The Demonstration Spatial System Plan for Urban Disasters

Prevention in Tucheng City

ChienJung Chen Hung-Chih Hung Wen-Cheng Huang Chang-Yi Chian
Su-Ying Chen Yu-Chin Li Chia-Yin Lu Hui-Lin Chen

2007

2007

Abstract
The major purpose of this study is to conduct a spatial system planning for
disasters prevention in Tucheng City, and to discuss the relative issues in the planning
process based on the Handbook of Spatial System Planning for Disasters Prevention,
2007. The findings are able to provide suggestions for the application and revision of
the Handbook. The study shows that the facilities available for disasters prevention in
Tucheng City are deficient. The relatively higher earthquake and flood risk areas are
both located in the western and central parts of the city. Hence, how to enhance the
provision of facilities and to reduce the disaster risks would be a big challenge for the
decision makers of urban development in Tucheng City.
Keywords: Spatial system plan for disasters prevention, Earthquake, Flood, Disaster
risks, Tucheng City

2007
2009 1980
20012009

risk perceptions

(adaptation)
adjustmentLindell and Perry, 2000; Dash and Morrow, 2001

20032007

2000 2003 2007

20002003
2007

2007

2007
multiple hazards
vulnerability


2.1

Halsn s
and Tr rup, 2009

N ss et al., 2006;
2010

Adger, 2006risk
portfolioBurby et al., 1991
hazardexposure
2003Hung and Chen, 2007; 2007

Burby et al., 1991; Carreo et al., 2007

Hultman and Bozmoski,

2006

2010

2007

UNDRO,
1980; Dorfman, 1998; 2007
RISK= Haz (hazard) Expo (exposure) Vuln (vulnerability)
(1)

Olshansky and Wu, 2001; Hung

and Chen, 2007
EarRis = f (EHazis, EExpoi, EVulni)
(2)
(2) EarRis i s i
EHazis EExpoi Evulni

2007; Hung and Chen, 2007

i
FloodRifFHazi, FExpoi, FVulni
(3)
(3) i (FHaz)
FExpoFVuln
FVulnif ()
(4)
(4)

(5)

2.2
20002003 2007
2007

(1)(2)(3)
(4)
2007 8
2007
(1)(2)()(3)
(4)(5)
(6)(7)(8)

3.1


97 238,897 29.56
2,052.57 1.44% 29 20
50
1,648.90 56.79%
1,254.54 ( 43.21%)
()
1
495.62 236.51 ( 47.72%)
21.06 ( 4.25%) 126.87 (25.59%) 0.73
( 0.14%) 47.47 9.57% 58.11 11.72%
4.73 ( 0.95%) 0.09 ( 0.01%) 1

1
2009()
2.

479.16 2
333.75 ( 76%
65.54%) 59.35 2.75 15.63

 122.47 8.77 24.28

0.24 39.95 75.22 5.92
()0.14 8.63 0.89
26.35%

()
26.28%

2()
()(
())
3.2

(1) 28.85

(2)(3) 269
478 (4) 9 2.24 (5)
120 140 141 (6)
1 5 1 1,100 (7)
15 1 4 (
)1

3500 24
2009

4.1

10
100 500 1 24 40
1

return period 1
1 1

 40 GIS
P =1/Tp
Tp

3 24 0.10.010.002
3 24
3 500

4.2

500 100
500 1 3
TELES 8.0.2
3
1

()

M7.5

10

100

M7.5

10

500

M6.6

500

121 90E; 24 70N

121 90E; 24 70N

0

121 4537E; 24 0456N

2007

3
100 500

PGApeak ground acceleration

500

2
2

1
2

()
()

20030

99340

98953

200.3

198.9

197.9

205

1020

1896

4.3
(4)(5)

1.
1
Fssel (2007)

Eakin and Luers, 2006;

Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon, 2008

Luers et al. (2003)

V Cutter et al., 2003;
Eakin and Luers, 2006
Mehaffey et al., 2008

2007
V

Smit and Wandel, 2006;

Eakin et al., 2010

3
3.
ANP
[0, 1]
value function
(6)2009
xj = ojmax oj
(6)
(6) xj j oj max oj
V
ANP
i yij Eakin and Bojrquez-Tapia,
2008
i Vulnerabilityi

10

Vulnerabilityi =

y
j 1

yij =

w ( RE
j 1

ij

(7)

ij

RSij RPij RLij RAij )

(8)

200m

GIS

GIS

11

(8) wj j REi i RSi

RPi RLi
RAi i

Riski = Hazardi Vulnerabilityi

(9) i Hazardi

(9)

4.
3 5

4 4

12


5.1
1. (~)
97 238,897 238,897
50%-70% 119,449
~167,228
2. (~)
690
589 580 499
500
188 186 169
169 160
3.
185
159

154 150
5.2
1. (~)
238,897
50%-70% 119,449
~167,228 119,449
2. -(~)
59,810
3.
6,605
4 8 5

5.3
20-31
35-62

99-169

13

10,420

18,075

7,655

1,141

10,465

9,324

9,801

25,299

15,498

1,061

5,677

4,616

3,118

-3,118

344

-344

8,114

9,215

1,101

900

2,450

1,550

6,256

9,415

3,159

697

2,240

1,543

7,314

74,008

66,693

810

11,130

10,320

8,226

60,649

52,423

922

13,598

12,675

6,560

1,827

-4,733

729

-729

59,810

198,487

138,677

6,605

45,560

38,954

=-

14

 6
5.4

15

 2007
TELES

5
8 ()

2007

GIS

16

(9961B1002)

2009

2007
2003

2000

2007

2009
2009
2003

HAZ-Taiwan 30(4): 281-299

2007

10(2)95-125
2010
10(3): I-IV
2010
37(1): 97-119
2007

2001

17

2007
37 (3): 31-53
Acosta-Michlik, L., Espaldon, V. (2008), Assessing vulnerability of selected farming
communities in the Philippines based on a behavioural model of agents adaptation
to global environmental change, Global Environmental Change, 18(4): 554-563.
Adger, W. N. (2006), Vulnerability, Global Environmental Change, 16(3): 268-281.
Burby, R. J., Cigler, B. A., French, S. P., Kaiser, E. J., Kartez, J., Roenigk, D., Weist, D.
and Whittington, D. (1991), Sharing Environmental Risks: How to Control
Governments Losses in Natural Disasters, Oxford: Westview Press.
Carreo, M. L., Cardona, O. D., Barbat, A. H. (2007), Urban seismic risk evaluation: A
holistic approach, Natural Hazards, 40(1): 137-172.
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., Shirley, W. L. (2003), Social vulnerability to environmental
hazards, Social Science Quarterly, 84(2): 242-261.
Dash, N., Morrow, B. H. (2001), Return delays and evacuation order compliance: the
case of hurricane Georges and the Florida Keys, Environmental Hazards, 2(3):
119128.
Dorfman, M. S. (1998), Introduction to Risk Management and Insurance (6th ed.),
London: Prentice Hall.
Eakin, H., Luers, A. L. (2006), Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental
systems, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31: 365-394.
Eakin, H., Bojrquez-Tapia, L. A. (2008), Insights into the composition of household
vulnerability from multicriteria decision analysis, Global Environmental Change,
18(1): 112-127.
Eakin, H., Lerner, A. M., Murtinho, F. (2010), Adaptive capacity in evolving
peri-urban spaces: Responses to flood risk in the Upper Lerma River Valley,
Mexico, Global Environmental Change, 20(1): 14-22.
Fssel, H. M. (2007), Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for
climate change, Global Environmental Change, 17(2): 155-167.
Halsn s, K., Tr rup, S. (2009), Development and climate change: A mainstream
approach for assessing economic, social, and environmental impacts of adaptation
measures, Environmental Management, 43(5): 765-778.
Hultman, N. F. and Bozmoski, A. S. (2006), The changing face of normal disasters:
Risk, resilience and natural security in a changing climate, Journal of International
Affairs, 59: 25-41.
Hung, H. C., Chen, L. C. (2007), The application of seismic risk-benefit analysis to
land-use planning in Taipei City, Disasters, 31(3): 256-276.
Lindell, M. K., Perry, R. W. (2000), Households adjustment to earthquake hazard,
Environment and Behavior, 32(4): 590630.
Luers, A. L., Lobell, D. B., Sklar, L. S., Addams, C. L., Matson P. A. (2003), A method
for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley,
Mexico, Global Environmental Change, 13(4): 255-267.
Mehaffey, M., Wainger, L., Wade, T., Yankee, D., Smith, E., Bott, V., Yarbourgh, R.
(2008), Assessing vulnerability from alternative development patterns, Landscape

18

and Urban Planning, 87(1): 84-95.

N ss, L. O., Norland, I. T., Lafferty, W. M., Aall, C. (2006), Data and processes
linking assessment to adaptation decision-making on climate change in Norway,
Global Environmental Change, 16(2): 221-233.
Olshansky, R. B. and Wu, Y. (2001), Earthquake risk analysis for Los Angeles County
under present and planned land uses, Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, 28(3): 419-432.
Smit, B., Wandel, J. (2006), Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability, Global
Environmental Change, 16(3): 282-292.
UNDRO (1980), Natural Disasters and Vulnerability Analysis, Report of Experts Group
Meeting, Geneva: UNDRO.

19