Publications-學位論文
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 核能廢物公共行政管理方面的「科學-技術-社會(STS)」網絡：台灣與加拿大的必較研究
Science Technology Society (STS) Networks in the Public Management of Nuclear Waste: a Comparative Study of Taiwan & Canada作者 阿瑪托
Amato貢獻者 賀大衛
Holm, David
阿瑪托
Amato關鍵詞 核能廢物
公共行政
STS網絡
台灣
加拿大
Nuclear waste
Public policy
STS networks
Taiwan
Canada日期 2017 上傳時間 2-Mar-2018 12:01:08 (UTC+8) 摘要 On the current state of material distribution of renewable energy plans for development combined with the alternative uses of innovative technologies, there have been multilateral institutional partnerships regulating the actual distribution of nuclear energy programs through the PPPs, which have maintained a primarily scientific role while attracting international attention. In addition, the specific combination of scientific knowledge and technology transfers associated with public-private regulatory spheres has led to a common co-evolution of essential development characteristics, which have been intertwined with public environmental programs and resulting activities referring to the nuclear risk management of nuclear power plants NPPs, and to the formulation of participatory protection mechanisms. In this study, I analyze the comparative institutional status of nuclear energy models in industrial transition stages with waste disposal systems which have been based in Canada and Taiwan. The research focus in this dissertation has been placed over the practical need to identify the adaptive policy approaches in governance leading to local territorial interactions interrelated with a contemporary escalation of environmental technology issues, associated with public-private partnerships (PPPs), especially in terms of operability of STS transfers (science, technology, and societies) developed at societal level. Structurally speaking, the first section of this dissertation discusses introductory explanations already presented in July 2016 for the university commission about the proposed doctoral research design. The second and final parts of this dissertation have been developed at length in view of exploring some of the issues concerning the STS energy transfers and NPPs research policies associated with PPPs configurations. The final discussion section will summarize the literature findings about the changing mechanisms established in energy governance. The evaluative findings have been mostly developed through library archival documents, national reports, and analytical studies which I have compared in this dissertation. Overall for starting point, it can be affirmed that a technocratic vision of dynamic disciplinary elements related to managerial energy configurations of nuclear power plants, including waste disposal programs, has been proposed at regional level through common identification systems, established over public provisions involving regulatory interactions of nuclear sector industries based in East Asia and Canada. International and national attention has been focused on environmental cases of post-disaster emergencies and risk protection factors, particularly following on the Fukushima nuclear plant crisis in Japan in 2011. This structural process has been classified as an international critical domain. Essentially, the constructive experience acquired in governance has relied on cross-countries interpretative democratic models based on the existence of collective information i exchanges, which have actually involved different national regulators, public development actors, and industrial management partners, supported by: scientific experts, regional state officials, non-governmental representatives, and local district communities, among others. Moreover, the resulting collaboration process for public regulatory implementation which has been followed according to governmental aims and rationalization of resources regarding the civilian nuclear energy activities has also acquired a divergent character identified in multi-level state distribution systems. This happens in view of the similar formulation of industrial transition incentives for innovation and technology transfers, also entailing attentive responses formulated by taking into account the material normative reflections; which need to promote a broader view on collective participatory models, also based on public consensus criteria. Consequently, it can be considered that nuclear energy technologies and industrial knowledge transfers have been interlinked to a public set of normative appeals and confidence measures, promoting fundamental support for governance integrative practices. From an industrial point of view, the differentiation of innovation systems pursued through the development of specialized technology districts, for instance, in East Asia and Europe, has been configured according to public-private negotiation patterns assisting on the evolution of STS assessment programs. The corresponding formulation of risk prevention measures and safety assessment principles has been addressed according to the transition obtained with the adoption of alternative renewable energy plans. Managerial innovation capacities have reflected the temporal adaptation to development changes, which have been related to the emergence of nuclear fuel-cycle radioactive programs, and nuclear waste disposal activities. At implementation level, the direct involvement of community actors and environmental institutions has come into play leading to the identification of multilevel governance routes, by enhancing the knowledge transfers and learning systems, compatible with national and local collectivities, as well as, territorial and internal capacities. At the same time, the spatial regulatory requirements for regional identifications of the technologies used and the PPP agreements prepared in connection with nuclear energy facilities, and civilian energy installations, have testified the need to introduce learning cooperation stages for the evaluative and monitoring processes. These changing adaptation stages have been publicly controversial. At the end of bitter regional local disputes, the investigative agencies producing case-based reports have indicated the status of public concern and risk perceptions on nuclear safety issues, particularly for the local population living in proximity to NPPs, reflecting on common detrimental effects in terms of public governance and mutual trust conditions. The complex variation of public understanding about the programmatic issues surrounding nuclear science development and the environmental impacts has drawn us to an analytic core of ii structural determinants, which have been investigated in order to compare the international cooperation principles and the practical nationally-based conducts. For the identification of risk protection assessments of national capacities, I have elaborated this study project for comparative purposes, by trying to emphasize the critical aspects of public STS maintenance systems, which will require a legal status and clarification for the future generations in order to guarantee security and safety for everyone. 參考文獻 1. Svein S. Andersen, 1980. “Conflict over new technology: The case of nuclear power planning in Norway 1972-74.” Acta Sociologica, Vol. 23, No. 4, Technology and Society, (1980), pp. 297-310. 2. Masahiko Aoki, Geoffrey Rothwell, 2013. “A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications.” Energy Policy, Vol. 53, pp. 240-247. 3. Ian Baily, 2007. “Market environmentalism, new environmental policy instruments, and climate policy in the United Kingdom and Germany.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 530-550. 4. Keith Baker, Gerry Stoker, 2012. “Governance and nuclear power: Why governing is easier said than done.” Political Studies DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00978. 5. Rajesh Basrur, Koh Swee Lean Collin, 2012. “Nuclear power and energy security in Asia.” Routledge security in Asia Pacific series. ISBN: 1136296166, 9781136296161. Published in the UK, USA and Canada. 6. Sophie-Helene Bataini, 2004. “L’interaction des dynamiques individuelles et collectives dans le processus de développement territorial. » Armand Colin – Revue d’Economie Régionale & Urbaine, 2004/5 décembre, pp. 713-735. DOI : 10.3917/reru.045.0713. 7. Simon P.J. Batterbury, Jude L. Fernando, 2006. “Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: An introduction.” World Development, Vol. 34, No. 11, pp. 1851-1863. 8. Ismar Borges de Lima, Leszek Buszynski, 2011. “Local environmental governance, public policies and deforestation in Amazonia.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 282-316. 9. Barry Bozeman, 2000. “Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory.” Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 627-655. 10. Neil Bradford, 2003. “Public-private partnership? Shifting paradigms of economic governance in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 1005-1033. 11. Alexandre Bredimas, William J. Nuttall, 2008. “An international comparison of regulatory organizations and licensing procedures for new nuclear power plants.” Energy Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 1344-1354. 12. Gavin Bridge, Stefan Bouzarovski, Michael Bradshaw, Nick Eyre, 2013. “Geographies of energy transition: Space, place, and the low-carbon economy.” Energy Policy, Vol. 53, pp. 331-340. 13. Harriet Bulkeley, 2005. “Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks.” Political Geography, Vol. 24, pp. 875-902. 14. Joanna Burger et al., 2005. “Science Policy, and Stakeholders: Developing a Consensus Science Plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska.” Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 557-568; p. 566. 15. C.C. Burwell, M.J. Ohanian, A.M. Weinberg, 1979. “A siting policy for an acceptable nuclear future.” Science, Vol. 204, No. 4397, pp. 1043-1051. 16. Jean-Marc Callois, 2005 “L’identité et la cohésion comme facteurs de développement local : vers une meilleure mise en œuvre des politiques territoriales. » Ingénieries No. 41, pp. 3-12. 17. Luther J. Carter, 1980. “Debate over waste imperils 3-Mile cleanup. Lack of disposal facilities for radioactive material could make the decontamination effort impossible.” Science, vol. 210, No. 10, pp. 166-170. 18. Luther J. Carter, Thomas H. Pigford, 2005. “Proof of safety at Yucca Mountain.” Policy Forum, Science, Vol. 310, No. 10, pp. 447-448. 19. Daniela Salgado Carvalho, Teresa Fidelis, 2011. “Citizen complaints as a new source of information for local environmental governance.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 386-400. 20. Dung-Sheng Chen, Chung-Yeh Deng, 2007. “Interaction between citizens and experts in public deliberation: A case study of consensus conferences in Taiwan.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 77-97. 21. Dung-sheng Chen, Chia-Ling Wu, 2007. “Introduction: Public participation in science and technology in East Asia.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 15-18. 22. Hyungsub Choi, 2007. “On Linsu Kim’s imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 259-261. 23. J. Cohen, E. Decoster, M. Tabaries, 2000. “Dynamiques spatiales de la Cite scientifique Paris sud : innovation, compétitivité, territoire. De l’atome au photon, ou d’une dynamique de complexe militaro-industriel et nucléaire’ vers une dynamique de ‘cluster." European Study (ESRC) Paris. 24. Daiwie Fu, 2007. “How far can East Asian STS go?” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-14. 25. Douglas M. Gibler, Scott Wolford, 2006. “Alliances, then democracy: An examination of the relationship between regime type and alliance formation.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 129-153. 26. Victor Gilinsky, 1992. “Nuclear safety regulation. Lessons from US experience.” Energy Policy, 0301-4215/92/080704-08 – 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Page 706. Pp. 704-711. 27. Roman Gomez, Gonzalez Cosio, 1998. “Social constructivism and capacity building for environmental governance.” International Planning Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 367-389. 28. Barbara Gray, Donna J. Wood, 1991. “Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 3-22. 29. Vincent Guigueno, 2003. “L’aménagement du territoire en action. Vingtième Siècle, Revue d’histoire, Vol. 79, No.79, pp. 37-41. 30. Irene M. Herremans, M. Sandy Herschovis, and Stephanie Bertels, 2009. “Leaders and Laggards: The influence of competing logics on corporate environmental action.” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 449-472. 31. Douglas Hill, Barbara L. Pierce, William C. Metz, et al., 1982. “Management of high-level waste repository siting.” Science, vol. 218, No. 11, pp. 859-864. 32. Christoph Hobhenemser, Roger Kasperson, Robert Kates, 1977. “The distrust of nuclear power.” Science, Vol. 196, no.4, pp. 25-34. 33. Sungook Hong, 2007. “East Asian STS: Some critical issues.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 233-236. 34. Charles Hostovsky, 2006. “The paradox of the rational comprehensive model of planning: Tales from waste management planning in Ontario, Canada.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 25, pp. 382-395. 35. Jessica Jewell, 2011. “Ready for nuclear energy? An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs.” Energy Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 1041-1055. 36. Kohta Juraku, Tatsujiro Suzuku, Osamu Sakura, 2007. “Social decision-making processes in local contexts: An STS case study on nuclear power plant siting.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 53-75. 37. Roger E. Kasperson, Gerald Berk, David Pijawka, Alan B. Sharaf, and James Wood, 1980. “Public opposition to nuclear energy: Retrospect and Prospect.” Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 5, No. 31, pp. 11-23. 38. Richard A. Kerr, 2011. “Light at the end of the Radwaste disposal tunnel could be real.” Science, Vol. 333, No. 7, pp. 150-152. New focus report 2011. 39. Jari Kettunen, Teemu Reiman, Bjorn Wahlstrom, 2007. “Safety management challenges and tensions in the European nuclear power industry.” Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 424-444. 40. Jong-dall Kim, John Byrne, 1990. “Centralization, technicization, and development on the semi-periphery: A study of South Korea’s commitment to nuclear power.” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, Vol. 10, pp. 212-222. 41. Jung Wk Kim, 2008. “Environmental conflicts and activism with industrialization in South Korea.” Clean Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5-6, pp. 419-425. 42. Ock-Kyung Kim, Pietronella van den Oever, 1992. “Demographic transition and patterns of natural-resources use in the Republic of Korea.” Ambio, Vol. 21, No. 1, Population, Natural Resources and Development (Feb., 1992), pp. 56-62. 43. Matti Kojo, Tapio Litmanen, 2009. “The renewal of nuclear power in Finland.” Palgrave Macmillan distribution, England. 44. Konrad B. Krauskopf, 1990. “Disposal of high-level nuclear waste: is it possible?” Policy Forum, Science, Vol. 249, No. 9, pp. 1231-1232. 45. Arthur S. Kubo, David J. Rose, 1973. “Disposal of nuclear wastes.” Science, Vol. 182, No. 4118, pp. 1205-1211. 46. Harri Lammi, 2009. “Social dynamics behind the changes in the NGO anti-nuclear campaign, 1993-2002” Chapter three in Matti Kojo, Tapio Litmanen, 2009. “The renewal of nuclear power in Finland.” Palgrave Macmillan distribution, England. 47. Lucille Langlois, 2013. “IAEA action plan on nuclear safety.” Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 1, pp. 302-306. 48. Todd R. La Porte, 1978. “Nuclear waste: Increasing scale and sociopolitical impacts.” Science, Vol. 201, No. 7, pp. 22-28. 49. Marie-France Le Blanc, 2006. “Two tales of municipal reorganization: Toronto’s and Montreal’s divergent paths toward regional governance and social sustainability.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 571-590. 50. Anru Lee, 2007. “Southern Green Revolution: Urban Environmental Activism in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.” City & Society, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 114-138. 51. Kai N. Lee, 1980. “A federalist strategy for nuclear waste management.” Science, Vol. 208, No. 5, pp. 679-684. 52. Thomas M. Leschine, 2007. “Long-term management of contaminated sites.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy Volume 13. Elsevier JAI Press, United States. 53. Stephen E. Little, 1999. “Science, technology and society in East Asia: Frameworks for the challenges of the next century.” AI & Society, Vol. 13, pp. 247-262. 54. Borja Lopez de Castro, Francisco J. Gracia, Jose M. Peiro, Luca Pietrantoni, Ana Hernandez, 2013. “Testing the validity of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 60, pp. 231-244. 55. Eliot Marshall, 1986. “Nuclear waste program faces political burial.” Science, Vol. 233, No. 8, pp. 835-836. 56. Aysem Mert, 2014. “Hybrid governance mechanisms as political instruments: the case of sustainability partnerships.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 225-244. 57. S. Mihok, P. Thompson, 2011. “Regulatory experience in applying a radiological environmental protection framework for existing and planned nuclear facilities.” Annals of the ICRP 2011 Proceedings, Elsevier, pp. 256-262. 58. Roda Mushkat, 2002. “Public participation in environmental law making: A comment on the international legal framework and the Asia-Pacific perspective.” Chinese Journal of International Law (JIL) 2002 Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 185-224. 59. Tun Myint, 2003. “Democracy in global environmental governance: Issues, interests, and actors in the Mekong and the Rhine.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 287-314. 60. Adil Najam, Janice M. Poling, Naoyuki Yamagishi, Daniel G. Straub, et al, 2002. “From Rio to Johannesburg: Progress and prospects.” Environment, Vol. 44, No. 7, pp. 26-38. 61. National Research Council, 1992. “Nuclear power. Technical and institutional options for the future.” Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development, Energy Engineering Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.; 62. National Research Council report, 2000. “Long-term institutional management of U.S. Department of Energy legacy waste sites.” Committee on the Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 63. Neil Nevitte, Herman Bakvis, Roger Gibbins, 1989. “The ideological contours of ‘new politics’ in Canada: Policy, mobilization and partisan support.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 475-503. 64. Martin O’Connor, Sybille van den Hove, 2001. “Prospect for public participation on nuclear risks and policy options: innovations in governance practices for sustainable development in the European Union.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 86, pp. 77-99. 65. Susan E. Pickett, 2002. “Japan’s nuclear energy policy: from firm commitment to difficult dilemma addressing growing stocks of plutonium, program delays, domestic opposition and international pressure.” Energy Policy, Vol. 30, pp. 1337-1355. 66. Werner W. Pommerehne, Albert Hart, and Friedrich Schneider, 1997. “Tragic choices and collective decision-making: An empirical study of voter preferences for alternative collective decision-making mechanisms.” The Economic Journal, No. 107, N.5, pp. 618-635. 67. Matthew Potoski, Aseem Prakash, 2004. “The regulation dilemma: Cooperation and conflict in environmental governance.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 152-163. 68. Xavier Pouget-Abadie, 2012. “Complementary safety assessments of the French nuclear facilities. Evaluations complémentaires de sûreté du parc nucléaire français.” Comptes Rendus Physique, Vol. 13, pp. 359-364. 69. Maureen G. Reed, 1995. “Cooperative management of environmental resources: A case study from Northern Ontario, Canada.” Economic Geography, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 132-149. 70. Phil Richardson, Katrin Rickwood, Peter Rickwood, 2013. “Public involvement as a tool to enhance nuclear safety.” Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 1, pp. 266-271. 71. Gene I. Rochlin, 1977. “Nuclear waste disposal: two social criteria.” Science, Vol. 195, No. 1, pp. 23-31. 72. Robert Rohrschneider, Russel J. Dalton, 2002. “A global network? Transnational cooperation among environmental groups.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 510-533. 73. Helene Saint-Jacques, 2013. “Lorsque des conceptions divergentes du territoire, du développement et des politiques nationales doivent être conjuguées dans une stratégie énergétique : Pistes de réflexions. » Mémoire presented at the Energy Commission of Québec. 74. Johan M. Sanne, 2012. “Learning from adverse events in the nuclear power industry: Organizational learning, policy making and normalization.” Technology in Society, Vol. 34, pp. 239-250. 75. Peter V. Schaeffer, Scott Loveridge, 2002. “Toward an understanding of types of public-private cooperation.” Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 169-189. 76. Paul Slovic, James H. Flynn, Mark Layman, 1991. “Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste.” Science, Vol. 254, pp. 1603-1607. 77. Lennart Sjoberg, 2004. “Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository.” Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 737-749. 78. Barry D. Solomon, Mats Andren, Urban Strandberg, 2010. “Three decades of social science research on high-level nuclear waste: achievements and future challenges.” Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, Vol. 1, No. 4, Article 2. pp. 13-47. 79. Marjorie Sun, 1982. “EPA issues hazardous waste rules.” Briefing report, Science, Vol. 217, No. 7, pp. 430-431. 80. Milan Tung-Wen Sun, Yun-Tung Tsai, Mei-Chiang Shih, Jessica Yu-Wen Lin, 2009. “Public participation and the concept of space in environmental governance: An application of PPGIS.” Public Administration and Development, Vol. 29, pp. 250-261. 81. Taiwan Power Company Sustainability Report 2012. “Sustainability Issues”. Taiwan Power Company, Taipei, Taiwan (R.O.C.). www.taipower.com.tw 82. Douglas Torgerson, 1997. “Policy professionalism and the voices of dissent: The case of environmentalism.” Polity, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 345-374. 83. R. Kent Weaver, 1995. “Political institutions and conflict management in Canada.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 538, Being and Becoming Canada (Mar., 1995), pp. 54-68. 84. Geoff A. Wilson, 2013. “Community resilience, policy corridors and the policy challenge.” Land Use Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 298-310. 85. P.A. Witherspoon, and G.S. Bodvarsson, 2001. “Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: Third worldwide review.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (LBNL-49767). 86. Maarten Wolsink, 2010. “Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 30, pp. 302-311. 87. Koon Kwai Wong, 2001. “Taiwan’s environment, resource sustainability and green consumerism: Perceptions of university students.” Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, pp. 222-233. 88. Brian Wynne, 2007. “Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 99-110. 89. Scott Victor Valentine, Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2010. “The socio-political economy of nuclear power development in Japan and South Korea.” Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 7971-7979. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
亞太研究英語博士學位學程(IDAS)
98265517資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098265517 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 賀大衛 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Holm, David en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 阿瑪托 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Amato en_US dc.creator (作者) 阿瑪托 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Amato en_US dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Mar-2018 12:01:08 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Mar-2018 12:01:08 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Mar-2018 12:01:08 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0098265517 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/116144 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 亞太研究英語博士學位學程(IDAS) zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98265517 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) On the current state of material distribution of renewable energy plans for development combined with the alternative uses of innovative technologies, there have been multilateral institutional partnerships regulating the actual distribution of nuclear energy programs through the PPPs, which have maintained a primarily scientific role while attracting international attention. In addition, the specific combination of scientific knowledge and technology transfers associated with public-private regulatory spheres has led to a common co-evolution of essential development characteristics, which have been intertwined with public environmental programs and resulting activities referring to the nuclear risk management of nuclear power plants NPPs, and to the formulation of participatory protection mechanisms. In this study, I analyze the comparative institutional status of nuclear energy models in industrial transition stages with waste disposal systems which have been based in Canada and Taiwan. The research focus in this dissertation has been placed over the practical need to identify the adaptive policy approaches in governance leading to local territorial interactions interrelated with a contemporary escalation of environmental technology issues, associated with public-private partnerships (PPPs), especially in terms of operability of STS transfers (science, technology, and societies) developed at societal level. Structurally speaking, the first section of this dissertation discusses introductory explanations already presented in July 2016 for the university commission about the proposed doctoral research design. The second and final parts of this dissertation have been developed at length in view of exploring some of the issues concerning the STS energy transfers and NPPs research policies associated with PPPs configurations. The final discussion section will summarize the literature findings about the changing mechanisms established in energy governance. The evaluative findings have been mostly developed through library archival documents, national reports, and analytical studies which I have compared in this dissertation. Overall for starting point, it can be affirmed that a technocratic vision of dynamic disciplinary elements related to managerial energy configurations of nuclear power plants, including waste disposal programs, has been proposed at regional level through common identification systems, established over public provisions involving regulatory interactions of nuclear sector industries based in East Asia and Canada. International and national attention has been focused on environmental cases of post-disaster emergencies and risk protection factors, particularly following on the Fukushima nuclear plant crisis in Japan in 2011. This structural process has been classified as an international critical domain. Essentially, the constructive experience acquired in governance has relied on cross-countries interpretative democratic models based on the existence of collective information i exchanges, which have actually involved different national regulators, public development actors, and industrial management partners, supported by: scientific experts, regional state officials, non-governmental representatives, and local district communities, among others. Moreover, the resulting collaboration process for public regulatory implementation which has been followed according to governmental aims and rationalization of resources regarding the civilian nuclear energy activities has also acquired a divergent character identified in multi-level state distribution systems. This happens in view of the similar formulation of industrial transition incentives for innovation and technology transfers, also entailing attentive responses formulated by taking into account the material normative reflections; which need to promote a broader view on collective participatory models, also based on public consensus criteria. Consequently, it can be considered that nuclear energy technologies and industrial knowledge transfers have been interlinked to a public set of normative appeals and confidence measures, promoting fundamental support for governance integrative practices. From an industrial point of view, the differentiation of innovation systems pursued through the development of specialized technology districts, for instance, in East Asia and Europe, has been configured according to public-private negotiation patterns assisting on the evolution of STS assessment programs. The corresponding formulation of risk prevention measures and safety assessment principles has been addressed according to the transition obtained with the adoption of alternative renewable energy plans. Managerial innovation capacities have reflected the temporal adaptation to development changes, which have been related to the emergence of nuclear fuel-cycle radioactive programs, and nuclear waste disposal activities. At implementation level, the direct involvement of community actors and environmental institutions has come into play leading to the identification of multilevel governance routes, by enhancing the knowledge transfers and learning systems, compatible with national and local collectivities, as well as, territorial and internal capacities. At the same time, the spatial regulatory requirements for regional identifications of the technologies used and the PPP agreements prepared in connection with nuclear energy facilities, and civilian energy installations, have testified the need to introduce learning cooperation stages for the evaluative and monitoring processes. These changing adaptation stages have been publicly controversial. At the end of bitter regional local disputes, the investigative agencies producing case-based reports have indicated the status of public concern and risk perceptions on nuclear safety issues, particularly for the local population living in proximity to NPPs, reflecting on common detrimental effects in terms of public governance and mutual trust conditions. The complex variation of public understanding about the programmatic issues surrounding nuclear science development and the environmental impacts has drawn us to an analytic core of ii structural determinants, which have been investigated in order to compare the international cooperation principles and the practical nationally-based conducts. For the identification of risk protection assessments of national capacities, I have elaborated this study project for comparative purposes, by trying to emphasize the critical aspects of public STS maintenance systems, which will require a legal status and clarification for the future generations in order to guarantee security and safety for everyone. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 1. Introductory Overview: STS Innovation Patterns 1-4 2. Current Public Settings Analysis 4-7 3. Public Country Targets 7-10 4. Support for Technical Views 10-14 5. Public Sustenance Applications for PPPs 15-18 Summary 18-19 Bibliography: Overview 20-24 PART I a) Introduction 25-30 Chapter 1: Overview of the Project 30-31 1.1 Background for the Study 31-35 1.2 The Implicit Transfers 35-38 Chapter 2: Literature Review 39 2.1 Comparative Review: The Governance and Environmental Alliances 39-40 2.2 Comparative Governance: The Regulative Facilitation Process 40-42 2.3 Comparative Environmental Research: Local Communities 42-44 2.4 Comparative Governance: The Knowledge Transfers & Innovation Systems 44-47 2.5 Comparative Integration: Local Knowledge Transfers 47-50 2.6 Understanding Nuclear Science Protection 50-54 Chapter 3: Study Framework 55-65 3.1 Research Criteria 65-76 3.2 Study Methodology 76-78 3.3 Conclusion 78 Bibliography: PART I a) 79-89 PART I b) Public Undertakings of Nuclear Waste Storage Facilities in Governance Knowledge Transfer and Practice Formation Introduction 90-91 Chapter 4: Cooperative Interactions 92-99 4.1 Regional Environmental Aims 100-106 4.2 Consensus Regulated in Governance 106-108 4.3 Technology Risk Perspectives 109-113 4.4 Incremental Group Visibility 113-117 Chapter 5: Transition Systems 118-122 5.1 Transitional Technology Cooperation 123-125 5.2 Public Managerial Ties 125-128 5.3 Public Networking 129-136 5.4 Normative Transformation 136-138 Chapter 6: Governance Networks 139-144 6.1 Environmental PPPs for Related Domains 144-148 6.2 Collaborative Platforms 148-152 Chapter 7: Holistic Integration Approaches 152-155 7.1 Clustering Provisions 155-160 7.2 Territorial Reconstructions 160-165 Chapter 8: Public Territorial Approaches 165-168 8.1 Provisional Requirements 168-180 Conclusion 181 Bibliography: PART I b) 182-213 PART II The Innovation Compliance Strategies for Knowledge Transfer & Management Policy in the Case of Taiwan Introduction 214 a) Taiwan Overview 215-218 Chapter 9: Taiwan Innovation Agreements 219-226 9.1 The Local Agents 226-233 9.2 The Participation Nuclear Debate 233-240 9.3 The Central Elite 241-248 9.4 The Reliability Aspect 248-255 9.5 The Partnerships 255-264 9.6 The Facilities 264-268 9.7 The Agency 268-278 The Innovation Compliance Strategies for Knowledge Transfer & Management Policy in the Case of Canada b) Canada Overview 279-282 Chapter 10: Canada Innovation Agreements 283-291 10.1 The Local Agents 291-300 10.2 The Participation Nuclear Debate 300-306 10.3 The Federal Elite 307-311 10.4 The Reliability Aspect 312-317 10.5 The Partnerships 318-320 10.6 The Facilities 320-326 10.7 The Agency 327-337 Bibliography: PART II 338-357 Final Discussion and Conclusion 358 Post-Fukushima Monitoring Compliance Strategies for Nuclear Waste Management Policy (NWMP) Model Chapter 11: Preliminary Discussion 358-359 11.1 (EIA) Local Developments 359-360 11.2 Changing Designs 360-362 11.3 Participation Measures 362-364 11.4 Local Risk 364-366 11.5 Construction Plans 367-368 11.6 Research Frame 368-370 11.7 Summary 371 Final Discussion 372-380 Final Conclusion 382-387 ANNEX to PART II 388-424 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3581533 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098265517 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 核能廢物 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公共行政 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) STS網絡 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 台灣 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 加拿大 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Nuclear waste en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Public policy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) STS networks en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Taiwan en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Canada en_US dc.title (題名) 核能廢物公共行政管理方面的「科學-技術-社會(STS)」網絡：台灣與加拿大的必較研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Science Technology Society (STS) Networks in the Public Management of Nuclear Waste: a Comparative Study of Taiwan & Canada en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1. Svein S. Andersen, 1980. “Conflict over new technology: The case of nuclear power planning in Norway 1972-74.” Acta Sociologica, Vol. 23, No. 4, Technology and Society, (1980), pp. 297-310. 2. Masahiko Aoki, Geoffrey Rothwell, 2013. “A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications.” Energy Policy, Vol. 53, pp. 240-247. 3. Ian Baily, 2007. “Market environmentalism, new environmental policy instruments, and climate policy in the United Kingdom and Germany.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 530-550. 4. Keith Baker, Gerry Stoker, 2012. “Governance and nuclear power: Why governing is easier said than done.” Political Studies DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00978. 5. Rajesh Basrur, Koh Swee Lean Collin, 2012. “Nuclear power and energy security in Asia.” Routledge security in Asia Pacific series. ISBN: 1136296166, 9781136296161. Published in the UK, USA and Canada. 6. Sophie-Helene Bataini, 2004. “L’interaction des dynamiques individuelles et collectives dans le processus de développement territorial. » Armand Colin – Revue d’Economie Régionale & Urbaine, 2004/5 décembre, pp. 713-735. DOI : 10.3917/reru.045.0713. 7. Simon P.J. Batterbury, Jude L. Fernando, 2006. “Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: An introduction.” World Development, Vol. 34, No. 11, pp. 1851-1863. 8. Ismar Borges de Lima, Leszek Buszynski, 2011. “Local environmental governance, public policies and deforestation in Amazonia.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 282-316. 9. Barry Bozeman, 2000. “Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory.” Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 627-655. 10. Neil Bradford, 2003. “Public-private partnership? Shifting paradigms of economic governance in Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 1005-1033. 11. Alexandre Bredimas, William J. Nuttall, 2008. “An international comparison of regulatory organizations and licensing procedures for new nuclear power plants.” Energy Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 1344-1354. 12. Gavin Bridge, Stefan Bouzarovski, Michael Bradshaw, Nick Eyre, 2013. “Geographies of energy transition: Space, place, and the low-carbon economy.” Energy Policy, Vol. 53, pp. 331-340. 13. Harriet Bulkeley, 2005. “Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks.” Political Geography, Vol. 24, pp. 875-902. 14. Joanna Burger et al., 2005. “Science Policy, and Stakeholders: Developing a Consensus Science Plan for Amchitka Island, Aleutians, Alaska.” Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 557-568; p. 566. 15. C.C. Burwell, M.J. Ohanian, A.M. Weinberg, 1979. “A siting policy for an acceptable nuclear future.” Science, Vol. 204, No. 4397, pp. 1043-1051. 16. Jean-Marc Callois, 2005 “L’identité et la cohésion comme facteurs de développement local : vers une meilleure mise en œuvre des politiques territoriales. » Ingénieries No. 41, pp. 3-12. 17. Luther J. Carter, 1980. “Debate over waste imperils 3-Mile cleanup. Lack of disposal facilities for radioactive material could make the decontamination effort impossible.” Science, vol. 210, No. 10, pp. 166-170. 18. Luther J. Carter, Thomas H. Pigford, 2005. “Proof of safety at Yucca Mountain.” Policy Forum, Science, Vol. 310, No. 10, pp. 447-448. 19. Daniela Salgado Carvalho, Teresa Fidelis, 2011. “Citizen complaints as a new source of information for local environmental governance.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 386-400. 20. Dung-Sheng Chen, Chung-Yeh Deng, 2007. “Interaction between citizens and experts in public deliberation: A case study of consensus conferences in Taiwan.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 77-97. 21. Dung-sheng Chen, Chia-Ling Wu, 2007. “Introduction: Public participation in science and technology in East Asia.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 15-18. 22. Hyungsub Choi, 2007. “On Linsu Kim’s imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 259-261. 23. J. Cohen, E. Decoster, M. Tabaries, 2000. “Dynamiques spatiales de la Cite scientifique Paris sud : innovation, compétitivité, territoire. De l’atome au photon, ou d’une dynamique de complexe militaro-industriel et nucléaire’ vers une dynamique de ‘cluster." European Study (ESRC) Paris. 24. Daiwie Fu, 2007. “How far can East Asian STS go?” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-14. 25. Douglas M. Gibler, Scott Wolford, 2006. “Alliances, then democracy: An examination of the relationship between regime type and alliance formation.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 129-153. 26. Victor Gilinsky, 1992. “Nuclear safety regulation. Lessons from US experience.” Energy Policy, 0301-4215/92/080704-08 – 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. Page 706. Pp. 704-711. 27. Roman Gomez, Gonzalez Cosio, 1998. “Social constructivism and capacity building for environmental governance.” International Planning Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 367-389. 28. Barbara Gray, Donna J. Wood, 1991. “Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 3-22. 29. Vincent Guigueno, 2003. “L’aménagement du territoire en action. Vingtième Siècle, Revue d’histoire, Vol. 79, No.79, pp. 37-41. 30. Irene M. Herremans, M. Sandy Herschovis, and Stephanie Bertels, 2009. “Leaders and Laggards: The influence of competing logics on corporate environmental action.” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 449-472. 31. Douglas Hill, Barbara L. Pierce, William C. Metz, et al., 1982. “Management of high-level waste repository siting.” Science, vol. 218, No. 11, pp. 859-864. 32. Christoph Hobhenemser, Roger Kasperson, Robert Kates, 1977. “The distrust of nuclear power.” Science, Vol. 196, no.4, pp. 25-34. 33. Sungook Hong, 2007. “East Asian STS: Some critical issues.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 233-236. 34. Charles Hostovsky, 2006. “The paradox of the rational comprehensive model of planning: Tales from waste management planning in Ontario, Canada.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 25, pp. 382-395. 35. Jessica Jewell, 2011. “Ready for nuclear energy? An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs.” Energy Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 1041-1055. 36. Kohta Juraku, Tatsujiro Suzuku, Osamu Sakura, 2007. “Social decision-making processes in local contexts: An STS case study on nuclear power plant siting.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 53-75. 37. Roger E. Kasperson, Gerald Berk, David Pijawka, Alan B. Sharaf, and James Wood, 1980. “Public opposition to nuclear energy: Retrospect and Prospect.” Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 5, No. 31, pp. 11-23. 38. Richard A. Kerr, 2011. “Light at the end of the Radwaste disposal tunnel could be real.” Science, Vol. 333, No. 7, pp. 150-152. New focus report 2011. 39. Jari Kettunen, Teemu Reiman, Bjorn Wahlstrom, 2007. “Safety management challenges and tensions in the European nuclear power industry.” Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 424-444. 40. Jong-dall Kim, John Byrne, 1990. “Centralization, technicization, and development on the semi-periphery: A study of South Korea’s commitment to nuclear power.” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, Vol. 10, pp. 212-222. 41. Jung Wk Kim, 2008. “Environmental conflicts and activism with industrialization in South Korea.” Clean Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5-6, pp. 419-425. 42. Ock-Kyung Kim, Pietronella van den Oever, 1992. “Demographic transition and patterns of natural-resources use in the Republic of Korea.” Ambio, Vol. 21, No. 1, Population, Natural Resources and Development (Feb., 1992), pp. 56-62. 43. Matti Kojo, Tapio Litmanen, 2009. “The renewal of nuclear power in Finland.” Palgrave Macmillan distribution, England. 44. Konrad B. Krauskopf, 1990. “Disposal of high-level nuclear waste: is it possible?” Policy Forum, Science, Vol. 249, No. 9, pp. 1231-1232. 45. Arthur S. Kubo, David J. Rose, 1973. “Disposal of nuclear wastes.” Science, Vol. 182, No. 4118, pp. 1205-1211. 46. Harri Lammi, 2009. “Social dynamics behind the changes in the NGO anti-nuclear campaign, 1993-2002” Chapter three in Matti Kojo, Tapio Litmanen, 2009. “The renewal of nuclear power in Finland.” Palgrave Macmillan distribution, England. 47. Lucille Langlois, 2013. “IAEA action plan on nuclear safety.” Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 1, pp. 302-306. 48. Todd R. La Porte, 1978. “Nuclear waste: Increasing scale and sociopolitical impacts.” Science, Vol. 201, No. 7, pp. 22-28. 49. Marie-France Le Blanc, 2006. “Two tales of municipal reorganization: Toronto’s and Montreal’s divergent paths toward regional governance and social sustainability.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 571-590. 50. Anru Lee, 2007. “Southern Green Revolution: Urban Environmental Activism in Kaohsiung, Taiwan.” City & Society, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 114-138. 51. Kai N. Lee, 1980. “A federalist strategy for nuclear waste management.” Science, Vol. 208, No. 5, pp. 679-684. 52. Thomas M. Leschine, 2007. “Long-term management of contaminated sites.” Research in Social Problems and Public Policy Volume 13. Elsevier JAI Press, United States. 53. Stephen E. Little, 1999. “Science, technology and society in East Asia: Frameworks for the challenges of the next century.” AI & Society, Vol. 13, pp. 247-262. 54. Borja Lopez de Castro, Francisco J. Gracia, Jose M. Peiro, Luca Pietrantoni, Ana Hernandez, 2013. “Testing the validity of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 60, pp. 231-244. 55. Eliot Marshall, 1986. “Nuclear waste program faces political burial.” Science, Vol. 233, No. 8, pp. 835-836. 56. Aysem Mert, 2014. “Hybrid governance mechanisms as political instruments: the case of sustainability partnerships.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 225-244. 57. S. Mihok, P. Thompson, 2011. “Regulatory experience in applying a radiological environmental protection framework for existing and planned nuclear facilities.” Annals of the ICRP 2011 Proceedings, Elsevier, pp. 256-262. 58. Roda Mushkat, 2002. “Public participation in environmental law making: A comment on the international legal framework and the Asia-Pacific perspective.” Chinese Journal of International Law (JIL) 2002 Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 185-224. 59. Tun Myint, 2003. “Democracy in global environmental governance: Issues, interests, and actors in the Mekong and the Rhine.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 287-314. 60. Adil Najam, Janice M. Poling, Naoyuki Yamagishi, Daniel G. Straub, et al, 2002. “From Rio to Johannesburg: Progress and prospects.” Environment, Vol. 44, No. 7, pp. 26-38. 61. National Research Council, 1992. “Nuclear power. Technical and institutional options for the future.” Committee on Future Nuclear Power Development, Energy Engineering Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.; 62. National Research Council report, 2000. “Long-term institutional management of U.S. Department of Energy legacy waste sites.” Committee on the Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 63. Neil Nevitte, Herman Bakvis, Roger Gibbins, 1989. “The ideological contours of ‘new politics’ in Canada: Policy, mobilization and partisan support.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 475-503. 64. Martin O’Connor, Sybille van den Hove, 2001. “Prospect for public participation on nuclear risks and policy options: innovations in governance practices for sustainable development in the European Union.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 86, pp. 77-99. 65. Susan E. Pickett, 2002. “Japan’s nuclear energy policy: from firm commitment to difficult dilemma addressing growing stocks of plutonium, program delays, domestic opposition and international pressure.” Energy Policy, Vol. 30, pp. 1337-1355. 66. Werner W. Pommerehne, Albert Hart, and Friedrich Schneider, 1997. “Tragic choices and collective decision-making: An empirical study of voter preferences for alternative collective decision-making mechanisms.” The Economic Journal, No. 107, N.5, pp. 618-635. 67. Matthew Potoski, Aseem Prakash, 2004. “The regulation dilemma: Cooperation and conflict in environmental governance.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 152-163. 68. Xavier Pouget-Abadie, 2012. “Complementary safety assessments of the French nuclear facilities. Evaluations complémentaires de sûreté du parc nucléaire français.” Comptes Rendus Physique, Vol. 13, pp. 359-364. 69. Maureen G. Reed, 1995. “Cooperative management of environmental resources: A case study from Northern Ontario, Canada.” Economic Geography, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 132-149. 70. Phil Richardson, Katrin Rickwood, Peter Rickwood, 2013. “Public involvement as a tool to enhance nuclear safety.” Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 1, pp. 266-271. 71. Gene I. Rochlin, 1977. “Nuclear waste disposal: two social criteria.” Science, Vol. 195, No. 1, pp. 23-31. 72. Robert Rohrschneider, Russel J. Dalton, 2002. “A global network? Transnational cooperation among environmental groups.” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 510-533. 73. Helene Saint-Jacques, 2013. “Lorsque des conceptions divergentes du territoire, du développement et des politiques nationales doivent être conjuguées dans une stratégie énergétique : Pistes de réflexions. » Mémoire presented at the Energy Commission of Québec. 74. Johan M. Sanne, 2012. “Learning from adverse events in the nuclear power industry: Organizational learning, policy making and normalization.” Technology in Society, Vol. 34, pp. 239-250. 75. Peter V. Schaeffer, Scott Loveridge, 2002. “Toward an understanding of types of public-private cooperation.” Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 169-189. 76. Paul Slovic, James H. Flynn, Mark Layman, 1991. “Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste.” Science, Vol. 254, pp. 1603-1607. 77. Lennart Sjoberg, 2004. “Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository.” Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 737-749. 78. Barry D. Solomon, Mats Andren, Urban Strandberg, 2010. “Three decades of social science research on high-level nuclear waste: achievements and future challenges.” Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, Vol. 1, No. 4, Article 2. pp. 13-47. 79. Marjorie Sun, 1982. “EPA issues hazardous waste rules.” Briefing report, Science, Vol. 217, No. 7, pp. 430-431. 80. Milan Tung-Wen Sun, Yun-Tung Tsai, Mei-Chiang Shih, Jessica Yu-Wen Lin, 2009. “Public participation and the concept of space in environmental governance: An application of PPGIS.” Public Administration and Development, Vol. 29, pp. 250-261. 81. Taiwan Power Company Sustainability Report 2012. “Sustainability Issues”. Taiwan Power Company, Taipei, Taiwan (R.O.C.). www.taipower.com.tw 82. Douglas Torgerson, 1997. “Policy professionalism and the voices of dissent: The case of environmentalism.” Polity, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 345-374. 83. R. Kent Weaver, 1995. “Political institutions and conflict management in Canada.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 538, Being and Becoming Canada (Mar., 1995), pp. 54-68. 84. Geoff A. Wilson, 2013. “Community resilience, policy corridors and the policy challenge.” Land Use Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 298-310. 85. P.A. Witherspoon, and G.S. Bodvarsson, 2001. “Geological challenges in radioactive waste isolation: Third worldwide review.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (LBNL-49767). 86. Maarten Wolsink, 2010. “Contested environmental policy infrastructure: Socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 30, pp. 302-311. 87. Koon Kwai Wong, 2001. “Taiwan’s environment, resource sustainability and green consumerism: Perceptions of university students.” Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, pp. 222-233. 88. Brian Wynne, 2007. “Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 99-110. 89. Scott Victor Valentine, Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2010. “The socio-political economy of nuclear power development in Japan and South Korea.” Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 7971-7979. zh_TW
