臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

「火」，帶來文明與便利，但如不慎使用，即帶來災害，對於人民生命財產威脅甚鉅。根據統計，自民國八十七年至九十六年，十年來臺灣地區發生火災共103,477次，平均每年發生火災10,348次，財物損失及人民傷亡對社會均造成極大的傷害。全國五年來火災發生件數28,114件，臺北縣於同時期火災發生件數4,086件，佔全國火災案件比例約15％。
火的使用良窳在於人的正確行為，在眾多文獻中指出，風險知覺影響人的防災行為，故本研究即以成人民眾的火災風險知覺對居家防火行為影響作為研究主題。由於期望本研究有較高的參考價值，故以人口最多、幅員遼闊、城鄉特性多元的臺北縣為研究區域，訪問居住在臺北縣的民眾。
在國內外文獻中對於風險知覺的研究眾多，但鮮少有針對火災風險知覺的領域研究；國內的災害風險知覺研究，也都著墨於震災、水災、土石流等天然災害，對於幾乎在每天全國各地上演的火災卻甚少研究。其實火災的發生通常都以人為因素為主，只要提高民眾的風險知覺，做好防火行為，就可以得到完善預防。因此，風險知覺與防火行為的研究，是相當值得探討的課題。
為了瞭解火災風險知覺對居家防火行為的影響，本研究將火災風險知覺分為「不確定性風險知覺」與「結果嚴重性風險知覺」兩類，並將居家防火行為分為「生活習慣行為」、「設備整備行為」、「自我檢視行為」三類，透過統計分析瞭解各構面之間的關係。在人口統計變項中除性別、年齡、教育程度、婚姻狀況、居住地區、工作身分及家庭月收入構面外，並加上住屋背景因素，研究人口統計變項與住屋背景分別對火災風險知覺和居家防火行為的影響。
本研究以問卷訪談方式進行，先依照臺北縣各鄉鎮市20-59歲人口比例做分層比例抽樣，然後在各鄉鎮市重要道路、捷運或大賣場出口進行施測，共訪問721份問卷，其中有效問卷651份。統計分析結果分為下列三部分：
一、人口統計變項及住屋背景與火災風險知覺的關係
1.民眾性別、年齡、婚姻狀況不同對火災風險知覺在「不確定性知覺」與「結果嚴重性
知覺」的反應均有顯著差異。
2.住宅用途、住宅結構、住宅權屬的不同只在「結果嚴重性知覺」上有顯著的差異；住
宅類型不同在「不確定性知覺」以及「結果嚴重性知覺」上均有顯著的差異；屋齡則
僅對「不確定性知覺」具有顯著的差異。

二、人口統計變項及住屋背景與居家防火行為的關係
1.除性別無顯著的差異外，其他人口統計變項對居家防火行為或其各構面間各有不同的
差異。
2.住宅用途不同在「生活習慣行為」、「設備整備行為」或是「自我檢視行為」三個構
面皆有顯著差異；住宅結構、住宅類型、屋齡的不同在「設備整備行為」以及「自我
檢視行為」構面的重視程度有顯著的差異；住宅權屬的不同僅在「生活習慣行為」構
面上有顯著差異。

三、火災風險知覺與居家防火行為的關係
1.火災風險知覺與居家防火行為各構面間均具有明顯的相關性，其中，「結果嚴重性知
覺」與「自我檢視行為」呈現負相關。
2.「不確定性知覺」、「結果嚴重性知覺」這兩個變項對「居家防火行為」具有影響
性；但僅「不確定性知覺」有達顯著性，「結果嚴重性知覺」則沒有。
3.「不確定性知覺」、「結果嚴重性知覺」這兩個變項對「生活習慣行為」具有影響
性；「結果嚴重性知覺」比「不確定性知覺」比來得重要。
4.「不確定性知覺」、「結果嚴重性知覺」這兩個變項對「設備整備行為」具有影響
性；但僅「不確定性知覺」有達顯著性，「結果嚴重性知覺」則沒有。
5.「不確定性知覺」、「結果嚴重性知覺」這兩個變項對「自我檢視行為」具有影響
性；「不確定性知覺」比「結果嚴重性知覺」來得重要。
6.不管是從整體的「居家防火行為」，或是從「設備整備行為」、「自我檢視行為」來
看，「不確定性知覺」的影響性比「結果嚴重性知覺」來得強。

根據本研究的結果顯示，火災風險知覺對居家防火行為有相當程度的影響，因此進一步根據風險知覺的「不確定性知覺」、「結果嚴重性知覺」等兩構面，將民眾分為四群，並找出各群的人口特徵。其中對火災的掌控能力低（不確定性高），且所知覺到火災發生屬嚴重性低的族群，其特性為40-49歲的無工作者、居住地區為鎮的民眾，是首要優先輔導防火觀念的民眾。另從住屋背景特徵中，對火災的掌控能力低，且所知覺到火災發生屬嚴重性低的族群，其中住宅用途屬住宅兼工業用的民眾，亦是首要優先輔導防火觀念的民眾。

“Fire” endows human beings cultivation and convenience. However, if used carelessly, it brings disasters and threats to human lives and fortune. In recent ten years from 1998 to 2007, there were totally 103,477 fires throughout Taiwan. In average, there were 10,348 fires each year, causing severe property loss and casualties. In recent five years, there were 28,114 fire cases, and in the same period, 15% of the accidents, 4,086 cases, happened in Taipei Country.
The advantages and disadvantages of fire use consist in people’s behaviors. As revealed in many documents, risk perception influences people’s disaster prevention actions. The research topic is the influence of risk perception on people’s home fire prevention. In order to achieve a higher value of reference, the research subjects are limited to the residents in Taipei County where population is big, region is wide and urban and rural discrepancy is obvious.
There are many researches of risk perception both in Taiwan and other countries, but few of them focused on fire risk perception. Taiwan’s researches on risk perceptions are most made on natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and landslides even though fire accidents happen throughout the country almost everyday. In reality, it is usually humans that cause fire accidents. Therefore, people’s increasing awareness of risks and enough fire precautions can make perfect prevention. Risk perception and fire prevention are indeed worth discussing.
For easy understanding of the influence of fire risk perception on home fire prevention, the researcher divided perceived fire risks into “perceived uncertain risks” and “perceived severe risks,” and sorted home fire prevention into “habitual behaviors,” “facility complete behaviors” and “self-examination behaviors.” The relationship between each dimension will be interpreted by means of statistic analysis. The variables of demographic statistics include not only the dimensions of gender, age, education level, marriage, resident area, occupation, and family income, but also the factors of residence backgrounds. The research focused on how the variables of demographic statistics and residence backgrounds respectively affect fire risk
perception and home fire prevention.
The researcher issued questionnaires and did interviews. The questionnaire sampling was undertaken in major streets and roads, at MRT station exits and hypermarket exits in Taipei County according to the proportion of the population aged from 20 to 59 in Taipei County. Among the 721 questionnaires issued, 651 were valid. The statistical analysis was classified into the following three conclusions.
I. The Relationship between Perceived Fire Risks and Two Factors of the Variables of Demographic Statistics and Residence Backgrounds
1.People of different gender, age and marriage have different reactions to
both “perception of uncertainty” and “perception of severe
consequences.”
2.Residence purposes, residence structures and residence ownership make
differences in “perception of severe consequences,” residence types make
differences in “perception of uncertainty” and “perception of severe
consequences,” and house age makes differences in “uncertain perception.”
II. The Relationship between Home Fire Prevention and Two Factors of the Variables of Demographic Statistics and Residence Backgrounds
1.Except gender, the other demographic variables have differences in home
fire prevention behaviors or between each dimension.
2.Residence purposes have differences in “habitual behaviors,” “facility
complete behaviors” and “self-examination behaviors,” residence
structure, types and age have great differences in the importance of
“facility complete behaviors” and “self-examination behaviors,” and
residence ownership has differences only in “habitual behaviors.”
III. The Relationship between Fire Risk Perception and Home Fire Prevention
1.There is great relatedness between fire risk perception and all dimensions
of home fire prevention. “Perception of severe consequences” and “self-
examination behaviors” have a negative relationship.
2.The two variables, “perception of uncertainty” and “perception of severe
consequences” have influence on “home fire prevention”, but only the
influence of the first variable is noticeable.
3.The two variables, “perception of uncertainty” and “perception of severe
consequences” have influence on “habitual behaviors”, but “perception
of severe consequences” is more important than “uncertain perception.”
4.The two variables, “perception of uncertainty” and “perception of severe
consequences” have influence on “facility complete behaviors”, but only
the influence of the first variable is noticeable.
5.The two variables, “perception of uncertainty” and “perception of severe
consequences” have influence on “self-examination behaviors”, but
“perception of uncertainty” is more important than “perception of severe
consequences.”
6.Whether looking from the entire “home fire prevention” or looking from
the variables of “facility complete behaviors” and “self-examination
behaviors,” the influence of “perception of uncertainty” is greater than
that of “perception of severe consequences.”
In conclusion of the research, fire risk perception is quite influential on home fire prevention. Based on the two dimensions of risk perception, “perception of uncertainty” and “perception of severe consequences,” the researcher further divided the population into four groups and found the demographic features of each group. Part of the population has low control over fires (high uncertainty) and perceives fire happenings of low severity. These people are mostly 40 to 49 years old, unemployed and living in town areas. They are the primary group of people who need education of fire prevention. Analyzing people’s residence backgrounds, the researcher found people whose residences are both for dwelling and for industrial purposes have lower control over fire accidents and perceive less serious fire happenings. They are also a primary group needing education of fire prevention.

目錄.........................................................I
表次........................................................II
圖次........................................................VI
第一章　緒論.................................................1
第一節　研究背景與動機.....................................1
第二節 研究目的...........................................2
第三節 研究限制與名詞解釋.................................4
第四節 研究流程...........................................6
第二章　文獻探討.............................................7
第一節 風險知覺...........................................7
第二節 防火行為..........................................17
第三章 研究設計............................................22
第一節 研究問題與假設....................................22
第二節 研究設計..........................................23
第三節 統計方法..........................................34
第四章　研究結果............................................36
第一節　調查過程..........................................36
第二節　樣本檢定及加權....................................36
第三節　敘述性統計分析....................................41
第四節　信度分析..........................................49
第五節　綜合分析與發現....................................50
第五章　結論與建議..........................................91
第一節 結論..............................................91
第二節 建議..............................................92
第三節 對後續研究的建議..................................96
參考文獻....................................................97
附錄
成人火災風險知覺與居家防火行為之研究問卷...................100

一、中文部分
王建仁（2002）。台灣地區機車使用者風險感認與駕駛行為關聯之研究。國立交通大學運
輸科技與管理學研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
宋明哲(2001)。現代風險管理。臺北市：五南。
吳明隆（2003）。SPSS統計應用學習實務：問卷分析與應用統計。臺北：知城數位科技。
杜婯嫥（2002）。我國專院校學生意外災害與安全衛生認知調查。國立成功大學醫學院環
境醫學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南。
林元祥（2000）。火災危險評估。警察百科全書，11（6），154。
段華民（2006）。面對災害要調適消極心理和行為。2006年10月14日取自：
http://theory.people.com.cn/BIG5/49154/49156/4918415.html。
高如月（1993）。社會風險與風險溝通之研究。國立政治大學財政學研究所碩士論文，未
出版，臺北。
黃小玲（1999）。大規模災害災後復健及居民生活變遷之探討—以賀伯風災南投縣信義鄉
豐丘、神木兩村為例。國立臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
莊惠勤（2003）。醫院員工對醫療廢棄物風險知覺之關係研究—以嘉義地區區域醫院為
例。南華大學環境管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
郭文俊（2001）。酒後駕車風險知覺之資訊整合實驗。中山大學公共事務管理研究所，未
出版，高雄。
陳弘毅（1995）。火災學。臺北市：東亞，p1。
陳素珠（2006）。南投縣民眾對土石流災害防救認知程度之研究。白沙歷史地理學報，2，
152。
陳碧珍（1996）。科技風險知覺之資訊整合實驗-以石化業為例。國立中山大學公共事管理
研究所碩士論文。未出版，高雄。
曾明遜（1994）。淺談鄰避設施的風險知覺。人與地，12（6），36-40。
維基百科（2008）。迴歸分析。2008年5月11日取自： http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%
E5%9B%9E%E5%BD%92%E5%88%86%E6%9E%90。
蕭代基等（2006）。天然災害社會經濟衝擊與風險知覺調查。國家災害防救科技中心，臺
北。

二、英文部分
Archea, J.（1990）Two earthquakes：Three human conditions. In Y. Yoshitake,
R.B. Bechtel, T. Takahashi & M. Asai（Eds.）, Current issues in
environment-behavior research.Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F.（1978）. The environment as hazard.
Oxford University Press.
Earle, T.C. et al.（1981）. Risk Perception Risk Evaluation and Human Value
Concerning Nuclear Waste Management, Seattle Washington:Battele Human
Affairs Research Centers.
Fischhoff B. ,Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S. (1978). How safe is safe
enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and
benefits. Policy Science, 9, 127-152.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., Fleming, M., Gordon, R.（1996）. Risk perception and
safety in offshore workers, Safety Science, Vol. 22, 131-145.
Grayson, G. B., & Maycock, G.（2003）. Risk, hazard perception and perceived
control. Prepared for Road Safety Division, Department for Transport.
Gregg, C. E., Houghton, B. F., Johnston, D. M., Paton, D., & Swanson, D. A.
(2004). The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa
and Hualalai volcanoes, Hawaii. Journal of Volcanology and
GeothermalResearch, 130(3), 179-196.
Jackson, E. L. (1981) Response to earthquake hazard: The west coast of North
America. Environment and Behavior, 13, 387-416.
McClung, D. M. (2002). The elements of applied avalanche forecasting part I：
The Human Issues. Natural Hazards, 25(2), 111-129.
Michael, K. L. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of
research. Environment and Behavior, 32, 461-501.
Mileti, D. & Peek, L. (2000). The social psychology of public response to
warnings of a nuclear power plant accident. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 75, 181-194.
National Research Council (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington:
National Academy Press.
Ramachandran, G(1995). Probability-Based Building Design for Fire Safety: Par
I .Fire Technology, 3, 265-275.
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(4), 137-160.
Ronan, K. R., & Johnston, D. M. (2001). Correlates of hazard education
programs for youth. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 1055-1063.
Slovic, p. （1983）. Perception of risk/behavioral perspective. America
Journal of Roentgenology ,140, 601-602.
Slovic, P., & Weber, E.U. (2002). Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events.
Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, Pailisades, New York.
Starr, C.（1969）. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165,
1232-1238.
Tansel, B. (1995). Natural and manmade disaters: Accepting and managing risks.
Safety Science, 20(2), 91-99.
Vlek, C., & Stallen, P. J. （1981）. Judging risks and benefits in the small
and in the large.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28,235-271.
Wogalter, M. S., DeJoy, D. M., & Laughery, K. R. (Eds.)（1999）. Warnings and
Risk Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.