张学圣 苏清木

Chang Hsueh-Sheng，Su Qingmu

提高整体流域的抗洪能力，有赖于流域雨洪管理体系的完善，但目前仍然缺乏整体流域的减洪韧性概念框架或决策方法。本文从福利经济的视角，建构了一个兼顾公平和效率且具指导性的整体流域径流分担的韧性理论决策架构。此框架运用博弈论，建立了减洪过程中公平与效率的协商过程模型和雨洪径流的处理方式。以台湾大甲溪流域为例，仅从效率的角度来看，其上游需要承担 76.13% 的径流量 ；仅从公平的角度来看，下游需要承担 80.33% 的径流量 ；而从博弈论的角度来看，上游在博弈的模型中总是能够得到收益，在中游和下游分别承担 9.16%和 63.55% 的减洪量时，可实现流域整体最大效益。本文所建立的减洪韧性分配框架实现了流域上、中、下游减洪量的分配，可为各区未来减少雨洪灾害的工程设计进行总量控制，为各利益主体的协商提供指导，有助于提高流域的整体减洪韧性水平。

The “flood resistance” of the overall watershed needs to be incorporated into resilience and disaster prevention to improve its stormwater management system. However, there still lacks conceptual framework or decision-making methods for overall watershed flood mitigation resilience. This paper, from the perspective of welfare economy, attempts to construct a resilient theoretical decision-making framework that takes into account “fairness” and “efficiency”, and is instructive for the sharing of overall watershed runoff. This framework uses the perspective of game theory to establish a negotiation process model of fairness and efficiency in the process of flood reduction and the processing method of stormwater runoff, and realizes the distribution of flood reduction in the upper, middle and lower reaches of the river watershed, attempting to provide guidance on the total amount control of engineering design for reducing rain and flood disasters in each administrative region in the future. It is also a powerful tool for consultation among various stakeholders, providing a quantitative basis for future residents to achieve resilience and disaster prevention. It finds that from the perspective of efficiency, the upstream needs to bear 76.13% of the runoff; from the perspective of fairness, the downstream needs to bear 80.33% of the runoff; from the perspective of game theory, the upstream can always get benefits in the game model, while the midstream and downstream can have the greatest benefit when they undertake 9.16% and 63.55% of the flood reduction respectively. The framework established in this paper realizes the distribution of flood reduction in the upper, middle and lower reaches of the river watershed, and can provide guidance for the total amount control and negotiation of various stakeholders in the design of future rain and flood disaster reduction projects in various regions, helping improve the overall level of flood mitigation resilience of the river watershed.

张学圣，台湾成功大学规划与设计学院，教授，博士生导师，副院长。changhs@mail.ncku.edu.tw

苏清木（通信作者），福建理工大学建筑与城乡规划学院，副教授。martain@foxmail.com

• [1] ZHANG X, SONG J, PENG J, et al. Landslides-oriented urban disaster resilience assessment–a case study in Shenzhen, China[J]. Science of the total environment, 2019, 661: 95-106.

  [2] NORIZAN N Z A, HASSAN N, YUSOFF M M. Strengthening flood resilient development in Malaysia through integration of flood risk reduction measures in local plans[J]. Land use policy, 2021, 102: 105178.

  [3] 张学圣 , 苏清木 . 韧性城市视角下台湾空间防灾体系的因应作为 [J]. 城市发展研究 , 2020, 27(7): 97-105.

  [4] HARTMANN T, SPIT T. Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels–Consequences of the European flood risk management plan[J]. Environmental science and policy, 2016, 55: 361-367.

  [5] CHANG H-S, SU Q. Exploring the coupling relationship of stormwater runoff distribution in watershed from the perspective of fairness[J]. Urban climate, 2021, 36: 100792.

  [6] CAO X, ZENG W, WANG M, et al. Hybrid analytical framework for regional agricultural water resource utilization and efficiency evaluation[J]. Agricultural water management, 2020, 231: 106027.

  [7] ANGUELOVSKI I, SHI L, TEICHER H, et al. Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: critical perspectives from the Global North and South[J]. Journal of planning education and research, 2016, 36(3): 333-348.

  [8] DE ANDRADE M M N, SZLAFSZTEIN C. Coping, adaptation strategies, and institutional perception of hydrological risks in an urban Amazon city[J]. Disasters, 2019.

  [9] 台湾水利署水利规划试验所 . 径流分担与出流管制技术手册订定 [R]. 2018.

  [10] SU Q, CHANG H-S. Exploring the Spatial development of watersheds and the allocation of responsibility for stormwater runoff from the perspective of ecological efficiency based on the DEA Method[J]. Natural hazards review, 2021, 22(4): 04021041.

  [11] PAN J. Planning framework for watershed subdivision level of urban runoff allocation schemes[D]. Taiwan: National Cheng Kung University, 2018.

  [12] YIN D, EVANS B, WANG Q, et al. Integrated 1D and 2D model for better assessing runoff quantity control of low impact development facilities on community scale[J]. Science of the total environment, 2020, 720: 137630.

  [13] ALEXANDER M, PRIEST S, MEES H. A framework for evaluating flood risk governance[J]. Environmental science & policy, 2016, 64: 38-47.

  [14] ABOLHASANI S, TALEAI M, LAKES T. A collective decision-making framework for simulating urban land-use planning: an application of game theory with event-driven actors[J]. Computers, environment and urban systems, 2022, 94: 101795.

  [15] BERNARD J M, TUTTLE R W. Stream corridor restoration: principles, processes, and practices[M] // HAYES D F, ed. Engineering approaches to ecosystem restoration. The USA Department of Agriculture, 2012.

  [16] 林昭远 , 钟泽平 , 林家荣 . 台中都会公园开发前后绿覆率与保水功能之研究 [J]. 水土保持学报 , 2009, 41(1): 31-44.

  [17] SVUBURE O, GUMBO T, SOROPA G, et al. Evaluation of the sand abstraction systems for rural water supply: the case of Lupane District, Zimbabwe[J]. International journal of engineering science and technology, 2011, 3(1): 757-765.

  
  

• 收起