請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65879
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 許銘熙 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Chieh Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林依潔 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T00:14:19Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-07-18 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-07-18 | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-07-06 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文部分:
1.鄧振源、曾國雄,1989,層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(上),中國統計學報,第27 卷,第6 期,13707-13724。 2.鄧振源、曾國雄,1989,層級分析法(AHP)的內涵特性與應用(下),中國統計學報,第27 卷,第7 期,13767-13870。 3.徐村和,1998,模糊德菲層級分析法,模糊系統學刊,第四卷,第一期,59-72。 4.陳昭宏,2001,亞太港埠競爭力與核心能力指標之研究,運輸學刊,第13卷,第1期,1-25 。 5.鄭滄濱,2001,軟體組織提升人員能力之成熟度模糊評估模式,國立台灣科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。 6.洪雅雯,2004,建立都市災害脆弱度指標之研究,逢甲大學土地管理研究所碩士論文。 7.鄧振源,2005,計畫評估 ─ 方法與應用,基隆海洋大學運籌規劃與管理研究中心。 8.衛萬里,張文智,2005,應用模糊德爾菲與分析網路程序法選擇最佳產品設計方案之研究,設計學報,第10卷,第3期,59-80。 9.鍾佳霖,2006,台灣地區各縣市颱風災害脆弱性評估之研究,朝陽科技大學建築及都市設計研究所碩士論文。 10.國立台灣大學水工試驗所,2006,子計畫一:淹水災害防護規模設定之研究,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。 11.翁振益等合著,2006,決策分析方法與應用,台北:華泰文化。 12.江宜錦,2007,天然災害統計指標建構與分析─以台灣各縣市為例,銘傳大學媒體空間設計研究所碩士論文。 13.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期,65-84。 14.蕭煥章,2008,鄉鎮市區水災脆弱性評估模式之研究,華岡地理學報,第21期,1-18。 15.褚志鵬,2009,層級分析法(AHP)理論與實作,國立東華大學企業管理學系教學講義。 16.陳姿叡,2009,感受性系統模型在台北都會區颱洪災害脆弱度應用之研究,國立台北大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文。 17.葉宇光,2009,事件樹於職業安全風險評估應用研究,國立中央大學環境工程研究所碩士論文。 18.黃昱翔,2009,颱洪災害脆弱度評估指標之建立:以南投水里鄉為例,銘傳大學建築與都市防災研究所碩士論文。 19.吳杰穎、黃昱翔,2009,颱洪災害脆弱度評估指標之建立:以南投水里鄉為例,國科會計畫。 20.張倉榮、許銘熙、林國峰、賴進松、潘宗毅,2010,脆弱度及風險地圖分析方法之研究,水利署。 21.蕭代基、李欣輯、楊惠萱,2010,災害損失與社會脆弱性評估,國家災害防救科技中心,98年度技術報告。 22.賴可蓁,2010,洪災風險地圖之研析,國立台灣大學生物環境系統工程學系研究所碩士論文。 23.吳貽婷,2011,水災風險度分析暨防災地圖研究─以新北市為例,國立台灣大學生物環境系統工程學系研究所碩士論文。 24.邱建勛,2011,建蔽率對都市淹水影響之模擬,國立台灣大學生物環境系統工程研究所碩士論文。 英文部分: 1.Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, G., Agnew, M., and Eriksen, S., 2004. New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Norwich, United Kingdom: Tyndall°Center for Climate Change Research. Technical Report 7. 2.Anbalagan, R., and Singh, B., 1996. Landslide hazard and risk assessment mapping of mountainous terrains- a case study from Kumaun Himalaya, India. Engineering Geology 43: 237-246. 3.Apel, H., Aronica, G.T., Kreibich, H. and Thieken, A. H., 2009. Flood risk analyses—how detailed do we need to be? Natural Hazards 49: 79-98. 4.Birkmann, T. 2005a. Danger need not spell disaster. But how vulnerable are we? Research Brief 1, 8pp. 5.Borden, K. A., Schmidtlein, M. C., Emrich, C. T., Piegorsch, W. W., and Cutter, S. L., 2007. Vulnerability of U.S. Cities to Environmental Hazards. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 4(2): 21. 6.Boruff, B. J., Emrich, C., and Cutter, S. L., 2005. Erosion Hazard Vulnerability of US Coastal Counties. Journal of Coastal Research 21(5): 932-942. 7.Cardona, O., 2003. Indicators for disaster risk management, in: First expert meeting on disaster risk conceptualization and indicator modeling, 37pp. 8.Cardona, O. D., Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., and Hilhorst, D., 2003. Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Chapter 3: 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. 9.Chen, A. S., Hsu, M. H., Teng, W, .H., Huang, C. J., Yeh, S. H., and Lien, W.Y., 2006. Establishing the Database of Inundation Potential in Taiwan. Natural Hazards 37(1-2): 107-132. 10.Chen, A. S., Djordjevic, S., Leandro, J., Evans, B., and Savic, D., 2008. Simulation of the building blockage effect in urban flood modelling.11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 11.Clark, G. E., Moser, S. C., Ratick, S. J., Dow, K., Meyer, W. B., Emani, S., Jin, W., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., and Schwarz, H.,E., 1998. Assessing the Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Extreme Storms: The Case of Reverne, MA., USA. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 3: 59-82. 12.Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T., and Scott, M. S. 1997. Handbook for Conducting a GIS-Based Hazards Assessment at the County Level. Hazards Research Lab, Department of Geography, University of South Carolina. 13.Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T., and Scott, M. S. 2000. Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(4): 713-737. 14.Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., and Shirley, W. L., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2): 242-260. 15.Cutter, S. L., 2007. The Social Vulnerability Index: A County-Level Assessment of Communities and Implications for Preparedness Planning, First Annual DHS University Network Summit on Research and Education. 16.Dalkey, N. C., 1969. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Rand Corp, Research Paper RM-5888-PR. 17.Dwyer, A., Zoppou, C., Nielsen, O., Day, S., and Roberts, S., 2004. Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at Risk to Natural Hazards. Canberra: Geoscience Australia. 18.Fekete, A., 2009. Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9: 393-403. 19.FEMA. 2009. Risk mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk Map) Multi-Year Plan: Fiscal Years 2010-2014. Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S.A: Fiscal Year 2009 Report to Congress. Homeland Security. 20.Garey, P.R., Zachary, F., and Landsdowne, 1999. Risk Matrix: An Approach for Identifying, Assessing, and Ranking Program Risk. Air Force Journal & Logistics, 18-23. 21.Haki, Z. Haki, Z., Akyuerek, Z., and Duezguen, S. 2004. Assessment of social vulnerability using geographic information systems: Pendik, Istanbul case study. 7th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science (Heraklion, Greece, 2004), Middle East Technical University of Ankara, Turkey, 413–423. 22.Hsu, M. H., Chen, S. H., and Chang, T. J. 2000. Inundation Simulation for Urban Drainage Basin with Storm Sewer System. Journal of Hydrology 234 (1-2): 21-37. 23.Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, T., Tamizawa, G., Totsuta, R. and Mieno, H., 1993. The Max-Min Delphi Method and Fuzzy Delphi Method Via Fuzzy Integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 55: 241-253. 24.ioMosaic Corporation, “Designing an Effective Risk Matrix” http://www.iomosaic.com 25.Messner, F. and Meyer, V., 2005. Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception-challenges for flood damage research. Netherlands: Springer. 26.Merz, B., and Thieken, A. H., 2004. Flood risk analysis: concepts and challenges. Osterreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft. 56(3–4):27–34. 27.Muller, A., Reiter, J., and Weiland, U. 2011. Assessment of urban vulnerability towards floods using an indicator-based approach - a case study for Santiago de Chile. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 11:2107-2123. 28.Murray, T.J., Pipino, L.L., and Gigch, J.P. van, 1985. A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Human Systems Management 5: 76-80. 29.Pearce, L., 2000. An Integrated Approach for Community Hazard, Impact, Risk and Vulnerability Analysis: HIRV. The University of British Columbia. 30.Rygel, L., O’Sullivan, D. and Yarnal, B, 2006. A method for constructing a social vulnerability index: an application to hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11(3): 741-764. 31.Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York. 32.Schneiderbauer, S., 2007. Risk and vulnerability to natural disasters – from broad view to focused perspective. Theoretical background and applied methods for the identification of the most endangered populations in two case studies at different scales. Phd, Freie Universitat Berlin. 33.Shaw, D., Huang, H. H., Ho, M. C., and Lin, S., 2005. Modeling Flood Loss and Risk Perception. -- The Case of Typhoon Nari in Taipei. Fifth Annual IIASA-DPRI Forum Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Innovations in Science and Policy. 34. Stedinger, J. R., Vogel, R. M., and Foufoula-Georgiou, E., 1993. Frequency analysis of extreme events. Maidment, D. R., New York: Handbook of Hydrology, McGraw-Hill. 35.Steinfuhrer Annett, Tunstall, S., Tapsell S., and Fernandez-Bilbao, A., 2007. Vulnerability and Flooding: A Re-analysis of FHRC Data. UK: European Community, Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies. 36.Turner II, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X., Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., and Schiller, A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America) 100(14): 8074-8079. 37.Velasquez, G. and Tanhueco, R., 2005. Know Risk. United Nations ‘World Conference on Disaster Reduction’, Chapter: Incorporating social issues in disaster risk assessment. 38.Werritty, A., Houston, D., Ball, T., Tavendale, A. and Black, A., 2007. Exploring the Social Impacts of Flood Risk and Flooding in Scotland. Scotland: Scottish Executive. 39.Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., and Davis, I., 2004. At Risk. Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters, 2nd ed. Routledge, London, New York, 496 pp. 40.Wu, D. L., and Fan, R. S., 2009. The report of statistical applications analysis: The vicissitudes of Taipei City population. Taipei, Taiwan: Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Taipei City Government. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/65879 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 台灣位於西太平洋地區之颱風路徑上,在七、八月份時常遭受到颱風的衝擊,且颱風常帶來充沛的雨量,導致有嚴重的淹水情況,造成民眾生命與財物損損失。近幾年,人口和社會經濟的發展迅速增長,而伴隨著極端雨量的發生,洪水對整個社會的衝擊也跟隨提高。對於災害衝擊之評估分析,除了運用工程的手段來減少洪澇災害,風險管理的概念也是個重要的解決方法。本研究將發展社會脆弱度指標並與災害作一結合,來定義出洪災之風險大小。
本研究將水災風險的概念應用在台北市中央區,包括士林區、大同區、中山區、松山區、萬華區、中正區、大安區、信義區、南港區和文山區,一共十個區域,為探討台北市地區之水災風險的空間分布關係,本文運用模糊德爾菲法(Fuzzy Delphi Method, FDM)以及層級分析法(Analytic hierarchy process, AHP),來選擇社會脆弱度因子及訂定這些因子的權重。而在災害的部分,選用40m的網格大小來模擬六種不同重現期距之淹水情況,此六種重現期距為5年、10年、20年、50年、100年及200年。最後將社會脆弱度指標結合淹水潛勢的資訊,以村里為尺度大小來呈現每個村里的風險值,以地圖作展示。考慮村里層級之災害風險分析,其結果可以幫助政府了解在哪些地區是台北市中央區較脆弱之區域,且在此區域規畫更多的資源設備,來減少洪水的衝擊。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Taiwan is on the typhoon path of the East Pacific Ocean Region. Typhoons often bring heavy rainfall in July and August, and cause severe flooding that result in serious losses of life and property. The population and the development of socio economic in urban areas have been grown rapidly in recent years. Along with the increasing extreme rainfall events in Taiwan, the impact of flooding is raising. In addition to apply the structaral methods to reduce the flooding disaster, the concept of risk management is also an important issue for now. The Social Vulnerability Index was developed in the study to determine the flood risk by combining the hazard information.
This paper presents the process of constructing a flood risk map in Central Taipei Area (CTA), including ten districts of Shilin, Datong, Zhongshan, Songshan, Wanhua, Zhongzheng, Da’an, Xinyi, Nangang and Wenshan, and applies the FDM (Fuzzy Delphi Method) and AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) to select the social vulnerability indices (SVI) and set up the weights of these indices. The SVI is calculated at the district level, which has an area of about 10 km2. For the hazard part, the flood potential information was simulated by a hydraulic model using a regular grid with 40m resolution, and simulates the return period 5-year, 10-year, 20-year, 50-year, 100-year and 200-year for 6 cases. The district level was too coarse to represent the spatial distribution of inundation such that the flood hazard was integrated into village level that has an area about 0.2 km2. The SVI was combined with the flood potential information to determine the flood risk indices for each village. By considering the temporal variation of demographical data, the study further demonstrated that change of social vulnerability indices and the risk. The analyzing results can help the city government to realize the most vulnerable area within the CTA. Hence, the resources for flood damage reduction can be allocated to reduce the risk of community of Taipei City. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T00:14:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R99622011-1.pdf: 7627501 bytes, checksum: fca278931d87435c90dd46b7e8537e40 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘 要 I
Abstract II 目 錄 IV 圖目錄 VI 表目錄 VII 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 前言 1 1.2 文獻回顧 2 1.3 研究動機與目的 4 1.4 研究架構與研究流程 5 第二章 洪水災害風險地圖之研究方法與分析 7 2.1 社會脆弱度評估 7 2.1.1 社會脆弱度因子選取 8 2.1.2 模糊德爾菲法 10 2.1.3 層級分析法 13 2.1.4 社會脆弱度指標與正規化 18 2.2 危險度評估 19 2.2.1 淹水之危險度 19 2.2.2 淹水計算 20 2.3 風險分析 21 第三章 研究區域與結果討論 26 3.1 研究區域介紹 26 3.2 社會脆弱度分析結果 29 3.2.1 模糊德爾菲法 29 3.2.2 層級分析法 33 3.2.3 社會脆弱度指標與地圖 34 3.3 淹水模擬結果 37 3.4 風險矩陣與風險地圖 46 第四章 結論與建議 57 4.1 結論 57 4.2 建議 58 參考文獻 60 附錄一 二維淹水分析方法 67 附錄二 模糊德爾菲專家問卷 78 附錄三 模糊德爾菲計算流程 85 附錄四 層級分析(AHP)專家問卷 88 附錄五 層級分析方法計算流程 94 附錄六 台北市各里社會脆弱度表格 99 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 台北市洪災風險分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Flood Risk Analysis for Taipei City | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 柳文成,張倉榮,李香潔 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 脆弱度,脆弱度指標,模糊德爾菲,層級分析法,風險地圖, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Vulnerability,Social Vulnerability Indices,Fuzzy Delphi Method,Analytic hierarchy process,Risk map, | en |
dc.relation.page | 122 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-07-06 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 生物環境系統工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 生物環境系統工程學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-101-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 7.45 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。