DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Research on the Relationship between the Perception of Administrative Regulation and Odor Acceptance among Residents who live in Ochang Industrial Complex Area

오창산업단지 주변지역 주민의 행정규제에 대한 인식과 악취수용성의 상관성 연구

  • Park, Sung-Sik (Dept. of Flight Operation, Korea National University of Transportation) ;
  • Jung, Ju-Yong (Dept. of Public Management Information System, Korea National University of Transportation) ;
  • Yeon, Ik-Jun (Dept. of Environmental Engineering, Korea National University of Transportation)
  • 박성식 (한국교통대학교 항공운항학과) ;
  • 정주용 (한국교통대학교 행정정보학과) ;
  • 연익준 (한국교통대학교 환경공학과)
  • Received : 2015.06.11
  • Accepted : 2015.08.04
  • Published : 2015.08.31

Abstract

It would be the most effective way to have government take care of social problems and hazardous material danger due to odor. It is also well known that odor acceptance and their willingness to pay for resolving the odor problem vary person by person. This is why public sector's intervention is required to get ride of any possibility of market failure resulted from negative external effect of human. This paper has tried to do empirical research based on survey of residents who are currently living in the area of Ochang industrial complex in North Chong-chung province. According to the empirical research results, first of all, it was proven residents' perception of legal regulation has a negative effect on odor acceptance. That is, the more residents are aware of law and regulation, the less they tend to accept odor. In addition, resident's perception on need to improve odor regulation has a positive impact on their odor acceptance. Finally, residents' satisfaction on the legal complaints to local government has an interaction effect to causative relationship between the perception of improving odor regulation and odor acceptance.

악취로 인한 유해물질의 배출과 이에 따르는 사회적 문제를 해결하는 가장 확실한 방법은 정부기관이 이 문제를 얼마나 적절하게 취급할 수 있는가에 달려 있다고 할 수 있다. 개인마다 악취에 대한 수용성이 다르고, 악취문제 해결을 위한 사회적 비용의 지불의사도 다르기 때문이다. 이는 악취와 같은 부정적 외부효과를 공공부문의 개입에 의해 해결해야하는 이유이기도 하다. 이 연구는 오창산업단지에서 발생하는 악취문제에 대한 주변지역 주민들의 인식을 경험적으로 측정함으로써 행정규제에 대한 인식과 악취수용성의 상관성을 분석해보았다. 분석결과를 살펴보면 첫째, 법적규제에 대한 인식은 악취 수용성에 부정적인 효과를 나타내는 것으로 증명되었다. 즉, 법령과 규제에 대한 문제점을 더 강하게 인식할수록 악취에 대한 수용도가 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 악취물질 배출에 관한 규제를 개선해야한다고 인식하는 주민일수록 악취수용성 판단에 더 많은 영향을 받는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로, 지방정부의 민원해결에 대한 지역주민들의 만족도는 악취관련 규제에 대한 인식에 영향을 주어 악취 수용성과도 상관관계를 만들어내는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 이혜영. 2010. 안전규제정책결정과 위험 수용가능성: 위험수용가능성을 고려한 안전관리전략에 관한 탐색적 연구, 한국공공관리학보, 24(1), 77-101.(Lee HY. 2010. Policy Determination of Safety Regulation and Risk Acceptance: Exploratory Research for Safety Management Strategy considering Risk Acceptance, Korean Public Management Review, 24(1), 77-101.)
  2. 최광식. 2006. 안전규제에 대한 국민 신뢰 구축을 위한 정책방향, 제11호 원자력안전기술정보회의(2006.4.7.).(Choi KS. 2006. Policy Direction for Building up Public Trust of Safety Regulation, The 11th conference for technical information of nuclear safety(7th April).)
  3. Alhakami AS, Slovic P. 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit, Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
  4. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT. 1995. Social Trust. Towards a Cosmopolitan Society, London: Praeger.
  5. Eiser JR, Miles S, Frewer LJ. 2002. Trust, perceived risk and attitudes towards food technologies, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2423-2433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01871.x
  6. Flynn J, Burns W, Mertz CK, Slovic P. 1992. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model, Risk Analysis, 12(3), 417-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00694.x
  7. Fukuyama F. 1995. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity, New York: Free Press.
  8. Gerber BJ, Neeley GW. 2005. Perceived Risk and Citizen Preferences for Governmental Management of Routine Hazards, Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 395-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00122.x
  9. Lowrance WH. 1976. Of Acceptable Risk, California: William Kaufman.
  10. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. 1995. An integration model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
  11. Pijawka KD, Mushkatel AH. 1992. Public opposition to the siting of high-level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust. Policy Studies Review, 10(4), 180-194.
  12. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. 2005. Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?, Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00579.x
  13. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT, Roth C. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034
  14. Yamagishi T. 1998. Shinrai no kouzou. (Structure of trust), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Cited by

  1. 도시첨단산업단지 입지선정을 위한 계획요소 도출: 노후산업단지 재생을 중심으로 vol.20, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5392/jkca.2020.20.05.595