由於過量的人造溫室氣體排放，全球正積極制訂法規希望減緩氣候變遷的速率，其中森林扮演著相當重要的角色，對森林所提供的碳吸存貢獻給予碳價格給付為一重要的政策方向。然而僅考慮實質碳吸存效益是不夠的，因森林的低地表反照率特性可能使地球吸收更多熱能，而森林所吸收的能量有部份會轉存為化學能，並不完全以熱能型式散失。因此，本研究模擬在考慮森林的碳效益下，額外納入輻射能量收支等值碳量的影響，來探究杉木的最適輪伐期與林地期望值之變化。據本研究之實證結果，若存在碳價格機制，隨著碳價格的增加，最適輪伐期會延長，林地期望值也會上升，若再加上輻射能量收支等值碳量的影響，則最適輪伐期會稍微縮短，抵減森林部份的固碳作用，針對「僅有木材收益」、「木材+碳效益」、「木材+碳效益+輻射能量收支等值碳量」三種情境下之最適輪伐期(T、Tcs、Ttecs)做比較，其關係為：Tcs≥Ttecs≥T。

International efforts strife to mitigate negative externalities caused by man released greenhouse gasses. Attributing an economical value to forest carbon sequestration might represent is an important strategy to achieve such goals. Such a policy is likely to impact optimal rotation periods in forestry management. However accounting for carbon sequestration alone is not sufficient; the lower surface albedo of forests compared to converted land causes a higher grade of heat absorption, which negatively affects the policy value of forests. Yet due to photosynthesis not all of absorbed energy is converted to heat but partially used as chemical energy.
This thesis discusses the optimum rotation periods and land expectation values of cunninghania lanceolata, under the impact of carbon sequestration and the mentioned radiation budget. This is achieved by comparing three scenario: “just a timber (T),” “timber + carbon benefits (Tcs),” and “timber + carbon + carbon equivalent of radiation budget (Ttecs)”. The findings suggest that in the presence carbon sequestration pricing, the optimal rotation periods and land expectation values ought to increase proportionally to carbon prices and that the relation among optimal rotation periods will be Tcs≥Ttecs≥T (in case the ratio of carbon release is 1).

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機 4
第三節 研究目的 6
第四節 研究方法 7
第二章 文獻回顧 8
第一節 森林的二氧化碳吸存量研究 8
第二節 森林的最適輪伐期研究 9
第三節 反照率效果(The Albedo Effect) 11
第三章 理論模型 14
第一節 The Faustmann Rotation (僅有木材收益) 14
第二節 森林最大多目標利用價值模型 16
第四章 實證分析 19
第一節 實證樹種介紹 19
第二節 變數設定與估計 20
第三節 實證模擬結果與分析 27
第五章 結論與建議 33
參考文獻 35
附錄 40

1.Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Wickett, M., Phillips, T.J., Lobell, D.B., Delire, C., and Mirin, A. (2007). Combined Climate and Carbon-Cycle Effects of Large-Scale Deforestation. PNAS 104: 6550-6555.
2.Betts, R.A. (2000). Offset of the Potential Carbon Sink from Boreal Forestation by Decreases in Surface Albedo. Nature 408: 187-190.
3.Bonan, G.B. (2008). Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks and the Climate. Science, 320, 1444, doi:10.1126/science.1155121.
4.Canadell, J.G., Raupach, M.R. (2008). Managing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation. Science, 320(5882): 1456 –1457.
5.Chang, S. J. (1982). An Economic Analysis of Forest Taxation’s Impact on Optimal Rotation Age. Land Economics, 58(3): 310-323.
6.Chang, S. J. (1983). Rotation Age, Management Intensity, and the Economic Factors of Timber Production: Do Changes in Stumpage Price, Interest Rate, Regeneration Cost, and Forest Taxation Matter? Forest Science, 29(2): 267-278.
7.Curry, J.A., Schramm, J.L., Ebert, E.E. (1995). Sea-Ice Albedo Climate Feedback Mechanism. Journal of Climate, 8(2)： 240-247.
8.Dixon, R.K., Andrasko, K.J., Sussman, F.G., Lavinson, M.A., Trexler, M.C., Vinson, T.S. (1993). Forest Sector Carbon Offset Projects: Near-Term Opportunities to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 70, 561-577.
9.Englin, J. and Callaway, J. (1993). Global Climate Change and Optimal Forest Management. Natural Resource Model. 7, 191–202.
10.Faustmann, M. (1849). Calculation of the Value Which Forestland and Immature Stands Possess for Forestry. Reprinted in 1995 Journal of Forest Economics, 1(1), 7-44.
11.Hartman, R. (1976).The Harvesting Decision when a Standing Forest has Value. Economic Inquiry, 14, 52-58.
12.Hoen, H.F., Solberg, B., Sedjo, R.A., Sampson, R.M., Wisniewski, J. (Edited) (1997). Economics of Carbon Sequestration in Forestry. New York：CRC.
13.Kimmins, J.P. (1987). Forest Ecology. Macmillan Publishing, New York.
14.Klemperer, W. D. (1977). Forest Income Valuation Revisited. Real Estate Aaiser, 43(1):18.
15.Koskela, E. (1989). Forest Taxation and Timber Supply under Price Uncertainty: Credit Rationing in Capital Markets. Forest Science, 35(1): 160-172.
16.Koskela, E. (2000). Forest Taxation and Rotation Age under Private Amenity Valuation: New Results. Pellervo Economic Research Institute Working Paper, 37.
17.Maclaren, J.P. (1996). Plantation Forestry-Its Role as a Carbon Sink：Conclusions from Calculations Based on New Zealand’s Planted Forest Estate. In： Apps MJ, Price DT, editors. Forest Ecosystems, forest management and the global carbon cycle. Berlin Heidelberg：Springer-Verlag. p. 257-270.
18.Myhre, G., Highwood, E.J., Shine, K., Stordal, F. (1998). New Estimates of Radiative Forcing Due to Well Mixed Greenhouse Gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25 (14), 2715–2718.
19.Plantinga, A.J. and Birdsey, R.A. (1994). Optimal Forest Stand Management when Benefits are Derived from Carbon. Natural Resource Modeling 8(4): 373-387.
20.Pietro (2009). Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 86, pp. 579-581.
21.Sedjo, R.A. (1989). Forest to Offset the Greenhouse Effect. Journal of Forestry 87(7)：12-15.
22.Sedjo, R. and Solomon, A. (1989). 'Climate and Forests' in Rosenberg, N, Easterling, W III, Crosson, P and Darmstadter, J (eds) Greenhouse Warming: Abatement and Adaptation Resources For the Future, Washington, 105-109
23.Spracklen, D.V., Arnold, S.R. and Taylor, C.M. (2012). Observations of Increased Tropical Rainfall Preceded by Air Passage over Forests. NATURE, vol 489, pp.282-285.
24.Stainback, G.A., Alavalapati, R.R. (2002). Economic Analysis of Slach Pine Forest Carbon Sequestration in the Southern U.S. Journal of Forest Economics 8 (2), 105–117.
25.Thompson, M.P., Adams, D., Sessions, J. (2009). Radiative Forcing and the Optimal Rotation Age. Ecological Economics 65(10), pp. 2713–2720.
26.Van Kooten, C.G., Binkley, C.S., Delcourt, G. (1995).Effect of Carbon Taxes and Subsidies on Optimal Forest Rotation Age and Supply of Carbon Services. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77, 365-374.
27.Watson, R.T., Noble, I.R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., Dokken, D.J. (2000). Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry 2000: Summary for Policymakers. Geneva, Switzerland：IPCC.
28.李國忠、林俊成、陳麗琴(2000)。台灣杉人工林碳吸存潛力及其成本效益分析。台灣林業科學。15(1)：115-123。
29.肖登攀、陶福祿、Moiwo Juana P(2011)。全球變化下地表反照率研究進展。地球科學進展。26(11)：1217-1224。
30.林俊成、李國忠、林裕仁(1999)。柳杉人工林碳貯存效果與適應成本研究。台大實驗林研究報告。13(1)：51-60。
31.林俊成、鄭美如、劉淑芬、李國忠(2002)。全民造林運動二氧化碳吸存潛力之經濟效益評估。台灣林業科學17（3）：311-321。
32.林國慶、柳婉郁(2007a)。考慮碳吸存價格下最適輪伐期與土地期望價分析。農業經濟叢刊。13 (1)：1-35。
33.柳婉郁、盧又銘、林國慶(2009)。同時考慮碳價格與木材價格不確定下最適輪伐期之決定。農業經濟叢刊。15(1)：115-145。
34.洪富文、孫正春、黃松根(1985)。蓮華池地區不同林齡杉木林地上部生物量之分佈。林業試驗所研究報告第444號。
35.陳利軍、劉高煥、勵惠國 (2002) 。中國植被淨第一性生產力遙感動態監測。遙感學報 6(2):129-136。
36.陳麗琴(1987)。杉木原木最適材之經濟分析。林業試驗所研究報告季刊，2(3)，227-240。
37.陳麗琴、黃進睦(1992)。Weibull機率密度函數於蓮華池杉木人工林原木經濟價值之研究。林業試驗所研究報告季刊，7(3)，221-230。
38.馬子斌、陳政靜、熊如珍、黃清吟、陳欣欣、翟思湧(1992)。重要商用木材之一般性質。台灣省林業試驗所林業叢刊1：4-5。
39.秦建華、姜志林(1996)。杉木林生物量及其分配的變化規律。生態學雜誌15(1)：1-7。
40.劉浚明(1997)。疏伐作業影響輪伐期長短之研究。中華林學季刊，30(1)，71-84。
41.劉浚明、鍾旭和(1993)。台灣杉非線性收穫模式之建立。中華林學季刊，26(2)，39-49。
42.鄭欽龍(2010)。國有林林木經營區因應減碳政策之最適經營規劃。行政院農委會林務局九十八年度委託研究計畫報告。
43.鮑平勇、張友靜、貢璐等(2007)。由遙感數據獲取的地表反照率歸一化問題探討。河海大學學報：自然科學版，35(1)：67-71。
44.羅天祥、趙士洞(1997)。中國杉木林生物生產力格局及其數學模型。植物生態學報21(5)：403-415。