學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 民眾環境態度與綠建築效益認同程度之研究--- 以北投圖書館使用者為例
Public Environmental Attitudes and Recognition of Green Building Benefits: A Case Study of Beitou Library Users作者 黃珈彥
Vong, Ka-In貢獻者 孫振義
Sun, Chen-Yi
黃珈彥
Vong, Ka-In關鍵詞 綠建築
北投圖書館
新生態典範
Green Building
Beitou Library
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)日期 2024 上傳時間 4-九月-2024 14:28:55 (UTC+8) 摘要 全球永續發展為一大發展重點，而在建築業中綠建築亦被視為重要因素，台灣綠建築標章評估系統（EEWH）在生態、節能、健康及減碳的卓越表現。惟在台灣本土綠建築推廣一直均在公部門較為熱絡，私部門有著難以普及之現象，當中原因包括民眾綠建築知識不足、對綠建築感受不明顯等，而若能籍由公共設施了解民眾對綠建築之認同程度，更能使綠建築普及。台北市立圖書館北投分館獲得EEWH系統中的鑽石級標章，可見其綠建築設計手法，實現了多方面之效益，同時亦為北投公園裏，吸引大量民眾到訪。本研究欲了解民眾環境態度與其社經背景等因素，對北投圖書館之綠建築效益認同程度為何？將透過文獻蒐集以了解北投圖書館具備之綠建築效益，環境態度則使用新生態典範量表(NEP)。 研究結果顯示：(1)不同性別中在一項效益具有顯著差異；(2)不同環保意識在大多效益具有顯著差異；(3)不同環境態度在大多效益具有顯著差異；(4)不同綠建築了解程度在兩項效益具有顯著差異；(5)不同年齡在兩項效益具有顯著差異；(6)不同教育程度在全部效益並沒有顯著差異：(7)不同職業群在三項效益具有顯著差異。
In the context of global sustainable development, green buildings are considered a crucial factor in the construction industry. Taiwan's green building assessment system (EEWH) excels in ecology, energy saving, health, and carbon reduction. However, the promotion of green buildings in Taiwan has been more active in the public sector, while the private sector faces difficulties in widespread adoption. This is partly due to the public's lack of knowledge about green buildings and the intangible benefits they perceive. Understanding public recognition of green buildings through public facilities can further popularize green buildings.The Beitou Branch of the Taipei Public Library has received the Diamond Level certification in the EEWH system, showcasing its exemplary green building design and achieving multiple benefits. Located in Beitou Park, it attracts a large number of visitors. This study aims to understand the public's environmental attitudes and socioeconomic factors that influence their recognition of the green building benefits of the Beitou Library. Literature review will be conducted to identify the green building benefits of the Beitou Library, and environmental attitudes will be measured using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale. The results show that: (1) There are significant differences in one benefit among different genders; (2) Significant differences exist in most benefits among different levels of environmental awareness; (3) There are significant differences in most benefits among different environmental attitudes; (4) Significant differences are found in two benefits among different levels of understanding of green buildings; (5) There are significant differences in two benefits among different age groups; (6) There are no significant differences in any benefits among different education levels; (7) Significant differences are found in three benefits among different occupational groups.參考文獻 中文文獻 1. 內政部建築研究所（2019）。綠建築評估手冊─基本型。臺北市：內政部建築研究所。 2. 王家瑩（2021）。我國永續綠建築科技發展與策略規劃之研究，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。 3. 陳宥羽（2020）。 獎勵措施提升居民續用住宿類綠建築標章意願之研究-以雙北市為例. 政治大學地政學系學位論文, 2020, 1-159. 4. 李彥儒（2020）。「臺北都會區綠建築標章在住宅產品銷售策略之運用潛力」，國立政治大學地政系碩士在職專班論文：臺北。 5. 林憲德（2010），『綠色建築』，臺北：詹氏書局。 6. 內政部建築研究所，2023，『綠建築評估手冊─基本型』，臺北：內政部建築研究所。 7. 于 健、張本義（2008），「台灣綠建築之發展現況分析」，『遠東學報』第二十五卷第三期，pp.443~452 8. 內政部建築研究所，2023，『綠建築評估手冊─基本型』，臺北：內政部建築研究所 9. 蘇 南、羅舒晏(2017)，兩岸綠建築評價系統之比較，土木水利 第四十四卷 第五期，61-65 10. 陳奉瑤. (2017). 綠建築價值-供需雙方之認知分析. 土地經濟年刊, (28), 106-132. 11. 內政部建築研究所(2011)，「綠建築節能效益調查研究-以住宅類綠建築為例（2/3）」，臺北：內政部建築研究所 12. 台北市立圖書館（2007），《太陽能：閱讀新趨勢，台灣首間綠建築圖書館：第六屆台北市政府品質獎『公民創新獎』第二輪簡報資料》，台北市立圖書館台北圖書館，8 月15 日 13. 內政部建築研究所（2008）。綠建築教育示範基地規劃建置計畫。臺北市：內政部建築研究所。 14. 張秀雲(2012)。「建築外觀之綠建築視覺意象與情緒體驗之研究」，逄甲大學建築學系碩士論文；台中。 15. 蘇瑛敏. (2016)。綠建築評估系統外觀意象指標之研究—以低層建築為例. 建築學報, (96), 53-74. 16. 林政賢。「綠建築評估指標適用性之研究」，國立成功大學建築學系碩士在職專班；台南。 17. 內政部營建署(2003)，挑戰2008：國家發展重點計畫 (2002 － 2007) 18. 廖富英（2012）。都市更新綠建築容積獎勵制度之研究 ─以台北都會區為例〔碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。 19. 李春長、吳韻玲、施晉豪、李芝涵、林文韜、俞錚( 2019)。預測綠建築之購買意圖－心理因素在計畫行為理論之角色。建築與規劃學報 (民國 108 年)第二十卷 第一期 01-26。 20. 陳科仲（2011）。綠建築容積獎勵制度適用性之研究－以綠建築容積獎勵個案日常節能指標為例〔碩士論文，淡江大學〕。 21. 歐陽宇、陳妤甄 (2013)。旅遊消費者環境知識、新環境典範態度及環境行為之研 究—以四重溪溫泉地區為例。嘉南學報，39，420-433。 22. 丁馨芝 (2007)。遊客環境態度對環境行為與經營管理措施之影響—以高美濕地生態保護區為例（碩士論文）。逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所。 英文文獻 1. Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., & Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. 2. Antonelli M (2008) The green library movement: An overview and beyond. Electronic Green Journal 1(27): 1–11. 3. Aulisio, G. J. (2013). Green libraries are more than just buildings. Electronic Green Journal, 1(35). 4. Aulisio, G. J. (2013). Green libraries are more than just buildings. Electronic green journal, 1(35). 5. Baum A. Commercial real estate investment. Taylor & Francis., 2009. 6. Boeve-De Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Cultural differences in the environmental worldview of children. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 2(1). 7. BRE Global.(2016). BREEAM International New Construction 2016. Technical Manual SD233 2.0. Standard Chinese Language Version, edition 2.0.0 8. Brown, B. (2003), “The new green standard”, Library Journal, Vol. 128 No. 20, pp. 61‐64. 9. Chao, M., Parker, G., Mahone, D., & Kammerud RC (1999). Recognition of energy costs and energy performance in commercial property valuation. 10. Cole , R. J. 2005 . Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles . Building Research & Information , 35 ( 5 ) : 455 – 467 . 11. Cole, R. J.( 1998). “Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods.” Building Research and Information, Vol. 26(1), pp. 3-16. 12. Datta, S. (2015). Green is the new black: Bringing the libraries into the green scene. International Journal of Digital Library Services, 5(3), 59-68. 13. Dunlap Riley, E., & Van Liere Kent, D. (1978). A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results: The ‘New Environmental Paradigm,’. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(1), 10-19. 14. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442. 15. Fernández-Cañero, R., Urrestarazu, L. P., & Perini, K. (2018). Vertical greening systems: classifications, plant species, substrates. In Nature based strategies for urban and building sustainability (pp. 45-54). Butterworth-Heinemann. 16. Fowler, K. M., Rauch, E. M., Henderson, J. W., & Kora, A. R. (2010). Re-assessing green building performance: A post occupancy evaluation of 22 GSA buildings (No. PNNL-19369). Pacific Northwest National Lab.(PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). 17. Gill, Z. M., Tierney, M. J., Pegg, I. M., & Allan, N. (2010). Low-energy dwellings: The contribution of behaviours to actual performance. Building Research & Information, 38(5), 491–508. 18. Goh, C. S., Chong, H. Y., Jack, L., & Faris, A. F. M. (2020). Revisiting triple bottom line within the context of sustainable construction: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119884. 19. Gou, Z., & Xie, X. (2017). Evolving green building: triple bottom line or regenerative design?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 600-607. 20. Gou, Z., Prasad, D., & Lau, S. S. Y. (2013). Are green buildings more satisfactory and comfortable?. Habitat International, 39, 156-161. 21. Grierson, D. (2016). "Unfinished Business at the Urban Laboratory - Paolo Soleri, Arcology, and Arcosanti", Open House International, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 63-72 22. Hauke P (2019) Green libraries towards green sustainable development. Best practice examples from IFLA green library award 2016–2019. In: IFLA WLIC, Athens, Greece, 24–30 August 23. He, B. J., Yang, L., & Ye, M. (2014). Building energy efficiency in China rural areas: Situation, drawbacks, challenges, corresponding measures and policies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 11, 7-15.Li, F., Yan, T., Liu, J., Lai, Y., Uthes, S., Lu, Y., & Long, Y. (2014). Research on social and humanistic needs in planning and construction of green buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 12, 102-109. 24. Jankowska, M. A., & Marcum, J. W. (2010). Sustainability challenge for academic libraries: Planning for the future. College & research libraries, 71(2), 160-170. 25. Jansson, Å., & Nohrstedt, P. (2001). Carbon sinks and human freshwater dependence in Stockholm County. Ecological Economics, 39(3), 361-370. 26. Jones, L., & Wong, W. (2016). More than just a green building: Developing green strategies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Library. Library Management, 37(6/7), 373-384. 27. Kato, H., Too, I. and Rask, A. (2009), “Occupier perceptions of green workplace environment: the Australian experience”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 183‐95. 28. Kats, G. (2013). Greening our built world: costs, benefits, and strategies. Island Press. 29. Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J. (2003). The costs and financial benefits of green buildings. A report to California’s sustainable building task force, 134. 30. Kim, J. L., Greene, M., & Kim, S. (2014). Cost comparative analysis of a new green building code for residential project development. Journal of construction engineering and management, 140(5), 05014002. 31. Kowarik, I. (2011). Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental pollution, 159(8-9), 1974-1983. 32. Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the US construction industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 958-972. 33. Li, F., Yan, T., Liu, J., Lai, Y., Uthes, S., Lu, Y., & Long, Y. (2014). Research on social and humanistic needs in planning and construction of green buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 12, 102-109. 34. Li, L. (2007). China Pushing for Energy-Efficient Buildings. Worldwatch Institute, 25. 35. Lu, W., Chen, X., Peng, Y., & Liu, X. (2018). The effects of green building on construction waste minimization: Triangulating ‘big data’with ‘thick data’. Waste management, 79, 142-152. 36. MacNaughton, P., Cao, X., Buonocore, J., Cedeno-Laurent, J., Spengler, J., Bernstein, A., & Allen, J. (2018). Energy savings, emission reductions, and health co-benefits of the green building movement. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol, 28(4), 307-318. 37. Marcus, C. C., & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1999). Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations (Vol. 4). John Wiley & Sons. 38. Marsh, D. (1999). Results frameworks and performance monitoring. Save the Children. 39. Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coffman, R. R., Doshi, H., Dunnett, N., ... & Rowe, B. (2007). Green roofs as urban ecosystems: ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience, 57(10), 823-833. 40. Olson, E.G. (2008), “Creating an enterprise-level ‘green’ strategy”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 22-30. 41. Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and buildings, 40(3), 394-398. 42. Pitts, J., & Lord, M. R. (2007). Existing buildings: It’s easier than you think to green the triple bottom line. 43. Porsche U , Köhler M. (2003). Life cycle costs of green roofs: A comparison of Germany, USA, and Brazil. Proceedings of the World Climate and Energy Event; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 44. Porteshawver, A. B. (2009). Green sports facilities: Why adopting new green-building policies will improve the environment and community. Marq. Sports L. Rev., 20, 241. 45. Rashid, M., Spreckelmeyer, K., & Angrisano, N. J. (2012). Green buildings, environmental awareness, and organizational image. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 14(1), 21-49. 46. Sahavirta H (2013). . .proud that my own library is such a responsible operator! In: Hauke P, Latimer K, Werner KU (eds) The Green Library. The Challenge of Environmental Sustainability =Die Grüne Bibliothek: Ökologische Nachhaltigkeit in Der Praxis. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Saur, pp. 317–332. 47. Sarkis, J., Meade, L. M., & Presley, A. R. (2012). Incorporating sustainability into contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 40-53. 48. Shahron, S. A., Abdullah, R., & Musa, S. (2020). A development of green building in Malaysia: A challenge to sports center. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(6), 11850-11860. 49. Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work. Indiana business review, 86(1), 4-8. 50. Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work. Indiana business review, 86(1), 4-8. 51. Umdu, D. Ç., Alakavuk, E., & Koyuncu, A. (2021, June). BREEAM Communities: Criteria Aim, Status, Strengths and Weaknesses. In 2021 International Conference on Digital Age & Technological Advances for Sustainable Development (ICDATA) (pp. 208-215). IEEE. 52. USGBC, U. (2009). Green building and LEED core concepts. United States Green Building Council (USGBC). 53. Wong, S. C., & Abe, N. (2014). Stakeholders' perspectives of a building environmental assessment method: The case of CASBEE. Building and Environment, 82, 502-516. 54. Yan, H., Shen, Q., Fan, L. C., Wang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: A case study of One Peking in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 45(4), 949-955. 55. Yu, W. D., Cheng, S. T., Ho, W. C., & Chang, Y. H. (2018). Measuring the Sustainability of construction projects throughout their lifecycle: A Taiwan lesson. Sustainability, 10(5), 1523. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政學系
111257033資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111257033 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 孫振義 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Sun, Chen-Yi en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 黃珈彥 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Vong, Ka-In en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃珈彥 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Vong, Ka-In en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-九月-2024 14:28:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-九月-2024 14:28:55 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-九月-2024 14:28:55 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0111257033 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153257 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 地政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 111257033 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 全球永續發展為一大發展重點，而在建築業中綠建築亦被視為重要因素，台灣綠建築標章評估系統（EEWH）在生態、節能、健康及減碳的卓越表現。惟在台灣本土綠建築推廣一直均在公部門較為熱絡，私部門有著難以普及之現象，當中原因包括民眾綠建築知識不足、對綠建築感受不明顯等，而若能籍由公共設施了解民眾對綠建築之認同程度，更能使綠建築普及。台北市立圖書館北投分館獲得EEWH系統中的鑽石級標章，可見其綠建築設計手法，實現了多方面之效益，同時亦為北投公園裏，吸引大量民眾到訪。本研究欲了解民眾環境態度與其社經背景等因素，對北投圖書館之綠建築效益認同程度為何？將透過文獻蒐集以了解北投圖書館具備之綠建築效益，環境態度則使用新生態典範量表(NEP)。 研究結果顯示：(1)不同性別中在一項效益具有顯著差異；(2)不同環保意識在大多效益具有顯著差異；(3)不同環境態度在大多效益具有顯著差異；(4)不同綠建築了解程度在兩項效益具有顯著差異；(5)不同年齡在兩項效益具有顯著差異；(6)不同教育程度在全部效益並沒有顯著差異：(7)不同職業群在三項效益具有顯著差異。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In the context of global sustainable development, green buildings are considered a crucial factor in the construction industry. Taiwan's green building assessment system (EEWH) excels in ecology, energy saving, health, and carbon reduction. However, the promotion of green buildings in Taiwan has been more active in the public sector, while the private sector faces difficulties in widespread adoption. This is partly due to the public's lack of knowledge about green buildings and the intangible benefits they perceive. Understanding public recognition of green buildings through public facilities can further popularize green buildings.The Beitou Branch of the Taipei Public Library has received the Diamond Level certification in the EEWH system, showcasing its exemplary green building design and achieving multiple benefits. Located in Beitou Park, it attracts a large number of visitors. This study aims to understand the public's environmental attitudes and socioeconomic factors that influence their recognition of the green building benefits of the Beitou Library. Literature review will be conducted to identify the green building benefits of the Beitou Library, and environmental attitudes will be measured using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale. The results show that: (1) There are significant differences in one benefit among different genders; (2) Significant differences exist in most benefits among different levels of environmental awareness; (3) There are significant differences in most benefits among different environmental attitudes; (4) Significant differences are found in two benefits among different levels of understanding of green buildings; (5) There are significant differences in two benefits among different age groups; (6) There are no significant differences in any benefits among different education levels; (7) Significant differences are found in three benefits among different occupational groups. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究範圍與內容 4 第三節 研究方法及流程 6 第四節 小結 9 第二章 文獻回顧 11 第一節 綠建築發展與效益 11 第二節 綠建築北投圖書館 39 第三節 環境態度 47 第四節 小結 55 第三章 研究設計 57 第一節 實證分析架構 57 第二節 問卷調查計畫 58 第三節 問卷設計 60 第四節 小結 65 第四章 問卷調查分析 67 第一節 信度分析與敘述統計 67 第二節 不同使用者特徵之認同 程度差異 84 第三節 不同使用者特徵對於 各種手段或方法認同程度之差異 102 第四節 小結 117 第五章 結論與建議 119 第一節 結論 119 第二節 後續研究建議 121 附錄一 問卷內容 123 附錄二 不同環境態度對綠建築效益認同程度之單因子變異數分析 Post Hoc檢定摘要表 139 參考文獻 144 zh_TW dc.format.extent 7292621 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111257033 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 綠建築 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 北投圖書館 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 新生態典範 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Green Building en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Beitou Library en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) en_US dc.title (題名) 民眾環境態度與綠建築效益認同程度之研究--- 以北投圖書館使用者為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Public Environmental Attitudes and Recognition of Green Building Benefits: A Case Study of Beitou Library Users en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻 1. 內政部建築研究所（2019）。綠建築評估手冊─基本型。臺北市：內政部建築研究所。 2. 王家瑩（2021）。我國永續綠建築科技發展與策略規劃之研究，內政部建築研究所研究計畫成果報告。 3. 陳宥羽（2020）。 獎勵措施提升居民續用住宿類綠建築標章意願之研究-以雙北市為例. 政治大學地政學系學位論文, 2020, 1-159. 4. 李彥儒（2020）。「臺北都會區綠建築標章在住宅產品銷售策略之運用潛力」，國立政治大學地政系碩士在職專班論文：臺北。 5. 林憲德（2010），『綠色建築』，臺北：詹氏書局。 6. 內政部建築研究所，2023，『綠建築評估手冊─基本型』，臺北：內政部建築研究所。 7. 于 健、張本義（2008），「台灣綠建築之發展現況分析」，『遠東學報』第二十五卷第三期，pp.443~452 8. 內政部建築研究所，2023，『綠建築評估手冊─基本型』，臺北：內政部建築研究所 9. 蘇 南、羅舒晏(2017)，兩岸綠建築評價系統之比較，土木水利 第四十四卷 第五期，61-65 10. 陳奉瑤. (2017). 綠建築價值-供需雙方之認知分析. 土地經濟年刊, (28), 106-132. 11. 內政部建築研究所(2011)，「綠建築節能效益調查研究-以住宅類綠建築為例（2/3）」，臺北：內政部建築研究所 12. 台北市立圖書館（2007），《太陽能：閱讀新趨勢，台灣首間綠建築圖書館：第六屆台北市政府品質獎『公民創新獎』第二輪簡報資料》，台北市立圖書館台北圖書館，8 月15 日 13. 內政部建築研究所（2008）。綠建築教育示範基地規劃建置計畫。臺北市：內政部建築研究所。 14. 張秀雲(2012)。「建築外觀之綠建築視覺意象與情緒體驗之研究」，逄甲大學建築學系碩士論文；台中。 15. 蘇瑛敏. (2016)。綠建築評估系統外觀意象指標之研究—以低層建築為例. 建築學報, (96), 53-74. 16. 林政賢。「綠建築評估指標適用性之研究」，國立成功大學建築學系碩士在職專班；台南。 17. 內政部營建署(2003)，挑戰2008：國家發展重點計畫 (2002 － 2007) 18. 廖富英（2012）。都市更新綠建築容積獎勵制度之研究 ─以台北都會區為例〔碩士論文，國立臺北科技大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。 19. 李春長、吳韻玲、施晉豪、李芝涵、林文韜、俞錚( 2019)。預測綠建築之購買意圖－心理因素在計畫行為理論之角色。建築與規劃學報 (民國 108 年)第二十卷 第一期 01-26。 20. 陳科仲（2011）。綠建築容積獎勵制度適用性之研究－以綠建築容積獎勵個案日常節能指標為例〔碩士論文，淡江大學〕。 21. 歐陽宇、陳妤甄 (2013)。旅遊消費者環境知識、新環境典範態度及環境行為之研 究—以四重溪溫泉地區為例。嘉南學報，39，420-433。 22. 丁馨芝 (2007)。遊客環境態度對環境行為與經營管理措施之影響—以高美濕地生態保護區為例（碩士論文）。逢甲大學景觀與遊憩研究所。 英文文獻 1. Abbaszadeh, S., Zagreus, L., Lehrer, D., & Huizenga, C. (2006). Occupant satisfaction with indoor environmental quality in green buildings. 2. Antonelli M (2008) The green library movement: An overview and beyond. Electronic Green Journal 1(27): 1–11. 3. Aulisio, G. J. (2013). Green libraries are more than just buildings. Electronic Green Journal, 1(35). 4. Aulisio, G. J. (2013). Green libraries are more than just buildings. Electronic green journal, 1(35). 5. Baum A. Commercial real estate investment. Taylor & Francis., 2009. 6. Boeve-De Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Cultural differences in the environmental worldview of children. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 2(1). 7. BRE Global.(2016). BREEAM International New Construction 2016. Technical Manual SD233 2.0. Standard Chinese Language Version, edition 2.0.0 8. Brown, B. (2003), “The new green standard”, Library Journal, Vol. 128 No. 20, pp. 61‐64. 9. Chao, M., Parker, G., Mahone, D., & Kammerud RC (1999). Recognition of energy costs and energy performance in commercial property valuation. 10. Cole , R. J. 2005 . Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles . Building Research & Information , 35 ( 5 ) : 455 – 467 . 11. Cole, R. J.( 1998). “Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods.” Building Research and Information, Vol. 26(1), pp. 3-16. 12. Datta, S. (2015). Green is the new black: Bringing the libraries into the green scene. International Journal of Digital Library Services, 5(3), 59-68. 13. Dunlap Riley, E., & Van Liere Kent, D. (1978). A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results: The ‘New Environmental Paradigm,’. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(1), 10-19. 14. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of social issues, 56(3), 425-442. 15. Fernández-Cañero, R., Urrestarazu, L. P., & Perini, K. (2018). Vertical greening systems: classifications, plant species, substrates. In Nature based strategies for urban and building sustainability (pp. 45-54). Butterworth-Heinemann. 16. Fowler, K. M., Rauch, E. M., Henderson, J. W., & Kora, A. R. (2010). Re-assessing green building performance: A post occupancy evaluation of 22 GSA buildings (No. PNNL-19369). Pacific Northwest National Lab.(PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). 17. Gill, Z. M., Tierney, M. J., Pegg, I. M., & Allan, N. (2010). Low-energy dwellings: The contribution of behaviours to actual performance. Building Research & Information, 38(5), 491–508. 18. Goh, C. S., Chong, H. Y., Jack, L., & Faris, A. F. M. (2020). Revisiting triple bottom line within the context of sustainable construction: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119884. 19. Gou, Z., & Xie, X. (2017). Evolving green building: triple bottom line or regenerative design?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 600-607. 20. Gou, Z., Prasad, D., & Lau, S. S. Y. (2013). Are green buildings more satisfactory and comfortable?. Habitat International, 39, 156-161. 21. Grierson, D. (2016). "Unfinished Business at the Urban Laboratory - Paolo Soleri, Arcology, and Arcosanti", Open House International, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 63-72 22. Hauke P (2019) Green libraries towards green sustainable development. Best practice examples from IFLA green library award 2016–2019. In: IFLA WLIC, Athens, Greece, 24–30 August 23. He, B. J., Yang, L., & Ye, M. (2014). Building energy efficiency in China rural areas: Situation, drawbacks, challenges, corresponding measures and policies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 11, 7-15.Li, F., Yan, T., Liu, J., Lai, Y., Uthes, S., Lu, Y., & Long, Y. (2014). Research on social and humanistic needs in planning and construction of green buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 12, 102-109. 24. Jankowska, M. A., & Marcum, J. W. (2010). Sustainability challenge for academic libraries: Planning for the future. College & research libraries, 71(2), 160-170. 25. Jansson, Å., & Nohrstedt, P. (2001). Carbon sinks and human freshwater dependence in Stockholm County. Ecological Economics, 39(3), 361-370. 26. Jones, L., & Wong, W. (2016). More than just a green building: Developing green strategies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Library. Library Management, 37(6/7), 373-384. 27. Kato, H., Too, I. and Rask, A. (2009), “Occupier perceptions of green workplace environment: the Australian experience”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 183‐95. 28. Kats, G. (2013). Greening our built world: costs, benefits, and strategies. Island Press. 29. Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J. (2003). The costs and financial benefits of green buildings. A report to California’s sustainable building task force, 134. 30. Kim, J. L., Greene, M., & Kim, S. (2014). Cost comparative analysis of a new green building code for residential project development. Journal of construction engineering and management, 140(5), 05014002. 31. Kowarik, I. (2011). Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental pollution, 159(8-9), 1974-1983. 32. Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the US construction industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 958-972. 33. Li, F., Yan, T., Liu, J., Lai, Y., Uthes, S., Lu, Y., & Long, Y. (2014). Research on social and humanistic needs in planning and construction of green buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 12, 102-109. 34. Li, L. (2007). China Pushing for Energy-Efficient Buildings. Worldwatch Institute, 25. 35. Lu, W., Chen, X., Peng, Y., & Liu, X. (2018). The effects of green building on construction waste minimization: Triangulating ‘big data’with ‘thick data’. Waste management, 79, 142-152. 36. MacNaughton, P., Cao, X., Buonocore, J., Cedeno-Laurent, J., Spengler, J., Bernstein, A., & Allen, J. (2018). Energy savings, emission reductions, and health co-benefits of the green building movement. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol, 28(4), 307-318. 37. Marcus, C. C., & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1999). Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations (Vol. 4). John Wiley & Sons. 38. Marsh, D. (1999). Results frameworks and performance monitoring. Save the Children. 39. Oberndorfer, E., Lundholm, J., Bass, B., Coffman, R. R., Doshi, H., Dunnett, N., ... & Rowe, B. (2007). Green roofs as urban ecosystems: ecological structures, functions, and services. BioScience, 57(10), 823-833. 40. Olson, E.G. (2008), “Creating an enterprise-level ‘green’ strategy”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 22-30. 41. Pérez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and buildings, 40(3), 394-398. 42. Pitts, J., & Lord, M. R. (2007). Existing buildings: It’s easier than you think to green the triple bottom line. 43. Porsche U , Köhler M. (2003). Life cycle costs of green roofs: A comparison of Germany, USA, and Brazil. Proceedings of the World Climate and Energy Event; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 44. Porteshawver, A. B. (2009). Green sports facilities: Why adopting new green-building policies will improve the environment and community. Marq. Sports L. Rev., 20, 241. 45. Rashid, M., Spreckelmeyer, K., & Angrisano, N. J. (2012). Green buildings, environmental awareness, and organizational image. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 14(1), 21-49. 46. Sahavirta H (2013). . .proud that my own library is such a responsible operator! In: Hauke P, Latimer K, Werner KU (eds) The Green Library. The Challenge of Environmental Sustainability =Die Grüne Bibliothek: Ökologische Nachhaltigkeit in Der Praxis. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Saur, pp. 317–332. 47. Sarkis, J., Meade, L. M., & Presley, A. R. (2012). Incorporating sustainability into contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 40-53. 48. Shahron, S. A., Abdullah, R., & Musa, S. (2020). A development of green building in Malaysia: A challenge to sports center. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(6), 11850-11860. 49. Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work. Indiana business review, 86(1), 4-8. 50. Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work. Indiana business review, 86(1), 4-8. 51. Umdu, D. Ç., Alakavuk, E., & Koyuncu, A. (2021, June). BREEAM Communities: Criteria Aim, Status, Strengths and Weaknesses. In 2021 International Conference on Digital Age & Technological Advances for Sustainable Development (ICDATA) (pp. 208-215). IEEE. 52. USGBC, U. (2009). Green building and LEED core concepts. United States Green Building Council (USGBC). 53. Wong, S. C., & Abe, N. (2014). Stakeholders' perspectives of a building environmental assessment method: The case of CASBEE. Building and Environment, 82, 502-516. 54. Yan, H., Shen, Q., Fan, L. C., Wang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions in building construction: A case study of One Peking in Hong Kong. Building and Environment, 45(4), 949-955. 55. Yu, W. D., Cheng, S. T., Ho, W. C., & Chang, Y. H. (2018). Measuring the Sustainability of construction projects throughout their lifecycle: A Taiwan lesson. Sustainability, 10(5), 1523. zh_TW
