Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Study on the Forest Therapy Policies of Japan and Korea

일본과 한국의 산림치유사업과 육성정책의 비교·연구

  • Bae, Young Mok (Department of Economics, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Lee, Yeonho (Department of Economics, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Mi (Department of Economics, Chungbuk National University) ;
  • Piao, Ying Hua (Department of Economics, Chungbuk National University)
  • Received : 2014.03.16
  • Accepted : 2014.05.26
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Japan and Korea have developed forest therapy policies, but their policies differ in several respects. First, Forest therapy projects are managed by local governments and residents in Japan, while they are operated by Korea Forest Service. Second, Japan adopts the certification system of forest therapy areas, emphasizes medical and scientific evidences, maintains the quality of forest therapy by inducing competitive participation of local governments and residents, and cultivates forest therapists through Forest Therapy Society. In contrast, Korea has adopted the licence system, improved institutional framework, and cultivated therapists, but it is at early stage. Third, Japanese forest therapy policy aims at regional development of the mountain villages, overlapping with other local policies. However, in Korea, the primary policy goal is to expand forest services and thereby having its own policy framework and being promoted strongly.

일본과 한국은 산림의 건강증진 효과에 주목하고 산림치유사업을 전개하고 있으나 제도와 정책은 차이가 많다. 일본은 산림치유사업을 지자체와 주민이 운영하는 반면 한국은 산림청이 운영한다. 일본은 삼림세라피 기지 인증제를 이용해 삼림의과학적 증거에 바탕을 두고 산림치유의 질을 유지하면서 지자체와 주민의 경쟁적 참여를 유도하며, 산림치유사업자협회를 통해 인력을 양성하고 연구회가 운영방식을 개선한다. 반면 한국은 허가제에 기초해 법제 정비를 실시하였으나, 아직 치유의 숲 조성과 인력 양성이 초기단계에 있으며 운영방식도 체계화되어 있지 않다. 산림치유 육성정책은 일본의 경우 지역진흥 및 산촌활성화 정책과 중첩되어 자체 추진력이 약하지만, 한국의 경우는 산림서비스 확대라는 정책목표 아래 고유의 정책체계를 가짐으로써 강력히 추진되고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. An, K.W., Lee, G.H., Yoo, R.H., Kim, M.H., and Park, J.S. 2009. A case study on the healing forest policy in Shinanomachi-cho, Japan. The Journal of Korean institute of Forest Recreation 13(1): 63-75 (in Korean).
  2. AERA, 2007. Asahi Shimbun Weekly. 6.4. 26-28
  3. Hong, M.A., Lee, H.G., Han, E.K., and Kwon, Y.K. 2010. A state about forest therapy program in Korea and the prospect for the fusion of Korean medicine with forestry. Korean Journal of Oriental Medicine 16(3): 95-105 (in Korean).
  4. Kang, M.J., Yoo, R.H., Song, T.G., Ahn, Y.S., and An, K.W., 2011. A proposal concerning the healing forest policy of Jellanamdo areas through an analysis of the Japan's forest therapy policy. Journal of Korean Island 23(2): 85-102 (in Korean).
  5. KFS (Korea Forest Service) Web (www.forest.go.kr) (in Korean).
  6. KFS (Korea Forest Service), Rest and healing section. 2013. Understanding of forest healing instructor (in Korean).
  7. KFS (Korea Forest Service). 2013. Statistical yearbook of forestry (in Korean).
  8. KFS (Korea Forest Service). Each year. Forest policy working plan (in Korean).
  9. Lee, J.H. and Park, S.J. 2013. The case study about forest therapy station operation in Japan: focused on Ukiha City and Sasaguri Station. The Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation 17(1): 145-151 (in Korean).
  10. Yeoum, P.S. and Shin, W.S. 2003. The identification of outdoor recreational benefits. The Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation 7(2): 27-36 (in Korean).
  11. Yoo, R.H. and Jeong, S.A. 2009. A case study on application of the effect using forest on human health improvement and disease prevention - focusing on the forest therapy certification in Japan -. The Journal of Korean Institute of Forest Recreation 13(2): 45-51 (in Korean).
  12. Yoo, R.H., Ha, S.Y., Jeon, J.H., Kim, J.W., and Kim, J.J. 2007. A study on the analysis of policy related to the forest recreation on the 5th national forest master plan. Korean Institute of Forest Recreation The Fall Conference, pp. 49-53 (in Korean).
  13. Forest Therapy Total Web (www.fo-society.jp).
  14. MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) Conservation Division Study Group. 2006. Governmental involvement for forest therapy improvement. Forest Science 48: 26-29.
  15. MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) WEB (www.maff.go.jp).
  16. MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). Each year. Forestry white book.

Cited by

  1. A Study on the Policy Convergence of Forest Policy : A Paradigm Sift to Convergence between Forest Development and Preservation vol.13, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2015.13.6.13
  2. Status of Health Promotion Programs Utilizing Forest - Based on the 2015 - 2016 Regional Healthcare Plans in Korea - vol.20, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.34272/forest.2016.20.4.004
  3. Determinants of Forest Therapy Demand and Its Activation Policies vol.20, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.34272/forest.2016.20.4.006
  4. Tracing Shintoism in Japanese nature-based domestic tourism experiences vol.4, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1446671
  5. Effects of the forest experience intervention program on depression, cognitive function, and quality of life in the elderly people with mild cognitive impairment vol.36, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14367/kjhep.2019.36.3.73
  6. Environmental influence in the forested area toward human health: incorporating the ecological environment into art psychotherapy vol.17, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-019-5774-3