兒童對空氣污染與防治的觀點

Abstract

背景與目的：全球有超過90%的兒童居住在室外空氣污染超過世界衛生組織標準的地區，依據《兒童權利公約》，空氣污染影響兒童的生命權、生存與發展權、健康權以及休閒權。因此，本研究以童年社會學的角度，藉由《兒童權利公約》中「提供」（provision）、「保護」（protection）和「參與」（participation）的架構，探討兒童對空氣污染防治的觀點與行動。 方法：本研究採用個人訪談，在2018年11月至2019年5月期間，於台中市一所位於空氣污染嚴重地區的公立國民小學進行，招募14位高年級學童以及6位師長參與。訪談輔以白紙讓兒童透過繪畫與文字表述自己的想法，強化兒童自由表達的方式。 結果：（1）兒童的生活經驗呈現空氣污染廣泛但在過去就醫紀錄和研究缺乏的健康不適反應，例如食慾不振、呼吸異常的感覺、頭痛及頭暈等症狀。（2）兒童對空氣污染的知識來源除了由學校、家庭獲得，兒童也透過網路搜集相關資訊，兒童從多樣化的知識來源，表示他們對環境議題的優先順序與學校未必一致，並建議學校增加空氣品質教育宣導的內容深度和頻率。（3）校園空氣污染防治政策與兒童日常生活有落差，兒童藉由自身觀察與收集資料發現校園防治策略的保護效用有限，兒童期望提早啟動空氣污染保護措施，並在戶外活動限制規範下，同時保障他們的自由權與運動休閒權。（4）學校是《兒童權利公約》的主要提倡者，但師長對兒童表意權的意識較弱，兒童的行動與期望因權力不平等而受到漠視。 結論與政策建議：兒童對於空氣污染議題的想法與願景，未必與成人意見一致，甚至出現相對立的觀點。然而，兒童的表意和參與過程受到忽視。學校是兒童生活的重要場域，本研究建議（1）增加對成人的兒童權利教育，使成人對兒童權利更加了解與尊重；（2）課程展開雙向的知識流通，傾聽兒童的想法，關注兒童與成人觀點上的鴻溝；（3）強化兒童參與和他們相關決策的權力，例如參與校規的修訂。

Background and aims: Over 90% of the world's children live in areas where outdoor air pollution exceeds the WHO standards. According to the UNCRC, air pollution affects children's right to life, survival and development, health, and leisure. This study, based on the Sociology of Childhood, explores children's views and actions on air pollution and prevention, through the framework of ‘provision’, ‘protection’ and ‘participation’ from the UNCRC. Methods: This study used interview to collect data from interviewees in a public elementary school located in a heavily polluted area in Taichung from November, 2018 to May, 2019. This study recruited fourteen children aged 10-12 (Grades 5-6) and six teachers. In order to make children fully involved in the research, the interview was assisted by white paper, encouraging children to express their ideas in ways they prefer, such as painting and writing Results: (1) Children's life experience showed a wide range of adverse health effects of air pollution, such as loss of appetite, abnormal feeling of breathing, headache and dizziness. (2) In addition to schools and families, children also collect knowledge of air pollution through the Internet. From diverse sources of knowledge, children express that their priority on environmental issues may not be the same as that of schools, and they hoped that schools could increase the depth and frequency of air quality education. (3) School’s coping strategies for air pollution, ban on outdoor activities and sports class, clashed with the children's interests. Children expressed the hope to start the coping strategies for air pollution earlier, but the strategies could also consider to protect children's right to sports and leisure. (4) School is the main institute to teach the UNCRC, but teachers showed weak awareness of children's rights, especially children’s right to express their opinions and to be heard. Children's actions and expectations are ignored due to power imbalance. Conclusion and policy suggestions: Children's views on air pollution are not necessarily the same as those of adults, and they even have opposing views. However, children’s rights to expression and participation were not valued at school. This study made the following suggestions: (1) to increase the education of the UNCRC to adults so they understand and respect children's rights; (2) to strengthen the two-way communication in class, giving children the opportunities to express and to be heard; (3) to strengthen children’s rights to participate in the policy making process in policies relating to them, such as school policies.