DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Present and Future for the Protection, Management and Planning of Landscape in the Country - A Perspective from Holism -

국토경관 보호·관리·계획의 현재와 미래 - 전체론의 관점을 중심으로 -

  • Ryu, Je-Hun (Dept. of Geography Education, Korea National University of Education)
  • 류제헌 (한국교원대학교 지리교육과)
  • Received : 2015.11.05
  • Accepted : 2015.12.01
  • Published : 2015.12.31

Abstract

Nowadays, in the European countries, landscape is spoken of its importance as often as environment, by those who are engaged in such fields as politics, administration, research and civil society. In Korea, while recognizing such an international trend, academics and administrators have made a series of efforts to reflect landscape concept on a variety of policies. However, it is recognized that the effects of these policies have not been satisfactory. Under these circumstances, this paper aims to examine the complex values and multiple meanings in the landscape, which have been discussed by landscape experts in the European countries. Then, it aims to the explore the future direction of policy and research on the landscape to be pursued in Korea, where there is relatively less interest in the issues of landscape. It is argued that landscape should be approached and understood from a holistic perspective, because it is a very complex concept with multiple meanings that have been coined differently depending on the situation. All the academic fields, involved in the landscape research, should try in co-operation to develop the comprehensive approach rather than the inter- and multi-disciplinary approach to the landscape study. In Korea, moreover, it is also necessary in the legislation to recognize the fact that degradation and retreat in the quality of landscape would make a negative effect on the quality of human daily life. Natural and cultural heritages contained in the rural landscape are also now in danger of disappearing. These heritages, therefore, should become an important subject for research and policy on landscape before the countryside is completely evacuated after the aging population die out. To make this happen, it is very urgent that evaluation and classification of landscape character should be undertaken from the holistic perspective, which is equipped with a methodology overcoming as well as encompassing the boundaries of academic fields. It is also equally very urgent that education on landscape should be provided to the politicians, citizens and students as well as the officials dealing with landscape matters. Finally, government should strive to make the landscape concept penetrate deeply as well as widely into the spatial planning and legislation process while designing and implementing a comprehensive landscape policy at the national level.

오늘날 유럽 국가들을 중심으로 경관이 정치, 행정, 학문, 시민사회 등을 망라하는 모든 분야에서 환경만큼 중요한 화두로 사람들의 입에 자주 오르내리고 있다. 그 동안 한국에서는 이러한 국제적 조류에 부응하기 위하여 각 학문 분야나 행정 분야별로 나름대로 경관 개념을 다양한 정책에 반영하려고 노력해 오고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 아직까지는 그 성과가 만족할 만한 수준에 있지 않은 실정이다. 이러한 실정을 감안하여 본고는 먼저 경관이 가지는 복합적 가치와 복수적 의미를 유럽의 연구 결과를 토대로 검토해 보았다. 그런 다음 아직까지 경관에 대한 관심이 상대적으로 저조한 한국이 앞으로 추구해 나가야 하는 국토경관의 정책과 연구의 미래 방향을 모색해 보았다. 경관은 지금까지 상황에 따라 다양한 의미로 정의되어 왔을 만큼 지극히 복합적인 개념을 가진 대상이므로 전체론(Holism)의 관점에서 이해되어야 한다. 경관을 연구하는 학문 분야들은 학제 간 또는 다학문적 협력에 그치지 말고 학문의 경계를 초월하는 종합적 접근방법을 공동으로 개발하여 적용해야 한다. 유럽의 경우와 같이, 한국에서도 경관의 질과 다양성의 악화와 퇴보가 사람들의 일상생활의 질에 대하여 부정적 영향을 끼친다는 사실을 법률을 통하여 인정할 필요가 있다. 농촌경관의 급변으로 사라져 가는 자연유산과 문화유산의 보존이 농촌이 노령화를 지나 공동화(空洞化) 되기 이전에 연구와 정책의 중요한 과제가 되어야 한다. 그러기 위해서는 전체론적 관점에서 학문의 경계를 초월하는 방법론을 토대로 경관 특성을 평가하고 그 유형을 분류하는 사업을 시급히 착수해야 할 것이다. 경관에 관한 업무를 취급하는 공무원은 물론이고 정치가, 일반 국민, 학교 학생 등을 상대로 하는 경관에 대한 교육이 시급히 요구된다. 또한 정부는 국가적 차원의 경관 정책을 총체적으로 수립해야 하는 한편 공간계획(Spatial Planning)이나 법률과 같은 분야에 경관 개념이 전반적으로 침투되도록 노력해야 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Jones, Michael & Marie Stenseke(2011). "Chapter 1: The Issue of Public Participation in the European Landscape Convention," in Jones Michael & Marie Steneke (eds.), European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation, London & New York: Springer, 1-23.
  2. Antrop, Marc(2000a). Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00089-4
  3. Council of Europe(2000). European Landscape Convention, Florence, 20. X. 2000. ETS No. 176.
  4. Olwig, Kenneth R.(2007). The practice of landscape 'conventions' and the just landscape: The case of the European Landscape Convention, Landscape Research, 32(5): 579-594. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552738
  5. Scazzosi, Lionella(2004). Reading and assessing the landscape as cultural and historical heritage, Landscape Research, 29(4), 335-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142639042000288993
  6. Stephenson, Janet(2008). The culture values model: an integrated approach to values in landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.003
  7. Antrop(2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future, Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
  8. Antrop, Marc(1997). The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning: the example of Flanders Region, Landscape and Urban Planning, 38, 105-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00027-3
  9. Jongman. R. H. G.(2002a). Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00222-5
  10. Lowenthal, David(2007). Living with and looking at landscape, Landscape Research, 32(5): 635-656. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701552761
  11. Meekes, H. & W. Vos(1999). Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspective for a sustainable future, Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2
  12. Antrop, Marc(2000b). Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe, Landscape Ecology, 15(3): 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008151109252
  13. Eetvelde, Veerle Van & Marc Antrop(2004). Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional landscapes: two examples from Southern France, Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00030-6
  14. Tress, Barbel et al.(2001). Bridging human and natural science in landscape research, Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 137-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00199-2
  15. Fairclough, G. & S. Rippon (eds.)(2002). Europe's cultural landscape: archaeologists and the management of changes, EAC, Brussels, EAC Occasional Paper No. 2.
  16. Jongman. R. H. G.(2002b). Landscape Planning for Biological Diversity in Europe, Landscape Research, 27(2): 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390220128668
  17. Antrop, Marc(2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe, Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4
  18. Howard, Peter(2004). Spatial Planning for Landscape: Mapping the Pitfalls, Landscape Research, 29(4): 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142639042000289055
  19. Council of Europe(2008). Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)3 of the Committee of Minister to Member States on the guidelines for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention.
  20. Herlin, Ingrid Sarloev(2004). New Challenges in the Field of Spatial Planning, Landscape Research, 29(4), 399-411. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142639042000289037
  21. Mitchell, Nora et al.(2009). World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management, World Heritage Paper 26, World Heritage Center, UNESCO, Paris.