All Issue

2026 Vol.48 Preview Page

Article

Factors Associated with Public Support for the Arctic Shipping Routes Policy in South Korea

북극항로 개발 정책에 대한 국민의 정책지지 형성 구조 분석

Duckhee Jang1*
장 덕희1*
1Future Strategy Research Center, Korea Institute of Ocean Science & Technology, Busan 49111, Korea
1한국해양과학기술원 미래전략연구센터 (49111) 부산광역시 영도구 해양로 385
*Corresponding Author
10 August 2026. pp. 1-21
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study examines factors associated with public support for South Korea’s Arctic shipping route development policy. Using survey data from 1,200 adults selected through proportionate stratified sampling, it analyzes the relationships between policy support and perceived benefits, risk concerns, information environment, and trust in information sources. Perceived benefits and risk concerns are measured as overall constructs, while content-based categories are used to explore which policy issues are more closely related to public support. The results show that perceived benefits are positively associated with public support, whereas risk concerns are negatively associated with it. The association of perceived benefits is substantially stronger than that of risk concerns. In the category-level analysis, economic, strategic, and status-related benefits are positively related to support, while only environmental concern among the risk categories shows a significant negative relationship. Information exposure, policy awareness, and trust in information sources are also positively associated with support, with trust in public and expert institutions showing particular relevance. These findings suggest that public support for the Arctic shipping route policy should not be approached merely as a matter of promotion. Policy design and communication should combine realistic benefit framing, transparent disclosure of environmental and safety risks, credible risk-management measures, and trust-based engagement with public and expert institutions.

Keywords
Arctic shipping routes
public support
perceived benefits
risk concerns
information environment
trust in information sources
References
1

고주영 (2025) 러시아의 원자력 쇄빙선단 구축과 북극항로 개발: 지경학적 의의. 유럽연구 43(3):427–454

2

국정기획위원회 (2025) 이재명정부 국정운영 5개년 계획(안). https://dl.nanet.go.kr/detail/NONB12025000016016 Accessed 22 Jun 2026

3

김기순 (2009) 북극해의 분쟁과 해양경제획정에 관한 연구. 국제법학회논총 54(3):11–51

4

김기태 (2021) 북극해항로 항해 선박의 쇄빙지원비 보험부보 가능성에 대한 연구. 국제상학 36(1):47–64

10.18104/kaic.2021.36.1.47
5

김정환 (2023) 한러 천연가스 교역 증진을 위한 북동항로 운송 경제성 분석. 중소연구 47(2):201–227

6

노영돈, 박원 (2011) 북극해항로 관련 러시아 국내법제의 고찰. 성균관법학 23(3):799–819

10.17008/skklr.2011.23.3.029
7

박종관, 이상철 (2022) 북극 정책 추진과 전략 연구: 일본사례를 중심으로. 인문사회 21 13(5):4005–4014

10.22143/HSS21.13.5.277
8

배규성 (2010) 북극권 쟁점과 북극해 거버넌스. 21세기정치학회보 20(3):457–478

10.17937/topsr.20.3.201012.457
9

배규성 (2023) 북극해의 항행의 자유: 문제와 쟁점. 한국 시베리아연구 27(2):1–34

10

배규성 (2024) 러시아의 북극과 북방항로(NSR)의 군사적 국가 전략적 중요성 - 역사적 접근. 한국 시베리아연구 28(4):1–35

11

서찬교, 이숙연 (2023) 북극이사회의 한계와 효과성 분석: 레짐이론을 중심으로. 국제정치연구 26(2):189–216

10.15235/jir.2023.06.26.2.189
12

손경령 (2019) 외항선사의 북극해항로 진출에 관한 결정요인 분석. 한국항만경제학회지 35(4):1–16

10.38121/kpea.2019.12.35.4.1
13

손예령 (2026) 북극항로를 둘러싼 ESG 담론과 문화적 지속 가능성. 한국과학예술융합학회 44(1):331–354

10.17548/ksaf.2026.01.30.331
14

예병환 (2023) 북극해의 해상운송에서 나타나는 운항위험요인과 해상보험 활용가능성에 관한 연구. 한국 시베리아연구 27(2):35–66

15

이영형, 김승준 (2010) 북극해의 갈등 구조와 해양 지정학적 의미. 세계지역연구논총 28(3):289–315

16

이우근 (2019) 극지해역 항해선박의 기관사 교육 개발에 관한 연구. 한국마린엔지니어링학회지 43(7):560–568

10.5916/jkosme.2019.43.7.560
17

이은주 (2025) 강대국 경쟁과 중–러 북극 협력. 아시아연구 28(4):403–417

10.21740/jas.2025.11.30.2.403
18

이종서, 신상협 (2025) 북극 변화의 초국경적 파급효과와 한국의 전략: 유럽 사례를 중심으로. 국제정치연구 28(4):73–106

10.15235/jir.2025.12.28.4.73
19

정성엽, 최경식 (2008) 북극해 항로와 Ice Transit Model. 자원환경경제연구 45(3):11–15

20

정재호, 정영선 (2021) 차세대 쇄빙연구선 건조사업 경제성 타당성 분석: 비용효과 분석을 중심으로. 한국 시베리아연구 25(1):71–108

21

최경식, 조성철 (2003) 북극해 항로의 전망과 쇄빙상선의 활용. 한국해양공학회지 17(4):96–100

22

최병권 (2024) 북극항로의 이용에 따른 국제통항법제에 관한 연구. 무역경영연구 34:129–145

23

최수범, 박성훈, 김동명, 이해찬, 여기태 (2020) CFPR법을 활용한 북극정책 우선순위 평가에 관한 연구–해양수산부 정책을 중심으로. 한국항해항만학회지 44(3):253–263

10.5394/KINPR.2020.44.3.253
24

최한별, 최석범, 리신강 (2014) 한국의 북극항로 이용에 따른 국제물류네트워크의 재편성에 관한 연구. 해운물류연구 30(1):105–134

10.37059/tjosal.2014.30.1.105
25

최혜원 (2025) 부산–로테르담 구간의 북극항로와 수에즈 항로 간 컨테이너선 TEU 당 운송 비용 분석. 해양정책연구 40(2):55–84

10.35372/KMIOPR.2025.40.2.003
26

하용훈 (2024) 한국해군의 북극정책 추진방향: 북극권 안보정세와 국방외교를 중심으로. 한국 시베리아연구 28(3):77–107

27

한국일보 (1990) 소 북극항로 개방 검토/극동–유럽 만 km 단축. https://www.hankookilbo.com/news/article/199009210069183757 Accessed 4 Mar 2026

28

한철환 (2011) 북극해 항로의 경제적 타당성에 관한 연구. 해운물류연구 27(4):583–605

10.37059/tjosal.2011.27.4.583
29

해양수산부 (2013) 북극종합정책 추진계획. 정책브리핑. https://www.korea.kr/briefing/policyBriefingView.do?newsId=148764996 Accessed 25 Jul 2013

30

홍성원 (2010) 북극항로의 상업적 이용 가능성에 관한 연구. 국제지역연구 13(4):557–584

10.18327/jias.2010.01.13.4.557
31

Aksenov Y, Popova EE, Yool A, Nurser AG, Williams TD, Bertino L, Bergh J (2017) On the future navigability of Arctic sea routes: high-resolution projections of the Arctic Ocean and sea ice. Mar Policy 75:300–317

10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.027
32

Bell RL, Lederman NG (2003) Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Sci Educ 87(3):352–377

10.1002/sce.10063
33

Buixadé Farré A, Stephenson SR, Chen L, Czub M, Dai Y, Demchev D, Efimov Y, Graczyk P, Grythe H, Keil K, Kivekas N, Kumar N, Liu N, Matelenok I, Myksvoll M, O`leary D, Olsen J, Pavithran S, Petersen E, Raspotnik A, Solski J, Suo L, Troein C, Valeeva V, Rijckevorsel JV, Wighting, J (2014) Commercial Arctic shipping through the Northeast Passage: routes, resources, governance, technology, and infrastructure. Polar Geogr 37(4):298–324

10.1080/1088937X.2014.965769
34

Cash DW, Borck JC, Patt AG (2006) Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci Technol Human Values 31(4):465–494

10.1177/0162243906287547
35

Chen J, Kang S, Du W, Guo J, Xu M, Zhang Y, Chen J (2021) Perspectives on future sea ice and navigability in the Arctic. Cryosphere 15(12):5473–5482

10.5194/tc-15-5473-2021
36

Dolnicar S, Hurlimann A, Nghiem LD (2010) The effect of information on public acceptance–the case of water from alternative sources. J Environ Manage 91(6):1288–1293

10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.003
37

Drews S, Van den Bergh JC (2016) What explains public support for climate policies? a review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim Policy 16(7):855–876

10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240
38

Franckx E (2008) The legal regime of navigation in the Russian arctic. J Transnat'l L & Pol'y 18(2):327–342

39

Espinoza IIB, Alcaraz JLG, López AJG, Aryanfar Y, Keçebaş A (2024) Achieving behavioral intention to renewable energy through perceived costs and benefits and environmental concern. Sustain Futur 8:100319. doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100319

10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100319
40

Grelle S, Hofmann W (2024) When and why do people accept public-policy interventions? An integrative public-policy-acceptance framework. Perspect Psychol Sci 19(1):258–279

10.1177/17456916231180580
41

Jordan J (2018) Political awareness and support for redistribution. European Political Science Review 10(1):119–137

10.1017/S1755773917000017
42

Kolstø SD (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Sci Educ 85(3):291–310

10.1002/sce.1011
43

Kyselá E (2018) Public support for policies: public opinion and policy making. Naše Společnost 16(2):9–27

10.13060/1214438X.2018.2.16.451
44

Liu M, Liu H (2024) Farmers' adoption of agriculture green production technologies: perceived value or policy-driven?. Heliyon 10(1):e23925. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23925

10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e2392538226239PMC10788497
45

Mahmoud MR, Roushdi M, Aboelkhear M (2024) Potential benefits of climate change on navigation in the northern sea route by 2050. Scientific Reports 14(1):2771. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-53308-5

10.1038/s41598-024-53308-538308010PMC10837136
46

Purver RG (1989) Arctic security: the Murmansk initiative and its impact. In: Jacobsen, C.G. (eds) Soviet Foreign Policy: new dynamics, new themes. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 182–203

10.1007/978-1-349-11341-5_11
47

Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2005) Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. J Res Sci Teach 42(1):112–138

10.1002/tea.20042
48

Sharon AJ, Baram-Tsabari A (2020) Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?. Sci Educ 104(5):873–894

10.1002/sce.21581
49

Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20(2):195–204

10.1111/0272-4332.202020
50

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720

10.1111/0272-4332.205064
51

Song H, McComas KA, Schuler KL (2018) Source effects on psychological reactance to regulatory policies: the role of trust and similarity. Sci Commun 40(5):591–620

10.1177/1075547018791293
52

Stephenson SR, Brigham LW, Smith LC (2014) Marine accessibility along Russia's Northern Sea route. Polar Geogr 37(2):111–133

10.1080/1088937X.2013.845859
53

Thompson L (2025) Navigating the polar frontier: exploring the effects of sea-ice decline on shipping and sea routes in the arctic. Cambridge Journal of Climate Research 2(1):53–88

54

Zeidler DL, Walker KA, Ackett WA, Simmons ML (2002) Tangled up in views: beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Sci Educ 86(3):343–367

10.1002/sce.10025

국문 참고자료의 영문표기 English translation / Romanization of references originally written in Korean

1

Ko J (2025) Russia’s nuclear icebreaker fleet and the Northern Sea Route: a geoeconomic perspective. J Contemp Eur Stud 43(3):427–454

2

PCPP (2025) The Lee Jae Myung administration’s five-year plan for state affairs (Draft). Presidential Commission on Policy Planning. https://dl.nanet.go.kr/detail/NONB12025000016016 Accessed 22 Jun 2026

3

Kim KS (2009) The Arctic disputes and maritime boundary delimitation. Korean J Int'l L 54(3):11–51

4

Kim K (2021) A study on the possibility of insurance covering the ice-breaking cost of the Arctic shipping route. Korea International Commercial Review 36(1):47–64

10.18104/kaic.2021.36.1.47
5

Kim J (2023) Economic analysis of the Northern Sea Route for the import of Russian liquefied natural gas. Jungso Yeongu 47(2):201–227

6

Loh YD, Park W (2011) A study on the Russian legislation related to the Northern Sea Route. SKK L Rev 23(3):799–819

10.17008/skklr.2011.23.3.029
7

Park JG, Lee SC (2022) North Pole policy promotion and strategy study: focusing on Japan’s case. JHSS 13(5):4005–4014

10.22143/HSS21.13.5.277
8

Bae KS (2010) The issues and oceans governance in the arctic. 21st Century Political Science Review 20(3):457–478

10.17937/topsr.20.3.201012.457
9

Bae KS (2023) Freedom of navigation in the Arctic: problems and issues. Korean Journal of Siberian Studies 27(2):1–34

10

Bae KS (2024) The military and strategic importance of the Arctic and the Russian Northern Sea Route (NSR): a historical approach. Korean Journal of Siberian Studies 28(4):1–35

11

Seo C, Lee S (2023) An analysis of the limitations and effectiveness of the Arctic Council: a regime theory perspective. JIR 26(2):189–216

10.15235/jir.2023.06.26.2.189
12

Son KR (2019) An analysis of the determinants of shipping lines’ entry into the Arctic Sea Route. Journal of Korea Port Economic Association 35(4):1–16

10.38121/kpea.2019.12.35.4.1
13

Son YR (2026) ESG discourses and cultural sustainability surrounding the Arctic Sea Route. Korean Soc Sci Art 44(1):331–354

10.17548/ksaf.2026.01.30.331
14

Yae BH (2023) A study on the operational risk factors in maritime transportation and the possibility of using marine insurance in the Arctic Ocean. Korean Journal of Siberian Studies 27(2):35–66

15

Lee YH, Kim SJ (2010) Maritime geopolitical significance and conflict structure in the Arctic Ocean. Korean J Area Stud 28(3):289–315

16

Lee WK (2019) Development of competence of ice navigation engineers navigating polar areas. JAMET 43(7):560–568

10.5916/jkosme.2019.43.7.560
17

Lee E (2025) Great-power competition and Sino-Russian Arctic cooperation. Asian Studies 28(4):403–417

10.21740/jas.2025.11.30.2.403
18

Lee J, Shin SH (2025) Transboundary impacts of Arctic change and strategic options for the Republic of Korea: European case studies. JIR 28(4):73–106

10.15235/jir.2025.12.28.4.73
19

Jeong SY, Choi K (2008) The Northern Sea Route and ice transit model. JSNAK 45(3):11–15

20

Jung JH, Jung YS (2021) Economic analysis for the next-generation IBRV building programme: focusing on cost-effectiveness analysis. Korean Journal of Siberian Studies 25(1):71–108

21

Choi K, Cho S (2003) The Northern Sea Route and operation of icebreaking cargo ships. J Ocean Eng Technol 17(6):96–100

22

Choi BK (2024) A study on the international shipping laws through the Northern Sea Route. Journal of Global Trade & Management 34:129–145

23

Choi SB, Park SH, Kim DM, Lee HC, Yeo GT (2020) A study on the evaluation of Arctic policy priorities using the CFPR method: focusing on the policy of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. J Navig Port Res 44(3):253–263

10.5394/KINPR.2020.44.3.253
24

Choi HB, Choi SB, Li X (2014) A study on the reorganization of international logistics networks through Korea’s use of the Northern Sea Route. Journal of Shipping and Logistics 30(1):105–134

10.37059/tjosal.2014.30.1.105
25

Choi HW (2025) An analytical study of TEU-based container shipping costs via the Northern Sea Route and the Suez Canal Route between Busan and Rotterdam. Ocean Policy Res 40(2):55–84

10.35372/KMIOPR.2025.40.2.003
26

Ha Y (2024) The direction of the Korean Navy’s arctic policy initiatives: focusing on the security situation in the arctic region and defense diplomacy. Korean Journal of Siberian Studies 28(3):77–107

27

Hankook Ilbo (1990) Soviet Union considers opening the Arctic route: far East–Europe distance to be shortened by 10,000 km. https://www.hankookilbo.com/news/article/199009210069183757 Accessed 4 Mar 2026

28

Han CH (2011) Economic feasibility on the Northern Sea Route: the case of container shipping. Journal of Shipping and Logistics 27(4):583–605

10.37059/tjosal.2011.27.4.583
29

MOF (2013) Comprehensive arctic policy implementation plan. Policy Briefing, Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries https://www.korea.kr/briefing/policyBriefingView.do?newsId=148764996 Accessed 25 July 2013

30

Hong SW (2010) A study on the commercial viability of the Arctic route. IASR 13(4):557–584

10.18327/jias.2010.01.13.4.557
Information
  • Publisher :Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국해양과학기술원
  • Journal Title :Ocean and Polar Research
  • Journal Title(Ko) :Ocean and Polar Research
  • Volume : 48
  • Pages :1-21
  • Received Date : 2026-05-26
  • Revised Date : 2026-07-12
  • Accepted Date : 2026-07-23
  • Published Date : 2026-08-10
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.4217/OPR.2026019
Journal Informaiton Ocean and Polar Research Ocean and Polar Research
Online Submission
Archives
: 2019 ~ 이전
  • scopus_OPR
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close