+
* Rosen 1974 GIS 1 2 1 23080 1 80.782 1 0.336 3 120 10 120 4
5
+
* 93 11 19 2004 --
269
The Valuation of the Benefits of Green Area in TaipeiA Hedonic
price Approach
Yen-Ling Peng* Abstract There is an increasing interest in
measuring the benefits of green area or open space in urban area.
The purposes of this study are to valuate the benefits of the green
area in Taipei city, to draw the policy implications of the
existing distribution of green area in Taipei city, and to propose
the suggestion on future green area provision in Taipei. The
approach employed to measure the benefits of green area is the
hedonic price method. The hedonic price model is estimated by using
the housing transaction data and the green area within a 500 meter
radius surrounding the house and the total green area within the
district. The estimated hedonic regression model is then used to
estimate the benefits of the green area and to simulate the
benefits of various distributions of the additional green area in
Taipei. The major findings of this study are as fellows:1Housing
price is significantly affected by its size, number of bathroom,
use of the house, location, accessibility, and the NIMBY
facilities. 2An increase in a hectare of green area within 500
meter radius of the house will result in an increase of housing
price by NT$. 23080As the green cover in the district increase by
1%, the housing prices will be increased by NT$. 807820 in the case
of linear model ,and increased by 0.336% in the case of non-linear
model.3The benefits of a given amount of green area is related to
its spatial distribution concentrated distribution will result in a
higher benefits than that is catering distributed.4To achieve a
higher level of benefits, the additional green area is suggested to
be distributed near cit center.5The provision of neighborhood park
enhances the accessibility to green area, and hence contributes to
the appreciation of housing value. Keywords: Hedonic price method,
Green Area, Benefits of Green Area, Policy Evaluation
270
Contingent Valuation MethodCVM Travel Cost Method TCM Hedonic
Price MethodHPM Environmental Risk Landscape and Water Quality
Environmental Protection Urban Amenity Agricultural Land Values
Pollution Noise Social Factors
HPM 9 Rosen 8 n Z=(z1,z2,zn) bidding price offering price
P(Z)=P(z1,z2,zn) hedonic price function Rosen1974 Zzi P(Z)
271
1.(Z)(zi)n 2. zi 3.capital theory 4.indivisibility pack 12 6 5.
zi zi P(Z) P(Z) 6. P(Z)
1994 Canonical Correlation Analysis Box-cox 1 2 3 4 1 2
1998
272
1 OLS 12 2 3 2000 31 OLS 2 3 4 1 1989 2 Spearman 1 2 1993 3
273
1995
4 11.0ug/m3 7.1459 0.5966 0.4484 2 2.6380 -0.4940
Linear Bolitzer, B., and semi-log N. R. Netusil (2000) Semi-log
Geogheg Double an, J. -log (2002) hedonic
1 park 2 1 Washington DC Baltimore MD 2 1600 buffer 3 1600
buffer
274
Linear Luttik, J. (2000)
1 2 8~10% 6~12% 3 5~12% Double-log 1 Geogheg ( an, J.,
Washington DC Lisa, A. 2 W., and log) 30 Nancy, E. B. 3 (1997)
275
Liisa, T. (1997)
linear (forest) semi-log (non-consumptive ) Hedonic hedonic
1 25 Joensuu (%) 2 hedonic 3
f
1.
276
8589 18799 1. 1. cod // e 89/3/19 87/7/28 85/6/4 24 25 14 25.12
730 11.42 245 11.37 250 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
58 132 36 165 4191 44 6072 98
2. 2. code
58 132 58 16 36 165 4191 165 66 44 6072 GIS 500 2. 66 98
500m
2.
277
1.1999 20100 220 2 530 2. GIS 500 3.
Y
X 3. 1. 2. 3.
278
120 120 10 120 12 10 1.
Pi = 76.473 + 27.503Floori + 27.348Bathi + 2.308Parki 0.000917
Station1i 0.02285Station 2 i 0.0186MRTi + 43.846Usei +
0.07069Trashi + 0.03392Substationii i P; Bath; Floor; Green
Station1; Station2; MRT; Center; Trash; Substation; Use; Park; i =
1,2,3,....., n
129.697Center + 80.782Green
2.
279
Pi = 31.135 + 27.526 Floori + 25.777 Bathi + 1.889 Parki
0.01331Station1i 0.02908Station 2 i 0.01579MRTi + 39.89Usei +
0.06898Trashi + 0.02698Substationii P; Bath; Floor; Green2
Station1; Station2; MRT; Center; Trash; Substation; Use; Park; i =
1,2,3,....., n
247.79Center + 0.05948Green2 i
Pij = P Z P(Z )
( )
Z = (Green, Park ,.....)
Z = Green , Park .....Pij : j =
(
)
PZ PZ Z Z
V j = Piji =1
n
i = 1,2,3,.....n
280
j =
vj =
Vj nj
n j = j
TV j = v j N j
N j = j
TV = TV jj =1
12
10 120 500 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 - - 120- 120-
4 4 120 12 120
281
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
- - 120- 120-
5 4-5 120 120 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
0
-
-
6 6
282
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 - - 120- 120-
7 120 12 68 120
283
1 23080 1 80.782 1 0.336 120 120
1. 1995 2. 1998 3. 2000
284
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9.
1992 1989 1993 1994 1993 () 2002 values in Portland, Oregon,
Journal of Environmental Management, 59, 185-193. Geoghegan, J.
(2002), The value of open spaces in residential land use, Land Use
Policy, 19, 91-98. Geoghegan, J., Lisa, A. W., and Nancy, E. B.
(1997), Spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: an
ecological economics analysis using GIS, Ecological Economics, 23,
251-264. Liisa, T. (1997), The amenity value of the urban forest:
an application of the hedonic pricing method, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 37, 211-222. Luttik, J. (2000), The value of trees, water
and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 161-167. Rosen, S. (1974),
Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in
Pure Competition, Journal of Political Economy, 82, 34-55.
10. Bolitzer, B., and N. R. Netusil (2000), The impact of open
spaces on property 11. 12.
13. 14. 15.
285
