營建混合物再利用機構資源化產品流向管理之研究

A study on the Flow Management of resources Products on Reuse of Institutional of Construction and Demolition Wastes

林韋辰(Wei-chen Lin)

指導教授 ： 林志棟 ； 徐瑞宏

國立中央大學/工學院/土木工程學系/碩士(2012年)

摘要

台灣早期廢棄物管理政策從「管末處理」提升到現階段的「零廢棄」
為主軸，強調「源頭減量」與「資源回收再利用」，與國際上重視物質永續利用之趨勢相符合。行政院環保署於96 年起分屬於第三階段營建工地列管，本研究調查申報資料 100 年度營建廢棄物產生量約155 萬噸。
本研究調查再利用機構分類處理營建混合物R-0503之產生、處理、機構機具與處理能力及成品去化為首要課題，調查現行執行與管理機制，來提升再生資源使用成效。對再生物料分類處理者、再生物料使用者(再生綠建材)為問卷填答對象，調查填答者對於營建再生物料檢驗、成本、執行管理考慮準則，以李克特五尺度問卷進行調查。
再利用機構收受各類工程來源比例新建工程(84%)、拆除工程(13%)、裝潢修繕工程(1.2%)、其他(1.8%)，其中土石方、廢棄混凝土塊、廢磚佔營建資源出場達78%，目前再利用操作執行以施工便道、回填為，主總量龐大且資源化效果不佳，大多付費運送到土資場作為處理。
在碳排放量計算，運距是一個重要的影響因子，可初步得知廢棄物由營建工地運至分類處理廠需要跨縣市運送；而分類處理後之再生資源運至買方指定地點多在處理廠所在縣市進行再利用。
再生綠建材問卷調查要顯著因子為政府優惠補助、機關優先採購環境保護產品辦法、分項工程-植栽工程、購入材料無毒性，兩者看法有一致性且屬高分數群，在分項工程中皆認為不適用於結構工程中、認為綠建材標章較不合乎市場需求，在法令上強制規定消費者使用綠建材或強制添加再生材料之比率大部分的人較不同意，有大部分人員認為國家家標準CNS不太符合綠建材產品需求，此方面有待建築中心宣導，相關新訂定之評定綠建材項目。

關鍵字

綠建材 ； 項目分析 ； 營建混合物 ； 問卷調查

並列摘要

In the early of Taiwan, the management policy of salvaged material have been risen from end-of-pipe to zero waste policy which is the current project. It is focus on Source Reduction and resource recycling reuse and the international importance to the sustainable use of the material conform to the trend. Starting from 96, Environmental Protection Administration(EPA) which is the third stage of construction site, according from the study of the construction waste has been produced approximately 155 ton in 100.
his project is to research the producing and management of classification pressing, construction mixture R0503, which is from recycling organization. Also, the organization equipment, handling ability and finished products has become the first topic. This investigation of executive and management mechanism is to increase the effective of the recycling. This questionnaire survey takes the users and organizations of the renewable material as our respondents. The author for construction survey in the biological material inspection, cost, and executive management consider ethics to Likert five scale in questionnaires.
In the use of all kinds of engineering source from institutions proportion is new Construction 84%, Demolition 13%, Household Renovation 1.2%, and others 1.8%. One cubic metro, and abandon the waste concrete piece, and waste brick stand for construction resources of 78%. Currently in use operational execution to backfill the pavement construction, the total amount is large and it was not work effectively; mostly transported to the land, capital and pay a to do processing.
In carbon emissions calculation, distance is an important factors, and can be learned by construction site preliminary waste shipment to the classification plant needs to cross the line delivery: The renewable material which had been classified shipped to the place where designated by the buyer, most of them is recycled in the counties where have treatment plants.
The significant factors of the renewable green building material survey are the government subsidies Regulations for Priority Procurement of Eco-Products, kinds of construction-Landscape, and purchasing non-toxic materials. Both views have consistency and in the high score groups. It is considered in kinds of construction not suitable for structural and the renewable green building material doesn’t meet market demand. Most of people disagree to set up legislation to enforce user to use green building material or adding the proportion of recycled materials. The majority of people think the national standard CNS is not correspond to the needs of green building material. At this aspect, the promotion and related policies will be set up to evaluate green building material project by the building center.

並列關鍵字

Item Response Theory ； Green Building-Material ； Construction and Demolition Wastes

參考文獻

1.環境保護署, 資源循環政策規劃（草案）. 2011.

4.香港環境保護署 (2012).

46.黃財尉, 共同因素分析與主成份分析之比較. 彰化師大輔導學報, 2003(25): p. 63-86.

3.Likert, R., A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 1932.

9.Poon, C. and D. Chan, The use of recycled aggregate in concrete in Hong Kong. Resources, conservation and recycling, 2007. 50(3): p. 293-305.