行政院環保署在近幾年來推動環境保護政策不遺餘力，尤其在廢棄物管理的政策中，對於垃圾源頭減量及回收、資源循環再利用等方面，希望能達到「零廢棄」的目標，以與國際接軌。本研究為探討台灣地區22個縣市自2001年至2010年廢棄物管理支出與其管制績效間的因果關係，選定變數為廢棄物管理支出與垃圾妥善處理率及執行機關資源回收率，藉由Granger因果關係檢定其間的因果關係。
由於一般廢棄物管理支出之數據取得不易，且無法切割細分各指標項之實際支出，在考量政府之預算編列有其一致性與連續性，除非有重大事故或變故發生，否則每一年編列之預算比例變動應不大，故假設全部廢棄物管理支出皆支應於一般廢棄物管理。經由實證結果得知，垃圾妥善處理率與廢棄物管理支出不具有因果關係。在1%的顯著水準下，廢棄物管理支出對執行機關資源回收率具有Granger因果關係，在10%的顯著水準下，執行機關資源回收率對廢棄物管理支出有Granger因果關係，故環保署所推動之「源頭減量、資源回收」的「零廢棄」政策，確實可減少廢棄物管理支出。因此，如能有效地源頭減量、資源回收，不但可改善環境衛生，提高生活品質及維護國民健康，並且可減少廢棄物管理支出，藉此更能將有限資源做最適的配置，以收經濟成長與環境保護並行而不悖之效。

The Environmental Protection Administration of Executive Yuan has been promoting the environmental protection policy for years, hoping to achieve the goal of “zero waste” and meet the international environmental standard by executing source minimization and resource recycling. The study aims to investigate the causality between the disbursement incurred from waste management and the effectiveness of control measures of the 22 Taiwan’s administrative regions from 2001 to 2010; variables of the examination are, disbursement incurred from waste management , disposal or treatment rate of municipal waste, and recycling rate of enforcement authority. After the gathering of data, the Granger test is conducted to determine the causality.
Given that the data of disbursement incurred from waste management is hard to gather and the details of the actual disbursement of the evaluation indices are impossible to separate, the study postulates that, with consideration of the consistency and continuity of the budgeting process and the massive accident, all the disbursement incurred from waste management is used for the said purpose. The result of the empirical research indicates that disposal or treatment rate of municipal waste and disbursement incurred from waste management are not causally related.
In the Granger test, the correlation between disbursement incurred from waste management and recycling rate of enforcement authority are significant at the 0.01 level; the correlation between recycling rate of enforcement authority and disbursement incurred from waste management are significant at the 0.1 level. Therefore, the “Zero Waste” and “source minimization and resource recycling” policy promoted by the Administration is effective in reducing the disbursement incurred from waste management. If we adhere to the environmental policy, we can not only improve the environmental health and life quality, but also be able to reduce the expense of waste management and invest the resource on other departments to achieve the effect of protecting the environment while maintaining economic growth.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
目 錄 iv
表目錄 v
圖目錄 vi
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與範圍 4
第二章 文獻回顧 8
第一節 一般廢棄物管理對經濟與環境的影響 8
第二節 一般廢棄物的管制策略 10
第三章 研究方法 15
第四章 實證結果與分析 22
第一節 各變數與資料來源說明 22
第二節 單根檢定 28
第三節 相關係數檢定 29
第四節 因果關係檢定 31
第五章 結論與建議 35
參考文獻 37
一、中文部分 37
二、英文部分 38
附錄 40

一、中文部分
1.行政院環保署(2010)。「99年版環境白皮書」。台北市：行政院環保署。
2.行政院環保署(2011)。「100年版環境白皮書」。台北市：行政院環保署。
3.溫麗琪(2000)。污染者付費？還是補貼污染者？「經濟前瞻雙月刊」，71，117-119。
4.曾治乾、謝素珍、葉國樑、林健輝、黃禎貞(2011)。台北市某國小高年級學童垃圾減量行為意圖及相關因素之研究。「健康促進暨衛生教育雜誌」，31，140-161。
5.王塗發(2004)。「永續能源與產業發展」。台北市：國家發展文教基金會。
6.林倖妃(民國2007年7月31日)。資源回收年產值近兩百億。「中國時報」。
7.葉國樑、唐孝蘭(2006)。國民中學健康與體育領域之資源回收價值澄清教學效果探討。「學校衛生」。48，97-115。
8.趙育隆(2007)。都市垃圾清運方式對資源回收量影響之時間序列分析：以垃圾不落地措施為例。「都市與計劃」，34，117-137。
9.溫麗琪(2005)。廢棄物回收處理費之回收處理市場及誘因效果。「人文及社會科學集刊」，17，491-520。
10.張其祿(2002)。環境管制：經濟誘因工具的選擇與評估。「中國行政評論」，11：3，45-62。
11.楊奕農(2011)。「時間序列分析」。台北市：雙葉書廊。
12.鐘惠民、周賓凰、孫而音(2011)。「財務計量：Eviews的運用」。台北市：新陸書局。
13.陳順宇(2009)。「迴歸分析」。台北市：三民書局。
14.Damodar N. Gujarati，張濤譯(2008)。「計量經濟學原理」。台北市：美商麥格羅•希爾國際。
二、英文部分
1.Arellano, M., & S. Bond,( 1991), “Some test of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 58, pp.277-297
2.Ashenfelter, Orley and Card, David, "Time-Series Representations of Economic Variables and Alternative Models of the Labour Market," Review of Economic Studies, Supplement 1982, 49, 761-82.
3.Cheng Hsiao. （1986）.Analysis of panel data. Cambridge New York : Cambridge University Press.
4.Engle, R.F. and Granger, C.W.J. (1987) , “Cointegration and Error Correction Representation, Estimation and Test , ” Econometrica, 55, 2, 251-273.
5.Granger, C. and P. Newbold(1974), “Spurious Regressions in Econometrics,” em Journal of Econometrics, 2, 111-120.
6.Granger, C. W. J. (1969) ,”Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectal methods.”Econometrica,37,424-438.
7.Holtz-Eakin, D., W. Newey, and H. S. Rosen, 1988, “Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data,” Econometrica, vol. 56, no.6, pp. 1371-1395.
8.Hurlin, C., & B. Venet, 2001, “Granger causality test in panel data models with fixed coefficients,”(Working Paper Eurisco 2001-09). Paris: University of Paris Dauphine.
9.Johansen, S. and Juselius, K. (1990) , “Maximun Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration with Applications to the Demand for Money,’’ Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 2, 169-209.
10.Kiviet, J.F., 1995, “On bias, inconsistency, and efficiency of various estimators in dynamic panel data models,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 68,pp.53-78
11.Levin, A., Lin, C. F., and C. Chu (2002). "Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties," Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24.
12.Love and Zicchino, 2006 I. Love, L. Zicchino Financial development and dynamic investment behavior: Evidence from a panel VAR Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 46 (2006), pp. 190–210
13.Sims (1980), “ Macroeconomics and Reality,” Econometrics, Vol. 48, pp. 1-48
14.TAYLOR, J. B. (19806), "Output and Price Stability: An International Comparison", Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 2, 109-132.
15.TAYLOR, J. B. (1980a), "Aggregate Dynamics and Staggered Contracts", Journal of Political Economy, 88,1-23.