本研究透過價值鏈資料包絡分析模式評估台灣23個縣市環保教育推廣在政府投入資源之執行階段與推廣項目對民眾資源回收之推廣階段,並進一步得知各縣市之教育推廣次數,藉以了解到台灣環保教育推廣對於資源回收的效率。 研究結果顯示,〈1〉以台灣地區區分,執行階段台灣東部地區效率值高於其它地區,推廣階段北部地區效率值高於其它地區;〈2〉以個別縣市效率值區分,執行階段有13個縣市皆達到有效率,推廣階段只有台北縣達到有效率;〈3〉由從差額分析得知,高雄市、台北縣、台東縣與澎湖縣不用增減教育推廣次數;〈4〉由於價值鏈資料包絡分析模式可以合併處理廠商從投入到產出的最終效率值,以及中間投入項目的效率值;然兩階段資料包絡分析模式則必須分別處理廠商從投入到產出的最終效率值與中間投入項目的效率值,因此,比較兩階段資料包絡分析模式與價值鏈資料包絡分析模式的分析結果顯示,以價值鏈資料包絡分析模式較兩階段資料包絡分析模式為佳。
Using value-chain DEA model, the present study evaluates the execution stage, which involves the government’s input of resources, for promotion of environmental protection education in 23 counties and cities in Taiwan, as well as the promotion stage in the public recovery of resources. The present study also obtains the number of promotions in each county and city in order to determine the efficiency of environmental protection education promotion for resource recovery in Taiwan. The results of the DEA model analyses are as follows: (1) From the regional perspective, East Taiwan is more efficient than other regions in the execution stage, whereas North Taiwan is more efficient than other regions in the promotion stage. (2) From the perspective of efficiency, 13 counties and regions have reached the “efficient” level in the execution stage, whereas only Taipei County has reached the efficient level in promotion stage. (3) Results of slack analysis show that Kaohsiung City, Taipei County, Taitung County, and Penghu County do not need to increase or decrease the times of promotion. (4) The value-chain DEA model is able to consolidate and process the final efficiency of the manufacturer from input to output simultaneously with the efficiency of intermediary inputs, whereas the DEA model must process the final efficiency of manufacturers from the input to output separately from the efficiency of intermediary inputs. In sum, a comparison of the analysis results of the two models indicates that the value-chain DEA model is more efficient than the two-stage DEA model.