11 research outputs found
íêµìž íìµìì ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° ìµë ì°êµ¬
íìë
Œë¬ž (ìì¬)-- ììžëíêµ ëíì : ììŽì묞í곌 ìŽíì ê³µ, 2015. 8. ìŽë§êž°.볞 ë
Œë¬žì ì€íìžìŽì ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° ìµëì ììŽì ìì©íë ííì ì곌 ìŽíì ìì ìíž êŽê³ë¥Œ ìŽë¡ ì ìŒë¡ ìŽíŽë³Žê³ , íêµìž íìµìì ì€íìžìŽ 곌거 ìì 묞ì¥ì ëí ìì ìŽíŽ ë° ííì ì ë륌 ì€ë¬žì íµíŽ íì
íì¬ ìŽë€ì íìµì ëììŽ ë ì ìë íšê³Œì ìž êµìë²ì ì ìíë ê²ì 목íë¡ íë€. í¹í ìì ìµë곌 êŽë šíì¬ êž°ì¡Žì ë
Œìë ì ê°ì€ê³Œ ìì ê°ì€ ì€ íêµìž íìµìë€ì ìŽë ê°ì€ì ë¶í©íë ìììŒë¡ ìì ìµëíëì§ ê²ìŠíë ê²ì ì€ì ì ëê³ ë¶ìí ì€ë¬ž 결곌륌 êµì¡íì ìŒë¡ ê³ ì°°íŽ ë³žë€.
ì°ì , ìŽë¡ ì ìž¡ë©Žììë ì€íìžìŽì ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° ëì¡°ì êŽì¬íë ìŽíì ì곌 ííì ì, ê·žëŠ¬ê³ ìŽ ë ì ì¬ìŽì êŽê³ë¥Œ ìŽíŽë³žë€. í¹í ìŽíì ìž ìž¡ë©Žê³Œ ííì ìž ìž¡ë©ŽìŽ ëì¬ì ì ííì ìíŽ ìíž ìì©íë©°, ê°ê°ì ìì ìì§ì ë¶í© ì ëì ë°ëŒ ìí ì¡°í©ê³Œ ë¹ìí ì¡°í©ì ìŽë£šìŽ ì¬ì©ëšì íì
íë€. ìŽì ëë¶ìŽ ì ìµëì êŽí ìŽë¡ , í¹í ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì ìµëì ëí ì í ì°êµ¬ë€ì ìŽë¡ ì íëŠê³Œ ì°êµ¬ 결곌ë€ì 구첎ì ìŒë¡ ìŽíŽë³žë€.
ë짞, ì€ìŠì¡°ì¬ ë¶ë¶ììë íêµìž íìµìë€ì ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ë¥Œ ìŽë»ê² ìžì§íê³ ì¬ì©íëì§ë¥Œ ì§ì ìŽíŽë³Žêž° ìíì¬ 150ëª
ì ëììŒë¡ ì€ë¬žì ì§ííë€. ì€ë¬žììë ìŽ 4ê° ì íì Task륌 ì€ê³íì¬ ë€ì곌 ê°ì ì¬íì ê²ìŠíë€. íìµìë€ì 곌거 ìì ì¬ì© ììì íµíŽ ì ê°ì€ê³Œ ìì ê°ì€ ì€ ëì± ë¶í©íë ê°ì€ìŽ 묎ììžì§ íì
íê³ ì íë Task 1ììë ì ê°ì€ì ë ì í©í 결곌륌 볎ìë€. ìŽíì ì곌 ííì ììŽ ìŒì¹íì§ ìë 묞ì¥ë€ë¡ 구ì±ë Task 2륌 íµíŽìë ìì ì ê·Œê°ì€ì ë¶í©íë ë°©ììŒë¡ ìµëìŽ ìŽë£šìŽì§ë€ë ê²ì ì ì ììë€. ì믞 ë³í, ìµêŽ íŽì, ë¹ì€ì ìí©, ìŽì¹ì íŽìì ë€ ê°ì§ í¹ì ì©ë²ì íìµ ì¬ë¶ë¥Œ ê²ìŠí Task 3륌 íµíŽìë ì€êž íìµìë€ì ê²œì° ê° ì©ë²ì ëí íìµìŽ ìì§ ë¯ží¡íë€ë ê²°ê³Œê° ëíë¬ë€. ë§ì§ë§ìŒë¡ Task 4륌 íµíŽìë 구첎ì ìŒë¡ ser/estarì êŽë šë 묞íì íµíì¬ íìµìë€ìŽ ì€íìžìŽì ë ê³ì¬ ëì¬ë¥Œ ìŽë»ê² ìžì§íê³ ì¬ì©íëì§ë¥Œ ê²ìŠíê³ , íì¬ ìì ì 겜ì°ìë ìŽêž ëšê³ìì ìŽë¯ž ë ëì¬ì ì©ë²ì íìµíêž° ë묞ì 몚ë íìµì 귞룹ìì ë¹êµì ëì ì ëµë¥ ì 볎ììŒë, 곌거 ìì ë¡ ë³íí ê²œì° ì€êž íìµìë€ì ìŽíì ìì 귌거íì¬ ìí ì¡°í©ë§ì ì¬ì©íšìŒë¡ìš ìì§ ìíëì¬ì ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ë¥Œ ì ì íê² ì¬ì©íë ìì€ìë ëë¬íì§ ëª»íë ê²ìŒë¡ ëíë¬ë€.
ì
짞, êµì¡ì íšì ë¶ë¶ììë ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ê° íêµìž íìµìë€ì ëììŒë¡ íë êµì¬ìë ìŽë»ê² ìê° ë° ì€ëª
ëê³ ìëê°ë¥Œ ìŽíŽë³žë€. ìŽ 5ê¶ì êµì¬ë¥Œ ë¶ìíë©°, ë¶ì 결곌 íêµìžì ëììŒë¡ ì€ê³ë êµì¬ìë ìí ì¡°í©ê³Œ ë¹ìí ì¡°í©ì ëí ê³ ë €ê° ê±°ì ë°ìëê³ ìì§ ìë€ë ê²ì íìžíìë€. ì€ëª
ì ììŽìë ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° ì©ë²ì ëšìí ëìŽì ê·žì¹ë ìì¬ììŽ ìììŒë©°, ì¢
ê²°ëì¬ì ë¹ì¢
ê²°ëì¬ì ë°ë¥ž ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° ì믞 íŽìì ì°šìŽì ëí 구첎ì ìž ìê°ë ê±°ì ë°ê²¬ëì§ ììë€. ííž ì묞ì 겜ì°, ëë¶ë¶ì êµì¬ìì ëšë¬žìŒë¡ 구ì±ë ì묞ë§ì ì ìíì¬, íìµìë êµììê° ë§¥ëœì ìž íëŠì íì
í ì ìë ëí묞ìŽë ëšëœ ì°šìì ìë¬žìŽ ì ê³µëìŽ ìì§ ììë€. ëšë¬žìŒë¡ ì ê³µëë ì묞ë ììê° ìì§ë§, ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì ì¬ì©ìŽ 묞맥ì ìí¥ì ë°ë 겜ì°ê° ë§êž° ë묞ì ëšë¬ž 볎ë€ë í
ì€íž ì€ì¬ì ìë¬žìŽ ì ê³µëë ê²ìŽ íìíë€. ë°ëŒì 볞 ë
Œë¬žììë ëí묞곌 í
ì€ížë¥Œ íµíŽì íìµìë€ìŽ ìí ì¡°í©ê³Œ ë¹ìí ì¡°í© ëªšëì ëí ë
žì¶ìŽ íë¶íê² ìŽë£šìŽì§ ì ìëë¡ ë€ìí ì묞ì ì ê³µíë ê²ìŽ ì€ìíë€ê³ ì ìíìë€. ëí ì°ìµë¬žì ì 겜ì°, ì묞곌 ë§ì°¬ê°ì§ë¡ ë€ìí ëì¬ë¥Œ íì©íë ëšëœ ì°šìì 묞ì ê° ì¶©ë¶í ì ê³µëì§ ìê³ ìë€ë íê³ê° ììë€. ìí ì¡°í©ê³Œ ë¹ìí ì¡°í©ì 몚ë 겜ì°ì ëí ì°ìµ 묞ì 륌 ì ê³µíì¬ ë°ë³µ íìµ ë° ì°ìµìŽ ê°ë¥íëë¡ íë ê²ìŽ íìíë€ê³ íëšëë€. ìŽì ë°ëŒ ì€ëª
곌 ì묞ìŒë¡ íìµí ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ë¥Œ ëšëœ ì°šìì ì°ìµ 묞ì 륌 íµíŽ ì€ì€ë¡ ì ì í ì¡°í©íì¬ ì¬ì©íŽë³Žë êž°í륌 ì ê³µí íìê° ììì 죌ì¥íìë€.
볞 ë
Œë¬žììë íêµìž íìµìë€ìŽ ì€íìžìŽì ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì êŽë šë ìì ìµëí ëìë ìŽíì ìì ìí¥ì ë§ìŽ ë°ëë€ë ê²ì ë°í ëìŒë©°, íìµìŽ ì§íëë©Ž ìŽíì ìì ìí¥ìì ì¡°êžì© ë²ìŽëë 겜í¥ì 볎ìì íìžíê³ , ìì°ì€ë¬ìŽ ìì ìµëìŽ ìŽë €ìŽ ë¶ë¶ì ëí ëª
ìì ìž ì€ëª
곌 ë°ë³µì ìž ì°ìµìŽ íìíšì ì ìíìë€.1. ìë¡ 1
1.1. ì°êµ¬ 배겜 1
1.2. ì°êµ¬ ëì 2
1.3. ì°êµ¬ 목ì ë° êµ¬ì± 7
2. ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì ìì í¹ì§ 10
2.1. ìŽíì ì 10
2.2. ííì ì 14
2.3. ìŽíì ì곌 ííì ìì ìíž êŽê³ 16
2.4. ì€íìžìŽì ì곌 êŽë šë ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì ì©ë² 19
3. ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° ìµë ìŽë¡ 23
3.1. ì ê°ì€(AH: Aspect Hypothesis) vs. ìì ê°ì€(TH: Tense Hypothesis) 23
3.1.1. ì ê°ì€ 23
3.1.2. ìì ê°ì€ 28
3.2. ìì ì ê·Œê°ì€(Full Access Hypothesis) vs. ë¶ë¶ì ê·Œê°ì€(Partial Access Hypothesis) 30
3.2.1. Schwartz & Sprouse(1996)ì ìì ì ê·Œê°ì€ 32
3.2.2. Beck(1998)ì ë¶ë¶ì ê·Œê°ì€ 33
3.2.3. Montrul & Slabakova(2002)ì ì
ì¥ 34
3.3. ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° êŽë š í¹ì ì©ë²ì ëí íìµ 35
3.3.1. ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì ìì ì± 35
3.3.2. ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì ìŽì¹ì± 39
3.3.3. ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì ìì ì±ê³Œ ìŽì¹ì±ì ëí íìµ ë¬žì 41
4. íêµìž ì€íìžìŽ íìµìì ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° ìµë ë° ì¬ì© ìì ë¶ìì ìí ì€ë¬žì¡°ì¬ 43
4.1. ì€ë¬ž 목ì ë° êµ¬ì± 43
4.2. ì€ë¬ž ì€ê³ 45
4.2.1. Task 1: ííì ì ì¬ì© ìì ë° ì/ìì ê°ì€ ê²ìŠ 47
4.2.2. Task 2: ííì ì곌 ìŽíì ìì ìíž êŽê³ 50
4.2.3. Task 3: ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° í¹ì ì©ë² ìŽíŽë ìž¡ì 53
4.2.3.1. ì믞 ë³í ì©ë² 53
4.2.3.2. ìµêŽ íŽì ì©ë² 56
4.2.3.3. ë¹ì€ì ìí© ì©ë² 57
4.2.3.4. ìŽì¹ì íŽì ì©ë² 58
4.2.4. Task 4: ser/estarì ìŽíì ì믞 ìŽíŽ ì ë ë° ê³Œê±° ìì ììì ì¬ì© ìì 59
4.3. ì€ë¬ž 결곌 ë¶ì 63
4.3.1. Task 1 결곌 ë¶ì 63
4.3.2. Task 2 결곌 ë¶ì 67
4.3.3. Task 3 결곌 ë¶ì 78
4.3.3.1. ì믞 ë³í ì©ë²ì ê²ìŠ 78
4.3.3.2. ìµêŽ íŽì ì©ë²ì ê²ìŠ 80
4.3.3.3. ë¹ì€ì ìí© ì©ë²ì ê²ìŠ 81
4.3.3.4. ìŽì¹ì íŽì ì©ë²ì ê²ìŠ 82
4.3.4. Task 4 결곌 ë¶ì 83
4.3.5. ì€ë¬ž ë¶ì 결곌 ì¢
í© 87
5. ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±°ì íšê³Œì ìž íìµì ìí êµìë² 90
5.1. êµì¬ ë¶ì ëì ë° ì ì êž°ì€ 91
5.2. êµì¬ ë¶ì 91
5.2.1. ì¢
í© êž°ìŽ ì€íìžìŽ 91
5.2.2. ìŽêž ì€íìžìŽ 2 94
5.2.3. Dos mundos 98
5.2.4. Nuevo Prisma Fusión A1+A2 100
5.2.5. Gramática de uso del español 104
5.3. íêµìž íìµìë€ì ëììŒë¡ í ì€íìžìŽ ìë£/ë¶ìë£ ê³Œê±° êµìë² ì ì 107
6. ê²°ë¡ 111
ì°žê³ ë¬ží 113
ë¶ë¡ [ì€ë¬žì§ ìí] 121
RESUMEN 126Maste
íêµ ëë¶ì ì± ì ì ì± ìŒêŽì± (PCD) ì°êµ¬: ëë¶ì§ì ë° ê²œì íë ¥ ì ì± ì ì€ì¬ìŒë¡
íìë
Œë¬ž (ìì¬)-- ììžëíêµ ëíì : êµì ëíì êµì í곌, 2018. 2. ì¡ì§ì°.As the world economy is becoming more interdependent, countries become more prone to influences from domestic as well as foreign policies of other states. The problem of interdependency is that, development interests of developing countries are easily undermined by developed countries regardless of whether they intended or not. Therefore, demands for coordination of policies with global development goals have been raised constantly. Out of this context, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has proposed a concept of policy coherence for development (PCD). The general objective of PCD is to enhance coherence between development policies and other policies with regards to the development objectives. The importance of PCD has been continuously emphasized by the OECD, and OECD DAC member countries progress in PCD is examined through peer reviews. South Koreas PCD in development policies has also been reviewed in its 2012 DAC peer review, and was given recommendations for improvement. However, since South Koreas North Korean aid policies are not classified as ODA, PCD is a relatively new concept in its North Korean policies. Given the fact that South Korea has been one of the largest donors and trade partners of North Korea in the past two decades, policy coherence and considerations for North Koreas development objectives are necessary. In aid of that, this thesis evaluated the PCD of ROKs North Korean development policies, with a focus on the policy coherence between aid and non-aid policies. Through the research, it was concluded that despite the existence of policy coherence in North Korean policies, South Korea lacks concerns for DPRKs development objectives. In other words, South Koreas policies towards North Korea do not fulfil the standards of policy coherence for development, and improvements are needed, particularly in terms of promoting development interests of its neighbour in the North.I. Introduction 1
II. Literature Review 4
III. Methodology 8
IV. Backgrounds 11
1. Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) 11
1-1. Concept of PCD 11
1-2. Policy Coherence Cycle 16
1-3. Implications of PCD 18
2. Coherence of the ROK's Overall Development Policies 21
3. PCD of South Korea's North Korean Policies 24
V. South Korea's Cooperation Policy towards North Korea 27
1. Overview of South Korea's North Korean Policy 28
2. South Korea's Aid Policies: Development Cooperation Policies 32
2-1. Case 1: Bilateral Aid 37
2-2. Case 2: Contributions to Multilateral Institutions 42
3. South Koreas Non-Aid Policies: Economic Cooperation Policies 47
3-1. Case 3: Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) 51
VI. Analysis on Policy Coherence of the ROK's North Korean Cooperation Policies 56
1. Why is PCD Necessary? 58
2. Phase 1: Setting and Prioritizing Objectives 63
3. Phase 2: Co-ordinating Policy and its Implementation 67
4. Phase 3: Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting 78
5. Policy Coherence for Development 84
VII. Conclusion 86Maste
Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Exposure
íìë
Œë¬ž (ìì¬)-- ììžëíêµ ë³Žê±Žëíì : í겜볎걎í곌(í겜볎걎ì ê³µ), 2013. 2. ìŽêž°ì.An increasing number of cities and countries have implemented outdoor smoking restrictions at building entrances. The purpose of this study was to determine outdoor tobacco smoke (OTS) exposure as a function of distance from the smoking source. The outcomes can lead to recommendations of the appropriate distance to minimize the influence of outdoor smoking. Outdoor concentrations of ambient particulate matter smaller than 2.5 ÎŒm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) were measured at four different distances (1, 3, 6, and 9 m) from a simulated smoking source. Wind speed and direction were measured using a wind meter. A smoking doll was used to provide tobacco smoking for approximately 3 min. One smoking experiment consisted of 13 min (5 nonsmoking min, 3 smoking min, and 5 more nonsmoking min). The difference between mean PM2.5 concentrations during smoking versus nonsmoking conditions was taken as the OTS exposure. A novel peak analysis was used to accurately assess the acute outdoor tobacco exposure. Average peak concentration and peak frequency were used for the analysis. The OTS levels were 72.7 µg/m3, 11.3 µg/m3, 4.1 µg/m3, and 2.6 µg/m3 at 1 m, 3 m, 6 m, and 9 m, respectively. The OTS levels decreased with increasing distance from the smoking source, although detectable OTS levels were measured even at 9 m. The OTS levels were significantly higher than zero at all distances. The OTS levels were highly associated with wind direction. Although the OTS levels were higher downwind of the source, the OTS levels were not significantly different directly downwind versus at an angle to the wind direction. The OTS levels were negatively associated with wind speed. The peak frequencies and average peak concentrations during smoking conditions were significantly greater than those under nonsmoking conditions. More frequent peaks of high concentration were observed at 9 m from the smoking source. To prevent OTS exposure, the minimal distance from a smoking source should be at least 9 m.Contents
Abstract ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ i
List of Tables ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
Ž
List of Figures âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
µ
I. Introduction âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 1
II. Methods ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 5
1. Study locate ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 5
2. Monitoring procedures ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 6
3. Analytical methods âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 9
(1) Statistical analysis ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 11
(2) Peak analysis ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 11
III. Results âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 12
1. Assurance of measurement quality âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 12
2. Descriptive analyses âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 14
3. Differences between mean PM2.5 concentrations during smoking and nonsmoking periods by distance âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 16
4. OTS level by wind condition ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 18
5. Peak analysis âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 26
IV. Discussion ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 30
V. Conclusion âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 34
References ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 35
êµë¬žìŽë¡ âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ 40Maste
íì ì ìž ì§ìê°ë¥í ìíì ëí ìë¹ì 컀뮀ëìŒìŽì : ë첎ì¡ì ì€ì¬ìŒë¡
íìë
Œë¬ž (ìì¬) -- ììžëíêµ ëíì : ëì
ìëª
곌íëí ë겜ì ì¬ííë¶(ì§ìì 볎ì ê³µ), 2021. 2. 묞ì í.볞 ì°êµ¬ë íì ì ìŽê³ ì§ìê°ë¥í ìí(ì:ë첎ì¡)ì ìŽë»ê² íšê³Œì ìŒë¡ 컀뮀ëìŒìŽì
íŽìŒ íëì§ ë¶ìíë ë° ëª©ì ìŽ ìë€. íŽë¹ ì°êµ¬ë í¬ê² (1)ì 볎ì²ëŠ¬ 곌ì 곌 (2)구맀 ê²°ì 곌ì ìŒë¡ 구ë¶íìë€.
ì 볎 ì²ëŠ¬ 곌ì ì ë€ë£¬ 첫 ë²ì§ž ì°êµ¬ë ëìŒí ëŽì©ì ì 볎륌 í¬íšíì§ë§ ë€ë¥Žê² ííë êŽê³ 륌 ë³Žê³ ìë¹ìì íëê° ìŽë»ê² ë°ëëì§ ììë³Žê³ ì íìë€. 볞 ì°êµ¬ë ë©ìì§ íë ìŽë° (ìŽìµ vs. ìì€) à ì í ì¢
ë¥ (ë°°ìì¡ vs. ìë¬Œì± ê³ êž°) à ë¶ì ì ê°ì (ì£ì±
ê° vs. ìì¹ì¬)ì ìŽ 8ê°ì§ ìí©ì ëíŽ íŒìíì ê° ì€ê³ë¡ ì€íì ì§ííìë€. ëí, ê³ êž° ìì·šë¡ ë°ìí ì ìë 묞ì ì ì ëì²íë ë°©ì(묞ì ìŽì vs. ê°ì ìŽì )ìŽ ì í ì¢
ë¥ì ë°ëŒ ìŽë»ê² ìì©íëì§ íìžíê³ ì íìë€. ê·ž 결곌 ë°°ìì¡ì 겜ì°ìë ë©ìì§ íë ìŽë°ì íšê³Œê° ììì§ë§, ìë¬Œì± ê³ êž°ììë ìŽìµ ë©ìì§ê° ë íšê³Œì ìì ë°íë€. ëí, ì£ì±
ê°ì ìí©ììë ë©ìì§ íë ìŽë°ê³Œ ì í ì¢
ë¥ì ëí ìížìì©ìŽ ì¡Žì¬íì§ë§, ìì¹ì¬ììë ì¡Žì¬íì§ ììì ëíëŽ ë ê°ì ì ì°šìŽë¥Œ ë°íë€. ë ëìê°ì ë°°ìì¡ì 겜ì°ìë ê°ì ì€ì¬ì ëì²ê° ë íšê³Œì ìŽê³ , ìë¬Œì± ê³ êž°ììë 묞ì ì€ì¬ì ëì²ê° ë íšê³Œì ìì íìžíìë€.
ë ë²ì§ž ì°êµ¬ë 구맀 ê²°ì 곌ì ì ëí ì°êµ¬ë¡ ë°°ìì¡ê³Œ ìë¬Œì± ê³ êž° 구맀 ìì¬ì ì§ì ì ìŒë¡ ìí¥ì 믞ì¹ë ììžì ëíŽì ììë³Žê³ ì íë€. ìë¹ìë€ìŽ ë첎ì¡ì 구맀íë ë° ëë ì ìë ìë©Žì ìž ê°ì ì ì¡°ì¬íê³ ê°ê° ì íì ìí¥ì 믞ì¹ë ììžì ëíŽìë ììë³Žê³ ì íë€. ë°°ìì¡ê³Œ ìë¬Œì± ê³ êž° ê³µíµìŒë¡ ìí¥ì 믞ì¹ë ììžìë ìíì ëí ížêž°ì¬, ë¶ìì°ì€ë¬ì, 곌íêž°ì ì ëí ë¶ì ìŽ ìììŒë©°, ì§ìê°ë¥ì±ê³Œ ížëë€ì€í¬ë¹ì ë³ììì ì°šìŽë¥Œ ëíëŽìë€.
ì¢
í©ì ìŒë¡, ë°°ìì¡ê³Œ ìë¬Œì± ê³ êž°ë êž°ì¡Ž ê³ êž°ë¡ ë°ìí ì ìë 묞ì ì ì íŽê²°íê³ ì ë
žë ¥íë€ë ì ìì ê³µíµì ì ê°ì§ì§ë§, ì íì ë¶íì€ì± í¹ì±ì ë°ëŒì ìë¹ì 컀뮀ëìŒìŽì
ë°©ììŽ ë¬ëŒìŒ íšì ì ìíë€. 볞 ì°êµ¬ììë ë첎ì¡ì íì íŽì 볎ìì§ë§, íŽë¹ 결곌ë ììŒë¡ ê³ìíŽì ì¶ìë íì ì ìŽê³ ì§ìê°ë¥í ìíì ìŽíŽíëë° êž°ìŽë¥Œ ì ê³µí ê²ìŽë€. íŽë¹ ì°êµ¬ë ë§ìŒí°ë€ìê² ì ì©í ë°©í¥ì±ì ì ê³µíë©°, ìë¹ìì íëì ìŽíŽíë ë° ê³µíí ê²ìŽë€.This study investigates how to effectively communicate innovative sustainable foods (e.g., alternative meat products) to consumers. This work is divided mainly into two parts (1) Information processing for innovative sustainable foods (2) Purchase decision about innovative sustainable foods.
The first study, entitled âMessage Framing to Promote Alternative Meat Productsâ examined consumersâ attitudes when information processing steps using message framing. In this study, a total of eight conditions were composed with a between-subject design: message framing (gain vs. loss) Ã product type (cultured meat vs. plant-based meat alternative) Ã negative emotion (guilt vs. shame). Besides, this work investigated how coping (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused) with the problems caused by conventional meat consumption works differently depending on the type of product. As a result, for the cultured meat, message framing did not affect, but for the plant-based meat alternative, the gain message was more effective than the loss message. Moreover, in the guilt situation, the interaction effect of message framing and product type was shown, whereas, in the shameful situation, there was no interaction effect. This work also confirmed that emotion-focused coping was more activated when participants faced cultured meat, but problem-focused coping was more effective in the case of plant-based meat alternatives.
The second study, entitled âAmbivalent Factors Affecting Consumersâ Alternative Meat Products Purchasingâ explored the positive and negative feelings toward alternative meat products and compared the differences in factors influencing alternative meat buying intention. The results showed that food curiosity, unnaturalness, and distrust of biotechnology are the factors affecting purchasing choices common to both alternative meat products; while sustainability is a factor influencing purchase choice of plant-based meat alternatives and food neophobia affects the choice of cultured meat.
Overall, cultured meat and plant-based meat alternative have a common point, solving problems that may occur with conventional meat, but it is suggested that the consumer communication strategies should be different depending on product types. Although this study has limited alternative meat products, this work will offer a basis for understanding innovative sustainable foods. The results of these studies provide useful guidelines for effective promotional messages about cultured meat, plant-based meat alternative, and contribute to understanding consumersâ behavior toward innovative sustainable foods.Contents
I. Introduction 1
1. Motivation of this Study 1
2. The Purpose of this Study 3
3. Theoretical Background 6
3.1. The Concept of Innovative Sustainable Foods (ISF) 6
3.2. Literature Review of ISF 9
II. Study 1: Message Framing to Promote
Alternative Meat Products 18
1. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 18
1.1. Innovative Sustainable Product Types 18
1.2. Prospect Theory and Message Framing 22
1.2.1. Prospect Theory: Value Function
and Decision Weighting Function 22
1.2.2. Message Framing 25
1.3. The Types of Innovative Products
and Message Framing 26
1.4. Negative Emotions Related to Meat Consumption 28
1.5. Alternative Meat and Coping Strategies
for Conventional Meat Consumption 31
2. Method 33
2.1. Procedure and Design and Data Collection 33
2.2. Message Framing of Target Advertisement 34
2.3. Negative Emotion Priming 35
2.4. Post-treat Measures 36
2.4.1. Attitude toward Ad 36
2.4.2. Attitude toward Product 36
2.4.3. Problem-focused Coping
and Emotion-focused Coping 37
2.4.4. Participants Characteristics 37
3. Results 37
3.1. Participants 37
3.2. Measurement Assessment 38
3.2.1. Loadings of Survey Items and Description of Variables 38
3.3. Manipulation Check 41
3.3.1. Product Familiarity and Knowledge 41
3.3.2. Message Framing 42
3.3.3. Negative Emotions 42
3.4. Interaction Effects of 2 (message framing) Ã 2 (product type)
on the Main Outcome Measures 43
3.4.1. Attitude toward Ad 43
3.4.2. Attitude toward Product 44
3.5. Moderating Effects of Negative Emotions
on the Main Outcome Measures 45
3.5.1. Attitude toward Ad 45
3.5.2. Attitude toward Product 47
3.6. The Group Difference in Coping Strategies
depending on Product Types 49
3.6.1. Attitude toward Ad 50
3.6.2. Attitude toward Product 51
3.7. Summary of the Results 52
4. Discussion 52
4.1. Theoretical Implication 55
4.1.1. Message Framing and
Perceived Product Innovativeness 55
4.1.2. Guilt and Shame Emotion and Meat Consumption 56
4.1.3. Elaboration Likelihood Model
and Coping Strategies 57
4.1.4. Building on Prior Innovative Sustainable Products Research 58
4.2. Practical Implications 59
4.2.1. Cultured Meat Marketers 59
4.2.2. Plant-based Meat Alternative Marketers 60
4.3. Limitations and Future Study 61
III. Study 2: Ambivalent Factors Affecting Consumersâ
Alternative Meat Products Purchasing 62
1. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development 64
1.1. Consumer Ambivalence 64
1.2. Ethical Viewpoint 66
1.2.1. Sustainability 67
1.2.2. Unnaturalness 68
1.3. Food Safety 68
1.2.1. Drug-free Cleanness 69
1.2.2. Distrust of Biotechnology 70
1.4. Initial Reaction 71
1.4.1. Food Curiosity 71
1.4.2. Food Neophobia 72
2. Methodology 74
2.1. Data Collection 74
2.2. Measurement Development 75
3. Results 76
3.1. Demographics 76
3.2. Measurement Assessment 77
3.3. Assessment of the Structural Model 79
4. Discussion 82
References 89
Appendix A. One Example of Survey Questionnaires (Study 1) 102
Appendix B. Study Frames (Study 1) 106
Appendix C. One Example of Survey Questionnaires (Study 2) 108Maste