基於生命週期與隨機AHP法評估坡地溪流整治工程之成效

Life cycle and stochastic AHP-based effectiveness assessment of slope and river regulations

王儷涵(LI-HAN WANG)

指導教授 ： 廖國偉

國立臺灣大學/生物資源暨農學院/生物環境系統工程學研究所/碩士(2021年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202104079

摘要

工程界對於生態工程越來越重視，近年來除了從保護「生態」的觀念，到對整個大環境「永續性」的關注外，更多的焦點是人、生物、工程三者如何達到平衡，然而民眾對於生態工程的不信任猶然存在，本研究欲以生態工程的生命週期為出發點，訂定出一個具有參考價值並可以評估生態工程需注重哪些環節的指標。
本研究使用之方法為Saaty所提出之傳統層級分析法(AHP, Analytic Hierarchy process)，使用其基本概念再結合Eugene Rex Jalao等人所提出之隨機層級分析法(Stochastic AHP)找出對於生態工程比較重要的指標。執行的過程中先訂定一個與生態工程生命週期相關之層級架構指標表，而後製作成問卷供專家學者填寫完畢後再計算其指標權重，以得到重要指標。而本研究也提出改良之隨機AHP法，以問卷整合方式不同做為區別並與原隨機AHP法做比較。
在傳統AHP法與隨機AHP法的比較上，使用隨機AHP法確實能讓問卷更容易符合邏輯一致性，也可以使一致性檢定達到比較好的結果；而在本研究提出之改良隨機AHP法與原隨機AHP法之比較上，改良隨機AHP法較極端表現出問卷填答者的偏好度，而指標重要性方面不論是哪種方法，皆能顯現出生命週期權重大小依序為規劃>設計>施工>維護管理，而次要指標也只有些許差異。計算完指標權重後選出兩種隨機AHP法並就每個生命週期階段前三重要的指標與公共工程金質獎案例對應，檢驗是否能互相呼應，確立其為影響生態工程之重要指標。

關鍵字

生態工程 ； 生命週期 ； 層級分析法(AHP) ； 隨機層級分析法(Stochastic AHP) ； 指標權重

並列摘要

Ecological engineering has drawn much attention among the engineering communities. In recent years, it has evolved from the concept of "ecology protection" to "sustainability" for the entire environment. It is mainly about how to achieve a balance between humans, biology, and engineering. However, people still have many doubts about ecological engineering. This research intends to inlcude the life cycle of ecological engineering as the basement and establish regulations that have reference value in evaluation with respect to the ecological engineering. This study combines the traditional Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) proposed by Saaty, with the method of Stochastic AHP proposed by Eugene Rex Jalao et al. to find out the relatively significant indicator for engineering. The first step is to establish a hierarchical structure related to the life cycle of ecological engineering, and then create a survey table for experts and scholars to calculate the weights for obtaining the important indicators. This study also proposed a modified stochastic AHP method, deviating from the usual stochastic AHP method. In the comparison between the traditional AHP and the stochastic AHP, the method of stochastic AHP can indeed make the questionnaire more likely to be logically consistent, and it can also make the consistency test achieve a better result; and the modified stochastic AHP proposed in this study is compared with the usual stochastic AHP. In comparison with the usual stochastic AHP, the modified stochastic AHP shows extremely on the preference of questionnaire respondents, and regardless of the both methods, it can show the important weight on life cycle is in the order of Planning, Design, Construction, and Maintenance , and the secondary indicators are only slightly different. After calculating the important weights, the first three important indicators in each life cycle stage will be selected from these two stochastic AHP methods and are compared with the case of Public Construction Commission Goledn Quality Award, to examine if theyare consistent, if so, their relative importance is then confirmed.

並列關鍵字

Ecological Engineering ； Life Cycle ； Analytic Hierarchy Process ； Stochastic AHP ； Important Weights

參考文獻

1. Bernasconi, M., Choirat, C., Seri, R. (2009). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement. University of Venice "Ca' Foscari", Department of Economics, Working Papers, 56.

2. Cheng, M.-Y., Prayogo, D. (2014). Symbiotic Organisms Search: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Computers Structures, 139, 98-112.

3. Honert, R. (1998). Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: A model of group consensus. European Journal of Operational Research, 110, 99-111.

4. Jalao, E. R., Wu, T., Shunk, D. (2014). A stochastic AHP decision making methodology for imprecise preferences. Information Sciences, 270, 192-203.

5. Kang, M., Stam, A. (2007). PAHAP: A Pairwise Aggregated Hierarchical Analysis of Ratio‐Scale Preferences. Decision Sciences, 25, 607-624.