台灣近年來急遽的都市化使不透水表面大幅增加，使自然界的水處理機能弱化，而造成都市洪災的衝擊。因此，都市計劃中水治理是必須被考量的。
　　過去的都市治水大多為集中式的管末處理，或是大型之公園滯洪池，但隨著都市建成區域增加，大型公共設施的用地取得益發困難。美國馬里蘭州政府於1999年提出的低衝擊開發理念，提倡以模擬自然水文機能的方法來減低開發對水文產生之衝擊（Low-Impact-Development，LID），與傳統治水思維在空間分配上有很大差異，低衝擊開發採用源頭處理的概念，以許多小面積且分離的單元，整合分佈在每塊土地中的一小部分上以模擬自然入滲機制。在過去的研究中已證明低衝擊開發逕流削減效益，因此，低衝擊開發應用於都市中有實質治水效果，也可使土地更靈活運用。
　　有鑑於此，本研究以虎尾地區為例，使用都市排水管理模式（SWMM）模擬低衝擊開發設施在集中型處理與分散型處理的差異，並同時比較在不同降雨情境、設施種類、管制強度下其逕流削減效益的成果。
　　研究成果顯示在分散型處理的情境下，逕流削減的表現較佳，也就是處理單元愈小，愈能有效處理逕流以減低都市總逕流量以及洪峰流量。在不同設施的逕流削減表現上，貯集入滲型的植生池優於直接入滲型的透水鋪面。而降雨強度也會影響低衝擊開發設施的表現，模擬結果顯示設施的逕流削減百分比會隨雨量強度增大而減低。

Rapid urbanization increased the risk of urban, low impact development (LID) is the concept developed for reducing and treating surface runoff, different from the conventional stormwater management, LID technology are distributed facilities in a small portion of each lot, near the source of impacts. This study used Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) to evaluate the effect of runoff reduction of centralized versus decentralized LID practices, and also compared the reduction effect in different rainfall scenarios, facility types and control level. Results showed that the effect of runoff reduction is better with decentralized LID practices, that is to say smaller unit is more effective to reduce runoff.

Key words: Low-Impact Development (LID), Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), Runoff, Urban Runoff Control

1.Ahiablame, L. M., Engel, B. A. & Chaubey, I. "Effectiveness of low impact development practices: Literature review and suggestions for future research." Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 223(7), pp.4253-4273. 2012.
2.Ahiablame, L. M., Engel, B. A. & Chaubey, I. "Effectiveness of low impact development practices in two urbanized watersheds: Retrofitting with rain barrel/cistern and porous pavement." Journal of Environmental Management, 119, pp.151-161. 2013.
3.Akan, A. O. "Horton infiltration equation revisited. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering", 118(5), pp.828-830. 1992.
4.Andoh, R. Y. & Iwugo, K. O. "Sustainable urban drainage systems—A UK perspective. Urban drainage." American Society of Civil Engineers. 2002.
5.Chapman, C., & Horner, R. R. "Performance assessment of a street-drainage bioretention system." Water Environment Research, 82(2), pp.109-119. 2010.
6.Collins, K. A., Hunt, W. F., & Hathaway, J. M. "Hydrologic comparison of four types of permeable pavement and standard asphalt in eastern North Carolina." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. 2008.
7.Herrera Consultants. "Puget sound stormwater BMP cost database." Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Assessment Program. 2013.
8.County, P. G. s. "Low-impact development design strategies: an integrated design approach." Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and Planning Division, Prince George’s County, Maryland. 1999.
9.Damodaram, C., Giacomoni, M. H., Prakash Khedun, C., Holmes, H., Ryan, A., Saour, W. & Zechman, E. M. "Simulation of combined best management practices and low impact development for sustainable stormwater management." JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 46(5), pp.907-918. 2010.
10.Davis, A. P., Hunt, W. F., Traver, R. G. & Clar, M. "Bioretention technology: Overview of current practice and future needs." American Society of Civil Engineers. 2009.
11.Dietz, M. E. & Clausen, J. C. "Stormwater runoff and export changes with development in a traditional and low impact subdivision." Journal of Environmental Management, 87(4), pp.560-566. 2008.
12.Doran, S. & Cannon, D. "Cost-benefit analysis of urban stormwater retrofits and stream daylighting using low impact development technologies" Water Environment Federation. 2006.
13.Dreelin, E. A., Fowler, L., & Carroll, C. R. "A test of porous pavement effectiveness on clay soils during natural storm events" Water Research, 40(4), pp.799-805. 2006.
14.US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "Low Impact Development (LID): a literature review." United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000.
15.George’s, P. . "Low-impact development design strategies: an integrated design approach." Maryland: Prince George’s County. 1999.
16.Green, W. H. & Ampt, G . "Studies on soil physics, 1. The flow of air and water through soils." J. Agric. Sci, 4(1), pp.1-24. 1911.
17.Horton, R. E. "Analysis of runoff‐plat experiments with varying infiltration‐capacity." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 20(4), 693-711. 1939.
18.Hunt, W., Smith, J., Jadlocki, S., Hathaway, J. & Eubanks, P. "Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a bioretention cell in urban Charlotte, NC."Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2008.
19.Hunt, W., Stephens, S. & Mayes, D. "Permeable pavement effectiveness in eastern North Carolina." Paper presented at the Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage. ASCE. Portland, OR. 2002.
20.Jones, J. E. "Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater Management Systems." ASCE. 1992.
21.Kundzewicz, Z. W. "Non-structural flood protection and sustainability. Water International", Water International. 27(1), pp.3-13. 2002.
22.Kurtz, T., Rauscher, T., & Hickey, M. "Glencoe rain garden flow test memorandum." Sustainable stormwater management program, Bureau of Environmental Services, city of Portland, Oregon. 2004.
23.Leopold, L. B. . "Hydrology for urban land planning: A guidebook on the hydrologic effects of urban land use." US Government Printing Office. 1968.
24.McCuen, R. H., Johnson, P. A., & Ragan, R. M. "Highway Hydrology: Hydraulic Design Series No. 2." National Technical Information Service. 1996
25.Miller, S. N., Kepner, W. G., Mehaffey, M. H., Hernandez, M., Miller, R. C., Goodrich, D. C., Miller, W. P. "Integrating landscape assessment and hydrologic modeling for land cover change analysis1." JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38(4), pp.915-929. 2002.
26.Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "Storm water strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution." Washington, DC. 1999.
27.Qin, H.-p., Li, Z.-x., & Fu, G. "The effects of low impact development on urban flooding under different rainfall characteristics." Journal of Environmental Management, 129, 577-585. 2013.
28.Ramachandra, T. V., & Mujumdar, P. P. "Urban floods: case study of Bangalore." Disaster and Development, 3(2). 2009.
29.Rossman, L. "Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual Version 5.1." US Environmental Protection Agency. 2015a.
30.Rossman, L. "Storm water management model reference manual: volume I – hydrology." US Environmental Protection Agency. 2015b.
31.Rushton, B. T. "Low-impact parking lot design reduces runoff and pollutant loads.“ Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(3), 172-179. 2001.
32.U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ”Urban hydrology for small watersheds." . 1986.
33.Wong, T. "Australian runoff quality: a guide to water sensitive urban design." 2006.
34.水利署，土地利用型態變遷對逕流影響之評估研究，2013a。
35.水利署，都市防洪空間規劃與管理之研究，2013b。
36.吳明淏與王郁智，高雄市基地開發保水技術報告，高雄市: 高雄市政府，2014。
37.吳金和，台灣雨水下水道未來發展方向之探討，http://www.tsa-net.tw/（2015/11/15）。
38.李毅、王全九、邵明安與巨娟麗，Green-Ampt 入滲模型及其應用，西農林科技大學學報 (自然科學版)，35(2)，頁225-230，2007。
39.沈丹與張明亮，SWMM模型在城市生命體水循環系统中的應用，www.paper.edu.cn/download/downPaper/200609-436（2015/11/30），2006。
40.林子平，都市水循環之研究—地表不透水率之調查及逕流量實測解析，國立成功大學建築學系碩士論文，頁1-106，2002。
41.張玉良，應用地理資訊系統於水文管理之研究-以嘉義鰲鼓溼地為例，國立中山大學海鹽及工程學系研究所碩士論文，2011。
42.張嘉玲，低衝擊開發之應用及發展趨勢，土木水利期刊─ 生態治水新思維，35(4)，頁1-7，2008。
43.陳亮全與陳海立，易致災都市空間發展之探討：以臺北盆地都市水災形成為例，都市與計劃，34(3)，頁293-315，2007。
44.陳海立，人文易致災因子對都市水災影響之研究-以台北縣汐止地區為例，臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文，2004。
45.麻匡復，都市計畫整體開發執行之制度分析－一個制度設計、制度變遷的回顧， 2003第一屆土地學術研討會，2003。
46.雲林縣虎尾鎮公所，變更虎尾都市計畫（市場用地（市十）為社教用地書，2008。
47.雲林縣政府，雲林縣虎尾鎮雨水下水道檢討規劃報告書，2011。
48.黃冠豪，我國公告土地現值相關法律問題之研究，2007。
49.經建會，國家氣候變遷調適政策綱領，台北市，2012。
50.鄒克萬與黃書偉，都市土地利用變遷對自然環境衝擊之空間影響分析，地理學報，48，頁1-18，2007。
51.劉遠東，氾洪區域圖在洪災防護管理之應用，發表於台灣大學工學院會議室，2007。
52.鄭克聲，水文設計應用手冊，經濟部水資源局，2001。
53.簡富山，土地利用改變對水文環境影響評估，國立海洋大學河海工程學系碩士在職專班學位論文，2002。