Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141226
|
| Title: | 綠建築評估指標系統減碳潛力分析 —以住宿類綠建築為例
Analysis of Carbon Reduction Potential for Green Building Evaluation Indicator System —A Case Study of Residential Green Building |
| Authors: | 彭勝椿
Peng, Shen-Chun |
| Contributors: | 孫振義
Sun, Chen-Yi
彭勝椿
Peng, Shen-Chun |
| Keywords: | 綠建築評估指標
減碳潛力
住宿類綠建築
Green Building Evaluation Indicators
Carbon Reduction Potential
Residential Green Buildings |
| Date: | 2022 |
| Issue Date: | 2022-08-01 18:22:40 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 因應氣候變遷導致極端氣候現象加劇，世界各國開始致力於推動節能減碳相關政策，期望藉由減少溫室氣體排放量來達到永續發展目標。而綠建築因相關規劃設計與設施設備之選用，能有效降低建築物所帶來的環境汙染與二氧化碳排放量，被視為是建築產業邁向低碳、淨零排放的重要手段。爰此，在未來提倡減碳之趨勢下，綠建築的發展地位勢必將更為重要，同時也易使得綠建築相關減碳效益將更加被放大檢視。
然過往對於綠建築節能減碳相關研究多著墨於技術層面，反而缺乏從根本制度面上分析現行評估指標系統所能帶來的相關減碳潛力與影響；另外，亦較少將綠建築評估指標系統結合實務案例進行實證、比較，以釐清評估指標系統應用於實務上的成效，容易導致整體評估指標系統淪為形式。故本研究透過專家問卷調查之方式，採系統性的歸納、分析，加以檢視我國現行綠建築評估指標系統中各評估指標項目的相對減碳潛力關係；以及蒐集整理實務住宿類綠建築案例實際所選用的指標項目內容，套以專家問卷調查分析結果，以釐清在現行評估指標系統規範下，住宿類綠建築所可能具備的減碳潛力情形。
本研究首先透過文獻回顧，將我國「綠建築評估手冊-住宿類2015版」之評估指標項目相關內容定義為四大指標面向、九大指標群與三十一項評估要項；接著，運用層級分析法專家問卷調查，取得各指標項目在專家學者共識下的減碳潛力相對權重值，了解「日常節能」、「CO2減量」與「綠化量」等指標群及其相關評估要項較具減碳潛力；而除了現行住宿類評估手冊門檻指標外，「地面綠化」、「結構合理化」、「建築輕量化」、「屋頂綠化」以及「直接滲透設計」等評估要項，未來在基於節能減碳觀點下，建議可規範作為優先或必選取之評估指標項目。
又，依個案研究結果顯示，住宿類綠建築依其評估指標項目選用內容與得分之不同，整體平均減碳潛力為45.90%，具一定減碳潛力，但尚不及五成，故仍有進步空間；而個案標章級別、評定總分愈高，減碳潛力亦會愈高，每增加標章總分10分，約可增加10.6%的減碳潛力。最後，本研究認為未來在積極邁向淨零排放下，於選用綠建築評估指標項目時，「除了選多還要選對，選對更要精確」，透過鼓勵選用具備較高減碳潛力的評估指標，並精進相關規劃設計內容，才能真正落實並有效促進整體綠建築節能減碳發展。
In response to the intensification of extreme weather phenomena caused by climate change, countries around the world have begun to promote policies related to energy conservation and carbon reduction, hoping to achieve sustainable development goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Green buildings can effectively reduce environmental pollution and carbon dioxide emissions due to related planning and design and selection of facilities and equipment, and are regarded as an important means for the construction industry to move towards low-carbon and net-zero emissions.
In the past, the research related to green building energy conservation and carbon reduction had mostly focused on the technical level, but lacked a fundamental institutional analysis of the relevant carbon reduction potential and impact brought by the current evaluation indicator system. In addition, the green building evaluation indicator system is rarely combined with practical cases for demonstration and comparison to clarify the effect of the evaluation indicator system in practice, which easily leads to the overall evaluation indicator system becoming a formality. Therefore, this study investigates the relative carbon reduction potential relationship of each evaluation indicator items in Taiwan`s current green building evaluation indicator system through systematic induction and analysis by means of expert questionnaires; meanwhile, collects and sorts out the indicator items actually selected for practical residential green building cases, and uses analysis results of expert questionnaires to clarify the carbon reduction potential circumstances that residential green buildings may have under the current evaluation indicator system.
First, through literature review, this research defines the relevant content of the evaluation indicator items of Taiwan`s "EEWH-RS 2015" as four indicator orientations, nine indicator groups and thirty-one evaluation items. Then, use the AHP expert questionnaire to obtain the relative weight value of the carbon reduction potential of each indicator item under the consensus of experts and scholars, and understand that the indicator group such as "Daily Energy Saving", "CO2 Reduction" and "Greenery " and their related evaluation items are regarded as more carbon reduction potential. In addition to the current threshold indicators of the residential evaluation manual, evaluation items such as "ground greening", "structural rationalization", "building lightweight", "roof greening" and "direct penetration design" are suggested to be standardized as priority or necessary evaluation indicator items in the future based on the viewpoint of energy conservation and carbon reduction.
Furthermore, according to the case study results, the average carbon reduction potential of residential green buildings is 45.90%, but it is less than 50%, so there is still room for improvement. The higher the level of label and total score of a case, has the higher the carbon reduction potential. For each additional 10 points in the total score, the carbon reduction potential can be increased by about 10.6%. Finally, this study believes that in the future, under the active move towards net zero emissions, when selecting green building evaluation indicators, “in addition to selecting more indicators, you must choose right ones, and must choose more precisely.” In order to implement and promote the overall green building energy conservation and carbon reduction development, it is effective by encouraging the concentrated selection of items with higher carbon reduction potential, and improving the relevant planning and design content for promoting the evaluation scores of each item. |
| Reference: | 一、 中文文獻
（一）專書
內政部建築研究所，2015，『綠建築評估手冊─住宿類』，臺北：內政部建築研究所。
內政部建築研究所，2015，『綠建築評估手冊─基本型』，臺北：內政部建築研究所。
內政部建築研究所，2017，『綠建築評估手冊─境外版』，臺北：內政部建築研究所。
內政部建築研究所，2019，『綠建築評估手冊─住宿型』，臺北：內政部建築研究所。
內政部建築研究所，2019，『綠建築評估手冊─基本型』，臺北：內政部建築研究所。
何昕家，2020，『永續發展目標（SDGs）教育手冊─臺灣指南』，臺北：教育部。
林憲德，1996，『熱濕氣候的綠色建築計畫』，臺北：詹氏書局。
林憲德，2015，『建築碳足跡（二版）』，臺北：詹氏書局。
（二）期刊論文
王榮進、鄭政利、廖婉茹、河村禎彦、呂文弘、徐虎嘯、陳麒任，2020，「綠建築與近零能源制度之調合研究」，『建築學報』，114：59-77。
林憲德，2011，「臺灣綠建築政策的成就」，『科學發展』，460：6-13。
林憲德、黃儒黌，2019，「集合住宅管線系統初期蘊含碳排簡易推算法之研究」，『建築學報』，109：39-51。
高惠玲、盧明俊、周幼寧，1995，「環保策略工具-生命週期評析技術之內涵及發展現況」，『工業污染防制』，54。
陳奉瑤，2017，「綠建築價值—供需雙方之認知分析」，『土地經濟年刊』，28：106-132。
陳海曙、蘇煜瑄，2010，「鑽石級綠建築廠房空調節能指標減碳效益之評估」，『冷凍空調&能源科技』，1-9。
彭光輝、王文安，2004，「臺灣綠建築設計績效獎勵制度之研究」，『建築學報』，45：43-65。
葉晉嘉、劉麗娟、吳濟華，2006，「運用資料包絡分析法評量台灣地區城市健康度之研究」，『健康城市學刊』，4：129-140。
趙又嬋、鄭維亮，2015，「街屋再利用之軀體與裝修建材減碳評估--以餐飲類空間為例」，『建築學報』，91：63-79。
鄧振源、曾國雄，1989，「層級分析法的內涵特性與應用（上）」，『中國統計學報』，27（6）：5-22。
謝宏仁，2008，「綠建築設備技術導入既有建築之採用意願及影響因素研究」，『中華建築技術學刊』，5（1）：33-46。
（三）會議論文
張世典，1999，「綠建築與永續發展」，論文發表於〈兩岸人口、資源與永續社會發展學術研討會〉，台北，1999年3月。
（四）碩、博士論文
吳昭儀，2005，「層級分析法群體決策整合模式之研究」，國立成功大學工業與資訊管理學系博士論文：臺南。
林立婷，2012，「以使用者觀點探討綠建築之價值─以辦公廳類綠建築為例」，逢甲大學土地管理學系碩士論文：臺中。
林政賢，2004，「綠建築評估指標適用性之研究」，國立成功大學建築學系碩士論文：臺南。
邵文政，2006，「建材揮發性有機化合物管制策略之研究」，國立成功大學建築學系博士論文：臺南。
洪慧心，2013，「以排碳量探討都市更新容積獎勵評估模式之研究」，朝陽科技大學建築系建築及都市設計碩士班碩士論文：臺中。
徐振鐘，2013，「台灣推動住宅建築物節能證書制度與節能減碳成效分析」，國立臺北大學公共事務學院自然資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文：新北。
張又升，2002，「建築物生命週期二氧化碳減量評估」，國立成功大學建築學系博士論文：臺南。
張芸翠，2012，「台灣綠建築評估系統評分合理性之研究」，國立成功大學建築學系碩士論文：臺南。
陳宥羽，2020，「獎勵措施提升居民續用住宿類綠建築標章意願之研究－以雙北市為例」，國立政治大學地政學系碩士學位論文：臺北。
陳科仲，2011，「綠建築容積獎勵制度適用性之研究-以綠建築容積獎勵個案日常節能指標為例」，淡江大學建築學系碩士論文：新北。
陳雅芳，2005，「綠建築獎勵執行機制之研究」，國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文：臺北。
曾華濬，2017，「綠建築項目對購屋者購屋意願之影響—從建設公司角度分析之研究」，淡江大學企業經營碩士在職專班碩士論文：新北
廖富英，2012，「都市更新綠建築容積獎勵制度之研究—以台北都會區為例」，國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文：臺北。
劉佳其，2009，「從環境品質面探討都市更新公益性及規劃設計容積獎勵妥適性之研究-以臺北市中山區為例」，國立臺北科技大學建築與都市設計研究所碩士論文：臺北。
簡嘉伶，2021，『營運階段「管理與維護」之綠建築標章評估指標研究─以辦公建築為例』，國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文：臺北。
蘇文麒，2017，「以多準則決策法評估海水淡化廠選址策略」，國立宜蘭大學建築與永續規劃研究所碩士論文：宜蘭。
（五）其他
內政部建築研究所，2021，「綠建築發展概要與政策推廣」，內政部建築研究所綠建築示範基地暨低碳觀光綠建築知性之旅導覽解說人員培訓課程。
王婉芝、柯文立、李明賢、陳文洲，2020，「綠建築、綠建材及智慧建築標章資訊揭露」，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。
王榮進，孫振義，2020，「綠建築相關設施設備建置與維護成本之研究」，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。
林子平、蔡耀賢，2018，「綠建築維護管理與費用合理性之研究」，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。
林憲德、蔡耀賢、楊詩弘，2019，「建築材料碳足跡資料系統建置之研究」，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。
孫振義、張又升，2021，「綠建築標章與都市更新容積獎勵減碳量之關聯性研究」，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。
徐虎嘯，2016，「綠建築標章分級與指標關聯性之研究」，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。
廖慧燕、鄭政利，2014，「綠建築標章制度下之節水成效調查與驗證研究」，內政部建築研究所計畫成果報告。
二、 外文文獻
（一） 專書
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers., 2006, 2006 ASHRAE Handbook: Refrigeration, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Kats, G., 2003, Green building costs and financial benefits, Boston, MA: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Kibert, C. J., 2008, Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Rachel Carson., 1962, Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Saaty, T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, RWS Publication, Pittsburgh.
Yudelson J., 2008, The Green Building Revolution, Island Press.
（二） 期刊論文
A.S. Holevo., 1973, “Statistical Decision Theory for Quantum Systems”, Multivariate Analysis, 3:337-394.
Alyami, S. H. and Rezgui, Y., 2012, “Sustainable building assessment tool development approach”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 5: 52-62.
Asokan, P., Osmani, M. and Price, A. D., 2009, “Assessing the recycling potential of glass fibre reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites”, Cleaner Production, 17(9): 821-829.
Chick, A. and Micklethwaite, P., 2004, “Specifying recycled: understanding UK architects’ and designers’ practices and experience”, Design Studies, 25(3): 251-273.
Chwieduk, D., 2003, “Towards sustainable-energy buildings”, Applied Energy, 76(1-3):211-217.
Czopka, P., 2018, “Sustainable materials in ecological buildings”, Economic and Environmental Studies, 18(1 (45)): 93-102.
Doan, D. T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A. and Tookey, J., 2017, “A critical comparison of green building rating systems”, Building and Environment, 123: 243-260.
G., Hoseini, A., Dahlan, N. D., Berardi, U., Makaremi, N., 2013, “Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: A review of current theories, implementations and challenges”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25: 1-17.
Gou, Z., Lau, S. S. Y., and Zhang, Z., 2012, “A comparison of indoor environmental satisfaction between two green buildings and a conventional building in China”, Journal of Green Building, 7(2), 89-104.
Guidry, K., 2004, “How Green Is Your Building? An Appraiser`s Guide to Sustainable Design”, Appraisal Journal, 72(1).
Guidry, K., 2004, “How Green Is Your Building? An Appraiser`s Guide to Sustainable Design”, Appraisal Journal, 72(1).
IPCC., 2022, “Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: sixth assessment report.”
Kraenzel, M., Castillo, A., Moore, T., Potvin, C., 2003. “Carbon storage of harvest-age teak (Tectona grandis) plantations”,Panama, Forest Ecology and Management, 173: 213-225.
Lee, W. L., 2013, “A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental assessment schemes”, Energy and Buildings, 62: 403-413.
Lee, Z. P., and Chu, H. C., 2016, “A Study to Compare the Cost of Operation and Maintenance in Green Building Index (GBI) and Non-Green Building Index (Non-GBI) Rated Building in Malaysia”, Materials Science, Engineering and Chemistry, 66, 1-6.
McNaughton, P., Spengler, J., Vallarino, J., Santanam, S., Satish, U., and Allen, J., 2016, “Environmental perceptions and health before and after relocation to a green building”, Building and environment, 104, 138-144.
Ngowi, A. B., 2001, “Creating competitive advantage by using environment-friendly building processes”, Building and Environment, 36(3): 291-298.
Omer, A. M., 2008, “Energy, environment and sustainable development”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(9): 2265-2300.
Pitts, J., 2008, “Green buildings: Valuation issues and perspectives”, The Appraisal Journal, 76(2), 115.
Ries, R., Bilec, M. M., Gokhan, N. M. and Needy, K. L., 2006, “The economic benefits of green buildings: a comprehensive case study”, The Engineering Economist, 51(3): 259-295.
Riffat, S., Powell, R., Aydin, D., 2016, “Future cities and environmental sustainability”, Future Cities and Environment, 2(1):1-23.
Robichaud, L. B. and Anantatmula, V. S., 2010, “Greening project management practices for sustainable construction”, Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(1): 48-57.
Seungjun Roh., Sungho Tae., Rakhyun Kim., 2018, “Developing a Green Building Index (GBI) Certification System to Effectively Reduce Carbon Emissions in South Korea’s Building Industry”,.Sustainability, 10(6),1872.
Singh, A., Syal, M., Korkmaz, S., and Grady, S., 2011, “Costs and benefits of IEQ improvements in LEED office buildings”, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 17(2), 86-94.
T. Sartori., Robin D., Sara O. and Fiona L., “A schematic framework for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Green Building Rating System (GBRS) , Building and Environment, 38: 167-180.
Tatari, O. and Kucukvar, M., 2011, “Cost premium prediction of certified green buildings: A neural network approach”, Building and Environment, 46(5), 1081-1086.
Tseng, M. L., Lin, Y. H. and Chiu, A. S., 2009, “Fuzzy AHP-based study of cleaner production implementation in Taiwan PWB manufacturer”, Cleaner Production, 17(14): 1249-1256.
Wong, S. C. and Abe. N., 2014, “Stakeholders` perspectives of a building environmental assessment method: The case of CASBEE”, Building and Environment, 82: 502-516.
Zhang, X., Platten, A. and Shen, L., 2011, “Green property development practice in China: costs and barriers”, Building and Environment, 46(11): 2153-2160.
Zhikun, D., Ze, F., Vivian, W.Y., Yu, B., Shenghan, L., Chethana, S., Sungkon, M., Yu, 2018, “Green building evaluation system implementation”, Building and Environment, 133:32-40.
Zuo, J., and Zhao, Z. Y., 2014, “Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review”, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 30, 271-281.
Zhang, L., Wu, J., and Liu, H., 2018, “Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 2234-2245.
（三） 碩、博士論文
Feltes, V., 2007, Toward Sustainable Building: Green Building Design and Integration in the Built Environment, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, School of Architecture and Construction Management, Washington State University, Washington.
（四） 其他
Fontela, E., Gabus, A., 1976, “The DEMATEL observe”, Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland.
RICS, 2005, “Green value: Green Buildings”, Growing Assets, report.
三、 網頁參考文獻
BREEAM，2021，The Value Of BREEAM，檢索日期：2021年10月30日。https://www.breeam.com/ 。
U.S. Green Building Council，2021，LEED rating system，檢索日期：2021年10月31日。https://www.usgbc.org/leed 。
一般社団法人日本サステナブル建築協会（JSBC），2021，CASBEEに関する研究開発，檢索日期：2021年10月31日。https://www.jsbc.or.jp/research-study/casbee.html。
全國法規資料庫，2021，都市更新建築容積獎勵辦法-沿革，檢所日期：2021年8月12日。https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0070027。
低碳建築聯盟，2015，由低碳建築聯盟輔導申請全球第三個「建築物碳足跡產品類別規則(CFP-PCR)」由行政院環保署核准通過，檢索日期：2021年9月30日。http://www.lcba.org.tw/news/view/90/。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
109257011 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109257011 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202201076 |
| Appears in Collections: | [地政學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 701101.pdf | | 10116Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 58 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
