:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:從風險知覺論山難搜救人員之面山價值觀
書刊名:戶外遊憩研究
作者:藍晉豪王建興陳渝苓 引用關係
作者(外文):Lan, Chin-haoWang, Chien-hsinChen, Yu-ling
出版日期:2019
卷期:32:2
頁次:頁105-142
主題關鍵詞:休閒運動價值觀妨他風險登山消防人員Values toward recreational sport activityImpeding-others risk perceptionMountaineeringFirefighter
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:1420
  • 點閱點閱:8
本研究從風險知覺觀點,探究山難搜救人員從事登山活動及山搜任務所產生的不同面山價值觀面向。利用焦點團體訪談臺中市政府消防局16位專責山難搜救成員,訪談內容經由論述分析及紮根理論獲得以下研究結論:壹、休閒運動價值觀包含:獲得自我瞭解、健康與適能、美好的體驗及生活滿足;貳、風險知覺構面除身體、心理、功能、時間、社會、責任等外,另發現妨他風險構面。參、山難搜救價值觀包含山岳價值觀、山搜工作價值觀及山搜現況觀點等3個次主軸。肆、在感受山搜過程之風險知覺後,上述七種風險知覺均對山難搜救價值觀產生影響。本研究除建構面山價值觀理論外,亦拓展了山難搜救任務之風險知覺觀點,提供山難搜救研究領域在實務應用上的價值。
This study sought to explore different values toward mountains when rescuers engage in mountaineering activities and participate in mountain rescue missions from the perspective of risk perception. The participants were sixteen mountain rescue officers from the Fire Bureau of the Taichung City Government. Focus group interviews were utilized to collect data. Data analysis methods included discourse analysis and grounded theory. Major findings were summarized as follows. I The values toward mountain rescue included gaining self-understanding, health and fitness, a good experience, and life satisfaction. II The dimensions of risk perception included physical, psychological, functional, time, social, and liability risks. Notably, we found a new dimension, namely the "impeding-others" risk perception dimension. III The values toward mountain rescue included those regarding the mountain, mountain rescue missions, and mountain rescue status. IV The seven risk perceptions that mountain rescuers experienced during mountain rescue missions influenced the values toward mountain search and rescue. This study expanded the perspective of risk perception concerning mountain rescue missions; the findings are of practical application for the field of mountain recues.
期刊論文
1.Cheron, E.、Ritchie, J.(1982)。The organization of leisure in human society。Journal of Leisure Research,14,139-154。  new window
2.黃韞臻、林淑惠(20111000)。大學生人格特質、休閒價值觀與休閒滿意度之相關研究。教育研究學報,45(2),113-135。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Roselius, T.(1971)。Consumer ranking of risk reduction methods。Journal of Marketing,35(1),56-61。  new window
4.Woodside, A. G.(1976)。Interactions of Consumption Situations and Brand Attitudes。Journal of Applied Psychology,61(6),764-769。  new window
5.王守玉、Windsor, Carol、Yates, Patsy(20120200)。簡介紮根理論研究法。護理雜誌,59(1),91-95。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.林惠彥、陸洛(20120200)。工作價值之群體差異--全臺代表性樣本分析。臺灣管理學刊,12(1),99-116。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.陳昺麟(20011200)。社會科學質化研究之紮根理論實施程序及實例之介紹。勤益學報,19,327-342。  延伸查詢new window
8.Tan, S. Jiuan(1999)。Strategies for Reducing Consumers' Risk Aversion in Internet Shopping。Journal of Consumer Marketing,16(2),163-180。  new window
9.陳韶華、廖威彰、黃艾君(20120600)。探討運動與β-腦內啡之相互作用關係。交大體育學刊,3,53-59。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.潘慧玲(20030200)。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊,11(1),115-143。new window  延伸查詢new window
11.吳禮安(20161100)。104年消防機關執行山域事故人命救助案件統計分析。消防月刊,58-64。  延伸查詢new window
12.林群雅、張上鎮、陳盈如、鄭森松(20160600)。臺灣森林芬多精釋出量監測及其功效--以柳杉為例。林業研究專訊,23(3)=131,48-51。  延伸查詢new window
13.內政部消防署(2017)。山域意外事故人命救助機制現況及策進。消防月刊,2017(4),4-21。  延伸查詢new window
14.藍晉豪、王建興(20160700)。從張博崴山難事件論山難搜救人員之面山信念。休閒運動期刊,15,61-74。  延伸查詢new window
15.Stone, Robert N.、Grønhaug, Kjell(1993)。Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the Marketing Discipline。European Journal of Marketing,27(3),39-50。  new window
會議論文
1.Jacoby, Jacob、Kaplan, Leon B.(1972)。The Components of Perceived Risk。Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research。Association for Consumer Research。382-393。  new window
研究報告
1.何中達(2004)。山區緊急救援體系撿討與建議之研究。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.張惠敏(2003)。台灣地區北部私立大學院校學生運動休閒價值觀之研究(碩士論文)。中國文化大學,臺北市。  延伸查詢new window
2.陳致安(2004)。緊急救護風險知覺與風險管理需求之研究--以消防人員為例(碩士論文)。國立高雄第一科技大學,高雄縣。  延伸查詢new window
3.曾舟君(2007)。消防人員工作特性、風險知覺、工作壓力與休閒需求之研究--以台中縣消防人員為例(碩士論文)。朝陽科技大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.林靈宏、張魁峰(2006)。消費者行為學。台北:五南圖書出版有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
2.Cox, D. F.(1967)。Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior。Boston, MA:Harvard University Press。  new window
3.Fairclough, N.(2010)。Critical discourse analysis。Edinburgh Gate:Pearson Education Ltd。  new window
4.Super, D. E.(1970)。Manual for the work values inventory。Houghton Mifflin。  new window
5.Strauss, A.、Corbin, J.(1998)。Basic of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory。Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage。  new window
6.Rokeach, Milton J.(1973)。The Nature of Human Values。Free Press。  new window
7.Lincoln, Yvonna S.、Guba, Egon G.(1985)。Naturalistic Inquiry。Sage。  new window
8.陳向明(20020000)。社會科學質的研究。臺北:五南。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.Strauss, A.、Corbin, J.(1990)。Basic of Qualitatiove research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques。Newbury Park, CA:Sage。  new window
其他
1.交通部觀光局(2017)。中華民國105年國人旅遊狀況調查,http://admin.taiwan.net.tw/statistics/market.aspx?no=133。  延伸查詢new window
2.高堂堯,辛啟松,王煌忠(20160611)。花134萬公帑 登山腳破皮 竟叩直升機,https://tw.appledaily.com/headline/daily/20160611/37264224/。  延伸查詢new window
3.元照(2015)。山難捜救不力,誰的錯?,https://www.angle.com.tw/news/post.aspx?ip=893。  延伸查詢new window
4.黃玿琮(20150809)。颱風天登南湖大山受困3人 安全救出,https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E9%A2%B1%E9%A2%A8%E5%A4%A9%E7%99%BB%E5%8D%97%E6%B9%96%E5%A4%A7%E5%B1%B1%E5%8F%97%E5%9B%B03%E4%BA%BA-%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%E6%95%91%E5%87%BA-090819667.html。  new window
5.黃煌雄(2011)。黃委員煌雄調查:近年來臺灣山難(如:張博崴、李俊生、陳登嵩、林松蔚等事件)頻傳,釀成多起悲劇;究政府山難救援機制是否完備?有無切實執行災難防救任務?相關單位權責劃分及資源配置為何?均有深入瞭解之必要乙案。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.楊國樞(1992)。傳統價值觀與現代價值觀能否同時並存?。中國人的價值觀--社會科學觀點。臺北:桂冠圖書股份有限公司。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Cunningham, Scott M.(1967)。The Major Dimensions of Perceived Risk。Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior。Harvard University Press。  new window
3.周平(2015)。論述分析。社會及行為科學研究法。臺北:巨流。  延伸查詢new window
4.胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考:信度與效度?如何抽樣?如何收集資料、登錄與分析?。質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流圖書股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
5.Bauer, Raymond A.(1960)。Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking。Dynamic marketing for a Changing World。Chicago:American Marketing Association。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE