颱風是台灣最主要的氣象災害，台灣國土面積雖然不大，但由於各縣市自然與社經條件的不同，使得颱風災害有很明顯的空間差異。「空間」向來是地理學重要的傳統，「災害風險研究」更是近年來國內外方興未艾的重要研究主題。本研究以侵台颱風為對象，分析過去五十年侵台颱風數量、強度與路徑特性及其與死亡人數的定量關係。再由災害風險的構成要素，災害、暴露與脆弱性針對近八年的颱風死亡災害進行綜合風險分析與評估。
研究結果發現，過去五十年來各年代颱風造成的死亡人數呈現減少、持平、然後再增加的趨勢，顯示颱風死亡人數並未隨著科技與經濟的進步持續減少。單從颱風的強度、數量與路徑無法完全解釋死亡人數的變化。利用集群分析選出死亡人數較高的重大颱風事件，並濾除平均值以下的颱風事件後，死亡人數與颱風個數的相關係數可達0.9 以上。顯示重大颱風事件在統計上的關鍵影響。此外相較於過去，近十年侵台颱風的數量大幅增加，路徑也有明顯的變化。
本研究進一步從整體統計數據中解析出兩大集群，即一般颱風事件與重大颱風事件。一般颱風事件中，死亡個案多發生於戶外，且死亡人口屬於較易外出暴露的中壯年男性人口。這部份可以從男女的災害識覺差異、文化背景與職業特性上來解釋。對於重大颱風事件而言，經常是以家戶或整個村落為受災單位，因此在年齡與性別上的分布上就較為平均。
一般颱風事件的死亡災害多分散於各縣市，即無明顯的區域特徵，且死亡風險最高的階段幾乎都不是在風雨最強的時候，而是在風雨較弱的階段。重大颱風事件則可分為都會型與山地鄉鎮型兩類。山地鄉鎮型的死亡風險與高災害潛勢地區的重疊性較高，與降雨的相關性也較好。相較於鄉鎮地區，都會區則由於較佳的防災工程與應變能力，災害潛勢與死亡風險的相關性則較低。

Typhoon is the major meteorological disaster in Taiwan. Although Taiwan’s territory is not large, yet because the natural and social condition difference in each county and city, Typhoon disaster has very obvious spatial difference in Taiwan. “Space” is always very important tradition in geography, and “disaster risk research” is even an ever-increasing and important domestic and oversea research topic in recent years. In this study, typhoon in Taiwan is used as the research target to analyze the typhoons in Taiwan for the past five decades in terms of quantity, strength and path characteristic and its quantitative relationship with the number of death it caused. Moreover, from the compositional factors of disaster risk, for example, hazard, exposure and vulnerability, general risk analysis and assessment for the typhoon death disaster in the recent eight years is performed.
It can be seen from the research result that in the past five decades, the number of death caused by typhoon in each year shows a trend of decrease, flatness and then increase, which shows that the death caused by typhoon does not show a continuous decreasing trend along with the advancement in technology and economy. If we just simply consider from the point of view of typhoon’s strength, quantity and path, it would be impossible to explain the change in the death number completely. If we use Cluster Analysis to sort out major typhoon accidents with higher death number and filter out typhoon accidents that are below the average value, then the correlation coefficient between death number and the number of typhoon can be above 0.9. This shows the key influence of major typhoon accidents statistically. In addition, as compared to the past, the quantity of the typhoon that invaded Taiwan in the recent decade shows great increase, and the path also shows obvious change.
In this study, two major clusters are come out further from the entire statistical data, namely, general typhoon accident and major typhoon accident. In general typhoon accident, the death case usually occurs outside, and the death population belongs to medium age male persons who go out frequently and have the chance to expose themselves. This part can be explained in terms of disaster consciousness difference, cultural background and vocational characteristic difference between male and female. For major typhoon accident, the disaster-receiving unit is usually a family or an entire village; hence, the distribution is more even in terms of age and gender.
The death disaster of general typhoon accident usually distributes among many cities and counties, that is, there is no obvious area characteristic; moreover, the stage with highest death risk is almost not at the time when the rain and wind are strongest, instead, it is at stage with weaker rain and wind. Furthermore, major typhoon accident can be divided into metropolitan and mountain and rural type. The death risk for mountain and rural type has higher overlap with the potentially higher disaster region, and it also has better correlation to the rainfall. As compared to the rural area, the metropolitan area, due to better anti-disaster engineering and accident-handling capability, usually has lower correlation between disaster potential and death risk.

中文部份
王秋原、姜蘭虹、張長義，1984：基隆市山坡地居民對災害調適行為及因應措施之研究。台北：工程環境學刊，5：1-12。
王建國、陳清得，1994：交通部中央氣象局歷年颱風警報發布概況。1-81。
台灣環境與災害政策學會，2005：2005全球環境永續指數 (ESI)－降低天然災害傷害指數分析與建議。內政部消防署委託研究報告，51-60。
江宜錦，吳杰穎，2007：台灣天然災害統計指標體系建構與分析。2007「土地與環境規劃」青年論壇，9-17。
林雪美，2004：台灣地區近三十年自然災害的時空特性。師大地理研究報告，第41期，114-117。
林冠慧，2004：全球變遷下脆弱性與適應性研究方法與方法論的探討。全球變遷通訊雜誌，第43期，33-37。
周俊華、史培軍，2004：中國颱風災害綜合風險評估研究。北京師範大學資源學院博士論文。
戚啟勳，1978：台灣八十年來之颱風(1897～1976)。中央氣象局，1-106。
俞川心，1988：台灣東部氣象災害之分析硏究(二) 。空軍氣象聯隊氣象中心。
孫紹聘，2004：中國救災制度研究。北京：商務印書館，共315頁。
陳國彥，1981：侵台颱風之路徑與強度。地理研究報告，台灣師大，7：61-74。
陳國彥，翁國盈，1982：教學用颱風預報天氣圖。教育部中小學科教育計畫專案補助，國立台灣師範大學地理學系。
陳正改，1994：台灣地區氣象災害之分析。台北師院學報，8：195-212。
陳紫娥、王國洲，2003：颱風路徑與聚落環境安全關係之研究。資源與環境學術研討會。
許飛瓊，1996：災害統計指標體系及其框架設計。災害學，第11卷，第1期。
許飛瓊，1998：災害統計學。湖南：湖南人民出版社，共318頁。
蕭代基、陳淑惠、林舒予、蔡玫芬、黃星翔、黃德秀、楊惠萱、陳柏甫，2006：天然災害社會經濟衝擊與風險知覺調查。國家災害防救科技中心，共65頁。
黃朝恩，2000：人類活動所激化的自然災害。環境教育，第41期，49-56。
黃志能，2003：台灣地區災害防救之探討－以花蓮縣處理桃芝颱風災害防救為例。東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，58-70。
葉欣誠、於幼華、郭彥宏，2002：我們在世界村中的哪一個位置？－台灣地區環境永續性指數之計算及分析。都市與計劃，第29卷，第3期，445-470。
萬慶等，1999：洪水災害統系統分析與評估。北京：科學出版社，6-9。
張文典，2006：居民對颱風災害環境衝擊認知及觀光發展態度之研究－以梨山地區為例。朝陽科技大學休閒事業管理系碩士論文，共104頁。
劉廣英、葉文欽、范治安，1987：台灣東部氣象災害之分析硏究（一）。行政院國家科學委員會研究報告76-23號。
羅俊雄，2004：我國之天然災害及現階段防治對策。中部地區災害防救研討會，逢甲大學營建及防災研究中心，台中市。
謝信良，1986：台灣地區氣象災害之調查硏究。行政院國家科學委員會研究報告第169號。
謝信良、王時鼎、鄭明典、葉天降，1998：百年（1897～1996）侵襲台灣颱風之統計分析。中央氣象局網站：http://photino.cwb.gov.tw/tyweb/tyfnweb/report/rpt-3-2/rpt2.htm。

英文部份
Anderson, A. W. (2007) Advancing Knowledge on the Social Dimensions of Disasters, keynote speech presented at Annual Conference on Hazards Mitigation Research, National Science & Technology Program for Hazards Mitigation, Taipei, February 6, 2007.
Anthony, O. S. (1998) Global Changes and the Definition of Disaster. In: Quarantelli, E. L. (ed.) What Is A Disaster, London and New York: Rutledge, 177-194
Birkmann, J. (2006) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards, Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1-48.
Bogardi, J. and Birkmann, J. (2004) Vulnerability Assessment: The First Step Towards Sustainable Risk Reduction. In: Malzahn, D. and Plapp, T. (eds.) Disaster and Society – From Hazard Assessment to Risk Reduction, Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin, 75-82.
Bohle, H. G. (2001) Vulnerability and Criticality: Perspectives from Social Geography, IHDP Update 2/2001, Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change: 1-7.
Bollin, C., Cardenas, Hahn, H. and Vatsa, K. S. (2003) Natural Disaster Network; Disaster Risk Management by Communities and Local Governments, Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank, 67.
Burton, I., Kates. R. W. and White, G. F. (1978) The Environment as Hazard. New York: Oxford University Press, 19-50.
Cardona, O. D. (1999) Environmental Management and Disaster Prevention: Two Related Topics: A Holistic Risk Assessment and Management Approach. In: Ingleton, J. (ed.) Natural Disaster Management, London: Tudor Rose.
CDC (2004) Preliminary Medical Examiner Reports of Mortality Associated with Hurricane Charley — Florida, 2004. MMWR, 53 (36): 835–837.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century, IDS Discussion Paper 296, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
Changnon, S. A., Pielke Jr, R. A., Changnon, D., Sylves, R. T., and Pulwarty, R. (2000) Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81 (3): 438.
Combs, D. L., Quenemoen, L. E., Parrish, R. G. and Davis, J. H. (1999) Assessing Disaster Attributed Mortality: Development and Application of a Definition and Classification Matrix. Int J Epidemiol, 28: 1124–1129.
Crichton, D. (1999) The Risk Triangle, In: Ingleton, J. (ed.) Natural Disaster Management, London: Tudor Rose, 102-103.
Davidson, R. (1997) An Urban Earthquake Disaster Risk Index, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Report No. 121, Stanford: Stanford University.
Davoudi, S. and Layard, A. (2001) Sustainable Development and Planning : An Overview. In: Layard, A., Davoudi, S. and Batty, S. (eds.) Planning for a Sustainable Future, London and New York: Spon Press, 7-17.
DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihood Guidance Sheets, London: DFID.
Dilley, M. (2002) Managing risks of climate-related losses on decadal time scales, A Climate Risk Management Approach to Disaster Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change, UNDP Expert Group Meeting, 17-19 June 2002, Havana, 60.
Emanuel, K. (2005) Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, 436: 686-688.
Environmental Sustainabilty Index (ESI) (2001) 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index, New Haven, Conn.: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 10-11.
Environmental Sustainabilty Index (ESI) (2002) 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index, New Haven, Conn.: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 7-8.
Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) (2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index, New Haven, Conn.: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, 14-15.
Esty, Daniel C. (2002) Why Measurement Matters, Environmental Performance Measurement: The Global 2001-2002 Report (D. C. Esty and P. Cornelius, ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ghai, D. and Vivian, J. (1995) Grassroots Environmental Action: People’s Participation in Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
Granger, K. (2003) Quantifying Storm Tide Risk in Cairns, Natural Hazards, 30: 165-185.
Hegerl, G. C., Zwiers, F. W., Braconnot, P., Gillett, N.P., Luo, Y., Marengo Orsini, J. A., Nicholls, N., Penner J. E. and Stott, P. A. (2007) Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., .Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 682-688.
Hilhorst, D. and Bankoff, G. (2004) Introduction: Mapping Vulnerability, in Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D. (eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disaster, Development and People, London: Earthscan.
Peduzzi, P., Dao, H. and Herold, C. (2002) Global Risk and Vulnerability Index Trends per Year (GRAVITY), Phase II: Development, analysis and results, UNDP/BCPR, Geneva, available at http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/
download/ew_gravity2.pdf.
Serageldin, I. (1995) Promoting Sustainable Development: Toward a New Paradigm. In: Serageldin, I. and Steer, A. (eds.) Valuing the Environment: Proceedings of the first Annual International Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development, Washington D.C.: World Bank, 13-21.
Smith, K. (1996) Environmental Hazards-Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, London and New York: Routledge, 22.
Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A. and Schiller, A. (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14): 8074-8079.
UNDP (2004) Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. A Global Report, New York: BRCP.
UN/ISDR (2004) Living with Risk: A Global Review of Disaster Reduction Initiatives, Geneva: UN Publications, 23.
van der Link, G., and Coauthors (1998) Why the U.S. is becoming more vulnerable to natural disasters, Eos,Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 79: 536-537.
Webster, P. J., Holland, G. J., Curry, J. A. and Chang, H. R. (2005) Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number , Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment, Science, 309: 1844-1846.
White, G. F. (1945) Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographical Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper, 29.
Wisner, B. P., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I. (2004) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters, London: Routledge.