災害風險溝通在韌性社區工作坊之探討

近年來，「韌性城市」的概念於國內外皆為探討防災的新思維，而一個健全的韌性城市必須擁有「低脆弱度」與「高回復力」，意即能對於衝擊（包括災害）有較高的承受能力，且在受到衝擊後，能較快從中復原。而將韌性城市的概念結合至村里和社區的防災工作，則可以藉此來推動韌性社區。韌性社區強調的是「與風險共存」，因不可能完全避免災害的風險，社區仍可能受到災害的衝擊，而經由韌性社區的推動，將有助於降低災害的衝擊，並能夠較迅速從衝擊中復原。本研究從環境教育的實務工作中啟發，以環保署北區環境教育區域中心韌性城市組計畫辦理之「韌性社區工作坊」為案例。研究方法採用質性研究個案研究法，以參與觀察、訪談和文件為研究資料來分析參與者的學習狀況。研究者於計畫中擔任助理之角色，藉由與夥伴團體合作，共同舉辦「韌性社區工作坊」，將此作為與參與者進行「風險溝通」的管道，課程內容設計上以「個人氣候變遷積極調適行動社會認知模型」（socio-cognitive model of private proactive adaptation to climate change，簡稱為MPPACC）作為研究架構，來了解參與者藉由學習、參與和討論，在韌性概念脈絡下，其面對災害時的風險覺知（知覺受災害的脆弱度和知覺到災害的嚴重性）及認知調適能力（反應效能和自我效能）兩方面所受到的影響。研究結果顯示，在韌性社區工作坊課程三個階段的風險溝通效果中，學員一開始接觸到風險覺知的內容所占比重最多，經由一系列的課程學習之後，逐漸反應在自我效能上的呈現。而有效的風險溝通應能達到的四項影響：藉由防災教材引出居民自主性、重視對話溝通而非單純傳遞知識、運用當地社會特有文化、環境和背景，以及創造社區自己的防災文化。本研究依據研究發現與結論，提出兩面向之建議。「韌性社區實務教學推動」方面，在課程設計、課程師資和實務操作上，未來建議能調整課程內容及進行方式、建立講師群和創立互動平台；而「後續相關研究」方面，建議未來的研究能使用質性與量化方法並行，並能以課程講師角度來探討課程實施的過程與結果。期望本研究之研究結果能給推動韌性社區的工作者，特別是欲與社區進行推動韌性社區合作的環境教育工作者、環境教育研究者和防災教育研究者，一些經驗上的參考。

關鍵字

天然災害；災害風險；韌性；風險溝通

並列摘要

In recent years, the concept of "resilient city" has been exploring new thinking on disaster prevention at home and abroad, and a sound resilient city must have "low vulnerability" and "high resilience", which means that it can withstand high impacts (including disasters) and recover from it soon after being impacted. By combining the concept of resilient cities into disaster prevention in villages and communities, it is possible to promote resilient communities. Resilient community emphasizes “coexistence with risks”. Because it is impossible to completely avoid the risk of disasters, communities may still be affected by disasters, and the promotion of resilience communities will help reduce the impact of disasters and enable them to be faster recover from the impact. Inspired by the practical work of environmental education, this case study is based on the "Resilient CommunityWorkshop" planned by The Northern Environmental Education Regional Center which is under Environmental Protection Administration. The research method adopts the qualitative research case study method, and participates in the observation, the interview and the documents as the research materials to analyze the learning status of the participants. The researcher plays the role of assistant in the project. To coorganize the "Resilient CommunityWorkshop " in collaboration with partner groups as a means of "risk communication" with participants, the content of the course is designed in a socio-cognitive model of private proactive adaptation to climate change （MPPACC） as a research framework, to understand the participants' risk awareness and cognitive adjustment in the context of resilience through learning, participation and discussion （including "perceived adaptation efficacy "," perceived self-efficacy "and" perceived adaptation costs "） so as to promote their adaptation intentions. The results of the study show that in the risk communication effect of the three stages of the Resilience Community Workshop, the participants have the most exposure to risk awareness. After a series of courses, they gradually reflect their self-efficacy. The effective of risk communication should have four characteristics: to attract residents' autonomy through disaster prevention teaching materials, to emphasize dialogue and communication instead of simply transferring knowledge, to use local social unique culture, environment and background, and to create a community's own disaster prevention culture. Based on the research findings and conclusions, this study proposes two aspects. In the aspect of “Resilient Community Practice Teaching Promotion”, in the course design, curriculum faculty and practical operation, the future proposal can adjust the course content and method, establish a group of lecturers and create an interactive platform, and will publish the “Resilience Community Practice Manual”; In the “follow-up related research” aspect, it is suggested that future research can use qualitative and quantitative methods in parallel, and can explore the process and results of curriculum implementation from the perspective of curriculum instructors. It is hoped that this study will provide some empirical references to workers who promote community resilience, environmental educators who particularly want to promote community resilience with communities, and environmental education researchers.