資源回收站之選址優選模式

Abstract

推動資源回收工作，設置資源回收站是經常採用的方式，過去研究中針對收集點已有一些研究，但針對較大型的回收站選址較少有相關研究。本研究因而以服務距離最小為目標提出分區不跨區、分區可跨區和不分區等三個資源回收站選址模式。因資源回收目前是國內區域性環境績效評比的重要項目，故依行政區分區，考量不跨區投出情形，不過跨區卻較具經濟效益，故本研究進行跨區與否差異性之分析。由於分區可跨區模式可能出現一些回收站服務他區居民為主的情形，故進一步提出一個改良的模式，求取服務本區比率較高的方案供比較。本研究以新竹市東區和北區共16個里的實例資料進行案例研討，並依據服務距離、空間均衡性、服務率等因子評估各方案之差異，結果顯示並無一方案在各因子均最佳，服務距離和服務率以不分區模式最好，但區域均衡性不佳，而分區可跨區改良模式可改變服務率及得到較佳的區域均衡性，且在其他因子上與其他模式差異不大下，對案例而言，應是較適宜的方案。

Recycling with drop-off centers is a commonly adopted approach. Siting appropriate locations for placing drop-off centers is important for promoting an efficient drop-off program. However, previous researches rarely addressed this siting problem, although location-allocation models for other related problems, such as waste pickup locations, are available. This study is therefore initiated to develop models to facilitate the drop-off center siting analysis. Achievement of recycling programs currently serves as an important competitive index for evaluating the environmental protection performance of local districts. Therefore, recycling programs are generally locally implemented for each district, and each drop-off center may serve local residents only, although it should be more efficient if drop-off centers can be shared to adjacent districts. Three models of district-constrained (DC), district-open (DO), and non-district (ND) are therefore proposed, with total service distance as the primary objective being minimized. Both district-constrained and non-district situations are analyzed. Another enhance model (DOE) is also proposed to improve the drawback of locating drop-off centers mainly serving residents in other districts for the DO model. A case study for sixteen districts in Hsinchu City is implemented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed models. Three major factors of service distance, district equity, and service ratio are used to compare the effectiveness of alternatives obtained from vary models. The DC alternatives have best overall service distance and service ratio, but with a poor district equity. The DOE alternatives can achieve good district equity with performance for other factors is still acceptable while compared with others, although none of all alternatives ranked the best for all three factors