環境葛藤의 文化的 分析 : 새만금개발사업을 中心으로

새만금 개발사업의 환경갈등이 발생하고 지속되는 양상을 분석했다.

This dissertation examines, through quantitative and qualitative methods and Cultural Theory(CT), how cultural bias, as the frame of reference of stakeholders, brings about irresolvable conflicts and produces divided arguments between pro-and anti-group about Korea's Saemangeum project. Based on different cultural biases, each stakeholder interpreted the same facts differently in line with their cultural orientations and ways of life. The dynamic argument patterns indirectly reflect each stakeholder's cultural bias and survey results more directly show such cultural biases.

This dissertation started with research question: why is it difficult to resolve environmental conflicts through more rational choice approaches or interest-based approaches which involve adjusting the benefits and costs attributed to each of stakeholders? Our argument is that environmental issues are not only a matter of interests but also of cultural values and ways of life closely connected with each own belief system. As we see conflicts around Saemangeum project as cultural ones, we adopted CT suggested by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky. In CT, the elementary forms of social life result in four ways of life (hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism, fatalism).

Those four ways of life start from sociality; this sociality consists of two basic factors, Grid and Group. Groupis defined in terms of the claim it makes over its constituent members, the boundary it draws around them, the rights it confers to them in using its name and other attributes, and the levies and constraints it applies. Grouprefers to the extent to which an individual is incorporated into bounded units. A high group has tighter controls over admission, the higher boundaries separating members from nonmembers.

Among four cultures or ways of life, first, in hierarchy, individuals are subject both to controls from other members in the group and to pressure from social classifications in the grid. Central authority works as a leverage to produce harmony between different classes. Under individualism, without regulations and group commitment, individuals can freely negotiate everything. Egalitarianismmaintains strong group boundaries and no regulations with non-central authority; minimal prescriptions; and the lowest role differentiation. Thus, as a result of group orientation toward internal solidarity, an unremitting antagonism exists toward outside "evil" groups.

The demarcated conceptions between inside "good" and outside "evil" reinforce internal solidarity without central authorities. Fatalismis strongly controlled and feels the isolation. This culture provides its members with a basic perspective for interpreting things and a common views. Under CT, we hypothesize that culture as worldviews and cosmology determinates stakeholder's attitude and behavior across experts and lay people.

In Saemangeum case, experts consist of development-friendly groups and conservation-friendly groups whereas lay groups do three ones; first more development-friendly government organizations (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Junbuk regional government) and developer (Korea Agriculture and Rural Infrastructure Corporation); Second, more environment-friendly environment-movement groups and religious movement groups; Isolated fishers near Saemangeum area. It is generally regarded experts as symbol of neutrality. Our research sees experts as those who have cultural biases in their mind.

We set up hypothesis that across expert and lay people, development groups are dominated by individualism and hierarchy whereas conservation groups are by egalitarianism. More third group, fishers near Saemangeum area may be dominated by fatalism. By qualitative method (argument analysis) and quantitative method (Q-method, survey research), we come to conclude that in spite of amount of knowledge and the degree of expertise, culture bias set up mental structure and argument structure of experts and lay people.

First, qualitative research indirectly shows that experts and lay groups reveal cleavages in arguments about tidal land, water pollution, red tide, environment destruction, benefit-cost analysis, and policy tools to improve water quality and prevent the pollution. As those arguments are closely connected issues of secondary values and attitude, such as environmentalism, risk perception, belief in technology and management system, blame attribution, trust structure and policy preference.

The arguments as mirrors of mental structure indirectly show that there are culture cleavages between pro-groups (dominated by individualism and hierarchy, anti-groups (dominated by egalitarianism), and isolated fishers (dominated by fatalism). Second, quantitative research directly shows that both experts and lay people are dominated by cultural biases. In Q-analysis, pro-experts show having hierarchy whereas anti-experts do having egalitarianism. In survey analysis, pro-lay groups reveal having hierarchy and individualism whereas anti-lay groups do having egalitarianism. Moreover fishers have fatalism.

Next, we examine how cultural biases have effects on lay people's attitudes such as environmentalism, risk perception, belief in technology and management system, blame attribution, trust structure and policy preference. We find that cultural biases has consistently effects on such attitudes and secondary values. In short, this dissertations show that conflicts around Saemanguem project come from differences of cultural biases and worldviews. This result has the policy implication as follows; First, for the sake of building good governance and facilitating successful policy implementation, we consider cultural biases which are possessed by stockholders.

Second, we accept plural rationalities and mosaic composition of cultures in the course of policy deliberation and design.