세치혀

정대연 문예운동사 2001 문예운동 Vol.- No.70

An International Comparative Research on Environmental Carrying Capacity among Islands

정대연 한국사회과학협의회 2009 Korean Social Science Journal Vol.36 No.2

The aim of this research was to analyze empirically environmental carrying capacity in three islands – Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) in terms of Environmental Impact (EI) and Ecological Footprint (EF) – on a comparative basis. The three islands experienced change in EI for ten years from 1996 to 2005, showing a trend of increase from 1996 to 2005. Hawaii was highest in the increase, showing 2.729 times, and followed by Jeju (2.129 times) and Tasmania (1.719 times). Jeju exceeds EF size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by –8.088 times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively. The size of EF the islanders occupy was different by the demographic and socio-economic profiles in each of the three islands. The factors impacting on the determination of EF size was also different by island. Such differences in EI and EF by island might be caused by many factors. ‘What factors arises such differences’ is another research question to be conducted. Another limitation inherent in this research is that the data used are confined to particular period of years the three islands experienced. This means that this research is based on a limited number of parameters, and measurement instrument has been partially developed. To determine EI and EF, assumptions would have to take into account a long list of parameters. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development within environmental carrying capacity. The aim of this research was to analyze empirically environmental carrying capacity in three islands – Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) in terms of Environmental Impact (EI) and Ecological Footprint (EF) – on a comparative basis. The three islands experienced change in EI for ten years from 1996 to 2005, showing a trend of increase from 1996 to 2005. Hawaii was highest in the increase, showing 2.729 times, and followed by Jeju (2.129 times) and Tasmania (1.719 times). Jeju exceeds EF size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by –8.088 times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively. The size of EF the islanders occupy was different by the demographic and socio-economic profiles in each of the three islands. The factors impacting on the determination of EF size was also different by island. Such differences in EI and EF by island might be caused by many factors. ‘What factors arises such differences’ is another research question to be conducted. Another limitation inherent in this research is that the data used are confined to particular period of years the three islands experienced. This means that this research is based on a limited number of parameters, and measurement instrument has been partially developed. To determine EI and EF, assumptions would have to take into account a long list of parameters. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development within environmental carrying capacity.

An International Comparative Research on the Structure and Change in Sustainable Development among Islands

정대연 한국사회과학협의회 2009 Korean Social Science Journal Vol.36 No.1

The objective of this paper was to compare sustainable development and change among Jeju, Tasmania, and Hawaii, using a set of 33 identical ten-year time series sustainable development indicators (SDIs) from 1996 to 2005. The 33 SDIs were grouped into ten categories as composite variables. The comparison was done in terms of the structure and change in sustainable development as an integrated reality. The structure of sustainable development was compared in terms of the explanatory power of the 33 SDIs on sustainable development as a whole reality and their relative importance as the determinants of sustainable development. The relative importance was compared in terms of both individual SDIs and their categories. The change in sustainable development was compared by category in terms of the process of sustainable development having been determined throughout the ten years, using their change in the position of sustainability on the basis of their relative deviation index. The explanatory power of the SDIs and their relative importance were different among the three islands. However, overall, the factors related to economic development and/or those resulted from them, a priori and/or expost facto policies, and the conservation of nature contribute to sustainable development. Interestingly, the impeding factors were different among the three islands. The sustainability level of the ten categories has changed significantly throughout the ten years in all of the three islands. To determine the structure and change in sustainable development, assumption would have to take into account a long list of more parameters. The results cited in this paper are based on a limited number of parameters in terms of SDI and time-series as well. However, the methods for analyzing the structure and change in sustainable development has been partially developed in this paper. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development. The objective of this paper was to compare sustainable development and change among Jeju, Tasmania, and Hawaii, using a set of 33 identical ten-year time series sustainable development indicators (SDIs) from 1996 to 2005. The 33 SDIs were grouped into ten categories as composite variables. The comparison was done in terms of the structure and change in sustainable development as an integrated reality. The structure of sustainable development was compared in terms of the explanatory power of the 33 SDIs on sustainable development as a whole reality and their relative importance as the determinants of sustainable development. The relative importance was compared in terms of both individual SDIs and their categories. The change in sustainable development was compared by category in terms of the process of sustainable development having been determined throughout the ten years, using their change in the position of sustainability on the basis of their relative deviation index. The explanatory power of the SDIs and their relative importance were different among the three islands. However, overall, the factors related to economic development and/or those resulted from them, a priori and/or expost facto policies, and the conservation of nature contribute to sustainable development. Interestingly, the impeding factors were different among the three islands. The sustainability level of the ten categories has changed significantly throughout the ten years in all of the three islands. To determine the structure and change in sustainable development, assumption would have to take into account a long list of more parameters. The results cited in this paper are based on a limited number of parameters in terms of SDI and time-series as well. However, the methods for analyzing the structure and change in sustainable development has been partially developed in this paper. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development.

濟州市의 生態學的 構造分析 : 生態學的 要因分析을 중심으로 Ecological Factor Anlysis

鄭大然 제주대학교 탐라문화연구소 1984 탐라문화 Vol.0 No.3

集合行動의 理論的 爭點들에 관한 比較硏究 : With Special Reference to Its Concept, Cause, and Formation Process 槪念, 發生要因, 形成過程을 중심으로

鄭大然 제주대학교 1983 논문집 Vol.16 No.2

It is a well-known fact that the collective behavior is one of the major concerns in the behavioral science such as sociology, psychology, and social psychology, etc. However, it is also another thing that the understandings of the collective behavior have been different depending on the approach to it. The main purpose of this study was to catch a comprehensive understanding of collective behavior, examining and comparing the theoretical issues of its concept, cause, and formation process. 1. On the Concept of Collective Behavior The concept of collective behavior can be defined on the basis of four dimensions-its cause, attributes of behavior, direction of behavior, and all-inclusive perspective on the collective behavior. This illustrates that the concept of collective behavior is defined as an uninstitutionalized deviant behavior or an organized norm-obeying behavior in its own way, depending on the way of forming the relation between four dimensions. 2. On the Cause of Collective Behavior The theoretical issues of the cause of collective behavior are possibly divided into five perspectives-contagion theory, convergence theory, emergent norm theory, interaction theory, and value-added theory. It was found that the contagion theory suggested the social unrest as the major source of causing collective behavior. However, according to the contagion theory, the social unrest the individuals feel is not taken as the primary cause of collective behavior, because it is not on the collective basis among the members. Therefore, the contagion theory focuses the process of individual person's social unrest being transformed into collective basis. This means that the contagion theory considers the factors making this process as the primary causes of collective behavior. As the result, the causes of collective behavior adapted by contagion theory are the circular reaction, suggestions, imitation, primitive sympathy, leader, or identification of members with leader, etc. It is another thing to be mentioned that the contagion theory concludes that these factors are come into existence from an impulse action rather than from an intended one. By contrast, the convergence theory put emphasis on the full growth of action orientation of members as the factor causing collective behavior. According to this perspective, the full growth of action orientation is caused by the social organization. That is the action of members becomes uniform when the existing social organization is problematic. The emergent norm theory focuses the condition and the process itself of the collective norm formation supporting a new-action. This perspective demonstrates that the condition of social organization is the major factor to bring about the collective norm formation. According to the interaction theory, the occurance of a particular event is the primary factor causing the collective behavior. However, the occurance of event itself is meaningless because the collective behavior is seldomly formed without the interaction among the members. This makes possible to conclude that the interaction theory puts emphasis on the interaction among the members rather than the particular event itself. The value-added theory takes the structural conductveness as the essential prerequisite. The reason is drawn from the fact that the factors suggested by other theories are meaningless without the essential prerequisite. Based on the above findings, the value-added theory and the emergent norm theory make a considerable point of the structural dimension, while the contagion theory and the interaction theory emphasize the cognitive dimension between leader and membes or among members. Finally, the convergence theory trends to attribute the cause of collective behavior to behavioral dimension which appears after the growth of cognition with the structure for a background. Therefore, it might be concluded that the theoretical issues of factors causing collective behavior are under structure-cognition-behavior which is a continual context. The difference is which dimension of the context is emphasized. 3. On the Formation Process of Collective Behavior The theoretical issues of the formation process of collective behavior are possibly divided into three categories-psychological, social psychological, and sociological perspectives. Their explanatory systems were based on very different perspectives. The following are the summarized schemata of formation process of collective behavior suggested by the reprsentatives of each perspective. G. LeBon : formation of law of mental unity→formation of common psychological state→outburst of collective behavior. S. Freud : expression of unconscious desire→formation of libidinous solidarity among members→abandonment of super-ego→identification of members with leader→outburst of collective behavior. H. Blumer : milling→collective excitement→soci contagion→formation of spontaneous behavior→outburst of collective behavior. E. Goffman : social unrest→formation of face-to-face or fluid interaction→formation of rules of irrelevance or transformation rule→outburst of collective behavior. N.J. Smelser : structural _conduciveness→structural strain→generalized belief→precipitation factors→mobilization of participants for action→operation of social control→outburst of collective behavior. The following comments might be given from the above schemata. The schemata suggested by Lebon and Freud are commonly focussed on why the members participate in the collective behavior, while Blumer and Goffman make a point of the social mechanism of interaction among the members. By contrast, Smelser's model is based initially on the reaction of the members to the social structure which is considered to be an external environment. This conclusion draws that the theoretical issues of the formation process of collective behavior are under the three dimensions-motives to participate in collective behavior, social mechanism of interaction among the members, and reaction to the social structural environment. These dimensions are also under the same continual context. Because the motives of participation is the result of internalization by the social structural condition, and the mechanism of interaction can be said to be patterned by the frame of interanalization of motives. To conclude, the theoretical at issues of collective behavior in terms of its concept, cause, and formation process are only the differences of explanatory foci among three interrelated dimensions-member's internal psychology, internactional mechanism among members, reaction of members to the social structural condition. This conclusion might be more persuasive if it is valid that the psychological and social system are only different inference on the same data. The matter of prime importance would be how to explain the collective behavior within a framework, putting all significant accounts together from the psychological, the social psychological, and the sociological.

환경문제와 관리

정대연 제주대학교 지역사회발전연구소 1996 제주리뷰 Vol.- No.2

From the Ideology of Sustainable Development to Modelling a Sustainable Society: Conceptualizing Policy Change and Environmental Indicator Interactions in South Korea

정대연 한국사회과학협의회 2007 Korean Social Science Journal Vol.34 No.2

This six part paper analyzes developmental, environmental, and sustainability policies along with suggested indicators in South Korea. The first part reviews concepts of sustainable development. The second part outlines the process of industrialization in South Korea from the 1960s. The third part documents the change in the state of the environment in South Korea that was the result. In order to quantify the relationship of economic development expansion with the declining state of the environment, correlation coefficients were estimated between economic development variables and variables measuring environmental decline. The fourth part describes the major activities being utilized to achieve sustainable development in South Korea. The fifth part documents the change in sustainable development policies in South Korea as this continues. The sixth part concludes with a critical examination of the effectiveness of different policies for achieving sustainable development in South Korea. In general, the paper provides an exploratory statistical method for modelling and monitoring case‐specific interactions of environmental indicators for historical interactive changes. This encourages a method for testing ongoing policy soundness toward achieving a sustainable society. This paper argues the necessary of including multiple empirical indicators in real‐time modeling for interactions to fine‐tune conceptions of environmental policy away from a technological reductionist approach to a multi‐variate structural, systemic approach.

Socio-Economic Costs from Yellow Dust Damages in South Korea

정대연 한국사회과학협의회 2008 Korean Social Science Journal Vol.35 No.2

Yellow dust is a typical transborder environmental problem in Asia. South Korea is geographically very close to the place where yellow dust originates. This makes South Korea more than other countries susceptible to the damage from yellow dust. Most research on yellow dust has been done by natural scientists, focusing on the analysis of chemical constituents of yellow dust and its impact on the quality of water, air, soil, animal, and human health. In addition, quite some research has been done on the socio-economic impact of yellow dust. With such implications, the objective of this paper is to estimate the socio-economic cost from yellow dust in South Korea. The total soci-economic cost from yellow dust damage in South Korea in the year of 2002 is estimated as US$ 3,900 million at minimum and US$ 7,300 million at maximum. The average of the two, US$5,600 million, is equivalent to 0.8% of GDP and US$ 117.00 per South Korean inhabitant.

Societal Impacts and Implications of Xenotransplantation- A Delphi Survey in Jeju, South Korea-

정대연,장신옥,김용범 한국사회과학협의회 2006 Korean Social Science Journal Vol.33 No.2

This paper is aimed at identifying the societal impacts ofxenotransplantation when it is actually implemented. A Delphi survey was conducted in Jeju, South Korea for achieving this aim, and then the implications of the societal impacts perceived by these experts were interpreted.The impact of xenotransplantation, if implemented, has been de-bated based largely on moral dilemmas and the risks inherent in its technology, focusing on its negative impacts. However, this paper identi-fied that xenotransplantation, if implemented, will have a negative and positive impact on many societal areas and the natural world, with dif-ference in its strength by the category of societal area and natural world. Even for the same area, xenotransplantation will have both pos-itive and negative impacts. This implies that xenotransplantation has 2 .. Dai-Yeun Jeong and Yong-Bum Kim and Shin-Ock Changtwo conflicting faces. This would mean the impacts are not discrete, but rather relative.The impact will not be the end in itself, but rather it will work as a determinant of a societal system being restructured, and the re-structured societal system will be again a determinant of xenotransplanta ..tion in terms of how to and in what way it should be implemented. This process may be termed a D(driving-force)-S(state)-R(response) causal mechanism.

도시문화와 종교의 연속성을 고려한 커뮤니티 센터의 기초연구

정대연,정의용 대한건축학회지회연합회 2013 대한건축학회지회연합회 학술발표대회논문집 Vol.2013 No.1