由於近年來環保意識的提升，迫使政府必須加強環境品質的維護與改善，但由於沒有一個直接的市場可以反映環境品質改善所帶來的效益，因此在改善方案的成本效益評估上常常出現爭議。為了克服此一問題，本研究使用特徵價格法分析高雄地區空氣品質改善之效益，我們由不動產實價登錄系統取得完整不動產價格與結構資訊後，搭配所蒐集之鄰近公共設施距離與空氣品質數據，以迴歸分析建立房價特徵價格函數，再將其用來評估空氣品質改善效益。本研究結果顯示，空氣品質對於高雄地區房價有顯著之影響，此外，若以民國100年總懸浮微粒濃度視為改善標的，將舊制高雄市各區之總懸浮微粒濃度減半，可得各區每年空氣品質改善的貨幣化效益如下：左營區6,428萬、三民區1億1,226萬、前鎮區6,480萬、苓雅區6,090萬、前金區1,061萬、鼓山區4,580萬。

In recent years, environmental consciousness has been gradually emphasized, pushing government to maintain and improve environmental quality. But there is a dispute over the measurement of the cost and benefit of environmental changes due to the fact that there is no market for environmental quality. To overcome this problem, we use the hedonic price method to analyze the benefit from air quality improvement Total Suspended Particulate in Kaohsiung City. By using price data from the system of “Actual Selling Price Property” and other collected information such as of the air quality and the distance of public facilities nearby, we construct a hedonic price function. The function is then used to investigate the benefit of air quality improvement. The result shows that if the authority reduce the concentration level of Total Suspended Particulate by half based on the year 2011 record, the annual benefit from improving air quality are: Zuoying NT$64.28 million; Sanmin 112.26 NT$million; Qianzhen NT$64.80 million, Lingya NT$60.9 million, Qianjin NT$ 10.61million, Gushan NT$ 45.8million.

網站
1. 內政部不動產交易實價查詢服務網
http://lvr.land.moi.gov.tw/N11/homePage.action
2. 行政院環保署空氣品質監測網
http://taqm.epa.gov.tw/taqm/zh-tw/default.aspx
3. 高雄市政府民政局全球資訊網
http://cabu.kcg.gov.tw/Main/index.aspx
4. 財政部稅務入口網
http://www.etax.nat.gov.tw/etwmain/
中文部分
1. 白怡青（2004），台中市空氣品質改善效益之實證研究，碩士論文，國立中正大學國際經濟研究所。
2. 吳錫政（1995），台北都會區空氣汙染之價格估算－特徵價格法之應用，碩士論文，國立中興大學資源管理研究所。
3. 何佳芳 (2009)，捷運及公共設施對鄰近地區不動產價格影響-特徵價格法之應用，碩士論文，國立高雄大學都市發展與建築研究所。
4. 李明翰 (2011)，以特徵價格法探討影響房價之因子-以新北市板橋區為例，碩士論文，國立海洋大學應用經濟研究所。
5. 沈恆立（2006），台北市空氣品質改善之經濟評估-特徵價格法之應用，碩士論文，中國文化大學經濟學研究所。
6. 林立偉（2003），應用特徵價格法評估台灣都會區空氣品質改善之效益，碩士論文，國立台北大學資源管理研究所。
7. 林英彥（1998），不動產估價，台北市：文笙書局。
8. 林建亨（2008），南科對房地產價格之影響-特徵價格法之應用，碩士論文，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所。
9. 響，碩士論文，東海大學經濟研究所。
10. 陳韋廷 (2011)，特徵價格法應用於老舊住宅價格分析以外牆整建為例，碩士論文，國立台灣大學土木工程學研究所。
11. 黃瓊如 (2007)，台南市不動產價格因素之研究—特徵價格法之應用，碩士論文，屏東大科技大學財務金融研究所。
12. 翁淑貞（1992），台北都會區空氣汙染對住宅價格影響之研究－應用特徵價格法，碩士論文，國立中興大學都市計劃研究所。
13. 高雄市中心街道圖（2013），大輿出版社。
14. 葉宏興（1993），空氣汙染對房地產價格之影響：特徵價格法之應用，碩士論文，國立政治大學財政研究所。
15. 蕭代基、鄭蕙燕、吳珮瑛、錢玉蘭、溫麗琪（2002），環境保護之成本效益分析：理論、方法與應用，台北市：俊傑書局。
16. 謝宗佑（2003），汐止水患災害評估-特徵資產價格法之應用，碩士論文，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所。
英文部分
1. Abelson, P. W. and Markandya, A., 1985. “The Interpretation of Capitalized Hedonic Prices in a Dynamic Environment,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.12, No.3, pp.195-206.
2. Anderson, R. J. and Crocker, T.D., 1971. “Air pollution and residential property values,” Urban Studies, Vol.8, No.3, pp.171-180.
3. Box, G. E. P. and Cox D. R., 1964. “An Analysis of Transformation,” Journal of Royal Statistics Society, Vol.26, No.2, pp.211-252.
4. Brent, L.M., Stephen, P. and Richard, M. A., 2000. “Valuing Urban Wetland: A Property Price Approach.” Land Economic, Vol.76, No.1, pp.100-113.
5. Brown, J. N. and Harvey, S. R., 1982. “On the Estimation of Structural Hedonic Price Models,” Econometrica, Vol.50, No.3, pp.765-768.
6. Cassel, E. and Robert, M., 1985. “The Choice of Functional Froms for Hedonic Price Equations: Comment,” Journal of Urban Economics, No.18, pp.135-142.
7. Corey, L., 2013. “ The Dynamics of House Price Capitalization and Locational Sorting: Evidence from Air Quality Changes,” Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics,University of Rhode Island.
8. Court, A. T., 1939. “Hedonic Price Indexes with Automobile Examples.” The Dynamics of Automobile Demand, pp.99-117.
9. Crocker, T., 1970. “Urban air pollution damage function,” Theory and Measurement. Riverside, University of California.
10. Chay, K. Y. and Michael, G., 2005. “Does air quality matter? Evidence from the housing market.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol.113,No.2,pp. 376-424.
11. Davis, L., 2011. “The effect of power plants on local housing prices and rents.” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.93,No.4,pp.1391-1402.
12. Freeman, A. M., III, 1974a. “Hedonic Prices, Property Values and Measuring Environmental Benefits: A Survey of the Issues,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol.18, No.2, pp.154-173.
13. Freeman, A. M., III, 1974b. “ The Benefit of Environmental Improvement,” Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University Press.
14. Freeman, A. M., III, 1993. “The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values,” Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
15. Graves, P., James, C. M. and Mark A.T. and Don, W., 1988. “The Rodustness of Hedonic Price Estimation: Urban Air Quality,” Land Economics, Vol.64, No.3, pp.220-233.
16. Harrison, D. J. and Macdonald, R., 1974. “Willingness to pay in Boston and Los Angeles for a reduction in automobile-related pollutants.” In National Academy of Sciences, Air quality and Automobile emission control, Vol.4: The cost and benefits of automobile control. Washington, D.C..
17. Palmquist, R. B., 1991. “Hedonic Method,” Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Edited by John B. Braden and Charles D. Kolstad, North-Holland.
18. Ridker, R. G. and John, A. H., 1967. “The Determinants of Residential Property Value with Special Reference to Air Pollution,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.49, No.2, pp.246-257.
19. Rosen, S., 1974. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Market: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol.82, No.1, pp.34-55.
20. Smith, V. K. and Huang, J. C., 1993. “Hedonic Models and Air Pollution: Twenty-Five Years and counting,” Environmental and Resource Economics, No.3, pp.381-394.
21. Steele, W., 1972. “The effect of air pollution on the value of single-family owner-occupied residential property in Charleston,” South Carolina. Master Thesis, Clemson University.
22. Zabel, J. E. and Katherine A. K., 2000. “Estimating the Demand for Air Quality in Four U.S. Cites,” Land Economics, Vol.76, No.2, pp.174-194.