全球氣候變遷加劇，使碳排放管制與循環經濟成為產業轉型的核心課題。製鞋業在生產過程中產生大量乙烯－醋酸乙烯酯(EVA)等高分子廢料，多以掩埋或焚燒方式處理，不僅造成資源浪費，亦帶來碳排放負擔。
本研究依據 ISO 14067 之產品碳足跡(Product Carbon Footprint, PCF)與生命週期評估(Life Cycle Assessment, LCA)方法，建立EVA再生飾材之系統邊界與功能單位，並與傳統抿石子飾材進行比較。研究範圍涵蓋原料階段與製造階段的碳排放計算，並輔以 ASTM 與 JIS 簡易試驗，驗證EVA再生飾材於防水性、抗污性及附著力等物性之可行性。
本研究選用同為骨料與黏合材結合之抿石子牆面飾材作為對比研討，且抿石子牆面飾材製程高度依賴水泥、砂石與合成樹脂等高碳排放量材料。製鞋業廢料轉化成為EVA再生牆面飾材，除可延長材料生命週期並減少原生資源開採外，亦有助於降低建材製程之碳排放，促進建築產業的低碳化與循環再利用。
研究結果顯示，EVA再生飾材碳排放量11.2 kgCO2e/坪，原料階段10.4 kgCO2e/坪，製造階段0.8 kgCO2e/坪。抿石子飾材碳排放量46.4 kgCO2e/坪，原料階段43.6 kgCO2e/坪，製造階段2.8 kgCO2e/坪。EVA再生飾材相較抿石子飾材可減少約76.9%的碳排放量。於原料階段，因再生配方取代高碳水泥與石材，碳排放強度顯著下降；於製造階段，濕式製程之能耗及運輸頻率均低於傳統乾式抿石子工法。物性測試結果顯示，EVA再生飾材具良好防水性、抗污性與附著力，性能符合ASTM與JIS相關要求，具備商業化應用潛力。綜合環境與技術面分析，再生飾材導入可降低單位產品碳排放強度，減少能源使用與原物料依賴，符合ISO 14067所倡導之全生命週期碳管理精神。

Intensifying global climate change has made carbon emission regulation and the promotion of circular economy principles central issues in contemporary industrial transformation. Manufacturing sectors with high material consumption and waste generation are facing increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve resource efficiency. Among these sectors, the footwear manufacturing industry produces a considerable amount of polymer-based waste, particularly ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), which is widely used in shoe midsoles and structural components. In current industrial practice, EVA waste is predominantly treated through landfilling or incineration, leading not only to significant resource loss but also to additional carbon emissions and environmental burdens. Identifying alternative recycling pathways for EVA waste is therefore essential for advancing circular material utilization and reducing lifecycle carbon emissions.
This study applies the Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies in accordance with ISO 14067 to evaluate the carbon reduction potential of recycled EVA wall coatings derived from footwear industry waste. A systematic carbon footprint assessment framework is established by defining the system boundary and functional unit of EVA recycled coatings and comparing them with conventional pebble wall coatings. The assessment scope covers the raw material acquisition stage and the manufacturing stage, which corresponds to a cradle-to-gate boundary and reflects typical business-to-business applications of wall finishing materials. The functional unit is defined on the basis of wall area (per 3.31 m²) to ensure comparability between the two coating systems under equivalent functional conditions.
Pebble wall coatings are selected as the reference material for comparison because they share a similar structural concept, combining aggregates and binding materials, and are widely used in building exterior applications. However, the production of pebble wall coatings relies heavily on high-carbon-intensity materials, including cement, natural aggregates, and synthetic resins. Cement production, in particular, is associated with substantial carbon emissions due to energy-intensive processes and process-related carbon dioxide release. As a result, pebble wall coatings typically exhibit relatively high embodied carbon emissions. In contrast, converting footwear industry waste into EVA recycled wall coatings provides an opportunity to extend material life cycles, reduce the extraction of virgin raw materials, and lower the carbon footprint associated with building material production.
Carbon emission data used in this study are compiled from a combination of publicly available databases, supplier-provided information, and on-site operational records. The inventory includes material inputs, electricity consumption, fuel usage, and transportation activities associated with both coating systems. Carbon emissions are calculated and allocated to the raw material stage and the manufacturing stage in accordance with ISO 14067 requirements. In addition to carbon footprint accounting, simplified material performance tests are conducted to assess the technical feasibility of EVA recycled wall coatings. These tests reference relevant ASTM and JIS standards and focus on key functional properties required for exterior wall applications, including waterproofing performance, stain resistance, and adhesion strength. The purpose of these tests is to verify whether the recycled coating meets basic performance requirements rather than to conduct full certification-level testing.
The results of the carbon footprint assessment indicate that the EVA recycled wall coating has a total carbon footprint of 11.2 kgCO₂e per 3.31 m². Within this total, the raw material stage accounts for 10.4 kgCO₂e per 3.31 m², while the manufacturing stage contributes 0.8 kgCO₂e per 3.31 m². In comparison, the conventional pebble wall coating exhibits a substantially higher total carbon footprint of 46.4 kgCO₂e per 3.31 m², consisting of 43.6 kgCO₂e per 3.31 m² from the raw material stage and 2.8 kgCO₂e per 3.31 m² from the manufacturing stage. Overall, the EVA recycled wall coating achieves an approximate 76.9% reduction in carbon emissions relative to the pebble wall coating.
The carbon reduction benefits are primarily attributed to differences in material composition and production processes. In the raw material stage, the use of recycled EVA replaces high-carbon cement and natural aggregates, leading to a significant decrease in carbon emission intensity. This substitution effect highlights the importance of material selection in reducing embodied carbon in building materials. In the manufacturing stage, the EVA recycled wall coating adopts a wet-process production method, which requires lower energy consumption and involves fewer transportation activities compared to the traditional dry-process method used for pebble wall coatings. As a result, both energy-related and transportation-related emissions are reduced in the recycled coating system.
The results of the simplified material performance tests demonstrate that the EVA recycled wall coating exhibits satisfactory waterproofing, stain resistance, and adhesion properties. The waterproofing tests indicate low water absorption behavior, suggesting adequate resistance to moisture penetration. Stain resistance evaluations show that common contaminants can be effectively removed without permanent surface degradation. Adhesion tests confirm that the recycled coating achieves sufficient bonding strength with the substrate, meeting the performance criteria referenced in relevant ASTM and JIS standards.
These findings indicate that the EVA recycled wall coating is technically feasible and suitable for practical application without compromising essential functional performance.
In conclusion, the results of this study confirm that the adoption of EVA recycled wall coatings derived from footwear industry waste can substantially reduce unit-based carbon emissions while maintaining acceptable material performance. From both environmental and technical perspectives, the proposed recycling pathway aligns with the life-cycle carbon management principles advocated by ISO 14067. The introduction of recycled wall coatings contributes to reduced energy consumption, lower dependence on virgin raw materials, and enhanced circular material utilization. The findings provide quantitative reference values for manufacturers develo3.31 m² low-carbon building materials, designers seeking to reduce embodied carbon in construction projects, and policymakers promoting low-carbon transformation and circular economy practices within the construction industry.

英文文獻
1. Adidas AG. (2024). Annual Report 2023: Environmental and Carbon Management. https://www.adidas-group.com, access on 2025, Feb. 15.
2. Apparel and Footwear Sector SBTi Guidance. (2023). Science-based targets guidance for the apparel and footwear sector. https://sciencebasedtargets.org/sectors/apparel-and-footwear, access on 2024, July. 02.
3. Bastos, J., Mateus, R., & Bragança, L. (2022). “Sustainability assessment of bio-based and recycled materials in building envelopes: A life cycle perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 336, 130423.
4. British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011). PAS 2050:2011 – Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London: BSI.
5. British Standards Institution (BSI). (2023). PAS 2080:2023 – Carbon Management in Infrastructure. London: BSI.
6. Climate Action Accelerator. (2024). Recycled materials in construction: Reducing carbon emissions and resource consumption. https://climateactionaccelerator.org, access on 2024, Dec. 07.
7. Crocs. (2024). Crocs Comfort Report 2024. https://www.crocs.com, access on 2025, Jan. 08.
8. Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, Data-Driven EnviroLab, & NewClimate Institute. (2025). Net Zero Tracker Database. Retrieved from https://zerotracker.net, access on 2025, Feb. 18.
9. González, M. J., & García Navarro, J. (2006). “Assessment of the decrease of CO₂ emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials.” Building and Environment, 41(7), 902–909.
10. He, B., Qian, S., & Li, T. (2023). “Modeling product carbon footprint for manufacturing process.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 402, 136805.
11. Hong, C. K., et al. (2002). "Compatibilization of EVA/epoxy resin blends." Polymer, 43(2), 673–678.
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Sixth Assessment Report (AR6): Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press.
13. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Paris: OECD/IEA.
14. ISO (2018). ISO 14067:2018. Greenhouse gases – Carbon footprint of products – Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. International Organization for Standardization.
15. Li, H., & Song, Y. (2024). “Topology optimization in non-structural construction elements for low-carbon applications.” Journal of Building Engineering, 107, 107123.
16. Liu, X., He, M., Wang, Y., Zheng, B., Li, C., & Zhu, X. (2021). “Experimental study on heat transfer attenuation due to thermal deformation of horizontal GHEs.” Geothermics, 97, 102241.
17. Lombardi, M., Laiola, E., Tricase, C., & Rana, R. (2017). Assessing the urban carbon footprint: An overview. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 66, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.005
18. Martínez-Barrera, G., Gencel, O., Hagg Lobland, H. E., & Brostow, W. (2012). “Mechanical properties and microstructure of cement composites with recycled EVA particles.” Construction and Building Materials, 34, 1–8.
19. Means, P., & Guggemos, A. (2015). “Framework for life cycle assessment (LCA) based environmental decision making during the conceptual design phase for commercial buildings.” Procedia Engineering, 118, 802–812.
20. Net Zero tracker(2025), https://zerotracker.net/, access on 2025,Feb,11.
21. Nike. (2024). Move to Zero – Sustainable Materials Initiative. https://www.nike.com/sustainability/materials, access on 2025, Jan. 5.
22. Paint & Coatings Industry. (2023). Bio-based acrylic emulsions: Low VOC solutions for sustainable coatings. https://www.pcimag.com, access on 2025, Jan. 13.
23. Rahman, M., Chen, J., & Wu, T. (2021). “LCA comparison of polymer-based and inorganic filler in decorative coatings.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123456.
24. Saade, M. R. M., Silva, D. A. L., Gomes, V., & Ometto, A. R. (2019). “Life cycle assessment of construction materials: A critical review of the environmental impacts of polymer-based building materials.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 1114–1126.
25. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2023). 2023 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi: UNEP.
26. United Nations. (2015). Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Paris.
27. Wang, L., & Wu, T. (2023). “Modeling product carbon footprint for manufacturing enterprises using a hybrid LCA-based approach.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 388, 136071.
28. Yang, Y., Heijungs, R., & Brandão, M. (2017). “Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 150, 237–242.
29. Zhang, J.-H., & Chen, M. (2015). “Assessing the impact of China’s vehicle emission standards on diesel engine remanufacturing.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 177–184.
30. Zhang, Y., Chen, X., & Li, M. (2017). “Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 146, 95–105.
中文文獻
1. 台灣自來水股份有限公司(2022)，自來水供水系統溫室氣體排放係數說明資料。台北：台灣自來水股份有限公司。
2. 行政院環境部(2023)，溫室氣體排放量盤查作業指引，行政院環境部，台北。
3. 行政院環境部(2024)，產品碳足跡資訊網－原料碳排放係數資料庫。
4. 亞洲水泥股份有限公司(2023)，水泥產品類別規則(PCR)第1.0版。
5. 林志弘(2018)，飾材EPD-PCR草案一版，工業局永續建材推廣計畫。
6. 徐驊煒(2021)，再生瀝青混凝土減碳效益之研究，國立高雄科技大學碩士論文。
7. 郭柏均(2023)，我國建築碳足跡法令探討與標示制度研議之研究，國立陽明交通大學碩士論文。
8. 陳雅君(2023)，廢棄物再生碳足跡及減碳效益分析－以半導體封裝業循環再生產品為例，國立成功大學碩士論文。
9. 黃正豪(2022)，再生粒料應用於道面基底層之減碳效益評估－以桃園機場強化工程為例，國立交通大學碩士論文。
10. 黃聖傑(2022)，都市減洪設施之成本與減碳效益最佳化評估，國立交通大學碩士論文。
11. 經濟部工業局(2023)，預拌混凝土產品類別規則(PCR)第1.0版。
12. 經濟部能源署(2023)，111 年度電力排碳係數。https://www.moeaea.gov.tw(查詢日期：2024年9月30日)。
13. 劉凱綺(2023)，營建產業碳足跡管理制度建構之研究，國立成功大學碩士論文。
14. 鞋墊邊餘料回收處理方法專利(2024)，中華民國專利申請案。
15. 環境部(2022)，回收再生玻璃製品－用於建材產品類別規則(PCR)第1.0版，環境部，台北。
16. 環境部(2023)，「氣候變遷因應法」，中華民國政府公報。
17. 環境部環境管理署(2024)，「Day2 產品碳足跡管理與盤查課程講義」，https://ghg.tgpf.org.tw/CVData/CVData_more?id=a69e3f7686054dfabffd8e7c3b8c95fd，2024年10月15日網路資訊 。
18. 顏孝平(2019)，建築裝修材料CO₂排放量現況調查之研究，國立台灣科技大學碩士論文。