Title

地震後家戶調整行為之比較研究-以埔里、東勢及新化鎮為例

Translated Titles

Comparative Study of Household Adjustment after Earthquakes - with Puli, Dongshih and Sinhua town as study areas

DOI

10.6833/CJCU.2008.00108

Authors

章國恩

Key Words

災害經驗 ; 風險知覺 ; 家戶調整行為 ; 線性結構關係模式 ; Hazard Experience ; Risk Perception ; Household Adjustment behavior ; Linear Structure Relation (LISREL)

PublicationName

長榮大學土地管理與開發研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2008年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

薩支平

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

大規模地震經常對衝擊地區帶來嚴重的損失;在所有社會層級中,家戶受地震衝擊是最直接也最脆弱的。本研究以家戶為研究對象,在地震災害的時間變遷下,家戶是如何透過災害經驗累積與其災害風險知覺而進行調整決策。藉由瞭解家戶之調整行為,提供管理層級影響家戶決策之意見,以利未來防救災決策能有效落實於家戶層級中。   本研究整合家戶調整相關文獻提出理論模式,並藉由三份不同時期之問卷資料,透過線性結構方程模式驗證理論模式與假說,再提出結論與建議。研究發現,家戶在災後所採取的調整行為,隨衝擊時間的變遷下,執行意願有明顯下滑的趨勢;影響家戶調整行為的主因是災害經驗與社經地位,其次是弱勢程度。   研究針對地震,建議政府應重視較無災害經驗之地區,提高其風險知覺;針對社經地位與社會弱勢程度較低以及久居於當地之家戶進行調整行為活動的宣導;成立地方防救組織,並安排宣導活動,使民眾在參與相關活動後能正視災害防救工作之重要。

English Abstract

Extensive earthquakes may cause serious damages. Among all social levels, household is the social unit might hit by earthquakes directly. This study adopts households as the study units; the purpose of this study is to understand the adoption of adjustment behavior with associated perceived risk and earthquake experience. The study of adjustment behaviors might offers suggestions and opinions to the government, to improve the effectiveness of future disaster relief for all governmental levels.   This study integrates relevant household adjustment theories and proposes a new theoretical model which is examined through of three questionnaires, completed at different times. The Linear Structure Relation (LISREL) was used as the analytical tool. The study reveals that, the household adjustment behaviors after calamity, have a significant downward trend. The main influence to the households adjustment is the experience of the specific hazard and social position, follows by the potential vulnerability of the household.   This Study advises that the government should pay more attention to the area having relatively less experience to disaster, thus improve their risk perception. It may also to society with high degree of vulnerability and households with longer tenure. The government should encourage the public adjust their behaviors. Local Emergency Management Agency (LEMA) should be established and organized drills and practices to involve the public in mitigation and preparation activities.

Topic Category 人文學 > 地理及區域研究
管理學院 > 土地管理與開發研究所
Reference
  1. 2.王閔玲(2005),災害衝擊對家戶調整行為之影響-以東勢九二一地震及七二水災為例,長榮土地管理開發學系暨研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  2. 8.周士雄、施鴻志(2000),環境風險管理決策中之公眾認知探討-以地震災害減緩措施為例,都市與計劃,第27卷,第3期,第365-382頁。
    連結:
  3. 12.洪鴻智(2005)。科技鄰避設施風險知覺之形成與投影:核二廠。人文及社會科學集刊,第17卷,第1期,第33-70頁。
    連結:
  4. 13.洪鴻智、黃欣怡(2003)。洪災保險的購買意願:以基隆河中下游沿岸居民為例。都市與計劃,第30卷,第3期,第241-258頁。
    連結:
  5. 15.曹建宇(2002),地震災害經驗與調適行為之比較研究-以台南縣白河、台中縣東勢為例,國立台灣大學地理環境資源研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  6. 16.許明禎、林晏州(2001)。民眾對公園綠地防災機能認知與避難行為傾向之探討。都市與計劃,第28卷,第2期,第237-251頁。
    連結:
  7. 23.劉雅貞(2006),從災害識覺觀看花蓮縣土石流保全住戶之疏散配合意願,國立東華大學自然資源管理研究所碩士論文。
    連結:
  8. 26.薩支平(2003),都市地區災害衝擊在家戶階層的社會學習與調整,行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫,NSC91-2415-H-309- 002-SSS,臺北市。
    連結:
  9. 1.Abraham, S. C. S., Sheeran, P., Abrams, D., & Spears, R. (1994). Exploring teenagers’ adaptive and maladaptive thinking in relation to the threat of HIV infection, Psychol. Health, 9 , pp.253-272.
    連結:
  10. 2.Bagozzi, R. P.,and Yi, Y. (1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academic of Marketing Science, 16, pp.76-94.
    連結:
  11. 4.Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. (1978). The Environment as Hazard, New York: Oxford University press. pp. 23-27.
    連結:
  12. 6.De Man, A., & Simpson-Hosely, P. (1987). Factors in perception of earthquake hazard. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, pp.815-820.
    連結:
  13. 7.Dooley, D., Catalano, R., Mishra, S., & Serxner,S. (1992). Earthquake preparedness: Predictors in a community survey. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, pp.451-470.
    連結:
  14. 8.Gawande, K., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (2001). Nuclear waste transport and residential property values: estimating the effects of perceived risks. J. Eviron. Econ. Manage. 42 (2), pp.207-233.
    連結:
  15. 9.Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2006). People at risk of flooding: Why some residents take precautionary action while others do not, Natural Hazard, 38: pp.101-120.
    連結:
  16. 11.Jakson, E.L. (1981). Response to earthquake hazard: The West coast of North America. Environment and Behavior, 13(4), pp. 387-416.
    連結:
  17. 12.Johnston, D., Paton, D., Crawford, G. L., Ronan, K., Houghton, B., & Burgelt, P. (2005). Measuring Tsunami Preparedness in Coastal Washington, United States, Natural Hazards, 35: 173-184.
    連結:
  18. 13.Kunreuther, H. & M. Pauly (2004), Neglecting disaster: Why don’t people insure against large losses, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28, pp.5-21.
    連結:
  19. 14.Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2000), Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research, Environment and Behavior, 32(6), pp.461-501.
    連結:
  20. 15.Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2000), Household Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments: A Comparison of Residents in Two States, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18 (2), pp.317-338.
    連結:
  21. 16.Lindell, M. K., & Prater, C. S. (2002), Risk Area Residents' Perceptions and Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (11), pp.2377-2392.
    連結:
  22. 17.Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D.J. (2000). Correlates of seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis, 20(1), pp.13-25.
    連結:
  23. 18.Lindell, M. K., Lu, J-C, & Prater, C. S., (2005). Household Decision Making and Evacuation in Response to Hurricane Lili, Natural Hazard Review, 6 (4), 171-179.
    連結:
  24. 20.Mitchell, J.T. (2000). The hazards of one’s faith: hazard perceptions of South Carolina Christian clergy. Environmental Hazards, 2, pp.25-41.
    連結:
  25. 21.Mohr, (1992), Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, London: Sage.
    連結:
  26. 23.Peacock W. G. (2003). Hurricane Mitigation Status and Factors Influencing Mitigation Status among Florida's Single-Family Homeowners. Natural Hazards Review, pp.149-58.
    連結:
  27. 24.Peacock W. G., Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. (2005). Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners, Landscape and Urban Planning, 73, 120-135.
    連結:
  28. 25.Pennebaker, J. W., & Harber, K. D. (1993). A social stage model of collective coping: The Loma Prieta Earthquake and the Persian Gulf War. Journal of Socail Issues, 49, pp.125-145.
    連結:
  29. 26.Perry, R.W. & M.K. Lindell (2003) Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guide­lines for the Emergency Planning Process, Disasters, 27(4):336-50.
    連結:
  30. 27.Rogers, G. O. (1997). The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Event? Risk Analysis, 17(6):745-757.
    連結:
  31. 28.Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91, pp.93-114.
    連結:
  32. 29.Russell, L., Goltz, J. D. & Bourque, L. B. (1995). Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), pp.744-770.
    連結:
  33. 30.Short, J. F. (1984). The social fabric at risk: Toward the social transformation of risk analysis, American Sociological Review, 49 (6), pp.711-725.
    連結:
  34. 35.Smith, K. (2001). Environment hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster, 3nd ed., London, New York: Routledge.
    連結:
  35. 36.Spittal, M. J., Walkey, F. H., McClure, J., Siegert, R. J., & Ballantyne, K. E. (2006). The Earthquake Readiness Scale: The Development of a Valid and Reliable Unifactorial Measure. Natural Hazards, 39: pp. 15–29.
    連結:
  36. 37.Steinberg, L.J., Basolo, V., Burby, R., Levine, J.N., & Cruz, A. M. (2004). Joint Seismic and Technological Disasters: Possible Impacts and Community Preparedness in an Urban Setting, Natural Hazards Review, 5(4):159-169.
    連結:
  37. 38.Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M., & Paz, D. (1986). Waiting for disaster: Earthquake watch in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    連結:
  38. 39.Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Effects of personal experience on self-protective behavior, Psychol. Bull, 105, pp.31-50.
    連結:
  39. 40.Whitney, D. J., Lindell, M. K., & Nguyen, Hannah-Hanh D., (2004). Earthquake Beliefs and Adoption of Seismic Hazard Adjustments. Risk Analysis, 24(1), pp.87-102.
    連結:
  40. 9.International Decade for Natural Disasters Reduction (IDNDR), (1990-1999). Special committee for international decade for natural disaster reduction, Available at http://www.icsu.org/Structure/idndr.html
    連結:
  41. 10.United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), 1982. Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis. Geneva: Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator.
    連結:
  42. 中文文獻:
  43. 1.王保進(2004),多變量分析:套裝程式與資料分析,台北,高等教育。
  44. 3.王靜儀(2000),環境災害消費與比較性風險評估之研究,國立台北大學都市計劃研究所碩士論文。
  45. 4.余民寧(2006),潛在變項模式-SIMPLIS的應用。台北:高等教育。
  46. 5.吳明隆(2006),結構方程模式-SIMPLIS的應用,台北:五南圖書。
  47. 6.吳杰穎、卲珮君、林文苑、柯于璋、洪鴻智、陳天健、陳亮全、黃智彥、詹士樑、薩支平,(2007),災害管理學辭典,台北,五南。
  48. 7.吳統雄(1990),電話調查:理論與方法,第二版,聯經出版社。
  49. 9.周子敬(2006),結構方程模式-精通LISREL。台北:全華。
  50. 10.林震岩(2006),多變量分析-SPSS的操作與應用,台北:智勝文化。
  51. 11.姜凱評(2003),地震後家戶災害調整行為之研究,長榮土地管理開發學系暨研究所碩士論文。
  52. 14.張三軍(2005),九二一地震後家戶調整之比較研究-以埔里鎮與東勢鎮為例,長榮土地管理開發學系暨研究所碩士論文。
  53. 17.許翔智(2004),自然災害對家戶災害調整行為之影響研究-以汐止洪災與埔里地震為例,長榮土地管理開發學系暨研究所碩士論文。
  54. 18.陳佳成(2002),國際體制形成之探討:以京都議定書為例,東海大學政治學系碩士論文。
  55. 19.陳順宇(2004),統計學,第四版,台北:華泰書局。
  56. 20.陳順宇(2005),多變量分析,第四版,台北:華泰書局。
  57. 21.陳順宇(2007),結構方程模式,台北:心理出版社。
  58. 22.陳騫文(2003),洪水災害對家戶選擇調整措施之影響-以汐止地區為例,長榮土地管理開發學系暨研究所碩士論文。
  59. 24.劉錦添(1992),環境風險的知覺-台灣的實證研究,台灣銀行季刊,第45卷,第3期,第216-231頁。
  60. 25.賴麗瑩(1998),京都議定書之分析及未來發展趨勢,能源季刊,第28期,第3期,第2-16頁。
  61. 27.薩支平(2005),建置地方政府防災相關計畫評估方法之研究,行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫,NSC93-2415-H-309-004-SSS,臺北市。
  62. 28.魏玉蕙(2002),921地震災害與災後重建之研究-以埔里蜈蚣里為例,國立台灣大學地理環境資源研究所碩士論文。
  63. 29.羅國彰(2003),居民的洪患識覺與調適行為之研究-台北縣汐止市個案之探討,國立台灣大學地理環境資源研究所碩士論文。
  64. 英文文獻:
  65. 3.Baker, E. J. (1991). Hurricane evacuation behavior. Disasters, 9, pp.287-210.
  66. 5.Cutter, S. L. (1993), Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards, London: Edward Arnold.
  67. 10.Jakson, E.L. & Mukerjee, T. (1974). Human adjustment to the earthquake hazard of San Francisco, California. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national and global, pp.160-166.
  68. 19.Mileti, D. S., & Fitzpatrick, C. (1993). The great earthquake experiment: Risk communication and public action. Boulder, CO: Westview.
  69. 22.Palm, R., Hodogson, M., Blanchard, R. D., & Lyons, D. (1990). Earthquake insurance in California. Boulder. CO: Westview.
  70. 31.Showalter, P. S. (1993). Prognostication of doom: an earthquake prediction’s, effect on four small communities. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disas., 11 (3), pp. 279-292.
  71. 32.Slovic, P., Fischhoff B., & Lichtenstein S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21 (3), pp.14-20, 36-39.
  72. 33.Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). “Facts and Fear: Understanding Perceived Risk,” In: R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albers Jr. (Eds.), Social Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? , New York: Plenum, pp.181-214.
  73. 34.Slovic, P., Kunreuther, H., & White, G. F. (1974). Decision processes, rationality and adjustments to natural hazards. In G. F. White(Ed.), Natural hazards: Local, national and global. NYC: Oxford University. pp. 187-204.
  74. 法規、統計要覽、網頁:
  75. 1.台中縣政府(2004),台中縣統計要覽
  76. 2.台中縣政府(2005),台中縣統計要覽
  77. 3.台南縣政府(2004),台南縣統計要覽
  78. 4.台南縣政府(2005),台南縣統計要覽
  79. 5.台灣因應氣候變化綱要公約資訊網︰http://www.tri.org.tw/unfccc/index.htm
  80. 6.災害防救法(2008),行政院災害防救委員會:
  81. http://www.ndppc.nat.gov.tw
  82. 7.南投縣政府(2004),台南縣統計要覽
  83. 8.聯合國氣候變化綱要公約網站︰http://www.unfccc.int
Times Cited
  1. 王詮富(2012)。水災後家戶風險訊息傳遞與調整行為之研究-以高雄平地地區為例。長榮大學土地管理與開發學系(所)學位論文。2012。1-130。 
  2. 李馥潔(2011)。災害資訊與社區防災意識關聯性之研究-以南投市社區為例。長榮大學土地管理與開發學系(所)學位論文。2011。1-135。 
  3. 曾奕筑(2009)。家戶選擇颱洪保險決策之探討-以台南縣麻豆鎮為例。長榮大學土地管理與開發研究所學位論文。2009。1-99。