English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 87956/117187 (75%)
Visitors : 23351338      Online Users : 114
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101156


    Title: 選址政策中的信任與風險溝通: 以台灣低放射性廢棄物最終處置場為例
    Trust and Risk Communication of Site Selection Policy: a Case Study of Taiwan's Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
    Authors: 朱文妮
    Chu, Wen Ni
    Contributors: 黃東益
    Huang, Tong Yi
    朱文妮
    Chu, Wen Ni
    Keywords: 低放射性廢棄物最終處置場
    風險溝通
    選址政策
    TCC模型
    政策審議架構
    low-level radioactive waste final disposal
    site selection
    Trust Confidence and Cooperation Model
    risk communication
    Framework for Policy Deliberation
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2016-09-02 00:23:30 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本論文以台灣「低放選址政策」的信任問題為主題,採用文獻研究、調查訪談、焦點座談、問卷調查等多元研究方法,一方面參照並補充TCC模型作為理論架構,分析「信任」如何分別透過其知識與非知識屬性,影響台東與金門兩縣民眾的最終處置場設施接受度,藉以充實對公共政策中不行動面向之理解,並增加對非科學理性因素之重視。另方面,則綜合實證分析結果,並參酌近期國/內外選址的風險溝通經驗,探討「低放選址政策」如何納入重建信任的風險溝通模式,以協調科學與民主、專家與民眾在決策過程中的關係。研究結果指出,「低放選址政策」的信任問題,彰顯了過去人們用以確保政府機關不負所託的科學理性及專家決策模式,在現代風險社會中,不再足以讓民眾繼續作出授予信任的判斷,並在風險議題中合作。有鑑於在信任的分類與運作模式中,受價值相似性啟發的信任,主導了對科學證據與信心的詮釋。因此,對風險議題進行社會選擇的決策模式,必須能夠重塑集體的價值相似性,形成新的信任穩定機制。本論文乃建議一個重視「代表性、共同框架、決策影響力」的參與式對話平台,將可藉由政策審議架構,尋求在共享價值下,可被普遍接受的正義原則及解決之道,以提升「低放選址政策」的接受度與正當性。
    In this study, the author focused on the trust problems related to the “low radioactive waste disposal site selection” topic and adopted the literature review, survey interview, focus group, and questionnaire survey study methods. One of the objectives was to reference and supplement the TCC model as the theoretical framework to analyze how “trust” as well as its knowledge and non-knowledge attributes can affect acceptance for the final disposal site by the people of Taitung and Kinmen in order to enrich our understanding of the inaction in public policies and strengthen the emphasis on non-scientific rationality factors. The other objective was to incorporate the analysis and empirical results, reference the recent domestic/foreign disposal site selection risk communication experiences, and explore how to incorporate a trust rebuilding risk-communication method into the low radioactive waste disposal site selection, in order to coordinate the relationships between science and democracy as well as the experts and citizens throughout the policy-making process. The trust problems related to low radioactive waste disposal site selection discussed in this study highlight the fact that the scientific rationality and expert policy-making mode relied upon by the government agencies are no longer sufficient for the people to trust the government’s judgments or cooperate in the risk topics during the modern risk society. In terms of TCC model, trust inspired by value similarities drives the interpretation of scientific evidence and confidence. Therefore, the policy-making process that enable to risk-topic related social choice must be able to reshape the shared value and form a new trust stabilization mechanism. In this study, the author proposed a participative discourse platform that emphasizes on “representation, collaborative framing, and decision impacts” may adopt the framework for policy deliberation in search of shared values, as well as generally accepted justice principles and solutions, in order to enhance the acceptance and legitimacy for the low radioactive waste disposal site selection.
    Reference: Coleman, P. T., & R. Ferguson(2014)[2015]。解決衝突的關鍵技巧,沈耿立(譯)。台北:商周。
    Luhmann, N.(2005)。信任:一個社會複雜性的簡化機制(瞿鐵鵬、李強譯 譯)。上海:上海人民出版社
    Rawls, J.(2005)[1997]。再論公共理性的理念。收錄於李國維等(譯),萬民法。台北:聯經。
    Schluchter, W.(1980)[1986]。理性化與官僚化—對韋伯之研究與詮釋。顧忠華(譯),台北:聯經。
    Simmel, G.(2004)[1908]。社會學:關於社會化形式的研究。林榮遠(譯),北京:華夏。
    何明修(2014)。邁向「公民運動」:福島事件後的台灣反核運動。2015年12月6日,取自http://goo.gl/HIWNYX。
    余桂霖(2010)。結構方程式模型:專題分析。臺北:秀威。
    杜文苓(2011)。環境風險與科技政治:檢視中科四期環評爭議。東吳政治學報,29(2):57-110。
    周桂田(2009)。科學專業主義的治理問題-SARS、H1N1、Dioxin、BSE、elamine的管制科學與文化。醫療與社會研討會,南港,中研院社會所。
    周桂田(2002)。在地化風險之實踐與理論缺口-遲滯型高科技風險社會。臺灣社會研究,45:69-122。
    周桂田(2013)。全球化風險挑戰下發展型國家之治理創新-以台灣公民知識監督決策為分析。政治與社會哲學評論,44:65-148。
    林子倫、陳亮宇(2009)。重返民主的政策科學—審議式政策分析概念意涵與途徑之探討。台灣民主季刊,6(4):1-47。
    邱皓政(2011)。當PLS遇上SEM:議題與對話。量化研究學刊,3(1):20-53。
    施佳良、黃東益(2010)。政府信任與核廢料處置政策:以低放射性廢棄物最終處置選址政策為例。台灣政治學會2010年學術研討會,台北,東吳大學。
    許文鴻(2012)。低放最終處置場選址之政策工具:多元利害關係人觀點。政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文,未出版。
    陳寬裕、王正華(2013)。結構方程模型分析實務—AMOS的運用。台北:五南。
    湯京平、蔡瑄庭、范玫芳(2009)。低放射性廢棄物最終處置設施候選場址地方公投之研究。行政院原子能委員會委託研究計畫(編號:97FCMA010),未出版。
    黃之棟(2014)。談「核」容易?:從烏坵選址看我國當前低放射性廢棄物最終處置問題。空大人文社會學報,10(1):45-66。
    黃東益(2003)。民主商議與政策參與-審慎思辯民調的初探。台北:韋伯文化。
    黃東益(2014)。放射性廢棄物最終處置民眾關心議題蒐集與分析。行政院原子能委員會委託研究計畫研究報告(編號:1032001INER047),未出版。
    黃東益、朱文妮(2015)。政府信任與低放射性廢棄物最終處置場接受度:台閩地區、台東縣與達仁鄉之比較。中國行政評論,21(1):77-110。
    黃芳銘(2007)。結構方程模式:理論與應用。臺北:五南。
    蕭代基、黃德秀(2007)。補償對鄰避現象的影響─以烏坵低放射性核廢料場址為例。2015年3月8日,取自http://goo.gl/PBBZFO。
    瞿宛文(2011)。民主化與經濟發展:台灣發展型國家的不成功轉型。台灣社會研究季刊,4:243-288。
    Axelrod, R., & W. D. Hamilton (1981). The Evolution of Cooperation. Science, New Series, 211(4489): 1390-1396.
    Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards A New Modernity. London: Sage.
    Bickerstaff, K., I. Lorenzoni, N. F. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, & P. Simmons (2008). Reframing Nuclear Power in the UK Energy Debate: Nuclear Power, Climate Change Mitigation and Radioactive Waste. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2): 145-169.
    Bingham, G. (1986). Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
    Chung, J. B., & Kim H.-K. (2009). Competition, Economic Benefits, Trust, and Risk Perception in Siting a Potentially Hazardous Facility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91: 8-16.
    Earle, T. C. (2009). Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Risk Analysis, 29(6): 785-792.
    Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in Risk Management: A Model-Based Review of Empirical Research. Risk Analysis, 30(4): 541–574.
    Earle, T. C., & G. Cvetkovich (1999). Social Trust and Culture in Risk Management. In G. Cvetkovich & R. Löfstedt (Eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk (Pp.9-21). London: Earthscan.
    Earle, T. C., & M. Siegrist (2006). Morality Information, Performance Information, and the Distinction between Trust and Confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(2): 383–416.
    Earle, T. C., & M. Siegrist (2008). On The Relation between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management. Risk Analysis, 28(5): 1395–1414.
    Earle, T.C., M. Siegrist, & H. Gutscher (2007). Trust, Risk Perception, and the TCC Model of Cooperation. In M. Siegrist, T.C. Earle & H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty And Skepticism in the Public Mind (Pp.1–49). London, UK: Earthscan.
    Fan, M.-F. (2006). Environmental Justice and Nuclear Waste Conflicts in Taiwan. Environmental Politics, 15(3): 417- 434.
    Fan, M.-F. (2009). Public Perceptions and the Nuclear Waste Repository on Orchid Island, Taiwan. Public Understanding of Science, 18: 167.
    Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis, 9(3): 293–299.
    Fischer F. (1993). Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases. Policy Sciences, 26(3): 165-187.
    Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
    Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative Policy Analysis as Practical Reason: Integrating Empirical and Normative Arguments. In Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller & Mara S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, And Methods (Pp.223-236). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
    Hanberger, A. (2012). Dialogue as Nuclear Waste Management Policy: Can a Swedish Transparency Programme Legitimize a Final Decision On Spent Nuclear Fuel? Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 9(3): 181-196.
    He, G., Arthur P. J. Mol, & L. Zhang (2013). Public Participation and Trust in Nuclear Power Development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23: 1-11.
    Heclo, H. (1972). Review Article: Policy Analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 2: 83-108.
    Hill, M. (2003). The Policy Process in Modern State (3rd Ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
    Hine, D. W., C. Summers, M. Prystupa, & A. Mckenzie-Richer (1997). Public Opposition to a Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository in Canada: An Investigation of Cultural and Economic Effects. Risk Analysis, 17(3): 293–302.
    Huang, G. C-L, T. Gray, & D. Bell (2013). Environmental Justice of Nuclear Waste Policy in Taiwan: Taipower, Government, and Local Community. Environ Dev Sustain, 15: 1555–1571.
    Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
    IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) (1995). The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management, Safety Series No. 111-F, A Publication within the RADWASS Programme. Retrieved from Http://Goo.Gl/Vi47fh .
    IRGC (International Risk Governance Council)(2006). White Paper on Risk Governance towards an Integrative Approach. Retrieved from Https://Goo.Gl/0rdc0c.
    Jenkins-Smith, H. C., C. L. Silva, M. C. Nowlin, & G. Delozier (2011). Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility. Risk Analysis, 31(4): 629-644.
    Johnson G. J., (2007). The Discourse of Democracy in Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Policy, Policy Sciences, 40(2): 79-99.
    Jonsson P., J., K. Andersson, R. Bolado, B-M. Drottz Sjöberg, M. Elam, M. Kojo, G. Meskens, J. Pritrsky, Ph. Richardson, L. Soneryd, L. Steinerova, G. Sundqvist, B. Szerszynski, C-O. Wene, & H. Vojtechova (2010). Towards Implementation of Transparency and Participation in Radioactive Waste Management Programmes. Retrieved from Http://goo.gl/1XNEq7.
    Kasperson, R., D. Golding, & P. Tuler (1992). Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48: 161-187.
    Katz, S. B., & Miller, C. (1996). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Controversy in North Carolina: Toward a Rhetorical Model of Risk Communication. In C. G. Herndl & S. C. Brown (Eds.), Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America (pp. 111-40). Madison: University Of Wisconsin Press.
    Keller, C., M. Siegrist, & T. C. Earle (2011). The General Confidence Scale: Coping with Environmental Uncertainty and Threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(9): 2200–2229.
    Kinsella, W. J. (2004). Public Expertise: A Foundation for Citizen Participation in Energy and Environmental Decisions. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath, & M. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making (pp. 83-95). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
    Krannich, R. S., & S. L. Albrecht (1995). Opportunity/Threat Responses to Nuclear Waste Disposal Facilities. Rural Sociology, 60(3): 435–453.
    Kuhn, R. G. (1998). Social and Political Issues in Siting a Nuclear-Fuel Waste Disposal Facility in Ontario, Canada. Canadian Geographer, 42(1): 14–28.
    Lasswell, H. (1951). The Policy Orientation. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The Policy Sciences (pp. 3-15). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Uiversity Press.
    Lasswell, H. (1970). The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences. Policy Sciences, 1(1): 3-14.
    Levi, M., & L. Stoker (2000). Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3: 475–507.
    Lipshitz, R., Z. Gilad, & R. Suleiman (2001). The One-Of-Us Effect in Decision Evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 108(1): 53–71.
    Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: John Wiley.
    Luhmann, N. (1993). Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York: De Gruyter.
    Larson, Magali S. (1979). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. University Of California Press.
    Mah, D. N.-Y., P. Hills, & J. Tao (2014). Risk Perception, Trust and Public Engagement in Nuclear Decision-Making in Hong Kong. Energy Policy, 73: 368–390.
    McAllister, D. J. (1995). The Second Face of Trust: Reflections on the Dark Side of Interpersonal Trust in Organizations. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 6: 87-111.
    Messick, D. M. (2000). Context, Norms, and Cooperation in Modern Society: A Postscript. In M. Van Vugt, M. Snyder, T. R. Tyler & A. Biel (Eds.), Cooperation in Modern Society (pp. 231–240). New York: Routledge.
    NEA (The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency) (2010). Radioactive Waste in Perspective. Retrieved From Https://Goo.Gl/7mwfcs.
    Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, Mass.: Pearson.
    Olsen, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Ostrom, Elinor. (1998). A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action. The American Political Science Review, 9(21): 1-22.
    Perko T. (2012). Modelling Risk Perception and Risk Communication in Nuclear Emergency Management: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Retrieved From Http://Goo.Gl/K9mejc.
    Petts, J. (2008). Public Engagement to Build Trust: False Hopes? Journal of Risk Research, 11(6): 821-835.
    Rau, I., P. Schweizer-Ries, & J. Hildebrand (2012). The Silver Bullet for the Acceptance of Renewable Energies? In S. Kabisch, A. Kunath, P. Schweizer-Ries, A. Steinführer, (Eds.),Vulnerability, Risk and Complexitiy (pp. 177-191). Leipzig: Hogrefe.
    Renn, O. (2004). The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Participation and Discourse in Risk management. In T. L. Macdaniels & M.J. Small (Eds.), Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field (pp. 289-366). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Renn, O. (2010). Risk Communication: Insights and Requirements for Designing Successful Communication Programs on Health and Environmental Hazards. In R. L. Heath and H. D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp.81-99). Routledge, New York, NY.
    Renn, O., & D. Levine (1991).Credibility and Trust in Risk Communication. Technology, Risk, And Society, 4: 175-217.
    Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990). Policy Networks: A British Perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3): 293-317.
    Rousseau, D. M., S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, & C. Camerer (1998). Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. The Academy Of Management Review. 23(3): 393-404.
    Rowan, K. E. (1994). Why Rules For Risk Communication are Not Enough: A Problem-Solving Approach to Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 14(3): 365–374.
    Rowe, G., & L. J. Frewer (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1): 3-29.
    Shi, T. (2014).The Cultural Logic of Politics in Mainland China and Taiwan. Cambridge University Press.
    Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C., & Gutscher, H. (2003). Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks. Risk Analysis, 23: 705–716.
    Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H. & Keller, C. (2007). Trust and Confidence in Crisis Communication: Three Case Studies. In M. Siegrist, T.C. Earle & H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty And Skepticism in the Public Mind (Pp. 267-286). London: Earthscan.
    Siegrist, M., H. Gutscher, & T. C. Earle (2005). Perception of Risk: The Influence of General Trust, and General Confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8: 145–156.
    Sjöberg, L. (2000). Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust. Risk Analysis, 21(1): 189-198.
    Sjöberg, L. (2004). Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. Risk Analysis, 24(3): 737–749.
    Sjöberg, L. (2009). Precautionary Attitudes and the Acceptance of a Local Nuclear Waste Repository. Safety Science, 47: 542–546.
    Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Refl ections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). Westport, CT: Praeger.
    Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6): 675–682.
    Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4):689-701.
    Slovic, P. (2012). The Perception Gap: Radiation and Risk. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(3): 67-75.
    Smith, B. C. (1976). Policy Making in British Government. London: Martin Robertson.
    Stewart, D. W., & M. A. Kamins (1993). Secondary Research: Information Sources and Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    Stolle, D. (1998). Bowling Together, Bowling Alone: The Development of Generalized Trust in Voluntary Associations. Political Psychology, 19(3): 497-525.
    Viklund, M. J. (2003). Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross-National Study. Risk Analysis, 23(4): 727-738.
    Walker, G. B., & S. E. Daniels (2004). Dialogue and Deliberation in Environmental Conflict: Enacting Civic Science. In S. L. Senecah (Ed.), The Environmental Communication Yearbook (pp.135-152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政學系
    94256502
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094256502
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    650201.pdf2616KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback