請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2442
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林子倫 | |
dc.contributor.author | Tse-Ming Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃則鳴 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-13T06:40:16Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-01-04 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-13T06:40:16Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-01-04 | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2017-11-24 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 壹、中文部分
王京明,2011,〈核災陰影下如何調適核電政策〉,《經濟前瞻》,135:79-84。 王榮德,1999,〈核能發電是永續污染的能源-從環保觀點看臺灣是否應建核四〉,《新使者》,52:61-67。 王嵩音,1998,〈原住民議題與新聞再現--以蘭嶼核廢料場抗爭為例〉,《臺大新聞論壇》,5:111-136。 丘昌泰,2002(從「鄰避情結」到「迎臂效應」:臺灣環保抗爭的問題與出路),《政治科學論叢》,17:33-56 丘昌泰,2005,〈鄰避情結與廠址設定〉,《中國行政評論》,14(3):33-60。 李涵鈺,2009,〈一綱一本教科書政策論述之分析〉,《教科書研究》,2(2):1-32。 李翠萍,2016,〈環境程序正義在褐地重建中的實踐條件:我國污染土地再利用實例的觀察分析〉,《政治科學論叢》,68:37-76。 宋家緯,2013,〈媒體立場對陸生來台就學政策報導與評論的差異分析∼《中國時報》,《聯合報》,《自由時報》的比較(2008~ 2011)〉,碩士論文。臺灣大學,臺北。 林子倫,2008,〈臺灣氣候變遷政策之論述分析〉,《公共行政學報》,28:153-175。 林子倫,2009,〈後京都氣候談判的五大難題〉,《能源報導》,10;9-13。 林子倫,2011,〈全球氣候正義運動初探:歷史脈絡、論述與發展分析〉,綠色思潮與環境政治研討會,歐洲社會文化理論Ⅳ,中央研究院歐美研究所。 林子倫、李之寕、胡琇雰、黃鈺婷,2013,〈電價調整政策制定之評析〉,行政院原子能委員會委託計畫研究報告,1022001INER055,未出版。. 林水波、王崇斌,1996,〈公共政策論述的倫理〉,《中國行政評論》,6(1):1-26。 林文斌,2013,〈爭辯國家安全:日本核能發展與政策爭論的分析〉,《政治學報》,55:85-115。 林益仁,2004,〈環境實踐的 “全球” 與 “在地” 辯證: 以法鼓山的 “環保” 論述爲例〉,《台灣社會研究季刊》,55:1-46. 林桓億,吳珮瑛,劉哲良,2013,〈民眾對核電廠風險主觀認知的觀察〉,《經濟前瞻》,147:13-17。 林桓億,2014,〈何處才是臺灣核廢料的「家」?-瑞典的啟示〉,《經濟前瞻》,156:27-32。 段正明,2011,〈德國近期核安思維與核電廠延長商轉政策〉,《新社會政策》,16:25-33。 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。 洪申翰,2011,〈為日本核災祈福停止高風險核電〉,《新社會政策》,15:35-36。 凌主悅,2013,〈全國能源會議之核能風險論述分析〉,碩士論文。國立臺灣大學,臺北。 倪炎元,1999,〈再現的政治:解讀媒介對他者負面建構的策略〉,《新聞學研究》,58:85-111 許耿銘、紀駿傑、蕭新煌,2016,〈氣候變遷、 世代正義與永續性: 概念、 指標與政策〉,《臺灣經濟預測與政策》,46(2):259-285。 梁世武、李均揚,2014,〈從鄰避效應與認知失調解析臺灣民眾的 核電風險認知與態度〉,《臺灣衛誌》,33(4):428-444。 胡秀雰,2016,〈台灣電價調整政策之論述分析—2012年至2016年〉,碩士論文。國立臺灣大學,臺北。 黃之棟,2014,〈談「核」容易?:從烏坵選址看我國當前低放射性廢棄物最終處置問題〉,《國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報》,10(1):45-66。 黃東益、林子倫、杜文苓,范玫芳,2012〈低放射性廢棄物最終處置公民參與之研究〉,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫,NSC 98-3114-E-004-001,未出版。 黃東益、林子倫、杜文苓,2014,〈民眾與關鍵群體之低碳能源 (含核能安全) 〉,科技素養與社會參與之研究 (III),NSC 102-3113-S004-002,未出版。. 黃東益,2014,〈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劃報告,1032001INER047,未出版。 黃東益、朱文妮,2015,〈政府信任與低放射性廢棄物最終處置場接受度:台閩地區,台東縣與達仁鄉之比較〉,《中國行政評論》,21(1):77-110。 黃淑鈴,2015,〈從族群正義到環境論述:達悟反核廢運動者的框架移轉〉,《人文與社會科學雜誌》,53(2):7-48。 黃德秀,2001,〈補償對鄰避現象的影響─以烏坵低放射性廢料場址為例〉,碩士論文。臺北大學,臺北。 黃釋緯,2009,〈節能減碳下的臺灣核能發電政策發展趨勢〉,《臺灣經濟研究月刊》,32(6):66-71。 盛杏湲、黃士豪,2006,〈臺灣民眾為什麼討厭立法院? 〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,3(3):85-128 邱崇原、湯京平,2014,〈公民投票與鄰避困境-臺灣低放射性廢棄物貯存場的選址經驗及南韓之啟示〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,11(4):1-36。 彭春翎,2006(從新竹科學園區焚化爐事件淺談鄰避現象與環境正義),《應用倫理研究通訊》,37:49-56。 彭渰雯,2005(在「宰制」和「需求」之外--性消費者論述的女性主義分析),《女學學誌:婦女與性別研究》,20:135-179。 靳菱菱,2012,〈反核或擁核?核廢料儲置場之審議式民主討論與原住民部落發展〉,《臺灣原住民族研究季刊》,5(2):1-39。 郭良文,2010,〈蘭嶼的另類媒體與發聲:以核廢料與國家公園反對運動為例〉,《中華傳播學刊》,17:43-74。 郭淑珍,2012,〈大臺北地區飲用供水跨域治理問題之研究〉,碩士論文,國立臺灣大學,臺北。 楊仕樂,2015,〈我們怎麼談核能安全?三一一震災後臺灣反核論述的分析與省思〉,《法治與公共治理學報》,3:43-70。 楊清田、林立夫,2011,〈由日本福島事件之啟示,省思核能安全之強化〉,《前瞻科技與管理》,1(2):41-53。 楊晟佑,2016,〈被扭曲的訊息:法院的媒體溝通〉,碩士論文。國立成功大學,臺南。 楊智元,2009〈毒奶粉的風險論述分析與三聚氰胺的管制爭議〉,碩士論文。國立臺北大學,臺北。 楊勝欽,2010,〈不只是環境正義而已〉,《鵝湖月刊》,426:45-54。 劉正山、蔡艾真,2016,〈中間選民的迷思與隱性選民之政黨傾向初探〉,《臺灣政治學刊》,20(2):65-123. 劉書彬,2013,〈311核災後德國核能政策之研究-兼論德國核能治理之公民參與〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,10(3):131-179。 葉柏志,2013,〈核四?核能?究竟為何而反?〉,《新使者》,136:70-71。 陳明珠,2002,〈媒體再現與認同政治〉,《中華傳播學會》,年會暨論文研討會。 陳亮宇,2015,〈書評:'The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice'[再論政策之論證轉向-公共政策即為溝通實踐]edited by Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis[法蘭克‧費雪、赫伯特‧哥特懷斯(編)](Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012, paperback, 400pp., ISBN 9780822352631)〉,《臺灣民主季刊》,12(2):161-168。 陳俊宏,1997,〈世代正義理論的困境:關於「非同一」問題的弔詭性〉,《東吳政治學報》,7:35-65。 陳挹芬,2011,〈探索永續城市:以松菸巨蛋爭議為例〉,碩士論文。國立台灣大學,臺北。 陳敏鳳,2006,〈媒體立場的群聚效應分析—以台灣地區 2004 年總統選舉為例,碩士論文。國立台灣大學,臺北。 陳憶寧,2014,〈福島危機中臺灣民眾對核能的風險感知與態度:政黨傾向、核能知識、信任與科學傳播的角色〉,《中華傳播學刊》,26:223-265。 潘朝成,2012,〈臺灣核能電廠、核能廢料與臺灣原住民族處境〉,《臺灣原住民族研究學報》,2(4):163-177。 魯炳炎、林玥秀、吳碩文,2010,〈從政策論證的技術理性到政策對話的 溝通理性──民宿管理政策個案分析〉,《中國行政》,82:1-22。 臺灣電力公司,2015,《臺灣電力公司永續報告書》,取自:http://www.taipower.com.tw/content/power_life/power_life03.aspx?BType=5。 蔡岳勳、王齊庭,2014,〈以彈性公民多元參與模式促進綠色能源發展 之法規政策初探〉,《法治與公共治理學報》,2:63-91。 蔡春鴻,2009,〈永續能源政策下的核能定位〉,《知識通訊評論》,78:38-41。 謝安安,2005,〈隱藏在鏡頭背後的真相-一探電視媒體醫藥新聞的產製過程〉,碩士論文。臺灣大學,臺北。 謝明媛,2014,〈地熱發電足供全台取代核電安全無虞〉,《禪天下》,112:28-33。 貳、西文部分 Barry, D. S. and Diane, M. C. 1985. “Nuclear waste repository siting: An alternative approach” Energy Policy 13(6):564-580 Benford, R. D., Moore, H. A., and Williams Jr., J. A. 1993. “In whose backyard?: Concern about sitting a nuclear waste facility.” Sociological Inquiry 63(1):248-263. Booth, D. E. 1997. “Preserving old-growth forest ecosystems: valuation and policy.” Environmental Values 6(1): 31-48. Easterling, D. 1992. “Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11(3):442-475 Fairclough, N. 1992, “Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis” Discourse & Society 3(2):193-217. Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. 2011. “Practical reasoning in political discourse: The UK government’s response to the economic crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report.” Discourse & Society 22(3): 243-268. APA Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. 2013. “Argument, deliberation, dialectic and the nature of the political: A CDA perspective.” Political Studies Review 11(3):336-344. Fan, Mei-Fang. 2006. 'Nuclear waste facilities on Tribal Land: The Yami's struggles for environmental justice.' Local Environment 11(4):433-444. Fan, Mei-Fang. 2009. 'Public perceptions and the nuclear waste repository on Orchid Island, Taiwan.' Public Understanding of Science 18(2):167-176. Ferreira, V. V. M., Mourão, R. P., Fleming, P. M., Soares, W. A., Braga, L. T., and Santos, R. A. 2009. “Public perception on nuclear energy and radioactive waste storage”. In International Nuclear Atlantic Conference. Rio de Janeiro 29:42-48. Fischer, F. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fischer, F. 1995. Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Flynn, J., Kasperson, R., Kunreuther, H., and Slovic, P. 1992. “Time to rethink nuclear waste storage” Issues in Science and Technology 8(4):42-48. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C. K. 1993. “Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository.” Risk Analysis 13(6):643-648. Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. NY: Pantheon Books. Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., Burger, J., Powers, C., Gochfeld, M., and Mayer, H. 2007. “Nuclear waste and public worries: Public perceptions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.” Human Ecology Review 14(1):1-12 Hajer, M. A. 1995. “The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process” Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hajer, M. A., and Wagenaar, H. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press. Hajer, M. A. 2005. “Coalitions, practices, and meaning in environmental politics: From acid rain to BSE.” In: Howarth, D., and Torfing J. (eds.), Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke:297-315. Hajer, M. A. 2006. “Doing Discourse Analysis: Coalitions, Practices, Meaning.” In: Howarth, D., and Torfing J. (eds.), Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke:297-315. Brink, M., and T. (eds), Words matter in policy and planning: discourse theory and method in the social sciences Utrecht : Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap: 65-73. Hewitt, S. 2009. “Discourse analysis and public policy research.” Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series 24:1-16. Huang, G. C. L., Gray, T., & Bell, D. 2013. “Environmental justice of nuclear waste policy in Taiwan: Taipower, government, and local community.” Environment, development and sustainability 15(6):1555-1571. Inhaber, H. 2016. “Can an Economic Approach Solve the High-Level Nuclear Waste Problem.” RISK: Health, Safety & Environment 2(4):342-356. Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., Nowlin, M. C., and DeLozier, G. 2011. “Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility.” Risk Analysis 31(4):629-644. Komine and Ogata,1999. “Experimental study on swelling characteristics of sand-bentonite mixture for nuclear waste disposal.” Soils and foundations 39(2):83-97. Kraft, M. E. and Clary, B. B. 1991. “Citizen Participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal.” Western Political Quarterly 44(2):299-328. Krütli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., and Scholz, R. W. 2010. “Functional‐dynamic public participation in technological decision‐making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories.” Journal of Risk Research, 13(7):861-875. Kunreuther, H., Desvousges, W. H., and Slovic, P. 1988. “Nevada's predicament public perceptions of risk from the proposed nuclear waste repository.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 30(8):16-33. Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., and Slovic, P. 1990. “Public attitudes toward siting a high‐level nuclear waste repository in Nevada.” Risk Analysis 10(4): 469-484. Murray, C. 2009. “Radioactive waste transport: Managing risk perception and communication.” Paper presented at the WM Symposia, Solothurn. Abstract retrieved from http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2009/pdfs/9228.pdf Pijawka K.D. and Mushkatel, A. 1991. “Public opposition to the siting of the high‐level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust.” Policy Studies Review 10(4):180-194. Potter, J. 1997. “Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. ” Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2):200-222. Ramana, M. V. 2013. “Nuclear policy responses to Fukushima: Exit, voice, and loyalty.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(2):66-76. Roßegger, U. 2014. “Programme elements of Swedish nuclear waste management – implementing with what results?” Energetika 60(1):54-68. Schmidt, V. A. 2008 “Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse.” Annual Review of Political Science 11(1):303-326. Schmidt, V. A. 2014. “Speaking to the markets or to the people? A discursive institutionalist analysis of the EU's sovereign debt crisis.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16(1):188-209. Schneider, V. 2015. “Towards post-democracy or complex power sharing? environmental policy networks in Germany.” In: V. Schneider , & B. Eberlein (eds.), Complex Democracy. Varieties, Crises, and Transformations Berlin Springer:263-279. Sjöberg, L. and Drottz-Sjöberg BR. 2001. “Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository”Journal of Risk Research,(4)75:101. Sjöberg, L. 2003. “Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue.” Risk Analysis 23(4):739-749. Sjöberg, L. 2004. “Local acceptance of a high‐level nuclear waste repository.” Risk analysis 24(3):737-749. Slovic, P., Layman, M., and Flynn, J. H., 1991a. “Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain.” Environment 33(3):6-30. Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., and Layman, M. 1991b. “Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste.” Science 254(5408):1603-1607. Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., and Gesell, G. 1991c. “Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high‐level nuclear waste repository in Nevada.” Risk Analysis 11(4): 683–696 Slovic, P., and Weber, E. U. 2002. “Perception of risk posed by extreme events.” Paper presented at the conference “Risk management strategies in an Uncertain World”, Palisades, NY. Abstract retrieved from http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/slovic_wp.pdf Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., and MacGregor D. G. 2004. “Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.” Risk Analysis 24(2):311-322. Van Dijk, T. A. 1991. News as discourse. Routledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Dijk, T.A. 1993. “Principles of critical discourse analysis.” Discourse & Society,4(2):249-283. Visschers, V. H., and Siegrist, M. 2013. “How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster.” Risk analysis 33(2):333-347. Wolf, T., 1990. Management a Nonprofit Organization. New York: Simon & Schuster. White, L. G. 1994. “Policy analysis as discourse.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,13(3):506-525. William, N. D. 2012. Public Policy Analysis. Pearson. Yun, S. J. 2012. ' 'Nuclear power for climate mitigation? Contesting frames in Korean Newspapers.' Asia Europe Journal 10(1):57-73 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/2442 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 自1978年8月,蘭嶼鄉龍門地區作為低階核廢料貯存場開始動工興建以來,核廢料議題正式進入我國的政策領域,而其後隨著蘭嶼驅逐惡靈的抗議活動進行、《低放射性廢棄物最終處置設施場址設置條例》公布以及2011年日本福島核災的發生,更使得核廢料的討論進入了白熱化的階段。然而我國權責機關在2008、2011、2012年選址過程中,遭遇民間強烈的反對,致使至今不但在低階核廢料最終處置的選址上空轉,蘭嶼核廢料暫存的問題也遲遲沒有解決,使得核能與核廢料政策處理成為我國在邁入21世紀後的嚴重困境之一。
而由於核廢料議題牽扯了相當複雜的價值因素與多元行為者,為釐清其中存在的連結關係,故使用最近逐漸在公共政策領域興起的論述分析作為主要的研究方法。透過2011年日本福島核災後我國主要報紙的新聞資料,從中檢驗論述的內容與包含的價值。 本研究的主要研究發現分述如下:其一,依敘述結構與核心價值可以分為科技、正義、利益與風險、民主、反核等五項主要的敘事大綱;其二,在總體意象上,除了中央權責機關經濟部與台灣電力公司之外,幾乎所有的論述資料都對核廢料處理抱持著悲觀的態度;其三,在議題上主要著重於技術性、制度性以及選址的討論;其四,透過與過去的文獻對話,發現我國的核廢料處理論述中存在與其他研究相異的現象;論述理性上,有比鄰避情結還要複雜的論述價值存在;而且在風險評估中,採取的觀點較傾向於實證主義而非心理層面的判斷;另外論述上存在著選址悖論,並且不認同現行的公投機制足以實現公民審議的精神,最後,本研究針對我國目前的制度性、價值性缺失提出了四項建議,希冀有助於未來核廢料處理的相關政策進程。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In August 1978, Lang Yu was appointed as the disposal site of the low level nuclear waste, and soon it began construction. Ever since then, the siting issues has become one of the most controversial issues in Taiwan. The “Expelling the Evil” demonstration organized by the locals, the passing of a relevant law, and the Fukushima catastrophe in 2011 had also led to tense debates. The government is faced with strong opposition from the general public when choosing the final disposal site in 2008, 2011, and 2012. Now, the problem of the nuclear waste in Lang Yu is still not being settled, and it has become one of the biggest problems for the government.
Because the problem of the waste disposal was involved with various interests and multiple actors, and in order to clarify the relation between them, this study takes the discourse analysis approach, based on Taiwanese news reports, after the Fukushima catastrophe in 2011. This study has the following major findings:1. The storylines can be divided into Technology, Justice, Interests and Risks, Democratic procedures, and Anti-nulcear claims. 2. Except for Ministry of Economic Affairs and Taiwan Power Company, almost all the actors are pessimistic about the siting of nuclear waste disposal. 3. The major controversies of the discussion are about technology, nstitution and the siting isuue 4. The NIMBY syndrome cannot seem to explain everything. 5.Regarding risk assessment, cognitive response get the better of emotional judgement. 6. Paradoxes and distrust exist in siting and in the justice of referendum. Finally, this study has come up with four suggestions that may be helpful for the resolution about nuclear waste controversies in Taiwan. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-13T06:40:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R03343014-1.pdf: 3248857 bytes, checksum: a001c3d30252eba2b6606c7bbdf360a6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 I
謝辭 II 中文摘要 III ABSTRACT IV 目次 VI 圖目次 VIII 表目次 IX 第一章、 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究問題與目的 3 第二章、 文獻回顧 6 第一節 核廢料政策議題討論面向 6 第二節 美國與瑞典的案例經驗 18 第三節 再探我國核廢料處理 21 第四節 政策論證與政策論述 23 第五節 小節 26 第三章、 研究設計 29 第一節 論述分析理論途徑 29 第二節 資料蒐集與研究流程 34 第四章、 我國核能與核廢料歷史脈絡 39 第一節 我國核能發展現況 39 第二節 我國核廢料議題發展現況 40 第五章、 政策論述內容分析Ⅰ 48 第一節 重大事件時間點 49 第二節 主要的論述者次數分析 52 第三節 核電科技官僚的敘事大綱 53 第六章、 政策論述內容分析Ⅱ 85 第一節 公平正義的敘事大綱 85 第二節 利益與風險的敘事大綱 107 第三節 民主程序的敘事大綱 117 第四節 反對核電的敘事大綱 123 第七章、 結論及研究發現 132 第一節 研究發現 132 第二節 政策建議 146 第三節 研究限制 149 參考文獻 150 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 臺灣核廢料政策之論述分析—2011年至2016年 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Policy Discourse Analysis of Nuclear Waste Policy in Taiwan: from 2011 to 2016 | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃東益,林益仁 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 核能,核廢料,論述分析,政策論述分析,敘事大綱, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Nuclear Waste Disposal,Nuclear Waste Management,Nuclear Waste Policy,Policy Discourse Analysis,Energy Policy, | en |
dc.relation.page | 159 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201704409 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2017-11-27 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 公共事務研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-106-1.pdf | 3.17 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。