English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113318/144297 (79%)
Visitors : 51069361      Online Users : 937
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: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35664


    Title: 專業、民意與環境影響評估:環保署中央開發案例內容分析(1996-2005)
    Authors: 邱玲裕
    Contributors: 吳秀光
    邱玲裕
    Keywords: 環境影響評估
    參與
    專業
    民意
    內容分析法
    Date: 2007
    Issue Date: 2009-09-18 15:38:02 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 環境影響評估法自實施以來已屆滿十二年,該制度首開國內將民眾參與納入制度中之先例,原本其立意是讓與環境切身相關的民眾得以參與公共政策,以減少衝突,然而,民眾不滿審查結果的相關爭議卻未曾停歇,據此,本研究認為應該找出開發案例特性、參與方式與審查結論之間的關係,以增進對我國環評實務的瞭解。本研究是以環境影響評估資料庫中的書件查詢系統為研究對象,主要目的在於瞭解1996年至2005年行政院環保署所累積之中央開發案例之趨勢,以期對於參與程序做實證評估促使評估機制獲得社會的公平與信賴,減少抗爭衝突之發生。
    本論文首先透過文獻探討公民參與之意義與限制,並以理性選擇學派對於參與之詮釋,釐清參與可能遭受的挑戰與問題,其次檢閱目前與環境影響評估研究相關的文獻,藉此找出本文之定位,並整理各類文獻,建構本研究對於參與情形之評估構面與操作化問題,並以之為內容分析法問卷之基礎。
    實證資料蒐集時,以參與主體、資訊公開以及民意調查五大準則先進行資料內容之評估、分類與編碼,據此進行統計分析與比較,最後進行訪談。整體案例共有440件,彙整統計資料加以分析討論,輔以訪談內容,得出相關研究結果,本研究之發現如下:
    一、在整體趨勢上,以委員會年度而言,近半數之開發案例集中於90年至93年四年期間;開發單位方面,若將國營事業列入政府相關單位計算,則政府與民間企業的開發案件趨近一比一;在開發類別,顯示我國仍偏重交通之硬體建設之開發;在基地行政轄區,開發案例明顯集中於北部及南部兩大區域;在審查結論上,全部案例之中有八成開發案於第一階段通過審查。
    二、法律規範參與方式之實際參與情形為,以公開說明會實行比例最高、環保團體之出席狀況偏低、民眾踴躍參與公開說明會,現場勘查參與情況不佳、政府人員與專家委員與民意代表參與習慣之差異。
    三、民意調查之實行情形為,開發單位偏好實行民意調查更甚於其他參與程序、引導式問卷問題已逐漸改善,但問卷之效度仍須注意。
    四、以440件案例中有舉辦民調之213件案例,探討民眾意見與專家結論關係,研究結果發現,審查結果通過之案例其整體贊成開發民眾之比例,明顯大於審查結果為不通過之民眾比例。
    The law of environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been implemented for 12 years. EIA, in order to reduce the conflict by facilitating civil participation in the policy making process, is the first institution for civil participation in our country. However, people’s dissatisfaction with the results of the environmental impact assessment never ebbs. Accordingly, this study attempts to find out the relationship among the development cases, methods of civil participation and the deliberative results, in order to facilitate the understanding of the EIA in. Taiwan.
    The main purpose lies in understanding the trend of the deliberative result of the development cases in the environmental protection administration of the central government in Taiwan by means of assessing these cases, expecting to make the mechanism and its procedure trustworthy for society and reduce the emergence of the conflicts. The target of the study is 440 EIA cases from the electronic research system in the EIA database, from 1996 to 2005. To build evaluative items and check participatory pattern differences, the study is proposes three frames, including the participatory subjects, information disclosure and five major criterion of public opinion polls, followed by content analysis and data coding. After carrying out statistical analysis and comparison through the above framework, the officers were interviewed to verify and supply the previous results.
    After integrating quantitative and qualitative results, the results of this research are as follow:
    First, looking at the time period as a whole, nearly one half of the cases were held during a four year period (from 2001 to 2004); for organization of exploitation, the number of cases possessed by the government was as much as folk enterprise; for the classification of exploitation, the data showed that our country still stresses the development of hardware construction of the traffic; for the administrative areas of the exploitation base, obviously the cases polarize on the north and the south of the island; and the final conclusion of the examination show that 80% of the developing cases are being passed at the first stage of EIA.
    Second, the actual situation of legal ways of participating is that public explanation meetings were held more frequently than other ways; the rate of attendance of environmental protection group and scene inspection was low; people participated enthusiastically in public explanation meetings; and there was difference of participation (participating) behaviors between the committee members and governmental officials.
    Third, the situation of conducting polls is, exploitation organization prefer conducting poll far more than other methods; the situations of inductive questionnaire had been improved gradually already, still, researchers must pay attention to validly of questionnaire.
    Finally, there are 213 cases of conducting polls out of 440 cases, which obviously shows that in most cases a favorable result (“pass”) is given by the people rather than an unfavorable result (“fail”).
    Reference: 一、中文部分
    王昭正等譯(Fowler ,Floyd J.著)
    1999 調查研究方法,台北:弘智文化出版。
    王俊秀
    1980 『環境影響評估及社會意義』,思與言 ,第18卷第2期,137-149。 
    2001 『台灣脈絡下的社會影響評估:環境社會學的觀點』,應用倫理學季刊,第二十期,頁19-26。
    李素貞
    1997 環境影響評估中民眾參與之探討-以84、85年為例,國立中山 大學公共事務管理研究所。
    李淑華
    2006 環境風險管理之評估研究:決策當局之風險認知,中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文未出版。
    李姣姿
    2000 核能風險認知研究:核電廠附近民眾與台電公司員工之比較,陽明大學公共衛生研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    江建國
    2004 都市政治與環境影響評估—台北市環境影響評估的案例研究,臺灣大學,建築與城鄉研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    朱斌妤、李素貞
    1998 『環境影響評估中民眾參與機制之檢討』,中國行政評論,第8卷第1期,頁85-114。
    余致力
    2000 『論公共行政在民主治理過程中的正當角色—黑堡宣言的內涵、定位與啟示』,公共行政學報,第四期,頁1-27。
    吳秀光
    2000 政府談判之博奕裡論分析,台北:時英出版。
    吳瓊恩
    2005 行政學的範圍與方法,台北:五南。
    林鍾沂
    2001 行政學,台北:三民。
    林震岩
    2006 多變量分析—SPSS的操作與應用,台北:智勝。
    胡又偉
    2000 解讀民調,台北:五南。

    徐世榮、許紹峰
    2001 『以民眾觀點探討環境影響評估制度』,台灣土地研究,第二期,頁101-130。
    佀同似
    2000 民眾風險認知與環保抗爭—以桃園縣南區、坤業焚化廠為例,元智大學管理研究所,碩士論文未出版。
    胡幼偉譯(Gawiser, Sheldom R.& G. Evans Witt著)
    2001 解讀民調,台北:五南出版。
    涂鳳瑜
    2005 環境影響評估制度與地方公民投票衝突之研究—以坪林交流道爭議為例,政治大學地政研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    陳敦源、吳秀光
    2005 『理性選擇、民主制度與『操控遊說』:William H. Riker新政治經濟學的回顧與評述』。政治科學論叢,第二十六期,頁175-122。
    陳俊明、陳敦源、黃東益、蕭乃沂
    2006 官僚與公民參與:從商議式民主觀點看台北市政府的市民參與,未發表。
    陳敦源
    1998『民意與公共管理』,公共管理,黃容護編,台北:商鼎。
    2004『人民、專家、與公共政策:民主理論下的『參與式知識管理』』,國家政策季刊,第三卷,第一期:頁九九至一三四。
    陳義彥等 政大選舉研究中心編
    2001 民意調查,台北:五南出版。
    陳俊宏
    1998 『永續發展與民主:審議民主理論初探』,東吳政治學報,第九期:p85-122。
    陳桂香
    1996 公共政策與民眾參與:環境影響評估過程中民眾參與制度之研究,中興大學,公共行政及政策研究所碩士班論文未出版。
    陳良榕
    1997 我們為何不能說不?從濱南案的環境影響評估看環保抗爭,台灣大學,中國文學系研究所碩士班論文未出版。
    陳錦芳
    2004 環境影響評估決定正當性與公信力強化之研究--以環境影響評估委員會運作為核心,政治大學,法律學系碩士班論文未出版。
    陳定海
    2004 專家意見在我國核能政策風險認知之角色研究,台北大學資源管理研究所,碩士論文未出版。

    黃東益、蕭乃沂、陳敦源
    2003 『網際網路時代公民直接參與的機會與挑戰:台北市「市長電子信箱」的個案研究』。東吳政治學報,第十七期,頁121-151。
    黃中銘
    1995 政策決策過程中的環境影響評估,東華大學,自然資源研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    黃懿慧
    1994 科技風險與環保抗爭—台灣民眾風險認知個案研究,台北:五南出版社。
    莊靜怡
    2005 風險認知、危機溝通策略與形象報導之關聯—以兩岸媒體對「杜邦鐵氟龍事件」的報導為例,政治大學新聞研究所,碩士論文未出版。
    莊文中譯(Miller, Robert L.et al著)
    2006 SPSS在社會科學的應用,台北:五南。
    張英華
    1992 以五﹑六輕設廠經過回顧分析國內環境影響評估制度推行之成效,台灣大學環境工程研究所。
    張其祿
    1994 環境風險之評估:專家與民眾認知之比較,中興大學公共政策研究所碩士論文:未出版。
    葉俊榮
    1998 『環境理性與制度抉擇』,臺大法學論叢 (一一○)。
    湯京平
    2000 『鄰避性環境衝突管理—以理性選擇與交易成本理論分析六輕建廠及拜耳投資案』,政治科學論叢,第十期:頁三五五至三八二。
    湯京平、陳金哲
    2005 『新公共管理與鄰避政治:以嘉義縣市跨域合作為例』,政治科學論叢,第二十三期:頁一0一至一三二。
    賴世培
    1996 民意調查,台北:空中大學出版。
    羅文輝
    1991 精確新聞報導,台北:正中出版。
    蕭新煌、王俊秀
    1990 『環境影響評估中的社會影響評估:對現有「環境影響 評估報告」中「社會影響」之評估』,國立台灣大學社會學刊,第二十期,頁1-40。
    蕭惠彬
    1993 環境影響評估過程中公眾參與滿意度之研究,中山大學,公共事務管理研究所碩士論文,未出版。

    劉銘龍
    2004 我國政府政策環境影響評估制度深化與改良之研究 -並探討於制度內導入永續性評估之可行性,臺灣大學,環境工程學研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    鄭素玲
    2005 台灣地方民主之研究—以台北縣坪林鄉為例,中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    譚鴻仁
    2003 『公、私之間,由一個私有財產公有化的例子,看公共領域的互動』,地理學報,第三十四期:頁七九至九四。
    二、英文部分
    Cavaye, Jim.
    2004. “Governance and Community Engagement: The Australian Experience” in Participatory governance : planning, conflict mediation and public decision making in civil society ,ch.5(pp: 85-101). Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate.
    Dahl, R.
    1997 On Deliberative Democracy: Citizen Panels and Medicare Reform. Dissent:54-58.
    Dahl, R.
    1989 Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, Conn. :Yale University Press.
    Downs, Anthony
    1957 An Economic Theory of Democracy. New Haven. Yale University Press.
    Earl Babbie原著,林佳瑩、徐富珍校訂
    2004 研究方法—基礎理論與技巧,台北:雙葉書郎。
    Fischer, Frank
    1993 ”Citizen Participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases” Policy Sciences 26:165-187.
    Fischer, Frank
    2003 Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press: Durham and London.
    Gaiden, G. E.
    1988 The Problem of Ensuring the Public Accountability of Public Officials. In Public Service Accountability: a Comparative Perspective, J.G. Jabbra and O.P. Dwivedi, eds. West Hartford.CTa; Kumarian press.
    Graham, T. W.
    1989 The Politics of Failure: Strategic Nuclear Arms Control, Public Opinion and Domestic Politics in the United States (1945-1980).Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Halvorsen﹐Kathleen E.
    2003 “Assessing the Effects of Public Participation.”Public Administration Review. 63,5: 535-543
    Halfacre, A. C., A. R. Matheny and W. A. Rosenbaum
    2000 Regulating Contested Local Hazards: Is Constructive Dialogue Possible Among Participants in Community Risk Management? Policy Studies Journal.28,3;Academic Research Library.
    Irvin, R. A. and J. Stansbury
    2004 “Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort.” Public Administration Review 64:55-65.
    King, C.S., K.M. Feltey and B.Q. Susel
    1998 The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review .Vol. 58(4):317-326.
    Levine, C. H., B. G. Peters, and F. J. Thompson
    1990 Chapter 8 Administration and Democracy. In Public Administration: Challenges, Choice, Consequences. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman.
    Milgrom P. and J. Roberts
    1992 Economics, Organization and Management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
    Morris, I. L. and J.A. Oppenheimer
    2004 Rational Choice and Politics. In Politics from Anarchy to Democracy: Rational Choice and Political Science. Stanford University Press, pp.1-36.
    Oldfield, Adrian
    1990 Citizenship& Community: Civic Republicanism & the Modern World. London: Routledge.
    Olson, Mancur Jr.
    1965 The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Press, D.
    1994 Democratic Dilemmas in the age of Ecology: Tress and Toxic in the American West . Duke University Press. Durham& London.
    Randolph, John, and Michael Bauer.
    1999 ” Improving Environmental Decision-Making through Collaborative Methods.” Policy Studies Review. 16(3/4):168-91.
    Slovic, P.
    1987 Perception of Risk. Science 236:289-285.
    Slovic, P.
    1997 Public Perception of Risk. Journal of Environmental Health 59(9):22+.
    Slovic, P., B. Fishhoff, and S. Lichtenstein
    1979 Rating the Risks. Environment. 21(3):14-20, 35-39.
    Slovic, P., B. Fishhoff, and S. Lichtenstein
    1980 Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In R.C. Schwing and W. A. Albers, eds. Social Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York.
    Slovic, P., B. Fishhoff, and S. Lichtenstein
    1981 Perceived Risk: Psychological Factor and Social Implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 376.
    Sylvia, N. T.
    1999 Citizen Experts in Environmental Risk. Policy Sciences. Amsterdam: 31(1), 39-68.
    Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth and Hibbing , John R.
    2005 “Citizenship and Civic Engagement.” Annual Review of Political Science 8:227-249.
    Vlek, C., H. Kuyper, and H. Boer
    1985 Large- scale Risk Is as a Problem of Technological, Psychological and Political Judgment. In Environment Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis, Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
    Weeks, Edward C.
    2000 The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: Results from Four Large-Scale Trials. Public Administration Review. 60(4), 360-372.
    Wamsley, G. and J. F. Wolf
    1996 Refounding Democratic Public Administration: Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Waldo
    1980 Politics and Administration: A Profound Disjunction. Dualoge 4(Sep./Oct.)
    Weber, Max
    1958 Bureaucracy. Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    公共行政研究所
    93256003
    96
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093256003
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    25600301.pdf45KbAdobe PDF2885View/Open
    25600302.pdf222KbAdobe PDF2784View/Open
    25600303.pdf130KbAdobe PDF2854View/Open
    25600304.pdf69KbAdobe PDF2704View/Open
    25600305.pdf195KbAdobe PDF21023View/Open
    25600306.pdf325KbAdobe PDF21464View/Open
    25600307.pdf597KbAdobe PDF22146View/Open
    25600308.pdf369KbAdobe PDF2947View/Open
    25600309.pdf165KbAdobe PDF2920View/Open
    25600310.pdf112KbAdobe PDF21338View/Open
    25600311.pdf898KbAdobe PDF22286View/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 Copyright Announcement
    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。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    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。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback