科技鄰避設施風險知覺之形成與投影：核二廠

The Determination and Shadow of Risk Perception for Technological NIMBY Facility: The Nuclear Power Plant Ⅱ

10.6350/JSSP.200503.0033

洪鴻智(Hung-Chih Hung)

人類學 ； 風險知覺投影 ； 風險知覺指數 ； 風險知覺地景 ； 風險的社會擴展 ； 核二廠 ； 鄰避情結 ； 環境歧視 ； Anthropology ； Environmental discrimination ； Nuclear Power Plant Ⅱ ； NIMBY ； Risk perception shadow ； Risk perception index ； Risk perception landscape ； Social amplification of risk

人文及社會科學集刊

17卷1期（2005 / 03 / 01）

33 - 70

繁體中文

本文主要目的在探討科技設施與周圍居民的風險知覺空間衝擊關係。文中以台北縣萬里鄉之核二廠為例，應用二階段風險社會擴展模式，納入影響風險知覺的主要因素估計風險知覺指數(risk perception index; RPI)，並引用民族誌(ethnography)方法，描繪核二廠對周圍社區衝擊的風險知覺投影(risk perception shadow; RPS)圖。透過核二廠周圍社區居民的抽樣調查結果，發現受訪者風險知覺決定的主要影響因素為：心理測度、社會信任、社會經濟與人口特質及居民認為設施對生活的影響。核二廠的RPS描繪共呈現三種不同型態，包含原始觀察風險知覺、估計之平均RPI與應用群落分析之RPS分布特性的歸納。從RPS分析，發現核二廠周圍不同地理區的風險態度具有明顯的歧異性。另RPS圖描繪，可提供以下之可行應用層面：(1)以社會知覺(social-context)資料定義的風險態度，可提供一套助於瞭解特定族群集體風險知覺特徵與環境管理態度的方法；(2)改變傳統以既定印象界定的社會情境，轉以居民－科技設施關係重新定義的核二廠環境影響關係，此模式可助於思考如何提供一套公平的民眾參與與溝通機制，及避免產生環境歧視的環境管理決策方向。

The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate spatial impacts of perceived risk among locally affected people surrounding a technical NIMBY (not in my backyard) facility. A two-level risk social amplification model was conducted in the estimation of risk perception index (RPI) that is composed of the key factors that determine risk perception. For investigating the risk attitudes distributed spatially, an ethnography approach called risk perception shadow mapping was used to identify the perceptual characteristics of the geographical areas or communities surrounding the Nuclear Power Plant Ⅱ in Wanli. A center-point radial sampling design and survey was employed to build a model of risk perception. The results showed that the social trust, psychometrics, socioeconomics and everyday life influential factors play important roles in the determination of risk perception. We demonstrated three types of RPS mapping, which utilized the originally surveyed data, estimated RPI and results of cluster analysis to present the risk perceptual characteristics for Nuclear Power Plant Ⅱ. Preliminary findings reveal that the risk attitude for Nuclear Power Plant Ⅱ is both spatially extensive and perceptually heterogeneous. The applications of the RPS mapping approach have at least two distinct prospects: (1) using explicitly social-context data to define of risk attitudes, which is helpful to identify the collective risk perceptual characteristics and mitigation issues raised by its constituent population; (2) redefining the environmental effects for Nuclear Power Plant Ⅱ based on the population-facility relationship rather than etically defined social context, as well as how this relationship can be used to seek participatory equity and avoid environmental discrimination in the decision making of environmental risk communication and management.

1. 王怡文、蕭新煌(2004)。環境爭議性公共設施的回饋制度：對核一場核二廠及台中火力發電廠的分析。都市與計畫，1(31)，65-90。
   連結：
2. 洪鴻智(2002)。科技風險知覺與風險消費態度的決定。都市與計畫，29(4)，579-597。
   連結：
3. 洪鴻智、黃欣怡(2003)。洪災保險的購買意願：以基隆河中下游沿岸居民為例。都市與計畫
   連結：
4. Alhakami,A.S.,P.Slovic(1994).A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit.Risk Analysis,14(6),1085-1096.
5. Armour,A.M.(1991).The Sitting of Locally Unwanted Land Uses: Towards a Cooperative Approach.Progress Planning,35,1-74.
6. Banks,E.P.(1990).Enthnography: An Essential Tool for Impact Predition.Impact Assessment Bulletin,8,19-30.
7. Beck,U.(1995).Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of Risk Society.NJ:Huamnities Press.
8. Beck,U.(1996).Risk,Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology.London:Sage.
9. Cohen,B.(1995).Criteria for Technology Acceptability.Risk Analysis,5(1),1-3.
10. Cutter,S.L.(1993).Living with Risk: The Geography of Technological Hazards.London:Edward Arnold.
11. Cvetkovich,G.,R.R.Lofstedt(1999).Social Trust and the Management of Risk.London:Earthscan.
12. Earle,T.C.,C.Cvetkovich(1999).Social Trust and the Management of Risk.London:Earthscan.
13. Earley,P.C.,A.Randel(1995).Cognitive Causal Mechanisms in Human Agency: Etic and Emic Considerations.Journal of Behaviors Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,26,221-227.
14. Fischel,W.(2001).Why Are There NIMBYs?.Land Economics,77,144-152.
15. Freudenburg,W.R.,S.K.Pastor(1992).Public Response to Technological Risks:A Sociological Perspective.Sociological Quarterly,33,389-413.
16. Frey,B.S.,F,Oberholzer-Gee(1996).Fair Siting Procedures: An Empirical Analysis of Their Importance and Characteristic.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,15,353-376.
17. Giddens,A.(1990).The Consequences of Modernity.Cambridge:Polity.
18. Glendon,A.I.,E.F.Mckenna(1993).Human Safety and Risk Management.London:Chapman & Hall.
19. Gregory,R.,S.Lichtenstein,P.Slovic(1993).Valuing Environmental Resources:A Constructive Approach.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,7,177-197.
20. Groothuis,P.A.,G.Miller(1997).The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis:A Study of Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,15,241-257.
21. Groothuis,P.A.,G.Miller(1994).Locating Hazardous Waste Facilities: The Influence of NIMBY Beliefs.Journal of Economics and Sociology,53,335-346.
22. Haldacre,A.C.,A.R.matheny,W.A.Rosenbaum(2000).Regulating Contested Local Hazards: Is Constructive Dialogue Possible Among Participations in Community Risk Management.Policy Studies Journal,28,648-668.
23. Haltgrave,D.R.,E.U.Weber(1993).Dimensions of Risk Perception for Financial and Health Risk.Risk Analysis,13,553-558.
24. Hatfield,T.H.(1989).A Formal Analysis of Attitudes toward Siting a Hazardous Waste Incinerator.Journal of Environmental Management,29,73-81.
25. Hunter,K.,K.M.Leyden(1995).Beyond NINBY: Explaining Opposition to Hazardous Waste Facilities.Policy Studies Journal,23,601-619.
26. Irwin,A.,P.Simmons,G,Walker(1999).Faulty Environments and Risk Reasoning: The Local Understanding of Industrial Hazards.Environment and Plaining A,31,1131-1326.
27. Jenkins-Smith,H.C.,C.L.Silva(1998).The Role of Risk Perception and Technical Information in Scientific Debate over Nuclear Waste Storage.Reliability Engineering and System Safety,59,107-122.
28. Johnson,B.B.,V.T.Covello(1987).Social and Cultural Construction of Risk.
29. Kahneman,D.,A.Tversky(1979).Prospect Theory:An Analysis of Decision under Uncertainty.Econometrica,47,263-291.
30. Kasperson,R.E.,J.X.Kasperson(1996).The Social Amplfiication and Attenuation of Risk.Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,545,95-105.
31. Kasperson,R.E.,O.Renn,P.Slovic,H.S.Brown,J.Emel,R.Globle,J.S.Kasperson,S.Ratick(1988).The Social Amplfiication of Risk: A Conceptual Framework.Risk Analysis,8,177-187.
32. Keown,C.F.(1988).Risk Perseption of Hong Kongnese vs.Americans.Risk Analysis,9,401-405.
33. Krimsky,S.,D.Golding(1992).Social Theories of Risk.NY:Praeger.
34. Kunreuther,H.,D,Easterling(1990).Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities.American Economic Review,80,252-261.
35. Lackey,R.T.(1998).Seven Pillars of Ecosystem Management.Landscape and Urban Plaining,40,21-30.
36. Lash,S.,B.Szerszynski,B.Wynne(1996).Risk,Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology.
37. Lidskog,R.,I.Elander(1992).Reinterpreting Locational Conflicts:NIMBY and Nuclear Waste Management in Sweden.Policy and Politics,20,239-246.
38. Liu,J.T.,V.K.Smith(1990).Risk Communication and Attitude Change: Taiwan's national Debate over Nuclear Power.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,3,331-349.
39. Luhmann,N.(1990).Technology,Environment,and Social Risk:A System Perspective.Industrial Crisis Quarterly,4,223-231.
40. Matjczyk,A.P.(2001).Why nit NIMBY? Reputation,Neighbourhood Oganizations and Zoning Boards in the US Midwestern City.Urban Studies,38,507-518.
41. Miller,C.,C.Fricker(1993).Planning and Harzard.Progress in Planning,10,169-260.
42. Myer,J.R.,D.H.henderson-King(1997).Facing Technological Risks:The Importance of Individual Differences.Journal of Research in Personality,31,1-20.
43. Palmer,C.G.,L.K.Carlstrom,J.A.Woodward(2001).Risk Perception and Ethnicity.Risk Decision and Policy,6,187-206.
44. Pidgeon,N.(1998).Risk Assessment,Risk Values and the Social Science Programme:Why Do We Need Risk Perception Research.Reliability Engineering and System Safety,59,5-15.
45. Purcell,T.W.(1998).Indigenous knowledge and Applied Anthropology:Questions of Definition and Direction.Human Organization,57,258-272.
46. Pushchak,R.,C.Rocha(1998).Failing to Site Hazardous Waste Faclilities Voluntarily:Implication for the Production of Sustainable Goods.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,41,25-50.
47. Quah,E.,K.C.Tan(1998).The Siting Problem of NIMBY Facilities: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Auction Mechanism.Environment and Planning C,16,255-264.
48. Renn,O.,W.J.Burns,J.X.Kasperson,R.E.Karsperson,P.Slovic(1992).The Social Amplification of Risk:Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications.Journal of Social Issues,48,137-160.
49. Roger,G.O.(1997).Dynamic Risk Perception in Two Communities:Risk Events and Changes in Perceived Risk.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,40,59-79.
50. Roger,G.O.(1998).Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities:What Factors Impact Perceived and Acceptable Risk?.Landscape and Urban Plaining,39,265-281.
51. Slovic,P.(1992).Social Theories of Risk.
52. Slovic,P.(2000).The Perception of Risk.
53. Slovic,P.,B.Fischhoff,S.Lichtenstein(1980).Societal Risk Assessment:How Safe is Safe Enough.NY:Plenum Press.
54. Slovic,P.,N.N.Kraus,H.Lappe,M.Major(1991).Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs:Report on a Survey in Canada.Canadian Journal of Public Health,82,15-20.
55. Smith,V.K.,F.R.Johnson(1998).How Do Risk Perception Respond to Information?The Case of Radon.The Review of Economics and Statistics,70,1-8.
56. Stoffle,R.S.,M.W.Traugott,C.L.Harshbarger,F.V.Jensen,M.J.Evans(1988).Risk Perception Shadow:The Superconducting Super Collider in Michigan.Practicing Anthropology,10,6-7.
57. Stoffle,R.S.,M.W.Traugott,J.V.Stone,P.D.McIntyre,F.V.Jensen(1991).Risk Perception Mapping:Using Ethnography to Define the Locally Affected Population for Low-level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility in Michigan.American Anthropologist,93,611-626.
58. Stone,J.V.(2001).Risk Perception Mapping and the Fermi Ⅱ Nuclear Power Plant: Toward an Enthnography of Social Access to Public Participation in Great Lakes Environmental Management.Environmental Science and Policy,4,205-217.
59. Williams,R.(1980).The Nuclear Power Decisions.London:Routledge.
60. Wolsink,M.(1994).Entanglement of Interests and Motives:Assumptions behind the NIMBY Theory on the Facility Siting.Urban Studies,31,851-866.
61. Wong,E.Y.,R.A.Ponce,S.Farrow,S.M.Bartell,R.C.Lee,E.M.Faustman(2003).Comparative Risk and Policy Analysis in Environmental Health.Risk Analysis,12,1337-1349.
62. Wulfhorst,J.D.(2000).Collective Identity and Hazardous Waste Management.Rural Sociology,65,275-294.
63. Wynne,B.(1991).Knowledge In the Context.Science,Technology and Human Values,16,111-121.
64. Wynne,B.(1996).Risk,Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology.London:Sage.
65. 李永展(1996)。鄰避設施對社區品質之影響：以台北市三的焚化場為例。政治大學學報，72，263-297。
66. 李永展、翁九惠(1995)。鄰避設施對主觀環境生活品質影響之探討－以居民對垃圾焚化場之認知與態度為例。16，89-118。
67. 周桂田(2001)。科學風險：多元共識之風險建構。第二現代－風險社會的出路？，47-75。
68. 邱昌泰(1994)。風險評估在公共部門之應用：公害社區民眾環境風險知覺之研究。管理與系統，4(1)，125-144。
69. 洪鴻智(1998)。中華民國區域科學學會19998年學術研討會。台北:國立台灣大學。
70. 洪鴻智(2001)。鄰避設施的厭惡排比分析：多準則模糊評估模型與灰相關之結合。公共事務評論，2(2)，21-48。
71. 洪鴻智、王子文(2003)。全國土地管理與開發學術研討會。
72. 洪鴻智、王子文(2004)。中華民國都市計畫、住宅、區域科學、地區發展學會聯合年會暨論文研討會。
73. 孫治本(2001)。第二現代－風險社會的出路？。台北:巨流圖書。
74. 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:五南圖書。
75. 蕭代基(1996)。污染性設施之設置與民眾信心之建立。台灣經濟預測與政策，27，39-52。

1. 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。
2. 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。
3. 許耿銘(2014)。城市氣候風險治理評估指標建構之初探。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，52(4)，203-258。
4. 黃東益,張鐙文,李仲彬(2020)。解構影響臺灣民衆核電政策偏好之關鍵因素：一個整合性架構的初探。公共行政學報，58，1-54。
5. 黃于芳、洪鴻智(2010)。農村工業污染風險知覺的空間特性與決定因素。臺灣土地研究，13(2)，31-57。
6. 梁世武(2014)。風險認知與核電支持度關聯性之研究：以福島核能事故後台灣民眾對核電的認知與態度為例。行政暨政策學報，58，45-86。
7. 梁世武(2015)。女性總比男性反對核能嗎？福島核災前後核能民意的性別差異研究。行政暨政策學報，61，1-50。
8. 梁世武、李均揚(2014)。從鄰避效應與認知失調解析台灣民眾的核電風險認知與態度。臺灣公共衛生雜誌，33(4)，428-444。
9. 劉祥熹、陳均龍、莊慶達(2007)。從核四建廠風險認知觀點探討貢寮地區漁業經營對漁村經濟之影響。農業與經濟，38，119-159。
10. 湯京平、邱崇原(2014)。公民投票與鄰避困境—台灣低放射性廢棄物貯存場的選址經驗及南韓之啟示。臺灣民主季刊，11(4)，1-36。
11. 楊雅玲,吳韋德(2019)。高雄港附近居民的汙染風險知覺與風險策略。運輸學刊，31(4)，351-381。