淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0102201110494000
中文論文名稱 影響地方政府環境績效因素之探討
英文論文名稱 A Study of Factors Affecting Local Environmental Performance
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 會計學系碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Department of Accounting
學年度 99
學期 1
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 楊碧蓮
研究生英文姓名 Pi-Lien Yang
學號 797600144
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2011-01-12
論文頁數 74頁
口試委員 指導教授-黃振豊
指導教授-孔繁華
委員-丁誌魰
委員-賴丞坡
委員-曹修源
中文關鍵字 地方政府  環境管理  環境績效  永續發展  環境保護 
英文關鍵字 Local government  Environmental management  Environmental performance  Sustainable development  Environmental protection 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學商學
中文摘要 臺灣是蕞爾小島,在高密度人類社會中,環境污染的影響日漸嚴重,因此環境保護的意識已成為全民最主要課題之一。本研究主要在探討臺灣地區各縣市政府環境績效的影響因素,以2001年至 2008年臺灣地區22個縣市空氣污染(空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度)為負面指標與綠化條件(每萬人公園、綠地、兒童遊樂場與體育場所及廣場面積數)為正面指標作為環境績效衡量標準,探討地方政府在環境管理之結構、經濟、制度、政治四方面對上述環境績效之影響。
本研究主要發現可分為空氣污染及綠化條件兩方面分述如下:(一)空氣污染:(1)人口密度、環保預算經費與環境績效有顯著負向影響;(2)工廠密度、環保人力、政黨與環境績效有顯著正向影響;(3)平均每人每年可支配所得與環境績效呈倒U型非線性關係;(4)就業率、教育程度、縣市長連任與環境績效無顯著性差異。(二)綠化條件:(1)人口密度、工廠密度、就業率、環保人力與環境績效有顯著正向影響;(2)教育程度、環保預算經費、政黨與環境績效有顯著負向影響;(3)平均每人每年可支配所得與環境績效呈倒U型非線性關係;(4)縣市長連任與環境績效無顯著性差異。整體而言,人口密度、工廠密度、環保預算經費、環保人力、政黨與兩項依變數環境績效均有顯著影響;平均每人每年可支配所得與兩項依變數環境績效均呈倒U型非線性關係;連任與兩項依變數環境績效均無顯著之直線關係;就業率、大專及以上高等教育比率與綠化條件有顯著影響,但與空氣污染無顯著之直線關係。
本研究期透過瞭解臺灣地區各縣市政府環境特性、現況及相互比較,可供縣市政府改善環境績效之參考。在面對全球環境問題威脅下,臺灣除善盡地球村一員的責任外,更應對目前的環境,思考在未來社會、經濟發展上,尋求永續保育與利用的良好對策。
英文摘要 Taiwan is a tiny island with increasingly serious effects of environmental pollution in a high-density human society. The awareness of environmental protection becomes one of the most important national issues. The purpose of the study was to explore the factors that affect the environmental performance of different counties and cities in Taiwan, using air pollution (ambient concentrations of total suspended particulates) of 22 counties and cities in Taiwan from 2001 to 2008 as the negative index and using green conditions (total area of parks, green lands, children’s playgrounds, sports venues, and squares per ten thousand people) as the positive index in environmental performance metrics. The paper discussed the effects of the local government with aspects in structure, economics, system, and politics of environmental management on the aforementioned environmental performance.
The main discoveries of the study were divided into air pollution and green conditions described in the follows: One. Air Pollution: (1) Population density, environmental budgets, and environmental performance showed significant negative impact. (2) Factory density, environmental human resources, political party and environmental performance showed significant positive impact. (3) The average disposable income per-capita each year and the environmental performance showed an inverted U and nonlinear relationship. (4) Employment rate, education, reelection of county magistrate and city mayors, and environmental performance did not show significant difference. Two: Green Conditions: (1) Population density, factory density, employment rate, environmental human resources, and environmental performance showed significant positive impact. (2) Education, environmental budgets, political party, and environmental performance showed significant negative impact. (3) The average disposable income per-capita each year and the environmental performance showed an inverted U and nonlinear relationship. (4) The reelection of county magistrate and city mayors, and the environmental performance did not show significant difference. In general, population density, factory density, environmental budgets, environmental human resources, political party, and two dependent variables of environmental performance showed significant impact. The average disposable income per-capita each year and the two dependant variables of environmental performance showed an inverted U and nonlinear relationship. Reelection and the two dependant variables of environmental performance did not show significant and linear relationship. Employment rate, higher education rate of college and above, and green conditions showed significant impact however they did not show significant and linear relationship with air pollution.
The study aimed to provide reference for county and city governments in the improvement of environmental performance through understanding the environmental characteristics, status and mutual comparison between counties and cities in Taiwan. Under threats of facing global environmental issues, Taiwan not only has to fulfill its responsibilities to the global village but also needs to seek good countermeasures in sustainable conservation and utilization with regards to future social and economic development for the current environment.
論文目次 目錄
第壹章 緒 論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 6
第三節 研究目的 7
第四節 研究內容與流程 8
第貳章 文獻探討 10
第一節 環境績效 10
第二節 地方政府環境管理 14
第三節 地方政府環境管理與環境績效的影響因素及相關性 18
第參章 研究方法 29
第一節 觀念性架構及假說 29
第二節 研究對象與變數定義 30
第三節 統計方法 33
第肆章 實證分析與結果 35
第一節 敘述性統計 35
第二節 Pearson 相關分析與獨立樣本t檢定 41
第三節 迴歸分析 44
第四節 綠化條件環境績效 50
第五節 空氣污染及綠化條件彙總比較 59
第伍章 結論與建議 60
第一節 研究結論 60
第二節 管理意涵 62
第三節 研究限制 64
第四節 研究建議 65
參考文獻 67
中文部分 67
英文部分 70

表目錄
表1 1 京都議定書各國減量目標表(以1990年為基準) 4
表2 1 空氣污染指標值對健康影響分類標準 12
表2 2 污染物濃度與副指標值之分段點對照表 13
表3 1 研究假說彙總表 30
表3 2 變數定義 32
表4 1 各縣市各變數2001-2008年平均數 38
表4 2 所有變數之敘述性統計 39
表4 3 各縣市2001-2008年空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度 40
表4-4 環境績效相關因素之間皮爾森相關分析 42
表4-5 政黨對空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度之差異分析 43
表4-6 連任對空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度之差異分析 43
表4-7 區域對空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度之差異分析 44
表4-8 影響空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度之自變數間的共線性診斷分析 45
表4-9 影響空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度之自變數間的共線性診斷分析 46
表4-10 空氣中總懸浮微粒濃度重要影響相關因素之複迴歸分析 48
表4 11 變數定義 51
表4-12 所有變數之敘述性統計 53

表4-13 影響每萬人公園、綠地、兒童遊樂場與體育場所及廣場面積數之自變數間的共線性診斷分析 55
表4-14 影響每萬人公園、綠地、兒童遊樂場與體育場所及廣場面積數之自變數間的共線性診斷分析 56
表4-15 影響每萬人公園、綠地、兒童遊樂場與體育場所及廣場面積數重要影響相關因素之複迴歸分析 58


圖目錄
圖1 1 研究流程 9
圖3 1 本研究之觀念性架構 29


參考文獻 中文部分
王鼎銘,2003,政策認同下的投票效用與選擇:空間投票理論在不同選舉制度間的比較,臺北:選舉研究,第 10卷第1期:171-206。
朱信、曾庭科,2005,觸媒與空氣污染,科學發展月刊,第387期:7-11。
行政院環境保護署,2002,環境基本法,臺北: 行政院環境保護署。
行政院環境保護署,2010,中華民國環境保護統計年報。
吳重禮、黃紀、張壹智,2003,臺灣地區分立政府與一致政府之研究:以1986 年至2001年地方府會關係為例,臺北:人文及社會科學集刊,第 15卷第1期:145-184。
吳珮瑛、劉哲良、蘇明達,2005,對於臺灣之生活品質、環境保護與所得水準關係的剖析,全球變遷通訊雜誌,第46期:1-6。
吳榮華,2010,哥本哈根會議及臺灣之因應,財團法人國家政策研究基金會,2010年12月14日,取自: http://www.npf.org.tw/department/sustainable/永續(析) 099-003 號。
吳麗敏,2005,考慮所得不均度之經濟發展與環境污染之關係—臺灣環境顧志耐曲線的再驗證,國立臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所未出版碩士論文。
呂育誠,2003,永續發展觀點對地方政府管理意涵與影響之研究,公共行政學報,第9期:59-88。
杜政榮、姜善鑫、丁力行、賴俊良、賴進貴,1998,環境規劃與管理,國立空中大學印行。
沈世宏,2008,推動地方永續發展,環保政策月刊,第11卷第7期:1-3。
佘尚樺,2005,我國推行地方環境保護計畫之現況探討,國立東華大學環境政策研究所未出版碩士論文。
林彥吉,1996,臺灣赤字問題之因素探討:公共選擇理論之運用,中興大學財政學研究所未出版碩士論文。
林華德,1994,財政學要義,臺北:大中國圖書。
孫志鴻、余政達,2000,共識決策與整合性評估-永續發展推動架構之建立,中華民國環境保護學會會誌,第23期:1-10。
徐育珠、黃仁德,1993,經濟成長、生活素質與公共支出:臺灣地區的實證研究,國立政治大學學報,第66期:73-128。
張世賢,2004,聯合國推動地方永續發展的策略分析,中國行政評論,第13卷第2期:135-156。
張慈佳,2000,地方經濟之政治景氣循環現象—以臺灣地區之縣市長選舉為例,臺北:國家科學委員會研究彙刊,人文及社會科,第10卷第3期:362-377。
張潤書,1991,我國環保機關人力、設備設置基準之研究,臺北:行政院環境保護署。
許舒翔、施孟隆、黃炳文,2000,臺灣地區環境政策與人力資本對環境品質影響之研究,中國行政評論,第9卷第2期:45-60。
陳坤銘、孫克難,1991,臺灣省政府對縣市財政補助決定因素之實證研究,政治經濟問題研討會論文集。
傅彥凱,2002,民主政治下的經濟政策制定:政治景氣循環理論之分析,臺北:中國行政評論,第 11卷第3期:139-163。
傅彥凱,2002, 地方政治預算循環之實證研究:以臺灣省縣市長選舉為例,臺北:行政暨政策學報,第35期:137-167。
彭克仲,1995,自然資源、環境保護與兩部門成長模型之研究,國立中興大學農經所未出版博士論文。
游靜秋,1997,臺灣地區環境品質指標建構之研究,國立臺灣大學環境工程學研究所未出版碩士論文。
程仁宏、林宜德,2000,空氣污染物排放量改善效率之評估:以臺灣地區各縣市政府為例,私立中國文化大學地理研究報告,第十三期。
黃書禮、許伶惠,1993,永續發展之生態經濟觀,臺灣經濟預測與政策,第24卷第1期:99-130。
葉俊榮,2005,地方永續發展起點一盞明燈,收錄於綠色藍圖:邁向臺灣的「地方永續發展」,天下遠見出版公司,2-3。
廖俊松,2004,地方二十一世紀永續發展之策略,中國行政評論,第13卷第2期:183-212。
劉旭清,1994,嘉義縣地方財政-縣政府對鄉鎮市公所補助款之分析,財稅研究,第26卷第1期:76-83。
蔡宏昭,1980,生活水準理論與生活保護措施,中華民國社區發展研究中心。
蔡宗義,1982,臺灣經濟的成長、發展與結構變動,臺灣銀行季刊,第33卷第1期:1-50。
蕭新煌,1999,好社會:浩劫後的臺灣願景,臺北:新自然主義。
賴宗裕、詹士樑,2000,公共支出決策與城鄉及區域發展關係之研究,國科會專題研究計畫。
聯合國二十一世紀議程,2002,2010年12月14日,取自: http://sta.epa.gov.tw/NSDN/ch/NADOCUMENTS/21NA/chap28.htm。
謝文盛、歐俊男,2003,臺灣地區政黨政治對地方政府補助收入影響之研究,問題與研究,第42期第6卷:97-111。

英文部分
Barbier, E. B. 1989. Economics, natural-resource scarcity and development: conventional and alternative views. London: Earthscan.
Becherman, W. 1992. Economic growth and the environmental: whose growth? whose environmental? World Development 20:481-496.
Becker, G. S., K. M. Murphy, and R. Tamura. 1990. Human capital, fertility, and economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 98:S12-S37.
Boyce, R. K. 1994. Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecological Economics 11: 169-178.
Braat, L. C. 1991. Modeling for population and sustainable development. London: Free University.
Button, K. 2002. City management and urban environmental indicators. Ecological Economics 40: 217-233.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; Cambridge, Mass.:Riverside Press.
Carson, R. T., and Y. Jeon. 1997. The relationship between air pollution emissions and income: US Data. Environment and Development Ecomonics. 2:433-450.
Cole, M. A., A. J. Rayner, and J. M. Bates. 1997. The Environmental kuznets curve: and empirical analysis. Environment and Development Economics. 2:401-416.
Crepaz, M. M. L. 1995. Explaining variations of air pollution levels: political institutions and their impact on environmental policy-making. Environmental Politics 4: 391-414.
Dijk, J., H. Leneman, and M. van der Veen . 1996. The nutrient flow model for dutch agriculture: a tool for environmental policy evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management 46: 43-55.
Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of political action in a democracy. The Journal of Political Economy 65(2):135-150
Eriksson, C., and J. Persson. 2002. Economic growth, inequality, democratization, and the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 25:1-16.
Field, B. C. 1994. Environmental economics: an introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Ltd.
Fleeger, W. E., and M. L. Becker. 2008. Creating and sustaining community capacity for ecosystem-based management: Is local government the key? Journal of Environmental Management 88: 1396-1405.
Gilbert, R., D. Stevenson, H. Girardet, and R. Stren. 1992. The role of local authorities in the urban environment. London: Earthscan Publications.
Goetz, S. J., D. L. Debertin, and A. Pagoulatos. 1998. Human capital, income, and environmental quality: a state-level analysis. Agricultural and Resource Economic Review 27: 200-208.
Grafton, R. Q., and S. Knowles . 2004. Social capital and national environmental performance: a cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Environment and Development 13(4):336-370.
Grossman, G. M., and A. B. Krueger. 1995. Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 353-377.
Hesseling, G. 1996. Legal and institutional incentives for local environmental management, in H.S. Marcussen (ed.), Improved Natural Resource Management - The Role of Formal Organisations and Informal Networks and Institutions, 98-134, Roskilde: International Development Studies.
Hsiao, C.1985. Benefits and limitations of panel data. Econometric Reviews 4:121-174.
Hsiao, C.1986. Analysis of panel data. Cambridge University Press.
Hung, M. F., and D. Shaw. 2004. Economic growth and environmental kuznets curve in Taiwan: a simultaneity model analysis, in Michele Boldrin, Ping Wang and Been-Lon Chen (eds.), Human Capital, Trade and Public Policy in Rapidly Growing Economies: From Theory to Empirics, 269-290, Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
Husted, B. W. 2005. Culture and ecology: a cross-national study of the determinants of environmental performance. Management International Review 45(3):349-371.
Jahn, D. 1998. Environmental performance and policy regimes: explaining variations in 18 OECD-countries. Policy Sciences 31:107-131.
Kalecki, M. 1943. Political aspects of full employment. Political Quarterly, England:324-326.
Klevmarken, N. A. 1989. Panel studies: what can we learn from them? Introduction. European Economic Review 33:523-529.
Lane, J. E., D. Mckay, and K. Newton. 1997. Political data handbook OECD countries. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lemons, J. 1995. Sustainable development and environmental protection: A perspective on Current trends and future options for universities. Environmental Management 19:157-165.
Lundquist, L. J. 1980. The hare and the tortoise: clean air policies in the United States and Sweden. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Meadows, D. 1998. Indicators and information systems for sustainable development. The Sustainability Institute.
Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. W. Behrens. 1972. The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.
Niskanen, W. A. 1971. Bureaucracy and representative government. Chicago: Aldine-atherton.
OECD, 1994. Environmental indices: OECD core set.
OECD, 1995. OECD environmental data compendium. Paris: OECD.
Ott, W. R.1978. Environmental indices: theory and practice. Ann Arbor Sciences.
Panayotou, T. 1993. Empirical test and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. Working Paper WP238, Technology and Employment Programme, Geneva: International Labor Office.
Parker, J. D. E. 1991. Environmental reporting and environmental indices, dissertation of Ph.D. of the University of Cambridge.
Peng, Y. S., and S. S. Lin. 2009. National culture, economic development, population growth and environmental performance: the mediating role of education. Journal of Business Ethics 90 :203–219.
Reinhard, S., C. A. K. Lovell, and G. J. Thijssen. 1999. Econometric estimation of technical and environmental efficiency: an application to dutch dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81 :44- 60.
Riordan, O. T., and H. Voisey. 1998. The transition to sustainability: the politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: Earthscan Publications.
Scruggs, L. A. 1999. Institution and environmental performance in seventeen western democracies. British Journal of Political Science 29 : 1-31.
Selden, T. M., and D. Song. 1994. Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emission? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27:147-162.
Shafik, N. 1994. Economic development and the environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxford Economic Papers 46:757-773.
Shafik, N., and S. Bandyopadhyay. 1992. Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and cross-country evidence. Policy Research Working Paper Series 904. The World Bank.
Stern, D. I. 1998. Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve? Environment and Development Economic 2:173-196.
Tang, C. P. 1998. Environmental protection and democratization: pollution control and local self-governance in Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation of University of Southern California.
Tufte, E. R. 1978. Political control of the economy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Walton, J., T. Alabaster and K. Jones. 2000. Environmental accountability: who’s kidding whom? Environmental Management 26:515-526.
World Bank, 1992. “Development and the environment”, World Development Report. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.
World Commission on Environmental and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2016-02-18公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2016-02-18起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信