環境典範論述的興起,是源自於1970年代當時社會發展所造成的環境破壞問題,而人類又無法適當處理日益嚴重的環境問題,故社會學家開始探索人類社會與自然環境間的互動關係。由於環境主義的興起,社會科學領域相關學者相繼提出環境典範的論述。相較於環境主義,環境典範更可表現出個人到整體社會體系中的一種價值觀的呈現。 我國廢棄物處理政策的制訂,自1949年至今,從土地掩埋的方式轉變到以焚化方式處理廢棄物問題,全台的大型焚化廠若全部興建完畢總數將達到30座焚化廠,在這廢棄物處理政策制訂過程與焚化廠實施環評過程中,政府與民間是以何種環境典範角度去看待廢棄物處理議題,本研究的重點即在探索政府部門與社會大眾在制訂焚化政策與執行過程中所抱持的環境典範思考。 本研究採取文獻分析法針對焚化廠環境影響評估資料進行環境典範分析,以瞭解政府與民眾的環境典範面向。對於現今的廢棄物政策議題則採取訪談分析的方式來瞭解政府部門與民間反焚化政策團體的環境典範面向,並依據研究出來的結果來瞭解現今政府與民眾的環境典範面向。 本研究主要結論顯示,政府部門在制訂廢棄物政策過程中,是以主流社會典範的面向思考政策執行的有效性與穩定度,也對焚化處理技術有高度信心,故不認為後續會有廢棄物處理不當的問題產生。在焚化廠環境影響評估的過程中的公聽會則大多呈現出主流社會典範面向,審查結論則以新環境典範面向為主,呈現出政府部門在不同情況下其環境典範的思考面向也有所不同。 而民間團體則主要是以新環境典範的思考角度來質疑政府的廢棄物處理政策,故雙方在溝通對話時會有明顯的環境典範價值的衝突。另外在焚化廠的環境影響評估公聽會過程中民眾則是關心焚化廠的規劃與風險議題,期望政府能進行焚化廠的完善規劃以將後續的風險降至最低,呈現出明顯的新環境典範思考面向。 台灣地區近年來推行的廢棄物焚化政策與環境影響評估執行過程爭議不斷,開發單位與民眾的衝突亦時有所聞,故期望藉由本研究探索廢棄物處理政策面與焚化廠環境影響評估執行面的環境典範面向,來瞭解政府部門與民眾不同的環境典範思考模式,以作為日後發展適當環境教育的參考依據,並減少政府與民眾雙方因為環境典範價值的不同而產生衝突。
The environmental paradigm discourses originated in 1970’s, when environmental problems caused by social development were worsening. People were not able to solve the deteriorating environmental problems. Sociologists began to probe into the interaction relationship of the social-natural circumstance. Due to the spread of environmentalism, the scholars of social sciences were interested in the influences of environmental paradigms and developed some discourses. The environmental paradigms can reveal the values and attitudes of both an individual and a society toward natural environment. The policy of solid wastes treatment in Taiwan has gradually changed from landfill to incineration since 1949. The numbers of incinerators will reach 30 as they were fully established. During the processes of developing solid wastes policy and implementing environmental impact assessment (EIA) of building incinerators, what kinds of environmental paradigms did the government and public have? The purpose of this study is to explore the environmental paradigms of the government and public, while the policy of solid wastes was created and implemented. Documentary analysis was applied in this study. The EIA reports of incinerator projects were analyzed to understand the aspects of environmental paradigms of the government and people. In addition, an officer of EPA and some representatives of anti-incineration groups were interviewed to know their opinions on the treatment of solid wastes in Taiwan. The interview transcripts were analyzed further to explore the environmental paradigms of non-governmental organizations and government. The result shows the government adopts the DSP position, which believes in efficiency and stability, to develop and implement national solid waste policy. Obviously, the government has been very confident in incinerating technology and ignorant of air pollution caused by incinerating. The EIA hearing of incinerator projects usually showed the DSP aspect. However, the conclusion of EIA showed the concerns of new environmental paradigm (NEP). The government adopted different environmental paradigms in different circumstances. In fact, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) discussed the policy of solid wastes treatment from the perspectives of NEP. Regarding the solid waste policy and treatment, there are conflicts in environmental paradigms between the government and NGO. Obviously, public concerns with the issues of incineration plans and risks during EIA hearing of incinerator projects. They expect that incinerators can be planed carefully and risks can be reduced as less as possible. Public attitudes toward incinerators are NEP oriented. There are many debates on carrying out the incineration policy and EIA. The conflicts of government and public occur frequently. This study intends to explore the aspects of environmental paradigms on solid wastes policies and incinerators’ EIA, and then to understand the differences between the government and public. This study can be helpful for developing environmental education to reduce the conflicts of incineration policies, which are caused by different values of environmental paradigms of the government and public.