中華民國內政部建築研究所中華民國內政部建築研究所

一、研究緣起
近年由於受氣候變遷而災害頻傳之影響，部分土地遭受嚴重災損，或是若干具有高度災害潛勢之地區，均亟需進行相關復育工作來保護國土及人民生命財產之安全，故2016年5月1日施行的「國土計畫法」，已訂有國土復育專章，給予目的事業主管機關實質推動復育工作的法源依據，依據其第35條規定，包括土石流高潛勢地區、嚴重山崩地滑地區、嚴重地層下陷地區、流域有生態環境劣化或安全之虞地區、生態環境已嚴重破壞退化地區、以及其他地質敏感或對國土保育有嚴重影響之地區，得由目的事業主管機關劃定為國土復育促進地區，並依「國土計畫法」第36條規定擬訂復育計畫、推動復育工作；且直轄市、縣（市）國土計畫內，也應載明對國土復育促進地區的建議事項。
接續本研究計畫過去2016年至2020年之成果重點針對韌性規劃具有其邏輯性及周延性，探討未來國土復育促進地區劃設如何與提升災害韌性相配合，並研擬適宜之災害韌性規劃策略。
本研究內容以災害韌性規劃為核心，反饋於國土復育促進地區，並探討未來在與復育計畫如何產生連結之課題，以多面向之方式，研擬復育與韌性規劃之策略，供中央及地方政府在擬定復育計畫或審議之參考，內容包括下列各項：
1.國土計畫法之「國土復育促進地區」相關法令內容、程序彙整（包含依據劃設目的所擬出之劃設準則、研擬程序等）及現況分析。
2.將「國土復育促進地區」依其類別、性質做分類，分別提出韌性規劃之課題與對策。
3.研析「國土復育促進地區」與災害潛勢、國土保育地區、環境敏感地區」在法規上之定義，並釐清其關聯性。
4.探討劃定「國土復育促進地區」範圍之考量因素與其配套措施。
5.探討擬定國土復育促進地區之災害韌性規劃策略（含劃定範圍、公共設施、土地使用建議事項等），以提升復育地區之整體韌性。 
二、研究方法及過程
本研究採用文獻回顧、專家座談會、GIS疊圖分析及案例探討與分析為研究之方法。
(一)文獻回顧
將所蒐集到的相關文獻資料進行歸納、整理及分析。此方法可以幫助本研究了解過去、現在及預測未來之趨勢，亦可彙整其他相關研究之成果，有助於建立本研究之架構及觀念，本研究主要蒐集國內外有關韌性規劃、全國國土計畫、全國區域計畫、直轄市、縣(市)區域計畫等中央與地方法規中相關資訊，及相關之國內外文獻、研究成果等，以歸納界定範疇與研究方法，釐清韌性規劃如何落實於後續國土復育促進地區災害韌性策略之擬訂。
(二)專家座談會
為使研擬之「國土計畫國土復育促進地區之劃設與災害韌性規劃策略」不與現行全國國土計畫脫節，擬邀請有關專家學者及相關單位以了解各方意見，透過研商及討論來凝聚共識，本研究預計召開三場專家座談會，期盼透過多方意見交流及溝通，使規劃內容更完善，以作為本研究規劃內容之參考，使計畫範疇得以界定並使內容更完善，主要邀請對象為都市防災相關領域專家(包括政府單位、專家學者)等進行專家座談會。
(三)GIS疊圖分析
套疊分析為GIS系統中應用最廣的分析模式，主要是將兩張或兩張以上不同主題圖套疊，進而得到新的空間屬性及所需之資料。
為考量落實於地方之可行性，可透過分析套疊相關災害潛勢圖資(如:水災、坡地災害、土石流等)，考量如涉及災害潛勢，將如何納入災害韌性於公共設施策略，以及其可能造成之影響及可能面臨之課題等。
三、主要建議事項
建議一
(建議事項)國土復育促進地區之劃設，除受災害潛勢擴及之保全對象外，也應將周遭之公共設施與公有土地一同納入劃設。
主辦機關：目的事業主管機關
協辦機關：各縣市政府-城鄉規劃單位、機關(構)、人民及團體
國土復育促進地區劃設不單只劃設容易受災之地區，運用流域治理的觀點，其劃設範圍應包含災害上游源頭地區及災害衝擊聚落附近之公有土地等，並分為核心區(禁止發展)與緩衝區(限制發展)來規劃及管制，助於易受災地區復育計畫之實施，且不損及民眾之權益，若大範圍面積符合必要性及迫切性標準，可能有實施困難問題，依權重分析實施分期分區，增加地區復育之可行性。
建議二
(建議事項)運用參與式溝通，舉辦國土復育促進地區劃設說明會，使民眾了解計畫目的與民眾自身權益之關係。
主辦機關：各縣市政府
協辦機關：各鄉鎮公所
1.在劃設國土復育促進地區前應舉辦多場公聽會與說明會，事先透過參與式之溝通，廣泛蒐集不同面向之民意，並與相關利害關係人建立良好之溝通。
2.向民眾說明研訂復育計畫治理復育地區之必要性及理解復育計畫目的，並強調於復育完成後即退場，不會長期禁止土地使用，復育計畫完成後未來仍可有合適之土地發展，並正面說明地區劃設及復育完成後帶來之效益及貢獻。
3.告知後續會研擬完善之安置及配套計畫，以保障民眾之權益，並提高民眾配合意願。
建議三
(建議事項)國土計畫法之國土復育促進地區相關法規，建議修改或補充
主辦機關：內政部營建署
協辦機關：各目的事業主管機關
1.現有國土計畫法第35條的之國土復育促進地區六種性質分類，似乎沒有考慮到複合性災害的可能性，例如，地層下陷伴隨有海水入侵的情形，或伴隨著淹水災害的發生，因此復育時應以宏觀的角度去思考，不是只由單一災害的角度，使復育計畫更具有整合性。
2.國土計畫法中之「土石流高潛勢地區、嚴重山崩地滑地區、嚴重地層下陷」之用詞，似乎誤導了大家以為國土復育促進地區是僅劃設於災害嚴重地區(歷史災害區)，而忽略必須由災害潛勢復育的觀點。
3.建議「高土壤液化潛勢區」加入劃設國土復育促進地區之性質之一，以往發生案例之區位皆屬都會區，例如在0206震災中，台南有許多因土壤液化而房屋傾倒之案例；而臺北都會區大多發展地區皆屬高土壤液化潛勢區，未來其潛勢在經濟規模、人口規模及社會影響之程度，均較地層下陷來的更高和重要。
4.國土永續發展基金應可彈性運用，設計必要之法令，配合提案人(團體、人民)提案申請劃設國土復育促進地區之目的，從而提出誘因機制來引導後續推動，基金運用可以支持尋找擁有相關專業能力之顧問公司，協助規劃更健全的國土復育促進地區計畫，以提高其計畫成功通過之機率，因此需增加「國土永續發展基金」預算之彈性，以增加其效應。
建議四
(建議事項)針對各項國土復育促進地區之態樣特性研擬韌性規劃策略，並以再發展地區計畫、工程、社會、經濟及產業面向之綜合治理模式，以提升地區災害韌性強度。
主辦機關：目的事業主管機關
協辦機關：各縣市政府
1.於城鄉發展地區(第一、二類)可針對再發展地區計畫，施以較嚴格之土地使用管制策略採取更周全及較嚴格之土地使用管制，做為復育計畫與韌性規劃之替代途徑。
2.於國土復育促進地區內外增加公共設施多元利用之使用型態，實施低衝擊開發(LID)、生態工法及結構式減災設施等工程手段，彈性調降或調派開發強度，緩和復育地區之災害潛勢承載量。
3.於原區域計畫(非都市地區)規劃時，應考量人口結構之多元性，避免老化區過度集中，透過相關措施吸引人口回流，提升地區應對災害之韌性；於都市計畫區規劃時，必要時於高潛勢地區將可建築用地變更為非建築用地，降低地區土地發展強度，恢復土地原有應對災害之容受力，而因此利益受損者可依實施國土計畫管制所受損失補償辦法申請賠償。
4.各地區貧富不同影響地區可支配的金錢，災前韌性措施之設置與災後的復原重建工作，皆與經濟有直接關係，政府應制定相關管理辦法，將募款的經費進行公平的分配與管理，使居民不因所得差距之限制而降低其韌性。
5.不同產業對於災害容受力各不相同，不能因部份產業產值較低，而不受到重視，導致其韌性較低，應因應不同產業之特性擬定符合該產業之災害韌性措施，降低嚴重災損發生。
建議五
(建議事項)國土復育促進地區之災害潛勢性質及後續復育計畫之擬定，常涉及跨部會之業務職掌協調或中央與地方合作來共同完成
主辦機關：行政院
協辦機關：各縣市政府及目的事業主管機關
1.國土復育促進地區劃定時可能涉及土地、交通及災害領域(山崩、土石流、地層下陷、生態破壞及地質敏感區等)等不同業務職掌，每一項皆由不同的部會主管，若以單一部會來推動復育地區劃設及後續復育計畫，恐難達成復育目標，因此跨部會協調或中央與地方共同合作來共同完成計畫目標，是未來不可避免的方向，並由國土計畫法之主管機關建立整合之綜合治理平台之任務編組，以利推動，再藉由整理出具體可行之策略與方案(復育計畫)，各部會再進行分工協調，較具可行性。
2.目前唯一於民國110年4月30日公告實施之國土復育促進地區為雲林縣國土計畫，而當前未有國土復育促進地區復育完後之案例可參考，故應給予足夠時間進行規劃，因此，雲林縣國土復育促進地區後續之發展至關重要，建議可納入國土規劃手冊或通檢中供其他縣市參考。
3.可於未來短中長期利用公有土地(小範圍)來進行操作，將跨域性(跨部會、跨領域等)之觀念納入示範地區劃設之構思中，經由實際的模擬才能更清楚的瞭解將來會發生之問題。
4.復育之執行主要仍在地方政府，因此不單中央須跨部會，也應建立中央及地方政府合作之平台。
建議六
(建議事項)各類型之國土復育促進地區應有示範地區之推動
主辦機關：目的事業主管機關
協辦機關：各縣市政府
現階段僅雲林縣推動有關地層下陷之示範計畫，但國土復育促進地區之類型、樣態多且性質不同，各類型也應推動示範地區實際操作，才能更清楚了解其課題及應調整方向。

1.Research origins
In recent years the impact of increasingly frequent natural disasters caused by climate change has resulted in certain areas of land being severely damaged or some high disaster potential areas being in urgent need of restoration work to protect not only the land but also the lives and property of local people. As a result, the Spatial Planning Act implemented on May 1, 2016 focuses on environmental restoration, providing a legal foundation for the substantive promotion of environmental restoration by the authorities in charge of relevant projects. According to Article 35 of the Act, high mudslide disaster potential areas, severe landslide areas, severe land subsidence areas, areas where the watershed ecosystem environment has deteriorated or there are safety concerns, areas where the ecosystem environment has been severely damaged and degraded and other geologically sensitive areas or where environmental conservation has been severely impacted, should be designated Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas by the authorities. Thereafter, the authorities are required to draft a restoration plan and implement related work in accordance with Article 36 of the Spatial Planning Act. In addition, spatial planning at the municipality, county (city) levels should also clearly indicate proposals for Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas.
This work discusses how to coordinate future Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas, the enhancement of disaster resilience and how to devise a suitable resilience planning strategy, as a continuation of the work conducted by this research program into the logic and extendibility of resilience planning from 2016-2020.
This research focuses on disaster resilience planning as feedback for Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas, while also discussing how to establish connections to future conservation plans as part of a multifaceted approach to devising strategies for restoration and resilience planning. These can then be provided as a reference to central and local governments when drafting or reviewing restoration plans and should include the following:
(1)Legal provisions and processes relating to Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas, in the Spatial Planning Act (including designation rules, formulation procedures etc. related to the designation objective) and an analysis of the current situation.
(2)Categorize Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas based on their category and type, while raising resilience planning issues and countermeasures.
(3)Analyze the legal definitions of “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area” and disaster potential, National Conservation Area and environmentally sensitive area and clarify their connection.
(4)Discuss considerations and complementary measures relating to the designation of the scope of “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas.”
(5)Discuss disaster resilience planning strategies (including designated scope, public facilities, land use proposals etc.) for “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas.”
2.Research Methodology and Process
This research uses literature review, expert forums, GIS overlay analysis as well as case study analysis.
(1)Literature Review
We summarized, organized and analyzed all collected related literature. This approach ensures that the current work has a better grasp of past, present and expected future trends. Reviewing the results of related research can also help with establishing a framework and conceptual foundation for the research. In the main, this research project collected information relating to national and local laws from Taiwan and overseas on resilience planning, national spatial planning, national regional plans and metropolitan, county (city) area planning, as well as related domestic and overseas literature and research results. This made it possible to delineate categories and research methodology, thereby clarifying how to implement resilience planning when drafting follow up disaster resilience strategies in “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas.”
(2)Expert Forums
In order to ensure that the disaster resilience planning strategies drafted for “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas” dovetail with existing national spatial planning, related experts, academics and agencies are invited to attend forums to better understand the opinions of different parties. These consultations and discussions provide a vehicle to forge consensus and this program expects to hold three such expert forums in the hope that thy will help to ensure planning is more comprehensive. It will also serve as a reference point for research planning so program categories are better delineated and their content more complete. In the main those invited to attend such forums will be experts in urban disaster prevention related fields (including government agencies, experts and academics)
(3)GIS Overlay Analysis
Overlay analysis is the broadest analytical model used by GIS systems. It overlays two or more maps on different themes to obtain new spatial attributes and needed data.
In order to consider the feasibility of implementation in a specific area, an analysis of overlay related disaster potential map data (flooding, slope disasters, mudslides etc.) is conducted. This considers disaster potential, how to incorporate disaster resilience in public facility strategies, as well as the potential impact caused and issues faced.
3.Key Proposals
Proposal 1
(Proposed item) The designation of “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas” should not only expand disaster potential to include protected objects, it should also include adjacent public facilities and public land.
Organized by: Authorities in charge of relevant projects
Co-organizer: County/city governments – urban and rural planning units, agencies (institutions), people and groups
The designation of an “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area” involves not only those areas at high risk of disaster and the use of watershed management. The scope of these designations includes upstream source areas of disasters and public land close to disaster-impacted settlements, divided into core areas (where development is banned) and buffer zones (where development is limited) for the purpose of planning and control. This facilitates the implementation of disaster area restoration plans that do not adversely impact the rights of the public. Where a large area meets the standards of necessity and urgency and faces potential implementation difficulties, phased development should be adopted based on weighted analysis to improve the feasibility of area restoration.
Proposal 2
(Proposed item) Utilize participatory communication and hold “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas” designation explanation meetings so the public better understands the relationship between program objectives and their own interests
Organized by: County/city governments
Co-organizer: Rural township and town offices
(1)Before designating an “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area” public hearings and explanation meetings must be held, utilizing participatory communication to listen to a wide range of different opinions and establish good communications with related stakeholders.
(2)Explain to the public the need for a restoration plan to manage the restoration area so they have a better understanding of its objectives, while emphasizing that when restoration work is completed the use of land will not be prohibited long-term, that suitable land development will be permitted in the future. Also directly explain the benefits and contributions from designating and restoring the area.
(3)After notification, comprehensive placement and complementary measures will be drafted to protect the rights of residents, thereby increasing their willingness to cooperate.
Proposal 3
(Proposed item) Proposed revisions or additions to “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area” related provisions in the Spatial Planning Act
Organized by: Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior
Co-organizer: Authorities in charge of relevant projects
(1)Article 35 of the Spatial Planning Act lists six categories of “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area,” but does not appear to have considered the possibility of compound disasters. For example, subsidence and seawater encroachment or flooding. As such, restoration works should adopt a more macroscopic approach and not focus on the possibility of a single type of disaster to ensure the restoration plan is more integrated.
(2)The use of such terms as “high mudslide disaster potential areas, severe landslide areas, severe land subsidence” in the Spatial Planning Act could inadvertently lead people to believe that environmental restoration promotion areas are only designated in serious disaster areas (historical disaster areas), overlooking the concept of disaster potential restoration.
(3)It is proposed that “high soil liquefaction disaster potential areas” should also be included as a feature of designated environmental restoration promotion areas. In the past, such cases have all occurred in urban areas, for example after the 0206 earthquake many buildings in Tainan collapsed as a result of soil liquefaction. In addition, most of the development zones in the Taipei Metropolitan area are also high soil liquefaction disaster potential areas. As such, the potential future economic scale, number of people and social impact of soil liquefaction is much higher and more important than that of subsidence.
(4)Funds of Continuing Development of National Land should be used flexibly, with necessary laws introduced that work in concert with the objectives of those who apply for (groups or individuals) an environmental restoration promotion area designation. This could make it possible to provide incentives for follow up promotional work and the fund could support the search for a consulting company with related expertise to assist with the drafting of a more comprehensive environmental restoration promotion area plan, to increase the probability the plan will be passed. As such, it is necessary to increase the budget flexibility of the Funds of Continuing Development of National Land to expand its impact.
Proposal 4
(Proposed item) Draft resilience planning strategies for different types of “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area,” using a comprehensive management model for planning, engineering, social, economic and industry elements in redevelopment zones to strengthen their disaster resilience
Organized by: Authorities in charge of relevant projects
Co-organizer: County governments
(1)Redevelopment zone plans in urban and rural development areas (category 1 and 2) should adopt stricter land use control strategies, with more comprehensive and stricter land use controls as an alternative pathway to restoration and resilience planning.
(2)Increase the diverse use of public facilities in and around “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas,” use Low Impact Development (LID), eco-engineering methods and structural disaster reduction facilities to flexibly downgrade or dispatch development intensity, which will mitigate the disaster potential burden of the restoration area.
(3)When planning for an original regional plan (non urban area,) consideration should be given to the diversity of the population to avoid the over concentration of ageing areas. Related measures can be adopted to encourage people to return to the area, enhancing its resilience in the face of disasters; When planning for an urban planning area, if necessary land designated for buildings can be re-designated to ban building in high disaster potential areas, thereby reducing the intensity of land development and restoring the original disaster carrying capacity of the land. In such situations, those whose interests are damaged can apply for compensation based on the provisions of the Compensatory Measures for Losses Cause by the Implementation of Spatial Planning Controls.
(4)The affluence of an area invariably impacts the amount of money it is able to allocate, with the implementation of pre-disaster measures and post-disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction work directly related to the local economy. With this in mind, the government should draft related management measures so funds are fairly allocated and managed, avoiding income differences resulting in the lowering of resilience for certain residents.
(5)Industries have different degrees of disaster carrying capacity and those with lower output value should not be overlooked leading to a low level of resilience. Indeed, disaster resilience measures should be tailored to meet the specific needs of different industries and reduce the occurrence of severe disasters.
Proposal 5
(Proposed item) Draft disaster potential type and follow-up restoration plans for “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas” require frequent inter-ministry meetings to facilitate coordination or central and local governments should cooperate to complete projects.
Organized by: Executive Yuan
Co-organizer: County/city governments and authorities in charge of relevant projects
(1)When “Environmental Restoration Promotion Areas” are designated they can involve different areas of responsibility including land, transportation and disaster zones (landslides, mudslides, subsidence, ecological damage and geologically sensitive areas), with different ministries in charge of each area. As such, if one ministry seeks to promote a restoration area plan and follow up restoration planning it is difficult to realize restoration objectives. In other words, inter-ministry coordination or central and local government cooperation is unavoidable. It is proposed that the Spatial Planning Act competent authority establish an integrated general management platform to designate tasks. This will facilitate the promotion and also determine concrete and feasible strategies and plans (restoration plans). The various ministries can then divide labor and coordinate, increasing the feasibility of any plan.
(2)Currently, the only “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area” in Taiwan is the Yunlin County Spatial Plan announced on April 30, 2021 and so there are no completed plans to serve as a reference, which means sufficient time should be spent on planning. As a result, the follow up development of the Yunlin County Spatial Plan is extremely important and it is proposed that it should be included in a National Spatial Planning Handbook or review to be used as a reference by other counties.
(3)In the future short, medium and long-term operations can be conducted on public land (small scope) and should incorporate cross-domain operations (inter-ministry, cross-field etc.) in the planning of demonstration areas. Only through such practical simulations is it possible to more clearly understand problems that could occur in the future.
(4)The focus of restoration work will still fall mainly on local government, which is to say that the central government will have to hold inter-ministry meetings, but should also establish a platform to promote central and local government cooperation.
Proposal 6
(Proposed item) Each designated type of “Environmental Restoration Promotion Area” should promote a demonstration zone
Organized by: Authorities in charge of relevant projects
Co-organizer: County/city governments
In the current period only Yunlin County has promoted a subsidence related demonstration plan, but there are multiple Environmental Restoration Promotion Area designation categories and types and these are often different in nature. As such, there need to be demonstration zones for the different categories because only then can we better understand related issues and necessary adjustments.