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

Decomposing the Factors of Citizens' Policy Preferences for Nuclear Energy in Taiwan: An Integrated Framework

10.30409/JPA.202003_(58).0001

張鐙文(Teng-Wen Chang)；黃東益(Tong-Yi Huang)；李仲彬(Chung-Pin Lee)

風險社會 ； 科技風險 ； 風險感知 ； 核電政策偏好 ； 風險溝通 ； risk society ； technology risk ； risk perception ； policy preference of nuclear energy ； risk communication

公共行政學報

58期（2020 / 03 / 01）

1 - 54

繁體中文

在當代的各種科技風險之中，核能發電是極具爭議且備受注目的議題，尤其當日本福島核災發生之後，社會對核電之「低發生機率、高危害結果」的風險特質愈加敏感。在此種緊張的社會氛圍下，找出影響民眾核電政策偏好的關鍵因素，成為能否有效處理核電爭議的重要前提。本文認為針對這種風險特質較為特殊的政策，如欲有效地辨識民眾偏好的成因，不應侷限於傳統的理論框架。為填補目前核能風險研究的缺口，本研究結合過去科技風險與環境主義的文獻，嘗試提出一個整合性的研究架構，並透過實際資料的佐證，藉此釐清民眾之風險感知的來源及政策偏好的成因，以作為未來政府進行風險溝通之參考。研究結果顯示，本研究所提出的整合性架構，對民眾核電偏好的解釋力為47.5%，一方面證實民眾的議題知識、機構信任、電價承受、環境信念及風險感知對於其核電政策偏好有顯著影響；另一方面，則是確認風險感知對於機構信任、電價承受及環境信念的中介效果。以上成果均是過去核能風險研究鮮少提及與驗證的部分。在此一基礎之上，本研究認為政府惟有改變過去風險溝通與管理的思維，學習從各類利害相關人的觀點去分析與理解風險議題，才能確實掌握問題的癥結與對策；同時，政府更應設計與開放各種制度性溝通與參與的管道，讓不同的利害相關人能夠充分地參與核能發電相關政策的討論與決策過程，才有助於化解長久以來的能源爭議。

Nuclear energy is one of the most salient and controversial technological risks in modern society. The reasons for this stem from its characteristics of low-probability and high-consequence. Recent disasters, such as the one in Fukushima, Japan, have also further exacerbated citizen concerns over nuclear technology. In light of these developments, the understanding of the reasons behind public preferences toward nuclear energy is a necessary step toward implementing energy policies that can best approximate citizen expectations and national needs. In order to bridge past research deficiencies, this research has combined the point of view of technology risk and environmentalism in the construction of an integrative framework. Empirical data on public opinion were utilized to identify the variables behind citizens’ nuclear energy policy preferences. The results may serve as references for the implementation of Taiwan’s nuclear energy risk communication. The adjusted coefficient of determination of the model is 47.5%. The results revealed that citizens’ knowledge on policy issues, trust in government, price tolerance of electricity, environmental belief in nuclear energy and risk perception all have significant influences on the formulation of policy preferences. Risk perception was proven to function as an immediate variable whose influence allows trust in the government, price tolerance of electricity and environmental belief in nuclear energy, to have direct and indirect effects on policy preference. These findings have rarely been discussed or verified by past studies. This research suggests that the government should restructure its approaches to risk management and communication, thereby learning to analyze and comprehend the crux of the problem through the point of view of stakeholders. The government should also design and open up different types of communication and participation channels, allowing stakeholders to engage in the discussions and decision processes of nuclear energy policies. Communication should not be limited to the interagency or interparty levels. Only when the dual problems of approach restructuring and stakeholder communication are addressed will tangible improvements be made.

1. 王瑞庚, David,周桂田, Kuei-Tien(2012)。台灣發展 WiMAX 之潛在健康風險與風險治理探討。臺灣公共衛生雜誌，31(5)，399-411。
   連結：
2. 杜文苓, Wen-Ling(2012)。環評制度中的專家會議—被框架的專家理性。臺灣民主季刊，9(3)，119-155。
   連結：
3. 杜文苓, Wen-Ling(2011)。環境風險與科技決策：檢視中科四期環評爭議。東吳政治學報，29(2)，57-110。
   連結：
4. 杜文苓, Wen-Ling,施佳良, Chia-Liang(2014)。環評知識的政治角色：檢視六輕健康風險評估爭議。臺灣民主季刊，11(2)，91-138。
   連結：
5. 周桂田, Kuei-Tien(2000)。生物科技産業與社會風險─遲滞型高科技風險社會。台灣社會研究季刊，39，239-283。
   連結：
6. 周桂田, Kuei-Tien(2008)。全球在地化風險典範之衝突─生物特徵辨識作為全球鐵的牢籠。政治與社會哲學評論，24，101-189。
   連結：
7. 周桂田, Kuei-Tien(2004)。獨大的科學理性與隱沒（默）的社會理性之“對話”－在地公眾、科學專家與國家的風險文化探討。台灣社會研究季刊，56，1-63。
   連結：
8. 周桂田, Kuei-Tien(2007)。新興風險治理典範之芻議。政治與社會哲學評論，22，179-233。
   連結：
9. 周桂田, Kuei-Tien(2002)。在地化風險之實踐與理論缺口─遲滯型高科技風險社會。台灣社會研究季刊，45，69-122。
   連結：
10. 周桂田, Kuei-Tien,陳薪智, Hsin-Chih(2014)。脆弱性的資訊科技風險治理文化：考查病歷電子化之制度性無知。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，52(3)，53-97。
    連結：
11. 林宜平, Yi-Ping,吳亭亭, Ting-Ting,黎雅如, Ya-Ru,周桂田, Kuei-Tie,鄭尊仁, Tsun-Jen(2010)。台灣成年民眾對奈米產品與科技的公眾感知。台灣公共衛生雜誌，29(5)，431-439。
    連結：
12. 洪永泰, Yung-Tai(2005)。台灣地區抽樣調查各種母體定義、抽樣底冊和涵蓋率的比較。調查研究─方法與應用，18，9-44。
    連結：
13. 洪永泰, Yung-Tai,洪百薰, Baai-Shyun,林宇璇, Yu-Hsuan,呂孟穎, Ming-Ing,許勝懋, Shen-Mao,吳淑惠, Shu-Hui,卓仲彥, Chung-Yen,徐書儀, Shu-Yi(2014)。手機使用對臺灣地區電話調查涵蓋率之影響評估。調查研究─方法與應用，31，7-30。
    連結：
14. 洪鴻智, Hung-Chih(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(1)，33-70。
    連結：
15. 范玫芳, Mei-Fang(2008)。科技、民主與公民身份：安坑灰渣掩埋場設置爭議之個案研究。台灣政治學刊，12(1)，185-228。
    連結：
16. 范玫芳, Mei-Fang(2013)。能源決策困境與參與式科技評估之展望。國家發展研究，13(1)，1-40。
    連結：
17. 范玫芳, Mei-Fang(2007)。風險論述、公民行動與灰渣掩埋場設置爭議。科技、醫療與社會，5，43-70。
    連結：
18. 張寧, Ning,黃崑峰, Kun-Feng(2015)。嫌惡性設施的風險知覺。中國行政評論，21(3)，21-47。
    連結：
19. 張鐙文, Teng-Wen,黃東益, Tong-Yi,洪永泰, Yung-Tai(2017)。住宅電話與手機雙底冊調查的組合估計：以2016 總統選舉預測為例。選舉研究，24(2)，65-96。
    連結：
20. 梁世武, Shih-Wu(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。
    連結：
21. 梁世武, Shih-Wu,李均揚, Chun-Yang(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。台灣公共衛生雜誌，33(4)，428-444。
    連結：
22. 陳清淵, Ching-Yuan,謝雨生, Yeu-Sheng(2011)。現代基因科技知識與基因科技風險態度之關係探討。調查研究─方法與應用，26，45-80。
    連結：
23. 陳穎峰, Ying-Feng(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。
    連結：
24. 黃東益, Tong-Yi(2008)。審議過後─從行政部門觀點探討公民會議的政策連結。東吳政治學報，26(4)，59-96。
    連結：
25. 黃浩榮, Hao-Rong(2003)。風險社會下的大眾媒體：以公共新聞學作為重構策略。國家發展研究，3(1)，99-147。
    連結：
26. 楊清田, Tsing-Tyan,林立夫, Li-Fu(2011)。由日本福島事件之啟示，省思核能安全之強化。前瞻科技與管理，1(2)，41-53。
    連結：
27. 過子庸, Tzu-Yung,何其穎, Chi-Ying(2012)。對世界三大核災事故－三哩島、車諾比及福島核災之研析。前瞻科技與管理，2(1)，132-146。
    連結：
28. 雷祥麟, Hsiang-Lin(2002)。劇變中的科技、民主與社會：STS（科技與社會研究）的挑戰。台灣社會研究季刊，45，123-171。
    連結：
29. 劉書彬, Shu-Pin(2013)。311 核災後德國核能政策之研究—兼論德國核能治理之公民參與。臺灣民主季刊，10(3)，131-179。
    連結：
30. 劉祥熹, Hsiang-His,莊慶達, Ching-Ta,陳均龍, Jyun-Long(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。
    連結：
31. Turton, M. (2013, July 1). The Fourth nuclear power plant referendum issue in Taiwan. Asian Correspondent. Retrieved November 2, 2015, from http://asiancorrespondent.com/2013/07/the-fourth-nuclear-power-plantreferendum-issue-in-taiwan/.
32. 林海珍（2019）。近年全國性會議的參與式民主執行模式對全國科技會議多元參與設計的啟示，2020 年 2 月 12 日，取自：https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10509。Lin, Hai-Chen (2019). Jin nian quan guo xing hui yi de can yu shi min zhu zhi hang mo shi dui quan guo ke ji hui yi duo yuan can yu she ji de qi shi [The enlightenment of participatory democratic implementation model of national conferences to National Science and Technology Conference in recent years]. Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://portal.stpi.narl.org.tw/index/article/10509.
33. 游明煌（2019 年 5 月 18 日）。黃士修：核能的問題是政治問題，不是技術問題。聯合新聞網，2019 年 6 月 6 日，取自：https://udn.com/news/story/6656/3821105。Yu, Ming-Huang (2019, May 18).Huang shi xiu: He neng de wen ti shi zheng zhi wen ti, bu shi ji shu wen ti [Huang, Shih-Hsiu: Nuclear energy is a political issue, not a technical issue].UDN Newsletter, Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://udn.com/news/story/6656/3821105.
34. 曾志超（2011）。核能政策不應隨政黨利益而搖擺，2019 年 7 月 7 日，取自：https://www.npf.org.tw/3/9277。Tseng, Chih-Chao (2011). He neng zheng ce bu ying sui zheng dang li yi er yao bai [Nuclear energy policy should not sway with party interests]. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from https://www.npf.org.tw/3/9277.
35. 陳立誠（2019 年 6 月 13 日）。給國民黨總統候選人的能源忠告。風傳媒，2019 年6 月 22 日，取自：https://www.storm.mg/article/1372250?srcid=7777772e73746f726d2e6d675f34646663333864373031333536376366_1562812924 。 Chen, Li-Cheng (2019, June 13). Gei guo min dang zong tong hou xuan ren de neng yuan zhong gao [Some energy advice for KMT presidential candidates]. The Storm Media, Retrieved June 22, 2019, from https://www.storm.mg/article/1372250?srcid=7777772e73746f726d2e6d675f34646663333864373031333536376366_1562812924.
36. 朱冠諭（2019 年 3 月 5 日）。經濟部估 2025 年電費「只」漲 3 成。江宜樺批：還在騙。風傳媒，2019 年 6 月 6 日，取自：https://www.storm.mg/article/1026368?srcid=73746f726d2e6d675f34646663333864373031333536376366_1560966075。Chu, Kuan-Yu (2019, March 5).Jing ji bu gu 2025nian dian fei ‘zhi’ zhang 3cheng. Jiang yi hua pi: hai zai pian [The Ministry of Economy estimates that electricity bills will ‘only’ increase by 30% in 2025. Chiang, Yi-Hua criticized: Still cheating]. The Storm Media, Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://www.storm.mg/article/1026368?srcid=73746f726d2e6d675f34646663333864373031333536376366_1560966075.
37. 陳文姿（2019）。卡關！公民審議都開完一年多了「能源轉型白皮書」還躺在行政院，環境資訊中心，2020 年 2 月 12 日，取自：https://e-info.org.tw/node/220486。Chen, Wen-Tzu (2019). Ka guan! Gong min shen yi dou kai wan yi nian duo le ‘neng yuan zhuan xing bai pi shu’ hai tang zai hang zheng yuan [Stuck! While the national consensus conference had been conducted for more than a year, the White Paper on Energy Transformation is still lying in the Executive Yuan]. Taiwan Environmental information Center, Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://e-info.org.tw/node/220486.
38. Aldy, J. E.,Kotchen, M. J.,Leiserowitz, A. A.(2012).Willingness to pay and political support for a U.S. national clean energy standard.Nature Climate Change,2,596-599.
39. Anderson, S.,Felici, M.(2012).Emerging technological risk: Underpinning the risk of technology innovation.London, UK:Springer.
40. Aven, T.,Renn, O.(2010).Risk management and governance: Concepts, guidelines and applications.Heidelberg, DE:Springer.
41. Baron, R. M.,Kenny, D. A.(1986).The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51(6),1173-1182.
42. Bauer, M. W.,Gylstorff, S.,Madsen, E. B.,Mejlgaard, N.(2019).The Fukushima accident and public perceptions about nuclear power around the globe – A challenge & response model.Environmental Communication,13(4),505-526.
43. Beck、 U. ,汪浩（譯）, Hao(trans.)(2004).風險社會：通往另一個現代的路.台北=Taipei:巨流=Chu Liu Publisher.
44. Besley, J. C.,Oh, S. H.(2014).The impact of accident attention, ideology, and environmentalism on American attitudes toward nuclear energy.Risk Analysis,34(5),949-964.
45. Blind, P. K.(2006).Bulid trust in government in the Twenty-First Century: Review of literature and emerging issue.The 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government Building Trust in Government,Vienna:
46. Breidert, C.,Hahsler, M.,Reuttererm T.(2006).A review of methods for measuring willingness-to-pay.Innovative Marketing,2(4),8-32.
47. Connor, M.,Siegrist, M.(2010).Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social Trust.Science Communication,32(4),514-538.
48. Corner, A.,Venables, D.,Spence, A.,Poortinga, W.,Demski, C.,Pidgeon, N.(2011).Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes.Energy Policy,39(9),4823-4833.
49. Costa-Font, M.,Gil, J. M.,Traill, W. B.(2008).Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy.Food Policy,33(2),99-111.
50. de Groot, J. I. M.,Steg, L.,Poortinga, W.(2013).Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy.Risk Analysis,33(2),307-317.
51. De Rodes, D. M.(1994).Risk perception and risk communication in the Public decisionmaking process.Journal of Planning Literature,8(3),324-334.
52. Denney, D.(2005).Risk and society.London, UK:Sage.
53. Dunlap, R. E.(Ed.),Michelson, W.(Ed.)(2002).Handbook of environmental sociology.Westport, NY:Greenwood Press.
54. Farhar, B. C.,Houston, A. H.(1996).Willingness to pay for electricity from renewable energy.Golden, CO:National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
55. Gadenne, D.,Sharma, B.,Kerr, D.,Smith, T.(2011).The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours.Energy Policy,39(12),7684-7694.
56. García-Acebrón, C.,Vázquez-Casielles, R.,Iglesias, V.(2010).The effect of perceived value and switching barriers on customer price tolerance in industrial energy markets.Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing,17(4),317-335.
57. Gardner, G. T.,Tiemann, A. R.,Gould, L. C.,Deluca, D. R.,Doob, L. W.,Stolwijk, J. A.(1982).Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power.The Journal of Social Psychology,116(2),179-197.
58. Goto, H.,Ariu, T.(2010).Willingness to pay for renewable energy and nuclear power and their determinants factors.The 9th Conference on Applied Infrastructure,Berlin:
59. Hair, J. F.,Black, W. C.,Babin, B. J.,Anderson, R. E.,Tatham, R. L.(2006).Multivariate data analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Prentice Hall.
60. Harju-Autti, P.,Kokkinen, E.(2014).A novel environmental awareness index measured cross-nationally for fifty seven countries.Universal Journal of Environmental Research and Technology,4(4),178-198.
61. Hawley, G.(2011).Political threat and immigration: Party identification, demographic context, and immigration policy preference.Social Science Quarterly,92(2),404-422.
62. Ho, S. S.,Leong, A. D.,Looi, J.,Chen, L.,Pang, N.,Tandoc, E., Jr(2019).Science teracy or value predisposition? A meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy.Environmental Communication,13(4),457-471.
63. Huang, H. C.,Wang, T. W.(2011).Determinants and mapping of collective perceptions of technological risk: The case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan.Risk Analysis,31(4),668-683.
64. Hursti, U. K. K.,Magnusson, M. K.(2003).Consumer perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods. What kind of knowledge matters?.Appetite,41(3),207-209.
65. IEA(2019).Nuclear power in a clean energy system.France:International Energy Agency.
66. International Risk Governance Council=IRGC(2008).An introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework.Geneva:International Risk Governance Council.
67. Jenkins-Smith, H. C.,Silva, C. L.,Nowlin, M. C.,deLozier, G.(2011).Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility.Risk Analysis,31(4),629-644.
68. Klerk, D.,Sweeney, J. C.(2007).The effect of knowledge type on consumer perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods.Psychology and Marketing,24(2),173-193.
69. Kowalska-Pyzalska, A.,Maciejowska, K.,Suszczyński, K.,Sznajd-Weron, K.,Weron, R.(2014).Turning green: Agent-based modeling of the adoption of dynamic electricity tariffs.Energy Policy,72,164-174.
70. Leiter, A.(2008).The perils of a half-built bridge: Risk perception, shifting majorities, and the nuclear power debate.Ecology Law Quarterly,35(31),31-72.
71. Li, T.,Meshkova, Z.(2013).Examining the impact of rich media on consumer willingness to pay in online stores.Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,12(6),449-461.
72. Liao, S. Y.,Tseng, W. C.,Chen, C. C.(2010).Eliciting public preference for nuclear energy against the backdrop of global warming.Energy Policy,38(11),7054-7069.
73. Millstone, E.,Van Zwanenberg, P.,Marris, C.,Levidow, L.,Torgersen, H.(2004).Science in trade disputes related to potential.Luxembourg:IPTS.
74. Murakami, K.,Ida, T.,Tanaka, M.,Friedman, L.(2015).Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan.Energy Economics,50,178-189.
75. Okamoto, J.,de C. Buffington, S.,Cloum, H. M.,Mendenhall, B. M.,Toboni, M.,Valente, T. W.(2011).The influence of health knowledge in shaping political priorities: Examining HIV/AIDS knowledge and public opinion about global health and domestic policies.Global Public Health: An International Journal for Research, Policy and Practice,6(8),830-842.
76. Oshita, T.(2019).The effects of emergency preparedness communication on people’s trust, emotions, and acceptance of a nuclear power plant.Environmental Communication,13(4),472-490.
77. Park, S. H.,Jung, W. J.,Kim, T. H.,Lee, S. Y. T.(2016).Can renewable energy replace nuclear power in Korea? An economic valuation analysis.Nuclear Engineering and Technology,48,559-571.
78. Perko, T.,Van Gorp, B.,Turcanu, C.,Thijssen, P.,Carle, B.(2013).Communication in nuclear emergency preparedness: A closer look at information reception.Risk Analysis,33(11),1987-2001.
79. Pidgeon, N. F.,Lorenzoni, I.,Poortinga, W.(2008).Climate change or nuclear power-No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain.Global Environmental Change,18(1),69-85.
80. Renn, O.(1992).Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public.Journal of Hazardous Materials,29(3),465-519.
81. Renn, O.(2008).Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world.London, UK:Earthscan Press.
82. Rinkevicius, L.(2000).Public risk perceptions in a ‘double-risk’ society: The case of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in Lithuania.Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,13(3),279-289.
83. Roeser, S.(Ed.),Hillerbrand, R.(Ed.),Sandin, P.(Ed.),Peterson. M.(Ed.)(2012).Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social implications of risk.London, UK:Springer.
84. Sánchez, M. J.,Lafuente, R.(2010).Defining and measuring environmental consciousness.Revista Internacional de Sociologia (RIS),68(3),731-755.
85. Siegrist, M.(1999).A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,29(10),2093-2106.
86. Siegrist, M.(2013).The necessity for longitudinal studies in risk perception research.Risk Analysis,33(1),50-51.
87. Siegrist, M.(2000).The influence of trust and perception of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology.Risk Analysis,20(2),195-204.
88. Siegrist, M.,Cvetkovich, G.(2000).Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge.Risk Analysis,20(5),713-719.
89. Siegrist, M.,Cvetkovich, G.,Roth, C.(2000).Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception.Risk Analysis,20(3),353-362.
90. Siegrist, M.,Keller, C.,Kastenholz, H.,Frey, S.,Wiek, A.(2007).Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards.Risk Analysis,27(1),59-69.
91. Sjöberg, L.(2000).Factors in risk perception.Risk Analysis,20(1),1-11.
92. Slovic, P.(1997).Public perception of risk.Journal of Environmental Health,59(9),22-54.
93. Slovic, P.(1987).Perception of risk.Science,236(4799),280-285.
94. Slovic, P.(2010).The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception.London, UK:Routledge.
95. Slovic, P.,Fischhoff, B.,Lichtenstein, S.(1982).Why study risk perception?.Risk Analysis,2(2),83-93.
96. Slovic, P.,Layman, M.,Flynn, J. H.(1991).Risk perception, trust, an nuclear waste: Lesson from Yucca Mountain.Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,33(3),6-30.
97. Stern, P. C.,Dietz, T.,Kalof, L.,Guagnano, G. A.(1995).Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,25(18),1611-1636.
98. Tseng, M. C. M.,Lin, Y. P.,Hu, F. C.,Cheng, T. J.(2013).Risks perception of electromagnetic fields in Taiwan: The. influence of psychopathology and the degree of sensitivity to electromagnetic fields.Risk Analysis,33(11),2002-2012.
99. Visschers, V. H. M.,Siegrist, M.(2013).How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima Disaster.Risk Analysis,33(2),333-347.
100. Wang, J.,Li, Y.,Wu, J.,Gu, J.,Xu, S.(2020).Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis.Energy Policy,137,111-141.
101. Wildavsky, A.,Dake, K.(1990).Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?.Daedalus,119(4),41-60.
102. Woo, C. K.,Shiu, A.,Cheng, Y. S.,Li, R.,Ho, T.,Horowitz, I.,Wang, J.(2014).Residential willingness-to-pay for reducing coal-fired generation’s emissions in Hong Kong.The Electricity Journal,27(3),50-66.
103. Zelezny, L. C.,Schultz, P. W.(2000).Promoting environmentalism.Journal of Social Issues,56(3),365-371.
104. Zhao X.,Leiserowitz, A. A.,Maibach, E. W.,Roser-Renouf, C.(2011).Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support.Journal of Communication,61(4),713-731.
105. Zhua, W.,Jiuchang, W.,Zhaoa, D.(2016).Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception.Energy Policy,88,168-177.
106. 吳宗祐（譯）, Tsung-Yu(trans.),胡昌亞（審譯）, Chang-Ya(Ed.)(2012).破解統計與研究方法的15 個迷思：組織與社會科學研究中的謠言與真相.台北=Taipei:華泰文化=Hwa Tai publishing.
107. 周桂田, Kuei-Tien(1998)。現代性與風險社會。台灣社會學刊，21，89-129。
108. 林子倫, Tze-Luen,陳亮宇, Liang-Yu(2009)。重返民主的政策科學：審議式政策分析概念意涵與途徑之探討。臺灣民主季刊，6(4)，1-47。
109. 林崇熙, Chung-His(2008)。科技就是風險。科學發展，421，60-63。
110. 原承君, Cheng-Jyun,林翠芳(2017)。我國民眾對環境公共財及環境政策偏好之探討。財稅研究，46(3)，101-127。
111. 張耀仁, Yao-Jen,黃孔良, Kong-Liang,葛復光, Fu-Kuang(2019)。運用多元線性迴歸模型分析能源政策之社會意向研究。臺灣能源期刊，6(1)，23-43。
112. 傅粹馨, Tsuey-Shing(2002)。信度、Alpha 係數與相關議題之探究。教育學刊，18，163-184。
113. 黃東益, Tong-Yi,李仲彬, Chung-Pin(2012)。國科會專題研究計畫國科會專題研究計畫,Taipei:Atomic Energy Council。
114. 劉光瑩, Kuang-Ying(2014)。德國電費大漲，民眾仍支持廢核。天下雜誌，546
115. 賴沅輝, Yuan-Hui(2005).新興科技發展中的民主與治理：基因科技政策過程中的風險圖像.台北=Taipei:韋伯文化=Weber Publication.
116. 賴沅輝, Yuan-Hui(2005)。新基因學的治理與政策議題：以基因檢測科技發展為例。行政暨政策學報，38，60-72。
117. 顧忠華（編）, Chung-Hua(Ed.)(2001).第二現代：風險社會的出路？.台北=Taipei:巨流=Chu Liu Publisher.

1. 陳文學(2023)。誰來服務比較安心？原住民族地區的民眾對公務員特質偏好的實證分析。文官制度季刊，15(2)，83-119。
2. 李坤城(2020)。你投的是「擁核」還是「廢核」？從關聯性分析初探「以核養綠」公投通過的原因。中國行政評論，26(2)，1-25。