系統識別號 U0026-0812200915164127
論文名稱(中文) 行動電話基地台設置的公眾態度:鄰避與其它前導因素
論文名稱(英文) Public Attitude toward Mobile Base Station Siting: More than NIMBY
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 電信管理研究所
系所名稱(英) Institute of Telecommunications and Management
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生(中文) 邱思涵
研究生(英文) Szu-Han Chiu
電子信箱 r9696108@mail.ncku.edu.tw
學號 r9696108
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 58頁
口試委員 指導教授-廖俊雄
中文關鍵字 風險感受及利益感受  知識  信任  鄰近  基地台設置態度 
英文關鍵字 knowledge  trust  risk and benefit perception  attitude toward mobile base station siting  proximity 
中文摘要 全球行動電話使用人口在2008年底已達四十億,其普及率為六成以上,行動電話基地台為提供流暢通話的重要基礎設施,然而各國的基地台抗爭卻頻繁發生,其中對於健康的擔憂及不確定性是主要原因。台灣行動電話服務的普及率在2009年高達110.3%,基地台數量則有62,200座,每年平均有超過上千件的抗爭事件,基地台抗爭導致社會資源與經濟上的損失,居民與業者之間長期以來的對峙,也逐漸成為未來電信通訊發展的阻礙。



英文摘要 Worldwide mobile cellular subscribers reached the 4 billion mark with almost two thirds of the population approximately 6.7 billion by the end of 2008. Base stations are served as the transmitters that keep communication connection. Opposition to mobile phone towers has become a routine feature of many countries and the prime concerns of the residents are health risk and uncertainty. Taiwan has one of highly penetrated mobile markets in the world, the penetration rate of its mobile services reached 110.3% in 2009 with a total number of 62,200 base stations. More than one thousand of protests against base station siting took place every year. The opposition to mobile base station siting is a clear and practical problem with highly social and economic costs. The conflicts between local residents and operators are brewing a long time and become a barrier to the development of telecommunications.

In order to install mobile base stations effectively and to make the installations be accepted by the local residents, it is critical for operators to understand what their attitude toward the station siting and what factors they really concern about. This study aims to incorporate “not in my back yard (NIMBY)” reaction in the research model and to analyze the influential factors of attitude toward mobile base station siting in Taiwan. The constructs associated with attitude in the model are risk and benefit perception, trust, knowledge, proximity. Seventeen mobile base stations in southern Taiwan in which protests had ever taken place are selected for data collection. About 300 residents within the 50-meter neighborhood of these stations were interviewed by questionnaires during January to April, 2009, and 258 effective respondents are collected (effective sample rate = 86%). The causal relationships in the proposed research model are evaluated using structural equation modeling.

The results of the study are as follow. It is found that NIMBY reaction associated with the resistance of the residents toward mobile base stations siting is empirically proven to be the most influential factor. The constructs of proximity and risk perception have the highest negative impact on attitude toward mobile base stations siting. Besides, trust in authority “National Communication Commission (NCC)” would encourage reward as well as depress risk, and thus, become a significant determinant to conduct the public to have a positive attitude toward station siting. Interestingly, it is found that plenty of knowledge on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and base station would lead residents to more anxious sentiments and to have negative impact on attitudes toward station siting indirectly. The cognitive dissonance of the public results from residents’ high sensitivity on negative information and unavailability of accurate knowledge. Therefore, this stereotype effect of EMF deeply influences the resident’s negative cognition of mobile base station.

Disputes of mobile base station siting are realistic and demand the solutions to the problem-solving. The findings of this study provides mobile operators a better understanding of public attitude toward mobile base station siting, which is useful for their deployment strategy of mobile network. The managerial implications of this study are as follow. The NCC should play an important role in the provision of the knowledge on EMF and base station. The public should be informed and educated by the accurate information which is brief, easy-to-read and updated frequently, broadcasting in various channels such as TV commercial and brochure. More challenging, mobile operators and NCC should make the siting of mobile base stations publicized and operators’ legality protection should be enacted.
論文目次 Abstract i
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Objectives 5
2. Conceptual Development and Hypotheses 7
2.1 NIMBY Theory 7
2.2 Attitude and its Influential Factors 8
2.2.1 Attitude 8
2.2.2 Proximity 9
2.2.3 Risk Perception 10
2.2.4 Benefit Perception 12
2.2.5 Trust 13
2.2.6 Knowledge 15
3. Research Model and Design 17
3.1 Research Model 17
3.2 Measurement Development 17
3.3 Data Collection and Sampling 19
3.4 Analysis Method 19
3.4.1 Descriptive Statistic Analysis 19
3.4.2 Factor Analysis 20
3.4.3 Reliability and Validity Analysis21
3.4.4 Structural Equation Modeling 22
4. Data Analysis and Empirical Results 24
4.1 Measurement Model Evaluation 24
4.2 Criterion Data Analysis 26
4.3 Construct Reliability and Validity 30
4.4 Model-testing Results 34
5. Conclusions39
5.1 Discussion39
5.2 Managerial Implication 41
5.3 Limitation and Future Research 42
References 44
Appendix A: Items in Questionnaire 54
Appendix B: The Chinese Questionnaire 56
參考文獻 1.Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y., and Waller, M.A. (1996), “Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27, 23-56.
2.Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, 27-58.
3.Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitude and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, 411-423.
5.Armour, A. (1990), Socially responsive facility siting, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario.
6.Bagozzi, R.P., and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, 74-94.
7.Bauer, R.A. (1960), “Consumer behavior as risk taking”, in Cox, D.F., ed., Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 389-398.
8.Bella, D.A., Mosher, C.D., and Calvo, S.C. (1988), “Establishing trust: Nuclear waste disposal”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 1, 40-50.
9.Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107, No. 2, 238-246.
10.Bentler, P.M., and Bonett, D.G. (1980), "Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 3, 588-606.
11.Bord, R.J., and O’Connor, R.E. (1990), “Risk communication, knowledge, and attitudes: Explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 4, 499-506.
12.Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS Basic Concepts. Applications and Programming, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
13.Browne, M.W., and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A., and Long, J.S. ed., Testing Structural Equation Models, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press, 136–162.
14.Carmines, E.G., and McIver, J.P. (1981), “Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures”, in Bohrnstedt, G.W., and Borgatta, E.F. ed., Social Measurement: Current Issues, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press, 65–110.
15.Cavatassi, R., and Atkinson, G. (2003), “'Social' and 'private' determinants of opposition to landfill siting in Italy”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 27- 43.
16.Chang, C. (2005), “How individuals develop brand evaluations in different contexts - The relative impacts of affect self-relevant thoughts and product attribute thoughts”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, 106-111.
17.Chapman, S., and Wutzke, S. (1997), “Not in our back yard: Media coverage of community opposition to mobile phone towers - An application of Sandman’s outrage model of risk perception”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 21, No. 6, 614-620.
18.Chau, P.Y.K. (1997), “Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modeling approach”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2, 309-334.
19.Chung, J.B., Kim, H.K., and Rho, S.K. (2008), “Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1021-1032.
20.Covello, V.T. (1998), “Risk perception, risk communication, and EMF exposure. tools and techniques for communicating risk information”, in Matthes, R., Bernhardt, J.H., and Repacholi, M.H. ed., Proceedings of the World Health Organization/ICNRP International Conference (ICNIRP). Vienna, Austria: International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, 179-214.
21.Crawford, I.M., and Lomas, R.A. (1980), “Factor analysis - A tool for data reduction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 7, 414-421.
22.Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16, No. 3, 297-334.
23.Dear, M. (1992), “Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome”, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 3, 288-300.
24.Devine-Wright, P. (2005), “Beyond NIMBYism: towards and integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy”, Wind Energy, Vol. 8, 125-139.
25.Dudgeon, P. (2004), “A note on extending Steiger’s (1998) multiple sample RMSEA adjustment to other noncentrality parameter-based statistics”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 11, No. 3, 305-19.
26.Edelstein, M.R. (1988), Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure, Boulder, CO: Westview.
27.Elvers, H.D., Jandrig, B., Grummich, K., and Tannert, C. (2009), “Mobile phones and health: Media coverage study of German newspapers on possible adverse health effects of mobile phone use”, Health, Risk & Society, Vol. 11, No. 2, 165-179.
28.Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., and Strahan, E.J. (1999), “Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 4, 272-299.
29.Featherman, M.S., and Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59, 451-474.
30.Fischhoff, R., Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S. (1978), “How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 9, 127-152.
31.Fishbein, M., and Ajzne, I. (1974), “Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria”, Psychological Review, Vol. 81, 59-74.
32.Fishbein, M., and Ajzne, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
33.Fiske, S.T. (1980), “Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39, No. 6, 889-906.
34.Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C.K., and Slovic, P. (1992), “Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 12, No. 3, 417-429.
35.Foreseeing Innovative New Digiservices (FIND) (2009), “ Mobile phone subscribers Q4 2008”, available at: http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx? page=many&id=216
36.Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement models”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, 39-50.
37.Furuseth, O.J. (1990), “Impacts of a sanitary landfill: Spatial and non-spatial effects on the surrounding community”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 31, 269-277.
38.Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., and Boudreau, M.C. (2000), “Structural equation modeling and regression: Guideline for research practice”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 7, 1-70.
39.Glaberson, W. (1988), “Coping in the age of 'Nimby'”, New York Times, 19 June, Section 3, p. 1.
40.Groothuis, P.A., and Miller, G. (1997), “The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis: A study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 15, No. 3, 241-257.
41.Guilford, J.P. (1965), Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
42.Hadden, S. (1989), “Institutional barriers to risk communication”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 9, No. 3, 301-308.
43.Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44.Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
45.Hooley, G.J. (1980), “The multivariate jungle: The academic’s playground but the manager’s minefield”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 7, 379-386.
46.van der Horst, D. (2007), “NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies”, Energy Politics, Vol. 35, 2705-2714.
47.Huijts, N.M.A., Midden, C.J.H., and Meijnders, A.J. (2007), “Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage”, Energy Policy, Vol. 35, 2780-2789.
48.Hunter, S., and Leyden K.M. (1995), “Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 601-619.
49.Hutter, H. P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., and Kundi, M. (2006), “Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 63. No. 5, 307-313.
50.Hyland, G.J. (2000), “Physics and biology of mobile telephony”, Lancet, Vol. 356, 1833–1836.
51.Iles, P., Mabey, C., and Robertson, I. (1990), “HRM practices and employee commitment: Possibilities paradoxes”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 1, 147-157.
52.International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2009), “Worldwide mobile cellular subscribers to reach 4 billion mark late 2008”, available at: http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2008/29.html
53.Joffe, H. (2003), “Risk: From perception to social representation”, The British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 42, 55-73.
54.Johnson, B.B. (1993), “Advancing understanding of knowledge's role in lay risk reception”, RISK: Issues in Health & Safety, Vol. 4, 189-212.
55.Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D. (1985), LISREL VI: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood, Morrisville, IN: Scientific Software.
56.Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity', Psychometrika, Vol. 39, 31-36.
57.Kerlinger, F.N. (2000), Foundations of behavioral research, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers
58.Kim, S. (2006), “Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27, No. 8, 722-740.
59.Klerck, D., and Sweeney, J.C. (2007), “The effect of knowledge type on consumer perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified food”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 2, 171-193.
60.Kraft, M.E., and Clary, B.B. (1991), “Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal”, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2, 299-328.
61.Kundi, M., and Hutter, H.-P. (2009), “Mobile phone base stations - Effects on wellbeing and health”, Pathophysiology, forthcoming.
62.Kunreuther, H., and Easterling D. (1990), “Are risk-benefit tradeoffs possible in siting hazardous facilities”, American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 80, No.2, 252–256.
63.Ladenburg, J. (2008), “Attitudes towards on-land and offshore wind power development in Denmark: Choice of development strategy”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 33, 111-118.
64.Lederer, A.L., Maupin, D.J., Sena, M.P., and Zhuang, Y. (2000), “The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 29, 269-282.
65.Lei, P.W., and Dunbar, S.B. (2004), “Effects of score discreteness and estimating alternative model parameters on power estimation methods in structural equation modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 11, No. 1, 20-44.
66.Liu, H.S. (2002), Position Surveillance using GSM/GPRS Mobile Communication, Master thesis, National University of Cheng Kung, Tainan, Taiwan.
67.Lober, D.J., and Green D.P. (1994), “NIMBY or NIABY: A Logit model of opposition to solid waste disposal facility siting”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 40, 33-50.
68.Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and power, Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
69.Loomis, J.B., Bair, L.S., and González-Cabán, A. (2001), “Prescribed fire and public support”, Journal of Forestry, Vol. 99, 18-22.
70.MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., and Sugawara, H.W. (1996), “Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1, 130-149.
71.MacIntosh, R. (1998), “A confirmatory factor analysis of the affect balance scale in 38 nations: A research note”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.61, No. 1, 83–91.
72.Magnusson, M.K., and Hursti, U.K.K. (2002), “Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods”, Appetite, Vol. 39, No.1, 9–24.
73.Marks, G., and von Winterfeldt, D. (1984), “'Not in my back yard': Influence of motivational concerns on judgments about a risky technology”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, 408-15.
74.Martín-Crespo, M. (1996), “Why yes and why no in my backyard. A revision of the concept of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome around the theme of the production of radioactive waste”, En Política y Sociedad, Vol. 23, 147-152.
75.Matheny, A.R., and Williams, B.A. (1985), “Knowledge vs. NIMBY: Assessing Florida's strategy for siting hazardous waste disposal facilities”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 14, 70-80.
76.McBeth, M.K., and Oakes, A.S. (1996), “Citizen perceptions of risks associated radiological waste”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 16, No. 3, 421-427.
77.Midden, C.J.H., and Huijts, N.M. (2009), “The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 5, 743-751.
78.Morell, D., and Magorian, C. (1982), Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Local Opposition and the Myth of Preemption, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
79.National Communications Commission (NCC) (2009), “Subscribers and revenues of mobile services”, available at: http://www.ncc.gov.tw/chinese/news.aspx? site_content_sn=1135&is_history=0
80.Neubauer, G., Feychting, M., Hamnerius, Y., Kheifets, L., Kuster, N., Ruiz, I., Schuz, J., Uberbacher, R., Wiart, J., and Roosli, M. (2007), “Feasibility of future epidemiological studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations”, Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 28, 224-230.
81.O'Hare, M., Bacow, L., and Sanderson, Debra. (1983), Facility Siting and Public Opposition, New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
82.O’Garra, T., Mourato, S., and Pearson, P. (2005), “Analysing awareness and acceptability of hydrogen vehicles: A London case study”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 30, 649–659.
83.O’Garra, T., Mourato, S., and Pearson, P. (2008), “Investigating attitudes to hydrogen refuelling facilities and the social cost to local residents”, Energy Policy, Vol. 36, 2074– 2085.
84.Okeke, C.U., and Armour, A. (2000), “Post-landfill siting perceptions of nearby residents: A case study of Halton landfill”, Applied Geography, Vol. 20, 137-154.
85.Peterson, S.A., Kowalewski, D.A., and Porter, K.L. (1993), “"Dumpbusting": Symbolic or situational politics?”, Polity, Vol. 25, No. 4, 617-631.
86.Pijawka, K.D., and Mushkatel, A.H. (1991/1992), “Public opposition to the siting of high-level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust”, Policy Studies Review, Vol.10, No. 4, 180-194.
87.Plapp, T., and Werner, U. (2006), “Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: Examples from Germany”, in Amman, W.A., Dannenmann, S., and Vulliet, L. ed., Proceeding of CENAT-Workshop 2004: RISK 21 - Coping with Risks due to Natural Hazards in the 21st Century, London: Taylor and Francis, 101-108.
88.Pontefract and Castleford Express (2009), “Phone mast plan protest”, available at: http://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpress.co.uk/news/Phone-mast-plan-protest.5172540.jp
89.Poortinga, W., Cox, P., and Pidgeon, N.F. (2008), “The perceived health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines: A comparative multilevel approach”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 1, 235-248.
90.Portney, K. (1991), Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The NIMBY Syndrome, New York, NY: Auburn House.
91.Rabe, B.G. (1994), Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States, Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
92.Regoli, R.M., and Hewitt, J.D. (2008), Exploring Criminal Justice, Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
93.Reuters (2002), “Spain Probes Phone Masts In School Cancer Cases”, available at: http://www.reuters.com/
94.Sandman, P.M. (1986), “Getting to maybe: Some communications aspects of siting hazardous waste facilities”, Seton Hall Legislative Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 442-465.
95.Sasao, T. (2004), “An estimation of the social costs of landfill siting using a choice experiment”, Waste Management, Vol. 24, 753-762.
96.Schuller, C.R., Fowler, J.R., Mattingly, T.J., Sundstrom, E., Lounsbury, J.W., Passino, E.M., Dowell, D.A., and Hutton, B.J. (1975), “Citizens’ views about the proposed Hartsville Nuclear Power Plant: A preliminary report of potential social impacts”, Report No. ORNL-RUS-3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge.
97.Shaw, A. (2002), “'It goes against the grain.' Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK”, Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 11, 273-291.
98.Shi, K., Fan, H.X., Jia, J.M., Li, W.D., Song, Z.L., Gao, J., Chen, X.F., Lu, J.F., and Hu, W.P. (2003), “The risk perceptions of SARS and socio-psychological behaviors of urban people in China”, Acta Psychology Sinica, Vol. 24, No. 2, 546-554.
99.Siegrist, M. (1999), “A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29, 2093-2106.
100.Siegrist, M. (2000), “The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, 195-203.
101.Siegrist, M., Cousin, M., Kastenholz, H., and Wiek, A. (2007), “Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust”, Appetite, Vol. 49, 459-466.
102.Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, C., and Roth, C. (2000), “Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 3, 353-362.
103.Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C., and Gutscher, H. (2003), “Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, 705–716.
104.Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C., Gutscher, H., and Keller, C. (2005a), “Perception of mobile phone and base station risks”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 5, 1253-1264.
105.Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., and Earle, T.C. (2005b), “Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 8, 145-156.
106.Siegrist, M., Keller, C., and Kiers, H.A.L. (2005c), “A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 1, 209-220.
107.Skowronski, J.J., and Carlston, D.E. (1987), “Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 4, 689-699.
108.Slovic, P. (1987), “Perception of risk”, Science, Vol. 236, 280-285.
109.Slovic, P., Finuncane, M.L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G. (2004), “Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, 311–322.
110.Smith, V.K., and Desvousges, W.H. (1986), “The value of avoiding a LULU: Hazardous waste disposal sites”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 68, No. 2, 293-299.
111.Sparks, P., and Shepherd, R. (1992), “Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: Assessing the role of identification with 'Green Consumerism'”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 4, 388-399.
112.Steiger, J. H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimate approach”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol.25, 173-180.
113.Stewart, D.W. (1981), “The application and misapplication of factor analysis in marketing research”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, 51-62.
114.Sundstrom, E., Lounsbury, J.W., Schuler, C.R., Fowler, J.R., and Mattingly, T.J. Jr. (1977), “Community attitudes toward a proposed nuclear power generating facility as a function of expected outcomes”, Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 5, 199–208.
115.Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI) (2003), “Attitudes towards the development of wind farms in Ireland”, available at: http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/ RenewableEnergy/Attitudestowardswind.pdf
116.Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C., and Anantharaman, R.N. (2002), “Determinants of customer-perceived service quality: A confirmatory factor analysis approach”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 1, 9-34.
117.Sztompka, P. (1999), Trust: A sociological theory, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
118.Takahashi, L.M. (1997), “The socio-spatial stigmatization of homelessness and HIV/AIDS: Toward an explanation of the NIMBY syndrome”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 45, 903-914.
119.Tanaka, Y. (2004), “Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1575-1583.
120.Toit, S., Toit, M., Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D. (1999). Interactive LISREL user guide, Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
121.Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2004), “Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: The case for an augmented technology acceptance model”, Information and Management, Vol. 41, No. 6, 747-762.
122.Vandenberg, R.J., and Lance, C.E. (2000), “A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 2, 4-69.
123.Waller, R.A., and Covello, V.T. (1984), Low-Probability/High Consequence Risk Analysis: Issues, Methods, and Case Studies, New York, NY: Plenum, 507–520.
124.Weathington, B.L., and Tetrick, L.E. (2000), “Compensation or right: An analysis of employee 'fringe' benefit perception”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, 141-162.
125.White, M.P., Eise, J.R., and Harris, P.R. (2004), “Risk perceptions of mobile phone use while driving”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 2, 323-334.
126.Wilkie, W.L. (1986), Consumer Behaviour, 3rd ed., New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
127.Williams, B.L., Brown, S., and Kahn, M.A. (1999), “Risk perception in context: The Savannah river site stakeholder study”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 19, 1019-1035.
128.Wilson, M., Northcraft, G. B., and Neale, M.A. (1985), “The perceived value of fringe benefits”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38, 309-320.
129.Wolsink, M. (1944), “Entanglement of interest and motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility siting”, Urban Studies, Vol. 31, No. 6, 851-866.
130.Wolsink, M. (2007), “Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 11, 1188-1207.
131.World Health Organization (WHO) (2006), “2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields”, available at: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/research/ rf_research_agenda_2006.pdf
132.Wright, S.A. (1993), “Citizen information levels and grassroots opposition to new hazardous waste sites: Are NIMBYists informed?”, Waste Management, Vol. 13, 253-259.
133.Zikmund, W. (2003), Business Research Methods, 7th ed., Australia: South Western.
134.Zimmerman, R. (1993), “Social equity and environmental risk”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 6, 649-666.
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-07-15起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-07-15起公開。

  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館