建构生态校园评估体系及指标权重
|
摘要
国际上有关生态绿建筑之研究及实践已推展多年,但完全针对学校所作之研究,仍只有零星的项目,既使台湾绿建筑九大指标,仅有「日常节能指标」有针对学校类型提出其量化基准。在众多的生态环境绿建筑评估工具,对学校校园异于一般性建筑环境的差异性,其评估方法或准则未具体展现其独特性,致校园有利于生态绿建筑的规划条件无法充分发挥。校园建筑群除提供教育的功能外,对社区的潜移默化「境教」功能是不容忽视的,「生态意识」如何转植为「社区意识」并形成学校与社区间互动,是规划设计过程中首要之课题。因此本研究选定台湾高中小学校类型为研究标的,经文献参考,整理出学校类型建筑规划设计阶段时,对于区域生态环境影响的关键因素。研究工具主要由专家德怀术收敛其层面及准则,再将其发展为分析层级程序(Analytic Hierarchy Process:AHP)的问卷,提出一适用于高中小学校类型之评估体系及权重建构方法,最后针对分析结果,在结论中提出实务上的建议。以下为本文的重要结果:
一、评估层面及权重
『校同规划设计的生态评价指标内容』分为五大层面,分别为:『区域环境冲击之平衡』(整体权重14%)、『区域环境之水平衡』(整体权重28%)、『区域环境之绿平衡』(整体权重24%)、『区域环境之舒适性与节能』(整体权重21%)、『区域环境之废弃物及垃圾的平衡』(整体权重13%)。
二、评估准则及权重
依五大层面再区分为十九项评估准则,专家评价最高的五项评估准则其权值分布大于6%者,依次为『绿化量』(整体权重10.32%)、『防洪』(整体权重9.8%)、『自然通风、空气品质』(整体权重8.61%)、『多样性多孔隙』(整体权重8.4%)、『垃圾分类回收』(整体权重6.63%)。
三、建立评估准则之间的关连性
各层面与评估准则以两两相比的配对比较量表,由专家的认定求出『层面』与各『评估准则』的平均权重值,同时找出了『层面』与各『评估准则』之间的重要性关系。最后以此权重建构出校园之评估体系与评估表,一方面提供建筑设计者作为生态设计权衡之参考,另一方面可作为未来性能式法规制定之参考及使用后评估(P.O.E)之数据分析使用。
Although the research and implement of ecology architecture around the world has been in practice for many years, focus on Eco-Schools are few and far between. Among EEWH system(ecology, energy saving, waste reduction, healthy), only the 'energy saving' provides quality assessment type that concerned.As a result, even though there are many assessments designed to verify ecology architectures, few of them are able to gauge the differences between schools and ordinary building types so that the assessments are failed to demonstrate the unique of school building type, identity and advantages of environmental by planning.It is important that not only does school provide educational function, it also influences the local communities' consciousness in ecologically issues. Seeding environmental conscious in school, promoting interaction between schools and communities and ultimately transforming the community's attitude toward environmental issues are a vital consideration in architecture planning.This research targets primary and junior high schools or lower educational institutes, with the support of former study, and coordinates the key factors on environmental consciousness during the planning phases. The research methods are primarily based on experts' Delphi Technique to converge assessment levels, principles, convert into Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP ) and finally establish an assessment system and weight priorities that are suitable for primary and junior high schools . The important results of this research were shown as follows :assessment levels and weight prioritiesThere are five levels of assessment when it comes to 'the assessment of school planning & design' and they are:Impacts balance of regional environment (14%)Water balance of regional environment (28%)Green balance of regional environment (24%)Comfortablity & energy saving of regional environment (21 %)Waste & garbage management balance of regional environment (13%)principles and weight prioritiesFurther define the five levels of assessment are nineteen principles that the valuation by experts which weights higher 6% are: Green level( 10.32%), Flood prevention(9.8%), Air quality(8.61%), Vegetation Diversity (8.4%), Recycling(6.63%).Correlations between assessment levels and principlesAfter comparison and contraction in pairs, experts are able to establish the balanced priorities and find the correlations between the assessment levels and principles. The final results will on one hand serve as a planning reference for architects and land developers alike;on the other hand, it'll be a guideline for future performance regulations legislated as well as the reference data of post occupancy evaluation (P.O.E.) .
一、评估层面及权重
『校同规划设计的生态评价指标内容』分为五大层面,分别为:『区域环境冲击之平衡』(整体权重14%)、『区域环境之水平衡』(整体权重28%)、『区域环境之绿平衡』(整体权重24%)、『区域环境之舒适性与节能』(整体权重21%)、『区域环境之废弃物及垃圾的平衡』(整体权重13%)。
二、评估准则及权重
依五大层面再区分为十九项评估准则,专家评价最高的五项评估准则其权值分布大于6%者,依次为『绿化量』(整体权重10.32%)、『防洪』(整体权重9.8%)、『自然通风、空气品质』(整体权重8.61%)、『多样性多孔隙』(整体权重8.4%)、『垃圾分类回收』(整体权重6.63%)。
三、建立评估准则之间的关连性
各层面与评估准则以两两相比的配对比较量表,由专家的认定求出『层面』与各『评估准则』的平均权重值,同时找出了『层面』与各『评估准则』之间的重要性关系。最后以此权重建构出校园之评估体系与评估表,一方面提供建筑设计者作为生态设计权衡之参考,另一方面可作为未来性能式法规制定之参考及使用后评估(P.O.E)之数据分析使用。
Although the research and implement of ecology architecture around the world has been in practice for many years, focus on Eco-Schools are few and far between. Among EEWH system(ecology, energy saving, waste reduction, healthy), only the 'energy saving' provides quality assessment type that concerned.As a result, even though there are many assessments designed to verify ecology architectures, few of them are able to gauge the differences between schools and ordinary building types so that the assessments are failed to demonstrate the unique of school building type, identity and advantages of environmental by planning.It is important that not only does school provide educational function, it also influences the local communities' consciousness in ecologically issues. Seeding environmental conscious in school, promoting interaction between schools and communities and ultimately transforming the community's attitude toward environmental issues are a vital consideration in architecture planning.This research targets primary and junior high schools or lower educational institutes, with the support of former study, and coordinates the key factors on environmental consciousness during the planning phases. The research methods are primarily based on experts' Delphi Technique to converge assessment levels, principles, convert into Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP ) and finally establish an assessment system and weight priorities that are suitable for primary and junior high schools . The important results of this research were shown as follows :assessment levels and weight prioritiesThere are five levels of assessment when it comes to 'the assessment of school planning & design' and they are:Impacts balance of regional environment (14%)Water balance of regional environment (28%)Green balance of regional environment (24%)Comfortablity & energy saving of regional environment (21 %)Waste & garbage management balance of regional environment (13%)principles and weight prioritiesFurther define the five levels of assessment are nineteen principles that the valuation by experts which weights higher 6% are: Green level( 10.32%), Flood prevention(9.8%), Air quality(8.61%), Vegetation Diversity (8.4%), Recycling(6.63%).Correlations between assessment levels and principlesAfter comparison and contraction in pairs, experts are able to establish the balanced priorities and find the correlations between the assessment levels and principles. The final results will on one hand serve as a planning reference for architects and land developers alike;on the other hand, it'll be a guideline for future performance regulations legislated as well as the reference data of post occupancy evaluation (P.O.E.) .
引文
[1] Hasegawa, T. Sustainable buildings. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2002
[2] MacKenzie, D.G. Planning educational facilities. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc., 1989
[3] John Wiley & Sons Green Development. Professional Reference and Trade Group, 1998
[4] Adams, E. Learning through landscapes. In M. Hale, (Eds.), Ecology in Education Cambridge University, 1995
[5] Brainerd, J. W. School grounds for teaching man's relationship to nature, 1968
[6] Poulton, P. & Symons, G, Eco School (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430 382), 1999
[7] 0ECD- "Environmental Indicators;OECD Core Set" Organization for Economic
[8] Cooperation and Development, 1994
[9] UK, Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom HMSO, United Kingdom, 1996
[10] OECD. Environmental Policies for cities in the 1990's, OECD. 1990
[11] Conference Proceedings, "Green Building Challenge' 98 No. 1, Vancouver, Canada 1998
[12] Center of Environmental Technology, 1996, Limited, "HK-BEAM version 1/96", nong Kong
[13] "Green Building Pay", London;New York: E&FN Spon, Brain Edwards 1998
[14] Richard I. Crowther, FAIA, 1992 "Ecologic Architecture", Butterworth Heinemann, USA
[7] 陈十杰,〈根据信息融合与信息聚合机制以处理多准则模糊决策问题之新方法〉,2004
[8] 尤文祥,〈应用模糊层级分析法在提升公共工程品质之研究〉,2003
[9] 萧贞仁,〈国小实施绿建筑以改善学校建筑环境之研究—以台中地区为例〉,2004
[10] 林楠凯,〈校同水池生命周期成本(LCC)之研究-以台中市国小为例〉,2003
[11] 李骏杰,〈绿建筑中生态指标应用于机关用地之研究—以台中市及中兴新村为例〉,2003
[12] 杨煦照,〈建筑物之耗能与环境冲击解析〉,1996
[13] 王希智,〈绿建筑中绿化及基地保水评估指针于国民小学校园之应用-以新竹市为例〉, 2002
[14] 林宪德主编,〈国民中小学绿建筑设计手册〉,建筑研究所,2004
[15] 内政部建筑研究所,〈绿建筑解说与评估手册〉,建筑研究所,2001
[16] 叶育廷,〈校园空间对于都市集居环境内生物生存空间留设潜力之研究-以台南市国小校园为例〉,2003
[17] 郭琼莹、郭亘荣,〈绿建筑基地绿化指针法制化之研究〉,建筑研究所,2001
[18] 林宪德,〈城乡生态〉,詹氏书局,1999
[19] 林宪德,〈热湿气候的绿色建筑计划-由生态建筑到地球环保〉,詹氏书局,1996
[20] 严佳茹,〈921灾后重建小学与开放式小学生态节能环境现况解析〉,2003
[21] 林政贤,〈绿建筑评估指标适用性之研究〉,2003
[22] 何晨瑛,〈台湾绿色小学校园生态环境现况解析之研究〉,2003
[23] 李蕙宇,〈生态教育园之水栖生物栖地营造〉,2001
[24] 汤志民,〈学校建筑与校园规划〉,五南图书出版,2003
[25] 刘庆男、彭光辉、王文安,〈绿建筑设计绩效制度及奖励条例之研订〉,建筑研究所,2002
[26] 陈锦赐、张世典,〈绿建筑奖励条例及奖励措施之研订〉,建筑研究所,2000
[27] 卢昭宏,〈绿建筑应用现况评估与未来推动策略之研究〉,第十三届建筑研究,2001
[28] 刘乃菱,〈校园中水应用与其绩效评估指标〉,2003
[29] 叶茂森,〈中部地区国小永续校园内涵之研究—以自然环境的观点进行探讨〉,2003
[30] 萧火在,〈国小学童对校园环境满意度之探讨—以彰化县国小高年级学童为例〉,2003
[31] 叶茂森,〈中部地区国小永续校园内涵之研究—以自然环境的观点进行探讨〉,2003
[32] 欧阳峤晖,〈永续生态校园之理念〉,环境科学技术,1999
[33] 黄世孟主编,〈建成环境用后评估研究之理论与应用研讨会论文集〉,台大建城所·成大建筑系·建筑学会,1991
[34] 张俊彦、张蓉真,〈校园绿美化对学童之学习效益〉,1999
[35] 毕恒达,〈台北县国民中小学校园环境整体规画设计手册〉,台湾大学建筑与城乡研究所,1994
[2] MacKenzie, D.G. Planning educational facilities. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc., 1989
[3] John Wiley & Sons Green Development. Professional Reference and Trade Group, 1998
[4] Adams, E. Learning through landscapes. In M. Hale, (Eds.), Ecology in Education Cambridge University, 1995
[5] Brainerd, J. W. School grounds for teaching man's relationship to nature, 1968
[6] Poulton, P. & Symons, G, Eco School (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430 382), 1999
[7] 0ECD- "Environmental Indicators;OECD Core Set" Organization for Economic
[8] Cooperation and Development, 1994
[9] UK, Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom HMSO, United Kingdom, 1996
[10] OECD. Environmental Policies for cities in the 1990's, OECD. 1990
[11] Conference Proceedings, "Green Building Challenge' 98 No. 1, Vancouver, Canada 1998
[12] Center of Environmental Technology, 1996, Limited, "HK-BEAM version 1/96", nong Kong
[13] "Green Building Pay", London;New York: E&FN Spon, Brain Edwards 1998
[14] Richard I. Crowther, FAIA, 1992 "Ecologic Architecture", Butterworth Heinemann, USA
[7] 陈十杰,〈根据信息融合与信息聚合机制以处理多准则模糊决策问题之新方法〉,2004
[8] 尤文祥,〈应用模糊层级分析法在提升公共工程品质之研究〉,2003
[9] 萧贞仁,〈国小实施绿建筑以改善学校建筑环境之研究—以台中地区为例〉,2004
[10] 林楠凯,〈校同水池生命周期成本(LCC)之研究-以台中市国小为例〉,2003
[11] 李骏杰,〈绿建筑中生态指标应用于机关用地之研究—以台中市及中兴新村为例〉,2003
[12] 杨煦照,〈建筑物之耗能与环境冲击解析〉,1996
[13] 王希智,〈绿建筑中绿化及基地保水评估指针于国民小学校园之应用-以新竹市为例〉, 2002
[14] 林宪德主编,〈国民中小学绿建筑设计手册〉,建筑研究所,2004
[15] 内政部建筑研究所,〈绿建筑解说与评估手册〉,建筑研究所,2001
[16] 叶育廷,〈校园空间对于都市集居环境内生物生存空间留设潜力之研究-以台南市国小校园为例〉,2003
[17] 郭琼莹、郭亘荣,〈绿建筑基地绿化指针法制化之研究〉,建筑研究所,2001
[18] 林宪德,〈城乡生态〉,詹氏书局,1999
[19] 林宪德,〈热湿气候的绿色建筑计划-由生态建筑到地球环保〉,詹氏书局,1996
[20] 严佳茹,〈921灾后重建小学与开放式小学生态节能环境现况解析〉,2003
[21] 林政贤,〈绿建筑评估指标适用性之研究〉,2003
[22] 何晨瑛,〈台湾绿色小学校园生态环境现况解析之研究〉,2003
[23] 李蕙宇,〈生态教育园之水栖生物栖地营造〉,2001
[24] 汤志民,〈学校建筑与校园规划〉,五南图书出版,2003
[25] 刘庆男、彭光辉、王文安,〈绿建筑设计绩效制度及奖励条例之研订〉,建筑研究所,2002
[26] 陈锦赐、张世典,〈绿建筑奖励条例及奖励措施之研订〉,建筑研究所,2000
[27] 卢昭宏,〈绿建筑应用现况评估与未来推动策略之研究〉,第十三届建筑研究,2001
[28] 刘乃菱,〈校园中水应用与其绩效评估指标〉,2003
[29] 叶茂森,〈中部地区国小永续校园内涵之研究—以自然环境的观点进行探讨〉,2003
[30] 萧火在,〈国小学童对校园环境满意度之探讨—以彰化县国小高年级学童为例〉,2003
[31] 叶茂森,〈中部地区国小永续校园内涵之研究—以自然环境的观点进行探讨〉,2003
[32] 欧阳峤晖,〈永续生态校园之理念〉,环境科学技术,1999
[33] 黄世孟主编,〈建成环境用后评估研究之理论与应用研讨会论文集〉,台大建城所·成大建筑系·建筑学会,1991
[34] 张俊彦、张蓉真,〈校园绿美化对学童之学习效益〉,1999
[35] 毕恒达,〈台北县国民中小学校园环境整体规画设计手册〉,台湾大学建筑与城乡研究所,1994