水患韌性社區評估指標建構之研究

過去幾十年來，政府投入了大量經費與人力修築防災設施，如排水系統、海堤、河堤等。而各項設施有其耐災上限。為減輕水災帶來的衝擊，除了硬體防災的強化外，如何提升民眾的防災意識與落實民眾的防災工作亦為一重要課題。本研究透過文獻分析，初步擬定韌性評估指標，在韌性指標乃歸納五個構面，分別是人文結構面、防災教育面、硬體設施面、環境風險面、民生暨醫療救護面及十一項指標。透過社區幹部檢視後，將水患韌性社區評估指標調整為四大構面、九個評估面向與26個評估指標。經由專家問卷後得出第一層構面之社區防災潛力面之權重最高，後續將藉由建構之韌性評估指標來探討水患自主防災社區與韌性之關係。指標項目（第三層）的所佔整體權重計算出後可得到前五名分別是「1-3-3風險溝通（0.1177）」、「1-3-2防災演練（0.0937）」、「3-1-1潛勢面積（0.0806）」、「3-1-2受災頻率（0.0686）」、「2-1-1排水工程（0.064）」。韌在社區韌性分析結果，發現永康區崑山社區與仁德區二行社區的韌性差異表現在經費來源籌措與充分運用上、防災演練參與效率上、排水工程完成上及救護資源多元程度上，崑山社區的韌性表現比二行社區稍佳，而此韌性的落差也可視為與兩社區類型：都會區與郊區所呈現的城鄉落差有所關係。也呈現出不同區公所在防災工作上的資源配置與推動重點差異，研究成果建議後續如何提升在企業防災與開口契約整合於水患自主防災工作以提升在地韌性與資源整合對災後重建韌性的影響，同時對於如何整合科技技術於風險溝通手法並於防災講習或防災演練時加以應用，則有其重要性。

關鍵字

水患自主防災社區；韌性社區；韌性評估指標

並列摘要

Over the past few decades, the Taiwanese government has invested a lot of budget and manpower to build disaster prevention facilities such as drainage systems, seawalls, and river embankments. And each facility has its own impact limit. In order to reduce the impact of floods, in addition to strengthening the hardware, how to improve people's awareness of disaster risk and implement people's disaster mitigation and preparedness are also important issues. Through literature analysis, this research initially formulated resilience assessment indicators. The resilience indicators are summarized into five dimensions: humanities and social aspects, disaster prevention education, hardware facilities, environmental risks, and people's livelihood and medical care. There are a total of 11 indicators. . After inspection by community volunteer leaders, the community assessment indicators for flood resilience were adjusted into four dimensions, nine assessment categories, and 26 assessment indicators. Through the expert questionnaire, it is obtained that the ＂community disaster prevention potential factor＂ in the first level dimension has the highest weight. In the follow-up, we will use the resilience assessment indicators constructed in this study to explore the relationship between flood-affected autonomous disaster prevention communities and resilience. After calculating the overall weight of the indicator items (third tier), the top five are ＂1-3-3 Risk Communication (0.1177)＂, ＂1-3-2 Disaster Prevention Drill (0.0937)＂, ＂3 - 1-1 Potential Area (0.0806)＂, ＂3-1-2 Disaster Frequency (0.0686)＂, ＂2-1-1 Drainage Works (0.064)＂. … The analysis results of community resilience show that the differences in resilience between Kunshan Community in Yongkang District and Erxing Community in Rende District are reflected in the financing and full utilization of funding sources, the efficiency of participation in disaster prevention drills, the completion of drainage works, and the diversity of rescue resources. The resilience performance of the two communities is slightly better than that of the second-line communities, and the gap in resilience can also be considered to be related to the urban-rural gap between the two types of communities: metropolitan areas and suburbs. It also shows differences in the resource allocation and promotion focus of different district offices in disaster prevention work. The research results suggest how to improve the integration of enterprise disaster prevention and open contracts into flood disaster prevention work to improve local resilience and to integrate resource for post-disaster recovery. It is important to communicate techniques and apply them during disaster prevention workshops or disaster prevention drills.