堤防效應下之水災風險變遷與風險認知研究

Flood Risk Evolution and Risk Perception under Levee Effects

10.6128/CP.202106_48(2).0001

張學聖(Hsueh-Sheng Chang)；徐敏純(Min-Chun Hsu)

堤防效應 ； 風險變遷 ； 剩餘風險 ； 風險認知 ； Levee effect ； Risk Evolution ； Residual Risk ； Risk Perception

都市與計劃

48卷2期（2021 / 06 / 30）

107 - 132

繁體中文

氣候變遷與都市化造成洪災風險不斷增加，各國均意識到結構式減災策略有其極限，並開始導入非結構減災措施，其中針對易淹水地區的土地利用管理被視為非結構減災的方式之一。過去的研究觀察到易淹水地區由於依賴結構式防洪策略，而未注意到都市發展的影響，導致防洪工程施作後災害風險反而增加，並稱之為「堤防效應」。堤防效應出現的關鍵在於缺乏土地利用管理，應是全球減災管理與規劃者均必須面對的課題。本研究結合堤防效應的風險分析與風險認知面向，以臺南市為研究地區進行堤防效應的探討。研究中先藉由風險變遷特徵分析探索研究地區剩餘風險變遷情形，再結合淹水災點空間型態分析指認堤防效應的潛在地區，最後藉由主觀認知的調查了解地方居民風險認知。研究結果指出，東區裕聖里及仁德區三甲里為居民具有較低的風險認知的堤防效應潛在地區，應有及早配套因應之。

Flood risk is rising nowadays due to urbanization and climate change. Traditional structural measures evidently cannot provide absolute protection from flooding, leading to increased interest in non-structural measures, especially land use management. Allowing development in flood-prone areas, relying solely on protection provided by hydraulic structures, is likely to increase flood risk over time. This paradoxical phenomenon is known as the ＂levee effect＂, which is caused by lack of land use control and has become a problem encountered by policy makers worldwide. This study investigates the levee effect based on both risk analysis and risk perception. First, the flood risk hazard and residual risk change before and after the Flood Prone Area Management Plan in 2006 in the study area are analyzed to identify potential levee effect areas. Questionnaire surveys are then conducted in these areas to give an understanding about the local risk perception. Analytical results reveal that Yusheng Village and Sanjia Village are potential levee effect areas, and local residents perceive a low risk, which shows the need for corresponding measures.

1. 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.
2. Babcicky, P.,Seebauer, S.(2017).The two faces of social capital in private flood mitigation: Opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity.Journal of Risk Research,20(8),1017-1037.
3. Bradford, R.,O'Sullivan, J.,Van der Craats, I.,Krywkow, J.,Rotko, P.,Aaltonen, J.,Bonaiuto, M.,De Dominicis, S.,Waylen, K.,Schelfaut, K.(2012).Risk perception-issues for flood management in Europe.Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,12(7),2299-2309.
4. Burby, R. J.(2006).Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: Bringing about wise governmental decisions for hazardous areas.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,604(1),171-191.
5. Collenteur, R.,de Moel, H.,Jongman, B.,Di Baldassarre, G.(2015).The failed-levee effect: Do societies learn from flood disasters?.Natural Hazards,76(1),373-388.
6. Deeming, H.,Whittle, R.,Medd, W.(2011).Investigating resilience, through “before and after” perspectives on residual risk, Innovative Thinking in Risk.Crisis and Disaster Management,2012,173-200.
7. Domeneghetti, A.,Carisi, F.,Castellarin, A.,Brath, A.(2015).Evolution of flood risk over large areas: Quantitative assessment for the Po river.Journal of Hydrology,527,809-823.
8. Faber, R.(2006).Flood Risk Analysis: Residual Risks and Uncertainties in an Austrian.Context, Austria:University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Hewitt, K.(2014).Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters.London:Routledge.
12. Kuo, Y. L.,Chang, C. C.,Li, H. C.(2015).Lulling effect of public flood protection: Case of Benhe community in Kaohsiung during Typhoon Fanapi.Natural Hazards Review,17(1),05015003.
13. Lindell, M. K.,Perry, R. W.(2004).Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities.London:Sage Publications.
14. Ludy, J.,Kondolf, G. M.(2012).Flood risk perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees.Natural Hazards,61(2),829-842.
15. Luino, F.,Turconi, L.,Petrea, C.,Nigrelli, G.(2012).Uncorrected land-use planning highlighted by flooding: The Alba case study (Piedmont, Italy).Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,12(7),2329-2346.
16. Merz, B.,Elmer, F.,Thieken, A.(2009).Significance of “high probability/low damage”versus “low probability/high damage” flood events.Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,9(3),1033-1046.
17. Meyer, V.,Priest, S.,Kuhlicke, C.(2012).Economic evaluation of structural and non-structural flood risk management measures: Examples from the Mulde River.Natural Hazards,62(2),301-324.
18. Monahan, G.(2008).Enterprise Risk Management: A Methodology for Achieving Strategic Objectives.Hoboken:John Wiley & Sons.
19. Montz, B. E.,Tobin, G. A.(2008).Livin’large with levees: Lessons learned and lost.Natural Hazards Review,9(3),150-157.
20. Parker, D. J.(1995).Floodplain development policy in England and Wales.Applied Geography,15(4),341-363.
21. Pinter, N.,Huthoff, F.,Dierauer, J.,Remo, J. W.,Damptz, A.(2016).Modeling residual flood risk behind levees, Upper Mississippi River, USA.Environmental Science & Policy,58,131-140.
22. Ristic, R.,Kostadinov, S.,Abolmasov, B.,Dragicevic, S.,Trivan, G.,Radic, B.,Trifunovic, M.,Radosavljevic, Z.(2012).Torrential floods and town and country planning in Serbia.Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,12(1),23-35.
23. Rogers, R. W.(1975).A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change.The Journal of Psychology,91(1),93-114.
24. Röthlisberger, V.,Zischg, A. P.,Keiler, M.(2017).Identifying spatial clusters of flood exposure to support decision making in risk management.Science of the Total Environment,598,593-603.
25. Saurí, D.,Roset-Pagès, D.,Ribas-Palom, A.,Pujol-Caussa, P.(2001).The ‘escalator effect’in flood policy: The case of the Costa Brava, Catalonia, Spain.Applied Geography,21(2),127-143.
26. Shah, M. A. R.,Rahman, A.,Chowdhury, S. H.(2017).Sustainability assessment of flood mitigation projects: An innovative decision support framework.International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,23,53-61.
27. Sudmeier-Rieux, K.,Fernández, M.,Penna, I. M.,Jaboyedo, M.,Gaillard, J.(2017).Identifying Emerging Issues in Disaster Risk Reduction, Migration, Climate Change and Sustainable Development.Switzerland:Springer International Publishing.
28. Sutanta, H.,Rajabifard, A.,Bishop, I. D.(2013).Disaster risk reduction using acceptable risk measures for spatial planning.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,56(6),761-785.
29. Tarrant, O.,Todd, M.,Ramsbottom, D.,Wicks, J.(2005).2D floodplain modelling in the tidal Thames - Addressing the residual risk.Water and Environment Journal,19(2),125-134.
30. UNISDR, M.(2009).UNISDR Terminology for Disaster Risk Redution.Geneva:United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR).
31. Wagner, K. (2017). How to avoid the Safe Development Paradox, Chair of Forest and Environmental Policies TUM School of Management Technical University of Munich, https://www.professors.wi.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bca/wup/Files/Wagner_Poster_Safe_Development_Paradox.pdf, Oct. 25, 2017.
32. White, G. F.(1958).Changes in Urban Occupance of Flood Plains in the United States.Chicago:University of Chicago.
33. 內政部營建署(2015)。,臺北:內政部營建署。
34. 林永峻,張倉榮,王嘉和,賴進松,譚義績(2013)。氣候變遷下高屏溪堤防風險度之研究。農業工程學報，59(4)，81-99。
35. 國家災害防救科技中心（2005），「水災與土石流風險認知調查執行報告」，臺北：國家災害防救科技中心。
36. 國家災害防救科技中心（2017），統計分析—縣市災害紀錄，「國家災害防救科技中心災害事件簿查詢展示系統」，https://den.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/DisasterSummary/CityTyphoonDisasterCountIndex，2017年12月28日。
37. 國家災害防救科技中心(2006).天然災害社會經濟衝擊與風險知覺調查.臺北:國家災害防救科技中心.
38. 許銘熙(2005)。,臺北:國立臺灣大學水工試驗所。
39. 郭彥廉(2013)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期末報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期末報告,臺北:行政院國家科學委員會。
40. 經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所(2014).都會區洪水災害損失調查分析總報告書.臺中:經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所.
41. 臺北市政府工務局養護工程處(2003)。,臺北:臺北市政府工務局養護工程處。
42. 臺南市政府水利局（2017），臺南市綜合治水專案報告，「臺南市政府水利局」，https://wrb1.tainan.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=5225&s=16913，2018 年 7 月 12 日。 5225&s
43. 臺南市政府民政局（2018），統計資料—人口資料，「臺南市政府民政局」，https://bca.tainan.gov.tw/News_Population.aspx?n=1131&sms=13853&sn=162641，2018 年 3 月 12 日。
44. 臺南市政府災害防救辦公室（2018），105 年度臺南市地區災害防救計畫，「台南市政府防災資訊入口網」，http://www.tainan.gov.tw/publicdisaster/warehouse/B10000/%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%89%E7%B7%A8%20%E9%A2%A8%E6%B0%B4%E7%81%BD%E5%AE%B3%201105V13(%E7%A2%BA%E8%AA%8D%E7%89%88).pdf，2018 年 3 月 7 日。