DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Embodiment Aspects and Practice Strategies of Welfare Ideology in Contemporary Urban Park

현대 도시공원에서 나타나는 복지이념 구현양상 및 실천 전략에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2014.09.26
  • Accepted : 2014.12.07
  • Published : 2014.12.31

Abstract

In this study, on the assumption that the urban park originally is imbued with a public welfare ideology, said public welfare ideology and its characteristics were attended to among the various social roles that the urban park currently fulfills. Aspects of welfare meaning in urban parks were attempted to be identified with the former history of urban parks and the movements of the connections between modern parks and welfare territories. The ideologies, benefits and practices regarding the welfare role that the urban park has played from the past to the present were examined and the backgrounds and contexts within which the welfare ideologies have been expressed in the urban park were examined. In order to examine the implicated public welfare ideologies of the urban park, case studies were conducted to identify how they are expressed and practiced in the present times and the facilitation of these parks and public welfare both in the U.S. and the South Korea. The study results of the cases show that expressions of public welfare in urban parks are composed of more specific and visible programs and strategies in the present times, which are different from the simple proclamatory ways in the past. Particularly, in order to visibly practice a public welfare ideology, many-sided integrated designs are conducted along with various public welfare institutions and programs inside and outside of the urban park. The conclusions from this study are as follows. First, the urban park plays a role as a space to realize public welfare ideology, to create welfare benefits and to realize social welfare. Modern urban parks are used as an indicator to measure the actual conditions of social welfare and are a social environmental commodity that can offer universal benefits to urban residents. Second, many-sided integrated designs are tried along with various public welfare institutions at urban parks, which visibly practice public welfare ideologies in the present. In addition, public welfare institutions greatly influence the consistent development of the resources in the urban park. Third, if the detailed utilization of the regional facilities infrastructure could be brought along with multidimensional approaches about the resources in the urban park, it could be much closer to the lives of residents and could secure a space for increasing resident quality of life.

본 연구는 도시공원이 복지이념을 내포하고 있다는 것을 전제로 도시공원이 현재 담보하고 있는 다양한 사회적 역할중, 복지혜택을 시민들에게 제공하는 점에 주목하여 도시공원이 가진 복지와 관련된 의미를 현재 일어나는 공원과 복지영역 간의 연계의 움직임을 통해 살펴보았다. 과거에서부터 현재까지 도시공원이 제공한 장점들 중 복지혜택에 대한 이점, 실천 등을 살펴보고, 사회복지혜택과 비교하고, 이러한 혜택이 현대에 어떻게 발현되고, 실천되고 있는지를 미국과 우리나라 도시공원들의 사례 연구를 통해 살펴보았다. 본 연구의 결론은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 도시공원은 복지이념의 실현 장소이자, 복지혜택 창출의 공간이자 사회복지를 실천하는 장으로서의 역할을 해왔다. 현대에 들어서도 도시공원은 실제로 사회의 복지적 상태를 측정하는 지표로 쓰이고 있으며, 도시민들에게 보편적으로 이득을 줄 수 있는 사회적 환경 재화이다. 둘째, 현대에 들어 복지의 이념을 가시적으로 실천하고 있는 도시공원들은 다양한 복지기관들과 함께 다방면의 통합적 설계가 시도되고 있다. 뿐만 아니라 이러한 복지기관들은 도시공원의 자원을 지속적으로 개발하고 사용하는 데에도 많은 영향을 끼치고 있다. 사례들을 살펴본 결과, 도시공원에서 나타난 복지이념의 표출 방식이 과거에는 단순히 선언적이었던 것과 달리, 현대에 들어서는 좀 더 구체적이고, 가시적인 프로그램과 전략들로 나타나고 있음을 알 수 있다. 특히 복지이념을 가시적으로 실천하기 위해 다양한 공원 내외의 복지기관 및 프로그램들과 함께 다방면의 통합적 설계가 이루어지고 있다. 셋째, 도시공원이 가지고 있는 자원에 대한 다차원적인 접근과 함께 지역 복지 관련 기관 및 단체와 세부적 활용을 전략적으로 견인한다면 도시공원은 주민 생활에 좀 더 가까워지고, 그들의 삶의 질을 높이는 공간으로 자리 잡을 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Boland, M.(2003) Crissy Field- A New Model for Managing Urban Parklands. Places, Cambridge: College of Environmental Design. UC Berkeley.
  2. Cabe space(2003) The Value of Public Space. CabeSpace.
  3. Edinburgh College of Art and Heriot-Watt University, "Open Space: the Research Centre for Inclusive Access to Outdoor Environments" http://www.eca.ed.ac.uk/architecture-landscape-architecture/research/centres/openspace (access : 2014.11.20.)
  4. Greve, B.(2008) What is welfare. Central European Journal of Public Policy Vol. 2.
  5. Howard, E.(2012) Garden Cities of To-morrow. London: General Books LLC.
  6. Kim, J. H.(2003) On the Welfare State. Seoul: Daemyung. 김정헌(2003) 복지국가론. 서울: 대명.
  7. Kim, S. K, H. S. Joh, A. N. Kim, Y. K. Kim, E. J. Kang, H. W. Shin, S. Y. Yoon and Y. H. Joh(2006) A Study on Evaluation and Development of Social Welfare Policies in Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Finance. 김승권, 김유경, 김상철, 조흥식, 백종만, 임성은(2006) 한국 사회복지정책의 평가와 발전방안. 한국보건사회연구원.
  8. Koh, J. K., Y. J. Lee, J. I. Lee, M. Y. Song, D. Y. Kim and S. J. Kang (2012) Environmental welfare is the future welfare. Issue & Diagnosis Vol. 35. Gyeonggi Research Institute. 고재경, 김동영, 이양주, 강상준, 이정임, 송미영(2012) 미래의복지는환경복지. 이슈&진단 (35). 경기개발연구원.
  9. Nigel, D., S. Carys and H. Woolley(2002) Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces, Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield.
  10. Regional Public Health(2010) Healthy Open Spaces. Regional Public Health in Wellington Region.
  11. Schuyler, D.(1986) The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Ninetheenth-Century America, London: Johns Hopkins.
  12. Seattle Government(2006) Seattle's Park and Recreation 2006 Development Plan, Seattle.
  13. The Trust for Public Land(2011) The Economic Benefits of Seattle's Park and Recreation System, San Francisco: The Trust for Public Land.
  14. Urban Parks Forum(2002) Your Parks, the Benefits of Parks and Green Space. London: Urban Parks Forum.
  15. Veenhoven, R.(2000) Well being in the welfare state level not higher, distibution not more equitable. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 2: 91-125.
  16. Walker, A.(1997) Whither Welfare?. The Student's Companion to Sociology. Ballard, C.(eds) Oxford, Blackwell.
  17. Walker, C. (2004) The Public Value of Urban Parks, a Broader View of Urban Parks, The Urban Institute: Washington.
  18. Yoon, K. J. and K. Y. Kim(2010) Calculation and comparison of "Wellbeing Indicator" for OECD countries. The Forum of Health and Welfare (159): 86-98. 윤강재, 김계연(2010) OECD 국가의행복지수산정및비교. 보건복지포럼 (159): 86-98.