請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/56487完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張學孔(S.K. Jason Chang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ta-Yen Tang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 唐達言 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T05:31:01Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2015-08-21 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2014-08-21 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2014-08-13 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. Adams, H.S. et al., (2001). Assessment of road users’ elemental carbon personal exposure levels, London, UK, Atmospheric Environment, 36:5335–5342.
2. Ainsworth, B.E. et al., (2010). Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32:S498–504. 3. Anderson, L.B. et al., (2000). All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, work, sports, and cycling to work, Archives of Internal Medicine, 160:1621–1628. 4. Bauman, A.E., (2004). Updating the evidence that physical activity is good for health: an epidemiological review, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7:6–19. 5. Boogaard, H., (2009). Exposure to ultrafine and fine particles and noise during cycling and driving in 11 Dutch cities, Atmospheric Environment, 43:4234–4242. 6. Bucksch, J. and Schlicht, W., (2006). Health-enhancing physical activity and the prevention of chronic diseases—an epidemiological review, Sozial und Praventivmedizin, 51:281–301. 7. Caspersen, C.J. et al., (1985). Phsical activeity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research, Public Health Reports, 100, 126-131. 8. Cavill, N. et al., (2006). Physical Activity and Health in Europe: Evidence for Action, WHO Regional Office for Europe. 9. Cavill, N. and Davis, A., (2007). Cycling and Health What’s the evidence, cycling England. 10. de Hartog. J.J. et al., (2010), Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risk?, Environ Health Perspect, 118:1109–1116. 11. Foster, C., (2000). Guidelines for health-enhancing physical activity promotion programmes. The European Network for the Promotion of Health-Enhancing Physical Activity. 12. Hu, G. et al., (2004). Occupational, commuting, and leisure-time physical activity in relation to total and cardiovascular mortality among Finnish subjects with type 2 diabetes. Circulation, 110:666–673. 13. Institute for Transporatation & Development Policy, (2013). The Bike-Share Panning Guide. 14. Jacobsen, P.L., (2003). Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention, 9:205–209. 15. Kahlmeier, S. et al., (2010). “Health in All Policies” in Practice: Guidance and Tools to Quantifying the Health Effects of Cycling and Walking, Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7(Suppl 1), S120-S125. 16. Kaur, S. et al., (2007). Fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide exposure concentrations in urban street transport microenvironments. Atmospheric Environment, 41:4781–4810. 17. Kesaniemi, Y.K. et al., (2001). Dose-response issues concerning physical activity and health: an evidence-based symposium, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33:S351–S358. 18. Lee, I.M and Skerrett, P.J., (2001). Physical activity and all-cause mortality: what is the dose-response relation?, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33:S459–S471, S493–S494. 19. Matthews, C.E. et al., (2007). Influence of exercise, walking, cycling, and overall nonexercise physical activity on mortality in Chinese women, American Journal of Epidemiology, 165:1343–1350. 20. Pope, C.A. et al., (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132–1141. 21. Rabl, A. and de Nazelle, A., (2012). Benefits of shift from car to active transport, TransportPolicy, 19, 121–131. 22. Rojas-Rueda, D. et al., (2011). The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impactassessment study, British Medical Journal, 2011;343:d4521 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4521 23. Rutter, H. et al., (2011). Health economic assessment tool for cycling (HEAT for cycling). Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe. 24. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, (1998). Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. 25. van Wijnen, J.H. et al., (1995). The exposure of cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians to traffic-related air pollutants, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 67:187–193. 26. Woodcock, J. et al., (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport, Lancet, 2009, 374:1930–1943. 27. Woodcock, J. et al., (2013). Health Impact Modelling of Active Travel Visions for England and Wales Using an Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modelling Tool (ITHIM), PLOS ONE, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051462 28. Woodcock, J. et al., (2014). Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system:health impact modelling study, British Medical Journal, 348:g425 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g425 29. World Health Organiztion, (2005). WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogendioxide and sulfur dioxide, Copenhagen:WHO Regional Office for Europe. 30. World Health Organization, (2009). Global recommendations on physical activity for health, World Health Organization. 31. Zuurbier, M. et al., (2009). Minute ventilation of cyclists, car and bus passengers: an experimental study, Environmental Health, 8:48; doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-48. 32. European Cyclist’s Federation (2014), http://www.ecf.com/ 33. Healthe Economic Assesment Tool (2014), http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/ 34. WHO Regional Office for Europe (2014), http://www.euro.who.int/en/home 35. 36. 交通部 (2012),「綠運輸政策白皮書」。 37. 周榮昌等人 (2012),「道路事故交通成本研究」,交通部運輸研究所。 38. 吳怡和 (2005),「台北市通勤者暴露於次微米微粒、細微例、粗微粒與一氧化碳之研究」,臺灣大學職業醫學與工業衛生研究所碩士論文。 39. 陳錏萱 (2013),「都市公共自行車系統評鑑制度之研究」,臺灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。 40. 許添本等人 (2013),「智慧化號誌路口自行車交通管理策略之研究」,交通部運輸研究所。 41. 蔡政鴻 (2010),「自行車速度與橫向間距影響因素之探討」,交通大學運輸科技管理學系碩士論文。 42. 台北市YouBike公共自行車 (2014),http://www.youbike.com.tw/ 。 43. 高雄市公共腳踏車資訊網 (2014),http://www.c-bike.com.tw/ 。 44. 台北市統計資料庫查詢系統 (2014),http://163.29.37.101/pxweb2007-tp/dialog/statfile9.asp 。 45. 高雄市重要市政統計資料庫 (2014), http://kcgdg.kcg.gov.tw/pxweb2007p/dialog/treelist/folder.htm 。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/56487 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 近年來,為求減緩全球暖化及能源危機等重大環境問題,「永續發展」已成為世界各國都市交通的重要政策。永續交通政策中,「公共自行車系統」(Public Bike System)或稱「自行車共享系統」(Bike-Share System)已成為許多國家追求改善交通環境、降低空氣汙染及碳排之重要建設目標。公共自行車系統除了作為服務旅次需求之運具外,對於環境保護層面,有降低汙染、減少碳排及能耗的效益;對於都市交通,公共自行車能替代機動運具,改善道路壅塞並提升城市形象;而對於使用者而言,使用者在以自行車滿足旅運需求的同時,騎乘自行車之身體活動(Physical activity)對於健康也有相當大的正面效益,而此健康效益不僅能使個人生活品質提升、減少心血管疾病發病率、降低死亡率,甚至提升心理健康,對於整個社會也會帶來相當大的經濟效益。
我國公共自行車使用也日益盛行,台北市與高雄市之公共自行車系統皆有相當出色之營運規模,民眾使用率亦逐年提升,新北、台中、彰化、台南、新竹等城市也都陸續推出公共自行車系統。本研究之目的即在建立公共自行車系統之健康經濟效益評估模式,評估公共自行車使用者於都市中騎乘時所獲得之健康效益而減少之死亡率相對風險,同時也考慮暴露於空氣汙染懸浮微粒之健康風險而增加之死亡率風險,並以此推算社會整體獲得之康經濟效益。 本研究應用所建模式針對台北市與高雄市進行案例分析,研究顯示台北市與高雄市之公共自行車使用,於騎乘時所獲得之身體活動健康效益皆大於暴露於空氣汙染懸浮微粒之健康風險。本研究以情境假設,探討不同環境條件與騎乘程度對使用者健康效益與風險之影響。研究所建立之評估模式與實證結果將有助於決策者及營運業者規劃評估公共自行車之參考。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In recent years, in order to mitigate significant environmental issues, such as global warming and the energy crisis, 'Sustainable Development' has become an important transportation policy for many metropolises all around the world.
Among various sustainable transportation policies, the Public Bike System or so call Bike-Share System has become the important transportation infrastructure in many countries for improving traffic environment, reducing traffic pollution and carbon emissions. Public bike system can not only serve the demand of transportation, but also benefits our society environmentally and our healthiness as well. Many researches indicate that those who regularly do cycling, could gain tremendous health benefits form reducing risk of developing cardiovascular diseases and decreasing mortality rates, and help to improve mental health as well. And, those health benefits to our bodies could also become great economic benefits to our society. In Taiwan, the trend of cycling has gone widely nowadays. The Public Bike systems in Taipei City and Kaohsiung City both have remarkable operation scale and usage. And now, New Taipei city, Taichung, Changsha, Tainan and Hsinchu are all starting their urban public bike system plan. The purpose of this study is to establish a health economic assessment model for our urban public bicycle system by assessing both the health benefits from the regularly physical activity and the heath impact from air pollutions exposures during cycling with relative risk in all-cause mortality. This study used the model to assess the public bike system both in Taipei and Kaohsiung. The result shows that the cyclist both in Taipei and Kaohsiung could gain more health benefits then health impacts during cycling. And also, compare to those who don’t do cycling, cyclist would have lower relative risk of mortality. This study discuss the health benefit and impact under different environment and cycling scenarios. Hope this model and the results of assessment could be the reference for policy makers and operators. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T05:31:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R01521505-1.pdf: 1648646 bytes, checksum: 576712bc48b03b890f2d7487025ed62a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
誌謝 II 摘要 IV Abstract V 圖 目 錄 III 表 目 錄 IV 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 研究目的 3 1.3 研究範圍與對象 3 1.4研究方法 4 1.5 研究內容與流程 4 第二章 文獻回顧 7 2.1 自行車行為之健康效益與風險 7 2.1.1 身體活動之健康效益 7 2.1.2 暴露於空氣汙染之健康風險 12 2.1.3 暴露於交通事故之意外風險 14 2.2 國外自行車行為之公共健康評估模式與案例 17 2.2.1 Health economic assessment tool (HEAT) for Cycling & Walking 17 2.2.2 各國評估案例 23 2.3 文獻回顧小結 35 第三章 評估模式構建 37 3.2 模式基本假設 40 3.3 符號說明 41 3.3 公共自行車系統健康經濟效益評估模式建構 43 3.3.1 公共自行車系統使用者騎乘資料分析 43 3.3.2 身體活動健康效益與暴露空氣污染健康風險評估 44 3.3.3 整體使用者健康經濟效益評估 46 第四章 案例分析與評估 47 4.1 台北市Youbike公共自行車系統分析與評估 47 4.1.1台北市Youbike公共自行車系統2013年8月營運資料 47 4.1.2台北市Youbike公共自行車系統2013年10月營運資料。 53 4.2 高雄市C-Bike公共自行車系統分析與評估 58 4.2.1 高雄市C-Bike公共自行車系統2013年8月營運資料 58 4.2.2 高雄市C-Bike公共自行車系統2013年10月營運資料 63 4.3 案例評估結果綜合分析 69 第五章 情境假設與敏感度分析 71 5.1 情境假設概述 71 5.2 情境評估分析 72 5.2.1 台北市YouBike系統10月案例之各情境數值設定與評估結果 72 5.3 敏感度分析 74 5.3.1 敏感度分析-日騎乘時數 75 5.3.2 敏感度分析-最近監測站PM2.5濃度 76 5.3.3 敏感度分析-背景監測站PM2.5濃度 78 5.3.4 敏感度分析-使用者會員人數 79 第六章 結論與建議 81 6.1 結論 81 6.2 建議 83 參考文獻 84 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 公共自行車系統 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 健康經濟 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 死亡率相對風險 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | PM2.5細懸浮微粒 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 空氣污染暴露 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Relative Risk (RR) in All-cause Mortality | en |
| dc.subject | Public Bicycle system | en |
| dc.subject | Air Pollution Exposures | en |
| dc.subject | Health Economic | en |
| dc.subject | PM2.5 (Particulate matter) | en |
| dc.title | 都市公共自行車系統之健康經濟效益評估 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Health Benefit Assessment for Urban Public Bicycle System | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 102-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 詹長權(Chang-Chuan Chan),張馨文(Hsin-Wen Chang),白仁德(Jen-Te Pai) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 公共自行車系統,健康經濟,死亡率相對風險,PM2.5細懸浮微粒,空氣污染暴露, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Public Bicycle system,Health Economic,Relative Risk (RR) in All-cause Mortality,PM2.5 (Particulate matter),Air Pollution Exposures, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 88 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2014-08-14 | |
| 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-103-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.61 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。
