臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來，全球環境狀況持續惡化 及環保意識抬頭 ，政府在環境保護上所扮演的角色日趨重要。 然而，好的環境 被視為公共財， 其數量 受制於人民 的偏好，因此本文研究目在探台灣眾對環境公共財 及環境政策 偏好的影響因素。本研究 偏好的影響因素。本研究 偏好的影響因素。本研究 使用台灣社會變遷基本調查 2010 年第六期一 次環境組的實證資料，建立了主觀犧牲意願、對政府干預態度不同策工具偏好三類被解釋變數 ，並運用 Probit Model 及 Multinomial Logit Model 進行實證分析。
根據實證結果 ，年齡、 性別教育程度環境意識所得居住地、社會資本政治傾向及就 業狀況皆為影響主觀犧牲意願的重要因子。 具備環境意識及高教育程度者表達了正向的稅負、生活 水準及 物價的犧牲意願。 性別、教育水準所得政治傾向及環境意識則左右民眾對於府應否介 入環境決策的看法。 舉例來說，高教育水準、所得者較支持政府介入個人及企業的環境決策。 最 後，環境意識、年齡教育程度政治傾向城市及種族則影響著 個人 對環境政策之選擇， 年長者 較偏好教育政策， 原住民偏好租稅優惠政策， 國民黨支持者則傾向對個人施以罰金政策 。

In light of the environmental deterioration and rising consumer awareness on environment issues, it has become imperative to study individuals’ preferences for environmental public goods and environmental policy. Using the 2010 Taiwan Social Change Survey, this paper explores the determinants of preferences for environmental public goods and environmental policy in Taiwan. Probit Model and Multinomial Logit Model are used to investigate people’s willingness to pay for a better environment and their preferences over various policies such as environmental taxes, command and control policies and environmental education policies. The estimation results show that age, gender, education, environment awareness, income, region, social capital, political party and working status all play a crucial role in people’s willingness to pay for environmental quality. Males, the elderly, individuals with higher incomes, and individuals with more social capital are more likely to accept higher taxes or prices in exchange for a better environment. Gender, education, income, political party and environment awareness related variables are also important factors in affecting people’s attitudes toward government intervention. For instance, individuals with more years of schooling and individuals with higher incomes are more likely to agree that the government should intervene in firms’ and individuals’ environmental decisions. Furthermore, the above social demographic and economic variables are vital in individuals’ choices over different policy tools. Individuals living in cities and individuals with more education prefer the government to use tax preference policy over environmental education policy. Kuomintang (KMT) supporters, relative to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) supporters and political neutralists, tend to support penalty policies over other alternatives.

目錄

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 4
第三節 研究議題 7
第四節 研究方法與架構 10

第二章 文獻回顧 11
第一節 台灣環境政策規劃與發展 11
第二節 環境偏好相關文獻 15
第三節 本研究與過去研究的差異及其對文獻之貢獻 21

第三章 實證模型 23
第一節 主觀犧牲意願以及對政府介入態度模型 23
第二節 不同政策工具的偏好模型 25

第四章 資料來源與變數分析 27
第一節 資料來源 27
第二節 變數定義與分析 28

第五章 實證結果分析 41
第一節 主觀犧牲意願分析 41
第二節 對政府介入環境的態度分析 43
第三節 不同政策工具的偏好分析 44
第四節 討論 49

第六章 結論與建議 55
第一節 結論 55
第二節 建議 57

參考文獻 59
一、中文部分 59
二、英文部分 59
三、網路資料 62 

一、中文部分
王濟川、郭志剛(2003)，Logistic迴歸模型─方法與應用，台北：五南圖書出版
股份有限公司。
朱瑞玲、楊淑雯(2013)，台灣民眾的利環境態度與行為: 價值觀與罪感的影響，
環境教育研究，9(2)，91-129。
李惠卿(2014)，能源稅開徵與貨物稅整合相關問題探討，財稅研究，43(6)
何智翔、林翠芳(2011)，我國人民對政府重分配政策偏好之探討，當代財政，
3，61-74。
莊慶信(2006)，台灣原住民的生態智慧與環境正義─環境哲學的省思，哲學與文
化，33(3)， 137-163。
楊文山、施奕任(2012)，氣候變遷的認知與友善環境行為:紀登斯困境的經驗測
試，調查研究：方法與應用，28，47-77。
經濟部能源局(2006)，美國「能源法案」及「租稅抵減」，能源報導，2006年11
月，8-10。
鄭竹君(2012)，資本稅及環境政策之政治經濟分析，國立政治大學財政所博士論文。
蕭代基、洪志銘(2010)，綠色稅制與產業轉型，永續產業發展雙月刊，52，22-30
羅清俊、陳文學(2012)，影響台灣民眾重分配政策偏好的因素，人文及社會科學
集刊，24(3)，367-397

二、英文部分
Akbostancı, E., Turut-Asık, S., Tunc,G. (2009).The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy,37, 861-867
Babiker, M. H., and Eckaus, R. S. (2007). Unemployment effects of climate policy.
Environmental Science & Policy, 10(7-8), 600-609.
Bannon, B., DeBell, M., Krosnick ,J.A.,Kopp, R.,and Aldhous, P.(2007) , Americans’ Evaluations of Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Unpublished manuscript. Available at http://woodsinstitute.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/Global-Warming-New-Scientist-Poll-Technical-Report.pdf
Becker ,G. S., and Milligan, C. B. (1997). The Endogenous Determination of Time
Preference. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 729-758.
Brannlund, R., and Persson, L. (2012). To tax, or not to tax: preferences for climate
policy attributes. Climate Policy, 12(6), 704-721.
Buchanan, J. T., and Gordon.,(1975). Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct
Control Versus Taxes. The American Economic Review, 165(1), 139-147.
Burck ,J., Marten, F., and Bals, C. (2013). The Climate Change Performance Index Results 2014.

Carlsson, F.,and Johansson-Stenman ,O. (2000). Wilingness to pay for improved air
quality in Sweden. Applied Economics, 32(6), 661-669.
Cameron, T.A., and Englin, J. (1997). Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods. Journal of environmental economics and management, 33(3), 296-313.
Cheng, C. -C., and Lai, Y.- B. (2012). Does a stricter enforcement policy protect the
environment? A political economy perspective. Resource and Energy
Economics, 34(4), 431-441.
Coleman, J.S.(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,94,95-120
Dupont, D.P. (2004). Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in
environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 49(3), 273-286.
Elliott, E.,Regens, J., and Seldon, B.(1995).Exploring variation in public support for environmental protection. Social Science Quarterly,76(1), 41-53
Greene, W.H. (2000). Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River：Prentice Hall.
Hammer, H., and Jagers, S.(2006). Can trust in politicians explain individuals' support
for climate policy? The case of CO2 tax. Climate Policy, 5(6).
Hoffman, S.D. and Duncan G. J. (1998).Multinomial and conditional Logit
Discrete-Choice Model in Demography. Demography, 25(3), 415-427
IPCC (2014). Climate change 2014 Synthesis Report.
Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-Materialism in an Environment of Insecurity. The American
Political Science Review, 75(4), 880-900.
Kahn, M. E. (2002). Demographic Change and the Demand for Environmental
Regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(1), 45-62.
Kotchen, M. J., Boyle, K. J., and Leiserowitz, A. A. (2013). Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States. Energy Policy, 55, 617-625.
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
Main, R. S. (2013). Subsidizing Non-Polluting Goods vs. Taxing Polluting Goods for
Pollution Reduction. Atlantic Economic Journal, 41(4), 349-362.
Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public Choice III. London: Cambridge University Press
Pe’er, S., Goldman, D., Yavetz, B.(2007). Environmental Literacy in Teacher Training: Attitudes, Knowledge, and Environmental Behavior of Beginning Students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(1), 45-59.
Rosen, H. S. & Gayer, T. (2010). Public Finance. : McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Shearman, D. J. C., and Smith, J. W. (2007). The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy: Praeger.
Solecki, W.D., Mason, R. J., and Martin, S. (2004). The Geography of Support for Open‐Space Initiatives: A Case Study of New Jersey's 1998 Ballot Measure. Social Science Quarterly, 85(3), 624-639.
Wu, X., and Cutter, B. (2011). Who votes for public environmental goods in California? Ecological Economics, 70(3), 554-563
Zelezny, L., Chua, P.-P., and Aldrich, C.(2000). Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443-457.

三、網路資料
行政院，「水污染防治法」部分條文修正草案
http://www.ey.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=F8BAEBE9491FC830&s=1C4C484C21861D2D
行政院環境保護署，環境教育法
http://www.epa.gov.tw/public/Data/4641765171.pdf
經濟部能源局，能源主題評析
http://km.twenergy.org.tw/DocumentFree/reference_more?id=76
中華經濟研究院，綠色稅制改革之研究
www.cier.edu.tw/public/Attachment/02614153671.pdf
United Nations Environment Programme，UNEP Year Book 2014:Emerging Issues in Our Global Environment
http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2014/