DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

행정구역에 기초한 어촌지역의 유형구분과 지역개발방향

The Classification and Regional Development's Direction of Rural Fishing Area Based on Administrative District

  • 투고 : 2013.05.03
  • 심사 : 2013.11.25
  • 발행 : 2013.12.30

초록

The selection of land for fishing village development project, and the standard used to classify fishing villages has been determined based on the guidelines developed by fishing village cooperatives. The approach fishing village cooperatives follows is likely to classify fishing villages without first reflecting on the overall development environment of the region, such as other industries and workers in the area. It also acts as a barrier for business promotion or evaluation, because the cooperatives do not match the administrative districts, which are the units of administration, and the main policy enforcement agent in regional development. Against this background, this study aimed to identify categories to situate the development direction, as well as the size and distribution of fishing villages based on eup, myeon, and dong administrative units as defined by the Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors Act. This study was based on the Census of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries of 2010, and analyzed 826 eups, myeon, and dongs with fishery households using the principal component analysis, and 2-Step cluster analysis methods. Therefore, 95% of the variance was explained using the covariance matrix for types of fishing villages, but it was analyzed as one component focusing on the number and ratio of fishery households, and used the cluster-type analysis, which focused on the sizes of fishing villages. The clusters were categorized into three types: (1) the development type based on the number of fishermen in the eups, myeons and dongs was analyzed as village size (682); (2) administrative district size (121); and (3) total eups, myeons and dongs (23), which revealed that the size of most fishing villages was small. We could explain 73% of the variance using the correlation coefficient matrix, which was divided into three types according to the three principal component scores, namely fishery household power, fishery industry power, and fishing village tourism power. Most fishing villages did not have a clear development direction because all business areas within the region were diversified, and 552 regions could be categorized under the harmonious development type, which is in need of balanced development. The fishery industry type typified by industrial strength included 159 regions in need of an approach based on industrialization of fishery product processing. Specialized production areas, which specialized in producing fishery products, were 115 regions with a high percentage of fishermen. The analysis results indicated that various situations in terms of size and development of fishing villages existed. However, because several regions exist in the form of small village units, it was necessary to approach the project in a manner that directed the diversification of regional development projects, such as places for local residents to relax or enjoy tourism experiences within the region, while considering the overall conditions of the relevant eups, myeons, and dongs. Reinforcement of individual support for fishermen based on the Fisheries Act must take precedence over providing support for fishermen through regional development. In addition, it is necessary to approach the development of fishing villages by focusing on industrializing the processing techniques of fishery products. Areas specialized in the production of fishery products are required to consider the facilities for fisheries production, and must make efforts to increase fishery resources, such as releasing fry.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 권삼문, 2000, 어촌 문화관광의 지속가능한 개발, 민속연구, 10, 73-90.
  2. 김봉태, 이성우, 2011, 어촌종합개발사업의 정량적 효과분석, 해양정책연구, 26(2), 75-104.
  3. 김성귀, 김종덕․최성애, 1999. 소규모어항 개발 유형 연구, 서울 : 한국해양수산개발원.
  4. 김성귀, 1999, 지속가능한 어촌관광개발, 해양수산, 174, 1-7.
  5. 김성귀, 2004, 중심어촌의 평가에 관한 연구, 해양수산, 234, 79-91.
  6. 김성귀, 홍장원, 이성우, 최지연, 2007. 살기 좋은 지역 만들기 : 살기 좋은 어촌, 가고 싶은 바다 조성에 관한 연구.
  7. 김영표, 2006, 기능요소 최적화를 통한 도시형 어항 개발모델에 관한 연구, 부경대 박사학위논문.
  8. 김정태, 2012, 농어촌 지역개발사업의 어촌지역 주민협력실태 : 어촌계원과 비어촌계원의 만족과 참여실태를 중심으로, 한국거버넌스학회보 19(3), 1-22.
  9. 김정태, 2013, 농촌지역 산업별 고용변화요인 분석 : 충남 5개 군을 대상으로, 농촌계획 19(1) : 123-135. https://doi.org/10.7851/ksrp.2013.19.1.123
  10. 김준, 2006, 관광 콘테츠로서 어촌의 문화자원 연구, 도서문화, 28, 347-378.
  11. 농림수산식품부, 2011, 어촌자원조사 총괄보고서, 과천 : 농림수산식품부.
  12. 농림수산식품부, 2008, 어촌.어항발전 기본계획 최종보고서 : 총괄편, 과천 : 농림수산식품부.
  13. 농림부, 1996, 어촌지역 관광개발에 관한 연구, 서울 : 한국농촌경제연구원.
  14. 매일경제 보도자료(2013.3.15일자), 수산업 경쟁력을 키우자.
  15. 박구원, 이수옥, 2002, 해안어촌관광의 개발방향에 관한 연구, 관광학연구, 26(3), 167-190.
  16. 수산업협동조합중앙회, 2009, 수협통계수첩, 서울 : 수산업협동조합중앙회.
  17. 안전행정부, 2013, 안전행정통계연보.
  18. 윤상호, 2011, 어촌종합개발사업의 향후 추진과제, KMI 수산동향 4월호, 8-20.
  19. 이승우, 2011, 어촌개발 정책의 변화가 필요하다, KMI 수산동향 1.2월호, 28-31.
  20. 이영범, 허찬행, 홍근석, 2008, 정책대상집단의 사회적 형성과 정책설계 : IPTV 도입정책을 중심으로, 한국정책학회보, 17(3) : 1-33.
  21. 임영규, 이수범, 이승곤, 2004, 국내 어촌관광 실태에 따른 개발방향의 탐색적 연구, 관광연구저널, 18(2), 309-322.
  22. 장양례, 윤유식, 구본기, 2011, 어촌관광객의 선호속성, 어촌체험관광 만족도 및 체험관광 상품개발 지지도 : 추천의도에 관한 실증연구, 관광연구, 25(6), 341-363.
  23. 정근식, 김준, 1995, 어촌마을의 집단적 지향과 공동체 운영의 변화, 도서문화, 13, 117-163.
  24. 채동렬, 박준모, 조용준, 2010, 어촌계 소득증대 방안, 서울 : 수산경제연구원.
  25. 최성애, 박상우, 김봉태, 2009, 어가소득 증대를 위한 어촌 유형별 전략. 서울 : 한국해양수산개발원.
  26. 통계개발원, 2008, 농어촌 유형별 지표개발 보고서. 대전 : 통계청 통계개발원.
  27. 한국농어촌공사, 2010, 어촌지역주민의 개발수요 설문조사 최종보고서, 의왕 : 한국농어촌공사.
  28. 한국농촌공사, 2007, 농촌지역의 유형구분 기준 및 정비방향에 관한 연구, 안산 : 농어촌연구원.
  29. 한광수, 고병욱, 2007, 패널데이타를 이용한 국가어향개발사업의 어촌소득 증대효과 분석, 해양정책연구, 22(1) : 133-156.
  30. 해양수산부, 2013, 2013년 해양수산부 업무 추진계획.
  31. 국가법령정보센터, 2013a, www.law.go.kr "어촌어항업법" 에서 발췌.
  32. 국가법령정보센터, 2013b, www.law.go.kr "수산업협동조합법"에서 발췌.
  33. 나라지표, 2013, www.index.go.kr "농어가 및 농어가 인구"에서 발췌.
  34. Cheong, S.M., 2003, Privatizing tendencies : fishing communities and tourism in Korea, Marine Policy 27, 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00047-7

피인용 문헌

  1. 어촌계 유형화와 유형별 특성 비교·분석 vol.52, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.12939/fba.2021.52.1.083