臺灣空氣品質微型感測公私協力與群眾外包之研究

Abstract

近年來，空氣污染議題（特別是細懸浮微粒PM2.5）廣受我國民眾高度關注，政府亦重視此公共問題並採取因應措施。在空氣污染治理過程中，空氣污染物濃度之感測為重要環節，因感測所得數據既可作為擬訂相關對策之基礎，亦可作為判斷對策成效之依據。由於目前「國家級」及「地方區域」專業測站空間分布不均，公部門、學界、民間企業及公民社會於是陸續運用低成本、輕而體積小之空氣品質微型感測器感測空氣品質，期使民眾可即時瞭解自身所處周遭環境之空氣品質資訊。 本研究針對我國定點式空氣品質微型感測之5個主要案例進行個案研究，案例包含「LASS專案」、「訊舟捐贈6都專案」、「臺中（中部）原點計畫」、「環保署前瞻與試點計畫」及「中研院與學校前瞻計畫」。因各案例之發起者及參與者分別來自公部門、學界、民間企業及公民社會，並透過「公私協力」或「以群眾外包手段實踐公民科學」2種方式運作；本研究遂以空氣品質微型感測、公私協力、群眾外包及公民科學等相關文獻之分析結果為基礎，對各案例之發起者及主要參與者進行半結構式之深度訪談，旨在探究各案例推動過程中，參與者參與之動機為何？彼此互動情形如何？而案例之成果、挑戰及精進方向為何？此外，同時存在「公私協力」及「以群眾外包手段實踐公民科學」2種互動模式之可能原因為何？ 本研究有以下4點發現： 一、參與動機：公部門、民間企業和公民社會分別考量政策目的、利潤及理念而決定投入或參與空氣品質微型感測相關案例。 二、參與者互動情形： （一）互動模式分為「公私協力」及「以群眾外包手段實踐公民科學」2種，而前者又可進一步分為「民間企業驅動之公私協力」（企業捐贈予政府）及「公部門驅動之公私協力」（公部門委外辦理）。 （二）由公部門發起之案例較偏重於「中央與地方政府間」及「政府與受委託廠商間」之互動，而公民社會發起之案例則較偏重於社群內公民之互動，頂多與民間企業合作；至於分由公部門研究機關及民間企業發起之案例，則同時與公部門、民間企業及公民社會進行互動。 三、案例成果：由政府環保機關發起之案例中，地方政府認為如此有助於其掌握污染，可有效運用稽查人力進行智慧稽查並發現違規情形；其餘案例則普遍認為成果在使民眾知情並可據以調整自身行為、有教育意義，同時促使政府必須採取改善空氣品質之措施以回應民意。 四、2種互動模式同時存在（公部門及非公部門同時投入）之原因： （一）不同感測器之定位不同：環保機關希望藉由精密且準確之數據進行智慧派遣及稽查，有效打擊不法；而其餘案例則主要希望提升公民環境意識。 （二）因感測器有壽命，且難以期待民間企業及公民社會能持續基於熱情投入自身資源；若政府不投入資源，既有案例恐難永續經營下去，且無法兼顧區域均衡。

In recent years, issues related to air pollution (especially PM2.5)/ air quality are on the policy agenda in Taiwan. In order to determine what policies should be taken and the performance of taken policies, we must collect air quality data. The data collected by EPA’s and local governments’ monitoring sites have higher precision and accuracy, while they have lower temporal and spatial resolutions. However, the citizens have the need to know the air quality here and now, thus the public sector, the private sector, academia, and the civil society devoted themselves to measure air quality with microsensors. This thesis focuses on 5 major air quality micro-sensing cases in Taiwan. After reviewing literature related to air quality micro-sensing, public-private collaboration, crowdsourcing, and citizen science, I took semi-structured in-depth interviews with the initiators and major participants of these cases. The research questions include: Who are the initiators and participants? Why do they participate in these cases? How do they interact with others? What are the results of these cases? The findings are listed below. First, policy goals, profits, and missions, respectively motivated the public sector, the private sector, and the civil society. Second, the interaction patterns of the participants could be categorized into “public-private collaboration” and “the realization of citizen science by crowdsourcing”, and the former could be divided into 2 types of “driven by the public sector” and “driven by the private sector”. It seemed that the public sector and the civil society seldom interacted with each other. Third, the interviewees in the public sector thought that they can do “smart inspection” by analyzing the data collected by microsensors; while other interviewees believed that they gave the citizens the right to know, raised the awareness of the citizens, and urged the government to take actions to deal with air pollutions. Lastly, if the government did not devote resources to micro-sensing, the existed network established by the private sector and the civil society may not be sustainable.