臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來工程與人文、環境的衝突不斷發生，捷運新莊線機廠與樂生療養院爭地，引發工程與人文孰重的爭議，台北縣政府因強力拆除河川地原住民部落，抗爭畫面再現。歸納此類爭議，發現政府都是依個案處理，並未有一套解決機制。
本研究建立設計中工程與人文，首先回顧此類衝突的報導，了解爭議的起因與過程；因為此類議題整合屬於決策問題，文獻回顧決策理論，由於了解在議題形成階段不易達到共識，應以卡乃基模式為基礎，以結盟方式較能解決。接著建立機制，由於工程在可行性研究或規劃階段有時並不確定，設計階段才算真正進行，也編列執行經費，因此整合機制鎖定於工程生命週期的設計階段，結合這些議題較為具體。然後提出整合流程六步驟(I1-I6)及細部作業，搭配設計步驟構成整合機制。整合機制中規定業主、設計者、利害關係人，以及專家等形成組織、分擔責任及互動。
固然此等機制驗證有其困難，最後還是以案例嘗試說明機制的有效性。捷運與樂生院整合模擬整合機制，以工程會開始整合為界，為前期和後期套用整合機制，分別模擬整合及試評執行整合的評嚴謹度。前後期比較，發現成立整合小組對於整合是有顯著幫助，但未建立準則和善用評估工具加以輔助，否則整合機制的效果可發揮更大。
遵照整合機制提出之小組運作規則、成員互動及執行嚴謹，有助於政府掌握議題，以主動之態度面對，也提升各成員參與的積極度，盡早達成共識。藉由案例的對照，也說明機制的可行。

In recent years, the humanity issues, such as the preservation of cultural heritage, have become prominent and are required to be incorporated into planning and design of infrastructure. These additional considerations make design work and the process more complicated. However, few attempts have been made to provide a proactive solution. As a result, the owners and participants of construction projects are usually blamed for their passive attitude or ignorance.
This research proposes a mechanism to help the owners and designers integrate the humanity issues into the design process, communicate with stakeholders, and achieve consensus.
The case study method was used in this research. To begin with, the debates on the priorities between engineering and humanity objectives were reviewed. A case of preservation of Losheng sanatorium against the subway system depot location was used to understand the evolvement of this kind of dispute. Documents were collected and interviews conducted to analyze major causes of the dispute. Literature and theory concerning engineering design, decision making and cultural heritage were reviewed to build theoretical foundation. The critical successful factors from other successful integrated projects were also refered to. An integrated mechanism was established based on the reality and decision making theory.
The study results show that the integrated mechanism can effectively incorporate different issues and achieve consensus if followed rigorously. The process systematically examines the representativeness of stakeholders and experts, their participation, quality of supporting data, as well as alternative proposals and assessments. The mechanism provides a useful tool to the owners and designers to cope with the decision-making difficulties in such kind of disputes.

摘要 ii
Abstract iii
誌謝 iv
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的與範圍 2
1.3 研究方法與步驟 2
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1 個人決策 4
2.1.1 理性決策 4
2.1.2 受限理性 6
2.2 群體決策 7
2.2.1 卡內基模式 7
2.2.2 漸進決策模式 8
2.2.3 群體決策之優缺點 8
2.2.4 決策機制與成本 9
2.2.5 群體決策程序及評估因子 9
2.3 永續議題整合 10
2.3.1 環境影響評估機制 10
2.3.2 永續議題整合重點與原則 11
第三章 整合案例與關鍵因素 16
3.1 整合失敗案例 16
3.1.1 捷運工程與樂生人文爭議 16
3.1.2 對照各方論點 17
3.2 整合成功案例 20
3.2.1 公共藝術 20
3.2.2 公路融合生態、景觀 23
3.3 整合關鍵因素歸納 26
第四章　整合機制之建立 28
4.1 工程設計流程 28
4.1.1 初步設計 28
4.1.2 細部設計 28
4.2 設計流程加上整合 29
4.2.1 整合流程 29
4.2.2 整合機制的提出 30
4.2.3 對照決策模式 30
4.2.4 小組成員責任 32
4.3 成立整合小組 34
4.3.1 召集基本小組成員 34
4.3.2 設定初步對策與整合議題 34
4.3.3 判定整合層級 35
4.4 提出整合議題 35
4.4.1 召開公聽會納入民眾意見 36
4.4.2 納入利害關係人及其代表 37
4.4.3 建立整合小組共識 37
4.4.4 建立設計整合的目標 37
4.5 整合方案評估 38
4.5.1 訂出方案準則 38
4.5.2 方案評估審查 39
4.5.3 方案評估工具 40
4.6 澄清討論與結果審查 41
4.6.1 澄清討論 41
4.6.2 結果審查 42
4.7 整合執行嚴謹度 42
4.7.1 訴求 43
4.7.2 決策與執行 43
4.7.3 利害關係人 45
4.7.4 專家參與 46
4.7.5 整合嚴謹小結 46
第五章　整合模擬 48
5.1 案例前期整合模擬 48
5.1.1 前期過程紀事對照 48
5.1.2 試評前期整合嚴謹度 51
5.2 案例後期整合模擬 53
5.2.1 後期過程紀事對照 53
5.2.2 試評後期整合嚴謹度 54
5.3 前期與後期結果比較 56
第六章　結論與建議 58
6.1 結論 58
6.2 建議 59
6.3 後續研究 60
參考文獻 61
附錄 訪談記錄 64
紀錄1 「溪洲部落」參訪附錄 紀錄 64
紀錄2 「三鶯部落」參訪附錄 紀錄 65
紀錄3 「捷運工程與樂生人文整合」主辦機關訪談 66
紀錄4 「公路融合生態、景觀整合機制」設計者訪談(一) 70
紀錄5 「工程與人文整合-三鶯與溪洲部落」政府部門 訪談 74
紀錄6 「捷運工程與樂生人文整合」設計者訪談 76
紀錄7 「台南市區鐵路地下化計畫」社區公聽會觀察 80
紀錄8 「公路融合生態、景觀整合機制」設計者訪談(二) 82
紀錄9 「橋樑美學設計」設計工程師訪談 85
紀錄10 「台南市區鐵路地下化計畫」全市公聽會觀察 88

1.Capellini, M. A. R. (2008). “The Political Decision Process. ” Leadership and Management in Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.179-182.
2.Connor, M. O., and Spangenberg, J. H. (2008) “A methodology for CSR reporting: assuring a representative diversity of indicators across stakeholders, scales, sites and performance issues.” Journal of Cleaner Production,Vol. 16, pp.1399-1415.
3.Daft, R. (2007), Understanding the Theory and Design of Organizations, Thomson South-Westrn, USA.
4.Dym, C. L., and Little, P. (2004), Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, John Wiley, New York.
5.Ei-Rayes, K., and Kandil, A. (2005), “Time-Cost-Quality Trade-Off Analysis for Highway Construction. ”Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 477-486.
6.Ehrlenspiel, K., Kiewert, A., and Lindemann, U. (2007), Cost-Efficient Design, Springer Verlag, U.K.
7.Grosskurth, J., and Rotmans, J. (2005). “The SCENE Model: Getting a Grip on Sustainable Development in Policy Making.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 7, pp. 135-151.
8.Hutchings, D., Simpson, R., Stauffer R., and Wahl D. (2007).“Aesthetics, Death, and Landmark Structures: Approach for Values Clarification.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1-8.
9.Hazelrigg, G. A. (1998). “A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design,Vol.120, pp.653-658.
10.Junila, S., and Horvath, A. (2003). “Life-Cycle Environmental Effects of an Office Building.” Journal of infrastructure System, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 157-166.
11.Knight, P., and Jenkins, J. O. (2009). “Adopting and Applying Eco-design Techniques: A Perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 549-558.
12.Liu, Y., (2003). “Engineering aesthetics and aesthetic ergonomics: Theoretical foundations and a dual-process research methodology.” Ergonomics, Vol. 131, No.4, pp. 477-486.
13.Lee, N. (2006). “Bridging the Gap Between Theory and practice in Integrated Assessment.” Environmental impact Assessment Review, Vol. 26, pp. 57-78.
14.Office of bridge and structures (1995), Aesthetic guidelines for bridge design, Minnesota Department of Transportation.
15.Perry, C. R., Schexnayder, C. J., and Knutson, K. (2004). “Strategies for implementing aesthetic factors in product design.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, Vol. 4, No. 216, pp. 216-220.
16.Timmermans, D., and Vlek, C. (1996). “Effect on Decision Quality of Supporting Multi-attribute Evaluation in Group. ” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 158-170.
17.Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., and Ries, R. (2009). “Environmental Decision Making in Multi-stakeholder Contexts: Applicability of Life Cycle Thinking in Development Planning and Implementation.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 67-76.
18.Wiek, A., and Binder, C. (2005). “Solution Spaces for Decision-Making-A Sustainability Assessment Tool for City-regions.” Environmental Iimpact Assessment Review, Vol. 25, pp. 589-608.
19.Waage, S. A. (2007). “Re-considering Product Design: A practical ‘Road-map’ for integration of sustainability issues.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, pp. 638-649.
20.Yoshimura, M., and Yanagi, H. (2001). “Strategies for implementing aesthetic factors in product design.” International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 1031-1049.
21.中華民國環保法規資料中心 (民 92)，環境影響評估法，行政院環保署。
22.中央通訊社 http://www.cna.com.tw/。
23.北市政府文化局http://taipeipublicart.culture.gov.tw/tw/index.php。
24.台灣行政法學會 ( 2005)，行政法人與組織改造、聽證制度評析，元照出版。
25.台灣世曦工程顧問股份有限公司 (民 96)，公路融合生態、景觀、防災觀念之規劃、定線與評估研究-第一年期末報告，交通部公路總局委託研究。
26.行政院公共工程委員會 (民 94)，公共工程規劃設計服務廠商評選作業注意事項，http://www.pcc.gov.tw/upload/article/940720.pdf。
27.邱淑華 (民 95)，「公共藝術規劃與執行強化」，成功大學土木工程研究所，碩士論文。
28.徐世榮 (2001)，「以民眾觀點探討環境影響評估制度」，臺灣土地研究，第2卷，101-130頁。
29.捷運新莊機廠與樂生院舍保存案說明(民 98)，臺北市捷運局北工處提供。
30.黃詠光 (民 96)，「樂生故事-樂生拆遷抗爭中的故事、主體與抵抗政治」，台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所，碩士論文。
31.張行道等 (民 94)，「工程技術顧問業結合公共藝術、社區參與文化創意具體方案之研究」，行政院公共工程委員會委託研究，計畫編號 PCC94_企_6。
32.張行道(民 97)，民意論壇-三鶯爭議欠缺整合機制，聯合報，A15版，3月3日。
33.喻肇青、賴澤君 (2007)，樂生院保存技術的討論與評估過程說明，建築師雜誌，No. 393，94-103頁。
34.黎文龍 (2000)，工程設計與分析：創思設計分析與模擬，台灣東華書局。
35.劉銘龍 (民 95)，我國政策還評評估方法學之深化與改良，五南出版社。