一個國家的經濟活動所產生的環境壓力與其具有的環境承載能力，決定該國社會與經濟發展的永續狀況。因此，評量環境壓力和承載力是制定永續發展目標和政策的必要條件之一。本研究之目的可歸納如下：(1)根據物質流及生態足跡方法與相關指標，檢視台灣目前之環境現況；(2)整合物質流及生態足跡模型，建構台灣地區環境永續發展評估指標體系；(3)以台灣地區爲研究對象，探討其環境永續發展評估指標項目和衡量標準，並進行環境永續發展評估指標衡量操作之實證研究；(4)根據實證結果與分析，對臺灣地區的永續發展作出整體性的評價，並提出對策和建議。
本研究在第一、二章綜述永續發展目前之研究狀況，簡介OECD、IISD、IUCN等國際組織所建構之指標系統，並對永續發展衡量方法依據不同標準進行分類。本研究選取物質流和生態足跡兩種側重生態經濟體系的衡量方法作為切入點，並整合上述二種方法對台灣的環境永續發展做出估算。
第三章首先分別對物質流及生態足跡從模型的研究現狀和具體應用做深入的闡述，並針對模型的適用範圍作適當的調整使之能應用於環境永續發展之衡量；其次，利用物質流與生態足跡方法與相關指標，建構環境永續發展評估指標體系，作爲推動邁向永續發展及監測永續發展進程趨勢狀態的系統化量測工具。
第四章利用台灣地區1998〜2005年政府公布相關統計資料庫，計算本國物質流及生態足跡等指標；並針對新建構之環境永續發展評估指標體系進行實證分析，如環境負荷、環境壓強、足跡強度和生態超載等指標，對台灣的環境壓力與環境效率進行實證研究，再進一步架構出台灣地區環境永續發展趨勢評估之階層架構，並根據結果提出政策建議。
研究結果顯示：(1)台灣的經濟活動十分依賴進口物質的投入，其中又以化石燃料占最大比例；此外，台灣地區的經濟發展(GDP)與資源需求(DMI)呈現高度相關性，溫室氣體排放量增加趨勢幾乎與經濟成長同步。因此，進口能源與經濟發展的關連性，以及物質投入與溫室氣體排放間之關係，都是可進一步討論的議題。此外，儘管經濟發展與資源需求有上述的「耦合」成長關係，傳統污染物的排放量卻出現與經濟成長「脫鉤」的現象，其中更以固體廢棄物最為明顯。未來在環境污染防治技術之發展上，台灣地區應更加努力著重溫室氣體之排放減量。(2)臺灣人均生態足跡的成長主要呈現在對能源用地和牧草地需求的增加，反映消費結構的改變和產業結構的變化。其次，萬元GDP生態足跡持續下降，顯示台灣的資源利用效率在穩定提高。(3)台灣生態超載指數為2.887，顯示臺灣的生態系統處於超載狀態。環境效率以及生態效率在研究期均有較顯著的下降，說明本國環境壓力總量仍處於成長階段。因此，台灣若不及時採取適當的措施，將會由目前的弱永續發展狀態逐步走向背離永續發展的惡性循環中。
藉由上述各項指標評量的結果，顯示經濟活動的成長，使污染物質總量持續增加，對國土的開發利用及再生資源的需求日增。但目前污染濃度的管制策略，環境的自淨能力均無法負荷污染排放量，無法確保環境品質。為有利於永續發展，相關政策建議如下：(1)促使產業效能的提升；(2)防治技術的進步；(3)「總量管制」觀念的落實；(4)國土的合理規劃及開發行為的總量管制，可以降低對生態的破壞及對資源的超限利用，並有利於邁向永續發展。

The environmental pressure created by a nation’s economic activities and the environmental carrying capacity of the nation determine the sustainability of the nation’s social and economic development. Measuring the environmental pressure and carrying capacity of a nation is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for setting development goals and devising policy instruments toward a sustainable future for that nation. The goals of this study are as follows: (1) base on the indicators of material flow and ecological footprint to assess the Taiwan’s environmental status; (2) integrate the material flow and ecological footprint to construct Taiwan’s environmental sustainability assessment indicators; (3) explore the environmental sustainability indicators and standardized assessment in Taiwan, and proceed the empirical research; (4) accord to the result on empirical research to conduct the strategy and suggestion of the overall evaluation of sustainable development for Taiwan.
Chapter one and two identify the research topic and research procedures, the most popular sustainable development assessment models or indicators were introduced by OECD, IISD and IUCN. This research also tried to calculate the Taiwan’s environmental sustainability development by using ecological economics system assessment model, the material flow model and ecological footprint model.
Chapter three explain the performance evaluation, function and application of the material flow method and ecological footprint model then adjust the models to apply regional sustainability development assessment. The study also has utilized the material flow, ecological footprint and other related indicators to promote a systemic measurement as a probing tool for sustainable development.
Chapter four utilizes the statistics database during 1998~2005 in Taiwan to calculate the indicators of material flow, ecological footprint and other related to establish the indicator system of sustainable development. Environmental load, environmental pressure intensity, ecological footprint intensity index and ecological overshoot index are used to abstract the representative factors in order to estimate the indicators of environmental sustainable development, as well as to make policy recommendations.
The research indicates following results: (1) The direct material input of Taiwan shows constant instability and depends on heavy import activity. The annual increase of considerable greenhouse gas emission leads to a comparative growth of the domestic process output. (2) The growth on per capita ecological demand footprint in Taiwan reflects that changing consumption and industry construct since the demand on the energy land and agricultural land. In addition, the occupation of ecological footprints per ten thousand dollar may express the utilization benefit of economic development to land resource. More occupation of ecological footprints per ten thousand dollar means lower utilization benefit of its resources. (3) The ecological overshoot index is 2.887 that show the Taiwan’s ecological system is in overloading situation. Therefore, if proper measures are not adopted in time, the current weak sustainability will lead into the vicious circle which departs from sustainable development.

一、中文部分
1.中國科學院，中國可持續發展戰略報告，科學出版社、中國北京，2000。
2.行政院內政部，中華民國臺閩地區人口統計，2006。
3.行政院內政部，建立社會福利指標體系之研究，1999。
4.行政院經建會，國土綜合發展計畫，1996。
5.行政院環保署，環境保護統計年報，2006。
6.行政院農業委員會，農業統計年報，2006。
7.行政院農委會，農業統計要覽，2006。
8.朱正男，物質流分析指標關聯性探討－線性結構方程模式之應用，台北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文，2005。
9.何瓊芳、林錫雄、李育明，台灣金屬及工礦物質流與隱藏流之善用評估，中央研究院2000年環境資源經濟、管理暨系統分析學術研討會，2000。
10.李育明、張維亮、朱正男，台灣地區物質流分析資料庫更新與各縣市發用電量概況分析，永續台灣的願景與策略研究子計畫一：永續發展知識庫之建立（V）－資能源善用組，國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告編號：NSC 91-2621-Z-002-028，2003。
11.李永展，資源導向的都市主義－超越都市界線的新思維方向，中山大學公共事務管理研究所第七屆環境管理與都會發展研討會，1996。
12.李永展，永續城鄉發展，中華民國環境工程學會永續發展導論，頁327-348，1998。
13.李永展，國土資源永續利用體系與永續性指標建立，行政院國家科學委員會環境涵容能力與永續發展研討會論文集，頁308-334，1998。
14.李永展、何紀芳，永續性資源永續利用指標架構之建立：以中部區域為例，土地經濟年刊，第9期，頁73-102，1998。
15.李永展，陳安琪，從生態足跡觀點探討台灣的永續發展，經社法制論叢，第22期，頁437-462，1998。
16.李永展、陳安琪，應用生態足跡分析探討貿易對永續發展的影響，都市與計畫，第26卷、第2期，頁133-151，1999。
17.李永展、張曉婷，都市永續性偵測工具之研究：以台中都會區永續發展指標為例，社會文化學報，第8期，頁155-188，1999。
18.李永展、李欽漢（譯），生態足跡－減低人類對地球的衝擊，創興出版社、台北，2000。
19.李永展，都市指標系統對衡量台北市永續發展之適用性及評估手冊研擬，台北市政府都市發展局、台北，2000。
20.李宜蓁，河岸土地使用變遷之能值評估與空間系統模擬－以基隆河截彎取直為例，台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文，2006。
21.李怡蒼，台灣地區物質流分析系統動力評估模式與應用，台北大學資源管理研究所碩士論文，2002。
22.李剛，基於可持續發展的國家物質流分析，中國工業經濟，第11期，頁11-18，2004。
23.李欽漢，農業生態足跡之研究－以台灣地區稻米及農園特產為例，政治大學地政學研究所博士論文，1999。
24.李靜宜，物質流分析之資源生產力指標探討，台北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文，2005。
25.呂文賢，建立台灣永續產業發展指標－生態效益指標，永續發展指標國際研討會，2000。
26.呂理德，建立循環型社會之研究，台灣大學環境工程研究所博士論文， 2006。
27.於幼華，建立台灣地區永續性發展指標之研究，行政院研考會，台北，1997。
28.洪于婷，都市發展永續性結構之研究，成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文，1999。
29.洪于婷，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，2006。
30.程沐鈞，台灣地區民生用金屬容器物質流分析，台北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文，2006。
31.吳孟芳，從生態足跡檢視城市生活品質－以台北市士林區為例，文化大學建築及都市計畫研究所碩士論文，2007。
32.林智明，以物質流分析之觀點探討脫鉤現象，台北大學資源管理研究所碩士論文，2004。
33.林錫雄，台灣物質流之建置與應用研究初探，中原大學國際貿易學系碩士論文，2001。
34.邱培煜，工業代謝分析框架與實證應用，台北大學資源管理研究所碩士論文，2002。
35.范振基，農業生態足跡估算方法的改善－永續農業假設的刪除與實體單位計算，台北大學資源管理研究所碩士論文，2002。
36.徐瑚鎂，交通生態足跡分析法之研究，台灣大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文，2002。
37.財團法人台灣綜合研究院，我國綠色國民所得帳之地區分布研究：台灣地區環境綜合指標，行政院環保署八十九年度計畫書，行政院環保署，台北，2000。
38.許棻茹，台灣織布、染整及成衣業之物質流與其成長環境因素分析，中原大學國際貿易學系碩士論文，2006。
39.許銘傑，台灣二氧化碳生態足跡及產業二氧化碳減量之經濟及生態效益，台北科技大學環境規劃與管理研究所碩士論文，2004。
40.陳明健、莊慶達、陳凱俐、張四立、鄭蕙燕、蕭景楷、吳珮瑛等，自然資源與環境經濟學：理論基礎與本土案例分析，雙葉書廊、台北，2003。
41.陳俐伶，由生態經濟觀點探討農地永續利用之研究，國立中興大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文，1999。
42.陳效逑、喬立佳，中國經濟－環境系統的物質流分析，自然資源學報，第1期，頁17-23，2000。
43.陳進田，以生態足跡法及DEA法探討製造業的生態效益與生產效率，長庚大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，2001。
44.陳得發，高雄都會區社會經濟環境品質之衡量，國科會都會區環境品質評估計畫成果報告編號：NSC81-0421-F110-505Z，1992。
45.陳皇任，綠島生態旅遊永續經營之研究－生態足跡法，海洋大學應用經濟所碩士論文，2005。
46.游靜秋，台灣地區環境品質指標建構之研究，國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所碩士論文，1997。
47.張益誠，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，2001。
48.董彥希，物質循環度指標之研究－以PET瓶為例，台灣大學環境工程研究所碩士論文，2006。
49.葉佳宗，農業生態足跡之研究－以台灣地區稻米及農園特產為例，中興大學自然資源研究所碩士論文，1997。
50.葉欣誠、劉銘龍、於幼華，環境永續性指數之再檢討：以台灣評分為例，都市與計畫，第23卷、第2期，頁111-141，2006。
51.葉俊榮，永續台灣的評量系統(ⅠⅡ)，行政院國家科學委員會計劃成果報告編號：NSC88-2621-Z-002-026，1999~2000。
52.葉俊榮、劉錦添、李玲玲、駱尚廉、黃書禮、王俊秀、孫志鴻、蔡慧敏、施文真，永續台灣向前指，詹氏書局，台北，2003。
53.黃正忠，邁向新世紀的契機－全球企業永續發展之現況與趨勢，工業污染防治，第75期，頁111-130，2000。
54.黃書禮，整合生態與經濟－應用能值分析於公共政策評估，行政院國家科學委員會專案研究計畫成果報告編號：NSC80-0301-H005-032，1991。
55.黃書禮，都會區生態經濟系統與環境品質之研究，行政院國家科學委員會專案研究計畫成果報告編號：NSC80-0421-F-P005-02Z，1992。
56.黃書禮，台灣地區都市生態系統之比較分析與永續性都市策略擬議，行政院國家科學委員會專案研究計畫成果報告編號：NSC81-0421-F-005A-501-Z，1993。
57.黃書禮，台北市都市永續發展指標與策略研擬之研究，台北市政府都市發展局、台北，1996。
58.黃書禮，都市能量系統之空間階層分析，行政院國家科學委員會專案研究計畫成果報告編號：NSC 86-2415-H-005A-002，1997。
59.黃書禮，生態土地使用規劃，詹氏、台北，2000。
60.黃書禮，生態系統理論與區域研究，台灣大學區域研究與人文地理學門研究方法及資料庫運用研討會論文集，頁83-122，2001。
61.盧誌銘，二十一世紀議程介紹，中華民國環境工程學會李公哲主編，永續發展導論，頁36-65，1998。
62.盧誌銘、黃啟鋒，全球永續發展的源起與發展，工業污染防治，第56期，頁1-23，1995。
63.劉一忠，台灣鋼鐵業工業生態之研究，台灣大學環境工程研究所碩士論文，2001。
64.劉倫仕、王俊秀，日本「地域環境計畫實務必攜」指標，2000。
65.劉彥蘭，1990-2003年台灣能源生態足跡推估與能源效益分析研究，台灣大學地理環境資源研究所碩士論文，2004。
66.劉敬智，王青，顧曉薇，中國經濟的直接物質投入與物質減量分析，資源科學，第27卷、第1期，頁46-51，2005。
67.劉錦添、李武隆、林泔薇，台灣永續經濟壓力指標之回顧與檢討，都市與計劃，第32卷、第2期，頁167-177，2005。
68.楊振榮，林琬菁，台灣農業生態足跡組成因子之變遷及其在永續發展上之意涵，國立政治大學地政學系第三屆地政學術研討會論文，2002。
69.經濟部能源委員會，台灣能源平衡表，2006。
70.經濟部能源委員會，台灣能源統計年報，2006。
71.鄭建南，台灣地區民生用塑膠製品物質流分析，台北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文，2006。
72.廖本富，物質流分析架構與量制系統之探討，台北大學資源管理研究所碩士論文，2001。
73.廖述良，水土資源永續指標體系及其評量與評價方法之建立（ⅠⅡ），行政院國家科學委員會計劃成果報告編號：NSC-88-2621-Z-008-004，1999〜2000。
74.蔡昀璋，以生態足跡模式評估大學校園環境永續性之研究，高雄大學都市發展與建築研究所碩士論文，2005。
75.賴曉瑩，台北盆地都市空間結構與生態能量階層之應用，國立中興大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文，1997。
76.謝又民，產品環保性評估之研究－建構環境衝擊之生態足跡換算機制，南華大學環境管理研究所碩士論文，2003。
77.謝志成，城鄉社區對永續發展的認知與行為差異之研究-台北市大學社區及澎湖縣鎮海社區個案之分析，台灣大學地理學研究所碩士論文，1998。
78.蕭登元，工業生態學中物質流系統之研究－以台灣地區砂石為例，台灣大學環境工程研究所博士論文，2003。
79.龐元勳、錢玉蘭，國際環保通訊－永續發展指標建立之研究，行政院環境保護署計劃成果報告編號：EPA-87-FA04-03-10，1998。
80.顧曉薇，劉建興，王青，遼寧省2001年生態足跡計算與分析，生態經濟學報，第2卷，第1期，頁39-45，2004。

二、英文部分
1.Adriaanse, A., Bringezu, S., Hammond, A., Moriguchi, Y., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D. & Schütz, H., Resource flows: the material basis of industrial economics, World Resource Institute, Washington, D.C., 1997.
2.Atkinson, G., Technology and Sustainable Development, in OECD (ed.) Frameworks to Measure Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris, 2000.
3.Ayres, R.U., Resource, environment and economics: applications of the material/energy balance principle, Wiley, New York, 1978.
4.Ayres, R.U., Industrial metabolism, In J. H. Ausubel and H. E. Sladovich, (Eds.), Technology and environment, pp.23-49, National. Academic Press, Washington, DC, 1989.
5.Barbier, E., Burgess, J. & Folke, C., Paradise lost? The ecological economics of biodiversity, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK, 1994.
6.Barbier, E. & Burgess, J., Economics, natural-resource scarcity and development: conventional and alternative views, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK, 1989.
7.Bernadini, O.& Galli, R., Dematerialization: ling term trends in the intensity of use of materials and energy, Futures, Vol. 25, pp. 431-448, 1993.
8.Bossel, H., Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, applications. A report to the Balaton group, The International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 1999.
9.Bratt, L., The predictive meaning of sustainability indicator, In O. Kuik and H. Verbruggen (Eds.), In search of indicators of sustainable development, pp. 57-70, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1991.
10.Brink, B.T., The AMOEBA approach as a useful tool for establishing sustainable development? In O. Kuik and H. Verbruggen (Eds.), In search of indicators of sustainable development, pp. 71-87, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1991.
11.Carson, R., Silent Spring, Fawcett Publications Inc, Greenwich, UK, 1962.
12.Chen, M., Zhang, L. J., Wang, R. S., Huai, B. G., Dynamics of ecological footprint of China from 1978 to 2003, Resources Science, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 132-139, 200.
13.Collins, A., Flynn, A., Wiedmann, T. & Barrett, J., The environmental impacts of consumption at a subnational level: the ecological footprint of Cardiff, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 1-16, 2006.
14.Consultative Group on Sustainable Development Indicators (CGSDI), The dashboard of sustainability: design specification document draft version one, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Ottawa, Canada, 1999.
15.Corbiére-Nicollier, T., Ferrari, Y., Jemelin, C. & Jolliet, O., Assessing sustainability: an assessment framework to evaluate agenda 21 actions at the local level, International Journal for Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 10, pp. 225-237, 2003.
16.Costanza, R., What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics, Vol. 1, pp. 1-7, 1989.
17.Curzio, A.Q., Foritis, M. & Zoboli, R., Innovation, resources and economic growth, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
18.Daly, H. E., The peril of free trade. Scientific American, Vol. 296, No. 5, pp. 24-29, 1993.
19.Daly, H.E. & Cobb, J.B., For the common good. Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future, Beacon Press, Boston, 1994.
20.Den Hond, F., Industrial ecology: a review, Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 1, pp. 60-69, 2000.
21.Dias De Oliveira, M. E., Vaughan, B. E. & Rykiel, E. J., Ethanol as fuel: energy, carbon dioxide balances, and ecological footprint, BioScience, Vol. 55, No. 7, pp. 593-602, 2005.
22.Du, B. Zhang, K. M., Song, G. J., Wen, Z.G., Methodology of urban ecological footprint for evaluating sustainable development in China, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 245-254, 2006.
23.Duchin, F., Industrial input-output analysis: implications for industrial ecology, Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 851-855, 1992.
24.European Communities (EC), Economy-wide material flow accounts and derived indicators: a methodological guide, European Communities, Luxembourg, 2001a.
25.European Communities (EC), Material use indications for the European Union, 1980-1997, European Communities, Luxembourg,2001b.
26.Eurostat, Towards environmental pressure indicators for the EU, Eurostat, Luxembourg, 2000.
27.FAO, FAO statistical databases, FAOSTAT 98 CD ROM, FAO, Rome, Italy, 1999.
28.Farrell, A. & Hart, M., What does sustainability really mean? The search for useful indicator, Environment, Vol. 40, No. 9, pp. 4-9 , pp. 26-31, 1998.
29.Folke, C., Ecological principles and environmental economic analysis, in J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.) Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 895-911, 1999.
30.Forman, R. T. T., Ecologically sustainable landscape: the role of spatial configuration, In I. S. Zonneveld and R. T. T. Forman (Eds.), Changing landscapes: an ecological perspectives, pp. 261-277, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.
31.Frey, S. D., Harrison, D. J., Billett, E. H., Ecological Footprint Analysis Applied to Mobile Phones, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 10, Issue 1-2, pp. 199-216, 2006.
32.FOEE, Rriends of the Earth Europ: Towards sustainable Europe - Handbook, Brussels, Amsterdam, 1995.
33.Gallopín, G. C., Indicators and their use: Information for decision-making. Sustainability indicators: A report on the project on indicators of sustainable development, SCOPE Publication published by John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England, 1997.
34.Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. & O’Brien, G., Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development, Sustainable Development, Vol. 10, pp. 187-196, 2002.
35.Gilpin, A., Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Cutting edge for the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press, UK, 1995.
36.Goeller, H. E. & Weinberg, A. M., The age of sustainability, Science, Vol. 191, No. 4228, pp. 638-89, 1976.
37.Greater London Authority, GLA INFORMATION,Greater London Authority, 2003.
38.Haberl, H., Erb, K. H. & Krausmann, F., How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926-1995, Ecological Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 25-45, 2001.
39.Hardi, P. & Barg, S., Measuring Sustainable Development: review of current practice, Industry Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1997.
40.Hashimoto, S. & Moriguchi, Y., Proposal of six indicators of material cycles for describing society's metabolism: from the viewpoint of material flow analysis, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 185-200, 2004.
41.Haughton, G., Environmental justice and the sustainable city, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 233-243, 1999.
42.Helmut, H., Fridolin, K. & Fridolin, K., How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926~1995, Ecological Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 25-45, 2001.
43.Herman, R., Ardekani, S. A. & Ausubel, J. H., Dematerialization, In J. H. Ausubel and H. E. Sladovich, (Eds.), Technology and environment, pp. 50-69, National Academic Press, Washington, DC, 1989.
44.Institute for Management Development (IMD), World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005, IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2005.
45.International Union for the Conservation of Nature, United Nations Environment Program and World Wide Fund for Nature (IUCN/UNEP/WWF), Caring for the earth: a strategy for sustainable living. IUCN/UNEP/WWF, Gland, Switzerland, 1991.
46.Jacobs, M., The green economy, Pluto Press, London, UK, 1991.
47.Jasson, A. M. & Zucchetto, J., Energy, economic and ecological relationships for Gotland. Sweden: A regional system study, Swedish Natural Science Research Council Ecological Bu1letins, Stockholu, 1987.
48.Johnson, C. A. & Turner, B. M., Histone deacetylases: complex transducers of nuclear signals, Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 179-188, 1999.
49.Kaiser, H. F., An index of factorial simplicity, Psychometrika, Vol. 39, pp. 31-36, 1974.
50.Klaus H & Stefan G., Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation (efs) of international trade, Ecological Economics, Vol. 44, pp. 137-151, 2003.
51.Krotscheck, C. & Narodoslawsky, M., Social economic environmental research in Austria, Sustainable Development, Vol. 6, pp. 31-39, 1998.
52.Lawrance, P., Meigh, J. R. & Sullivan, C. A., The water poverty index: an international comparison, Keele Economic Research Paper, KERP 2002/19, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK, 2002.
53.Lehmann, H. & Schmidt-Bleek, F., Material flows from a systematical point of view, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 413-418, 1993.
54.Leonief, W., Koo, J. C. M, Naser, S. & Sohn, I., The future of non-fuel minerals in the US and the world economy, DC Heath, Lexington, MA, 1982.
55.Lenzen, M. & Murray, S. A., A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia, Ecological Economics, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 229-255, 2001.
56.Liverman, D. M., Hanson, M. E., Brown, B. J. & Merideth, R.W., Global sustainability: toward measurement, Environmental Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 133-143, 1998.
57.Maclaren, V. W, Urban Sustainable Reporting, Journal of American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 2., 1996.
58.Malone, C. R., Ecosystem management policies in state government of the U.S.A., Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 48, pp. 57-64, 2000.
59.Markandya, A. & Pearce, D. W., Natural environments and the social rate of discount, Project Appraisal, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 11, 1988.
60.Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. I., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. W., The limits to growth, Universe Books, New York, 1972.
61.Moffatt, I., Sustainable development: principles analysis and policies, Parethenon Press, New York, 1996.
62.Moffatt, I. & Hanley, N., Modelling sustainable development: systems dynamic and input-ouput approaches, Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 16, pp. 545-557, 2001.
63.Munday, M. & Roberts, A., Developing approaches to measuring and monitoring sustainable development in Wales: A review, Regional Studies, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 535-554, 2006.
64.Neumayer, E., Indicators of sustainability, In T. Tietenberg and H. Folmer (Eds.), International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 139-188, Eldward Elgar, London, UK, 2004.
65.Niemeijer, D., Developing indicators for environmental policy: data-driven and theory-driven approaches examined by example, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 5, pp. 91-103, 2002.
66.Odum, E. P., Ecology: The link between the natural and social sciences, Holt-Saunders, New York, 1975.
67.Opschoor, H. & Reijnders, L., Towards sustainable development indicators, In O. Kuik, & H. Verbruggen (Eds.), In search of indicators of sustainable development, pp. 7-27, Kluwer, Boston, MA, USA, 1991.
68.Pearce, D. W., Markandya, A. & Barbier E.B., Blueprint for a Green Economy, Eartscan Publications Ltd., London, 1989.
69.Pintér, L., Zahedi, K. & Cressman, D., Capacity building for integrated environmental assessment and reporting: training manual second edition, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Ecologistics International, Ltd, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2000.
70.Prescott-Allen, R., An approach to assessing progress toward sustainability: barometer of sustainability: weasuring and communicating wellbeing and sustainable development Vol. 2 (tools and training Series). IUCN, Switzerland, 1997.
71.Rajeswar, J., Development beyond markets, and bioregionalism, Sustainable Development, Vol. 10, pp. 206-214, 2002.
72.Rees, W. E. & Wackernagel. M., Monetary analysis: turning a blind eye on sustainability, Ecological Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 47-52, 1999.
73.Rees, W. E., Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats, Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 371-374, 2000.
74.Stockholm Environment lnstitute (SEI), Conventional world: technical description of bending the curve scenarios (PoleStar Series Report No. 8), SEI, Stockholm, Sweden, 1998.
75.Smeets, E.& Weterings, R., Environmental indicators: typology and overview (EEA Technical Report No. 25), European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1999.
76.Spangenberg, J. H., Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: frameworks for indicators measuring sustainable development, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 2, pp. 295-309, 2002.
77.Speth, J. G., The Greening of Technology, The Washington Post, pp. D3, 1989.
78.Sullivan, C. A., Meigh, J. R., Giacomello, A. M., Fediw, T., Lawrance, P., Samad, M., Mlote, S., Hutton, C., Allan, J. A., Schulze, R. E., Dlamini, D. J. M., Cosgrove, W., Delli, P. J., Gleick, P., Smout, I., Cobbing, J., Calow, R., Hunt, C., Hussain, A., Acreman, M. C., King, J., Malomo, S., Tate, E. L., O'Regan, D., Milner, S. and Style, I., The water poverty index: development and application at the community scale, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 27, pp. 189-199, 2003.
79.Swiss Federal Statistical Office (SFSO) & Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), The environment in Switzerland 1997: facts, figures, perspectives. SFSO/SAEFL, Switzerland, 1997.
80.Szaro, R. C., Sexton, W. T. & Malone, C. R., The emergence of ecosystem management as a tool for meeting people's needs and sustaining ecosystems, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 40, pp. 1-7, 1998.
81.The President's Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable America: A new consensus for prosperity, opportunity, and a healthy environment, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1996.
82.The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP), Environmental sustainability index. An initiative of the global leaders of tomorrow environment task force, Proceedings of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2002, 2002.
83.Tietenberg, T., Environmental and natural resource economics (6th ed.), Addison Wesley Longman, New York, 2000.
84.Tisdell, C. A., Economics of environmental conservation: economics for environment and ecological management, Elsevier, New York, USA, 1991.
85.Tolba, M. K., Sustainable Development: Constraints and Opportunities, Butterworths, London, 1987.
86.United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Environmental data report, GEMS Monitoring and Assessment Research Centre, London, UK, 1993-1994.
87.Van Esch, S. A., Performance Indicators of Environmental Policy, Background document to the Indicators in the National Environmental Program 1997-2000, RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 2000.
88.Vuren, D. P. V. & Smeets, E. M. W., Ecological footprints of Benin, Bhutan, Costa Rica and the Netherlands, Ecological Economics, Vol. 34, pp. 115-130, 2000.
89.Wackernagel, M., An evaluation of the ecological footprint, Ecological Economics, Vol. 31, pp. 317-318, 1999.
90.Wackernagel, M., Lewan, L. & Hansson, C. B., Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint: applications in Sweden and Subregions, Ambio, Vol. 28, pp. 604-612, 1999.
91.Wackernagel, M. & Monfreda, C., Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961-1999: comparing the conventional approach to an “actual land area” approach, Land Use Policy, Vol. 21, pp. 261-269, 2004.
92.Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linares, A. C., Falfán, I. S. L., García, J. M., Guerrero, A. I. S. & Guerrero, M. G. S., National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept, Ecological Economics, Vol. 29, pp. 375–390, 1999.
93.Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Linares, A. C., Falfán, I. S. L., García, J. M., Guerrero, A. I. S. & Guerrero, M. G. S., Ecological footprints of nations: how much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? The Earth Council for the Rio Forum, pp. 4-12, International Council for Local Environment Initiative, Toronoto, Canada, 1997.
94.Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W., Ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC,Canada, 1996.
95.Wackernagel M. & Rees, W., Our Ecological footprint-reducing human impact on the earth, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2000.
96.Wackernagel, M. & Silverstein, J., Big things first: focusing on the scale imperative with the ecological footprint, Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 391-394, 2000.
97.Wackernagel, M. & Yount, J. D., The ecological footprint: an indicator of progress toward regional sustainability, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 51, pp.511-529, 1998.
98.Waddel, L.M. & Labys, W. C., Transmaterialization: technology and materials demand cycles, Materials and Society, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 59-86, 1988.
99.Warren-Rhodes, K. & Koening, A., Ecosystem appropriation by Hong Kong and its implications for sustainable development, Ecological Economics, Vol. 39, pp. 347-359, 2001.
100.Weisz, H., Amann, C., Eisenmenger, N., Krausmann, F.& Hubacek, K., Economy-wide material flow accounts and indicators of resource use for the EU: 1970-2001. Final report to Eurostat, contract no. Estat/B1/Contract Nr. 200241200002. Wien: IFF Social Ecology, 2004.
101.Wernick, I. K. & Ausubel, J. H., National materials flows and the environment, Annual Review of Energy and Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, pp. 463-492, 1995.
102.Williams R. H, Larson, E. D. & Ross, M. H., Materials, affluence and industrial energy use, Annual Review of Energy and Energy and Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 99-144, 1987.
103.World Bank (WB), World development indicators, Washington, DC, 1997.
104.World Economic Forum (WEF), The Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005, Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
105.World Resources Institute (WRI), The 1994 information please environmental Almanac, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 1994.
106.World Resources Institute (WRI), Resource flows: the material basis of industrial economies, Washington, DC, 1997.
107.World Resources Institute (WRI), The weight of nations: material outflows from industrial economies, Washington, DC, 2000.
108.World Wild Fund (WWF), Living planet report 2000, Morges, Switzerland, 2000.
109.World Wild Fund (WWF), Living planet report 2004, Morges, Switzerland, 2004.
110.Zhang, Z. Q., Ecological overshoot: humanity consumes more natural resource than the earth can produce-main results of the living planet report 2004, Advances in Earth Science, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 378-383, 2005.

三、網頁資料
1.行政院主計處全球資訊網，主計資料庫查詢。
http://www.dgbasey.gov.tw/database.htm, Last Updated March, 2006.
2.行政院經建會，台灣永續發展指標系統發布平台。http://www.cepd.gov.tw/ sustainable-development/island.htm.
3.行政院農委會，農業統計資料查詢。http://bulletin.coa.gov.tw/view.php?catid=195, Last updated April, 2006.
4.行政院經濟部能源局，環境指標。
http://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/, Last updated May, 2006.
5.行政院經濟部國際貿易貿局經貿資訊網，貿易統計資料查詢。http://cus.trade.gov.tw/cgi-bin/pbisa60.dll/customs/uo_base/of_start, Last Updated March, 2006.
6.行政院經濟部礦物局，礦產品及土石生產動態。http://www.mine.gov.tw/, Last updated April, 2006.
7.內政統計資訊服務網，內政部統計年報。
http://www.epa.gov.tw/view.hph?catid=195, Last updated April, 2006.
8.中華民國統計諮詢網，國民所得及經濟成長。http://www.stat.gov.tw/mp.asp?mp=4, Last updated March, 2006.
9.行政院環保署，環保統計月報95年3月版。http://www.epa.gov.tw/b/b0100.asp?Ct_Code=02X000000X0000129, Last updated March, 2006.
10.財政部關稅總局統計資料庫，我國進出口貨物數量與價值查詢表。http://web.customs.gov.tw/statistic/statistic/statisticList.asp, Last updated April, 2006.
11.張穎，北京市生態足跡變化和對可持續發展的影響研究，2005。http://mumford.albany.edu/chinanet/shanghai2005/zhangying_ch.doc.
12.郭洪海，岳方彤，吳波，山東省生態足跡的研究，2005。http://www.saas.ac.cn/sdiasd/index/2.doc.
13.國際農糧組織，國際稻米年，2004。http://www.fao.org/rice2004/zh/index_zh.htm
14.Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), Indicators of sustainable development for the United Kingdom -theory underlying development of UK indicators, Online Document, 1996, http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/epsim/indics/isdtheor.htm.
15.Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), Sustainable development: opportunities for change, Consultation paper on a revised UK strategy, Online document, 1998, http://www.environmental.detr.gov.uk/sustainable/consult/sust02.htm.
16.Environment Australia, Australia: state of the environment 1996-the definitive guide to the Australian environment. CSIRO Publication, 1996,
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/envindicators/index.html.
17.European Environment Agency, EEA Core Set of Indicators Guides, EEA Technical Report #1/2005. Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005, http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_ 2005_1/en.
18.FRB, Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Statistical, Release, G.17, Accessed November 22, 2004.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G17/table1_2.htm
19.International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), What are the general selection criteria for indicators? IISD, 2000, http://iisd1.iisd.ca/measure/ faqcriteria.htm.
20.Nyman, M., Sustainable development indicators for Sweden: concepts and framework, 2003.
http://www.scb.se/statistik.
21.Patterson, T. M., The ecological economics of sustainable tourism; local versus global ecological footprints in Val di Merse, Italy, 2004. http://wwwlib.global.umi.com/dissertations/results?set_num=1.
22.SOPAC & UNEP, The official global EVI, 2005, http://www.vulnerabilityindex. net/index.htm.
23.UK Government Sustainable Development, UK government sustainable development framework indicators, 2005. http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/performance/framework.htm.
24.United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human development report, 2005.
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/.
25.United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) , Human development report series, 1990-1998.
http://www.undp.org/undp/hdro.
26.United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Indicators for sustainable development, 2001.
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/ indicators /isdms 2001 /table _ 4.htm.
27.Venetoulis, J., Chazan, D. & Gaudet, C., Ecological footprint of nations, predefining progress, 2004.
http://www.redefiningprogress.org/ newprojects/ecolFoot/faq/index.shtml.
28.Wackernagel, M., Ecological footprints of nations: How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? , Millennium Institute: Ecological Footprint, 1998.
http:// www/ igc.apc.org/ millennium/ links/ ecolgoot.html.
29.World Economic Forum, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University, and Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005, http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/.
30.World Resources Institute (WRI), Online Document, 1992, http://www.wri.org/.
31.WWF International, Global footprint network, Kadoorie Farm, Botanic Garden, Asia-Pacific 2005: the ecological footprint and natural wealth [EB/OL], 2006, http://www.footprintnetwork.org/newsletters/gfn_blast_ap_report_2005.html.