因為全球暖化及自然資源的濫用，天然災害似乎有越來越頻繁且災損愈嚴重的趨勢。相較於其他天然災害(如颱風、水災、土石流)，破壞性地震的發生頻率明顯較低，但其所引發的生命與財產損失卻不容小覷。本研究係屬系列跨文化跨災害(cross-cultural all-hazard)防災準備理論研發與測試的一部分，研究目的在於測試不同文化的人對不同災害的防災準備意圖的相似度。本研究以震災準備意圖為依變項，應用結構方程模式(SEM)檢視臺灣資料與Paton防災準備模式的適配程度，研究場域為臺中市東勢區，採用集群抽樣，將居民依工作地點及集結習慣區分為機關團體、社區、宗教團體、學校4組。四組防災準備意圖模式的SEM整體模式適配度檢定指標均達到適配 (goodness-of-fit)標準，表示該防災準備意圖模式有跨文化特性，意即以個人主義國家紐西蘭的資料研擬的防災準備意圖模式，亦可應用於集體主義國家如臺灣，此研究結果意味著，防災準備意圖模式可更廣泛地被其他易受災國家所運用，可嘉惠飽受災害蹂躪卻無力進行災害研究的未開發或開發中國家。研究結果建議，規劃風險溝通方案時可聚焦在如何協助社區居民減少「負向預期結果」並增強其「正向預期結果」的信念，「正向預期結果」的信念可以改善人們對災害的知識、更了解災害如何造成損害以及如何預防並降低損害，在規劃時可以具體提出每一項保護措施可以降低哪些特定風險，進而讓人們更安全。從實務的角度來看，人們採取防災準備措施的意願低落，常肇因於不相信防災準備可以有效地降低災害損失，故規劃時可協助居民區分災害事件的不確定性及不可掌控性及災害後果的可控制性。規劃原則應強調，透過採取適當的防災準備措施，可有效地降低因災害所造成的損失程度。再者，在進行風險溝通規劃時，可將防災準備拆解成具體可行的項目，分階段式的培訓，先從簡單易做的項目開始，再逐漸增加具困難度及複雜的防災準備，讓人們可以逐漸適應，最終的目標是希望人們可以同時為多種當地常見的災害做好準備。

Due to global warming and the misuse of natural resources, natural disasters are increasing with respect to both their frequency, and the losses and damage they create. Although earthquakes occur less frequently compared to other natural disasters (e.g., typhoons, floods, landslides), the loss of life and property caused by earthquakes cannot be underestimated. This study developed and tested a series of cross-cultural all-hazard disaster preparedness theories. The objective was to investigate cross-cultural similarities in people's disaster preparedness. Using ＂Intention＂ as the dependent variable, structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the level of goodness-of-fit using Paton's Community Engagement Theory (CET). Data were collected from Tungshi, Taichung. Cluster sampling was used to divide the participants into four groups: agency, community, religious group, and school based on their nature of gathering. The results of the SEM analyses indicated that the data were a good fit to the theory for all four datasets. The findings offer support for cross-cultural equivalence of the CET. Confirmation of cross-cultural equivalence supports the contention that a theory developed in an individualistic country, New Zealand, can be applied to research hazard preparedness in a collectivistic country like Taiwan. Another implication of demonstrating cross-cultural equivalence is that the theory becomes available for use in manycountries, especially for those under developed or developing countries that cannot afford to conduct their own research into disaster studies. The results of the analysis further suggest that risk communication plans should focus on how to help community members reduce their belief of ＂negative outcome expectancy＂ and strengthen beliefs about ＂positive outcome expectancy＂. Enhancing levels of ＂positive outcome expectancy＂ may increase people's beliefs that disaster preparedness is effective in preventing or reducing the loss and destruction caused by natural hazard events and increase environmental safety. From a practical perspective, developing positive outcome expectancies can be assisted by risk communication plan that help community members differentiate between uncontrollableevents (e.g., an earthquake) and controllable consequences (e.g., the ground shaking that accompanies earthquakes). Risk communication plans must thus emphasize how proper disaster preparedness measures can reduce the severity of disaster consequences. Moreover, measures can be divided into smaller and manageable actions. Training should start with the easier and more achievable activities (e.g., storing food and water) and then gradually present people with more difficult and complex actions (e.g., building design, retrofitting buildings, and securing building fixtures). The final goal is to help community members to be prepared for all common hazards in their areas.