土木工程永續指標之建立及其在綠色基礎建設案例應用之研究

Establishment of Sustainability Key Indicators for Civil Engineering and Their Applications in Green Infrastructure Projects

劉泰儀(Tai-Yi Liu)

指導教授 ： 陳柏翰

共同指導教授 ： 周南山(Nelson N.S. Chou)

國立臺灣大學/工學院/土木工程學研究所/博士(2020年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202000235

摘要

世界各國對於基礎建設之發展，愈來愈著重於”永續”觀念的建立與落實。而永續工程，包含著”綠色工程”的概念。目前，包括台灣在內的世界主要國家，在”綠建築”及其相關評估系統的發展與運用，均已相當成熟。這些系統實際運用於建築工程之開發，均已逾30年。在台灣，EEWH綠建築評估，已成為公共工程必須遵循及運用之必備條件。
相較於綠建築評估系統，在土木工程基礎建設方面，因為不同工程類型之差異性太大，以致較少有人或研究單位進行”綠土木”永續指標評估系統之研究。
本論文之研究動機，即期望以”綠土木”及” 工程永續”為出發點，建立具有實用性並可信賴之土木工程永續指標評估系統。內容共包含10項永續指標，包括『工程減災與可信賴度』、『生態』、『環境保護與減碳』、『節能』、『減廢』、『耐久性』、『效益』、『景觀』、『人文』以及『創意』。
研究方法採專家訪談及問卷之方式，並以結合”頂雙盒理論(Top Two Boxes Theory, TTBT)”與”多屬性數值分析理論(Multiple Attribute Value Theory, MAVT)”進行訪談問卷之分析。以分析之結果計算各項永續指標之權重，建立『基礎建設永續指標評估系統(Sustainability Assessment System for Green Civil Infrastructures，SASGCI)』。其評估期間涵蓋『設計』、『施工』、『營運』以及『拆除』四個階段，用以評估基礎建設工程於全生命週期中在”工程永續”方面之努力與成果。
本研究亦建立工程永續評估結果之等級，共分為『合格級』、『銅級』、『銀級』、『黃金級』以及『鑽石級』等5個綠土木標章等級，作為評鑑符合工程永續之標準。
因土木工程之類型繁多，且不同工程類型各具有不同之特色，本研究僅以土木工程中常見之『橋梁工程』、『隧道工程』以及『邊坡工程』，加上『建築工程』等四種基礎建設類型做為研究之對象，分別建立其永續指標之權重。每項工程類型另以1至2項實際執行之案例，來驗證SASGCI之實用性。在本研究中，加入『建築工程』項目，其目的是為與台灣EEWH綠建築評估系統做一比較，以了解SASGCI與EEWH兩評估系統之間的異同。
本研究之工程案例包括：(1)『橋梁工程』2項案例；(2)『隧道工程』2項案例；(3)『邊坡工程』1項案例；(4)『建築工程』2項案例。此2項建築工程於EEWH綠建築評估系統中，已分別獲得『黃金級與鑽石級』及『銀級』標章，惟經SASGCI評估結果，則分別評定符合『銀級』標章，本研究亦詳細說明其間之異同。
本研究除於結論中提出具實用性及可信賴之基礎建設永續指標評估系統，並分別計算其權重之外，另亦對未來土木工程之永續發展，提供具體推行之建議。包括工程人員在『永續』概念上之培養與持續成長之教育訓練，以及政府於『永續指標評估系統』之持續研究、改善與推廣，期使未來我們在基礎建設的開發時，能將災害之風險減至最低、能對生態友善、能減少碳排放量保護環境、能減少消耗能源，能減少廢棄物、能延長使用壽命、能發揮建設效益、能達到景觀美化、能兼顧人文發展、並能發揮工程人員之創意，共同為我們地球的環境盡一份工程人員應盡的心力。

關鍵字

基礎建設永續指標評估系統 ； SASGCI ； 永續土木基礎建設 ； 綠土木標章 ； 永續發展

並列摘要

Due to global warming, recently in the world, the “sustainability” issues for the lifecycle of infrastructures are more and more concerned and discussed during the development of the projects. Specifically, “green” infrastructures are being emphasized through designs and constructions that support long-term sustainability. Not only in Taiwan but also global, the “green building” assessment systems had been well established and applied for the development of building projects. In Taiwan, it is a regulation to apply the EEWH assessment system for public building projects.
Comparing to the green building assessment systems, the civil infrastructure projects are rarely to be discussed and researched on the sustainability key indicator assessment system due to the significant differences among different types of projects.
In this research, with the motivation of “green” and “sustainability”, the author selects ten key indicators, including Risk mitigation and reliability, Ecology, Environmental protection and carbon emissions reduction (ER & CER), Energy saving, Waste reduction, Durability, Benefit and Function, Landscape, Humanities and culture preservation (H&C), and Creativity to establish a reliable and applicability sustainability assessment system for civil infrastructures.
The primary methodology in this research is by expert interviews with the questionnaire. By adopting of Top Two Boxes Theory (TTBT) and Multiple Attribute Value Theory (MAVT), the questionnaire results are well analyzed and calculated for the weights of the selected key indicators. Therefore, the Sustainability Assessment System for Green Civil Infrastructures (SASGCI) is established to evaluate the sustainability achievements of green infrastructure projects.
The four stages of the whole lifecycle include “Design”, “Construction”, “Operation”, and “Demolition” in the SASGCI. The certificates of SASGCI are divided to five grades, which are “Certified”, “Bronze)”, “Silver”, “Gold” and “Diamond”.
Since the different type of infrastructure contains different features, it is not possible to establish a standard assessment system suitable for all types of civil infrastructures. In this research, four types of infrastructures include three types of civil work, which are “Bridge”, “Tunnel”, “Slope”, as well as one “Building” work are proposed as the representatives for the establishment of the sustainability assessment system. For each type of infrastructure, one or two cases are selected to be verified for the applicability of SASGCI. To compare the evaluation results between the SASGCI and Taiwan EEWH green building assessment system, the “Building” is included in the case study section of this research.
By adopting of the SASGCI, the certificate grades for the four types of infrastructures are evaluated as: (1) two “Bridge” cases are evaluated with one “Gold” grade and one “Silver” grade; (2) two “Tunnel” cases are evaluated with “Gold” grade and “Certified” grade; (3) one “Slope” case is evaluated with “Silver” grade; (4) in addition, two “Building” cases, which had been certificated as “Diamond and Gold” grade and “Silver” grades by EEWH, are evaluated with “Silver” grades. The differences in the evaluation results between EEWH and SASGCI are described in this dissertation.
In addition to the establishment of the reliable and applicable SASGCI, this research proposes some future work include the school education and on-going training for engineers as well as the improvement and promotion by the government on sustainability issues. The author looks forward to seeing the future development of infrastructure with the following characteristics: safety, friendly ecology, environment protection and carbon emission reduction, energy saving, waste reduction, long durability, maximized benefit and function, landscape improving, care of humanities and culture, and excellent engineering creativity.

並列關鍵字

Sustainability Assessment System for Green Civil Infrastructures ； SASGCI ； Sustainability Civil Infrastructure ； Certificate grade ； Sustainable development

參考文獻

[1] World Bank (1994). World development report 1994: Infrastructure for development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1–12.

[2] World Bank (2006). Infrastructure at the crossroads: Lessons from 20 years of World Bank experience. Washington, D.C., 1–9, 65–80.

[3] Shen, L., Wu, Y., and Zhang, X. (2011). “Key Assessment Indicators for the Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 137(6): 441-451.

[4] Geldermans, B., Tenpierik, M., and Luscuere, P. (2018). “Circular and Flexible Infill Concepts: Integration of the Residential User Perspective.” Sustainability 2018, 11, 261.

[5] Sustainability Development Goals. (2020). 17 Goals to Transform Our World. , Sustainability Development Goals Official Website, 2020.