本文選題：政府回應(yīng) + 鄰避��； 參考：《上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：鄰避問(wèn)題是伴隨著城市化發(fā)展而出現(xiàn)的。隨著公民意識(shí)的覺(jué)醒以及民眾對(duì)于健康與環(huán)境的關(guān)注,越來(lái)越多的人在面對(duì)那些建設(shè)于或者將要建設(shè)于“自己后院”的鄰避設(shè)施時(shí),開(kāi)始產(chǎn)生抵觸情緒,進(jìn)而產(chǎn)生鄰避問(wèn)題。在對(duì)鄰避問(wèn)題的研究中,如何解決鄰避問(wèn)題是國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者研究的重點(diǎn)之一。諸多研究或是從理論或是從個(gè)案出發(fā),分別論證了政府對(duì)于鄰避問(wèn)題的應(yīng)對(duì),主要是從“經(jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)償,制度緩解,技術(shù)緩解”三個(gè)方面著手。但是具體到實(shí)際的案例中,部分地方政府對(duì)于鄰避問(wèn)題的應(yīng)對(duì)往往是沒(méi)有起到作用的,鄰避問(wèn)題的解決往往是通過(guò)“停建”或者“維穩(wěn)”的方式結(jié)束。為什么同樣的應(yīng)對(duì)辦法在不同的地方會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同的效果,在對(duì)案例進(jìn)行觀察的過(guò)程中可以發(fā)現(xiàn),這種治理效果的不同經(jīng)常與鄰避設(shè)施的類型存在一定的聯(lián)系。據(jù)此本文推論,不同類型的鄰避設(shè)施引起鄰避問(wèn)題的誘因不同,政府需要根據(jù)鄰避設(shè)施的類型來(lái)選擇對(duì)于鄰避問(wèn)題的回應(yīng)策略。為了驗(yàn)證這一假設(shè),本文首先對(duì)鄰避設(shè)施進(jìn)行了分類。根據(jù)鄰避設(shè)施的負(fù)外部性,文中把鄰避設(shè)施分為“環(huán)境污染型鄰避設(shè)施,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)潛在型鄰避設(shè)施,心理不適型鄰避設(shè)施”三類。通過(guò)對(duì)具體的六個(gè)案例進(jìn)行比較分析進(jìn)而發(fā)現(xiàn),在面對(duì)污染型鄰避設(shè)施時(shí),民眾往往會(huì)把健康以及周圍環(huán)境作為第一考慮,而在解決譬如變電站這一類的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)聚集型鄰避設(shè)施時(shí),民眾對(duì)于該類設(shè)施的反抗情緒往往是由于對(duì)于該類設(shè)施的科學(xué)認(rèn)識(shí)不足而產(chǎn)生過(guò)度的擔(dān)心。在處理諸如殯儀館這類的心理不適類的鄰避設(shè)施時(shí),民眾不再是從自身安全方面而是從更多是從個(gè)人心理感受方面考慮發(fā)起反對(duì)。基于這個(gè)分析可以得出結(jié)論,鄰避設(shè)施的類型決定了地方政府在對(duì)鄰避問(wèn)題進(jìn)行治理時(shí)的策略選擇。地方政府在對(duì)鄰避問(wèn)題的治理中,需要做到對(duì)癥下藥,針對(duì)民眾的主要利益訴求進(jìn)行針對(duì)性的回應(yīng)。從民眾的訴求出發(fā),才能更好的解決日益嚴(yán)重的鄰避問(wèn)題。
[Abstract]:The problem of neighborhood avoidance appears with the development of urbanization. With the awakening of civic consciousness and the concern of the public for health and environment, more and more people begin to produce resistance and the problem of neighbor avoidance in the face of the neighbor avoidance facilities which are built or will be built in "their own backyard". In the study of neighbor avoidance problem, how to solve it is one of the key points of scholars at home and abroad. Many studies either from theory or from a case, respectively, demonstrate the government's response to the problem of adjacent avoidance, mainly from the "economic compensation, institutional mitigation, technical relief" three aspects. However, in the actual cases, some local governments often do not play a role in dealing with the problem of neighborhood avoidance, and the solution of the problem of neighborhood avoidance is usually ended by the way of "stopping construction" or "maintaining stability". Why do the same responses produce different effects in different places, and in the course of case observation, it is found that the different governance effects are often related to the types of adjacent facilities. Based on this, it is inferred that different types of adjacent avoidance facilities cause different causes of adjacent avoidance problems, and the government needs to choose the response strategy to adjacent avoidance problems according to the types of adjacent avoidance facilities. In order to verify this hypothesis, this paper first classifies the adjacent avoidance facilities. According to the negative externality of adjacent avoidance facilities, the adjacent avoidance facilities are classified into three categories: environmental pollution-type adjacent avoidance facilities, risk potential adjacent avoidance facilities and psychological discomfort adjacent avoidance facilities. Through the comparative analysis of six specific cases, it is found that in the face of pollution-type adjacent facilities, people tend to take health and the surrounding environment as the first consideration. When dealing with the risk gathering adjacent facilities such as substations, the public's resistance to the facilities is often caused by the lack of scientific understanding of such facilities. In dealing with unwell neighbor facilities such as funeral parlors, people are more concerned with their own feelings than with their own safety. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the type of adjacent facilities determines the strategy choice of local government in the process of governance. In the governance of neighboring problems, local governments need to respond to the main interests of the people. From the appeal of the public, we can better solve the problem of neighborhood avoidance.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D630

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 侯光輝;王元地;;鄰避危機(jī)何以愈演愈烈——一個(gè)整合性歸因模型[J];公共管理學(xué)報(bào);2014年03期

2 孟薇;孔繁斌;;鄰避沖突的成因分析及其治理工具選擇——基于政策利益結(jié)構(gòu)分布的視角[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年02期

3 趙小燕;;鄰避沖突參與動(dòng)機(jī)及其治理:基于三種人性假設(shè)的視角[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年02期

4 吳翠麗;;鄰避風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的治理困境與協(xié)商化解[J];城市問(wèn)題;2014年02期

5 張樂(lè);童星;;價(jià)值、理性與權(quán)力:“鄰避式抗?fàn)帯钡膶?shí)踐邏輯——基于一個(gè)核電站備選廠址的案例分析[J];上海行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年01期

6 李修棋;;為權(quán)利而斗爭(zhēng):環(huán)境群體性事件的多視角解讀[J];江西社會(huì)科學(xué);2013年11期

7 徐祖迎;朱玉芹;;鄰避沖突治理的困境、成因及破解思路[J];理論探索;2013年06期

8 金艷榮;;重大決策社會(huì)穩(wěn)定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估功能淺析[J];長(zhǎng)白學(xué)刊;2013年02期

9 范少虹;;論“鄰避沖突”中的政府依法行政[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年03期

10 劉佳佳;黃有亮;張濤;;鄰避設(shè)施選址過(guò)程中公共參與方式選擇研究[J];建筑經(jīng)濟(jì);2013年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1855975