Environmental Justice focuses on the fairness of how environmental burdens and benefits are distributed. In Taiwan, environmental problems generated during industrial development often concentrate in specific regions and among particular groups, creating a phenomenon of “environmental inequality.” From waste incinerators and nuclear waste disposal to petrochemical industrial parks, these necessary yet risky facilities repeatedly spark NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) disputes, reflecting deep contradictions in how environmental risk is allocated in Taiwanese society.
Theoretical Foundations of Environmental Justice
Unequal Distribution of Environmental Burdens
The core concept of environmental justice is “distributional fairness.” Ideally, environmental benefits (such as clean air and pleasant scenery) and environmental burdens (such as polluting facilities and health risks) should be evenly distributed. In reality, burdens tend to cluster in certain areas, usually economically disadvantaged communities with limited political influence.
Taiwan’s distribution of environmental burdens is markedly uneven. The Sixth Naphtha (Sixth Petrochemical) Complex is located in Mailiao Township, Yunlin County, an area dominated by agriculture and fisheries with relatively low household incomes. Kaohsiung’s coastal industrial zone sits in Xiaogang District, a densely populated area with limited political clout. This pattern reflects the “least resistance principle”—polluting facilities tend to be sited where opposition is weakest.
Procedural Justice and Participation Rights
Beyond distributive fairness, environmental justice emphasizes “procedural justice,” meaning all affected groups should have equal opportunities to participate in environmental decision‑making. Taiwan’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system has long prioritized technical assessment while neglecting public participation.
Residents often learn of a facility only after its location has been decided, lacking any chance for pre‑decision involvement. Even when public hearings are held, they are frequently perfunctory, and public opinion rarely influences outcomes. This “decide first, communicate later” model is a major driver of NIMBY conflicts.
Intergenerational Justice and Risk Bearing
Environmental justice also concerns fairness across generations. Nuclear waste has half‑lives of tens of thousands of years; contemporary society enjoys the benefits of nuclear power while future generations bear the risks. Likewise, industrial development brings economic growth, but its environmental costs can persist for decades.
Indigenous peoples’ traditional territories are often chosen as waste disposal sites, such as nuclear waste storage on Lanyu and mountain‑area landfills. These decisions were frequently made when indigenous communities lacked political voice, yet their impacts endure, constituting a form of “colonial environmentalism.”
NIMBY Dilemmas in Waste Management
Incinerator Siting Disputes
The construction of Taiwan’s waste incinerators has been riddled with NIMBY resistance. During the 1990s “one incinerator per county/city” policy, almost every incinerator faced strong opposition. The protest against the Xindian An‑Kang incinerator was especially intense; local residents formed a self‑help association and waged a ten‑year opposition campaign.
Opposition arguments included health risks, declining property values, and reduced quality of life. Dioxin emissions were the chief concern; although newer incinerators have reduced dioxin output to extremely low levels, public fear of “toxins” remains hard to dispel. The “don’t build it in my backyard” sentiment is understandable, yet waste still needs a place for treatment.
The government attempted to resolve the dispute with compensation funds. Townships hosting incinerators receive a rebate of several dozen New Taiwan dollars per ton of waste for local construction projects. However, monetary compensation cannot fully allay concerns about environmental risk, and the fairness of the rebate mechanism is also questioned.
Inter‑County Waste Transfer
Taipei’s waste is sent to New Taipei for treatment, and New Taipei’s waste is sent to Taoyuan, creating a “waste travel” phenomenon. While this cross‑regional handling eases immediate pressures for each municipality, it also generates new inequities.
Remote mountain landfills become the final destination for urban waste. Townships such as Wulai, Sanxia, and Shiding—sparsely populated with limited political influence—are often earmarked for landfills. Local residents protest, asking, “Why must we bear the waste generated by city dwellers?”
The allocation of waste‑treatment fees is also unfair. Waste‑producing counties pay processing fees, yet the counties that bear the environmental risk receive compensation that is often disproportionate. The “beneficiary‑pays” principle is difficult to implement in inter‑county waste management.
Class Differences in Resource Recycling
Waste‑reduction policies affect socioeconomic groups differently. Middle‑ and high‑income households can afford products with less packaging, generating less waste. Low‑income families tend to purchase cheaper goods with more packaging, producing larger waste volumes.
The burden of recycling is also uneven. Street scavengers—often economically vulnerable elderly people—perform hazardous, dirty recycling work for meager earnings. Meanwhile, wealthier households enjoy cleaner environments without bearing the labor costs of recycling.
Community Controversies over Nuclear Waste Disposal
Lanyu Nuclear Waste Incident
The Lanyu nuclear waste storage site is a classic case of Taiwan’s environmental‑justice disputes. In 1982, Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) established a low‑level radioactive waste storage facility on Lanyu without adequately informing the local Tao (Yami) people of radiation risks. It was then described as a “fish‑canning factory,” and the Tao accepted the waste unknowingly.
The incident highlights multiple injustices: ethnic injustice (exploiting indigenous vulnerability), intergenerational injustice (risk persisting for centuries), informational injustice (concealing real hazards), and procedural injustice (lack of genuine informed consent).
The Tao’s resistance has continued for four decades. They demand the removal of nuclear waste and the restoration of ancestral lands. The slogan “Nuclear waste out of Lanyu” is not only an environmental demand but also a claim for indigenous self‑determination. Although the government pledged relocation, the final disposal site remains unresolved, and the waste remains on Lanyu.
Dilemma of Selecting a Final Disposal Site
High‑level nuclear waste requires geologically stable deep‑geologic repositories. Taipower commissioned the Chung‑Hsing Engineering Corp. to conduct geological surveys; sites in Jinshan, Wanli, and Penghu were considered, but all faced strong opposition.
Public fear of nuclear waste is understandable, yet the reality that “someone must bear the burden” cannot be ignored. Countries such as Sweden and Finland have addressed site selection through volunteer communities, generous compensation, and transparent decision‑making, but Taiwan’s weak trust base makes replicating those models difficult.
The criteria for candidate sites also spark controversy. Technical safety is essential, but social acceptance is equally important. Selecting sites solely on geological grounds while ignoring local opposition inevitably provokes protest. Balancing technical rationality with social rationality is a key policy challenge.
Fair Burden of Nuclear Decommissioning
Taiwan’s three nuclear power plants are being decommissioned, generating large volumes of low‑level waste. Disposal of this waste also raises environmental‑justice concerns. Most nuclear plants are located in the north, supplying electricity primarily to the Taipei‑New Taipei metropolitan area, while disposal sites may be sited in other counties.
Decommissioning costs are borne by the entire population, yet environmental risks concentrate in specific locales. This pattern of socializing costs while localizing risks exemplifies environmental injustice in nuclear policy. Innovative institutional designs are needed to ensure that beneficiaries share corresponding responsibilities.
Environmental Burdens of the Petrochemical Industry
Health Risks of the Sixth Petrochemical Complex
The Sixth Petrochemical Complex in Mailiao, Yunlin, is Taiwan’s largest petrochemical hub, with an annual output exceeding NT$2 trillion. However, the complex imposes severe environmental burdens: air, water, and soil pollution, as well as health risks.
Research by the National Taiwan University College of Public Health found that cancer incidence among residents near the complex is significantly higher than the national average—lung and liver cancers are 20–30 % above average. Children’s asthma and allergy rates are also markedly elevated. These health risks are shouldered by local residents, while economic benefits accrue to corporations and shareholders.
Air pollution from the complex spreads widely. Particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides travel downwind, affecting neighboring counties such as Changhua and Nantou. EPA monitoring data show that air‑quality indices in Yunlin regularly exceed standards.
Dalinpu Relocation Controversy
In Kaohsiung, the Dalinpu area is surrounded by petrochemical parks, exposing residents to chronic air pollution. The government’s Dalinpu relocation plan has progressed slowly, provoking resident dissatisfaction.
Compensation standards are a focal point of dispute. The government offers market‑price purchases of homes, but residents argue that the compensation is insufficient to acquire comparable housing elsewhere. Elderly residents are reluctant to leave their hometowns, while younger residents worry about employment prospects. Relocation involves rebuilding an entire community, not merely a property transaction.
Temporary housing arrangements during relocation also pose challenges. Schooling for children, medical care for the elderly, and commuting for work all need reorganization. The government’s resettlement plan lacks detail, leaving residents uncertain about their future lives.
Transparency of Environmental Monitoring
Petrochemical companies often conduct their own environmental monitoring, raising doubts about data credibility. Citizens demand independent monitoring stations, but interpreting monitoring data requires technical expertise that most laypeople lack.
The follow‑up supervision mechanism for EIAs is weak. Many industrial zones make post‑approval promises that are difficult to verify, and penalties for violations are insufficient. Public confidence in governmental oversight is low, deepening distrust of industrial facilities.
Citizen‑science monitoring movements have emerged. Organizations such as the Changhua Environmental Alliance and Yunlin Environmental Alliance have purchased monitoring equipment to conduct air‑quality measurements. While these grassroots efforts fill gaps left by official monitoring, they also highlight governmental regulatory shortcomings.
Social Distribution of Environmental Risks
Class and Exposure
Environmental risk in Taiwan is closely linked to social class. Housing near industrial zones is typically occupied by low‑ to middle‑income families because of lower rents and property prices. High‑income families tend to live in better‑environmented areas such as hillside residences or seaside villas.
Occupational exposure also varies by class. Blue‑collar workers—factory operators, construction laborers, sanitation staff—face higher environmental risks. White‑collar workers generally work in climate‑controlled offices with lower exposure.
Education level influences risk perception. Highly educated individuals are more capable of understanding environmental hazards and taking protective measures. Those with less education may underestimate risks or lack the financial means to relocate from high‑risk areas.
Urban‑Rural Environmental Gap
Urban areas enjoy higher environmental quality and public services: extensive public transport, more green space, and ample medical resources. Rural areas often bear the environmental burdens generated by cities—landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and coal‑fired power plants are frequently sited in the countryside.
Rural environmental monitoring networks are sparse, making pollution events harder to detect promptly. Limited medical resources impede timely response to environmental health risks. Farmers may continue cultivating contaminated land for economic reasons.
Urbanization also raises environmental‑justice concerns. Urban renewal projects often displace low‑income residents to neighborhoods with poorer environmental conditions. Soil remediation of former industrial sites is typically funded by the public sector, while the resulting land‑value gains accrue to private developers.
Ethnicity and Environmental Justice
Indigenous territories are frequently earmarked for hazardous facilities: mountain‑area landfills, nuclear waste storage sites, and large reservoirs all impact indigenous lands.
Water resource allocation also shows ethnic disparity. Indigenous mountain communities often lack safe drinking water, while downstream urban areas enjoy abundant supplies. The benefits and costs of water resources are thus unevenly distributed.
Indigenous environmental knowledge and management practices have long been overlooked. Traditional natural‑resource stewardship may be more sustainable than modern scientific management, yet policy attention remains limited.
Strategies and Institutional Reforms
Reforming the Environmental Impact Assessment System
The current EIA system overemphasizes technical aspects and underweights social considerations; the share of social‑impact assessment must be increased. Assessment scopes should include health risks, social disruption, and cultural impacts, with ample opportunities for public participation.
EIA committees need diversified composition. In addition to technical experts, social‑science scholars, local representatives, and NGO members should be included. Decision‑making processes must be more transparent, and public comments should be handled through a clear procedural framework.
Monitoring and follow‑up mechanisms require strengthening. Independent third‑party monitoring agencies should be established to regularly review the implementation of EIA commitments. Penalties for violations must be deterrent rather than merely symbolic fines.
Risk Communication Mechanisms
Effective risk communication should enable the public to understand and engage in risk‑related decisions. Information must be presented in accessible language, avoiding opaque technical “black boxes.”
A permanent communication platform should be created, not limited to the construction phase of facilities. Regular community meetings can gather public input and address concerns. Building trust demands sustained effort.
The media plays a crucial role in risk communication. Science journalists need better professional training to accurately report environmental risk information, avoiding sensationalism while respecting legitimate public concerns.
Compensation and Feedback Mechanisms
Compensation schemes should be fair and go beyond monetary payments to address community development needs. The use of rebate funds must be transparent and demonstrably improve local quality of life.
A health‑fund system could provide residents near hazardous facilities with health monitoring and medical support—regular check‑ups, subsidies for medical expenses, and research on health risks.
Consider establishing an “Environmental Justice Fund” to help disadvantaged communities improve environmental quality. Funding sources could include pollution fees, environmental taxes, and carbon taxes.
Civic Participation Framework
Strengthen the legal foundation for civic participation in environmental decisions. Enshrine the public’s rights to environmental information, participation, and oversight. Government information should be proactively disclosed, and public comments must be processed through a defined procedure.
Empower disadvantaged communities with participation capacity—provide legal aid, technical support, and organizational training so they can effectively engage in decision‑making.
Promote participatory budgeting for environmental policies, allowing citizens to directly influence the allocation of environmental funds, thereby enhancing democratic legitimacy.
International Experiences and Lessons
United States Environmental Justice Movement
The U.S. environmental‑justice movement began in the 1980s, focusing on the concentration of toxic waste facilities in African‑American neighborhoods. After three decades, environmental justice has become mainstream in federal policy.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created an Office of Environmental Justice to ensure that all policies consider environmental‑justice dimensions. Federal agencies must assess impacts on disadvantaged communities when formulating policies.
California’s SB 535 mandates that 25 % of greenhouse‑gas‑reduction investment be directed to disadvantaged communities. This “beneficiary‑first” principle offers a useful reference for Taiwan.
Procedural Justice in Europe
The European Aarhus Convention establishes rights to environmental information, public participation, and judicial review. Member states must develop corresponding legal frameworks.
Sweden’s environmental courts enable citizens to effectively seek redress for environmental rights. Professional judges, technical experts, and civil‑society representatives jointly hear cases, and judgments are binding on both government and industry.
The Netherlands’ EIA system emphasizes public participation. Citizens can not only voice opinions but also influence the scope and methodology of assessments. Assessment results must address the issues raised by the public.
Japan’s Risk Communication
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan intensified its risk‑communication system. A dedicated agency was created, risk‑communication specialists were trained, and standardized communication procedures were established.
Japan’s experience shows that risk communication is as much a trust issue as a technical one. Governments must acknowledge uncertainty and assume decision‑making responsibility to build public confidence.
Local governments play a pivotal role in Japan’s risk‑communication efforts. The attitudes and policies of local leaders often determine the success or failure of communication initiatives.
Outlook and Conclusion
Taiwan’s environmental‑justice challenges reflect deeper structures of social inequality. Addressing these issues requires tackling multiple layers of disparity—class, ethnicity, urban‑rural divide, and generational gaps.
Future challenges include: climate change intensifying uneven risk distribution, ensuring a just transition in energy restructuring, managing the social impacts of a circular‑economy shift, and confronting environmental‑justice dimensions of international trade.
Environmental justice is not merely an ideal but a practical necessity. Building fair, transparent, and participatory environmental governance will allow all citizens to enjoy environmental quality while sharing responsibility. This is essential for Taiwan’s path toward a sustainable society.
Democratic environmental decision‑making should rest on ample information, open debate, and procedural justice. No perfect solution exists, but a more equitable process is achievable. Realizing environmental justice demands cooperation among government, industry, civil society, and active participation by every citizen.
Further Reading:
Taipei's Smoking Rooms: The Breathing Glass Box in a Smoke‑Free City — Whose doorstep should host the smoking room, and would homeless people gather there: a street‑level NIMBY dilemma
Taiwan and Nuclear Power Discussion — The Tao people of Lanyu bear nuclear waste yet remain absent from the debate: the deepest NIMBY and environmental‑justice fault lines in nuclear discourse.
Tin‑Roof Houses — The Wenzaichun relocation case as a typical environmental‑justice example: pollution, demolition, and resettlement challenges of a 400‑hectare tin‑roof factory settlement.
Social Housing and Housing Justice — Policy aspects of housing issues: social‑housing supply and rental‑market reform.
Lu Hsiu-yen — From winning the 2018 Taichung mayoral race on air‑quality issues to concrete policy battles over coal‑fire plants, PM2.5, and energy transition.
Taiwan Climate Crisis and Net‑Zero Transition — Lanyu’s 97,672 barrels, nuclear‑plant 2025 referendum, three‑fold algae reef, geothermal 27‑fold gap: environmental‑justice fractures across each energy‑transition pathway.
References
- Environmental Rights Protection Foundation — Environmental law and public‑interest litigation
- Earth Citizens Foundation — Environmental‑justice advocacy and civic action
- Taiwan Environmental Information Association — Environmental news and issue analysis
- Green Citizen Action Alliance — Anti‑nuclear and energy‑policy advocacy
- Taiwan Wild Ambitious Ecology Association — Environmental law and policy oversight
- Kaohsiung City Chishan Association — Local environmental protection and community participation
- Changhua County Environmental Protection Alliance — Air‑pollution opposition and environmental monitoring
- Lanyu Tao Cultural and Educational Foundation — Nuclear‑waste removal and indigenous rights
- Executive Yuan Environmental Protection Administration — Environmental policy and regulatory information
- National Taiwan University College of Public Health — Environmental health risk research
- Environmental Justice: Environmental Risks for Disadvantaged Communities, Du Wen‑ling, Open University Press, 2012
- Introduction to Taiwan’s Environmental Movement, He Ming‑hsu, Qun‑xue Publishing, 2006