• Journal of Popular Narrative
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.251-276
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this article is to critically read Globalizing Borderlands Studies in Europe and North America to examine trends in border studies conducted so far in Europe and North America and to discuss the expandability and limitations of the narrative. It introduces a variety of case studies covering the borderlands of Europe and North America from ancient to modern times. It consists of a total of 10 chapters, in addition to the introduction chapter to clarify the purpose and definition of the collaboration and the short conclusion chapter on the prospects for the future of borderlands studies. This volume has some important implications for current borderland research in two main respects. First, it can introduce us we the areas and targets that the leading researchers from European and North American academia (usually the United States') have paid attention to. It also examines the current status of borderland research and predicts whether it will be possible to study various border areas where exist in other regions (especially in Asia) based on accumulating academic achievements, as well as the possibility of expansion of so-called 'globalization'. Second, it introduces the borderland as a conceptual space, beyond the border area as a physical space that is commonly thought of when it comes to 'border'. Cases of "conceptual borderlands" can be applied to a number of topics ranging from an individual's identities to the methods of governance, religions, economies, social institutions, families, labor issues, public health services and gender issues. There are, however, also some questions to be noted in the volume: the lack of consistent use of terminology, which can be considered general problems of collaboration studies; the fact that the authors still tend to understand borderlands within the imperialist discourse, perhaps because of their academic background is situated mainly in Europe and North America; the borderlands cases described here as the areas of conflict and struggle only. Nevertheless, the book is of significance in that it suggests a possibility of various borderlands studies and helps us to have better understanding of the current geopolitical situation imposed on the Korean Peninsula, which is located on the borderland between the continental and maritime powers.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.51 no.6
• /
• pp.873-892
• /
• 2016

2015 was the seventieth year from the liberation and the division of Korean peninsular. Although the research on the unification has been performed in various interdisciplinary fields since the liberation of Korea, the geographic research on the unification based on the space stays in a minority. It is time to wrap up the literatures and discourses centered on geography for preparing the unification and taking a view of Korean territory of future unification. The starting point is to define the concept of the geography for unification and give careful consideration to the geographic research trends related to the unification that has been achieved since the liberation of Korea. The geography for unification should be understood in the concept of time and space. First of all, the geography for unification can be composed of the stages such as the research for unification, the research for unification impact, the research for united Korea, and the geopolitics of East Asia under the concept of time. It also can be divided into the regions such as Korea, North Korea, borderlands between North Korea-China and North Korea-Russia including South and North Korea, and North East Asia and Pan Pacific Ocean. The geographic research on the unification embracing the concept of time and space can be defined as the geography for unification. The purpose of this study is to elicit the concept and the research field of the geography for unification in the perspective of discourse, investigate the research trends by geographic themes, and suggest the agendas of the geography for future unification.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.51 no.6
• /
• pp.46-60
• /
• 2023

This study examines the appropriateness of indicators and methodologies through the evaluation of cultural services in border areas and uses them as basic data for the ecosystem service-based management of border areas, which are key domestic ecological assets. Accordingly, in this study, seven border cities and counties were evaluated and compared based on the evaluation indicators and methods presented by the National Institute of Ecology. As a result of the cultural service evaluation, it was found that Paju City was superior in leisure and tourism, Inje-gun was best in scenic beauty and heritage, and Yanggu-gun was strongest in education, and Inje-gun in heritage. Accordingly, through this study, future tasks for comprehensive cultural service evaluation were presented as follows. First, in order to evaluate ecosystem services at the national and regional levels, it is necessary to establish an indicator system for cultural service evaluation and monitoring. Second, when building a cultural service evaluation index system, it is necessary to review upper and lower conceptual units and the consistency between indicators according to the scale of the evaluation region. Third, a specific review of DB utilization for cultural service evaluation should be conducted depending on the type of ecosystem. Lastly, given the significant lack of domestic cultural service research, additional basic research must be conducted to evaluate cultural services including non-material and qualitative perceptions. In order to evaluate cultural services in the future, additional basic research is needed for each ecosystem type, and a process of finding appropriate evaluation indicators and methods through research is necessary.