Title

坡地災害社會脆弱度指標評估與應用

Translated Titles

Assessing and Applying Social Vulnerability Index of Slope-land Disasters (SVIoL)

DOI

10.6128/CP.39.4.375

Authors

李欣輯(Hsin-Chi Li);楊惠萱(Hui-Hsuan Yang)

Key Words

社會脆弱度 ; 坡地災害 ; 地理資訊系統 ; 帕累托等級分析法 ; Social vulnerability ; Landslide disasters ; GIS ; Pareto ranking

PublicationName

都市與計劃

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

39卷4期(2012 / 12 / 01)

Page #

375 - 406

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

921地震之後,坡地災害發生之次數明顯的增加,使得坡地住民的受災風險因而提升。這十年來政府雖積極進行許多整治工作,但由於氣候變異影響逐漸顯著,使得短延時且強降雨的致災事件增多,例如:2009年的莫拉克颱風夾帶超過兩百年頻率的超大豪雨,釀成全台共1690處的坡地災害、130處道路中斷、196座橋梁損毀以及699人死亡等嚴重災情。過去依據物理脆弱度因子(有效集水面積、岩體之破碎程度、通過之斷層長度、崩塌面積等)來進行的預警工作,雖可針對山坡地的自然環境進行監控,但若要改善坡地災害造成的損失與傷亡,亦不可忽略對山坡地社會脆弱因素的探討與分析,才能理解社會系統面對自然災害時的抵抗能力,藉以有效降低災害衝擊。本文將坡地災害之社會脆弱度因素分類為四個取向,包括:(1)可能的最大損失(保全人數、結構物損失、家俱家電、交通工具的損失),(2)環境建設(土地使用、道路交通),(3)自保能力(依賴人口、警消人力、避難所與受災次數等),(4)復原與適應能力。同時為了使研究成果得以落實於現今防災工作,本文使用帕累托等級分析法(Pareto ranking),建立分項及綜合之評估指標。最後,透過GIS圖層的繪製,空間化不同地區之社會脆弱度,使之易於結合坡地災害之區域分布特性。指標評估結果發現,屏東縣、台東縣內高脆弱鄉鎮最多,依比例來說,嘉義市與桃園縣內的高脆弱鄉鎮市區比例最高,這四個縣市是坡地災害衝擊下,高社會脆弱度區,此外,若套疊坡地歷史災點更可發現,南投縣信義、水里、埔里鄉,新竹縣尖石鄉、苗栗縣泰安鄉等,是坡地災害的高風險地區。藉由指標的評估結果有助於災害防救單位進行適切的災前減災規畫、災時應變評估與災後復原策略擬訂等防災工作。

English Abstract

This study constructs a framework of social vulnerability index of slope-land disasters, and assesses the idea of social vulnerability by analyzing a group of factors classified by the framework of SVIoL. The number of landslide disasters increased significantly after the Chi-chi earthquake, putting residents of mountain areas at higher risk of debris flow or landslide. The government has revised numerous engineering design over the past decade to reduce the risk of slope-land disasters. However, weather events still cause enormous damage. For example, Typhoon Morakot caused the heavy rainfall breaking the historical records, and resulted in 1,690 landslide/debris flow events, 130 broken roads, 196 damaged bridges and 699 deaths. This disaster revealed that disaster management needs go beyond merely evaluating physical vulnerability or building engineering facilities, and that social vulnerability index assessment is a potential means of improving disaster management and catastrophe resistance. The framework of SVI has four important aspects attributed by previous studies: 1) maximum loss of household property, 2) environmental engineering, 3) resistance to slopeland disasters, and 4) self-recovery ability. Pareto ranking (PR) analysis was applied to integrate the four aspects, and to rank the intensity of SV scores of each town, where higher ranks indicated greater vulnerability. Pingtung and Taitung counties have the highest number of towns assigned to the highest rank, while Chiayi City and Taoyuan County have the highest percentage of towns with the highest PR. Furthermore, after overlapping the historical landslide hotspots with the SVI layer, the most risky places are Shueili, Shini and Puli in Nantou County, Jianshi in Hsinchu County, and Taian in Miaoli County. SVIoL can help not just local governments but also central government understanding the disaster vulnerability of different places, and adjust their disaster prevention, response and recovery strategies accordingly.

Topic Category 工程學 > 土木與建築工程
工程學 > 市政與環境工程
Reference
  1. 吳杰穎、黃昱翔(2011)。颱洪災害脆弱度評估指標之建立:以南投縣水里鄉為例。都市與計劃,38(2),195-218。
    連結:
  2. 呂寶靜(2000)。老人朋友網絡支持功能之初探。社會政策與社會工作學刊,4(2),43-90。
    連結:
  3. 林萬億(2002)。災難救援與社會工作:以台北縣921地震災難社會服務為例。臺大社工學刊,7,127-202。
    連結:
  4. 葉淑娟、施智婷、莊智薰、蔡淑鳳(2004)。社會支持系統與老人生活滿意度之關係—以高雄市老人為例。中山管理評論,12(2),399-427。
    連結:
  5. 行政院農業委員會水土保持局 (2009),土石流災害防救業務計畫,「土石流防災資訊網」,http://246.swcb.gov.tw/edu/preventdisaster-plan.asp,(2009 年 06 月 17 日)
  6. 花蓮縣政府 (2010),花蓮縣災害防救深耕計畫細部執行計畫,「內政部消防署全球資訊網」,http://www.nfa.gov.tw/Show.aspx?MID=1157&UID=1159&PID=1157,(2011 年 9 月14 日)
  7. Adger, W. N.,Brooks, N.,Graham, B.,Agnew, M.,Eriksen, S.(2004).Final Project ReportFinal Project Report,Norwich:Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
  8. Anderson, M.,Holcombe, L.,Williams, D.(2007).Reducing landslide risk in areas of unplanned housing in the caribbean: A government community partnership model.Journal of International Development,19(2),205-221.
  9. Burke, T. J.,Sattler, D. N.,Terich, T.(2002).The socioeconomic effects of a landslide in Western Washington.Environmental Hazards,4(4),129-136.
  10. Cardona, O. D.(2003).The Need for Rethinking the Concepts of Vulnerability and Risk from a Holistic Perspective: A necessary Review and Criticism for Effective Risk Management.London:Earthscan Publishers.
  11. Chambers, R.(2006).Vunerability, coping and policy.IDS Bulletin,37(4),33-40.
  12. Clark, G.,Moser, S.,Ratick, S.,Dow, K.,Meyer, W.,Emani, S.,Jin, W.,Kasperson, J.,Kasperson, R.,Schwarz, H.(1998).Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme storms: The case of Revere, MA., USA.Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,3(1),59-82.
  13. Cutter, S. L.(1996).Vulnerability to environmental hazards.Progress in Human Geography,20(4),529-539.
  14. Cutter, S. L.,Boruff, B. J.,Shirley, W.(2003).Social vulnerability to environmental hazards.Social Science Quarterly,84(2),242-261.
  15. Cutter, S. L.,Mitchell, J. T.,Scott, M. S.(2000).Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina.Association of American Geographers,90(4),713-737.
  16. Dai, F. C.,Lee, C. F.,Ngai, Y. Y.(2002).Landslide risk assessment and management: An overview.Engineering Geology,64(2),65-87.
  17. Dwyer, A.,Zoppou, C.,Nielsen, O.,Day, S.,Roberts, S.(2004).Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying Those at Risk to Natural Hazards Report.Canberra:Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.
  18. Hurlbert, J. S.,Haines, V. A.,Beggs, J. J.(2000).Core networks and tie activation: What kinds of routine networks allocate resources in nonroutine situations?.American Sociological Review,65(4),598-618.
  19. Koukis, G.,Ziourkas, C.(1991).Slope instability phenomena in Greece: A statistical analysis.Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology,43(1),47-60.
  20. Liu, K. F.,Li, H. C.,Hsu, Y. C.(2009).Debris flow hazard assessment with numerical simulation.Natural Hazards,49(1),137-161.
  21. Munasinghe, M.(2007).The importance of social capital: Comparing the impacts of the 2004 Asian Tsunami on Sri Lanka, and Hurricane Katrina 2005 on New Orleans.Ecological Economics,64(1),9-11.
  22. O''Hare, G.,Rivas, S.(2005).The landslide hazard and human vulnerability in La Paz City, Bolivia.Geographical Journal,171(3),239-258.
  23. Rygel, L.,O''Sullivan, D.,Yarnal, B.(2006).A method for constructing a social vulnerability index.Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,11(3),741-764.
  24. Schneiderbauer, S.,Ehrlich, D.(2004).Risk, Hazard and People's Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A Review of Difinations, Concepts and Data.Luxembourg:European Commission Joint Research Centre.
  25. Tunstall, S.,Tapsell, S.,Fernandez-Bilbao, A.(2007).,Wallingford:European Community.
  26. Varnes, D. J.(1978).Slope movement types and processes.Transportation Research Board Special Report,176,11-33.
  27. Weinstein, N. D.,Lyon, J. E.,Rothman, A. J.,Cuite, C. L.(2000).Changes in perceived vulnerability following natural disaster.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,19(3),372-395.
  28. Yang, H. H.,Li, H. C.(2010).Analyzing social vulnerability factors of flood disaster in Taiwan.INTERPRAVNENT 2010 Symposium Proceedings,Taipei:
  29. 行政院農業委員會(2010)。莫拉克颱風農業應變處置實錄
  30. 吳杰穎(2009)。不同土石流潛勢區居民疏散避難決策與行為之比較。坡地防災學報,8(1),1-14。
  31. 吳杰穎、江宜錦(2008)。台灣天然災害統計指標體系建構與分析。地理學報,51,65-84。
  32. 吳杰穎、邵珮君、林文苑、柯于璋、洪鴻智、陳天健、陳亮全、黃智彥、詹士樑、薩支平(2007)。災害管理學辭典。台北:五南。
  33. 吳輝龍(2002)。山坡地管理與水土保持。台灣水土保持,42,1-20。
  34. 巫孟珊、蘇淑娟(2003)。集集地震後埔里地區居民的空間調適行為。環境與世界,8,55-84。
  35. 林冠慧(2004)。全球變遷下脆弱性與適應性研究方法與方法論的探討。全球變遷通訊雜誌,43,33-38。
  36. 柯孝勳、許俊文、蔣得心(2009)。地方政府「地區災害防救計畫」之強化機制探討。科技發展政策報導,2,24-40。
  37. 洪維勵、李宛樺(2006)。災難風險知覺與回應行為之研究─以谷關地區旅館業為例。環境與管理研究,8(1),16-42。
  38. 陳志嘉(2007)。台灣在全球環境變遷下的脆弱性研究與發展。環境與世界,16,47-71。
  39. 陳亮全(2009)。,台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
  40. 陳亮全、吳杰穎、劉怡君、李宜樺(2007)。土石流潛勢區內居民疏散避難行為與決策之研究─以泰利颱風為例。中華水土保持學報,38(4),325-340。
  41. 陳建男、葉一隆(2010)。山地部落坡地災害復原評估。農業工程學報,56,62-70。
  42. 陳樹群、王俞婷、吳亭燁(2005)。坡地災害高風險縣市之坡地村里耐災程度評估。中華水土保持學報,36(4),323-337。
  43. 陳樹群、吳俊毅、黃柏璁、陳振宇、林裕益(2009)。工程與非工程方法之土石流災害風險管理─以松鶴地區為例。中華水土保持學報,40(1),23-37。
  44. 黃秀政(2005)。九二一震災災後重建實錄。台北:五南。
  45. 劉雅貞、陳紫娥(2008)。從災害識覺觀點看花蓮縣土石流保全住戶之疏散配合意願。中華水土保持學報,39(2),125-139。
  46. 蕭景楷、黃錦煌、李俊鴻(2005)。土石流災害認知及偏好分析─多重屬性效用理論之應用。中華水土保持學報,36(4),355-374。
Times Cited
  1. 林志鴻(2016)。因應國土計畫法施行探討南投縣鯉魚潭附近地區新訂特定區計畫之可行性研究。逢甲大學都市計畫與空間資訊學系學位論文。2016。1-105。 
  2. 郭翡玉(2011)。因應氣候變遷調適之國土空間規劃制度分析。臺北大學都市計劃研究所學位論文。2011。1-160。
  3. 劉怡君(2016)。流域之颱洪災害衝擊、脆弱度與調適之特性及關聯性分析:以莫拉克颱風高屏溪流域村(里)為例。臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系學位論文。2016。1-179。
  4. 洪藝家(2016)。降雨誘發之坡地崩塌災損評估。長榮大學土地管理與開發學系(所)學位論文。2016。1-102。
  5. 蔡惠雯(2017)。降雨誘發崩塌潛勢區脆弱度評估模式之建置。長榮大學土地管理與開發學系(所)學位論文。2017。1-113。