:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:環境風險評估通過比率的比較研究--以環境影響說明書及評估報告書為例
書刊名:臺灣土地研究
作者:廖麗敏 引用關係陳銘薰 引用關係徐世榮 引用關係
作者(外文):Liao, Li-minChen, Ming-shiunHsu, Shih-jung
出版日期:2011
卷期:14:1
頁次:頁91-113
主題關鍵詞:環保抗爭環境風險評估環境影響說明書環境影響評估報告書Environmental assessmentEnvironmental impact statementEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental risk assessment
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(6) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:6
  • 共同引用共同引用:8
  • 點閱點閱:107
為了解決經濟成長與環境保護相互衝突的問題,西方國家所使用的環境影響評估制度於1970年代逐漸的被引進臺灣,由於它是建構於科學及專業的評估,因此,被視之為是解決經濟成長與環保抗爭二者衝突的最佳利器。可是,雖然「環境影響評估法」已經通過並實施多年,許多重要的開發案件皆必須經過環境影響評估的審查,然而,許多已經通過環境影響評估的開發案仍然引起了環保抗爭運動,激烈衝突的景象仍然不斷的上演。本文探討的問題為:我國環境影響評估的通過比率是否過高?環境風險評估在我國是否出現了低估的現象?本文乃是透過環境影響說明書及環境影響評估報告書的製作成果,並與歐美國家類似資料來比較,嘗試回答上述課題。本文以環保署網站為基礎建立了計13年之資料庫,並深入分析「預防及減輕開發行為對環境不良影響對策摘要表」,發現在實施解決對策之前,被評定為有負面影響程度者為61%;但是,在實施解決對策之後,有負面影響程度者降低為 33%,而且最為嚴重之程度皆僅是「輕微負面影響」,環境風險恐有低估之虞,而這可能也就是絕大多數的說明書(85.9%)及評估書(94.2%)都是以「有條件通過審查」通過的主要原因,這個比率是比歐美還來得高。
In order to resolve conflicts between economic growth and environmental protection, the mechanism of environmental impact statement (EIS), originally from the US, has been established in Taiwan from 1970s. The government hopes the controversy can be solved by science and technology, which are backbone of the Taiwan EIS. Unfortunately, many serious environmental protests still emerge against those development projects, whose EISs have been approved by the government. The paper tries to find out the approval rates of the Taiwan environmental assessment (EA) & (EIS) and make comparison with their rates of the US and European countries. The major question of the paper is whether Taiwan underestimates its environmental risk? The reports of EA and EIS in Taiwan invariably show that there will be no major harm to the environment or local people. It is because 85.9% of EA and 94.2% of EIS are accepted by “conditional approval” from 1996 to 2008. In the US, the approval rate is between 72.5% and 74.9%. Therefore, environmental risks in Taiwan are seemingly underestimated.
期刊論文
1.邱聰智(199106)。環境影響評估制度執行成果之探討。輔仁法學,10,1-26。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.蕭新煌、王俊秀(19901000)。環境影響評估中的社會影響評估:對現有「環境影響評估報告」中「社會影響」之評估。國立臺灣大學社會學刊,20,1-40。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Plough, Alonza、Krimsky, Sheldon(1987)。The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context。Science, Technology & Human Values,12(3/4),4-10。  new window
4.孫治本(20000600)。風險抉擇與形而上倫理學。當代,36=154,20-35。  延伸查詢new window
5.Gismondi, M.(1997)。Sociology and Environmental Impact Assessment。Canadian Journal of Sociology,22(4),457-479。  new window
6.Barker, A.、Wood, C.(1999)。An evaluation of EIA system performance in eight EU countries。Environmental Impact Assessment Review,19,387-404。  new window
7.Tzoumis, K.(2007)。Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to (2004)。Environmental Impact Assessment Review,27,26-40。  new window
8.Tzoumis, K.、Finegold., L.(2000)。Looking at the quality of draft environmental impact statements over time in the United States: Have ratings improved?。Environmental Impact Assessment Review,20,557-578。  new window
研究報告
1.顧忠華、鄭文輝(1993)。「風險社會」之研究及其對公共政策之意涵 (計畫編號:NSC82-0301-H-004-014)。  延伸查詢new window
學位論文
1.陳良榕(1998)。我們為何不能說不?從濱南案的環境影響評估看環保抗爭(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學,臺北。  延伸查詢new window
2.劉力仁(1995)。臺灣地區環境影響評估制度之研究(1975–1995)--歷史結構視野的分析。臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Winner, Langdon(1977)。Autonomous Technology : Technics-out-of Controls as a Theme in Political Thought。Cambridge:The MIT Press。  new window
2.Byrne, J.(1999)。The Brownfields Challenge: A Survey of Environmental Justice and Community Participation Initiatives among the National Brownfield Pilot Projects。Newark:Center for Energy and Environmental Policy/ University of Delaware。  new window
3.Fischer, Frank(2000)。Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge。Durham, NC:Duke University Press。  new window
4.Beck, Ulrich、Ritter, Mark(1992)。Risk Society。London:Sage。  new window
5.邱聰智(1986)。公害法原理。  延伸查詢new window
6.Lee, N.、Colley, R.(1992)。Reviewing the Quality of Environmental Statements。Manchester。  new window
7.周桂田(2007)。風險文化、專家爭議與科技決策--遲滯型高科技風險社會之再思考。社會學--多元正義民主與科技風險。臺北。  延伸查詢new window
8.Freudenberg, N.、Steinsapir, C.(1992)。Not in our backyards: The grassroots environment movement。American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement。Philadelphia。  new window
9.Long, T. F.、Gargas, M. L.、Hubner, R. P.、Tardiff, R. G.(2002)。The role of risk assessment in redeveloping brownfields。Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property。Chicago。  new window
10.Wynne, B.(2005)。Risk as globalizing ‘democratic discourse’? Framing subjects and citizens。Science and Citizens: Globalization & the Challenge of Engagement。London。  new window
其他
1.行政院環境保護署(2009)。行政院環保署書件查詢系統網站,http://ivy2.epa.gov.tw/EiaWeb/0x.aspx, 20090620。  延伸查詢new window
2.李崇德(2000)。環評各自表述?。  延伸查詢new window
3.胡慕情(2007)。環評委員靜坐抗議環署擺爛,http://www.lihpao.com/?action-viewnews-itemid-。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.Winner, Langdon(1988)。“Do Artifacts Have Politics?”。Technology and Politics。Durham, NC:Duke University Press。  new window
2.Fischer, F.(1996)。Risk assessment and environmental crisis: Toward an integration of science and participation。Reading in Planning Theory。Cambridge:Blackwell Publishers Inc.。  new window
3.Chambers, J. C.(2002)。Community participation in brownfields redevelopment。Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property。Chicago:American Bar Association。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關博士論文
 
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE