駱尚廉Lo, Shang-Lien臺灣大學:環境工程學研究所翁瑞蓮Weng, Jui-LienJui-LienWeng2010-05-102018-06-282010-05-102018-06-282009U0001-1708200910453000http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/181598本研究以行政院環保署91年度「農地土壤重金屬調查與場址列管計畫」，完成全國共319公頃農地之污染細密調查為研究對象。分析探討施行土壤污染管制標準修正草案之管制限值後，針對319農地，檢測濃度介於監測基準與管制標準間之場址，採每年定期檢測之需費用；超過管制標準之場址，需要花費之整治費用，與整治後種植稻作所產生之收益相比較，並利用成本效益分析之淨現值法與益本比法來分析可行性。經風險評估試算之管制限值，超過管制標準之649筆場址約需6.74億元整治費，種植稻作年淨收益計約1768.78萬元，約需38年來平均攤還。若以淨現值與益本比，年限為50年，最低可接受率及資本回收率皆為1%。而經風險評估試算之管制限值，超過管制標準之518場址約需4.92億元整治費，種植稻作年淨收益計約1441.66萬元，約需34年來平均攤還。淨現值及益本比年限也為50年，最低可接受報酬率與資本回收率也以1%為最佳。據上述，整治費用宜由政府出資協助農田之整治，將整治好之農地再以佃租等方式鼓勵農民耕種，相對政府也有固定之佃租等收入，農民也不會因無耕作，而無收入，這是一舉兩得的作法。This study is funded by project of Environment Protection Agency entitled “Economic Analysis of Amending Soil pollution Control Standards – A Case Study of Farmland”. Pollution survey was served to 319 hectares of agricultural land of the nation. The detection concentrations of heavy metals in the target agricultural lands were between the monitoring criteria and legal criteria. The odds of annual examination fee of those target lands were discussed before and after serving of amended Soil Pollution Control Standards. Further, the remediation cost was compared with the benefit of cultivation. The feasibility of this study was also analyzed by net present value method and benefit-cost ratio method. ithout the risk assessment of control limits, 674 million NT dollars is necessary for 649 sites exceeding the control criteria. The net income by cultivation of these 649 sites is about 17.6878 million NT dollars, an average of about 38 years to repay. In terms of net present value and benefit-const ration method, the minimum acceptable ratio and capital recovery are both 1%.With the risk assessment of control limits, 492 million NT dollars is necessary for 518 sites exceeding the control criteria. The net income by cultivation of these 518 sites is about 14.4166 million NT dollars, an average of about 34 years to repay. In terms of net present value and benefit-const ration method, the minimum acceptable ratio and capital recovery are both 1%. ccording to the result, the remediation cost funded by the government to assist the improvement of farmland will be a good strategy for the reusing of polluted farmlands. The renting of the amended farmlands is both beneficial to the government and framers in terms of the income of renting and cultivation.中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………… i文摘要…………………………………………………………………………… ii錄…………………………………………………………………………………iii目錄……………………………………………………………………………… v目錄………………………………………………………………………………vi一章 緒論…………………………………………………………………………1 1.1 研究緣起…………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 研究對象…………………………………………………………………… 2 1.3 研究目的…………………………………………………………………… 2 1.4 研究流程…………………………………………………………………… 2二章 文獻回顧……………………………………………………………………4 2.1 污染防治成本……………………………………………………………… 4 2.2 土壤污染之整治技術……………………………………………………… 8三章 法規制定沿革與319農地管制情形………………………………………15 3.1法規制定之沿革…………………………………………………………… 15 3.2 319農地管制情形…………………………………………………………...33四章 成本效益分析………………………………………………………………47 4.1成本分析…………………………………………………………………… 47 4.1.1 施行新管制限值衍生之檢測費用………………………………………47 4.1.1.1 管制限值未經風險評估試算之檢測費用………………………… 51 4.1.1.2 管制限值經風險評估試算之檢測費用…………………………… 54 4.1.2 施行新管制限值衍生之整治費用…………………………………… 58 4.1.2.1 管制限值未經風險評估試算之整治費用………………………… 59 4.1.2.2 管制限值經風險評估試算之整治費用…………………………… 61 4.2 效益分析………………………………………………………………… 63 4.2.1 現值法………………………………………………………………… 66 4.2.1.1 管制限值未經風險評估試算之淨現值………………………… 66 4.2.1.2 管制限值經風險評估試算之淨現值………………………………67 4.2.2 益本比法……………………………………………………………... 69五章 結論與建議……………………………………………………………… 71 5.1 結論…………………………………………………………………………71 5.2 建議…………………………………………………………………………71考文獻…………………………………………………………………………... 72錄一 年金現值因數表………………………………………………………….74錄二 資本回收因數表…………………………………………………………. 76application/pdf1133171 bytesapplication/pdfen-US土壤管制標準成本分析SoilControl StandardsEconomic Analysisthesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/181598/1/ntu-98-P96541205-1.pdf