經濟發展與環境保護一直以來就是兩難之議題。在各式交通運具發達的今天,航空產業作為一個高耗能的運輸方式,時常被討論如何去追求永續發展。經濟發展程度與交通建設有著密不可分的關係,機場通常位於大都會區之周邊,但有少數機場隨著附近都會區逐漸發展與擴大,而使得機場位址逐漸位於都會區內。由此可知,機場之發展其對周遭地區所帶來之經濟效益如:就業、產業升級和節省旅行時間…等效益自然不言可喻,但在機場運量持續成長時,其周遭居民所要面對的是航空器所帶來更頻繁的航空噪音與航空器所排放的廢氣。然而噪音與廢氣無法直接由財貨衡量,使得其所產生的社會成本也較少被納入因機場營運所產生的成本。 本研究評估2006至2011年臺北松山機場所帶來之經濟效益與環境成本。在經濟效益方面,本研究使用區位商數法與格林勞力模式量化機場營運帶來之直接效果和間接效果。之後再藉由特徵價格法及劑量反應分析法,量化航空器於起降時所帶來之噪音成本和廢氣成本。 研究結果顯示,松山機場歷年來之經濟效益約為56億元至117億元;其中歷年之噪音成本為5億元至16億元,而歷年廢氣成本則是介於2億元至4億元之間。各年間以2006年之經濟效益與環境成本落差最大。本研究於後續進行敏感度分析時,發現未來房價若持續飛漲以及廢氣污染物之單位社會成本增加,則有可能導致環境成本大於經濟效益。
The opposition of economic development and environmental protection has always been a dilemma. Compared with all the transport modes in the modern society, air transport is seen as a highly energy-consuming one, especially in the context of sustainable development. There is a close relationship between air transport infrastructure and the level of economic development. Airports are usually located in the peripheral metropolitan area, but a few of them are located within their metropolitan area due to the gradual development and expansion of the metropolitan area. The economic benefits an airport brings to a region include employment, industrial upgrading, reduced travel times and other benefits. But as airport traffic continues to grow, its surroundings have to face increasing noise and emissions from aircraft. However, the economic and social costs of aircraft noise and emissions cannot be evaluated directly; so they are less likely to be included in the costs incurred by airport operations. This study measured the economic benefits and environmental costs of Taipei Songshan Airport for the time period 2006 to 2011. This study used the Location quotient approach and the Garin-Lowry model to quantify the direct and indirect economic benefits resulting from airport operation. The Hedonic Price method and Dose-Response method are used to quantify the costs of noise and emissions brought by aircraft operations. The results show that the economic benefits of airport operation exceeded the environmental costs, with the greatest difference being in 2006. Indeed, a sensitivity analysis of noise and emission social cost parameters shows that the greatest possible environmental costs are generally lower than the economic benefits. However, this can be inversed if high house prices are coupled with high values for unit social cost of pollutants, as was the case in 2008.