科學政策介面在環境政策制度化過程中的運作機制—以臺灣溼地保育政策發展為例

Abstract

環境議題因果糾纏已經超越單一科學及個人知識經驗的範疇，需要透過跨領域科學及政策的解答及整合的方案。然而在科學與政策兩大陣營之間長久以來存在著鴻溝，需要科學政策介面（science–policy interfaces）有系統地促進雙向交流以回應社會的期待。然而，科學政策介面轉換科學知識為政策制度的機制為何？又怎麼連結科學與政策塑造臺灣溼地保育政策？本研究重新深入理論層面探索「科學政策介面」本質及解決議題的機制，並將其放在實際的臺灣溼地保育治理過程中，探索科學政策介面機制在不同政策發展階段解決問題的模式，以促進科學政策介面的應用性及回應議題的效率，並為臺灣溼地保育制度尋找調適及深化的方式。 本研究透過文獻回顧，分別探討科學知識生產、政策制定與決策、以及兩者之間的關係，發現科學政策介面的研究聚焦解決疆界作業（boundary work）及不確定性（uncertainty）等兩大難題。本研究特別關注科學政策介面如何解決未來性問題促進社會朝向永續發展，以「可知覺」與否的原則二分科學政策介面為隱性「社會過程（P-type）」及顯性「物件（O-type）」兩大類，並以系統性及制度化的觀點定義科學政策介面為「科學與政策互動解決特定環境議題的方式，此方式在不同背景或政策階段所呈現型態，從隱性的社會過程逐漸轉變為顯性的、可被意識的主體或制度」，依此定義將四大類科學政策介面：社會過程、疆界物件、中介者、及疆界組織等置於此「P—O」光譜中，建立研究科學政策介面機制的核心，歸納該機制不同強度至少16種功能。同時，把環境議題分為「當前—未來」兩個概念，與前述「P—O」軸一起建立模式假說後，把此假說放進實際治理的互動情境，觀察科學家與政策制定者在論述、權威、制度、及資源的動態環境中如何塑造台灣溼地保育政策。 結論發現科學政策介面科學知識轉換機制中至少有16種功能。臺灣溼地保育政策發展的整體模式為由模糊到清晰、由發散到集中的「螺旋漏斗」模式。在實際臺灣溼地保育政策發展三階段中，議題浮現階段主要為科學推動模式；政策形成階段為科學家與政策制定者互動，在政策實驗中逐漸解決問題並累積制度；政策實驗後期及法制階段逐漸轉變為政策主導模式。每個階段各有不同的科學政策介面發揮作用。 本研究另外對學術研究及政策實務運作提出研究反思，建議未來五個研究方向：1. 藍碳科學與政策轉型分析，2. 垂直治理中科學政策介面分析，3.不同領域科學政策介面比較分析，4. 多元科學政策介面的治理與調和，及5. 競爭性跨領域合作的可能性。

Causal and entangled environmental issues have transcended the boundary of a single scientific discipline or individual’s knowledge and experiences that require transdisciplinary approaches and integrated solutions. However, longstanding gaps between science and policy domains impede the integration. There are needs for ‘Science–Policy Interfaces’ (SPIs) to systematically enhance the exchange between science and policy to meet societal expectations. However, what is the mechanism that SPIs transform scientific knowledge into a policy? And how do the mechanisms link science and policy and further shape Taiwanese wetland conservation policy? This research delves into theories anew to understand the essence of SPIs and uncover their problem-solving mechanisms. Furthermore, these mechanisms are applied to the practical governance of Taiwanese wetland conservation policy to understand how they perform at different stages of policy development. The results aim to facilitate the practice of SPIs, and provide insights for the institutional adaptation of Taiwanese wetland conservation. Through literature review, this research explores the production of scientific knowledge, policy-making, decision-making, and the relationships between scientists and policymakers. The review found SPI relavant research aims to discuss two difficult questions of transdiscipline: boundary work and uncertainty. Beside solving present problems, this research specifically examines how SPIs solve the problems in the future to facilitate societal progress toward a sustainable future. The principle of ‘perceptibility’ is used to dichotomously divide SPIs into two general types: implicit ‘process type’ (P-type) and explicit ‘object type’ (O-type). And systematic and institutional perspectives are used to define SPIs as ‘the methods by which scientists and policymakers interactively solve specific environmental issues. The forms of SPIs evolve from implicit social process to explicit and perceptible objects or institutions in different contexts or stages of policy development’. Based on this definition, four types of SPIs—social process, boundary object, broker, and boundary organisation—are positioned along a spectrum-like ‘P–O’ axis to establish the core of the mechanism research. Meanwhile, environmental issues are also dichotomously categorised into ‘present–future’ to construct a hypothetical framework of problem-solving together with the P–O axis. Then the framework is applied to a dynamic reality of governance to observe how scientists and policymakers are influenced by discourse, authority, institutions, and resources in shaping an environmental policy, which is Taiwanese wetland conservation policy. The result concludes at least 16 functions of SPI’s mechanism for scientific knowledge transformation. In addition, the overall pattern of policy development of wetland conservation in Taiwan is a ‘spiral funnel’ in which issues evolve from vagueness to clarity and from divergence to convergence. In the emerging stage of the policy development, the pattern is ‘science-push’. In the stage of policy formulation, known as policy experimentation, scientists and policymakers interactively solved problems and accumulated institutional knowledge. In the later period of policy formulation and stage of policy legalisation, the pattern changed into ‘policy-pull’. The mechanisms of SPIs perform differently in each of the stages. In addition, this research also refexively discusses the implications among the results, theories, and governance reality and provides 5 suggestions for further research which are: 1. An analysis of ‘blue carbon’ and policy adaptation for wetland conservation, 2. An analysis of SPIs in vertical governance, 3. A comparative analysis of SPIs among different disciplines, 4. The governance and harmonisation of multiple SPIs in a policy, and 5. The possibility of ‘competitive-transdiscipline’ collaboration.