本研究旨在探討台灣大型都市垃圾焚化廠屆齡後之後續推動策略，聚焦地方政府採行之蓋新拆舊（BOT）與整改延役（ROT）兩種促參模式，並以ESG（環境、社會、治理）三面向比較其影響與成效。研究採次級資料分析與案例比較方法，資料來源包括行政院環境部與地方政府之焚化廠營運統計、促參招標文件與相關文獻。
研究發現，截至2025年，25座焚化廠中多數已屆齡或接近屆齡，地方政府於選擇蓋新拆舊（BOT）或整改延役（ROT）時主要依據為既有垃圾處理量能、土地可用性、是否需環評及地方財政能力；當垃圾處理量能不足且既有土地可蓋新廠較傾向採BOT，反之則傾向採ROT。比較結果顯示，BOT因全廠重建具較高之污染減量與發電效率提升，但投資規模大、工期長且面臨較高社會溝通壓力；ROT投資較低、工期短、社會接受度較高，惟污染減量與發電效率提升改善幅度受場域與經費限制。促參評選中已逐步納入ESG指標，但若缺乏第三方監測與績效掛鉤，可能出現表面合規而非實質執行之情形。
基於此，研究建議建立以處理量能為核心之決策準則、強化ESG指標量化與績效掛鉤、明確風險分攤、推動區域化整合規劃與資訊公開透明之監督機制，以提升焚化廠屆齡後推動策略之永續性與社會接受度。

This study examines post-end-of-life strategies for large municipal solid-waste incineration plants in Taiwan, focusing on two Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models adopted by local governments: Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT), characterized by demolishing and rebuilding, and Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer (ROT), emphasizing refurbishment and life-extension. The analysis applies an ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) framework to compare their impacts and performance. The research adopts secondary data analysis and comparative case study methods, drawing upon operational statistics from the Ministry of Environment and local governments, PPP tender documents, and relevant literature.

The findings indicate that as of 2025, most of Taiwan’s 25 incineration plants have reached or are approaching the end of their design life. Local governments’ choices between BOT and ROT are primarily driven by existing waste-treatment capacity, land availability, environmental impact assessment requirements, and fiscal constraints. When treatment capacity is insufficient and land is available for new construction, BOT is generally preferred; conversely, when land is limited and existing facilities can be upgraded, ROT is favored. Comparative results show that BOT, through full facility reconstruction, offers higher potential for pollution reduction and improvements in energy efficiency, yet requires significant capital, longer construction periods, and faces greater public communication challenges. ROT features lower investment costs, shorter schedules, and higher social acceptance, though its pollution-control and efficiency improvements are constrained by site conditions and budgetary limitations. While ESG criteria have gradually been incorporated into PPP evaluations, insufficient third-party monitoring and weak performance-linkage mechanisms may result in symbolic compliance rather than substantive implementation.

Based on the analysis, this study recommends establishing a capacity-driven strategic decision framework, strengthening quantitative ESG metrics and performance-based evaluation, clarifying risk-allocation mechanisms, advancing regional integration planning, and ensuring transparency and public oversight to enhance sustainability and social acceptance in post-end-of-life incineration plant strategies.

中文文獻
1. 中鼎工程股份有限公司（2023）。資源再生能量無限－垃圾焚化廠技術升級整合與應用。CTCI e-Newsletter。https://www.ctci.com/e-newsletter/CH/453/technology/。
2. 林瑞隆（1993）。台北市焚化廠選址及影響之研究。（碩士論文，國立政治大學）。國家圖書館博碩士論文系統。
3. 張立妍（2013）。考量路網實際距離之設施區位選址研究—以舊臺中市垃圾焚化廠為例。（碩士論文，逢甲大學）。國家圖書館博碩士論文系統。
4. 潘志明（2004）。垃圾焚化廠環境影響評估機制之研究。（碩士論文，國立中興大學）。國家圖書館博碩士論文系統。
5. 王志強（2005）。環境影響評估的運作與鄰避衝突—以林內焚化爐為例。（碩士論文，國立中正大學）。國家圖書館博碩士論文系統。
6. 黃建智（2015）。焚化廠實際運轉對環境影響之研究。（碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學）。國家圖書館博碩士論文系統。
7. 彭致和（2008）。以永續發展觀點探討垃圾焚化廠延長服役問題。（碩士論文，國立高雄大學）。華藝線上圖書館。
8. 杜文信（2008）。台灣地區公有民營垃圾焚化廠操作營運成本探討。（碩士論文，國立臺灣大學）。臺大學位論文典藏。
9. 王怡方（2023）。永續績效與企業投資誘因關聯分析。（碩士論文，國立臺灣大學財務金融學研究所）。
10. 行政院環境保護署（2023）。《垃圾焚化廠營運管理年報（112 年）》。臺北市：行政院環境保護署。
11. 吳聰敏、鄭又嘉、謝國雄（2004）。垃圾焚化爐設置決策爭議之研究。《公共行政學報》，13，55–92。
12. 劉育如（2012）。回饋措施與地方認同：以新竹縣焚化廠為例。（碩士論文，國立臺灣大學）。
13. 張永峯（1999）。BOT焚化廠專案計畫可行性分析—以烏日垃圾資源回收廠為例。（碩士論文，國立臺北大學）。
 
英文文獻
1. Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0318
2. Campbell, J. L.（2007）. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684
3. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W.（1983）. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
4. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (2022). PPP Green Transitions Guidance. EBRD.
5. Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. K.（2004）. Public private partnerships: The worldwide revolution in infrastructure provision and project finance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
6. Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C.（2017）. On public–private partnership performance: A contemporary review. Public Works Management & Policy, 22(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X16660825
7. Karak, T., & Bhagat, R. M.（2010）. Municipal solid waste generation in India: A review. Waste Management, 30(4), 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.026.
8. Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F.（2018）. What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317
9. Kumar, A., & Samadder, S. R. (2017). A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Management, 69, 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046
10. LaGrega, M. D., Buckingham, P. L., & Evans, J. C.（2010）. Hazardous waste management（3rd ed.）, McGraw-Hill.
11. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. （1977）. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
12. OECD. (2021). Green Public Procurement: An Overview of Policy Frameworks. OECD Publishing.
13. OECD. (2021). OECD Implementation Handbook for Quality Infrastructure Investment. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/479131b2-en
14. PPP Center. (2022). 2022 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the BOT Law (RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718). Republic of the Philippines. https://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-Revised-IRR-of-BOT-Law-RA-6957-as-amended-by-RA-7718.pdf
15. United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). Sustainable Public Procurement Guidelines for Climate Action. UNEP.
16. Wolsink, M.（2007）. Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(6), 1188–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.10.004
17. Yescombe, E. R.（2014）. Public–private partnerships: Principles of policy and finance (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
 
政府與政策文件
1. 行政院環境部。焚化廠營運管理系統。https://www.epa.gov.tw/
2. 行政院公共工程委員會全球資訊網。https://www.pcc.gov.tw/?lang=1
3. 經濟部能源署。再生能源網。https://www.re.org.tw