工程的永續發展由建築物開始且逐漸發展永續評估系統，國內道路工程的永續發展尚在起步階段，未有評估系統。為了提升工程的永續性，已有綠營建的相關研究，而營建署也針對永續道路提出了道路生態綠廊道等計畫。然而該計畫內容只包含生態面指標，且評分方式僅用於決定補助優先順序，不足以完整評估道路的永續性。
道路工程以市區道路為主，且市區道路與建築同時為城市的主要元素，因此本研究建立市區道路之綠道路評估架構。比較國內外的綠建築、基礎設施以及道路評估系統，可歸納出不同工程都面臨的永續議題以及重視的內容。有鑑於台灣綠建築評估系統已使用多年，本研究採用綠建築的指標訂定原則，與其他評估系統比較，得到評估架構與類別。
評估架構建立之後，將指標分類並且與不同評估系統比對，可歸納出常見的議題。再依據市區道路之工程特性探討議題的關聯性，導出初步指標。然而，評估指標之內容涉及更多專業以及市區道路議題，因此本研究未確立評估內容，而是探討指標訂定與調整的考量要素，如道路寬度、評估方式以及指標權重。
研究結果顯示，評估架構包含八個類別，分別是生態、材料、能源與水資源、廢棄物與汙染、社區與人本、通路與宜居性、經濟以及其他創新，在這些類別下則是45個初步指標。此外，在訂定指標內容時，應針對道路寬度、工程種類與權重等要素調整，以確保評估系統容易理解與採用。

The development of sustainable construction began from buildings and the establishment of sustainability rating systems gradually went under progress, but the development in roadway sustainability is still in the initial stage. In order to increase the sustainability of roadways, the Construction and Planning Agency proposed the Ecological Green Corridor plan. However, the plan only includes environmental indicators, and the rating level is only used as a reference for determining the sequence of financial subsidy.
This research aims to establish a green assessment framework for urban roadways, the main type of roadway construction. By comparing different rating systems of buildings, infrastructure and roadways, important sustainable issues faced in construction were identified. Considering that EEWH (Ecology, Energy saving, Waste reduction, Health) is a well-developed rating system, its principles of developing indicators were referenced to determine the categories of the framework.
After the establishment of the framework, indicators were selected based on the comparison of indicators and the characteristics of urban roadways. Since the details of an indicator require knowledge of different disciplines, this research did not include the detailed contents of indicators. Instead, this research identified related issues when adjusting indicators, including the width of road, the assessment method, and the weights of indicators.
As a research result, the framework includes 8 categories and 45 indicators. The categories are Ecology, Materials, Energy and Water Resource, Waste and Pollution, Communities and Stakeholders, Access and Livability, Economy and Innovation. Besides, issues including the width of road, the type of roadways, and the weights of indicators should be taken into consideration when developing indicators, so that the indicators are better understood and applicable.

英文文獻
1.Adelle C. and Pallemaerts M. (2009), Sustainable Development Indicators: An Overview of relevant Framework Programme funded research and identification of further needs in view of EU and international activities, European Communities.
2.Biehler, A. (2009), Rough Roads Ahead: Fix Them Now or Pay for Them Later, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.
3.Bongardt, D., Schmid, D., Huizenga, C. and Litman, T. (2011), “Sustainable Transport Evaluation: Developing Practical Tools for Evaluation in the Context of the CSD Process Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document,” United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affiars.
4.BREEAM (2017), http://www.breeam.com/, assessed on June 14th, 2017.
5.BRE (2014), BREEAM UK New Construction (Non-Domestic Buildings) Technical Manual, Building Research Establishment.
6.Bueno, P. C., Vassallo, J. M. and Cheung, K. (2013), “Road Infrastructure Design for Optimising Sustainability: Literature Review,” Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.
7.CEEQUAL (2017), http://www.ceequal.com/about/, assessed on June 14th, 2017.
8.CEEQUAL Ltd. (2012), CEEQUAL: Assessment Manual for UK & Ireland Projects v5, CEEQUAL Ltd.
9.Chatti, E. K. and Zaabar, I. (2012), NCHRP Report 720: Estimating the Effects of Pavement Condition on Vehicle Operating Costs, Transportation Research Board of the National Academeis, Washington, D.C.
10.Ding, Grace K. C. (2008), “Sustainable construction–The role of environmental assessment tools,” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.86, pp. 451-464.
11.ISI (2015), ENVISION: A Rating System for Sustainable Infrastructure, Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure.
12.Erickson, D. (2006), Metro Green: Connecting open space in North American cities, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
13.Gilbert, R., Irwin, N. and Hollingworth, B. (2003), “Sustainable Transportation Performance Indicators (STPI),” Transportation Research Board.
14.GreenLITES Project Design Certification Programme, (2010), New York State Department of Transportation.
15.Greenroads (2017), https://www.greenroads.org/1753/mission-vision-and-values.html, assessed on June 14th, 2017.
16.Greenroads Foundation (2015), Greenroads RATING SYSTEM V2, Greenroads Foundation, Washington, D.C.
17.Gudmundsson, H., Lawler, M., Fiqueroa, M. and Tight, M. (2011), “How does Transport Policy Cope with Climate Challenges? Experiences from the UK and Other European Contries,” Journal of Trasportation Engineering, Vol. 137, No.6, pp. 383-392.
18.Guthrie, P., Konaris, T., French, G., Boyd, J., Felix, J., Vink, E. and Baillon, F. (2012), State of the World Report 2012 on Sustainable Infrastructure, Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils.
19.FWHA (2015), INVEST Economic, Social, Environmental Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool v1.2, Federal Highway Administration.
20.Kohler N. (1999), “The relevance of Green Building Challenge: an observer’s perspective,” Journal of Building Research and Information, Vol.27, Iss.4-5, pp. 309-320.
21.Lee, W.L., Chau, C.K., Yik, F.W.H., Burnett, J. and Tse, M.S. (2002), “On the study of the credit-weighting scale in a building environmental assessment scheme,” Building and Environment, Vol.37, Iss.12, pp. 1385–1396.
22.USGBC (2017), LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction, U.S. Green Building Council.
23.Litman, T. (2008a), “Sustainable Transportation Indicators: A Recommended Research Programme for Developing Sustainable Transportation Indicators and Data,” Sustainable Transportation Indicators Sub-Committee of the Transportation Research Board.
24.Litman, T. (2008b), “Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
25.Litman, T. (2009), “Sustainable Transportation Indicator Data Quality and Availability,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
26.Litman, T. (2015), “Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
27.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.
28.Robbins, M. M. and Tran, N. (2015), “Literature Review: The Effect of Pavement Roughness on Vehicle Operating Costs.” NCAT Report, 15-05.
29.Sayers, M. W., Gillespie, T. D. and Paterson, W. D. O. (1986), World Bank Technical Paper Number 46: Guidelines for Conducting and Calibrating Road Roughness Measurements, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
30.Todd, J.A., Crawley, D., Geissler, S. and Lindsey, G. (2001), “Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge,” Journal of Building Research and Information, Vol.29, Iss.5, pp. 324–335.
31.USGBC (2017), https://www.usgbc.org/leed, assessed on June 24th, 2017.
32.WSDOT (2012), “WSDOT Pavement Roughness (IRI) Report: 2010,” WSDOT Pavement Notebook, Washington State Department of Transportation.

中文文獻
1.內政部(2009)，市區道路及附屬工程設計規範，內政部。
2.台中市政府建設局(2017)，路平專案，http://www.construction.taichung.gov.tw/lp.asp?CtNode=23227&CtUnit=12655&BaseDSD=7&mp=105010，2017年5月24日上網資料。
3.交通部(2017)，道路長度與面積，http://stat.motc.gov.tw/mocdb/stmain.jsp?sys=210&funid=b340101&type=1，2017年5月19日上網資料。
4.地政司(2014)，新世代地政發展趨勢，https://www.land.moi.gov.tw/chhtml/contentprint.asp?mcid=1156&cid=1041。
5.行政院(2017)，前瞻基礎建設，http://achievement.ey.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=1E42BEB0F68720CB，2017年5月22日上網資料。
6.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。
7.林炯明(2010)，「都市熱島效應之影響及其環境意涵」，環境與生態學報，第3卷，第1期，1-15頁。
8.林憲德(2014)，建築碳足跡(二版)，詹氏書局。
9.建築研究所(2014)，綠建築評估手冊－基本型，建築研究所
10.陳安琪(2016)，綠道路指標之權重與環境衝擊之關係，碩士論文，國立成功大學土木工程研究所。
11.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。
12.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。
13.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。
14.經建會(2009)，振興經濟擴大公共建設投資計畫，行政院經濟建設委員會。
15.葉政黌(2008)，道路建設綠營建評估指標系統之研究，碩士論文，國立中央大學土木工程學系。
16.蔡雅雯(2011)，工程永續設計環境面項目之建立與適用性評估，博士論文，國立成功大學土木工程研究所。
17.營建署(2001)，市區道路工程規劃及設計規範之研究，營建署。
18.營建署(2006)，市區道路生態綠廊道整體建構計畫，營建署。
19.營建署(2009)，都市人本交通規劃設計手冊(第一版)，營建署。
20.營建署(2015)，市區道路透水性鋪面使用手冊，營建署。