自民國45年7月展開興建到53年6月完工，石門水庫為北部地區的經濟發展產生了重大的貢獻，由於天然災害的侵襲加上不當地人為開發，使得石門水庫產生嚴重的泥砂淤積，為了解決此問題而有了第一階段整治計劃的施行。此計劃的施行期間為民國95年至民國97年，共分成三個子計劃，本研究從政府的觀點，以農業用水、工業用水、生活用水、發電、觀光、減少抽砂支出為效益指標，以預算及天然災害損失為成本指標作運算，來評估其整建計劃的成效，所得到整建前的益本比為2.817，整建後的益本比為3.566，整建後的益本比大於整建前的益本，代表此整治計劃是有可行性的。同時，考慮到台灣地區水電費較為便宜的因素，而分別針對水費與電費作調整，所得到水費調漲後整建前的益本比為3.519，整建後的益本比為4.31；電價調漲後整建前的益本比為3.689，整建後的益本比為4.074，同樣支持此一整建計劃的施行。

Shihmen Reservoir has contributed to the economic development of northern Taiwan since it was built in 1964. As result of natural disasters and improper development, Shihmen Reservoir had a big problem with sediment deposition. To solve this problem, government executed the first stage of integrated treatments planning on Shihmen Reservoir.The period of program is from 2006 to 2008 and divided into three parts. From the government point of view, this study recognized the use of agriculture water､industrial water､domestic water､electricity generation､tourism and decreased sediment extraction expense as benefit index ； recognized budgets and natural disasters as cost index to evaluate the effect of this program.The value of benefit-cost ratio before integrated treatments is 2.817 and the value of benefit-cost ratio after integrated treatments is 3.566. The value of benefit-cost ratio after integrated treatments is bigger than the value of benefit-cost ratio before integrated treatments.It means that it is workable for this program. Considering the reason that the water rate and utility bills are much cheaper in Taiwan, this study adjust the rate of water and utility individually. With the adjustment of water rate, the value of benefit-cost ratio before integrated treatments is 3.519 and the value of benefit-cost ratio after integrated treatments is 4.31. With the adjustment of utility rate, the value of benefit-cost ratio before integrated treatments is 3.689 and the value of benefit-cost ratio after integrated treatments is 4.074. It is also beneficial for this program.

謝詞........................................................................................................i
中文摘要................................................................................................ii
Abstract..................................................................................................iii
第一章 緒論........................................................................................1
第一節 研究動機與目的......................................................................1
第二節 研究範圍..................................................................................4
第三節 研究架構與流程......................................................................4
第二章 文獻回顧................................................................................6
第三章 研究方法..............................................................................12
第四章 第一階段整治計劃之成本效益分析..................................15
第一節 石門水庫集水區整治計劃成本分析....................................15
第二節 石門水庫集水區整治計劃效益分析....................................22
第三節 水費調漲對於整建計劃益本比之影響................................40
第四節 電費調漲對於整建計劃益本比之影響................................43
第五章 結論與建議 ........................................................................46
參考文獻..............................................................................................48
附錄......................................................................................................51

表1：石門水庫歷年泥砂淤積災害...................................................16
表2：緊急供水工程暨水庫更新改善經費.......................................17
表3：穏定供水設施及幹管改善經費...............................................18
表4：集水區保育治理改善經費.......................................................19
表5：整建前與整建後之相關總成本...............................................22
表6：整建計劃之效益分類...............................................................29
表7：石門水庫營運概況...................................................................30
表8：桃園地區歷年年降雨量...........................................................31
表9：石門水庫歷年重大土砂災害...................................................31
表10：水價及水費速算表.................................................................33
表11：歷年平均電價表.....................................................................33
表12：灌溉效益表.............................................................................34
表13：工業用水效益表.....................................................................35
表14：生活用水效益表.....................................................................35
表15：發電效益表.............................................................................36
表16：觀光效益表 ...........................................................................37
表17：整建前與整建後未累積之相關總效益..................................38
表18：整建前與整建後已累積之相關總效益..................................38
表19：水費調漲後之灌溉效益表......................................................40
表20：水費調漲後之工業用水效益表..............................................41
表21：水費調漲後之生活用水效益表................................................41
表22：水費調漲後整建前與整建後未累積之相關總效益.................42
表23：水費調漲後整建前與整建後已累積之相關總效益.................42
表24：電費調漲後之發電效益............................................................44
表25：電費調漲後整建前與整建後未累積之相關總效益.................44
表26：電費調漲後整建前與整建後已累積之相關總效益.................45

圖1：研究架構流程圖..........................................................................5
圖2：第一階段各子計劃經費分配圖.................................................20
圖3：第一階段整治計劃各年度經費分配數.....................................21

中文部分：
1.李涵茵（2001），「時論彙編：低電價、深省思」，台灣綜合研究院。
2.周含琦（1999），「德基水庫集水區第四期整體治理規劃之經濟評估」，國立中興大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。
3.柯思瑋（2009），「水庫高濁度下之供水風險分析-以石門水庫為例」，國立交通大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文。
4.陳秋楊（1998），「水庫」，中華民國工程環境學會出版：經濟部水資源局發行。
5.陳佩婷（2003），「水庫工程生命週期成本效益分析之研究」，國立台灣大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文。
6.陳文欣（2009），「水庫集水區整體治理規劃之探討－以德基水庫為例」，國立台灣大學生物環境系統工程學研究所碩士論文。
7.黃進和（1999），「霧社水庫集水區治理工程對水庫保護與其經濟分析」，國立中興大學農業經濟研究所碩士論文。
8.黃坤銘（2005），「德基水庫集水區第四期治理計畫之成本績效分析」，國立台北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文。
9.經濟部水利署（2006） ，石門水庫及其集水區整治計畫第一階段執行計畫書。
10.經濟部水利署北區水資源局（2008），石門水庫浚渫作業簡介。
11.經濟部水利署（2011），公務統計報表。
12.黎明工程顧問股份有限公司（2009），「大浦水庫重生計劃」，出版機關：經濟部水利署北區水資源局。
英文部分：
1. Christoph Humborg, Venugopalan Ittekkot, Adriana Cociasu and Bodo v. Bodungen(1997), “Effect of Danube River dam on Black Sea biogeochemistry and ecosystem structure”,Nature 386,385-388.
2. Dieudonné Mouafo, Éric Fotsing, Daniel Sighomnou and Luc Sigha(2002), “Dam, Environment and Regional Development: Case Study of the Logone Floodplain in Northern Cameroon”, Water Resources Development, Volume 18, Issue 1,209-219,2002.
3. Matleena Kniivila ̈, Ville Ovaskainen and Olli Saastamoinen(2002), “Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland” ,Journal of Forest Economics 8,131-150.
4. Nick Hanley (1992), "Are There Environmental Limits to Cost Benefit Analysis?" ,Environmental and Resource Economics 2,pp33-59.
5. Philip M. Fearnside( 1989) , “Brazil’s Balbina Dam：Environment versus the Legacy of the Pharaohs in Amazonia”, Department of Ecology National Institute for Research in the Amazon(INPA) C,P.478.
6. Randall A. Kramer, Daniel D. Richter, Subhrendu Pattanayak and Narendra P. Sharma (1997), "Ecological and Economic Analysis of Watershed Protection in Eastern Madagascar".Journal of Environmental Management, 49, pp277-295.
7. Richard O. Zerbe, Jr (1998), "Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Legal? Three Rules" Journal of Policy and Management, 17(3), pp419-456.
8. Ted L. Napier, W. Richard Goe, and Michael V. Carter (1985), Reservoir Impacts: A synthesis of a 10-Year Research Project", Water Resources Research 21(6), pp801-807.