臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來全球對於環境議題的關注增加，各國也逐漸制定和施行環境相關的政策，生態系統服務給付 (Payment of Ecosystem Services, PES) 是重要的議題。其在近期成為研究重點之一，土地利用變更 (Land-Use Change) 亦會對生態系統服務 (ES) 的價值造成改變。然而目前多數研究著重於參與生態系統服務給付政策之意願、或是生態系統服務之價值研究，較少會針對土地利用轉換之生態系統服務給付政策和金額進行研究。故本研究將針對台灣土地利用行轉換之生態系統服務系統之給付金額進行探討。本研究以檳榔園、休耕農地以及裸露林地為研究對象，評估不同地利用之轉換造林情況下，生物多樣性、碳吸存效益，及病蟲害防治之生態系統服務價值，計算其生態系統服務給付金額之範圍。根據本研究結果顯示，生態系統服務給付之下限值，在山坡地檳榔園轉換為造林時，需至少給付每公頃362,048元，其他土地利用若轉換為造林地，其給付金額目前補貼已足夠；在生態系統服務給付上限中，全台灣檳榔園換為造林，每年給付上限總額為1,060,654,695元；裸露林地轉換為造林地，每年給付之上限總額為8,742,208,887元；休耕農地轉換成造林地，每年給付之上限總額為695,243,950元。本研究亦發現性別、居住地區、個人月收入、對生態系給付之瞭解程度、以及環境態度皆會影響受訪者之願付價格和偏好。本研究提出以下四點建議，(1) 建議若未來想要將森林生態系統服務之概念納入相關政策給付規劃中，應以整合現有政策或制度為主，減少在相同項目下重複補貼或重複給付。(2) 建議政府在土地利用轉換的相關政策上，提高山坡地檳榔園轉換為造林之給付金額，以提高地主進行檳榔園轉換之誘因。(3) 建議未來制定環境給付服務之相關政策時，政府應考量各種不同族群之可能需求，調整不同族群所須投入的政策溝通成本。(4) 依據問卷調查結果，本研究建議政府在訂定森林生態系統服務給付相關政策時，應將病蟲害防治的生態系統服務功能，以提出更完善的生態系統服務給付政策。做為未來政府在建立以土地利用轉換之生態系統服務給付相關政策時參考。

Rapid changing of environment and climate have raised the awareness of global environmental issues. In addition, there are more and more countries established environmental related program, policy, and strategies. Among these programs, Payment of Ecosystem Services (PES) plays a significant role. In the programs of PES, Land-Use Change could also change the quantity and the quality of Ecosystem Services (ES). There was much research investigating in the Ecosystem Evaluation, especially in forest ecosystem services, however, few previous researches conducted in the payment of land use changing among the PES program. Therefore, this research would focus on the land use changing payment of forest ecosystem services. Using Areca garden, Bared area and Fallow land for example, this research would calculate the payment of forest ecosystem services toward the land use changing. The results indicated that the lower limit of PES would be 362,048 NTD per hectare when the Areca garden changes into afforestation in the mountain area. Nevertheless, in the situation of Bared land and Fallow land changing into afforestation, the results indicated that the lower limit of PES is 0. According to the results, considering the situation of the land use changing from Areca garden to afforestation, the conservative estimated upper limitation of PES is 1,060,654,695 NTD per year; considering the situation of the land use changing from bared land to afforestation, the conservative estimated upper limitation of PES is 8,742,208,887 NTD per year; considering the situation of the land use changing from Fallow land to afforestation, the conservative estimated upper limitation of PES is 695,243,950 NTD per year. Furthermore, according to the results, gender, resident area, individual income, the acknowledge toward PES and the environmental attitude would influence the respondents’ willingness to pay and the preference. According to this research, there are four pieces of advice for the government: (1) the government should integrate the previous with the new compensation programs. (2) the government should provide compensation to the landowner when the land use changing from Areca land to afforestation in the mountain area. (3) the government should consider different socio-demography influent factor when promoting the new compensation policy or program. (4) the government should pay more attention to pest disease protection, which is indicated to be one of the significant and influential ecosystem services. The results of this research could be implied for the future government land use changing PES programs and strategies.

中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iii
表目錄 v
圖目錄 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究方法與步驟 4
第二章 文獻回顧 6
第一節 生態系統服務之發展與內容 6
一、生態系統服務之定義與緣起 6
二、生態系統服務之種類 7
三、生態系統服務價值之概念 13
第二節 生態系統服務價值評估之相關研究 15
一、國際生態系統服務價值評估之研究 15
二、國內森林生態系統服務價值評估之研究 17
第三節 我國生態系統獎勵補貼之相關政策 19
一、獎勵造林政策 19
二、獎勵禁伐補償政策 20
三、獎勵檳榔園廢耕轉作政策 20
四、對地綠色環境給付政策 23
第三章 研究方法 25
第一節 理論模型 25
一、生態系統服務給付之理論基礎 25
二、森林生態系統服務給付價值之評估方式 26
三、土地利用轉換淨現值之評估 27
四、選擇試驗法之理論模型 29
第二節 問卷架構 31
一、問卷內容 31
二、問卷發放 39
第四章 實證結果與分析 42
第一節 土地利用轉換成本效益分析 42
一、變數設定 42
二、原始土地利用淨現值之計算結果 46
三、檳榔園轉換為造林地淨現值之計算結果 47
四、休耕農地轉換為造林地淨現值之計算結果 48
五、裸露林地轉換為造林地淨現值之計算結果 48
六、森林生態系統服務給付之下限估計結果 48
第二節 土地利用轉換之問卷結果分析 49
一、樣本結構分析 49
二、環境態度結果分析 51
第三節 土地利用轉換之森林生態系統服務願付價格分析 55
一、不相關替代方案之獨立性 (IIA) 55
二、各情境下方案選擇之描述性統計結果 55
三、實證模型之變數設定 57
四、實證模型之結果分析 58
五、願付價格潛在類別模型偏好分析 60
六、森林生態系統服務給付之上限估計結果 67
第五章 結論與建議 69
第一節 結論 69
第二節 政策建議 71
第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 73
參考文獻 75
附錄一 正式問卷 85
附錄二 IIA結果 104

參考文獻
台灣銀行（2019）2019年2月1日台灣銀行匯率參考。於2019年2月1日，取自https://rate.bot.com.tw/xrt?Lang=zh-TW。
石聿立（2006）大鵬灣風景特定區之經濟效益評估。國立海洋大學應用經濟研究所碩士論文。
自由時報（2009）自由時報報導〈議員要求訂定適用南部的標準〉。於2018年11月12日，取自：http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/360897。
行政院內政部戶政司（2018）內政府戶政司〈全球資訊網人口統計〉。於2018年4月5日，取自：https://www.ris.gov.tw/app/portal/346。
行政院農業委員會（2008）農業新聞〈農委會積極推動檳榔廢園轉作籲請農民配合辦理〉。於2018年4月8日，取自：https://goo.gl/dkYfxE。
行政院農業委員會（2013）契作短伐期經濟林作業規範。於2018年4月8日，取自：https://reurl.cc/aD82D。
行政院農業委員會（2014）平地造林直接給付及種苗配撥實施要點。於2018年4月8日，取自：https://reurl.cc/RoEA9。
行政院農業委員會（2015）禁伐補償及造林回饋政策獎勵條例。於2018年4月8日，取自：https://reurl.cc/rV4N1。
行政院農業委員會（2017）行政院農業委員會茶業改良場〈106年1月1日「檳榔廢園及轉作作業規範」納入平地檳榔園〉。於2018年4月8日，取自：https://www.tres.gov.tw/view.php?catid=2792。
行政院農業委員會（2018a）檳榔主題館青仔欉植物特徵。於2018年10月3日，取自：https://reurl.cc/8VAmy。
行政院農業委員會（2018b）檳榔主題館植栽管理撫育施肥。於2018年10月3日，取自：https://reurl.cc/Yo5z0。
行政院農業委員會（2018c）107年全面實施「對地綠色環境給付」建立農業新典範。2018年5月20日，取自：https://goo.gl/v7iWYU。
行政院農業委員會（2018d）行政員農業委員會農業資料查詢。2018年5月8號，取自：https://reurl.cc/3QAVl。
行政院農業委員會（2018e）農業統計資料查詢農業生產統計〈農產品生產面積統計〉。於2019年3月21日，取自https://goo.gl/rn4sTi。
行政院農業委員會（2018f）行政院農業委員會農糧業務契作短期經濟林作業規範。於2018年11月2日，取自：https://reurl.cc/4MDVD。
行政院農業委員會（2019）農業統計全台檳榔園面積統計。於2019年4月22日，取自：https://reurl.cc/3QAVl。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2002a）函釋查詢系統〈農林字第0910000477號〉。於2018年7月20日，取自：https://reurl.cc/Nm6mx。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2002b）行政院農委會林務局〈獎勵造林實施要點〉。於2018年11月12日，取自：https://reurl.cc/o3N7q。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2011）一般造林地區、海岸林造林、國有崩塌地植生復育、離島造林海岸林育苗工程表。林務局羅東林區管理處。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2012）以生態系統服務功能補償（PES）概念促進我國社區保育區設立之探討。臺灣台北：行政院農業委員會林務局。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2015）行政院農業委員會林務局〈第四次森林資源調查報告〉。於2019年6月10日，取自：https://reurl.cc/Mxdx3。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2017）行政院農業委員會林務局〈林業統計統計報表林業(伐木業)生產成本〉。於2019年3月6日，取自：https://www.forest.gov.tw/0000575。
行政院農業委員會林務局（2018）行政院農業委員會林務局〈木材價格申報系統〉。於2019年3月6日，取自：https://reurl.cc/0eV1K。
行政院農業委員會農業金融局（2018）行政院農業委員會農業金融局〈造林貸款利率-農業委員會林務局107年7月4日林造字第1071661355號函辦理〉。於2018年6月20日，取自：https://reurl.cc/pRb7d。
行政院農業委員會農糧署（2018）行政院農業委員會〈農糧署對第綠色環境給付計畫〉。於2018年11月22日，取自：https://reurl.cc/LoxYa。
行政院環保署（2018）行政院環境保護署溫室氣體排放清冊報告〈2018年中華民國國家溫室氣體排放清冊報告〉。於2019年2月2日，取自：http://unfccc.saveoursky.org.tw/2018nir/uploads/06_content.pdf。
何彥陞、張韻華、許茗棋、高嘉慧、蔡佾君、官瑀（2016）破壞濕地應該罰多少？一個生態系統暨生物多樣性經濟學觀點。戶外遊憩研究，29（4），67-101。
余家斌、謝莉蘋、陳奐存（2017）陽明山國家公園二子坪生態保育費願付價格研究。觀光與休閒管理期刊，5（2），13-32。
吳俊賢、劉瓊霦、陳溢宏、陳麗琴、林俊成、鄭美如、許秋雁（2006）六龜試驗林森林生態系經營經濟效益評估之研究。臺灣林業科學，21（2），191-203。
巫向評、柳婉郁（2017）我國森林資源滯塵價值之研究。林業研究季刊，39（3），218-227。
李素馨、邱浩瑋（2018）台江國家公園四草濕地生境格局與生態系統服務價值之時空變遷分析。戶外遊憩研究，31（4），63-94。
汪大雄、王培蓉、林振榮（1999）扇平自然教育區遊憩效益之經濟評估。臺灣林業科學，14（4），457-468。
沈才煜（2011）2000年至2005年台灣各鄉鎮參與造林計畫影響因素之研究，國立臺灣大學森林環境暨資源學研究所碩士論文。
周天穎、葉美玲（1997）水里集水區檳榔種植對土壤沖蝕之影響及其經濟分析。中華水土保持學報，28（2），87-97。
周宜鞍（2017）澎湖南方四島國家公園生態旅遊經營管理模式建構及其願付價值探討。國立東華大學自然資源與環境學研究所碩士論文。
周美玲（2005）購屋者外部資訊搜尋管道選擇行為與搜尋期間之探討。住宅學報，14（2），1-25。
林佳慧、賀惠玲、林亞璇（2017）綠色旅館之願付價格分析：以日月潭風景區為例。觀光休閒學報，23（1），67-99。
林怡諄（2007）農地地主參與造林獎勵政策之決策行為分析，國立臺灣大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。
林俊成、何宇睿、邱祈榮（2016）中國大陸、日本及韓國之森林生態系統服務評估結果比較。林業研究專訊，22（3），59-63。
林俊成、李俊志、王培蓉、陳麗琴、柳婉郁（2010） 私有林主對全球暖化議題認知與造林減碳意願之分析。農林學報，59（2），105-121。
林晏州（2000）遊憩區選擇行為之研究─敘述性偏好模型之應用，戶外遊憩研究。13（1），63-86。
林浩立、陳朝圳、林鴻忠（2013）從社區的觀點分析生態旅遊影響因子－以宜蘭縣崙埤社區為例。宜蘭大學生物資源學刊，9，41-58。
林國慶、柳婉郁（2007）全民造林政策之執行成果與政策分析。農業與經濟，38，31-65。
林富士（2014）試論影響食品安全的文化因素：以嚼食檳榔為例。中國飲食文化。10（1），43-104。
柳婉郁、林國慶（2011）私有地主參與農地碳匯合約之決策分析。農業與經濟，46，1-47。
段百靈、黃蕾、班婕、畢軍（2010）洪澤湖生物多樣性非使用價值評估。中國環境科學，30（8），1135-1141。
張瑋尹、顏添明（2014）不同遊憩區域遊客對森林議題與環境態度認知之比較-以新化與惠蓀林場為例。林業研究季刊，36（4），285-300。
許皓捷、吳采諭（2017）以物種分布模型推估多樣性熱點－評「生物多樣性熱點之推估：以台灣特有鳥種為例」。台灣生物多樣性研究，19（4），255-270。
郭家和、陳建璋、魏浚紘、陳朝圳（2017）恆春半島銀合歡移除後造林對生物多樣性之影響。中華林學季刊，50（4），341-364。
陳芃如（2016）農民對環境友善農業補貼方案之偏好探討—以花蓮為例，國立東華大學自然資源與環境研究所碩士論文。
陳宛均（2017）生物多樣性補償的原則與挑戰。自然保育季刊，100，28-37。
陳芷瑜（2007）生物多樣性價值評估之全面性探討。國立暨南國際大學經濟研究所碩士論文。
陳政位、范宇平（2011）臺灣山坡地違規農業使用之研究。應用經濟論叢，89，125-152。
陳美惠、莊政諺（2017）遊客對於生態旅遊之願付價格與環境態度之探討－以墾丁社頂部落為例。林業研究季刊，39（1），25-42。
喻建華、高中貴、張露、彭補拙（2005）昆山市生態系統服務價值變化研究。長江流域與環境，14（2），213-217。
曾淑敏、廖安定（2009）行政院農委會農業出版品農政與農情208〈輔導檳榔廢園相關措施之政策評估分析〉。於2018年6月20日，取自：https://www.coa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=20321。
黃名媛、王培蓉（2013）林農參與平地造林之態度分析－以屏東縣及花蓮縣為例。中華林學季刊，46（2），151-166。
黃琬倫（2005）綠島生態維護稅願付價格之探討－條件評估法之應用。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文
楊清閔、李展榮、陳清春（2010）以AHP法評估海洋保護區的永續發展策略。農業與經濟，45，53-88。
廖祥亨（2003）陽明山國家公園旅遊資源經濟價值。中國文化大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。
劉癸君、林喻東（2011）都市林之生態價值與評估。林業研究專訓，18，55-58。
鄭欽隆 （2009） 國有林林木經營區因應減碳政策之最適經營規劃期末報告，行政院農委會林務局暨所屬機關九十八年度委託研究計劃。
魯紹偉、毛富玲、靳芳、余新曉、饒良懿（2005）中國森林生態系統水源涵養功能。水土保持研究，12（4），223-226。
龔心怡、蕭伯紹、李靜儀（2015）國中學生環境教育知識與環境態度的關聯性與差異性之分析。教育脈動，4，68-84。
Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J. and Williams, M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference Methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3), 271-292.
Ali, M., Kennedy, C. M., Kiesecker, J. and Geng, Y. (2018) Integrating biodiversity offsets within circular economy policy in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185(1), 32-43.
Baranzini, A., Faust, A. K. and Huberman, D. (2010) Tropical forest conservation: Attitudes and preferences. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(5), 370-376.
Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Day, B., Hanemann, W. M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Lee, M. J., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Özdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. W., Sugden, R. and Swanson, J. (2002) Economic Valuation With Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA.
Braat, L.C., van der Ploeg, S. W. F. and Bouma, F. (1979) Functions of the natural environment: an economic-ecological analysis. IvM-VU Publ.nr. 79–9 ism Wereld Natuur Fonds-Nederland.
Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A. and Lopex-Carr, D. (2014) What factors influence participation in payment of ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Polify, 36, 122-133.
Carson, R. T. and Czajkowski, M. (2014) The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation. Chapters, in: Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, PP. 202-235 Edward Elgar Publishing.
Carvalho-Santos, C., Honrado, J. and Hein, L. (2014) Hydrological services and the role of forests: conceptualization and indicator-based analysis with an illustration at a regional scale. Ecology Complexity, 20, 69–80.
Castro, R. and Tattenbach, F. (1997) The Costa Rican experience with market instruments to mitigate climate change and conserve biodiversity. Presented at the global conference on knowledge for development in the information age. Toronto, June 25, 1997.
Chen, H. H. (1999). The influence of planting Betel Palm on hydrological environment. Journal of Chinese Soil and Water Conservation, 30(4), 247-251.
Cheng, S. and Long, J. S. (2007) Testing for IIA in the Multinomial Logit Model. Sociological Methods and Research, 35(4), 583-600.
Choi, A. S. and Fielding, K. S. (2013) Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case Endangered species. Ecological Economics, 89, 24-32.
Chomitz, K. M., Brenes, E. and Constantino, L. (1999) Financing environmental services: The Costa Rican experience and its implications. The Science of the Total Environment, 240, 159-169.
Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R. and Hyde, T. (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 58, 304-317.
Coase, R. H. (1960) The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.
Cooper, P., Poe, G. L. and Bateman, I. J. (2004) The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecological Economics, 50(1-2), 69-82.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, G. R., Sutton, P. and van der Belt, M. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
Cudlín, P., Seják, J., Pokorný, J., Albrechtová, J., Bastian, O. and Marek, M. (2013) Forest ecosystem services under climate change and air pollution. In: Matyssek, R., Clarke, N., Cudlín, P., Mikkelsen, T.N., Tuovinen, J.P., Wieser, G., Paoletti, E. (Eds.), Climate Change, Air Pollution and Global Challenges. Elsevier, Oxford, PP. 521–546. chapter 24.
Daily, G. C. (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.
de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. and Boumans, R. (2002) A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408.
Dunlap, R. E. (2008) The new environmental paradigm scale: from marginality to worldwide use. The Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3-18.
Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M. (2008) A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment, 50, 26–35.
Dunlap, R. E. and van Liere, K. D. (1978) The “New Environmental Paradigm." The Journal of Environmental Education, 40(1), 19-28.
Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G. and Jones, R. E. (2000) Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Duong, N. T. B. and de Groot, W. T. (2018) Distributional risk in PES: Exploring the concept in the Payment for Environmental Forest Services program, Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics, 92, 22-32.
Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A. H. (1981) Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S. and Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issue. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674.
European Commission (2018) Common agricultural policy: The common agricultural policy is about our food, the environment and the countryside. In 2018.12.06, retrieved from: https://reurl.cc/KoWzg.
Everard, M., Longhurst, J., Pontin, J., Stephenson, W. and Brooks, J. (2017) Developed-developing world partnerships for sustainable development (1): An ecosystem services perspective, Ecosystem Servaices, 24, 241-252.
FAO (2018) The State of The world: The State of The world’s Forest. In 2018.11.20, retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/.
Fu, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Zang, W., Guo, W., Qian, Z., Liu, L., Zhao, J. and Feng, J. (2018) Payment for ecosystem services for watershed water resource allocations. Journal of Hydrology, 556, 689-700.
Gilligan, C., Fraser, R., Godfray, C., Hanley, N., Leather, S., Meagher, T., Mumford, T., Petts, J., Pidgeon, N. and Potter, C. (2013) Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Taskforce. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.
Goldsmith, R. E., Feygina, I. and Jost, J. T. (2013) The gender gap in environmental attitudes: A system justification perspective. In M. Alston and K. Whittenbury (Eds.), Research, action, and policy: Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change (PP.159–171). Netherlands: Springer
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R. Lomas, P. L. and Montes, C. (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209-1218.
Górriz-Mifsud, E., Varela, E., Piqué, M. and Prokofieva, I. (2016) Demand and supply of ecosystem services in a Mediterranean forest: Computing payment boundaries. Ecosystem Services, 17, 53-63.
Greene, W. H. (2012) LIMDEP Version 10 Econometric Modeling Guide. Econometric Software, Australia.
Haines-Young, R. (2016). Report of results of a survey to assess the use of CICES. Support to EEA tasks under the EU MAES Process. Negotiated procedure No EEA/NSS/16/002.
Haines-Young, R. and Potschin M. B. (2011). Paper prepared for discussion at the expert meeting on ecosystem accounts organised by the UNSD, the EEA and the World Bank, London, December, 2011. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update. No. EEA/BSS/07/007, November, 2011. Centre for Environmental Management. The University of Gottingham.
Haines-Young, R. and Potschin M. B. (2017). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available from www.cices.eu.
Halkos, G. and Matsiori, S. (2015) Environmental attitude, motivations and values for marine biodiversity protection. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 69, 61-70.
Hanley, N., Mourato, S. and Wright, R. E. (2001) Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 435-462.
Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Hausman, J. and McFadden, D. (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1219-1240.
Hawcroft, L. J. and Milfont, T. L. (2010) The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143-158.
Hector, A., Joshi, J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B., Spehn, E. M., Wacker, L., Weilenmann, M., Bazeley-White, E., Beierkuhnlein, C., Caldeira, M. C., Dimitrakopoulos, P. G., Finn, J. A., Huss-Danell, K., Jumpponen, A., Leadley, P. W., Loreau, M., Mulder, C. P. H., NeßhÖver, C., Palmborg, C., Read, D. J., Siamantziouras, A. S. D., Terry, A. C. and Troumnis, A. Y. (2007) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: reconciling the resultsof experimental and observational studies. Functional Ecology, 21, 998–1002.
Helliwell, D. R. (1969) Valuation of wildlife resources. Regional Studies, 3, 41–49.
Hueting, R. (1970) Functions of nature: should nature be quantified? In: Hueting, R. (Ed.), What is nature worth to us? A collection of articles 1967- 1970 (in Dutch).
IARC (2004) Betel-quid and Areca-nut chewing and some Areca-nut-derived nitrosamines. IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 85. Lyon, France.
IARC (2018) Agents classified by the IARC monographs, volumes 1-123. In 2018.5.20, retrieved from: https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/.
IndexMundi (2018) IndexMundi historical data graphs per year, Taiwan, 2018. 11. 16. Retrieved from: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=tw&v=65.
Jaganmohan, M., Vailshery, L. S., Mundoli, S. and Nagendra, H. (2018) Biodiversity in sacred urban spaces of Bengaluru, India. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 32, 64-70.
Johansson, T., Hjältén, J., de Jong, J. and von Stedingk, H. (2013) Environmental considerations from legislation and certification in managed forest stands: a review of their importance for biodiversity. Forest Ecological Management, 303, 98–112.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D. and Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 94-101.
Khan, M. Y. (1999). Theory and Problems in Financial Management. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Kotchen, M. and Reiling, S. (2000) Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 32(1), 93-107.
Lancaster, K. J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
Letourneau, D. K. (2012). Integrated pest management-outbreaks prevented, delayed, facilitated? P. Barbosa, D. K. Letourneau, A. A. Agrawal (Eds.), Insect Outbreaks Revisited, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK (2012), pp. 371-394
Lin, F. S. (2004) Betel-chewing: An examination of the cultural factors that affect food safety. Journal of Chinese Dietary Culture, 10(1), 43-104.
Liu, P., Li, W., Yu, Y., Tang, R., Guo, X., Wang, B., Yang, B. and Zhang, L. (2018) How much will cash forest encroachment in rainforests costs? A case from valuation to payment for ecosystem services in Chain. Ecosystem Services, 38, 100949.
Liu, W. Y. and Chuang, C. (2018) Preferences of tourists for the services quality of Taichung Calligraphy Greenway in Taiwan. Forests, 9(8), 462, retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3390/f9080462.
Liu, W. Y. and Lin, K. C. (2009) Modeling the optimal environment service payment for afforestation program, The 2nd International Conference on Environmental and Computer Science, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, December 28-30, 2009.
Loreau, M., Naeem, S. and Inchausti, P. (Eds.), (2002) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Louvière J. and Timmermans, H. (1990) Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: A review. Leisure Sciences, 12, 9-32.
Louvière J. J., Hensher, D. A. and Swait, J. D. (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.
Louviere, J. and Woodworth, G. (1983) Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350-366.
Ma, W. F., Li, C. L., Gritz, E. R., Tami-Maury, I., Lam, C. and Lin, C. C. (2017) A Symbol of Connectedness Between the Self and the Tribal Home: Betel Quid in the Lives of Indigenous Taiwanese. The Journal of Nursing, 64(3), 65-73.
Macpherson, M., Kleczkowski, A., Healey, J. and N. Hanley (2017) Payment for multiple forest benefits alters the effect of tree disease on optimal forest rotation length, Ecological Economics. 134: 82-94.
Manski, C. (1977) The Structure of Random Utility Models. Theory and Decision, 8, 229-254.
McDonald, H. and Adam, S. (2003). A comparison of online and postal data collection methods.in marketing research. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 21(2), 85-95.
McFadden, D. (1973) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior, [PDF file, 3.2M] in P. Zarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometiers, 105-142, Academic Press: New York.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington.
Mukul, S. A., Herbohn, J. and Firn, J. (2016) Co-benefits of biodiversity and carbon from regenerating secondary forests in the Philippines uplands: Implications for forest landscape restoration. Biotropica, 48, 882-889.
Nielsen, A., Olsen, S. and Lundhede, T. (2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape Urban Planning. 80(1), 63–71.
Obeng, E. A. and Aguilar, F. X. (2017) Value orientation and payment for ecosystem services: Perceived detrimental consequences lead to willingness-to-pay for ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 458-471.
Odum, E. P. and Odum, H. T. (1972) Natural areas as necessary components of man's total environment. Transactions of the Thirty Seventh North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, vol. 37. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington DC, 178–189.
Ondřej, Ž. (2014). Net present value approach: method for economic assessment of innovation projects. 19th International Scientific Conference; Economics and Management 2014, ICEM 2014, 23-25 April 2014, Riga, Latvia.
Pan, X., Xu, L., Yang, Z. and Yu, B. (2017) Payments for ecosystem services in China: Policy, practice, and progress. Journal of Cleaner Production, 158, 200-208.
Patel, D. K. (2014) Biodiversity and its importance. Journal of Biodiversity and Endangered Species, 2(4), retrieved from: doi: 10.4172/2332-2543.1000e117.
Pearson, A. R., Ballew, M. T. Naiman, S. and Schuldt, J. P. (2017) Climate Change Communication in Relation to Race, Class and Gender, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, Online Publication, Apr. 2017.
Pirages, D. C. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1974) Ark II: social response to environmental imperatives. Freeman, San Francisco.
Schaeffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W. and Ott, L. (1990) Elementary survey sampling (4th Ed.). PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, USA.
Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D. Jr. and Elliott, M. N. (2001). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the web. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Schumacher, E. F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Blond and Briggs, London. PP. 288.
Shao, K. T. (2019). Catalogue of life in Taiwan. Web electronic publication. In 2019.7.12, Retrieved from http://taibnet.sinica.edu.tw.
Sheng, J. (2017) Effect of uncertainties in estimated carbon reduction from deforestation and forest degradation on required incentive payments in developing countries. Sustainability, 9, 1-14.
Shideler, G. and Pierce, B. (2016) Recreational diver willingness to pay for goliath grouper encounters during the months of their spawning aggregation off eastern Florida, USA. Ocean Coast. Management. 129, 36–43.
Steiger, D. B. M., Ritchie, S. A. and Laurance, S. G. W. (2016) Mosquito communities and disease risk influenced by land use change and seasonality in the Australian tropics. Parasites and Vectors, 9, 387, DOI 10.1186/s13071-016-1675-2.
Stern, N. (2006) Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, in 2018.01.08, retrieved from: https://goo.gl/X5yfEM.
Tranter, B. (2011) Political divisions over climate change and environmental issues in Australia. Environmental Politics, 20, 78-96.
Tseng C. W. and Chen, M. C. (2018) Study on the Soil Porosity Characteristics and Water Resource Conservation Capacity of Various Land Use in the Lienhuachih Experimental Forest. Journal of the Experimental Forest of National Taiwan University, 32(1), 23-36.
USDA (2018) Conservation Reserve Program Introduction. 2018.5.7, Retrieved from: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-program/index.
Wang, P., Poe, G. L. and Wolf, S. A. (2017) Payments for ecosystem services and wealth distribution. Ecological Economics, 132, 63-68.
Weimer, D. L. and Vining, A. R. (2011). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Westman, W. (1977) How much are nature's services worth? Science, 197, 960–964.
Wood, M. A., Sheridan, R., Feagin, R. A., Castro, J. P. and Lacher, T. E. Jr. (2017) Comparison of land use change in payments for environmental services and National Biological Corridor Programs. Land Use Policy, 63, 440-449.
World Bank (2009) Public attitudes toward climate change: findings from a multi-country poll. World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change. Washington, D.C.
Wunder, S. (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional paper No 42. CIFOR, Bogor.
Wunder, S. and Albán, M. (2008) Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics 65, 685–698.
Zanella, M. A., Schleyer, C. and Speelman, S. (2014) Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil. Ecological Economics, 105, 166-176.
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. and Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457.
Zong, C., Cheng, K., Lee, C. H. and Hsu, N. L. (2017) Capturing tourists’ preferences for the management of community-based ecotourism in a forest park. Sustainability, 9(9), 1-16.