近年來，全球淨零排放及碳管理議題日益受到重視，生命週期碳排放相關研究已累積大量工程案例與量化成果，建立工程總碳排放量之計算基礎，但應用於港灣工程的研究案例較少。此外，若能進一步結合工程施工文件、施工時序及工程進度，將傳統計算得出的碳排放總量，轉換為施工期間配合工程進度的碳排放曲線，掌握工程期間碳排放累積情形及碳排熱點，作為施工階段碳管理之依據。
本研究以港灣工程為例，選取碼頭及圍堤興建各1個工程案例做為研討，依據ISO 21931-2生命週期評估架構，以A1-A3材料生產、A4材料運輸及A5施工階段為碳排放計算邊界，整合工程契約文件、詳細價目表、單價分析表、施工日誌、材料送審及工程進度等資料，提出以施工文件推導與計算工程碳排放量之流程，並繪出施工進度碳排放負載曲線，分析港灣工程施工期間之碳排放特性。
研究結果顯示，不同工程因工項組成、材料來源及施工方式不同，其生命週期各階段碳排放比例及主要排放來源會有差異。案例一碳排放主要集中於A1-A3材料生產階段，施工前期即累積大量碳排放。案例二因大量採用既有材料回收再利用，使A1-A3碳排放比例降低，A4運輸及A5施工階段影響相對提高，其碳排放累積趨勢亦較接近工程進度。兩案例之碳負載曲線皆呈現典型S型累積趨勢，可呈現施工期間碳排放之時間分布，辨識碳排熱點，並提供施工碳排管理、工程進度調整及減碳策略規劃之參考。
本研究所提出之方法可利用工程執行過程既有施工文件，建立施工期間各個時間點的碳排放資訊，無須額外建置監測設備或增加現場量測成本，具備良好之實務應用性，可作為港灣工程施工階段碳排放評估、碳負載分析及碳排管理之參考，並提供未來碳費制度及工程數位管理系統發展之應用基礎。

In response to the growing importance of global net-zero emissions and carbon management, this study develops a method for analyzing construction-stage carbon emissions in harbor engineering projects by integrating existing construction documents with construction schedules and project progress. Two case studies, including one wharf construction project and one containment dike construction project, were examined. Based on the life-cycle assessment framework of ISO 21931-2, the assessment boundary covered material production (A1-A3), material transportation (A4), and construction activities (A5). Data from construction contracts, detailed cost estimates, unit price analyses, construction daily reports, material approval documents, and progress records were used to calculate carbon emissions and establish cumulative carbon load curves corresponding to construction progress. The results show that carbon emission patterns vary according to work-item composition, material sources, and construction methods. In Case Study 1, emissions were mainly concentrated in the A1-A3 material production stage and accumulated rapidly during the early construction period. In Case Study 2, the extensive reuse of existing materials reduced A1-A3 emissions, while the relative contributions of A4 and A5 increased, resulting in a cumulative emission trend more closely aligned with project progress. Both cases exhibited typical S-shaped cumulative carbon load curves, which facilitated the identification of temporal emission distributions and carbon hotspots. The proposed method requires no additional monitoring equipment or on-site measurement costs and can support construction-stage carbon assessment, progress management, emission reduction planning, and future digital carbon management applications.

英文文獻
1. Ahn, C., Pan, W., Lee, S., and Peña-Mora, F. A. (2010). “Lessons learned from utilizing discrete-event simulation modeling for quantifying construction emissions in pre-planning phase.” Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 3170–3176.
2. Alaux, N., Marton, C., Steinmann, J., Maierhofer, D., Mastrucci, A., Petrou, D., Potrč Obrecht, T., Ramon, D., Le Den, X., Allacker, K., Passer, A., and Rock, M. (2024). “Whole-life greenhouse gas emission reduction and removal strategies for buildings: Impacts and diffusion potentials across EU Member States.” Journal of Environmental Management, 370, 122915.
3. Carbon Trust. (2007). Carbon Footprinting: An Introduction for Organizations. Carbon Trust, London, U.K.
4. Goggins, J., Keane, T., and Kelly, A. (2010). “The assessment of embodied energy in typical reinforced concrete building structures in Ireland.” Energy and Buildings, 42(5), 735-744.
5. Greer, F., and Horvath, A. (2025). "Exploring the significance of transportation emissions in upfront embodied carbon in buildings." Building and Environment, 269, 112457.
6. Hammond, G. P. and Jones, C. I. (2008). Embodied Energy and Carbon in Construction Materials. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Energy, 161(2), 87–98.
7. Hosamo, H., Coelho, G. B. A., Buvik, E., Drissi, S., and Kraniotis, D. (2024). “Building sustainability through a novel exploration of dynamic LCA uncertainty: Overview and state of the art.” Building and Environment, 264, 111922.
8. Hossain, M.,and Ng, S.(2018). “Critical consideration of buildings' environmental impact assessment towards adoption of circular economy: An analytical review” Journal of Cleaner Production.,Vol. 205, pp763-768.
9. IPCC. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
10. Kanafani, K., Magnes, J., Lindhard, S. M., and Balouktsi, M. (2023). "Carbon emissions during the building construction phase: A comprehensive case study of construction sites in Denmark." Sustainability, 15(14), 10992.
11. Moncada, A., Olivella, S., Damians, I. P., and Bathurst, R. J. (2024). "Impact of transport distance in life cycle assessments of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls." Proceedings of the XVIII European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ECSMGE 2024), Lisbon, Portugal, 3149–3152.
12. PIANC. (2019). Ports on Greenfield Sites – Guidelines for Site Selection and Masterplanning. MarCom Working Group Report No. 185, The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure, Brussels, Belgium.
13. Salati, M., Costa, A. A., and Silvestre, J. D. (2025). “A Comprehensive Review of Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings: Exploring Key Processes and Methodologies.” Sustainability, 17(1), 159.
14. Saravia de los Reyes, R., Fernández-Sánchez, G., Esteban, M. D., & Rodríguez, R. R. (2020). “Carbon Footprint of a Port Infrastructure from a Life Cycle Approach.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 7414.
15. Sepehri, A., Kirichek, A., van den Heuvel, M., de Geus, M., and van Koningsveld, M. (2026). “Sustainable port maintenance: Dredging equipment selection in time-emission trade-offs.” Results in Engineering, 29, 109247.
16. Takano, A., Winter, S., and Hughes, M. (2014). “Comparison of life cycle assessment databases for building assessment.” Proceedings of the World Sustainable Building Conference 2014 (SB14 Barcelona), Barcelona, Spain.
17. United Nations. (1992). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York.
18. United Nations. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, Kyoto.
19. United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations, Paris, France.
20. Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J.(2008). A Definition of Carbon Footprint. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA.
中文文獻
1.中華經濟研究院(2004)，高雄港對總體經濟與區域經濟影響之調查分析，2004年8月。
2.內政部(2025)，淨零永續綠道路評估系統認證評鑑計畫，2025年10月。
3.內政部建築研究所(2026)，綠建築評估手冊－基本型，2026年7月。
4.方冠今(2017)，為碳足跡計算編制施工預算工項之改善－以港灣工程為例，國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
5.交通部運輸研究所(2013)，交通運輸工程節能減碳規劃設計手冊研究與編訂，2013年4月。
6.朱士傑(2014)，材料製造與施工階段環境衝擊分析－以兩橋梁為例，國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
7.行政院公共工程委員會(2023)，公共工程碳預算編製概念指引，行政院公共工程委員會。
8.行政院公共工程委員會(2023)，常用材料碳排放係數參考表，行政院公共工程委員會。
9.行政院公共工程委員會(2025)，公有建築工程全生命週期節能減碳作業指引，行政院公共工程委員會。
10.林芷璿(2024)，建立營建工程碳排負載進度表，國立成功大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
11.張筱蓉(2015)，綠道路指標對應之個案碳排放分析與認證策略，國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
12.曹家銘(2018)，港灣工程之碳排放計算與沉箱工法選擇，國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
13.陳逸潔(2022)，臨時建築資材碳足跡與資源再利用之環境性能評估研究－以臺南市交通設施為例，國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
14.楊雅婷(2015)，大尺度鋼筋混凝土單元構造物自動化製作工法選擇影響因素之探討－以港灣沉箱為例，國立成功大學工程管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。
15.經濟部水利署(2024)，水利工程減碳作業參考指引，經濟部水利署。
16.蔡雅雯(2011)，工程永續設計環境面項目之建立與適用性評估，國立成功大學土木工程研究所博士論文。
17.鄭家尹(2016)，營造工程碳足跡分析－以建築結構為例，國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
18.蕭智隆(2026)，工程碳排放資料分析與計算－以道路工程為例，國立成功大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
19.簡言恩(2022)，市區綠道路評估系統銜接至高速道路之應用，國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。