跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.213.60.33) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/17 03:12
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:許家瑞
研究生(外文):HSU, CHIA-JUI
論文名稱:以生命週期評估探討城市交通替代方案之環境衝擊--以台北市共享單車為例
論文名稱(外文):Using LCA to Assess the Environmental Impact of Unban Transpotation Alternatives- A Case of Youbike of Taipei City
指導教授:胡憲倫胡憲倫引用關係
指導教授(外文):HU, ALLEN H.
口試委員:胡憲倫李育明郭建宏
口試委員(外文):HU, ALLEN H.LI, YU-MINGKUO, CHIEN-HUNG
口試日期:2023-07-11
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北科技大學
系所名稱:環境工程與管理研究所
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:2023
畢業學年度:111
語文別:中文
論文頁數:62
中文關鍵詞:生命週期評估碳足跡共享單車交通替代效益
外文關鍵詞:Life cycle assessmentCarbon FootprintBike-SharingYouBike
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:239
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:69
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
對於碳排放來說,運輸行業佔了很大一部份,因此共享單車的出現,就成為了一個解決環境問題的方法,本研究使用生命週期評估方法,分析出2022年臺北市的YouBike2.0在使用階段的環境衝擊影響和碳排放,並和其他交通方式做比較,以提供運輸產業之參考依據。
本研究使用 SimaPro 9.4.0.1作為生命週期評估軟體,並使用 ReCiPe(H) 方法學,分析中點特徵化影響和終點損害值,再利用 IPCC 2021 GWP 100 v1.01 方法學計算碳排放,並進行問卷調查,了解用戶的習慣,最後再以情境假設來模擬實際情況,情境一是以2022年臺北市交通局的資料,臺北市交通民意調查報告作為參考,民眾通勤的交通方式選擇公車佔了13%,機車佔了35%,汽車佔了18%,捷運佔了26%,最後是走路佔了8%,情境二是以本研究做的問卷調查作為參考,選擇公車佔了33%,機車佔了33%,汽車佔了0%,捷運佔了13%,最後是走路佔了21%,情境三的部分是以2022年臺北市交通局的資料,選擇公車佔了29%,機車佔了24%,汽車佔了12%,捷運佔了18%,最後是走路佔了17%,再根據通勤距離不同做為參考。
由分析結果得知每一個人行進一公里不同交通方式之環境損害值,共享單車約為9.46E-04 mPt、公車約為2.48E-03 mPt、汽車約為4.16E-03 mPt 、機車約為3.01E-03 mPt和捷運約為2.12E-03 mPt。另外,在三項損害類別中,五種交通方式皆是以人類健康為最大的損害類別佔比。
本研究透過三個情境假設來模擬共享單車的交通替代,以計算共享單車所帶來的減碳效益和環境衝擊的減緩,情境一到三所帶來的減碳效益依序約為4.76E+06 kgCO₂e、1.26E+06 kgCO₂e、2.66E+06 kgCO₂e。研究結果表示,在使用階段,共享單車的碳排放是最低的,在人體健康和生態系統的衝擊也最低,環境損害值只有在資源耗竭方面比捷運高,因此如果要讓共享單車在各方面都比其他交通對環境更友善,在腳踏車調度上就需要去做點改善,像是優化調度路線或是調度工具的替換,也可以推出藉由使用者去減少需要調度的行為。

For carbon emissions, the transportation industry accounts for a significant portion. Therefore, the emergence of shared bicycles has become a solution to environmental issues. This study utilizes a life cycle assessment method to analyze the environmental impact and carbon emissions during the usage phase of YouBike 2.0 in Taipei City in 2022. It compares these findings with other transportation modes to provide a reference for the transportation industry.
The study uses SimaPro 9.4.0.2 as the life cycle assessment software and employs the ReCiPe (H) methodology to analyze midpoint characterization factors and endpoint damage values. Carbon emissions are calculated using the IPCC 2021 GWP 100 v1.01 methodology. A questionnaire survey is conducted to understand user habits. Finally, simulation scenarios are used to simulate real-life situations. Scenario one refers to data from the Taipei City Transportation Department and the Taipei City Traffic Public Opinion Survey Report in 2022, where public bus transportation accounts for 13%, motorcycles account for 35%, cars account for 18%, metro accounts for 26%, and walking accounts for 8%. Scenario two is based on the questionnaire survey conducted in this study, where public bus transportation accounts for 33%, motorcycles account for 33%, cars account for 0%, metro accounts for 13%, and walking accounts for 21%. In scenario three, public bus transportation accounts for 29%, motorcycles account for 24%, cars account for 12%, metro accounts for 18%, and walking accounts for 17%, based on data from the Taipei City Transportation Department in 2022. These scenarios also consider different commuting distances.
The analysis reveals the environmental damage values per kilometer for different transportation modes. For shared bicycles, it is approximately 9.46E-04 mPt, for buses it is about 2.48E-03 mPt, for cars it is around 4.16E-03 mPt, for motorcycles it is approximately 3.01E-03 mPt, and for the metro, it is about 2.12E-03 mPt. Additionally, among the three damage categories, all five transportation modes have human health as the most significant proportion of damage.
This study uses three scenario assumptions to simulate the transportation substitution effect of shared bicycles and calculate the carbon reduction benefits and mitigation of environmental impacts brought about by shared bicycles. The carbon reduction benefits for scenarios one to three are approximately 4.76E+06 kgCO₂e, 1.26E+06 kgCO₂e, and 2.66E+06 kgCO₂e, respectively.
The research results indicate that during the usage phase, shared bicycles have the lowest carbon emissions and the lowest impacts on human health and ecosystems. The environmental damage value is only higher than the metro in terms of resource depletion. Therefore, if shared bicycles are to be more environmentally friendly in all aspects compared to other transportation modes, improvements need to be made in bicycle dispatching, such as optimizing dispatch routes or replacing dispatching tools. Encouraging users to reduce the need for dispatching actions can also be considered.

目錄
摘要..............i
ABSTRACT..............iii
誌謝..............v
目錄..............vi
表目錄..............viii
圖目錄..............ix
第一章 緒論..............1
1.1 研究背景..............1
1.2 研究動機與目的..............3
1.3 研究架構..............4
第二章 文獻回顧..............6
2.1 城市交通對環境影響..............6
2.2 共享單車之發展..............8
2.2.1 國外共享單車之演進..............8
2.2.2 國內共享單車之介紹..............10
2.3 共享單車的LCA及環境衝擊及效益相關研究..............14
2.4 生命週期評估介紹..............16
2.5 碳足跡..............18
第三章 研究方法..............21
3.1 研究流程..............21
3.2 研究標的之生命週期評估..............23
3.2.1 研究標的介紹..............23
3.2.2 範疇邊界設定..............23
3.2.3 盤查項目..............26
3.2.4 環境衝擊評估方法..............27
3.3 碳足跡評估方法..............30
3.4 問卷調查..............30
3.4.1 問卷設計..............30
3.4.2 問卷發放對象..............30
3.4.3 問卷統計..............30
3.5 數據整理..............31
3.6 情境假設..............31
3.7 研究限制及假設..............32
第四章 結果與討論..............33
4.1 環境衝擊計算結果..............33
4.1.1 共享單車服務之環境衝擊..............33
4.2 碳足跡計算結果..............39
4.3 Youbike2.0資料數據整理..............40
4.4 情境假設結果..............43
4.4.1 情境一計算..............45
4.4.2 情境二計算..............47
4.4.3 情境三計算..............49
4.5 討論..............51
4.5.1 環境衝擊計算結果討論..............51
4.5.2 碳足跡計算結果討論..............51
4.5.3 YouBike2.0資料整理討論..............51
4.5.4 情境假設結果討論..............51
4.5.5 小結..............53
第五章 結論與建議..............54
5.1 結論..............54
5.2 建議..............55
參考文獻..............56
附錄..............61
A. 附錄A 本研究之問卷..............62


參考文獻
英文文獻
1.Bortoli, A. D. “Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 93, 2021.
2.Mao, G. and Hou, T. and Liu, X. and Zuo, J. and Kiyawa, A. H. I. and Shi, P. and Sandhu, S. “How can bicycle-sharing have a sustainable future? A research based on life cycle assessment,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 282, 2021.
3.Chan, Y. and Zhang, Y. and Coffman, D. M. and Mi, Z. “An environmental benefit analysis of bike sharing in New York City,” Cities, Vol. 121, 2022.
4.Almeida, L. D. and Rye, T. and Pomponi, F. “Emissions assessment of bike sharing schemes: The case of Just Eat Cycles in Edinburgh, UK,” Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 71, 2021.
5.Liu, Y. and Tian, Z. and Pan, B. and Zhang, W. and Liu, Y. and Tian, L. “A hybrid big-data-based and tolerance-based method to estimate environmental benefits of electric bike sharing,” Applied Energy, Vol. 315, 2022.
6.Zhang, L. and Zhang, J. and Duan, Z. Y. and Bryde, D. “Sustainable bike-sharing systems: characteristics and commonalities across cases in urban China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 97, 2015 , Pages 124-133.
7.Morton, C. “Appraising the market for bicycle sharing schemes: Perceived service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural intention in London,” Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol. 6 , Issue 1, March 2018, Pages 102-111.
8.Zheng, F. and Gu, F. and Zhang, W. and Guo, J. “Is Bicycle Sharing an Environmental Practice? Evidence from a Life Cycle Assessment Based on Behavioral Surveys,” Sustainability,2019.
9.Saltykova, K. and Ma, X. and Yao, L. and Kong, H. “Environmental impact assessment of bike-sharing considering the modal shift from public transit,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol.105, 2022.
10.Coelho, M. C. and Almeida, D. “Cycling Mobility – A Life Cycle Assessment Based Approach,” Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 10, 015, Pages 443-451.
11.Luo, H. and Kou, Z. and Zhao, F. and Cai, H. “Comparative life cycle assessment of station-based and dock-less bike sharing systems,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 146, 2019, Pages 180-189.
12.Bahmankhah, B. and Coelho, M. C. “Multi-objective optimization for short distance trips in an urban area: choosing between motor vehicle or cycling mobility for a safe, smooth and less polluted route,” Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 27, 2017, Pages 428-435.
13.Zhou, J. and Guo, Y. and Sun, J. and Yu, E. and Wang, R. “Review of bike-sharing system studies using bibliometrics method,” Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), Volume 9, Issue 4, August 2022, Pages 608-630.
14.Mostafaei, H. and Keshavarz, Z. and Rostampour, M. A. and Mos, D. “Sustainability Evaluation of a Concrete Gravity Dam: Life Cycle Assessment, Carbon Footprint Analysis, and Life Cycle Costing,” Structures, Volume 53, July 2023, Pages 279-295.
15.Zhang, Y. and Mi, Z. “Environmental benefits of bike sharing: A big data-based analysis,” Applied Energy, Volume 220, 15 June 2018, Pages 296-301.
16.Eern, E. and Uz, V. E. “A review on bike-sharing: The factors affecting bike-sharing demand,” Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 54, March 2020, 101882.
17.Kou, Z. and Cai, H. “Understanding bike sharing travel patterns: An analysis of trip data from eight cities,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Volume 515, 1 February 2019, Pages 785-797.
18.Zhang, Y. and Brussel, M.J.G. and Thomas, T. and Maarseveen, M.F.A.M. “Mining bike-sharing travel behavior data: An investigation into trip chains and transition activities,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Volume 69, May 2018, Pages 39-50.
19.Leister, E. H. and Vairo, N. and Sims, D. and Bopp, M. “Understanding bike share reach, use, access and function: An exploratory study,” Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 43, November 2018, Pages 191-196.
20.Chen, J. and Zhou, D. and Zhao, Y. and Wu, B and Wu, T. “Life cycle carbon dioxide emissions of bike sharing in China: Production, operation, and recycling,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 162, November 2020, 105011.
21.Agyekum, E. O. and Fortuin, K. P. J. and Harst, E. V. D. “Environmental and social life cycle assessment of bamboo bicycle frames made in Ghana,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 143, 1 February 2017, Pages 1069-1080.
22.Liu, Y. and Szeto, W. Y. and Ho, S. C. “A static free-floating bike repositioning problem with multiple heterogeneous vehicles, multiple depots, and multiple visits,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Volume 92, July 2018, Pages 208-242.
23.Maioli, H. C. and Carvalho, R. C. and Medeiros, D. D. “SERVBIKE: Riding customer satisfaction of bicycle sharing service,” Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 50, October 2019, 101680.
24.Haider, Z. and Nikolaev, A. and Kang, J. E. and Kwon C. “Inventory rebalancing through pricing in public bike sharing systems,” European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 270, Issue 1, 1 October 2018, Pages 103-117.
25.Frade, I. and Ribeiro, A. “Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 82, December 2015, Pages 216-227.
26.Caggiani, L. and Camporeale, R. and Marinelli, M. and Ottomanelli, M. “User satisfaction based model for resource allocation in bike-sharing systems,” Transport Policy, Volume 80, August 2019, Pages 117-126.
27.Gu, T. and Kim, I. and Currie, G. “To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 119, January 2019, Pages 122-147.
28.Heinen, E. and Kamruzzaman, M. and Turrell, G. “The public bicycle-sharing scheme in Brisbane, Australia: Evaluating the influence of its introduction on changes in time spent cycling amongst a middle- and older-age population,” Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 10, September 2018, Pages 56-73.


中文文獻
1.楊佳醫,「自行車之生命週期評估之研究」,碩士論文,朝陽科技大學環境工程與管理系,(2015)。
2.黃湘芸,「都市公共自行車系統使用行為特性與環境認知之研究-以臺北市大安區為例」,碩士論文,建築與都市設計研究所,(2014)。
3.楊育菁,「公共自行車租借使用之環境效益與社會影響評估」,碩士論文,自然資源與環境管理研究所,(2016)。
4.梁慈旭,「公共自行車租賃站之使用後評估-以台北市微笑單車忠孝新生站為例」,碩士論文,工業設計系創新設計碩士班,(2016)。
5.楊佳莉,「臺北市YouBike公共自行車節能減碳替代效果」,碩士論文,土木工程學系,(2014)。
6.張瑀,「都市綠色運輸環境效益評估:以台北市YouBike使用為例」,碩士論文,地理學系,(2018)。
7.碳足跡資訊網(2022)。碳足跡介紹。 檢自
https://cfp-calculate.tw/cfpc/WebPage/LoginPage.aspx (Apr. 6, 2023)

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊