跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.95.131.146) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/29 00:55
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

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:卓瑜玉
研究生(外文):Yu-Yu Chuo
論文名稱:建立臺灣褐地再開發流程及排序評估工具
論文名稱(外文):Establish the Redevelopment Procedure and Priority Assessment of Brownfield in Taiwan
指導教授:馬鴻文馬鴻文引用關係
口試委員:李公哲吳先琪
口試日期:2014-06-24
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:環境工程學研究所
學門:工程學門
學類:環境工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:118
中文關鍵詞:再開發程序排序整治目標污染場址褐地管理
外文關鍵詞:Brownfield managementRedevelop processPriority assessmentRisk-based remediation goalContaminated sites
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:393
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
台灣地狹人稠,卻擁有許多受到污染的土地。除去因污染程度較輕而較易整治的農地外,其他類型污染控制場址共220筆,整治場址共66筆,總面積約640萬平方公尺,但目前控制與整治場址解除列管率僅達29.5%及6%,原因在於整治目標過於嚴格且沒有財政誘因,使整治成本過高及拉長整治時程,造成資金不願投入。而這些污染場址的買賣及再開發皆受到土污法限制,使土地再利用面臨困境。其不僅危害場址附近居民健康,也造成許多土地廢棄閒置,嚴重浪費土地資源。
事實上,許多國家也同樣面臨土地廢棄,污染等問題。為了達到土地永續使用,保護居民及環境,這些土地的再利用成為各國關注議題,此亦可稱之為褐地再開發。雖然褐地定義在各組織及國家中皆略有不同,但其共通點為已經開發過的土地,有再開發的可能性,卻因其有污染或可能存在污染需要介入才可重新使用。褐地管理在國外歷經數十年時間,發展出完整管理系統及流程,並為加速整治,以風險訂定整治目標及提出財政補助,同時,許多學者也提出設計排序再開發順序的工具,以合理的分配政府資源及經費,使褐地可以有效率的被開發。因此本研究回顧國內現況及國外文獻後,發現為了讓台灣污染場址得以加速解除列管並再使用,需要引入國外褐地概念,以建立污染土地再使用觀念。
本研究首先建立褐地定義為”已開發過且污染輕微,目前為廢棄或閒置狀態,有再開發潛力之污染場址”,並設計再開發的評估流程,將所有列為污染場址之土地遵循環保署訂定的初步評估辦法將污染場址分為控制場址及整治場址,而控制場址經過褐地判別後,再以致癌及非致癌風險值10-6、1推導場址四種不同土地用途之整治目標,並以本研究設計之褐地再開發排序指標工具建立土地再開發順序,並評估未來適合之土地利用選擇,此項工具從文獻匯整各交集指標再進行調整,使之可評估環境、經濟、社會三層面考量,並可保護居民健康安全。而後再加入財政補助,使所有進入流程評估之污染場址可以經由合適的判斷做合適的行動。案例研究以五塊土地進行評估,五塊土地兩塊位於北部,兩塊於中部,最後一塊於南部,經判別後皆屬於褐地,再推估五者各土地用途整治目標後,以指標工具評估再開發順序及適合之土地用途,可得知位於南部的土地及使污染程度高,但因其開發可帶來之效益大,因此為第一優先順序,不僅可促進污染場址再開發,更可以保護居民健康,使土地永續使用。


Taiwan is a small but densely island. As a result, the land resources are very valuable and should be properly managed. However, the number of the contaminant sites in Taiwan keeps growing up every year because of the low delisted rate. There are only 29.5% and 6% of contaminated control sites and contaminated remediation sites have been delisted, which is because that the remediation goal are too strict and there are no finances incentive for the developers. As a result, the remediation cost is too high for the developers to afford. Those pollution sites are limited by the law and cannot be sold or developed, which not only makes the public health be threatened but also wastes the land resources.
This situation not just happens in Taiwan. Many countries have faced the same problem. As to achieving sustainable land using, redeveloping those sites become one of the most emphasis issue, which can also be called brownfield redevelopment. Brownfield management has been developed for decades of years. Although the definition of brownfield are varied from country to country and different organizations, they have something in common, which is that they have the ability to be reused but need intervention for their contamination or potential contamination. In order to expedite the remediation and redevelopment of brownfields, flexible remediation level and financial incentive have been built. In addition, some studies also said that a priority assessment is necessary for using funds and resources efficiency. Therefore, this study is aim to introduce brownfield management to Taiwan and reuse the contaminated lands.
First, the study establishes brownfield definition as “have been developed, are not in use or be abandoned currently, and have the potential to be redeveloped.” Than the study establishes a redevelop process, which starts from using the method in Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act to divided control sites and remediation sites. Next, control sites will be divided into brownfield and non-brownfields. The sites which be categorized as brownfield will then be calculated their remediation goals in four different land-use types, which are industrial, commercial, green space and residential by using health risk assessment method. The remediation goals based on the health risk assessment can lower the remediation cost because they will higher than the original one. After calculates four remediation level, the sites will be evaluated by redevelopment assessment, which using indicators and weighting to decide the priority and future land use of the sites.
The case study in this study uses five sites to evaluate, and the result shows that the sites which have good location and high pollution will be developed first, and the one who has worst location will be the last. Because the score and the weighting in the redevelopment assessment are designed in own assumption, they should be redesigned by expert conference or AHP survey to avoid subjectivity. Furthermore, the government should also draw up the finance incentive policy and popularize environmental liability insurance as to encouraging developers devoted into reusing the contaminated sites in Taiwan.


口試委員會審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
Absract v
目錄 vii
表目錄 ix
圖目錄 xi
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究目的 2
1.3 研究架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 5
2.1 台灣污染場址管理困境 5
2.1.1 污染場址現況 5
2.1.2 檢討土壤及地下水污染整治法及相關污染場址管理研究 8
2.2 褐地於污染土地上之管理 13
2.2.1 褐地緣起及定義 13
2.2.2 褐地發展原則及價值 16
2.2.3 褐地發展阻礙及因應 21
2.2.4 褐地發展成效 28
2.3 褐地判別及再開發流程 30
2.4 褐地評估工具 42
2.4.1 分類工具 43
2.4.2 排序工具 46
2.4.3 土地利用規畫工具 57
2.4.4 其他評估工具 63
第三章 研究方法 66
3.1 建立褐地定義及再開發流程 67
3.1.1 褐地定義及法規位置 67
3.1.2 褐地再開發流程 68
3.2 控制及整治場址判定 69
3.3 褐地判別及風險值回推整治目標 73
3.4 再開發順序及未來土地再利用類型評估 85
3.4.1 指標設計 85
3.4.2 指標級距 89
3.4.3 指標權重 92
第四章 案例分析 97
4.1 場址介紹 97
4.2 評估結果 99
第五章 結論與建議 111
第六章 參考文獻 113



徐世榮,2004,褐地政策之比較研究-美國及台灣經驗的審視,中華民國都市計劃學會。
許育誠,2002,棕地再發展之研究 都市計劃內工業區更新之新方向,台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
楊逸萍,2004,從國外棕地再發展經驗探討六堵工業區未來發展方向之研究,國立成功大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
財團法人中興工程顧問社,2012,101 年度污染土地再利用政策規劃、執行架構、驗證與資訊平台建置計畫。
陳怡君,2013,應用風險地圖探討污染土地再生管理策略,國立台灣大學環境工程學研究所博士論文。
吳文彥,2008,永續發展概念的都市計畫通盤檢討的架構
邱建頴,2012,促進污染土地再利用之探討.國立政治大學地政學系碩士論文
徐鈺婷,2012,以污染整治觀點探討受污染土地價值評定之研究. 逢甲大學土地管理學系碩士論文
陳慎德,陳莉容,運用風險評估輔助污染整治決策,2002,台灣土壤及地下水環境保護協會簡訊
洪永泰, 1995.綜合性績效指標權數之探討-典型相關的應用實例,研考雙月刊18(5): 42-48
環保署土壤及地下水污染整治網,http://sgw.epa.gov.tw/public/Default.aspx
行政院環境保護署,2006,土壤及地下水污染場址健康風險評估評析方法及撰寫指引
香港特別行政區政府,2007,按風險釐定的土地污染整治標準
曾憲嫻,呂偉婷,倪佩君, 2006.舊市中心再生計畫之研究──以台南市為例
About Remediation (AR), 2006. Brownfields Redevelopment Toolbox.
Adams, D., De Sousa, C., Tiesdell, S., 2010. Brownfield Development: A Comparison of North American and British Approaches. Urban Studies.
Alberini, A., Longo, A., Tonin, S., Trombetta, F., Turvani, M., 2004. The Role of Liability, Regulation and Economic Incentives in Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment: Evidence from Surveys of Developers. Regional Science and Urban Economics 35 (2005) 327–351
Alker, S., Joy, V., Roberts, P., Smith, N., 2000. The definition of brownfield. Journal of environmental Planning and Management 43 (1), 49–69.
Beames, A., Broekx, S., Lookman, R., Touchant, K., Seuntjens, P., 2014. Sustainability appraisal tools for soil and groundwater remediation: How is the choice of remediation alternative influenced by different sets of sustainability indicators and tool structures? Science of the Total Environment 470–471: 954–966
BMBF, 2010. Assessment of the sustainability potential of brownfield sites.
British Columbia, 2008. The Basics of Brownfield Redevelopment: A Guide for Local Governments in British Columbia.
Burnham-Howard, Corey E., 2004, Building on Brownfields:Predicted effect of new liability protections for prospective purchasers and an exploration of other redevelopment incentives, Journal of professional issues in enginnering education and practice, July.
CABERNET, 2007, The Scale and Nature of European Brownfields.
California Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Department of Toxic Substances Control Brownfield Remediation Program.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1992. National Classification System for Contaminated Sites.
Chen, Y., Hipel, Keith W., Kilgour, D. Marc., Zhu, Y., 2009. A strategic classification support system for brownfield redevelopment. Environmental Modelling & Software 24(5), 647–654.
Chen, Y., Hipel, Keith W., Kilgour, Witmer, J.A. 2007. Strategic Decision Support for Brownfield Redevelopment. IEEE.
Cheng, F., Geertman, S., Kuffer, M., Zha, Q. 2011. An integrative methodology to improve brownfield redevelopment planning in Chinese cities: A case study of Futian, Shenzhen.
CLARINET, 2002. Brownfields and redevelopment of urban areas, Umweltbundesamt Austria, Irene Edelgaard, Danish Environment Protection Agency.
COBRAMAN, 2009. Report about Concepts and Tools for Brownfield Redevelopment Activities
Colorado Department, 2006. Site Prioritization Criteria and Worksheets.
Couch, C., 1990. Urban Renewal Theory and Practice. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Dasgupta, S., Tam, E.K.L., 2009. A Comprehensive Review of Existing Classification Systems of Brownfield Sites. Environmental Practice 11 (4): 285-300.
De Sousa, C., 2001. Contaminated sites: The Canadian situation in an international context. Journal of Environmental Management 62(2):131-154
ERGEN, 2013. A Newe Methodology Proposal for Urban Regeneration of Brownfield Areas; Case Study of Zonguldak City, Turkey.
European Commission, 2008. Working for the Regions: EU Regional Policy 2007-2013.
GSG Consultants, Inc., 2005. Smart growth for brownfields redevelopment.
Khan, Faisal I., Husain, T., Hejazi, R., 2004. An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. Journal of Environmental Management , 71, 95–122.
Lichfield, D., 1992. Urban Regeneration for the 1990s, London Planning Advisory Committee, London.
McCarthy, L., 2001. Brownfield redevelpment: A Resource Guide for Toledo and Other Ohio Governments, Developers, and Communities. The University of Toledo.
Morio, M., Schädler, S., Finkel, M., 2012. Applying a multi-criteria genetic algorithm framework for brownfield reuse optimization: Improving redevelopment options based on stakeholder preferences. J Environ Manage. 130:331-46.
NRTEE. 2003. Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future: A National Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy for Canada.
NRTEE. 1997. Improving Site Specific Data on the Environmental Condition of Land.
Otsuka, N., Dixon, T., Abe, H., 2013. Stock measurement and regeneration policy approaches to ‘hardcore’brownfield sites: England and Japan compared. Land Use Policy,33, 36–41.
Popescu G., Pătrăşcoiu R., 2012. Brownfield sites–between abandonment and redevelopment case study: Craivoa City, Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography ,6.1, 91-97.
RESCUE, 2004. Sustainable Land Use and Urban Design on Brownfield Sites.
Schädler, S., Morio, M., Bartke, S., Finkel, M., 2012. Integrated planning and spatial evaluation of megasite remediation and reuse options. J Contam Hydrol. 127(1-4): 88-100.
Schädler, S., Morio, M., Bartke, S., Rohr-Zänker, R., Finkel, M., 2010. Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model. J Environ Manage. 920(3): 827-37.
Sorvari, J., Seppälä, J., 2010. A decision support tool to prioritize risk management options for contaminated sites. Science of the Total Environment 408: 1786–1799
Thomas, Michael R., 2002. A weighted, multi-attribute, site prioritization and selection process for brownfield redevelopment. Environmental Practice 4:95-106
USEPA, 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I –Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals)
USEPA, 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide
USEPA, 2002. The New Brownfields Law., US Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
USEPA, 2003. Multimedia, multi-pathway, multi-receptor exposure and risk assessment (3MRA).
USEPA, 2005. Road map to understanding innovative technology options for brownfields investigation and cleanup, Fourth Edition.
USEPA, 2009. The EPA Brownfields Programs Produces Widespread Environmental and Economic Benefits
USEPA, 2010. An Omaha Community Builds Salvation on a Former Brownfield
USEPA, 2013. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table
USEPA, 2013. The EPA Brownfields Programs Produces Widespread Environmental and Economic Benefits.
USEPA, 2006. Anatomy of Brownfi elds Redevelopment
USEPA. 1990. The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Background Information.
USEPA. 2012. EVALUATION OF THE BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM.
Wedding, G.C., Crawford-Brown D., 2007. Measuring site-level success in brownfield redevelopments: A focus on sustainability and green building. Environmental Management, 85, 483-495.
World Bank, 2010. The management of brownfields redevelopment: A guidance note, Europe and Central Asia Region Sustainable Development Department


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top