現行都市計畫通盤檢討中防災空間規劃落實成效與課題之探討

Implementation of Urban Disaster Reduction Spatial Planning in the Periodical Overall Review of Urban Planning

過去台灣都市防災空間規劃，多依據1997年修訂之「都市計畫定期通盤檢討實施辦法」第七條內容，著重於災害之整備與應變規劃。2011年，為因應近年都市水患問題，針對實施辦法條文內容進行增修、開始納入水患治理與減災概念。然而，過去鮮少有相關的研究，探討過去十多年來防災空間規劃於都市計畫通盤檢討中之落實成效。因此，本研究透過專家問卷及層級分析法，來建立都市防災空間規劃落實成效之評估指標體系，並對全台350個都市計畫通盤檢討案進行成效評估。評估結果發現，雖都市防災空間規劃成效有漸佳之趨勢，但整體而言，僅34%之都市計畫具備一定程度之防災空間規劃。消防救災路線是被採用比例最高的規劃項目，避難收容場所次之，火災延燒防止帶最低。本研究更進一步透過深度訪談及專家座談法，掌握防災空間規劃不易落實之課題，包括：規劃團隊缺乏防災專業背景及相關災害資料之取得管道；都市計劃之防災空間規劃與「地區災害防救計畫」定位不清；都市計畫通盤檢討預算過低；都市計畫審議不甚重視防災規劃等。最後，本研究建議可透過前瞻計畫水環境建設計畫經費，來解決都市防災規劃經費不足之困境；都市計畫審計明定防災規劃審議原則；及未來的都市防災規劃必須要與「地區災害防救計畫」進行對話。

The 1997 revision of the ordinance for the periodical review of urban planning became the base for the urban disasters reduction spatial planning. To cope with recent floods, this ordinance had some amendment in 2011 changing the concept from hazards preparedness to mitigation. In the past 10 years, very few studies have reviewed the implementation performance of the urban disaster reduction spatial planning in the periodical overall review of urban planning. Therefore, the above ordinance and the urban disaster reduction spatial planning handbooks were used to review the implementation performance through experts’ questionnaires and AHP method. Moreover, this study performed in-depth interviews to understand the difficulties on the implementations. This study figures out that the implementation performance of urban disaster reduction planning on the periodical overall review of urban plans was gradually better. However, only 34% of the cases in the 350 ones have implementation performance to a certain degree. Fire and rescue routes planning is the most frequently adopted measured, and shelter planning is the second most frequently adopted. Planning for fire spread is the lest frequent adapted measure. Four difficulties of implementations were also revealed: (1) the urban planners lack the training on the disaster related professionals; (2) the limited budgets for periodical overall review of urban planning; (3) the confusion of urban disaster reduction spatial planning and the local disaster management planning, and (4) the lack of emphasis on disaster related planning by urban review committees. Finally, this study suggests overcoming the limitation of the planning budget through the “Water environment plan” under the “Forward Plan”; drawing up the review principles for the urban disaster reduction planning on the periodical overall review of urban plans; dialoguing between the periodical overall review of urban planning and the “local disaster management planning”.