摘要
國軍營區興建完成，多數於1984年「下水道法」實施以前，且缺乏水污染防治規劃，造成營區進駐單位在污水處理作業較不完善，更何況2023年3月高雄市鳳山區 N1營區通信部隊，將營區污水直接排放社區周邊溝渠，導致環境惡臭及病媒孳生情事，遭受居民糾正舉報乙事。
統計國防部管轄營區計7百餘處，以目前陸軍列管營區為例，正常使用營區計4百餘處，污水排放量約1千6百萬餘噸，整理出營區污水處理系統，計38處由地方政府要求納入公共污水下水道系統、19處配合新建案設置專用污水下水道(小型污水收集處理廠)等集中式處理系統，多達3百餘處營區以各建築物獨立採先期或初級之分散式等傳統污水處理方式實施處理居多(例如:化糞池、陰井沉澱…等)，雖都符合排放規定，但仍有污水排放不合格風險之存在。
為有效配合國家推動國軍志願役政策，將其各營區塑造「家」的感覺為目標，本文就以傳統方式處理污水之高雄市燕巢區E1營區為對象，藉由水污染防治相關法規，做進一步分析，透過文獻探討、實地訪查已完成污水處理建置案例、經專家學者建議等性質及問卷質量調查等方式，針對『居住信賴、施工障礙、經濟效益及系統改善』等四項構面，探討其改善推動應對策略。
策略以性質及層級分析法(AHP)質量等方式，由台灣地區目前常運用污水處理方式之「D1/收集」與「D2/處理」等2種階段系統，各區分3種替代方案，進行適切性統計分析。最後結果則「D1/收集系統」以「D1-3/真空式系統」重要度43.2%為最佳；「D2/處理系統」由「D2-2/污水集中設置污水處理廠」在重要度51.9%之優勢下，壓倒性較其他2項替代方案重要。最後將決策分析評估研究，可供國防部各後勤管理單位，做為營區污水收集與處理改善推動之參考。

關鍵詞:營區、污水、環境、推動策略、收集與處理

SUMMARY
With the completion of military camps in Taiwan, many of them were constructed before the implementation of the "Sewage Act" in 1984. Lack of water pollution prevention , especially evident in the case of the N1 Camp Communication Unit in Fengshan District, Kaohsiung City. In March 2023, the camp discharged sewage directly into the drainage ditches around the causing environmental odor and the Residents reported the situation, raising questions about whether the camp's sewage treatment methods comply with discharge standards.
Statistics from the Ministry of National Defense indicate oversight of over 700 military camps. Taking the example of the Army-managed camps, there are over 400 in regular use, Among them, 38 camps are required by local governments to integrate into public sewage systems, 19 camps cooperate with new construction projects to establish dedicated sewage systems (small sewage collection and treatment plants), and over 300 camps adopt traditional way sewage treatment methods, While these methods generally comply with discharge regulations, there is still a risk of non-compliant sewage discharge.
This study focuses on wastewater treatment at the E1 Camp in Yanchao District, Kaohsiung City, utilizing conventional methods. The investigation involves a comprehensive analysis of water pollution prevention and control regulations. wastewater treatment projects, recommendations from experts and scholars, and a questionnaire-based quality survey.Addressing dimensions such as "residential trust, construction obstacles, economic benefits, and system improvement," the study formulates strategies.

Keywords: Military camp, Sewage, Environment, Promotion strategy,
Collection and treatment

Introduction
The primary objective of this study is to investigate the issues related to the traditional sewage treatment and discharge methods, as well as regulatory management in military bases. Through literature review, on-site surveys, and expert interviews, a qualitative analysis is conducted to formulate concepts and strategies for sewage prevention and control in military bases. Subsequently, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is employed to analyze the quality of expert-proposed optimal sewage treatment improvement projects, aiming to implement the best current strategies. The purposes of this study are outlined as follows:

1、For various units within the Ministry of National Defense, adhering to national regulatory standards is a societal responsibility. From a regulatory management perspective, the study explores the incorrect application of traditional sewage treatment and proposes strategic recommendations for improvement, ensuring that military bases contribute to the sustainable development of environmental hygiene and health in the surrounding residential areas and the ecological system of downstream water bodies within the societal framework.
2、Optimal recommendations are provided for the establishment of sewage treatment improvement systems in military bases.
3、The research results serve as a reference for the logistics management units of the Ministry of National Defense and can be published in professional journals dedicated to facility improvement in military bases, offering guidance for future initiatives aimed at sewage improvement.

Materials and Methods
The study begins by conducting a comprehensive analysis of challenges related to residential reliance, construction obstacles, and economic benefits. Subsequently, an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) survey involving experts and scholars is employed to evaluate optimal solutions for the identified system setup aspects. Finally, data from the nature and quality analyses are further scrutinized, leading to refined insights. Recommendations for improvement strategies are then derived to inform the research conclusions. Interviews with experts, scholars in water pollution control regulations, sewage treatment systems, military engineering professionals, and environmental business leaders primarily contribute valuable suggestions and insights on the issue of camp water pollution prevention.
Results and Discussion
The construction of sewage treatment facilities is imperative for "modernized" ecological environmental protection, and future tasks include advancing camp planning with a focus on avoiding wasteful investments. The challenge lies in enhancing sewage collection and treatment, given the substantial financial requirements and difficulties in budget allocation. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied to determine the planning improvement project indicators' weights. The decision evaluation involves four layers: A/Objective layer, B/Criteria layer (3 items), C/Sub-criteria layer (9 items), and D/Alternative solutions. Through comprehensive analysis, key factors such as "C2/Creating a Comfortable Environment," "C5/Camp Restrictions," "C6/Construction Quality," "C7/Project Benefits," and "C8/Maintenance and Supply" are identified as crucial, collectively accumulating to over 80% importance. The optimal solutions, "D1/Collection System" and "D2/Sewage Treatment System," are assessed. In the "D1/Collection System," the "D1-3/Vacuum System" holds the highest importance at 43.2%. In the "D2/Treatment System," the "D2-2/Centralized Sewage Treatment Plant" dominates with a significance of 51.9%, surpassing the importance of the other two alternative solutions.

Conclusion
Based on relevant regulations such as the Building Act, Building Technical Regulations, Water Pollution Control Act, and Sewerage Act, it is identified that the subject E1 camp in Yanchao District, Kaohsiung City, faces challenges in residential environment, construction obstacles, and project technology in sewage treatment discharge management. The concluding system improvement decisions are outlined as follows:

1.、D1/Collection System
In the camp's network collection system, the "D1-3/Vacuum System" scored the highest at 43.2% according to the expert panel. This is primarily attributed to its significant economic cost in improving the environment, system setup, and project benefits. The system allows for the separation of sewage and rainwater in camp building drains, preventing improper sewage discharge that could lead to residual decay and foul odors. Under the constraints of sewage treatment improvement in the camp, this evaluation provides a certain degree of exclusion. This is particularly beneficial for the health of military personnel and nearby residents in urban and rural areas.
2.、D2/Sewage Treatment System
The "D2-2/Centralized Sewage Treatment Plant" overwhelmingly dominates with a total score of 51.9%, surpassing the importance of the other two alternative solutions. This approach, budgeted annually within constraints, avoids wasteful investment and significantly improves the living environment in and around the camp's infrastructure. It brings about positive changes and perceptions in the living conditions of military personnel engaged in training and daily life within the camp surroundings.

中文部分
《1》溫清光、張志華(2018)。水污染防治原理與實務。成大出版社，pp.2~113頁。
《2》陳文禪(2023)，高雄軍營污水排放社區害環境惡臭地方要求改善，自由時報。
《3》許國楨(2011)，○○營區廚餘污染排水溝，自由時報。
《4》陸軍司令部(2021)，軍事環境實務工作實施計畫作業，pp.1頁。
《5》行政院內政部營建署(2009)，軍事機關建築物辦理免建築執照及委請地方政府指示（定）建築線注意事公函，pp.1頁。
《6》蘇宏仁、楊樹森、游能悌、杜明進(2021)，環境教育與永續發展2版，華都文化事 業，pp.369-370頁。
《7》吳宜瑾(2018)，看懂聯合國永續發展目標SDGS，財團法人台灣醫界聯盟基金會，pp.57頁。
《8》龔秀惠(2008)，污水下水道用戶接管辦理模式差異分析/成功大學碩士論文， pp.2-2頁。
《9》蔡欣庭、胡芳瑜、許國恩(2019)，公共污水處理廠及污水下水道統計指標介紹與趨勢分析，中興工程顧問社/143期刊，pp.13-16頁。
《10》陳海曙(2020)，衛浴文化幸福之門-共生、由善、健康，台灣衛浴協會，pp.45-57頁。
《11》中興工程顧問公司(2016)，高雄市污水下水道系統第四階段檢討規劃/第八章，pp8-18~21頁。
《12》林悅翔(2015)，重力式與真空式污水下水道系統分析-以明德水庫特定區為例/逢甲大學碩士論文，pp.17頁。
《13》行政院內政部營建署(2013)，下水道工程設計規範，pp.425頁
《14》行政院內政部營建署(2014)，污水下水道用戶接管實務手冊，pp.3-1頁
《15》國防部(2022)，國防部所屬單位預算調整管制作業規定，pp.2頁
《16》榮泰生(2020)，EXPERT CHOICE在分析層級程序法(AHP)之應用，PP.3-8頁。
《17》李明宗(2022)，探討陸軍營區生活污水處理改善規劃之對策)，陸軍工兵半年刊第160期，pp.29-45頁。
《18》胡亮節(2012)，污水下水道用戶接管之研究-以三民區為案例分析，正修科技大學碩士論文。
《19》朱長安(2014)，污水管線維修工程優選工法之研究，長榮大學碩士論文。
《20》張明德(2017)，污水處理廠永續發展績效指標系統建置之研究，台北科技大學碩士論文。
《21》林楨中、蔡佾志(2019)，下水道工程特友職災分析及改善對策研究，勞動部勞動及職業安全衛生研究所。
《22》郭德賓(2021)，研究方法:技術報告與專業實務報告寫作技巧，紅螞蟻圖書有限公司。
《23》陳耀茂(2022)，圖解層級分析法，五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
英文部分
《24》Satty, T, L.1980 ,The Analytical Hierarchy Process.
網路部分
《25》監察院(2017)，調查國軍營區污水處理新聞稿，https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=124&s=8039。
《26》行政院內政部營建署(2021)，建築技術規則第49條規定，https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=D0070115。
《27》行政院環境部(2018)，放流水標準，https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=O0040004。
《28》行政院環境部(2018)，水污染防治法， https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=O0040001。
《29》行政院內政部營建署(2018)，下水道法，https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawHistory.aspx?pcode=D0070058
《30》黃文彥，陳高孝(2008)，台灣地區污水下水道介紹及發展/專題報導，pp.14-18頁，https://www.google.com/search?q=台灣地區污水下水道介紹及發展，國家圖書館。
《31》行政院內政部營建署(2023)，全國污水下水道用戶接管普及率及整體污水處理率統計，https:www.cpami.gov.tw/最新消息/業務新訊/51-下水道工程處/9995-全國污水下水道用戶接管普及率及整體污水處理率統計表.html。
《32》劉恆昌，簡源水(1998)，壓力式污水下水道收集系統案例/第八屆下水道技術研討會，pp51-72頁，https://sewergis.cpami.gov.tw/FileData/11.研討會/11-2研討會論文集/第八屆下水道技術研討會/壓力式污水下水道收集系統案例.pdf。
《33》許鎮龍(2006)，小規模用戶污水收集系統之選定，聯合大學論文集，http://www.tsa-net.tw/TSAdata02/2006論文集E-15-小規模用戶污水收集系統之選定.pdf。
《34》新北市水利局，小型污水處理設備污水處理流程圖，https://water.ntpc.gov.tw/News/Detail/1555.htm。
《35》台中市水利局，污水下水道系統施工教育訓練，https://www.tsa-net.tw/ap0317/污水下水道系統施工教育訓練. pdf。
《36》新北市政府，2019年3月全國水環境改善計畫「新北市污水下水道系統工程整體計畫」工作計畫書，https: www-ws.wra.gov.tw/001/Upload/oldFile/media/54526/7新北市污水下水道系統.pdf。