本研究旨在以社會影響評估(即Social Impact Assessment, SIA)概念與觀點，審視臺灣漁電共生環境與社會檢核機制(以下簡稱環社檢核)在地實踐情形，提出對該機制相關建議，同時回饋社會影響評估的方法論。
我國近年積極推動能源轉型，而過程中能源產業的開發在空間發展與使用上，持續與農漁產業競逐，甚至發生社會衝突；為了讓太陽光電政策順利推展，政府與NGO公民團體攜手於既有法規架構下，納入環社檢核機制做為區位盤點與社會溝通工具。該機制之社會檢核部分參考《社會影響評估：開發行為的社會影響評估與管理指引》一書；然而，實際於環社檢核機制中， SIA核心概念在機制發展轉化過程中並未完整落實；另外，在環社檢核機制之分級分區與議題辨認階段，高度依賴空間資訊技術的現況，使得社會面議題被探討的範疇，在過程中被篩選。針以上現況觀察，本研究經相關文獻回顧後，擬定以SIA的觀點與操作方法建構分析架構，透過文件分析、參與式觀察與半結構式訪談等研究方法，釐清臺灣漁電共生的政策形成背景與目標對環社檢核機制的結構性影響為何？以及臺灣環社檢核機制中有關社會檢核的部分，哪些面向與SIA精神的操作方法上有差異？其成因為何？
研究結果發現，當前環社檢核機制操作與SIA核心精神之評估具有落差，主要面向為：1) 環社檢核機制的核心為協助再生能源推動的操作工具，失去評估的中立性；2)主管機關與執行檢核者對社會影響的定義與理解有限，篩選社會影響項目之範疇；3)環社檢核機制中的民眾樣本無法有效指認政策權益關係群體；以及，4)環社檢核機制的參與設計之限制，使民眾參與機會少且對評估結果影響力小。

In recent years, Taiwan has actively promoted energy transition in response to the issues such as climate change. However, there were social conflicts occurring continuously during the process. In order to facilitate the implementation of the solar photovoltaic policy smoothly, the government revised ‘Article 29 of Regulation for Approval of Agriculture Facilities Usage’ in November 2020, incorporating the ‘Environmental and Social Inspection Mechanism’ into it. For the social inspection part, refer to the book " Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects ". However, in the early stage of this research, it was found that the ‘Environmental and Social Inspection Mechanism’ has a gap with the concept of SIA. In addition, because the design and application of the operations were highly dependent on spatial information, some social issues caused by the policy were excluded in the assessment process. This research constructs the research analytical framework which based on SIA and the issues of social data in GIS for examining the environmental and social inspection mechanism.
The results of this research found that there is a gap between the operation of the Environmental and Social Inspection Mechanism and the core spirit of SIA. The main aspects are: 1) The core of the Environmental and Social Inspection Mechanism is as an operation tool to assist the promotion of energy transition, making the neutrality of evaluation is lost; 2) The definition and understanding of social impact by the competent authorities and the manager of the mechanism are limited, and the scope of social impact projects is screened; 3) The ''public'' in the environmental and social inspection mechanism cannot effectively identify the stakeholders; and, 4) The limitation on the design of "participation" in the mechanism results in fewer opportunities for the public to participate, and the public has less influence on the assessment results.

英文文獻
Al-Kodmany, Kheir (2001). Visualization Tools and Methods for Participatory Planning and Design. Journal of Urban Technology, 8, 1-37. 10.1080/106307301316904772.
Ana Maria Esteves, Daniel Franks, & Frank Vanclay (2012). Social impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 34-42. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2012.660356
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-24.
Bettina B.F. Wittneben (2012). The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 15(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.09.002.
Center for Ocean Solutions (2011). Decision Guide: Selecting Decision Support Tools for Marine Spatial Planning. Stanford, CA: The Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25607/OBP-44
Creighton, J. L. (1983). Identifying publics/staff identification techniques. Fort Belvoir, VA: The Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Dorcey, A. H. J., and British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1994). Public involvement in government decision making: choosing the right model: a report of the B.C. Round Table on the environment and the economy. Victoria, B.C.: The Round Table.
Dunn William (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.
Frank Vanclay (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5-12. DOI: 10.3152/147154603781766491
Greg Brown, & MarkettaKyttä (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A Synthesis Based on Empirical Research. Applied Geography, 46, 122-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004.
Guba, E. G. (Ed.) (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage Publications, Inc.
Imran Khan (2020). Critiquing social impact assessments: Ornamentation or reality in the Bangladeshi electricity infrastructure sector? Energy Research & Social Science, 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101339.
International Association for Impact Assessment (2003). International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. IAIA Special Publication Series, No. 2.Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact
Assessment (1994). Guidelines and principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment, 12 (2), 107–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1994.9725857 Koellner, T., de Baan, L., Beck, T., Brandão, M., Civit, B., Margni, M., i Canals, L.
M., Saad, R., de Souza, D. M., & Müller-Wenk, R. (2013). UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(6), 1188–1202.
Kevin St. Martin, & Madeleine Hall-Arber (2008). The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning.Marine Policy, 32(5), 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015.
Le Cornu, E., Kittinger, J. N., Koehn, J. Z., Finkbeiner, E. M., & Crowder, L. B. (2014). Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning. Conservation Biology, 28(4), 902–911. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24480070
Madeleine Hall-Arber, Caroline Pomeroy, & Flaxen Conway (2009). Figuring Out the Human Dimensions of Fisheries: Illuminating Models. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 1(1), 300-314. DOI: 10.1577/C09-006.1
McLain, R., Poe, M., Biedenweg, K., Cerveny, L., Besser, D., & Blahna, D (2013). Making sense of human ecology mapping: An overview of approaches to integrating socio-spatial data into environmental planning. Human Ecology, 41, 651-665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9573-0
Mitchell, A. (1998). Zeroing in: geographic information systems at work in the community. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.
Munday P.L., Hernaman V., Dixson D.L., Thorrold S.R. (2011). Effect of ocean acidification on otolith development in larvae of a tropical marine fish. Biogeosciences, 8(8), 1631–1641. DOI:10.5194/bgd-8-2329-2011
Nain Martinez, & Nadejda Komendantova (2020). The effectiveness of the social impact assessment (SIA) in energy transition management: Stakeholders' insights from renewable energy projects in Mexico. Energy Policy, 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111744.
Natalie Corinna Ban, & Carissa Joy Klein (2009). Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning. A journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2(5), 206-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00071.x
Peter Newell, & Dustin Mulvaney (2013). The political economy of the ‘just transition’. The Geographical Journal, 179(2), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12008
Rambaldi, Giacomo, Kyem, Peter, McCall, Michael & Weiner, Daniel (2006). Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25(1). DOI:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00162.x
Rietbergen-McCracken, J., & Narayan-Parker, D. (1998). Participation and social assessment : tools and techniques. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.
Sairinen, R., Barrow, C.J., & Karjalainen, T.P. (2010). Environmental conflict mediation and social impact assessment: Approaches for enhanced environmental governance? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 289-292. DOI:10.1016/ j.eiar.2010.04.011
Terrapon-Pfaff, Julia, Fink, Thomas, Viebahn, Peter & Jamea, El Mostafa (2019). Social impacts of large-scale solar thermal power plants: Assessment results for the NOORO I power plant in Morocco. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 113. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109259.
Tulloch, D. (2008). Public participation GIS (PPGIS). In K. Kemp (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geographic information science (pp. 352e355). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc Accessed October 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412953962.n165.
U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service(1994). Guidelines and Principles For Social Impact Assessment.
Schlossberg, Marc, & Shuford, E. (2005). Delineating "public" and "participation" in PPGIS. URISA Journal, 16, 15-26.
Willeke, G. E. (1974). Identification of publics in water resources planning. Atlanta: Department of City Planning: Environmental Resources Center, Georgia Institute of Technology.

中文文獻
王俊秀、蕭新煌 (1990)。社會影響評估在台灣:回顧與展望。思與言, 28(4), 1-27。
王俊秀 (2001)。臺灣脈絡下的社會影響評估:環境社會學的觀點。應用倫理學季刊，20, 19-26。
林子倫、李宜卿 (2017)。歐盟能源政策之社會溝通與公眾參與：參與式治理的觀點。臺灣能源期刊，4(1)，1-16。
林金定、嚴嘉楓、陳美花 (2005)。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析。身心障礙研究季刊，3(2)，122-136。doi:10.30072/JDR.200506.0005
張政亮、王慶國 (2011)。應用社會影響評估於海岸地區經營之決策：以宜蘭利澤工業區之擴建為例。工程環境會刊，27，39-52。
莊翰華 (2000)。土地開發之社會衝擊評估之研究。中國地理學會會刊，28，39-54。
黃偉茹(2022)。台灣養殖漁戶在全球生產網絡中的生計策略。行政院科技部補助研究計畫(計畫編號：MOST 109-2410-H-006-085-MY2)，未出版。
潘淑滿 (2003)。質性研究－理論與運用。台北：心理出版社。
尚榮安（譯） (2001)。個案研究。台北市：弘智文化。(Robert K. Yin, 1994).
王鼎傑、何明修（譯）(2017)。《社會影響評估：開發行為的社會影響評估與管理指引》。台北市: 台大風險政策中心。(FrankVanclay, Ana Maria Esteves, Ilse Aucamp, & Daniel Franks M., 2015)
胡幼慧主編 (1996)。《質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例》。台北市：巨流出版社。
張可婷（譯） (2010)。《民族誌與觀察研究法》。新北：韋伯文化。(Angrosino, Michael, 2009)
陳盈宏 (2016)。質性取徑的教育政策研究品質規準及其促進策略。國家教育研究院電子報，106。取自：https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/edm.php?grp_no=5&edm_no=106&content_no=2470
何晨瑋民(2022/2/11)。台灣民主僅次北歐！但經濟學人「2021年民主指數」警告全球民主惡化中。 取自遠見雜誌：https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/86960。
我國農地種電亂象叢生監察院糾正行政院農業委員會、經濟部、經濟部能源局(2017/9/6)。取自監察院：https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=124&sms=8912&s=8147。
汪文豪(2014/11/17)。變相的綠電實質的農地掠奪農地種電肥了誰？。取自上下游新聞市集：https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/60941/。
林吉洋(2021/10/5)。捍衛漁場卻被控詐欺？雲林檢方大動作起訴抗爭漁民 法學專家：政府、廠商、漁民已三輸。取自上下游市集： https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/159683/?fbclid=IwAR35J2dfbeVGTVwwOGnEvob8SHGiSuqlnLFFd5xhdRNI1jO70da2ZxJBbls。
林良昇(2017/9/6)。「假種田真種電」亂象叢生 監院糾正農委會、經濟部。取自自由時報：https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/2185731。
林怡均(2021/5/12)。農委會公布養殖漁業白皮書，4年投87億拚產業轉型，2025漁電共生規劃一萬公頃。取自上下游新聞市集： https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/152031/。
陳仲興(2020/10/3)。政院釋2萬公頃農地種電太陽能業者將頭兆元迎利多。取自鏡週刊Mirror Media：https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20200928fin010/。
陳仲興(2020/9/29)。【太陽能強心針3】環團、太陽能業者兩方角力農地種電政策急轉彎內幕。取自鏡週刊Mirror Media：https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20200928fin009/
雲林縣政府建設處(2018/6/27)。嚴重地層下陷地區內不利農業經營得設置綠能設施之探討。取自雲林縣政府： https://economic.yunlin.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1518&s=233820
農委會(企劃處)(2020/7/7)。農委會鄭重澄清：農業綠能推動絕不會砍樹種電更不會滅漁。取自行政院農業委員會: https://www.coa.gov.tw/theme_data.php theme=news&sub_theme=agri&id=8145。
農委會企劃處(2000/2)。農業發展條例及相關法案修正重點。擷取網址：https://www.coa.gov.tw/ws.php?id=2302。
蔡佳珊(2019/5/16)。七股漁民怒吼，漁電共生掠奪農地，地主解約，養殖戶陷存亡危機。取自上下游新聞網: https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/blog/120135/。
蔡佳珊(2020/7/23)。光電侵農大調查：直擊上百案場，揭發四大亂象。取自上下游新聞市集: https://www.newsmarket.com.tw/solar-invasion/。
謝文哲(2021/5/12)。【蘇揆大掃黑】「綠能蟑螂」強索回饋金南市8里長遭約談。取自鏡週刊：https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20210512edi069/。
蘇彥誠(2021/1/6)。文蛤瘦到剩三分之一！漁電共生先行區急上路 威脅七股養殖命脈。取自聯合新聞網／ 天下雜誌：https://udn.com/news/story/6841/5149770。
經濟部水利署(無日期)。問題說明：(常見問題及Q&A懶人包)。取自經濟部水利署: https://www.wra.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=3731。
經濟部能源局(無日期)。為什麼要做環社檢核。取自漁電共生環社檢核: https://www.sfea.org.tw/Index。
經濟部能源局(無日期)。能源統計專區：能源供需。取自https://www.esist.org.tw/Database。
經濟部能源局(2019)。109年太陽光電 6.5GW 達標計畫核定本。取自https://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/ECW/populace/content/wHandMenuFile.ashx?file_id=7138。
經濟部能源局(2020)。環社檢核議題辨認階段操作手冊與案例。取自環社檢核全記錄：https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YgOBvp4tgXBB3LgWbKBHrITBXr2R0QUs。
經濟部能源局(2020)。高雄市及屏東縣預定可優先推動漁業經營結合綠能之區位範圍(先行區)規劃說明。取自：漁電共生環社檢核官網：https://www.sfea.org.tw/upload/Pingtung/先行區/0_會議資料/高雄屏東預定先行區規劃說明簡報.pdf。
農委會水產試驗所(2019)。漁電共生成果發表會手冊。取自
https://ws.tfrin.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMzk5L3JlbGZpbGUvOTIwOC8yMzA4MjAvZDc4ZGExMDctNGRmZi00MGFlLWE0ZTMtOWZlM2Y2MGViODdjLnBkZg%3d%3d&n=MTA4MTEyOea8gembu%2bWFseeUn%2baIkOaenOeZvOihqOacg%2baJi%2bWGinMucGRm&icon=.pdf
經濟部能源局(2020)。漁電共生非先行區環境與社會檢核議題辨認操作手冊。取自https://www.moeaboe.gov.tw/ECW/populace/content/Content.aspx?menu_id=14538
國家發展委員會(2014)。我國行政機關建立重大政策社會影響評估機制之研究。台北市：國家發展委員會。
李翰林(2021)。環社檢核發展脈絡及倡議經驗。《綠能發展vs環境與社會檢核機制認知培力工作坊南區場議程》會議簡報。荒野保護協會主辦，線上會議。
紀鈞涵(2021)。漁電共生申請程序與投資契約之交涉―自日商關心之角度出發。《太陽光電法律議題分享會》會議簡報。特許仲裁學會臺灣支會主辦，線上會議。