既有學校之永續校園改造評估指標研究

A Study on the Assessment Indicators for the “Sustainable Campus” Renovation Projects in Existing Schools

張清山(Ching-Shan Chang)

指導教授 ： 周鼎金

國立臺北科技大學/設計學院/建築與都市設計研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6841/NTUT.2008.00019

摘要

本研究主要目的在於確認台北縣地區之既有國民中小學於永續校園理念下之改造評估目標，釐清既有學校進行永續校園改造所面臨的問題，據以建立適合台北縣國民中小學之永續校園改造評估指標與評分表。
本研究操作分為三個部份：第一部份為既有學校之永續校園文獻分析與現況問題的收集與分類，並提出改造評估架構，其中包括「校地生態循環」、「用水節水與水環境」、「能源應用與新淨能」、「資源流」、「健康建築」、「綠色教育」等六大面向及其下26個中指標、126個小指標；第二部份為進行問卷調查與層級分析，並利用Expert Choice 2000軟體，對擲回的有效問卷進行權重分配及一致性檢定，據以提出適當的對應指標權重及評分值的建議；第三部份對指標權重值進行敏感性分析，作為指標選取及評分表建構的參考。本研究成果可歸納為以下之結論：
一、校園使用者認為永續校園改造之優先決策(priority）係以「綠色教育」、「資源流」、「用水節水與水環境」為前三序位，而對於「校地生態循環」評估指標群之重視程度相對偏低，顯示當前國內校園對於「校地生態循環」之永續性仍未加以重視，關注的重點還是在於與學校實質運作有關的面向。
二、由校園使用者之分群體分析得知：「校長」分群體最重視「用水節水與水環境」；
「總務主任」分群體最重視「用水節水與水環境」；「學務主任」分群體最重視「綠色教育」；「家長與學生」分群體最重視「資源流」；「老師」分群體最重視「綠色教育」。
三、推動永續校園改造時，學校可經由校內使用者問卷調查，及對應所處區位環境等條件，因地制宜的修正永續校園改造評估指標群及其項下指標，單獨選取1組或多組指標群進行評估與評分。

關鍵字

永續校園 ； 優先決策 ； 層級分析法 ； 敏感度分析

並列摘要

The main purpose of this study is to confirm the assessment indicators for the renovation projects of the existing elementary and junior high schools in Taipei County under the “Sustainable Campus” program and identify the problems faced by the schools in these renovation projects, so as to establish a set of assessment indicators and scoring tables most suitable for the elementary and junior high schools in Taipei County for the “Sustainable Campus” renovation projects.
The research is conducted through three approaches. The first approach contains the analysis of relevant documents and collection/classification of the problems relating to the “Sustainable Campus” program of the existing schools. We also provides in this part a recommended structure for the assessment of the renovation projects, which includes six major phases, (i.e., “Ecological cycles in campus”, “Water usage, saving and water environment”, “Energy application and new clean energy supply”, “Resource flows”, “Healthy architecture” and “Green education”), 26 prime indicators and 126 sub-indicators. The second approach contains the questionnaire survey and analysis hierarchy process. Using the Expert Choice 2000 software, we have worked on the weight distribution and consistency check on the valid questionnaires returned, so as to provide adequate recommendations on the corresponding weightings for the indicators and the score weighting. For the third approach, we have conducted a sensitivity nalysis on the weighting of the indicators, which were used as reference material for selecting the indicators and constructing the scoring tables. From the research, we have reached the following conclusion:
1.Based on the input of the campus users, the top three priorities for the “Sustainable Campus” renovation projects are “Green education”, “Resource flow” and “Water usage, savings and water environment”. The attention paid to indicators under the “Ecological cycle in campus” group is relatively lower. The result shows that the campus users are paying less attention to the sustainability of the “Ecological cycle in campus”. They are more concerned with issues directly relating to the physical operations of the schools.
2.Based on our sub-group analysis on the replies from the campus users, we understand that the “Principal” sub-group values the most the “Water usage, saving and water environment”; the “Chief of General Affairs” sub-group pays the most attention to the “Water usage, saving and water environment” as well, the “Chief of Student Affairs” sub-group tends to focus the most on “Green Education”; the “Parents and Students” sub-group pays the most attention to the “Resource Flow”; and the “Teachers” sub-group also focuses the most on the “Green Education”.
3.When facilitating the campus renovation, the school management team may flexibly adjust the relevant indicators and sub-indicators based on the results of the internal questionnaire survey and the local environmental factors. They may also consider selecting a single group or several groups of the indicators to meet their assessment and scoring requirements.

並列關鍵字

Sustainable Campus ； Priority ； Analysis Hierarchy Process ； Sensitivity

參考文獻

[22] 陳星皓，台灣國民小學永續校園實質環境評估之研究，博士論文，國立成功大學建築學系，台南，2006。

[34] Christopher G. ， Design for sustainable learning ， 2005, Retrieved from http://sbw.cefpi.org/pdf/Design Sustainable.pdf.

[36] David Gissen，Big and Green：Toward Sustainable Architecture in the 21st Century.，2005.

[42] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.（n.d.）. Sustainable Design for School Fact Sheet.

中文部份