Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/135988


Title: 我國低放射性廢棄物最終處置選址溝通框架與機制分析
Site for Establishment of Low Level Radioactive Waste Final Disposal Facility: A Case Study on Policy Risk Communication and Managemen
Authors: 許鈺昕
Hsu, Yu-Hsin
Contributors: 蕭乃沂
Hsiao, Nai-Yi
許鈺昕
Hsu, Yu-Hsin
Keywords: 核廢料
低放射性廢棄物最終處置選址
風險溝通
low level radioactive waste (LLRW)
final disposal
risk communication
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-07-01 20:16:37 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 低放射性廢棄物處置選址在政策溝通的階段,主要執行者為台電,溝通框架與機制受到法規範,包括選址相關法規,以及特別法原住民族基本法。在這樣的背景下,本研究主要目的係為:核設施風險溝通關鍵影響因素,在我國低放處置選址政策的溝通框架與機制。透過(1)學術文章與次級資料分析,整理核設施風險溝通的關鍵影響因素,並對應傳播敘事溝通架構;(2)非核家園專案小組委員、台電、臺東縣政府、原住民法規學者、反核團體,以及達仁鄉在地重要溝通小組與意見領袖的訪談,分析低放最終處置選址溝通執行現況,與學理和國外經驗的落差。
重要發現包括核設施風險溝通不只是溝通主體本身的風險,還包括傳播的風險,而低放最終處置選址與溝通相關的權責分工與不同法規範條件下,實務上執行溝通面對的問題從政治、經濟到社會層次。是以,溝通作為彌補政策的不信任或衝突,得考量的策略包括:(1)依據目標精準溝通、(2)機制上強化風險與利益分配的元素、(3)溝通框架在地脈絡化。故在框架中得強調以下元素:(1)多面向呈現風險事實、(2)依據不同風險認知的對象,提供必要且可以被理解的資訊、(3)理解溝通對象對制度的「公平」條件,並建立信任、(4)討論利益權衡。準此,機制上,為了透過民意表達(參與決策)建立信任,除了需要創新的工具以外,更重要的是第三方的行動者。
核議題在臺灣是不被信任和阻力大的政策,必須經營官民之間的信任。因此,本研究建議未來有關核設施選址、環境政策正義、風險溝通等相關研究,考量研究可行性,首先以增加訊蒐集,再來以政策議題重要性,建議在地經驗、公民參與政策的設計、風險政策溝通成效指標的發展,以因應國際趨勢,及面對臺灣低放處置選址尚未有明確方向的政策困境。
One of the key influencing factors of “Site Selection for Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal in Taiwan'' is the relevant regulations on site selection, especially the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law. Furthermore, Taiwan Power Company (TPC) has been mainly responsible for communicating with the local people living in the recommended candidate site at the stage of policy communication. Based on the factors, the main purpose of this thesis includes: the key influencing factors of risk communication of nuclear facilities, and the communication framework and mechanism under different legal norms in the policy. This thesis explains the actual low final disposal site communication implementation status, as well as practical and academic and foreign experience , through (1) academic studies and sub-data analysis, and organizing the key influencing factors of nuclear facility risk communication; (2) the non-nuclear homeland task force members, TPC, Taitung County government, indigenous legal scholars, anti-nuclear groups, as well as stakeholders in Daren Township interviews.
Important findings indicate that both “the risk of communication subjects” and “the risk of communication” influence the nuclear facility risk communication, corresponding to the communication narrative communication structure. Communication can to some extent address the policy controversy; moreover, the communication framework should enhance the following elements: (1) the multi- faceted presentation of adjacent shelter facilities, (2) necessary and understandable information according to the risk perception of diverse stakeholders, (3) trust-building and satisfied system for understanding the risk, and (4) well-discussed trade-offs of interests. In addition to innovation of communication tools based on LLRW characteristics, third-party actors as well as trust-building through the communication mechanism of public opinion expression (participation in decision-making) are much more important in the LLRW disposal site selection process.
As nuclear related issues in Taiwan are untrusted and resistant, it is essential for cultivating trust between the government and civil society. This thesis suggests that future studies develop topics include: (1) information collection for controversial issues; (2) citizen participation systems for important policies; (3) risk policy communication effectiveness indicators in the local experience. To sum up, these findings are not only in response to international trends, but in the face of Taiwan's disposal site which is not yet a clear direction of policy dilemma.
Reference: 中文文獻
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。都市與計劃,31(1),65 – 90。
臺東環境保護聯盟(2009)。臺東地區反核廢料瞬息變況,取自:http://taitung-place.blogspot.com/。
台電公司(2017)低放射性廢棄物最終處置技術評估報告。取自:https://www.aec.gov.tw/share/file/fcma/uPUM6cYgIi18uzkZu7Paaw__.pdf。
台電公司(2019)。低放射性廢棄物民意調查,未出版。
台電公司(2020)。核廢社會溝通規劃案。臺灣電力股份有限公司109年研究計畫903-0709-006,未公開。
台電公司(2020)臺灣電力股份有限公司標案。取自:https://ronnywang.github.io/pcc-viewer/unit.html?unit_id=3.13.31。
台電公司(2020)核廢社會溝通規劃案。計畫編號:903-0709-00601,未出版。
朱元鴻(1995)。風險知識與風險媒介的政治社會學分析。臺灣社會研究季刊, 19,195 – 224。
自由時報(2013),拒核廢處置場/ 達仁候選場址 議會促撤銷,取自:
何明修(2002)。為何民進黨政府的廢核政策失敗?。臺灣政治學刊,6,95-137。
李宛儒、蔡友月(2018)缺席的多元公眾:Taiwan Biobank 的建置、爭議與科學治理。《臺灣社會學刊》,64,49-110。
杜文苓(2010)。環評決策中公民參與的省思:以中科三期開發爭議為例。公共行政學報,35,29-60。
杜文苓(2013)。核能安全風險之溝通。科技部與原能會計畫,計畫編號102-NU_E_004-002-NU,未出版。
杜文苓(2015)環境風險與公共治理。臺北:五南出版。
杜文苓(2019)環境不正義的省思:民間核廢論壇的諍言。載於蕭新煌、徐世榮、杜文苓主編,面對臺灣風險社會:分析與策略(第五章)。高雄,巨流。
汪浩(譯)。風險社會:通往另一個現代的路上。臺北:巨流。Beck, Uirich (2004). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Wegin enieandere Moderne. German:Suhrkamp Verlag.
周桂田(2000)。生物科技產業與社會風險--遲滯型高科技風險社會。臺灣社會研究季刊,39,239-283。
周桂田(2005)。爭議性科技之風險溝通—以基因改造工程為思考點。生物科技與法律研究通訊,18,42-50。
周桂田(2005)。知識、科學與不確定性-專家與科技系統的「無知」如何建構風險。政治與社會哲學評論,13,131 - 180
周桂田(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。
林承宇(2017)。藥品廣告規範之傳播政治經濟學取徑分析:跨領域議題規範新思維。傳播與社會學刊, 42,189–223。
紀駿傑、蕭新煌(2003)。當前臺灣環境正義的社會基礎。國家政策季刊,2(3), 169 – 179。
胡幼慧。1996。《質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》。臺北:巨流。
范玫芳(2017)。誰的風險?誰的管制與檢測標準?蘭嶼核廢料爭議之研究。傳播研究與實踐,7(1),107 – 139。
原能會物管局(2019)低放射性廢棄物最終處置計畫執行成果報告審查報告。取自:https://www.aec.gov.tw/share/file/fcma/k81CXxTm28rCmy5kZ2pZBg__.pdf。
孫煒(2002)。政策次級系統與政策典範——政策變遷之模型建構。政治學報,34,123-147。
徐美苓(2015)。在地環境風險的媒體建構以及常民的感知與參與意願。科技部補助計畫,計畫編號:MOST 100-2410-H-004-155-SS3。
康陳剛(2019)臺灣核能社群論述分析初探—「以核養綠」的個案研究。臺灣大學新聞研究所學位論文
康陳剛(2019)臺灣核能社群論述分析初探—「以核養綠」的個案研究。臺灣大學新聞研究所學位論文。取自:https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?docid=U0001-1410201917520200。
張國暉、蔡友月(2020)。驅不走達悟惡靈的民主治理夢魘:蘭嶼核廢遷場僵局的政策史分析。臺灣社會研究季刊,115,77-149。
梁世武(2016)。民意調查與議題溝通之執行與研析。科技部補助計畫,計畫編號:MOST-105-NU-E-128-001-NU,臺北:科技部。
陳妍彣(2014)。原住民部落與核廢料處置場:以達仁鄉南田村為例。國立臺東大學公共與文化事務學系南島文化研究碩士學位論文,未出版。
黃東益(2010)。低放最終處置公民參與之研究。原能會物管局委託研究計劃,未出版。
黃東益(2016)。放射性廢棄物最終處置民眾關心議題蒐集與分析。行政院原子能委員會委託研究計畫研究報告,計畫編號1032001INER047。
黃東益、陳潁峰、高淑芬(2014)低放射性廢棄物處置關鍵群體之核廢料認知與風險溝通。科技部委託計劃,計畫編號 NSC 102-NU-E-004-001-NU。
黃東益、董祥開、傅凱若(2017)。核電廠除役及核廢料處理議題公眾溝通機制之研究。科技部計畫編號MOST108-NU-E004-001-NU。
黃則鳴(2017)。臺灣核廢料政策之論述分析—2011年至2016年。臺灣大學公共事務研究所學位論文。
黃禎財(2002)。學者專家對低放最終處置風險知覺之研究。中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
楊永年(2014)。台電公司於南臺灣進行核能溝通之策略研究。台電公司委託研究計畫,計畫編號:102S262,未出版。
雷祥麟(2002)。劇變中的科技、民主與社會:STS(科技與社會研究)的挑戰。臺灣社會研究季刊,45,123 – 171。
臺北高等行政法院新聞稿(2019)。本院審理原告臺灣電力股份有限公司與被告行政院原子能委 員會間放射性物料管理法事件(106 年度訴字第 1242 號),審 理結果判決原告勝訴,扼要說明。取自:http://tpb.judicial.gov.tw/uploads/files/news/108-011%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%A8%BF.pdf。
劉烱錫(2012)。臺東環盟反美麗灣渡假村 回顧與公民社會展望,取自:https://e-info.org.tw/node/82027。
潘淑滿。2003。《質性研究:理論與應用》。臺北市:心理。
蔡琰、臧國仁(2017)。〈數位時代的「敘事傳播」:兼論新科技對傳播學術思潮的可能影響〉,《新聞學研究》,131: 1-48。
蔡瑄庭、王志強(2011)我國低放射性廢棄物處置場址設立衝突之法律分析。收錄於湯京平、蕭代基(編)經濟發展,環境保護與民主參與─我國環境影響評估的功能與挑戰。臺北:財團法人中華經濟研究院。
鄭丞軒(2017)。原住民族諮商同意在核廢料最終處置場選址機制的實踐—以臺東達仁南田建議候選場址為例。國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士學位論文,未出版。
蕭代基、黃德秀(2007)。〈補償對鄰避現象的影響─以烏坵低放射性廢料場址為例〉。
謝蓓宜(2016)多元社會脈絡下的核廢論述:民間核廢論壇個案分析。政治大學公共行政學系碩士學位論文。

英文文獻
Andreas Klinke (2020). Public understanding of risk and risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1750464. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1750464.
Aoki, N. (2018) Who Would Be Willing to Accept Disaster Debris in Their Backyard? Investigating the Determinants of Public Attitudes in Post-Fukushima Japan. Risk Analysis, 38(3), 535-547.
Assmuth, T., & J. Lyytima (2015). Co-constructing inclusive knowledge within converging fields: Environmental governance and health care. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 338-350.
Australia Federal Register of Legislation (2012). National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00029.
Australia Government Resources - National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, Retrieved March 20, 2020, from http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/.
Australia Government Resources. (2020). National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, Retrieved from: http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/.
Australia Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. (2020). National Radioactive Waste Management Facility - Napandee site. Retrieved from: https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/media-releases/national-radioactive-waste-management-facility-napandee-site.
Australia Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. (2020b). National Radioactive Waste Management Facility consultative committees. Retrieved from: https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/media-releases/national-radioactive-waste-management-facility-napandee-site.
Aven, T. & O. Renn (2010) Risk Management and Governance ( volume 16). NewYork: Springer.
Aven, T. & O. Renn. (2018). Improving Government Policy on Risk: Eight Key Principles. Reliability engineering & system safety, vol.176, p230–p241.
Aven, T. (2003). Foundation of risk analysis. NewYork: Wiley.
Bardach, Eugene & Eric M. Patashnik (2016). A practical guide for policy analysis (5th ed). Los Angeles: Sage. p.28-34.
Barkel R.P., H.C. Jenkins-Smith (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13(4):425–439.
Bles, A.M., S. Linden, A.L.J. Freeman, J. Mitchell, A.B. Galvao, L. Zaval, & D. J. Spiegelhalter (2019). Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal society open science. doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870.
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.
Boscarino, J. E. (2019). From Three Mile Island to Fukushima: the impact of analogy on attitudes toward nuclear power. Policy Sciences, 52(1), 21-42.
Brown Mark B. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bucch, M. & F. Neresini (2008). Science and Public Participation. In Hackett, Edward J. & Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch ,& Judy Wajcman (pp.448-472). Handbook of Science and technology Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bullard, R. D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Catrien J. A. M. Termeer, Art Dewulf, Gerard Breeman , and Sabina J. Stiller (2012). Governance Capabilities for Dealing Wisely With Wicked Problems. Administration & Society, 47(6), 680–710.
Citrin, J., & Muste, C. (1999). Trust in government. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (pp. 465-532). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Coscarelli, R., De Pascale, F., Condino, F., & Antronico, L. (ed.).(2019). Social Perception of Geo-Hydrological Risk in the Context of Urban Disaster Risk Reduction: A Comparison between Experts and Population in an Area of Southern Italy. Sustainability. DOI: 10.3390/su1102061.
Cozma, R. (2006). Source diversity increases credibility of risk stories. Newspaper Research Journal, 27(3), 8-21.
Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 21-37.
Daviter, F. (2017). Coping, taming or solving: alternative approaches to the governance of wicked problems. Policy Studies, 38(6), 571-588, DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2017.1384543.
EJ A. (2020). Proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, South Australia. Retrieved from: https://ejatlas.org/conflict/proposed-national-radioactive-waste-management-facility-south-australia.
Fang, X. (2014). Local people’s understanding of risk from civil nuclear power in the Chinese context. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 283-298.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
Goodfellow, M.J., H.R. Williams, & A. Azapagic (2011) Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review. Energy Policy 39(10): 6199–6210.)
Grano , S. A. (2015). Environmental Governance in Taiwan: A New Generation of Activists and Stakeholders. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Green, J. (2017). Radioactive waste and Australia’s aboriginal people. Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 22(3), 33-50. DOI: 10.1080/0969725X.2017.1387364.
Griffin, R. J., S. Dunwoody, & K.Neuwirth (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80, 230–245.
Gupta, K., J. Ripberger, & W. Wehde (2018). Advocacy Group Messaging on Social Media: Using the Narrative Policy Framework to Study Twitter Messages about Nuclear Energy Policy in the United States. The Policy Studies Journal, 46(1), 119-136.
Gupta, K., J. T. Ripberger, H. C. Jenkins‐Smith, C. L. Silva (2020). Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States. Review of Policy Research, 37(4), 491-510.
Gupta, K., J.T. Ripberger, H. C. Jenkins‐Smith, C. L. Silva (2020). Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 145-156.
Harley, J. (2002). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
He, G., P. J. Arthur, M. L. Zhang, & Y. L. Lu (2014). Nuclear Power in China after Fukushima: Understanding Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Trust. Journal of Risk Research, 17 (4): 435-451.
Hine, D. W., C. Summers, M. Prystupa, & A. McKenzie-Richer (1997). Public Opposition to a Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository in Canada: An Investigation of Cultural and Economic Effects. Risk Analysis ,17 (3), 293-302.
Hinman, G. W., E. A. Rosa, R. R. Kleinhesselink, & T. C. Lowinger (1993). Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis,13(4):449–455.
Hoti, F., T. Perko, P. Thijsse, & O. Renn (2020). Radiation risks and uncertainties: a scoping review to support communication and informed decision-making. Journal of Radiological Protection, 40, 612-631.
International Risk Governance Council (2005). Risk Governance–Towards an Integrative Approach. Retrieved from https://irgc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance__reprinted_version_3.pdf.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa E, Webler T. (2001). Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action. Earthscan: London.
Ji, B. C., & K. K. Hong (2009). Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(1), 8-1.
Jimenez, R., P. Arevalo, L. Cifuentes, N. Bronfman, R. Jiménez, P. Arévalo, & L. Cifuentes (2012). Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy, 46, 246–252
Joffe, He´le`ne (2003). Risk: From perception to social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 55-73.
Johnson, R.J., & Michael J. Scicchitano (2012). Don’t callme NIMBY: Public attitudes toward solid waste facilities. Environment and Behavior, 44(3), 410–426.
Jones Michael D. & Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (2009). Trans-Subsystem Dynamics: Policy Topography, Mass Opinion, and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal 37(1):37-58
Jones, M. D., E. A. Shanahan, & M. K. McBeth (Eds.). (2014). The science of stories: Applications of narrative policy framework. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Juntti, M., D. Russel & J. Turnpenny (2009). Evidence, politics and power in public policy for the Environment. Environmental science and policy, 12, 207-215.
Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Gobel, R., Kasperson, J.X., & Ratick, S. (2002). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 232-245). London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Kim, H. (2014). Reconstructing the public in old and new governance: A Korean case of nuclear energy policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3), 268-282.
Klinke, A. & Renn, O., (2002). A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-based, and Discourse-based Strategies. Risk Analysis, 22 (6): 1071-1094.
Konisky, D., S. Ansolabehere, & D. Konisky (2009). Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 566-577.
Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public support for nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 240-267.
Lybecker, D., M. K. McBeth, M. A. Husmann ,& N. Pelikan (2015). Do new media support new policy narratives? The social construction of the US–Mexico border on YouTube. Policy & Internet, 7(4), 497-525 .
McBeth, M. K., E. A. Shanahan, M. Anderson ,& B. Rose (2012). Policy story or gory story: Narrative policy framework analysis of Buffalo Field Campaign’s YouTube videos. Policy & Internet, 4(3-4), 159-183.
Michaels, D. & C. Monforton (2005). Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment. American Joumal of Public Health, 95(1), 39-48.
Murray, C. (1984). Losing Ground : American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Admin Review, 72, 699-708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.
Ohtomo, S., Y. Hirose, & S. Ohnuma (2020). Public acceptance model for siting a repository of radioactive contaminated waste. Doi: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1750457.
Olausson, U., & P. Berglez. (2014). Media and Climate Change: Four Long-Standing Research Challenges Revisited. Environmental communication, 8(2), 249–p265.
Ottinger, G. (2009). Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 34(6), 244-270. DOI:10.1177/0162243909337121.
Ottinger, G. (2010). Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(2):244-270. doi:10.1177/0162243909337121.
Park, C. T. (1992) The experience of nuclear power development in the Republic of Korea: Growth and future challenge. Energy Policy, 20(8), 721-734.
Pidgeo, N. (2020). Engaging publics about environmental and technology risks: frames, values and deliberation. Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1749118. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1749118.
Pijawka, K. D., & A. H. Mushkatel (1991). Public Opposition to the Siting of the High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository: The Importance of Trust. Review of Policy Research, 10(4), 180-194.
Plough, Alonzo., & S. Krimsky (1987). The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 12(3/4), Special Issue on the Technical and Ethical Aspects of Risk Communication, 4-10.
Qiu, H. F., S. W. Weng, & M. S. Wu (2020). The mediation of news framing between public trust and nuclear risk reactions in post-Fukushima China: A case study, Journal of Risk Research. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2020.1749116. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.1750457.
Ramana, M. (2018). Technical and social problems of nuclear waste. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 7(4)
Renn, O. & C. Benighaus (2012). Perception of technological risk: Insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. Journal of Risk Research, 16(3-4), 293-313.
Renn, O. (2002). A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies. Risk Analysis, 22, 1071-1094. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00274.
Renn, O. (2003). Hormesis and risk communication. Human & Environmental Toxicology, 22, 3-24.
Renn, O. (2010). Risk communication: Insights and Requirements for Designing Successful Communication Programs on Health and Environmental. Hazards. in: R. L. Heath and H. D. O’Hair (eds.). Handbook of risk and crisis communication, New York: Routledge, pp. 80-98.
Renn, O. (2014). Stakeholder Involvement in Risk Governance. London: Ark Group.
Rossi, P. H., M. W. Lipsey,& G. T. Henry (2018). Evaluation A Systematic Approach (8th ed.). CA: Sage.
Rowe, G., & L. Frewer (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 30(2), 251-290.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 385–403.
Scheer, D., C. Benighaus, L. Benighaus, O. Renn, S. Gold, B. Roder, & G. F. Bol (2014). The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1270-1285.DOI:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00294.x
Sclove, R. (2010) Reinventing Technology Assessment: A 21st Century Model. Washington, DC: Science and Technology Innovation Program.
Shanahan, E. A., M. D. Jones, & M. K. McBeth (2011). Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 535–561.
Shanahan, E. A., M. D. Jones, & M. K. McBeth, & C. M. Radaelli (2017). The narrative policy framework. In Christopher M. Weible, & Paul A. Sabatier (Eds.), The theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 173-213). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shanahan, E. A., M. D. Jones, & M.K. McBeth (2018). How to conduct a Narrative Policy Framework study. The Social Science Journal, 55(3), 332-345.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, Mark K. McBeth, & Claudio M. Radaelli (2018). The Narrative Policy Framework. In Sabatier, Paul A. & Christopher M. Weible (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process ( 4th ed.) (pp.225-266). Taylor & Francis
Skarlatidou A., Cheng T., Haklay M. (2012). What do lay people want to know about the disposal of nuclear waste? A mental model approach to the design and development of an online risk communication. Risk Analysis, 32(9), 1496-1511.
Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689-701.
Slovic, P., & Weber, E. U. (2002). Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. This paper presented at the meeting Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York.
Slovic, Paul (1999). Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689–701.
Stephens, J. C., G. M. Rand, & L. L. Melnick (2009). Wind energy in US media: A comparative state-level analysis of a critical climate change mitigation technology. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3(2), 168-190.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Revised Edition. New York: W.W. Norton.
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
The International Risk Governance Council (2017). Introduction to the IRGC governance framework. Retrieved from: https://irgc.org/risk-governance/irgc-risk-governance-framework/.
Valentine, S., & B. Sovacool (2010). The socio-political economy of nuclear power development in Japan and South Korea. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7971-7979.
Viklund, M. J. (2003). Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: A cross-national study. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 727-738.
Vittes, M., P. Pollock, & S. Lilie (1993). Factors contributing to NIMBY attitudes. Waste Management, 13(2), 125-129.
Wachinger, G., O. Renn, C. Begg,& C. Kuhlicke (2013). The risk perception paradox--implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1049-1065.
Warnera, J., & A. V. Buurenb (2016). Reframing long-term controversies in transboundary river management. The intermediate role of puzzling and powering in tackling wicked problems. Futures, 76, 18-29.
Webler T. 1999. The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process. Risk Research 2(1): 55–71.
Williams, B. L., S. Brown, & M. Greenberg (1999). Determinants of Trust Perceptions among Residents Surrounding the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 354-371.
Wu, X., M. Ramesh , M. Howlett, & S. A. Fritzen (2010). The Public Policy Primer: Managing the Policy Process. New York: Routledge. p.85
Wu, Y., G. Zhai, S. Li, C. Ren, & S. Tsuchida (2014). Comparative research on NIMBY risk acceptability between Chinese and Japanese college students. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(10), 6683–6694.
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs, Science as Culture, 10:4, 445-481, DOI: 10.1080/09505430120093586.
Wynne, B. (2007). Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–Conceptual Category Mistake. East Asian Science Technology and Society an International Journal 1(1):99-110. DOI:10.1007/s12280-007-9004-7.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129-166.
Yli-Kauhaluoma, S. ,& H.Hänninen (2014).Tale taming radioactive fears: Linking nuclear waste disposal to the continuum of the good. Public Understanding of Science, 23(3) 316-330.
Young, J., K. Waylen, S. Sarkki, S. Albon, I. Bainbridge, E. Balian, J. Davidson, D. Edwards, R. Fairley, C. Margerison, D. McCracken, R. Owen, C. Quine, C. Stewart-Roper, D. Thompson, R. Tinch, S. Hove, A. Watt (2014). Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv, 23, 387–404.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
106256008
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106256008
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[公共行政學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
600801.pdf9663KbAdobe PDF19View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing