社區居民對防災地圖之瞭解與需求—以土石流潛勢三個社區為對象

Abstract

台灣地區在九二一地震過後，有不少山區每遇豪雨，就會引發規模大小不一的土石流災害，有鑑於此，行政院農業委員會水土保持局為強化各地方自主防災能力，桃芝風災過後，開始推動村里的土石流疏散避難規劃與自主防災社區，並製作土石流社區防災地圖。理想上防災地圖為風險溝通的工具，不僅由政府或專家單向的傳遞資訊給民眾，還強調彼此間的互動與交流，希望藉此提升社區與居民的自主防災能力。本研究以防災地圖的接收者—居民為出發點，透過訪談為主、問卷為輔的方式，針對土石流潛勢地區—上安、花園、桃山三個社區，在確立探討社區防災地圖的分析架構後，瞭解各社區與居民特性，以及他們對防災地圖的回應，並且釐清影響居民對防災地圖回應的因素有哪些。 研究發現，三個社區雖有各自的特性，對防災地圖也有不同的回應內容，但從回應內容的背後卻可歸納找到相同的影響因素。居民看過防災地圖與否，受到訊息管道和教育訓練的影響；瞭解防災地圖與否，受到訊息內容、教育訓練、防災知識的影響；相信防災地圖與否，受到訊息內容、訊息信賴、災害管理、教育訓練的影響；居民對防災地圖的需求，受到災害經驗、環境熟悉、災害管理、訊息內容、訊息管道的影響；居民對防災地圖製作與宣導的建議與意見，受到教育訓練、訊息管道、訊息信賴的影響。 最後，從風險溝通再思考社區防災地圖後發現，當以防災地圖作為風險溝通的工具時，防災地圖常淪為政策宣導，直接由發佈者向接收者丟出訊息，沒有按部就班照著防災社區的推動流程進行。如果從居民對社區防災地圖的回應檢視風險溝通，有無參與防災地圖的討論與製作顯得很重要，因為那影響居民是否看過防災地圖以及對防災地圖的瞭解與相信程度。另外，因為忽略防災地圖製作前與製作後的風險溝通，所以居民多半找不到社區防災地圖的使用時機與重要內涵。而關於居民對製作防災地圖的建議與意見，也該列入風險溝通的討論範圍。

Since the 921 earthquake in Taiwan, there has been debris flow whenever it rains heavily. In order to intensify the self-defense ability of disasters, the Soil and Water Conservation Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan starts to promote the debris flow evacuation program and self-defense communities of disasters; meanwhile, making hazard map for the community. Ideally, hazard map is a tool of risk communication, not only just transmitting to residents by the government and experts, but emphasizing the interaction and communication between each other, so as to increase the communities’ self-defense ability of disasters. From the views of the users of hazard map: residents, this study is predominantly based on interviews and is supplemented with questionnaire survey. Aiming at three communities in vulnerable debris flow areas: Shang-an, Hua-yuan, and Tao-shan, this study researches how residents response to hazard map and what the factors influencing residents’ response. In this study, we find that although three communities have their own characteristics and respond differently to hazard map, factors that influence the responses are the same. Whether the residents read, understand, and believe the hazard map or not, affected by disaster management, educational training, disaster knowledge, and disaster information. The need of the residents toward hazard map is affect by disaster experience, familiarity with the environment, disaster management, information content, and information channel. The opinions and suggestions of residents on making and introducing the hazard map are affected by educational training, information channel, and information credibility. Finally, rethinking hazard maps from the view of risk communication, hazard maps often become verbal policy advocacy, because the sender give information to the receiver directly; not to conduct the hazard map step by step. According to the residents’ responses to hazard map, participating the process of making the hazard map is important. Furthermore, ignoring the risk communication before and after making the hazard map, some residents don’t know how to use hazard map. Residents’ opinions and suggestions to make and advocacy hazard map should be the content for discussion.