離岸風電（Offshore Wind Energy, OWE）已成為台灣能源部門去碳化政策的核心支柱。台灣海峽具有強勁且穩定的風能資源，成為大規模離岸開發的前緣。然而，在同一片海域中同時支撐豐富的海洋生態系及存在歷史悠久的漁業生計。快速擴張的能源基礎設施與傳統漁業的共存，造成了空間、社會與生態上的多重衝擊，使政府政策制定者、開發商與沿海社群皆必須面對這些挑戰。本論文直接針對此議題探討，試圖解析離岸風電如何在與漁民社群處境共存的情況下，能持續發展，並進一步評估與管理環境、經濟與社會面向的權衡的政策工具。
本研究的核心理念是針對離岸風電開發、施工、營運與除役各階段進行評估，發展了一套針對台灣海峽海洋空間衝突的「生命週期永續評估（Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, LCSA）」架構。整合了環境生命週期評估（LCA）、生命週期成本分析（LCC）與社會生命週期評估（SLCA），建立多維度的分析視角，呈現離岸風電專案的影響與潛在的減緩或利益共享機會。
首先，政策分析部分比較了台灣漁業治理、環境影響評估的程序與政府制訂的利益共享機制，分析其與國際標準（尤其是 IFC 永續準則與《赤道原則》第四版，EP4）之間的落差。其次，則採用結構化問卷，針對四大類利害關係人（開發商、漁業代表、政府機關及學術專家）進行調查。為確保指標選取的嚴謹性，問卷採用80%共識門檻，依照達到此標準的指標進行後續分析。最後，檢驗不同利害關係人群體在將永續指標對應至國際原則時是否存在系統性差異。
再者，根據既有文獻歸納出涵蓋環境、社會與經濟三構面的永續性指標，並將其與國際標準（IFC 永續準則與赤道原則 EP4）進行對應分析，以建立後續問卷與訪談的評估基準。研究結果主要發現包括，第一，台灣離岸風電的推動框架在若干關鍵面向與國際標準（如 IFC 永續準則與 EP4）存在顯著落差，特別是在累積影響評估、超越一次性補償的生計復原規劃，以及對水下噪音與氣候風險的規範要求方面。第二，多數永續原則在各利害關係人之間具有高度共識，但在原則 2（環境與社會影響評估）上呈現顯著統計差異，並在原則 1、8 與 9 之間出現衝突。第三，LCSA 結果顯示離岸風電專案雖能帶來顯著的減碳效益，但仍存在未解決的權衡問題：不完善的漁業補償機制與薄弱的參與程序可能削弱長期社會接受度。
最後，本研究輔以半結構式深度訪談，以掌握真實世界協商過程中的細微差異。同時，研究亦比較台灣海峽正在開發中的離岸風場案例，分析其在法規適用、漁業補償機制與利害關係人參與成效等面向的差異，以強化了研究結果的實證可信度。整體而言，本研究指出台灣應進一步強化離岸風電之治理體系，將上位海洋空間規劃、區域／群聚層級的累積影響評估、法制化生計復原導向要求，以及以客觀且可公開檢證的監測與資訊揭露所支撐的透明利益共享制度，納入既有政策與審查架構。未來可供相關主管機關營運單位於施政政策及營運策略之參考。

Offshore wind energy (OWE) has emerged as a cornerstone of Taiwan’s strategy to decarbonize the energy sector. The Taiwan Strait offers strong and consistent wind resources, making it an attractive frontier for large-scale offshore development. At the same time, these same waters support long-established fishing livelihoods and rich marine ecosystems. The juxtaposition of rapidly expanding energy infrastructure and traditional fisheries has produced a set of spatial, social, and ecological tensions that policy-makers, developers, and coastal communities must now confront. This dissertation addresses that tension directly by asking how offshore wind can expand without leaving fishing communities worse off, and by proposing practical tools to assess and manage trade-offs across environmental, economic, and social dimensions.
The central premise of the study is to develop a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) framework across development, construction, operation, and decommissioning phases, tailored to maritime spatial conflicts in Taiwan Strait. The LCSA integrates environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) to produce a multi-dimensional picture of project consequences and opportunities for mitigation or benefit-sharing.
First, the research combines a policy gap analysis compareing Taiwan’s domestic fishery governance, environmental impact assessment procedures, and benefit-sharing mechanisms against international benchmarks notably the IFC Performance Standards and the Equator Principles (EP4). Second, a structured questionnaire was used to survey four stakeholder groups (developers, fishery representatives, government agencies, and academic experts). To ensure rigor in indicator selection, the survey used an 80% consensus threshold. Finally, the study examines whether there are systematic differences among different stakeholder groups in mapping sustainability indicators to international principles.
Furthermore, sustainability indicators were synthesized from the existing literature across environmental, social, and economic dimensions and mapped against international benchmarks, the IFC Performance Standards and the Equator Principles (EP4), to establish a consistent analytical baseline for the survey and interview components. The results show three core findings: First, Taiwan’s regulatory framework diverges from international norms (IFC Performance Standards, EP4) in key areas such as cumulative impact assessment, livelihood restoration beyond one-off compensation, and requirements for underwater noise and climate risk. Second, while most sustainability principles enjoy broad stakeholder consensus, Principle 2 (environmental and social assessment) reveals statistically significant differences among groups, with additional tensions emerging around Principles 1, 8, and 9. Third, the LCSA highlights that offshore wind projects can achieve strong carbon-reduction benefits, but unresolved trade-offs remain: inadequate fishery compensation mechanisms and weak participatory processes threaten long-term social acceptance.
Finally, this study employed a supplementary series of semi-structured interviews to capture the nuances of real-world negotiation processes. The study also compares the offshore wind farms currently under development, highlighting differences in regulatory treatment, fishery compensation mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement effectiveness across projects. Overall, this study argues that Taiwan should further strengthen its offshore wind governance by embedding upstream marine spatial planning, regional/cluster-level cumulative impact assessment, and enforceable livelihood restoration protocols, together with a transparent benefit-sharing regime supported by objective, publicly verifiable monitoring and data disclosure, into existing policy and approval frameworks. This can serve as a reference for relevant competent authorities and operating entities in future policy-making and operational strategies.

1. Ahmed, N. A. & Cameron, M., 2014, “The challenges and possible solutions of horizontal axis wind turbines as a clean energy solution for the future”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38: 439–460.
2. Atilgan, B. & Azapagic, A., 2016, “An integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Turkey”, Energy Policy, 93: 168–186.
3. Avila, S., 2018, “Environmental justice and the expanding geography of wind power conflicts”, Sustainability Science, 13(3): 599–616.
4. Baka, J., 2017, “Making space for energy: Wasteland development, enclosures, and energy dispossessions”, Antipode, 49(4): 977–996.
5. Bell, D., Gray, T. & Haggett, C., 2005, “Offshore wind farms and commercial fisheries in the UK: A study in stakeholder consultation”, Ethics, Place and Environment, 8(2): 127–140.
6. Bento, N. & Fontes, M., 2019, “Emergence of offshore wind energy: Technology and industry”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 99: 66–82.
7. Bidwell, D., 2013, “The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy”, Energy Policy, 58: 189–199.
8. Bishop, I. D. & Miller, D. R., 2007, “Visual assessment of offshore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables”, Renewable Energy, 32(5): 814–831.
9. Botetzagias, I., Malesios, C., Kolokotroni, A. & Moysiadis, Y., 2015, “The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(2): 229–251.
10. Boyle, K. J., Boatwright, J., Brahma, S. & Xu, W., 2019, “NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms”, Resource and Energy Economics, 57: 85–100.
11. Brannstrom, C., Gorayeb, A., de Sousa Mendes, J., Loureiro, C., de Andrade Meireles, A. J., da Silva, E. V., … & de Oliveira, R. F., 2017, “Is Brazilian wind power development sustainable? Insights from a review of conflicts in Ceará state”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67: 62–71.
12. Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006, “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101.
13. Burningham, K., Barnett, J. & Walker, G., 2015, “An array of deficits: unpacking NIMBY discourses in wind energy developers' conceptualizations of their local opponents”, Society & Natural Resources, 28(3): 246–260.
14. Chiau, W.-Y., 2019, “The Development of Offshore Wind Farms in Taiwan: A Marine Policy Perspective”, Journal of National Development Studies, 18(2): 55–124.
15. Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M. & Wales, P. W., 2014, “Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies”, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4): 401–409.
16. Díaz, H., Serna, J., Nieto, J. & Guedes Soares, C., 2022, “Market needs, opportunities and barriers for the floating wind industry”, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(7): 934.
17. Dincer, I. & Acar, C., 2015, “A review on clean energy solutions for better sustainability”, International Journal of Energy Research, 39(5): 585–606.
18. Dunlap, A., 2020, “Bureaucratic land grabbing for infrastructural colonization: renewable energy, L’Amassada, and resistance in southern France”, Human Geography, 13(2): 109–126.
19. Evans, A., Strezov, V. & Evans, T.J., 2009, “Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5): 1082–1088.
20. Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E.M., Lehmann, A. & Traverso, M., 2010, “Towards life cycle sustainability assessment”, Sustainability, 2(10): 3309–3322.
21. Frolova, M., Centeri, C., Benediktsson, K., Hunziker, M., Kabai, R., Scognamiglio, A., … & Roth, M., 2019, “Effects of renewable energy on landscape in Europe: Comparison of hydro, wind, solar, bio-, geothermal and infrastructure energy landscapes”, Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 68(4): 317–339.
22. Gee, K., 2010, “Offshore wind power development as affected by seascape values on the German North Sea coast”, Land Use Policy, 27(2): 185–194.
23. Genoud, S. & Lesourd, J.B., 2009, “Characterization of sustainable development indicators for various power generation technologies”, International Journal of Green Energy, 6(3): 257–267.
24. Gross, C., 2007, “Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance”, Energy Policy, 35(5): 2727–2736.
25. Gujba, H., Mulugetta, Y. & Azapagic, A., 2010, “Environmental and economic appraisal of power generation capacity expansion plan in Nigeria”, Energy Policy, 38(10): 5636–5652.
26. Guo, Y., Ru, P., Su, J. & Anadon, L. D., 2015, “Not in my backyard, but not far away from me: Local acceptance of wind power in China”, Energy, 82: 722–733.
27. Haggett, C., 2011, “Understanding public responses to offshore wind power”, Energy Policy, 39(2): 503–510.
28. Hanna, P. & Vanclay, F., 2013, “Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(2): 146–157.
29. Heidenreich, S., 2016, “Out of sight, out of mind? Controversy over offshore wind energy in Norway's news media”, Science as Culture, 25(4): 449–472.
30. Henderson, A. R. & Witcher, D., 2010, “Offshore wind energy—a review of the current status and an assessment of the prospects”, Wind Engineering, 34(1): 1–16.
31. Hirschberg, S., Dones, R., Heck, T., Burgherr, P., Schenler, W. & Bauer, C., 2004, “Sustainability of electricity supply technologies under German conditions: A comparative evaluation”, Paul Scherrer Institut.
32. Hoffman, S. L., 1988, “Project Financing: Loans Based on Cash Flow and Contracts”, Commercial Lending Review, 4: 18.
33. Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H., Ciroth, A., Swarr, T., Pagan, B. & Itsubo, N., 2008, “Life Cycle Costing”, SETAC World Congress.
34. Ioannidis, R. & Koutsoyiannis, D., 2020, “A review of land use, visibility, and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact”, Applied Energy, 276: 115367.
35. Jacobsen, A. & Godvik, M., 2021, “Influence of wakes and atmospheric stability on the floater responses of the Hywind Scotland wind turbines”, Wind Energy, 24(2): 149–161.
36. Jeswani, H. K., Gujba, H. & Azapagic, A., 2011, “Assessing options for electricity generation from biomass on a life cycle basis: environmental and economic evaluation”, Waste and Biomass Valorization, 2(1): 33–42.
37. Kannan, R., Leong, K.C., Osman, R. & Ho, H.K., 2007, “Life cycle energy, emissions and cost inventory of power generation technologies in Singapore”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(4): 702–715.
38. Kirihara, S., 2018, “Questionnaire survey on opinions about offshore wind farms in fishermen of Aomori Prefecture, the northern part of Honshu Island, Japan”, in Grand Renewable Energy Proceedings, Japan Council for Renewable Energy (2018), p. 251. Japan Council for Renewable Energy.
39. Klöpffer, W., 2008, “Life cycle sustainability assessment of products: (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95)”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13: 89–95.
40. Kottner, J., Audigé, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A., Gajewski, B. J., Hróbjartsson, A., ... & Streiner, D. L., 2011, “Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(6): 661–671.
41. Lamhamedi, B. E. H. & de Vries, W. T., 2022, “An Exploration of the Land–(Renewable) Energy Nexus”, Land, 11(6): 767.
42. Labussière, O. & Nadaï, A., 2018, “Spatialities of the energy transition: intensive sites making earth matter?”, Energy Research & Social Science, 36: 120–128.
43. Lee, H., Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P., … & Park, Y., 2023, IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
44. Lu, H. Y., 2022, “Rethinking the Conflict between Offshore Wind Farm and Nearshore Fishery from a Temporal Perspective”, Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology, 97: 123–168.
45. Lutzeyer, S., Phaneuf, D. J. & Taylor, L. O., 2018, “The amenity costs of offshore wind farms: Evidence from a choice experiment”, Energy Economics, 72: 621–639.
46. Manwell, J. F., McGowan, J. G. & Rogers, A. L., 2010, “Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design and Application”, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
47. Matta, E. J., 2012, “Renewable, clean energy: the petroleum footprint—wind farms under analysis”, International Journal of Environment and Health, 6(2): 111–124.
48. Maxim, A., 2014, “Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis”, Energy Policy, 65: 284–297.
49. May, J. R. & Brennan, D. J., 2006, “Sustainability assessment of Australian electricity generation”, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 84(2): 131–142
50. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J., 1997, “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886.
51. Papillon, M. & Rodon, T., 2017, “Proponent-Indigenous agreements and the implementation of the right to free, prior, and informed consent in Canada”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62: 216–224.
52. Peng, W. T. & Jen-Te, P., 2020, Use the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) combined with Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) to evaluate the operational benefits of the railway constructions development, Master Theses, ChengChi University.
53. Rahman, S., Khan, I., Alkhammash, H. I. & Nadeem, M. F., 2021, “A comparison review on transmission mode for onshore integration of offshore wind farms: HVDC or HVAC”, Electronics, 10(12): 1489.
54. Ray-Yeng, Y., Chung-Chun, H., Yun-Lu, M. & Chun-To, T., 2020, “Analysis on the development trend of international floating offshore wind technology industrialization”, Marine Research: 87–100.
55. Ryan, B. J., 2015, “Security spheres: A phenomenology of maritime spatial practices”, Security Dialogue, 46(6): 568–584.
56. Santoyo-Castelazo, E. & Azapagic, A., 2014, “Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 80: 119–138.
57. Siddagangaiah, S., Fang Chen, C., Hu, W. C., Akamatsu, T., & Pieretti, N., 2025, “Assessing the influence of offshore wind turbine noise on seasonal fish chorusing”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 82(4): fsae061.
58. Siddagangaiah, S., Chen, C. F., Hu, W. C., Erbe, C., & Pieretti, N., 2024, “Influence of increasing noise at the offshore wind farm area on fish vocalization phenology: A long-term marine acoustical monitoring off the foremost offshore wind farm in Taiwan”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 208: 116969.
59. Stamford, L. & Azapagic, A., 2012, “Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity options for the UK”, International Journal of Energy Research, 36(14): 1263–1290.
60. Stelzenmüller, V., Diekmann, R., Bastardie, F., Schulze, T., Berkenhagen, J., Kloppmann, M., … & Kraus, G., 2016, “Co-location of passive gear fisheries in offshore wind farms in the German EEZ of the North Sea: A first socio-economic scoping”, Journal of Environmental Management, 183: 794–805.
61. Taylor, R. A., 2020, “We need to talk about forecasting: Guidelines for evidence-based forecasting in environmental policy”, Environmental Science & Policy, 108: 54–61.
62. Tong, K. C., 1998, “Technical and economic aspects of a floating offshore wind farm”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 74: 399–410.
63. Tseng, W. L., Lin, C. W., Wang, Y. C., Hsu, H. H., Chiu, K. M., Wu, Y. S., … & Chen, Y. T., 2024, “Evaluating constraints on offshore wind farm installation across the Taiwan Strait by exploring the influence of El Niño–Southern Oscillation on weather window assessment”, Heliyon, 10(21).
64. Tseng, Y. C., Lee, Y. M. & Liao, S. J., 2017, “An integrated assessment framework of offshore wind power projects applying Equator Principles and social life cycle assessment”, Sustainability, 9(10): 1822.
65. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2011, Renewable Energy: Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.
66. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2011, Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.
67. UNEP/SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), 2011, Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases, Life Cycle Initiative, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.
68. UNEP/SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), 2011, Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris, France.
69. Van der Horst, D., 2007, “NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies”, Energy Policy, 35(5): 2705–2714.
70. Wang, X., Zeng, X., Li, J., Yang, X. & Wang, H., 2018, “A review on recent advancements of substructures for offshore wind turbines”, Energy Conversion and Management, 158: 103–119.
71. Weinzettel, J., Reenaas, M., Solli, C. & Hertwich, E. G., 2009, “Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine”, Renewable Energy, 34(3): 742–747.
72. Wolsink, M., 1996, “Dutch wind power policy: stagnating implementation of renewables”, Energy Policy, 24(12): 1079–1088.
73. Wu, X., Hu, Y., Li, Y., Yang, J., Duan, L., Wang, T., ... & Liao, S., 2019, “Foundations of offshore wind turbines: A review”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 104: 379–393.
74. Xie, J., Xue, R., Niu, F., Chen, B., & Yang, Y., 2024, “Three-dimensional acoustic propagation of noise from impact pile driving in a complex coastal environment and its effects on large yellow croaker (Pseudosciaena crocea)”, Frontiers in Marine Science, 11: 1395120.
75. Yang, Y., Liu, M., Xu, J., & Xu, W., 2022, “Migrating sandwaves riding on relict dunes of Taiwan shoal, northern South China Sea”, Frontiers in Earth Science, 10: 975220.
76. Yenneti, K., Day, R. & Golubchikov, O., 2016, “Spatial justice and the land politics of renewables: Dispossessing vulnerable communities through solar energy mega-projects”, Geoforum, 76: 90–99.
77. 4C Offshore, n.d., Taichung Feng Miao. Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/taiwan/taichung-fengmiao-taiwan-tw0d.html
78. Andrews Tipper, W., 2015, Growing the UK’s coastal economy: Learning from the success of offshore wind in Grimsby. Green Alliance. Retrieved January 16, 2026,from https://green-alliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Growing_the_UKs_coastal_economy.pdf
79. Energy Administration (EA), Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2012, Offshore Wind Power Demonstration Incentive Program (issued 3 July 2012 under REDA Article 11-3). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://law.moea.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL066166
80. Energy Administration (EA), Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2015, Directions for Planning Offshore Wind Power Sites (離岸風力發電規劃場址申請作業要點) (issued 2 July 2015). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://law.moea.gov.tw/LawContentSource.aspx?id=FL077309
81. Energy Administration (EA), Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2018, Directions for Allocating Installed Capacity of Offshore Wind Potential Zones (離岸風力發電區塊開發場址容量分配作業要點) (issued 18 January 2018). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://law.moea.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001196
82. Energy Administration (EA), Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2021a, Directions for Zonal Development Planning Applications for Offshore Wind (離岸風力發電區塊開發場址規劃申請作業要點). (issued 23 July 2021). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://law.moea.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL001191
83. Energy Administration (EA), Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2021b, Directions for Allocating Installed Capacity for Offshore Wind Zonal Development (離岸風力發電區塊開發第一期容量分配方式說明). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.moeaea.gov.tw/ECW/populace/Law/Content.aspx?menu_id=21892
84. Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), 2022, Regulations Governing the Use and Supervision of the Power Development Assistance Fund (電力開發協助金運用與監督管理辦法). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://law.moea.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=GL000766
85. Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, 2024, EU Challenges Taiwan’s Discriminatory Rules on Offshore Wind Projects. European Commission. Retrieved from https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-challenges-taiwans-discriminatory-rules-offshore-wind-projects-2024-07-26_en
86. Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), 2017, Electricity Act (Taiwan) (電業法), (Act Governing Electricity, as amended by Legislative Yuan Feb 2017). Retrieved from https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=J0030011
87. Equator Principles – EP4 – July 2020, 2020, [Online document]. Retrieved from https://www.equator-principles.com/resources/equator-principles-ep4-july-2020/
88. Gielen, D., Gorini, R., Wagner, N., Leme, R., Gutierrez, L., Prakash, G., … & Renner, M., 2019, Global Energy Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050. Retrieved from https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Apr/IRENA_Global_Energy_Transformation_2019.pdf
89. International Finance Corporation, 2012, IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. Retrieved December 29, 2025, from https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2010/2012-ifc-performance-standards-en.pdf
90. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006, ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework, Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html
91. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2006, ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines, Retrieved February 19, 2026, from https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html
92. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2020, Renewable Capacity Statistics 2020, Retrieved February 17, 2026, from https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Mar/IRENA_RE_Capacity_Statistics_2020.pdf
93. Ministry of Economic Affairs(MOEA), 2018, Press Release on Offshore Wind Land Use Royalties Standards. Retrieved from https://www.moeaea.gov.tw/ecw/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=9&menu_id=4360&news_id=15086
94. Ministry of the Interior (MOI), 2016, Non-Urban Land Use Control Rules(非都市土地使用管制規則), Articles 6 & 6-2. Retrieved from https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawSingle.aspx?pcode=D0060013&flno=6
95. National Development Council, 2022, Taiwan’s Pathway to Net-Zero Emissions in 2050. Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://ncsd.ndc.gov.tw/Fore/nsdn/about0/2050Path
96. National Ocean Policy White Paper, 2020, Published by the Planning and Development Department. Retrieved from https://www.oac.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=232&parentpath=0,2
97. National Property Administration , National Property Act(國有財產法), Article 2; Enforcement Rules of the National Property Act(國有財產法施行細則), Article 15. Retrieved from https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=G0370002
98. National Property Administration (2018). Directions for Application of Letter of Consent for Preparation for Offshore Wind Power. (重新核示海域土地提供設置海氣象觀測塔及申請籌設離岸式風力發電廠之處理方式) from: https://esvc.fnp.gov.tw/decreeDetail/construeMain?treId=2283
99. National Property Administration (2018). Directions for Provision of National Land for Offshore Wind Power System Use. (重新核示海域土地提供離岸式風力發電系統使用之處理方式)https://esvc.fnp.gov.tw/decreeDetail/construeMain?treId=2396
100. Ocean Affairs Council, 2021, Draft Marine Management Act General Explanation(海域管理法草案). Retrieved from https://www.oac.gov.tw/filedownload?file=bulletin/202112061208401.pdf&filedisplay=%E6%B5%B7%E5%9F%9F%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E6%B3%95%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88-%E7%B8%BD%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%8A%E9%80%90%E6%A2%9D%E8%AA%AA%E6%98%8E%28110.12.06%E9%A0%90%E5%91%8A%29.pdf&flag=doc
101. Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement, 2012, [Online Document]. International Finance Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2012/ifc-performance-standard-5
102. Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), Renewable Energy Development Act (再生能源發展條例), 2009, (Promulgated 8 July 2009, latest amendment 1 Feb 2019). Retrieved from https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=J0130032
103. United Nations, 2018, Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World. Retrieved July 15, 2018, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
104. World Steel Association, 2020, Life Cycle Inventory Study Report: 2019 Data Release. Retrieved from https://worldsteel.org/wp-content/uploads/Life-cycle-inventory-LCI-study-2020-data-release.pdf
105. World Bank, 2018, Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). Retrieved February 17, 2026, from https://ppp.worldbank.org/library/environmental-and-social-framework-esf
106. World Bank, 2017, Environmental and Social Framework. Retrieved February 17, 2026, from https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/837721522762050108-0290022018/original/ESFFramework.pdf