永續發展的措施與績效，需要評估系統與指標加以衡量，較為普遍的是許多國家開發永續如綠建築評估系統。對於基礎建設如道路，美國Greenroads為發展較成熟之道路評估系統，2015年發布第2版，由7類及61個指標組成，其已評估上百案例。
本研究就Greenroads評估台灣四個道路案例之結果，分析其指標之達成程度，將49個計分指標成三類：得分達50%、界於1%至49%、未得分。了解達成指標所需提出之文件，其提出者、性質、指標面向等因素對達成指標之影響，分析其與指標達成程度的關係。與美國成功案例比較，整理其特徵及類別得分，與評估的台灣四案例比較，找出台灣案例能納入的指標，提出潛力得分之方向。
研究結果顯示台灣四案例皆得認證，得分達50%有22個指標，占計分指標中45%，主要是指標要求於台灣情況較易達到，或與台灣的工程背景相符。由以上結果認定，此系統適用台灣道路工程。由資料提出者分類發現，指標文件主要來自於設計者及承包商。資料性質分類結果，顯示量化較質化文件指標未得分比例較高，量化文件較質化文件難提出，工程未做便無法提出。對指標六個面向之分類發現，要求是文書、社會兩類的指標，其達成程度較高，或許與其多為質化文件有關。
美國18個成功案例中，多數增加或改善交通方式、鋪設透水路面等，其中鋪設透水鋪面及減輕地表逕流為台灣案例未做的。得分未達50%指標之困難原因，分佈於5類，為業主政策法規、自然條件、經費時間、準則規範、經驗不足，除自然條件、經費時間，而業主政策法規最多。潛力得分針對不須額外增加施工成本的指標，可增加潛力得分24，以UC類最多，其次為EW，若潛力分數都得到，有機會獲得更高等級認證。

The measurement and performance of sustainable development needs evaluation systems and indicators. It is common for many countries to develop their own sustainability assessment systems such as the green building rating systems. Greenroads Rating System developed in the United States is a more mature road rating system and it has been used to evaluate hundreds of roadway projects. The second edition was released in 2015 and consists of seven categories and 61 indicators.
This study, based on the evaluation results of the Greenroads rating system for four road cases in Taiwan, analyzed the achievement levels of the indicators. The 49 voluntary indicators are classified into three categories based on the scores the indicators received upon their weights: 50% or above, between 1% and 49%, and no score. The study analyzed the documents required to achieve the indicators, document providers, qualitative or quantitative of documents and the six aspects involved in the indicator, and their relationships with the degree of achievement of indicators. It reviewed the successful cases in the United States, sorted out their features and category scores, and compared them with the four evaluated cases in Taiwan to find out the indicators that Taiwan cases can incorporate and propose the direction of potential scores.
The results of the study show that the four cases in Taiwan achieve the certification level. There are 22 indicators with a score above 50%, accounting for 45% of the 49 indicators. These indicators are easier to achieve because they match with Taiwan’s construction background. For the document providers, the indicators’ documents mainly come from designers and contractors. The percentage of unscored indicators with quantitative document is higher than that of indicators with qualitative documents. Quantitative documents are more difficult to present than qualitative documents. For the six aspects of the indicators, the report and the social indicators have a higher degree of achievement, which may be related to the fact that they are mostly qualitative documents.
Among the 18 successful roadway cases in the United States, most of them improved transportation, laid permeable roads, installed LED lamps, and used recycled materials. Paving permeable pavement and reducing surface runoff are less common in Taiwan. There are five difficulty reasons for meeting the requirements of indicators: owner, policy and law; natural precondition; budget and schedule; criteria and specification; lack of experience. Except for natural precondition and budget and schedule, the indicators with other three types of difficulty reasons can be classified as potential indicators. Potential indicators can earn 24 more points with the addition of limited effort at no additional construction cost to the project.

英文文獻
1. Anderson, J. (2012), “Measuring Sustainability in Civil Engineering: Development, Testing and Implementation of the Greenroads Rating System.” Doctor of Philosophy dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.
2. Anderson, J. and Muench, S. (2013), “Sustainability Trends Measured by Greenroads Rating System.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2357, pp. 24-32.
3. BREEAM (2020), http://www.breeam.com/, assessed on April 28th, 2020.
4. BRE (2014), BREEAM UK New Construction (Non-Domestic Buildings) Technical Manual, Building Research Establishment.
5. CEEQUAL (2020), http://www.ceequal.com/about/, assessed on April 28th, 2020.
6. CEEQUAL (2012), CEEQUAL: Assessment Manual for UK & Ireland Projects v5, CEEQUAL Ltd.
7. Chang, A. and Tsai, C. (2015), Difficulty and reasons for sustainable roadway design - The case from Taiwan.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.395-406.
8. Danatzko, J. M., Sezen, H., and Asce, M. (2011), “Sustainable structural design methodologies.” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 16, pp. 186–190.
9. ENVISION (2015). A Rating System for Sustainable Infrastructure, Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure.
10. Ekincioglu, O., Gurgun, A., Engin, Y., Tarhan, M., and Kumbaracibasi, S. (2013), “Approaches for sustainable cement production - A case study from Turkey.” Energy and Buildings, Vol. 66, pp. 136–142.
11. Eleftheriadis, S., Mumovic, D. and Greening, P. (2017), “Life cycle energy efficiency in building structures: A review of current developments and future outlooks based on BIM capabilities.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol.67, pp. 811-825.
12. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). “Building theories from case study research.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532-550.
13. Fernandez-Sanchez, G., and Rodriguez-Lopez, F. (2010), “A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project management-Application. infrastructure projects in Spain.” Ecological Indicators, Vol. 10, No.6, pp. 1193-1201.
14. FWHA (2018), INVEST Economic, Social, Environmental Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool v1.3, Federal Highway Administration.
15. GreenLITES Project Design Certification Programme, (2010), New York State Department of Transportation.
16. Greenroads (2020), https://www.greenroads.org/, assessed on May 21st, 2020.
17. Greenroads Foundation (2010), Greenroads Rating System, V1, Greenroads Foundation, Washington, D.C.
18. Greenroads Foundation (2015), Greenroads Rating System, V2, Greenroads Foundation, Washington, D.C.
19. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2013), Implementation Manual, G4, Reporting Guidelines, GRI: Amsterdam.
20. Hasse, J. and Lathrop, R. (2003), “Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl.” Applied Geography, Vol.23, pp. 159-175.
21. Hughes, J. (2007). Final report workshop on frontier research directions in civil environmeatal engineering, The National Science Foundation (NSF), Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation Division (CMMI), Virginia, US.
22. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (1999), ISO 14031 Geneva, Switzerland.
23. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2013), ISO 14031 Geneva, Switzerland.
24. Langon, D. (2007), Cost of green revisited, reexamining the feasibility and cost impact of sustainable design in the light of increased market adoption, London.
25. Lew, J., Anderson, J. and Muench, S. (2016), “Informing Roadway Sustainability Practices Using Greenroads Certified Project Data.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2589, pp. 1-13.
26. Muench, S., Scarsella, M., Bradway, M., Hormann, L., Cornell, L. (2012), “Evaluating Project-Based Roadway Sustainability Rating System for Public Agency Use.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2285, pp. 8-18.
27. Muench, S., Armstrong, A., Allen, B. (2012), “Sustainable Roadway Design and Construction in Federal Lands Highway Program.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2271, pp. 19-30.
28. Nguyen, Q., and Hens, L. (2015), “Environmental performance of the cement industry in Vietnam: the influence of ISO 14001 certification.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 96, pp. 362-378.
29. Raja, R. R. M. R., Nurizan, A. R., Nazurah, Z. U. B., Muhd Zaimi, M. and Faridah, I. (2014), “An Evaluation of Sustainable Design and Construction Criteria for Green Highway.” Procedia Environmental Sciences, Vol. 20, pp. 180-186.
30. Salvati, L., Zambonb, I., Chelli, F. M., Serra, P. (2018), “Do spatial patterns of urbanization and land consumption reflect different socioeconomic contexts in Europe?” Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 625, pp.722-730.
31. Sardinha, I., Reijnders, L., and Antunes, P. (2011), “Using corporate social responsibility benchmarking framework to identify and assess corporate social responsibility trends of real estate companies owning and developing shopping centres.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No.13, pp. 1486-1493.
32. Shen L., Tam V., Tam L., and Ji Y. (2010), “Project feasibility study: the key to successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, No.3, pp. 254-259.
33. USGBC (2020), https://www.usgbc.org/leed, assessed on April 28th, 2020.
34. UN (2015). United Nations Summit onSustainable Development 2015, New York.
35. Zhao, Z.Y., Zhao, X.J., and Zuo, J. (2012), “A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 29-30, pp. 277-289.

中文文獻
1. 付鑫鈺(2017)，綠道路指標權重分配之投入-產出-成果模式，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
2. 朱士傑(2014)，材料製造與施工階段環境衝擊分析-以兩橋梁為例，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
3. 永續發展委員會(2019)，臺灣永續發展目標，行政院。
4. 泛亞工程建設公司(2020)，台南都會區北外環道路第三期新建工程綠道路先導計畫評估報告，泛亞工程建設公司。
5. 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。
6. 建築研究所(2014)，綠建築評估手冊－基本型，內政部建築研究所。
7. 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。
8. 徐士哲(2011)，公路工程生態設計策略，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
9. 許祐寧(2013)，綠建築基地保水措施之困難因應與策略選擇模式，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
10. 智慧綠建築資訊網(2020)，綠建築標章介紹， https://smartgreen.abri.gov.tw/index-o.php，2020年4月19日上網資料。
11. 張登勝(2013)，暴雨管理與排水系統之整合分析，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。
12. 湯京平、邱崇原(2010)，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。
13. 詹盛如、鄭瑞隆、李藹慈、洪志成、李奉儒、何粵東、王雅玄、陳玉樹、姜雅玲、廖俊儒、王順正、林玉瓊(2013)，社會科學研究方式新論，五南圖書，台中。
14. 營建署(2017)，建立市區道路之綠道路評估系統第一階段期中報告書，營建署。
15. 營建署(2018)，都市人本交通道路規劃設計手冊(第二版)，營建署。
16. 營建署(2019)，台中「潭子區祥和路延伸銜接至豐原區鎌村路道路開闢工程」案綠道路先導計畫評估報告，營建署。
17. 營建署(2019)，台南「仁德特27號道路東段工程」案綠道路先導計畫評估報告，營建署。
18. 營建署(2019)，宜蘭「二結連絡道新闢工程(都內段)」案綠道路先導計畫評估報告，營建署。
19. 羅方辰、駱尚廉(2018)，低衝擊開發技術之綠色基礎設施-灰燼添加於透水鋪面之應用，土木水利，第45卷，第4期，23-28頁。
20. 蕭雯馨(2019)，企業社會責任報告中環境績效揭露與資料來源的關係，碩士論文，成功大學土木工程研究所。