|Abstract: ||為健全都市的發展,提供良好的生活品質,必須有公共設施的合理配置,但在公共設施的項目中有部份設施具有「服務廣大地區民眾,但可能對生活環境、居民健康與生命財產造成威脅,以致於居民不希望設置在其住家附近」的特性,此即鄰避設施(NIMBY,Not-In-My-Back-Yard)。鄰避設施雖是地方不願意接受的設施,卻是達成部份社會服利不可獲缺的,但該設施所產生的負面影響,往往使得這類設施在設置或選址時,所遭遇的阻力及爭較大,且因現行相關法令的規定使得許多鄰避設施不得不設置於都市的邊緣地區或保護區內,如此的設施配置方式就都市整體發展而言是否公平?是否易造成某些特定地區長期以來即被視為是各種鄰避設施設置的「最佳」區位? 從經濟學的角度觀之,將鄰避設施設置在少數族群或弱團體家園,是一種將負面成本外部化的作法,但此種作法忽略了「環境正義」的基本原則,且目前鄰避設施的設置過程,與一般公共設施一樣,大都僅考慮設施設置後是否能符合「經濟」(服務範圍最大)與「效率」(旅行成本或時間最小)兩大原則,但卻忽略了鄰避設施設置最根本產生「環境衝突」的本質,因此一味的將環境成本外部化給特定的族群,忽略設施本身造成的環境不正義課題,將使此類設施的設置產生更多的社會外部性。 有鑑於此,本研究擬以台北市作為個案研究的實證範圍,首先將檢討鄰避設施設置的相關法令,並由環境正義的角度切入,試圖以各里的「鄰避指數」與「社經背景差異地圖」進行套疊,檢視台北市鄰避設施的配置是否有集中於社經背景較低族群的傾向?就公共設施的配置而言,是否存在著環境不正義的現象?以作為未來鄰避設施設置時的參考及相關法令修法的依據。|
For a city to sustainably develop, public facilities must exist to provide citizens a good quality of life. However, certain public facilities demonstrate a characteristic of "providing multi-functions to residents in a large area, while affecting living environment, health condition, and property value, and hence people are not willing to accept these facilities located in their backyard" These facilities are widely defined as NIMBY facilities. Although residents do not welcome NIMBY facilities, they are necessary in achieving societal goals. However, with negative impacts of NIMBY facilities, the siting of NIMBY facilities usually induce residents' resistance. The existing laws and regulations require NIMBY facilities be sited in the fringe of cities. Is this siting a far decision concerning city development? Will this cause certain areas to continuously become the "best" location for NIMBY facilities? From the economic perspective, the siting of NIMBY facilities in the territories of the minorities and the handicapped is an externalization of negative costs. However, this approach ignores the environmental justice principle Furthermore, the siting process of NIMBY facilities, like other public facilities, only concern with the criteria of "economy" (the largest service area) and "efficiency" (the smallest travel cost), while neglecting the "environmental conflict" of NIMBY facilities. In addition, if the siting of NIMBY facilities ignores the equity and justice principles, it will result in the "environmental injustice." Therefore, the purpose of this study using Taipei as a case study, is to examine relative laws and regulations regarding the siting of NIMBY facilities. From the environmental justice perspective, this study will propose "NIMBY Indicator" and "Social Economics Difference Map" to quantify the environmental justice concept. These two indicators will be used to examine whether the siting of NIMBY facilities is against the environmental justice criterion in Taipei municipality. Further, this result can be adopted as a reference for rectifying relative laws and regulations regarding NIMBY facilities.