綠建築之推動為各國政策發展方向，無論透過市場機制或政策推廣綠建築，綠 建築價格及綠效能將是重要關鍵，多數研究也證實綠建築溢價的存在。我國自2000 年開始推動綠建築標章制度迄今，為何民間興建綠建築佔同期間取得使用執照的比 例不及0.1%？難道綠建築相對於非綠建築在市場上沒有溢價？本文運用2012年至 2014年新北市實價登錄資料，以特徵價格迴歸模型進行分析。實證結果顯示，新 北市擁有綠建築標章之電梯大樓，平均溢價率約7.5%；合格級、銅級、銀級與黃 金級的溢價率分別為13.3%、1.3%、1.9%及4.5%，與依序遞增的假說不符；就價格 分布而言，高價住宅與低價住宅之溢價率分別為3.1%與14.6%，以低價住宅的綠建 築溢價較明顯；就空間地域而言，市中心區之綠建築溢價率較低，郊區之溢價率相 對較高且以合格級居多。綜言之，三高住宅（位於高房價區、高價住宅、高標章等 級）的溢價率有相對偏低的現象。 Governments around the world have focused promotion for green buildings either through market mechanism or governmental policies. Many researches have proven a price premium for buildings with green features and pointed out price and efficiency is the key. Why the construction of green buildings accounted for the same period to obtain the building use permit less than 0.1% since 2000? Is the green building relative to the non- green building in the market there is no premium? This study examines the price premium of the green label in New Taipei City with hedonic regression model by actual selling price data from 2012 to 2014. The result shows that buildings certified have an average price premium of 7.5%； whereas Certified, Bronze, Silver and Gold level each has average price premium of 13.3%, 1.3%, 1.9% and 4.5%. Hypothesis of increasing premium with higher level has been overturned. As for the property type, lower-end condominiums have higher price premium of 14.6% comparing to those of higher-end of 3.1%, and are more statistically significant. Location-wise, price premium is higher in the suburb, with more Certified-level buildings, comparing to those in CBD. Reasoning behind lower price premium in higher-priced districts, higher-end condominium and higher certification level might be worth discussing further when promoting green building labeling system.