臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：都市環保績效關鍵指標建立之研究
作者：曾正茂
作者(外文)：Cmheng-Mao Tseng
校院名稱：中國文化大學
系所名稱：建築及都市計畫研究所
指導教授：陳錦賜
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2010
主題關鍵詞：環保績效；關鍵指標；二八法則（帕雷托法則）；成本效益分析；無母數統計；政策評估；批判模式；Environmental Protection Performance；Key Indicators；Pareto Principle；Benefit-Cost Analysis；Non Parametric Statistics；Policy Evaluation；CRITICAL Model
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:33
　　英國在1980至1988年間曾發展世界上第一份目標環境指標(objective environmental indicator)及衝擊項目，數據經加權合併後，成為一整體指數(aggregate index)。在1980年代晚期，風險評估(risk evaluation)開始被廣泛運用，其中有關人類健康與生態風險評估更是執行環境績效分析時的一項有用工具。環境績效評估真正有系統性的發展與定義，始於1990年初期國際標準組織(ISO)對於ISO 14031環境績效評估國際標準的制訂。
　　台灣環保績效考核體系建立於1988年，為強化地方政府環保績效管理制度，提昇行政績效與為民服務品質，行政院環保署依職權訂定地方環境保護機關績效考核計畫，經過十幾年的實務運作及持續修訂，使環保績效的考核指標巨細彌遺，頗為複雜繁瑣，雖然每一項考核指標均有具體、客觀的計算公式或標準，但因指標項目及細目過多，常使地方環保人員疲於奔命，不易掌握民眾關切的環保議題，致環保經費、人力投入很多，但民眾感受不到，環保滿意度並沒有相對提高，折損為民服務美意，為強化台灣都市環保績效，提昇為民服務品質，本研究內容共分六章，有二十一節。
　　第一章緒論：從國際環保議題及國內環保績效考核制度，引發本研究的動機及目的，界定研究範圍，研擬研究內容、步驟、方法及流程。
　　第二章文獻回顧：蒐集彙編環保績效評估與指標評量系統、運用環保績效關鍵指標的「二八法則」及環保資源投入與產出的成本效益分析，並研提環保績效關鍵指標的批判模式（CRITICAL Model），作為本研究之理論架構。
　　第三章台灣縣市環保績效考核與成果探討：對台灣縣市環保績效考核結果作趨勢分析，並研析績效考核項目權重與加權效果，最後就環保資源投入與產出結果作Spearman等級係數相關檢定及分析。
　　第四章台灣縣市環保績效關鍵指標體系研析：本章依序進行下列步驟，以達成篩選「台灣縣市環保績效指標」的目的：1.組成「環保績效關鍵指標」研究小組，2.設計「環保績效關鍵指標」問卷調查，3.諮詢環保署污染防治相關主管單位意見，4.實地訪談部分地方縣市環保局業務主管，5.召開專家學者、縣市環保局與環保署諮詢會議。
　　第五章台灣都市環保績效關鍵指標之建立：為建立台灣都市環保績效關鍵指標，本章針對台灣三大都市－台北市、高雄市及台中市，進行都市環保績效考核及項目權重的分析，同時比對聯合國都市指標系統，及歐美環保先進國家永續發展指標、地方指標的項目內容，衡酌國際接軌，摘錄環保績效有關項目，最後，透過批判模式（CRITICAL Model）理論，深度訪談台北市、台中市及高雄市環保局機關首長或業務主管，篩選並建立台灣都市環保績效關鍵指標。
　　第六章結論與建議：本章根據原訂的三個研究目的（1. 研析環境資源投入是否發揮其效益。2. 篩選台灣地方縣市環保績效關鍵指標。3. 建立台灣都市環保績效關鍵指標。），經過上述的分析探討及執行步驟後，獲得下列重要發現：
（一）對考核項目「權重」的選擇，並未明顯影響環保績效的「排序」
（二）各縣市本身「環境負荷」的輕重，與「環保績效」的排序，沒有明顯相關
（三）各縣市本身「環境負荷」的輕重，與「民眾環保滿意度」的排序，也沒有明顯相關
（四）中央對縣市「環保經費」補助款的多寡，會影響縣市「環保績效」的排序
（五）各縣市「環保經費」決算的多寡，與「民眾環保滿意度」排序沒有相關
（六）各縣市「每萬人環保人力」，與「環保績效」的排序，沒有顯著相關
（七）各縣市「每萬人環保人力」的多寡，與「民眾環保滿意度」的排序，也沒有顯著相關
（八）各縣市「每萬人環保人力」的多寡，與「環保經費」的增減，有顯著相關
本研究經不斷規劃與執行，合計篩選出28項都市環保績效關鍵指標，其中空氣污染管制類7項，水污染管制類6項，廢棄物管理類6項，環境衛生及毒性化學物質管理類7項，噪音污染類2項，最後提出政策性建議。
The United Kingdoms developed the world's first objective environmental indicators and impact items between 1980 and 1988. The individual indicators were weighted and combined to form an aggregate index. During the late 1980s, risk evaluation regarding to human health and ecological risk has been used widely as well as tested; it was regarded as a useful tool for evaluating environmental performances. However, the systematic development of Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE) did not begin until the establishment of ISO14031 at International Standards Organization (ISO) during the early 1990s.
Taiwan's EPE system was established in 1988, for the purposes of improving administrative performances and service quality. Taiwan’s central government developed a performance evaluation system for local environmental protection agency in accordance with laws and ordinances. However, after more than 10 years of execution and continuous revision, the EPE indicators have become detailed yet too complicated and tedious. Although each indicator is a concrete and objective set of formulas or standards, its details often exhaust local environmental officials and impede them from focusing on the real environmental issues for citizens. Therefore, citizens often cannot feel the improvement even with the increasing amount of budget and manpower devoted towards environmental protection. To strengthen Taiwan's environmental protection performance and improve the government’s service quality, I developed and proposed EPE indicators in these six chapters, twenty-one sections dissertation as follows:
Chapter I, Introduction: I reviewed international environmental issues and domestic environmental performance assessment systems, and then I discussed the motivation and purpose of this study, followed by defining the scope of the study and the research methods.
Chapter II, Literature Review: The collection and compilation of Taiwan’s current EPE indicators followed by discussions of our evaluation criteria: the "80-20 rule" (also known as the Pareto principle) have been set along with the environmental resource cost-performance analysis. The critical model for the EPE indicator was then discussed which served as a theoretical framework for this dissertation.
Chapter III, Discussion of Taiwanese cities’ environmental protection performance: I evaluated the trend of Taiwanese cities’ environmental protection performances then analyzed the appropriateness of the weights forming the aggregate index. Afterwards, I evaluated the cost versus performance of the devoted environmental resources by using Spearman's rank correlation method.
Chapter IV, Research and analyze Taiwanese cities’ key EPE indicators: I screened and selected Taiwanese cities’ key EPE indicators by following the succeeding steps: 1) form the "key EPE indicator study group"; 2) design the key EPE indicator questionnaire; 3) consult Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pollution prevention and control related units; 4) conduct field interview with local city and county environmental protection bureau executives; and 5) convene experts, scholars, city and county environmental protection bureau representatives and EPA specialists for consultation.
Chapter V, The establishment of Taiwanese cities’ key EPE indicators: For the establishment of Taiwan's cities key EPE indicators, I picked Taiwan’s three major metropolitan areas---Taipei, Kaohsiung, and Taichung---for the evaluation of environmental-protection performance and the weights for the aggregate index. I then referenced United Nations urban EPE indicators as well as Europe and America’s environmentally advanced countries’ EPE indicators while establishing our EPE indicator system. Finally, we screened indicators that were suitable for Taiwan using the CRITICAL Model theory, through in-depth interviews with the heads of Taipei, Kaohsiung, and Taichung’s Taichung environmental protection bureaus.
Chapter VI, Conclusion: After fulfilling the three major research goals of my research, the results have been set as follows: 1) analyzed the cost and performance of the resources devoted into environmental protection; 2) screened for key EPE indicators that are suitable for Taiwan cities; and 3) establish key EPE indicators that are suitable for Taiwanese cities. Then, I concluded with the following important findings:
(1) There is no significant correlation between different EPE indicator weights and the cities and counties’ ranking of environmental performance.
(2) There is no significant correlation between cities and counties’ environmental loading and their environmental performance.
(3) There is no significant correlation between cities and counties’ environmental loading and the ranking of their citizen’s environmental performance satisfaction rate.
(4) The amount of environmental protection subsides received from the central government is found to be positively correlated with the ranking of the city or county’s environmental performance.
(5) The environmental-protection budget is found to be uncorrelated with the ranking of a city or county citizen’s environmental-performance satisfaction rate.
(6) There is no significant correlation between cities and counties’ per-capita environmental protection manpower and their environmental performance.
(7) There is no significant correlation between cities and counties’ per-capita environmental protection manpower and the ranking of their citizen’s environmental-performance satisfaction rate.
(8) There is no significant correlation between cities and counties’ per-capita environmental protection manpower and the increase/decrease of their environmental protection budget.
Through continuous planning and execution, I have screened out 28 suitable key EPE indicators, with seven in air pollution control, six in water pollution control, six in waste management, seven in sanitation & toxic chemical substance management, and two in noise pollution control. Based on the final results, conclusions were proposed with policy recommendations.
中文部分
1.王崇斌、范祥偉，2000，政府績效管理：分析架構與實務策略，中國行政評論，10（1）：155-182。new window
2.丘昌泰，1995，台灣環境管制政策pp33~35，台北市：淑馨出版社。
3.丘昌泰，2000，公共管理--理論與實務手冊，台北市：元照文化。
4.丘昌泰，2004，公共政策基礎篇，台北市：巨流圖書公司。
5.申永順，1999，環境績效評估發展現況及技術介紹，環境績效評估/企業環境報告書研討會，台北市：經濟部工業局。
6.朱志宏。2002，公共政策，台北市：三民書局。
7.朱道凱譯（Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P.），1999，平衡計分卡，台北市：臉譜書局。
8.行政院研究發展考核委員會，2005，台灣永續發展指標現況，台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
9.行政院研究發展考核委員會，2002，行政院政府機關施政評估制度簡介，台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
10.交通部運輸研究所，1990，台灣西部幹線多軌化成本效益分析。台北市：交通部運輸研究所。
11.余致力、郭昱塋、陳敦源（主編），2001，公共政策分析的理論與實務，台北市：韋伯文化事業出版社。new window
12.吳定、張潤書、陳德禹、賴維堯，1996，行政學（一）。台北縣：國立空中大學。
13.吳定，1991，公共政策，台北市：華視文化事業股份有限公司。
14.吳文弘，2000，建立公務人員的成本效益分析觀念，今日會計，2-13。
15.林水波，2001，公共政策新論，台北市：智勝文化事業有限公司。
16.林水波、張世賢，1991，公共政策，台北市：五南圖書出版社。
17.施能傑，2000，建構行政生產力衡量方式之芻議。新世紀的理論與實務學術研討會暨張潤書教授榮退紀念論文及發表會。
18.孫志鴻等，2006，評鑑地方永續發展推動機制－評鑑報告書，台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
19.孫本初，1999，課責與績效管理，人事月刊，29（3）：28-32。
20.梁啟源，1993，台灣環境保護政策之總體效果與成本效益分析。台北市：中央研究院。
21.曹俊漢，2001，公共政策，台北市：三民書局。
22.黃書禮等，2005，台灣永續發展指標－2004年現況分析與研提策略，台北市：行政院研究發展考核委員會。
23.郭秋勳等，1992，各級補習學校學習成本效益分析及發展模式之研究。台北市：教育部社會教育司。
24.董德波、曾正茂、柯志弘、吳天基、王淑美，2000，環境稽查體系建制之規劃研究，台北市：行政院環境保護署。
25.張四明、丘昌泰等（合著），2001，政策分析，第十三章。台北縣：國立空中大學。
26.張火燦，1995，人事管理。台北市：華泰書局。
27.張則堯，1994，成本效益分析之實用可能性及其問題，保險專刊，35：201-204。new window
28.張祖恩、曾正茂、曹賜卿、呂鴻光、柯志弘、沈志修、王淑美，2001，環境資源永續經營管理策略之初步研究，台北市：行政院環境保護署。
29.黃月桂，1997，全民健保預防保健服務之利用與成本效益分析。台北市：中央健康保險局。
30.陳凱俐、溫育芳，1995，遊憩區經濟效益評估法之應用－以國立宜蘭農工專科學校實驗林場為例，農業經濟叢刊，1（1）：87-116。new window
31.國立台灣大學土木工程學研究所，1999，重大交通建設工程資訊運籌管理系統建置之成本效益分析研究，台北市：交通部。
32.傅祖壇，1993，空氣污染改善對台灣地區稻米部門之經濟效益評估，中國經濟學會年會論文集，頁89-114。
33.詹中原，2005，政府再造的績效管理策略之研究，國政研究報告，憲政(研)094-004號。
34.楊萬發，1996，從國際環保趨勢談企業應有的環境管理理念，工業污染防治報導，9（94）：1-7。
35.鄒平儀，1998，醫療社會工作績效評估模式之建構，東海大學社會工作學系博士論文。new window
36.潘淑滿，2003，質性研究理論與應用，台北市：心理出版社。
37.蕭代基，1998，溫室氣體排放減量的效益與成本分析。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。台北市：行政院國家科學委員會。
38.蕭峰雄、符樹強、曾正茂、林玉美、林國清，1989，我國環保事務管制考核制度之研究，台北市：行政院環境保護署。
39.魏鏞、朱志宏、詹中原、黃德福（合編），1994，公共政策，台北縣：空中大學出版社。
40.陳俐伶、黃書禮，2000，聯合國都市指標之發展與應用。台北市：國立台北大學。
41.蔡慧敏，2005，地方永續發展的評量與反饋，永續台灣簡訊第5-4期，18-33頁。

英文部分
1.Adams, R. and B. McCarl, 1985, “Assessing the Benefits of Alternative Ozone Standards on Agriculture: The Role of Response Information”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 12(3): 264-276.
2.Anderson, G.D. and R.C. Bishop, 1991, “The Valuation Problem. in Natural Resource Economics: Policy Problem and Contemporary Analysis”, ed. Daniel Bromely, pp. 89-137. Boston Mass: Kluwer Nijhoff.
3.Arrow, K.J. and R.C. Lind, 1970, “Uncertainty and the Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions”, American Economic Review. 60: 364-378.
4.Barbera, A.J. and V.D. McConnell, 1990, “The Impact of Environmental Regulations on Industry Productivity: Direct and Indirect Effects”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 18: 50-65.
5.Baud, I and R. Dhanalakshmi, 2007, “Governance in Urban Environmental Management: Comparing Accountability and Performance in Multi-stakeholder Arrangements in South India.” Cities. 24(2):133-147.
6.Benedetti, L.G. D., D. Bixio, C. Thoeye, and P.A. Vanrolleghem, 2008, “Environmental and Economic Performance Assessment of the Integrated Urban Wastewater System,” Journal of Environmental Management. 88(4):1262-1272.
7.Boardman, A. E. et al., 1996, Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.Bryson, J.M., 1995, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Joseey-Bass.
9.Brooks W.K., G. D. Coleman, 2003, “Evaluating Key Performance Indicators Used to Drive Contractor Behavior at AEDC,” Engineering Management Journal, 15(4): 29-39.
10.Cherubini, F., S. Bargigli, and S. Ulgiati, 2008, “Life Cycle Assessment of Urban Waste Management: Energy Performances and Environmental Impacts. The Case of Rome, Italy,” Waste Management. 28(12):2552-2564.
11.Coddington, W., 1993 Environmental Marketing: Positive Strategies for Reaching the Green Consumer, New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.Davis, R.K., 1963 “Recreational Planning as An Economic Problem,” Natural Resource Journal. 3(2): 239-249.
13.Del-Rey-Chamorro, F.M., R. Roy, B. van Wegen and A. Steele, 2003, “A Framework to Create Key Performance Indicators for Knowledge Management Solutions,” Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2):46-62.
14.Dias-Sardinha, I., L. Reilnders, and P. Antunes, 2002, From Environmental Performance Evaluation to Eco-efficiency and Sustainability Balanced Scorecard, Environmental Quality Management, 12(2):51-64.
15.Dye, T.R., 1995, Understanding Public Policy.8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
16.EdwardsⅢ, G. C., 1980, Implementing Public Policy, Washington, D.C.：Congressional Press, P.148.
17.Epstein, M.J. and Roy, M.J., 2001 “Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers”, Long Range Planning, 34(5):585-604.
18.Fletcher, J., W. Adamowicz and T. Graham-Tomasi, 2002, “The Travel Cost Model of Recreation Demand,” Leisure Sciences. 12:119-147.
19.Figge, F., T. Hahn, S. Schaltegger, and M. Wagner, 2002, “The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard—Linking Sustainability Management to Business Strategy,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 11( 5):269-284.
20.Flynn, Norman, 1997, Public Sector Management, Harvester Wheatshesf：Prentice-Hall.
21.Fuguitt, Diana and Shanton J. Wilcox, 1999, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Public Sector Decision Makers. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books.
22.Fuller, C.W. 1997, “Key Performance Indicators for Benchmarking Health and Safety Management in Intra- and Inter-Company Comparisons,” Benchmarking (Benchmarking for Quality Management & Technology), 4(3):165-174.
23.Gómez-Navarro, T., M. García-Melón, S. Acuña-Dutra, and D. Díaz-Martín, 2009, “An Environmental Pressure Index Proposal for Urban Development Planning based on the Analytic Network Process,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 29( 5):319-329.
24.Grady, M.W., 1991 “Performance Measurement: Implementing Strategy,” Management Accounting, 72(12):48-51.
25.Harris, P.J, M. Mongiello, 2001, “Key Performance Indicators in European Hotel Properties: General Managers' Choices and Company Profiles,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(3):120-127.
26.Hazilla, M. and R.J. Kopp, 1990, “Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium Analysis”, Journal of Political Economy. 98(4): 853-873.
27.Hendrick, R., 2000 “Comprehensive Management and Budgeting Reform in Local Government”, Public Productivity & Management Review, 23:312-337.
28.Hogwood, B.W. and L.A. Gunn, 1984, Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.Hoos, I.R., 1972, Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique. Berkeley, CA: University o f California Press.
30.Hunt, C.B. and E.R. Auster, 1990, “Proactive Environmental Management: Avoiding the Toxic Trap”, Sloan Management Review, 31(2):7-18.
31.Johnson, S.D., 1998 “Application of the Balanced Scorecard Approach,” Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5:34-41.
32.Jorgenson, D.W. and P.J. Wilcoxen, 1990, “Environmental Regulation and United States Economic Growth,” Rand Journal of Economics. 21(2): 314-340.
33.Kahn, J. and W. Kemp, 1985, “Economic Losses Associated with the Degradation of an Ecosystem,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 12(3): 246-263.
34.Kahn, J., 1991 “Atrazine Pollution and Chesapeake Fisheries,” in Farming and the Countryside: and Economic Analysis of External Costs and Benefits. Ed. N. Hanley. Oxford: CAB International.
35.Kaplan, R.S. and D.P. Norton, 1992, “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance”, Harvard Business Review, 70(1):71 -79.
36.Keebler, J.S, K.B. Manrodt, A.D. Durtsche and D.M. Leduard, 1999, Keeping Score: Measuring the Business Value of Logistics in the Supply Chain, Council of Logistics Management, IL: Oak Brook.
37.Koner, S. and M.A. Cohen, 2001, “Does the Market Value Environmental Performance?” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83（2）, 281.
38.King, A.A. and M.J. Lenox, 2001, “Lean and Green? An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Lean Production and Environmental Performance,” Production and Operations Management, 10(3), 244-256.
39.Kingdon, J.W., 1984, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. Harper Collins Publishers.
40.Klassen, R., D. McLaughlin and P. Curtis, 1996, “The Impact of Environmental Management on Firm Performance,” Management Science, 42（8）:1199-1214.
41.Lancaster, K., 1996, “A New Approach to Consumer Theory, Journal of Political Economy. 74(2): 132-157.
42.Lee, C., 1985, “Increasing Performance Appraisal Effectiveness Matching Task Types, Appraisal Process, and Rater Training”. Academy of Management Review, 10(2):322-331.
43.Lindblom, C.E., 1968, The Policy-making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44.MacIntyre, A., 1979, “Utilitarianism and Cost/Benefit Analysis: An Essay on the Relevance of Moral Philosophy to Bureaucratic Theory,” in T.L. Beauchamp and N.E. Bowie, eds. Ethical Theory and Business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
45.McKean, R.N., 1958, Efficiency in Government through System Analysis. New York: John Wiley.
46.Meltsner, A. J., 1976, Policy Analysis in the Bureaucracy. Berkeley, CA：University of California.
47.Meltsner, A. J., 1972, Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis, Policy Analysis, p.p. 859-867.
48.Mishan, E.J., 1988 Cost-Benefit Analysis. 4th ed. London, UK: Unwin Hyman.
49.Nanus, B., 1992, Visionary Leadership: Creating A Compelling Sense of Direction for Your Organization, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
50.Nas, T.F., 1996, Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pub. Inc.
51.Noci, G., 1997 “Designing Green Vendor Rating Systems for the Assessment of a Supplier’s Environmental Performance,” European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 3(2):103-114.
52.Noghin, V.D., 2006, “The Edgeworth–Pareto Principle in Terms of a Fuzzy Choice Function”, Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics. 46:554-562.
53.O.E.C.D., 1998, In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices, Paris: OECD.
54.Pearce, D.W. and C.A. Nash, 1981, The Social Appraisal of Projects: A Text in Cost-Benefits Analysis. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
55.Piasecki , B.W., 1995, “Corporate Environmental Strategy: the Avalanche of Change Since Bhopal”, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
56.Porter, M.E., 1995, “Green competitiveness,” Harvard Business Review, September.
57.Porter, M.E. 1996, “Competitive Advantage, Agglomeration Economies and Regional Policy”, International Regional Science Review, 19:85-90.
58.Prest, A.R. and R. Turvey, 1965, “Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey,” Economic Journal. 75: 683-735.
59.Quade, E.S., 1967 “Introduction and Overview,” in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: New Approach in Decision making. pp. 1-16. ed. T.A. Goldman. New York: Washington Operation Research Council/Praeger.
60.Quigley, J. V., 1993, Vision: How Leaders Develop It, Share It, & Sustain It. New York: McGraw-Hill.
61.Repetto, R., 1990 “Environmental Productivity and Why It Is So Important,” Challenge. 33(5):33-38.
62.Ridker, R. and J. Henning, 1967, “The Determinants of Residential Property Values with Special Reference to Air Pollution,” Review of Economics and Statistics. 49(2): 246-257.
63.Richard, W., 1996, Corporate Environmental Management-Systems and Strategies. London, UK: Earthscan.
64.Rosen, S., 1974 “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economy. 82(1): 34-55.
65.Sabatier, P. A., and D. Mazmanian, 1979, “The Conditions of Effective Implementation,” Policy Analysis5 (Fall), pp.481-504.
66.Samuelson, P.A., 1954 “Pure Theory of Public Expenditure,” The Review of Economic and Statistics. 36: 387-389.
67.Shohet, I.M., S. Lavy-Leibovich and D. Bar-On, 2003, “Integrated Maintenance Monitoring of Hospital Buildings,” Construction Management and Economics, 21:219-228.
68.Shohet, I.M., 2003, “Key Performance Indicators for Maintenance of Health-Care Facilities,” Facilities, 21(1/2):5-12.
69.Silvander, U. and L. Drake, 1991, “Nitrate Pollution and Fisheries Protection in Sweden,” in farming and the Countryside: an Economic Analysis of External Costs and Benefits. Edited by N. Hanley. Oxford: CAB International.
70.Smith, V., 1991, “Household Production Functions and Environmental Benefit Estimation,” in Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. Contributions to Economic Analysis. 198: 41-76. Edited by Braden-John-B. and Kolstad-Charles-D. Amsterdam. Oxford and Tokyo: North-Holland; distributed in the U.S. and Canada by Elsevier Science, New York.
71.Sunstein, C.R. 2008. “Neither Hayek nor Habermas”, Public Choice, 134:87-95.
72.Thompson, M.S., 1980, Benefit-Cost Analysis for Program Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Pub. Co.
73.Taylor, S.R., 1992, "Green Management: The Next Competitive Weapon”, Future, 24(7):669-678.
74.Talbot, C., 1997 “Public Performance-Towards a New Model?” Public Policy and Administration, 14(3):15-34.
75.Tseng, C.-M., W.-T. Fang, C.-T. Chen, and K. D. Loh, 2009, “Case Study of Environmental Performance Assessment: Trends for Regional Resource Management of Taiwan”, Journal of Urban Planning and Development 135:125-131
76.Weimer, D. L. and Vining, A. R., 1992. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Englewood, Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
77.Wood, S. and D.A. Trice, 1958, “Measurement of Recreation Benefits,” Land Economics. 34(3): 195-207.
78.Wu, S.-T. and F.-S. Hsu, 1989, “A Estimation of Recreational Benefit from Water Quality Improvement, the Case of River Tamsuei,” paper presented at Sino-US Bi-national Conference on Environmental Protection and Social Development. Taipei, Taiwan, August 20-25, 1989.
79.Yang, C., 1996, “Hedonic Housing Values and Benefits of Air Quality Improvement in Taipei,” in The Economics of Pollution Control in the Asia Pacific. Ed. R. Mendelsohn and D. Shaw. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
80.Zerbe, Jr.R.O. and D.D. Dively, 1994, Benefit-Cost Analysis: In Theory and Practice. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

參考網站
1. 聯合國永續發展指標 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev
2. 美國永續發展指標 http://www.sdi.gov/
3. 加拿大永續發展指標 http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/ietf.html
4. 英國永續發展指標 http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk
5. 荷蘭環境指標 http://cic.vtt.fi/eco/crisp/netherlands.pdf
6. 國際地方環境委員會永續社區指標http://www.iclei-usa.org/#topic03
7. 赫爾辛基地方永續指標 http://www.hel.fi/ymk/agenda/eng/f_indicators21.htm
8. 英國里茲（Leeds）地方指標http://www.leedsinitiative.org/
9. 英國蘇格蘭地方指標 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/SustainableDevelopment
10. 英國蘭開夏郡地方指標www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/lancashireprofile/quality.asp
11. 行政院環境保護署 http://www.epa.gov.tw/
12. 台北市永續發展指標http://lsdpg.rdec.gov.tw/environment/Default.aspx?tabid=326
13. 高雄市永續發展指標http://lsdpg.rdec.gov.tw/environment/Default.aspx?tabid=448
14. 世界銀行 http://www.worldbank.org
15. OECD永續發展環境指標 http://www.oecd.org/subject/sustdev/
16. 世界資源機構 http://www.wri.org
17.「2006環境績效指數」 http://yale.edu/epi/2006epi
18.「2008環境績效指數」 http://epi.yale.edu
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：600（臺灣：598，外國：2） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1695817 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67491873
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上