跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.237.38.244) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/24 17:13
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:黃瓊蘭
研究生(外文):Hoang Quynh Lan
論文名稱:越南溫室氣體減量政策實施優先度評估之研究
論文名稱(外文):An AHP Study on Prioritization of the Implementation of GHGs Reduction Strategies in Vietnam
指導教授:李康文李康文引用關係
指導教授(外文):K.K.Li
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:大葉大學
系所名稱:環境工程學系碩士班
學門:工程學門
學類:環境工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:英文
論文頁數:222
中文關鍵詞:溫室氣體(GHGs)氣候變遷分析層級程序法(AHP)越南
外文關鍵詞:Greenhouse gases (GHGs)Climate ChangeAnalytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)Vietnam
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:143
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
氣候變遷將對人類生活造成許多負面的影響(包含農業、生物多樣性、人體健康等等…),最後的結果和一些國家的經濟發展、群眾生命有著密切的關係,特別是對於開發中又位於沿海地區的國家將會是個嚴重的影響。根據世界銀行報告指出,越南將會是其中ㄧ個受氣候變遷而導致海平面嚴重上升的開發中國家。如果海平面上升1公尺,越南全國將會有10.8%的人口受到影響;若是上升5公尺,影響的人口將會達到35%。另外海平面的上升,將會嚴重影響到越南國內的GDP(36%),緊接著將會衝擊到人口密集的都會區(41%)。
本研究是通過由Saaty所開發的分析層級程序法(AHP)論及上述問題的運用,本研究採用AHP方法作為評估在越南推動不同溫室氣體減量方案的優先度。本研究建立四項評估因素:能源、產業、運輸與其他部分。每項評估因素下各建立三項評估準則(能源部門有減少煤炭消耗量、增量可再生能源和碳稅機制。產業中有嚴密的排放及效率的標準,控制傳統產業發展和推動節約能源機制。運輸部門則是升級公共交通系統,設定新的排放標準和增量生質燃料消耗量。在其他領域有控制林業覆蓋面,強化農田灌溉用水管理且加強全面廢棄物管理系統)和兩個減量模式方案【依現況自然發展(BAU)與積極推動減量(ARM)】。
分析結果顯示工業部門被視為越南溫室氣體首要的減量對象(權重值為36.9%),其次是運輸部門(30.7%),第三是能源部門(23.9%),其他部門比重最低(8.5%)。對越南而言這結果反映了合理的現實情況,因為現在工業部門消耗超過40%的能量。分析結果亦顯示在各項評估準則中,嚴密的排放標準及提升公共交通是緩和溫室氣體的二種最佳的方式(各權重皆約為18.4%);其次是減少煤炭消耗量佔12.8%,其餘各項總計佔50.4%;權重值最低的活動是在其他部門之下的強化農田灌溉用水管理,只佔1.4%。
方案B(積極推動減量),包括減少溫室氣體排放與84.4%優先權重。方案A(依現況自然發展)的決策分析權重是15.6%。因受研究執行條件之限制,大多數的專家問卷受訪者都是越南籍環境專家,因而評估結果大幅傾向B方案是顯而易見的。
Climate change has many negative effects in almost of aspects of human life (agriculture, biodiversity, human health…). Final result affects on economic development of some countries and human life, especially poor countries, countries located in coastal regions will be the most onerous effect. According to World Bank’s report, Vietnam is one of ten developing countries that will be the most severely impacted by sea level rise. About 10.8% of Vietnam’s population would be impacted by 1m sea level rise; if sea level rises 5m this ratio would reach 35%. The impacts of sea level rise on Vietnam’s GDP (about 36%) and urban extent (about 41%) closely follow the impact on its population.
This study addresses the above issue by applying Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method that was developed by Saaty. AHP provides a methodology for calculating prioritization in decision making. We apply AHP for making solution to reduce GHGs in Vietnam. We recommend four sectors such as energy, industry, transportation and other and each sector has three activities (Energy sector has reduce coal consumption, increase renewable energy and carbon tax mechanism. Industry has stringent emission and efficiency standard, control the growth of traditional industries and energy conservation. Below transportation is upgrade mass transportation system, setting up new emission standard and increase bio-fuel consumption. And other sector has setting up goal of forestry coverage, water management in rice fields and build up comprehensive waste management system) and two alternatives (A – BAU and B-ARM).
The results show that industry has been consider as the first sector to reduce GHGs with 36.9% , the second importance is transportation sector (30.7%), energy sector is the third with 23.9% and other sector has importance as the lowest (8.5%). This result is completing suitable for actual conditions in Vietnam, now, because industry sector consumes more than 40% of energy. Stringent emission and efficiency standard and upgrade mass transportation have similar priority with 18.4%, they are the two best activities to mitigate GHGs in Vietnam. The following activities is the reduce coal consumption; it has amount 12.8% of all. Nine remained activities share of remained 50.4%. And the lowest important activity is water management in rice fields that is under other sector; it only holds 1.4% of priority scale.
Scenario B (Active Reduction Mechanism - ARM), that includes activities to reduce GHGs emission is considered with 84.4% of all priority. Scenario A (Business As Usual) holds remained 15.6%. It has different percent or differential prioritization between A and B, because all of the asked people are environmental expert. Thus prioritization leans towards alternative B, this is easy to understand.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

授權書 iii
ABSTRACT iv
中文摘要 vi
ACKNOWLEDMENTS viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
TABLE OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF TABLES xvi
CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background Description of Vietnam 1
1.1.1. Geography 1
1.1.2. Macro – Economy 2
1.1.3. Energy and Industry 4
1.1.4. Agriculture and Forestry 6
1.2. Environmental Problems in Vietnam 8
1.2.1. Air Pollution 8
1.2.2. Wastewater 17
1.2.3. Solid waste 22
1.3. Greenhouse effect 29
1.3.1. Global trend of Greenhouse effect 29
1.3.2. Impacts of Greenhouse effect in Vietnam 34
1.3.3. Vietnam’s national greenhouse gas inventory in 1994 38
CHAPTER II. OVERVIEW OF ANALYTIC HIERACHY PROCESS 50
2.1. Fundamental of AHP 50
2.1.1. The structure of Hierarchy 50
2.1.2. Analysis based on the structure of hierarchy 52
2.1.3. Some classifications of AHP application 55
2.2. Analysis of some AHP application 57
2.2.1. Evaluation 57
2.2.2. Selection 59
2.2.3. Decision making 61
2.2.4. Allocation 64
2.2.5. Environmental impact assessment 66
CHAPTER III. PRIORITY ANALYSIS OF GHGs MITIGATION STRATEGIES BY APPLYING AHP METHODOLOGY 73
3.1. Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies 73
3.1.1. Thailand mitigation strategies 73
3.1.2. Malaysia 76
3.1.3. Taiwan mitigation strategy 79
3.1.4. Vietnam mitigation strategy 84
3.2. AHP structure 89
3.2.1. The reasons to select the model and AHP structure 89
3.2.2. AHP structure 91
3.2.3. Experts 92
3.3. Analyzing situation 94
3.3.1. Energy 94
3.3.2. Industries 102
3.3.3. Transportation 112
3.3.4. Other 123
CHAPTER IV. ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 131
4.1. Computation of prioritization 131
4.1.1. Theory 131
4.1.2. Using Expect Choice software 134
4.2. Results and discussion 145
4.2.1. Choose the sectors 145
4.2.2. Choose the solutions – specific activities 147
4.2.3. Prioritization of alternatives 154
4.2.4. Inconsistence analysis 168
4.2.5. Sensitivity analysis 169
4.2.6. Comparison of AHP results and mitigation strategies 176
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 180
5.1. Conclusions 180
5.2. Suggestions 181
5.3. Future works 183
REFERENCES 184
APPENDICES 189

TABLE OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1. Vietnam map 1
Fig. 1.2. Vietnam’s population from 1995 to 2006 2
Fig. 1.3. Growth rate of GDP of Vietnam 3
Fig. 1.4. Vietnam GDP – Composition by Sector in 1996 – 2005 4
Fig. 1.5. Area of destroyed and fired forest in 1995 – 2005 7
Fig. 1.6. Vietnam ‘s area of afforestation in 1995 – 2005 8
Fig. 1.7. SS concentration at several spots in Hanoi 12
Fig. 1.8. PM2.5 concentration at several spots in Hanoi 12
Fig. 1.9. PM10 concentration at several spots in Hanoi 13
Fig. 1.10. SO2 concentration at several spots in Hanoi 14
Fig. 1.11. NO2 concentration at several spots in Hanoi 15
Fig. 1.12. Area of water surface for the aquaculture in 2000 – 2005 19
Fig. 1.13. Industrial Waste Generation 25
Fig. 1.14. Industrial Hazardous waste by sector 26
Fig. 1.15. Greenhouse gas emission in 2000 by source 30
Fig. 1.17. Temperature projections 32
Fig. 1.18. GHG emission and sink from forest and land use change 45
Fig. 1.19. GHG emission from agriculture sector 47
Fig. 1.20. GHG emission proportion from waste sector 48
Fig. 1.21. GHG inventory in 1994 49
Fig. 2.1. Normal structure hierarchy in AHP method 51
Fig. 2.2. Analytic hierarchy structure 69
Fig. 3.2. Amount of coal mining and inland consumption coal in Vietnam 94
Fig. 3.3. Vietnam’s energy mix, 2005 95
Fig. 3.4. Taiwan’s energy mix, 2003 95
Fig. 3.5. Power generation output mix in Vietnam, 2003 96
Fig. 3.6. Power generation output mix in Vietnam, 2004 96
Fig. 3.7. U.S. electric power industry Net Generation, 2005 97
Fig. 3.8. World Primary Energy Consumption by Region, 1995-2004 99
Fig. 3.9. World primary energy production by source 1995 – 2004 99
Fig. 3.10. Vietnam’s primary energy supply by sector in 2002 100
Fig. 3.11. Emission standard for industrial activities in several countries 104
Fig. 3.12. Vietnam industrial output value in 1995 - 2005 109
Fig. 3.13. Volume of passenger carried by type of transport in 1995 – 2005 112
Fig. 3.14. Volume of freight by type transport from 1995 to 2005 113
Fig. 3.15. Volume of passenger carried by the road by province 113
Fig. 3.16. The number of vehicle and passenger by type of vehicles in Hanoi’s main roads 114
Fig. 3.17. Bio- fuel production in the European since 1993 120
Fig. 3.18. Comparison of net CO2 life cycle emissions for petroleum diesel and biodiesel blends (Net CO2 calculated by setting biomass CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to zero) 122
Fig. 3.19. Vietnam’s forest area in 1999 – 2005 124
Fig. 3.20. Vietnam’s cover rate of forestry in 1999 – 2005 124
Fig. 3.22. Vietnam’ urban population and rural population in 1995 - 2005 128
Fig. 4.1. Create new model 135
Fig. 4.2. Save file (Thesis Data) in the computer 135
Fig. 4.3. Enter level 1 of AHP structure (Goal) 136
Fig. 4.4. Insert criteria under the goal 136
Fig. 4.5. Enter the first criterion – Energy 137
Fig. 4.6. Insert sub- criteria under energy sector 137
Fig. 4.7. Enter the first sub- criterion (reduce coal consumption) below energy sector 138
Fig. 4.8. Add A (BAU) alternative 138
Fig. 4.8. Add B (ARM) alternative 139
Fig. 4.9. Enter information about alternative A and B 139
Fig. 4.10. Choice section to add N participants 140
Fig. 4.11. Enter the number of participants 140
Fig. 4.12. Choice location to put result of the first person (it is defaulted by P2) 141
Fig. 4.13. Using pairwise numerical comparisons in level 2 of P2 141
Fig. 4.14. Using pairwise numerical comparisons under energy sector of P2 142
Fig. 4.15. Using pairwise numerical comparison for two alternatives under the first sub- criterion (reduce coal consumption) 142
Fig. 4.16. Choice location to put synthesis result 143
Fig. 4.17. Combine participants’ judgments for entire hierarchy 144
Fig. 4.18. Choice the both icon in combine participant judgments 144
Fig. 4.19. Combined model view 145
Fig. 4.20. Priorities with respect to goal 146
Fig. 4.21. Priorities with respect to energy 148
Fig. 4.22. Priorities with respect to industry 149
Fig. 4.23. Priorities with respect to transportation 151
Fig. 4.23. Priorities with respect to other 152
Fig. 4.24. Covering objective priorities (sort by priorities) 152
Fig. 4.25. Priority of alternatives with respect to reduce coal consumption 154
Fig. 4.26. Priority of alternatives with respect to increase renewable energy 155
Fig. 4.27. Priority of alternatives with respect to carbon tax mechanism 155
Fig. 4.28. Priority of alternatives with respect to energy sector 156
Fig. 4.29. Priority of alternatives with respect to stringent emission and efficiency standard 156
Fig. 4.30. Priority of alternatives with respect to control the growth of traditional industries 157
Fig. 4.31. Priority of alternatives with respect to energy conservation 157
Fig. 4.32. Priority of alternatives with respect to industry sector 157
Fig. 4.33 Priority of alternatives with respect to upgrade mass transportation system 158
Fig. 4.34. Priority of alternatives with respect to setting up new emission standard 158
Fig. 4.35. Priority of alternatives with respect to increase bio – fuel consumption 158
Fig. 4.36. Priority of alternatives with respect to transportation sector 159
Fig. 4.37. Priority of alternatives with respect to setting up goal of forestry coverage 159
Fig. 4.38. Priority of alternatives with respect to water management in rice fields 160
Fig. 4.39. Priority of alternatives with respect to build up comprehensive waste management system 160
Fig. 4.41. Priority of alternatives with respect to goal 164
Fig. 4.42. Priority of sectors for two alternatives in stacked column 166
Fig. 4.43. Priority of sectors for two alternatives by clustered column 166
Fig. 4.44. Performance sensitivity for nodes below goal 169
Fig. 4.45. Dynamic sensitivity for nodes below goal 170
Fig. 4.46. Gradient sensitivity for nodes below goal 171
Fig. 4.47. Performance sensitivity for nodes below energy sector 172
Fig. 4.48. Gradient sensitivity of reduce coal consumption sub- criterion 173
Fig. 4.49. Performance sensitivity for nodes below industry sector 173
Fig. 4.50. Gradient sensitivity of stringent emission and efficiency standard sub-criterion 174
Fig. 4.51. Performance sensitivity for nodes below transportation 174
Fig. 4.52. Gradient sensitivity for upgrade mass transportation system sub-criterion 175
Fig. 4.53. Performance sensitivity for nodes below other sector 175
Fig. 4.54. Gradient sensitivity for setting up goal forestry coverage sub-criterion 176

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1. Main industrial products in 2000 - 2005 6
Table 1.2. Number of motorcycles in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City 10
Table 1.3. Classification base on type of vehicle in 2005 10
Table 1.4. Lead concentration at several spots 16
Table 1.13. GHG emissions from combustion of fuel types in 1994 42
Table 1.14. GHG emissions by energy consuming sector in 1994 43
Table 1.15. Total fugitive methane emission from coal and oil exploitation in Vietnam 43
Table 1.16. GHG emission from energy sector in 1994 44
Table 1.17. GHG emission from industrial processes in 1994 44
Table 1.18. GHG inventory in forestry and land use change in 1994 45
Table 1.19. GHG emission from agriculture sector 46
Table 1.20. Emission (CO2 equivalent) from waste sources in 1994 47
Table 1.21. Results of GHG inventory in 1994 48
Table 2.1. The scale comparison in more detail 53
Table 2.2. Matrix of criteria comparison 70
Table 2.3. Matrix of the priorities of the policy option per criteria 71
Table 3.1. Information about experts 92
Table 3.2. Vietnam renewable energy 100
Table 3.4. Thailand’s industrial Emission standard 105
Table 3.5. The number of craft village in some provinces 107
Table 3.6. Number of bus in Ho Chi Minh City 115
Table 3.7. Classification base on traffic time of vehicle in 2005 117
Table 3.8. Air quality - Road vehicle emission standards 117
Table 3.9. Emission standard for Motor vehicle in Philippine and Malaysia 118
Table 3.10. EU Directive 96/69/EC exhausts emissions limits for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles 118
Table 3.11. Vietnam‘s fired and destroyed forest area in 3 months beginning of 2007 125
Table 3. 12. Values of SIF of rice paddy with organic and inorganic fertilizers in North Vietnam 127
Table 3.13. Municipal Solid Waste generation rate 128
Table 3.14. Vietnam‘s number of pig, cattle and buffalo in 2000- 2005 129
Table 4.1. The average consistencies of random matrices (RI values) 134
Table 4.2. Matrix of criteria comparison 146
Table 4.3. Matrix of sub - criteria comparison in energy sector 147
Table 4.4. Matrix of sub - criteria comparison in industry sector 149
Table 4.5. Matrix of sub - criteria comparison in transportation sector 150
Table 4.6. Matrix of sub - criteria comparison in other sector 151
Table 4.7. The priorities with respect to goal and each sector 153
Table 4.8. The priority of alternatives under four sectors 161
Table 4. 9. Priority of alternatives under with respect to sub - criteria 162
Table 4. 10. Synthesis priority of two alternative under sectors and activities 163
Table 4.11. The local and global priority for all of levels in AHP structure 165
Table 4.12. The synthetic priority and rank of all factors in AHP structure 167
Table 4.13. The inconsistent coefficients in comparison at all levels 168
Table 4. 14. Comparison the results and Vietnam mitigation strategies 177
Table 4. 15. The prioritization of activities in this study 178
1. Al Harbi, K. M., 2001. Application of AHP in project management, International Journal of Project Management 19 (4):19-27.
2. Andijani, A. A., Anwarul, M., 1997. Manufacturing blocking discipline: A multi-criterion approach for buffer allocations, International Journal of Production Economics 51 (3):155-163.
3. Asian Development Bank, 2005. Technical Assistance, Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: Air Pollution, Poverty, and Health Effects in Ho Chi Minh City (Financed by the Poverty Reduction Cooperation Fund).
4. Berrittella, M., Certa, A., Enea, M. and Zito, P., 2007. An Analytic Hierarchy Process for The Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts.
5. Beynon M., 2002. DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including analysis on understanding of uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research 140 (1):148-164.
6. Cagno, E., F. Caron, Perego, A., 2001. Multi-criteria assessment of the probability of winning in competitive bidding process, International Journal of Production Management 19:313-324.
7. Daniel, S.E., Tsoulfas, G. T., Pappis, C. P., Rachaniotis, N. P., 2004. Aggregating and evaluating the results of different Environmental Impact Assessment methods, Ecological Indicators 4:125-138.
8. Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Meisner, C., 2007. Wheeler, D. and Yan, J., the Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis.
9. Dey, P. K., 2002. An integrated assessment model for cross – country pipelines, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 22:703-721.
10. Hoang, Duong Tung, 2004. Air pollution in Vietnam.
11. Hydrometeorological Service of Vietnam Hanoi, 1999. Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations.
12. Kengpol, A., O_Brien, C., 2001. The development of a decision support tool for the selection of an advanced technology to achieve rapid product development, International Journal of Production Economics 69 (2):177-191.
13. Korpela, J., Tuominen, M., 1996. A decision aid in warehouse site selection, International Journal of Production Economics 45 (1–3):169-180.
14. Kreng, V. B., Wu, Chao-Yi, 2007. Evaluation of knowledge portal development tools using a fuzzy AHP approach: The case of Taiwanese stone industry, European Journal of Operational Research 176:1795-1810.
15. Kuo, R.J., Chi, S.C., Kao, S.S., 1999. A decision support system for locating convenience store through fuzzy AHP, Computers and Industrial Engineering 37 (1–2):323-326.
16. Lai, V., Wong, B.K., Cheung, W., 2002. Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in the software selection, European Journal of Operational Research 137 (1):134-144.
17 Le, Thong Quang and Nguyen, Ngoc Anh, 2004. Incentives for wastewater management in industrial estates in Vietnam.
18. Levary R.R., Wan K., 1999. An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry mode decision regarding foreign direct investment, Omega 27 (6):661-677.
19. Liqa Raschid-Sally, Wim van der Hoek and Mala Ranawaka, 2001. Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture in Vietnam: Water Management, Environment and Human Health Aspects.
20. Miyaji, I., Nakagawa, Y., Ohno, K., 1995. Decision support system for the composition of the examination problem, European Journal of Operational Research 80 (1):130-138.
21. Ngai, E.W.T., Chan, E.W.C., 2005. Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP, Expert Systems with Application 29:889-899.
22. Nguyen, Hoan Thi, 2001. Vietnam Country Report for Waste Not Asia conference, Taipei.
23. Nguyen Thao, Solid Waste Management in Vietnam.
24. Ong, S.K., Koh, T.H., Nee, A.Y.C., 2001. Assessing the environmental impact of materials processing techniques using an analytical hierarchy process method, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 113:424-431.
25. Ramanathan, R., 2001. A note on the use the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment, Journal of Environmental Management 63:27 – 35.
26. Ramanathan, R., Ganesh, L.S., 1995. Using AHP for resource allocation problems, European Journal of Operational Research 80 (2):410-417.
27. Rossetti, M. D., Selandari, F., 2001 Multi-objective analysis of hospital delivery systems, Computers and Industrial Engineering 41 (3):309-333.
28. Saaty T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Mc Graw – Hill.
29. Schaefer, D., 2003. Recent climate changes and possible impacts on agriculture in Vietnam with regard to the RRD.
30. Shaw, T. L., Lennard, D. E. and Jones, P. M. S., 2001. Policy and Development of Energy Resources.
31. Singpurwalla, N., Forman, E., Zalkind, D., 1999. Promoting shared health care decision making using the analytic hierarchy process, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 31:277-299.
32. Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2003. Vietnam Initial National Communication.
33. Statistical publishing house, 2005 Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam.
34. Statistical publishing house, 2005. Vietnamese industry in 20 years of renovation and development.
35. Susmita Dasgupta, Benoit Laplante, Craig Meisner, David Wheeler and Jianping Yan, 2007. The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4136.
36. Yurdakul, M., 2004. AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 146:365-376.
37. Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. Vietnam Environment monitor – Solid waste.
38. Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Vietnam Environmental State.
39. UNEP, Third ASEAN State of the Environment Report 2006.
40. The official website of Viet Nam Ministry of Agriculture and rural development http://www.agroviet.gov.vn/portal/page?_pageid=35,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
41. Singapore Ministry of the Environment and Water resources http://app.mewr.gov.sg/home
42. Ho Chi Minh city, Operation and Management Public Transportation of Center http://www.buyttphcm.com.vn/Loigioithieu.asp
43. Carbon Tax Centre http://www.carbontax.org/
44. Republic of the Philippines – Department of Environment and Natural Resources http://www.denr.gov.ph/
45. Malaysia - Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment http://www.doe.gov.my/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1&lang=en
46. National Goal Program of saving and efficiency energy consumption http://www.eec.moi.gov.vn/Index.aspx
47. United States Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/
48. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/
50. Environmental Protection Administration Executive Yuan R.O.C http://www.epa.gov.tw/english/
51. Vietnam Electricity http://www.evn.com.vn/
52. Vietnam general Statistic Office http://www.gso.gov.vn/Default.aspx?tabid=217
53. Asian Trans – “Improve public transit in Hanoi through 3 mode bus lines http://www.hanoibus.com/
54. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/
55. Vietnam Forest Protection Department http://www.kiemlam.org.vn/
56. Vietnam Ministry of Industry http://www.moi.gov.vn/News/Main.asp
57. Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment http://www.monre.gov.vn/monreNet/Default.aspx?tabid=231
58. Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency http://www.nea.gov.vn/
59. Thailand Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment http://www.pcd.go.th/info_serv/en_reg_std_airsnd03.html
60. Vietnam Directorate for Standards and quality http://www.tcvn.gov.vn/
61. Global Geographic http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/vietnam/
62. Tiempo Climate Cyberlibrary http://www.tiempocyberclimate.org/portal/archive/vietnam/index.htm
63. United Nations Environment Program http://www.unep.org/
64. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/2860.php
65. Vietnam Cleaner Production Center http://www.vncpc.org
66. Vietnam national Coal – Mineral Industrial Group http://www.vinacoal.com.vn/
67. Vietnam Register http://www.vr.org.vn/
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top