• Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.37-49
• /
• 2014

With the globalized coming of the knowledge-based society following the post-industrial period, both the crises and opportunities have been occurring together as non-special affairs, which is the same situation in Rural Korea. A crucial key for maximization of potentialities of emerging opportunities is to mobilize the multi-valuedness embedded in rural areas as one of new growth powers. In order to realize a variety of multi-valuedness of rurality, it should be needed to re-discover and re-evaluate rural resources by paradigm shift and to identify the multi-valuedness of resources systematically and scientifically. On the basis of this understanding, this study aimed at setting up the evaluation indicators system by rural village types to identify systematically the multi-valuedness embedded in rural villages in the initial step. Integrated evaluation indicators system was made with 4-level hierarchies; high-leveled one with 3 fields(society, environment, regional economy); middle-leveled one with 8 areas; lower-leveled one with 19 sub-areas; detailed indicators totally with 39 items. These indicators were divided into 12 basic indicators applied to all types and 27 specialized indicators determining the characteristics of village types.

• Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.121-130
• /
• 2014

This study aimed at setting up the evaluation indicators system by rural village types to identify systematically the multi-valuedness embedded in rural villages. AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) was used for evaluating the relative importance weight evaluation of each indicator and quantitative analysis of rural village through computer works. The importance weight of evaluation indicators was converted into the score on the basis of maximum 1,000 point to increase the practicality. As a result, characteristics of 5 rural village types(Basic life-supporting, Agricultural promotion, Marketing/processing oriented, Urban-rural communication, Life-style choice types) differed in score of classified indicators. Also, These results are expected to be possible to quantitatively evaluate characteristics by rural village types.