我國國民的社區意識與鄰里關懷及互動之研究

The study of sense of community and neighborhood caring or interaction among people in Taiwan

本研究主要的目的在於瞭解我國一般國民的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」及「社區互動」，研究以自編問卷以立意抽樣調查2000 位本國國民，回收的有效問卷計1707 份（85.35%），其中男性佔42.9%，女性佔57.1%；各地區樣本比例分別為北部（74.9%）、中部（6.8%）、南部（11.8%）、東部（6.5%）。問卷中「社區意識」計21 題問項，經因素分析後分為三個向度，即「社區參與」、「社區認同與歸屬」、「社區疏離或親和」；「鄰里關懷」計11 題問項，經因素分析後分為兩個向度，即「對人的關懷」與「對環境的關懷」。本研究在受訪對象含蓋的範圍及對「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」的問項內涵都有別於國內目前少數的相關研究。本研究的發現如下：一、 受訪居民有中等以上程度的「社區意識」（5 分量表總平均3.27 分）與「鄰里關懷」（5分量表總平均3.23 分），「社區意識」愈高者其「鄰里關懷」的程度愈高。二、 約有40%的居民不知道自己的「村里名」或「社區名稱」。三、 居民的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」無性別差異。四、 居民的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」有年齡差異，二者均隨年齡的增加而增加。五、 居民的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」有職業差異，家庭主婦與自由業者有較高的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」，學生與以工為職業者其「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」較低。六、 居民的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」有「教育程度」上的差異，教育程度較低者有較高程度的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」。七、 居民的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」有「宗教信仰」上的差異，信仰「佛教」及「一貫道」、「天主教」者其「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」要高於無宗教信仰、或信仰基督教者。真正的顯著差異只發生在「無」宗教信仰」及信仰「佛教、道教」者之間。八、 居民的「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」隨居住的時間增長而增加，其差異存在「居住五年以下」及「居住五年以上」兩者之間。九、 居民居住在「鄉村型社區」者之「社區意識」與「鄰里關懷」要高於居住在「半都市型社區」及「都市型社區」者。其顯著差異存在於「鄉村型社區」與「都市型社區」之間。十、 約有35%的居民不曾到鄰居走動，偶爾會到鄰居走動的居民約有53%，常常到鄰居走動的居民約12%。十一、 居民平均較親密的往來戶數約為4 戶，較親密的往來戶數在「鄉村型社區」約5.5戶，「半都市型社區」約4.2 戶，「都市型社區」約3.6 戶。居民居住的時間愈長平均的往來戶數愈多，居住五年以下者平均往來戶數約2 戶，5-20 年者約4 戶，20年以上者約6 戶。如果以地區來比較「東部或外島」居民平均往來戶數約8.6 戶、「中部」5.7 戶、「南部」4.2 戶、「北部」3.5 戶。「縣社區」與「市社區」平均往來戶數分別為4.3 戶與3.6 戶。十二、 居民往來頻率的「地區」差異呈現與「平均較親密往來戶數」一樣的模式（pattern），即「東部或外島」高於「中部」高於「南部」高於「北部」。十三、 本研究對於上述研究的差異現象也有詳細的討論與建議。

The purpose of the study was to investigate the “sense of community” and “neighborhoodcaring or interaction” among people in Taiwan. The self-administered questionnaire was distributedpurposively among 2000 people across the island. Totally 1707 (85.35％ of response rate) validquestionnaire was collected for analysis. It consists of 42.9% male and 57.1% female. The portionof respondents from each area consists of 74.9% (North area), 6.8% (Central area), 11.8% (Southarea) and 6.5% (East area).The “sense of community” was measured by 21 questionnaire items, and it consists of 3dimensions by factor analysis, namely “community participation”, “community belongingness” and“sense of isolation or closeness.” The “neighborhood caring or interaction” was measured by 11questionnaire items, and it consists of 2 dimensions by factor analysis, namely “care for thecommunity surroundings” and “care for people in the neighborhood.”The uniqueness about the research was its sample covering the island wide respondents andthe items including in questionnaire measuring of “sense of community” and “neighborhoodcaring and interaction.”The research findings were as following:1. Respondents had more than moderate level of “sense of community” and “neighborhood caringand interaction”. 2. About 40% of respondent expressed “don’t know” their community name.3. There were no gender difference in both measure of “sense of community” and “neighborhoodcaring and interaction”.4. There were existing age and profession difference in the measure of “sense of community” and“neighborhood caring and interaction”. It has shown that both measure increasing as ageincreased. Housewife and self-employed profession showed higher level of the measure thanother professions. Students and workers showed the lowest level in both measures.5. People with different educational and religious background had different level of “sense ofcommunity” and “neighborhood caring and interaction”. People with lower level of educationand people with religious beliefs had higher level in both measures.6. There were existing significant difference in both measures between respondents live incommunity less than 5 years and those who live in the community more than 5 years. The longerthey live the higher the level they show.7. There were existing significant differences in both measures between respondents live in urbanand country community. People live in country had higher sense of community and higher levelof caring and interaction.8. About 35% of the respondents had no visit with their neighboring, 53% of the respondents visittheir neighbor occasionally, and about 12% of the respondents visit their neighbor very often.9. On average the number of intensive-visiting neighbor was 4. There were exiting difference innumber of intensive-visiting neighbor among respondent from different types of community,there were 5.5, 4.2, and 3.6 on average in countryside, suburban and urban communityrespectively. It also showed the number increasing as the time live in the community longer,there were 2, 4, 6 on average among respondent live in the community for less than 5, 5-20, andmore than 20 years respectively. It also exiting area difference. There were 8.6, 5.7, 4.2, 3.5 neighborhood visiting on average among respondents living in eastern, middle, southern andnorthern parts of the island.10. The interaction frequency among respondents in different area has shown the same pattern asthe number of people in “intensive-visiting neighbor”.11. The detail discussion about the difference and exception in findings were also provided in theresearch.