Journal of the Korean Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회지)

The Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology (한국환경복원기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Wetland User's Eco-consciousness and Preference of Amenities - Focused on Upo Marsh Users -

습지 이용자 생태의식과 시설선호도 연구 - 우포늪을 대상으로 -

  • Jeong, Jae-Man (Dept. of Environmental Landscape Architecture, Graduate School, Cheongju University) ;
  • Oh, Jeong-Hak (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Gyeonggi Urban Innovation Corporation) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Seon (Dept. of Environmental Landscape Architecture, Cheongju University)
  • 정재만 (청주대학교 대학원 환경조경학과) ;
  • 오정학 (경기도시공사 조경팀) ;
  • 김진선 (청주대학교 환경조경학과)
  • Received : 2013.10.07
  • Accepted : 2013.12.09
  • Published : 2013.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The researcher noted the fact that wetland users are more and more diversified while people are more conscious of their ecological importance. Wetlands tend to be very sensitive in ecological terms, and therefore, they can hardly accommodate their users' needs indefinitely. With such basic perception in mind, the purpose of this study was to survey wetland users' eco-consciousness, determine their traits, analyze the corelation between their traits and preferences of wetland amenities, and thereby, provide the data useful to planning of an effective wetland management policy. To this end, the researcher sampled nation's largest wetland, Upo Marsh located in Changnyeong for a questionnaire survey. Wetland users' eco-consciousness was measured, using Dunlap's NEP (New Ecological Paradigm) approved by many researchers. Wetland users' preferences of the wetland amenities were measured, centered around 11 amenity types observed commonly at the domestic wetlands. As a result of the survey conducted in October, 2012, a total of 228 effective samples were acquired. Wetland users' eco-consciousness was higher than normal, scoring 3.45 on the 5-point scale consisting of 5 sub-scales. In particular, users were more conscious of 'the possibility of an eco-crisis,' while being less conscious of 'ejection of exemptionalism.' As a result of classifying the users into 3 sub-groups in reference to their eco-consciousness and analyzing their preferences of amenities comparatively, significant differences were found in all 3 sub-areas. In particular, the sub-group most eco-conscious tended to prefer the learning amenities, but the least eco-conscious sub-group tended to prefer the utilities. As a result of the post-hoc test, it was found that most and normal eco-conscious sub-groups were more or less homogeneous, while the least eco-conscious sub-group was significantly different from the former 2 sub-groups in terms of eco-consciousness. As the wetland users were found to be diversified in terms of their eco-consciousness, it is necessary to plan the wetland management policies in consideration of such differences. However, it is perceived that the wetland amenities need to be built to meet the more eco-conscious users.

Keywords

References

  1. Ajzen I. and M. Fishbein I. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Engliwood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice_Hall, Inc.
  2. Changnyeong Gun. 2013. Upo Wetland Cyber Ecological Park, www.upo.or.kr
  3. Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. The new environmental paradigm, Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4):10-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
  4. Dunlap, R. E. and R. E. Jones. 2003. Environmental attitudes and values. in R. Fernandez Ballesteros (ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment, Vol. I:pp.364-369. London : Sage.
  5. Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando, FL:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
  6. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley Publishing.
  7. Fransson, N. and Garling, T. 1999. Environmental concern:conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental psychology. 19. 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0141
  8. Jones, Robert Emmet and Riley E. Dunlap. 1992. "The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: Have They Changed over Time?" Rural Sociology 57(1):28-47.
  9. KCTI(Korea Culture & Tourism Institute, 2013). Tour Knowledge & Information System.
  10. Kim, J. and Ko, D. W. 2011. A change in tourism environmental attitudes through ecotourism activities. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 39(1):56-64. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2011.39.1.056
  11. Kim, S, W. and Yang, W. J. 2007. Present status and conservation plan of changnyeong's natural swamps. Environmental Research, Kyungnam Univ.
  12. Kollmuss, Anja and Julian Agyman. 2002. Mind the Gap:Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research 8(3).
  13. Lee, D. K. and Kim, B. M. 2010. Importantsatisfaction analysis as a management strategy of suncheon bay ecological park. Journal of the Korean Institute of Lnadscape Architecture 37(6):39-47.
  14. Maloney, M. P.․Ward, M. P. and Barucht, G. N. 1975. A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 20:787-90.
  15. Maloney, M. and Ward, M. 1973. Ecology:let's hear from the people. American Psychologist 28:583-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034936
  16. Park, U. A. and Lee, K. C. 1995. A study on environmentally concious consumer behavior, Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association, 33(4), 199-212, August 1995.
  17. Riley E. Dunlap․Kent D. Van Liere․Angela G. Mertig and Robert Emmet Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm:A Revised NEP Scale, Journal of Social Issues, 56(3):425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
  18. Roh, Y. H.․Lee, S. H.․Choe, R. G. and Yang, H. J. 2004. Determinants of ecotourists' satisfaction. Journal of the Korean Institute of Tourism 28(1):27-42.
  19. Roh. Y. H.․Lim, C. K and Kim, H. Y. 2009. Upo Wetland Ecotourism Website Users' Safisfaction and Behavioral Intentions. kor. soc. People Plants Environment. 12(2):45-52.
  20. Rokeach, M. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, Inc.
  21. Rokeach, M. 1979a, Understanding Human Values:Individual and Social. New York:Free Press.
  22. Rokeach, M. 1979b. Some Unresolved Issued in Theories of Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27:261-304.
  23. Schahn, J. and E. Holzer. 1990. Studies of individual environmental concern:The role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior 22(6):767-786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916590226003
  24. Seguin, C. et al., 1998. Toward a Model of Environmental Activism, Environment and Behavior, vol. 30:5.
  25. Weigel, R. and Weigel, J. 1978. Environmental concern:The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916578101001
  26. Yeo, H. K.․Park, B. G. and Yoon, T. H. 2009. Ecotourists' Needs and Preferences of Ecotourism and Programs in Wetlands.

Cited by

  1. Fundamental Research of Preservation & Utility Facilities in Wetland Protected Area - 5 Wetland Protected Areas were Used as Main Subjects - vol.19, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.13087/kosert.2016.19.1.25
  2. An Empirical Study of Nature-based Ecotourism Motivation on Ecotourism Destination Image and Satisfaction vol.24, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5322/JESI.2015.24.11.1451