以AHP法評估國民中小學推動綠色低碳校園應用順序之研究

Assessment of the Priorities of Green Low-Carbon Campus Application in Elementary and Junior High School by AHP

楊嘉輝(Chia-Hui Yang)

指導教授 ： 王聰榮

國立臺北科技大學/設計學院/建築與都市設計研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6841/NTUT.2012.00037

摘要

面對全球永續及低碳建築發展趨勢，本研究以國民中小學為研究對象，探討如何增進學校綠色環保與節能減碳效益。首先以「文獻回顧分析」蒐集學校綠建築、低碳校園及永續學校等相關文獻，初擬原始評估因子及層級架構。接著經由「模糊德爾菲法」專家問卷產、官、學各領域專家意見篩選評估因子，確立評估因子及層級架構。最後透過「層級分析法」專家問卷整合政府、學術界等各領域專家意見，求得相關評估因子及層級指標之優先排序及權重值成果。
本研究就原始評估因子共識認知、整體評估應用體系、評估指標權重與排序，以及各領域專家意見差異分析等成果，歸納結論如下：（一）建立「推動綠色低碳校園應用順序」評估體系，包含四大評估面向、十一項評估要項及三十六項評估因子；（二）依全體專家決策，四大評估面向優先排序及權重為「推廣綠色低碳學習與管理」0.3762、「建構健康校園」0.2435、「校園節能省碳應用」0.1925及「營造多元生態校園」0.1878。（三）依全體專家決策，在評估因子前五名，依優先排序及絕對權重值為「加強學校、社區綠色總體營造」0.1265；其次為「營造創意特色的綠色低碳校園」0.0578，「建築外殼節能設計」0.0576，「節能照明器具及系統」0.0522及「整體需求計畫與環境評估」0.0520。（四）學術專家決策群在「推廣綠色低碳生活教育」評估面向相較政府部門重視；而政府部門決策群在「建立綠色低碳政策管理」評估面向相較學術專家重視。（五）建構綠色低碳校園最佳優先策略：經全體專家、政府部門及學術各專家決策群共同一致意見：「推廣綠色低碳學習與管理」評估面向、「推廣綠色低碳生活教育」評估要項及「加強學校、社區綠色總體營造」評估因子分別為各層評估指標中最優先且非常重要項目。
綜合上述，對於國民中小學建構優質綠色低碳校園，良好的節能設施規劃、豐富的生態校園及健康環境固然為重要且不可或缺，但透過本研究及各專家寶貴意見發現，唯有以「人」為本，建立優質政策、建全維護管理、良好教育學習及正確的生活態度，引導學校師生落實正確綠色環保及節能省碳觀念，進而推動至家庭、社區到社會，改善整體永續環境，方為最佳及有效途徑。

關鍵字

綠色低碳校園 ； 學校綠建築 ； 永續學校 ； 模糊德爾菲法 ； 層級分析法

並列摘要

Following the global Sustainable Development and low carbon building development trend, this paper studies elementary and junior high school campuses in Taiwan and discusses how to improve school green, environmental protection and enhance energy saving carbon reduction benefits. The paper focuses on ways to improve and construct campus facilities and to guide both teachers and students in the implementation of energy efficiency in order to enhance the quality of the overall environment. The paper begins with a literature review of documents related to low carbon use as a principle for campus construction and improvement. This is followed by a report on the use in this study of the Fuzzy Delphi Method expert questionnaire to survey the views of industry works, government officials and academics experts, sieving assessment factors to establish the level system. The paper concludes with a report on the use in this study of the Analytical Hierarchy Process expert questionnaire to survey the views of government officials and academic experts to calculate the relative priority of the weight value results of the related level indicators and assessment factors.
The research conclusions for promoting green low-carbon campus applications may be summarized as follows:
1. A Green Low-carbon campus assessment system should be established, including four assessment perspectives, 11 assessment items and 36 assessment factors.
2. Overall, the opinion of the experts is that the weight values and prioritization of assessment indicator groups are 37.62％ for “promoting the green low carbon learning and management,” 24.35％ for “constructing healthy campuses,” 19.25％ for “campus energy-saving and carbon planning” and 18.78％ for “building campus ecological environment.” That means the experts agree the issues of “learning and policy management” are the highest and extremely important priorities for green low-carbon campus applications.
3. According to the consensus of experts opinion, the top five assessment factors are 0.1265 for “school and community built green campus together,” 0.0578 for “design innovative features green low-carbon campus,” 0.0576 for “building envelope energy-saving design,” 0.0522 for “energy-efficient lighting fixtures and systems,” 0.0520 for “the overall demand plan and environmental assessment.”
4. All experts, government and academic each experts group of all agree that assessment perspective “promoting the green low carbon learning and management,” assessment item “promote green low-carbon living and education,” and assessment factor “school and community built green campus together,” are the strong important priorities for green low-carbon campus applications in their respective hierarchy of assessment.
5. Both government experts and academic experts think that assessment perspective “promoting green low carbon learning and management” should be the top priority for improving campuses. The difference is that the academic experts emphasize promoting green learning and lifelong education, whereas government experts emphasize green policy making and management.
The results of this research may be useful to government decision makers, architectural firms, and academic researchers – in fact, to anyone who is interested in promoting green low carbon campus applications in elementary and junior high schools.

並列關鍵字

Green Low-carbon Campus ； Green School Building ； Sustainable Campus ； Fuzzy Delphi Method ； Analytic Hierarchy Process

參考文獻

[58] 劉師源，探討現今臺灣建築再生能源應用之挑戰與對策，碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所，臺北，2008。

[51] 葉志高，我國低碳評核指標之研議，碩士論文，臺灣大學環境工程學研究所，臺北，2010。

[25] 馮正民、李穗玲，「由決策習慣探討AHP 之評估方法」，中華管理學報，第一卷，第一期，2000，第21-26頁。

[16] 王順美，「社會變遷下的環境教育－綠色學校計畫」，師大學報，第四十九卷，第一期，2004，第159-170頁。

[27] 衛萬里、張文智，「應用模糊德爾菲與分析網路程序法選擇最佳產品設計方案之研究」，設計學報，第十卷，第三期，2005，第59-79頁。