私有財產權之保障在我國政治與經濟發展中扮演著重要的角色，但由於傳統上我國法律文化中並無權利之因素，且繼受西方國家法制時特別強調社會本位，以致憲法第十五條雖明文保障財產權，亦未能落實個人財產權免於國家公權力侵犯之核心。大法官釋字第三三六號解釋認為都市計劃法第五十條就公共設施保留地之取得不設期限係合憲，即是未能保障財產權之例子。 本文為建立財產權基本理論，從財產權之定義、財產權合理化理論及財產權理論之運用三方面著手。在何謂財產權專章中，析述財產權定義、特權、功能及缺失。在財產權合理化理論專章中，本文介紹現代最早之財產權理論(即先占理論)、勞力理論、人格發展理論、功效主義財產權理論及羅爾斯之分配正義理論。其中，個人擁有自身乃先占理論與勞力理論之源頭；功效主義理論認為財產權係因社會需要而生；人格發展理論認為財產權將人的意志具現在外部領域；羅爾斯之分配主義理論試圖建立同世代與世代間利用物質資源之公平正義。上述理論須經過重構後，方能深植在我國法律文化中。在財產權理論運用專章中，本文嚐試運用各種財產權理論於我國憲法財產權保障制度和徵收制度上。就憲法財產權保障制度而言，本文援引洛克天賦權利理論，認為財產權係先於國家存在之權利，並引伸出防禦權及有限政府之概念，避免過於偏重社會義務或國家義務之財產權制度。就徵收制度而言，本文評析大法官釋字第二三六號、三三六號、四００號及四四０號解釋。釋字第二三六號、三三六號解釋，偏重於社會整體利益之考量，犧牲個人財產權，釋字第四００號解釋則建立政府公權力不得侵犯個人及財產權係實現個人人格發展之概念，後者雖已將洛克及黑格爾理論共治一爐，此為我國憲法上財產權保障之大事，但從其前後不一貫之立場，我國財產權制度仍有尚待努力之處。 / The protection of property plays an important role in political and economic development of Taiwan. But in tradition there was no factor of　right in our legal culture, and especially considered social interests when we adopted and learned from western legal systems. It can't make people prevent from intervention of state power although Article 15 of Constitutional Law prescribes protection of property. For example, the interpretation of No.336 of Grand Justice upheld Article 50 of City Planning Law deleting deadline of public reservation. The said interpretation is a bad example. The goal of this dissertation is to establish fundamental theory of property. It is divided into three parts: what is property, why is property and how is property. Part I (what is property) analyzes definition of property. It also proceeds about characters、functions and flaws of property. Part Ⅱ(why is property) introduces the earliest modern theory of property (i.e., first occupancy theory)、labor theory、utilitarian property theory、personality development theory and Rawl's distributive justice theory. Suum is the origin of first occupancy theory and labor theory. Utilitarianism argues that property is derived from social demand. Rawl's distributive justice theory desires to establish the justice of using material about the same generation and the different generations. Only after reconstructing the said theories, property can deep input into our legal culture. Part Ⅲ (how is property) uses the said property theories to property protection of Constitutional Law and takings . For establishing the more protection system of property in Constitutional Law, it should employ natural right theory. And then it will produce the concept of negative right and limited government in Taiwan. It also can prevent from over - emphasising social obligations of individual and positive functions of state. In discussing takings, this dissertation analyzes the interpretation of No.236、No.336、No.400 and No.440 of Grand Justice. The interpretations of No.236 and No. 336 stress the importance of whole social interests, but it overlooks the individual right. The interpretation of No.400 constructs the concepts of limited state power and personality development. The latter is the turning point of property protection in our Constitutional Law. But oberserving contradiction of the said interpretations of Grand Justice, we still need to endeavor to establish the better system of property in our country.

世界各國面對垃圾量隨時間而逐漸上升的情形，原本皆視為必然趨勢，因此不斷地提供垃圾服務的供給來滿足家戶需求，以求達到均衡，這可說是「需求創造供給」。但是，一旦供給不足，在缺乏價格機能調節下，均衡將不復存在，於是降低家戶對垃圾服務需求的政策始被提出並被採行。另有一些研究則是瞭解人對環境的認知、態度與行為之間的關連性，許多研究發現其間關係為對環境知識瞭解愈詳細並傾向於新生態典範者，其行為表現就愈環保且較有積極的垃圾減量的行為，此為除了實施降低家戶對垃圾服務需求政策外另可同時進行的方向。 台灣目前已採用隨水量徵收垃圾清除處理費來反應各縣市政府在處理垃圾時的成本，不過因為此收費方式不是依垃圾量的多寡來收取，且家戶通常在繳交水費時無特別察覺到此筆費用，因此不會有付了清除費的感受，所以台灣近年來有幾個都市採行了減少家戶對垃圾服務需求方面的政策。此類政策大多分為兩種，一為行政命令式的強制回收；另一則是隨垃圾量收取垃圾費。台中市自民國88年7月1日首先實施「強制垃圾分類」，台北市則於民國89年7月1日實施「垃圾費隨袋徵收」制度，而今年1月1日，高雄市也採行了與台中市相同的政策，藉此來提高資源回收量、降低垃圾量。 本研究以一代表性家戶追求最大化效用，但受限於居住地的垃圾管理政策之條件，用比較靜態方式來分析在「無任何降低家戶對垃圾服務需求的政策」、「強制垃圾分類」、「垃圾費隨袋徵收」相異制度下，對家戶的垃圾源頭減量行為及垃圾丟棄量、非法傾倒量、資源回收量的影響。結果只有「隨袋徵收」具源頭減量效果，但是非法傾倒量也最多。若家戶只能以非法傾倒或合法丟棄兩種方式來處理垃圾時，那麼台中市、高雄市不會有非法傾倒的情形，但是台北市一定會有。而如果家戶只能在非法傾倒、從事回收間做抉擇，則台中市、高雄市會比台北市願意多做分類工作。至於若只有合法丟棄與回收間兩種可能性時，則要視其分類不完善的預期罰金與垃圾袋費用孰高來決定兩種制度下何者的回收量較高。 實證分析則得到對環境及垃圾管理認知、態度與日常環保行為愈正向者，其家戶會多花點兒心力於垃圾分類且垃圾量也較少。實施「強制垃圾分類」與「隨袋徵收」的地區，回收時間有顯著性地增加。但是對於減少垃圾容量，「隨袋徵收」才有顯著性的效果。本研究純粹探討制度不同對家戶減量行為的效果，而無分析不同政策的成本面，因此，環保單位應就欲達目的擇一適合的垃圾管理政策。 / The amount of household solid waste that is constantly rising with time has been an inevitable trend. In order to reach the equilibrium, the governments all over the world initially supply the solid waste disposal services freely to fulfill the demand. However, once the cost of supply has grown to such an extent that supply falls short, the equilibrium will be impossible to reach. Thus, many governments have changed the policy of providing free disposal service and developed alternative approaches to lower household’s demand for the service. In the meantime, some researches have studied the links between human perceptions, value, attitude and behavior toward the environment. Much of the research points to the fact that, the more detailed knowledge of the environment people hold, the more of New Environment Paradigm (NEP) they are, the more likely they are to actively reduce their waste and promote green behavior. This is one other route we can take to reduce household demand of solid waste services. The waste disposal fee is charged according to the amount of water used by the household to cover the cost of waste collection and disposal in Taiwan. However, this charge scheme doesn’t relate the fee paid by a household to the amount of waste the household discard, and most households are thereby indifferent to the payment of waste fee. In recent years, several cities have undertaken alternative policy schemes to reduce the household demands for waste disposal service. These schemes mainly come in two ways：one is to charge fees according to the quantity of waste generated; the other is to enforce the mandatory recycling law. Since July 1st, 1999, Tai-Chung City has required households to separate the waste into recyclable and disposable while Taipei City had chosen the latter fashion - waste fee per bag since July 1st, 2000. Kaohsiung City, on the other hand, has performed the same scheme as Tai-Chung City beginning January 1st, 2001. This study first develops a theoretical model of household disposal decision under different waste management policies：“no policy”, “required waste separation and recycling”, and “fee per-bag”. The household can choose among various options, including waste reduction, recycling, regular garbage collection and illegal dumping (or burning). The model shows that the “fee per-bag” is the only effective solution to source reduction; however, it induces the most illegal garbage dumping among the three schemes. In fact, the incidents of illegal dumping did not take place in Tai-Chung or Kaohsiung cities but was found in Taipei City. When households can only choose between recycling and illegal dumping, then Tai-Chung and Kaohsiung city dwellers are more likely to do more separation and recycling work than Taipei’s. As for when only regular garbage collection and waste separation and recycling are available as in Tai-Chung and Kaohsiung cities, the households’ likelihood to recycle depends on the expected fines of incomplete separation. Empirical result shows that when people have more knowledge about the environment and waste management policy, greener attitude towards environment, they tend to put more effort into waste separation and recycling, and their waste generated will be less than other households. The time people spend to separate waste increases significantly in those areas that apply “required waste separation” and “fee per-bag” programs. “Fee per-bag” has resulted in the largest decreases in the volume of the garbage.