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

Risk Perceptions and Attitudes of Taiwan Citizens Regarding Nuclear Power Generation Based on NIMBY and Cognitive Dissonance Theory

10.6288/TJPH201433103026

梁世武(Shih-Wu Liang)；李均揚(Chun-Yang Lee)

鄰避 ； 認知失調 ； 風險認知 ； 核電支持度 ； 核電廠鄰近居民 ； NIMBY ； cognitive dissonance ； support of nuclear power generation ； citizens living near nuclear power station

台灣公共衛生雜誌

33卷4期（2014 / 08 / 01）

428 - 444

繁體中文

目標：運用鄰避與認知失調理論的觀點，探討核電廠鄰近地區、潛在影響地區以及遠離地區居民之核能風險認知與核電支持度。方法：以2010年與2011年對台灣民眾進行電話抽樣調查的資料，運用結構方程模式比較三類地區樣本之模式差異性。結果：本研究發現，福島核災前居住在核電廠潛在影響地區的居民，其核能發電缺點論述與核電安全性的負向關係為三地區中最強，而鄰近地區的居民卻弱於前者。福島核災後各地區民眾對核電安全性與支持度的平均值均降低，但兩者間之相關係數則提昇。結論：影響核能風險認知的主要論點為環境與健康等考量，包括了破壞生態、核廢料隱憂以及特殊災害的威脅等，可用鄰避效應解釋。然而，當核電設施建置完成，若長期未發生重大災害，並配合良好的安全管制措施，當地居民會降低認知失調，核能發電缺點論述對風險知覺之影響會因而減低。但福島核災後，民眾對核能發電可能產生整體性的認知失調，建議相關單位宜擬定因應策略以減輕民眾之認知失調。

Objectives: Based on ＂not in my back yard＂ (NIMBY) and cognitive dissonance theory, we examined the nuclear risk perceptions and support of nuclear power generation for citizens who lived in ＂neighborhood,＂ ＂potentially affected,＂ and ＂distant＂ areas. Methods: We conducted a randomized telephone survey among Taiwan citizens in 2010 and 2011, and used structural equation modeling to compare the different result patterns among the three areas. Results: Before the Fukushima nuclear disaster occurred, the relationship between arguments purporting the disadvantages of nuclear power generation and risk perceptions for citizens in potentially affected areas was the strongest among the three areas, and the relationship for citizens in neighborhood areas was weaker than citizens in potentially affected areas. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, however, the mean values of risk perceptions and support of nuclear power generation decreased, while the correlation between the risk perceptions and support of nuclear power generation increased. Conclusions: The major arguments purporting the disadvantages of nuclear power generation, which affected risk perceptions, were based on environment- and health-related concerns, such as ecologic damage, nuclear waste, and the threat of special disasters. After the nuclear power facilities were installed, local citizens had little cognitive dissonance if there were no serious disasters over a long period of time and the government conducted appropriate safety control measures. Therefore, arguments purporting the disadvantages of nuclear power generation had little influence on risk perceptions. Authorities should implement corresponding strategies to alleviate cognitive dissonance amongst the citizens.

1. 王怡文、蕭新煌(2004)。環境爭議性公共設施的回饋制度：對核一廠、核二廠及台中火力發電廠的分析。都市與計畫，31，65-90。
   連結：
2. 洪鴻智(2005)。科技鄰避設施風險知覺之形成與投影：核二廠。人文及社會科學集刊，17，33-70。
   連結：
3. 劉祥熹、莊慶達、陳均龍(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，38，119-59。
   連結：
4. Wuensch KL. Comparing correlation coefficients, slopes, and intercepts. Available at: http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/docs30/CompareCorrCoeff.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2014
5. 行政院原子能委員會：行政院原子能委員會 98 年度施政績效報告。 http://www.aec.gov.tw/webpage/policy/results/files/results_02_a-98_1.pdf 。引用2014/03/21 。 Atomic Energy Council, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (Taiwan). The 2009 performance report. Available at: http://www.aec.gov.tw/webpage/policy/results/files/results_02_a-98_1.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2014. [In Chinese]
6. 王塗發：調整產業結構以抑制二氧化碳排放。http://ago.gcaa.org.tw/issue/nuclear/news-01/87051610.htm 。引用 2014/03/21 。 Wang TF. Adjusting the industrial structure to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Available at: http://ago.gcaa.org.tw/issue/nuclear/news-01/87051610.htm. Accessed March 21, 2014. [In Chinese]
7. 核能發電後端營運基金管理會：核能發電後端營運基金放射性廢棄物貯存回饋要點。 http://www.nbef.org.tw/index003_1.asp 。引用 2014/03/21 。 Nuclear Backend Fund. Guidelines for reimbursement for radioactive waste storage. Available at: http://www.nbef.org.tw/index003_1.asp. Accessed March 21, 2014. [In Chinese]
8. Alhakami, AS,Slovic, P(1994).A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit.Risk Anal,14,1085-96.
9. Cho, CH,Cheon, HJ(2004).Why do people avoid advertising on the internet?.J Advert,33,89-97.
10. Choi, YS,Kim, JS,Lee, BW(2000).Public's perception and judgment on nuclear power.Ann Nucl Energy,27,295-309.
11. Chung, JB,Kim, HK(2009).Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility.Landsc Urban Plan,91,8-16.
12. Chung, W,Yeung, IMH(2013).Attitudes of Hong Kong residents toward the Daya Bay nuclear power plant.Energ Pol,62,1172-86.
13. Festinger, L(1957).A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
14. Greenberg, M(2009).Energy sources, public policy, and public preference: analysis of US national and site-specific data.Energ Pol,37,3242-9.
15. Hair, JF,Anderson, RE,Tatham, RL,Black, WC(1998).Multivariate Data Analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
16. Ho, JC,Kao, SF,Wang, JD(2013).Risk perception, trust, and factors related to a planned new nuclear power plant in Taiwan after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.J Radiol Prot,33,733-89.
17. Huang, L,Zhou, Y,Han, Y,Hammitt, JK,Bi, J,Liu, Y(2013).Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China.PNAS,110,19742-7.
18. Hung, HC,Wang, TW(2011).Determinants and mapping of collective perceptions of technological risk: the case of the second nuclear power plant in Taiwan.Risk Anal,31,668-83.
19. Kirchsteiger, C(2006).Current practices for risk zoning around nuclear power plants in comparison to other industry sectors.J Hazard Mater,136,392-7.
20. Lima, ML(2004).On the influence of risk perception on mental health: living near an incinerator.J Environ Psychol,24,71-84.
21. Maderthaner, R,Guttmann, G,Swaton, E,Otway, HJ(1978).Effect of distance upon risk perception.J Appl Psychol,63,380-2.
22. Myers, JR,Henderson-King, DH,Henderson-King, EI(1997).Facing technological risks: the importance of individual differences.J Res Pers,31,1-20.
23. Siegrist, M(2000).The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology.Risk Anal,20,195-203.
24. van der Horst, D(2007).NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies.Energ Pol,35,2705-14.
25. Venables, D,Pidgeon, NF,Parkhill, KA,Henwood, KL,Simmons, P(2012).Living with nuclear power: sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities.J Environ Psychol,32,371-83.
26. Whitfield, SC,Rosa, EA,Dan, A,Dietz, T(2009).The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception.Risk Anal,29,425-37.
27. 丘昌泰(2002)。從「鄰避情結」到「迎臂效應」：台灣環保抗爭的問題與出路。政治科學論叢，17，33-56。
28. 行政院原子能委員會。,未出版
29. 余致力、彭渰雯、莊文忠、杜文苓、林子倫(2008)。公共議題政治學。台北=Taipei:智勝文化=Best-Wise Publishing Co.。
30. 李敏(2009)。世界核能現況。核能環保人月刊，172，2。
31. 林文昌(2009)。我國二氧化碳減量的必要選擇─核能發電。核能簡訊，117，13-6。
32. 林宜平、林彥君、詹長權、鄭尊仁(2010)。台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場感知的利益、風險與管制信任。台灣衛誌，29，87-96。
33. 邱皓政(2003)。結構方程模式： LISREL 的理論技術與應用。台北=Taipei:雙葉書廊=Yeh Yeh Book Gallery。
34. 梁啟源(2009)。因應節能減碳需求台灣需要能源多元化政策。核能簡訊，117，1-4。
35. 黃怡編(2000)。核電真相：核能神話大解剖。台北=Taipei:牛頓出版股份有限公司=Newton Book Inc.。

1. 陳潁峰(2018)。公民參與和核安治理─ 核四安全監督委員會與新北市核能安全監督委員會之比較。東吳政治學報，36(1)，1-63。
2. 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。
3. 江俊宜(2018)。重新審視福島核災之後的台灣核能政治爭議：從「正當性」轉向「防止危害」。中國行政評論，24(3)，128-153。
4. 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。