近年來之研究報告指出臺灣同時遭受多種天然災害之威脅與影響，而氣候與台灣本身環境之變遷亦造成舊有防減災系統面臨挑戰，2009年莫拉克颱風對台灣之重創即顯示出此問題。面對此情況，多個研究指出未來複合性災害之重要性無法忽視。
回顧國內外相關研究，雖複合性災害之重要性常被提及，但仍存有下列問題：其一為複合性災害定義與界定上之不確定性; 其二則是多數研究僅針對單一災害，缺乏複合性災害之研究。在此情況下，本研究從量化複合性災害之方式著手，並以莫拉克颱風為例，進而對複合性災害之空間特性做一初步探究。
藉由文獻整理與分析，本研究首先釐清了複合性災害之定義，並從複合性災害之源頭切入，從災害關聯性之角度驗證複合性災害之存在與重要性。在量化部分，本研究訂定之公式經由評估確可用於量化一地區之複合性災害受災程度，並可做為進一步分析工具。在量化公式成果之基礎下，複合性災害空間特性的探究結果顯示了災害間衍生與關聯性之存在，進一步分析結果並顯示：（1）一地區如地勢越陡峭則其普遍複合性災害越嚴重與（2）都市發展提高一地區面對複合性災害之風險但卻未必降低其承受複合性災害之能力等現象。上述之研究成果不僅有助於針對複合性災害進一步之研究，並可作為未來訂定防災式土地使用規劃時之參考與依據。

In recent years, studies pointed out that Taiwan has suffered a variety of threats and impact of natural disasters, and the changes of climate and environment of Taiwan has resulted in disasters prevention system is no longer applicable. The Typhoon Marakot in 2009 caused huge damage also shows the problem. In the situation mentioned above, several studies mentioned the importantance of compound disasters cannot be ignored.
Review of relevant research at home and abroad, although compound disasters are often referred to as a important issue, but still there are the following issues: One is the uncertainty of definition of compound disasters, the other is most studies are only for a single disaster, and it's lack of studies of compound disasters. In the situation mentioned above, the study start with a quantitative method for compound disasters, and take Typhoon Morakot as an example, by that we explore a preliminary understanding on the spatial features of compound disasters.
Through literature review and analysis, this study first clarifies the definition of compound disasters, and then testes and verifies the existence and importance of compound disasters from the perspective of disaster relevancy. In the quantitative part, the evaluation formula disigned by this study indeed can be used to quantify compound disasters, and so as a tool for further analysis. The exploration result confirms the relationship and derivative between disasters, and it also shows the correlation between disasters and topography and urban development. The research result shows (1)usually a area with precipitous topography that suffered in a more serious compound disasters (2) urban growth raises the risk one area faces compound disaster but won't reduce the ability the area endure compound disasters. All the results mentioned above are contributing to the further research, and it also can provide reference for future land use planning of disaster prevention.

（一）外文文獻
1. Anagnostopoulos, S., & Moretti, M. (2008). Post‐earthquake emergency
assessment of building damage, safety and usability ‐ Part 1: Technical issues.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28(3), 223‐232.
2. Bank, W. (2005). Natural Disaster Hotspots–A Global Risk Analysis.
3. Chan, N. W. (1997). Institutional arrangements for flood hazard management
in Malaysia: An evaluation using the criteria approach. Disasters, 21(3), 206‐
222.
4. Chen, S.C., & Huang, B.T. (2010). Non‐structural mitigation programs for
sediment‐related disasters after the Chichi Earthquake in Taiwan. Journal of
Mountain Science, 7(3), 291‐300.
5. Chen, S. C., & Huang, B. T. (2010). Non‐structural mitigation programs for
sediment‐related disasters after the Chichi Earthquake in Taiwan. [Article].
Journal of Mountain Science, 7(3), 291‐300.
6. Cheng, C.‐C., Chen, Y.‐K., Jan, J.‐F., & Wang4, S.‐F. (2005). DTM, GIS, and DSS
Applications in Forestland Ecosystem Classification and Suitability Analysis.
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 10(Cheng, Chen, Jan, &
Wang4), 351‐360.
7. Cheng, J. D., Huang, Y. C., Wu, H. L., Yeh, J. L., & Chang, C. H. (2005).
Hydrometeorological and landuse attributes of debris flows and debris floods
during typhoon Toraji, July 29‐30, 2001 in central Taiwan. [Article]. Journal of
Hydrology, 306(1‐4), 161‐173.
8. Comerio, M. C. (2004). Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US
perspective. [Article]. Building Research and Information, 32(5), 403‐413.
9. Cruz, A. M., & Okada, N. (2008). Consideration of natural hazards in the
design and risk management of industrial facilities. Natural Hazards, 44(2),
213‐227.
10. Doberstein, B. (2009). Post‐disaster assessment of hazard mitigation for small
and medium‐magnitude debris flow disasters in Bali, Indonesia and Jimani,
Dominican Republic. [Article]. Natural Hazards, 50(2), 361‐377.
11. Feng, L., & Luo, G. (2010). Proposal for a quantitative index of flood disasters.
Disasters, 34(3), 695‐704.
12. Feng, L. H., & Chen, X. (2009). Practical research on quantitative calculation of
debris flow magnitude and disaster intensity. [Article]. Environmental
Geology, 57(Cheng et al.), 863‐871.
13. Feng, L. H., & Hong, W. (2008). A quantitative expression for the magnitude
and intensity of disaster of storm surges. [Article]. Natural Hazards, 45(1), 11‐
18.
14. Furdada, G., Calderón, L., & Marqués, M. (2008). Flood hazard map of La
Trinidad (NW Nicaragua). Method and results. Natural Hazards, 45(2), 183‐
195.
78
15. Hurtrez, J. E., Sol, C., & Lucazeau, F. (1999). Effect of drainage area on
hypsometry from an analysis of small‐scale drainage basins in the Siwalik Hills
(Central Nepal). [Article]. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 24(9), 799‐
808.
16. ISDR. (2009). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction.
17. Kang, S. J., Lee, S. J., & Lee, K. H. (2009). A Study on the Implementation of
Non‐Structural Measures to Reduce Urban Flood Damage‐Focused on the
Survey Results of the Experts. [Article]. Journal of Asian Architecture and
Building Engineering, 8(2), 385‐392.
18. Keefer, D. K. (1984). Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 95(Cheng et al.), 406‐421.
19. Kundzewicz, Z. W., & Takeuchi, K. (1999). Flood protection and management:
quo vadimus? Hydrological Sciences Journal‐Journal Des Sciences
Hydrologiques, 44(3), 417‐432.
20. Lee, s.I. (2001). Developing a bivariate spatial association measure：An
integration of Pearson's r and Moran's I. Journal of Geographical Systems(3),
369‐385.
21. Lee, S.I. (2004a). A generalized significance testing method for global
measures of spatial association: an extension of the Mantel test. Environment
and Planning A, 36, 1687‐1703.
22. Lee, S.I. (2004b). Spatial Data Analysis for the U.S. Regional Income
Convergence, 1969‐1999:A Critical Appraisal of b‐convergence. Journal of the
Korean Geographical Society, 39(2), 212‐228.
23. Lu, S. Y., Cheng, J. D., & Brooks, K. N. (2001). Managing forests for watershed
protection in Taiwan. Forest Ecology and Management, 143(1‐3), 77‐85.
24. Mayer, L. (1990). Introduction to Quantitative Geomorphology.
25. Ma, J. M., Tan, X. M., & Zhang, N. Q. (2010). FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND
FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM IN CHINA. [Proceedings Paper]. Irrigation and
Drainage, 59(1), 17‐22.
26. Mader, G. G. (1997). Enduring land‐use planning lessons from the 1971 San
Fernando earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 13, 45‐54.
27. Marfai, M. A., & King, L. (2008). Coastal flood management in Semarang,
Indonesia. [Article]. Environmental Geology, 55(7), 1507‐1518.
28. Omidvar, B., & Khodaei, H. (2008). Using value engineering to optimize flood
forecasting and flood warning systems: Golestan and Golabdare watersheds
in Iran as case studies. Natural Hazards, 47(3), 281‐296.
29. Perez‐Pena, J. V., Azanon, J. M., Booth‐Rea, G., Azor, A., & Delgado, J. (2009).
Differentiating geology and tectonics using a spatial autocorrelation
technique for the hypsometric integral. [Article]. Journal of Geophysical
Research‐Earth Surface, 114.
30. Pine, J. C. (2009). Natural Hazards Analysis.
31. Rodrigues, A. S., Santos, M. A., Santos, A. D., & Rocha, F. (2002). Dam‐break
flood emergency management system. Water Resources Management, 16(6),
489‐503.
32. Ruchelman, & Leonard. (1988). The MGM Grand Hotel Fire.
79
33. Sheng, J. F., & Wilson, J. (2009). Watershed urbanization and changing flood
behavior across the Los Angeles metropolitan region. [Article]. Natural
Hazards, 48(1), 41‐57.
34. Supharatid, S. (2006). The Hat Yai 2000 flood: the worst flood in Thai history.
Hydrological Processes, 20(2), 307‐318.
35. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the
Detroit Region. Economic Geography, 46, 234‐240.
36. Wang, J. J., & Ling, H. I. (2010). Relationships between typhoon types and
debris flow disasters in Taiwan. [Article]. Natural Hazards, 54(2), 373‐394.
37. Wissmar, R. C., Timm, R. K., & Logsdon, M. G. (2004). Effects of changing
forest and impervious land covers on discharge characteristics of watersheds.
[Article]. Environmental Management, 34(1), 91‐98.
38. Yi, C. S., Lee, J. H., & Shim, M. P. (2010). GIS‐based distributed technique for
assessing economic loss from flood damage: pre‐feasibility study for the
Anyang Stream Basin in Korea. [Article]. Natural Hazards, 55(2), 251‐272.
（二）中文文獻
1. 王虹萍, & 周天穎. (2010). 結合層級分析法與模糊理論於土石流潛勢評估
之研究－以陳有蘭溪集水區為例. 水保技術, 5(1), 13-22.
2. 何明錦, 李泳龍, & 戴政安. (2009). 公眾參與都市防災空間系統規劃之研
究－Google Earth 之應用. 建築學報, 68 期增刊(技術專刊), 89-102.
3. 何明錦, 洪鴻智, 陳建忠, 陳令韡, 簡長毅, 陳素櫻, et al. (2009). 綜合性地震
脆弱度與風險評估：以新竹市為例. 建築學報, 70(增刊（技術專刊）),
111-126.
4. 吳名隆, & 涂金堂. (2005). SPSS與統計應用分析. 台北市: 五南圖書出版股
份有限公司.
5. 吳杰穎, & 江宜錦. (2008). 臺灣天然災害統計指標體系建構與分析. 地理
學報, 51, 65-84.
6. 吳杰穎, & 李玉生. (2010). 非結構式減災措施運用於空間規劃與管理之研
究. 建築學報.
7. 吳榮平, & 熊光華. (2007). 防災對策的空間觀－以都市火災為例. Journal
of Crisis Management, 4(2), 33-40.
8. 李玉生, 解鴻年, 閻克勤, & 李怡先. (2010). 都市防災空間系統建立之研究
- 以新竹縣竹北市都市地區為例. 建築與規劃學報, 10(3), 201-220.
9. 李龍潭. (2010). 地方政府推動社區災害防救之研究-以桃園縣防災社區為
例. 國立中央大學.
10. 杜建宏, 張威傑, 鄒克萬, & 張益三. (2008). 車站特定區都市設計防災規範
之研究－以嘉義市火車站為例. 建築學報, 63, 73-96.
11. 杜建宏, 張益三, & 包昇平. (2007). 都市公共設施規劃為避難據點之適宜
性評估－以嘉義市為例. 臺灣土地研究, 10(2), 23-48.
12. 林俊全. (2003). 行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告 崩山災害
模式之研究（I）.
80
13. 林峰田, & 張峻誠. (1998). 區域防災地理資訊的空間關連性分析. 都市與
計畫, 25(1), 23-47.
14. 林雪美. (2004). 台灣地區近三十年自然災害的時空特性. 師大地理研究報
告, 41, 99-128.
15. 林信輝, 彭心燕, & 馮喬舒. (2010). 921地震崩塌地植生復育及其演替系列
個案調查分析. 水保技術, 5(2), 83-93.
16. 洪耀明, 萬絢, 蘇苗彬, & 林裕益. (2009). 崩塌地地下水位變化之即時預測.
水保技術, 4(3), 181-189.
17. 洪鴻智. (2010). 災害防救與災害風險管理：舊思維的挑戰. 建築與規劃學
報, 10(3), 4.
18. 洪鴻智, 簡長毅, & 陳一杰. (2008). 土地使用變遷之地震風險分析—以新
竹市為例. 都市與計劃, 35(Cheng et al.), 361-380.
19. 洪鴻智, & 王翔榆. (2010). 多元性區域環境風險評估：以陽明山國家公園
為例. 都市與計劃, 37(1), 97-119.
20. 柯勇全, & 陳樹群. (2005). 天然災害土地管理策略評析. 全球變遷通訊雜
誌, 46, 25-32.
21. 國家災害防救科技中心.(2010).莫拉克颱風之災情勘災與分析.
22. 國家災害防救科技中心.(2010).莫拉克颱風之災情勘災與分析(摘要本).
23. 郭翡玉. (2010). 因應氣候變遷之國土調適策略－以台灣沿海地區為例. 都
市與計劃, 37(1), 47-69.
24. 陳亮全, 吳杰穎, 邵珮君, 林文苑, 柯于璋, 洪鴻智, et al. (2007). 災害管理學
辭典
25. 陳亮全, & 李清勝. (2010). 氣候變遷對災害防治衝擊之調適對策. 台北市:
全球風險環境的形構 氣候變遷對台灣總體安全的衝擊 第12章.
26. 陳亮全, 洪鴻智, 詹士樑, & 簡長毅. (2003). 地震災害風險–效益分析於土
地使用規劃之應用：應用 HAZ-Taiwan 系統. 都市與計劃, 30(Cheng et
al.), 281-299.
27. 陳亮全, & 陳海立. (2007). 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), 293-315.
28. 陳禹銘, 許秋玲, & 樊國恕. (2009). 我國複合災害風險系統架構之探討.
Journal of Crisis Management, 6, 1-12.
29. 陳樹群, 馮智偉, & 賴益成. (2010). 地形特徵對測高曲線形狀的影響. 水土
保持學報, 42(1), 49-64.
30. 陳俞旭. (2008). 地震對崩塌與土石流發生影響之研究. 國立成功大學.
31. 陳文福, 陳永信, 顧玉蓉, & 嚴義祥. (2009). 大旗村地層滑動緊急處理之探
討. 水保技術, 4(Cheng et al.), 222-230.
32. 陳聯光, 陳樹群, 周憲德, 王文能, & 林銘郎. (2008). 汶川地震坡地災害勘
查與集集地震比較探討. 中華水土保持學報, 39(Cheng et al.), 403-421.
33. 陳彥傑. (2008). 臺灣山脈地形演育的測高曲線與高程頻率分佈形態. 地理
學報, 54, 79-94.
34. 黃國慶, & 詹士樑. (2009). 台北都會區土地使用／覆蓋變遷驅動力之空間
近鄰效果探討. 都市與計劃, 36(Cheng et al.), 415-443.
81
35. 黃信豪. (2007). 量化研究的比較問題邏輯：因果異質性與縣市長選舉投票
模型的建立. 問題與研究, 46(3), 125-154.
36. 許中立, & 張嘉倫. (2004). 地滑地降雨與地表移動之關係. 坡地防災學報,
3(2), 11-22.
37. 溫惠鈺, 許世孟, & 趙啟宏. (2010). 土石流潛勢溪流危害度評估模式之研
究. 中興工程, 106, 27-33.
38. 解鴻年, 林文欽, 陳建中, 周芳如, & 黃家皇. (2003). 都市防災規劃增修洪
災應變空間系統. 建築與規劃學報, 4(1), 73-89.
39. 詹士樑, 黃書禮, & 蕭婷允. (2010). 氣候變遷下都市防災空間規劃程序調
整之研究. 建築與規劃學報, 10(3), 183-200.
40. 鄒克萬, & 張曜麟. (2004). 都市土地使用變遷空間動態模型之研究. 地理
學報, 35, 35-51.
41. 鄒克萬, & 黃書偉. (2007). 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, 1-18.
42. 蔡依純. (2003). 從土地使用規劃進行防洪管理策略之研究-以基隆河上游
地區為例. Unpublished 碩士學位論文, 國立台北科技大學.
43. 謝純瑩, & 周國屏. (2002). 應用空間（自）相關分析於人口老化時空變遷
之研究 人口學刊, 25, 91-119.
44. 劉說安. (2010). 臺灣災害應變機制檢討與改變策略. 研考雙月刊, 34(3), 37-
48.
45. 謝正倫, & 陳俞旭. (2010). 二次災害傳遞過程與災區重建之新構想. 中華
防災學刊, 2(2), 109-116.
46. 賴進貴, 葉高華, & 王韋力. (2004). 土地利用變遷與空間相依性之探討以
臺北盆地聚落變遷為例. 臺灣地理資訊學刊, 1(29-40).
47. 羅鴻傑, 許世孟, 顧承宇, 蘇泰維, & 李錦發. (2010). 降雨特性對坡地穩定
性影響之關聯性研究－以義興崩塌地為例. 中興工程季刊, 106, 17-25.
48. 蘇苗彬. (2009). 坡地防災預警技術－坡地災害的分類. 水保技術, 4(2), 144-
150.
（三）網站資料
1. 國家防救科技中心, http://www.ncdr.nat.gov.tw/
2. 國土利用調查成果資訊網 , http://lui.nlsc.gov.tw/LUWeb/Home/Home.aspx