• 제목/요약/키워드: Legal Design Methodology

검색결과 102건 처리시간 0.018초

교통약자를 고려한 보도의 경사도와 높이 결정을 위한 실험연구 (Experimental Study on the Determination of Slope and Height of Curbs Considering the VRUs)

  • 김현진;임준범;최병호;오철;강인형
    • 한국도로학회논문집
    • /
    • 제20권1호
    • /
    • pp.107-115
    • /
    • 2018
  • PURPOSES : As the population of the mobility handicapped, who are classified as the disabled, the elderly, pregnant women, children, etc., has increased, the voices for guaranteeing their rights have been increasing as well. Thus, the design manuals for roads and sidewalks for the mobility handicapped were developed by the local government, such as the Ministry of Land, Transport, and Tourism, in Seoul City. However, according to the 2013 survey results of the Seoul Metropolitan City, the mobility handicapped still feel uncomfortable with the sidewalks, and particularly request for the improvement of the step and slope of the sidewalk curb. Therefore, in this study, we conducted an empirical experimental study to determine the slope of the sidewalk curb and height of the steps considering the mobility handicapped and analyzed whether there is a statistically significant difference. METHODS : The methodology of this study is an empirical experimental one. In the study, five non-disabled people, 10 wheelchair users, and 10 eye patch and stick users walked about 2-3 min on the sidewalk plates of the sloped type (0%, 5%, 6.3%, 8.3%) and stepped type (0 cm, 1 cm, 3 cm, 6 cm), and their human physiological responses, such as the skin temperature, volume of perspiration on forehead and chest, and heart rate, were measured and recorded. After combining the data, we conducted a nonparametric test, ANOVA, or t-test to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference according to each slope and step type. RESULTS : It was found that for the non-disabled, there was no significant difference in human physiological responses according to the slope and steps of the sidewalk. It can be said that the non-disabled do not feel much physiological discomfort while walking. In the case of the sloped sidewalk plate, the heart rate of the wheel chair users increased when the slope was 6.3%. In the case of the eye patch and stick users, the volume of perspiration on the chest increased at a slope of 5.0%. In general, it is judged that a sidewalk with a slope that is less than 5% does not cause a change in the physiological response. In the case of a stepped sidewalk plate, when 0 cm, 1 cm, and 3 cm were compared for wheelchair users, the amount of forehead perspiration increased from 1 cm. Meanwhile, in the case of the eye patch and stick users, when 0 cm and 6 cm were compared, the amount of perspiration on the forehead and chest as well as the heart rate all increased at 6 cm. Taken together, in the case of wheelchair users, a difference was shown when the height of the step of the sidewalk plate was 1 cm, suggesting that installing it at 0 cm does not cause any physiological discomfort. Moreover, in the case of the eye patch and stick users, when comparing only 0 cm and 6 cm, 0 cm was considered to be suitable, as there was a difference in physiological response at 6 cm. CONCLUSIONS : In this study, we set the human physiological responses such as chest skin temperature, amount of perspiration, and heart rate as evaluation items, and our study was considered to be a meaningful experiment that targeted wheelchair users as well as eye patch and stick users. The validity of the evaluation items was confirmed, as the results of human physiological responses were significant. As for the sidewalk design, according to the experiment result, it is considered that differential application should be implemented according to the type of mobility handicap, rather than uniformly applying a sidewalk step of 2 cm and sidewalk slope of 1/25, which are the current legal standards.

KODISA 연구윤리의 표절 판단기준과 글로벌 학술지 가이드라인 (The Standard of Judgement on Plagiarism in Research Ethics and the Guideline of Global Journals for KODISA)

  • 황희중;김동호;윤명길;이정완;이종호
    • 유통과학연구
    • /
    • 제12권6호
    • /
    • pp.15-20
    • /
    • 2014
  • Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.