921集集地震建築物災損空間特性解析

The Exploration of Spatial Features of Building Damage in 921 Chi-Chi Earthquake

10.3966/101632122017090101004

張學聖(Hsueh-Sheng Chang)；陳姿伶(Tzu-Ling Chen)；王鈺淋(Yu-Lin Wang)

建築物毀損率 ； 地震風險區 ； 數量化理論II類分析 ； Building Damage Ratio ； Earthquake Risk Area ； Quantification Theory Type II

建築學報

101期（2017 / 09 / 30）

59 - 75

繁體中文

地震的不可預測增添災害致命性，建築物的傾斜、毀損、坍塌為主要的災害損失。過去有關地震減災之土地管理，常以斷層距離為管制要因。然而影響地震災害損失要因涉及建築結構、使用型態、土地條件等多項因子。本文以921集集地震事件經驗為研究案例，關注於二個構面解析建築物災損空間特性：「建築物毀損率與斷層帶的距離關係」與「地震風險區受災建築物特性」。首先，應用單因子變異數分析方法探究建築物毀損率與斷層帶的距離關係，進一步應用數量化理論II類分析進行建築物毀損影響因素的分類。研究結果顯示，斷層兩側45公尺內之毀損與45公尺外之毀損確實存在差異，以及當建築物歸屬於「建築年代1（民國63年以前）」、「位於上盤」時，其所受到的地震衝擊較為顯著，以及斷層兩側45公尺距離內，地質環境特性如鄰山、鄰河顯著影響建築物的受損情形。本文進一步參考他國地震管理作為進行土地管理綜合比較分析，研究發現期供後續探究地震風險地區土地規劃管理推動面與操作面等研究之參考。

Earthquake is an unpredictable disaster and fatalness. The building damage and collapse are the major loss during the earthquake disaster. Past studies have proposed land use regulation along the fault to mitigate earthquake disaster. However, there are other factors result in building damage including building structure, land use type and geographic location etc. Therefore, this paper applies Chi-Chi Earthquake as the case study to explore ＂the relationship between building damage ratio and the distance from the fault＂ and ＂building features in earthquake risk area＂. First of all, this paper applies one-way analysis of variance to explore the building damage ratio under various distances from the fault line. Furthermore, quantification theory type II is then applied to categorize the building damage factors. The results show that there is a significant building damage difference on the distance of 45 meters. And buildings built before 1974 and located on upper fault are suffered much serious damage. In addition, the geologic features such as river and cliff might have impact on building damage. In the end, this study conducts comparative analysis on land use managements among other countries suffering similar earthquake risk. Overall, the results might be referred to future studies on land use plan and land use management in earthquake risk areas.

1. Allen, K. M.(2006).Community-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: Local capacity-building in the Philippines.Disasters,30(1),80-101.
2. Becker, J. S.,Beban, J.,Saunders, W. S. A.,Van Dissen, R.,King, A.(2013).Land use planning and policy for earthquakes in the Wellington region, New Zealand (2001-2011).Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies,2013(1),3-16.
3. Burby, R.(2006).Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise government decisions for hazardous areas.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,64,171-191.
4. CRED(2011).Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2011: The Numbers and Trends.Brussels, Belgium:Ciaco Imprimerie, Louvain-la-Neuve.
5. 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.Annuals of the Association of American Geographers,90,713-737.
6. Fordham, M.(2007).Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge.NC, USA:Duke University Press.
7. Friedmann, J.(1987).Planning in The Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action.NJ, USA:Princeton University.
8. Hoetmer, G. J.(Ed.),Drabek, T. E.(Ed.)(1991).Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government.Washington, D.C., USA:ICMA.
9. Kerr, J.,Nathan, S.,Van Dissen, R. J.,Webb, P.,Brunsdon, D.,King, A. B.(2003).Planning for Development of Land, on or Close to Active Faults: An Interim Guideline to Assist Resource Management Planners in New Zealand.Wellington, New Zealand:Ministry for the Environment Manatu Mo Te Taiao.
10. Miller, D. S.(Ed.),Rivera, J. D.(Ed.)(2010).Community Disaster Recovery and Resilience: Exploring Global Opportunities and Challenges.FL, USA:Taylor & Francis Group.
11. Rodriguez, H.(Ed.),Quarantelli, E. L.(Ed.),Dynes, R.(Ed.)(2006).Handbook of Disaster Research.NY, USA:Springer.
12. Saunders, W. S. A.,Becker, J. S.(2015).A discussion of resilience and sustainability: Land use planning recovery from the Canterbury earthquake sequence, New Zealand.International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,14(part 1),73-81.
13. Schwab, J.,Topping, K. C.,Eadie, C. C.,Deyle, R. E.,Smith, R. A.(1998).Planning for Post-disaster Recovery and Reconstruction.IL, USA:American Planning Association.
14. Smith, G.(2010).Lessons from the United States: Planning for post-disaster recovery and reconstruction.The Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies,2010(1)
15. Spence, R.(Ed.),So, E.(Ed.),Scawthorn, C.(Ed.)(2011).Human Casualties in Earthquakes Progress in Modelling and Mitigation.Dordrecht, Netherlands:Springer.
16. White, G. F.,Kates, R. W.,Burton, I.(2001).Knowing better and losing even more: The use of knowledge in hazards management.Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards,3(3-4),81-92.
17. 李錫堤、康耿豪、鄭錦桐、廖啟雯(2000)。921 集集大地震之地表破裂及地盤變形現象。地工技術，81，5-18。
18. 林銘郎、李崇正、黃文昭、黃文正、粘為東、詹佩臻、張有毅、劉桓吉、盧詩丁、陳盈璇(2012)。,台北市=Taipei:經濟部中央地質調查所=Central Geological Survey, MOEA。
19. 柯于璋(2008)。土地使用減災工具之政策規劃可行性評估：模糊德菲層級法之應用。行政暨政策學報，47，57-90。
20. 趙志銘(2002)。台南市=Tainan，國立成功大學都市計劃研究所=National Cheng Kung University。
21. 蕭江碧、葉祥海、蔡克銓(1999)。921集集大地震建築物震害調查初步報告。台北縣=Taipei:內政部建築研究所=Architecture and Building Research Institute, Ministry of the Interior, ROC.。
22. 蕭謙麗、林明聖(2000)。九二一地震與車籠埔斷層的省思。環境教育季刊，41，8-13。
23. 簡文郁、張毓文、邱世彬(2011)。,台北市=Taipei:財團法人國家實驗研究院國家地震工程研究中心=National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering。
24. 藍百圻(2002)。台南市=Tainan，國立成功大學建築研究所=National Cheng Kung University。
25. 闕河淵(1999)。建築技術規則有關活動斷層規定之探討。技師報，157，1-3。