DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Roles and Ideological Development of Welfare Characteristics in Parks

공원복지 역할 및 이념 전개 양상에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2014.12.01
  • Accepted : 2015.01.04
  • Published : 2015.02.28

Abstract

Under the premise that parks have been a performing field of welfare ideology that benefits the citizen from the past, the present study began with a basic question on what substance a park has and how it has worked. Therefore, this study tried to find out the theoretic background that can explain the roles of a park as an instrument for welfare, of which topic is currently being discussed, and examine how the ideology in the debate regarding welfare characteristics of parks are differentiated from those of social welfare. In addition, this study divided the process of development of parks defined by Galen Cranz in an attempt to view how welfare benefits offered by parks have changed in their development and looked into the roles and types of welfare functions that parks provided to the citizens under a certain social situation by period. Furthermore, the characteristics and development of the ideology underlying a welfare park were examined by function and element in its progression. The results of this study are as follows. The functions that parks have performed so far can be classified into three categories. First, they have a remedial function. Parks have given direct services to 'the socially disadvantaged' such as relief, fostering, and rehabilitation. Second, parks have played a preventive function. They aim to reinforce the functions of individual, family, group, and community. Third, they have exerted a developmental function. They function to promote change of society in a way for it to contribute to social development. Looking into the roles and functions of parks from the perspective of their beneficiary class and benefits, the following were discovered. First, the beneficiaries of welfare characteristics in parks have expanded to the general public from the poor class, and the benefits of parks have spread into the public including the underprivileged in a real sense. Second, the significance of welfare characteristics in parks has also changed from literal benefits to caring for basic human rights. Third, the purpose of welfare characteristics in parks has changed from providing minimal conditions to optimal conditions. At its beginning, the ideology of welfare in parks remained ideal, confining itself to their idealistic characteristics; but as time went on, they created several social benefits in response to various social demands, developing into a field where welfare ideology manifests and is realized in an active manner. Furthermore, it was witnessed that the parks and welfare of the present times are standing at the point of contact for participation and universal well-being. The present study reconsidered the meaning and value of parks from perspective of them as a provider of welfare benefits as well as examined how the welfare ideology of parks is connected to practice. By doing so, this study discovered the various roles, values, and ideology that parks should bear in the future. Therefore, this study is expected to be a good example for future research related to the topic.

본 연구는 공원이 과거에서부터 시민들에게 꾸준히 혜택을 주고 있는 복지이념 수행의 장이었다는 것을 전제로, 그 실체는 무엇이고 구체적으로 어떻게 그 역할을 수행해 왔는가라는 근본적인 질문에서부터 출발하였다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 최근 논의되고 있는 복지수단으로서의 공원역할에 대한 이론적 기초를 찾아보고, 공원복지에서 논의되고 있는 이념은 사회복지 이념과의 어떤 차별성을 띠는지 살펴보고자 하였으며, 공원 발달 과정에 있어 공원이 제공하는 복지혜택이 어떻게 변모되어 왔는지를 조망해 보고자 공원의 발전 과정에 따라 시기를 구분하고, 각 시기별 사회적인 상황과 맞물려 공원이 시민들을 대상으로 제공한 복지 기능의 역할 및 형태를 살펴보았다. 또한 시간의 흐름에 따른 공원복지 기능 및 요소의 전개과정에 따라 그 근간이 된 이념의 특성과 전개양상을 찾아보았다. 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 이제까지 공원이 수행한 공원복지 기능은 크게 세 가지 범주로 나누어 정리할 수 있다. 첫째, 치료적(remedial) 기능으로, 이는 '사회적 약자'에 대한 직접적인 원호, 육성, 갱생에 기여하는 직접적 서비스 기능이다. 둘째, 예방적(preventive)기능으로, 이는 개인과 가정, 집단 그리고 지역사회의 기능을 강화하는 것을 목적으로 부여된 공원복지 기능이다. 셋째, 개발적(developmental)기능으로, 이는 공원이 사회발전에 직접적으로 기여하도록 변화촉진체계로 기능함을 말한다. 공원복지 수혜 계층과 수혜 혜택의 질적 측면에서 살펴보면, 첫째, 공원복지 대상이 빈민계층에서 일반국민으로 대상이 넓어졌으며, 공원의 혜택을 받는 실제 이용계층 역시 특수계층에서 일반 대중으로 평준화되고 있다. 둘째, 공원복지의 의미가 자전적 형태에서 인간의 기본적 권리로 이동되었다. 셋째, 공원복지의 목적이 최저조건(minimal condition)을 제공하는 것에서 최적의 조건(optimal condition)을 제공하는 것으로 바뀌고 있음을 확인할 수 있었다. 공원복지이념은 초창기에는 이념적 특성에만 그치는 자전적 성향이 컸으나, 시간이 흐르며 다양한 사회적 요구와 함께 여러 사회적 이점을 만들면서 적극적인 복지이념을 발현하는 장이 되었다. 더불어 현 세대 공원과 복지는 참여와 삶의 보편적 웰빙을 위한 접점에 놓여 있는 것을 확인할 수 있다. 본 연구는 공원 복지이념과 실천이 어떻게 연결되어 왔는지에 대한 고찰과 함께, 복지혜택을 제공하는 측면에서의 공원의 의미와 가치를 제고하고, 이를 통해 앞으로 다양한 공원의 역할, 가치 및 이념을 조망하는 연구의 선례가 될 수 있도록 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, S. H.(2012) A Study on Factors Influencing the Effect of Green Welfare Space. Master's Thesis, Seoul National University. Seoul, Korea.
  2. Bachin, R. F.(2003) Cultivating Unity: the Changing Role of Parks in urban America, Place 15(3). Cambridge: College of Environmental Design, UC Berkeley.
  3. Barker, R. L.(1999) The Social Work Dictionary(4th ed.). Washington D.C: NASW Press.
  4. Barnett, J.(1988) "Urban Design", in F. So and J. Getzels (eds.). The Practice of Local Government Planning. Washington DC:ICMA.
  5. Choi, J. C.(2009) Framework and Conceptual Model of Korean Ecowelfare. Ministry of Health & Welfare. (최재천(2009)생태복지의개념및적용모델개발. 보건복지부건강증진사업결과보고서.)
  6. Choi, K. S.(1996) A study on the fistorical change of an urban park in terms of the style and concept in U.S.A. The Journal of the Institute of Metropolitan Studies 22(1): 149-163.
  7. Citizen, Public Landscape Architects Group, Seoul Metropolitan City(2014) Strategies for Declaration of Green City. (시민.공공조경가 그룹.서울특별시(2014) 푸른도시선언 전략계획.)
  8. Cranz, G.(1982) The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in American, London: MIT Press.
  9. Cranz, G. and M. Boland(2004). Defining the sustainable park: A fifth model for urban parks. Landscape Journal, Madison. WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 23: 102-124. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.23.2.102
  10. Fisher, T.(2010) "Frederick Law Olmsted and the Campaign for Public Health," Design Observer. https://placesjournal.org/article/frederick-lawolmsted-and-the-campaign-for-public-health. (access: 2014.10.15)
  11. George, V. and P. Wilding(1986) Ideology and Social Welfare, London R.K.P.
  12. Godbey, G., A. Graefe, and S. W. James(1992) The Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study of the Perceptions of the American Public. Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
  13. Grave, B.(2008) What is welfare?. Central European Journal of Public Policy 2: 50-73.
  14. Hoff, M. and J. G. McNutt(eds.)(1994). The Global Environmental Crisis: Implications for Social Welfare and Social Work. Aldershot: Avebury. Forward by Mark Lusk.
  15. Hong, S. T.(2009) Eco-crisis and generation justice - From a viewpoint of eco-welfare society. Economy and Society (81): 89-111.
  16. Hwang, E. J.(1999) The social reform movement of Jane Addams with a Hull-House. Journal of Western History (21): 221-248.
  17. Kim, H. S. and M. H. Lee(2006) Contemporary understanding of the U.S. city beautiful movement -Focused on the withdrawal and legacy-. Seoul Studies 7(3): 87-106.
  18. Kim, J. H.(2003) On the Welfare State. Daegu: Daemyung. (김정헌(2003) 복지국가론. 대구: 대명.)
  19. Kim, K. J.(2012) Welfare activation strategy for a urban park users. Journal of The Korea Contents Association 12(10): 195-204. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2012.12.10.195
  20. Kim, S. B.(2004) The Policy of Park and Green Area. Seoul: Daemyung Munhwasa. (김수봉(2004) 공원녹지정책. 서울: 대명문화사.)
  21. Kim, Y. G.(2014) A study on the distributive equity of neighborhood urban park in Seoul viewed from green welfare. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 42(3): 76-89. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2014.42.3.076
  22. 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: 35. Gyeonggi Research Institute.
  23. Koh, J. K.(2012) Necessity and Direction of Policy for Environmental Welfare. Environmental Welfare: What are the Directions and tasks for?. Korea Institute of Policy Evaluation. pp.15-31. (고재경(2012) 환경복지 패러다임의 필요성과 정책방향. 환경복지, 방향과 과제는?. 한국정책평가연구원. pp.15-31.
  24. Konijnendijk, C. C., A. Matilda, B. N. Anders, and M. Sreetheran (2013) Benefits of Urban Parks: A Systematic Review. A Report for IPFRA. IFPRA.
  25. Kye, K. S.(2013) Creation and evolution of urban parks in Paris. Journal of the Korean Urban Management Association 26(4): 33-57.
  26. Lawhon, L. L.(2009) The neighborhood unit: Physical design or physical determinism?. Journal of Planning History 8(2): 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538513208327072
  27. Lee, H. G. and S. J. Sim(2010). A exploratory study on reconstruction of social indicator system. Korea Society 11(1): 47-78.
  28. Lee, I. H.(2000) A study on the ideological domain of productive welfare policy and its paradigm. Korean Society and Public Administration 11(2): 53-69.
  29. Lee, J. H.(2006) Sports and Social Welfare. Seoul: DaehanMedia. (이정학(2006) 스포츠와 사회복지. 서울: 대한미디어.)
  30. Mann, W. A.(1993) Landscape Architecture: An Illustrated History in Timelines, Site Plans and Biography. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  31. Park, K. H., J. C. Kim, and T. W. Lee(2013). A Study on Functionality and Accessibility of Linear Parks based on the Concept of 'Park Welfare'. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
  32. Peschardt, K. K.(2014) Health Promoting Pocket Parks in a Landscape Architectural Perspective. PhD Thesis, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management. University of Copenhagen. Copenhagen, Denmark.
  33. Romanyshin, J. M.(1971) Social Welfare, Charity to Justice. NY: Random House.
  34. Schuyler, D.(1986) The New Urban Landscape: The Redefinition of City Form in Nineteenth-Century America. London: Johns Hopkins.
  35. SNU R&DB Foundation(2013) The Strategic Plan for Realization of Environmental Welfare. Ministry of Environment of Korea. (서울대학교산학협력단(2013) 환경복지 실현을 위한 구상안 마련. 환경부.)
  36. Song, I. J.(2013) A Study on Creation of Eco-welfare City through Park and Green Space. The Seoul Institute.
  37. Stanton, R.(2000) The Forgotten Olympic Art Competitions(1st ed.). Victoria: Trafford Publishing.
  38. Taylor, D. E.(1999) Central park as a model for social control: Urban parks, social class and leisure behavior in nineteenth-century America. Journal of Leisure Research 31(4): 420-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1999.11949875
  39. Thompson, C. W.(1998) Historic American parks and contemporary needs. Landscape Journal, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press 17(1): 1-25.
  40. Thompson, C. W. (2002) Open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning. New York: Elsevier Science 60: 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2
  41. Walker, C.(2004) The Public Value of Urban Parks. a Broader View of Urban Parks. Washington: The Urban Institute.
  42. Williams, R.(1976) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow: Fontana.