Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/76483


Title: 逆風前行:苑裡風電設施設置的案例分析
Headwinds in Facility Siting: The case of Wind Turbines Implementation in Yuanli, Taiwan
Authors: 費尚恩
Fichet, Jean Baptiste
Contributors: 湯京平
Tang, Ching Ping
費尚恩
Fichet, Jean Baptiste
Keywords: 逆風前行
headwinds in Facility Siting
Date: 2015
Issue Date: 2015-07-13 11:20:16 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 逆風前行:苑裡風電設施設置的案例分析
Taiwan has gained its economic growth at a price of environmental degradation since the 1960s. Water, air, and solid waste pollution problems were brought about by intensive industrialization and urban expansion without taking much environmental concerns into account. However, in the last thirty years, Taiwan has brought more than four hundred environmental laws and regulations, and has seen environmental movements and NGOs across the island evolving in tandem with the democratization process. Likewise, the Taiwanese authorities have seriously worked on the challenges surrounding the problem of carbon mitigation and adaptation despite the obstacles due mainly to a very conservative state-owned energy sector and a small-size territory, which, according to national energy authorities, would not allow for major development of renewable energy facilities. In 2009, the long-awaited Renewable Energy Act was passed, which enabled the Taiwanese government to promulgate favorable Feed-In-Tariffs (FIT) regulations for renewables. In 2010, the Taiwanese government further encouraged renewable energy efforts by fostering energy conservation and emission reduction policies through the establishment of two cross-ministerial commissions at the Executive Yuan level. From then on, the development of renewables made a great leap forward in the country. However, Taiwan has encountered obstacles in its renewable energy projects development. NIMBY-characterized movement against wind farms has been one of them where protests have slowed down and even interrupted the process. Looking at the very intense and revealing case of Yuanli (Miaoli County) wind power project, and drawing on the academic literature as well as interviews, this thesis is aiming to bring the research a step further than the simple (and often simplistic) NIMBY-related explanation. Therefore, this case study also intends to shed light on political, cultural and institutional aspects inherent to Taiwan that seem to constitute an impediment to the success of wind power facility siting in the country.
Reference: 1. Aldrich, P. Daniel (2005). The Limits of Flexible and Adaptive Institutions: The Japanese Government’s Role in Nuclear Power Plant Siting over the Post War Period, Managing conflict in facility siting: an international comparison. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 109-135.

2. Arnstein S.R. (1969). A Ladder of Public Participation, J Am Inst. Plan, 35(4), 216-224.

3. Bell D., Gray T., Haggett C. (2005). The ‘Social Gap’ in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environmental Politics 14 (4), 460-477

4. Bobrow D. & Dryzek J. (1987), Policy Analysis by Design, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.

5. Brennan, G. (1998). Selection and the Currency of Reward, The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge University Press, (1), 256-275.

6. Bresser Rudi, Millonig Klemens (2003). Institutional Capital: Competitive Advantage In Light Of The New Institutionalism In Organization Theory. Schmalenbach Business Review 55

7. Breukers S., Wolsink M. (2007). Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: an international comparison. Energy policy 35 (5), 2737-2750

8. Brunt, A. & Spooner , D. (1998), The development of Wind Power in Denmark and the UK, Energy & Environment, 9 (3), 279-296.

9. Burningham Kate (2000). Using the language of NIMBY: A topic of research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 5 (1), 55-67.

10. Burningham, K ., Barnett, J. & Thrush, D. (2006). The limitations of the NIMBY concept for understanding public engagement with renewable energy technologies: a literature review, published by the School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, 1-20.

11. Chao Stephanie, First 'citizen' wind farm to cease operations by 2016, The China Post, April 29, 2015.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2015/04/29/434716/First-citizen.htm (accessed April 28, 2015).

12. Chen Ketty, Cole Michael, Wind turbine troubles. Taipei Times, Jun 17, 2013.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2013/06/17/2003564971/1 (accessed Oct 27, 2014).

13. Clarke, B. & Harvey, N. (2008). Formal vs Informal Participatory EIA methods : a South Australian case study, IAIA08 Conference Paper, Perth, Australia, 1-5.

14. Connelly S. & Richardson T. (2005). Value-driven SEA : time for an environmental justice perspective ? Environ Impact Assess Rev, 2005, 25, 391-409.

15. Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association V58 Pt3, 288-300.
De Sario, J. & Langton, S. (1987). Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making. Westport, CT: Greenwood, xii.

16. Diamond, L. (2001). How Democratic Is Taiwan? Five Key Challenges for Democratic Development and Consolidation. Paper for the Symposium on “The Transition from One-Party Rule: Taiwan’s New Government and Cross-Straits Relations, Columbia University.

17. Dietz T. & Stern P. (2008), Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment and Decision Making, Washington D. C., The National Academies Press, 2008, 1-23.

18. Editorial. Ma unconvincing on green energy. Taipei Times, Sept 02, 2014.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2014/09/02/2003598810/1 (accessed Oct 27, 2014).

19. Farrell, H & Knight, J. (2003). Trust, Institutions, and Institutional Change : Industrial Districts and the Social Capital Hypothesis, Politics & Society, Vol. 31, No. 4, 537- 566.

20. Gao, A. & Fan, C. (2014). Legal Issues of Renewable Energy in the Asia Region, Recent Development in Post-Fukushima and Post-Kyoto Protocol Era, Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands.

21. Gao, A. (2012). Taiwan’s Recent Efforts to Promote Renewable Energy Development : Policy Measures, Legal Measures, Challenges, and Solutions in the Post-Fukushima Era, Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, Vol 3, No 4, 263-279

22. Gao, A. (2013). Development of a Legal Framework for Climate Change in Taiwan: Lessons from Europe and Germany. Carbon and Climate Law Review - Issue: 1, 54-70.

23. Glucker, A., Driessen P.J. Peter, Kolhoff A., Runhaar A.C. Hens (2013). Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment : why, who and how?, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43, 104-111.

24. Goodin, R. (1998). The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press.
Goodin, R. (1998). Institutions and their Design. The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge University Press, (1), 1- 53.

25. Healey P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A 30(9), 1531-1546.

26. Ho, M. (2005). Weakened State and Social Movement : the Paradox of Taiwanese environemental politics after the power transfer, Journal of Contemporary China, 14(43), 339-352

27. Hooghe, M. & Dietlind, S. (2003). Generating Social Capital, Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
Huang, Y. & Wu, J. (2009). A transition toward a market expansion phase : Policies for promoting wind power in Taiwan, Energy 34, 437-447.

28. Hughes, R. (1998). Environmental Impact Assessment and Stakeholder involvement, Environ Plan Issues, 21-43

29. Hunter, S. & Leyden, K. (1995). Beyond NIMBY: Explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities’ Policy Studies Journal, Vol 23, No. 4, 601-619.

30. Huysseune, M. (2003). Institutions and their Impact on Social Capital and Civic Culture: the Case of Italy, M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating Social Capital, Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, 10, Palgrave/Saint-Martin’s Press, 211- 230.

31. Ibitayo O., Pijawka K. (1999). Reversing NIMBY: an assessment of state strategies for siting hazardous-waste facilities. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 17(4), 379-389

32. Jami, A. & Walsh, P. (2014). The role of public participation in identifying stakeholder synergies in wind power project development: The case study of Ontario, Canada, Renewable Energy 68, 194-203.

33. Kasperson E. Roger (2005). Siting Hazardous Facilities: Searching for Effective Institutions and Processes, Managing conflict in facility siting: an international comparison. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 13-36.

34. Khan, J. (2003). Wind Power Planning in Three Swedish Municipalities, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(4), 563-581

35. Khan Jamil (2004). Siting Conflicts in Renewable Energy Projects : A Biogas Case Study, A. Boholmand R. Lofstedt (Eds.), Facility Siting : Risk, Power and Identity in Land-Use Planning, Earthscan, London.

36. Klein, R. (1998). Self-inventing Institutions : Institutional Design and the UK Welfare State, The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge University Press, (9), 240-255.

37. Knight Jack (1992), Institutions and Social Conflict, Cambridge University Press.

38. Lesbirel, S. & Shaw, D. (2005). Managing conflict in facility siting: an international comparison. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar.

39. Lesbirel, S. (2005). Transaction Costs and Institutional Change, Managing Conflict in Facility Siting : an international Comparison. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 1-12.

40. Leiss, W. (1996). Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practices, The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 585, 85-94.

41. Levi, M. (1998). A State of Trust, Trust and Governance, ed. Valerie Braithwaite and Margaret Levi, New York, Russell Sage.

42. Linnerooth-Bayer J. (2005). Fair Strategies for Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities, Managing conflict in facility siting: an international comparison. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 36-62.

43. Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, 242-266

44. North, D. (1990), Institutions, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5, 1, 97-112

45. O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2010). Public Participation and Environmental Impact Assessment : Purposes, Implications, and lessons for Public Policy Making, Environ Impact Assess Rev, 30,19-27.

46. Offe, C. (1998). Designing institutions in East European Transitions, The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge University Press, (7), 199-226.

47. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

48. Pasqualetti, M.J., Gipe, P. & Righter, R. W. (2002), Wind Power In View, San Diego, Academic Press.

49. Paul Bénédique (2009). Institutional capital : A new analytical framework on theory and actions for economic development. MPRA Paper No. 39018.

50. Pettit, P. (1998). Institutional Design and Rational Choice, The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge University Press, (2), 54-89.

51. Platje Jooste (2008). An institutional capital approach to sustainable development, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss: 2, 222- 233.

52. Putnam D. Robert (1993). Making Democracy Work : Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton : Princeton University Press.

53. Putnam, R. (1993). The Prosperous Community, The American Prospect, Vol. 4, no. 13, 1-11.

54. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy, 65-78.

55. Rothstein B. & Stolle D. (2003). Social Capital, Impartiality and the Welfare State : an Institutional Approach. M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating Social Capital, Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, 10, Palgrave/Saint-Martin’s Press, 191-211.

56. Rothstein B. & Stolle D. (2014). The State and Social Capital : An Institutional Theory of Generalized Trust, accepted for publication in Comparative Politics, 1-37

57. Runhaar H. (2009). Putting SEA in context : a Discourse Perspective on How SEA Contributes to Decision-making, Environ Impact Assess Rev., 29, 201-11.

58. Russell Hardin (2015). Trust and Trustworthiness, New York, Russell Sage.

59. Scott, V. (2010). Disputed Wind Directions: Reinvigorating wind power development in Taiwan. Energy for Sustainable Development 14, 22–34.
Shepherd A. & Bowler C. (1997). Beyond the Requirements : Improving Public Participation in EIA. J Environ Plan Manag., 40(6), 725-38.

60. Shih, C. (2007). Democracy (Made in Taiwan): The “Success” State as a Political Theory, Lexington Books, Maryland.

61. Smith, E. & Klick, H. (2007). Explaining NIMBY Opposition to Wind Power, paper delivered at the anuual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 1-19

62. Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks : SAGE.

63. Stolle, D. (2003). The Sources of Social Capital Reconsidered. M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating Social Capital, Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, 10, Palgrave/Saint-Martin’s Press, 231-248

64. Tang Ching-Ping & Tang Shui-Yan (2000), Democratizing Bureaucracy : The political Economy of Environmental Impact Assessment and Air Pollution Prevention Fees in Taiwan, Comparative Politics, Vol. 33, No. 1, 81-99.

65. Toke D. & Elliott D. (2000), A Fresh start for UK wind power ?, International Journal of Ambient Energy, 21(2), 67-76.

66. Uslaner M. Eric. 2003. Trust, Democracy and Governance: Can Government policies influence Generalized Trust? M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating Social Capital, Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective, 10, Palgrave/Saint- Martin’s Press, 171-191.

67. Van Der Horst Dan (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy policy 35 (5), 2705-2714

68. Webler, T. (1999). The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process, Journal of Risk Research, Volume 2, Issue 1, 55-71.

69. Williamson, Oliver E. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548-577.

70. Wolsink M. (1994), Entanglement of Interest and Motives – Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility Siting. Urban Studies 31 (6), 851-866.

71. Wolsink M. (2000). Wind Power and the NIMBY-Myth: Institutional Capacity and the Limited Significance of Public Support. Renewable Energy 21, 49-64.

72. Wolsink M. (2007). Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 11 (6), 1188-1207.

73. Wong, J. (2003). Deepening Democracy in Taiwan. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 2, 235-256

74. Wustenhagen R., Wolskink M., Burer M.J. (2007). Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 35 (5), 2683-2691.

75. Yue Cheng-Dar, Liu Chung-Ming, Liu Eric (2000). A transition toward a sustainable energy future: feasibility assessment and development strategies of wind power in Taiwan. Energy Policy 29, 951-963.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
亞太研究英語碩士學位學程(IMAS)
101926025
103
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1019260251
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[亞太研究英語博/碩士學位學程(IDAS/IMAS) ] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
025101.pdf2979KbAdobe PDF46View/Open


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


社群 sharing