臺灣都市化地區地震災害危險度評估基準與權重分配之研究

A STUDY ON THE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION OF SEISMIC HAZARDS IN THE URBANIZED AREAS OF TAIWAN

本研究動機乃基於九二一震災慘痛教訓與災後全民戮力救災、復原及重建的啟示，其目的在提供調查分析環境潛在災害地區，建立資料庫及落實防救減災之參考。研究方法以自然、人為實質及人文（社經）活動環境評估群體，藉由群體專家問卷及模糊德菲層級分析，求得各評估因子間的權重分配。研究成果歸納土壤液化、平均坡度、地質、地盤種類、震央分布、活動斷層、淹水及河岸侵蝕、建物樓層數、耐震強度、結構構造、使用類型、構架系統、建蔽率、違建率、防救災據點、戶外消防栓設置標準、易致災建築、救災不易建築、面臨道路寬度、緊急避難空間、臨時安置空間、廣域避難空間、居住密度、平均年齡、教育程度、區位分布、公共設備系統、防災教育及防救災訓練與社區防災教育的評估基準與權重分配；建議依據建立的指標系統，依其權重值，分析因子相對重要性，依評估基準權重值劃分一至四危險等級，作為檢視都市化地區環境防救災計畫執行之依據。

The motive of this study is on the basis of the painful lessons learned from and implications gathered from an island wide efforts to relieve, restore and recover from the catastrophe in the aftermath of the 921 Earthquake. The study therefore aims to prevent and minimize the potential disasters by understanding the hazards and through careful establishing a model of assessment criteria and weight distribution of seismic hazards. It can be used as a reliable database for investigating, analyzing potential relatively hazardous areas and reducing the potential damaging effects to properties and people in the urbanized areas of Taiwan. The study categories three assessment groups, viz natural environment, man-made physical environment and humanism (socio-economy) environment. Then the possible categories and indexes of leading to disasters gathered, through a group of professional-oriented questionnaires and FDAHP analytic approach to establish an assessment model of seismic hazards. In conclusion, the research sums up assessment criteria and relative hazardous areas of factors including soil liquefaction, average gradient, geology, soil plate, epicenter, active fault, flooding and erosion of river bank, stories of building, strength of enduring earthquake, structural conformation, types of use, structural frame, covering ratio, illegal building ratio, bases of operation for disaster prevention, installing standard of fire hydrant, buildings easily to lead to disaster, buildings difficultly to get rescue, width of roads, rescue space, temporary settlements, extensive refuges, population density, average age, education, location, public facilities, disaster prevention education, rescuing training, and disaster prevention education of the community. Finally the study suggests the necessity of viewing the implementation of disaster prevention, mitigation and rescue plan by following a grade of hazards from 1 to 4 which should be ranked by indexes system, weight distribution, and relative importance of factors.