本研究立基風險社會文獻，災害社會脆弱性含心理狀況（如風險知覺）、人口或社經條件、家庭結構、社會網絡、網路與社群互動；災害潛勢（如災害經驗）代表危害和暴露量之交集。利用社會變遷基本調查第七期第五次數據，進行多元階層迴歸分析：⑴人口或社經條件對減災整備行為的影響，大於先被加入的災害潛勢、心理狀況。⑵災害經驗、風險知覺可獨立存在，後者對減災整備的影響較大。代表增進風險知覺，比被動地受災，更可鼓勵減災整備行為。⑶心理狀況顯著影響減災整備。⑷教育對減災整備的影響最大，支持災害社會學觀點認為教育提供減災整備知識的吸收能力、資訊管道。⑸家庭結構方面，獨居、有特定需求者、未成年學童對減災整備行為的影響皆不顯著。一方面代表文獻指出有同居者，尤其是未成年學童可鼓勵家庭減災整備行為的狀況，在臺灣不顯著。一方面有特定需求者的家庭，並沒有特別多的減災整備行為。⑹社會網絡、網路與社群互動對颱洪減災整備行為有影響力。

This research investigated determinants of typhoon and earthquake mitigation behaviors in Taiwan based on risk analysis of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability, supplemented by the protective action decision model (PADM). Besides psychological condition (i.e., risk perception, life satisfaction, and anxiety), demographics, and socio-economic characteristics factors (i.e., gender, age, ratio of home ownership, and average monthly income per household) mentioned in the PADM, this research added factors of family structure, social network, and internet and social media usage in the analysis. All of these factors were for the concept of social vulnerability—one dimension of risk analysis. Furthermore, this research used the factor of disaster-prone areas (i.e., disaster experiences, flood-prone areas, and number of protected people possibly affected by debris flow) to represent another dimension of risk analysis: the intersection of hazard and exposure. The 2020 Taiwan Social Change Survey data and multiple hierarchical regression analysis were used for analysis. The results showed that (1) the demographic and socio-economic factor had the greatest impact on mitigation behaviors among all the factors when added hierarchically in the model. This finding added to the literature on the importance of the demographic and socio-economic factor: as the third factor added in the model, it had an impact larger than those of the first and second factors added in the model, namely disaster-prone areas and psychological condition. (2) Risk perception had a larger impact than disaster experience on mitigation behaviors—whether the impact of disaster experience on mitigation behaviors was significant depended on the type of disaster. This result suggested that to encourage mitigation behaviors, actively raising people’s risk perception might be a better strategy than passively focusing on disaster experiences. (3) The factor of psychological condition could be an antecedent variable of mitigation behaviors. Experts or practitioners in the field of disaster management could plan how to integrate mental health services into the promotion of disaster mitigation behaviors. (4) Among all variables, education had the greatest impact on mitigation behaviors, which was an exciting result. This result might support the viewpoint of sociology of disasters which believes that education provides capability to absorb knowledge and obtain information of disaster mitigation behaviors. (5) The impact of the factor of family structure on mitigation behaviors was not significant. Unlike the results of previous studies, cohabiting people, especially school-age children, did not encourage family mitigation behaviors in Taiwan. Therefore, the practitioners must continue to work hard to meet their own expectation that school-age children bring home the knowledge they have acquired from school, thereby influencing their families to take disaster mitigation behaviors. The fact that families with access and functional needs did not have more mitigation behaviors than their counterparts suggested a disaster vulnerability in today’s aged society. (6) Social networks, the internet, and social media influenced the flood model but were not significant in the earthquake model. As there is still room for improvement, practitioners could learn to effectively use existing social mechanisms to promote and implement disaster mitigation behaviors in Taiwan, such as school-based and neighborhood-based disaster education and management, as well as social media.