Reconsidering Environmental Informatisation in light of E-Governance

｢지방정부연구｣ 제16권 제3호(2012 가을) : 111～134

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

* First author

** Corresponding author

: Focusing on the Korean National Environmental Technology

Information Centre (KONETIC)

E-거버넌스를 통한 환경정보화의 재고찰

: 한국 국가환경기술정보센터를 사례로

Taewook, Huh*

Yongsung, Park**

이 논문은 환경정보화가 e-거버넌스(governance)를 통해서 어떻게 운영될 수 있으며, 이는 한국의 환경정책분야의 의사결정구조에 어떠한 영향을 줄 수 있는지 살펴본다. 한국의 환경기술정보센터(KONETIC) 및 관련 웹사이트 체계를 분석하고, 이들의 긍정적/부정적 영향을 조사한다. 이를 통해 한국의 상황에서 e-거버넌스를 통한 환경정보화의 필요성을 밝혀낸다. 전자정부(e-government) 발전단계에 비추어, KONETIC 사례는 다양한 이해당사자들에게 환경관련 정보 제공에 초점을 맞추는 ‘정보관리모델’ 및 기업과 시민들에게 전자서비스를 제공하는 ‘3단계’에 해당되는 것으로 보여진다. 본 연구는 e-거버넌스를 통한 환경정보화가 다양한 사적 영역(기업) 및 자발적 영역(시민/시민단체)를 포괄하는 참여적이고 숙의적인 의사결정 기제의 단계로 발전해야 함을 주장한다. 이는 ‘e-정보 제공’에서부터 ‘e-상호적 참여’ 및 ‘e-통합적 소통(gate-making)’으로의 전환이라고 말할 수 있다.

주제어 : 환경정보화, 거버넌스, E-거버넌스, 전자정부(E-government)

Ⅰ. Introduction

This paper looks at what impact environmental informatisation has on the decision- making structure in the environmental policy area in S. Korea and how e‐governance works through environmental informatisation. It explores the case of KONETIC (Korean National Environmental Technology Information Center), which is a nonprofit organization financed and authorized by the Ministry of Environment as a unique portal for environmental information exchange and services in the country.

The concept of governance has emerged in response to problems and limitations within existing government-centered hierarchy system and regulation. Governance could create a number of possibilities for solving environmental problems. For example, it could enhance the socio-institutional capacity of coordination, steering, and regulation through the comprehensive participation of stakeholders and self-regulating and cooperative endeavors between stakeholders. This environmental governance incorporates the principles of governance into the sphere of environmental management and is clearly different from the existing government‐led and market-led environmental management methods.

Governance consisting of a horizontal network has developed into a multi-level structure in the information society emerging through ICT (Information and Communication Technology) that has increased the participation of citizens in various policy areas (Kang, 2011; Yoon 2006). The emergence and development of e-governance has had an important impact in the way it has transformed the government-centered decision-making system whereby only a few members of public participated in the decision-making process, into a network system in which a wide range of people can participate.

Reconsidering Environmental Informatisation in light of E-Governance

｢지방정부연구｣ 제16권 제3호(2012 가을)

In the context of e-governance, environmental informatisation has been paid attention because it can make a substantial contribution to building up a multilateral system that covers the issues of the efficiency of environmental public administration, communication and information sharing among stakeholders, multi‐stakeholder participation and so on.

In this regard, this study focuses on the Korean environmental informatisation. As the ICT technology has developed rapidly in S. Korea, e-governance and environmental informatisation have evolved. In fact, they have accelerated the transition to an information society, particularly, new forms or styles of participation, environmental management, and the authority and roles of state re-adjusted. However, in the reality, although most environmental informatisation projects conducted in S. Korea has developed in line with the expansion of the funding, they have attracted the criticism that they just focused on the mechanical efficiency and the environmental regulatory administration. In fact, it can be argued that the Korean environmental Informatisation put an emphasis on achieving performance and objectives of environmental Informatisation through ‘command and control’ approach.

In relation to the above argument, this study reviews the case of KONETIC and explores – based on the evidence of the positive and negative impact of KONETIC – the necessity of environmental Informatisation through e-governance, this study explores the case of KONETIC. In particular, according to the evolution stages of environmental Informatisation (described in the following sections), this article analyses where KONETIC is positioned among them and what way it has affected the context of Korean environmental Informatisation and e-governance.

This study as a case study adopts quantitative methodology including multiple methods that are based on the questionnaires with the non‐probability sampling method, conducted by KONETIC in 2011 (468 samples) and 2012 (218 samples). Particularly, in July and August 2012, the questionnaire survey was conducted in the two rounds – designed by the researchers together. After finishing the questionnaire, the participants were interviewed on the details and critical points through email or mobile phone. This approach is based on methodological triangulation and the Delphi method.

In conclusion, taking a critical look at the performance and limits of KONETIC, this paper will suggest that the Korean environmental Informatisation is required to change in the future from the exiting ‘provider-centered system’ (focusing on the unilateral delivery of information) to ‘user-centered system ‘(interaction and collaboration‐based), for example, like the new ‘Web 2.0’ way.

2. Reviewing Environmental Governance, E-governance

and Environmental Informatisation

1) The relationship between environmental governance and e-governance

Since 1990s, governance has involved concentration on the democratic characteristics of governing which has included participation of civil society in decision-making process and the confirmation of consensus. Governance has also focused on new ways of organizing the management system and governing which has led to an introduction of a managing system beyond the ‘government-centered’ and ‘market-centered’. Since 2000s, in particular, governance has been addressed as an alternative mechanism to new problems, which the existing governing or management system could not sort out.

The idea of governance – an alternative government operating system or cooperative management system (Jessop, 1997; 2000, Kooiman, 2000; Rhodes, 1997; 2007) – has been a trademark of dealing with sustainable development (SD) issues, including environmental conservation, economic growth, and social integration (Huh, 2011). Particularly, the basic constitution and operating logic of the governance system can provide the institutional basis on which various stakeholders with equivalent rights and sufficient information can participate and then build a consensus on the objective value of SD through discussions and learning processes (Cho, 2002; Jung, 2002). Hence, governance has the potential work as the structure through which this consensus can be drawn.

Governance, in this context, could create a number of possibilities for solving environmental problems. For example, it could enhance the socio-institutional capacity of coordination, steering and regulation through the comprehensive participation of stakeholders, and self-regulating and cooperative endeavours between stakeholders (Jung, 2002). This method of governance of environmental problems, or ‘environmental governance’, incorporates the principles of governance into the sphere of environmental management – related in practice to SD – and is clearly different from the existing environmental management method such as government-led or market-led one (Huh, 2010). The government-led environmental management method focuses on the legislation and enforcement of environmental laws, which assumes that environmental problems can be tackled through technical and end-of-pipe processes to abate or control undesirable substances (Jung, 2002; Cho, 2002). Hence, it is the management style of ‘command and control’. On the other hand, the market-led environmental management method emphasises internalising environmental problems by their external effect by making use of market mechanisms such as incentives (op. cit.). However, this strategy has maintained the basic frame of the existing governing mode, which shows clear limitations in dealing with environmental problems, especially those which nowadays extend to the global level.

Meanwhile, governance has developed from rapid changes in new technology, which has encouraged external actors to the government to be able to exchange information easily and even establish voluntary communities in a participatory way. In this context, the rapid development of technology has also caused the governing or ruling structure to change into another form. The great advances within communication technology such as internet and mobile communication have widened access to information that was exclusively available to the government, and a strong network within civil society has made such transfer of information easier.

In fact, the information revolution and e-governance have accelerated the transition from an industrial society to an informational society, which is permeated and structured by ‘knowledge-based information’, and characterised by being ‘informational, global and networked’ (Castells, 2000: 77). Particularly, as IT or ICT has rapidly developed, new forms or styles of participation, management and decision making have emerged, and the authority and roles of state have re-adjusted. Hence, the new technology is expected to offer better forms of governance in relation to accountability, efficiency, responsiveness, and transparency.

In fact, a seed of e-governance, as Kim (2007: 137) and Kim and Seo (2006: 133) have argued, was sown when e-government came into being and e-governance has developed with the development of e-government. There are various perspectives on the concept of e-government. The United Nations Public Administration Network (UN/ASPA, 2002: 1) has defined e-government as “utilizing the Internet and the World Wide Web for delivering government information and services to citizens”. In brief, e-government is the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in order to improve efficiently and effectively public administrations and public business processes (EU information Society Portal; Forrest, 2007).

According to Torres, et al (2006: 278), e-governance “includes e-government plus key elements of governance such as online engagement of stakeholders in the process of shaping, debating, and implementing public policies”. In this context, e-governance is a mechanism of solution for social problems, which emphasizes the participatory governance paradigm that highlights participation and roles of civil society. It is a form combining social elements from civil society’s demands on policy activities and e-government as a path of governance.

The existing governance has changed representative democracy to plural democracy and has complemented a weak point within representative democracy. Importantly, e-governance has the ability to enable direct (representative) democracy where a greater number of people could participate in decision making process through establishment of a complete united network in order to tackle imbalance and inequality in expressing various interests in the plural democracy (Lim, 2005). As Tapscott and Agnew (1999) have argued, in the move from ‘industrial age’ to ‘the digital age’, we are heading for a major transformation which is spawned in all levels of governance. For example, democracy is on the way from representative democracy to participatory democracy; citizens is moving from being ‘passive consumers’ of mass media-intermediated coverage to becoming ‘active partners’ in the governance process; and the face of politics is altered ‘from broadcast, mass politics to electronically enabled one-to-one relationships between citizens and politicians’. (Tapscott and Agnew, 1999: 35)

<Table 1: The digital transformation at all levels of governance>

	Industrial age	Digital age
Democracy	Representative	Participatory
Citizens	Passive consumers	Active partners
Politics	Broadcast, mass	One-to-one

Source: Tapscott and Agnew(1999), http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/12/tapscott.htm

E-governance through rapidly developing ICTs has great potentials to foster democratic interaction between government and citizens as well as to streamline inefficient public bureaucracies (Ho, 2002; O’Looney, 2002; UN-ASPA, 2002). In particular, first, ICT can help increase the integration and transparency of environmental policy system. It is highly regarded to reduce information asymmetry in the environmental area between the government and citizens or civic groups. While civil servants often monopolise information and data in relation to environmental issues and agenda, citizens does not have enough resources or ways to have such ones. In this context, through ICT, a range of environmental information can be distributed and provided to citizens (and companies and civic groups) (ITU, 2008).

Secondly, through multi-way communication capabilities, ICT creates various types of civil involvement in the environmental policy-making. For instance, the government can use e-bulletin boards on websites as devices in order to help consult citizens about specific environmental issues (Lim, 2005). On the bulletin board system, a range of participants (from the private and voluntary sectors) are able to post their own thoughts and opinions on environmental agendas and to share others’ views. In addition, online deliberation channels help citizens who cannot afford to give their time and make efforts to participate in offline meetings to show their own ideas and thoughts (Davis, 1999). Through online forums, voices of citizens in the environmental policy‐making process can be more articulated and interactive policy-making can take place as well.

Thirdly, ICT contributes to accelerating the effectiveness of environmental regulatory mechanism (ITU, 2008; Lim, 2005). In fact, a web‐based communication channel provides a simple (one-stop) way for citizens to report a pollution event, polluter, illegal practices, and so on. Hence, it results in increasing the capability of environmental agencies to monitor and regulate them. Finally, entrepreneurial politics seeking to put together environmental interests of each group can be enhanced for collective action (Bimber, 2003; Zelwietro, 1998). Environmental organizations and civic groups can reach far a great number of citizens, social and economic groups by using the Internet as a communication tool to provide rich information (Zelwietro, 1998). Therefore, ICT/web technology contributes to the great reduction of the communication and coordination costs in organising collective efforts for environmental advocacy (Bimber, 2003).

2) The stages of e-government and environmental Informatisation

The fundamental meaning of environmental Informatisation is related with conserving and managing the environment by using ICT technology. Environmental Informatisation can contribute not only to providing emission data of each pollutant for an effective policy-making process and enhancing the effectiveness of administration but also achieving transparency and efficacy of the environmental public administration. In other words, Environmental Informatisation aims to contribute to providing a service required for citizens as well as to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of an internal business such as the rationalisation of a policy-making process, the reduction of administrative costs, and the improvement of the transparency of an administrative process. Through ICT, Environmental Informatisation collects, produces, and handles a variety of environmental information that are utilised for the works of environmental public administration. Also, it actively distributes environmental information at home or abroad, which can fulfil citizens’ demands on environmental information.

Meanwhile, the evolvement of Environmental Informatisation can be categorised in line with the stages of e-government. A range of stages of e-government could be summarised, in terms of the interaction between a government and citizens, as the following three ones. In the initial stage, e-government focuses on a service provision in the view of a provider. In the next stage, there may be a certain type of simple interaction between a provider and consumers; and in the final stage, more robust interaction appears to happen, which is led by consumers (Lim, 2005; Kim, 2006).

Also, Kim (2004: 28-35)’s research has suggested the four development models of e-government: ‘Bureaucratic model’, ‘Information Management model’, ‘Civic Engagement model’, and ‘Governance model’. The Bureaucratic model focuses on improving the internal efficiency of public administration; the information management model emphasises the provision of electronic information for citizens; the civic engagement model refers to the stage in which mutual participation between a government and citizens can be carried out; the governance model means the stage in which a robust networked-interaction happens. Table 2 describes the four models of the development of e-government, their features, main principles, and the degree of civic engagement.

<Table 2: Models of the development of e-government>

Model	Features	Principle	Degree of civic engagement
Bureaucratic model	public administration info. for public organisations & civil servants	efficiency of administration	very weak
Information management model	provision of electronic information to citizens	responsiveness efficiency	weak
Civic engagement model	participation through the mutual interaction between the gov. and citizens	democracy transparency	mutual involvement
Governance model	participation through the multi-level interaction between the gov. & various social actors	democracy transparency	multilateral participation through a network

Source: Kim (2004), pp.28-35; Kim (2006), p.277.

In relation the stages of e-government evolution, the UN global E-Government Readiness Index presents the state of e-government, based upon the five stage models. As the following explains, these models are defined according to scale of progressively sophisticated citizen services (UNDESA, 2005: 14-16)

<Figure 1: The stages of e-government evolution>

Sources: MOPAS&NIA (2011), p.5.

The Stage I, ‘Emerging Presence’, shows the limited representation information, in which most information remains static with the fewest options for citizens. The Stage II is ‘Enhanced presence’ in which policy sources of current and archived information are provided by the government; for example, policies, laws and regulation, reports, newsletters, and downloadable databases. The Stage III is ‘Interactive Presence’ in which “the online services of the government enter the interactive mode with services to enhance convenience of the consumer such as downloadable forms for tax payment, application for license renewal” (UNDESA, 2005: 16).

The Stage IV is ‘Transactional presence’ where two-way interaction between the citizen and the government takes place; for instance, options for paying taxes; applying for ID cards, birth certificates/passports, license renewals and other similar C2G (citizen-to-government) interactions. The Stage V , ‘Networked presence’, is the most sophisticated level in the online e-government initiatives, which is characterised by an integration of G2G (government-to-government), G2C (government-to-citizen) and C2G (citizen-to-government) interactions. In particular, “the government encourages participatory deliberative decision-making and is willing and able to involve the society in a two way open dialogue” (UNDESA, 2005: 16). The final state describes that the public sector agencies are integrated with full cooperation and they understand “the concept of collective decision-making, participatory democracy and citizen empowerment as a democratic right” (Ibid).

3. The Trend of Environmental Informatisation

and the Korean case

As ICT has developed dramatically, many countries around the world have been aware of cross-cutting environmental problems and kept made an effort for cooperation to tackle the problems. The development of ICT was applied to the environmental policy area as well as to other policy areas, which utilised the Informatisation of environmental problems. In the context, as a public awareness has been raised, Environmental Informatisation and related policies have been carried out in the global, national, and local contexts.

For example, United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) has conducted the environmental assessment in order to establish environment-related data systematically as a part of realising Sustainable Development through effective environmental Informatisation. The Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA) of UNEP has provided timely, credible, and policy-relevant environmental data and information in association with several science centres (Kang, 2011). Particularly, DEWA has maintained the close cooperation system with WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre) and GRID (Global Resource Information Database). Each information centre has provided regional and local information and data, and developed each environmental sector‐related scientific technology.

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/

www.grid.unep.ch/

DEWA has played an active role of building a bridge between science and policies. UNEP performs such a role of the information centre to accumulate knowledge by building up the system – ‘Environment Directory’ or called ‘UNEP.net’ – to cooperate with numerous environment research institutes that have a variety of scientific professionalism (Kang, 2011). The internet information system primarily aims to share environmental information in the top-down way, and the research institutes continue to deal with the given information and update recent information and data. Also, civic groups such as NGOs of science and technology communities can participate in the scientific environmental process and science information-sharing, which is managed by DEWA.

http://www.unep.org/resources/gov/MEnvironment.asp

In relation to the Informatisation, Korea has actively pursued e-government by leveraging the world’s best information and communications technology (ICT) including broadband Internet. The Korean e-government has produced visible results: the significant improvement of both efficiency and transparency of administrative work; the enhancement of administrative civil services; the growth of civic engagement in the policy-making process (MOPAS&NIA, 2011: 5-7). The government started to build up the National Basic Information System since the mid-1980s, enacted the Framework Act on Informatisation Promotion in 1995 and the Act on E-government in 2001, and established the Master Plan for National Informatisation in 2008 (MOPAS&NIA, 2011: 4-5).

It shows the rapid evolution of e-government and Informatisation in Korea, which is currently recognised as one of the world’s best e-government development. For example, it ranked 1st in the evaluation of the Brookings Institution in 2008, and ranked 6th in the 2008 evaluation of UN (MOPAS&NIA, 2011: 7). In particular, the Korean e-government was also evaluated as entering Stage V, ‘networked presence’, – representing the most sophisticated level, characterised by an integration of government-citizen interactions, in which the participatory deliberative decision-making is taking place – from Stage IV, ‘transactional presence’, in the Web Measure Index by the UN (described in the previous section) (MOPAS&NIA, 2011: 7-8).

In terms of environmental Informatisation, the Korean government has constantly carried out a range of projects; for example, while supporting the operation of environmental public administration by collecting, producing, and dealing with environment-related data, the government has tried to fulfil the growing demands of citizens on environmental information (Kang, 2011; Lim, 2005). The Korean Environmental Informatisation has developed from the stage of computerizing and administrative statistics in late 1980s to the stage of building up the infrastructure of environmental Informatisation, An example of this is setting the environmental database and establishing the local area network (LAN) (Lim, 2005; MOPAS&NIA, 2011).

In particularly, the government created the Long-term Comprehensive Plan for Environmental Informatisation in 1997 and has focused on facilitating the Informatisation of each environmental sector and civic engagement through the Long-term Comprehensive Plan for Environmental Informatisation II from 2002 to 2011 (MOPAS&NIA, 2011). In addition, since 2007 the Korean government has carried out the Establishment Plan of National Environmental Comprehensive Information Portal System, based on the Information and Technology Architecture. Moreover, the government put much work into the Korean National Environmental Technology Information Centre that is highly regarded as a unique portal for Environmental Informatisation (KONETIC, 2011b).

4. Exploring the Case of KONETIC

1) The key driver and performance of KONETIC

In June 1999, KONETIC (Korean National Environmental Technology Information Center) was founded and run by Environmental Management Corporation (EMC) under supervision by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) (KEITI, 2010). In those days, however, a large value of environmental data and information fragmented and many environmentally related organisations were dotted as diverse channels. Therefore, it was difficult to filter and reproduce valuable information. This circumstance leads KONETIC to initiate and create the systematic integration and exchange of environmental information, called ‘Environmental Industry and Technology Information System’ (www.konetic.or.kr) (KONETIC, 2012b). The system began its mission in March 2000, bringing together environmental information providers and facilitating the exchange or information between them.

The website (www.konetic.or.kr), providing a variety of electronic environmental data and information to a wide array of users, is the Korea’s largest environmental information portal site that provides a database having a half million specialist documents converging such fields as environmental facilities, technologies, business and management (KEITI, 2010). The website system is managed to deliver top-quality, value-driven, innovative environmental information by using the most current technologies (KEITI, 2011).

<Figure 2: Main page of KONETIC>

Currently, KONETIC is run by the Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) which is a leading institute in the field of ‘Low Carbon Green Growth’ for the development of green technologies and industries. The history of KONETIC and its major activities so far can be summarized as shown in Table 3 below.

<Table 3: History of KONETIC>

Year	Major activities
1999	Founded National Environmental Technology Information Center (KONETIC) Run by Environmental Management Corporation (EMC) under supervision by the Ministry of Environment (MOE)
2000	Started information service on environmental industry and technology (www.kinetic.or.kr)
2003	Started APEC-VC oversea environmental technology information network service (www.apec-vc.or.kr)
2005	Concluded MOU for information exchange with KIST Europe
2006	Changed authority of the KONETIC from EMC to KIEST (Korea Institute of Environmental Science and Technology)
2007	Established the Information Strategy Plans for KONETIC
2009	Run by Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI)

Source: KEITI, 2010, KEITI, 2011.

KONETIC is building the one-stop information service system through the technical life style; particularly, it mainly focuses on the Environmental Industry and Technology Information System (www.konetic.or.kr). In addition, there are the family sites; ‘APEC-VC(virtual centre) for Environmental Technology and Exchange’ and its network services were created through the web‐site (www.apec-vc.or.kr) in cooperation with many nations including Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, Chile, and Mexico (KEITI, 2010). The Integrated Network for Overseas Environmental Industries is also working through the web-site (www.eishub.or.kr); the Digital Information Center for Environment Research (DICER) provides a variety of information on the research and development (http://dicer.konetic.or.kr); and the Cyber Environmental Field Training System (www.konetic.ecoedu.go.kr) focuses on the cyber field training of technologies as well as know-how on facilities operation (KEITI, 2011).

Through the Environmental Industry and Technology Information System, KONETIC is making efforts to provide a variety of services, such as the specialized information service (e.g. design and construction information, technological support & diagnosis information); the environmental industry supporting service (e.g. environmental biz, cyber exhibition); the environmental news and advanced information service (e.g. domestic and oversea environmental news, KONETIC report & focus); and the environmental archive (e.g. yellow page of environmental business, archive) (KEITI, 2011; KONETIC, 2011b). As a result, the Information System of KONETIC (www.konetic.co.kr) provided and implemented about 530,000 statistics (items) in 2011, dramatically developed since 1999 when the yearly DB (database) implementation statistics were around 113,000 – almost five times increased for 12 years (see the below figure 3).

<Figure 3: Yearly DB implementation statistics>

Source: KONETIC (2012b), p.10.

2) The impact and benefits of KONETIC: functional or not?

The Information System of KONETIC has the far-reaching network covering cross-agency information from a range of organisations and agencies (overseas and domestic), which also includes overseas environmental news and convergence, and SNS (social network service). (KEITI, 2010; KEITI, 2011) As shown in the blow figure 4, the KONETIC network has rapidly expanded to provide and share a variety of environmental information.

<Figure 4: KONETIC network>

Source: KONETIC (2012b), p.16.

KEITI and KONETIC (Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute) have carried out the annual questionnaire survey on the Information system (www.konetic.or.kr) and its family sites, through which we can look at the impact of KONETIC and its critical points. The result of the survey mainly consists of ①user analysis, ②review of the information demand, ③consumer satisfaction measurement.

① User analysis

As shown in Table 4 below, the people who have visited the KONETIC web-sites are mainly living in Seoul (32.9% in 2011, 41% in 2012) and Gyeonggi/Incheon (25.4% in 2011, 37% in 2012). The result shows that almost 60% (in 2011) and 80% (in 2012) of all participants are from the capital region. Although, to some extent, this is related with the ratio of the regional population, the huge disproportion seems to show the digital divide between the users from the metropolitan area and from the non-metropolitan area.

<Table 4: Participants’ region>

Region	2011		2012
	Informants	Proportion (%)	Informants	Proportion (%)
Seoul	154	32.9	89	41
Gyeonggi & Incheon	119	25.4	80	37
Gyeongnam & Busan	60	12.8	12	6
Etc	135	28.9	37	16
Total	468	100.0	218	100

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.6; KONETIC (2012a), p.6.

The participants are affiliated with various organisations and entities, including general companies (38.5% in 2011, 30% in 2012), and environmental industries (19.7% in 2011, 18% in 2012). In addition, a number of students/individuals (13.5% in 2011, 18% in 2012) have visited the web-sites.

<Table 5: Participants’ affiliation>

Affiliation	2011		2012
	Informants	Proportion (%)	Informants	Proportion (%)
General companies	180	38.5	66	30
Environmental industries	92	19.7	40	18
Students/Individuals	63	13.5	39	18
Public agencies	41	8.8	25	11
Research institute/univ.	27	5.8	18	8
Etc	42	13.9	33	15

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.7; KONETIC (2012a), p.7.

② Review of the information demand

As Table 6 describes below, the people are mainly using the websites to get environmental news (24.2% in 2011, 17% in 2012); search new technology and products (21.6% in 2011, 17% in 2012); and for research and development (13.5% in 2011, 17% in 2012).

<Table 6: Purpose of information collection>

Purpose	2011		2012
	Informants	Proportion(%)	Informants	Proportion(%)
To get environmental news	255	24.2	57	17
To search new technology & products	228	21.6	54	17
Research & development	142	13.5	57	17
To grasp overseas market Trends	139	13.2	33	10
For private study	49	4.6	42	13
etc	241	23.0	83	26

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.8; KONETIC (2012a), p.8.

Meanwhile, as Table 7 illustrates, in order to gain environmental information, the participants are more frequently visiting the home pages of public agencies and the general portal sites than the KONETIC family sites. It implies that up to now both the formers may be more well-known to the users rather than the KONETIC family sites.

<Table 7: Sites mainly used>

- possible duplicate answers

Sites		2011		2012
		Informants	Proportion(%)	Informants	Proportion(%)
KONETIC family sites (27.4% in ‘11) (28% in ‘12)	KONETIC	443	19.7	162	21
	DICER	84	3.7	22	3
	Etc	92	4.1	29	5
Home Pages of Public agencies (40.9% in ‘11) (41% in ‘12)	Ministry of Env.	356	15.8	133	17
	Korea Env. Industry & Technology Inst.	95	4.2	70	9
	National Institute of Env. Research	245	10.9	24	3
	Etc	38	11.1	90	13
General portal sites (31.7% in ‘11) (31% in ‘12)	Naver	379	16.8	145	19
	Daum	167	7.4	47	6
	Etc	170	7.5	48	7

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.9; KONETIC (2012a), p.9.

As shown in Table 8 below, the site visitors are hoping to gain the technology information (34.8% in 2011, 40% in 2012) including on research information, energy, and recycling; the information of industry & policy (39.3% in 2011, 30% in 2012) including about seminars and industries; and the overseas information (25.9% in 2011, 30% in 2012) including on overseas technology information.

<Table 8: Information demand item>

Demand Item		2011		2012
		Informants	Proportion (%)	Informants	Proportion (%)
Technology Information (34.8% in ‘11) (40% in ‘12)	Research Information	239	9.2	85	11
	Energy	256	9.8	83	11
	Recycling	187	7.2	80	10
	Etc	224	8.6	60	8
Information of Industry & Policy (39.3% in ‘11) (30% in ‘12)	Seminar	237	9.1	77	10
	Industries	388	14.9	67	9
	Related laws & regulations	199	7.6	38	5
	Etc	213	8.2	53	6
Overseas Information (25.9% in ‘11) (30% in ‘12)	Overseas technology & information	317	12.2	78	10
	Overseas general info.	136	5.2	40	2
	Overseas exhibition	74	2.8	23	3
	Trend of overseas trade and investment	61	2.3	28	4
	Etc	73	2.8	31	4

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.10; KONETIC (2012a), p.10.

③ Consumer satisfaction measurement: CSI (Consumer Satisfaction Index)

According to the KONETIC annual surveys, CSI has continually increased since 2004 (63.96), particularly, at the top (81.57) in 2011. However, it was down to 73.7 in 2012, which is of the almost same level three years ago, 2009 (see Table 9 & 10 below).

<Table 9: CSI from 2004 to 2012>

2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
63.96	66.49	66.52	66.75	69.60	72.96	76.64	81.57	73.7

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.4; KONETIC (2012a), p.4.

<Table 10: CSI (Consumer Satisfaction Index)>

Area	Factor	CSI		Weight
		2011	2012
Felt Satisfaction		86.80	77.5	10%
Information Quality	Speed	85.84	73.0	5%
	Professionalism	83.76	77.4	6%
	Diversity	83.49	75.8	5%
	Completeness	81.51	72.8	4%
	Usefulness	83.33	76.8	4%
	Accuracy	85.36	77.3	4%
User Convenience	search result	79.64	75.7	4%
	site‐menu structure	78.52	73.7	4%
	Access	80.02	75.8	4%
Optional Services	Helpfulness	83.44	74.8	8%
	Ease	78.47	69.1	7%
	Functionality	81.83	73.2	7%
Etc	Design	78.47	71.2	7%
	Community	76.38	70.4	7%
	manager’s response	77.29	69.0	7%
	system stability	81.73	72.9	7%
Comprehensive CSI		81.57	73.7	100%

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.13; KONETIC (2012a), p.13.

As described in Table 11, the users are more satisfied with the factors of ‘felt satisfaction’, ‘accuracy’ and ‘professionalism’ of the information quality but are not relatively satisfied with ‘ease’ of the optional services, ‘community’ in which the users can participate, and ‘manager’s response’ to the users’ demands and in the communication with the users. In particular, CSI numbers on the factors of ‘community’ and ‘manager’s response’ were the lowest ones among all the factors measured – 76.38 & 70.4 (2011 & 2012), 77.29 & 69.0 (2011 & 2012) respectively.

<Table 11: Satisfaction degree of each factor>

Satisfied ↔ Unsatisfied

felt satisfaction > accuracy > professionalism ↔ ease > community > manager’s response

Source: KONETIC (2011a), p.13; KONETIC (2012a), p.13.

The Consumer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has an important implication because the impact and results through Environmental Informatisation can be shown as the improvement of policy quality and the citizens’ satisfaction of related policies and issues (Yoon, 206; Enserink and Monnikhof, 2003). However, CSI appears to lack the context of mutual impact between the provider (KONETIC and KEITI) and the users. In fact, there was not any clear route to reflect the users’ or citizens’ opinions on the structure of the information provision and the process of access to the information, which therefore shows that CSI cannot cover any measurements of the impact from the users and citizens.

According to the email interviews with the twenty respondents, it was found that the users (14 of 20) mostly consider that the interaction and communication is mainly led by the provider (KONETIC) and there was not a certain way to participate in a decision-making process. One interviewee mentioned “from the beginning of the system, we have just received the information provided by KONETIC, and responded to only demands of KONETIC. It is pretty hard to reflect our opinions because the system is worked based on the unilateral communication.” Also, another respondent said “we hope that there can be opportunities created through more robust communication and participation in the near future”. This result seems to show why the factors of ‘community’ and ‘manager’s response’ have the lowest points of CSI in 2011 & 2012.

5. Implications: Towards Environmental Informatisation

through E-governance

Looking at the case of KONETIC including the family web-sites, this paper explores their positive and negative impacts, and tries to figure out the necessity of Environmental Informatisation through e-governance in the Korean context. As reviewed previously, Environmental Informatisation first aims to provide and systematise a range of environment-related information, and then help not only public organisations and agencies, institutes, and experts but also general citizens to easily search and utilise the relevant environmental information. In particular, the context of civic engagement in the formulation and implementation process of Environmental Informatisation is highly regarded, as shown in the UN global E-government Readiness Index (described in the previous section). However, it is shown that the case of KONETIC including the family web-sites substantially lacks a way (‘gate’) of leading the participation of companies, civic groups, and citizen, and also lacks a robust interaction between the provider and the users.

In this regard, the case of KONETIC can be characterised and categorised as the following types, based on the models and the stages of e-government evolution suggested by Kim (2004) and UNDESA (2006) – reviewed previously. As Figure 5 illustrates, it seems to be positioned in the area of between the information management model focusing on the provision environment-related information to various stakeholders and the stage III (interactive presence) providing electronic services for companies and citizens.

<Figure 5: The type analysis of KONETIC>

However, although KONETIC and the family web-sites have a clear limitation at this moment, they can have a huge reserve of latent capacity to move to the further stages – Stage IV (transactional presence) of active two‐way interaction between the provider and the various users, Stage V (networked presence) of participatory deliberative decision-making –; and also develop to the next models – the civic engagement model focusing on the mutual interaction, and the governance model based on the multilateral and multi‐level relationship.

Such transition and development can be achieved by embedding the approach of e-governance (and environmental governance) in the design and process of Environmental Informatisation of KONETIC. The Environmental Informatisation thorough e-governance can produce the following three-stranded results: ⓐproviding relevant and timely environmental information to the users including companies and citizens; ⓑsharing environmental information with related organisations and establishing a systematic decision-making mechanism with the national and local entities; and ⓒbuilding a gate for enterprises, civic groups and citizens to enter a decision-making process. In relation to the three outcomes, KONETIC (and the family sites) had a positive and substantial impact of the two formers, particularly the result in the field of environmental industry and technology. However, they could not carry out a particular role with regard to the third outcome.

This study also notes that there appears to be the regional digital divide between the KONETIC users; the 2011 & 2012 surveys demonstrate that a few users living in the non-capital region have visited the KONETIC family websites. For example, in 2012, the people living in Seoul visited them nearly 5 times more, and in Gyeonggi/Incheon around 4 times more than the people in the non-metropolitan area – the user proportion from each local metropolitan area (8 regions) were less than 6% respectively, even some provincial regions less than 2%. The growing problem of digital divide could lead to the exclusive use of particular groups or social actors.

It can be argued that the gap between digital haves and have-nots is found as well in the case of KONETIC in S. Korea with the highest level of technology penetration. This is challenging both the provider (KONETIC & KEITI) and the main user (businesses) to address the domestic digital divide with substantive and meaningful solutions (Tapscott and Agnew, 1999). Therefore, the risk factors of digital divide should be dealt with through structural understanding and approaches, for instance, applying the concept and principle of ‘information right’, ‘digital entitlements’ or ‘digital opportunity’ of all citizens to the possible problems of unbalanced benefits from Environmental Informatisation (Mansell, 2002).

In short, as the structure and process of environmental governance is required to be re-designed continually according to the changes of environmental issues and citizens’ environmental demands, the Environmental Informatisation through e-governance should develop to the level of a participatory and deliberative decision-making mechanism with various actors from the private and voluntary sectors. This can be described as the transition from ‘e-information provision’ to ‘e-interactive participation’, and to ‘e-integrated gate-making’ – the two latters can be enhanced through such ‘web 2.0’ dynamics including the methods blogs, RSS, social bookmarking, SNS. In the Korean context, particularly, we should take a long hard look at redefining citizens’ roles, tackling the digital divide, and arranging the more suitable institutional alternatives in the environmental informatisation through e-governance.

References

Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Castells, M. (2000). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume І, The Rise of Network Society. (2nd edn.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Cho, Myung-Rae (2002). Evaluation of Green Seoul Citizen Committee as Green Governance. Environment and Life. 31: 53-73.

Davis, R. (1999). The Web of Politics: The Internet’s Impact on the American Political System. New York: Oxford University Press.

Enserink, B. and Monnikhof, R. A. H. (2003). Information Management for Public Participation in Co-design Process: Evaluation of a Dutch Example, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 46(3): 315-344.

Forrest, R. (2007). Presentation handout, lecture notes distributed in School for Policy Studies building at the University of Bristol. U.K. on 20th, November, 2007

Ho, T. A. (2002). Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government Initiative. Public Administration Review. 62(4): 434-444.

Huh, Taewook. (2010). Towards Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. The Korean Journal of Policy Studies. 25(3): 1-22.

Huh, Taewook. (2011). THE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH KOREA: the Case of the Presidential Commission on Sustainable Development. International Review of Public Administration. 16(3): 113-132.

ITU (International Telecommunication Union) (2008). ICTs for e-Environment: Guidelines for Developing Countries, with a Focus on Climate Change. ITU.

Jessop, B. (1997). The Governance of Complexity and the Complexity of Governance: preliminary remarks on some problems and limits of economic guidance in A. Amin, and J. Hausner (ed.). Beyond Market and Hierarchy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

_________ (2000). The Dynamics of Partnership and Governance Failure in Stoker, G. (ed.). The New Politics of Local Governance in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jung, Gyu-Ho (2002). What is Green Governance?. Environment and Life. 31: 23-37.

Kang Kyung Min (2011). Global Environmental Governance in Information Society: Application of Mobile Network. Ph. D. dissertation, International Cooperation Graduate School of International Studies Pusan National University

Kim, Hyok (2007). The Construction and Development of citizen-centred e-Governance in Korea: focused on the role of the Korean Government in its formation. New Asia. 14(2): 136-162.

Kim Jung-Tae (2004). E-Government. Seoul: Bobmunsa.

Kim Ki-Whan (2006). “Evaluation of Environmental Public Administration Informatization in the View of Governance: Focusing on the Main Projects of Environmental Informatization”, Korean Journal for Policy Sciences. 10(4): 273-295.

Kim, Seang-Tae and Seo, Eun-Jin (2006). The Comparative Analysis on E-Governance Performance of Local Government: Assessment of Municipal websites Throughout the World. Local Government Studies. 10(4): 131-151.

KEITI (2010). Korean National Environmental Technology Information Center. KEITI.

KEITI (2011). Working Towards Green Growth. KEITI.

KONETIC (2011a). The 2011 KCIS Report. KONETIC.

KONETIC (2011b). Main Tasks and Present Implementation. KONETIC.

KONETIC (2012a). The 2012 KCIS Report. KONETIC.

KONETIC (2012b). KONETIC, Connecting Environmental Knowledge Hub. KONETIC.

Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal Governance: Levels, Models, and Orders of Societal-Political Interaction in J. Pierre (ed.), Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy, Oxford University Press. USA.

Lim Joon-Hyoung (2005). THE IMPACT OF URBAN E-GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES ON THE PERFORMANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY-MAKING, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION, AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT IN KOREA. Ph. D. dissertation, Faculty of the Graduate School University of Southern California.

Mansell, R.(2002). From digital divides to digital entitlements in knowledge societies. Current sociology. 50(3): 407-426.

MOPAS&NIA (Ministry of Public Administration and Security & National Information Society Agency) (2011). E-Government of Korea: Best Practices.

O’Looney, J. A. (2002). Wiring Governments: Challenges and Possibilities for Public Managers. Westport, Connecticut, and London: Quorum Books.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

______________ (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on, Organization Studies. 28(08): 1243-1264.

Song, Kyong Jae (2006). Building Local E-Governance and Possibility of Civil Participation E-Democracy. Discourse 201. 9(4): 105-139.

Tapscott D, and David Agnew D. (1999). Governance in the Digital Economy: The Importance of Human Development. Finance & Development 36/4: 34-37.

Torres, L., Pina, V., and Acerete B. (2006). E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 19(2): 277-302.

UN/ASPA (United Nations/American Society for Public Administration). (2002). Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. New York: UN/ASPA.

UN DESA(Department of Economic and Social Affairs) (2005). UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2005: From E-government to E-inclusion.

Yoon Soon-Jin (2006). IT and Environmental Governance: Focusing on Exploring the Expansion of Civic Engagement Using IT. Journal of Environmental Studies 46: 121-149.

Zelwietro, J. (1998). The Politicization of Environmental Organizations Through the Internet. The Information Society. 14(45).

허태욱(許兌旭): 박사학위: PhD in Social Policy, University of Bristol (UK)), ”TOWARDS REFLEXIVE GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH KOREA: THE CASE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT“. 경희대학교 국제개발협력연구센터, 객원연구위원이며, 관심분야로는 거버넌스, 지속가능발전&녹색성장, 국제개발행정 등이 있다. 발표논문으로는 수원시 환경수도(저탄소녹색도시)로의 전환과 환경거버넌스, Exploring the Principles and Criteria for Governance for Sustainable Development, Towards Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development이다. 주요경력은 대통령자문 국가균형발전위원회 연구원, (사)한국NGO학회 사무국장, 이화여대 행정학과, 한국외대 국제지역대학원, 경희대 공공대학원 강사 등이다.

<E-mail: huh9595@gmail.com / 논문접수일: 2012. 09. 07 / 심사개시일: 2012. 09. 24 / 심사완료일: 2012. 10. 24>

박용성(朴龍星): 박사학위: PhD in Public Admnistration, University of Manchester (UK)). 단국대 행정학과, 부교수이며, 관심분야로는 정부혁신, 정부조직진단, 환경 및 기술정책 등이 있다. 발표논문으로는 경정정책 변동과정에 관한 연구: 경정정책의 신념체계와 이해관계를 중심으로, 행정공유서비스센터 개념과 지방자치단체에의 적용가능성에 관한 연구, Theory and Practice: Green growth이다. 주요경력은 대통령직속 지방이양추진위원회 행정분과실무위원장, 행정자치부 정부혁신 평가위원, 외교통산부 산하기관 평가위원 등이다.

<E-mail: yspark1@paran.com>