台灣近年在大規模都市更新推進下，拆除量體快速攀升；然而現行拆除多仍以破碎式工法為主，使可再利用的構件與材料在混雜、污染中迅速降級為低價值混合物並進入末端處置，進一步加劇固態廢棄物的處置壓力。
為回應此一結構性缺口，本研究以「先評估、後拆解」為核心，主張拆除決策應以前置的再利用目標與流向規劃為前提，而非破碎拆除後才被動尋找去化途徑；並以體系尺度—系統尺度—建築尺度三個層次作為研究切入。
在體系尺度上，本研究用以定位拆除端與再利用端之結構落差，建構「營建資源循環體系」之尺度架構與操作界面，串接建築生命週期迴圈與區域／在地材料迴路，使設計端、拆除端與再生產業得以在同一體系下協調分工，並強調在拆除前即導入「可維修、可調整、可拆解」的系統觀，以降低分選與價值損耗並預先鋪路；在系統尺度上，萃取可轉譯為操作準則的循環建築系統原則，提出循環導向的「拆解—再利用」流程，並以「循環拆解顧問」作為跨界決策介面，整合拆解成本、材料條件、再利用層級與設計應用價值等多項評估；在建築尺度上，建立材料／構件的價值判讀邏輯，將盤點項目回推至合適的目標系統層級，以提升現地再利用的可行性與一致性，作為後續評估與拆解決策之依據。
在實務對接上，則透過建立「循環拆除方法」與「拆解系統層級」，將拆除工序分為室內裝修及設備拆解、構造拆解、破碎式拆除三階段，並在各階段嵌入分類、暫存與清運節點，以維持構件與子系統層級之價值保留、提升現地再利用與後續去化的可行性，並為後續搬運、再製與再利用提供規格化基礎。
最後，本研究以信義兒福A2公辦都更基地作為設計實證場域，將上述尺度架構、判讀邏輯與流程方法導入拆除規劃與再利用設計整合之中，並透過案例推估與流程驗證，提出可複製的導入路徑與階段性建議，作為台灣都市更新情境下推動拆解—再利用、降低固態廢棄物與提升價值保留之參考。

In recent years, Taiwan has entered a phase of large-scale urban renewal, leading to a rapid increase in demolition volume. However, current demolition practices remain largely dominated by destructive crushing methods, causing potentially reusable components and materials to become mixed and contaminated, and to quickly downgrade into low-value mixed waste. This, in turn, intensifies the pressure of solid waste disposal.
To address this structural gap, this study first establishes a scale-based framework and operational interface for a Construction Resource Circular System, linking building life-cycle loops with regional/local material loops. This enables coordination among the design sector, demolition practices, and recycling industries within a shared system, while emphasizing the early adoption—prior to demolition—of a system approach that is maintainable, adaptable, and disassemblable, so as to reduce future recovery losses and lay the groundwork for circular reuse.
Within a circular building life-cycle perspective, the study proposes a circular-oriented Disassembly–Reuse workflow. By positioning a Circular Disassembly Consultant as a cross-disciplinary decision interface, it becomes possible to integrate multiple assessments, including disassembly costs, material conditions, reuse levels, and design-application value. In parallel, a value-oriented reuse hierarchy is established to backcast inventory items to appropriate target system levels, thereby improving the feasibility and consistency of on-site reuse.
For practical implementation, the study further develops a circular demolition method and a disassembly system hierarchy, dividing demolition operations into three stages: (1) interior finishes and equipment dismantling, (2) structural disassembly, and (3) destructive crushing—providing a standardized basis for subsequent temporary storage, transport, reuse, and remanufacturing. Returning to the design side, this study also proposes “Design for Reuse” as a core integration principle, positioning reused materials as an initial design condition, and ensuring that the new building itself is disassemblable—serving as the starting point of the next circular loop rather than the endpoint of material reuse.

中文圖書
1.內政部（2025）。內政部不動產資訊平台。https://pip.moi.gov.tw/
2.內政部（2024）。建築物拆除施工指引。https://www.nlma.gov.tw/uploads/files/829716feafb9fdfe084c0064daf89a3f.pdf
3.行政院環境保護署（2024）。營建管理策略（含營建剩餘土石方管制措施建議）。
4.事業廢棄物申報及管理資訊系統（2024）。公告類別(二十四)營造業、(二十五)建築拆除業行業中項代碼 41~43營造業、建築拆除業廢棄物清理計畫書填報及審查參考手冊。
5.事業廢棄物申報及管理資訊系統（2024）。公告類別(二十四)營造業、(二十五)建築拆除業行業中項代碼41~43營造業、建築拆除業事業廢棄物清理計畫書參考例。
6.營建剩餘土石方資訊服務中心（2023）。營建廢棄物法規及實務。

英文圖書
1.Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (Eds.). (1992). Place attachment. Plenum Press.
2.Anderson, C. (2011, November 4–5). Zero waste theory and practice [Conference presentation]. Philosophy and Waste: Building Bridges Graduate Conference, Carbondale, IL, United States.
3.ARUP. (2016). The circular economy in the built environment. ARUP.
4.Australia ICOMOS. (2013). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance, 2013. Australia ICOMOS Incorporated.
5.BAMB. (2018). Reversible building design. Buildings as Material Banks.
6.BAMB. (2019). Reversible building design strategies. Buildings as Material Banks.
7.Bramley, G., & Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1068/b33129
8.Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Penguin Books.
9.Carmona, M. (2019). Principles for public space design: Planning to do better. Urban Design International, 24(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41289-018-0070-3
10.City of Amsterdam. (2015). Amsterdam circular: A vision and roadmap for the city and region. City of Amsterdam.
11.City of Amsterdam. (2020). Amsterdam circular 2020–2025 strategy. City of Amsterdam.
12.Crowther, P. (1999). Design for disassembly to recover embodied energy [Conference paper]. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (Vol. 3, pp. xx–xx), May 30–June 3, Vancouver, Canada.
13.Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
14.Durmisevic, E. (2006). Transformable building structures: Design for disassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering to building design and construction (Doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology). TU Delft Repository.
15.Durmisevic, E. (2006). Transformable building structures: Design for disassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering into construction. Delft University of Technology.
16.Durmisevic, E. (2016). Reversible building design guideline (BAMB project report). University of Twente.
17.Durmisevic, E. (2019). Design strategies for reversible buildings. Buildings as Material Banks.
18.European Commission, Joint Research Centre. (2021). Level(s) indicator 2.4: Design for deconstruction (Version 2.0). Publications Office of the European Union.
19.Eurostat. (2011). Generation and treatment of waste in Europe 2008: Steady reduction in waste going to landfills (Statistics in Focus, 44/2011). European Union.
20.FABRICations. (2015). Circular Amsterdam: A vision and action agenda for the city and metropolitan area. City of Amsterdam.
21.Guy, B., & Ciarimboli, N. (2008). DfD: Design for disassembly in the built environment: A guide to closed-loop design and building. Hamer Center for Community Design.
22.Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., & Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy? An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European Union and the world in 2005. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12244
23.International Organization for Standardization. (2020). ISO 20887:2020 Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works—Design for disassembly and adaptability—Principles, requirements and guidance. ISO.
24.Kibert, C. J. (2000). Deconstruction: An essential component of sustainable construction (Report). University of Florida, Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management.
25.Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503260236
26.Réunion Publique. (2023). Agrocité Gagarine Truillot. Réunion Publique.
27.Rose, C. M., & Stegemann, J. A. (2018). From waste management to component management in the construction industry. Sustainability, 10(1), Article 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010229
28.Spector, T. (2014). Publicness as an architectural value. Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 38(3), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.3846/20297955.2014.957107
29.The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, & Ministry of Economic Affairs. (2016). A circular economy in the Netherlands by 2050: Government-wide programme for a circular economy. Government of the Netherlands.
30.Varna, G., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Assessing the publicness of public space: The star model of publicness. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502334
31.Worthing, D., & Bond, S. (2008). Managing built heritage: The role of cultural significance. Blackwell Publishing.

學位論文
1.王宓琦（2021）。從生命週期觀點探討輕建築系統類型之研究。﹝碩士論文。逢甲大學建築研究所﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/kxngzk
2.林麗珠（2002）。開放式界面之建築構造理論。﹝博士論文。國立成功大學建築學系研究所﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/by45mq
3.張書銓（2001）。建築物再撐與拆除災害管理之研究。﹝碩士論文。國立臺北科技大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ezagf5

研究報告
1.王明蘅（1994）。〈住宅設計之議題與開放式營建方法論〉，《住宅學報》，第二期，pp.1~23。臺北市：中華民國住宅學會。
2.王明蘅（2000）。《開放建築論文選輯》。臺北市：中華民國建築學會。
3.王婉芝（2023）。可逆式建築設計與應用之調查研究。新北市：內政部建築研究所。
4.張寬勇（2006）。建築物拆除施工安全管理制度及施工規範研究，內政部建築研究所委託研究報告。新北市：內政部建築研究所。
5.黃榮堯（2006）。建築廢棄物產生量推估之研究（二）成果報告，內政部建築研究所協同研究報告。新北市：內政部建築研究所。
6.楊詩弘（2013）。開放式建築之集合住宅設計手冊研究。新北市：內政部建築研究所。
7.劉舜仁（2019）。108年度空總當代文化實驗場「循環之城」主題合作計畫結案報告書。台南市：國立成功大學C-HUB成大創意基地。
8.劉舜仁（2025）。「營建物料循環模式發展」合作研究計畫。台南市：國立成功大學劉舜仁研究室。

我國統計資料
1.內政部國土管理署（2017）。105年營建統計年報。
2.內政部國土管理署（2025）。全國核定事業計畫案件概況(重建型)一覽表。
3.都市更新研究發展基金會（2024）。全國都市更新事業計畫(重建型)歷年核定趨勢(統計時間：2014/01/01至2024/12/31)。
4.都市更新研究發展基金會（2024）。辦理都市更新案件數統計表。

新聞報導
1.何柏均、林彥廷、江世民。政府「默許」的暗處：數百萬噸營建廢棄物，流入地下棧仔場。報導者。2022年8月24日。https://www.twreporter.org/a/enterprise-wastes-black-market-illegal-processing-plants?fbclid=IwAR0u8uuJc9MRildBNU05ZY8uJXUzn9lAnqMVRHN-Qi5svWH5Rtdz96T4z-0
2.臺北市政府都市發展局。「大都更時代」市府戮力以赴協助老屋重建。臺北市政府都市發展局新聞稿。2024年11月20日。https://udd.gov.taipei/events/fhqekzq-20453?utm_source
3.聯合報新聞部，2024。國在山河廢，營建廢棄物濫倒，台61線成犯罪公路。聯合報。2024年12月10日。https://vip.udn.com/event/newmedia_roadofcrime

網路資料
1.Lendager（2025）. Resource Rows. Exploring brick circularity. https://lendager.com/project/resource-rows/
2.Metalocus（2022）. Productive cities. Agrocity Gagarine Truillot by ARCHIKUBIK. https://www.metalocus.es/en/news/productive-cities-agrocity-gagarine-truillot-archikubik