政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/133924
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113648/144635 (79%)
造访人次 : 51655230      在线人数 : 641
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133924


    题名: 以生命週期永續發展評估法（LCSA）結合多評準決策進行軌道建設場站開發之營運效益評估
    Use the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment（LCSA）combined with Multiple Criteria Decision Making（MCDM）to evaluate the operational benefits of the railway constructions development
    作者: 彭文亭
    Peng, Wen-Ting
    贡献者: 白仁德
    甯方璽
    Pai, Jen-Te
    Ning, Fang-Shii
    彭文亭
    Peng, Wen-Ting
    关键词: 公共建設計畫
    軌道建設開發
    生命週期永續性評估
    營運評估
    多評準決策
    Government infrastructure project
    Railway constructions development
    Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
    Operation evaluation
    Multiple Criteria Decision Making
    日期: 2020
    上传时间: 2021-02-01 14:18:04 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 軌道建設為重要重大公共建設計畫，若其開發無法達成原先預期之效益且未考量生命週期的績效，會導致投入資源無效率並影響國家未來整體發展。生命週期評估（Life Cycle Assessment, LCA）是一種全方位的評估工具；其近年與生命週期成本（Life Cycle Costing, LCC）及社會生命週期評估（Social Life Cycle Assessment, SLCA）整合為生命週期永續性評估（Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, LCSA)方法，包含環境、經濟及社會面向之效益評估，目的為評估全生命週期各階段之效益以達到符合永續性概念；本研究以軌道建設為研究對象，評估其全生命週期之營運階段各面向之效益，以LCSA應用於軌道建設場站開發之營運效益評估，作為後續相關政策研擬或制度建立之參考。
    本研究運用LCSA擬出軌道建設場站開發之營運效益評估指標基本架構，再透過焦點團體訪談歸納出專家學者建議可列入之各面向評估指標後，建立LCSA框架下之軌道建設場站開發營運效益評估面向與指標架構；再運用多評準決策（Multiple Criteria Decision Making, MCDM）中的模糊德爾菲法（Fuzzy Delphi Method, FDM）與專家調查權重法（Expert Investigation Weight Method, EIWM），分析專家學者對於軌道建設場站開發之營運效益評估指標之感受與重視程度後建立新評估架構；再以其對基隆火車站都市更新站區遷移計畫進行案例分析，並藉由深度訪談利害關係人後，提出針對軌道建設場站開發之營運效益評估方法與政策之結論與建議。
    研究結果顯示軌道建設之營運效益評估項目僅著重在經濟效益以及財務效益等量化效益，惟缺乏社會公共效益與自然環境效益評估之項目。除了可量化之經濟價值可評估，應加入環境價值與社會價值之效益評估面向與內容，以LCSA拓展評估面向，能以較準確且較多元之面向評估軌道建設場站開發計畫對地區環境衝擊及當地發展；且應更重視並具體化軌道建設場站開發計畫之各種類型利害關係人與相關行政或執行單位之實際需求，加強探討其重視項目，以作為日後相關單位執行資源分布之參考。本研究研擬之LCSA框架下之軌道建設場站開發效益之評估指標群，可供相同類型公共建設提升其營運效益之參考指標，作為優先著手改善或重點加強之項目。
    Railway construction is an essential public investment. If the railway development cannot achieve expected benefits and the life cycle`s performance is not considered, it will lead to the input resources` inefficiency and affect the country`s overall future development. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a comprehensive assessment tool. In recent years, it has been integrated with Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) into the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), which assesses environmental, economic, and social benefits to evaluate the benefits of each stage of a whole life cycle, conforming to the concept of sustainability. This study evaluates the benefits of railway construction in all aspects of its Whole Life Cycle operation and uses LCSA applications in the development of railway construction stations as a reference for subsequent policy-making or system establishment.
    This study proposes a basic structure of operational benefit evaluation index for railway construction station development through LCSA and summarizes the evaluation indicators recommended by experts and scholars through Focus Groups, establishing an operational benefit evaluation index structure for rail construction station development under the LCSA framework. Furthermore, the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) and the Expert Investigation Weight Method (EIWM) of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) are used in this study to establish a new evaluation framework based on the analyses of experts` perception and emphases on the operational benefit evaluation index of railway construction station development. Based on the case study of the Relocation and Renovation Project of Keelung Train station and the in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders, conclusions and suggestions on the methods and policies for the evaluation of the operational benefits of railway construction station development are proposed.
    The results show that railway construction`s operational benefit evaluation projects only focus on quantitative benefits, as in economic and financial benefits, while social and public benefits and natural environment benefit evaluation projects are lacking. Apart from quantifiable economic value assessment, the benefit evaluation of environmental and social value should be added, and that the use of LCSA for evaluation extension facilitates a more accurate and diversified assessment of the impact of the railway construction station development on the regional environment and local development. Moreover, more attention should be paid to various stakeholders` actual needs and relevant administrative or executing units in the development plan of railway construction stations. The items to which they attach importance should be discussed to establish a future reference for relevant units to distribute resources. The evaluation indices of the benefits of railway construction station development under the LCSA framework developed in this study can be used as a reference index for the same type of public construction to improve operational benefit and a prioritized improvement or key strengthening project.
    參考文獻: 壹、中文參考文獻
    Krueger, Richard A.著、洪志成、資梅花譯，2003，『焦點團體訪談』，嘉義：濤石文化。
    王仕圖、吳慧敏，2003，「深度訪談與案例演練」。頁145-188，收錄於齊力、林本炫編，『質性研究方法與資料分析』，嘉義：南華大學社教所。
    王明文，1999，「群組決策中專家權重確定的主客觀法」，『江西师范大学学报(自然科学版)』，2：138-142。
    王明德、莊春發，1999，「公共建設執行績效信號機制建立」，行政院公共工程委員會委託臺大土木工程研究所研究報告。
    朱筱嵐，2005，「應用模糊與粗集合理論於多準則決策之研究」，義守大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文：高雄。
    行政院，2018，政府公共建設計畫先期作業實施要點。https://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=9C7FF1B2BA8C27AD，取用日期：2020年4月2日。
    行政院經濟建設委員會，2008，97年版公共建設計畫經濟效益評估及財務計畫作業手冊 (上、下冊) 。https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvMC85ODYyL2U3ZWU1YTFhLTczZjAtNGViYy1iYmNmLWQ1Y2VhZGQ3NzBmYS5wZGY%3D&n=5YWs5YWx5bu66Kit6KiI55Wr57aT5r%2Bf5pWI55uK6KmV5Lyw5Y%2BK6LKh5YuZ6KiI55Wr5L2c5qWt5omL5YaKKOS4iuWGiikucGRm&icon=..pdf，取用日期：2020年3月2日。
    交通部鐵路改建工程局，2009，基隆火車站都市更新站區遷移計畫綜合規劃報告。
    安侯企業管理股份有限公司，2018，「精進公共建設計畫經濟效益評估及財務計畫」，國家發展委員會研究計畫報告。
    吳詩賢，2014，「應用模糊層級分析法建構住宿類智慧綠建築評估指標體系之研究」，朝陽科技大學：臺中。
    周濟，2004，「中長程公共建設計畫制度與政府資源配置之關連與探討」，行政院經建會委託研究計畫報告。
    林佳慧，2018，「生命週期績效管理於我國科技發展計畫審議評估之應用探究」，『臺灣經濟研究月刊』，41(7)：52-59。
    國家發展委員會，2019，政府重大公共建設計畫全生命週期績效管理手冊（法規篇）。https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL2NrZmlsZS81YjNiYzQzNC1iMDBkLTQ2MGQtYjg5YS05OThlYmJjZTM3NGQucGRm&n=5pS%2f5bqc6YeN5aSn5YWs5YWx5bu66Kit6KiI55Wr5YWo55Sf5ZG96YCx5pyf57i%2b5pWI566h55CG5omL5YaKKOazleimj%2bevhykxMDgxMjA15pu05pawLnBkZg%3d%3d&icon=.pdf，取用日期：2020年3月2日。
    張育哲，2016，「中長程個案計畫全生命週期績效管理機制」，『國土及公共治理季刊』，4(3)：69-85。
    張益城、張瓊文、劉致言，2018，「強化父通建設計畫績效管理與效益評估作法」，『國土及公共治理季刊』，6(3)：60-71。
    陳雅琪、吳永明、方欹葳，2017，『社會科學研究法：理解人類社會的工具書』，臺北：雙頁書廊。
    陳昭宏，2001，「亞太港埠競爭力與核心能力指標之研究」，『運輸學刊』，13(1)：1-25。
    馮豐隆，1988，「環境影響評估方法之比較與網路益本法之提出」，『臺灣林業』，14(7)：24-36。
    黃奇偉，2018，『基隆火車站都市更新站區遷移計畫竣工專輯』，新北:交通部鐵路改建工程局。
    楊正君、黃心怡、張韶容.，2019，「從全生命週期觀點探討軌道建設計畫之營運評估」，『國土及公共治理季刊』，7(3)：50-59。
    葉晉嘉、翁興利、吳濟華，2007，「德菲法與模糊德菲法之比較研究」，『調查研究-方法與應用』，21：31-58。
    劉豐瑞，2006，「結合多評準決策與模糊邏輯於環境永續性評估」，『科學與工程技術期刊』，2(3)：29-47。
    鄭滄濱，2001，「軟體組織提升軟體組織提升人員能力之成熟度模糊評估模式」，國立臺灣科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文：臺北。
    蕭代基、洪志銘、黃德秀，2019，「我國政府計畫預算制度及其成本效益分析制度與方法之檢討」，『國土及公共治理季刊』，7(3)：26-37。
    蕭再安、林重昌，2012，「交通建設計畫生態效益分析法之應用－以淡水北側平面道路建設計畫為例」，『交通學報』，12(1)：71-94。
    蘇振維、張舜淵、楊幼文、張益城、吳清如、 陳柏君、戴子純、任雅婷、吳姿瑩、戴婷婷，2018，『交通建設計畫經濟效益評估手冊與應用軟體更新』，台北:交通部運輸研究所。
     
    貳、外文參考文獻

    Abdallah, K. B., Belloumi. M. and DeWolf, D., 2013, “ Indicators for sustainable energy development: A multivariate cointegration and causality analysis from Tunisian road transport sector”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25: 34-43.
    Bertolini, L., & Spit, T., 1998, Cities on rails : the redevelopment of railway station ar-eas. New York: E & FN Spon.
    Buchholtz, A. K. and A. B. Carroll, 2012, Business & society: Ethics & stakeholder management, South-Western: Cengage Learning.
    D. Costa , P. Quinteiro, A.C. Dias., 2019, “A systematic review of lifecycle sus-tainability assessment: Curren tstate, methodological challenges, and imple-mentation issues”, Science of the Total Environment, 686:774-787.
    Dunn, W. N. , 1994, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (2nd ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs.
    Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E., Lehmann, A. and raverso, M., 2010, “Towards life cycle sustainability assessment”, Sustainability, 2(10):3309-3322.
    Hannan, M. T., and J. Freeman, 1984, “Structural Inertia and Organizational Change”, American Sociological Review, 49:149-164.
    Harn Wei Kua, 2017, “On Life Cycle Sustainability Unified Analysis”, Special Issue: Charting the Future of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, 21(6):1488-1506.
    Hidalgo, D. and Huizenga, C., 2013, “Implementation of sustainable urban transport in Latin America”, Research in Transportation Economics, 40(1):66-77.
    Hill&Jones., 1995, Strategic Management Theory :An Integrated Approach, Boston: Houghton Miffin.
    Hofstetter, P.; Braunschweig, A.; Mettier, T.; Müller-Wenk, R.; Tietje, O.,1999, “The Mixing Triangle: Correlation and Graphical Decision Support for LCA-based Comparisons”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 3(4): 97-115.
    Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H., Ciroth, A., Swarr, T., Pagan, B. and Itsubo, N., 2008, Life Cycle Costing, SETAC World Congress.
    Hwang, C.L. and Yoon K.,1981, Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications:A State-of-the-Art Survey, New York: Springer-Verlag.
    Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, T., Tamizawa, G., Totsuta, R. and Mieno, H., 1993, “The Max-Min Delphi Method and Fuzzy Delphi Method Via Fuzzy Integration ”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55:241-253.
    ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 1997, ISO 14040: Environ-mental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles And Framework, Geneva: ISO.
    ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2006, ISO 14040 Environmen-tal management-Life cycle assessment- Principles and framework, Geneva: ISO.
    Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H., 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    Klöpffer, W., 2008, “Life cycle sustainability assessment of products”, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2):89-95.
    Leontief, Wassily., 1970, “Environmental Repercussions and Economic Structure - Input-Output Approach”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 52(3), 262-271.
    LynnWestbrook.,1997, “Information access issues for interdisciplinary scholars: Results of a Delphi study on women`s studies research”, The Journal of Aca-demic Librarianship, 23(3), 211-216
    Malhotra, N. K., 1993, Marketing Research, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
    Matthias Finkbeiner, Erwin M. Schau, Annekatrin Lehmann and Marzia Traverso, 2010, “Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment”, Sustainability, 2(10), 3309-3322.
    Michael Z. Hauschild. Ralph K. Rosenbaum. Stig Irving Olsen., 2018, Life Cycle Assessment Theory and Practice, Springer
    Miranda, H. d. F. and Silva, A. N. R. d., 2012, “Benchmarking sustainable urban mobility: The case of Curitiba”, Transport Policy, 21:141-151.
    Mullen, P. M. 2003, “Delphi: Myths and Reality”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17(1):37-52.
    Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., 2006, “Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management”, Conservation Biology, 20 (6), 1647–1656.
    Rowe, G., & Wright, G., 1999, “The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis”, International Journal of Forecasting, 15: 353-375.
    Rowe, G., Wright, G., & Bolger, F., 1991, “A Revaluation of Research and Theory”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39: 235-251.
    Satty T.L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw Hill.
    Satty, T.L., 1977, “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchy structures”, Scandi-navian Journal of Forest Research, 40:9-10.
    UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2011, Renewable energy: Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, UNEP.
    UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2011, Towards a Life Cycle Sus-tainability Assessment, UNEP.
    UNEP/SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), 2011, Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases, Life cycle Initiative.
    UNEP/SETAC, 2011, Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.
    William N. Dunn, 1994, Public policy analysis : an introduction, Englewood, Cliffs: N.J.,Prentice Hall.
    參、網頁參考文獻
    王梅玲 2012，”焦點團體訪談”。http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679268/，取用日期：2020年3月30日。
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政學系
    106257015
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106257015
    数据类型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202100154
    显示于类别:[地政學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 大小格式浏览次数
    701501.pdf3768KbAdobe PDF20检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈