博碩士論文 993310606 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:9 、訪客IP:3.215.182.36
姓名 陳瑞克(Kenrick Winston)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 國際永續發展碩士在職專班
論文名稱 「垃圾按量付費」措施之成本效益分析:以貝里斯San Ignacio城市為例
(A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Pay-As-You-Throw Program in San Ignacio, Belize: A Case Study)
相關論文
★ 太陽光電躉購制度國際比較★ 人口結構變遷對電力需求之影響
★ 台灣與日、韓環境顧志耐曲線之應用-二氧化碳排放變動分析★ 甘比亞沿海地帶離岸石油探勘與生產對環境及社會經濟的潛在影響
★ A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN SWAZILAND★ 節能分析─以加勒比海國家為例
★ 加固改造的可行性分析CA-13道路照明在LA CEIBA, 洪都拉斯★ 衡量能源效率在伯利兹的公路客運部門
★ 火力發電廠周邊居民健康成本的推估與補償機制研究★ 台灣住宅部門電力效率提高因素探討
★ 人口結構與油價對家計部門油品需求之影響
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 許多低度開發國家的「都市一般廢棄物(Municipal Solid Waste, MSW)管理措施」,不僅不符合社會現狀、更危害到大眾健康,並威脅到自然生態系統。在已開發國家或工業化國家廣泛施行的「垃圾按量付費」(Pay-As-You-Throw, PAYT),是依據家戶垃圾量來收費,該制度設計可同時兼顧環境保護、增進大眾健康,並降低財政負擔,且能有效率地管理廢棄物。本研究將以位在貝里斯的San Ignacio/Santa Elena城市為例,透過成本效益分析探討低度開發國家實施「垃圾按量付費」之成效。本研究結果發現有67%的家庭同意隨垃圾袋計收費用;同時,該措施的施行可望降低50%的垃圾量。回歸分析結果顯示教育、收入、家戶人數、及家戶對目前措施的滿意度,皆與「願付費用(Willing to Pay, WTP)」呈現正相關。另外,條件評估法(Contingent Valuation Method, CVM)的結果顯示,在「垃圾按量付費計畫」中,民眾對一個垃圾袋的「願付費用」平均金額為US$0.68,比我們所估計一個垃圾袋的邊際社會成本為US$0.56還多了US$0.12。
成本評估分析結果顯示,目前處理都市一般廢棄物的成本每公噸約為US$41,或可換算成每一個垃圾袋約為US$0.42,而施行「垃圾按量付費」的措施,其處理廢棄物的成本每公噸約為US$56,或每一個垃圾袋約為US$0.56。效益分析的結果為每公噸US$139,或每一個垃圾袋需徵收US$1.39,效益的淨現值(Net Present Value, NPV)估計數為US$168,758,效益成本比率達1.4。敏感度分析顯示貼現率介於0.02% ~ 0.10%之間時會有正的淨現值。進一步分析得知,「垃圾按量付費」施行的效益應在介於50-100%區間時,將可得正的淨現值。綜上,本研究發現透過成本效益分析(Cost-Benefit Analysis, CBA),可幫助開發中國家更為全面的評估該決策的可行性。「垃圾按量付費」這樣的一個經濟措施,提供我們一個可行的架構,並同時降低施行「都市一般廢棄物(MSW)」管理措施的對環境的負面衝擊。因此,在發現施行「垃圾按量付費」措施所帶來的效益大於成本的情況下,本研究建議San Ignacio應實施「垃圾按量付費」措施。
摘要(英) The systems set up to manage the municipal solid waste in many lower developing countries are outdated and pose dangerous public health risks to the citizenry and threats to the ecosystem. Economic instruments, such as Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) programs, which charges households based on the amount of waste set out for collection, have been used extensively in developed and industrialized countries, as a tool to bridge the gap of environmental protection and improved public health whilst meeting the financial gap for effective solid waste management (SWM). This research sought to carry out an integrated costs-benefit analysis of a PAYT program in lower developing countries using San Ignacio, Belize as a case study. Results show that 67% of those households sampled are willing to pay (WTP) per bag of waste set out and that the program would result in 50% reductions in waste collected. Regression analysis showed that education, income, household size and households’ satisfaction with the reliability of current service were positively correlated with WTP. Results of the contingent valuation survey showed that mean WTP is US$0.68 per bag which is US$0.12 higher than the estimated marginal social costs of US$0.56 per bag for the PAYT program.
Cost assessment shows that, currently, the cost of residential SWM is approximately US$41 per tonne or an approximate $0.42 per bag as compared to US$56 per tonne or some $0.56 per bag with the proposed PAYT program. Benefits, per tonne however, are estimated at US$139 or $1.39 per bag. Net present value (NPV) estimates shows NPV of benefits is US$168,758 with a benefit – cost ratio of 1.4. Sensitivity analysis shows that discount rate of 2%, 4%, 7% and 10% yields positive NPV. Further analysis indicates that should only 25% revenues of PAYT are collected, the program will realize external benefits as a result of waste reduction. It is concluded that the Cost-Benefit methodology provides an integrated approach to assessing streams of costs and benefits in helping decision making in developing countries. PAYT, as an economic instrument, provides a cooperative and stakeholder friendly framework for solving the problem of simultaneously decreasing the negative impacts of residential SWM on the environment while bridging the gap of lack of resources for effective and efficient MSW management. PAYT should be implemented in San Ignacio as the benefits outweigh the costs.
關鍵字(中) ★ 固體廢物管理
★ 成本效益分析
★ 貝里斯
★ 圾按量付費
關鍵字(英) ★ Belize
★ Pay As You Throw
★ Solid waste management
★ Cost Benefit Analysis
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS
摘要…………………………………………………………………………………ii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………..……..……………iii
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………………….………………iv
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………viii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….x
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………...…..………..1
1.1. Importance of study …………………………………………………………..….……………1
1.2. Research Purpose and Objectives………………………………………..………………3
1.3. Research Scope…………………………………………………………………..……………….5
1.4. Research Difficulties and limitations………………………………….….…………….5
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………….……7
2.1. Sustainable Development and Integrated Solid Waste Management…..…..7
2.2. Overview of Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries………....…..7
2.3. Cost Benefit Analysis…………………………………………………………………………....…..9
2.3.1. Introduction to Cost Benefit Analysis………………………………………….…..9
2.3.2. Key Elements of Cost Benefit Analysis…………………………..……….………10
2.3.3. Brief History of Cost Benefit Analysis………………………………………..…..11
2.3.4. Cost Benefit Analysis in Developing Countries……………………………….12
2.4. Use of Economic Instruments for Solid Waste Management……………………14
2.5 Pay-As-You-Throw……………………………………………………………………………………..16
2.5.1. An Introduction to Pay-As-You-Throw……………………………………………16
2.5.2 Benefits of Pay-As-You-Throw………………………………………………………..18
2.5.3. Challenges of Pay-As-You-Throw……………………………………………………20
2.5.4 Case Studies in Pay-As-You-Throw…………………………..……………………..22
2.5.4.1. United States………………………………………………..…………………….22
2.5.4.2. Philippines……………………………………………………..……………………23
2.5.4.3. Sweden……………………………………………………………………………….23
2.5.4.4. United Kingdom………………………………………………………………….24
2.5.4.5. Taiwan…………………………………………………………………………………25
2.6. Willingness to Pay…………………………………………………………………………….………27
Chapter 3: Background of Study ….……………………………………………………………….……….30 3.1. Belize General Facts………………………………………………………………………….….….30 3.2. Economy…………………………………………………………………………………………………..31 3.3 Geography, Climate and Environment………………………………………..………….….31 3.4. Santa Elena and San Ignacio General Facts……………………………………………….33 3.5. Solid Waste Management System of San Ignacio and Santa Elena………...…34 3.5.1. San Ignacio and Santa Elena MSW Generation …………….………….……34 3.5.2. San Ignacio and Santa Elena MSW Composition…………….……….….….36 3.5.3. San Ignacio and Santa Elena MSW Administration………….……….….…36 3.5.4. San Ignacio and Santa Elena Collection and disposal……….…………….37 3.6. History and Policy Framework of SWM in Belize………………………….…………..39
Chapter 4: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………41
4.1.Research Objective and Framework…………………………………….…………………...41
4.2. Research Procedure………………………………………………………………………….………44
4.2.1. Full Cost Accounting………………………………………………………………………44
4.2.2. Benefits Transfer Method………………………………………………………………48
4.2.3. Contingent Valuation…………………………………………………………………….52
4.2.4. Setting Rates for Pay As You Throw……………………………………………....54
4.3. Surveying Tools……………………………………………………………………………………..…56
4.3.1. Sampling Design…………………………………………………………………………….56
4.3.2. Questionnaire Design………………………………..…………………………………..58
4.4. Survey Implementation…………………………………………………………………………….60
4.5. Data Processing………………………………………………………………………………………..61
4.6. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….…………………………64
4.6.1. The Regression Model…………………………………………..……………………….65
Chapter 5: Results & Discussion……………………………………………….……..………………………68
5.1. Contingent Valuation Survey…………………………………………………………………….68
5.1.1. Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………………………68
5.1.2. Current Attitudes & Behaviors ……………………………………..……………….70
5.1.3. Stated Preferences………………………………………………………….…………….72
5.1.4. Regression Estimation……………………………………………………..……………76
5.2. Estimated Costs and Benefits of PAYT Program……………………………..…………81
5.3. Net Present Value and Benefit Cost Criteria……………………………………..………92
5.4. Sensitivity Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………93
Chapter 6: Conclusion & Recommendations……………………………………………………………98
6.1. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………98
6.2. Recommendations………………………………………….…………………………………….100
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………..103
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..107
A1 Letter to Mayor of San Ignacio and Santa Elena……………………………………107
A2 Letter to Director of Solid Waste Management………………………………….….109
B1 Status Quo Costs……………………………………………………………………………….….111
B2 Costs of PAYT Program………………………………………………………………………….113
B3 Benefits of PAYT Program……………………………………………………………………..114
C1 Setting Rates for PAYT…………………………………………………………………….….…116
D1 List of Research Assistants…………………………………………………………………….118
參考文獻 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Australian Government. Cost- benefit Analysis Procedures Manual http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/acm/257rfull.pdf, 2007. (Accessed September 2011)
2. Belize Hydromet. Climatology Data http://www.hydromet.gov.bz/climatology 2012 (Accessed February 17, 2012)
3. Belize Audubon Society. Birds of Belize http://www.belizeaudubon.org/birds/birds-of-belize.html; Belize City, 2008 (Accessed February 7, 2012);
4. Bennegan M & Altez V. Impacts of Unit Pricing of Solid waste Collection and Disposal in Olangapo City, Philippines. REECS; Philippines, 2004.
5. BDA Group. The Full Cost of Landfill Disposal in Australia. Department of Environment, Melbourne, Australia, 2009.
6. Canterbury, J. Pay-As-You-Throw: Lessons Learned About Unit Pricing. USEPA Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Protection; Washington D.C., 1994
7. Canterbury, J & Hui J. Rate Structure Design: Setting Rates for a Pay-As-You-Throw Program. USEPA Office of Solid Waste & Emergency Protection; Washington D.C., 1999.
8. Cho. Y; Kim H. The Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Improvement of Water Quality of the Paldang Reservoir in Korea, South Korea, 2004.
9. Dahlen, L & Lagerkvist A. Pay As You Throw: Strengths and Weakness of weight-based collection systems in Sweden. Sweden, 2009,
10. Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd. Cost for Municipal Solid Waste in the EU: Final Report to Directorate General, Environment European Commission, Brussels,2003.
11. ECLAC-UN. Sustainable Development in Latin America and the Caribbean: Trends, Progress, And Challenges In Sustainable Consumption And Production, Mining, Transport, Chemicals And Waste Management. Santiago, Chile, 2009.
12. Gonzalez J. Sanitation Manager, San Ignacio/Santa Elena Town; Interviewed by Williams K. author of this publication. San Ignacio, Belize, 2011
13. Harrison M. Valuing the Future: The Social Discount Rate in Cost Benefit Analysis. Australian Government Productivity Commission; Australia, 2010.
14. Hajkowicz SA, Tellames K, Aitaro J. The Costs of Solid Waste Pollution to Palau. A Consultancy Report to the Office of Environmental Response and Coordination of the Republic of Palau. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Brisbane, Australia, 2005.
15. Houtven G; Morris G. Household behaviour under alternative Pay As You Throw Systems for Solid Waste disposal. Land Economics, Vol 75 No. 4 pp 515-537, 1999
16. Hydroplan. Waste Generation and Composition Study for the Western Corridor, Belize C.A. 2056/0C-BL, IDB, Belmopan, Belize,2011.
17. Inter- American Development Bank. Reducing Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Mitch: A Strategy Paper on Environmental Management. Stockholm, Sweden, 1999.
18. Kirkpatrick C, Weiss J. “Cost Benefit Analysis and Project Appraisal in Developing Countries” Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK, 1996.
19. Leone, F. PROJECT "PAYT": Variable Rate Pricing based on Pay-As-You-Throw as a Tool of Urban Waste Management. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville Spain, 2003.
20. Lopez, H. The Social Discount Rate: Estimates for Nine Latin American Countries. World Bank LAC, Washington D.C. 2008.
21. Mishan E.J & Quah E. Cost Benefit Analysis 5th Edition. Routledge Publishing, New York, New York, 2007
22. Ministry of Finance Belize. “Celebrating Growth, Sustaining Recovery: Budget Presentation for Fiscal year 2011/2012. Belmopan, Belize 2011.
23. Mohammad M; Mohammad R. Willingness of the Poor to Pay for Improved Access to Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services, Journal of Envermont Development, Vol 16: 84, 2007 http://jed.sagepub.com/content/16/1/84.full.pdf+html (Accessed February 2012).
24. Nahman, A. Pricing landfill externalities: Emissions and Disamenity costs in Cape Town, South Africa Waste Management. 31 pp 2046-2056, 2011.
25. Meerman J. The National Protected Areas System Assessment & Analysis Belmopan, Belize, 2005.
26. PAHO. Report on the Regional Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste management Services in Latin America and the Caribbean” Washington, D.C., 2005.
27. PAHO. Health in the Americas. Scientific & Technical Publication No. 622 Vol. 1; Washington D.C. 2007.
28. Pearce D et al. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. OECD, France, 2006.
29. Pearce, D. Cost benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy. Oxford Review of Environmental Policy Vol 14. No. 4.,1998.
30. Repetto R., Dower R., et al. Green Fees: How a Tax Shift Can Work for the Environment and the Economy. Washington, DC; World Resources Institute, pp. 15-34, 1992.
31. Sauer, P., Parizkova, L. and Hadrabova, A. Charging systems for municipal solid waste: Experience from the Czech Republic. Waste Management. 28(12): 2772-2777, 2008.
32. Science for Environment Policy, Dec 11th, 2008, issue 133; Source: Sauer, P., Parizkova, L. and Hadrabova, A. (2008). Charging systems for municipal solid waste: Experience from the Czech Republic. Waste Management. 28(12): 2772-2777.
33. Schempf N. Full Costs Accounting: A course module for incorporating Environmental & Social Costs into Tradition Business Accounting Systems. Carnegie Mellon University; Pittsburg USA (unknown date).
34. Southern States Waste Management Coalition Pay As You Throw Programs in the South: Summaries of Existing Unit Pricing Programs for Municipal Solid Waste Collection. Southern State Energy Board, 1997.
35. Statistical Institute of Belize. 2010 Population and Housing Census http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/dms20uc/dynamicdata/docs/20110511165337_2.pdf Government of Belize, Belmopan, Belize, 2011. (Accessed November 20,2011)
36. Taipei City Government. Total Recycling, Zero Landfill Policy Introduction. Deapartment of Environmental Protection. http://english.dep.taipei.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=192307&ctNode=15290&mp=110002 Accessed March 30, 2012.
37. Techneau. Framework for Operational Cost Benefit Analysis in Waster Supply European Commission, UK, 2008.
38. Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H & Vigil S. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill Inc. Singapore, 1993,
39. Tribe, L., C.S. Schelling and J. Voss (eds.) When Values Conflict: Essays on Environmental Analysis, Discourse and Decision, Cambridge: Mass: Ballinger, 1976.
40. Turner R.K. Limits to CBA in UK and European Environmental Policy: Retrospect and Future Prospects. CSERGE Working Paper, UK, 2006.
41. UNEP. Selection, Design and Implementation of Economic Instruments in the Solid Waste management Sector in Kenya: The Case of Plastic Bags. Kenya, 2005.
42. USEPA. “Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook” Solid Waste and Emergency Response EPA 530-R-95-041 http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/fca/docs/fca-hanb.pdf
43.
44. US EPA. Pay As You Throw: Lessons Learned about Unit Based Pricing. US EPA Office of Solid Waste. Washington D.C. 2008.
45. US EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Washington D.C. 2000.
46. United Nations Designing Household Survey Samples: Practical Guidelines” Department of Economic & Social Affairs. New York, New York, 2005.
47. Venkatachalam L, The Contingent Valuation Method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24, pp. 89-124, 2004.
48. WCED. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, United Nations, New York, 1987.
49. Whittington, D. Administering Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries. Elsevier Science Ltd, Vol 26 No. 1 pp. 21-30, 1998
50. World Bank. What a waste: Solid Waste in Asia. Washington D.C. 1999
51. World Maps. Political Map of Belize http://www.mapsofworld.com/belize/belize-political-map.html#. 2011, (Accessed March 2012)
52. World Bank. GNI Per Capita PPP in Current International dollars. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?page=1. Washington D.C. 2012 Accessed February 2012.
53. Zerbe, R; Bellas A. A Primer for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, United Kingdom, 2006.
指導教授 梁啟源(Chi –Yuan Liang) 審核日期 2012-6-21
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明