嚴重的廢棄物處理問題，是現今施政的一大課題，而由於垃圾焚化相較於其他處理方式更能達到減量化、衛生化、安定化及資源化之目標，故成為未來垃圾處理方式之主流，垃圾焚化廠亦將陸續興建完工。但不可避免地，垃圾焚化廠亦會產生一些負面影響，往往被視為嫌惡性設施之一種，而形成設置上之阻力。 　　本研究之目的主要在藉由居民對焚化廠之認知、評價、接受程度、造成影響之感受，以及居民對焚化廠回饋地方措施之期望及其成效如何等相關課題之探討，以了解焚化廠設置形成阻力之原因所在，此外，並輔以相關文獻、專家意見及相關法規等資訊之整合，嘗試對降低焚化廠嫌惡性之可行方向提出建議，冀能對減輕日後興建焚化廠之阻力的有所助益，並期能確保民眾之生活環境品質。 　　本研究之重要結論與建議如下： 　　一、結論 　　　（一）民眾對於國內興建焚化廠之品質及二次污染控制能力仍缺乏信心，且居民預期焚化廠可能造成之影響通常會較焚化廠實際產生之影響大。 　　　（二）在居民願意接受焚化廠設置於其住家附近之條件中，以風險減輕方案最為居民所重視。 　　　（三）民眾對焚化廠回饋措施之認知程度愈高者，其對焚化廠接受程度愈高。 　　二、建議 　　　（一）在焚化廠風險減輕之策略方面，主管單位除了污染防治工作外，還必須了解公眾對風險的感受及反應，縮短政府與民眾在認知上之差距。 　　　（二）回饋措施（經濟誘因）有助於降低焚化廠之嫌惡性，故主管單位應加強焚化廠回饋措施方面之配置與宣導，以爭取民眾之支持。 　　　（三）適當的資訊回饋，可避免民眾對焚化廠之風險太過高估而增添不必要之憂慮，進而減輕其設置之阻力，故主管單位應適時提供民眾所需之環境資訊。 / The serious solid waste disposal problem is one of the challenges to the government policies. Landfilling is not a suitable solid waste disposal alternative in Taiwan, because of the high population density and the difficulty of acquiring land, At the same time, incinerators can help achieve waste reduction, sanitary disposal, stabilty, and resource recovery. Therefore, incineration will play an increasingly important role in the government's solid waste disposal plans. 　　Although incineration is one of the better approaches to dealing with solid waste disposal, it still has certain negative impacts on the quality of life. Therefore, it has been treated as a NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard), To some extent, NIMBYs are necessary to the community. The issue to be dealt with, then, becomes"how to find an equitable way to solve this dilemma." 　　This thesis focuses on three incinerators in Neihu, Wenshan, and Shihlin, Taipei. From the results of literature review, field surveys, data collection, questionnaires, and interviews, this study tries to explore the relationships between incinerators and the quality of life. This study also examines the effectiveness of compensation packages of these NIMBYs and people's attitudes toward incinerators. 　　The important findings of this thesis are as follows: 　　1.conclusions 　　　(1).Although most people have positive attitudes toward MSW incinerators, they do not feel confident about the quality of MSW incinerators and the administration's ability to control the second pollution. 　　　(2).People are more concerned with risk reduction strategies, rather than economic incentives. 　　　(3).The degree to which residents accept MSW incinerators will be affected by residents' knowledge about the compensation packages of Neihu incinerator area. 　　2.Policy implications 　　　(1).From the analyses we can see that people are more willing to accept risk reduction solutions rather than economic incentives. Therefore, if the government tries to increase the acceptance of MSW incinerators among residents, it should focus more on risk reduction plans. 　　　(2).Because residents are still lack of confidence about the quality of MSW incinerators and the ability of the administration to control the second pollution, the government should provide more accurate information to the public and guarantee the quality of MSW incinerators and the ability to control the second pollution. 　　　(3).If the government can provide some economic incentives to reduce the equity issues, the residents may be more willing to live closer to LULU facilities. From the analysis , we can see that economic incentives do reduce the NIMBY syndrome to some extents (even though not so much as risk reduction programs). Therefore, in addition to the pollution prevention and risk reduction programs, the government should also reinforce and provide more information about the compensation packages.

驅逐黑暗、迎來光明，是變電所最重要的任務，但它往往被歸類為鄰避設施，不為使用者所接受。變電所引發的風險疑慮，無論是環境、健康等，儘管尚無法以科學實證其因果關係，卻深深烙印人心；加上不甚透明且缺乏參與機制的規劃方式，致使變電所選址過程抗爭不斷。 現代社會可說是充滿風險的社會，也就是德國學者貝克所謂的「風險社會」。風險不分階級、貧富，充斥在我們身旁，引發無聲且無形的恐懼。高科技雖然帶來生活便利，但也帶來前所未有的新風險—科技風險。既然風險是現代社會非常重要且切身的課題，如何以風險的視角來解構變電所選址過程，便成為本文的論述主軸。 現行變電所用地之規劃方式，主要是依據都市計畫(土地使用管制)及電力負載預測結果來選擇變電所設置地點；變電所用地的使用項目與內容，則取決於是否辦理多目標使用。然而，土地使用管制之僵固性及電力負載預測結果的不確定性卻造成變電所選址過程必須面臨規劃方式、民眾抗爭、風險分配等三方面困境，使得變電所選址困難重重。 規劃部門、電力公司與民眾能否「共同面對」變電所選址在規劃方式、民眾抗爭、風險分配等三方面的困境，尋求變電所土地使用管制內容再定位並融合民眾參與機制（儘管民眾參與並非萬能），使變電所選址過程掙脫規劃方式的枷鎖，將是降低變電所選址抗爭且形成風險分配共識的必要方向，也才是風險社會中變電所選址的最佳出路。 / The primary function of a substation is to expel the darkness and usher in light. However, it is usually classified as NIMBY facilities and not welcomed by public. People are constantly worried and even feared by nearby substations, although there is neither scientific evidence to prove that substations are harmful nor directly caused any disease. Moreover, substation siting procedure is less transparent and lack of participatory mechanisms during the planning stage, resulting in protests against substation during the siting process. Modern society is full of risks as described by German sociologist Dr. Ulrich Beck in “Risk society.” Risks are around us all the times, regardless of class or wealth. It creates silent and invisible fears. Modern high-tech life style provides convenience but technology also brings unprecedented new risks - technological risks. Since technological risk is an important issue and it can affect anyone in modern society, this article will discuss the risks involved by deconstructing the substation siting procedure. The existing substation siting models are based on the designation of urban plan and the results of power load forecast; the land-use projects of substation are depended on the content of multi-objective land-use. The rigidity of zoning and the uncertainty of power load forecast results plight in substation siting procedure at three situations: approach to planning, public protests and risk allocation, also makes substation siting much difficult. Although public participation is not the magic bullet, substation siting zoning restriction can be unlocked by combining public participation with land use re-position. The best approach to prevent protest against substation siting process and reach consensus in risk distribution is to have planning departments, power companies and the community seeking solution together.