進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0707202023483700
論文名稱(中文) 水土整合防洪規劃效率評估應用於逕流責任之研究
論文名稱(英文) A Study of Efficiency Evaluation of Integration of Water Resource and Spatial Planning in Flood Management to Manage Public Runoff as a Shared Responsibility
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 都市計劃學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Urban Planning
學年度 108
學期 2
出版年 109
研究生(中文) 陳冠伶
研究生(英文) Kuan-Ling Chen
學號 P26074258
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 91頁
口試委員 口試委員-洪鴻智
口試委員-王筱雯
口試委員-李子璋
指導教授-張學聖
指導教授-鄭皓騰
中文關鍵字 逕流責任  環境效率  流域  資料包絡分析法 
英文關鍵字 Runoff Responsibility  Eco-efficiency  Watershed  Data Envelopment Analysis 
學科別分類
中文摘要 近年氣候變遷造成淹水災害風險增加的趨勢下,國內提出逕流分擔的嶄新概念,乃以水利觀點考量水文特性下依據集水區面積進行分派的操作方式。然而,流域範圍亦為人類經濟活動空間單元,社經發展與逕流責任分配彼此間顯然呈現一種相互扣環的衡量關係,又土地具有一定社會責任處理自身逕流量,如何公平又有效率地分配逕流的責任問題成為水土領域共同倡議的重要議題。
本研究以環境效率(eco-efficiency)之內涵發展逕流責任效率之評估架構,將水作為資源,將逕流管理策略中利用環境資源而得到流域整體效益的過程視為一種投入產出環境效率關係。並從三大部分釐清逕流責任分配,分為:(1)建立流域逕流責任分配方式之評估架構:以集水區空間單元為分析基礎,嘗試融合不同面向之區域發展條件,可歸納出適性適地的分配方式;(2)計算逕流責任分配方案之效率值:設定三種逕流責任量情境分配方案,得出各子集水區效率表現,擇定整體流域最佳分配方案;(3)嘗試研擬土地使用規劃之使用原則,將逕流責任概念具體化應用於土地使用規劃。
以子集水區、次集水區、全流域不同空間分級作為設定情境方案基礎,個別得到相應的逕流責任分配模式,同時回應各子集水區在面對不同水文與土地的條件下,權衡出的整體流域最佳分配效率。實證結果顯示,「城鄉發展面積」以及「住宅建築物」是影響逕流責任環境效率之關鍵因素。研究發現,各子集水區可依自身國土功能分區特性思索逕流策略的組合方式,藉以擬定較全面且具成效之逕流責任分配策略。
英文摘要 In recent years, under the trend of increasing flooding disaster risk caused by climate change, a new concept of runoff sharing has been proposed in Taiwan, which is an operation method of allocation based on the area of the catchment area based on the hydrological point of view and considering the hydrological characteristics. However, the scope of the watershed is also a spatial unit of human economic activities. The social and economic development and the distribution of runoff responsibilities obviously present a mutual measurement relationship. Also, land has a certain social responsibility to handle its own runoff.
This paper develops the evaluation framework of runoff responsibility efficiency with the connotation of eco-efficiency, treats water as a resource, and regards the process of using environmental resources in runoff management strategies to obtain the overall benefits of the basin as an input-output environmental efficiency relationship. Taking the sub-catchment area, sub-catchment area, and the different spatial classification of the whole watershed as the basis for setting the scenario plan, the corresponding runoff responsibility distribution model is obtained individually, and at the same time responding to the trade-offs of each sub-catchment area in the face of different hydrology and land conditions Best distribution efficiency.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究動機與目的 2
第三節 研究流程 4
第二章 文獻探討與回顧 6
第一節 災害風險與政策規劃思維 6
第二節 逕流管理模式理論與衡量 15
第三節 環境效率評估 23
第三章 研究設計 31
第一節 研究架構 31
第二節 逕流責任效率模式之建立與變數選取 38
第三節 逕流責任效率評估 41
第四節 逕流責任方案之設定 43
第四章 實證研究 48
第一節 投入產出項空間分析 48
第二節 效率分析 55
第三節 差額變數分析 71
第四節 敏感度分析 76
第五章 結論與建議 82
第一節 結論 82
第二節 後續建議 83
參考文獻 85
參考文獻 一、中文參考文獻
1. 內政部營建署(2015),流域特定區域計畫之規劃,臺北:內政部營建署。
2. 行政院國家科學委員會 (2017),臺灣氣候變遷科學報告2017,台北。
3. 宋長虹(2013), 都市防洪空間規劃與管理之研究(1/2). 經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所研究報告, 臺中市:經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所.
4. 孫遜(2004),資料包絡分析法-理論與應用. 台北: 揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
5. 張學聖、廖晉賢 (2015), 與水共生的空間規劃途徑-以曾文溪流域為例[Living with Water Linking Spatial Planning: A Study in Tseng-Wen River Basin],建築與規劃學報, 16(2&3),頁 183-200。
6. 張學聖、謝昕穎 (2015), 調洪式土地使用規劃架構之研究[A Study of Land Use Planning Framework of Flood Mitigation],建築學報(91),頁 81-98, DOI: 10.3966/101632122015030091005。
7. 張學聖、蘇麗元、程韋涵 (2018), 從逕流責任觀點下探討減洪土地使用規劃[Investigating Flood Mitigation Strategies Applying to Land-use Planning from a Perspective of Managing Public Runoff as a Shared Responsibility],都市與計劃, 45(1),頁 81-101, DOI: 10.6128/cp.45.1.81。
8. 楊松岳、陳葦庭、林政浩 (2017), 逕流分擔規劃打造韌性城市-以嘉義縣故宮南院周邊排水路為例[Building Resilient Cities with Runoff Distribution Planning - A Case Study of Drainages for the Southern Branch of the National Palace Museum],土木水利, 44(5),頁 48-55, DOI: 10.6653/MoCICHE.201710_44(5).0007。
9. 經濟部水利署. (2016),逕流分擔與出流管制綱要計畫,臺中:經濟部水利署。
10. 經濟部水利署. (2019),逕流分擔技術手冊(草案),臺中:經濟部水利署。
11. 經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所 (2014), 因應氣候變遷下逕流分擔機制之研究-以大里溪為例,臺中:經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所。
12. 蔡綽芳、柳文成、董娟鳴、陳柏翰、陳志鴻、呂韋儒 (2017),氣候變遷下減洪規劃應用於都市計畫通盤檢討之探討-以新北市蘆洲都市計畫區為例[A Study of Applying Overall Reviewing of Original Urban Planning from Viewpoint of Adaptive Strategies in Climate Change],建築學報(99_S),頁 49-71, DOI: 10.3966/101632122017030099011。
13. 鍾文祥. (2012). 綜合治水介紹及治理基準訂定. 中興工程(117), 49-54.

二、英文參考文獻
1. Aerts, J., Botzen, W. J., Clarke, K. C., Cutter, S. L., Hall, J. W., Merz, B., . . . Kunreuther, H. (2018). Integrating human behaviour dynamics into flood disaster risk assessment. Nature Climate Change, 8(3), 193-199. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0085-1
2. Anderson, D. R. (2000). Catastrophe insurance and compensation: remembering basic principles. Society of Chartered Property & Casualty Underwriters. CPCU Journal, 53(2), 76-76.
3. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
4. Birkland, T. A., Burby, R. J., Conrad, D., Cortner, H., & Michener, W. K. (2003). River ecology and flood hazard mitigation. Natural Hazards Review, 4(1), 46-54.
5. Bosetti, V., & Buchner, B. K. (2005). Using data envelopment analysis to assess the relative efficiency of different climate policy portfolios.
6. Box, P., Thomalla, F., & Van den Honert, R. (2013). Flood risk in Australia: whose responsibility is it, anyway? Water, 5(4), 1580-1597.
7. Bromley, D. W. (1978). Property rules, liability rules, and environmental economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 12(1), 43-60.
8. Burby, R. J. (1998). Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
9. Butler, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). From ‘flood defence’to ‘flood risk management’: exploring governance, responsibility, and blame. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(3), 533-547.
10. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444.
11. Coluccia, B., Valente, D., Fusco, G., De Leo, F., & Porrini, D. (2020). Assessing agricultural eco-efficiency in Italian Regions. Ecological Indicators, 116, 106483.
12. Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development: Beacon Press.
13. De Koeijer, T., Wossink, G., Smit, A., Janssens, S., Renkema, J., & Struik, P. (2003). Assessment of the quality of farmers’ environmental management and its effects on resource use efficiency: a Dutch case study. Agricultural Systems, 78(1), 85-103.
14. De Koeijer, T., Wossink, G., Struik, P., & Renkema, J. (2002). Measuring agricultural sustainability in terms of efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar beet growers. Journal of Environmental Management, 66(1), 9-17.
15. Deyle, R. E., & Smith, R. A. (2000). Risk-based taxation of hazardous land development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(4), 421-434.
16. Dilley, M., Chen, R. S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A. L., & Arnold, M. (2005). Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis: The World Bank.
17. Działek, J., Biernacki, W., Fiedeń, Ł., Listwan-Franczak, K., & Franczak, P. (2016). Universal or context-specific social vulnerability drivers–understanding flood preparedness in southern Poland. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 212-223.
18. Emrouznejad, A., & Yang, G.-l. (2018). A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 61, 4-8.
19. Fan, Y., Bai, B., Qiao, Q., Kang, P., Zhang, Y., & Guo, J. (2017). Study on eco-efficiency of industrial parks in China based on data envelopment analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 192, 107-115.
20. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3), 253-281.
21. Farrell, M. J., & Fieldhouse, M. (1962). Estimating efficient production functions under increasing returns to scale. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 125(2), 252-267.
22. Feyen, L., Dankers, R., Bodis, K., Salamon, P., & Barredo, J. I. (2012). Fluvial flood risk in Europe in present and future climates. Climatic Change, 112(1), 47-62. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0339-7
23. Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., & Dahe, Q. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change: Cambridge University Press.
24. Gattoufi, S., Oral, M., Kumar, A., & Reisman, A. (2004). Epistemology of data envelopment analysis and comparison with other fields of OR/MS for relevance to applications. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 38(2-3), 123-140.
25. Godschalk, D. R. (1991). Disaster mitigation and hazard management. Emergency management: Principles and practice for local government, 131-160.
26. Grahn, T., & Nyberg, L. (2017). Assessment of pluvial flood exposure and vulnerability of residential areas. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 367-375.
27. Helminen, R. R. (2000). Developing tangible measures for eco‐efficiency: the case of the Finnish and Swedish pulp and paper industry. Business strategy and the environment, 9(3), 196-210.
28. Huppes, G., & Ishikawa, M. (2005). Eco‐efficiency and Its xsTerminology. Journal of Industrial ecology, 9(4), 43-46.
29. IPCC. (2012). Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.
30. Johnson, C. L., & Priest, S. J. (2008). Flood risk management in England: a changing landscape of risk responsibility? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(4), 513-525.
31. Klassen, R. D., & McLaughlin, C. P. (1996). The impact of environmental management on firm performance. Management science, 42(8), 1199-1214.
32. Lahouel, B. B. (2016). Eco-efficiency analysis of French firms: a data envelopment analysis approach. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 18(3), 395-416.
33. León, J., & March, A. (2017). Taking responsibility for ‘shared responsibility’: urban planning for disaster risk reduction across different phases. Examining bushfire evacuation in Victoria, Australia. International Planning Studies, 22(3), 289-304.
34. Lee, J. G., & Heaney, J. P. (2003). Estimation of urban imperviousness and its impacts on storm water systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 129(5), 419-426.
35. Lewin, A. Y., & Minton, J. W. (1986). Determining organizational effectiveness: Another look, and an agenda for research. Management science, 32(5), 514-538.
36. Madonsela, B., Koop, S., Van Leeuwen, K., & Carden, K. (2019). Evaluation of Water Governance Processes Required to Transition towards Water Sensitive Urban Design—An Indicator Assessment Approach for the City of Cape Town. Water, 11(2), 292.
37. McGlade, J., Bankoff, G., Abrahams, J., Cooper-Knock, S., Cotecchia, F., Desanker, P., . . . Girgin, S. (2019). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019. In: UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
38. McLennan, B. J., & Handmer, J. (2012). Reframing responsibility-sharing for bushfire risk management in Australia after Black Saturday. Environmental Hazards, 11(1), 1-15.
39. Merz, B., Vorogushyn, S., Uhlemann, S., Delgado, J., & Hundecha, Y. (2012). HESS Opinions' More efforts and scientific rigour are needed to attribute trends in flood time series'. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(5), 1379-1387.
40. Messner, F., & Meyer, V. (2006). Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception–challenges for flood damage research. In Flood risk management: hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures (pp. 149-167): Springer.
41. Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States: Joseph Henry Press.
42. Muis, S., Güneralp, B., Jongman, B., Aerts, J. C., & Ward, P. J. (2015). Flood risk and adaptation strategies under climate change and urban expansion: A probabilistic analysis using global data. Science of the Total Environment, 538, 445-457.
43. Naef, F., Scherrer, S., & Weiler, M. (2002). A process based assessment of the potential to reduce flood runoff by land use change. Journal of Hydrology, 267(1-2), 74-79.
44. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498-508.
45. Pearce, D., Atkinson, G., & Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development.
46. Ryffel, A. N., Rid, W., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2014). Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations. Ecosystem Services, 10, 111-123.
47. Sayers, P., Yuanyuan, L., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Fuxin, S., Kang, W., . . . Le Quesne, T. (2013). Flood risk management: a strategic approach. In: Asian Development Bank, GIWP, UNESCO and WWF-UK.
48. Schaltegger, S., & Sturm, A. (1990). Ökologische rationalität: ansatzpunkte zur ausgestaltung von ökologieorientierten managementinstrumenten. die Unternehmung, 273-290.
49. Scheuer, S., Haase, D., & Meyer, V. (2011). Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: from a starting point view towards an end point view of vulnerability. Natural Hazards, 58(2), 731-751.
50. Schmidheiny, S., & Timberlake, L. (1992). Changing course: A global business perspective on development and the environment (Vol. 1): MIT press.
51. Schwab, J., Topping, K. C., Eadie, C. C., Deyle, R. E., & Smith, R. A. (1998). Planning for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction: American Planning Association Chicago, IL.
52. Segond, M.-L., Wheater, H. S., & Onof, C. (2007). The significance of spatial rainfall representation for flood runoff estimation: A numerical evaluation based on the Lee catchment, UK. Journal of Hydrology, 347(1-2), 116-131.
53. Seiford, L. M. (1996). Data envelopment analysis: the evolution of the state of the art (1978–1995). Journal of productivity Analysis, 7(2-3), 99-137.
54. Sword-Daniels, V., Eriksen, C., Hudson-Doyle, E. E., Alaniz, R., Adler, C., Schenk, T., & Vallance, S. (2018). Embodied uncertainty: living with complexity and natural hazards. Journal of Risk Research, 21(3), 290-307. doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1200659
55. Tanoue, M., Hirabayashi, Y., & Ikeuchi, H. (2016). Global-scale river flood vulnerability in the last 50 years. Scientific reports, 6, 36021.
56. Thanassoulis, E. (1993). A comparison of regression analysis and data envelopment analysis as alternative methods for performance assessments. Journal of the operational research society, 44(11), 1129-1144.
57. Thanassoulis, E., Boussofiane, A., & Dyson, R. (1996). A comparison of data envelopment analysis and ratio analysis as tools for performance assessment. Omega, 24(3), 229-244.
58. Verburg, P. H., Koomen, E., Hilferink, M., Pérez-Soba, M., & Lesschen, J. P. (2012). An assessment of the impact of climate adaptation measures to reduce flood risk on ecosystem services. Landscape ecology, 27(4), 473-486.
59. Vorogushyn, S., Bates, P. D., de Bruijn, K., Castellarin, A., Kreibich, H., Priest, S., . . . Domeneghetti, A. (2018). Evolutionary leap in large‐scale flood risk assessment needed. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 5(2), e1266.
60. Wang, G., Lin, N., Zhou, X., Li, Z., & Deng, X. (2018). Three-stage data envelopment analysis of agricultural water use efficiency: A case study of the Heihe River Basin. Sustainability, 10(2), 568.
61. Wursthorn, S., Poganietz, W.-R., & Schebek, L. (2011). Economic–environmental monitoring indicators for European countries: A disaggregated sector-based approach for monitoring eco-efficiency. Ecological Economics, 70(3), 487-496.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-08-12起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2022-08-01起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw