연구제목 : Causal Relationship of the Particulate Matter Policy by System Thinking of Specialists Opinion: Case Study of Korea

일정: February 12, 2019

장소: Environmental Issues II, Marriott Napa Valley

연구목적

The objective of this study is to address current PM problems in Korea and classify the specialists’ (government officials and researchers) opinion with respect to the policies and management direction related to PM policy for diesel fuels and vehicles.

연구방법

Because of possible disparities and inconsistencies of the specialists' interests and perceptions, it is important to understand the differences between their positions and how their opinions can be reflected in policy decisions. This study uses Q-methodology, as it can provide the quantitative results of the differences of perceptions (viewpoints) by the group of samples (specialists). The study group consists of PM policy specialists, and their perception types are categorized by the following four steps:

1) Making Q-statements with representative questionnaires related to the PM policy;

2) Determining P-Samples, that is, respondents who are PM policy specialists;

3) Sorting Q-samples depending on the level of agreement; and

4) Analyzing the results using a Q-sorting process.

This study also implements the systems thinking method in order to investigate the causal relationship by perception types. Since systems thinking addresses the flow of overall systems, it can identify the fundamental problems that affect system transformations and can present a long-term strategy (Kim et al., 1999).

연구결과

This study prepared questionnaires (28 Q-statements) for 38 specialists who work closely on PM-related policies at four ministries (MOTIE, MOEF, MOLIT, MOE, and KFS) and seven research institutions (KEEI, KIET, KIER, KRILA, NABO, KRIHS, and KOTI). Specialists are classified according to their level of understanding for diesel policy and their individual perceptions of it rather than being classified by departmental characteristics. The specialists’ perceptions for diesel policy are classified by four types using Q-methodology: advocacy type for a diesel regulation (type 1), passive type for diesel regulation (type 2), government budget support type (type 3), and sensitive response type for public opinion (type 4).