跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.173.42.124) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/26 12:48
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:邱雙宇
研究生(外文):Ciou, Shuangyu
論文名稱:應用目標規劃於文化資產維護資源分配之研究 ─以台北市私有古蹟與歷史建築為例
論文名稱(外文):The Application of Goal Programming to Allocate Resources for Cultural Heritages: The Case of Privately-owned Heritages and Historic Buildings of Taipei City
指導教授:衛萬明衛萬明引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wey, Wannming
口試委員:林楨家李家儂衛萬明
口試委員(外文):Lin, JenjiaLee, JianungWey, Wannming
口試日期:2012-06-21
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:都市計劃研究所
學門:建築及都市規劃學門
學類:都市規劃學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:153
中文關鍵詞:文化資產歷史建築多準則決策目標規劃模糊分析網路程序法
外文關鍵詞:Cultural HeritageHistoric BuildingsMulti-Criteria Decision MakingGoal ProgrammingFuzzy Analytic Network Process
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:13
  • 點閱點閱:808
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:272
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
永續發展已成為先進國家共同的發展目標,而延續此永續發展之概念於建成環境的規劃設計上,除了發展先進的實體節能建材與設計外,對於富含人文意義之古蹟或歷史建築進行適當的保存維護,其不僅能增進環境效益與社區意識,更可藉此保存城市的歷史與記憶,讓下一代能窺見我們的過去,進而達到文化資產永續保存的目標。然而,目前國內許多被指定為古蹟或歷史建築之文化資產,其維護工作仍未完善,對於再利用之計畫與執行也始終尚未有突破性之規範,導致古蹟流於形式上的「保留」,卻沒有達到真正「保存」的意義。
同時,在都市成長及土地資源有限之壓力下,地方政府為了使土地資源更有效率的被利用,在對於文化資產之保存、再利用或拆除之決定時,將會面對多方利益關係者之不同意見與輿論壓力導致其在文化資產維護之優先性選擇上亦遭遇許多困境。過去對於文化資產維護之論述與再利用方案評選之研究僅止於評選出方案之優先順序,尚未進行評選後之資源分配,並應用於現實政策中。有鑑於此,本研究欲採用一整合性的研究方法,以解決古蹟與歷史建築在管理及維護上之資源分配時可能遇到的問題,並以台北市私有古蹟與歷史建築為例,進行實證研究與探討。
本研究期望透過文獻分析、專家問卷,並結合模糊理論、模糊分析網路程序法以及目標規劃等方法之應用,建構一個在有限資源的限制因素考量下,針對古蹟與歷史建築維護補助經費申請案之優先性進行評選與最佳資源分配之模式建立,從申請案件中評選出最佳的方案,並建立經費要求與目標設定,以多目標規劃考量都市發展下之各種限制因素,以求出最優先且可執行的方案,使文化資產的維護工作能適時適切地執行,避免資源的誤置,而導致資源浪費或績效不佳的窘境。
Proper maintenance and preservation of significant cultural heritages or historic buildings is necessary. It can not only enhance environmental benefits and a sense of community, but also preserve a city's history and people’s memory. It allows the next generation to be able to get a glimpse of our past, and achieve the goal of sustainable preserved cultural assets. However, the management of maintenance work has not been appropriate for many designated heritages or historic buildings so far. The planning and implementation of the reuse has yet to have a breakthrough specification. It leads the heritages to a mere formality of being “reserved”, in stead of the real meaning of “conservation”.
For the restoration and preservation of cultural heritage today, it is an important task because of its historical significance, symbolism, and economic benefits. Decision makers or executors while making decisions often encounter which heritage to prioritize to be restored within the limited budget. However, very few tools are available to determine appropriately restoration priorities for the diverse historical heritages, perhaps because of a lack of systematized decision-making aids. In the past, the discussions of management and maintenance towards cultural assets were limited to the selection of reuse alternatives, not the allocation of resources, and applied to real policies afterwards. In view of this, this research is going to adopt integrated research methods to solve problems that decision-makers might encounter when allocating resources in the management and maintenance of heritages and historic buildings.
The purpose of this study is to develop a sustainable decision making model for local governments to resolve these problems. We propose an alternative decision support model to prioritize restoration needs within the limited budgets. The model is constructed base on fuzzy Delphi, fuzzy analytic network process (FANP) and goal programming (GP) methods. In order to avoid misallocate resources, this research proposes a precise procedure that can take multi-stakeholders views, limit costs and resources into consideration. Also, the combination of many factors and goals has been taken into account to find the highest priority and executable results. To illustrate the application we propose in this research, nine cultural heritages in Taipei city has been used as an empirical study, and the results are analyzed to explain the model’s efficiency.
摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VI
表目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究範圍 3
第三節 研究方法 5
第四節 研究內容與流程 7
第二章 文獻回顧 10
第一節 文化資產之保存與管理維護探討 10
第二節 評估因子相關文獻與方案評估選擇方法之探討 22
第三節 多準則決策與多目標規劃之相關文獻探討 34
第四節 小結 37
第三章 研究方法 39
第一節 模糊德爾菲法 39
第二節 模糊分析網路程序法 43
第三節 零壹整數目標規劃法 48
第四節 研究方法模式架構 50
第五節 小結 51
第四章 實證研究與分析 52
第一節 實證案件介紹 52
第二節 評估因子初擬及篩選 59
第三節 實證案件之優先性評選 75
第四節 實證研究之選擇結果與分析 92
第五章 結論與建議 103
第一節 結論 103
第二節 建議 105
參考文獻 107
附錄一 模糊德爾菲專家問卷 112
附錄二 分析網路程序法專家問卷 122
附錄三 LINDO程式 146
附錄四 LINDO程式(情境假設一) 148
附錄五 LINDO程式(情境假設二) 150
中文文獻
1.毛犖、周世璋、李正庸、李東明、談宜芳、吳玫芳(2008)。歷史空間再利用與都市更新永續發展執行機制,第11 屆文化資產(古蹟、歷史建築、聚落與文化景觀)保存、再利用與保存科學國際研討會,論文集2:221-231,台灣:桃園。
2.台北市政府文化局網站,瀏覽日期2011/10/28,http://www.culture.gov.tw/。
3.行政院文化建設委員會著(2004),《2004 年文化白皮書》,台北:文建會,2004,pp.78-79。
4.吳綱立、郭幸萍、趙又嬋(2007)。歷史街區環境改善綜合性評估架構之研究—以台南市府中街歷史街區為例,中華民國建築學會「建築學報」,62: pp.1-22。
5.李乾朗(1997)。台北市西門紅樓調查研究,臺北市政府民政局,台北。
6.李智遠(2010)。文化全球化下都市空間的同質性-倫敦金絲雀碼頭的剖析,聯大學報,7(2): pp.125-140。
7.林會承(2006)。台灣新舊「文化資產保存法」的比較,《2006 年文化資產行政國際研討會》第二輯,頁1-14。
8.紀俊臣(2000)。台灣古蹟管理之課題與方法,中國地方自治,53(6): pp.19-30。
9.夏鑄九(1998)。台灣古蹟保存:一個批判性回顧,國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報,9: pp.1-9。
10.徐村和(1998)。模糊德爾菲層級分析法,模糊系統學刊,4: pp.59-72。
11.徐裕健(2005)。融合文化資產保存與民間參與公共建設結案報告,行政院公共工程委員會,台北。
12.高孔廉、張緯良(1993)。作業研究,五南圖書出版社,台北。
13.張家澤(1979),目標規劃,中興管理顧問公司,台北。
14.張勝添(2004)。古蹟再利用與文化創意產業之研究以淡水紅毛城為例,國立台灣體育大學體育研究所碩士論文。
15.張隆盛(1999)。邁向廿一世紀都市更新的趨勢,邁向廿一世紀都市更新研討會大會實錄,pp.22-31,台灣:台北。
16.許志義(1994)。多目標決策,五南圖書出版社,台北。
17.陳以超(1986)。文化資產之保存維護,行政院文化建設委員會,台北。
18.陳昭宏(2001)。亞太港埠競爭力與核心能力指標之研究。《運輸學刊》,13(1):pp.1-25。
19.傅朝卿(2002)。文化資產與永續經營-從「國際文化觀光憲章」談起,南台文化,2: pp.15-23。
20.傅朝卿(2005)。台南社區大學「世界文化遺產課程」講義。
21.曾國雄(2007)。「多評準決策理論與應用研究網站」結案報告,國科會社會科學研究中心。
22.黃協源(1999)。社會工作管理,揚智文化,台北市。
23.詹士樑、吳書萍(2003)。永續性社區發展之系統模擬-以平等里社區為例,都市與計劃,30 (1): pp.63-86。
24.廖世璋、錢學陶(2005)。古蹟保存的文化認同探討─以台北市為例,都市與計劃,29(3): pp.471-489。
25.廖慧萍(2003)。公有閒置空間再利用評估模式之研究,朝陽科技大學建築及都市設計研究所碩士論文。
26.潘璽(2000)。歷史建築再利用,文化視窗,24期,pp.52-59。
27.鄭滄濱(1996)。軟體組織提升人員能力之成熟度模糊評估模式,台灣科技大學資訊管理系碩士論文。
28.薛琴(2001)。歷史建築保存的法令機制,歷史建築國際學術研討會,pp.53-58。
29.蘇姵菁(2006)。日據時期古蹟保存與再利用研究─以桃園神社處理的方式為例,台北教育大學社會科教育學系碩士論文。
英文文獻
1.Architectural Institute of Japan. (2007). Guidelines for building assessment, preservation and utilization. Architectural Institute of Japan.
2.Bedate, A., Herrero, L. C. & Sanz, J. Á. (2004). Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: application to four case studies in Spain. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 5(1):101-111.
3.Boran, S. & Goztepe, K. (2010). Development of a fuzzy decision support system for commodity acquisition using fuzzy analytic network process. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3):1939-1945.
4.Bottero, M., Comino, E. & Riggio, V. (2011). Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Analytic Network Process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(10):1211-1224.
5.Bowitz, E. & Ibenholt, K. (2009). Economic impacts of cultural heritage – Research and perspectives. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10(1):1-8.
6.Chan, S. L. & Huang, S. L. (2004). A system approach for the development of a sustainable community-the application of the sensitivity model(SM). Journal of Environmental Management, 72(3):133-147.
7.Chang, I. S., Tsujimura, Y., Gen, M. & Tozawa, T. (1995).An efficient approach for large scale project planning based on fuzzy Delphi method.Fuzzy Sets and Systems,76(3): 277-288.
8.Chen, C. S. & Liu, Y. C. (2007). A methodology for evaluation and classification of rock mass quality on tunnel engineering. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 22: 377-387.
9.Cooper, W.W., Charnes, A. & Ferguson, R.O. (1955). Optimal estimation of executivecompensation by linear programming, Management Science, 1(2):138-151.
10.Dutta, M. & Husain, Z. (2009). An application of Multicriteria Decision Making to built heritage. The case of Calcutta. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 10(2):237-243.
11.Graham, B., Regehr G. & Wright, J.G. (2003). Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(12):1150-1156.
12.Guneri, A.F., Cengiz, M. & Seker, S. (2009).A fuzzy ANP approach to shipyard location selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4):7992-7999.
13.Hassler, U. & Kohler, N. (2001). Cultural and Environmental Long-term Strategies for the Built Environment, Berlin: Dahlem Workshop Report, 86:235-248.
14.Hsu, Y. L., Lee, C. H., & Kreng, V. B. (2010). The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection.Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1): 419-425.
15.Hung, M. L., Ma, H. W. & Yang, W. F. (2007). A novel sustainable decision making model for municipal solid waste management. Waste Management, 27(2):209-219.
16.Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, T., Tamizawa, G., Totsuta, R., & H., Mieno. (1993). The Max-Min Delphi Method and Fuzzy Delphi Method Via Fuzzy Integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55(3): 241-253.
17.Jones, R. (2009). Heritage and Culture. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 98-103.
18.KA. (2002). Task 3.1 - Draft EA procedure applicable to historical areas active conservation. Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development,SUIT (Sustainable development of Urban historical areas through an active Integration within Towns) contract number : EVK4-CT-2000-00017 SUIT.
19.Kim, C. J., Yoo, W. S., Lee, U. K., Song, K. J., Kang, K. I., & Cho, H. (2010). An experience curve-based decision support model for prioritizing restoration needs of cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(4):430-437.
20.Laarhoven, P. J. M., Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11:229–241.
21.Lee, J. W. & Kim, S. H. (2000). Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection. Computers & Operations Research, 27(4):367-382.
22.Lee, J. W. & Kim, S. H. (2001). An Integrated Approach for Interdependent Information System Project Selection. International Journal of Project Management, 19:111-118.
23.Levary, R.R., Wan, K. (1998). A simulation approach for handling uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operations Research, 106:116–122.
24.Mukherjee, K. & Bera A. (1995). Application of goal programming in project selection decision - A case study from the Indian Coal mining industry. European Journal of Operational Research, 82(1):18-25.
25.Niknami, K.A. (2005). Iran: archaeological heritage in crisis. Developing an effective management system for archaeology. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 6(4):345-350.
26.ODPM, (2004). Government Response to ODPM Housing, Planning Local Government and the Regions Committee Report on the Role of Historic Buildings in Urban Regeneration. ODPM
27.PICTURE (Pro-active management of the Impact of Cultural Tourism upon Urban Resources and Economies).Web site accessed at http://www.pictureproject.com (last accessed in June 2011/9/14).
28.Promentilla, M. A. B., Furuichi T., Ishii K. & Tanikawa, N. (2008). A fuzzy analytic network process for multi-criteria evaluation of contaminated site remedial countermeasures. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(3): 479-495.
29.Reza, K., Hossein, A. & Yvon, G. (1988). An integrated approach to project evaluation andselection, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 35(4):265-270.
30.Ribeiro, R.A. (1996). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: A review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78:155–181.
31.Ruijgrok, E.C.M. (2006). The three economic values of cultural heritage: a case study in the Netherlands, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 7:206-213.
32.Ruoning, X., Xiaoyan, Z. (1992). Extensions of the analytic hierarchy process in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 52:251–257.
33.Saaty, T.L. & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks, European Journal of Operational Reasearch.
34.Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, New York: MeGraw-Hill.
35.Saaty, T.L. (1996). The analytic network process, RWS Publications.
36.Sevkli, M., Oztekin, A., Uysal, O., Torlak, G., Turkyilmaz, A. & Delen, D. (2011). Development of a Fuzzy ANP Based SWOT Analysis for the Airline Industry in Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1):14-24.
37.Tiesdell, S. (1995). Tensions between revitalization and conservation. Cities, 12(4):231-241.
38.Tuan, T. H. & Navrud, S. (2008). Capturing the benefits of preserving cultural heritage. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9(3):326-337.
39.Tuzkaya, U. R. & Önüt, S. (2008). A fuzzy analytic network process based approach to transportation-mode selection between Turkey and Germany: A case study.Information Sciences, 178(15):3133-3146.
40.Tweed, C. & Sutherland, M. (2007). Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development.Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(1):62-69.
41.Wang, H. J. & Zeng, Z. T. (2009). A multi-objective decision-making process for reuse selection of historic buildings. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2):1241-1249.
42.Wey, W. M. & Wu, K. Y. (2006). Using ANP priorities with goal programming in resource allocation in transportation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8):985-1000.
43.Ye, F. & Li, Y. N. (2009). Group multi-attribute decision model to partner selection in the formation of virtual enterprise under incomplete information. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5):9350-9357.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top