대한건축학회논문집:계획계 (Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea Planning & Design)

  • 제28권4호
  • /
  • Pages.211-222
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 1226-9093(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-177X(eISSN)
대한건축학회 (Architectural Institute of Korea)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

도시 적주성(適住性) 논의를 위한 다의적 개념 고찰

A Review of Ambiguous Concepts on the Urban Livability Discourse

  • 투고 : 2012.02.02
  • 발행 : 2012.04.25
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study aims to analyze the diverse concepts of livability in the urban dimension, exploring and interpreting the various discourses. Generally conceived, livability refers to the minimum criteria for the management of healthy living through either natural or artificial means, or a city's ability to offer a high quality of life (QoL) through its physical environment. Following industrialization, urban and rural spatial and social conflict ensued and changes in the usefulness and effectiveness of public space, along with the maintenance of social stratification and opportunity gaps in urban life, the concept steadily continued to expand. Related literature in addition to QoL, focuses on sense of place, amenity and accessibility with conclusions suggesting that the physical environment influences user's perceptions and phenomenological interpretations of space, the survival will of members of diverse social backgrounds and claims to more equitable socioeconomic opportunities. A place's level of tangible and intangible value, safety, convenience, aesthetics and comfort could be combined into an overall concept of livability, additionally suited to enhance social mobility and equity by providing access and opportunities. Other conceptions are objective, perceptual, place-based, multidisciplinary approach etc. This research includes interpretations of the diverse concepts, theoretical systems and conditions and suggests a Prism Model of Urban Livability Discourse in its conclusion.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : 국토해양부

참고문헌

  1. 강현수, 도시에 대한 권리: 도시의 주인은 누구인가. 책세상, pp.21-47, 2010
  2. 건설교통부, 도시쾌적성 확보를 위한 어메니티플랜 수립방안 관한 연구, 2001
  3. 김세용, 양동양, 도시 공공공간의 쾌적성 방해요인의 분석에 관한 연구, 대한건축학회논문집, 13(2), pp.127-138, 1997
  4. 김현숙, 김영석, 보행공간의 쾌적성 향상을 위한 버스정류장 정비계획에 관한 연구, 대한건축학회논문집, 17(9), pp.211-218, 2001
  5. 김현주 외, 세계도시 경쟁력 비교, 삼성경제연구소, 1997
  6. 방기진, 이병희, 강승이, 재해성, 녹색성장의 개념을 도입한 삶의 질 평가도구 개발, 대한건축학회논문집, 26(9), pp.73-80, 2010
  7. 서민호, 김세용, 도시형태 계획요소와 통행행태 특성요소간 연관성 분석, 국토계획, 46(4), pp.223-244, 2011
  8. 양동양, 유승무, 박형석, 남영우, 복합용도개발(MXD)에서의 거주성에 관한 연구, 대한건축학회논문집, 10(10), pp.145-158, 1994
  9. 윤종주, 한국의 사회지표, 그 문제점과 개선방향, 한국사회학, 16, pp.15-17, 1982
  10. 이석환, 도시 가로의 장소성 연구: 대학로의 사례를 중심으로. 박사학위논문. 서울대학교 대학원. 1998
  11. 이우성 외, 물리적 환경인자를 활용한 도시의 쾌적성 평가, 한국지리정보학회, 10(1), pp.169-182, 2007
  12. 임경수, 김범익, 수도권 신도시의 삶의 질에 관한 연구, 국토 계획, 33(2), pp.7-27, 1998
  13. 임희섭, "삶의 질"의 개념적 논의, 한국행정연구, 5(1), pp.5-18, 1996
  14. 정환용, 생활의 질과 도시성장과의 관계에 대한 연구, 국토계획, 30(1), pp.29-43, 1995
  15. 중앙일보사, 전국 74개시 비교평가: '삶의 질' 입체분석, 1995
  16. 최열, 이성호, 김지현, 대도시 삶의 질의 시계열적 추이 및 비교분석, 대한건축학회논문집, 17(7), pp.171-178, 2001
  17. 하성규, 김재익, 삶의 질 향상을 위한 정책과제와 지표설정에 관한 연구, 국토계획, 32(5), pp.155-68, 1997. 10
  18. 황기원, 도시 어메니티, 서울 21세기 구상, 서울시정개발연구원, pp.43-45, 1995
  19. Appleyard, D., Livable Streets, University of California Press, pp. 50-51, 1981
  20. Balsas, C. J. T., Measuring the Livability of an Urban Centre, Planning, Practice & Research, 19(1), pp.101-110, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1080/0269745042000246603
  21. Bell, K., Urban Amenity Indicators: The Livability of Our Urban Environments, New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2000
  22. Blumenfeld, H., Criteria for Judging the Quality of the Urb an Environment, The Quality of Urban Life, Sage, 1969
  23. Commonwealth Foundation, Survey of New York City Res idents, 1993
  24. CTOD(Center for Transit-Oriented Development), Realizing the Potential. Federal Transit Administration, 2007
  25. CTOD(Center for Transit-Oriented Development), Transit Corridors and TOD: Connecting the Dots. Federal Transit Administration, 2010
  26. CTOD(Center for Transit-Oriented Development), Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) and Employment. Federal Tr ansit Administration, 2011
  27. Cutter, S., Rating Places: A Geographer's View on Quality of Life, The Association of American Geographers, pp.1-2; p.68, 1985
  28. Dumbaugh, E., Safe Street, livable streets, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol.71 pp.283-298, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976699
  29. Evans, P. Livable Cities?: Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability, University of California Press, 2002
  30. Ewing, R. et al. Growing Cooler: the evidence on urban de velopment and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute, 2008
  31. Florida, R., The Rise Of The Creative Class: And How It' s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community And Everyday Life, Basic Books, 2002
  32. Gans, H. J., The Human Implications of Current Redevelop ment and Relocation Planning, Journal of American Institu te of Planners, Vol.15, pp.15-26, 1959
  33. Hall, P. World Cities. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1964
  34. Hull, B., Lam, M., and Vigo, G., Place identity: symbols of self in the urban fabric, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.28(2), pp.109-120, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90001-9
  35. Jacobs, J., The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, 1961
  36. Kaal, H., A Conceptual History of Livability: Dutch scienti sts, politicians, policy makers and citizens and the quest f or a livable city, City, Vol.15(5), pp.533-547, 2011
  37. Lang, J., Urban Design: The American Experience, Van N ostrand Reinhold, New York, pp.152-165, 1994
  38. Levi, L & Anderson, Population, Environment and Quality of Life, Ekistics, Vol.236, pp.12-19, 1975
  39. Lynch, K., What Makes a Good City?, Holst memorial lect ures, Holst-Lezing, pp.20-23, 1980
  40. Markides, K., Quality of Life, Encyclopedia of Sociology, MacMillan, 1992
  41. McMahon, S. K., The Development of Quality of Life Indicators: a Case Study from the City of Bristol, UK, Ecolog icalIndicators, Vol.2, 2002
  42. Myers, D., Community-relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: a Focus on Local Trends, Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol.23(1), pp.108-125, 1987 https://doi.org/10.1177/004208168702300107
  43. Pacione, M., Urban Liveability: A Review, Urban Geograp hy, Vol.11(1), pp.1-30, 1990 https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.11.1.1
  44. Pierce, Rober M., Rating America's Metropolitan Areas, A merican Demographics, 7(7), p.23. 1985
  45. Relph, E., Place and Placenessless, Pion, 1976
  46. Sanchez, T, The Connection Between Public Transit and E mployment: The Case of Portland and Atlanta, Journal of th e American Planning Association, Vol.65(3), pp.284-296, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976058
  47. Soja, E., Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Reg ions, Blackwell, 2000
  48. Steven, L. & Daniel, B., Neighborhood Benefits of Rail Tr ansit Accessibility, Transportation Research Record, Vol.1576, pp.147-153, 1997 https://doi.org/10.3141/1576-19
  49. The Economist Intelligent Unit, A Summary of the Liveab ility Ranking and Overview, pp.3-6, The Economist, 2011
  50. Whyte, W. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. The C onversation Foundation, pp.54-75, 1980