臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

當前在極端氣候與環境變遷的挑戰下，水患治理成為具高度爭議與複雜性的重要課題。本文旨在探討旗山溪治水爭議中，政府與相關組織之間的權力運作以及科學知識生產的動態互動過程。本研究採取文件分析法並針對相關政策行動者進行深度訪談，檢視政府單位、水利專家、地方團體與居民各自的知識宣稱。剷除高莖作物的知識論戰彰顯了權力與資源的不對等，以及既有法規標準的僵化，不僅使得農民被排除在水患治理的共同參與，更突顯治水政策的盲點。即使在水閘門的爭議中，因為政治權力的行使以及社會利益分配的因素，造成公民參與水患治理過程中的阻力；卵石護岸的工程施作上則充分顯示默會知識傳遞的困難，但地方公民團體仍以在地經驗與知識，挑戰官方的治水論述、工程慣性以及科學知識與政策的相互建構，透過學習學科領域專業知識與諮詢水利專家，積極參與水患的治理。個案除了突顯治水場域中不同知識的相互競逐，更展現了以在地知識脈絡為基礎，並結合治水知識，以發展適當的治水良方。

In the context of the challenges of extreme climate and environmental changes, flooding governance has become highly controversial and complex. This article addresses the exercise of power between the government and related organizations, as well as the dynamics of the scientific knowledge production process in the Chi-shan River flood control dispute. The research methods are consist of documentary analysis and in-depth interviews, which examines knowledge claims of stakeholders, including the government, hydraulic expert, local groups and residents. The dispute concerning the eradication of high-stem crops highlights the problematic asymmetries of power and resources, rigid regulations and standards, lacking participation of farmers, and a blind spot of the food control policy. Although in the sluice gates controversy, the distribution of social benefits as well as the exercise of political authority are the worst impediment to public participation; transferring tacit knowledge in rockery revetment is difficult, local citizen groups have still challenged the official discourse and experts’ knowledge claims based on local knowledge. Civic groups used their experience and local knowledge to challenge the government’s flood control discourses, technological momentum and the co-production of the scientific knowledge and policy making .Civic groups learned disciplinary expertise, consulted flood control experts, and actively participated in the governance of the flooding. The case highlights different types of knowledge competing with each other in flood control arena, and civic groups’ usage of context-based local knowledge combined with flood control expertise to develop an appropriate flood control approach. 　

第一章、緒論 1
第一節、研究緣起 1
第二節、研究問題 4
第三節、研究方法及章節安排 6
(一)研究方法 6
(二)章節安排 8
第二章、文獻回顧 10
第一節、科技、社會與水的研究 10
第二節、政治與知識的交引纏繞 13
第三節、科技社會研究與公民科學 18
小結、 22
第三章、研究個案 24
第一節、個案背景 24
第二節、爭議介紹 30
第四章、水患治理的知識論戰 37
第一節、高莖作物知識戰 37
(一)八八風災之前-法規的僵化 37
(二)八八風災之後 40
小結、 44
第二節、卵石護岸工程爭議 45
(一) 專家知識與在地知識-護岸工程攻防戰 45
（二）工程慣性下在地知識的挑戰 53
小結、 59
第五章、公民參與的困境與突破 61
第一節、獨斷的專家政治與科學權威 61
(一)水閘門爭議 61
(二)科學標準的操作化-洪患頻率的制定 65
小結、 72
第三節、公民參與科學的貢獻 73
小結、 77
第六章、結論 78
第一節、研究發現 78
第二節、研究限制 80
第三節、未來研究展望 81
參考資料 83
附錄一、訪談對象簡介 87
附錄二、訪談大綱 89

參考資料
A.中文部份

林宜平(2011)，〈死了幾位電子廠女工之後：有機溶劑的健康風險爭議〉。《科技、醫療與社會》12:61-112。
杜文苓、施麗雯、黃廷宜(2007)，〈風險溝通與民主參與：以竹科宜蘭基地之設置為例〉。《科技、醫療與社會》5: 71-110。
杜文苓、李翰林(2011)，〈環境資訊公開的民主實踐課題—以霄裡溪光電廢水汙染爭議為例〉。《台灣民主季刊》8（2）：59-98。
吳嘉苓(2008)，〈科學知識的生產與民主化〉。《科學發展月刊》423:6-9
周任芸（譯）(2007)，〈風險社會、不確定性和科學民主化：STS的未來（Brian Wynne演講）〉。《科技、醫療與社會》6: 15-42。
周桂田(2007)，〈新興風險治理典範之芻議〉。《政治與社會哲學評論》22: 179-233。
──── (2005)，〈知識、科學與不確定性—專家與科技系統的「無知」如何建構風險〉， 《政治與社會哲學評論》。13：131-180。
周桂田、黃維民(2010)，〈風險政治與災害治理：從八八水災反思災害防救的典範移轉〉。第二屆發展研究年會，台北。
范玫芳(2007)〈風險論述、公民行動與灰渣掩埋場設置爭議〉。《科技、醫療與社會》5: 43-70。
──── (2012)，從環境正義觀點探討曾文水庫越域引水工程爭議。《台灣政治學刊》，16(2):117-174。
湯京平、邱崇原(2010)〈專業與民主：台灣環境影響評估制度的運作與調適〉。《公共行政學報》35: 1-28。
彭渰雯、曾瑾珮(2012)，〈水治理之民眾參與：石門水庫整治經驗的反思〉。《風和日麗的背後—水、科技、災難》。新竹：國立交通大學出版社
程雅欣譯，Epstein, Steven. 著(2004)，〈民主、專業知識、和愛滋療法社會運動〉（Democracy, Expertise, and AIDS Treatment Activism）。《科技渴望性別》。台北：群學，225-256。
蔡淑玲 (2011)，〈政策網絡與政策規劃過程：湖山水庫興建環評個案分析〉。台南：國立成功大學政治經濟學研究所碩士論文。
蔡正松主編(2006)，《旗山鎮誌》，高雄：旗山鎮公所。
魯台營(2012)，〈公民參與決策機制試行於統合治水之可行性評估-以美濃水患治理為例〉。高雄：國立高雄大學都市發展與建築研究所碩士論文。
蔡宗憲(2003)，〈糙度對河川高灘地利用的影響--以高屏溪為例〉。台南：成功大學學水利及海洋工程學系在職專班碩士論文。
B. 外文部份
Alatout, Samer (2009) Bringing abundance into environmental politics: Constructing a Zionist network of water abundance, immigration, and colonization , Social Studies of Science 39(3): 363-394.
Bäckstrand, Karin (2003) Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance, Global Environmental Politics 3(4): 24-41.
Bakker, Karen (2012) Water: Political, biopolitical, material, Social Studies of Science 42(4): 616-623.
Bijker, Wiebe (2007) American and Dutch coastal engineering: differences in risk conception and differences in technological culture, Social Studies of Science, 37(1), 143-151.
──── (2012) Do we live in water cultures? A methodological commentary, Social Studies of Science 42(4): 624-627.
Blume, Stuart S.(1974 ) Toward a Political Sociology of Science, New York:Free Press
Collins, Harry and Robert Evans (2002) The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience, Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235-96.
Carroll Patrick (2012) Water and technoscientific state formation in California,”Social Studies of Science 42(4): 489-516.
Clarke, A. (1998). Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and" the Problems of Sex". Univ of California Press.
Cornwell, M. and Campbell, L. (2012) Co-producing conservation and knowledge: Citizen-based sea turtle monitoring in North Carolina, USA. Social Studies of Science , 42:101-120.
De Laet Marianne and Mol Annemarie (2000) The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology, Social Studies of Science, 30(2): 225-263.
Delamont, Sara and Atkinson, Pauln (2001) Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 31(1):87-107.
Fischer, Frank (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
────　　　(1990). Technocracy and Expertise: the basic political Question, in: Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise, London: Sage. P179-197.
Frickel, Scott and Moore, Kelly (2006) Prospects and Challenges for a New Political Sociology of Science,” pp. 3-31 in S. Frickel, and K. Moore (Eds.), The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.
Frickel, Scott, Gibbon, Sahra, Howard, Jeff, Kempner, Joanna, Ottinger, Gwen. and Hess, David J.(2010) Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting,” Science Technology Human Values 35(4): 444-473.
Guston, D. H. (2004). Forget Politicizing Science. Let's Democratize Science. Issues
Science and Technology,21(1): 25-28.
Honneth, Axel (1992) Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory of Recognition, Political Theory 20(2): 187-201.
Hughes T. P. (1987). The Evolution of Large Technological Systems in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 51-82.
Irwin, Alan (1995) Citizen science: A study of people, expertise, and sustainable development, London: Routledge.
──── (2008) STS perspectives on Scientific Governance,” pp. 583-607 in O. A. Edward J. Hackett, Michael Lynch and Judy Wajcman (Ed.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society,” Harvard university press.
──── ( 2012) We have never been modern, Harvard University Press.
Reed, Maureen G. and McIlveen, Kirsten (2006) Toward a Pluralistic Civic Science?: Assessing Community Forestry, Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 19: 591-607.
MacKenzie, Donald and Spinardi, Graham (1995) Tacit knowledge, weapons design, and the uninvention of nuclear weapons. American Journal of Sociology, 44-99.
Merton, Robert K(1942). Science and Technology in a Democratic Order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology. 1(1-2), 115-126.
──── (1973) The Sociology of Science,” Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nygren, Anja (1999) Local Knowledge in the Environment–Development Discourse: From dichotomies to situated knowledges, Critique of Anthropology 19: 267-288.
Orlove, Ben and Caton, Steven C. (2010) Water sustainability: Anthropological approaches and prospects, Annual Review of Anthropology, 39: 401-415.
Ottinger, Gwen and Cohen, Benjamin (2012) Environmentally Just Transformations of Expert Cultures: Toward the Theory and Practice of a Renewed, Science and Engineering, Environmental Justice 5(3): 158-163
Renn, O., Burns, W.J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E.,Slovic, P. (1992)“The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications, Social Issues 48:137-160.
Scott, Dianne. and Barnett, Clive (2009) Something in the air: civic science and contentious environ mental politics in post-apartheid South Africa, Geoforum 40(3): 373-382.
Slovic, Paul (1999) Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield, Risk Analysis, 19(4):689-701.
Wynne, Brian (1996) May the sheep safely graze?A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide, pp. 44-83 in S.M. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynee (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology. London: Sage.
──── (1996), SSK's Identity Parade: Signing-Up, Off-and-On, Social Studies of
Science 26(2): 357-391.
Yearley, Steven (2005) Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Studies of Science. London: Sage.