| Summary: | 碩士 === 康寧大學 === 資產管理與城市規劃研究所 === 101 === Focusing on the present status and effects of the neighboring return mechanisms associated with the No. 6 Naphtha Cracker Project of the Formosa Plastics Group in Taiwan (“the project”), this research will start from collecting the local residents’ reaction and opinions in order to understand the present problems arising from the project and seek a reasonable and appropriate framework that fits in with the local residents’ needs for a thorough discussion regarding the public expectation value and satisfaction of the project.
By using the stratified sampling method, 400 household sample questionnaires were conducted and 365 valid questionnaires that yield valid results were retrieved, resulting a 91.25% effective response rate. Through the statistical analysis, this research deduced from those questionnaires and reached several conclusions. First, this research found that the local residents have low expectation value but high satisfaction on the topics of “The Subsidy for the Disadvantaged in the Community” and “The Infrastructure in the Community.” Second, the local residents have both low expectation value and satisfaction on the topics of “The Arising Issues of the Agriculture and Fishery Industry” and “The Subsidy for the Community.” Finally, the local residents have high expectation value but low satisfaction on the topic of “The Support for the Medicaid,” which this research considered a top priority for further improvement. The result indicates that the local residents are getting aware not only of the environment and health hazards but also the finance risks associated with the project. Because these hazards and risks tremendously affected the local residents’ living qualities and health, the local residents have more and more crisis consciousness, demonstrating their hope that the project can offer the best support for the Medicaid. Finally, the result of the IPA analysis of the detailed factors showed that five groups fall within the “For Further Improvement Area,” which are “Waste Disposal Assistance,” “The Relief Fund for Low Income Households,” “The School Nutritious Breakfast Program,” “Transit Fare Assistance,” and “Schools Repair and Rebuilding after Earthquake.” The reasons are as follow:
1.Waste Disposal Assistance: the office hour of the recycling plant of the project conflicts with the local residents’ working hours and caused great inconvenience.
2.The Relief Fund for Low Income Households: Although the project’s holiday benefits can temporarily relieve the local residents’ financial difficulty, it will be more practical to provide them with more job opportunities.
3.The School Nutritious Breakfast Program: the Formosa Group claims that the 33 schools near the project are the only domestic school provided with free nutritious breakfast. However, the local residents further expect that all the school in the township could enjoy the benefits of this program.
4. Transit Fare Assistance: those who are entitled to this benefits are limited only to the high school students with local residency. The results indicates that the local residents are not satisfied with this benefits.
5. Schools Repair and Rebuilding after Earthquake: in addition to assisting the schools repair and rebuilding after 921 earthquake, the local residents emphasized that the Formosa Group should pay more attention to improve the learning environment and establish education facilities for the students.
|
|---|
