學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 以結構方程模式探討台灣地區堰塞湖災害預警與居民認知影響避難決策之研究
A structural equation modeling study of the influence of dam lake disaster warning and residents perception on the evacuation decision in Taiwan作者 林宏立
Lin, Hung Li貢獻者 白仁德
Pai, Jen Te
林宏立
Lin, Hung Li關鍵詞 堰塞湖
災害預警
風險溝通
決策行為
結構方程模式
Landslide Dam
warning mechanism
risk communication
decision making
Structural Equation Modeling(SEM)日期 2010 上傳時間 3-九月-2013 14:51:56 (UTC+8) 摘要 為有效減少因不可預期的極端氣候災害所產生的傷亡，可透過提升災害預警機制與災害認知使民眾具備更佳的災害應變決策能力。本研究選擇以台灣地區仍不常見的堰塞湖災害為研究對象以呼應極端氣候不可預期的特性，首先整理出居民在進行災害應變決策時的思考模式與程序，並釐清影響最後決策的各項因素，作為本研究主要研究架構的初擬參考；在分析工具方面則選用結構方程模式(Structural Equation Modeling, SEM)，以同時解決將心理層面認知量化與各變項間直線迴歸關係的問題。為將以上構想付諸實行，本研究先經由文獻回顧提出居民的災害應變決策概念架構，以此概念架構為基礎進行問卷設計，並在台東縣嘉蘭村與高雄市瑪雅里進行問卷調查作業，取得資料後再透過結構方程模式建立適合台灣地區民眾的堰塞湖災害決策模型；最後則針對本研究所建立的模型與分析，對現況風險溝通與預警機制提出相關政策建議。在試圖達成前述目的的研究過程中，本研究發現台灣民眾在面對不熟悉的堰塞湖災害時，外在的預警訊息、過去的受災經驗，以及家戶狀況等三項因素對決策影響最大；另外雖然本研究所提出的決策架構在台東與高雄兩處受測範圍內均可適用，但仍會因聚落的受災經驗、居民屬性，以及交通區位等特性上的不同而在變項重要性上有所差異。最後，本研究提出相關風險溝通的策略建議，作為未來在面臨堰塞湖災害或其他極端氣候時的政策參考。
In order to reduce the unpredictable and extreme weather disasters’ casualties effectively, we can improve disaster warning mechanisms and disaster awareness so that people have decision-making capacity for better disaster response. This study selects the Landslide dam’s disaster, which is not common in Taiwan, as the research object. First sorted out the residents’ disaster response policy and procedures of thinking, and clarified the factors affect the final decision as the beginning research framework of this study. Analysis tools are used in structural equation model (SEM), to address both the psychological aspects of cognitive variables to quantify and the question of the relationship between the linear regressions.On the research process, first put forward the residents’ conceptual framework for disaster response decision-making through the literature review, and using this conceptual framework as the basis for questionnaire design. Taitung County and Kaohsiung City are the questionnaire surveys in this study. After the data obtained, we established a suitable decision model for Taiwan’s Landslide dam disaster through the SEM tool. Finally, we can make recommendations on risk communication policy and early warning mechanism through this model.In the research results, this study found that the external warning message, past disaster experience, and household conditions are three of the most important decision factors when Taiwan public is facing the Landslide dam disaster. In addition, although this framework can be applied in Taitung and Kaohsiung areas, but there will still be differences because of the differences in some characteristics such as the affected experience, residents’ properties, and location of traffic. Last, this study proposes some strategies of risk communication as the policy reference when facing the Landslide dam’s disaster or other extreme weather disasters in the future.參考文獻 參考文獻：一、中文部份內政部消防署，2009，莫拉克颱風災害應變處置報告。中央地質調查所網站，2004，http://www.moeacgs.gov.tw。水利署水利規劃實驗所，2007，堰塞湖引致災害防制對策之研究作業手冊。水利署，2010，堰塞湖標準作業程序。行政院農業委員會林務局，2009，堰塞湖最新情形。交通部中央氣象局，2008，地震百問。吳明隆，2003，SPSS統計應用學習實務─問卷分析與應用統計，知城數位，3.7-3.8。林舒予，天然災害的風險溝通，災害防救科技中心─災害防救電子報，災害防救科技與知識專欄。周桂田，2005，爭議性科技之風險溝通─以基因改造工程為思考點，教育部顧問室邱皓政，2003，結構方程模式─LISREL的理論、技術與應用，雙葉書廊，1.15-1.24; 3.3-3.9。洪維勵、李宛樺，2006，災難風險知覺與回應行為之研究-以谷關地區為例，環境與管理研究8(1)，16-42。翁興利、方志豪，2008，Katrina颶風對環境不確定性的啟示：論政府的危機管理陳樹群，1999，堰塞湖潰決機制與減災工法研究，中華水土保持學報(30)299-311。陳天健、王束銘、陳樹群、蘇群雅、林潤榮，2010，台灣地區堰塞湖特性初步研究，台灣公共工程學刊4(2)，1-8。黃榮村、陳寬政，1993，嘉南地區整合性預警系統之需求特徵、風險知覺與防災經驗調查(二)，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。童煜翔，2008，山崩引致之堰塞湖天然壩穩定性之量化分析，國立中央大學應用地質研究所碩士論文。廖志中等，2002，堰塞湖引致災害防治對策之研究，經濟部水利署水利規劃實驗所。蔡俊傑、張順發，2004，以結構方程模式探討教師工作生活品質、工作價值觀與組織承諾之關係，屏東試院學報第二十一期，69-109。二、外文部分B. E. Aguirre , 1991, Evacuation in Cancun during Hurricane Gilbert. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9, 31-45.William A. Anderson, 1969, Disaster warning and communication in two communities. Journal of Communication, 19, 92-104.Earl J. Baker, 1979, Predicting response to hurricane warnings. Mass Emergencies, 4, 9-24.P.M. Bentler & Douglas G. Bonett, 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.Jason Beringer, 2000, Community fire safety at the urban/rural interface: The bushfire risk. Fire Safety Journal, 35(1), 1-23.Brynam A. & Cramer D., 1997. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows. London: Routledge.Cudeck, Robert, 1989. Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Phychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.Deanne K. Bird, Gudrun Gisladottir, Dale Dominey-Howes, 2010, Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: Implications for hazard, risk and emergency response education and training, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 189 (2010) 33–48Thomas E. Drabek, 1969, Social processes in disaster. Social Problems, 16, 336-347.Thomas E. Drabek, 2000, Disaster evacuations: tourist-business managers rarely act as customers expect. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 48-57.Ali., Farazmand, 2007, Learning from the Katrina Crisis: A Global and International Perspective with Implications for Future Crisis Management. Public Administration Review, 67(supplement 1): 149-159.Simon Gerrard & Judith Petts, 1998, Isolation or Integration? The Relationship between Risk Assessment and Risk Management, in Hester & Harrison (ed.) Risk Assessment and Risk Management, The Royal Society of Chemistry Information Services, p. 1-20.C. E. Gregg, B. F. Houghton, D. M. Johnston, D. Paton & D. A. Swanson, 2004, The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa and Hualalai volcanoes, Hawaii. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 130(3), 179-196.G.Zhai & S.Ikeda, 2008, Empirical analysis of Japanese flood risk acceptability within multi-risk context Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 1049–1066.Katharine Haynes, Jenni Barclaya, Nick Pidgeon, 2008, Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (3–4), 259–272.Tzung-Cheng Huan, Jay Beaman and Lori Shelby, 2004, No-escape natural disaster-mitigating impacts on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 255-273.Li‐tze Hu & Peter M. Bentler, 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.R. H. Hoyle, 1995, Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: sageDwight Ink, 2006, “An Analysis of the House Select Committee and White House Report on Hurricane Katrina.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, NO. 6, pp.800-807.H. Joffe : Risk and “the other”, 1999, Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.David M. Johnston, Mark S. Bebbington Chin-Diew Lai, Bruce F. Houghton, Douglas Paton, 1999, Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shifts in knowledge and risk. Disaster Prevention and Management 8 (2), 118–126.D. Johnston, D. Paton, G. Crawford, K. Ronan, B. Houghton and P. Bürgelt, 2005, Measuring tsunami preparedness in coastal Washington, United States. Natural Hazards 35 (1), 173–184.K. G. Joreskog & D. Sorbom, 1996, LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago : Scientific Software International.Jeanne X. Kasperson, Roger E. Kasperson, Nick Pidgeon, Paul Slovic, 2003, The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–46.Keith Smith & David M. Petley, 1996, Environmental hazards-assessing risk and reducing disaster.R. B. Kline, 1996, Eight-month predictive validity and covariance structure of the Alcohol Expectance Questionnaire for Adolescents (AEQ-A) for junior high school students. Journal of studies on Alcohol, 57, 369-405.Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2004, Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities Mileti, D. S., 1975, Natural hazards warning systems in the United States. Boulder: University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science.Miller, David & Macintyre, Sally, 1999, The relationships between the media, public beliefs, and policy-making, in Bennet, P & Calman S. K. (ed.) Risk communication and public health, p. 229-240.Douglas Paton, 2006, Disaster resilience: building capacity to co-exist with natural hazards and their consequences. In: Paton, D., Johnston, D. (Eds.), Disaster Resilience An Integrated Approach. Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd, Illinois, pp. 3–10.Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith, Michele Daly, David Johnston, 2008, Risk perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: individual and social perspectives. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (3–4), 179–188.Ortwin Renn, William J. Burns, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic, 1992, The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137-160.R. W. Perry, M. K. Lindell, M. Greene, 1981, Evacuation planning in emergency management. Lexington, MA: Heath-Lexington.R. W. Perry, M. K. Lindell, 1997, Aged citizens in the warning phase of disasters. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 44, 257-267.Rajiv N. Rimal1, Kevin Real, 2003, Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370-399.Kevin R. Ronan, David M. Johnston, 2001, Correlates of hazard education programs for youth. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 1055-1063.Rowe, W.,1977, An anatomy of risk. New York: John Wiley.T. Rundmo, 2002, Associations between affect and risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 5(2), 119-135.P. Slovic, 2000, Perception of risk. In: Slovic, P. (Ed.), The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, pp. 220–231.Hari Srinivas & Yuko Nakagawa, 2008, Environmental implications for disaster preparedness: Lessons Learnt from the Indian Ocean Tsunami. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.054]. Journal of Environmental Management, 89(1), 4-13.Laura J. Steinberg, Victoria Basolo, Raymond Burby, Joyce N. Levine, Ana Maria Cruz, 2004, Joint seismic and technological disasters: Possible impacts and community preparedness in an urban setting. Natural Hazards Review, 5(4), 159–169.Takeda and Helms M. Marilyn., 2006, Bureaucracy, meet catastrophe-Analysis of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and their implications for emergency response governance” International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 397-411.UNISDR, 2009, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction: UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (2009): http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/terminology-2009-eng.html, accessed: 6 May 2009.J. Vermaak & D. V. Niekerk, 2004, Development debate and practice-Disaster risk reduction initiatives in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 21(3), 555-574.Jim Willis, 1997, Reporting on Risks –The practice and ethics of health and safety communication, London: Praeger.Charles R. Wise, 2006, Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is Adaptive Management What’s Missing?” Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 302-318.WorldBank, 2005, “Natural Disaster Hotspots - A Global Risk Analysis”, Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis. Volume two, Natural Disaster Hotspots Case Studies.J. D., Wright, & P. H. Rossi, (Eds.)., 1981, Social science and natural hazards. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
地政研究所
98257008
99資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098257008 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 白仁德 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Pai, Jen Te en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 林宏立 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Lin, Hung Li en_US dc.creator (作者) 林宏立 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Hung Li en_US dc.date (日期) 2010 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-九月-2013 14:51:56 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-九月-2013 14:51:56 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-九月-2013 14:51:56 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0098257008 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/59820 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 地政研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98257008 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 99 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 為有效減少因不可預期的極端氣候災害所產生的傷亡，可透過提升災害預警機制與災害認知使民眾具備更佳的災害應變決策能力。本研究選擇以台灣地區仍不常見的堰塞湖災害為研究對象以呼應極端氣候不可預期的特性，首先整理出居民在進行災害應變決策時的思考模式與程序，並釐清影響最後決策的各項因素，作為本研究主要研究架構的初擬參考；在分析工具方面則選用結構方程模式(Structural Equation Modeling, SEM)，以同時解決將心理層面認知量化與各變項間直線迴歸關係的問題。為將以上構想付諸實行，本研究先經由文獻回顧提出居民的災害應變決策概念架構，以此概念架構為基礎進行問卷設計，並在台東縣嘉蘭村與高雄市瑪雅里進行問卷調查作業，取得資料後再透過結構方程模式建立適合台灣地區民眾的堰塞湖災害決策模型；最後則針對本研究所建立的模型與分析，對現況風險溝通與預警機制提出相關政策建議。在試圖達成前述目的的研究過程中，本研究發現台灣民眾在面對不熟悉的堰塞湖災害時，外在的預警訊息、過去的受災經驗，以及家戶狀況等三項因素對決策影響最大；另外雖然本研究所提出的決策架構在台東與高雄兩處受測範圍內均可適用，但仍會因聚落的受災經驗、居民屬性，以及交通區位等特性上的不同而在變項重要性上有所差異。最後，本研究提出相關風險溝通的策略建議，作為未來在面臨堰塞湖災害或其他極端氣候時的政策參考。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In order to reduce the unpredictable and extreme weather disasters’ casualties effectively, we can improve disaster warning mechanisms and disaster awareness so that people have decision-making capacity for better disaster response. This study selects the Landslide dam’s disaster, which is not common in Taiwan, as the research object. First sorted out the residents’ disaster response policy and procedures of thinking, and clarified the factors affect the final decision as the beginning research framework of this study. Analysis tools are used in structural equation model (SEM), to address both the psychological aspects of cognitive variables to quantify and the question of the relationship between the linear regressions.On the research process, first put forward the residents’ conceptual framework for disaster response decision-making through the literature review, and using this conceptual framework as the basis for questionnaire design. Taitung County and Kaohsiung City are the questionnaire surveys in this study. After the data obtained, we established a suitable decision model for Taiwan’s Landslide dam disaster through the SEM tool. Finally, we can make recommendations on risk communication policy and early warning mechanism through this model.In the research results, this study found that the external warning message, past disaster experience, and household conditions are three of the most important decision factors when Taiwan public is facing the Landslide dam disaster. In addition, although this framework can be applied in Taitung and Kaohsiung areas, but there will still be differences because of the differences in some characteristics such as the affected experience, residents’ properties, and location of traffic. Last, this study proposes some strategies of risk communication as the policy reference when facing the Landslide dam’s disaster or other extreme weather disasters in the future. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 4第三節 研究內容與研究方法 4第四節 研究流程 7第二章 文獻回顧 9第一節 台灣地區堰塞湖相關研究與作業機制 9第二節 災害風險決策模型與預警機制之研究 14第三節 風險認知與風險溝通 24第四節 SEM之基本說明 28第三章 研究設計與問卷調查 35第一節 研究設計 35第二節 居民災害回應決策架構之建立 37第三節 問卷設計與調查 42第四節 問卷結果與統計分析 46第五節 小結 62第四章 堰塞湖災害預警與居民認知SEM模型分析 63第一節 SEM模型之建立程序 63第二節 SEM假設模型之試擬 66第三節 問卷資料之轉換與共變數矩陣之建立 72第四節 SEM模型之建立與檢定 76第五節 居民災害回應決策架構之整體模式分析 81第六節 台灣堰塞湖災害居民回應決策模式之特性與應用 85第五章 結論與建議 91參考文獻 93附錄 「堰塞湖災害使用者認知與預警機制之研究」 問卷調查表 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3628753 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098257008 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 堰塞湖 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 災害預警 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 風險溝通 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 決策行為 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 結構方程模式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Landslide Dam en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) warning mechanism en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) risk communication en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) decision making en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Structural Equation Modeling(SEM) en_US dc.title (題名) 以結構方程模式探討台灣地區堰塞湖災害預警與居民認知影響避難決策之研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A structural equation modeling study of the influence of dam lake disaster warning and residents perception on the evacuation decision in Taiwan en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 參考文獻：一、中文部份內政部消防署，2009，莫拉克颱風災害應變處置報告。中央地質調查所網站，2004，http://www.moeacgs.gov.tw。水利署水利規劃實驗所，2007，堰塞湖引致災害防制對策之研究作業手冊。水利署，2010，堰塞湖標準作業程序。行政院農業委員會林務局，2009，堰塞湖最新情形。交通部中央氣象局，2008，地震百問。吳明隆，2003，SPSS統計應用學習實務─問卷分析與應用統計，知城數位，3.7-3.8。林舒予，天然災害的風險溝通，災害防救科技中心─災害防救電子報，災害防救科技與知識專欄。周桂田，2005，爭議性科技之風險溝通─以基因改造工程為思考點，教育部顧問室邱皓政，2003，結構方程模式─LISREL的理論、技術與應用，雙葉書廊，1.15-1.24; 3.3-3.9。洪維勵、李宛樺，2006，災難風險知覺與回應行為之研究-以谷關地區為例，環境與管理研究8(1)，16-42。翁興利、方志豪，2008，Katrina颶風對環境不確定性的啟示：論政府的危機管理陳樹群，1999，堰塞湖潰決機制與減災工法研究，中華水土保持學報(30)299-311。陳天健、王束銘、陳樹群、蘇群雅、林潤榮，2010，台灣地區堰塞湖特性初步研究，台灣公共工程學刊4(2)，1-8。黃榮村、陳寬政，1993，嘉南地區整合性預警系統之需求特徵、風險知覺與防災經驗調查(二)，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。童煜翔，2008，山崩引致之堰塞湖天然壩穩定性之量化分析，國立中央大學應用地質研究所碩士論文。廖志中等，2002，堰塞湖引致災害防治對策之研究，經濟部水利署水利規劃實驗所。蔡俊傑、張順發，2004，以結構方程模式探討教師工作生活品質、工作價值觀與組織承諾之關係，屏東試院學報第二十一期，69-109。二、外文部分B. E. Aguirre , 1991, Evacuation in Cancun during Hurricane Gilbert. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9, 31-45.William A. Anderson, 1969, Disaster warning and communication in two communities. Journal of Communication, 19, 92-104.Earl J. Baker, 1979, Predicting response to hurricane warnings. Mass Emergencies, 4, 9-24.P.M. Bentler & Douglas G. Bonett, 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.Jason Beringer, 2000, Community fire safety at the urban/rural interface: The bushfire risk. Fire Safety Journal, 35(1), 1-23.Brynam A. & Cramer D., 1997. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows. London: Routledge.Cudeck, Robert, 1989. Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Phychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.Deanne K. Bird, Gudrun Gisladottir, Dale Dominey-Howes, 2010, Volcanic risk and tourism in southern Iceland: Implications for hazard, risk and emergency response education and training, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 189 (2010) 33–48Thomas E. Drabek, 1969, Social processes in disaster. Social Problems, 16, 336-347.Thomas E. Drabek, 2000, Disaster evacuations: tourist-business managers rarely act as customers expect. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(4), 48-57.Ali., Farazmand, 2007, Learning from the Katrina Crisis: A Global and International Perspective with Implications for Future Crisis Management. Public Administration Review, 67(supplement 1): 149-159.Simon Gerrard & Judith Petts, 1998, Isolation or Integration? The Relationship between Risk Assessment and Risk Management, in Hester & Harrison (ed.) Risk Assessment and Risk Management, The Royal Society of Chemistry Information Services, p. 1-20.C. E. Gregg, B. F. Houghton, D. M. Johnston, D. Paton & D. A. Swanson, 2004, The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa and Hualalai volcanoes, Hawaii. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 130(3), 179-196.G.Zhai & S.Ikeda, 2008, Empirical analysis of Japanese flood risk acceptability within multi-risk context Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 1049–1066.Katharine Haynes, Jenni Barclaya, Nick Pidgeon, 2008, Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (3–4), 259–272.Tzung-Cheng Huan, Jay Beaman and Lori Shelby, 2004, No-escape natural disaster-mitigating impacts on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 255-273.Li‐tze Hu & Peter M. Bentler, 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.R. H. Hoyle, 1995, Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: sageDwight Ink, 2006, “An Analysis of the House Select Committee and White House Report on Hurricane Katrina.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, NO. 6, pp.800-807.H. Joffe : Risk and “the other”, 1999, Cambrige: Cambrige University Press.David M. Johnston, Mark S. Bebbington Chin-Diew Lai, Bruce F. Houghton, Douglas Paton, 1999, Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shifts in knowledge and risk. Disaster Prevention and Management 8 (2), 118–126.D. Johnston, D. Paton, G. Crawford, K. Ronan, B. Houghton and P. Bürgelt, 2005, Measuring tsunami preparedness in coastal Washington, United States. Natural Hazards 35 (1), 173–184.K. G. Joreskog & D. Sorbom, 1996, LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago : Scientific Software International.Jeanne X. Kasperson, Roger E. Kasperson, Nick Pidgeon, Paul Slovic, 2003, The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–46.Keith Smith & David M. Petley, 1996, Environmental hazards-assessing risk and reducing disaster.R. B. Kline, 1996, Eight-month predictive validity and covariance structure of the Alcohol Expectance Questionnaire for Adolescents (AEQ-A) for junior high school students. Journal of studies on Alcohol, 57, 369-405.Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2004, Communicating Environmental Risk in Multiethnic Communities Mileti, D. S., 1975, Natural hazards warning systems in the United States. Boulder: University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science.Miller, David & Macintyre, Sally, 1999, The relationships between the media, public beliefs, and policy-making, in Bennet, P & Calman S. K. (ed.) Risk communication and public health, p. 229-240.Douglas Paton, 2006, Disaster resilience: building capacity to co-exist with natural hazards and their consequences. In: Paton, D., Johnston, D. (Eds.), Disaster Resilience An Integrated Approach. Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd, Illinois, pp. 3–10.Douglas Paton, Leigh Smith, Michele Daly, David Johnston, 2008, Risk perception and volcanic hazard mitigation: individual and social perspectives. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 172 (3–4), 179–188.Ortwin Renn, William J. Burns, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic, 1992, The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137-160.R. W. Perry, M. K. Lindell, M. Greene, 1981, Evacuation planning in emergency management. Lexington, MA: Heath-Lexington.R. W. Perry, M. K. Lindell, 1997, Aged citizens in the warning phase of disasters. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 44, 257-267.Rajiv N. Rimal1, Kevin Real, 2003, Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370-399.Kevin R. Ronan, David M. Johnston, 2001, Correlates of hazard education programs for youth. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 1055-1063.Rowe, W.,1977, An anatomy of risk. New York: John Wiley.T. Rundmo, 2002, Associations between affect and risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 5(2), 119-135.P. Slovic, 2000, Perception of risk. In: Slovic, P. (Ed.), The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, pp. 220–231.Hari Srinivas & Yuko Nakagawa, 2008, Environmental implications for disaster preparedness: Lessons Learnt from the Indian Ocean Tsunami. [doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.054]. Journal of Environmental Management, 89(1), 4-13.Laura J. Steinberg, Victoria Basolo, Raymond Burby, Joyce N. Levine, Ana Maria Cruz, 2004, Joint seismic and technological disasters: Possible impacts and community preparedness in an urban setting. Natural Hazards Review, 5(4), 159–169.Takeda and Helms M. Marilyn., 2006, Bureaucracy, meet catastrophe-Analysis of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and their implications for emergency response governance” International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 397-411.UNISDR, 2009, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction: UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (2009): http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/terminology-2009-eng.html, accessed: 6 May 2009.J. Vermaak & D. V. Niekerk, 2004, Development debate and practice-Disaster risk reduction initiatives in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 21(3), 555-574.Jim Willis, 1997, Reporting on Risks –The practice and ethics of health and safety communication, London: Praeger.Charles R. Wise, 2006, Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is Adaptive Management What’s Missing?” Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 302-318.WorldBank, 2005, “Natural Disaster Hotspots - A Global Risk Analysis”, Natural Disaster Hotspots: A Global Risk Analysis. Volume two, Natural Disaster Hotspots Case Studies.J. D., Wright, & P. H. Rossi, (Eds.)., 1981, Social science and natural hazards. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books. zh_TW
