政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/35810
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113822/144841 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51773207      線上人數 : 534
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35810


    題名: 台灣地區垃圾焚化爐與掩埋場之不寧適質損
    作者: 廖宜彥
    貢獻者: 蕭代基
    黃宗煌
    廖宜彥
    關鍵詞: 垃圾掩埋場
    垃圾焚化爐
    不寧適
    願付價值
    願受價值
    假設市場價值評估法
    Landfill
    Incinerator
    Non-Amenity
    Willingness to Pay
    Willingness to Accept
    Contingent Valuation Method
    日期: 2005
    上傳時間: 2009-09-18 16:06:04 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 根據環保署統計得知92年平均每人每日垃圾產生量為0.901公斤，該年垃圾總產量約為736萬公噸，清除處理廢棄物的方法，除了過去在各鄉鎮設置垃圾掩埋場，將廢棄物當地掩埋外，還有就是興建垃圾焚化廠來替代垃圾掩埋場，以減少取得垃圾掩埋場用地的困難。雖然傳統的公營、民營的一般掩埋場與衛生掩埋場則逐年減少，但仍高達了千座以上，全台各鄉鎮幾乎皆可看見。
    因為垃圾處理設施的存在，令人覺得居家週遭的生活環境不寧適。廢棄物與其他環境介質之聯結有很大的相關性，單純針對廢棄物本身所造成的污染損害進行質損估算，是困難度較高的工作。但是垃圾處理設施本身所造成不寧適感受的損害並不包含在這些相關帳表中，而可以使用損害評估法的方式加以估算表示，因此本研究之目的在於調查垃圾處理設施帶給人們不寧適感受的質損。
    此種不寧適的污染損害與賠償並不存在市場交易，無法藉由市場上的供給與需求來反應民眾所遭受的質損，因此本研究採用假設市場價值評估法(contingent valuation method)之問卷的方式，調查民眾願意改善環境品質的願付價值(willingness to pay)與願意接受環境惡化的情況下，願意接受的補償價值(willingness to accept)，民眾的WTP/WTA可視為受損害的環境價值，即為廢棄物處理設施所可能產生的質損。
    The producing amount of the one’s rubbish was 0.901 kilograms every day in 2003 according to the statistics in the Environmental Protection Administration. Total output of rubbish is about 7,360,000 metric tons that year. The method of cleaning the rubbish is building landfills and incinerators in every county. But now it is hard to get the specific land to build landfill, and the government policy is that an incinerator substitute for the all landfills in a county. Though the public and private landfills decrease gradually every year, it still had several thousand landfills in Taiwan. Because of the existence of the rubbish treatment facilities, it always makes the living environment of the surrounding area at home not feel peaceful and lose amenity. The purpose of this research lies in investigating the damage that the rubbish treatment facilities cause non-amenity to people. These kinds of pollution damage and compensation do not exist the market. We can’t use the supply, demand and price in the market to response the non-amenity damage of the feeling of Residents. So our research takes the survey to investigate how much resident would be willing to pay for improving the environment amenity and willing to accept for worsening the environment amenity. The people`s WTP/WTA can be regarded as the value of the environmental damage from the rubbish treatment facilities.
    參考文獻: 一、中文部份
    1.行政院主計處(2003)，台灣地區綠色國民所得帳理論及編算模式研究報告。
    2.行政院主計處(2004)，台灣地區綠色國民所得帳理論及編算模式研究報告。
    3.行政院內政部(2004)，「中華民國臺閩地區人口統計」。
    4.行政院主計處(2004)，「中華民國台灣地區社會發展趨勢調查報告-時間運用」。
    5.行政院主計處(2004)，「中華民國家庭收支調查報告」。
    6.行政院環保署(2003)，公務統計報表「垃圾清運狀況」。
    7.陸雲 (1980)，「環境資源估價之研究-非市場估價方法」，經濟論文，第18卷第1期。
    8.蕭代基、鄭蕙燕、吳佩瑛、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」，”初版 台北市：俊傑書局。
    9.曾明遜(1992)，「不寧適設施對住宅價格影響之研究---以垃圾處理場為個案」，國立中興大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。
    10.黃瓊如、何艷宏、沈美惠（2003），「垃圾污染減量的效益評估：條件評估法之應用」，第五屆全國實證經濟學論文研討會論文，逢甲大學
    二、英文部分
    1.Abelson, P. W. and A. Markandya, 1985.“The Interpretation of Capitalize Hedonic Prices in a Dynamic Environment, ” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.12, No.3:195-206.
    2.Adamowicz, W. L., J. J. Fletcher, and T. G. Tomasi, 1989. “Functional Form and the Statical Properties of Welfare Measures, ” American Journal of Agicultural Economics, 71(2): 414-421.
    3.Arrow, K., R Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman, 1993. “Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation,” Federal Register. 58(10): 4602-4614.
    4.Barton, D.N., 2002. “The transferability of Benefit Transfer: Contingent Valuation of Water Quality Improvement in Costa Rica,” Ecological Economics,42:147-164.
    5.Basili, M., M.D. Matteo, S. Ferrini, 2006. “Analysing demand for environmental quality: A willingness to pay/accept study in the province of Siena (Italy), ” Waste Management. 26:209–219
    6.Bergstrom, J.C., K.J Boyle, and G.L. Poe, 2001. “New Horizons in Environmental Economics,” in Bergstrom, J.C., K.J. Boyle and G.L. Poe (eds) The Economic Value of Water Quality, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
    7.Blaine, T.W., F.R. Lichtkoppler, K.R. Jones, and R.H. Zondag, 2005. “An Assessment of Household Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling: A Comparison of payment card and referendum approaches, ” Journal of Environmental Management. 76: 15–22.
    8.Bockstael, Nancy E., W. M. Hannemann, and I. E. Strand, Jr. 1984. Measuring the Benefits of Water Quality Improvements Using Recreation Demand Models - Vol. II, prepared by University of Maryland for US Environmental Protection Agency (EARB).
    9.Bockstael, N.E., I.E. Strand, and W.M. Hanemann, 1987. “Time and the Recreational Demand Model, ”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(2): 293-302
    10.Box, G.E.P. and D.R. Cox, 1964. “An Analysis of Transformation,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 26:211-243.
    11.Brookshire, David S.,A. Randall.and J.R. Stoll, 1980. “Valuing Increments and Decrements in Natural Resource Service Flows,” American Journal Agricultural Economics. 62(3): 478-488.
    12.Brown, J. N. and H. S. Rosen, 1982. “On the Estimation of Structural Hedonic Price Models,” Econometrica 50(3):765-768.
    13.Bouvier, R. A., J. M. Halstead, K. S. Conway, and A. B. Manalo, 2000. “The Effect of Landfills on Rural Residential Property Values: Some Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Planning and Policy Analysis, 30(2): 23-37.
    14.Cameron, T.A., 1988. “A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-Market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression, ” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.15(3): 355-379.
    15.Chay, K. Y. and M. Greenstone , 1998. “Does Air Quality Matter? Evidence from The Housing Market,” NBER Working Paper 6826. http://www.nber.org/papers/w6826
    16.Court, Lewis M., 1941. “Entrepreneurial and Consumer Demand Theories for Commodities Spectra,” Econometrica vol.9,no.1,pp.135-162.
    17.Cropper, Maureen L., Leland B. Deck, and Kenneth E. McConnell, 1988. “On the Choice of Functional for Hedonic Price Functions,” Review of Economics and Statistics 70(4):668-675.
    18.DEFRA, 2003, “A Study to Estimate the Disamenity Costs of Landfill in Great Britain,” Publiced by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.http//www.defra.gov.uk
    19.Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson, H. S. Banzhaf, 1998. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method, Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar.
    20.Dijkgraaf, E. and H. R. J. Vollebergh, 2004. “Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods”, Ecological Economics(50):233– 247.
    21.Downing, M., and T., Ozuna, Jr., 1996. “Testing the Reliability of the Benefit Function Transfer Approach,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 30: 316-322.
    22.Epple, D., 1987. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Estimating Demand and supply Functions for Differentiated Products.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol.95. No .1, pp59-80.
    23.Freeman, A. Myrick, III., 1979. “The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice,” Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press (for Resources for the Future)
    24.Freeman, A. Myrick III ., 1993. “The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods,” Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.
    25.Hanemann, W.M., 1991. “Willingness to pay versus Willingness to Accept: How Much Can they Differ?, ” American Economic Review. 81(3): 635-647.
    26.Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren, and B. White, 1997. Environomental Economics in Theory and Practice. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and London, Macmillan Press Ltd.
    27.Hite, D., W. Cherrn, F. Hitzhusen and A. Randall, 2001. “Property-Value Impacts of an Environmental Disamenity: The Case of Landfills,” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 22:2-3, 185-202.
    28.Huhtala, A., 1999. “How Much Do Money, Inconvenience and Pollution Matter? Analysing Households’Demand for Large-Scale Recycling and Incineration, ” Journal of Environmental Management. 55: 27–38.
    29.Ihlanfeldta, K. R. and L. O. Taylor, 2004. “Externality effects of small-scale hazardous waste sites: evidence from urban commercial property markets.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47: 117–139.
    30.Kiel, K. and J. Zabel, 2001. “Estimating the Economic Benefits of Cleaning Up Superfund Sites: The Case of Woburn, Massachusetts,” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2-3), pages 163-184.
    31.Lancaster, K., 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economics. 74:132-157.
    32.Loomis, J.B., 1987. “Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimate to Aggregate Benefit Estimate : Current Practices and Proposed Solutions,”:Land Economics. 63(4): 396-402.
    33.Loomis, J.B., 1992. “the Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer,” Water Resources Research. 28(3): 701-705.
    34.Luken, R.A., F.R., Johnson, and V., Kibler, 1992. Benefits and Costs of Pulp and Paper Effluent Controls Under the Clean Water Act,” Water Resources Research. 28(3): 665-674.
    35.Margai, F. L., 1995. “Evaluating the Potential for Environmental Quality Improvement in a Community Distressed by Manmade Hazards,” Journal of Environmental Management. 44: 181–190.
    36.McCluskey, J. J., and G.. C. Rausser, 2003. “Hazardous Waste Sites and Housing Appreciation Rates,” The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 45: 166-176.
    37.Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson, 1989. Surveys to Value Public Goods. Washington, .C.:Resources fot the Future.
    38.Morrison, M., 2002. “Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 84(1): 161-170.
    39.Palmquist, R. B., 1984. “Estimating the Demand for the Characteristics of Housing,” The Review of Economics and Statistic, Vol.64, No.3:394-404.
    40.Palmquist, R. B., 1991. “Hedonic Methods In Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality,” edited by John B. Braden and Charles D. Kolstad. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    41.Randall, A, B. C. Ives, and C. Eastman, 1974. “Bidding Games for Evaluation of environmental Improvement,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1(2):132-149.
    42.Ridker, R. G.., 1967. Economics Costs of Air Pollution: Studies in Measurement, New York: Praeger.
    43.Ridker, R. G., and J. A. Henning, 1967. “The Determinants of Residential Property Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution,” Review of Economics and Statistics49 (2):246-257.
    44.R. Carter Hill., W. E. Griffiths, G. G. Judge., 1997. “Undergraduate Econometrics.” New York: John Wiley & Sons
    45.Rosen, S., 1974. “Hedonic prices and implicit market: product differentiation in pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economic.82:34-55.
    46.Rowe, R.D., R.C. d’Arge, and D.S. Brookshire, 1980. An Experiment on the Economic Value of Visibility, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 7(1) 1-19.
    47.Smith, V.K., G.V., Houton, and S., “Pattanayak, 2002. “Benefit Transfer as Preference Calibration: ‘ Prudential Algebre’for policy. ” Land Economics, 78(1):132-152.
    48.Kerry S. V., W. H. Desvousges, and A. Fisher, 1986. A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Methods for Estimating Environmental Effects, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(2)：25-37.
    49.Ziemer, R.F., W.N. Musser, R. and C. Hill, 1980. “Recreation Demand Equations: Functional Form and Consumer Surplus, ”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1)：136-141.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    經濟研究所
    92258034
    94
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0922580341
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[經濟學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    58034101.pdf47KbAdobe PDF2721檢視/開啟
    58034102.pdf77KbAdobe PDF21006檢視/開啟
    58034103.pdf97KbAdobe PDF2827檢視/開啟
    58034104.pdf173KbAdobe PDF21321檢視/開啟
    58034105.pdf322KbAdobe PDF21610檢視/開啟
    58034106.pdf256KbAdobe PDF22433檢視/開啟
    58034107.pdf201KbAdobe PDF21192檢視/開啟
    58034108.pdf100KbAdobe PDF2868檢視/開啟
    58034109.pdf83KbAdobe PDF21036檢視/開啟
    58034110.pdf689KbAdobe PDF21461檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋