Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/91665
標題: 光電產業綠建築評估指標之研究-應用 AHP 法
The Evaluation Study on Optoelectronic Industry of Green Building Assessment Index - The Application with AHP
作者: Chun-Fan Li
黎俊汎
關鍵字: 光電產業;綠建築評估指標;層級分析法;optoelectronics;green building evaluation index;analytic hierarchy process
引用: 英文參考文獻: Aho, Michael and Howard F. Rosen (1980), “Trends in Technology-Intensive Trade: with Special Reference to U.S. Competitiveness”, Economic Discussion Paper, No.9, US, Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs. Bamberger, P., Bacharach, S., and Dyer, L. (1989), Human resource management and organizational effec- tiveness:high technology entrepreneurial start-up firms in Israel, Human Resource Manage- ment, 28(3),349-366. Baruch, Yehuda (1997), ”High technology organization--What it is, what it isn''t”, International Journal of Technology Management, 13, 179-195. Bleicher, F., and Paul, H. (1983), “Managerial Framework for Innovation Responses in High-Tech Organization”, Business Horizons, (9), 69-78. Boretsky, M. (1982), “The Threat to U.S. High Technology Industries: Economic and National Security Implications Draft”, International Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Bossert, J.L. (1991), “Quality Function Deployment-a Practitioner’s Approach”, ASQC Quality Press Inc, New York. BP (2007), ” What is a Carbon Footprint?”,http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/A/ABP_ADV_what_on_earth_is_a_carbon_footprint.pdf. Brenton P., Edwards-Jones G., Jensen M.(2008), “Carbon Labelling and Low Income Country Exports: An Issues Paper”, MPRA Paper, 2008 - econpapers.repec.org. BSI (2009), http://www.bsigroupl.com/. Carbon Trust (2007), “Carbon Footprint easurement Methodology, Version 1.1”, 27 February 2007,The Carbon Trust, London, UK. Carnoy, M. (1985), “High Technology and International Labor Markets”, International Labor Review, 124(6), 643-659. Congressional Budget Office (2005), “Uncertainty in Analyzing Climate Change: Policy Implications,” Congressional Budget Office, USA. Davis, L.A. (1982), “Technology Intensity of U.S. Output and Trade”, Office of Trade and Investment Analysis U.S. Department. Dinopoulos,E.,J.F.Oehmke,and Segerstrom (1993), ”High-Tech:Industry Trade and Investment”, Journal of International Economics, 49-71. Energetics (2007), The Reality of Carbon Neutrality, London. http://www.energetics.com.au/file?node_id=21228. ETAP (2007), The Carbon Trust Helps UK Businesses Reduce their Environmental Impact, Press Release, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/pdfs/jan07_ca rbon_trust_initiative.pdf. GFN (2007), “Ecological Footprint Glossary”,Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA, USA. Accessed July 2007 from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?cont ent=glossary. Gomez-Mejia,L.R.and M.W.Lawless (eds.)(1990), Organizational Issues in High Technology Management, Greenwich,JAI Press. Grubb and Ellis (2007), Meeting the Carbon Challenge: The Role of Commercial Real Estate Owners, Users & Managers, Chicago. Hinze, Sybille and Grupp, H..(1996), “Mapping of RandD structures in transdisciplinary areas: new biotechnology in food sciences.” Scientometrics 372. IPCC (2001), IPCC Third Assessment Report. Kelly, R. K. (1977), “The Impact of Technological Innovation on International Trade Patterns”, Economic Research, U. S. Department of Commerce. Kim, B. and Neff, R.(2009), “Measurement and communication of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. food consumption via carbon calculators”, Ecological Economics, 69(1), 186-196. Liao, H. C., and Suen, Y. B. (2006), “A Quantile Inference of Environmental Kuznets Hypothesis: Economic Growth and CO2 Emission”, Paper Presented at the International Conference on Trade and Industrial Economics, March 24, Taipei, Taiwan. Litter, D. and R. C. Sweeting (1990), “The Management of New Technology Based Business: The Existentialist Firm”, Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 231-240. McKenna, R. (1985), “ The Regis Touch”, Addison-Wesley. Moriarty, R. T. and T. J. Kosnik (1989), “High-tech Marketing: Concepts, Continuity, and Change”, Sloan Management Review, 30(4), 7-17. Patel, J. (2006), “Green sky thinking”. Environment Business,122, 32. POST (2006), ”Carbon footprint of electricity generation”,POSTnote 268, October 2006, ParliamentaryOfficeofScienceandTechnology,London,UK.http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf. Rogers, E. M., & Larsen, J. K. (1984), Silicon Valley Fever, New York: Commonwealth Publishing Company. Shanklin, W. L. and Ryans, J.K. (1984), Marketing High Technology, Lexington, Ma: D. C. Heath. Sherman, P.M. (1982), Strategic Planning for Technology Industries, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Van-Rooijen, S.N.M. and Van-Wees, M.T. (2006), “Green electricity policies in the Netherlands:an analysis of policy decisions”, Energy Policy, 34(1), 60-71. Von Glinow, M.A. and S.A.Mohrman(eds.) (1990), Managing in Complexity in High Technology Organization,Oxford University Press,N.Y. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996), “Our Ecological Footprint- Reducing human impact on the earth”, Gabriola Island. B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers. Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J. (2008), A Definition of “Carbon Footprint”, ISA UK Research Report 07-01. World Resources Institute (WRI) (2005), “Navigating the numbers: greenhouse gases and international climate change agreements”, World Resources Institute Research Report. 中文參考文獻: 毛治國(1985),高科技企業之戰略面與管理面的特性,現代管理月刊,96 期,頁64-66。 內政部建築研究所(2002),綠建築解說與評估手冊(2009 更新版),台北:內政部。 王京明(2007),溫室氣體減量之國際經驗與台灣所面臨的困境,全球台商e 焦點,頁 87。 王彬墀、李育明、陳秋楊(2009),PAS 2050 產品與服務生命週期溫室氣體排放評估規範之探討,永續性產品與產業管理研討會論文集。 石信智(2007),國外溫室氣體排放交易活動與國內規劃現況,永續產業發展雙月刊,34 期,頁 10-15。 林瑋翔、吳明進(2007),人類是全球氣候變遷的罪魁禍首?IPCC AR4 WG1摘要報告評介,全球變遷通訊雜誌,53 期,頁 21-29。 施鴻志、解鴻年(1993),科技產業環境規劃與區域發展,台北:胡氏圖書出版社。 施坤壽(2001),應用資訊系統整合全面品質管理、企業再造與供應鏈管理建構企業競爭優勢之結構化模式分析-高科技與傳統產業之比較,國立成功大學企業管理研究所博士論文。 柯意敏譯,Nicholas Basta 著(1997),進入高科技業,台北:滾石文化。產業溫室氣體資訊網(2009),產業溫室氣體盤查與產品碳足跡實務。 陳信雄(1998),先進大眾運輸系統規劃與技術評估,台灣大學土木工程學系研究所碩士班博士論文。 陳光榮(2001),高科技產業的行銷策略,經濟情勢暨評論季刊,第7卷第1期,頁120-137。 湯嘉祥(1998),高科技企業品牌策略之研究-宏碁電腦個案分析,政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 新竹科學工業園區管理局(1998),八十七年年報,第7卷第1期,頁4-6。經濟部工業局(1991),工業發展年鑑,台北:經濟部。 經濟部技術處(1998),產業科技白皮書1998,台北:經濟部。 環境資訊中心(2008),貿易與氣候變遷, 取自 http://e-info.org.tw/。 鄧振源、曾國雄(1989),分析層級法的內涵特性與應用(上),中國統計學報,27卷,第6期,頁5-27。 薛琦、張祥憲(1999),我國高科技產業與經濟發展,自由中國之工業,第89卷第2期,頁13-34。 顏旭良(1998),台灣高科技產業經營績效評估與其資源配置特性之關係研究-以新竹科學工業園區為例,成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 網路資源: 中華民國全國建築師公會,http://www.naa.org.tw/。 內政部建築研究所,http://www.abri.gov.tw/utcPageBox/CHIMAINHP.aspx?ddsPageID=CHIM。 台灣綠建築發展協,http://www.taiwangbc.org.tw/tw/。 國立台灣大學全球變遷研究中心全球 CO2 追蹤網,http://www.gcrc.ntu.edu.tw/Chinese/Education/earthobservation/1986-2001temperature.htm。 智慧綠建築資訊網,http://smartgreen.abri.gov.tw/index.php。 經濟部投資處台灣企業社會責任網站,2010/01/25,氣候變遷下的企業責任與責任投資,http://www.ntpu.edu.tw/~coopnpo/CSR/CSR%20reference/40/01%20CSR%20A rticles%20Content%20Chinese.pdf。
摘要: 
本研究依據綠建築九大評估指標之評估基準,針對光電產業高科技廠房建築物進行節能減碳指標之評估調查。本研究應用層級分析法(AnalyticHierarchy Process , AHP) 建立科學工業園區廠房建築物節能減碳效益評估指標之權重體系,共有「基地綠化」「基地保水」「水資源」「日常節能」、「二氧化碳減量」「廢棄物減量」「污水垃圾改善」「生物多樣性」「室內環境」等九大構面及 38 個評估因子;經由專家問卷調查結果,再以 ExpertChoice 軟體計算各評估指標之權重值,基地綠化構面權重值 0.189,排序第一,日常節能構面權重值 0.142 排序 2,基地保水構面權重值 0.122 排序 3,水資源構面權重值 0.116 排序 4,二氧化碳減量構面權重值 0.107 排序 5,廢棄物減量構面權重值 0.103 排序 6,室內環境構面權重值 0.089 排序 7,污水垃圾改善構面權重值 0.068 排序 8,生物多樣性構面權重值 0.065 排序 9。研究成果的重要性排序,可做為未來執行綠建築規劃的方針,及提供相關產業執行碳足跡管理衡量節能減碳的參考。

This study was conducted to assess the high-tech plant building carbon reduction targets, for the optoelectronics industry, based on the 9 Green Building Evaluation indexes. The application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for the Science Park plant building carbon reduction benefit assessment indexs are : 'Greenery', 'On-site Water Retention', 'Water Resource', 'Daily Energy Savings', ' CO2 Reduction', 'Construction Waste Reduction', 'Sewage and Garbage Improvement', 'Biodiversity', 'Indoor Environment'. With these 9 dimensions, 38 assessment factors, and questionnaire completed by experts, the indicator weights resulting from the Expert Choice software are as follows ; The greenery dimension was the highest priority with a weight of 0.189, second in priority was the daily energy savings dimension with a weight of 0.142, third was the on-site water retention dimension with a weight of 0.122, fourth was the water resource dimension with a weight of 0.116, fifth was the CO2 reduction dimension with a weight of 0.107, sixth was the construction waste reduction dimension with a weight of 0.103, seventh was the indoor environment dimension with a weight of 0.089, eighth was the sewage and garbage improvement dimension with a weight of 0.068, and ninth was the biodiversity dimension with a weight of 0.065. The research results indicate the index priorities needed for future implementation of green building planning policy and provide a measure of the carbon reduction management implementation reference for the related industry.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/91665
Rights: 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務
Appears in Collections:環境工程學系所

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
nchu-103-5099063016-1.pdf1.03 MBAdobe PDFThis file is only available in the university internal network    Request a copy
Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.