 |
|
|
|
以作者查詢圖書館館藏 、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 、以作者查詢全國書目 、勘誤回報 、線上人數：18 、訪客IP：3.23.103.9
姓名 潘莎莉(Dharwati Pratama Sari) 查詢紙本館藏 畢業系所 營建管理研究所 論文名稱 建立以層級分析法為基礎的洪災計畫評估模型- 以印尼雅加達為例
(Developing an AHP-based model for evaluating mitigation programs for flood disaster: Case study in Indonesia)相關論文 檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]
[相關文章]
[文章引用]
[完整記錄]
[館藏目錄]
[檢視]
- 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
- 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
- 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。
摘要(中) 幾個世紀以來，洪災已在世界各地造成許多人命及財產的損失。特別在印尼雅加達，嚴重的洪災損失後均會採取多項的重建方案治理洪災所造成的影響，然而根據近年來於災後損失評估報告顯示，若要提升未來印尼人民的生活品質，避免災情不斷重覆上演，目前仍欠缺更好的洪災管理方式。
本研究主要研析洪水減災計畫，探討印尼雅加達在洪災後於修復及重建計畫的困難點與其相關議題，並比較目前其他各國已施行過的減災方案，建立一套模組衡量各國的減災計畫，以設計適合於雅加達的減災計畫。為了建立適合於雅加達洪災應變的方案評估模組(Program Evaluation Model, PEM)，本研究以層級分析法( Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP)為分析工具，透過問卷訪談各領域專家、文獻回顧與收集公眾意見等方式，定義洪災的主要影響因子。其中，建立之方案評估模組包含二次調查問卷與適合於雅加達減災替代計畫的權重指標，並參考了其他國家(台灣、日本、荷蘭、美國及英國)的計畫設計而成。
本研究成果主要以層級分析法探討13個影響印尼雅加達洪災管理的主要因子，並透過方案評估模組利用主要影響因子評估各國所採用的減災方案，以解決多重方案選擇的問題。最後，所擇取前五名的方案，均受專家一致認同適合應用於印尼雅加達。摘要(英) Throughout the centuries flood disasters have taken a loss of human lives property damage, and economic impacts all over the world. In Jakarta, Indonesia, various alternatives of strategies after flood disasters have been implemented during the past reconstruction project due the high severe damage losses. Unfortunately the programs just issues, based on the damage and losses assessment after recent disasters happened, it indicated the necessity of better flood disaster management for future life’s people in Indonesia.
This study aims to explore the difficulties and relevant issues in Jakarta, Indonesia after flood disaster, to have a model that can be used to evaluate different mitigation programs, and to design new mitigation programs from other countries which can be suitable for Jakarta, Indonesia. The research focused on flood disaster mitigation program and used as some existing programs from other countries for comparison to propose an appropriate design of mitigation and planned. The approaches use the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a decision analysis tools, in order to develop a Program Evaluation Model (PEM) for flood disaster management for Jakarta. In addition, data will gathered through questionnaire survey with agency/experts, literature review, and public opinion collection, based on the survey conducted, the major factors influencing flood disaster will be determined. The PEM includes second survey questionnaire and computing of the weights is an approach of design to alternatives of mitigation program in Jakarta, Indonesia. The PEM’s concept is concerned with the selecting the major factors which influence the management of flood disasters in Jakarta, Indonesia and use the identified factors to evaluate different flood mitigation program from other countries based on Analytical Hierarchy Process. The model designed is adopting the programs from other country (Taiwan, Japan, Netherlands, United States, and United Kingdom).
The result of this research are to explore the 13 sub-criteria as relevant issues in Jakarta, Indonesia. The PEM was implemented for solving the complicated selection problem. The PEM’s concept is concerned with selecting the major factors which influence the management of flood disasters in Jakarta, Indonesia and use the identified factors to evaluate different flood mitigation programs from other countries based on AHP. Five programs are already identified, The evaluation was conducted by consulting from experts. The experts agree the top five rank programs are suitable to be implemented in Jakarta, Indonesia.關鍵字(中) ★ 層級分析法
★ 洪水
★ 雅加達
★ 減災
★ 災後重建關鍵字(英) ★ AHP
★ Flood
★ Jakarta
★ Mitigation
★ Post-disaster reconstruction論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... i
摘 要 ........................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENT .......................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURE .................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLE ................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Background ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem Statements ......................................................................................... 5
1.3 Research Objectives ........................................................................................ 5
1.4 Research Scope and Limitations ..................................................................... 5
1.5 Research Flowchart ......................................................................................... 5
1.6 Thesis organization ......................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 7
2.1 Flood Disasters ................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Flood in Jakarta Area ...................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Jakarta’s profile as global megacity ...................................................... 9
2.2.2 Flood Data Overview .......................................................................... 10
2.3 Flood Control Principles of Jakarta Provinces .............................................. 12
2.3.1 East and West Flood Control .............................................................. 12
2.3.2 Maintenance of river in 14 locations ................................................... 13
2.3.3 Take anticipation and making embankment ....................................... 14
2.3.4 Pump construction: Puddle of water flowing to the sea ...................... 14
2.3.5 Watershed management ...................................................................... 14
2.3.6 Drainage system .................................................................................. 15
2.4. Flood Disaster Mitigation Practices in Other Countries .............................. 15
2.4.1 Taiwan ................................................................................................. 15
2.4.1.1 Flood Looses and Taiwan’s History ....................................... 16
2.4.1.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation Strategies in Taiwan ....................... 18
2.4.2 Japan .................................................................................................... 20
2.4.2.1 Flood Looses and Japan’s History .......................................... 20
2.4.2.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation Strategies in Japan .......................... 20
2.4.3 Netherlands ......................................................................................... 24
2.4.3.1 Flood Looses and Netherlands’s History ................................ 24
2.4.3.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation Strategies in Netherlands ............... 25
2.4.4 United States ....................................................................................... 26
2.4.4.1 Flood Looses and United States’ History ............................... 26
2.4.4.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation Strategies in US .............................. 28
2.4.5Unites Kingdom ................................................................................... 30
2.4.5.1 Flood Looses and United Kingdom’s History ........................ 30
2.4.5.2 Flood Hazard Mitigation Strategies in UK ............................. 30
2.5 Regulatory Frameworks and Policy Reforms in Indonesia ........................... 33
2.5.1Jakarta’s new plan (RTRW 2030) ........................................................ 33
2.5.2 National Disaster Management Plan ( Renas PB) ............................... 34
2.6 Adoption of Alternative Selection Methods.................................................. 34
2.6.1 AHP Steps ........................................................................................... 36
2.6.2 Establishment of a Structural Hierarchy ............................................. 36
2.6.3 Pairwise Comparison .......................................................................... 38
2.6.4 Consistency ......................................................................................... 38
2.7 Relative Importance Index ............................................................................ 39
2.8 Summary of Literature Review ..................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 3 AHP-BASED MODEL DEVELOPMENT ................................................... 41
3.1 Preliminary Step ............................................................................................ 41
3.2 Development AHP Model ............................................................................. 41
3.2.1 Difficulties ........................................................................................... 42
3.2.2 The relevant issues .............................................................................. 43
3.2.2.1 The flood control facilities ...................................................... 44
3.2.2.2 Environmental Aspects ........................................................... 45
3.2.2.3 Social Aspects ......................................................................... 47
3.2.3 AHP Step ............................................................................................. 50
3.2.3.1 Formation the Factor ............................................................... 50
3.2.3.2 Formation the Weight ............................................................. 52
3.3 Questionnaire Assessment ............................................................................. 52
3.3.1 The Questionnaire Design ................................................................... 52
3.3.2 Questionnaire Analysis ....................................................................... 53
3.4 Data Collection and Performing Pairwise Comparison ............................... 54
3.4.1 Primary Data ....................................................................................... 54
3.4.2 Secondary Data ................................................................................... 54
3.4.3 Test of consistency .............................................................................. 55
3.4.4 Ranking by AHP ................................................................................. 56
3.5 Summary of AHP-Based Development ........................................................ 59
CHAPTER 4 PROGRAM EVALUATION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................. 60
4.1 The Second Questionnaire Design ................................................................ 60
4.1.1 The Differences of Flood Disaster Mitigation Program in Indonesia with Other Countries ........................................................................... 61
4.1.2 Research Population ............................................................................ 63
4.1.3 The Validity of Questionnaire’s Contents ........................................... 63
4.2 Computation of Weights ............................................................................... 64
4.3 Result and Analysis for Questionnaire II Part II and III ............................... 72
4.3.1 Discussion ........................................................................................... 73
4.3.1.1 Result Discussion I ................................................................. 74
4.3.1.2 Suggestion of room for the river program .............................. 80
4.4 Result and Analysis for Questionnaire 1 (III) and Questionnaire II (IV) ..... 81
4.4.1 Result II ............................................................................................... 81
4.4.2 Survey Responses ................................................................................ 82
4.4.2.1 Quotes of respondents ............................................................. 82
4.4.2.2 Feedback from respondent’s about evaluation result ............. 83
4.5 Summary of Program Evaluation Analysis and Discussion.......................... 83
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................ 84
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 84
5.2 Major Findings .............................................................................................. 84
5.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 84
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................ 85
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................... 90參考文獻 REFERENCES
[1] Abramovitz., J., T. Banuri, P. O. Girot, B. Orlando, N. Scneider, E. Spanger- Siegfried, J. Switzer, and A. Hammill. 2001. Adapting to climate change: natural resource management and vulnerability reduction. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
[2] Agustian, Rizal. 2012. Disaster Risk Management System in Indonesia. Country report, BNPB. http://www.adrc.asia/aboutus/vrdata/countryreport/2012B_IDN_cr.pdf
[3] Al-Rafati, Maher H. 2008. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Supplier Selection: Vendors of Photocopying Machines to Palestinian Ministry of Finance as a Case Study. MBA Degree. The Islamic University. Gaza.
[4] Anwar Makarim, Chaidir. 2000. Sistim Resapan Air Dangkal Kota Jakarta: Suatu Kajian Geoteknik. Tarumanegara University, Indonesia
[5] Arriens, W.T.L., and C. Benson. 1999. Post- Disaster Rehabilitation: The experience of the Asian Development Bank. Paper before IDNR-ESCAP Regional Meeting for Asia: Risk Reduction and Society in the 21th Century, Bangkok.
[6] Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi DKI Jakarta. 2009. Statistik Daerah Provinsi DKI Jakarta.
[7] Bappenas, BNPB. 2010. National Action Plan for Disaster Risk Reduction 2010-2012. State Ministry for National Development Planning of Indonesia.
[8] CD, Soemarto. 1987. Hydrologic Engineering. Usaha National: Surabaya.
[9] Chamber, R. 1989. Editorial introduction: vulnerability, coping, and policy. IDS Bulletin, Vol 20 No. 2, pp 1-7
[10] Disaster relief emergency fund (DREF). 2013. Final report Indonesia: Floods.
[11] Dixit, A. 2003. Flood and Vulnerability: need to rethink flood management. Natural Hazards Vol.28 No.1, pp 155-179, Earth and environmental science.
[12] Forstall, R. L. G., R.P. and Pick,J.B. (2004). “Which are the largest? Why published populations for major world urban areas vary so greatly.”
[13] Fussel, H, and Klein, R. 2002. Assessing Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: An Evolution of Conceptual Thinking. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Germany.
[14] Harris, Fadhilah. 2012. Administrasi DKI Jakarta. On July 2012. http://dapurpeta.blogspot.tw/2012/07/blog-post_09.html
[15] Hiroki, Kenzo. 2003. Flood Hazard Map in Japan. In: International Training Program on Total Disaster Risk Management, 10-13 June 2003, Japan.
[16] Indonesia’s urban studies. 2013. On March 2014. http://indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.tw/2013/05/jakarta-annual-flooding-in-january-2013.html
[17] Institute for Water Resources. 2011. Flood Risk MANAGEMENT approaches: As Being Practiced in Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States. IWR Report No. 2011-R-08. Army Corps of Engineers.
[18] International Research Institute of Disaster Science, I. 2013. Fact-Finding missions to Jakarta, Indonesia.
[19] Jasanoff, S. 1999. The song lines of risk environmental values.
[20] Jorissen, R. E. 1999. “Safety, Risk and Flood Protection Policy”, PP. 57-72, IN Workshop Proceedings on River Basin Modeling (RIBOMOD), Management and Flood Mitigation- Concerted Action, 13-15 February 1997, in Delft, edited by R. Casale, G.B. Pedroli and P. Samuels, European Communities (EUR 18019 EN)
[21] Melati, F.F., Hendrawan, D. and Sitawati, A. 2002. Land use and water quality relationships in the Ciliwung river basin, Indonesia. Master’s Thesis. Department of Environmental Engineering Trisakti University. Indonesia.
[22] Merz, B., Thieken, A. and Gochit, M. 2007. Chapter 13: Flood Risk Mapping at the Local Scale: Concepts and Challenges, pp: 231-251, in Flood Risk Management in Europe, S. Begum et al. (eds)., Springer.
[23] Merz, B. (2004). Flood risk mapping at te local scale: "Concepts and challenges" in flooding in Europe: Challenges and Development in Flood Risk Management. Advances in Neutral and Technological Hazards Research
[24] Moench, M., and Dixit, A. 2004. Adaptive Capacity and Livelihood Resilience: Adaptive Strategies for Responding to floods and Droughts in South Asia, Nepal: Institute for Social and Environmental Transition.
[25] National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB). 2011. Flood risk map Indonesia http://geospasial.bnpb.go.id/2012/10/22/flood-risk-map-in-indonesia/
[26] Nedeco. 1973. Master plan for drainage and flood control of Jakarta.
[27] Noorul Haq A, and Kannan G. 2006. An Integrated approach for selection a vendor using Grey Relational Analysis. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 5,No.2 pp 277-295.
[28] Nydick RL., Hill R.P. 1992. Using the analytic process to structure the supplier selection procedure. International Journal of Purchasing Management 29(2): 31-36
[29] Saaty, T.L. 2001. Decision making in complex environments: the nalytic network process for decision making with dependence and feedback. RWS Publications. USA.
[30] Saaty, T.L. 1996. Multi-criteria Decision Making: The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, and resource allocation. Pittsburgh.
[31] Saaty, T.L. 1990. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 79:9-26.
[32] Saaty, T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New york.
[33] Sagala, S., Handika, P., and Arisandy, M. (2011). "Megacity Jakarta: Disaster Challenges and Approaches." Lessons Learned from 50 years of Regional and City Planning Approaches, M. Gunawan, S. Nurzaman, and S. Warpani, eds., Penerbit ITB, Bandung, 403.
[34] Sakethi Mirah, Team. 2010. Mengapa Jakarta Banjir? Pengenadalian banjir pemerintah Provinsi DKI Jakarta. Jakarta.
[35] Smith, K., and R, Ward. 1998. Floods Physical Process and Human Impacts, John Wiley and Sons Chichester, New York.
[36] Texier, P. (2008). "Floods in Jakarta: when the extreme reveals daily structural constraints and mismanagement." Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(3), 358-372.
[37] Tsai,F., J-H Hang, L-C Chen and T-H Lin. 2011. Post Disaster Assessment of Landslides in Southern Taiwan after 2008 Typhoon Morakot using remote sensing and spatial analysis. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.Taiwan.
[38] Wey-Hsien Tng, M-H. H., Chung-Hsing Wu and Albert S.Chen. 2006. Impact of flood disaster on Taiwan in the last quarter century.Taiwan.
[39] White, G.Fowler. 1945. Human Adjustment to Floods. A Geographical Approach to Floods Problem in the United States. University of Chicago. Department of Geography Rsearch Paper no. 29.
[40] WHO. 2007. Floods in Jakarta, Banten, and West Java Province, Republic of Indonesia. World Health Organization.
[41] World bank.2011.Jakarta: Tantangan Perkotaan Seiring Perubahan Iklim指導教授 王翰翔(Han-Hsiang Wang) 審核日期 2014-7-15 推文 plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
網路書籤 Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit