將未來土地利用模式與污染場址的再開發作連結,是目前美國污染場址處理政策所採取的途徑,雖然其受到一些的批評,但由於地方政府及民眾的廣泛支持,使得此政策模式將持續的被運用。透過污染場址處理政策的比較研究,本文探討這樣的政策設計其理由為何?其優缺點又為何?它是否有可能運用於台灣?台灣的污染場址處理政策是否也可與未來土地利用模式及制度管控作連結?可否由此來解決台灣的污染場址問題?例如,著名的桃園縣蘆竹鄉鎘污染場址及桃園縣RCA污染場址從污染發現至今不少皆仍然處於荒廢之中,環保署仍然堅持必須在污染場址整治完成之後才准予進行下一階段的土地開發,也就是說「整治完成」的定義仍是以技術標準來評斷,這種政策的選擇是否有變革的可能?什麼是決定政策變革的主要考量?本文透過美國經驗及台灣個案的比較研究來論述台灣污染場址處理政策的可能方向。
Remedial policies for contaminated sites in the United States have been gradually transformed from absolute cleanup to take into account the expected land use at a site when selecting a site remedy. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new policy directive on land use in May 1995. This directive specified that the EPA must consult with local land use planning officials and the local public during early remedial investigations to assist in developing a clear sense of the ”reasonably anticipated future uses” for contaminated sites. Probable future land uses should be considered when formulating cleanup objectives. Another approach for remedying contaminated sites is conducted through institutional controls. Such controls are fundamental techniques that have been applied in the US for the last 20 years. Can Taiwan adopt these approaches? Can Taiwan's contaminated sites policy be linked with institutional controls and consideration of future land use? Through a comparative policy analysis, the suitability of US reutilization policy and experiences for Taiwan are then examined.
為了持續優化網站功能與使用者體驗,本網站將Cookies分析技術用於網站營運、分析和個人化服務之目的。
若您繼續瀏覽本網站,即表示您同意本網站使用Cookies。