世界各國面對垃圾量隨時間而逐漸上升的情形，原本皆視為必然趨勢，因此不斷地提供垃圾服務的供給來滿足家戶需求，以求達到均衡，這可說是「需求創造供給」。但是，一旦供給不足，在缺乏價格機能調節下，均衡將不復存在，於是降低家戶對垃圾服務需求的政策始被提出並被採行。另有一些研究則是瞭解人對環境的認知、態度與行為之間的關連性，許多研究發現其間關係為對環境知識瞭解愈詳細並傾向於新生態典範者，其行為表現就愈環保且較有積極的垃圾減量的行為，此為除了實施降低家戶對垃圾服務需求政策外另可同時進行的方向。

台灣目前已採用隨水量徵收垃圾清除處理費來反應各縣市政府在處理垃圾時的成本，不過因為此收費方式不是依垃圾量的多寡來收取，且家戶通常在繳交水費時無特別察覺到此筆費用，因此不會有付了清除費的感受，所以台灣近年來有幾個都市採行了減少家戶對垃圾服務需求方面的政策。此類政策大多分為兩種，一為行政命令式的強制回收；另一則是隨垃圾量收取垃圾費。台中市自民國88年7月1日首先實施「強制垃圾分類」，台北市則於民國89年7月1日實施「垃圾費隨袋徵收」制度，而今年1月1日，高雄市也採行了與台中市相同的政策，藉此來提高資源回收量、降低垃圾量。

本研究以一代表性家戶追求最大化效用，但受限於居住地的垃圾管理政策之條件，用比較靜態方式來分析在「無任何降低家戶對垃圾服務需求的政策」、「強制垃圾分類」、「垃圾費隨袋徵收」相異制度下，對家戶的垃圾源頭減量行為及垃圾丟棄量、非法傾倒量、資源回收量的影響。結果只有「隨袋徵收」具源頭減量效果，但是非法傾倒量也最多。若家戶只能以非法傾倒或合法丟棄兩種方式來處理垃圾時，那麼台中市、高雄市不會有非法傾倒的情形，但是台北市一定會有。而如果家戶只能在非法傾倒、從事回收間做抉擇，則台中市、高雄市會比台北市願意多做分類工作。至於若只有合法丟棄與回收間兩種可能性時，則要視其分類不完善的預期罰金與垃圾袋費用孰高來決定兩種制度下何者的回收量較高。

實證分析則得到對環境及垃圾管理認知、態度與日常環保行為愈正向者，其家戶會多花點兒心力於垃圾分類且垃圾量也較少。實施「強制垃圾分類」與「隨袋徵收」的地區，回收時間有顯著性地增加。但是對於減少垃圾容量，「隨袋徵收」才有顯著性的效果。本研究純粹探討制度不同對家戶減量行為的效果，而無分析不同政策的成本面，因此，環保單位應就欲達目的擇一適合的垃圾管理政策。

The amount of household solid waste that is constantly rising with time has been an inevitable trend. In order to reach the equilibrium, the governments all over the world initially supply the solid waste disposal services freely to fulfill the demand. However, once the cost of supply has grown to such an extent that supply falls short, the equilibrium will be impossible to reach. Thus, many governments have changed the policy of providing free disposal service and developed alternative approaches to lower household’s demand for the service.

In the meantime, some researches have studied the links between human perceptions, value, attitude and behavior toward the environment. Much of the research points to the fact that, the more detailed knowledge of the environment people hold, the more of New Environment Paradigm (NEP) they are, the more likely they are to actively reduce their waste and promote green behavior. This is one other route we can take to reduce household demand of solid waste services.

The waste disposal fee is charged according to the amount of water used by the household to cover the cost of waste collection and disposal in Taiwan. However, this charge scheme doesn’t relate the fee paid by a household to the amount of waste the household discard, and most households are thereby indifferent to the payment of waste fee. In recent years, several cities have undertaken alternative policy schemes to reduce the household demands for waste disposal service. These schemes mainly come in two ways：one is to charge fees according to the quantity of waste generated; the other is to enforce the mandatory recycling law. Since July 1st, 1999, Tai-Chung City has required households to separate the waste into recyclable and disposable while Taipei City had chosen the latter fashion - waste fee per bag since July 1st, 2000. Kaohsiung City, on the other hand, has performed the same scheme as Tai-Chung City beginning January 1st, 2001.

This study first develops a theoretical model of household disposal decision under different waste management policies：“no policy”, “required waste separation and recycling”, and “fee per-bag”. The household can choose among various options, including waste reduction, recycling, regular garbage collection and illegal dumping (or burning). The model shows that the “fee per-bag” is the only effective solution to source reduction; however, it induces the most illegal garbage dumping among the three schemes. In fact, the incidents of illegal dumping did not take place in Tai-Chung or Kaohsiung cities but was found in Taipei City.

When households can only choose between recycling and illegal dumping, then Tai-Chung and Kaohsiung city dwellers are more likely to do more separation and recycling work than Taipei’s. As for when only regular garbage collection and waste separation and recycling are available as in Tai-Chung and Kaohsiung cities, the households’ likelihood to recycle depends on the expected fines of incomplete separation.

Empirical result shows that when people have more knowledge about the environment and waste management policy, greener attitude towards environment, they tend to put more effort into waste separation and recycling, and their waste generated will be less than other households. The time people spend to separate waste increases significantly in those areas that apply “required waste separation” and “fee per-bag” programs. “Fee per-bag” has resulted in the largest decreases in the volume of the garbage.

一、 中文部分
1. 李永展，(1993)。「資源回收行為與垃圾處理之規劃」，國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報。第7期，p65-77。
2. 葉國樑、趙宏邦、唐貺怡，(2000)。「臺北地區居民資源回收信念與行為意圖研究」，衛生教育學報。第13卷，p53-72。
3. 王天佑、黃芳銘，(1999)「中大學生環境認知、態度與行為調查研究」，中大社會文化學報。第8期，p189-216。
4. 洪正中，(2000)「台北市的垃圾革命-垃圾清理費隨袋徵收」，環境教育季刊(43)，p1-7。
5. 劉銘龍，(1997)「韓國的垃圾革命--從量徵收制度的成功借鏡」，環耕(6)，p71-73。
6. 林明瑞、陳曉萍、謝欣佐(2000)，「中部地區公寓大樓、村里社區推動資源回收四合一計畫之成效評估」，環境教育季刊(43)，p48-58。
7. 錢玉蘭、鄭凱倫(1998)，「垃圾處理收費制度之探討」，環境教育季刊(36)，p14-22。
8. 盧世昌（1998），「淺談垃圾費隨量徵收」，環境教育季刊(36)，p53-57。
9. 劉邦裕、張皇珍、施肇芳，(2000)「資源回收與再利用」，環境工程會刊(11:4)，p38-45。
10. 柏雲昌(2000)，「我國資源回收政策的未來發展方向」，環境工程會刊(11:4)，p21-28。
11. 錢玉蘭、蕭代基、鄭凱倫(1997)，「一般廢棄物（垃圾）收費技術研究」。行政院環保署委託研究計畫。中華經濟研究院能源與環境研究中心。
12. 李玉惠(1992)，「台北市辦理垃圾分類、資源回收之功效評估-知識、態度、行為面分析」。台北市研考會。
13. 黃乾全、王懋雯(1998)，「師範學院學生環境行為之研究」，國主教育資料館委託國立台灣師範大學衛生教育研究所計畫研究。
14. 鐘倫納（1992），應用社會科學研究法。台北：台灣商務印書館。
15. 黃俊英、林震岩(1997)，SAS精析與實例。台北：華泰。
16. Thomas Herzog. (1996)。Research Methods and Data Analysis in the Social Sciences。朱柔若譯。台北：揚智。
17. 林清山(1983)，多變項分析統計法。台北：台灣東華。
18. 張健邦(1997)，多變量分析。台北：三民。
二、 英文部分
1. Beede, David N., and David E. Bloom, (1995) 〝Economics of the generation and Management of Municipal Solid Waste.〞National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 5116.Cambridge.
2. Choe, Choongwoo. , and Iain Fraser, (1999) 〝An Economic Analysis of Household Waste Management.〞 Journal of Environmental Economics & Management Vol.38 (2), p234-46.
3. Chung S. S., and C. S. Poon, (1996) 〝The Attitudinal Differences in Source Separation and Waste Reduction between the General Public and the Housewives in Hong Kong〞Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 48, pp. 215-227.
4. Chung S. S., and C. S. Poon, (2001) 〝A comparison of waste-reduction practices and new environmental paradigm of rural and urban Chinese citizens〞 Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 62, pp. 3-19.
5. Cody, Ronald P., Smith, Jeffrey K. (1997) Applied Statistics and the SAS Programming Language. USA: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
6. Dewees, Donald N,(1998) 〝Economics Analysis of Packing Waste Reduction.〞Department of Economics and Institute for Policy Analysis University of Toronto. Working Paper Number Ut-Ecipa-Dewees-98-01.Toronto.
7. Dobbs, IAN M., (1991) 〝Litter and Waste Management：Disposal Taxes versus User Charges.〞 Canadian Journal of Economics Vol.24 (1), p221-27.
8. Deborah Vaughn, Nestor., Podolsky, Michael J. (1998) 〝Assessing Incentive-Based Environmental Policies for Reducing Household Waste Disposal.〞　Contemporary Economic Policy 16, p401-411.
9. Fullerton, Don. , and Thomas C.Kinnaman, (1997) 〝Garbage and Recycling in Communities with curbside Recycling and Unit-Based Pricing.〞National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 6021.Cambridge.
10. Fullerton, Don., and Thomas C.Kinnaman., (1999) 〝The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management.〞National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 7326. Cambridge.
11. Fullerton, Don. , and Thomas C. Kinnaman, (1996) 〝Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag.〞The American Economic Review 86,p971-984.
12. Fullerton, Don. , and Thomas C. Kinnaman, (1995) 〝Garbage, Recycling, and illicit Burring or Dumping.〞Journal of Environmental Economics & Management 29, p78-91.
13. Fullerton, Don. , Wenbo Wu. (1998)〝Policies for Green Design.〞Journal of Environmental Economics & Management 36,p131-148.
14. Garces, Eliana. , Duncan Thomas, and Janet Currie, (2000) 〝Longer Term Effects of Head Start.〞National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 8054. Cambridge.
15. Gamba, R.J., and S. Oskmp, (1994) 〝Factors influencing community residents’ participation in commingled curbside recycling programs.〞Environment and Behavior 26, p587-612.
16. Halstead, John M., and William M. Park, (1996) 〝The role of economic Analysis in Local Government Decisions: The Case of Solid Waste Management.〞 Agricultural & Resource Economics Review Vol.25, (1) p76-82.
17. Jenkins, Robin R. (1993) The economics of solid waste reduction: the impact of user fees. Hant, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
18. Kaiser, Florian G., and Wolfing Sybille, Fuhrer Urs. (1999)〝Environmental Attitude and Ecological Behavior.〞Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 p1-19.
19. Ken Peattie, (1992), Green Marketing. London: Pitman Publishing.
20. Lober, Douglas J., (1996) 〝Municipal Solid Waste Policy and Public Participation in Household Source Reduction.〞Waste Management & Research, Vol.14, pp. 125-143.
21. Miranda, Marie Lynn. , Jess W. Everett, Daniel Blume, and Barbeau A. Roy, Jr., (1994) 〝Market-Based Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid Waste.〞 Journal of Policy Analysis & Management Vol.13 (4), p681-98.
22. Morris Glenn. E., Holthausen Jr Duncan M. (1994) 〝The Economics of Household Solid Waste Generation and Disposal〞Journal of Environmental Economics & Management Vol.26 (3), p215-34.
23. Marie Lynn, Miranda, Jess W. Everett, Daniel Blume, Barbeau A. Roy, Jr. (1994) 〝Market-Based Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid Waste〞Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Vol.26 (3), p215-34.
24. Mir Anjum Altaf. , and J.R. Deshazo , (1996)〝Household Demand for Improved Solid Waste Management：A Case Study of Gujranwala, Pakistan.〞World Development Vol.24, pp857-868.
25. Neuman, K., (1986) 〝 Personal values and commitment to energy conservation.〞Environment and Behavior18, p53-74.
26. Oskamp, S., M.J. Harrington, T.C. Edwards, D.L Sherwood, S.M. Okuda, and D.C. Swanson, (1991) 〝Factors influencing household recycling behavior.〞　Environment and Behavior 23, p494-519.
27. Renkow, M., and A.R. Rubin, (1998) 〝 Does municipal solid waste composting makes economic sense? 〞Journal of Environmental Management 53,p339-347.
28. Rolf-Ulrich Sprenger.〝Managing packaging waste：lessons from experience in Germany.〞Paper presented at the workshop on’ Solid Waste Management Policy’ Kyoto, 9th March 2000.
29. Reschovsky, James D., Stone, Sarah E. (1994) 〝Market Incentives to Encourage Household Waste Recycling：Paying for What you Throw Away.〞Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Vol.13, pp120-139.
30. Strathman, James G., Anthony M. Rufolo, and Gerard C.S. Mildner, (1995) 〝The Demand for Solid Waste Disposal.〞Land economics 71,p57-64.
31. Thomas, Duncan. , and Janet Currie,(1999)〝Does Head Start help Hispanic children?.〞 Journal of Public Economics 74, p235-62.
32. Thomas, Duncan. and Janet Currie,(1995) 〝Does Head Start Make a Difference?〞The American Economic Review, p341-361.
33. Yasoi Yasuda, (1997)〝Towards an Optimal Waste Management and Recycling System with Special Reference to Japanese Cities.〞Recycling in Asia, United Nations Center for Region Development, Research Report No.21, pp109-124.
34. Wertz, Kenneth L. (1976) 〝Economic Factors influencing Households’ Production of Refuse.〞Journal of Environmental Economics & Management 2,p263-72.
35. Werner Carol M., and Eeva Makela, (1998) 〝MOTIVATIONS AND BEHAVIORS THAT SUPPORT RECYCLING〞Journal of Environmental Psychology Vol.18, pp. 373-386.