臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

全球氣候變遷造成極端氣候使得水災頻率與強度增加，以及危險地區水災風險大幅提升。歷經極端降雨重大水災事件後，各國逐漸意識面對水災的危害應同時考量工程與非工程方法。雖然工程減災措施能夠在提供設計標準下的水災減緩的功用，但仍然無法保證居民不受水災所威脅。因此，若居民因工程減災而降低面對水災的識覺，可能造成更大的生命財產損失。
本研究以實際歷史淹水資料為基礎，分類不同淹水特性地區，再進一步探討淹水趨緩與持續淹水地區居民調適行為差異。研究成果中，「持續高淹水型」居民對於水災識覺、風險威脅評估皆較高，並有較高比例的居民願意採取相關防備行為；「淹水大幅趨緩型」居民對於水災識覺、風險威脅評估則較低，居民對於水災的看法較為樂觀並較信賴工程減災措施。但淹水大幅趨緩型仍位於淹水潛勢區中，在今日氣候變遷極端降雨下，若居民的水災識覺與調適意願較低，可能造成更嚴重的災害。

Global climate change causes extreme weather to increase the frequency and intensity of floods and increase the risk of flooding in hazardous areas. After the floods caused by extreme rainfall, countries gradually conscious of the hazards of floods should also consider the Structural and non-structural measures. While the structure method can provide a flood protection under the design standards, there is still no way to ensure that residents are not threatened by floods. As a result, residents may have greater risk of disaster if they are less aware of flood disaster due to structural measures.
Based on the actual historical flood data, this study will classify different flooding characteristics, and then explore the differences in the behavior of residents in the flooded areas and past flooded areas. In the study, residents living in the category of long-term flooded areas have higher risk of flood perception, risk threat assessment, and a higher proportion of residents are willing to take relevant precautions; Residents living in areas with past flooded areas have lower risk perception, risk threat assessment, optimism about floods and trust in structural measures. However, the type of past flooded areas is still located in the flooded potential area, In the extreme rainfall of climate change, if the residents of the flood consciousness and willingness to adjust lower, will likely cause more serious disaster.

摘　要 I
目　錄 I
圖　目　錄 II
表　目　錄 III
第一章 緒論 4
第一節 研究動機與目的 4
第二節 研究範疇 8
第三節 研究流程 9
第二章 文獻回顧 11
第一節 自然災害與水災意涵 11
第二節 水災的時空尺度 14
第三節 災害調適行為 15
第四節 居民水災調適行為研究 17
第四節 文獻回顧總結 26
第三章 研究設計 27
第一節 研究架構與範圍界定 27
第二節 歷史淹水特性地區分類 30
第三節 水災調適行為問卷分析 38
第四章 驗證分析 45
第一節 驗證地區概述 45
第二節 淹水空間分布特性量測與分類 48
第三節 地區淹水特性分類 52
第四節 居民水災調適行為比較 61
第五章 結論與建議 76
第一節 結論 76
第二節 建議 78
參考文獻 79
附錄一 居民水災調適行為問卷 83

Adger, W. N. (2001). Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International development, 13(7), 921-931.
Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., Wreford, A. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(3), 335-354.
Adger, W. N., ＆ Vincent, K. (2005). Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337(4), 399-410.
Ahn, J.-S., Kim, H., ＆ Lee, Y.-W. (2009). Classification of changing regions using a temporal signature of local spatial association. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(5), 854-864.
Anselin, L. (1993). The Moran scatterplot as an ESDA tool to assess local instability in spatial association: Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University Morgantown, WV.
Cutter, S. L. (2002). American hazardscapes: The regionalization of hazards and disasters: Joseph Henry Press.
Grothmann, T., ＆ Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global environmental change, 15(3), 199-213.
Grothmann, T., ＆ Reusswig, F. (2006). People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural hazards, 38(1), 101-120.
Haining, R., Wise, S., ＆ Ma, J. (1998). Exploratory spatial data analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 47(3), 457-469.
Harries, T. (2012). The anticipated emotional consequences of adaptive behavior-impacts on the take-up of household flood-protection measures. Environment and Planning A, 44(3), 649-668.
Herold, C., ＆ Mouton, F. (2011). Global flood hazard mapping using statistical peak flow estimates. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 8(1), 305-363.
Hisali, E., Birungi, P., ＆ Buyinza, F. (2011). Adaptation to climate change in Uganda: evidence from micro level data. Global environmental change, 21(4), 1245-1261.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Climate Change 2014–Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Regional Aspects. Cambridge University Press.
Kasperson, R. E., ＆ Dow, K. (1993). Hazard perception and geography. Advances in psychology, 96, 193-222.
Kates, R. W., Burton, I., ＆ White, G. F. (1986). Geography, resources, and environment: Selected writings of Gilbert F. White: University of Chicago Press.
Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2002). Non-structural flood protection and sustainability. Water International, 27(1), 3-13.
Legendre, P. (1993). Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm?. Ecology, 74(6), 1659-1673.
Maddux, J. E., ＆ Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of experimental social psychology, 19(5), 469-479.
Mitchell, J. K. (1998). Introduction: hazards in changing cities. Applied Geography, 18(1), 1-6.
Rey, S. J. (2001). Spatial empirics for economic growth and convergence. Geographical Analysis, 33(3), 195-214.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The journal of psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
Saroar, M. M., ＆ Routray, J. K. (2012). Impacts of climatic disasters in coastal Bangladesh: why does private adaptive capacity differ? Regional Environmental Change, 12(1), 169-190.
Sharma, U., Patwardhan, A., ＆ Parthasarathy, D. (2009). Assessing adaptive capacity to tropical cyclones in the East coast of India: a pilot study of public response to cyclone warning information. Climatic Change, 94(1-2), 189-209.
Tobin, G. A. (1997). Natural hazards: explanation and integration: Guilford Press. Usher, P. J. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and
management. Arctic, 183-193.
Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., ＆ Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1049-1065.
White, G. F. (1945). Human adjustment to floods.
White, G. F. (1974). Natural hazards, local, national, global: Oxford University Press.
王韋超. (2013). 影響個體水災調適行為因素之研究. 臺灣大學地理環境資源學研究所學位論文, 1-98.
李俊霖, 黃書禮, ＆ 詹士樑. (2007). 生態永續思潮下之國土資源保育. 都市與計劃, 34(3), 167-191.
吳杰穎, ＆ 李玉生. (2010). 非結構式減災措施運用於空間規劃與管理之研究. 建築學報, (72), 169-186.
周嘉盈. (2011). 影響民眾採取水災整備行為的因素
林永峻, 張向寬, 馬國宸, 賴進松, 張倉榮, 吳祚任, 譚義績. (2014). 海嘯危險度地圖—以新北市金山與萬里區為例. 農業工程學報, 60(3), 42-54.
林韋秀、廖學誠. (2005). 汐止地區店家的洪患災害識覺及調適行為之研究 中華水土保持學報 (Vol. 36, pp. 413-427).
吳杰穎, ＆ 李玉生. (2010). 非結構式減災措施運用於空間規劃與管理之研究. 建築學報, (72), 169-186.
洪政耀、林雪美. (2010). 新竹縣五峰, 尖石鄉坡地災害對居民的災害識覺與調適行為之研究. 工程環境會刊(25), 23-32.
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(65), 79-96.
洪鴻智、盧禹廷. (2015). 沿海居民的氣候變遷與颱洪災害調適. 都市與計劃, 42(1), 87-108.
夏興生、朱秀芳、潘耀忠、張錦水. (2016). 基于历史案例的自然灾害灾情评估方法研究. 灾害学, 31(1), 219-225.
曹建宇, ＆ 張長義. (2008). 地震災害經驗與調適行為之比較研究-以台南縣白河, 台中縣東勢居民為例. 華岡地理學報, (21), 52-75.
張長義. (1977). 環境識覺與自然災害之研究. 中國地理學會會刊 (5), 56-60.
張長義、周文玲. (1993). 宜蘭平原海岸地區環境災害識覺空間差異之研究: 國立台灣大學地理學系地理學報.
張學聖、廖晉賢. (2014). 複合性災害評估架構研究: 莫拉克風災為例. 都市與計劃, 41(3), 305-327.
笹本正治. (1994). 災害史の視点.
許郁婷. (2015). 沿海易淹水地區減災策略之研究-以雲林縣沿海四鄉鎮為例 成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文 (pp. 1-127).
陳永森. (2014). 極端氣候影響下潛在災害區居民環境識覺, 調適行為之研究-以八八水災後屏東縣林邊鄉與佳冬鄉為例. 環境與世界,/28＆29 期, 25-53.
陳亮全、陳海立. (2007). 易致災都市空間發展之探討: 以臺北盆地都市水災形成為例. 都市與計劃, 34(3), 293-315.
陳郁筠. (2016). 面臨颱洪災害下家戶風險溝通與調適行為之研究. 政治大學地政學系學位論文 (Ed.).
陳鴻志. (1998). 台北市社子島洪患問題之研究, 國立臺灣師範大學地理研究所, 碩士論文.
楊雲龍. (1997). 蘭陽平原水災災害識覺之研究. 新竹師院學報, 10, 287-323.
經建會. (2012). 國家氣候變遷調適政策綱領. 行政院經濟建設委員會 (現稱行政院國家發展委員會), 台北市, 台灣.
魯開元. (2005). 汐止水患對居民的災害識覺及其調適行為之探討, 國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文.
羅國彰. (2003). 居民的洪患識覺與調適行為之研究----台北縣汐止市個案之探討, 國立臺灣大學地理學研究所碩士論文.
羅煒婷、林雪美. (2013). 宜蘭冬山河流域洪患區之居民識覺研究. 工程環境會刊(30), 61-85.