隨著永續發展的意識抬頭，臺灣政府部門近10年來持續推動永續在公共工程的觀念與作法，營建署於2020年提出台灣市區綠道路評估系統(Taiwan Urban Green Roadways, TUGR)，現今於綠道路推動初期，提供指標準備度之提升方向，能使後續市區道路工程更有效率的選擇適用之指標。
因此為了解國內市區道路工程對台灣市區綠道路評估系統(TUGR)中各項指標要求的準備程度，本研究透過案例分析方法，以九個不同金額規模的市區道路工程，評估各案例之綠道路得分，分析案例於TURG各類指標之達成度及指標與合約文件之關聯性，進而提出綠道路指標準備程度與提升建議。
試評估結果顯示，九案例中有一個案例可得銀級認證，兩個可得銅級認證，扣除其他創新類指標，評估系統的七類指標中，WP類指標為達成度最高之指標，最低之指標為CO類指標。由評估資料的相關利害人發現，TUGR評估系統指標大多與設計及施工單位相關，在TUGR的指標中，有16個與設計單位相關，與施工單位相關的有9個，與業主相關的有2個。經比對九案例之工程合約的要求後發現，TUGR所需評估文件46.4%為合約上已有要求之文件，22.7%為工程團隊既有文件，依以上兩種文件重新進行評估，九案例中新建工程最低可得20分，整建工程最低可得16分。
由九案例基於合約要求之達成狀況，與專家問卷調查指標困難原因結果，提出建議，與業主相關的2個指標，建議由CC1指標著手，與設計單位相關的16個指標，建議由PR1、EC1、EC2等13個指標著手，與施工單位相關的9個指標，如於設計階段即納入考量，皆應不難達成。雖然與業主有直接關係的指標較少，但由問卷調查結果發現，指標之困難原因大多與業主政策法規相關，因此建議業主擬定合約時，將EC2、EC4、ME1等14個指標納入考量。

With the rising awareness of sustainable development, Taiwan government has continued to promote the concept and practice of sustainability in public infrastructure projects in the past 10 years. One of the most systematic policy to promote sustainability in roadway infrastructure was the Taiwan Urban Green Roadways (TUGR) rating system which proposed by the Construction Planning Agency, the national funding agency of local road program, in 2020. However, at the beginning stage, most planners and engineers do not familiar with the indicators and requirements in the TUGR. Therefore, there is an urgent need to provide a reference tool for planner and engineers to bridge the TUGR indicators and requirements to the existing engineering documents which can enhance the design and planning efficiency.

The goal of this study aimed to investigate the readiness of the existing urban roadway project to the TURG. The study utilized content analysis to evaluated nine urban road projects with different cost range based on the TURG requirements. In addition, questionnaire survey was collected from expertise to analyze the obstacle reason of all the indicators in the TURG. The analysis results were summarized and provide the recommendation for the scoring strategy of the sustainability roadway project.

The result shows that among nine cases, one case achieved silver certification and two cases achieved copper certification. In general, among seven categories in the TURG, indicators in the WP category achieved the highest scores and the indicators in the CO category scored the lowest points. Among all the indicators in the TURG, 16 indicators are related to designer, nine indicators are related to contractor, and 2 indicators are related owner. The analysis also showed that 46.4% of documents required to support TURG evaluation were the required documents in the typical engineering contract. There are 22.7% documents were existing in the design or construction process. Therefore, theoretically, if all the contracting documents were collected, the lowest score from the new construction projects can award 20 points and the lowest score from the rehabilitation projects case award 16 points.

Based on the results of this study, the recommended scoring strategies for the owner, designer, and contractor were proposed as follows: for the owner, the easier execute indicator is CC1 as stakeholder participant. For the designer, indicator PR1, EC1, and EC2 appears to have lower implementation difficult. Lastly. All nine contractor related indicators can be achieved easily if they were planned during the designing phase of the project. The results of the questionnaire survey also found that the owner/ government policy and requirements are the root of difficulties to implement the TURG indicators and requirements. As the starting point, it is recommended that roadway agencies can consider to include 14 indicators such as EC2, EC4, ME1, ME2, ME3, ME4, ME5, CO2, CC3, LT1, LT2, LT3 and LT4 to promote sustainability in roadway projects.

英文文獻
1. CEEQUAL (2021), http://www.ceequal.com/about/, assessed on july 20th, 2021.
2. Cristina Contreras Casado (2016),” An Envision Rating System Approach to Sustainable Infrastructure in Latin American and the Caribbean. Infrastructure 360 Awards, Lessons Learned.” Harvard University.
3. Envision (2021), https://www.asce.org/envision/, assessed on july 20th, 2021.
4. FWHA (2015),” INVEST Economic, Social, Environmental Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool v1.2, Federal Highway Administration.”
5. GreenLITES Project Design Certification Programme (2010),” New York State Department of Transportation.”
6. Greenroads Foundation (2015),” Greenroads RATING SYSTEM V2. Greenroads Foundation.”, Washington, D.C.
7. Illinois Department of Transportation,IDOT (2012),” I-LAST: Illinois - Livable and Sustainable Transportation Rating System and Guide. Illiniois.”
8. Jeralee L. Anderson and Stephen T. Muench (2013),” Sustainability Trends Measured by the Greenroads Rating System.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,SAGE, Vol. 2357, Issue. 1, pp. 24-32.
9. Kerry Griffiths (2015),” Infrastructure sustainability rating tools – how they have developed and what we might expect to see in the future.”
10. Materials Engineering and Research Office,MERO (2017),” GREEN PAVEMENT DESIGN RATING SYSTEM REFERENCE GUIDE.”
11. Recycled Materials Resource Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison(2007), “Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Transportation-Infrastructure-Highways.”
12. Richard Willetts, Jim Burdon, Jacqui Glass and Matthew Frost (2015),”Environmental and Sustainability Impact Assessment of Infrastructure in the United Kingdom.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,SAGE, Vol. 2158, Issue. 1, pp. 143-150.
13. Saad Sarsam (2015),” Sustainable and Green Roadway Rating System.” International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, Symbiosis, Vol. 3, Issue. 3, pp. 99~106.
14. Stephen T. Muench, Amit Armstrong and Brian Allen (2012),” Sustainable Roadway Design and Construction in Federal Lands Highway Program.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,SAGE, Vol. 2271, Issue. 1, pp. 19-30.
15. Susanti Djalante (2019),” Analysis of the Implementing Green Road Construction, Progress and Barriers (Study of West Java – Indonesia).” International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development, Vol. 9, Issue 3,pp. 37-50
16. United Nation, UN (2021),” The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.“https://www.unido.org/viennas-sdgs-solutiontalks/, assessed on july 20th, 2021.
17. World Commission on Environment and Development,WCED (1987),” Our Common Future.” Brundtland Report, Oxford University Press.

中文文獻
1. 台北市華美華境保護協會(2005)，臺灣EEWH與美國LEED綠建築分級評估系統比較研究，建研所。
2. 交通部(2021)，金路獎，https://event.motc.gov.tw/home.jsp?id=1526&parentpath=0,1510&websiteid=201603230001，2021年7月20日上網查得。
3. 交通部公路總局(2021)，公路總局施工階段契約管理約定權責分工表，交通部。
4. 行政院(2010)，國家節能減碳總計畫，行政院。
5. 行政院公共工程委員會(2008)，永續公共工程－節能減碳政策白皮書，核定版，工程會。
6. 行政院公共工程委員會(2011)，研訂公共工程計畫相關審議基準及綠色減碳指標計算規則，工程會。
7. 行政院公共工程委員會(2021)，公共工程金質獎，https://www.pcc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=16D7DECD4329DFFC，2021年7月20日上網查得。
8. 行政院環境保護署(2015)，溫室氣體減量及管理法，環保署。
9. 林立庭(2017)，建立綠道路架構，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
10. 凃謦麟(2018)，納入綠道路指標之設計綱要，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
11. 張桂鳳、江哲銘、周伯丞(2007)，「永續建築評估工具GBTool2005本土適用性之研究」，建築學報，中華民國建築學會，第66期，177-196頁。
12. 張菱芳(2020)，綠道路指標之達成程度與提升方法，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
13. 許照雄、鄭欽宗(2004)，永續的道路規劃與設計規範之研究，運研所。
14. 陳章鵬、李育明(2004)，建立道路工程綠營建審議指標之研究，行政院公共工程委員會。
15. 陳韶賜、游本志(2001)，綠營建工程方案－推動綠營建工程評估審議制度及評估指標之研究，行政院公共工程委員會。
16. 黃榮堯、郭瓊瑩(2002)，綠營建政策推動策略及藍圖之研究，行政院公共工程委員會。
17. 經建會(2007)，人本交通運輸系統規劃及示範案例—大型城鎮層級，行政院經濟建設委員會。
18. 廖怜雅(2009)，臺灣地區應用SBTOOL評估之適用性-以EEWH合格級以上主宅為例-，碩士論文，成功大學建築研究所。
19. 蔡雅雯(2011)，工程永續設計環境面項目之建立與適用性評估，國立成功大學土木研究所博士論文。
20. 營建署(2006)，市區道路景觀與人行環境改善計畫，營建署。
21. 營建署(2015)，生活圈道路交通系統建設計畫，營建署。
22. 營建署(2017)，2009～2014年度生活圈道路交通系統建設計畫成果彙編，營建署。
23. 營建署(2017)，2015～2016年度生活圈道路交通系統建設計畫成果彙編，營建署。
24. 營建署(2020)，內政部營建署道路工程委託規劃設計契約書，營建署。
25. 營建署(2020)，市區道路評估手冊，營建署。