請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60586
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 馬鴻文 | |
dc.contributor.author | Chia-Wei Chao | en |
dc.contributor.author | 趙家緯 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T10:22:30Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-08-26 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-08-26 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-08-16 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1. Ackerman F., M. Ishikawa and M. Suga. 2007. The carbon content of Japan–US trade. Energy Policy 35: 4455–4462.
2. Bare J., G. Norris, DW. Pennington and T. McKone. 2003. TRACI—the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6(3&4):49-78. 3. Bare, J. 2011. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technology Environmental Policy 13(5):687–696. 4. Bassi, A. 2012. Personal communication with A. Bassi, Comments on “Incorporating the Green Economy concept into the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions in Taiwan”. 27, July, 2012. 5. Bassi, A. and M. Pedercini. 2011. Modelling global green investment scenarios. Supporting the transition to a global green economy. In Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication publish by UNEP. ISBN: 978-92-807-3143-9. 6. BERR, Impact assessment guidance, http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file44544.pdf 7. Bickel, P. and R. Friedrich. 2005. ExternE: Externalities of energy methodology 2005 update. Brusells: European Communities. 8. Bouwman, A.F., T. Kram, and K. Goldewijk. 2006. Integrated Modelling of Global Environmental Change. An Overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 9. Brundtland, G.1987. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 10. Caldwell, L.K., 1998. Implementing policy through procedure: impact assessment and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In: Porter, A.L. and Fittipaldi, J.J., Editors, 1998. Environmental methods review: retooling impact assessment for the new century, The Press Club, Fargo, ND, USA, pp. 8–14. 11. Caldwell, L.K.1963. Environment: A New Focus for Public Policy, Public Administration Review 23(2): 132-143. 12. Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. 2011. Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) model http://www.eiolca.net/ Accessed 30 May, 2011. 13. Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. 2011. Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) model http://www.eiolca.net/ Accessed 30 May, 2011. 14. Chaker, A., K. El-Fadl, L.Chamas and B. Hatjian. 2006. A review of strategic environmental assessment in 12 selected countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 26:15-56. 15. Climate Earth. 2011. Comprehensive Environmental Data Archive for Economic and Environmental Systems Analysis: Academic Version. (CEDA 4.6 Academic). www.climateearth.com/subscriptions_to_data.shtml. Accessed November 2011. 16. Davies, SJ. and K. Caldeira.2010. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 5687- 5692. 17. Dreyer, L., A. Niemann and M. Hauschild. 2003. Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and eco-indicator 99: does it matter which you choose. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8:191–200. 18. EUREPA. 2011. https://www.eureapa.net/. Accessed January 2012. 19. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability.2010. General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment– Detailed Guide. Available at http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-Generalguide-for-LCA-DETAIL-online-12March2010.pdf. 20. European Commission. 1998. Communication from the Commission to the European Council - Partnership for integration - A strategy for Integrating Environment into EU Policies - Cardiff - June 1998 21. European Commission. 2003. External Costs- Research results on Socio-Environmental Damages Due to Electricity and Transport. Brusells: European Communities. 22. European Commission. 2006. Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/122363.htm 23. European Commission. 2009a. Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines. European Commission. SEC(2009) 92. http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf 24. European Commission. 2009b. GDP and beyond. Measuring progress in a changing world. Brussels, 20.8.2009 COM(2009) 433 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0433:FIN:EN:PDF Accessed May 2010. 25. European Environment Agency Glossary http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/EEAGlossary/I/integrated_environmental_assessment 26. European Environment Agency. 2005. Environmental policy integration in Europe-State of play and an evaluation framework, EEA Technical report No 2/2005 27. European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment (EFIEA) www.efiea.org/ 28. Eurostat. 2011. Emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants induced by final use of products, by place of origin results from environmental input-output analysis. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environment/data/database Accessed May 2011. 29. Eurostat. 2011. Input-output table for domestic output at current prices, 60 branches - EU aggregates . http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/esa95_supply_use_input_tables/data/database Accessed May 2011. 30. EUSES. 2010. http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/euses/. Accessed 22 Mar 2013 31. EXIOBASE. 2011. http://www.exiobase.eu/. Accessed January 2012. 32. Feng, K., SJ. Davis, L. Sun, X. Li, D. Guan, W. Liu, Z. Liu, and K. Hubacek.2013. Outsourcing CO2 within China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: 11654–11659. 33. Frey, H. and M. Small. 2003. Integrated environmental assessment, Part I: Estimating emissions. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7(1): 9–11. 34. Frischknecht, R, R. Steiner and N. Jungbluth. 2009. The Ecological Scarcity Method - Eco-Factors : A method for impact assessment in LCA. Federal Office for the Environment FOEN: Zürich und Bern. Retrieved from www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01031/index.html?lang=en 35. Geschke A, M. Lenzen, K. Kanemoto and D. Moran. 2011. AISHA: A tool to construct a series of contingency tables, 19th International Input-Output Conference, Alexandria, VA, USA, June 2011. 36. Goedkoop M.J., R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, A. De Schryver; J. Struijs, and R. Van Zelm.2009. ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation. VROM, Den Haag, The Netherlands. 6 January 2009. http://www.lcia-recipe.net 37. Goedkoop, M. and R.Spriensma. 1999. The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle assessment. Methodology report. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, Netherlands. 38. GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project). 2009. www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu. Accessed May. 2011. 39. Guinée JB (ed), M. Gorrée, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, R. Kleijn, A. de Koning, L. van Oers, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, S. Suh, H. Udo de Haes, J. de Bruijn, R. van Duin and M. Huijbregts. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. ISBN 1-4020-0557-1. 40. Guinée, J., R. Heijungs, G.Huppes, A. Zamagni, P. Masoni, R. Buonamici, T. Ekvall and T. Rydberg. 2011.Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future. Environmental Science and Technology 45 (1): 90-96. 41. Hauschild, M. and J. Potting. 2005. Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment — the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental News no. 80. The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen. 42. Hauschild, M., M. Goedkoop,J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, M. Huijbregts, O. Jolliet, M. Margni, A. Schrijver, S. Humbert, A. Laurent, S. Sala and R. Pant. 2013. Identifying best existing practice for characterization modelling in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18 (3): 683-697. 43. Hendrickson, C., L. Lave, and H. Matthews. 2006. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input-Output Approach. Resources for the Future. 44. Hertwich E. and G. Peters. 2009. Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science and Technology 43(16):6414–6420. 45. Hofstetter, P. 1998. Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment; A Structured Approach to Combine Models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherland. 46. International Standards Organization (ISO). 2006. ISO 14040: environmental management — life cycle assessment — principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006(E),International Standards Organization. 47. IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. 48. Itsubo, N. and Inaba, A. 2006. Development of LIME2 – Updated Comprehensive Japan LCIA Methodology. 7th international conference on EcoBalance, Nov 14~16. Tsukuba, Japan. 49. Itsubo, N. and Inaba, A., 2003. A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed.Int. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8(5): 305. 50. Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Earthscan Publications Ltd 51. Jolliet ,O., M. Margni, R. Charles, S. Humbert, J. Payet, G. Rebitzer, R. Rosenbaum.2003. IMPACT 2002+: A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10 (6):324-330. 52. Jolliet, O. and M. Small. 2010. Integrated Environmental Assessment, Part IV Human Health Risk Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 14(2): 188–191. 53. Kissinger, M. and W.Rees. 2010. An interregional ecological approach for modeling sustainability in a globalizing world - Reviewing existing approaches and emerging directions. Ecological Modelling 221: 2615–2623. 54. Kleijn, R. van der Voet, E. and H. Udo de Haes. 2008. The need for combining IEA and IE tools: The potential effects of a global ban on PVC on climate change. Ecological Economics, 65 (2): 266-281. 55. Koornneef J., A. Faaij and W. Turkenburg. 2007. The screening and scoping of Environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment of carbon capture and storage in the Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, 392-414. 56. Lenzen, M. 2001. Errors in Conventional and Input-Output-based Life-Cycle Inventories. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(4): 127-148. 57. Lenzen, M., R. Wood and T. Wiedmann. 2010. Uncertainty analysis for Multi-Region Input-Output Models a -case study of the UK ’ s carbon footprint. Economic Systems Research 22 (1): 43- 63. 58. Leontief, W. 1970. Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input-output approach. Review of Economics and Statistics 52(3), 262-271. 59. Liu X., M. Ishikawa, C. Wang, Y. Dong and W. Liu. 2010. Analyses of CO2 emissions embodied in Japan–China trade. Energy Policy 38(3): 1510-1518 60. McDougall F., P. White, M. Franke, P. Hindle. 2001. Integrated Solid Waste Management: a Life Cycle Inventory. Blackwell Publishing. 61. McKone, T. and M. Small. 2007. Integrated Environmental Assessment, Part III: Exposure Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(1):4–7. 62. Miller, R. and P. Blair. 2009. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. 63. Monkhouse, C. and A. Farmer. 2003. Applying Integrated Environmental Assessment to EU Waste Policy. Scoping Paper for the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. 64. Mukhopadhyay K. and P. Thomassin. 2007. Impact of East-Asian Free Trade on the Environment- an Exercise with GTAP modeling. 16th International Input-Output Conference, Istanbul, Turkey July 2-7. 65. Mutel, C. and S. Hellweg. 2009. Regionalized life cycle assessment: computational methodology and application to inventory databases. Environmental Science and Technology 43(15): 5797-803. 66. Nansai, K., Y. Moriguchi and N. Suzuki. 2005. Site-Dependent Life-Cycle Analysis by the SAME Approach: Its Concept, Usefulness, and Application to the Calculation of Embodied Impact Intensity by Means of an Input-Output Analysis. Environmental Science and Technology 39 (18): 7318−7328. 67. NEEDS:New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability http://www.needs-project.org/ 68. Nilsson M., A. Bjorklund, G. Finnveden and J. Johansson. 2005. Testing a SEA methodology for the energy sector: a waste incineration tax proposal, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25: 1-32. 69. Nilsson, M., A. Varnäs, C. Kehler Siebert, L.J. Nilsson, B. Nykvist and K. Ericsson. 2009. A European eco-efficient economy: governing climate, energy and competitiveness: report for the 2009 Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Stockholm: SEI. SEI project report. 70. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2006. Applying Strategic Environmental Assessment: Good Practice Guidance for Development Cooperation. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. 71. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2010. Interim Report of the Green Growth Strategy: Implementing our commitment for a sustainable future. OECD. 72. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2010. Input-Output Tables. http://www.oecd.org/document/32/0,3343,en_2649_34409_42162912_1_1_1_1,00.html Accessed May 2010. 73. One Planet Economy Network http://www.oneplaneteconomynetwork.net/ Accessed October, 2010. 74. Pennington, DW., J. Potting, G. Finnveden, EW. Lindeijer, O. Jolliet, T. Rydberg and G. Rebitzer.2004. Life Cycle Assessment. Part 2: Current Impact Assessment Practice. Environment International 30(5): 721–739 75. Peters, G., J. Minx, C. Weber, and O. Edenhofer .2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:8903–8908. 76. Peters, G.P., C. Weber and J. Liu. 2006. Construction of Chinese Energy and Emissions Inventory. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. 77. Potting J., W. Schöpp, K. Blok and M. Hauschild. 1998. Site-Dependent Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of Acidification. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2: 63-87. 78. Rabl, A. and J. Spadaro. 2004. The RiskPoll software, version is 1.052. www.arirabl.com. 79. Ramaswami, A., J. Milford and M. Small. 2004. Integrated environmental assessment, Part II: Modeling fate and transport. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8(3): 11–13. 80. Ramaswami, A., T. Hillman, B. Janson, M. Reiner, and G. Thomas. 2008. A demand centered, hybrid life cycle methodology for city-scale greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Science and Technology 42(17): 6455-61. 81. Reap J., F. Roman, S. Duncan and B. Bras. 2008. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment — Part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13:290–300. 82. Rebitzer, G., T. Ekvall, R. Frischknecht, D. Hunkeler, G. Norris, T. Rydberg, W. Schmidt,S. Suh, B. Weidema and D. Pennington. 2004. Life cycle assessment part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environmental International 30(5): 701-720. 83. Rockström J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. F. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475. 84. Rosenbaum, R., T. Bachmann, LS. Gold, M. Huijbregts, O. Jolliet, R. Juraske, A. Koehler, H.Larsen, M. MacLeod, M. Margni, TE. McKone, J. Payet, M. Schuhmacher, D. van de Meent and M. Hauschild. 2008. USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(7): 532-546 85. Seppälä, J., M. Posch, M. Johansson and J. Hettelingh. 2006. Country-dependent Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11(6): 403-416. 86. Serrano, M. and E. Dietzenbacher. 2010. Responsibility and trade emission balances: An evaluation of approaches. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2224-2232. 87. Shaw S., B. Songsamphant, A. Cosbey and H. Baumüller. 2007. Rapid Trade and Environment Assessment (RTEA) – National Report for Thailand, International Institute for Sustainable Development, ISBN 978-1-894784-16-0. 88. Spadaro, J. 2002. A Simplified Methodology for Calculating the Health Impact and Damage Cost of Airborne Pollution- The Uniform World Model. RiskPoll Manual. 89. Steen, B. 1999. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000-general system characteristics; CPM report 1999:4, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. 90. Stone, D.2007. 《政策弔詭:政治決策的藝術》 (朱道凱譯),群學出版(原書出版於2001年) 91. Suh, S. and G. Huppes. 2005. Methods for Life Cycle Inventory of a product. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(7): 687-697 92. Suh, S. ed.2009. Handbook of input-output economics in industrial ecology. Dordrecht , Netherlands : Springer. 93. Suh, S., 2006. Are Services Better for Climate Change?, Environmental Science & Technology, 40 (21), 6555 – 6560. 94. The British Standards Institution (BSI). 2008. PAS 2050: 2008-Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London: BSI Group. 95. Toth, F. 2003. State of the Art and Future Challenges for Integrated Environmental Assessment. Integrated Assessment 4(4):250–264 96. Udo de Haes H., G. Finnveden, M. Goedkoop, M. Hauschild, E. Hertwich, P. Hofstetter, O. Jolliet, W. Klopffer, W. Krewitt, E. Lindeijer, R. Mueller-Wenk, S. Olsen, D. Pennington, J. Potting and B. Steen (eds). 2002. Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola. 97. Udo de Haes, H.A., R. Heijungs, S. Suh and G. Huppes. 2004. Three strategies to overcome the limitations of life-cycle assessment, Journal of Industrial Ecology 8 (3): 19–32. 98. UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2007. Resource Manual to Support Application of the UNECE Protocol on SEA http://www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_manual/documents/SEAmanualDraftFinalApril2007.pdf 99. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2005. Environment and Trade — A Handbook, Second Edition. 100. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, www.unep.org/greeneconomy 101. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2012. Measuring Progress towards an Inclusive Green Economy. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/research_products/Measuring%20Progress%20report.pdf 102. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme).2009. Global Green New Deal: Policy brief. http://www.unep.org/pdf/A_Global_Green_New_Deal_Policy_Brief.pdf Accessed Sep 10, 2010. 103. USEPA. Regulatory Impact Analyses http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/ria.html Accessed July 2011 104. van der Voet, E., L. van Oers and I. Nikolic. 2005. Dematerialisation: not just a matter of weight. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8 (4): 121–137. 105. Van Zelm R, M. Huijbregts and D, van de Meent. 2009. USES-LCA 2.0: a global nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 14(3):282–284. 106. Verheem, R. 2002. Strategic Environmental Assessment: Performance Criteria. Developed for the International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) in consultation with SEA-section. Available online: http://www.iaia.org/Members/Publications/Special_Pubs/sp1.pdf Accessed May 2009. 107. Victor, P. and G. Rosenbluth. 2007. Managing without Growth. Ecological Economics 61 (2-3): 492-504. 108. Victor, P. and Jackson, T. 2011. Doing the maths on the green economy. Nature 472(7343):295. 109. Vringer, K., R.Benders, H. Wilting, C. Brink, E. Drissen, D. Nijdam and D. Hoogervorst. 2010. A hybrid multi-region method (HMR) for assessing the environmental impact of private consumption. Ecological Economic 69(12): 2510-2516. 110. Weber, C and G. Peters. 2009. Climate change policy and international trade: Policy considerations in the US. Energy Policy 37:432–440 111. Weber, C and S Matthews. 2007. Embodied Environmental Emissions in U.S. International Trade, 1997-2004. Environmental Science and Technology 41 (14): 4875–4881. 112. Wegener Sleeswijk A. and R. Heijungs. 2010. GLOBOX: a spatially differentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA. Science of Total Environment 408: 2817-2832. 113. Wiedmann, T. 2008. A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecological Economic 69(2): 211-222. 114. Wiedmann, T., S. Suh, K. Feng, M. Lenzen, A. Acquaye, K. Scott and J. Barrett. 2011. Application of Hybrid Life Cycle Approaches to Emerging Energy Technologies - The Case of Wind Power in the UK. Environmental Science and Technology 45(13): 5900–5907. 115. WIOD(World Input-Output Database). 2012. http://www.wiod.org/database/sut_iot.htm. Accessed January 2012. 116. Xu M., B. Allenby and W. Chen. 2009. Energy and Air Emissions Embodied in China U.S. Trade: Eastbound Assessment Using Adjusted Bilateral Trade Data. Environmental Science and Technology 43 (9): 3378–3384. 117. Zhai P. and E. Williams. 2010. Dynamic Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment of Energy and Carbon of Multicrystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Systems. Environmental Science and Technology 44 (20): 7950. 118. 王鴻濬、黃書禮、顧洋、朱鎮明,2007,「政策環境影響評估之問題與對策」政策建議書,行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告RDEC-RES-096-14 119. 台灣綜合研究院,2007,我國能源發展政策環境影響評估之檢討,經濟部能源局委託。 120. 行政院主計處,2010,2006年產業關聯表www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=25739&ctNode=3292 121. 行政院永續發展委員會,2012,第34次工作會議紀錄,8月13日,台北。http://nsdn.epa.gov.tw/CH/PRINT/1010813A34meeting.pdf 122. 行政院節能減碳推動會,2010,國家節能減碳總計畫。 123. 呂政霖,2001,臺灣地區人造纖維業產業經濟分析及產品結構優化研究. 國立成功大學環境工程研究所碩士論文. 124. 沈宗桓,2002, 工業部門能源消費與 CO2, SOx 及 NOx 排放之特性分析. 國立成功大學環境工程研究所碩士論文。 125. 邱瀚民,2012,台灣產業環境外部成本分析-以空氣污染物健康衝擊為例,國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所碩士論文。 126. 胡思聰,2003。現行「政府政策環境影響評估」制度研析, 國家政策論壇,第2期, P.101~111。 127. 馬鴻文,洪明龍,王俊傑,趙家緯,陳必晟,2008,台灣產業環境衝擊關聯分析與永續消費型態探討,2008環境規劃與管理研討會,11月7-8日。 128. 黃建中,2005, 生命週期衝擊評估之客觀權重方法,國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所博士論文。 129. 楊浩彥,2008,能源稅的經濟效果:考慮參數不確定的可計算一般均衡分析,2008總體經濟計量模型研討會,台北:中央研究院經濟研究所與行政院主計處共同舉辦。 130. 溫麗琪等,2007,貿易政策環境影響評估模式及實例分析,中華經濟研究院(台灣WTO中心)。外交部�經濟部國際貿易局- 國際經貿事務研究及培訓中心計畫。 131. 經濟建設委員會,2010,中華民國99年國家建設計畫。http://www.cepd.gov.tw/m1.aspx?sNo=0012783 132. 經濟部工業局,2010,石化工業政策說明書(初稿)。 133. 經濟部工業局,2010,鋼鐵工業政策說明書(初稿)。 134. 經濟部能源局,2010,能源發展綱領政策說明書(初稿)。 135. 齊瞱、李惠民、徐明, 2008,中國進出口貿易中的隱含碳估算,中國人口.資源與環境,18(3),8-13。 136. 劉銘龍,2005,我國政府政策環境影響評估制度深化與改良之研究─並探討於制度內導入永續性評估之可行性,國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所博士論文。 137. 環保署,2011,中華民國第二版國家通訊。http://www.epa.gov.tw/FileLink/FileHandler.ashx?file=16893 138. 羅時麒,2005,以系統性機率模式鑑定量化與整合生命週期評估之不確定性,國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所博士論文。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60586 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 囿於當前評估方法限制,現行政策環境影響評估以及衝擊評估程序,無法有效增進公共政策之生態理性。因此本研究中,則結合工業生態學之評估工具,建構整合性環境評估模型。
相較於既有整合性評估模型,本研究所建構之模型有以下特點,可改善既有公共政策決策程序中,既有環境面決策支援工具之限制: 1. 應用動態混合型多區域盤查分析(Dynamic Hybrid Multi-Regional Inventory Analysis, DHMRI)於污染物與能資源盤查分析,增進部門之解析度,反映技術動態:現行整合性評估模型中,於推估經濟圈之排放量時,其部門分類僅採用能源、工業、農業、住宅使用等粗部門分類方式,故未能就各類發電型式以及不同的工業生產技術動態加以區別,致使於政策分析上之成果受限。本研究中則結合製造導向的生命週期盤查分析(process-oriented life cycle inventory analysis) 與多區域環境延伸投入產出分析(environmentally extended multi-region input-output analysis ),於評估過程中,不僅可細部探討關鍵產業部門經濟活動之變化,對整體環境衝擊之影響,更可將技術動態納入模擬之中,反應相關政策工具之成效。 2. 運用場址相關衝擊評估方法,涵蓋多個環境衝擊類別:目前國際上之整合性評估模型僅針對單一跨區域環境議題,如氣候變遷、酸雨等,進行分析。本模式,則以生命週期衝擊評估方法為基礎,故可同時涵蓋人體健康、生態品質、氣候變遷以及資源耗用等多個衝擊類別。鑑於本整合性環境評估模型所涵蓋之衝擊類別,擴及人體毒性衝擊、光化學煙霧、呼吸道效應、水資源耗用、生態毒性等具有場址相關性之項目。然現行之生命週期衝擊評估方法,僅提供場址一致性之特徵因子(Characterization Factors, CFs),未能將貿易國之地景條件與環境涵容能力之差異納入考量。故本研究中,就具有場址差異性之衝擊類別,針對貿易國之地景、受體與涵容能力之特性,以最佳可行性特徵化模式,估算場址相關特徵因子,應用於衝擊評估,改善既有生命週期衝擊評估方法之限制。 3. 環境責任指標分析:為反映台灣為開放經濟體之特性,因此本研究則參採用國際上所發展之「貿易隱含排放量」的概念,提出環境債比例、環境借貸比例、自我承擔比例三指標,以分析政策之環境衝擊外包效應。 本研究進而應用此整合性環境評估模型,從綠色經濟觀點,分析台灣現行所提出的溫室氣體減量政策。而依據分析結果,在現行減量政策下,除生態品質此衝擊類別外,其於衝擊類別均達相對脫勾現象,而水資源耗用則可達絕對脫勾。但就環境共同效益上,除水資源耗用大幅削減外,人體健康、生態衝擊等兩項目的增幅,均較氣候變遷以及資源耗用兩項為高。此趨勢顯示當前的溫室氣體減量政策,只考慮台灣地理疆域內溫室氣體排放量的削減以及化石燃料耗用之節約,但僅產生了水資源耗用量削減此環境共同效益。綜合上述兩個趨勢可知,雖然當前台灣溫室氣體減量政策,是以弱綠色經濟觀點為政策設計之基礎,而實際上的政策成效,也僅能達到弱綠色經濟觀點的要求。 雖然現有政策可達到相對脫勾,但溫室氣體減量政策的規劃依據,是滿足2020年的溫室氣體排放量削減至2005年的水準的減量目標。但根據評估結果,現行政策無法達到此減量目標。因此本研究進一步就可行的減輕策略加以分析,指出若能落實「產業結構調整」、「推動更積極的全球氣候變遷政策」、「提升既有能源效率進步率目標」、「加速再生能源發展目標的達成」等四項積極減量策略,則可大幅削減減量缺口,其中以將能源效率進步率目標提升至3%,最有助於弭平境內減量缺口。 前述案例分析,則說明本研究所發展之整合性環境評估模型,可將「最終需求增長」、「資源效率以及污染防治技術的提升」、「製程系統的結構變化」、「國內自產率變化」、「貿易國進口比例變動」等因素納入評估。而前述因子,既為產業政策與能源政策規劃中的關鍵要素。故顯見此整合性環境模型,具應用至現行公共政策決策機制增進生態理性之效益。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Owing to the limitation of evaluation tools applied in the strategic environmental assessment and impact assessment, the ecological rationality cannot be embedded in the public policy. Therefore, this study develops a novel integrated environmental assessment model based on the methodologies applied in the industrial ecology.
The Integrated Environmental Assessment Model for Public Policy in Taiwan (TWIEA) is developed based on three key methodology reformations. First, a novel inventory method called Dynamic Hybrid Multi-Region Inventory analysis (DHMRI) is developed, which integrates the EEMRIOA and Integrated Hybrid LCA and applies time-dependent environmental intervention information for inventory analysis. Consequently, DHMRI is able to quantify the change in the environmental footprint caused by a specific policy while taking structural changes and technological dynamics into consideration. Second, site-dependent impact assessment method is introduced to overcome the limitations of existing site-generic assessment method. Hence the a set of site-dependent characterization factors are estimated through the best available characterization models for toxicity impact, respiratory effect, photochemical smog and water consumption. Third, in order to reflect the characteristics of an open economy with high resource scarcity, this study proposes the environmental debts ratio and the environmental loans ratio as indicators for examining the geographical shift of the environmental impact. TWIEA model is applied to analysis the environmental implication of existing official climate policy from green economy perspective.The results of this study reveal that under existing policy, relative decoupling will be attained, but no significant environmental co-benefits other than water consumption can be gained. Moreover, the current emission pledges cannot be fulfilled. The presence of increased environmental debt ratios reveals the geographical shifting effect of the existing. The main driver of the expansion of the environmental footprint can be attributed to the export of electronic components and products, which are not included in the agenda of policy discussions. As a result, three crucial policies are suggested to modify the existing climate policy: the implementation of a higher energy efficiency improvement target, rethinking the constraints on the electronics industry and the development of a mechanism to include environmental issues in free trade agreement negotiations. With these changes, the realization of the current emission pledge and a green economy could be possible. The observations from the case study reveal that TWIEA is capable of overcoming the limitations of existing assessment tools at macro-level evaluation of environmental policies. Hence, the practicability of TWIEA to serve as a decision supporting tool to enhance the ecological rationality can be justified. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T10:22:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-F92541209-1.pdf: 9354276 bytes, checksum: 8073c7d0acf65c0aafa9afbfef5fe4d5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1 1.2 研究目的 2 1.3 研究架構與流程 2 第二章 文獻回顧 4 2.1 公共政策環境評估機制之評析 4 2.1.1 公共政策與生態理性 4 2.1.2 管制衝擊評估 6 2.1.3 政策環境影響評估 7 2.1.4 綜合比較 9 2.1.5 既有決策支援工具 11 2.1.6 台灣發展與限制 11 2.2整合性環境評估於公共政策之應用 14 2.3盤查分析方法 17 2.3.1環境延伸投入產出分析方法 17 2.3.2生命週期盤查分析 20 2.3.3既有整合方法與限制 25 2.4衝擊評估方法 27 2.5 小結 34 第三章 研究方法 35 3.1 目標與範疇界定 36 3.2盤查模型之建構 40 3.2.1 動態混合型多區域盤查分析 40 3.2.2 環境延伸多區域投入產出模型 45 3.2.3 能源系統生命週期盤查模型 46 3.2.4 鋼鐵工業系統生命週期盤查模型 51 3.3衝擊評估方法之發展 53 3.3.1場址一致性衝擊類別 54 3.3.2場址相關衝擊類別 56 3.3.3台灣整合性環境評估模型之衝擊評估方法 66 3.4環境責任指標 66 3.5台灣整合性環境評估模型之建構與驗證 68 3.5.1 模型建立 68 3.5.2 盤查分析模型驗證與不確定性分析 71 3.5.3 場址相關性衝擊評估方法之決策支援意涵 72 3.6 小結 73 第四章 案例分析:台灣溫室氣體減量政策之綠色經濟意涵 75 4.1 研究目的與動機 75 4.1.1 綠色經濟發展趨勢 75 4.1.2 既有決策支援系統之限制 80 4.1.3 案例分析之目的 81 4.2 台灣整合性環境評估模型之應用 81 4.3 情境建構 83 4.4 評估結果 86 4.4.1 整體環境衝擊變化趨勢 86 4.4.2 環境責任指標分析 93 4.5 積極減量策略分析 95 4.6 政策意涵 97 4.7台灣綠色經濟政策發展以及決策支援系統之回饋 99 4.8台灣整合性環境評估模型於公共政策決策機制之應用 100 4.8.1 能源政策與產業政策環境影響評估 100 4.8.2 貿易協定環境影響評估 102 第五章 結論與建議 107 參考文獻 110 附錄ㄧ、台灣整合性環境評估模型製程與產業部門分類對照表 122 附錄二、環境延伸多區域投入產出分析模型資料來源 127 附錄三、場址相關特徵因子 135 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 型塑公共政策生態理性—整合性環境評估模型之發展與應用 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Shaping the Ecological Rationality of Public Policy-Development and Applications of Integrated Environmental Assessment Model | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪明龍,李公哲,李育明,闕蓓德 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 整合性環境評估,環境延伸多區域投入產出分析,混合型生命週期評估,場址相關衝擊評估,環境責任指標,綠色經濟, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | integrated environmental assessment,environmentally extended multi-region input-output analysis,hybrid life cycle assessment,site-dependent impact assessment,green economy,environmental debts and loans, | en |
dc.relation.page | 138 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-08-16 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 環境工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
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-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 9.14 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。