河川復育近年來漸漸受到大眾的重視，臺灣亦完成許多河川復育計畫，但許多復育計畫完工後，缺乏後續的監測工作，並無法確定是否達成預期的計畫目標；為此本研究利用國外的PPAs評估方法及王筱雯於2011年針對臺灣本土化適用性所進行修改過後的PPAs評估方法，進行都市型河川復育計畫評估。
　　本研究針對覆蓋型都市河川復育計畫進行評估分析，其目標多以水患防治、水質改善、景觀營造、環境教育等為主；本文案例研究為主的老街溪因水患問題及水質污染問題與河岸腹地狹窄，且閒置商場淪為遊民居所，易成安全死角，為此將覆蓋在河川上多年的建築物拆除，以改善淹水問題、水質狀況…等；本研究以河道通洪檢算、水質調查及問卷調查等輔助分析評估，藉以得知河川復育計畫是否達成目標。
　　經輔助分析結果得知老街溪目前河道通洪斷面、水質概況及景觀營造成果評價；通洪能力有達成整治計畫目標；景觀方面透過問卷調查了解景觀設施對民眾河川整治的想法與感想；水質改善成果乃透過研究區域內水質調查結果與歷史紀錄資料比對，得知老街溪水質改善目標之達成仍須努力。
最後以「臺灣桃園縣老街溪復育計畫」為主和三個與老街溪同為覆蓋型都市河川復育案例進行比較，以瞭解國內外都市型河川復育工作作法之異同和優缺點，以做為後續河川復育參考與借鏡，是否有值得效法之處。

　　In recent years, many river restoration projects have been conducted in Taiwan due to the more concerns in public. However, it is difficult to determine whether the project reach the goals or not because the monitoring project is lack. Hence, an urban river restoration project in Lao-Jie River was chosen as the study area and the modified.
　　Post-Project Appraisals (PPAs) proposed by Wang in 2011 was applied in the study to evaluate the urban river restoration project.
　　The results shows that Lao-Jie Creek restoration was successful, but could be better. Furthermore, the results obtained from comparing with the other urban river restoration projects, Tsao Gong Fengshan segment restoration plan in Taiwan, Wan Nian river restoration project in Taiwan, UC Berkeley Strawberry Creek Restoration Project in USA and Cheonggyecheon restoration project in Korea could understand the advantages and disadvantages for the projects and thus could be the references for the further river restoration projects.

1.Cairns, J (1991), “The status of the theoretical and applied science of restoration ecology,” The Environmental Professional, 13: 186~194.
2.Downs, P. W. and Kondolf, G. M. (2002), “Post-project appraisals in adaptive management of river channel restoration,” Environmental Management, 29(4): 477~496.
3.Gore, J . A., (Ed) (1985),“The Restoration of River and Streams: Theories and Experience,” Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham. 280 pp.
4.Hilsenholf, W. L. (1988), “Rapid field assessment with organic pollution with a family-level biotic index,” Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7(1): 65~68.
5.Jordan W. R, Gilpin M. E. and Aber J. D. (1987), “Restoration ecology: restoration as a technique for basic research,” in Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research Eds W R Jordan III, M E Gilpin, J D Aber (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp.3-21
6.Karr, J. R, Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R. and Schlosser, I.J. (1986), “Assessment of Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale,”Illionis Natural History Survey Special Publication 5, Champaign, Illionis.
7.Karr, J. R. (1991), “Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management,” Ecological Application. 1:66~84.
8.Kondolf, G. M., Anderson, S., Lave, R., Pagano, L., Merenlender, A. and Bernhardt, E. S. (2007), “Two Decades of River Restoration in California: What Can We Learn?” Restoration Ecology, (15)3: 516~523.
9.National Research Council (1992), “Restoration of aquatic ecosystems: science, technology, and public policy,” National Academy Press, Washington DC.

10.Purcell, A. H., Friedrich, C. and Resh, V. H. (2002), “An assessment of a small urban stream restoration project in Northern California,” Restoration Ecology, 10(4): 685~694.
11.Robert B. C. (1987), “Strawberry Creek Management Plan.” Environmental Health and Safety University of California at Berkeley.
12.Robert Charbonneau. Vincent H. Resh. (1992), “Strawberry Creek on the University of California, Berkeley Campus: A case history of urban stream restoration.” Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 2, 293~307.
13.Tompkins, M. R. and Kondolf, G. M. (2007), Systematic Post-project Appraisals to Maximize Lessons Learned from River Restoration Projects: Case Study of Compound Channel Restoration Projects in Northern California, Restoration Ecology, 15(3): 524~537.
14.U.S. EPA. (1989), “Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and River: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
15.Wu, J. T. (1999), “A Generic Index of diatom assemblages as bioindicator of pollution in the Keelung river of Taiwan, ” Hydrobiologia, 397: 79~87.
16.王筱雯(2009)，「河川環境改善復育與評估之研究」，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫
17.王筱雯，蘇郁文，詹錢登(2012)，河川復育計畫完工後之評估-以高雄愛河及台中高山溪為例，農業工程學報，第58卷第2期
18.王漢泉(2002)，「臺灣河川水質魚類指標之研究」，環境檢驗所環境調查研究年報9：207-236
19.謝世傑，洪信彰(2007)，「考察韓國首爾清溪川整治復育經驗及省思」，經濟部水利署期刊，第17期，第12-17頁
20.梁世雄(1998)，淺談生態復育之定義、策略與方法，環境科學技術教育專刊 14第9-13頁
21.梁昇(2004)，河川自然生態工法正反例舉偶，興大農業，48期，第48-56頁
22.陳炳宏(2008)，「臺北縣新莊市中港大排水岸城鄉個案分析：公民參與觀點」，國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文
23.林士凱(2011)，「都市型河川復育成效評估之研究－以愛河為例」，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程學系碩士論文
24.吳雅雯(2013)，「河相觀點之河川復育成效評估」，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程學系碩士論文
25.經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所(2008)，「易淹水地區水患治理計畫－老街溪治理規劃檢討」，經濟部水利署
26.桃園縣政府水務局(2009)，老街溪河川區域檢討勘測報告
27.桃園縣政府水務局(2011)，老街溪細部設計報告
28.桃園縣政府環境保護局(2011)，老街溪流域水質改善暨整治策略
29.桃園縣政府環境保護局(2011)，桃園縣都會型河川污染整治及河道生態環境改善之評估規劃及細部設計計畫
30.屏東縣政府環境保護局(2012)，101年度屏東縣河川水質監測計畫期末報告
31.屏東縣政府環境保護局(2013)，102年度屏東縣河川水質監測計畫期末報告
32.張根穆(2011)，由輕水、清水、親水談老街溪水質改善及水環境教育
33.黃宏斌(2012)，城市河川整治新思維
34.中華民國內政部營建署，「屏東深呼吸‧城市新溪望」─屏東萬年溪整體營造計畫，2010
http://www.cpami.gov.tw/chinese/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11786&catid=183&Itemid=76
35.臺灣河川復育網
http://trrn.wra.gov.tw/trrn/index.do
36.桃園縣水務局
http://www.tycg.gov.tw/site/site_index.aspx?site_id=046&site_content_sn=18513
37.桃園縣環境保護局
http://www.tyepb.gov.tw/tyepbnew/cht/index.php?
38.全國環境水質監測資訊網
http://wqshow.epa.gov.tw/WQEPA/Code/AdvSearch.aspx?YearSelect=else&StartYear=2013&EndYear=2013&Station=1055&PageID=5&Water=River&Area=1210
39.桃園縣老街溪水岸營造計畫
　http://lj-river.com.tw/
40.桃園縣自然水質淨化工程網
http://59.124.57.236/taoyuan/pagec02.html
41.桃園縣政府新聞稿
http://tnews.cc/03/newscon1_133025.htm
42.環境境品採集及保存作業指引(2005)，行政院環境保護署環境檢驗所
http://www.niea.gov.tw/niea/WATER/W10251C.htm
43.University of California, Berkeley, Strawberry Creek
http://strawberrycreek.berkeley.edu/index.html
44.清溪川復育計畫網
http://english.sisul.or.kr/grobal/cheonggye/tchinese/WebContent/index.html
45.MBA智庫百科
http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E9%97%AE%E5%8D%B7%E8%AE%BE%E8%AE%A1