作者：成王辛丁 来源：原创 发布日期：08-23
一 | AI摘要 台湾县市长选举进入百日倒计时，蓝绿白全力布局。国民党力拼“六都”优势并图反攻高雄；民进党固守基本盘但面临挑战；蓝白合作在多县市展开，选情牵动2028年大选布局。 台湾2026年县市长选举将于11月28日投票，今天这场“百里侯”大战迎来投票倒数百日。而8月19日，国民党和民进党都涌入彰化县召开“行动中常会”卖力辅选，进一步炒热选情。
二 | 4年前县市长选举，国民党赢得台北市、新北市等14个县市，民进党取得台南市、高雄市等5个县市，民众党攻下新竹市，无党籍则收获苗栗县、金门县。 4年后岛内形势变迁，新一轮选战，县市政治版图将重新分配，各方势力此消彼长，更牵动各阵营对2028年台湾地区领导人选举布局，蓝绿白都全力冲锋。
三 | By Anna Dalla Valle (CNS)-- Forward-looking mindset: whole-system and life cycle thinking My work is centred on the environmental sustainability of buildings over the entire life cycle and beyond in view of the circular economy: from design and construction to use and reuse, up to final disposal or, preferably, recovery for a second life. Here, the paradigm shift is twofold, because a whole-system thinking is needed not only to consider the entire life cycle, but also to envision what happens next. The ultimate goal is to minimize environmental impacts and to drive both sustainability and innovation. To be more explicit, the first shift involves keeping in mind the entire life cycle – from the early design stages – moving beyond the traditional focus on construction and energy efficiency during use. It is to select building products looking back to the supply chain, such as recycled content, locally sourced and bio-based solutions, while also looking ahead to performance decay, maintenance needs and the potential for extending service life. Moreover, the second shift press to move beyond the linear building process – as traditionally practiced – in which we extract raw materials, we build, we use, and eventually we demolish. Indeed, this model has reached its limits, undermining planetary resources with adverse environmental and social effects. Interconnected choices: designing decisions that create shared value A life cycle perspective matched with circularity inevitably challenges this linearity, wondering from the very beginning about what happens when assets become obsolete and fall into disuse, to design buildings as part of a continuous loop of resources. Accordingly, design, construction, daily use (energy and water consumption), maintenance, replacement and end-of-life turn out to be regarded not as isolated steps but interconnected with each other. In fact, at each stage, choices can either preserve or destroy value. For example, if construction solutions are carefully selected, they can be reused in the future, either in their entirety, as whole products, or through disassembly into components, or even by separating materials. In this way, they may maintain the same function (e.g. a window reused as it is) or serve different purposes (e.g. glass cullet used as input for glass wool insulation). If technological systems are designed flexibly, buildings can reach different business segments and host concurrently different activities, resulting easily adaptable from housing to office and vice versa, instead of being demolished. If building processes integrate digital tools, data can guide smarter decisions over decades, provided that data infrastructure is ensured, followed by constant monitoring and analysis of the collected data and the update and dissemination of results across industry and practitioners as well as policymakers. Thinking this way means making choices future-oriented, ready to embrace innovation while respecting planetary boundaries, namely limiting the environmental impact at every stage and in every region – to avoid burden shifting – not just at the beginning but along the whole (first-second) life cycle. Certainly, a demanding but exciting challenge: one I am proud to take on and in my little to contribute to. Beyond appearances: close-up process for understanding what lies behind In daily life, we often say to "look beyond appearances". Usually, this expression pertains to people, to underline the risk of avoiding judging someone solely by what can be seen. Now the interesting thing is that the same advice can be applied to architecture, obviously without undermining the importance of aesthetic beauty, at the core also of the New European Bauhaus initiative together with sustainability and inclusion. Nonetheless, as an architect expert in sustainable technology, I have learned to extend it to the built environment, by seeing buildings not merely as visible structures (walls, roofs, windows), but as living parts of a larger and complex system. In this sense, architecture can be compared to a plant. Plants are anchored in the soil by roots; buildings are anchored in the ground by foundations. Plants capture sunlight, absorb water, accommodate small animals, and interact with other organisms; buildings consume energy, deplete water, host human life, and interact with their surroundings. Both are deeply connected to their ecosystem. However, to fully understand them, both must be looked beyond appearances, through a "close-up" process taken to the extreme. It is not simply a matter of focusing on details, as happens in photography and cinema fields; the intention is to delve deeper and deeper to the fuller extent: an in-depth analysis of whatever is behind, starting from the exterior to gradually shift to construction technologies, materials, up to their chemicals. The latter is, of course, not the responsibility of architects, but it lies at the heart of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), analyses that I usually perform during the decision-making at the different process stage to help building stakeholders minimize environmental impacts across the entire – potentially multiple – life cycle. For architectural technology, for example, it is a matter of addressing, alongside conventional requirements (e.g. performance, safety, usability, well-being), the specific requirements of environmental sustainability (e.g. the rational use and optimization of materials, energy, water), taking into account the technical feasibility and evaluating the entire life cycle. At the utmost, it is to look into everything that underlies the presence of that specific material in that exact spot, its behaviour and interrelationships when in service, and its post-use journey, setting up the necessary network to actually close the loop in practice. Material-immaterial synergy: the invisible foundations of sustainable architecture To embrace this vision, the idea of resources is to be extended compared to the ordinary sense. Certainly, buildings are made and calls for a set of tangible resources, such as money to be started, bricks, steel, or timber to be erected, tools and equipment to be managed including in the long-term. The issue that often runs out is that buildings rely heavily as well on intangible resources, namely knowledge, skills, processes, organisation, information flows and network. These two dimensions – tangible and intangible – are closely connected and interdependent on each other. Without appropriate eco-design knowledge, even the best materials are wasted; without materials, knowledge has no application. In such a mindset, architecture becomes a remarkable expression of the synergy between tangible resources and intangible resources: a space where East and West can successfully meet, building a bridge across cultures through openness and inclusiveness. Indeed, it is well recognized that different traditions bring different perspectives and, when combined, generate the best and more holistic solutions. The "living building" is both a technical and cultural artefact, an expression of human creativity that must not overstep the planetary boundary. Strategic imperative: cross-border and cross-disciplinary cooperation Evidence is found in international collaborations such as Joint Schools, where universities from different countries join forces to promote shared research and training. A concrete example of Sino-foreign cooperation is the XJTU-POLIMI Joint School, opened in Xi'an (China) in 2019 through a partnership between Politecnico di Milano and Xi'an Jiaotong University. As POLIMI's first campus outside Italy, it serves as an international platform dedicated to education and research as well as technology transfer and business incubation. This initiative, like others currently in place, aims to take the best of each part to foster shared growth and mutual learning. Italy brings its strong polytechnic culture, its multidisciplinary approach and focus on design quality, together with the European emphasis on social and environmental responsibility. China, in turn, is a leader in fast-evolving business, in the integration capacity of digital technologies and in large-scale engineering projects, pulled by top-down policies that allow fast implementation. In conjunction, these strengths can create fertile ground for innovation and speed up the transformation process within the Architectural, Engineering and Construction (AEC) sector, always been acknowledged as resistant to change, due to its intrinsic complexity and fragmented nature. Rethinking the built environment: buildings as resource-driven assets The effort is to move beyond the concept of buildings as "material banks" – namely repositories where resources are temporarily stored – to rethink them and push the vision further of buildings as "resource-driven assets". While the first construct is earmarked for physical goods, that proposed calls for careful consideration of both tangible/material/visible resources and intangible/immaterial/invisible resources, taking care that everything is optimised and nothing is wasted, to preserve their value over time. In practice, this means looking at what goes into buildings, such as materials, systems and the energy required to transform and assemble them, but also, for instance, the set of expertise, skills and specialization of practitioners involved during design. Similarly, starting from the outset, it means looking at what comes out throughout buildings life, like emissions, waste, and decommissioned materials, but also knowledge gained from monitoring and lessons learned from operations. To ignore either side of the equation (inputs-outputs) would be a missed opportunity. If we want buildings to truly act as resource-driven assets, we must synergise, map, understand, and manage the full spectrum of in- and out- flows, both tangible and intangible. On the tangible side, this requires a deep understanding of material, energy and water flows across the entire life cycle. Which resources are extracted, transported, and assembled? How much energy is consumed, and how is it sourced? How do materials degrade over time, and how can they be reused or recycled without losing quality? These questions are essential to reduce impacts and to design systems that are both efficient and resilient. On the intangible side, equally important are the flows of information and knowledge that connect all actors in the construction value chain. Long before a building is erected, crucial questions are: How is data exchanged among stakeholders? Is communication efficient enough to speed up the workflows? How can design capabilities evolve into maturity, meaning quality achieved through best practice? Then, as more buildings themselves add to this immaterial layer through sensors, smart meters, and digital platforms that produce valuable insights, another set of questions follows: How is this information managed, shared, and preserved? How to ensure that data supports predictive maintenance and reverse logistics? How to activate new business models based on sharing and collaboration? Just as materials should not be wasted, neither should information. Data and knowledge must be treated as resources that enrich our collective know-how, building an "infodump bank" that not only improves current performance but also informs future decisions, guides new designs and strengthens subsequent projects. The correlation between tangible and intangible resources is ever closer: managing them together ensures that nothing is wasted and that the embedded value is preserved across time. In that respect, "no waste of resources" also means "no waste of value", since every material, every bit of data, and every piece of knowledge carries potential that, if carefully handled, can extend usefulness, inspire innovation, and create lasting benefits well beyond the life of a single project. Global impact: construction sector as global lever for planetary sustainability Through joint research and cross-border exchange programmes, the construction sector proves to be an extraordinary testing ground and given its global impact in terms of emissions and resource consumption, it clearly stands as a priority for change. Furthermore, never forget that buildings are everywhere and shape our daily lives, leading mindful planning crucial not only for preserving the natural environment but also human well-being. In this framework, architects, engineers, designers, scientists and all necessary professionals can work side by side to explore new possibilities, even creating new synergies across key business sectors. Imagine if constructions integrate materials from unexpected sources such as fashion and/or food waste. Fast-fashion clothing and textile scraps, invasive plants and agricultural by-products, or even organic waste – which are currently a significant environmental burden with serious social effects – can be rethought as valuable inputs for new building solutions. In this way, the concept of waste disappears, as it serves as input resources from another industrial sector, consequently, contributing to lower material intensity (virgin material reduction), greater industrial symbiosis (new business opportunities), and implementing smarter ways to manage resources. At the same time, digital technologies and artificial intelligence can support this process, helping to track resources, optimise flows, and potentially update in real-time the expected environmental impacts in relation to what actually happens. The ambition is to create architecture that is resource efficient and socially valuable in the long term. Considering the key role of construction, even small changes, when scale up to thousands of buildings and millions of people, can make a big difference for the planet. At this point, the key role of China is beyond question. As the world's largest construction market and major exporter, its choices strongly affect global trends, making environmental awareness and transparency in its building sector essential. Indeed, in a globalised economy, what is produced in one region may be assembled in another, used in a third and so on throughout the different stages of the life cycle, spreading responsibilities across several borders. For this reason, it is imperative to turn LCA into a standard practice, but also to regionalise results, to identify where the greatest impacts occur over the building life cycle, including in geographical terms. Here, China inevitably results in a central hotspot to concentrate efforts: improving practices there could deliver benefits worldwide, setting the chance to become an outstanding reference and reducing burdens far beyond its borders, (hopefully) without exceeding the limits of the planet. Yet – be warned – the focus is not solely on new construction, where starting from scratch makes everything easier: the real challenge (and greatest opportunity) stands in the existing building stock, because of representing the largest reserve of resources we already have. These artefacts embody vast amounts of materials, energy, and human effort that should not be wasted leaving unfinished and/or uninhabited. Instead of discarding them, we must be proactive to renew the existing buildings, extending their service life while improving performance to meet ever-evolving needs. Call to action: building bridges within planetary boundaries It is time to join forces, to move from theory to practice, from words to action. To succeed, we need lots more than technology. We need dialogue between cultures; we need young and open minds, trained to think across disciplines and borders, ready to learn from diversity, capable of working together toward a unified vision, think globally while acting locally. Green architecture should not be perceived as a trend, but as a common responsibility of the present for the future. These are just the premises to the most open question ever: "What if we built bridges between East and West, without crossing the limits of our planet?" I therefore invite everyone to begin offering practical responses, reframing global challenges as shared opportunities for innovation. Profile: Anna Dalla Valle is an Assistant Professor and Researcher in the Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (DABC) at Politecnico di Milano, Italy. She is an associate and active member of both the Italian LCA Network Association and the Italian Society of Architectural Technology. She represents Politecnico di Milano in the New European Bauhaus initiative and fully participates in various international organizations, including the LCA Working Group of the Italian Green Building Council, the Italian Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform, and the International Energy Agency’s working group on ' Ways to Implement Net-zero Whole Life Carbon Buildings'. 
。 年底对决，国民党多名县市长寻求连任有优势，也有望重新执政一些县市；但高达9名县市长两任届满，换将再战，其中数个县市评估选情艰困。民进党力拼巩固执政县市也求突破，不过大本营高雄选情拉响警报。民众党则借势“蓝白合”，盼能有新斩获。
四 | ▲国民党彰化县长参选人魏平政实力不济，可能守不住彰化“蓝天”。 ▲民进党“史上最弱”高雄市市长参选人赖瑞隆：“绿地”恐被翻转。 看点1 “六都”决战，高雄“变天”？ 岛内县市长选举，“六都”归属都是最大看点。今年“六都”决战，蓝营拼“4+1”，绿营争“2+2”。 对于国民党而言，台北市、桃园市分别由蒋万安、张善政拼连任，优势很大。
五 | 蒋万安有形象有政绩有战斗力，尤其近来强硬“打绿”，率先号召“7·25”上凯道反“毒油”，获20万民众响应，势头高涨，民调碾压被边缘化的民进党沈伯洋。
六 | 蒋万安魅力更外溢到其他县市，频频跨区域拉抬同党籍其他参选人。外界关注焦点已转移到了蒋万安能大赢对手多少。而“桃园王”张善政人如其名，低调实干，颇受市民认可。民进党推出“蒋万安同学”黄世杰挑战，虽然有一定实力，但想摘“桃子”，难！ 在台中市和新北市，蓝绿这回都推“强棒”。实力强劲的江启臣，不仅有家族势力托底，还有现任台中市市长卢秀燕力挺，守住台中“蓝天”概率高。民进党来势汹汹，赖清德钦点民代“四连霸”何欣纯出战，深绿民调近来更称何欣纯仅落后江启臣6.7个百分点，大有可为。新北方面，民进党推出苏贞昌女儿苏巧慧，打造亲子网红人设，也获民进党内跨派系力量支持，劲头猛烈，但难摆脱“靠爸族”标签。
七 | 近来她更陷入家族利益输送丑闻，回应“毒油”风暴也丢分不少。蓝白则共推李四川，妥妥的“市政实干派”，虽然年纪大，少点政治魅力，但会做事，民调也高。背后还有现任新北市长侯友宜支持，更与蒋万安互动吸引年轻选民，李四川大概率能为国民党守住全台“最大票仓”。
八 | 至于“绿油油”的台南和高雄，台南选情冷清，民进党陈亭妃长期深耕台南，低调跑行程固票，国民党“铁汉”、赖清德“一生之敌”谢龙介虽是二度参选，但仍难砸出“蓝花”。反观高雄市，赖清德钟意的“小赖”赖瑞隆，人设崩塌，多人拉抬，“最弱选将”民调几已触达上限。国民党柯志恩勤走基层，稳住蓝营基本盘，全力争取中间选民，与赖瑞隆差距仅剩1.64%，但其打法太斯文，外界看好后续韩国瑜、王金平两大“王牌”助阵，评估高雄蓝营可能上演2026选战最大惊奇。 看点2 这些县市，绿营凶猛？ “六都”之外，还有16个县市长选举，选战精彩程度不逊于前者。 当前，蓝营“非六都”执政县市有11个，包括基隆市、宜兰县、新竹县、彰化县、南投县、苗栗县（县长锺东锦已恢复国民党籍）、云林县、嘉义市、花莲县、台东县以及马祖县。其中，基隆市长谢国樑、南投县长许淑华、苗栗县长锺东锦及马祖县长王忠铭4人拼连任，许淑华、锺东锦、王忠铭成功连任概率高，谢国樑则遭遇赖清德表侄童子玮强力挑战，上演地方家族对决，连任保卫战恐要经过一番苦战。 另外，新竹县、彰化县、云林县、嘉义市、宜兰县、花莲县、台东县等7个现任县市长都已两任届满，外界关注蓝营能否续任。除了嘉义市、宜兰县由蓝白共推人选，其他5个县市国民党都提名自家人，但境遇各不同。
九 | 花莲蓝营由“花莲王”傅崐萁“接班人”游淑贞出战，在地深耕20年，实力不俗。
十 | 民进党无人参选，很可能将力挺在“大罢免”中支持罢免傅崐萁的无党籍参选人张峻，但花莲一向是蓝营“铁票仓”，很难翻转。台东也是蓝营大本营，选将吴秀华是前县长吴俊立胞妹，并蝉联两届县议长。绿营由蔡英文劝退子弟兵刘棹豪，并亲自为民进党籍参选人陈莹“抬轿”，不过想撼动国民党数十年执政优势，并非易事。云林县方面，国民党籍参选人张嘉郡家族实力强，不惧民进党资深民代刘建国挑战，有望从自己姑姑、现任县长张丽善手中顺利“接棒”。 彰化县、新竹县目前虽是国民党当家，却被评估为艰困选区，堪称蓝营“选情最危险县市”。
十一 | 蓝营彰化县长初选阶段“强棒”之间严重内耗，最后却征召了毫无名气的魏平政，引发地方派系不满，而国民党籍现任彰化县长王惠美也被质疑不挺自家人，已经四度缺席蓝营造势活动。
十二 | 蓝营深陷整合难题。民进党籍参选人陈素月，民调则持续领先。
十三 | 至于新竹县，“实力派”民进党籍参选人郑朝方刻意走中间路线，但在当地陆续牵扯出一些经济问题，家族也爆出违建争议。
十四 | 蓝营方面也不乐观，国民党主席郑丽文坦言县长初选过程“杀得刀刀见骨”，选后党内伤痕累累，险胜获提名的徐欣莹与初选竞争者陈见贤至今未见面。同时，由于蓝白在竹北市（新竹县最大县辖市）人选意见不合，恐也将影响新竹县长选情。
十五 | 而民进党执政的澎湖县可能“变天”。今年澎湖多达6人混战，民进党征召家庭主妇吴淑瑾参选县长，上演“代夫出征”老戏码。国民党则派出民调领先的陈振中，同时内部成功整合，避免了2022年的分裂局面，有机会重夺执政权。屏东县选战，国民党苏清泉第三度参选，4年前只输民进党周春米1.1万票，这次能否翻盘备受关注。
十六 | 看点3 蓝白合作，“奇效”可期？ 这次年底选战，还有一大看点就是有些县市已经不是单纯的蓝绿对决，而是出现“蓝白合”，双方在多个县市长提名会上共推人选或支持同一人选。合作之花已开，外界关注能否结果。 根据蓝白协议，合作主要集中在新北市、宜兰县、嘉义市，经民调决胜负，民众党黄国昌退选新北市支持李四川，宜兰县由国民党吴宗宪胜出，嘉义市提名民众党张启楷。而国民党早早“礼让”与民众党关系密切的高虹安拼连任新竹市市长，也被视为“蓝白合”。此外，双方在嘉义县共同支持无党籍参选人吴品睿，形成“在野大联盟”挑战民进党“接班布局”。 在这些“蓝白合”县市中，新北市与新竹市胜算较大。李四川民调领先，又有民众党能带来年轻选民，将是锦上添花。
十七 | 高虹安成功挺过赖当局的司法追杀，目前气势高于民进党庄竞程。
十八 | 但宜兰县和嘉义市不容乐观。蓝营宜兰县长林姿妙因涉贪被停职，目前还在司法程序中。民进党顺势推出在地深耕的律师林国漳，蓝白也以形象清新、知名度高的吴宗宪应战，但“空降”疑虑影响好感度，如果蓝军地方势力能真正整合，加上白营努力，还有与绿营一战的空间。嘉义市“蓝白合”人选张启楷，在台民意机构展现超强“抗绿”战斗力，擅长网络空战，另有现任市长黄敏惠的支持和国民党在地组织战的优势。不过，他的对手是在地深耕22年的民进党民代王美惠，选战并不好打。嘉义县属于泛绿优势选区，民进党籍参选人蔡易余是“政四代”。蓝白全力支持吴品叡，年轻又有优秀的市政服务，只是“奇兵”练兵“艰困区”，恐不易见“奇效”。
十九 | 金门县4年前由无党籍陈福海赢下，后加入民众党，这次陈福海因收贿遭判刑无法再参选，有望由国民党“强棒”陈玉珍胜选，可视作另类“蓝白合”。（记者 林连金）。
|
Current article:http://nyta.shangfochengcongshuaizhuang.buzz/pabat/20260826/3528.html
Published on:15:49:30