脫鉤研究是探討國家能資源消耗與經濟發展間關係重要分析方法之一，本研究嘗試收集可及之國家層級資料，試圖比較所選定之十六個國家，各項能資源消耗之差異，並進而計算與分析各國能資源消耗與經濟發展之脫鉤效應。最後，並嘗試分析探討國際重要環境公約與各國之能資源與環境政策對其脫鉤效應表現可能之影響。
首先對於選定分析對象國家之各項能資源之消耗情形進行分析與計算，包含以下項目:天然氣年消耗量、煤炭年消耗量、石油年消耗量、生質能源年消耗量；溫室氣體排放、廢棄物之總產量；資源用量：金屬物質、用水量、肥料用量。本研究利用環境顧志耐曲線來呈現整體國家發展趨勢；同時選擇脫鉤指標中變化量綜合分析法，來判定脫鉤類型，共區分為以下六種脫鉤類型:擴張負脫鉤、弱脫鉤、強脫鉤、衰退脫鉤、弱負脫鉤、強負脫鉤）。數據分析期間為 2006-2015 十年間。
最後，將各項指標進行綜合之集群分析，可區分成三群國家，集群一的國家包含德國、美國、英國、日本、挪威與荷蘭，集群二的國家則有韓國、台灣、印度，集群三的國家為中國、菲律賓、巴西與泰國。綜合而言，已開發國家群的脫鉤表現，相較其他國家群有較穩定之脫鉤表現，在脫鉤類型中以「強脫鉤」為多數，也間接反映出這些國家相關資源管理政策之完善性與其對於國際公約規範之高度重視與積極參與。此外，透過本研究所進行之「溫室氣體排放」環境顧志耐曲線分析，人均年收入落在三萬美元之上之國家群，皆有走向脫鉤發展之趨勢。各國在於不同能資源項目所呈現之脫鉤表現各異，而某些模範型國家確實能在多種能資源項目上均有良好之脫鉤表現。本研究最後並針對現行脫鉤研究分析方法論進行檢討分析，以提供後續相關研究參考。

Decoupling research is one of the important methods to explore national energy & resource consumption and economic development. This study was aimed to collect the national level data of energy & resource consumption and to compare the differences among sixteen countries. In addition, decoupling performances of each country were calculated and analyzed, and then the influences by the relevant international environmental regulations and national energy & resource policies were also discussed. First, the annual consumption of various energy & resources in selected countries were calculated and analyzed, including: electricity, natural gas, coal, oil, biomass, greenhouse gas emissions, wastes, metal materials use, water consumption, and fertilizer use. The Environmental Kuznets Curve was used to present the overall national development trend and the Vehmas's decoupling Index was selected to determine the decoupling performance, and then six different decoupling types can be identified, including: expansive negative decoupling, weak decoupling, strong decoupling, recessive decoupling, weak negative decoupling, and strong negative decoupling. According to the results, three different national groups were found based on cluster analysis. The first group includes the following countries: Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands. Korea, Taiwan and India are in the second group, while China, Philippines, Brazil and Thailand are in the third group. The results show that the well developed country group often has good decoupling performances and “strong decoupling” is its major type, and this seems to reflect the good implementation efficiency of international convention and national energy & resource policy. In addition, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the nations with per capita income of above 30,000 US dollars have higher tendency to decouple. Although different countries have different countries decoupling performances in each energy & resources item, some leading model countries can have good decoupling performances on various energy & resources items. Finally, the new ideas for decoupling research methodology were also discussed and proposed, and it may be useful for decoupling researches in the future.

壹、中文部分
1. 李河清（2003）。永續發展的國際關係面向﹕全球環境治理. 全球變遷通訊 雜誌, （38）, 21-25.
2. 李欣潔譯，「能源真相揭密-一場遲來的氣候正義」，Herbert Girardet、 Miguel Mendonca 合著，日月文化出版社，臺北（2011）。
3. 李堅明、黃宗煌、孫一菱、莊敏芳（2006）。台灣二氧化碳排放脫鉤指標之 建立與評估。台灣經濟論衡，4（3），1-24 頁
4. 林智明（2004）。以物質流分析之觀點探討脫鉤現象（碩士論文）。
5. 徐怡雯（2008）。歐盟能源政策研究（1997-2007）（碩士論文）。
6. 高一中譯，「成長的極限: 三十週年最新增訂版」，Donella Meadows、 Jorgen Randers、Dennis Meadows 合著，臉譜出版社，臺北（2007）。
7. 張書瑋（2015）。臺灣再生能源政策之比較:以政策工具作為分析途徑（碩 士論文）。
8. 黃慧文（2007）。亞洲版圖下的綠色能源發展太陽能產業. 臺灣經濟研究月 刊, 30（12）, 66-71.
9. 單佩玲（2011）。政策工具對節能減排與經濟成長之影響評估. 新竹教育大 學人文社會學報, 4（1）, 1-34. 10. 莊敏芳（2006）。台灣工業與運輸部門脫鉤指標建構與評估（碩士論文）。
11. 劉佩恆（2011）。德國推動再生能源政策與產業發展之研究（碩士論文）。
12. 蔡棻霓（2009）。台灣航空業能源消耗與 CO2 排放脫鉤指標建構與評估 （碩士論文）。
13. 茅天穎、濮勵傑、許豔、朱明、蔡芳芳（2017）。江蘇省城市化與經濟增長 的脫鉤研究。資源科學, 39（8）, 1560-1572.
14. 陸鐘武、王鶴鳴、岳強（2011）。脫鉤指數：資源消耗，廢物排放與經濟增 長的定量表達。資源科學 1（2）.
15. 鐘太洋、黃賢金、韓立、王柏源（2010）。資源環境領域脫鉤分析研究進 展。自然資源學報, 25（8）,1400-1412.

貳、西文部分
1. Anton, J. (2001). Decoupling: a conceptual overview. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2. Fletcher, R., & Rammelt, C. (2017). Decoupling: A key fantasy of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. Globalizations, 14(3), 450-467.
3. Guevara, Z., & Domingos, T. (2017). Three-level decoupling of energy use in Portugal 1995–2010. Energy Policy, 108, 134-142.
4. Indicators, O. E. (2003). Development, measurement and use. Reference paper, Paris, 50.
5. International Energy Agency (2003), World Energy Investment Outlook, Paris: IEA.
6. International Energy Agency (2004), World Energy Outlook, Paris: IEA.
7. Jorgenson, A. K., & Clark, B. (2012). Are the economy and the environment decoupling? A comparative international study, 1960–2005. American Journal of Sociology, 118(1), 1-44.
8. OECD(2002), Indicators to measure Decoupling of environmental Pressures from Economic Growth
9. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development, Working Paper WP238 Technology and Employment Programme, International Labor Office, Geneva.
10. Robinson, B., Swilling, M., Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2012). City-Level Decoupling: Urban Resource Flows and the Governance of Infrastructure Transitions.
11. Stagl, S. (1999). Delinking economic growth from environmental degradation? A literature survey on the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis.
12. Tapio, P. (2005). Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport policy, 12(2), 137-151.
13. Vehmas, J., Kaivo-oja, J., & Luukkanen, J. (2003). Global trends of linking environmental stress and economic growth. Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre, 6.
14. Ward, J. D., Sutton, P. C., Werner, A. D., Costanza, R., Mohr, S. H., & Simmons, C. T. (2016). Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible?. PloS one, 11(10)