臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

社會對於洪災風險的關注日益增加，進而有必要去瞭解在地尺度之風險知覺（risk perception）影響因素。近期研究對於風險知覺及災害調適行為的觀點，也強調對於地方脈絡下產生的因素判斷。透過相關文獻回顧的成果，本研究以在地環境特徵及地方依附來詮釋在地化（localization）之影響因素。將瞭解在地化因素與洪災風險知覺、調適行為（adaptive behavior）之關係作為主要之研究目的。因此，本研究以淡水河流域為例，選擇上、中、下游各一個社區尺度的區域作為實證地區，使用多變量分析及建立迴歸模型（regression model）作為研究方法。
研究結果顯示，在地化因素中，包括環境特徵及地方依附都與風險知覺有顯著的正相關。但另一方面，調適行為的分析結果與風險知覺不同，在地化因素與調適行為有較弱的正相關，在其中，僅有社會依附及自然環境特徵在統計上與採取調適行為有顯著的相關。階層迴歸分析的結果呈現，加入了在地化因素的模型，能額外增加約20%風險知覺變異的解釋能力。結論則強調，在風險知覺的在地性中，對地方地景的認知以及居民與地方的情感連結是至關重要的。因此，本研究建議在風險溝通的策略上，應加強在地社區的資訊交流，並嘗試建立一個由下而上的風險溝通模式，以納入在地特殊的知識及文化等進行考量。

The increased concern about flood risk created the need to better understand the factors affecting risk perception in local community. Recent perspectives on risk perception understandings also emphasized the interpretation and judgement of some factors that were tied to local context. Localized factors may be a critical factor that significantly influence risk perception and adaptive behaviors. This study applied local environment characteristic and place attachment to represent localized factors. To examine how localized factors affecting communities’ risk perception and adaptive behavior, this study selected one upstream, midstream and downstream community of Tamsui River Basin as an empirical area using regression models and multivariate analysis as research methods.
From the study result, localized factors, including place attachment and local environment characteristic, both of two correlate positively with risk perception. On the other hand, not like risk perception, localized factors correlate weaker positively with flood adaptive behaviors. Only social attachment and natural environment characteristic statistically significantly related to adopting adaptive behaviors. In general, hierarchical regression analysis shows that localized factors can explain an additional 20% of variance in risk perception. Conclusions are drawn that the localization of risk perception including the cognition of local landscape and the connection between resident and their place are crucial. Therefore, it is important to establish a bottom-up risk communication policy to understand local knowledge at small scale.

第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究動機與目的 1
第二節、研究範圍 5
第三節、研究方法與流程 8
第四節、研究架構與流程 10
第二章、文獻回顧 12
第一節、風險知覺理論緣起 12
第二節、洪災風險知覺影響因素 16
第三節、風險知覺與調適行為 19
第四節、風險知覺及調適行為的在地化 22
第五節、風險溝通策略的建構 26
第三章、評估模式與模型建立 29
第一節、風險知覺模型建立 30
第二節、洪災調適行為模型建立 39
第四章、問卷調查與分析 43
第一節、個案背景介紹 43
第二節、居民問卷設計 52
第三節、樣本資料分析 60
第五章、實證分析 84
第一節、淡水河流域風險知覺實證分析 84
第二節、淡水河流域洪災調適行為實證分析 93
第六章、結論與建議 115
第一節、結論 115
第二節、建議 120
參考文獻 121
附錄 128

中文文獻
1.周桂田(2014)。《風險社會典範移轉─打造為公眾負責的治理模式》。台北：遠流。
2.洪鴻智、盧禹廷(2015)，沿海居民的氣候變遷與颱洪災害調適，都市與計劃，第42卷，第1期，第87-108頁。
3.國家發展委員會(2012）。國家氣候變遷調適綱領。臺北市。
4.張靜貞，羅紀琼、林振輝(2003)，基隆河汐止、五堵地區居民參與洪災保險意願之研究，臺灣經濟預測與政策，第34卷，第1期，第39-61頁。
5.陳永森(2014)，極端氣候影響下潛在災害區居民環境識覺，調適行為之研究-以八八水災後屏東縣林邊鄉與佳冬鄉為例，環境與世界，第28-29期，第25-53頁。
6.黃于芳(2008)，鄉村居民對工廠污染風險知覺的空間特性與決定因素─ 以彰化縣和美、伸港、線西、鹿港四鄉鎮為例，臺北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系學位論文。
7.鄭得權，(2016)，地區淹水特性與居民調適行為探討-以雲林縣為例，成功大學都市計劃學系學位論文。
8.盧禹廷，(2011)，應用社會資本探討社區居民的氣候變遷調適行為-以東港林邊、佳冬為例，臺北大學都市計劃研究所學位論文。

英文文獻
1.Adger, W. N. (2001). Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International development, 13(7), 921-931.
2.Adikari, Y., & Yoshitani, J. (2009). Global Trends in Water-Related Disasters-an insight for policymakers. Paris.
3.Alcántara-Ayala, I., & Moreno, A. R. (2016). Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk management in mountain areas of developing countries: a Mexican foretaste. Journal of Mountain Science, 13(12), 2079-2093.
4.Armaş, I. (2006). Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1223-1234.
5.Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2001). Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 11, 133-145.
6.Bihari, M., & Ryan, R. (2012). Influence of social capital on community preparedness for wildfires. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 253-261.
7.Bird, D. K., Gísladóttir, G., & Dominey-Howes, D. (2011). Different communities, different perspectives: issues affecting residents’ response to a volcanic eruption in southern Iceland. Bulletin of volcanology, 73(9), 1209-1227.
8.Birkholz, S., Muro, M., Jeffrey, P., & Smith, H. M. (2014). Rethinking the relationship between flood risk perception and flood management. Science of the Total Environment, 478, 12-20.
9.Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Cancellieri, U. G., & Mosco, B. (2011). Flood risk: the role of neighbourhood attachment. NA.
10.Bonaiuto, M., Alves, S., De Dominicis, S., & Petruccelli, I. (2016). Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 33-53.
11.Boon, H. J. (2014). Disaster resilience in a flood-impacted rural Australian town. Natural hazards, 71(1), 683-701.
12.Botzen, W. J., & Van Den Bergh, J. C. (2012). Monetary valuation of insurance against flood risk under climate change. International Economic Review, 53(3), 1005-1026.
13.Botzen, W. J., Aerts, J. C., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2009). Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance. Ecological Economics, 68(8), 2265-2277.
14.Brody, S. D., Highfield, W., & Alston, L. (2008). Does location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of Creeks in two San Antonio Watersheds. Enviroment and Behavior, 36(2), 229-250.
15.Bubeck, P., Botzen, W. J., & Aerts, J. C. (2012). A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Analysis, 32(9), 1481-1495.
16.Cole, J. M., & Murphy, B. L. (2014). Rural hazard risk communication and public education: Strategic and tactical best practices. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 10, 292-304.
17.Covello, V. T., Slovic, P., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). Risk communication: a review of the literature. National Emergency Training Center.
18.Covi, M. P., & Kain, D. J. (2016). Sea-level rise risk communication: Public understanding, risk perception, and attitudes about Information. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 612-633.
19.De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., Twigger-Ross, C., & Bonaiuto, M. (2015). We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive coping behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 66-78.
20.Demeritt, D., & Nobert, S. (2014). Models of best practice in flood risk communication and management. Environmental Hazards, 13(4), 313-328.
21.Donovan, K., Suryanto, A., & Utami, P. (2012). Mapping cultural vulnerability in volcanic regions: The practical application of social volcanology at Mt Merapi, Indonesia. Environmental Hazards, 11(4), 303-323.
22.Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley. Cal.: University of California Press.
23.Downs, R. M. (1970). Geographic space perception: past approaches and future prospects. Progress in geography, 2(2), 65-108.
24.Fekete, A. (2012). Safety and security target levels: Opportunities and challenges for risk management and risk communication. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2, 67-76.
25.Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1993). Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183-203.
26.Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127-152.
27.González-Riancho, P., Gerkensmeier, B., & Ratter, B. M. W. (2017). Storm surge resilience and the Sendai Framework: Risk perception, intention to prepare and enhanced collaboration along the German North Sea coast. Ocean & Coastal Management, 141, 118-131.
28.Greenberg, M. (2013). We need risk communication and perception research focused on flood risks for senior citizens. Risk Analysis, 33(1), 52-53.
29.Grothmann, T., & Reusswig, F. (2006). People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural hazards, 38(1), 101-120.
30.Hannon, B. (1994). Sense of place: geographic discounting by people, animals and plants. Ecological Economics, 10(2), 157-174.
31.Hansson, K., Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2008). A framework for evaluation of flood management strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 465-480.
32.Ho, M. C., Shaw, D., Lin, S., & Chiu, Y. C. (2008). How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis, 28(3), 635-643.
33.Hung, H.-C., Yang, C.-Y., Chien, C.-Y., & Liu, Y.-C. (2016). Building resilience: Mainstreaming community participation into integrated assessment of resilience to climatic hazards in metropolitan land use management. Land Use Policy, 50, 48-58.
34.Kates, R. W., & Kasperson, J. X. (1983). Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 80(22), 7027-7038.
35.Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P. (2013). Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 33(1), 24-49.
36.Kellens, W., Zaalberg, R., Neutens, T., Vanneuville, W., & De Maeyer, P. (2011). An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian coast. Risk Analysis, 31(7), 1055-1068.
37.Kick, E. L., Fraser, J. C., Fulkerson, G. M., McKinney, L. A., & De Vries, D. H. (2011). Repetitive flood victims and acceptance of FEMA mitigation offers: an analysis with community–system policy implications. Disasters, 35(3), 510-539.
38.Lara, A., Saurí, D., Ribas, A., & Pavón, D. (2010). Social perceptions of floods and flood management in a Mediterranean area (Costa Brava, Spain). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 10(10), 2081-2091.
39.Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. TheAnnals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545(1), 85-94.
40.Lin, S., Shaw, D., & Ho, M. C. (2008). Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public?. Natural Hazards, 44(2), 305-314.
41.Lindell, M. K., & Hwang, S. N. (2008). Households' perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 539-556.
42.Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2003). Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities (Vol. 7). Sage Publications.
43.Lowe, G. D., & Pinhey, T. K. (1982). Rural-urban differences in support for environmental protection. Rural Sociology, 47(1), 114.
44.Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of environmental psychology, 28(2), 164-173.
45.Mishra, S., Mazumdar, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Place attachment and flood preparedness. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(2), 187-197.
46.Mustafa, D. (2002). Linking access and vulnerability: Perceptions of irrigation and flood management in Pakistan. The Professional Geographer, 54(1), 94-105.
47.Peacock, W. G., Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. (2005). Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(2), 120-135.
48.Poussin, J. K., Botzen, W. W., & Aerts, J. C. (2014). Factors of influence on flood damage mitigation behaviour by households. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 69-77.
49.Raaijmakers, R., Krywkow, J., & Veen, A. v. d. (2008). Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards, 46, 307.
50.Rambonilaza, T., Joalland, O., & Brahic, E. (2016). Landowner’s perception of flood risk and preventive actions in estuarine environment: An empirical investigation. Journal of Environmental Management, 180, 272-279.
51.Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The journal of psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
52.Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(1), 1-10.
53.Schiermeier, Q. (2011). Climate and weather: Extreme measures. Nature, 477, 148-149.
54.Schneiderbauer, S., & Ehrlich, D. (2004). Risk, hazard and people’s vulnerability to natural hazards. A Review of Definitions, Concepts and Data. European Commission Joint Research Centre. Office for Official Publication of the European Communities.
55.Short, J. F. (1984). The Social Fabric at Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of Risk Analysis. American Sociological Review, 49(6), 711-725.
56.Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people's perceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26(4), 971-979.
57.Slovic, P., (1987). Perception of risk. Science of the Total Environment, 236, 280-285.
58.Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322.
59.Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 21(3), 14-39.
60.Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 1232-1238.
61.SY, L., DG, S., & MC., H. (2008). Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public? Natural Hazards, 44, 305–314.
62.Terpstra, T. (2011). Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Analysis, 31(10), 1658-1675.
63.Terpstra, T., & Gutteling, J. M. (2008). Households' perceived responsibilities in flood risk management in The Netherlands. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(4), 555-565.
64.Terpstra, T., Lindell, M. K., & Gutteling, J. M. (2009). Does communicating (flood) risk affect (flood) risk perceptions? Results of a Quasi-Experimental Study. Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1141-1155.
65.Tremblay, K. R., & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality: A replication and extension. Rural sociology, 43(3), 474.
66.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124.
67.UN. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Sendai, Japan.
68.Wester-Herber, M. (2004). Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts—the role of place-identity in risk perception. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(2), 109-116.
69.Wolsink, M. (2010). Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 302-311.
70.Zaalberg, R., Midden, C., Meijnders, A., & McCalley, T. (2009). Prevention, adaptation, and threat denial: Flooding experiences in the Netherlands. Risk Analysis, 29(12), 1759-1778.
71.Zhang, Y., Zhang, H. L., Zhang, J., & Cheng, S. (2014). Predicting residents' pro-environmental behaviors at tourist sites: The role of awareness of disaster's consequences, values, and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 131-146.

網路資料
1.汐止區公所(2018)，地理環境，「汐止區公所全球資訊網」。https://www.xizhi.ntpc.gov.tw/content/?parent_id=10027 ，(2018年3月29日)
2.烏來區公所(2018)，地理環境簡介，「烏來區公所全球資訊網」https://www.wulai.ntpc.gov.tw/content/?parent_id=10053，(2018年3月29日)
3.淡水區公所(2018)，認識淡水，「淡水區公所全球資訊網 https://www.tamsui.ntpc.gov.tw/content/?parent_id=10034，(2018年3月29日)
4.經濟部水利署(2016)，「經濟部水利署全球資訊網」。 http://www.wra.gov.tw/ ，(2011年6月29日)