臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究以彰化縣18處山坡地且屬於易淹水區為研究區域，使用線性組合法評估致災淹水環境指標。在決定各因素權重時採用層級分析法及網路分析法來設計專家問卷，並以對偶比較方式估算特徵向量以代表各準則之權重，再將求得之權重作危險等級評估。本研究針對16位專家進行專家問卷訪談，透過層級分析法及網路分析法獲得權重最重要的13項因子，分別為淹水環境特徵因子：「地勢低窪或地層下陷」、「水道淤積或河床有雜物」、「區域內有無防汛施工缺口」、「水利署易淹水地區核定範圍」及「淹水潛勢模擬之應用」；土地利用因子：「都市發展用地」、「農業用地」及「自然地區」；民眾適應與回應能力因子：「避難場所」、「災害風險知覺」、「資源取得能力」、「民眾對調適能力的評估」及「民眾平時對環境的了解與防災教育」。
經本研究討論分析後得到下列結果：1. 得到18處易淹水區之危險等級排序，可做為未來整治工程之優先順序；2. 成對t檢定中得知層級分析法及網路分析法所得到因子權重趨勢具有一致性；3.網路分析法與層級分析法計算18處易淹水區危險等級排序幾乎相同，唯一差異在於｢淹水潛勢模擬結果之應用｣權重不同(網路分析法：6.13%，層級分析法：4.61%)，但以淹水潛勢模擬結果而言，以ANP法排序第3的地點淹水高度比第4的地點淹水高度大，而AHP法排序則相反，故以ANP法所作的結論較符合真實現象。

This research is aimed at investigating and evaluating the dangerous ratings of 18
prone flood hillside areas in Changhua County by linear combination method. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) are used for expert questionnaire design. The “pair wise comparison”, which gives the weights of eigen vectors of the matrices, is considered in AHP. The weights are used for dangerous rating evaluations. In this study, 16 experts has been interviewed by the questionnaire methods to obtain 13 most important factors of the weights by AHP and ANP, which are (1) watercourse siltation or riverbed debris, (2) gaps of constructions for flood prevention, (3) low-lying or subsidence, (4) applications of simulated potential flood, (5) flood prone areas approved by Water Resources Agency and respectively,(6) urban area, (7) agriculture area, (8) natural area, (9) disaster shelter, (10) Disaster Recognition, (11) ability of resource accessing, (12) ability of adpting, (13) environment knowing and education of disaster.
The results of the research lead to some important finding and conclusions as follows: 1. The results can assist in understanding the risk weight of hazard area and be a reference of mitigation plan; 2. According to the two pairs of t test, the weights of factors derived from AHP and ANP have the consistent of trend; 3. The ranking of the dangerous ratings in 18 prone flood hillside areas derived from AHP and ANP are almost consistent. The only discrepancy between them lies in “applications of simulated potential flood” (ANP：6.13%，AHP：4.61%). According to “applications of simulated potential flood”, the hillside with 3rd ranking of flooding height derived from AHP is higher than that with 4rd ranking of flooding height. Overall, ANP is much closer to the real phenomenon than AHP.

第一章、 前言 ............................... 1
1-1、研究緣起 ..........................................1
1-2、研究目的 ................................. 2
1-3、研究區域 ...................................... 3
第二章、 研究方法 .................................... 9
2-1、淹水災害定義 ................................................... 9
2-2、德菲法(Delphi technique) .................................................. 10
2-3、多準則決策分析（MCDM） .................................................. 12
2-3-1、層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP) .................................. 13
2-3-2、網路分析法(Analytic Network Process, ANP) ........................................... 15
2-3-3、層級分析法(AHP)與網路分析(ANP)法之差異 ....................................... 19
第三章、 現場調查與問卷設計 ............................. 22
3-1、現場調查 ................................................ 22
3-2、問卷設計 ............................................. 44
第四章、 結果與討論 ................................... 49
4-1、易淹水危險因子權重結果分析 ................................................ 49
4-2、18 處易淹水危險等級評估結果 ................................................... 60
第五章、 結論與建議 .................................. 68
5-1、結論 ........................................... 68
5-2、建議 .......................................... 69

1.彰化縣政府（1989），｢彰化縣綜合發展計畫｣。
2.彰化縣政府（2000），｢彰化縣農地資源空間規劃計畫｣。
3.張保隆、翁振益、周瑛琪 (2007)，「決策分析:方法與應用」，華泰文化。
4.黃書禮 (2000)，「生態土地使用規劃」，詹氏書局。
5.高新發（2006），德菲法「設計研究方法」，全華書局。
6.張紹勳（2012），網路分析法ANP「模糊多準則評估法及統計」，五南圖書出版(股)公司。
7.鄧振源、曾國雄，1989a，「層級分析法（AHP）的內涵與應用特性（上）」，中國統計學報，第27卷6期，頁5‐22。
8.鄧振源、曾國雄，1989a，「層級分析法（AHP）的內涵與應用特性（下）」，中國統計學報，第27卷7期，頁1‐20。
9.洪鴻智、陳令韡(2012)，「颱洪災害之整合性脆弱度評估-大甲溪流域之應用」，地理學報，第65卷，第79-96。
10.陳令韡(2009)，「大甲溪流域颱洪脆弱度評估：分析網路程序法之應用」，臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系學位論文。
11.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，第51卷，第65-84。
12.陳振宇(2013)，「土石流潛勢地區地方政府及民眾之疏散決策因子」，中華水土保持學報，44(2)，pp.166-179.
13.葉昭憲、陳怡如(2006)，「應用AHP 與GIS 評估都市水災風險度-以台中市筏子溪為例」，逢甲大學水利工程系學位論文。
14.彰化縣政府(2012)，「101年度山坡地易淹水地區調查規劃」。
15.國家災害防救研究中心(2013)，「102年彰投縣易致災環境調查與評估」調查報告。
16.Aerts JC, Botzen W, Veen A, Krywkow J, Werners S (2008),” Dealing with uncertainty in flood management through diversification”, Ecology and Society 13:1-17.
17.Botzen WJ, Van Den Bergh J (2008),” Insurance against climate change and flooding in the Netherlands: present, future, and comparison with other countries” Risk analysis 28:413-426.
18.Bouwer LM, Bubeck P, Aerts JC (2010),” Changes in future flood risk due to climate and development in a Dutch polder area”, Global Environmental Change 20:463-471.
19.Bouwer LM, Bubeck P, Wagtendonk AJ, Aerts JCJH (2009) Inundation scenarios for flood damage evaluation in polder areas Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1995-2007.
20.Bubeck P, Botzen WJ, Aerts JC (2012),” A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior”, Risk Analysis 32:1481-1495.
21.Caloiero T, Pasqua AA, Petrucci O (2014),” Damaging Hydrogeological Events: A Procedure for the Assessment of Severity Levels and an Application to Calabria (Southern Italy)”, Water 6:3652-3670.
22.de Moel H, Aerts JCJH (2011),” Effect of uncertainty in land use, damage models and inundation depth on flood damage estimates”, Natural Hazards 58:407-425.
23.Daji Ergu,Gang Kou,Yong Shi,Yu Shi(2014), ” Analytic network process in risk assessment and decision analysis”, Computers & Operations Research 42:58-74.
24.FEMA(1995), ”The 1993 and 1995 midwest floods: flood hazard mitigation through property hazard acquisition and relocation program”, FEMA Mitigation Directorate, Washington, DC.
25.Lin, C. C., Siebeneck, L. K., Lindell, M. K., Prater, C. S., Wu, H.C., & Huang, S. K. (2014), ”Evacuees’ information sources and reentry decision making in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike” ,Natural Hazards,70(1):865-882.
26.Morita M (2014),” Flood Risk Impact Factor for Comparatively Evaluating the Main Causes that Contribute to Flood Risk in Urban Drainage Areas”, Water 6:253.
27.Nevo, D., and Chan, Y. E. (2007). ”A Delphi study of knowledge management systems : Scope and requirements. ”, Information & Management, 44(6), 583-597.
28.Peng, S.H., Shieh, M.J. and Fan,S.Y. (2012), ”Potential Hazard Map for Disaster Prevention Using GIS-Based Linear Combination Approach and Analytic Hierarchy Method”,Journal of Geographic Information System, 4(5):403-411.
29.Poussin JK, Botzen WW, Aerts JC (2013),”Stimulating flood damage mitigation through insurance: An assessment of the French CatNat system”, Environmental Hazards 12:258-277.
30.Poussin JK, Botzen WW, Aerts JC (2014),”Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households”, Environmental Science & Policy 40:69-77.
31.Schumann AH, Schumann A, Nijssen D (2011),” Application of Scenarios and Multi-Criteria Decision Making Tools in Flood Polder Planning. In: Flood Risk Assessment and Management.”, Springer Netherlands, pp 249-275.
32.Raaijmakers, R., Krywkow, J., & van der Veen, A. (2008), ” Floodrisk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation”,Natural hazards,46(3):307-322.
33.Saaty, T. L. (1980),”The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, McGraw-Hill, New York.
34.Saaty, T. L. (1990),”Decision making for leaders-the analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world”, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
35.Yoon, K. and Hwang, C. L.,1985,”Manufacturing Plant Location Analysis by Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Part I–Single-Plant Strategy”, International Journal of Production Research, 23(2):345-359.