This study explores strategies to promote a repair culture in Gyeonggi-do, situated within the broader paradigm shift in resource circulation policy toward a circular economy society and the extension of product lifespans. Drawing on a review of the concepts of the right to repair and repair culture, an analysis of domestic and international policy trends, a survey of Gyeonggi residents, field studies, and case analyses of best practices at home and abroad, it derives a policy model tailored to Gyeonggi-do.
The right to repair, understood as the right of consumers to repair products at a reasonable cost, is a key instrument for resource circulation and carbon neutrality. While access to parts, information, and tools constitutes its core element, its realization entails unresolved issues such as copyright protection, the voiding of manufacturer warranties, safety, and liability. The right to repair, which guarantees a legal right, is distinct from repair culture, which concerns voluntary practice and cultural diffusion; at the metropolitan-government level, an approach emphasizing cultural diffusion and ecosystem-building is therefore more realistic than reliance on legislative mandates.
Policies at home and abroad can be classified into five instruments—legislative mandates, information provision, economic incentives, infrastructure support, and civic-movement linkage—among which the EU and France represent the most systematic models. Korea has introduced the legislative, informational, and infrastructure dimensions but has yet to adopt economic incentives such as repair bonuses and VAT reductions. As a metropolitan government, Gyeonggi-do is well positioned to pilot these incentives ahead of the national level.
The resident survey reveals that, although the term "repair culture" remains unfamiliar—65.1% of respondents had never heard of it—residents deeply empathize with its value and necessity. Positive views on repairing broken items reached 86.0% and agreement on its environmental benefits 90.7%, indicating high latent demand. At the same time, the principal barriers to repair are the absence of affordable cost, adequate skills, and reliable information: 49.2% of respondents would abandon repair once its cost reaches roughly half the price of a new product, making cost the decisive factor. With 81.7% willing to use a repair center near their homes, the demand for trustworthy and accessible local repair services and community spaces is evident.
The analysis of best practices demonstrates that the multi-layered integration of hubs, human resources, material resources, information, and culture is a common factor underlying success. Sustainability was highest when hubs utilized idle public spaces rather than newly constructed facilities, and when metropolitan resources were concentrated on personnel, education, parts, information, and networks rather than on physical infrastructure.
Synthesizing these findings, this study offers policy recommendations across five domains—governance principles, hub infrastructure, workforce training and compensation, information platforms and economic incentives, and cultural diffusion. It further presents intellectual property and copyright, security, and accountability for safety and quality as issues that warrant continued deliberation for the institutional consolidation of repair culture.