All Issue

2026 Vol.32, Issue 2 Preview Page
A Human Geographical Reflection on the Necessity of Multi-Scalar Environmental Policy
- Focusing on Scalar Mismatch between Environmental Policy Discourse and Living-Lab Discourse -

다중스케일 기반 환경정책의 필요성에 대한 인문지리적 고찰
- 환경정책 담론과 리빙랩 담론 간 스케일 불일치 분석을 중심으로 -

이동범1 · 송원섭2

Lee, Dongbeom1 · Song, Wonseob2

1제1저자, 제주연구원 제주공공투자관리센터 연구원
2교신저자, 제주대학교 사범대학 지리교육과 부교수
1First Author, Research Fellow, Jeju Public Investment Management Center, The Jeju Institute
2Corresponding Author, Associate Professor, Department of Geography Education, Jeju National University
31 May 2026. pp. 44-64
PDF Citation
Abstract
Drawing on previously reported language-network analysis of major environmental policy plans and living-lab literature, this article reinterprets the need for living labs in environmental policy making through critical scale theory and Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space. The original frequency and degree-centrality values are preserved without alteration, but they are re-read through four interpretive axes - problem definition, actor authorisation, knowledge formats, and evaluative temporality - as scalar signifiers. The analysis shows that environmental policy documents privilege a macro, technocratic, and managerial rationality organised around management, planning, system building, and evaluation, whereas living-lab literature foregrounds participation, co-design, experimentation, learning, and networks rooted in real-life settings. The article also links these axes to illustrative Jeju implementation contexts, including plastic-zero, reusable-cup, and delivery-container initiatives, to show how a mediating scale can be institutionally embedded. This contrast reveals not only a lack of participation but a deeper scalar mismatch across four dimensions: problem definition, actor authorisation, knowledge formats, and evaluative temporality. Building on critical geography, collaborative governance, and co-production scholarship, the article conceptualises living labs as a mediating scale and boundary infrastructure that translates between the abstract space of policy representation and the lived spaces of environmental practice. On this basis, it proposes a multi-scalar design framework consisting of scalar diagnosis, co-design, real-world experimentation, feedback and rescaling, and institutional embedding, alongside a hybrid evaluation scheme combining quantitative indicators with qualitative changes in trust, learning, discourse, and network formation. The article argues that environmental policy should not merely add participation at the margins, but redesign its scalar architecture so that everyday environmental knowledge can be systematically incorporated into policy formation.
Keywords
environmental policy of Jeju Island
multi-scalar environmental policy
scale
living lab
production of space
environmental governance
본 연구는 환경정책 수립 과정에서 리빙랩 도입의 필요성을 인문지리학의 비판적 스케일 이론과 르페브르(Henri Lefebvre)의 공간 생산 이론을 통해 재해석한다. 분석의 실증적 토대는 환경부의 「제2차·제3차 자연환경보전기본계획」, 제주특별자치도의 「제주도환경보전기본계획」과 「제2차 제주특별자치도 환경보전기본계획」, 그리고 국내외 리빙랩 문헌을 대상으로 수행된 언어네트워크 분석 결과에 두며, 본 논문은 기존 연구에서 제시된 빈도와 연결중심성 수치값을 수정하지 않고 유지한다. 대신 본 논문은 이 결과를 단순한 단어 비교가 아니라 문제정의, 행위자 승인, 지식 형식, 평가의 시간성이라는 네 가지 해석축 위에서 ‘스케일 표지(scalar signifiers)’의 배열로 재분류하여 읽는다. 이를 통해 환경정책 문헌이 ‘관리·계획·구축·체계·평가’라는 거시적·기술관료적 언어를 중심으로 정책의 추상공간을 생산하는 반면, 리빙랩 문헌은 ‘참여·협력·co-design·실험·학습·네트워크’라는 미시적·과정적 언어를 중심으로 생활세계의 차이공간을 전경화한다는 점을 논증한다. 또한 제주의 2040 PZI(플라스틱 제로 아일랜드), 1회용컵 보증금제, 배달 다회용기 시범사업과 같은 지역 실행 맥락을 보조적으로 연결하여 ‘매개 스케일’의 제도화 조건을 구체화한다. 이러한 대비는 환경정책이 단순히 참여가 부족한 것이 아니라, 문제정의의 스케일, 행위자 승인 방식, 지식 형식, 평가의 시간성에서 구조적인 스케일 불일치(scalar mismatch)를 내포하고 있음을 보여준다. 이에 따라 본 연구는 리빙랩을 주변적 참여 프로그램이 아니라 정책공간과 생활세계 사이를 번역하고 재조정하는 ‘매개 스케일(mediating scale)’이자 ‘경계 인프라(boundary infrastructure)’로 개념화한다. 나아가 스케일 진단 - 공동설계 - 현장실험 - 피드백과 재스케일링 - 제도화로 구성된 다중스케일 환경정책 설계 원리와, 정량지표와 함께 신뢰·학습·네트워크·담론 변화까지 포괄하는 복합 평가체계를 제안한다. 본 연구는 환경정책과 리빙랩 담론 사이의 간극을 인문지리적 언어로 정식화함으로써, 제주를 포함한 지역 환경거버넌스의 제도 설계에 이론적·실천적 시사점을 제공한다.
키워드
제주도 환경정책
스케일
다중스케일 환경정책
리빙랩
공간의 생산
환경거버넌스
References
  1. 문태훈, 2024, 한국 환경정책의 변화와 과제, 1960s~2020s, 환경정책, 32(2), 1-41. 10.15301/jepa.2024.32.2.1
  2. 문태훈·김희석, 2022, 기후위기 대응 환경정책과 환경거버넌스 정합성 제고를 위한 발전방향, 한국행정연구, 31(1), 27-57.
  3. 이동범, 2026, 환경정책 수립 과정에서 리빙랩 도입의 필요성, 전북대학교 교육대학원 석사학위논문.
  4. 이수상, 2014, 언어 네트워크 분석 방법을 활용한 학술논문의 내용분석, 정보관리학회지, 31(4), 49-68. 10.3743/KOSIM.2014.31.4.049
  5. 임서영, 2017, 기후변화정책 집행 실패요인 분석: 2020 온실가스 감축 로드맵 중심으로, 연세대학교 행정대학원 석사학위논문.
  6. 정광호·최슬기·장윤희, 2009, 정책실패의 연관 요인 탐색: 중앙일간지 사설의 내용분석을 중심으로, 한국거버넌스학회보, 16(1), 1-29.
  7. 정행운·염정윤, 2021, 시민과학을 적용한 환경문제대응방안 연구, 한국환경연구원.
  8. 제주도, 1999, 제주도환경보전기본계획(1999~2020), 제주도.
  9. 제주특별자치도, 2020, 제2차 제주특별자치도 환경보전기본계획(2021~2030), 제주특별자치도.
  10. 환경부, 2006, 제2차 자연환경보전기본계획(2006~2015), 환경부.
  11. 환경부, 2016, 제3차 자연환경보전기본계획(2016~2025), 환경부.
  12. Ansell, C. and Gash, A., 2008, Collaborative governance in theory and practice, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. 10.1093/jopart/mum032
  13. Armitage, D., 2008, Governance and the commons in a multi-level world, International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 7-32. 10.18352/ijc.28
  14. Arnstein, S.R., 1969, A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. 10.1080/01944366908977225
  15. Bulkeley, H., 2005, Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks, Political Geography, 24(8), 875-902. 10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.07.002
  16. Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M.M., 2005, Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the 'urban' politics of climate change, Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42-63. 10.1080/0964401042000310178
  17. Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Marvin, S., McCormick, K., van Steenbergen, F., and Voytenko Palgan, Y., 2016, Urban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 13-17. 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003
  18. Brown, G. and Kyttä, M., 2014, Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research, Applied Geography, 46, 122-136. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004
  19. Brown, G. and Weber, D., 2013, A place-based approach to conservation management using public participation GIS (PPGIS), Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(4), 455-473. 10.1080/09640568.2012.685628
  20. Brenner, N., 2004, New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  21. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., and Mitchell, R.B., 2003, Knowledge systems for sustainable development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086-8091. 10.1073/pnas.1231332100 12777623 PMC166186
  22. Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., and Young, O., 2006, Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world, Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8. 10.5751/ES-01759-110208
  23. Chronéer, D., Ståhlbröst, A., and Habibipour, A., 2019, Urban living labs: Towards an integrated understanding of their key components, Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(3), 50-62. 10.22215/timreview/1224
  24. Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., and Duarte, C., 2021, Living labs and user engagement for innovation and sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125721. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125721
  25. Cumming, G.S., Cumming, D.H.M., and Redman, C.L., 2006, Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions, Ecology and Society, 11(1), 14. 10.5751/ES-01569-110114
  26. Delaney, D. and Leitner, H., 1997, The political construction of scale, Political Geography, 16(2), 93-97. 10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00045-5
  27. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., and Balogh, S., 2012, An integrative framework for collaborative governance, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29. 10.1093/jopart/mur011
  28. Evans, J., Jones, R., Karvonen, A., Millard, L., and Wendler, J., 2015, Living labs and co-production: University campuses as platforms for sustainability science, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 1-6. 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005
  29. Evans, J., 2016, Trials and tribulations: Problematizing the city through/as urban experimentation, Geography Compass, 10(10), 429-443. 10.1111/gec3.12280
  30. Fischer, F., 2000, Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge, Duke University Press, Durham. 10.1515/9780822380283
  31. Fung, A., 2006, Varieties of participation in complex governance, Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66-75. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
  32. Gascó, M., 2017, Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector, Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 90-98. 10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.003
  33. Gibson, C.C., Ostrom, E., and Ahn, T.K., 2000, The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey, Ecological Economics, 32(2), 217-239. 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00092-0
  34. Guston, D.H., 2001, Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399-408. 10.1177/016224390102600401
  35. Healey, P., 1997, Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Macmillan, London. 10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2
  36. Howitt, R., 1998, Scale as relation: Musical metaphors of geographical scale, Area, 30(1), 49-58. 10.1111/j.1475-4762.1998.tb00047.x
  37. Hossain, M., Leminen, S., and Westerlund, M., 2019, A systematic review of living lab literature, Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976-988. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257
  38. Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E., 2016, Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems, Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 8-10. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.016
  39. Jasanoff, S., ed., 2004, States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, Routledge, London and New York.
  40. Lefebvre, H., 1991, The Production of Space, Blackwell, Oxford.
  41. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., and Nyström, A.-G., 2012, Living labs as open-innovation networks, Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 6-11. 10.22215/timreview/602
  42. Lupp, G., Zingraff-Hamed, A., Huang, J.J., Oen, A., and Pauleit, S., 2021, Living labs: A concept for co-designing nature-based solutions, Sustainability, 13(1), 188. 10.3390/su13010188
  43. Manzo, L.C. and Devine-Wright, P. (eds.), 2013, Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications, Routledge, London and New York. 10.4324/9780203757765
  44. Marston, S.A., 2000, The social construction of scale, Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 219-242. 10.1191/030913200674086272
  45. Meadowcroft, J., 2009, What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions, Policy Sciences, 42(4), 323-340. 10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z
  46. Norström, A.V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M.F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A.T., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B.M., Canadell, J.G., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Fulton, E.A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., Le Tissier, M., Martin-Lopez, B., Louder, E., Loutre, M.-F., Meadow, A.M., Nagendra, H., Payne, D., Peterson, G.D., Reyers, B., Scholes, R., Speranza, C.I., Spierenburg, M., Stafford-Smith, M., Tengö, M., van der Hel, S., van Putten, I., and Österblom, H., 2020, Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research, Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182-190. 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
  47. Ostrom, E., 2010, Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change, Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550-557. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004
  48. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009, A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes, Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354-365. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
  49. Puerari, E., de Koning, J.I.J.C., von Wirth, T., Karré, P.M., Mulder, I.J., and Loorbach, D.A., 2018, Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs, Sustainability, 10(6), 1893. 10.3390/su10061893
  50. Reed, M.S., 2008, Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review, Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431. 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
  51. Sayre, N.F., 2005, Ecological and geographical scale: Parallels and potential for integration, Progress in Human Geography, 29(3), 276-290. 10.1191/0309132505ph546oa
  52. Scott, J.C., 1998, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed, Yale University Press, New Haven.
  53. Smith, N., 1992, Contours of a spatialized politics: Homeless vehicles and the production of geographical scale, Social Text, 33, 54-81. 10.2307/466434
  54. Soja, E.W., 1996, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places, Blackwell, Oxford.
  55. Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R., 1989, Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39, Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. 10.1177/030631289019003001
  56. Steen, K. and van Bueren, E., 2017, The defining characteristics of urban living labs, Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(7), 21-33. 10.22215/timreview/1088
  57. Swyngedouw, E., 1997, Neither global nor local: ‘Glocalization’ and the politics of scale, in Cox, K.R. (ed.), Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local, Guilford Press, New York, 137-166.
  58. Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., and van Lieshout, M., 2010, Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: Comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance, Ecology and Society, 15(4), 29. 10.5751/ES-03798-150429
  59. von Wirth, T., Fuenfschilling, L., Frantzeskaki, N., and Coenen, L., 2019, Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: Mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation, European Planning Studies, 27(2), 229-257. 10.1080/09654313.2018.1504895
  60. Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., and Schliwa, G., 2016, Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda, Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45-54. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053
  61. Wynne, B., 1996, May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide, in Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B., eds., Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, Sage, London, 44-83. 10.4135/9781446221983.n3
  62. Young, O.R., 2002, The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 10.7551/mitpress/3807.001.0001
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Association of Regional Geographers
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국지역지리학회
  • Journal Title :REGION AND GEOGRAPHY
  • Journal Title(Ko) :지역과 지리
  • Volume : 32
  • No :2
  • Pages :44-64
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.26863/JKARG.2026.5.32.2.44
Journal Informaiton REGION AND GEOGRAPHY REGION AND GEOGRAPHY
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close