都市永續發展是經濟、社會、生態並重的概念，在過去都市發展目標著重在公共建設、產業提升並提高居民生活品質，然而在獲得經濟成長的同時也犧牲了環境資源並產生污染問題。本研究以可衡量多項投入產出的資料包絡分析法探討台灣主要都市環境效率，並對都市型態與環境效率的關係進行差異性分析。在以投入項目為總用水量、總用電量、都市已發展用地面積、空氣污染量，產出為生產與生活面向，項目為二與三級產業人口、二與三級產業產值、每年家戶薪資所得、公共設施面積、住宅面積的環境效率分析後，以北部區域表現較佳，中部區域最差，而東部與南部區域邊緣效率值最多，代表較容易透過微幅投入與產出項調整進而改善環境效率值。整體而言都市已發展用地的投入過多，而三級產業土地生產力仍有改善的空間。
從未分層角度而言，效率影響因素為都市化程度與交通可及性，都市發展因素對於環境效率值具正面效果的有「都市人口數」、「道路密度」、「每人享有道路面積」產業型態為「服務業」，負面效果的為「商業」、「道路長度」、「汽車持有率」。此外道路密度高在資源使用上是有助益的，然而過高的汽車持有率將造成汙染問題，就環境觀點應加強提升大眾運輸系統的使用性而非增加道路開闢面積。
另外以階層線性模式對區域與都市兩個層級的外生變數觀察造成環境效率不同之原因，發現相似的影響變數在都市發展與區域發展上是有所差異的，在區域層級中「平原面積比例」、「地區車輛持有率」、「總土地面積」較具影響力，此外都市與區域存在脈絡效果，其中又以技術效率與規模效率較顯著，具有交互效果的變數為「總土地面積」對於「汽車持有率」之影響。
在DEA投入與產出的指標項中，北部具有較大的優勢，經過計算後的效率值相對其他地區佳。地區既有的自然與社經發展條件，為決定效率值的重要因素，各縣市政府除了從指標的差額變數量進行改善，以提高都市之競爭力外，從HLM模型中亦可發現單就都市層面的改善方式效果會受到侷限，故有賴於中央對於區域發展之決策，才能使資源使用在都市發展上更具效率。而發展的主要方式可從區域的土地面積與路網密集度著手，以建立共同發展的利基，獲得較高的成效。

Sustainable urban development is a concept that equally emphasizes economics, society, and ecology. In the past, the targets of urban development focused on infrastructure, promotion of industries, and improvement of residents’ living standard; Even so, economic growth was achieved at the cost of environment resources, and contamination was created. This research uses DEA, which can assess multiple inputs and outs, to discuss the environmental performance for major cities in Taiwan, and analyze the differences in the relation between urban types and environmental performance. The input items are overall water consumption, overall electricity consumption, developed urban areas, amount of air pollution, and amount of water contamination; while the outputs are economic and cultural indicators. After analyzing the components such as 2nd and 3rd degree industrial population, the value of 2nd and 3rd degree industries, annual household income, areas for infrastructures per capita, and living areas per capita, there are four regions that is relatively efficient, amount which Northern region of Taiwan hold the best performance, while Central region has worst. The East and Southern region have best edge efficiency, which mean with small scale of inputs and outputs will easily improve environmental efficiency. Generally, the urban development has used too much land, with the 3rd degree industrial lands are inefficient.

For Non-hierarchically ratiocination, the factors of efficiency are urbanization level and communication convenience such as "urban population","road density", "road space per capita" and "service industry". All of which has positive impact; while the "commercial industry", "road length", "car possess rate" are took as negative impact. In addition, high road density is beneficial for resources usage, but if the possession of vehicle rate is too high will create pollution. The public
transportation system’s promotion should be enhanced for the environment benefit.

When using Hierarchical Linear Model to compare the variation of urban and regional factor, the research outcome show that the variation is notable, with the factors that affects environmental performance is "amount of plains"; "local car possess rate" and "total land area". Besides, there is a "cause and effect" relation between the urban and region factors, especially in technique efficiency and scale efficiency, with the mutual effect between the "overall land scopes" and "car possess
rate".

In the DEA research of input and output index find that the Northern region has relatively superiority. The region's natural and social develop condition are critical factors for local efficiency, that the local government should engage to improve for its own competitiveness. The HLM mode outcomes show that the effect is limited to improve solely on urban level, it should takes the central government’s regional develop strategy to have better resource efficiency, the main develop methods should engage in regional land develop and in road density.

中文部份
1.Joe Ravetz，(2004)，「都市區域2020永續環境的整合規劃」，詹氏書局。
2.行政院經濟建設發展委員會，(2001)，「都市及區域發展統計會編」，行政院經濟建設委員會。
3.王俊秀，(2001)，「環境社會學的想像」，巨流書局。
4.江佩玉，(2001)，都市特性與產業生產效率關係之研究，政治大學地政研究所碩士論文。
5.李朝賢，(1993)，「區域發展規劃」，華泰書局。
6.李淑鈴，(2006)，「以環境效率觀點探討校園實質環境評估之研究」，成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
7.李武龍，(2007)，「台灣國家公園的效率評估-DEA方法之應用」，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
8.李嘉信，(2007)，「台灣地區國道客運業之績效評估-三階段資料包絡分析法之應用」，國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
9.胡瑞奇，(1999)，「台灣地區區域發展社經差異之研究」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
10.李永展，(2002)，「以都市指標系統檢談台北市之永續性趨勢」，都市與計畫，第29卷4期，551-574。
11.侯伯瑜，(2001)，「都市經營管理績效評量系統之研究」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
12.柯佩婷，(2006)，「都市土地使用發展之環境績效評估-以永康市為例」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
13.高強、黃旭男、Toshiyuki Sueyoshi，(2003)，「管理績效評估-資料包絡分析法」，華泰文化事業公司。
14.洪于婷，(2006)，「地方永續發展時空變遷之研究」，成功大學都市計劃研究所博士論文。
15.張益誠，(2001)，「應用因子分析方法為台灣地區建構永續發展趨勢評估指標系統」，台灣大學環境工程學研究所博士論文。
16.張帆，(2000)，「環境與自然資源經濟學」，五南書局。
17.張曜麟，(1997)，「台灣地區都市發展效率之研究」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
18.黃一峰，(2006)，「九二一地震對南投災區地方永續力衝擊之分析及其重建績效評估」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
19.黃書禮，(2002)，「生態系統理論在區域研究之應用」，都市與計畫，29卷2期，187-215。
20.黃書禮、賴奕錚，(2002)，「以生態城市觀點檢視台灣城市發展之環境課題」，台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
21.黃書禮，(1997)，「都市能量系統之空間階層分析」，行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。
22.楊世華，(2007)，「台灣農田水利會經營效率之比較研究─三階段DEA及 Metafrontier模型之應用」，台灣大學農業經濟研究所博士論文。
23.邱皓政、溫福星 (2007)，脈絡效果的階層線性模型分析：以學校組織創新氣氛與教師創意表現為例。教育與心理研究，30(1)，1-35。
24.邱淑華，(2000)，「由台灣地區都市體系變遷探討商業結構變化趨勢與特性」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
25.溫福星，(2006)，「階層線性模式：原理、方法與應用」，雙葉書局。
26.劉彥蘭，(2004)，「全球環經社綜合評估指標系統綜述」，全球變遷通訊雜誌，第43期，25-32。
27.葉欣誠、於幼華、郭彥宏，「台灣地區環境永續指數之計算及分析」，都市與計畫，第29卷3期，445~470。
28.陳昌茂，(2001)，「台灣地區中南部鄉鎮市組織特性及其效率評估之研究」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
29.蔡坤展，(2006)，「組織特性、雇主知識及求職者應徵意圖之跨層次分析-雇主品牌權益觀點」，中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
30.蔡珮雯，(2003)，「都市發展型態對都市公共成本及經濟效益之影響」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
31.歐陽嶠暉，(2001)，「都市環境學」，詹氏書局。
32.簡瑛誼，(1999)，「都市發展型態對財政影響之研究」，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
英文部分
1.Ant´onio Afonso, S´onia Fernandes. (2007), “Assessing and explaining the relative efficiency of local government”, The Journal of Socio-Economics, (621).
2.Antonio P´aez and Darren M. Scott (2004), Spatial statistics for urban analysis：A review of techniques with examples, Geogournal, 61：53-67.
3.Berry BJL and H Kim (2001), ”Efficiency Frontiers: Urbanization and Development”, Urban Geography, 22(4), 306-315.
4.Cora J. M. Maas and Joop J. Hox (2005), “Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling Methodology”, 1(3), 86-92.
5.Daniel C. Esty, Michael E. Porter. (2005), “National environmental performance: an empirical analysis of policy results and determinants”, Environment and Development Economic, (10), 391-434.
6.De Koeijer, T. J., Wossink, G. A. A., Struik, P. C., Renkema, J. A. (2002), “Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar beet growers”, Journal of Environmental Management, 66(1), 9-17.
7.Daniel Courgeau (2003), Methodology and Epistemology of Multilevel Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8.Frank Figge, Tobias Hahn (2004), “Sustainable Value Added—measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency”, Ecological Economics, Volume 48, Issue 2, Pages 173-187.
9.Gjalt Huppes and Masanobu Ishikawa. (2005), “A Framework for Quantified Eco-efficiency Analysis” Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 9 Issue 4 Page 25-41.
10.Hua ZS, YW Bian and L Liang (2007), “Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Paper Mills Along the Huai River:An Extended DEA Approach”, Omega, 35(5), 578-587.
11.John Luke Gallup, Jeffrey D. Sachs, and Andrew D. Mellinger. (1999), Geography and Economic Development”, International Regional Science Review, 22, 179 - 232.
12.Joeseph Sarkis, Srinivas Talluri (2004), “Ecoefficiency Measurement Using Data Environment Analysis: Research and Practitioner Issue”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 6(1), 91-23.
13.Kuosmanen, T., Kortelainen, M. (2005), “Measuring eco-efficiency of production with data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 59-72.
14.Kumar S. (2006), “Environmentally Sensitive Productivity Growth: A Global Analysis Using Malmquist-Luenberger Index” Ecological Economics, 56(2), 280-293.
15.Maria Teresa Balaguer-Coll, Diego Prior, Emili Tortosa-Ausina (2007), ”On the determinants of local government performance: A two-stage nonparametric approach”, European Economic Review, (51), 425–451.
16.Mika Kortelainen (2008), “Dynamic environmental performance analysis: A Malmquist index approach”, Ecological Economics, (64), 701-715.
17.Pao-Long Chang, Shiuh-Nan Hwangt ,Wen-Ying Cheng (1995), “Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Measure the Achievement and Change of Regional Development in Taiwan”, Journal of Environmental Management, (43), 49-66.
18.Pekka J. Korhonen, Mikulas Luptacik (2004), “Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: An extension of data envelopment analysis”, European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 437-446.
19.Peng Zhou, Kim Leng Poh, Beng Wah Ang (2006), “A non-radial DEA approach to measuring environmental performance”, European Journal of Operational Research, (178), 1–9.
20.Per Mickwitz Matti Melanen, Ula Rosenstrom, Jyri Seppala (2006), “Regional eco-efficiency indicators-a participatory approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, (14), 1603-1611.
21.Philip Lawn(2001), “Scale,prices,and biophysical assessments.”, Ecological Economics (38), 369-382.
22.Philip Lawn (2006), Sustainable Development Indicators in Ecological Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
23.Snijders, T. A. B. & Bosker, R. J. (1993), “Standard errors and sample sizes for two-level research”, J. Educational Statist, 18, 237-259.
24.Stephen W. Raudenbush, Anthony Bryk (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models -Application and Data Analysis Methods, Second Edition. Sage Publications.
25.Sarkis J and S Talluri (2004), “Eco-Efficiency Measurement Using Data Envelopment Analysis: Research and Practitioner Issues”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 6(1), 91-123.
26.Somchai Pathomsiri, Ali Haghani , Martin Dresner , Robert J. Windle (2007), “Impact of undesirable outputs on the productivity of US airports”, Transportation Research Part E, Volume 44, Issue 2, 235-259.
27.Sean M. McMahon and Jeffrey M. Diez (2007), “Scales of Association: Hierarchical Linear Models and the Measurement of Ecological Systems”, Ecology Letters, 10, 437–452.
28.Satoshi Hoshino (2001), “Multilevel modeling on farmland distribution in Japan”, Land Use policy, 18, 75-90.
29.Sophia Rabe-Hesketh, , Anders Skrondal and Andrew Pickles(2005). Maximum likelihood estimation of limited and discrete dependent variable models with nested random effects. Journal of Econometrics Volume 128, Issue 2, Pages 301-323.
30.Tanja Srebotnjak (2007), “The role of environmental statisticians in environmental policy: the case of performance measurement”, Environment Science & Policy, 10(5), 405-418.
31.Taskin F and O Zaim (2001), ”The Role of International Trade on Environmental Efficiency: A DEA Approach”, Economic Modelling, 18(1), 1-17.
32.Valentina Bosetti, Gianni Locatelli (2006), “A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach to the Assessment of Natural Parks：Economic Efficiency and Sustainability, The Case of Italian National Parks” National Bureau of Economic Research , 14, 277-286.
33.Vance, C., Iovanna, R. (2006), “Analyzing Spatial Hierarchies in Remotely Sensed Data: Insights From a Multilevel Model of Tropical Deforestation”, Land Use Policy, 23, 226-236.
34.Wei Y-M, Y Fan, C Lu and H-T Tsai (2004), “The Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Disasters in China by Using the DEA Method”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(4), 427-439.
35.Zaim O (2004), “Measuring Environmental Performance of State Manufacturing through Changes in Pollution Intensities: A DEA Framework”, Ecological Economics, 48(1), 37.
36.Zhongsheng Hua, Yiwen Bian, Liang Liang (2007), Eco-efficiency analysis of paper mills along the Huai River: An extended DEA approach”, Omega, (35), 578-587.