Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28085
標題: 台灣民眾對生命價值的經濟評估-兩個方法之比較
Economic Valuation on Life Value of Taiwanese -Comparison Between Two Methods
作者: 黃文慶
Huang, Wen-Ching
關鍵字: flood
洪災
value of a statistical life
human capital method
contingent valuation method
willingness to pay
生命價值
人力資本法
條件評估法
願付價值
出版社: 應用經濟學系所
引用: 一、中文部份 1.王葳,1987,“生命價值之推估”,逢甲大學經濟學研究所碩士論文. 2.內政部消防署(2007),下載時間:2007/8/30 http://www.nfa.gov.tw/uploadfiles/series/200708302001.pdf 3.李俊鴻,2005,“洪災風險降低之健康效益評估”,國立中興大學應用經濟研究所博士論文. 4.許銘熙、謝龍生,2006,“台灣防洪治理工作之回顧與展望”,第十五屆水利工程研討會. 5.黃台心,1993,“生命價值的衡量”,台北銀行月刊第24卷1期 ,p.47-69. 6.張婉君,1999,“旅運者肇事生命損失評價之研究”,淡江大學交通管理運輸研究所碩士論文. 7.劉錦添、詹方冠,1989,“台灣地區勞動者生命價值之推估”,中央研究院經濟研究所經濟論文,p55-87 8.劉錦添、許績天,1997,“主觀工作風險知覺與工資補償-臺灣石化工人的研究”,中央研究院經濟研究所經濟論文,p51-69. 9.薛立敏、王素彎,1988,“台灣地區就業人口生命價值之評估—工資貼水之理論與實證”,中華經濟研究院論文. 10.蕭代基、鄭蕙燕、吳珮瑛、錢玉蘭、溫麗琪,2002,“環境保護之成本效益分析:理論、方法與應用”,台北:俊傑書局股份有限公司. 二、英文部份 1.Acton, J. P.,1975,“Measuring the Socia Impact of Heart and Circulatory Disease Programs:Preliminary Framework and Estimates”,Rand Corporation Report R-1697-NHLI, Santa Monica,CA. 2.Alberini, A., Alistair H., and A. Markandya, 2006. “Willingness to Pay to Reduce Mortality Risks: Evidence from a Three-country Contingent Valuation Study”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 33(2):251-264. 3.Cameron, T.A.and D.D. Huppert, 1989. “OLS versus ML Estimation of Non-Market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 17:230-246. 4.Cameron, T.A. and M.D. James, 1987. “Efficient Estimation Methods for Closed-ended Contingent Valuation Surveys ”, Journal of Marketing Reaserch,24:389-395. 5.Hammitt, J. K. and P. S. Corso, 2001. “Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(2):165–184 6.Drummond, M.O., Brien, B. J., Stoddart, G. and G. Torrance, 1997. “Methods of economic evaluation of health care programs (2nd ed.)”, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 7.Keeler, E.B.,2001. “The Value of Remaining Lifetime is Close to Estimated Values of Life”, Journal of Environmental Economics,20:141-143 8.Hammerton,M.,Jones-Lee,M.W.,and V. Abbott,1982“The Consistency and Coherence of Attitudes to Physical Risk”,Journal of Transport Economics and Policy,181-99. 9.Hodgson, T. A., and M. R. Meiners, 1982. “Costs of illness methodology: A guide to currentpractices and procedure”, Health and Society, 60(3):429-462. 10.Jorge, E.A.and J.L. Camelo,2006. “Modeling Unobserved Heterogeneity in Contingent Valuation of Health Risks”,Applied Economic,38:2315-2325. 11.Persson, U., Norinder,A., Hjalte, K. and K. Gralen, 2001.“The Value of a statistical Life in Transport:Findings from a new Contingent Valuation Study in Sweden”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(2):121–134. 12.Rice, D.and B.Cooper,1967“The Economic Value of Life”,American Journal of Public Health,57:1954-66. 13.Rice, D. P., Hodgson, T. A., andA. N. Kopstein,1985. “The economic costs of illness: Areplication and update”, Health Care Financing Review, 7:61-80. 14.Dardis, R., 1980. “The Value of a Life: New Evidence from the Markerplace”, American Economic Review, 70(5): 1077-82. 15.Schelling, T. C. ,1968. “The Life You Save May Be Your own”,Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. 16.Sujitra, V.and M. Shunji, 2005. “Risk Perceptions and Value of a Statistical Life for Air Pollution and Traffic Accidents:Evidence from Bangkok, Thailand”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 30(3):261-287 17.Welson, M. P. and G. L. Poe, 1998. “Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ,36:170-185. 18.Max, W., Rice, D. P., Sung H.Y.and M. Michel, 2004. “Valuing Human Life: Estimating the Present Value of Lifetime Earning,2000”,University of California,San Francisco. 19.Xu, Z.,Cheng,G.,Zhang,Z.,Su,Z.and J. Loomis,2003.“Applying Contingent Valuation in China to Measure the Toatal Economic Value of Restoring Ecosystem Services in Ejina Region”,Ecological Economics,44:345-358.
摘要: 亞洲地區為易受天然災害侵襲之區域,尤其台灣被列為全世界最容易致災地區之ㄧ。主要原因是位處歐亞大陸與太平洋之交界,氣候屬副熱帶季風區,又因地形複雜,高聳的中央山脈呈南北走向,更增加天氣多變性,長期以來飽受颱風及洪災事件的威脅。根據消防署天然災害損失統計資料顯示,自民國47年至95年間,天然災害事件發生次數共計287次,其中88%起因於颱風及洪災事件,也導致嚴重的傷亡和損失。 政府為解決水患問題,乃推動防洪治理方案,期望治理成果能真正解決易淹水致災區域之防洪問題,藉此保障人民的生命安全。防洪措施所產生的效益,可分為有形及無形效益。有形效益可蒐集市場資料並透過市場估價方法賦予貨幣價值,估計準確度較高,但相對的減輕民眾死亡風險的生命效益則屬於無形效益,在衡量上往往缺乏實際資料而不易進行。 本研究採用條件評估法及人力資本法評估洪災防減災措施所帶來的生命效益。條件評估法衡量民眾對風險降低的願付金額,估計人們對生命所隱含的評價。但不同個體有不同的認知,因而產生風險認知上的差異,此外尚有不同層面如社經背景與經驗、態度之差異,這些差異不僅影響民眾的受災程度,也將影響洪災風險降低的願付價值。而人力資本法在生命價值評估上並不包含非市場生產價值,因此本研究根據勞動供給模型,假設邊際休閒價值等同於邊際薪資率,將工作以外時間計入價值。重新計算人力資本法定義的生命價值,並檢定與條件評估法計算結果差異。 經實證推估後,民眾對洪災防減災措施的每人每年願付價值中位數為850元,且隨著親人因洪災發生造成傷亡、年齡為壯年、性別為男性、教育程度為大學程度以上及有保任何壽險者,會增加其願付價值。而生命價值計算上,人力資本法為1056至7073萬元,條件評估法為1175至22214萬元,經檢定差異後,發現兩方法仍存在顯著差異,但人力資本法結果己趨近先前條件評估法研究。
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28085
其他識別: U0005-0408200810502200
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-0408200810502200
Appears in Collections:應用經濟學系

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.