請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88769
標題: | 建構循環度績效指數分析廢棄物管理循環現況及潛力 Measuring circularity potential of waste management practice using the Circularity Performance Index |
作者: | 楊智凱 Chih-Kai Yang |
指導教授: | 馬鴻文 Hwong-Wen Ma |
關鍵字: | 循環經濟,廢棄物管理,績效指標,循環度,永續發展, circular economy,waste management,performance indicator,circularity,sustainable development, |
出版年 : | 2023 |
學位: | 博士 |
摘要: | 循環經濟 (Circular Economy, CE) 的全球迅速普及,反映出生產體系積極擺脫 「開採-製造-廢棄 (take-make-waste)」的線性經濟模式,而轉向追求資源效能及附加價值的最大化。從工業廢棄物管理的角度,這反映出從以提升回收率為主的「擴大回收產業」目標,轉型為追求永續資源循環,以達到「廢棄物為資源」的零廢棄目標。而有效的績效管理,是達到上述轉型所不可或缺的重要關鍵。
然而,文獻顯示既有工業廢棄物管理績效評估有諸多問題與挑戰,例如過度依賴「回收率」、缺乏具備全面性的永續評估模式、可供績效評估之廢棄物管理資料有限、無法提供產業的深入洞察、無法提供政策制定所要的發展趨勢、以及在不同時空尺度下的應用性等。 為解決上述問題,本研究提出了「循環度績效 (Circularity Performance)」的概念,用以評估工業廢棄物管理的循環經濟轉型。循環度績效主要基於下面的方程式 循環度績效(CP) = 回收率(recycling rate, R) * 回收循環度 (recycling circularity, RC) 上述方程式將工業廢棄物管理的循環度定義為數量 (回收率) 及品質 (回收循環度) 的綜效。新建立的指標「回收循環度」代表了廢棄物再利用的相關效率。其計算方式採用一般的工業廢棄物管理資料,透過新建立的「循環等級 (Circularity level)」概念,以廢棄物層級 (Waste Hierarchy)、價格及循環性 (loop)等三個面向進行環境、經濟及社會面相的優選後,將其量化。 本研究以「循環度績效」為基礎,建立了兩種不同的指數系統。「循環度績效指數(Circularity Performance Index, CPI)」主要用於定期的年度廢物管理績效評估,並可進行跨產業的績效比較。而「動態循環度績效指數(DCPI)」設計為以協助政策成效分析及制定為目標,可提供反映產業特性的較深入分析及時間序列的發展趨勢分析。 本研究透過兩個個案分析,針對兩個指數系統實際應用性的驗證。案例一以國內27個製造業部門為對象,進行2021年度廢棄物管理績效的評估,以示範其在國家和產業層級的適用性。結果顯示與過去僅以「回收率」做為評估指標的結果有很大的差異。「回收率」及「回收循環度」兩個指標的關聯性低,因此有高「回收率」的部門,由於低「回收循環度」而在整體「循環度績效」表現不佳。驗證了依賴「回收率」做為績效指標的局限性,同時強也反映出再利用效率對於整體循環度提升的重要性。此外,結果也反映出了部份影響廢棄物再利用決策的外部因素,例如廢棄物成分、費用、市場需求及處理技術可及性等。 案例二以國內醫療廢棄物為對象,以DCPI分析2014年至2021年的醫療廢棄物(僅包括醫院及診所)管理績效。結果也同樣反應出基於「回收率」進行績效評估的侷限性。例如2019年至2020年間,回收率由33.12% 下跌至僅12.2%,似乎反映出管理績效的下滑。然而,「回收循環度」及實質「循環度績效」顯示同期除了回收效率維持同等水平,其實際回收量也有所增加。也反映出在COVID-19 造成的極端醫療廢棄物產量暴增327%的情況下,不適合單以「回收率」作為績效指標。在「公告應回收或再利用廢棄物(R類)」醫療廢棄物的評估結果顯示,該類別在評估期間的「回收率顯著增長」,但若納入「循環度績效」及「回收循環性」的考量,則會發現整體回收效率下跌的情形。除了從數據上反映出績效的變化,研究結果也顯示出了幾個影響醫療產業循環轉型的獨特現象,包括監管控制、一次性使用、廢棄物的危害性、廢棄物分類方式、政策誘因和回收量能。 本評估模式仍有許多可進一步發展之潛力,包括擴大廢棄物生命週期的涵蓋及改善「回收循環度」量化模式等。可提升工業廢棄物管理績效評估,以協助產業的循環轉型。 The rapid global adoption of the circular economy (CE) concept signifies a paradigm shift in the global production system, promoting a transition away from the linear “take-make-waste” model towards maximizing resource intensity and value addition. For industrial waste management, the transition has led to a shift from quantity driven concept focusing on “expansion of recycling industry” to the pursuit of optimal resource recovery quality through achieving “waste as resource”. Existing literatures highlights various issues and challenges in the existing industrial WM performance assessment practice, such as the over dependance on the conventional indicator “recycling rate”; the lack of a holistic sustainability assessment approach; limited waste management data available for performance assessment; inability to provide industry-specific insights; limited ability to reveal development trends for policy formulation; and application challenges across spatial and temporal levels. To address the aforementioned challenges, this research proposes the “circularity performance” concept for assessing the CE transition of waste management practice. The concept is based on a simple equation of Circularity performance (Cp) = Recycling rate (R) * Recycling circularity (Rc) This equation defines circularity performance for industrial waste management as the product of quantity (recycling rate) and quality (recycling circularity). The newly introduced indicator “recycling circularity” represents the relative recycling efficiency of waste recycling processes. Quantification of “recycling circularity” utilizes standard industrial waste management data is made possible through a novel approach named “circularity level” concept, which allows for integrated assessment from environmental, economic and social perspectives. Two index systems are established based on this concept. The Circularity Performance Index (CPI) is designed for regular annual WM performance assessment and enables inter-sectoral performance comparison. On the other hand, the Dynamic Circularity Performance Index (DCPI) is tailored to support policy formulation by providing industry-specific insights and development trend over a defined timeframe. To demonstrate the feasibility of the two index systems, two case studies were conducted. The first case study assesses 27 manufacturing sectors in 2021 using the CPI to illustrate its applicability at national and sectoral levels. The result differs significantly from assessment using only “recycling rate” alone with sectors having high recycling rates performing poorly in overall CPI due to low recycling circularity, and vice versa. This outcome has several significant implications. The weak correlation between “recycling rate” and “recycling circularity” aligns with the observed limitation of assessing through “recycling rate” alone, while underscoring the importance of considering the quality of recycling process. In addition, the result reveals the potential impact of various factors influencing waste recycling decision, such as waste composition, cost, market demand and technology availability. The second case study examines Taiwan’s medical waste management performance from 2014 to 2021 using DCPI. Again, result shows the limitation of performance assessment by “recycling rate” alone. For example, the significant decline in the recycling rate from 33.12% to only 12.2% between 2019 and 2020 might be interpret as a decline in environmental performance. However, the increase in both overall recycling efficiency and total volume of waste recycled, as demonstrated by CPI and DCPI reveals a well-maintained resource recovery performance in coping with the surge in total waste generation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, while the “recyclable waste’ category shows a significant improvement in “recycling rate” over the assessment period, the “recycling circularity” results highlight a degradation in recycling quality. The synergy between the newly introduced indicators reveals several unique phenomena influencing the CE transition of the medical industry, including regulatory control, the single-use mindset, hazardous nature of the waste, the classification of waste, policy incentives, and recycling capacity. Further improvement can be made to expand the coverage to all life cycle stages and refine the method for determining the relative recycling circularity of treatment performance. Such advancements can enhance waste management performance assessment and contribute to the development of effective CE transition strategies and policies. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88769 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202303100 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(全球公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 環境工程學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf | 2.17 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。