| 摘要: | 二○○三年，SARS 疫情的爆發，一度引發世界性的恐慌，對世界各國帶來 重大之社會層面與經濟層面衝擊。SARS 疫情集中於人口密度高、大樓林立的高 度都市化區域，且高都市化區域新建住宅以集合住宅居多。因此，進行後SARS 時代，評選不同容積率、建蔽率、住商使用、公設比組成之不同集合住宅類型之 優劣。 首先，針對後SARS 時代，開發集合住宅類型對社會效益影響構建四個關鍵 指標：1.交通衝擊影響成本指標2.住宅內部健康成本指標3.住宅外部社會成本 指標4.私部門營建利潤效益指標。然而，透過AHP 層級分析法，來分析指標與 指標間成對比較關係，求取指標之相對重要性程度。最後，使用TOPSIS 多準則 評估方法，進行不同集合住宅類型之評估，以求取所有集合住宅類型之社會效益 之優劣排序。 經由TOPSIS 多準則方法之分析，得到在後SARS 時期的各類型集合住宅之社 會效益排序，以第三類型高容積率、低建蔽率、純住宅使用及原公設比集合住宅 最佳，其次為第十一類型低容積率、低建蔽率、純住宅使用及原公設施比，最差 為第十四類型低容積率、高建蔽率、住商混合使用及提高公設比。最後，此研究 結果可作為政府單位之參考，特別是在針對集合住宅之整體效益及政府核定開發 集合住宅時之參考依據。 The outbreak of SARS in 2003 set off a temporary global panic, which had major social and economic repercussions in numerous nations. Most SARS cases were concentrated in heavily populated, highly urbanized areas containing many high-rise buildings. New residential buildings in these areas are chiefly mass housings. This study consequently assesses the quality of mass housings with different capacity ratios, coverage ratios, residential/commercial uses, and public facility development ratios in the post-SARS age. The study first establishes four key indicators quantifying the social effectiveness and influence of mass housing types in the post-SARS age. These are the: (1) transportation impact and cost indicator, (2) residence internal health cost indicator, (3) residence external social cost indicator, and (4) private sector construction profitability indicator. AHP level analysis was then used to analyze the correlation between pairs of indicators and derive the relative importance of each indicator. Lastly, the TOPSIS multiple criteria method was used to assess different types of mass housings and arrange the housing types in order of social effectiveness. When the TOPSIS method was used to arrange different types of mass housings in order of social effectiveness in the post-SARS age, it was found that Type 14, which is characterized by low capacity ratio, high coverage ratio, mixed residential/commercial use, and a high level of public facility development, was the best type of mass housing. Second best was Type 13, which is characterized by low capacity ratio, high coverage ratio, mixed residential/commercial use, and a low level of public facility development, and third best was the mass housing type with a high capacity ratio, high coverage ratio, mixed residential/commercial use, and a high level of public facility development. The worst was Type 3, which is characterized by high capacity ratio, low coverage ratio, pure residential use, and a low level of public facility development. The study's results may be used by the government in connection with the review of existing architectural laws and regulations and the approval of mass housing projects. |
