近年來永續在工程開發計畫受到相當的重視，然而現在整合永續議題的方式常流於形式，相關單位、利害關係人與專家的整合不夠，造成工程開發計畫的決策品質不佳，常引起爭議。因此應該要有一套更嚴謹的方法，提高決策過程品質，以達成整合永續的目標。

本研究建立一個嚴謹度矩陣，可以用來評估永續整合決策過程的嚴謹度，有系統地提升工程開發計畫的決策品質。嚴謹度矩陣由八個關鍵整合因子與四個整合流程主要步驟構成，評分整合流程的品質，計算嚴謹度。八個關鍵整合因子的建立，是由分析工程與永續爭議個案及成功整合案例，參考相關文獻建立理論基礎。整合流程建立在理性決策模式的架構上，採納卡內基決策模式與漸進決策模式的實質與精神，並與環境影響評估程序、背景敏感解決方案程序比對，確認其共通性與彈性。

為確認嚴謹度矩陣的可行性，應用焦點訪談法訪談環境領域的資深人員，以訪談意見檢視關鍵整合因子與整合流程。最後，以五個工程開發計畫作為個案測試嚴謹度矩陣，實際以嚴謹度來量化評分決策過程的品質，並透過比較實際執行情形與模擬加強評分，說明嚴謹度矩陣可以有效區別整合決策品質。

研究結果顯示，嚴謹度矩陣與嚴謹度評分可以有系統地解釋與衡量整合品質，同時這個工具也可以使整合決策過程更公開透明，並增進開發單位與公眾間的信賴。整合機制提供了工程開發計畫的業主與開發單位一套工具，使其可以有效處理永續整合決策過程的困難。

Sustainability has been required for infrastructure planning, design, construction and maintenance in recent years. But the methods for integrating sustainability issues are more superficially used, and the relevant authorities, stakeholders, and experts are not adequately involved. Consequentely, the development decision quality is often not satisfactory to the public and arouses disputes. Therefore, a more rigorous method is needed to improve the decision quality, and integrate the sustainability goals.

This paper establishes a rigor matrix to assess the rigorousness of the sustainability decision making process and enhance the decision quality for infrastructure projects. The rigor matrix was formed using four major integration steps of integration process and the eight key integration factors (KIFs), and by means of this to evaluate and calculate the rigor index to explain the quality of integration process. Eight KIFs were identified by analyzing sustainability disputes on a construction project and successful integration cases, and comparing the literatures to form the theoretical basis. An integration process was established following the rational decision making process, and also adapted the characteristics of Carnegie model and incremental decision process model. Then, the integration process was compared with the environmental impact assessment process and the context-sensitive solutions process to assure commonality and flexibility.

To ensure applicability, focused interviews were conducted with practitioners to scrutinize the matrix’s components, the KIFs and the integration process. Finally, the rigor matrix was tested on five projects, and rigor indices were calculated to quantify the quality of integration decision making process to explain its usefulness by comparing the actual and simulated scores.

The results show that the rigor matrix and rigor indices can systematically explain and measure integration quality. This tool makes the decision making process more transparent and enhances the trust between the project proponent and the public. The mechanism provides a useful method and tool for the infrastructure project owners dealing with sustainability decision making difficulties.

1.Ahmad B., and Wood, C. M. (2002). “A comparative evaluation of the EIA systems in Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 213-234.
2.Antonson, H., Gustafsson, M., and Angelstam, P. (2010). “Cultural heritage connectivity. A tool for EIA in transportation infrastructure planning.” Transportation Research Part D: Transportation and Environment, Vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 463-472.
3.Armour, A. (1992). “The co-operative process: Facility siting the democratic way.” Plan Canada, March, pp. 29-34.
4.Bass, E. R., Herson, A. I., and Bogdan, K. M. (2001). The NEPA Book: a step-by-step guide on how to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, 2nd edition, Solano Press, CA.
5.Binder, C. R., Feola, G., and Steinberger, J. K. (2010). “Considering the normative, systematic and procedural dimensions in indicator-basec sustainability assessments in agriculture.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 71-81.
6.Bishop, A. B. (1998) “Communication in the planning process.” in Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, Creighton, J. L., Delli Priscoli, J., and Dunning, C. M., eds., IWR Research Report 82-R-1, U.S. Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, VA.
7.Blake, R. R., and Mouton J. S. (1984) Solving costly organizational conflicts, Jossey-Bass Inc Pub, San Francisco.
8.Bushnell, D. S. (1990). “Input, Process, Output: a Model for Evaluating Training.” Training & Development Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 41-43.
9.Caldwell, L.K. (1982). Science and the National Environmental Policy Act, University of Alabama Press, Alabama.
10.Canter, L. W. (1995). Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
11.Chilvers, J. (2008). “Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 155-185.
12.Clemen, R. T., and Reilly, T. (2001). Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools, 2nd Ed., Duxbury, USA.
13.Creighton, J. L. (1998) “Conflict resolution techniques.” in Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, Creighton, J. L., Delli Priscoli, J., and Dunning, C. M., eds., IWR Research Report 82-R-1, U.S. Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, VA.
14.Crosset, J., and Oldham, S. (2005). “Framework for measuring state transportation agency performance in context-sensitive solutions.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1904, pp. 84-92.
15.Cunningham, W. P., and Cunningham, M. A. (2010). Priciples of Environmental Science: Inquiry and Applications, 6 th edition. McGraw-Hill.
16.Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, USA.
17.Daft, R. (2006) Organization Theory and Design, 9th edition. South-Western College Publishing, USA.
18.Delli Priscoli, J. (1998) “Implementing public involvement programs in federal agencies.” in Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, Creighton, J. L., Delli Priscoli, J., and Dunning, C. M., eds., IWR Research Report 82-R-1, U.S. Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, VA.
19.D’lgnazio, J., and Hunkins, J. (2005) “Context senitive solutions in the planning process.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 1904, pp. 75-83.
20.Doelle, M., and Sinclair, A. J. (2006). “Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: Promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, 185-205.
21.Donaldson, T., and Preston, L. E. (1995). “The stakeholder theory of corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 65-91.
22.Dudley, C. (2007). “Collaborative project delivery creates CSS.” Module in Transforming Project Delivery, Landscape Architecture Academy, CA, March 26-29, 2007.
23.Dym, C. L., and Little, P. (2004). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, John Wiley, New York.
24.Ei-Rayes, K., and Kandil, A. (2005), “Time-Cost-Quality Trade-Off Analysis for Highway Construction.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp. 477-486.
25.Federal Highway Administration Context Sensitive Solution Primer http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/css_primer/docs/FHWA_CSS_Primer.pdf
26.Freudenburg, W., and Pastor, S. (1992). “NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the syndromes.” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 39-61.
27.Furia, L. D., and Wallace-Jones, J. (2000). “The effectiveness of provisions and quality of practices concerning public participation in EIA in Italy.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 457-479.
28.Grant, J. (1994). The drama of democracy: Contention and dispute in community planning, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.
29.Greenhalgh, L. (1986) “Managing Conflict.” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 45-51.
30.Grosskurth, J., and Rotmans, J. (2005). “The SCENE Model: Getting a Grip on Sustainable Development in Policy Making.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 135-151.
31.Hartley, N., and Wood, C. M. (2005). “Public participation in environmental impact assessment - implementing the Arhus Convention.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 319-340.
32.Hazelrigg, G. A. (1998). “A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design.” Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol.120, pp.653-658.
33.Hollander-Blumoff, R., and Tyler, T. R. (2008). “Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential.” Law and Social Inquiry, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 473-500.
34.Honeyman, C. (1993). “A Consensus on Mediators' Qualifications.” Negotiation Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 295-308.
35.Hutchings, D., Simpson, R., Stauffer R., and Wahl D. (2007). “Aesthetics, Death, and Landmark Structures: Approach for Values Clarification.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1-8.
36.IAIA (2009). What Is Impact Assessment?, The International Association for Impact Assessment, http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/What%20is%20IA_web.pdf
37.Irvin, R. A., and Stansbury, J. (2004). “Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?” Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 55-65.
38.Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., and Wood, C. (2007). “Environmental impact assessment: retrospect and prospect.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 287–300.
39.Jones, G. R. (2001). Organizational Theory, Text and Cases, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc.
40.Junnila, S., and Horvath, A. (2003). “Life-Cycle Environmental Effects of an Office Building.” Journal of infrastructure System, ASCE, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 157-166.
41.Lee, N. (2006). “Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice in Integrated Assessment.” Environmental impact Assessment Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 57-78.
42.March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, USA.
43.Merkhofer, M. W. (1987). Decision Science and Social Risk Management. Dordrect, Holland.
44.Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., and Théorêt, A. (1976) “The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 246-275.
45.Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 853-886.
46.Moorman, J. L., and Ge, Z. (2007). “Promoting and Strengthening Public Participation in China's Environmental Impact Assessment Process: Comparing China's EIA Law and U.S. NEPA.” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 281-335.
47.Morgan, M. G., and Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, UK.
48.MnDOT Office of bridge and structures (1995). Aesthetic guidelines for bridge design, Minnesota Department of Transportation.
49.Munda, G. (2004). “Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences.” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 158, No. 3, pp. 662-677.
50.Nadeem, O., and Fischer, T. B. (2011). “An evaluation framework for effective public participation in EIA in Pakistan.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 36-47.
51.Neuman, T. R., Schwartz, M., Clark, L., and Bendar, J. (2002). A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions, NCHRP Report 480, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
52.Noblet, J. (1993). Industrial design: Reflections of a century, Abbeville Press, Paris.
53.Palerm, J. R. (2000). “An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact assessment.” Journal of Environment Planning and Management, Vol. 43, pp. 581–600.
54.Paliwal, R. (2006). “EIA practice in India and its evaluation using SWOT analysis.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 492–510.
55.Perry, C. R., Schexnayder, C. J., and Knutson, K. (2004). “Strategies for implementing aesthetic factors in product design.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, ASCE, Vol. 4, No. 216, pp. 216-220.
56.Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations, Harper Collins, USA.
57.Rayner, S. (1993). “Introduction: the international influence of NEPA”, in Hildebrand, S. G., and Cannon, J. B. eds., Environmental Analysis: the NEPA Experience, Lewis, Boca Raton, FL.
58.Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
59.Roozenburg, N.F.M., & Eekels. J. (1995). Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK.
60.Schwertz, E. L., Jr., (1979). The Local Growth Management Guidebook, Center for Local Government Technology, Oklahoma State University.
61.Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Bhavior, 4th expanded edition, Free Press, N.Y.
62.Simons, R. (2000). Performance Measurement & Control Systems for Implementing Strategy Text & Cases, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
63.Sinclair, A. J., Diduck, A., and Fitzpatrick, P. (2008). “Conceptualizing learning for sustainability through environmental assessment: critical reflections on 15 years of research.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp. 415-428.
64.Snell, C. A., and Youndt, M. A. (1995). “Human resource management and firm performance: testing a contingency model of executive controls.” Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 711-737.
65.Solitare, L. (2005). “Prerequisite conditions for meaningful participation in brownfields redevelopment.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 917-953.
66.Stevenson, W. B., Pearce, J. L., and Porter, L. W. (1985). “The concept of “coalition” in organization theory and research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 256-268.
67.Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., and Ries, R. (2009). “Environmental Decision Making in Multi-stakeholder Contexts: Applicability of Life Cycle Thinking in Development Planning and Implementation.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 67-76.
68.Timmermans, D., and Vlek, C. (1996). “Effect on Decision Quality of Supporting Multi-attribute Evaluation in Group.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 158-170.
69.Tusi, A. S. (1990). “A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: an empirical examination at human resource subunit level.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 458-483.
70.Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
71.United Nations Environment Program, (1987). “Senior level expert workshop to evaluate benefits and constraints of environmental impact assessment process in SACEP countries.” Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
72.Waage, S. A. (2007). “Re-considering product design: A practical ‘road-map’ for integration of sustainability issues.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 638-649.
73.Wang, Y., Morgan, R. K., and Cashmore, M. (2003) “Environmental impact assessment of projects in People's Republic of China: new law, old problems.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 543-579.
74.Weidema, B. P., and Wesnaes, M. S. (1997). “Data quality management for life cycle inventories – An example of using data quality indicators.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 4, No. 3-4, pp. 167-174.
75.Wiek, A., and Binder, C. (2005). “Solution Spaces for Decision-Making - A Sustainability Assessment Tool for City-Regions.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 589-608.
76.World Bank (1991). Environmental Assessment Sourcebook-Vol. 1-Policies, Procedures, and Cross-Sectoral Issues, Tech. Paper No. 139, Washinton, D.C.
77.Yearley, S., and Cinderby, S. (2003). “Participatory modelling and the local governance of the politics of UK air pollution: A three-city case study.” Environmental Values, Vol. 12, pp. 247-262.
78.Yearley, S. (2006). “Bridging the science-policy divide in urban air-quality management: Evaluating ways to make models more robust through public engagement.” Environmentand Planning C, Vol. 24, pp. 701-714.
79.Yin, P. K. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research, 2nd ed. Sage, CA, USA.
80.Young, I. (2002). Inclusion and democracy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
81.台灣世曦工程顧問股份有限公司(民 96)，「公路融合生態、景觀、防災觀念之規劃、定線與評估研究-第一年期末報告」，交通部公路總局委託研究。
82.林佳瑩,李冠霈與張行道(民 98)，「設計中工程與人文等議題整合機制」(C1-6)，2009第13屆營建工程與管理學術研討會論文集，7月9日，朝陽科技大學，台中，台灣。
83.林佳瑩(民 98)，「設計中工程與人文等議題整合機制」，國立成功大學土木工程研究所，碩士論文。
84.李翠萍(民 99)，「褐地重建中的公民參與與政策間隙-以中石化舊台鹼安順廠戴奧辛汙染為例」，公共行政學報，第34期，123-151頁。
85.汪明生與朱斌妤(民 99)，衝突管理，五南文化事業。
86.呂苡榕(民 99)，「環署綜計處要求專家會議立刻做決定」，台灣立報 99年8月24日。
87.吳東傑(民 93)，環評制度的缺失與爭議，看守台灣，第六期，第二卷，4-8頁。
88.胡慕情(民 99)，讓專家們進退維谷的環評「專家會議」，http://pnn.pts.org.tw/main/?p=7090
89.張行道等(民 94)，「工程技術顧問業結合公共藝術、社區參與文化創意具體方案之研究」，行政院公共工程委員會委託研究，計畫編號 PCC94_企_6。
90.張穗蘋(民 93)，環境影響評估，財團法人中興工程科技研究發展基金會。
91.黃光輝(民 95)，環境評估與管理導論，第二版，高立圖書。
92.陳章鵬(民 92)，「環境影響評估法之修正研究」，行政院環境保護署委託研究。
93.葉俊榮與張文貞(民 99），「環境影響評估制度之探討」，行政院研考會委託研究計畫，計畫編號 RDEC-RES-098-007。
94.葉俊宏(民 99)，環保署說明專家會議機制， http://ivy5.epa.gov.tw/enews/fact_Newsdetail.asp?inputtime=0991125222805
95.喻肇青與賴澤君(民 96)，「樂生院保存技術的討論與評估過程說明」，建築師雜誌，No. 393。
96.湯京平與邱崇原(民 99)，「專業與民主：台灣環境影響評估制度的運作與調適」，公共行政學報，第35期，1-28頁。
97.詹順貴(民 99)，「中科三期專家會議 大騙局」，玉山周報 99年9月6日。
98.廖靜蕙(民 100)，危及紅樹林保留區 專家反對淡北快速道，http://e-info.org.tw/node/62955
99.鄭昆三(民 91)，「環境影響評估研討及相關法規與審議基準宣導計畫：我國環境影響評估法制之比較研究－歐盟與美國環評法制析論」，行政院環境保護署委託研究計畫。
100.劉銘龍(民 95)，「我國政策環評評估方法學之深化與改良」，於台灣環境議題特論，於幼華編著，五南出版社。
101.環保署(民 93)，環境影響評估法，中華民國環保法規資料中心。
102.謝和霖(民 97)，「看守台灣：釐清環評專家會議的真相」，台灣立報 97年12月28日。