The Research of Environmental Impact Assessment and Consensus Procedure via Communicative Theory: a Case Study of Hushan Reservoir

• Main Authors: Jung-ming Wu, 吳俊民
• Other Authors: Kuan-chu Wei
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2011
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/96093496835957094562

碩士 === 南華大學 === 建築與景觀學系環境藝術碩士班 === 99 === 　　In February 12th, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency has finally set up the "Environmental Impact Assessment Review Observe Points". The public eventually have the right to attend open meetings of EIA process. Although they do not directly involve in the decision-making, the public have the opportunity to attend and speak on the scene. and for this small step, however; EPA has strived for over 20 years, which was the right time that national significant public works, industry and commerce prospered. The number of environment development assessment project has come to a peak, but the communication system build slowly, and the resistant event burst out frequently had impacted the whole society in many aspects. Taking environment assessment for a professional censorship, after all, what should we regard public participation character as? How can we create the situation of triple win? In current environment assessment procedure, what''s the validity of the reasonableness and legality of communication? How can we make it possible to approach to consensus? Every these questions is worth discussing deeply. 　 　　The theory of communicative action is the most significant creative viewpoint of a great German philosopher. Jürgen Habermas, has a quite profound discussion in the critique and argumentation to the instrumental rationality, inputting more concern of humanities and society and the communicative action between human to human, human to nature in our life-world, especially in the aspect of law which influences public policy, which is meaningful to the analysis of factuality and validity. This research uses Habermas’s communicative reason to probe the EIA process and the related. The main point is that we should build communication mechanism above the procedural rationality and pursue consensus in the values of our daily life. 　 　　I put forward four viewpoints that could be the reference for building the new EIA system. (a) Making “establishing communication ability” “argumentation of hearing” “Procedural Rationality” “environmental value priority” correspond to “comprehensibility claim” “truth claim” “rightness claim” “truthfulness claim”in the effective claim in the EIA process. (b). Making “opening” “participation” as the characterization of the university of EIA and putting emphasis on scoping to increase the level of propositional. (c).Transforming EIA to the regional language in intersubjectivity and promote deliberate-like consensus by ideal discussion situation. (d) Under the basis of background knowledge, people can grasp the value-choosing‘s foundation after critique and re-thinking from the external/internal nature and social environment while consensus comes from the identity of land ethic. 　 　　In addition to the theory above, I also chose the EIA process of the Hushan Reservoir which is near my hometown as the discussion object. After viewing all the documents, meeting record and related news, we can find that the opinion of building the reservoir or not has both appear after the Water Resource institution set up the developing plan. The difference includes: the reservoir will serve for the people’s livelihood or the industry? Would the reservoir promote local tourism? Did this water resource developing plan save the land subsidence or decrease the supplementary of groundwater? How is the developer’s security insurance and their emphasis on the environment and ecology? I cross-compare the comments of the EIA members with experts’ and further explore the intersubjectivity between them. In the end I will try to find out the appropriate condition of practice and process to reach the consensus of the slogan “communicate in rational and reach the consensus” for the EIA controversy.