跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 16:43
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:程韋涵
研究生(外文):Wei-HanCheng
論文名稱:低碳城市效率評估與影響因素分析
論文名稱(外文):An Analysis on Efficiency Assessment and Influencing Factors of Low Carbon Cities
指導教授:張學聖張學聖引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsueh-Sheng Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:都市計劃學系碩博士班
學門:建築及都市規劃學門
學類:都市規劃學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:110
中文關鍵詞:低碳城市環境效率資料包絡分析
外文關鍵詞:Low Carbon CityEco-efficiencyData Envelopment Analysis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:22
  • 點閱點閱:1392
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:463
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
經濟發展和環境保護的重要性和優先性一直是都市發展過程中遭遇的重要課題,而低碳城市即是在面對環境保護與社會經濟發展兩者間的制衡關係所提出,其理念是在不超過環境承載力的前提下,透過更少的環境消耗,創造更好的生活品質,確保環境涵容能力能達到最有效率之利用。
而近年來,在面臨全球氣候變遷、能源枯竭的困境下,低碳城市已成為許多城市追求的目標。然而,現今政府部門在推行永續或低碳政策多用經濟效率來評估其政策之效益與可行性,卻忽略了這些政策對於環境及都市整體的影響究竟為何,且低碳城市之評估多是透過各項減碳指標來衡量,缺乏連結環境與經濟間的關係。
有鑑於此,本研究嘗試以同時考量經濟和環境相互作用之概念─「環境效率」之架構,以及低碳城市的核心理念─「以投入最少的資源、環境犧牲代價而得到最適的經濟發展與生活品質」,發展一低碳城市之適當評估方法,衡量環境與發展兩者的比值,藉此評估臺灣各縣市發展狀態與低碳理念之符合程度與差異,並以資料包絡分析法進行低碳城市效率之分析與比較。
分析結果將臺灣縣市發展狀態分為四群:(一)資源耗損仍於碳容受力內且有效率之縣市,包括新竹縣、屏東縣、澎湖縣、花蓮縣及臺東縣,此為最具永續思維、最貼近低碳城市之縣市群(二)資源耗損仍於碳容受力內無效率之縣市,包括宜蘭縣、苗栗縣、南投縣、臺南縣、高雄縣、嘉義縣及雲林縣(三)資源耗損超過碳容受力有效率之縣市,包括新竹市及嘉義市(四)資源耗損超過碳容受力且無效率之縣市,包括臺中市、臺北市、臺南市、基隆市、高雄市、臺北縣、臺中縣、桃園縣及彰化縣,此九個縣市非但超支使用環境資源,且過度使用之資源未換得相當之都市效益,顯示其資源濫用、盲目發展之情形,為最不符低碳城市理念之縣市群。
而針對效率較差之縣市,進一步從環境效率的觀點取代以往經濟效率觀點來探討政策之效益,找出能有效提升環境效率之低碳策略。實證結果顯示,對於臺灣無效率縣市而言,「資源回收率」與低碳城市效率存在正向線性關係,而「綠化面積比」與效率存在三次方關係,整體曲線呈N型,「都市密集度」則與效率存在倒N型三次方關係,建議未來無效率縣市可從這些因素著手,擬訂其低碳策略內容,做為低碳發展及都市永續經營管理方向之參考。

The importance and priority between economic development and environmental protection has been an important issue in the process of urban development. Low carbon city is proposed based on the checks and balances between environmental protection and social economic development. And the concept of low carbon city is that people who live in the city create better quality of life through less environmental consumption within the carrying capacity to ensure the efficient use of environmental resources.
Recently, in the face of global climate change and energy depletion predicament, low carbon city has become the goal of many cities. However, government departments often assess the effectiveness and feasibility of policies by economic efficiency when they carry out the sustainable or low carbon policies, while ignoring the impacts of these policies for the environment and the whole city. And the evaluation of low-carbon city is often by various carbon reduction indicators.This way lacks link between the environment and the economy.
Therefore, this paper tries to take the framework of eco-efficiency that contains considerations of both economic and environment and take the core concept of low carbon city─ “Obtain the optimal economic development and quality of life with the least environmental resources” to establish an efficiency evaluation framework of low carbon city. And adopts data envelopment analysis as a tool to analyze the urban efficiency performance.
According to the result of the empirical analysis, the state of urban development of Taiwan's cities and counties can be divided into four groups: (1)Efficient cities and counties whose resource consumption is still within the carbon carrying capacity: this group which is the most sustainable and closest to low carbon cities includes Hsinchu County, Pingtung County, Penghu County, Hualien County and Taitung County. (2)Inefficient cities and counties whose resource consumption is still within the carbon carrying capacity: this group icludes Yilan County, Miaoli County, Nantou County, Tainan County, Kaohsiung County, Chiayi County, and Yunlin County. (3)Efficient cities and counties whose resource consumption is over the carbon carrying capacity: this group icludes Hsinchu City and Chiayi City. (4)Inefficient cities and counties whose resource consumption is over the carbon carrying capacity: this group includes Taichung City, Taipei City, Tainan City, Keelung City, Kaohsiung City, Taipei County, Taichung County, Taoyuan County and Changhua County. These cities and counties overuse the environmental resources, and the excessive use is not in exchange for the corresponding urban benefits. It shows the resource abuse and blind development of them. This group is the most inconsistent with the concept of low carbon city.
And then for the non-efficient cities, this paper explores the effectiveness of policies from the viewpoint of eco-efficiency rather than the previous economic efficiency to explore what strategies will enhance the eco-efficiency. The analysis result shows that “the resource recovery rate” has a positive linear relationship with the efficiency. There is a N-shaped cubic relationship between “the percentage of green area” and the efficiency. And there is an inverted N-shaped cubic relationship between “the urban density” and the efficiency. Non-efficient cities and counties could develop their low carbon strategies from these factors to provide the reference of low carbon development and sustainable urban management.

目 錄
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 2
第三節 研究範疇 3
第四節 研究流程 5
第二章 文獻回顧 7
第一節 低碳城市之理論與衡量 7
第二節 環境效率之內涵與架構 16
第三節 低碳城市效率之評估變項 28
第四節 低碳城市效率之影響因素與影響分析 39
第三章 研究設計 46
第一節 低碳城市效率分析 47
第二節 低碳城市效率影響因素分析 56
第四章 低碳城市效率分析 59
第一節 資源耗損程度與容受能力探討 59
第二節 低碳城市效率分析 63
第五章 低碳城市效率影響因素分析 75
第一節 低碳策略之效率影響效果 75
第二節 低碳城市效率之影響因素分析 79
第六章 結論與建議 82
第一節 結論 82
第二節 後續建議 85
參考文獻 87
附錄 93
附錄一、生活品質各面向指標之主成份分析 93
附錄二、各縣市之生態足跡計算 98
附錄三、各縣市之投入項目計算 109

表 目 錄
表2-1 氣候變遷績效指標 10
表2-2 歐洲綠色城市指標 10
表2-3 拉丁美洲及亞洲綠色城市指標 12
表2-4 歐盟綠色首都表揚計畫評審項目與標準 13
表2-5 英國低碳示範社區推動計畫評審項目與標準 14
表2-6 日本環保模範都市推動計畫評審項目與標準 15
表2-7 國際上環境效率之各種定義 16
表2-8 各效率評估方法比較 21
表2-9 二氧化碳相關研究探討之部門 30
表2-10 生活品質之定義 33
表2-11 生活品質之衡量指標 36
續表2-11 生活品質之衡量指標 37
表2-12 各國低碳推動策略 40
表2-13 低碳策略相關內容之衡量指標 43
表2-14 不同函數之線性轉換模式表 44
表3-1 都市主要活動類型與資源耗損項目 47
表3-2 各燃料類別之二氧化碳排放係數值 48
表3-3 各類食物熱值及二氧化碳排放係數表 51
表3-4 本研究選取之生活品質指標 52
表3-5 本研究各資源項目之土地分類及等值因子對照表 55
表3-6 低碳城市效率影響因素變項與計算方式 57
表4-1 臺北市生態足跡計算詳表 60
表4-2 各縣市資源耗損程度與容受能力計算-生態足跡觀點 61
表4-3 各縣市資源耗損程度與容受能力計算-碳平衡觀點 62
表4-4 二十三縣市投入產出項目彙整表 64
表4-5 各縣市效率分析結果表 66
表4-6 各縣市效率分析結果表(依資源耗損情形分群) 69
表4-7 容受力內之縣市效率差額變數分析結果表 70
表4-8 超過容受力之縣市效率差額變數分析結果表 72
表5-1 曲線估計結果彙整表 75
表5-2 X6資源回收率與總效率之迴歸分析結果表 79
表5-3 X7綠化面積比與總效率之迴歸分析結果表 79
表5-4 X9都市密集度與總效率之迴歸分析結果表 80
表5-5 個別與混合迴歸模式轉換表 80
表5-6 TOBIT迴歸分析結果表 81
附表1 經濟面向指標之主成份分析結果表 93
附表2 交通面向指標之主成份分析結果表 94
附表3 休閒面向指標之主成份分析結果表 95
附表4 環境面向指標之主成份分析結果表 95
附表5 醫療衛生面向指標之主成份分析結果表 96
附表6 教育文化面向指標之主成份分析結果表 97
附表7 各縣市生態足跡計算詳表 98
附表8 各縣市投入項目計算詳表 109

圖 目 錄
圖1-1 全球平均地表溫度與二氧化碳濃度圖 1
圖1-2 本研究之實證範圍圖 4
圖1-3 研究流程圖 6
圖2-1 低碳城市的重要理念發展 9
圖2-2 環境效率的重要理念發展 20
圖2-3 FARRELL技術效率圖 24
圖2-4 生態足跡與生物容受力之計算架構 31
圖3-1 研究架構圖 46
圖3-2 能源耗損量相當之二氧化碳量計算步驟 49
圖3-3 水資源耗損量相當之二氧化碳量計算步驟 50
圖3-4 糧食耗損量相當之二氧化碳量計算步驟 50
圖3-5 都市資源耗損程度與容受力探討示意圖 55
圖4-1 臺灣各縣市技術效率值 68
圖4-2 臺灣各縣市規模效率值 68
圖4-3 臺灣各縣市總效率值 68
圖4-4 臺灣各縣市總效率值(依資源耗損情形分群) 68
圖4-5 容受力內之縣市效率差額變數分析雷達圖 71
圖4-6 超過容受力之縣市效率差額變數分析雷達圖 73
圖4-7 縣市資源耗損情形和低碳效率表現分群圖 74
圖5-1 無效率縣市資源回收率與總效率值關係圖 76
圖5-2 無效率縣市綠化面積比與總效率值關係圖 77
圖5-3 無效率縣市都市密集度與總效率值關係圖 78

一、中文參考文獻
1.王安民,因應全球CO2減量背景下之永續都市規劃策略研究-以台北市為例,國立中興大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文,1999。
2.王珮琪,以二氧化碳減量觀點探討都市計畫綠化管制策略,國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文,2005。
3.行政院環境保護署,溫室氣體盤查與登錄指引,2009。
4.吳宓珊,台灣主要都市環境發展效率評估,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文,2008。
5.李哲宇,應用經濟-生態效率分析台灣縣市發展之研究,國立政治大學地政研究所碩士論文,2011。
6.邱祈榮、王瑞閔、梁玉琦,台灣森林碳量估算面面觀,森林碳吸存研討會,2006。
7.林孟儒,因應全球二氧化碳減量生態趨勢之都市綠化政策研究-以台北市為例,國立台北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文,2002。
8.林素穗,城市生活品質評量之研究-以台南市為例,立德管理學院地區發展及管理研究所碩士論文,2004。
9.林傑斌等,SPSS12統計建模與應用實務,博碩文化股份有限公司,2005。
10.林蕙薰,發展台灣綠色經濟統計之研究,行政院經濟建設委員會綜合規劃研究,2008。
11.柳中明、林俊成、劉銘龍,植林之二氧化碳吸存量估算,全球變遷與永續發展期刊(Global Change and Sustainable Development),1(2):64-72,2007。
12.柯佩婷,都市土地使用發展之環境績效評估-以永康市為例,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文,2006。
13.胡雅芳,台灣地區城市生活品質績效評估,逢甲大學工業工程與系統管理研究所碩士論文,2009。
14.馬軍,基於DEA法的內蒙古發展低碳經濟的效率評價,科學管理研究,29(3):84-88,2011。
15.郭幸福,都市土地發展之環境轉變效率影響因素之研究,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所博士論文,2010。
16.郭桓志,新竹市生活環境品質滿意度調查分析,中華大學電機工程學系碩士論文,2001。
17.郭婷婷,臺灣地區各縣市碳平衡之初探,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文,2011。
18.陳柏熹、王文中,生活品質量表的發展,中國測驗學會測驗年刊,46(1):57-74,1999。
19.張晶、王麗萍,基於工業能源利用效率的低碳經濟實證研究,科技進步與對策,27(22):168-171,2010。
20.張穎、王群、李邊疆、王萬茂,應用碳氧平衡法測算生態用地需求量實證研究,中國土地科學,21(6),2007。
21.婁偉、李萌,低碳經濟規劃:理論、方法、模型,社會科學文獻,2011。
22.黃一峰,九二一地震對南投災區地方永續力衝擊之分析及其重建績效評估,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文,2006。
23.黃群達,住宅與商業部門能源消費及二氧化碳排放特性與變動趨勢分析,國立成功大學環境工程研究所碩士論文,2006。
24.彭江穎,珠江三角洲植被對區域碳氧平衡的作用,中山大學學報,42(5),2003。
25.楊智強,台灣22縣市之效率評估-Undesirable Output之應用,東吳大學經濟學系碩士論文,2009。
26.葉志高,我國低碳評核指標之研議,國立臺灣大學環境工程學研究所碩士論文,2011。
27.葉佳宗,以生態足跡觀點探討台灣農業土地資源之保育,國立中興大學資源管理研究所碩士論文,1998。
28.謝邦昌,多變量分析(一)─主成份分析,中國統計通訊,9(7):28-32,2002。
29.鄭福田,綠色城市指標,創建幸福的南台灣─水與綠低碳城市的未來,青年國是會議,2011。

二、外文參考文獻
1.Banker, R. D. Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, 17(1): 35-44, 1984.
2.Barnes, A. P. Does multi-functionality affect technical efficiency? A non-parametric analysis of the Scottish dairy industry, Journal of Environmental Management, 80(4): 287-294, 2006.
3.Bosetti, V., Locatelli, G. A data envelopment analysis approach to the assessment of natural parks' economic efficiency and sustainability. The case of Italian national parks, Sustainable Development, 14(4): 277-286, 2006.
4.Boyden, S., Miller, S., Newcombe, K., and O’Neill B. The ecology of a city and its people, ANU Press, Canberra, 1981.
5.Brussels. A resource-efficient Europe–Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy, European Commission, 2011.
6.Callens, I., Tyteca, D. Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive efficiency perspective, Ecological Economics, 28(1): 41-53, 1999.
7.Campbell, A., Converse, P., and Rodgers, W. The quality of American life: perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1976.
8.Caneghem, J. V., Block, C., Hooste, H. V., and Vandecasteele C. Eco-efficiency trends of the Flemish industry: decoupling of environmental impact from economic growth, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18: 1349-1357, 2010.
9.William R., Catton, Jr. The world's most polymorphic species, BioSciences, 37(6): 413-419, 1987.
10.Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., and Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operational Research, 2: 429-444, 1978.
11.Chaudhari, P. R., Gajghate, D. G., Dhadse, S., Suple, S., Satapathy, D. R., and Wate, S. R. Monitoring of environmental parameters for CO2 sequestration: a case study of Nagpur City, India, Environ Monit Assess, 135: 282-290, 2007.
12.Cranston, G. R., and Hammond, G.P. North and south: regional footprints on the transition pathway towards a low carbon, global economy, Applied Energy, 87: 2945-2951, 2010.
13.Cropper, M. L., Oates, W. E. Environmental economics: a survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2): 675-740, 1992.
14.Daly, H. Comments on “population and economic growth, Population and
Development Review, 12: 583-585, 1986.
15.Daly, H. Beyond growth, Beacon Press, Boston, 1996.
16.De Koeijer, T. J., Wossink, G. A. A., Struik, P. C., and Renkema, J. A. Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar beet growers, Journal of Environmental Management, 66(1): 9-17, 2002.
17.De Koeijer, T. J., Wossinik, G. A. A., Smit, A. B., Janssens, S. R. M., Renkema, J. A., and Struik, P. C. Assessment of the quality of farmers' environmental management and its effects on resource use efficiency: a Dutch case study, Agricultural Systems, 78(1): 85-103, 2003.
18.DeSimone, L. D., Popoff, F. Eco-efficiency: the business link to sustainable development, TheMIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1997.
19.ESCAP. Eco-efficiency indicators: measuring resource-use efficiency and the impact of economic activities on the environment, United Nations Publication, 2009.
20.Eshel, G., Martin, P. A. Diet, energy, and global warming, Earth Interactions, 10(9): 1, 2006.
21.Farrell, M. J. The measurement of productive efficiency, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 120(3): 253-290, 1957.
22.Feng, Z. J., Niu, W. Y. Low carbon economy and scientific development, China Soft Science, 8: 13-19, 2009.
23.Fisher, A. C., Peterson, F. M. The environment in economics: a survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 14: 1-33, 1976.
24.Hopkins, A. S., Schellnhuber, H. J., and Pomaz, V. L. Urbanised territories as a specific component of the global carbon cycle, Ecological Modelling, 173: 295-312, 2004.
25.Huppes, G., Ishikawa, M. A framework for quantified eco-efficiency analysis, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4): 25-41, 2005.
26.IPCC. IPCC fourth assessment report, Switzerland, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, 2007.
27.IUCN, UNEP, and WWF. Caring for the earth. Switzerland: IUCN, 1991.
28.Jansson, A. M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., and Coostanza, R. Investing in nature capital: the ecological economics approach to sustainability, Washington DC: Island Press, 1994.
29.Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., and de Hollander, A. Urban environmental quality and human well-being: towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts, a literature study, Landscape and Urban Planning, 65: 5-18, 2003.
30.Kirchner, J., Leduc, G., Goodland, R., and Drake, J. Carrying capacity, population growth, and sustainable development, In D. Mahar (Ed.), Rapid population growth and human carrying capacity: two perspectives, Staff Working Papers 690, Population and Development Series, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 1985.
31.Koerner, B., Klopatek, J. Anthropogenic and natural CO2 emission sources in an arid urban environment, Environmental Pollution, 116(1): 45-51, 2002.
32.Kuosmanen, T., Kortelainen, M. Measuring eco-efficiency of production with data envelopment analysis, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4): 59-72, 2005.
33.McAndrews, C. Developing economics and the environment, The Southeast Asia Experience, Singapore: McGraw-Hall, 1979.
34.Odum, E. P. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd. ed Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1971.
35.Peter, N. The environmental impact of cities, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 18(2): 275-295, 2006.
36.Pham, D. U., and Nobukazu, N. Application of land suitability analysis and landscape ecology to urban greenspace planning in Hanoi, Vietnam, Urban Forestry& Urban Greening, 7: 25-40, 2008.
37.Rees, W. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity, Environment & Urbanization, 4(2): 121-130, 1992.
38.Register, R. Ecocity Berkeley: building cities for a healthy future, North Atlantic Books, 1987.
39.Renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership, REEEP. Climate and energy security-towards a low carbon economy, Report on Wilton Park Conference 866, 2007.
40.Sarkis, J., Talluri, S. Eco-efficiency measurement using data envelopment analysis: research and practitioner issues, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 6(1): 91-123, 2004.
41.Schaltegger, S., Sturm, A. Okologische Rationalitat Ansatzpunkte zur Ausgestaltung von okologieorientierten Managementinstrumenten Die Unternehmung, 4(90): 273-290, 1990.
42.Schmidheiny, S. Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
43.Sen, A. K. On weights and measures: informational constraints in social welfare analysis, Econometrica, 45: 539-572, 1977.
44.Thanassoulis, E. A comparison of regression-analysis and data envelopment analysis as alternative methods for performance assessments, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(11): 1129-1144, 1993.
45.Thanassoulis, E., Boussofiane, A., and Dyson, R. G. A comparison of data envelopment analysis and ratio analysis as tools for performance assessment, Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 24(3): 229-244, 1996.
46.Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., Lopez Falfan, I. S., Garcia, J. M., Guerrero, A. I. S., and Guerrero, M. G. S. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept, Ecological Economics, 29: 375-390, 1999.
47.Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Moran, D., Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S., Deumling, D., and Murray, M. National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2005: the underlying calculation method, GFN, 2005.
48.Whitford, V., Ennos, A. R., and Handley, J. F. City form and natural process- indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK, Landscape and Urban Planning, 57(2): 91-103, 2001.
49.Zhang, K. M., Pan, J. H., and Cui, D. P. Introduction to low carbon economy, China Environmental Science Press, 2008.
50.Zhang, L., Liu, Q., Hall, N. W., and Fu, Z. An environmental accounting framework applied to green space ecosystem planning for small towns in China as a case study, Ecological Economics, 60: 533-542, 2007.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top