A Study on the Resolution Capability of Environmental Dispute Adjustment System: Focusing on Floor Noise Dispute

Since 2010, 71.6 percent of the residents in Korea have lived in apartment houses. According to the results of a study: a questionnaire survey by broadcasting company KBS in 2006, 88 percent among the respondents said they was stressed because of floor noise from neighbors, about 54 percent of respondents have experienced some quarrel caused by the same way. Like this, recently floor noise dispute cases have increased as a growing intractable social problem seriously.

This means why environmental dispute adjustment system related with floor noise dispute is necessary. The purpose of environmental dispute adjustment system is to preserve the environment and to relieve damage to the health and property of citizens by providing for the procedure, etc. of good offices, mediation and adjudication regarding environmental disputes for the rapid, fair and efficient settlement of the environmental disputes. Here the term "environmental dispute" means strifes concerning environmental damage to health, property and mentality caused by pollution, destruction of natural ecosystems, etc.

Although environmental disputes traditionally have been resolved through jury litigation, advocates of adjustment have suggested that it is a better tool in several important respects. One advantage claimed for adjustment system is savings in time and money. Because adjustment system reduces 1) the costs of resolving disputes; 2) the caseloads of the courts and agencies; and 3) the time it takes to resolve disputes.

In this article, we will consider by an attempt to examine the resolution capability of environmental dispute adjustment system. At present the settlement rate of general environmental dispute adjustment system between the parties concerned is about 85%. But it should be noted that the settlement rate of floor noise dispute cases is 65%, about 20% lower than that of the former. Why is there a striking contrast between the settlement rates of the two fields?

To solve this question i.e. differences of the two settlement rates, 32 cases selected in case report on the environmental dispute adjustment were categorized according to analytical criteria. Two factors are adopted these criteria. First, noise limit as the basis for determining whether defendant’s floor noise exceed the Ministry of Environment-set floor noise limit. Second, whether it is possible the probability of increasing the upstairs’ noise emissions. By two factors, 32 dispute cases were to be classified into four types. But only two types(type I, type IV) were typologically significant. Meanwhile type II and type III were eliminated from the analytical stage based on the fact that they had not the nature of mutual exclusiveness.
From type I, we can conclude that as the case gets order related to the progress of dispute period, more plaintiffs than an individual, more contractors as defendants intervene in a dispute, and demand of a large indemnities; decision of high reparations; high rate of an investigation committee’s reparations as contrasted with plaintiff’s indemnities there is a reduced likelihood that case will settle. In contrast, from type IV, we can summarize that as an individual behavior abnormally gets more in the capacity of the plaintiff there also is a reduced likelihood that case will settle.

While more the research of environmental dispute adjustment system research is needed, this effort provides some hypothetical arguments of the analytical typology of cases classified with criteria for adjusted decisions badly needed in the field. It is to be hoped that this study will promote more research and debate on the claims of environmental dispute adjustment system.

This adjustment system requires that we rethink to open interaction and consideration to those we serve and were served in all phases of our community. Where we are public servants or private sector employees or citizens, each of us can make a difference in our community. The questions we face may be at once both very simple and enormously complex: How we will treat our neighbors? Will we take responsibility for our role in our community? Are we willing to listen to and try to understand views that are different from our own? Are we willing to forgo our personal interests for the sake of others? In one sense, the future of environmental dispute adjustment system will be determined by all of us.