- 學位論文
台灣空污治理的論述分析：空品物聯網與空氣盒子的競爭性論述研究
An Analysis of Competing Discourses between Internet-of-Thing of Air Quality and Air Box in Air Pollution Governance in Taiwan
摘要
空氣汙染與呼吸道疾病、心血管疾病、癌症等人體健康危害息息相關，空氣汙染的治理傳統上仰賴環保署中央測站的監測資料並進行汙染源頭管理，但因大型測站設置目的多為環境監測用且分布站點少，監測數據難以代表民眾日常生活承受之空污暴露情形。故從2013年起，陸續有公民社群及在地社區積極推動空氣盒子計畫，運用低成本感測器建立在地的空污資訊。而2017年，中央政府更將發展空氣品質感測物聯網列為前瞻基礎建設計畫之一。 本研究採取論述分析的研究途徑，結合文獻分析、專家及相關行為者訪談，探討台灣2013年至2022年空氣汙染治理中發展空品物聯網計畫之政策過程。本研究提出三個研究問題：空氣盒子的論述內容是如何演進的？空品物聯網計畫與空氣盒子的互動關係為何？低成本感測器的定位、空污標準及健康議題在政策過程中是如何被詮釋與論述的？ 研究發現，低成本感測器的推動者可分為兩大論述聯盟：第一是公民賦權聯盟，行為者包含LASS社群、2016年至2017年推行空氣盒子計畫的各地方政府、中研院資訊所。另一個聯盟是技術發展聯盟，是2017年由中央政府推動的空品物聯網政策的主導者，包含科技會報及環保署。 空品物聯網政策可說是兩個聯盟的對低成本感測器定位及用途的一場論述霸權競爭，空品物聯網政策透過建立物聯網產業鏈、由中央政府與地方環保局合辦佈建微型感測器、規範後續定期維修工作，藉由將感測器的生產、佈建及維護制度化以區分微型感測器與空氣盒子的不同，並認為微型感測器的應用價值較高。環保署推動空品物聯網政策的思維仍是關注汙染源、溯源執法、建立統一標準等管制與技術面目標，較少關注空氣品質資料的在環境教育、健康促進上的應用；對比公民賦權聯盟積極推動空氣盒子的脈絡則更多關注在污染對於健康的影響，重視民眾參與、公民賦權、對污染的認知及健康調適行為。 空氣盒子興起的背景本是與民眾參與及民眾資訊近用權等脈絡息息相關，且關注感測器在空污治理的應用，但空品物聯網發展的目標卻是以智慧稽查、智慧治理及技術發展為主，空污治理反而不是首要目標。隨著2020年校園空氣盒子計畫的結束，空品物聯網與空氣盒子的論述競爭最後是空品物聯網取得了建設低成本感測器的正當性。探究空氣盒子與微型感測器的互動關係，低成本感測器從原先促成科學協作的角色轉變為鞏固專家及政府權威性。
並列摘要
Air pollution monitoring has traditionally relied on monitoring data from the Environmental Protection Agency''s central monitoring system. Large monitoring stations are mainly set up for environmental monitoring purposes and the setting density is low. As a result, the monitoring data hardly can represent the air pollution that people are exposed to in their daily lives. Seeking a solution to the insufficient monitoring data, civil groups and local communities in Taiwan have promoted the air box project, using low-cost sensors to provide local air pollution data and information. Following this trend, the central government launched the Internet-of-Thing of Air Quality policy in 2017. This study adopts the research approach of discourse analysis, combining literature analysis, and interviews with experts and relevant actors, to explore the policy process of developing the Internet of Things and the relationships between Air Box and IoT from 2013 to 2022. This study raises three research questions: How does the content of the discourse about Air Box evolve? What is the interaction between the Air Quality IoT policy and the Air Box? How is the role of low-cost sensors, the role of air pollution standards, and health issues interpreted and discussed in the policy process? The study divided the actors of related low-cost sensors projects into two major discourse coalitions: the first is the Citizen Empowerment coalition, whose actors include the LASS community, local governments that implemented the air box project from 2016 to 2017, and Academia Sinica. The second coalition is the Technology Development Coalition, whose actors include the Board of Science and Technology and the Environmental Protection Agency. The formulation of IoT policy can be said to be a competition of discursive hegemony between the two coalitions over the positioning and use of low-cost sensors. By institutionalizing the production, deployment, and maintenance of low-cost sensors, the Technology Development Coalition differentiates between micro-sensors and air boxes. The Technology Development Coalition believes that the value of the application of micro-sensors is higher than the air box. The Environmental Protection Agency''s belief in promoting the IoT policy still focuses on regulatory methods and technical goals. Contamination control, law enforcement, and the establishment of unified standards are primary rather than the application of air quality data in environmental education and health promotion. Compared with the Technology Development Coalition, the Citizen Empowerment Alliance focuses more on the impact of pollution on health, emphasizing the importance of public participation, citizen empowerment, awareness of pollution, and health protection behaviors. With the end of the campus air box project in 2020, the discourse competition between IoT of Air Quality and Airbox drew a rest. The root of the rise of the air box is closely bonded to public participation and public access to information on air quality. However, the goal of the IoT policy is detached from this context. The policy emphasizes AI inspection, AI governance, and technological development, while air pollution control is not the primary goal. Analyzing the interaction between air boxes and micro-sensors, this article found low-cost sensors have been transformed from their original role of promoting scientific collaboration to policing the authority of experts and governments.