科技風險知覺與風險消費態度的決定：灰色訊息關聯分析之應用

The Determination of Technological Risk Perception and Risk Consumption: Using Grey Information Relation Approach

洪鴻智(Hung-Chin Hung)

風險知覺 ； 心理決策 ； 灰色理論 ； 社會信任 ； 風險消費 ； 鄰避設施 ； Grey theory ； NIMBY facilities ； Psychological decision making ； Risk consumption ； Risk perception ； Social trust

都市與計劃

29卷4期（2002 / 12 / 01）

575 - 593

繁體中文

都市發展所引發的科技風險，不但帶來鄰避效應，深入生活，甚至成為都市主要的潛在災害源。民眾面對科技風險的知覺效應，早為心理學家所關心。然心理測定模式只討論影響個體風險知覺形成的心理因素，忽略資訊、社會信任、社會經濟因素等社會化之影響，甚至很少從決策角度，討論個體面對科技風險的風險降低投資消費態度。本文引用二階層風險認知心理決策模型及灰色訊息關聯分析法，檢驗民眾面對不同科技風險的感知特性、投資於風險降低的態度，及相關影響因素間的關聯度。實證分析成果發現，風險資訊的社會信任及對於防災工作需求意願，不但對風險知覺的形成具有重要意義，亦會決定是否投資於風險降低的消費意願，而可驗證風險認知心理決策模型所建立的理論假設關係。

Technological risks in urban development are not only evoking NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome, but also converting as a major potential hazard in our life. The psychologist concern the effects of public risk perception at technology are emphasis on the psychological characteristics. They ignore information, social trusts and socio-economic factors, which play importance roles on public facing technological risks process. Furthermore, it is rare for the authors in keeping attention on the decision making of mitigating risk, which is related to the risk consumption decision associated with technological risk. This paper incorporates a two-level risk psychological decision-making model using grey relation analysis as a method to examine the relationship among perceived risk, attitude for investing in risk mitigation and relevant socio-economic factors. In an empirical illustration results indicates that the social trust of risk information and the demand for risk regulation are significantly related to risk perceived as well as the willingness to invest on risk mitigating.

1. 洪鴻智 Hung, Hung-Chih(2000)。公共選擇與環境風險設施管制政策工具的選擇 Public Choice and Environmental Risk Facility Control Policy Instrument Choice。都市與計劃 City and Planning，27(1)
   連結：
2. Bastide, S., Moatti, J. P., Pages, J. P., Fagnani, F.(1989).Risk perception and social acceptability of technologies: The French case.Risk Analysis,9
3. Beach, L. R.(1997).The Psychology of Decision Making: People in Organization.London:Sage.
4. Beck, U.(1995).Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of the Risk Society.Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Humanities Press.
5. Cutter, S. L.(1993).Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards.London:Edward Arnold.
6. Deisler, P. F.(1997).A score comparison method as an aid to integrating separate comparative risk rankings into a single, comparative risk ranking.Risk Analysis,17
7. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., Shepherd, R.(1996).What determines trust about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs.Risk Analysis,16
8. Frey, B. S., Oberholzer-Gee, F.(1996).Fair siting procedures: An empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,15(3)
9. Groothuis, P. A., Miller, G.(1997).The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis: A study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,15(3)
10. Hallman, W. K., Wandersman, A.(1992).Attribution of responsibility and individual and collective coping with environmental threats.Journal of Social Issues,48(4)
11. Hatfield, T. H.(1989).A formal analysis of attitudes toward siting a hazardous waste incinerator.Journal of Environmental Management,29
12. Holtgrave, D. R., Weber, E. U.(1993).Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks.Risk Analysis,13(5)
13. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L.(1998).The role of risk perception and technical information in scientific debates over nuclear waste storage.Reliability Engineering and System Safety,59
14. Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., Tuler, S.(1992).Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks.Journal of Social Issues,48(4)
15. Keown, C. F.(1989).Risk perception of Hong Kongness vs. Americans.Risk Analysis,9
16. Kunreuther, H.(1996).Mitigating Disaster Losses through Insurance.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,12(2/ 3)
17. Kwak, S. J., Russell, C. S.(1994).Contingent valuation in Korean environmental planning: A pilot application to the protection of drinking water quality in Seoul.Environmental and Resource Economics,4(4)
18. Li, Chuan-Zhong, Mattsson, L.(1995).Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: An improved structural model for contingent valuation.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,28(2)
19. Myers, J. R., Henderson-King, D. H.(1997).Facing technological risks: The importance of individual differences.Journal of Research in Personality,31
20. Pidgeon, N.(1998).Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: Why we do need risk perception research.Reliability Engineering and System Safety,59
21. Popper, F.(1987).Resolving Locational Conflict.Center for urban policy, Rutgers University.
22. Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Slovic, P.(1992).The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications.Journal of Social Issues,48
23. Renn, O., Levine, D.(1991).Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives.Dordrecht, Holland:Kluwer.
24. Rogers, G. O.(1998).Siting potentially hazardous facilities: What factors impact perceived and acceptable risk?.Landscape and Urban Planning,39
25. Roth, E., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L., Bostrom, A.(1990).What do we know about making risk comparisons?.Risk Analysis,10
26. Sarin, R.(2000).Decision rules with bounded memory.Journal of Economic Theory,90(1)
27. Slovic, P.(1992).Social Theories of Risk.New York:Praeger.
28. Slovic, P.(2000).The Perception of Risk.London:Earthscan.
29. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S.(1980).Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough?.New York:Plenum Press.
30. Smith, V. K., Johnson, F. R.(1988).How do risk perception respond to information? The case of radon.The Review of Economics and Statistics,70
31. Stone, J. V.(2001).Risk perception mapping and the Fermi II nuclear power plant: Toward an ethnography of social access to public participation in Great Lake environmental management.Environmental Science and Policy,4
32. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.(1982).Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
33. Viscusi, W. K.(1989).Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,2(3)
34. Wulfhorst, J. D.(2000).Collective identity and hazardous waste management.Rural Sociology,65(2)
35. Zeckhauser, R.(1996).The economics of catastrophes.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,12
36. 史開泉 、 吳國威 、 黃有評(1994)。灰色信息關係論。台北:全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
37. 李永展 Lee, Yung-Jaan(1997)。鄰避症候群之解析 Re-Examining the NIMBY Syndrome。都市與計劃 City and Planning，24(1)
38. 洪鴻智 Hung, Hung-Chih(2001)。鄰避設施的厭惡排比分析：多準則模糊評估模型與灰相關分析之結合 A Ranking Analysis of Loath Attitude Toward NIMBY Facilities: An Incorporating Approach of Multicriteria Fuzzy Evaluation Model with Grey Relation Analysis。公共事務評論 Journal of Public Affairs Review，2(2)
39. 曾國雄 Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, Tsaur, Sheng-Hshiung(1994).The Multiple Criteria Evaluation of Grey Relation Model.Journal of Grey System,6(2)
40. 黃懿慧 Huang, Yi-Hui(1994)。科技風險與環保抗爭－台灣民眾風險認知個案研究。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
41. 鄧聚龍 Deng, Ju-Long(1982).Control Problems of Grey System.Systems and Control Letters,1(5)
42. 蕭代基 Shaw, Dai-Gee(1996)。污染性設施之設置與民眾信心之建立。臺灣經濟預測與政策 Taiwan Economic Forecast and Policy，27(1)

1. 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，17(1)，33-70。
2. 洪鴻智,李佳芳(2020)。石化產業污染風險知覺與風險溝通：不同開發階段石化園區之比較。地理學報，95，37-59。
3. 洪鴻智、王翔榆(2010)。多元性區域環境風險評估：以陽明山國家公園為例。都市與計劃，37(1)，97-119。
4. 黃國忠、張寧、汪明生(2011)。交通案例與廢棄物清理案例之量刑因素資訊整合實驗：以犯後態度與犯罪所生之損害為例。管理學報，28(6)，565-577。
5. 黃欣怡、洪鴻智(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，30(3)，241-258。
6. 黃于芳、洪鴻智(2010)。農村工業污染風險知覺的空間特性與決定因素。臺灣土地研究，13(2)，31-57。
7. 簡長毅、詹士樑、陳亮全、洪鴻智(2003)。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，30(4)，281-299。
8. 梁志民,俞錚,李春長(2020)。公佈降雨淹水模擬地圖對淹水區與其鄰近地區住宅價格之影響。住宅學報，29(1)，63-89。
9. (2009)。高科技污染的風險論辯—環境倡議的挑戰。臺灣民主季刊，6(4)，101-139。