近年來，低碳社區與生態社區等環保相關議題深受各界重視，我國環保署於2009年提出「低碳社區推動專案工作計畫」，聘請專家委員來遴選台灣各地較具代表性之既有社區，再利用該計畫提出之「低碳社區評估系統LCCS(Low Carbon Community System)」針對各個社區之特性提出社區減碳建議並補助其進行低碳改善，希望以社區實際改善後的減碳量作為推廣社區減碳技術，打造低碳示範社區之印證。
本研究欲探討社區進行減碳改善後的減碳效果，故首先建立並分析「社區碳排放標準模型」，發現一般社區日常碳排放量主要來自「住家用電量」、「垃圾處理」及「交通」三範圍，故本研究以此分析結果，挑選社區日常排碳量較大或較具減碳改善效果的項目，做為「社區典型低碳改善技術」；而後，本研究整理「低碳社區推動專案工作計畫」中，專家委員針對社區所提出的改善建議，謂之「專家委員建議之社區低碳改善項目」。本研究亦考慮社區不計成本，竭盡所能全面改善之情況，謂之「社區全面低碳改善項目」。
接著，本研究以「低碳社區推動專案工作計畫」中遴選的既成社區案例與本研究建立的「社區碳排放標準模型」為研究對象，以「低碳社區評估系統LCCS」作為各社區案例計算減碳量之依據，試算並分析比較社區進行「社區典型低碳改善技術」、「專家委員建議之社區低碳改善項目」、及「社區全面低碳改善項目」後的減碳效果。最後，本研究換算各項社區低碳改善項目之「減碳效益比」與「回收年限」，以辨別不同改善項目之優劣。
本研究之成果如下：社區案例套用「專家委員建議之社區低碳改善項目」進行改善後，都市型社區之平均減碳比例為2.78%，鄉村型社區則為5.72%；在「專家委員建議之社區低碳改善項目」中，以設置再生能源之減碳效益最高，其次為改善社區公共燈具效率。
社區案例套用「社區典型低碳改善技術」進行改善後，都市型社區平均減碳比例為5.30%，鄉村型社區則為7.46%；在「社區典型低碳改善技術」中，以改善住家家電與照明效率減碳效益最高，其次為垃圾減量。
而當社區套用「社區全面低碳改善項目」進行改善之後，都市型社區之減碳比例為41.77%，鄉村型社區為48.67%，可見一般社區減碳改善之極限。
減碳效益比方面，最佳者為4尺之T8燈具(40W燈管)更換為4尺之T5燈具(28W燈管)，其減碳效益比為87.32(kg.CO2/組-yr.千元) ，其次為水龍頭加裝省水墊片，其其減碳效益比為51.80 (kg.CO2/yr.千元)，而政府大力推廣之電動車與太陽能光電系統分別為2.50(kg.CO2/ yr.千元)及太陽能光電系統2.58(kg.CO2/kW-yr.千元)以下。
回收年限部分，最短者為水龍頭加裝省水墊片，約0.70年；其次為台北地區設置雨水回收系統，約1.11年可回收設置成本；而換用電動車之回收年限約15.67年，設置太陽能光電系統將產生的電力直接使用的情況下，回收年限長達80年以上，若改為併聯市電仍需25年以上之時間。
最後，本研究建議，要成為低碳示範社區，應從社區日常碳排放量最多的項目改善起，因此最有效的社區節能減碳碳應從住家用電、更換節能家電方面做起，其次才是推動社區住家垃圾減量及低碳交通。故政府推廣社區低碳技術、低碳改善時，不應為了行政程序上的方便而僅針對社區公有範圍進行改善，卻忽略社區私有領域(住家)廣大的減碳潛力。而再生能源與高科技綠能產業之利用上，本研究建議未來社區設置這些設備之前，必須審慎衡量社區本身自然條件與設置後的減碳效益，才不會造成設置失當、效率不佳之情形。

Lately, environment issues as low-carbon community and ecological community have drawn great public attention. In 2009 Environment Protection Administration had issued the “project work plan of promotion of low- carbon community”, invited professional committees to choose the representative existing communities in Taiwan, and used “Low Carbon Community System” to give suggestions and allowance to the communities for improvement.
The study focused on the carbon reduction efficiency of the improvement work. First it established and analyzed the “standard model of community carbon emission”, discovering that the general community carbon emission comes from “residential energy using”, “waste disposal”, and “transportation”. Second the study chose the large carbon-emission or carbon reduction improvement items as the “typical carbon reduction improvement techniques”. Third the study arranged the improvement suggestions from professional committees of the “project work plan of promotion of low- carbon community” as the “suggested improvement items of professional committees”. Then the study included the cost- regardless improvement as the “total improvement items”.
Afterward the study took the cases of chosen existing communities of “project work plan of promotion of low- carbon community” and the “standard model of community carbon emission” as subjects, used “Low Carbon Community System” as the basis of carbon reduction calculation, analyzed and compared the carbon reduction effects of “typical carbon reduction improvement techniques”, “suggested improvement items of professional committees” and “total improvement items”. Final the study calculated the “carbon reduction efficiency ratio” and “payback period” of the improvement items for the comparison.
The study result is following: with the “suggested improvement items of professional committees”, the average carbon reduction ratio of urban community is 2.78%, and the country one as 5.72%. Among these improvement items, the installation of the renewable energy equipment has the highest carbon reduction efficiency, and the improvement of the public lighting equipment is the second high.
With the “typical carbon reduction improvement techniques”, the average carbon reduction ratio of urban community is 5.30%, and the country one as 7.46%. Among these improvement items, improvement of residential electronic and lighting equipment has the highest efficiency, and the reduction of waste is the second high.
With the “total improvement items”, the average carbon reduction ratio of urban community is 41.77%, and the country one as 48.67%, showing the carbon reduction limitation of general Taiwan community.
Concerning the carbon reduction efficiency ratio, the best improvement technique is the replacement of 4 meter long T8 lamp (40W) with T5 lamp (28W), which has the ratio value as 87.32(kg.CO2/per-yr.-thousand dollars), and the second one is the installation of water saving gasket of water tap, which had the ratio value as 51.80(kg.CO2/per-yr.-thousand dollars). The government promoted electric vehicle and solar panel system have the ratio value as 2.50 (kg.CO2/per-yr.-thousand dollars) and 2.58 (kg.CO2/per-yr.-thousand dollars) respectively.
Concerning the payback period, the installation of water saving gasket of water tap has the shortest period as 0.70 year, and the second one is the rain water recycle system in Taipei area as 1.11 year. The value of the use of electric vehicle is 15.67 year, and the installation of solar panel system is more 80 years.
Finally, the study suggested that to achieve a low carbon community, the daily largest carbon emission items should be improved first, which is the replacement of energy saving electric equipment, and the following is the reduction of waste and low-carbon transportation. Hence as promoting the carbon reduction technique and improvement, government shall not neglect the vast carbon reduction potentials of the private field for the administrative convenience. Concerning the application of the renewable energy and high tech green energy industry, the study suggested in the future before the installation of this equipment, the community should carefully measure its narual conditions and the installation efficiency first.

國外文獻
1. Sagar A.D., ”Automobiles and global warming: alternative fuels and other options for carbon dioxide emissions reduction”, Ecological impact assessment, Vol. 15, 1995,pp. 241-274.
2. Jo H.K. and E.G. McPherson, “Indirect carbon reduction by residential vegetation and planting strategies in Chicago, USA”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.61, 2001, pp. 165-177.
3. Walsh C., P. Jakeman, R. Moles and B. O’Regan, “A comparison of carbon dioxide emissions associated with motorized transport modes and cycling in Ireland”, Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 13, 2008, pp. 392-399.
4. Tsoutsos T., E. Papadopoulou, A. Katsiri and A. M. Papadopoulos, “Supporting schemes for renewable energy sources and their impact on reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases in Greece”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 12, 2008, pp. 1767-1788.
5. Kenny T. and N.F. Gray, ”A preliminary survey of household and personal carbon dioxide emissions in Ireland”, Environment International, Vol. 35, 2009, pp. 259-272.
6. Zhao M., Z.H. Kong, F.J. Escobedo and J. Gao, “Impacts of urban forests on offsetting carbon emissions from industrial energy use in Hangzhou, China”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91, 2010, pp. 807-813.
7. Li Meng-ying, “A Preliminary Study on the Carbon-sink Function of Wetlands with a case study for the Jingjinji Area”, South-to-North Water Transfers and Water Seience ＆Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2010, pp. 60-64.
8. Zhang Wei, “Sustainable practice of german ecovillage: case study on ZEGG”,工業建築, Vol, 40, No. 10, 2010, pp. 41-45.
9. Neighbor Power Building Community：The Seattle Way, Jim Diers, 2009.
10. An Action Approach to Community Development, Harold F. Kaufman, 1959.
11. 英國能源與氣候變遷部2009低碳轉移計畫白皮書，The UK Low-Carbon Transition Plan, http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/lowcarbon/

國內文獻
1. 內政部統計處，「中華民國社區建設與活動調查報告」，2004年。
2. 張永樹，「以二氧化碳減量探討都市住宅區綠化策略之研究」，國立台北科技大學，碩士論文，2005年。
3. 呂昌祺，「地方政府之溫室氣體排放量推估及管制策略分析-以台北縣市為例」，國立台北科技大學，碩士論文，2005年。
4. 王仁俊，「台南市住宅區用電解析之研究」，國立成功大學，博士論文，2005年。
5. 郭柏巖，「住宅耗電實測解析與評估系統之研究」，國立成功大學，博士論文，2005年。
6. 蕭丁齊，「台灣地區種植能源作物之可行性研究-以生質柴油為例」，國立中興大學，碩士論文，2006年。
7. 陳顗竹，「堆肥製作過成二氧化碳及甲烷排放量測」，國立台灣大學，博士論文，2007年。
8. 蔡欣欣，「以生命週期盤查方法探討低公害車與傳統汽油車之環境與能源特性研究」，國立台北大學，碩士論文，2008年。
9. 張瑞棋，「建築物外遮陽整合太陽能集熱器效能之研究」，國立台北科技大學，碩士論文，2008年。
10. 郭世勳，「台灣地區離岸式風力發電成本效益分析」，國立台北大學，碩士論文，2008年。
11. 溫雅莉，「台灣區域性溫室氣體評估與減量措施之探討-以B 市為例」，國立台北科技大學，碩士論文，2010年。
12. 鄭光炎、吳維斌，「自行車道之效益分析與設計」，Pavemant Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.59-66。
13. 甘知潔，「都市街廓用電預測方法之研究」，國立成功大學，碩士論文，2009年。
14. 蘇梓靖，「住宅耗能標示制度之研究」，國立成功大學，碩士論文，2009年。
15. 鄭凱文，「鄉村型生態社區評估系統之研究」，國立成功大學，碩士論文，2010年。
16. 高鵬濠，「公有建築物綠色改造成本效益之研究-以綠建築更新診斷與改造計畫為例」，國立成功大學，碩士論文，2011年。

參考書籍
1. 走向零耗能From A to ZED，中國建築工業出版社。
2. 建築零耗能技術-針對日益縮小世界的解決方案the ZEDbook，大連理工大學出版社。
3. 認識綠色能源，李育明，新自然主義。
4. 人居熱環境，林憲德，詹氏書局。
5. 綠色建築，林憲德，詹氏書局。
6. 低碳社區評估系統草案，環保署，2011年。