臺灣防災準備模式與文化差異的探討－－以地震災害為例

Earthquake Preparedness and Cultural Differences: A Taiwan Model

10.6128/CP.43.3.315

王价巨(Jieh-Jiuh Wang)；張麗珠(Li-Ju Jang)；Douglas Paton

地震 ； 防災準備意圖模式 ； 防災準備 ； Earthquake ； Earthquake preparedness model ； Disaster preparedness

都市與計劃

43卷3期（2016 / 09 / 30）

315 - 337

繁體中文

因為全球暖化及自然資源的濫用，天然災害似乎有越來越頻繁且災損愈嚴重的趨勢。相較於其他天然災害(如颱風、水災、土石流)，破壞性地震的發生頻率明顯較低，但其所引發的生命與財產損失卻不容小覷。本研究係屬系列跨文化跨災害(cross-cultural all-hazard)防災準備理論研發與測試的一部分，研究目的在於測試不同文化的人對不同災害的防災準備意圖的相似度。本研究以震災準備意圖為依變項，應用結構方程模式(SEM)檢視臺灣資料與Paton防災準備模式的適配程度，研究場域為臺中市東勢區，採用集群抽樣，將居民依工作地點及集結習慣區分為機關團體、社區、宗教團體、學校4組。四組防災準備意圖模式的SEM整體模式適配度檢定指標均達到適配 (goodness-of-fit)標準，表示該防災準備意圖模式有跨文化特性，意即以個人主義國家紐西蘭的資料研擬的防災準備意圖模式，亦可應用於集體主義國家如臺灣，此研究結果意味著，防災準備意圖模式可更廣泛地被其他易受災國家所運用，可嘉惠飽受災害蹂躪卻無力進行災害研究的未開發或開發中國家。研究結果建議，規劃風險溝通方案時可聚焦在如何協助社區居民減少「負向預期結果」並增強其「正向預期結果」的信念，「正向預期結果」的信念可以改善人們對災害的知識、更了解災害如何造成損害以及如何預防並降低損害，在規劃時可以具體提出每一項保護措施可以降低哪些特定風險，進而讓人們更安全。從實務的角度來看，人們採取防災準備措施的意願低落，常肇因於不相信防災準備可以有效地降低災害損失，故規劃時可協助居民區分災害事件的不確定性及不可掌控性及災害後果的可控制性。規劃原則應強調，透過採取適當的防災準備措施，可有效地降低因災害所造成的損失程度。再者，在進行風險溝通規劃時，可將防災準備拆解成具體可行的項目，分階段式的培訓，先從簡單易做的項目開始，再逐漸增加具困難度及複雜的防災準備，讓人們可以逐漸適應，最終的目標是希望人們可以同時為多種當地常見的災害做好準備。

Due to global warming and the misuse of natural resources, natural disasters are increasing with respect to both their frequency, and the losses and damage they create. Although earthquakes occur less frequently compared to other natural disasters (e.g., typhoons, floods, landslides), the loss of life and property caused by earthquakes cannot be underestimated. This study developed and tested a series of cross-cultural all-hazard disaster preparedness theories. The objective was to investigate cross-cultural similarities in people's disaster preparedness. Using ＂Intention＂ as the dependent variable, structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the level of goodness-of-fit using Paton's Community Engagement Theory (CET). Data were collected from Tungshi, Taichung. Cluster sampling was used to divide the participants into four groups: agency, community, religious group, and school based on their nature of gathering. The results of the SEM analyses indicated that the data were a good fit to the theory for all four datasets. The findings offer support for cross-cultural equivalence of the CET. Confirmation of cross-cultural equivalence supports the contention that a theory developed in an individualistic country, New Zealand, can be applied to research hazard preparedness in a collectivistic country like Taiwan. Another implication of demonstrating cross-cultural equivalence is that the theory becomes available for use in manycountries, especially for those under developed or developing countries that cannot afford to conduct their own research into disaster studies. The results of the analysis further suggest that risk communication plans should focus on how to help community members reduce their belief of ＂negative outcome expectancy＂ and strengthen beliefs about ＂positive outcome expectancy＂. Enhancing levels of ＂positive outcome expectancy＂ may increase people's beliefs that disaster preparedness is effective in preventing or reducing the loss and destruction caused by natural hazard events and increase environmental safety. From a practical perspective, developing positive outcome expectancies can be assisted by risk communication plan that help community members differentiate between uncontrollableevents (e.g., an earthquake) and controllable consequences (e.g., the ground shaking that accompanies earthquakes). Risk communication plans must thus emphasize how proper disaster preparedness measures can reduce the severity of disaster consequences. Moreover, measures can be divided into smaller and manageable actions. Training should start with the easier and more achievable activities (e.g., storing food and water) and then gradually present people with more difficult and complex actions (e.g., building design, retrofitting buildings, and securing building fixtures). The final goal is to help community members to be prepared for all common hazards in their areas.

1. 高三福(2004)。集體效能與團隊表現：研究的回顧與展望。臺灣運動心理學報，4，47-64。
   連結：
2. 曹建宇、張長義(2008)。地震災害經驗與調適行為之比較研究－以臺南縣白河、臺中縣東勢居民為例。華岡地理學報，21，52-75。
   連結：
3. 許維素(2002)。培力導向的諮商—以焦點解決短期諮商為 （上）。諮商與輔導，198，18-22。
   連結：
4. 許維素(2002)。培力導向的諮商—以焦點解決短期諮商為 （上）。諮商與輔導，198，18-22。
   連結：
5. EM-DAT (2012). The OFDA/CRED international disaster database. EM-DAT, (Apr. 5, 2012)..
6. 臺中市政府教育局 (2013)，教職員人數統計，「臺中市政府教育局全球資網」，http://www.tc.edu.tw/school/teacher，(2014 年 11 月 11 日)。
7. 交通部中央氣象局 (2015)，天然災害災防問答集，「交通部中央氣象局」，http://www.cwb.gov.tw/V7/prevent/plan/prevent-faq/prevent_faq.pdf，(2016 年7 年25 日)。
8. Ajzen, I.(1991).The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2),179-211.
9. Bandura, A.(2000).Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.Current Directions in Psychological Science,9(3),75-78.
10. Bandura, A.(1997).Self-Efficacy and Agency of Change.New York:Raven Press.
11. Benight, C. C.(2004).Collective efficacy following a series of natural disasters.Anxiety, Stress, and Coping,17(4),401-420.
12. Bennet, P.,Murphy, S.(1997).Psychology and Health Promotion.Buckingham:Open University Press.
13. Bolton, B.,Brookings, J.(1996).Development of multifaceted definition of empowerment.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,39(4),256-264.
14. Brislin, R. W.,Lonner, W.,Thorndike, R.(1973).Cross-Cultural Research Methods.Toronto:Wiley.
15. Cooley, C. H.(1983).Human Nature and the Social Order.New York:Charles Scribner's Sons.
16. Duncan, T. E.,Duncan, S. C.,Okut, H.,Strycker, L. A.,Hix-Small, H.(2003).A multilevel contextual model of neighbourhood collective efficacy.American Journal of Community Psychology,32(3-4),245-252.
17. Earle, T. C.(2004).Thinking aloud about trust: A protocol analysis of trust in risk management.Risk Analysis,24(1),169-183.
18. Earle, T. C.,Cvetkovich, G. T.(1995).Social Trust: Towards a Cosmopolitan Society.Westport:Praeger.
19. Eng, E.,Parker, E.(1994).Measuring community competence in the Mississippi Delta: The interface between program evaluation and empowerment.Health Education Behavior,21(2),199-220.
20. Floyd, D. L.,Prentice-Dunn, S.,Rogers, R. W.(2000).A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,30(2),407-429.
21. Hofstede, G.(2011).Dimensionalizing cultures: The hofstede model in context.Psychology and Culture,2(1)
22. Hofstede, G.(1980).Culture's Consequences: Institutional Differences in Work-Related Values.Beverly Hills:Sage.
23. Hofstede, G.(2001).Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations.Thousand Oaks:Sage.
24. Jang, L.(2008).Natural Disasters: Effects of Cultural Factors on Resilience.North Charleston:VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG and Licensors.
25. Kee, H.,Knox, R. T.(1970).Conceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion.Journal of Conflict Resolution,14(3),357-365.
26. Lewicki, R. J.,Mcallister, D. J.,Bies, R. J.(1998).Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities.Academy of Management Review,23(3),438-458.
27. Lion, R.,Meertens, R. M.,Bot, I.(2002).Priorities in information desire about unknown risks.Risk Analysis,22(4),765-776.
28. Lonner, W. J.(ed.),Berry, J. W.(ed.)(1986).Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research.Beverley Hills:Sage Publications.
29. Maddux, J. E.(ed.)(1995).Self Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application.New York:Plenum Press.
30. Marris, C.,Langford, I. H.,O'Riordan, T.(1998).A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparisons with the psychometric paradigm.Risk Analysis,18(5),635-647.
31. McAllister, D. J.(1995).Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.Academy of Management Journal,38(1),24-59.
32. Mcknight, D. H.,Chervany, N. L.(1996).Technical ReportTechnical Report,Minneapolis:University of Minnesota.
33. Miller, D.(ed.),Rivera, J.(ed.)(2011).Community Disaster Recovery and Resiliency: Exploring Global Opportunities and Challenges.Oxford:Taylor and Francis Group.
34. Mulilis, J.,Duval, T. S.(1995).Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A person-relative-to event (PrE) model of coping with threat.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,25(15),1319-1339.
35. Paton, D.(2013).Disaster resilient communities: Developing and testing an all-hazards theory.Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management,3(1),1-17.
36. Paton, D.(2008).Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: How trust influences its effectiveness.International Journal of Global Environmental Issues,8(1-2),2-16.
37. Paton, D.(ed.),Johnston, D.(ed.)(2006).Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach.Springfield:Charles C. Thomas.
38. Paton, D.(ed.),Long, N.(ed.)(1996).Psychological Aspects of Disaster: Impact, Coping, and Intervention.Palmerston North:Dunmore Press.
39. Paton, D.(ed.),Tedim, F.(ed.)(2012).Wildfire and Community: Facilitating Preparedness and Resilience.Springfield:Charles C. Thomas.
40. Paton, D.,Bajek, R.,Okada, N.,McIvor, D.(2010).Predicting community earthquake preparedness: A cross-cultural comparison of Japan and New Zealand.Natural Hazards,54(3),765-781.
41. Paton, D.,Gregg, C. E.,Houghton, B. F.,Lachman, R.,Lachman, J.,Johnston, D. M.,Wongbusarakum, S.(2008).The impact of the 2004 tsunami on coastal Thai communities: Assessing adaptive capacity.Disasters,32(1),106-119.
42. Paton, D.,Smith, L. M.,Johnston, D.(2005).When good intentions turn bad: Promoting natural hazard preparedness.Australian Journal of Emergency Management,20(1),25-30.
43. Poortinga, W.,Pidgeon, N. F.(2004).Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs.Risk Analysis,24(6),1475-1486.
44. Rippl, S.(2002).Cultural theory and risk perception: A proposal for a better measurement.Journal of Risk Research,5(2),147-165.
45. Siegrist, M.,Cvetkovich, G.(2000).Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge.Risk Analysis,20(5),713-719.
46. Zucker, L. G.(1986).Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920.Research in Organizational Behavior,8,53-111.
47. 吳明隆(2009)。結構方程式：AMOS 的操作與應用。臺北:五南圖書。
48. 周學雰、黃英哲(2007)。自我效能和集體效能：理論與研究回顧。國北教大體育，2，67-74。
49. 林俊德(2006)。博士論文(博士論文)。彰化，國立彰化師範大學輔導與諮商學系。
50. 張晉宗(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺中，朝陽科技大學。
51. 陳皎眉、張滿玲(2000)。弱勢團體成員的集體行動－團體相對剝奪與集體效能的影響。教育與心理研究，23，123-146。
52. 廖俊松(2004)。社區營造與社區參與：金鈴園與邵社的觀察與學習。社區發展季刊，107，133-146。

1. 蔡宜臻,許惠閔,高慧芬,高翠霞(2020)。日本防災教育及其在社會教科書之設計－以東京書籍版本為例。教科書研究，13(2)，59-88。