| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 都市計劃研究所 === 88 === Traditional environment risk analysis focuses mainly on the assessing of its probability and consequences that are usually employed as the basis for judging whether a risk is acceptable. However, environmental risk perception is not only influenced by the physical hazard characteristics with its probability and consequences but also regarding to person’s attitude toward various hazard sources. According to the normative model of rational choice theory, it is widely applied expect utility model as a descriptive model for analyzing the behavior of decision-maker under risk. In the light of the observations of real society, it is presented that expect utility model is not an adequate descriptive model and it requires an alternative account of choice under risk.
First, this study reviews the literatures related to environment risk perception, comparative risk assessment and environmental hazard consumption that are helpful for developing the analysis framework in this study. While the lay person’s risk perception and hazard consumption attitude is considered, it is found that individual’s characteristic and where he/she located robustly influence risk perception. Kahneman, Tversky (1979) and Viscusi (1989) had suggested that the lay personal choice behavior is much determined through heuristic learning process in the prospective reference theory had promoted. Therefor, this study engaged the investigating of the distinction insides of risk perception and hazard consumption attitudes between experts and lay people by way a questionnaire surveying analysis. Further, we used contingent valuation method to estimate the factors that would influence lay people’s willing to pay for insurance and payment for hazard mitigating and defending.
This research finding that: (a) lay person’s risk perception and hazard consumption attitude is influenced by individual’s characteristic and where he/she located; (b) professional’s risk perception and risk information trust is lower than the public; (c) professional’s demand of precaution against hazard is lower than the public; (d) the personal social-economics characteristics will influence lay people’s willing to pay for insurance and the fees of defending hazard .
|
|---|
