社區推動低碳生活環境之策略研擬─以篤加社區、龍山社區、金山社區、大港社區、金華社區、正義社區為例─

傳送到

題名:
社區推動低碳生活環境之策略研擬─以篤加社區、龍山社區、金山社區、大港社區、金華社區、正義社區為例─
著者: 姜義彬; Jiang, Yi-bin
薛怡珍; I-Chen Hsueh; 生態科學與技術學系生態旅遊碩士班
主題: 金華社區; 正義社區; 大港社區; 金山社區; 龍山社區; 篤加社區; SWOT分析; 低碳社區評估系統; Jinshan community; Longshan community; Dujia community; Low-Carbon Community Assessment System (LCCS); SWOT analysis; Jinhua community; Zhengyi community; Dagang community
描述: 本研究針對鄉村型社區（篤加社區、龍山社區、金山社區）及都市型社區（大港社區、金華社區、正義社區）檢視其低碳生活環境營造的現況，並提出社區未來推動低碳生活環境的策略。首先透過半結構式的深度訪談與環保署建構的低碳社區評估系統來檢視實證基地低碳生活環境營造的現況，再以SWOT分析研擬社區未來可推動的低碳生活環境之策略，並評估其推動的減碳效益及貨幣效益。研究結果茲分述如下：一、實證基地低碳生活環境的營造現況：(一)一般而言，社區可達到整體低碳生活環境營造的成效多集中在「生態綠化」與「低碳生活」兩個主軸，「低碳建築/節能」及「資源循環」次之，而可以達到「低碳交通」與「再生能源」的成效最差。(二)本研究以環保署低碳社區評估系統的評估項目認定的評估標準達成度之高低作呈現，分別以較高程度、較低程度、極低程度、沒有營造四個層級檢視下，若社區符合標準程度較高以上的項目皆在10項左右（總共有45個評估項目），就算是已通過環保署低碳社區遴選的金山社區以及正義社區也只有8項與10項，顯示各社區依然有很大的改善與進步的空間。(三)達成度過低的原因如下：1.造成「生態綠化」達成度過低的原因在於住宅密度過高導致可利用的綠化空間過少、喬木植栽不夠密植以及缺乏垂直綠化的技術與空間。2.造成「低碳建築/節能」達成度過低的原因在於社區公共建物皆為老式建築並未符合建築節能的標準、節能設備的價錢過高且設備品質參差不齊，民眾購買意願低以及智慧電網系統尚未普及化發展。3.造成「低碳交通」達成度過低的原因在於大眾運輸系統發展不夠健全、社區無權管轄道路系統的規劃、社區未確實推廣與應用公部門建構的共乘平台、私家佔用騎樓人行空間相當嚴重以及公用道路擴建私人土地取得不易。4.造成「資源循環」及「再生能源」達成度過低的原因在於建構設施的環境條件不符、系統性設施建構的經費、空間與技術不足以及公部門輔導與獎勵機制尚未發展健全。5.造成「低碳生活」達成度過低的原因在於相關低碳知識與常識的教育研習不足、未有結合社區內學校資源共同推廣節能減碳的相關議題以及特色產業與民宿規劃的推動成效需仰賴社區本身是否有此資源條件。二、另本研究以SWOT方法分析實證基地後，依據各社區的現有資源特性分別提出社區自身可強化條件的改善策略以及各社區皆適合推動之一般性策略（包括生態綠化3項、低碳建築/節能2項、低碳交通1項、資源循環2項、再生能源1項、低碳生活4項等），經過各社區之特色及一般性策略的可行性評估後，結果顯示大部分策略是可行的，僅有少數策略是不可行的，並且最後評估各社區推動策略（針對省電、省水、省油的7項低碳硬體設施）的減碳效益及貨幣效益。評估結果顯示：篤加社區年減碳量及節省花費約29,536.5kg及413,222元、龍山社區約28,814.4kg及681,198元、金山社區約36,555.9kg及377,194元、大港社區年減碳量約45,745.8kg及1,898,933元、金華社區年減碳量約31,222.8kg及1,453,660元、正義社區年減碳量約18,716.4kg及938,385元。
The purposes of the study is to investigate the conditions of "eco-green", "low-carbon building/energy saving", "low-carbon transport", "resources cycle", "renewable energy", and "low-carbon life" for three rural communities (Dujia, Longshan, and Jinshan communities) and three urban communities (Dagang, Jinhua, Zhengyi communities) through "depth interviews" and "Low-Carbon Community Assessment System (LCCS) of Environmental Protection Administration (EPA)". We also applied the SWOT analysis to draw out the strategies to promote low-carbon living environments of communities in the future, and to calculate the efficiency and monetary value of carbon reduction of public facilities. The conclusions are as follows: 1.In general, "eco-green" and "low-carbon life" are easy to achieve the effectiveness for promoting a low-carbon community.2.We used LCCS to assess separate four-level degree for promoting low-carbon living environment, including "high", "medium", "low", and "none". The total assessed items is forty five. The results showed that there were ten assessed items are high-level degree in six communities, even Jinshan and Zhengyi communities which were selected a low-carbon model community from EPA only had eight and ten items for high-level degree.3.The reasons of relatively low factors are below:(1) Caused the low-level factors of "eco-green" is that "residential density" is too higher to lack sufficient green spaces and available planting spaces. Meanwhile, vertical-greening technologies are not available.(2) Caused the low-level factors of "low-carbon building" is that most of "public building" were older and did not meet the standard of building energy efficiency, then the prices of energy-saving equipments are expensive and “Smart Grid system” is not yet popular development in communities.(3) Caused the low-level factors of "low-carbon transportation" is that "low-carbon public transportation system" is not convenient enough, the community has no jurisdiction to plan and manage the road system, including to promote ride-sharing, to prohibit activities of illegal behaviors for pedestrian space, and to obtain private lands for expanding public roads.(4) Caused the low-level factors of "resource recycling" and "renewable energy" is that community did not the fund to develop "energy-saving facilities". Meanwhile, government authority is not yet a complete set of mechanisms for approaches of professional counseling and reward.(5) Caused the low-level factors of "low-carbon life" is that low-carbon knowledge is not enough in community. It also depends that there are carbon reduction issues combined with school resources, special industry with environmental and resource characteristics, and B & B''s management strategy for promoting a low-carbon living environment. According SWOT analysis and community resource characteristics, we proposed thirteen general strategies which to promote low carbon living environments in the communities. Then, we assessed strategies and feasibility through the second depth interviews, the results showed that most of strategies were feasible. We also calculated the efficiency and monetary value of carbon reduction of public facilities in communities, the results showed that the efficiency and monetary value of carbon reduction respectively were 29,536.5 kgs of carbon dioxide and NT$ 413,222 each year for Dujia community, 28,814.4 kgs and 681,198 NT$ for Longshan community, 36,555.9 kgs and 377,194 NT$ for Jinshan community, 45,745.8 kgs and 1,898,933 NT$ for Dagang community, 31,222.8 kgs and 1,453,660 NT$ for Jinhua community, 18,716.4 kgs and 938,385 NT$ for Zhengyi community.
碩士
建立日期: 2013
格式: 121 bytes
text/html
語言: 中文
識別號: http://nutnr.lib.nutn.edu.tw/handle/987654321/227
資源來源: NUTN IR

連結

連回原始介面

社區推動低碳生活環境之策略研擬─以篤加社區、龍山社區、金山社區、大港社區、金華社區、正義社區為例─

姜義彬; Jiang, Yi-bin 薛怡珍; I-Chen Hsueh; 生態科學與技術學系生態旅遊碩士班 2013

正在檢索遠程資料庫，請稍等