(3.237.97.64) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/05 03:22
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:劉欽蓮
研究生(外文):CHIN-LIAN LIU
論文名稱:焚化爐附近居民與一般民眾的風險知覺研究
論文名稱(外文):RISK PERCEPTION OF RESIDENTS LIVING NEAR AN INCINERATOR AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC
指導教授:吳焜裕吳焜裕引用關係吳宏達吳宏達引用關係
指導教授(外文):KUEN-YUH WUHONG-DAR ISAAC WU
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:中國醫藥學院
系所名稱:環境醫學研究所
學門:醫藥衛生學門
學類:公共衛生學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:138
中文關鍵詞:風險風險認知
外文關鍵詞:riskrisk perception
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:37
  • 點閱點閱:1268
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
焚化爐為現今被廣為使用於處理固體廢棄物的方法。但由於民眾對焚化爐的知識不足加上對政府的信任感瓦解,對焚化爐的營運管理沒信心,以致於反焚化爐事件層出不窮。在這樣事事被”反”的年代,瞭解民眾對風險的認知是從事風險溝通與風險管理一最重要的依據。
本研究為縱貫式研究,以自填封閉式問卷針對台中市焚化爐周圍10公里的居民,依距離分為四區域施以問卷調查,目的在瞭解民眾對環境危害物質的風險判斷是否會反映在於焚化爐距離遠近上,進一步探討其可能造成差異的原因。研究的假設為:1.民眾會隨距離焚化爐遠近而有不同的風險認知 ,2.居住在焚化爐附近居民比一般人對環境風險有較高的風險認知。問卷實施分為兩階段調查,個別使用不同的問卷,調查民眾對環境危害物質的判斷及對焚化爐的意見。由於問卷依變項為有序性類別資料,統計分析上採用polychotomous logistic regression (SAS PC/8.0)作為本研究的分析模式。
結果顯示居民對於科技與自然風險的判斷都偏向高危害,並未受距離焚化爐遠近的影響具有普遍性。與背景資料來比較發現性別對風險的認知有差異,女性對風險的判斷比男性較高。對於焚化爐,民眾大都贊成興建焚化爐,而對於政府、專家、環保團體與新聞媒體所提出的風險評估報告發現居住在5公里內的居民多持不信任態度。焚化爐附近居民可接受焚化爐的距離為132.8公里,顯示出居民對於科技設備的NIMBY效應。此結果與國外研究有一致之處,可供相關單位做為參考之依據。
Incineration of municipal wastes is widely used to manage solid wastes. It was constantly resisted that when lay people lacks knowledge about a modern incinerator, social trust of the government in Taiwan. In the epoch of everything were resisted, comprehending the public risk perception is a prerequisite to establish a trustworthy risk-communication and risk-management.
This paper illustrated the result from a longitudinal study on the basis of a population living near the incinerator in Taichung. Four surveys were conducted at different districts of Taichung .A self-administered questionnaire was used to estimate the risk perception in relation to 43 risks and attitudes toward the incinerator. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether public risk perception toward incinerator would be influenced by mean of the effects of distance .It was postulated that public has difference perceptions of risk among four distances and residents lived near the incinerator would have high-level risk judgments.
From the result, we revealed that the residents had much higher perceptions of risk, and their judgments toward chemical risk were related to their educations level and gender. The relationship between the risk perception level and the distance was not significant.72% of the resident population favored to construct modern incinerators and the attitude of public has distrust toward governments and experts. The residents regarded as the acceptable distance between their house and the modern incinerator would be 132.8 km. This result show the public toward technology facilities has NIMBY effect. When we conducted associated researches in the future, we should pay more attention about the phenomena emerged from this study in behalf of preventing to elicit inappropriate conclusions.
誌 謝……………………………………………………………………Ⅰ
中文摘要…………………………………………………………………..Ⅱ
英文摘要…………………………………………………………………..Ⅲ
目 錄…………………………………………………………….………Ⅳ
表、圖目錄…………………………………………………………..……Ⅶ
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………. …1
第一節 前言……………………………………………………………. 1
1.1.1 台灣目前環保抗爭現象……………………………………... ..1
1.1.2 風險認知的重要性……………………………………………. 2
第二節 研究目的………………………………………………………..5
2.2.1第一階段研究目的……………………………………………...5
2.2.2第二階段研究目的……………………………………………...4
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………………..6
第一節 何謂風險?……………………………………………………6
第二節 風險認知的相關研究…………………………………….…11
2.2.1 認知(perception)的定義……………………………………….11
2.2.2 風險認知的起源………………………………………….……12
2.2.3為什麼要研究風險認知?……………………….…….………14
2.2.4 心理測驗量表(Psychometric Paradigm)……………………...17
第三節 影響風險認知的因素……………………………………….19
2.3.1 認知的心理層面……………………………………………….19
2.3.2 社會文化層面………………………………………………….24
2.3.3 個人社經地位層面…………………………………………….26
第三章 材料與方法………………………………………………….…...29
第一節 第一階段問卷調查方法與設……….………………………29
3.1.1 問卷設計流程…………………………………………..……...29
3.1.2 問卷調查程序…………………………………………………..32
3.1.3 研究流程………………………………………………………..34
第二節 第二階段問卷調查方法……………………………...……35
3.2.1 問卷設計流程……………………………………….………….35
3.2.2 問卷調查程序…………………………………….…………….40
3.2.3 研究流程……………………………………………..…………41
第三節 統計分析方法……………………………………..…………42
3.3.1 資料分析程序…………………………………………………42
3.3.2 proportional odds model的基本原理……………………… ..45
第四章 結果…………………………………………….…….…………..47
第一節 第一階段調查結果……………..……………….…………..47
4.1.1 基本人口學分佈………………………………….……………47
4.1.2 健康危害物之風險判斷結果……………….…..……………..50
4.1.3 焚化爐態度與意見調查結果………………………………….55
第二節 第二階段調查結果…………………….……………………61
4.2.1 基本人口學分佈……………………………………...………..61
4.2.2 對焚化爐的意見與自覺公里數……….………………………62
4.2.3 風險十項特性…………………………..……..………….……64
第五章 討論………………………………………………………………72
第一節 第一階段調查………………………………..…………….72
5.1.1 健康危害物之風險判斷……………….……..…………….72
5.1.2 焚化爐態度與意見調查……………………....……………..76
第二節 第二階段調查 …………………………………………….79
5.2.1 對焚化爐的意見與自覺公里數……..……....………………..79
5.2.2 風險十項特性……………………….….….…..………………80
第六章 結論與建議……………………….…………..………………….83
參考資料……………………………………….………...………………..85
表目錄
表一 受訪者人口學基本資料---第一階段調查………………………91
表二 各項健康危害物之風險認知程度---以多數百分比歸類………92
表三 風險評定等級---以平均值排定順序…………………………….93
表四之一 健康風險認知單變項分析………………………………...94
表四之二 健康風險認知單變項分析………………………………...95
表四之三 健康風險認知單變項分析…………………………………...96
表四之四 健康風險認知單變項分析…………………………………...97
表五之一 健康危害認知多變項分析………………………………….98
表五之二 健康危害認知多變項分析………………………………….98
表五之三 健康危害認知多變項分析……………………………….…99
表五之四 健康危害認知多變項分析……………………………….…99
表六之一 虛擬變項回歸分析--- Total (年齡)……………………..100
表六之二 虛擬變項回歸分析--- Total (教育程度)………………..101
表七之一 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----是否贊成興建焚化爐(教育程度、性別)…………………………………………….102
表七之二 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----焚化爐可能造成的生態、環境、交通等影響的意見(教育程度、性別)…….102
表七之三 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----對環工、風險評估、環保團體、政府機關等專家提出的環評報告態度(教育程度、性別)………………………………………………………103
表七之四 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----焚化爐附近土地的使用態度(教育程度、性別)………………………………….104
表七之五 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----對自家環境的評估態度(教育程度、性別)……………………………………….105
表八之一 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----焚化爐可能造成的生態、環境、交通等影響的意見( 距 離 檢 定 )……106
表八之二 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----對環工、風險評估、環保團體、政府機關等專家提出的環評報告態度( 距 離 檢 定 )…………………………………………………………106
表八之三 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----焚化爐附近土地的使用態度( 距 離 檢 定 )…………………………….…107
表八之四 焚化爐態度虛擬變項回歸分析----對自家環境的評估態度( 距 離 檢 定 )………………………………….108
表九 基本人口學分佈---第二階段調查………………………….110
表十 對焚化爐意見與自覺公里數……………………………….111
表十一 贊成與反對原因……………………………………………..112
表十二之一 風險十項屬性平均值分佈…………………………….113
表十二之二 風險十項屬性平均值分佈…………………………….114
表十三之一 風險屬性單變項分析----該風險是否自願承擔.…….115
表十三之二 風險屬性單變項分析----該風險有無立即之影響.….115
表十三之三 風險屬性單變項分析----對該風險是否具相關知識..116
表十三之四 風險屬性單變項分析----個人對該風險能否掌控之..116
表十三之五 風險屬性單變項分析----該風險是熟悉的或新奇的..117
表十三之六 風險屬性單變項分析----該風險對生命的威脅是慢性或災難性…………………………………………………..117
表十三之七 風險屬性單變項分析-----面對該風險時是以平常心或感到恐懼…………………………………………………118
表十三之八 風險屬性單變項分析-----該風險發生危害時其結果的嚴重性……………………………………………………118
表十三之九 風險屬性單變項分析-----該風險對下一代的影響….119
表十三之十 風險屬性單變項分析-----該風險是否可以預防…….119
表十四之一 風險特性因素分析---轉軸後成分矩陣(Zone 1)……120
表十四之二 風險特性因素分析---轉軸後成分矩陣(Zone 2)……120
圖一 性別對風險的差異…………………………………………….121
圖二 教育程度對風險的差異…………………………….…………..121
圖三 年齡對風險的差異………………………………………………122
附錄
健康風險認知問卷(第一階段調查)……………………………..……124
焚化爐風險特性問卷(第二階段調查)………………………………..130
Sowby,F.D., 1965. Radiation and other risk. Health physics 11,879-887.
Starr,C., 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165,1232-1238.
Tversky,A.,Kahneman,D., 1974. Judgment under uncertainty : heuristics and biases. Science 185,1124-1131.
Slovic,P.,Fischoff,B.,Lichtenstein,S., 1976. Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. Cognition and social behavior 165-184.
Slovic,P.,Fischoff,B.,Lichtenstein,S., 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy science 8,127-152.
Slovic,P.,Fischoff,B.,Lichtenstein,S., 1979. Rating the risks. Environment 21(3),14-20,36-39.
Combs,B.,Slovic,P., 1979. Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism Quarterly 56(4),837-843.
Slovic,P.,Fischoff,B.,Lichtenstein,S., 1980. Facts and fears :understanding perceived risk. Social risk assessment : How safe is safe enough? P181-216.
Slovic,P.,Fischoff,B.,Lichtenstein,S., 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk analysis 2(2),83-93.
Slovic,P.,Fischoff,B.,Lichtenstein,S., 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. Perilous progress : managing the hazards of technology P225-242.
Gardener, G.T.,Gould,L.C., 1989. Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk analysis 9,225-242.
Hamilton,L.C., 1985. Concern about toxic wastes. Sociological perspectives 28(4),463-486.
Kraus,N.N.,Slovic,P., 1988. Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk : modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains. Risk analysis 8(3),435-455.
Wandersman,A.,Berman,S.,Hallman,W., 1989. How residents cope with living near a hazardous waste landfill: an example of substantive theorizing. American journal of community psychology 17(5),575-583.
Horowitz,J.,Stefanko,M., 1989. Toxic waste: behavioral effects of an environmental stressor. Behavioral medicine 4,23-28.
Taylor,S.M.,Elliott,S.,Eyles,J.,Frank,J.,Haight,M.,Streiner,D.,Walter,S.,White,N.,Willms,D., 1991. Psychosocial impacts in populations exposed to solid waste facilities. Social science med. 33(4),441-447.
Unger,D.G.,Wandersman,A.,Hallman,W., 1992. Living near a hazardous waste facility : coping with individual and family distress. America journal orthopsychiat 62(1),55-70.
Elliott,S.,Taylor,S.M., Walter,S., Stieb,D.,Frank,J.,Eyles,J., 1993. Modeling psychosocial effects of exposure to solid waste facilities. Social science med. 37(6),791-804.
Walsh,E.,Warland,R.,Smith,D.C., 1993. Backyards, nimbys, and incinerator sitings : implications for social movement theory. Social problems 40(1),25-38.
Eyles,J.,Taylor,S.M.,Johnson,N.,Baxter,J., 1993. Worrying about waste : living close to solid waste disposal facilities in southern Ontario. Social science med. 37(6),805-812.
Ostry,A.S.,Herzman,M.C.,Frcpc,M.M.,Teschke,K., 1993. Risk perception differences in a community with a municipal solid waste incinerator. Canadian journal of public health 84(5),321-324.
Slovic,P., 1993. Perception of risk. Science 236,280-285.
Flynn,J.,Slovic,P.,Mertz,C.K., 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk analysis 14(6),1101-1107.
Ostry,A.S.,Herzman,M.C., Teschke,K., 1995. Community risk perception and waste management : a comparison of three communities. Archives of environmental health 50(2),95-102.
Lofstedt,R.E., 1995. Why are public perception studies on the environment ignored? Global environmental change 5(2),83-85.
Greenberg,M.,Schneider,D.,Parry,J., 1995. Brown fields, a regional incinerator and resident perception of neighborhood quality. Risk : health, safety & environment 241,241-261.
Sokolowska,J.,Tyszka,T., 1995. Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks : why are poor countries less concerned? Risk analysis 51(6),733-743.
Tin,C-T.J., 1995. Demographic and socioeconomic influences on the importance of food safety in food shopping. Agricultural and resource economics review 24(2),190-198.
Staats,H.J.,Wit,A.P.,Midden,C.Y.H., 1996. Communicating the greenhouse effect to the public : evaluation of a mass media campaign from a social dilemma perspective. Journal of environmental management 45,189-203.
Davidson,D.J.,Freudenburg,W.R., 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns. A review and analysis of available research. Environment and behavior 28(3),302-339.
Sjoberg,L., 1996. A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation protection dosimetry 68(3/4),219-225.
Gregory ,R.,Winterfeldt,D.V., 1996. The effects of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines on public fears and property values. Journal of environmental management 48,201-214.
Gregory,R.,Slovic,P.,Flynn,J., 1996. Risk perceptions, stigma, and health policy. Health & place 2(4),213-220.
Reams,M.A.,Templet,P.H., 1996. Political and environmental equity issues related to municipal waste incineration sitting. Journal of hazardous materials 47.313-323.
Sjoberg,L., 1997. Explaining risk perception : an empirical evaluation of cultural theory. Risk decision and policy 2(2),113-130.
Elliott,S.J.,Taylor,S.M.,Hampson,C.,Dunn,J.,Eyles,J.,Walter,s., 1997. It’s not because you like it any better….. : residents’ reappraisal of a landfill site. Journal of environmental psychology 17,229-241.
Slovic,P., 1997. Trust,emotion,sex,politics and science. Environment,ethics and behavior 277-313.
Power,M., 1998. A comparative analysis of environmental risk assessment/risk management frameworks. Environmental science & technology / news 1,224-231.
Tanaka,Y., 1998. Psychological dimensions of risk assessment : risk perception and risk communication. Progress in nuclear energy 32(3/4),243-253.
Pidgeon,N., 1998. Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme : why we do need risk perception research. Reliability engineering and safety 59,5-15.
Garrick,B.J., 1998. Technological stigmatism, risk perception, and truth. Reliability engineering and safety 59,41-45.
Renn,O., 1998. The role of risk perception for risk management. Reliability engineering and safety 59,49-62.
Jasanoff,S., 1998. The political science of risk perception. Reliability Engineering and safety 59,91-99.
Frewer,L.J.,Howaed,C.,Shepard,R., 1998. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of risk research 1,221-235.
Burger,J.,Sanchez,J., 1999. Perceptions of on-site hunters: environmental concerns, future land use, and cleanup options at the savannah river site. Journal of toxicology and environmental health, part a,56,267-281.
Sjoberg,L., 1999. Risk perception by the public and by experts: a dilemma in risk management. Human ecology review 6(2),1-9.
Sjoberg,L., 1999. Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government in risk perception. Social trust and the management of risk 89-99.
Mckone,T.E.,Hammond,S.K., 2000. Managing the health of impacts waste incineration. Environmental science & technology / news 1,380-387.
Sjoberg,L., 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk analysis 20(1),1-11.
Wahlberg,A.A.,Sjoberg,L., 2000. Risk perception and the media. Journal of risk research 3(1),31-50.
Sokolowska,J.,Pohorille,A., 2000. Models of risk and choice: challenge or danger. Acta psychological 104,339-369.
Siegrist,M.,Cvetkovich,G., 2000. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk analysis 20(5),713-719.
Lofstedt,R.E.,Ikeda,S.,Thompson,K.M., 2000. Risk management across the globe: insights from a comparative look at Sweden, Japan, and the United States. Risk analysis 20(2),157-161.
Lazo,J.K.,Kinnell,J.C.,Fisher,A., 2000. Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk analysis 20(2),179-192.
Wakefield,S.,Elliott,S.J., 2000. Environmental risk perception and well-being: effects of the landfill sitting process in two southern Ontario communities. Social science & medicine 50,1139-1154.
Dosman,D.M.,Adamowicz,W.L.,Hrudey,S.E., 2001. Socioeconomic determinants of health- and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk analysis 21(2),307-317.
Rowe,G.,Wright,G., 2001. Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or reality ? Risk analysis 21(2),341-356.
Sibinga,C.T.S., 2001. Risk management: an important tool for improving quality. Transfus clin biol 8,214-217.
Sjoberg,L.,Fromm,J., 2001. Information technology risks as seen by the public. Risk analysis 21(3),427-441.
Slovic,P., 2001. The risk game. Journal of hazardous materials 86,17-24.
Sjoberg,L., 2001. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk analysis 21(1),189-198.
Williams,P.R.D.,Hammitt,J.K., 2001. Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce: pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins. Risk analysis 21(2),319-330.
Sjoberg,L., 2001. Political decisions and public risk perception. Reliability Engineering and system safety 72,115-123.
Bouyer,M.,Bagdassarian,S.,Chaabanne,S.,Mullet,E., 2001. Personality correlates of risk perception. Risk analysis 21(3),457-465.
Barnett,J.,Breakwell,G.M., 2001. Risk perception and experience : hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk analysis 21(1),171-177.
Shrader-Frechette,K.S., perceived risks versus actual risks: managing hazards through negotiation.
The presidential/congressional commission on risk assessment and risk management., 1997. Framework for environmental health risk management. Final report volume 1.
劉錦添 1992 環境風險的知覺---台灣的實證研究 台灣銀行季刊45(3)216-231.
英文參考書目
schwing,R.C.,Albers,W.A., 1980. societal risk assessment. How safe is safe enough ? p5-17,p71-84,p181-212.
Franklin,J., 1998. the politics of risk society. Published in association with institute for public policy research.
cvetkovich,G.,Lofstedt,R.E., 1999. social trust and the management of risk. Earthscan publications Ltd, London.
Greenberg,M.R.,Schneider,D., 1999. environmentally devastated neighborhoods: perceptions, policies, and realities. p4-42.
Sadar,A.J.,Shull,M.D., 2000. environmental risk communication: principles and practices for industry. Lewis publishers.
Slovic,P., 2000. the perception of risk. Earthscan publication Ltd, London and Sterling,VA.
中文參考書目
郭生玉 1990 心理與教育研究法 第三章測量方法 精華書局.
黃懿慧 1992 科技風險與環保抗爭---台灣民眾風險認知個案研究 五南圖書出版公司.
王俊秀 1994 環境社會學的出發---讓故鄉的風水有面子 桂冠社會叢書.
林逢祺 1994 哲學概論 桂冠圖書出版公司
張滿玲 1997 社會心理學 雙葉書廊有限公司
賴秀卿 吳焜裕 2000 探討國人對環境物質之風險判斷及直覺毒理概念---以台中縣太平市為例 中國醫藥學院環境醫學研究所 碩士論文
李姣姿 張武修 2000 核能風險認知研究:核電廠附近居民與台電公司員工之比較 國立陽明大學公共衛生研究所 碩士論文
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔