摘要

目前ABC煉製廠對鄰里所實施之回饋措施與辦法大都為零星之睦鄰計畫，多年來雖然累積大量金額，但因欠缺較長遠、整體性的規劃而未能得到較大的具體回饋成效。
本研究工作以將問卷調查及訪談的方式，深入瞭解與ABC煉製廠毗鄰小港沿海地區6里居民之需求與想法，分析居民實際需求與ABC煉製廠的回饋措施間相關程度的強弱，瞭解ABC煉製廠所執行之睦鄰措施與民眾之需求是否相同，居民對睦鄰措施的接受度及執行效果。並依據系統性調查分析之結果，提出相關因應方案；經由研究對於不同居民型態，採取不同的睦鄰對策及方案，期望提升居民對ABC煉製廠的認同，增加居民對ABC煉製廠的瞭解與支持等。
實證結果得知，A里的「風險認知」、「信任」較弱，顯見A里里民對於ABC煉製廠的風險認知、信任不足，導致對ABC煉製廠的支持較低，因此需增加A里的風險認知及信任。增加風險認知的方案包含定期公佈環境監測資訊、不定期安排居民進廠參觀廠內設施及設備，讓A里里民能夠更加清楚瞭解ABC煉製廠整體運作，提高風險認知。此外，一戶每月總收入低於7萬-10萬的居民「回饋滿意度」、「環境生活品質態度」的分數較低，顯示收入愈低的居民愈迫切期望ABC煉製廠執行更多的睦鄰回饋措施，以提高當地的環境生活品質。

Abstract

The present measures and methods of beneficiary payments carried out by ABC Refinery is an incomplete good-neighborliness project. Although large amounts of funds were accumulated over a period of several years, due to the lack of long-term, complete and concrete planning, no beneficial effects could be achieved.

The study aims to profoundly understand the needs and thoughts of residents from six villages in Hsiaokang District, Kaohsiung, by using questionnaires and conducting interviews in order to analyze their feedback and determine their actual needs in relation to the beneficiary payments made by the ABC Refinery. It also aims to analyze whether the measures carried out by ABC Refinery can meet the residents’ demands as well as their acceptance and implementation effects. According to the results of a systematic investigation, related projects were proposed. The result was that different resident types require various strategies and programs for good- neighborliness. It is hoped that the local residents’ appreciation of ABC Refinery can be raised and more support and understanding received from them.

The results of a science laboratory showed that the risk recognition and trust were weak in A village; it means that since the residents of A village did not trust ABC Refinery, their support was therefore at a low level. Consequently, the risk recognition and trust in regard to ABC Refinery needs to be strengthened. The project for increasing the risk recognition includes announcing environmental inspection data on a regular basis or inviting residents to visit the facilities and equipment of ABC Refinery on an irregular basis. This would help the residents of A village to obtain a clearer idea of what ABC Refinery is doing, so that the risk recognition could be elevated. Furthermore, the degree of feedback satisfaction and the environmental attitude towards living quality for residents were quite low, particularly for those whose incomes are below the NTD 70,000-100,000 monthly level. It presents that the lower the income, the higher the demand. ABC Refinery should take more actions in relation to beneficiary payments in order to improve the local living quality.

目錄
目錄 i
圖目錄 ii
表目錄 iii
第一章 序論 - 1 -
第一節 研究背景與動機 - 1 -
第二節 研究目的 - 2 -
第三節 研究流程 - 3 -
第二章 文獻探討 - 5 -
第一節 鄰避設施之概念 - 5 -
第二節 影響鄰避現象之因素與解決對策 - 12 -
第三章 研究方法 - 24 -
第一節 實地訪談 - 24 -
第二節 問卷調查 - 26 -
第四章 睦鄰策略分析 - 32 -
第一節 理論基礎 - 32 -
第二節 分析結果 - 33 -
第五章 結論與建議 - 61 -
第一節 結論 - 61 -
第二節 管理意涵 - 64 -
第三節 建議 - 65 -
參考文獻 - 69 -
附錄　問卷 - 75 -

參考文獻
一、中文文獻
1. 王怡文、蕭新煌（2004）。「環境爭議性公共設施的回饋制度：對核一廠、核二廠及台中火力發電廠的分析」。都市與計畫，第31卷，第1期，頁65-90。
2. 丘昌泰 (1999)。「公害社區風險溝通之問題與對策」。法商學報，第34期，頁19-58。
3. 丘昌泰 (2002)。『從「鄰避情結」到「迎臂效應」：台灣環保抗爭的問題與出路』。政治科學論叢，第17期，頁36-56。
4. 李永展 (1994)。「如何克服『鄰避』（NIMBY）併發症」。人與地，第126期，頁24-31。
5. 李永展 (1995)。「鄰避設施對主觀環境生活品質影響之探討-以居民對垃圾焚化爐之認知與態度為例」。經社法制論叢，第16期，頁89-116。
6. 李永展、何紀芳 (1996)。「台北地方生活圈都市服務設施之鄰避效果」都市計畫，第23卷，第1期，頁95-116。
7. 李永展、翁久惠 (1995)。「鄰避設施對主觀環境生活品質影響之探討—以居民對垃圾焚化廠之認知與態度為例」。經社法制論叢，第16期，頁89-117。
8. 李永展 (1997)。「鄰避症候群之解析」。都市計畫，第24卷，第1期，頁69-79。
9. 李永展（1998）。「鄰避設施衝突管理之研究」。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，第9期，頁33-44。
10. 吳雅雯（2005）。「麥寮鄕居民參與公害糾紛環境運動之行為意向探討—以六輕為例」。國立台中教育大學環境教育研究所碩士論文。
11. 侯錦雄（1997）。「由居民環境態度觀點探討不寧適公共設施的環境衝突-以臺中市垃圾焚化廠設置過程為例」。中國園藝，第43卷，第3期，頁208-224。
12. 紀駿傑、蕭新煌 (2003)。「當前台灣環境正義的社會基礎」。國家政策季刊。第2卷，第3期，頁169-180。
13. 曾明遜 (1994)。「淺論鄰避設施的風險知覺」。人與地，第126期。
14. 劉錦添 (1989)。「污染性設施設置程序之研究」。台北，行政院經濟建設委員會健全經社法規工作小組。
15. 蕭代基 (1996)。「汙染性設施之設置與居民信心之建立」。台灣經濟預測與政策，第27卷，第1期，頁39-51。
16. 藍正朋 (2002)。「從環評制度論片面終止濱南工業區開發案」。財團法人國家政策研究基金會。

【其它】
1. 施信民 (2007)。「台灣的環保運動史料彙編」。國史館
2. 台塑石化股份有限公司，http://www.fpcc.com.tw/six/six_1.asp
3. 何明修 (2007)。「台灣環境運動二十歲」。南方電子報，http://www.esouth.org/modules/wordpress/?p=75 (1/4)。
4. 吳明隆 (2004)。「SPSS統計實務應用」。台北市：文魁資訊出版社。
5. 吳明隆 (2003)。「SPSS統計英用學習實務：問卷分析與應用統計」。台北市：知城數位科技。
6. 林傑斌 (2001)。「SPSS與統計模式建構」。台北市：文魁資訊出版社。
7. 周君琳 (2008)。『台灣最「輕」的重工業－麥寮居民六輕體驗營』。公民新聞台，http://www.peopo.org/portal.php?op=viewPost&articleId=16214 (5/14)。
8. 侯承旭 (2007)。「政策回顧�當年…後勁反五輕迫政院成諾遷廠」。自由時報，http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2007/new/oct/29/today-fo2.htm (10/29)。
9. 陳劍霞 (2009)。「濱南工業區開發計劃終於走入歷史」中華日報，http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/twjcshieh/article?mid=761&next=233&l=f&fid=12 (9/19)。
10. 張瓊霞 (1996)。「台灣歷史辭典－四劃－反拜耳事件」。聯合報，http://nrch.cca.gov.tw/ccahome/website/site20/contents/004/cca220003-li-wpkbhisdict000443-0173-u.xml (8/17)。
11. 張瓊霞 (1996)。「台灣歷史辭典－四劃－反拜耳事件」。聯合報，http://nrch.cca.gov.tw/ccahome/website/site20/contents/004/cca220003-li-wpkbhisdict000443-0173-u.xml (8/17)。
12. 張瑤瑤 (2005)。「保衛鹿港抵禦“杜邦”」。南方都市報，http://www.esouth.org/modules/wordpress/?p=75 (10/28)。
13. 楊宗興、楊育青 (2008)。「次長快閃展五輕遷廠誠意？後勁居民結束221天為場抗爭」。苦勞網，http://new.coolloud.org.tw/node/25341 (8/15)。
14. 經濟部能源局-能源報導資訊網，http://energymonthly.tier.org.tw/outdatecontent.asp?ReportIssue=9509&Page=20
15. 劉建邦 (2009)。「鄰避設施，學者促建立補償?皏[強溝通」。中央社，http://n.yam.com/cna/fn/200910/20091001119278.html (10/1)。

二、英文文獻
1. Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., and Engel, J.F. (2001). “Consumer Behavior,” 9th Ed.Harcourt, Inc.
2. Cardozo, R. N. (1965), “An Experimental Study of Customer Effort, Expectation and Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 2(3), pp.244-249.
3. Churchill, G. A., and Suprenant C. (1982), “An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing research, 19(4), pp.491-504.
4. Chung, J. B., and Kim, H. K. (2009), “Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility,” Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, pp.8-16.
5. Cardozo, R. N. (1965), “An Experimental Study of Customer Effort, Expectation and Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research, 2(3), pp.244-249.
6. Dear, M. (1992), “Underatanding and Orercoming the NIMBY Symdrome,” Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, 58, pp.288–300.
7. Drucker, P. (1950), “The New Society,”.
8. Dorfman, P. W. (1979), “Measurement and Meaning of Recreation Satisfaction:A Case Study In Camping,” Environment And Behavior, 11(4), pp.483-510.
9. Eiser, J. R., Stafford, T., Henneberry, J., and Catney, P. (2007), “Risk perception and trust in the context of urban brownfields,” Environmental Hazards, 7, pps.150-156.
10. Guilford, J. P. (1965), “Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education,” New-York.
11. Groothuis, P. A., Groothuis, J. D., and Whitehead, J. C. (2008) “Green vs. Green: Measuring the Compensation Required to Site Electrical Generation Windmills in a Viewshed,” Energy Policy, 36(4), pp.1545-1550.
12. Groothuis, P. A., and Miller, G. (1994), “Locating Hazardous Waste Facilites: The Influence of NIMBY Beliefs,” American Journal of Economics and Socialogy, 53(3), pp.335-346.
13. Jenkins-Smith, H., and Kunreuther, H. (2001), “Mitigation and Benefits Measures as Policy Tools for Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities:Determinants of Effectiveness and Appropriateness,” Risk Analysis, 21(2), pp.371-382.
14. Kaiser, H. F. (1974), “An idea of factorial simplicity,”Psychometrika, 39(7), pp.31-36.
15. Kasperson, R., Goldin, D., and Tules, S. (1992), “Social distrust as a factor in sitinghazardous facilities and communicating Risk, The Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), pp.161-187.
16. Kunreuther, H., and Easterling, D. (1996), “The Role of Compensation in Siting Hazardous Facilities,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(4), pp.601-622.
17. Kotler, P., and Armstrong, G. (1991) “Principles of Marketing,” 5th Edition.Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
18. Kotler, P. (1994), “Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,Implementation, And Control,” Prentice Hall, Inc.
19. Kotler, P., and Armstrong, G. (1997), “Marketing An Introduction,” Prentice Hall, Inc.
20. Lake, R. W. (1993), “Planners’ Alchemy Transforming NIMBY to YIMBY,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(2), pp.87-93.
21. Lesbirel, S. H. (2000), “Markets, Morals and Nuclear Power: the Politics of Risk-Benefit Trade-off in Japan” (Unpublished Paper).
22. Manning, R. E. (1986), “Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction,” Oregon: Oregan State University Press.
23. McCarthy, E. J. (1981), “Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach,” Homewood, Illinois : Richard D. Irwin.
24. Oliver, R. L. (1981), “Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings,” Journal of Retailing, 57(3), pp.25-18.
25. O'Hare, M. (1977), “Not on My Block You Don’t: Facility Siting and the StrategicImportance of Compensation,” Public Policy, 24(4), pp.407-458.
26. Park, D. B., and Yoon, Y. S. (2009), “Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study, Tourism Management, 30, pp.99-108.
27. Pol, E., Masso, A. D., Castrechini, A., and Bonet, M. R. (2006) “ Psychological parameters to understand and manage the NIMBY effect,” Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 56, pp.43-51.
28. Smith, W. R. (1956) “Product Differentiation and MarketSegmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, 1(12), pp.3-8.
29. Schiffman, L. G., and Kanuk, L. L. (2000). “Consumer Behavior,” 15ed Prentice Hall.
30. Tacq, J. (1997), “Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Social Science Research,” London:SAGE.
31. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), “Measuring the involvement construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12, pp.341-352.
32. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., and Parasuraman, A. (1996), ” The behavioral consequences of service quality,” Journal of Marketing, 60, pp.31-46.