運輸建設計畫之整合性評估-坪林交流道之個案研究__臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	運輸建設計畫之整合性評估-坪林交流道之個案研究
作者：	王淑美
作者(外文)：	Shu-Mei Wang
校院名稱：	國立交通大學
系所名稱：	交通運輸研究所
指導教授：	馮正民
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2007
主題關鍵詞：	假設市場評估法；願付價格；雙價法；Contingent valuation method；Willingness-to-pay；Double bounded dichotomous choice
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:0

在目前的交通運輸評估的方式當中，多數的政府都是以環境影響評估搭配成本效益分析的結果作為主要的決策參考依據。交通建設對環境的影響不能與其他的影響效果不能放在同一天平上作評量，係肇因於過去缺乏將環境財貨貨幣化的方法。近年來，環境財貨估價的方法日趨成熟，故本文擬建立一個整合環境財貨價值的成本效益分析架構，改善過去成本效益分析無法納入環境影響效果的缺失。
在眾多環境財估價方式當中，假設市場評估法是唯一可以同時估計市場財貨及非市場財貨的方法，尤其適合運用於涉及多種環境影響的交通運輸計畫。然因假設市場評估法的操作方式多元，且需逐一矯正工具偏誤，因此本文將以實例驗證，逐步地執行操作方式，探討各個步驟當中應該注意的課題。並將假設市場評估法所推估出的環境財貨貨幣價格納入成本效益分析架構中，重新檢視環境財貨貨幣化對既有成本效益結果的影響。
本文係以坪林交流道作為案例分析，根據政府所做的成本效益評估顯示，若是開放坪林交流道不作任河流量限制實，則每年可以創造社會總體效益為5.5億元台幣；但經本文估算環境成本，並且納入原來的成本效益分析，結果發現與政府所做的分析呈現完全相反的結論。根據本文的估計，開放坪林交流道每年會對社會總體造成新台幣19億元的負擔。
這個實證結果顯示，現行使用環境影響評估搭配成本效益分析的決策分析方式，無法有效達成社會效益極大化的政策協助效果，更可能發生完全相反的決策建議。規劃者實有必要發展一套整合假設市場評估法與成本效益評估的政策架構，彌補現行分析技術的缺失。
政府在從事公共建設之際，其主要的目的是要創造社會總體效益的極大化，然在社會效益增益當中所造成的分配不公平，也是政府必須同時解決的問題。然而在過去經驗中顯示，政府的確忽略了這個部份。這正是為何常常發生政府立意良好的建設，卻造到所謂「受害」民眾攔街抗議的景況。
本文更進一步將成本效益分析法從社會總體結果論之視野，移轉到利益團體的效益分配的角度。本文將交通建設計畫可能的影響及其各自關聯的團體建立對應關係，並以利益團體為主體來進行成本效益的收納。透過這個對應與歸納的架構，可以清晰勾勒出在特定的交通建設計畫中，成本與效益可能由不同的團體來負擔。由於有著貨幣價格的依據，政府可以利用經濟手段進行社會利益重新分配，從而避免社會效益建築在犧牲少數人利益的困境。
根據本文實證分析的結果，若對於使用坪林交流道的使用者課以使用費，則可以減少25%的使用人次，降低坪林地區的環境負荷。文中更進一步分析付費使用者的社經特性及其動機。結果顯示比較在乎交通建設會影響環境進而損害自身健康者(如女性及高收入者)，願付價格較高；而對政府執法無信心者(如私部門工作者、60歲以上的長者及教育程度較高者)付費意願較低。這些資訊顯示，政府若以收費或課稅等方式進行重分配之手段時，必須讓施政對象了解政策對其直接的關連性及增加民眾對政府的施政信心。
最後本文幾項對後續研究者的建議，1.可以同時採取多種詢價方式，由此勾稽彼此的結果，可以提升估價的可信度；2.可以進行事前、事後的比較，藉以降低估價的偏誤；3.在問卷中要明定支付的載具，避免受訪者的誤解；4.建立敘述性偏好及實際性偏好資料間的關連性，可以提升敘述性偏好的可性度；5.在污染量的估計方面，增加運具的變相，可以提升估計的信度。

以文找文

The purpose of the study is to develop and experiment with an integrated cost-benefit model for an environment-sensitive transportation project. It is well known that the current methodologies of assessing environment-sensitive projects have limitations. In this regard, the widely-adopted exercise which involves the “Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the traditional Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in a sequential way may be flawed with a failure to calculate the resultant economic and environmental impacts in a same setting and at the same time. Contingent Valuation Methods (CVM) could take environmental factors into account and by far is the most frequently applied methodology. However, the CVM mainly deals only with the environmental impacts, paying not much attention to the economic impacts and still falling short of expectations.
Given the above weakness it is necessary to develop a process which integrates the CBA with CVM to evaluate the overall effects. Consequentially, this study sets to go a step further than the previous research by developing a step-by-step process which integrates the CBA with the CVM to assess the overall effects (both the environmental and economic impacts) for a transportation project.
In studying this issue, the Pinglin Interchange appears to provide an interesting case. Although within this issue, such a high-profile case as Taiwan high speed railway, the biggest BOT case, is large in scale and draws much attention, this is obviously not the case in the Pinglin Interchange. However, the Pinglin Interchange does provide a manageable case to experiment with the development of an integrated CBA with environmental factors for an environment-sensitive project. Indeed, the paper goes a step further than the previous research by exploring the issue at the practice level, which may hopefully be more insightful.
The empirical results show that an integrated CBA may produce an entirely different conclusion from the one resulting from the common evaluation exercise of combining the EIA and the traditional CBA. Specifically speaking, while the common evaluation exercise led to a favorable conclusion, in the case of the Pinglin Interchange, the net annual benefit was estimated at NT$550 million per year when the environmental effects are excluded. On the other hand, the results of our integrated CBA suggest that the construction of the Pinglin Interchange may not be cost-effective, in terms of the joint effects of the environmental and economic impacts. If the environmental effects are monetised and taken into consideration, the net deregulated effect will become negative NT$1,954 million per year.
By implication, an environmentally acceptable transportation project, such as the Pinglin Interchange, though is justifiable in terms of the EIA, may not necessarily be a social optimal project. Therefore, to make the socially optimal decision for an environment-sensitive project has been troublesome for the planners because they have to take into account both the resultant environmental impacts and economic impacts. Instead of developing something new, the study arguably has managed to find a short-cut to the above mentioned problem by integrating the CVM and traditional CBA on a same scale.
This study further examines the role of the use fee in controlling pollution. It is well known that levy user fees in environment sensitive area will normally lead to a reduction in the number of tourists, thereby reducing environmental pollution. In this regard, the study applies the DB-DC approach to evaluate the effect of collecting user fee on the number of tourists in Pinglin. The results show that the government could set user fee at NT$62 and could reduce 24% of the tourists and the level of pollution will be reduced accordingly.
In addition, the logic model is also used to examine the effects of socioeconomic characteristics on tourists’ WTP. The estimated results demonstrate that female, high income, metropolitan residents, low level of education, public employee and people under the age of 60 tend to have higher WTP. Moreover in-depth interview indicates that regardless of the socioeconomic characteristics, public’s confidence in the capability of government enforcement affects people’s WTP distinctly.
In summary, this study addresses the need to develop an integral plan for WTP approach in project appraisal. The results of this research can be transferred to other areas of policy-making definitely, such as recreation industry and transportation constructions which are trying to avoid environmental damages. On this regard, identifying interested parties motivations is a very key factor of enforcing public polices. It is necessary for the government authorities to recognize related parties’ concerns and create fine communicative atmosphere. As a result, it could facilitate the process of pursuing sustainable development.
Finally, this thesis has shown that it is imperative to encompass a wide range of environmental factors in the project appraisal process. There are a number of issues arising from this work that require further exploration which includes: (1) extending elicitation techniques in CV approach; (2) controlling the survey period to mitigate bias; (3) identifying the tools of environment protection; (4) combining stated preference and revealed preference data; (5) pricing automotives as an alternative to alleviate pollution.

以文找文

a) Books
1. Ardila, S., Quiroga, R. and Vaughan, W.J., A Review of the Use of Contingent Valuation Methods in Project Analysis at the Inter-American Development Bank, Sustainable Development Department of the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington D.C., 1998.
2. Banister, J., Implications and Quality of China’s 1990 Census Data, in China State Council and National Bureau of Statistics (ed.), 1990 Population Census of China: Proceedings of International Seminar, Beijing: China Statistics Press. 1994.
3. Carson, R.T., Three Essays on Contingent Valuation (Welfare Economics, Non-market Goods, Water quality). PhD Thesis. Berkeley: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, 1985.
4. Carson, R.T. and Steinberg, D., “Experimental design for discrete choice voter preference surveys”, 1989 proceeding of the Survey Methodology Section of the American Statistical Association. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association; 1990.
5. Carson, R.T., “Constructed markets”, in John Braden and Charles Kolatad(eds), Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Amsterdam:Elsevier, 1991.
6. Cummings, R.G., Brookshire, D.S. and Schulze, W.D., Valuing Environmental Goods: a State of the Arts Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Totowa: Roweman and Allanheld, 1986.
7. Downing, P.B., Environmental Economics and Policy, Boston / Toronto: Brown and Company, 1984.
8. Greene, W.H., Greene Econometric Analysis, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Editions, 1993.
9. Hanemann, M.W. AND Kanninen, B., “The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data”, in Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K.G., editors, Valuing environmental preferences, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
10. Hanley, N., Shogren, J.F. and White, B., Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice, England: Macmillan, 1997.
11. Lo, S.L. and Lo, K.A., Change from Agriculture/Forestry Production to Leisure Business Management: the Interests, Employment, and Strategy of Sejuo Area, Forestry and Rural Development in Industrialized Countries: Policy, Programs and Impacts. IUFRO Symposium Group, New Zealand, 2003.
12. McClelland, M.E., The Use of Attitude Indicators in Contingent Valuation Research: A Test of Validity and Theoretic Compatibility, Carolina: University of North Carolina, 1997.
13. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T., Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method, Washington, D.C.: Resource for Future, 1989.
14. Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC), The Guidelines for the Economic Benefit Evaluation and Financial Planning of Infrastructure Investment: The Special Issue for Tourism Project, Taipei: Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research (in Chinese), 2006.
15. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Contingent Valuation Panel, Public Meeting, Wednesday, August 12, 1992, Washington D.C.: Department of Commerce, 1992.
16. Shaw, D, Fu, T.T., Li, L.A., Pan, W.H. and Liu, J.T., Acute Health Effects of Major Air Pollutants in Taiwan’, in Robert Mendelsohn and Daigee Shaw (eds.), The Economics of Pollution Control in the Asia Pacific, Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1996.
17. Taiwan National Expressway Engineering Bureau (TNEEB), Before and After Analysis of the Taipei-Ilan Expressway Construction Project Report, Taipei: Sino Tech Engineering Consultants, Ltd (in Chinese), 2004.
18. Transport for London, Central London’s problem . . .Our Solution–the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme Proposals, London: Transport for London, 2001.
19. Urry, J., The Tourist Gaze, London: Sage, 1990.
20. Verhoef, W., Theory of Radiative Transfer Models Applied in Optical Remote Sensing of Vegetation Canopies, PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, 1998.
b) Journal Paper
1. Adamowicz, W.L., Bhardwaj, V. and Macnab, B., “Experiments on the difference between willingness to pay and willingness to accept”, Land Economics, Vol.69, pp. 416–427, 1993.
2. Alberini, A., “Testing willingness-to-pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data”, Land Economics, Vol.71, pp. 83-95, 1995.
3. Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Fu, T.T., Krupnick, A., Liu, J.T., Shaw, D., and Harrington, W., “Valuing Health Effects of Air Pollution in Developing Countries: The Case of Taiwan”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 34, pp.107-126, 1997.
4. Ajzen, I., Brown, T.C., Rosenthal, L.H., “Information bias in contingent valuation: effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.30, pp.43 –57, 1996.
5. Baeten, G., “The Tragedy of the Highway: Empowerment, Disempowerment and the Politics of Sustainability Discourses and Practices”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 69-87, 2000.
6. Barton, D.N., “The Transferability of Benefit Transfer: Contingent Valuation of Water Quality Improvements in Costa Rica”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 42, pp.147-164, 2002.
7. Bergsrtom, J.C., Stoll, J.R. and Randall, A., “The impact of information on environmental commodity valuation decisions”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 72, pp. 614–621, 1990.
8. Bishop, R.C. and Heberlein, T.A., “Measuring values of extra-market goods: are indirect measures biased?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.61, pp.926-930, 1979.
9. Briscoe, J., Castro, P.F., Griffin, C., North, J. and Olsen, O., “Toward equitable and sustainable rural water supplies: a contingent valuation study in Brazil.” World Bank Economic Review, Vol.4, pp.115-134, 1990.
10. Brown, T.C., Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C. and McCollum, D.W., “Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?”, Land Economics, Vol. 72, pp. 152-166, 1996.
11. Boyle, K.J., Johnson, F.R., McCollum, D.W., Desvousges, W.H., Dunford, R. and Hudson, S., “Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses”, Land Economics, Vol. 72, pp.381–396. 1996.
12. Brown, T.C., Champ, P.A., Bishop, R.C. and McCollum, D.W., “Which response format reveals the truth about donations to a public good?”, Land Economics, Vol.72, pp. 152-166, 1996.
13. Brookshire, D.S., Thayer, M.A., Schulze, W.P. and d’Arge, R.C., “Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approach”, American Economic Review, Vol. 72, pp.165-176, 1982.
14. Brookshire, D.S. and Coursey, D.L., “Measuring the value of a public good: an empirical comparison of elicitation procedures”, American Economic Review, Vol. 77, pp. 554– 566, 1987.
15. Cameron, T.A. and Quiggin, J., “Estimation using contingent valuation data from a ‘dichotomous choice with follow-up’ questionnaire”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 27, pp.218-234, 1994.
16. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E., Martin, K.M. and Wright, J.L., “Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for quasi-public goods”, Land Economics, Vol.72, pp. 80-99, 1996.
17. Carson, R.T., Flores, N.E. and Meade, N.F., “Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 173– 210, 2001.
18. Devouges, W., Gable, A., Dunford R. and Hudson, S., ”Contingent Valuation: The wrong tool to measure passive-use losses”, Choices, Vol. 8, No.2 , pp.9-11, 1993.
19. Duffield, J.W. and Paterson, D.A., “Inference and optimal design for a welfare measure in dichotomous choice contingent valuation”, Land Economics, Vol. 67, pp. 225–239, 1991.
20. Eckton, G.D.C., “Road-User Charging and the Lake District National Park”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 11, pp.307-317, 2003.
21. Feng, C.M. and Wang, S.M., “The Fully Economic Evaluation for Transport Infrastructure Project”, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, Bangkok, pp.1778-1791, 2005.
22. Fischhoff, B. and Furby. L., “Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 147-184, 1988.
23. Foster, V. and Bateman, I.J., “Harley D. Real and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental preservation: a non-experimental comparison”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.48, pp.48:123–138, 1997.
24. Giuliano, G., “An Assessment of the Political Acceptability of Congestion Pricing”, Transportation, Vol. 19, pp.335-358, 1992.
25. Griffin, C.C., Briscoe, J., Singh, B., Ramasubban, R. and Bhatia, R., “Contingent valuation and actual behavior: predicting connections to new water systems in the state of Kerala, India”, World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 9, pp.373–395, 1995.
26. Hanemann, M.W., “Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 332– 341, 1984.
27. Hanemann, M.W., “Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Vol.14, pp. 5– 13, 1985.
28. Hanemann, M.W., “Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ?” American economic Review, Vol. 81, pp. 635–647, 1991.
29. Hanemann, M. W., “Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.19-43, 1994.
30. Huhtala, A., “What Price Recreation in Finland? – A Contingent Valuation Study of Non-Market Benefits of Public Outdoor Recreation Areas”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.23-44, 2004.
31. Johnson, N.L. and Baltodano, M.E., “The economics of community water reservoir management: some evidence from Nicaragua”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 49, pp.57-11, 2004.
32. Kanninen, B.J., “Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation”, Land Economics, Vol. 69, pp. 138-146, 1993.
33. Kealy, M.J., Montgomery, M. and Dovidio, J.F., “Reliability and predictive validity of contingent values: does the nature of the good matter?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 19, pp. 244– 263, 1990.
34. Kelvin, A., “How Stockholders with Various Preferences Converge on Acceptable Investment Programs”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 23, pp.105-113, 2000.
35. Knetsch, J.L.,” Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay compensation demanded measures of values”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol,18, pp.227-237, 1990.
36. Lee, C.K. and Han, S.Y., “Estimating the Use and Preservation Values of National Parks’ Tourism Resources Using a Contingent Valuation Method”, Tourism Management, Vol.23, pp.531-540, 2002.
37. Loomis, J.B., “Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , Vol.18, pp.78-58, 1990.
38. Morisugi, H., “Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan” Transport Policy, Vol. 7, pp.35-40, 2000.
39. Neill, H.R., Cummings, R.G., Gandeton, P.T., Harrison, G.W. and McGuckin, T., “Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments”, Land Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 145-154, 1994.
40. Neill, H.R., “The context for substitutes in CVM studies: some empirical observations”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.29, pp.393–397, 1995.
41. Portney, P.R., “The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, pp.3-17, 1994.
42. Pradeaux, B., “The role of the transport system in destination development”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp. 53-63, 2000.
43. Randall, A., Ives, B. and Eastman, C., “Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.1, pp.132–149, 1974.
44. Randall, A. and Stoll, J.R., “Consumer’s surplus in commodity space”, American Economic Review, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 49-57, 1980.
45. Ready, R.C., Buzby, J.C. and Hu, D., “Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates”, Land Economics, Vol.72, pp. 397– 411, 1996.
46. Safarikas, N., Paranychianakis, N.V., Kotselidou, O. and Angelakis, A.N. ” Drinking water policy in the frame of the Directive 2000/60/EC with emphasis on drinking water prices”, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, Vol. 5, No.6, pp. 243–250, 2005.
47. Hung, Ming-Feng and Shaw, Daigee, “A Trading Ratio System for Trading Water Pollution Discharge Permits”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 49, No.1, pp. 83-102, 2005.
48. Schulze, W.D., d’Arge, R.C. and Brookshire, D.S., “Valuing environmental commodities: some recent experiments”, Land Economics, Vol. 57, pp. 151– 169, 1981.
49. Seip, K. and Strand, J., “Willingness to pay for environmental goods in Norway: a contingent valuation study with real payment”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol.2, pp.91– 106, 1992.
50. Smith, K.V., “Arbitrary, values, good causes, and premature verdicts”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 22, pp. 71-89, 1992.
51. Teisl, M.F., Boyle, K.J., McCollum, D.W. and Reiling, S.D., “Test – retest reliability of contingent valuation with independent sample pretest and posttest control groups”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, pp. 613-619, 1995.
52. Thayer, M., “Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: further evidence” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 8, pp. 27-44, 1981.
53. Venkatachalam, L., “The contingent valuation method: a review” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 24, pp. 89-124, 2004.
54. Walsh R.G., Loomis J.B., and Gillman R.A., “Valuing option, existence and bequest demands for wilderness” Land Economics, Vol. 60, pp.14-29, 1984.
55. Whittington, D., Briscoe, J., Mu, X. and Barron, W., “Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the contingent valuation in Southern Haiti”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol.38, pp. 293-312, 1990.
56. Whittington, D., Lauria, D.T. and Mu, X., “A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria”, World Development, Vol.19, pp. 179-98, 1991.
57. Whittington, D., Smith, V.K., Okorafor, A., Okore, A., Jin, L.L. and McPhail, A., “Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.22, pp.205-225, 1992.

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	圖書館電子資源投資報酬率評量研究：以南台科技大學為例

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫