臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

台北市自從2004年開始施行節能減碳政策，但碳排放量仍逐年增加、改善程度有限。民眾的直接能源消費型態，包括電能、天然氣、水、汽柴油，將是溫室氣體排放的來源。本研究從消費面進行分析，從家計單位的能源消費型態，探究能源消費與碳排放之連結。

文獻指出消費行為在碳排放責任上的負擔，在直接能源消費中，家庭為主要的單位，政府應該利用政策干擾影響個人的能源消費行為，以導正市場模型的外部性。本研究透過量化與質性方法，以資料為導向，分析台北市家庭能源消費行為與結果，探究溫室氣體排放增加之背後形成原因。台北市碳排放結構以住商部門與運輸部門為主，能源的主要消費者是家庭單位。

第一部分透過型態分析，對台北市1999年到2005年，八年總體資料進行分析，包括家庭收支調查、能源統計、以及溫室氣體排放資料的分析，探究台北市家計單位在能源消費上的變化。結果顯示家庭用電、汽柴油的消費為台北市主要碳排放之形成原因，本研究透過質性方法探究能源消費量成長背後之因素。第二部份透過紮根理論的程序對台北市民進行訪談，分析家庭能源消費之概念，建構台北市家庭能源消費之行為模式，了解能源使用之形成原因。總共在訪問28名台北市民後達成理論性飽和，經過紮根理論的譯碼程序取出內在動機、個人決策考量、訊息傳遞、政府政策推行、行為改變等五個主要範疇，為形成最終能源消費量成長之主要因素。因此政府部門應設計更有效的政策方案，增加個人在節能減碳行為上之迫切性。

In response to the crucial issues in climate change, Taipei City government has been taking action since 2004. Even if the policy has been implemented still shows an upward emission trend in Taipei City. People require the use of energy to meet the needs of daily life, so that the households should be an important target group in this issue. Whether the household energy consumption has the linkage to the carbon emission in Taipei city? This article aims to address this issue by providing the information of the patterns of energy use from the consumption perspective.

Energy use is an outcome of the certain consumption behavior. To better interpret the understanding of the cause of macro-level increase in the amount of energy consumption, this research takes both quantitative and qualitative approach. It helps to explore the complex nature of household energy consumption behavior. We conduct the data-driven studies, which focus on the underlying patterns in the data.

The quantitative methodology analyzes 8-year longitudinal data by Profile Analysis. The consumption patterns of electricity, natural gas, water, and motor oil will be discussed. And based on the grounded theory procedure, 28 respondents were interviewed in the qualitative study. By analyzing the interview data, we construct the Fishbone Diagram of energy consumption behavior in Taipei city. As a result, the effect of the consumption of electricity and motor oil use is the major contribution to the emissions in Taipei City. The research also indicate five major categories of energy consumption behavior, including internal motivation, personal consideration, information dissemination, governmental policy execution, and behavioral change. In conclusion, policy makers should implement effective intervention program to increase the urgency of individual adoption of the carbon reduction and energy conservation behavior.

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
表目錄 V
圖目錄VI
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究問題 10
第三節 研究動機與目的 12
第二章 文獻回顧 13
第一節 減碳行動的經濟效果 13
第二節 節能減碳行為 15
第三節 家庭消費與環境衝擊 17
第三章 研究方法 18
第一節 研究設計 18
第二節 分析方法 20
第四章 分析結果與討論 25
第一節 次級資料描述 25
第二節 型態分析結果 39
第三節 訪談研究結果 47
第四節 討論 54
第五章 結論與建議 56
第一節 結論 56
第二節 建議 57
附錄 行政院主計處家庭收支調查(調查表格式) 63

內政部(民96)。戶籍人口統計年報。2011年2月21日，取自內政部社會司網站http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y02-01.xls

台北市政府環保局(民97)。97年度臺北市溫室氣體減量國際參與及盤查計畫輔導計畫。2011年2月21日，取自http://www.envi.org.tw/becooltaipei/campaign_0 1.html

台北市政府產業發展局(民100)。瓦斯供氣戶數及供氣量。2011年2月21日，取自台北市政府產業發展局網站http://www.doed.taipei.gov.tw/lp.asp?ctNode= 26461&CtUnit=14602&BaseDSD=7&mp=105001

台灣電力公司(民100)。台灣電力公司台北市供電量。2011年2月21日，取自台北市主計處統計資料庫查詢系統網頁：http://163.29.37.101/pxweb2007-tp/dia log/statfile9.asp

台北市自來水事業處(民100)。台北自來水售水與收費概況。2011年2月21日，取自台北市主計處統計資料庫查詢系統網頁：http://163.29.37.101/pxweb2007 -tp/dialog/ statfile9.asp

行政院主計處(民99)。國民所得統計常用資料。2011年2月21日，取自行政院主計處網站http://www. dgbas.gov.tw/public/Attachment/511171894671.xls

行政院主計處(民100)。【家庭收支調查】。未出版之統計數據。

柳中明(民99)。全球環境變遷。台北市:華都文化

揚‧亞祖-貝彤(民99)。HOME：地球降溫手冊。(王維芬譯)。臺北市：行人文化實驗室。(原著出版年：2009年)

葉欣誠(民99)。抗暖化關鍵報告:台灣面對暖化新世界的6大核心關鍵。台北市:新自然主義股份有限公司

經濟部能源局(民100)。各月份各縣市汽車加油站汽柴油銷售統計表歷年資料。2011年2月21日，取自經濟部能源局網站http://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/opengovinfo /Plan/oilgas/OilsaleHislist.aspx?report=OILSALE

經濟部能源局(民99)。中華民國99年能源統計手冊。台北市：經濟部能源局。

經濟部能源局(民96)。臺灣能源平衡表。2011年2月21日，取自經濟部能源局網站http://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/opengovinfo/Plan/all/energy_balance/main/ch/de fault.htm

Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Velk, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 273-291.

Allcott, H., & Mullainathan, S. (2010). Behavioral science and energy policy. Science, 327, 1204-1205.

Andrew, R., & Forgie, V. (2008). A three-perspective view of greenhouse gas emission responsibilities in New Zealand. Ecological Economics, 68, 194-204.

Biesiot, W., & Noorman, K.J. (1999). Energy requirements of household consumption: a case study of the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, 28, 367-383.

Bord, R. J., Fisher, A., & O’Connor, R. E. (1998). Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives. Climate Research, 11, 75-84.

Brandon, G., & Lewis, A. (1999). Reducing household energy consumption: a qualitative and quantitative field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 75-85.

Conrad, K., & Schmidt, T. F. N. (1998). Economic effects of an uncoordinated versus a coordinated carbon dioxide policy in the European Union: an applied general equilibrium analysis. Economic System Research, 10(2), 161-182.

DeCanio, S. J. (2009). The political economy of global carbon emissions reductions. Ecological Economics, 68, 915-924.

Gerst, M. D., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. K. (2010). Accounting for the risk of extreme outcomes in an integrated assessment of climate change. Energy Policy, 38, 4540-4548.

Girod, B., & de Haan, P. (2009). GHG reduction potential of changes in consumption patterns and higher quality levels: evidence from Swiss household consumption survey. Energy Policy, 37, 5650-5661.

Girod, B., & de Haan, P. (2010). More or Better? A model for changes in household greenhouse gas emissions due to higher income. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), 31-48.

Heiskanen, E., Johnson, M., Robinson, S., Vadovics, E., & Saastamoinen, M. (2010). Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioral change. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7586-7595.

Hertwich, E. (2005). Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a critical review. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(13), 4673-4684.

Hogg, R. V. & Tanis, E. A. (1997). Probability And Statistical Inference. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

International Energy Agency (2010). CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion. Paris: IEA/OECD.

Johnson, R. A. & Wichern, D. W. (1998). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kahlor, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2009). If we seek, do we learn? Predicting knowledge of global warming. Science Communication, 30(3), 380-414.

Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 113-126.

Kok, R., Benders, R., & Moll, H. (2006). Measuring the environmental load of household consumption using some methods based on input-output energy analysis: a comparison of methods and a discussion of results. Energy Policy, 34, 2744-2761.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.

Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A., & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 633-647.

Marechal, K. (2010). Not irrational but habitual: The importance of “behavioral lock-in” in energy consumption. Ecological Economics, 69, 1104-1114.

Nijdam, D., Wilting, H., Goedkoop, M., & Madsen, J. (2005). Environmental load from Dutch private consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1-2), 147-168.

Nordhaus, W. D. (1992). An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science, 258, 1315-1319.

Staat, H.J., Wit, A.P., & Midden, C. Y. H. (1996). Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public: evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 45, 189-203.

Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review: the economics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentive, and proenvironmental consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Policy, 22, 461-478.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Los Angeles: Sage.

Tol, R. S. J. (2009). The economic effects of climate change. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(2), 29-51.

Tukker, A., Cohen, M., Husbacek, K., & Mont, O. (2010). The impacts of household consumption and options for change. Journal of Industry Ecology, 14(1), 13-30.

Vringer, K., & Blok, K. (1995). The direct and indirect energy requirements of households in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 23(10), 893-910.

Wier, M., Lenzen, M., Munksgaad, J., & Smed, S. (2001). Effects of household consumption patterns on CO2 requirements. Economic Systems Research, 13(3), 259-274.

Welsch, H., & Kuhling, J. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior and rational consumer choice: evidence from surveys of life satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 405-420.

Zhao, X. (2009). Media use and global warming perceptions: a snapshot of the reinforcing spirals. Communication Research, 36(5), 698-723.