請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/40902完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 許添本 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shih-Ming Wang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 汪世名 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-14T17:05:54Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2008-07-30 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2008-07-30 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2008-07-27 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. Alf Hornborg, “Footprints in the cotton fields: The Industrial Revolution as time–space appropriation and environmental load displacement”, Ecological Economics, 59: 74-81, 2006.
2. Andrew K. Jorgenson, Thomas J. Burns, “The political-economic causes of change in the ecological footprints of nations, 1991–2001: A quantitative investigation”, Social Science Research, 36: 834-853, 2007. 3. B. Chen et al., “Ecological footprint accounting for energy and resource in China”, Energy Policy, 35: 1599-1609, 2007. 4. B. Chen, G.Q. Chen, “Ecological footprint accounting based on emergy—A case study of the Chinese society”, Ecological Modelling, 198: 101-114, 2006. 5. B. Chen, G.Q. Chen, “Modified ecological footprint accounting and analysis based on embodied exergy—a case study of the Chinese society 1981–2001”, Ecological Economics, 61: 355-376, 2007. 6. C. Monfreda, M. Wackernagel, D. Deumling, “Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments”, Land Use Policy, 21: 231-246, 2004. 7. Colin Hunter, Jon Shaw, “The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism”, Tourism Management, 28: 46-57, 2007. 8. D. P. van Vuuren, E. M. W. Smeets, “Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands”, Ecological Economics, 34: 115-130, 2000. 9. Dave M. Alden, John L. R. Proops, Philip W. Gay, “Industrial hemp's double dividend: a study for the USA”, Ecological Economics, 25: 291-301, 1998. 10. Detlef P. van Vuuren, Lex F. Bouwman, “Exploring past and future changes in the ecological footprint for world regions”, Ecological Economics, 52: 43-62, 2005. 11. Dongxia Yue et al., “Spatiotemporal analysis of ecological footprint and biological capacity of Gansu, China 1991–2015: Down from the environmental cliff”, Ecological Economics, 58: 393-406, 2006. 12. Erling Holden, Karl Georg Høyer, “The ecological footprints of fuels”, Transportation Research Part D, 10: 395-403, 2005. 13. Frey, S., Harrison, D, Billett, E, “Environmental Assessment of Electronic Products Using LCA and Ecological Footprint”, International Congress and Exhibition, Germany, 2000. 14. G. Darrel Jenerette et al., “Contrasting water footprints of cities in China and the United States”, Ecological Economics, 57: 346-358, 2006. 15. G. Darrel Jenerette, Larissa Larsen, “A global perspective on changing sustainable urban water supplies”, Global and Planetary Change, 50: 202-211, 2006. 16. G. Darrel Jenerette, Wendy A. Marussich, Joshua P. Newell, “Linking ecological footprints with ecosystem valuation in the provisioning of urban freshwater”, Ecological Economics, 59: 38-47, 2006. 17. Garry W. McDonald, Murray G. Patterson, “Ecological Footprints and interdependencies of New Zealand regions”, Ecological Economics, 50: 49-67, 2004. 18. Garry W. McDonald, Vicky E. Forgie, Catherine MacGregor, “Treading lightly: Ecofootprints of New Zealand's ageing population”, Ecological Economics, 56: 424-439, 2006. 19. Gernot Stöglehner, “Ecological footprint — a tool for assessing sustainable energy supplies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11: 267-277, 2003. 20. Hayo M.G. van der Werf et al., “Environmental impacts of farm scenarios according to five assessment methods”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118: 327-338, 2007. 21. Helmut Haberl et al., “Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net primary production: a comparison”, Land Use Policy, 21: 279-288, 2004. 22. Helmut Haberl, Karl-Heinz Erb, Fridolin Krausmann, “How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926–1995”, Ecological Economics, 38: 25-45, 2001. 23. Helmut Haberl, Mathis Wackernagel, Thomas Wrbka, “Land use and sustainability indicators. An introduction”, Land Use Policy, 21: 193-198, 2004. 24. Hong X. Nguyen, Ryoichi Yamamoto, “Modification of ecological footprint evaluation method to include non-renewable resource consumption using thermodynamic approach”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51: 870-884, 2007. 25. Ivan Muñiz, Anna Galindo, “Urban form and the ecological footprint of commuting. The case of Barcelona”, Ecological Economics, 55: 499-514, 2005. 26. Jan Otto Andersson, Mattias Lindroth, “Ecologically unsustainable trade”, Ecological Economics, 37: 113-122, 2001. 27. Jeffrey Wagner, “On the economics of sustainability”, Ecological Economics, 57: 659-664, 2006. 28. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, Harmen Verbruggen, “Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’”, Ecological Economics, 29: 61-72, 1999. 29. John Barrett, Anthony Scott, “The Ecological Footprint: A Metric for Corporate Sustainability”, Corporate Environmental Strategy, 8: 316-325, 2001. 30. K.-H.Karl-Heinz Erb, “Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: a variation on Ecological Footprint assessments”, Land Use Policy, 21: 247-259, 2004. 31. Karen Turner et al., “Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities — Part 1: A technical note on combining input–output and ecological footprint analysis”, Ecological Economics, 62: 37-44, 2007. 32. Kathryn B. Bicknell et al., “New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy”, Ecological Economics, 27: 149-160, 1998. 33. Katie Newton et al., “Current and Future Sustainability of Island Coral Reef Fisheries”, Current Biology, 17: 655-658, 2007. 34. Kevin Lewis, Craig Simmons, Nicky Chambers, “An Ecological Footprint Analysis of Different Packaging Systems”, Best Foot Forward Limited, UK, 2000. 35. Klaus Hubacek, Stefan Giljum, “Applying physical input–output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities”, Ecological Economics, 44: 137-151, 2003. 36. Li Hong et al., “Evaluating the effects of embodied energy in international trade on ecological footprint in China”, Ecological Economics, 62: 136-148, 2007. 37. M. Cuadra, J. Björklund, “Assessment of economic and ecological carrying capacity of agricultural crops in Nicaragua”, Ecological Indicators, 7: 133-149, 2007. 38. M.A. Thomassen, I.J.M. de Boer, “Evaluation of indicators to assess the environmental impact of dairy production systems”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 111: 185-199, 2005. 39. Maged Senbel, Timothy McDaniels, Hadi Dowlatabadi, “The ecological footprint: a non-monetary metric of human consumption applied to North America”, Global Environmental Change, 13: 83-100, 2003. 40. Manfred Lenzen, Shauna A. Murray, “A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia”, Ecological Economics, 37: 229-255, 2001. 41. Mathis Wackernagel et al., “Calculating national and global ecological footprint time series: resolving conceptual challenges”, Land Use Policy, 21: 271-278, 2004. 42. Mathis Wackernagel et al., “Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961–1999: comparing the conventional approach to an ‘actual land area’ approach”, Land Use Policy, 21: 261-269, 2004. 43. Mathis Wackernagel et al., “National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept”, Ecological Economics, 29: 375-390, 1999. 44. Mathis Wackernagel, William E. Rees, “Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective”, Ecological Economics, 20: 3-24, 1997. 45. Meidad Kissinger, Jennifer Fix, William E. Rees, “Wood and non-wood pulp production: Comparative ecological footprinting on the Canadian prairies”, Ecological Economics, 62: 552-558, 2007. 46. Michael Knaus, Dirk Löhr, Bernadette O'Regan, “Valuation of ecological impacts — a regional approach using the ecological footprint concept”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26: 156-169, 2006. 47. Miklos T. Nagy et al., “Footprint-adjusted net ecosystem CO2 exchange and carbon balance components of a temperate forest”, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 139: 344-360, 2006. 48. N. Apostolidis, N. Hutton, “Integrated Water Management in brownfield sites — more opportunities than you think”, Desalination, 188: 169-175, 2006. 49. Nick Hanley et al., “Measuring sustainability: A time series of alternative indicators for Scotland”, Ecological Economics, 28: 55-73, 1999. 50. Nicky Chambers, Craig Simmons, Mathis Wackernagel, “Sharing Nature’s Interest: Ecological footprint as an indicator of sustainability”, Earthscan, London, 2000. 51. P. W. Gerbens-Leenes, S. Nonhebel, “Consumption patterns and their effects on land required for food”, Ecological Economics, 42: 185-199, 2002. 52. P. W. Gerbens-Leenes, S. Nonhebel, W. P. M. F. Ivens, “A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patterns”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 90: 47-58, 2002. 53. Peng Li, Guihua Yang, “Ecological footprint study on tourism itinerary products in Shangri-La, Yunnan Province, China”, Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27: 2954-2963, 2007. 54. Qing Huang, Ranghui Wang, Zhiyuan Ren, Jing Li, Huizhi Zhang, “Regional ecological security assessment based on long periods of ecological footprint analysis”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51: 24-41, 2007. 55. R. Akcelik, “Fuel efficiency and other Objectives in Traffic System Management”, Traffic Engineering & Control, 22: 54~65, 1981. 56. Rebecca L. Eaton, Geoffrey P. Hammond, Jane Laurie, “Footprints on the landscape: An environmental appraisal of urban and rural living in the developed world”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83: 13-28, 2007. 57. Sašo Medved, “Present and future ecological footprint of Slovenia—The influence of energy demand scenarios”, Ecological Modelling, 192: 25-36, 2006. 58. Scott D. Wright, Dale A. Lund, “Gray and green?: Stewardship and sustainability in an aging society”, Journal of Aging Studies, 14: 229-249, 2000. 59. Sheng Zhao, Zizhen Li, Wenlong Li, “A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application”, Ecological Modelling, 185: 65-75, 2005. 60. Stefan Gössling et al., “Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability”, Ecological Economics, 43: 199-211, 2002. 61. Thomas J. White, “Sharing resources: The global distribution of the Ecological Footprint”, Ecological Economics, 64: 402-410, 2007. 62. Thomas White, “Diet and the distribution of environmental impact”, Ecological Economics, 34: 145-153, 2000. 63. Thomas Wiedmann et al., “Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis”, Ecological Economics, 56: 28-48, 2006. 64. Trista M. Patterson, Valentina Niccolucci, Simone Bastianoni, “Beyond “more is better”: Ecological footprint accounting for tourism and consumption in Val di Merse, Italy”, Ecological Economics, 62: 747-756, 2007. 65. Victor Olgyay, Julee Herdt, “The application of ecosystems services criteria for green building assessment”, Solar Energy, 77: 389-398, 2004. 66. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W., “Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Gabriola Island, B.C.”, Canada: New Society Publishers, 1996. 67. Wackernagel, M. et al., “Calculating national and global ecological footprint time series:resolving conceptual challenges”, Land Use Policy, 21: 271-279, 2004. 68. Wackernagel, M., “Ecological Footprints of Nations: How Much Nature Do They Use? How Much Nature Do They have?”, Millennium Institute: Ecological Footprint,http:// www/ igc.apc.org/ millennium/ links/ ecolgoot.html,1997. 69. Warren-Rhodes, K. and A. Koening, “Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development”, Ecological Economics, 39: 347-359, 2001. 70. William Rees, Mathis Wackernagel, “Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable—And why they are a key to sustainability”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16: 223-248, 1996. 71. 王之佳等譯,「我們共同的未來」,台灣地球日出版社,民國81年。 72. 王景玫,「結合生命週期評估及生態效益之分析研究-以鋼鐵廠製品為例」,成功大學環境工程所碩士論文,民國94年6月。 73. 王慶瑞,「運輸系統規劃」,正揚出版社,民國90年。 74. 台北市交通局,「台北市交通統計年報」,民國96年。 75. 吳孟芳,「從生態足跡檢視城市生活品質-以台北市士林區為例」,中國文化大學建築及都市計畫所碩士論文,民國95年。 76. 李公哲等,「永續發展導論」,民國87年6月。 77. 李文斌,「生態足跡分析應用於電子產品之研究-以液晶顯示器為例」,台北科技大學環境規劃與管理所碩士論文,民國95年。 78. 李永展,「台灣地區生態足跡量度之研究」,中華民國區域科學學會八十九年度年會,民國88年。 79. 李永展、周加宗,「永續性衡量工具之分析:以台北市環境空間與生態足跡為例」,中華民國區域科學學會八十九年度年會,民國88年。 80. 李永展、陳安琪,「從生態足跡觀點探討台灣的永續發展」,經法社治論叢第二十二期,民國87年。 81. 李欽漢,「農業生態足跡之研究-以台灣地區稻米及農園特產為例」,政治大學地政所博士論文,民國87年。 82. 亞聯工程顧問公司,「台北都會區整體運輸規劃基本資料之調查與驗校(二)」,台北市交通局委託計畫,民國90年。 83. 林志棟、許耀文、莊昀、童文彥,「配合營建產業需求之生命週期簡化評估研究」,第七屆鋪面材料再生學術研討會,民國95年10月。 84. 林豐博等,「2001年台灣地區公路容量手冊」,交通部運輸研究所,民國90年。 85. 范振基,「農產生態足跡估算方法的改善-永續農業假設的刪除與實體單位計算」,台北大學資源管理所碩士論文,民國90年。 86. 凌瑞賢,「運輸規劃原理與實務」,鼎漢國際工程顧問股份有限公司,民國95年。 87. 徐瑚鎂,「交通生態足跡分析法之研究」,台灣大學土木工程所碩士論文,民國92年6月。 88. 張資瑋,「能源效率導向之運輸系統規劃模式之研究」,台灣大學土木工程所碩士論文,民國94年6月。 89. 許銘傑,「台灣二氧化碳生態足跡及產業二氧化碳減量之經濟及生態效益」,台北科技大學環境規劃與管理所碩士論文,民國93年。 90. 陳政遠,「生態足跡理論應用於產品環境衝擊之研究—污染換算模式建立」,南華大學環境管理所碩士論文,民國93年。 91. 陳昱豪,「油品成分對機車引擎排放揮發性有機物之影響」,台灣大學環境工程所碩士論文,民國95年7月。 92. 陳皇任,「綠島生態旅遊永續經營之研究—生態足跡法」,台灣海洋大學應用經濟所碩士論文,民國94年。 93. 陳進田,「以生態足跡法及DEA法探討製造業的生態效益及生產效率」,長庚大學企業管理所碩士論文,民國89年。 94. 楊恩,「緊密都市之永續性分析」,台北大學都市計劃所碩士論文,民國93年6月。 95. 經濟部能源局,「台灣能源統計手冊」,民國96年。 96. 葉佳宗,「以生態足跡觀點探討台灣農業土地資源之保育」,中興大學資源管理所碩士論文,民國86年。 97. 鄒兩余,「以生態足跡探討森林永續發展」,屏東科技大學森林所碩士論文,民國95年。 98. 劉彥蘭,「1990~2003年台灣能源生態足跡推估與能源效益分析研究」,台灣大學地理環境資源所碩士論文,民國93年。 99. 劉彥蘭等,「全球環經社綜合評估指標系統综述」,全球變遷通訊雜誌第43期,pp25-32,民國93年9月。 100. 蔡昀璋,「以生態足跡模式評估大學校園環境永續性之研究」,高雄大學都市發展與建築所碩士論文,民國94年。 101. 鄭春發,「容受力與都市永續性發展之研究─以台北都會區作個案研究」,中興大學都市計劃所碩士論文,民國84年。 102. 謝又民,「產品環保性評估之研究-建構環境衝擊之生態足跡換算機制」,南華大學環境管理所碩士論文,民國91年。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/40902 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 運輸效率的提升帶動經濟發展與成長,然而私人運具大量使用將產生空氣污染、能源過度消耗、溫室效應、交通擁擠等問題。人類在追求經濟效益同時,常忽略對自然與生態的侵略,導致資源過度消耗,影響人類以外之其他物種,威脅其生存空間與資源。為了降低交通對自然與環境之衝擊,本研究將以「生態」的角度重新思考運輸規劃之程序。
生態足跡理論之概念以累加環境衝擊的方式,估算供養人類所需之生物物理資源,以及吸收廢棄物所需之儲存地面積。本研究將應用生態足跡理論結合逐次分派法建構生態足跡交通分派模式,探討人們在從事運輸行為時,對環境所產生的負荷。分別針對公車、計程車、小汽車、機車等運具估算其生態足跡,主要分為延滯之生態足跡與單位距離之生態足跡,藉此可推估各運具之路網生態足跡與路段生態足跡。 在旅行時間法與生態足跡法之交通分派模式比較部份,旅行時間法之整體路網總生態足跡較小,但此法將會造成特定路段生態足跡集中之現象,考慮各路段生態足跡之公平分配性,生態足跡法將有較佳之結果。此外在不同政策下,公車運量分配比例愈高,其路網總生態足跡愈低,因此鼓勵民眾使用大眾運輸之政策有助於減少運輸行為對環境之負面衝擊。在台北市路網生態足跡部分,各運具所佔比例分別為小汽車(58.1%)、機車(22.4%)、公車(10.2%)、計程車(9.3%),最大為最小之6.25倍;在各路段總生態足跡部份,以大同-中正-重慶北路最大,內湖-南港-成功路最小,最大為最小之8.75倍。在單位旅次使用各運具所產生之生態足跡中,最大的小汽車為最小的公車之5.07倍,因此相較於小汽車之高生態足跡運具,公車等大眾運輸工具對於邁向永續運輸將會有較佳之效果。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Promotion of transportation efficiency brings economic development. However, heavy private mode use will cause some problems like air pollution, energy overuse, greenhouse effect and traffic jam. As people pursuing economic benefit, they always ignore the aggression that will cause resource overuse upon nature and ecology. The aggression will affect other species and threaten their lebensraum and resource. In order to reduce the shock from traffic to natural environment, this research will rethink the procedure of transportation planning in terms of “ecology”.
The concept of ecological footprint(EF) theory is the sum of resource consumption and waste absorption transformed on the basis of the biologically productive land area required by a defined population. This paper will apply ecological footprint theory integrating incremental assignment method to constructing Ecological Footprint Traffic Assignment Model(EFTAM). And use the model to discuss the impact of people who are traveling on environment. Moreover, the network EF and roadway EF of bus, taxi, car and motorcycle were calculated and analyzed based on delay EF and unit distance EF. In comparison of travel time method and EF method traffic assignment, the whole network EF of travel time method is smaller than EF method. However, travel time method will make a phenomenon of EF concentrating on specific roadway. In consideration of fairly distributing EF over each roadway, EF method will have a better effect. Besides, in different policies, the higher proportion of mode split of bus, the lower whole network EF. Hence, it will be helpful to reduce shock from traffic to natural environment by encouraging people to use public transit like bus. Regarding the whole network EF in Taipei, it was found that the percentage of car is 58.1%, motorcycle is 22.4%k, bus is 10.2% and taxi is 9.3%. The car is 6.25 times of the bus in the percentage of whole network EF. Concerning the roadway EF in Taipei, the ChongQing N.Rd. connecting Datong District and Zhongzheng District is 8.75 times of the Chenggong Rd. connecting Neihu District and Nangang District. About EF of each mode per trip, the car biggest one is 5.07 times of the bus smallest one. Accordingly, comparing the car being a high EF mode, the public transit like bus will have a better effect on reaching the goal of sustainable transport. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-14T17:05:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R95521502-1.pdf: 3567015 bytes, checksum: fd8092a1fcd3fb4252867d5a1b670613 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1 1.2 研究目的 2 1.3 研究內容 2 1.4 研究範圍 3 1.5研究流程 3 第二章 文獻回顧 5 2.1 永續發展評估工具 5 2.1.1 永續性指標(Sustainable Indicators) 5 2.1.2 環境空間(Environmental Space) 6 2.1.3 生命週期分析(Life Cycle Analysis, LCA) 7 2.1.4 生態效率分析(Eco-Efficiency Analysis) 7 2.1.5 生態足跡(Ecological Footprint) 9 2.1.6 小結 11 2.2 生態足跡相關文獻 13 2.2.1 生態足跡理論基礎 13 2.2.2 生態足跡計算方法 15 2.2.3 生態足跡相關應用 17 第三章 生態足跡與運輸規劃之關聯 36 3.1 生態足跡與旅次發生之關聯 36 3.1.1 旅次發生模式 36 3.1.2 旅次發生對生態足跡之影響 39 3.2 生態足跡與旅次分佈之關聯 39 3.2.1 旅次分佈模式 39 3.2.2 旅次分佈對生態足跡之影響 40 3.3 生態足跡與運具分配之關聯 40 3.3.1 運具分配模式 40 3.3.2 運具分配對生態足跡之影響 41 第四章 生態足跡交通分派模式之建構 42 4.1 模式之理論架構 42 4.1.1 逐次分派法 42 4.1.2 交通生態足跡 43 4.1.3 生態足跡交通分派模式 46 4.2 計算方式與推估項目之說明 47 第五章 模式案例應用說明 57 5.1 案例都市背景與資料 57 5.2 人口及產業分佈預測 60 5.3 旅次發生預測 61 5.4 旅次分佈預測 61 5.5 運量分配預測 62 5.6 旅行時間與生態足跡之交通分派 63 5.7 旅行時間與生態足跡交通分派之比較分析 63 5.8 改善策略 72 5.8.1 供給面策略 72 5.8.2 需求面策略 76 5.8.3 其它策略 85 5.8.4 小結 89 第六章 台北市之模式應用分析 91 6.1 台北市相關資料 91 6.2 模式之應用分析 96 6.3 小結 101 第七章 結論與建議 102 7.1 結論 102 7.2 建議 103 參考文獻: 104 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 永續運輸 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 生態足跡 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 交通分派 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 運輸規劃 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 逐次分派法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Ecological Footprint | en |
| dc.subject | Sustainable Transport | en |
| dc.subject | Incremental Assignment Method | en |
| dc.subject | Transportation Planning | en |
| dc.subject | Traffic Assignment | en |
| dc.title | 生態足跡理論應用於運輸規劃之研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study of Applying Ecological Footprint Theory to Transportation Planning | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 卓訓榮,馮正民 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 生態足跡,交通分派,運輸規劃,逐次分派法,永續運輸, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Ecological Footprint,Traffic Assignment,Transportation Planning,Incremental Assignment Method,Sustainable Transport, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 110 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2008-07-29 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 土木工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 土木工程學系 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-97-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 3.48 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
