资源科学 ›› 2021, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (4): 790-798.doi: 10.18402/resci.2021.04.13

• 土地资源 • 上一篇    下一篇

教育资源差异对住房价格的影响——以武汉市江岸区为例

杨剩富1,2, 张鹏1,2, 邹秋丽3   

  1. 1. 中国地质大学(武汉)公共管理学院,武汉 430074
    2. 自然资源部法治研究重点实验室,武汉430074
    3. 乌鲁木齐高新技术产业开发区北京路片区管理委员会,乌鲁木齐 830011
  • 收稿日期:2020-04-21 修回日期:2020-07-16 出版日期:2021-04-25 发布日期:2021-06-25
  • 作者简介:杨剩富,男,贵州黄平人,副教授,主要研究方向为土地经济与管理、土地利用转型。E-mail: yangshf@cug.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(41801189);国家自然科学基金项目(41671518)

Effect of educational resource difference on housing price in Jiang’an District, Wuhan City

YANG Shengfu1,2, ZHANG Peng1,2, ZOU Qiuli3   

  1. 1. School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
    2. Key Laboratory of Law and Government, Ministry of Natural Resources of China, Wuhan 430074, China
    3. Administrative Committee of Beijing Road Area, High-Tech Industrial Development Zone, Urumchi 830011, China
  • Received:2020-04-21 Revised:2020-07-16 Online:2021-04-25 Published:2021-06-25

摘要:

探讨教育资源差异对住房价格的影响对促进优质教育资源均衡发展、维持房地产市场稳定具有重要意义。本文以武汉市江岸区为研究区,基于研究区2016年6月—2018年5月的住房交易数据,从住房建筑特征、区位特征、邻里特征、学区特征等方面构建Hedonic模型,探索教育资源差异对住房价格的影响;同时引入政策公告期(T1)、政策实施期(T2)两个时间虚拟变量以及对口中小学质量和时间的交互项,研究学区制政策实行前后对学区房价格的影响。研究发现:①学校质量对学区房价格有着显著正向作用,且对口初中质量比小学的影响更加明显。具体而言,小学质量升高一级,住房价格将平均升高11.7%;初中质量升高一级,住房价格将平均升高27.6%。②在T1期,学区制政策因素对小学学区和初中学区房价的影响系数S1T1S2T1分别为0.049、0.074;在T2期,学区制政策因素对小学学区和初中学区房价的影响系数S1T2S2T2分别为0.060、0.089。分析发现,由于受到相关住房和入学政策落实实效与居民消费预期等影响,研究期内学区制改革政策的实施对江岸区优质教育的资本化效应为正效应,对促进优质教育资源均衡化发展的效果尚未突显。

关键词: 学区, 教育公平, 房价, 资本化, 影响因素, Hedonic模型, 武汉市

Abstract:

It is of great significance to explore the capitalization effect of educational resource difference on housing price to balance the development of high-quality educational resources and maintain the stability of real estate market. Taking Jiang’an District of Wuhan City as an example and based on the housing transaction data of the research area from June 2016 to May 2018, this study constructed a Hedonic price model from the areas, history, location, neighborhood, school-accessibility, and other aspects of housing to explore the capitalization effect of high-quality educational resources on housing price. Two dummy variables of policy announcement period (T1) and policy implementation period (T2) and the interaction between quality of primary and secondary schools and time were introduced to study the influence of school district system policy on school district housing price before and after its implementation. The research found that: (1) School quality has a positive effect on school district housing price, and the effect of the quality of middle school is more obvious than that of primary school. Specifically, one-level increase in primary school quality leads to an average 11.7% increase in housing prices; An increase in the quality of secondary schools by one level would increase housing prices by an average of 27.6%. (2) In phase T1, the influence coefficient S1T1 and S2T1 on the housing prices of primary school district and middle school district were 0.049 and 0.074 respectively. In the T2 period, the influence coefficient S1T2 and S2T2 on the housing prices of primary school district and middle school district were 0.060 and 0.089 respectively. The implementation of the school district system policy in the research period has a positive effect on the capitalization of the school district housing, and the impact on balancing the development of high-quality educational resources has not yet been shown due to the impact of the implementation of relevant housing and enrollment policies and residents’ habitual thinking.

Key words: school district, educational equality, housing price, capitalization, impact factors, Hedonic model, Wuhan City