| Summary: | 碩士 === 康寧大學 === 資產管理與城市規劃研究所 === 99 === Abstract
Based on the electromagnetic radiation controversy that local people encountered at Chigu Weather Radar Station, this study tried to investigate each risk “frame” of various stakeholders involved in this environmental conflict. These stakeholders include people in the community, weather bureau officials, environmental groups, scholars, experts, and doctors.
The researcher used the qualitative research approach through content analysis of the related articles, newspaper accounts, secondary data, website information, field observation, and in-depth interviews to construct the frames of “risk discourse” among various social groups actors. The purpose is not only to clarify such controversies as a not-in-my-back-yard phenomenon or an issue of environmental justice, but also to find out the difference between the “risk-frame” among those actors. Besides, the characteristics of local people’s risk perceptions were examined as well.
This study found that the government departments regulated the “thermal effects” simply by the ICNIRP standard guidelines. On the other hand, the “non-thermal effects” still stayed at the “formulating” stage. Moreover, the content of the risk frames appeared to be uncertain and vague since human judgments had already added to the “criteria of risk” . The competition of paradigms in risk discoures occurred because the “criteria of risk” tallying with the “environmental suggested criteria” was regarded as safe and the harmful effects of the criteria of risk were deliberately ignored.
The IRGC framework of risk governance was applied to this case study: (1) pre-assessment, (2) risk assessment, (3) overall risk appraisal, (4) risk management, and (5) risk communication. These five elements of the frameworks functioned as strategic tools for data analysis in order to show the ideologies for both parties in dispute. Hopefully, through the same discussion mechanism, a consensus would be formed by both groups. Meanwhile, as for the health effects controversy over electromagnetic radiation, this research provided some observations. Risk governance and risk communication for new technologies in accordance with different stances between environmental risk awareness and risk frameworks were also discussed. Finally, the author provided suggestions for participatory risk governance from the viewpoints of post-normal science.
|
|---|
