https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/39247
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor | 王鑫 | en |
dc.contributor | 臺灣大學:地理環境資源學研究所 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | 劉彥蘭 | zh |
dc.contributor.author | Liu, Yen-Lan | en |
dc.creator | 劉彥蘭 | zh |
dc.creator | Liu, Yen-Lan | en |
dc.date | 2005 | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2007-11-26T10:29:57Z | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-06-28T13:19:16Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2007-11-26T10:29:57Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-06-28T13:19:16Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | - |
dc.identifier | zh-TW | en |
dc.identifier.uri | http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/54951 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究應用生態足跡理論(Ecological Footprint, )分析台灣1990-2003年的能源足跡,同時與全球人均能源足跡(Energy Ecological Footprint)比較,以了解台灣人均能源消耗土地資源的程度。再者,為評估台灣近14年之能源、經濟與生態三面向之永續發展趨勢,本研究近一步利用台灣能源足跡進行生態壓力、產值分析分析。其結果如下: 1990-2003年台灣人均能源足跡分別為1990年1.46ha;1991年1.61 ha;1992年1.68ha;1993年1.77ha;1994年1.87ha;1995年1.93ha;1996年2.01ha;1997年2.13ha;1998年2.22ha;1999年2.33ha;2000年2.47ha;2001年2.57ha;2002年2.71ha;2003年2.78ha。 依能源總類分析,以石油的能源足跡最大,佔總能源足跡的60.64%,其次是煤的能源足跡,佔22.25%,其餘是天然氣13.32%、核能3.72%與水力0.07%。 能源足跡生態壓力強度(EFEPI)分析結果顯示台灣生態壓力強度以線性趨勢增加,從1990年的7.21至2003年達16.37。換言之,台灣人民在既有的能源消費模式下,2003年須要有16.37個台灣的土地面積,方足以供應國人的能源需求。 根據能源足跡產值(PEFR)分析結果顯示,1995年與1996年表現最佳,達0.64,而以2003年的0.47表現最差,分析兩者之因:1995年與1996年高經濟成長、能源消耗減少與能源強度低等因素的使然,因而創造較高能源足跡產值;反觀2003年,受到能源效益低、能源強度高且經濟表現疲軟等因素,導致能源足跡產值低落。1996年、1999年與2001年三年中PEFR排名第一的國家分別是挪威(1.9)、瑞士(1.60)與挪威(1.57);而日本、挪威與紐西蘭是1996、1999與2001年中經濟與能源兼顧永續性的國家。在此期間,台灣的PEFR排名分別是1996年第12名;1999年第18名與2001年第19名。 根據本研究所建立的經能永續發展邊際(Marginal–Most Sustainable Development Economic-Energy, MMSDEE)模式:MMSDEE = 0.493e3E-05x分析發現,1990~2003年台灣的能源足跡效益均不及最適發展值,且自1997年起台灣能源效益衰退程度更為加重。 最後,歸納本研究之重要發現如下列五項:(1)五項能源中以水力發電(hydro-electric energy)的單位熱值最大為1000(G j/ha/yr),而以煤的單位熱值貢獻最小為56(G j/ha/yr),因此,在不考慮地形等其他因素的條件下,以水力發電代替燃煤發電最具效益性;(2)自1997年起台灣能源、經濟與生態環境開始背離永續發展;(3)1990年是能源足跡最小的年度且生態環境最趨近永續年度;1996年為能源產值發展最趨近永續的年度;(4)WWF低估台灣能源足跡;(5)台灣幽靈土地面積呈現線性成長,且2003年需要有16.37個台灣土地面積,才能供給國人的能源需求。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This thesis has two main goals: (i) focusing on evaluating the Energy Ecological Footprint(EEF) from 1990 to 2003 in Taiwan under Ecological Footprint Theory, (ii) aiming at analysis of the interaction among energy consumption, economic and ecological pressure, and (iii) further establishing the Energy-Economic Modeling to measure sustainability of both as well as energy efficiency. Research results are presented in four types as: (i) EEF EEF per person from 1990 to 2003: 1.46 ha in 1990; 1.61 ha in 1991; 1.68 ha in 1992; 1.77 ha in 1993; 1.87 ha in 1994; 1.93 ha in 1995; 2.01 ha in 1996; 2.13 ha in 1997; 2.22 ha in 1998; 2.33 ha in 1999; 2.47 ha in 2000; 2.57 ha in 2001; 2.71 ha in 2002; 2.78 ha in 2003. Moreover, EEF of Taiwan is more than that of global called by “overdraft”. Accounting EEF by energy types: liquid fossil fuel has occupied 60.64%; coal has occupied 22.25%; fossil gas has occupied 13.32%; nuclear energy consumption (thermal) has occupied 3.72%; hydro-electricity consumption has occupied 0.07%。 (ii) Ecological Pressure Year 2003 is the highest by assessment of Energy Footprint to Ecological Pressure Intensity (EFEPI ); in other words, we need 16.37 times as Taiwan areas in the present. (iii) Energy- Economic Efficiency Modeling Year 1995 and 1996 are the best two, but 2003 is the worst by assessment of Production Ratio to Energy Footprint (PEFR). Among of 23 high income nations (GDP more than 9266US$) of PEFR, Norway is the top in 1996 and 2001 ; Swissland is the top in 1999. However, Taiwan’s ranking of PEFR is the 12th in 1996; 18th in 1999; 15th in 2001. (iv) In addition, this research has established the Marginal–Most Sustainable Development Economic-Energy Modeling, MMSDEE=0.493e3E-05x x=GDP) for measuring energy efficiency. Finally, this study has found that year 1997 is the critical point of Taiwan’s toward sustainability / unsustainability during 1990 and 2003; from then on, energy , economic and ecological environment are getting decreasing. | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄 第一章 緒論------------------------------------------------------------ 1 第一節 研究動機與背景----------------------------------------- 1 第二節 研究目的-------------------------------------------------- 2 第三節 研究意義與貢獻----------------------------------------- 3 第四節 本研究專有名詞之操作型定義------------------------ 3 第二章 文獻回顧------------------------------------------------------- 5 第一節 研究區能源消耗概況------------------------------------ 5 第二節 相關詞彙釋義-------------------------------------------- 6 第三節 生態承載力( Carrying Capacity)與生態破產( ecological bankrupt)--9 第四節 永續發展-------------------------------------------------- 12 第五節 地球資源評估指標工具--------------------------------- 13 第六節 經濟與永續發展----------------------------------------- 19 第七節 選用生態足跡為研究工具的理由---------------------- 26 第八節 經濟與永續發展----------------------------------------- 40 第九節 選用生態足跡為研究工具的理由----------------------- 42 第三章 研究方法------------------------------------------------------ 44 第一節 理論架構------------------------------------------------- 44 第二節 研究因子------------------------------------------------- 45 第三節 研究軸面------------------------------------------------- 45 第四節 研究假設---------------------------------------------------- 46 第五節 研究限制---------------------------------------------------- 47 第六節 研究工具---------------------------------------------------- 47 第七節 研究材料---------------------------------------------------- 47 第八節 研究方法與流程------------------------------------------- 48 第九節 研究方法彙整---------------------------------------------- 53 第四章 分析與討論---------------------------------------------------- 54 第一節 台灣能源足跡推估結果--------------------------------- 54 第二節 能源足跡生態壓力強度( Energy Footprint to Ecological Pressure Intensity, EFEPI )分析--------------------- 63 第三節 幽靈土地面積-------------------------------------------- 64 第四節 能源生態足跡產值 (Production to Energy Footprint Ratio, PEFR)與能源足跡強度(Energy Footprint Intensity) 66 目 錄 第五節 經能永續發展邊際(Marginal–Most Sustainable Development Economic-Energy , MMSDEE)模型------------- 81 第六節 距值(Gap)---------------------------------------------- 82 第五章 結論及建議---------------------------------------------------- 91 第一節 研究結論------------------------------------------------- 91 第二節 檢討與建議----------------------------------------------- 92 第三節 後續研究建議-------------------------------------------- 98 引用文獻----------------------------------------------------------------- 100 附錄---------------------------------------------------------------------- 105 | zh_TW |
dc.format.extent | 1906622 bytes | - |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
dc.language | zh-TW | en |
dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
dc.subject | 生態足跡 | en |
dc.subject | 能源生態足跡 | en |
dc.subject | 生態赤字 | en |
dc.subject | 幽靈土地 | en |
dc.subject | 生態壓力 | en |
dc.subject | 能源效益 | en |
dc.subject | 永續發展 | en |
dc.subject | Ecological Footprint (EF) | en |
dc.subject | Energy Ecological Footprint (EEF) | en |
dc.subject | overdraft, deficitl | en |
dc.subject | energy efficiency | en |
dc.subject | Energy-Economic Efficiency Modeling | en |
dc.subject | sustainable development | en |
dc.subject.classification | [SDGs]SDG7 | - |
dc.subject.classification | [SDGs]SDG11 | - |
dc.title | 1990~2003年台灣能源生態足跡推估與能源效益分析研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | EVALUATING THE ENERGY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND ASSESSING ENERGY-ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY: A Study of Taiwan during 1990-2003 | en |
dc.type | thesis | en |
dc.identifier.uri.fulltext | http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/54951/1/ntu-94-P92228001-1.pdf | - |
dc.relation.reference | 中文參考文獻 韓非子 韓非子五蠹。 周昌弘 2001 建立環境倫理人類永保安康,聯合報12月25日。 世華財訊 2005 日本積極發展新能源對石油依賴下降,世華財訊3月25日。 陶在樸 2003 生態包袱與生態足跡:可持續發的重量及面積觀念, 濟科學出版社。 中國科學院資源環境科學資訊中心 2002 永續發展評估指標(體系)、方法及應用研究。 中國科學院永續發展戰略研究組 2003生態系統服務理論。 王書華,王忠靜 2003基於生態足跡的山區生態經濟協調發展定量評估—以貴州鎮遠縣為例 山地學報,21(3):324~330。 王青、劉建興、顧曉薇 、劉敬智、丁一 2001 遼寧省生態足跡地理分佈及其可持續發展分析,東北大學資源與生態經濟研究中心,遼寧,瀋陽。 經建會2004加速生態建設,增強台灣生態力,經建會綜合計畫處新聞稿,臺北。 王青,劉建興,顧曉薇 2004 2001年生態足跡計算與分析,生態經濟學報,2(2):115-122。 李永展、陳安琪1998 從生態足跡觀點探討台灣的永續發展,經社法制論叢,22,437-462。 高油價推動各國節能和開發新能源 2005,新華網 2005年4月10日 。 英文參考文獻 Alan Durning.1992. How Much is Enough ? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Earth. Worldwatch Institute. Barbier, E., Burgess, J. and Folke, C. 1994. Paradise Lost? The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity. London: Earthscan. Barbara Ward and Reni Dubos.1972. Only One Earth. The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, Suffolk. Bicknell K.B., Ball.R.J., Cullen R., Bigsby H.R.. 1998. New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to New Zealand, Economy Ecological Economics, 27, 149-1600. Borgstrom, G... 1967. The Hungry Planet. Macmillan, New York. Brookes, M.. 1998. The species enigma. New Scientist158 (2138), Inside Science Supplement No.111: 1-4. Chrisian A.C..1996. Socio-ecological Indicators for sustainability . Ecological Economics,18: 89-112. Corson, Walter.1990. The global ecology handbook: What you can do about the environmental crisis. Boston: Beacon Press Costanza R, d’Arge R, Rudolf de Groot.1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature,387: 253-260 Dukes, J.S. 2003. Burning buried sunshine: human consumption of ancient solar energy. Climatic Change, 61(1-2): 31-44 Eli Gifford, R. Michael Cook.1992. How Can One Sell the Air?: Chief Seattle's Vision. EU. 2003. European Common Indicators Final Project Report .Development, Refinement, Management and Evaluation of European Common Indicators Project (ECI), Italy. Jiun-Jiun Ferng. 2001. Using composition of land multiplier to estimate ecological footprint of associated with production activity. Ecological Economics, 6:24-28. Mathis Wackernagel, Niels B. Schulz, Diana Deumling, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Martin Jenkins, Valerie Kapos, Chad Monfreda, Jonathan Loh, Norman Myers, Richard Norgaard, Jørgen Randers. 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy, National Academy of Sciences, 99(14):9266-9271.. Rees, William E.. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4(2): 121-130 Rees William E.. 2003. Economic Development and Environmental Protection: An Ecological Economics Perspective, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 86:29~45. Ron Sider. 1997. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger Senbel M., McDaniels.T., Dowlatabadi H.. 2003. The ecological footprint: a non-monetary metric of human consumption applied to North America, Global Environmental Change, 13:83-100. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2002. State of the Future, AC/UNU Millennium Project Publications. Ulgiati S., Brown M.T., Giampietro M., Mayumi K., Henderson R.. 1998 . Advances in Energy Studies: Energy Flows in Ecology and Economy, International Workshop held at Porto Venere, Roma, Italy, p 629 – 636. UNFCCC.2002. The Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Van Den Bergh, J. C. J. M., H. Verbruggen. 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological Economics , 29: 61-72. Yen-Lan Liu. 2004. Measuring Worldwide Resource Sustainability Related to Socio-economic Scenarios under Ecological Footprint Model , Nature and Science, Volume 2. YCELP. 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index. An Initiative of the Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum. WWF. 2000. Living Planet Report WWF. 2004. Living Planet Report Wackernagel, M..1994. The ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: A tool for planning toward sustainability, University of British Columbia School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver: UBC/SCARP. Wackernagel M.. 1996. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth . Gabriola Island: New Society publishers. Wackernagel M..1997. Ecological footprints of nations how much nature do they use? How much nature do they have?. Commissioned by the earth council for the Rio+5 Forum International Council for Local Environmental initiatives, Toronto. Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linares, A.C, Falfan, I.S.L., García, J.M.. 1999. National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 29, 375-390 Wackernagel M., Lewan L., Hansson C. B..1999. Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint: application in Sweden and sub regions . Ambio, 28(7): 604-612. Wang Shu-Hua, Wang Zhong-Jing. 2003. Value of the Coordination to Eco-economy in Mountain District Based on Ecological Footprint model. Journal of Mountain Research, 21(3): 324~330. York R., Rosa E A., Dietz T.. 2003. Footprint on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity, American Sociological Review, 68(2): 279~300. 網頁 行政院國家永續發展委員會 國家永續發展委員會設置要點 網站:http://www.cepd.gov.tw/sustainable-development/main.htm [2004] EIA. 2002. World Crude Oil Prices. website for http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/wpsr.html [2005, February .25] Lower Fraser Basin Eco-research Project. How Sustainable are our choices[EB/OL]. website for http://www.ire.ubc.ca/ ecoresearch /ecoftpr.html. [2005] Policies by Technology. website for http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/textbase/pamsdb/jrlist.aspx?by=techno#tech_Geothermal%20heat[2004] | zh_TW |
item.languageiso639-1 | en_US | - |
item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
item.fulltext | with fulltext | - |
item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec | - |
item.openairetype | thesis | - |
item.grantfulltext | open | - |
顯示於: | 地理環境資源學系 |
檔案 | 描述 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
ntu-94-P92228001-1.pdf | 23.53 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
在 IR 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。