評(píng)估臺(tái)灣的城市生活垃圾處理效率畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文3008字</b></p><p><b>　　外文資料翻譯</b></p><p>　　Evaluating the Efficiency of City Municipal Solid Waste Treatment in Taiwan</p><p>　　Abstract: In r

2、ecent years, the Taiwan government advocates the conception of zero waste in the municipal solid waste, and emphasizes the resource recycling to reduce exhaustion of resource. This is an important issue to how to reduce

3、the solid waste and effective waste management. This study adopts Super-SBM model to explore the efficiency evaluation of environmental municipal solid waste treatment and furthermore understand the rank of efficiency fr

4、om 23 counties in Taiwan. The empirical result</p><p>　　Keywords—Municipal Solid Waste, Super-SBM model, data envelopment analysis, efficiency evaluation.</p><p>　　I. Introduction </p>&l

5、t;p>　　Municipal solid waste treatment is an important problem faced by countries all over the world. Although countries have their own treatment methods, however, none of which were really effective. They all advocate

6、 source reduction, recycling and achieving the goal of zero waste. In Taiwan, in earlier times most solid wastes were buried. Later it evolved into incineration with complementary burying. In recent years, comprehensive

7、reforms in waste treatment are being undergone. The government began </p><p>　　Recently the emphasis of solid waste treatment was not placed on end-treatments such as incineration and burying. Rather the fo

8、cus was placed on origin based management to reduce source waste and to recycle resources. In addition, the government began to advocate green production, green consumption, source reduction, resource recycling, reuse,an

9、d reutilization to effectively recycle resources and achieve the goals of total garbage recycling and zero waste [1]. According to the Environmental Pro</p><p>　　However,the government invests large amounts

10、of resources on solid waste treatment, especially in labor and funds. According to statistics, in the past 3 years (2007-2009) human resources in waste clear-up and treatment accounted for 88.6% of all environmental prot

11、ection human resources in terms of all levels of government environmental protection agencies. Similarly, regarding the final accounting of environmental protection budget expenditure, air pollution control, water pollut

12、ion control, an</p><p>　　In recent years, there were a lot of research in solid waste treatment in the literature, but most of them focused on studying the policies [4-8]. These literatures held that solid

13、 waste treatment should be policy-design oriented, and that it is the proper way to settle important issues at hand. There were also a lot of papers focusing on the agendas of solid waste recycling [9-13], including the

14、establishment of recycling regulations, the establishment of recycling bases, and discussions on r</p><p>　　There are numerous methods to evaluate efficiency and performance. When multiple decision making un

15、its (DMU) are evaluating efficiency and performance on the basis of multiple inputs and outputs the most common method applied in organizational evaluation is Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). However, in terms of analysi

16、s technique the difficulty to rank efficiency existed in traditional EDA; secondly, even if super efficiency is used to overcome efficiency ranking, it is still limited to being onl</p><p><b>　　……</

17、b></p><p>　　IV. CONCLUSION </p><p>　　Under the present light of heightened awareness for environmental protection and promotion of zero waste, how the municipal departments can achieve the go

18、al of “zero waste” by source reduction and resource recycling under limited resources had become an important agenda. Although significant results were achieved in terms of solid waste volume and recycling volume in rece

19、nt years, but the input resources were also increasing dramatically with significant target results. This is especially so for</p><p>　　The results suggested the municipals with better efficiencies in the or

20、der of ranking were the 8 municipals of Penghu County, Tainan City, Taipei, Taichung and Kaohsiung, Nantou County, Ilan County, and Taipei County. Of which the three major cities of Taiwan, Taipei City, Taichung City, an

21、d Kaohsiung City ranked in the top 5. This may be due to earlier implementation of environmental protection related policies such as “Keep Trash off the Ground measure”, the “Four-in-One Recycling Plan”, and m</p>

22、<p>　　The present study used the Super-SBM model to analyze the efficiency of solid waste treatment of Taiwan’ s 23 municipals, yet there were limitations and difficulties encountered which prompted the following

23、two points of recommendation for future research reference. </p><p>　　First, there was a lack of long term data as the present research relied on the related environmental protection solid waste treatment da

24、ta contained in the Taiwan 2008 “Environmental Protection Statistics Annual Report”as data source. The long term efficiency results of the municipals in solid waste treatment were unknown. Therefore it is recommended tha

25、t future studies can reference multiple termed data as the source of data analysis to investigate output trends across periods. </p><p>　　Second, the selection of variables in the present study was limited

26、to the indicators used by “Environmental Protection Statistics Annual Report” and was unable to make comprehensive inclusions for the representativeness of overall solid waste treatment. In addition, environmental factor

27、 were not considered by the present study. Therefore it is recommended that future studies can include considerations for environmental factors and collect dynamic indicator selections for improved objectivity. </p&g

28、t;<p>　　Third, the present study used the Super-SBM model of DEA as assessment method. It is recommended that follow-up studies can implement different research method applications and integrations to investigate

29、efficiency assessment of environmental protection solid waste treatment.</p><p>　　評(píng)估臺(tái)灣的城市生活垃圾處理效率</p><p>　　摘要：近年來(lái)，臺(tái)灣政府倡導(dǎo)生活垃圾的“零浪費(fèi)”概念，并且強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)生活可垃圾的資源化利用，減輕資源緊缺的束縛，這是一個(gè)如何實(shí)現(xiàn)消減固體廢棄物并且對(duì)生活垃圾進(jìn)行有效管理的方案。本研

30、究利用Super-SBM模型探討城市生活垃圾的處理效率評(píng)價(jià)，并進(jìn)一步闡述臺(tái)灣23個(gè)縣的城市生活垃圾處理效率。評(píng)估結(jié)果表明：(1)有8個(gè)縣的評(píng)估效率比較高。 (2)評(píng)估效率排名前5的城市中臺(tái)灣占了3個(gè)。(3) 如果通過(guò)BBC模型進(jìn)行評(píng)估，則會(huì)出現(xiàn)評(píng)估結(jié)果偏高的現(xiàn)象。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：城市生活垃圾，Super-SBM模型，資料包絡(luò)分析法，效率評(píng)價(jià)</p><p><b>

31、　　簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　城市生活垃圾是困擾全世界各個(gè)國(guó)家的問(wèn)題，盡管世界各國(guó)各自都有處理城市生活垃圾的方法，每個(gè)國(guó)家都主張對(duì)城市生活垃圾實(shí)行源頭消減、循環(huán)利用以及對(duì)城市生活垃圾資源“零浪費(fèi)”的態(tài)度，但是這些方法中沒有一種能對(duì)城市生活垃圾進(jìn)行有效的處理。臺(tái)灣早期城市生活垃圾主要采用填埋處理，后來(lái)逐漸發(fā)展為填埋和焚燒技術(shù)相結(jié)合。近年來(lái)，臺(tái)灣對(duì)城市生活垃圾的處理開始全面實(shí)行改革。臺(tái)灣吸收了其他

32、國(guó)家的處理方法并給是制定重要的政策，包括從1996年推廣和宣傳“避免城市生活垃圾落在地上”的做法，這是城市生活垃圾收集的一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)，這與自1997年實(shí)施的“四合一”回收計(jì)劃相結(jié)，涉及到政府單位、居民社區(qū)、廢物回收商、和市政單位，合鼓勵(lì)公民參與其中，對(duì)按要求做的市民進(jìn)行獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)，全面實(shí)現(xiàn)城市成活垃圾的“減量化”和循環(huán)利用。在2002年為了提高城市生活垃圾資源化效率的一系列法律法規(guī)相繼開始實(shí)施，如《城市生活垃圾資源化利用法》、《城市生活垃圾處理

33、法》等，從2005年開始強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行城市生活垃圾分類收集制度，到2006年所有的市級(jí)城市實(shí)現(xiàn)了生活垃圾資源的“零浪費(fèi)”。</p><p>　　近幾年，臺(tái)灣的工作重點(diǎn)主要是城市生活垃圾產(chǎn)生源的管理、在產(chǎn)生源進(jìn)行生活垃圾的資源化，減少垃圾資源的浪費(fèi)，并不是把工作重點(diǎn)放在焚燒和填埋等城市生活垃圾的最終處理上。另外，政府還倡導(dǎo)綠色生產(chǎn)、綠色消費(fèi)、源頭減量、再利用和在使用，生活垃圾資源化利用取得了很好的效果，實(shí)現(xiàn)了垃圾資源的“

34、零浪費(fèi)” 。臺(tái)灣環(huán)境保護(hù)署的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，臺(tái)灣城市生活垃圾產(chǎn)生量由1999年為870萬(wàn)噸，而到了2009年這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)降低到了770萬(wàn)噸左右，1999年人均城市生活垃圾產(chǎn)生量為1.10kg/d，到2009年這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)降低到了0.91kg/d，這主要?dú)w功于源頭減量。在城市生活垃圾資源回收方面，資源回收率從2005年的28.94%上升至2009年的48.38%，由此看來(lái)，臺(tái)灣政府通過(guò)建立城市生活垃圾資源化和減量化制度成功地實(shí)現(xiàn)了城市生活垃圾的減少的目

35、標(biāo)。</p><p>　　但是，取得這樣的效果需要政府投入大量的資金，以及人力和物力。據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)從2007到2009年的三年間，參與城市生活垃圾處理和資源化的工作人員占各級(jí)政府環(huán)保部門人力資源的88.6% ，同樣，壞境保護(hù)最終預(yù)算的大部分用于空氣污染控制、水污染治理、城市生活垃圾的處理與處置。另一方面，空氣污染控制和水污染治理的資金隨著政府政策的實(shí)施而降低，而城市生活垃圾處理和處置所耗費(fèi)的資金從2006年到2008年

36、逐步攀升，并占環(huán)保預(yù)算支出的65% ，這表明政府對(duì)城市生活垃圾資源化和源頭減量化的臨時(shí)政策取得了一定的成果，但是這也加重了社會(huì)資源尤其是人力投入和物力投入方面的負(fù)擔(dān)。在此基礎(chǔ)上，本研究將探究臺(tái)灣各城市的城市生活垃圾處理效率，并分析各級(jí)政府對(duì)城市生活垃圾處理投入大量的社會(huì)資源是否構(gòu)成是會(huì)資源的浪費(fèi)，本研究也對(duì)城市生活垃圾處理效率較低的城市提出了改進(jìn)建議。</p><p>　　近年來(lái)，對(duì)城市生活垃圾的研究大多集中在政

37、策方面，并且這些研究認(rèn)為政策導(dǎo)向是解決目前所面對(duì)問(wèn)題的正確方式，政府應(yīng)加強(qiáng)對(duì)城市生活垃圾的政策導(dǎo)向。也有一些論文集中于對(duì)城市生活垃圾資源化程序的探討，包括建立回收管理制度，建設(shè)生活垃圾處理裝置，以及對(duì)生活垃圾回收資金的探討。然而，目前對(duì)城市生活垃圾處理效率的研究卻非常少，僅僅有一些對(duì)城市生活垃圾焚燒處理效率的研究，和一些對(duì)城市生活垃圾處理的預(yù)測(cè)，出于這個(gè)原因，本研究側(cè)重于對(duì)城市生活垃圾和處理程序的評(píng)估，以及對(duì)各城市的生活垃圾產(chǎn)生量和處理

38、情況的討論。</p><p>　　有關(guān)城市生活垃圾處理效率和效果的評(píng)價(jià)方法有很多種，在多個(gè)決策單元（DMU）處理效率及效果基礎(chǔ)上，最常用的評(píng)價(jià)方法是資料包絡(luò)分析法（DEA）。然而，傳統(tǒng)的對(duì)城市生活垃圾處理效率的進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)的資料包絡(luò)分析法存在困難，然而盡管超級(jí)的效率排名方式可以用來(lái)克服生活垃圾處理規(guī)模的改變，但是這只能克服較短時(shí)間內(nèi)的改變，當(dāng)城市生活垃圾的規(guī)模發(fā)生長(zhǎng)時(shí)間改變時(shí)，資料包絡(luò)分析法（DEA）的應(yīng)用會(huì)受到限制

39、。綜上所述，本研究將使用Tone在2002年提出的超級(jí)SBM模型對(duì)臺(tái)灣的23個(gè)城市的城市生活垃圾處理效率進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)，然后根據(jù)評(píng)價(jià)得出的城市排名結(jié)果進(jìn)行對(duì)比分析，從中找到導(dǎo)致一些城市排名較低的原因，并對(duì)這些城市提出改進(jìn)意見。</p><p><b>　　……</b></p><p><b>　　五、結(jié)論</b></p><p>

40、;　　在當(dāng)前條件下，政府如何通過(guò)提高公眾的環(huán)保意識(shí)和推廣“零浪費(fèi)”制度來(lái)達(dá)到來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)城市生活垃圾資源的“零浪費(fèi)”目標(biāo)并從中回收有限的可利用資源成為一個(gè)重要的議題。雖然臺(tái)灣近些年來(lái)在城市生活垃圾回收方面缺取得了顯著地成果，但是隨著這個(gè)顯著成果的取得而增加，政府對(duì)城市生活垃圾的處理和資源化利用過(guò)程中投入的社會(huì)資源也隨著增加，在政府投入的人力和資金方面這種現(xiàn)象非常明顯，城市生活垃圾量一直在減少，政府在城市生活垃圾方面的預(yù)算卻出現(xiàn)增長(zhǎng)。這也引出了

41、政府在對(duì)城市生活垃圾投入巨大的社會(huì)資源而取得目前這種執(zhí)行效率是否劃算的問(wèn)題，因此，本研究利用超級(jí)SBM模型對(duì)臺(tái)灣的23個(gè)城市的資源化利用效率進(jìn)行了排名，可以避免過(guò)去所使用的BBC和超級(jí)BBC模型不能解決在第一板塊中指出的問(wèn)題，以及不能同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)城市生活垃圾的多重效益這些核心問(wèn)題。本研究通過(guò)超級(jí)SBM模型評(píng)估所得到的臺(tái)灣23個(gè)城市的資源化利用效率排名旨在探討臺(tái)灣政府在對(duì)城市生活垃圾資源化利用方面投入的社會(huì)資源是否過(guò)量，并且提出了一些城市生活

42、垃圾合理資源化利用的建議。</p><p>　　評(píng)估結(jié)果表明排名在前8名的城市為澎湖、臺(tái)南、臺(tái)北、高雄、南投、宜蘭、臺(tái)中和基隆，其中臺(tái)灣的三大城市臺(tái)北、臺(tái)南和高雄均位于排名前5。這可等都?xì)w功于臺(tái)灣早先“四合一”回收計(jì)劃和“避免垃圾掉在地上”等環(huán)境保護(hù)政策的實(shí)施，臺(tái)北市取得這樣的效果也有這個(gè)原因，在2007年7月1日臺(tái)北市是臺(tái)灣地區(qū)第一個(gè)開始實(shí)施生活垃圾收費(fèi)制度的城市，這使臺(tái)北市的城市生活垃圾出現(xiàn)明顯的減少。另外，

43、傳統(tǒng)的資料包絡(luò)分析法（DEA）評(píng)估模型主要針對(duì)評(píng)估城市生活垃圾總體處理效率，并不能對(duì)城市生活垃圾資源化效率進(jìn)行準(zhǔn)確評(píng)估，導(dǎo)致各城市的城市生活垃圾處理效率排名失實(shí)。換句話說(shuō)，超級(jí)SBM評(píng)估模型，能對(duì)城市生活垃圾的資源化效率進(jìn)行準(zhǔn)確評(píng)估，這是得出得出真實(shí)各城市的生活垃圾資源化效率排名的保證。</p><p>　　本研究在使用超級(jí)SBM模型對(duì)臺(tái)灣的23個(gè)城市進(jìn)行生活垃圾資源化利用效率評(píng)估過(guò)程中遇到了一些困難，評(píng)估結(jié)果也

44、具有一定的局限性。由此提出下面的一些建議，為今后城市生活垃圾的評(píng)估提供參考。</p><p>　　首先，本研究的數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源為2008年臺(tái)灣公布的《環(huán)境保護(hù)年鑒》所提供的城市生活垃圾處理數(shù)據(jù)，而沒有長(zhǎng)期的關(guān)于臺(tái)灣地區(qū)城市生活垃圾處理的數(shù)據(jù)。因此，建議未來(lái)對(duì)城市生活垃圾進(jìn)行評(píng)估時(shí)以長(zhǎng)期的數(shù)據(jù)作為研究基礎(chǔ)，從而得出長(zhǎng)期的趨勢(shì)。</p><p>　　第二，本研究中在選擇研究變量時(shí)主要根據(jù)《環(huán)境保護(hù)年