Utility bike的問題，透過圖書和論文來找解法和答案更準確安心。 我們找到下列各種有用的問答集和懶人包

建立可調整的市區道路永續性評估工具

為了解決Utility bike的問題，作者陳懷南 這樣論述：

The transportation infrastructure system plays a pivotal role in a country's economic development and has been perceived as one of the leading sectors stimulating sustainability worldwide. Currently, increasing uncertainties on climate change and the depletion of natural resources have necessitated

innovative changes aiming at a better environmental future. Furthermore, other essential parameters, such as economic crisis coupled with societal requirements and demands in the transportation industry, should be considered in most policies/regulations by public agencies/governments and other orga

nizations. The above facts raised the necessity of incorporating best practices in road development. In addition to the economic component defined for many years, sustainable practices have illustrated the growing environmental and social aspects. Hence, sustainable transportation infrastructure rat

ing tools (STIRTs) received increasing attention to evaluating and managing sustainable development according to the triple bottom line in the transportation field. Although STIRTs have been increasingly recognized over the last decade, they revealed some limitations associated with the subjectivity

in weighting approach and applicability to different road types and other countries/regions. Hence, growing environmental concerns posed the pressing need for rating tools specifically for other areas, particularly the developing world.In response to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal

s (SDGs), local transportation agencies worldwide urgently need to establish systematic and quantifiable sustainable roadway projects. Given the lack of an appropriate rating tool to evaluate sustainable urban road engineering projects, this research aims to establish an adjustable urban road sustai

nability rating tool (AUR-SRT) for the cross-country context (i.e., Taiwan, Vietnam, and Indonesia). The specific objectives are: (1) to conduct a comparative review of existing STIRTs; (2) to develop various indicators/requirements and their weighting/scoring systems under four categories (material

and energy, environment and ecology, economy and society, and transportation livability); (3) to identify the critical barriers to indicator implementation in those three countries. This study employed an adaptive approach, which integrates the top-down and bottom-up methods under each category top

ic. The former undertook the review process centering around sources (i.e., existing STIRTs, previous academic papers) to select potential indicators and barriers. The latter method (i.e., bottom-up approach) conducted individual discussions among local experts to finalize relevant indicators/ requi

rements and barriers. Then the current research utilized the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) and Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) to allocate weights/scores to indicators/requirements. Moreover, the Weighted Sum Model (WSM) was used to identify critical barriers to indicator adoption under each category.As th

e final result, an AUR-SRT was structured hierarchically in 21 sustainable indicators and corresponding requirements under four categories. The weighting and scoring systems were also assigned to indicators/ requirements based on expert judgments from Taiwan, Vietnam, and Indonesia. Under the materi

al & energy category, five indicators include Local material, Long-life design, Recycled & reused material, Efficient water consumption, and Energy efficiency, while seven indicators are Ecological impact analysis, Green cover, Vegetation quality, Stormwater management, Construction waste management

, Wastewater treatment, and Workzone pollution control in the environmental and ecological category. The economic and societal category consists of Stakeholder participation, Landscape enhancement, Historical and cultural conversation, Life-cycle cost analysis, and Asset Management indicators. The l

ast category (i.e., transportation livability) includes four indicators: Pedestrian facilities, Universal design, Multimodal transportation, and Utility facilities. The current research also investigated critical barriers among nine potential ones to indicator adoption for each category. Such as, un

der the transportation livability, three critical barriers are (1) Lack of interface coordination among different stakeholders, (2) Unfavorable natural conditions, and (3) Lack of owner requirements, government policies, and regulations. Whereas three most essential barriers hindering the material a

nd energy-related indicator adoption are 1) Lack of owners' requirements, Government policies, and regulations, 2) Lack of specifications and standards, and 3) Limited budget and schedule. In the two categories (i.e., environmental and ecological; economy and society), three barriers influencing mos

t indicator implementation are 1) Lack of owner requirements, government policies, and regulations, 2) Lack of specifications and standards, 3) Limited budget, and schedule. This study contributes to the body of sustainable transportation infrastructure knowledge. It also provides invaluable practic

al implications for indicators and barriers to sustainable road engineering design, construction, and promotion within three countries and others. The adaptive approach is general and can easily be customizable to other regions/countries.