查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 大量傷患事件的協力決策治理與系統韌性之比較研究
- 社區協力策略在大量傷患事件緊急救護的系統韌性
- 粉塵爆炸事件之緊急醫療倫理問題探討
- Changing with the Times? Indigenous Q'eqchi Maya Responses to Disturbances in the Sarstoon Temash Social-Ecological System, Belize
- 國土安全與系統韌性治理--以美國情資融合中心公私協力為例
- 從「八仙樂園粉塵爆炸事件」探討國軍後送政策精進作為
- The Study of the Triage Method in a Mass Burn Casualty Incident
- 由教育與研究層面看災難事件及災難護理
- 運用低軌道通信衛星強化國軍資通骨幹系統韌性之芻議
- Surge Capacity解析與規劃--八仙事件的醫院實證
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 大量傷患事件的協力決策治理與系統韌性之比較研究=Compare Study on Collaborative Decision Governance and System Resilience of Mass Casualty Incident |
---|---|
作 者 | 李宗勳; | 書刊名 | 警察行政管理學報 |
卷 期 | 14 2018.05[民107.05] |
頁 次 | 頁113-137 |
分類號 | 548.31 |
關鍵詞 | 大量傷患事件; 協力決策治理; 系統韌性; Mass casualty incident; Collaborative decision governance; System resilience; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 在過去的幾十年裡,公共行政學術致力研究如何通過合作治理構建災害治理的系統韌性設計,鮮少將協力決策置於災害事故脈絡下進行探究。本文將針對2014年7月31日發生的高雄市氣爆、2015年6月27日發生的新北市八仙塵爆、2016年2月6日台南市美濃大地震等三個相當嚴重災害事故,均屬大量傷患事件之緊急應變的協力決策治理進行比較分析,參考相關文獻檢閱建構的分析架構,從信任關係、資訊溝通、課責與規範、領導與授權等四個面向,檢視不同的災害事故類別是否有顯著的不同協力決策治理模式,顯著的影響因素為何,協力決策治理的系統如何進行整合﹖整合是否具有韌性﹖最後將提出精進的政策建議。 |
英文摘要 | Abundant literature discusses collective decision-making, but scant studies put the collaborative decision-making in the context of a disaster situation. Therefore, this study aims at exploring the initiative role and functions of bureaucratic leadership and understanding the critical factors influence on the decision-making process of collaborative disaster governance. After reviewing literature and framing the analytical framework for this study, three cases in Taiwan will be discussed. These include: On 31 July 2014, a series of gas explosions occurred in Kaohsiung City (southern Taiwan), on June 27, 2015, flammable starch-based powder exploded at Formosa Fun Coast, a recreational water park in Bali, New Taipei City (northern). The third case involved with the earthquake occurred on Feb. 6, 2016 in Tainan City (southern Taiwan). Among all the three cases, although an integrated regional disaster management mechanism exists in northern Taiwan, the response seemed chaotic in the beginning. Eventually the disaster was effectively controlled and fewer news stories appeared that placed blame. The paper collected qualitative data through 4 in-depth interviews (5 persons) and 4 focus group discussions (total 42 persons). After the interviews, we had more detailed information about the experience and recommendations for future research directions. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。