The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper analyzed environmental impact (EI) and ecological footprint (EF). EF can be an ...

The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper analyzed environmental impact (EI) and ecological footprint (EF). EF can be analyzed in terms of both land-use structure and consumption life people enjoy in everyday life. This paper analyzed EF in terms of the consumption life, using the structured questionnaire developed by Earthday Network. 200 samples were selected in each island, employing a quota sampling method by age and gender.
The three islands experienced change in EI for ten years from 1996 to 2005, showing a trend of increase from 1996 to 2005. Hawaii was highest in the increase, showing 2.729 times, and followed by Jeju (2.129 times) and Tasmania(1.719 times). The examination on the increase in EI explored that the effect of economic production for increasing affluence and convenience in life was less than its impact on environment.
EF as a whole reality was composed of five dimensions Residence, Food, Transportation, Product Purchase, and Discharge of Wastes, and each dimension was composed of question items. The three islands were different in the order of the biggest EF size being occupied by consumption life.
Jeju exceeds EF size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by 8.088times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively.
Males occupy bigger EF than females. The older the age is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the household income is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the educational attainment is, the bigger the EF size is. The Christians show a trend to occupy lower EF size than other religious beliefs and those who have no religion.
Relatively important determinant of EF size was different by island. Gender was the most important determinant in Jeju and Hawaii, while household monthly income is the most important determinant in Tasmania. However, the order of important determinant except the most important one was different by island.
As summarized above, significant differences in EI and EF were found by island. What are the major factors arising such differences Four factors - number of population, GRDP, land size, citizens' consumption life were used for estimating EI and EF. However, the differences can't be explained by the four factors, because there are so many factors determining the states of the four factors being patterned as a casual mechanism. The examples include the need citizens have for the enjoyment of material affluence and convenience in life, the pattern of citizens' lifestyle, and the development policy each island has advanced, etc. In this sense, the question - why such differences exist in the three islands is basically another further research question to be explained.
Another limitation inherent in this research is that the ten-year time series data used for estimating EI and the sample survey with 200 residents represent the particular experience in the three islands. Therefore, if the experience is different, the findings will lead to different estimations of EI and EF. To determine EI and EF, assumptions would have to take into account a long list of parameters such as longer than ten-year time series data and more question items for measuring EF size. However, the results cited here are based on a limited number of parameters, and a complex measurement instrument has been partially developed. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development within environmental carrying capacity.

The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper analyzed environmental impact (EI) and ecological footprint (EF). EF can be an ...

The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper analyzed environmental impact (EI) and ecological footprint (EF). EF can be analyzed in terms of both land-use structure and consumption life people enjoy in everyday life. This paper analyzed EF in terms of the consumption life, using the structured questionnaire developed by Earthday Network. 200 samples were selected in each island, employing a quota sampling method by age and gender.
The three islands experienced change in EI for ten years from 1996 to 2005, showing a trend of increase from 1996 to 2005. Hawaii was highest in the increase, showing 2.729 times, and followed by Jeju (2.129 times) and Tasmania(1.719 times). The examination on the increase in EI explored that the effect of economic production for increasing affluence and convenience in life was less than its impact on environment.
EF as a whole reality was composed of five dimensions Residence, Food, Transportation, Product Purchase, and Discharge of Wastes, and each dimension was composed of question items. The three islands were different in the order of the biggest EF size being occupied by consumption life.
Jeju exceeds EF size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by 8.088times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively.
Males occupy bigger EF than females. The older the age is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the household income is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the educational attainment is, the bigger the EF size is. The Christians show a trend to occupy lower EF size than other religious beliefs and those who have no religion.
Relatively important determinant of EF size was different by island. Gender was the most important determinant in Jeju and Hawaii, while household monthly income is the most important determinant in Tasmania. However, the order of important determinant except the most important one was different by island.
As summarized above, significant differences in EI and EF were found by island. What are the major factors arising such differences Four factors - number of population, GRDP, land size, citizens' consumption life were used for estimating EI and EF. However, the differences can't be explained by the four factors, because there are so many factors determining the states of the four factors being patterned as a casual mechanism. The examples include the need citizens have for the enjoyment of material affluence and convenience in life, the pattern of citizens' lifestyle, and the development policy each island has advanced, etc. In this sense, the question - why such differences exist in the three islands is basically another further research question to be explained.
Another limitation inherent in this research is that the ten-year time series data used for estimating EI and the sample survey with 200 residents represent the particular experience in the three islands. Therefore, if the experience is different, the findings will lead to different estimations of EI and EF. To determine EI and EF, assumptions would have to take into account a long list of parameters such as longer than ten-year time series data and more question items for measuring EF size. However, the results cited here are based on a limited number of parameters, and a complex measurement instrument has been partially developed. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development within environmental carrying capacity.

The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper reviewed first the concept and measurement method of environmental carrying ca ...

The aim of this research was to analyze environmental carrying capacity in three islands Jeju (Korea), Hawaii (USA), Tasmania (Australia) on a comparative basis. This paper reviewed first the concept and measurement method of environmental carrying capacity. Then, environmental impact (EI) and ecological footprint (EF) among the concepts of environmental carrying capacity were analyzed. EF was analyzed from consumption life among others, using the structured questionnaire developed by Earthday Network. 200 samples were selected in each island, employing a quota sampling method by age and gender.
The three islands experienced change in EI for ten years from 1996 to 2005, showing a trend of increase from 1996 to 2005. Hawaii was highest in the increase, showing 2.729 times, and followed by Jeju (2.129 times) and Tasmania (1.719 times).
EF as a whole reality was composed of five dimensions Residence, Food, Transportation, Product Purchase, and Discharge of Wastes, and each dimension was composed of question items. Residence was biggest dimension occupying EF in Jeju and Tasmania, while Food was the biggest in Hawaii.
Jeju exceeds EF size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by 8.088 times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively. This means that even though the EF size within internal carrying capacity is in order of Jeju, Hawaii, and Tasmania, their real EF size being occupied through consumption life is in order of Tasmania, Hawaii, and Jeju.
Males occupy bigger EF than females. The older the age is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the household income is, the bigger the EF size is. The higher the educational attainment is, the bigger the EF size is. The Christians show a trend to occupy lower EF size than other religious beliefs and those who have no religion.
Gender was the most important determinant in Jeju and Hawaii, while household monthly income is the most important determinant in Tasmania. However, the order of important determinant except the most important one was different by island.
Such differences in EI and EF are caused by many factors including the four factors - number of population, GRDP, land size, citizens' consumption life which were used in this research. However, the differences can't be explained by the four factors, because there are so many factors determining the states of the four factors being patterned as a casual mechanism. In this sense, the question - why such differences exist in the three islands is basically another further research question to be explained.
Another limitation inherent in this research is that the data used represent the particular experience in the three islands. Therefore, if the experience is different, the findings will lead to different estimations of EI and EF. To determine EI and EF, assumptions would have to take into account a long list of parameters. However, the results found in this research are based on a limited number of parameters, and a complex measurement instrument has been partially developed. Further development of this model will prove useful for policy formation and management for sustainable development within environmental carrying capacity.

1) Major Research Result: The three islands (Jeju, Hawaii, Tasmania) experienced change in environmental impact for ten years from 1996 to 2005, showing a trend of increase from 1996 to 2005. Hawaii was highest in the increase, showing 2.729 times, an ...

1) Major Research Result: The three islands (Jeju, Hawaii, Tasmania) experienced change in environmental impact for ten years from 1996 to 2005, showing a trend of increase from 1996 to 2005. Hawaii was highest in the increase, showing 2.729 times, and followed by Jeju (2.129 times) and Tasmania (1.719 times).
Jeju exceeds ecological footprint size by 15.14 times, Hawaii by 2.55 times, and Tasmania by 8.088 times. Jeju islanders require 2.044 earths, while Hawaii and Tasmania islanders require 2.239 and 2.585 earths, respectively. This means that even though the ecological footprint size within internal carrying capacity is in order of Jeju, Hawaii, and Tasmania, their real ecological footprint size being occupied through consumption life is in order of Tasmania, Hawaii, and Jeju. The excess of ecological footprint was significantly different by the socio-economic profiles of the residents in all of the three islands.
2) Plan to Use the Research: The result of this research includes at least two plans to be used. They are indirectly social contribution and international reference data in university education. The following includes indirect social contribution.
o can be used as a basic data for government to decide the policy priority in planning sustainable development.
o can be used as a basic data for environmental movement organizations in terms of their direction and content of environmental movement.
o can be used as a basic data for business corporations in terms of guiding the direction and content of green management.
o can be used as a guide to lead citizens to environmentally friendly behavior in their everyday life.
Meanwhile, the plan as an international reference data in university education is that the result of this research will be used as a teaching material in the course of environmental sociology.