公共選擇與環境風險設施管制政策工具的選擇

Public Choice And Environmental Risk Facility Control Policy Instrument Choice

洪鴻智(Hung-Chih Hung)

環境風險 ； 不確定性 ； 財產權 ； 土地使用管制 ； 成本－效益分析 ； 公共選擇 ； environmental risk ； uncertainty ； property rights ； land-use control ； cost-benefit analysis ； public-choice

都市與計劃

27卷1期（2000 / 03 / 01）

47 - 63

繁體中文

具有環境風險特質的設施或土地使用，常會形成所謂的鄰避設施。然對於此類設施的管制工具選擇，常因資訊不充足、風險防治成本－效益的不確定、不同的土地使用特性、政治力與相關公共選擇行為的介入，使管制工具的評估與選擇工作非常複雜。故本文乃欲藉由經濟均衡分析法，結合Weitzman（1974）的不確定性成本－效益分析，Pigou的外部性理論與Coase的財產權理論，融入公共選擇理論，以四個案例情境系統性的探討與選擇適於管理環境風險設施的管制工具。分析之結果發現，不管是價格或量的管制工具，皆無所謂的絕對最佳管制工具，而須視風險防治成本－效益的函數形態、公共選擇行為及居民的環境風險認知與環保抗爭特性，選擇適用之管制政策工具。

Where the land-uses or facilities with potential environmental risk characteristic are often to be regarded as NIMBY facilities. It makes the control instruments choice of these facilities to be extraordinarily complex according to insufficiency in information, uncertainty in risk reducing cost-benefit, variety in land-use types and the interference of related public choice behaviors. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to employ the economic equilibrium analysis method to discuss how to select appropriate control instruments of environmental risk facilities. To this purpose, this paper incorporates with the uncertainty opinion and public choice theory, and using four case studies to investigate the risk control instruments choice with the viewpoint of cost-benefit analysis. Whether we chose price or quantity control instrument, it is found that there dose not exit any what is called the best or unique control instrument, but depends on the marginal cost-benefit function pattern of risk reducing and the risk perception attitudes of resident.

1. Adar, Z., Griffin, J. M.(1976).Uncertainty and the choice of pollution control instruments.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,3
2. Aidt, T. S.(1998).Political internalization of economic externalities and environmental policy.Journal of Public Economics,69
3. Babcock, R. F., Siemon, C. L.(1985).The Zoning Game Revisited.Cambridge, MA.:Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
4. Baumol, W. J., Oates, W. E.(1988).The Theory of Environmental Policy.Cambridge, New York:Cambridge University Press.
5. Buchanan, J. M.(1984).The Theory of Public Choice (II).Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
6. Buchanan, J. M., Tullock, G.(1976).Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct Control Versus Taxes: Reply.American Economic Review,66
7. Coase, R. H.(1988).The Firm, the Market, and the Law.Chicago, IL.:The University of Chicago Press.
8. Coase, R. H.(1960).The Problem of Social Cost.Journal of Law and Economics,3
9. Cutter, S. L.(1993).Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards.London:Edward Arnold.
10. Fischel, W. A.(1987).The Economics of Zoning Laws: A property rights approach to American land use controls.Baltimore:The John Hopkins University Press.
11. Greenwood, P. H., Ingene, C. A.(1978).Uncertain externalities, liability rules, and resource allocation.American Economic Review,68
12. Jung, C., Krutilla, K., Viscusi, W. K., Boyd, R.(1995).The Coase theorem in rent-seeding society.International Review of Law and Economics,15
13. Kraan, D. J.(1991).Environmental Protection: Public or Private Choice.London:Kluwer.
14. Lai, W. C. L.(1997).Property rights justifications for planning and a theory of zoning.Progress in Planning,48
15. Lai, W. C. L.(1994).The economics of land-use zoning: A literature review and analysis of the work of Coase.Town Planning Review,65
16. Medema, S. G.(1997).Comment: The Coase theorem, rent seeding, and forgotten footnote.International Review of Law and Economics,17
17. Miller, C.(1990).Development control as an instrument of environmental management: A review.Town Planning Review,61
18. Miller, C.(1994).Planning, pollution and risk: Findings of recent research.Town Planning Review,65
19. Miller, C., Fricker, C.(1993).Planning and hazards.Progress in Planning,40
20. Popper, F.(1987).Resolving Locational Conflict.Center for urban policy, Rutgers University.
21. Poulton, M. C.(1997).Externalities, transaction costs, public choice and the appeal of zoning: A response to Lai Wei Chung and Sorensen.Town Planning Review,68
22. Poulton, M. C.(1991).The case of a positive planning theory (Part 2): A positive theory of planning.Environment and Planning, B,18
23. Roberts, M. J., Spence, M.(1976).Effluent charges and licenses under uncertainty.Journal of Public Economics,5
24. Sorensen, T.(1994).Further thoughts on Coasian approach to zoning: A response to Lai Wai Chung.Town Planning Review,65
25. Stavins, R. N.(1996).Correlated uncertainty and policy instrument choice.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,30
26. Theeuwes, J.(1991).Environmental Protection: Public or Private Choice.London:Kluwer.
27. Tisato, P.(1994).Pollution standards vs. charges under uncertainty.Environmental and Resource Economics,4
28. Webster, C.(1998).Analytical public-choice planning theory: A response to Poulton.Town Planning Review,69
29. Weitzman, M. L.(1974).Prices versus Quantities.The Review of Economic Studies,41
30. 李永展 Lee, Yung-Jaan(1997)。鄰避症候群之解析 Re-Examining the NIMBY Syndrome。都市與計劃 City and Planning，24(1)
31. 周育仁 Chou, Yu-Jen(1993)。政治與經濟之關係：台灣經驗與其理論意涵。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
32. 洪鴻智 Hung, Hung-Chih(1996)。工業區環境風險管理：REACT模型之應用。法商學報 Journal of Law and Commerce，32
33. 洪鴻智 Hung, Hung-Chih(1995)。空間衝突管理：策略規劃方法之應用。法商學報 Journal of Law and Commerce，31
34. 洪鴻智 Hung, Hung-Chih(1995)。環境污染爭議事件之協商。規劃學報 Journal of Planning，22

1. 陳伯瑋(2022)。殯葬政策採行之政策工具分析。中國行政評論，28(4)，1-37。
2. 陳羚怡、洪鴻智(2007)。洪災風險評估與災害風險稅課徵—以台北市為例。台灣土地研究，10(2)，95-125。
3. 陳志豪,邢志航(2019)。運用平衡計分卡建構評估公共建設公私協力（PPP）專案績效認知關鍵因素之研究。物業管理學報，10(1)，24-37。
4. 洪鴻智(2002)。科技風險知覺與風險消費態度的決定：灰色訊息關聯分析之應用。都市與計劃，29(4)，575-593。
5. 洪鴻智,李佳芳(2020)。石化產業污染風險知覺與風險溝通：不同開發階段石化園區之比較。地理學報，95，37-59。
6. 洪鴻智、王翔榆(2010)。多元性區域環境風險評估：以陽明山國家公園為例。都市與計劃，37(1)，97-119。
7. 胡海豐(2015)。以條件評價法估算土地使用變更的外部性對房地產價格之影響程度與作用範圍。住宅學報，24(2)，1-26。
8. 蘇偉業(2023)。公共政策作為一種「設計」：從政策設計到設計思維。公共行政學報，64，117-147。
9. (2024)。不動產估價的價格機率分布與稟賦效果。土地問題研究季刊，23(2)，58-77。