請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/43918
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林宜平(Yi-Ping Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | Yen-Chun Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 林彥君 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T02:32:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-09-16 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-09-16 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-08-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 第一部分 台灣民眾對電磁場與其他環境因子的風險感知
1.Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood-Cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 1979; 109: 273-84. 2.World Health Organization. Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields. Radiation and Environmental Health. Department of Protection of the Human Environment, World Health Organization 2002. 3.World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields and public health-Exposure to extremely low frequency fields. 2007. 4.BioInitiative. BioInitiative Report- A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). 2007. 5.Slovic P, Fischoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why Study Risk in Perception. Risk Analysis 1982; 2: 82-93. 6.劉祥達、莊慶達、陳均龍:從核四建廠風險認知觀點探討貢寮地區漁業經營對漁村經濟之影響。 農業與經濟 2007; 38: 119-59。 7.Baird IS, Thomas H. Toward a Contingency-Model of Strategic Risk-Taking. Academy of Management Review 1985; 10: 230-43. 8.Slovic P. Perception of Risk. Science 1987; 236: 280-5. 9.李明聰、甘志展:消費者對食品安全議題之風險認知與其消息來源可靠度之研究。 食品市場資訊 2008; 4: 1-10。 10.黃懿慧:科技風險與環保抗爭-台灣民眾風險認知個案研究。 五南書局,1994;301-31。 11.Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How Safe Is Safe Enough - Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences 1978; 9: 127-52. 12.Covello VT Baram M, Partan D. Informing people about environmental health risks: A review of obstacles to public understanding and effective risk communication. 1985: 3-17. 13.Ropeik D, Slovic P. Risk in Perspective. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 2003; 11. 14.Douglas M, Wildavsky A. How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process. Risk Analysis 1982; 2. 15.Sokolowska J, Tyszka T. Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: Why are poor countries less concerned? Risk Analysis 1995; 15: 733-43. 16.Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield (Reprinted from Environment, ethics, and behavior, pg 277-313, 1997). Risk Analysis 1999; 19: 689-701. 17.Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. 2000; 104-20. 18.Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P. Intutitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgements of Chemical Risks. Risk Analysis 1992; 16: 391-404. 19.Jeffrey KL, Jason CK, Fisher A. Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risks. Risk Analysis 2000; 202: 179-93. 20.Viklund M. Energy Policy Option from the Perception of Public Attitudes and Risk Perception. Energy Policy 2004; 32: 1156-71. 21.Sohn KY, Yang JW, Kang CS. Assimilation of public opinions in nuclear decision-making using risk perception. Annals of Nuclear Energy 2001; 28: 553-63. 22.Liu JT, Hsieh CR. Risk Perception and Smoking-Behavior - Empirical-Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1995; 11: 139-57. 23.傅祖壇、陳信通:風險性物品之消費行爲:臺灣檳榔之實證。 農業經濟叢刊 1999; 4。 24.周桂田:獨大的科學理性與隱沒(默)的社會理性之「對話」-在地公眾、科學專家與國家的風險文化探討。台灣社會研究季刊 2004; 56: 1-63。 25.Chou KT. Public Trust and Risk Perception: A Preliminary Study of Taiwan’s GMOs. Taiwanese Journal of Studies for Science, Technology and Medicine 2007; 4: 149-76. 26.World Health Organization. Electromagnetic Field and Public Health-Public Perception of EMF Risks. World Health Organization 1998. 27.Maerli MB. The Norwegian public's perception of risk from electromagnetic fields. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 1996; 68: 235-8. 28.Gregory R, vonWinterfeldt D. The effects of electromagnetic fields from transmission lines on public fears and property values. Journal of Environmental Management 1996; 48: 201-14. 29.Beale I, Thoms N. Public perceptions of safety standards for human exposure to electromagnetic field. Bioelectromagnetism, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conferenceed 1998. 30.Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, Keller C. Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis 2005; 25: 1253-64. 31.Martha C, Griffet J. Brief report: How do adolescents perceive the risks related to cell-phone use? Journal of Adolescence 2007; 30: 513-21. 32.White MP, Eiser JR, Harris PR, Pahl S. Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology. Risk Analysis 2007; 27: 741-53. 33.Poortinga W, Cox P, Pidgeon NF. The perceived health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines: A comparative multilevel approach. Risk Analysis 2008; 28: 235-48. 34.Bianco A, Nobile CGA, Gnisci F, Pavia M. Knowledge and perceptions of the health effects of environmental hazards in the general population in Italy. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2008; 211: 412-9. 35.Vecchia P. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: Lessons for the future. Journal of Biological Physics 2003; 29: 269-74. 36.European Commission. Available at URL: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/standard_en.htm 37.European Commission. Special Eurobarometer-Electromagnetic Fields. 2007. 38.World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields and public health-Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. World Health Organization 2005. 39.Hillert L, Berglind N, Arnetz BB, Bellander T. Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population-based questionnaire survey. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002; 28: 33-41. 40.Levallois P, Neutra R, Lee G, Hristova L. Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California. Environ Health Perspect 2002; 110 (suppl 4): 619-23. 41.Roosli M. Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non-specific symptoms of ill health: a systematic review. Environ Res 2008; 107: 277-87. 42.Eltiti S, Wallace D, Ridgewell A, Zougkou K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, Mirshekar-Syahkal D, et al. Does short-term exposure to mobile phone base station signals increase symptoms in individuals who report sensitivity to electromagnetic fields? A double-blind randomized provocation study. Environmental Health Perspectives 2007; 115: 1603-8. 43.Tseng MC, Lin YP, Cheng TJ. Prevalence and psychiatric comorbidity of self-reported electric and magnetic field sensitivity in Taiwan: A population-based study. 44.洪永泰:戶中選樣之硏究。 國立政治大學選舉硏究中心,2001。 45.The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Standard Definitions: Final Disposition of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 4th edition. 2006. 46.Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999; 29: 2093-106. 第二部分 台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場的風險、利益與信任感知 1.Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood-Cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 1979; 109: 273-84. 2.Ahlbom A, Bergqvist U, Bernhardt JH, Cesarini JP, Court LA, Grandolfo M, Hietanen M, et al. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 1998; 74: 494-522. 3.World Health Organization. Electromagnetic fields and public health-Exposure to extremely low frequency fields. 2007. 4.BioInitiative. BioInitiative Report- A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). 2007. 5.World Health Organization. Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields. Radiation and Environmental Health. ed.: Department of Protection of the Human Environment, World Health Organization 2002. 6.Morell D. Siting and the Politics of Equity. Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials 1984; 1: 555-71. 7.Ropeik D, Slovic P. Risk in Perspective. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis 2003; 11. 8.Jungermann H, Pfister HR, Fischer K. Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Analysis 1996; 16: 251-61. 9.Freudenburg WR. Risk and Recreancy - Weber, the Division-of-Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions. Social Forces 1993; 71: 909-32. 10.Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns - A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 1996; 28: 302-39. 11.Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Analysis 2002; 20: 713-20. 12.UNEP. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. UNEP 1992. 13.王榮德、林宜平:電磁場健康風險與預警原則記者會新稿。台大公衛學院風險分析中心, 2007。 14.林宜平、詹長權:非游離輻射對環境衝擊之研究。行政院環境保護署, 2007。 15.Wiedemann PM, Schutz H. The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives 2005; 113: 402-5. 16.宋明哲:現代風險管理。五南圖書出版股份有限公司,2001。 17.黃懿慧:科技風險與環保抗爭-台灣民眾風險認知個案研究。五南書局,1994。 18.Priestley T, Evans GW. Resident perceptions of a nearby electric transmission line. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1996; 16: 65-74. 19.Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Public perception of risk concerning celltowers and mobile phones. Sozial-Und Praventivmedizin 2004; 49: 62-6. 20.Barnett J, Timotijevic L, Shepherd R, Senior V. Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones. Health Policy 2007; 82: 240-50. 21.Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, Keller C. Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis 2005; 25: 1253-64. 22.Poortinga W, Cox P, Pidgeon NF. The perceived health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines: A comparative multilevel approach. Risk Analysis 2008; 28: 235-48. 23.Gardner GT, Tiemann AR, Gould LC, Deluca DR, Doob LW, Stolwijk JAJ. Risk and Benefit Perceptions, Acceptability Judgments, and Self-Reported Actions toward Nuclear-Power. Journal of Social Psychology 1982; 116: 179-97. 24.Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A Psychological-Study of the Inverse Relationship between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. Risk Analysis 1994; 14: 1085-96. 25.Vassie L, Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 1979; 3: 65-102. 26.Slovic P. Perception of Risk from Radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 1996; 68: 165-80. 27.Macoubrie J, Cobb MD. Public Perceptions About Nanotechnology: Risks, Benefits and Trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2004; 6: 395-405. 28.Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S. What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology 2006; 1: 153-5. 29.Timothy C. Earle GC. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. 1995. 30.Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999; 29: 2093-106. 31.Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000; 20: 195-203. 32.Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A. Laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis 2007; 27: 59-69. 33.Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How Safe Is Safe Enough - Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences 1978; 9: 127-52. 34.洪永泰:戶中選樣之硏究。 國立政治大學選舉硏究中心,2001。 35.The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Standard Definitions: Final Disposition of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 4th edition. 2006. 36.Gregory R, Mendelsohn R. Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits. Risk Analysis 1993; 13: 259-64. 37.Vecchia P. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: Lessons for the future. Journal of Biological Physics 2003; 29: 269-74. 38.Morgan MG, Florig HK, Nair I, Cortés C, Marsh K, Pavlosky K. Lay Understanding of Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. Bioelectromagnetics 1990; 11: 313-35. 39.Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield (Reprinted from Environment, ethics, and behavior, pg 277-313, 1997). Risk Analysis 1999; 19: 689-701. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/43918 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究分為兩部分,第一部分比較台灣民眾對電磁場與其他環境健康風險的感知;第二部分則探討民眾對不同來源電磁場的風險、利益與信任感知。
兩部分研究都委託中央研究院調查訪問中心進行,分別於2007年與2008年進行電話抽樣調查,調查使用全國電話資料庫作為抽樣母體,採兩階段分層等距抽樣,抽出年滿十八歲以上中選的受訪對象,再由訪員撥號進行訪問。2007年的有效樣本1,251例,完訪率為17.8%,拒訪率為35.4%;2008年的有效樣本2,035例,完訪率為16.3%,拒訪率為38.2%。 本研究第一部分,「台灣民眾對電磁場與各種環境因子的健康風險感知」,問卷參考2006年的歐盟意見調查設計,內容包括不同來源的電磁場以及各種環境因子對身體健康的影響等;結果發現台灣民眾認為「食品安全」對身體健康的影響最大;其次則為生活周遭的化學物質、戶外空氣品質、飲用水水質、垃圾/廢棄物、高壓電線、居住環境、噪音、基地台、室內空氣品質、過度的日曬、手機以及電器用品。本研究透過群聚分析(cluster analysis)將樣本對不同環境因子的健康風險感知分出「高風險」、「電磁場」、「環境」與「低風險」四個群體,這四個群體在人口學特性以及自陳電磁波過敏比例上都有差異。 本研究第二部分,「台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場的風險、利益與信任感知」,問卷參考瑞士2002年的民眾風險感知研究設計,發現台灣民眾在基地台、高壓電線、變電箱、手機、微波爐及無線網路等六種電磁波來源中,對高壓電線感知的風險最高,其次則是基地台與變電箱;利益感知則以手機最高,其次是無線網路;至於對政府管制的信任程度,民眾最不信任政府對基地台的管制。本研究發現女性對電磁場的風險感知都較男性高,而年齡較大、教育程度較高,以及利益、信任和同意電磁場會致癌,都是決定台灣民眾對高壓電線和基地台風險感知的重要因子。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study has two parts: the first part is to compare the public perception of health risk from electromagnetic field (EMF) and various environmental factors in Taiwan and the second part is to investigate the public perception of risk, benefit and trust for various sources of electromagnetic fields.
The telephone surveys were conducted by the Center for Survey Research, Academia Sinica in 2007 and 2008. The surveys used national telephone database and the two-stage stratified systematic sampling method. The respondents were aged eighteen years and above. In August 2007, we collected 1,251 effective samples; the response and the non-response rates were 17.8% and 35.4%, respectively. In 2008, we collected 2,035 effective samples; the response and the non-response rates were 16.3% and 38.2%, respectively. In the first part, we investigated the public perception of health risk from EMF and various environmental factors in references to the European Union opinion survey in 2006. Our respondents thought that ‘food safety’ has the greatest influence on health in Taiwan, followed by chemicals, outdoor air quality, drinking water quality, waste dumping, high-voltage power lines, housing conditions, noise, base station, indoor air quality, over-exposure to sun, mobile phone and household electrical equipments. Further, we used cluster analysis to distinct four groups of health risk perception, include “high risk”, “EMF”, “environmental” and “low risk” groups. Our study indicated that there were significant differences in demographic characters and self-reported EMF hypersensitivity in the EMF and environmental health risk clusters. In the second part, we investigated the public perception of risk, benefit and trust for various sources of electromagnetic fields in references to the EMF risk perception study in Swiss in 2002. According to our respondents’ assessments, high-voltage power lines were the most risky source of EMF, followed by base station and transformer, while mobile phone were the most benefit source of EMF, followed by wireless internet. The regulations of base station were the most distrusted. Further, our results reveal that female respondents reported higher risk perceptions than male respondents. Older age, higher education, benefits, trusts, and agree that ‘EMF may cause cancers’ were important factors in deciding the risk perception of high-voltage transmission lines and base station in Taiwan. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T02:32:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R96841017-1.pdf: 1086840 bytes, checksum: 1002a10e355a192cf21ef6494f0058ab (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄 i
圖目錄 v 表目錄 vi 摘 要 vii Abstract ix 第一部分 台灣民眾對電磁場與其他環境因子的風險感知 1 第一章 緒論 3 第一節 研究背景與動機 3 第二節 研究目的 4 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 風險感知 5 第二節 對各種環境因子的健康風險感知 6 第三節 電磁場的風險感知 8 第四節 歐盟環境健康風險調查 10 第五節 電磁場過敏症 11 第三章 材料與方法 15 第一節 研究對象與方法 15 第二節 研究工具 16 第三節 調查過程 16 第四節 資料分析 17 第四章 結果 23 第一節 台灣民眾對電磁場與其他環境因子的風險感知 23 第二節 對不同來源電磁波風險感知的社會人口學分佈 23 第三節 電磁場與其他環境因子間的相關 25 第四節 環境與電磁場風險感知的群聚分佈 25 第五節 風險感知群聚的人口學特性與自陳電磁波過敏 25 第五章 討論 37 第一節 台灣與歐盟民眾對電磁場與其他環境因子風險感知的差異 37 第二節 台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場風險感知的特性 38 第三節 自陳電磁波過敏與民眾對電磁場的風險感知 39 參考文獻 43 第二部分 台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場的風險、利益與信任感知 47 第一章 緒論 49 第一節 研究背景與動機 49 第二節 研究目的 50 第二章 文獻探討 51 第一節 電磁場的健康風險爭議 51 一、 科學不確定性 51 二、 預警原則 (precautionary principle) 51 三、 電磁場的風險溝通 52 第二節 影響電磁場風險感知的因素 53 第三節 電磁場的健康風險、利益與信任 54 一、 風險與利益 54 二、 風險、利益與信任 55 三、 對電磁場的風險、利益與信任 55 第三章 材料與方法 59 第一節 研究對象與方法 59 第二節 研究工具 60 第三節 調查過程 60 第四節 資料分析 61 第四章 結果 67 第一節 台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場的風險、利益與信任感知 67 第二節 民眾對不同來源電磁場的風險與利益感知 67 第三節 手機使用頻率與對手機和基地台的利益感知 67 第四節 對不同來源電磁場風險感知的人口學分析 68 第五節 影響電磁場風險感知的多變項分析 69 第五章 討論 75 第一節 台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場的高風險、高利益與低信任 75 第二節 手機使用頻率和基地台距離與對基地台的風險和利益感知 76 第三節 女性、年長和高教育程度者的高風險感知 77 第四節 電磁場致癌對風險感知的影響 78 參考文獻 79 附錄一 電磁場與環境健康風險電話訪問調查(2007年) 83 附錄二 電磁場健康風險感知電話訪問調查(2008年) 87 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 台灣民眾對電磁場的風險感知 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Public Risk Perception of Electromagnetic Field in Taiwan | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 鄭尊仁(Tsun-Jen Cheng) | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 詹長權(Chang-Chuan Chan),吳焜裕(Kuen-Yuh Wu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 電磁場,環境因子,風險,利益,信任, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Electromagnetic Field,Environmental Factors,Risk,Benefit,Trust, | en |
dc.relation.page | 98 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-08-14 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-98-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.06 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。