| 摘要: | 綠建築在國外推動的時間比臺灣更長，雖然在國內外有著建築的用後評估文獻，但並沒有綠建築的用後評估。目前臺灣只有在推動續標章制度，但使用者的焦點與需求在於綠建築是否達到生態、節能、減廢及健康的效益。
本研究針對T市一集合住宅做為用後評估的研究對象，使用現場勘查、IPA分析以及數據分析等三種分析方式進行綠建築用後評估之研究。於用後評估的研究中，發現綠建築九大指標的二氧化碳減量及廢棄物減量兩項指標是屬於興建及拆除過程的評估指標項，無法操作於用後評估的研究。另外，研究對象因未達生物多樣性指標審查資格（基地面積必須大於一公頃），因此本研究的用後評估只使用六項指標進行。
本研究在現場勘查的方法延用「標章延續」的標準，意指該指標設備、設施以及面積等等變化量小於25%即可通過，然而研究對象經過現場勘查發現各項可用後評估之指標變化量皆小於25%，甚至趨近於0，在綠化量指標中，綠化面積更是大於原申請綠建築標章，實屬不易。
接著使用IPA分析法，針對剩餘六項指標做設計者與使用者的重視度與滿意度交叉分析，結果顯示「室內健康與環境指標」、「水資源指標」、「日常節能指標」與「汙水與垃圾改善指標」四個指標，是設計者重視且使用者滿意的，兩者達成共識，是可持續保持的指標。但是在剩餘兩項指標「綠化量指標」與「基地保水指標」中，則發現設計者與使用者的重視度有落差，需要優先改善。最後在數據分析的部分，經由歷年用電量以及對應的問卷項目分析後，發現通風滿意度的越低則冷氣滿意度越高，也會造成用電量越高。
經由上述三種分析成果可以發現，本研究對象在現場勘查後是通過標準的，但在問卷IPA分析過後發現設計者重視的項目與使用者重視與滿意的項目不盡一致。本研究更進一步發現通風與冷氣的不一致，使得用電耗能增加。本研究之用後評估研究方法盼能給予政府未來在綠建築的推廣中，建立使用者與未來綠建築的設計者更全面性的溝通平台。
Green buildings have been promoted in foreign countries longer than in Taiwan. Although there are post-use evaluation documents of buildings at home and abroad, there is no post-use evaluation of green buildings. At present, Taiwan is only promoting the renewal of the label system, but the focus and demand of users is whether green buildings can achieve ecological, energy-saving, waste reduction and health benefits.
This study takes a collective housing in T city as the research object of post-occupancy evaluation, and uses three analysis methods, including site survey, IPA analysis and data analysis, to conduct post-occupancy evaluation of green buildings. In the post-use evaluation research, it was found that the two indicators of carbon dioxide reduction and waste reduction in the nine green building indicators belong to the evaluation indicators of the construction and demolition process, and cannot be used in post-use evaluation research. In addition, the research object is not qualified for the review of biodiversity indicators (the base area must be greater than one hectare), so the post-use evaluation of this study only uses six indicators.
The method of on-site investigation in this study continues to use the standard of "mark continuation", which means that the change of the index equipment, facilities and area, etc. is less than 25%. The index changes are all less than 25%, or even close to 0. Among the greening quantity indicators, the green area is even larger than the original application for the green building label, which is not easy.
Then use the IPA analysis method to conduct a cross-analysis of the importance and satisfaction of designers and users on the remaining six indicators. The results show that "indoor health and environment indicators", "water resources indicators", "daily energy "Water and Garbage Improvement Indicators" are the four indicators that designers value and users are satisfied with. They reach a consensus and are indicators of sustainable maintenance. However, in the remaining two indicators, "greening volume indicator" and "base water conservation indicator", it is found that there is a gap in the importance of designers and users, and priority needs to be improved. Finally, in the part of data analysis, after analyzing the electricity consumption over the years and the corresponding questionnaire items, it was found that the lower the ventilation satisfaction, the higher the air-conditioning satisfaction, and the higher the electricity consumption.
Through the above three analysis results, it can be found that the research object passed the standard after the on-site survey, but after the IPA analysis of the questionnaire, it was found that the items valued by the designer were not consistent with the items valued and satisfied by the user. This study further found that the inconsistency between ventilation and air conditioning increases power consumption. The post-evaluation research method used in this study hopes to provide the government with a more comprehensive communication platform between users and future green building designers in the promotion of green buildings in the future. |
