林在都市開放綠地空間系統中佔有重要的地位，對都市居民具有莫大的效益存在。而都市林所產生的效益大小將會受其特性所影響，故對都市林效益的價值進行研究時，可以特性的組合來代表整體效益，並由都市林相關特性的特徵價格推求都市林效益值的大小。本研究將以台南市東區的都市計劃範圍作為本研究的實證地區，並將都市林定義為台南市東區都市計劃範圍內的公園綠地以及學校，以地政事務所於民國92年間所進行的房地產交易價格調查資料作為本研究之實證資料來源，採用至最近都市林之距離、都市林面積、綠覆率、樹木棵數、樹木比例以及是否正對都市林六個項目以對都市林所具有的效益進行評估，分別建立房屋與土地特徵價格模型，證明民眾在購買房地產時，會願付較高的價格，以購買都市林為其所帶來的效益。實証結果顯示：都市林相關變數與房屋交易總價間具有正向相關，代表都市林之整體效益確實可反應至房地產價格上，都市林之邊際價格為2533.26元。

　　The urban forest plays an important part of the open space and green land system in the city, and it has greatest benefit to city residents. Because the size of benefit produced by urban forest will be influenced by it’s characteristics, so we can use a set of characteristics to represent the benefit. This is a case study of application of hedonic price method to evaluate the benefit of urban forest in the East district of Tainan city. The urban forest in this paper is defined to be the parks and schools in the East district of Tainan city, and 238 actual house transaction prices and 65 actual house transaction prices collected from 2003 are used to build hedonic price model to improve that people will pay more money to buy the benefit of the urban forest. Besides, it will show the implicit price of the benefit of the urban forest. The results show that: Variables of urban forest are significant to house transaction price, and the marginal price of urban forest is NT. 2588.16 dollars.

（一）中文書目
1.王子定（1983）都市林之概念，中華林學季刊，第16期，第3卷，第225-234頁
2.李淩純（1992）都市林整體效益評估—條件評估法之應用，國立臺灣大學森林學研究所碩士論文
3.李國忠（2003）為都市注入活力的魔法師，科學發展，第366期，第12-17頁
4.吳佩瑛（2001）蘇明達，墾丁國家公園資源經濟效益評估—兼論資源保育之哲學觀與資源價值之內涵，國家公園學報，第11期，第1卷，第1-29頁
5.吳森田（1990）淡水河污染的社會成本之估量—遊憩效益損失部分，國科會專題研究計畫
6.林華德（1992）財政學，臺北市，三民書局
7.胡玉龍（2003）玉山國家公園塔塔加地區遊憩效益與人為干擾影響程度之研究—條件估價法之應用，國立臺灣大學地理環境資源學研究所碩士論文
8.戚永年（2000）森林生態系經濟評估之探討，臺灣林業，第26卷，第6期，第5-13頁
9.陳昭明（1983）都市林與戶外遊樂，中華林學季刊，第16期，第3卷，第279-285頁
10.翁淑貞（1992）臺北都會區空氣污染對住宅價格影響之研究—應用特徵價格法，國立中興大學都市計畫研究碩士論文
11.郭寶章（1992）環境林與環境林業，現代育林，第8期，第1卷，第4-10頁
12.陸雲（1990）環境資源估價之研究—非市場估價法，經濟論文，第18期，第1卷，第93-129頁
13.潘孝隆（2004）臺北市市郊森林公益功能分類之硏究，國立臺灣大學森林學研究所碩士論文
14.鄭吉延（1999）特徵價格理論應用于都市林效益評估之研究—以台中市為例，國立中興大學森林學研究碩士論文
15.韓可宗（1998）都市森林理論與應用，地景企業股份有限公司

（二）英文書目
1.Bolitzer, B. and Netusil, N.R.(2000)“The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon”, Journal of Environmental Management, 59: 185-193
2.Correll, M.R., Lillydahl, J.H. and Singell, L.D. (1978) “The effects of greenbelts on residential property values: some findings on the political economy of open space.“, Land Economics, 54(2): 207-217
3.Dobbertin, M. K. and Prüller, R. (2002)“Trends in forest terminology Urban forestry.“, WSL IUFRO Working Party
4.Dwyer, J.F., McPherson, E.G., Schroeder, H.W., and Rowntree, R.A. (1992) “Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest.”, Journal of Arboriculture 18: 227-234
5.Dwyer, J.F. and Schroeder, H.W. (1994) “The human dimensions of urban forestry.”, Journal of Forestry, 92: 12-15
6.Freeman III, A. M.(1993) “The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values.”, Washington D.C., Resources for the Future
7.Grey, C.W. and Deneke, F.J. (1978)“Urban Forestry”, New York, John wiley and Sons
8.Geoghegan, J. (2002)“The value of open spaces in residential land use.”, Land Use Policy, 19: 91-98
9.Hobden, D. W., Laughton, G. E., and Morgan K. E. (2004)“Green space borders-a tangible benefit? Evidence from four neighborhoods in Surrey, British Columbia,1980-2001”, Land Use Policy, 21: 129-138
10.Kim, Y. S. and Johnson, R. L. (2002)“The Impact of Forests and ForestManagement on Neighboring Property Values.”, Society and Natural Resources, 15: 887-901
11.Konijnendijk, C. C. (2003)“A decade of urban forestry in Europe.“, Forest Policy and Economics, 5: 173–186
12.Leccese, M. (1989)“Can we save the urban tree?“, Landscape Architecture, 79, 44-49
13.Morancho, A. B. (2003)“A hedonic valuation of urban green areas.” , Landscape and Urban Planning, 66: 35–41
14.Moll G. (1988)“From planting to politics.”, American Forests 94: 45-48
15.Nosse, R. A. (1986)“The urban forest can be a pest.”, Arboriculture Journal, 12: 24-25
16.Sherwin, R. (1974)“Hedonic Price and Implicit Market: Product differentiation in pure competition.”, Journal of political economy, 82(1) : 34-55
17.Smardom, R. C. (1988)“Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation.“, Landscape and Urban Planning, 15: 85-106
18.Thorsnes, P. (2002)“The Value of a Suburban Forest Preserve: Estimates from Sales of Vacant Residential Building Lots.”, Land Economics, 78(3) : 426-441
19.Tyrväinen, L. and Miettunen, A. (1993)“Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities“, Journal of Environment Economics and Management , 39: 205-223
20.Tyrväinen, L. (1997)“The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method.”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 37: 211-222
21.Tyrväinen, L. and Väänänen, H. (1998)“The economic value of urban forest amenity: an application of the contingent valuation method”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 43: 105-118
22.Tyrväinen, L. (2001)“Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland”, Journal of Environmental Management, 62: 75-92
23.Willis, K. G. and Garrod, G. D. (1993)“The contribution of trees and woodland to the value of property.”, Arboriculture Journal, 17: 211-219