섬의 지속가능발전에 대한 국제 비교연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper analyzed environmental impact (EI) and ecological footprint (EF). EF can be analyzed in terms of both land-use structure and consumption life people enjoy in everyday life. This paper analyzed EF in terms of the consumption life, using the structured questionnaire developed by Earthday Network. 200 samples were selected in each island, employing a quota sampling method by age and gender.
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). The examination on the increase in EI explored that the effect of economic production for increasing affluence and convenience in life was less than its impact on environment.
EF as a whole reality was composed of five dimensions Residence, Food, Transportation, Product Purchase, and Discharge of Wastes, and each dimension was composed of question items. The three islands were different in the order of the biggest EF size being occupied by consumption life.
Jeju exceeds EF size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by 8.088times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively.
Males occupy bigger EF than females. The older the age is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the household income is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the educational attainment is, the bigger the EF size is. The Christians show a trend to occupy lower EF size than other religious beliefs and those who have no religion.
Relatively important determinant of EF size was different by island. Gender was the most important determinant in Jeju and Hawaii, while household monthly income is the most important determinant in Tasmania. However, the order of important determinant except the most important one was different by island.
As summarized above, significant differences in EI and EF were found by island. What are the major factors arising such differences Four factors - number of population, GRDP, land size, citizens' consumption life were used for estimating EI and EF. However, the differences can't be explained by the four factors, because there are so many factors determining the states of the four factors being patterned as a casual mechanism. The examples include the need citizens have for the enjoyment of material affluence and convenience in life, the pattern of citizens' lifestyle, and the development policy each island has advanced, etc. In this sense, the question - why such differences exist in the three islands is basically another further research question to be explained.
Another limitation inherent in this research is that the ten-year time series data used for estimating EI and the sample survey with 200 residents represent the particular experience in the three islands. Therefore, if the experience is different, the findings will lead to different estimations of EI and EF. To determine EI and EF, assumptions would have to take into account a long list of parameters such as longer than ten-year time series data and more question items for measuring EF size. However, the results cited here are based on a limited number of parameters, and a complex measurement instrument has been partially developed. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development within environmental carrying capacity.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper analyzed environmental impact (EI) and ecological footprint (EF). EF can be analyzed in terms of both land-use structure and consumption life people enjoy in everyday life. This paper analyzed EF in terms of the consumption life, using the structured questionnaire developed by Earthday Network. 200 samples were selected in each island, employing a quota sampling method by age and gender.
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). The examination on the increase in EI explored that the effect of economic production for increasing affluence and convenience in life was less than its impact on environment.
EF as a whole reality was composed of five dimensions Residence, Food, Transportation, Product Purchase, and Discharge of Wastes, and each dimension was composed of question items. The three islands were different in the order of the biggest EF size being occupied by consumption life.
Jeju exceeds EF size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by 8.088times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively.
Males occupy bigger EF than females. The older the age is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the household income is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the educational attainment is, the bigger the EF size is. The Christians show a trend to occupy lower EF size than other religious beliefs and those who have no religion.
Relatively important determinant of EF size was different by island. Gender was the most important determinant in Jeju and Hawaii, while household monthly income is the most important determinant in Tasmania. However, the order of important determinant except the most important one was different by island.
As summarized above, significant differences in EI and EF were found by island. What are the major factors arising such differences Four factors - number of population, GRDP, land size, citizens' consumption life were used for estimating EI and EF. However, the differences can't be explained by the four factors, because there are so many factors determining the states of the four factors being patterned as a casual mechanism. The examples include the need citizens have for the enjoyment of material affluence and convenience in life, the pattern of citizens' lifestyle, and the development policy each island has advanced, etc. In this sense, the question - why such differences exist in the three islands is basically another further research question to be explained.
Another limitation inherent in this research is that the ten-year time series data used for estimating EI and the sample survey with 200 residents represent the particular experience in the three islands. Therefore, if the experience is different, the findings will lead to different estimations of EI and EF. To determine EI and EF, assumptions would have to take into account a long list of parameters such as longer than ten-year time series data and more question items for measuring EF size. However, the results cited here are based on a limited number of parameters, and a complex measurement instrument has been partially developed. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development within environmental carrying capacity.