建議

1. 本研究演示 CSAA 中，氣候調適六步驟的一至四步驟與風險模板的操作，未來可針對動 態社經情境（本研究僅計畫灌溉用水量為動態更新）、監測與修正及調適選項決策過程建 立回饋機制，形成動態調適路徑，完成 CSAA 中剩餘項目之實際操作。

2. 風險指標中，除了本研究所使用的 SI 與 YRR 指標，可以進一步分析石門水庫供水系統 的回復力，藉此量化可容忍風險的門檻值，有效幫助調適選項之決策。

3. AgriHydro 情境模組中，多測站氣象合成模式能良好維持空間自相關性（SDI），但兩兩站 間相關性有低估之情形，此部分可待未來有較長可取得的資料後，再次驗證。同時，針 對雨量部分，建議（1）增加雨量分布選擇的自由度，依照各月分布檢定之結果，選用各 月與各測站適合的分布產製雨量資料；（2）將極端降雨事件獨立出來分別產生，或以混 合分布的方式，建立具有雙峰值的機率密度函數，用以避免因為極端降雨事件，使最大 似然估計法相較於動差法所估計出的參數發生明顯偏估。

4. AgriHydro 水資源模組中，建議 GWLF 中的流量模式，退水係數與 CN 值可以在未來有 現地觀測值後，更新模式設定參數。同時，建議石門水庫供水系統動力模式中的蒸發量 可以更改為動態估計，增加模式間的連結性。下游部分，在未來有縣管河川流量資訊時，

可進一步建立模式，動態估計糧食生產於河川可取得的水量，並建置埤塘灌溉系統，將 埤塘水資源的調度能力納入考量。

5. AgriHydro 作物模組中，AquaCrop 需要配合更精確的田間試驗資料，校正作物參數，並 再次驗證其適用性。

6. 最後，建議未來能將能源領域納入整合評估模式中，更完整評估三大基本資源於未來氣 候變遷下的風險競合關係，並增加擴建供水、淨水設施、海水淡化廠、其他適合的轉作 作物等調適選項，同時納入經濟效益的計算，最佳化調適選項的選擇與管理。

參考文獻

1. Amiri, E., Rezaei, M., Rezaei, E. E., & Bannayan, M. (2014). Evaluation of Ceres-Rice, Aquacrop and Oryza2000 models in simulation of rice yield response to different irrigation and nitrogen management strategies. Journal of plant nutrition, 37(11), 1749-1769.

2. Auffhammer, M., Ramanathan, V., & Vincent, J. R. (2012). Climate change, the monsoon, and rice yield in India. Climatic change, 111(2), 411-424.

3. Bellone, E., Hughes, J. P., & Guttorp, P. (2000). A hidden Markov model for downscaling synoptic atmospheric patterns to precipitation amounts. Climate Research, 15(1), 1-12.

4. Bithell, M., & Brasington, J. (2009). Coupling agent-based models of subsistence farming with individual-based forest models and dynamic models of water distribution. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24(2), 173-190.

5. Bouman, B. (2001). ORYZA2000: modeling lowland rice (Vol. 1): IRRI.

6. Castaneda, A., Bouman, B., Peng, S., & Visperas, R. (2002). The potential of aerobic rice to reduce water use in water-scarce irrigated lowlands in the tropics. Water-wise rice production, 8-11.

7. Castellvi, F., & Stöckle, C. (2001). Comparing the performance of WGEN and ClimGen in the generation of temperature and solar radiation. Transactions of the ASAE, 44(6), 1683.

8. Chen, J., Brissette, F., & Leconte, R. (2012). WeaGETS–a Matlab-based daily scale weather generator for generating precipitation and temperature. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13, 2222-2235.

9. Chow, V. T. (1964). Handbook of applied hydrology.

10. Davis, K. F., Rulli, M. C., Seveso, A., & D’Odorico, P. (2017). Increased food production and reduced water use through optimized crop distribution. Nature Geoscience, 10(12), 919.

11. Foster, T., Brozović, N., Butler, A., Neale, C., Raes, D., Steduto, P., . . . Hsiao, T. C. (2017).

AquaCrop-OS: An open source version of FAO's crop water productivity model. Agricultural water management, 181, 18-22.

12. Haith, D. A., & Shoenaker, L. L. (1987). Generalized Watershed Loading Functions for Stream Flow Nutrients 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 23(3), 471-478.

13. Harrison, P., Holman, I., & Berry, P. (2015). Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation: an introduction to the CLIMSAVE project. In: Springer.

14. Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R. W., Holman, I. P., Cojocaru, G., Madsen, M. S., Chen, P.-Y., . . . Sandars, D. (2018). Differences between low-end and high-end climate change impacts in Europe across multiple sectors. Regional Environmental Change, 1-15.

15. Houghton, J., & Siegel, M. (2015). Advanced data analytics for system dynamics models using PySD. revolution, 3, 4.

16. IRRI, International Rice Research Institute. (2001). Annual report 2000-2001. Rice research：

the way forward. IRRI. Los Baños, Philippines. 71pp.

17. Jensenius, A. R. (2012). Disciplinarities: intra, cross, multi, inter, trans. Retrieved from.

18. Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C. H., Boote, K. J., Batchelor, W. D., Hunt, L., . . . Ritchie, J. T. (2003). The DSSAT cropping system model. European journal of agronomy, 18(3-4), 235-265.

19. Jowett, I. (1997). Instream flow methods: a comparison of approaches. Regulated Rivers:

Research & Management, 13(2), 115-127.

20. Khalili, M., Brissette, F., & Leconte, R. (2009). Stochastic multi-site generation of daily weather data. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 23(6), 837-849.

21. Khalili, M., Leconte, R., & Brissette, F. (2007). Stochastic multisite generation of daily precipitation data using spatial autocorrelation. Journal of hydrometeorology, 8(3), 396-412.

22. Krysanova, V., & Arnold, J. G. (2008). Advances in ecohydrological modelling with SWAT—a

review. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53(5), 939-947.

23. Lee, J.-L., & Huang, W.-C. (2014). Impact of climate change on the irrigation water requirement in Northern Taiwan. Water, 6(11), 3339-3361.

24. Lin, C.-Y., & Tung, C.-P. (2017). Procedure for selecting GCM datasets for climate risk assessment. Terrestrial, Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences, 28(1).

25. McNider, R. T., Handyside, C., Doty, K., Ellenburg, W. L., Cruise, J. F., Christy, J. R., . . . Caldwell, P. (2015). An integrated crop and hydrologic modeling system to estimate hydrologic impacts of crop irrigation demands. Environmental Modelling & Software, 72, 341-355.

26. Preston, B. L., Westaway, R. M., & Yuen, E. J. (2011). Climate adaptation planning in practice:

an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(4), 407-438.

27. Qi, Z., Kang, G., Chu, C., Qiu, Y., Xu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2017). Comparison of SWAT and GWLF Model Simulation Performance in Humid South and Semi-Arid North of China. Water, 9(8), 567.

28. Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., & Fereres, E. (2009). AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description. Agronomy Journal, 101(3), 438-447.

29. Razavi, S., Tolson, B. A., & Burn, D. H. (2012). Review of surrogate modeling in water resources. Water resources research, 48(7).

30. Richardson, C. W. (1981). Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation. Water resources research, 17(1), 182-190.

31. Richardson, C. W., & Wright, D. A. (1984). WGEN: A model for generating daily weather variables.

32. Shaw, S. B., & Riha, S. J. (2011). Assessing temperature‐based PET equations under a changing climate in temperate, deciduous forests. Hydrological Processes, 25(9), 1466-1478.

33. Stöckle, C., Nelson, R., Donatelli, M., & Castellvì, F. (2001). ClimGen: a flexible weather

generation program. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium Modelling Cropping Systems. Florence, Italy.

34. Steduto, P., Hsiao, T. C., Raes, D., & Fereres, E. (2009). AquaCrop—The FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agronomy Journal, 101(3), 426-437.

35. Van Gaelen, H., Vanuytrecht, E., Willems, P., Diels, J., & Raes, D. (2017). Bridging rigorous assessment of water availability from field to catchment scale with a parsimonious agro-hydrological model. Environmental Modelling & Software, 94, 140-156.

36. Van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., . . . Lamarque, J.-F. (2011). The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic change, 109(1-2), 5.

37. White, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Kimball, B. A., & Wall, G. W. (2011). Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate change on crop production. Field Crops Research, 124(3), 357-368.

38. Wilks, D. (1998). Multisite generalization of a daily stochastic precipitation generation model.

Journal of Hydrology, 210(1-4), 178-191.

39. 張德鑫, 蔡西銘, & 鄭力嘉. (2009). 地理資訊系統應用於石門水庫上游集水區. 農業工程

44. 洪毓謙. (1999). 「以砂箱實驗探討現地複合土層之滲漏機制」. 國立中央大學土木工程研

59. 經濟部水利署. (2014). 石門水庫供水區水資源活化計畫.

60. 經濟部水利署. (2017). 臺灣北部區域水資源經理基本計畫.

61. 經濟部水利署. (2018). 石門水庫運用要點.

62. 臺東區農業改良場. (2001). 台東區農業專訊-溫度對水稻生產之影響.

63. 桃園區農業改良場. (2010). 水稻專輯. 桃園區農業技術專輯.

64. 桃園區農業改良場. (2016). 北部地區大豆栽培要領. 農業專訊 96 期.

65. 桃園農田水利會. (2017). 灌溉計畫書.

66. 行政院農業委員會. (2015). 2015 農田灌溉白皮書.

67. 行政院農業委員會. (2018). 107 年農田水利處之數字看板.

附件一、民國 107 年石門水庫灌溉及給水計畫配水量（106 年 11 月 24 日審定版）

下 6.88 11.19 0.47 0.13 0.60 11.79 18.67 186.70 2.00 1.70 3.80 0.07 0.07 0.23 0.00 2.66 1.80 12.33 123.30 31.00 310.00

附件二、臺灣桃園農田水利會民國 106 年灌溉計畫表

附件三、未來氣候情境平均值修正值變化趨勢

圖 A-1、各月不同未來時段的溫度平均值修正值（RCP2.6）

圖 A-2、各月不同未來時段的溫度平均值修正值（RCP8.5）

圖 A-3、各月不同未來時段的雨量平均值修正值（RCP2.6）

圖 A-4、各月不同未來時段的雨量平均值修正值（RCP8.5）

附件四、未來各分區氣候情境修正值

表 A-2、RCP8.5 各分區之溫度平均值修正值

表 A-3、RCP2.6 各分區之雨量平均值修正值

表 A-4、RCP8.5 各分區之雨量平均值修正值

表 B-1、RCP2.6 各分區之溫度標準差修正值

表 B-2、RCP8.5 各分區之溫度標準差修正值

表 B-3、RCP2.6 各分區之雨量標準差修正值

表 B-4、RCP8.5 各分區之雨量標準差修正值