請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/58638
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 丁志音(Chih-Yin Lew-Ting) | |
dc.contributor.author | Tzu-Hsiang Chien | en |
dc.contributor.author | 簡子翔 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T08:23:23Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-02-25 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2014-02-25 | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2014-01-24 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
文化部 (2013) 。社區通各社區資訊。取自台灣社區通http://sixstar.moc.gov.tw/blog/A203002/communityAction.do?method=doCommunityView 丘昌泰 (2002) 。從「鄰避情結」到「迎臂效應」:台灣環保抗爭的問題與出路。政治科學論叢,(17) 。33-56。 李永展 (1999) 。鄰避設施設置之研究─環境正義觀點。取自國立政治大學,地政學系網址http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/4881/1/882415H004025.pdf 周桂田 (2003) 。 從「全球化風險」到「全球在地化風險」之研究進路:對貝克理論的批判思考。臺灣社會學刊,(31) 。153-188。 周桂田、知內涵 (2003) 。台灣社會基因食品風險認知與溝通研究。第四屆基因科技與法律研討會。臺北市:國立臺灣大學法律學院。取自國立臺灣大學,國家發展研究所網址http://gmo.agron.ntu.edu.tw/risk/risk01.pdf 林宜平 (2006) 。 女人與水 由性別觀點分析 RCA 健康相關研究。 女學學誌,(21) ,185-211。 林宜平、吳亭亭、黎雅如、周桂田、鄭尊仁 (2010) 。 台灣成年民眾對奈米產品與科技的公眾感知 。臺灣公共衛生雜誌,29(5) ,431-439。 林宜平、林彥君、詹長權、鄭尊仁 (2010) 。台灣民眾對不同來源電磁場感知的利益、風險與管制信任。臺灣公共衛生雜誌,29(2) ,87-96。 邱大昕、羅淑霞 (2011) 。 鄰避與被鄰避:身心障礙機構與設施抗爭處理經驗之研究。社會政策與社會工作學刊,15(1) ,167-198。 基隆市中山區公所 (2013) 。鄰里資訊。取自基隆市中山區公所網址http://www.kljs.gov.tw/content_edit.php?menu=346&typeid=347&typeid2= 基隆市中山區戶政事務所 (2013) 。歷年人口資料。取自基隆市中山區戶政事務所網址http://www.klcs-house.gov.tw/students/index.asp 郭淑珍、丁志音 (2008) 。 嚼檳榔計程車司機的健康生活型態: 社會脈絡觀點的初探。台灣衛誌,27(1) ,67-80。 陳賢隆 (2011) 。民主社會中的風險感知與專家政治:以 H1N1 疫苗為例(未出版博碩士論文) 。南華大學,嘉義縣。 陳憶寧 (2011) 。美國牛肉進口台灣危機中的媒介使用、政治信任與風險感知的關係。傳播與社會學刊,17(1) ,31-60。 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。 英文文獻 Abraham, Thomas. (2009). Risk and outbreak communication: lessons from alternative paradigms. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 87(8), 604-607. Alhakami, Ali Siddiq, & Slovic, Paul. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096. Bohm, Gisela. (2003). Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(2), 199-212. Babbie, Earl. (2012). The practice of social research: CengageBrain. com. Baer, Roberta D, Weller, Susan C, De Alba Garcia, Javier Garcia, & Salcedo Rocha, Ana L. (2008). Cross‐Cultural perspectives on physician and lay models of the common cold. Medical anthropology quarterly, 22(2), 148-166. Bickerstaff, Karen. (2004). Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment international, 30(6), 827-840. Bickerstaff, Karen, & Walker, Gordon. (2001). Public understandings of air pollution: the ‘localisation’of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 133-145. Boholm, Asa, & Corvellec, Herve. (2011). A relational theory of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 175-190. Borm, Paul JA. (2002). Particle toxicology: from coal mining to nanotechnology. Inhalation Toxicology, 14(3), 311-324. Botterill, Linda, & Mazur, Nicole. (2004). Risk and risk perception: A literature review. Project No. BRR-8A, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton. Brewer, Noel T, Chapman, Gretchen B, Gibbons, Frederick X, Gerrard, Meg, McCaul, Kevin D, & Weinstein, Neil D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY-HILLSDALE THEN WASHINGTON DC-, 26(2), 136. Burgess, Robert G. (2002). In the field: An introduction to field research (Vol. 8): Psychology Press. Calvente, I, Fernandez, MF, Villalba, J, Olea, N, & Nunez, MI. (2010). Exposure to electromagnetic fields (non-ionizing radiation) and its relationship with childhood leukemia: a systematic review. Science of the total environment, 408(16), 3062-3069. Douglas, Mary, & Calvez, Marcel. (1990). The self as risk taker: a cultural theory of contagion in relation to AIDS. The sociological review, 38(3), 445-464. Entwistle, Vikki A, Renfrew, Mary J, Yearley, Steven, Forrester, John, & Lamont, Tara. (1998a). Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. BMJ-British Medical Journal-International Edition, 316(7129), 463-465. Entwistle, Vikki A, Renfrew, Mary J, Yearley, Steven, Forrester, John, & Lamont, Tara. (1998b). Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. British Medical Journal, 316, 463-465. Eurobarometer, Special. (2008). E-communications household survey. Special Eurobarometer, 293. Evans, Gary W, & Kantrowitz, Elyse. (2002). Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annual Review of Public Health, 23(1), 303-331. Fang, Xiang. (2013). Local people’s understanding of risk from civil nuclear power in the Chinese context. Public Underst Sci. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140. Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-107. Finucane, Melissa L. (2008). Emotion, affect, and risk communication with older adults: challenges and opportunities. Journal of risk research, 11(8), 983-997. Finucane, Melissa L, Alhakami, Ali, Slovic, Paul, & Johnson, Stephen M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of behavioral decision making, 13(1), 1-17. Finucane, Melissa L, Slovic, Paul, Mertz, Chris K, Flynn, James, & Satterfield, Theresa A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The'white male'effect. Health, risk & society, 2(2), 159-172. Flynn, James, Slovic, Paul, & Mertz, Chris K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk analysis, 14(6), 1101-1108. Fox, Nick. (1999). Postmodern reflections on ‘risk’,‘hazards’ and life choices. Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives, 12-33. Gaskell, George, Allum, Nick, & Stares, Sally. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002: Eurobarometer 58.0. Brussels: European Commission. Graubard, SR. (1990). Preface to the issue ‘risk. Daedalus, 119(4), v-vi. Guilbert, JJ. (2003). The world health report 2002-reducing risks, promoting healthy life. EDUCATION FOR HEALTH-ABINGDON-CARFAX PUBLISHING LIMITED-, 16(2), 230-230. Gustafsod, Per E. (1998). Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological erspectives. Risk analysis, 18(6), 805-811. Hansson, Sven Ove. (2010). Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values. Journal of Risk Research, 13(2), 231-238. Harding, Ronnie. (1998). Environmental decision-making: the role of scientists, engineers and the public: Federation Press. He, Guizhen, Mol, Arthur PJ, Zhang, Lei, & Lu, Yonglong. (2013). Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 1-11. Horlick-Jones, Tom, Sime, Jonathan, & Pidgeon, Nick. (2003). The social dynamics of environmental risk perception: implications for risk communication research and practice. The social amplification of risk, 262-285. Howarth, Caroline. (2006). A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical potential of social representations theory. British journal of social psychology, 45(1), 65-86. Jenkins, Edgar W. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 601-611. Johnson, Branden B, & Covello, Vincent T. (1987). The Social and Cultural construction of risk: essays on risk selection and perception: Reidel Dordrecht. Knox, Paul, Marston, Sallie, & NASH, Alan. (2002). Human geography, places and regions in global context, canadian edition. Lake, Robert W. (1996). Volunteers, NIMBYs, and environmental justice: dilemmas of democratic practice. Antipode, 28(2), 160-174. Lee, Renee Gravois, & Garvin, Theresa. (2003). Moving from information transfer to information exchange in health and health care. Social science & medicine, 56(3), 449-464. Lima, Maria Luisa. (2004). On the influence of risk perception on mental health: living near an incinerator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), 71-84. Marmot, Michael. (2006). Health in an unequal world: social circumstances, biology and disease. Clinical Medicine, 6(6), 559-572. Maxwell, Nancy Kalikow. (2008). Libraries?—Yes, In My Backyard! Journal of Access Services, 5(3), 391-396. Michael, Mike. (2002). Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(3), 357-378. Miller, Jon D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273-294. Moore, Gary T. (2004). Environment, behaviour and society: A brief look at the field and some current EBS research at the University of Sydney. Paper presented at the The 6th International Conference of the Environment-Behavior Research Association Tianjin, China. O'Connor, Robert E, Bord, Richard J, & Fisher, Ann. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk analysis, 19(3), 461-471. O'Hare, Michael. (1977). ' Not On My Block You Don't'-Facilities Siting and the Strategic Importance of Compensation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory of Architecture and Planning. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: SAGE Publications. Peters, Ellen, & Slovic, Paul. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear Power1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1427-1453. Pidgeon, Nick, Hood, Christopher, Jones, David, Turner, Barry, & Gibson, Rose. (1992). Risk perception. Risk: analysis, perception and management, 89-134. Popay, Jennie, & Williams, Gareth. (1996). Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science & Medicine, 42(5), 759-768. Prior, Lindsay, Evans, Meirion R, & Prout, Hayley. (2011). Talking about colds and flu: The lay diagnosis of two common illnesses among older British people. Social Science & Medicine, 73(6), 922-928. Raude, Jocelyn, & Setbon, Michel. (2009). Lay perceptions of the pandemic influenza threat. European journal of epidemiology, 24(7), 339-342. Renn, Ortwinn, & Roco, Mihail. (2006). Nanotechnology risk governance. The International Risk Governance Council, Geneva. Scammell, Madeleine Kangsen. (2010). Qualitative environmental health research: an analysis of the literature, 1991–2008. Environmental health perspectives, 118(8), 1146. Schwarzer, Ralf. (2001). Social-cognitive factors in changing health-related behaviors. Current directions in psychological science, 10(2), 47-51. Slovic, Paul, Fischhoff, Baruch, & Lichtenstein, Sarah. (1982). Why study risk perception? Risk analysis, 2(2), 83-93. Slovic, Paul, Flynn, James H, & Layman, Mark. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254(5038), 1603-1607. Smithson, Michael. (1989). Ignorance and uncertainty: Emerging paradigms: Springer-Verlag Publishing. Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K. A., Henwood, K. L., & Simmons, P. (2012). Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 371-383. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.06.003 Wertheimer, Nancy, & Leeper, ED. (1979). Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American journal of epidemiology, 109(3), 273-284. Wolf, C. P. (1987). The Nimby Syndrome - Its Cause and Cure. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 502, 216-229. doi: DOI 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1987.tb37654.x Wynne, Brian. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public understanding of science, 1(3), 281-304. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/58638 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 研究背景與目的:一般大眾如何感知與因應產出環境風險的鄰避設施(NIMBY facilities)已引起社會各方會與公共衛生領域的諸多討論,然而甚少研究關注存在著多樣鄰避設施的地區。本研究欲嘗試了解當地居民如何描繪所處地區多樣的潛在環境風險、解讀可能造成個體身心健康或社區生態的負面效應,以及最終因應環境暴露而衍生的心理與行為策略。
研究方法:本研究為社區型的田野研究。研究場域位在基隆市中山區北部某里。此里於日治時期時即有一肥料化工廠,且自1960年代後分別有火力發電廠、高壓電塔與高架橋相繼建造、營運,各類設施促進經濟發展的同時亦造成了無可避免的環境影響與健康危害。本研究以深度訪談與參與觀察作為主要資料收集方法,並以最大變異抽樣法在2013年7月至11月挑選了21位不同年齡、性別、教育程度與職業的居民進行訪談。訪談內容主要由研究者將錄音檔轉譯成逐字稿,將研究關注的主要議題自受訪者訪談內容中比對與萃取。 研究結果:本研究主要發現為:(1)民眾對於風險的感知主要來自其可覺察性、嚴重性以及暴露潛在範圍等三個面向所影響。受訪者間風險感知的世代差異則來自於各類設施對其生命歷程中的經濟與生活影響。(2)季節或當地氣象的變化將影響民眾對於特定風險的感知情況,而個體的社經條件與過往經驗亦會改變其暴露在環境污染中的機會與程度。(3)長期環境暴露的影響造成民眾自覺生活品質降低、多樣負面身心問題的發生,以及社區環境與生態無可回復的破壞。此外,民眾認為多元環境風險透過許多形式的交互作用,更可能增強對個體或社區的影響。(4)當地居民透過多樣化的策略因應多元環境暴露,除了發展正向心理機轉以減緩情緒的負面反應外,其亦透過保護性措施與行為以隔絕可能的暴露接觸。更甚者,居民更主動以採納各類策略來強化身心健康、抵抗長期影響。 結論:來自多鄰避設施的環境風險對於居民社會心理與行為影響是不僅相互交織、具多元面向,亦同時與居民生命經驗密切關聯。藉由常民知識與流行病學觀點,當地民眾對於單一或多鄰避設施的短、長期反應應被持續且具系統性地觀察與解讀分析,以便回饋至環境衛生管制及政策制定,並提供未來相關研究之概念及理論意涵。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Background and objectives:While risk perceptions and behavioral responses to hazards released from a specific NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) facility have drawn extensive attention, which have been hardly explored in settings where multiple LIMBY facilities exist. This study examined how local residents interpreted potential environmental risks, grasped possible adverse effects on individual health and community ecology, and behaviorally adjusted to regularly and non-regularly discharged exposures.
Methods:This study followed a community-based field work design. The study community is located in the Northern part of Keelung County in Taiwan, where a thermal power plant, a high voltage tower, a fertilizer chemical plant and a viaduct have been consecutively built up since 1960s; each contributed to economic development but also unavoidably caused environmental deterioration and health detriment. Both in-depth interviewing and participant observation were employed to collect data for analysis. By means of maximum variation sampling, 21 residents distinctive in their age, gender, education and occupation were selected and interviewed during July 2013 to November 2013. The sound-recording interview data were transcribed into verbatim draft and main themes embedded in the participants' narratives and conversations were extracted and triangulated. Results:Major findings of this study included: (1) Residents’ perceptions of risk mostly came from three dimensions of exposures: sensory observability, severity, and exposure scope. Age cohort or generational differences in perceptions were found due mainly to the contribution of these facilities to their own economic advantage, (2) Seasonal fluctuations and meteorological conditions may affect residents’ perceptions. Particularly, social economic status and previous experiences would influence one’s possibility and degree of exposures, (3) In a long run, residents considered the long-term exposure caused multiple burdens of negative health outcomes, undesirable quality of life, and irreversible environmental and ecology devastation. Even worse, the interactive effects of those diversified exposures were considered to qualitatively and quantitatively amplify the sum of their separate effects, (4) Residents coped with multiple adverse exposures through pluralistic strategies. In addition to developing positive psychological mechanisms to buffer mentally distressed reactions, they also used protective devices or practices to eliminate possible exposure contacts. Moreover, they further adopted strategies to enhance their own physical and physiological strength to fight against prolonged negative health effects. Conclusion:The socio-psychological and behavioral effects of environmental exposures from multiple NIMBY facilities on local residents were intertwined and multi-dimensional, and closely associated with their life experiences. From the perspective of lay knowledge and lay epidemiology, local residents’ short-term reactions and long-term responses to single and multiple NIMBY facilities should be continuously and systematically observed and analyzed to inform environmental health regulations and policy formulations, and provide conceptual and theoretical implications for future research. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T08:23:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R00848037-1.pdf: 2593811 bytes, checksum: 188d2a7bbb580cdce0c9fc3d91ca8e54 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究重要性 4 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 鄰避效應的定義與台灣議題概況 5 一、 鄰避與鄰避效應之定義 5 二、 國際鄰避效應議題的促成因素 7 三、 鄰避效應在台灣的議題概況 8 第二節 公共衛生領域中相關研究的取向與限制 10 一、 公共衛生領域中相關研究的取向 10 二、 公共衛生領域中相關研究的限制 14 第三節 風險感知與健康 16 一、 風險之意義 16 二、 風險感知的相關理論與議題發展 18 三、 影響風險感知的相關因子 23 第四節 常民解讀科學觀點的理論與重要性 27 一、 常民解讀科學觀點的研究取向與現況 27 二、 常民觀點的意涵與重要性 30 第三章 研究方法 32 第一節 前驅研究 32 第二節 研究場域的選擇 35 第三節 資料來源及收集方式 36 一、 研究時程 36 二、 資料收集方式 36 三、 受訪者的選取 37 第四節 資料分析與驗證 38 第四章 田野場域與鄰避設施 43 第一節 社區位置與歷史沿革 44 第二節 當地社會人口組成 44 第三節 社區環境與組織活動 46 一、 社區環境 46 二、 社區組織活動 47 第四節 社區鄰避設施與發展概況 49 一、 T肥料化工廠 49 二、 W火力發電廠及貯油槽 49 三、 E高壓配電塔 50 四、 G高架橋 50 第五章 居民對環境風險的解讀 51 第一節 暴露風險的本質 51 一、 風險的可覺察性 51 二、 風險嚴重性 53 第二節 設施與暴露風險的時間特性 59 一、 世代影響(generational or cohort effect)─對地方與設施的認同感 59 二、 暴露頻率的長期轉變─被適應的背景風險 60 第三節 影響暴露傳播的自然因素 62 第四節 影響暴露差異與風險解讀的個人特質 64 第五節 民眾看待環境風險交互影響的多樣型態 67 第六章 鄰避設施暴露的潛在影響 70 第一節 研究者相對於居民識別之風險 70 第二節 日常作息與生活品質的破壞 72 第三節 個體身心健康的影響 75 第四節 社區環境與經濟活動的損害 78 第七章 因應環境風險的行為策略 80 第一節 因應長期暴露的心理機轉 80 一、 對比差異的信念轉換 80 二、 忽視與否認的官能鈍化 81 三、 長期刺激的價值觀改變 82 第二節 減害與防護行為的日常實踐 84 一、 物理防護 84 二、 強化自身健康 85 三、 補充與另類療法 86 第三節 鄰里家庭間的資訊傳播與教育 88 第八章 討論 90 第一節 長期面對社區影響的心理機轉 90 第二節 個體對風險的因應與適應 92 第三節 多元暴露影響的解讀與行為策略 94 第四節 常民觀點於環境健康研究中的意義 96 第九章 結論與建議 99 參考文獻 103 附錄一 研究訪談同意書 107 附錄二 受訪者社會人口學資料表 108 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 地方居民如何解讀鄰避設施的環境風險:一個對多元暴露社區的田野研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | How Local Residents Interpret the Environmental Risks of NIMBY Facilities: A Field Study in A Community with Multiple Exposures | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 102-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王順美(Shun-Mei Wang),莊?智(Ying-Chih Chuang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 多元暴露,鄰避設施,風險感知,常民觀點,因應策略,質性研究, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | multiple exposures,NIMBY facilities,risk perceptions,lay perspective,coping strategies,qualitative research, | en |
dc.relation.page | 110 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2014-01-24 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 健康政策與管理研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 健康政策與管理研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-103-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.53 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。