土地使用風險管理是一個強調能夠建立有效考量潛在自然災害損失與土地開發利益之間替換效果的決策機制，藉以決定出可因應災害風險的積極性土地使用策略。本研究以地震可能引發災害為例，透過實證地區之土壤液化災害為個案研究，建構一個綜合考量災害風險評估、土地使用以及反映民眾風險認知等資訊的多準則決策方法，目的即在於提出具有相對風險效益優勢的土地使用組合方案。整個研究主要分為三大部分，第一，採用土壤液化潛勢指數簡易評估模式來估計實證地區災害發生機率之分佈，並結合暴露於此災害機率下的社經傷害程度分析結果，以相對比較的方法得到地理空間之相對風險程度分佈。第二，進行公眾風險認知調查分析，結果顯示地區居民認為地震風險是一個具有高度風險的災害，風險減緩措施的採用也具有高度的重要性；同時，透過所建立解釋願付價格（Willingness to Pay, WTP）的最佳迴歸模型，估計居民為獲得地震保險與強化建築結構設計二項風險減緩措施所願意支付的最大成本。最後，整合災害風險評估與公眾風險認知結果於土地使用管理決策，以所界定的都市地區三種主要土地使用型態（包括商業、工業與住宅）組成各種可能的土地使用方案，在最大化土地使用利益與最小化地震風險的目標下，決定具有相對較佳風險效益的土地使用方案，然後比較納入地震保險與強化建築結構設計等風險減緩措施後對此風險效益的影響。研究成果可協助決策者在未來土地使用的決策上，能夠同時考量風險評估結果與公眾認知態度，做成符合較風險效益且具可行性的土地使用決定。

　　Risk management for land use is a decision making mechanism which can efficiently evaluate the trade-offs between the losses due to potential natural hazards and the benefits of land development. With this mechanism, the aggressive strategies on land use can be drawn up to respond to natural hazard risks.
　　This study focuses on the earthquake hazard and conducts a case study by analyzing the hazard of soil liquefaction happening in the study area. In this case study, a multi-criteria decision making method considers: risk assessment, land use and public risk perception. It is constructed to propose a set of land use programs that have relatively advantaged benefit over risk.
　　The study consists of three sections. First, the geographic distribution of comparative risk degrees is determined. Also, the hazard happening probability is estimated with a simplified evaluation model of soil liquefaction potentiality index. And the degree of socio-economic losses while exposing to each hazard probability are collectively compared.
　　Second, the public risk perception survey is conducted. The results indicated that the residents in the surveyed area perceived the earthquake hazard as a high risk. Also, adopting the risk mitigation measures is viewed as highly important. This study constructs the optimal regression model, using the Willingness to Pay (WTP), to estimate the maximum cost for the residents to buy earthquake insurance and strengthen the building construction.
　　Third, the hazard risk assessment and the public risk perception are integrated into a land use decision making process. All possible land use programs are formed with three main land use types in the urban area: commercial, industrial, and residential. The land use programs, relatively more beneficial for reducing risk, are decided under the goals of maximizing the benefits of land use and minimizing the earthquake risks. Afterward, the effects of inducing the two mitigation measures, purchasing earthquake insurance, and strengthening the building construction are analyzed. The study results can help to make the land use decisions with maximum risk-benefit by considering both the outcomes of risk assessment and the attitudes of public perception.

V
第一章緒論--------------------------------------------------------------------1
第一節研究緣起與目的----------------------------------------------------2
第二節研究內容-------------------------------------------------------------5
第三節研究流程-------------------------------------------------------------6
第二章相關理論與文獻回顧-----------------------------------------------8
第一節風險認知-------------------------------------------------------------8
第二節地震風險與減緩---------------------------------------------------12
第三節多準則決策方法論------------------------------------------------25
第三章研究設計-------------------------------------------------------------32
第一節研究架構------------------------------------------------------------32
第二節風險效益評估方法------------------------------------------------39
第三節風險管理評估體系------------------------------------------------47
第四章地震災害風險分析-------------------------------------------------56
第一節風險評估指標建構------------------------------------------------56
第二節災害程度評估------------------------------------------------------61
第三節暴露與傷害性評估------------------------------------------------67
第五章地震風險認知分析-------------------------------------------------75
第一節風險認知態度-----------------------------------------------------75
第二節災害減緩措施-----------------------------------------------------79
第三節災害減緩願付價格-----------------------------------------------85
第六章地震風險管理機制-------------------------------------------------98
第一節土地使用管理措施------------------------------------------------98
第二節風險減緩措施影響分析-----------------------------------------111
第七章結論與建議--------------------------------------------------------114
第一節結論-----------------------------------------------------------------114
第二節建議-----------------------------------------------------------------118
參考文獻----------------------------------------------------------------------121
附錄一土地使用之風險效益評估電腦程式-------------------------132
附錄二願付價格與災害事件機率關係之推導----------------------148
附錄三地震災害風險認知與減緩措施願付價格問卷-------------150

中文部分
1.丁育群，「山坡地災害防救基金與保險制度之研究（一）」，內政部建築研究所（1999）。
2.中林一樹，「以防災對策為前提之地區危險度與災害損失推估」，日本（1998）。
3.江渾欽、洪鴻智，「Haz-Taiwan 地震災害損失成本及其比率推估－以建築結構物破壞引起之直接間接損失為探討對象」，內政部營建署專題研究計畫成果報告（2000）。
4.李咸亨，「適用於國內之液化潛能評估方法之研究」，集集地震土壤液化總評估研究九十學年度其中研究成果研討會論文集(2002)。
5.李錫堤、謝昭輝、鄧屬予，「臺灣西部活斷層之綜合研究」，國科會防災科技研究報告(1993)。
6.李錫堤、康耿豪、鄭錦桐、廖啟雯，「921集集大地震之地表破裂及地盤變形現象」，地工技術，第81期(2000)。
7.呂義豐，「山坡地開發計劃風險評估」，國立臺灣工業技術學院工程技術研究所營建工程組碩論（1991）。
8.周士雄、施鴻志，「都市災害風險控制之探討」，1999中華民國都市計劃學會年會及學術研討會（1999）。
9.周士雄、施鴻志，「民眾對地震災害風險與紓緩措施之認知」，第一屆全國災害危機處理學術研討會論文集，長榮管理學院國際會議廳（2000）。
10.周士雄、施鴻志，「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，第二十七卷第三期（2000）。
11.周士雄，「都市災害風險空間分析：以嘉義市湖子內地區土壤液化災害為例」，2003全國土地管理與開發學術研討會論文集（2003）。
12.林昭宏，「嘉義地質分區與土壤液化潛勢評估之研究」，國立成功大學土木研究所碩士論文(1997)。
13.林遠航，「多目標決策理論在土地利用規劃應用中之研究：以桃園縣發展成為亞太空運中心為目標之個案研究」，中國文化大學地學研究所博士論文（2002）。
14.洪李陵，「地震危害度新模式之研究」，行政院國家科學委員會防災科技研究報告（1991）。
15.洪李陵，吳顯明，「非靜態卜桑過程應用於台灣西南部地震危害度之研究」，行政院國家科學委員會防災科技研究報告81-06號（1992）。
16.洪鴻智，「可能性理論與模糊數學在環境風險—效益分析之應用」，台大城鄉研究所博士論文（1997）。
17.施鴻志，「都市防災與土地使用規劃」，國科會專題研究報告（1988）。
18.施鴻志、林進基，「都市防災與土地使用績效管制標準之建立」，國科會專題研究報告78-14號（1989）。
19.陳怡睿、上官百龍、紀雲曜，「土壤液化潛勢見評估模式—最佳數值搜尋法之應用」，中華民國第九屆大地工程學術研討會論文集(2001)。
20.陳怡睿、楊登成、李東屏、邱彥智、紀雲曜，「邏輯迴歸模式評估土壤液化潛勢之研究」，2002年液化潛能評估方法及潛能圖之製作研討會論文集（2002）。
21.陳亮全，「都市地震災害危險度簡易評估之研擬」，內政部建築研究所籌備小組研究計畫成果報告(1989)。
22.陳亮全，洪鴻智等，「地震災害風險—效益分析於土地使用規劃之應用：應用HAZ-Taiwan系統」，都市與計劃，第32卷第4期（2003）。
23.黃崑鏜，「火災特性與土地使用、空間結構之關連性探討」，國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩論（1993）。
24.黃臺豐，李錫堤，「瑞里地震誘發之山崩及其山崩潛感分析」，中國地質年會研討會論文集(1999)。
25.黃臺豐，「瑞里地震誘發之山崩」，國立中央大學應用地質研究所碩士論文(1999)。
26.莊長賢，「或然率法評估液化潛能之評價」，地工技術，第82期(1998)。
27.葉永田，「地震災害潛勢分析與評估方法研究─子計畫四：嘉南地區地震危害度模式研究—以GIS為工具」，防災國家型科技計畫，國科會永續發展委員會(1999)。
28.葉錦勳，「地震災害損失評估與境況模擬方法之研究」，科學發展月刊，第27卷第3期(1999)。
29.葉錦勳、羅俊雄，「HAZ-Taiwan的建築物損失評估方法」，土木技術，第3：7卷第29期（2000）。
30.黃富國、陳正興，「土壤液化之機率分析法」，地工技術，第82期（1998）。
31.張嘉祥、陳嘉基、葉旭原，「建築物震後危險度及災害度評估建築物震後危險度及災害度評估」，建築技術，第12期（1997）。
32.張徽正、林啟文、陳勉銘、盧詩丁，「臺灣活動斷層概論－五十萬分之一臺灣活動斷層分佈圖說明書」，經濟部中央地質調查所(1998)。
33.賴聖耀，「以921地震液化案例之SPT-N值建立土壤液化潛能判別模式」，2002年液化潛能評估方法及潛能圖之製作研討會論文集（2002）。
34.蔡克銓，「921集集大地震建築物損壞調查結果初步報告」，土木水利，第26卷，第3期（1999）。
35.謝明修、徐德修，「都會區地震災害之GIS評估系統雛型」，中國土木水利工程學刊，第12卷第2期（2000）。
36.謝國正，「居住環境火災風險度評估架構之研究」，國立成功大學建築研究所碩論（1988）。
37.羅俊雄、葉錦勳，「地震災害潛勢分析與評估方法研究」，88年度防災專案計畫成果研討會論文集（2000）。
38.羅俊雄、葉錦勳，「地震災害潛勢分析與評估方法研究─總計畫」，防災國家型科技計畫，國科會永續發展委員會(1999)。
39.羅俊雄、葉錦勳等，「HAZ-Taiwan地震災害損失評估系統」，國立臺灣大學台大工程學刊，第85期（2002）。

英文部分
1.ATC-13, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Applied Technology Council, Chapter 8 and 9, pp.223-306, 1985.
2.Albala-Bertrand, J.M., The Political Economy of Large Natural Disasters with Special Reference to Developing Countries, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
3.Anderson, J. R., Dillon , J. L., and Hardaker , B., Agricultural Decision Analysis,. Ames, LA: Iowa State Press, 1980.
4.Arrow, K. J., The Theory of Risk-bearing: Small and Great Risks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainly, No.12(2/3), pp.103-111, 1996.
5.Bier V. M., Haimes Y. Y., Lambert J. H., Matalas N.C. & Zimmerman R., A Survey of Approaches for Assessing and Managing the Risks of Extremes, Risk Analysis, Vol.19, No.4, p.p.83-94, 1999.
6.Blaikie, P., Terry C., Ian, D. and Wisner,B., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, London: Routledge, 1994.
7.Borcherding, K., Eppel, T. and Von Winterfeldt, D., Comparison of Weighting Judgements in Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Management Science, Vol.37, pp.1603-1619, 1991.
8.Boschi, G. E., Recent Trends in Regional and Global Seismic Hazard Assessment, In: Earthquake Hazard and Risk, edited by Schenk, V., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp.153-168, 1996.
9.Boulding, W., and Purohit, D., The Price of Safety, Journal of Consumer Research, No. 23, pp.12-25, 1996.
10.Bouyssou, D., Building criteria: a prerequisite for MCDA, In Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, edited by Bana e Costa, Springer-Verlay, Berlin, 1990.
11.Brookshire, D. S., Thayer, M. A., Tschirhart, J., and Schulze, W. D., A Test of the Expected Utility Model: Evidence from Earthquake Risks, Journal of Political Economy, No.93(2), pp.369-389, 1985.
12.Browitt C. W. A., Earthquake Impact Reduction, Natural Risk and Civil Protection, p.p.73-81, Edmundsbury Press, G.B., 1995.
13.Burby, R. J., French, S. P., & Nelson, A. C., Plans, Code Enforcement, and Damage Reduction: Evidence from the Northbridge Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.14, No.1, pp.59-74, 1998.
14.Burton, I., Robin, W.K., and White, G.F., The Environment as Hazard, 2nd ed. Revised, New York: Guilford, 1993.
15.Camerer, C. F., and Kunreuther, H., Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy Implication, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, No.8(4), pp.565-592, 1989.
16.Camilleri, D. H., Malta’s Risk Minimization to Earthquake, Volcanic and Tsunami Damage, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol.12, No.1, pp.37-47, 2003.
17.Carver, S. J., Integrating Multi-criteria Evaluation with Geographical Information Systems, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol.5, pp.321-339, 1991.
18.Chandler, A.M., Jones, E.J.W., and Patel, M.H., Property Loss Estimation for Wind and Earthquake Perils, Risk Analysis, Vol.21, No.2, pp.235-250, 2001.
19.Chang, S.E., Svekla, W.D. and Shinozuka, M., Linking Infrastructure and Urban Economy: Simulation of Water-disruption Impacts in Earthquakes, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol.29, pp.281-301, 2002.
20.Chen, R. and Jacobson, C., Towards an Integrated Approach to Natural Hazards Risk Assessment Using GIS: With Reference to Bushfires, Environmental Management, Vol.31, No.4, pp.546-560, 2003.
21.Chou, S. H., and Shih, H. C., Impact Assessment of Flood Risk on Residential Property Market in Taipei Metropolis, in Proceedings of the Eighth European Real Estate Society Conference, Alicante, Spain, 2001.
22.Christou, M.D., Land Use Planning in the Context of Major Accident Hazards, in Risk Assessment and Management in the Context of Seveso II Directive, Industrial Safety Series, No.6, pp.455-464, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1998.
23.Coburn, A. and Spence R., Earthquake Protection, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: England, 2002.
24.Coburn, A., Spence, R., and Pomonis, A., Factors Determining Human Casualty Levels in Earthquakes: Mortality Prediction in Building Collapse, in Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, 1992.
25.Cochrane, J. L. and Zeleny, M., Multiple Criteria Decision-making, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1973.
26.Cochrane, H.C., Is Northridge a Model for Future Events? What are the Economic Consequences With and Without Insurance and Federal Assistance? In: Proceedings of a conference in Pasadena, California, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1996.
27.Cornell, C.A., Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58, No.5, pp.1583-1606, 1968.
28.Cothern, C. R. An Overview of Environmental Risk Decision Making: Values, Perceptions, and Ethics, In: Handbook for Environmental Risk Decision Making, edited by C. R. Cothern, pp.39-67, Florida: CRC Press, 1996.
29.Cret, L., and Katayama, T., On-line Damage Estimation for Lifeline System During Earthquakes, in Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Madrid, Spain, 1992, Rotterdam, Netherlands: Balkema, 1992.
30.Davidson , R. A., Earthquake Disaster Risk Index, Ph.D. Dissertation , Stamford University, 1997.
31.Davies, J. C. Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities, Washington D.C.: Resources for Future, 1996.
32.Deyle, R. E., Steven P. French, Robert B. Olshansky, and Robert G. Paterson Hazard Assessment: The Factual Basis for Planning and Mitigation, In: Cooperating with Nature, edited by R. J. Burby, pp.119-166, Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 1998.
33.Dixit, A. K., Optimization in Economic Theory. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
34.Donaldson, C., Thomas, R., and Togerson, D., Validity of Open-ended and Payment Scale Approaches to Eliciting Willingness to Pay, Applied Economics, No.29, pp.79-84, 1997.
35.Dong, W., Shah, H. C., and Wong, F., A Rational Approach to Pricing of Catastrophe Insurance, Journal Risk and Uncertainly, No.12(2/3), pp.201-219, 1996.
36.Duckstein, L., and Opricovic, S., Multi-objective Optimization in River Basin Development, Water Resources Research, Vol.16, pp.14-20, 1980.
37.Ehrlich, I., and Becker, G. S., Market Insurance, Self-Insurance and Self-Protection, Journal of Political Economy, No.80, pp.623-648, 1972.
38.Fischer, G. W., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Nair I., and Lave, L. B., What Risks are People Concerned About ?, Risk Analysis, No.11(2), pp.303-314, 1991.
39.Fischoff, B., Hohenemeser, C., Kasperson, R., & Kates, R., Handling Hazards, Environment, Vol.20, No.7, pp.161-179, 1978.
40.Flynn, J., Paul Slovic, C. K. Mertz, and Carlisle, C., Public Support for Earthquake Risk Mitigation in Portland, Oregon, Risk Analysis, 19(2): 205-216, 1999.
41.French, S. P. and Keown, S. L., Spreadsheet Model for Urban and Regional Analysis, Rutgers University, New Jersey, 1993.
42.French, S. P., Nelson, A. C., Muthukumar, S., & Holland M. M., The Northbridge Earthquake: Land Use Planning for Hazard Reduction, Georgia Institute of Technology, City Planning Program, 1996.
43.Gould, J. P., The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Selection of Optimal Deductibles for a Given Insurance Policy. Journal of Business, No.42, pp.143-151, 1969.
44.Hewitt, K. ed., Interpretations of Calamity from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology, Winchester, Massachusetts: Allen & Unwin, 1983.
45.Hill, M. K., Evaluating Environmental Risk, Understanding Environmental Pollution, pp.55-79, Cambridge University Press, U.S.A, 1997.
46.Hwang, C. L., and Yoon, K., Multiiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State of the Art Survey, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1981.
47.Iwasaki, T., Arakawa, T. & Tokida, K., Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Proc. of the Conf. On Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Southampton, pp.925-939, 1982.
48.Jaffe, M., and Thurow, C., Reducing Earthquake Risks: A Planners Guide, American Planning Association, 1981.
49.Jankowski, P., Mixed Data Multicriteria Evaluation for Regional Planning: A Systematic Approach to the Decisionmaking Process, Environment and Planning A, Vol.21, pp.349-362, 1989.
50.Jankowski, P., Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision making methods, International Journal of Geography Information Systems, Vol.9, No.3, pp.251-273, 1995.
51.Jankowski, P., Lotov, A., and Gusev, D., Application of Multicriteria Trade-off Approach to Spatial Decision Making. In GIS and Multiple Criteria Decision Making: A Geographic Information Science Perspective, Edited by J.C. Thill, London: Ashgate, 1999.
52.Janssen, R., and Rietveld, P., Multicriteria Analysis and GIS: An Application to Agricultural Landuse in The Netherlands. In: Geographical Information Systems for Urban and Regional Planning, edited by H. J. Scholten and J. C. H. Stillwell, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990.
53.Jones-Lee, M.W., Hammerton, M., and Philips, P. R., The Value of Safety: Results of a National Sample Survey, The Economic Journal, No.95, pp.49-72, 1985.
54.Jones-Lee, M. W., The Value of Life: An Economic Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
55.Kahneman, D., and Kentsch, Jack L., Valuing Public Goods: the Purchase of Moral Satisfaction. Journal if Environmental economics and Management 22:57-70, 1992.
56.Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., Prospect theory, Econometrica, No.47, pp.263-292, 1979.
57.Kasper, P. G., Perceptions of Risk and Their Effects on Decision Making. In Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, edited by Richard C. Schwing and Walter Albers. New York: Jr. Plenum Press, 1980.
58.Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Criteria: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York: John Wiley, 1976.
59.King, S.A., and Anne, S.K., Regional Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis Through Geographic Information System, Earthquake Engineering Center, Report No.111, California: Blume Center, 1994.
60.Kleindorfer P. R. & Kunreuther H., The Complementary Roles of Mitigation and Insurance in Managing Catastrophic Risks, Risk Analysis, Vol.19, No.4, p.p.727-738, 1999.
61.Kreimer, A., and Munasinghe, M., Environmental Management and Urban Vulnerability, World Bank Discussion Papers, No.168, Washington D.C.: World Bank, 1992.
62.Kunreuther, H., Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. New York: John Wiley, 1978.
63.Kunreuther, H., Limited Knowledge and Insurance Protection, Public Policy, No.29(2), pp. 227-261, 1976.
64.Kunreuther, H., Mitigating Disaster Losses Through Insurance, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, No.12(2/3), pp.171-187, 1996.
65.Liao,S. S. C., Veneziano, D. and Whitman, R.V., Regression Model for Evaluating Liquefaction Probability, The Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 389-411, 1988.
66.Liu Shiping, Huang Ju-Chin & Brown G. L., Information and Risk Perception: A Dynamic Adjustment Process, Risk Analysis, Vol.18, No.6, p.p.689-699, 1998.
67.Machina, M. J., Expected Utility Analysis Without the Independence Axiom, Econometrica, No.50, pp.277-323, 1982.
68.Macropoulos K. C., Seismic Hazard Methodologies in Greece- Case Study, Natural Risk and Civil Protection, p.p.43-57, Edmundsbury Press, G.B, 1995.
69.Mandl, C., and Lathrop, J.W., Assessment and Comparison of Liquefied Energy Gas Terminal Risk, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 1982.
70.Mansfield, C., A Consistent Method for Calibrating Contingent Value Survey Data, Southern Economic Journal, No.64(3), pp.665-681, 1998.
71.McClelland, G. H., Schulze, W. D., and Coursey, D. L., Insurance for Low-probability Hazards: A Bimodal Response to Unlikely Events, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, No.7, pp.95-116, 1993.
72.McClelland, G. H., Schulze, W. D., and Hurd. B., The Effect of Risk Beliefs on Property Values: A Case Study of a Hazardous Waste Site, Risk Analysis, No.10(4), pp.485-497, 1990.
73.McDaniels, T. L., Kamlet, M. S., and Fischer, G. W., Risk Perception and the Value of Safety, Risk Analysis, No.12(4), pp.495-503, 1992.
74.Menoni, S. and Pergalani, F., An Attempt to Link Risk Assessment with Land Use Planning: A Recent Experience in Italy, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol.5, No.1, pp.6-21, 1996.
75.Minch, R.P., and Sanders, G. L., Computerized information systems supporting multicriteria decision making, Decision Science, Vol.17, No.3, pp.395-413, 1986.
76.Nateghi-A, F. Earthquake Scenario for the Mega-city of Tehran, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol.10, No.2, pp.95-100, 2001.
77.Nijkamp, P., Environmental Policy Analysis: Operational Methods and Models, New York: Wiley, 1980.
78.Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, T., and Voogd, H., Multi-criteria Evaluation in Physical Planning, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1990.
79.Nijkamp, P. and Van Delft, A., Multi-criteria Analysis and Regional Decision Making, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.
80.Oliviera C. S., Technical Approaches for Earthquake Emergency Planning: Recent Applications to the City of Lisbon, Natural Risk and Civil Protection, p.p.58-72, Edmundsbury Press, G.B, 1995.
81.Olshansky, R.B., Land Use Planning for Seismic Safety: The Los Angeles County Experience, 1971-1994, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol.67, No.2, pp.173-185, 2001.
82.Olshansky, R.B. and Wu, Y., Earthquake Risk Analysis for Los Angeles County under Present and Planned Land Uses, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol.28, pp.419-432, 2001.
83.Palm R., Public Response to Earthquake Hazard Information, Environmental Risks and Hazards, p.p.195-207, Prentice-Hall Inc., U.S.A., 1994.
84.Papazoglou, I.A., and Christou, M., Determination of the Efficient Frontier in Discritized Decision Spaces of High Dimensionality, Multi- Criteria Decision Analysis, 1999.
85.Paterson, C. J. & Richard N.L. A., Values and Comparative Risk Assessment, In: Handbook for Environmental Risk Decision Making, edited by C. R. Cothern, pp.213-226, Florida: CRC Press, 1996.
86.Petak, W., and Atkisson, A., Natural Hazard Risk Assessment and Public Policy. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.
87.Pricovic, S., Multi-criteria Model for Post-earthquake Land-use Planning, Management of Environmental Quality, Vol.13, No.1, pp.9-20, 2002.
88.Rashed, T. and Weeks, J., Assessing Vulnerability to Earthquake Hazards Through Spatial Multicriteria Analysis of Urban Areas, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, pp.1-30, 2003.
89.Robertson, L., Insurance Incentives and Seat Belt Use, American Journal of Public Health, No.74, pp.115-158, 1984.
90.Saaty, T. L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
91.Scawthorn, C., Fire Losses from Earthquake: Los Angeles Region. In Future Earthquake Losses in the Los Angeles, California Region: A One-day Seminar, in Santa Monica, California, 1986, California: EERI, 1986.
92.Schoemaker, Paul J. H. The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations, Journal of Economic Literature, No.20, pp.529-563, 1982.
93.Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M., Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, USA., 1982.
94.Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F. and Chung, R. M., Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluation, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol.111. No.12, pp. 1425-1445, 1985.
95.Shah, H., Boyle, R. and Dong, W., Geographic Information System and Artificial Intelligence: An Application for Seismic Zonation. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, California: EERI, 1991.
96.Shogren, J. F., Comparative Statics for Endogenous Risk, In: Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty, edited by J. Geweke, pp.37-42, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.
97.Simonovic, S. P., Application of Water Resources Systems Concept to the Formulation of a Water Master Plan, Water International, Vol.14, pp.37-50, 1989.
98.Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?, edited by Richard C. Schwing and Walter Albers, Jr. New York: Plenum Press, 1980.
99.Slovic, P., Informing and educating the public about risk, Risk analysis, 6, pp. 280-285, 1986.
100.Slovic, P., Perception of Risk, Science, 236: 280-285, 1987.
101.Slovic, P., Karus, N., and Covello, V. t., What Should We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?, Risk Analysis, No.10(3), pp.389-392, 1990.
102.Smith, K., Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, Routledge, London, 1996.
103.Smith, V. K., Benefit Analysis for Natural Hazards, Risk Analysis, No.6, pp.325-334, 1986.
104.Tobin, G. and Newton, T., A Theoretical Framework of Flood Induced Changes in Urban Land Values. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol.22, pp.67-71, 1986.
105.Tokimatsu, K. and Uchida, A., Correlation between Liquefaction Resistance and Share Wave Velocity, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.30, No.2, pp.33-42, 1990.
106.Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT N-value and Fines Content, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.23, No.4, pp.56-74, 1983.
107.Tversky, A., Sattath, S., and Slovic, P., Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice, Psychological Review, No.95, pp.371-384, 1988.
108.Varian, H. R., Microeconomic Analysis. 2d ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1984.
109.Varley, A., ed., Disasters, Development and Environment, London: Wiley, 1994.
110.Vincke, P., Analysis of Multicriteria Decision Aid in Europe, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol.25, pp.160-168, 1986.
111.Viscusi, W. K., and Evans, W. N., Utility Functions that Depend on Health Status: Estimates and Economic Implications, American Economic Review, No.80(3), pp.353-374, 1990.
112.Voogd, H., Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning, London: Pion, 1983.
113.Weinstein, M. C., Shephard, D. S., and Pliskin, J. S., The Economic value of changing mortality probabilities: a decision theoretic approach, Quarterly Journal of Economics, No.94, pp.373-396, 1980.
114.Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M., Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Proceedings of the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1997.
115.Zeleny, M. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982.
116.Zhang L., Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Using Optimum Seeking Method, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.124, No.8, pp.739-748, 1998.