呎房價與總房價的關係。引用Rosen (1974)的特徵價格法(Hedonic Price Method)，以一般線性模型與半對數模型綜合比較，探討上述變數與房價的影響力。
學術中的貢獻為確立變數與房價的關係為線性關係或是非線性關係。空氣品質對總房價、中位數家庭所得對每平方英呎房價與總房價、室內面積對總房價、室內面積相對於庭院面積對總房價、高中學區與總房價、室內面積以學區區分對總房價、室內面積相對於庭院面積比對總房價為線性關係；水質評比、暴力犯罪評比、財務犯罪評比、空屋率、白人比率、國小學區與房價皆為非線性關係，而高中學區與每平方英呎房價、室內面積相對於庭院面積比以國小學區區分對總房價為非線性。
實務上的貢獻有二點：第一，過去探討房屋市場的中往往只以購屋者角度出發，而本研究建議建商建屋時應該考量購屋者對於學區的偏好，給予建商作建屋面積決策時，並加入不同階段的學區作考量。本研究認為購屋者重視國小與高中好學區，並建議建商應於國小與高中好學區內建造大室內面積，但室內面積相對於庭院面積之比率不宜配置過高。而國中好學區則相反。第二，建商應該同時考慮總房價與每平方英呎房價，例如建商雖有動機於高中好學區內拉抬每平方英呎房價，卻恐怕對總房價有不利的效果，說明建屋面積決策需檢視其房屋面積所損耗的成本，不致浪費建屋面積與成本，以達到建屋的最大效益。

The objective of this research is to examine how the overall economic and socio-demographic factors, housing characteristics, and the school district quality affect housing price. In addition, this research try to analyze how does the school district quality influence the relationship between housing characteristics and the housing price. We adopt Hedonic Price Method by Rosen (1974) with linear regression model and semi-log model to analyze the effects of variables and the housing price.
The academic contribution is to confirm the relationship is linear or non-linear relationship. Relationship between air quality and total housing price, median household income and total housing price or price per square feet, house size and total housing price, ratio of house size to lot size and total housing price are all linear relationship. As to the relationship between water quality, violent crime rates, property crime rates, vacancy rate, white ratio, and elementary school district quality and total housing price or price per square feet are the non-linear relationship. Relationship between high school district quality and price per square feet, ratio of house size to the lot size within the good elementary school district quality and total housing price are the non-linear relationship, too.
Contribution in practical field is as follows: First, this research considers not only homebuyers but also house builders. This research finds out that home buyers prefer the quality of elementary and senior high school district. Besides, house builders should construct larger house size but lower ratio between house to the lot size. However, the relationship between the quality of junior school district and the housing price is adverse. Second, builders should consider both the total price and price per square feet. From the regression results, it indicates that there is an incentive for builders to raise the price per square feet in the good senior school district, but it might decrease the total housing price. It implicates that making building house size decision depends on the costs of the size. In this way, builders can use every square feet efficiently and achieve the maximum benefit.

1. Anas, A., and S. J. Eum (1984), “Hedonic Analysis of a Housing Market in Disequilibrium,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 15, pp. 87-106.
2. Black, A., P. Fraster, and M. Hoesli (2006), “House Prices, Fundamentals and Bubbles,” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 33, pp. 1535-1555.
3. Bourassa, S. C., P. H. Hendershott, and J. Murphy (2001), “Further Evidence on the Existence of Housing Market Bubbles,” Journal of Property Research, Vol. 18, pp. 1-19.
4. Brasington, D. M., and D. Hite (2005), “Demand for Environmental Quality: A Spatial Hedonic Analysis,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 35, pp. 57–82.
5. Chen, M. C. and Patel, K. (1998), “House Price Dynamics and Granger Causality: An Analysis of Taipei New Dwelling Market,” Journal of Asian Real Estate Society, Vol. 1, pp. 101-126.
6. Chiodo, A. J., Murillo, R. H., and Owyang, M. T. (2010), “Nonlinear Effects of School Quality on House Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, Vol. 92, pp. 185-204.
7. Downes, T. A., and J. E. Zabel (2002), “The Impact of School Characteristics on House Prices: Chicago 1987-1991,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 52, pp. 1-25.
8. Fortura, P. and Kushne, J. (1986), “Canadian Inter-City House Price Differentials,” Journal of the Forecasting, Vol. 14, pp. 525-536.
9. Gatzlaff, D. H., and M. T. Smith (1993), “The Impact of the Miami Metrorail on the Value of Residences near Station,” Land Economics, Vol. 69, pp. 54-66.
10. Goodman, A. C. (1988), “An Econometric Model of Housing Price, Permanent Income, Tenure Choice, and Housing Demand,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.23, pp. 327-353.
11. Haurin, D. R., and H. L. Gill (1987), “Effects of Income Variability on the Demand for Owner-Occupied Housing,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 136-150.
12. Haurin, D. R., and D. Brasington (1996), “School Quality and Real House Prices: Inter- and Intrametropolitan Effects,” Journal of Housing Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 351–368.
13. Jaffee, D.M., and K. T. Rosen (1979), “Mortgage Credit Availability and Residential Construction,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 10, pp. 333-386.
14. Nillis, J. G. and J. A. Longbotton (1980),”An Empirical Analysis of the Dettermination of House Prices in the United Kingdom,” Urban Studies.
15. Kain, J. F., and J. M. Quigley (1970), “Measuring the Value of Housing Quality,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 65, pp. 532-548.
16. Katzman, M. T. (1980), “The Contribution of Crime to Urban Decline,” Urban Studies, Vol. 17, pp. 277-286.
17. Kim, C. W., T. T. Phipps, and L. Anselin (2003), “Measuring the Benefits of Air Quality Improvement： A Spatial Hedonic Approach,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 45, pp. 24-39.
18. Krumm, R. (1987), “Intertemporal Tenure Choices,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 263-275.
19. Lancaster, K. J. (1966), “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 74, pp. 132-157.
20. Manning, C. A. (1986), “Intercity Differences in Home Price Appreciation,” Journal of Real Estate Res, Vol. 1, pp. 45-66.
21. Manning, C. A. (1989), “Explaining Intercity Home Price Differences,” Journal of Real Estate and Financial.Economy, Vol. 2, pp. 131–149.
22. 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,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 77, pp. 957–971.
23. Ridker, R. G., and J. A. Henning (1967), “The Determinants of Residential Property Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 49, pp. 246-257.
24. Rizzo, M. J. (1979), “The Effect of Crime on Residential Rents and Property Values,” American Economist, Vol. 23, pp. 16-21.
25. Rosen, S. (1974), “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82, pp. 34-55.
26. Rosen, H. S. (1979), “Housing Decisions and the U.S. Income Tax: An Econometric Analysis,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 1-23.
27. Tita, G. E., T. L. Petras, and R. T. Greenbaum (2006), “Crime and Residential Choice: A Neighborhood Level Analysis of the Impact of Crime on Housing Prices,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 22, pp. 299-317.
28. Turner, M. A., and R. J. Struyk (1984), “Urban Housing in the 1980s: Markets and Policies,” Washington, D.C., Urban Institute Press.
29. Weicher, J. C., and T. G. Thibodeau (1988), “Filtering and Housing Markets: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 23, pp. 21-40.