Thesis (M. Phil.)--University of Hong Kong, 2007. / Title proper from title frame. Also available in printed format.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / abstract / Physics / Master / Master of Philosophy

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 278-283). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1997. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1997. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

面對高度科技化、工業化及專業化的社會，風險溝通已是政府面對環境爭議時難以規避的課題。回顧台灣近年來各項環境政策所遭遇的激烈抗爭，顯現政府風險溝通的不足。近年來興起的審議式民主，強調在理性與互惠的前提下，讓公民針對議題發表不同意見，成為政府替代傳統風險溝通的另一選項。尤其對於亟需完善風險溝通的高科技議題-「核廢料處置」而言，審議式民主似乎為其帶來契機。本研究透過分析「核廢何從電視公民討論會」審議活動過程政府與民眾的風險溝通關係，以及會議參與者的深度訪談資料，探討審議式會議如何落實風險溝通理念，藉此瞭解並反思審議式民主在台灣的實踐及其能否成為有效的風險溝通機制。 研究發現，在理論層面，審議式民主與風險溝通理論有許多相通之處；而在實踐層面，審議式民主得以落實風險溝通四項核心要素：「雙向互動」、「資訊公開、即時及更新」、「轉譯為常民語言」及「利害關係人參與」；除此之外，與會者及相關人員亦受到審議機制正向的影響；但在此會議中民眾與政府間信任關係的改善程度有限。本研究建議政府未來進行風險溝通時，應健全溝通管道、有效連結「會議結論」與「政策制定」、整合資訊公開管道並縮短數位落差、及處理與核能政策連動問題，方能有助於低放射性廢棄物的風險溝通。 / Risk communication is an unavoidable task when the government faces a highly industrialized and professionalized society. In the past years, environmental policies the government proposed and the protests these policies triggered show the deficiency of the government on risk communication. Recently, the rising deliberative democracy that emphasizes citizen dialogue on the basis of equality, rationality and reciprocity, could become an alternative to traditional risk communication for the government. Especially for the high-tech issue--disposal of nuclear waste-- which is desperate for comprehensive risk communication, deliberative democracy seems to bring the window of opportunity. Through examining the case of “Where Would the Nuclear Waste Go?” TV forum, this study explores risk communication between the government and citizens, and discusses how deliberative forum realizes the idea of risk communication in practice and delivers risk knowledge. Furthermore, this study rethinks the practice of deliberative democracy in Taiwan and accesses whether it could be an effective risk communication mechanism. This study discovers that there is no contradiction between the practice of deliberative forum and the theory of risk communication. Deliberative democracy facilitates four core elements of risk communication: “two-way communication,” “information disclosure, in time and update,” “transfer into the language of ordinary people” and “the participation of stakeholders.” In addition, the participants and staffs were empowered positively by the deliberative mechanism. However, the improvement of trust between the government and citizens is very limited. This study suggests that when conducting risk communication for the low-level radioactive waste issue, the government should enhance risk communication channels, link the conclusions of citizen forums to policy making, integrate various information disclosure mechanisms, bridge the digital divide, and deal with the problem related to the nuclear energy policy.

本論文以台灣「低放選址政策」的信任問題為主題，採用文獻研究、調查訪談、焦點座談、問卷調查等多元研究方法，一方面參照並補充TCC模型作為理論架構，分析「信任」如何分別透過其知識與非知識屬性，影響台東與金門兩縣民眾的最終處置場設施接受度，藉以充實對公共政策中不行動面向之理解，並增加對非科學理性因素之重視。另方面，則綜合實證分析結果，並參酌近期國/內外選址的風險溝通經驗，探討「低放選址政策」如何納入重建信任的風險溝通模式，以協調科學與民主、專家與民眾在決策過程中的關係。研究結果指出，「低放選址政策」的信任問題，彰顯了過去人們用以確保政府機關不負所託的科學理性及專家決策模式，在現代風險社會中，不再足以讓民眾繼續作出授予信任的判斷，並在風險議題中合作。有鑑於在信任的分類與運作模式中，受價值相似性啟發的信任，主導了對科學證據與信心的詮釋。因此，對風險議題進行社會選擇的決策模式，必須能夠重塑集體的價值相似性，形成新的信任穩定機制。本論文乃建議一個重視「代表性、共同框架、決策影響力」的參與式對話平台，將可藉由政策審議架構，尋求在共享價值下，可被普遍接受的正義原則及解決之道，以提升「低放選址政策」的接受度與正當性。 / In this study, the author focused on the trust problems related to the “low radioactive waste disposal site selection” topic and adopted the literature review, survey interview, focus group, and questionnaire survey study methods. One of the objectives was to reference and supplement the TCC model as the theoretical framework to analyze how “trust” as well as its knowledge and non-knowledge attributes can affect acceptance for the final disposal site by the people of Taitung and Kinmen in order to enrich our understanding of the inaction in public policies and strengthen the emphasis on non-scientific rationality factors. The other objective was to incorporate the analysis and empirical results, reference the recent domestic/foreign disposal site selection risk communication experiences, and explore how to incorporate a trust rebuilding risk-communication method into the low radioactive waste disposal site selection, in order to coordinate the relationships between science and democracy as well as the experts and citizens throughout the policy-making process. The trust problems related to low radioactive waste disposal site selection discussed in this study highlight the fact that the scientific rationality and expert policy-making mode relied upon by the government agencies are no longer sufficient for the people to trust the government’s judgments or cooperate in the risk topics during the modern risk society. In terms of TCC model, trust inspired by value similarities drives the interpretation of scientific evidence and confidence. Therefore, the policy-making process that enable to risk-topic related social choice must be able to reshape the shared value and form a new trust stabilization mechanism. In this study, the author proposed a participative discourse platform that emphasizes on “representation, collaborative framing, and decision impacts” may adopt the framework for policy deliberation in search of shared values, as well as generally accepted justice principles and solutions, in order to enhance the acceptance and legitimacy for the low radioactive waste disposal site selection.

Although products of coal combustion (PCCs) such as coal ash are currently exempted from classification as a hazardous waste in the United States under the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now revising a proposed rule to modify disposal practices for these materials in order to prevent contamination of ground- and surface water sources by leached trace elements. This paper analyzes several aspects of EPA’s scientific reasoning for instating the rule, with the intent of answering the following questions: 1) Are EPA’s cited values for PCC production and disposal accurate estimates of annual totals?; 2) In what ways can EPA’s leaching risk modeling assessment be improved?; 3) What is the total quantity of trace elements contained within all PCCs disposed annually?; and 4) What would be the potential costs and feasibility of reclassifying PCCs not under RCRA, but under existing NRC regulations as low-level radioactive waste (LLRW)? Among the results of my calculations, I found that although EPA estimates for annual PCC disposal are 20% larger than industry statistics, these latter values appear to be closer to reality. Second, EPA appears to have significantly underestimated historical PCC disposal: my projections indicate that EPA’s maximum estimate for the quantity of fly ash landfilled within the past 90 years was likely met by production in the last 30 years alone, if not less. Finally, my analysis indicates that while PCCs may potentially meet the criteria for reclassification as low-level radioactive waste by NRC, the cost of such regulation would be many times that of the EPA June proposed disposal rule ($220-302 billion for PCCs disposed in 2008 alone, versus $1.47 billion per year for the Subtitle C option and $236-587 million for Subtitle D regulatory options). / text