湳仔溝溪 SIAM 評估結果

由上所本研究進一步估計之權重值，進一步代入 SIAM 朱達仁

（2006）[2]求取綜合評估值，並將結果繪製季別變化圖，如圖 5.5 所 示。由於過去謝宜衡（2006）[1]曾以 PCA 估計權重值，為比較彼此間 是否有差異，因此本文分別與（1）1/n（指標初始權重值）評估值設為 SIAM1；（2）本文應用 MDS 評估值設為 SIAM2；（3）謝宜衡之權 重值所求評估值設為SIAM3。三式之結果呈現如圖 5.5。

三式之SIAM 方程式，如下所示：

SIAM1＝0.14IBI＋0.14FBI＋0.14RBPIII＋0.14RPI＋0.14QHEI＋

0.14GI＋0.14SI

SIAM2＝0.14IBI＋0.14FBI＋0.15RBPIII＋0.15RPI＋0.14QHEI＋

0.15GI＋0.14SI

SIAM3＝0.18IBI＋0.12FBI＋0.17RBPIII＋0.14RPI＋ 0.14QHEI＋

0.12GI＋0.12SI

由圖5.5 中可以得知，N1 在 18 個月的評估結果介於第一級至第二 級的等級內，顯示以水質、棲地及生物整合來看，此測點之生態狀況 屬於相當良好的狀態。N2 的部份評價等級則稍微低於 N1 測點，經現 場調查發現，此測點屬於水流緩慢之溪段，且底質亦較多淤砂與淤泥，

造成QHEI 數值普遍低於 N1 測點，因此大部分 N2 測點以 SIAM 評價 時，等級多落在第二等級Very Good 之區間內。N3、N4 與 N5 測點則 受施工影響較明顯，前兩個測點在 2004 年 2 月施工前仍維持在 Excellent 等級至 Very Good 等級之間，到了 2004 年 3 月開始施工時，

則明顯下降至Very Good 等級至 Good 等級。而在 2004 年 11 月施工結 束後之生態效益是否有所回復，則有待後續研究之持續監測結果。最 後，在測點 N6 的部份，此處生態狀況以 SIAM 評估結果來看，除了

2004 年 8 月評價等級稍微低於 Very Good 而落入第三級外，大部分時 間都維持在第一級與第二級之間。

整體而言，湳仔溝溪上游段兩個測點N1 與 N2 評價等級皆維持在 第一級至第二級間，顯示生態狀況良好。中游段N3、N4 與 N5 測點在 施工期間評價等級落在第二級至第三級間，顯示生態狀況受到工程施 作影響，而施工後生態效益是否有回復情形，則有待後續研究持續監 測工作。N6 測點大部分生態狀況皆在第一級至第二級間，除 2004 年 8 月因水質狀況較差且反應在兩個水生昆蟲指標上，導致整體評價稍低 於第二級外，其餘皆屬不錯之生態狀況。

N1

0 1 2 3 4 5

11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 5 8 10

2003 2004 2005

Month

SIA M

SIAM1

SIAM2

SIAM3 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Poor

Very Poor

N2

0 1 2 3 4 5

11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 5 8 10

2003 2004 2005

Month

SIA M

SIAM1

SIAM2

SIAM3 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Poor

Very Poor

N3

0 1 2 3 4 5

11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 5 8 10

2003 2004 2005

Month

SIA M

SIAM1

SIAM2

SIAM3 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Poor Very Poor

圖5.5 湳仔溝溪 SIAM 評估結果

N4

0 1 2 3 4 5

11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 5 8 10

2003 2004 2005

Month

SIA M

SIAM1

SIAM2

SIAM3 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Poor

Very Poor

N5

0 1 2 3 4 5

11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 5 8 10

2003 2004 2005

Month

SIA M

SIAM1

SIAM2

SIAM3 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Poor

Very Poor

N6

0 1 2 3 4 5

11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 5 8 10

2003 2004 2005

Month

SIA M

SIAM1

SIAM2

SIAM3 Excellent

Very Good

Good

Poor

Very Poor

圖5.5 湳仔溝溪 SIAM 評估結果（續）

由表5.9 湳仔溝溪 SIAM 的評估結果，可看出 SIAM1 在 18 個月的 分析資料中，測點評估的數值範圍介於 2.265~4.571 之間，SIAM2 則介 於2.250~4.575 之間，SIAM3 介於 2.293~4.614 之間。另外，為探討此 三種不同權重設置，何者在兩種綜合評估上較能有效的區別出不同的 生態環境狀況，本研究進一步以變異數分別對兩種不同的權重設置進 行分析。由表5.9 中可看出，SIAM2 的變異數（0.306）稍微高於 SIAM1

（0.305）和 SIAM3（0.303），顯示在湳仔溝溪的調查中，若以本研究 所估計出的權重值進行綜合評估時，其評估結果將比以初始權重和因 子分析所做的評估較具有鑑別力。三者呈現的結果亦有些差異（如表 5.9 中灰色網格部分）。

表5.9 湳仔溝溪 SIAM 評估結果

Year Season Station SIAM1 Rank1 SIAM2 Rank2 SIAM3 Rank3 N1 4.29 Excellent 4.28 Excellent 4.32 Excellent N2 4.29 Excellent 4.28 Excellent 4.31 Excellent N3 4.57 Excellent 4.57 Excellent 4.60 Excellent N4 3.72 Very Good 3.71 Very Good 3.79 Very Good N5 3.69 Very Good 3.66 Very Good 3.68 Very Good 11

N6 3.55 Very Good 3.54 Very Good 3.63 Very Good N1 4.57 Excellent 4.57 Excellent 4.61 Excellent N2 3.71 Very Good 3.71 Very Good 3.76 Very Good N3 3.72 Very Good 3.71 Very Good 3.78 Very Good N4 4.01 Excellent 4.00 Excellent 4.04 Excellent N5 3.76 Very Good 3.73 Very Good 3.76 Very Good 2003

12

N6 4.11 Excellent 4.11 Excellent 4.16 Excellent N1 4.19 Excellent 4.17 Excellent 4.19 Excellent N2 3.75 Very Good 3.73 Very Good 3.79 Very Good N3 3.97 Very Good 3.96 Very Good 3.96 Very Good N4 4.11 Excellent 4.10 Excellent 4.10 Excellent N5 3.83 Very Good 3.80 Very Good 3.80 Very Good 1

N6 4.11 Excellent 4.09 Excellent 4.15 Excellent N1 4.39 Excellent 4.38 Excellent 4.44 Excellent N2 3.89 Very Good 3.88 Very Good 3.91 Very Good N3 3.83 Very Good 3.82 Very Good 3.90 Very Good 2004

2

N4 3.69 Very Good 3.67 Very Good 3.69 Very Good

表5.9 湳仔溝溪 SIAM 評估結果（續）

Year Season Station SIAM1 Rank1 SIAM2 Rank2 SIAM3 Rank3 N5 3.37 Very Good 3.33 Very Good 3.28 Very Good N6 3.87 Very Good 3.84 Very Good 3.85 Very Good N1 3.93 Very Good 3.94 Very Good 4.01 Excellent N2 3.76 Very Good 3.76 Very Good 3.77 Very Good N3 3.71 Very Good 3.73 Very Good 3.77 Very Good N4 2.48 Good 2.47 Good 2.60 Good N5 2.87 Good 2.85 Good 2.84 Good 3

N6 3.71 Very Good 3.71 Very Good 3.84 Very Good N1 3.83 Very Good 3.81 Very Good 3.87 Very Good N2 3.59 Very Good 3.55 Very Good 3.54 Very Good N3 3.18 Very Good 3.17 Very Good 3.25 Very Good N4 2.59 Good 2.59 Good 2.57 Good N5 2.51 Good 2.49 Good 2.49 Good 4

N6 3.09 Very Good 3.06 Very Good 3.12 Very Good N1 4.01 Excellent 4.00 Excellent 4.04 Excellent N2 3.65 Very Good 3.64 Very Good 3.63 Very Good N3 2.90 Good 2.88 Good 2.95 Good N4 2.61 Good 2.61 Good 2.69 Good N5 2.89 Good 2.88 Good 2.96 Good 5

N6 3.55 Very Good 3.53 Very Good 3.57 Very Good N1 3.65 Very Good 3.63 Very Good 3.65 Very Good N2 3.41 Very Good 3.38 Very Good 3.38 Very Good N3 3.09 Very Good 3.08 Very Good 3.09 Very Good N4 2.27 Good 2.25 Good 2.29 Good N5 3.01 Very Good 2.99 Good 3.07 Very Good 6

N6 3.47 Very Good 3.45 Very Good 3.48 Very Good N1 3.83 Very Good 3.82 Very Good 3.82 Very Good N2 3.41 Very Good 3.38 Very Good 3.38 Very Good N3 3.41 Very Good 3.38 Very Good 3.38 Very Good N4 2.30 Good 2.30 Good 2.33 Good N5 2.56 Good 2.51 Good 2.49 Good 7

N6 3.09 Very Good 3.08 Very Good 3.17 Very Good N1 3.83 Very Good 3.82 Very Good 3.82 Very Good N2 3.27 Very Good 3.24 Very Good 3.26 Very Good N3 2.62 Good 2.59 Good 2.61 Good N4 2.45 Good 2.43 Good 2.42 Good N5 2.97 Good 2.95 Good 2.99 Good 8

N6 2.66 Good 2.64 Good 2.75 Good

表5.9 湳仔溝溪 SIAM 評估結果（續）

Year Season Station SIAM1 Rank1 SIAM2 Rank2 SIAM3 Rank3 N1 4.04 Excellent 4.02 Excellent 4.05 Excellent N2 3.33 Very Good 3.31 Very Good 3.29 Very Good N3 2.48 Good 2.44 Good 2.39 Good N4 2.61 Good 2.60 Good 2.69 Good N5 2.73 Good 2.70 Good 2.72 Good 9

N6 3.22 Very Good 3.21 Very Good 3.33 Very Good N1 3.55 Very Good 3.53 Very Good 3.55 Very Good N2 3.55 Very Good 3.53 Very Good 3.55 Very Good N3 2.70 Good 2.66 Good 2.65 Good N4 2.43 Good 2.44 Good 2.53 Good N5 3.04 Very Good 3.03 Very Good 3.17 Very Good 10

N6 3.18 Very Good 3.17 Very Good 3.25 Very Good N1 3.33 Very Good 3.32 Very Good 3.37 Very Good N2 3.19 Very Good 3.17 Very Good 3.15 Very Good N3 3.25 Very Good 3.24 Very Good 3.33 Very Good N4 2.66 Good 2.65 Good 2.61 Good N5 2.73 Good 2.70 Good 2.72 Good 11

N6 3.57 Very Good 3.56 Very Good 3.63 Very Good N1 3.54 Very Good 3.53 Very Good 3.56 Very Good N2 2.80 Good 2.77 Good 2.83 Good N3 2.56 Good 2.53 Good 2.51 Good N4 2.37 Good 2.37 Good 2.47 Good N5 3.05 Very Good 3.02 Very Good 3.09 Very Good 12

N6 3.58 Very Good 3.55 Very Good 3.64 Very Good N1 4.07 Excellent 4.06 Excellent 4.08 Excellent N2 3.37 Very Good 3.35 Very Good 3.37 Very Good N3 4.01 Excellent 4.00 Excellent 3.95 Very Good N4 3.55 Very Good 3.52 Very Good 3.53 Very Good N5 3.63 Very Good 3.59 Very Good 3.55 Very Good 2

N6 3.41 Very Good 3.39 Very Good 3.38 Very Good N1 3.93 Very Good 3.92 Very Good 3.95 Very Good N2 3.29 Very Good 3.28 Very Good 3.27 Very Good N3 2.97 Good 2.98 Good 3.05 Good N4 3.01 Very Good 3.02 Very Good 3.06 Very Good N5 3.19 Very Good 3.19 Very Good 3.21 Very Good 5

N6 3.80 Very Good 3.78 Very Good 3.76 Very Good N1 3.97 Very Good 3.96 Very Good 3.96 Very Good 2005

8 N2 2.69 Good 2.68 Good 2.77 Good

表5.9 湳仔溝溪 SIAM 評估結果（續）

Year Season Station SIAM1 Rank1 SIAM2 Rank2 SIAM3 Rank3 N3 3.18 Very Good 3.17 Very Good 3.25 Very Good N4 3.15 Very Good 3.15 Very Good 3.22 Very Good N5 3.37 Very Good 3.34 Very Good 3.40 Very Good N6 3.72 Very Good 3.70 Very Good 3.76 Very Good N1 3.89 Very Good 3.89 Very Good 3.93 Very Good N2 2.75 Good 2.76 Good 2.88 Good N3 2.83 Good 2.82 Good 2.92 Good N4 3.11 Very Good 3.12 Very Good 3.24 Very Good N5 3.72 Very Good 3.69 Very Good 3.78 Very Good 10

N6 3.83 Very Good 3.81 Very Good 3.87 Very Good

變異數 0.305 0.306 0.303

標準差 0.552 0.553 0.550

在文檔中 中 華 大 學 (頁 83-90)