Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35810
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor蕭代基<br>黃宗煌zh_TW
dc.contributor.author廖宜彥zh_TW
dc.creator廖宜彥zh_TW
dc.date2005en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-09-18T08:06:04Z-
dc.date.available2009-09-18T08:06:04Z-
dc.date.issued2009-09-18T08:06:04Z-
dc.identifierG0922580341en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35810-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description經濟研究所zh_TW
dc.description92258034zh_TW
dc.description94zh_TW
dc.description.abstract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。\n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。\n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。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents第一章 緒論 1\n第一節 研究動機與目的 3\n第二節 研究方法 4\n第三節 研究架構 6\n第二章 文獻回顧 8\n第一節 環境質損之相關研究方法 8\n第二節 國內外固體廢棄物處理設施質損實證研究 16\n2.2.1 垃圾處理設施之成本效益分析 17\n2.2.2 假設市場價值評估法之實證研究 18\n2.2.3 特徵價格法之實證研究 24\n第三章 研究方法、調查設計與資料描述 33\n第一節 損害評估方法 33\n3.1.1 假設市場價值評估法 33\n3.1.2 效益移轉法 39\n第二節 問卷設計與調查方法 42\n第三節 資料描述 45\n第四章 實證分析 53\n第一節 垃圾處理設施之WTP實證分析 55\n第二節 垃圾處理設施之WTA實證分析 56\n第三節 合併垃圾掩埋場與垃圾焚化爐之WTP/WTA分析 56\n第四節 北部地區各縣市遷移/興建垃圾處理設施WTP/WTA之估算 60\n第五節 各縣市垃圾掩埋場與垃圾焚化廠質損估算 63\n第五章 結論與建議 67\n第一節 結論 67\n第二節 未來應用與研究方向 68\n參考文獻 70\n附錄一 北部地區WTP/WTA百分位圖 77\n附錄二-1 各縣市人口與家庭數 79\n附錄二-2 各縣市性別比率與平均年齡 80\n附錄二-3 各區域教育年數平均值 81\n附錄二-4 各區域每戶年所得平均值 82\n附錄二-5 北、中南東四個區域每一層所含的鄉鎮市區 83\n附錄二-6 問卷調查研究範圍 84\n附錄三 問卷調查 85zh_TW
dc.format.extent48388 bytes-
dc.format.extent79082 bytes-
dc.format.extent99888 bytes-
dc.format.extent177342 bytes-
dc.format.extent329818 bytes-
dc.format.extent262631 bytes-
dc.format.extent206670 bytes-
dc.format.extent102477 bytes-
dc.format.extent85210 bytes-
dc.format.extent706518 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0922580341en_US
dc.subject垃圾掩埋場zh_TW
dc.subject垃圾焚化爐zh_TW
dc.subject不寧適zh_TW
dc.subject願付價值zh_TW
dc.subject願受價值zh_TW
dc.subject假設市場價值評估法zh_TW
dc.subjectLandfillen_US
dc.subjectIncineratoren_US
dc.subjectNon-Amenityen_US
dc.subjectWillingness to Payen_US
dc.subjectWillingness to Accepten_US
dc.subjectContingent Valuation Methoden_US
dc.title台灣地區垃圾焚化爐與掩埋場之不寧適質損zh_TW
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.reference一、中文部份zh_TW
dc.relation.reference1.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。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference2.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。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference3.行政院內政部(2004),「中華民國臺閩地區人口統計」。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference4.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」。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference5.行政院主計處(2004),「中華民國家庭收支調查報告」。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference6.行政院環保署(2003),公務統計報表「垃圾清運狀況」。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference7.陸雲 (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。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference8.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。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference9.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。zh_TW
dc.relation.reference10.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zh_TW
dc.relation.reference二、英文部分zh_TW
dc.relation.reference1.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference2.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference3.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference4.Barton, D.N., 2002. “The transferability of Benefit Transfer: Contingent Valuation of Water Quality Improvement in Costa Rica,” Ecological Economics,42:147-164.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference5.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. 26:209–219zh_TW
dc.relation.reference6.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference7.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference8.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).zh_TW
dc.relation.reference9.Bockstael, N.E., I.E. Strand, and W.M. Hanemann, 1987. “Time and the Recreational Demand Model, ”American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(2): 293-302zh_TW
dc.relation.reference10.Box, G.E.P. and D.R. Cox, 1964. “An Analysis of Transformation,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 26:211-243.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference11.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference12.Brown, J. N. and H. S. Rosen, 1982. “On the Estimation of Structural Hedonic Price Models,” Econometrica 50(3):765-768.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference13.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference14.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference15.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/w6826zh_TW
dc.relation.reference16.Court, Lewis M., 1941. “Entrepreneurial and Consumer Demand Theories for Commodities Spectra,” Econometrica vol.9,no.1,pp.135-162.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference17.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference18.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.ukzh_TW
dc.relation.reference19.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference20.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference21.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference22.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference23.Freeman, A. Myrick, III., 1979. “The Benefits of Environmental Improvement: Theory and Practice,” Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press (for Resources for the Future)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference24.Freeman, A. Myrick III ., 1993. “The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods,” Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference25.Hanemann, W.M., 1991. “Willingness to pay versus Willingness to Accept: How Much Can they Differ?, ” American Economic Review. 81(3): 635-647.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference26.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference27.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference28.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference29.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference30.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference31.Lancaster, K., 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economics. 74:132-157.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference32.Loomis, J.B., 1987. “Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimate to Aggregate Benefit Estimate : Current Practices and Proposed Solutions,”:Land Economics. 63(4): 396-402.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference33.Loomis, J.B., 1992. “the Evolution of a More Rigorous Approach to Benefit Transfer,” Water Resources Research. 28(3): 701-705.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference34.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference35.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference36.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference37.Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson, 1989. Surveys to Value Public Goods. Washington, .C.:Resources fot the Future.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference38.Morrison, M., 2002. “Choice Modeling and Tests of Benefit Transfer,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 84(1): 161-170.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference39.Palmquist, R. B., 1984. “Estimating the Demand for the Characteristics of Housing,” The Review of Economics and Statistic, Vol.64, No.3:394-404.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference40.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference41.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference42.Ridker, R. G.., 1967. Economics Costs of Air Pollution: Studies in Measurement, New York: Praeger.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference43.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference44.R. Carter Hill., W. E. Griffiths, G. G. Judge., 1997. “Undergraduate Econometrics.” New York: John Wiley & Sonszh_TW
dc.relation.reference45.Rosen, S., 1974. “Hedonic prices and implicit market: product differentiation in pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economic.82:34-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference46.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference47.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference48.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.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference49.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.zh_TW
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
58034101.pdf47.25 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034102.pdf77.23 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034103.pdf97.55 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034104.pdf173.19 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034105.pdf322.09 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034106.pdf256.48 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034107.pdf201.83 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034108.pdf100.08 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034109.pdf83.21 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
58034110.pdf689.96 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.